Squeezed Orange Juice Properties Before and During In Vitro

R digestion. Fresh- 6 (Campbell Valencia) ´ anchez-Moreno and others in vitro ± C for 10 s to 2 min) of or- ° 2017 Institute of Food Technologists Further reproduction without permission is prohibited C digestion, orange juice 0.0001) and ranged from 521 0.0001). Antioxidant activity by FRAP was significantly In addition to harvest season, processing of orange juice may < < in vitro 0.4 mM Trolox) than the other juices (range: 9.1 to 10 mM activity and ascorbicMolina and acid others contentinfluenced (2008) the in found ascorbic that strawberries. acidcontent harvest of content. Gonzalez- antioxidants, Since season including oranges ofpolyphenolic ascorbic have compounds, acid, lemons a the carotenoids, and time high may of also harvest influence and their orange nutritional2008; variety content Aschoff (Rapisarda and and others others 2015). have an impact on its(thermally nutrient or content. nonthermally) Orange juicemicroorganisms to and is enzymes, increase such processed as shelf pectin methyl life,and esterase others (Basak and 2001; Bull inactivate and othersHowever, the 2004; processing Polydera and conditions others may 2005). properties also influence and the nutritional initial quality (S and Coates 2003;ity Gama (Polydera and and others de 2005),others Sylos and 2006). 2007), Previous ascorbic studies acid antioxidant have (Torregrosacessing shown activ- and (HPP) that high is pressure an pro- isms alternative and method enzymes to without inactivateand having microorgan- nutritional a compounds detrimental of effectactivity the on product, (Polydera quality including and antioxidant others 2005), provitamin A carotenoids 2005; Stinco and othersprocessing (between 2012). 80 Itange has and juice been 105 causes shown that degradation thermal of provitamin A carotenoids (Lee P P ± Digestion as Influenced by 0.0001). These results indicate that fruit variety and nutrient bioaccessibility should < P Vol. 82, Nr. 10, 2017 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13842 r and Gail M. Bornhorst L. Osbeck) is the most commonly In Vitro Processing method and variety of fruit during beverage manufacturing may influence its nutrient 0.05). However, antioxidant activity by ABTS and ascorbic acid bioaccessibility were significantly > P Citrus sinensis 0.0001) in Fukumoto Navel orange juice (16.0 This study aims to analyze the influence of processing and orange variety on initial quality, antioxidant activity, antioxidant activity, ascorbic acid, bioaccessibility, 11 mg gallic acid/L (Lane Late Navel). Processing method did not influence antioxidant and polyphenol < ± P Journal of Food Science

bioaccessibility ( influenced by orange varietybe ( considered to optimize processing and formulation parameters. to 800 Trolox). TPC was significantly influenced by orange variety ( into consideration both the bioaccessibilitybe of used nutrients and for the juice initialwith processors nutrient higher to content nutritional take of quality. into the consideration beverage. These the results harvest can season and produce variety to manufacture beverages bioaccessibility. We present a detailed examination ofon the initial influence quality of parameters orange and variety, harvest antioxidant time, bioaccessibility. and It processing is method recommended that nutritional analysis of beverages take Practical Application: Keywords: Abstract: higher ( Valencia oranges, and was processed(Folin-Ciocalteu thermally method), and and nonthermally. ascorbicwas Antioxidant acid calculated activity were (FRAP by analyzed and comparingsignificantly before ABTS influenced the assays), pH, and measured acidity, TPC after and values total gastrointestinal after soluble digestion. solids digestion ( Bioaccessibility with the initial value for each juice. Orange variety total polyphenol content (TPC), and ascorbicsqueezed acid orange content of juice fresh-squeezed orange was juice made during from Fukumoto Navel, Lane Late Navel, Olinda Nucellar Valencia, and Campbell Previous studies showed that time of harvest influences nutri- Orange juice ( JFDS-2017-0622 Submitted 4/15/2017, Accepted 7/15/2017. Authors are with fornia, Davis, 1 Shieldsauthors Avenue, Bornhorst Davis, (E-mail: Calif., [email protected]). 95616, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, 1329 Bainer Hall, Univ. of Cali- ent content intime different (early fruits. or late Ityear of in harvest has the (Pincemail and season) been others (Ferreyra 2012) shown and influenced antioxidant that others 2007) harvest and California, Navel oranges are typically harvestedber between Novem- and May, whereasbetween Valencia March oranges and are November commonly (USDA 2015). harvested more commonly consumed whole.for They juicing are not since asing they processing, widely resulting contain in used bitter limonin flavors (Bull which and others is 2004). In extracted dur- others 2012). The most commonlyNavel consumed and orange varieties Valencia are (Kimballused 1999). for juicing Valencia due oranges to their arebright high widely amount color of (Bull total and soluble others solids 2004). and In contrast, Navel oranges are consumed fruit juice inof the vitamin United States C, due phenolic to compounds its and high carotenoids content (O’Neil and 2438 Introduction Yamile A. Mennah-Govela Orange Variety and Processing Method Fresh-Squeezed Orange Juice Properties Before and During

Health, Nutrition, & Food sn ice ucr ed n aoiyo upwr removed were pulp of majority a and Seeds juicer. kitchen a using Davis, UC 4 to at shipped stored were oranges harvesting, after Immediately ( oranges Valencia Fuku- Nucellar Navel, Olinda Valencia, Late Campbell Lane Navel, used: moto were oranges November of and varieties May Four in 2016. CA Lindcove, in harvested Center, tension a materials Raw Methods and Materials and total quality and acid, initial after ascorbic juice polyphenols activity, antioxidant or- on of of method bioaccessibility influence processing the the and quantify nutrient variety to on ange aims processing study and This variety bioaccessibility. juice orange between actions of influence different varieties. a orange be different may on nu- processing there influence and may bioaccessibility, parameters trient processing specific orange pro- either and/or of that impact variety indicate may the bioaccessibility to nutrient as on cessing studies these juice. between unprocessed disagreement than This bioaccessibility Navel C vitamin Late (90 and Lane carotenoid thermally that processed found the juice (2015) On orange others 2012). and others and Aschoff contrary, (Stinco different juice significantly orange not pasteurized were carotenoid and highest hand-squeezed the and had bioaccessibility, juice orange squeezed (99 industrially pasteurized that va- and indus- Late” squeezed, hand-squeezed, “Valencia treatments: the trially processing from different made after juice riety orange in and qual- attributes Stinco some ity and processing. bioaccessibility pressure carotenoid con- measured high processing (2012) and others by thermal influenced as is such ditions, juice orange of bioaccessibility to (for critical absorption digestion. also for during available is degradation/transformation after are it bioaccessibility) example, that but compounds important, the is nutrient understand beverage initial a the of Knowing 2007). composition Aguilera amount and the (Parada as after gestion defined absorption been for available has value, nutrient initial of the re- from not percent a expressed or typically as Bioaccessibility, digestion matrix. during cellular the degraded from leased these be avail- of some either be since may may Late tract, nutrients gastrointestinal compounds Late the these in of absorption fraction for Early a able only Early acid, antioxidants in ascorbic high and is juice orange Although digestion. during ents 2016 2004). November others 2016 May 2016 November (S 2016 May typical in time Relative Valencia Campbell Valencia month Nucellar Harvest Olinda Navel Fukumoto Navel Late Lane study. this variety in Orange used time harvest with varieties 1–Orange Table . . . digestion during properties juice Orange uc rprto n processing and preparation Juice irssinensis Citrus nhzMrn n tes20) n sobcai Bl and (Bull acid ascorbic and 2003), others and anchez-Moreno ´ uc squeezing. Juice Ex- and Research Lindcove UC from obtained were Oranges ssc,adtoa eerhi eddt nesadteinter- the understand to needed is research additional such, As C vitamin and antioxidant that shown have studies Previous nutri- of behavior the to contribute may processing addition, In ° ,adwr sdwti wk. 3 within used were and C, .Obc) avs ie r hw nTbe1. Table in shown are times Harvest Osbeck). L. nvitro in rne eecti afadhand-squeezed and half in cut were Oranges digestion. ° ° o i)hdgreater had min) 1 for C o 5s.Te found They s). 15 for C nvitro in atonetnldi- gastrointestinal avs season harvest 1,d0 n 9,wihso h 0h 0h n 0hpercentile 90th and 50th, 10th, the show which d90, and d50, as d10, expressed were Results U.K.). Worcestershire, Ltd., Instruments others and 2012). (Stinco U.S.A.) Va., Reston, (HunterLab, Colorflex lab h aedya twssuee.Oag uc a trda 4 at stored was juice treatments Orange all squeezed. process was it to as used day was same Each the juice days. fresh-squeezed different on of completed batches batch 3 in squeezed 11 was 50, Juice (grade cheesecloth with filtering by nta ult measurements quality Initial . aHutltep ece 8.2 reached pH the with until titration NaOH potentiometric N via 0.1 measured was acid) citric as % (expressed w/w acidity Titratable U.S.A.). Co., Loveland, Co., (Hach treatment. juice each completed of replicate were each measurements for Three HI RI). (Hanna Woonsocket, refractrometer digital 96800, a using treatment processing and 0 P o i naHPui 2-0 a ytm Avure System, Lab (2L-700 unit HPP a in min 4 in for at MPa processed packed were Win- Pouches 600 vacuum. was Ltd., 90% (Winpak with juice Canada) pouches MB, orange nipeg, vacuum polyethylene of barrier mL high 150 approximately and (HPP), property initial and to type juice prior each day of analyses. processing, per mL bioaccessibility after 150 processed ice. Immediately were on s. placed treatment were 10 (at tubes block for test heating constant the a held in was placed ature were that was tubes juice 180 test orange fresh glass of to mL 5 added treatment, HT the For spectively). 3 85 tube, water. at test boiling bath with glass filled a 85 beaker in a reaching in juice After placed were fresh and treatments of sealed were mL thermal tubes 10 long adding and by medium, completed treat- Short, thermal temperature (HT). high ment and long, medium, short, pleted: d. 1 within analysis for oebr21 fo uuooNvladCmbl Valen- –20 Campbell at and frozen Navel was Fukumoto cia) (from 2016 November U.S.A.). Wash., Kent, Inc., Technologies t n osuecnetmaueet eecmltdfreach for completed were measurements replicate. content moisture and ity oven Kimball an 110 in following at gravimetrically calculated measured was was content index, Moisture (1999). maturity as known also okpaedrn ihpesr rcsig u ahrdrn the during that rather processes. changes but thawing processing, and of pressure freezing representative high be during not place may took not they were as freezing here, properties after included Those differences processing. significant showed pressure already high that after reported juices orange be Valencia Campbell will and Navel Fukumoto unprocessed frozen between differences and significant Only no thawing. had Novem- significant and that storage, properties the if freezing, during from determine occurred to had juice changes frozen/thawed) raw to (not the prior experiments juice with ber thawed processing (unprocessed), pressure raw high the com- compare were analyses to Preliminary pleted processing. pressure high to prior atcesz a esrduigaMseszr20 (Malvern 2000 Mastersizer a using measured was size Particle Hwsmaue sn nI10pral FE Hmeter pH IFSET portable IQ150 an using measured was pH ( solids soluble Total ihpesr processing. pressure High processing. Thermal u oeupetlmttos ato rnejiefrom juice orange of part limitations, equipment to Due oo (L Color ° ) fe ecig99 reaching After C). ° ni osatwih apoiaey2 ) w acid- Two h). 24 (approximately weight constant until C ° ∗ o ,5 r1 i sot eim n og re- long, and medium, (short, min 15 or 5, 1, for C a ∗ o.8,N.1,2017 10, Nr. 82, Vol. band ° ,tetbswr lcdi hkn water shaking a in placed were tubes the C, E ° ° ∗ ,soe o o n hwda 4 at thawed and mo, 1 for stored C, rx a esrdfrec uc type juice each for measured was Brix) ab ortemltetet eecom- were treatments thermal Four aus a esrduigaHunter- a using measured was values) ° apoiaey7 ) h temper- the s), 70 (approximately C r o ihpesr processing pressure high For ora fFo Science Food of Journal ± × .5 rxAi ratio, Brix/Acid 0.05. . hed e cm). per threads 9.5 2439 ° ° C C

