sustainability
Article
Determination of Selected Beneficial Substances in Peach Fruits
Martina Mrázová 1 , Eliška Rampáčková 1 , Petr Šnurkovič 2 , Ivo Ondrášek 1 , Tomáš Nečas 1, *
and Sezai Ercisli 3
1
2
3
*
Citation: Mrázová, M.; Rampáčková,
E.; Šnurkovič, P.; Ondrášek, I.; Nečas,
Department of Fruit Science, Faculty of Horticulture in Lednice, Mendel University in Brno,
691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic; martina.gottingerova@mendelu.cz (M.M.);
eliska.rampackova@mendelu.cz (E.R.); ivo.ondrasek@mendelu.cz (I.O.)
Department of Post-Harvest Technology of Horticultural Products, Faculty of Horticulture in Lednice,
Mendel University in Brno, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic; petr.snurkovic@mendelu.cz
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ataturk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey;
sercisli@gmail.com
Correspondence: tomas.necas@mendelu.cz
Abstract: Peaches (Prunus persica L.) are a popular and sought-after dessert fruit. This is mainly
due to their flavour, aroma, attractive appearance, and high content of substances that play an
important role in human nutrition. The present study was carried out to determine some important
analytical properties (sugars/sucrose, glucose, fructose and sorbitol), total acid, total phenolics,
flavonoids, antioxidant capacity, carotenoids and anthocyanins of 34 selected peach varieties. The
analyses are also complemented by colorimetric measurements of peach skin colour using CIELAB
and other chromatic parameters. The results show, for example, that all peach varieties are good
sources of phenolic compounds (9.43–577 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE).100 g−1 ), flavonoids
(1.12–95.1 mg catechin equivalent (CAE).100 g−1 ), and antioxidant capacity (136–462 mg Trolox
equivalent (TE).100 g−1 ).
Keywords: Prunus persica L.; colour; chemical contents; antioxidant capacity; sugar
T.; Ercisli, S. Determination of
Selected Beneficial Substances in
Peach Fruits. Sustainability 2021, 13,
14028. https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
su132414028
There are a great variety of peach trees (Prunus persica L.), not only in terms of the
length of ripening period, but also in terms of the pomological characteristics of the fruit,
where we can distinguish yellow-fleshed, white-fleshed, red-fleshed, fully separable from
the stone or clings, flat-shaped varieties, referred to as Peento, that are very popular in
southern Italy and Asia. There are also well-known selections of varieties without any
anthocyanin content, originating in Italy (the ‘ice peach’), and the Californian ‘Royal’ series
of varieties, which are characterised by their very hard flesh and very low acid content,
giving the fruit a sweet taste.
From a nutritional point of view, peaches contain a number of beneficial substances,
making them an interesting addition to the human diet. Peaches are a rich source of dietary
fibre (1.5 g.100 g−1 ) and provitamin A [1]. This fruit is considerably rich in antioxidants
and is an important source of vitamins A, B, and C, carotenoids and phenolic compounds.
Among the most important phenolic acids are chlorogenic and neochlorogenic acids, catechin, epicatechin, 3-glucoside of cyanidin (chrysanthemin), and quercetin derivatives [2–5].
Polyphenols represent the majority of antioxidants present in the diet and their daily intake
should exceed 1 g/day, which is much higher than that of all other classes of phytochemicals and known dietary antioxidants [6]. They are low in fat and contain a lot of water,
approximately 89 g per 100 g of fruit [7,8]. Peaches are very low in sugars (9–20 ◦ Rf), with
the main sugars present being sucrose, fructose, sorbitol, and glucose. The proportions
of these sugars undergo changes during fruit ripening, with glucose and fructose being
present in greater amounts in immature fruit and increasing as ripening progresses. At
full maturity, sucrose content dominates [9–11]. Carbohydrates are an important source
Academic Editor: Rajeev Bhat
Received: 3 November 2021
Accepted: 13 December 2021
Published: 20 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132414028
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
2 of 17
of energy in the human diet and also play an important role in the regulation of the gut
microbiota [12]. They also have low levels of organic acids (0.13–1.16%) such as malic,
citric, and folic acids. The content of L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in peaches is relatively low
compared to other fruits such as kiwifruit or oranges, in which it is the most important antioxidant. Quinic, fumaric, and shikimic acids are present in smaller concentrations [13,14].
Amino acids (arginine, asparagine, isoleucine, lysine, serine, threonine, valine, leucine,
phenylalanine, tryptophan, tyrosine, proline, and alanine) also contribute to the flavour of
fruit and are found in peaches in different concentrations depending on the cultivar [15,16].
Among the mineral elements, they contain nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium,
magnesium, iron, manganese, zinc, cooper, chromium, nickel, cobalt, lead, selenium, and
fluoride [17,18]. Similar to apricots, the glycoside amygdalin (26%), protein amandine
(3.8%), enzymes, lactase, and oleic acids are present in peach kernels. The leaves contain
about 1% prunasin and are used against rheumatism, gastritis, headaches, and as a diuretic;
when used externally, they are effective against eczema, ulcers, and other dermatoses [19].
The potential of peaches, especially those rich in phenolics, lies in delaying or even
preventing the onset of neurogenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
They also help in the prevention of inflammation, atherosclerosis, diabetes, obesity, and
cardiovascular disease. Due to their low sugar content, they can easily be included in
nutritional therapy. They are easily digestible, have a strong alkaline effect on the body,
and stimulate the secretion of digestive juices. They have both a laxative and a diuretic
effect. Peach phenolics have been shown to display several biological activities such as
antioxidant activity [20,21], anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory activities [22], antibacterial
activity [23], hepatoprotective activity [24], nephroprotective activity [25], antiproliferative [26], chemopreventive, and anticancer activities [27,28].
The aim of this study was to compare varieties from different pomological groups
as well as different geographical origins and thus get an overview of the differences in
content composition from the point of view of titratable acidity, soluble solid content,
sugars, phenolic compounds, flavonoids, antioxidant activity, carotenoids, and total anthocyanin content.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site of Planting and Plant Material
In total, 34 peach cultivars of different origin were analysed in this study (Table 1).
20 cultivars from USA, 6 from Yalta, 5 from Italy, 1 from Czech Republic, 1 from France, and
1 from Slovakia. Trees of these cultivars were grown in the experimental orchard at the Faculty of Horticulture in Lednice, Mendel University in Brno (localisation 48.80◦ N/16.80◦ E,
at an altitude of 172 m), with an average annual temperature of 9.7 ◦ C.
Table 1. The cultivars obtained in this study and their flesh colour, fruit type, and origin.
Cultivars
Flesh
Colour
Fruit Type
Origin
Cultivars
Flesh
Colour
Fruit Type
Origin
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
Yellow
White
White
Yellow
Yellow
Creamy
Yellow
White
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
White
Yellow
White
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
Peach
USA
USA
USA
Italy
USA
France
USA
USA
USA
Yalta, Crimea
USA
USA
Italy
Slovakia
USA
USA
USA
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
White
Creamy
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
White
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
White
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
cling
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peach
peento
Italy
Czech Republic
Yalta, Crimea
Yalta, Crimea
USA
Yalta, Crimea
USA
USA
USA
Italy
USA
USA
Yalta, Crimea
Yalta, Crimea
USA
USA
Italy
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
3 of 17
Five fruits from each variety were harvested at their harvest maturity and transported
to the laboratory for chemical analyses.
2.2. Determination of Titratable Acidity
The determination of titratable acidity was performed by potentiometric titration, with
a solution of 0.1 mol.L−1 NaOH of a known factor up to pH 8.1 measured by a combined
SenTix™ 81 pH electrode (WTW™, Prague, Czech Republic) coupled with inoLab 7110 pH
meter (WTW™, Prague, Czech Republic). Titratable acidity was expressed as % malic acid
equivalent [29]. Mixed fruits were used as a sample for titration.
2.3. Preparation of the Plant Samples for Analysis of Total Phenolic Content, Total Flavonoids, and
Total Antioxidant Capacity
Prior to determination of content of secondary metabolites (phenolic compounds,
flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity), methanol extract from fresh fruit material was
performed. Five grams of the sample was homogenized with a hand blender in 25 mL
75% methanol. The extract was left to stand for 24 h and then filtered through a filter
paper into a 50 mL measuring flask. The filtrate was then adjusted to the line with 75%
methanol. Samples were transferred into a 20 mL plastic bottles and kept at −20 ◦ C until
the analysis [30].
2.4. Determination of Total Phenolic Content, Total Flavonoids, and Total Antioxidant Capacity
Analyses of all parameters were carried out according to the protocols of Zloch et al.
(2004) [31] by using a SPECORD® 50 PLUS spectrophotometer (Analytik, Jena, DE). Total
phenolic content was measured after reaction of sample extracts with Folin–Ciocalteu
reagent at a wavelength of 765 nm and expressed in milligrams GAE per 100 g FW. Total
flavonoid content was determined by using chloride and sodium nitrite and the results were
expressed in milligrams CAE per 100 g FW. For determination of total antioxidant activity,
the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method was used. This method is based on the
decolorizing property of the hydrogen radical of DPPH with hydrogen donors, which are
included in phenolic compounds as well. Trolox (6-hydroxy-2.5.7.8-tetramethylchroman-2carboxylic acid) was used as a standard, and the measurement was performed at 515 nm
and then expressed in milligrams TE per 100 g FW.
