3.1 Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrophotometry (LC-MS) Analysis of Phytosterols content
LC-MS based analysis showed that on concentration of three phytosterols, CAM, STIG and β-SIT of the dried jivanti as influenced by the different drying methods. Results of mean performance analysis indicated that CAM was found significantly differs among the drying methods and its ranges from 1.57 µg/g (tray drying) to 5.26 µg/g (shade drying) with SD of 1.33 (Table 3). However, STIG and β-SIT was revealed significantly maximum in vacuum drying (12.05 and 17.90 µg/g, respectively) while minimum amount was registered in sun drying (STIG: 7.65 µg/g; β-SIT: 10.84 µg/g). Substantial losses of phytosterol were observed in various drying methods adopted. Stability of phytosterols is related to their chemical structure, lipid matrix composition, processing temperature and drying duration (Soupas et al., 2004; Rudzinska et al., 2009) which ultimately effects on oxidative reaction of phytosterols (Soupas et al., 2004). Further, it was exposed that chemical structure of phyotsterols (Fig. 3) mainly contributed to the degradation level by investigating the stability performance of CAM, STIG, β-SIT at 180 ºC (Barriuso et al., 2012). They revealed that CAM was highly vulnerable to deprivation, while STIG and β-SIT was getting less susceptible. It was further confirmed that high phytosterol degradation in rapeseed was related to high drying temperature (Gawrysiak-Witulska et al., 2015). Similarly, on this line in present study relatively minimum amount of CAM was retained with mean value of 2.90 µg/g as compared to the STIG (mean value, 9.76 µg/g) and β-SIT (mean value, 13.75 µg/g).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics Data of Phytosterols and Proximate Biochemical Parameters of Jivanti Under the Different Drying Method
Drying Method (D) | Phytosterols | Proximate parameters |
CAM (µg/g) | STIG (µg/g) | β-SIT (µg/g) | MC (%) | CC (mg/g) | TCC (%) | TPC (%) | RS (%) | NRS (%) | TSS (%) | FC (%) | AC (%) | TFC (%) | TC (%) | AOA (%) | TPHC (%) |
D1: Sun drying | 2.17 | 7.65 | 10.84 | 5.89 | 18.06 | 13.99 | 12.52 | 3.22 | 6.06 | 9.29 | 35.84 | 10.28 | 4.36 | 3.06 | 0.67 | 0.62 |
D2: Shade drying | 5.26 | 10.34 | 15.10 | 6.51 | 23.26 | 14.80 | 13.47 | 3.10 | 11.04 | 14.14 | 35.91 | 9.38 | 4.44 | 3.02 | 0.68 | 0.63 |
D3: Vacuum drying | 4.57 | 12.05 | 17.90 | 6.06 | 22.51 | 14.45 | 12.43 | 4.55 | 6.09 | 10.30 | 44.61 | 16.23 | 5.92 | 2.92 | 0.71 | 0.83 |
D4: Oven drying | 2.76 | 9.53 | 13.38 | 6.39 | 19.36 | 14.40 | 12.45 | 3.10 | 8.44 | 11.54 | 39.66 | 10.15 | 4.15 | 2.98 | 0.65 | 0.57 |
D5: Tray drying | 1.57 | 9.70 | 11.31 | 5.82 | 20.19 | 14.00 | 12.66 | 3.32 | 4.93 | 8.26 | 36.82 | 9.67 | 4.04 | 3.49 | 0.65 | 0.54 |
D6: Microwave continuous drying | 1.72 | 8.61 | 12.23 | 6.47 | 20.15 | 14.00 | 12.47 | 3.31 | 3.85 | 7.15 | 38.42 | 11.36 | 4.02 | 2.91 | 0.61 | 0.52 |
D7: Microwave vacuum drying | 2.45 | 9.73 | 14.51 | 6.10 | 20.74 | 14.15 | 12.50 | 3.57 | 5.35 | 8.94 | 40.29 | 12.62 | 4.21 | 3.05 | 0.66 | 0.59 |
D8: Fluidized bed drying | 2.72 | 10.44 | 14.72 | 6.96 | 20.72 | 13.99 | 12.48 | 3.51 | 5.86 | 9.37 | 36.23 | 8.31 | 4.31 | 2.95 | 0.66 | 0.59 |
Min. | 1.57 | 7.65 | 10.84 | 5.82 | 18.06 | 13.99 | 12.43 | 3.10 | 3.85 | 7.15 | 35.84 | 8.31 | 4.02 | 2.91 | 0.61 | 0.52 |
Max. | 5.26 | 12.05 | 17.90 | 6.96 | 23.26 | 14.80 | 13.47 | 4.55 | 11.04 | 14.14 | 44.61 | 16.23 | 5.92 | 3.49 | 0.71 | 0.83 |
Mean | 2.90 | 9.76 | 13.75 | 6.28 | 20.62 | 14.22 | 12.62 | 3.46 | 6.45 | 9.87 | 38.47 | 11.00 | 4.43 | 3.05 | 0.66 | 0.61 |
SD | 1.33 | 1.30 | 2.31 | 0.38 | 1.65 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 2.27 | 2.16 | 3.02 | 2.48 | 0.62 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.10 |
S.Em. ± | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.88 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
C.D. % | 0.14 | 0.46 | 0.60 | 0.17 | 0.82 | NS | NS | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.59 | 2.50 | 0.52 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
C.V. % | 5.00 | 4.95 | 4.58 | 2.83 | 4.20 | 3.97 | 4.93 | 7.36 | 5.13 | 6.39 | 6.84 | 4.95 | 4.61 | 2.98 | 5.40 | 6.00 |
#NS: Non-significant, CAM: Campesterol, STIG: Stigmasterol, β-SIT: β-Sitosterol, MC: Moisture content, CC: Chlorophyll content, TCC: Total carbohydrate content, PC: Total protein content, RS: Reducing sugar, NRS: Non-reducing sugar, TSS: Total soluble sugars, FC: Fibre content, AC: Ash content, TFC: Total flavonoid content, TC: Tannin content, AOA: Anti-oxidant activity, TPHC: Total phenol content, SD: Standard deviation |
3.2 Mean Performance of Proximate Biochemical Parameters of Jivanti Under the Influenced of Different Drying Method
Descriptive statistical analysis of proximate biochemical parameters data is presented in Table 3 and its analysis of variance (ANOVA) at significant difference (p < 0.05) is exposed in supplementary Table S2. Mean performance analysis showed that differences among the drying methods in all the parameters except TCC and TPC were significant. The results suggested that the entire drying methods implemented in present experiment the MC reduced below 7.0%. The outcome of mean performance exposed that MC with a mean value of 6.28% among the drying methods ranged from 5.82% (tray drying) to 6.96% (fluidized bed drying). It showed that the supremacy of moisture reducing potential over the conventional drying methods in a short period of drying time (Table 1). Moisture ranged found in present studies is safe in terms of shelf life and storability as prescribed in the European Pharmacopoeia, 2005 and Raaman, 2006. The maximum CC (23.26 mg/g) was registered in shade drying which was at par with vacuum drying (22.51 mg/g) and while the minimum was recoded in sun drying (18.06 mg/g). This finding was in harmony with works done in savoy beet & amaranath leaves (Negi and Roy, 2001) and green tea leaves (Roshanak et al., 2016). The chlorophyll pigments are sensitive to heat, disassembly and degradation of chlorophyll-containing protein complexes was take place in vivo (Lipora et al., 2010). Disruption of PS-II was shown at the temperature of 42–48 ºC (Cramer et al., 1981) and thylakoid membrane disruption at 60 ºC (Smith and Low, 1989) which results probably in denaturation of PS-II reaction centre.
However, RS was ranged from 3.10% (shade drying) to 4.55% (vacuum drying) with the mean value of 3.46 in present study. Vyankatrao, 2014 found that curry leaves dried under shade showed minimum RS (3.02%) followed by oven drying (3.20% at 60 ºC) and maximum was in sun drying (3.55%). But, it was contrast with the finding in sapota powder that RS was less in solar dryer as compared to oven drying (Bala et al., 2017). Although in present study NRS (11.04%) and TSS (14.14%) was registered significantly maximum in shade drying followed by oven drying while minimum was recorded in microwave continuous drying (3.85% NRS; 7.15% TSS). Ding et al., 2017 revealed that sucrose (NRS) did not change in air dried lemon slices at the temperature of 50 to 60°C and little alterations in fructose or glucose content (RS) up to a temperature of 70°C. But, it was mentioned that under the higher temperature sucrose hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose via acid catalysis. At present studies NRS was started degradation beyond the temperature of 30°C. It explains the loss of NRS during high temperature applied in all drying treatments except shade drying.
Jivanti crop showed very fibrous in nature, it was ranged from 35.84% (sun drying) to 44.61% (vacuum drying) with the mean value of 38.87%. Fibre represents the undigested complex of carbohydrate and lignin and its consumption at adequate amount is linked to the prevention of various diseases. Dietary fibre content in dried pumpkin, red cabbage and guava showed higher in sun drying method as compared to hot air oven and freeze drying, but the result was contrast in yardlong bean and tomato where significantly higher dietary fibre was revealed under the hot air oven followed by freeze drying (Siriwattananon and Maneerate, 2016).
Significantly maximum amount of AC (16.23%), TFC (5.92), AOA (0.71%) and TPHC (0.83%) with considerably less amount of TC (2.92%) was registered in vacuum drying in present study in jivanti crop as compared to other drying methods. Our results were analogous to the consequences of a previous study, which found that vacuum drying applied on coffee pulp (Kieu Tran et al., 2020) and Paramignya trimera root (Nguyen et al., 2016), had higher TFC, AOA (ATBS and FRAP method) and TPC than hot air drying. Furthermore, in Ocimum tenuiflorum were also reported that vacuum dried samples had the highest TPHC (Rabeta and Lai 2013). Tannin is water soluble polyphenol is generally considered as anti-nutritional factor (Samtiya et al., 2020) and in jivanti crop its ranges from 2.91 to 3.49% with the mean value of 3.05% as influenced by different drying methods.
3.3 Mean Performance of Proximate Biochemical Parameters and Phytosterols Content in Jivanti Leaf, Stem and Root Subject to the Different Drying Method
The statistical data of mean performance of various proximate biochemical parameters and three phytosterols content in dried jivanti leaf, stem and root with respect to the different drying methods are shown in Table 4. Results showed that leaves (P1) used as drying part retained maximum amount of STIG (28.34 µg/g) and β-SIT (44.51 µg/g) in vacuum drying followed by shade drying (STIG: 27.57 µg/g; β-SIT: 41.66 µg/g). However, CAM was also revealed maximum retention in P1 with the mean value of 7.85% as compared to the P2 (0.58%) and P3 (0.27) but there was great variation among the same plant part (P1) dried under the different drying methods i.e., maximum in D2 (14.92 µg/g) and minimum in D5 (4.33 µg/g). The minimum amount of MC with the value of 5.95% was observed in stem (P2) as compared to the leaf (P1, 6.28%) and root (P3, 6.59%). While maximum CC was registered in all the drying methods used P1 as drying plant part (D1: 40.03, D2: 57.97, D3: 50.49, D4: 47.88, D5: 45.94, D6: 45.78, D7: 50.87 and D8; 45.71 mg/ g) with the mean value of 18.03 mg/ g. Similarly, TCC (15.47%) and TPC (20.15%) and RS (3.69%) was obtained significantly maximum in P1. There was great variation in FC among the plant parts and found significantly maximum FC (53.23%) under the P3. Root dried under the vacuum drying showed the maximum FC (59.27%) as compared to the other drying methods. Results showed that P1 used as drying part retained maximum amount of TFC (7.69%) and AOA (0.75%) dried in vacuum drying. In case of TPFC, P3 dried under the vacuum drying registered significantly maximum (0.90%) content which was at par with the P1 (0.85%) dried under the same drying method.
Table 4
Expression of Phytosterols and Proximate Parameters in Different Plant Parts of Jivanti Under the Influence of Various Drying Method
Drying Method (D) | Plant part (H) | CAM (µg/g) | STIG (µg/g) | β-SIT (µg/g) | MC (%) | CC (mg/g) | TCC (%) | TPC (%) | RS (%) | NRS (%) | TSS (%) | FC (%) | AC (%) | TFC (%) | TC (%) | AOA (%) | TPHC (%) |
D1 | P1 | 5.80 | 16.57 | 28.90 | 5.50 | 40.03 | 16.24 | 18.35 | 3.58 | 7.18 | 10.77 | 12.82 | 16.55 | 6.05 | 3.29 | 0.72 | 0.73 |
P2 | 0.43 | 5.81 | 3.34 | 5.10 | 14.16 | 14.26 | 12.79 | 3.34 | 5.36 | 8.71 | 46.35 | 10.39 | 4.40 | 3.11 | 0.63 | 0.57 |
P3 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 7.07 | 0.00 | 11.50 | 6.43 | 2.74 | 5.65 | 8.39 | 48.36 | 3.89 | 2.62 | 2.79 | 0.66 | 0.55 |
D2 | P1 | 14.92 | 27.57 | 41.66 | 7.17 | 57.97 | 17.57 | 17.73 | 2.47 | 9.63 | 12.10 | 14.28 | 17.25 | 5.86 | 3.42 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
P2 | 0.55 | 2.79 | 3.31 | 5.07 | 11.83 | 16.46 | 15.16 | 3.74 | 14.57 | 18.31 | 43.32 | 6.23 | 4.29 | 2.97 | 0.63 | 0.61 |
P3 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 7.30 | 0.00 | 9.75 | 7.51 | 3.09 | 8.91 | 12.00 | 50.13 | 4.65 | 3.16 | 2.69 | 0.65 | 0.55 |
D3 | P1 | 11.36 | 28.34 | 44.51 | 5.90 | 50.49 | 13.11 | 21.68 | 5.13 | 2.33 | 7.45 | 22.15 | 30.39 | 7.69 | 2.77 | 0.75 | 0.85 |
P2 | 2.10 | 7.32 | 8.93 | 6.23 | 17.04 | 17.80 | 9.89 | 4.35 | 7.38 | 11.73 | 52.40 | 15.47 | 4.80 | 2.92 | 0.67 | 0.73 |
P3 | 0.24 | 0.50 | 0.26 | 6.03 | 0.00 | 12.45 | 5.72 | 3.16 | 8.56 | 11.73 | 59.27 | 2.84 | 5.29 | 3.24 | 0.70 | 0.90 |
D4 | P1 | 7.41 | 23.33 | 36.72 | 6.53 | 47.88 | 16.80 | 20.14 | 2.72 | 8.25 | 10.97 | 10.46 | 17.02 | 5.87 | 3.31 | 0.61 | 0.58 |
P2 | 0.60 | 4.78 | 3.20 | 5.37 | 10.21 | 17.09 | 10.86 | 3.60 | 10.08 | 13.67 | 49.26 | 10.29 | 3.92 | 2.88 | 0.70 | 0.54 |
P3 | 0.27 | 0.47 | 0.23 | 7.27 | 0.00 | 10.49 | 6.35 | 2.98 | 7.00 | 9.98 | 59.26 | 3.15 | 2.69 | 2.66 | 0.63 | 0.58 |
D5 | P1 | 4.33 | 15.25 | 31.76 | 6.30 | 45.94 | 14.20 | 21.78 | 3.54 | 4.85 | 8.40 | 11.40 | 17.58 | 5.14 | 3.78 | 0.64 | 0.65 |
P2 | 0.10 | 13.18 | 1.90 | 6.17 | 14.63 | 14.07 | 10.25 | 3.85 | 5.81 | 9.67 | 47.77 | 7.44 | 4.17 | 3.35 | 0.67 | 0.53 |
P3 | 0.27 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 5.00 | 0.00 | 13.72 | 5.95 | 2.57 | 4.13 | 6.70 | 51.29 | 4.00 | 2.82 | 3.34 | 0.65 | 0.44 |
D6 | P1 | 4.53 | 19.09 | 33.67 | 6.23 | 45.78 | 15.28 | 19.60 | 3.73 | 3.04 | 6.75 | 14.87 | 22.24 | 4.28 | 3.22 | 0.62 | 0.69 |
P2 | 0.33 | 6.09 | 2.71 | 7.13 | 14.67 | 14.22 | 10.95 | 3.30 | 2.35 | 5.65 | 49.14 | 6.27 | 4.41 | 2.71 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
P3 | 0.29 | 0.65 | 0.30 | 6.03 | 0.00 | 12.50 | 6.86 | 2.88 | 6.16 | 9.04 | 51.26 | 5.58 | 3.36 | 2.80 | 0.59 | 0.28 |
D7 | P1 | 6.67 | 20.62 | 40.75 | 5.10 | 50.87 | 13.65 | 21.44 | 4.48 | 6.59 | 11.07 | 13.77 | 24.01 | 6.25 | 3.28 | 0.68 | 0.79 |
P2 | 0.43 | 7.93 | 2.54 | 7.10 | 11.33 | 15.89 | 9.65 | 3.16 | 6.14 | 9.32 | 50.87 | 11.07 | 3.41 | 3.02 | 0.62 | 0.58 |
