Phytochemicals and quality level of food plants grown in an aquaponics system
Metadata
- Cite key: bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: R. Braglia, P. Costa, G. Di Marco, A. D’Agostino, E.L. Redi, F. Scuderi, A. Gismondi, A. Canini
- Affiliation: Department of Biology, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, Rome, Italy
- Journal: Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 102 (2022) 844-850
- Date: 01/2022
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.11420
- Funding: Regione Lazio, POR FESR LAZIO 2014-2020, project ‘Aquaponic easy farm 4.0’, project code A0206E0090
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11420
- PDF:
Braglia et al. - 2022 - Phytochemicals and quality level of food plants grown in an aquaponics system.pdf
Opinion
A carefully executed, internally consistent phytochemistry paper — every significance-level claim I re-checked against its source table matched exactly (including two derived percentage claims, -71.4%/-51.8% for parsley and +1861.4%/+663.7% for basil, both of which recompute perfectly), and both GC-MS composition tables sum to 100% component-by-component. The one real weakness is a units problem: the antioxidant-activity unit is given as “mol AAEq g-1” in the table header but as “mg AAEq g-1” (dry basis only) in the Methods text, and “mol per gram” is not physically plausible at the reported magnitudes — this looks like an uncaught micromol/millimol typo that survived peer review. Worth citing for the aquaponics-vs-organic-soil (not aquaponics-vs-hydroponics) comparison angle, which is rarer in this literature, but verify the AA unit before quoting a magnitude.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beyond nutrition, fruits and vegetables can be considered as natural sources of bioactive molecules, for which beneficial effects on human health are widely recognised. To improve food quality, soilless growing systems could represent a good strategy for promoting a sustainable food production chain, although the nutritional and nutraceutical properties of their products should be investigated in depth. The main quality traits and the volatile and non-volatile secondary metabolites of Solanum lycopersicum L., Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss and Ocimun basilicum L. grown in an aquaponics system and in organic farming were quantified and compared.
RESULTS: On a fresh basis, soil-grown P. crispum and O. basilicum showed significantly higher total phenolics and antioxidant activity compared to aquaponic crops, whereas, on a dry basis, both plants showed opposite results. Soil-grown S. lycopersicum was significantly richer in total phenolics, whereas the aquaponic type showed a higher antioxidant activity. Aquaponics induced the accumulation of resveratrol in P. crispum, rosmarinic acid and myricetin in O. basilicum, and lycopene in S. lycopersicum. Among the volatile compounds, in O. basilicum, linalool was the main constituent in both treatments, whereas τ-cadinol represented the second constituent in aquaponic crops. The volatile profiles of P. crispum did not differ significantly between the two cultivation methods.
CONCLUSION: The overall quality of organic and aquaponics cultures appeared to be comparable. The results showed that aquaponic farming method can be an innovative, rapid and sustainable way of producing quality food.
© 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
Summary
This experiment (June-September 2019, Rome, Italy) compared three horticultural crops — tomato (‘Principe Borghese’), parsley (‘Gigante d’Italia’), and basil (‘Genovese’) — grown either in an aquaponics system (two ornamental-fish tanks feeding a floating-raft unit) or under organic soil farming in a botanic garden, to see whether the two production methods yield comparable food quality and phytochemical content. Plants were sampled at species-specific harvest ages (parsley/basil at 6 weeks, tomato at 12 weeks) and assayed in triplicate for dry weight, soluble solids, total phenolics, antioxidant activity (ABTS), individual phenolic/flavonoid content by HPLC-DAD, and volatile terpene profiles by GC-MS. The direction of the quality effect depended heavily on whether results were expressed on a fresh- or dry-weight basis: soil-grown parsley and basil had higher total phenolics and antioxidant activity on a fresh-weight basis, but aquaponic parsley and basil matched or exceeded soil-grown plants on a dry-weight basis, while tomato showed no basis-dependent reversal. Aquaponics selectively boosted specific bioactive compounds in each species — resveratrol in parsley, rosmarinic acid and myricetin in basil, and lycopene in tomato — while most other individual phenolics were higher in the soil-grown plants. The authors conclude that aquaponically-grown vegetables are broadly comparable in quality to their soil-grown counterparts and can be considered a viable, sustainable production method.
Experiment data
- Location: Aquaponics: ‘Agri Island’ Company greenhouse, Tarquinia (Rome, Italy). Organic/soil control: Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’
- Design: Two cultivation methods (aquaponics vs. organic soil farming) x 3 plant species, each species its own paired comparison; measurements in triplicate; parametric t-test (after Shapiro-Wilk normality check) or Mann-Whitney U-test, P<0.05
- Replicates / n: 3 (paper states “all measurements were performed in triplicate”; [unclear] whether this means 3 independent plants/plots or 3 analytical replicates of pooled material — not stated)
- Duration: Trials June-September 2019; parsley/basil harvested 6 weeks after planting, tomato 12 weeks after planting
- Organisms: Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cv. ‘Principe Borghese’, Parsley (Petroselinum crispum) cv. ‘Gigante d’Italia’, Basil (Ocimum basilicum) cv. ‘Genovese’; fish present as water-source only: Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius), Koi (Cyprinus carpio)
- Statistics: t-test / Mann-Whitney U-test, PAST and GraphPad Prism software, P<0.05 significant
- Total phenolic content: varies by species/basis, see Quality traits section below
- Antioxidant activity: varies by species/basis, see Quality traits section below — unit as printed disputed, see Extraction notes
Quality traits (Table 1)
This paper: DW%, SSC%, total phenolics, and antioxidant activity were measured on both fresh- and dry-weight bases for all three species (organic vs. aquaponic). Full values with SD and significance are in plant.csv (proximate/biochemistry categories). Headline pattern: soil-grown parsley and basil had significantly higher DW%, SSC%, and fresh-weight phenolics/antioxidant activity than their aquaponic counterparts; on a dry-weight basis this reversed for antioxidant activity (both species) and for basil’s total phenolics. Tomato showed no significant DW/SSC difference between methods, higher fresh- and dry-weight phenolics in soil-grown fruit, and higher antioxidant activity (both bases) in aquaponic fruit.
Compared with:
- todo Kimura Rodriguez-Amaya 2003 — carotenoid composition of hydroponic leafy vegetables, cited by Braglia et al. as evidence soil-grown systems can have superior nutritional quality (secondary, cited p.844)
- todo Selma et al. 2012 — sensory quality/bioactive constituents of soil vs. soilless lettuce (secondary, cited p.844)
- todo Treftz Zhang Omaye 2015 — hydroponic vs. soil-grown strawberries, sensory attributes and nutrient content (secondary, cited p.844)
- todo Suhl et al. 2016 — intensive tomato production in aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics; Braglia’s own lycopene values were lower than Suhl’s aquaponic tomatoes (p.849)
- todo Leonardi et al. 2000 — carotenoid/tomatine content of greenhouse tomatoes; Braglia’s lycopene levels were “more in agreement” with this study than with field-grown literature (p.849)
Secondary metabolites — parsley and basil (Tables 2, 4, 5)
This paper: 21 phenolics/flavonoids quantified by HPLC-DAD per species (organic vs. aquaponic), plus GC-MS volatile terpene profiles (19 compounds in basil, 13 in parsley). In parsley, most compounds decreased in aquaponics except 1,1-dimethylallyl caffeate and resveratrol, which increased (aquaponics induced +71.4%-scale relative gains via what the authors hypothesise is esterification of caffeic/p-coumaric acid, p.847). In basil, aquaponics increased rosmarinic acid (+663.7%) and myricetin (+1861.4%) markedly, while most other phenolics were higher in soil-grown basil. GC-MS: basil’s aquaponic and organic samples represent two distinguishable chemovariants (linalool/α-bergamotene vs. linalool/τ-cadinol, p.847); parsley’s volatile profile did not differ significantly between methods except for absence of camphene and α-farnesene in the aquaponic sample. Full compound-by-compound data (84 phenolic rows + 64 GC-MS rows) is in plant.csv.
Compared with:
- todo Bais Walker Schweizer Vivanco 2002 — rosmarinic acid antioxidant properties in Ocimum basilicum hairy root cultures (secondary, cited p.847)
- todo Lee Scagel 2009 — rosmarinic acid as the most biologically active compound in basil (secondary, cited p.847)
- todo Wang Provan Helliwell 2004 — rosmarinic/caffeic acid concentrations in Lamiaceae herbs typically 2-27 mg g-1 DW (secondary, cited p.847, for comparison against this paper’s basil RA values)
- todo Hussain Anwar Sherazi Przybylski 2008 — basil essential-oil chemotypes/chemovariants by season, framework used to interpret this paper’s linalool-chemotype basil (secondary, cited p.847)
Secondary metabolites and lycopene — tomato (Table 3)
This paper: 21 phenolics/flavonoids plus lycopene quantified by HPLC-DAD in red ripe tomato fruit (organic vs. aquaponic). Aquaponic tomato was significantly richer in caffeic acid, vanillic acid, syringic acid, quercetin-3-glucoside, 3-hydroxytyrosol, myricetin, 1,1-dimethylallyl caffeate, and lycopene; organic tomato was significantly richer in chlorogenic acid, salicylic acid, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, and quercetin. About half the 22 metabolites showed no significant difference. The authors note their absolute lycopene values were lower than field-grown literature but consistent with other greenhouse-tomato studies, and tentatively attribute the AP>organic lycopene difference to cultivation-season/ripeness-stage effects and possible greenhouse-shading effects rather than water-supply per se (discussion is speculative, p.849, no data on light/shading collected in this study).
Compared with:
- todo Martinez-Valverde Periago Provan Chesson 2002 — phenolics/lycopene/antioxidant activity in commercial tomato varieties (secondary, cited p.849)
- todo Barbagallo Isabella Patane 2013 — field-grown processing tomato under water stress, higher lycopene than this paper’s samples (secondary, cited p.849)
- todo Riggi Patane Ruberto 2008 — carotenoid content vs. soil water availability in processing tomato (secondary, cited p.849)
- todo Pek et al. 2011 — natural light effects on antioxidant content/colour of vine-ripened tomato (secondary, cited p.849)
Linked claims
- Aquaponics can induce accumulation of specific antioxidant phytochemicals not favoured by soil cultivation
- Fresh-weight vs dry-weight basis can reverse the direction of a soil-vs-soilless quality comparison
- Aquaponic and soil-grown basil can represent different volatile-oil chemovariants
- Organic soil and aquaponics food quality are broadly comparable across most measured traits
Citations to chase
- todo Kimura Rodriguez-Amaya 2003 — carotenoid composition of hydroponic leafy vegetables
- todo Selma et al. 2012 — sensory/bioactive/microbiological quality of soil vs. soilless lettuce
- todo Treftz Zhang Omaye 2015 — hydroponic vs. soil-grown strawberries
- todo Suhl et al. 2016 — intensive tomato in aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics
- todo Leonardi et al. 2000 — antioxidant activity/carotenoid/tomatine in fresh tomato typologies
- todo Bais Walker Schweizer Vivanco 2002 — rosmarinic acid in Ocimum basilicum hairy roots
- todo Lee Scagel 2009 — chicoric acid in commercial basil/Echinacea products
- todo Wang Provan Helliwell 2004 — rosmarinic/caffeic acid HPLC determination in aromatic herbs
- todo Hussain Anwar Sherazi Przybylski 2008 — basil essential oil chemical composition, seasonal variation
- todo Martinez-Valverde Periago Provan Chesson 2002 — phenolics/lycopene/antioxidant activity, commercial tomato varieties
- todo Barbagallo Isabella Patane 2013 — field-grown processing tomato under water stress
- todo Riggi Patane Ruberto 2008 — carotenoid content vs. soil water availability, processing tomato
- todo Pek et al. 2011 — natural light effects on vine-ripened tomato antioxidants/colour
Extraction notes
Design note: this paper compares aquaponics against organic soil farming, not hydroponics. There is no hydroponic arm anywhere in the study. All trials.csv HYD-paired columns (FUE HYD, Tissue nitrate HYD, HYD) are recorded NA (structurally inapplicable), not NR, per SCHEMA.md’s “papers missing half the schema” rule. The extensive organic-vs-aquaponic phytochemical comparison that IS this paper’s core content lives entirely in plant.csv (242 rows: System = AP or Organic), since trials.csv has no dedicated non-hydroponic-comparator columns.
Trial definition: three species (tomato, parsley, basil) grown concurrently in the same shared aquaponic system (2x3,500 L fish tanks + 1x2,000 L biofilter + 32 m² floating raft, Tarquinia) during the same June-September 2019 window, each harvested at its own species-specific age and reported as its own dataset (Tables 1-5). Recorded as three separate trial rows (T1 tomato, T2 parsley, T3 basil) because each has distinct harvest timing and its own full paired comparison, not because they were separate physical system runs; system-level facts (fish, iron supplementation, air supplement, equipment) are identical and repeated across all three rows.
