4.7 Article

Pulp and peel of unripe stenospermocarpic mango (Mangifera indica L. cv Ataulfo) as an alternative source of starch, polyphenols and dietary fibre

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109719

Keywords

Antioxidant capacity; In vitro digestibility; Stenospermocarpic mango; Mango by-products; Mango flours

Funding

  1. CONACyT [04-2016, 2016-2140]
  2. SIP-IPN
  3. COFAA-IPN
  4. EDI-IPN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As a result of climate change, the production of stenospermocarpic mangoes has increased dramatically. The stenospermocarpic mango, a fruit with reduced size and no seed, is considered to be a by-product that is both underutilised and wasted. Here, we studied the colour, chemical composition, polyphenol content, antioxidant capacity and starch in vitro digestibility of unripe stenospermocarpic mango flours (pulp and peel). The stenospermocarpic mango pulp flour had 11.7 g/100 g of dietary fibre with a balance of soluble and insoluble fractions; additionally, the total starch content of 41 g/100 g in its uncooked flour (resistant starch) can contribute to an increase in the indigestible carbohydrates. The mango peel flour had higher dietary fibre (40.5 g/100 g) and lower total starch content (21 g/100 g) compared with mango pulp flour. The mango pulp flour had higher phenolic compounds content (99.71 mg/g) and antioxidant capacity (248.5 mg/g, DPPH) compared with the peel flour (16.51 mg/g and 92.08 mg/g, DPPH), respectively. The rapidly digestible starch fraction was approximately 50%, with a balance in the content of slowly and resistant starch fractions in the mango pulp flour (approximately 20% per fraction). The flours of the pulp and peel of unripe stenospermocarpic mangoes can be used as alternative ingredients for preparing functional foods with high dietary fibre content and polyphenol compounds with antioxidant capacities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available