Impact of high-hydrostatic pressure and thermal processing on the antioxidant profiles and capacity of tomato juice during storage

Xuehua Wang; Li Dong; Chen Ma; Zhe Wang; Xiaosong Hu; Fang Chen; Xuehua Wang; Li Dong; Chen Ma; Zhe Wang; Xiaosong Hu; Fang Chen

doi:10.48130/FIA-2023-0016

Figures (6) Tables (2)

Figure 1.
Carotenoid content was evaluated in treated tomato juice during storage. Lowercase and uppercase letters refer to the HHP group and HTST group, respectively, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 HHP vs HTST at the same storage time.
Figure 2.
Ascorbic acid content and kinetic model evaluated in treated tomato juice during storage. Lowercase and uppercase letters refer to the HHP group and HTST group, respectively, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 HHP vs HTST at the same storage time.
Figure 3.
Polyphenol content was evaluated in treated tomato juice during storage. Lowercase and uppercase letters refer to the HHP group and HTST group, respectively, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 HHP vs HTST at the same storage time.
Figure 4.
POD, PPO, and PAL enzyme activity were evaluated in treated tomato juice during storage. Lowercase and uppercase letters refer to the HHP group and HTST group, respectively, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 HHP vs HTST at the same storage time.
Figure 5.
Antioxidant compacity was evaluated of hydrophilic and lipophilic fractions from tomato juice treated by HPP and HTST processing after storage. DPPHa and FARPa represent antioxidant capacity in hydrophilic fractions of tomato juice, and DPPHb and FARPb represent antioxidant capacity in lipophilic fractions. Lowercase and uppercase letters refer to the HPP and HTST groups, respectively, and different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 HHP vs HTST at the same storage time.
Figure 6.
(a) The PLS biplot shows the correlation of the antioxidant compounds variations with antioxidant compacity of treated tomato juice during storage. (b)Volcano plots for differential compounds in P-1W juice samples compared with P-0W samples. Each point in the volcanic plot represents an antioxidant compound. The red dots represent differential antioxidant compounds, and the grey dots represent antioxidant compounds that did not change significantly.

	Treatment	Storage time (weeks)
	Treatment	0	1	2	3	4
Total viable count (Log₁₀cfu/mL)	Fresh	7.92 ± 0.13
	HHP	1.85 ± 0.02^a	1.73 ± 0.02^b	1.88 ± 0.11^a	1.45 ± 0.02^c	1.87 ± 0.03^b
	HTST	1.77 ± 0.16^ab	1.55 ± 0.06^a	1.86 ± 0.12^ab	1.39 ± 0.32^ab	1.89 ± 0.09^b
Yeasts and molds (Log₁₀cfu/mL)	Fresh	2.97 ± 0.18
	HHP	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
	HTST	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Mean values ± SD (n = 3) with different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). ND: below the detection limit.

Table 1.

Microbial levels in treated tomato juice during storage.

		Treatments
		Fresh	HHP	HTST
Carotenoids (μg/ml)	All-trans-lutein	0.25 ± 0.05^a	0.36 ± 0.02^b	0.33 ± 0.05^ab
	13-cis-lutein	0.41 ± 0.04^a	0.42 ± 0.04^a	0.37 ± 0.02^a
	13-cis-β-Carotene	0.93 ± 0.13^a	1.15 ± 0.10^b	0.98 ± 0.02^ab
	15-cis-β-Carotene	0.31 ± 0.02^a	0.21 ± 0.01^a	0.34 ± 0.11^a
	All-trans-β-carotene	3.40 ± 0.76^a	3.72 ± 0.16^a	3.97 ± 0.61^a
	cis-β-Carotene	0.62 ± 0.04^a	0.77 ± 0.01^b	0.60 ± 0.05^a
	15-cis-lycopene	1.31 ± 0.02^a	1.46 ± 0.03^b	1.31 ± 0.02^a
	13-cis-lycopene	5.87 ± 0.50^a	9.81 ± 0.98^b	6.06 ± 0.32^a
	9-cis-lycopene	1.35 ± 0.03^a	1.36 ± 0.01^a	1.37 ± 0.03^a
	9,13-dicis-lycopene	3.07 ± 0.42^a	4.36 ± 0.35^b	3.10 ± 0.24^a
	All-trans-lycopene	92.60 ± 10.74^a	113.80 ± 8.20^b	89.46 ± 5.84^a
	Total Carotenoids	110.11 ± 11.95^a	137.41 ± 7.99^b	107.895 ± 6.76^a
Ascorbic acid (μg/ml)	Ascorbic acid	125.09 ± 5.27^a	122.92 ± 1.18^a	111.07 ± 0.41^b
Polypenols (μg/g)	Cryptochlorogenic acid	47.72 ± 3.03^a	48.32 ± 3.81^a	44.33 ± 2.39^a
	Caffeic acid	11.45 ± 1.05^a	9.80 ± 1.77^a	9.86 ± 0.62^a
	p-Coumaric acid	4.10 ± 0.92^a	2.82 ± 0.54^b	1.34 ± 0.12^c
	Ferulic acid	4.56 ± 0.55^a	2.07 ± 0.23^b	1.39 ± 0.07^b
	Rutin	9.48 ± 0.95^a	12.37 ± 0.64^b	17.75 ± 1.70^c
	Quercetin	5.64 ± 0.43^a	5.41 ± 0.43^a	2.95 ± 0.12^b
	Vanillic acid	0.95 ± 0.03^a	0.75 ± 0.04^b	0.52 ± 0.01^c
	Sinapic acid	0.26 ± 0.03^a	0.39 ± 0.03^a	0.28 ± 0.03^a
Total phenols (mg GAE /100 g)	Total phenols	49.60 ± 2.28^a	49.85 ± 2.47^a	36.29 ± 2.17^b
Antioxidant activity	DPPHa (mm Torlox /100 ml)	56.78 ± 2.89^a	56.41 ± 2.88^a	50.85 ± 6.27^a
	FRAPa (U/ml)	17.46 ± 0.07^a	14.09 ± 1.48^b	13.26 ± 0.83^b
	DPPHb (mm Torlox /100 g)	189.58 ± 17.61^a	188.37 ± 1.40^a	144.25 ± 6.09^b
	FRAPb (U/g)	39.68 ± 0.53^a	45.58 ± 0.97^b	30.48 ± 0.28^c
Mean values ± SD (n = 3) with different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). DPPHa and FRAPa represent antioxidant capacity in hydrophilic fractions of tomato juice, and DPPHb and FRAPb represent antioxidant capacity in lipophilic fractions.

Table 2.

The effect of HHP and HTST treatment on carotenoids, polyphenols, ascorbic acid content, and antioxidant activities in tomato juice.