Mango Composición 2

Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 41(1-2), 101-108, 2006

Introduction

Mango is now recognized as one of the bestfruits of all indigenous fruits due to its excel-lent flavour, attractive fragrance, beautifulshades of colour, delicious taste and highnutritive value.1 It is grown commercially ineighty seven countries.2,3 Several hundredvarieties are grown in the Indian subconti-nent but a few specific varieties are commer-cialized according to preferences of differentregions of the countries. India contributesabout 64 % of the world mango production.Other mango producing countries areMexico, Pakistan, Brazil, Philippines andThailand. The total world production ofMango is 15.7 million metric tonnes.3 About

250 varieties of mangoes are grown inBangladesh.4 Little information about somevarietal characteristics have so far beenrecorded. But information about its export isstill unknown though it has a great exportpotential. Among the main constituents ofthis fruit, carbohydrate and acid contribute agreat deal to the food value of the fruit. Ofthe three parts of the mango, pulp is the partmost utilized for human consumption. It iscross pollinated and largely propagated byseeds. Awareness in respect of improvedmango production is lacking. In view of theabove aspects, the present study has beenundertaken to throw light on some of the

Studies on the Physiological and Biochemical Composition of DifferentMango Cultivars at Various Maturity Levels

M. Z. Shafique, M. Ibrahim, M. O. H. Helali and S. K. Biswas

Fruit Processing & Preservation Research Division,BCSIR Laboratories Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Abstract

A comparative study on physiological and biochemical composition of ten varietiesof mangoes was carried out at three maturity stages viz. immature, mature and ripe tofind out the standard one. During the investigation, whole weight of the mangoes,pulp content, weight of peel and stone, total soluble solid (TSS), pH, acidity, sugarcontent and vitamin C were determined at three maturity stages. It was observed thatall the varieties at ripe stages had higher sugar content as compared to immature andmature stages. Attractive flavour and pleasant taste were also developed in ripe stagesand differed from one another due to varietal specific. This characteristics odourwhich appeared during ripening is due to ester and components of carbonyl types.

constituents of mango with a view to appre-hending the fruit as a supplementary foodhaving a good calorific value as well as toselect the varieties for plantation with a hopeto be a member of the mango exporting coun-tries.

Materials and Methods

The present experiment was carried out atBCSIR Laboratories, Rajshahi during theperiod from March to August 2002. The man-goes used for this experiment were procuredrandomly from three mango gardens adjacentto BCSIR Laboratories, Rajshahi to get aclear picture about the constituent and quali-ty of the mango cultivars. In this experimentmango of ten varieties were selected andeach variety contained ten mangoes. Themangoes under experiment were Fazli,Ashina, Langra, Surjapuri, Khirshapat,Gopalbhog, Kisanbhog, Mohanbhog,Latabombai and Ranipasand. The mangoeswere analyzed at three different maturitystages viz. immature (40 days after pollina-tion), mature and ripe stages. The immaturemangoes were cleaned, weighed, peeled andthe stone was separated. The physical charac-teristics of the mangoes viz. whole weight ofmango, weight of skin, weight of stone,weight of pulp were determined using stan-dard methods and recorded in Table I. Thetotal soluble solid (TSS) were determinedwith a hand refractometer.5 Sugar was deter-mined by colorimetric method,6,7 vitamin Cwas determined titrimetrically using 2, 6-dichlorophenolindophenol,8,9 acidity was

determined titrimetrically with the visualacid-base method10 and the pH was deter-mined with a digital pH meter.11 The chemi-cal composition of the mangoes were deter-mined at the above three stages and theresults are recorded in Table IIa and IIb. Theabove data were statistically analysed and themean of different parameters was comparedby least significant difference (LSD) test.The organoleptic tests and the physical char-acters (e.g. colour, flavour and taste) of theseripe mangoes were carried out and evaluatedby a panel of seven judges. The mangoeswere classified as follows on the basis oftheir grading; excellent - 80 % or above,good - 70-79 % and fair below 70 % depend-ing on colour, flavour and taste. The resultsare given in table III.

