In this study, some quality parameters (dry matter, mean weight, soluble solids, titratable acidity, sugars, organic acids), the levels of bioactive compounds (vitamin C and E, carotenoids, polyphenolics) as well as those of volatiles have been determined during two successive years in two black table grape cultivars, ‘Muscat de Hambourg’ and ‘Alphonse Lavallée’, stored up to 4 weeks at 1 °C. The descriptive sensory analyses of the samples by a trained panel were also performed. During storage, most of quality parameters (dry matter, mean berries weight, soluble solids content, titratable acidity, sucrose, fructose, and organic acids) were not affected by storage in both cultivars, while the levels of glucose significantly decreased. Regarding bioactive compounds, the levels of carotenoids, tocopherols, and polyphenolics remained almost unchanged, whereas those of vitamin C decreased. Although the levels of linalool drastically decreased with storage in Muscat samples, the trained sensory panel observed no significant difference for the descriptor “aroma intensity”. All these results show that the overall quality (organoleptic, sensory, nutritive and functional) of the two traditional French cultivars, ‘Muscat de Hambourg’ and ‘Alphonse Lavallée’, is globally maintained for up to 4 weeks under standard commercial storage conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We gratefully acknowledge Catherine Reynaud, Vincent Lesniak (Domaine Experimental La Tapy) and Michel Jost (Ctifl) for their technical assistance and Nelly Ottens (Ctifl) for her assistance with English.
This study was partially funded by the CASDAR funds (no 53107) of French Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (project INNORAISIN).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Compliance with ethics requirements
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
Turati F, Rossi M, Pelucchi C et al (2015) Fruit and vegetables and cancer risk: a review of southern European studies. Br J Nutr 113:S102–S110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelli V, Grassi D, Bocale R et al (2018) Diet and brain health: which role for polyphenols? Curr Pharm Des 24:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perestrelo R, Silva C, Pereira J, Câmara JS (2014) Healthy effects of bioactive metabolites from Vitis vinifera L. grapes: a review. In: Câmara JS (ed) Grapes: production, phenolic composition and potential biomedical effects. Nova Science Technology, New York, NY, pp 305–338Google Scholar
Shahidi F, Ambigaipalan P (2015) Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods, beverages and spices: antioxidant activity and health effects–a review. J Funct Foods 18:820–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson DE, Hurst RD (2007) Polyphenolic phytochemicals—just antioxidants or much more? Cell Mol Life Sci 64:2900–2916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vauzour D, Rodriguez-Mateos A, Corona G et al (2010) Polyphenols and human health: prevention of disease and mechanisms of action. Nutrients 2:1106–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig K (2018) A review of the chemistry, pesticide use, and environmental fate of sulfur dioxide, as used in California. In: de Voogt P (ed) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology Volume 246. Springer, Cham, pp 33–64Google Scholar
Taylor SL, Higley NA, Bush RK (1986) Sulfites in foods: uses, analytical methods, residues, fate, exposure assessment, metabolism, toxicity, and hypersensitivity. Elsevier, New York, pp 1–76Google Scholar
Artés-Hernández F, Aguayo E, Artés F, Tomás-Barberán FA (2007) Enriched ozone atmosphere enhances bioactive phenolics in seedless table grapes after prolonged shelf life. J Sci Food Agric 87:824–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meng X, Li B, Liu J, Tian S (2008) Physiological responses and quality attributes of table grape fruit to chitosan preharvest spray and postharvest coating during storage. Food Chem 106:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palou L, Serrano M, Martínez-Romero D, Valero D (2010) New approaches for postharvest quality retention of table grapes. Fresh Prod 4:103–110Google Scholar
