Content uploaded by Pranoti Arjunrao Lad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pranoti Arjunrao Lad on Oct 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
SUMMARY :A study on physiochemical characters of different mango (Mangiferaindica L.) varieties
conditions was carried out at VNMKV, Parbhani. Six vatieties were studied for quality aspects. Among
six varieties the variety Totapuri recorded the maximum weight of fruit (360.00g), length (14.13cm),
Breadth (7.95cm), thickness (7.52cm), and volume (357.33cc). The maximum per cent of pulp was observed
in Totapuri (75.16 %) and it was at par with Alphonso (74.40 %). The minimum viscosity (5003cP) was
recorded in variety Totapuri. While maximum was found in 7583cP in variety Dashahari. Alphonso and
Kesar mango variety was observed rich nutritionally in terms of protein, fibre, beta carotenoids, ascorbic
acid, total sugar and color among all the varieties. The higher redness (a*) value was found in of
Alphonso mango pulp. Totapuri was yellowish red in color with higher lightness, yellowness and lower
redness value. Alphonso exhibited higher redness, lower yellowness and lightness. Sensory evolution
of six varieties of mango, mango pulp was studied. Alphonso and Kesar mango variety was found best
between six varieties.
How to cite this article : Lad, Pranoti, Khodke, S.U. and Salunkhe, R.V. (2017). Studies on physico-chemical
properties of different varieties of mango. Agric. Update,12 (TECHSEAR-9) : 2352-2360.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Mango (Mangiferaindica L.) fruit
belongs to the family of Anacardiaceae.
Mango commonly known as king of fruit. It is
one of important tropical fruit grown in India
and around the world. It is famous for its
excellent flavor, attractive fragrance and
nutritional value. The global production of
mango in year 2014-2015 is about 54631.6
million metric ton. India ranks first in the
production of mango in world. The area and
production of mango in India in year 2014-
Studies on physico-chemical properties of different
varieties of mango
PRANOTI LAD, S.U. KHODKE AND R.V. SALUNKHE
HIND AG RICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAI NING I NSTITUTE
ARTICLE CHRONICLE :
Received :
22.07.2017;
Accepted :
11.08.2017
RESEARCH ARTICLE :
KEY WORDS:
Physio-chemical,
Quality, Mango
varieties
2015 is about 2163.5 million hector and
18527.0 million metric ton, respectively. In
Maharashtra area under mango cultivation and
production is about 157.77 million hector and
758.84 million metric ton, respectively
(Anonymous, 2015a).
Mango is consumed as fresh fruit. It is a
nutritionally important fruit. It is good source
of vitamin A, B, C and minerals. Mangoes
are good source of dietary fibre and
energy.(Anonymous, 2015b).A number of
products made from ripe mangoes are available
in the market, including canned mango, mango
Author for correspondence :
PRANOTI LAD
Department of
Agricultural Processing
Engineering, Vasantrao
Naik Marathwada Krishi
Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI
(M.S.) INDIA
Email : pranotilad36
@gmail.com
See end of the article for
authors’ affiliations
Agriculture Update
Volume 12 | TECHSEAR-9 | 2017 | 2352-2360 Visit us : www.researchjournal.co.in
AU
e ISSN-0976-6847
2353
Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
puree, mango juice, dried mango powder, mango leather,
mango slice and mango jam. The information on physic-
chemical characters of different varieties of mango fruits
is per requisites for the selection of desirable varieties
which may acceptable to consumers and gain commercial
importance. Hence the aim of this study was to evaluate
physico-chemical characteristics of different varieties of
mango grown in Marathwada region.
RESOURCES AND METHODS
Collection of samples :
The study was carried out at Department of
Agricultural Process Engineering, College of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, VNMKV, Parbhani. Fruits
of mango variety Alphonso, Kesar, Amrpali, Dashahari,
Neelam and Totapuriwere purchased from Parbhani
Market. Care was taken while selecting the fruits that
all the varieties have some stage of ripeness.
Physical characteristics :
Observations on physico-chemical properties were
recorded. The physical characters were determined by
using standard procedure as average fruit weight on
electronic balance in g. volume by water displacement
method in cc and specific gravity was calculated from
weight and volume. The length, breadth and thickness
were measured by vernier caliper in mm. Pulp
percentage, peel percentage and stone percentage were
measured. Rotational viscometer was to determine the
viscosity of the fresh mango pulp. Colour (L*, a*, b*
values) of the mango pulp of different varieties were
determined by using Hunter Lab Colorimeter.
