sustainability

Article
Analysis of Apple Fruit (Malus × domestica Borkh.) Quality
Attributes Obtained from Organic and Integrated
Production Systems
Milica Fotirić Akšić 1 , Dragana Dabić Zagorac 2 , Uroš Gašić 3 , Tomislav Tosti 4 , Maja Natić 4
and Mekjell Meland 5, *

1 Department Fruit Science and Viticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade,

11080 Belgrade, Serbia; fotiric@[Link]
2 Innovative Centre Faculty of Chemistry Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; ddabic@[Link]
3 Department of Plant Physiology, Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”, University of Belgrade,
11060 Belgrade, Serbia; [Link]@[Link]
4 Faculty of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; tosti@[Link] (T.T.);
mmandic@[Link] (M.N.)
5 NIBIO Ullensvang, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ullensvangvegen 1005,
5781 Lofthus, Norway
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The aim of this study was to compare total phenolic content (TPC), radical-scavenging
activity (RSA), total anthocyanin content (TAC), sugar and polyphenolic profiles of two apple cultivars
(‘Discovery’ and ‘Red Aroma Orelind’) from organic and integrated production systems in climatic
conditions of Western Norway. Sixteen sugars and four sugar alcohols and 19 polyphenols were
found in the peel, but less polyphenols were detected in the pulp. The peel of both apples and in both
production systems had significantly higher TPC and RSA than the pulp. The peel from integrated
Citation: Fotirić Akšić, M.; Dabić
apples had higher TPC than the peel from organic apples, while organic apples had higher TAC
Zagorac, D.; Gašić, U.; Tosti, T.; Natić, than the integrated. Sucrose and glucose levels were higher in organic apples; fructose was cultivar
M.; Meland, M. Analysis of Apple dependent while minor sugars were higher in integrated fruits. The most abundant polyphenolic
Fruit (Malus × domestica Borkh.) compound in the peel of the tested cultivars was quercetin 3-O-galactoside, while chlorogenic acid
Quality Attributes Obtained from was most abundant in the pulp. Regarding polyphenols, phloretin, phloridzin, protocatechuic acid,
Organic and Integrated Production baicalein and naringenin were higher in organic apple, while quercetin 3-O-galactoside, kaempferol
Systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300. 3-O-glucoside, chlorogenic acid and syringic acid was higher in integrated fruits. In conclusion,
[Link] organic ‘Discovery’ and integrated ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ had higher bioavailability of health related
Academic Editor: Sezai Ercisli compounds from the peel and the pulp.

Received: 17 March 2022

Keywords: sugar profile; phenolics; total phenolic content; radical-scavenging activity; total anthocyanin
Accepted: 24 April 2022
content; Norway
Published: 27 April 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction
iations.
Currently, three different agricultural production systems are dominant worldwide.
‘Conventional’ (industrial, large scale) agriculture production, which rose from Norman
Borlaug’s “Green Revolution”, is highly mechanized and organized, with synthetic fer-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
tilizers, pesticides, and lately with genetically modified organisms (GMO). The second
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. type is an opponent system, called ‘Organic’ production (regulated by Council Regulation
This article is an open access article (EC) 834/2007), which is leaning on natural inputs, diversification and greater labor and
distributed under the terms and is gaining more popularity (together with biodynamics as a sub variant). The last one is
conditions of the Creative Commons ‘Integrated’ (directed by directive 2009/128/EC), which is the best management practice
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and stands between conventional and organic production [1].
[Link]/licenses/by/ Globally, 1.5% of farmland is organic with more than 2.8 million producers [2]. In
4.0/). some countries the share is much higher, while some are or aspire to be 100% organic

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300. [Link] [Link]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 2 of 17

in the future. The global market for organic food reached 106 billion Euros, with USA
as the leading consumer country [2]. The main reason why people are buying organic
food is the supposition that organic products have no or a significantly lower amount of
synthetic pesticide’s residues when compared to conventional products [3]. Earlier, organic
products could be bought only at farmers’ markets and local food stores, but now they are
sold in every mainstream supermarket [4]. Besides banana, apple is a fruit species with
the most area under organic management, and both have expanded rapidly during the
last decade [5]. Organic apple world production is ~114,000 ha (2% organic land), where
China is leading (30,000 ha), followed by the USA (11,000 ha) [2]. Integrated production
is a method that uses controlled amounts of synthetic pesticides. However, consumers
are developing a preference for organic production due to the environmentally friendly
alternatives which encompass the sustainable use of energy and natural resources. Besides,
up keeping of biodiversity, the preservation of ecosystems, the increment of soil fertility,
animal welfare and the decreased pollution of water, soil, and air are also some of the
advantages of organic production [6]. Since some apple cultivars can be sprayed from
15 up to 22 times, with numerous different pesticides, consumers have started to be aware
of the health risks for themselves and for farm workers who are exposed to pesticides,
not to mention the accelerating production costs [7]. Besides that, lower levels of toxic
metabolites (heavy metals, synthetic fertilizer and pesticide residues) and lower exposure
to antibiotic-resistant bacteria are pushing organic production forward [8].
Apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) is a temperate zone fruit, but on a global level
it is economically and culturally one of the most important fruit species [9]. Regarding
fruit production worldwide, apples (86 million tons) are ranked second after bananas
(120 million tons), but before grapes (78 million tons) and oranges (75.5 million tons).
In 2020, China was the leading producer of apples worldwide, with ~40.5 million tons
(47%) [10]. Pleasant aroma and taste, high yields, low prices, good transportability, less
fruit deteriorating and long storage mean that apples are eaten year-round, with an average
worldwide daily consumption of ~200 g per capita [11]. Furthermore, nutritional qualities
including high levels of carbohydrates, organic acids, minerals, vitamins, dietary fibers,
pectin, chlorophyll, and carotenoids are making this temperate fruit species highly appre-
ciated by consumers [12,13]. Other phytochemicals include phenolics such as flavanols,
flavan-3-ols, flavanones, phenolic acids, anthocyanins, triterpenoids, and others [14,15].
The quantity of phytochemicals in apple fruit depend on cultivar, rootstock, cultural and
growth conditions, plant nutrition, storage and processing together with biotic and biotic
stresses, especially during the maturation of the fruits [16]. Apples are showing very high
antioxidant activity, thus preventing many chronic diseases [17]. Diets rich in apples and
apple products are linked with reduced risks of some cancers, cardiovascular disease,
asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity and diabetes [18]. Its consumption improves bone
and gastrointestinal health and pulmonary function [19]. Malus × domestica fruits have
both dessert and culinary uses, thus in most cases they are consumed fresh as snacks, or
used for making juice, concentrate, marmalade, jam, compotes, tea, wine, dried fruits and
cider [20]. Apple pomace is used for pectin recovery, the bioproduction of citric acid, in
herbal tea production and as feed formulations for racing pigeons [21]. Seeds, as waste,
which are left over after apple processing, have up to 27% of oils rich in fatty acids (>95%
of unsaturated fatty acids), carotenoids and tocopherols [22,23].
Organic production in Norway takes up more than 45,000 ha (~2000 producers), which
is 4.6% of the country’s total agricultural land. Out of this, apple production is done
on 164 ha (11% of organic land) [24]. Apples (mostly the cultivars ‘Discovery’ and ‘Red
Aroma Orelind’) are grown in Southern, Eastern and Western Norway where the climate
and growing conditions for apples are the most suitable [25]. The demand for organic
Norwegian produced fruits is large, but mostly imported organic fruit from other countries
are sold.
In the last 10–15 years, many scientific studies have been performed in order to
compare integrated/conventional and organic apple production and fruit quality mostly re-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 3 of 17

