J Food Process Preserv. 2019;43:e13896. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpp
|
1 of 9 https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13896© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1 | INTRODUCTION
The prickly pear is the fruit of the genus Opuntia (belong to the Cactaceae family). It contains a number of small seeds (El‐Kossori, Villaume, Boustani, Sauvaire, & Mejean, 1998; Hernandez‐Perez, Carrillo‐Lopez, Guevara‐Lara, Cruz‐Hernandez, & Paredes‐Lopez, 2005). The pressed fruit juices of Opuntia ficus‐indica are rich in flavo‐ noids, such as campherol‐3‐o‐rutinoside, isorhamnetin‐3‐o‐rutinoside, and isorhamnetin‐3‐o‐glucoside (Galati et al., 2003). Prickly pear has medicinal properties and nutritive components as potentially active antioxidant phytochemicals (Livrea & Tesoriere, 2006). Li et al. (2017)
studied on the effects of exposure to 1MCP on quality and postharvest storage performance of cactus pear fruit cv. “Ofer” purchased from a commercial grower in the Negev region of southern Israel. Mahayothee, Komonsing, Khuwijitjaru, Nagle, and Muller (2019) investigated the influence of drying temperature and air velocity on color, betacyanin contents, and antioxidant capacity of red fleshed dragon fruits. Prickly pear fruits are also used for the manufacturing of other products, such as juices, jams, and processed into candy‐like products (Gurrieri et al., 2000; Maataoui, Hmyene, & Hilali, 2006; Sáenz & Sepúlveda, 2001). Its seed oil is another potential product obtained during fruit processing. It was reported that pulp was the the edible part of O. ficus‐indica fruit and Received: 6 September 2018
|
Revised: 13 December 2018|
Accepted: 30 January 2019DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.13896
O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
Effect of location on some physico‐chemical properties of
prickly pear (Opuntia ficus‐indica L.) fruit and seeds
Büşra Belviranlı
1| Fahad Al‐Juhaimi
2| Mehmet Musa Özcan
3| Kashif Ghafoor
2|
Elfadıl E. Babiker
2| Omer N. Alsawmahi
21Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Food Control Laboratory, Konya, Turkey
2Department of Food Science & Nutrition, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Food Engineering, University of Selçuk, Konya, Turkey
Correspondence
Fahad Al‐Juhaimi, Department of Food Science & Nutrition, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. Email: faljuhaimi@ksu.edu.sa Funding information King Saud University, Grant/Award Number: RG‐1435‐049
Abstract
Total phenolics, β‐carotene, and ascorbic acid contents of cactus fruits varied be‐ tween 490.74 and 932.87 mg/100 g, 40.93 and 130.76 µg/kg, and 124.82 and 240.25 mg/kg, respectively. K and Ca values of prickly pear fruits changed between 1,908.10 and 3,981.90 mg/kg, and 136.79 and 1,224 mg/kg, respectively. Amounts of gallic acid, 3,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, 1,2‐dihydroxybenzene, syringic acid contents of prickly pear fruit pulps ranged from 0.86 to 166.02 mg/kg, 2.17 to 4.75 mg/kg, 3.29 to 15.55 mg/kg, and 1.63 to 14.14 mg/kg, respectively. Palmitic, stearic, oleic, and linoleic acids values of seed oils changed between 11.22 and 11.77%, 2.97 and 3.23%, 13.61 and 15.46%, and 60.94 and 63.38%, respectively. Effect of location on seed oil, brixo, saccharose, raffinose, total phenolic content,
β‐carotene, ascorbic acid values of prickly pear fruits and oleic acid, linoleic acid, erusic acid contents of seed oils is significant in p < 0.01 level.
Practical applications
Prickly pears grown in limited quantities in Turkey can be used as fresh fruit, juice, jam, and marmalade due to rich in total phenol, phenolic constituents, mineral con‐ tents, and antioxidant activity. Because, 3,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid, 1,2‐ Dihydroxybenzene, gallic acid, catechin, quercetin, resveratrol, isorhamnetinreadily absorbable carbohydrates, minerals, vitamin C, and soluble fibers are main compo‐ nents of prickly pear fruits. Their seeds considered as waste material during fruit processing can be used as industrial oil due to fatty acid compositions. Prickly pear fruits due to mineral contents can provide tonic effect.
2 of 9
|
BELVIRANLI EtAL. was mainly composed of water (84–90%) and reducing sugars (10–15%)(Feugang, Konarski, Zou, Stintzing, & Zou, 2006). Total sugar content varies from 6 to 14% and the sugar is composed of 53% glucose and 47% fructose (Hernandez‐Perez et al., 2005). Yahia and Mondragon‐ Jacobo (2011) studied on fruit pulps of totally 10 cacti, including vari‐ eties and lines. As a result of the analyzes of β‐carotene, ascorbic acid and total phenolic content in fruit pulps, it was found that the highest β‐carotene (5 µg/g fresh weight) and ascorbic acid (4,000 µg/100 g fresh weight) contents were in O. robusta Camuesa and the highest total phenolic content (130 mg gallic acid/g) was in O. megacantha Naranjona and O. robusta Camuesa (Yahia & Mondragon‐Jacobo, 2011). Barbagallo, Pappalardo, and Tornatore (1998)studied organic acid con‐ tents of prickly pear (O. ficus‐indica) fruits and they reported that main organic acid in the fruit was citric (62 mg/100 g) followed by malic (23.3 mg/100 g), quinic (19.1 mg/100 g), shikimic (2.8 mg/100 g), and oxalic acids, respectively. It was found that trace amounts of isocitric, fumaric, glikolic, and succinic acid were present in fruit pulp (Stintzing, Schieber, & Carle, 2001; Chavez‐Santoscoy, Gutierrez‐Uribe, & Serna‐ Saldívar, 2009). Nassar (2008) studied chemical composition of ground seeds of O. ficus‐indica and functional properties of protein concentrate obtained from the seed and found 13.62 and 62.41% protein in seed flour and protein concentrates, respectively. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of locations on some physicochemical prop‐ erties of fruits and seeds of prickly pear (O. ficus‐indica L.) provided from different locations ([Adana (Central), Alanya (Central), Anamur (Central), Fethiye (Central), and İskenderun (Central)] in Mediterranean and Aegean regions of Turkey.
