Physical, Chemical and Bioactive Properties of Four Different Pears (Pyrus communis L.) Varieties Grown in Turkey

Year 2022, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 303 - 314, 30.08.2022

Fatma Coşkun Topuz Emre Bakkalbaşı

https://doi.org/10.53433/yyufbed.1086370

Abstract

In this study, physical, chemical and bioactive properties of four different pear varieties (Mellaçi, Mellaki, Deveci and Margarite) grown in Turkey's eastern regions were investigated. It was determined that the length, diameter and weight values of pear varieties varied between 6.08-9.56 cm, 5.42-8.30 cm and 92.27-254.95 g, respectively. Also, glucose, fructose and sucrose amounts of pear varied between 15.43-22.83, 18.08-30.62, 1.36-14.77 g 100 g^-1 d.m (dried matter), respectively. TPC, ABTS and DPPH results of pear varieties were determined 622.56-3718.43 mg GA eq kg^-1 d.m, 18.35-178.90 mmol Trolox eq/g d.m and 149.49-366.07 mmol Trolox eq/g d.m, respectively. Syringic acid, chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, ellagic acid, catechin, epicatechin and rutin were detected in pear samples. Chlorogenic acid was the major phenolic component in pear varieties. Also, it was determined that significant differences were found among pear varieties in terms of physical, chemical and bioactive properties. While the Mellaki variety showed superior properties in terms of analyzed physical properties, the Margarite variety had superior properties in terms of chlorogenic acid and antioxidant activity.

Keywords

Bioactive compounds, Chemical composition, Pear variety, Physical properties

Supporting Institution

Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi BAP birimi

Project Number

FDK-2018-7421

Thanks

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Research Fund (Project No: FDK-2018-7421).

Türkiye’de Yetiştirilen Dört Farklı Armut (Pyrus communis L.) Çeşidinin Fiziksel, Kimyasal ve Biyoaktif Özellikleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye'nin doğu bölgelerinde yetiştirilen dört farklı armut çeşidinin (Mellaçi, Mellaki, Deveci ve Margarit) fiziksel, kimyasal ve biyoaktif özellikleri araştırıldı. Armut çeşitlerinin boy, çap ve ağırlık değerlerinin sırasıyla 6.08-9.56 cm, 5.42-8.30 cm ve 92.27-254.95 g arasında değiştiği belirlendi. Ayrıca armudun glikoz, fruktoz ve sakaroz miktarları sırasıyla 15.43-22.83, 18.08-30.62, 1.36-14.77 g 100 g^-1 KM (kuru madde) arasında değişmektedir. Armut çeşitlerinin TPC, ABTS ve DPPH sonuçları sırasıyla 622.56-3718.43 mg GA eq/kg KM, 18.35-178.90 mmol Trolox eq/g KM ve 149.49-366.07 mmol Trolox eq/g KM olarak belirlendi. Armut örneklerinde siringik asit, klorojenik asit, ferulik asit, elajik asit, kateşin, epikateşin ve rutin tespit edildi. Armut çeşitlerinde en fazla miktarda bulunan fenolik bileşen klorojenik asittir. Ayrıca, armut çeşitleri arasında fiziksel, kimyasal ve biyoaktif özellikler açısından önemli farklılıkların bulunduğu tespit edildi. Mellaki çeşidi analiz edilen fiziksel özellikler açısından üstün özellikler gösterirken, Margarit çeşidi klorojenik asit ve antioksidan aktivite açısından üstün özelliklere sahipti.