2.5. Determination of Total Carotenoids
Prior to determination of the carotenoid content, sliced thin fruit sections were dried
in a heat chamber FED 400 (Binder, Tuttlingen DE) at 50 ◦ C for 24 h and pulverised in a
mill Pulverisette 11 (Fritsch, Weimar, DE). Next, acetone was used to extract the pigments
from the samples. Determination of photosynthetically active pigments (carotenoids) was
performed with a SPECORD® 50 PLUS spectrophotometer (Analytic Jena AG, Germany)
at 440 nm according to Holm (1954) [32]. Total carotenoids were expressed in milligrams
per 100 g dry weight (DW).
2.6. Determination of Total Anthocyanin Content (TAC)
The determination of TAC was based on a pH differential method using changes in the
colour of samples containing anthocyanins in various pH value environments. Five grams
of homogenized whole fruit of peach was mixed with 25 mL of 0.1 M HCl. After 1 h of
extraction, the solution was filtered and 0.5 mL of the filtrate was pipetted into 6 test tubes.
A 2.5 mL (0.025 mol.L−1 ) of KCl solution of pH 1 was added into the first 3 test tubes and
2.5 mL (0.4 mol.L−1 ) solution of C2 H3 NaO2 of pH 4.5 was added into the remaining 3 test
tubes. Prepared rest tubes were measured at wavelengths of 510 nm and 700 nm with a
spectrophotometer SPECORD® 50 PLUS (Analytic Jena AG, Germany). The results were
expressed in mg.100 g−1 fresh weight (FW).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
4 of 17
2.7. Determination of Sugar Content
The soluble solids content was determined using the Abbé refractometer and expressed in weight percentage.
The determination of sugar content was performed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Juice was squeezed from the fruit and diluted with distilled water at
a 1:4 ratio (2 mL juice + 8 mL H2 O). The diluted sample was filtered through a microfilter
and analysed. A Clarity chromatography station (Watrex, Prague, Czech Republic) with
a Polymer IEX Ca_SN8422 column (250 × 8 mm; Watrex, Prague, Czech Republic) was
used for making the analysis. The flow rate of the mobile phase (deionized water) was
0.5 mL.min−1 , pressure 1.9 MPa, temperature 80 ◦ C. A refractometric detector was used for
making the evaluation. Fructose, glucose, sucrose, and sorbitol contents were converted
into the fresh weight of plant material and expressed as g sugar per 100 g fruit.
2.8. Colour Analysis
Colour of cleaned skin of 5 fruits was analysed using colorimeter CR-400 (Konica
Minolta® , Tokyo, Japan), equipped with D65 illuminant. The over colour and ground
colour were distinguished where possible within the analysis. The data were processed by
software SpectraMagic NX Lite (Konica Minolta® , Tokyo, Japan). The analysis is based on
CIELAB scale. The colour parameters L*, a*, b* are directly measured in terms of standard
observed and standard illuminant [33], where parameter L* represents the lightness of the
fruit, parameter a* represents the axis in the direction from green to red and parameter b*
represents the axis in the direction from blue to yellow. Values were displayed with the
mean ± standard deviation. Cylindrical coordinates C*ab and h◦ ab were calculated from
coordinates a* and b* by Equations (1) and (2) [34]:
C*ab = (a*2 + b*2 )1/2
(1)
h◦ ab = tan−1 (b*/a*)
(2)
C*ab denotes the purity of saturation of the colour [35], which means the higher is the
chroma (C*ab ) the colour is more intense. Hue angle (h◦ ab ) refers to the colour wheel and is
measured in angles [36]. The colour difference ∆E*ab was accomplished for cultivars with
measurable ground and over colour. Values were displayed with the mean ± standard
deviation of ten replications. Given two colours in the CIELAB colour space, (L*1 , a*1 , b*1 )
and (L*2 , a*2 , b*2 ), the CIE76 colour difference formula is defined as (3):
∆E*ab = (∆L*2 + ∆a*2 + ∆b*2 )1/2
(3)
∆E*ab ≈ 2.3 corresponds to a JND (just noticeable difference) [37].
2.9. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed in Statistica 12 (TIBCO, USA) and Microsoft Excel
software. Single-factor ANOVA analysis (level of significance α = 0.05) was used for
statistical processing and the Tukey HSD test was subsequently used to evaluate the
statistical significance of differences between the individually measured values (TAC and
chromatic parameters L*, a*, b*). Between colour parameters and TAC, the Spearman’s
correlation coefficient ρ was determined using Statistica 12 (TIBCO, USA) and regression
function with coefficient of determination R2 were determined using Microsoft Excel.
3. Results
The highest acid content was recorded in the fruit of the varieties ‘Benedicte’ (1.32%
malic acid), ‘Helene’ (0.91% malic acid), and ‘Royal Majestic’ (0.85% malic acid). The
varieties with the lowest acid content were ‘UFO 3’ (0.25% malic acid), ‘Fidelia’ (0.26%
malic acid) and ‘Royal Glory’ (0.26% malic acid, Figure 1). The average value of the test set
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
5 of 17
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
6 of 18
was 0.59% malic acid. The differences between the varieties were confirmed as statistically
highly significant (Table 2).
Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The photos
photos of
of some
some cultivars
cultivars obtained
obtained in
in this
this study.
study.
Table 2. The total content of titratable acids in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean
± standard deviation of three replications; a–p refer to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Titratable Acidity
[%]
Cultivars
Titratable Acidity [%]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
0.44 ± 0.01 b,c
0.452 ± 0.004 b,c
0.44 ± 0.01 b,c
0.643 ± 0.004 i,j
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
0.676 ± 0.009 j,k,l,m
0.84 ± 0.02 n
0.591 ± 0.007 f,g,h
0.513 ± 0.002 d
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
6 of 17
Table 2. The total content of titratable acids in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the
mean ± standard deviation of three replications; a–p refer to the grouping based on the Tukey
HSD test.
Cultivars
Titratable Acidity
[%]
Cultivars
Titratable Acidity
[%]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
0.44 ± 0.01 b,c
0.452 ± 0.004 b,c
0.44 ± 0.01 b,c
0.643 ± 0.004 i,j
0.61 ± 0.01 g,h,i
1.32 ± 0.04 p
0.58 ± 0.01 f,g
0.691 ± 0.006 k,l,m
0.573 ± 0.005 e,f,g
0.415 ± 0.005 b
0.463 ± 0.006 c
0.428 ± 0.006 b,c
0.645 ± 0.006 i,j,k
0.655 ± 0.001 j,k
0.26 ± 0.01 a
0.712 ± 0.001 l,m
0.910 ± 0.008 o
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
0.676 ± 0.009 j,k,l,m
0.84 ± 0.02 n
0.591 ± 0.007 f,g,h
0.513 ± 0.002 d
0.450 ± 0.002 b,c
0.533 ± 0.002 d,e,f
0.636 ± 0.004 h,i,j
0.72 ± 0.01 m
0.53 ± 0.05 d,e
0.562 ± 0.009 e,f,g
0.264 ± 0.006 a
0.850 ± 0.003 n
0.564 ± 0.005 e,f,g
0.712 ± 0.006 l,m
0.55 ± 0.03 d,e,f
0.668 ± 0.007 j,k,l
0.25 ± 0.02 a
Significantly, the highest representation of total phenolic compounds was found in
fruits of the variety ‘Carolina Belle’ (577.72 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW), then in the variety
‘Krasava’ (334.02 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW, Figure 1), ‘Dixigem’ (285.24 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW,
Figure 1), and in the variety ‘Benedicte’ (238.09 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW). On the other hand,
the lowest values of phenolic compounds content were observed in fruits of ‘Favorita
Morettini’ (9.43 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW), ‘Early Redhaven’ (12.90 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW), and
‘Strelec’ (17.39 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW). In the studied set of cultivars, the total phenolic
content in fruits ranged from 9.43 to 577 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW. The differences between the
values were highly statistically significant (Table 3).
Table 3. Total phenolic content in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard
deviation of three replications; a–w refer to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Total Phenolic
Content [mg
GAE.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Total Phenolic
Content [mg
GAE.100 g−1 ]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
104.4 ± 0.4 m
19 ± 1 c,d
44.6 ± 0.4 f
139.3 ± 0.7 o
162.2 ± 0.8 q
238 ± 1 t
54.8 ± 0.3 g
577 ± 2 w
285.2 ± 0.4 u
110.5 ± 0.3 n
47.0 ± 0.2 f
12.9 ± 0.3 a,b
9.4 ± 0.3 a
80 ± 1 j
86.3 ± 0.9 k
203.0 ± 0.6 s
152.0 ± 0.5 p
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
103.4 ± 0.9 m
334 ± 2 v
18.4 ± 0.4 b,c
66.7 ± 0.6 h
115 ± 2 n
73 ± 2 i
151.2 ± 0.7 p
65.6 ± 0.4 h
193 ± 7 r
72.8 ± 0.3 i
78 ± 4 i,j
95 ± 3 l
34.0 ± 0.4 e
17.39 ± 0.04 b,c
197 ± 2 r
195.0 ± 0.6 r
25 ± 2 d
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
7 of 17
The highest concentration of flavonoids was measured in the fruits of ‘Carolina Belle’
(95.1 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW), ‘Benedicte’ (53.2 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW), and ‘Admiral de
Wey’ (50.8 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW). The lowest values were observed in ‘UFO 3’, ‘Favorita
Morettini’, ‘Alexandra’ and ‘Candor’ (1.12; 3.37; 4.09 and 5.16 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW). The
average flavonoid value in the test set was 22.3 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW. The differences
between the varieties were confirmed as statistically highly significant (Table 4).
Table 4. Total flavonoid content in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard
deviation of three replications; a–v refer to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Flavonoids [mg
CAE.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Flavonoids [mg
CAE.100 g−1 ]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
50.8 ± 0.3 t
4.1 ± 0.5 b,c
27.7 ± 0.2 n
18.0 ± 0.2 k
24.2 ± 0.4 m
53.2 ± 0.5 u
5.16 ± 0.06 c
95.1 ± 0.8 v
35.6 ± 0.2 r
12.7 ± 0.1 i
27.4 ± 0.8 n
8.68 ± 0.09 d,e,f
3.4 ± 0.3 b
7.55 ± 0.08 d
10.0 ± 0.3 g
23.3 ± 0.1 m
18.4 ± 0.4 k
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
12 ± 1 h,i
45.1 ± 0.5 s
10.6± 0.1 g,h
31.8 ± 0.1 p
15.0 ± 0.1 j
9.60 ± 0.09 f,g
20.1 ± 0.1 l
34.1 ± 0.2 q
24.5 ± 0.2 m
8.2 ± 0.1 d,e
9.5 ± 0.7 e,f,g
10.0 ± 0.7 g
14.8 ± 0.2 j
11.8 ± 0.2 h,i
46.1 ± 0.3 s
30.20 ± 0.09 o
1.12 ± 0.02 a
Using the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) method, values of antioxidant activity in peach fruits ranging from 136 to 462 mg TE.100 g−1 FW were determined. Specifically,
the cultivar ‘Carolina Belle’ (249.08 mg TE.100 g−1 FW) had the highest value. All other varieties analysed showed relatively high values. The results varied within a few units. High
values were also found in the fruit of the variety ‘Admiral de Wey’ (280.46 mg TE.100 g−1
FW) and in the variety ‘Dixigem’ (255.61 mg TE.100 g−1 FW). The Czech variety ‘Krasava’
also had high antioxidant capacity (250.07 mg TE.100 g−1 FW). The lowest total antioxidant
capacity was measured in the fruits of ‘Favorita Morettini’ (136.15 mg TE.100 g−1 FW) and
‘Candor’ (150.72 mg TE.100 g−1 FW). The differences in the values were highly statistically
significant (Table 5).
Table 5. Antioxidant activity in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard
deviation of three replications; a–z refer to the grouping based on Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Antioxidant Activity
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Antioxidant Activity
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
280.5 ± 0.2 y
184.09 ± 0.02 k
230.9 ± 0.2 u
203.44 ± 0.09 p
184.54 ± 0.08 k
200.52 ± 0.08 o
150.72 ± 0.06 b
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
184.59 ± 0.09 k
250.1 ± 0.3 w
178.20 ± 0.07 j
211.48 ± 0.09 s
204.4 ± 0.1 q
188.07 ± 0.04 l
210.7 ± 0.1 s
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
8 of 17
Table 5. Cont.
Cultivars
Antioxidant Activity
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Antioxidant Activity
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
462.41 ± 0.84 z
256 ± 1 x
175.11 ± 0.05 h
220.1 ± 0.1 t
164.53 ± 0.06 c
136 ± 0 a
166.76 ± 0.03 d
191.05 ± 0.07 m
203.9 ± 0.1 p,q
173.5 ± 0.1 g
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
206.9 ± 0.1 r
233.1 ± 0.2 v
169.16 ± 0.06 e
165.0 ± 0.3 c
199.84 ± 0.05 o
176.8 ± 0.1 i
195.18 ± 0.05 n
231.07 ± 0.06 u
233.9 ± 0.2 v
172.01 ± 0.05 f
The average carotenoids content in the fruits of the studied varieties reached
1.67g.100 g−1 DW. The varieties with the highest carotenoids (4.77 mg.100 g−1 DW) include
fruits of the variety ‘Romea’ (3.50 mg.100 g−1 DW, Figure 1), followed by fruits of the variety ‘Royal Majestic’ (3.14 mg.100 g−1 DW), ‘Favorita Morettini’ (3.12 mg.100 g−1 DW), and
‘Early Redhaven’ (3.12 mg.100 g−1 DW). On the other hand, the lowest total carotenoids
content was determined in the fruits of ‘Krasava’, ‘Fidelia’, and ‘Anita’ (0.05; 0.24 and
0.24 mg.100 g−1 DW). Total carotenoids content was not detected in the cultivars ‘Benedicte’ and ‘Royal Glory’. The differences between the varieties were confirmed as statistically highly significant (Table 6).
Table 6. Total carotenoids in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard
deviation of three replications; a–j refer to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Carotenoids
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Carotenoids
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
2.20 ± 0.04 d,e,f,g
0.45 ± 0.04 a,b
0.24 ± 0.02 a,b
1.1 ± 0.2 c
2.0 ± 0.1 d,e
*
2.46 ± 0.03 e,f,g
0.36 ± 0.02 a,b
2.47 ± 0.04 f,g
1.88 ± 0.04 d
2.0 ± 0.01 d,e,f
3.12 ± 0.01 h,i
3.14 ± 0.06 i
3.03 ± 0.04 h,i
0.24 ± 0.06 a,b
2.64 ± 0.04 g,h
0.31 ± 0.03 a,b
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
0.40 ± 0.01 a,b
0.05 ± 0.59 a
2.13 ± 0.02 d,e,f
1.8 ± 0.6 d
1.88 ± 0.06 d
0.56 ± 0.01 b
2.24 ± 0.03 d,e,f,g
0.67 ± 0.03 b,c
2.27 ± 0.05 d,e,f,g
4.8 ± 0.2 j
*
3.51 ± 0.05 i
2.26 ± 0.05 d,e,f,g
1.904 ± 0.009 d
2.300 ± 0.003 a,b
2.12 ± 0.02 d,e,f
0.30 ± 0.03 a,b
* Not measured.
High levels of anthocyanins were measured in the fruits of ‘Helene’ (3.74 mg.100 g−1
FW), ‘Royal Majestic’ (2.64 mg.100 g−1 FW), and ‘Favorita Morettini’ (2.13 mg.100 g−1
FW). On the other hand, low values were recorded in fruits of ‘Early Redhaven’, ‘UFO 3’,
‘Dostojnyj’, ‘Strelec’ and ‘Admiral de Wey’ (0.05; 0.05 0.14; 0.18 mg.100 g−1 FW). The average
value of total anthocyanins of the tested set of varieties reached 0.70 mg.100 g−1 FW. The
differences between the varieties were confirmed as statistically highly significant (Table 7).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
9 of 17
Table 7. Total anthocyanin content (TAC) in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ±
standard deviation of three replications; a–p refer to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Total Anthocyanin
Content
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Cultivars
Total Anthocyanin
Content
[mg.100 g−1 ]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
0.2 ± 0.4 a,b,c,d,e
1.4 ± 0.3 l,m
1.65 ± 0.06 m
0.63 ± 0.06 f,g,h,i
1.2 ± 0.2 k,l,m
*
0.26 ± 0.07 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.95 ± 0.03 i,j,k
0.5 ± 0.1 c,d,e,f,g,h
0.14 ± 0.04 a,b,c
0.9 ± 0.3 h,i,j,k
0.05 ± 0.03 a,b
2.13 ± 0.08 n
0.37 ± 0.03 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.55 ± 0.07 d,e,f,g,h,i
0.2 ± 0.1 a,b,c,d,e,f
3.7 ± 0.2 p
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
1.13 ± 0.08 j,k,l
*
*
0.5 ± 0.1 c,d,e,f,g,h
0.47 ± 0.06 c,d,e,f,g,h
*
0.58 ± 0.06 e,f,g,h,i
0.56 ± 0.04 d,e,f,g,h,i
*
*
1.3 ± 0.2 k,l,m
2.6 ± 0.1 o
0.815 ± 0.003 g,h,i,j
0.17 ± 0.03 a,b,c,d
0.4 ± 0.1 b,c,d,e,f,g
0.38 ± 0.05 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.05 ± 0.06 a,b
* Not measured.