2 | MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 | Material
Ripedprickly pear (O. ficus‐indica L.) fruits were collected from wild trees grown in five different locations of Turkey [Adana (Central), Alanya (Central), Anamur (Central), Fethiye (Central), and İskenderun (Central)] in August 2013. About 45 kilograms fruits from each location were collected. Collected fruits were immediately taken to the labora‐ tory in frigofric polyethylene containers. Pulps containing seeds were homogenized by blender, and then seeds were seperated from pulps by sifting. Pulp residue on the seeds were removed by washing with distilled water several times. Then, after seeds were dried at 60 C until constant weight, they were ground by laboratory type grinder. Then ground samples were put in light‐proof containers, and preserved at −20 C until analysis. The pulps were lyophilized using in analysis.
2.2 | Methods
2.2.1 | Physical and chemical analysis of prickly pear
fruit pulp
Total soluble solid, sugar contents, and crude cellulose contents of fruits were determined according to studies of El Kossori, Villaume, El Boustani, Sauvaire, and Mejean (1998) and Nassar (2008).
2.2.2 | Analysis of minerals
Fruit pulp was dried in air circulation drying cabinet at 70 C until con‐ stant weight. After 5 ml of 65%HNO3 and 2 ml of 35% H2O2 were added to 0.5 g of ground sample, the sample was digested in close microwave system (Cem‐MARS Xpress) at 200 C. Digested sam‐ ples were diluted to 20 ml by ultra distilled water. Mineral contents were measured byInductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP‐AES) (Skujins, 1998).
2.2.3 | Determination of total phenolic content
10 ml of methanol‐water (50:50, v/v) mixture was added to 1 g of fruit pulp. One milliliter of this extract was mixed with 1 ml of Folin‐ Ciocalteu reactive/water mixture (50:50, v/v) and kept for 5 min. After that, 2 ml of 35% Na2CO3 was added to this mixture and kept at room temperature for 10 min. After 10 min, the mixture was centrifuged for 8 min and absorbance value was recorded in spec‐ trophotometer (Shimadzu UV‐vis mini spectrophotometer 1240) at 730 nm. Results were calculated by the calibration curve obtained by readings of gallic acid standarts of certain concentrations and expressed as mg/100 g (Kujala, Loponen, Klika, & Pihlaja, 2000; Medina, Rodriguez, & Romero, 2007).2.2.4 | Determination of free radical
scavenging activity
In this spectrophotometric method, it is based on reducing the abil‐ ity of antioxidants against 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 1 ml from methanolic extract of fruit pulp was mixed with 2 ml of DPPH (10 mg/L) and shaken vigorously. After that the mixture was kept in darkness for 30 min and absorbance was read in spectropho‐ tometer (Shimadzu UV‐vis mini spectrophotometer 1240) at 517 nm (Lee et al., 1998).
2.2.5 | Extraction and determination of
phenolic compounds
About 1 g of lyophilized pulp sample was mixed with 3 ml of meth‐ anol‐water (50:50) containing 50 mM sodium ascorbate and the mixture was homogenized in darkness at 225 rpm for 10 min and continuously centrifuged at 10°C and 12,000 g for 5 min. After cen‐ trifugation, the supernatant was taken to another tube. The same procedure was applied to the lower phase once again with metha‐ nol‐water mixture (50:50) and for the last time with 100% methanol. The collected extract was concentrated to about 3 ml at 30°C under vacuum and then diluted to 4 ml by distilled water (Cejudo‐Bastante, Chaalal, Louaileche, Parrado, & Heredia, 2014).
Determination of phenolic compounds were done by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC; Shimadzu LC 10A vp, Kyoto, Japan) according to Kara, Şahin, Turumtay, Dinç, and Gümüşçü (2014). Standards used in the analysis are gallic acid, 3,4‐ dihydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, 1,2‐dihydroxybenzene, syringic
acid, caffeic acid, rutin, p‐coumaric acid, trans‐ferulic acid, apigenin 7‐glucoside, resveratrol, quercetin, trans‐cinnamic acid, naringenin, campherol, and isorhamnetin (Sigma‐Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany). Phenolic compounds were qualitatively detected by retention times and UV spectrums of the peaks belonging to standard solutions. For quantitation, calibration curve obtained by standard solutions of dif‐ ferent concentrations was used.
2.2.6 | Extraction and determination of β‐carotene
In the extraction of β‐carotene from fruit pulp, 5 g of pulp sample was taken into a flask and was added to 100 ml of extraction sol‐ vent (hexane:acetone:ethanol, 50:25:25, v/v/v) by protecting from light and mixed in magnetic stirrer for 30 min. After 15 ml of dis‐ tilled water was added to this mixture and left for phase seperation. Continuously, 10 ml of upper phase was evaporated, and the extract was diluted to 1 ml by methanol. The last solution was filtered bya 0.45 µm membrane filter (Barba, Hurtado, Mata, Ruiz, & Tejada, 2006). Twenty microliters of the obtained solution was injected to HPLC for the determination of the quantity of β‐carotene (Mu‐Lin, Bo‐Di, & Ke‐Nuo, 2007).2.2.7 | Extraction and determination of
ascorbic acid
In the extraction of ascorbic acid, 50 ml of metaphosphoric acid (2%) was added to 5 g of pulp sample and homogenized at 11,000 rpm for 3 min. The mixture was shaken for 15 min and then filtered. The filtrate was diluted to 50 ml by metaphosphoric acid (2%) and ascor‐ bic acid was determined by injection of 20 µl of the sample to HPLC (Karipçin et al., 2016).
2.2.8 | Oil content and fatty acid composition
Oil contents of prickly pear seeds weredetermined according to study of Matthaus and Özcan (2011), and oil content was expressed as percentage of mass fraction. Fatty acid methyl esters were de‐ termined bythe analysis method of International Olive Oil Council (IOOC). 0.1 g of oil sample was transferred to ascrew cap test tube of 5 ml. After that, 2 ml of potassium hydroxide (2 N) and few drops of methyl orange solution was added to the tube, cap of the tube was closed together with PTFE‐septum and vigorously shaken for 30 s and kept until formation of the upper phase. Fatty acid composition of oil samples was determined by injection of the upper phase to GC (gas chromatography) (Schimadzu GC‐2010).Working conditions of GC Mobile phase: Nitrogen
Flow rate of nitrogen (ml/min.): 1.51 Total flow rate (ml/min.): 80 Split ratio: 1/40
Injection volume: 1 µl
Temperature of injection block: 260°C Temperature of detector: 260°C
Detector: FID (Flame Ionization Detector, Schimadzu).
Column: Fused silica column (capillary) (Teknokroma TR‐CN 100, Barcelona, Spain, 60 m × 0.25 mm of internal diameter, 0.20 µm of film thickness)
Temperature programme: Keep at 90°C for 7 min, rise to 240°C by increasing 5°C/min and keep at this temperature for 15 min.
2.3 | Statistical analysis
SPSS 15.0 for Windows Evaluation Version programme was used for the statistical evaluation of the results.Effect of location on analysis parameters was evaluated by analysis of variance (One‐way ANOVA) and differences between the groups were detected by Duncan mul‐ tiple comparison test (p < 0.05).
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
0Brix, total phenolic content, free radical scavenging activity, β‐
carotene and ascorbic acid values of prickly pear fruit pulps provided from different locations changed between 10.27 (Alanya) and 13.67 (Fethiye), 490.74 (Anamur) and 932.87 (Fethiye) mg/100 g, 52.21 (Anamur) and 53.41% (Fethiye), 40.93 (İskenderunl) and 130.76 (Anamur) µg/kg and 124.82 (Adana) and 240.25 (Fethiye) mg/kg, respectively (Table 1). Crude cellulose, fructose, glucose, and sac‐ charose values of fruit pulps varied between 1.20 (Adana) and 1.57% (Alanya), 24.95 (Fethiye) and 29.17 (Alanya) g/100 g, 38.92 (Adana) and 44.71 (Alanya) g/100 g and 0.15 (Fethiye and İskenderun) and 0.36 (Alanya) g/100 g, respectively. In addition, while raffinose is not detected in Anamur and Fethiye samples, raffinosecontents of fruits collected from other locations changed between 0.01 (İskenderun) and 0.05 (Alanya) g/100 g (Table 1). According to variance analysis results, effect of location on Brix, saccharose, raffinose, total phe‐ nolic content, β‐carotene, and ascorbic acid values of prickly pear fruit pulps was significant in p < 0.01 level. Medina et al. (2007) ex‐ amined 14.04 Brix value in riped fruit pulp of O. ficus‐indica. In terms of oBrix value, results of our study were lower than those reported
by Medina et al. (2007) and the nearest Brix value to the literature was in Fethiye samples. However, Felker et al. (2005) and Inglese, Barbera, Lamantia, and Portolano (1995) reported that Brix values of cactus cultivars were higher than 13. It is seen that Fethiye samples meet this brix value. The highest saccharose and raffinose contents among the locations are in Alanya sample. Differences among sac‐ charose and raffinose values of other locations were not found sta‐ tistically significant. It’s seen that dominant sugars in fruit pulps of all locations are fructose and glucose (Table 1). El‐Kossori et al. (1998) examined composition of pulp, skin, and seeds of O. ficus‐indica and found that the pulp contained 29.6% fructose, 35% glucose, and 0.22% saccharose per dry matter. It’s seen that fructose values of all locations are lower and glucose values of all locations are higher than the values determined by El Kossori et al. (1998) and saccharose con‐ tent of Alanya samples are higher than saccharose value of El Kossori et al. (1998). The highest total phenolic contents of fruits were found
4 of 9
|
BELVIRANLI EtAL.in Adana, Alanya, and Fethiye samples, and the lowest in Anamur and İskenderun samples (Table 1). Fernandez‐Lopez, Almela, Obon, and Castellar (2010) studied whole fruits of three different cactus spe‐ cies grown in Spain and reported that red‐skinned fresh fruits of O. ficus‐indica contained 218.8 mg gallic acid/100 g total phenol. Yahia and Mondragon‐Jacobo (2011) determined total phenolic content of 10 mg gallic acid/g in fresh fruit pulp in a selection and 10–70 mg gal‐ lic acid/g in fresh fruit pulps of another selection and other varieties of O. ficus indica. Osorio‐Esquivel, Alicia‐Ortiz‐Moreno, Dorantes‐ Alvarez, and Giusti (2011) studied on phenolics, betacyanins, and antioxidant activity of Opuntia joconostle fruits and reported that total phenolic amount of fresh mesocarp of Opuntia joconostle fruit was 1.38 mg gallic acid/g and antioxidant activity (determined by DPPH method) in methanolic extract of mesocarp was 42.27%. It’s seen that total phenolic contents of all locations in our study were lower than results reported by Yahia and Mondragon‐Jacobo (2011) and higher than results of Fernandez‐Lopez et al. (2010) and Osorio‐ Esquivel et al. (2011). Free radical scavenging activity values of the prickly pear fruits in our study were higher than the results reported by Osorio‐Esquivel et al. (2011). These differences in total phenolic contents and free radical scavenging activity values are probably due to fruit color, locations, climate, soil structure, environmental condi‐ tions, and analytic conditions. While the highest β‐carotene values are found in Adana and Anamur samples, the lowest β‐carotene val‐ ues were found in Alanya, Fethiye, and İskenderun samples (Table 1). Yahia and Mondragon‐Jacobo (2011) studied on fruit pulps of totally 10 cacti, including varieties and lines and found that one selection of O. ficus‐indica contained about 1 µg/g β‐carotene and other se‐ lections and varieties contained less than 0.5 µg/g β‐carotene. The highest ascorbic acid values among the locations were found in Fethiye and Anamur samples in order to decreasing, respectively. The lowest ascorbic acid values are in Adana, Alanya, and İskenderun samples. De Wit et al. (2010) examined effect of location on internal
quality parameters of fruits of O. ficus‐indica varieties and showed that ascorbic acid values of all locations varied significantly between locations. Kuti (2004) studied on antioxidant compounds in fruits of four different varieties of Opuntia and found that light‐green colored fruit pulps of O. ficus‐indica contained 458 µg/g ascorbic acid. It‘s seen that ascorbic acid results of our study are lower than results of Kuti (2004). Medina et al. (2007) reported that orangey colored fruit pulp of O. ficus‐indica contained 17.2 mg/100 g ascorbic acid. Fernandez‐Lopez et al. (2010) determined 18.5 mg/100 g ascorbic acid in O. ficus‐indica fruits. While ascorbic acid values of Anamur and Fethiye samples are found higher, ascorbic acid values of other locations were found lower than values of Medina et al. (2007) and Fernandez‐Lopez et al. (2010).
