Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Analysis of the contents of Ugni molinae Turcz fruits across the ripening stages Cover

Analysis of the contents of Ugni molinae Turcz fruits across the ripening stages

Open Access
|Apr 2024

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Different ripening stages of Ugni molinae (murta) fruits: SG fruit; LG fruit; 50% R fruit; and ripe fruit (R). 50%R, 50% ripe; LG, large green; SG, small green.
Different ripening stages of Ugni molinae (murta) fruits: SG fruit; LG fruit; 50% R fruit; and ripe fruit (R). 50%R, 50% ripe; LG, large green; SG, small green.

Figure 2.

Chemical structures of the terpenoid volatile compounds identified in murta fruits for all developmental stages. The letters correspond to the compounds whose concentrations are the ones described in Figure 7.
Chemical structures of the terpenoid volatile compounds identified in murta fruits for all developmental stages. The letters correspond to the compounds whose concentrations are the ones described in Figure 7.

Figure 3.

Physiological parameters of murta fruits in the four developmental stages: (A) Weight; (B) Size; (C) pH; (D) SSC/TA ratio; (E) SSC and (F) TA. Different letters in a chart indicate statistical differences among samples. 50%R, 50% ripe; LG, large green; SG, small green; SSC, soluble solids concentration; TA, titratable acidity.
Physiological parameters of murta fruits in the four developmental stages: (A) Weight; (B) Size; (C) pH; (D) SSC/TA ratio; (E) SSC and (F) TA. Different letters in a chart indicate statistical differences among samples. 50%R, 50% ripe; LG, large green; SG, small green; SSC, soluble solids concentration; TA, titratable acidity.

Figure 4.

Chemical analyses of fruit. (A) Total phenolics, (B) total flavonoids and (C) total anthocyanins contents were analysed at different developmental stages. Data correspond to mean ± SE of three biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA). 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; LG, large green; SG, small green.
Chemical analyses of fruit. (A) Total phenolics, (B) total flavonoids and (C) total anthocyanins contents were analysed at different developmental stages. Data correspond to mean ± SE of three biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA). 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; LG, large green; SG, small green.

Figure 5.

Antioxidant capacity. Free radical scavenging activity by DPPH (A) and FRAP (B) were estimated in different developmental stage of fruit. Data correspond to mean ± SE of three biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among developmental stages [p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA]. 50%R, 50% ripe; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power; LG, large green; SG, small green.
Antioxidant capacity. Free radical scavenging activity by DPPH (A) and FRAP (B) were estimated in different developmental stage of fruit. Data correspond to mean ± SE of three biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among developmental stages [p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA]. 50%R, 50% ripe; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power; LG, large green; SG, small green.

Figure 6.

Volatile organic compounds profile. Relative abundance of C6 compounds relative to FW (A) and per berry basis (B). Relative abundance of ethyl octanoate relative to FW (C) and per berry basis (D). Different letters indicate significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA). 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight.
Volatile organic compounds profile. Relative abundance of C6 compounds relative to FW (A) and per berry basis (B). Relative abundance of ethyl octanoate relative to FW (C) and per berry basis (D). Different letters indicate significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA). 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight.

Figure 7.

Terpenoid volatile compounds profile. The relative abundance of terpenoids grouped by backbone (Figure 2). (A) Pinene type, (B) terpinene type, (C) camphene type, (D) ocimene type, (E) cymene type, (F) cardinene type, (G) maaliene type, (H) elemene type, and total terpenoids. Different letters indicate statistical differences among the development stages for each concentration unit, and the graphs without letters indicate that there are no statistical differences. Dark columns correspond to the RA per gram of FW, and light columns correspond to the RA per berry. 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight; RA relative areas.
Terpenoid volatile compounds profile. The relative abundance of terpenoids grouped by backbone (Figure 2). (A) Pinene type, (B) terpinene type, (C) camphene type, (D) ocimene type, (E) cymene type, (F) cardinene type, (G) maaliene type, (H) elemene type, and total terpenoids. Different letters indicate statistical differences among the development stages for each concentration unit, and the graphs without letters indicate that there are no statistical differences. Dark columns correspond to the RA per gram of FW, and light columns correspond to the RA per berry. 50%R, 50% ripe; FW, fresh weight; RA relative areas.

Relative abundance of terpenoid volatile compounds in murta fruits according to their chemical structure, expressed as RA (RA · g–1 FW, and RA · berry–1)_

Developmental stageRA · g–1 FWRA · berry–1
G50%RRG50%RR
Acyclic monoterpenoids4.87 ± 0.26 ab3.63 ± 0.93 a6.76 ± 0.38 b1.05 ± 0.11 a1.07 ± 0.25 a1.94 ± 0.38 b
Monocyclic monoterpenoids16.46 ± 0.72 ab14.16 ± 2.99 a24.7 ± 2.80 b3.55 ± 0.36 a4.17 ± 0.78 ab7.19 ± 1.62 b
Bicyclic monoterpenoids17.11 ± 0.49 ab13.16 ± 2.58 a21.11 ± 0.76 b3.56 ± 0.53 a3.87 ± 0.67 a6.11 ± 1.22 a
Total monoterpenoids38.44 ± 0.5 ab30.95 ± 6.5 a52.57 ± 3.18 b8.16 ± 0.95 a9.11 ± 1.7 ab15.23 ± 3.16 b
Monocyclic sesquiterpenoids1.17 ± 0.24 a0.82 ± 0.36 a1.47 ± 0.39 a0.27 ± 0.03 a0.24 ± 0.10 a0.45 ± 0.12 a
Bicyclic sesquiterpenoids2.32 ± 0.30 a1.64 ± 1.30 a2.66 ± 1.05 a0.48 ± 0.07 a0.48 ± 0.37 a0.78 ± 0.22 a
Tricyclic sesquiterpenoids2.66 ± 0.55 a2.37 ± 1.59 a2.87 ± 0.20 a0.55 ± 0.11 a0.69 ± 0.45 a0.92 ± 0.09 a
Total sesquiterpenoids6.15 ± 1.09 a4.83 ± 3.25 a7.00 ± 0.46 a1.31 ± 0.19 a1.41 ± 0.92 a2.15 ± 0.14 a

Colour readings of the four stage of murta fruit peel_

StageL*a*b*C*h°Color
SG43.75 ± 7.18–4.80 ± 1.6027.80 ± 5.9228.30 ± 5.63280.42 ± 5.34
LG44.37 ± 10.19–5.74 ± 5.4222.60 ± 4.5823.98 ± 3.93283.96 ± 14.63
50%R42.70 ± 7.0315.60 ± 10.5625.97 ± 4.0531.65 ± 5.9660.95 ± 16.56
R33.49 ± 4.6728.79 ± 6.6318.02 ± 2.3334.15 ± 5.9432.77 ± 6.16
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2024-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Language: English
Page range: 119 - 134
Submitted on: Oct 28, 2023
Accepted on: Feb 28, 2024
Published on: Apr 18, 2024
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2024 Mariona Gil i Cortiella, Ricardo I. Castro, Carolina Parra-Palma, Angela Méndez-Yáñez, Patricio Ramos, Luis Morales-Quintana, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.