Next Article in Journal
Synthesis of Si-Fe Chondrule-like Dust Analogues in RF Discharge Plasmas
Previous Article in Journal
TheImpact of Prompting Techniques on the Security of the LLMs and the Systems to Which They Belong
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/app14198713
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Influence of Processing on the Bioactive Compounds of Small Berries

by
Loredana Dumitrașcu
1,
Iuliana Banu
1,
Livia Patraşcu
2,
Ina Vasilean
1 and
Iuliana Aprodu
1,*
1
Faculty of Food Science and Engineering, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca St, 800201 Galati, Romania
2
Cross-Border Faculty, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca St, 800201 Galati, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(19), 8713; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198713 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 20 September 2024 / Accepted: 25 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Food Science and Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Small berries are rich sources of bioactive compounds, acknowledged for a wide variety of biological activities. The health benefits of these berries are primarily attributed to phenolic compounds, such as phenolic acids, flavonoids, and tannins, owing to their good antioxidant capacity, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and neuro- and cardioprotective properties. In order to compensate for the lack of fresh fruit availability throughout the year, berries are usually processed to obtain various final products. Depending on the processing condition, the nutritional and functional profile of the berries might be affected. The present review focuses on the bioactive compounds with antioxidant activity that contribute to the health-related properties of berries and on the effects of the conventional and alternative thermal and non-thermal techniques employed for processing berries into final products. The literature suggests that, regardless of the processing method, incorporating berries into the daily diet offers protective and preventive benefits against various diseases.

1. Types of Berries

The botanical term “berries” refers to fleshy fruits resulting from a single flower ovary. In agreement with this definition, true berries include some fruits not commonly known as berries, namely tomatoes, kiwifruit, grapes, bananas, and coffee beans [1]. However, the common commercial term “berries” differs from the scientific botanical one; in addition to the small simple fruits like blueberries and cranberries, it also includes small aggregated and multiple fruits, such as strawberries, raspberries, currants, or mulberries, which have many seeds, and are developed from many ovaries or a cluster of flowers [2]. In this review, we will focus on the common small berries, comprising a variety of purple-, blue-, or red-colored juicy fruits, appreciated by consumers for their particular flavor, delicate texture, and numerous health-related properties.
Raspberries (Rubus idaeus), strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa), and blackberries (Rubus spp.), which belong to the Rosaceae family, together with blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) and cranberries (Vaccinium oxycoccos), from the Ericaceae family, and currants (Ribes sp.) from the Grossulariaceae family, are of high economic importance, being the most widely known and consumed, either fresh or after processing [2,3]. Because of their high content of bioactive compounds, they are often used to obtain functional ingredients [3]. Other berries, such as chokecherries (Prunus virginiana), elderberries (Sambucus spp.), bilberries (Vaccinium myrtillus), gooseberries (Ribes uva-crispa), sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides), and honeyberries (Lonicera caeulea), have lower levels of bioactive compounds but still hold limited nutraceutical potential [3].
Berry fruits are rich in nutrients and phytochemicals. They are low in calories, but are excellent sources of both micro- and macronutrients, including dietary fiber. They have a high content of dietary fibers, trace amounts of minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium) and vitamins (vitamins C, E, K, and A, niacin, riboflavin, and thiamine) [2]. The antioxidant activity and health-promoting properties of berries are particularly attributed to phenolic compounds, which exert their metabolic activity mainly through scavenging reactive oxygen species (ROS) [4], but also to carotenoids and vitamins [4,5].
The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the phytochemicals contributing to the antioxidant and health-related properties of berry fruits and to summarize the influence of the processing methods on the bioactive compounds of the resulting berry-based products.

2. Bioactive Compounds from Small Berries

Antioxidants are present in many natural products and provide important benefits for human health [6,7,8]. The phytochemical profile and antioxidant properties of berries are highly influenced by the cultivar, growing and environmental factors, harvesting season, and postharvest storage or processing conditions [5].
Phenolic compounds are the most important contributors to the antioxidant activity of berries. Phenolic acids (cinnamic and benzoic acid derivatives, as well as low amounts of free phenolic acids), flavonoids (anthocyanins, flavonols, and flavanols), tannins (condensed and hydrolyzable tannins), and stilbenes (low amounts of resveratrol, pterostilbene, and piceatannol) are the most important classes of phenolics found in berries (Figure 1) [5]. The ratio of these phenolic antioxidants can vary significantly among different berry types. It should also be noted that the antioxidant properties depend on the chemical structure of the phenolics. Higher antioxidant activity is generally reported for phenolic compounds with a higher hydroxylation degree of the aromatic rings, especially in o-diphenyl structures [5,9]. In particular, phenolic acids with bulky or meta-positioned electron-donating substituents, meta–ortho-positioned hydrophobic groups, or ortho-positioned hydrogen- or electron-donating groups on the aromatic rings possess high antioxidant activity [10]. The antioxidant activity of anthocyanidins increases with the number of hydroxyl groups in the B ring, and decreases in the case of methoxylation at C3′ [5]. Although glycosylation was reported to improve the stability and solubility of anthocyanins, it may reduce their radical-scavenging capacity [5,11]. In a similar manner, hydroxylation, methoxylation, and glycosylation reactions affect the antioxidant activity of flavonols. The powerful antioxidant capacity of flavonols was assigned to the electron localization in the B ring as a result of conjunction between the 2,3-double bond and the 4-oxo group in the C ring [5,9].

3. Comparative Analysis of Extraction and Analytical Methods for Determining Antioxidant Activity

Assaying antioxidant activity is particularly important in the food industry for monitoring the oxidation status of fats/oils and lipid-containing products, testing the effectiveness of antioxidants added to control lipid oxidation, and assessing the levels of naturally occurring antioxidants that might be affected by processing. There are two important aspects to be considered when assaying the antioxidant activity or levels of bioactive compounds from a complex matrix, like berries, as they might significantly influence the results: the selection of the ideal technique and parameters for bioactive compound extraction [12,13,14,15], and the most appropriate method for quantifying the bioactives or determining the antioxidant activity [6,16,17].

3.1. Extraction Methods

There are two types of methods that can be applied for antioxidant compound extraction: conventional and unconventional methods [8,18,19].
Conventional methods are widely used due to their simplicity and lack of need for sophisticated pieces of equipment. These include traditional methods such as infusion, percolation, decoction, and maceration, replaced with the Soxhlet method, and heat reflux used for bioactive compound extraction [18,20]. These extraction methods have some disadvantages related to the use of a large amount of solvents, including toxic ones, and the long extraction time, high energy consumption, and thermal treatment applied during extraction might degrade the bioactive compounds [8,18].
The most used extraction solvents are methanol and ethanol, but ethanol is preferred due to the high toxicity of methanol. Other solvents have been reported in the literature for extracting bioactive compounds from berries: ethyl acetate, diethyl ether, chloroform, acetone/water, n-hexane, and isooctane [18,19,21,22]. Choosing a suitable extraction solvent depends on the compounds being extracted from berries. Thus, solvents with high polarity, such as ethanol and methanol, will be used for the extraction of phenolic compounds and flavonoids [18,23]. Non-polar solvents, such as chloroform and n-hexane, will be used for the extraction of carotenoids [24]. Intermediate polar solvents, such as acetone, are suitable for the extraction of phenolic compounds, together with saponins and some secondary metabolites that exhibit antioxidant activity [25].
Several studies have indicated that the use of solvent mixtures can improve the extraction yield of bioactive compounds by increasing the range of extracted compounds [18,26]. Other important parameters reported to influence the extraction efficiency of the bioactive compounds from berries are temperature, pH, solid-to-solvent ratio, and technique used for enhancing mass transfer [7,18,19,21,27,28,29]. The most common technique for enhancing mass transfer is stirring. Two other techniques used in conventional solvent extraction are extraction by reflux and Soxhlet extraction [18,30].
Unconventional methods are environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional methods, which allow most of the disadvantages of the conventional methods to be limited. The unconventional methods ensure that higher extraction yields of the bioactive compounds will be obtained (Table 1), with a low energy consumption. The most used unconventional extraction methods of bioactive compounds from berries are assisted by ultrasound, high hydrostatic pressure, supercritical fluid, pressurized liquid, microwaves, pulsed electric field, or enzymes [8,18,28,31]. These non-thermal methods preserve the integrity of the bioactive compounds, making them particularly useful for sensitive compounds found in berries.
Ultrasound assists the extraction of the bioactive compounds from natural products by producing cavitation bubbles, upon the propagation of mechanical waves as a result of temperature and pressure change, followed by their collapse and burst during the compression–rarefaction cycles [8,53]. The main operating parameters influencing the extraction are power, intensity, frequency, and amplitude [23]. The extraction yield of the bioactive compounds improves with an increase in the extraction time, at temperatures above 50 °C, so as to avoid possible degradation of the thermal-sensitive compounds, and at an ultrasound power of 40 kHz [53]. Ultrasound can be used to complement other conventional [12,13,14,15] or unconventional extraction techniques, such as supercritical fluid and microwave extraction [29], allowing the extraction yield to be improved. With respect to conventional methods, the main advantages of ultrasound-assisted extraction are the short extraction time and high yield, while the most important disadvantage is the low reproducibility [7,8].
Microwave is an electromagnetic force-based method employed to assist the extraction of bioactive compounds. The method involves a large frequency spectrum between 300 MHz and 300 GHz, in which the extraction of antioxidant compounds occurs upon the electromagnetic energy to heat conversion, as a result of the dipole rotation and ion conduction mechanisms [28,54]. Due to the heating effect, the solvent penetrates the food matrix, produces the disruption of hydrogen bonds, and leads to the extraction of antioxidant compounds. The extraction yield depends on the microwave power, which ranges from 100 to 900 W [8]. The most suitable solvents used for microwave-assisted extraction are ethanol solutions of different concentrations and water [8,23], but methanol, acetone, and acetonitrile can also be used for plant phenolic compound extraction [54].
The supercritical fluid extraction (SC-CO2) method involves the use of CO2 as a solvent [8,41,42]. The main factors influencing the extraction efficiency are the particle size of the material, flow rate, and type of co-solvent. The material should be ground prior to extraction in such a manner to avoid the formation of too-small particles, which are prone to agglomeration in the channels of the equipment, and too-large particles, which decrease mass transfer. The flow rate is usually adjusted so as to maximize the solubility of the bioactive compounds and the mass transfer. The use of a co-solvent, such as water or ethanol, is required to improve the extraction yield of bioactive compounds [42]. The supercritical fluid extraction method is suitable for polyphenol, flavonoid, and carotenoid extraction [41,42,44].
The pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) method involves combining high pressures (4–12 MPa) and moderate or high temperatures (50–300 °C) with the use of organic solvents above their boiling point [8]. The most important parameters influencing the efficiency of the method are pressure, temperature, extraction time, and type of solvent [8,42,43,44]. The use of high pressures and temperatures allows the solubility of antioxidant compounds and the mass transfer properties to be improved.
The high-hydrostatic-pressure extraction (HPPE) method involves mixing pulverized dry material with a solvent of appropriate polarity in a sealed polyethylene bag, followed by treatment at very high pressures (100 to 1000 MPa) in a pressure vessel [8,45]. The main operating parameters influencing the extraction of bioactive compounds are the type of solvent (pure or mixture of solvents; most often, aqueous ethanol is used), pressure, and extraction time. The high-hydrostatic-pressure extraction method was successfully used for polyphenol, anthocyanin, and flavonoid extraction from blueberries and strawberries [45,46]. The pressure and extraction time increase ensured higher antioxidant activity of the extracts from blueberries and strawberries (Table 1), as a result of the better extraction efficiency of bioactive compounds [45,46].
Pulsed electric field (PEF) extraction is a non-thermal method based on the electroporation of cell membranes, upon matrix exposure to an electrical potential [8,55]. High-voltage electric current (10–80 kV/cm) treatment is usually applied as nano- to microseconds-long pulses [55]. The efficiency of this unconventional extraction method mainly depends on operating conditions and parameters like treatment time (100–800 µs), pulse duration, strength (10–80 kV/cm), and frequency (1–1500 Hz). In addition, the extraction efficiency varies with the food matrix because of differences in membrane polarity and conductivity [47,48,55]. This technique was successfully used for extracting the phenolic compounds, anthocyanins, and flavonoids, from various berries such as barberries, blueberries, and strawberries [48,49,50,55].
Enzyme-assisted extraction (EAE) involves the use of various enzymes responsible for cell wall hydrolysis, followed by the release of intracellular compounds. In order to ensure efficient disintegration of the cell wall, the use of a mixture of enzymes is recommended [51]. Enzyme specificity and concentration, pH, temperature, extraction time, and properties of the plant material, such as particle size and moisture, are all factors influencing the extraction yield [8,44,52].

3.2. Analytical Methods for Determining Antioxidant Activity

Several key assays used to measure antioxidant activity include radical/ROS-scavenging methods, non-radical redox potential-based methods, ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and total phenolic content [6].
The most used radical/ROS-scavenging assays are the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assay, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical-scavenging assay, and Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) assay [6,7], each with advantages and disadvantages. The DPPH radical-scavenging assay is a mixed method based on single-electron transfer (ET) as the main reaction mechanism and hydrogen atom transfer (HAT) as a marginal reaction [16]. Although the DPPH radical-scavenging assay is a simple and inexpensive method, it is rather sensitive to several factors, including solvent type and concentration, freshness of the DPPH reagent, and the amount of present H and metal ions, which can form complexes with the antioxidants [6,7]. The TEAC assay is based on the antioxidant compound reaction with ABTS•+ (2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)), mainly involving the ET but also the HAT mechanism. The TEAC assay is a simple method, but presents limitations associated with sensitivity in regard to the antioxidant/ABTS•+ ratio and the correlation of the incubation time with the end-point reaction [6]. The ORAC assay is based on the HAT mechanism, and consists of the reaction between peroxyl radicals, generated from azo compounds, and a fluorescent probe, which results in fluorescence loss [6]. Since the methods involve colorimetric or fluorescent change, the presence of natural pigments and fluorophores in the extract represents a major limitation of these methods, due to potential interference with the absorbance and fluorescence of the reaction mixtures [6].
FRAP is a simple ET method, in which antioxidant compounds determine the reduction of ferric (Fe3+) to ferrous (Fe2+) ions, resulting in an intense blue color that increases absorbance. The reaction time between antioxidants and Fe3+ can be extended from minutes to several hours [6]. The main limitation of this method relates to the fact that some antioxidants cannot reduce Fe3+, although they are able to reduce pro-oxidants, while any electron-donating compound with no antioxidant activity, but with redox potential below the Fe3+/Fe2+ pair, may act as a Fe3+ reductant, therefore falsely contributing to the FRAP value [7,56].
The total phenolic content is assayed with the Folin–Ciocalteu method, which presents multiple advantages—simplicity, reproducibility, and robustness—but also an important disadvantage related to the participation of some non-phenolic compounds found in the extract, such as sugars or amino acids, in the reduction of the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent [6].

4. Processing of Small Berries and Their Effects on Bioactive Compounds

Fresh berries, like most fresh fruits, are available throughout the year for a limited period. Various conventional and alternative processing technologies are usually applied to transform these perishable materials into stable products, such as juices, beverages, purees, nectars, powders, concentrates, extracts, and spreads. Conventional methods have been used for producing safe berry products for decades; however, they could lead to quality changes, limiting consumers’ acceptability. Moreover, many of them require increased resources in terms of heat, water, energy, and time, exerting a negative impact on the environment. The use of alternative technologies has opened new opportunities for producing safe products with enhanced bioactive properties in a sustainable manner. Although not all the alternative methods are cost-effective, a combination of methods has good potential for overcoming this drawback.
During processing, some unit operations have a higher impact on the berries’ nutritional and technological profile, while others influence the functional properties of the phytochemicals to a greater extent. The stability of bioactive compounds, such as anthocyanins, is highly dependent on the processing conditions applied. However, some other factors like pH, concentration, light, oxygen, and the presence of enzymes, proteins, and metallic ions should also be considered [57]. In this section, the main operations with a significant impact on the bioactive compounds of berry products are briefly discussed (Figure 2).

4.1. Enzymatic, Mashing, and Pressing Treatments

Enzymatic treatment followed by mashing and pressing is a preliminary operation applied for preprocessing fresh berry products before they are transformed into juices, purees, nectars, or jams. These operations are intended to enhance the yield and to maintain the sensorial and nutritional properties of the processed berry products [58].
The enzyme-assisted pretreatment of berry products allows high-quality final products with health-promoting properties to be obtained. The addition of enzymes during preprocessing promotes the release of most nutrients and bioactive components from berry pulp and skins. However, the enzymes must be carefully selected so as not to exert a negative effect on the sensorial properties. Mashing is often performed for juice or jam production, whereas pressing is used only for separating the juice from the solid parts. Depending on several parameters under which these operations are performed, the content of bioactive compounds from the berries may remain constant, decrease, or increase.
Anthocyanins of many berries are mainly found in skins, making their extraction more difficult. In particular, blackcurrant and blueberry skins are very hard to grind, and most of the anthocyanins are retained in the press cake fraction [59]. Woodward et al. reported that pressing did not have any effect on the phytochemical content of blackberry juice [60], while Hager et al. reported losses between 6% and 16% for blackberry and black raspberry juice [61,62]. On the other hand, the enzymatic pretreatment of berries increases anthocyanin extraction yield by about 28% when pressing black mulberries to obtain juice [63].

4.2. Blanching

Blanching is a unit operation considered essential for processing berries in various forms, such as liquids or solids, as it has a positive effect on yield, color stability, and nutritional quality while inactivating most of the unwanted oxidative enzymes and some microorganisms [58]. Conventionally, blanching is performed with either hot water or hot steam for a specific time interval that ranges from seconds to minutes. Although during blanching, the content of bioactive compounds usually decreases, in the production of berry juice, this processing step was found to positively impact the total polyphenol and anthocyanin content of juices compared to control samples obtained without blanching [64]. When obtaining dried cranberries, Nowacka et al. [65] applied blanching and reported higher flavonoid, polyphenol, and anthocyanin content with respect to the reference sample. The higher concentration was associated either with the inactivation of the enzymes responsible for the degradation of phytochemicals or with the thermal plasmolysis and higher extractability of phenolic compounds. Moreover, among all investigated bioactive compounds, flavonoids were identified as being the most stable during blanching, due to the thermal disintegration of the cell membrane that promoted the extraction.
On the other hand, conventional blanching methods are not considered environmentally friendly, as they require large amounts of water and heat. Blanching technologies based on high-pressure, microwave, ultrasound (US), infrared, or ohmic treatment have emerged over the last few years, and are considered an attractive alternative to conventional blanching by food processors. Several studies have shown that blanching performed by using these alternative technologies requires fewer resources in terms of energy, water, and time, providing at the same time a superior retention of phytochemical compounds. For example, Pérez-Grijalva et al. [66] reported that microwave-assisted blanching of blackberry mash for 60 s prior to juice extraction increased the content of total polyphenols and monomeric anthocyanins. These observations agree with those previously reported for other berries [67]. The use of catalytic infrared blanching combined with ultrasound pretreatment was shown to be efficient for increasing the content of polyphenols and anthocyanins in the case of blueberry drying [68]. Catalytic infrared blanching is based on the use of natural gas and electricity to produce infrared radiation, being considered an energy-saving technology [68].

4.3. Drying

Drying is one of the most common processing operations used to transform perishable fruits and vegetables into stable products available for consumption throughout the year [65,69]. Berry drying can be achieved by using conventional or alternative methods. The advantages and disadvantages of each drying method are presented in Figure 3. Conventional methods include convective drying (hot air drying, convective multi-flash drying, fluidized bed drying), spray drying, freeze drying, and osmotic drying. Often, the combination of alternative technologies, like pulsed electric fields (PEF) or US, exhibits good potential for the drying of berries while offering superior protection of bioactive compounds. The most used alternative drying methods are presented in Figure 3.
Convective drying is a simple and cheap method, easy to operate, and frequently used when processing solid berries and pomace [70]. Most of the time, the use of these convective drying methods requires high temperatures and long drying times, which frequently exert a negative effect on most of the bioactive compounds present in berries [69]. For instance, the convective drying of strawberries at 50 °C for 360 min decreased the antioxidant activity, anthocyanins, and total phenolic content by about 75%, 26%, and 61%, respectively [71]. Thus, many efforts have been made in an attempt to preserve the phytochemicals from berries by combining convective drying with other conventional drying methods, or replacing it with alternative methods [70]. Heat pump drying represents a good alternative to convective drying, being able to reduce energy losses, and reducing the costs of drying while providing enhanced quality.
Another alternative to the convective drying of berries is vacuum drying. It uses lower temperatures, a high drying rate, and a low-oxygen environment while providing superior protection of bioactives [72]. López et al. [73] applied vacuum drying (at 50 °C and 60 °C) on murta berries and obtained higher contents of bound flavonoids and polyphenols than from fresh berries. These results were attributed to the changes in the tissue structure during vacuum drying, which improved the extraction yield of the bound total flavonoids.
Freeze drying is another vacuum drying technique that uses low temperature and low pressure, able to retain most of the biologically active components present in fresh berries, such as vitamins and antioxidants. When used alone, freeze drying requires up to six times more operating costs than hot air drying. However, the advantage of maintaining the bioactive properties of the berries almost intact compensates for the high costs. A combination of freeze drying with vacuum drying or microwave drying was shown to be a good alternative to hot air drying for obtaining berries with high vitamin C, total anthocyanin, and total polyphenol content, while improving the drying time and efficiency [70,74]. For example, Ozcelik et al. [75] found that the microwave-assisted freeze drying of raspberry puree ensured high retention of anthocyanins, representing a promising alternative to conventional freeze drying.
Far-infrared radiation heating assisted by vacuum drying was recently reported to possess excellent potential for drying berries with a waxy layer such as blueberries with a high content of bioactive constituents [76]. Compared to conventional drying techniques, the equipment used for far-infrared radiation is simple and requires a shorter drying duration and reduced energy consumption [70].
Spray drying is used for liquids, such as juices, to obtain powders with high shelf life, good solubility, and dispersibility. On the other hand, it uses high temperatures that may result in the degradation of bioactive compounds. Gagneten et al. [77] showed that this drawback can be limited by applying ultrasound treatment prior to spray drying. The combination of the two drying methods allowed dried raspberries, blackcurrants, and elderberries with improved bioactive constituents to be obtained [77].
Osmotic drying is a method based on the use of hypertonic solutions, where fresh berries are immersed, enabling water transfer from the food matrix to a solution due to an osmotic pressure difference [70]. Frequently, the hypertonic solutions used as drying agents include sugars, sodium chloride, polyols, or concentrate juices. For example, the osmotic treatment of strawberries using concentrated chokeberry juice was shown to be very effective in improving the polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of dried strawberries [78]. The high moisture, sugar, or salt content of the final product, which does not allow the chemical composition at the end of the drying process to be predicted, is considered the main disadvantage of the osmotic dehydration process [70].
The drying of berries using microwaves (MWs) represents an attractive alternative as it provides high drying rates and limits the oxidation process, while the product quality, in terms of mechanical properties and phytochemical content, is enhanced [79].
The main disadvantages of using MW drying are associated with the difficulty of assuring uniform temperature, the limited penetration depth of the microwave radiation, and high initial costs [79]. When processing berries, combining MW with another drying method showed excellent potential for limiting these drawbacks. Often, MW drying is assisted by convective or vacuum drying. For example, Zielinska and Zielinska [69] tested the influence of freezing, convective, and MW–vacuum drying on the bioactive components of cranberries. The authors showed that MW–vacuum drying was able to better protect the total phenolic content of cranberries compared to convective drying. Moreover, compared to freeze drying, the antioxidant activity of the cranberries subjected to MW–vacuum drying was significantly higher. However, the phytochemical content was dependent on the MW power; the contents of polyphenols, flavonoids, and anthocyanins of cranberries were significantly reduced at powers above 300 W. Similar observations were reported for blueberries; the degradation of total polyphenols and anthocyanin components was lower during MW–vacuum drying compared to hot air convective drying. During MW–vacuum drying, the exposure of the blueberries to oxygen was lower compared to hot air convective drying, causing minor changes in the phytochemical components [80]. Wojdyło et al. [81] compared the effect of freeze drying, vacuum drying, vacuum–MW drying, and convective drying on the phytochemicals of strawberries. Among the tested methods, vacuum–MW drying at a microwave power of 240 W was the most efficient in the retention of heat- and oxygen-sensitive phenolic components and ascorbic acid in strawberries. A comparative study on strawberry drying using radio frequency, MW, freeze drying, and hot air was performed by Jiang et al. [82]. Compared to MW drying and hot air drying, radio frequency and freeze drying favored the retention of more anthocyanins and phenolic compounds.
The pretreatment of berries by sonication, followed by MW–vacuum-assisted drying, showed good potential for the drying of cranberries while ensuring superior retention of bioactive compounds, as recently reported by Zhou et al. [39]. Cranberries pretreated with a combination of blanching, ultrasound, and pulsed electric field, followed by MW–vacuum drying, presented a higher content of anthocyanins compared to control samples (without blanching, ultrasound, or pulsed electric field treatment) [65]. The use of explosion puffing drying as a pretreatment, followed by freeze drying, resulted in dried mulberries and raspberries with a high content of anthocyanins and antioxidant activity, as shown by several authors [83,84]. Zheng et al. [85] promoted the use of MW–vacuum puffing drying as a new strategy to process blackcurrants, cranberries, and raspberries for the development of snacks with a high content of antioxidants and a crunchy texture. The crunchy texture is correlated with the porous structure that results from puffing, where the pressure difference between the product and vacuum leads to the expansion of the fruits [85].
Drying berries using a combination of low-pressure superheated steam and far-infrared is a cost-effective method for obtaining high-quality dehydrated samples [72].
Refractance window drying uses a heat transfer mechanism based on conduction, convection, and radiation that can be applied to dry heat-sensitive fruits like berries to preserve their quality. It is a cost-effective technique as the installation and operation costs are lower. However, the low capacity is considered the main limitation of this drying system [70]. The quality of the products dried with a refractance window is considered similar to freeze-dried products; however, compared with freeze drying, the process is faster and cheaper [86]. Haskap berry powder dried with a refractance window was able to maintain more than 90% of the anthocyanins present in the frozen berries [86]. Although this drying method involves the use of hot water at 95 °C to reduce the moisture content of the berries, the temperature of the product does not exceed 80 °C, while the drying method is very fast, up to 5 min, allowing the retention of most of the bioactive compounds.
Overall, drying represents a critical process for obtaining high-quality products with health-promoting properties. Among the various combinations that can be applied for berry drying, Pateiro et al. [70] reported that the most significant with high potential to be used in the future for berry drying are microwave–convective drying, vacuum–microwave drying, convective and vacuum–microwave drying, ultrasound-assisted convection drying, microwave, and far-infrared. Thus, it is essential for the food industry to identify the best drying conditions, so as to provide consumers with healthy products based on berries with a reduced carbon footprint.

4.4. Pasteurization

Pasteurization is an essential process applied in the food industry to assure the microbial stability of berry products such as juices, jams, purees, or stewed berries for a specific period. Often, food products with low acidity are sterilized (>100 °C), while those with high acid are pasteurized (<100 °C) [87]. For fruit juice processors, the thermal processing conditions applied must achieve a 5-log reduction in the most resistant pathogens present in the final product [88]. On the other hand, the heat treatment applied has a strong impact on the phytochemical composition of the berry products. Products treated by thermal pasteurization have an enhanced quality compared to thermally sterilized products, as the applied process parameters are less severe. The pasteurization treatment can be performed by using thermal and non-thermal technologies or a combination of them (Figure 4).
Conventional thermal pasteurization is one of the most cost-effective technologies used at the industrial level to ensure the shelf life of juices, as it possesses good bactericidal and enzyme inactivation effects. The high temperatures and long exposure time reduce the quality of the juices from sensorial, nutritional, and functional perspectives [58]. The phytochemical content is also influenced by pH and the presence of oxygen and other components present in the berry products. Most conventional thermal technologies cause a reduction in the bioactive compounds present in berry products. The thermal pasteurization (92 °C, 15 min) of strawberry puree decreased the anthocyanin content by about 43% compared to the control sample [89]. On the other hand, the pasteurization of blackberry and raspberry juices did not exert a significant reduction in the total anthocyanin and total polyphenol contents when compared to non-pasteurized juice [90,91].
Applsci 14 08713 g004
Figure 4. The main pasteurization treatments applied for liquid and semi-solid berry products [58,88,92].
Figure 4. The main pasteurization treatments applied for liquid and semi-solid berry products [58,88,92].
Applsci 14 08713 g004
Ohmic heating and MW heating are considered promising alternatives to the conventional thermal pasteurization of berry products. MW heating is the result of the interaction between electromagnetic radiation and dielectric materials at 915 MHz and 2450 MHz (frequencies approved for use in the food industry) [87]. In ohmic heating, the electrical current passes through liquid/semi-solid samples, promoting a temperature increase, at levels depending on electrical conductivity, particle size, ionic concentration, or field strength. In addition, pasteurization is faster and more effective when using ohmic and MW heating than conventional pasteurization [87]. However, their application on a large scale is limited by their high initial costs and negative effects related to the high temperature and electrochemical reactions [58].
Non-thermal technologies based on high-pressure processing, US, PEF, or irradiation have emerged in recent decades and can be used to complement or replace conventional thermal pasteurization. In addition, the low processing temperature applied by these technologies causes limited effects on small constituents like vitamins or antioxidants, enabling the development of high-quality products.
High-pressure treatments can be divided into hydrodynamic treatments (high-pressure homogenization—HPH) and hydrostatic treatments (high hydrostatic pressure—HHP) [92]. Pressure between 200 and 400 MPa, applied for up to 15 min, improved the phenolic and anthocyanin contents of blueberry juice due to the higher extractability of the constituents with antioxidant properties following pressurization [93]. You et al. [94] found that HHP treatment of mulberry juice at 400 MPa for 5 min ensured the retention of over 80% of the anthocyanin content of the fruits. HPH allowed the total phenolic content of strawberry juice to be increased when applying pressures of at least 100 MPa [95]. Combined with conventional thermal pasteurization, high-pressure treatments showed excellent results in preserving the nutritional, sensorial, and functional properties of berry products, as reported by Engmann et al. [96] for mulberry juice. Heat treatment performed at 84 °C for 2.4 min followed by HHP (480 MPa, 22 min) allowed the retention of about 92% of anthocyanins. After 3 months of storage at 6 °C, the contents of polyphenols and anthocyanins in strawberry puree treated by HPP (500 MPa/15 min, 50 °C) were higher compared to puree treated by conventional thermal pasteurization (90 °C, 15 min) [97]. On the other hand, some negative effects of high pressure on the total polyphenols and anthocyanins have been reported for strawberry juice and nectar [92]. Thus, it is essential to define the high-pressure conditions to obtain berry beverages with enhanced stability and bioavailability in terms of bioactive compounds.
US-based technologies (ultrasonication, thermosonication, manosonication, and manothermosonication) represent promising alternative technologies for improving berry juice/puree quality while minimizing nutrient loss [98]. The pasteurization effect during US exposure is the result of acoustic cavitation and acoustic streaming, which generate high local energy, high temperature, and high pressure. In addition, these US effects contribute to the disruption of the cell wall structure, promoting polyphenol release [99]. US treatment of strawberry puree was found to better retain or enhance the ascorbic acid, total polyphenols, total anthocyanins, and antioxidant activity compared to the samples treated by conventional thermal treatment [100]. Sonication treatment performed for between 10 and 30 min at 20 kHz had no effect on the antioxidant activity and anthocyanin content of raspberry puree [101]. The sonication of strawberry juice for 30 min at 20 kHz, at room temperature, increased the total polyphenolic content by about 86% compared to untreated juice [102]. However, excess US treatment has a negative effect, causing the degradation of phenolic compounds by changing their structure [99]. The economic feasibility of US treatment is considered higher when combined with moderate heat and/or pressure, because it allows high-quality berry products with enhanced contents of bioactive constituents to be obtained.
The pasteurization of berry liquids/semi-solids using PEF relies on the application of a high-voltage electric current for a short duration ranging from nano- to microseconds, and is dependent on field strength, pulse width, frequency, duration, and sample conductivity [55]. At electric field strength above 20 kV/cm, PEF can replace conventional thermal pasteurization while preserving nutritional and sensorial attributes [58]. Thus, PEF is considered a valid technology for producing safe liquid products with superior added value [92]. Studies performed on several berry products like bilberry and cranberry juices showed that PEF has a protective effect on anthocyanin stability [59]. In raspberry juice, PEF contributed to increasing the phenolic compound content by about 39% due to PEF’s ability to release the phenolics from the vacuole of the vegetal cells, making them more bioaccessible and bioavailable [103]. Caminiti et al. [104] reported that PEF treatment of cranberry juice combined with light-based technology allowed the retention of 88% of the anthocyanins present in untreated juice. Moreover, the pasteurization of cranberry juice by using only UV light, or high-intensity light pulses, resulted in a similar retention of polyphenols to untreated juice [104]. UV radiation processing offers the advantage of using lower temperatures than conventional thermal treatment and causes a minor reduction in heat-sensitive bioactive compounds [105]. However, the long exposure to UV light and nonuniform dose delivery were identified as limiting factors when using this treatment on a large scale, as they could exert a negative impact on the quality and nutritive value of the berry juices [106].
Cold atmospheric-pressure plasma is a low-cost emerging non-thermal process that can be successfully used to pasteurize fruit and vegetable juices. Although cold plasma has a negative effect on the most bioactive compounds of fruit and vegetable juices, due to reactive species generated during cold plasma treatment, the content of some phytochemicals (e.g., anthocyanins and flavonols) is dependent on the treatment time and oxygen concentration [107]. For example, in blueberry juice, the content of anthocyanins, antioxidant activity, and vitamin C decreased with increasing exposure to cold plasma treatment and oxygen concentration, while the content of phenolic compounds increased [108]. In chokeberry juice, the samples treated with cold plasma samples presented a similar content of anthocyanins to untreated juice, while the level of polyphenols increased by about 9% with respect to the control sample [109]. Reactive species and ultraviolet photons, induced during cold plasma treatment, caused breakage of covalent bonds and induced chemical reactions that resulted in the breakdown of cell membranes and further release of phenolic compounds [109].

