4.7 Article

Watermelon Rind and Flesh Volatile Profiles and Cultivar Difference

Journal

HORTICULTURAE
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8020099

Keywords

Citrullus lanatus; watermelon rind; rind volatile; watermelon flesh; watermelon flavor

Categories

Funding

  1. National Watermelon Promotion Board [was 00704263]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Watermelon rind is commonly discarded as waste, but this study found that it contains volatile compounds, mainly aldehydes and alcohols. The volatile difference between rind and flesh is greater than the difference among cultivars.
Watermelon rind is treated as agricultural waste and commonly discarded, causing environmental issues and biomass loss. This study aimed to identify volatile profiles of watermelon rind and flesh and their cultivar difference. Volatiles were analyzed using solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME-GC-MS). A total of 132 volatiles were identified, including aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, terpenes/terpenoids, esters, lactones, acids, and sulfides. In both rind and flesh, the most dominant compounds in numbers and abundance (peak area) were aldehydes and alcohols, which accounted 94-96% of the total volatile abundance in the rind and 85-87% in the flesh. Total volatile in watermelon rind was only 28-58% of the corresponding flesh samples. Both rind and flesh shared nine-carbon aldehydes and alcohols, though the rind lacked additional diversity. Volatile difference between rind and flesh was greater than the difference among cultivars, although volatiles in the rind could be two times difference between Fascination and other three watermelons (Captivation, Exclamation, and Excursion). This study provides the first-hand knowledge regarding watermelon rind volatile profiles and cultivar difference and shows the potential use of rind in food or beverages due to its naturally contained nine-carbon compounds.

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