Citation: Fengyong Li, Jiang Yu, Yanli Ren. Data-Loss resilience video steganography using frame reference and data ensemble reconstruction[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4559-4580. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019228
| [1] | Dingwei Tan, Yuliang Lu, Xuehu Yan, Lintao Liu, Longlong Li . High capacity reversible data hiding in MP3 based on Huffman table transformation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 3183-3194. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019158 |
| [2] | Yongju Tong, YuLing Liu, Jie Wang, Guojiang Xin . Text steganography on RNN-Generated lyrics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5451-5463. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019271 |
| [3] | Kun Zheng, Junjie Shen, Guangmin Sun, Hui Li, Yu Li . Shielding facial physiological information in video. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 5153-5168. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022241 |
| [4] | Wanru Du, Xiaochuan Jing, Quan Zhu, Xiaoyin Wang, Xuan Liu . A cross-modal conditional mechanism based on attention for text-video retrieval. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 20073-20092. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023889 |
| [5] | Xue Li, Huibo Zhou, Ming Zhao . Transformer-based cascade networks with spatial and channel reconstruction convolution for deepfake detection. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 4142-4164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024183 |
| [6] | Xianyi Chen, Anqi Qiu, Xingming Sun, Shuai Wang, Guo Wei . A high-capacity coverless image steganography method based on double-level index and block matching. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4708-4722. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019236 |
| [7] | Shanqing Zhang, Xiaoyun Guo, Xianghua Xu, Li Li, Chin-Chen Chang . A video watermark algorithm based on tensor decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3435-3449. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019172 |
| [8] | Pedro R. Palos Sánchez, José A. Folgado-Fernández, Mario Alberto Rojas Sánchez . Virtual Reality Technology: Analysis based on text and opinion mining. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 7856-7885. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022367 |
| [9] | Jimmy Ming-Tai Wu, Jerry Chun-Wei Lin, Philippe Fournier-Viger, Youcef Djenouri, Chun-Hao Chen, Zhongcui Li . The density-based clustering method for privacy-preserving data mining. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1718-1728. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019082 |
| [10] | Qing Ye, Qiaojia Zhang, Sijie Liu, Kaiqiang Chen . A novel chaotic system based on coupled map lattice and its application in HEVC encryption. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 9410-9429. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021463 |
Fruit juices and derived products have experienced a growing consumption during the last years due to the positive effects of their ingredients on human health. Indeed, consumers are increasingly becoming aware of health problems related to food intake, therefore demanding health-promoting natural products.
Plant food processing derived by-products (agro-industrial residues) represent a disposal problem for the companies, but they are also promising sources of bioactive compounds, including antioxidants [1,3], which may be employed in agriculture by farmers to foster crop performance [4]. Therefore, agro-industrial residues can be referred to as biostimulant compounds.
According to the European Biostimulants Industry Council [5], biostimulants are defined as products containing substances and/or microorganisms whose function when applied to plants or the rhizosphere is to stimulate natural processes, to enhance/benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient use efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, and crop quality. Biostimulants are of remarkable importance for sustainable agriculture as they offer an innovative solution to an increased world demand for high crop productivity under low unsustainable inputs [6]. The sale-market in Europe in particular, has been estimated to grow up to ＄2 billions by 2018 [7,8]. The European Biostimulants Industry Council [9] does not recognize any direct action of biostimulants against pests; therefore, biostimulants do not fall within the regulatory framework of pesticides. Also, they must operate in plants through different mechanisms than fertilizers, regardless of the presence of nutrients in the products [9]. In this respect, the Biostimulant Coalition in North America specifies that biostimulants are not nutrients, but products that in very little amounts are able to promote plant growth and development, plant nutrient uptake and use efficiency, plant metabolic processes, or act as soil amendments to help ameliorating soil structure, function, or performance. However, because they are manufactured starting from different sources and consist of complex mixtures of active substances, the assignment of specific functions in plants to the individual components of these products is often arduous.