Aubert C, Chalot G (2018) Chemical composition, bioactive compounds, and volatiles of six table grape varieties (Vitis vinifera L.). Food Chem 240:524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cefola M, Damascelli A, Lippolis V et al (2018) Relationships among volatile metabolites, quality and sensory parameters of ‘Italia’ table grapes assessed during cold storage in low or high CO2 modified atmospheres. Postharvest Biol Technol 142:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng Y, Wu Y, Li Y (2006) Physiological responses and quality attributes of ‘Kyoho’ grapes to controlled atmosphere storage. LWT Food Sci Technol 39:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng Y, Wu Y, Li Y (2005) Effects of high O2 levels on post-harvest quality and shelf life of table grapes during long-term storage. Eur Food Res Technol 221:392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheng K, Zheng H, Shui S et al (2018) Comparison of postharvest UV-B and UV-C treatments on table grape: changes in phenolic compounds and their transcription of biosynthetic genes during storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 138:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeda F, Saunders MS, Saunders JA (1983) Physical and chemical changes in Muscadine grapes during postharvest storage. Am J Enol Vitic 34:180–185Google Scholar
Valero D, Valverde JM, Martínez-Romero D et al (2006) The combination of modified atmosphere packaging with eugenol or thymol to maintain quality, safety and functional properties of table grapes. Postharvest Biol Technol 41:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chervin C, Lavigne D, Westercamp P (2009) Reduction of gray mold development in table grapes by preharvest sprays with ethanol and calcium chloride. Postharvest Biol Technol 54:115–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretel MT, Martinez-Madrid MC, Martinez JR et al (2006) Prolonged storage of ‘Aledo’table grapes in a slightly CO2 enriched atmosphere in combination with generators of SO2. LWT-Food Sci Technol 39:1109–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kader AA, Saltveit ME (2003) Respiration and gas exchange. Postharvest Physiol Pathol Veg 2:7–29Google Scholar
Liu H-F, Wu B-H, Fan P-G et al (2006) Sugar and acid concentrations in 98 grape cultivars analyzed by principal component analysis. J Sci Food Agric 86:1526–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBolt S, Cook DR, Ford CM (2006) L-Tartaric acid synthesis from vitamin C in higher plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:5608–5613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano M, Valverde JM, Guillén F et al (2006) Use of Aloe vera gel coating preserves the functional properties of table grapes. J Agric Food Chem 54:3882–3886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubert C, Bony P, Chalot G et al (2014) Effects of storage temperature, storage duration, and subsequent ripening on the physicochemical characteristics, volatile compounds, and phytochemicals of western red nectarine (Prunus persica L. Batsch). J Agric Food Chem 62:4707–4724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalt W, Forney CF, Martin A, Prior RL (1999) Antioxidant Capacity, Vitamin C, Phenolics, and Anthocyanins after Fresh Storage of Small Fruits. J Agric Food Chem 47:4638–4644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavarini S, Degl’Innocenti E, Remorini D et al (2008) Antioxidant capacity, ascorbic acid, total phenols and carotenoids changes during harvest and after storage of Hayward kiwifruit. Food Chem 107:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee SK, Kader AA (2000) Preharvest and postharvest factors influencing vitamin C content of horticultural crops. Postharvest Biol Technol 20:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamal-Eldin A, Appelqvist L-A (1996) The chemistry and antioxidant properties of tocopherols and tocotrienols. Lipids 31:671–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath G, Wessjohann L, Bigirimana J et al (2006) Accumulation of tocopherols and tocotrienols during seed development of grape (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Albert Lavallée). Plant Physiol Biochem 44:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangolar SG, Özogul F, Tangolar S, Yağmur C (2011) Tocopherol content in fifteen grape varieties obtained using a rapid HPLC method. J Food Compos Anal 24:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen P-N, Chu S-C, Chiou H-L et al (2005) Cyanidin 3-glucoside and peonidin 3-glucoside inhibit tumor cell growth and induce apoptosis in vitro and suppress tumor growth in vivo. Nutr Cancer 53:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalt W (2005) Effects of production and processing factors on major fruit and vegetable antioxidants. J Food Sci 70:R11–R19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantos E, García-Viguera C, de Pascual-Teresa S, Tomás-Barberán FA (2000) Effect of postharvest ultraviolet irradiation on resveratrol and other phenolics of Cv. napoleon table grapes. J Agric Food Chem 48:4606–4612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo JJ, Jiménez M (2000) Monoterpenes in grape juice and wines. J Chromatogr A 881:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar