Valorization of Wastes Generated in Organic Grape Processing

Zanini, Márcia; Silvestre, Wendel Paulo; Baldasso, Camila; Tessaro, Isabel Cristina

doi:10.1590/1678-4324-2024230183

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article - Engineering, Technology and Techniques • Braz. arch. biol. technol. 67 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2024230183 copy

Valorization of Wastes Generated in Organic Grape Processing

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

HIGHLIGHTS

• Up to a third of the grape produced for processing is discarded as waste, without valorization.

• Wastes of grape processing are rich in compounds with biological activity.

• This kind of waste is also rich in nutrients making it useful for plant fertilization.

• Wastes from grape processing have the potential to be reused in applications with more added value.

Abstract

The development potential of byproducts from wastes of grape processing can be a promising alternative due to environmental questions. Moreover, there is the possibility of using this material in the development of products with added value. In this study, the wastes of grape skin (GSk), grape seed (GSe), and defatted grape seed with skin fragments (DGS) from ‘Ives noir’ grape (Vitis labrusca L.), grown under organic farming conditions, had their chemical composition and physical-chemical properties evaluated. Parameters of chemical composition, contents of phenolic compounds, total anthocyanins, flavonoids, and minerals, the antioxidant capacity, and water sorption capacity were evaluated. The wastes of grape were also analyzed by FTIR and TG/DTG. All residues had a high fiber content (54.1 - 74.3 wt.%), the DGS waste had the highest contents of phenolic compounds as flavonoids, and the GSk waste had the highest content of total anthocyanins. Antioxidant capacity values were higher in the ABTS⁺ method, with no statistical difference. On the other hand, in the DPPH antioxidant assay, the DGS and GSe wastes had higher antioxidant activity; these wastes also had greater thermal stability. The GSk waste had the highest water sorption capacity. The results show that the wastes from grape processing have the potential to be reused in applications with more value added.

Keywords:
Agricultural waste; antioxidant capacity; chemical composition; ‘Ives noir’ grape; phenolic compounds

Parameter (wt.%)	GSk	GSe	DGS
Moisture	8.52±0.08^a	2.32±0.11^b	2.80±0.05^c
Ash	3.38±0.03^a	1.82±0.02^b	2.15±0.02^c
Lipids	4.63±0.6^a	12.1±0.1^b	6.69±0.25^c
Proteins	10.5±0.1^a	2.74±0.03^b	8.80±0.13^c
Extractives ¹1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Faostat Database [cited 18 May 2022], 2021. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed 2022 May 18. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC...	36.6±0.9^a	20.1±1.5^b	13.2±1.0^c
Carbohydrates ²2 Brazilian Institute of Wine (IBRAVIN). [Brazilian Production in 2020]. [cited 2022 Jan 10], 2021. Available from: http://www.ibravin.org.br/. Portuguese. http://www.ibravin.org.br/. Portuguese...	18.9±0.1^a	8.38±3.1^b	5.19±1.46^b
Dietary fiber	54.1±0.6^a	72.6±2.9^b	74.3±1.0^b
Insoluble fiber ³3 Lago-Vanzela ES, Silva R, Gomes E, García-Romero E, Hermosín-Gutiérrez I. (2011) Phenolic composition of the edible parts (flesh and skin) of Bordô grape (Vitis labrusca) using HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS. J Agric Food Chem 2011;59:13136-46. doi: 10.1021/jf203679n https://doi.org/10.1021/jf203679n...	51.7±1.5^a	63.7±1.6^b	67.1±1.2^c
Cellulose	14.7±2.2^a	17.6±1.9^b	23.6±1.7^c
Hemicellulose	20.2±0.6^a	11.4±1.4^b	12.0±1.0^b
Lignin	16.8±1.6^a	34.7±1.5^b	31.5±1.0^b
Titratable acidity ⁴4 Kuck LS, Wesolowski JL, Noreña CPZ. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on stability following simulated gastro-intestinal digestion of microcapsules of Bordo grape skin phenolic extract produced with different carrier agents. Food Chem 2017;230:257-64. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.03.038 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017....	4.21±0.16^a	0.28±0.02^b	0.63±0.01^c
pH	3.48±0.02^a	4.74±0.05^b	5.41±0.09^c