Keywords

Biyoaktif bileşenler, Kimyasal kompozisyon, Armut çeşitleri, Fiziksel özellikler

Project Number

FDK-2018-7421

References

• AOAC. (2003). Official Methods of Analysis. Washington, DC., USA: Association of Official Analytical chemists.
• Arzani, K., Khoshghal, H., Malakouti, M. J., & Barzegar, M. (2008). Postharvest fruit physicochemical changes and properties of Asian (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) and European (Pyrus communis L.) pear cultivars. Horticulture Environment and Biotechnology, 49(4), 244-252.
• Aslantaş, R., & Karakurt, H. (2007). Effects and importance on fruit growing of altitude sea level. Alınteri Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 12(2), 31-37.
• Azzini, E., Maiani, G., Durazzo, A., Foddai, M. S., & Polito, A. (2019). S. giovanni varieties (Pyrus communis L.): antioxidant properties and phytochemical characteristics. Hindawi. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 6714103, 1-9. doi:10.1155/2019/6714103
• Bakkalbasi, E., Yilmaz, O. M., Yemiş, O., & Artik, N. (2013). Changes in the phenolic content and free radical-scavenging activity of vacuum packed walnut kernels during storage. Food Science and Technology Research, 19(1), 105-112. doi: 10.3136/fstr.19.105
• Bennici, S., Las Casas, G., Distefano, G., Di Guardo, M., Continella, A., Ferlito, F., Gentile, A., & La Malfa, S. (2018). Elucidating the contribution of wild related species on autochthonous pear germplasm: A case study from Mount Etna. Plos One, 1-19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198512
• Chen, J., Wang, Z., Wu, J., Wang, Q., & Hu, X. (2007). Chemical compositional characterization of eight pear cultivars grown in China. Food Chemistry, 104(1), 268-275. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.11.038
• Colaric M., Veberic, R., Solar, A., Hudina, M., & Stampar, M. H. (2005). Phenolic acids, syringaldehyde, and juglone in fruits of different cultivars of Juglans regia L, J. Agric. Food Chemistry, 53, 6390–6396. doi: 10.1021/jf050721n
• Ekinci, N., & Akçay, M. (2016). New Pear Cultivar: Akçay 77. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 4(2), 51-57.
• Erbil, N., Murathan, Z., Arslan, M., Ilcim, A., & Sayin, B. (2018). Antimicrobial, antioxidant, and antimutagenic activities of five Turkish pear cultivars. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 60, 203-209. doi:10.1007/s10341-017-0359-1
• Gülsoy, E., Şimşek, M., & Çevik, C. (2019). Determination of fruit quality traits in some hazelnut cultivars grown at different altitudes and locations in Ordu province. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science, 5(1), 25-30. doi:10.24180/ijaws.506932
• Hamzaoğlu, F., Türkyilmaz, M., & Özkan, M. (2018). Amino acid profile and content of dried apricots containing SO2 at different concentrations during storage. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods, 10(4),1-10. doi:10.3920/QAS2018.1284
• Imeh, U., & Khokhar, S. (2002). Distribution of conjugated and free phenols in fruits: antioxidant activity and cultivar variations. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(22), 6301-6306. doi:10.1021/jf020342j
• Kalkisim, O., Okcu, Z., Karabulut, B., Ozdes, D., & Duran, C. (2018). Evaluation of pomological and morphological characteristics and chemical compositions of local pear varieties (Pyrus communis L.) grown in Gümüşhane, Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 60, 173-181. doi:10.1007/s10341-017-0354-6
• Kolniak-Ostek, J., Kłopotowska, D., Rutkowski, K. P., Skorupinska, A., & Kruczynska, D. (2020). Bioactive compounds and health-promoting properties of pear (pyrus communis L.). Fruits, 25, 4444. doi:10.3390/molecules25194444
• Kutlu, E., & Şen, F. (2011). The effect of different harvest time on fruit and olive oil quality of olive (Olea europea L.) cv. Gemlik. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(2), 85-93.
• Li, X., Wang, T., Zhou, B., Gao, W., Cao, J., & Huang, L. (2014). Chemical composition and antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential of peels and flesh from 10 different pear varieties (Pyrus spp.). Food Chemistry, 152, 531-538. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.010
• Okatan, V., Polat, M., Ercişli, S., & Aşkin, M. A. (2017). Some pomological and chemical properties of local pear varieties in Uşak, Turkey. Scientific Papers, Series B, Horticulture. 61, 11-13.
• Ozturk, I., Ercisli, S., Kalkan, F., & Demir, B. (2009). Some chemical and physico-mechanical properties of pear cultivars. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8(4), 687-693.
• Pyo, Y. H., Lee, T. C., Logendra, L., & Rosen, R. T. (2004). Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds of swiss chard (Beta vulgaris Subspecies cycla) extracts. Food Chemistry, 85, 19–26. doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00294-2
• Queiroz, A., Guimarães, J. B., Sánchez, C., Simões, F., & Veloso, M. M. (2019). Genetic diversity and structure of the Portuguese pear (Pyrus communis L.) germplasm. Sustainability, 11, 5340. doi:10.3390/su11195340
• Re, R., Pellegrini, N., Proteggente, A., Pannala, A., Yang, M., & Rice-Evans, C. (1999). Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 26(9-10), 1231-1237. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3
• Salta, J., Martins, A., Santos, R. G, Neng N. R., Jose, M. F., Nogueira, J. M. F., Justino, J., & Rauter, A. P. (2010). Phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of Rocha pear and other pear cultivars – A comparative study. Journal of Functional Foods, 2(2), 153 – 157. doi:10.1016/j.jff.2010.02.002
• Schieber, A., Keller, P., & Carle, R. (2001). Determination of phenolic acids and flavonoids of apple and pear by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A, 910, 265-273. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(00)01217-6
• Singleton, V. L., & Rossi, J. A. (1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphotungustic acid reagents. American journal of Enology and Viticulture, 16(3), 144-158.
• Wang, Z., Barrow, C. J., Dunshea, F. R., & Suleria, H. (2021). A Comparative Investigation on Phenolic Composition, Characterization and Antioxidant Potentials of Five Different Australian Grown Pear Varieties. Antioxidants, 10(2), 151. doi:10.3390/antiox10020151
• Yarılgaç, T., & Yıldız, K. (2001). Some pomological characteristics of local pear varieties grown in Adilcevaz. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 11(2), 9-12.