Evaluation of antioxidant and sensory properties of mango (Mangifera indicaL.) wine

Figures & data

Table 1. Physico-chemical characteristics of wine produced from different varieties of mango fruits.
Tabla 1. Características fisicoquímicas de vino elaborado con diferentes variedades de mango.

Mango variety	Ethanol (%; v/v)	Total acidity (g/l)	Volatile acidity (g/l)	pH	Residual sugars (g/l)	Higher alcohols (mg/l)	Total esters (mg/l)
Alphonso	10.3	6.5	0.29	3.8	4.1	318	28
Raspuri	8.5	5.3	0.48	3.8	4.4	234	37
Banginapalli	10.0	5	0.30	3.7	4.0	363	44
Totapuri	9.8	6.2	0.40	4.0	4.0	330	25
Sindhoora	8.0	8.7	0.42	4.0	4.0	220	31
Neelam	7.8	7.4	0.58	3.6	4.5	116	18
Rumani	8.9	6.1	0.36	4.0	4.1	229	15
Himami pasand	8.5	4.9	0.53	4.2	4.2	263	22

Figure 1. Total phenol content in wines produced from different varieties of mango fruits.

Figura 1. Contenido total de fenoles en vinos elaborados con diferentes variedades de mango.

Figure 2. Percentage of ABTS inhibition activity in wines produced from different varieties of mango.

Figura 2. Porcentaje de actividad inhibidora de ABTS en vinos elaborados con diferentes variedades de mango.

Figure 3. DPPH radical-scavenging activity in wines produced from different varieties of mango.

Figura 3. Actividad de barrido del radical DPPH en vinos elaborados con diferentes variedades de mango.

Figure 4. FRAP in wines produced from different varieties of mango.

Figura 4. Poder antioxidante reductor férrico en vinos elaborados con diferentes variedades de mango.

Figure 5. LC–MS chromatogram of mango (Alphonso) wine polyphenols.

Figura 5. Cromatograma LC–MS de polifenoles de vino de mango (Alphonso).

Table 2. LC–MS determination of phenolic compounds in Alphonsomango wine.
Tabla 2. Determinación mediante LC–MS de componentes fenólicos en vino de mango Alphonso.

S. no.	Compound name	Retention time (min)	Molecular weight	[M−H]^−(Frag. MS^2 m/z)	% (w/v)
1	p-Hydroxybenzoic acid	9.93	138	137 (93)	50.2
2	Caffeic acid	14.9	175	173 (135)	3.4
3	Vanillic acid	16.5	169	167 (123)	6.4
4	Ferulic acid	21.1	193	192 (134, 149, 179)	7.9
5	Sulphonic acid	22.1	187	186 (103)	11.2
6	Syringic acid	30.0	197	198 (182, 153)	1.5
7	Protocatechuic acid	32.2	155	153 (109)	0.8
8	Leutolin	34.4	281	280 (217, 241, 175)	3.4
9	Sinapic acid	41.4	223	224 (208, 179, 149)	1.2
10	Quinaldinic acid	46.3	173	171 (165, 156)	0.3
11	Phenylphosphoramidic acid	47.9	325	324 (190)	0.9
12	Unknown	18.26	117	116 (118)	0.3
13	Unknown	19.64	191	189 (147, 133)	2.7
14	Unknown	27.77	263	262	1.6
15	Unknown	37.12	329	327 (250)	0.5
16	Unknown	38.74	244	243	0.08
17	Unknown	43.98	373	372 (284)	5.2
18	Unknown	45.12	343	342	0.36
19	Unknown	51.21	329	328 (297, 268)	1.05

Table 3. Sensory evaluation studies on wines from different mango varieties.
Tabla 3. Estudios de evaluación sensorial de vinos de diferentes variedades de mango.

Wine variety	Flavour	Taste	Texture	Appearance	Mouth feel	Overall acceptability
Alphonso	8.90^a ± 0.14	8.26^bd ± 0.04	8.59^b ± 0.02	8.23^ac ± 0.02	8.85^cd ± 0.03	8.62^cd ± 0.01
Raspuri	7.22^bc ± 0.14	7.68^ac ± 0.03	8.14^ac ± 0.02	7.97^bc ± 0.01	8^ac ± 0.07	7.94^ac ± 0.02
Banginapalli	8.56^ac ± 0.05	8.35^bd ± 0.03	8.45^bd ± 0.03	8.76^cd ± 0.00	8.5^cd ± 0.03	8.3^bd ± 0.03
Totapuri	7.84^ac ± 0.05	7.45^ac ± 0.03	7.98^ac ± 0.14	8.1^ac ± 0.07	7.6^ac ± 0.02	7.4^ac ± 0.14
Sindhoora	6.9^ab ± 0.07	6.4^b ± 0.03	7.2^ab ± 0.02	8.45^bd ± 0.03	7.3^bc ± 0.01	7.2^ad ± 0.07
Neelam	6.5^b ± 0.03	6.65^ab ± 0.15	6.9^b ± 0.07	6.3^a ± 0.07	6.7^b ± 0.04	6.6^b ± 0.07
Rumani	7.1^bc ± 0.07	6.8^bc ± 0.07	7.3^bc ± 0.02	7.5^ab ± 0.03	6.6^a ± 0.07	7.0^ab ± 0.14
Himami pasand	6.1^a ± 0.07	6^a ± 0.14	6.3^a ± 0.03	6.7^b ± 0.07	6.9^ab ± 0.03	6.2^a ± 0.07
Notes: Values are given as mean ± SD. Values not sharing a common superscript letter are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Duncan's Multiple Range Test).

Table 4. Instrumental evaluation of wines from different varieties of mango fruits.
Tabla 4. Evaluación instrumental de vinos de diferentes variedades de mango.

Wine variety	TSS	pH	L*	a*	b*
Alphonso	2.1^a ± 0.05	3.9^a ± 0.02	41.5^a ± 2.57	2.8^a ± 0.54	13.2^b ± 1.54
Raspuri	2.9^b ± 0.25	3.9^a ± 0.05	46.5^a ± 1.45	1.9^ab ± 0.94	11.8^b ± 1.03
Banginapalli	2.2^a ± 0.07	3.8^a ± 0.04	42.7^a ± 2.25	2.1^a ± 0.64	10.5^b ± 1.50
Totapuri	2.6^a ± 0.05	4.1^a ± 0.07	43.2^a ± 3.11	1.7^ab ± 0.65	10.3^ab ± 1.52
Sindhoora	4.5^b ± 0.03	4.5^b ± 0.04	44.5^b ± 1.88	2.6^ab ± 0.99	10.2^ab ± 1.25
Neelam	3.8^ab ± 0.03	4.2^b ± 0.02	45.1^b ± 3.66	3.1^b ± 1.41	11.1^ab ± 1.32
Rumani	3.2^a ± 0.25	4.2^b ± 0.05	44.0^b ± 2.11	2.3^ab ± 0.72	10.0^a ± 1.72
Himami pasand	4.2^a ± 0.00	3.8^a ± 0.03	47.2^a ± 2.54	1.9^b ± 0.84	11.6^a ± 1.52
Note: ^a,bMeans within a column with different superscripts are different (p < 0.05). TSS, total soluble solids.

Table 5. Correlations of characteristics of mango wines from panellist and instrumental evaluation.
Tabla 5. Correlaciones de características de vinos de mango entre evaluación de panelistas e instrumental.

	Appearance	Taste	Flavour	Texture	Mouth feel	Overall acceptability
Appearance	–	0.040	0.138	− 0.114	−0.86	0.063
Taste		–	0.426**	− 0.85	0.265**	0.389**
Flavour			–	− 0.143	0.168**	0.365**
Texture				–	−0.288**	−0.182**
Mouth feel					–	0.636**
Overall acceptability						–
Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.