4.6 Article

Harvest year effects on Apulian EVOOs evaluated by 1H NMR based metabolomics

Journal

PEERJ
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2740

Keywords

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR); Harvest year effect; Triacilglycerols (TAG); Extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO); Cluster difference; Single-cultivar; Mahalanobis distance (MAH); Quality metrics

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) [PON01_01958 PIVOLIO]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nine hundred extra virgin olive oils (EVOO) were extracted from individual olive trees of four olive cultivars (Coratina, Cima di Mola, Ogliarola, Peranzana), originating from the provinces of Bari and Foggia (Apulia region, Southern Italy) and collected during two consecutive harvesting seasons (2013/14 and 2014/15). Following genetic identification of individual olive trees, a detailed Apulian EVOO NMR database was built using 900 oils samples obtained from 900 cultivar certified single trees. A study on the olive oil lipid profile was carried out by statistical multivariate analysis (Principal Component Analysis, PCA, Partial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis, PLS-DA, Orthogonal Partial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis, OPLS-DA). Influence of cultivar and weather conditions, such as the summer rainfall, on the oil metabolic profile have been evaluated. Mahalanobis distances and J(2) criterion have been measured to assess the quality of resulting scores clusters for each cultivar in the two harvesting campaigns. The four studied cultivars showed non homogeneous behavior. Notwithstanding the geographical spread and the wide number of samples, Coratina showed a consistent behavior of its metabolic profile in the two considered harvests. Among the other three Peranzana showed the second more consistent behavior, while Cima di Mola and Ogliarola having the biggest change over the two years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available