Mineral contents of prickly pear fruit pulpsare shown in Table 2. P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn, Mn, B, and Cu values (in dry matter) of prickly pear fruit pulps collected from different locations changed between 174.40 (Fethiye) and 403.97 (Anamur) mg/kg, 1,908.10 (Adana) and 3,981.90 (Anamur) mg/kg, 136.79 (Anamur) and 1,224 (Alanya) mg/kg, 205.15 (Fethiye) and 393.01 (İskenderun) mg/kg, 211.45 (İskenderun) and 288.41 (Anamur) mg/kg, 13.80 (İskenderun) and 30.48 (Alanya‐Central) mg/kg, 1.70 (Fethiye) and 17.85 (İskenderun) mg/kg, 0.73 (Fethiye) and 12.95 (Alanya) mg/kg, 5.45 (Fethiye) and 7.70 (Anamur) mg/kg and 1.52 (İskenderun) and 4.33 (Alanya) mg/ kg, respectively. According to variance analysis results, effect of lo‐ cation on P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Zn, and Mn values of prickly pear fruit pulps is significant in p < 0.01 level. According to the results of Duncan multiple comparison test, the highest P and K values were belong to Anamur samples and the lowest P and K values belong to Fethiye and Adana samples. Anamur and İskenderun samples had the highest Mg contents, while the lowest Mg contents are found in Adana, Alanya, and Fethiye samples. Al‐Juhaimi and Özcan (2013) studied on mineral contents of seeds of prickly pear fruits provided from 25 different growing areas in Turkey. Ca, K, P, and Mg contents TA B L E 1 Some physico‐chemical properties of prickly pear fruit pulps
Properties
Locations
Adana (Central) Alanya (Central) Anamur (Central) Fethiye (Central) İskenderun (Central)
Brixo 11.33 ± 1.40**b 10.27 ± 0.50b 10.73 ± 0.50b 13.67 ± 0.23a 10.73 ± 0.30b
Crude cellulose* (%) 1.20 ± 0.16 cd 1.57 ± 0.11a 1.27 ± 0.20c 1.51 ± 0.06a 1.37 ± 0.20b
Fructose* (g/100 g) 26.53 ± 1.64b 29.17 ± 2.50a 25.34 ± 1.89bc 24.95 ± 0.45c 26.50 ± 2.08b Glucose* (g/100 g) 38.92 ± 3.27 cd 44.71 ± 4.51a 39.69 ± 5.88c 41.65 ± 1.53b 39.32 ± 2.75c Saccharose* (g/100 g) 0.18 ± 0.02b 0.36 ± 0.05a 0.20 ± 0.03b 0.15 ± 0.04b 0.15 ± 0.03b Raffinose* (g/100 g) 0.02 ± 0.02b 0.05 ± 0.03a nd – 0.01 ± 0.01b Total phenolics (mg/100 g)
824.07 ± 183.38a*** 844.91 ± 80.19a 490.74 ± 95.81b 932.87 ± 44.10a 502.31 ± 31.31b Free radical
scavenging activity (%)
53.31 ± 1.44a 52.24 ± 0.70b 52.21 ± 0.75b 53.41 ± 0.76a 52.83 ± 0.43b
β‐carotene (μg/kg) 110.71 ± 18.30a 66.59 ± 21.07b 130.76 ± 22.55a 54.20 ± 7.84b 40.93 ± 2.01b Ascorbic acid (mg/kg) 124.82 ± 25.02c 137.50 ± 10.35c 191.07 ± 23.32b 240.25 ± 25.38a 139.46 ± 6.27c *Drymatter, **Mean ± SD, ***Values within each row followed by different letters aresignificantly different (p < 0.05), nd: Not detected.
of the seeds varied between 268.5 and 674.8 mg/kg, 346.7 and 676.1 mg/kg, 1,173.6 and 1871.3 mg/kg and 101.8 and 214.7 mg/ kg, respectively (Al‐Juhaimi & Özcan, 2013). El‐Kossori et al. (1998) reported that fruit pulp of O. ficus‐indica contained 163 mg/100 g Ca, 76.1 mg/100 g Mg, 559 mg/100 g K, 0.063 mg/100 g P, 16.5 mg/100 g Fe, <0.78 mg/100 g Cu, 1.55 mg/100 g Zn, and 6.99 mg/100 g Mn in dry matter.Salim, Abdelwaheb, Rabah, and Ahcene (2009) studied on O. ficus‐indica (L.) fruit and found that fruit pulp without seed contained 12.4 mg/100 g Ca, 199 mg/100 g K, and 18.8 mg/100 g Mg in dry matter. Ca and Mg values of all fruits in our study were lower than results of El‐Kossori et al. (1998) and higher than results of Salim et al. (2009). In addition, P values of our study were higher than P values of El‐Kossori et al. (1998) and Fe and Mn values were lower than results of El‐Kossori et al. (1998). Zn values of İskenderun samples were higher than Zn value reported by El‐Kossori et al.(1998). Mineral contents of plants depend on fruit origin, namely on edaphic factors in growing area (Stintzing et al., 2001). In terms of mineral contents of the fruit pulps of all locations, it’s seen that prickly pear fruit pulps are rich in K, Ca, P, Mg, and S, other minerals are present in lower levels. In addition, Fe, Zn, Mn, B, Cu, and Mo minerals that are present in lower amounts are also important in terms of supplying mineral balance in body and func‐ tional effects.
