Science International  Volume 1 Issue 5, 2013

Research Article

Physico-chemical Characteristics of Different Types of Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) Fruits Grown in Drafur Regions and its Use in Jam Processing
Mohammed A.Y. Abdualrahman
Department of Food Technology, Nyala Technological College, Nyala, Southern Darfur State, Sudan

ABSTRACT:
Mango (Mangifera indica L.), is king of fruits due to its high palatability, excellent taste and flavour. The aim of this study was to evaluate the physico-chemical characteristic of different types of mango fruits grown in Darfur regions and its use in jam processing. For this, different types of mango fruits were carried out in term of physico-chemical analysis. The physical characteristics results indicated that KMF had higher contents of flesh, length, width and volume (82.4±0.04, 125±0.01, 95±0.02 and 300±0.01), respectively. The proximate analysis of mango fruits was crude protein (0.74±0.02-0.82±0.03%), ash (1.35±0.01-1.7±0.02%), crude fat (0.29±0.02-0.38±0.01%), crude fiber (4.2±0.01-4.5±0.01%) and total carbohydrates (14.1±0.01-15.4±0.01%). The NMJF, EMJF and KMJF contained 67, 67 and 66.8% TSS, respectively. The contents of total and reducing sugars of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF were (12.3, 12.8 and 12.8%) and (4.6, 4.8 and 4.5%), respectively. On other hand, the titratable acidity and pH values were (0.35, 0.37 and 0.34%) and (3.5, 3.6 and 3.4%), respectively; while, the contents of moisture and ash were (45.8, 46 and 45.6%) and (0.32, 0.34 and 0.33%), respectively. The sensory analysis revealed that all types of jams were accepted by the panelist; also, there are no significant differences as regard to appearance, colour, flavour and overall acceptability.
 
    How to Cite:
Mohammed A.Y. Abdualrahman , 2013. Physico-chemical Characteristics of Different Types of Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) Fruits Grown in Drafur Regions and its Use in Jam Processing. Science International, 1: 144-147
DOI: 10.5567/sciintl.2013.144.147
 


INTRODUCTION
Mango (Mangifera indica L., Anacardiaceae), is one of the most profitable crops in tropical and subtropical regions in the world. Originating in the Himalayan foothills of Indian-Myanmar region, it has been cultivated for more than 4,000 years and is renowned for its excellent flavour, attractive, fragrance and high nutritional value1. Mango can play an important role in balancing human diet by providing about 64-86 calories of energy per 100 g and when consumed regularly, can be a valuable dietary source of many phytochemical compounds1. In addition, among many other components, the ascorbic acid content makes the fruit an excellent source of vitamin C, its content varying from 32 to 200 mg per 100 g of edible pulp. Over the last decade (1991-2001), mango growing area has increased by 42.5%, due to the interest increasing in the fruit’s fresh ass well as processed consumption. The world production of the fruit is estimated to be over 23.4x106 tones per year and is expected to increase1. Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is king of fruits due to its high palatability, excellent taste and flavour. Mango pulp is rich in the essential minerals, vitamins and other nutritive factors. Due to shorter shelf life of the mango, it must be converted into various processed products2. In Sudan, area and production were 16238 ha and 651000 tons, respectively3. The aim of this study was to evaluate the physico-chemical characteristic of different types of mango fruits grown in Darfur regions and its use in jam processing.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Collection of the samples: Different types of mango fruits were collected from gardens located at Nyala, Edelfursan and Kaboom, Southern Darfur State, Sudan in the years, 2012. The fruits were carefully cleaned and freed from foreign materials.

Physical characteristics: Each sample of mango fruits was peeled. The peel, seed and pulp are separated and each fraction was then weighed using sensitive balance. Fruit volume was determined using rapeseeds displacement volumeter method according to Pyler4. However, this method was modified by using sesame seeds instead of the rapeseeds.

Proximate analysis: The proximate analysis of each sample of mango fruits was conducted for the contents of moisture, ash and crude fat in triplicate according to the AOAC5. Crude protein was calculated as Nx6.25 according to the AOAC6. Crude fiber was carried out using acid/alkali digestion method according to the AOAC7. Total carbohydrate content was calculated by subtracting the previous components from 100.

Preparation of mango jam fruits: A Fully mature mango fruits from each sample were peeled, sliced by fruit and vegetable cutter machine (KG-40. Nihon Conk CO. LTD. Japan) after discarding the seeds. The slices were blanched. Mango fruits puree was obtained by passing the blanched slices through narrow orifices of pulper (PPT-180. Seikensha Co. LTD. Japan). The pH and Total Soluble Solids (TSS) of the puree were determined. Addition of pectin to the jam was used according to the method described by Saeed and Elmubarak8. In this method, 10 parts of commercial pectin were mixed with 20 parts of sugar in a dry container and the mixture was added slowly to 70 parts of water which was heated in advance to boiling with constant agitation till the pectin was completely dissolved. Boiling is desirable in order to cause intimate mixing of the mango fruits pulp, pectin and sugar to partially concentrate the products by evaporation of excess water using aluminum open-kettle. An (Atago, N1, brix 0~32, Japan) refractometer was used to determine the end point of jam (total soluble solids, 67%). The hot jam was filled in glass jars, tightly closed without delay, then putted upside down and cooled.

Jam quality analysis: The quality of jams prepared from different sample of mango fruits were examined in term of chemical composition and sensory evaluation. The pH was determined using (Hanna, pH 211, Microprocessor pH meter) according to the AOAC6. The total soluble solid was determined using (Atago, N1, brix 0~32, Japan) refractometer as described by Pomeranz and Meloan9. The moisture and ash contents were conducted according to the AOAC5. The titratable acidity was carried out as citric acid. Ten grams from each sample of mango jam fruits were diluted with recently boiled water to 250 mL and then the solution was titrated against 0.1 N sodium hydroxide using phenolphthalein indicator. Reducing sugars were determined using Nelson’s method in which 1 mL sample was pipetted in a test tube; 1 mL of copper reagent and 1 mL of Harding’s reagent were then added. The content of the test tube were shaken and heated in boiling water for 10 min. After cooling, 1 mL of Nelson’s reagent was then added to each tube. After the addition of Nelson’s reagent, the volume in the tube was completed to 10 mL with distilled water. The tubes were allowed to stand for 10 min to complete the colour development. The absorbency of the tube content was recorded at 600 nm against a distilled water blank tube (control) using a spectrophotometer. The sugar value was determined from the glucose standard curve plotted earlier. Reducing sugar was calculated as follow:

where, V is the volume of tested sample, Y is the glucose concentration and W is the weight of sample.

Sensory evaluation: A panel of thirty members composed of adults male and female was used to judge the quality of jam prepared from mango fruits collected from Nyala, Edalfersaan and Kabum, using a questionnaire designed by the Department of Food Technology, Nyala Technological College, Nyala, Sudan. The panelists were asked to evaluate each sample for appearance, texture, colour, flavour and overall acceptability using a 9 point hedonic scale from 1 to 9 as follows: 1: Extremely bad; 2: Very bad; 3: Bad; 4: Fairly bad; 5: Satisfactory; 6: Fairly good; 7: Good; 8: Very good; 9: Excellent as described by Iwe10. The order of presentation of the different samples was randomized and given codes before being tested by the panelists.

Statistical analysis: The data of organoleptic evaluation of different types of mango jam fruit were subjected to analysis of variance procedure and the means were separated at 0.05 levels according to the Snedecor and Cochran11.

Table 1 shows the weight of peel, seed and flesh, length, width and volume of different types of mango fruits. For fruits peel and seed, the higher values are for EMF (10.53±0.3 and 7.9±0.01%), respectively and the lower values are for KMF (10.6±0.02 and 7.0±0.01%), respectively. The data are within the range of (6.30±0.9-13.4±1.65 and 4.2±0.2-11.8±0.6%), respectively reported by Snedecor and Cochran11 and lower than the range of (13-22 and 12-20%), respectively found by Anila and Radha12. For flesh weight, the higher value is for KMF (82.4±0.04%) and the lower value is for EMF (81.57±0.02%). The data are within the range of (74.6±1.3-85.9±1.5%) reported by Pleguezuelo1. On the other hand, Anila and Radha12 reported a lower value of mango fruit pulp (58-75%). For fruit length and width the higher values are for KMF (125±0.01 and 95±0.02), respectively and the lower values are for NMF (101±0.01 and 83±0.03), respectively.

Table 1: Physical characteristics of different types of mango fruits

The data of fruit length are within the range of (80.4±8.3-126.8±7%); while the data of fruit width are higher than the range of (72.5±4.6-92.4±6.5%) reported by Snedecor and Cochran11. Anila and Radha12, reported range of (8.5-9.9 and 5.6-7.7 cm) for mango fruit length and width, respectively. For fruit volume, the higher value is for KMF (300±0.01) and the lower value is for NMF (150±0.02). The data are within the range of (150-395) found by Anila and Radha12.

The proximate analysis of different types of mango fruits is presented in Table 2. Fruit with higher moisture contents are for EMF and KMF (78.52±0.01 and 78.7±0.02%), respectively and the lower content is for NMF (77.4±0.01%), hence, this is an indication of a good shelf life. The data are within the range of (74.58-86.36 and 73-80%) reported by Uddin et al.13; Joseph and Aworh14, respectively. The crude protein contents of EMF and KMF (0.74±0.02 and 0.79±0.01%), respectively are lower than the content of NMF (0.82±0.03%). Fruit with higher content of ash is for KMF (1.7±0.02%) and the lower values are for NMF and EMF (1.5±0.02 and 1.35±0.01%), respectively. On the other hand, the crude fat content of NMF (0.38±0.01%) is slightly higher than the contents of EMF and KMF (0.29±0.02 and 0.31±0.01%), respectively. There are no much variable in crude fiber contents among NMF, EMF and KMF (4.5±0.01, 4.2±0.01 and 4.4±0.03%), respectively. Fruit with higher contents of carbohydrates are for NMF and EMF (15.4±0.01 and 14.9±0.03%), respectively; while, the lower content is for KMF (14.1±0.01%).

