Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Phytochemical and antioxidant properties of selected fig (Ficus carica L.)

accessions from the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey
Oguzhan Çalişkan ∗ , A. Aytekin Polat
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mustafa Kemal, Antakya 31040, Hatay, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fig has been a typical fruit component of the health-promoting Mediterranean diet for a very long time.
Received 8 January 2011 Phytochemical characters and antioxidant capacity of green-, yellow-, brown-, purple-, and black-fruited
Accepted 25 February 2011 fig (Ficus carica L.) accessions were investigated. In this study, total phenolics (TP), total anthocyanins (TA),
fructose (FRUC), glucose (GLUC), sucrose (SUC), and variables (such as L*, a*, C*, and hue◦ ) describing fruit
Keywords: skin colors were examined. Also, the antioxidant capacity (TAC) of fig fruits was determined by the
Ficus carica
ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay. Antioxidant capacity was significantly correlated with
Fig
the polyphenol and anthocyanin (r = 0.74 and 0.63, respectively) contents of fruits. Black fig accessions
Phytochemical characters
Antioxidant capacity
had the highest TAC (range of 7.9–16.1, mean 12.4 Fe2+ mmol/kg FW), TA (range of 32.3–356.0, mean
Sugars 128.4 ␮g cy-3-rutinoside/g FW), and TP content (range of 69.1–220.0, mean 118.9 mg GAE/100 g FW).
Fruit skin color These black-fruited accessions had 2-fold greater TAC, 15-fold greater TA, and 2.5-fold greater TP than
green and yellow fig accessions. However, the FRUC, GLUC, and SUC content of brown and purple fig
accessions were higher than those of other color groups. The predominant sugars present were fructose
(∼56%) and glucose (∼43%), as determined by HPLC.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ficus carica, a deciduous tree belonging to the Moraceae family,
is one of the earliest cultivated fruit trees and an important crop
world wide for both dry and fresh consumption. Seventy percent
of the world’s fig production of is grown in the countries of the
Mediterranean coast. In these countries, figs are an important con-
stituent of the Mediterranean diet, which is considered to be one of
the healthiest and is associated with longevity (Trichopoulou et al.,
2006).
Antioxidant compounds, such as phenolics, organic acids, vita-
min E, and carotenoids scavenge free radicals, thus inhibiting the
oxidative mechanisms that may lead to degenerative illnesses
(du Toit et al., 2001; Silva et al., 2004). Phenolic compounds are
common plant secondary metabolites which have not only phys-
iological functions in plants but also positive effects for human
health, because they can act as antioxidants. Phenolic compounds
may serve this purpose by reducing or donating hydrogen to
other compounds, scavenging free radicals, and quenching sin-
glet oxygen (Merken and Beecher, 2000; Fattouch et al., 2007;
Costa et al., 2009). Phenolic compounds are important compo-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 326 2455845x1049; fax: +90 326 2455832.
E-mail addresses: caliskanoguzhan@gmail.com, ocaliskan@mku.edu.tr
(O. Çalişkan).
nents of the color, flavor, and aroma of fresh fruits, vegetables,
and their products. Phenolic compounds may also, in addition to
antioxidative roles, have antimutagenic or anticarcinogenic, anti-
inflammatory, or antimicrobial activities (Eberhardt et al., 2000;
Kim et al., 2000).
A major benefit of the Mediterranean diet is its high level of
natural antioxidants, derived from vegetables and fruits, including
figs, which contribute antioxidant vitamins (Solomon et al., 2006)
and some of the highest polyphenols levels of commonly available
fruits (Vinson, 1999) to the diet. Solomon et al. (2006) showed that
the higher the polyphenol content, particularly anthocyanins, in fig
fruit, the higher their antioxidant activity. Antioxidants from figs
can protect plasma lipoproteins from oxidation and significantly
elevate plasma antioxidant capacity for 4 h after consumption
(Vinson et al., 2005). Figs are rich in minerals and also sugars
(Vinson, 1999), predominantly fructose and glucose (Melgarejo
et al., 2003; Genna et al., 2008).
Several phenolic and flavonoid compounds (Teixeira et al., 2006;
Vaya and Mahmood, 2006; Del Caro and Piga, 2008; Veberic et al.,
2008), in addition to polysaccharides (Yang et al., 2009) antho-
cyanins, phytosterols, and fatty acids have been characterized in
fig fruits and branches of fig trees (Jeong and Lachance, 2001). Sug-
ars and mineral salts have been characterized in fruits (Yahata and
Nogata, 1999; Aljane et al., 2007). Antioxidant activity and antho-
cyanin content of leaf, pulp and peels (Solomon et al., 2006), and
the metabolic profile of figs (Konyalıoğlu et al., 2005; Oliveira et al.,

