g: I...
:5 n1...

 

.3»!
12.7.. ‘ ‘ V . , . ii.
‘ 22?;
a La

 

 

 

..
(«13s . .35 t
51.. \I... z 1.1...
i 31-5.?! bittg
L 1.5.3.... .3?-
o..:..t 331...]
1.5.1.:
. 31.5..)
I... I...

i
Pifl‘flfikumn
..

: .‘livv
(in!

 

 

 

 

 

(I‘D-I...
.vi. 5...:
knit: bin
is...

.4 I

y

at!

d?.‘.“

 

... .
i . ut
1.1.1.993
(5 11:. 4.5..
.W’rl? .. .

1??» m.» 45...? .r

.11.}. 3o 3.

 

7|. ‘3. u.

THESIS

 

 

2,
2050’ LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISITCS AND
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF TART CHERRY POWDER AS
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS DRYING METHODS

presented by

MEGAN K. SCHWANNECKE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Food Science

 

 

@361“

/ Major Professor’s Signature

.M627 4 ILZOOV

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc8Pres/ClRC/DateDue.rndd

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF
TART CHERRY POWDER DRIED BY VARIOUS DRYING METHODS

By

Megan K. Schwannecke

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Food Science

2009

ABSTRACT
PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF

TART CHERRY POWDER DRIED BY VARIOUS DRYING METHODS
By
Megan K. Schwannecke

Raw tart cherry pomace (Prunus cerasus) was dried using three drying
methods (vacuum drying, cabinet drying, and infrared drying) at four different
temperatures (50, 70, 90, and 110°C). The cherry pomace was also freeze dried
for use as a “gold standard.” The dried pomace from each drying method was
ground into a powder and the following physical characteristics were measured:
pH, titratable acidity, Hunter Color CIE L*a*b*, water solubility, and water
absorption index. The cherry powder was analyzed for total antioxidants
(Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity assay), phenolics (Folin-Ciocalteu assay),
and anthocyanins (pH-differential assay). The freeze dried, vacuum dried,
cabinet dried, and infrared dried samples contained 477, 356-455, 348-463, and
307-425 umol TE/g cheny powder db, respectively. The freeze dried, vacuum
dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried samples contained 28.02, 17.89-20.88,
18.49-20.93, and 15.92-17.86 mg GAE/g cherry powder db, respectively. The
freeze dried, vacuum dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried samples contained
25.02, 13.20-13.93, 13.85-15.73, and 10.00-12.35 mg cyn-3—glu/1009 cherry
powder db, respectively. In general, the dried cherry pomace in this research
compared favorably to commercial cherry powders in levels of phenolics and

total antioxidants, but was lower in levels of total anthocyanins.

DEDICATION

To my supporting family and loving husband.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. Kirk Dolan for being an
outstanding mentor. A good mentor not only guides their student academically
but shares life lessons along the way and Dr. Dolan has done just this. Thank
you for teaching me that l have to look at the forest and not get lost in the trees. I
also thank my committee members Dr. Maurice Bennink and Dr. James Steffe for
their academic guidance. Thank you, Dr. Bennink, for your help with the
antioxidant extraction process and anthocyanin assay. Dr. Steffe, thank you for
sharing your expertise with food drying technologies. I would also like to thank
Dr. Muhammed Siddiq for the original ideas for this research project, for the use
of his lab equipment, and his mentorship. I would like to thank Mr. Phil Hill for his
help with the construction of drying trays for the vacuum dryer and for his help
with devices such as the current probe. In addition I would like to thank Dr. John
Foss from the Department of Mechanical Engineering for the use of his
anemometer and Mr. Doug Neal for his instruction on the use and theory of this
device. I would like to thank my lab mates and fellow graduate students for your
support and life long friendship. Last but certainly not least I would like to thank
Cherry Growers Inc. for the donation of the experimental samples. Hopefully the

results of my research will end up benefiting your business.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xi
1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 3
1.1 Tart Cherry Pomace and Powder ........................................................... 3
1.2 Impact of Antioxidants on Health ............................................................ 5
1 3 Drying Methods .................................................................................... 11
1 3 1 Economic Impact ........................................................................... 11
1.3.2 Principles of Freeze Drying ........................................................... 12
1.3.3 Principles of Cabinet Drying .......................................................... 15
1 3 4 Principles of Vacuum Drying ......................................................... 16
1.3 5 Principles of Infrared Drying .......................................................... 17
1.4 Analysis of Antioxidant Capacity .......................................................... 19
1.4.1 Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity .......................................... 19
1.4.2 Folin-Ciocalteu’s Assay ................................................................. 22
1 4 3 Detection of Anthocyanins by the pH-differential Assay ................ 24
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................... 27
2.1 Plant Material ....................................................................................... 27
2 1.1 Tart Cherry Pomace ...................................................................... 27
2.1.2 Commercial Tart Cherry Powder Samples .................................... 27
2.1.3 Sample Preparation ...................................................................... 28
2.2 Drying Methods .................................................................................... 29
2.2.1 Freeze Drying ................................................................................ 29
2.2.2 Cabinet Drying .............................................................................. 29
2.2.3 Vacuum Drying .............................................................................. 30
2.2.4 Infrared Drying .............................................................................. 31
2.3 Cherry Powder Preparation .................................................................. 31
2.3.1 Particle Size Reduction, Selection, and Storage ........................... 31
2.3.2 Extraction of Antioxidants .............................................................. 32
2.4 Physico—Chemical Characterizations .................................................... 33
2.4.1 Hunter Color CIE ........................................................................... 33
2.4.2 pH and Titratable Acidity ............................................................... 34
2.4.3 Water Absorption Index ................................................................. 34
2.4.4 Water Solubility ............................................................................. 35
2.5 Determination of Total Antioxidants: Oxygen Radical Absorbance
Capacity .......................................................................................................... 35
2.5.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation ................................................. 35
2.5.2 Experimental Procedure ................................................................ 36
2.6 Determination of Total Phenolics: Folin-Ciocalteu’s Assay .................. 38
2.6.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation ................................................. 38
2.6.2 Experimental Procedure ................................................................ 39
2.7 Determination of Total Anthocyanins: pH-Differential Assay ................ 39
2.7.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation ................................................. 39

2.7.2 Experimental Procedure ................................................................ 40

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................... 42
3.1 Classification of the Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Tart Cherry
Powder ............................................................................................................ 42

3.1.1 Hunter Color CIE ........................................................................... 42
3.1.2 pH ................................................................................................. 53
3.1.3 Titratable Acidity ............................................................................ 54
3.1.4 Water Solubility ............................................................................. 58
3.1.5 Water Absorption Index ................................................................. 61
3.2 Effects of Drying on the Antioxidant Levels in Tart Cherry Pomace ..... 65
3.2.1 Total Antioxidants .......................................................................... 65
3.2.2 Total Phenolics .............................................................................. 68
3.2.3 Total Anthocyanins ................................................ . ........................ 72
3.3 Comparison of Experiment Tart Cherry Powder to Commercial Tart
Cherry Powder ................................................................................................ 76
3.3.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................ 76
3.3.2 Total Antioxidants .......................................................................... 84
3.3.3 Total Phenolics .............................................................................. 87
3.3.4 Total Anthocyanins ........................................................................ 91

4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 96
4.1 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 96
4.2 Future Research Recommendations .................................................... 98

Appendix 1 Raw data for the physical characteristics of tart cherry pomace and
powder .............................................................................................................. 100

Appendix 2 Raw data for the effects of drying on the antioxidant levels in tart
cherry pomace .................................................................................................. 114

Appendix 3 Raw data for the nutraceutical composition of the commercially
available tart cherry powders ............................................................................ 129

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The average Hunter Color CIE variables for raw tart cherry pomace 42

Table 2. The average Hunter Color CIE variables and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of the tart cherry powder ...................................................... 46

Table 3.Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the Hunter
Color CIE L* values ............................................................................................ 47

Table 4. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the Hunter
Color CIE a* values ............................................................................................ 49

Table 5. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the Hunter Color CIE a* values ................................................. 50

Table 6. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the Hunter Color CIE a* values .............................................. 50

Table 7. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the Hunter
Color CIE lo* values ............................................................................................ 51

Table 8. Summary of the p-values from the Simples Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the Hunter Color CIE b* values ................................................. 52

Table 9 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the Hunter Color CIE b* values .............................................. 53

Table 10. The average pH values of tart cherry powder ..................................... 54

Table 11. The average titratable acidity values and the Fisher's LSD comparison
results of tart cherry powder ............................................................................... 55

Table 12 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test the titratable
acidity values ...................................................................................................... 56

Table 13 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the titratable acidity values ........................................................ 57

vii

Table 14 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
type of drying method for the titratable acidity values ......................................... 57

Table 15. The average water solubility values and the Fisher’s LSD comparisons
for tart cherry powder ......................................................................................... 59

Table 16. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the water
solubility values .................................................................................................. 60

Table 17. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the water solubility values ......................................................... 61

Table 18. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the water solubility values ...................................................... 61

Table 19. The average water absorption index values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparisons of tart cherry powder ..................................................................... 62

Table 20. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the water
absorption index values ...................................................................................... 64

Table 21. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the water absorption index values ............................................. 64

Table 22. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the water absorption index values ......................................... 64

Table 23. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison
results of tart cherry powder ............................................................................... 66

Table 24. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the total
antioxidant values ............................................................................................... 68

Table 25. The average total phenolic values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison
results of tart cherry powder ............................................................................... 69

Table 26. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the total
phenolic values ................................................................................................... 71

viii

Table 27. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the total phenolic values ............................................................ 72

Table 28. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the total phenolic values ........................................................ 72

Table 29. The average total anthocyanin values of tart cherry powder .............. 73

Table 30. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effect Test for the total
anthocyanin values ............................................................................................. 75

Table 31. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
temperature for the total anthocyanin values ...................................................... 76

Table 32. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned by
drying method for the total anthocyanin values .................................................. 76

Table 33 The average Hunter Color CIE values and the Fisher's LSD comparison
results for the comparison of the experimental versus commercial tart cherry
powders .............................................................................................................. 78

Table 34 The average pH values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison results for the
comparison of the experimental versus commercial tart cherry powders ........... 80

Table 35 The average titratable acidity values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison
results for the comparison of the experimental versus commercial tart cherry
powders .............................................................................................................. 81

Table 36 The average water solubility values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison
results for the comparison of the experimental versus commercial tart cherry
powders .............................................................................................................. 82

Table 37 The average water absorption index values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results for the comparison of the experimental versus commercial
tart cherry powders ............................................................................................. 83

Table 38. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher’s LSD comparison
results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to the experimentally
produced tart cherry powder ............................................................................... 86

Table 39. The average total phenolic values and the Fisher's LSD comparison
results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to the experimentally
produced tart cherry powder ............................................................................... 90

Table 40. The average total anthocyanin values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to the
experimentally produced tart cherry powder ....................................................... 94

Table A1. Raw data for the percent moisture of the raw tart cherry pomace. . ..100
Table A2. Raw data for the pH values of the raw tart cherry pomace ............. 100
Table A3. Raw data for the pH values of tart cherry powder ........................ 101

Table A4. Raw data for the pH values of commercially available tart cherry
powders ............................................................................................ 1 02

Table A5. Raw data for the titratable acidity values of raw tart cherry
pomace ...................................................................... . .................................... .102

Table A6. Raw data for the titratable acidity values of tart cherry powder ......... 103

Table A7. Raw data for the titratable acidity of commercially available tart
cherry powders. . . .. ............................................................................................ 104

Table A8. Raw data for the Hunter Color CIE variables of the raw tart cherry
pomace ............................................................................................ 105

Table A9. Raw data for the Hunter Color CIE variables of the freeze dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 105

Table A10. Raw data forthe Hunter Color CIE variables of the vacuum dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 106

Table A11. Raw data for the Hunter Color CIE variables of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 107

Table A12. Raw data for the Hunter Color CIE variables of the infrared dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 108

Table A13. Raw data for the Hunter Color CIE variables of commercial tart cheny
powders ........................................................................................... 109

Table A14. Raw data for the water solubility values of tart cheny powder ....... 110

Table A15. Raw data for the water solubility values of commercial tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 11 1

Table A16. Raw data for the water absorption index values of tart cherry
Powders ........................................................................................... 112

Table A17. Raw data for the water absorption index values of the commercial tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 113

Table A18. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the tart cherry
pomace .......................................... . .................................................. 1 14

Table A19. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the freeze dried tart
chen'y powders .................................................................................. 1 15

Table A20. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the vacuum dried
tart cherry powders ............................. , ................................................ 116

Table A21. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 1 18

Table A22. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the infrared dried
tart cherry powder .............................................................................. 120

Table A23. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the tart cherry pomace. . .121

Table A24. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the freeze dried tart
cherry powder .................................................................................... 121

Table A25. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the vacuum dried tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 122

Table A26. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powders .................................... . .............................................. 123

Table A27. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the infrared dried tart
cherry powders ............... 124

Table A28. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of tart cherry pomace. . .125

xi

Table A29. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the freeze dried tart
cherry powders ............... 125

Table A30. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the vacuum dried
tart cherry powders ........................................................... . .................. 126

Table A31. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the cabinet dried
tart cherry powders ............................................................................. 127

Table A32. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the infrared dried
tart cherry powders .............................................................................. 128

Table A33. Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the commercial tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 129

Table A34. Raw data for the total phenolic values of the commercial tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 130

Table A35. Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the commercial tart
cherry powders .................................................................................. 131

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The scavenging activity of an antioxidant compound (AH) for a free

radical ................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Generalized structure for anthocyanin pigments (Wrolstad 2000) ........ 8
Figure 3. Formation of radicals through the addition of AAPH ............................ 20
Figure 4. Structural changes of an anthocyanin at pH 1.0 (A) and pH 4.5 (B) ....25
Figure 5. The Hunter Color CIE variables of freeze dried tart cherry powder ..... 43
Figure 6. The Hunter Color CIE variables of vacuum dried tart cherry powder...43 -
Figure 7. The Hunter Color CIE variables of cabinet dried tart cherry powder....44

Figure 8. The Hunter Color CIE variables of infrared dried tart cherry powder ...44

Figure 9. The average total antioxidant values of the freeze dried, vacuum dried,
cabinet dried, and infrared dried tart cherry powder ............................................ 67

Figure 10. The average total phenolic values of the freeze dried, vacuum dried,
cabinet dried, and infrared driedtart cheny powder ............................................ 70

Figure 11. The average total anthocyanin values of the freeze dried, vacuum
dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried tart cherry powder .................................. 74

Figure 12. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher's LSD comparison
results for three commercially available tart cherry powders .............................. 84

Figure 13. The average total antioxidant values of the commercial tart cherry
powders as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry powders ....... 85

Figure 14. The total phenolic values of commercially available tart cherry
powders .............................................................................................................. 88

xiii

Figure 15 The average total phenolic values of the commercial tart cherry powder
as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry powder ....................... 89

Figure 16. The average total anthocyanin values for three commercially available
tart cherry powders ............................................................................................. 92

Figure 17. The average total anthocyanin values of the commercial tart cherry
powder as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry powder ........... 93

xiv

INTRODUCTION
Michigan supplies the United States with approximately 75% of the

nation’s supply of tart cherries. After the fresh tart cherries are pressed for juice
the cherry pomace (skins, flesh, and stems) remains. Cherry juice processors in
northern Michigan consider the tart cherry pomace to be a waste (Personal
Communication, 2008). In 2008 approximately three million pounds of tart cherry
pomace were disposed of in Michigan by composting or spreading on fields.
However, the cherry pomace has potential to be dried, ground into a powder, and
used as a functional food ingredient. The tart cherry powder may be used in
extruded and baked products, confectionaries, agglomerated granola bars, dairy
products such as yogurt, et cetera. For example, fruit powders are currently
used in extruded products (Berry Burst Cheerios® Cereal and Gerber®
Graduates® Fruit Puffs), baked products (Hip Bones“ dog treats by Overby
Farms), and dry mix fruit drinks (Clif KidTM Splashersm).

The benefits of the tart cherry powder are the nutritional properties. Tart
cherry powder contains antioxidants such as phenolic acids and anthocyanins
that have been shown to have health benefits. These health benefits include the
suppression of cancer cells (Kamei and others 1995), reduced formation of LDL
cholesterol (Arai and others 2000), reduced risk of coronary heart disease
(Hertog 1995) and anti-inflammatory benefits (Dai and others 2007). There are
various drying methods that may be applied to remove most of the moisture from
the raw tart cherry pomace such as freeze drying, cabinet drying, vacuum drying,
and infrared drying. Not all drying methods are created equal; these methods

vary in capital cost, energy utilization, production rate, labor requirements, and

heat application to the foodstuffs. The nutritional properties of the tart cherry
powder will vary depending on the drying method used. It is important for a food
manufacturer to choose an economically feasible drying process that will protect

the nutritional properties of the tart cherry powder from being degraded.

The objectives of this research were:

(i) To compare the effects of freeze drying, cabinet drying, vacuum drying,
and infrared drying on the physical characteristics (Color, pH, titratable
acidity, water absorption index, and water solubility) of the tart cherry

powder.

(ii) To compare the effects of freeze drying, cabinet drying, vacuum drying,
and infrared drying on the nutraceutical content (total antioxidants, total

anthocyanins, and total phenolics) of the tart cherry powder.

(iii) To compare the nutraceutical content and the physical characteristics
of the tart cherry powder produced from raw tart cherry pomace to two
commercially available tart cherry powders manufactured from the whole

chen'y fruit and one manufactured from raw tart cherry pomace.

1 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Tart Cherry Pomace and Powder

The climate of western Michigan is ideal for growing tart cherries (Prunus
cerasus) which are harvested June to late August (Pollack and Perez 2002).
There were approximately 214.4 million pounds of tart cherries grown in the
United States in 2008. Michigan alone provided 165 million pounds of tart
cherries to the nation’s supply in 2008, which was valued at $64.7 million (Boriss
and others 2009). The three major varieties of tart cherries in Michigan are
Montmorency, Balaton, and Galaxy. The Montmorency variety accounts for 94.8
percent of the total acreage of the sour cherries in Michigan (USDA 2007). Of
the 214.4 million pounds of tart cherries produced in the US, 213.2 million
pounds of tart cherries were available for use. Of this amount 212.2 million
pounds were processed into other goods while the remaining 1.0 million pounds
of tart cherries were kept for fresh use (USDA 2009). Tart cherries are
commonly processed into pie filling, frozen sugar packs, dried fruit, liquor, wine,
juice, and juice concentrate.

During the production of tart cherry juice and concentrate cherry pomace,
which consists of the cherry skins, flesh, stems, and sometimes pits and pressing
aids such as rice hulls is generated. In 2008 approximately 10 million pounds of
tart cherries in Michigan were used for the production of cherry juice and cherry
juice concentrate (Personal Communication 2009). The production of cherry
juice from Montmorency cherries using a hot press method will give a 32-38%
pomace yield (Luh and others 1986). Using a conservative estimate of a 32%

pomace yield, the annual pomace generated in Michigan may be as high as 3.2

million pounds. Personal communications with cherry processors in Northern
Michigan confirmed that the cherry pomace is considered a manufacturing waste.
The cherry pomace is considered a low—grade material and therefore is used as a
fertilizer on land near the processing plants or is hauled to a landfill.

However, tart cherry pomace has the potential to be dried, ground into a
powder, and used as a value-added ingredient in food product development.
Dried cherry powder is already used as an ingredient in dry drink mixes, extruded,
and baked products. Confectionaries and agglomerated granola bars are other
possibilities for this ingredient, as these types of products already contain other
dried fruit solids. Dried tart cherry powder has potential beyond human food
product development; it also has potential in products developed for animals.
Extruded and baked pet food products with real fruit solids already exist. Using
real fruit solids in food products sheds a positive light on the product in the eye of
the consumer. Another advantage of using dried cherry powder as an ingredient
is gaining the benefits of the nutrients naturally found in the plant tissue. These
nutrients include antioxidants such as phenols and anthocyanins. Identifying
natural sources of phenols is especially important since these compounds cannot
be chemically synthesized and therefore must be extracted from plant material if
desired for use as a separate ingredient (Schieber and others 2001).

Other fruit industries, such as the apple and wine industry, already
practice waste management with the solid waste generated during the
processing of fruit juice and wine. The bioactive polyphenolic composition of the

apple and grape pomace has been extensively studied and apple pomace is

further valued for its source of pectin (Schieber et al. 2001; Makris and others
2007; Sriram and others 1999; Ju and Howard 2003). Phenolic compounds and
other antioxidants have also been identified in raspberry (McDougall and
Beames 1994) and cranberry pomace (Vattem and Shetty 2003).

The antioxidant and physical properties of tart cherry pomace have not
been studied as extensively as these other fruit industries. AdiI and others (2008)
have studied the extraction process of total phenolics through high pressure
liquid extraction and subcritical fluid extraction from tart cherry pomace. The
antioxidant as well as pro-oxidative effects of extracts from cherry liquor pomace
were studied by Rodtjer and others (2006). Moreira and others (2009) have
studied the effects of spray drying on the physical properties of acerola cherry
pomace including water solubility, hydroscopicity, and flowability of the powder.
The dietary fiber content of cherry pomace has been classified (Nawirska and

Kwasniewska 2005).

1.2 Impact of Antioxidants on Health

Antioxidants are a group of compounds that have the ability to delay,
prevent, or remove oxidative damage to a target molecule (Halliwell and
Gutteridge 2007). Antioxidants have the ability to prevent damage caused by
reactive species to biological systems by quenching these free radicals. There
are many types of reactive species including reactive nitrogen species (RNS),
reactive chlorine species (RCS), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and reactive
bromine species (RBS) (Halliwell and Gutteridge 2007). Reactive species are

formed during exposure to smog, ozone, chemicals, drugs, radiation, and during

normal physiological processes (Gropper and others 2005). Reactive species (or
free radicals) are characterized by one ore more unpaired electron in an orbital,
and can cause oxidation of DNA, proteins, lipids, and uric acid (Halliwell and
Gutteridge 2007). The antioxidant has the ability to quench free radicals by
donating a hydrogen atom to the reactive species, which yields a stable
compound with paired electrons that is able to slow the rate of oxidative stress in
the body. Figure 1 illustrates the scavenging activity of a phenolic antioxidant for
a peroxyl free radical (Belitz and Grosch 2004). Equation 1 and 2 demonstrate
the donation of a hydrogen atom from the antioxidant (AH) to the free radical
(R02- and RO-). The free radical has transformed into a compound (ROOH and
ROH) that is unable to seize a hydrogen atom from another source such as an
unsaturated fatty acid to cause lipid oxidation. The antioxidant that has donated
a hydrogen atom is in a stable state due to the resonance delocalization of the
unpaired electron around the aromatic ring and the lack of available sites for
molecular oxygen to attack (Nawar 1996). Equation 3 and 4 demonstrate the
end products (ROOA and ROA) that are formed which are relatively stable

causing the autoxidation of the free radicals to shorten (Belitz and Grosch 2004).

O 0
R02 +AH -) ROOH+A (1)

e 0

RO +AH -) ROH+A (2)
e 0

R02 +A -) ROOA (3)
e 0

RO +A '3 RCA (4)

Figure 1. The scavenging activity of an antioxidant compound (AH) for a
free radical

Oxidative stress is defined by a system that contains too many reactive
species in comparison to available antioxidants. One results from oxidative
stress is oxidative damage which is the biomolecular damage to living organisms
caused by the attack of reactive species (Halliwell and Gutteridge 2007).
Excessive oxidative stress results in a variety of health problems including
diabetes and atherosclerosis (Baynes and Thorpe 1999), hypertension
(Alexander 1995), rheumatoid arthritis (Jasin 1993).

Phenols are secondary metabolites derived in plants from phenylalanine
and in some cases from tyrosine (Van Sumere 1989). Phenols exhibit
antioxidant properties and are found in tea, wine, fruits, vegetables, herbs and
spices, and dark chocolate (Bravo 1998). Phenolic compounds contain an
aromatic ring with one or more hydroxyl groups, including their functional groups.

There are numerous phenolic compound derivatives including simple phenols,

phenylpropanoids, benzoic acid derivatives, flavonoids, stilbenes, tannins,
lignans, and lignins (Shahidi and Naczk 2004). Anthocyanins are a group of
compounds found naturally in various plant tissues and are a part of a larger
group of compounds called flavonoids. Anthocyanins also display antioxidant
behavior and are responsible for the red, blue, and purple color of many fruits,
vegetables, and flowers. Anthocyanins (Figure 2) are water soluble and exist as
glycosides of polyhdroxy and polymethoxy derivatives of 2-phenylbenzophrylium

otherwise known as flavylium salt (Mazza and Miniati 1993).

 

Figure 2. Generalized structure for anthocyanin pigments (Wrolstad 2000)

The flavylium cation may be substituted with glycosyl groups at position C-
3 and C-5 may include glucose, arabinose, xylose, galactose, rhamnose,
fructose, rutinose, sophorose, gentobiose, sambubiose, xylosylrutinose, or
glycoylrutinose. Positions R-1, R-2, R-3, and R—4 may be substituted with

hydroxyl or methoxyl groups which influences the color of the compound (Shahidi

and Naczk 2004). In addition sugar substituents may be esterified with organic
acids such as cinnamic or aliphatic acids. Esterification of sugar hydroxyls does
not influence the color of the compound but it may affect the stability (Wrolstad
2000). The six most frequently identified anthocyanins in plants are pelargonidin,
cyanidin, peonidin, delphinidin, petunidin, and malvidin (Timberlake and Bridle
1975). Diets rich in phenolic acids and anthocyanins have been shown to be
beneficial for human health.

Anthocyanins have been shown to suppress the growth of cancer cells
(Kamei and others 1995). Anthocyanins have shown a role in the suppression of
colon (Renis and others 2007), liver (Meyers and others 2003), lung (Chen and
others 2005), breast (Singletary and others 2007), and skin cancer (Afaq and
others 2007). Katsube and others (2003) demonstrated the suppression of the
growth of HL60 human leukemia cells in vitro from the induction of apoptosis
through the consumption of bilberry extracts. Phenolic compounds such as
flavonoids and more specifically anthocyanins have been shown to reduce the
concentration LDL (low—density lipoprotein) cholesterol in the blood. Arai and
others (2000) showed an inverse correlation between intake of total flavonoids
and the concentration of LDL cholesterol in the Japanese population. Lui and
others (2008) demonstrated the ability of anthocyanins extracted from mulberry
fruit to lower the formation of oxidative LDL that helps to reduce the risk of
atherosclerosis. These results agree with earlier work published by Laplaud and
others (1997) which showed a decrease in LDL upon the consumption of

anthocyanins. Flavonoid compounds have been shown to reduce heart

problems such as coronary heart disease (Hertog 1995). There is also evidence
to show that anthocyanins help reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular
disease (Visioli and others 2000; Feldman 2001; Leifert and Abeywardena 2008).
Anthocyanins such as those found in blackberry extracts were found to inhibit
interleukin release from mouse bone marrow-derived dendritic cells in vitro, and
therefore may contain anti-inflammatory effects (Dai et al. 2007). Subamas and
Wagner (2000) showed the anti-inflammatory effects in an animal study by
reducing the intensity of edema found in rats.

The anthocyanins from tart cherries have been evaluated in vivo and in
vitro. Anthocyanins from tart cherries have been shown to inhibit lipid
peroxidation and cyclooxygenase enzymes (Wang and others 1999b; Seeram
and others 2001; Mulabagal and others 2009). These findings are important
since these reactions have been shown to promote inflammation, carcinogenesis,
apoptosis, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis (Mamett and DuBois 2002). Bobe
and others (2006) used an animal model to show that consumption of
anthocyanin extracts from tart cherries reduced the total tumor burden on mice
when compared to sulindac. These results agree with previous studies
conducted to test the ability of anthocyanins to inhibit tumor development in
human and animal cells (Mahmoud and others 2000; Kang and others 2003).
The anthocyanins found in cherries may also provide protection against gout

(Blau 1950; Jacob and others 2003).

10

1.3 Drying Methods
Dehydration of foodstuffs is perhaps the oldest method of food

preservation, and is used for fruits, vegetables, spices, tea, coffee, dairy products,
fish, and meat. The process involves the removal of water from a food material,
which inhibits the growth of microorganisms and the activity of enzymes in order
to extend the shelf life of the product beyond the timeline of the fresh material.
The extension of a product’s shelf life is advantageous since it allows the product
to be handled, transported, and consumed conveniently and especially during
non-seasonal times. Important consideration should be made in the selection of
a dehydration method. The fresh material’s characteristics (size, shape, color,
texture, nutritional content) may be drastically changed during the dehydration

process depending on the method chosen.

1.3.1 Economic Impact

Many factors should be considered when selecting a drying method for
foodstuffs including the physical form of the product, the desired quality of the
final product, the heat sensitivity of the product, the product production rate
required, and the energy efficiency of the drying process (Sztabert and Kudra
1995). These factors contribute to the economic impact of a particular drying
method for the food manufacturer.

The cost of drying foodstuffs is a main concern for food manufactures.
Estimating the cost of drying methods is a difficult task since there are numerous
variables involved. The capital cost of the dryer itself varies due to the size of the

dryer, the construction material, and the cost of an accompanying controller,

11

which may include a computer with specialized software. The Marshall and
Stevens Index is a tool that is used to adjust the current cost of drying equipment
in the US. based on reference values from 1926. However the best estimate of
capital cost should be obtained directly from the equipment manufactures. The
capital cost of investing in a new drying system goes beyond the capital cost of
the dryer itself. When a dryer is installed in a processing plant it is important to
consider the floor space required, cost of building renovations, new piping or
wiring, and additional service and storage facilities. Another challenge for
calculating an accurate cost estimation of a new drying method is the effect of
economic inflation on the cost of the drying equipment (Sztabert and Kudra 1995).

There are several operating costs associated with the cost estimation of
drying. These include depreciation of the dryer, buildings, warehouses, or
another facilities used during the operation, the cost of energy and other utilities,
maintenance costs, and the type and amount of labor needed to operate the
equipment. Along with the capital and operation costs the product rate should be

factored into the cost estimate (Sztabert and Kudra 1995).

1.3.2 Principles of Freeze Drying

Freeze drying (otherwise referred to as lyophilisation or sublimation drying)
has a long history of use. One original use for this method was for the
preservation of biological samples such blood plasma during World War II
(Flosdorf 1949). Soon afterwards freeze drying was applied to foods and gained
momentum in the food industry starting in the 1950’s. Freeze drying has

successfully been applied to meat and seafood, fruit and vegetables, legumes,

12

herbs, cheese, and juice concentrate (Bermudez-Aguirre and others 2008).
Freeze drying is a process that has high capital and operating costs which makes
this drying method less common (Jayaranman and Das Gupta 1992). However
the foodstuff is exposed to lower temperatures as compared to other drying
methods, which preserve the qualities of the sample. The advantages of freeze
drying include superior aroma, flavor, and structure retention of the final product
(King 1971). The structure of a freeze-dried product remains intact because the
cells of the product are not disrupted during sublimation, as opposed to normal
thawing, where the ice transforms to a liquid and injures the cells. Freeze drying
is a preferred method for the production of retail fruit powders due to the high
quality of the final product (Holdsworth 1986).

The equipment for a batch freeze dryer consists of a sample chamber with
heated shelves, a refrigerated condenser, and a vacuum pump. The process of
freeze drying has three main stages, the freezing stage, the primary drying stage,
and the secondary drying stage. The freezing stage involves freezing the sample,
the primary drying stage refers to the removal of the solvent in the sample
through sublimation, and the secondary drying stage refers to the desorption of
water bound to the solids in the sample (Liapis and Bruttini 1995).

During the freezing stage the food sample is brought to a temperature -
10°C or lower prior to placing it in the sample chamber of the freeze-dryer. At
this stage the water is withdrawn from the hydrated components of the sample to
form ice crystals. The rate of freezing affects the rate of drying. Food samples

that are frozen at a slow rate produce large ice crystals, which allow for faster

13

drying rates when compared to samples frozen at fast rates that produce small
ice crystals (Brennan and others 1990).

The primary drying stage follows and is characterized by the sublimation
of the ice crystals from the sample. In order for the ice crystals to sublime the
pressure inside of the sample chamber is reduced below the equilibrium vapor
pressure of the frozen sample. The absolute pressure inside the chamber is
often reduced to a range of 13.5 - 270.0 Pa (Brennan 2006). The ice crystals
sublime from the outermost layer of the sample to the inside portion of the
sample, therefore a freeze-dried layer forms on the outside layer of the sample
and recedes inward. The vaporized water is continuously removed from the
sample chamber by a vacuum pump into a refrigerated condenser, which re-
freezes the water vapor. The dried portion of the sample has a porous structure
and the tissue cells experience little or no shrinkage. The remaining liquid in the
food system remains intact and does not redistribute or equalize in the freeze-
dried layer. As more ice crystals vaporize they diffuse through the freeze dried
layer and this process continues until all of the ice crystals have Iyophilized
(Liapis and Bruttini 1995). The drying rate in the primary drying stage is fairly
constant (\MIliams-Gardner 1971 ).

Water in the sample that was bound tightly to solid particulates may not
have frozen during the freezing stage. This water is removed from the sample
during the secondary drying phase. To remove the bound water, the sample is

heated under vacuum. The heat may be supplied by convection, conduction and

14

or radiation (Liapis and Bruttini 1995). The process is complete when the desired

moisture level of the sample has been reach.

1.3.3 Principles of Cabinet Drying

Cabinet drying (or hot air drying) is one of the most commonly used drying
methods for food products including fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices, and
pasta (Zhao 2007). The process is characterized as a parallel or cross flow of
warm air that passes over a layer of foodstuff and is expelled out of the drying
chamber. A batch cabinet drying system consists of an insulated cabinet with a
sample-drying chamber filled with shelves, a fan, and steam coils that are used
to indirectly heat the air. The heated air is transferred to the surface of a food
sample through convection. The water vapor formed from the sample is carried
away in the air stream and is expelled from dryer through side vents.

When the temperature, humidity, and air velocity of the system are held
constant the sample is dried in three stages. The first stage is the equilibrium
period. This stage is relatively short lasting compared to the remaining stages
and is the period at which the surface of the wet solid sample comes into
equilibrium with the air stream flowing over it. The second stage is the constant
rate period where the water within the food sample is constantly moving towards
the surface of the sample to keep the vapor pressure of the surface saturated.
The air temperature, humidity, and surface area of the sample affect the rate of
drying during the constant rate period. As the water from the surface evaporates,
it is replaced with additional water that has migrated from the inside of the

sample. Therefore the rate of drying during this stage remains constant. Near

15

the end of the constant rate period there is not enough water in the sample to
maintain saturation at the surface. This point is called the critical point and it is at
this point where the rate of drying declines. The third stage of drying occurs after
the critical point and it is called the falling rate period. During the falling rate
period the surface temperature of the sample rises to the dry bulb temperature of
the air. Some foodstuffs have more than one falling rate period before the

sample has finished drying (Brennan 2006).

1.3.4 Principles of Vacuum Drying

Vacuum drying tends to yield fruit products that have a higher quality than
those dried by cabinet drying. However the capital cost of vacuum drying is
higher and the production throughput is low compared to cabinet hot air drying
(Brennan 2006). During the vacuum drying process the water inside the
foodstuff is vaporized after being exposed to a heat source and the vapor is
removed from the sample chamber under partial vacuum. The equipment for a
batch vacuum dryer consists of a sample chamber with multiple shelves, a
moisture condenser, and a vacuum pump.

After the sample is placed inside the sample chamber the cavity is sealed
and the internal pressure is reduced by the vacuum pump. The absolute
pressure inside of the sample chamber may range from 5-30 kPa for
temperatures ranges of 35-80°C. In some styles of vacuum dryers the heat is
supplied to the samples by conduction through the hollow shelves on which they
rest. The shelves may be heated with circulating steam, heated water, or a

thermal fluid. The samples may also receive additional heat through radiation

16

from the hot surfaces in the sample chamber. In other vacuum drying systems
heat is delivered to the sample through convection using hot air (Brennan 2006).
Using excessive heat to removal moisture from a foodstuff may damage
the quality of the final product. The advantage of using a vacuum dehydration
method is that the boiling point of water is reduced below 100°C through the
reduction of pressure. Thus the moisture in the sample is removed at a faster
rate (Noomhonn and Ahmad 2008) and therefore the samples may be dried in 4-

20 hours depending on the size and shape of the product (Brennan 2006).

1.3.5 Principles of Infrared Drying

Infrared drying is not a heavily utilized method using for drying food.
Infrared drying has been applied to products such as breadcrumbs, tea, flour,
and spices (Brennan et al. 1990). It is less common to apply infrared drying to
wet products where the bulk water needs to be removed. Nonetheless infrared
drying has been successfully applied to fruit, vegetables, meat, and fish
(Ginzburg 1969). The advantages to infrared dehydration are that the processing
times are short and the energy utilization is minimal (Sakai and Hanzawa 1994).

Infrared drying utilizes electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths between
0.7 - 1,000 microns, which are longer than visible light energy but shorter than
radio waves. There are three subgroups of infrared drying divided by the
wavelengths used during drying. The three subgroups are near infrared (0.76 -
2 pm; 1200 - 3800°C surface temperature), medium infrared (2 - 4 pm; 450 —
1200°C surface temperature), and far infrared (4 - 6 pm; 450 °C surface

temperature or less). Water has a peak absorption of 3 pm, therefore for efficient

17

water removal from a foodstuff sample, the emitter output should satisfy this
specification (Cenkowski and others 2008).

The basic equipment necessary for a batch infrared dryer involves an
infrared oven with a product shelf, reflector, and a radiator that is either
electrically heated or gas-fired. The thermal radiation may be reflected,
absorbed, or transmitted through the foodstuff. The thermal radiation applied to
foodstuffs is often absorbed into the sample and is influenced by the surface
characteristics of the sample as well as the wavelength of the radiation (Williams-
Gardner 1971). As the radiation comes into contact with the surface of the
product, the radiant energy is absorbed into the outer most layer of the product
and turned into heat. Infrared drying is therefore best applied to products that
are spread into thin layers on samples trays to obtain a large surface area
(Brennan 2006). The temperature of the product may be measured with a
radiometer or a thermocouple shielded from ambient air conditions (Williams-
Gardner 1971).

The drying model developed by Hasatani and others (1988) for infrared
drying is similar to the drying model described for cabinet drying. There are three
drying stages with the first being a constant drying period. It is during this stage
where the water vapor pressure on the surface of the product is equal to the
saturated vapor pressure at the surface temperature. The second drying stage is
the falling rate drying period. At this stage in the drying process dry patches
begin to form on the sample’s surface and this leads to a decrease in the drying

rate. As the water levels in the sample decreases, the reflectivity of the sample

18

increases and the absorption of radiation decreases (Nowak and Lewicki 2004).
The third drying stage occurs when the surface of the sample forms a dry layer
and the layer of water evaporation has migrated towards the center of the sample.
The residual water vapor must travel through the dry layer in order to escape the

sample.

1.4 Analysis of Antioxidant Capacity
1.4.1 Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity

Currently there are no standardized methods for measuring the total
antioxidant capacity of foodstuffs. One reason for a lack of standardization is
that there is no one method that accounts for all possible free radical or
antioxidant sources (Prior and others 2005). The Oxygen Radical Absorbance
Capacity (ORACFL) is one method for analyzing the total antioxidant capacity that
has become common. The ORACFL method has been used to study the
antioxidant capacity of several foodstuffs including fruits, vegetables, legumes,
cereal grains, herbs and spices, dairy products, and nuts.

The development of the ORACFL method is accredited to Ghiselli and
others (1995),Glazer (1990)and Cao and others (1993) and is classified as a
Hydrogen Atom Transfer Assay (HAT). In HAT reactions, the antioxidant will
quench free radicals through the donation of a hydrogen atom. The ORACFL
method measures the ability of the antioxidant to scavenge for peroxyl radicals
using a fluorescent probe (fluorescein sodium salt) for detection. The peroxyl
radicals will oxidize the fluorescent probe causing a decrease in the intensity of

the fluorescence that can be quantified over time using a fluorometer.

19

Antioxidants in the system will quench the peroxyl radicals preventing the loss of
intensity in the fluorescence. One advantage of the ORACFL method is that the
mechanism is based on peroxyl radicals which are biologically relevant and are
the predominate free radical found in lipid oxidation in foods and biological
systems. The peroxyl radicals in the system are thermally generated through the
addition of an azo compound, AAPH (2,2’—azobis(2—amidinopropane)
dihydrochloride). The interaction between the antioxidants, free radicals, and the

fluorescent probe is illustrated in Figure 3 (Zulueta and others 2009):

H‘N +HCI

N+H CI
/\
o.
AAPH Nko'
HtN+vH CI

l
Fl 0 esc nt Probe
Stable Product u r e ZNVQ
(Loss of fluorescence) “

l Antioxidants

 

Stable Products

Figure 3. Formation of radicals through the addition of AAPH

The relative fluorescence intensity is measured over time to build a decay
curve for each sample and a blank sample. The ORACFL assay reactions will be

allowed to run for an extended period of time to account for the potential effects

20

of secondary antioxidant products. To date this is the only method that combines
both the degree and time of antioxidant reaction (Zulueta et al. 2009). Once the
decay curve the area under the curve (AUC) is calculated using the following
trapezoidal equation 5 . Here R1 is defined as the fluorescence measurement at
the initial time of the oxidation reaction, Rn is the final fluorescence measurement,
and At is the difference of time between the two measurements:

AUC = (R1/2 +R2+R3+...Rn/2) At (5)

The antioxidant capacity is quantified by calculating the net area under
curve:

Net AUC = AUC Sampler AUC 3.3,... (6)

The net AUC of each sample is then compared to a standard calibration
curve. The calibration curve is constructed by plotting the net AUC of a
compound called Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethlehroman-2-carboxylic acid)
against five standard concentrations in micromoles of Trolox, a water soluble
vitamin E analog (Prior and others 2005). Therefore the ORACFL value of a
sample is expressed as micromoles of Trolox equivalents per gram or liter of
sample (pmol TE/g or pmol TE/L).

An additional advantage of the ORACFL procedure is that the principles
may be applied to free radicals other than peroxyl radicals (Ou and others 2002).
Some of the disadvantages of using the ORACFL procedure for measuring total
antioxidants is that it requires the use of expensive equipment, the assay is pH
sensitive, and the assay requires a long time period to quantify results (Zulueta et

al. 2009).

21

1.4.2 Folin-Ciocalteu’s Assay

The Folin-Ciocalteu assay is a colormetric spectroscopy method used to
measure the concentration of phenols. It is based on the original work of Folin
and Ciocalteau (1927) who used this method to measure the tyrosine and
tryptophane concentrations in protein. This method was adapted by Singleton
and Rossi (1965) to measure the total phenolics in wine. Now the Folin-
Ciocalteu method is used to measure the total phenolics in many foodstuffs such
as tea, fruit, vegetables, cereal grains, and olive oil (Singleton and others 1999).
The specific phenols found in tart cherries are flavonoids such as 7-dimethoxy-
5,8,4’-trihydoxyflavone, quercetin 3—rhamnoside, genistein, chlorogenic acid,
naringenin, and genistin (Wang and others 1999a).

