The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
HPLC−DAD−ESIMS Analysis of Phenolic Compounds in Nectarines, Peaches, and Plums
Abstract
The phenolic compounds of 25 peach, nectarine, and plum cultivars were studied and quantified by HPLC-DAD-ESIMS. Hydroxycinnamates, procyanidins, flavonols, and anthocyanins were detected and quantified. White and yellow flesh nectarines and peaches, and yellow and red plums, were analyzed at two different maturity stages with consideration of both peel and flesh tissues. HPLC-MS analyses allowed the identification of procyanidin dimers of the B- and A-types, as well as the presence of procyanidin trimers in plums. As a general rule, the peel tissues contained higher amounts of phenolics, and anthocyanins and flavonols were almost exclusively located in this tissue. No clear differences in the phenolic content of nectarines and peaches were detected or between white flesh and yellow flesh cultivars. There was no clear trend in phenolic content with ripening of the different cultivars. Some cultivars, however, had a very high phenolic content. For example, the white flesh nectarine cultivar Brite Pearl (350-460 mg/kg hydroxycinnamates and 430-550 mg/kg procyanidins in flesh) and the yellow flesh cv. Red Jim (180-190 mg/kg hydroxycinnamates and 210-330 mg/kg procyanidins in flesh), contained 10 times more phenolics than cultivars such as Fire Pearl (38-50 mg/kg hydroxycinnamates and 23-30 mg/kg procyanidins in flesh). Among white flesh peaches, cultivars Snow King (300-320 mg/kg hydroxycinnamates and 660-695 mg/kg procyanidins in flesh) and Snow Giant (125-130 mg/kg hydroxycinnamates and 520-540 mg/kg procyanidins in flesh) showed the highest content. The plum cultivars Black Beaut and Angeleno were especially rich in phenolics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hammerstone, J. F., Lazarus, S. A., Mitchell, A. E., Rucker, R., & Schmitz, H. H. (1999) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf980760h · Cited by 455
Cited by
Recent Research on the Health Benefits of Blueberries and Their Anthocyanins
Kalt, W., Cassidy, A., Howard, L. R., Krikorian, R., Stull, A. J., Tremblay, F., & Zamora-Ros, R. (2020) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/advances/nmz065 · Cited by 659
Quality changes and nutrient retention in fresh-cut versus whole fruits during storage
Gil, M. I., Aguayo, E., & Kader, A. A. (2006) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf060303y · Cited by 376
Self-citationAaby, K., Ekeberg, D., & Skrede, G. (2007) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf0702592 · Cited by 375
Bondonno, C. P., Yang, X., Croft, K. D., Considine, M. J., Ward, N. C., Rich, L., Puddey, I. B., Swinny, E., Mubarak, A., & Hodgson, J. M. (2012) · Free Radical Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.09.028 · Cited by 292
Petriccione, M., Mastrobuoni, F., Pasquariello, M., Zampella, L., Nobis, E., Capriolo, G., & Scortichini, M. (2015) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods4040501 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomás-Barberán, F. A., Gil, M. I., Cremin, P., Waterhouse, A. L., Hess-Pierce, B., & Kader, A. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-09-07
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4748-4760
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2041192165
- Cited by
- 679
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.