P3 | 0.24 | 0.63 | 0.25 | 6.10 | 0.00 | 12.89 | 6.41 | 3.08 | 3.34 | 6.42 | 56.26 | 2.78 | 2.99 | 2.88 | 0.68 | 0.42 |
D8 | P1 | 7.76 | 21.36 | 41.76 | 7.47 | 45.71 | 16.87 | 20.51 | 3.84 | 7.39 | 11.23 | 11.65 | 19.04 | 4.26 | 3.09 | 0.65 | 0.64 |
P2 | 0.12 | 9.39 | 2.12 | 5.47 | 16.45 | 12.03 | 11.44 | 3.45 | 5.72 | 9.19 | 47.02 | 3.00 | 2.80 | 2.95 | 0.63 | 0.56 |
P3 | 0.27 | 0.56 | 0.27 | 7.95 | 0.00 | 13.09 | 5.49 | 3.24 | 4.46 | 7.70 | 50.01 | 2.88 | 5.87 | 2.73 | 0.70 | 0.56 |
S.Em.± | 0.08 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 1.52 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.21 |
C. D. % | 0.24 | 0.79 | 1.03 | 0.17 | 1.42 | 0.93 | 0.59 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 1.03 | 4.33 | 0.89 | 0.34 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
C. V. % | 5.00 | 4.95 | 4.58 | 2.83 | 4.20 | 3.97 | 4.93 | 7.36 | 5.13 | 6.39 | 6.84 | 4.95 | 4.61 | 2.98 | 5.40 | 6.00 |
Leaves (P1) | 7.85 | 21.52 | 37.47 | 6.28 | 18.03 | 15.47 | 20.15 | 3.69 | 6.16 | 9.84 | 13.92 | 20.51 | 5.68 | 3.27 | 0.68 | 0.71 |
Stems (P2) | 0.58 | 7.16 | 3.51 | 5.95 | 5.17 | 15.23 | 11.37 | 3.60 | 7.18 | 10.78 | 48.27 | 8.77 | 4.02 | 2.99 | 0.64 | 0.59 |
Roots (P3) | 0.27 | 0.59 | 0.27 | 6.59 | 0.00 | 12.05 | 6.34 | 2.97 | 6.03 | 8.99 | 53.23 | 3.72 | 3.60 | 2.89 | 0.66 | 0.53 |
S.Em.± | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
C. D. % | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.36 | 1.52 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
# MC: Moisture content, CC: Chlorophyll content, TCC: Total carbohydrate content, PC: Total protein content, RS: Reducing sugar, NRS: Non-reducing sugar, TSS: Total soluble sugars, FC: Fibre content, AC: Ash content, TFC: Total flavonoid content, TC: Tannin content, AOA: Anti-oxidant activity, TPHC: Total phenol content, CAM: Campesterol, STIG: Stigmasterol, β-SIT: β-Sitosterol |
Most predominant form of phytosterols existing in plants is sitosterol than any other phytosterol, and it is usually occurred in higher concentration (Pollak 1985). Similarly, maximum amount of phytosterol was β-SIT (37.47 µg/g) followed by STIG (21.52 µg/g) and CAM (7.85 µg/g) in dried leaves of jivanti while in stem and root maximum retention was STIG, 7.16 and 0.59 µg/g respectively in present study. It had also been reported earlier that an irregularity in the concentrations of the phytochemicals in the different plant part (Jamaludin et al., 2011) which could be due to the variation in the accumulation of secondary metabolites of the various plant parts (Lahlou, 2004). In the same line most abundant phytosterols identified in S. crispus were β-SIT and STIG, both of which were reported to have an antioxidant effect (Yoshida and Niki, 2003) and maximum sitosterol was also reported in fig pith (86.2) in terms of percent composition than bark, stem and fruit (Jeong and Lachance, 2001). It signified the accumulation of secondary metabolites differs among the plant parts (Bartwal et al., 2013) as well as their retention differs based on the drying techniques.
Further, Bernard et al., 2014 showed that leaf retained maximum amount of flavonoid (24.28 mg GAE/g) followed by seed, root and stem in cinnamon dried in different drying techniques while maximum phenolic content was in root (0.22 mg GAE/g). Plant cell integrity is loose under the thermal treatment during the drying period due to the modification in plant cell microstructure (Gonzalez et al., 2010) which ultimately make in an easy release of cell constituents from plant cells (Yahia, 2009). The finding was in agreement with past record that dried leaves of Ocimum sp., it had been showed that maximum tendency of increased bioactivity in dried product (Rabeta and Lai, 2013). Furthermore, total antioxidant activity in plants is derived from the presence of phenolic compounds and terpene derivatives are widely accepted. Therefore, leaf contributed significantly maximum amount of AOA (0.68%) with higher concentration of TFC (5.68%) and TPHC (0.71%) in present study.
3.5 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
PCA is a multivariate practice that evaluates a data table in which observations are designated by several inter-correlated measureable dependent variables. It simplifies the complexity in high-dimensional data and extracts the information from the statistical data and convert into a set of new uncorrelated variables called principal components (Sidharth et al., 2017). The principal component analysis revealed that the first three components defined a cumulative variability of 87.02% (Table 6, Fig. 3). The Eigen values for the first three components were more than 1 which extensively indicated the variation in biochemical parameters and phytosterols content in dried jivanti. Out of 20 variables, only one variable (TC) was negatively associated with PC1 in present study and MC (0.025) and TC (-0.142) variable disclosed least contribution to PC1 variability. The maximum contribution of variability in PC2 was due to TPC, RS, NRS, TSS, FC and AC and PC2 had a positive association with MC, CC, TCC, TPC, NRS, TSS, TC and CAM. The variables like β-SIT (10.97%), CAM (10.22%), TPHC (10.09%), TFC (9.71%) and STIG (9.07%) are significant variables in charge for creating variability in jivanti drying while considering PC1. However, maximum variability in jivanti drying was due to TPC (16.84%), NRS (15.92%), TSS (13.00%) and AC (10.69%) in PC2. PCA also demonstrated that among the eight drying methods used in jivanti drying techniques, vacuum drying (D3) contributed 56.26% variation followed by shade drying, D2 (12.26%) of total variation (Table 6). The maximum contributing variable which comprises RS, FC, AC, TFC, AOA, TPHC, STIG and β-SIT were shared by vacuum drying (D3) (Supplementary Fig. 4, 5). In case of shade dying (D2) MC, CC, TCC, TPC, NRS, TSS and CAM contributed to major variation.