4.5. Concentration

The concentration of berry liquids is applied in the food industry from both technological and economic perspectives. Concentrates have a higher microbial stability than juices, as the soluble solid content reaches a maximum of 75%. In addition, the costs associated with packaging, transportation, distribution, and storage are minimized [110]. Concentration can be performed by using conventional heating methods and alternative methods. Conventional methods, such as vacuum concentration, require high temperatures and high energy consumption, and might exert negative effects on concentrate quality. Thus, alternative technologies based on ohmic heating, freezing, or membrane technology can be selected to produce concentrates of high quality in terms of sensorial, nutritional, and health-related properties. Ohmic heating showed excellent results in producing high-quality berry concentrates while reducing the energy consumption with respect to vacuum concentration. For example, Darvishi et al. [110] compared conventional heating with ohmic heating for producing mulberry juice concentrates. The phytochemical content of concentrates obtained by ohmic heating was on average 4 times higher than the conventional concentrates. The increased content of phytochemicals was attributed to the reduced processing time in ohmic heating performed at 20–30 V/cm. Moreover, ohmic heating showed an increased energy performance up to 46% higher than conventional heating. Freeze concentration better preserved the quality of concentrated strawberry juice, with regard to total anthocyanins and total polyphenols. The principle is based on the separation of the liquid phase at a low temperature, followed by freezing and separation of frozen water from the juice by defrosting [111]. However, the high processing costs and complex operations limit the use of freeze concentration for industrial applications [58]. Reverse osmosis is a membrane-based technology that proved to be effective in improving the flavonol, chlorogenic acid, and anthocyanin concentration of blueberry and cranberry juice [112]. On the other hand, the high osmotic pressure limits the concentration to up to 40°Bx, which is very low compared to vacuum evaporation [58].

4.6. Storage and Shelf Life

Besides the operations mentioned above, the phytochemical properties of berry products can be influenced by several factors like packaging materials, storage conditions, and duration. The materials used for packaging are essential for assuring the physical, chemical, and biological protection of berry products during storage. Packaging materials must be carefully selected to maximize product stability during storage while maintaining its safety and quality [58]. Besides packaging materials, the storage temperature and the presence of light and oxygen are key factors to be considered for maintaining the nutritional quality profile of berry products, as most of the bioactive compounds present in berry products are heat-, light-, or oxygen-sensitive. Storage under high temperatures and exposure to oxygen and light might accelerate the degradation of bioactive compounds from berry products [113].

5. Health Implications and Allergic Reactions to Small Berries

The scientifically generally accepted idea is that berry consumption is beneficial to health, mainly because of the high content of bioactive compounds with antioxidant capacity. Nutritional guides recommend a daily intake of approximately 400 g of fruits, including berries, to achieve long-term health benefits [114]. However, according to Schell et al. [115], a lower regular intake of 40 g of cranberries might ensure the management of the postprandial glucose increase.
The most benefits associated with berry consumption were clinically observed in cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes management, and were attributed to phenolic compounds. However, not only polyphenols found in berries have been reported to provide health benefits. For example, in addition to bioactive compounds like polyphenols, carotenoids (mostly zeaxanthin), and vitamin C, goji berries contain water-soluble bioactive polysaccharides (WBPs), which are actually the main constituents of this fruit [116]. These polysaccharides are heterogeneous in terms of their monosaccharide composition, consisting mainly of galacturonic acid, galactose, arabinose, and glucose [117], being recognized for many therapeutic properties. WBPs are recognized for many therapeutic properties, such as antioxidant, immuno-protective, and cancer cell growth-inhibitory properties. WBPs are responsible for inducing apoptosis of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells through DNA damage and intracellular oxidative stress [117]. Moreover, the overall improvement of the digestive tract functionality, sleep quality, and well-being were also associated with WBP-rich berry consumption [117]. Besides polyphenolic content, sea buckthorn fruits were found to contain phytochemicals like cerebrosides and oleanolic and ursolic acids [118], known for hepatoprotective, antitumor, and antiviral properties [119]. Cornelian cherries contain iridoids, a group of plant glycosides produced as a defense mechanism against herbivores (as they have a bitter taste), with anti-inflammatory properties [120]. Cornelian cherry extracts are therefore acknowledged for their protective effects on many organ cells, like liver, brain, heart, and kidney cells [120]. Overall, regardless of the mechanism involved and health status, berries have to be included in the everyday diet for beneficial, protective, and preventive action against diseases.

5.1. Anticancer Activity

Many studies have reported the anticancer activity of berries and extracts of their leaves through different mechanisms such as inducing cancer cell apoptosis with no cytotoxic effect on normal cells [121,122,123]. The compounds usually stated to be active are polyphenols, together with lectins, ascorbic acid, and chlorogenic acid [121,122,123,124]. Cyanidin-3-glucoside (C3G) is the most abundant anthocyanin found in blue and red fruits, among over two hundred other phenolic compounds. It was identified in the highest concentration in plasma and urine samples of healthy individuals after eating berries [125]. In particular, C3G from blueberries (Rubus fruticosus L.) was reported to have chemo-preventive and chemotherapeutic activity against the human lung carcinoma A549 cell line [122]. Moreover, pure C3G had cytotoxic effects on the MCF-7 breast cancer cell line [123]. Turan et al. [121] stated that bioactive compounds from black mulberry (Morus nigra) extract could reduce mitochondrial membrane potential, which is linked to cell autophagy [126]. Also, they may increase the activity of the aspartate-specific 3-, 6- and 7-caspases, which are cysteine-dependent proteases involved in cleaving key cellular proteins at the beginning of apoptosis processes [121,127]. Morus nigra extracts were also reported to be efficient in inducing apoptosis in human breast adenocarcinoma (MCF-7) [128].
Despite the fact that polyphenolic compounds are usually known for their antioxidant activities, with regard to cancer cells, they are believed to exhibit a pro-oxidative effect as a mechanism for inducing apoptosis. This phenomenon is linked to the redox status of cancer cells, which is higher in comparison to normal cells [127]. Jeong et al. [127] reported that Morus fructus extracts inhibited the migration of human glioma U87MG cells and led to cell death through ROS-dependent mitochondrial pathways. Induction of DNA damage is another mechanism through which polyphenolic compounds are believed to act on cancer cells. In this respect, Radbeh et al. [129] reported that the exposure of HT-29 cells to cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) extracts induced DNA fragmentation through the fragmentation of cell nuclei and chromatin breakdown. Also, the fermented non-digestible fraction of Andean berry juice (Vaccinium meridionale Swartz) was declared to cause apoptosis of human colon adenocarcinoma HT29 cells by inducing DNA damage, without exerting secondary inflammatory effects, as it does not affect membrane integrity [130].
Many studies indicated a better bioactive profile for the berry leaf extracts compared to fruits [124,131,132]. For instance, mild anticancer activity on a human colorectal cancer cell line, HCT-116. L, was reported for wild raspberry leaf extracts (Rubus idaeus L.), but not for fruits [124].

5.2. Inflammatory Properties and Cardiovascular Protection

Generally, berry consumption together with the administration of berry polyphenolic extracts is associated with a reduction in inflammatory stress in humans [133]. Several bioactive compounds found in berries, such as anthocyanins, gallic acid, and ellagic acid, were reported to exhibit anti-inflammatory activity, in addition to antioxidant, anticancer, neuroprotective, or anti-aging properties [11]. The ability to counteract inflammatory stress is important in avoiding medical conditions such as cardiovascular dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases. The protective action on the cardiovascular system is considered to be provided through the inhibition of low-density lipoprotein oxidation, lipid peroxidation, and platelet aggregation; lowering blood pressure; and ameliorating endothelial dysfunction, dyslipidemia, and glucose metabolism [134,135].
A meta-analysis of clinical trials (a total of 1251 individuals involved) on the effect of berry consumption on cardiovascular risk factors indicated a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol [136]. Taking into account that clinical studies indicated that polyphenolic anti-inflammatory action is dose-dependent, the use of extracts could be more efficient than berries [127,133]. In particular, extracts rich in tannins, such as those obtained from Rubus berries, have been recognized for their anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and cardiovascular-protective properties [11]. High anti-inflammatory activity for leaf extracts was also reported for sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) [137].

5.3. Diabetes Management

The polyphenolic compounds from berries were reported to be promising in type 2 diabetes mellitus management [138]. In vivo studies involving animals and an in vitro investigation on model cell culture suggested that the polyphenols (especially C3G) found in berries may help in maintaining glucose homeostasis by protecting injured pancreatic β-cells, which are responsible for insulin release, against oxidative stress [138]. In this respect, various studies reported positive results provided by maqui berry (Aristotelia chilensis), black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.), and goji (Lycium barbarum) extracts and other berries [139,140,141].

5.4. Neuroprotection

The bioactive compounds from berries have also been reported to facilitate the management of neurodegenerative diseases (dementia, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s), by interfering with reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS), which induce significant damage to various cellular macromolecules like proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. In the case of aged brain cells, this mechanism was linked with the most common neurodegenerative diseases [142]. Although existent clinical evidence is not very strong in this respect, a common observation was that polyphenols (especially flavonoids, curcumin, and resveratrol) have multiple biological activities, helping to preserve and improve attention, working memory, and cognitive functions in general [143]. In particular, when approximately 14.3 mg of dietary flavonoids was daily administrated to people over 65 years, lowered cognitive decline was observed in a study conducted for 10 years [144].

5.5. Antimicrobial Properties

Different phytochemicals recovered from berries have been reported to be very effective antimicrobial agents [11,145]. The most effective compounds were reported to be polyphenols (both flavonoids and phenolic acids), together with organic acids (tartaric, citric, acetic, and salicylic acids) and terpenes (like eugenol and terpineol) [9,145]. Bacterial growth can be inhibited directly by phytochemicals’ action on cell membranes and enzymes (superoxide dismutase, adenosine triphosphatase, and alkaline phosphatase) [11], or indirectly by modulating the expression of virulence factors [145]. The effectiveness of berry extracts was reported against bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli in particular [145,146].

5.6. Allergic Reactions

Several small fruits, usually from the Rosaceae family, like strawberries, raspberries, or blackberries, were implicated in allergenic reactions [147]. Although no official information resulting from national studies regarding the occurrence of allergic reactions caused by berry consumption is available, the data available in the scientific literature suggest rather low incidence. For instance, according to the studies reviewed by Krikeerati et al. [148], the prevalence of strawberry allergy ranges between 0.008% and 1.19% in different countries in Asia and South and North America, the most susceptible to allergic reactions being infants and children. The scarce information regarding the prevalence of berry allergies might be explained by the lack of specific molecular markers for allergy diagnosis [149]. The hypersensitivity is believed to be caused by putative IgE-reactive proteins from four families: TLPs and PR-5 thaumatin-like proteins (31 kDa); PR-10 proteins belonging to pathogenesis-related proteins (17.5 kDa); nsLTPs and PR-14 non-specific lipid transfer proteins (9 kDa); and profilins (12–15 kDa) [147].
Despite being considered a superfood, goji berries (Solanaceae family) showed allergenic potential in high-risk individuals, most probably due to cross-reactivity with lipid transfer proteins from other foods [150]. Although such cases were rarely reported, clinical symptoms may vary from mild responses such as oral allergic syndrome to more severe reactions including edema, dyspnea, urticaria, and rhinitis [151].
The allergenic potential of berries depends on the cultivar and their composition. For example, Ponder et al. [152] found that different cultivars of honeysuckle berries (Lonicera caerulea L.) presented different allergenic potencies. On the other hand, quercetin, a flavonol found in many berries, fruits, and vegetables, was reported to restrain antigen-specific IgE antibody formation [153]. High quantities of quercetin were found in Saskatoon berries (Amelanchier alnifolia) (up to 307 mg/kg) [154], cornelian cherries (Cornus mas) (120–360 mg/kg) [155], and black chokeberries (Aronia melanocarpa) [156]. Moreover, it should be noted that during processing, the allergenicity can either increase or decrease, depending on many factors such as the processing method, temperature, molecular characteristics of proteins, and reactivity (such as Maillard reaction formation) [157].