Phenolic compounds in fruit pulps are given in Table 3. Gallic acid, 3,4‐dihydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, 1,2‐dihydroxybenzene, syringic acid, caffeic acid, rutin, p‐coumaric acid, trans‐ferulic acid, apigenin 7‐glucoside, resveratrol, quercetin, trans‐cinnamic acid, naringenin, campherol, and isorhamnetin values (in dry mat‐ ter) of pulps of prickly pear fruits collected from different loca‐ tions changed between 0.86 (Anamur)and 166.02 (Alanya) mg/ kg, 2.17 (Adana) and 4.75 (Fethiye) mg/kg, 3.29 (Adana) and 15.55 (İskenderun) mg/kg, 1.63 (Anamur) and 14.14 (İskenderun) mg/kg, 0.46 (Adana) and 6.02 (Fethiye) mg/kg, 1.03 (Alanya) and 9.12 (Adana and İskenderun) mg/kg, 0.50 (Anamur) and 1.53
(İskenderun) mg/kg, 0.05 (Fethiye) and 0.36 (İskenderun) mg/ kg, 0.21 (Alanya) and 0.37 (Adana and İskenderun) mg/kg, 0.33 (Adana) and 1.57 (İskenderun) mg/kg, 1.50 (Anamur) and 2.76 (Fethiye) mg/kg, 2.26 (İskenderun) and 7.88 (Adana) mg/kg, 0.35 (Adana) and 1.18 (Alanya) mg/kg, 0.72 (Fethiye) and 3.12 (Alanya) mg/kg, 1.75 (Adana) and 5.62 (İskenderun) mg/kg and 1.31 (Adana) and 7.23 (Alanya) mg/kg, respectively (Table 3).According to vari‐ ance analysis results, effect oflocation on gallic acid, catechin, 1,2‐dihydroxybenzene, syringic acid, caffeic acid, rutin, apigenin 7‐glucoside, quercetin, naringenin, campherol, and isorhamne‐ tin contents of prickly pear fruit pulps was significant in p < 0.01 level, effect of location onp‐coumaric acid contents of prickly pear fruit pulps was significant in p < 0.05 level.The lowest syringic acid and isorhamnetin contents were found in Adana samples while Anamur and Alanya samples have the lowest 1,2‐dihydroxyben‐ zeneand caffeic acid contents, respectively. Prickly pear fruits collected from Adana, Alanya, Anamur, and Fethiye locations had the lowest catechin, rutin, and p‐coumaric acid contents. The low‐ est gallic acid contents were found in Adana and Anamur samples. In addition, Adana, Alanya, and Anamur samples had the lowest apigenin 7‐glucoside contents. Kuti (2004) studied on antiox‐ idant compounds in the fruits of four different Opuntia species, and determined 43.2 µg/g quercetin and 24.1 µg/g isorhamnetin in light‐green colored fruits of O. ficus‐indica. Fernandez‐Lopez et al.(2010) studied whole fruits of three different cactus species grown in Spain and reported that red‐skinned fresh fruits of O. ficus‐indica contained 90 µg/g quercetin, 49.4 µg/g isorhamnetin, and 7.8 µg/g campherol. Quercetin and isorhamnetin contents of the fruit pulps in all locations were lower than quercetin and isorhamnetin values reported by Kuti (2004) and Fernandez‐Lopez et al. (2010). Guzman‐Maldonado et al. (2010) studied on Opuntia matudae fruits in three different locations and reported that cat‐ echin contents of Opuntia matudae fruit pulps varied between 3.93 and 4.17 mg/100 g. Catechin contents of fruits were lower TA B L E 2 Mineral contents of prickly pear fruit pulps*(mg/kg)
Minerals
Locations
Adana (Central) Alanya (Central) Anamur (Central) Fethiye (Central) İskenderun (Central)
P 222.96 ± 25.53**d 298.27 ± 13.15b 403.97 ± 3.81a 174.40 ± 27.12e 258.14 ± 10.31c
K 1908.10 ± 8.36e*** 2,190.2 ± 41.12c 3,981.90 ± 37.94a 1981.70 ± 30.48d 2,409.20 ± 6.53b
Ca 228.41 ± 14.14d 1,224 ± 11.54a 136.79 ± 39.16e 283.09 ± 12.26c 366.63 ± 14.20b
Mg 258.34 ± 36.11b 258.34 ± 36.11b 347.87 ± 16.42a 205.15 ± 32.34b 393.01 ± 2.83a
S 243.14 ± 27.48b 282.75 ± 18.84a 288.41 ± 27.02a 228.09 ± 17.71b 211.45 ± 14.24b
Fe 22.66 ± 17.37d 30.48 ± 5.89a 24.80 ± 3.55c 29.23 ± 1.87ab 13.80 ± 9.31e
Zn 3.42 ± 0.99bc 3.54 ± 0.88b 2.02 ± 1.28bc 1.70 ± 0.07c 17.85 ± 0.87a
Mn 0.91 ± 0.51c 12.95 ± 1.70a 6.56 ± 1.01b 0.73 ± 0.67c 2.35 ± 0.56c
B 6.08 ± 1.02b 6.19 ± 1.31b 7.70 ± 0.78a 5.45 ± 0.89c 5.57 ± 0.56c
Cu 2.45 ± 1.55b 4.33 ± 1.18a 2.63 ± 0.67b 2.71 ± 0.45b 1.52 ± 0.89c
Mo 0.35 ± 0.14a 0.24 ± 0.05b 0.21 ± 0.01c 0.23 ± 0.21b 0.21 ± 0.06c
6 of 9
|
BELVIRANLI EtAL.than those of catechin values in studies of Guzman‐Maldonado et al. (2010). As a result of this study, dominant flavonoids found in Opuntia fruits were quercetin, campherol, and isorhamnetin, re‐ spectively (Kuti, 2004). Opuntia fruits have relatively high flavonol contents. These compunds are phytochemicals that contribute to antioxidant capacity and which have been extensively studided for their potential health benefits (Feugang et al., 2006). In terms of phenolic acid profile, it’s seen that phenolic acids found in rela‐ tively higher levels in all locations were caffeic acid, 3,4‐dihydroxy‐ benzoic acid, gallic acid, and syringic acid. The other phenolic acids (p‐coumaric acid, trans‐ferulic acid and trans‐cinnamic acid) were present in lower levels in fruit pulps (Table 3). Ndhlala et al. (2007) reported that caffeic acid and p‐coumaric acid were present in fruit pulp of Opuntia megacantha. Presence of caffeic and p‐coumaric acids in prickly pear fruit pulps of all locations in our study were in accordance with Ndhlala et al. (2007).
