Next Article in Journal
Influence of Lateral Length and Residual Chlorine Concentration on Soil Nitrogen and Soil Enzyme Activities under Drip Irrigation with Secondary Sewage Effluent
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Modeling Approach to Studying the Influence of Grafting on the Anatomical Features and SAUR Gene Expression in Watermelons
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nutritional Value of Coloured Flesh Potato Tubers in Terms of Their Micronutrient Content

by
Krystyna Zarzecka
1,
Agnieszka Ginter
1,*,
Marek Gugała
1 and
Waldemar Durakiewicz
2
1
Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Siedlce, Prusa Str. 14, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
2
Podlasie Vodka Distillery “POLMOS” S.A. Based in Warsaw, Frascati Str. 12, 00-483 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(7), 1537; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071537
Submission received: 17 June 2024 / Revised: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 13 July 2024 / Published: 15 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Insights in Sustainable Agriculture and Nutrient Management)

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to compare Fe, Zn, Mn, Al and Li contents in table potato tubers, obtained from seven potato cultivars with different flesh colour, and one cultivar characterised by light-coloured flesh. The study material consisted of potato tubers produced in a one-factor field experiment carried out at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady belonging to the University of Siedlce, Poland (52°03′ N, 22°33′ E) in 2021–2023. The following cultivars were tested: Eurostar (light yellow flesh), Rote Emmalie and Herbie 26 (red flesh), Provita, Salad Blue, Blaue Annelise, Vitelotte Noire and Bora Valley (purple and blue flesh). The study showed that the genetic characteristics of the cultivars determined the nutrient content and uptake with tuber yield. Of the tested minerals which are important for human nutrition (Fe, Zn, Mn), red and purple cultivars accumulated more Fe than the light yellow-fleshed Eurostar. Zn content was the highest in red-fleshed cultivars compared with light and purple-fleshed cultivars. Mn content was the highest in the tubers of the light yellow-fleshed Eurostar and lowest in red Rote Emmalie. Fe, Zn, Mn and Al contents and uptake with tuber yield were influenced by weather conditions during the growing season.

1. Introduction

Alongside wheat, rye and maize, the potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the most popular food source for the world’s population. The crop, thanks to its relatively high harvest tuber yield per hectare, is a clear leader in tuber production in the world, which was 359 million tonnes in 2020 [1,2]. In the current global food system, it is referred to as a food security crop by many researchers [3,4]. Tubers are of high nutritional value due to their content of carbohydrates, high-quality protein, vitamins, dietary fibre and numerous macronutrients and micronutrients [5,6,7,8]. In addition, potato cultivars with yellow, red and purple flesh contain bioactive compounds—carotenoids and anthocyanins—which are of great interest because of their health-promoting properties [9,10,11]. Potato occupies an important position in nutrition because of its nutritional value and its wide range of minerals. The tubers contain between 0.5 and 2.0% of macronutrients and micronutrients, which are important for the human body [5,12,13,14]. Macronutrients, the most abundant being potassium, magnesium, phosphorus and calcium, are mainly involved in physiological processes and have structural functions [6,12,15]. Micronutrients are involved in the metabolism of organic compounds, and, above all, they are components of enzymes that activate biochemical and physiological processes [16,17,18]. A lack of minerals in the human diet leads to serious health problems, which is why many of these nutrients are often given as dietary supplements [2]. Hence, it is important to provide the body with raw materials and natural products that are minimally processed and contain a wide range of nutrients and minerals. Potato tubers with different coloured flesh are among these products. Many factors determine the micronutrient content of a potato tuber including cultivar, climatic conditions, soil physico-chemical characteristics, and agrotechnological treatments [17,19,20,21]. At present, some breeding programmes focus on increasing tubers’ mineral content as they are an important source of minerals in the diet and can be made even healthier, more nutritious and flavourful [18]. However, there are few publications reporting results of comparative studies on the micronutrient content of potato tubers whose flesh is of varied colours [9,20]. Hence, it was hypothesised that potato cultivars with red and purple flesh may accumulate similar or greater amounts of the most important micronutrients than those with light-coloured flesh. The research reported here aimed to provide information on the content of the health-important micronutrients (Fe, Zn and Mn) and the harmful ones (Al and Li) in the tubers of potato cultivars with light, red and purple flesh (including one new cultivar Provita registered in Poland in 2021) grown in three different growing seasons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Materials

The study material consisted of potato tubers obtained in a one-factor field experiment carried out in 2021–2023 at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady, Poland. The experimental field was located at 52°03′ N latitude and 22°33′ E longitude, and 160 m above sea level. Each year, the experiment was in a different field of a four-year rotation system.
The field experiment was set up on Haplic Luvisol/LV-ha with a sandy clay loam texture according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources [22]. Analyses of soil samples taken from the experimental fields were performed using standard methods at a certified laboratory of the National Chemical and Agricultural Station in Warsaw. Soil analyses were conducted every year, and its characteristics in 2021–2023 are presented in Table 1. In 2023, organic matter was lower than in 2021 and 2022 due to different crop yields in preceding years.

2.2. Characteristics of Potato Cultivars

The main criterion for the selection of potato cultivars for the experiment was flesh colour. The differences between the selected cultivars centre around the following features: earliness (length of the vegetation period), flesh colour, peel colour, taste, yield of tubers, country of origin and year of registration. The description of the cultivars is presented in Table 2 [23,24].
An experiment with potatoes whose tubers have coloured flesh is an innovative one and the only one in Eastern Poland. Tubers of coloured-flesh potato cultivars contain 2–3 times as much polyphenolic compounds, including anthocyanins, compared to white or yellow-fleshed cultivars. Polyphenols are natural components of the potato which perform vital functions in the plant. Due to their antioxidant properties, they can be an important part of enriching our diet with these valuable components. It should be noted that the publication about nutritional value of potatoes with different flesh colour can contribute to increasing the diversity of the market offer and promoting a healthy lifestyle among consumers.

2.3. Experimental Design—Cultivation and Protection

A three-year experiment, carried out in 2021–2023, was set up as a one-factor randomised block design with three replicates, which is a standard number in field experiments. Eight table potato cultivars of varying flesh colour—light yellow, red and purple—were grown. Seed potatoes for the study were obtained in vitro at the Plant Breeding and Acclimatisation Institute—National Research Institute, which were bought by Podlasie Vodka Distillery ‘Polmos’ S.A. Siedlce. The seed potatoes for the experiment were obtained through the co-operation with this company. The forecrop of the potato was winter triticale. Farmyard manure was applied in the autumn at the rate of 25 t·ha−1, and mineral fertilisation with phosphorus and potassium was applied at the following rates: 44.0 kg·ha−1 P (as 46% triple superphosphate) and 124.5 kg·ha−1 K (in the form of 60% potassium chloride salt, granulated). In the spring, before planting the tubers, nitrogen was applied in the amount of 100 kg N per 1 ha (in the form of 34% ammonium salt). Weeds were controlled using the herbicide Bandur 600 SC, whose active substance is aclonifene, at a rate of 2.5 dm3·ha−1. The herbicide was applied approximately 7–10 days prior to potato plant emergence. To control potato blight, three fungicides were applied: Cabrio Duo 112 EC (dimetomorph and pyraclostrobine), Infinito 687.5 SC (propamocarb hydrochloride and fluopicolide) and Carial Star 500 SC (mandiopropamide and difenoconazole). Colorado potato beetle was controlled by means of the insecticide Coragen 200 SC (chlorantraniliprole) and Decis Mega 50 EW (deltamethrin). The season crop management was performed as normally done in the area. Plant protection products were used in accordance with the recommendations of the Institute of Plant Protection—National Research Institute [25]. Potato harvesting was conducted in early and mid-September (technical maturity 99° on the BBCH scale) [26]. The agrotechnological treatments were carried out in accordance with methodological, national recommendations [27,28].