6. Conclusions

Daily consumption of berries is highly recommended because they are rich in bioactive compounds, like phenolic acids, flavonoids, tannins, and stilbenes, involved in various antioxidant defense mechanisms responsible for impeding the development of several chronic diseases with high incidences in developed countries. In many cases, berries are not consumed as fresh raw products, but as various processed berry-based products. Depending on the processing conditions applied to transform berries into stable beverages, purees, spreads, or powders, the nutritional profile and biological properties of the fruits might be affected. Therefore, selecting the appropriate unit operation and processing parameters that allow the functionality of the sensitive bioactive compounds to be preserved is highly desired. The alternative methods used for berry processing offer several advantages over the conventional ones, such as reducing the processing time and energy consumption, achieving lower temperature and/or oxygen levels, better retention of the bioactive compounds, and high quality of the final products. The present review covers only conventional and alternative thermal and non-thermal processing methods used for the preliminary treatment of berries: blanching, drying, pasteurization, and concentration. Due to the multitude of technologies further applied for obtaining berry-based products, there are many other processing operations (fermentation, clarification, homogenization, baking, etc.) and parameters with impacts on the content of bioactive constituents that should be considered. Moreover, cutting-edge technologies, like nanotechnology and advanced encapsulation, are gaining more attention, but their application to berry processing at an industrial scale is still limited.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.; writing—original draft preparation, L.D., I.B., L.P., I.V., and I.A.; writing—review and editing, L.D., I.B., L.P., I.V., and I.A.; project administration, I.A.; funding acquisition, I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI-UEFISCDI, project number ERANET-M-3-SMARTGEL, within PNCDI IV.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Nor applicable.

Acknowledgments

The Integrated Center for Research, Expertise and Technological Transfer in Food Industry is acknowledged for providing technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, H.A. Berries: A Global History; Reaktion Books LTD.: London UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kumar, S.; Baghel, M.; Yadav, A.; Kumar Dhakar, M. Postharvest Biology and Technology of Berries. In Postharvest Biology and Technology of Temperate Fruits; Mir, S.A., Shah, M.A., Mir, M.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 349–370. [Google Scholar]
  3. Skrovankova, S.; Sumczynski, D.; Mlcek, J.; Jurikova, T.; Sochor, J. Bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity in different types of berries. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 24673–24706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jimenez-Garcia, S.N.; Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G.; Miranda-Lopez, R.; Feregrino-Perez, A.A.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Vazquez-Cruz, M.A. Functional properties and quality characteristics of bioactive compounds in berries: Biochemistry, biotechnology, and genomics. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 1195–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Manganaris, G.A.; Goulas, V.; Vicente, A.R.; Terry, L.A. Berry antioxidants: Small fruits providing large benefits. J. Sci. Food Agr. 2014, 94, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Shahidi, F.; Zhong, Y. Measurement of antioxidant activity. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 18, 757–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hidalgo, G.I.; Almajano, M.P. Red fruits: Extraction of antioxidants, phenolic content, and radical scavenging determination: A review. Antioxidants 2017, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rodriquez De Luna, S.L.; Ramirez-Garza, R.E.; Serna Saldivar, S.O. Environmentally friendly methods for flavonoid extraction from plant material: Impact of their operating conditions on yield and antioxidant properties. Sci. World J. 2020, 2020, 6792069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zheng, W.; Wang, S.Y. Oxygen radical absorbing capacity of phenolics in blueberries, cranberries, chokeberries, and lingonberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jing, P.; Zhao, S.J.; Jian, W.J.; Qian, B.J.; Dong, Y.; Pang, J. Quantitative studies on structure-DPPH• scavenging activity relationships of food phenolic acids. Molecules 2012, 17, 12910–12924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bilawal, A.; Ishfaq, M.; Gantumur, M.A.; Qayum, A.; Shi, R.; Fazilani, S.A.; Anwar, A.; Jiang, Z.; Hou, J. A review of the bioactive ingredients of berries and their applications in curing diseases. Food Biosci. 2021, 44, 101407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lidikova, J.; Ceryova, N.; Grygorieva, O.; Bobkova, A.; Bobko, M.; Arvay, J.; Snirc, M.; Brindza, J.; Norbova, M.; Harangozo, L.; et al. Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) as a promising source of antioxidant phenolic substances and minerals. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2024, 250, 1745–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martinovic, A.; Cavoski, I. The exploitation of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) cultivars and genotypes from Montenegro as a source of natural bioactive compounds. Food Chem. 2020, 318, 126549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Urbstaite, R.; Raudone, L.; Janulis, V. Phytogenotypic anthocyanin profiles and antioxidant activity variation in fruit samples of the American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton). Antioxidants 2022, 11, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zannou, O.; Koca, Y. Greener extraction of anthocyanins and antioxidant activity from blackberry (Rubus spp) using natural deep eutectic solvents. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 158, 113184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Apak, R.; Ozyurek, M.; Guclu, K.; Capanogluu, E. Antioxidant activity/capacity measurement. 1. Classification, physicochemical principles, mechanisms, and electron transfer (ET)-Based assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 997–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lang, Y.; Gao, N.; Zang, Z.; Meng, X.; Lin, Y.; Yang, S.; Yang, Y.; Jin, Z.; Li, B. Classification and antioxidant assays of polyphenols: A review. J. Future Foods 2024, 4–3, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Albert, C.; Codina, G.G.; Melinda Hejja, M.; Csaba Dezso, A.; Chetrariu, A.; Dabija, A. Study of antioxidant activity of aarden blackberries (Rubus fruticosus L.) extracts obtained with different extraction solvents. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Enache, I.M.; Benito-Roman, O.; Coman, G.; Vizireanu, C.; Stanciuc, N.; Andronoiu, D.G.; Mihalcea, L.; Sanz, M.T. Extraction optimization and valorization of the cornelian cherry fruits extracts: Evidence on antioxidant activity and food applications. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wei, E.; Yang, R.; Zhao, H.; Wang, P.; Zhao, S.; Zhai, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H. Microwave-assisted extraction releases the antioxidant polysaccharides from seabuckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) berries. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 123, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boeing, S.; Barizao, E.O.; Costa e Silva, B.; Montanher, P.F.; de Cinque Almeida, V.; Visentainer, J.V. Evaluation of solvent effect on the extraction of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacities from the berries: Application of principal component analysis Joana. Chem. Cent. J. 2014, 8, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Günal-Köroğlu, D.; Suyunc, G.; Yildirim, R.; Turan, S. Antioxidant potential of some fruit extracts prepared with different solvents. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 1127–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Simic, V.M.; Rajkovicc, K.M.; Stojicevic, S.S.; Velickovic, D.T.; Nikolic, N.C.; Lazic, M.L.; Karabegovic, I.T. Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of total polyphenolic compounds from chokeberries by response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 160, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gitea, M.A.; Bungau, S.G.; Gitea, D.; Pasca, B.M.; Purza, A.L.; Radu, A.-F. Evaluation of the phytochemistry–therapeutic activity relationship for grape seeds oil manuel. Life 2023, 13, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sepahpour, S.; Selamat, J.; Abdull Manap, M.Y.; Khatib, A.; Abdull Razis, A.F. Comparative analysis of chemical composition, antioxidant activity and quantitative characterization of some phenolic compounds in selected herbs and spices in different solvent extraction systems. Molecules 2018, 23, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bamba, B.S.B.; Shi, J.; Tranchant, C.C.; Jun Xue, S.; Forney, C.F.; Lim, L.-T. Influence of extraction conditions on ultrasound-assisted recovery of bioactive phenolics from blueberry pomace and their antioxidant activity. Molecules 2018, 23, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dominguez, R.; Zhang, L.; Rocchetti, G.; Lucini, L.; Pateiro, M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Lorenzo, J.M. Elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.) as potential source of antioxidants. Characterization, optimization of extraction parameters and bioactive properties. Food Chem. 2020, 330, 127266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hanula, M.; Wyrwisz, J.; Moczkowska, M.; Horbanczuk, O.K.; Pogorzelska-Nowicka, E.; Wierzbicka, A. Optimization of microwave and ultrasound extraction methods of Acai berries in terms of highest content of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lin, S.; Meng, X.; Tan, C.; Tong, Y.; Wan, M.; Wang, M.; Zhao, Y.; Deng, H.; Kong, Y.; Ma, Y. Composition and antioxidant activity of anthocyanins from Aronia melanocarpa extracted using an ultrasonic-microwave-assisted natural deep eutectic solvent extraction method. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2022, 89, 106102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sultana, B.; Anwar, F.; Ashraf, M. Effect of extraction solvent/technique on the antioxidant activity of selected medicinal plant extracts. Molecules 2009, 14, 2167–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Floares (Oarga), D.; Cocan, I.; Alexa, E.; Poiana, M.A.; Berbecea, A.; Boldea, M.V.; Negrea, M.; Obistioiu, D.; Radulov, I. Influence of extraction methods on the phytochemical profile of Sambucus nigra L. Agronomy 2023, 13, 3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Behrangi, N.; Ghafoori, H.; Farahmand, Z.; Khani, E.M.; Sanati, M.H. Comparison among Cornelian cherry and Prunus cerasus according to phenolic content and antioxidant capacity by three various methods of extraction. Food Nutri. Sci. 2015, 6, 1166–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Espada-Bellido, E.; Ferreiro-Gonzaez, M.; Carrera, C.; Palma, M.; Alvarez, J.A.; Barbero, G.F.; Ayuso, J. Extraction of Antioxidants from Blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius L.): Comparison between ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction techniques. Agronomy 2019, 9, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, S.; Zenga, Z.; Hua, N.; Baia, B.; Wanga, H.; Suo, Y. Simultaneous optimization of the ultrasound-assisted extraction for phenolic compounds content and antioxidant activity of Lycium ruthenicum Murr. fruit using response surface methodology. Food Chem. 2018, 242, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Vazquez-Espinosa, M.; Gonzalez-de-Peredo, A.V.; Espada-Bellido, E.; Ferreiro-Gonzalez, M.; Toledo-Dominguez, J.J.; Carrera, C.; Palma, M.; Barbero, G.F. Ultrasound-assisted extraction of two types of antioxidant compounds (TPC and TA) from Black Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.): Optimization of the individual and simultaneous extraction methods. Agronomy 2019, 9, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gentscheva, G.; Milkova-Tomova, I.; Nikolova, K.; Buhalova, D.; Velichka, A.; Gugleva, V.; Nadezhda Petkova, N.; Yotkovska, I.; Ivanova, N. Antioxidant activity and chemical characteristics of Sambucus nigra L. Blossom from different regions in Bulgaria. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weremfo, A.; Adulley, F.; Dabie, K.; Abassah-Oppong, S.; Peprah-Yamoah, E. Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic antioxidants from turkey berry (Solanum torvum Sw) fruits using response surface methodology. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat Plants 2022, 30, 100387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wen, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhou, X.; Deng, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, C.; Gong, X. Optimization of the microwave-assisted extraction and antioxidant activities of anthocyanins from blackberry using a response surface methodology. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 19686–19695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, Y.-H.; Staniszewska, I.; Liu, Z.-L.; Zielinska, D.; Xiao, H.-W.; Pan, Z.; Nowak, K.W.; Zielinska, M. Microwave-vacuum-assisted drying of pretreated cranberries: Drying kinetics, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 146, 111464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zielinska, M.; Michalska, A. Microwave-assisted drying of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) fruits: Drying kinetics, polyphenols, anthocyanins, antioxidant capacity, colour and texture. Food Chem. 2016, 212, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Babova, O.; Occhipinti, A.; Capuzzo, A.; Maffei, M.E. Extraction of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) antioxidants using supercritical/subcritical CO2 and ethanol as co-solvent. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2016, 107, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grunovaite, L.; Pukalskiene, M.; Pukalskas, A.; Venskutonis, P.R. Fractionation of black chokeberry pomace into functional ingredients using high pressure extraction methods and evaluation of their antioxidant capacity and chemical composition. J. Funct. Foods 2016, 24, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dawidowicz, A.L.; Wianowska, D.; Baraniak, B. The antioxidant properties of alcoholic extracts from Sambucus nigra L. (antioxidant properties of extracts). LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 39, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kitryte, V.; Kavaliauskaite, A.; Tamkute, L.; Pukalskiene, M.; Syrpas, M.; Rimantas Venskutonis, P. Zero waste biorefining of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) pomace into functional ingredients by consecutive high pressure and enzyme assisted extractions with green solvents. Food Chem. 2020, 322, 126767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Briones-Labarca, V.; Giovagnoli-Vicuna, C.; Chacana-Ojeda, M. High pressure extraction increases the antioxidant potential and in vitro bio-accessibility of bioactive compounds from discarded blueberries. Cyta J. Food 2019, 17, 622–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Patras, A.; Brunton, N.P.; Da Pieve, S.; Butler, F. Impact of high pressure processing on total antioxidant activity, phenolic, ascorbic acid, anthocyanin content and colour of strawberry and blackberry purees. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2009, 10, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rios-Corripio, G.; Morales-de la Pena, M.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Guerrero-Beltran, J.A. Pulsed electric field processing of a pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fermented beverage. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 79, 103045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dara, A.; Feizy, J.; Naji-Tabasi, S.; Fooladi, E.; Rafe, A. Intensifed extraction of anthocyanins from Berberis vulgaris L. by pulsed electric feld, vacuum-cold plasma, and enzymatic pretreatments: Modeling and optimization. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2023, 10, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Loncaric, A.; Celeiro, M.; Jozinovic, A.; Jelinic, J.; Kovac, T.; Jokic, S.; Babic, J.; Moslavac, T.; Zavadlav, S.; Lores, M. Green extraction methods for extraction of polyphenolic compounds from Blueberry pomace. Foods 2020, 9, 1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bebec Markovinovic, A.; Stulic, V.; Putnik, P.; Birkic, A.; Jambrovic, M.; Sasko, D.; Ljubicic, J.; Pavlic, B.; Herceg, Z.; Bursac, D.K. Pulsed electric field (PEF) and high-power ultrasound (HPU) in the hurdle concept for the preservation of antioxidant bioactive compounds of Strawberry juice—A chemometric evaluation—Part I. Foods 2023, 12, 3172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Granato, D.; Fidelis, M.; Haapakoski, M.; dos Santos Lima, A.; Viil, J.; Hellstrom, J.; Ratsep, R.; Kaldmae, H.; Bleive, U.; Azevedo, L.; et al. Enzyme-assisted extraction of anthocyanins and other phenolic compounds from blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.) press cake: From processing to bioactivities. Food Chem. 2022, 391, 133240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Syrpas, M.; Valanciene, E.; Augustiniene, E.; Malys, N. Valorization of Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) Pomace by enzyme-assisted extraction: Process optimization and comparison with conventional solid-liquid extraction. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dzah, C.S.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wen, C.; Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Ma, H. The effects of ultrasound assisted extraction on yield, antioxidant, anticancer and antimicrobial activity of polyphenol extracts: A review. Food Biosci. 2020, 35, 100547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lovric, V.; Putnik, P.; Bursac Kovacevic, D.; Jukic, M.; Dragovic-Uzelac, V. Effect of microwave-assisted extraction on the phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity of Blackthorn flowers. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2017, 55, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Brito, I.P.C.; Silva, E.K. Pulsed electric field technology in vegetable and fruit juice processing: A review. Food Res. Int. 2024, 184, 114207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Karadag, A.; Ozcelik, B.; Saner, S. Review of methods to determine antioxidant capacities. Food Anal. Methods 2009, 2, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Patras, A.; Brunton, N.P.; Donnell, C.O.; Tiwari, B.K. Effect of thermal processing on anthocyanin stability in foods; mechanisms and kinetics of degradation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lan, T.; Wang, J.; Bao, S.; Zhao, Q.; Sun, X.; Fang, Y.; Ma, T.; Liu, S. Effects and impacts of technical processing units on the nutrients and functional components of fruit and vegetable juice. Food Res. Int. 2023, 168, 112784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Weber, F.; Larsen, L.R. Influence of fruit juice processing on anthocyanin stability. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Woodward, G.M.; McCarthy, D.; Pham-Thanh, D.; Kay, C.D. Anthocyanins remain stable during commercial blackcurrant juice processing. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, S408–S414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hager, A.; Howard, L.R.; Prior, R.L.; Brownmiller, C. Processing and storage effects on monomeric anthocyanins, percent polymeric color, and antioxidant capacity of processed black raspberry products. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, H134–H140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hager, T.J.; Howard, L.R.; Prior, R.L. Processing and storage effects on monomeric anthocyanins, percent polymeric color, and antioxidant capacity of processed blackberry products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tomas, M.; Toydemir, G.; Boyacioglu, D.; Hall, R.; Beekwilder, J.; Capanoglu, E. The effects of juice processing on black mulberry antioxidants. Food Chem. 2015, 186, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Sun, Y.; Sun, J. How to improve bayberry (Myrica rubra Sieb. et Zucc.) juice color quality: Effect of juice processing on bayberry anthocyanins and polyphenolics. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nowacka, M.; Wiktor, A.; Anuszewska, A.; Dadan, M.; Rybak, K.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D. The application of unconventional technologies as pulsed electric field, ultrasound and microwave-vacuum drying in the production of dried cranberry snacks. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 56, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pérez-Grijalva, B.; Herrera-Sotero, M.; Mora-Escobedo, R.; Zebadúa-García, J.C.; Silva-Hernández, E.; Oliart-Ros, R.; Pérez-Cruz, C.; Guzmán-Gerónimo, R. Effect of microwaves and ultrasound on bioactive compounds and microbiological quality of blackberry juice. LWT 2018, 87, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sun, Y.; Liao, X.; Wang, Z.; Chen, H.F. Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of anthocyanins in red raspberries and identification of anthocyanin of extracts using high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2007, 225, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bei, X.; Yu, X.; Zhou, C.; Yagoub, A.E.G.A. Improvement of the drying quality of blueberries by catalytic infrared blanching combined with ultrasound pretreatment. Food Chem. 2024, 447, 138983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zielinska, M.; Zielinska, D. Effects of freezing, convective and microwave-vacuum drying on the content of bioactive compounds and color of cranberries. LWT 2019, 104, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pateiro, M.; Vargas-Ramella, M.; Franco, D.; Gomes da Cruz, A.; Zengin, G.; Kumar, M.; Dhama, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. The role of emerging technologies in the dehydration of berries: Quality, bioactive compounds, and shelf life. Food Chem. X 2022, 16, 100465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mendez-Lagunas, L.; Rodríguez-Ramírez, J.; Cruz-Gracida, M.; Sandoval-Torres, S.; Barriada-Bernal, G. Convective drying kinetics of strawberry (Fragaria ananassa): Effects on antioxidant activity, anthocyanins and total phenolic content. Food Chem. 2017, 230, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sun, Y.; Zhang, M.; Mujumdar, A. Berry drying: Mechanism, pretreatment, drying technology, nutrient preservation, and mathematical models. Food Eng. Rev. 2019, 11, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. López, J.; Vega-Gálvez, A.; Bilbao-Sainz, C.; Chiou, B.S.; Uribe, E.; Quispe-Fuentes, I. Influence of vacuum drying temperature on: Physico-chemical composition and antioxidant properties of murta berries. J. Food Process Eng. 2017, 40, e12569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xu, Q.Q.; Chen, H.J.; Gao, H.Y.; Song, L.L.; Mu, H.L. Effects of vacuum freeze-drying and hot-air drying on the quality of blue- berry fruits. Food Sci. 2014, 35, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ozcelik, M.; Heigl, A.; Kulozik, U.; Ambros, S. Effect of hydrocolloid addition and microwave-assisted freeze drying on the characteristics of foamed raspberry puree. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 56, 102183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, Z.L.; Xie, L.; Zielinska, M.; Pan, Z.; Deng, L.Z.; Zhang, J.S.; Gao, L.; Wang, S.Y.; Zheng, Z.A.; Xiao, H.W. Improvement of drying efficiency and quality attributes of blueberries using innovative far-infrared radiation heating assisted pulsed vacuum drying (FIR-PVD). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 77, 102948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gagneten, M.; Corfield, R.; Mattson, M.G.; Sozzi, A.; Leiva, G.; Salvatori, D.; Schebor, C. Spray-dried powders from berries extracts obtained upon several processing steps to improve the bioactive components content. Powder Technol. 2019, 342, 1008–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kowalska, H.; Marzec, A.; Kowalska, J.; Ciurzyńska, A.; Czajkowska, K.; Cichowska, J.; Rybak, K.; Lenart, A. Osmotic dehydration of Honeoye strawberries in solutions enriched with natural bioactive molecules. LWT 2017, 85, 500–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zielinska, M.; Ropelewska, E.; Xiao, H.W.; Mujumdar, A.S.; Law, C.L. Review of recent applications and research progress in hybrid and combined microwave-assisted drying of food products: Quality properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2212–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zielinska, M.; Michalska, A. The influence of convective, microwave vacuum and microwave-assisted drying on blueberry pomace physicochemical properties. Int. J. Food Eng. 2018, 14, 0170332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wojdyło, A.; Figiel, A.; Oszmiański, J. Effect of drying methods with the application of vacuum microwaves on the bioactive compounds, color, and antioxidant activity of strawberry fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1337–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jiang, H.; Shen, Y.; Zhen, L.; Li, W.; Zhang, Q. Evaluation of strawberries dried by radio frequency energy. Dry. Technol. 2019, 37, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, Q.; Li, Z.; Bi, J.; Zhou, L.; Yi, J.; Wu, X. Effect of hybrid drying methods on physicochemical, nutritional and antioxidant properties of dried black mulberry. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 80, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Si, X.; Chen, Q.; Bi, J.; Wu, X.; Yi, J.; Zhou, L.; Li, Z. Comparison of different drying methods on the physical properties, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of raspberry powders. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 2055–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Zheng, X.; Liu, C.; Shi, J.; Xue, S.; Mu, Y.; Lin, Z.; Liu, H. Analysis of volume expansion and dehydration rate of berry slab under microwave-vacuum puffing conditions. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 52, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Celli, G.B.; Khattab, R.; Ghanem, A.; Brooks, M.S.L. Refractance WindowTM drying of haskap berry—Preliminary results on anthocyanin retention and physicochemical properties. Food Chem. 2016, 194, 218–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Aghajanzadeh, S.; Ziaiifar, A.M.; Verkerk, R. Effect of thermal and non-thermal treatments on the color of citrus juice: A review. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 3555–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jiménez-Sánchez, C.; Lozano-Sánchez, J.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Review: Alternatives to Conventional Thermal Treatments in Fruit-juice Processing. Part 1: Techniques and Applications, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2015, 57, 501–523. [Google Scholar]
  89. Marszałek, K.; Mitek, M.; Skąpska, S. The effect of thermal pasteurization and high-pressure processing at cold and mild temperatures on the chemical composition, microbial and enzyme activity in strawberry purée. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 27, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Azofeifa, G.; Quesada, S.; Pérez, A.M.; Vaillant, F.; Michel, A. Pasteurization of blackberry juice preserves polyphenol-dependent inhibition for lipid peroxidation and intracellular radicals. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 42, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sójka, M.; Nowakowska, A.; Hejduk, A. Influence of enzymatic clarification, filtration, and pasteurization on ellagitannin and anthocyanin content in raspberry juices. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2024, 250, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bevilacqua, A.; Petruzzi, L.; Perricone, M.; Speranza, B.; Campaniello, D.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Nonthermal Technologies for Fruit and Vegetable Juices and Beverages: Overview and Advances. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 2–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Barba, F.J.; Esteve, M.J.; Frigola, A. Physicochemical and nutritional characteristics of blueberry juice after high pressure processing. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. You, Y.; Li, N.; Han, X.; Guo, J.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, G.; Huang, W.; Zhan, J. Influence of different sterilization treatments on the color and anthocyanin contents of mulberry juice during refrigerated storage. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 48, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Karacam, C.H.; Sahin, S.; Oztop, M.H. Effect of high pressure homogenization (microfluidization) on the quality of Ottoman Strawberry (F. ananassa) juice. LWT 2015, 64, 932–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Engmann, F.N.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yu, L.; Deng, N. The application of response surface methodology in studying the effect of heat and high hydrostatic pressure on anthocyanins, polyphenol oxidase, and peroxidase of mulberry (Morus nigra) juice. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2345–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Marszałek, K.; Woźniak, Ł.; Skąpska, S.; Mitek, M. High pressure processing and thermal pasteurization of strawberry purée: Quality parameters and shelf life eva- luation during cold storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 832–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dolas, R.; Saravanan, C.; Kaur, B.P. Emergence and era of ultrasonic’s in fruit juice preservation: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 58, 104609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Liu, Y.; Deng, J.; Zhao, T.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Yang, H. Bioavailability and mechanisms of dietary polyphenols affected by non-thermal processing technology in fruits and vegetables. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2024, 8, 100715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cheng, X.F.; Zhang, M.; Adhikari, B. Changes in quality attributes of strawberry purees processed by power ultrasound or thermal treatments. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2014, 20, 1033–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Golmohamadi, A.; Möller, G.; Powers, J.; Nindo, C. Effect of ultrasound frequency on antioxidant activity, total phenolic and anthocyanin content of red raspberry puree. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2013, 20, 1316–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bhat, R.; Goh, K.M. Sonication treatment convalesce the overall quality of hand- pressed strawberry juice. Food Chem. 2017, 215, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Buitimea-Cantúa, G.V.; Rico-Alderete, I.A.; Rostro-Alanís, M.d.J.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Escobedo-Avellaneda, Z.J.; Soto-Caballero, M.C. Effect of High Hydrostatic Pressure and Pulsed Electric Fields Processes on Microbial Safety and Quality of Black/Red Raspberry Juice. Foods 2022, 11, 2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Caminiti, I.M.; Noci, F.; Muñoz, A.; Whyte, P.; Morgan, D.J.; Cronin, D.A.; Lyng, J.G. Impact of selected combinations of non-thermal processing technologies on the quality of an apple and cranberry juice blend. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 1387–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Silva Amorim, D.; Silva Amorim, I.; Campos Chisté, R.; André Narciso Fernandes, F.; Regina Barros Mariutti, L.; Teixeira Godoy, H.; Rosane Barboza Mendonça, C. Non-thermal technologies for the conservation of açai pulp and derived products: A comprehensive review. Food Res. Int. 2023, 174, 113575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ramesh, T.; Nayak, B.; Amirbahman, A.; Tripp, C.P.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Application of ultraviolet light assisted titanium dioxide photocatalysis for food safety: A review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 38, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Pohl, P.; Dzimitrowicz, A.; Cyganowski, P.; Jamroz, P. Do we need cold plasma treated fruit and vegetable juices? A case study of positive and negative changes occurred in these daily beverages. Food Chem. 2022, 375, 131831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Hou, Y.; Wang, R.; Gan, Z.; Shao, T.; Zhang, X.; He, M.; Sun, A. Effect of cold plasma on blueberry juice quality. Food Chem. 2019, 290, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gan, Z.; Feng, X.; Hou, Y.; Sun, A.; Wang, R. Cold plasma jet with dielectric barrier configuration: Investigating its effect on the cell membrane of E. coli and S. cerevisiae and its impact on the quality of chokeberry juice. LWT 2021, 136, 110223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Darvishi, H.; Salami, P.; Fadavi, A.; Saba, M.K. Processing kinetics, quality and thermodynamic evaluation of mulberry juice concentration process using Ohmic heating. Food Bioprod. Process. 2020, 123, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Adorno, W.T.; Rezzadori, K.; Arend, G.D.; Chaves, V.C.; Reginatto, F.H.; Di Luccio, M.; Petrus, J.C.C. Enhancement of phenolic compounds content and antioxidant activity of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) juice by block freeze concentration technology. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 781–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Gunathilake, K.D.P.P.; Yu, L.J.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Reverse osmosis as a potential technique to improve antioxidant properties of fruit juices used for functional beverages. Food Chem. 2014, 148, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Buve, C.; Kebede, B.T.; De Batselier, C.; Carrillo, C.; Pham, H.T.T.; Hendrickx, M.; Grauwet, T.; Van Loey, A. Kinetics of colour changes in pasteurised strawberry juice during storage. J. Food Eng. 2018, 216, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Slavin, J.L.; Lloyd, B. Health benefits of fruits and vegetables. Adv. Nutr. 2012, 3, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Schell, J.; Betts, N.M.; Foster, M.; Scofield, R.H.; Basu, A. Cranberries improve postprandial glucose excursions in type 2 diabetes. Food Funct. 2017, 8, 3083–3090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Masci, A.; Carradori, S.; Casadei, M.A.; Paolicelli, P.; Petralito, S.; Ragno, R.; Cesa, S. Lycium barbarum polysaccharides: Extraction, purification, structural characterisation and evidence about hypoglycaemic and hypolipidaemic effects. A review. Food Chem. 2018, 254, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. He, N.; Yang, X.; Jiao, Y.; Tian, L.; Zhao, Y. Characterisation of antioxidant and antiproliferative acidic polysaccharides from Chinese wolfberry fruits. Food Chem. 2012, 133, 978–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zheng, R.X.; Xu, X.D.; Tian, Z.; Yang, J.S. Chemical constituents from the fruits of Hippophae rhamnoides. Nat. Prod. Res. 2009, 23, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Liu, J. Pharmacology of oleanolic acid and ursolic acid. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1995, 49, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bayram, H.M.; Ozturkcan, S.A. Bioactive components and biological properties of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.): A comprehensive review. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 75, 104252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Turan, I.; Demir, S.; Kilinc, K.; Burnaz, N.A.; Yaman, S.O.; Akbulut, K.; Mentese, A.; Aliyazicioglu, Y.; Deger, O. Antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of Morus nigra extract on human prostate cancer cells. Saudi. Pharm. J. 2017, 25, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ding, M.; Feng, R.; Wang, S.Y.; Bowman, L.; Lu, Y.; Qian, Y.; Castranova, V.; Jiang, B.H.; Shi, X. Cyanidin-3-glucoside, a natural product derived from blackberry, exhibits chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 17359–17368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mirmalek, S.A.; Faraji, S.; Ranjbaran, S.; Aryan, H.; Arani, H.Z.; Jangholi, E.; Marzouni, H.Z.; Salimi-Tabatabaee, S.A. Cyanidin 3-glycoside induced apoptosis in MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Arch. Med. Sci. 2023, 19, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Veljkovic, B.; Djordjevic, N.; Dolicanin, Z.; Licina, B.; Topuzovic, M.; Stankovic, M.; Zlatic, N.; Dajic-Stevanovic, Z. Antioxidant and anticancer properties of leaf and fruit extracts of the wild raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobo. 2019, 47, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sandoval-Ramírez, B.A.; Catalán, Ú.; Fernández-Castillejo, S.; Pedret, A.; Llauradó, E.; Sola, R. Cyanidin-3-glucoside as a possible biomarker of anthocyanin-rich berry intake in body fluids of healthy humans: A systematic review of clinical trials. Nutr. Rev. 2020, 78, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Shao, Y.; Li, X.; Wood, J.W.; Ma, J.X. Mitochondrial dysfunctions, endothelial progenitor cells and diabetic retinopathy. J. Diabetes. Complicat. 2018, 32, 966–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Jeong, J.C.; Jang, S.W.; Kim, T.H.; Kwon, C.H.; Kim, Y.K. Mulberry fruit (Moris fructus) extracts induce human glioma cell death in vitro through ROS-dependent mitochondrial pathway and inhibits glioma tumor growth in vivo. Nutr. Cancer 2010, 62, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ahmed, A.; Ali, M.; El-Kholie, E.; El-Garawani, I.; Sherif, N. Anticancer activity of Morus nigra on human breast cancer cell line (MCF-7): The role of fresh and dry fruit extracts. J. Biosci. Appl. Res 2016, 2, 352–361. [Google Scholar]