garding physical, chemical, and sensorial traits [7,12,26–29]. Back in 1997, Woese et al. [30]
showed that no major differences could be observed between organically and convention-
ally produced apples with respect to vitamins (B1, B2, C), carbohydrates, organic acids,
proteins and free amino acids. Contrary to this, Peck et al. [7] and Holb et al. [28] reported
better physicochemical quality (skin blush, soluble solids content, organic acids, flesh
firmness, minerals and fiber) of organic apples with 10–15% higher antioxidant activity.
Regarding phenolics, Vanzo et al. [31] and Średnicka-Tober et al. [29] found higher levels
of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, neo chlorogenic and chlorogenic acid, phloridzin, procyanidin
B2 + B4, kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside, rutin and anthocyanins in organic fruits compared to
conventional ones, while Lamperi et al. [32], Valavanidis et al. [33] and Santarelli et al. [34]
demonstrated that organic production methods did not significantly contribute to the
polyphenol content. Adamczyk et al. [35] found that organic apples had better taste, while
Róth et al. [27] proved that trained sensory panelists could not differentiate between or-
ganic and conventional apples in terms of aroma and volatiles. Many researchers reported
that divergent results regarding fruit quality from organic and conventional/integrated
production could be a reflection of distinctive seasons, sites, cultivars, orchard management
and nutritional supply. Due to the fact that the two apple production systems have never
been confronted in a comprehensive way in Western Norway, the aim of this study was
to compare the sugar profile of the whole fruit and polyphenolic profiles of the peel and
pulp of fruits from cultivars ‘Discovery’ and ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ grown in organic and
integrated production systems. Furthermore, another goal was to determine the magnitude
for some key nutrients between examined cultivars and to recommend which cultivar is
for which production system in this, or similar, agro-climatic conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material and Managements
This study was set up in 2018, in two apple orchards in the Hardanger region of
western Norway. Integrated pest management was applied in one orchard and organic
production in the second. The organic apple orchard was located at the experimental farm
of NIBIO Ullensvang (60.318655, 6.652948) and the conventional orchard at a private grower
in Ullensvang (60.211060, 6.604015). The locations of these orchards were typical for the
region, the main fruit production area in Norway, and both represented the same climate
zone. The soil in the area is mainly moraines that were left by the glaciers after the last
glaciation 10,000 years ago. It has high contents of stones, but is a splendid medium for fruit
growing, being rich in minerals and humus and with good water capacity. The soil in both
orchards was a sandy-loam with approximately 5% organic matter, being very uniform in
morphological and physical characteristics (color and structure). Soil composition, organic
matter content, CEC-values (Cation exchange capacity), pH, nutrient concentrations and
plant-available amounts of nutrients are monitored in this area [36].
In both orchards studied, the cultivars ‘Discovery’ and ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ were
grafted on M9 rootstocks spaced 1 × 3.5 m apart at the organic site and 1.5 × 4 m apart
at the integrated site. Two-year old knip-trees were planted May 2015 at the organic side
and the integrated trees were two years older. Both cultivars have scab tolerance and are
the main commercial cultivars for both integrated and organic production methods. All
trees were trained as spindle trees and pruned to a maximum height of about 2.5–3 m. The
selected trees were homogeneous in terms of flower set, vigor, and health status in both
orchards. The organic site was officially certified on 30 April 2018 by the Norwegian control
body Debio, according to the Norwegian ‘Regulations on the Production and Labelling of
Organic Agricultural Product’.
On the organic side, the weeds under the trees were removed by frequently mowing
and using a rotator tiller and on the integrated side a 1 m wide herbicide strip using glyfosat
(trade name Roundup with 360 g/L of glyfosat, Monsanto Crop Sciences) (May 8, BBCH 56)
was used, which was maintained each season together with frequent mowing grass in the
interrows. In the organic orchard, trees were treated against the apple scab using four
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 4 of 17

applications with sulphur (trade name Thiovit Jet with 80% sulphur as an active ingredient,
Syngenta, Basel, Switzerland) during the season. The trees were fertilized with 200 kg/ha
organic hen manure (pellets), 8% N, 4% P and 5% K in percentage of dry matter. In the
integrated orchard, four applications against major pests were applied during the season,
one time against insects (tiakloprid, 480 g/kg active ingredient, trade name Calypso SC
480, Bayer Crop Science, Leverkusen, Germany), two times against apple scab (diatianon,
700 g/kg active ingredient, trade name Delan WG, BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany) and
once against storage diseases (tiofanatmethyl, trade name Delan WG, Bayer Crop Science,
Leverkusen, Germany). Each spring, 300 kg/ha YaraMila® FULLGJØDSEL® 12-4-18 micro
was applied and in mid-June 200 kg/ha YaraLiva® Kalksalpeter 16-0-0) was applied. In all
fields, drip irrigation was installed with one drip line along the tree rows having 0.5 mm
drip distance. The trees were regularly irrigated when water deficits occurred based on
evaporation and precipitation and on average 2–3 mm was given daily in this relatively
cool climate. All trees received the same amount of fertilizers based on soil analysis. Hand
thinning was carried out at both locations at the end of June in order to achieve optimum
crop loads of good fruit quality (15 cm apart between fruitlets).

2.2. Climate Conditions, Flowering and Harvesting Time

Fruit production in Norway is located in the Southern part of the country, which has
the most favorable climate, with lakes in the Eastern part and fjord areas in the Western part
adjacent to it. The fjord areas in Western Norway have a maritime climate, with relatively
cool summers and mild winters. Weather fronts are usually coming from south-west from
the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. It is rare that there are problems with frost damage
to the fruit trees, either during the winter or during blossom time. The snow-covered
mountains provide protection from high amounts of rain from the west. On the other hand,
due to relatively cool summers, the climate is the main limiting factor behind a relatively
short and cool growing season, which limits both the species and the cultivars to be grown.
The climate in Ullensvang (western Norway) was a bit warmer during the 2018 season,
relatively dry at the beginning of the season and very wet during the harvest periods
during the fall. The average annual air temperature during the year was 8.4 ◦ C with the
average during the growing period, from May to October, being 14.1 ◦ C. Total rainfall was
1534 mm, with 1030 mm in the growing season. In previous years, average figures for the
year was 7.6 ◦ C and 1705 mm and for the growing season 12.3 ◦ C and 638 mm.
Full bloom for ‘Discovery’ (BBCH 65) was May 16 and for ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ it
was May 21. The cultivar ‘Discovery’ was harvested (BBCH 89) in mid- September at
both locations, and ‘Red Aroma ‘Orelind’ was harvested one month later at the same time
based on predicted harvest criteria for the cultivars. Each apple cultivar in each production
system was represented by 30 trees (3 repetitions × 10 trees). Fruit quality characteristics
and chemical analysis were undertaken on samples of 20 collected fruits per cultivar/per
production system/per repetition. Sample fruits were picked randomly from all trees
within one repetition, from all four main directions around the tree canopy, and from the
upper, middle and lower third of the crown.
The maturity levels were the same for both cultivars. Right after harvests the starch
contents were measured calorimetrically after staining the flesh of a halved apple with a
mixture of 1% iodine and 4% potassium-iodide and indexing the surface colour on a scale
of 1 (dark blue color = high starch content) to 9 (no blue color = no starch). Firmness was
measured using a FTA penetrometer ([Link], accessed on 1 September
2018) equipped with an 11-mm plunger. No starch was left when analysing and the
fruit firmness was about 6 kg per cm2 . Immediately after these tests the apple fruits
were analyzed.

2.3. Reagents and Standards

Acetonitrile and formic acid (both MS grade), methanol (HPLC grade), Folin-Ciocalteu
reagent, sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydrochloric
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 5 of 17

and nitric acid were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Trolox (6-hydroxy-
2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (Stein-
heim am albuch, Germany). 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl·(DPPH) and sodium acetate
were purchased from Fluka AG (Buch, Switzerland). Ultra-pure water (Thermofisher TKA
MicroPure water purification system, 0.055 µS/cm) was used to prepare the standard
solutions and blanks. Syringe filters (13 mm, nylon membrane 0.45 µm) were purchased
from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA, USA).
Polyphenolic standards were purchased from Fluka AG (Buch, Switzerland). The
standards of sugars and polyols were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim am al-
buch, Germany), whereas sodium acetate trihydrate and sodium hydroxide were obtained
from Merck (Darmstad, Germany). All aqueous solutions were prepared using Ultrapure
TKA water.

2.4. Sample Preparation

The extraction of phenolics from the apple peel and pulp was done by the method
previously described by Pantelić et al. [37]. A representative sample of 20 fruits (per
replication/per cultivar/per production system) was divided into two parts. Ten fruits
were ground together with the peel and 50 g of that mass was taken for the analysis of the
sugar profile. The other ten fruits were peeled, and 2 g was taken from the peels, and 5 g
from all fruit’s mesocarps for the analysis of polyphenolic profiles and tests. The peel (2 g)
and pulp (5 g) were mixed with 20 mL methanol containing 0.1% HCl and stirred for 1 h
on a magnetic agitator. Extractions were repeated three times and all three fractions were
collected, combined, and evaporated to dryness by rotary evaporator IKA RV8 (IKA® —
Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Germany) under reduced pressure
at 40 ◦ C. The residue after evaporation was dissolved in 10 mL of ultrapure water and these
solutions were used for further analysis. The extracts were filtered through a 0.45 µm PTFE
membrane filter before analysis.

2.5. Preparation of Standard Solutions

A 1000 mg/L stock solution of a mixture of all phenolic standards was prepared in
methanol. Dilution of the stock solution with mobile phase yielded the working solution of
concentrations 0.025, 0.050, 0.100, 0.250, 0.500, 0.750, and 1.000 mg/L, respectively.
The evaluation of the carbohydrate content of the samples was obtained from the
calibration curves of the pure compounds. The calibration was performed with standard
solutions of sugars and sugar alcohols dissolved in ultrapure water. Under these chromato-
graphic conditions, the last compound was detected after approximately 25 min, and the
analysis was ended at 30 min.

2.6. UHPLC–DAD MS/MS Analysis of Polyphenolic Compounds

The determination of the phenolic compounds in the apple peel and pulp samples
were performed using a Dionex Ultimate 3000 UHPLC system equipped with a diode array
detector (DAD) that was connected to TSQ Quantum Access Max triple-quadrupole mass
spectrometer (ThermoFisher Scientific, Basel, Switzerland). The elution was performed at
40 ◦ C on a Syncronis C18 column. A TSQ Quantum Access Max triple-quadrupole mass
spectrometer equipped with a heated electrospray ionization (HESI) source was operated
in negative ionization mode. The mobile phase consisted of ultra-pure water + 0.1% formic
acid (A) and acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid (B), which were applied in the following
gradient elution: 5% B in the first 1.0 min, 1.0–16.0 min 5–95% B, 16.0–16.2 min from 95% to
5% B, and 5% B until the 20th min. The flow rate was set to 0.3 mL/min. The detail setting
of the mass spectrometry detector was previously described in Gašić et al. [38]. Xcalibur
software (version 2.2) was used for instrument control. The phenolics were identified by
direct comparison with commercial standards. The total amounts of each compound were
evaluated by calculation of the peak areas and are expressed as mg/kg.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 6 of 17

2.7. Total Phenolic Content (TPC)

The total phenolic content was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu method [39]
following the procedure described in [40]. Briefly, 0.5 mL of the apple peel/pulp extracts
and 0.5 mL ultrapure water were mixed with 2.0 mL of 10% Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. After
5 min, 2.5 mL of 7.5% sodium carbonate was added. The mixture was left to stand for 2 h
and the absorbance was measured at 765 nm. Gallic acid (20–100 mg·L−1 ) was used as a
standard and the results were expressed as gram gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per kg of fresh
weight (FW). TPC amounts were presented as mean values of three measurements ± SD.

2.8. Radical-Scavenging Activity (RSA)

Radical scavenging activity was determined using DPPH radical solution by a liter-
ature method [37]. An aliquot of 0.1 mL of extracts was mixed with 4 mL of methanol
solution of DPPH (71 µM). The mixture was left to stand for 60 min in the dark and the
absorbance was measured at 515 nm. Trolox was used as standard and the calibration curve
was displayed as a function of the percentage of inhibition of DPPH radical. The results
were expressed as milimoles of Trolox equivalents (mmol TE) per kg of fresh weight and
were presented as mean values of three measurements ± SD.

2.9. Total Anthocyanin Content (TAC)

The total anthocyanin content was determined by the pH-differential method [40] and
results were presented as gram cyanidin-3-glucoside (cyn-3-glu) per kg of fresh weight.
Apple peel extracts were diluted with buffers of pH 1.0 (hydrochloric acid−potassium
chloride, 0.025 M) and pH 4.5 (acetic acid−sodium acetate, 0.4 M). Absorbencies of the
extracts were measured at 510 and 700 nm against blank. All of the results were presented
as mean values of three measurements ± SD.

2.10. HPAEC/PAD Analysis of Sugars and Sugar Alcohols

Fifty g of the representative fresh apple sample were minced and mixed with 100 mL of
the ultra-pure water and homogenized in a shaker for 15 min. The mixture was centrifuged
at 7000 rpm for 20 min. The supernatant was filtered through 22 µm syringe filters and
kept in a freezer until analysis.
The carbohydrate analysis was performed on a DIONEX ICS 3000 equipped with a
quaternary pump and a pulsed amperometric detector (PAD) with a glass electrode as
referent and gold as a working electrode. All of the separations were performed on a
CarboPac PA 100 column (4 × 250 mm) (Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The flow rate was
0.7 mL/min. At the begging of the analysis the mobile consisted of 85% water and 15%
300 mM sodium hydroxide. From 5 to 6 min the composition was changed to 83% water,
15% 300 mM sodium hydroxide and 2% 500 mM sodium acetate. The next change was
from 12–13 min where the water content decreased to 81% and the content of the 500 mM
of sodium acetate was increased to 4%. The final concentration was obtained between
20–21 min and consisted of 60% water, 20% 300 mM sodium hydroxide and 20% 500 mM
sodium acetate. Before every analysis the system was equilibrated to starting conditions
for 30 min. All of the separations were performed at 30 ◦ C.
The total sweetness index (TSI) was calculated in order to determine the sweetness
perception of fruits with the following equation:

TSI = (1.00 × [sucrose]) + (0.76 × [glucose]) + (1.50 × [fructose]).

2.11. Statistics
Data from all the measurements were expressed as the mean of three replicates. A
Tukey’s test was used to detect the significance of the differences (p ≤ 0.05) among mean
values. Statistical analyses were performed using the NCSS program ([Link]
com/, accessed on 29 January 2004). A principal component analysis was done in order to
summarize the result of the polyphenols, spectrophotometric tests and sugar contents in
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 7 of 17

investigated apple samples. PCA was carried out using the PLS_Tool Box software package
for MATLAB (Version 7.12.0), Budapest, Hungary as described in Fotirić Akšić et al. [6].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Determination of TPC, RSA, and TAC
TPC values obtained for the peel were higher in the cultivar ‘Red Aroma Orelind’
(16.45 g GAE/kg FW in organic fruits and 22.89 g GAE/kg FW in integrated fruits) com-
pared to ‘Discovery’ (11.33 g GAE/kg FW in organic fruits and 17.75 g GAE/kg FW in
integrated fruits). In the pulp, the contents of total phenols were higher in the cultivar
‘Discovery’ (Table 1). However, peel in ‘Discovery’ were 11-fold higher TPC than in the
pulp, while in ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ it was ~20-fold higher (Table 1). This is probably due to
the fact that apple peels contained additional flavonoids, such as quercetin glycosides [41].
Therefore, although the peel only comprised 7% of the apple weight; it contributes up to
45% of the total polyphenols [42].

Table 1. Total phenolic content, radical-scavenging activity and total anthocyanin content of apple
peel and pulp of two apple cultivars organically and integrally grown.

Peel Pulp
Sample
TPC * RSA ** TAC *** TPC * RSA **
Discovery
11.33 ± 0.21 d 120.88 ± 0.00 b 0.54 ± 0.02 a 0.95 ± 0.02 c 25.58 ± 0.42 c
(organic p.)
Discovery
17.75 ± 0.05 b 103.21 ± 1.14 d 0.25 ± 0.00 c 1.60 ± 0.01 a 32.04 ± 0.53 a
(integrated p.)
Red Aroma Orelind
16.45 ± 0.18 c 118.21 ± 1.89 c 0.29 ± 0.01 b 0.91 ± 0.02 c 28.18 ± 0.11 b
(organic p.)
Red Aroma Orelind
22.89 ± 0.51 a 136.21 ± 0.94 a 0.18 ± 0.00 d 1.05 ± 0.00 b 28.92 ± 0.11 b
(integrated p.)
* TPC values are expressed as g GAE/kg FW. ** RSA is expressed as mmol TE/kg FW. *** TAC is expressed as g
cyn-3-glu/kg FW. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant difference at p < 0.05
by Tukey’s test.