2.4. Meteorological Conditions

Air temperature and rainfall were recorded during the three years of the field experiment. Based on the collected data, the Sielianinow hydrothermal index (K) was calculated (Figure 1) [29].
Weather conditions in the years studied varied, which is reflected in the K index values. In 2021 and 2022, the values of the K index were similar (1.19 and 1.14, respectively), indicating these were relatively dry periods. Rainfall in July, August and September (the months decisive for yield formation) was better distributed in 2021 than in 2022 (Table 3). However, the growing season of 2023 was warm and very dry.

2.5. Tuber Sampling and Laboratory Analyses

Tubers were harvested and their weight per plot was determined in the first half of September, and then the yield per 1 hectare was calculated. Moreover, the tuber sample was taken (10 kilos) to determine yield structure. Just before the potato harvest, random samples were collected from each plot by digging 10 potato plants. Tubers with diameters ≥35 mm and without external and internal defects were considered marketable yield. Marketable quality traits important in the preparation of goods for marketing (packaging) include tuber size [30]. Defective tubers with visible external defects, potatoes with internal defects and tubers below 35 mm in diameter were qualified as by-product yield. Yield determination was the same for all the cultivars. After the potato harvest, tubers were sampled for chemical determinations in the laboratory: 10 tubers with a diameter of 35–60 mm were taken and the dry weight of the tubers and contents of micronutrients, such as iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), aluminium (Al) and lithium (Li), were determined. The tubers were carefully washed with tap water and left to dry on paper towel. Then they were cut into smaller pieces and dried in an oven (SIMPLE, producer POL-ECO, Poland) at an initial temperature of 60 °C, and then dried at 105 °C until a constant weight was achieved. The dry matter (DM) content of the tubers was determined according to the Polish standard [31]. Fe, Zn, Mn, Al and Li contents were determined in three replicates. Dry samples of approximately 0.2–0.3 g were digested with 6 mL HNO3 and 2 mL HCl. The samples and acid mixture were placed in a rotor and heated in the microwave digestion system. Mineralised samples were transferred to the 50 mL flasks through filtering paper and diluted to 50 mL with ultra-pure water. Micronutrients contents were determined with the inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry ICP-OES Spectro Blue (producer—Spectro Inc., Chelmsford, MA, USA, Mid-America Instruments LLC, Edgerton, MO, USA). The micronutrients were quantified by reference to the calibration curve of a multi-element standard solution (VHG, Standard, LGC) in its linear range. Mean micronutrient contents were expressed as milligrams per one kilogram of potato tuber dry matter (DM). The uptake of micronutrients was calculated as the product of the yield of potato tuber dry matter and the content of individual elements (Fe, Zn, Mn, Al, Li).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The factors tested in the experiment were potato cultivars (eight cultivars with different flesh colour) and years (three growing seasons). The obtained research results were tested via analysis of variance (ANOVA). The significance of differences between mean values was determined using Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test at the level of p ≤ 0.05. The relationship between the analysed micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and AL) and total amount of water during the growing season, as well as the soil micronutrients content (Fe, Zn and Mn), was determined using the correlation index [32]. For micronutrients in the potato tubers, no correlation was calculated for Li, as the analysis of variance was not significant for this nutrient.
For micronutrient content in the soil, no correlation was calculated for Al and Li, as these micronutrients were not determined in the soil.

3. Results

3.1. Iron Content in Potato Tuber Yield

Iron content in potato tubers depended significantly on the tested cultivars and weather conditions during the growing seasons, and ranged from 37.52–99.33 mg·kg−1 dry matter (Table 3 and Table 4). The highest mean values of this trait were obtained for cultivars: Herbie 26 (red flesh), Provita (purple flesh) and Bora Valley (purple flesh), and the lowest being recorded for cultivars: Eurostar (light yellow flesh) and Blaue Annelise (purple flesh). The iron content of potato tubers was significantly affected by weather conditions during the crop’s growing season (Table 3 and Table 4, and Figure 1) The highest iron content was accumulated in 2022, which was relatively dry (mean 62.72 mg·kg−1), followed by 2021 with a similar Sielianinov index (K) (mean 58.30 mg·kg−1). In contrast, moisture and thermal conditions in 2023, which was very dry, did not favour iron accumulation (mean 47.72 mg·kg−1). An interaction of cultivars with the years studied confirms that an accumulation of the component in tubers depended on the meteorological conditions. The highest amount of Fe was found for cultivar Herbie 26 in the favourable year 2022, and the lowest in the tubers of cultivar Bora Valley in 2023.

3.2. Iron Uptake with the Potato Tuber Yield

The uptake of Fe with tuber yield was significantly affected by cultivar and weather conditions during the years studied (Table 3 and Table 4, and Figure 1). Cultivar Eurostar took up the highest average amounts of Fe, whereas the uptake by Blaue Annelise was the lowest. The years 2021 and 2022 were favourable for iron uptake with the potato crop, while 2023 was unfavourable. The highest uptake in 2022 could also be due to the highest total content of this micronutrient in the soil—1620 mg·kg−1 (Table 1). There was also a significant interaction of cultivars with the years studied, which was also largely determined by tuber yields, with the highest Fe uptake recorded for cultivar Eurostar in 2021.

3.3. Zinc Content in Potato Tuber Yield

Zinc content in tubers depended significantly on cultivars and weather conditions during the potato growing season, and ranged from 11.31 to 19.22 mg·kg−1 dry matter (Table 3 and Table 5). The highest average content was recorded in the red-fleshed cultivars Rote Emmalie and Herbie 26, and the light yellow-fleshed cultivar, Eurostar. The lowest accumulation of the mineral in question was found in the warmest and very dry year 2023, and significantly higher in the other years studied. An interaction between cultivars and years indicates a different response of cultivars to environmental conditions.

3.4. Zn Uptake with Potato Tuber Yield

Similar to the previous micronutrients, Zn uptake was influenced by cultivars and years studied, and by an interaction between the discussed factors (Table 3 and Table 5, and Figure 1). The highest mean Zn uptake in all years studied was found for cultivar Eurostar, and the lowest for cultivar Bora Valley. The lowest amount of this nutrient was taken up by tubers in 2023, it being affected by the content and yield harvested, and probably also by the lowest soil Zn content. Significantly higher, yet very similar, amounts of Zn were taken up by tubers in 2021 and 2022.

3.5. Manganese Content in Potato Tuber Yield

In the experiment reported here, manganese content varied, ranging from 1.84 to 16.49 mg·kg−1 dry matter, and was significantly affected by cultivar, weather conditions and cultivar x year interaction (Table 3 and Table 6). The highest average Mn accumulation in tubers was determined for the light yellow-fleshed Eurostar (11.46 mg·kg−1). This cultivar accumulated the highest Mn amount in all the years studied. In contrast, the lowest quantity of this micronutrient was recorded in the tubers of the Rote Emmalie cultivar, which had red flesh.
An analysis of the impact of weather conditions showed that these marked variation. In 2023 year, which was very dry, Mn accumulation in tubers was about three times as high as in the other years, which were relatively dry. The confirmed interaction of cultivars and years studied indicates a significant response of cultivars to air temperatures and rainfall that occurred during crop growth and development.

3.6. Manganese Uptake with Potato Tuber Yield

Similar results were observed for Mn uptake with tuber yield. Cultivars Eurostar and Rote Emmalie took up, respectively, the most and the least Mn, the highest amounts being taken up with tuber yield in 2023, and significantly lower quantities in 2021 and 2022 (about twice as low). There was also confirmed a significant interaction of cultivars with years studied (Table 3 and Table 6, and Figure 1).

3.7. Aluminium Content in Potato Tuber Yield

In the present study, aluminium accumulation in tubers fell within the range of 38.37 to 99.97 mg·kg−1, and the values were significantly affected by test cultivars and weather conditions during the study period (Table 3 and Table 7).
The highest average amounts of Al were determined in the tubers of cultivar Vitelotte Noire (80.86 mg·kg−1) and the lowest in cultivar Blaue Annelise (44.39 mg·kg−1). The relatively dry years 2021 and 2022 contributed to an accumulation of this nutrient, while in the very dry year 2023, the Al content was significantly lower. An interaction between cultivars and years studied was found, confirming that the lowest Al amounts were in cultivar Herbie 26 tubers in 2023, and the highest in cultivar Bora Valley in 2021.
During all three years studied, the light yellow-fleshed cultivar Eurostar accumulated the highest amounts of Al in yield, it being the lowest for the purple-fleshed Blaue Annelise (Table 7).

3.8. Aluminium Uptake with the Potato Tuber Yield

The smallest amounts of aluminum were taken up with the potato tuber yield in 2023, with them being significantly higher in 2021 and 2022.

3.9. Lithium Content in Potato Tuber Yield

Lithium content in potato tubers ranged from 0.70 to 0.83 mg·kg−1, and it was significantly affected only by the cultivar grown (Table 8).

3.10. Lithium Uptake with Potato Tuber Yield

Analysis of variance showed that an uptake of lithium with tuber yield depended significantly on cultivar and the interaction of cultivars with years studied (Table 3 and Table 8). Cultivar Eurostar accumulated the highest Li amount (mean 7.17 g·ha−1), while the other cultivars took up significantly less lithium (mean 3.24–4.19 g·ha−1). The response of cultivars to weather conditions showed that cultivar Eurostar took up the most Li in all the years studied, whereas the uptake by cultivar Vitelotte Noire was the lowest in the very dry year of 2023.

3.11. Correlation Index

The correlation results presented in Table 9 showed a significant, positive relationship between total rainfall in the study seasons and the Fe, Zn and Al content of potato tubers. The correlation between total rainfall and the amount of Mn in the tubers was negative, which means that the higher the amount of rainfall, the lower the content of this micronutrient in the potato tubers.
A significant correlation was also found between the micronutrients content of the soil and their content in the potato tubers. For Zn and Mg, it was a significant correlation, and for Fe it was a negative one (Table 9).

3.12. Mean Daily Intake of Iron, Zinc and Manganese with a Potato Diet

In the study reported here, iron content in the tubers of test potato cultivars averaged 56.25 mg·kg−1 dry matter, or 1.15 mg·100 g−1 fresh matter. According to the European Food Safety Authority [33], the daily requirement for Fe is 7.0–16.0 mg, and according to Polish standards [34], it is 10–18 mg. Consumption of 100 g of potato tubers therefore constitutes, respectively, 7–16% and 6–11.5% of the required amount (Table 10).
Mean zinc content was 0.30 mg·100 g−1 fresh weight, and the reference intake/day in mg is 7.5–16.3 mg according to the European Food Safety Authority [35], and 8–11 mg according to Polish standards [34]. Thus, a portion of 100 g of tubers consumed per day supplies the human body with 2–4% and 3–4% Zn, respectively, which are very similar amounts (Table 10).
Manganese content was, on average, 0.15 mg in 100 g−1 fresh weight, and the daily human requirement for these elements is 3.0 mg [36] and 1.8–2.3 mg per day [34]. With the given recommended daily standard, the consumption of 100 g of potatoes covers the daily requirement for Mn in 5 and 6.5–8% (Table 10).

4. Discussion

Mineral nutrients are an important part of a healthy diet, and their deficiency can lead to hidden hunger, which is becoming a global health problem [37]. These nutrients participate in the structural processes of the body [7]. Humans require at least 22 mineral elements for well-being [38]. Hence, Solanum tuberosum, as a major table crop due to its relatively high content of some macroelements and a small amount of micronutrients essential for the human body, can play an important role in offsetting deficiencies of minerals such as Fe, Zn and Mn [15]. Iron is essential for all living organisms. Among other things, it is involved in cellular respiration and electron transport, and is an essential component of hemoglobin and respiratory enzymes. Fe is also essential for the proper conduction of impulses in the central nervous system, and its deficiency can lead to anemia, cognitive dysfunction, or memory impairment [16,21,37,38]. In the study reported here, Fe content in potato tubers ranged from 37.52 to 99.33 mg·kg−1 dry matter, and it was higher in red-fleshed tubers than in white- and purple-fleshed tubers. It was also demonstrated that red-fleshed tubers accumulated more Fe than white-/cream- and yellow-fleshed cultivars [39]. Similar Fe content in potatoes was found by other researchers who reported ranges from 63.24 to 94.57 mg·kg−1 dry matter, depending on cultivar [40], 23.96–30.99 mg·kg−1 dry matter [20], and 40.68–63.42 mg·kg−1 dry matter, according to Wierzbowska et al. [17]. The research discussed here showed that the concentration of Fe and its uptake with tuber yield were influenced by cultivars and weather conditions in the years studied. A significant effect of cultivars and weather conditions on this trait was reported by Gugała et al. [19], Zhou et al. [20], Sawicka et al. [40] and Mystkowska [41]. Furthermore, Wierzbicka and Trawczyński [42], as well as Lal et al. [21], reported that the micronutrient content of potato cultivars and their uptake were significantly influenced by environmental growing conditions and soil abundance. This is in line with the present study as both Fe content and uptake were the highest in 2022 and when soil Fe abundance was also the highest. Karan [2], Dereje and Chibuzo [15], Karan [2] and Pandey et al. [18] highlighted that, unlike cereals and many vegetables, the bioavailability of iron contained in Solanum tuberosum tubers is high due to very low levels of phytic acid which limits iron absorption, thus making them a good source of this nutrient. Bioavailability is a measure of the extent to which nutrients provided in food are absorbed and utilised by the human body.
After iron, zinc is the next micronutrient that has many functions in the body: it is an activator of various enzymes, it participates in the metabolism of proteins and carbohydrates, as well as the synthesis and degradation of necrotic acids; it also contributes to flavour [12,16,43]. In the present study, Zn content ranged from 11.31 to 19.22 mg·kg−1 dry matter, which is consistent with the results of Zhou et al. [20] (20.02–30.73 in 14 cultivars), Saar-Reismaa et al. [9] (9.81–26.01—in 21 cultivars) and Singh et al. [37] (12.33–33.87 mg·kg−1 DM in 37 cultivars). In the research reported here, the content of this nutrient and its uptake with the tuber yield depended on cultivar and weather conditions in the years studied. On average, tubers accumulated 14.43 mg·kg−1 of Zn, the highest amount being determined in cultivars with red and light yellow flesh. According to Saar-Reismaa et al. [9], cultivars with yellow and red flesh had a higher amount of Zn than those with purple flesh, which matches the results of the present study. In contrast, Dalamu et al. [39] showed that cultivars with red and purple flesh accumulated more Zn than those with yellow and white/cream flesh. Similar amounts of Zn were contained in the tubers in the study by Mystkowska and Rogóż-Matyszczak [44], with an average of 13.39 mg·kg−1; these authors [44] also found that Zn content and uptake with yield depended on cultivar and weather conditions, with the highest values being obtained in the year with the highest rainfall and lowest average air temperature, which confirms the present results.
Manganese is a component and activator of numerous enzymes involved in the synthesis of proteins and fatty acids. As a component of antioxidant enzymes, it provides the body’s defence shield against free radicals, and thus against oxidative stress. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system, the formation of connective tissue and the maintenance of normal skin condition. Therefore, Mn is an ingredient in many dietary supplements [34,45,46]. In the study discussed here, Mn concentration ranged from 1.84 to 16.49 mg·kg−1 and depended significantly on cultivar, weather conditions in the years studied and their interaction with the cultivars. The greatest amounts of Mn were accumulated and taken up with the yield by cultivar Eurostar tubers in all years studied, and the smallest by tubers of the Rote Emmalie cultivar which had red flesh. The highest content and uptake with yield was recorded in a very dry year. Also, Sawicka et al. [40] showed that the amount of this component depended on cultivar, production system and conditions in the years studied. Zhou et al. [20] found higher amounts of Mn in yellow-fleshed cultivars compared with white-fleshed ones, which ranged from 8.15 to 14.95 mg·kg−1. In the experiments of Saar-Reismaa et al. [9], Mn content was relatively low (5.26–12.04 mg·kg−1), similar to the present study. The aforementioned authors [9] observed more Mn in dark violet and dark yellow-fleshed cultivars compared with other colours. Singh et al. [37], studying 37 cultivars that were grown under uniform conditions, reported substantial differences in Mn content (from 7.27 to 29.67 mg·kg−1), with higher amounts being found in tubers with white and cream flesh than in those with darker flesh. They also claimed that differences in mineral concentrations indicate that different cultivars have different genetic capacities for micronutrient accumulation. Wekesa et al. [47] emphasised that the accumulation and uptake of minerals in tubers depend on soil type, soil content and climatic conditions. Pandey et al. [18] stated that the genetic basis of mineral content in potatoes with different flesh colours is still poorly understood, and their study was one of the few genome-wide studies on mineral content in tetraploid potatoes. Hence, Singh et al. [37] believe that, with modern agronomic practices and plant-breeding strategies, mineral-rich potato cultivars should be sought. Chemical elements are often an essential part of the diet. However, many of them, including aluminium and lithium, do not provide proven nutritional benefits, and their consumption in excess causes health risks, while in large quantities they can be toxic [48,49,50]. Aluminium is one of the most common metals on Earth, ranking third after oxygen and silicon, and first among metals, making it a common component of plants. The negative effects of Al on plants are associated, among other things, with adverse impacts on the availability of calcium and magnesium ions, and excess Al causes stunted root growth and reduced plant weight gain. Table plants also contain Al, including spinach (104), oats (82), onions (63) and potatoes (45 mg·kg−1 of dry matter), but its excess poses a risk to human health [51]. According to the medical literature, the accumulation of aluminium can be found in people with renal impairment or undergoing haemodialysis [52,53]. In the study reported here, Al content ranged from 42.88 to 99.07 mg·kg−1 dry matter and was affected by cultivar and weather conditions during the growing season. There are few studies on the presence of Al in potato tubers. Vidlak [54] reported an Al value of 76.0 mg·kg−1 dry matter, Melnikov et al. [55] found the level of 1.99 mg·kg−1 wet weight in potato tubers, Gunko et al. [56] determined a range of 18.76–51.89 mg·kg−1 dry matter, depending on cultivar, and Bedoya-Perales et al. [57] reported a range of 3.65–30.80 mg·kg−1 dry matter, depending on cultivar and location of the study. The results of the study discussed here were similar to those AL values in potato tubers.
Lithium is the lightest metal widely distributed in nature [51,58]. It is toxic to plants and animals when it occurs in high concentrations in soil and plants. Various studies have reported negative and positive effects of Li on plant growth. Hawrylak-Nowak [59] and Shahzad et al. [60] found that Li interferes with numerous metabolic processes, such as photosynthesis, DNA biosynthesis, enzyme activation in plants and the breakdown of chloroplast structure; its high concentration causes a significant reduction in plant growth. Jiang et al. [61] noted that, at low concentrations, Li showed various positive effects, including increased root and shoot biomass. According to Tanveer et al. [62], Li is a non-essential element for plants and its biological relevance has not yet been fully identified. Emsley [51] stated that the human body has no biological requirement for lithium, but it is found in every-day food. However, only some is absorbed and most is excreted. After ingestion, lithium is moderately toxic, but there are large differences in tolerance. Długaszek et al. [63] claims that Li is an element that is needed for the normal functioning of the human body, but there is little information about the amount of Li in food and the quantity consumed. The main Li sources in the diet are cereals, potatoes, tomatoes, spinach, cabbage and some mineral waters. According to Emsley [51], plants in the Solanaceae family, which includes the potato, have the highest Li content, up to 30 mg·kg−1 dry matter, corn grain about 0.05, lettuce 0.3 and cabbage 0.5 mg·kg−1 dry matter. In the present study, Li content averaged 0.74 mg·kg−1 dry matter, and it was stable in all the years studied. Rogóż and Wiśniowska-Kielian [64] reported that Li content in the storage organs of vegetables was: 0.63, 0.81 and 1.08 mg·kg−1 dry matter in parsley, carrot and beetroot, respectively, and these values were similar to the results of the study reported here. Currently there are no data on Li content in potato tubers.
Potato tubers have been in the human diet for thousands of years. Solanum tuberosum tubers are readily available throughout the year and have become a staple food in the world. Moreover, potatoes are a staple of diets, are the most widely consumed vegetable and have the highest daily intake compared to other vegetables [13,65]. The nutritional value of potato tubers, in addition to protein, carbohydrates and vitamins, is also determined by the content of macronutrients and micronutrients which, after digestion and absorption into the bloodstream, are used for the proper maintenance of the body [66]. According to the European Food Safety Authority [33,35,36], the human body’s requirement for iron, zinc and manganese is 7–16, 7.5–16.3 and 3.0 mg per day, respectively. In the presented studies, consumption of 100 g of potato tubers covered the daily demand for these micronutrients in 7–16, 2–4 and 5%, respectively. On the other hand, according to Polish standards [34], the daily coverage of the requirement for the mentioned elements was, respectively: 6–11.5, 3–4 and 6.5–8%. In Poland, potato consumption in 2022 was 86 kg per capita per year, i.e., 235 g per day, which means coverage of the demand for the minerals in question was higher [1]. According to Leszczyński [67], it was shown many years ago that the consumption of 200 g of potato covers up to 30% of the daily iron requirement. Other authors have also investigated to what extent the consumption of 100 g of tubers per day makes it possible to achieve the standard for the more important micronutrients [15,19,66,68,69]. Rubio et al. [68] found that the potato covers the human requirement for Fe and Mn at 6 and 9%, and Wierzbicka [66] noted the realisation of the daily requirement for Fe, Zn and Mn was 12, 2–3 and 6–8%, respectively. Gugala et al. [19] reported that for Fe and Mn, the realisations were 9 and 21%, Dereje and Chibuzo [19] found that for Fe and Zn these were 6 and 2%, and Zarzecka et al. [69] found that for Mn this was 7–9.1%. The coverage levels of Fe, Zn and Mn requirements calculated in our work are close to the literature values given above. In addition, Dereje and Chibuzo [15] emphasised the importance of the fact that most minerals are stable and they are well-preserved after cooking and roasting potato tubers.
Al and Li, which were also determined in the present study, are not considered essential and, in higher amounts, are harmful and pose a risk to human health [50,52]. According to the Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung—BfR [70] (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), for the risk assessment of aluminium intake, the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is 1 milligram of aluminium per one kilogram of body weight [49]. Walton [53] stated that this is a dose that most residents of modern industrialised societies routinely exceed. According to Simonsen et al. [71], aluminium is formally classified as a substance with pronounced neurotoxic effects. Li is also listed as a mineral pollutant, and in the future it could become a serious, dangerous soil and plant pollutant [60]. However, a fundamental challenge in relation to the chemical composition of raw plant materials and food is the long-standing principle in medicine of ‘first do no harm’ (Latin: primum non nocere) [72].