Results and Discussion

It is evident from Table I that the wholeweight of all the mangoes increased gradual-ly with maturity. The rate of increase is dif-ferent for different Significant difference wasobserved among the cultivars at three maturi-ty stages. In the immature stage, the lowestweight was found in Ranipasand (16.1 gm)and the highest weight was found in Fazli(123.2 gm). At mature and ripe stages, theminimum and maximum weights were alsofound in Ranipasand and Fazli varietiesrespectively. The results agreed with thereported results of Hossain et al.12 In theimmature stage skin content of Fazli andSurjapuri is 20.3 g but Mohanbhog andRanipasand were 22.4 and 22.7 g respectively.

102 Studies on the Physiological and Biochemical 41(1-2) 2006

Shafique, Ibrahim, Helali and Biswas 103Ta

ble

I.T

he P

hysi

olog

ical

cha

ract

eris

tics

of te

n m

ango

var

ietie

s at

diff

eren

t mat

urity

leve

ls

* M

atur

ity S

tage

1=

Imm

atur

e st

age,

Mat

urity

sta

ge 2

= M

atur

e st

age,

Mat

urity

sta

ge 3

= R

ipe

stag

e

Sl. N

o.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Nam

e of

man

gova

rietie

s

Fazl

iA

shin

aLa

ngra

Surja

puri

Khi

rsha

pat

Gop

albh

ogK

isan

bhog

Moh

anbh

ogLa

tabo

mba

iR

anip

asan

dLS

D (0

.01

%)

LSD

(0.0

5%)

Who

le w

eigh

t (g)

*Mat

urity

sta

ges

12

313

2.2

245.

565

0.2

93.5

185.

259

0.4

59.3

103.

331

5.5

27.6

95.6

260.

332

.472

.527

6.5

29.3

65.6

208.

734

.210

7.2

303.

538

.613

5.1

370.

519

.585

.019

3.4

16.1

532

150.

63.

433.

554.

782.

672.

613.

50

Skin

(%)

*Mat

urity

sta

ges

12

320

.314

.312

.221

.715

.613

.722

.318

.515

.120

.316

.813

.822

.318

.216

.720

.617

.414

.721

.417

.815

.022

.418

.015

.322

.118

.116

.222

.717

.216

.82.

011.

180.

341.

480.

860.

25

Ston

e (%

)*M

atur

ity s

tage

s1

23

6.2

10.4

11.2

6.9

11.8

11.0

9.9

12.3

12.8

9.1

11.1

13.1

10.8

14.2

13.5

10.2

11.3

13.1

10.1

12.5

13.8

10.3

13.8

14.2

11.5

14.5

14.3

10.8

15.3

14.5

1.25

0.52

0.42

0.92

0.38

0.31

Pulp

(%)

*Mat

urity

sta

ges

12

373

.575

.376

.671

.472

.675

.367

.869

.272

.170

.672

.173

.166

.967

.669

.869

.271

.372

.268

.569

.771

.267

.368

.270

.566

.467

.469

.566

.567

.568

.72.

823.

720.

832.

072.

720.

61


Tabl

e II

a.T

he b

ioch

emic

al c

hara

cter

istic

s of

ten

man

go v

arie

ties

at d

iffer

ent m

atur

ity le

vels

* M

atur

ity s

tage

1=

Imm

atur

e st

age,

Mat

urity

sta

ge 2

= M

atur

e st

age,

Mat

uity

sta

ge 3

= R

ipe

stag

e

Sl. N

o.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Nam

e of

man

gova

rietie

s

Fazl

iA

shin

aLa

ngra

Surja

puri

Khi

rsha

pat

Gop

albh

ogK

isan

bhog

Moh

anbh

ogLa

tabo

mba

iR

anip

asan

dLS

D (0

.01

%)

LSD

(0.0

5%)

pH*M

atur

ity s

tage

s1

23

3.5

4.2

5.4

2.8

3.7

4.8

2.7

3.2

4.6

3.2

3.5

5.1

2.9

3.4

4.8

2.5

2.8

4.2

2.7

3.2

4.7

2.5

2.7

4.5

2.8

3.4

4.3

2.6

3.6

4.9

0.26

0.24

0.27

0.19

0.18

0.20

Vita

min

C (m

/100

gm)

*Mat

urity

sta

ges

12

30.