Health, Nutrition, & Food < > < P All physicochemical properties of P P value, and with Fukumoto Navel had ∗ standard error of the mean. ± Ascorbic acid before and after digestion was was greatest in Fukumoto Navel, and lowest in ∗ Brix) and Campbell Valencia had the lowest (10.6 ° gastrointestinal digestion. pH of the water was adjusted 0.0001), but not by processing method ( 0.01). L < < Juice quality parameters. L-Ascorbic acid solutions in deionized water (at different pH) Statistical analysis was completed using SAS Enterprise 4.3 (SAS, Ascorbic acid. All color measurements (Table 3), L Brix). pH was significantly influenced by orange variety ( P P the Type III sumsdant activity, of TPC, and squares ascorbic were acidANOVA was content considered. done during For using digestion, a an thetion repeated phase antioxi- measures as the model, repeated with factor.to diges- The evaluate Tukey–Kramer differences test between was means used whennificant. main effects Statistical were significance sig- was evaluatedare at given as averages orange juice are shownnificantly in influenced Table by 2. processing Total0.0001), soluble method, solids and orange were variety their sig- ( Late interaction Navel ( orange juicetent had the (13.4 highest total° soluble solids con- 0.0001), but not by0.05). processing pH method was or lower in theirin orange interaction the juice ( from season oranges thanacid) harvested was late early significantly in influenced the bybut orange season. not variety by Titratable ( processing acidity methodearly ( (% had citric higher acidityharvest in (0.78% the and season (0.46% 0.75%) andor 0.54%) than (Table maturity 2). those Brix/Acid index, from ratio, was late ( significantly influenced by orange variety were prepared and usedin to vitro observe theto influences the of pH average initial during(3.4, pH 3.6, 3.9, of and theas 4.1). juice an An from extreme, additional eachtral with treatment orange pH pH was variety on 7.0, completed ence ascorbic to Education, acid Pa., observe digestion. U.S.A.) the was(450 L-ascorbic mg/L). dissolved influence This acid with concentration of deionized (Fisher wasinitial selected water neu- Sci- ascorbic based acid on content the of average alland orange juice digestions samples. were All analyses doneand following “Antioxidant Sections and total “ polyphenol bioaccessibility”. Cary, NC, U.S.A.). Anformed analysis using of a variance 2-factorin (ANOVA) factorial was the design initial per- to propertiestors determine and were differences antioxidant orange bioaccessibility. variety Theof and fac- processing some method. of Due to the absence HPP samples, the analysis was unbalanced, and Results Initial orange juice properties measured using theKimball (1999). indophenol titration method followed by L-Ascorbic acid control solutions Statistical analysis Olinda Nucellar Valencia. Orange juicelencia made with had Campbell the Va- highest a the lowest, indicating thatreddish Campbell tone Valencia and orange Fukumoto juice Navel hadothers had a 2012). a greener tone All (Stinco varieties and had high b nificantly influenced by( orange variety and processing method method, and their interaction ( content was significantly influenced by orange variety, processing 100 (1) × Lofsample μ after digestion bef ore digestion TPC was measured using 0.05) for all antioxidants > P Vol. 82, Nr. 10, 2017 r L of FRAP reagent to each well and μ for 20 min (Stinco and others 2013) at nixdn content antioxidant nixdn content antioxidant g C and 100 rpm. Samples were taken after ° L of the ABTS reagent and 10 × = μ ) The FRAP assay was completed following The ABTS assay was completed following Re % ( digestion was done following the procedure by Roman digestion Journal of Food Science ıguez-Roque and others 2015). ´ L of either juice or the standard. Results were expressed as μ ABTS assay. FRAP assay. where antioxidant content before digestion and after digestion Antioxidant activity, ascorbic acid, and TPC bioaccessibility Antioxidant activity was measured by 2 spectrophotometric In vitro Simulated oral and gastric fluids were formulated following the Ascorbic acid was measured using the indophenol titration Total polyphenol content (TPC). Bioccessibility modifications. 190 10 mM Trolox/L of orange juice. and others (1999), adapted to 96-well microplates with minor Benzie and otherstest (1996), consisted adapted of adding to 190 96-well microplates. The fluids and deionized water insteadassay, TPC, of and orange ascorbic juice. For acidsubtracted the values (corrected) ABTS of from thevalues all blank of treatment digested the were control results. samples The in the absorbance FRAP assays were 0. represent the antioxidantundigested activity, TPC, juice, and or after ascorbicgestion intestinal acid treatment digestion. of was An additional the used di- as a blank with simulated digestion (%) were calculatedRodr following Eq (1) (Stinco and others 2013; was used to calculateTotal polyphenol antioxidant content activity (TPC) valuesCiocalteu was method in with measured mM a using gallic Trolox. acid thestandard (Acros solution Folin- Organics, (0 N.J., U.S.A.) to 200 ppm). idant power (FRAP) and6-sulfonic 2,29-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline- acid) (ABTS). A Trolox (EMD Millipore, Mass.,standard U.S.A.) solution with a concentration ranging from 0 to 1.6 mM assays based on single electron transfer: ferric reducing antiox- and polyphenol assays. Foranalyzed this without reason, prior all centrifugation.treatment digested were samples Digestions completed were for in triplicate. each juice centrifugation 5000 the end of thebioaccessibility intestinal was not phase. statistically Resultsnoncentrifuged influenced showed digested that by sample antioxidant supernatant ( or Mass., U.S.A.) at 37 both gastric andpleted intestinal to phases. compare digested Preliminary sample trials and were supernatant com- by low speed (2012). and others (2012). Digestionsand were done placed in in a dark shaking propylene tubes water bath (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, procedure of Bornhorstfluid and was prepared Singh following the (2013). procedure Simulated of Roman intestinal and others 2440 Antioxidant and total polyphenol bioaccessibility method followed by Kimball (1999). In vitro of the sample sizes,a respectively. Spindown centrifugal pulp method was (Kimball measured 1999). by Orange juice properties during digestion . . . the Folin-Ciocalteu method following Singleton and Rossiadjusted (1965), to 96-wellgallic microplates. acid equivalent/L Results of were orange juice. expressed as mg or standard solution30 were min. added Results were to expressed each as mM well Trolox/L of and orange react juice. during