0304-4238/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2011.02.023
474 O. Çalişkan, A. Aytekin Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478
2009) have been analyzed. However, phytochemical characters
such as total phenols, total anthocyanins, total antioxidant capac-
ity, and specific sugars have not been compared among numerous
fig accessions.
This study was designed to characterize some of the phy-
tochemical qualities of 76 selected fig accessions from the
eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. We determined the total
anthocyanins, total phenolics, total antioxidant capacity, sugar
composition, and color profile of these fig accessions. These descrip-
tive data could be useful for the development of health-promoting
fig cultivars.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant material and fruit extraction
This study was conducted using 76 local Mediterranean fig
accessions. Fruit samples from these accessions were collected dur-
ing 2008 and 2009 in Hatay province, which is located in the eastern
Mediterranean region of Turkey. The accessions ‘Bardak’and ‘Dolap’
are White San Pedro-type figs, and the other accessions are Smyrna-
type, or Common figs. Fruits were harvested at their fully mature
stage in three replicates of 500 g in each.
For the phytochemical analyses, harvested fruit samples were
frozen and stored at −20 ◦ C until analyzed. Triplicate 500 g lots
of fig fruits from each cultivar were homogenized in a blender
at room temperature. All triplicates were screened for their total
anthocyanins, total phenolic contents, and antioxidant capacity fol-
lowing a single extraction procedure (Beccaro et al., 2006). For
this procedure, 10 g aliquots of each homogenate were transferred
to polypropylene tubes and extracted with 25 mL of extraction
buffer containing methanol, deionized water, and hydrochloric acid
(357:17:1.4, v/v/v) for 1 h at room temperature.
2.2. Total phenolics (TP)
Total phenolic (TP) contents of each sample were measured
according to Slinkard and Singleton (1977). To determine TP, 0.5 g
of each extract was combined with Folin-Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent
and water 1:12 (v/v) and incubated for eight minutes at room tem-
perature, followed by the addition of 10 mL of 15% (w/v) sodium
carbonate. After 2 h, the absorbance of each was measured at
750 nm using a spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1208, Japan).
Values of TP were estimated by comparing the absorbance of each
sample with a standard response curve generated using gallic acid.
Results are expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) on a fresh
weight (FW) basis (mg GAE/100 g FW).
2.3. Total antioxidant capacity (TAC)
To determine total antioxidant capacity (TAC), FRAP, the fer-
ric reducing antioxidant power method, was conducted according
to Pellegrini et al. (2003). To conduct the assay, a 9 mL aliquot of
FRAP reagent (a mixture of 25 mL acetate buffer, 2.5 mL TPTZ [2,4,6-
tris(2-pyridyl)-1,3,5-triazine], and 2 mL ferric chloride (10:1:1.25,
v/v/v)) was combined with 9 mL of methanolic fruit extract pre-
pared by the protocol above. The samples were incubated at
37 ◦ C for 30 min, and absorbance at 593 nm was determined on
a spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-1208, Japan). To determine
the antioxidant capacity of samples, absorbance values were com-
pared with those obtained from standard curves of FeSO4 × 7H2 O
(10–100 ␮M). Antioxidant capacity values were expressed as Fe2+
equivalents mmol/kg fruit weight (FW).
2.4. Total anthocyanins (TA)
Total anthocyanin (TA) content was quantified according to the
pH differential method (Cheng and Bren, 1991). Absorbance was
measured at 520 and 700 nm in buffers at pH 1.0 and pH 4.5 where
A = (A520 –A700 )pH 1.0 − (A520 –A700 )pH 4.5 Results were expressed as
␮g cyanidin-3-rutinoside (molar extinction coefficient of 28.800
and molecular weight of 595.2) (Solomon et al., 2006) equivalents
per g fresh weight of fruit.
2.5. Sugar composition
Fig fruit homogenates (10 g) were diluted with purified water
(40 mL) to prepare solution for detection of individual sugars. The
homogenate was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min. Super-
natants were filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper.
Aliquots of two milliliters of filtered homogenate per tube were
then combined with 6 ml of acetonitrile. These solutions were then
filtered through 0.45 mm membrane filters (Millipore, USA) prior to
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Mobile-
phase solvents were degassed before use. All the samples and
standards were injected three times each, and the mean values for
all chromatography runs were used. The HPLC analyses were con-
ducted using a Shimadzu HPLC system, with an LC-10AT pump and
RID-10 A detector (Shimadzu, Japan).
Analysis of sugars was performed according to the method
described by Camara et al. (1996) with some modifications. The sep-
aration was carried out on an EC 250/4 Nucleosil C18 carbohydrate
column (250 mm–4.0 mm i.d.) (Macherey–Nagel, USA). The elution
solvent used contained 75% acetonitrile and 25% deionized water.
The column was operated at 30 ◦ C with a flow rate of 1.8 mL min−1 .
Sample injection volume was 20 ␮L.
2.6. Fruit skin color
Fruit skin color was measured using a colorimeter (Chroma
Meter CR-300, Minolta Co., Osaka, Japan), standardized with cal-
ibration plate set CR-A47 against a white background. Color
parameters were expressed as tristimulus colorimetric measure-
ments, that is, L*, a*, C*, and hue◦ . Negative L values indicate
darkness, and positive L* values indicate lightness. Negative a* val-
ues indicate green color, and positive a* values indicate red color.
The chroma (C*) value, calculated as C = (a2 + b2 )1/2 , indicates color
intensity. Hue◦ , a parameter that has been shown to be effective
in predicting visual color appearance, was calculated using the for-
mula hue◦ = tan−1 (b/a), where 0◦ or 360◦ = red-purple, 90◦ = yellow,
180◦ = green, and 270◦ = blue (Zerbini and Polesollo, 1984). Skin
color was measured at three random positions per fruit.
2.7. Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using SAS software and procedures (SAS,
2005). Means and standard deviations were calculated using PROC
TABULATE. Analysis of variance tables were constructed using
Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) method at p = 0.01.
Correlation coefficients and their levels of significance were calcu-
lated using PROC CORR.
3. Results
All results were expressed on a fresh weight basis. Selected fig
accessions in this study had high levels of TP, TA and TAC. The
amount of TP ranged from 28.6 to 211.9 mg GAE/100 g FW, with an
average of 51.8 mg GAE/100 g FW; the amount of TA ranged from
0.0 to 298.9 ␮g cy-3-rutinoside/g FW, with an average of 18.2 ␮g
cy-3-rutinoside/g FW; and the amount of TAC ranged from 3.9 to
 O. Çalişkan, A. Aytekin Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478 475

Table 1
Means and non-significant differences among means of phytochemical, antioxidant and color properties for fig accessions collected from Hatay, Turkey. Values are the
average of evaluation of 50 fruits per year in 2008 and 2009.

