Accepted Manuscript

Title: Glycoalkaloids and phenolic compounds in three

commercial potato cultivars grown in Hebei, China

Authors: Cheng-Yu Jin, Hong Liu, Dan Xu, Fan-Kui Zeng,

Yu-Ci Zhao, Hai Zhang, Gang Liu

PII: S2213-4530(17)30166-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2018.02.001
Reference: FSHW 128

To appear in:

Received date: 15-10-2017

Revised date: 23-1-2018
Accepted date: 17-2-2018

Please cite this article as: Cheng-Yu Jin, Hong Liu, Dan Xu, Fan-Kui
Zeng, Yu-Ci Zhao, Hai Zhang, Gang Liu, Glycoalkaloids and phenolic
compounds in three commercial potato cultivars grown in Hebei, China (2010),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2018.02.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Glycoalkaloids and phenolic compounds in three commercial potato cultivars grown in Hebei,
China

Cheng-Yu Jina,b,1, Hong Liuc,1, Dan Xua,b, Fan-Kui Zenga,*, Yu-Ci Zhao a,b, Hai Zhang d, Gang Liua,*

a
Research & Development Center for Eco-material and Eco-Chemistry, Lanzhou Institute of Chemical

T
Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China

IP
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

R
c
CAS Key Laboratory of Chemistry of Northwestern Plant Resources and Key Laboratory for Natural

SC
Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

Lanzhou, 730000, China

U
N
d
Zhangjiakou Hongji Agriculture Science and Technology Development Co. Ltd, Zhangjiakou, 076576,
A
China
M

1
These authors contributed to the work equally and should be regarded as co-first authors.
ED

Corresponding author:
PT

zengfk@licp.cas.cn (Fan-kui Zeng). Tel: 86-931-4968250, Fax: 86-0931-4968019

E

gangliu@licp.cas.cn (Gang Liu). Tel: 86-931-4968866, Fax: 86-0931-4968019

CC

Abstract
A

In order to investigate the food nutrition and safety of potato, the objective of the present study is to
quantify glycoalkaloids (α-chaconine and α-solanine) and phenolic compounds in three potato cultivars,
namely, Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody, grown in Hebei, China, and these two classes of
biologically active compounds in commercial dehydrated potato flakes were also investigated. The
total glycoalkaloid levels in whole potatoes ranged from 4.72 mg/kg for Shepody potatoes to 34.45
mg/kg for Russet Burbank potatoes. The ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine in whole potatoes ranged
from 0.41 for Russet Burbank potatoes to 3.61 for Atlantic potatoes. The removal rate of total

1
glycoalkaloids in Russet Burbank potatoes during dehydrated potato flake processing is 90.0%.
Chlorogenic acid is the dominant phenolic compound in Russet Burbank potatoes. By contrast, Atlantic
and Shepody potatoes contain considerable caffeic acid. The loss rate of phenolic compounds in Russet
Burbank during dehydrated potato flake processing is 50.47%.

Key words: Glycoalkaloids; phenolic compounds; dehydrated potato flake; potato

1. Introduction
China is the no. 1 potato producer in the world, with a total production of 96.14 MT, which
accounted for 24.97% of the total world production in 2014[1]. China has a rapidly developing

T
processing industry of potato with at least 8 modern French fries plants, 24 potato chips plants, and 34

IP
dehydrated potato plants in 2013. The Chinese consumed approximately 10% of potato in processed
form, including potato starch processing, in 2014.

R
Dehydrated potato flake is made from fresh potato tubers. The processing steps include washing,
steam peeling, slicing, washing, blanching, cooling, cooking, mashing, drum drying, flaking, and

SC
packaging[2,3]. Although the major processed potato products in the world are currently French fries
and potato chips, dehydrated potato may be the first global processed potato product[4,5]. Dehydrated
potato was first introduced in the 20th century wartime (World War I and World War II) in

U
industrialized countries[6,7]. Today, dehydrated potato flake is an intermediate material for mashed
potato, as well as for potato chips, military vacuum-packaged compressed biscuits, and many other
N
convenience products[8-10].
At the beginning of 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) of the People’s Republic of China
A
announced that potato will soon be China’s newest staple food[11]. According to the MOA, 30% of the
M

annual potato production will be consumed as a staple food by 2020, with potatoes being turned into
noodles, steamed bread, and other staple food products. Although limited to the processing
performance, dehydrated potato products may be used as replacement of wheat flour for production of
ED

staple food because dehydrated potato products can be stored over several years and used when fresh
potatoes are scarce[12,13].
Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody are three potato cultivars widely commercially cultivated
PT

in Western countries[14,15]. In north China, particularly in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Heilongjiang,
Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody are the major potato cultivars for French fries and potato chips
processing. In Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province, these commercial potato cultivars are grown using
E

modern agricultural irrigation technology and the potato yield reached 60 MT/ha, which is higher than
the national average value of 15 MT/ha. Three modern dehydrated potato flake plants can be found in
CC