In the last few years, several research has proposed the application of products derived from fruit residues in agriculture because of their content in phenols, which are particularly actives in stimulating plant metabolism [10,11]. There are a number of techniques used for the extraction of phenolic compounds from different types of vegetable residues, most of them using organic solvents (e.g. ethanol), high temperatures, and long extraction times to exhaust the materials [12,13]. However, long extraction times can cause artifacts and organic solvents may pose a risk for the environment and human health. Other extraction procedures have been recently proposed, such as ultrasound [14], pressure [15,16] and supercritical fluid extraction [17]. Controlled enzymatic hydrolysis (Figure 1) has been applied for proteins recovery from residues of animal and fish processing industries [18]. This process is advantageous in terms of environmental impact (low temperature, minimum amount of water) and because several end-products may be recovered.
Figure 1. Enzymatic hydrolysis representation.In a study by Ertani et al. [10], maize (Zea mays L.) plants were supplied for the first time with the dry apple and blueberry residues under controlled conditions. These residues were particularly rich in phenol compounds. Plants were grown for 12 d in a nutrient solution in the absence (control) or in the presence of either cellulolytic dry apple hydrolysate (AP) or dry blueberry cool extract (BB) applied at two different doses. Plants supplied with AP and BB displayed a significant increase in root and leaf biomass and a high content in macronutrients and proteins. Conversely, sucrose and glucose concentrations drastically decreased in foliar tissues of plants treated with AP and BB (Table 1). Of particular interest was the positive impact of AP and BB on the secondary metabolism associated with the synthesis of phenolic compounds, evaluated in terms of activation of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL; EC 4.3.1.5) gene expression. PAL catalyzes the first step of the phenylpropanoid pathway, by converting phenylalanine into trans-cinnamic acid and tyrosine into p-coumaric acid. In Table 2 the content of soluble phenols in the plant tissues in relation to the treatment of plants with AP and BB is shown [10].
| Dosage | Proteins | Sugars | |||
| mg g−1 fresh weight | Sucrose | Glucose | Fructose | ||
| s | es | mg g−1 dry weight | |||
| Control | 1.01 ± 0.41 d | 2.90 ± 0.37 c | 116.73 ± 12.34 a | 27.42 ± 1.33 a | 77.43 ± 0.57 d |
| Apple 0.1 | 1.36 ± 0.34 c | 3.19 ± 0.17 b | 77.39 ± 10.02 b | 10.96 ± 1.14 c | 226.66 ± 1.21 a |
| Apple 1.0 | 1.94 ± 0.16 a | 3.91 ± 0.10 a | 3.55 ± 1.48 d | 4.05 ± 1.26 d | 223.18 ± 0.68 b |
| Blue Berry 0.1 | 1.85 ± 0.10 b | 3.57 ± 0.16 b | 22.47 ± 4.42 c | 22.76 ± 1.18 b | 99.79 ± 0.61 c |
| Blue Berry 1.0 | 1.99 ± 0.32 a | 3.83 ± 0.09 a | 8.83 ± 3.27 d | 6.83 ± 2.29 d | 110.12 ± 0.44 c |
DownLoad: CSV| Control | Apple 0.1 | Apple 1.0 | Blue Berry 0.1 | Blue Berry 1.0 | |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Phenols | 1.02 ± 0.04 c | 1.13 ± 0.05 c | 1.30 ± 0.05 b | 1.48 ± 0.04 a | 1.52 ± 0.09 a |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Flavonoids | 0.092 ± 0.005 d | 0.123 ± 0.017 c | 0.111 ± 0.007 c | 0.204 ± 0.010 b | 0.232 ± 0.013 a |
| (µg g−1d w) | |||||
| Gallic acid | 2.37 ± 0.62 c | 13.73 ± 2.84 b | 22.81 ± 1.47 a | 14.52 ± 2.73 b | 24.42 ± 1.12 a |
| Protocatechuic acid | 12.80 ± 1.73 d | 30.82 ± 3.23c | 42.38 ± 1.99 b | 50.52 ± 2.85 a | 49.93 ± 2.16 a |
| Syringic acid | n.d. | 26.86 ± 2.44 a | 28.32 ± 2.17 a | 26.02 ± 2.81 a | 25.92 ± 2.10 a |
| Vanillic acid | n.d. | 41.27 ± 5.61 a | 20.08 ± 3.72 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Hydroxibenzoic acid | n.d. | 5.89 ± 0.98 a | 2.68 ± 0.99 b | 6.15 ± 0.43 a | 6.72 ± 0.35 a |
| Caffeic acid | n.d. | n.d. | 2.47 ± 0.63 b | 12.13 ± 1.97 a | 10.86 ± 2.09 a |