5. Conclusions

The study showed that the genetic characteristics of the cultivars determined the content and uptake with tuber yield of the determined micronutrients. In the group of tested minerals that are important for human nutrition (Fe, Zn, Mn), red- and purple-fleshed cultivars accumulated more Fe than the light yellow-fleshed Eurostar. Red-fleshed cultivars contained more Zn than light- and purple-fleshed cultivars, while Mn content was the highest in the tubers of the light yellow-fleshed Eurostar, and the lowest in the red-fleshed Rote Emmalie. The content and uptake with yield of Fe, Zn, Mn and Al were influenced by weather conditions during the growing season. Significantly higher values for these characteristics were found in 2021 and 2022, which were relatively dry years, except for Mn, compared with the very dry 2023. Information about minerals in potato cultivars with different flesh colours can help increase consumer acceptance and sales potential of these cultivars and newly registered cultivars being introduced into cultivation.
The cultivation of potato with coloured flesh can be an interesting alternative to traditional cultivars, offering farmers an opportunity to diversify their crops and attract new customers. Due to their unique aesthetic qualities, such potatoes can attract the attention of restaurants, health food shops and consumers looking for unusual products. Their health benefits and variety of flavours are worth promoting. Potatoes which have coloured flesh are rich in antioxidants such as anthocyanins providing health benefits due to their anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. For this reason, they can be particularly important for breeding programs that use crossbreeding techniques to combine the best characteristics of different cultivars. Breeding potatoes with coloured flesh often requires international collaboration, and this approach accelerates the breeding progress and enables new cultivars to be brought to the market more quickly. These programs contribute to increasing crop diversity and providing products of high nutritional value.
Potatoes with coloured flesh have great potential in the food industry due to their unique sensory, health and aesthetic characteristics. They can be an attractive addition to a variety of dishes and can be used for various types of snack (e.g., chips). They can also offer a component in frozen vegetables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z. and W.D.; methodology, K.Z.; software, M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Z. and A.G.; resources, K.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.Z. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

European Funds co-financing under the Project: “Research and development work on an innovative method of producing a new category of alcohol from food potatoes with partial use of the technology used in the production of whiskey and cognac” carried out by Podlasie Vodka Distillery “POLMOS” S.A. Intermediate Body National Center for Research and Development. Measure 1.1. “R&D projects of enterprises”, Sub-measure 1.1.1. “Industrial research and development work carried out by enterprises” of the Intelligent Development Operational Programme 2014–2020 and supported by Project No 162/23/B by Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. Agronomy 14 01537 i001

