Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Hot and cold drying of edible flowers affect metabolite patterns of extracts and decoctions Cover

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

Folia Horticulturae
Volume 35 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)
By: Sonia Demasi,  Matteo Caser and  Valentina Scariot  
Open Access
|Jun 2023

Figures & Tables

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_

TACTPCAntioxidant 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_

UAEDECSign.
Cinnamic acids
HD58.5713.1***
CD77.9505.4**
Sign.nsns
Flavonols
HD435.3946.8*
CD448.72,093.2***
Sign.ns*
Benzoic acids
HD623.71,065.8ns
CD551.5844.8ns
Sign.nsns
Flavanols
HD393.2971.0*
CD181.0265.5*
Sign.**

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

HDCDSign.
Cinnamic acids
Bellis perennis1,548.81,172.9**
Viola odorata238.8790.9***
Flavonols
Bellis perennis768.21,081.8*
Dianthus carthusianorum150.02,762.4***
Primula vulgaris609.41,663.7***
Rosa canina2,987.04,939.6*
Rosa pendulina447.83,793.9***
Viola odorata1,627.7354.1***
Benzoic acids
Primula vulgaris1,895.11,501.6*
Rosa pendulina1,176.6314.5***
Viola odorata965.4412.3***
Flavanols
Bellis perennis1,538.223.5***

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

HDCDSign.
Cinnamic acids
Lavandula angustifolia62.49.6*
Primula vulgaris5.666.8**
Viola odorata100.8392.7***
Flavonols
Centaurea cyanus45.5372.0***
Dianthus carthusianorum9.228.0**
Lavandula angustifolia47.422.6ns
Primula vulgaris598.9386.2ns
Rosa canina560.8510.2*
Rosa pendulina1,737.51,772.8ns
Viola odorata286.749.2***
Benzoic acids
Dianthus carthusianorum116.156.7***
Flavanols
Centaurea cyanus219.3270.7**
Rosa pendulina132.4288.3*
Viola odorata833.8294.4***
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2023-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 193 - 207
Submitted on: Oct 4, 2022
|
Accepted on: Apr 5, 2023
|
Published on: Jun 26, 2023
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
additives,
anthocyanins,
heat pump drying,
HPLC,
natural colourants,
phenolics
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science,
Zoology,
Ecology,
Life sciences, other

© 2023 Sonia Demasi, Matteo Caser, Valentina Scariot, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 35 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)Next article