Assessment of bioactive compounds, antioxidant properties and morphological parameters in selected microgreens cultivated in soilless media

Abstract

The study investigated the effect of soilless media (burlap), on the morphological traits and antioxidant activities of microgreens from Brassicaceae, Amaranthaceae, and Linaceae families. The results revealed significant variations were observed in the selected morphological, biochemical composition, and antioxidant capacity of the microgreens. The radish sango and microgreens showed superior morphological characteristics compared to other microgreens. The elemental composition analysis revealed consistent moisture, ash, fat, fiber, and protein content across all families. The results revealed significant variations in the biochemical composition and antioxidant capacity of the microgreens, depending on the growing medium and between microgreens. Notably, microgreens differed in photosynthetic pigment profiles, with flaxseed and cabbage showing the highest chlorophyll content of 26.59 to 27.18 µg/g, FW and carotenoid content in a range of 3.74 to 6.39 µg/g, FW was observed in microgreens. The radish sango and beetroot microgreens exhibited elevated anthocyanin levels of 27.94-28.25 µmol/100 g, FW. Biochemical analysis indicated varying levels of ascorbic acid (177.58 to 256.46 mg/100 g, FW), total glucosinolate content (4.09 to 47.38 µmol/g, FW), phenolic content (131.44 to 298.56 mg GAE/100 g, FW), and flavonoid content (10.94 to 18.14 mg QUE/100 g, FW) were observed in selected microgreens families. Radish sango microgreens demonstrated the highest DPPH (76.82%, FW) and ABTS (88.49%, FW) radical scavenging activities, indicating superior antioxidant potential. The study showed that Brassicaceae microgreens are particularly rich in bioactive and antioxidant properties. Additionally, studies could assess the economic feasibility and scalability of soilless cultivation methods for microgreens to support their inclusion in sustainable agricultural practices and health-promoting diets.

Fig. 1

The different families selected microgreens grown in soilless growing medium.

Fig. 2

Effect of soilless growing medium on morphological parameters of selected microgreens families. The results were presented as mean ± standard deviations. The different lowercase letters within the bar indicate significant (P<0.05) differences among all the microgreens and uppercase letters in the bar indicate significant (P <0.05) differences among the different families (Amaeanthaceae, Brassicaceae, and Linaceae). Where, (A) Microgreens height of shoot (B) Microgreens width of shoot, (C) Microgreens single shoot weight (D) Microgreens 25 shoot fresh weight.

Fig. 3

Effect of soilless growing medium on morphological parameters of selected microgreens families. The results were presented as mean ± standard deviations. The different lowercase letters within the bar indicate significant (P<0.05) differences among all the microgreens and uppercase letters in the bar indicate significant (P<0.05) differences among the different families (Amaeanthaceae, Brassicaceae, and Linaceae). Where (E) Microgreens 25 shoots dry weight, (F) Microgreens yield, (G) Microgreens leaf length, (H) Microgreens leaf width.

Fig. 4

Effect of soilless growing medium on morphological parameters of selected microgreens families. The results were presented as mean ± standard deviations. The different lowercase letters within bar indicate significant (P<0.05) differences among all the microgreens and uppercase letters in bar indicate significant (P<0.05) differences among the different families (Amaeanthaceae, Brassicaceae, and Linaceae). Where, (I) Microgreens total leaf area.

Fig. 5

Principal component analysis score plot (A) and loading plot (B) describe the relationship among different morphological parameters of microgreens obtained from selected microgreens families varieties grown under soilless growing conditions. (MSH, Microgreens shoot height; MSW, Microgreens shoot width; MSSW, Microgreens single shoot weight; MLL, Microgreens leaf length; LLW, Microgreens leaf width; TLA, Total leaf area; M25SFW, Microgreens 25 shoot fresh weight; M25SDW, Microgreens 25 shoot dry weight).

Fig. 6

Principal component analysis score plot (A) and loading plot (B) describe the relationship among different elementary compositions, photosynthetic pigments, biochemical parameters, anti-nutrient concentrations, and, degree of antioxidant capacities parameters of microgreens obtained from selected microgreens families varieties grown under soilless growing conditions. (MC, Moisture content; AC, Ash content; FC, Fat content; FIC, Fiber content; PC, Protein content; AA, Ascorbic acid; TG, Total glucosinolate content; TPC, Total phenol content; TFC, Total flavonoid content; PA, Phytic acid; OA, Oxalic acid).