Health, Nutrition, & Food e Tbe3.d0wssgicnl nune yoag variety, ( orange interaction by their influenced and significantly diame- method was processing particle d10 percentile 3). 90th (Table ter and median, percentile, the10th en ifrn etr ihntesm oun(ewe aite n rcsigmtos ersn en htaesignificantly are that means represent methods) processing and varieties (between column same ( the different within letters Different mean. eesgicnl nune yoag ait ( variety orange by influenced significantly were variety, orange ( by interaction influenced their and significantly method, was processing variety same the n ieto hss(al )adbocesblt Fgr )were 1) (Figure bioaccessibility and 4) (Table phases digestion ing lnaNcla Valencia Nucellar Olinda elwclr oo ifrne( difference Color color. yellow NI Valencia Campbell Navel Late Lane Navel high Fukumoto treatment, thermal long variety Orange ( medium, averages short, as given (raw, are methods Values varieties. processing orange all 4 all from of juices processing) pressure orange high of and temperature, properties 2–Initial Table . . . digestion during properties juice Orange rnejiedgsinadbioaccessibility and digestion juice Orange o ypoesn ehd( method processing by not esn ehd,ttlplpeo otn fjie agdfrom ranged juices of content 521 polyphenol total methods, cessing ( interaction their or method ( variety orange significantly was by Valencia juices influenced undigested Nucellar of TPC Olinda 4). Navel, (Table and lowest the Fukumoto activity had antioxidant with largest made the juice had orange methods, ( processing interaction their or method ( variety significantly were orange assays by ABTS influenced and FRAP the by activity tioxidant nrcse uuooNvloag uc a h highest the lowest. long the had with had processed treatment Valencia juice thermal Campbell Overall, and orange juices. content acid orange Navel ascorbic processed Fukumoto any than unprocessed acid ascorbic higher of ( ( method acid interaction orange processing by Ascorbic and influenced respectively). significantly variety was juice, 4) (Table orange juices undigested Navel Late Lane atcesz a xrse sd0 5,add0 representing d90, and d50, d10, as expressed was size Particle nixdn activity. Antioxidant nixdn ciiy P,adacri acid. ascorbic and TPC, activity, Antioxidant = auswr o nldddet infiatdfeecsbtenfehadtae ape ro oprocessing. to prior samples thawed and fresh between differences significant to due included not were values ± o800 to 6 P < P 0.05). = ± .27.Rw(nrcse)oag ucshad juices orange (unprocessed) Raw 0.3227). 1m alcai/ Cmbl aecaand Valencia (Campbell acid/L gallic mg 11 Processing method eim10.6 Medium 13.4 Medium 10.8 Medium 11.3 Medium hr 10.7 Short 13.5 Short 10.8 Short 11.3 Short og10.7 Long 13.4 Long 10.6 Long 11.3 Long ifrne natoiatatvt dur- activity antioxidant in Differences HPP 13.5 HPP NI 10.9 HPP NI NIHPP NININI NI NI NI NININI a 10.6 Raw 13.6 Raw 11.2 Raw a 10.9 Raw T10.5 HT 13.0 HT 10.9 HT 11.2 HT P P P > P P > < 0.05). < < .5.O vrg ewe pro- between average On 0.05). P E .5.O vrg,btenall between average, On 0.05). .01,btntb processing by not but 0.0001), processing by not but 0.0001), ∗ < ab oa oul solids soluble Total rmupoesdjieof juice unprocessed from ) .01,btntb their by not but 0.0001), P P ( ° < < ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± rx pH Brix) .5.d0add90 and d50 0.05). 0.001). 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 f ef ef ef ef a b ab ab a a cdef cde ef def ef cdef cd c c c cd P < 3.86 3.85 3.88 3.85 3.83 4.05 4.14 4.07 4.05 4.08 4.07 3.60 3.61 3.64 3.63 3.63 3.61 3.37 3.39 3.36 3.36 3.39 .5,but 0.05), nta an- Initial ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 b b b b a a a a a a c c c c c c d d d d d b inwssgicnl nune ydgsinpae rnevari- ( orange interaction phase, diges- their digestion during and by ety, assay influenced FRAP significantly was the tion by activity Antioxidant analyzed. nixdn iacsiiiywt h BSasy(iue1)was 1B) (Figure assay phase. ABTS gastric the and with phase undigested bioaccessibility raw Antioxidant intestinal from during different activity significantly was antioxidant varieties, orange and meth- processing between ( seen ods were activity antioxidant in ences orange the of rest the than assay FRAP ( the juices antiox- with different activity significantly had idant oranges Navel Fukumoto with infiatydfeett lnaNcla aecaoag juice orange Valencia Nucellar Olinda ( to or- different the of significantly rest the ( to varieties with different ange made significantly juice was orange assay, phase. Navel FRAP intestinal Fukumoto the by to results the gastric to from Similarly transitioning after assay ABTS 65% their the increased using activity and antioxidant variety, methods, processing and orange time, ( digestion interaction by influenced FRAP icantly the using (47%) bioaccessibility lowest assay. the and pro- (78%), had thermal medium bioaccessibility cessing after juice highest orange Valencia juice the Nucellar had Olinda orange processing Valencia HT in- Campbell after their treatments, or between significantly observed method, not processing was ( variety, 1A) teraction orange (Figure assay by FRAP influenced the unpro- from from sibility ( different juice only assay, significantly orange FRAP was cessed the processing by activity thermal antioxidant long the on compared is cdt %citric (% Acidity P nixdn ciiyaaye yteAT sa a signif- was assay ABTS the by analyzed activity Antioxidant 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.76 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.46 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± P < 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 .5.I a bevdta o l rcsigtreatments processing all for that observed was It 0.05). P P .01.We h nuneo rcsigmethod processing of influence the When 0.0001). > c c c c b bc b b b b a a a a a a a a a a a c o.8,N.1,2017 10, Nr. 82, Vol. P < .5.Atog osgicn ifrne were differences significant no Although 0.05). < .5.O vrg rmalteoag varieties orange the all from average On 0.05). .5,adCmbl aecaoag uc was juice orange Valencia Campbell and 0.05), osuecontent Moisture 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 92.0 91.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 91.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 89.0 %wtbss up(%) Pulp basis) wet (% P < ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± P .5 Tbe4.Atoiatbioacces- Antioxidant 4). (Table 0.05) < 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0) vrl,oag uc made juice orange Overall, 0.001). bcde bcde bc bc b bcde bcde bcde bcde bc a a a a a a cde de cde e e bc r n ora fFo Science Food of Journal = 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.4 4.2 2.1 1.8 2.0 6.7 1.5 6) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 tnaderro the of error standard c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c b c c c a c auiyindex Maturity (Brix/Acid) 22.9 22.9 23.1 22.7 24.3 25.0 24.4 24.4 25.0 25.2 14.5 14.1 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.3 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.5 14.6 22.9 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 2441 a a a a a a a a a a a b b b b b b b b b b b

Health, Nutrition, & Food a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 27 27 48 26 19 36 3 38 30 20 1 0 7 17 2 13 29 13 50 33 68 75 Brix) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± Brix). ° m) ° μ 301 279 236 265 273 302 224 337 318 216 142 172 163 222 137 150 155 135 148 153 177 324 ab ab b ab ab b b a ab ab b b b b b b b b b b ab ab 2.6 2.0 2.7 4.5 1.4 3.5 3.5 9.6 0.7 2.4 0.3 1.3 0.7 1.4 0.5 0.2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.5 0.05). For all L- ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± > P 26.6 26.5 21.9 28.0 33.0 21.6 19.4 45.7 28.9 23.1 19.9 21.3 21.1 22.4 20.5 22.2 21.5 19.9 20.0 20.8 24.1 28.0 c c c c ab bc c a abc abc c bc c bc c bc c c bc c bc abc 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.05) (data not shown). However, 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 4.8 8.6 6.6 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.2 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.3 > 0.05). Bioaccessibility (Figure 2) of to- P bc bc c bc bc abc bc c c c c c c a ab a abc c < ab d10 d50 d90 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 P ∗ –8.2 –5.9 –5.3 –5.9 Total soluble solids, pH, and acidity are E ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.6 3.7 4.8 3.9 3.3 2.6 2.3 2.2 3.4 2.6 8.0 6.9 7.4 5.5 2.5 0.05). def def def cde def efg g fg def def cd cd cd bcd fg def a ab a abc def def < P 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.1 ∗ 0.05). Bioaccessibility from the ABTS assay was not sig- b ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± < Control L-ascorbic acid solutions with varying pH showed no Initial quality. 45.7 45.9 45.7 46.2 44.9 43.2 41.2 43.0 45.5 44.6 46.5 46.4 46.3 47.1 43.0 45.2 51.7 49.8 51.0 49.2 45.7 44.9 P tween orange varieties(Table for 2). total Bull soluble andValencia orange solids, others juice harvested pH, (2004) at the found andthan end Navel that acidity of harvested the pH early seasonthey was (pH in 4.28) showed higher the that in season acidityNavel (pH and (early 3.75). total In in soluble addition, thecompared solids to season) Valencia were orange from higher the juiceThese in late values (0.83% fall season within and (0.45% the andharvest) 12.2 same 8.7 and range Campbell as Valencia Fukumoto (late Navel harvest) (early from this study. significant differences between pH ofand the solutions antioxidant on activity initial TPC ( initial ascorbic acidpH content of was the significantly solutions ( influenced by the some of the qualityjuice parameters (Kimball evaluated 1999). in Significant commercial differences orange were observed be- Digestion and bioaccessibility of L-ascorbic acidsolutions control Discussion Initial properties tal polyphenol, ascorbicFRAP acid assay and were antioxidant( significantly activity influenced from by the initial sample pH ascorbic acid control solutions, bioaccessibility38% values ranged to from 76%. Bioaccessibilitydant of activity by ascorbic FRAP acid, assaywas TPC of significantly and L-ascorbic higher acid antioxi- than solution the at solution pH at 4.1 pH 3.4 (Figure 2). nificantly influenced by initial sample pH ( a a a a d d d d d c c b c c b ab bc c c bc b a Color Particle size distribution ( 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 ∗ ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± a 0.2 0.2 4.5 5.1 4.7 5.0 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 0.2 0.4 -5.0 − − − − − − − − − − 0.05). Ascorbic cd b b b bcd cd bcd b b b b a a a a a bcd bcd bcd bcd bc d 0.05). Averaging 0.0001), but not 0.0001), and HPP 0.0001). Ascorbic < 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 > < ∗ < L P 0.01) (Table 4). TPC ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± < P P P standard error of the mean. Different letters within the same column (between varieties < P ± P 6) = Vol. 82, Nr. 10, 2017 n TPC was significantly influenced r HT 45.0 HT 46.2 HT 52.2 HT 45.3 Raw 43.8 Raw 42.0 Raw 50.5 Raw 43.3 HPP 42.4 HPPNININININININI HPP NIHPP NI 41.7 NI NI NI NI NI Long 46.2 Long 46.1 Long 52.6 Long 44.4 Short 46.3 Short 46.7 Short 51.2 Short 44.7 0.05). There was a trend observed that Medium 45.9 Medium 46.7 Medium 50.5 Medium 44.6 0.05). However, results show that Campbell 0.0001), but not by processing method or > Ascorbic acid content was significantly influ- > < P 0.05). TPC bioaccessibility (Figure 1C) was not P P < P Journal of Food Science 0.05). Similarly, ascorbic acid was significantly different be- 0.05). Fukumoto Navel orange juice was significantly greater values were not included due to significant differences between fresh and after thawing. 9, particle size distribution < < = Ascorbic acid. Total polyphenol content. Va l e n c i a = P P Orange Variety Processing Method Olinda Nucellar 2442 significantly influenced by orange variety ( NI Campbell Valencia Lane Late Navel Fukumoto Navel and processing methods) represent means that are significantly different ( Table 3–Color andtreatment, particle high size temperature,n and distribution high of pressure orange processing) juices of from all all 4 orange processing varieties methods tested. (raw, Values short, are medium, given long as averages thermal (color Orange juice properties during digestion . . . orange variety ( their interaction ( Navel varieties had higher66%) ascorbic than Valencia acid varieties bioaccessibility (average 59%). (average acid bioaccessibility (Figure 1D) was significantly influenced by by processing method or their interaction ( ( tween short and long thermal processing ( ( than Campbell Valenciaacid orange content in juice unprocessed orangethan ( juice high was temperature significantly and greater long thermal processed orange juices enced by digestion phase, orange variety, and processing method their interaction ( Valencia HPP orange juices had(approximately 109%) the and highest unprocessed TPC Olindahad bioaccessibility the Nucellar lowest Valencia (approximately 74%). orange juice was significantly greaterorange than juice long ( thermal processed significantly influenced by orange variety, processing method, or by digestion phase and orangein variety orange ( juicedifferent made from the with rest of Campbell the Valencia orange juices was ( significantly across all processing methods,greatest bioaccessibility Olinda (269%), Nucellar whereas Fukumoto Valencia Navellowest had had bioaccessibility the the (156%).

Health, Nutrition, & Food rnejiepoete uigdgsin... . . digestion during properties juice Orange

Table 4–Ascorbic acid, antioxidant activity, and total polyphenol content of oranges from all processing methods (raw, short, medium, long thermal treatment, high temperature, and high pressure processing), initial (no digestion), after gastric, and after intestinal digestion. Values are given as averages (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Different letters across rows within each orange variety and processing method represent means that are signiﬁcantly different across digestion phases (P < 0.05).