To begin the assay an aqueous antioxidant extract of the foodstuff is
diluted to the appropriate concentration with distilled water. A commercially
available reagent called the Folin-Ciocalteau Reagent is added to the samples;
the samples are mixed, and then incubated at room temperature for one to eight
minutes. Afterwards a twenty percent sodium carbonate solution is added to the
samples, the samples are mixed, and then incubated at room temperature for
two hours before quantifying the color development on a spectrophotometer.

The basis of this assay involves the oxidation of a phenolate ion from the
antioxidant extract of the foodstuff sample and the reduction of the
phosphotungstic-phosphomolybdic reagent, othenrvise known as the Folin-
Ciocalteu reagent. The result of this reduction turns the chromophore moiety
from a yellow complex to a blue phosphotungstic—phoshomolybdic complex

(Bravo and Mateos 2008). The reaction must take place under alkaline

22

conditions in order to aid with the uptake of oxygen by the phenol, which occurs
most efficiently near the pKa (approximately pH 10) of the phenol. The pH of the
system is controlled through the addition of sodium cyanide, sodium hydroxide,
or more commonly with sodium carbonate. The blue color produced is relatively
stable and has a broad light absorption peak that can be measured on a
spectrophotometer (Singleton and others 1999). The concentration of phenols is
proportional to the intensity of the light absorption near 760 nm where other
biological species do not absorb at this wavelength (Waterhouse 2005). The
absorbance values of the samples are then compared to a standard such as
tannic acid, catechin, tyrosine, and gallic acid (Singleton and others 1999). Gallic
acid is commonly used as the standard and has the advantage of being
inexpensive in pure form and is stable in dry form (Waterhouse 2005). Thus the
total phenolics values for the samples are expressed in gallic acid equivalents
per gram or liter of sample (GAE/g or GAE/L).

The procedure is simple, rapid, utilizes common laboratory equipment,
and the method is standardized allowing for comparison of results found in
literature (Bravo and Mateos 2008). Another advantage of this method is that the
chemical reaction has a relatively equivalent response to various phenolic
substances making this assay suitable for determination of the total phenolics in
i a sample. Reducing agents such as ascorbic acid, amino acids, and sugars may
act as interferences to this method and may cause overestimation. The
interference of sugar may be easily adjusted in wine samples. However in other

high sugar foodstuffs such as fruit, it is uncertain whether a correction factor can

23

be applied. Another approach is to prepare the standards in the same sugar
concentration as the samples. One final consideration is that the Folin-Ciocalteu
method measures all compounds that are oxidized under the reactions
mentioned above. Therefore substances such as proteins that are less typically
thought of as phenols need to be considered during quantification (Singleton

1 999).

1.4.3 Detection of Anthocyanins by the pH-differential Assay

The pH differential assay is a method that is used to quantify the total
amount of monomeric anthocyanins found in foodstuffs. Sondheimer and
Kertesz (1948) originally developed the concept for this method to study the
anthocyanins founds in fruit jam and the method was further modified by Fuleki
and Francis (1968) to analyze the anthocyanins found in cranberries. The pH
differential method has been used to analyze foodstuffs including fruits,
vegetables, cereal grains, and legumes (Mazza and Miniati 1993).

The foundation of this assay is dependent on the structural changes made
to the anthocyanin chromophore as affected by the pH of the system.
Anthocyanins represent a variety of colors found in nature ranging from red to
purple and blue. The color of anthocyanins is reversible and depends on their
structure, which is influenced by the pH of the system. Anthocyanins exist as
flavylium cations at pH 2 or less and are found to display red or yellow. The
anthocyanins transform into hemiketals around pH 4-6 and their color fades. A
further increase in pH will yield anthocyanins that display colors of purple, blue,

and sometimes yellow upon heat treatment (Mazza and Miniati 1993). In the pH

24

differential assay antioxidant sample extracts are diluted with two aqueous
buffers, one with pH 1.0 and the other with pH 4.5. Figure 4 demonstrates the

structural changes during the pH-differential assay (Wrolstad and others 2005).

H

O / OH
\

OH. I
I HO\/\/ O

‘ R2
H W\

 

 

 

| O-R
O-R
Flavylium cation: orange to purple l-lemiketal form: colorless
pH=1D pH=45

Figure 4. Structural changes of an anthocyanin at pH 1.0 (A) and pH 4.5 (B)

The absorbance of the samples are read on a spectrophotometer at Xvis-max
and at 700 nm, which is used to correct for haze caused by some colloidal
substances (Giusti and Wrolstad 2005). The Avis-max is chosen based upon the
type of anthocyanins found in the sample and a wavelength near 520 nm is often
chosen since cyanidin-3-glucoside is the most common anthocyanin found in
nature (Giusti and Wrolstad 2005; Francis 1989). The difference of absorbance
between the two buffered samples represents the monomeric anthocyanins
present in the system. Any polymerized anthocyanins or non-enzymatic
browning pigments that are present in the system do not undergo reversible
structural transformations with pH (Wrolstad and others 2005). The total

monomeric anthocyanin concentration is reported as milligrams of the specific

25

anthocyanin such as cyanidin-3-glucoside per 100 grams or liter of foodstuffs
(mg cyn-3-glu/1OO g or mg cyn-3-glu/L).

The pH differential assay is an accurate, rapid and, easy procedure (Giusti
and Wrolstad 2005). This method is applied widespread in the industry and
scientific community, which allows for comparison of results between laboratories
(Lee and others 2005). The pH differential method has shown high correlation
with HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) methods for determining
the concentration of anthocyanins in foodstuffs (Lee and others 2008).
Substances that have been found to interfere with the pH-differential method
include FD&C Red Number 40, FD&C Red Number 3, cochineal, and beet

powder (Giusti and Wrolstad 2005).

26

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Plant Material
2.1.1 Tart Cherry Pomace

Montmorency tart cherry pomace was obtained from Cherry Growers Inc.
(Grawn, Michigan) in July 2008. The pomace had been processed within the
same morning the samples were acquired. The pomace consisted of skins, flesh,
stems, and pits. The average initial moisture content was 78.43 :I: 0.72% wet
basis (wb) and the average water activity was 0.996 at 23°C. The pomace was
stored in five gallon plastic buckets in the Michigan State University Food

Science Pilot Plant Freezer at -15°C until the sample preparation for drying.

2.1.2 Commercial Tart Cherry Powder Samples

Three commercial tart cherry powder samples were obtained for
comparison to the tart cherry powder produced in these laboratory experiments.
The first sample was a drum dried tart cherry powder supplied by Van Drunen
Farms (Momence, Illinois). It was manufactured from the whole cherry fruit and
contains 10% (wlw) rice flour. The second sample was a freeze dried tart cherry
powder also supplied by Van Drunen Farms. It was manufactured from the
whole cherry fruit and contains 3% (wlw) silicon dioxide. The final sample was a
freeze dried tart cherry powder supplied by Shoreline Fruit (Traverse City,
Michigan). It was manufactured from cherry pomace and does not contain any

additives.

27

2.1.3 Sample Preparation

The raw cherry pomace was removed from the pilot plant freezer and was
thawed at refrigeration temperatures (4°C). The stems and pits were manually
removed from the cherry pomace sample. The cherry pomace was blended with
10% (wlw) maltodextrin (Maltrin M100, Grain Processing Corp., Muscatine, Iowa)
using a KitchenAid Mixer KSM90 (St. Joseph, MI) to increase the glass transition
temperature of the carbohydrates within the pomace. The cherry pomace
sample prepared for the freeze dryer was spread into a thin even layer onto a
wire mesh tray (20” length x 10” width) and refrozen (-15°C) before drying. The
thawed cherry pomace samples for the vacuum, cabinet, and infrared dryer were
evenly distributed in a thin layer onto a wire mesh tray. Separate cherry pomace
samples were dried to an equilibrium dry bulb temperature of 50°C, 70°C, 90°C,
and 110°C in each type of dryer except for the freeze dryer. The temperature of
the pomace during the constant rate drying period is equal to the wet bulb
temperature of the air. As the product dries it reaches its critical moisture point
and enters the falling rate period where the temperature of the pomace
approaches the dry bulb temperature of the air. Thus at the end of the drying
process the pomace temperature had reached the dry bulb temperature of the air.
However the surface temperature of the pomace is higher (450 - 1200°C) than
the dry bulb temperature of the air in the infrared drying method (Cenkowski and
others 2008).

The target final moisture content of the cherry pomace was 411% (wb).
The target final moisture content of the cherry powder was chosen based on the

specifications of tart cherry powder currently commercially available. The

28

moisture content of the samples was measured using a Denver Instrument

Moisture Analyzer lR-200 (Denver, Colorado).

2.2 Drying Methods
2.2.1 Freeze Drying

The freeze dryer used for these experiments was a Unitop 600$L Freeze
Mobil 12 batch dryer manufactured by The Wtis Company (Gardiner, NY). The
dryer system consisted of a sample chamber (10" width, 10.5” height) with three
shelves, a Cenco Hyvac 7 vacuum oil pump (Chicago, Illinois) and a refrigerated
condenser chamber. The sample chamber was cooled with dry ice for one hour
prior to drying and the condenser chamber was turned on to reach and maintain
a temperature between —66.0°C to -70.0°C. The frozen cherry pomace sample
was placed on the middle shelf of the sample chamber. The vacuum oil pump
was turned on and a proper seal formed around the door of the sample chamber.
The absolute pressure inside the chamber ranged from 0.026 - 0.042 torr. The
air temperature within the sample chamber came to room temperature within a
few hours from the start of the test and remained at that temperature until the test
was completed. The total length of time taken to freeze-dry the samples was up

to 96 hours.

2.2.2 Cabinet Drying
The cabinet dryer used for these experiments was a Proctor and Schwartz
Inc. K12395 batch dryer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). The dryer consisted of a

centrifugal fan, a sample chamber (30” width, 45” height) with 10 shelves, and

29

steam-fueled heat exchangers. The cabinet dryer was preheated to a stable
specific temperature monitored by an alcohol thermometer mounted on the front
side of the dryer. The sample tray was placed on the fifth shelf from the top, the
cabinet door was closed, and the centrifugal fan was turned on. Every one to
two hours the sample was rotated on the wire mesh tray. The air velocity was
measured over the product surface and held conStant using a handheld Omega
Temperature and Air Velocity Meter HHF52 (Stamford, Connecticut) at 1.9 :l: 1
m/s. The total length of time taken to cabinet-dry the samples ranged one to

three hours.

2.2.3 Vacuum Drying

The vacuum dryer (VWR 1430, West Chester, PA) used for these
experiments consisted of a dry air inlet maintained with desiccant, a convection
oven with three shelves, an ethanol and dry ice moisture trap, and a vacuum oil
pump (Gast 0523-V4F-6582DX, Benton Harbor, MI). The oven was
preconditioned to the specified temperature monitored by a mercury thermometer
placed in the front of the dryer in the lower left corner. The sample tray was
placed on the middle shelf of the sample chamber in the oven, the door was
properly sealed, and the vacuum pump was turned on to create a vacuum (75
kPa) inside the sample chamber. Every one to two hours the vacuum pump was
turned off in order to empty the moisture trap and rotate the sample on the tray to
ensure even drying. The total length of time taken to vacuum-dry the samples

ranged from two to eight hours.

30

2.2.4 Infrared Drying

The dryer used for these experiments was a bench top infrared dryer
(Michigan State University, concept by Mark A. Uebersax, design by Muhammad
Siddiq, built by Richard Wolthuis) The stainless steel dryer consisted of a two
medium infrared bulbs (R40 Heat, 120 volts, 240 watts), two product sample
shelves (19.5” length, 9.75” width), and two separate manual dials to control the
current of the infrared bulbs. The cherry pomace samples were placed on the
bottom product sample shelf, which was placed 10.5” below the infrared bulbs.
The temperature of the system was controlled with a Cole Parmer Digi-Sense
Dual JTEK thermocouple thermometer (Vernon Hills, Illinois) shielded with
aluminum foil. Every 30 to 60 minutes the sample was rotated on the sample
tray. The total length of time taken to infrared dry the samples ranged from one

to two and a half hours.

2.3 Cherry Powder Preparation
2.3.1 Particle Size Reduction, Selection, and Storage

The dried cherry pomace was ground into a powder using a Krups F203
coffee grinder (Millville, New Jersey). The cherry powder was sifted using a
stainless steel Tyler test sieve, 250 um (Mentor, Ohio) to obtain a more uniform
sample size. All particles smaller than 250 microns were vacuum packed
(Multivac Inc. Kansas City, Missouri) in polyethylene bags and stored in the

Michigan State University Food Science Pilot Plant Freezer at -15°C.

31

2.3.2 Extraction of Antioxidants

Antioxidants from the raw cherry pomace were extracted using a modified
procedure by Chaovanalikit and Wrolstad (2004). Raw pomace was blended
with 70% (v/v) aqueous acetone (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri) with 0.01%
hydrochloric acid (EMD Chemicals, Gibbstown, New Jersey) in a stainless steal
Waring Blender (Torrington, Connecticut) until a smooth pureed consistency.
The use of aqueous acidified acetone creates a low pH environment where the
antioxidants are more stable (Rodriguez-Saona and Wrolstad 2005). The
pomace slurry was stored in sealed glass jars wrapped in aluminum foil to protect
the sample from sun light and placed in a freezer (-15°C) for 15 hours to achieve
an equilibrium state.

The antioxidant filtrate was then collected into clean glass containers by
filtering and squeezing the pomace slurry through nylon mesh. Equal volumetric
parts of chloroform (EMD Chemicals, Gibbstown, New Jersey) were added to the
antioxidant filtrate and the mixture was allowed to rest at refrigeration
temperatures (4°C) until a clear partition had formed between the two layers.
The chloroform is added to the filtrate in order to remove the Iipophilic
contaminants (Rodriguez-Saona and Wrolstad 2005). After a clear partition had
formed, the top layer which contained the hydrophilic antioxidant substances was
transferred to a 50 mL sealed plastic centrifuge tube (Corning, Corning, New
York) and stored at freezer conditions until the chemical analysis.

The procedure for the extraction of antioxidants from the dried cherry
powder was similar to that of the raw cherry pomace with a few exceptions. The

cherry powder was placed in a 50-mL centrifuge tube wrapped in aluminum foil

32

along with the 70% (v/v) aqueous acetone with 0.01% hydrochloric acid and
placed on a shaker table (Model G76, New Brunswick Scientific, Edison, New
Jersey) for 30 minutes. The centrifuge tubes containing the cherry slurry were
then placed in freezer conditions for 15 hours. Afterwards the samples were then
centrifuged in a Sorvall RC-SB Refrigerated Superspeed Centrifuge (Waltham,
Massachusetts) for 10 minutes at 3,000 x g to remove the cherry solid
particulates. The supernatant was mixed with equal volumetric parts of
chloroform and allowed to rest at refrigeration temperatures until a clear partition
has formed. The top layer from the partitioned mixture was transferred to a

centrifuge tube and stored in freezer conditions until the chemical analysis.

2.4 Physico-Chemical Characterizations
2.4.1 Hunter Color CIE

Hunter CIE L*, a*, b* AE* parameters were determined using a Hunter
Color LabScan XE Colorimeter (Reston, \firginia) and the EasyMatch® QC
software. The colorimeter was operated in the reflectance mode where, L* is the
lightness or darkness (black, L=0; white, L=100), +a* is redness, -a* is greenness,
+b* is yellowness, and -b* is blueness. The total color difference (AE*) is a
single value that takes L*, a*, and b* into account. The instrument was calibrated
using two calibrations tiles, a black tile and a white standard calibration tile
#LX17582 provided by the manufacturer (X=80.37, Y=85.26, 2:89.86). For the
Hunter Color CIE measurements the raw cherry pomace or dried cherry powder
samples were spread into a continuous layer across the bottom of a 1.75 inch

glass sample cup provided by the manufacturers.

33

2.4.2 pH and Titratable Acidity

The pH and the titratable acidity of the samples were measured according
to the AOAC Official Method 942.15 (AOAC 2000). The pH of the raw pomace
and dried cherry powder was measured using a Coming 1430 meter (Corning,
New York). The cherry powder samples were prepared by blending five grams of
cherry powder with 50 mL of distilled water and the raw cherry pomace samples
were prepared by blending 10 grams of pomace with 100 mL of distilled water in
a stainless steel Waring Blender. The measurements were conducted with a pH
combination electrode (Pinnacle, Woburn, Massachusetts). The samples were
by neutralized with 0.1N sodium hydroxide (Mallinckrodt Baker, Phillipsburg, New
Jersey) until a pH of 8.1 was reached. The titratable acidity was calculated using
the following equation and was expressed as a percentage of malic acid:

Percent malic acid- -
mL of NaOH x 0.1N NaOH x 0. 067 meq x (100/weight of sample) (7)

2.4.3 Water Absorption Index

The water absorption index (VVAI) of the dried cherry powder was
measured using a procedure adapted from Anderson and others (1969). Two
and a half grams of dried cherry powder were weighed into a pre-weighed
centrifuged tube. Next 30 mL of distilled water (30°C) was added to the
centrifuge tube, mixed thoroughly, and placed on a shaker table for 30 minutes.
The slurry was then centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 10 minutes. The filtrate was
removed from the tube and set aside for the water solubility assay. The

centrifuge tube was inverted for 10 minutes to allow for additional draining. The

remaining sediment was weighed and the water absorption index was calculated
using the following equation:

WAI = (Weight of sediment I Weight of dry sample) (8)

2.4.4 Water Solubility

The water solubility index (VVS) of the dried cherry powder was measured
using a procedure adopted from Anderson and others (1969). The filtrate from
the water absorption index was poured into a pre-weighed aluminum weigh dish
(VWR, Westchester, Pennsylvania) and oven dried in a convection incubator
(T hermo Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts) at 110 °C. The water solubility
index was calculated using the following equation:

WS (%) = (Weight of dry solids in filtrate) x 100 (9)

 

(Weight of original dried sample)

2.5 Determination of Total Antioxidants: Oxygen Radical Absorbance
Capacity

2.5.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation
The ORACFL procedure was adopted from Huang and others (2005). The

chemicals for the assay including the fluorescein sodium salt, 2,2’-Azobis(2-
amidinopropane) dihydrochloride (AAPH), 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-
tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox®), and dibasic sodium phosphate
were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, Missouri). The monobasic
monohydrate sodium phosphate was purchased from Mallinckrodt Baker

(Phillipsburg, New Jersey).

35

The fluorescein stock solution (4 x 103 mM) was prepared by dissolving
0.1 g of fluorescein in 50 mL of sodium phosphate buffer (75 mM, pH 7.4) to
make a fluorescein solution with a concentration of 5.31 x 10‘3 M. Then 0.752
mL of the 5.31 x 10'3 M fluorescein solution was placed into a one liter volumetric
flask and the total volume was adjusted to one liter using the sodium phosphate
buffer. The Trolox stock solution (2.0 mM) was prepared by combining 0.25 g
Trolox with 500 mL of sodium phosphate buffer. The fluorescein and Trolox
stock solutions were stored in sealed glass containers wrapped in foil and stored
at refrigerator conditions.

For each ORAC analysis a fluorescein working solution, the Trolox
dilutions, and the AAPH solution were prepared fresh. The fluorescein solution
was prepared by diluting the stock solution (1:1000) in the sodium phosphate
buffer. The Trolox dilutions (6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, 100 uM) were prepared with the
sodium phosphate buffer. The AAPH solution (153 mM) was prepared by
dissolving 0.414 g of AAPH into 10 mL of the sodium phosphate buffer. The
antioxidant extract samples were prepared by diluting the extract sample (1:4 or

1:2.3) in sodium phosphate buffer.

2.5.2 Experimental Procedure

Black polystyrene 96-well, round bottom plates were obtained from
Corning (Corning, New York). The exterior wells of the plate were filled with 300
pL of distilled water to prevent variations is measurements between wells due to
low conductivity of the polystyrene plates (Zulueta et al. 2009). All of the interior

wells used for the experimental analysis were filled with 150 uL of the fluorescein

36

working solution. Twenty-five micro liters of sodium phosphate buffer were
added to the wells, representing the blank samples. The remaining experimental
samples wells were filled either with 25 pL of the Trolox dilutions or 25 pL of the
extract sample dilutions. The 96-well plate was then placed in the F Lx800 Multi-
Detection Microplate Reader (Biotek Instruments, WInooski, Vermont) and
incubated for 30 minutes at 37°C. After the incubation period, 25 pL of the AAPH
solution was added to all of the experimental wells. The accompanying software
to the Biotek Microplate Reader was Gen 5. The detection parameters were set
at 485 nm, 20 nm bandpass, excitation filter and a 528 nm, 20 nm bandpass,
emission filter. The relative fluorescence intensity was monitored and recorded
every two minutes for five hours.

The relative fluorescence intensity was plotted against time to build a
decay curve for each sample and the blank. The antioxidant capacity is
quantified by calculating the net area under curve:

Net AUC = AUC Sample — AUC Blank (10)

The net AUC of each sample is then compared to a standard calibration
curve. The calibration curve is constructed by plotting the net AUC of Trolox
against five standard concentrations in micromoles. Therefore the ORACFL value
of a sample is expressed as micromoles of Trolox equivalents per gram or liter of

sample (pM TE/g or pM TE/L).

37

2.6 Determination of Total Phenolics: Folin-Ciocalteu’s Assay
2.6.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation

The total phenolics procedure was followed as prescribed by Singleton
and Rossi (1965). The anhydrous sodium carbonate, gallic acid, and the Folin-
Ciocalteu reagent were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, Missouri). The
sodium carbonate solution was prepared by dissolving 200 g of anhydrous
sodium carbonate in 800 mL of distilled water and bringing the solution to a boil.
After the solution had cooled, a few crystals of sodium carbonate were added,
and the solution was allowed to rest at room temperature for 24 hours. The next
day the solution was filtered through Whatman No. 1 paper (Whatman lnc.,
Clifton, New Jersey) into a one liter volumetric flask where the volume was
adjusted to one liter and stored at room temperature.