Parameter	GSk	GSe	DGS
Phenolic compounds ¹1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Faostat Database [cited 18 May 2022], 2021. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed 2022 May 18. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC...	1,530±73 ^a	2,632±52 ^b	3,372±53 ^c
Total anthocyanins ²2 Brazilian Institute of Wine (IBRAVIN). [Brazilian Production in 2020]. [cited 2022 Jan 10], 2021. Available from: http://www.ibravin.org.br/. Portuguese. http://www.ibravin.org.br/. Portuguese...	89±2 ^a	23±1 ^b	20±1 ^b
Flavonoids ³3 Lago-Vanzela ES, Silva R, Gomes E, García-Romero E, Hermosín-Gutiérrez I. (2011) Phenolic composition of the edible parts (flesh and skin) of Bordô grape (Vitis labrusca) using HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS. J Agric Food Chem 2011;59:13136-46. doi: 10.1021/jf203679n https://doi.org/10.1021/jf203679n...	762±17 ^a	2,233±19 ^b	3,136±30 ^c

Compound	Content (mg·kg^-1)
Compound	GSk	GSe	DGS
Gallic acid	-	23.8±0.47 ^b	10.9±0.2 ^c
Epigallocatechin	67.9±0.4 ^a	-	-
Catechin	2.59±0.08 ^a	14.2±0.2 ^b	6.62±0.05 ^c
Chlorogenic acid	53.1±1.3 ^a	2,855±2 ^b	1,361±27 ^c
Epicatechin	14.9±0.2 ^a	405±2 ^b	208±4 ^c
Epigallocatechin gallate	10.8±0.2 ^a	-	-
Rutin	127±0.5 ^a	-	-
Vitexin	33.9±0.7 ^a	10.0±0.4 ^b	7.51±0.35 ^c
Ferulic acid	1,855±7 ^a	-	-
Naringin	9.83±0.31 ^a	-	-
Hesperidin	-	8.25±0.30 ^b	5.89±0.30 ^c
Resveratrol	1.37±0.02 ^a	-	-
Quercetin	1.59±0.02 ^a	-	-

Parameter	GSk	GSe	DGS
Sweeping percentage of DPPH radical	79.2 ±0.8 ^a	84.8±0.5 ^b	83.2±0.6 ^b
Millimolar-equivalent of Trolox^® (DPPH)	1.21±0.01 ^a	1.30±0.01 ^b	1.27±0.01 ^c
Sweeping percentage of ABTS radical	99.7±0.01 ^a	99.3±0.3 ^a	99.6±0.1 ^a
Millimolar-equivalent of Trolox^® (ABTS)	1.53±0.01 ^a	1.52±0.01 ^a	1.53±0.01 ^a

Parameter	GSk	GSe	DGS
Phosphorous (g·kg^-1)	1.95±0.07 ^a	3.45±0.21 ^b	3.05±0.35 ^b
Sulfur (g·kg^-1)	1.65±0.07 ^a	1.00±0.14 ^b	1.25±0.07 ^c
Potassium (g·kg^-1)	14.45±0.92 ^a	4.29±0.09 ^b	3.09±0.14 ^c
Calcium (g·kg^-1)	1.55±0.21 ^a	4.11±0.16 ^b	3.75±0.07 ^c
Magnesium (g·kg^-1)	0.35±0.07 ^a	2.24±0.33 ^b	1.55±0.21 ^c
Manganese (mg·kg^-1)	11.55±1.63 ^a	20.85±0.92 ^b	19.65±0.92 ^b
Copper (mg·kg^-1)	27.45±1.34 ^a	11.45±0.07 ^b	10.1±0.2 ^c
Zinc (mg·kg^-1)	3.65±0.78 ^a	9.61±0.11 ^b	8.6±0.42 ^c
Iron (mg·kg^-1)	160.5±7.8 ^a	51.9±1.88 ^b	28.2±0.28 ^c
Boron (mg·kg^-1)	88.0±8.5 ^a	17.7±0.71 ^b	12.3±3.82 ^c

Instituto de Tecnologia do Paraná - Tecpar Rua Prof. Algacyr Munhoz Mader, 3775 - CIC, 81350-010 Curitiba PR Brazil, Tel.: +55 41 3316-3052/3054, Fax: +55 41 3346-2872 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: babt@tecpar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Correspondence: wpsilvestre@ucs.br; Tel.: +55-54-32182965 (W.P.S.).