In the set of varieties studied, the total soluble solids content of the fruit ranged from
8.3 to 14.7 ◦ Rf. The varieties with the highest content were ‘Royal Majestic’ (14.7 ◦ Rf),
followed by ‘Helene’ (13.8 ◦ Rf) and ‘Nerine’ (13.7 ◦ Rf). The lowest values of the evaluated
set of varieties were measured for the fruits of the ‘Fénix’ variety (8.3 ◦ Rf, Figure 1),
‘Krasava’ and ‘Romea’, which had the same soluble solids value for both varieties (9.2 ◦ Rf).
The differences in the values found were highly statistically significant (Table 8).
Table 8. Soluble solid content (SSC) in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard
deviation of three replications; a–k refer to the grouping based on Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Soluble Solid
Content [◦ Rf]
Cultivars
Soluble Solid
Content [◦ Rf]
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
10.7 ± 0.6 b,c,d
10.2 ± 0.3 a,b
11.8 ± 0.8 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
12.2 ± 0.3 c,d,e,f,g,h,i
11.30 ± 1.04 b,c,d,e,f
15.7 ± 0.3 k
12.3 ± 0.3 d,e,f,g,h,i
11.8 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
11.8 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
13.2 ± 0.3 f,g,h,i,j
10.3 ± 0.3 b,c
11.7 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e,f,g
11.8 ± 0.8 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
8.3 ± 0.5 a
12.1 ± 0.5 c,d,e,f,g,h,i
12.2 ± 0.3 c,d,e,f,g,h,i
13.8 ± 0.3 i,j,k
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
12.5 ± 0.5 d,e,f,g,h,i
12.2 ± 0.3 c,d,e,f,g,h,i
12.3 ± 0.3 d,e,f,g,h,i
13.5 ± 0.5 g,h,i,j
13.7 ± 0.8 h,i,j
12.0 ± 0.5 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i
11.0 ± 0.9 b,c,d,e
10.8 ± 0.8 b,c,d
13 ± 1 e,f,g,h,i,j
11.8 ± 0.8 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
13.3 ± 0.6 g,h,i,j
14.7 ± 0.3 j,k
13.5 ± 0.5 g,h,i,j
12.8 ± 0.3 e,f,g,h,i,j
13.8 ± 0.8 i,j,k
11.2 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e
10.8 ± 0.3 b,c,d
The average sucrose, glucose, fructose, and sorbitol contents of the fruit were determined for each variety. The average sucrose content was 9.62 g.100 g−1 FW. The highest
sucrose content was measured in the varieties ‘Narjadnyj Nikitskiy’ (16.57 g.100 g−1 ) and
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
10 of 17
‘Sonet’ (16.44 g.100 g−1 ). The lowest contents were observed in the cultivars ‘Alexandra’,
‘Suncrest’(Figure 1), and ‘Iris Rosso’ (4.89, 4.69 and 4.66 g.100 g−1 , respectively). The glucose content ranged from 0.74 to 3.67 g.100 g−1 . The highest contents were determined in
the varieties ‘Sunshine’ (3.67 g.100 g−1 ) and ‘Admiral de Wey’ (3.50 g.100 g−1 ). The lowest
content was measured in the varieties ‘UFO 3’ (0.82 g.100 g−1 ) and ‘Nerine’ (0.74 g.100 g−1 ).
The average value of glucose content was 1.94 g.100 g−1 . In the studied set of varieties,
the total fructose content ranged from 0.48 to 2.39 g.100 g−1 , with an average value of
1.37 g.100 g−1 . The highest content was measured in the cultivars ‘Sunshine’ and ‘Dixigem’ (2.39 and 2.36 g.100 g−1 ). The lowest fructose content was observed in the variety
‘UFO 3’ (0.48 g.100 g−1 ). The average value of alcoholic sugar sorbitol in our study was
0.23 g.100 g−1 . The variety ‘Benedicte’ greatly exceeded all other varieties in sorbitol
content, with its content being determined at 1.57 g.100 g−1 . Very low amounts were
measured in the cultivars ‘Lakomyj’, ‘Nerine’, ‘Iris Rosso’, and ‘Alexandra’ (0.09; 0.09; 0.08
and 0.06 g.100 g−1 ). The differences in the values found were highly statistically significant
(Table 9).
Table 9. Sugars in peach cultivars. The data are displayed as the mean ± standard deviation of three replications; a–p refer
to the grouping based on the Tukey HSD test.
Cultivars
Sucrose (g.100 g−1 )
Glucose (mg.100 g−1 )
Fructose (mg.100 g−1 )
Sorbitol (g.100 g−1 )
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
Redhaven
Romea
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
Strelec
Suncrest
Sunshine
UFO 3
14.6 ± 0.2 m,n
4.9 ± 0.1 a,b
12.2 ± 0.6 k
6.6 ± 0.1 c,d,e
7.22 ± 0.07 c,d,e,f,g,h
8.06 ± 0.04 f,g,h,i
7.0 ± 0.3 c,d,e,f,g
8.09 ± 0.06 g,h,i
15.3 ± 0.3 m,n,o,p
16 ± 1 n,o,p
6.80 ± 0.08 c,d,e,f
13.09 ± 0.05 k,l
15.57 ± 0.03 n,o,p
6.11 ± 0.09 b,c
7.86 ± 0.05 e,f,g,h,i
8.8 ± 0.2 i,j
7.1 ± 0.5 c,d,e,f,g,h
4.7 ± 0.3 a
6.6 ± 0.3 c,d,e
7.03 ± 0.03 c,d,e,f,g,h
16.6 ± 0.3 p
7.3 ± 0.3 c,d,e,f,g,h
12.83 ± 0.05 k,l
14.1 ± 0.5 l,m
7.621 ± 0.004 d,e,f,g,h,i
8.73 ± 0.03 i,j
9.7 ± 0.2 j
7.39 ± 0.08 c,d,e,f,g,h
8.3 ± 0.7 h,i
16 ± 1 o,p
6.5 ± 0.3 c,d
4.7 ± 0.1 a
15.3 ± 0.1 m,n,o
8.19 ± 0.03 g,h,i
3.5 ± 0.2 j,k
1.24 ± 0.06 a,b,c,d
2.8 ± 0.4 g,h
1.3 ± 0.1 a,b,c,d
1.71 ± 0.06 d,e
3.37 ± 0.03 i,j,k
1.22 ± 0.03 a,b,c,d
2.288 ± 0.007 f,g
3.4 ± 0.1 k
2.7 ± 0.7 f,g,h
1.31 ± 0.07 b,c,d
2.393 ± 0.006 f,g
2.72 ± 0.02 f,g,h
1.20 ± 0.02 a,b,c,d
1.38 ± 0.03 b,c,d
1.71 ± 0.05 d,e
1.12 ± 0.02 a,b,c
1.4 ± 0.4 c,d
1.4 ± 0.2 c,d
1.26 ± 0.04 a,b,c,d
2.9 ± 0.2 g,h,i
0.740 ± 0.005 a
2.16 ± 0.08 e,f
3.1 ± 0.3 h,i,j,k
1.47 ± 0.03 c,d
1.56 ± 0.04 c,d
1.57 ± 0.03 c,d
1.462 ± 0.003 c,d
1.3 ± 0.1 b,c,d
3.1 ± 0.4 h,i,j
1.14 ± 0.04 a,b,c,d
1.50 ± 0.05 c,d
3.67 ± 0.03 k
0.819 ± 0.006 a,b
2.22 ± 0.08 j,k
0.92 ± 0.04 b,c,d,e
2.24 ± 0.05 j,k
0.99 ± 0.02 b,c,d,e
1.12 ± 0.05 b,c,d,e,f
1.9 ± 0.1 i,j
1.0 ± 0.1 b,c,d,e
1.4 ± 0.2 f,g,h
2.36 ± 0.05 k
1.85 ± 0.09 h,i,j
1.03 ± 0.04 b,c,d,e
1.7 ± 0.1 g,h,i
1.45 ± 0.01 f,g,h
0.80 ± 0.01 a,b
1.32 ± 0.05 e,f,g
1.1 ± 0.1 b,c,d,e,f
0.90 ± 0.03 b,c,d
1.0 ± 0.1 b,c,d,e
1.25 ± 0.07 c,d,e,f
0.9 ± 0.2 a,b,c
2.0 ± 0.4 i,j,k
0.90 ± 0.06 b,c,d
1.69 ± 0.01 g,h,i
2.0 ± 0.2 i,j,k
0.9 ± 0.1 b,c,d,e
1.11 ± 0.04 b,c,d,e,f
1.14 ± 0.09 b,c,d,e,f
1.2 ± 0.1 c,d,e,f
1.1 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e,f
2.0 ± 0.2 i,j,k
0.86 ± 0.08 a,b,c
1.30 ± 0.03 d,e,f,g
2.4 ± 0.1 k
0.475 ± 0.009 a
0.18 ± 0.05 d,e,f,g,h,i,j
0.055 ± 0.002 a
0.17 ± 0.02 c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
0.151 ± 0.007 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
0.16 ± 0.02 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i
1.57 ± 0.03 o
0.12 ± 0.02 a,b,c,d,e
0.28 ± 0.02 k,l,m
0.29 ± 0.02 k,l,m
0.17 ± 0.07 c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
0.114 ± 0.002 a,b,c,d,e
0.13 ± 0.01 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.21 ± 0.01 f,g,h,i,j,k
0.128 ± 0.002 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.28 ± 0.01 k,l,m
0.23 ± 0.03 h,i,j,k
0.24 ± 0.01 i,j,k,l
0.077 ± 0.003 a,b
0.22 ± 0.01 g,h,i,j,k
0.092 ± 0.004 a,b,c,d
0.16 ± 0.02 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i
0.087 ± 0.005 a,b,c
0.181 ± 0.002 e,f,g,h,i,j
0.33 ± 0.09 l,m
0.2 ± 0.0 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
0.138 ± 0.001 a,b,c,d,e,f,g
0.144 ± 0.009 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
0.21 ± 0.03 f,g,h,i,j,k
0.44 ± 0.05 n
0.25 ± 0.02 j,k,l
0.144 ± 0.007 b,c,d,e,f,g,h
0.124 ± 0.002 a,b,c,d,e,f
0.34 ± 0.02 m
0.21 ± 0.03 f,g,h,i,j,k
Colorimetric parameters L*, a*, b* for the basic skin colour of the fruit were measured
for all varieties. In the varieties ‘Alexandra’, ‘Anita’, ‘Helene’, ‘Iris Rosso’, ‘Royal Glory’
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
11 of 17
and ‘Royal Majestic’, the skin was completely covered by the blush. The average values
of L*, a*, b* are summarised in Table 10. The highest values of L* were found for the basic
colour in the varieties ‘Krasava’, ‘Aurelia’, ‘Sunshine’ and for the cheek in the varieties
‘Romea’, ‘Dostojnyj’, ‘Carolina Belle’. In our study the highest value of a* were found for
‘Nerine’, ‘Admiral de Wey’, ‘Avalon Pride’, the lowest value were found for ‘Krasava’,
‘Otličnik’, ‘Carolina Belle’ and ‘Queen Lady’. For chromatic parameter b* the highest
values were measured for ‘Romea’, ‘Otličnik’, ‘Lakomyj’ and the lowest values were found
for ‘Fidelia’, ‘UFO 3’ and ‘Red Robin’. Colour intensity is represented by the chromatic
parameter C*ab , which was determined using the chromatic parameters a* and b*, and its
highest values were found for the basic colour of ‘Romea’, ‘Otličnik’, ‘Lakomyj’ and for
the cheek colour of ‘Romea’, ‘Sunshine’, ‘Admiral de Wey’. From the measured values for
base colour and cheek colour, the greatest colour difference ∆E*ab (Table 11) was found for
the cultivars ‘Otličnik’, ‘Lakomyj’, ‘Queen Lady’. These varieties had the richest cheeks
when compared to the base colour. On the other hand, the lowest ∆E*ab were found for
the varieties ‘Red Robin’, ‘Romea’, ‘UFO 3’, where the cheek almost merged with the base
colour. Figure 2 captures the exact colour found in the L*, a*, b* coordinates.
Table 10. The average values of individual chromatic parameters for peach skin ground colour and
over colour of peach.
Ground Colour
L*
a*
b*
C*
h*
Average
Deviation
69.3
3.83
7.17
7.12
43.8
8.04
45.0
7.67
0.96
1.01
Over colour
L*
a*
b*
C*
h*
Average
Deviation
36.5
4.83
29.8
4.67
17.0
5.44
34.5
6.06
0.51
0.11
Table 11. Values of chromatic parameters for ground colour skin and over colour skin of the peach cultivars.
Ground Colour
Over Colour
Cultivar
L*
a*
b*
C*
h
L*
a*
b*
C*
h
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Lakomyj
Narjadnyj Nikitskij
Nerine
Otličnik
Queen Lady
Red Robin
65.5
73.6
67.5
72.5
68.7
71.9
73.2
69.9
72.6
72.4
64.1
65.9
66.7
69.2
74.5
73.1
62.3
64.9
71.6
69.9
59.8
19.3
1.96
16.8
0.36
10.8
−2.44
9.21
0.78
9.38
8.69
10.3
9.11
16.2
7.98
−6.95
0.71
13.1
20.3
−6.38
−2.00
11.4
39.1
50.8
40.8
29.8
44.3
32.3
47.6
52.4
45.9
48.9
43.6
43.2
28.5
48.0
33.8
52.7
43.1
45.8
53.5
47.2
29.2
43.6
50.8
44.1
29.8
45.7
32.4
48.5
52.4
46.9
49.7
44.8
44.1
32.8
48.6
34.5
52.7
45.0
50.1
53.9
47.2
31.3
1.1
1.53
1.18
1.56
1.33
−1.50
1.38
1.56
1.37
1.40
1.34
1.36
1.05
1.41
−1.37
1.56
1.28
1.15
−1.45
−1.53
1.20
35.8
29.1
36.0
39.6
37.8
33.1
35.3
42.5
37.4
48.4
39.4
36.8
39.0
35.5
33.0
36.0
30.8
33.2
40.1
37.7
35.0
37.8
37.5
34.3
36.2
37.6
21.9
33.5
30.0
33.6
32.1
33.7
29.6
29.3
25.7
31.8
33.1
25.3
27.9
33.0
30.0
28.5
16.0
34.1
35.3
29.7
34.8
26.8
29.3
30.1
18.0
10.2
15.5
19.1
18.2
16.6
17.3
18.8
14.5
32.5
18.8
19.0
13.4
17.1
14.9
15.7
12.3
7.01
19.9
20.6
16.9
20.3
16.5
16.0
16.2
41.7
24.2
37.0
35.6
38.2
36.1
37.9
35.1
32.7
41.4
37.0
38.2
28.6
32.7
36.2
33.9
31.0
17.5
39.5
40.9
34.2
40.3
31.4
33.4
34.2
0.45
0.43
0.43
0.57
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.57
0.46
0.90
0.53
0.52
0.49
0.55
0.42
0.48
0.41
0.41
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.53
0.55
0.50
0.49
∆E*ab
40.8
54.3
41.0
52.3
48.6
45.5
52.7
38.4
48.4
52.5
42.1
44.2
40.0
51.3
55.4
58.9
41.4
39.9
60.2
56.8
32.7
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
12 of 17
Table 11. Cont.
Ground Colour
Cultivar
L*
a*
Redhaven
71.3
9.62
Romea
71.9
13.7
Royal Glory
Royal Majestic
Sonet
66.5
6.81
Strelec
69.5
4.39
Suncrest
70.9
5.23
Sunshine
4.27
Sustainability
2021, 13, x FOR73.7
PEER REVIEW
UFO 3
65.7
8.29
Over Colour
b*
C*
h
L*
a*
b*
C*
h
49.3
54.5
48.3
47.8
50.2
48.4
28.8
50.3
56.2
48.8
48.0
50.5
48.6
29.9
1.38
1.32
1.43
1.48
1.47
1.48
1.29
37.1
50.4
25.6
27.0
37.4
34.1
35.2
39.0
36.3
30.6
32.1
30.0
20.3
32.5
28.3
25.3
36.4
23.8
18.8
33.1
10.0
7.17
20.9
14.3
13.6
21.8
12.1
35.9
46.1
31.6
21.6
38.6
31.7
28.7
42.4
26.7
0.55
0.80
0.32
0.34
0.57
0.47
0.49
0.54
0.47
∆E*ab
50.4
35.5
47.5
54.3
54.0
54.3of 18
13
37.2
Figure 2.
2. Values
Values of
of ∆E*
ΔE*ab of
individual peach cultivars. The ground colour is shown in the lower part of the column, and
Figure
ab of individual peach cultivars. The ground colour is shown in the lower part of the column, and
over
colour
is
shown
in
the
upper
part according
according to
to the
the measured
measuredcoordinates
coordinatesL*,
L*,a*,
a*,b*.
b*.
over colour is shown in the upper part
Table 11. Values of chromatic parameters for ground colour skin and over colour skin of the peach cultivars.
4. Discussion
Cultivar
Admiral de Wey
Alexandra
Anita
Aurelia
Avalon Pride
Benedicte
Candor
Carolina Belle
Dixigem
Dostojnyj
Early Glo
Early Redhaven
Favorita Morettini
Fénix
Fidelia
Harvester
Helene
Iris Rosso
Krasava
Ground Colour
Over
Colour
The acid content of fruit is a key
quality
parameter and is an important factor in
ΔE*ab
determining
the
taste
of
the
fruit.
Titratable
acidity
of organic
L*
a*
b*
C*
h
L*
a* indicates
b* the concentration
C*
h
fruit. Peaches
a very low
organic41.7
acids. The
65.5 acids
19.3present
39.1in the43.6
1.1 have
35.8
37.6level of18.0
0.45total titratable
40.8
acid- content
0.26 to 1.32%
- found -in our set- of varieties
29.1 ranged
21.9 from 10.2
24.2 malic
0.43acid on-fresh
weight.
These
results found
publications.
Scordino
- values- are similar
- to the
36.0
33.5 in many
15.5 other
37.0
0.43
et al. (2012) [38] reported TA contents ranging from 0.52–0.86% malic acid in Sicilian
73.6
1.96
50.8
50.8
1.53
39.6
30.0
19.1
35.6
0.57
54.3
yellow flesh peaches on fresh weight. Similar values were also found in the work by
67.5
16.8
40.8
44.1
1.18
37.8
33.6
18.2
38.2
0.50
41.0
Tomás-Barberán et al. (2010) [39], where the contents ranged from 0.53–0.97% malic acid
72.5
0.36
29.8
29.8
1.56
33.1
32.1
16.6
36.1
0.48
52.3
in yellow flesh peaches on fresh weight, and 0.15–0.34% malic acid in white flesh peaches
68.7 on10.8
44.3
45.7et al. 1.33
35.3
33.7 the17.3
37.9 between
0.48 white48.6and
fresh weight.
Gil
(2002) [40]
investigated
differences
71.9 yellow-fleshed
−2.44 32.3 peach
32.4cultivars
−1.50
29.6 The 18.8
35.1 content
0.57 found45.5
grown42.5
in California.
average TAC
in the
73.2 white-fleshed
9.21
47.6 varieties
48.5 was 1.38
37.4
29.3
14.5
32.7
0.46
52.7
0.22%, and in the yellow-fleshed varieties it was 0.69%.
69.9
0.78In a 52.4
52.4by Cantin
1.56 et al.48.4
25.7the total
32.5phenolic
41.4content
0.90ranged
38.4
publication
(2009) [41],
from
−
1
−
1
72.6 12.7
9.38to 71.3
45.9
46.9
39.4an average
31.8 of 36.4
18.8 mg GAE.100
37.0
0.53
FW, with
g FW.48.4
In our
mg GAE.100
g 1.37
1 FW. Marinova
of cultivars,
content
mg GAE.100
72.4 selected
8.69 set
48.9
49.7 the average
1.40
36.8 reached
33.1 122.4
19.0
38.2 g−
0.52
52.5
et
al.
(2005)
[42]
investigated
the
determination
of
all
phenolic
compounds
in
fruit
grown
64.1
10.3
43.6
44.8
1.34
39.0
25.3
13.4
28.6
0.49
42.1
−1 FW, and
in
Bulgaria.
The
total
phenolic
content
in
peach
fruits
was
50.9
mg
GAE.100
g
65.9
9.11
43.2
44.1
1.36
35.5
27.9
17.1
32.7
0.55
44.2
−1 FW). Another
reached
by figs—Ficus
carica
mg GAE.100
66.7 similar
16.2 values
28.5 were
32.8
1.05
33.0
33.0 (59.014.9
36.2 g 0.42
40.0
69.2
7.98
48.0
48.6
1.41
36.0
30.0
15.7
33.9
0.48
51.3
30.8
28.5
12.3
31.0
0.41
33.2
16.0
7.01
17.5
0.41
74.5 −6.95 33.8
34.5
−1.37
40.1
34.1
19.9
39.5
0.53
55.4
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
13 of 17
publication by Saidani et al. (2017) [43] dealt with the determination of phenolic compounds separately in the peel and in the pulp. In the peel, contents ranging from 88.9 to
277 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW were determined, while in the pulp, contents ranging from 25.1
to 139 mg GAE.100 g−1 FW were determined. Previously, Zhao et al. (2015) [44] monitored
the content of total phenolics in selected Chinese peach cultivars, ranging from 4.58 to
12.68 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE).100 g−1 DW in the peel and from 0.82 to 6.52 mg
GAE.100 g−1 DW in the pulp.
The obtained results of total flavonoids content in the tested set of varieties ranged
from 1.1 to 95.1 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW. Di Vaio et al. (2015) [45] determined the total
flavonoid content, and it ranged from 35.05-58.85 g CAE.kg−1 FW within the test set.
In another publication by Cantin et al. (2009) [40], total flavonoid content ranged from
1.8 to 30.9 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW, with an average of 8.8 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW. Marinova
et al. (2005) [42] investigated the determination of all phenolic compounds, as well as
flavonoids in crops grown in Bulgaria. The total flavonoid content in peach fruits was
15.0 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW; similar values are seen in figs—Ficus carica (20.2 mg CAE.100 g−1
FW) and sweet cherries (19.6 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW). The highest representation of flavonoids
was found in this work in blueberries (190.3 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW). Saidani et al. (2017) [43]
determined the flavonoid content in the skin of peach fruits to be between 39 and 245 mg
CAE.100 g−1 FW, and in the flesh between 8.18 and 112 mg CAE.100 g−1 FW.
Analyses of antioxidant components in products are fast becoming a recognized
profile, primarily emphasizing antioxidant capacity as a quality index for many fruits and
vegetables. The high phenolic content showed an increased antioxidant capacity in the
studied varieties. The average value of antioxidant capacity determined by the DPPH
(1-diphenyl-2,2-picrylhydrazyl) method showed values of 205.7 mg TE.100 g−1 FW. The
authors of Di Vaio et al. (2015) [45] determined average antioxidant capacity values of
111.1 mg TE.100 g−1 FW in four peach cultivars. Saidani et al. (2017) [43], in a tested set of
peach cultivars, determined the antioxidant capacity value in the skin of the fruit ranging
from 133 to 401 mg TE.100 g−1 FW, and in the flesh ranging from 22.7 to 194 mg TE.100 g−1
FW. Zhao et al. (2015) [44] found antioxidant capacity contents in Chinese peach cultivars
from 6.35 to 19.84 mg trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TE).100 g−1 DW in the peel
and from 1.05 to 15.01 mg TE.100 g−1 DW in the pulp.
The content of carotenoids (especially β-carotene, zeaxanthin, lutein, neoxanthin)
and anthocyanins increases with fruit maturity, largely due to the colouring of the fruit
(formation of the cheek). The results obtained for total anthocyanin content in the tested
set of cultivars ranged from 0.04 to 3.74 mg.100 g−1 FW. Cantín et al. (2009) [41] monitored
the content of total anthocyanins in selected cultivars and found contents ranging between
0.1 and 26.7 mg of C3GE.kg−1 FW (0.1-26.7 mg of cyanidin-3-glucoside equiv. (C3GE)
per kg of FW). In another publication by Saidani et al. (2017) [43], they discussed the
determination of total anthocyanins separately in the peel and in the pulp. The average
anthocyanin content in the peel was 5.53 mg C3GE.100 g−1 FW, while in the pulp the
average content was 0.37 mg C3GE.100 g−1 FW. In other research on total anthocyanin
content in apricot fruits, Rababah et al. (2011) [46] reported an average anthocyanin content
of 2.54 mg.100 g−1 FW, whereas Contessa et al. (2013) [47] reported an anthocyanin content
of 0.99 mg C3GE.100 g−1 FW.
The carotenoids content found in the set of cultivars ranged from 0.00 to
4.77 mg.100 g−1 DW. Gil et al. (2002) [40] observed differences in carotenoids content
between white- and yellow-skinned peach cultivars. The average carotenoids content
found in white-fleshed cultivars was 11.6 µg.100 g−1 , while in yellow-fleshed cultivars
it was 131.6 µg.100 g−1 . Vizzotto et al. (2007) [48] also found higher carotenoids content
in genotypes with yellow flesh (0.8 to 3.7 milligrams β-carotene per 100 g tissue) than in
peaches with white flesh (0.0 to 0.1 milligrams β-carotene per 100 g tissue).
Soluble solid content (SSC) is an important characteristic of fruit, as it is closely related
to consumer satisfaction and how well the fruit is liked. Zhao et al. (2015) [44] evaluated the
soluble solid content of different Chinese peach cultivars; their findings ranged from 8.34
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
14 of 17
to 15.48 ◦ Rf. These results are similar to ours, with values ranging from 8.30 to 14.70 ◦ Rf
in our set of cultivars. In another work, Gil et al. (2002) [40] investigated the differences
between white- and yellow-fleshed peach cultivars grown in California. The average SSC
content found in the white-fleshed varieties was 11.22 ◦ Rf, while in the yellow-fleshed
varieties it was 11.90 ◦ Rf. For the Spanish varieties, Legua et al. (2011) [49] found SSC
contents between 9.98 and 18.36 ◦ Rf. Tavarini et al. (2008) [50] determined an average SSC
value of 12.42 ◦ Rf for Italian varieties.
In this study, sucrose, glucose, fructose, and sorbitol were determined as the basic
sugars of peaches and there were differences found among the cultivars (Table 10). The
mean values of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and sorbitol were 9.62 g.100 g−1 , 1.94 g.100 g−1 ,
1.37 g.100 g−1 and 0.23 g.100 g−1 , respectively. These values are very similar to those
determined by Forcada et al. (2014) [9]. The values found ranged from 3.5–9.8 g.100 g−1
sucrose, 0.4–1.5 g.100 g−1 glucose, 0.2–1.4 g.100 g−1 fructose, and 0.2–3.5 g.100 g−1 sorbitol.
Nowicka et al. (2019) [51] investigated the sugar content of 20 peach cultivars. They
determined sucrose content ranging from 3.4–5.4 g.100 g−1 , glucose 0.27–0.84 g.100 g−1 ,
fructose 0.41–1.03 g.100 g−1 , and sorbitol content ranging from 0.15–0.74 g.100 g−1 . Colaric et al. (2005) [13] determined sucrose levels between 46.14-66.92 g.kg−1 in some
nectarine and peach cultivars. Cantin et al. (2009) [41] determined a similar sucrose content
(47.10–64.00 g.kg−1 ), and further investigated the determination of glucose (5.60–8.00 g.kg−1 )
and fructose (6.9–10.3 g.kg−1 ) in peach and nectarine fruits. Gecer (2020) [52] measured sucrose (5216.3–9122.4 mg.100 g−1 ), glucose (721.7–1902.1 mg.100 g−1 ), and fructose (325.7–1048.1 mg.100 g−1 ) in some peach and nectarine cultivars. Robertson et al.
(1990) [53] determined the average sorbitol content in yellow-fleshed cultivars, 0.46% and
in white-fleshed cultivars, 0.37%. The colour of the fruit is an important parameter that
influences the attractiveness of the fruit to consumers. A colorimetric analysis can also proSustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
16 of 18
vide information on the degree of ripeness of the fruit. The colour of peaches using CIELAB
was measured in studies before [54–57]. The value of a* has been suggested as colour index
maturity [54]. The study was associated with changes of a* with chlorophyl degradation
associated
with changes
of a* withcontent.
chlorophyl
degradation
and an of
increase
of anthocyanin
and an increase
of anthocyanin
Because
of low values
anthocyanin
in most
content.
of low
values
anthocyanin
in most
cultivars
peaches,parameter
Ferrer et al.
cultivarsBecause
of peaches,
Ferrer
et al.of(2010)
[55] found
that changes
ofof
chromatic
b*
(2010)
found
that changes
of chromatic
can be acorrelated
good indicator
of ripecan be [55]
a good
indicator
of ripeness
of peach parameter
fruit. Theseb*changes
to an increase
ness
of peach fruit.
TheseInchanges
correlated
to an increase
of carotenoids
pigments.and
In
of carotenoids
pigments.
our study
the correlation
relationship
between carotenoids
our
study the
correlation
relationship
between
carotenoids
and chromatic
parameter
b*
chromatic
parameter
b* with
a correlation
coefficient
R = 0.7951
and C* with
R = 0.8051
with
correlation
R = 0.7951
and C*and
with‘Aurelia’
R = 0.8051
were
found (Figure
3). The
were afound
(Figurecoefficient
3). The cultivars
‘Otličnik’
were
accomplished
as outliers
and they ‘Otličnik’
are not included
in the correlations;
this canas
beoutliers
attributed
insufficient
maturity
cultivars
and ‘Aurelia’
were accomplished
andtothey
are not included
of the
these
two cultivars.
in
correlations;
this can be attributed to insufficient maturity of these two cultivars.
Figure
3. Relationship
and total
total carotenoids
carotenoids content
content (TCC)
(TCC) in
in peach
peach cultivars.
cultivars. Blue
Blue points
points represent
represent
Figure 3.
Relationship between
between b*,
b*, C*ab,
C*ab , and
correlation
between b*
b* and
and TCC,
TCC, orange
orange points
points represent
represent correlation
correlationbetween
betweenC*
C*aband
andTCC.
TCC.
correlation between
ab
5. Conclusions
Peach fruits have an important specific nutritional status among stone fruits. This
means that peaches can serve as a source of sugars, mainly sucrose, as well as phenolics,
carotenoids, and anthocyanins, and can also provide valuable antioxidants. The Czech
‘Krasava’ variety was found to be a variety that has a very high content of titratable acids,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
15 of 17
5. Conclusions
Peach fruits have an important specific nutritional status among stone fruits. This
means that peaches can serve as a source of sugars, mainly sucrose, as well as phenolics,
carotenoids, and anthocyanins, and can also provide valuable antioxidants. The Czech
‘Krasava’ variety was found to be a variety that has a very high content of titratable
acids, phenolics, flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity. It can be said that this variety is
very interesting from a biochemical point of view and offers a certain potential. Peach
consumption represents one of the main fruit incomes during the summer months and is
subject to seasonal demand, i.e., the short period of availability in the year. While pome
fruits may form the bulk of typical dietary intake during longer periods of the year, peaches
are only a seasonal concern.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M. and E.R.; methodology, M.M. and P.Š.; formal analysis, M.M. and P.Š.; investigation, M.M.; resources, I.O.; data curation, M.M and E.R.; writing—original
draft preparation, M.M. and E.R.; writing—review and editing, M.M. and S.E.; supervision, T.N.;
funding acquisition, T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received external funding from project by activity no. 6.2.10 ref. 51834/2017MZE-17253, subprogram “National Program of Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources and Agrobiodiversity,” which is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This research used the infrastructure acquired by the project CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/
16_017/0002334 Research Infrastructure for Young Scientists, which is co-financed by the Operational
Program of Research, Development and Education.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Janick, J.; Paull, R.E. The Encyclopedia of Fruit & Nuts; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; p. 954.
Davidović, S.M.; Veljović, M.S.; Pantelić, M.M.; Baošić, R.M.; Natić, M.M.; Dabić, D.Č.; Pecić, S.P.; Vukosavljević, P.V. Physicochemical, Antioxidant and Sensory Properties of Peach Wine Made from Redhaven Cultivar. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61,
1357–1363. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Campbell, O.E.; Padilla-Zakour, O.I. Phenolic and Carotenoid Composition of Canned Peaches (Prunus persica) and Apricots
(Prunus armeniaca) as Affected by Variety and Peeling. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 448–455. [CrossRef]
Cantin, C.M.; Moreno, M.A.; Gogorcena, Y. Evaluation of the antioxidant capacity, phenolic compounds, and vitamin C content of
different peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 4586–4592. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Liu, H.; Cao, J.; Jiang, W. Evaluation and Comparison of Vitamin C, Phenolic Compounds, Antioxidant Properties and Metal
Chelating Activity of Pulp and Peel from Selected Peach Cultivars. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 1042–1048. [CrossRef]
Scalbert, A.; Johnson, I.T.; Saltmarsh, M. Polyphenols: Antioxidants and beyond. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 81, 215S–217S. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Bento, C.; Gonçalves, A.C.; Silva, B.; Silva, L.R. Peach (Prunus persica): Phytochemicals and Health Benefits. Food Rev. Int. 2020,
36, 1–32. [CrossRef]
Remorini, D.; Tavarini, S.; Degl’Innocenti, E.; Loreti, F.; Massai, R.; Guidi, L. Effect of Rootstocks and Harvesting Time on the
Nutritional Quality of Peel and Flesh of Peach Fruits. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 361–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forcada, C.F.I.; Gradziel, T.M.; Gogorcena, Y.; Moreno, M.Á. Phenotypic diversity among local Spanish and foreign peach and
nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] accessions. Euphytica 2014, 197, 261–277. [CrossRef]
Caniato, F.F.; Galvao, J.C.C.; Finger, F.L.; Ribeiro, R.A.; Miranda, G.V.; Puiatti, M. Study of total soluble sugars, reducing sugars
and starch composition in immature kernels of corn cultivars. Rev. Bras. Milho Sorgo. 2004, 3, 38–44. [CrossRef]
Cirilli, M.; Bassi, D.; Ciacciulli, A. Sugars in peach fruit: A breeding perspective. Hortic. Res. 2016, 3, 1–12. [CrossRef]
Sánchez-Moreno, C.; Pascual-Teresa, S.D.; Ancos, B.D.; Cano, M.P. Nutritional Values of Fruits. In Handbook of Fruits and Fruit
Processing; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; p. 29.
Colaric, M.; Veberic, R.; Stampar, F.; Hudina, M. Evaluation of peach and nectarine fruit quality and correlations between sensory
and chemical attributes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 2611–2616. [CrossRef]
Versari, A.; Castellari, M.; Parpinello, G.P.; Riponi, C.; Galassi, S. Characterisation of peach juices obtained from cultivars
Redhaven, Suncrest and Maria Marta grown in Italy. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 181–185. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
16 of 17
Iordănescu, O.A.; Alexa, E.; Radulov, I.; Costea, A.; Dobrei, A.; Dobrei, A. Minerals and amino acids in peach (Prunus persica L.)
cultivars and hybrids belonging to world germoplasm collection in the conditions of West Romania. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia
2015, 6, 145–150. [CrossRef]
Kim, H.R.; Kim, I.D.; Dhungana, S.K.; Kim, M.O.; Shin, D.H. Comparative assessment of physicochemical properties of unripe
peach (Prunus persica) and Japanese apricot (Prunus mume). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 4, 97–103. [CrossRef]
Başar, H. Elemental Composition of Various Peach Cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2006, 107, 259–263. [CrossRef]
Melo, G.W.B.; Sete, P.B.; Ambrosini, V.G.; Freitas, R.F.; Basso, A.; Brunetto, G. Nutritional Status, Yield and Composition of Peach
Fruit Subjected to the Application of Organic Compost. Acta Sci. Agron. 2016, 38, 103. [CrossRef]
Valíček, P. Léčivé Rostliny Číny a Vietnamu: (j-z) 2. díl. 1. Vyd; Start: Benešov, Czech Republic, 2010; p. 351. (In Czech)
Li, C.; Wang, M.H. Antioxidant activity of peach blossom extracts. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2011, 54, 46–53. [CrossRef]
Rossato, S.B.; Haas, C.; Raseira, M.D.C.B.; Moreira, J.C.F.; Zuanazzi, J.Â.S. Antioxidant potential of peels and fleshes of peaches
from different cultivars. J. Med. Food. 2009, 12, 1119–1126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shin, T.Y.; Park, S.B.; Yoo, J.S.; Kim, I.K.; Lee, H.S.; Kwon, T.K.; Kim, M.K.; Kim, J.C.; Kim, S.H. Anti-allergic inflammatory activity
of the fruit of Prunus persica: Role of calcium and NF-κB. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, 2797–2802. [CrossRef]
Cevallos-Casals, B.A.; Byrne, D.; Okie, W.R.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L. Selecting new peach and plum genotypes rich in phenolic
compounds and enhanced functional properties. Food Chem. 2006, 96, 273–280. [CrossRef]
Lee, C.K.; Park, K.K.; Hwang, J.K.; Lee, S.K.; Chung, W.Y. The extract of Prunus persica flesh (PPFE) attenuates chemotherapyinduced hepatotoxicity in mice. Phytother. Res. 2008, 22, 223–227. [CrossRef]
Lee, C.K.; Park, K.K.; Hwang, J.K.; Lee, S.K.; Chung, W.Y. Extract of Prunus persica flesh (PPFE) improves chemotherapeutic
efficacy and protects against nephrotoxicity in cisplatin-treated mice. Phytother. Res. 2009, 23, 999–1005. [CrossRef]
Geng, M.; Li, W.; Yang, R.; Cui, C.; An, H.; Liu, H.; Wang, X. Antioxidant and antiproliferative aktivity (in vitro) of polyphenols
from peach blossom. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 429–433.
Noratto, G.; Porter, W.; Byrne, D.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L. Identifying peach and plum polyphenols with chemopreventive potential
against estrogen-independent breast cancer cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 5219–5226. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Noratto, G.; Porter, W.; Byrne, D.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L. Polyphenolics from peach (Prunus persica var. Rich Lady) inhibit tumor
growth and metastasis of MDA-MB-435 breast cancer cells in vivo. J. Nutri. Biochem. 2014, 25, 796–800. [CrossRef]
Goliáš, J.; Němcová, A. Skladování a zpracování ovoce a zeleniny: (návody do cvičení). 1. vyd.; Mendelova zemědělská a lesnická
univerzita v Brně: Brno, Czech Republic, 2009.
Zloch, Z.; Čelakovský, J.; Aujezdská, A. Stanovení Obsahu Polyfenolů a Celkové Antioxidační Kapacity v Potravinách Rostlinného
Původu. Závěrečná zpráva o plnění výzkumného projektu podpořeného finančně Nadačním fondem Institutu Danone; (In Czech). Ústav
Hygieny Lékařské Fakulty UK Plzeň: Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2004.
Holm, G. Chlorophyll mutations in barley. Acta Agr. Scand. 1954, 4, 457–471. [CrossRef]
Zbíral, J. Analýza Rostlinného Materiálu: Jednotné Pracovní Postupy; Vyd. 2, rozš. A přeprac; (In Czech). Ústřední Kontrolní a Zkušební
Ústav Zemědělský: Brno, Czech Republic, 2005.
Lancaster, J.E.; Lister, C.E.; Reay, P.F.; Triggs, C.M. Influence of Pigment Composition on Skin Colour in a Wide Range of Fruit and
Vegetables. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1997, 122, 594–598. [CrossRef]
Clydesdale, F.M.; Ahmed, E.M. Colorimetry—Methodology and Applications. CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutri. 1978, 10, 243–301.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Voss, D.H. Relating colourimeter measurement of plant colour to the royal horticultural society colour chart. HortScience 1992, 27,
1256–1260. [CrossRef]
McGuire, R.G. Reporting of objective colour measurements. HortScience 1992, 27, 1254–1255. [CrossRef]
Sharma, G. Digital Color Imaging Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003.
Scordino, M.; Sabatino, L.; Muratore, A.; Belligno, A.; Gagliano, G. Phenolic Characterization of Sicilian Yellow Flesh Peach
(Prunus persica L.) Cultivars at Different Ripening Stages. J. Food Qual. 2012, 35, 255–262. [CrossRef]
Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; Gil, M.I.; Cremin, P.; Waterhouse, A.L.; Hess-Pierce, B.; Kader, A.A. HPLC—DAD − ESIMS analysis of
phenolic compounds in nectarines, peaches, and plums. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 4748–4760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gil, M.I.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; Hess-Pierce, B.; Kader, A.A. Antioxidant capacities, phenolic compounds, carotenoids, and
vitamin C contents of nectarine, peach, and plum cultivars from California. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 4976–4982. [CrossRef]
Cantin, C.M.; Gogorcena, Y.; Moreno, M.A. Analysis of phenotypic variation of sugar profile in different peach and nectarine
[Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 1909–1917. [CrossRef]
Marinova, D.; Ribarova, F.; Atanassova, M. Total phenolics and total flavonoids in Bulgarian fruits and vegetables. J. Univ. Chem.
Technol. Metall. 2005, 40, 255–260.
Saidani, F.; Giménez, R.; Aubert, C.; Chalot, G.; Betrán, J.A.; Gogorcena, Y. Phenolic, sugar and acid profiles and the antioxidant
composition in the peel and pulp of peach fruits. J. Food Composit. Anal. 2017, 62, 126–133. [CrossRef]
Zhao, X.; Zhang, W.; Yin, X.; Su, M.; Sun, C.; Li, X.; Chen, K. Phenolic composition and antioxidant properties of different peach
[Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] cultivars in China. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 5762–5778. [CrossRef]
Di Vaio, C.; Marallo, N.; Graziani, G.; Ritieni, A.; Di Matteo, A. Evaluation of fruit quality, bioactive compounds and total
antioxidant activity of flat peach cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2124–2131. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 14028
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
17 of 17
Rababah, T.M.; Al-Mahasneh, M.A.; Kilani, I.; Yang, W.; Alhamad, M.N.; Ereifej, K.; Al-u'datt, M. Effect of jam processing and
storage on total phenolics, antioxidant activity, and anthocyanins of different fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1096–1102.
[CrossRef]
Contessa, C.; Mellano, M.G.; Beccaro, G.L.; Giusiano, A.; Botta, R. Total antioxidant capacity and total phenolic and anthocyanin
contents in fruit species grown in Northwest Italy. Sci. Hort. 2013, 160, 351–357. [CrossRef]
Vizzotto, M.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Byrne, D.H.; Ramming, D.W.; Okie, W.R. Large variation found in the phytochemical and
antioxidant activity of peach and plum germplasm. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 2007, 132, 334–340. [CrossRef]
Legua, P.; Hernández, F.; Díaz-Mula, H.M.; Valero, D.; Serrano, M. Quality, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant activity of new
flat-type peach and nectarine cultivars: A comparative study. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, C729–C735. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tavarini, S.; Degl’Innocenti, E.; Remorini, D.; Massai, R.; Guidi, L. Preliminary characterisation of peach cultivars for their
antioxidant capacity. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 43, 810–815. [CrossRef]
Nowicka, P.; Wojdylo, A.; Laskowski, P. Principal component analysis (PCA) of physicochemical compounds’ content in different
cultivars of peach fruits, including qualification and quantification of sugars and organic acids by HPLC. Eur. Food Res. Technol.
2019, 245, 929–938. [CrossRef]
Gecer, M.K. Biochemical content in fruits of peach and nectarine cultivars. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2020, 44, 500–505. [CrossRef]
Robertson, J.A.; Horvat, R.J.; Lyon, B.G.; Meredith, F.I.; Senter, S.D.; Okie, W.R. Comparison of quality characteristics of selected
yellow-and white-fleshed peach cultivars. J. Food Sci. 1990, 55, 1308–1311. [CrossRef]
Delwiche, M.J.; Baumgardner, R.A. Ground colour as a peach maturity index. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1985, 110, 53–57.
Ferrer, A.; Remón, S.; Negueruela, A.I.; Oria, R. Changes during the ripening of the very late season Spanish peach cultivar
Calanda Feasibility of using CIELAB coordinates as maturity indices. Sci. Hortic. 2005, 105, 435–446. [CrossRef]
Pinto, C.; Reginato, G.; Shinya, P.; Mesa, K.; Díaz, M.; Atenas, C.; Infante, R. Skin color and chlorophyll absorbance: Indices for
establishing a harvest date on non-melting peach. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 195, 231–236. [CrossRef]
Cáceres, D.; Díaz, M.; Shinya, P.; Infante, R. Assessment of peach internal flesh browning through colorimetric measures.
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 111, 48–52. [CrossRef]