The gallic acid stock solution was prepared fresh for each analysis by
dissolving 0.5 g of gallic acid with 0.5 mL of ethanol (EMD Chemicals, Gibbstown,
New Jersey) and then the solution volume was brought to 100 mL with distilled
water. The solution was sealed and stored in an amber colored glass container
in refrigerator conditions. Five gallic acid standard dilutions (25, 50, 100, 150,
200 ppm) were prepared for each analysis using the gallic acid stock solution
and distilled water. The antioxidant extract samples were prepared for the
experimental procedure by diluting them (1:10) with the 70% (v/v) acidified

aqueous acetone solution.

38

2.6.2 Experimental Procedure

Into separate glass test tubes 0.5 mL of each of the gallic acid standard
dilutions, 0.5 mL of each extract sample, and 0.5 mL of distilled water used for
the blank were placed. To each test tube 7.5 mL of distilled water was added to
every test tube followed by 0.5 mL of the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. All of the test
tubes were mixed on the Fisher Scientific vortex mixer (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania)
and incubated at room temperature for one to eight minutes. Then 1.5 mL of
sodium carbonate was added to each of the test tubes and mixed a second time
on the vortex mixer. The samples were incubated at room temperature for two
hours before having the absorbance of each sample read at 765 nm on a
Spectronic 21D Milton Roy spectrophotometer (lvyland, Pennsylvania) using the
blank sample to calibrate the meter.

The gallic acid standard dilution absorbance values were used to build a
gallic acid standard curve that expressed the absorbance values versus the gallic
acid standard concentrations (ppm). Using this standard curve the total
phenolics value of the extract samples were calculated and expressed in gallic

acid equivalents (GAE).

2.7 Determination of Total Anthocyanins: pH-Differential Assay
2.7.1 Sample and Reagent Preparation

The pH differential procedure was prescribed by Rodriguez-Sacha and
Wrolstad (2000). The chemicals for the assay included potassium chloride and
sodium acetate provided by Mallinckrodt Baker (Phillipsburg, New Jersey) and

hydrochloric acid. The potassium chloride buffer (0.025 M, pH 1.0) was prepared

39

by dissolving 1.86 g KCI into 980 mL of distilled water. The pH of the solution
was measured and adjusted to pH 1.0 using concatenated HCI. The volume of
the solution was then adjusted with distilled water to one liter using a volumetric
flask.

The sodium acetate buffer (0.4M, pH 4.5) was prepared by dissolving

54.43 g CH3COzNa - 3 H20 into 960 mL of distilled water. The pH of the solution

was measured and adjusted to pH 4.5 using concentrated HCI. The volume of
the solution was then adjusted with distilled water to one liter using a volumetric

flask.

2.7.2 Experimental Procedure

The dilution factor for the antioxidant extract sample was determined by
diluting it with the potassium chloride buffer until the absorbance of the sample at
Avie...” (510 nm) was within the linear range of the spectrophotometer. It is
important to note while determining the dilution factor that the sample should not
exceed the buffer’s capacity and therefore the antioxidant extract sample should
not exceed 20% of the total volume.

The Milton Roy Spectronic 21D spectrophotometer (lvyland, Pennsylvania)
was zeroed with distilled water at wavelength 510 nm and 700 nm. Two dilutions
of the antioxidant extract sample were prepared separately with the potassium
chloride buffer and the sodium acetate buffer using the previously determined
dilution factor. These dilutions were mixed and allowed to equilibrate for 15
minutes at room temperature. The absorbance of each sample was measured at

510 nm and 700 nm.

40

The absorbance (A) of the samples was calculated using the following
equafion:

A = (AA vis—max " A700)pH1.0 " (AA vis-max- A700)pH4.5 (11)

The monomeric anthocyanin pigment concentration was calculated using
the following equation:

Monomeric anthocyanin pigment (mg/liter) = (12)
(A x MWx DF x1000)/(s x 1)

In equation six, MW is the molecular weight of Cyanidin-3-glucoside

(449.2 glmol), DF 13 the dilution factor and r»: is the molar absorptivity of Cyanidin-

3-glucoside (26,900). The final monomeric anthocyanin pigment was converted

and reported as mg/g cherry powder dry basis.

41

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The statistical analysis of these laboratory experiments was performed

using SAS 9.1 (Raleigh, North Carolina).

3.1 Classification of the Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Tart Cherry
Powder

3.1.1 Hunter Color CIE

The color of the raw tart cherry pomace and tart cherry powder was
analyzed using the Hunter Color CIE L* a* b* system. All of the samples were
analyzed under the D65/10 illuminant. In order to satisfy the normality
assumption during the statistical analysis, a log transformation was applied to the
data. The average L*, a*, b*, and AE* variables for the raw tart cherry pomace
are located in Table 1 and the average values for the tart cherry powder for all

four drying methods are shown in Figure 5 - Figure 8.

Table 1. The average Hunter Color CIE variables for raw tart cherry pomace

 

Average L* Average a* Average b" Average AE*

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ Pomace Sample 27.35 i 0.37 15.95 :I: 0.45 17.01 :I: 0.76 70.53 :I: 0.51

 

42

 

CIE Color Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

O O

O O

O O
I

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

CIE Color Scale

 

 

0.00

 

, ISTPEm£I°CI W

jaw la* Ib* IIIIIIAE*I

i
I
I

Figure 6. The Hunter Color CIE variables of vacuum dried tart cherry
powder

43

30.00

20.00

CIE Color Scale

10.00

 

0.00

 

l Temperature (°C)

I
I
‘ 777 7777.77 I
, )EL*IIa*b*IIIIAE*I I

777,,77,7777_777 7777 7 77 777,

777.7 7

Figure 7. The Hunter Color CIE variables of cabinet dried tart cherry powder

 

40.00

30.00

20.00 ,

10.00 *

CIE Color Scale

 

 

 

50 7o 90
Temperature (°C)

I
I
I
I
I
i 0.00 -
I
I

 

gimme?

L7777 77777. 77 7. 7. 7 777 7. H7, 7 7

 

Figure 8. The Hunter Color CIE variables of infrared dried tart cherry
powder

The differences of the means of the L*, a*, b*, and AE* values were
analyzed Using the Fisher’s LSD (Least significant difference) test at a
significance level of 5% and found to be significantly different from each other
(p<0.0001). The results from the Fisher’s LSD test are displayed in Table 2.
From this table it may be observed that the freeze dried samples were
significantly higher in whiteness (L*) and yellowness (b*) than all of the other
samples. The freeze dried powder was significantly different in redness (a*) from
the samples dried in the vacuum and cabinet dryer at 90°C and in the infrared
dryer at 70°C, 90°C, and 110°C. The sample dried at 70°C in the cabinet dryer
displayed the lowest average L* value. The sample dried at 90°C in the infrared
dryer displayed the lowest average a* value. The samples dried at 70°C and

90°C in the infrared dryer displayed the lowest average b* values.

45

EeEteaxm 9.: Co 2:: 5% m5 .6 «So: 26* m 55;) «9.39352 EeBEm 2 0E8 .3820 29:3 8:20.03 o5 Co £222.82 Em on... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.« . . . . . .a .
adds: 8B ".8382 c.0938? use? 39. o:
a and a no.3 C :d a 3.3 a 36 H mwd n end n 8.5 om
.« . .n . .u . .H .
Rommo omwm vao Nam; Hanna .8: 368° 99. on
. a . . h . . a . . a . corn—85:5
Rodmmr mwmm ammo mmom Romeo 85 Ruopw mmmv om
Rommoarmmm Romuouvwe oddfioaom: Hammonmmsv o:
.. ovdumvdm .. ovdamfimv .. nmdhoN—r . wvdfimnwv
son 2:. use so 8
.H . . . . . .n .
one? 35 Heiomohmwmr «among? .38.. owoe on
. . . . . . . . UOCD ~05an
u.o.nom~«$mm oidNFoAmmmF odfimnonmw: Rodommumwmv om
$6225er HondHva o.n.w~.mon¢¢: udnvwfimonv o:
odNNFHRNVm Hoimwoflmpmr ofiVNOHNmor odwmeflmmmw om
Redgramsmm 0535:: o_n.mo~o«om: Reinveemmmv on
. . . . . . . . UOtD E330N>
"38:33 odmooaroom ofiiwmoamo: Hodmmmnoomv om
a $3 a mmdo a 5.0 a 8:8 m and a 8.3 a 86 a 8.8 .8 were once”.
6.; .3522
.m4 emflw>< 36:03 h emace>< :3: .u emEo>< A222; .4 ouEe>< EBEenEok 9.55
.__< .
0%an
Louie“.
Egotfl
Lotion

bee—.0 t8 2: ho 3.33.. com_._unEou am; 9.25". 2: use 333...; m6 .200 .85.: ounce; 2.... .N win...

45

The Hunter Color CIE variables were separately analyzed using a two way
ANOVA (Analysis of variance) to examine the main effects and the interaction of
the type of drying method and the temperature at which the samples were dried.
Through analysis of the L* variable, the main effect of the drying method was
found to be non-significant (p=0.1823), the main effect of temperature was found
to be significant (p=0.0318), and the overall interaction between the two variables
was found to be non-significant (p=0.6027). In order to verify the absence of an
interaction, a Simple Effects Test was performed by partitioning the data by the
type of drying method and by the air temperature. The Simple Effects Test
compares the estimates of the slopes of each drying method from the regression
plot of analysis. In doing so, the effect of drying method can be tested within
each temperature level and the effect of temperature can be tested within each
drying method (Table 3). The Simple Effects Test is a more precise check of the
interactions and this information is helpful for determining which interactions do

and do not contribute to the overall interaction.

Table 3.Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the
Hunter Color CIE L* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Interaction Effect Type of Drying Temperature Pr>F
(°C)
Type*Temp 50 0.8868
Type*Temp 70 0.3006
Type*Temp 90 0.1519
Type*Temp 1 10 0.5037
Type*Temp Vacuum 0.2863
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.3231
Type*Temp Infrared 0.0884

 

47

The first four lines in Table 3 test the hypothesis that each drying method
is equal at each air temperature level in terms of producing the same effect on
the L* variable. For example the first line will reveal whether the L* values of the
samples dried using the vacuum, cabinet, and infrared dryer are equal when
dried at 50°C. The last three lines in the table will test the hypothesis that all four
air temperature levels (50°C, 70°C, 90°C, and 110°C) are equal within each
drying method. For example the last line will reveal whether the L* values of the
samples dried at the four air temperature levels were equal within the infrared
drying method. Through partitioning by temperature it may be seen in that the
null hypothesis is not rejected meaning there is not an effect of drying method at
any of the temperature levels on the L* values of the samples. The null
hypothesis is also not rejected for any of the temperature levels when the data is
partitioned by drying method meaning that within each drying method the air
temperature does not effect the L* values of the samples. Therefore it is
confirmed that there is no interaction effect on the L* values. If the null
hypothesis was rejected meaning there is an effect of drying method or
temperature, then separate contrasts of the estimates of the slopes may be
made to determine which comparisons contribute to the overall interaction.

Through analysis of the a* variable, the main effect of the drying method
was found to be significant (p=0.0010), the main effect of temperature was also
found to be significant (p<0.0001). and the overall interaction between the two
variables was found to be non-significant (p=0.1285). To verify the absence of

an interaction a Simple Effects Test was performed by partitioning the data by

48

type of drying method and by air temperature (Table 4). When the data is
partitioned by temperature, it is seen that type of dryer is significant when the
product is dried at 90°C (p=0.0075) and at 110°C (p=0.0144). When the data is
partitioned by type of drying method, it is seen that there was a significant effect
of the temperature level within the vacuum drying method (p=0.0390) and the
infrared drying method (p=0.0001). These interactions were further analyzed
through comparisons of individual slopes to determine which drying methods
significantly affected the a* values at 90°C and 110°C as well as which
temperatures within the vacuum and infrared drying methods significantly affect

the a* values.

Table 4. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the
Hunter Color CIE a* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Interaction Effect Type of Drying Temperature Pr>F
(°C)
Type*Temp 50 0.6388
Type*Temp 70 0.0503
Type*Temp 90 0.0075
Type*Temp 110 0.0144
Type*Temp Vacuum 0.0390
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.2054
Type*Temp Infrared 0.0001

 

 

Table 5 and Table 6 display the results from the interaction comparisons.
Table 5 demonstrates that when samples were dried at 90°C the only drying
method comparison that yielded significantly different a* values was the cabinet
drying method versus the infrared drying method (p=0.0019). At 110°C there

were two drying method comparisons that yielded significantly different a* values.

49

Those drying methods were the vacuum dryer versus the infrared dryer
(p=0.0358) and the cabinet dryer-versus the infrared dryer (p=0.0050). Table 6
demonstrates that within the vacuum drying method the only temperature
comparisons that produced significantly different a* values are 50°C versus 90°C
(p=0.0108), 70° versus 90°C (p=0.199), and 90°C versus 110°C (p=0.0286). In
the infrared drying method the all of the temperature comparisons except 70°C

versus 110°C produced significantly different a* values.

Table 5. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by temperature for the Hunter Color CIE a* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.0939 0.3944
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.0959 0.0358 '
Cabinet versus Infrared 0.0019 0.0050

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned

by drying method for the Hunter Color CIE a* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying Infrared Drying
Air Temperature
Comparisons (°C) Pr>F Pr>F
50 versus 70 0.7913 0.0234
50 versus 90 0.0108 <0.0001
50 versus 110 0.6686 0.0014
70 versus 90 0.0199 0.0058
70 versus 110 0.8697 0.2453
90 versus 1 10 0.0286 0.0785

 

50

 

Through analysis of the b* variable, the main effect of the drying method
was found to be non-significant (p=0.5392), the main effect of temperature was
also found to be significant (p<0.0001). and the overall interaction between the
two variables was found to be significant (p=0.0012). To analyze the interaction
the Simple Effects Test was performed (Table 7). When the data were
partitioned by temperature, it was seen that type of dryer significantly affected the
b* values when the product was dried at 50°C (p=0.0096), 70°C (p=0.0085) and
at 110°C (p=0.0207). When the data were partitioned by type of drying method,
it was seen that there was a significant effect of the temperature level within the
vacuum drying method (p=0.0021) and the infrared drying method (p<0.0001).
These interactions were further analyzed through comparisons of individual
slopes to determine which drying methods significantly affect the b* values at

50°C, 70°C, and 110°C as well as which temperatures within the vacuum and

infrared drying methods significantly affect the b* values.

Table 7. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the
Hunter Color CIE b* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Interaction Effect Type of Drying Temperature Pr>F
(°C)
Type*Temp 50 0.0096
Type*Temp 70 0.0085
Type*Temp 90 0.4597
Type*Temp 110 0.0207
Type*Temp Vacuum 0,0021
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.1389
Type*Temp Infrared <o_ooo1

 

51

 

Table 8 and Table 9 display the results from the interaction comparisons.
Table 8 demonstrates that when samples were dried at 50°C the only drying
method comparison that yielded significantly different b* values was the cabinet
drying method versus the infrared drying method (p=0.0026). At 70°C there were
two drying method comparisons that yielded significantly different b* values,
which were the vacuum dryer versus the cabinet dryer (p=0.0238) and the
vacuum dryer versus the infrared dryer (p=0.0029). Table 9 demonstrates that
within the vacuum drying method the only temperature comparisons that will
produced non-significantly different b* values were 50°C versus 70°C (p=0.2819)
and 90° C versus 110°C (p=0.9203). In the infrared drying method all of the
temperature comparisons except 70°C versus 90°C will produced significantly

different b* values.

Table 8. Summary of the p-values from the Simples Effects Test partitioned
by temperature for the Hunter Color CIE b* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.0684 0.0238 0.0404
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.1598 0.0029 0.0076
Cabinet versus Infrared 0.0026 0.3793 0.4633

 

52

 

Table 9 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by drying method for the Hunter Color CIE b* values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying Infrared Drying
Air Tem rature
Comparigzns (°C) Pr>F Pr>F
50 versus 70 0.2819 <0.0001
50 versus 90 0.0016 <0.0001
50 versus 110 0.0013 0.0384
70 versus 90 0.0219 0.9343
70 versus 110 0.0175 0.0012
90 versus 110 0.9203 0.0010

 

 

 

3.1.2 pH

The average pH value of the raw tart cherry pomace was 3.41 :I: 0.01
which is within the acceptable range of pH (3.2-4.7) for cherries (Woroboo and
Splittstoesser 2005). The average pH values for the tart cherry powder dried
using the four drying methods are shown in Table 10. The differences of the
means of the pH values were analyzed using the Fisher’s LSD test at a
significance level of 5% and were found to be not significantly different from each

other (p=0.2198) as hypothesized.

53

Table 10. The average pH values of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

Drying Method A" “figmmm Average pH
Freeze Dried 23* 3.61 t 0.03
Vacuum Dried 50 3.59 :l: 0.05
70 3.62 1 0.04

90 3.63 :t 0.01

110 3.66 :I: 0.06

Cabinet Dried 50 3.61 :l: 0.04
70 3.65 t 0.03

90 3.61 10.07

110 3.63 :l: 0.03

Infrared Dried 50 3.60 :I: 0.03
70 3.62 d: 0.05

90 3.63 :l: 0.01

110 3.64 i 0.05

 

 

 

 

° The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to
ambient temperatures within a few hours of the start time

3.1.3 Titratable Acidity

The average titratable acidity value for the raw tart cherry pomace was
1.24 :l: 0.03% malic acid. The average titratable acidity values for the tart cherry
powder dried using the four drying methods are shown in Table 11. The pH
values in Table 11 were analyzed using the Fisher’s LSD test and found to be
significantly different (p<0.0001). The sample dried at 70°C in the vacuum dryer
contained the highest titratable acidity and the samples dried at 110°C in the
vacuum dryer and 90°C in the infrared dryer contained the lowest levels of

titratable acidity.

Table 11. The average titratable acidity values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample
Drying Method A" T°"lp°'at"'° Agdietyag’eeiizterztmliiitelic
( c) Acid)
Freeze Dried 23. 5.00 i 0.03 3.5.63!
Vacuum Dried 50 4.99 1 0.05 a’b'°"'
70 5.07 1 0.04 a
90 4.94 1 0.01 b'°'d'°
110 4.37 1 0.06 °
Cabinet Dried 50 5.02 t 0.04 31.0
70 4.94 1 0.03 b’c’“
90 5.05 1 0.07 3"“
110 5.00 1 0.03 a’b'c'd
Infrared Dried 50 4.89 i 0.00 are
70 4.94 1 0.05 b”°'°"°
90 4.86 1 0.01 °
110 4.91 1 0.05 °’d’°

 

 

 

 

 

* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient
temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

The titratable acidity data was analyzed using a two-way ANOVA to
examine the main effects and the interaction of the type of drying method and the
temperature at which the samples were dried. The main effect of the drying
method was found to be significant (p<0.0001), the main effect of temperature
was found to be significant (p=0.0495), and the overall interaction between the
two variables was found to be significant (p=0.0001). The interaction was further
analyzed by applying the Simple Effects Test to determine which temperature
and drying method comparisons affect the interaction of these two variables on

the titratable acidity values (Table 12). Through partitioning by temperature it

55

may be seen that the null hypothesis is rejected; at all temperature levels the
type of drying method will affect the water solubility values. When the data is
partitioned by the type of dryer the null hypothesis is rejected for all drying
methods except for infrared drying meaning there is an effect of temperature for

the vacuum and cabinet drying method.

Table 12 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test the
titratable acidity values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction Effect Type of Drying A" Terpgerature Pr>F
Type*Temp 50 0.0023
Type*Temp 70 0.0005
Type*Temp 90 <0.0001
Type*Temp 1 10 0.0027
Type*Temp Vacuum <0.0001
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.0339
Type*Temp Infrared 0.1457

 

 

 

 

 

 

These interactions were further analyzed through comparisons of
individual slopes to determine which drying methods significantly affect the
titratable acidity values at 50°C, 70°C, 90°C and 110°C (Table 13); as well as
which temperatures within the vacuum, cabinet, and infrared drying methods
significantly affect the values (Table 14). All of the drying method comparisons
showed a significant difference in titratable acidity values except for vacuum
versus cabinet drying at 50°C (p=0.5010), cabinet versus infrared drying at 70 °C
(p=0.8428), and vacuum versus infrared drying at 110 °C (p=0.1744). In Table

14 it is seen that within the vacuum drying method all of the temperature levels

56

produced significantly different titratable acidity values except for 70°C versus
90°C (p=0.1546). There were two temperature comparisons in the cabinet drying
method that produced significantly different titratable acidity values are those
were was 50°C versus 70°C (p=0.0414) and 50°C versus 90°C (p=0.0047). In
the infrared drying method there was only temperature comparison that produced

a significant effect was 70°C versus 90°C (p=0.5152).

Table 13 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by temperature for the titratable acidity values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 90°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.5010 0.0007 0.0047 0.0007
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.0054 0.0004 0.0201 0.1744
Cabinet versus Infrared 0.0010 0.8428 <0.0001 0.0213

 

Table 14 Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by type of drying method for the titratable acidity values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying Cabinet Drying Infrared Drying
Tern rature
c ompa‘r’i: on s (,c) Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F

50 versus 70 0.0232 0.0414 0.1787

50 versus 90 0.0007 0.0047 0.3764

50 versus 1 10 0.0380 0.1603 0.4361

70 versus 90 0.1546 0.3448 0.0313
70 versus 110 0.0012 0.6319 0.5585
90 versus 110 <0.0001 0.1079 0.1033

 

 

It was expected that the freeze dried sample would contain the highest

levels of titratable acidity. With the addition of heat to the fruit, the rate of

57

respiration will increase. During respiration the organic acids are converted to
sugar thus decreasing the titratable acidity of the sample (Ramaswamy 2005).
The freeze drying process does not apply as much heat as compared to the
other three drying methods which therefore might limit fruit respiration.
Differences in titratable acidity may also be attributed to differences in fruit
cultivar, fruit maturity, climate, and soil makeup (Woroboo and Splittstoesser

2005)

3.1.4 Water Solubility

Water solubility is an important characteristic for powdered ingredients
that will be incorporated into dry mixes that must be reconstituted. To satisfy the
normality assumption during the statistical analysis, a log transformation was
applied to the water solubility data. The average water solubility values for the
tart cherry powder is in Table 15. The differences of the means of the water
solubility values were analyzed using the Fisher's LSD test at a 5% significance
level and found to be significantly different (p<0.0001). The samples dried at
110°C in the vacuum dryer had the highest average percent of water solubility.
The samples dried at 70°C in the infrared drying had the lowest average percent

of water solubility.