Institutional Review Board Statement

It does not apply to the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dzwonkowski, W. Potato market–state and perspectives. Anal. Rynk. 2022, 49, 6–37. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  2. Karan, Y.B. Mineral nutrient variability of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers with different colors grown in Niksar, Kazova and Artova locations of Tokat Province, Turkey. Peer J. 2023, 11, e15262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Andrivon, D. Potato facing global challenges: How, how much, how well? Eur. Potato J. 2017, 60, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Devaux, A.; Goffart, J.P.; Kromann, P.; Andrade-Piedra, J.; Polar, V.; Hareau, G. The potato of the future: Opportunities and challenges in sustainable agri-food systems. Potato Res. 2021, 64, 681–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Leszczyński, W. Nutrition value of potato and potato products. Biul. IHAR 2012, 266, 5–20. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McGill, C.R.; Kurilich, A.C.; Davignon, J. The role of potatoes and potato components in cardiometabolic health: A review. Ann. Med. 2013, 45, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khalid, W.; Khalid, M.Z.; Aziz, A.; Tariq, A.; Ikram, A.; Rehan, M.; Younas, S.; Bashir, A.; Fatima, A. Nutritional composition and health benefits of potato. Adv. Food Nutr. Sci. 2020, 5, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barbaś, P.; Noaema, A.H.; Sawicka, B. Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) as a rich source of nutrients and bioactive compounds: A Review. J. Cell Tissue Res. 2023, 23, 7337–7355. [Google Scholar]
  9. Saar-Reismaa, P.; Kotkas, K.; Rosenberg, V.; Kulp, M.; Kuhtinskaja, M.; Vaher, M. Analysis of total phenols, sugars, and mineral elements in colored tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. Foods 2020, 9, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grudzińska, M.; Mańkowski, D. Bioactive compounds in yellow, light yellow, and cream-coloured potato tubers after short-term storage and boiling. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2020, 32, 778–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mystkowska, I.; Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Ginter, A. Changes in the content of carotenoids in edible potato cultivated with the application of biostimulants and herbicide. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2023, 63, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sharma, J.D.; Sharma, V.; Dua, V.K.; Gupta, V.K.; Kumar, D. Variations in micronutrient content in tubers of Indian potato varieties. Potato J. 2017, 44, 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  13. Burgos, G.; Zum Felde, T.; Andre, C.; Kubow, S. The potato and its contribution to the human diet and health. In The Potato Crop, 1st ed.; Campos, H., Ortiz, O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 37–74. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dederko-Kantowicz, P.; Przewodowski, W. Health-promoting proterties of potatoes. Ziem. Pol. 2021, 2, 47–52. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  15. Dereje, B.; Chibuzo, N. Nutritional composition and biochemical properties of Solanum tuberosum. In Solanum tuberosum a Promising Crop for Starvation Problem, 1st ed.; Yildiz, M., Ozgen, Y., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedrich, M. Minerals in Human and Animal Nutrition, 2nd ed.; West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin: Szczecin, Poland, 2013; pp. 1–96. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  17. Wierzbowska, J.; Rychcik, B.; Światły, A. The effect of different production systems on the content of micronutrients and trace elements in potato tubers. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant Sci. 2018, 68, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pandey, J.; Gautam, S.; Scheuring, D.C.; Koym, J.W.; Vales, M.I. Variation and genetic basis of mineral content in potato tubers and prospects for genomic selection. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1301297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gugała, M.; Zarzecka, K.; Mystkowska, I.; Sikorska, A. Iron and manganese content and uptake with the yield of potato tubers as affected by herbicides and biostimulants, and potato tuber nutritional value. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018, 30, 1051–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, L.; Mu, T.; Ma, M.; Zhang, R.; Sun, Q.; Xu, Y. Nutritional evaluation of different cultivars of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) from China by grey relational analysis (GRA) and its application in potato steamed bread making. J. Integ. Agric. 2019, 18, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lal, K.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Jena, R.; Raigond, P.; Kumar, D.; Thakur, N.; Singh, B. Minerals in potato. In Potato, 1st ed.; Raigond, P., Singh, B., Dutt, S., Chakrabarti, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 87–112. [Google Scholar]
  22. WRB. World reference database for soil resources. In World Soil Resources Reports; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; Volume 106, p. 192. [Google Scholar]
  23. Michałowska, D.; Piskorz, J. Colored potatoes in vitro gene bank. In Proceedings of the Seed and Protection of Potatoes, Dźwirzyno, Poland, 7–9 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. Potato Cultivars Collected in the In Vitro Gene Bank in Bonin. Available online: https://ziemniak-bonin.pl/katalogi/bank-genow/ (accessed on 7 May 2024).
  25. Institute of Plant Protection. Plant Protection Recommendations for 2018/2019; National Research Institute: Poznań, Poland, 2018; pp. 1–359. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  26. Adamczewski, K.; Matysiak, K. The Key to Determining the Development Phases of Mono—And Dicotyledonous Plants on the BBCH Scale; Institute of Plant Protection—National Research Institute: Poznań, Poland, 2011; pp. 1–132. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  27. Roztropowicz, S. Methodology of Observation, Measurements and Sampling in Agricultural Experiments with Potatoes, 1st ed.; Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute: Section Jadwisin, Poland, 1999; pp. 1–50. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  28. Nowacki, W. Methodology of Integrated Potato Production, 4th ed.; Chief Inspectorate of Plant Protection and Seed Inspection: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; pp. 1–84. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  29. Skowera, B.; Jędrszczyk, E.S.; Kopcińska, J.; Ambroszczyk, A.M.; Kołton, A. The effects of hydrothermal conditions during vegetation period on fruit quality of processing tomatoes. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nowacki, W. Share of marketable yield in total yield edible potato cultivars. Zesz. Probl. Postępów Nauk Rol. 2006, 511, 429–439. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  31. Polish Standard PN-EN 12145; Fruit and Vegetable Juices—Determination of Total Dry Matter—Gravimetric Method with Loss of Mass on Drying. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2001. (In Polish)
  32. Trętowski, J.; Wójcik, R. Methodology of Agricultural Experiments, 1st ed.; Higher School of Agriculture and Pedagogy: Siedlce, Poland, 1991; pp. 31–334. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  33. EFSA. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for Iron. 2015. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4254 (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  34. Jarosz, E.; Rychlik, E.; Stoś, K.; Charzewska, J. Nutritional Standards for the Population of Poland and Their Application, 1st ed.; National Institute of Public Health—National Institute of Hygiene: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; pp. 1–463. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  35. EFSA. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for Zinc. 2014. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3844 (accessed on 6 April 2024).
  36. EFSA. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for Manganese. 2013. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3419 (accessed on 26 April 2024).
  37. Singh, B.; Sharma, J.; Sood, S.D.; Kardile, H.B.; Kumar, A.; Goutam, U.; Bhardwaj, V. Genetic variability for micronutrient content in andigena potato genotypes. Plant Cell Biotech. Molec. Biol. 2020, 21, 1–10. Available online: https://ikprress.org/index.php/PCBMB/article/view/4934 (accessed on 3 April 2024).
  38. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R. Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets—Iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytol. 2009, 182, 49–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Dalamu, S.K.; Tiwari, J.K.; Sharma, J.; Raigond, P.; Chaudhary, B.; Sharma, A.K. Nutritional composition of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genetic resources. Curr. Sci. 2023, 124, 1454–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sawicka, B.; Barbaś, P.; Skiba, D. Fluctuations of sodium, copper, zinc, iron and manganese in potato tubers in the organic and integrated production system. J. Elem. 2016, 12, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mystkowska, I. The content of iron and manganese in potato tubers treated with biostimulators and their nutritional value. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 6633–6641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wierzbicka, A.; Trawczyński, C. Effect of irrigation and soil’s microorganisms on the macro and micronutrient contents in organic potato tubers. Fragm. Agron. 2011, 28, 139–148. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhao, D.; Huang, Y.; Wang, B.; Chen, H.; Pan, W.; Yang, M.; Xia, Z.; Zhang, R.; Yuan, C. Dietary intake levels of iron, copper, zinc, and manganese in relation to cognitive function. A cross-sectional study. Nutrients 2023, 15, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mystkowska, I.; Rogóż-Matyszczak, A. Content and uptake of selected microelements with potato tuber yield treated with biostimulators. J. Ecol. Engin. 2019, 20, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Treiber, N.; Maity, P.; Singh, K.; Ferchiu, F.; Wlaschek, M.; Scharffetter-Kochanek, K. The role of manganese superoxide dismutase in skin aging. Dermato-Endocrinology 2012, 4, 232–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wołonciej, M.; Milewska, E.; Roszkowska-Jakimiec, W. Trace elements as an activator of antioxidant enzymes. Postępy Hig. Med. Dośw. 2016, 70, 1483–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wekesa, M.; Okoth, M.; Abong’, G.; Muthoni, J.; Kabira, J. Effect of soil characteristics on potato tuber minerals composition of selected Kenyan varieties. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Langauer-Lewowicka, H. Aluminium—Environmental hazards. Med. Sr. 2005, 8, 59–64. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  49. EFSA. European Food Safety Authority. Safety of Aluminium from Dietary Intake—Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Food Contact Materials (AFC). Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/754 (accessed on 26 April 2024).
  50. Pearson, A.J.; Ashmore, E. Risk assessment of antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, bromine, lithium, nickel, strontium, thallium and uranium concentrations in the New Zealand diet. Food Addit. Contam. 2020, 37 Pt A, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Emsley, J. Nature’s Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 1–539. [Google Scholar]
  52. Exley, C.; House, E.R. Aluminium in the human brain. Monatsh. Chem. 2011, 142, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Walton, J.R. Chronic aluminum intake causes Alzheimer’s disease: Applying Sir Austin Bradford Hill’s causality criteria. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2014, 40, 765–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Widłak, M. The toxicity of aluminium environmental challenge (reviev of literature). Rocz. Świętokrzyski. Ser. B Nauki Przyr. 2011, 32, 131–140. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  55. Melnikov, P.; Cônsolo, F.Z.; Zanoni, L.Z.; Silva, A.F.; Rimoli, J.; Nascimento, V.A. Trace elements in common potatoes, sweet potatoes, Cassava, Yam and Taro. Int. J. Medic. Plants Nat. Prod. 2016, 2, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gunko, S.; Vakuliuk, P.; Naumenko, O.; Bober, A.; Boroday, V.; Nasikovskyi, V.; Muliar, O. The mineral composition of potatoes and its influence on the darkening of tubers pulp. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 17, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bedoya-Perales, N.S.; Maus, D.; Neimaier, A.; Escobedo-Pacheco, E.; Pumi, G. Assessment of the variation of heavy metals and pesticide residues in native and modern potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars grown at different altitudes in a typical mining region in Peru. Toxicol. Rep. 2023, 11, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Szklarska, D.; Rzymski, P. Is lithium a micronutrient? From biological activity and epidemiological observation to food fortification. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2019, 189, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hawrylak-Nowak, B.; Kalinowska, M.; Szymańska, M. A study on selected physiological parameters of plants grown under supplementation. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 149, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Hassan, W.; Shah, A.N.; Anjum, S.A.; Cheema, S.A.; Ali, L. Lithium toxicity in plants: Reasons, mechanisms and remediation possibilities–a review. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2016, 107, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Jiang, L.; Wang, L.; Tian, C.Y. High lithium tolerance of Apocy mum venetum seeds during germination. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 5040–5046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Tanveer, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Wang, L. Lithium in Environment and potential targets to reduce lithium toxicity in plants. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 1574–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Długaszek, M.; Kłos, A.; Bertrandt, J. Lithium supply in the daily food rations of students. Probl. Hig. Epidemiol. 2012, 93, 867–870. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  64. Rogóż, A.; Wiśniowska-Kielian, B. Content and Circulation of Circulation of Lithium in the Environment, 1st ed.; Stanislaw Staszic Academy of Mining and Metallurgy in Krakow: Kraków, Poland, 2019; pp. 2011–2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Xu, J.; Li, Y.; Kaur, L.; Singh, J.; Zeng, F. Functional Food Based on Potato. Foods 2023, 12, 2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wierzbicka, A. Mineral content of potato tubers grown in the organic system, their nutritional value and interaction. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Enging. 2012, 57, 188–192. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  67. Leszczyński, W. The quality of table potato. Żywność 2000, 4 (Suppl. S25), 5–27. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  68. Rubio, C.; Gutiérrez, A.J.; Revert, C.; Reguera, J.I.; Burgos, A.; Hardisson, A. Daily dietary intake of iron, copper, zinc and manganese in a Spanish population. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2009, 60, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zarzecka, K.; Ginter, A.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I. Effect of herbicide and biostimulants on the content and uptake of selected micronutrients by edible potato tubers. J. Elem. 2024, 29, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. BfR. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung. Reducing Aluminium Intake Can Minimise Potential Health Risks. 2019. Available online: https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00054035 (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  71. Simonsen, L.; Johnsen, H.; Lund, S.P.; Matikainen, E.; Midtgard, U.; Wennberg, A. Methodological approach to the evaluation of neurotoxicology data and the classification of neurotoxic chemicals. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1994, 20, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chmielewska, M.; Tys, J.; Petkowicz, J.; Petkowicz, B. Food—First, to do no harm (a review). Acta Agroph. 2018, 25, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Hydrothermal Sielianinow index (K) in the growing season (IV—April, V—May, VI—June, VII—July, VIII—August and IX—September) in 2021–2023. Classification of the month was calculated according to the formula: k = 10 P/Σt, where: P—the sum of the monthly rainfalls in mm, Σt—monthly total air temperature > 0 °C. Ranges of values were classified as follows: up to 0.4—extremely dry; 0.41–0.7—very dry; 0.71–1.0—dry; 1.01–1.3—relatively dry; 1.31–1.6—optimal; 1.61–2.0—relatively humid; 2.01–2.5—humid; 2.51–3.0—very humid; over 3.0—extremely humid [29].
Figure 1. Hydrothermal Sielianinow index (K) in the growing season (IV—April, V—May, VI—June, VII—July, VIII—August and IX—September) in 2021–2023. Classification of the month was calculated according to the formula: k = 10 P/Σt, where: P—the sum of the monthly rainfalls in mm, Σt—monthly total air temperature > 0 °C. Ranges of values were classified as follows: up to 0.4—extremely dry; 0.41–0.7—very dry; 0.71–1.0—dry; 1.01–1.3—relatively dry; 1.31–1.6—optimal; 1.61–2.0—relatively humid; 2.01–2.5—humid; 2.51–3.0—very humid; over 3.0—extremely humid [29].
Agronomy 14 01537 g001
Table 1. Soil properties on the layer of 0–30 cm in the field experiment.
Table 1. Soil properties on the layer of 0–30 cm in the field experiment.
PropertiesDescription
202120222023
pH (in 1 M KC)5.485.625.00
Organic matter (g·kg−1)22.022.815.9
Phosphorus—available (mg·kg−1)72.066.069.9
Potassium—available (mg·kg−1)151.0159.0123.2
Magnesium—available (mg·kg−1)64.063.046.0
