Paper · 2010 · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Influence of Pre- and Postharvest Factors on β-Carotene Content, Its in Vitro Bioaccessibility, and Antioxidant Capacity in Melons

Carla Maria Wolbang; Davinder Pal Singh; Stephen Richard Sykes; et al.

7
claims
13
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Fresh and stored melons were analyzed for total and bioaccessible beta-carotene content, as well as total antioxidant potentials, to investigate the effects of genotype, season, sowing time, and storage on nutritional quality. There were significant cultivar effects on beta-carotene content (P < 0.001), ranging from 1 to 23 mg kg(-1) of fresh weight (FW), its bioaccessibility (P < 0.005), ranging from 79 to 94.5%, and for antioxidant potential (P < 0.001), ranging from 1569 to 2267 micromol of Fe(2+) kg(-1) of FW of melons. Sowing time significantly affected beta-carotene contents (P < 0.017) and antioxidant potentials (P < 0.001), but these were highly cultivar dependent, with season having no effect. Postharvest storage over 4 weeks at 7 degrees C resulted in losses of antioxidant potential and beta-carotene content independent of cultivar. Cultivar and postharvest management were major determinants of nutritional quality of the melons evaluated.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar significantly affected melon beta-carotene content, ranging from 1 to 23 mg kg(-1) fresh weight.

Taxon
MelonsCucumis melot0
Treatment
cultivare0
Outcome
beta-carotene contente0
Value
1 to 23 mg kg(-1) of fresh weight (FW)e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were significant cultivar effects on beta-carotene content (P < 0.001), ranging from 1 to 23 mg kg(-1) of fresh weight (FW)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 227–356 · show in text ↑
t0

“Melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar significantly affected melon beta-carotene bioaccessibility, ranging from 79 to 94.5%.

Taxon
MelonsCucumis melot0
Treatment
cultivare0
Outcome
bioaccessibilitye0
Value
79 to 94.5%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were significant cultivar effects on beta-carotene content (P < 0.001), ranging from 1 to 23 mg kg(-1) of fresh weight (FW), its bioaccessibility (P < 0.005), ranging from 79 to 94.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 227–416 · show in text ↑
t0

“Melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar significantly affected melon antioxidant potential, ranging from 1569 to 2267 micromol of Fe(2+) kg(-1) FW.

Taxon
melonsCucumis meloe0
Treatment
cultivare1
Outcome
antioxidant potentiale0
Value
1569 to 2267 micromol of Fe(2+) kg(-1) of FWe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“and for antioxidant potential (P < 0.001), ranging from 1569 to 2267 micromol of Fe(2+) kg(-1) of FW of melons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–529 · show in text ↑
e1

“There were significant cultivar effects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 227–266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sowing time significantly affected beta-carotene contents and antioxidant potentials in a cultivar-dependent manner.

Taxon
MelonsCucumis melot0
Treatment
Sowing timee0
Outcome
beta-carotene contents (P < 0.017) and antioxidant potentialse0
Qualifier
highly cultivar dependente0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sowing time significantly affected beta-carotene contents (P < 0.017) and antioxidant potentials (P < 0.001), but these were highly cultivar dependent, with season having no effect.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–711 · show in text ↑
t0

“Melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Season had no effect on melon beta-carotene contents and antioxidant potentials.

Taxon
MelonsCucumis melot0
Treatment
seasone0
Outcome
beta-carotene contents (P < 0.017) and antioxidant potentialse0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sowing time significantly affected beta-carotene contents (P < 0.017) and antioxidant potentials (P < 0.001), but these were highly cultivar dependent, with season having no effect.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–711 · show in text ↑
t0

“Melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four weeks of storage at 7 degrees C caused cultivar-independent losses of melon antioxidant potential and beta-carotene content.

Taxon
MelonsCucumis melot0
Treatment
Postharvest storage over 4 weeks at 7 degrees Ce0
Outcome
antioxidant potential and beta-carotene contente0
Direction
lossese0
Qualifier
independent of cultivare0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Postharvest storage over 4 weeks at 7 degrees C resulted in losses of antioxidant potential and beta-carotene content independent of cultivar.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–854 · show in text ↑
t0

“Melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–130 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar and postharvest management were major determinants of the evaluated melons' nutritional quality.

Taxon
melonsCucumis meloe0
Outcome
nutritional qualitye0
Qualifier
Cultivar and postharvest management were major determinantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivar and postharvest management were major determinants of nutritional quality of the melons evaluated.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–962 · show in text ↑

storage · quality: phytochemicals · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 5 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.