Fukumoto Navel Olinda Nucellar Valencia Lane Late Navel Campbell Valencia Processing Assay/Method Method Initial Gastric Intestinal Initial Gastric Intestinal Initial Gastric Intestinal Initial Gastric Intestinal FRAP (mM Trolox) Raw 18.2 ± 0.5a 14.2 ± 0.7b 10.8 ± 0.7c 9.5 ± 0.3a 7.0 ± 0.9b 5.1 ± 1.5b 8.5 ± 0.5a 8.4 ± 0.2a 4.8 ± 0.5b 10.7 ± 1.7a 6.8 ± 0.7b 7.3 ± 0.4b Short 13.9 ± 0.7a 11.9 ± 0.5a 8.8 ± 1.0b 9.8 ± 1.0a 6.2 ± 0.5b 5.4 ± 1.1b 9.9 ± 0.4a 7.5 ± 0.6a 6.5 ± 0.5b 10.0 ± 0.7a 6.9 ± 0.8b 6.8 ± 0.4b Medium 16.7 ± 1.2a 12.2 ± 1.0b 9.0 ± 0.9c 9.3 ± 0.1a 7.2 ± 0.2a 4.4 ± 0.4b 9.3 ± 0.2a 6.5 ± 0.5b 5.6 ± 0.8b 10.8 ± 1.0a 6.4 ± 0.5b 5.8 ± 0.4b Long 16.3 ± 0.7a 11.5 ± 1.4b 8.4 ± 0.7c 8.5 ± 0.2a 7.3 ± 0.2a 3.5 ± 0.3b 9.5 ± 0.7a 6.0 ± 0.4b 5.1 ± 0.7b 10.2 ± 1.7a 6.2 ± 0.3b 6.4 ± 0.3b HT 17.1 ± 1.1a 11.5 ± 1.5b 10.6 ± 0.8b 9.2 ± 0.1a 7.7 ± 0.4a 5.1 ± 1.1b 9.4 ± 0.4a 7.5 ± 0.6a 4.9 ± 1.0b 8.8 ± 0.5a 7.3 ± 0.6a 6.4 ± 0.2a HPP 13.6 ± 0.8a 12.5 ± 0.7a 10.0 ± 1.1b 8.9 ± 0.2a 7.0 ± 0.4ab 5.5 ± 0.9b 9.2 ± 0.1a 6.8 ± 0.5ab 6.3 ± 1.0b 9.6 ± 1.4a 5.7 ± 0.8b 6.7 ± 2.7b ABTS (mM Trolox) Raw 12.2 ± 1.3a 9.9 ± 0.4a 19.0 ± 3.5b 5.0 ± 0.2a 4.1 ± 0.3a 14.0 ± 1.2b 6.5 ± 1.4a 5.4 ± 1.8a 15.0 ± 1.1b 7.7 ± 1.2a 4.7 ± 0.3a 17.3 ± 4.1b Short 10.0 ± 1.5a 9.2 ± 0.5a 17.3 ± 3.4b 7.3 ± 1.2a 3.6 ± 0.5a 14.2 ± 3.5b 6.2 ± 1.2a 8.0 ± 2.1a 20.4 ± 3.2b 7.8 ± 1.8a 4.6 ± 0.2a 15.7 ± 5.1b Medium 12.0 ± 0.7a 9.3 ± 0.6a 15.0 ± 3.0b 6.5 ± 0.7a 3.9 ± 0.8a 17.3 ± 2.2b 7.7 ± 0.9a 5.9 ± 1.8a 18.9 ± 0.8b 7.8 ± 0.4a 5.1 ± 0.7a 18.4 ± 3.9b Long 10.5 ± 1.9a 8.0 ± 1.3a 16.4 ± 2.8b 5.9 ± 0.6a 2.2 ± 0.6a 13.3 ± 0.9b 6.1 ± 0.4a 5.2 ± 1.6a 16.5 ± 1.7b 6.1 ± 2.3a 4.8 ± 0.8a 16.3 ± 5.8b HT 12.1 ± 0.9a 8.9 ± 1.3a 19.6 ± 3.2b 4.6 ± 1.1a 3.4 ± 0.2a 14.1 ± 0.6b 6.8 ± 0.2a 3.5 ± 0.5a 15.0 ± 0.3b 9.5 ± 1.2a 5.9 ± 1.5a 15.4 ± 5.4b HPP 12.0 ± 1.7a 8.5 ± 0.5a 16.0 ± 1.7b 4.9 ± 1.2a 3.5 ± 1.1a 17.9 ± 0.8b 5.6 ± 0.8a 6.1 ± 1.2a 16.0 ± 1.8b 6.6 ± 0.8a 3.3 ± 0.0a 18.9 ± 6.4b TPC (mg gallic acid Raw 772 ± 15 755 ± 11 718 ± 4 800 ± 66a 581 ± 167b 586 ± 41b 709 ± 15 636 ± 35 658 ± 29 551 ± 120 575 ± 57 442 ± 47 equivalent/L)∗ Short 723 ± 9 611 ± 96 659 ± 19 804 ± 138a 670 ± 69ab 602 ± 37b 829 ± 83 828 ± 65 765 ± 49 490 ± 49 466 ± 15 481 ± 35 Medium 750 ± 56 733 ± 36 625 ± 51 722 ± 15 646 ± 36 638 ± 53 803 ± 98 768 ± 83 657 ± 31 498 ± 95 508 ± 75 493 ± 30 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± a ± ab ± b ± ± ± o.8,N.1,2017 10, Nr. 82, Vol. Long 717 32 673 65 741 84 718 23 655 45 586 39 824 61 686 113 630 33 515 39 467 7 460 28 HT 689 ± 18 678 ± 20 712 ± 35 779 ± 59 636 ± 175 686 ± 45 835 ± 72a 829 ± 178a 629 ± 29b 524 ± 24 468 ± 35 422 ± 42 HPP 723 ± 9 918 ± 198 609 ± 32 772 ± 73 754 ± 49 735 ± 103 797 ± 99 750 ± 101 716 ± 29 549 ± 51 512 ± 167 602.3 ± 177 Ascorbic Acid Raw 624 ± 6 ND 425 ± 11 478 ± 15 ND 277 ± 8 462 ± 17 ND 298 ± 17 307 ± 6 ND 180 ± 6 (mg/L)§ Short 604 ± 5 405 ± 14 476 ± 12 313 ± 24 448 ± 11 335 ± 24 286 ± 5 149 ± 6 Medium 594 ± 5 376 ± 27 457 ± 15 303 ± 36 424 ± 12 280 ± 11 279 ± 4 164 ± 11 Long 588 ± 4 365 ± 18 404 ± 15 237 ± 7 412 ± 13 266 ± 24 269 ± 3 149 ± 5 HT 606 ± 6 412 ± 7 469 ± 15 252 ± 13 418 ± 15 239 ± 9 283 ± 3 155 ± 7

r HPP NI NI 472 ± 20 311 ± 26 447 ± 6 304 ± 24 NI NI ora fFo Science Food of Journal ND = ascorbic acid not determined during gastric digestion phase. NI = values not included due to finding significant differences after thawing. ∗In total polyphenol content (TPC) no letters represent no significant differences between digestion times (P > 0.05). §Ascorbic acid content before and after gastrointestinal digestion was significantly different for all processing methods and orange varieties (P < 0.05). 2443

Health, Nutrition, & Food o Lane Late Navel Campbell Valencia Valencia Campbell Lane Late NavelLane Late Campbell Valencia 0.05), than the rest of the 0.05), bars with no letters < < P P Processing Method Processing Processing Method Processing Fukumoto Navel Navel Fukumoto Valencia Nucellar Olinda FukumotoNavel Valencia Nucellar Olinda a ) orange juices. Results are the average of 3 digestions Raw Short Medium Long HT HPP Medium Raw Short Raw Short Medium Long Long HT HPP Medium Raw Short 0 50 ) of different orange varieties reported in this study suggest ABTS ABTS assay 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 0 ∗ 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60

Ascorbic Acid Acid Ascorbic

E ABTS Bioaccessibility (%) (%) Bioaccessibility ABTS Bioaccessibility(%) Bioaccessibility(%) Antioxidant activity, TPC, and ascorbic acid content. B D that different orange varietiesconcentration and of harvest carotenoids. time( Changes contain in different color after processing varieties were alsocant seen differences between in years of aand harvest others (2010 previous 2015). and study, The 2011) aswith specific (Stinco this values well study are since not as the directlytion signifi- authors comparable to determine used another the specific methodstudy antioxidant of activity by calcula- values. these Another authorsstudied, Fukumoto found Navel that had the within lowestthe antioxidant 22 activity ABTS using varieties assay of (Stincotent oranges and others with 2016). the This current result results, is as inconsis- it was observed that Fukumoto that color change maybut also not on only orange depend varietycarotenoids as and on influenced harvest by processing orange season. variety method, Analysismerits and processing of future method specific investigation. Initial antioxidant activityfluenced of orange by juice(Table orange 4). was Differences significantly variety inABTS in- assays antioxidant but between orange activity juice not by made from the 6 by FRAP different Valencia and processing method 1.0). ± ), and Campbell Valencia ( C for 5 s had ° Campbell Valencia Campbell Valencia Lane Late Navel Navel Late Lane greater than 2 can Campbell Valencia Valencia Campbell Lane Late Navel Lane Late ∗ E Vol. 82, Nr. 10, 2017 r Processing Method Processing 3), and error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). FRAP and TPC assays do not have any significant Processing Method Processing ), Olinda Nucellar Valencia ( = 1.4 when compared to hand-squeezed n Fukumoto Navel Valencia Nucellar Olinda ± FukumotoNavel Valencia Olinda Nucellar Raw Short Medium Long Long HT HPP Medium Raw Short Raw Short Medium Long Long HT HPP Medium Raw Short ), Lane Late Navel ( 0 0 Journal of Food Science

20 80 60 40 Total Polyphenol Content Total

50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60

120 100 140

TPC Bioaccessibility (%) (%) Bioaccessibility TPC ), were greater than 2. These differences are significant, as FRAP assay FRAP FRAP Bioaccessibility (%) (%) Bioaccessibility FRAP ∗ E Although pH and acidity were influenced by orange variety but C A reported that violaxanthin and lutein arein labile Valencia carotenoids orange present juice whichcessing were (Gama degraded and after de thermal Sylos pro- 2007). Lee and Castle (2001) found Although not analyzed in thishave study, high it is amounts well of knownand carotenoids that others (Lee oranges 2012), which and give Coatesto a 2003; fruits characteristic Stinco orange/yellow and color vegetables (Lee and Castle 2001). A previous study previous studies have indicated that a performed in different days ( ods, color differences between( unprocessed and processed juices not by processing method,variety juice and color processing method was (Table influenced 3). For by all orange processing meth- change in color oforange 9.2 juice. However, in thiswas study, such observed a only large in change(short, thermally in medium, color processed long, Lane and Late high Navel temperature: juice average 6.9 Previous studies have alsoorange juice found after significant processing. Stinco changes“Valencia and Late” in others (2012) color orange found in juice that pasteurized at 99 be visually discriminated by a consumer (Lee and Coates 2003). Orange juice properties during digestion . . . 2444 Figure 1–Antioxidant activity: (A) FRAP assay,Navel (B) ( ABTS assay, (C) total polyphenol content, and (D) ascorbic acid bioaccessibility (%) for Fukumot differences between individual values. ABTSorange assay varieties. (B) For showed ascorbic significantlywere acid lower not (D), bioaccessibility significantly different of different. Fukumoto letters Navel represent ( significant differences between those treatments (

