套袋对不同品种桃果实营养品质及矿质元素含量的影响

陈 蒙1,2,张 雪1,2,李 越1,2,李 勇1,2*,陈小龙2,陈 建2,余向阳1,2*

1沈阳农业大学食品学院,沈阳 110000;2江苏省食品质量安全重点实验室·江苏省农业科学院农产品质量安全与营养研究所,南京 210014)

摘 要:【目的】套袋是桃园管理的重要措施之一,可干预果实光照条件,减少果实外部损伤,降低果实农药残留,但关于套袋对桃果实营养品质影响的报道较少。【方法】以江苏区域品种白凤、霞晖、霞脆为研究试材,采集各品种成熟期的桃果实,测定套袋技术对桃果实营养品质及矿质元素含量的影响。【结果】套袋处理对同一品种果实质量、硬度没有显著影响,但对果实品质指标和矿质元素影响较大。相比于不套袋的对照组,各品种套袋组的维生素C、总酚含量分别显著降低14%~22%、11%~25%。套袋处理显著提高了白凤果实琥珀酸、柠檬酸含量,但在霞脆中趋势相反。此外,套袋处理降低各品种桃果实中大部分矿质元素含量,尤其是Ca、Cu、K、Mg、Sr、Zn元素含量,降低12%~80%。氨基酸和矿质元素含量的降低可能是由于套袋影响果实气孔的开关,致使果树光合作用产物及矿质元素向果实转运减少,而总酚含量减少与套袋影响果实着色有关。【结论】套袋处理对果实质量、硬度没有影响,但显著降低可溶性固形物、维生素C、总酚及大部分矿质元素的含量。研究结果为桃果实栽培中套袋技术的应用提供了参考。

关键词:桃果实;套袋;营养品质;矿质元素

桃为蔷薇科李属植物,是中国的第三大落叶果树[1],富含矿物质元素、蛋白质、糖、脂肪、维生素等多种对人体有益的营养成分[2]。中国桃果实种类丰富,依据果皮颜色(黄色、白色、红色)和果肉溶质(绵、软溶质、硬溶质、不溶质)等分为多个类型[3]。随着生活水平的提高,人们对水果品质的需求也不断提升。不同类别的桃果实口感及风味差异较大,可满足不同消费者的需求[4-5]。栽培条件是影响桃果实品质的重要因素之一,常见的栽培条件包括土肥管理、避雨栽培、延时补光、农药施用、灌溉技术、果实套袋等[6]。科研人员往往多关注栽培技术对桃果实产量及糖酸度的影响,而忽略了对桃果实内在营养品质的影响。因此,系统解析栽培条件对桃果实营养品质的影响,有助于优化栽培技术,推动中国桃产业的高质量发展。

果实套袋技术在全球范围内广泛应用于果树生产,已经成为了生产无公害、绿色果品的主要途径和技术措施之一[7-8]。套袋能够通过人工方式调节果实的光照条件,减少果实的外部机械损伤,提升表面光洁度,从而改善果实的整体外观品质,同时还可以减少桃果实中的农药残留,降低食品安全风险[9-10]。项玉英等[11]研究表明,套袋能明显提高新川中岛桃果实的外观及内在品质,提高其商品性和经济效益。颜少宾等[12]研究表明,对黄肉桃进行套袋处理,可提高黄肉桃果皮的表面光泽度、鲜艳度以及α-胡萝卜素、β-胡萝卜素含量。陈茜茜等[13]研究了6种农药在套袋后的桃果实中的残留量,发现除毒死蜱外其余农药的残留量均低于定量限。但是,套袋对桃果实的生长发育及内在品质还会造成一定程度的负面影响。杜纪红等[14]的研究结果表明,桃果实在一直套袋的条件下,果皮中的叶绿素、类胡萝卜素含量会迅速下降,从而导致花色苷的积累受到强烈抑制,果实着色变浅。何平等[15]的研究结果表明,套袋处理提高了桃果实中的醛类、醇类和酸类物质含量,降低了脂类物质含量,桃果实中的整体香气物质成分含量低于对照组,对果实风味产生了一定的负面影响。目前的报道多研究套袋对桃生长、着色的影响,缺乏套袋对桃果实品质影响的系统性研究。

笔者以江苏地区3个主产品种白凤、霞晖、霞脆为研究试材,三者品种特性存在较大差异,其中白凤是软溶质白肉桃,霞晖是硬溶质白肉桃,霞脆是不溶质黄肉桃。对于这3 个品种的桃果实,均在果实硬核期进行套袋处理,采前不需撕袋,对照组桃果实不做处理,采集各品种成熟期的桃果实,测定果实质量、硬度、可溶性固形物含量,测定果肉中氨基酸、有机酸、总酚、大量元素和微量元素含量,分析套袋技术对成熟期桃果实营养品质及矿质元素含量的影响,研究结果将有助于桃产业的健康发展。