  129. Radbeh, Z.; Asefi, N.; Hamishehkar, H.; Roufegarinejad, L.; Pezeshki, A. Novel carriers ensuring enhanced anti-cancer activity of Cornus mas (cornelian cherry) bioactive compounds. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 125, 109906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Agudelo, C.D.; Luzardo-Ocampo, I.; Hernández-Arriaga, A.M.; Rendón, J.C.; Campos-Vega, R.; Maldonado-Celis, M.E. Fermented non-digestible fraction of andean berry (Vaccinium meridionale Swartz) juice induces apoptosis in colon adenocarcinoma cells. Prev. Nutr. Food Sci. 2020, 25, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Teleszko, M.; Wojdyło, A. Comparison of phenolic compounds and antioxidant potential between selected edible fruits and their leaves. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 14, 736–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Tian, Y.; Liimatainen, J.; Alanne, A.L.; Lindstedt, A.; Liu, P.; Sinkkonen, J.; Kallio, H.; Yang, B. Phenolic compounds extracted by acidic aqueous ethanol from berries and leaves of different berry plants. Food Chem. 2017, 220, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Joseph, S.V.; Edirisinghe, I.; Burton-Freeman, B.M. Berries: Anti-inflammatory effects in humans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 3886–3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Basu, A.; Rhone, M.; Lyons, T.J. Berries: Emerging impact on cardiovascular health. Nutr. Rev. 2010, 68, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Kocabas, S.; Sanlier, N. The power of berries against cardiovascular diseases. Nutr. Rev. 2024, 82, 963–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Huang, H.; Chen, G.; Liao, D.; Zhu, Y.; Xue, X. Effects of berries consumption on cardiovascular risk factors: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Tanwar, H.; Shweta; Singh, D.; Singh, S.B.; Ganju, L. Anti-inflammatory activity of the functional groups present in Hippophae rhamnoides (Seabuckthorn) leaf extract. Inflammopharmacology 2018, 26, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Edirisinghe, I.; Burton-Freeman, B. Anti-diabetic actions of Berry polyphenols—Review on proposed mechanisms of action. J. Berry Res. 2016, 6, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rojo, L.E.; Ribnicky, D.; Logendra, S.; Poulev, A.; Rojas-Silva, P.; Kuhn, P.; Dorn, R.; Grace, M.H.; Ann Lila, M.; Raskin, I. In vitro and in vivo anti-diabetic effects of anthocyanins from Maqui Berry (Aristotelia chilensis). Food chem. 2012, 131, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Banjari, I.; Misir, A.; Šavikin, K.; Jokić, S.; Molnar, M.; De Zoysa, H.K.S.; Waisundara, V.Y. Antidiabetic effects of Aronia melanocarpa and its other therapeutic properties. Front. Nutr. 2017, 4, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Szot, I.; Zhurba, M.; Klymenko, S. Pro-health and functional properties of goji berry (Lycium spp). Agrobiodiversity Improv. Nutr. Health Life Qual. 2020, 4, 134–145. [Google Scholar]
  142. Singh, M.; Arseneault, M.; Sanderson, T.; Murthy, V.; Ramassamy, C. Challenges for research on polyphenols from foods in Alzheimer’s disease: Bioavailability, metabolism, and cellular and molecular mechanisms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 4855–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Yang, W.; Cui, K.; Li, X.; Zhao, J.; Zeng, Z.; Song, R.; Qi, X.; Xu, W. Effect of polyphenols on cognitive function: Evidence from population-based studies and clinical trials. J. Nutr. Health Aging. 2021, 25, 1190–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Letenneur, L.; Proust-Lima, C.; Le Gouge, A.; Dartigues, J.F.; Barberger-Gateau, P. Flavonoid intake and cognitive decline over a 10-year period. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 165, 1364–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Suriyaprom, S.; Mosoni, P.; Leroy, S.; Kaewkod, T.; Desvaux, M.; Tragoolpua, Y. Antioxidants of fruit extracts as antimicrobial agents against pathogenic bacteria. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Aurori, M.; Niculae, M.; Hanganu, D.; Pall, E.; Cenariu, M.; Vodnar, D.C.; Bunea, A.; Fit, N.; Andrei, S. Phytochemical profile, antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytoprotective effects of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) fruit extracts. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Marzban, G.; Maghuly, F.; Herndl, A.; Katinger, H.; Laimer, M. Screening and identification of putative allergens in berry fruits of the Rosaceae family: Technical challenges. Biofactors 2008, 34, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Krikeerati, T.; Rodsaward, P.; Nawiboonwong, J.; Pinyopornpanish, K.; Phusawang, S.; Sompornrattanaphan, M. Revisiting fruit allergy: Prevalence across the globe, diagnosis, and current management. Foods 2023, 12, 4083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Costa, J.; Mafra, I. Rosaceae food allergy: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 7423–7460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Larramendi, C.H.; García-Abujeta, J.L.; Vicario, S.; García-Endrino, A.; López-Matas, M.A.; García-Sedeño, M.D.; Carnés, J. Goji berries (Lycium barbarum): Risk of allergic reactions in individuals with food allergy. J. Investig. Allerg. Clin. 2012, 22, 345. [Google Scholar]
  151. Carnés, J.; de Larramendi, C.H.; López-Matas, M.A.; Ferrer, A.; Huertas, J. Allergenic sensitisation mediated by Wolfberry. In Lycium barbarum and Human Health; Chang, R.C.-C., So, K.-F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 179–198. [Google Scholar]
  152. Ponder, A.; Najman, K.; Aninowski, M.; Leszczyńska, J.; Głowacka, A.; Bielarska, A.M.; Lasinskas, M.; Hallmann, E. Polyphenols content, antioxidant properties and allergenic potency of organic and conventional blue honeysuckle berries. Molecules 2022, 27, 6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mlcek, J.; Jurikova, T.; Skrovankova, S.; Sochor, J. Quercetin and its anti-allergic immune response. Molecules 2016, 21, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Juríková, T.; Balla, S.; Sochor, J.; Pohanka, M.; Mlcek, J.; Baron, M. Flavonoid profile of saskatoon berries (Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.) and their health promoting effects. Molecules 2013, 18, 12571–12586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Sochor, J.; Jurikova, T.; Ercisli, S.; Mlcek, J.; Baron, M.; Balla, S.; Yilmaz, S.O.; Necas, T. Characterization of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) genotypes-genetic resources for food production in Czech Republic. Genetika 2014, 46, 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Määttä-Riihinen, K.R.; Kamal-Eldin, A.; Mattila, P.H.; González-Paramás, A.M.; Törrönen, A.R. Distribution and contents of phenolic compounds in eighteen Scandinavian berry species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 4477–4486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Rahaman, T.; Vasiljevic, T.; Ramchandran, L. Effect of processing on conformational changes of food proteins related to allergenicity. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 49, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 08713 g001
Figure 1. Main phenolic compounds with antioxidant activity found in small berries [3,4,5,11].
Figure 1. Main phenolic compounds with antioxidant activity found in small berries [3,4,5,11].
Applsci 14 08713 g001
Applsci 14 08713 g002
Figure 2. The main processing operations and technologies employed in the production of berry products.
Figure 2. The main processing operations and technologies employed in the production of berry products.
Applsci 14 08713 g002
Applsci 14 08713 g003
Figure 3. The drying methods used for drying berries: mechanisms, advantages, and disadvantages (adapted from [70]).
Figure 3. The drying methods used for drying berries: mechanisms, advantages, and disadvantages (adapted from [70]).
Applsci 14 08713 g003
Table 1. Antioxidant activity of small berries subjected to various types of extraction.
Table 1. Antioxidant activity of small berries subjected to various types of extraction.
BerriesExtraction ConditionsOther Experimental ConditionsAntioxidant Capacity Assay
Solvent extraction
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.)
[32]		100% methanol, S:L 1:10shaking 150 rpm, 40 °C, 24 h TPC (mg GAE/kg): 1650 ± 330
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 3.95 ± 0.18
FRAP (μmol/g): 190 ± 20
Soxhlet extractor, 80 °C;
evaporation, 40 °C 		TPC (mg GAE/kg): 870 ± 64
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 9.67 ± 2.8
FRAP (μmol/g): 200 ± 50
Sour cherry (Prunus cerasus)
[32]		100% methanol,
S:L 1:10		shaking incubator 150 rpm, 40 °C, 24 hTPC (mg GAE/kg): 1260 ± 310
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 5.85 ± 1.18
FRAP (μmol/g): 170 ± 20
Soxhlet extractor, 80 °C;
rotator evaporator, 75 rpm, 40 °C 		TPC (mg GAE/kg): 1080 ± 180
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 8.13 ± 0.89
FRAP (μmol/g): 170 ± 40
Black mulberry (Morus nigra)
[21]		70% acetone + 30% water, S:L 1:10magnetic stirring, 1 h, dark, room temperatureTPC (g GAE/kg d.w): 57.44 ± 0.21
70% methanol + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acid, S:L 1:10TAC (g CGE/kg d.w): 36.92 ± 0.08
50% ethanol + 50% water,
S:L 1:10		FRAP (mmol Fe2+/kg d.w): 1247.27 ± 2.59
DPPH: (mmol TE/kg d.w): 364.98 ± 9.10
ORAC (mmol TE/kg d.w): 819.21 ± 9.22
70% acetone + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acid, S:L 1:10FRAP: 1226.37 ± 0.48
DPPH: 318.63 ± 4.22
ORAC: 845.35 ± 50.84
50% acetone + 50% waterFRAP: 1282.60 ± 17.37
DPPH: 331.47 ± 1.06
ORAC: 960.29 ± 51.37
Blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius)
[21]		70% acetone + 30% water,
S:L 1:10		TPC: 42.81 ± 0.28
70% methanol + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acid, S:L 1:10TAC: 7.55 ± 0.10
50% ethanol + 50% water, S:L 1:10FRAP: 669.91 ± 8.84
DPPH: 217.73 ± 2.56
ORAC: 503.03 ± 6.67
70% acetone + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acid, S:L 1:10FRAP: 922.28 ± 10.98
DPPH: 313.08 ± 3.12
ORAC: 572.69 ± 20.06
50% acetone + 50% water,
S:L 1:10		FRAP: 879.04 ± 2.10
DPPH: 297.37 ± 5.14
ORAC: 474.77 ± 3.08
Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)
[21]		70% acetone + 30% waterTPC: 29.55 ± 0.07
70% methanol + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acidTAC: 3.49 ± 0.02
50% ethanol + 50% waterFRAP: 435.69 ± 1.37
DPPH: 121.62 ± 1.97
ORAC: 225.93 ± 3.97
70% acetone + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acidFRAP: 444.14 ± 5.12
DPPH: 126.41 ± 1.20
ORAC: 269.79 ± 11.29
50% acetone + 50% waterFRAP: 499.11 ± 0.66
DPPH: 140.50 ± 0.71
ORAC: 241.48 ± 1.12
Black elder (Sambucus nigra L.)
[27]		50% ethanol + 50% water; pH 2, S:L 1:20 (g/mL)magnetic stirring, 150 rpm, 5 h, 60 °CTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 2857 ± 205
TAC (mg/g d.w): 437.7 ± 43.3
Carotenoids (mg/g d.w): 86.46 ± 3.72
ORAC (mg TE/g d.w): 193.4 ± 10.1
DPPH (mg TE/g d.w): 56.0 ± 0.92
FRAP (μmol Fe2+/100 g d.w): 9786 ± 553
ABTS (mg AAE/g d.w): 5840 ± 162
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) [19]60% ethanol + 40% water,
S:L 1:10		magnetic stirring, 150 rpm, 15 min, 40 °C TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 33.1 ± 1.19
TFC (mg QE/g d.w): 1.65 ± 0.07
TAA (mg TE/g d.w): 33.2 ± 0.5
Strawberry (Fragaria recsa)
[22]		80% methanol + 20% water stirring, 150 rpm, 1 hDPPH (EC50) (mg/mL extract): 5.08
TPC (mg GAE/g extract): 33.32 ± 0.71
100% methanolDPPH (EC50): 5.35
TPC: 33.94 ± 0.87
80% ethanol + 20% water DPPH (EC50): 4.59
TPC: 32.11 ± 0.83
100% ethanolDPPH (EC50): 6.55
TPC: 31.75 ± 0.61
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus)
[22]		80% methanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:2.5		DPPH (EC50): 7.16
TPC: 17.31 ± 0.4
100% methanol, S:L 1:2.5DPPH (EC50): 8.43
TPC: 20.31 ± 0.27
80% ethanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:2.5 		DPPH (EC50): 8.43
TPC: 13.25 ± 0.47
100% ethanol,
S:L 1:2.5		DPPH (EC50): 13.31
TPC: 21.45 ± 0.79
Sour cherry (Prunus cerasus)
[22]		80% methanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:2.5		DPPH (EC50): 13.07
TPC: 18.63 ± 0.17
100% methanol, S:L 1:2.5DPPH (EC50): 11.78
TPC: 21.56 ± 0.12
80% ethanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:2.5 		DPPH (EC50): 14.41
TPC: 18.9 ± 0.57
100% ethanol,
S:L 1:2.5		DPPH (EC50): 28.11
TPC: 20.96 ± 0.12
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas)
[22]		80% methanol + 20% water DPPH (EC50): 11.90
TPC: 18.02 ± 0.38
100% methanolDPPH (EC50): 12.21
TPC: 16.18 ± 0.25
80% ethanol + 20% water DPPH (EC50): 11.30
TPC: 17.69 ± 0.18
100% ethanolDPPH (EC50): 15.51
TPC: 15.37 ± 0.16
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.)
[12]		80% methanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:2		stirring 12 h TPC (mg GAE/kg d.w): 583.1 ± 11.7 (Nizhnyi cultivar)–1876.8 ± 16.6 (Svitliachok cultivar)
TAC (mg/kg d.w): 50.1 ± 5.9 (Koralovyi cultivar)–593.4 ± 28.4 (Ekzotychnyi cultivar)
DPPH (mmoli TE/kg d.w): 2.44 ± 0.02 (Nizhnyi cultivar)–2.81 ± 0.03 (Cm 01 cultivar)
ABTS (mmoli TE/kg d.w): 5.53 ± 0.09 (Nizhnyi cultivar)–6.25 ± 0.07 (Cm 01 cultivar)
FRAP (mmoli TE/kg d.w): 3.31 ± 0.09 (Nizhnyi cultivar)–4.89 ± 0.04 (Svitliachok cultivar)
Acai berries (Euterpe oleracea Mart.)
[28]		50% ethanol + 50% water, S:L 25:1water bath, 25 °C, 25 minTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 33.87 ± 0.11
TFC (mg QE/g d.w): 5.13 ± 0.10
TAC (mg CGE/g d.w): 4.60 ± 0.02
water bath, 45 °C, 25 minTPC: 35.26 ± 0.02
TFC: 5.66 ± 0.08
TAC: 4.50 ± 0.03
Blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.)
[29]		Choline chloride/glycerol 1:2,
S:L 1:26		water bath
51 °C, 51 min		FRAP (mmol TE/mg): 4.371
ABTS (mmol TE/mg): 0.401
TAC (U/mg): 44.329
60% ethanol + 40% water,
S:L 1:36		water bath
60 °C, 72 min,		FRAP: 2.618
ABTS: 0.291
TAC: 19.861
Ultrasound-assisted extraction
Blueberry (Vaccinium
angustifolium) (pomace)
[26]		Water: 100%
S:L 1:20, 40 °C, pH 5		sonication 30 vs. 90 min,
35 kHz		TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 5.84 ± 0.03 vs. 6.31 ± 0.15
TFC (mg CE/g d.w): 2.45 ± 0.25 vs. 2.85 ± 0.11
TAC (mg ME/g d.w): 10.04 ± 0.10 vs. 14.1 ± 0.15
50% ethanol + 50% water
S:L 1:10 vs. 1:15 vs. 1:20, 40 °C, pH 3.3		sonication 60 min, 35 kHzTPC: 22.57 ± 0.53 vs. 24.16 ± 0.25 vs. 35.95 ± 0.12
DPPH (mg TE/g d.w): 41.39 ± 0.61 vs. 51.75 ± 1.21 vs. 64.25 ± 0.39
50% ethanol + 50% water
S:L 1:15, 40 °C, pH 3.3		sonication 40 min, 35 kHzTPC: 22.23 ± 0.15
TFC: 19.41 ± 0.33
TAC: 31.32 ± 0.73
DPPH: 41.79 ± 0.92
90% ethanol + 10% water
S:L 1:15, 40 °C, pH 3.3		TPC: 5.02 ± 0.09
TFC: 9.71 ± 0.19
TAC: 12.75 ± 0.17
DPPH: 10.95 ± 0.28
50% ethanol + 50% water
S:L 1:15, 40 °C, pH 3.3 vs. 8.3		sonication 40 min, 35 kHzTPC: 22.23 ± 0.15 vs. 24.28 ± 0.27
TFC: 19.41 ± 0.33 vs. 20.50 ± 1.20
TAC: 31.31 ± 0.44 vs. 29.58 ± 0.27
DPPH: 41.78 ± 0.98 vs. 45.65 ± 1.74
50% ethanol + 50% water
S:L 1:15, 40 vs. 60 °C, pH 3.3		sonication 40 min, 35 kHzTPC: 30.33 ± 0.27 vs. 18.74 ± 0.13
TFC: 17.05 ± 1.23 vs. 45.45 ± 2.46
TAC: 35.59 ± 0.67 vs. 54.44 ± 1.36
DPPH: 30.82 ± 0.79 vs. 30.12 ± 0.60
Garden blackberries (Rubus fruticosus L.)
[18]		80% ethanol, solid/liquid ratio (S:L) 1:20sonication 30 minTAC (mg CGE/100 g d.w): 885.08 ± 59.81
TFC (mg QE/100 g d.w): 240.93 ± 16.96
TPC (mg GAE/100 g d.w): 3311.84 ± 58.84
DPPH (%): 76.4078 ± 1.43
FRAP (mg AAE/100 g d.w): 3547.68 ± 154.76
70% acetone + 2% acetic acid,
S:L 1:20 		TAC: 773.30 ± 68.34
TFC: 129.75 ± 9.51
TPC: 2789.97 ± 211.79
DPPH: 63.1294 ± 3.45
FRAP: 2455 ± 141.31
60% methanol + 3% formic acid, S:L 1:20TAC: 819.18 ± 194.8
TFC: 199.85 ± 19.45
TPC: 3245.97 ± 338.77
DPPH: 71.9624 ± 3.04
FRAP: 2853.13 ± 413.98
90% acetonitrile + 10% 6 molar HCl, S:L 1:20TAC: 642.96 ± 71.24
TFC: 163.01 ± 13.57
TPC: 2143.00 ± 321.21
DPPH: 47.2017 ± 2.47
FRAP: 1682.22 ± 357.37
Blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius L.)
[33]		46% methanol + 54% water, 60.4 °C, pH 4.97, S:L 0.3:20sonication 200 W, 24 kHz, amplitude 30%, cycle 0.7 sTPC (μg GAE/g): 15,697.76 ± 603.21
63.7% methanol + 54% water, 68.3 °C, pH 4.81, S:L 0.3:20sonication 200 W, 24 kHz, amplitude 70%, cycle 0.7 sTAC (μ CGE/g): 1792.73 ± 68.84
46.5% methanol + 53.5% water, 67.5 °C, pH 4.16, S:L 0.3:20sonication 200 W, 24 kHz, amplitude 66.8%, cycle 0.7 sTPC: 14,809.73 ± 455.78
TAC: 1687.77 ± 50.08
Black goji berry (Lycium ruthenicum Murray)
[34]		33% ethanol + 67% water, solvent-to-sample ratio 40 mL/gsonication 100 W, extraction time 30 minTPC (mg GAE/g): 11.05 ± 0.30
TFC (mg RE/g): 19.77 ± 0.23
TAC (mg CGE/g): 88.74 ± 1.99
FRAP (mmol Fe2+/100 g): 8.04 ± 0.04
ABTS (mmol TE/100 g): 4.89 ± 0.046
50% ethanol + 50% water, solvent-to-sample ratio 30 mL/gTPC: 9.60
TFC: 24.29
TAC: 76.94
FRAP: 6.33
ABTS: 4.54