Table 6
PCA Analysis of Phytosterols and Proximate Biochemical Content in Dry Jivanti
Trait | Principal Components | Contribution of variables (%) |
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 |
CAM | 0.320 | 0.201 | -0.001 | 10.222 | 4.057 | 0.000 |
STIG | 0.301 | -0.044 | 0.079 | 9.071 | 0.194 | 0.629 |
β-SIT | 0.331 | -0.039 | 0.220 | 10.971 | 0.152 | 4.820 |
MC | 0.025 | 0.199 | 0.669 | 0.060 | 3.977 | 44.816 |
CC | 0.281 | 0.134 | 0.065 | 7.914 | 1.786 | 0.416 |
TCC | 0.267 | 0.272 | -0.074 | 7.105 | 7.417 | 0.542 |
TPC | 0.094 | 0.410 | -0.193 | 0.875 | 16.843 | 3.706 |
RS | 0.249 | -0.330 | 0.017 | 6.196 | 10.871 | 0.028 |
NRS | 0.164 | 0.399 | -0.083 | 2.693 | 15.919 | 0.693 |
TSS | 0.211 | 0.360 | -0.082 | 4.433 | 12.996 | 0.668 |
FC | 0.226 | -0.308 | 0.048 | 5.121 | 9.461 | 0.234 |
AC | 0.221 | -0.327 | -0.083 | 4.889 | 10.686 | 0.688 |
TFC | 0.312 | -0.187 | -0.072 | 9.708 | 3.497 | 0.520 |
TC | -0.142 | 0.014 | -0.576 | 2.006 | 0.019 | 33.228 |
AOA | 0.294 | -0.009 | -0.276 | 8.647 | 0.008 | 7.641 |
TPHC | 0.318 | -0.146 | -0.117 | 10.090 | 2.118 | 1.371 |
Eigenvalue | 7.903 | 4.324 | 1.697 | | | |
Variability (%) | 49.391 | 27.023 | 10.609 | | | |
Cumulative % | 49.391 | 76.414 | 87.023 | | | |
Drying method (D) | Contribution of drying method (%) |
D1 | 8.549 | 0.431 | 11.832 | | | |
D2 | 12.262 | 63.367 | 1.210 | | | |
D3 | 56.179 | 24.996 | 0.680 | | | |
D4 | 0.364 | 2.830 | 1.742 | | | |
D5 | 10.787 | 0.597 | 33.975 | | | |
D6 | 11.421 | 3.394 | 19.193 | | | |
D7 | 0.028 | 3.994 | 0.011 | | | |
D8 | 0.410 | 0.393 | 31.356 | | | |
#CAM: Campesterol, STIG: Stigmasterol, β-SIT: β-Sitosterol, MC: Moisture content, CC: Chlorophyll content, TCC: Total carbohydrate content, PC: Total protein content, RS: Reducing sugar, NRS: Non-reducing sugar, TSS: Total soluble sugars, FC: Fibre content, AC: Ash content, TFC: Total flavonoid content, TC: Tannin content, AOA: Anti-oxidant activity, TPHC: Total phenol content,, D1: Sun drying, D2: Shade drying, D3: Vacuum drying, D4: Oven drying, D5: Tray drying, D6: Microwave continuous drying, D7: Microwave vacuum drying, D8: Fluidized bed drying |