Iron—total forms (mg·kg−1)886.01620.0897.0
Zinc—total forms (mg·kg−1)17.418.111.3
Manganese—total forms (mg·kg−1)58.456.1104.0
Table 2. Characteristics of the tested cultivars.
Table 2. Characteristics of the tested cultivars.
CultivarEarlinessFlesh
Colour
Peel ColourTasteYield of TubersCountry of OriginYear of
Registration
Eurostarmedium latelight yellowlight yellowgoodlargeThe
Netherlands
2013
Rote EmmalieearlyredreddistinctivelargeGermany2004
Herbie 26medium lateredredgoodmediumCzech
Republic
-
ProvitaearlypurplepurplegoodmediumPoland2021
Salad Bluemedium earlypurplebluegood nuttymediumUnited Kingdom1900
Blue Annelisemedium earlypurpledark purpledelicatemediumGermany2007
Vitelotte Noiremedium late/latepurplepurpleslightly bitter, nuttymediumFrance-
Bora Valleymedium latedark purpledark purplegood delicatevery largeKorea-
Table 3. Mean air temperature and rainfall total during the potato growing season.
Table 3. Mean air temperature and rainfall total during the potato growing season.
YearsMonths
April
(IV)
May
(V)
June
(VI)
July
(VII)
August
(VIII)
September
(IX)
April–September
(IV–IX)
Air temperature (°C)
20216.612.420.422.717.112.915.4 mean
2022713.619.919.32111.814.8 mean
20238.713.41820.321.31816.6 mean
Long-term mean
(1980–2009)
7.911.216.719.318.013.014.4 mean
Rainfall (mm)
202142.029.533.850.095.442.1292.8 sum
202231.531.426.595.739.364.9289.0 sum
202312.446.553.631.425.016.6185.5 sum
Long-term mean
(1980–2009)
49.648.260.745.753.050.7307.9 sum
Table 4. The effect of weather conditions on iron (Fe) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·ha−1).
Table 4. The effect of weather conditions on iron (Fe) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·ha−1).
CultivarsContent of FeUptake of Fe
202120222023Mean202120222023Mean
Eurostar38.95 D39.93 E38.72 D39.20 e460.4 AB387.7 ABC286.1 A378.1 a
Rote Emmalie60.59 B63.27 C56.30 A60.05 bc399.9 AB361.9 ABC166.1 AB309.3 abc
Herbie 2686.15 A99.33 A47.47 BC77.65 a319.6 ABC458.9 A258.7 AB345.7 ab
Provita61.73 B65.22 C57.97 A61.64 b475.3 AB431.8 AB205.5 AB370.9 a
Salad Blue50.78 C52.90 D49.03 BC50.90 d262.0 BC279.8 BC223.6 AB255.1 bc
Blaue Annelise40.92 D45.36 E39.56 D41.95 e184.5 C220.4 C207.3 AB204.1 c
Vitelotte Noire57.10 BC60.63 C55.17 AB57.63 c268.4 BC330.5 ABC157.2 AB252.0 bc
Bora Valley70.20 A75.14 B37.52 D60.95 bc530.0 A435.8 AB110.7 B358.8 a
Mean58.30 a62.27 a47.72 b56.25362.5 a363.3 a201.9 b309.2
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns followed by capital letters refer to interactions between cultivars and years. The values in the last ‘Mean’ column and the values in the last ‘Mean’ row (followed by lower case letters) refer to cultivars and years.
Table 5. The effect of weather conditions on zinc (Zn) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
Table 5. The effect of weather conditions on zinc (Zn) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
CultivarsContent of ZnUptake of Zn
202120222023Mean202120222023Mean
Eurostar17.00 A19.22 A9.39 D15.20 bc200.9 A186.6 A69.4 A152.3 a
Rote Emmalie16.93 A17.85 A15.80 A16.86 a111.7 B102.1 B46.61 B86.8 bc
Herbie 2616.45 AB18.92 A12.48 BC15.95 a61.0 B87.4 B68.0 B72.1 bcd
Provita14.95 BC15.53 B14.21 A14.90 cd115.1 B102.8 B50.4 B89.4 b
Salad Blue13.20 C14.14 BC11.88 BCD13.07 e68.1 B74.8 B54.2 B65.7 bcd
Blaue Annelise16.97 A19.16 A6.73 E14.29 d76.5 B93.1 B35.3 B68.3 bcd
Vitelotte Noire13.38 C13.42 C13.37 AB13.39 e62.9 B73.1 B38.1 B58.0 d
Bora Valley12.27 C11.31 D11.91 BCD11.83 f92.6 B65.6 B35.1 B64.4 bcd
Mean15.14 a16.19 a11.97 b14.4398.6 a98.2 a49.6 b82.1
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns followed by capital letters refer to interactions between cultivars and years. Values in the last ‘Mean’ column and the values in the last ‘Mean’ row (followed by lower case letters) refer to cultivars and years.
Table 6. The effect of weather conditions on manganese (Mn) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
Table 6. The effect of weather conditions on manganese (Mn) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
CultivarsContent of MnUptake of Mn
202120222023Mean202120222023Mean
Eurostar9.10 A8.78 A16.49 A11.46 a107.6 A85.3 A121.9 A104.9 a
Rote Emmalie2.20 G1.84 G7.10 F3.71 h14.5 B10.5 B20.9 D15.3 d
Herbie 264.61 D4.64 C14.70 C7.98 d17.1 B21.4 B80.1 B39.5 bc
Provita5.40 C5.29 B15.14 B8.61 c41.6 B35.0 B53.7 BC43.4 b
Salad Blue6.10 B5.38 B15.24 B8.91 b31.5 B28.5 B69.5 B43.2 b
Blaue Annelise3.20 F2.20 F10.16 E5.19 g14.4 B10.7 B53.2 BC26.1 cd
Vitelotte Noire3.23 EF2.86 E13.23 D6.44 f15.2 B15.6 B37.7 CD22.8 d
Bora Valley3.50 E3.67 D14.53 C7.23 e26.4 B21.3 B42.9 CD30.2 bcd
Mean4.67 b4.33 b13.32 a7.4433.5 b28.5 b60.0 a40.7
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns followed by capital letters refer to interactions between cultivars and years. Values in the last ‘Mean’ column and the values in the last ‘Mean’ row (followed by lower case letters) refer to cultivars and years.
Table 7. The effect of weather conditions on the aluminium (Al) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
Table 7. The effect of weather conditions on the aluminium (Al) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
CultivarsContent of AlUptake of Al
202120222023Mean202120222023Mean
Eurostar60.13 C61.87 E38.74 C53.58 f710.7 A600.8 A286.3 A532.6 a
Rote Emmalie64.20 BC65.37 DE63.17 A64.25 cd423.7 BC373.9 BC186.4 A328.0 bcd
Herbie 2666.13 BC70.00 CD38.37 C58.17 e245.3 CD323.4 BC209.1 A259.3 cd
Provita70.10 B70.83 CD60.89 A67.27 c539.8 A468.9 AB216.2 A408.3 ab
Salad Blue68.21 B70.12 CD43.68 BC60.67 de352.0 BC370.9 BC199.2 A307.4 bcd
Blaue Annelise42.88 D44.03 F46.26 B44.39 g193.4 D214.0 C242.4 A216.6 d
Vitelotte Noire96.40 A80.50 B65.67 A80.86 a453.1 BC438.7 B187.2 A359.7 bc
Bora Valley99.07 A91.00 A39.52 BC76.53 b748.0 A527.8 A116.6 A464.1 ab
Mean70.89 a69.22 a49.54 b63.22458.2 a414.8 a205.4 b359.5
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in the columns followed by capital letters refer to interactions between cultivars and years. Values in the last ‘Mean’ column and the values in the last ‘Mean’ row (followed by lower case letters) refer to cultivars and year.
Table 8. The effect of weather conditions on lithium (Li) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
Table 8. The effect of weather conditions on lithium (Li) content in tubers (mg·kg−1 DM) and its uptake with the potato tuber yield (g·kg−1).
CultivarsContent of LiUptake of Li
202120222023Mean202120222023Mean
Eurostar0.75 A0.77 A0.70 A0.74 b8.86 A7.48 A5.17 A7.17 a
Rote Emmalie0.71 A0.71 A0.70 A0.71 c4.69 BC4.06 B2.07 B3.61 b
Herbie 260.81 A0.83 A0.71 A0.78 a3.01 C3.84 B3.82 B3.56 b
Provita0.70 A0.71 A0.70 A0.70 c5.39 B4.70 B2.49 B4.19 b
Salad Blue0.71 A0.72 A0.70 A0.71 c3.66 C3.81 B3.19 B3.55 b
Blaue Annelise0.71 A0.70 A0.70 A0.70 c3.20 C3.40 B3.67 B3.42 b
Vitelotte Noire0.75 A0.77 A0.70 A0.74 b3.53 C4.20 B2.00 B3.24 b
Bora Valley0.78 A0.79 A0.70 A0.76 ab5.89 B4.58 B2.07 B4.18 b
Mean0.74 a0.75 a0.70 a0.734.78 a4.51 a3.06 a4.12
Means followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. Means in columns followed by capital letters refer to interactions between cultivars and years. Values in the last ‘Mean’ column and the values in the last ‘Mean’ row (followed by lower case letters) refer to cultivars and years.
Table 9. The correlation index between the analysed micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and AL) and total amount of water during the growing season, as well as soil micronutrients content (Fe, Zn and Mn).
Table 9. The correlation index between the analysed micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and AL) and total amount of water during the growing season, as well as soil micronutrients content (Fe, Zn and Mn).
Studied FeatureFeZnMnAl
Total rainfall in the years studied 2021–2023+0.94906+0.96106−0.99751+0.99918
Soil nutrients content (Fe, Zn, Mn)−0.47930+0.98800+0.99999-
Table 10. Mean daily intake of iron, zinc and manganese with a potato diet.
Table 10. Mean daily intake of iron, zinc and manganese with a potato diet.
MicronutrientMean in Dry Matter
(mg·kg−1)
Mean in Fresh Matter (mg·100 g−1)Dietary Reference Intake/Day *
(mg)
Dietary Reference Intake/Day ** (mg)Percent of Realisation
[33,35,36][34]
Iron56.251.157.0–16.010–187–166–11.5
Zinc14.430.307.5–16.38–112–43–4
Manganese7.440.153.01.8–2.356.5–8
* [33,35,36], ** [34].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zarzecka, K.; Ginter, A.; Gugała, M.; Durakiewicz, W. Nutritional Value of Coloured Flesh Potato Tubers in Terms of Their Micronutrient Content. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071537

AMA Style

Zarzecka K, Ginter A, Gugała M, Durakiewicz W. Nutritional Value of Coloured Flesh Potato Tubers in Terms of Their Micronutrient Content. Agronomy. 2024; 14(7):1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zarzecka, Krystyna, Agnieszka Ginter, Marek Gugała, and Waldemar Durakiewicz. 2024. "Nutritional Value of Coloured Flesh Potato Tubers in Terms of Their Micronutrient Content" Agronomy 14, no. 7: 1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071537

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop