Effects of Production Region, Production Systems and Grape Type/Variety on Nutritional Quality Parameters of Table Grapes; Results from a UK Retail Survey.
DPPH
TEAC
anthocyanins
antioxidant activity
conventional
organic
phenolics
table grapes
Journal
Foods (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2304-8158
Titre abrégé: Foods
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101670569
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Dec 2020
16 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
revised:
10
12
2020
accepted:
13
12
2020
entrez:
19
12
2020
pubmed:
20
12
2020
medline:
20
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Grapes contain high concentrations of secondary metabolites and antioxidants that have been linked to a reduction of several chronic diseases. Here, we report results of a UK retail survey, which investigated the effect of the production region (Mediterranean vs. South Africa), grape type (white vs. red vs. black) and variety, and production system (organic vs. conventional) on antioxidant activity and concentrations of phenolic compounds in table grapes. Black grapes had ~180% total antioxidant activity (TAA), ~60% higher total phenolic content (TPC) and ~40 times higher anthocyanin concentrations (TAC) than white grapes, while red grapes had intermediate levels of TAA, TPC and TAC. The effects of season and production system and differences between varieties of the same grape type were substantially smaller. Grapes imported from Mediterranean countries in summer had a 14% higher TPC and ~20% higher TAA than grapes imported from South Africa in winter, and organic grapes had a 16% higher TPC and 22% higher TAA, but ~30% lower TAC than conventional grapes. Significant differences in TPC, TAA and/or TAC between organic and conventional grapes could only be detected for specific grape types, varieties and/or sampling years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33339243
pii: foods9121874
doi: 10.3390/foods9121874
pmc: PMC7767105
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Azerbaijan Ministry of Education
ID : no grant number
Organisme : Sheepdrove Trust
ID : no grant number
Références
Neurochem Int. 2012 Jan;60(2):208-12
pubmed: 22122807
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2010 Nov-Dec;3(6):434-41
pubmed: 21307644
J Food Sci. 2015 Jan;80(1):C55-65
pubmed: 25529503
Phytother Res. 2016 Sep;30(9):1392-403
pubmed: 27196869
Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2016 Dec;71(4):422-428
pubmed: 27738868
Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Dec;48(12):3471-6
pubmed: 20870004
Food Chem. 2014 Mar 1;146:157-65
pubmed: 24176327
J AOAC Int. 2005 Sep-Oct;88(5):1269-78
pubmed: 16385975
Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Nov 17;17(11):
pubmed: 27869671
J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Jul 26;54(15):5230-5
pubmed: 16848499
Food Chem. 2015 Apr 15;173:527-35
pubmed: 25466055
Food Chem. 2019 Dec 15;301:125170
pubmed: 31398671
Lancet. 1992 Jun 20;339(8808):1523-6
pubmed: 1351198
Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Dec;45(12):2574-80
pubmed: 17683842
J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Jul 14;52(14):4360-7
pubmed: 15237937
Food Chem X. 2020 May 04;6:100091
pubmed: 32420543
Food Chem. 2013 Aug 15;139(1-4):405-13
pubmed: 23561124
Biol Pharm Bull. 2011;34(8):1291-6
pubmed: 21804220
Plant Dis. 2012 Oct;96(10):1506-1512
pubmed: 30727309
J Agric Food Chem. 2018 Oct 10;66(40):10369-10379
pubmed: 30095898
Free Radic Biol Med. 1999 May;26(9-10):1231-7
pubmed: 10381194
Br J Nutr. 2014 Sep 14;112(5):794-811
pubmed: 24968103
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2014 May 05;372(2017):20130309
pubmed: 24797137
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2013;53(11):1202-25
pubmed: 24007424
Chem Cent J. 2012 Jul 04;6(1):66
pubmed: 22762349
J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Oct 17;55(21):8596-603
pubmed: 17880151