The analysis of jam quality is presented in Table 3. The pH values of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF are 3.5, 3.6 and 3.4, respectively. The data are agreement with the requirement of jam quality control and are fall within the range of (3.4-3.6) reported by Abdelwahab et al.15. The TSS of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF are 67, 67 and 66.8%, respectively. The data are within the range of (66-68%) found by Abdelwahab et al.15. Titratable acidity of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF (0.35, 0.37 and 0.34%, respectively) are lower than the range of (0.4-0.6) reported by Abdelwahab et al.15. The moisture contents of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF are 45.8, 46 and 45.6%, respectively. The data are agreement with the range of (45.2-53.7%) reported by Abdelwahab et al.15. The ash content of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF are 0.32, 0.34 and 0.33%, respectively. The data are exceeds the range of (0.1-0.2%) found by Abdelwahab et al.15 and less than the range of (1.02-1.05%) reported by Ahmed16. The total sugar of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF were 12.3, 12.5 and 12.8%, respectively. The results are higher than the range (8.4-12%) found by Abdelwahab et al.15 and lower than the ranges of (5-11 and 4.5-11%) reported by Saeed and Elmubarak; Ahmed8, 16, respectively.

Table 2: Proximate analysis of different types of mango fruits

Table 3: Chemical composition of mango fruit jam products

Table 4: Mean score for sensory attributes of jam prepared from different types of mango fruits

The reducing sugar contents of NMJF, EMJF and KMJF are 4.6, 4.8 and 4.5%, respectively. The data are agreement with range of (1.3-5.0%) found by Abdelwahab et al.15. However, Ahmed17, reported that reducing sugars in jam were not less than 4.5%.

The mean score for sensory attribute of jam prepared from different types of mango fruits are presented in Table 4. The data indicated that all types of jams were accepted by the panelist. Also, there are no significant differences as regard to appearance, colour, flavour and overall acceptability, while, there is significant difference as regard to texture.


CONCLUSION
It is concluded that, the KMF had a good quality in term of its physical characteristics. The sensory attribute of jam prepared from different types of mango fruits revealed that there are no significant difference as regard to appearance, colour, flavour and overall acceptability.


REFERENCES

  1. Pleguezuelo, C.R.R., V.H.D. Zuazo, J.L.M. Fernandez and D.F. Tarifa, 2012. Physico-chemical quality parameters of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruits grown in a mediterranean subtropical climate (SE Spain). J. Agric. Sci. Techol., 14: 365-374.

  2. Sakhale, B.K., R.U. Chalwad and V.D. Pawar, 2012. Standardization of process for preparation of fig-mango mixed toffee. Int. Food Res. J., 19: 889-891

  3. MOAF, 2008. Annual report of the horticulture administration. Khartoum, Sudan.

  4. Pyler, E.J., 1973. Baking Science and Technology. 2nd Edn., Sieble Publishing Co., Chicago.

  5. AOAC, 1985. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th Edn., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.

  6. AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edn., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC., USA.

  7. AOAC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists. 18th Edn., AOAC, Gathersburg, MD., USA.

  8. Saeed, A. and A. Elmubarak, 1974. A guide to manufacture of jams for industry. Technical Report No. 3. Food Research Center, Khartoum, Sudan.

  9. Pomeranz, Y. and C.E. Meloan, 1987. Food Analyst: Theory and Practice. 3rd Edn., Van Nastrand Reinfold Co., New York.

  10. Iwe, M.O., 2002. Handbook of Sensory Methods and Analysis. 1st Edn., Rejoint Communication Services Ltd., Enugu, Nigeria, Pages: 71.

  11. Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1980. Statistical Methods. 7th Edn., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA., Pages: 507.

  12. Anila, R. and T. Radha, 2003. Physico-chemical analysis of mango varieties under kerala conditions. J. Trop. Agric., 41: 20-22

  13. Uddin, M.Z., M.A. Rahim, M.A. Alam, J.C. Barman and M.A. Wadud, 2006. A study on biochemical characteristics of different mango germplasms grown in the climatic condition of mymensingh. Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod., 1: 16-19

  14. Joseph, K. and O.C. Aworh, 1991. Composition sensory and respiration during ripening and storage of edible wild mango (Irvingia gabonensis). Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 26: 337-342

  15. Abdelwahab, A.S., A.E. Sulieman and S.B. El-Hardallu, 2011. Extraction of pectin from some local fruits and its use in jam processing. Gezira J. Agric. Sci., 9: 92-103.

  16. Ahmed, H.M.O., 1999. Extraction fractionation and characterization of pectin substances of grapefruit peels. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Sudan.

  17. Ahmed, G.M.E., 2002. Utilization of grapefruit residue as pectin source in jam processing. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Gezira, Wad Medani, Sudan.

 
 

 
Science International © 2021