1 材料和方法

1.1 材料

供试桃品种为江苏省农业科学院溧水基地栽培的白凤、霞晖和霞脆(图1),试验地条件和肥水管理一致,树龄一致,疏果定果后对同一棵树的桃果实随机套袋。3 个品种均在果实硬核期进行套袋处理,袋子为白色的单层袋,于果实采收时将果实和果袋一并摘下。桃子成熟后,从树冠外围中上部随机采摘套袋与不套袋的每个品种各50个果实,立即放入带有冰袋的泡沫箱保存并带回实验室进行测定分析。每组随机选取20个桃用于测定果实质量、硬度和可溶性固形物含量,其余30个桃果实每6个混成一份样品,共5个重复。桃果实样品去除果皮,将可食用部分切碎混匀,迅速放入液氮速冻并研磨成粉末,密封后置于DW-86L7 超低温冰箱(海尔特种冰柜有限公司)-80 ℃保存。

图1 从左到右分别为白凤、霞晖、霞脆(从上到下分别为套袋组与对照组)
Fig.1 From left to right are Baifeng,Xiahui and Xiacui respectively(Bagging group and control group were divided from top to bottom)

1.2 方法

1.2.1 果实质量、硬度、可溶性固形物含量测定采用GY-4 果实硬度计(山东恒美电子科技)测定果实胴部去皮后的硬度;采用AP2500-0 电子天平(瑞士Ohaus公司)测定单果质量;采用PAL-1数显手持糖度计(日本爱拓)测定桃果实中的可溶性固形物含量。

1.2.2 维生素C、有机酸含量测定 采用高效液相色谱法(HPLC)[16]测定桃果实中的维生素C 和有机酸(琥珀酸、酒石酸、奎宁酸、柠檬酸、苹果酸)含量,具体为:称取2.0 g桃肉样品,加入8 mL 1%草酸的水溶液,匀浆后3000 r·min-1斡旋2 min,40 ℃超声提取20 min,4000 r·min-1离心5 min,取上清液过滤膜,经Waters 2695 高效液相色谱仪(美国Waters 公司)检测。色谱柱为Inert Sustain C 18(250 mm×4.6 mm,5 μm),流动相A为0.1%磷酸水溶液,流动相B为甲醇,梯度洗脱,进样体积为20 μL,紫外检测波长分别为254 nm和210 nm,柱温为30 ℃,流速为0.8 mL·min-1。总酸含量为各有机酸含量的总和。

1.2.3 可溶性糖、总酚、总氨基酸含量测定 采用检测试剂盒测定桃果实中的总酚、总氨基酸、可溶性糖含量,试剂盒由南京建成生物工程研究所提供,货号依次是A143-1-1、A026-1-1、A145-1-1。总酚含量测定时,以没食子酸为标准品,在760 nm 波长处测定吸光度,并绘制标准曲线计算总酚含量。

1.2.4 矿质元素含量测定 参照GB 5009.268—2016《食品安全国家标准食品中多元素的测定》[17]方法对桃果实中矿质元素含量进行测定。准确称取0.1 g 样品(精确至0.001 g)于微波消解管中,加入5 mL 超纯HNO3(国药集团化学试剂有限公司),置于预热消解仪中,100 ℃预消解1 h,直至肉眼看不到桃纤维为止;冷却至常温,加入3 mL 30% H2O2(国药集团化学试剂有限公司),并置于微波消解仪中消解;消解完成后,置于预热消解仪中,设置150 ℃,赶酸2 h,去离子水定容至25 mL,同时做空白试验。Plasma Quant电感耦合等离子体发射光谱仪(德国Analytik jena公司)测定样品中大量元素钾(K)、镁(Mg)、钙(Ca)含量,AP2500-0电感耦合等离子体质谱仪(美国珀金埃尔默)测定样品中微量元素铝(Al)、铁(Fe)、钠(Na)、硼(B)、锌(Zn)、铜(Cu)、锰(Mn)、钛(Ti)、锶(Sr)、钡(Ba)、镓(Ga)、钼(Mo)含量。

1.3 数据处理

基于Spearman 相关性分析计算各指标之间的相关性;基于t检验进行差异显著性分析,以p<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。

2 结果与分析

2.1 表型指标分析

3 个品种中,整体上霞晖平均单果质量最高(279.1 g),其次是白凤(248.3 g)和霞脆(220.0 g)。霞脆硬度最高,分别是白凤和霞晖的1.87 倍和1.62倍。各品种可溶性固形物含量之间没有显著差异,均在10.4%~11.1%。同一品种,套袋组和对照组样品单果质量和硬度指标之间没有显著差异,但相比于对照组,套袋组的白凤、霞晖、霞脆的可溶性固形物含量分别显著降低16.6%、7.5%、17.9%。由此说明,套袋处理不会影响果实质量和硬度,但会降低桃果实的可溶性固形物含量(图2)。

图2 套袋和对照处理下桃果实单果质量、硬度、可溶性固形物的变化
Fig.2 Changes of single fruit mass,hardness and soluble solids content of peach fruit under bagging treatment