| Chlorogenic acid | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Coumaric acid | 55.01 ± 4.03 c | 15.61 ± 2.28 e | 149.70 ± 4.34 b | 34.71 ± 2.04 d | 172.46 ± 4.12 a |
| Ferulic acid | 75.33 ± 5.62 c | 83.41 ± 3.84 bc | 87.18 ± 3.01 ab | 84.65 ± 4.21 bc | 91.32 ± 4.16 a |
| (nmol cinnamic acid mg−1 protein min−1) | |||||
| PAL act | 9.481 ± 0.012 c | 23.845 ± 0.008 b | 21.425 ± 0.007 b | 23.855 ± 0.009 b | 30.399 ± 0.017 a |
DownLoad: CSVPhenols are important compounds for their ability to act as antioxidants and protectors against reactive oxygen species [19,20,21]. Protocatechuic, hydroxybenzoic, vanillic and p-coumaric acids influence several physiological effects that include improvement of plant-water relationships, stomatal function and rate of photosynthesis and respiration. These phenols also interact with several phytohormones and enzymes determining a different biosynthesis and flow of carbon into metabolites. Nevertheless, the factors regulating and controlling the quality and quantity of phenols in plant tissues still remain partially unknown.
In other study by Ertani et al. [11], vegetal extracts derived from hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) leaves, red grape (Vitis vinifera L.) skin material and blueberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) fruits were applied in maize plants in order to verify their biostimulant activity. Their content in phenols was evaluated, as well as the hormone-like activity, which was inferred via indoleacetic acid and isopentenyladenosine quantification. The biostimulant effect was demonstrated in terms of root and leaf biomass improvement, high content in chlorophyll and sugars compared to untreated plants. Moreover, hawthorn, red grape skin and blueberry enhanced the accumulation of p-coumaric acid, whilst hawthorn alone increased the amounts of gallic and p-hydroxybenzoic acids. These evidences were likely imputable to the role of phenols in stimulating plant metabolism, and to the promotion of the auxin-mediated signal transduction pathway [22,23].
Selby and coauthors [24] further analyzed aqueous extracts from the forage grass (Lolium perenne) finding an elicitor of plant defense reactions in the whole plant system and in crop situations. They also showed that an elicitor from one species can be active in a completely unrelated species, thus suggesting that the biostimulant activity from L. perenne extracts might have a broad applicability to a wide range of crops, particularly if its mode-of-action consists in inducing plant defenses.
Sánchez-Gómez et al. [25], demonstrated that grapevines treated with aqueous oak extracts via foliar application were able to modulate the phenolic and aroma composition of the grapes and the derived wines products [26,27]. One of the biggest problem in wine-producing regions is to create alternatives for processing the great amount of grape waste generated during the harvest season. Sánchez-Gómez et al. [25], proposed the use of vine-shoot waste as biostimulant for vitis vinifera metabolism. The authors produced Airén waste vine-shoot aqueous extracts using four solid-liquid extraction techniques, such as conventional solid-liquid extraction (CSLE), solid-liquid dynamic extraction (SLDE-Naviglio), microwave extraction (ME), and pressurized solvent extraction (PSE). The results showed that vine-shoot waste aqueous extracts from the V. vinifera Airén variety obtained by CSLE and SLDE-Naviglio had the highest concentration of phenolic, volatile, and mineral valuable compounds, therefore they may have a new potential use as biostimulants or foliar fertilizers in vineyards. Their use could be implemented in the "Sustainable Viticulture" concept, where the cycle of the vine could be closed, such as using vine-shoot extracts to modulate the grape quality, return nutrient to the soil and enhance terroir effect.