58

Table 15. The average water solubility values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparisons for tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample
Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) Averaggofizgcfigt Water
Freeze Dried 23* 30.40 1: 0.09 b
Vacuum Dried 50 28.23 1 0.61 °
70 28.60 1 0.44 d’°
90 30.53 1 0.39 b
110 31.44 10.19a
Cabinet Dried 50 26.19 1 0.27 9
70 29.30 1 0.31 c
90 25.68 1 0.35 9
110 27.56 1 0.50f
Infrared Dried 50 27.55 1 0.327 f
70 23.47 1 0.32 h
90 30.57 1 0.29 b
110 29.191030 °’d

 

° The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures within

a few hours of the start time

The water solubility data was analyzed using a two-way ANOVA to

examine the main effects and the interaction of the type of drying method and the

temperature at which the samples were dried. The main effect of the drying

method was found to be significant (p<0.0001), the main effect of temperature

was found to be significant (p<0.0001), and the overall interaction between the

two variables was found to be significant (p<0.0001). The interaction was further

analyzed by applying the Simple Effects Test to determine which temperature

and drying method comparisons affect the interaction of these two variables on

the water solubility values Table 16. Through partitioning by temperature it may

be seen that the null hypothesis is rejected; at all temperature levels the type of

59

 

drying method will affect the water solubility values. When the data were
partitioned by the type of dryer it may be seen that the null hypothesis was
rejected for all drying methods Table 15 meaning there is an effect of

temperature for each drying method.

Table 16. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the water
solubility values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Type of Air Temperature
Interaction Effect Dryer (°C) Pr>F
Type*Temp 50 <0.0001
Type*Temp 70 <0.0001
Type*Temp 90 <0.0001
Type*Temp 1 10 <0.0001
Type*Temp Vacuum <0.0001
Type*Temp Cabinet <0.0001
Type*Temp Infrared <0.0001

 

 

 

 

These interactions were further analyzed through comparisons of
individual slopes to determine which drying methods significantly affect the water
solubility values at 50°C, 70°C, 90°C and 110°C (Table 17) as well as which
temperatures within the vacuum, cabinet, and infrared drying methods
significantly affect the water solubility values (Table 18). At 50°C, 90°C and
110°C all of the drying method comparisons produced significantly different water
solubility values (Table 17). Through comparison of the drying methods at 70°C
it is concluded that all of the drying method comparisons produced significantly
different water solubility values except for the vacuum versus the infrared drying
method (p=0.9111). In Table 18 it is seen that within the vacuum drying method
all of the temperature levels produced significantly different water solubility

values. In the cabinet drying method the only temperature comparison that

60

produced non-significant water solubility values was 90°C versus 110°C
(p=0.9951). In the infrared drying method the only temperature comparison that
produced non-significant water solubility values was 70°C versus 110°C

(p=0.5152).

Table 17. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned

by temperature for the water solubility values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 90°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.0220 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Vacuum versus Infrared <0.0001 0.9111 <0.0001 <0.0001
Cabinet versus Infrared <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

 

Table 18. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by drying method for the water solubility values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying Cabinet Drying Infrared Drying
Air Temperature
Comparisons (°C) Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
50 versus 70 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
50 versus 90 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
50 versus 110 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
70 versus 90 0.0071 <0.0001 <0.0001
70 versus 110 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.5152
90 versus 110 <0.0001 0.9951 0.0004

 

3.1.5 Water Absorption Index

 

 

Water absorption index is another important characteristic in terms of
being able to reconstitute the powder into a liquid system. In order to satisfy the
normality assumption during the statistical analysis, a log transformation was

applied to the water absorption index data. The average water absorption index

61

values for the tart cherry powder may be found in Table 19. The differences of
the means of the water absorption index values were analyzed using the Fisher’s
LSD test at a 5% significance level and found to be significantly different
(p<0.001). The samples dried at 50°C in the cabinet dryer had the highest
average water absorption index value. The samples dried at 90°C in the vacuum
dryer and at 110°C in the infrared dryer had the lowest average water absorption

index values.

Table 19. The average water absorption index values and the Fisher’s LSD

comparisons of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) Average VIIIZtngbsorption
Freeze Dried 23* 4.59 :l: 0.11 b
Vacuum Dried 50 4.24 :1: 0.05 c
70 4.09 1 0.05 d
90 3.78 1 0.08 '
110 3.94 :t 0.07 d’°
Cabinet Dried 50 4.77 1 0.09 a
70 4.63 1 0.03 b
90 4.65 1 0.05 a’”
110 4.35 1 0.07 °
Infrared Dried 50 4.27 1 0.03 c
70 3.87 1 0.05 °"
90 3.88 1 0.07 °‘r
110 3.74 :t 0.04 f

 

 

* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures within
a few hours of the start time

A two-way ANOVA model was used to analyze the results in Table 19.

The main effect of the drying method was found to be significant (p<0.0001), the

62

main effect of temperature was found to be significant (p<0.0001), and the overall
interaction between the two variables was found to be significant (p<0.0001). In
the Simple Effects Test through the partitioning of drying method it is shown in
Table 20 that the null hypothesis is rejected for all drying methods meaning there
was an effect of temperature for each drying method. In Table 20 it may be seen
for temperatures 50°C, 90°C, and 110°C that there was a signicant difference in
water absorption index values among drying methods. At 70 °C the only drying
method comparison that produced significantly different water absorption index
values is the vacuum versus the infrared dryer. Table 21 displays the results of
the Simple Effects Test partitioned by drying method. In the vacuum drying
method the only temperature comparison that produced non-significant water
absorption Index values were 50°C versus 90°C (p=0.0682). In the cabinet
drying method the only temperatures that produced non-significant water
absorption index values were 50°C versus 70°C (p=0.5876) and well as 90°C
versus 110°C (p=0.2461). In the infrared drying method there were also two
temperature comparisons that produced non-significant water absorption index
values and those were 50°C versus 70°C (p=1.000) and 70°C versus 90°C
(p=0.0559).

63

Table 20. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the
water absorption index values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Type of Temperature
Interaction Effect Dryer (°C) Pr>F
Type*TemL 50 <0.0001
Type*Temp 70 (0.0001
Type*Temp 90 <0.0001
Type*Temp 1 10 <0.0001
Type*Temp Vacuum <0.0001
Type*Temp Cabinet <0.0001
Type*Temp Infrared <0.0001

 

 

Table 21. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by temperature for the water absorption index values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 90°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.0007 0.0559 0.0006 0.0118
Cabinet versus Infrared <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

 

 

Table 22. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by drying method for the water absorption index values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying (333:2: Infrared Drying
Air Tern rature
Compariggns (°C) Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
50 versus 70 <0.0001 0.5876 1.0000
50 versus 90 0.0682 <0.0001 <0.0001
50 versus 110 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
70 versus 90 0.0006 <0.0001 0.0559
70 versus 110 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.5152
90 versus 110 <0.0001 0.2461 0.0004

 

 

 

3.2 Effects of Drying on the Antioxidant Levels in Tart Cherry Pomace
3.2.1 Total Antioxidants

In order to satisfy the normality assumption during the statistical analysis,
a log transformation was applied to the total antioxidant data. All of the total
antioxidant values are expressed in ORAC units of micromoles of Trolox
equivalents (TE) per gram of tart cherry powder or pomace. The average total
antioxidants value of the raw tart cherry pomace was 771 1 217 umol TE/ 9
cherry pomace db. The average total antioxidant values for the tart cherry
powder are listed in Table 23 and plotted in Figure 9. The differences of the
means of the total antioxidant values were analyzed using the Fisher’s LSD test
at a 5% significance level and found to be significantly different (p=0.0036). The
highest average of total antioxidant level was detected in the freeze dried tart
cherry powder and was only significantly different from the sample dried at 110°C

in the infrared dryer, which contained lowest average total antioxidants.

65

Table 23. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Air Tezngerature Avegat‘geeflgfiaégrgéfag
Freeze Dried 23,, 477 :t 236 a
Vacuum Dried 50 429 :I: 181 a,b
70 473 1 172 a
90 368 1152 a'”
110 35611113'ID
Cabinet Dried 50 348 1: 122 a,b
70 351 1 138 3'”
90 463 1 213 a
110 449 1 204 3
Infrared Dried 50 391 d: 195 a,b
70 415 1154 3'”
90 425 1 137 a
110 307 1 72 b

 

* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures
within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

66

 

 

ORAC (umol TE! 9 cherry powder db)

 

50 70 90 1 10

Temperature (°C)

 

I

I

I IT . __ . 7

I LEVacuum Dried lCabinet Dried Ellnfrared Dried
7_J

I

I

 

 

Figure 9. The average total antioxidant values of the freeze dried, vacuum
dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried tart cherry powder

A two-way ANOVA was applied to the data set located in Table 23. The
main effect of the type of drying method was found to be non-significant
(p=0.9179), the main effect of temperature was found to be non-significant
(p=0.5748), and the interaction effect was also found to be non-significant
(0.1128). To be certain of the absence of an interaction effect, a Simple Effects
Test was applied to the data set. Table 24 confirms that the null hypothesis is
accepted; there was no interaction between the type of drying method and the
temperature used to dry the tart cherry pomace. Therefore, the antioxidant
activity was not decreased by any condition except the more severe condition of

infrared heating at 110°C.

67

I
I
I
I
* Reference line for freeze dried tart cherry powder _ _J

Table 24. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the total
antioxidant values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Type of Temperature
Interaction Effect ' Drying (°C) Pr>F
Type*Temp 50 0.5920
Type*Temp 70 0.171 3
Type*Temp 90 0.3367
Type*Temp 1 10 0.1409
Type*Temp Vacuum 0.2294
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.21 50
Type*Temp Infrared 0.2972

 

3.2.2 Total Phenolics

To satisfy the normality assumption during the statistical analysis, a log
transformation was applied to the total phenolics data. All of the total phenolic
values are expressed in milligrams of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of
tart cherry powder or pomace. The average total phenolics value of the raw tart
cherry pomace was 34.56 1: 3.75 mg GAEI g cherry pomace db. The average
total phenolic values for the tart cheny powder is listed in Table 25 and plotted in
Table 25 may be found in Figure 10. The differences of the means of the total
antioxidant values were analyzed using the Fisher’s LSD test at a 5%
significance level and found to be significantly different (p=<0.0001). The highest
average of total phenolics level was detected in the freeze dried tart cherry
powder and the lowest average total phenolics level was detected in the sample

dried at 110°C in the infrared dryer.

68

Table 25. The average total phenolic values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Temtgfature Averagghiortslplzmglligz)(GAElg
Freeze Dried 23* 23,02 1 029 3
Vacuum Dried 50 20.88 1 3.45 b
70 17.98 1 1.58 °‘f
90 18.82 1 1.53 °’°"°
110 20.50 1 1.29 b'°
Cabinet Dried 50 20.55 1 0,43 b’c
70 20.93 1 0.55 b
90 20.28 1 1.12 b'°’d
11o 18.4911.82d’°
Infrared Dried 50 17,83 1; 0.79 e,f
70 17.47 1 1.18 ”'9
90 18.58 1 0.84 f’“
110 15.92 1 0.39 9
* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures

within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

69

 

 

 

 

 

I Z‘ = i
8 E * I
{5 25.00 I
O
E A 20.00 I
o .o
o: E I
E 0 15.00 I
.3 E 10 00 I
'6 '
c I
2 5.00
n- I
13 0.00 I
t- 50 70 90 110

, - Temperature (°C) __ _ I

I * L: Vac_u_u_m 0:133 J; Cabinet Dried a infrared Driedj: I

I Reference line for freeze dried tart cherry powder I

Figure 10. The average total phenolic values of the freeze dried, vacuum
dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried tart cherry powder

A two-way ANOVA was applied to the data set in Table 25. The main
effect of the type of drying method was found to be significant (p<0.0001), the
main effect of temperature was found to be significant (p=0.0487), and the
interaction effect was also found to be significant (0.0046). The Simple Effects
Test was applied to the data set and the results are found in Table 26. The
results reveal that the type of drying method significantly affected the total
phenolic values of the tart cherry powder when dried at all temperature levels.
The temperature levels within the vacuum drying method produced significantly
different total phenolics values but not within the cabinet or infrared drying

methods.

70

Table 26. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effects Test for the total
phenolic values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air
Interaction Effect Type of Drying Temperature Pr>F
(°C)
Type*Temp 50 0.0073
Tygeqemp 70 0.0015
Type*Temp 90 0.0019
Type*Temp 11o <0.0001
Type*Temp Vacuum 0.0029
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.0855
Type*Temp Infrared 0.1406

 

 

Table 27 demonstrates that when samples were dried at 50°C the only
drying method comparison that yielded non-significantly different total phenolic
values was the vacuum drying method versus the cabinet drying method
(p=0.9499). At 70°C the only drying method comparison that yielded non-
significantly different total phenolic values is the vacuum drying method versus
the infrared drying method (p=0.5799). At 90°C the only drying method
comparison that yielded non-significantly different total phenolic values is the
vacuum drying method versus the cabinet drying method (p=0.1739). At 110°C
all of the drying method comparisons produced significantly different total
phenolics values. Table 28 It may be concluded that there were two temperature
comparisons that produced non-significantly different total phenolics values, they
were 50°C versus 110°C (p=0.8555) and 70°C versus 110°C (p=0.3000) (Table
28). In summary, total phenolics tended to decrease from 19-54% after drying

(compared to the raw pomace), depending on the drying method.

71

Table 27. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned

by temperature for the total phenolic values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 90°C 110°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.9499 0.0023 0.1739 0.0220
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.0039 0.5799 0.0123 <0.0001
Cabinet versus Infrared 0.0085 0.0010 0.0005 0.0071

 

 

Table 28. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by drying method for the total phenolic values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vacuum Drying
Air Temperature
Comparisons (°C) Pr>F
50 versus 70 0.0024
50 versus 90 0.0382
50 versus 110 0.8555
70 versus 90 0.3000
70 versus 110 0.0016
90 versus 110 0.0347

 

 

 

3.2.3 Total Anthocyanins

To satisfy the normality assumption during the statistical analysis, a log
transformation was applied to the total anthocyanin data. All of the total
anthocyanin values are expressed in milligrams of cyaniding-3-glucoside per 100
grams of tart cherry powder or pomace. The average total anthocyanins value of
the raw tart cherry pomace was 23.83 :l: 2.97 mg cyn-3-glu/100 g cherry pomace
db. The average total anthocyanin values for the tart cherry powder may be

found in Table 29. A visual representation of the data in may be found in Figure

72

11. The differences of the means of the total anthocyanin values were analyzed
using the Fisher’s LSD test at a 5% significance level and found to be
significantly different (p=<0.0001). The highest average of total anthocyanins
was detected in the freeze dried tart cherry powder and the lowest average total
anthocyanins was detected in the sample dried at 110°C in the infrared dryer.

This is the same trend found in the total antioxidant results.

Table 29. The average total anthocyanin values of tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Air Average Total Anthocyanins (mg
Drying Method Temperature cyn-3-glu [1009 cherry powder
(°C) db)
Freeze Dried 23* 25.02 1 5.12 3
Vacuum Dried 50 13.80 1 1.32 °‘d’°
70 13.93 1 1.91 “a
90 13.46 1 1.53 °'d’°
110 13.20 1 0.93 a”
Cabinet Dried 50 14,35 1 0,74 ”"3
70 15.73 1 1.69 b
90 14.21 1 2.55 c,a
110 13.85 1 2.09 c’d
Infrared Dried 50 11.98 1 0.53 f’9
70 12.35 1 1.55 °’f’9
90 11.1110549’h
110 10.00 1 0.88 "

 

* The air temperature of the pre—chilled sample chamber came to ambient
temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

73

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

 

 

 

 

o:

c 30.00

2

3

a 25.00

«I» A

$3 20.00

0%

E, g 15.00

.“s’ ‘i

c E 10.00

g, o

o f, I

g 5.00

‘5 I

< I

E 0.00 I
I '2 50 70 90 110 I
I Temperature (°C) I

IE Vacuum Dried IQ Cabinet Dried Infrared DriedI I

I * Reference line for Freeze Dried tart cherry powder

 

Figure 11. The average total anthocyanin values of the freeze dried,
vacuum dried, cabinet dried, and infrared dried tart cherry powder

A two-way ANOVA was applied to the data set from Table 29. The main
effect of the type of drying method was found to be significant (p<0.0001), the
main effect of temperature was found to be significant (p=0.0042), and the
interaction effect was found to be non-significant (p=0.5335). To be certain of the
absence of an interaction effect, a Simple Effects Test was applied to the data
set (Table 30). The results revealed that the temperature levels within the
infrared drying method produced significantly different total anthocyanin values

but not within the vacuum or cabinet drying methods.

74

Table 30. Summary of p-values from the Simple Effect Test for the total
anthocyanin values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction Effect Type of Drying A" 1.97:2; ratureI Pr>F
Type*Temp 50 0.0084
Type*Temp 70 0.0027
Type*Temp 90 0.001 9
Type*Temp 1 10 <0.0001
Type*Temp Vacuum 0.8197
Type*Temp Cabinet 0.2128
Type*Temp Infrared 0.01 38

 

 

 

 

Table 31 demonstrates that when samples were dried at 50°C and 70°C
the only drying method comparison that yielded significantly different total
anthocyanin values were the cabinet drying method versus the infrared drying
method (p=0.0022 and p=0.0620). At 90°C the only drying method comparison
that yielded significantly different total anthocyanin values was the vacuum drying
method versus the cabinet drying method (p=0.4551). At 110°C the only drying
method comparison that yielded significantly different total anthocyanin values
was the vacuum drying method versus the cabinet drying method (p=0.4578).
Temperature comparisons within the vacuum drying method were performed and
the results are found in Table 32. There were only two temperature comparisons
that demonstrated significantly different total anthocyanins values; they included
50°C versus 110°C (p=0.0087) and 70°C versus 110°C (p=0.0031). These
results, that temperature was not significant until above 100°C, were similar to
other studies on anthocyanins in grape pomace (Mishra and others 2008; Lai

2003) that showed that rate of degradation increased rapidly at temperatures

75

above 90°C. In summary, total anthocyanins decreased 38-60% after drying

(compared to freeze-drying), depending on the drying method.

Table 31. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partitioned
by temperature for the total anthocyanin values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50°C 70°C 90°C 1 10°C
Method Drying
Comparisons Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F Pr>F
Vacuum versus Cabinet 0.1429 0.0491 0.4551 0.4678
Vacuum versus Infrared 0.0525 0.0620 0.0037 <0.0001
Cabinet versus Infrared 0.0022 0.0006 0.0009 <0.0001

 

 

 

 

 

Table 32. Summary of the p-values from the Simple Effects Test partltioned
by drying method for the total anthocyanin values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infrared Drying
Air Temperature
Comparisons (°C) Pr>F
50 versus 70 0.7101
50 versus 90 0.2642
50 versus 110 0.0087
70 versus 90 0.1387
70 versus 110 0.0031
90 versus 110 0.1178

 

 

3.3 Comparison of Experiment Tart Cherry Powder to Commercial Tart
Cherry Powder

3.3.1 Physical Characteristics
The Hunter Color CIE variables of the commercial samples were

compared to the experimentally produced powders (Table 33). The L* values for

76

the drum dried sample from Van Drunen Farms and the freeze dried sample from
Shoreline Fruit samples were comparable to the L* values of the experimental
powders. The freeze dried sample from Van Drunen Farms contained
significantly the lowest L* values (p<0.0001). All of the commercial samples
contained significantly higher a* values (p<0.0001) and significantly lower b*

values (p<0.0001) compared to the experimental powders.

77

 

EoEtoaxo 9: Ho oEz tEm 05 .8 9:0: Boo m 55:5 woLBmLoQEou EoEEm 9 oEoo LonEmco anmm uo___co-oa or: ..o 939an8 c_u och ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e 2.0 H 2.8 hN3 H 8.3 0 mad H 8.2 8... mad H 3.5 c_hmmwfimmmv
a 8.0 H 3.9. a 3.0 H and a «No H 8.2. a 8.0 H «we. mswwwmfiwmmg
a owe H 8% g «No H SN 1 8.0 H v1.8 5 Re H 8.8 wefimficfihmocm>
hoi on; H omdm v.06 wmd H 3.2 : Nvd H mmdr Ho mm; H mmdv o:
u mmd H mmhm o :20 H 3.3 _mw.o H wmd 6.0.9 3.0 H 3.5 cm
Hoi de H om.~m o 310 H Nm.m—. Em mmd H N9: Ho owd H mfmv on
...oid mm: H 3.8 a mad H mmdm oi «0.0 H no.9 Ho ofim H 3.3 . om vote counts.
Roi mod H FmNm oi.o.n mmd H v0.9 Hoi 5.0 H 8.: 0.0 mwd H mNNv I o:
Hoi 9.6 H 216 oi ovd H 2.9. Emu nmd H 0N: Ho wvd H 3.9. om
have Hmwém oi odem—amw oimwdHNfimw heme Hooéw 2.. III
oid mmN H 5.8 oid N_..o H 8.9. .—.oi mnd H N95. Ho omN H Nwwv I on II vote uoEan
HomFeHoer oi vdeofimw m.._.o ndevY: queHmoNv o:
6.0 NN._. H nmém oi 0.20 H Nfimr ..s vmd H dew oidrmé H mmdv I I om I
.366 8; H 2.8 8.8... 2.32.... Quin 8.0 H om. : ...e w: H 8.2. E
v.0 mm: H 5.3 0.: mod H Sdm mudi 8.0 H no.2. ...oi mNN H 00.9.. om note Eaaom>
o 3.0 H mmNm a 5.0 H omNm u and H 2.15 o mod H 8.3 .3. corn. oNooE
.mu omEo>< .n omflo>< .a omEo>< 1.. omEo>< 8.; 239.3th .3 .3585. 9.3.5

 

 

 

 

 

222506. Ezoso t8 EEoEEoo o32o> _S:oE_..onxo
2.: no :ootanoo 2: .8 8.382 :ootwnEoo om.— oxocofi o5 new «03.: m5 .200 .35.: own—o5 on... an o3“...