2.2 维生素C、氨基酸、总酚、可溶性糖含量的变化

3个品种中,整体上白凤、霞晖中的维生素C和可溶性糖含量较高,分别为17.6、16.5 mg·100 g-1和27.0、24.3 g·100 g-1,霞脆中的含量最低(12.3、19.6 g·100 g-1)。霞晖中氨基酸和总酚含量最高,分别为32.60 和47.10 μmol·mg-1,分别是白凤和霞脆的1.1、1.2 倍和1.4、1.2 倍。相对于对照组,3 个品种套袋组中维生素C、总酚含量分别显著降低13.7%~21.9%、11.4%~24.9%。霞脆中,套袋处理组可溶性糖含量显著增加0.24 倍,但在白凤和霞晖中没有显著变化。由此说明,套袋处理可以降低桃果实维生素C、氨基酸和总酚含量,但可提高部分品种桃的可溶性糖含量(图3)。

图3 套袋处理下桃果实维生素C、氨基酸、总酚、可溶性糖含量的变化
Fig.3 Changes of vitamin C,amino acids,total phenols and soluble sugars content in peach fruit under bagging treatment

2.3 有机酸含量的变化

笔者测定桃样品中5 种有机酸含量,发现各品种间有机酸含量差异较大。白凤中苹果酸含量(0.725 mg·g-1)显著低于霞脆(3.825 mg·g-1)和霞晖(2.950 mg·g-1)。霞晖中,琥珀酸(1.525 mg·g-1)、柠檬酸(1.325 mg·g-1)含量显著高于白凤、霞脆。霞脆中,奎宁酸含量(1.082 mg·g-1)显著高于白凤(0.625 mg·g-1)和霞晖(0.918 mg·g-1),但霞脆中,酒石酸含量(0.175 mg·g-1)显著低于白凤(0.925 mg·g-1)和霞晖(0.575 mg·g-1)。霞晖和霞脆的总酸含量较高,分别是7.275、6.900 mg·g-1,而白凤的总酸含量最低(3.925 mg·g-1),显著低于霞晖和霞脆(图4)。

图4 套袋处理下桃果实有机酸、总酸含量的变化
Fig.4 Changes of organic acids and total acids content of peach fruit under bagging treatment

相比于对照组,套袋处理显著提高了白凤果实琥珀酸、柠檬酸含量,依次显著增加2.5倍、0.9倍,但酒石酸含量却显著降低了83%。套袋处理显著降低了霞晖果实琥珀酸、奎宁酸、苹果酸含量,但柠檬酸含量却显著提高。霞脆中,套袋处理显著提高了奎宁酸和苹果酸含量,但琥珀酸(0.508 mg·g-1)、柠檬酸(0.450 mg·g-1)含量却显著降低。相比于对照组,套袋处理显著降低了霞晖中总酸含量,提高了白凤和霞脆中总酸含量,但差异不显著(图4)。

2.4 矿质元素含量分析

各品种桃果实中K、Mg、Ca、Na 含量较高,范围依次为189.0~234.1、6.2~9.7、3.9~9.5、0.9~1.1 mg·kg-1。相比于对照组,套袋处理均可以显著降低3 个品种桃果实中Ca、Cu、K、Mg、Sr、Zn、Ba 含量,降低倍数在12%~80%之间。此外,套袋处理均可以降低霞脆和霞晖品种桃果实中Mn和Al含量,依次降低20%~50%,10%~20%。以上结果可以表明,套袋处理可降低桃果实中大部分矿质元素含量(表1)。

表1 套袋处理下桃果实中的矿质元素含量
Table 1 Content of mineral elements in peach fruit under bagging treatment

注:不同小写字母表示同一品种不同处理在0.05 水平差异显著。
Note:Different small letters indicate significant differences between different treatments of the same variety at 0.05 level.

矿质元素Mineral element白凤Baifeng套袋Bagging对照Control霞晖Xiahui套袋Bagging对照Control霞脆Xiacui套袋Bagging对照Control w(K)/(mg·kg-1)w(Mg)/(mg·kg-1)w(Ca)/(mg·kg-1)w(Na)/(mg·kg-1)w(B)/(μg·kg-1)w(Fe)/(μg·kg-1)w(Al)/(μg·kg-1)w(Zn)/(μg·kg-1)w(Mn)/(μg·kg-1)189.2±4.4 b 6.2±0.8 b 4.4±0.8 b 1.0±0.1 a 267.1±.8.8 b 148.5±6.2 a 88.3±6.8 a 51.7±5.8 b 53.1±4.8 a 234.1±3.5 a 7.6±0.5 a 6.6±0.7 a 0.9±0.2 a 340.8±9.6 a 112.6±6.0 b 48.4±5.2 b 94.6±7.4 a 44.4±1.8 b 189.0±3.1 b 6.7±1.0 b 3.9±0.4 b 1.1±0.2 a 335.9±9.4 b 266.7±7.3 a 94.2±5.2 b 52.1±6.5 b 68.1±6.0 b 231.3±3.1 a 9.2±0.3 a 9.3±0.4 a 1.0±0.2 a 380.8±7.7 a 186.0±9.6 b 123.0±9.6 a 59.5±3.2 a 89.7±4.6 a 189.5±4.2 b 7.5±0.4 b 8.3±0.4 b 0.9±0.1 a 322.8±7.5 a 149.8±8.0 b 66.8±6.1b 76.4±4.3 b 45.1±4.1 b 233.9±5.1 a 9.7±0.5 a 9.5±0.3 a 0.9±0.1 a 299.4±6.4 b 255.6±9.6 a 76.5±5.3 a 96.4±5.1 a 82.1±5.3 a