Chemical properties :
The proximate analysis of each sample of mango
fruit was conducted for the contents of moisture content,
ash and crude fat According to AOAC. Crude protein
was calculated as N x 6.25 according to AOAC. Crude
fibre was carried out using acid/alkali digestion method
according to AOAC.Total carbohydrate content was
calculated by subtracting the sum of the values for
moisture, protein, fat, and ash content from 100. The pH
of was determined by using pH meter.The content of
total soluble solids (TSS) in the mango pulp was
determined with the help of Hand Refractrometer (0-
32R”Brix). Acidity was determined the methods of Jacob
(1959) and Rangana (1990). Sugar content (%) was
analyzed using the phenol-sulfuric method Naz et al.
(2014). Vitamin C was determined using 2, 6-
dichlorophrnol. Beta carotene was measured.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
The results obtained from the present study as well
as discussions have been summarized under following
heads :
Fruit weight :
Average weight of mango varied in the range of
360.0 to 119.6 g for six varieties of mango fruit. Highest
average weight of mango fruit was found in Totapuri
variety of mango (360.0g) while lowest average weight
was found in Dashahari variety of mango (119.6g)
followed by Kesar, Neelam Amrpali and Alphonso mango
variety. Average weight of Kesar (239.2g) and Neelam
(250.5g) mango variety was found at par with each other.
Table 1 showed that there was significant difference
among six mango varieties with respect to weight of
mango fruit. However, mango varieties differ
significantly at 5% level. Similar observations were
reported by Anila and Radha (2003) and Vijayanand et
al. (2015).
Fruit length :
Average length values for six varieties of mango
fruit are presented in Table 1. From Table 1itobserved
that the average length of mango was found in the range
of 14.13 to 8.25 cm for six varieties of mango. Maximum
length of mango fruit was found in Totapuri variety of
mango while minimum fruit length was found in
Dashahari variety of mango followed by Amrpali, Kesar,
Neelam and Alphonso mango variety. It was observed
that average fruit length of mango variety of Neelam
and Kesar similar in range of 10.21 and 10.36 cm,
respectively. Statistically, average length of different
varieties of mango showed significant difference at 5%
level of significance. Similar results were noted by Singh
et al. (2011). Badheet al. (2007) reported average length
value of Alphonso mango variety (9.25 cm) which is
similar to resulted value of Alphonso mango variety.
Fruit breadth :
Average breadth value of different variety of mango
varied 7.95 to 5.03 cm within the six varieties of mango.
Higher average breadth of mango fruit was found in
PRANOTI LAD, S.U. KHODKE AND R.V. SALUNKHE
2352-2360
2354 Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
Totapuri variety while lower breadth was found in
Dashahari variety followed by Neelam, Alphonso, Kesar
and Amrpali mango variety. It was observed that average
breadth value of Neelam and Totapuri similar in range of
7.45 and 7.95 cm, respectively. Similar results were
observed by Anila and Radha (2003) and Badhe et al.
(2007). From Table 1 it was observed that there was
significant difference in the breadth value of different
mango varieties.
Fruit thickness :
The average thickness value of different varieties
of mango varied in the range of 7.11 to 4.52 cm for the
six varieties of mango. Average maximum thickness of
mango fruit was found in Totapuri variety while minimum
thickness of mango fruit was found in Dashahari variety
followed by Neelam, Alphonso, Amrpali and Kesar
mango variety. It was found that average length value of
Amrpali (7.11 cm) and Neelam (7.11 cm) mango variety
at par with each other. From data presented in Table 1, it
was observed that there was significant difference in
the thickness of different varieties of mango. These
results are in close agreement with Badhe et al. (2007).
Volume :
From Table 1 it was observed that statistically, the
average volume showed significant difference with
respect to different varieties of mango. The average
volume of different varieties of mango was found in the
range of 357.33 to111.80 cc. for six varieties of mango.
Highest average volume of mango fruit was found in
Totapuri variety (357.33cc) while lowest volume was
found in Dashahari (111.80 cc) mango variety followed
by Neelam, Kesar, Amrpali and Alphonso variety of
mango. A similar observation for volume of mango fruit
of different variety was in close agreement with the value
reported by Anila and Radha (2003) and Badhe et al.
(2007).