⚠️WARN-MATERIAL — Antioxidant-activity unit, Table 1 header vs. Methods text. Table 1’s column headers (p.846) print “Antioxidant activity (mol AAEq g⁻¹ FW)” and “Antioxidant activity (mol AAEq g⁻¹ DW)” — “mol” for both bases. The Methods section (p.845-846) states: “The results were expressed as moles of ascorbic acid equivalent (AAEq) both per g of fresh weight (mol AAEq g⁻¹ FW) and per g of dry weight (mg AAEq g⁻¹ DW)” — matching the table for the FW basis but disagreeing with it for the DW basis (mg vs. mol). Read literally as “mol per gram,” the reported magnitudes are physically impossible: e.g., 44.18 “mol” AAEq per gram DW for aquaponic tomato would require roughly 7.8 kg of ascorbic-acid-equivalent per gram of tissue (a mole of ascorbic acid ≈ 176 g), which cannot exist in a real sample. “mg AAEq g⁻¹” (the Methods’ own DW wording) is chemically plausible and of a similar order of magnitude to the total-phenolics values reported in the same table. No single stated form is self-consistent across the whole paper, and the paper never mentions micromol/millimol, so the true intended unit cannot be recovered with confidence from the text. Recorded: the table header’s literal unit (mol AAEq g-1 FW/DW) in every plant.csv antioxidant-activity row, since the table is the direct source of the numeric values — the numbers themselves are not disputed, only the unit label. Unresolved; verify before citing an antioxidant-activity magnitude or unit from this paper. Affects all 12 antioxidant-activity rows in plant.csv (3 species x 2 systems x 2 bases).
⚠️WARN-MINOR — Table 1 caption vs. columns without SD. The Table 1 caption states results are “the mean ± SD of three independent measurements” for the whole table, but the DW(%), SSC(%), and SSC(% of DW) columns print single numbers with significance asterisks and no ± SD, while the Total-phenolics and Antioxidant-activity columns do carry ± SD. No cell is blocked by this — SD is simply recorded NR for the three affected columns in plant.csv.
⚠️WARN-MINOR — basil GC-MS sesquiterpene total, 0.01 rounding. Table 4’s individual aquaponic-basil sesquiterpene values sum to 54.18%, but the table’s own “Total sesquiterpenes” row prints 54.19% (organic basil’s components sum to 45.73%, matching its printed total exactly). A one-hundredth-of-a-percent rounding artefact; recomputed for verification only, not corrected in any cell.
⚠️WARN-MINOR — “62% of basil metabolites significantly affected” (p.847) vs. a direct count. Counting asterisked rows in Table 2 for the organic-vs-aquaponic basil comparison gives 12 of 21 compounds (57.1%), not exactly the stated 62%. Doesn’t attach to any single extracted cell (it’s a summary discussion statistic, not a table value), so not formally blocking; noted for transparency.
Checked and not flagged (verification only, not contradictions): two of the paper’s own percentage claims were recomputed against Table 2 and matched exactly: parsley caffeic acid -71.4% and p-coumaric acid -51.8% (aquaponic vs. organic, p.847); basil myricetin +1861.4% and rosmarinic acid +663.7% (aquaponic vs. organic, p.847). Both GC-MS tables (basil Table 4, parsley Table 5) were checked component-by-component against their own printed totals and are internally consistent (organic basil sums to 100.00%; aquaponic basil sums to 99.99%/54.18+45.81, off by the 0.01 rounding noted above; parsley sums to 99.99%/100.00%). Every significance-level (*/**/***) claim made in the Results/Discussion prose was checked against its source table (Tables 1-3) and matched in every instance checked.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish: Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, N/P/K of feed, % of body weight (daily ration), Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — this is a plant-quality paper; fish are present (two named, stocked ornamental species) but no husbandry/growth data of any kind is reported.
- Water system: Water volume in the system (two tank/biofilter volumes given separately, not summed — see below), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — paper states water quality was “monitored weekly” (p.845) but reports no values anywhere.
- Plant: Plants/m² (only total 32 m² raft area for all 3 species combined given), SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight (g/plant; only % DW given, no absolute per-plant mass), Tissue nitrate AP (nitrate specifically was never assayed in tissue — phenolics/antioxidants/individual metabolites were), Lat/Long, Average room Temperature, Media Details.
[unclear] fields: whether “Replicates (n)=3” (paper: “all measurements were performed in triplicate”) means 3 independent plants/plots or 3 analytical replicates of pooled material — not stated either way.
NOT DERIVED, left NR: Water volume in the system — paper states “two 3.500-L fish tanks” (European decimal notation = 3,500 L each) and separately a “static 2.000-L biofilter” (=2,000 L); summing these into a single system total, or deciding whether the column wants fish-tank-only or total-system volume, would be derivation/interpretation beyond what’s stated, so left NR with both source figures given here.
UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: biofilter flow rate “2.5 m³ h⁻¹” → 41.7 L/min (p.845); harvest timing “6 weeks after planting” → 42 days (parsley, basil) and “12 weeks after planting” → 84 days (tomato) (p.845).
NO COLUMN: biofilter retention time, stated as “0.8 h ± 45 min” (p.845) — oddly formatted (45 min is nearly the entire 48-min value) but a single stated figure, not a contradiction with anything else in the paper; no trials.csv column exists for retention time regardless.
New tags introduced: Meta/Region/Europe (new — no existing European-region facet in the vault; checked against Meta/Region/North-America, Middle-East, South-Asia, South-America, Africa, Global). Meta/Fish/Koi (reused from abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022, which already tags Cyprinus carpio as Koi). Meta/Fish/Crucian-Carp (new — for Carassius carassius; checked against existing Meta/Fish/Goldfish used for the related-but-distinct species Carassius auratus in the Abbey paper — these are different species of the same genus, so a separate leaf was used rather than conflating them). Meta/Plant/Tomato, Meta/Plant/Parsley (both new — no existing tomato or parsley facet in the vault). Meta/Plant/Basil (reused from abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022).
Judgment call on fish tagging: the two fish species are stocked for water production only (no growth/feeding data reported) and are explicitly described as “ornamental” rather than a food-production stock — tagged anyway because they are a defined, deliberately stocked part of the actual experimental system (not a passing literature mention), consistent with how system-defining but non-focal organisms are handled elsewhere in this vault (e.g. the Abbey paper’s four fish species, several of which also receive no individual growth data).
Source: Braglia et al. - 2022 - Phytochemicals and quality level of food plants grown in an aquaponics system.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Carassius carassius L. and Cyprinus carpio L. (Koi variety), two ornamental species stocked together |
| Fish Category | Ornamental species (p.845) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Feed regime | 41% protein commercial fish diet (p.845); no feeding frequency/rate stated |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 41.7 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Solanum lycopersicum L. cv ‘Principe Borghese’ (tomato) |
| Details | Collected at red ripening stage, 12 weeks after planting (p.845) |
| Plant Category | Horticultural crop (p.844) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 84 |
| Plant dry matter | 6.56 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft system (p.845) |
| Air supplement | Y (Bottom-up oxygenation system integrated into the static biofilter (p.845)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (System exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1 (p.845)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states system was ‘exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845), read as an explicit statement of no other nutrient addition) |
| Equipment | UV light steriliser; reverse osmosis system; static biofilter with bio-media and bottom-up oxygenation system; HPLC-DAD (Shimadzu, CBM-20A controller, SIL-20a HT autosampler, Luna 3uC18(2) column, LC-20 AD pump); GC-MS (Shimadzu QP2010, DB-5MS column); digital refractometer (HI96800, Hanna) for SSC; ELISA microplate reader (Tecan Sunrise) for TP/ABTS assays; speed-vacuum lyophiliser (AG 22331, Eppendorf) (p.845) |
| Control Parameters | Water quality parameters monitored weekly (no values reported anywhere in the paper); biofilter flow rate and retention time fixed and stated (p.845); iron dosing fixed at 1 mg/L (p.845) |
| Combination | Aquaponics (2 ornamental fish species sharing 2 fish tanks + 1 biofilter, floating raft) vs. organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’); NOT an aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparison — the paired control in this paper is soil-based organic farming, not hydroponics, so all HYD-labelled schema columns are NA for every trial in this paper. |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | % of FW (dry matter, SSC); mg GAEq g-1 FW/DW (total phenolics); mol AAEq g-1 FW/DW (antioxidant activity, unit disputed — see remarks); ug g-1 FW (individual HPLC-DAD metabolites); % of total GC-MS peak area (volatiles) |
| Statistic Details | Parametric t-test after Shapiro-Wilk normality test; Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normal distributions; P<0.05 significant; PAST and GraphPad Prism software (p.845) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: paper compares one shared aquaponic system (2x3,500 L fish tanks stocked with Carassius carassius and Cyprinus carpio Koi, 1x2,000 L static biofilter, 32 m2 floating raft, Tarquinia/Agri Island greenhouse) against organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’) for THREE plant species grown concurrently within the same June-Sept 2019 trial period, each harvested at a species-specific age. The three species are recorded as separate trial rows (T1 tomato, T2 parsley, T3 basil) because each has its own harvest timing, its own paired organic-soil comparison values, and is analysed/reported as its own dataset in Tables 1-5 — not because they were physically separate system runs. All three shared the same fish tanks/biofilter/raft infrastructure and the same iron-only nutrient enrichment; system-level cells (Fish, water system description, Iron supplemented, etc.) are therefore identical across T1-T3 and are not re-derived per trial, only re-stated. | This paper’s comparison arm is ORGANIC SOIL farming, not hydroponics — there is no hydroponic control anywhere in this paper. Per SCHEMA.md ‘papers missing half the schema’ rule, all HYD-paired columns (Fish size/feed HYD equivalents do not exist as separate columns; Tissue nitrate HYD; HYD; FUE HYD) are NA, not NR, because the paper’s design structurally excludes a hydroponic arm. The rich organic-vs-aquaponic phytochemical comparison (Tables 1-5: dry weight, SSC, total phenolics, antioxidant activity, and >40 individual secondary metabolites plus GC-MS volatile profiles, per species) has no dedicated trials.csv columns for a non-hydroponic comparator, so it is NOT duplicated in Experimental Remarks here at length — it is fully captured in the paper’s plant.csv (242 rows, System=AP vs System=Organic per analyte per species), which is the correct home for it. | WARN-MATERIAL (applies to every Antioxidant-activity value in plant.csv, all 3 species): Table 1’s own column header (p.846) prints the antioxidant-activity unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ and ‘mol AAEq g-1 DW’ for both bases, but the Methods section (p.845-846) states the FW-basis unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ (matches table) while stating the DW-basis unit as ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (does NOT match the table header’s ‘mol’). Read literally, ‘mol AAEq per gram’ is physically impossible at the magnitudes reported (e.g. 44.18 ‘mol’ AAEq per gram DW for aquaponic tomato) since a mole of ascorbic-acid-equivalent weighs on the order of 176 g — this would exceed the mass of the sample many times over. ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (the Methods’ own DW wording) is chemically plausible and consistent with how total phenolics is reported in the same table. No candidate unit is fully self-consistent across the whole paper, and the paper never states micromol or millimol anywhere, so the true intended unit cannot be determined with confidence. The table header’s literal unit is recorded in plant.csv (it is the direct source of the extracted numbers), the numbers themselves are not in dispute, only the unit label. Unresolved — verify before citing antioxidant-activity magnitude or unit. | WARN-MINOR: Table 1’s caption states results are ‘the mean +/- SD of three independent measurements’ for all values in the table, but the DW(%), SSC(%), and SSC(% of DW) columns show single numbers with no +/- SD anywhere, while the Total-phenolics and Antioxidant-activity columns do show +/- SD. Recorded SD as NR for the three columns lacking it; no cell is blocked by this, it only affects the SD sub-field in plant.csv. | Fish block: no fish growth/husbandry data (stocking density, FCR, SGR, size, survival, weight gain, feed regime beyond ‘41% protein’, fish trial duration) is reported anywhere in this plant-focused paper — all left NR, not NA, since fish are explicitly present in the system (two named, stocked species) and the paper’s silence on their metrics is silence, not structural inapplicability. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Water volume in the system (paper states ‘two 3.500-L fish tanks’ [European decimal notation = 3,500 L each] and a separate ‘static 2.000-L biofilter’ [=2,000 L] — summing these into one system total would be derivation, and it is unclear whether the intended column value is per-tank, total fish-tank volume, or total system volume, so left NR with both figures given here: 2x3,500 L fish tanks + 2,000 L biofilter); Daily Water exchange rate (reverse-osmosis system present but no % given); Plants/m2 (32 m2 total raft area for all three species combined given, but no per-species plant count or density); Lat/Long (Tarquinia, Rome, Italy named but no coordinates given in the paper; Botanic Garden ‘Tor Vergata’ likewise uncoordinated); Average room Temperature; Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N (paper states water quality was ‘monitored weekly’ but reports no values anywhere in text, tables, or figures). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: biofilter flow rate ‘2.5 m3 h-1’ -> 41.7 L/min (p.845). | NO COLUMN: biofilter retention time ‘0.8 h +/- 45 min’ (p.845, oddly formatted as stated — 45 min is more than half of 0.8 h/48 min, but this is a single stated value, not a contradiction with any other stated figure, so not WARN-flagged; no trials.csv column exists for retention time regardless). Discussion (p.847) states ‘62% of basil metabolites were significantly affected by growing method’ (Table 2); a direct count of asterisked rows for OB/AB in Table 2 gives 12 of 21 compounds (57.1%), not exactly 62% — a minor descriptive- statistic imprecision that does not attach to any single extracted value/cell, so not formally WARN-tagged. | Nutrient supplemented = N: paper states the system ‘was exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845) — ‘exclusively’ is read as an explicit statement that no other nutrient was added, distinct from mere silence. | THIS TRIAL (T1, tomato): ‘Solanum lycopersicum L. cv Principe Borghese’, collected at red ripening stage, 12 weeks after planting (p.845) — UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 12 weeks -> 84 days. DW/SSC did not significantly differ between organic and aquaponic tomato (p.847, ‘these traits did not significantly differ between organic and aquaponics in S. lycopersicum’); Aquaponic tomato had significantly higher antioxidant activity (both bases) but organic tomato had significantly higher total phenolics (both bases) — see plant.csv for full per-analyte data, including 22 individual secondary metabolites (Table 3, p.848) and the paper’s discussion of lycopene, caffeic acid and vanillic acid being higher in aquaponic fruit.
bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Carassius carassius L. and Cyprinus carpio L. (Koi variety), two ornamental species stocked together |
| Fish Category | Ornamental species (p.845) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Feed regime | 41% protein commercial fish diet (p.845); no feeding frequency/rate stated |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 41.7 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss cv ‘Gigante d’Italia’ (parsley) |
| Details | Leaves sampled 6 weeks after planting (p.845) |
| Plant Category | Horticultural crop (p.844) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 42 |
| Plant dry matter | 16.61 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft system (p.845) |
| Air supplement | Y (Bottom-up oxygenation system integrated into the static biofilter (p.845)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (System exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1 (p.845)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states system was ‘exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845), read as an explicit statement of no other nutrient addition) |
| Equipment | UV light steriliser; reverse osmosis system; static biofilter with bio-media and bottom-up oxygenation system; HPLC-DAD (Shimadzu, CBM-20A controller, SIL-20a HT autosampler, Luna 3uC18(2) column, LC-20 AD pump); GC-MS (Shimadzu QP2010, DB-5MS column); digital refractometer (HI96800, Hanna) for SSC; ELISA microplate reader (Tecan Sunrise) for TP/ABTS assays; speed-vacuum lyophiliser (AG 22331, Eppendorf) (p.845) |
| Control Parameters | Water quality parameters monitored weekly (no values reported anywhere in the paper); biofilter flow rate and retention time fixed and stated (p.845); iron dosing fixed at 1 mg/L (p.845) |
| Combination | Aquaponics (2 ornamental fish species sharing 2 fish tanks + 1 biofilter, floating raft) vs. organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’); NOT an aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparison — the paired control in this paper is soil-based organic farming, not hydroponics, so all HYD-labelled schema columns are NA for every trial in this paper. |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | % of FW (dry matter, SSC); mg GAEq g-1 FW/DW (total phenolics); mol AAEq g-1 FW/DW (antioxidant activity, unit disputed — see remarks); ug g-1 FW (individual HPLC-DAD metabolites); % of total GC-MS peak area (volatiles) |
| Statistic Details | Parametric t-test after Shapiro-Wilk normality test; Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normal distributions; P<0.05 significant; PAST and GraphPad Prism software (p.845) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: paper compares one shared aquaponic system (2x3,500 L fish tanks stocked with Carassius carassius and Cyprinus carpio Koi, 1x2,000 L static biofilter, 32 m2 floating raft, Tarquinia/Agri Island greenhouse) against organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’) for THREE plant species grown concurrently within the same June-Sept 2019 trial period, each harvested at a species-specific age. The three species are recorded as separate trial rows (T1 tomato, T2 parsley, T3 basil) because each has its own harvest timing, its own paired organic-soil comparison values, and is analysed/reported as its own dataset in Tables 1-5 — not because they were physically separate system runs. All three shared the same fish tanks/biofilter/raft infrastructure and the same iron-only nutrient enrichment; system-level cells (Fish, water system description, Iron supplemented, etc.) are therefore identical across T1-T3 and are not re-derived per trial, only re-stated. | This paper’s comparison arm is ORGANIC SOIL farming, not hydroponics — there is no hydroponic control anywhere in this paper. Per SCHEMA.md ‘papers missing half the schema’ rule, all HYD-paired columns (Fish size/feed HYD equivalents do not exist as separate columns; Tissue nitrate HYD; HYD; FUE HYD) are NA, not NR, because the paper’s design structurally excludes a hydroponic arm. The rich organic-vs-aquaponic phytochemical comparison (Tables 1-5: dry weight, SSC, total phenolics, antioxidant activity, and >40 individual secondary metabolites plus GC-MS volatile profiles, per species) has no dedicated trials.csv columns for a non-hydroponic comparator, so it is NOT duplicated in Experimental Remarks here at length — it is fully captured in the paper’s plant.csv (242 rows, System=AP vs System=Organic per analyte per species), which is the correct home for it. | WARN-MATERIAL (applies to every Antioxidant-activity value in plant.csv, all 3 species): Table 1’s own column header (p.846) prints the antioxidant-activity unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ and ‘mol AAEq g-1 DW’ for both bases, but the Methods section (p.845-846) states the FW-basis unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ (matches table) while stating the DW-basis unit as ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (does NOT match the table header’s ‘mol’). Read literally, ‘mol AAEq per gram’ is physically impossible at the magnitudes reported (e.g. 44.18 ‘mol’ AAEq per gram DW for aquaponic tomato) since a mole of ascorbic-acid-equivalent weighs on the order of 176 g — this would exceed the mass of the sample many times over. ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (the Methods’ own DW wording) is chemically plausible and consistent with how total phenolics is reported in the same table. No candidate unit is fully self-consistent across the whole paper, and the paper never states micromol or millimol anywhere, so the true intended unit cannot be determined with confidence. The table header’s literal unit is recorded in plant.csv (it is the direct source of the extracted numbers), the numbers themselves are not in dispute, only the unit label. Unresolved — verify before citing antioxidant-activity magnitude or unit. | WARN-MINOR: Table 1’s caption states results are ‘the mean +/- SD of three independent measurements’ for all values in the table, but the DW(%), SSC(%), and SSC(% of DW) columns show single numbers with no +/- SD anywhere, while the Total-phenolics and Antioxidant-activity columns do show +/- SD. Recorded SD as NR for the three columns lacking it; no cell is blocked by this, it only affects the SD sub-field in plant.csv. | Fish block: no fish growth/husbandry data (stocking density, FCR, SGR, size, survival, weight gain, feed regime beyond ‘41% protein’, fish trial duration) is reported anywhere in this plant-focused paper — all left NR, not NA, since fish are explicitly present in the system (two named, stocked species) and the paper’s silence on their metrics is silence, not structural inapplicability. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Water volume in the system (paper states ‘two 3.500-L fish tanks’ [European decimal notation = 3,500 L each] and a separate ‘static 2.000-L biofilter’ [=2,000 L] — summing these into one system total would be derivation, and it is unclear whether the intended column value is per-tank, total fish-tank volume, or total system volume, so left NR with both figures given here: 2x3,500 L fish tanks + 2,000 L biofilter); Daily Water exchange rate (reverse-osmosis system present but no % given); Plants/m2 (32 m2 total raft area for all three species combined given, but no per-species plant count or density); Lat/Long (Tarquinia, Rome, Italy named but no coordinates given in the paper; Botanic Garden ‘Tor Vergata’ likewise uncoordinated); Average room Temperature; Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N (paper states water quality was ‘monitored weekly’ but reports no values anywhere in text, tables, or figures). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: biofilter flow rate ‘2.5 m3 h-1’ -> 41.7 L/min (p.845). | NO COLUMN: biofilter retention time ‘0.8 h +/- 45 min’ (p.845, oddly formatted as stated — 45 min is more than half of 0.8 h/48 min, but this is a single stated value, not a contradiction with any other stated figure, so not WARN-flagged; no trials.csv column exists for retention time regardless). Discussion (p.847) states ‘62% of basil metabolites were significantly affected by growing method’ (Table 2); a direct count of asterisked rows for OB/AB in Table 2 gives 12 of 21 compounds (57.1%), not exactly 62% — a minor descriptive- statistic imprecision that does not attach to any single extracted value/cell, so not formally WARN-tagged. | Nutrient supplemented = N: paper states the system ‘was exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845) — ‘exclusively’ is read as an explicit statement that no other nutrient was added, distinct from mere silence. | THIS TRIAL (T2, parsley): ‘Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) cv Gigante d’Italia’, leaves sampled 6 weeks after planting (p.845) — UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 6 weeks -> 42 days. DW and SSC (fresh basis) were significantly higher in organic parsley (p.846-847); on a dry-weight basis SSC and total phenolics were comparable between treatments while antioxidant activity was significantly higher in aquaponic parsley (p.847). Concentration of most individual phenolics/flavonoids decreased in aquaponics relative to soil except 1,1-dimethylallyl caffeate and resveratrol, which increased (p.847-848, recomputed as verification only: caffeic acid -71.4%, p-coumaric acid -51.8%, both matching the paper’s own stated percentages exactly). GC-MS (Table 5, p.849) showed no significant qualitative/quantitative differences except absence of camphene and alpha-farnesene in aquaponic parsley — see plant.csv for all 15 GC-MS/HPLC analyte rows per system.
bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Carassius carassius L. and Cyprinus carpio L. (Koi variety), two ornamental species stocked together |
| Fish Category | Ornamental species (p.845) |
| Protein | 41 |
| Feed regime | 41% protein commercial fish diet (p.845); no feeding frequency/rate stated |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 41.7 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Ocimum basilicum L. cv ‘Genovese’ (basil) |
| Details | Leaves sampled 6 weeks after planting (p.845) |
| Plant Category | Horticultural crop (p.844) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 42 |
| Plant dry matter | 10.76 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft system (p.845) |
| Air supplement | Y (Bottom-up oxygenation system integrated into the static biofilter (p.845)) |
| Iron supplemented | Y (System exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1 (p.845)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | N (Paper states system was ‘exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845), read as an explicit statement of no other nutrient addition) |
| Equipment | UV light steriliser; reverse osmosis system; static biofilter with bio-media and bottom-up oxygenation system; HPLC-DAD (Shimadzu, CBM-20A controller, SIL-20a HT autosampler, Luna 3uC18(2) column, LC-20 AD pump); GC-MS (Shimadzu QP2010, DB-5MS column); digital refractometer (HI96800, Hanna) for SSC; ELISA microplate reader (Tecan Sunrise) for TP/ABTS assays; speed-vacuum lyophiliser (AG 22331, Eppendorf) (p.845) |
| Control Parameters | Water quality parameters monitored weekly (no values reported anywhere in the paper); biofilter flow rate and retention time fixed and stated (p.845); iron dosing fixed at 1 mg/L (p.845) |
| Combination | Aquaponics (2 ornamental fish species sharing 2 fish tanks + 1 biofilter, floating raft) vs. organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’); NOT an aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparison — the paired control in this paper is soil-based organic farming, not hydroponics, so all HYD-labelled schema columns are NA for every trial in this paper. |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | % of FW (dry matter, SSC); mg GAEq g-1 FW/DW (total phenolics); mol AAEq g-1 FW/DW (antioxidant activity, unit disputed — see remarks); ug g-1 FW (individual HPLC-DAD metabolites); % of total GC-MS peak area (volatiles) |
| Statistic Details | Parametric t-test after Shapiro-Wilk normality test; Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normal distributions; P<0.05 significant; PAST and GraphPad Prism software (p.845) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: paper compares one shared aquaponic system (2x3,500 L fish tanks stocked with Carassius carassius and Cyprinus carpio Koi, 1x2,000 L static biofilter, 32 m2 floating raft, Tarquinia/Agri Island greenhouse) against organic soil farming (Botanic Garden of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’) for THREE plant species grown concurrently within the same June-Sept 2019 trial period, each harvested at a species-specific age. The three species are recorded as separate trial rows (T1 tomato, T2 parsley, T3 basil) because each has its own harvest timing, its own paired organic-soil comparison values, and is analysed/reported as its own dataset in Tables 1-5 — not because they were physically separate system runs. All three shared the same fish tanks/biofilter/raft infrastructure and the same iron-only nutrient enrichment; system-level cells (Fish, water system description, Iron supplemented, etc.) are therefore identical across T1-T3 and are not re-derived per trial, only re-stated. | This paper’s comparison arm is ORGANIC SOIL farming, not hydroponics — there is no hydroponic control anywhere in this paper. Per SCHEMA.md ‘papers missing half the schema’ rule, all HYD-paired columns (Fish size/feed HYD equivalents do not exist as separate columns; Tissue nitrate HYD; HYD; FUE HYD) are NA, not NR, because the paper’s design structurally excludes a hydroponic arm. The rich organic-vs-aquaponic phytochemical comparison (Tables 1-5: dry weight, SSC, total phenolics, antioxidant activity, and >40 individual secondary metabolites plus GC-MS volatile profiles, per species) has no dedicated trials.csv columns for a non-hydroponic comparator, so it is NOT duplicated in Experimental Remarks here at length — it is fully captured in the paper’s plant.csv (242 rows, System=AP vs System=Organic per analyte per species), which is the correct home for it. | WARN-MATERIAL (applies to every Antioxidant-activity value in plant.csv, all 3 species): Table 1’s own column header (p.846) prints the antioxidant-activity unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ and ‘mol AAEq g-1 DW’ for both bases, but the Methods section (p.845-846) states the FW-basis unit as ‘mol AAEq g-1 FW’ (matches table) while stating the DW-basis unit as ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (does NOT match the table header’s ‘mol’). Read literally, ‘mol AAEq per gram’ is physically impossible at the magnitudes reported (e.g. 44.18 ‘mol’ AAEq per gram DW for aquaponic tomato) since a mole of ascorbic-acid-equivalent weighs on the order of 176 g — this would exceed the mass of the sample many times over. ‘mg AAEq g-1 DW’ (the Methods’ own DW wording) is chemically plausible and consistent with how total phenolics is reported in the same table. No candidate unit is fully self-consistent across the whole paper, and the paper never states micromol or millimol anywhere, so the true intended unit cannot be determined with confidence. The table header’s literal unit is recorded in plant.csv (it is the direct source of the extracted numbers), the numbers themselves are not in dispute, only the unit label. Unresolved — verify before citing antioxidant-activity magnitude or unit. | WARN-MINOR: Table 1’s caption states results are ‘the mean +/- SD of three independent measurements’ for all values in the table, but the DW(%), SSC(%), and SSC(% of DW) columns show single numbers with no +/- SD anywhere, while the Total-phenolics and Antioxidant-activity columns do show +/- SD. Recorded SD as NR for the three columns lacking it; no cell is blocked by this, it only affects the SD sub-field in plant.csv. | Fish block: no fish growth/husbandry data (stocking density, FCR, SGR, size, survival, weight gain, feed regime beyond ‘41% protein’, fish trial duration) is reported anywhere in this plant-focused paper — all left NR, not NA, since fish are explicitly present in the system (two named, stocked species) and the paper’s silence on their metrics is silence, not structural inapplicability. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Water volume in the system (paper states ‘two 3.500-L fish tanks’ [European decimal notation = 3,500 L each] and a separate ‘static 2.000-L biofilter’ [=2,000 L] — summing these into one system total would be derivation, and it is unclear whether the intended column value is per-tank, total fish-tank volume, or total system volume, so left NR with both figures given here: 2x3,500 L fish tanks + 2,000 L biofilter); Daily Water exchange rate (reverse-osmosis system present but no % given); Plants/m2 (32 m2 total raft area for all three species combined given, but no per-species plant count or density); Lat/Long (Tarquinia, Rome, Italy named but no coordinates given in the paper; Botanic Garden ‘Tor Vergata’ likewise uncoordinated); Average room Temperature; Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N (paper states water quality was ‘monitored weekly’ but reports no values anywhere in text, tables, or figures). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: biofilter flow rate ‘2.5 m3 h-1’ -> 41.7 L/min (p.845). | NO COLUMN: biofilter retention time ‘0.8 h +/- 45 min’ (p.845, oddly formatted as stated — 45 min is more than half of 0.8 h/48 min, but this is a single stated value, not a contradiction with any other stated figure, so not WARN-flagged; no trials.csv column exists for retention time regardless). Discussion (p.847) states ‘62% of basil metabolites were significantly affected by growing method’ (Table 2); a direct count of asterisked rows for OB/AB in Table 2 gives 12 of 21 compounds (57.1%), not exactly 62% — a minor descriptive- statistic imprecision that does not attach to any single extracted value/cell, so not formally WARN-tagged. | Nutrient supplemented = N: paper states the system ‘was exclusively enriched by chelate iron 1 mg L-1’ (p.845) — ‘exclusively’ is read as an explicit statement that no other nutrient was added, distinct from mere silence. | THIS TRIAL (T3, basil): ‘Ocimum basilicum L. cv Genovese’, leaves sampled 6 weeks after planting (p.845) — UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 6 weeks -> 42 days. DW and SSC (fresh basis) were significantly higher in organic basil (p.846-847); on a dry-weight basis SSC was comparable while both total phenolics and antioxidant activity were significantly higher in aquaponic basil (P<0.001, p.847). Aquaponic basil showed large increases in myricetin (+1861.4%) and rosmarinic acid (+663.7%) versus organic (p.847, recomputed as verification only — both match the paper’s own stated percentages exactly), discussed as a potential quality feature given rosmarinic acid’s antioxidant/anti-inflammatory literature. GC-MS (Table 4, p.848) found linalool the dominant monoterpene in both treatments (not significantly different) but tau-cadinol significantly higher in aquaponic basil (P<0.05), leading the authors to describe OB and AB as two different basil chemovariants (linalool/alpha-bergamotene vs linalool/tau-cadinol, p.847). 3-Hydroxytyrosol was not detected (ND) in aquaponic basil (Table 2, p.847) — see plant.csv for all 40 HPLC-DAD/GC-MS analyte rows per system.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 7.09 | % of FW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 6.56 | % of FW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 5.09 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 4.73 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 71.78 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 72.15 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 0.61 ± 0.09 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 0.41 ± 0.07 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 8.65 ± 1.28 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 6.26 ± 1.04 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 2.59 ± 0.06 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 2.87 ± 0.09 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 37.02 ± 0.81 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 44.18 ± 0.44 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 21.85 | % of FW | P<0.01 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 16.61 | % of FW | P<0.01 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 11.47 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 8.8 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 52.51 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 52.98 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 0.98 ± 0.06 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 0.77 ± 0.02 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 4.48 ± 0.27 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 4.63 ± 0.15 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 3.37 ± 0.06 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 3.09 ± 0.06 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 15.42 ± 0.32 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 18.62 ± 0.40 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 16.68 | % of FW | P<0.01 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | proximate | Dry weight (DW) | 10.76 | % of FW | P<0.01 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 4.05 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC) | 2.7 | % (Brix, fresh basis) | P<0.05 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 24.28 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble solid content (SSC, dry basis) | 25.09 | % of DW | ns | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 1.02 ± 0.07 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (fresh basis) | 0.78 ± 0.04 | mg GAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 6.11 ± 0.41 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenolics (dry basis) | 7.25 ± 0.40 | mg GAEq g-1 DW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 3.39 ± 0.04 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (fresh basis) | 3.02 ± 0.09 | mol AAEq g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 20.33 ± 0.81 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Antioxidant activity (dry basis) | 28.04 ± 0.74 | mol AAEq g-1 DW | P<0.001 | Table 1, p.846 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 2.55 ± 0.37 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 1.23 ± 0.32 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 2.85 ± 0.23 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 2.34 ± 0.14 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 2.59 ± 0.50 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 0.74 ± 0.08 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 4.89 ± 1.24 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 2.18 ± 0.28 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 1.13 ± 1.43 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 0.76 ± 0.65 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 2.37 ± 0.70 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 1.04 ± 0.13 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 585.07 ± 9.40 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 541.18 ± 31.00 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 2.95 ± 2.45 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 22.53 ± 3.38 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 4.23 ± 1.55 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 22.98 ± 4.53 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 6.23 ± 6.41 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 13.57 ± 3.64 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 12.21 ± 17.66 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 18.04 ± 12.69 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 0.67 ± 0.72 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 1.03 ± 0.72 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 3.13 ± 2.90 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 2.43 ± 1.20 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 11.88 ± 1.91 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 0.66 ± 0.17 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 1.55 ± 0.71 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 1.34 ± 0.33 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 5.38 ± 0.47 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 3.52 ± 0.35 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 6.62 ± 2.72 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 2.02 ± 0.45 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 1.14 ± 0.25 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 0.96 ± 0.38 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 10.49 ± 1.62 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 4.76 ± 0.43 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 1.37 ± 0.61 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 1.09 ± 0.71 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 5.76 ± 1.12 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 1.64 ± 0.19 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 10.86 ± 2.74 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 4.83 ± 0.62 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin | 18.41 ± 12.36 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin | 5.63 ± 0.70 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin | 8.52 ± 1.81 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin | 10.18 ± 1.43 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 20.63 ± 8.21 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 21.12 ± 1.71 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 1.9 ± 1.05 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 1 ± 0.23 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Myricetin | 1477.15 ± 23.73 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Myricetin | 1366.34 ± 78.27 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Myricetin | 2.9 ± 0.62 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Myricetin | 56.88 ± 8.52 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 3.89 ± 1.10 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 3.22 ± 0.31 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 0.19 ± 0.10 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 0.40 ± 0.41 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Genistein | 35.27 ± 4.49 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Genistein | 9.55 ± 1.41 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Genistein | 3.27 ± 1.08 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Genistein | 1.69 ± 0.67 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Chrysin | 1.08 ± 0.45 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chrysin | 0.37 ± 0.12 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Chrysin | 1.79 ± 0.41 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Chrysin | 1.45 ± 0.52 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 1.84 ± 1.93 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 0.96 ± 0.42 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 0.93 ± 0.49 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 0.42 ± 0.22 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 55.61 ± 69.56 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 163.43 ± 84.29 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 6.97 ± 1.70 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 1.42 ± 1.12 | ug g-1 FW | Table 2, p.847 | |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 120.85 ± 23.98 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 138.52 ± 17.63 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 3.32 ± 2.00 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 3.29 ± 2.07 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | 6.5 ± 2.56 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | 4.17 ± 1.38 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | 1.51 ± 1.28 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | ND | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 2, p.847 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 0.31 ± 0.07 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | p-Coumaric acid | 0.68 ± 0.30 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 0.59 ± 0.27 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid | 2.32 ± 0.23 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 90.40 ± 11.50 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorogenic acid | 18.28 ± 7.50 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 0.74 ± 0.18 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Rosmarinic acid | 1.48 ± 0.82 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 2.09 ± 0.13 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | 1,1-Dimethylallyl caffeate | 2.74 ± 0.28 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 0.84 ± 0.16 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Caffeic acid phenethyl ester | 0.98 ± 0.36 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 8.81 ± 2.29 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 3.87 ± 1.61 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 0.39 ± 0.10 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Syringic acid | 1.4 ± 0.43 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 23.59 ± 6.84 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Salicylic acid | 3.08 ± 0.78 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 0.92 ± 0.19 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Gallic acid | 0.88 ± 0.21 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 1.31 ± 0.61 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Vanillic acid | 5.16 ± 0.50 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.001 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin | 73.19 ± 22.97 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin | 19.43 ± 14.10 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 1.59 ± 0.75 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 13.44 ± 4.39 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Myricetin | 1.86 ± 0.47 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Myricetin | 4.63 ± 1.25 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 0.64 ± 0.14 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Kaempferol | 0.41 ± 0.22 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Genistein | 7.14 ± 6.35 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Genistein | 2.94 ± 2.56 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Chrysin | 0.32 ± 0.11 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chrysin | 0.16 ± 0.18 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 0.52 ± 0.31 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Epicatechin | 1.3 ± 0.56 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Lycopene | 7.23 ± 1.63 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Lycopene | 13.68 ± 4.26 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.05 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 1.41 ± 0.52 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Resveratrol | 1.01 ± 0.29 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 0.79 ± 0.31 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | 5,7-Dimethoxycoumarin | 1.06 ± 0.54 | ug g-1 FW | ns | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | Organic | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | 2.11 ± 0.59 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T1 | AP | biochemistry | 3-Hydroxytyrosol | 11.3 ± 2.91 | ug g-1 FW | P<0.01 | Table 3, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Camphene | 0.05 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Camphene | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Ocimene | 0.86 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Ocimene | 0.44 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Fenchene | 0.44 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Fenchene | 0.14 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | 1,8-Cineole | 2.37 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | 1,8-Cineole | 1.43 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Linalool | 45.59 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Linalool | 39.00 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Endo-borneol | 1.23 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Endo-borneol | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Terpineol | 3.73 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Terpineol | 4.80 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Total monoterpenes | 54.27 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Total monoterpenes | 45.81 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Elemene | 1.88 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Elemene | 2.15 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Farnesene | 0.26 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Farnesene | 0.10 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Bergamotene | 18.67 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Bergamotene | 16.62 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Guaiene | 0.31 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Guaiene | 0.06 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Farnesene | 0.38 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Farnesene | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Humulene | 1.68 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Humulene | 1.47 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Germacrene D | 2.04 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Germacrene D | 2.07 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Bisabolene | 0.54 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Bisabolene | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | gamma-Muurolene | 3.99 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | gamma-Muurolene | 4.40 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Caryophyllene | 0.85 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Caryophyllene | 0.09 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Carotol | 1.09 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Carotol | 1.49 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | tau-Cadinol | 14.04 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | tau-Cadinol | 25.73 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | P<0.05 | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | Organic | biochemistry | Total sesquiterpenes | 45.73 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T3 | AP | biochemistry | Total sesquiterpenes | 54.19 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns | Table 4, p.848 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Thujene | 0.67 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Thujene | 0.42 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Camphene | 0.07 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Camphene | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Pinene | 10.27 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Pinene | 6.54 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Pinene | 0.32 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Pinene | 0.16 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Myrcene | 3.64 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Myrcene | 3.61 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | (-)-Camphor | 0.40 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | (-)-Camphor | 0.31 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Total monoterpenes | 15.37 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total monoterpenes | 11.04 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | alpha-Farnesene | 0.73 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | alpha-Farnesene | ND | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Ledol | 0.81 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Ledol | 1.10 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Copaene | 0.79 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Copaene | 0.67 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Caryophyllene | 2.79 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Caryophyllene | 2.94 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Germacrene D | 2.53 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Germacrene D | 1.39 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Total sesquiterpenes | 7.65 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total sesquiterpenes | 6.1 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | beta-Carotene | 0.22 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | beta-Carotene | 0.32 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | Organic | biochemistry | Apiol | 76.75 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |
| bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Apiol | 82.54 | % of total peak area (GC-MS) | ns (no significance testing shown in Table 5) | Table 5, p.849 |