表1 (续) Table 1 (Continued)

矿质元素Mineral element白凤Baifeng套袋Bagging对照Control霞晖Xiahui套袋Bagging对照Control霞脆Xiacui套袋Bagging对照Control w(Cu)/(μg·kg-1)w(Ba)/(μg·kg-1)w(Ti)/(μg·kg-1)w(Sr)/(μg·kg-1)w(Ga)/(μg·kg-1)w(Mo)/(μg·kg-1)50.2±3.8 b 4.1±0.4 b 12.4±1.6 a 0.8±0.1 b 0.9±0.1 b 0.6±0.0 a 73.3±8.5 a 20.8±1.3 a 11.3±1.3 a 3.3±0.1 a 3.2±0.1 a 0.6±0.0 a 50.9±6.1 b 11.4±1.0 b 12.4±0.5 a 5.2±0.2 b 2.2±0.1 b 1.3±0.1 a 61.9±3.8 a 25.1±0.7 a 11.6±0.7 a 7.3±0.3 a 5.0±0.9 a 1.2±0.1 a 43.8±4.4 b 6.3±1.2 b 8.7±0.9 b 7.8±0.5 b 4.9±0.4 b 0.6±0.0 b 50.4±1.7 a 25.5±3.0 a 12.5±0.8 a 9.5±0.2 a 6.4±0.5 a 0.8±0.1 a

2.5 相关性分析

基于Spearman 相关性分析计算套袋处理对桃各品质及矿质元素含量之间的关联性。以白凤为例(图5),可溶性固形物含量、总酚含量、维生素C含量之间呈显著正相关(p<0.05),且均与Mg、Ca、K、Cu、Sr 元素含量呈显著正相关(p<0.05),但与琥珀酸、柠檬酸、苹果酸以及Al、Fe、Mn等矿质元素含量呈显著负相关(p<0.05)。氨基酸含量与Zn含量呈显著正相关,琥珀酸含量与柠檬酸、苹果酸含量呈显著正相关(p<0.05)。

图5 套袋处理下桃果实品质的相关性分析
Fig.5 Correlation analysis of peach fruit quality under bagging treatment

3 讨 论

笔者发现套袋对3个品种桃果实的质量和硬度没有显著影响,这与Miqueloto等[18]的研究结果相一致。套袋处理可显著降低各品种桃果实的可溶性固形物含量,这可能是由于套袋会在一定程度上抑制光合作用的产物向果肉中运输,导致果实可溶性固形物含量偏低[19]。研究表明,套袋显著降低了苹果果实中的可溶性固形物含量[20],但可提高葡萄中可溶性固形物含量[21],由此可以说明,套袋对果实可溶性固形物含量的影响受水果种类的影响。

营养品质分析的结果表明,套袋处理可以显著降低桃果实的维生素C 和总酚含量,提高桃果实中的可溶性糖含量。王磊等[22]发现,套袋处理降低了番茄果实中的维生素C 含量,这与笔者的研究结果一致。王睿等研究发现,套袋处理降低了赤霞珠葡萄果实中的总酚和总花色素含量[23],套袋处理降低Concorde 梨果皮中酚类化合物含量[24],与笔者的研究结果一致。已有文献报道,套袋显著影响果实氨基酸含量。樊进补等[25]研究发现,套袋会改变鸭梨果肉中的氨基酸含量,林炎娟等[26]研究发现,套袋处理对部分氨基酸含量影响显著。氨基酸种类和含量是决定果实滋味的重要因素,由此推测,套袋处理通过影响氨基酸代谢途径从而影响果实风味[27]

相比于对照组,套袋处理的白凤果实琥珀酸、柠檬酸含量显著提高,但酒石酸含量显著降低。套袋处理的霞晖果实琥珀酸、奎宁酸、苹果酸含量显著降低,柠檬酸含量却显著提高。套袋处理的霞脆果实奎宁酸和苹果酸含量显著提高,但琥珀酸和柠檬酸含量显著降低。已有文献报道,套袋显著影响果实有机酸含量。王璐伟等[28]发现,套袋的天使红石榴中的苹果酸含量较对照组增加了12%~45%,柠檬酸含量较对照组增加了5%~13%。兰昌文等[29]研究发现,套袋显著降低了葡萄中酒石酸和苹果酸含量。果实中有机酸不仅参与植物的呼吸作用和能量代谢,还是氨基酸、次级代谢产物合成的底物[30]。套袋可以降低各品种果实中氨基酸、维生素C含量,但对各品种果实中有机酸含量影响差异较大,这可能是桃品种及果实肉质质地差异引起的。