Table 1 : Physical properties of different varieties of mango and its mango pulp
Mango varieties
Fruit weight
(gm)
Fruit length
(cm)
Fruit breadth
(cm)
Fruit
thickness
(cm)
Volume
(cc)
Peel%
Pulp %
Stone%
Sp.
gravity
Viscosity
(cP)
Alphonso
182.5
09.39
7.18
6.96
190.75
14.33
74.40
13.91
1.02
7254
Amrpali
198.9
11.09
6.39
7.11
277.50
15.65
70.82
16.91
1.00
7337
Dashahari
119.6
08.25
5.03
4.52
111.80
18.73
65.71
18.90
1.00
7583
Kesar
239.2
10.36
6.94
6.32
238.00
17.10
68.99
17.75
1.00
7176
Neelam
250.5
10.21
7.45
7.11
246.75
13.60
72.60
13.47
1.01
6158
Totapuri
360.0
14.13
7.95
7.52
357.33
15.27
75.16
15.78
1.04
5003
Mean
225.12
10.57
6.82
6.59
237.02
15.78
71.28
16.12
1.01
6751.83
S.E. ±
4.275
0.445
0.078
0.141
6.519
0.655
1.21
0.316
0.035
261.40
C.D. (P=0.05)
13.319
1.3737
0.245
0.438
20.31
2.04
3.768
0.985
NS
814.39
F value
357.441*
20.148*
169.025*
59.797*
160.709*
8.196*
8.981*
46.063*
0.204*
14.272*
* indicate significance of value at P=0.05, respectively NS=Non-significant
Table 2 : Proximate analysis of different varieties of mango pulp
Mango varieties
Moisture content (%)
Fat (%)
Protein (%)
Fibre (%)
Ash content (%)
Carbohydrates (%)
Alphonso
79.80
0.60
0.60
0.71
0.45
17.89
Amrpali
79.68
0.57
0.53
0.65
0.42
17.85
Dashahari
79.25
0.58
0.51
0.64
0.46
18.56
Kesar
80.05
0.59
0.56
0.68
0.44
17.68
Neelam
79.07
0.60
0.57
0.61
0.40
18.75
Totapuri
84.75
0.55
0.50
0.56
0.35
13.29
Mean
80.43
0.58
0.54
0.64
0.42
17.33
S.E.±
0.554
0.054
0.015
0.018
0.053
0.23
C.D. (P=0.05)
1.722
NS
0.046
0.057
NS
0.730
F value
15.027*
0.129*
6.453*
8.193*
0.581*
74.00*
* indicate significance of value at P=0.05, respectively NS= Non-significant
STUDIES ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF MANGO
2352-2360
2355
Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
Peel percentage :
Data presented in Table 1, indicated that value of
peel percentage had significant different between
different varieties of mango.Peel percentage of different
varieties of mango varied in the range of18.73 to13.60
% for six varieties of mango. The highest peel percentage
of mango fruit was found in Dashahari variety while
lowest peel percentage was found in Totapuri mango
variety followed by Kesar, Neelam, Amrpali and
Alphonso mango variety. It was observed that value of
peel percentage of Dashahari and Kesar mango variety
early in the range of 18.73 and 17.10%, respectively.
Anil and Radha (2003), reported peel percentage value
of Alphonso (14%) and Neelam (13%) mango variety
which is similar to obtained value of Alphonso (14.33%)
and Neelam (13.60%) mango variety. Similar results were
observed by Badhe et al. (2007) and Vijayanand et al.
(2015).
Pulp percentage :
Table 1 revealed that, value of pulp percentage of
different varieties of mango showed significant difference
between different varieties of mango. Pulp percentage
of different variety of mango varied in the range of 75.16
to 65.71% for six varieties of mango. Maximum pulp
percentage of mango fruit was found in Totapuri variety
while minimum pulp percentage was found in Dashahari
mango variety followed by Alphonso, Neelam, Amrpali
and Kesar. From Table 1, it was observed that values of
pulp percentage of Alphonso and Totapuri mango variety
similar in range (74.40%) and (75.16%), respectively.
Similar results were reported by Anil and Radha (2003),
Badhe et al. (2007), Vijayanand et al. (2015) and Singh
et al. (2011).
Stone percentage :
Data presented in Table 1 reported that stone
percentage had significant difference between different
varieties of mango. Stone percentage of different
varieties of mango varied between 18.90 to 13.91% for
six varieties of mango. Highest stone percentage of
mango fruit was found in Dashahari variety while lowest
stone percentage was found in Neelam mango variety
followed by Kesar, Amrpali, Alphonso and Totapuri mango
variety. From Table 1, it was found that values of stone
percentage of Alphonso and Neelam mango variety are
similar in range (13.91 %) and (13.47%), respectively.
Similar results were observed by Anila and Radha (2003),
Badhe et al. (2007), Vijayanand et al. (2015) and Singh
et al. (2011).
Specific gravity :
Table 1, revealed that the specific gravity of different
varieties of mango varied in the range of 1.00 to1.04 for
six varieties of mango. The value of specific gravity of
Kesar, Amrpali, and Dashehari mango variety was found
at par with each other. There was non significant
difference noticed for specific gravity between different
varieties of mango. Similar results were reported by Anil
and Radha (2003), Badhe et al. (2007) and Vijayanand
et al. (2015).
Viscosity of mango pulp :
Data presented in Table 1, reported that viscosity
had significant difference between different varieties of
mango. Highest viscosity of mango pulp was found in
Dashehari (7583cP) Mango variety while lowest viscosity
was found in Totapuri (5003cP) variety of mango pulp
followed by Amrpali, Kesar, Alphonso and Neelam.
Table 3 : Chemical composition of different varieties of mango pulp
Mango varieties
pH (%)
T SS (Brixo)
Titrable acidity (%)
Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
Total sugar (%)
Beta carotene (mg/100g)
Alphonso
4.68
20.70
0.41
23.53
18.21
7.39
Amrpali
5.49
22.60
0.44
21.88
17.05
7.20
Dashahari
4.90
21.17
0.51
20.59
16.97
7.18
Kesar
5.37
19.56
0.36
25.12
17.65
7.23
Neelam
4.40
17.78
0.49
19.25
13.95
6.10
Totapuri
3.80
14.40
0.35
18.79
11.59
5.96
Mean
4.77
19.37
0.43
21.53
15.90
6.84
S.E. ±
0.213
0.453
0.053
0.445
0.219
0.103
C.D. (P=0.05)
0.665
1.352
0.094
1.386
0.684
0.322
F value
8.69*
45.35*
3.41*
30.92*
138.09*
37.83*
* indicate significance of value at P=0.05, respectively
PRANOTI LAD, S.U. KHODKE AND R.V. SALUNKHE
2352-2360
2356 Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
Similar results were observed by Rajkumar et al. (2006).
The value of pulp viscosity of Totapuri mango variety
almost same as obtained by Vijayanand et al. (2015)
reported, that the value of viscosity of Totapuri mango
pulp (5704cP).
Quality characteristics of different varieties mango
pulp:
Proximate analysis of different varieties of mango
pulp :
Moisture content :
From Table 2, it was observed that the moisture
content of mango pulp varied significantly between
varieties of mango. Higher moisture content value of
mango pulp was found in Topapuri (84.75%) variety while
lower moisture content was found in Neelam (79.07%)
mango variety of mango pulp. There was significant
difference within six varieties of mango. Moisture content
ranged from 84.75% to 79.07% for six varieties of mango.
The value of moisture content of Alphonso, Amrpali,
Dashahari and Neelam was found similar with each other.
Similar observation found by Robin et al. (2012).
Rajkumar et al. (2006) reported value of Alphonso mango
pulp (79.75%) which is similar to value obtained for
Alphonso mango pulp (79.80%). Mohammad (2013)
reported that lower moisture content is indication of good
shelf life.
Fat :The results pertaining to analysis of variance of fat
contents are given in Table 4.2. There was non significant
difference for fat content values of different varieties of
mango at 5% level of significance. Table 4.2 it reveals
that, fat content value of mango pulp ranged from 0.60%
to 0.55% for six varieties of mango. The fat contentvalue
of mango pulp of Alphonso (0.60%)and Neelam (0.60%)
mango variety was found at par with each other. These
results in lined with finding obtained by Muhammad et
al. (2012), Mohammed (2013) and Naz et al. (2014).
Protein :
The data regarding protein content of different
varieties of mango is given in Table 2. From Table 2,
revealed that the values of protein content of mango pulp
varied significantly within the six varieties of mango at
5% level of significance. Themaximum value of protein
content of mango pulp was found in Alphonso mango
variety (0.60%) while minimum in Totapuri (0.50%)
mango variety followed by Neelam, Kesar, Amrpali and
Dashahari. The value of protein content of mango pulp
of Amrpali (0.53%) and Dashahari (0.51%) mango
variety was observed nearly with each other. These
results are presented in Table 2. Similar results were
found by Naz et al. (2014) and Muhammadet al. (2012).
Fibre content :
Values of fibre content of different varieties of
mango pulp are presented in Table 2. From data presented
in the Table 2, showed significant difference for values
of fibre content of mango pulp at 5% level of significance
within six varieties of mango. The maximum value of
fibre content of mango pulp was found in Alphonso
mango variety (0.60%) and minimum in Totapuri (0.56%)
mango variety followed by Kesar, Amrpali, Dashahari
and Neelam. The value of fibre content of mango pulp
of Amrpali (0.65%) and Dashahari (0.64%) mango
variety was observed nearly with each other. Similar
results were reported by Muhammad et al. (2012).
Table 4 : Color characteristics of different varieties of mango pulp
Mango varieties
L*
a*
b*
Hue angle
Chroma
Alphonso
52.68
27. 11
73.77
69.82
77.97
Amrpali
53.56
25.79
72.31
70.37
76.77
Dashahari
55.26
23.02
77.55
73.46
80.89
Kesar
56.07
25.12
79.69
72.50
83.37
Neelam
63.20
10.79
65.28
70.73
78.16
Totapuri
59.56
5.20
60.64
89.82
80.89
Mean
56.72
14.99
71.54
74.45
79.68
S.E. ±
0.33
0.23
0.47
0.46
0.47
C.D. (P=0.05)
1.020
0.720
1.472
1.440
1.450
F value
142.02*
1517.89*
232.64*
269.62*
41.02*
* indicate significance of value at P=0.05, respectively
STUDIES ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF MANGO
2352-2360
2357
Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
According to Othman and Mbogo (2009) fibre helps to
maintain the health of the gastrointestinal tract.
Ash content :
The data of ash content of different varieties of
mango is given in Table 2. Statistically, ash content of
different varieties of mango showed non significant
difference at 5% level of significance. Table 2 it revealed
that, the value of ash content of mango pulp was highest
in Dashahari mango variety (0.45%) and lowest in
Totapuri mango variety (0.35%).The value of ash content
of mango pulp of Kesar (0.44%), Alphonso (0.45%) and
Dashahari (0.46%) mango variety was observed nearly
with each other. A similar observation for value of ash
content was in close agreement with the value reported
by Naz et al. (2014), Muhammad et al. (2012) and
Othman and Mbogo (2009).
Carbohydrates :
The data of carbohydrate of different varieties of
mango is given in Table 2. From Table 2 revealed that,
significant difference was observed within the different
varieties of mango pulp for carbohydrate value at 5%
level of significance. The value of carbohydrate of mango
pulp was found maximum in Neelam mango varieties
and minimum in Totapuri mango variety. The value of
carbohydrate of mango pulp of Alphonso (17.89%),
Amrpali (17.85%) and Kesar (17.68%) mango variety
was observed nearly with each other. The value of
carbohydrate of mango pulp of Dashahari (18.56%) and
Neelam (18.75%) mango variety was found nearly with
each other. Similar results were found by Mohammed
(2013).
Chemical properties of mango pulp of different
varieties :
pH : The pH values of six varieties of mango pulp of
different varieties are presented in Table 3. Statistically,
pH of different varieties of mango pulp showed significant
difference at 5% level. From Table 3, it was observed
that, the pH value of mango pulp was found highest in
Kesar mango variety (5.37) and lowest in Totapuri Mango
variety (3.8) varieties followed by Amrpali, Dashahari,
Alphonso, and Neelam. The value of pH of mango pulp
of Alphonso (4.68), Dashahri (4.90) and Neelam (4.40)
mango variety was observed nearly with each other.
Similar results were found by Reddy and Reddy (2009)
and Akhtar et al. (2009). Rajkumaret al. (2007a) reported
that pH value of mango pulp of Alphonso mango variety
(4.60) which is similar to obtain value of pH of mango
pulp of Alphonso mango variety (4.68).
Total soluble solids (TSS) :
The values of total soluble solids of mango pulp of
different varieties of mango are shown in Table 3The
TSS of mango pulp of different varieties of mango was
found statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Table 3 revealed that the highest TSS value for Amrpali
mango variety (22.60 oBrix) while lowest TSS was
obtained in Totapuri mango variety (14.40 oBrix). The
value of TSS of mango pulp of Alphonso (20.70oBrix)
and Dashahari (21.71 oBrix) mango variety was found
nearly with each other. Higher TSS content is a good
phenomenon of mango fruit (Hossain et al., 2001).
Shafique et al. (2006) reported that TSS content is
considered as a measure of quality for most of the fruit.
Taste and particular sweetness of the fruit depend on
Table 5 : Sensory e valuation of diffe rent varieties of mango pulp
Mango varieties
Color and appearance
Flavor
Texture
Taste
Overall acceptability
Alphonso
8.6
8.6
8.3
8.3
8.5
Amrpali
8.2
8.3
7.9
8.1
8.1
Dashahari
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
Kesar
8.5
8.4
8.1
8.2
8.2
Neelam
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.7
7.8
Totapuri
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.5
Mean
8.08
6.80
7.80
7.93
8.01
S.E. ±
0.330
0.258
0.102
0.074
0.066
C.D. (P=0.05)
NS
NS
0.316
0.229
0.205
F value
2.06*
2.84*
18.94*
24.96*
31.2*
* indicate significance of value at P=0.05, respectively NS=Non-significant
PRANOTI LAD, S.U. KHODKE AND R.V. SALUNKHE
2352-2360
2358 Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
the percentage of TSS content. According to Akhtar et
al. (2009), the variability in TSS values of mango pulp of
different varieties might be attributed to the alteration
occurring in cell wall structure during ripening process.