 

0:.an .2926“. Eco—.0 ta...

 

 

78

The average values of the pH for the two groups of cherry powders were
very similar (Table 34). The exception was the drum dried powder which
contained a significantly higher (p<0.0001) average pH value than the pomace
dried at 50°C in the vacuum dryer. The titratable acidity results are shown in
Table 35. The two commercial freeze dried samples contained significantly the
highest (p<0.0001) values compared to the experimental powders. The drum
dried sample contained significantly the lowest (p<0.0001) values compared to

the other powders.

79

Table 34 The average pH values and the Fisher's LSD comparison results
for the comparison of the experimental versus commercial tart cherry
powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) Average pH
Freeze Dried 23* 3.61 :l: 0.03 a,b
Vacuum Dried 50 3.59 :I: 0.05 b
70 3.62 :I: 0.04 a,b
90 3.63 :1: 0.01 a,b
110 3.66 t 0.06 a,b
Cabinet Dried 50 3.61 1 0.04 8L0
70 3.65 1 0.03 a,b
90 3.61 10.07 aLb
110 3.63 :l: 0.03 a,b
Infrared Dried 50 3.60 i 0.03 a,b
70 3.62 t 0.05 a,b
90 3.63 :I: 0.01 a,b
110 3.64 d: 0.05 a,b

((1836332ng 3.68 1 0.02 a
$882121...
($313333) 3.60 10.01 a,b

 

 

 

 

* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient
temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

80

Table 35 The average titratable acidity values and the Fisher’s LSD

comparison results for the comparison of the experimental versus
commercial tart cherry powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample
Air Average Titratable
Drying Method Temperature Acidity (Percent Malic
(°C) Acid)
Freeze Dried 23. 5'00 1 003 die
Vacuum Dried 50 4.99 i 0.05 d,e
70 5.07 1 0.04 °
90 4.94 1 0.01 °"
110 4.87 1 0.06 9’"
Cabinet Dried 50 502 i 0.04 01d
70 4.94 1 0.03 °"
90 5.05 1 0.07 ‘3'“.
110 5.00 1 0.03 d'°
Infrared Dried 50 4.89 1 0.00 7:91"
70 4.94 1 0.05 ”'9
90 4.86 1 0.01 "-
110 4.91 1 0.05 “9’"
(VanDDrIrlrEeEhnlggrms) 4-63 i 0-01 i
(Var'i: lI'lgf‘iier-zefi)rll=:1drms) 8-46 i 0-11 a
(373355132331) 71510.03”

 

 

 

 

* The air temperature of the pro-chilled sample chamber came to

ambient temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the
experiment

81

The average water solubility values are shown in Table 36. The
drum dried and freeze dried samples from Van Drunen Farms contained
significantly the highest (p<0.0001) average water solubility values. The drum
dried sample contained a low water solubility values and it was statistically the

same as the sample dried at 70°C in the infrared dryer.

Table 36 The average water solubility values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results for the comparison of the experimental versus
commercial tart cherry powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) Averaggolizgcleltr: Water
Freeze Dried 23* 30.40 1 0.09 b
Vacuum 0”“ 50 28.23 1 0.81 °
70 28.60 1 0.44 d’“
90 30.53 1 0.39 b
110 31.44 10.19a
Cabinet Dried 50 26.19 1 0.27 9
70 29.30 1 0.31c
90 25.88 1 0.35 9
110 27.58 1 0.50f
'“f'a'ed Dried 50 27.55 1 0.327 '
70 23.47 1 0.32 h
90 30.57 1 0.29 b
110 29.19 1 0.30 °'d
(VanDlg‘rJunr‘iginlggrms) 44.18 1 0.94 b
(Varfrlgreliz:elr:i)rll=:drms) 66.25 i 2.01 a
(3137921322311) 25.49 1: 0.80 h

 

* The air temperature of the pre—chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures
within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

82

 

The average water absorption index values are shown in Table 37. The
freeze dried sample from Shoreline Fruit contained the significantly highest

(p<0.0001) water absorption index values while the freeze dried sample from Van

Drunen Farms contained the significantly lowest (p<0.0001) values.

Table 37 The average water absorption index values and the Fisher’s LSD

comparison results for the comparison of the experimental versus
commercial tart cherry powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample
Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) 71:33:31.3;
Freeze Dried 23. 4.6 :l: 0.11 d
Vawum Dried 50 4.2 1 0.05 °
70 4.1 1 0.05 9'"
90 3.8 1 0.08 °"
110 3.9 1 0.07 b
Cabinet Dried 50 4.8 1 0.09 DJ:
70 4.810.03‘"c
90 4.7 1 0.05 d
110 4.4 1 0.07 d
Infrared Dried 50 4.3 :l: 0.03 7.9
70 3.9 1 0.05 "9
90 3.9 1 0.07 9'"
110 3.7 1 0.04 °
(VanDDlrJunr‘ieeinlggrms) 3.73 1 0.12 h
(Varfrgfuzrfegrlgeagms) 1.73 i: 0.04 i
(87:13:12 2:110 5.49 1: 0.06 a

 

* The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures within
a few hours of the start time of the experiment

83

 

3.3.2 Total Antioxidants

The average total antioxidant values for the three commercially available

tart cherry powders are found in Figure 12. The average total antioxidant values

of the commercial cherry powders were compared to the tart cherry powders

produced in the laboratory experiments (Figure 13).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 3 600 I
1; 454 a 423 a
j o 500 ————-
I g I I
I 3 400 --------------------------------- I
S
0 A 275 b
an 300 I
El '° 1
)—
3 200
E
3 100 » -- -A I
o
g 0 L __ . _
Drun Dried (Van Drunen Freeze Dried (Van Freeze Dried (Shoreline
Farms) Drunen Farms) Fru't)
Tart Cherry Powder Samples

 

 

 

 

L_._.- _ -_ __.__.__._,___fi t.

Figure 12. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results for three commercially available tart cherry powders

84

 

 

Freeze Dried (Shoreline Fruit)
Freeze Dried (Van Drunen Farms)
Drum Dried (Van Drunen Farms)

Infrared Dried (110°C)

Infrared Dried (70°C)
Infrared Dried (50°C)
Cabinet Dried (110°C)
Cabinet Dried (90°C)
Cabinet Dried (70°C)
Cabinet Dried (50°C)
Vacuum Dried (110°C)
Vacuum Dried (90°C)
Vacuum Dried (70°C)
Vacuum Dried (50°C)
Freeze Dried (23°C)

Tart Cherry Powder Samples

 

Infrared Dried (90°C)

 

 

 

 
   
 
 

 
 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
ORAC (umol TE! 9 cherry powder db)

 

Figure 13. The average total antioxidant values of the commercial tart
cherry powders as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry

powders

85

 

Table 38. The average total antioxidant values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to
the experimentally produced tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Air Temperature (°C) Aveffi:r3%aégrg;;a9
Freeze 0'13“ 23* 477 1 238 3'”
Vacuum Dried 50 429 i 181 a,b,c
70 445 1 172 “'b
90 388 1152 a’b'c'd
110 358 1 111 a’b'°'d
Cabinet Dried 50 348 i 122 b,c,d
70 351 1 138 b’c'd
90 483 1 213 “’b
110 449 1 204 "b
Infrared Dried 50 391 i 195 “MW
70 415 1154 a’b'°
90 ‘ 425 1 137 3"”
110 307 1 72 °'d
VanDDrt'unr‘irginlggrms 275 :l: 12 d
Varfrgreuzneegrgjrms 454 i 41 a
8:325:12 2:311 423 1 76 3'”

 

 

 

 

 

" The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient temperatures within
a few hours of the start time of the experiment

The differences of the means of the total antioxidant values were analyzed
using the Fisher’s LSD test at a 5% significance level and found to be

significantly different (p=0.0015) Table 38. As shown in Table 38 the freeze dried

86

cherry powder from Van Drunen Farms and freeze dried cherry powder from the
laboratory experiments contained the highest total antioxidants values and were
not significantly different from each other. It was expected that the freeze dried
samples from Van Drunen Farms would contain the highest level of total
antioxidants, since this tart cherry powder is produced from the whole cherry fruit
and not just the pomace. The drum dried cherry powder from Van Drunen Farms
contained the lowest total antioxidants value; this is consistent with our
expectation that the higher drum-drying temperatures would cause greater
decrease in antioxidant values. However the freeze dried powders are not
significantly different from the vacuum dried powders, the cabinet dried powders
dried at 90°C and 110°C, or the infrared dried powders dried at 50°C, 70°C, or
90°C. Overall, the dried cherry pomace produced in this studied compared

favorably to the commercial powders, in terms of total antioxidant values.

3.3.3 Total Phenolics

The average total phenolic values for the three commercially available tart
cherry powders are found in Figure 14. The average total phenolic values of the
commercial cherry powders were compared to the tart cherry powders produced

in the laboratory experiments (Figure 15).

87

 

E 20.00 - -~ -
o a
5 18.00 - ................... - -15 ...... 1.719.
5: 16.00 ~ - - 15:45-- - I
< A 14.00 7 - -
‘3, g 12.00 - ~~~~~~~~ 868" - ——————————————————————————
E '5 10.00—»—-—»—-—---—-'———c ---------------- «
v I: 8 00 1 ______ —‘-L - - - ___________________
.§ 0 '
3 o. 6.00 — -------------- . ————————————————
5 4.00 ~ ———————————————————————————— « -
c
E 2.00 ~ — ————— - ~ — —I
g 0.00 . i
*- Drum Dried (Van Freeze Dried (Van Freeze Dried (Shoreline
Drunen Farms) Drunen Farms) Fruit)
I Temperature (°C)
L ___-_m._ ---m—m_____w___ ._ .___1 W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14. The total phenolic values of commercially available tart cherry

powders

88

 

Freeze Dried (Shoreline Fruit)
Freeze Dried (Van Drunen Farms)
Drum Dried (Van Dmnen Farms)
Infrared Dried (110°C)

Infrared Dried (90°C)

Infrared Dried (70°C)

Infrared Dried (50°C)

Cabinet Dried (110°C)

Cabinet Dried (90°C)

Cabinet Dried (70°C)

Cabinet Dried (50°C)

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

Vacuum Dried (110°C)

 

Vacuum Dried (90°C)
Vacuum Dried (70°C)
Vacuum Dried (50°C)

Freeze Dried (23°C)

 

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Total Phenollcs (mg GAE/g cherry powder db)

 

 

 

Figure 15 The average total phenolic values of the commercial tart cherry
powder as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry powder

89

Table 39. The average total phenolic values and the Fisher’s LSD
comparison results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to
the experimentally produced tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method Temgatu re (exgzggh‘gm'gmgig)
Freeze Dried 23* 28.02 1 0.29 a
Vacuum Dried 50 20.88 1 3.45 a,b,c
70 17.98 1 1.58 b'°""°
90 18.82 1 1.53 b’°""°
110 20.50 1 1.29 a'b'°’d
Cabinet Dried 50 20.55 :I: 0.43 a,b,c,d
70 20.93 1 0.55 3’”
90 20.28 1 1.12 a'b'°'d
110 18.49 1 1.82 b’°'d'°
Infrared Dried 50 17.83 i 079 b,c,d,e,f
70 17.47 1 1.18 d'”
90 16.58 1 0.84 °’f
110 15.92 1 0.39 °'f
VanDD‘r'Sr‘ieDnnlggrms 8-53 i 0.33 9
Varfrgfuzrfegrlgeaims 15-46 1: 0.17f
Sirgreezlieng 2:31 I 17.49 1 0.52 °""°"

 

 

 

 

 

" The air temperature of the pre-chilled sample chamber came to ambient
temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

The differences of the means of the total phenolics values were analyzed
using the Fisher’s LSD test at a 5% significance level and found to be

significantly different (p<0.0001) (Table 39). The freeze dried cherry powder

90

from the laboratory experiments contained the highest total phenolic values, 58%
higher than the commercial freeze-dried sample. The drum dried cherry powder
from Van Drunen Farms contained the lowest total phenolic value, similar to the
total antioxidants trend. However the freeze dried powders were not significantly
different from the samples dried at 70°C and 110°C in the vacuum dryer or the
samples dried at 50°C, 70°C and 90°C in the infrared dryer. Overall, the dried
cherry pomace produced in the present study compared very well to the

commercial samples in terms of total phenolics.

3.3.4 Total Anthocyanins

The average total anthocyanin values for the three commercially available tart
cherry powders are found in Figure 16. The average total anthocyanin values of
the commercial cherry powders were compared to the tart cherry powders
produced in the laboratory experiments (Figure 17). The differences of the
means of the total anthocyanin values were analyzed using the Fisher’s LSD test
at a 5% significance level and found to be significantly different (p=0.0015)

(Table 40).

91

I
I
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temperature (°C)

I *i - I
i 1‘3 a I
”a; 200.00 - ——~—1§?‘9—1—~—~- - I
E? I I
2 =- 150.00 ---------- '
g P I

o
> g '
3 0 100.00 ———————————————————— I
.: a
‘5 e .007
5. = 50.00 - ————————————————————————————————— _‘-——b-- --
g % 20.79 c ‘
I- I ' I

0 00 r 1

I Drum Dried (Van Freeze Dried (Van Freeze Dried (Shoreline

I Drunen Fame) Drunen Fame) Fruit)

I

I____. _ _.

I

 

 

 

Figure 16. The average total anthocyanin values for three commercially
available tart cherry powders

92

 

 

Freeze Dried (Shoreline Fruit)
Freeze Dried (Van Drunen Farms)
Drum Dried (Van Drunen Farms) ‘ ’ “

Infrared Dried (110°C)
Infrared Dried (90°C)
Infrared Dried (70°C)
Infrared Dried (50°C) 31...:

Cabinet Dried (110°C)
Cabinet Dried (90°C)
Cabinet Dried (70°C)
Cabinet Dried (50°C) 7.

Vacuum Dried (110°C) 7
Vacuum Dried (90°C)
Vacuum Dried (70°C)
Vacuum Dried (50°C)

Freeze Dried (23°C)

§§§$§$§§§§§
mb9e%\0,{t¢@,3>,§

Tart Cherry Powder Samples

 

 

Total Anthocyanins (mg cyn-3-glul100 g cheny powder db)

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. The average total anthocyanin values of the commercial tart
cherry powder as compared to the experimentally produced tart cherry
powder

93

Table 40. The average total anthocyanin values and the Fisher’s LSD

comparison results of the commercial tart cherry powder as compared to
the experimentally produced tart cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample
Drying Method A" T°'I':3‘I"a‘“'° 13;“322‘13‘134‘333323’
powder db)
Freeze Dried 23* 25.02 1 5.12 °
Vacuum Dried 50 13.60 :t 1.32 f,g,h
70 13.93 1 1.91 1,9
90 13.46 1 1.53 f'g'“
110 13.20 1 0.93 9"”
Cabinet Dried 50 14.86 1 0.74 e,f
70 15.73 1 1.69 °
90 14.21 1 2.55 ‘9
110 13.85 1 2.09 1,9
Infrared Dried 50 11.98 t 0.58 I.)
70 12.35 1 1.55 W
90 11.11 1 0.54j
110 10.00 1 0.86 "
VanDDnrJunr'igtnlt-égrms 20-79 1: 1.75 d
Var'i: 33:11:2erng 139-01 1 10.61 a
3:53:15 2:31 40.07 1 1.94 b

 

 

 

 

* The air temperature of the pro-Chilled sample Chamber came to ambient
temperatures within a few hours of the start time of the experiment

As shown in Table 40 the freeze dried Cherry powder from Van Drunen
Farms contained the highest total anthocyanin values and was significantly

different from all of the other tart Cherry powder samples. The total anthocyanins

94

in this sample were exceptionally high, almost eight times higher than that in our
freeze dried sample, and almost five times higher than that found in Shoreline
Fruit’s freeze dried sample. These results were expected since the starting
material of the freeze dried powder from Van Drunen Farms is whole Cherry fruit
and not just the Cherry pomace. The freeze dried sample from Shoreline Fruit
and the experimentally produced freeze dried sample contained the second and
third highest levels of total anthocyanins respectively. The cherry powder dried
at 110°C in the infrared dryer contained the lowest total anthocyanin value.
Overall, the total anthocyanins in the freeze-dried cherry pomace in the present
study was much lower than Van Drunen Farm’s (about 13% of Van Drunen
Farm’s freeze dried), and ~60% that of Shoreline Fruit’s freeze dried sample. The
other dried Cherry pomace samples in the present study also had lower levels of
anthocyanins than the commercial drum-dried sample, ranging from 15-50%

lower.

95

 

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Summary and Conclusions

The physical characteristics of the tart cherry powder are affected by the
type of drying method and the temperature at which the sample is dried. The pH
was the only characteristic that was not significantly different among the different
samples. Drying temperatures within the vacuum and cabinet drying methods
significantly affected the titratable acidity values. The different drying
temperatures used within the infrared drying method did not significantly affect
the titratable acidity values. The Hunter Color CIE variables were affected
differently by the drying methods and temperatures. The freeze dried samples
were significantly higher in L*, a*, and b*values compared to all of the other tart
cherry powder samples. Only the a* and b* variables contained interactions
between the type of drying method and temperature. Drying temperatures
affected the a* and b* values within the vacuum and infrared drying methods.
The water solubility and the water absorption index values were both affected by
the type of drying method and the temperature at which the samples were dried.

In the total antioxidant analysis of the tart cherry powders, the four
different methods of drying tested in these laboratory experiments (freeze drying,
vacuum drying, cabinet drying, and infrared drying) did not significantly affect the
levels found in the final product. The four temperature levels (50°C, 70°C, 90°C,
and 110°C) tested within each drying method also did not significantly affect the
total antioxidant levels of the tart Cherry powder. Upon the analysis of total
phenolics and total anthocyanins, similar trends were observed. The freeze dried

powder contained the highest levels of total phenolics and total anthocyanins.

96

The powder dried at 110 °C in the infrared dryer contained the lowest levels of
the total phenolics and total anthocyanins. Interaction effects between the type
of drying method and the temperature were observed when measuring the levels
of total phenolics and total anthocyanins. For each assay, no matter what
temperature was chosen, the drying method selected significantly affected the
levels of total phenolics and total anthocyanins. Temperature did affect the level
of total phenolics when the tart cherry pomace was dried using the vacuum dryer.
However the only drying method where the temperature affected the level of total
anthocyanins was the infrared dryer. In terms on nutraceutical retention the
vacuum dried (50 or 70°C) or cabinet dried (70°C) powders may be suitable
alternatives to freeze drying however drying pomace at these low temperatures is
impractical due to long processing times. Infrared drying is not a suitable
alternative to freeze drying in terms of nutraceutical retention yet the processing
time is considerably shorter and would appeal to manufacturers. Even though
harsh temperatures were used to dry the pomace in the infrared dryer, there still
were antioxidants that survived the process.

The levels of total antioxidants in the three commercially available tart
cherry powders were comparable to the tart Cherry powders produced
experimentally. The two commercial freeze dried powders were not significantly
different from some of the other powders that contained higher levels of total
antioxidants. The commercial drum dried powder were not significantly different
from some of the other powders that contained lower levels of total antioxidants.

The total phenolic values of the commercial tart cherry powders were somewhat

97

comparable to the Cherry powders produced experimentally. The two
commercial freeze dried powders were not significantly different than some of the
experimentally produced Cherry powders that contained lower levels of total
phenolics. However the drum dried sample contained significantly the lowest
level total phenolics. The total anthocyanin values of the commercially available
tart Cherry powders were not comparable to the tart Cherry powders produced
experimentally. The two commercial freeze dried samples had significantly
higher levels of total anthocyanins compared to all of the other samples. The
sample that contained the next significantly highest level of total anthocyanins
was the commercial drum dried powder. It is interesting to note that the freeze
dried sample from Van Drunen Farms processed from the whole Cherry fruit did
not contain significantly higher levels of total antioxidants or total phenolics than
the freeze dried sample from Shoreline Fruit which is manufactured from cherry
pomace. However the freeze dried sample from Van Drunen farms did contain
significantly higher levels of total anthocyanins as compared to the freeze dried

sample from Shoreline Fruit.

4.2 Future Research Recommendations

There are numerous studies that would complement the research
completed in Chapter 3. The following topics are recommended for future

research:

1. An analysis of the nutraceutical retention in infrared dried pomace using

more mild temperature conditions.

98

 

2. An analysis of additional drying methods such as fluidized bed drying.

3. A shelf life study of tart cherry powder manufactured from tart cherry
pomace that would explore the nutraceutical retention over time influence
by various packaging options as well as include a microbial and sensory
analysis.

4. Further tart Cherry powder analysis, which would include analysis of key

vitamins and minerals as well as the soluble and insoluble fiber.