套袋处理可降低3个品种桃果实中大多数矿质元素含量,尤其是Cu、Zn、Ca、K、Mg含量等。矿质元素在桃果实发育过程发挥着重要作用,B能够促进桃果实中可溶性糖的合成;K能够促进果实内淀粉向可溶性糖的转换;Mg对光合作用有重要作用,还是多种酶的活化剂,能够促进果实中糖类的转化和代谢[31]。套袋可能会影响果实的气孔导度,气孔影响植物蒸腾流[32],而蒸腾流中有很多矿质元素。果实的气孔导度降低[33],向果实中流入的水分减少,致使桃果实中矿质元素含量减少。柳小兰等[34]发现,套袋处理可以提高苹果中Pb、Cd、As、Se、Fe、Ni和Sr等元素含量,降低Zn、Co、B、Mn、Ca和Mg含量,而贾晓辉等[35]研究发现,套袋处理提高了梨果实中的P、K、Mg和B含量,降低了N和Ca含量,这些结果与笔者的研究结果存在一定差异,可能是水果类别差异导致的。

桃果套袋在一定程度上降低桃果实品质,但套袋的优势是提高桃外观、增强果实抗性和降低桃果实农药残留风险,这些优势不可忽视[36]。现在由于劳动力短缺,提倡简约化栽培模式,但是否需要套袋还受多种因素的影响。对于抗逆性强、不易裂果、病虫害发生少的地区可以选择不套袋,但对于容易裂果、抗逆性差、病虫害严重的地区可以选择套袋,以保证桃果实产量及食品安全。

4 结 论

笔者以江苏区域品种白凤、霞晖、霞脆为研究试材,测定套袋技术对桃果实营养品质及矿质元素含量的影响。结果表明,套袋处理对果实质量、硬度没有显著影响,但显著降低可溶性固形物、维生素C、总酚及大部分矿质元素(如Ca、Cu、K、Mg、Zn等)的含量。矿质元素含量的降低可能是由于套袋影响果实气孔的开关,向果实中流入的水变少,致使桃果实中矿质元素、光合作用产物(氨基酸等)流入减少,而总酚含量降低与套袋影响果实着色有关。本研究系统解析了套袋对桃果实营养品质的影响,为桃果实栽培评价提供了参考。

参考文献References:

[1] CRISOSTO C H,CRISOSTO G M,ECHEVERRIA G,PUY J.Segregation of peach and nectarine[Prunus persica (L.) Batsch]cultivars according to their organoleptic characteristics[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology,2006,39(1):10-18.

[2] 邓月娥,张传来,牛立元,苏成军,韩红萍.桃果实发育过程中主要营养成分的动态变化及系统分析方法研究[J].果树科学,1998,15(1):48-52.DENG Yue’e,ZHANG Chuanlai,NIU Liyuan,SU Chengjun,HAN Hongping.Studies on the changes of some main nutritional components in peach fruits during maturation and the method of system-atic analysis[J].Journal of Fruit Science,1998,15(1):48-52.

[3] 张志海.避雨栽培措施对晚秋蜜桃品质的影响[J].林业科技情报,2021,53(2):34-36.ZHANG Zhihai. Effect of rain-shelter cultivation measures on quality of peach in late autumn[J].Forestry Science and Technology Information,2021,53(2):34-36.

[4] GIL M I,TOMÁS-BARBERÁN F A,HESS-PIERCE B,KADER A A. Antioxidant capacities,phenolic compounds,carotenoids,and vitamin C contents of nectarine,peach,and plum cultivars from California[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,2002,50(17):4976-4982.

[5] WANG G Y,MICHAILIDES T J,HAMMOCK B D,LEE Y M,BOSTOCK R M. Molecular cloning,characterization,and expression of a redox-responsive cutinase from Monilinia fructicola(Wint.)Honey[J].Fungal Genetics and Biology,2002,35(3):261-276.

[6] 王晨,王涛,房经贵,蔡斌华.果树设施栽培研究进展[J].江苏农业科学,2009,37(4):197-200.WANG Chen,WANG Tao,FANG Jinggui,CAI Binhua. Research progress of fruit tree facility cultivation[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2009,37(4):197-200.

[7] 廖振军.采前套袋对桃果实品质影响的研究[J].广西农业科学,2004(4):296-297.LIAO Zhenjun. Effect of covering fruit with bag before harvest on the qualities of peach fruit[J].Guangxi Agricultural Sciences,2004(4):296-297.

[8] 高志红,宋琴芳,徐长宝. 套袋对新川中岛桃果实品质的影响[J].中国南方果树,2008,37(2):61-63.GAO Zhihong,SONG Qinfang,XU Changbao. Effect of bagging on fruit quality of Shinkawa Nakajima peach[J].South China Fruits,2008,37(2):61-63.

[9] 樊进补,钟思玲,宋贞富,安星,敖艳飞,郝紫薇.不同套袋处理对黔中地区‘锦绣’黄桃果实品质及栽培的影响[J].北方果树,2023(5):7-11.FAN Jinbu,ZHONG Siling,SONG Zhenfu,AN Xing,AO Yanfei,HAO Ziwei. Effects of different bagging treatments on fruit quality and cultivation of‘Jinxiu’yellow peach in central Guizhou[J].Northern Fruits,2023(5):7-11.