50% ethanol + 50% water, solvent-to-sample ratio 40 mL/gsonication 100 W, extraction time 60 minTPC: 10.40
TFC: 26.22
TAC: 83.83
FRAP: 7.46
ABTS: 5.32
sonication 60 W, extraction time 60 minTPC: 6.99
TFC: 23.25
TAC: 79.50
FRAP: 6.04
ABTS: 4.80
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.)
[35]		58% methanol + 42% water, 70 °C, pH 3.87, S:L 0.5:17sonication amplitude 70%, cycle 0.7 sTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 38.0572
34% methanol + 66% water, 70 °C, pH 2, S:L 0.5:13.5TAC ( mg CGE/g d.w): 0.3055
54% methanol + 46% water, 70 °C, pH 2.72, S:L 0.5:18.2TPC: 37.8231
TAC: 0.2834
Black elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.)
[36]		Water: 100%, 40 °C,
S:L 1:10		sonication 40 kHz, extraction time 20 minDPPH (mmol TE/g d.w): 135.1 ± 7 (“Dobrich” region)–236.5 ± 5 (“Rhodopes” region)
FRAP (mmol TE/g d.w): 101.7 ± 2–193.0 ± 2
ABTS (mmol TE/g d.w): 199.1 ± 7–324.5 ± 5,
TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 29.3 ± 1.0–49.2 ± 1.0,
TFC (mg QE/g d.w): 6.4 ± 0.5–18.6 ± 0.5
Blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.)
[29]		60% ethanol + 40% water, pH 2.5, 45 °C,
S:L 1:25		sonication 50 kHz, microwave 226 W
extraction time 385 s		FRAP (mmol TE/mg): 4.371
ABTS (mmol TE/mg): 0.401
TAC (U/mg): 44.329
Extraction rate anthocyanins: 97.05 ± 0.85%
microwave 226 W
extraction time 385 s		FRAP: 3.832
ABTS: 0.339
TAC: 38.135
Extraction rate anthocyanins: 93.09 ± 0.75%
Turkey berry (Solanum torvum Sw)
[37]		56.7% ethanol + 43.3% water, 80 °C, 17.3 min, liquid/solid ratio 47.7 mL/gsonication 40 kHzTPC (mg GAE/g): 189.67 ± 4.21
DPPH (μg AAE/g): 44.87 ± 1.06
ABTS (μg TE/g): 112 ± 3.48
Acai berries (Euterpe oleracea Mart.)
[28]		50% ethanol + 50% water, solvent/solid ratio 25:1sonication, 37 kHz, 100% amplitude, 25 °C, 2 vs. 25 vs. 45 minTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 34.15 ± 0.09 vs. 34.18 ± 0.49 vs. 34.12 ± 0.20
TFC (mg QE/g d.w): 5.16 ± 0.03 vs. 5.26 ± 0.01 vs. 5.16 ± 0.01
TAC (mg CGE/g d.w): 4.68 ± 0.07 vs. 4.94 ± 0.12 vs. 4.83 ± 0.05
sonication, 37 kHz, 100% amplitude, 45 °C, 2 vs. 25 vs. 45 minTPC: 34.35 ± 0.09 vs. 35.95 ± 0.06 vs. 35.76 ± 0.07
TFC: 5.15 ± 0.07 vs. 5.19 ± 0.06 vs. 5.22 ± 0.08
TAC: 4.92 ± 0.13 vs. 4.88 ± 0.10 vs. 4.72 ± 0.33
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.)
[32]		100% methanol, S:L 1:10sonication, 40 °C, 30 minTPC (mg GAE/kg): 1420 ± 119
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 6.43 ± 0.34
FRAP (μmol/g): 190 ± 20
Sour cherry (Prunus cerasus)
[32]		100% methanol,
S:L 1:10		sonication, 40 °C, 30 minTPC (mg GAE/kg): 1470 ± 70
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 4.70 ± 1.23
FRAP (μmol/g): 200 ± 20
American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton)
[14]		70% ethanol + 19% water + 1% HCl, S:L 1:20sonication, 80 kHz, 565 W, 15 min, room temperature TAC (mg/g): 1.95 ± 0.11 (Early black cultivar)–8.13 ± 0.09 (Woolman cultivar)
ABTS (μmol TE/g): 203.20 ± 9.19 (Baifay cultivar)–849.75 ± 10.88 (Woolman cultivar) FRAP (μmol TE/g): 215.23 ± 3.24 (Prolific cultivar)–528.05 ± 12.16 (Le Munyon cultivar)
Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.)
[13]		80% methanol + 20% water,
S:L 1:20		sonication, 400 W, 24 Hz, 15 min, 50 °CTPC (mg GAE/100 g): 158 ± 2 (Krupnoplodni NS cultivar)–591 ± 10 (Kosten 1 cultivar)
DPPH (mmoli TE/100 g): 623 ± 5 (Krupnoplodni NS cultivar)–1757 ± 4 (CT 02 cultivar)
ABTS (mmoli TE/100 g): 441 ± 9 (Lukyanovsky cultivar)–1475 ± 25 (CT 02 cultivar)
FRAP (μmol Fe2+/100 g): 1509 ± 1 (Krupnoplodni NS cultivar)–5954 ± 32 (CT 02 cultivar)
Blackberry (Rubus spp.)
[15]		100% watersonication 20 min, 25 °C DPPH (mmoli TE/g): 16.47 ± 0.3
FRAP (mmol Fe2+/g): 20.22 ± 1.02
FCA (mgTE/g): 17.47 ± 0.4
100% methanol, S:L 1:20DPPH: 23.10 ± 2.32
FRAP: 26.61 ± 2.01
FCA: 23.4 ± 1.14
100% ethanol,
S:L 1:10		DPPH: 17.47 ± 0.4
FRAP: 23.4 ± 1.14
FCA: 21.35 ± 2.93
Choline chloride/citric acid ratio 1:2, 20% water, S:L 1:10DPPH: 68.77 ± 2.29
FRAP: 23.90 ± 0.86
FCA: 1.97 ± 0.21
Malic acid/xylitol ratio 1:2, 20% water, S:L 1:10DPPH: 13.84 ± 1.39
FRAP: 6.20 ± 0.40
FCA: 94.21 ± 2.09
Tartaric acid/xylitol ratio 1:2, 20% water, S:L 1:10DPPH: 18.00 ± 0.50
FRAP: 83.08 ± 3.78
FCA: 1.99 ± 0.10
Acetic acid/sorbitol ratio 1:2, 20% water, S:L 1:10DPPH: 43.56 ± 6.92
FRAP: 73.95 ± 4.36
FCA: 4687.67 ± 83.58
Microwave-assisted extraction
Blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius L.)
[33]		64% methanol + 36% water, 50.3 °C, pH 2, S:L 0.3:12microwaved 800 W, 5 minTPC (μg GAE/g): 16,277.29 ± 688.42
26.3% methanol + 73.7% water, 100 °C, pH 2, S:L 0.3:20TAC (μ CGE/g): 2454.12 ± 65.90
51% methanol + 49% water, 100 °C, pH 2, S:L 0.3:15TPC: 15,677.97 ± 729.73
TAC: 2409.11 ± 69.16
Acai berries (Euterpe oleracea Mart.)
[28]		50% ethanol + 50% water,
S:L 25:1		microwaved 360 W, 25 °C, 2 vs. 3.16 vs. 4.33 min, 1–9 cyclesTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 34.36 ± 0.19 vs. 34.22 ± 0.20 vs. 33.42 ± 0.30
TFC (mg QE/g d.w): 5.04 ± 0.12 vs. 5.10 ± 0.07 vs. 4.92 ± 0.09
TAC (mg CGE/g d.w): 5.09 ± 0.07 vs. 4.94 ± 0.12 vs. 4.83 ± 0.05
microwaved 360 W, 45 °C, 2 vs. 3.16 vs. 4.33 min, 1–9 cyclesTPC: 34.26 ± 0.30 vs. 35.33 ± 0.11 vs. 34.52 ± 0.77
TFC: 5.15 ± 0.07 vs. 5.19 ± 0.06 vs. 5.22 ± 0.08
TAC: 4.92 ± 0.13 vs. 4.88 ± 0.10 vs. 4.72 ± 0.33
Black Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.)
[23]		53.6% ethanol + 46.4% watermicrowaved 300 W, 5 minTFC (mg GAE/100 g): 420.1 (optimum condition)
40.3% ethanol + 59.7% waterTFC (mg GAE/100 g): 411.7 (economic condition)
53.8% ethanol + 46.2% waterTFC (mg GAE/100 g): 448.3 (maximum yield)
Seabuckthorn berries (Hippophae rhamnoides L.)
[20]		Water: 100% after degreasing with petroleum ether, S:L 10:1, polysaccharides (PBS) precipitated with 95% ethanolmicrowaved 600 W, 6 min, 80 °CPBS extraction yield (%): 0.264 ± 0.005
Hydroxyl radical (IC50) (mg/mL): 0.016 ± 0.001
DPPH (IC50) (mg/mL): 0.016 ± 0.001
Reducing power (EC50) (mg/mL): 0.148 ± 0.004
heat reflux extraction, 6 min, 80 °CPBS extraction yield: 0.207 ± 0.006
Hydroxyl radical (IC50): 2.691 ± 0.048
DPPH (IC50): 0.239 ± 0.0016
Reducing power (EC50): 1.868 ± 0.028
Blackberry (Rubus spp.)
[38]		52% ethanol + 48% water, liquid/solid ratio 25 g/mLmicrowaved 469 W, 4 minExtraction yield (mg/g): 2.18 ± 0.06
ABTS (μmol TE/g): 32.18 ± 1.54
DPPH (μmol TE/g): 27.18 ± 1.33
60 minExtraction yield: 1.81 ± 0.04
ABTS: 20.84 ± 1.49
DPPH: 17.01 ± 0.19
Cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon L.)
[39]		80% methanol + 19.9% water + 0.1% HCl, liquid/solid ratio 2:1,
ultrasound 30 s		microwaved 150 W, 5.33 W/g, pressure 5 ± 1 kPaTPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 27.51 ± 0.56
TFC (mg GAE/100 g): 3.79 ± 0.11
TAC (mg CGE/g d.w): 2.22 ± 0.10
FRAP (mg TE/g d.w): 47.67 ± 0.39
80 °C,
air velocity 1.5 m/s 		TPC: 22.14 ± 0.49
TFC: 2.65 ± 0.05
TAC: 0.75 ± 0.10
FRAP: 33.03 ± 0.72
Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)
[40]		80% methanol + 19.9% water + 0.1% HCl, liquid/solid ratio 5:1microwaved 1.3 W/g, pressure 4–6 kPa; 60 °C TPC (mg GAE/100 g d.w): 0.71 ± 0.01
ABTS (mmol TE/100 g d.w): 2.95 ± 0.21
microwaved 1.3 W/g, pressure 4–6 kPa; 90 °C TPC: 1.19 ± 0.03
ABTS: 6.37 ± 0.08
Supercritical and subcritical CO2 extraction (SC-CO2)
Vilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)
[41]		SC-CO2, 25 MPa, 45 °C, 4 h
SC-CO2: flow rate 8 kg/h CO2 with 6% co-solvent (30% water + 70% ethanol),
SubC-CO2: flow rate 6 kg/h CO2 with 6% co-solvent (50% water + 50% ethanol) at 6 mL/min
and 9% co-solvent (90% water + 10% ethanol)		DPPH (IC50) (μg/g d.w): 102.66 ± 2.64
ABTS (IC50) (μg/g d.w): 8.49 ± 0.41
Reducing power (EC50) (μg/g d.w): 10.30 ± 0.10
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) (pomace)
[42]		SC-CO2: flow rate 2 L/min CO2SC-CO2,
40 MPa, 40 °C,
149 min		Extraction yield (g/100 g d.w): 2.95 ± 0.85
ABTS (mmol TE/g): 0.011 ± 1.64
DPPH (mmol TE/g) 0.007 ± 2.51
ORAC (mmmol TE/g): 0.65 ± 2.93
TPC (mg GAE/g): 23.90 ± 0.05
SC-CO2: flow rate 2 L/min CO2 with 2% co-solvent ethanolExtraction yield: 3.32 ± 0.23
ABTS: 0.010 ± 3.11
DPPH: 0.009 ± 2.12
ORAC: 0.93 ± 3.03
TPC: 25.30 ± 0.05
SC-CO2: flow rate 2 L/min CO2 with 5% co-solvent ethanolExtraction yield: 4.88 ± 0.26
ABTS: 0.034 ± 2.44
DPPH: 0.011 ± 1.11
ORAC: 1.49 ± 0.41
TPC: 31.60 ± 0.05
SC-CO2: flow rate 2 L/min CO2 with 10% co-solvent ethanolExtraction yield: 7.08 ± 0.99
ABTS: 0.058 ± 3.34
DPPH: 0.025 ± 2.01
ORAC: 1.94 ± 0.75
TPC: 34.30 ± 0.05
Pressurized liquid extraction (PLE)
Black elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.)
[43]		80% ethanol + 20% waterPLE, 150 p.s.i,
10 min,
20 °C		DPPH (IC50) (%): 50.25 ± 0.080
TFP (g/100 g × 10−2): 13.6968
TAC(g/100 g × 10−2): 48.4568
PLE, 150 p.s.i,
10 min,
200 °C		DPPH: 67.69 ± 1.85
TFP: 20.1836
TAC: 52.8869
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) (pomace)
[42]		100% methanolPLE, 10.3 MPa,
45 min,
40 °C 		Extraction yield (g/100 g d.w): 34.11 ± 1.25
ABTS (mmol TE/g): 1.73 ± 1.39
DPPH (mmol TE/g): 1.00 ± 3.93
ORAC (mmmol TE/g): 8.79 ± 0.08
TPC (mg GAE/g): 401.75 ± 0.01
PLE, 10.3 MPa,
45 min,
130 °C		Extraction yield: 48.13 ± 0.81
ABTS: 2.17 ± 1.57
DPPH: 1.29 ± 0.99
ORAC: 9.26 ± 0.11
TPC: 410 ± 0.01
100% waterPLE, 10.3 MPa,
45 min,
40 °C 		Extraction yield: 21.38 ± 1.12
ABTS: 1.71 ± 1.65
DPPH: 0.55 ± 1.51
ORAC: 10.75 ± 0.08
TPC: 203.92 ± 0.05
100% waterPLE, 10.3 MPa,
45 min,
130 °C		Extraction yield: 17.67 ± 1.31
ABTS: 1.44 ± 3.90
DPPH: 0.50 ± 1.75
ORAC: 6.57 ± 0.08
TPC: 182.89 ± 0.01
80% methanol + 20% waterPLE, 10.3 MPa,
45 min, 130 °C 		Extraction yield: 28.29 ± 1.99
ABTS: 2.05 ± 2.00
DPPH: 1.52 ± 1.14
ORAC: 10.89 ± 0.04
TPC: 453.68 ± 0.01
80% acetone + 20% waterExtraction yield: 45.55 ± 2.21
ABTS: 1.94 ± 1.49
DPPH: 0.24 ± 3.51
ORAC: 9.23 ± 0.04
TPC: 490.38 ± 0.02
Blackberry
(Rubus fruticosus L.) (pomace)
[44]		100% waterPLE, 10.3 MPa, 130 °C, 3 cycles, 10 minExtraction yield (g/100 g d.w): 5.09 ± 0.28
TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 7.81 ± 0.03
ABTS (mg TE/g d.w): 48.73 ± 0.69
ORAC (mg TE/g d.w): 17.29 ± 1.04
100% ethanolPLE, 10.3 MPa, 50–90 °C, 3 cycles, 5–15 minExtraction yield: 26.34 ± 0.47
TPC: 29.14 ± 0.67
ABTS: 168.73 ± 3.53
ORAC: 90.97 ± 3.04
High-hydrostatic-pressure extraction (HHPE)
Blueberries (Vaccinium)
[45]		70% acetone + 29.5% water + 0.5% acetic acid HHPE,
500 MPa,
20 °C, 5 min with pulses of 1 min		DPPH (μg TE/g): 1811 ± 1
FRAP (μg TE/g): 2001 ± 29
HHPE, 500 MPa,
20 °C, 10 min with pulses of 1 min		DPPH: 1834 ± 8
FRAP: 2013 ± 13
HHPE, 500 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min with pulses of 1 min		DPPH: 1854 ± 11
FRAP: 2060 ± 27
Strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa cv, EI Santa) (puree)
[46]		100% water HHPE, 400 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP (g/L): 1.25 ± 0.05
TPC (mg GAE/100 g d.w): 859.03 ± 6.56
TAC (mg/100 g d.w): 173.34 ± 6.51
HHPE, 500 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP: 1.30 ± 0.02
TPC: 926.00 ± 5.93
TAC: 202.53 ± 5.40
HHPE, 600 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP: 1.33 ± 0.02
TPC: 939.01 ± 0.99
TAC: 204.30 ± 1.60
Blackberries
(Rubus fruticosus cv, Loughness) (puree)
[46]		100% waterHHPE, 400 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP: 3.87 ± 1.11
TPC: 1546.26 ± 8.0
TAC: 1039.21 ± 4.51
HHPE, 500 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP: 3.70 ± 0.57
TPC: 1724.65 ± 0.7
TAC: 1014.21 ± 0.10
HHPE, 600 MPa,
20 °C, 15 min 		ARP: 4.80 ± 1.79
TPC: 1778.44 ± 6.0
TAC: 1014.47 ± 1.00
Pulsed electric field (PEF) extraction
Pomegranate (Punica granatum) (fermented beverage)
[47]		PEF: flow rate 70 L/h, bipolar square-wave pulses, frequency 200 Hzfield strength 11.7 kV/cm, pulse width 15 μsTAA (mg TE/100 mL): 264.66 ± 0.46
TFC (mg QE/100 mL): 115.00 ± 1.07
TAC (mg CGE/100 mL): 5.15 ± 0.03
field strength 18.8 kV/cm, pulse width 20 μsTAA: 279.41 ± 0.47
TFC: 120.23 ± 1.83
TAC: 5.41 ± 0.01
Barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.)
[48]		PEF: 100 pulses, 1 Hz7000 ATAC (mg CGE/100 g d.w): 260.28
TPC (mg GAE/100 d.w): 462.75
5000 ATAC: 248.90
TPC: 456.39
PEF: 5000 A, 1 Hz75 pulses TAC: 233.60
TPC: 428.91
50 pulsesTAC: 224.78
TPC: 417.93
EAE: 1.5% pectinase, 60 °CTAC: 279.64
TPC: 484.93
Blueberries (Vaccinium) (pomace)
[49]		100 pulses, 20 kV/cm,
energy input 41.03 kJ/kg
50% ethanol + 49% water + 1% HCl		TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 10.52
TAA (mmol TE/g d.w): 0.83
100 pulses, 20 kV/cm,
energy input 41.03 kJ/kg
50% methanol + 49% water + 1% HCl		TAC (µg/g d.w): 1757.32
TFC (µg/g d.w): 297.86
Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) (Juice)
[50]		PEF: 30 kV/cm, 100 Hz3 minTPC (mg GAE/100 g): 118.85 ± 1.22
DPPH (µmol TE/100 g): 294.69 ± 0.15
FRAP (µmol TE/100 g): 879.81 ± 9.38
4.5 minTPC: 116.75 ± 1.22
DPPH: 294.34 ± 0.15
FRAP: 846.92 ± 9.38
Ultrasound: amplitude 25%, pulse 50%5 minTPC: 120.24 ± 1.22
DPPH: 293.62 ± 0.15
FRAP: 877.46 ± 9.38
7.5 minTPC: 115.04 ± 1.22
DPPH: 294.64 ± 0.15
FRAP: 824.96 ± 9.38
PEF + ultrasound3 min + 7.5 minTPC: 121.37 ± 2.15
DPPH: 295.48 ± 0.25
FRAP: 907.78 ± 19.66
4.5 min + 5 minTPC: 127.80 ± 2.26
DPPH: 294.13 ± 0.32
FRAP: 911.25 ± 9.99
Enzyme-assisted extraction
Blackberry
(Rubus fruticosus L.)
(pomace)
[44]		SC-CO2: 25–55 MPa, 50–80 °C, 60–180 min, respectivelyExtraction yield (g/100 g d.w): 9.93 ± 0.13
TPC (mg GAE/g d.w): 2.91 ± 0.14
ABTS (mg TE/g d.w): 0.55 ± 0.00
EAE–Viscozyme: pH 4.8, 50 °C, 360 min, 5 g substrate + 50 mL buffer + 500 μL Viscozyme L Extraction yield: 7.83 ± 0.30
TPC: 2.28 ± 0.02
ABTS: 9.94 ± 0.04
Blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.) (press cake)
[51]		β-glucanase (Trichoderma reesei), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 40 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC (mg CGE/100 g d.w): 319 ± 24–396 ± 10
TPC (mg GAE/100 g d.w): 848 ± 97–1142 ± 51
DPPH (mg AAE/100 g d.w): 494 ± 2–527 ± 2
CUPRAC (mg AAE/100 g d.w): 1835 ± 158–1640 ± 60
Cellulase (Trichoderma reesei), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 60 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC: 319 ± 7–405 ± 9
TPC: 791 ± 22–938 ± 14
DPPH: 470 ± 2–552 ± 2
CUPRAC: 2200 ± 69–3531 ± 284
Pectinase (Aspergillus niger), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 60 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC: 324 ± 23–386 ± 22
TPC: 836 ± 2–913 ± 11
DPPH: 495 ± 3–557 ± 4
CUPRAC: 2411 ± 26–3697 ± 205
Pectinase (pectinesterase and polygalacturonase) (Aspergillus oryzae), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 60 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC: 336 ± 8–401 ± 19
TPC: 787 ± 11–898 ± 2
DPPH: 808 ± 83–1080 ± 33
CUPRAC: 1971 ± 34–3155 ± 150
Pectinase (pectinesterase and polygalacturonase) (Aspergillus oryzae), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 60 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC: 334 ± 23–407 ± 15
TPC: 817 ± 11–998 ± 4
DPPH: 475 ± 3–537 ± 3
CUPRAC: 2418 ± 158–3148 ± 91
Cellulase (Trichoderma reesei) + pectinase (Aspergillus oryzae), solid/liquid 1:10, 200 ppm, 60 °C, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 60–80 °CTAC: 312 ± 11–383 ± 11
TPC: 891 ± 5–911 ± 51
DPPH: 457 ± 3–524 ± 5
CUPRAC: 2065 ± 69–3103 ± 107
Pectin lyase, solid/liquid 1:4, 100 ppm, 40 °C, pH < 5.5, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 75 °CTAC: 391 ± 19–394 ± 16
TPC: 739 ± 16–736 ± 3
DPPH: 545 ± 11–536 ± 3
CUPRAC: 1459 ± 138–1715 ± 69
Cellulase, solid/liquid 1:4, 100 ppm, 50 °C, pH < 5.5, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 75 °CTAC: 430 ± 21–382 ± 23
TPC: 665 ± 3–816 ± 13
DPPH: 459 ± 8–576 ± 25
CUPRAC: 1384 ± 90–2648 ± 119
Cellulase + pectin lyase, solid/liquid 1:4, 100 ppm, 40–50 °C, pH < 5.5, 1 → 4 h, inactivation 75 °CTAC: 376 ± 9–392 ± 21
TPC: 376 ± 2–495 ± 2
DPPH: 117 ± 3–149 ± 3
CUPRAC: 323 ± 45–970 ± 69
Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) (pomace)
[52]		EAE–Viscozyme L (Aspergillus aculeatus), solid/liquid 1:10, pH 5, 50 °C, 20 min (optimization)Extract yield (g/100 g d.w) EAE vs. SLE: 56.1 EAE vs. SLE: 0.7 vs. 43.1 EAE vs. SLE: 0.6
ABTS (mg TE/g d.w) EAE vs. SLE: 21.2 ± 0.6 vs. 15.8 ± 0.2
TPC (mg GAE/g d.w) EAE vs. SLE: 6.8 ± 0.1 vs. 5.3 ± 0.3
ORAC (mg TE/g d.w) EAE vs. SLE: 23.78 ± 0.2 vs. 21.6 ± 0.2
CUPRAC (mg TE/g d.w) EAE vs. SLE: 10.94 ± 0.1 vs. 8.8 ± 0.2
TAC: total anthocyanin content; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total polyphenol content; TAA: total antioxidant activity; FCA: Fe2+-chelating activity assay; ARP: antiradical power; CUPRAC: cupric ion-reducing antioxidant capacity; CGE: cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalent; QE: quercetin equivalent; GAE: gallic acid equivalent; AAE: ascorbic acid equivalent; TE: Trolox equivalent; CE: catechin equivalent; ME: malvidin equivalent; RE: rutin equivalent; SC-CO2: supercritical CO2 extraction; SubC-CO2: subcritical CO2 extraction; EAE: enzyme-assisted extraction; PLE: pressurized liquid; SLE: solid–liquid extraction; d.w: dry weight.
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

Dumitrașcu, L.; Banu, I.; Patraşcu, L.; Vasilean, I.; Aprodu, I. The Influence of Processing on the Bioactive Compounds of Small Berries. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8713. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198713

AMA Style

Dumitrașcu L, Banu I, Patraşcu L, Vasilean I, Aprodu I. The Influence of Processing on the Bioactive Compounds of Small Berries. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(19):8713. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198713

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dumitrașcu, Loredana, Iuliana Banu, Livia Patraşcu, Ina Vasilean, and Iuliana Aprodu. 2024. "The Influence of Processing on the Bioactive Compounds of Small Berries" Applied Sciences 14, no. 19: 8713. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198713

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