Next Article in Journal
A Method for Predicting Indoor CO2 Concentration in University Classrooms: An RF-TPE-LSTM Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Packaging Matters: Preservation of Antioxidant Compounds of Fresh Stinging Nettle Leaves (Urtica dioica L.)
Previous Article in Journal
HLFSRNN-MIL: A Hybrid Multi-Instance Learning Model for 3D CT Image Classification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimization of Green Sample Preparation for the Determination of Hydroxycinnamic Acids in Multi-Floral Honey Using Response Surface Methodology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/app14146187
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Changes in Anticholinesterase and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Products during Storage

by
Dorota Gajowniczek-Ałasa
*,
Ewa Baranowska-Wójcik
and
Dominik Szwajgier
Department of Biotechnology, Human Nutrition and Food Commodity Science, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Skromna 8, 20-704 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(14), 6187; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146187
Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 11 July 2024 / Accepted: 12 July 2024 / Published: 16 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antioxidant Compounds in Food Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this work, compotes, juices, and jams were produced using chokeberry, cherry, apricot, peach, apple (Idared and Champion), wild strawberry, or raspberry fruits. The anticholinesterase as well as antioxidant activities of fruits and preserves (freshly prepared and after 1, 5, and 10 months of storage) were compared. The loss (p < 0.05) of the anti-acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity of freshly prepared products vs. corresponding fruits was observed (all preserves from raspberry, cherry juice and jam, apricot juice, and Idared and wild strawberry jams) while chokeberry juice and apricot compote increased the anti-AChE activity. In the case of the anti-BChE activity of freshly prepared products, no change (apricot juice and jam), the loss (chokeberry compote and jam, cherry juice and jam, Champion compote, p < 0.05), or the increase in the activity (peach and apple Idared, apricot compote, juice, apricot compote, raspberry juice, p < 0.05) were recorded. In most cases, the anticholinesterase activities of freshly prepared products vs. products stored for 10 months were retained, and no considerable losses of the biological activities were observed. Even after 10 months of storage, all of the preserves retained the anti-AChE activity (except apricot and Idared compotes, chokeberry, cherry and Idared juices, and chokeberry and apricot jams, p < 0.05). Similarly, the preserves retained the anti-BChE activity after 10 months of storage (at p < 0.05, except cherry, apricot, peach and Idared compotes, chokeberry juice and chokeberry, peach and raspberry jams, at p < 0.05).

1. Introduction

A wide range of biological activities of fruits belonging to the Rosaceae family has been pointed out in the past (antioxidant, anticancer, neuroprotective, cardioprotective, hepatoprotective, anti-hyperlipidemic, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and others).
These activities are exhaustively discussed in excellent works concerning apricot (Prunus armeniaca), sour cherry (P. cerasus), or apples (M. domestica) (e.g., [1,2,3], respectively). The multidirectional activity of chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), apricot, or peach (P. persica) fruits and their products is well known [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Cherry fruit has exhibited antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity in mice [10]. Raspberry (Rubus idaeus) fruit exerts anti-adipogenic [11], antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer activity against colon, breast, lung, and gastric human tumor cells [11,12,13,14].
Oxidative stress is the root cause of most of the above mentioned diseases. Indeed, edible fruits from the Rosaceae family exhibit enormous antioxidant and antiradical activities, as repeatedly pointed out in the past, e.g., [13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].
Also, the discussed fruits exert strong acetylcholine (AChE)- and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE)-inhibitory activities due to the presence of bioactive compounds, mainly polyphenols, e.g., [1,21,25,26,27]. Both enzymes play a key role in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a severe illness causing the degeneration of cognitive functions, mainly in the case of older persons [28]. The cholinergic therapy, which is nowadays the most distributed therapy in the world, is based on the application of cholinesterase inhibitors to patients in the early stages of AD [29]. In this way, the activity of both enzymes is decreased, which in turn increases the concentration of acetylcholine in the junction gap of cognitive neurons in the brain [30]. Therefore, the studies concerning new sources of cholinesterase inhibitors in the diet should be considered, both for the prophylaxis of the disease and for possible application during the early stages of AD development [31].
The thermal processing of fruits causes a decrease in the levels of phenolic compounds, e.g., [12,32,33,34]. Along with that, usually a loss in biological activity is observed [35,36,37]. Therefore, the AChE- and BChE-inhibitory activities, cited above, can be modified or lost due to the thermal processing of raw fruits. Therefore, given the numerous health benefits derived from the consumption of fruits, the aim of this study was to determine the influence of processing (heat treatment) on the antioxidant and anticholinesterase activities of selected fruit products during long-term storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Fruits. All fruits were harvested; fresh black chokeberry (A. melanocarpa), wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca), cherry (Prunus cerasus), and raspberry (Rubus idaeus) fruits were cultivated on a farm located at 66A Kopernika Street, Bełżyce, Poland (N 51.17608°, E 22.26770°). Apricot (P. armeniaca) and peach (P. persica) fruits were harvested at 1 Dubieckiego Street, Lublin (N 51.241489°, E 22.496654°). Apples (Malus domestica Idared and Champion) were obtained from the Partnership Wholesale Market S.A. located at 65 Elizówka Street, Ciecierzyn (N 51.287978, E 22.580237°).
Chemicals. The following chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Poznań, Poland): acetylthiocholine (ATChI), butyrylthiocholine (BTCh), 5,5′-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid (DTNB), eserine (physostigmine), acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid, diammonium salt, min. 980 g·kg−1) myoglobin (from horse heart), hydrogen peroxide (300 g·kg−1), and 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox, min. 970 g·kg−1). 2,2′-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) was purchased from ICN Biomedicals Inc., Aurora, Ohio, USA. Other reagents (HPLC grade) were purchased from Avantor (Gliwice, Poland; formerly P.O.Ch).

2.2. Production of Fruit Preserves

Compotes were produced in a domestic manner by dipping the thawed fruit in boiling water (1:1 w/w) until the moment that the whole sample was boiled. Shortly after the boiling had started, the whole sample was directly placed in sterile (autoclaved) glass bottles (0.5 L) and tightly closed. Directly before the extraction of phenolic acids, the whole sample was taken out of the jars and freeze-dried at −50 °C for 12–24 h (FreeZone, Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA).
For the production of juices, 3 kg of fresh frozen fruits were thawed and blanched (5 min, boiling water) to inactivate endogenous enzymes. Then, enzyme preparations Pectinex Ultra SP-L and Pectinex Smash XXL (both 0.5 g/kg of fruit) (Novozymes, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) were added. The sample was then stirred for 3 min and kept for 1.5 h at room temperature. Then, it was pressed using Pillan Fimon 43 L press (Enotecnica Pillan, Rampazzo, Italy). No fining of the juice sample was performed. Juices were placed in sterile (autoclaved) bottles (0.05 L), pasteurized (15 min. at 82–85 °C [38]), and directly cooled to ambient temperature in an ice-water bath.
The jams were prepared as proposed by Rahman et. al. [39] with very minor modifications: fruit puree (2.5 kg) was mixed with sucrose (2287.50 g) and citrus peel pectin (25 g) (highly methylated, Agnex, Białystok, Poland) at room temperature. The mixture was then warmed slowly (1 °C/min, Thermomix TM2, Vorwerk, Germany) with slow constant stirring until a temp. of 60 °C was reached (according to pectin supplier’s recommendations). Then, the whole sample was brought to a boil with constant stirring until a thick consistency was obtained (tested using a sheet test, [39]). Immediately after production, the jams were poured into sterile glass jars (50 cm3), immediately sealed with a cover, pasteurized in a water bath for 15 min. at 82–85 °C [38], immediately cooled to 20 °C in ice water, and stored at room temperature in the dark. After production, all products were stored for 0, 1, 5, and 10 months in the dark at room temperature (approx. 20 °C). Each preserve was produced in duplicate.
Determination of the dry mass (d.m.). The samples of fresh fruits and preserves were finely ground in a laboratory mortar, and portions (1 g) were accurately weighed (with a precision of 0.001 g) and dried at 105 ± 2 °C for 24 h. The samples were then weighed and dried again until the change in the weight was less than 0.005 g (typically 1–2 h). The analysis was performed in duplicate.

2.3. Analytical Methods

Inhibition of AChE and BChE
First, the dry mass of each sample was adjusted to 0.23 mg/mL using Tris-HCl buffer (50 mM, pH 8.0), and all reagent solutions were prepared in the same Tris-HCl buffer. Enzyme activities were measured in a 96-well microplate reader (Tecan Sunrise, Grödig, Austria) using a modified spectrophotometric method as described in Studzińska-Sroka et al. [40,41] except that the test solution was composed of 0.035 mL of the studied sample, 0.035 mL of ATChI (or BTCh) solution, 0.08 mL of Tris-HCl buffer, 0.02 mL of AChE (or BChE) solution, and 0.175 mL of 0.3 mM DTNB solution. The absorbance (405 nm, 22 °C) was read after 30 (AChE) or 10 min (BChE). In blank (negative) samples, Tris-HCl buffer replaced the studied sample. Spontaneous hydrolysis of the substrate was monitored using blank samples composed of 0.175 mL DTNB, 0.035 mL ATChI (or BTCh), and 0.135 mL Tris-HCl buffer. The false-positive effect was verified according to Rhee et al. [42]: after the addition of ATChI (BTCh), buffer, and the enzyme, the sample was left for 30 (AChE) or 10 min (BChE). Then, the test solution was added, followed by direct addition of DTNB and measurement of the absorbance. Each solution was analyzed in eight replicates.
The inhibitory activity was expressed as proposed previously [43] using eserine equivalents (nM serine) required to exert the same inhibitory activity. In short, the anticholinesterase activities of 12 solutions of eserine at 7.1 nM–7.27 μM were measured followed by the production of the calibration curves.
Preparation of samples for the antioxidant activity testing. Each studied sample was finely ground in the laboratory mortar to obtain homogeneity, and deionized water was added to obtain 0.23 g of the dry mass/mL.
Antioxidant activity (ABTS)
The original method of Miller et al. [44] was used with slight modifications. All reagents (prepared in 5 mM of phosphate buffer, pH 7.0) were present in the reaction mixture at final concentrations: ABTS 0.15 mM, myoglobin 0.0025 mM, and H2O2 0.375 mM. The studied sample (0.03 cm3) was mixed with 0.03 cm3 of the buffer and 0.28 cm3 of ABTS/myoglobin reagent followed by the addition of 0.023 cm3 of H2O2 to start the reaction. Absorbance was read every 1 min (700 nm, 20 °C) using a 96-well microplate reader (Tecan Sunrise, Grödig, Austria) for 30 min, and the time of 15 min of the reaction was taken for calculations of the TEAC value (all samples reached plateau). Blanks containing buffer instead of samples were simultaneously run in order to subtract the background. For calibration curve (y = 20.171x + 0.822), 15 Trolox solutions (water/ethanol 1:1 v/v; 0.6 mmol·dm−3–0.03 mmol·dm−3) were used as an antioxidative standard. Total antioxidant activity was expressed in equivalent Trolox concentration (TEAC value) that inhibited the increase in the absorbance equally to the studied solution. All samples were run in eight replicates.
Antioxidant activity (DPPH)
The method of Brand-Williams et al. [45] was used with some minor modifications. A volume of 0.01 cm3 of the sample was mixed with 0.1 cm3 of DDI water and 0.2 cm3 of DPPH solution in methanol (0.06 mmol·dm−3). Absorbance was read at 515 nm every min (20 °C, microplate reader, Tecan Sunrise, Austria) until 20 min of the reaction, and the time of 10 min of the reaction was taken for calculations of the TEAC value (plateau). Blanks containing the test sample or buffer were simultaneously run followed by subtraction of background absorbances of studied samples. For calibration curve (y = 18,823x + 0.443), 15 Trolox solutions (water/ethanol 1:1 v/v; 0.6 mmol·dm−3–0.03 mmol·dm−3) were used as an antioxidative standard. Total antioxidant activity was expressed in equivalent Trolox concentration (TEAC value) that inhibited the increase in the absorbance equally to the studied solution. All samples were run in eight replicates.
Statistical analysis
Mean values ± SD were calculated (STATISTICA 13.0, StatSoft, Cracow, Poland). Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05) was used to denote statistically significant results. Each preserve was produced in 2 replicates, and each of them was studied in 8 replicates.

3. Results

As it was repeatedly pointed out in our previous papers as well as by other authors, the fruits selected for this study exhibit significant anti-AChE and anti-BChE activities. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, based on the same dry masses of the samples under investigation, the effect of fruit processing as well as the prolonged storage of the preserves on the anti-AChE, anti-BChE, and antioxidant activities.
Table 1 shows that the effect of fruit processing on anti-AChE activity was variable. A significant (p < 0.05) loss in activity was observed in numerous cases (all raspberry preserves, cherry juice and jam, apricot juice, peach compote, and Idared and wild strawberry jams). However, in selected cases (chokeberry juice and apricot compote), an increase in activity was recorded. In other cases, the activity of the fruit was retained in the corresponding products.
The stabilization of or even a significant increase in anti-AChE activity was observed in compotes stored for 10 months, particularly notable in chokeberry compote. However, apricot and Idared compotes showed a loss in activity (see Figure 1). A loss in activity was also evident in chokeberry, cherry, and Idared juices (see Figure 2). With respect to jams stored throughout the test period, most retained their activities, except for chokeberry and apricot jams, which showed a significant loss (p < 0.05) (see Figure 3). Nonetheless, noticeable residual activity was observed in all preserves. It is noteworthy that the most pronounced changes in activity occurred during the final stage of storage (5–10 months).
Table 2 shows that the effect of fruit processing on anti-BChE activity varied. In numerous cases, no change (p > 0.05) was observed (apricot juice and jam, cherry compote, raspberry jam), while a significant (p < 0.05) loss in activity was noted in others (chokeberry compote and jam, cherry juice and jam, Champion compote, wild strawberry jam). Conversely, an increase in activity (p < 0.05) was recorded in selected cases (all preserves from peach and Idared apple, apricot compote, chokeberry juice, peach compote and jam, wild strawberry compote, and raspberry juice).
Generally, a loss in the anti-BChE activity was observed in compotes stored for 10 months, with only chokeberry, Champion, wild strawberry, and raspberry retaining their activity unchanged (p < 0.05) after this period (Figure 4). Regarding juices, a loss in activity was noted only in chokeberry, while other juices maintained their activity (p < 0.05); Idared apple juice even significantly increased its activity (p < 0.05) (Figure 5). Chokeberry, peach, and raspberry jams significantly lost their activity after 10 months of storage, although noticeable remaining activity was still observed in all these products, with cherry jam showing an increase in activity (p < 0.05) (Figure 6).
After storage, the results showed that the ‘ABTS-scavenging’ activity was retained in most compotes (except apricot and peach compote, p < 0.05), while it significantly increased (p < 0.05) in wild strawberry and raspberry compotes (Figure 7). Similarly, juices exhibited a consistent ability to ‘scavenge’ ABTS radicals throughout the storage period, except for peach juice (which showed a significant increase in activity after 10 months) and raspberry juice (which showed a significant loss in activity after 10 months) (Figure 8). Additionally, almost all jams demonstrated a stable ability to ‘scavenge’ ABTS radicals during the 10 months of storage except for apricot and apple Idared jams, which significantly (p < 0.05) lost their activities after 10 months (Figure 9).
All fruits were excellent DPPH free radical “scavengers”, and a great number of preserves either retained the activity or even increased it due to the processing (cherry juice, all apricot, peach and raspberry preserves, apple Idared compote, wild strawberry jam) (see Table 3). However, the activity was decreased due to the processing in some preserves (all chokeberry preserves, cherry compote and jam, apple Idared juice and jam, apple Champion, or wild strawberry compote).
After storage, the “DPPH-scavenging“ activity was retained for 10 months of storage in the compotes except chokeberry and wild strawberry compotes (increase) and cherry and apricot compotes (loss in the activity, all at p < 0.05) (Figure 10). Very similar results were obtained in the case of juices, as the “DPPH-scavenging“ activity was retained in most of the preserves except chokeberry juice (significant increase) and cherry (significant loss in the activity, p < 0.05) (Figure 11). Last but not least, in the case of jams, the “DPPH- scavenging “ activity was retained in most of the preserves on the same level (insignificant changes, p < 0.05) except cherry and Idared jams (significant increase) and apricot jam (significant loss in the activity, p < 0.05) (Figure 12).
Based on the results of all four performed tests, it is noteworthy that in most preserves, the biological activities were retained. When comparing fresh fruit to freshly prepared preserves or freshly prepared preserves to stored preserves, it must be strongly emphasized that while these losses in biological activities were moderate (although significant at p < 0.05), they were not overwhelming. Interestingly, even after 10 months of storage, a significant number of preserves significantly (at p < 0.05) increased or retained their activities.

4. Discussion

For consumers, the biological activity of fruit products may be equally or even more important than the activity of raw fruits. Compotes were produced in this paper in a domestic way, and juices and jams were produced to make the process similar to the production of real preserves, however, without the addition of components that strongly effect the outcomes of this test. For example, ascorbic acid, usually added to preserves, enormously lifts the antioxidant activities of the final products, leading to the prevention of native antioxidants, thus distorting the actual transformations of endogenous antioxidants in processed foods.
In our work, we did not monitor the changes in the content of bioactive compounds in fruits during their processing, as previous studies have consistently reported that elevated temperatures cause the loss of polyphenolic or terpene compounds (e.g., reviewed by Jiang et al. [12]). Both groups of compounds are efficient AChE and BChE inhibitors, as demonstrated in prior research [26,46,47]. Therefore, the primary aim of this paper was to investigate the effect of temperature on the evolution of anticholinesterase activity during fruit processing and prolonged storage.
The past studies relatively rarely compared the activities of raw fruits with corresponding products, especially after the storage. For example, Olechno et al. [19] showed that the antioxidant activity (FRAP method) of a wide range of chokeberry juices was high; however, the authors did not compare it with corresponding unprocessed chokeberry samples [19]. Similarly, Lebedev et al. [13], in their excellent work, confirmed high antioxidant activities (FRAP and ABTS methods) of 25 new breeding lines and standard raspberry cultivars. Unfortunately, the authors did not study raspberry products in this work. Kazazic et al. [48] observed the increase in the antioxidant activity (ABTS method) of sour cherry juices in comparison with corresponding cherry fruits var. Maraska and Oblacinska (however, no statistical comparison was performed in this work). The comparison of the antioxidant activities of jams and the fruits from both varieties revealed no differences. Catana [20] reported on the loss in antioxidant activity (DPPH method) of chokeberry compotes (approx. by 70%) and of juices and jams (approx. by 50%) in comparison with the fresh fruit. The cited authors concluded, similarly to us, that despite the loss in antioxidant activity, chokeberry products (compotes, juices, and jams) still exerted high activities. All fruits were selected for this study based on the high anticholinesterase activity. However, our results are slightly disappointing in light of the anticholinesterase activity of peach fruits, which was previously reported as a good source of cholinesterase inhibitors [1,25,26,27]. As for other fruits, the results presented in previous papers were confirmed by our results. The work of Cairone et. al. [21] especially is very valuable, as wild strawberry fruit is very rarely studied in comparison with other fruits belonging to the Rosaceae family. The authors showed significant anti-AChE as well as anti-BChE activities of a large number of 28 wild strawberry samples processed using different methods (blanching, homogenization, pasteurization, microwaves). It was shown that all mentioned processing methods had a minor effect on the anti-AChE activity and especially on the anti-BChE activity in comparison with the activities of fresh and frozen wild strawberry fruit. This observation is fully in agreement with our observations in the present paper as well as past studies. For example, Wojdyło et al. [49] observed no significant differences in the antioxidant activity (measured using ABTS and DPPH) of eleven quince (Cydonia obolonga Mill.) cultivars and corresponding juices after 6 months of storage. The cited authors reported that the losses did not exceed 30% and 43% at storage temp. 4 °C and 30 °C, respectively. Also, mixed outcomes were reported by selected authors. For example, Vukoja et al. [50] studied three types of tart cherry jams (regular, extra, and light jams produced using fruit, water, sucrose, and pectin at various proportions) and observed a noticeable antioxidant activity (with ABTS and DPPH radicals) of all jams. The authors stored the products at room temperature for 8 months and reported that in the case of the method with ABTS radicals, regular jam decreased its activity in a significant manner (p < 0.05), whereas two other jams retained their activities, although the insignificant (p > 0.05) decrease was observed in both cases. As for the method with DPPH radicals, the significant (p < 0.05) loss in antioxidant activity was recorded in all cases. However, the authors underlined that stored jams showed high antioxidant activities despite the significant loss of polyphenols after 8-month storage. The maintenance of the antioxidant activity was probably caused by the formation of oxidized and polymerized phenols and the formation of Maillard products. This phenomenon was probably also responsible for the high antioxidant activity after the storage of fruit products in our work.
Last but not least, it should be noted that there are significant differences within a fruit species regarding the total content of bioactive compounds (terpenes, polyphenols, carotenoids, etc.) due to factors such as variety and cultivation methods. However, for the purposes of our study, the choice between high-polyphenol or low-polyphenol varieties does not affect the focus on relative losses in the studied activities compared to unprocessed fruits. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that cold stores and processing plants receive mixtures of various varieties due to the nature of crop production (typically involving a large number of low-volume crops). For these reasons, the tracking of activity changes discussed in this paper represents pilot studies, as the industry deals with a blend of different fruit varieties. Future studies involving industry collaboration are planned to validate the laboratory findings presented in this work. Additionally, similar experiments discussing the effect of other processing methods (such as the freezing of raw fruits) or methods of microbial stabilization (e.g., high hydrostatic pressure and pulsed electric field) on the anticholinesterase activities of fruit preserves are planned for the near future.

5. Conclusions

In this study, compotes, juices, and jams were produced using chokeberry, cherry, apricot, peach, apple (Idared and Champion), wild strawberry, and raspberry fruits, followed by the storage of the final products for a maximum of 10 months. The anticholinesterase and antioxidant activities were monitored
The study confirmed that elevated temperatures can have differentiated effects on the anticholinesterase and antioxidant activities during fruit processing. A significant (p < 0.05) loss in anti-acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity was observed in freshly prepared products compared to corresponding fruits (including all raspberry preserves, cherry juice and jam, apricot juice, and Idared and wild strawberry jams), while chokeberry juice and apricot compote showed an increase in anti-AChE activity.
Regarding anti-butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) activity in freshly prepared products, no change was observed (apricot juice and jam), while a loss in activity (chokeberry compote and jam, cherry juice and jam, Champion compote, p < 0.05) or increase in activity (peach and apple Idared, apricot compote and juice, raspberry juice, p < 0.05) was recorded.
The results presented above demonstrate that the effect of temperature can vary depending on the type of fruit and the processing method employed. A significant finding of our study highlights that the anticholinesterase and antioxidant activities of fruit products can be substantial, comparable to those of raw fruits. In most cases, the anticholinesterase activities of freshly prepared products versus products stored for 10 months were retained, with no significant losses observed in biological activities. Even after 10 months of storage, all preserves either retained or even increased anti-AChE activity (except for apricot and Idared compotes, chokeberry and cherry juices, and chokeberry and apricot jams, all at p < 0.05). Similarly, preserves retained or increased anti-BChE activity after 10 months of storage (except for cherry, apricot, peach, and Idared compotes; chokeberry juice; and chokeberry, peach, and raspberry jams, all at p < 0.05).
This conclusion has direct implications for consumers’ nutrition and health. Further research is necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the retention or loss of bioactive compounds during processing and storage. This study will aid in developing improved processing techniques that maximize the health benefits of fruit products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G.-A. and D.S.; methodology, D.G.-A., E.B.-W. and D.S.; software, E.B.-W.; validation, E.B.-W.; formal analysis, D.G.-A., E.B.-W. and D.S.; investigation, D.G.-A. and E.B.-W.; resources, D.G.-A.; data curation, E.B.-W.; writing—original draft preparation, D.G.-A. and E.B.-W.; writing—review and editing, D.S.; visualization, E.B.-W.; supervision, D.S.; project administration, D.S.; funding acquisition, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported under the project no. SD/84/TŻ/2023 by the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kitic, D.; Miladinovic, B.; Randjelovic, M.; Szopa, A.; Sharifi-Rad, J.; Calina, D.; Seidel, V. Anticancer potential and other pharmacological properties of Prunus armeniaca L.: An updated overview. Plants 2022, 11, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cásedas, G.; Les, F.; Gómez-Serranillos, M.P.; Smith, C.; López, V. Bioactive and functional properties of sour cherry juice (Prunus cerasus). Food Funct. 2016, 7, 4675–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kumari, S.; Manohar, S.; Kumari, P.; Krishnan, V.; Maheshwari, C.; Narwal, S.; Bansal, N.; Dahuja, A. The role of major phenolics in apple to total antioxidant capacity. In Apple Cultivation-Recent Advances; IntechOpen: Houston, TX, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Suljević, D.; Mitrašinović-Brulić, M.; Klepo, L.; Škrijelj, R.; Fočak, M. Impact of dietary supplementation with chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa, Michx.) on tetrachloride-induced liver injury in Wistar rats: Hematological and biochemical implication. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2023, 41, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yurt, B.; Celik, I. Hepatoprotective effect and antioxidant role of sun, sulphited-dried apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) and its kernel against ethanol-induced oxidative stress in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011, 49, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, X.; Ding, C.; Dong, L.; Zhang, J.; Sun, S.; Ding, Q.; Khatoom, S.; et al. Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) as a new functional food relationship with health: An overview. J. Future Foods 2021, 1, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bento, C.; Goncalves, A.C.; Silva, B.; Silva, L.R. Peach (Prunus persica): Phytochemicals and health benefits. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 38, 1703–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jurgoński, A.; Juśkiewicz, J.; Zduńczyk, Z. Ingestion of black chokeberry fruit extract leads to intestinal and systemic changes in a rat model of prediabetes and hyperlipidemia. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2008, 63, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bermúdez-Soto, M.J.; Larrosa, M.; García-Cantalejo, J.; Espín, J.C.; Tomás-Barberan, F.A.; García-Conesa, M.T. Transcriptional changes in human Caco-2 colon cancer cells following exposure to a recurrent non-toxic dose of polyphenol-rich chokeberry juice. In Genes & Nutrition; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  10. Šarić, A.; Sobočanec, S.; Balog, T.; Kušić, B.; Šverko, V.; Dragović-Uzelac, V.; Levaj, B.; Cosić, Z.; Marotti, T. Improved antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential in mice consuming sour cherry juice (Prunus cerasus cv. Maraska). Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2009, 64, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mejia-Meza, E.I.; Yanez, J.A.; Remsberg, C.M.; Takemoto, J.K.; Davies, N.M.; Rasco, B.; Clary, C. Effect of dehydration on raspberries: Polyphenol and anthocyanin retention, antioxidant capacity, and antiadipogenic activity. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, H5–H12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jiang, Z.; Han, Z.; Zhu, M.; Wan, X.; Zhang, L. Effects of thermal processing on transformation of polyphenols and flavor quality. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 51, 101014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lebedev, V.G.; Lebedeva, T.N.; Vidyagina, E.O.; Sorokopudov, V.N.; Popova, A.A.; Shestibratov, K.A. Relationship between phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity in berries and leaves of raspberry genotypes and their genotyping by SSR markers. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lopez-Corona, A.V.; Valencia-Espinosa, I.; González-Sánchez, F.A.; Sánchez-López, A.L.; Garcia-Amezquita, L.E.; Garcia-Varela, R. Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and cytotoxic activity of phenolic compound family extracted from raspberries (Rubus idaeus): A general review. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Roussos, P.A.; Sefferou, V.; Denaxa, N.-K.; Tsantili, E.; Stathis, V. Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) fruit quality attributes and phytochemicals under different crop load. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 129, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pliszka, B. Content and correlation of polyphenolic compounds, bioelements and antiradical activity in black elder berries (Sambucus nigra L.). J. Elem. 2020, 25, 595–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, M.Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.T.; Sun, J.Y.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Putnik, P.; Li, N.Y.; Liu, C. The link between the phenolic composition and the antioxidant activity in different small berries: A metabolomic approach. LWT 2023, 182, 114853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alajil, O.; Sagar, V.R.; Kaur, C.; Rudra, S.G.; Sharma, R.R.; Kaushik, R.; Verma, M.K.; Tomar, M.; Kumar, M.; Mekhemar, M. Nutritional and phytochemical traits of apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) for application in nutraceutical and health industry. Foods 2021, 10, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Olechno, E.; Puścion-Jakubik, A.; Soroczyńska, J.; Socha, K.; Cyuńczyk, M.; Zujko, M.E. Antioxidant Properties of Chokeberry Products—Assessment of the Composition of Juices and Fibers. Foods 2023, 12, 4029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Catană, L.; Catană, M.; Iorga, E.; Asănică, A.C.; Lazăr, A.G.; Lazăr, M.A.; Belc, N. Vitamin C and total polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity of fresh and processed fruits of Aronia melanocarpa. Sci. Papers. Ser. B. Hortic. 2017, 61, 433–440. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cairone, F.; Simonetti, G.; Orekhova, A.; Casadei, M.A.; Zengin, G.; Cesa, S. Health potential of celery strawberries: Enzymatic inhibition and anti-Candida activity evaluation. Molecules 2021, 26, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Biondo, E.; Corrêa, A.P.F.; Brandelli, A.; Sant’Anna, V. Wild strawberries (Rubus rosifolius SM.) from Southern Brazil: Centesimal and mineral composition, total polyphenols, antioxidant, antibacterial and anti-hypertensive activities. Rev. Ciência Agrícola 2021, 19, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Huneif, M.A.; Alqahtani, S.M.; Abdulwahab, A.; Almedhesh, S.A.; Mahnashi, M.H.; Riaz, M.; Ur-Rahman, N.; Jan, M.S.; Ullah, F.; Aasim, M.; et al. α-glucosidase, α-amylase and antioxidant evaluations of isolated bioactives from wild strawberry. Molecules 2022, 27, 3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. de Souza, V.R.; Pereira, P.A.P.; da Silva, T.L.T.; de Oliveira Lima, L.C.; Pio, R.; Queiroz, F. Determination of the bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity and chemical composition of Brazilian blackberry, red raspberry, strawberry, blueberry and sweet cherry fruits. Food Chem. 2014, 156, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Saleem, U.; Hussain, L.; Shahid, F.; Anwar, F.; Chauhdary, Z.; Zafar, A. Pharmacological Potential of the Standardized Methanolic Extract of Prunus armeniaca L. in the Haloperidol-Induced Parkinsonism Rat Model. Evid. -Based Complement. Alternative. Med. 2022, 2022, 3697522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Szwajgier, D.; Borowiec, K.; Zapp, J. Activity-guided isolation of cholinesterase inhibitors quercetin, rutin and kaempferol from Prunus persica fruit. Z. Für Naturforschung C 2020, 75, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mihaylova, D.; Desseva, I.; Popova, A.; Dincheva, I.; Vrancheva, R.; Lante, A.; Krastanov, A. GC-MS metabolic profile and α-glucosidase-, α-amylase-, lipase-, and acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory activities of eight peach varieties. Molecules 2021, 26, 4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Moss, D.E.; Perez, R.G. Anti-neurodegenerative benefits of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: Nexus of cholinergic and nerve growth factor dysfunction. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2021, 18, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Marucci, G.; Buccioni, M.; Dal Ben, D.; Lambertucci, C.; Volpini, R.; Amenta, F. Efficacy of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropharmacology 2021, 190, 108352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Asghari, K.; Niknam, Z.; Mohammadpour-Asl, S.; Chodari, L. Cellular junction dynamics and Alzheimer’s disease: A comprehensive review. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2024, 51, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aluko, R.E. Food-derived Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors as Potential Agents against Alzheimer’s Disease. Efood 2021, 2, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arancibia-Avila, P.; Namiestnik, J.; Toledo, F.; Werner, E.; Martinez-Alaya, A.L.; Rocha-Guzmán, N.E.; Gallegos-Infante, J.A.; Gorinstein, S. The influence of different time durations of thermal processing on berries quality. Food Control 2012, 26, 585–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. ElGamal, R.; Song, C.; Rayan, A.M.; Liu, C.; Al-Rejaie, S.; ElMasry, G. Thermal degradation of bioactive compounds during drying process of horticultural and agronomic products: A comprehensive overview. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Salazar-Orbea, G.L.; García-Villalba, R.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M. High–pressure processing vs. thermal treatment: Effect on the stability of polyphenols in strawberry and apple products. Foods 2021, 10, 2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Petruzzi, L.; Campaniello, D.; Speranza, B.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M.; Bevilacqua, A. Thermal treatments for fruit and vegetable juices and beverages: A literature overview. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 668–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Barba, F.J.; Mariutti, L.R.; Bragagnolo, N.; Mercadante, A.Z.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V.; Orlien, V. Bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds from fruits and vegetables after thermal and nonthermal processing. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Banaś, A.; Korus, A.; Korus, J. Texture, color, and sensory features of low-sugar gooseberry jams enriched with plant ingredients with prohealth properties. J. Food Qual. 2018, 2018, 1646894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rahman, M.M.; Moshiur, A. Preparation of strawberry jam and estimation of its nutritive value during storage. J. Postharvest Technol. 2018, 6, 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  40. Studzińska-Sroka, E.; Majchrzak-Celińska, A.; Zalewski, P.; Szwajgier, D.; Baranowska-Wójcik, E.; Kaproń, B.; Plech, T.; Żarowski, M.; Cielecka-Piontek, J. Lichen-derived compounds and extracts as biologically active substances with anticancer and neuroprotective properties. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ellman, G.L.; Lourtney, D.K.; Andres, V.; Gmelin, G. A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity, Biochem. Pharmacol. 1961, 7, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rhee, I.K.; van Rijn, R.M.; Verpoorte, R. Qualitative determination of false-positive effects in the acetylcholinesterase assay using thin layer chromatography. Phytochem. Anal. Int. J. Plant Chem. Biochem. Tech. 2003, 14, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Szwajgier, D.; Borowiec, K. Screening for cholinesterase inhibitors in selected fruits and vegetables. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. 2012, 15, 6. [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, N.J.; Rice-Evans, C.; Davies, M.J.; Gopinathan, V.; Milner, A. A novel method for measuring antioxidant capacity and its application to monitoring the antioxidant status in premature neonates. Clin. Sci. 1993, 84, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C. Use of free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. Lebensm. Wiss.U. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Szwajgier, D.; Baranowska-Wojcik, E.; Borowiec, K. Phenolic acids exert anticholinesterase and cognition-improving effects. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2018, 15, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Szwajgier, D.; Baranowska-Wójcik, E. Terpenes and phenylpropanoids as acetyl-and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitors: A comparative study. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2019, 16, 963–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kazazic, M.; Mehic, E.; Djapo-Lavic, M. Phenolic content and bioactivity of two sour cherry cultivars and their products. Bull. Chem. Technol. Bosnia Herzeg. 2022, 58, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wojdyło, A.; Teleszko, M.; Oszmiański, J. Antioxidant property and storage stability of quince juice phenolic compounds. Food Chem. 2014, 152, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vukoja, J.; Pichler, A.; Kopjar, M. Stability of anthocyanins, phenolics and color of tart cherry jams. Foods 2019, 8, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 06187 g001
Figure 1. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g001
Applsci 14 06187 g002
Figure 2. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g002
Applsci 14 06187 g003
Figure 3. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Evolution of anti-AChE activity of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g003
Applsci 14 06187 g004
Figure 4. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g004
Applsci 14 06187 g005
Figure 5. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 5. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g005
Applsci 14 06187 g006
Figure 6. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 6. Evolution of anti-BChE activity of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g006
Applsci 14 06187 g007
Figure 7. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 7. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g007
Applsci 14 06187 g008
Figure 8. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 8. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g008
Applsci 14 06187 g009
Figure 9. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 9. Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g009
Applsci 14 06187 g010
Figure 10. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 10. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g010
Applsci 14 06187 g011
Figure 11. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 11. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g011
Applsci 14 06187 g012
Figure 12. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 12. Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Applsci 14 06187 g012
Table 1. Comparison of anti-AChE activity of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
Table 1. Comparison of anti-AChE activity of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
FruitCompoteJuiceJam
Chokeberry0.51 ± 0.02 a,b0.45 ± 0.04 a0.88 ± 0.03 c 0.58 ± 0.03 b
Cherry0.44 ± 0.00 c0.38 ± 0.03 b,c0.35 ± 0.01 b0.20 ± 0.04 a
Apricot0.38 ± 0.02 b0.52 ± 0.06 c0.24 ± 0.03 a0.37 ± 0.01 b
Peach0.11 ± 0.01 b,c0.05 ± 0.02 a0.09 ± 0.01 b0.13 ± 0.01 c
Apple Idared0.51 ± 0.05 b0.44 ± 0.03 b0.53 ± 0.04 b0.09 ± 0.01 a
Apple Champion0.08 ± 0.01 a0.08 ± 0.02 an.p.n.p.
Wild strawberry0.54 ± 0.06 b0.49 ± 0.07 bn.p.0.22 ± 0.03 a
Raspberry0.41 ± 0.01 c0.24 ± 0.02 a0.35 ± 0.03 b0.22 ± 0.02 a
n.p.—not produced.
Table 2. Comparison of anti-BChE activity of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05; n.p.—not produced.
Table 2. Comparison of anti-BChE activity of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05; n.p.—not produced.
BChEFruitCompoteJuiceJam
Chokeberry0.65 ± 0.02 b0.40 ± 0.06 a1.04 ± 0.12 c0.41 ± 0.07 a
Cherry0.55 ± 0.01 c0.46 ± 0.02 c0.42 ± 0.01 b0.04 ± 0.01 a
Apricot0.45 ± 0.05 a0.82 ± 0.09 b0.42 ± 0.03 a0.43 ± 0.02 a
Peach0.21 ± 0.01 a0.72 ± 0.03 c0.31 ± 0.02 b0.85 ± 0.03 d
Apple Idared0.16 ± 0.02 a0.62 ± 0.10 c0.37 ± 0.03 b0.34 ± 0.02 b
Apple Champion0.46 ± 0.08 b0.32 ± 0.03 an.p.n.p.
Wild strawberry0.49 ± 0.03 b0.79 ± 0.08 cn.p. 0.21 ± 0.01 a
Raspberry0.38 ± 0.05 a0.37 ± 0.09 a0.55 ± 0.01 b0.29 ± 0.01 a
Table 3. Comparison of TEAC (DPPH) of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05. n.p.—not produced.
Table 3. Comparison of TEAC (DPPH) of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05. n.p.—not produced.
DPPHFruitCompoteJuiceJam
Chokeberry1.21 ± 0.11 c0.90 ± 0.03 a,b0.82 ± 0.04 a1.00 ± 0.05 b
Cherry0.31 ± 0.03 c0.25 ± 0.00 b0.27 ± 0.02 b,c0.13 ± 0.01 a
Apricot0.22 ± 0.00 a0.49 ± 0.01 d0.27 ± 0.02 b0.35 ± 0.02 c
Peach0.04 ± 0.00 a0.09 ± 0.00 b0.14 ± 0.01 c0.17 ± 0.02 d
Apple Idared0.39 ± 0.02 c0.39 ± 0.01 c0.32 ± 0.01 b0.03 ± 0.01 a
Apple Champion0.18 ± 0.02 b0.03 ± 0.01 an.p. n.p.
Wild strawberry0.28 ± 0.01 b0.05 ± 0.01 a n.p.0.47 ± 0.02 c
Raspberry0.39 ± 0.02 a0.37 ± 0.01 a0.34 ± 0.04 a0.34 ± 0.02 a
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gajowniczek-Ałasa, D.; Baranowska-Wójcik, E.; Szwajgier, D. Changes in Anticholinesterase and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Products during Storage. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6187. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146187

AMA Style

Gajowniczek-Ałasa D, Baranowska-Wójcik E, Szwajgier D. Changes in Anticholinesterase and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Products during Storage. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(14):6187. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gajowniczek-Ałasa, Dorota, Ewa Baranowska-Wójcik, and Dominik Szwajgier. 2024. "Changes in Anticholinesterase and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Products during Storage" Applied Sciences 14, no. 14: 6187. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146187

APA Style

Gajowniczek-Ałasa, D., Baranowska-Wójcik, E., & Szwajgier, D. (2024). Changes in Anticholinesterase and Antioxidant Activities of Fruit Products during Storage. Applied Sciences, 14(14), 6187. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146187

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop