Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Influence of Processing On Physicochemical, Nutritional and Phytochemical Composition of L (Fig) Products
Influence of Processing On Physicochemical, Nutritional and Phytochemical Composition of L (Fig) Products
Key words: Anthocyanins, Flavonoids, Ficus carica L., Fig jam, Fig, Fig nectar, Nutritional,
Phenolics, Physicochemical, Processing, Phytochemical, Tannins.
bioavailability. So, the aim of our research was to Washing of the fruits
investigate the influence of processing on the
physicochemical, nutritional and phytochemical Peeling and weighing (300gm)
composition of fig products.
Slicing of the fruits into halves
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Procurement and Preparation of samples Blending of fruits in a blender
Fig (Ficus carica L.) fruit was purchased from local
Filtering of pulp through a muslin cloth
market of Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh (India). Fully
mature fruits were selected, washed thoroughly with Packing in glass bottles
distilled water and non edible portion of fruits were
removed and was processed into fig pulp, fig jam Stored in refrigerator until further use
and fig nectar (Figure 1, 2 and 3). FIG 1: Flowchart for the preparation of fig pulp
Vol. 33, No. 1, 2014 39
Selection of sound fruits (300gm) catechin standard and the concentration of sample
was intercepted.
Washing of the fruits
Sample preparation for other phytochemicals viz.
Peeling and weighing total phenols, total flavonoids and total anthocyanins
was carried out according to Counet and Collin,
Slicing of the fruits into halves
2003. Sample (75 gm) was taken and ground in a
Blending of fruits in a blender blender with 150 ml of extraction solvent consisting
of Acetone (70%), water (28%) and acetic acid
Filtering of pulp through a muslin cloth (2%). Mixture was shaken for 1 hr at 4°C and
centrifuged at 17000 X g for 15 mins. Supernatant
Collection of filtrate in a beaker
was removed and the pellet was extracted again,
Brix readin of pulp using an Abbe refractometer supernatants were pooled and 70 per cent of volume
was evaporated at 30°C. Then the volume was made
Gradual addition of white sugar (1g/g of fruit) to the pulp up to 300 ml with water.
Cooking of mixture until 68°Brix is reached Total phenols in the samples were determined
following method given by Caboni et al. 1997.
Hot filling in jars Diluted extracts (3.6 ml) were mixed with Folin-
Ciocalteau reagent and after 3 mins, 0.8 ml sodium
Hot sealing of bottles manually
carbonate (20%) was added. Mixture was heated
Rapid cooling to ambient temperature by immersing bottles at 100C for 1 min and after cooling, absorbance
in tray of ice was measured at 750nm. Gallic acid was used as
FIG 2: Flowchart for the preparation of fig jam standard.
Total flavonoids were determined by the method
given by Lamaison and Carnat, 1990. Diluted
Selection of sound fruits (300gm) extracts (1 ml) were mixed with 1 ml of reagent
(AlCl3.6H 2O, 2% in methanol), Absorbance was read
Washing of the fruits at 430nm after 10 mins. Quercetin was used as the
standard.
Peeling and weighing
Anthocyanin quantification was performed by pH-
Slicing of the fruits into halves differential method given by Guisti and Wrolstad,
2001. Extract was diluted in pH 1.0 solution (0.1M
Blending of fruits in a blender
HCl, 25mMKCl) and in a pH 4.5 solution (0.4M,
Filtering of pulp through a muslin cloth CH 3COONa). Absorbance of mixture was read at
534 and 700 nm aginst distilled water.
Collection of filtrate in a beaker Absorbance of anthocyanin in sample= (Abs 535-
Abs700)pH 1.0 - (Abs 535-Abs700)pH 4.5
Addition of water (dilution X3) and sugar (0.2gm/ml of
diluted juice)
Statistical analysis: The data obtained was analyzed
statistically for analysis of variance in a completely
Exhausting by placing the beaker of juice in water bath randomized design (Sendecor and Cochran, 1994).
maintained at 88°C for 10 mins
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
Filling of juice in sterilized glass bottles and capping Table 2 lists the physico-chemical properties
and mineral composition of fig pulp, jam and nectar.
Pasteurization using a water bath maintained at 88°C for 10 mins Fig fruit pulp had 4.7+ 0.3 pH, 10.2+ 0.2 0Brix
total soluble solids (TSS) and 0.72+ 0.8 g (g citric
Hot sealing of bottles manually
acid /100g fresh mass) titratable acidity (TA). The
Rapid cooling to ambient temperature by immersing bottles transformation of fruit pulp into jam and nectar
in tray of ice naturally increased TSS because of the added sugar.