In the paper of Bulgari et al. [28], the effectiveness of raw extracts from leaves or flowers of Borago officinalis L., were assessed in Lactuca sativa Longifolia. The extracts were diluted to 1 or 10 mL L−1, sprayed onto lettuce plants at the middle of the growing cycle and 1 day before harvest. The leaf photosynthetic efficiency (chlorophyll a fluorescence and leaf gas exchanges), levels of ethylene, photosynthetic pigments, nitrate, total sugars and total phenols and flavonoids, including the activity and levels of phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), were assessed. The authors reported that borage extracts increased the primary metabolism by inducing leaf pigment accumulation and the photosynthetic activity. Plant fresh weight increased upon treatments with 10 mL L–1 doses, and chlorophyll a fluorescence data showed that flowers were able to increase the number of active reaction centers per cross section. Ethylene was three-fold lower in flower treatments. Nitrate and sugar levels did not change in response to the different treatments. Total flavonoids and phenols, as well as the total protein levels, the in vitro PAL specific activity, and the levels of PAL-like polypeptides were increased by all borage extracts, with particular regard to flowers. Flower extracts also were efficient in preventing degradation and inducing an increase in photosynthetic pigments during storage.
The use of aqueous extracts produced from fruit juices and derived products as biostimulants in agriculture is gaining attention, even if additional studies are needed to develop new extractive techniques from these sources. Nowadays, there is a trend that encourages the use of free environmental techniques to enhance sustainability; it is the so called "green chemistry". Such techniques are developed to reduce and/or eliminate the use of organic solvents, and the use of water as a solvent for extraction should be preferred. The resulting aqueous extracts will have the advantage of being exempt from certification based on their vegetal origin, although the concentration of bioactive compounds in such extracts may be lower than when other techniques are used, as the exhaustion of the vegetable material does not take place.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | J. Mielikainen, LSB matching revisited, IEEE. SPL., 13(2006), 285–287. |
| [2] | F. Li, X. Zhang, J. Yu, et al., Adaptive JPEG steganography with new distortion function, Ann. Telecommun., 69(2014), 431–440. |
| [3] | V. Holub, J. Fridrich and T. Denemark, Universal distortion function for steganography in an arbitrary domain, EURASIP JIS., Special Issue on Revised Selected Papers of the 1st ACM IH and MMS Workshop, (2014), 2014:1. |
| [4] | T. Pevný, T. Filler and P. Bas, Using high-dimensional image models to perform highly unde- tectable steganography, Proc. IH2010, Calgary, AB, Canada, June 28–30, 6387(2010), 161–177. |
| [5] | F. Li, X. Zhang, H. Cheng, et al., Digital image steganalysis based on local textural features and double dimensionality reduction, SCN, 9(2016), 729–736. |
| [6] | B. Chen, G. Feng, X. Zhang, et al., Mixing high-dimensional features for JPEG steganalysis with ensemble classifier, SIVP, 8(2014), 1475–1482. |
| [7] | X. Song, F. Liu, C. Yang, et al., Steganalysis of adaptive JPEG steganography using 2D Gabor filters, Proc. IH&MMSec2015 , Portland, OR, USA, June 17-19, (2015), 15–23. |
| [8] | F. Li, X. Zhang, B. Chen, et al., JPEG steganalysis with high- dimensional features and Bayesian ensemble classifier, IEEE SPL, 20(2013), 233–236. |
| [9] | Z. Zhao, Q. Guan, X. Zhao, et al., Universal embedding strategy for batch adaptive steganography in both spatial and JPEG domain, MTAP, 77(2018), 14093–14113. |
| [10] | R. Cogranne, V. Sedighi and J. Fridrich, Practical strategies for content-adaptive batch steganogra- phy and pooled steganalysis, Proc. ICASSP2017, New Orleans, USA, March 5–9, (2017), 2122– 2126. |
| [11] | F. Li, K. Wu, X. Zhang, et al., Robust batch steganography in social networks with non-uniform payload and data decomposition, IEEE Access, 6(2018), 29912–29925. |
| [12] | E. Franz, Embedding considering dependencies between pixels, Proc. SPIE, Electron. Imag., Se-cur., Forens., Steg., and Watermark. of Multimedia Contents X, 6819(2008), D 1–12. |
| [13] | T. Denemark and J. Fridrich, Steganography with multiple JPEG images of the same scene, IEEE TIFS, 12(2017), 2308–2319. |
| [14] | P. Chang, K. Chung, J. Chen, et al., A DCT/DST-based error propagation-free data hiding algo-rithm for HEVC intra-coded frames, JVCIR, 25(2014), 239–253. |
| [15] | Y. Liu, Z. Li, X. Ma, et al., A robust data hiding algorithm for H.264/AVC video streams. J. Sys. Sof., 86(2013), 2174–2183. |
| [16] | R. Mstafa, K. Elleithy and E. Abdelfattah, A robust and secure video steganography method in DWT-DCT domains based on multiple object tracking and ECC, IEEE Access, 5(2017), 5354–5367. |
| [17] | H. Aly, Data hiding in motion vectors of compressed video based on their associated prediction error, IEEE TIFS, 6(2011), 14–18. |
| [18] | H. Zhang, Y. Cao and X. Zhao, Motion vector-based video steganography with preserved local optimality, MTAP, 75(2016), 13503–13519. |
| [19] | H. Zhang, Y. Cao, X. Zhao, et al., Video steganography with perturbed macroblock partition, Proc. IH&MMSec2014, Salzburg, Austria, Jun. 11–13, (2014), 115–122. |
| [20] | I. Cox, J. Kilian, F. Leighton, et al., Secure spread spectrum watermarking for multimedia, IEEE TIP, 6(1997), 1673–1687. |
| [21] | V. Neagoe, Inversion of the Van der Monde matrix, IEEE SPL, 3(1996), 119–120. |
| [22] | YUV Video Sequences, Available from: http://trace.eas.asu.edu/yuv/index.html, [Accessed on 2018]. |
| [23] | J. Kodovský, J. Fridrich and V. Holub, Ensemble classifier for steganalysis of digital media, IEEE TIFS, 7(2012), 432–444. |
| [24] | M. Dalal and M. Juneja, A robust and imperceptible steganography technique for SD and HD videos, MTAP, 2018, to appear. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6093-3. |
| [25] | A. Ker and T. Pevný, A new paradigm for steganalysis via clustering, Proc. SPIE, Media Water-mark., Secur., Forens. III, 7880(2011), 78800U. |
| [26] | A. Ker and T. Pevný, The steganographer is the outlier: realistic large-scale steganalysis, IEEE TIFS, 9(2014), 1424–1435. |
| [27] | F. Li, K. Wu, J. Lei, et al., Steganalysis over large-scale social networks with high-order joint features and clustering ensembles, IEEE TIFS, 11(2016), 344–357. |
| 1. | Andrea Ertani, Serenella Nardi, Ornella Francioso, Santiago Sanchez-Cortes, Michele Di Foggia, Michela Schiavon, Effects of Two Protein Hydrolysates Obtained From Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Spirulina platensis on Zea mays (L.) Plants, 2019, 10, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2019.00954 | |
| 2. | Agnieszka Szparaga, Sławomir Kocira, Ireneusz Kapusta, Grzegorz Zaguła, Prototyping extracts from Artemisia absinthium L. for their biostimulating properties yield-enhancing, and farmer income-increasing properties, 2021, 160, 09266690, 113125, 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.113125 | |
| 3. | Matteo Perra, Alba Cuena-Lombraña, Gianluigi Bacchetta, Maria Letizia Manca, Maria Manconi, Richard G. Maroun, Aldo Muntoni, Carlo Ignazio Giovanni Tuberoso, Katarzyna A. Gil, Giorgia De Gioannis, Combining Different Approaches for Grape Pomace Valorization: Polyphenols Extraction and Composting of the Exhausted Biomass, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 10690, 10.3390/su141710690 | |
| 4. | Deise Munaro, Carolina Herrera Mazo, Cláudia Marlene Bauer, Leticia da Silva Gomes, Emanuelle Bavaresco Teodoro, Letícia Mazzarino, Maria Beatriz da Rocha Veleirinho, Sidnei Moura e Silva, Marcelo Maraschin, A novel biostimulant from chitosan nanoparticles and microalgae-based protein hydrolysate: Improving crop performance in tomato, 2024, 323, 03044238, 112491, 10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112491 | |
| 5. | José Alejandro Díaz-Elizondo, Azrrael Ayala-Velazco, Adalberto Benavides-Mendoza, Francisco Javier Enriquez-Medrano, Julia Medrano-Macías, Obtaining Lignin from Nutshells under Mild Extraction Conditions and Its Use as a Biostimulant in Tomato Seedlings, 2024, 10, 2311-7524, 1079, 10.3390/horticulturae10101079 |
Figures(7) / Tables(9)
Fengyong Li, Jiang Yu, Yanli Ren. Data-Loss resilience video steganography using frame reference and data ensemble reconstruction[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4559-4580. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019228
| Dosage | Proteins | Sugars | |||
| mg g−1 fresh weight | Sucrose | Glucose | Fructose | ||
| s | es | mg g−1 dry weight | |||
| Control | 1.01 ± 0.41 d | 2.90 ± 0.37 c | 116.73 ± 12.34 a | 27.42 ± 1.33 a | 77.43 ± 0.57 d |
| Apple 0.1 | 1.36 ± 0.34 c | 3.19 ± 0.17 b | 77.39 ± 10.02 b | 10.96 ± 1.14 c | 226.66 ± 1.21 a |
| Apple 1.0 | 1.94 ± 0.16 a | 3.91 ± 0.10 a | 3.55 ± 1.48 d | 4.05 ± 1.26 d | 223.18 ± 0.68 b |
| Blue Berry 0.1 | 1.85 ± 0.10 b | 3.57 ± 0.16 b | 22.47 ± 4.42 c | 22.76 ± 1.18 b | 99.79 ± 0.61 c |
| Blue Berry 1.0 | 1.99 ± 0.32 a | 3.83 ± 0.09 a | 8.83 ± 3.27 d | 6.83 ± 2.29 d | 110.12 ± 0.44 c |
DownLoad: CSV| Control | Apple 0.1 | Apple 1.0 | Blue Berry 0.1 | Blue Berry 1.0 | |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Phenols | 1.02 ± 0.04 c | 1.13 ± 0.05 c | 1.30 ± 0.05 b | 1.48 ± 0.04 a | 1.52 ± 0.09 a |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Flavonoids | 0.092 ± 0.005 d | 0.123 ± 0.017 c | 0.111 ± 0.007 c | 0.204 ± 0.010 b | 0.232 ± 0.013 a |
| (µg g−1d w) | |||||
| Gallic acid | 2.37 ± 0.62 c | 13.73 ± 2.84 b | 22.81 ± 1.47 a | 14.52 ± 2.73 b | 24.42 ± 1.12 a |
| Protocatechuic acid | 12.80 ± 1.73 d | 30.82 ± 3.23c | 42.38 ± 1.99 b | 50.52 ± 2.85 a | 49.93 ± 2.16 a |
| Syringic acid | n.d. | 26.86 ± 2.44 a | 28.32 ± 2.17 a | 26.02 ± 2.81 a | 25.92 ± 2.10 a |
| Vanillic acid | n.d. | 41.27 ± 5.61 a | 20.08 ± 3.72 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Hydroxibenzoic acid | n.d. | 5.89 ± 0.98 a | 2.68 ± 0.99 b | 6.15 ± 0.43 a | 6.72 ± 0.35 a |
| Caffeic acid | n.d. | n.d. | 2.47 ± 0.63 b | 12.13 ± 1.97 a | 10.86 ± 2.09 a |
| Chlorogenic acid | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Coumaric acid | 55.01 ± 4.03 c | 15.61 ± 2.28 e | 149.70 ± 4.34 b | 34.71 ± 2.04 d | 172.46 ± 4.12 a |
| Ferulic acid | 75.33 ± 5.62 c | 83.41 ± 3.84 bc | 87.18 ± 3.01 ab | 84.65 ± 4.21 bc | 91.32 ± 4.16 a |
| (nmol cinnamic acid mg−1 protein min−1) | |||||
| PAL act | 9.481 ± 0.012 c | 23.845 ± 0.008 b | 21.425 ± 0.007 b | 23.855 ± 0.009 b | 30.399 ± 0.017 a |
DownLoad: CSV| Dosage | Proteins | Sugars | |||
| mg g−1 fresh weight | Sucrose | Glucose | Fructose | ||
| s | es | mg g−1 dry weight | |||
| Control | 1.01 ± 0.41 d | 2.90 ± 0.37 c | 116.73 ± 12.34 a | 27.42 ± 1.33 a | 77.43 ± 0.57 d |
| Apple 0.1 | 1.36 ± 0.34 c | 3.19 ± 0.17 b | 77.39 ± 10.02 b | 10.96 ± 1.14 c | 226.66 ± 1.21 a |
| Apple 1.0 | 1.94 ± 0.16 a | 3.91 ± 0.10 a | 3.55 ± 1.48 d | 4.05 ± 1.26 d | 223.18 ± 0.68 b |
| Blue Berry 0.1 | 1.85 ± 0.10 b | 3.57 ± 0.16 b | 22.47 ± 4.42 c | 22.76 ± 1.18 b | 99.79 ± 0.61 c |
| Blue Berry 1.0 | 1.99 ± 0.32 a | 3.83 ± 0.09 a | 8.83 ± 3.27 d | 6.83 ± 2.29 d | 110.12 ± 0.44 c |
| Control | Apple 0.1 | Apple 1.0 | Blue Berry 0.1 | Blue Berry 1.0 | |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Phenols | 1.02 ± 0.04 c | 1.13 ± 0.05 c | 1.30 ± 0.05 b | 1.48 ± 0.04 a | 1.52 ± 0.09 a |
| (mg gallic acid g−1 fw) | |||||
| Flavonoids | 0.092 ± 0.005 d | 0.123 ± 0.017 c | 0.111 ± 0.007 c | 0.204 ± 0.010 b | 0.232 ± 0.013 a |
| (µg g−1d w) | |||||
| Gallic acid | 2.37 ± 0.62 c | 13.73 ± 2.84 b | 22.81 ± 1.47 a | 14.52 ± 2.73 b | 24.42 ± 1.12 a |
| Protocatechuic acid | 12.80 ± 1.73 d | 30.82 ± 3.23c | 42.38 ± 1.99 b | 50.52 ± 2.85 a | 49.93 ± 2.16 a |
| Syringic acid | n.d. | 26.86 ± 2.44 a | 28.32 ± 2.17 a | 26.02 ± 2.81 a | 25.92 ± 2.10 a |
| Vanillic acid | n.d. | 41.27 ± 5.61 a | 20.08 ± 3.72 b | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Hydroxibenzoic acid | n.d. | 5.89 ± 0.98 a | 2.68 ± 0.99 b | 6.15 ± 0.43 a | 6.72 ± 0.35 a |
| Caffeic acid | n.d. | n.d. | 2.47 ± 0.63 b | 12.13 ± 1.97 a | 10.86 ± 2.09 a |
| Chlorogenic acid | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| p-Coumaric acid | 55.01 ± 4.03 c | 15.61 ± 2.28 e | 149.70 ± 4.34 b | 34.71 ± 2.04 d | 172.46 ± 4.12 a |
| Ferulic acid | 75.33 ± 5.62 c | 83.41 ± 3.84 bc | 87.18 ± 3.01 ab | 84.65 ± 4.21 bc | 91.32 ± 4.16 a |
| (nmol cinnamic acid mg−1 protein min−1) | |||||
| PAL act | 9.481 ± 0.012 c | 23.845 ± 0.008 b | 21.425 ± 0.007 b | 23.855 ± 0.009 b | 30.399 ± 0.017 a |