Zhangjiakou.
Steroidal glycoalkaloids are an important class of biologically active compounds in
potatoes[16,17]. They influence the flavor of fresh and processed potatoes from a bitter taste toward a
A

burning sensation at higher concentrations and are regarded to be toxic to humans in concentrations of
more than 200 mg/kg of the fresh weight of potatoes[18-21]. α-Chaconine and α-solanine are the major
glycoalkaloids in potato tuber[22,23]. Previous studies have shown that glycoalkaloids can induce
gastrointestinal and systemic effects in vivo and in vitro by disrupting the cell membranes and
inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase activity[24,25].
Potato supplies remarkable portions of phenolic compounds, which are predominantly found in the
peel and adjoining tissues[26,27]. In nutrition, these components have been the focus of considerable

2
attention as they contain potentially protective factors against cancer and heart diseases basically
because of their potent antioxidative properties[28]. Furthermore, potato polyphenols are important for
the quality and processing of food, in particular with regard to their flavor induction (astringency) and
capacity to promote discolorations, such as enzymatic browning reactions[26,27].
Mäder et al.[3] determined the influence of the commercial production process for dehydrated
potato flakes on the content of glycoalkaloids and phenolic compounds. Tajner-Czopek et al.[29]
determined the influence of the thermal process of colored potatoes on the content of glycoalkaloids in
potato products. Elżbieta[30] determined the effect of industrial potato processing on the
concentrations of glycoalkaloids and nitrates in potato granules. However, information on the three
commercial potato cultivars (i.e., Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody) grown in China is

T
unavailable. The objective of the present study is to quantify the glycoalkaloids and phenolic

IP
compounds in Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody grown in Zhangjiakou, Hebei. The contents of
these two classes of biologically active compounds in dehydrated potato flakes were also investigated.

R
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials

SC
Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and Shepody potatoes and dehydrated potato flake were gifts from
Zhangjiakou Hongji Agriculture Science and Technology Development Co. Ltd. in Hebei Province,
China. The harvest time is September 15, 2015, the growth time for Atlantic is about 90 days, for

U
Shepody is about 110 days, for Russet Burbank is about 130 days, after harvest from the field directly
transport into the production line for dehydrated flake processing. α-Chaconine and α-solanine were
N
purchased from ChromaDex (Irvine, CA, USA). Chlorogenic acid (≤95%; catalog no. C3878-250MG,
lot no. WXBB6039V), p-coumaric acid (catalog no. C9008-1G, lot no. BCBN8568V), trans-ferulic
A
acid (catalog no. 46278-1G-F, lot no. BCBN3037V), trans-cinnamic acid (catalog no. C80857-5G, lot
M

no. MKBT2807V), and caffeic acid (catalog no. C0625-2G, lot no. SLBN1752V) were obtained from
Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade
acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran, analytical grade potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH 2PO4), and
ED

ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) were obtained from commercial sources.

2.2. Dry matter and total starch content
The total starch content was determined by using the Megazyme Total Starch Assay Kit
PT

(AA/AMG). The result was detected by using a UV–Vis spectrophotometer at 510 nm[31]. The dry
matter content was obtained by freeze-drying[32]. Dry matter content was determined from the
difference in the weight of potato samples before and after freeze-drying.
E

2.3. Extraction of glycoalkaloids for HPLC

The cortex layer (approximately 5 mm of peripheral tissue) of tubers was peeled and chopped with
CC

a knife. The flesh, peel, and cubes of whole potato were ground in a ceramic mortar with liquid
nitrogen. The samples (2 g to 2.5 g) or dehydrated potato flakes (5 g) were extracted with 40 mL of 5%
acetic acid accompanied by ultrasonication for 10 min at room temperature. The other treatment steps
A

were the same as that described in the study of Friedman et al.[33]. The glycoalkaloids were
precipitated with concentrated NH4OH, dissolved in 500 µL to 1,000 µL of a mixture of
tetrahydrofuran/acetonitrile/20 mM KH2PO4, and centrifuged at 18,000×g for 10 min at 1 °C. The
supernatant was used for HPLC.
2.4. HPLC analysis of glycoalkaloids
The method used in this study was adapted from the literature[33] and employed an Inertsil NH2
column (5 µm, 4.0 mm × 250 mm; GL Science Inc., Tokyo, Japan). HPLC was conducted with the aid

3
of a Waters liquid chromatograph model 600-2998 equipped with a model 2998 photodiode array
detector set at 208 nm. Chromatogram peak areas were integrated with a Waters Empower 2
chromato-integrator. The mobile phase was acetonitrile/20 mM KH2PO4 (80:20, v/v). The flow rate
was 1 mL/min at a column temperature of 20 °C. The concentrations of α-chaconine and α-solanine in
the potato extracts were calculated by comparing with the integrated peak areas of known amounts of
the standards by a Waters chromato-integrator. α-chaconine or α-solanine of 20 µg/mL were prepared
by dissolving the glycoalkaloids in pyridine, and then dilute with the mobile phase into 10, 5 and 1
µg/mL respectively, 20 µL of each standard solution were used to make the calibration curves.
2.5. Extraction of phenolic compounds
The method used in this study was adapted from the literature[26] with minor modifications.

T
Potato peel (2 mm to 3 mm thick), flesh, and whole potatoes were cut with a knife into slices. After

IP
homogenization in a blender, samples of fresh materials (10 g to 15 g) from each potato cultivar or
dehydrated potato flake (approximately 5 g) were placed in a 250 mL flask with a reflux condenser to

R
which 50 mL of 80% ethanol was added, followed by heating at 80 °C for 10 min and centrifugation at
12,000×g for 15 min at 5 °C. The residue was extracted twice with 20 mL of 80% ethanol and

SC
centrifuged. The combined extracts were made up to a final volume of 100 mL with 80% ethanol. This
solution (10 mL) was evaporated under reduced pressure at 20 °C, and the residue was dissolved in
80% ethanol (1 mL) and centrifuged. The supernatant was used for HPLC.
2.6. HPLC analysis of phenolic acids
U
HPLC analysis was conducted on an Agilent liquid chromatograph 1200 series equipped with a
N
G1315D DAD UV–Vis detector set at 280 and 340 nm. The column temperature was controlled with
an AT-900 thermometer. Chromatogram peak areas were integrated with Agilent ChemStation. An
A
Inertsil ODS-3V column (5 µm, 4.0 mm × 250 mm; GL Science Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to
M

analyze phenolic acids. The mobile phase of the (A/B) gradient was (A) acetonitrile and (B) 0.5%
formic acid. The content of acetonitrile in the solvent was increased as follows: 5% (0 min to 5 min),
18% (30 min), 70% (90 min), and 5% (120 min). The flow rate was 1 mL/min at a column temperature
ED

of 30 °C. Three separate analyses of each sample were conducted.

Mixture standard solution of chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric, ferulic acid, and
trans-cinnamic acid were prepared by dissolving 5 mg of each standard phenolic compound in 5 mL
PT

30% methanol, and dilute with the mobile phase into 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 µg/mL respectively, 20 µL of
each diluted standard solution were used to make the calibration curves.
3. Results and discussion
E

3.1. Dry matter and starch content

Potato cultivar with a high content of dry mater is preferred for potato flake processing because of
CC

its high yield. The major component of the dry matter in potato tubers is starch (approximately 80%).
In this study, the dry matter and starch content of three potato cultivars, namely, Shepody, Russet
Burbank, and Atlantic, grown in Hebei, China were quantified. Shepody potato, with 21.11%±0.63 a
A

of dry matter and 16.26%±0.22 of total starch, is the lowest among the three cultivars. By contrast,
Russet Burbank and Atlantic potatoes have similar contents of dry matter (Russet Burbank: 23.62%±
0.57; Atlantic: 23.22%±0.71) and total starch(Russet Burbank: 18.13%±0.15; Atlantic: 17.89%±
0.43), with Atlantic potato being slightly lower than Russet Burbank potato on the two indicators.
3.2. Glycoalkaloids
Potato peels usually contain more glycoalkaloids than the pulp. In China, traditional household
processing methods of potatoes without peeling involve boiling and baking. This investigation

4
determined the contents of α-chaconine and α-solanine of three different cultivars on their peel, pulp,
and whole potato and calculated the total amount of glycoalkaloids and the ratio of two glycoalkaloids.
Fig. 2 shows the HPLC chromatograms of α-chaconine and α-solanine from the peels of three
potato cultivars. The retention times of the two glycoalkaloids on the HPLC column at 208 nm ranged
as follows: α-chaconine, 13.5 min; α-solanine, 23.5 min. The corresponding limits of detection (LOD
values in µg) from multiple determinations were 0.31, 0.48. Notably, the peel of Russet Burbank
possesses the highest content of glycoalkaloids, whereas that of Shepody contains the lowest amount of
glycoalkaloids. However, the α-chaconine to α-solanine ratio of Russet Burbank was the lowest,
whereas that of Shepody was the highest (Table 1). Several studies have shown that the toxicity of the
two compounds in mixture can act synergistically rather than additively[34,35].

T
The extraction of glycoalkaloids is a crucial step for analysis, however, it is really very difficult to

IP
extract all glycoalkaloids in the sample, especially those bound glycoalkaloids. In order to extract the
glycoalkaloids as many as possible, various critical control factors have been considered: Firstly, high

R
ratio of extraction solution (40 mL) to material (2 to 2.5 g) was used at the extraction step, the fresh
potato tuber contains about 85% water, ~0.4 g of material was used in fact. Though 5 g dehydrated

SC
potato flakes were used as material, the glycoalkaloids content is very low compared to the potato tuber.
Secondly, glycoalkaloids are easier to dissolve in acid extract solution, so 5% acetic acid was used, in
addition, weak acid is beneficial to avoid hydrolysis of glycoalkaloids. Thirdly, ultrasonication at long

U
time was used (10 min). Fourthly, multiple extraction was used, 3 times were used in this investigate.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the two glycoalkaloids in the flesh, peel, and whole potatoes of
N
the three cultivars grown in Hebei, China. α-Chaconine levels in peel (in mg/kg fresh weight) ranged
from 5.06 for Shepody to 143.16 for Russet Burbank. α-Solanine levels in peel ranged from 1.65 for
A
Shepody to 231.46 for Russet Burbank. The total glycoalkaloid (A + B) levels in peel ranged from 6.71
M

for Shepody to 374.62 for Russet Burbank. The ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine in peel ranged from
0.62 for Russet Burbank to 3.07 for Shepody.
As for glycoalkaloid levels in flesh, the Russet Burbank potatoes also have high contents of
ED

α-chaconine, α-solanine, and total glycoalkaloids (A + B) at 2.09, 3.54, and 5.63, respectively. The
corresponding ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine is 0.59. The Atlantic potatoes have lower
glycoalkaloid contents in flesh of 1.11, 1.22, and 2.33 for α-chaconine, α-solanine, and total
PT

glycoalkaloids (A + B), respectively, than the Russet Burbank potatoes. The corresponding ratio of
α-chaconine to α-solanine is 0.91. The Shepody potatoes have the lowest glycoalkaloid content in flesh,
which is lower than the limit of detection.
E

Table 1 also shows the difference in the whole potato glycoalkaloid contents of these three potato
cultivars. The α-chaconine levels in whole potatoes ranged from 2.72 for Shepody to 9.99 for Russet
CC

Burbank. The α-solanine levels in whole potatoes ranged from 2.00 for Shepody to 24.46 for Russet
Burbank. The total glycoalkaloid (A + B) levels in whole potatoes ranged from 4.72 for Shepody to
34.45 for Russet Burbank. The ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine in flesh ranged from 0.41 for Russet
A

Burbank to 3.61 for Atlantic.

We also quantified the glycoalkaloid content of commercial potato flake provided by Zhangjiakou
Hongji Agriculture Science and Technology Development Co. Ltd. Its content of α-chaconine and
α-solanine (in mg/kg wet weight) is 7.74 and 5.54, respectively. The total glycoalkaloids (A + B) is
13.28, the ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine is 1.40, and the removal rate of total glycoalkaloids in
Russet Burbank during dehydrated potato flake processing is 90.0%. According to Mäder et al.(3),
peeling and blanching are predominantly responsible for the loss of glycoalkaloids. Steam peeling

5
reduces 77.21% of the glycoalkaloid content, blanching reduces 11.22%, and the subsequent cooking,
mashing, and drying have no significant effect on the glycoalkaloid concentration. Elzbieta[30] also
reported that the highest decrease in glycoalkaloids during industrial processing was caused by peeling
(50%) and blanching (63%).
As we known, the residual 10% of glycoalkaloids in the dehydrated potato flakes are very difficult
to be removed, but the value is lower than the maximum level 200 mg/kg for safety. In the industrial
production of dehydrated potato flakes, the main problem-solving method for control the
glycoalkaloids is by control the raw material: sprouted, green potato tubers, and the potato varieties
with high glycoalkaloids content will not be used to produce the dehydrated potato flakes. Also, strict
post-harvest storage conditions will be used to prevent the increase of glycoalkaloids.

T
Fig. 2 and Table 1 show that the glycoalkaloids in these three potato cultivars varied significantly,

IP
particularly in the peel, and the content in the peel is several times to a dozen times higher than that in
the flesh. Friedman et al.[33] also reported that the content of glycoalkaloids can vary significantly in

R
different potato cultivars and is enhanced postharvest by environmental factors, such as light,
mechanical injury, and storage. In this investigation, the total glycoalkaloid content of Russet Burbank

SC
in the peel is as high as 374.62 mg/kg, which is higher than the maximum level (200 mg/kg) for safety.
Thus, peeling during processing is essential for food safety reasons. Considering several Chinese
household processing methods of potatoes without peeling, we do not suggest using Russet Burbank

U
potatoes as raw material for cooking; Shepody potatoes are more suitable.
Langkilde et al.[36] reported that changing the ratio of α-solanine to α-chaconine does have an
N
effect, i.e., a relative decrease in α-solanine resulted in less pronounced toxicological effects. Therefore,
the ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine might have an important effect on food safety. Russet Burbank
A
potatoes possess a low ratio of α-chaconine to α-solanine, such that they might be more toxic when the
M

total glycoalkaloid amount is at the same level. Thus, Shepody and Atlantic potatoes may be safer.
3.3. Phenolic compounds
Phenolic compounds are secondary plant metabolites found in potatoes and other plants[37,38].
ED

Phenolic compounds not only participate in enzyme-catalyzed browning reactions that may adversely
affect the color, flavor, and nutritional quality of potatoes and products but also exhibit beneficial
antimutagenic, anticarcinogenic, antiglycemic, cholesterol-lowering, and antimicrobial properties[26].
PT

Therefore, processing conditions that minimize their degradation should be adopted during household
and industrial processing.
E

The main phenolic substances in potato tuber include chlorogenic acid and its isomers, namely,
coumaric acid, ferulic acid, cinnamic acid, and caffeic acid[26]. The retention times of the five
CC

standards on the HPLC column at 280 nm ranged as follows: chlorogenic acid, 26.27 min; caffeic acid,
29.53 min; p-coumaric acid, 37.39 min; ferulic acid, 39.96 min; and trans-cinnamic acid, 54.49 min
(Fig. 4A). The corresponding limits of detection from multiple determinations were 24.2, 7.3, 5.2, 6.8,
A

and 3.2, the results are concurring with the results reported by Im et al. [26], while the same sample
treatment method and HPLC conditions were used. At 340 nm, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and
ferulic acid show strong response values; however, p-coumaric and trans-cinnamic acid cannot be
found (Fig. 4B). These results are consistent with the previous study of Im et al.[26].
Fig. 5 shows the HPLC chromatograms of phenolic compounds in the peel of the three potato
cultivars. The detailed contents of phenolic compounds in the peel, flesh, and whole potatoes of the
three potato varieties and potato flake are shown in Table 2. The peel contains more phenolic

6
compounds than the pulp, with the ratio ranging from 3.32 for Shepody to 5.77 for Atlantic. Among the
three cultivars, Russet Burbank contains more phenolic compounds in the peel and flesh than the other
two cultivars (Table 2).
Chlorogenic acid is the dominant phenolic compound in Russet Burbank peel; meanwhile, the
peels of Atlantic and Shepody contain considerable caffeic acid (Fig. 5). Potato flake contains 14.59
mg/100 g (dry basis) of phenolic compounds. The loss rate of phenolic compounds in Russet Burbank
whole potato is 50.47%. Table 2 also shows that dehydrated potato flake contains more chlorogenic
acid isomers compared with the raw materials because the chlorogenic acid content decreased during
processing, whereas the concentration of neochlorogenic acid increased because of isomerization[3].
Although the three varieties are used for potato flake processing in Zhangjiakou Hongji

T
Agriculture Science and Technology Development Co. Ltd., raw material is brought in batches into the

IP
production line with only one variety at a certain period of time. Mäder et al.[3] also reported that the
retention rate of phenolic compounds is 49.43% during commercial potato flake processing, and the

R
loss of phenolic compounds mainly occur during steam peeling (37.88%), blanching (3.51%), and
subsequent cooking (9.05%).

SC
4. Conclusions
Glycoalkaloids and phenolic compounds are two kinds of biologically active compounds in potato
tuber, which are predominantly found in the peel and adjoining tissues. The content of these two

U
biologically active compounds in three commercial potato cultivars (i.e., Russet Burbank, Atlantic, and
Shepody) grown in Hebei, China are quantified. The total glycoalkaloid levels in whole potatoes
N
ranged from 4.72 mg/kg for Shepody potatoes to 34.45 mg/kg for Russet Burbank potatoes. The
removal rate of total glycoalkaloids in Russet Burbank during dehydrated potato flake processing is
A
90.0%. Chlorogenic acid is the dominant phenolic compound in Russet Burbank. The loss rate of
M

phenolic compounds in Russet Burbank during dehydrated potato flake processing is 50.47%.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the China Agriculture Research System (CARS-10), the National
ED

Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFD0401302-02), the Science and Technology Major
Project of Gansu Province (1602NKDJ022-1), the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province
(1501RJZA004) and the Science and Technology Planing Project of Lanzhou (2016-3-123).
E PT
CC
A

7
References
[1] FAOSTAT.. http://faostat.fao.org/ (2016).
[2] A. L. Lewis, Method of producing dehydrated potato flakes. United States Patent 3574643, 1971.
[3] J. Mäder, H. Rawel, L. W. Kroh, Composition of phenolic compounds and glycoalkaloids
alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine during commercial potato processing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57
(2009) 6292-6297.
[4] C. Y. Jin, F. K. Zeng, G. Liu, Recovery of Protease Inhibitors from Potato Fruit Water by Expanded
Bed Adsorption Chromatography in Pilot Scale, Am. J. Potato Res, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-017-9605-1.

T
[5] M. J. H. Keijbets, Potato Processing for the Consumer: Developments and Future Challenges,

IP
Potato Res. 51(2008) 271-281.
[6] F. K. Zeng, H. Liu, G. Liu, Physicochemical properties of starch extracted from Colocasia esculenta

R
(L.) Schott (Bun-long taro) grown in Hunan, China, Starch/stärke, 66(2014)142-148.
[7] M. Willard, Potato processing: Past, present and future, Am. J. Potato Res. 70 (1993) 405-418.

SC
[8] D. M. Alvarez, W. Canet, Rheological properties of mashed potatoes made from dehydrated flakes:
effect of ingredients and freezing, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 209 (1999) 335-342.
[9] P. A. Conforti, C. E. Lupano, D. K. Yamul, Rheological, thermal and sensory properties of whey

U
protein concentrate/pectin-fortified mashed potatoes made from dehydrated flakes, Int. J. Food Sci.
Tech. 48 (2013) 1035–1040.
N
[10] M. D.Villagran, D. J. Beverly, L. Williamson, Dough composition comprising dehydrated potato
flakes and process for making a snack therewith, European Patent, EP 1588628 A1, 2005.
A
[11] G. Huang, China to grow and eat more potatoes. Front Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015) 68.
M

[12] C. Y. Jin, D. Xu, F. K. Zeng, Y. C. Zhao, Y. C. Yang, G. Q. Gao, G. H. Wen, G. Liu, A Simple
Method to Prepare Raw Dehydrated Potato Flour by Low-Temperature Vacuum Drying, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2017-0127.
ED

[13] J. Singh, L. Kaur, Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology, Second Ed., Academic Press,
San Diego. 2016.
[14] P. Nolte, J. L. Whitworth, M. K. Thornton, C. S. Mcintosh, Effect of seedborne potato virus Y on
PT

performance of Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, and Shepody potato, Plant Dis. 88 (2004)
248-252.
[15] J. C. Suttle, L. L. Olson, E. C. Lulai, The Involvement of Gibberellins in 1,8-Cineole-Mediated
E

Inhibition of Sprout Growth in Russet Burbank Tubers. Am. J. Potato Res. 33 (2015) 1133-1139.
[16] M. Friedman, Analysis of biologically active compounds in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum),
CC

tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum), and jimson weed (Datura stramonium) seeds, J. Chromatogr.
A 1054 (2004) 143-155.
[17] M. Friedman, Potato Glycoalkaloids and Metabolites:  Roles in the Plant and in the Diet, J. Agric.
A

Food Chem. 54 (2006) 8655-8681.

[18] S. L. Sinden, K. L. Deahl, B. B.Aulenbach, Effect of glycoalkaloids and phenolics on potato flavor,
J. Food Sci. 41 (1976) 520-523.
[19] S. O. Alozie, R. P. Sharma, D. K. Salunkhe, Physiological disposition, subcellular distribution and
tissue binding of α-chaconine (3H), J. Food Safety 1 (1978) 257-273.
[20] A. Sotelo, B. Serrano, High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of the
glycoalkaloids alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine in 12 commercial varieties of Mexican potato, J.

8
 Agric. Food Chem. 48 (2000) 2472-2475.
[21] K. Mccue, Potato Glycoalkaloids, Past Present and Future. Fruit, Vegetable, and Cereal Science
and Biotechnology 3 (2009) 65-71.
[22] R. J. Houben, K. Brunt, Determination of glycoalkaloids in potato tubers by reversed-phase
high-performance liquid chromatography, J. Chromatogr. A 661(1994), 169-174.
[23] M. Friedman, Chemistry and Anticarcinogenic Mechanisms of Glycoalkaloids Produced by
Eggplants, Potatoes, and Tomatoes, J. Agric. Food Chem. 63 (2015) 3323-3337.
[24] M. Friedman, J. R. Rayburn, J. A. Bantle, Developmental toxicology of potato alkaloids in the
frog embryo teratogenesis assay-Xenopus (FETAX). Food Chem. Toxicol. 29 (1991) 537-547.
[25] D. S. Mcgehee, M. D. Krasowski, D. L. Fung, B. Wilson, G. A. Gronert, J. Moss, Cholinesterase

T
inhibition by potato glycoalkaloids slows mivacurium metabolism. Anesthesiology 93(2000),

IP
510-519.
[26] H. W. Im, B. S. Suh, S. U. Lee, N. Kozukue, M. Ohnisi-Kameyama, C. E. Levin, M. Friedman,

R
Analysis of phenolic compounds by high-performance liquid chromatography and liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry in potato plant flowers, leaves, stems, and tubers and in

SC
home-processed potatoes, J. Agric. Food Chem. 56(2008) 3341-3349.
[27] P. P. Singh, M. D. A. Saldaña, Subcritical water extraction of phenolic compounds from potato
peel, Food Res. Int. 44 (2011) 2452-2458.

U
[28] T. Albishi, J. A. John, A. S. Al-Khalifa, F. Shahidi, Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and DNA
scission inhibitory activities of phenolic compounds in selected onion and potato varieties, J. Funct.
N
Foods 5 (2013) 930-939.
[29] A. Tajner-Czopek, E. Rytel, A. Kita, A. Pęksa, K. Hamouz, The influence of thermal process of
A
coloured potatoes on the content of glycoalkaloids in the potato products, Food Chem.133(2012)
M

1117–1122.
[30] R. Elżbieta, The effect of industrial potato processing on the concentrations of glycoalkaloids and
nitrates in potato granules. Food Control 28(2012), 380-384.
ED

[31] B. V. Mccleary, T. S. Gibson, D. C. Mugford, Measurement of Total Starch in Cereal Products by

Amyloglucosidase-α-Amylase Method: Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 80(1997) 571-579.
[32] E. Bertoft, A. Blennow, Structure of Potato Starch, in: J. Singh, L. Kaur (Eds.), Advances in Potato
PT

Chemistry and Technology, Academic Press, San Diego, 2009, pp. 83-98.
[33] M. Friedman, J. N. R. And, N. Kozukue, Glycoalkaloid and Calystegine Contents of Eight Potato
Cultivars, J. Agric. Food Chem. 51(2003) 2964-2973.
E

[34] J. G. Roddick, A. L. Rijnenberg, Synergistic interaction between the potato glycoalkaloids

α-solanine and α-chaconine in relation to lysis of phospholipid sterol liposomes. Phytochemistry
CC

(1987) 1325-1328.
[35] B. J. Phillips, J. A. Hughes, J. C. Phillips, D. G. Walters, D. Anderson, C. S. M. Tahourdin, A study
of the toxic hazard that might be associated with the consumption of green potato tops. Food Chem.
A

Toxicol. 34(1996) 439-448.

[36] S. Langkilde, T. Mandimika, M. Schroder, O. Meyer, W. Slob, A. Peijnenburg, M. Poulsen, A
28-day repeat dose toxicity study of steroidal glycoalkaloids, alpha-solanine abd alpha-chaconine in
the Syrian Golden hamster. Food Chem. Toxicol. 47(2009) 1099-1108.
[37] M. Friedman, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Dietary Role of Potato Polyphenols. A Review. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 45 (1997) 1523-1540.
[38] P. Mattila, J. Hellström, Phenolic acids in potatoes, vegetables, and some of their products, J. Food

9
 Compos. Anal. 20 (2007) 152-160.

T
IP
R
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

10
 T
R IP
SC
U
Fig. 1. Calibration curves of α-chaconine (a) and α-solanine (b) determination obtained using HPLC.
N
The both calibration curves of α-chaconine and α-solanine are presented in Fig. 1. The calibration
cures for α-chaconine andα-solanine determination are y=1.789x+1.075, R2=0.996, and
A
2
y=1.482x+0.953, R =0.995. As one can see from the results presented in Fig. 1, the calibration curve
M

obtained from HPLC method has good linearity, and better R2 factor.
ED
E PT
CC
A

11
 T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
PT

Fig. 2. HPLC chromatograms of α-chaconine and α-solanine from the peels of three potato cultivars:
(A) Russet Burbank, (B) Atlantic, and (C) Shepody.
E
CC
A

12
 T
R IP
SC
Fig. 3. Calibration curves of chlorogenic acid (a), caffeic acid (b) determination obtained using HPLC.

U
The both calibration curves of chlorogenic acid and caffeic acid are presented in Fig. 3. The
calibration cures for chlorogenic acid ahd caffeic acid determination are y=0.008x-0.249, R2=0.996, and
N
y=0.016x-0.060, R2=0.999. As one can see from the results presented in Fig. 3, the calibration curve
obtained from HPLC method has good linearity, and better R2 factor.
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

Fig. 4. HPLC chromatograms of standard chlorogenic acid (peak 1), caffeic acid (peak 2), p-coumaric
(peak 3), ferulic acid (peak 4), and trans-cinnamic acid (peak 5). Column: Inertsil ODS-3V (5 µm, 4.0
mm × 250 mm); flow rate, 1.0 mL/min; column temperature, 20 °C; mobile phase, acetonitrile/0.5%
formic acid (gradient mode); and detector, UV at 280 nm (A) and 340 nm (B).

13
 T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED

Fig. 5. HPLC chromatograms of phenolic compounds in the peel of three potato cultivars: (A) Russet
PT

Burbank, (B) Atlantic, and (C) Shepody. Identification; p.1, chlorogenic acid; p.2, caffeic acid; p.3,
p-coumaric; p.4, ferulic acid; p.5, trans-cinnamic acid; and p.6, chlorogenic acid isomer.
Chromatographic conditions are the same as that in Fig. 4.
E
CC
A

14
Table 1. Glycoalkaloid Content of Potato Flesh, Peel, and Whole Potatoes of Three Potato Cultivars
μg/g
Cultivars α-chaconine ratio（A/B）
α-solanine (B) total（A+B）
(A)
peel 5.06±0.33 a 1.65±0.94 6.71 3.07
flesh - - - -
Shepody
Whole
2.72±0.78 2.00±0.55 4.72 1.36
potatoes
peel 143.16±1.87 231.46±10.29 374.62 0.62

T
Russet flesh 2.09±1.08 3.54±0.46 5.63 0.59

IP
Burbank Whole
9.99±0.53 24.46±0.88 34.45 0.41
potatoes

R
peel 51.80±0.58 19.37±0.46 71.17 2.67
flesh 1.11±0.53 1.22±0.53 2.33 0.91

SC
Atlantic
Whole
8.08±0.33 2.24±0.09 10.32 3.61
potatoes
Dehydrated potato flake 7.74±0.35 5.54±0.21 13.28 1.40
a
Mean±SD (n=3, μg g-1 fresh weight)
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

15
Table 2. Content of Phenolic Compounds in the Peel, Flesh and Whole Potatoes of Three Potato
Varieties and Potato Flake.
Potato Chlorogenic Chlorogenic Caffeic Ratio:
Cultivars Total
section acid isomer acid peel/pulp
a
peel 3.46±0.15 0.88±0.11 1.94±0.12 6.28
flesh 1.02±0.08 0.74±0.08 0.13±0.00 1.89
Shepody 3.32
whole
2.90±0.09 0.80±0.08 0.49±0.02 4.19
potatoes
peel 12.48±0.2 1.50±0.25 0.94±0.02 14.92

T
Russet flesh 2.81±0.11 0.66±0.02 0.16±0.00 3.63
4.11

IP
Burbank whole
5.70±0.23 0.94±0.01 0.32±0.01 6.96
potatoes

R
peel 6.78±0.16 0.97±0.02 2.47±0.13 10.22
flesh 1.00±0.04 0.64±0.01 0.13±0.00 1.77

SC
Atlantic 5.77
Whole
1.70±0.02 0.71±0.02 0.64±0.03 3.05
potatoes
Potato flake 9.36±0.14 3.26±0.05 0.66±0.02 13.28 -
a -1
Mean±SD (n=3, mg 100 g fresh wt)
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

16