530.

240.

150.

650.

320.

160.

620.

310.

130.

580.

350.

150.

610.

280.

120.

570.

300.

130.

640.

290.

160.

580.

330.

150.

630.

300.

140.

570.

340.

130.

024

0.02

60.

029

0.01

80.

019

0.02

1

Aci

dity

as

citri

c ac

id (%

)*M

atur

ity s

tage

s1

23

90.3

56.5

43.5

103.

265

.736

.486

.552

.742

.392

.356

.440

.896

.462

.348

.584

.260

.540

.392

.563

.639

.290

.462

.537

.393

.161

.638

.195

.265

.435

.20.

310.

290.

310.

230.

210.

23

Suga

r-Aci

d ra

tio (%

)*M

atur

ity s

tage

s1

23

12.2

647

.31

108.

6709

.69

33.7

596

.25

09.1

943

.55

131.

5411

.03

32.5

710

1.33

09.5

145

.36

162.

5010

.88

39.3

315

0.00

08.2

839

.31

116.

8811

.21

33.9

411

4.67

08.5

735

.00

112.

0011

.93

40.0

012

0.00

0.19

60.

043

0.80

60.

144

0.03

20.

591

Shafique, Ibrahim, Helali and Biswas 105

Sl.No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Name of mangocultivars

Fazli

Ashina

Langra

Khirshapat

Gopalbhog

Kisanbhog

Mohanbhog

Latabombai

Ranipasand

Surjapuri

Physicalcharacters

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

ColourFlavour

Taste

Marking by individual judges1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Total Mean

70 65 68 75 72 71 69 490 70.063 58 57 67 53 59 64 521 60.181 83 85 84 82 80 82 577 82.4

60 52 57 49 50 52 48 368 52.645 43 41 50 53 51 49 332 47.463 61 58 45 61 56 45 389 55.6

73 78 69 73 75 71 76 515 73.693 74 88 71 74 98 96 614 87.790 93 89 94 96 84 87 633 90.4

92 90 88 87 93 94 87 631 90.175 82 74 85 70 76 84 546 78.078 88 78 86 88 86 83 587 83.9

75 72 78 63 86 69 77 520 74.372 83 70 75 78 80 81 539 77.090 86 95 79 88 87 82 607 86.7

67 77 65 72 78 71 62 492 70.360 57 54 63 65 60 59 418 59.773 68 74 77 69 65 72 498 71.1

65 71 60 74 66 75 68 479 68.463 60 68 72 65 76 70 474 67.770 73 61 66 74 70 62 476 68.0

72 78 73 80 84 70 74 531 75.966 72 65 63 68 81 62 477 68.174 73 79 82 85 80 76 549 78.4

71 76 72 85 80 75 71 530 75.768 62 60 65 59 63 54 436 61.675 72 76 82 86 75 84 550 78.6

82 76 72 80 84 82 79 555 74.378 72 68 73 78 82 81 532 76.080 85 81 78 85 82 80 571 81.6

Order ofratingGoodFair

Excellent

FairFairFair

GoodExcellentExcellent

ExcellentGood

Excellent

GoodGood

Excellent

GoodFair

Good

FairFairFair

GoodFair

Good

GoodFair

Good

GoodGood

Excellent

Table III. The grading of ripen mango fruits as judged by the panel of seven judges based ongeneral qualities of mango

In the ripe stage, Fazli was only 12.2 %whereas Khirsapat, Ranipasand, Mohanbhog,Kishanbhog and Langra have higher skincontent than that of Fazli. Although skin isthe non-edible portion of mango, the man-goes of some varieties contained skin signif-icantly different from others. A gradualincrease in weight of stone was also observedwith the increase of maturity. The seed(stone) content of some variety differs signif-icantly from others. In ripe stage, Fazli andGopalbhog have 11.2 % and 13.1 % seedrespectively which were analysed statistical-ly and LSD results found significant both at0.05 % Levels. The pulp content is the edibleportion of mangoes and is given much impor-tance during evaluation. The composition ofmango pulp varies from location of cultiva-tion, variety and stage of maturity. The majorconstituents of the pulp are water, carbohy-drates, organic acids, fats, minerals, pig-ments, tannins, vitamins and flavour com-pounds. It was determined at the three matu-rity stages, which varied from 66.4 to 73.5 %,67.4 to 75.3 % and 68.7 to 76.6 % for imma-ture, mature and ripe mangoes respectively.The difference in pulp content was signifi-cant among the mango cultivars at the threematurity levels.

Table IIa shows that pH of the mangoesranged from 2.5 to 3.5, 2.7 to 4.2 and 4.2 to5.4 for immature, mature and ripe mangoesrespectively. LSD results show that thechanges are significant both at 0.01 % and0.05 % levels. The acidity of all the mangoesdecreased with maturity. It is due to the

breakdown of starch into more sugars there-by lowering down the percentage of acidityof the fruits.13 The acidity was determined atall the three stages and reported as citric acid.A gradual decrease for all the varieties wasobserved with the changes in advancement ofmaturity. The gradual decrease in acidcontent may be due to conversion of acidsinto sugars by some physiological and bio-chemical changes in the fruits. Our findingsagree with the results as reported by Robbaniet al. 14

Regarding vitamin C, a gradual decrease invitamin C content was observed with theincrease of maturity. Fazli contains 90.3 %,56.5 % and 43.5 % vitamin C at immatue,mature and ripe stages respectively. Theresults were statistically analysed and foundsignificant both at 0.01 % and 0.05 % levelsrespectively. TSS content is considered as ameasure of quality for most of the fruits.Generally taste and particularly sweetness ofthe fruits depend on the percentage of TSScontent. From the Table IIa, it is evident that,in ripe stage Khirsapat, Gopalbhog andRanipasand contained 21.8 %, 22.6 % TSSrespectively. Langra also contained 20.2 %TSS. It is well known to all that the abovecited varieties are quality mangoes and havea great demand. Sucrose, glucose and fruc-tose constitute the bulk of carbohydrate andmost of the soluble solid in mango pulp. It isrich source of β-carotene.15

The characteristics odour that appeared in thefruits during ripening is components of ester


Shafique, Ibrahim, Helali and Biswas 107

and carbonyl types. The difference in odouramong the varieties is due to variation in fla-voring components. More than hundredvolatile components have been identified,major ones being terpenes although severalother hydrocarbons, esters and alcohol werealso present in ripe mango fruit.16

A gradual decrease in non-reducing andreducing sugars were found untill maturity.When the fruits started to ripen on the tree i.e.after about 96 days from fruit set, a decreasein reducing sugar was noted. The solublesugars of the fruit pulp consist mainly of glu-cose, fructose and sucrose. The rate of starchaccumulation was rapid at the beginning offruit growth and slowed down later but itcontinued to increase up to maturity.

Like TSS content, sugar-acid ratio is alsoconsidered as a measure of quality of fruit. Itis generally recognized that quality fruitshave higher sugar-acid ratio whereas fruits ofless quality have lower sugar-acid ratio,Khirsapat, Gopalbhog and Langra havesugar-acid ratio of 162.50, 150.00 and 131.25respectively. On the other hand, Mohonbhogand Ashina have sugar-acid ratio of 114.67and 96.25 respectively. Our findings agreewith the reported results elsewhere.17

Mangoes are generally harvested at physio-logical mature stage and ripened for optimumfruit quality. The fruit displays erratic ripen-ing behaviour either on the tree or after har-vest depending on the variety and environ-mental conditions. It is evident from Table III

that the taste of Khirshapat, Langra,Gopalbhog and Surjapuri is excellent. Theexcellent colour was found in the case ofKhirshapat. All the three parameters ofAshina and Mohanbhog are fair in rating. It isconcluded from Table III that Khirshapat,Langra, Gopalbhog and Surjapuri are bestquality mangoes. On the other hand, Fazli,Kishakbhog, Lata Bombai and Ranipasandare also quality mangoes but not like Langra,Gopalbhog, Khirshapat etc.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Director, BCSIRLaboratories, Rajshahi for providing labora-tory facilities to carry out the research work.The authors are indebted to Dr. K.N. Ahmed,Senior Scientific Officer, BCSIR Laborato-ries, Rajshahi for his heartiest co-operation toanalyse the data and valuable suggestions.Thanks are also due to Mr. M. Abdur Razzak,Tech. and M. Anisur Rahman Jr. Tech. fortheir co-operation and help throughout theresearch work.

References

1. M. Ibrahim. M. R. Karim, M. S. Alam andM. A. Gofur. Effect of application of planthormone on the productivity and maturity ofmango. J. Bio Sci. 7 (1999) 111-114.

2. Anonymous, FAO, Food and AgricultureProduction Year Book. FAO, Rome, (1990).

3. L. B. Singh. The Mango, Leonard HillLondon, (1968) 359.

4. A. A. M. Amzad Hossain and Aziz Ahmed.A Monograph on Mango Varieties ofBangladesh. Horticulture Research Centre,Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute,Joydebpur, Gazipur (1994) 155.

5. M. A. Gofur, M. Z. Shafique, M. O. HHelali, M. Ibrahim, M. M. Rahman and M.A. Hakim. Effect of application of plant hor-mone on the control of fruit drop, yield andquality characteristics of mango (Mangiferaindica L.) Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res, XXI(III) (1998) 163-171.

6. M. Dubois, K. Gilles, J. Hamittion, K. Revrsand F. Smilth. A colorometric method fordetermination of sugar. Nature. 168 (1951)167.

7. J. Jayaraman. Laboratory Manual inBiochemistry, New age International, NewDelhi, India. (1981) 180.

8. O. A. Bessey and C. G. King. The distribu-tion of vitamin C in plant and animal tissuesand its determination. J. Biol. Chem. 103(1933) 687-698.

9. A. Mahadevan and R. Sridhar. Methods inPhysiological Plant Pathology, 2nd Ed.Sivakami Publication, Madras, India (1982)171.

10. S. Ranganna, Handbook of Analysis andQuality control for Fruit and VegetableProducts, Tata McGraw-Hill PublishingCompany Lt. New Delhi. (1986) 123.

11. M. Ibrahim, Application of Plant Hormoneon the Control of Anthracnose Disease,Yield and Quality Characteristics of Mango.Ph. D. Thesis, Institute of BiologicalSciences, Rajshahi University, Bangladesh(2002) 181.

12. A. K. M. Amzad Hossain. Manual onMango Cultivation in Bangladesh, Publishedby Bangladesh Horticulture Division,Bangladesh Horticultural Research Institute,Joydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh (1989) 82.

13. D. K. Tandon and S. K. Kalra. Studies ondeveloping mango fruits to assess maturity.Indian Journal of Horticulture. 43 (1986)51-59.

14. M. Robbani, A. F. M. sharfuddin and M. G.Rabbani. Effect of growing conditions andGA3 on growth, yield and quality of GrapeCV. ZAKKAO. Bangladesh Horticulture. 24(1&2) (1996) 71-75.

15. D. K. Salunkhe and S. S. Kadam, HandBook of Fruit Science and Technology,Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. (1995).

16. G. L. K. Hunter, W. A. Bucek and T. Radfod.Volatile components of canned Alphonsomango. J. Food Sci. 39 (1974) 900.

17. K. P. Palaniswamy, C. R. Muthukrishan andK. G. Shanmugavclu, Physico-chemicalcharacteristics of some varieties of mango.Indian Food Packer, (1974) 12-19.


Documents

Mango Composición 2