The fatty acid compositions of the oils and oil contents of seeds of prickly pear seeds collected from different locations are given in Table 4. Oil contents (in dry matter) of prickly pear seeds changed between 5.34 (İskenderun) and 7.67% (Fethiye). Palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, arachidic and linolenic acid contents of seed oils varied changed 11.22 (Alanya) and 11.77% (İskenderun), 2.97 (Adana) and 3.23% (Anamur), 13.61 (Fethiye) and 15.46% (Anamur), 60.94 (Anamur) and 63.38% (Fethiye), 0.28 (Adana) and 0.32% (İskenderun), 0.25 (Adana) and 0.31% (Anamur), respec‐ tively (Table 4). According to variance analysis results, effect of location on oil contents, oleic acid, linoleic acid and erusic acid contents of prickly pear seed and oils were significant in p < 0.01 level. El Mannoubi, Barrek, Skanji, Casabianca, and Zarrouk (2009),
Matthaus and Özcan (2011) and Chougui et al. (2013) studied on physico‐chemical properties of different O. ficus‐indica seed and oils, and they determined 5.0–14.4% oil (in dry matter) in the seeds. Oil contents of prickly pear fruit seeds provided from different lo‐ cations in our study were in the range reported by Matthaus and Özcan (2011). In addition, while oil contents of Fethiye samples are in accordance with values of Chougui et al. (2013), oil contents of other locations were found lower than values of Chougui et al. (2013). In terms of oil amounts of all locations, all values are lower than the value reported by El Mannoubi et al. (2009). Differences among total oil values can be due to genetic factors, location, and growing conditions. Ramadan and Mörsel (2003b) reported that total lipid levels of seeds might depend on fruit cultivar, degree of ripeness, and fruit processing or storage conditions. Highest palmitic and linoleic acid contents were found in İskenderun and Fethiye seed oils while the lowest palmitic acid and linoleic acid values are found in Alanya and Anamur seed oils, respectively (Table 4). The highest oleic acid contents among the locations were determined in Anamur, İskenderun, and Adana seed oils while the lowest oleic acid contents are determined in Alanya and Fethiye seed oils (Table 4). As seen in Table 4, dominant fatty acids in all locations were linoleic, oleic, and palmitic acids, respectively. Ramadan and Mörsel (2003b) studied on seeds and pulp of O. ficus‐ indica and reported that oil contained 53.5% linoleic, 18.3% oleic, 20.1% palmitic, and 2.72% stearic acids, and dominant fatty acid in seed oil was linoleic acid followed by palmitic acid and oleic acid, respectively. Matthaus and Özcan (2011) studied on physical and chemical properties of prickly pears (O. ficus‐indica L.) seeds col‐ lected from different locations of Turkey and reported that major TA B L E 3 Analysis results of phenolic compounds in prickly pear fruit pulps* (mg/kg) (n:3)
Phenolics
Locations
Adana (Central) Alanya (Central) Anamur (Central) Fethiye (Central) İskenderun (Central)
Gallic acid 2.03 ± 0.96**d 166.02 ± 0.32a 0.86 ± 0.18d 4.40 ± 0.79c 12.24 ± 2.25b
3,4‐Dihydroxybenzoic acid 2.17 ± 0.80c 2.75 ± 0.45c 3.78 ± 1.54b 4.75 ± 1.18a 4.46 ± 1.05a
Catechin 3.29 ± 1.62b 4.41 ± 0.42b 4.25 ± 2.51b 3.61 ± 2.06b 15.55 ± 5.83b
1,2‐Dihydroxybenzene 3.16 ± 1.58bc 2.97 ± 1.80bc 1.63 ± 0.73c 6.38 ± 0.15b 14.14 ± 4.21a
Syringic acid 0.46 ± 0.29c 1.23 ± 1.06bc 2.64 ± 0.56b 6.02 ± 1.74a 1.65 ± 0.40bc
Caffeic acid 9.12 ± 0.07a 1.03 ± 0.34b 7.71 ± 1.10a 7.51 ± 0.47a 9.12 ± 2.90a
Rutin 0.76 ± 0.13b 0.68 ± 0.21b 0.50 ± 0.18b 0.72 ± 0.28b 1.53 ± 0.45a
p‐Coumaric acid 0.17 ± 0.14b 0.14 ± 0.04b 0.16 ± 0.11b 0.05 ± 0.02b 0.36 ± 0.12a
Trans‐ferulic acid 0.37 ± 0.11a 0.21 ± 0.02d 0.34 ± 0.03b 0.25 ± 0.11c 0.37 ± 0.18a
Apigenin 7‐glucoside 0.33 ± 0.03b 0.37 ± 0.05b 0.47 ± 0.17b 1.44 ± 0.68a 1.57 ± 0.23a
Resveratrol 2.06 ± 0.86a 2.61 ± 0.40a 1.50 ± 0.62b 2.76 ± 1.29a 1.51 ± 0.48b
Quercetin 7.88 ± 0.29a 4.42 ± 2.59bc 3.02 ± 0.20c 6.31 ± 0.14ab 2.26 ± 0.20c
Trans‐cinnamic acid 0.35 ± 0.13d 1.18 ± 0.69a 0.58 ± 0.22c 1.05 ± 0.06ab 0.78 ± 0.37b
Naringenin 1.07 ± 0.32c 3.12 ± 0.06a 1.59 ± 0.20b 0.72 ± 0.08d 2.99 ± 0.19a
Campherol 1.75 ± 0.03c 5.61 ± 0.24a 4.98 ± 0.71a 2.86 ± 0.30b 5.62 ± 0.07a
Isorhamnetin 1.31 ± 0.48e 7.23 ± 0.17a 2.99 ± 0.12d 6.56 ± 0.07b 4.71 ± 0.03c
fatty acids in seed oils were palmitic acid, oleic acid, and linoleic acid. In addition, in the same study it was reported that palmitic, oleic, linoleic, stearic, and linolenic acid contents in prickly pear seed oils were 10.6–12.8%, 13–23.5%, 49.3–62.1%, 3.3–5.4%, and 0.2–0.4%, respectively. Linoleic and stearic acid values were found higher than values reported by Ramadan and Mörsel (2003b) while our oleic acid and palmitic acid values are found lower than val‐ ues of Ramadan and Mörsel (2003b). Differences among fatty acid composition are probably thought to result from the differences among locations of growth, climate, environmental conditions, and degree of ripeness. Ramadan and Mörsel (2003a) reported that cacti seed oil had different fatty acid contents. In addition, the fatty acid composition was probably influenced by the climatic factors, soil type, and genetic factors under which they are grown (Coşkuner and Tekin, 2003; Ramadan and Morsel, 2003b). It’s seen that prickly pear seed oils have highly unsaturated character due to presence of relatively high amounts of unsaturated fatty acids (linoleic and oleic acid).
