SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Biochemical content in fruits of peach and nectarine cultivars

Mustafa Kenan GEÇER
Pages
500–505
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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 results showed that peach and nectarine cultivars grown in the Malatya region exhibit an appreciable quality, but there are significant differences in quality properties of the fruits in different cultivars.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Turkey, there is an increasing interest for peach and nectarine fruits due to their sensory properties and nutritional values.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study seeks to determine fruit quality attributes and nutraceutical values of 7 commercially important peach (Glohaven, Dixired, Cresthaven, Redhaven, Merrill Gem Free, June Gold, and Jefferson) and 4 nectarine cultivars (Nectared4, Granstin, Cherokee, and Royal Glo) grown in Malatya region of Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that peach and nectarine cultivars grown in the Malatya region exhibit an appreciable quality, but there are significant differences in quality properties of the fruits in different cultivars.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In Turkey, there is an increasing interest for peach and nectarine fruits due to their sensory properties and nutritional values. The large diffusion of new peach and nectarine cultivars requires the knowledge of all fruit characteristics in connection with the cultivation area to satisfy market demand. This study seeks to determine fruit quality attributes and nutraceutical values of 7 commercially important peach (Glohaven, Dixired, Cresthaven, Redhaven, Merrill Gem Free, June Gold, and Jefferson) and 4 nectarine cultivars (Nectared4, Granstin, Cherokee, and Royal Glo) grown in Malatya region of Turkey. The fruits were evaluated for their phenolic compounds (protocatechuic, rutin, quercetin, gallic acid, catechin, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, syringic acid, p - coumaric acid, o - coumaric acid, phloridzin, and ferulic acid), organic acids (citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, and fumaric acid), vitamin C, and specific sugars (glucose, fructose, and sucrose). The results showed that peach and nectarine cultivars grown in the Malatya region exhibit an appreciable quality, but there are significant differences in quality properties of the fruits in different cultivars. Rutin (73549 mg kg(-1)), caffeic acid (70.142 mg kg(-1)), catechin (146.609 mg kg(-1)), and chlorogenic acid (211.879 mg kg(-1)) were major phenolic compounds in peach and nectarine fruits. Citric acid and malic acid were dominant organic acids in fruits of peach and nectarine cultivars.

🔖

Cite This Article

GEÇER, M. K. (2022). Biochemical content in fruits of peach and nectarine cultivars. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 500–505. https://ajindex.com/articles/599158

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abidi W, Jiménez S, Moreno MA, Gogorcena Y (2011). Evaluation of antioxidant compounds and total sugar content in a nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] progeny. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 12: 6919-6935.
  2. Andreotti C, Ravaglia D, Ragaini A, Costa G (2008). Phenolic compounds in peach (Prunus persica) cultivars atharvest and during fruit maturation. Annals of Applied Biology 153: 11-23.
  3. Aubert C, Gunata Z, Ambid C, Baumes R (2003). Changes in physicochemical characteristics and volatile constituents of yellow– and white–fleshed nectarines during maturation and artificial ripening. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 3083-3091.
  4. Barut E (1999). Adaptations of different nectarine varieties to Bursa region. Proceedings of the 3rd National Congress on Horticulture, (NCH’1999),
  5. Ankara, Turkey, pp: 729-732.
  6. Bassi D, Selli R (1990). Evaluation of fruit quality in peach and apricot. Advances in Horticultural Science 4: 107-112.
  7. Bevilacqua AE, Califano AN (1989). Determination of organic acids in dairy products by high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Food Science 54:1076-1076.
  8. Butiuc-Keul A, Coste A, Farkas A, Cristea V, Isac V et al. (2019). Molecular characterization of apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) genotypes originating from three complementary conservation strategies. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 43: 464-477.
  9. Cantin CM, Moreno MA, Gogorcena Y (2009a). Evaluation of the antioxidant capacity, phenolic compounds, and vitamin c content of different peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57: 4586-4592.
  10. Cantin CM, Gogorcena Y, Moreno MA (2009b). Analysis of phenotypic variation of sugar profile in different peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89: 1909-1917.
  11. Cemeroglu B (2007).
  12. Food analysis. Ankara, Turkey: Food Technology Society Publication, pp. 168-171.
  13. Chang S, Tan C, Frankel E, Barrett D (2000) Low–density lipoprotein antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds and polyphenol oxidase activity in selected clingstone peach cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48: 147-151.
  14. Colaric M, Veberic R, Stampar F, Hudina M (2005). Evaluation of peach and nectarine fruit quality and correlations between sensory and chemical attributes. Journal of the Scienceof Food and Agriculture 85: 2611-2616.
  15. Crozier A, Jaganath IB, Clifford MN (2009). Dietary phen