| Literature DB >> 34200110 |
Malaiporn Wongkaew1,2,3, Sila Kittiwachana4, Nutthatida Phuangsaijai4, Bow Tinpovong2, Chantalak Tiyayon5, Tonapha Pusadee5, Bajaree Chuttong6,7, Korawan Sringarm8, Farhan M Bhat9, Sarana Rose Sommano3,5, Ratchadawan Cheewangkoon6,8.
Abstract
Mango peel, a byproduct from the mango processing industry, is a potential source of food-grade mango peel pectin (MPP). Nonetheless, the influence of fruit physical characteristics and phytochemicals of peels on their correspondent pectin level has never been examined, particularly when high-quality food additives are of commercial need. Subsequently, the ultimate aim of the present study was to comprehend their relationship using chemometric data analyses as part of raw material sourcing criteria. Principal component analysis (PCA) advised that mangoes of 'mahachanok' and 'nam dok mai' could be distinguished from 'chok anan' and 'kaew' on the basis of physiology, peel morphology, and phytochemical characteristics. Only pectin extracted from mango var. 'chok anan' was classified as low-methoxyl type (Mox value ~4%). Using the partial least-squares (PLS) regression, the multivariate correlation between the fruit and peel properties and the degree of esterification (DE) value was reported at R2 > 0.9 and Q2 > 0.8. The coefficient factors illustrated that yields of byproducts such as seed and total biomass negatively influenced DE values, while they were positively correlated with crude fiber and xylose contents of the peels. Overall, it is interesting to highlight that, regardless of the differences in fruit varieties, the amount of biomass and peel proximate properties can be proficiently applied to establish classification of desirable properties of the industrial MPP.Entities:
Keywords: biomass valorization; fruit peel pectin; fruit physiology; microwave-assisted extraction; partial least-squares regression
Year: 2021 PMID: 34200110 PMCID: PMC8226707 DOI: 10.3390/plants10061148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Physical characteristics of different mango varieties.
| Parameters | Mahachanok | Chok Anan | Nam Dok Mai | Kaew |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 68.83 ± 2.02 b | 69.98 ± 2.72 b | 72.26 ± 1.85 a | 67.68 ± 3.07 b |
|
| 3.28 ± 2.68 b | 5.55 ± 0.73 a | 6.74 ± 0.86 a | 3.41 ± 2.69 b |
|
| 40.66 ± 2.86 a b | 43.09 ± 6.68 a | 36.63 ± 1.48 b | 39.70 ± 4.49 a b |
|
| 85.50 ± 4.10 a | 80.57 ± 2.86 b | 84.61 ± 3.93 a | 78.66 ± 3.80 b |
|
| 96.30 ± 5.96 a | 83.33 ± 2.94 c | 90.95 ± 4.11 b | 81.76 ± 3.85 c |
|
| 40.79 ± 2.06 d | 66.98 ± 3.05 a | 50.44 ± 3.10 c | 63.32 ± 6.27 b |
|
| 258.13 ± 19.16 b | 297.95 ± 16.29 a | 279.41 ± 22.26 a | 280.02 ± 21.38 a |
|
| 213.31 ± 19.29 a | 188.70 ± 13.40 c | 208.09 ± 19.61 a | 180.13 ± 16.78 c |
|
| 16.64 ± 0.67 a | 14.39 ± 0.57 c | 14.42 ± 1.41 c | 15.60 ± 0.66 b |
|
| 66.69 ± 2.79 c | 67.32 ± 2.63 c | 73.15 ± 3.75 a | 70.32 ± 1.88 b |
|
| 16.64 ± 0.67 a | 14.39 ± 0.57 c | 14.42 ± 1.41 c | 15.60 ± 0.66 b |
|
| 16.66 ± 2.63 a | 18.29 ± 2.37 a | 12.43 ± 2.71 b | 14.08 ± 2.02 b |
|
| 33.31 ± 2.79 a | 32.68 ± 2.63 a | 26.85 ± 3.75 c | 29.68 ± 1.88 b |
Average ± standard deviation; different letters in each column denote a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 1The chemometric PCA score plot based on the physiological characteristics and mango varieties (‘mahachanok’; M, ‘chok anan’; C, ‘nam dok mai’; N, ‘kaew’; K).
Figure 2The FT-IR spectra of mango peels var. ‘mahachanok’ (), ‘chok anan’ (), ‘nam dok mai’ (), and ‘kaew’ () from 600 to 4000 cm−1 (x-axis) in terms of absorbance units (y-axis).
Figure 3The SEM and LM images of mango peels var. ‘mahachanok’ (a), ‘chok anan’ (b), ‘nam dok mai’ (c), and ‘kaew’ (d). The images were viewed at ×500 and ×50 (0.1 mm/div).
Anatomical components of mango peels from different varieties using SEM and LM.
| Anatomical Components | Mango Varieties | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mahachanok | Chok Anan | Nam Dok Mai | Kaew | |
|
| +++ | ++++ | ++ | ++ |
|
| ++++ | ++ | +++ | + |
|
| ++++ | +++ | ++ | ++ |
|
| + | ++++ | +++ | ++ |
|
| 200–400 | 400–500 | 300–400 | 400–500 |
Plus signs indicate the level from the highest (++++) to the lowest (+) of each anatomical component.
