Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4

Investigation of pesticide residues in fresh Sultani grapes and antioxidant properties of fresh/sun-dried/oven-dried grapes

Pages
350–360
Publication Date
2020-08-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The antioxidant properties of fresh grapes investigated in our study were slightly higher compared to other white grapes in the literature, and there was no significant health risk with respect to pesticides determined in our study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Grape is one of the most common crop plants in the world, and Turkey is seventh in fresh grape production.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The TAC, TPC, and TFC values of fresh grapes were found to be 12.56 +/- 2.33 mg AE/g dry weight (DW), 2.85 +/- 1.10 mg GAE/g DW, and 2.51 +/- 1.27 mg QE/g DW, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The antioxidant properties of fresh grapes investigated in our study were slightly higher compared to other white grapes in the literature, and there was no significant health risk with respect to pesticides determined in our study.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Antioxidant · drying · flavonoid

Abstract

Grape is one of the most common crop plants in the world, and Turkey is seventh in fresh grape production. The seedless Sultani grape (Vitis vinifera L.) produced in Manisa is famous worldwide. The determination of antioxidant properties and phenolic substance levels, as well as investigation of the effects of different drying processes on these levels in grapes, is important in terms of revealing their contribution to health. Additionally, determining the levels of pesticide residues in fruit is another important issue for health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the levels of pesticide residues and antioxidant substances in fresh grapes and to evaluate the benefits and harm to health and the effect of drying methods on total antioxidant capacity (TAC), total phenolic content (TPC), and total flavonoid content (TFC). The TAC, TPC, and TFC values of fresh grapes were found to be 12.56 +/- 2.33 mg AE/g dry weight (DW), 2.85 +/- 1.10 mg GAE/g DW, and 2.51 +/- 1.27 mg QE/g DW, respectively. At least one pesticide residue was detected in all samples; iprodione and lambda-cyhalothrin were detected in 82.35% of samples. However, pesticide residues were found to be below the maximum residue levels specified in the Turkish Food Codex. Losses in TAC, TPC, and TFC of the Sultani grapes were found to be 47.45%, 55.02%, and 81.05% and 80.00%, 72.91%, and 72.11% for oven-dried and sun-dried grapes, respectively, in our study. The sun-drying method leads to less loss in TPC and TFC values; in terms of TAC value, the best drying method is the oven-drying method. The antioxidant properties of fresh grapes investigated in our study were slightly higher compared to other white grapes in the literature, and there was no significant health risk with respect to pesticides determined in our study.

🔖

Cite This Article

ICLİ, N., KAHYAOĞLU, D. T. (2020). Investigation of pesticide residues in fresh Sultani grapes and antioxidant properties of fresh/sun-dried/oven-dried grapes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4, 350–360. https://ajindex.com/articles/179404

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Akdeniz B, 2011, ELECT J FOOD TECHNOL, V6, P13 AOAC, 2007, J AOAC INT, V90, P485. Arvouet-Grand A, 1994, J Pharm Belg, V49, P462 Aubert C, 2018, FOOD CHEM, V240, P524, DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.07.152 Bakirci GT, 2014, FOOD CHEM, V160, P379, DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.02.051 Bell EM, 2001,
  2. EPIDEMIOLOGY, V12, P148, DOI 10.1097/00001648-200103000-00005 Cabras P, 1998, J AGR FOOD CHEM, V46, P2309, DOI 10.1021/jf980058l Canan I, 2016, TURK J AGRIC FOR, V40, P894, DOI 10.3906/tar-1606-83 Castaneda-Ovando A, 2009, FOOD CHEM, V113, P859, DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.09.001 Cemeroglu B., 2013, GIDA ANALIZLERI. Coklar H, 2017, S AFR J ENOL VITIC, V38, P264, DOI 10.21548/38-2-2127 Contreras-Lopez E., 2014, Food and Nutrition Sciences, V5, P488, DOI 10.4236/fns.2014.56058 Dincay O, 2017, TURKISH J AGR FOOD S, V5, P1031 Ercisli S, 2007, SCI HORTIC-AMSTERDAM, V115, P27, DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2007.07.004 European Commission Directorate General for Health and Food Safety, 2017, SANTE118132017 EUR C Fabani MP, 2017, J FOOD COMPOS ANAL, V58, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.jfca.2017.01.006 Feldsine P, 2002, J AOAC INT, V85, P1187 Franco-Banuelos A, 2017, AGROCIENCIA-MEXICO, V51, P661 Golge O, 2018, J AGR FOOD CHEM, V66, P1701, DOI [10.1021/acs.jafc.7b0570, 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05707] GTHB, 2016, TURK FOOD COD REG MA. GTHB, 2011, TURK FOOD COD COMM S. Icli N, 2017, SAGLIK AKAD KASTAMON, V2, P89 Kalliora C, 2018, TOXICOL APPL PHARM, V346, P58, DOI 10.1016/j.taap.2018.03.025 KKGM, 2002, GID KATK KAL BUL IZL. Lehotay SJ, 2005, J AOAC INT, V88, P595. Meng JF, 2011, FOOD RES INT, V44, P2830, DOI 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.032 Meyskens FL, 2005, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V14, P1366, DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0666 Ornek H., 2008, THESIS. Ozbey A, 2006, B ENVIRON CONTAM TOX, V77, P638, DOI 10.1007/s00128-006-1110-z Pinent M, 2004,
  3. ENDOCRINOLOGY, V145, P4985, DOI 10.1210/en.2004-0764 Poulsen ME, 2007, FOOD ADDIT CONTAM A, V24, P886, DOI 10.1080/02652030701245320 Prieto P, 1999, ANAL BIOCHEM, V269, P337, DOI 10.1006/abio.1999.4019 RASFF, 2018, RASFF RAP AL SYST FO. Rodriguez-Casado A, 2016, CRIT REV FOOD SCI, V56, P1097, DOI 10.1080/10408398.2012.755149 Sharadanand Phatak R., 2014, J PHARMACOGN PHYTOCH, V2, P32 SLINKARD K, 1977, AM J ENOL VITICULT, V28, P49 Tatli O, 2006, THESIS. Terra X, 2007, J AGR FOOD CHEM, V55, P4357, DOI 10.1021/jf0633185 Thompson M, 2002, PURE APPL CHEM, V74, P835, DOI 10.1351/pac200274050835 Turgut C, 2011, ENVIRON MONIT ASSESS, V173, P315, DOI 10.1007/s10661-010-1