4 | CONCLUSION
Crude cellulose, fructose, glucose, and free radical scavenging ac‐ tivity had not been affected by location. These sugar contents in prickly pear fruits give an important value to these fruits for both sensory quality from sweetness and nutritional value obtained by these sugars. In addition, sweetness may also allow use of prickly pear fruit juices as sweeteners in different products. Cellulose con‐ tent in prickly pear fruits of all locations are also important in terms of nutrition. Antioxidant property of phenolic compounds and ascor‐ bic acid and high free radical scavenging activity of the fruits of all locations give all these fruits the property of being food resources essential to take place in nutrition. Presence of β‐carotene in the fruits of all locations increase importance of the consumption of prickly pear fruits (especially Adana and Anamur fruits) considering
functional health benefits of this compound. Prickly pear fruit pulps of all locations are rich in K, Ca, P, Mg, and S minerals. Functions of these minerals in body and health benefits of these minerals suggest that prickly pear fruits are important mineral sources essential to take place in nutrition. In addition, use of prickly pear fruit juices as mineral supplements in different beverages are possible due to min‐ eral contents. However, prickly pear seeds are important oil sources necessary to take place in nutrition due to its essential and polyun‐ saturated fatty acid (linoleic and oleic acids) contents which have health benefits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this Research group No (RG‐1435‐049).
CONFLIC T OF INTEREST
The authors have declared no conflict of interest for this article. ORCID
Mehmet Musa Özcan https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐5024‐9512
REFERENCES
Al‐Juhaimi, F., & Özcan, M. M. (2013). Determination of some min‐ eral contents of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus‐indica L.) seed flours. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 3659–3663. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10661‐012‐2817‐4
Barba, A. I. O., Hurtado, M. C., Mata, M. C. S., Ruiz, V. F., & de Tejada, M. L. S. (2006). Application of a UV‐vis detection‐HPLC method for a rapid determination of lycopene and beta‐carotene in veg‐ etables. Food Chemistry, 95, 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodchem.2005.02.028
TA B L E 4 Oil contents of prickly pear seeds and fatty acid composition values of seed oils (%)
Oil and fatty acids
Locations
Adana (Central) Alanya (Central) Anamur (Central) Fethiye (Central) İskenderun (Central)
Oil* 5.99 ± 0.73**b 7.09 ± 0.29a 5.49 ± 0.27b 7.67 ± 0.48a 5.34 ± 0.07b
Myristic 0.08 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.08 0.09 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.01
Palmitic 11.69 ± 0.07ab 11.22 ± 0.05c 11.30 ± 0.38bc 11.54 ± 0.09abc 11.77 ± 0.23a
Stearic 2.97 ± 0.09 3.02 ± 0.02 3.23 ± 0.18 3.04 ± 0.02 3.04 ± 0.02
Oleic 14.86 ± 0.41a*** 14.14 ± 0.09b 15.46 ± 0.45a 13.61 ± 0.16b 14.87 ± 0.34a
Linoleic 62.28 ± 0.18bc 62.84 ± 0.31ab 60.94 ± 0.89d 63.38 ± 0.06a 61.49 ± 0.21 cd
Arachidic 0.28 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.01 0.32 ± 0.02
Linolenic 0.25 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.09 0.28 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.02
Behenic 0.09 ± 0.07 0.05 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.04 0.05 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.07
Erusic 0.23 ± 0.02b 0.25 ± 0.00a 0.21 ± 0.02b 0.25 ± 0.01a 0.26 ± 0.00a
Arachidonic nd 0.04 ± 0.00 – – –
8 of 9
|
BELVIRANLI EtAL. Barbagallo, R. N., Pappalardo, P., & Tornatore, G. (1998). Varietal compar‐ison of Opuntia ficus‐indica juices by HPLC determination of organic acids. Industrie delle Bevande, 27, 273–275.
Cejudo‐Bastante, M. J., Chaalal, M., Louaileche, H., Parrado, J., & Heredia, F. J. (2014). Betalain profile, phenolic content, and color characteri‐ zation of different parts and varieties of Opuntia ficus‐indica. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 62, 8491–8499. https://doi. org/10.1021/jf502465g
Chavez‐Santoscoy, R. A., Gutierrez‐Uribe, J. A., & Serna‐Saldívar, S. O. (2009). Phenolic composition, antioxidant capacity and in vitro can‐ cer cell cytotoxicity of nine prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) juices. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 64, 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11130‐009‐0117‐0
Chougui, N., Tamendjari, A., Hamidj, W., Hallal, S., Barras, A., Richard, T., & Larbat, R. (2013). Oil composition and characterisation of phe‐ nolic compounds of Opuntia ficus‐indica seeds. Food Chemistry, 139, 796–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.01.054 Coşkuner, Y., & Tekin, A. (2003). Monitoring of seed composition of
prickly pear (Opuntia ficus‐indica L) fruits during maturation period. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 83, 846–849. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1423
De Wit, M., Nel, P., Osthoff, G., & Labuschagne, M. T. (2010). The ef‐ fect of variety and location on cactus pear (Opuntia ficus‐indica) fruit quality. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 65, 136–145. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11130‐010‐0163‐7
El Kossori, R. L., Villaume, C., El Boustani, E., Sauvaire, Y., & Mejean, L. (1998). Composition of pulp, skin and seeds of prickly pears fruit (Opuntia ficus indica sp.). Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 52, 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008000232406
El Mannoubi, I., Barrek, S., Skanji, T., Casabianca, H., & Zarrouk, H. (2009). Characterization of Opuntia ficus indica seed oil from Tunisia. Chemistry of Natural Compounds, 45, 616–620. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10600‐009‐9448‐1
Felker, P., Rodriguez, S. D. C., Casoliba, R. M., Filippini, R., Medina, D., & Zapata, R. (2005). Comparison of Opuntia ficus indica varieties of Mexican and Argentine origin for fruit yield and quality in Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 60, 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jaridenv.2004.06.003
Fernandez‐Lopez, J. A., Almela, L., Obon, J. M., & Castellar, R. (2010). Determination of antioxidant constituents in cactus pear fruits. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 65(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11130‐010‐0189‐x
Feugang, J. M., Konarski, P., Zou, D. M., Stintzing, F. C., & Zou, C. P. (2006). Nutritional and medicinal use of Cactus pear (Opuntia spp.) cladodes and fruits. Frontiers in Bioscience, 11, 2574–2589. https:// doi.org/10.2741/1992
Galati, E. M., Mondello, M. R., Giuffrida, D., Dugo, G., Miceli, N., Pergolizzi, S., & Taviano, M. F. (2003). Chemical characteriza‐ tion and biological effects of Sicilian Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill.fruit juice: Antioxidant and antiulcerogenic activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 4903–4908. https://doi. org/10.1021/jf030123d
Gurrieri, S., Miceli, L., Lanza, C. M., Tomaselli, F., Bonomo, R. P., & Rizzarelli, E. (2000). Chemical characterization of Sicilian prickly pear (Opuntia ficus indica) and perspectives for the storage of its juice. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 48, 5424–5431. https://doi. org/10.1021/jf9907844
Guzman‐Maldonado, S. H., Morales‐Montelongo, A. L., Mondragon‐ Jacobo, C., Herrera‐Hernandez, G., Guevara‐Lara, F., & Reynoso‐ Camacho, R. (2010). Physicochemical, nutritional, and functional characterization of fruits xoconostle (Opuntia matudae) pears from Central‐Mexico Region. Journal of Food Science, 75, 485–492. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1750‐3841.2010.01679.x
Hernandez‐Perez, T., Carrillo‐Lopez, A., Guevara‐Lara, F., Cruz‐ Hernandez, A., & Paredes‐Lopez, O. (2005). Biochemical and
nutritional characterization of three prickly pear species with differ‐ ent ripening behavior. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 60, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130‐005‐8618‐y
Inglese, P., Barbera, G., Lamantia, T., … Portolano, S. (1995). Crop pro‐ duction, growth, and ultimate size of cactus pear fruit following fruit thinning. HortScience, 30(2), 227–230.