 

99

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 RAW DATA FOR THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
TART CHERRY POMACE AND POWDER

Table A 1 Raw data for the percent moisture of the raw tart cherry pomace

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raw Pomace Percent Moisture Average Percent Moisture
Sample (wb) (wb)
Sample 1 79.13
Sample 2 77.60 78.43 :t 0.72
Sample 3 78.06
Sample 4 78.94 i-

 

 

 

 

Table A 2 Raw data for the pH values of the raw tart cherry pomace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raw Tart Cher
Pomace Sampg pH Average pH
Sample 1.1 3.42
1.2 3.40 3.41 i 0.01
1.3 3.41
Sample 2.1 3.41
2.2 3.41 3.41 :t 0.00
2.3 3.41

 

 

 

 

100

Table A 3. Raw data for the pH values of tart cherry powder

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

 

Air
Temperature
(°C)

Drying Method

pH

Average pH

 

Freeze Dried

3.60

 

3.59

 

3.65

3.61 :l: 0.03

 

Vacuum Dried 50

3.53

 

3.62

 

3.63

3.59 i 0.05

 

70

3.62

 

3.60

 

3.63

3.62 :I: 0.04

 

90

3.60

 

3.64

 

3.65

3.63 :l: 0.01

 

110

3.65

 

3.69

 

3.65

3.66 :I: 0.06

 

Cabinet Dried 50

3.59

 

3.62

 

3.62

3.61 :I: 0.04

 

70

3.64

 

3.67

 

3.63

3.65 :l: 0.03

 

90

3.58

 

3.60

 

3.65

3.61 :l: 0.07

 

110

3.64

 

3.61

 

3.65

3.63 :l: 0.03

 

Infrared Dried 50

3.57

 

3.62

 

3.61

3.6 :l: 0.03

 

70

3.60

 

3.61

 

3.64

3.62 :I: 0.05

 

90

3.60

 

3.65

 

3.65

3.63 :l: 0.01

 

110

 

 

 

3.66
3.61
3.65

 

3.64 :l: 0.05

 

 

101

Table A 4. Raw data for the pH values of commercially available tart cherry
powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample pH Average pH
Drum Dried 3.67
(Van Drunen Farms) 3.70 3.68 1: 0.02
3.66
Freeze Dried 3.62
(Van Drunen Farms) 3.60 3.61 :l: 0.01
3.62
Freeze Dried 3.60
(Shoreline Fruit) 3.59 3.6 :t 0.01
3.61

 

 

 

 

Table A 5 Raw data for the titratable acidity values of raw tart cherry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pomace
Titratable .
chew Accc ..I...
Pomace Sample (Percent Acid)
Malic Acid)
Sample 1 .1 1.25
1.2 1.21 1.24 t 0.03
1.3 1.27
Sample 2.1 1.26
2.2 1.24 1.24 1: 0.02
2.3 1.22

 

 

 

 

 

102

Table A 6 Raw data for the titratable acidity values of tart cherry powder

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

Air Average Titratable

. Titratable Acidity .
Drying Method Temperature . Acrdity (Percent
(°C) (Percent Malic Acid) M ali c Acid)

Freeze Dried 5.03
4.97 5.00 1 0.03
5.00
Vacuum Dried 50 4.99
5.04 4.99 t 0.05
4.95
70 5.12
5.05 5.07 i 0.04
5.06
90 4.95
4.93 4.94 t 0.01
4.95
110 4.80
4.90 4.87 :l: 0.06
4.91
Cabinet Dried 50 5.03
5.05 5.02 :t 0.04
4.97
70 4.94
4.91 4.94 :I: 0.03
4.98
90 5.12
5.05 5.05 :l: 0.07
4.98
110 4.98
5.03 5.00 :I: 4.89
4.99
Infrared Dried 50 4.89
4.89 4.89 :t 0.00
4.89
70 4.95
4.98 4.94 t 0.05
4.88
90 4.87
4.86 4.86 :I: 0.01
4.85
110 4.97
4.89 4.91 i 0.05
4.89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

 

Table A 7 Raw data for the titratable acidity of commercially available tart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cherry powders
Titratable
Acldi Avera e Titratable
Ta" cm” P°‘”d°' (Percetxt Acidity (gPercent Malic
samp'e Malic Acid)
Acid)
Drum Dried 4.67
(Van Drunen Farms) 4.66 4.68 1 0.01
4.69
Freeze Dried 8.34
(Van Drunen Farms) 8.56 8.46 1 0.11
8.48
Freeze Dried 7.23
(Shoreline Fruit) 7.10 7.15 1 0.03
7.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmdo wnNN and. ondm
3.0 H mmdd mwdm Ed H omNu K. _.N and H mud. mm. 3 med H omdm 3km corn.
mm. 5 vaN mew mvdm oNoocu.
oumwm>< «mu .3. ounco>< .h ..c onw..o>< 1m 1.. 09283. ...— ““4““...
2955
3.526..
.526 tap
Lotion. 33:0 :5 vote once...— o5 ho mo.n.a_._w> m5 .200 .95.: o5 .3.— flau 3am a < dim...
Ede v.29 mmdr mesa m4
rmd H mmdn 3. K . med H 5.: m0: med H no.3 9.9 end H mme mmdm m...
den «ms? made 3.5 2. oEEmm
oame>< 1m< .'.a. 39.34. en. «a coaco>< an 1.. oomco>< 1..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oomEon Ecoso t5 BE 05 ..o 8033...; m5 .630 .35.... 05 .3.— fiut 3am. w < aim...

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«fimm mud? 8.9 $9.
94 . . . . . . . t; .
Hdfimm mmmm vdedF 9 3.9 mmOva: mo: H85. 2. t.
omdm 9.3 mm. C mmdv 0:
5.3 8.2. and? dmdm
mm; . . . . . . . Fm; .
Hnmém nmvm dFdHNFmH 3dr VNOHdeF mvor Hmodv Noon
mddm 3.3 2.2 vmdv om
mmdm deF mm. 3 umdv
woe . . . . . . . w: .
Hmndm mdvm COHman $9 deHdm: ta: Homdv vmmv
Edm 3.2. «5.3 58v on
mddm no.9 3.9 8.5
mm; . . . . . . . mud .
H 3.3 nmvm 80H 5 cm 82. moOHmm 3 mm 3 Hoodv or ow
83 58 8d 2.9. om Ewflwm>
8..
mt ...— 60:85.
mam3>< .mu ..b ouE¢>< an ..m oaahc>< .a 3533‘ ...— mmfluohw 9.3.5
c_nEum
3250.“. 2.2.0 tn...

.8252. 3.2.0 :8 corn Eaaoa> m5 *0 333...; m5 3.00 .35.: 2.: .8 flat Sam 2. < 2th

 

 

 

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 3.2 and? 9.9...
mmd H ENm ovdm mmd H 3d? 8.3 Ed H om. : 2. 3 and H mwsw NNNV
modm 9.2. mm. C dodv 0:
omdm 3.9 mm. 2. mddv
ovd H mvdm Nrdm ovd H 222 8.2. Rd H om. : E. 3 3.0 H and... 9.3..
..Ndm and? 8.9 Nodv om
wmdm 8.2. do. E 00.9.
3: H 8.5 9.3 end H 9.? mad? mmd H 9.9 8.: mm; H oodv dmsv
vmdm 3.9 3.3 «v.3 on
3.3 «v.3 vw. ..F mndm
wad H ..mdm vodm «rd H mmdw modr mud H mm. C no. ..F dmN H dev modm no.5
29m 3...? 5.2. 5.3 on .9..an
.mu can..c>< «mu .3 oqu>< ..a ..u oun..o>< .3 fl. muflo>< H. 2.30.”; “0522
.95... Etc
03 Sum
3250.. 3.2.0 ta...

 

 

 

.8252. 3.2.0 :5 .923 3:33 2: no 335...: m5 3.00 .35.: a5 ..8 Sun 251 .. .. < 03¢...

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ovnn ...Ndm no.9 Bdn
one H ondn oodn ond H .82. 9.9 Nvd H nn.9 0N9 no.9 H nndv dev
9o.~n nodw vo. Z Kdv 9 F
omdn No.9 ond 3. 9n
mnd H mnnn 9.nn :d H 3.9 No.9 9d H nod no.9 nnd H on. n nodn
mnnn 3.9 and an oo
nvdn No.9 9.9 vodv
wnd H oodn vndn vvd H no.9 {.9 mod H No. 3 no.9 ood H 9.3 9.3
Nan 9.9 on. 9 3.3 on
Pvnn . n F .om S... 3 nndn
no.9 H nndn Foén nmd H omdm mvdw and H no.9 no.9 9N H no.9. mndv 00.5
9Nn mndm no.9 9.0.‘ on 00.9....
.0...
oommW>< .mu .0 00033. .0 .0 00033.. ..a M. oun3>< fl. mug—MW “an”.
0. Saw
3023... 3.2.0 .3...

 

 

 

3023.. 3.2.0 .3. 00.3 003...... 05 3 00.nu.3> m.0 3.00 33:... 05 ..8 8.3 Sam. 9 < 0.00...

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nn.nn 9.3 8.9 onén
9d nn.nn mud mn.9 nnd H nn.9 nv.9 nnd H nn. 9n nn. n 0.3“. 05.0.9.0.
H nnnn H no.3
53 no.3 no.9 2.9n 00.5 030.“.
nun... nn.o no. 5 n09.
H mva nvnv 3d H on.o n~.o mud H nn. K on. E Nnd H «on? nn.~v $8.0”. 00:20 c0>v
~02 8.0 8.2 8.... 025 28¢
Fnon no.n nndw Fonn
omé H noon nmdn wmd H 5nd mnd nnd H 3.8 nndm no.9 H moon v...vn $6.0“. 00:20 00>.
Fosn nod 9.0m onén 00.5 EEO
.m0 0.0800
0o03>< .m0 .6. 0o03>< .0 .0 0o0..0>< .0 .... 000.0>< fl. .. 0 03 on .5050 t0...

 

 

0.00300 E300 t8 3.0.2.330 3 00.00...0> m.0 3.00 33:: 05 .3. 200 30m 9 < 0.00...

109

Table A 14 Raw data for the water solubility values of tart cherry powder

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample

 

Drying Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

Percent Water
Solubility

Average Percent
Water Solubility

 

Freeze Dried

30.34

 

30.35

 

30.50

30.40 :l: 0.09

 

Vacuum Dried

50

27.53

 

28.65

 

28.50

28.23 :I: 0.61

 

70

28.22

 

29.08

 

28.50

28.60 :l: 0.44

 

90

30.88

 

30.11

 

30.60

30.50 i 0.39

 

110

31.28

 

31.65

 

31.40

31.441:0.19

 

Cabinet Dried

50

26.05

 

26.01

 

26.50

26.19 :l: 0.27

 

70

29.00

 

29.61

 

29.30

29.30 :l: 0.31

 

90

26.00

 

25.75

 

25.30

25.68 1: 0.35

 

110

27.97

 

27.00

 

27.70

27.56 :I: 0.50

 

Infrared Dried

 

50

27.16

 

27.61

 

27.90

27.55 :I: 0.37

 

70

23.82

 

23.20

 

23.40

23.47 1: 0.32

 

90

30.88

 

30.53

 

30.30

30.57 :I: 0.29

 

 

110

29.52

 

28.94

 

 

29.10

 

29.19 i 0.30

 

110

 

 

Table A 15 Raw data for the water solubility values of commercial tart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cherry powders
Tart Cherry Powder Percent Water Average Percent Water
Sample Solubility Solubility

Drum Dried 44.22
(Van Drunen Farms) 45.07 44.16 1: 0.94

43.1 8

Freeze Dried 68.54
(Van Drunen Farms) 65.41 66.25 :l: 2.01

64.78

Freeze Dried 26.09
(Shoreline Fruit) 25.79 25.49 :1: 0.80

24.59

 

 

 

 

111

 

 

Table A 16 Raw data for the water absorption index values of tart cherry
powders

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample
Air Tem rature Water Avera e Water

Drying Method (0:; Absorption Index Absorpgion lndex
Freeze Dried 4.47
4.69 4.59 :r: 0.11
4.60
Vacuum Dried 50 4.29
4.24 4.24 i 0.05
4.20
70 4.13
4.04 4.09 :l: 0.05
4.10
90 3.85
3.79 3.78 :t 0.08
3.70
110 3.96
3.87 3.94 :t: 0.07
4.00
Cabinet Dried 50 4.74
4.87 4.77 :t 0.09
4.70
70 4.67
4.63 4.63 t 0.03
4.60
90 4.69
4.67 4.65 i 0.05
4.60
110 4.33
4.43 4.35 :I: 0.07
4.30
Infrared Dried 50 4.25
4.26 4.27 :l: 0.03
4.30
70 3.81
3.90 3.87 1: 0.05
3.90
90 3.94
3.89 3.88 :i: 0.07
3.80
110 3.76
3.77 3.74 :l: 0.04
3.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

Table A 17 Raw data for the water absorption index values of the
commercial tart cherry powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tart Cherry Powder Sample Water fizxrptlon Agzggizmztdeex

Drum Dried 3.68

(Van Drunen Farms) 353 3.73 1 0.12
3.87
Freeze Dried 1.70

(Van Drunen Farms) 1.72 1.73 i 0.04
1.78
Freeze Dried 5.55

(Shoreline Fruit) 5.46 5-49 i 0-06
5.45

 

 

 

 

113

 

APPENDIX 2 RAW DATA FOR THE EFFECTS OF DRYING ON THE
ANTIOXIDANT LEVELS IN TART CHERRY POMACE

Table A 18 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the tart cherry
pomace

 

Average ORAC
ORAC (umol TEIg (umol TEIg
cherry pomace db) cherry pomace
db)

 

930 y
1237

1 1 56 Fr
1204 ..
584
882
889
662
878
733
770
482 771 :l: 21 7
554
738

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

429
516
728
663

 

 

 

 

785

 

773

 

674

 

610

 

 

 

 

853

 

114

 

Table A 19 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the freeze dried tart

cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample

 

Drying Method

ORAC (umol TEIg
cherry pomace db)

Average ORAC
(umol TEIg
cherry pomace
db)

 

Freeze Dried

 

845

 

1 069

 

631

 

746

 

223

 

293

 

403

 

238

 

312

 

390

 

298

 

412

 

514

 

353

 

436

 

 

475

 

477 :l: 236

 

 

 

115

 

Table A 20 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the vacuum dried
tart cherry powders

 

Drying
Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

ORAC (umol TEIg
cherry powder db)

Average ORAC (umol
TEIg cherry powder
db)

 

Vacuum Dried

 

50

420

 

510

 

646

 

654

 

227

 

236

 

310

429 :l: 181

 

70

446

 

573

 

341

 

563

 

495

 

535

 

690

 

227

 

267

 

315

4451152

 

90

425

 

438

 

268

 

165

 

413

 

498

 

496

 

649

 

196

 

236

 

265

368 i 152

 

 

 

110

316

 

403

 

565

 

589

 

324

 

333

 

324

 

353

 

294

 

335

 

312

 

167

 

371

 

505

 

 

 

439

 

3561111

 

116

 

Table A 20 (Continued) Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the
vacuum dried tart cherry powders

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drying Air Temperature ORAC (umol TEIg A1vEe’ragzgRAC $52?
Method (°C) cherry powder db) 9 d3 9°

41 5

21 2

238

264

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

 

Table A 21 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powder

 

Drying Air Temperature ORAC (umol TEIg Aggimgzeormc $52?
Method (°C) cherry powder db) 9 0' P°

db)
Cabinet Dried 50 369
477
555
501
185
224 348 :l: 122
243
337
263
292
377
70 353
520
631
414
183
21 1 351 :t 138
215
327
276
314
419
90 541
670
932
263
312
408 463 :l: 21 3
535
254
318
402
1 10 541
617
759
810
244
296 449 :t 204
325
453
257

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

Table A 21 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drying Air Temperature ORAC (umol TEIg $§§§§3¥§$fl$
Method ( C) cherry powder db) db)

283

360

 

119

Table A 22 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the infrared dried
tart cherry powder

 

Tart Cherry
Powder
Sample

 

Drying
Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

ORAC (umol TElg
cherry powder db)

Average ORAC (umol
TEIg cherry powder
db)

 

Infrared Dried

 

50

273

 

317

 

486

 

796

 

244

 

285

 

338

391 i 195

 

70

295

 

390

 

484

 

714

 

264

 

317

 

441

4151154

 

90

287

 

395

 

491

 

687

 

290

 

384

 

443

425 1137

 

 

110

253

 

351

 

362

 

341

 

212

 

264

 

252

 

240

 

292

 

360

 

 

455

 

307 :l: 72

 

120

 

Table A 23 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the tart cherry pomace

 

Total
Phenolics
(GAEIg cherry
pomace db)

Average Total
Phenolics
(GAE/g cherry
pomace db)

 

37.56
36.01
39.58
40.04
36.84
37.94
31.05
31.05
30.72
31.96
31.22
30.72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34.56 1: 3.75

 

 

Table A 24 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the freeze dried tart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cherry powder
Tart Cherry
Powder Sample
Total Average Total
Phenolics Phenolics
Drying MethOd (GAE/g cherry (GAE/g cherry
powder db) powder db)
Freeze Dried 2335
28.35
27.86
27.53 28.02 :t 0.29
28.06
27.88
28.10

 

 

121

“.1

aff-
filo"
..

 

_.,~

saw

 

Table A 25 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the vacuum dried tart
cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

 

Total Average Total
Phenolics Phenolics
(GAEIg cherry (GAE/g cherry
powder db) powder db)

Vacuum Dried 50 16.05
15.92
23.88
24.00 20.88 1: 3.45
21.60
22.45
22.27
70 15.40
16.66
19.85
19.67 17.89 :l: 1.58
17.75
18.28
18.24
90 17.17
17.13
17.52
18.98 18.82 :l: 1.53
20.19
20.41
20.34
110 20.96
20.69
22.86
22.59
20.10
19.84 20.50 :l: 1.29
20.60
20.51
19.15
19.31
18.88

Air
Drying Method Temperature
(°C)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

Table A 26 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the cabinet dried tart
cherry powders

 

Drying Method

Air
Temperature
(°C)

Total
Phenolics
(GAE/g cherry
powder db)

Average Total
Phenolics
(GAEIg cherry
powder db)

 

 

Cabinet Dried

50

20.99

 

21.04

 

20.17

 

20.24

 

20.33

20.55 :l: 0.43

 

70

21.63

 

20.95

 

20.05

 

20.10

 

21.93

20.93 1 0.55

 

90

21.22

 

21.27

 

19.40

 

19.22

20.28 :l:1.12

 

 

110

20.63

 

20.32

 

17.40

 

16.90

 

 

17.21

 

18.49 1: 1.82

 

123

 

 

 

Table A 27 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the infrared dried tart
cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

 

Air Total Average Total

. Phenolics Phenolics
Dryrng Method Tempfcriitum (GAE/g cherry (G AElg cherry

p powder db) powder db)
Infrared Dried 50 18.65
18.74
17.46 17.86 t 0.79
17.23
17.10
70 18.94
18.58
16.73 17.47i1.18
16.60
16.51
90 17.49
17.40
16.01 16.58 :t 0.84
15.61
16.37
110 16.23
16.45
15.60 15.92 :t 0.39
15.74
15.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

Table A 28 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of tart cherry pomace

 

Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu I1 009
cherry pomace dtfl

Average Total
Anthocyanins (mg
cyn-3-glu I100g
cherry pomace db)

 

24.73

 

24.54

 

25.52

 

27.28

 

27.09

 

28.46

 

21.39

 

18.64

 

20.80

 

23.35

 

21.58

 

22.56

 

 

23.83 :I: 2.97

 

 

Table A 29 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the freeze dried tart

cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry Powder
Sample

 

Drying Method

Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu I100g
cherry powder db)

Average Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu I100g cherry
powder db)

 

Freeze Dried

 

33.82

 

33.82

 

21.70

 

24.52

 

20.98

 

21.37

 

23.92

 

23.06

 

 

22.01

 

25.02 :I: 5.12

 

 

125

_. 7:13

.45..._ .J.