In this study, in all investigated samples, amounts of total phenolics were higher
in samples grown in integrated production systems, which aligns with the findings of
Valavanidis et al. [33], but does not correspond to the results of Santarelli et al. [34] and
Vanzo et al. [31], who found no significant differences in TPC between production practices.
According to Mikulič Petrovšek et al. [43], the higher TPC in organic production is mostly
connected to stress caused by pests (especially scab infection). However, in west Norway
Venturia inaequalis is not a big problem, and thus the level of stress is lower. This suggests
that it is hard to understand what triggers and makes the difference in the secondary
metabolites accumulate in apple fruit. Apple pulp samples contained similar amounts of
total phenolics, while apple peel samples were notably higher compared with the results of
phenolic content data from other publications [44,45].
The apple peel of ‘Discovery’ from organic production had much higher RSA than
the peel from fruits produced in the integrated system; while it was opposite in ‘Red
Aroma Orelind’. It could be underlined that the antioxidant capacity in the apple fruit is
genetically dependent, as previously determined by Kalinowska et al. [46]. Contrary to
this, Lamperi et al. [32] found that in four apple cultivars (‘Annurca’, ‘Golden Delicious’,
‘Red Chief’ and ‘Stayman Neepling’), the peels of organic fruits showed higher radical
scavenging properties than corresponding ones from integrated production. On the top,
Yuri et al. [47] found no significant influence of the cultivation management on RSA in
‘Gala’, ‘Granny Smith’, or ‘Fuji’.
On the contrary, TAC values determined in apple peels were higher in organically grown
apples. The obtained amounts of TAC are in accordance with the literature data [41,45].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 8 of 17

3.2. Sugars and Sugar Alcohols Profiles

Sugars are primary products of photosynthesis, providing energy and carbon building
for all biochemical processes, but they also determine fruit sweetness at harvest [48]. The
ripening process, the plant’s age, soil characteristics, microclimatic conditions, agrotechnical
measurements, and the cultivar all affect the quantitative variations of sugars within the
fruit and can be altered under the influence of biotic and abiotic stresses [49,50].
A total of 16 sugars and 4 sugar alcohols were quantified in the investigated apple
samples (Table 2). Based on total sugar contents, investigated apple samples could be
ranked as follows: integrated grown ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ > organically grown ‘Discov-
ery’ > organically grown ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ > integrated grown ‘Discovery’. According
to Jakopič et al. [51], apples from integrated management practices contained higher levels
of total sugars than organically produced apples. The most abundant sugar in all tested
samples was fructose, followed by glucose and sucrose, which on average amounted to
the 29.3%, 22.9%, and 7.7%, of all sugars detected, respectively. Regarding those three
most abundant sugars, their content in the examined samples differed significantly. The
higher fructose content was found in the integrated grown cultivar ‘Red Aroma Orelind’
compared to the organic, and in organic ‘Discovery’ compared to integrated. This is very
important to underline because fructose is recommended as a sweetener for diabetic pa-
tients, because it is a potent stimulator of lipogenesis which has negative effects in diabetes
mellitus and in obesity [52]. The highest glucose (40.833 mg/g) and sucrose (17.560 mg/g)
amounts were found in the organic apple ‘Discovery’. The levels of the majority of minor
sugars (trehalose, turanose, raffinose, isomaltotriose, maltose, galactose, ribose, galactitol,
mannitol and xylose) were statistically higher in both integrated apple fruits compared to
the organic ones.

Table 2. Amounts of individual sugars and sugar alcohols (mg/g) in investigated apple cultivars
organically and integrally grown.

‘Discovery’ ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ Cultivars Production Systems

Sugars
Integrated Organic Integrated Organic ‘Red Aroma O.’ ‘Discovery’ Integrated Organic
Sorbitol 0.235 c b 0.278 a, * d 0.253 a 0.246 a 0.257 a 0.242 a
0.257 0.227
Trehalose 0.505 a 0.415 c 0.432 b 0.337 d 0.385 a 0.460 a 0.469 a 0.376 b
Arabinose 0.301 c 0.513 a 0.321 b 0.241 d 0.281 a 0.407 a 0.311 a 0.377 a
Glucose 37.410 b 40.833 a 30.586 d 31.918 c 31.252 b 39.122 a 33.998 b 36.376 a
Sucrose 16.078 b 17.560 a 12.968 d 14.887 c 13.928 b 16.819 a 14.523 a 16.224 a
Fructose 45.862 d 46.780 c 55.926 a 52.914 b 54.92 a 46.321 b 50.894 a 50.347 a
Isomaltose 1.296 b 1.214 c 1.363 a 1.049 d 1.206 a 1.255 a 1.330 a 1.132 b
Melezitose 0.063 c 0.073 b 0.127 a 0.056 d 0.092 a 0.068 a 0.096 a 0.064 a
Gentiobiose 0.019 c 0.005 d 0.096 a 0.061 b 0.078 a 0.012 b 0.014 a 0.005 a
Turanose 0.184 b 0.080 d 0.434 a 0.152 c 0.292 a 0.132 a 0.309 a 0.115 b
Raffinose 0.581 a 0.281 b 0.162 c 0.104 d 0.133 b 0.431 a 0.371 a 0.193 a
Isomaltotriose 0.033 c 0.027 d 0.264 a 0.104 b 0.184 a 0.030 b 0.149 a 0.065 a
Maltose 2.372 a 1.330 c 1.660 b 0.987 d 1.324 a 1.851 a 2.016 a 1.158 b
Panose 0.015 b 0.014 b 0.555 a 0.016 b 0.286 a 0.014 b 0.285 a 0.015 a
Maltotriose 0.008 c 0.007 c 0.521 a 0.020 b 0.270 a 0.007 b 0.264 a 0.013 a
Galactose 0.907 a 0.661 c 0.731 b 0.607 d 0.669 a 0.784 a 0.819 a 0.634 b
Galactitol 1.041 a 0.882 b 0.884 b 0.688 c 0.786 a 0.961 a 0.962 a 0.785 b
Ribose 0.411 b 0.337 c 0.506 a 0.296 d 0.401 a 0.374 a 0.459 a 0.317 b
Mannitol 0.813 a 0.614 c 0.703 b 0.537 d 0.620 a 0.714 a 0.758 a 0.576 b
Xylose 2.226 a 2.059 b 1.738 c 1.322 d 1.530 b 2.143 a 1.982 a 1.690 a
TSI 113.30 a 118.76 b,c 120.10 c 118.52 b,c 120.06 c 116.03 b 116.70 b 119.39 b,c
* Different letters within the same row indicate statistically significant difference at p < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.

On the contrary, there were no statistically significant differences for the average
contents of glucose, fructose and sucrose obtained for different growing conditions. This
is consistent with the findings of Ján and Davide [26] but different from the results of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 9 of 17

Bertazza et al. [53], who detected higher contents of monosaccharides in organic apple
fruits and Kouřimská et al. [54], who detected higher levels of fructose and glucose in the
organic apple cultivars ‘Idared’, ‘Melrose’, ‘Šampion’ and ‘Zvonkové’ and in integrated ‘On-
tario’, ‘Topaz’ and ‘Florina’ compared to its counterparts. Those discrepancies are probably
due to the different cultivars studied and the completely divergent climatic conditions.
The cultivar ‘Discovery’ had a significantly higher total sweetness index in organic
production compared to the integrated cultivar, due to the higher level of all three ‘big’
sugars, while no discrepancies could be observed in ‘Red Aroma Orelind’. According to
Aprea et al. [55] the sorbitol content correlates with the perceived sweetness better than any
other single sugar or total sugar content, which means that in the case of panelist organic
‘Discovery’ and integrated ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ would taste sweeter.
Regardless of the production system, both cultivars from both production systems
contained more fructose, less glucose, and the least sucrose, which is an advantage for
diabetes patients, since it helps to keep the blood-sugar level constant [56]. In addition,
significant amounts of galactose, trehalose, maltose, isomaltose and xylose were quantified.
No matter that other sugars (arabinose, melezitose, turanose, raffinose, isomaltotriose,
panose, maltotriose, gentiobiose and ribose) were present as minor constituents, some
ratios should be underlined. Integrated ‘Discovery’ apples stored ~2.3-fold higher turanose
and ~3.8-fold higher gentiobiose than the same fruits from organic production. Turanose
(structural isomer of sucrose) is a signaling molecule, and it has been shown to accelerate
fruit ripening in strawberries [57]. Gentiobiose (undesirable bitter sugar) is an osmoprotec-
tant that stabilizes cellular membranes in water deficient conditions [58]. On the contrary,
fruits from integrally produced ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ stored ~26-fold higher levels of mal-
totriose (an oligosaccharide which elicits a sweet taste) and ~34-fold higher levels of panose
(a functional food additive due to its intestinal microflora improvement) [59,60].
The contents of all quantified sugar alcohols were below 1 mg/g and the most common
sugar alcohol in all investigated apples was galacticol. Low levels or even the non-existence
of sorbitol, raffinose, mannitol, and xylose were previously determined in the apple culti-
vars ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Idared’ and ‘Petrovka’ from conventional production [61]. Xylose,
a major neutral sugar whose accumulation is triggered by environmental stimuli, is found
higher in apple fruits grown at higher altitudes [62]. In this study, levels of this sugar were
slightly higher in organic ‘Discovery’ and integrated ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ compared its
counterpart, which means that it is genotype dependent. Our results correspond with the
findings of Le Bourvellec et al. [63], who found sorbitol to be a relatively minor component
in apple peel. There are different opinions why organic or integrated fruits should have a
higher or lower sugar level. In organic production, yields are often lower, so the synthesized
major and minor sugars are divided to the lower number of ‘sink’ organs, showing higher
levels of total sugars. Contrary to that, organic fruits which are exposed to stresses could
have metabolic problems and lower photosynthetic activity, and thus a lower accumulation
of sugars [6,64].

3.3. Phenolic Profiles

During this study, we examined the content of certain phenolic compounds in the peel
and pulp of four apple samples. The compounds of interest were mainly phenolic acids
and flavonoids (aglycones and glycosides), as well as phlorizin and phloretin, which are
apple-specific chalcones. A study of the phenolic profile of apple peel and pulp showed
that the peel is richer compared to the pulp, in the range of ~1.2-fold (for chlorogenic acid)
up to ~114-fold (quercetin 3-O-galactoside) (Table 3).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 10 of 17

Table 3. Polyphenol profiles of peel and pulp (mg/kg) of two apple cultivars organically and integrally grown.

‘Discovery’ ‘Discovery’ ‘Red Aroma ‘Red Aroma ‘Discovery’ ‘Discovery’ ‘Red Aroma ‘Red Aroma
Phenolic Compounds (Org.) (Integ.) Orelind’ (Org.) Orelind’ (Integ.) (Org.) (Integ.) Orelind’ (Org.) Orelind’ (Integ.)
Peel Pulp
Protocatechuic acid 0.53 c, * – 0.43 b 0.37 a – – – –
Aesculin 11.09 d 10.03 c 9.42 b 10.44 c 1.74 a 1.77 a 1.78 a 1.83 a
Chlorogenic acid 62.09 d,e 64.27 e 24.30 b 25.33 b 42.49 c 60.56 d 21.39 a 21.51 a
p-Hydroxybenzoic acid 1.05 c 0.91 c 0.76 b 1.34 d – 0.32 a – –
Catechin – – – – 11.36 – – –
Caffeic acid 8.47 b 8.46 b 8.61 b 8.17 b 3.30 a 3.30 a 3.24 a –
Syringic acid 1.49 a 1.84 b – 1.66 ab – – – –
Rutin – – 11.60 a 46.90 b – – – –
p-Coumaric acid 0.77 a 1.33 b 1.94 c 0.51 a – – – –
Quercetin 3-O-galactoside 88.64 c 96.85 d 76.81 b 146.21 e 0.87 a 0.98 a 0.79 a 0.92 a
Ferulic acid 0.33 a 0.26 a 0.60 b – – – – –
Naringin – – 0.08 a 0.14 b – – – –
Kaempferol 3-O-glucoside 11.72 e 14.33 f 6.19 c 8.30 d 0.27 a 0.42 b 0.23 a 0.23 a
Apigenin 7-O-glucoside 0.41 b 0.45 b,c – 0.54 c – 0.12 a – 0.12 a
Phlorizin 67.27 f 46.53 e 33.27 d 29.18 c 1.18 a 2.39 b 2.00 b 0.93 a
Phloretin 6.91 c 5.94 b 6.68 c 5.62 b 2.00 a 2.01 a 2.01 a –
Baicalein 1.21 c 1.08 b 1.26 c 1.00 b 0.23 a 0.24 a 0.24 a 0.23 a
Naringenin 2.17 c 1.81 a 2.25 d 1.65 b – – – –
Kaempferol 17.68 b,c 18.70 c 14.40 a 16.08 b – – – –
– “not detected”. * Different letters within the same row indicate statistically significant difference at p < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 11 of 17

A total of ten phenolic compounds (aesculin, chlorogenic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid,

caffeic acid, quercetin 3-O-galactoside, kaempferol 3-O-glucoside, apigenin 7-O-glucoside,
phlorizin, phloretin, and baicalein) were found both in the pulp and in the peel, with the
concentrations of all ten being significantly higher in the peel.
The only compound detected in the pulp but not in the peel was catechin, quanti-
fied only in the ‘Discovery’ organic pulp sample at a significantly high concentration of
11.36 mg/kg. Contrary to this, Valavanidis et al. [33] found catechin in both the peel and
pulp of ‘Red Delicious Starking’, ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Royal Gala’, ‘Granny Smith’ and
‘Jonagold’ from organic and conventional production. A high level of catechin, which was
previously quantified in the apple cultivar ‘Annurca’, is used to fight against the colorectal
cancer cell line [65].
The compound that can be noted as dominant for the pulp was chlorogenic acid, with
a concentration that ranged from 21.51 (‘Red Aroma Orelind’ from organic production)
to 60.56 mg/kg (‘Discovery’ from integrated production). This acid was also found in
significant amounts in the peel, in the range of 24.30 (‘Red Aroma Orelind’ from organic
production) to 64.27 mg/kg (‘Discovery’ from integrated production). Our results are
in agreement with those reported by Oszmiański et al. [15] and Veberic et al. [66], who
proved that chlorogenic acid is the major component of apple cultivars grown in Poland
and Slovenia, respectively. Generally, this phenolic acid is a precursor of flavor in fruits,
and has a beneficial effect on human health, showing anticarcinogenic, antimutagenic and
antioxidant [67] effects.
However, quercetin 3-O-galactoside was the most abundant in the peel samples
[from 76.81 (‘Red Aroma Orelind’ from organic production) to 146.21 mg/kg (‘Red Aroma
Orelind’ from integrated production)]. Previous studies of apple peel demonstrated that the
accumulation of anthocyanin cyanidin-3-O-galactoside increased at low temperatures, and
promoted fruit coloration by regulating anthocyanin’a biosynthesis [68]. Generally, both
apple cultivars had higher levels of this compound in fruits from integrated production,
which is not in line with the study of Vanzo et al. [31] where Golden Delicious had a
two-fold higher level of this galactoside in organic fruits compared to the integrated, but
there were no differences in the cultivars ‘Liberty’, ‘Santana’ and ‘Topaz’. Kaempferol
(with concentration ranged from 14.40 to 18.70 mg/kg) and kaempferol 3-O-glucoside
(with concentration ranged from 6.19 to 14.33 mg/kg) were also characteristic of the peel,
both of which were higher in integrated apple fruits. Contradictory to this, Średnicka-
Tober et al. [29] found no differences in kaempferol 3-O-glucoside between the production
system in cultivars ‘Champion’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Idared’. For the chalcones quantified in apple
peel, we must single out phloridzin, whose concentration ranged from 29.18 (‘Red Aroma
Orelind’ from integrated production) to 67.27 mg/kg (‘Discovery’ from organic production).
According to Le Bourvellec et al. [63] the cultivars ‘Smoothee’, ‘Ariane’ and ‘Melrose’ stored
dihydrochalcones as a minor group and accounted for 3% and 3.5% of the total phenolics
in the pulp and in the peel, respectively, of the examined cultivars. In this study, fruits from
both apple cultivars grown in organic conditions had a higher level of phloridzin, which
corresponds to the study of Vanzo et al. [31] in ‘Golden Delicious’. The same was true
with phloretin, procatehuic acid, ferulic acid, baicalein and naringenin, whose levels where
higher in peel from fruits obtained from organic production compared to the integrate
production. Flavonoids (baicalein and naringenin), are produced as a defense mechanism
against pathogens and abiotic stresses [69]. In humans, they are used in the prevention
and treatment of vascular and cardiac disease, and cancer, while phloridzin from apple
fruits is associated with potential benefits on intestinal inflammation [65,70]. Ferulic acid
exhibits a vast array functions, including its antioxidant, antiinflammatory, antimicrobial
and antiallergic properties, and helps to increase the viability of sperms [71].
If we compare the tested apple cultivars, differences in the presence and absence
of certain compounds were noticed. Thus, for example, rutin was found only in ‘Red
Aroma Orelind’ samples (in organic and conventional samples) in significant concentrations
(11.60 mg/kg in organic sample and 46.90 mg/kg in conventional sample). The same is
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 12 of 17

the case with naringin, which has been found in low amounts in ‘Red Aroma Orelind’
peel samples. Regarding pulp, no clear line could be drawn between the cultivars and the
production system. Only integrated fruits from the cultivar ‘Discovery’ stood out with
higher levels of chlorogenic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, kaempferol 3-O-glucoside and
phlorizin, while organic fruits from ‘Reda Aroma Orelind’ had higher levels of caffeic acid,
phloridzin and phloretin.
This all corresponds to the previous studies where huge discrepancies regarding
polyphenolic content in dessert and cider apple cultivars were found [72,73]. For polyphe-
nols, depending on the compounds, the management has a significant effect, but it is still
much lower than the effects of the cultivar [63].

3.4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The multivariate analysis is a statistical technique that is used to determine the dif-
ferences between the properties, which variables contribute the most to the difference
and which variables are correlated with each other or completely independent from each
other [74]. PCA has been already used in other studies for the comprehensive evaluation of
apple fruits, juice, pomace and seed quality [23,75–78].
In this study, PCA was used to establish similarity/dissimilarity among the chemical
compositions of apple samples based on the cultivars and growing conditions. Three
PCA were performed separately on the polyphenols, TPC, TAC, and RSA obtained in the
apple peel extracts (Figure 1A,B), polyphenols, TPC, and RSA in the apple pulp extracts
(Figure 1C,D), and sugar and sugar alcohol contents in apple (Figure 2A,B). The initial
matrices of four (the number of apple samples) × 21 (quantified polyphenols, TPC, TAC,
and RSA in apple peel extracts), four (the number of apple samples) × 13 (quantified
polyphenols, TPC and RSA in apple pulp extracts), and four (the number of apple sam-
ples) × 20 (quantified sugars) were processed using the covariance matrix with autoscaling.
The PCA performed on the polyphenols contents and the results of the spectrophotomet-
ric tests obtained for apple peel and pulp extracts resulted in two-component models,
which explained 82.87%, and 88.23% of total variance, respectively. The PCA score plot
(Figure 1A) showed the clustering of apple peel extracts into two groups along the PC2 axis
based on the significant differences in contents of polyphenols, TPC, TAC, and RSA values.
From the loadings plot of PCA (Figure 1B), it was evident that kaempferol, kampferol 3-O-
glucoside, chlorogenic acid, and phlorizin were the most influential variables responsible
for the separation ‘Discovery’ cultivar form ‘Red Aroma Orelind’. On the other hand, those
polyphenols are showing very tight correlation among each other. It is the same situation
with rutin, which is closely connected with RSA and TPC, which means that total phenols
and antioxidant capacity in the apple peel is rutin dependent. As for the polyphenol
composition, TPC and RSA in the apple pulp extracts, the PC scores plot (Figure 1C) shows
no clustering of the apple based on the cultivars and growing conditions. In the pulp, TPC
depends on baicalein and kampferol 3-O-glucoside, while antioxidant capacity is related to
quercetin 3-O-glucoside.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 1413ofof 18
17

Figure 1.
Figure PCAperformed
1. PCA performedon onTPC,
TPC,TAC,
TAC, RSA
RSA and
and polyphenols
polyphenols in apple
in apple samples.
samples. PC scores
PC scores plot plot
(A)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 15 of 18
and loadings plot (B) of apple peel samples; PC scores (C) and loadings plot (D) of apple pulp
(A) and loadings plot (B) of apple peel samples; PC scores (C) and loadings plot (D) of apple ex-
tracts.
pulp extracts.

The results of PCA applied on sugar contents in apple samples suggested that the
first two principal components explained 88.38% of total variance. The PCA correlation
plots in Figure 2A showed that the separation ‘Discovery’ cultivar samples from ‘Red
Aroma Orelind’ along the PC1 axis. Higher contents of fructose, gentiobiose, isomalto-
triose and maltotriose were the most important factors responsible for the separation of
the ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ cultivar from the ‘Discovery’ samples. On the other hand, glu-
cose, sucrose, xylose, and raffinose had the highest negative impact on PC1, and it was
the most influential in distinguishing the ‘Discovery’ cultivar.

Figure 2. PCA
PCAperformed
performedon onsugar
sugarand
andsugar alcohol
sugar contents
alcohol in in
contents apple samples.
apple PC PC
samples. scores plotplot
scores (A)
and loadings
(A) and plotplot
loadings (B). (B).

4. Conclusions
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that covers the comprehensive
analysis and comparison of sugar and polyphenolic profiles from two apple cultivars
grown in organic and integrated production systems under Norwegian climatic condi-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 14 of 17

The results of PCA applied on sugar contents in apple samples suggested that the
first two principal components explained 88.38% of total variance. The PCA correlation
plots in Figure 2A showed that the separation ‘Discovery’ cultivar samples from ‘Red
Aroma Orelind’ along the PC1 axis. Higher contents of fructose, gentiobiose, isomaltotriose
and maltotriose were the most important factors responsible for the separation of the
‘Red Aroma Orelind’ cultivar from the ‘Discovery’ samples. On the other hand, glucose,
sucrose, xylose, and raffinose had the highest negative impact on PC1, and it was the most
influential in distinguishing the ‘Discovery’ cultivar.

4. Conclusions
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that covers the comprehensive
analysis and comparison of sugar and polyphenolic profiles from two apple cultivars
grown in organic and integrated production systems under Norwegian climatic conditions.
Although we believed that organic production, as a more stressful production due to the
limited mineral nitrogen and crop protection, would result in fruits with higher levels
of primary and secondary metabolites, this was not the case. In relation to integrated
production, apple cultivars from the organic system had higher peel TAC, glucose, sucrose,
phlorizin, phloretin, protocatechuic acid, catechin, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid,
baicalein and naringenin on average, which means that those compounds are related to the
spraying program and fertilizing, whereas other practices were similar. Differences in pulp
composition between the management systems were very limited, since they affected only
a few minor phenolics (catechin, caffeic acid and phloretin).
Fruits from organic ‘Discovery’ drew attention due to the high RSA, TAC and phlo-
ridzin in the peel, sorbitol, glucose and sucrose, high TSI, and high levels of catechin in
pulp. On the other side, fruits from integrated ‘Red Aroma Orelind’ showed high TPC
and RSA of the peel, high rutin and quercetin 3-O-galactoside in the peel, high levels of
fructose, high TSI, and several tens of times higher content of panose and maltotriose. This
means that levels of bioactive compounds were different between production systems, but
above all it was cultivar and fruit part dependent.
Both cultivars and both production systems in West Norway gave high quality apples,
but a slight advantage should be given to organic ‘Discovery’ and integrated ‘Red Aroma
Orelind’ due to the health promoting compounds and we recommend their growing in
such environmental conditions

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.F.A. and M.M.; methodology, M.F.A. and M.M.; formal
analysis, D.D.Z., T.T. and U.G.; investigation, M.F.A., D.D.Z., T.T., U.G. and M.N.; data curation,
D.D.Z., T.T., U.G. and M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F.A., D.D.Z., U.G., M.N. and
M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.F.A., D.D.Z., T.T., U.G., M.N. and M.M.; visualization, M.F.A.,
D.D.Z., T.T., U.G., M.N. and M.M.; supervision, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was partly funded by The Research Council of Norway (project No. 280376).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data are presented in this manuscript.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological
Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant numbers: 451-03-68/2022-14/200168, 451-03-68/2022-
14/200007, 451-03-68/2022-14/200288 and 451-03-68/2022-14/200116).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 15 of 17

References
1. Durham, T.C.; Mizik, T. Comparative Economics of Conventional, Organic, and Alternative Agricultural Production Systems.
Economies 2021, 9, 64. [CrossRef]
2. Willer, H.; Trávníček, J.; Meier, C.; Schlatter, B. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2021; Research
Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM—Organics International: Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 1–336.
3. Campbell, B.L.; Mhlanga, S.; Lesschaeve, I. Perception versus reality: Canadian consumer views of local and organic. Can. J.
Agric. Econ. 2013, 61, 531–558. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, Q.; Sun, J.; Parsons, R. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for locally grown organic apples: Evidence from a
conjoint study. HortScience 2010, 45, 376–381. [CrossRef]
5. Granatstein, D.; Kirby, E.; Ostenson, H.; Willer, H. Global situation for organic tree fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 208, 3–12. [CrossRef]
6. Fotirić Akšić, M.; Dabić Zagorac, D.; Sredojević, M.; Milivojević, J.; Gašić, U.; Meland, M.; Natić, M. Chemometric Characterization
of Strawberries and Blueberries according to Their Phenolic Profile: Combined Effect of Cultivar and Cultivation System. Molecules
2019, 24, 4310. [CrossRef]
7. Peck, G.M.; Andrews, P.K.; Reganold, J.P.; Fellman, J.K. Apple orchard productivity and fruit quality under organic, conventional,
and integrated management. HortScience 2006, 41, 99–107. [CrossRef]
8. Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M.L.; Hunter, G.E.; Clay Bavinger, J.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P.J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.;
Stave, C.; et al. Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? A systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012,
157, 348–366. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, Z.; Yu, L.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Wang, N.; Chen, X. Research progress of fruit color development in apple (Malus domestica
Borkh.). Plant Physiol Biochem. 2021, 162, 267–279. [CrossRef]
10. FaoStat. 2020. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 10 February 2022).
11. Vasylieva, N.; James, H. Production and trade patterns in the world apple market. Innov. Mark. 2021, 17, 16–25. [CrossRef]
12. Fotirić Akšić, M.; Mutić, J.; Tešić, Ž.; Meland, M. Evaluation of fruit mineral contents of two apple cultivars grown in organic and
integrated production systems. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1281, 59–66. [CrossRef]
13. Wicklund, T.; Guyot, S.; Le Quéré, J.-M. Chemical Composition of Apples Cultivated in Norway. Crops 2021, 1, 3. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Y.; Sun, H.; Li, J.; Qin, S.; Niu, Z.; Qiao, X.; Yang, B. Influence of genetic background, growth latitude and bagging treatment
on phenolic compounds in fruits of commercial cultivars and wild types of apples (Malus sp.). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247,
1149–1165. [CrossRef]
15. Oszmiański, J.; Lachowicz, S.; Gławdel, E.; Cebulak, T.; Ochmian, I. Determination of phytochemical composition and antioxidant
capacity of 22 old apple cultivars grown in Poland. Eur. Food. Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 647–662. [CrossRef]
16. Alberti, A.; dos Santos, T.P.M.; Zielinski, A.A.F.; dos Santos, C.M.E.; Braga, C.M.; Demiate, I.M.; Nogueira, A. Impact on chemical
profile in apple juice and cider made from unripe, ripe and senescent dessert varieties. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 2016, 65, 436–443.
[CrossRef]
17. Ferretti, G.; Turco, I.; Bacchetti, T. Apple as a Source of Dietary Phytonutrients: Bioavailability and Evidence of Protective Effects
against Human Cardiovascular Disease. Food Nutr. Sci. 2014, 5, 1234–1246. [CrossRef]
18. Hyson, D.A. A Comprehensive Review of Apples and Apple Components and Their Relationship to Human Health. Adv. Nutr.
2011, 2, 408–420. [CrossRef]
19. Kelishadi, R.; Mansourian, M.; Heidari-Beni, M. Association of fructose consumption and components of metabolic syndrome in
human studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition 2014, 30, 503–510. [CrossRef]
20. Patocka, J.; Bhardwaj, K.; Klimova, B.; Nepovimova, E.; Wu, Q.; Landi, M.; Kuca, K.; Valis, M.; Wu, W. Malus domestica: A Review
on Nutritional Features, Chemical Composition, Traditional and Medicinal Value. Plants 2020, 9, 1408. [CrossRef]
21. Coelho, E.; Pinto, M.; Bastos, R.; Cruz, M.; Nunes, C.; Rocha, S.M.; Coimbra, M.A. Concentrate Apple Juice Industry: Aroma and
Pomace Valuation as Food Ingredients. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2443. [CrossRef]
22. Górnaś, P.; Rudzińska, M.; Seglin, a, D. Lipophilic composition of eleven apple seed oils: A promising source of unconventional oil
from industry by-products. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2014, 60, 86–91. [CrossRef]
23. Fotirić Akšić, M.; Lazarević, K.; Šegan, S.; Natić, M.; Tosti, T.; Ćirić, I.; Meland, M. Assessing the Fatty Acid, Carotenoid, and
Tocopherol Compositions of Seeds from Apple Cultivars (Malus domestica Borkh.) Grown in Norway. Foods 2021, 10, 1956.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. FiBL Statistics 2019. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 25 February 2021).
25. Revdal, E.; Meland, M.; Sønsteby, A.; Martinussen, I.; Korsæth, A. Nasjonalt system for uttesting av frukt-og bærsorter i Norge
—en utredning. In NIBIO Rapport; NIBIO: Oslo, Norway, 2021; Volume 7, pp. 1–28. Available online: [Link]
0/2739214 (accessed on 30 March 2022).
26. Ján, M.; Davide, S. Selected Quantitative Parameters Comparison of Apples from Bio- and Conventional Production. Athens J. Sci.
2018, 5, 343–354. [CrossRef]
27. Róth, E.; Berna, A.; Beullens, K.; Yarramraju, S.; Lammertyn, J.; Schenk, A.; Nicolaï, B. Postharvest quality of integrated and
organically produced apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2007, 45, 11–19. [CrossRef]
28. Holb, I.J.; Dremak, P.; Bitskey, K.; Gonda, I. Yield response, pest damage and fruit quality parameters of scab-resistant and
scab-susceptible apple cultivars in integrated and organic production systems. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 145, 109–117. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 16 of 17

29. Średnicka-Tober, D.; Baránski, M.; Kazimierczak, R.; Ponder, A.; Kopczyńska, K.; Hallmann, E. Selected Antioxidants in Organic
vs. Conventionally Grown Apple Fruits. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2997. [CrossRef]
30. Woese, K.; Lange, D.; Boess, C.; Bögl, K.W. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods—Results of a review of
the relevant literature. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1997, 74, 281–293. [CrossRef]
31. Vanzo, A.; Jenko, M.; Vrhovsek, U.; Stopar, M. Metabolomic Profiling and Sensorial Quality of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Liberty’,
‘Santana’, and ‘Topaz’ Apples Grown Using Organic and Integrated Production Systems. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 6580–6587.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Lamperi, L.; Chiuminatto, U.; Cincinelli, A.; Galvan, P.; Giordani, E.; Lepri, L.; Del Bubba, M. Polyphenol levels and free radical
scavenging ac-tivities of four apple cultivars from integrated and organic farming in different Italian areas. J. Agric. Food Chem.
2008, 56, 6536–6546. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Valavanidis, A.; Vlachogianni, T.; Psomas, A.; Zovoili, A.; Siatis, V. Polyphenolic profile and antioxidant activity of five apple
cultivars grown under organic and conventional agricultural practices. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 1167–1175. [CrossRef]
34. Santarelli, V.; Neri, L.; Sacchetti, G.; Di Mattia, C.D.; Mastrocola, D.; Pittia, P. Response of organic and conventional apples to
freezing and freezing pre-treatments: Focus on polyphenols content and antioxidant activity. Food Chem. 2020, 308, 125570.
[CrossRef]
35. Adamczyk, M.J.; Kostyra, E.; Wasiak-Zys, G.; Hallmann, E.; Batorska, D.; Rembiałkowska, E. Sensory and Instrumental Analysis
of Selected Cultivars of Apples from Organic and Conventional Production; Fordergemeinschaft Okologischer Obstbau e.V. (FOKO):
Weinsberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 264–273.
36. Maas, F.; Krogstad, T.; Fotirić Akšić, M.; Meland, M. Survey of nutrient levels in apple trees and soil in four fruit growing regions
in Norway. In NIBIO Rapport; NIBIO: Oslo, Norway, 2022; Volume 8, pp. 1–39. Available online: [Link]
2987555 (accessed on 30 March 2022).
37. Pantelić, M.; Zagorac, D.D.; Davidović, S.; Todić, S.; Bešlić, Z.; Gašić, U.; Tešić, Ž.; Natić, M. Identification and quantification of
phenolic compounds in berry skin, pulp, and seeds in 13 grapevine varieties grown in Serbia. Food Chem. 2016, 211, 243–252.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Gašić, U.; Natić, M.; Mišić, D.; Lušić, D.; Milojković-Opsenica, D.; Tešić, Ž.; Lušić, D. Chemical markers for the authentication of
unifloral Salvia officinalis L. honey. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 44, 128–138. [CrossRef]
39. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158.
40. Natić, M.; Dabić, D.; Papetti, A.; Fotirić Akšić, M.; Ognjanov, V.; Ljubojević, M.; Tešić, Ž. Analysis and characterization of
phytochemicals in Mulberry (Morus alba L.) fruits grown in Vojvodina, North Serbia. Food Chem. 2015, 171, 128–136. [CrossRef]
41. Wolfe, K.; Wu, X.; Liu, R.H. Antioxidant activity of apple peels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 609–614. [CrossRef]
42. McGhie, T.K.; Hunt, M.; Barnett, L.E. Cultivar and growing region determine the antioxidant polyphenolic concentration and
composition of apples grown in New Zealand. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 3065–3070. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Mikulič Petkovšek, M.; Štampar, F.; Veberič, R. Accumulation of phenolic compounds in apple in response to infection by the scab
pathogen, Venturia inaequalis. Physiol. Mol. 2009, 74, 60–67. [CrossRef]
44. Piagentini, A.M.; Pirovani, M.E. Total Phenolics Content, Antioxidant Capacity, Physicochemical attributes, and browning
susceptibility of different apple cultivars for minimal processing. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2017, 17, 102–116. [CrossRef]
45. Wang, X.; Li, C.; Liang, D.; Zou, Y.; Li, P.; Ma, F. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity in red-fleshed apples. J. Funct.
Foods 2015, 18, 1086–1094. [CrossRef]
46. Kalinowska, M.; Bielawska, A.; Lewandowska-Siwkiewicz, H.; Priebe, W.; Lewandowski, W. Apples: Content of phenolic
compounds vs. variety, part of apple and cultivation model, extraction of phenolic compounds, biological properties. Plant
Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 84, 169–188. [CrossRef]
47. Yuri, J.; Maldonado, F.; Razmilic, I.; Neira, A.; Quilodran, A.; Palomo, I. Concentrations of total phenols and antioxidant activity
in apple do not differ between conventional and organic orchard Management. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 207–216.
48. Kim, H.-Y.; Farcuh, M.; Cohen, Y.; Crisosto, C.; Sadka, A.; Blumwald, E. Non-climacteric ripening and sorbitol homeostasis in
plum fruits. Plant Sci. 2015, 231, 30–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Durán-Soria, S.; Pott, D.M.; Osorio, S.; Vallarino, J.G. Sugar Signaling During Fruit Ripening. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 564917.
[CrossRef]
50. Fotirić Akšić, M.; Tosti, T.; Nedić, N.; Marković, M.; Ličina, V.; Milojković-Opsenica, D.; Tešić, Ž. Influence of frost damage on the
sugars and sugar alcohol composition in quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) Floral nectar. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 1701. [CrossRef]
51. Jakopič, J.; Slatnar, A.; Štampar, F.; Veberič, R.; Simoncic, A. Analysis of selected primary metabolites and phenolic profile of
‘Golden Delicious’ apples from four production systems. Fruits 2012, 64, 377–386. [CrossRef]
52. Tappy, L.; Le, K.A.; Tran, C.; Paquot, N. Fructose and metabolic diseases: New findings, new questions. Nutrition 2010, 26,
1044–1104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Bertazza, G.; Cristoferi, G.; Bignami, C. Fruit Composition and Quality of Organically and Conventionally Grown Apple, Apricot
and Pear in the Veneto Region (Northern Italy). Acta Hortic. 2010, 873, 309–316. [CrossRef]
54. Kouřimská, L.; Kubaschová, K.; Sus, J.; Nový, P.; Dvořáková, B.; Koudela, M. Comparison of the carbohydrate content in apples
and carrots grown in organic and integrated farming systems. Potravinarstvo 2014, 8, 178–183. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5300 17 of 17

55. Aprea, E.; Charles, M.; Endrizzi, I.; Corollaro, M.L.; Betta, E.; Biasioli, F.; Gasperi, F. Sweet taste in apple: The role of sorbitol,
individual sugars, organic acids and volatile compounds. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44950. [CrossRef]
56. Hecke, K.; Herbinger, K.; Veberič, R.; Trobec, M.; Toplak, H.; Štampar, F.; Keppel, H.; Grill, D. Sugar-, acid- and phenol contents in
apple cultivars from organic and integrated fruit cultivation. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 1136–1140. [CrossRef]
57. Jia, H.; Wang, Y.; Sun, M.; Li, B.; Han, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Ding, N.; Li, C.; Ji, W.; et al. Sucrose functions as a signal involved in the
regulation of strawberry fruit development and ripening. New Phytol. 2013, 198, 453–465. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Lokhande, V.H.; Suprasanna, P. Prospects of Halophytes in Understanding and Managing Abiotic Stress Tolerance. In Environ-
mental Adaptations and Stress Tolerance of Plants in the Era of Climate Change; Ahmad, P., Prasad, M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 2012; pp. 29–56.
59. Meyer, T.S.M.; Miguel, Â.S.M.; Fernández, D.R.; Ortiz, G.M.D. Biotechnological Production of Oligosaccharides—Applications
in the Food Industry. In Food Production and Industry; Eissa, A.H.A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 13 March 2022).
60. Pullicin, A.J.; Penner, M.H.; Lim, J. The Sweet Taste of Acarbose and Maltotriose: Relative Detection and Underlying Mechanism.
Chem. Senses 2019, 44, 123–128. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Jovanovic-Malinovska, R.; Kuzmanova, S.; Winkelhausen, E. Oligosaccharide Profile in Fruits and Vegetables as Sources of
Prebiotics and Functional Foods. Int. J. Food Prop. 2014, 17, 949–965. [CrossRef]
62. Karagiannis, E.; Michailidis, M.; Tanou, G.; Scossa, F.; Sarrou, E.; Stamatakis, G.; Samiotaki, M.; Martens, S.; Fernie, A.R.;
Molassiotis, A. Decoding altitude-activated regulatory mechanisms occurring during apple peel ripening. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 120.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Le Bourvellec, C.; Bureau, S.; Renard, C.M.G.C.; Plenet, D.; Gautier, H.; Touloumet, L.; Girard, T.; Simon, S. Cultivar and Year
Rather than Agricultural Practices Affect Primary and Secondary Metabolites in Apple Fruit. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141916.
[CrossRef]
64. Ashraf, M.; Harris, P.J.C. Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Sci. 2004, 166, 3–16. [CrossRef]
65. Paluszczak, J.; Baer-Dubowska, W. DNA Methylation as a Target of Cancer Chemoprevention by Dietary Polyphenols. In
Polyphenols in Human Health and Disease; Watson, R.R., Preedy, V.R., Zibadi, S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014;
pp. 1385–1392.
66. Veberic, R.; Trobec, M.; Herbinger, K.; Hofer, M.; Grill, D.; Stampar, F. Phenolic compounds in some apple (Malus domestica Borkh)
cultivars of organic and integrated production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 1687–1694. [CrossRef]
67. Sato, Y.; Itagaki, S.; Kurokawa, T.; Ogura, J.; Kobayashi, M.; Hirano, T.; Sugawara, M.; Iseki, K. In vitro and in vivo antioxidant
properties of chlorogenic acid and caffeic acid. Int. J. Pharm. 2011, 403, 136–138. [CrossRef]
68. Xie, X.B.; Li, S.; Zhang, R.F.; Zhao, J.; Chen, Y.C.; Zhao, Q.; Yao, Y.X.; You, C.X.; Zhang, X.S.; Hao, Y.J. The bHLH transcription
factor MdbHLH3 promotes anthocyanin accumulation and fruit colouration in response to low temperature in apples. Plant Cell
Environ. 2012, 35, 1884–1897. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Vicente, O.; Boscaiu, M. Flavonoids: Antioxidant Compounds for Plant Defence and for a Healthy Human Diet. Not. Bot. Horti.
Agrobot. 2018, 46, 14–21. [CrossRef]
70. Zielinska, D.; Laparra-Llopis, J.M.; Zielinski, H.; Szawara-Nowak, D.; Giménez-Bastida, J.A. Role of Apple Phytochemicals,
Phloretin and Phloridzin, in Modulating Processes Related to Intestinal Inflammation. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1173. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
71. Kumar, N.; Pruthi, V. Potential applications of ferulic acid from natural sources. Biotechnol. Rep. 2014, 4, 86–93. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
72. Tsao, R.; Yang, R.; Young, C.; Zhu, H. Polyphenolic profiles in eight apple cultivars using high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 6347–6353. [CrossRef]
73. Marks, S.C.; Mullen, W.; Crozier, A. Flavonoid and chlorogenic acid profiles of English cider apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87,
719–728. [CrossRef]
74. Wold, H. Soft Modelling by Latent Variables: The Non-Linear Iterative Partial Least Squares (NIPALS) Approach. J. Appl. Probab.
1975, 12, 117–142. [CrossRef]
75. Francini, A.; Romeo, S.; Cifelli, M.; Gori, D.; Domenici, V.; Sebastiani, L. 1 H NMR and PCA-based analysis revealed variety
dependent changes in phenolic contents of apple fruit after drying. Food Chem. 2017, 221, 1206–1213. [CrossRef]
76. Mureşan, A.E.; Sestras, A.F.; Militaru, M.; Păucean, A.; Tanislav, A.E.; Puscas, A.; Mateescu, M.; Mureşan, V.; Marc (Vlaic), R.A.;
Sestras, R.E. Chemometric Comparison and Classification of 22 Apple Genotypes Based on Texture Analysis and Physico-
Chemical Quality Attributes. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 64. [CrossRef]
77. Gabriel, L.S.; Prestes, R.A.; Pinheiro, L.A.; Barison, A.; Wosiacki, G. Multivariate analysis of the spectroscopic profile of the sugar
fraction of apple pomace. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2013, 56, 439–446. [CrossRef]
78. Włodarska, K.; Pawlak-Lemańska, K.; Górecki, T.; Sikorska, E. Classification of commercial apple juices based on multivariate
analysis of their chemical profiles. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 1773–1785. [CrossRef]