Moreover, various hydrolytic enzymes also affect
complex carbohydrates changing them into smaller
compound. The variation in TSS content among varieties
might be due to their inherent characteristics as well as
maturity/ripening stage Safdar et al. (2012).
Titrable acidity :
Values of titrable acidity of mango pulp of different
varieties of mango are presented in Table 3 The maximum
value of titrable acidity of mango pulp was noted in
Dashahari mango variety as (0.51%) while minimum in
Totapuri mango variety (0.35%) followed by Neelam,
Amrpali, Alphonso and Kesar. The value of acidity of
mango pulp of Keasr (0.36%) and Totapuri (0.36%) mango
variety was found at par with each other. According to
Safdar et al. (2012), the variation in acidity among different
varieties might be due to activity of citric acid glyoxalase
during ripeing process which lead to the degration of citric
acid their inherent characteristics as well as maturity/
ripening stage. Similar result was reported by Nazet al.
(2014). From the Table 3 it was observed that the value of
titrable acidity of mango pulp was found statistically
significant among six varieties of mango.
Ascorbic acid :
The values ascorbic acid of mango pulp of different
varieties of mango is shown in Table 3.It was observed
that the ascorbic acid of different varieties of mango
pulp was found significant at 5% level of significance.
From the data presented in Table 3, it can be seen that
theascorbic acid value of mango pulp was found highest
for Kesar mango variety (25.53 mg/100g) and lowest in
Totapuri mango variety (18.79 mg/100g) followed by
Alphonso, Amrpali, Dashahari and Neelam. The value
of ascorbic acid of mango pulp of Amrpali (21.88 mg/
100g) and Dashahari (20.89 mg/100g) mango variety
were found at par with each other. Similar results were
noted by Anila and Radha (2003), Hossain et al. (2001)
and Rajkumar et al. (2007a) for ascorbic acid content
of different varieties of mango pulp.
Total sugar :
The results pertaining to analysis of variance of
different varieties of mango pulp for sugar contents are
given in Table 3. The value of total sugar ofdifferent
varieties of mango pulp was found statistically significant
at 5% level of significance. From Table 3 it revealed
that, the pulp of Alphonso mango variety possessed
highest total sugar (18.21 %) while lowest in mango pulp
of Totapuri (11.59 %) mango variety. The value of total
sugar of mango pulp was at par with Kesarand Amrpali
mango variety recording 17.65 % and 17.05%,
respectively. Total sugar of mango pulp of Amarpali
mango variety was 17.05%. These results in lined with
finding obtained by Reddy and Reddy (2009) and Padhiar
et al. (2011).
Beta carotene :
The data regarding beta carotene of mango pulp of
different varieties of mango is given in Table 3. From
Table 3 it was observed that the different varieties of
mango showed significant difference in the values of beta
carotene of mango pulp. The beta carotene of mango
pulp was found maximum in Alphonso mango variety
(7.39 mg/100g) and minimum in Totapuri (5.96 mg/100g)
mango variety followed by Kesar, Amrpali, Dashahari
and Neelam. The value beta carotene of mango pulp
was at par with Kesar, Amrpali, and Dashahari mango
variety noted 7.20 mg/100g, 7.23 mg/100g and 7.18 mg/
100g, respectively. Similar results were reported by
Rajkumar et al. (2007).
Color characteristics of mango Pulp of different
varieties :
Color of mango pulp is a very important
characteristic which influences the consumer
acceptability. Table4 shows the color of mango pulp
extracted from different varieties of mango pulp (L*,
a*, b*, hue and chroma value) of mango pulp. Table 4
revealed that there was significant difference in value
of L*, a*, b*, hue and chroma of mango pulp.
Maximum lightness of mango pulp was observed in
Neelam (63.20) mango variety while minimum lightness
(L*) in mango pulp of Alphonso (52.68) mango variety
followed by Totapuri, Kesar, Dashahari and Amrpali. The
value of lightness Totapuri and kesar mango pulp was
found 59.56 and 56.07, respectively. Mango pulp of
Alphonso (27.11) mango variety had highest redness (a*)
value. Mango pulp of Totapuri (5.20) mango variety had
lowest redness (a*) value.
The higher redness (a*) value of Alphonso mango
pulp corroborates with high carotenoid content
STUDIES ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF MANGO
2352-2360
2359
Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
Vijayanand et al. (2015). Totapuri was yellowish red in
color with higher lightness, yellowness and lower redness
value. It was observed from Table 4 that higher yellowish
(b*) color was found in Kesar (79.69) mango variety
pulpwhile lower yellowish (6.64) color was found in
Totapuri mango variety. Similar results reported by
Vijayanand et al. (2015). From Fig4 it was observed that
Alphonso exhibited higher redness, lower yellowness and
lightness. Redness was more predominant in Alpohnso
which appears to be the characteristic of the variety.
The value of hue and chroma are depended on the
value ofL*, a* and b*. The values of hue angle decrease
due to increases value of a* and b*. The value of hue
angle was observed lower in Alphonso mango pulp. The
value of hue increases due to decrease value of a* and
b*. From Table 4, it was found that significant difference
found in the value of hue angle and chrom between
different varieties of mango pulp. The chroma, however,
increases with increases in yellowness of mango pulp.
The value of chroma was found maximum in Kesar
mango variety pulp.
Sensory evaluation of different varieties of mango
pulp :
The sensory analysis of different varieties of mango
pulp was done by using 9- point hedonic scale in term of
color and appearance, flavor, taste, texture and overall
acceptability. The average value of scores obtained for
different varieties of mango pulp during evaluation for
various sensory attributes are shown in Table 5
Color and appearance :
Table 5 showing the analysis of variance for score
of color and appearance indicates that the difference in
score among various judges was found to be non
significant. The highest average sensory score of mango
pulp was obtained for Alphonso (8.6) mango variety.
Lowest average sensory score was obtained for mango
pulp of Neelam (7.3) mango variety. The mean score of
mango pulp of Kesar and Amrpali mango variety was
found good as (8.5) and (8.2), respectively. Fig 5
represents the color and appearance of mango pulp of
different varieties of mango through bar diagram. Similar
results were observed by Akhtar et al. (2009) and Ubwa
et al. (2014).
Flavor :
The mean score value for flavor of the different
varieties of mango pulp are presented in Table 5, observed
that the maximum mean score was obtained for mango
pulp of Alphonso (8.6) variety while lowest mean score
was obtained for mango pulp of Neelam (7.4) variety.
There was non significant difference found in terms of
flavor of mango pulp of different varieties. The mean
score of flavor of mango pulp of Kesar and Amrpali
mango variety was found good as (8.4) and (8.3),
respectively. Alphonso, Kesar and Amrpali variety mango
pulp were having good flavor. Similar results were
reported by Akhtar et al.(2009) and Ubwa et al. (2014).
Texture :
Table 5, noticed that there was significant differences
in mango pulp of different varieties. From Table 5, it was
observed that the higher mean score for texture was
obtained for mango pulp of Alphonso (8.3) variety while
lower mean score was obtained for mango pulp of
Neelam (7.3) variety. The mean score of texture of
mango pulp of Kesar and Amrpali mango variety was
observed (8.1) and (7.9), respectively. Table 5it was
noticed that the better texture was found in varieties of
Alphonso, Kesar and Amrpali mango pulp. Similar results
were found by Akhtar et al. (2009) and Ubwa et al.
(2014).
Taste :
Taste is the primary factor which determines the
acceptability of many fruits and has highest impact as
far as market success of product, is concerned. Table 5,
observed that there was significance difference in mean
score of taste of mango pulp of different varieties. Data
presented for mean score of taste in Table 5; it revealed
that the maximum mean score of taste for mango pulp
of Alphonso mango variety while lowest score for Neelam
mango variety pulp. The score for taste of the different
varieties of mango pulp was varied in the range of 8.2 to
7.3.The mean score value of taste was observed in
mango pulp of Kesar and Amrpali mango variety (8.2)
and (8.1), respectively. The excellent taste was found in
the case of mango pulp of Alphonso, Kesar and Amrpali
mango variety. Similar results were observed by Akhtar
et al. (2009) and Ubwa et al. (2014).
Overall acceptability :
Overall acceptability is the important parameter in
organoleptic estimation. From Table 5, it was observed
that the higher mean score for overall acceptability of
PRANOTI LAD, S.U. KHODKE AND R.V. SALUNKHE
2352-2360
2360 Hind Agricultural Research and Training Institute
Agric. Update, 12 (TECHSEAR-9) 2017 :
mango pulp was obtained for Alphonso (8.5) variety of
mango. Lower score was obtained for Neelam (7.5)
variety mango pulp. The mean score for overall
acceptability of mango pulp of different varieties was
varied from 8.3 to 7.2. Table 5,it was observed that there
was significance difference in mean score of mango pulp
of different varieties at 5% level of significance. The
mean score value of mango pulp of Kesar and Amrpali
mango variety (7.8) and (8.1), respectively. Table 5 it
was noticed that the mango pulp of Alphonso, Kesar,
Amrpali and Dashahari mango variety were acceptable
as compared to mango pulp of Neelam and Totapuri
mango variety.
Conclusion :
From results of sensory evolution of six varieties of
mango, mango pulp of Alphonso and Kesar mango variety
was found best between six varieties. Alphonso and
Kesar mango variety was observed better nutritionally
in terms of protein, fibre, beta carotenoids, ascorbic acid,
total sugar and color among all the varieties. Based on
above investigations, Alphonso and Kesar variety of
mango was found better among six varieties.
Authors’ affiliations :
S.U. KHODKE, Department of Agricultural Processing Engineering,
Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.) INDIA
R.V. SALUNKHE, Department of Farm Mac hinary an d Power,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Rahuri, AHMEDNAGAR (M.S.)
INDIA
REFERENCES
Akhtar, S., Mahmood, S., Naz, S., Nasir, M. and Saultan, M T.
(2009). Sensory evaluation of mangoes (MangiferaIndica L.)
grown in different regions of Pakistan. Pakistan J. Biotechnol.,
41(6) : 2821-2829.
Anila, R. and Radha, T. (2003). Physico-chemical analysis of
mango varieties under Kerala conditions. J. Tropical Agric.,
41: 20-22.
Badhe, V. T., Singh, Pratap., Powar, A.G. and Bhaft, Y.C. (2007).
Studies on physical properties of Alphonso mango. Agril. Engg.
Today,31(1): 20-24.
Hossain, M.M., Haque, M.A., Rahim, M.A. and Rahman, M.H.
(2001). Physio- morhological and composition variation in ripe
fruit of three mango variety. J. Biolog. Sci., 1 (11):1101-1102.
Mohammed, A.Y. Abdalrahman (2013). Physico-chemical
charactereristics of different types of mango (Mangifera Indica
L.) fruits grown in drafur regions and its use in jam processing.
Sci. Internat., 144-147.
Muhammad, S.J., Farzana, B., Kashif, W. and Muhammad, A.K.
(2010). Evaluation of physico-chemical characteristics of mango
(MangiferaIndicaL.) cultivars grown in D. I. Khan. J. Agril.
Res., 48 (2).
Muhammad, S.H., Ramooza, R. and Farooq, U. (2004). Physico-
chemcal characteristics of various mango (Mangifera indica
L.) varieties. J. Agril. Res., 42 (2).
Muhammad, S., Saghir, A.S. and Shahzor, G.K. (2012). Effect of
storage on the physic- ochemical characteristics of the mango
(MangiferaindicaL.) variety, Langra. African J. Biotechnol.,
11 (41) : 9825-9828.
Naz, S., Akbar, A.M., Chohan, S., Akhtar, S. and Siddique, B.
(2014). Physico-chemical and sensory profiling of promising
mangocultivars grown in peri-urban areas of Multan. Pakistan
J. Biotechnol., 46(1) : 191-198.
Othman, O.C. and Mbogo, G.P. (2009). Physico-chemical
characteristics of storagen ripened mango (Mangifera Indica
L.) fruits varieties of eastern Tanzania. Tanzania J. Sci., 35.
Padhiar, B.V., Saravaiya, S.N., Koladiya, P.B., Bhatt, S.T. and
Patel, J.C. (2011). Biochemical changes in mango fruit varieties
at different stages of growth and development under south
Gujarat conditions. Asian J. Horticul., 6 (2):449-454.
Patel, V.T. and Patel, H.R. (2004). Effect of drying temperature
and packaging material on microbial quality of mango bar. J.
Agril. Engg., 41 (2).
Pradeepkumar, T., Joseph, P. and Johnkutty, I. (2006). Variability
in physico-chemical characteristics of mango genotypes in
northern Kerala. J. Tropical Agric.,44(1-2): 57-60.
Rathore, H.A., Masud, T., Sammi, S. and Soomro, H.A. (2007).
Effect of storage on physico-chemical composition and sensory
properties of mango (Mangifera indicaL.) variety Dosehari.
Pakistan J. Nutrition, 6(2): 143-148.
Ubwa1, S.T., Ishu, M.O., Offem, J.O., Tyohemba, R.L. and Igbum,
G.O. (2014). Proximate composition and some physical attribute
of three mango (Mangiferaindica L.) fruit varieties. Internat.
J. Agron. & Agril. Res., (IJAAR).4 : 21-29.
Vijayanand, P., Deep, E. and Kulkarni, S.G. (2015). Physico-
chemical characterization and the effect of processing on the
quality characteristics of Sindura, Mallika and Totapuri mango
cultivars. J. Food Sci. & Technol.,52(2):1047-1053.
WEBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous (a) (2015).http://www.indiastat.com
Anonymous (b) (2015). http://www. wikipedia.com
STUDIES ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF MANGO
2352-2360