Health, Nutrition, & Food it rpoesn ehd tteddt nraeatrthermal after increase to trended it method, processing or riety were which season. growing, the summer to and during winter exposed conditions between time weather different by other caused and be Olinda sun and may Navel This Late Valencia). (Lane May Nucellar in harvested those antioxidant than November higher activity in had Valencia) harvested Campbell oranges there and However, with Navel activity. made (Fukumoto juices antioxidant that trend initial a and was late) with pared study. previous the in the degraded study of been some this have that could than suggesting compounds reported 14.6), later approximately index be harvested index maturity may were (maturity the differences they on These Based 16.7), varieties. season. (approximately harvest orange the activity the to antioxidant of due higher rest significantly the had than juice orange Navel ( acid ascorbic of 2–Bioaccessibility Figure rne avse aei h esn(apelVlni n Lane and with Valencia (Campbell made season juice the orange in than late harvested acid oranges ascorbic higher Nucellar 2004). Olinda had and ascorbic Valencia) Navel others initial (Fukumoto and harvest and Early season content. harvest (Bull between acid oranges, studies seen Valencia trend previous a than was to There content consistent acid va- is Navel ascorbic which from higher juice average, had On oranges. rieties Navel Late Lane with decreased slightly (70 acid pasteurization (90 ascorbic pasteurization trend; similar after a 85 at reported for (2015) treated thermally the than higher 2016). others and He these severity 2002; caused have The others may and TPC. method (Gil-Izquierdo and differences extraction juice juice any and find orange processing not of of did study pasteurization another on contrast, effect In 2016). others and (He (80 23.5% spec- not by variety ified) (orange juice juice orange orange treated unprocessed thermally from in increased unprocessed). TPC to that found compared study processing previous increase A thermal 15% long (average and juice HT orange after Navel Late Lane in processing rnejiepoete uigdgsin... . . digestion during properties juice Orange ewe ape tdfeetp ( pH different at samples between analysis pH different same of the ( samples within between differences symbols the significant or represent are letters method Values Different levels. SEM. the ( pH days represent different different in performed at digestions 3 water of average deionized in solutions acid ixdnsatvt b h BS( ABTS the (by activity tioxidants P <

twsse htacri cdi nrcse rnejie was juices orange unprocessed in acid ascorbic that seen was It va- orange by influenced significantly not was TPC Although com- (early season harvest between seen was relationship No Bioaccessibility (%) 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .5.Bocesblt sn BSasywsntsgicnl different significantly not was assay ABTS using Bioaccessibility 0.05). 0 c pH 3.4 pH 3.6 pH pH 3.9 pH 4.1 7 § y ° tart f8 /i)o rnejiemade juice orange of L/min) 80 of rate a at C bc bc ° o 0mn n 86 (90 38.6% and min) 30 for C Ψ§ ° tart f6 /i)adflash- and L/min) 60 of rate a at C xy xy P ab > n RP( FRAP and ) Ψ§ 0.05). xy ABTS Ascorbic Acid ,ttlplpeos( polyphenols total ), ° .Acofadothers and Aschoff C. a sas fL-ascorbic of assays) ) n Ψ = ) n rosbars errors and 3), x ° FRAP TPC Cfor30s) ab Ψ§ ,an- ), xy hpbtenoag aite NvladVlni)fo hs har- those relation- from Valencia) different ascorbic and (Navel a and varieties is orange pH between there ship Interestingly, initial 3). between (Figure seen content was acid correlation season, by high influenced a also was and pH that observed was It Navel). Late Navel of pH ( initial and acid ascorbic initial between 3–Relationship Figure iiymgtb ihyrltdt h odmti swl sthe bioaccessibility and as Digestion well as environment. matrix the food in the conditions and to harvest related of ac- time highly antioxidant be and that might acid suggest tivity ascorbic differences with These reactions/interactions light. UV the to developed exposure are in compounds longer these early with that those hypothesized than and content season, acid the ascorbic a season and the lycopene in in higher grown late had harvested tomatoes tomatoes of that found content reported They antioxidant acid greenhouse. those lycopene, ascorbic measured to and who TPC, contradictory activity, (2006), are others found and results results Toor the These by to study. consistent this is which ascor- in late, higher than late). had content lemons and of acid harvest bic medium, early (early, that found time sig- they were harvest Overall, lemons by of influenced genotypes 2 nificantly in acid, TPC ascorbic and that activity, found antioxidant (2008) sea- others growing and the Gonzalez-Molina during son. compounds varieties of orange development within in acids) variation (potentially large results is These there varieties. Valencia that or suggest Navel late and either early of the oranges considering byharvest when evidenced 3, is Figure in This slopes season. different the the in late with compared early vested uelrVlni n apelVlni)oag uc.Ec aapoint data method. processing Each 1 juice. from average orange the Valencia) represents Campbell and Valencia Nucellar vr twsse htoag ait a rae nuneon influence greater a had variety orange that How- seen bioaccessibility. was their it decrease ever, these would of breakdown which significant compounds, a in resulting hypothesized content, and was activity polyphenol have antioxidant it the study, decrease oranges, would this processing of thermal In that varieties addressed. as previously well thermal been not as between processing, Relationships 2013). nonthermal orange and others ultrafrozen others and in and (Stinco conditions (Stinco juices thawing treatment comparing thermal and 1 2012), and methods Other squeezing orange controlled. comparing carotenoids, not of bioaccessibility were measured others studies parameters and processing Wootton-Beard where 2010; 2011), Prescott and nutrient (Ryan on commercial beverages method using processing done been and have studies variety Previous bioaccessibility. fruit of influence the Fkmt ae n aeLt ae)adVlni ( Valencia and Navel) Late Lane and Navel (Fukumoto ) iie nomto a vial nteltrtr regarding literature the in available was information Limited o.8,N.1,2017 10, Nr. 82, Vol. r ora fFo Science Food of Journal (Olinda ) 2445

Health, Nutrition, & Food di- in vitro in vitro gastrointestinal di- gastrointestinal di- ıguez-Roque and oth- ´ in vitro in vitro small intestinal digestion. Ascorbic acid gastrointestinal digestion (min bioaccessibility in vitro in vitro 100%). This suggests that other factors are responsi- > ´ erez-Vicente and others 2002; Cilla and others 2012; ıguez-Roque and others 2013; Rodr ´ In all orange juices, ascorbic acid content decreased after Antioxidant bioaccessibility by the ABTS assay was not signif- TPC bioaccessibility was not significantly influenced by orange 75%). Rodriguez-Roque and others (2015) measuredcessibility TPC on bioac- water-fruit juice,juice milk-fruit with juice and intestinal soymilk-fruit cessibility digestion values with ranging dialysis. fromresults 18% They may to found be 31%. mainly bioac- Differencesods, due between to such variations as between usingmay digestion dialysis have meth- reduced during the intestinalstudy measured compared phase to bioaccessibility model, the in currently which reported the values. previous gastrointestinal digestion. A similar trendby was Rodriguez-Roque previously reported andvitamin others C (2013), content where before they and measured during ble for increase indigestion. antioxidant activity with the ABTS assay after icantly influenced by processingorange method, variety (Figure but 1B). was OrangeNavel influenced variety had made by a with significantly Fukumoto to lower the bioaccessibility rest (156%) of compared orange the orange juice varieties. had Interestingly, the Fukumotoby highest Navel ABTS, initial antioxidant but activitythat the measured changes lowest during digestion bioaccessibility. shouldthe This be finding initial considered in suggests content additionmay to of be beneficial degraded nutrients,product. as or some transformed compounds during digestionvariety or of processing method. a Itbility was during food seen that TPC had high sta- gestion of acrease blended of 39% fruit after juice and observed a significant de- bioaccessibility in this studySimilar (Figure ascorbic 1) ranged acid from degradationgestion 54% after to was 75%. seenmade by from Cilla apricot andcentrate. puree, others It orange has (2011) been concentrate,bic with hypothesized and that acid a the grape might fruit degradationintestinal con- be juice of phase due ascor- and togestion, the the which presence may increase enhance of ofpound oxidation/degradation oxygen pH of (P during this during com- the small Rodr pH 7, but afterwater), the it subtraction appears offluids the that control causes interference sample much of (deionized ple greater simulated pH. differences In gastrointestinal addition, introl bioaccessibility solutions results in using than the the(Figure the ABTS L-ascorbic 2), assay acid sam- compared were con- to noting the greater the bioaccessibility than same of 100% pounds assay orange in (Figure juices 1B). the us- tion This juice that indicates increase may their that have reactivethus properties structural other increasing with the com- changes the antioxidant ABTS during activitywas reagent after the diges- digestion. only If factor highthis that pH makes assay, antioxidant it activityity increase would using in have L-ascorbic beenexample, acid expected control that solutions would the also bioaccessibil- be high (for ers 2015). Ascorbic acidtrol bioaccessibility solutions in ranged L-ascorbicthan between acid bioaccessibility 38% in con- orange andThese juice 55%, differences (ranging suggest which from 58% thatother are to compounds interactions lower in 68%). of orange ascorbic juicea may acid protective occur, effect with which to maytion, provide ascorbic making acid it during morejuice. gastrointestinal bioaccessible diges- after consumption of orange 0.1. These ± gastrointestinal digestion, in vitro Vol. 82, Nr. 10, 2017 r simulated gastric fluid) decreased to + gastrointestinal digestion. These results are inconsis- 0.05, however when adding simulated intestinal fluid ± Journal of Food Science 0.05) between the pH of the sample and the antioxidant in vitro > For all orange varieties and processing methods, antioxidant ac- Antioxidant activity measured by the ABTS assay increased af- P 2446 tivity measured bygastric the and FRAP intestinal assay digestionmeasured significantly antioxidant phases. decreased activity Ryan (using after and themercial Prescott fruit FRAP juices (2010) assay) before of and 25 afterfound gastrointestinal com- digestion. that They antioxidant activityjuices significantly in decreased after fresh grapefruithowever fresh and orange pineapple juicesafter did not show significant differences ter the intestinal phase,(Tagliazucchi which and is others 2010; consistent Wootton-Beard with andABTS measures previous others the studies 2011). ability of anreagent, antioxidant to but scavenge the it ABTS hason been the shown sample that pH, ABTS(Tagliazucchi increasing is and its strongly others capacity dependent tion, with 2010). higher ABTS Compared pH to has values sample the a pH FRAP low influence solu- buffering themodify pH capacity, the of therefore reaction. the changesranged The ABTS between initial in solution, 3.4 pH and whichgested 4.1. of may During juice the (orange gastric orange juice phase,pH juices the 2.0 pH tested of di- the pH of the digested juice increasedpH to changes up to during pH digestion 7.0 tioxidant may have activity had using an impact thein on ABTS agreement the with method. an- this,activity Previous where studies of researchers are grapes measuredmercially (Tagliazucchi antioxidant produced and vegetable others juices2011) 2010) (Wootton-Beard using and and the others ABTS 23that assay. com- there Both is of a thesetestinal significant authors phase, increase which hypothesized may in have antioxidant beenpH. However, activity mainly preliminary due trials after to were in- conducted theinfluence to increase determine of of sample the pH onity. To the do this, measurement control of samples antioxidant werein activ- prepared with deionized L-ascorbic water acid (atacid different control solutions”) pH and levels) weregestion, (Section subjected following “L-Ascorbic to the gastrointestinal same di- methodologyAntioxidant activity as using for the the ABTS orangetestinal assay juice. digestion was (average measured pH after approximatelythe in- 7.2). pH Following this, was readjustedthe to initial pH approximately of 3.0, the solutions,samples which and is the was antioxidant similar activity analyzed ofliminary to these again results showed using that the( there were ABTS no significant assay.activity differences These by pre- the ABTSthe assay. measured Without values correction on for the the ABTS control, assay were much higher at a antioxidant activity and nutrientmethod, which bioaccessibility was than not processing of statistically initial significant. content The and bioaccessibility combination vestigation, of since nutrients it merits was future observed in- content in changes this as study it thatment. moves the through This nutritional the information gastrointestinal may environ- as also it be may relevant impact in dietarytrition clinical recommendations, labels, nutrition and based on therefore the theof bioaccessibility nu- only of their the initial nutrients content. instead tent with this study,activity as of it all was orange observedmeasured juices by here significantly the that FRAP decreased the assay. afterprocessing The antioxidant digestion pH parameters, of were the notThese juices, differences specified as could well in have as been the the age due previous to of digestion study. the method, juices, stor- unknown. and/or specific processing methods, which are Orange juice properties during digestion . . .

Health, Nutrition, & Food rvddb h etrfrAvne rcsigadPackaging and Processing was Advanced (CAPPS). project for Studies this Center for the Funding by provided analyses. her experimental for Davis) in (UC Floyd assistance Clair acknowledge to The like Center. would Extension authors and Research Lindcove UC from Schmidt products. food agricultural bioac- to nutrient in products the cessibility between and food processing relationship food different the and season, on understanding harvest variety, in studies gap future knowledge for the content. fill nutrient need initial that a the is recommended only There of is instead bioac- it nutrients the of study, consideration into cessibility this take beverages in of analysis observed nutritional been digestion have during that compounds vari- nutrient to some in of Due ations/degradation transformed consumption. after and/or environment in degraded gastrointestinal present are the antioxidants oranges the Valencia within and Navel compounds conducted which be analyze to process- needs to processing investigation after further between addition, time differences Future In additional storage methods. processing. reflect evaluating after may which d done ing, 1 be the within should in done analyses analyses were all student methods, differ- processing current degraded significant between be no seen may were Although ences digestion. nutrients during these transformed of studied or portion be should a digestion because during together, content nutritional initial nutrients of and and bioaccessibility acid Overall, that ABTS. ascorbic by observed of activity was antioxidant bioaccessibility spe- it the the since influenced to season, variety taken harvest orange be and processing. should variety attention orange nonthermal careful orange cific and hand, of other thermal quality the during On nutritional maintained the is that juice processing indicates by nutri- which influenced the significantly method, Interestingly, not was treatment. bioaccessibility thermal content ent acid by ascorbic influenced and distribution, were total size color, However, particle parameters. solids, these soluble of significant majority a a have on not influence did method and Processing acid, activity. ascorbic antioxidant content, polyphenol total quality of initial bioaccessibility the and on juice orange fresh-squeezed of method cessing shf K afanS aknO edatS al ,ShegetR.21.I vitro In 2015. RM. Schweiggert R, Carle S, Neidhart O, Kalkan S, Kaufmann JK, Aschoff References Acknowledgments Conclusions . . . digestion during properties juice Orange eryaR,Vi RM, Ferreyra Barber MJ, Lagarda S, Perales A, Cilla il ,Alegr J, A, Cilla Sellahewa R, Stockman P, Paramanandhan oral D, varying Goicoechea with E, digestion Howe bolus K, bread Zerdin vitro MK, in Bull of “antiox- Kinetics of 2013. measure RP. a as Singh (FRAP) GM, plasma of Bornhorst ability reducing ferric esterase The methyl 1996. pectin J. of Strain inactivation IF, pressure Benzie High 2001. B. Simpson H, Ramaswam S, Basak nixdn aaiyo tabryclia ev.SiHriut112(1):27–32. Horticult Sci Selva. cultivar strawberry of Food capacity J antioxidant beverages. fruit of capacity antioxidant total 24(1):87–94. on Anal digestion Comp Food gastrointestinal vitro Agric in J and processing. and matrix food of 60(29):7282–90. influence Chem beverages: fruit soy-based milk-and Barber MJ, oranges processed differently from [ C juices vitamin orange and and flavonoids, carotenoids, of bioaccessibility zb A ono L twr M 04 h feto ihpesr rcsigo the Food on Innov processing juice. pressure orange high Navel of and 5(2):135–49. Valencia Technol effect of Emerg The properties Sci 2004. chemical CM. and physical Stewart microbial, RL, Johnson EA, Szabo 8(1):50–9. Biophys Food parameters. digestion gastric and 239(1):70–6. Biochem Anal assay. FRAP the power”: 25(6):509–26. idant Biochem Food J treatments. combination using juice orange in h rne o hssuywr eeosypoie yKurt by provided generously were study this for oranges The pro- and variety orange of influence the investigated study This ´ aA eAcsB,S Ba, Ancos de A, ıa .21.Bocesblt ftcpeos aoeod,adacri cdfrom acid ascorbic and carotenoids, tocopherols, of Bioaccessibility 2012. R. a ´ aS,Mgig ,Cae R 07 rwhadrpnn esnefcson effects season ripening and Growth 2007. AR. Chaves A, Mugridge SZ, na ˜ irssinensis Citrus nhzMrn n aoM,PaaL lmneG Lagarda G, Clemente L, Plaza MP, Cano Cn, anchez-Moreno ´ L)Obc] gi odCe 63(2):578–87. Chem Food Agric J Osbeck]. (L.) aR,ClementeG,Farr ´ .21.Iflec fstorage of Influence 2011. R. e ´ ynL rsotS.21.Saiiyo h nixdn aaiyo wnyfiecommercially twenty-five of capacity from antioxidant beta-carotene the S of of Stability bioaccessibility 2010. and SL. Release Prescott 2012. L, RP. Ryan Singh BJ, Burri MJ, Roman ..Dprmn fArclue ainlArclua ttsisSrie 05 Cit- total and 2015. capacity antioxidant total Service. the of Stability 2011. Statistics L. Ryan A, Agricultural Moran PC, Wootton-Beard National Agriculture. of Department U.S. Rodr orR aaeG itrC 06 esnlvrain nteatoiatcmoiino green- Fr of M, composition antioxidant Esteve the F, in Torregrosa variations Seasonal 2006. C. antiox- Lister and G, bio-accessibility Savage vitro R, Toor In 2010. A. Conte D, Bertolini E, Verzelloni D, Tagliazucchi eR elgiiN rtget ,PnaaA agM ieEasC 99 Antioxidant 1999. C. Rice-Evans M, Yang A, Pannala A, Proteggente N, vitamin Pellegrini on storage R, cold Re of Effect 2008. N. Timpanaro post P, on Pannuzzo treatment ML, pressure Bianco hydrostatic P, high Rapisarda of Effect 2005. P. Taoukis N, Stoforos conditions, A, culture Polydera Cultivars, 2012. J. Dommes JO, Defraigne J, Tabart C, Kevers J, Pincemail nutrients. several of bioavailability P the affects microstructure Food 2007. con- JM. juice Aguilera J, orange Parada 100% 2012. VL. III Fulgoni GC, and color Rampersaud Hamlin, juice TA, orange in Nicklas Valencia on CE, color pasteurization O’Neil and thermal of pigments Effect carotenoid 2003. Processing: GA. of Coates Citrus changes HS, pulp. Lee Seasonal and 2001. oils, WS. acids, Castle solids, HS, soluble Lee brix, of homogenization Analyses pressure 1999. High 2016. DA. J. Kimball Chen F, Qin G, Tao S, Zhang M, Zeng Y, Tao Z, He Rodr tnoC,Fern CM, Stinco i-zued ,GlM,Free .20.Efc fpoesn ehiusa nutilscale industrial at techniques Gonz processing of Effect 2002. F. Ferreres MI, carotenoid Gil on A, concentration and Gil-Izquierdo pasteurization thermal of Effect 2007. CM. Sylos de JJT, Gama tnoC,Fern CM, Stinco Mel IM, Vicario FJ, Heredia ML, Escudero-Gilete CM, Stinco phosphomolybdic- Mel with FJ, Heredia phenolics DA, Wunderlin total RDDP, of Naranjo MV, Colorimetry Baroni CM, 1965. Stinco JA. Rossi V, Singleton S nhzMrn ,PaaL Elez-Mart L, Plaza C, anchez-Moreno carotenoids, A provitamin C, Vitamin 2003. MP. Cano B, Ancos de L, Plaza C, anchez-Moreno ´ ´ rzVcneA i-zued ,Garc A, Gil-Izquierdo A, erez-Vicente ´ vial ri ucssbetdt ni ir ieto.It odSiTcnl45(6):1191–7. Technol Sci Food J Intl digestion. vitro in an to 60(38):9659–66. subjected Chem juices Food fruit available Agric J digestion. vitro in during butter almond 61(8):1859–67. fortified Chem Food digestion Agric gastrointestinal J vitro juice. in fruit throughout blended profiles a carotenoid of and phenolic, C, vitamin in ieto esrdb RP PH BSadFlnCoatumtos odRsIntl vitro Res Food in methods. after Folin–Ciocalteu and and before ABTS juices DPPH, 44(1):217–24. vegetable FRAP, available by commercially measured 23 digestion of content polyphenol with http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui// from: comparison Available 2010s/2015/CitrFrui-09-17-2015.pdf. and Summary. field Fruits electric rus pulsed high 73(4):339–45. Engr by Food treated J juice. juice pasteurized orange–carrot of storage els .21.Ipc ffo arxadpoesn ntei ir iacsiiiyof bioaccessibility vitro in juice-based the fruit from on 14:33–43. activity processing Foods antioxidant Funct and hydrophilic J and matrix beverages. compounds, food phenolic of C, Impact vitamin 2015. O. Belloso os rw oaos odCmotAa 19(1):1–10. Anal Compost Food J tomatoes. grown house 120(2):599–606. Chem Food polyphenols. grape of activity juices: idant 53(2):458–63. Technol orange Sci ultrafrozen Food in – LWT carotenoids conditions. of thawing of colour influence and activity antioxidant Bioaccessibility, ciiyapyn nipoe BSrdclcto eooiainasy reRdclBiol Radical Free assay. decolorization cation radical ABTS improved an applying Osbeck]. activity (L.) sinensis [Citrus genotypes orange five 49(3):348–54. Technol of Biol activity Postharvest antioxidant and phenolics 91(3):495–503. C, Chem Food juice. orange Navel fresh of of activity capacity antioxidant antioxidant processing and contents acid ascorbic and ( phenolic strawberry influence time harvest and Food Agric J C. vitamin and anthocyanins, 50(8):2308–12. compounds, Chem phenolic juice pomegranate of study Nutrition and 72(2):R21–32. Health Sci Food National J adults: in risk 11(1):1. health decreased J adequacy, of Nutr nutrient 2003–2006. biomarkers Survey, improved improved Examination quality, diet and obesity, better for with associated is sumption 36(1):153–6. Technol Sci Food 49(2):877–82. - LWT Chem pigments. Food Agric J juices. orange Blood Budd and Earlygold, 191–246. 200:107–16. in p Chem. phenolics Springer. Food of extents. bioaccessibility different vitro to juice in orange affect and matrix grape milk apple, and treatment thermal processing, use. industrial for F.) Burm. 56(5):1669–75. (L.) Chem limon Food (Citrus juice Agric lemon J Fino of quality phytochemical the e 26(9):1231–7. Med iai M 02 feto rnejiespoesn nteclr atcesz,adbioacces- and 60(6):1447–55. size, Chem particle Food color, Agric the on J processing carotenoids. juice’s of orange sibility of Effect 2012. IM. Vicario noag uc nixdn n eeca elhcmons gi odCe 50(18): Chem Food Agric J compounds. health beneficial and 5107–14. antioxidant juice orange on 100(4):1686–90. Chem Food juice. orange Valencia Brazilian of composition iait nlsso ieslcino rnevreisbsdo aoeodcnet,color contents, carotenoid on 90:194–204. based Intl Res varieties Food orange capacity. antioxidant of vitro selection in wide and a of analyses tivariate based different cellular from and juice chemical by orange evaluated in activity antioxidant compounds ( and antioxidant composition Hydrophilic cultivars: 2015. fruit IM. Vicario AJ, 16(3):144–58. Viticult Enol J Am reagents. acid phosphotungstic antioxidant Chem and Food compounds Agric J bioactive processing. on thermal traditional fields with 53(11):4403–9. comparison electric in pulsed juice orange and of activity pressure high of Impact n te aoeod nhg-rsuie rnejiedrn ergrtdsoae Agric J storage. refrigerated during juice orange 51(3):647–53. high-pressurized Chem Food in carotenoids other and acaoye cerevisiae Saccharomyces ´ ´ ge-ou J Rojas-Gra MJ, ıguez-Roque ge-ou J eAcsB S B, Ancos de MJ, ıguez-Roque lzMln ,Mrn A Garc DA, Moreno E, alez-Molina ´ Fragaria andez-V ´ andez-V ´ o.8,N.1,2017 10, Nr. 82, Vol. nnsa.JFo c 77(2):C205–10. Sci Food J ananassa). x sas odCm nl37:1–10. Anal Comp Food J assays. ) zuzR sueoGlt L eei J Mel FJ, Heredia ML, Escudero-Gilete R, azquez ´ zuzR eei J Mel FJ, Heredia R, azquez ´ ´ gl ,Cort A, ıgola uMaA,Elez-Mart ¨ nhzMrn ,Cn P Elez-Mart MP, Cano C, anchez-Moreno ´ ´ aVgeaC 08 eoyeadhrettm influence time harvest and Genotype 2008. C. ıa-Viguera ´ nzP eAcsB Mart B, Ancos De P, ınez ´ aVgeaC 02 nvtogsritsia digestion gastrointestinal vitro In 2002. C. ıa-Viguera sC 06 sobcai tblt uigrefrigerated during stability acid Ascorbic 2006. C. es ´ r ora fFo Science Food of Journal ´ nzP Mart P, ınez endez-Mart ´ endez-Mart ´ ´ nBlooO aoM.2005. MP. Cano O, ın-Belloso ´ nBlooO 03 Changes 2013. O. ın-Belloso ´ nzA,VcroI.2013. IM. Vicario AJ, ınez ´ nzA.21.Mul- 2016. AJ. ınez endez-Mart ´ endez-Mart ´ ´ nzP Mart P, ınez ´ nzAJ, ınez 2447 ´ ınez ´ ın-

Health, Nutrition, & Food

Squeezed Orange Juice Properties Before and During &lt;I&gt;In Vitro&lt;/I&gt;

Squeezed Orange Juice Properties Before and During <I>In Vitro</I>