FIG 3: Flowchart for the preparation of fig nectar However, jam had higher TSS than nectar as
40 ASIAN JOURNAL OF DAIRY & FOOD RESEARCH
formulation of nectar took in dilution with water. TABLE 1: Ingredients used in making fig pulp, jam and nectar
pH of jam and nectar were comparatively lesser Ingredients Pulp Jam Nectar
than the fruit pulp as citric acid was added as a Fig fruit (Kg) 1 1 1
preservative in both the products which brought Sugar (Kg) - 1 0.600
down the pH in jam and nectar. TA was also found Citric acid (gm) - 2.5 2.5
TABLE 2: Influence of processing on the physicochemical and mineral composition of fig pulp, jam and nectar
Sample/Parameters Pulp Jam Nectar
pH 4.2 + 0.1 3.7 + 0.3 3.4+ 0.4
Total soluble solids (0Brix) 6.8 + 0.3 68.0 + 0.1 48.0 + 0.6
Titratable acidity(g citric acid/100g fresh mass) 0.19 + 0.9 0.20 + 0.4 0.21 + 0.4
Iron (mg %) 6.2+ 0.7 1.6+ 0.5 6.7+ 0.8
Calcium (mg %) 28.2+ 0.8 26.7+ 1.1 27.6+ 0.9
Phosphorus (mg %) 17.9+ 1.1 1.3+ 0.1 2.7+ 0.5
Values are mean ± SEM of 3 observations
to be higher in jam and nectar as compared to the from Table 2; moisture, ash, crude fiber, crude fat
fruit pulp due to the addition of citric acid as and crude protein content was lowest in fig jam as
preservative (Ordonez-Santos LE and Vazquez- compared to nectar and pulp. Addition of sugar in
Riascos A, 2010). Iron content of fig jam and nectar jam and nectar resulted in an increase in total
decreased significantly when compared with the fig carbohydrates and calorific value. Data pertaining
pulp which can be due to the addition of sugar to to these parameters of fig pulp was found coinciding
the fruit pulp in the processing of fig jam and nectar. with data given by Morton (1987). However, crude
However, the decrease in the iron content of fig nectar fiber content was found to be slightly higher than
was lesser when compared with fig nectar which the reported value which can be attributed to varietal
can be due to the fact that certain food processing differences. Crude fiber content when compared
procedures enhance the proportion of diffusible iron with fig fruit pulp decreased by 22 and 67% (p< 0.05)
as compared to the unprocessed food. The in fig jam and nectar. This decrease can be attributed
constituent organic acids in fruit juices namely citric, to the addition of sugar and in the preparation of
ascorbic and malic acids might be potentially jam whereas, the addition of sugar and dilution with
responsible for enhancing the iron availability (Hazell
TABLE 3: Influence of processing on the nutritional
and Jhonson, 2007). Calcium content was found to composition of fig pulp, jam and nectar.
decrease slightly in products viz. fig jam and nectar Sample/ Pulp Jam Nectar
as compared to fig fruit pulp. Heating (60- 700C) of Parameters
tissue causes disruption of membranes and Moisture (g %) 87.7 + 0.5 19.9 + 0.2 49 + 0.4
decompartmentation of cell constituents. Heat (77) (44)
Ash (g %) 0.5 + 0.1 0.2 + 0.6 0.4 + 0.1
induced firming is believed to start with damage to (65) (22)
cell membranes that causes increase in Crude fiber (g %) 1.6 + 0.6 1.2 + 0.6 0.5 + 0.3
impermeability. This leads to liberation of Ca2+ and (22) (67)
its diffusion to the cell formation of Ca2+ and Mg2+ Crude Protein (g %) 9.8 + 0.8 5.4 + 0.5 8.6 + 0.9
(45) (20)
ionic cross linkages between carboxyl groups of
Crude Fat (g %) 0.43 + 0.9 0.08 + 0.7 0.15 + 0.8
pectin (Haard and Chism, 2005). Compared with (81) (63)
the fig fruit pulp, tremendous decrease in phosphorus Carbohydrate (g %) 12.9 + 1.3 30.1 + 1.2 38.2 + 1.3
content of 91 and 80% (p< 0.05) was observed in (133) (196)
fig jam and nectar respectively. However, fig nectar Vitamin C 23.9+ 1.2 3.7+ 0.9 11.5+0.8
(mg/100g fresh mass) (84) (49)
had comparatively higher content of phosphorus β carotene 0.16+ 0.3 0.01+0.1 0.12+0.2
than fig jam due to uptake of minerals from water (mg/100g fresh mass) (93) (25)
used in the preparation of nectar (Rickman et al, Energy 94.9 + 1.0 142.7 + 1.1 189.6 + 1.3
2007). (Kcal) (50) (99)
Values are mean ± SEM of 3 observations
Influence of processing on the nutritional Figures in the parenthesis indicate % increase/decrease over
composition of fig is presented in Table 3. As clear the fruit pulp values
Vol. 33, No. 1, 2014 41
water in case of fig nectar. Crude protein content as compared with the fig fruit pulp. However, energy
decreased in fig jam and nectar as during heat content of fig nectar was higher than fig jam owing
treatment proteins undergo denaturation/ to the thermal degradation of macronutrients during
degradation and thus reduction in the crude protein the processing of jam. When compared with each
content (Whitaker, 1981). Crude fat content other, jam had lesser nutritional composition than
estimated in fig pulp and its products indicated a fig nectar as processing of jam includes addition of
decrease of 65% and 39% (p< 0.05) respectively in sugar and use of high heat treatment which leads to
fig jam and nectar. Higher percent decrease in fat degradation of nutrients whereas, in fig nectar the
content in jam as compared to nectar can be due to reduction can be due to dilution with water and
thermal degradation of fats at higher temperatures addition of sugar (Ordonez-Santos and Vazquez-
(Fennema, 1997). Carbohydrate content was found Riascos, 2010).
to significantly increase in fig jam (133%) and nectar Phytochemical content of fig pulp and its
(196%) (p< 0.05) when compared with fig fruit pulp. products is presented in Table 4. Table 4 shows
This increase in carbohydrate content can be due decrease in all the phytochemical components
to addition of sugar during the formulation of studied in fig jam and nectar samples when
products. H owever, fig nectar had more compared with pulp. The decrease in all
carbohydrate content as compared to fig jam as no phytochemical components studied can be due to
considerable heating is involved in the processing addition of sugar in the products and use of heat in
of nectar (Whistler and Daniel, 1985). Vitamin C the processing which leads to the various physico
was found to decrease by 84% in fig jam and 49% chemical changes the fruits. Total phenolics were
in fig nectar when compared with fig fruit pulp. This found to decrease by 25% and 52 % in fig jam and
tremendous decrease in vitamin C content in jam is fig nectar respectively, when compared with the fig
due to the addition of sugar and use of heat treatment pulp. Phenolic compounds are antioxidants and are
in the processing. Comparatively lesser decrease in subjected to oxidation during storage and processing
vitamin C was seen in fig nectar as no considerable of foods (Titchenal and Dobbs, 2004). Physical and
heat treatment is used in the processing of nectar. biological factors such as temperature increase and
Also, these losses of vitamin C are probably due enzymatic activity may result in the destruction of
mainly to oxidation; in particular the oxidation of phenolics. Enzymes such as polyphenol oxidase are
vitamin C to dehydroascorbic acid which is followed responsible for the browning reaction of phenolics
by the hydrolysis of the latter to 2,3- diketogulconic but they are normally inactivated during jam
acid, which then undergoes polymerization to other preparation due to high temperatures applied.
nutritionally inactive products (Dewanto et al, 2002). However, there could be losses of bioactive phenolics
â carotene decreased by 93 % and 25 % (p< 0.05) due to the cooking process that may decrease their
in fig jam and nectar respectively. This decrease is functional properties (Kim and Zakour, 2004). The
due to the addition of sugar during the processing of decrease in the phenolic content of fig nectar can be
jam and nectar. Besides, preparation of jam involves attributed to the oxidation of polyphenols by
heating above 100 0 C which causes degradation of endogenous polyphenol oxidase and ascorbic acid
â carotene. Carotenoids are thus susceptible to loss oxidase (Giovanelli et al. 2001 a). The significant
of provitamin a activity through oxidation during (p< 0.05) decrease in the flavonoid content of fig
processing (Salunkhe et al. 1991). Energy calculated jam and nectar when compared with pulp can be
was comparatively higher for the fig jam and nectar due to the addition of sugar in the processing which
TABLE 4: Influence of processing on the phytochemical composition of fig pulp, jam and nectar
Sample/Parameters Pulp Jam Nectar
Total phenolics (GAE mg %) 161.2+ 0.8 133.3+ 0.2(25) 77.8+ 0.7(52)
Total flavonoids (Quercetin mg %) 4.4 + 0.9 0.4+ 1.1(98) 2.04+ 0.6(45)
Total anthocyanins (mg %) 0.5+ 0.9 0.14+ 0.7(79) 0.40+ 0.7(33)
Tannins ( GAE mg %) 100.6 + 0.4 16.6+ 1.0(83) 22.5+ 0.7(77)
Values are mean ± SEM of 3 observations
Figures in the parenthesis indicate % increase/decrease over the fruit pulp values
42 ASIAN JOURNAL OF DAIRY & FOOD RESEARCH
does not contribute to the flavonoid content of the CONCLUSION
products. As reported by Crozier et al. 1995; Price Processing of fig fruit pulp into jam and
and Rhodes, 1997 this decrease is probably due to nectar resulted in a significant increase in physico
chemical or thermal degradation of the flavonoids chemical properties like TSS and TA but brought
during processing. However, fruit nectar processing down a significant decrease in pH and mineral
can increase the flavonoid content as extraction
composition. Also, processing of fig fruit pulp into
processes can release flavonoids from the rind (Sluis
et al. 1997) and this explains comparatively lesser jam and nectar brought down the nutritional and
decrease in the flavonoid content of fig nectar than phytochemical composition of the products except
fig jam. On the basis of anthocyanin content of fig significant increase in the carbohydrate and thereby
fruit pulp, jam had significantly (p< 0.05) lowest energy value. Although there is a decrease in the
concentration of total anthocyanins. A loss of 79 % in nutritional and phytochemical composition of fig
fig jam and 33% (p< 0.05) in fig nectar was observed products than pulp but it can be said that processing
due to processing. This decrease was more extensive of fig fruits into jam and nectar ensures the safety
as, several factors like pH, temperature, light, oxygen, and quality of the products without much loss of
metal ions and sugars are believed to affect the stability nutritional and antioxidant benefits, which is not
of anthocyanins in fruits and vegetables during
feasible with the fig fruit as such owing to its
processing and storage (Rhim, 2002). Significant loss
perishable nature.
(p< 0.05) of tannins in fig jam and fig nectar than fig
pulp was observed due to thermal degradation of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
tannins. The considerable decrease of tannins in the The authors thank University Grants
products can be due to extraction and release of tannins Commission, New Delhi, India for the financial
from the cell matrix, due to breakage of bonds with assistance and Sri Sathya Sai Institute of higher
proteins (Rehman and Shah, 2001). learning, Anantapur, A.P., India for the facilities.
REFERENCES
AOAC (1995) Approved Methods of Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 14th edn, Washington, D.C.
Caboni E, Tonelli MG, Lauri P, Lacovacci P, Kevers C, Damiano C and Gaspar T (1997) Biochemical aspects of almond
microcuttings related to in vitro rooting ability. Biol plant, 39: 91-97.
Counet C and Collins S (2003) Effect of the number of flavonol units on the antioxidant activity of procyanidin fractions
isolated from chocolate. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 51: 6816-6822.
Crozier A, Lean MEJ, Mc Donald MS and Black C (1995) Quantitative analysis of the flavonoid content of commercial
tomatoes, onions, lettuce and celery. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 42: 281-285.
Dewanto V, Wu X, Adom KK and Lui RH (2002) Thermal processing enhances the nutritional value of tomatoes by
increasing total antioxidant activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50: 3010-3014.
Fennema O (1997) Nutritional and metabolic aspects of protein modification during food processing. In: RE Feeny and
JR Whitaker (eds.) Modification of proteins: Food, nutritional and pharmacological aspects. American Chemical
Society, Washington DC, pp 91-124.
Guisti MM and Worlstad RE (2001) Characterization and measurement of anthocyanins by UV-visible spectroscopy. In:
Current protocols in Food analytical chemistry, Worlstad RE and Schwartz SJ (eds.). Wiley, New York, pp
F1.21- F1.2.2.13.
Haard FN and Chism WG (2005). Characteristics of edible plant tissues. In: Food Chemistry. OR Fennema (ed) Marcel
Deker, NY, 3rd edn., pp 993-994.
Hazell T and Jhonson IT (2007) Effects of processing and fruits juices on in vitro estimated iron availability from cereals,
vegetables and fruits. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture, 38: 73-82.
Hedge J E and Hofreiter B T (1962) In: Whistler R L and Be Miller J N (eds). Carbohydrate Chemistry, Academic Press,
New York.
Huber DJ and Newman DW (1975) Relationship between lipid changes and plastic ultra structural changers in soyabean
cotyledons. Journal of Experimental Biology, 21, 490-511
Jeong WS and Lachance PA (2001) Phytosterols and fatty acids in fig (Ficus carica, var. Mission) fruit and tree components.
Food Chemistry and Toxicology 66: 278–281.
Vol. 33, No. 1, 2014 43
Kim DO and Padilla Zakour OI (2004) Jam processing effect on phenolics and antioxidant capacity in anthocyanins-
rich fruits: Cherry, Plum and Raspberry. Journal of Food Science, 69: 395-400.
Lamaison JL and Carnat J (1990) Teneur en principaux flavonodes does fleurs et des feuiltes de crtaegus monogyna
Jacq.et.de Crataegusleavigata (Poret) DC. (Rosaceae). Acta Pharm. Acta Pharm. Acta Helv, 65, 315-320.
Lowry DH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL & Randa URJ (1951) Protein measurements with Folin Phenol reagent. Journal of
Biological Chemistry, 193(2): 265-275.
Morton (1987). Fig. In: Fruits of warm climates. Morton FJ and Miami FL (eds.), pp 47-50.
Nicoli MC, Anese M and Parpinel M (1999) Influence of processing on the antioxidant properties of fruits and
vegetables, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 10: 94-100.
Ordonez-Santos LE and Vazquez- Riascos A (2010) Effect of processing and storage time on the vitamin C and lycopene
contents of nectar of pink guava (Psidium guajava L.). Archivos Latino Americanos De Nutrition, 60(3), 280-284.
Price KR and Rhodes MJC (1997) Analysis of the major flavonol glycosides present in four varieties of onion and changes
in composition resulting from autolysis. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture, 74, 331-335.
Raghuramulu N, Madhavan MN and K Sundaram (eds.), (2004) A manual of laboratory techniques, NIN, Hyderabad, p 140.
Rehman ZU and Shah WH (2001) Tannin contents and protein digestibility of black gram (Vigna mungo) after soaking
and cookin. Plant Food for Human Nutrition, 56(3): 263-73.
Rhim JW (2002). Kinetics of thermal degradation of anthocyanin pigment solutions driven from red flower cabbge. Food
Science and Biotechnology, 11: 361- 364.
Rickman JC, Bruhn CM and Barett DM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruitsand vegetables.
Part 2, Vitamin A, carotenoids and vitamin E. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, pp 275-299.
Salunkhe DK, Bolin HR and Reddy NR (1991) Freezing In: Storage processing and nutritional quality of fruits and
vegetables. Vol. 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, pp 144-147.
Sendecor W and Cochran WG (1994) Statistical Methods. Sixth edn., Oxford and IBH Publication, New Delhi. p 297.
Slavin J L (2006) Figs: Past, Present and Future. Nutrition Today, 41, 180–184.
Solomon A, Golubowicz S, Yablowicz Z, Grossman S, Bergman M, Gottlieb H E et al. (2006) Antioxidant activities and
anthocyanin content of fresh fruits of common fig (Ficus carica L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
54: 7717–7723.
Sozzi GO, Abrajan-Villasenor MA, Trinchero GD and Fraschina AA (2005) Postharvest response of ‘Brown Turkey’figs
(Ficus carica L.) to the inhibition of ethylene perception. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85:
2503–2508.
Titchenal CA and Dobbs J (2004) Nutritional value of vegetables, In: Handbook of vegetable preservation and
processing. [Hui YH, Ghazala S, Graham DM, Murell KD and Nip W (eds.)], Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 23-37.
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release
15, 2002. Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page, /http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomps.
Veberic R, Trobec M, Herbinger K, Hofer M, Grill D and Stampar F (2005) Phenolic compounds in some apple (Malus
domestica Borkh) cultivars of organic and integrated production. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
85: 1687–1694.
Vinson JA (1999) The functional food properties of figs. Cereal Foods World 4: 82–87.
Vinson JA, Zubik L, Bose P, Samman N, Proch J (2005) Dried fruits: excellent in vitro and in vivo antioxidants. Journal
of the American College of Nutrition 4: 44–50.
Whistler RL and Daniel JR (1985) CarbohydratesIn: P Fennema (ed.) Food Chemistry. 2nd edn, Marcel Dekker, NY, pp 69-137.
Whitaker JR (1981) Naturally occurring peptide and protein inhibitors of enzymes. In: JC Ayres and JC Krishman (eds),
Impact of toxicology on food processing. AVI Publishing Co, Westport, CT, pp 57-104.