Accesso libero

Hot and cold drying of edible flowers affect metabolite patterns of extracts and decoctions

Sonia Demasi

Sonia Demasi

Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of TurinGrugliasco, Italy
Profilo Orcid
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Demasi, Sonia
, 
Matteo Caser

Matteo Caser

Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of TurinGrugliasco, Italy
Profilo Orcid
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Caser, Matteo
 e 
Valentina Scariot

Valentina Scariot

Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of TurinGrugliasco, Italy
Profilo Orcid
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Scariot, Valentina
  
26 giu 2023
Hot and cold drying of edible flowers affect metabolite patterns of extracts and decoctions's Cover Image
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Cita
Scarica la copertina
Categoria dell'articolo: ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Pubblicato online: 26 giu 2023
Pagine: 193 - 207
Ricevuto: 04 ott 2022
Accettato: 05 apr 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2023-0015
Parole chiave
© 2023 Demasi et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1.

Percentage of water (%) extracted from edible flowers after 24 h of HD and CD. Significance of the Kruskal–Wallis post hoc test is provided. * = p < 0.05, *** = p < 0.001, CD, cold drying; ns, not significant.
Percentage of water (%) extracted from edible flowers after 24 h of HD and CD. Significance of the Kruskal–Wallis post hoc test is provided. * = p < 0.05, *** = p < 0.001, CD, cold drying; ns, not significant.

Figure 2.

TAC of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; TAC, total anthocyanin content; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
TAC of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; TAC, total anthocyanin content; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 3.

TPC of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; TPC, total phenolic content.
TPC of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; TPC, total phenolic content.

Figure 4.

Antioxidant activity evaluated through the ABTS assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. ABTS, 2,2′-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid; CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
Antioxidant activity evaluated through the ABTS assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. ABTS, 2,2′-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid; CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 5.

Antioxidant activity evaluated through the DPPH assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoction; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
Antioxidant activity evaluated through the DPPH assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoction; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 6.

Antioxidant activity evaluated through the FRAP assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
Antioxidant activity evaluated through the FRAP assay of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species along HD, while capital letters between species along CD. Asterisks indicate significant differences between HD and CD considering the single species. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 7.

RACI of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species, according to the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; RACI, relative antioxidant capacity index; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
RACI of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species, according to the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying; RACI, relative antioxidant capacity index; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 8.

GAS of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (CD, blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species, according to the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoction; GAS, global antioxidant score; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.
GAS of edible flower extracts (UAE, left) and DEC (right) after HD (red bars) and CD (CD, blue bars). Small case letters indicate significant differences between species, according to the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoction; GAS, global antioxidant score; HD, hot drying; UAE, ultrasound-assisted extract.

Figure 9.

Distribution of different phenolic classes (cinnamic acids, flavonols, benzoic acid, and flavanols) in extracts (UAE) after HD (left) and CD (right). CD, cold drying; HD, hot drying.
Distribution of different phenolic classes (cinnamic acids, flavonols, benzoic acid, and flavanols) in extracts (UAE) after HD (left) and CD (right). CD, cold drying; HD, hot drying.

Figure 10.

Distribution of different phenolic classes (cinnamic acids, flavonols, benzoic acids and flavanols) in DEC after HD (left), and CD (right). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying.
Distribution of different phenolic classes (cinnamic acids, flavonols, benzoic acids and flavanols) in DEC after HD (left), and CD (right). CD, cold drying; DEC, decoctions; HD, hot drying.

Figure 11.

Appearance of dry flowers of Bellis perennis, Centaurea cyanus, Dianthus carthusianorum, Lavandula angustifolia, Primula vulgaris, Rosa canina, Rosa pendulina and Viola odorata after 24 h of HD (left jar) and CD (right jar). CD, cold drying; HD, hot drying.
Appearance of dry flowers of Bellis perennis, Centaurea cyanus, Dianthus carthusianorum, Lavandula angustifolia, Primula vulgaris, Rosa canina, Rosa pendulina and Viola odorata after 24 h of HD (left jar) and CD (right jar). CD, cold drying; HD, hot drying.

Effects of different drying and extraction methods, species and their interactions on TAC, TPC and antioxidant activity of edible flowers according to GLM_

TAC TPC Antioxidant activity (DPPH) Antioxidant activity (ABTS) Antioxidant activity (FRAP)
Drying *** *** ns *** *
Extraction *** *** *** *** ***
Species *** *** *** *** ***
Drying · Species *** *** *** *** **
Extraction · Species *** *** *** *** ***
Drying · Extraction *** *** *** *** *
Drying · Extraction · Species *** *** *** *** ns

Effect of HD and CD on the content (mg · 100 g-1) of different classes of phenolic compounds in edible flower extracts (UAEs) and DECs_

UAE DEC Sign.
Cinnamic acids
HD 58.5 713.1 ***
CD 77.9 505.4 **
Sign. ns ns
Flavonols
HD 435.3 946.8 *
CD 448.7 2,093.2 ***
Sign. ns *
Benzoic acids
HD 623.7 1,065.8 ns
CD 551.5 844.8 ns
Sign. ns ns
Flavanols
HD 393.2 971.0 *
CD 181.0 265.5 *
Sign. * *

Effects of HD and CD in the yield of phenolic compounds (mg · 100 g-1) in edible flower DEC_

HD CD Sign.
Cinnamic acids
Bellis perennis 1,548.8 1,172.9 **
Viola odorata 238.8 790.9 ***
Flavonols
Bellis perennis 768.2 1,081.8 *
Dianthus carthusianorum 150.0 2,762.4 ***
Primula vulgaris 609.4 1,663.7 ***
Rosa canina 2,987.0 4,939.6 *
Rosa pendulina 447.8 3,793.9 ***
Viola odorata 1,627.7 354.1 ***
Benzoic acids
Primula vulgaris 1,895.1 1,501.6 *
Rosa pendulina 1,176.6 314.5 ***
Viola odorata 965.4 412.3 ***
Flavanols
Bellis perennis 1,538.2 23.5 ***

Effects of HD and CD in the yield of phenolic compounds (mg · 100 g-1) in edible flower extracts_

HD CD Sign.
Cinnamic acids
Lavandula angustifolia 62.4 9.6 *
Primula vulgaris 5.6 66.8 **
Viola odorata 100.8 392.7 ***
Flavonols
Centaurea cyanus 45.5 372.0 ***
Dianthus carthusianorum 9.2 28.0 **
Lavandula angustifolia 47.4 22.6 ns
Primula vulgaris 598.9 386.2 ns
Rosa canina 560.8 510.2 *
Rosa pendulina 1,737.5 1,772.8 ns
Viola odorata 286.7 49.2 ***
Benzoic acids
Dianthus carthusianorum 116.1 56.7 ***
Flavanols
Centaurea cyanus 219.3 270.7 **
Rosa pendulina 132.4 288.3 *
Viola odorata 833.8 294.4 ***
Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
2 volte all'anno
Argomenti della rivista:
Scienze biologiche, Botanica, Zoologia, Ecologia, Scienze della vita, altro
Feed RSS della rivista