Proximate and sugar analyses of different varieties of mango peels.
| Mango Varieties | Proximate Composition (% | Sugar Types (% | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture in Fresh | Carbohydrate 1,2,3 | Crude Protein 1,2 | Crude Fat 1,2 | Crude Fiber 1,2 | Ash 1,2 | Fructose 1,2 | Xylose 1,2 | Glucose | Sucrose | |
|
| 66.51 ± 0.06 b | 10.53 ± 0.45 b | 7.50 ± 0.01 b | 2.48 ± 0.02 a | 12.44 ± 0.59 b | 0.54 ± 0.03 a | 31.23 ± 0.02 a | 29.88 ± 0.02 b | n/d | n/d |
|
| 68.88 ± 0.33 a | 11.23 ± 0.43 a b | 7.18 ± 0.02 c | 1.51 ± 0.02 d | 10.92 ± 0.37 c | 0.27 ± 0.01 b | 31.57 ± 0.03 a | 29.44 ± 0.06 b | n/d | n/d |
|
| 59.50 ± 0.06 d | 11.45 ± 0.28 a | 7.03 ± 0.41 d | 1.86 ± 0.02 b | 19.90 ± 0.28 a | 0.25 ± 0.04 b | 31.41 ± 0.07 a | 30.03 ± 0.03 a | n/d | n/d |
|
| 60.54 ± 0.44 c | 8.93 ± 0.43 c | 8.06 ± 0.04 a | 1.68 ± 0.03 c | 20.53 ± 0.10 a | 0.24 ± 0.03 b | 31.35 ± 0.03 a | 29.73 ± 0.05 b | n/d | n/d |
1 Values are on a dry weight basis (d.w.). n/d: not detectable. 2 Average ± standard deviation; different letters in each row denote a significant difference (p < 0.05). 3 Calculated by difference with the other components of proximate content.
Figure 4The chemometric PCA score plots of proximate compositions (a) and of physiological characteristics and proximate compositions (b) (‘mahachanok’; M, ‘chok anan’; C, ‘nam dok mai’; N, ‘kaew’; K). The representative points of each variety that are far apart indicate that the characteristics of fruit and peel of the mangoes are significantly different.
Chemical characteristics of mango peel from different varieties.
| Mango Varieties | Pectin Yield (%) | Eq.W (mg/mol) | Mox (%) | DE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13.67 ± 0.08 b | 1423.81 ± 41.24 a | 23.95 ± 16.55 a b | 89.85 ± 3.08 a |
|
| 15.07 ± 0.29 a | 1037.30 ± 4.96 b | 3.99 ± 0.02 b | 56.88 ± 0.78 c |
|
| 12.76 ± 0.71 b | 605.26 ± 9.12 c | 13.90 ± 2.57 b | 68.91 ± 6.38 b |
|
| 7.65 ± 0.84 c | 1041.67 ± 38.19 b | 41.00 ± 14.74 a | 92.93 ± 1.76 a |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, n = 3. Eq.W = equivalent weight; Mox = methoxyl content; DE = degree of esterification. Average ± standard deviation; different letters in each row denote a significant difference (p < 0.05).
R and Q values with their error scores obtained from the correlation graph of the expected and predicted pectin quality values with fruit physiological properties and nutritional compositions of peel using the PLS model.
| Properties | Pectin Qualities |
|
| RMSEC | RMSECV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Eq.W | 0.9782 | 0.4171 | 42.93 | 160.81 |
| Mox | 0.6882 | −0.2376 | 9.17 | 18.15 | |
| DE | 0.7682 | −0.3614 | 7.32 | 22.57 | |
| %Pectin | 0.7823 | −0.1145 | 1.33 | 3.08 | |
|
| Eq.W | 0.9841 | 0.5867 | 36.7 | 74.01 |
| Mox | 0.9148 | 0.418 | 4.8 | 14.73 | |
| DE | 0.9617 | −0.5432 | 2.98 | 4.18 | |
| %Pectin | 0.9849 | 0.7695 | 0.35 | 1.04 | |
|
| Eq.W | 0.9958 | 0.5534 | 18.84 | 116.28 |
| Mox | 0.7456 | −0.2376 | 8.29 | 18.26 | |
| DE | 0.9839 | 0.8323 | 1.93 | 5.26 | |
| %Pectin | 0.9826 | 0.4262 | 0.37 | 1.24 |
Figure 5The corresponding PLS values of the impact of physiological and proximate characteristics on DE (a); the corresponding PLS values of the impact of physiological properties on DE (b); the corresponding PLS values of the impact of proximate compositions on DE (c). Physiological properties of mango fruit were %peel (1), %flesh (2), %seed (3), %total biomass (4), L* (5), a* (6), b*(7), Dg (8), Da (9), Ra (10), Φ (11), surface area (12), and peel-to-fruit ratio (13); the proximate compositions were crude fiber (14), crude protein (15), crude lipid (16), moisture content (17), ash (18), carbohydrate (19), fructose (20), and xylose (21). The bar graphs of each parameter indicate positive and negative impacts on DE value.