J Food Sci Technol
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04731-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Screening of physicochemical and functional attributes
of fermented beverage (wine) produced from local mango
(Mangifera indica) varieties of Uttar Pradesh using novel
saccharomyces strain
Vikash Patel1 • Abhishek Dutt Tripathi1 • Kundan Singh Adhikari2
Anurag Srivastava3
•
Revised: 17 July 2020 / Accepted: 13 August 2020
Ó Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2020
Abstract Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) is a major tropical
fruit rich in sugar, organic acids and flavonoids, making it
suitable fruit for wine making. In the present study, five
varieties of mango (Baganpalli, Langra, Dashehari,
Alphonso, and Totapuri) were utilized for wine production
using two different yeast strains namely, Saccharomyces
cerevisiae MTCC 178 and isolated yeast. The physiochemical analysis of wine produced from chosen mango
varieties showed that North Indian local mango variety
(Dashehari) gave better results in terms of organoleptic
and functional attributes. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MTCC 178 treated Dashehari wine possessed
6.1 ± 0.26% TSS, 2.1 ± 0.08% reducing sugar, 0.657%
titratable acidity, 0.11 ± 0.00% volatile acidity, 12%
ethanol (v/v) and pH 3.7 ± 0.10 comparable to Baganpalli
mango wine. HPLC analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MTCC 178 inoculated Dashehari mango wine revealed the
presence of primarily; gallic acid (RT-4.4 min), Galloyl-Atype, procyanidin (RT-5.2 min), 2,2,6-Trimethyl-6-vinyltetrahydropyran (RT-8.91 min), b-Pinene (RT-11.47 min)
and Caffeoyl-quinic acid (RT-12.15 min) showing potential antioxidant, anti-cancerous, anti-inflammatory and
antimicrobial properties. The local mango varieties wine
showed significant (p \ 0.05) physicochemical properties,
& Abhishek Dutt Tripathi
abhi_itbhu80@rediffmail.com
1
Department of Dairy Science and Food Technology, Institute
of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005, India
2
Department of Biotechnology, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan
3
Department of Molecular Biotechnology, University of
Turin, Turin, Italy
antioxidant potential and ethanol content comparable to
Baganpalli wine and was cost effective.
Keywords Mango (Mangifera indica) wine Mango
varieties Yeast strains Physicochemical analysis
Functional attributes Cost-effective
Introduction
Nowadays, the whole world is facing the Coronavirus
disease (COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus
SARS-CoV-2) threat and declared as a pandemic by WHO
on 11 March 2020 (WHO report 2020). There is urgent
need to combat the economic crisis in the era of the
COVID-19 pandemic, by developing functional foods
fortified with bioactive compounds and antioxidants that
promote health and immune system of consumers (Galanakis 2020). In nature, fruits are most common source of
antioxidants, flavonoids and polyphenols, which plays vital
role as immunity booster and prevention of chronic diseases like cancer and AIDS (Kaleem et al. 2015). Tropical
fruits like mangoes, pine apple and guava posses huge
amount of functional ingredients such as bioactive amines
which prevents the cardiovascular disease, neural and
gastrointestinal disorders (Gloria et al. 2011). In India,
production of mango (Mangifera indica L) is very high and
it occupies 45.10% of the total world’s production (NHD
2015). Uttar Pradesh is leading mango producing state in
India, contributing 23.06% of total mango production. The
total mango production in Uttar Pradesh was found to be
4540.23 thousand MT in 2016–2017 (National Mango
Database 2018). In Uttar Pradesh, there are several mango
varieties such as Dashehari, Langra, Chausa. Ratole and
Bombay, but leading mango varieties are Langra and
123
J Food Sci Technol
Dashehari. Dashehari is one of the most liked varieties in
India owing to its high aromatic flavor. It possess an
appropriate mixture of sourness and sweetness, which
result in high taste. Mango fruit contains carbohydrate
(starch and sugar), organic acid, lipid, pigment, and volatiles, phenolics and antioxidants (Maldonado-Celis et al.
2019). Substantial phenolic compounds found in mangoes
are mangiferin, quercetin, gallic acid, benzoic acid,
kaempferol, anthocyanins, and protocatechuic acid (Palafox-Carlos et al. 2012). These phenolics plays significant
role in preventing cardiovascular diseases, atherosclerosis
and decreases the risk of cancer (Pierson et al. 2015).
However, a huge quantity of mango wasted annually
because of its short postharvest life. To prevent this huge
postharvest loss, mangoes may be processed into diversified products like slices, pulp, jam, squash, nectar, juice,
RTS beverages, mango leather etc.
The post-harvest loss of fruits can be minimized by
processing them into value added food products such as
fermented beverage. Fruit wines are fermentative product,
which possess high commercial importance. Wine production begins with the fermentation process followed by
aging. Wine is preferred over other alcoholic beverages, as
wine is not subjected to distillation process; loss of nutrients is minimum and posses comparable nutritive value as
in original fruit (Versari et al. 2015). These are nutritive,
tastier and mild stimulants, which substantially utilizes
grapes, elderberry or black currant in wine production.
Grapes are conventional and generally preferred for wine
production owing to its nutritious and desirable aroma and
flavor. Although, grapes are preferred raw material for
wine production, the availability of grapes is a concern.
This allows the opportunity to search for other fruits,
especially locally available fruits having low cost and
reluctant availability as an alternative (Reddy and Reddy,
2005). It has been previously reported that the ethanol and
aromatic components content in mango wine is comparable
to those of grape (Reddy et al. 2011). Although, nascent
report are available on utilization of south Indian mango
variety (Baganpalli) in wine making but not much research
work done on local mango variety of Uttar Pradesh. The
nutritive value and quality of wine depends upon the
inoculum yeast (Coulibely et al. 2016). The non-thermal
food processing such as thermo-sonication, ultra high
pressure (UHP) and enzyme assisted extraction retain the
nutritional and phenolic profile of fruit juice and processed
products (Dars et al. 2019). The nutritional and phytochemical composition of mangoes varies with varieties,
ripening stages and postharvest storage (Maldonado-Celis
et al. 2019). In the present study an attempt was made to
study, the physicochemical and functional attributes of
fermented beverage (wine) produced from local mango
123
(Mangifera indica) varieties of Uttar Pradesh using two
different yeast cultures.
Materials and methods
Raw materials and chemicals
The five varieties of mango (Mangifera indica L) fruits
namely; Baganpalli, Langra, Dashehari, Alphonso, and
Totapuri were purchased from the local market of Varanasi
(Uttar Pradesh, India). All the chemicals and reagents were
of analytical grade and were procured form Himedia,
Mumbai, India.
Starter culture and maintenance media
The freeze-dried Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178
strain was procured from Microbial Type Culture Collection (MTCC), Institute of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh (India). Another yeast isolate (ISY) was obtained from
Department of Plant Pathology, Institute of Agricultural
Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. The freezedried culture were revived in peptone water, followed by
streaking on PDA plates and incubated at 25 ± 0.2 °C for
48 h. After 48 h, pure colonies were re-cultured in the
sterilized growth medium.
Inoculam preparation
For inoculam preparation, one inoculation loop of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 and ISY colonies were
transferred in 250 mL conical flask, comprising 100 mL of
mango pulp obtained from different mango varieties individually. The inoculated mango pulp then incubated at
25 ± 0.2 °C for seven days. The appearance of bubbles
and over ripened fruity odor in pulp showed completion of
inoculum preparation.
Preparation of must for fermentation
Exactly 1 kG each of the mango varieties were weighed.
The fruit fermentation process was started by preparing
must. The selected mango varieties were then sorted,
washed with distilled water and peeled off manually using
a knife. After peeling and destoning, fruits were chopped
into smaller pieces and then transferred in pulper (Bajaj,
India) for pulp extraction. The extracted pulp was then
homogenized using laboratory blender. The juice from pulp
extracted by squeezing pulp through a muslin cloth. The
extracted juice then utilized for fermentation process
(Fig. 1). The extracted juice then transferred into 250 mL
clean conical flask and mixed with distilled water (1:1,
J Food Sci Technol
Fig. 1 Production of mango wine using different mango varieties by fermentation using ISY (S1) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178
(S2) strains
w/v). In order to maintain the initial TSS at 20 oBrix, 0.107,
0.122, 0.117, 0.116 and 0.134 kG of sugar added in the
must prepared from Alphonso, Langara, Dashehari, Banganapalli and Totapuri varieties, respectively with vigorous stirring. Then, 0.05% (w/v) of potassium
metabisulphate (KMS) added in the each must samples
prior to inoculation of yeast culture. KMS serve as a sterilizer and prevents fermentation before the addition of the
yeast starter.