Kara, M., Şahin, H., Turumtay, H., Dinç, S., & Gümüşçü, A. (2014). The phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of tea with different parts of Sideritis condensate at different steeping conditions. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 2, 258–262.
Karipçin, M. Z., Dinç, S., Kara, M., Kahraman, S., Alp, İ., & Çiçekçi, H. (2016). High temperature‐tolerant tomato lines: bioactive compounds. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 11, 117–125. Kujala, T. S., Loponen, J. M., Klika, K. D., & Pihlaja, K. (2000). Phenolics
and betacyanins in red beetroot (Beta vulgaris) root: Distribution and effect of cold storage on the content of total phenolics and three individual compounds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(11), 5338–5342.
Kuti, J. O. (2004). Antioxidant compounds from four Opuntia cactus pear fruit varieties. Food Chemistry, 85, 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308‐8146(03)00184‐5
Lee, S. K., Mbwambo, Z. H., Chung, H. S., Luyengi, L., Gamez, E. J. C., Mehta, R. G., … Pezzuto, J. M. (1998). Evaluation of the antioxi‐ dant potential of natural products. Combinational Chemistry & High Throughput Screening, 1, 35–46.
Li, L., Kashash, Y., Goldenberg, L., Sabag, A., Doron‐Faigenboim, A., & Porat, R. (2017). Effects of 1‐methylcyclopropene on postharvest storage performance and the transcriptome of cactus pear fruit. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 52(8), 1801–1809. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13454
Livrea, M. A., & Tesoriere, L. (2006). Health benefits and bioactive com‐ ponents of the fruits from Opuntia ficus‐indica [L.] Mill. Journal of the Professional Association for Cactus, 8, 73–90.
Maataoui, B. S., Hmyene, A., & Hilali, S. (2006). Antiradical activities of extracts of cactus pear juice (Opuntia ficus indica). Lebanese Science Journal, 7, 3–8.
Mahayothee, B., Komonsing, N., Khuwijitjaru, P., Nagle, M., & Muller, J. (2019). Influence of drying conditions on colour, betacyanin content and antioxidant capacities in dried red‐fleshed dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus). International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 54, 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13958 Matthaus, B., & Özcan, M. M. (2011). Habitat effects on yield, fatty acid
composition and tocopherol contents of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus‐ indica L.) seed oils. Scientia Horticulturae, 131, 95–98. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.09.027
Medina, E. M. D., Rodriguez, E. M. R., & Romero, C. D. (2007). Chemical characterization of Opuntia dillenii and Opuntia ficus in‐ dica fruits. Food Chemistry, 103, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodchem.2006.06.064
Mu‐Lin, L., Bo‐Di, H., & Ke‐Nuo, P. (2007). Quantitative analysis of lyco‐ pene from tomato and its processed products by C18‐HPLC‐PDA. Food Science, 28, 453–456.
Nassar, A. G. (2008). Chemical composition and functional properties of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus indica) seeds flour and protein concen‐ trate. World Journal of Dairy & Food Sciences, 3, 11–16.
Ndhlala, A. R., Kasiyamhuru, A., Mupure, C., Chitindingu, K., Benhura, M. A., & Muchuweti, M. (2007). Phenolic composition of Flacourtia in‐ dica, Opuntia megacantha and Sclerocarya birrea. Food Chemistry, 103, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.06.066
Osorio‐Esquivel, O., Alicia‐Ortiz‐Moreno, A. V. B., Dorantes‐Alvarez, L., & Giusti, M. M. (2011). Phenolics, betacyanins and antioxidant activity in Opuntia joconostle fruits. Food Research International, 44, 2160–2168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.011 Ramadan, M. F., & Mörsel, J. T. (2003a). Recovered lipids from
of polyunsaturated fatty acids, natural antioxidant vitamins and sterols. Food Chemistry, 83, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308‐8146(03)00128‐6
Ramadan, M. F., & Mörsel, M. T. (2003b). Oil cactus pear (Opuntia ficus‐ indica L.). Food Chemistry, 82, 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0308‐8146(02)00550‐2
Sáenz, C., & Sepúlveda, E. (2001). Cactus‐pear juices. Journal of the Professional Association for Cactus Development, 4, 3–10.
Salim, N., Abdelwaheb, C., Rabah, C., & Ahcene, B. (2009). Chemical composition of Opuntia ficus‐indica (L.) fruit. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 1623–1624.
Skujins, S. (1998). Handbook for ICP – AES (Vartian‐Vista). A short guide to vista series ICP—AES operation. Variant Int. AG, Zug, Switzerland. Stintzing, F. C., Schieber, A., & Carle, R. (2001). Phytochemical and nu‐
tritional significance of cactus pear. European Food Research and Technology, 212, 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002170000219
Yahia, E. M., & Mondragon‐Jacobo, C. (2011). Nutritional components and anti‐oxidant capacity of ten cultivars and lines of cactus pear fruit (Opuntia spp.). Food Research International, 44, 2311–2318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.042
How to cite this article: Belviranlı B, Al‐Juhaimi F, Özcan MM, Ghafoor K, Babiker EE, Alsawmahi ON. Effect of location on some physico‐chemical properties of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus‐indica L.) fruit and seeds. J Food Process Preserv. 2019;43:e13896. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13896