[10] 李秋利,高登涛,魏志峰,杨文佳,刘军伟,韩园园.不同套袋处理对映霜红桃果实品质的影响[J].河南农业科学,2017,46(12):95-102.LI Qiuli,GAO Dengtao,WEI Zhifeng,YANG Wenjia,LIU Junwei,HAN Yuanyuan. Effect of different bagging treatments on fruit quality of yingshuanghong peach[J].Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences,2017,46(12):95-102.

[11] 项玉英,陈剑,泮李辉,何玲玲.套袋对“新川中岛桃”品质的影响试验[J].上海农业科技,2016(4):77.XIANG Yuying,CHEN Jian,PAN Lihui,HE Lingling.Effect of bagging on the quality of“Shinkawa Nakajima peach”[J].Shanghai Agricultural Science and Technology,2016(4):77.

[12] 颜少宾,金光,张妤艳,马瑞娟,俞明亮.套袋对桃果实发育后期果皮类胡萝卜素的影响[J].福建农业学报,2019,34(7):790-795.YAN Shaobin,JIN Guang,ZHANG Yuyan,MA Ruijuan,YU Mingliang. Effect of bagging on carotenoids in peels of peaches at maturing stages[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2019,34(7):790-795.

[13] 陈茜茜,王晓珊,赵洋洋,邢天天,张智超.桃果套袋对6 种典型农药沉积分布和残留的影响[J].农药学学报,2021,23(6):1205-1212.CHEN Xixi,WANG Xiaoshan,ZHAO Yangyang,XING Tiantian,ZHANG Zhichao. Effect of peach bagging on deposition,distribution and residues of six typical pesticides[J]. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science,2021,23(6):1205-1212.

[14] 杜纪红,叶正文,张学英,张绍铃.套袋对水蜜桃“红凤”和“清水”果实着色的影响[J].上海农业学报,2007,23(2):72-76.DU Jihong,YE Zhengwen,ZHANG Xueying,ZHANG Shaoling.Effects of bagging on the pericarpial coloration of juicy peach cultivars“Hongfeng”and“Qingshui”[J]. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai,2007,23(2):72-76.

[15] 何平,李林光,王海波,常源升.套袋对‘秋雪’桃果实品质及花青素合成相关基因表达的影响[J]. 植物生理学报,2018,54(2):273-281.HE Ping,LI Linguang,WANG Haibo,CHANG Yuansheng. Effect of bagging on fruit quality and anthocyanin synthesis-related gene expression of‘Qiuxue’peach[J].Plant Physiology Journal,2018,54(2):273-281.

[16] 李红艳,李丽梅,钱训,张嘉坤,郑振山,陈勇达.高效液相色谱法同时测定果蔬中有机酸和维生素C 含量[J]. 湖北农业科学,2024,63(7):171-175.LI Hongyan,LI Limei,QIAN Xun,ZHANG Jiakun,ZHENG Zhenshan,CHEN Yongda.Simultaneous determination of organic acids and vitamin C content in fruits and vegetables using high performance liquid chromatography[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences,2024,63(7):171-175.

[17] 国家卫生和计划生育委员会,国家食品药品监督管理总局.食品安全国家标准食品中多元素的测定:GB 5009.268—2016[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2017:62-82.National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China,National Medical Products Administration. Determination of Multi- elements in Food Safety National Standards:GB 5009.268—2016[S]. Beijing:Standards Press of China,2017:62-82.

[18] MIQUELOTO A,DO AMARANTE C V T,STEFFENS C A,DOS SANTOS A,MITCHAM E. Relationship between xylem functionality,calcium content and the incidence of bitter pit in apple fruit[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2014,165:319-323.

[19] JING X L,LIU Y K,LIU X Z,ZHANG Y,WANG G Z,YANG F,ZHANG Y N,CHANG D Y,ZHANG Z L,YOU C X,ZHANG S,WANG X F. Enhanced photosynthetic efficiency by nitrogen-doped carbon dots via plastoquinone-involved electron transfer in apple[J].Horticulture Research,2024,11(3):uhae016.

[20] 薛晓敏,王金政,路超,张守江.套袋对花牛苹果果实品质及贮藏特性的影响[J].江苏农业科学,2011,39(2):231-233.XUE Xiaomin,WANG Jinzheng,LU Chao,ZHANG Shoujiang.Effects of bagging on fruit quality and storage characteristics of Huaniu apple[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2011,39(2):231-233.

[21] 王明洁. 套袋时期及果袋颜色对着色香葡萄果实品质的影响[J].中国果树,2024(7):100-104.WANG Mingjie. Effects of bagging period and fruit bag color on fruit quality of‘Zhuosexiang’grape[J]. China Fruits,2024(7):100-104.

[22] 王磊,高方胜,徐坤,徐宁.果袋颜色对番茄果实微环境及产量和品质的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(8):2229-2234.WANG Lei,GAO Fangsheng,XU Kun,XU Ning. Effects of fruit bag color on the microenvironment,yield and quality of tomato fruits[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2013,24(8):2229-2234.

[23] 王睿,张振文.果实套袋对赤霞珠干红葡萄酒总酚和色度的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2010,38(10):152-158.WANG Rui,ZHANG Zhenwen. Bagging effect of wine grape on total phenol and color intensity of wine in Vitis viniferal L.cv. Cabernet Sauvignon[J]. Journal of Northwest A& F University(Natural Science Edition),2010,38(10):152-158.

[24] HUDINA M,STAMPAR F,ORAZEM P,PETKOVSEK M M,VEBERIC R. Phenolic compounds profile,carbohydrates and external fruit quality of the‘Concorde’pear (Pyrus communis L.)after bagging[J].Canadian Journal of Plant Science,2012,92(1):67-75.

[25] 樊进补,张苏玲,马敏,刘志强,任雅倩,吴昌琦,王利斌,张绍铃.套袋对‘鸭梨’果实中游离氨基酸和水解氨基酸含量的影响[J].果树学报,2020,37(2):204-214.FAN Jinbu,ZHANG Suling,MA Min,LIU Zhiqiang,REN Yaqian,WU Changqi,WANG Libin,ZHANG Shaoling. Effects of bagging on free amino acid and hydrolyzed amino acid contents in fruit of Pyrus bretschneideri‘Yali’[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2020,37(2):204-214.

[26] 林炎娟,叶新福,方智振,周丹蓉.基于UPLC-MS/MS 技术分析‘福红’李冷藏期间初生代谢物动态变化规律[J/OL].食品科学,2024:1- 15. (2024- 06- 20). https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.2206.TS.20240620.1115.012.LIN Yanjuan,YE Xinfu,FANG Zhizhen,ZHOU Danrong.Analysis of dynamic changes of the primary metabolites of‘Fuhong’plum during refrigeration by UPLC-MS/MS[J/OL].Food Science,2024:1-15. (2024-06-20). https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.2206.TS.20240620.1115.012.

[27] DA CUNHA M C,SANTOS SILVA J,DE SIQUEIRA ELIAS H H,CARVALHO E E N,DE BARROS VILAS BOAS E V.Effects of processing and packaging on bioactive compounds of curriola jelly[Pouteria ramiflora(Mart.)Radlk.]during storage[J]. Food Science and Technology,2021,41(1):96-104.

[28] 王璐伟,陈利娜,李好先,刘锐涛,李松开,杨庆华,杨雪花,严琼,鲁振华.不同类型果袋对天使红石榴果实品质的影响[J].果树学报,2024,41(1):113-121.WANG Luwei,CHEN Lina,LI Haoxian,LIU Ruitao,LI Songkai,YANG Qinghua,YANG Xuehua,YAN Qiong,LU Zhenhua. Effects of different types of fruit bags on fruit quality in Tianshihong pomegranate[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2024,41(1):113-121.

[29] 兰昌文,蒋立茂,徐涵秋,胡巍,欧小军,李成海.套袋对龙泉山脉地区“巨峰”葡萄品质及安全的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学,2019,47(22):34-37.LAN Changwen,JIANG Limao,XU Hanqiu,HU Wei,OU Xiaojun,LI Chenghai.Effects of bagging on the quality and safety of the“Jufeng”grape in Longquan Mountain range[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences,2019,47(22):34-37.

[30] TONG P P,LU D Y,LIAO G L,WU C Y,WANG J B.Identification and functional analysis of key genes regulating organic acid metabolism in jujube fruit[J]. Agronomy,2024,14(11):2515.

[31] 姜晓艳,李俊才,王家珍,沙守峰,蔡忠民,李宏军.套袋对‘早金酥’梨果实品质的影响[J].中国果树,2021(5):44-47.JIANG Xiaoyan,LI Juncai,WANG Jiazhen,SHA Shoufeng,CAI Zhongmin,LI Hongjun. Effect of bagging on fruit quality of‘Zaojinsu’pear[J].China Fruits,2021(5):44-47.

[32] 靖吉越,郭新送,朱福军,杨志峰,范仲卿,张培苹,刘禄,马学文,高涵. 苹果苦痘病发生规律及防治研究进展[J]. 果树学报,2024,41(5):990-998.JING Jiyue,GUO Xinsong,ZHU Fujun,YANG Zhifeng,FAN Zhongqing,ZHANG Peiping,LIU Lu,MA Xuewen,GAO Han.Research progress in the occurrence and control of bitter pit disorder in apple[J].Journal of Fruit Science,2024,41(5):990-998.

[33] 王中华,蔺经,李晓刚,杨青松,付蓉,李慧,盛宝龙,常有宏.果实套袋对梨果台枝叶片光合作用的影响[J].江西农业学报,2010,22(11):32-33.WANG Zhonghua,LIN Jing,LI Xiaogang,YANG Qingsong,FU Rong,LI Hui,SHENG Baolong,CHANG Youhong. Effect of bagging fruit on photosynthesis of fruit spur leaf of pear[J].Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi,2010,22(11):32-33.

[34] 柳小兰,安巧,魏福晓,邓廷飞,陆官成,王道平.套袋与不套袋对“红露”苹果果实品质的影响[J].北方园艺,2023(21):23-29.LIU Xiaolan,AN Qiao,WEI Fuxiao,DENG Tingfei,LU Guancheng,WANG Daoping. Effects of bagging and non bagging on fruit quality of‘Honglu’apple[J]. Northern Horticulture,2023(21):23-29.

[35] 贾晓辉,杨晓龙,崔建潮,王文辉.套袋对梨果品质、矿质营养及贮藏期病害发生的影响[J].农产品质量与安全,2017(5):28-30.JIA Xiaohui,YANG Xiaolong,CUI Jianchao,WANG Wenhui.Effects of bagging on quality,mineral nutrition and disease occurrence of pear fruit during storage[J]. Quality and Safety of Agro-Products,2017(5):28-30.

[36] 姜雪峰,宫峥嵘,王得宁,郭兴贵,叶文斌.桃套袋栽培技术对果实品质影响的研究进展[J].农业与技术,2025,45(3):139-142.JIANG Xuefeng,GONG Zhengrong,WANG Dening,GUO Xinggui,YE Wenbin.Research progress of influence of bagging cultivation techniques on fruit quality of peach[J]. Agriculture and Technology,2025,45(3):139-142.

Effect of bagging on nutritional quality and mineral element content of peach fruit in different varieties

CHEN Meng1,2,ZHANG Xue1,2,LI Yue1,2,LI Yong1,2*,CHEN Xiaolong2,CHEN Jian2,YU Xiangyang1,2*
(1College of Food Science, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110000, Liaoning, China;2Key Laboratory of Food Quality and Safety of Jiangsu Province/Institute of Agricultural Product Quality Safety and Nutrition,Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Nanjing 210014,Jiangsu,China)

Abstract:【Objective】Bagging is a significant practice in peach cultivation, which can alter the light conditions of the fruit and minimize mechanical damage to the fruit, enhance surface smoothness, and improve the overall visual quality of peaches. Additionally, bagging can reduce pesticide residues on peaches, thereby decreasing food safety risk. However, research on the impact of bagging on the nutritional quality of peach fruit is limited.The study aimed to evaluate the impact of bagging on the nutritional quality and mineral element content of peach fruit in various varieties.【Methods】Three peach varieties from Jiangsu including Baifeng, Xiacui, and Xiahui were tested. The treatment group underwent bagging, while the control group remained untreated. The peach samples at maturity stages were collected,and the fruit mass,firmness and soluble solid content were detected.The content of amino acids, organic acids and total phenols were detected. Mineral elements including macronutrients and micronutrients were analyzed using ICP and ICP-MS.【Results】Among the three varieties,Xiahui had the highest average mass (279.1 g), followed by Baifeng (248.3 g) and Xiacui (220.0 g). Xiacui exhibited the highest firmness(5.80),which was 1.87 times and 1.62 times that of Baifeng and Xiahui,respectively. There were no significant differences in the soluble solids content among the different varieties,which ranged from 10.4%to 11.1%(p>0.05).For each variety,there were no significant differences in mass and firmness between the bagged and control samples(p>0.05).However,compared with the unbagged group, the soluble solids content in the bagged group significantly decreased for Baifeng, Xiahui,and Xiacui by 16.6%,7.5%,and 17.9%,respectively(p<0.05).Tthe contents of vitamin C,amino acids, and total phenols in the bagged group, were significantly lower than those in the control group,with reductions of 0.14-0.22,0.07-0.11 and 0.11-0.25 times,respectively(p<0.05).The soluble sugar content in the bagged group significantly increased by 0.12-0.24 times in Xiahui and Xiacui, but showed no significant change in Baifeng(p<0.05).The bagging significantly increased the contents of succinic acid and citric acid in Baifeng.In Xiacui,bagging significantly elevated the contents of succinic acid,quinic acid,and malic acid,and decreased the citric acid content significantly.Overall,the total acid content of bagged fruits in Xiahui was significantly reduced compared with the control fruits.Bagging significantly decreased the levels of Ca, Cu, K, Mg, Sr, Zn, and Ba in all three peach varieties,with reductions ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 times (p<0.05).Additionally, the bagging reduced the Mn and Al contents in Xiacui and Xiahui by 0.2-0.5 and 0.1-0.2 times, respectively. The reductions in amino acids and mineral elements might be attributed to the effect of bagging on reducing the opening of fruit stomata, leading to decreased water influx and consequently lower levels of photosynthetic products and mineral elements in the peaches. The decrease in total phenol content might be related to reduced fruit coloration due to bagging.【Conclusion】The bagging did not affect fruit mass or firmness but significantly reduced the contents of soluble solids,vitamin C,amino acids,total phenols,and most mineral elements, leading to reduce the nutritional quality of the peach fruits. These findings would provide valuable insights for the assessment of peach cultivation practices.

Key words:Peach fruit;Bagging;Nutritional quality;Mineral elements

中图分类号:S662.1

文献标志码:A

文章编号:1009-9980(2025)07-1492-10

DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20240699

收稿日期:2025-01-06

接受日期:2025-04-07

基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(32272583);现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-30-5-03);江苏现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(JATS〔2021〕446);江苏省农业科技自主创新基金项目[CX(23)1015]

作者简介:陈蒙,女,在读硕士研究生,从事农产品质量安全与营养分析研究。E-mail:2489789590@qq.com

*通信作者Author for correspondence. E-mail:liyong201508@jaas.ac.cn;E-mail:yuxy@jaas.cn