‘5‘” _

 

Table A 30 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the vacuum dried
tart cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

 

Drying Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu I1 009
cherry powder db)

Average Total
Anthocyanins (mg
cyn-3-glu I1 009
cherry powder db)

 

Vacuum Dried

 

50

14.76

 

14.47

 

14.18

 

14.37

 

13.79

 

12.53

 

11.09

13.60 11.32

 

70

16.11

 

16.40

 

13.14

 

15.12

 

12.79

 

12.21

 

11.73

13.93 :I: 1.91

 

90

15.70

 

14.84

 

12.79

 

12.81

 

11.57

 

12.14

 

14.40

13.46 :I: 1.53

 

 

110

14.68

 

14.49

 

11.94

 

13.83

 

13.19

 

12.84

 

11.72

 

13.38

 

12.62

 

13.48

 

 

13.01

 

13.20 :I: 0.93

 

126

 

 

Table A 31 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the cabinet dried
tart cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

 

Drying Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu [1009
cherry powder db)

Average Total
Anthocyanins (mg
cyn-3-glu I100g
chenypowder db)

 

Cabinet Dried

 

50

15.98

 

15.03

 

14.73

 

13.95

 

14.63

14.86 :I: 0.74

 

70

17.65

 

17.07

 

15.58

 

14.90

 

13.45

15.73 :I: 1.69

 

90

17.31

 

16.64

 

12.08

 

12.65

 

12.36

14.21 :I: 2.55

 

 

110

16.10

 

16.19

 

12.36

 

12.36

 

 

12.26

 

13.85 :I: 2.09

 

127

 

Table A 32 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the infrared dried
tart cherry powders

 

Tart Cherry
Powder Sample

 

Drying Method

Air Temperature
(°C)

Total Anthocyanins
(mg cyn-3-glu I100g
cherry powder db)

Average Total
Anthocyanins (mg
cyn-3-glu I100g
cheny powder db)

 

Infrared Dried

 

50

11.79

 

12.96

 

11.88

 

11.88

 

11.40

11.98 1 0.58

 

70

13.23

 

14.50

 

12.14

 

11.28

 

10.61

12.35 1 1.55

 

90

11.00

 

11.87

 

11.24

 

10.38

 

11.05

11.111054

 

 

110

9.86

 

11.13

 

9.07

 

10.60

 

 

9.36

 

10.001 0.86

 

128

 

 

 

APPENDIX 3 RAW DATA FOR THE NUTRACEUTICAL COMPOSITION OF
THE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TART CHERRY POWDERS

Table A 33 Raw data for the total antioxidant values of the commercial tart
cherry powders

 

Average ORAC
Tart Cherry Powder ORAC (umol TEIg (umol TEIg

Sample cherry powder db) cherry powder
db)

 

Drum Dried 270
(Van Drunen Farms) 260
291 275 1 12
264
279
284

Freeze Dried 403
(Van Drunen Farms) 403
499 454 1 41
481
473
462

Freeze Dried 388
(Shoreline Fruit) 414
531 423 1 76
361
345
498

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

 

Table A 34 Raw data for the total phenolic values of the commercial tart
cherry powders

 

Total Phenolics Average Total
Ta“ (’3ng rm" (GAE/g cherry Phenolics (GAE/g
" powder db) cherry powder db)

 

Drum Dried 8.43
(Van Drunen Farms) 8.35
8.35 8.86 1 0.33
9.10
8.94
8.88

Freeze Dried 15.44
(Van Drunen Farms) 15.57
15.70 15.46 1 0.17
15.30
15.52
15.25

Freeze Dried 17.85
(Shoreline Fruit) 17.90
18.09 17.49 1 0.52
17.12
16.78
17.22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

Table A 35 Raw data for the total anthocyanin values of the commercial tart
cherry powders

 

Average Total
Tart Cherry Powder (Kgéfijmofilyflgg; Anthocyanins (mg cyn-3-
Sample cherry powder db) glu [1009 canny powder

 

Drum Dried 20.31
(Van Drunen Farms) 23.23
22.30 20.79 1 1.75
18.58
19.38

20.97
Freeze Dried 168.21

(Van Drunen Farms) 196.07
193.49 189.01 1 10.61
188.89
196.52

1 90.90
Freeze Dried 40.39

(Shoreline Fruit) 39.85
38.51 40.07 1 1.94
43.72
39.43
38.49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

REFERENCES

Adil IH, Yener ME & Bayindirli A. 2008. Extraction of total phenolics of sour
cherry pomace by high pressure solvent and subcritical fluid and
determination of the antioxidant activities of the extracts. Separation
Science and Technology 43(5):1091-1110.

Afaq F, Syed DN, Malik A, Hadi N, Sarfaraz S, Kweon MH, Khan N, Abu Zaid M
& Mukhtar H. 2007. Delphinidin, an anthocyanidin in pigmented fruits and
vegetables, protects human HaCaT keratinocytes and mouse skin against
UVB-mediated oxidative stress and apoptosis. Journal of Investigative
Dermatology 127(1):222-232.

Alexander RW. 1995. Hypertension and the Pathogensis of a Atherosclerosis -
Oxidative Stress and the Mediation Of Arterial Inflammatory Response - A
New Perspective. Hypertension 25(2):155-161.

Anderson RA, Conway HF, Pfeifer VF & Griffin EL. 1969. Gelatinization Of Corn
Grits By Roll- and Extrusion-Cooking. Cereal Science Today 14(1):4-7.

AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official
Analytical Chemists International. 17th ed. Gaithersburg, USA.

Arai Y, Watanabe S, Kimira M, Shimoi K, Mochizuki R & Kinae N. 2000. Dietary
intakes of flavonols, flavones and isofiavones by Japanese women and
the inverse correlation between quercetin intake and plasma LDL
cholesterol concentration. Journal of Nutrition 130(9):2243-2250.

Baynes JW & Thorpe SR. 1999. Role of oxidative stress in diabetic complications
- A new perspective on an old paradigm. Diabetes 48(1):1-9.

Belitz HD & Grosch W. 2004. Lipids. In: Belitz, H. D., Grosch, W. & Schieberle,
P., editors. Food Chemistry. Birkhauser: Springer. p. 157 - 244.

Berrnudez-Aguirre D, Tapia MS & WeIti-Chanes J. 2008. Specialty Foods. In: Hui,
Y. H., Clary, C., Farid, M. M., Fasina, O. O., Noomhorm, A. & Welti-
Chanes, J., editors. Food Drying Science and Technology: Microbiology,
Chemistry, and Applications. Lancaster: DEStech Publications, Inc. p. 447
- 461.

Blau LW. 1950. Cherry Diet Control Group for Gout and Arthritis. Texas Reports
on Biology and Medicine 8(3):309-311.

Bobe G, Wang B, Seeram NP, Nair MG & Bourquin LD. 2006. Dietary
anthocyanin-rich tart cherry extract inhibits intestinal tumorigenesis in

132

APC(Min) mice fed suboptimal levels of sulindac. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 54(25):9322-9328.

Boriss H, Brunke H & Kreith M. 2009. Cherry Profile. Agricultural Marketing
Resouce Center.

Bravo L. 1998. Polyphenols: Chemistry, dietary sources, metabolism, and
nutritional significance. Nutrition Reviews 56(11):317-333.

Bravo L & Mateos R. 2008. Analysis of Flavonoids in Functional Foods. In: Hurst,
W. J., editor). Methods of Analysis for Functional Foods and
Nutraceuticals. 2 ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 147 - 206.

Brennan JG. 2006. Evaporation and Dehydration. In: Brennan, J. G., editor).
Food Processing Handbook. Weinheim: VVIIey-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
KGaA. p. 71 - 124.

Brennan JG, Butters JR, Cowell ND & Lilly AEV. 1990. Food Engineering
Operations. 3rd ed. London: Elsevier. p. 443.

Cao GH, Alessio HM & Cutler RG. 1993. Oxygen-Radical Absorbency Capacity
Assay for Antioxidants. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 14(3):303—31 1.

Cenkowski S, Arntfield SD & Scanlon MG. 2008. Far Infrared Dehydration and
Processing. In: Hui, Y. H., Clary, C., Farid, M. M., Fasina, O. O.,
Noomhorm, A. & Welti-Chanes, J., editors. Food Drying Science and
Technology: Microbiology, Chemistry, and Applications. Lancaster:
DEStech Publications, Inc. p. 157 - 201.

Chaovanalikit A 8. Wrolstad RE. 2004. Total Anthocyanins and Total Phenolics of
Fresh and Processed Cherries and Their Antioxidant Properties. Journal
of Food Science 69(1):FCT67-FCT72.

Chen PN, Chu SC, Chiou HL, Chiang CL, Yang SF & Hsieh YS. 2005. Cyanidin
3-qucoside and peonidin 3-glucoside inhibit tumor cell growth and induce
apoptosis in vitro and suppress tumor growth in vivo. Nutrition and
Cancer-an International Journal 53(2):232-243.

Communication, Personal. 2009. The Cherry Marketing Institute. Lansing, MI.

Dai J, Patel JD & Mumper RJ. 2007. Characterization of blackberry extract and
its antiproliferative and anti-inflammatory properties. Journal of Medicinal
Food 10(2):258-265.

Feldman EB. 2001. Fruits and vegetables and the risk of stroke. Nutrition
Reviews 59(1):24-27.

F Iosdorf EW. 1949. Freeze-Drying. New York: Reinhold.

133

Folin O & Ciocalteu V. 1927. On tyrosine and tryptophane determinations in
proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 73(2):627-650.

Francis FJ. 1989. Food Colorants - Anthocyanins. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition 28(4):273-314.

Fuleki T & Francis FJ. 1968. Quantitative Methods For Anthocyanins -
Determination of Total Anthocyanin And Degradation Index for Cranberry
Juice. Journal of Food Science 33(1):78-&.

Ghiselli A, Serafini M, Maiani G, Azzini E & Ferroluzzi A. 1995. A Fluorescense-
Based Method for Measuring Total Plasma Antioxidant Capacity. Free
Radical Biology and Medicine 18(1):29-36.

Ginzburg AS. 1969. Application of Infra-red Radiation in Food Processing.
London: Morgan-Grampian Books Ltd.

Giusti MM & Wrolstad RE. 2005. Characterization and Measurement of
Anthocyanins by UV-Visible Spectroscopy. In: Wrolstad, R. E., Acree, T.
E., Decker, E. A., Penner, M. H., Reid, D. S., Schwartz, S. J., Shoemaker,
C. F., Smith, D. & Sporns, P., editors. Handbook of Food Analytical
Chemistry. Hoboken: John VWey and Sons Inc. p. 19 - 31.

Glazer AN. 1990. Phycoerythrin Fluorescense-Based Assay for Reactive Oxygen
Species. Methods in Enzymology 186:161-168.

Gropper SS, Smith JL & Groff JL. 2005. The Antioxidant Nutrients, Reactive
Species, and Disease. In: Gropper, S. S., Smith, J. L. 8. Groff, J. L.,
editors. Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth. p. 368 - 377.

Halliwell B & Gutteridge JMC. 2007. Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine,4th
ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Hasatani M, Itaya Y & Miura K. 1988. Hybrid Drying of Granular-Materials by
Combined Radiative and Convective Heating. Drying Technology 6(1):43-
68.

l-Iertog MGL. 1995. Flavonoid Intake and Long-term Risk of Coronary Heart
Disease and Cancer In The 7 Countries Study. Archives of Internal
Medicine 155(11):1184-1184.

I-Ioldsworth SD. 1986. Advances in teh dehydration of fruits and vegetables. In:
MacCarthy, D., editor). Concentration and Drying of Foods. London:
Elsevier Applied Science. p. 293 - 303.

Huang DJ, Ou BX & Prior RL. 2005. The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity
assays. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53(6):1841-1856.

134

Jacob RA, Spinozzi GM, Simon VA, Kelley DS, Prior RL, Hess-Pierce B & Kader
AA. 2003. Consumption of cherries lowers plasma urate in healthy women.
Journal of Nutrition 133(6): 1 826-1 829.

Jasin HE. 1993. Oxidative modification of inflammatory synovial fluid IgG.
Inflammation 17:167-181.

Jayaranman KS & Das Gupta DK. 1992. Dehydration of fruits and vegetables:
Recent developments in principles and techniques. Drying Technology
10(1):1 - 50.

Ju ZY & Howard LR. 2003. Effects of Solvent and Temperature on Pressurized
Liquid Extraction of Anthocyanins and Total Phenolics from Dried Red
Grape Skin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51(18):5207-5213.

Kamei H, Kojima T, Hasegawa M, Koide T, Umeda T, Yukawa T & Terabe K.
1995. Suppression Of Tumor Cell Growth By Anthocyanins ln-Vitro.
Cancer Investigation 13(6):590—594.

Kang S-Y, Seeram NP, Nair MG & Bourquin LD. 2003. Tart cherry anthocyanins
inhibit tumor development in ApcMin mice and reduce proliferation of
human colon cancer cells. Cancer Letters 194(1):13-19.

Katsube N, Iwashita K, Tsushida T, Yamaki K & Kobori M. 2003. Induction of
apoptosis in cancer cells by bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) and the
anthocyanins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51(1):68-75.

King CJ. 1971. Freeze-Drying of Foods. Cleveland: CRC Press.

Lai KP. 2003. Modeling thermal and mechanical degradation of anthocyanins in
extrusion processing. Dept. of Agricultural Engineering. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.

Laplaud PM, Lelubre A 8. Chapman MJ. 1997. Antioxidant action of Vaccinium
myrtillus extract on human low density lipoproteins in vitro: Initial
observations. Fundamental 8. Clinical Pharmacology 11(1):35-40.

Lee J, Durst RW & Wrolstad RE. 2005. Determination of total monomeric
anthocyanin pigment content of fruit juices, beverages, natural colorants,
and wines by the pH differential method: collaborative study. Journal of
AOAC International 88(5):88 (85) 1269-1278.

Lee J, Rennaker C & Wrolstad RE. 2008. Correlation of two anthocyanin
quantification methods: HPLC and spectrophotometric methods. Food
Chemistry 1 10(3):782-786.

Leifert WR & Abeywardena MY. 2008. Cardioprotective actions of grape
polyphenols. Nutrition Research 28(11):729-737.

135

Liapis AI & Bruttini AS. 1995. Freeze Drying. In: Mujumdar, A. S., editor).
Handbook of Industrial Drying. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker. p. 309 -
344.

Liu LK, Lee HJ, Shih YW, Cuiyau CC & Wang CJ. 2008. Mulberry anthocyanin
extracts inhibit LDL oxidation and macrophage-derived foam cell formation
induced by oxidative LDL. Journal of Food Science 73(6):H113-H121.

Luh BS, Kean CE & Woodroof JG. 1986. Canning of Fruits. In: Woodroof, J. G. &
Luh, B. S., editors. Commercial Fruit Processing. 2nd ed. Westport: The
AVI Publishing Company, Inc. p. 204.

Mahmoud NN, Carothers AM, Grunberger D, Bilinski RT, Churchill MR, Martucci
C, Newmark HL & Bertagnolli MM. 2000. Plant phenolics decrease
intestinal tumors in an animal model of familial adenomatous polyposis.
Carcinogenesis 21 (5):921-927.

Makris DP, Boskou G & Andrikopoulos NK. 2007. Polyphenolic content and in _
vitro antioxidant characteristics of wine industry and other agri-food solid
waste extracts. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 20(2):125-132.

Mamett LJ & DuBois RN. 2002. COX-2: A target for colon cancer prevention.
Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 42:55-80.

Mazza G & Miniati E. 1993. Anthocyanins in Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

McDougall NR & Beames RM. 1994. Composition Of Raspberry Pomace and Its
Nutritive-Value For Monogastric Animals. Animal Feed Science and
Technology 45(2):139-148.

Meyers KJ, Watkins CB, Pritts MP & Liu RH. 2003. Antioxidant and
antiproliferative activities of strawberries. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 51 (23):6887-6892.

Mishra DK, Dolan KD & Yang L. 2008. Confidence intervals for modeling
anthocyanin retention in grape pomace during nonisothennal heating.
Journal of Food Science 73(1):E9-E15.

Moreira GEG, Maia Costa MG, Souza ACRd, Brito ESd, Medeiros MdFDd &
Azeredo HMCd. 2009. Physical properties of spray dried acerola pomace
extract as affected by temperature and drying aids. LVVT - Food Science
and Technology 42(2):641-645.

Mulabagal V, Lang GA, Dewitt DL, Dalavoy SS & Nair MG. 2009. Anthocyanin
Content, Lipid Peroxidation and Cyclooxygenase Enzyme Inhibitory
Activities of Sweet and Sour Cherries. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 57(4):1239-1246.

136

Nawar WW. 1996. Lipids. In: Fennema, O. R., editor). Food Chemistry. 3rd ed.
New York: Marcel Dekker. p. 225 - 319.

Nawirska A & Kwasniewska M. 2005. Dietary fibre fractions from fruit and
vegetable processing waste. Food Chemistry 91(2):221-225.

Noomhorm A & Ahmad I. 2008. Vacuum Drying. In: Hui, Y. H., Clary, C., Farid, M.
M., Fasina, O. O., Noomhorm, A. 8. Welti-Chanes, J., editors. Food Drying
Science and Technology: Microbiology, Chemistry, and Applications.
Lancaster: DEStech Publications, Inc. p. 203 - 213.

Nowak D & Lewicki PP. 2004. Infrared drying of apple slices. Innovative Food
Science & Emerging Technologies 5(3):353—360.

Ou B, Hampsch-Woodill M, Flanagan J, Deemer EK, Prior RL & Huang DJ. 2002.
Novel fluorometric assay for hydroxyl radical prevention capacity using
fluorescein as the probe. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
50(10):2772-2777.

Pollack S & Perez A. 2002. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. USDA Economic
Research Service.

Prior RL, Wu X & Schaich K. 2005. Standardized Methods for the Determination
of Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolics in Foods and Dietary Supplements.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 53(10):4290-4302.

Ramaswamy HS. 2005. Thermal Processing of Fruits. In: Barrett, D. M., Somogyi,
L. & Ramaswamy, H., editors. Processing Fruits: Science and Techology.
2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 173 - 200.

Renis M, Calandra L, Scifo C, Tomasello B, Cardile V, Vanella L, Bei R & Fauci
LL, Galvano, F. 2007. Response of cell cycle/stress-related protein
expression and DNA damage upon treatment of CaCoZ cells with
anthocyanins. British Journal of Nutrition 100(1):27 - 35.

Rodriguez-Saona LE & Wrolstad RE. 2005. Extraction, Isolation, and Purification
of Anthocyanins. In: Wrolstad, R. E., Acree, T. E., Decker, E. A., Penner,
M. H., Reid, D. S., Schwartz, 8. J., Shoemaker, C. F., Smith, D. & Spoms,
P., editors. Handbook of Food Analytical Chemistry. Hoboken: John Wiley
and Sons Inc. p. 7-18.

Rodtjer A, Skibsted LH & Andersen ML. 2006. Antioxidative and prooxidative
effects of extracts made from cherry liqueur pomace. Food Chemistry
99(1):6-14.

Sakai N & Hanzawa T. 1994. Applications and Advances In Far-Infrared Heating
in Japan. Trends in Food Science & Technology 5(11):357-362.

137

Schieber A, Stintzing FC & Carle R. 2001. By-products of plant food processing
as a source of functional compounds - recent developments. Trends in
Food Science & Technology 12(11):401-413.

Seeram NP, Momin RA, Nair MG & Bourquin LD. 2001. Cyclooxygenase
inhibitory and antioxidant cyanidin glycosides in cherries and berries.
Phytomedicine 8(5):362-369.

Shahidi F & Naczk M. 2004. Phenolics in Food and Nutraceuticals. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.

Singletary KW, Jung KJ & Giusti M. 2007. Anthocyanin-rich grape extract blocks
breast cell DNA damage. Journal of Medicinal Food 10(2):244-251.

Singleton VL, Orthofer R & LamueIa-Raventos RM. 1999. Analysis of total
phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of
Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Oxidants and Antioxidants, Pt A 299:152-178.

Singleton VL & Rossi JA. 1965. Calorimetry of total phenolics with
phosphomolybdicphosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 16(3):144-158.

Sondheimer E & Kertesz ZI. 1948. The Anthocyanin of Strawberries. Journal of
the American Chemical Society 70(10):3476 - 3479.

Sriram G, Surendranath C & Sureshkumar GK. 1999. Kinetics of anthocyanin
extraction from fresh and dried grape waste. Separation Science and
Technology 34(4):683-697.

Subamas A & Wagner H. 2000. Analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity of the
proanthocyanidin shellegueain A from Polypodium feei METT.
Phytomedicine 7(5):401-405.

Sztabert ZT & Kudra T. 1995. Cost Estimation Method for Drying. In: Mujumdar,
A. S., editor). Handbook of Industrial Drying. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel
Dekker. p. 1227 - 1240.

Timberlake CF & Bridle P. 1975. The anthocyanins. In: Harbome, J. B., Mabry, T.
J. & Mabry, H., editors. The Flavonoids. London: Chapman and Hall. p.
214.

USDA NASC. 2009. Noncitris Fruits and Nuts 2008 Preliminary Summary. Tart
Cherries: Bearing Acreage, Yield, Production, and Utilization by State and
United States, 2006-2008.

USDA NASS, Statistics by State. 2007. Michigan Fruit Inventory 2006-2007:
Cherries, tart.

138

Van Sumere CF. 1989. Phenols and phenolic acids. In: Harbome, J. B., editor).
Plant Biochemistry. London: Academic Press. p. 29 - 74.

Vattem DA & Shetty K. 2003. Ellagic acid production and phenolic antioxidant
activity in cranberry pomace (Vaccinium macrocarpon) mediated by
Lentinus edodes using a solid-state system. Process Biochemistry
39(3):367-379.

Visioli F, Borsani L & Galli C. 2000. Diet and prevention of coronary heart
disease: the potential role of phytochemicals. Cardiovascular Research
47(3):419-425.

Wang H, Nair MG, Strasburg GM, Booren AM 8. Gray Jl. 1999a. Antioxidant
Polyphenols from Tart Cherries (Prunus cerasus). J. Agric. Food Chem.
47(3):840-844.

Wang H, Nair MG, Strasburg GM, Chang YC, Booren AM, Gray JI & DeWItt DL.
1999b. Antioxidant and antiinflammatory activities of anthocyanins and
their aglycon, cyanidin, from tart cherries. J Nat Prod 62(2):294-296.

Waterhouse AL. 2005. Determination of Total Phenolics. In: Wrolstad, R. E.,
Acree, T. E., Decker, E. A., Penner, M. H., Reid, D. S., Schwartz, S. J.,
Shoemaker, C. F., Smith, D. & Spoms, P., editors. Handbook of Food
Analytical Chemistry. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc. p. 463 - 470.

Williams-Gardner A. 1971. Industrial Drying. Cleveland: CRC Press.

Woroboo RW & Splittstoesser DF. 2005. Microbiology of Fruit Products. In:
Barrett, D. M., Somogyi, L. & Ramaswamy, H., editors. Processing Fruits:
Science and Technology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 261 - 284.

Wrolstad RE. 2000. Colorants. In: Christen, G. L., editor). Food Chemistry:
Principles and Applications. West Sacramento: Science Technology
System. p. 215 - 239.

Wrolstad RE, Durst RW & Lee J. 2005. Tracking color and pigment changes in
anthocyanin products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 16(9):423-
428.

Zhao Y. 2007. Berry Fruit: Value-Added Products for Health Promotion. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.

Zulueta A, Esteve MJ & FrIgoIa A. 2009. ORAC and TEAC assays comparison to

measure the antioxidant capacity of food products. Food Chemistry
114(1):310-316.

139

 

   

M11111111111111111111IIIIIIII“

3062 6323