Accession TP TA TAC FRUC GLUC SUC L* a* Chroma hue◦

Şami 52.0 m-v 8.2 d 6.8 f-t 7.4 u-A 4.9 D-J 0.11 D 67.6 d-ı −21.0 yzA 54.6 a-e 112.8 a-h
Fransavi 61.4 g-s 12.1 d 5.9 j-u 6.5 B-F 4.8 F-K nd 61.2 j-q −15.5 s-y 39.2 ıjk 112.1 a-h
Hılvıni 49.1 m-w nd2 6.79f-t 10.6 c-d 8.1 c-e 0.19 o 68.9 c-h −20.3 y-A 56.3 a-d 111.1 b-h
Büyük Siyahlop 55.3 j-u 10.9 d 7.4 e-q 7.3 y-A 5.8 t-A nd 44.1 A-D 5.2 r-h 18.7 s-x 67.4 m-s
Sıhle 59.6 h-t 13.0 d 7.0 f-t 8.0m-t 6.7 k-o nd 59.8 l-r −1.9 j-m 39.2 ıjk 89.0 c-o
Kilis inciri 57.2 ı-u 5.5 d 6.5 g-u 7.1 y-B 5.6 u-B 0.13 z 74.9 abc −17.0 v-z 54.1 a-e 108.4 c-ı
Ahmediye 55.6 j-u 14.4 d 5.9 ı-u 10.1 d-e 5.6 u-B 0.12 A 67.7 d-ı −20.4 y-A 50.9 d-g 113.9 a-g
Burnu Kızıl 58.3 h-u 28.3 c-d 6.5 g-u 6.3 C-G 5.0 B-H 0.11 C 65.8 e-l −17.7 v-z 46.8 fgh 112.3 a-h
Allene Karası 84.0 d-f 37.4 c-d 9.1 d-g 6.2 E-H 4.6 H-L nd 27.6 HI 13.4 ab 14.9 u-x 125.7 abc
Beyaz Fahli 59.4 h-t 5.7d 6.3 h-u 6.8 A-H 5.00 C-I 0.14 x 63.1 ı-o −19.1 v-A 47.1 fgh 114.6 a-f
Kandamık 65.8 f-p 6.1 d 7.8 e-n 7.8 o-w 6.0 q-y 0.14 x 57.3 o-s −16.4 v-y 40.6 hıj 113.8 a-g
Fahli 53.8 l-v 4.4d 6.1 ı-u 6.1 F-H 4.5 H-L 0.20 l 70.9 c-e −16.9 v-z 60.5 a 106.5 c-l
Fetike 48.7 n-w 8.7 d 7.4 f-r 7.6 s-y 5.5 w-D 0.21 k 66.2 e-k −16.0 u-y 48.7 efg 109.4 c-h
Armut Sapı 39.4 t-w 19.6 d 7.3 f-r 6.5 B-F 4.9 H-J nd 68.7 d-h −18.9 v-A 58.3 abc 108.9 c-h
Payas 62.9 g-r 8.6 d 7.0 f-t 7.8 o-w 5.9 q-y 0.12 B 70.0 c-f −17.9 v-z 54.3 a-e 109.2 c-h
Gud Yeniği 52.7 l-v nd 8.2 e-k 7.6 r-y 6.5 m-r 0.12 B 67.0 d-j −19.3 v-A 53.3 b-f 111.2 b-h
Baldır İnciri 59.9 h-t 10.5 d 5.9 j-u 8.4 k-p 5.8 s-z 0.26 g 67.7 d-ı −22.3 zA 52.9 b-f 115.0 a-f
Halep inciri 63.5 f-r 3.6 d 6.3 h-u 7.3 v-A 5.6 u-B nd 77.9 a −19.4 w-A 54.1 a-e 111.4 b-h
Erkenci 57.1 ı-u 4.3 d 4.2 t-u 6.8 z-D 5.4 y-E 0.14 x 52.1 s-y −1.0 ı-l 45.2 ghı 89.8 c-o
Yeşil İncir 69.6 f-m 10.4 d 6.6 g-u 10.4 d 7.7 e-g 0.13 y 65.8 e-l −20.5 y-A 48.4 efg 114.9 a-f
Şebli 57.9 h-u 16.7 d 7.6 e-o 9.1 g-ı 6.7 k-o 0.30 c 59.7 n-r −8.1 o-r 34.7 jkl 101.8 c-l
Tınesvit 54.4 l-u 4.2 d 6.5 g-u 8.4 k-o 6.9 ı-m 0.19 o 32.5 FGH 7.0 d-g 12.0 xyz 48.3 p-s
Sütlü Sarı 43.5 q-w 2.2 d 5.9 ı-u 8.8 h-l 6.7 k-o 0.14 x 54.9 r-w −9.6 pqr 28.7 l-p 80.2 d-r
Mersinli 46.9 o-w 7.6 d 5.4 l-u 6.9 z-C 4.9 D-J 0.15 v 59.4 m-r −7.9 n-o 25.3 o-s 79.3 e-r
Zırhıni 81.7 d-g 29.3 c-d 8.6 d-j 8. 5j-n 6.1 q-w 0.17 r 33.2 FGH 3.9 e-ı 16.8 t-x 54.4 o-s
Bardak 45.9 p-w nd 6.5 g-u 6.3 D-H 4.9 D-J nd 56.1 p-v −19.2 v-A 47.2 fgh 113.4 a-g
Dolap 51.4 m-v nd 5.4 k-u 5.8 G-I 4.8 F-J nd 56.3 p-u −18.2 v-z 44.4 ghı 114.1 a-g
Şibili 55.7 j-u 15.3 d 5.7 k-u 7.4 u-z 5.3 z-F 0.11D 41.2 CD 4.0 e-ı 12.8 w-z 67.5 m-s
Karagöz 75.9 e-j 15.9 d 7.9 e-m 10.4 d 7.8 d-g 0.19 o 50.0 w-A −8.7 o-r 26.2 n-r 105.5 c-l
Beyaz İncir 54.7 l-u 1.6 d 6.8 f-t 8.3 l-r 6.5 l-q 0.19 o 66.2 e-k −20.5 y-A 54.9 a-e 111.9 a-h
Sarı 1 55.2 k-u 28.7 c-d 7.4 f-q 5.4 I 4.1 L nd 71.2 cde −16.6 v-y 52.6 c-f 108.6 c-ı
Sarı 2 44.2 q-w 14.2 d 5.0 n-u 7.7 r-y 4.6 G-L 0.31 b 68.2 d-ı −15.3 s-x 59.6 ab 105.0 c-l
Sarı 3 46.6 o-w 4.9 d 5.2m-u 6.9 z-D 6.1 p-v 0.14 w 71.8 b-e −17.3 v-z 55.0 a-e 108.3 c-ı
Sarı 4 53.2 l-v 6.8 d 6.4 g-u 7.1 y-A 5.9 r-y 0.10 F 69.8 c-f −19.3 v-A 48.5 efg 113.5 a-g
Sarı 5 59.2 h-u 5.8 d 7.5 e-p 7.4 t-z 5.7 t-A 0.13 z 69.5 cg −18.2 v-z 52.8 c-f 110.4 b-h
Sarı 6 43.6 q-w 4.3d 4.9 n-u 7.6 s-y 5.9 q-y 0.13 y 77.3 ab −14.2 r-w 52.3 c-f 105.8 c-l
Siyah 1 57.6 h-u 7.8 d 8.1 e-l 7.3 u-A 5.4 x-E 0.14 w 51.7 s-y 3.7 e-ı 27.9 m-q 80.1 d-r
Siyah 2 97.7 c-d 84.5 c 14.9 a-b 7.8 p-w 6.2 o-u nd 25.3 I 11.7 a-d 12.3 w-z 111.4 b-h
Siyah 3 92.7 d-e 46.9 c-d 12.8 b-c 7.9 n-u 4.4 J-L 0.18 q 40.7 CDE 13.2 abc 25.0 o-s 46.3 q-s
Siyah 4 73.1 e-l 163.2 b 12.7 b-c 6.9 z-D 4.2 K-L nd 32.7 FGH 13.5 ab 13.9 v-z 147.2 ab
Siyah 5 211.9 a 298.9 a 16.1 a 8.8 h-l 7.1 h-k 0.25 h 18.4 J 4.7 e-h 7.3 z 148.5 a
Siyah 6 62.9 g-r 8.7 d 6.5 g-u 9.2 f-h 7.2 g-k 0.31 b 42.9 BCD 3.2 f-j 26.1 n-r 76.4 h-r
Siyah 7 65.7 f-p 11.9 d 7.0 f-s 9.2 f-ı 6.9 j-m nd 46.6 y-C 6.7 d-g 28.0 l-q 71.8 ı-s
Siyah 8 81.7 d-g 39.2 c-d 8.7 d-j 9.36f-h 7.1 h-k 0.17 r 55.4 q-w −10.5 p-t 30.3 l-o 107.1 c-k
Mor 1 43.9 q-w 8.2 d 5.6 k-u 7.9 n-w 6.2 n-t nd 57.0 o-t −1.2 j-l 33.9 j-m 90.1 c-o
Mor 2 57.0 ı-u 3.1d 4.9 o-u 8.1m-s 6.1 p-v 0.25 h 50.2 v-A 9.1 b-e 19.3 r-v 59.3 m-s
Mor 3 62.7 g-r 10.4 d 7.3 f-r 8.1 m-s 5.6 v-C 0.32 a 38.4 DEF −2.8 k-n 20.1 r-v 69.6 l-s
Mor 4 58.2 h-u 24.4 d 9.1 d-g 8.8 g-l 6.7 k-o 0.18 p 55.5 q-w −10.2 p-s 28.7 l-p 110.3 b-h
Mor 5 78.1 d-h 9.9 d 8.8 d-ı 11.7 a-b 8.8 b 0.28 e 45.2 z-C 15.2 a 24.5 o-s 44.0 rs
Mor 6 61.3 g-s 11.8 d 5.7 k-u 7.8 p-w 5.7 t-A 0.20 l 48.7 x-B 2.3 g-k 28.5 l-p 81.4 d-q
Sultani 1 60.7 h-s 3.9 d 8.9 d-h 8.8 h-l 6.9 j-m 0.21 j 62.2 ı-e −8.5 opq 28.5 l-p 78.5 f-r
Sultani 2 43.2 r-w 1.5d 4.9 o-u 8.6 ı-m 5.2 A-G 0.14 x 59.0 m-r −8.2 n-q 28.4 l-q 78.3 f-r
Sultani 3 47.4 o-w 0.7d 4.8 p-u 7.4 t-z 6.7 k-p 0.19 o 69.5 c-g −17.8 v-z 59.6 ab 107.5 c-j
Kabak 1 60.7 h-s 38.0 c-d 8.0 e-l 9.3 f-h 6.4 m-s 0.15 v 68.2 d-ı −19.9 y-A 46.6 fgh 115.8 a-e
Kabak 2 56.1 j-u 20.6 d 6.9 f-t 7.9 n-u 6.7 k-o 0.16 t 70.6 c-f −13.8 q-v 53.2 b-f 105.2 c-l
Şeble 1 38.5 u-w 4.2 d 4.6q-u 7.8 p-w 5.9 s-y 0.13 y 54.7 r-x −3.5 l-o 26.1 n-r 94.3 c-n
Şeble 2 56.3 j-u 6.1d 6.4 g-u 5.7 H-I 4.4 I-L 0.16 t 59.7 m-r −8.0 npo 34.7 jkl 101.8 c-m
Kıreni1 55.9 j-u 12.1 d 4.6r-u 8.8 g-r 6.8 k-m 0.19 n 60.3 k-r −7.3 m-p 26.9 n-q 77.5 g-r
Kıreni 2 33.5 v-w 9.1 d 6.4 g-u 9.3 f-h 6.9 ı-m 0.14 w 72.8 a-d −15.9 u-y 54.0 a-e 107.4 c-j
Sehli 1 63.3 g-r 6.8 d 9.5 d-f 9.3 f-h 7.5 f-h 0.21 j 47.7 x-B 6.7 d-g 33.2 k-n 36.2 s
Sehli 2 77.5 d-ı 8.9 d 9.1 d-g 11.2 b-c 9.7 a 0.27 f 29.0 GHI 6.0 e-h 11.1 yz 46.2 q-s
Meryemi 1 52.6 l-v 0.9d 5.3 l-u 7.7 q-x 5.8 t-z 0.20 m 66.1 e-k −16.4 v-y 52.5 c-f 106.4 c-l
Meryemi 2 49.1 m-w 8.9 d 6.7 f-t 7.9 n-u 5.7 t-A 0.20 m 68.8 d-h −15.8 t-y 50.0 d-g 108.7 c-ı
Kuruye 1 68.3 f-n 8.6 d 6.7 f-t 10.1 d-e 8.3 b-d 0.18 q 51.3 s-z 9.0 b-e 32.8 k-n 70.7 j-s
Kuruye 2 62.2 g-r 15.9 d 8.0 e-l 8.9 g-k 7.5 f-ı 0.16 t 43.8 BCD 8.3 b-f 26.7 n-rr 70.3 k-s
Kırmızı 1 49.2 m-w 5.3 d 6.4 g-u 7.9 n-v 5.5 v-D 0.10 E 58.7 n-r 3.2 f-j 40.5 hıj 84.1 d-p
Kırmızı 2 116.3 b-c 14.7 d 11.2 c-d 11.9 a 9.7 a 0.29 d 50.9 t-z 0.5 h-l 34.7 j-m 86.1 d-o
Lopkara 1 75.8 e-k 5.8 d 11.4 c-d 11.1 b-c 8.5 b-c 0.16 s 42.1 CD 7.6 c-g 22.6 p-t 69.9 l-s
Lopkara 2 128.4 b 57.7 c-d 9.0 d-h 7.7 q-x 5.9 q-y nd 35.0 EFG 15.9a 18.8 s-w 35.1 s
Ramlı 1 53.9 l-b 2.9 d 6.0 ı-u 9.4 f-g 7.4 f-j 0.24 ı 63.6 g-n −24.5 A 55.2 a-e 116.3 a-d
Ramlı 2 64.1 f-q 10.0 d 9.2 d-g 9.0 g-j 7.4 9f-j 0.15 u 66.0 e-k −20.5 y-A 54.6 a-e 112.1 a-h
Bığrasi 1 51.7 m-v 12.1 d 6.5 g-u 8.4 j-n 6.0 q-x 0.28 e 50.2 v-A −7.5 n-o 21.6 q-u 80.3 d-r
Bığrasi 2 67.3 f-o 7.0 d 10.2 c-e 8.3 k-p 6.7 k-o 0.16 t 50.6 u-z −10.2 p-t 26.3 n-r 81.7 d-q
Bakras 3 55.7 j-u 12.8 d 6.2 h-u 9.7 e-f 7.9 c-f 0.18 p 64.8 f-m −16.7 v-z 49.6 d-g 109.2 c-h
Bakrasi 4 28.6w 4.7 d 4.3 s-u 6.4 C-G 4.9 D-I 0.14 w 69.0 c-h −18.5 v-z 52.1 c-f 110.8 b-h
476 O. Çalişkan, A. Aytekin Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478

Table 1 (Continued)

Accession TP TA TAC FRUC GLUC SUC L* a* Chroma hue◦

Bakrasi 5 40.8 s-w 2.2d 3.9 u 8.3 k-q 7.1h-l 0.15 v 69.3 c-g −19.1 v-A 53.3 b-f 111.0 b-h

Mean 61.8 18.2 7.3 8.2 6.2 0.14 56.4 −7.8 37.7 95.2
HSD0.01 20.7 59.3 2.8 0.61 0.5 0.11 6.1 5.6 6.8 36.9

Abbreviation: TP, total phenols; TA, total anthocyanins; TAC, total antioxidant capacity; FRUC, fructose; GLUC, glucose; SUC, sucrose; nd, not detected. Means with different
letters are significantly different at p = 0.01. Lowercase letters are used to designate the first 26 significantly different groups of accessions, and uppercase letters are used to
designate the remaining groups.

Table 2
Range, and mean, standard error of several parameters including phytochemical, antioxidant, and color properties for fig accessions collected from Hatay, Turkey. The values
are the average of analyses performed in 2008 and 2009. The accessions were grouped based on fruit skin color.

Characters Fruit color group

Green Yellow Brown Purple Black

Range Mean ± Std Range Mean ± Std Range Mean ± Std Range Mean ± Std Range Mean ± Std

TAC 3.6–10.4 6.6 ± 1.5 4.3–8.1 5.9 ± 1.2 3.8–12.9 7.7 ± 2.1 4.3–9.4 7.3 ± 1.7 7.9–16.1 12.4 ± 3.1
TA 0.0–41.3 8.5 ± 8.7 0.6–29.7 8.7 ± 8.5 2.0–49.6 11.8 ± 9.8 2.5–46.5 18.1 ± 12.2 32.3–356.0 128.4 ± 90.4
TP 19.4–72.6 54.3 ± 9.4 25.3–74.4 49.2 ± 9.4 37.4–121.6 65.6 ± 17.0 53.3–86.8 64.0 ± 11.3 69.1–220.0 118.9 ± 52.1
FRUC 5.8–10.6 8.0 ± 1.3 5.4–8.8 7.5 ± 0.9 5.7–12.2 8.8 ± 1.6 7.3–10.4 8.6 ± 1.2 6.2–8.8 7.5 ± 0.9
GLUC 4.5–8.4 6.1 ± 1.0 4.1–6.8 5.6 ± 0.8 4.4–10.2 6.8 ± 1.5 5.3–7.8 6.4 ± 0.9 4.2–7.1 5.6 ± 1.1
SUC 0.00–0.28 0.14 ± 0.06 0.00–0.31 0.13 ± 0.09 0.00–0.32 0.17 ± 0.09 0.00–0.25 0.15 ± 0.08 0.00–0.25 0.05 ± 0.10
L* 47.5–76.7 65.1 ± 6.2 52.6–80.0 67.9 ± 6.9 26.6–63.2 47.0 ± 9.2 37.4–58.1 49.9 ± 5.8 14.7–36.9 27.8 ± 6.5
a* −25.6–(−13.4) −17.3 ± 4.4 −15.8–(−5.6) −10.9 ± 4.3 −11.1–18.3 3.6 ± 6.0 −14.6–10.5 −1.9 ± 8.5 3.2–17.4 11.8 ± 4.0
Chroma 19.6–66.2 47.6 ± 9.9 24.6–61.5 48.1 ± 12.2 10.4–46.2 27.8 ± 9.0 10.9–34.5 22.8 ± 6.7 3.4–20.5 13.5 ± 4.4
hue◦ 77.3–119.3 107.5 ± 11.2 75.9–113.4 101.0 ± 13.2 39.7–106.5 73.2 ± 17.9 48.7–111.5 86.2 ± 23.2 27.3–205.2 113.6 ± 59.5

Abbreviation: TAC, total antioxidant capacity; TA, total anthocyanins; TP, total phenols; FRUC, fructose; GLUC, glucose; SUC, sucrose.

16.1 mmol Fe2+ /kg FW, with an average of 7.3 mmol Fe2+ /kg FW 36.9, but these accessions had high positive a* values as indicated by
(Table 1). Accession ‘Siyah 5’, which is characterized by dark black their dark fruit skin colors. Average a* values were relatively higher
fruit skin, contained the highest amount of TP (211.9 mg GAE/100 g in black and brown accessions (11.8 and 3.6, respectively). But C*
FW), TA (298.9 ␮g cy-3-rutinoside/g FW), and TAC (16.1 mmol values were lower for black-, purple-, and brown-fruited acces-
Fe2+ /kg FW) among the tested accessions. The lowest TP content sions than in green- and yellow-fruited accessions. The highest hue◦
was found for the accession ‘Bakras 4’, which has green fruit skin value was found for black accessions (Table 1).
color (28.6 mg GAE/100 g FW). TA was not detected in the acces- These results indicate a good correlation between the TP con-
sions ‘Hılvıni’, ‘Gud Yeniği’, ‘Bardak’ and ‘Dolap’. tent and TAC (Table 3) of fig accessions (r = 0.74, at p < 0.01), which
The amounts of fructose (FRUC), glucose (GLUC), sucrose (SUC) supports the observation that the TAC of fig fruit is strongly depen-
in the fig accessions that were tested are given in Table 1. Fruc- dent on the TP. Fruit skin lightness (L*), a*, C*, and hue◦ values were
tose and glucose concentrations averaged 8.2 and 6.2 g/100 g, found to be moderately correlated with TA, TAC, and TP (Table 3).
respectively. The accession ‘Kırmızı 2’ had the highest fructose According to these results, lightness and C* values are inversely
(11.9 g/100 g) and glucose (9.7 g/100 g) levels. Sucrose was detected related to TA, TAC, and TP content in fig accessions, while a* values
in small amounts, an average of 0.14 g/100 g, in some fig accessions, were positively correlated with TA, TAC, and TP.
but, was not detected in the accessions ‘Fransavi’, ‘Büyük Siyahlop’,
‘Sıhle’, ‘Allene Karası’, ‘Armut Sapı’, ‘Halep’, ‘Bardak’, ‘Dolap’, ‘Sarı 1’, 4. Discussion
‘Siyah 2’, ‘Siyah 4’, ‘Siyah 7’, ‘Mor 1’, and ‘Lopkara 2’. Sucrose content
reached only 3% of total sugars in some accessions. The results of this study represent the first published data
The fig accessions were grouped into five different fruit skin describing the phytochemical characters and total antioxidant
color categories according to the fig descriptors established by capacity of a large collection of fig accessions. Selected fig acces-
IPGRI and CIHEAM (IPGRI and CIHEAM, 2003): green (31 acces- sions exhibited great diversity in levels of TA (0.0–298.9 ␮g
sions), yellow (12 accessions), purple (7 accessions), black (5 cy-3-rutinoside/g FW), TP (28.6–211.9 mg GAE/100 g FW) and lev-
accessions), and brown (21 accessions) (Table 2). The number of els of TAC (3.9–16.1 mmol Fe2+ /kg). TA was not detected in some
green-, brown-, and yellow-colored fig accessions was higher than accessions (‘Hılvıni’, ‘Gud Yeniği’, ‘Bardak’ and ‘Dolap’). Solomon
the number of accessions in other color groups. All groups were et al. (2006) indicated previously that total anthocyanins were not
found to be very diverse in terms of phytochemical characters. detected in ‘Brunswick’ and ‘Kadota’ cultivars, which have light fruit
Purple or black fruit skins had more TAC, TA, and TP compared to
green or yellow fruit skins. Accordingly, fig accessions with black
fruit skin had the highest levels of TAC (range of 7.9–16.1, mean Table 3
Correlation coefficients (r) of phytochemical, antioxidant and color properties for
12.4 mmol Fe2+ /kg FW), TA (range of 32.3–356.0, mean 128.4 ␮g
fig accessions collected from Hatay, Turkey.
cy-3-rutinoside/g FW), and TP content (range of 69.1–220.0, mean
118.9 mg GAE/100 g FW). Source TAC TP L a Chroma Hue◦
Brown and purple fig accessions had higher FRUC, GLUC and TA 0.63** 0.73** −0.47** 0.29** −0.38** 0.44**
SUC contents than other color groups. The L* values (lightness) of TAC 0.74** −0.56** 0.44** −0.45** 0.14*
the accessions with green fruit skin ranged from 47.5 to 76.7 with TP −0.58** 0.44** −0.46** 0.12

an average of 65.1, while that of the accessions with yellow fruit Abbreviation: TA, total anthocyanins; TAC, total antioxidant capacity; TP, total phe-
skin ranged from 52.6 to 80.0, with an average of 67.9. L* values for nols; FRUC, fructose, GLUC, glucose; SUC, sucrose.
*
P < 0.05.
accessions with black fruit skin were lower, ranging from 14.7 to **
P < 0.01.
 O. Çalişkan, A. Aytekin Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478
skin colors. Also, the TA contents of our samples were lower than
those of other studies on commercial fig cultivars (Del Caro and
Piga, 2008; Piga et al., 2008; Dueñas et al., 2008), but higher than
those reported by Solomon et al. (2006). Piga et al. (2008) found
similar amounts of TP compared with those found in this study.
TAC levels in our study were much higher than those reported by
Halvorsen et al. (2002), Solomon et al. (2006) and Veberic et al.
(2008). Therefore, it is apparent that these 76 new fig accessions
represent a broad range of levels of TP, TA, and TAC, while some of
them contain even higher levels of TP, TA, and TAC than commercial
fig cultivars.
Fructose (∼56%) and glucose (∼43%) were found to be dominant
sugars in all accessions analyzed however, sucrose levels tend to
be very low (Melgarejo et al., 2003; Veberic et al., 2008), or absent
(Cemeroğlu et al., 2001), or are not clearly distinguishable from
other sugars. The sugar composition of fig fruit can influence per-
ceived fruit sweetness. Fructose has a higher relative sweetness
than glucose (Setser, 1993). Therefore, the perception of sweetness
of in fig accessions is likely due to the prevalence of fructose.
This study is in agreement with other studies suggesting that
among all common fruits and vegetables in the diet, berries, and
figs, especially those with dark blue or red colors, have the highest
antioxidant capacity (Liu et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2006; Solomon et al.,
2006; Çelik et al., 2008). Solomon et al. (2006) reported that fig fruit
skin is a major source of anthocyanins and polyphenols. Fig fruits
are often prepared by peeling to remove skin; however, fig fruit
skins contain healthful nutrients that should not be discarded.
Similar to our results, a strong correlation between the TP
and TAC of figs has been previously reported (Solomon et al.,
2006; Veberic et al., 2008). Most phenolic compounds, especially
anthocyanins (cy-3-rutinoside), cinnamic acid, and flavonoids, are
concentrated in the skin of fig fruits (Solomon et al., 2006; Del
Caro and Piga, 2008); therefore, a correlation between fruit skin
color and TP or TAC should be expected. The fig accessions with
green or yellow fruit skin color had the least amounts of TP, TA,
and TAC. However, some purple- and black-skinned fruits con-
tained 2-fold higher TAC, 15-fold higher TA and 2.5-fold higher TP
than the green- and yellow-skinned accessions. The main phenolic
compounds responsible for the pigmentation in figs were cyani-
din 3-rutinoside, cyanidin 3-glucoside, cyanidin 3,5-diglucoside
and pelargonidin 3-rutinoside (Solomon et al., 2006; Dueñas et al.,
2008). The other predominant phenolic compounds in figs were
identified as hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives, such as 3-O- or 5-
O-caffeoylquinic acids and ferulic acid; flavonoid glycosides such as
quercetin 3-O-glucoside and quercetin 3-O-rutinoside; and fura-
nocoumarins such as psoralen and bergapten (Del Caro and Piga,
2008; Oliveira et al., 2009). TAC and TP contents of other fruit crops
such as cherries, grapes, elderberry, and loquat also vary depend-
ing on the phenotype, as well as environmental and genetic factors
(Anttonen and Karjalainen, 2005; Ozgen et al., 2010; Polat et al.,
2010).
5. Conclusion
To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the phy-
tochemical profiles of Turkish local fig accessions, contributing to
our knowledge about the nutritional aspects of an important fruit of
the Mediterranean diet. This study showed that considerable vari-
ation exists in certain phytochemical and antioxidant properties of
fig accessions that are widely grown in the eastern Mediterranean
region of Turkey. It is important to evaluate and conserve local
genetic materials, not only for breeding, but also for their health
benefits. These fig accessions displayed variable TP, TAC, and TA
profiles depending on fruit skin color. Fig accessions present an
attractive array of diverse fruit skin colors, ranging from dark black
477
to green-yellow. The dark accessions contained the highest levels
of TA, TAC, and TP, whereas the yellow and green accessions con-
tained the lowest levels. Most previous studies on fig accessions
have focused on the selection and description of plant character-
istics, fruit quality characteristics, and genetic markers. In recent
years, however, because of the increasingly apparent importance
of a healthy diet, it may be useful for researchers to also include phy-
tochemical analysis in germplasm evaluation. We have estimated
that these data will be useful for studies to improve the nutritional
content of fig accessions.
References
Aljane, F., Toumi, I., Ferchichi, A., 2007. HPLC Determination of sugar and atomic
absorption analysis of mineral salts in fresh figs of Tunisian cultivars. African J.
Biotechnol. 6, 599–602.
Anttonen, M.J., Karjalainen, R.O., 2005. Environmental and genetic variation of phe-
nolic compounds in red raspberry. J. Food Comp. Anal. 18, 759–769.
Beccaro, G., Mellano, M.G., Botta, R., Chiabrando, V., Bounous, G., 2006. Phenolic and
anthocyanin content and antioxidant activity in fruits of bilberry (Vaccinium
myrtillus L.) and of highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum L.) cultivars in North
Western Italy. Acta Hortic. 715, 553–558.
Camara, M.M., Diez, C., Torija, M.E., 1996. Free sugars determination by HPLC in
pineapple products. Z. Lebensm. Unters. F. A. 202, 233–237.
Çelik, H., Özgen, M., Serçe, S., Kaya, C., 2008. Phytochemical accumulation and
antioxidant capacity at four maturity stages of cranberry fruit. Sci. Hortic. 117,
345–348.
Cemeroğlu, B., Yemenicioğlu, A., Özkan, M., 2001. The composition of fruits and
vegetables, stored in the cold. Gıda Teknolojisi, Ankara (in Turkish).
Cheng, G.W., Breen, P.J., 1991. Activity of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) and
concentrations of anthocyanins and phenolics in developing strawberry fruit. J.
Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 116, 865–869.
Costa, R.M., Magalhães, A.S., Pereira, J.A., Andrade, P.B., Valentão, P., Carvalho, M.,
Silva, B.M., 2009. Evaluation of free radical-scavenging and antihemolytic activ-
ities of quince (Cydonia oblonga) leaf: a comparative study with green tea
(Camellia sinensis). Food Chem. Toxicol. 47, 860–865.
Del Caro, A., Piga, A., 2008. Polyphenol composition of peel and pulp of two Italian
fresh fig fruits cultivars (Ficus carica L.). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 226, 715–719.
Dueñas, M., Pérez-Alonso, J.J., Santos-Buelga, C., Escrinano-Bailón, T., 2008. Antho-
cyanin composition in fig (Ficus carica L.). J. Food Comp. Anal. 21, 107–115.
du Toit, R., Volsteedt, Y., Apostolides, Z., 2001. Comparison of the antioxidant content
of fruits, vegetables and teas measured as vitamin C equivalents. Toxicology 166,
63–69.
Eberhardt, M.V., Lee, C.Y., Liu, R.H., 2000. Antioxidant activity of fresh apples. Nature
405, 903–904.
Fattouch, S., Caboni, P., Coroneo, V., Tuberoso, C.I.G., Angioni, A., Dessi, S., Marzouki,
N., Cabras, P., 2007. Antimicrobial activity of Tunisian quince (Cydonia oblonga
Miller) pulp and peel polyphenolic extracts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55, 963–969.
Genna, A., De Vecchi, P., Maestrelli, A., Bruno, M., 2008. Quality of ‘Dottato’ dried figs
grown in the Cosenza region, Italy. A sensory and physical–chemical approach.
Acta Hortic. 798, 319–323.
Halvorsen, B.L., Holte, K., Myhrstad, M.C.W., Barikmo, I., Hvattum, E., Remberg, S.F.,
Wold, A.-B., Haffner, K., Baugerød, H., Andersen, L.F., Moskaug, Ø., Jacobs Jr., D.R.,
Blomhoff, R., 2002. A systematic screening of total antioxidants in dietary plants.
J. Nutr. 132, 461–471.
IPGRI and CIHEAM, 2003. Descriptors for fig. International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome, Italy, and International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean
Agronomic Studies, Paris, France.
Jeong, W.-S., Lachance, P.A., 2001. Phytosterols and fatty acids in fig (Ficus carica, var
Mission) fruit and tree components. J. Food Sci. 66, 278–281.
Kim, M.Y., Choi, S.W., Chung, S.K., 2000. Antioxidative flavonoids from the garlic
(Allium sativum L.) shoot. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 9, 199–203.
Konyalıoğlu, S., Sağlam, H., Kıvçak, B., 2005. ␣-Tocopherol, flavonoid, and phenol
contents and antioxidant activity of Ficus carica leaves. Pharm. Biol. 43, 683–686.
Liu, M., Li, X.Q., Weber, C., Lee, C.Y., Brown, J., Liu, R.H., 2002. Antioxidant and antipro-
liferative activities of raspberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50, 2926–2930.
Melgarejo, P., Hernández, F., Martínez, J.J., Sánchez, J., Salazar, D.M., 2003. Organic
acids and sugars from first and second crop fig juices. Acta Hortic. 605, 237–239.
Merken, H.M., Beecher, G.R., 2000. Measurement of food flavonoids by high-
performance liquid chromatography: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 577–599.
Oliveira, A.P., Valentão, P., Pereira, J.A., Silva, B.M., Tavares, F., Andrade, P.B., 2009.
Ficus carica L.: metabolic and biological screening. Food Chem. Toxicol. 47,
2841–2846.
Ozgen, M., Scheerens, J.C., Reese, R.N., Miller, R.A., 2010. Total phenolic, anthocyanin
contents and antioxidant capacity of selected elderberry (Sambucus canadensis
L.) accessions. Pharmacogn. Mag. 6, 198–203.
Pellegrini, N., Serafini, M., Colombi, B., Del Rio, D., Salvatore, S., Bianchi, M., Brighenti,
F., 2003. Total antioxidant capacity of plant foods, beverages and oils consumed
in Italy assessed by three different in vitro assays. J. Nutr. 133, 2812–2819.
Piga, A., Del Caro, A., Milella, G., Pinna, I., Vacca, V., Schirru, S., 2008. HPLC analysis
of polyphenols in peel and pulp of fresh figs. Acta Hortic. 798, 301–306.
478 O. Çalişkan, A. Aytekin Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 128 (2011) 473–478
Polat, A.A., Calişkan, O., Serçe, S., Saraçoğlu, O., Kaya, C., Ozgen, M., 2010. Determining
total phenolic content and total antioxidant capacity of loquat cultivars grown
in Hatay. Pharmacogn. Mag. 6, 5–8.
SAS Institute, 2005. SAS OnlineDoc, Version 9.1.3. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
Setser, C.S., 1993. Sensory properties. In: Macrae, R., Robinson, R.K., Sadler, M.J. (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of Food Science. Food Technology and Nutrition Academic Press,
London, pp. 691–697.
Silva, R.H., Abílio, V.C., Takatsu, A.L., Kameda, S.R., Grassl, C., Chehin, A.B., Medrano,
W.A., Calzavara, M.B., Registro, S., Andersen, M.L., Machado, R.B., Carvalho, R.C.,
Ribeiro, A., Tufik, S., Frussa-Filho, R., 2004. Role of hippocampal oxidative stress
in memory deficits induced by sleep deprivation in mice. Neuropharmacology
46, 895–903.
Slinkard, K., Singleton, V.L., 1977. Total phenol analysis: automation and comparison
with manual methods. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 28, 49–55.
Solomon, A., Golubowicz, S., Yablowicz, Z., Grossman, S., Bergman, M., Gottlieb, H.,
Altman, A., Kerem, Z., Flaishman, M.A., 2006. Antioxidant activities and antho-
cyanin content of fresh fruits of common fig (Ficus carica L.). J. Agric. Food Chem.
54, 7717–7723.
Teixeira, D.M., Patão, R.F., Coelho, A.V., da Costa, C.T., 2006. Comparison between
sample disruption methods and solid–liquid extraction (SLE) to extract phenolic
compounds from Ficus carica leaves. J. Chromatogr. 1103, 22–28.
Trichopoulou, A., Vasilopoulou, E., Georga, K., Soukara, S., Dilis, V., 2006. Traditional
foods: why and how to sustain them. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17, 498–504.
Vaya, J., Mahmood, S., 2006. Flavonoid content in leaf extracts of the fig (Ficus carica
L.), carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) and pistachio (Pistacia lentiscus L.). BioFactors 28,
169–175.
Veberic, R., Colaric, M., Stampar, F., 2008. Phenolic acids and flavonoids of fig fruit
(Ficus carica L.) in the northern Mediterranean region. Food Chem. 106, 153–157.
Vinson, J.A., 1999. The functional food properties of figs. Cereal Food World 4, 82–87.
Vinson, J.A., Zubik, L., Bose, P., Samman, N., Proch, J., 2005. Dried fruits: excellent
in vitro and in vivo antioxidants. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 4, 44–50.
Wu, X., Pittman 3rd, H.E., Prior, R.L., 2006. Fate of anthocyanins and antioxidant
capacity in contents of the gastrointestinal tract of weanling pigs following black
raspberry consumption. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 583–589.
Yahata, D., Nogata, H., 1999. Cultivar variations in sugar contents in the fig syconia,
their parts and nodal positions. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 68, 987–992.
Yang, X.M., Yu, W., Ou, Z.P., Ma, H.L., Liu, W.M., Ji, X.L., 2009. Antioxidant and immu-
nity activity of water extract and crude polysaccharide from Ficus carica L. fruit.
Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 64, 167–173.
Zerbini, E., Polesollo, A., 1984. Measuring the color of apple skin by two different
techniques. In: Proceeding of the Workshop on Pome-Fruit Quality , pp. 161–171.