150 g of the gel-like bentonite was added into each of the
wine samples followed by stirring to get it dissolved
properly. After 15 days of clarification, filtration was done
using muslin cloth, sieve and syphon tubes sterilized with
70% (v/v) alcohol. All the wine samples were syphoned
into the sieve containing four layers of muslin cloth. The
residues removed and the filtrates collected for further
physiochemical analysis.
Physicochemical analysis
Fermentation
The batch fermentation was carried out in 500 mL sterile
conical flasks and each flask contained 100 mL of juice
obtained from different mango varieties. 2.5 mL of Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 (S1) and ISY (S2)
inoculum added in the must samples and incubated at
25 °C for 15 days. After 15 days, the fermented juices
filtered through muslin clothes with manual pressing. The
extracted juice then clarified by bentonite (a clarifying
agent). The clarifying agent prepared by dissolving 500 g
of bentonite in 2 l of boiling water and stirred properly to a
gel form. This was then allowed to stand for 24 h. Then,
The physicochemical properties of juice extracted from
different mango varieties and wine developed from them
were analyzed. The wine samples produced by using ISY
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 strain were
categorized as S1 and S2 samples, respectively. The juice
yield, which is an important factor in wine production, was
measured as the total quantity of juice obtained from one
kilogram of fruit.
TSS was determined by a refractometer (RFM970, BS,
India). pH was determined by pH meter (Fischer Scientific,
USA) and reducing sugar estimation was done by DNS
method. Titratable acidity was measured by AOAC (2000)
123
J Food Sci Technol
method. Volatile acidity (VA) determined by taking 10 mL
of the wine sample and collecting 75 mL of the distillate in
a 250 mL conical flask. The distillate was titrated against
0.1 N NaOH and 1% phenolphthalein solution used as
indicator, until a pink color persisted. The amount of
NaOH used was noted (titer value) and used for calculation
as described using AOAC (2000) method as follows:
VA ðin g=L of acetic acidÞ ¼ ðSample size = titer valueÞ
ð0:06Þ:
Ethanol estimation
Ethanol content was estimated using Gas chromatography
(GC). The fermented broth were centrifuged at 5000 g for
10 min at 4 °C in cold centrifuge (Sigma Aldrich, USA).
The supernatant collected was mixed with propanoic acid
(1:1. v/v) and heated at 100 °C for enhancing the volatility.
For GC analysis, 2 lL of samples was injected with the
help of micro-syringe (Hamilton, Germany). Nucon gas
chromatograph instrument was used with 5% Carbowax
20 m glass column on Carbopack-B 80/120 mesh. Nitrogen
used as a carrier gas with a flow rate of 20 mL/min. The
eluted compounds detected by FID detector. The fuel gas
was hydrogen with a flow rate of 40 mL/min, and the
oxidant was air, with a flow rate of 40 mL/min. The analytes then identified based on their retention time (RT).
Flavonoids determination
Selection of the variety for determination of flavonoids was
made on the basis of ethanol production. The flavonoids
were determined by HPLC (Shimdzu, Japan) equipped
with 515 HPLC pump and a C-18 column connected to a
UV detector. The column was eluted at 40 °C with a
degassed aqueous mobile phase containing 0.1% sulphuric
acid at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. Flavonoids identified
based on their retention time. For HPLC analysis, the
sample preparation was done by centrifuging the clarified
sample in cold centrifuge at 8000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C.
The supernatant obtained further filtered by membrane
filter with mess size of 0.22 microns (Millipore, USA). 2.0
lL of filtered sample was then injected in HPLC column
through micro syringe (Hamilton, Germany).
Statistical analysis
The completely randomized analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used as described by Winner (2004) for
data analysis. The mean separation and comparison was
done using SPSS version 16.0 software. The significance
123
was accepted at value (p \ 0.05) and results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation from the mean.
Results and discussion
The present study investigated the influence of two yeasts
namely; Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 and isolated
Saccharomyces yeast (ISY) on the quality of wine produced using different mango varieties like Alphonso,
Langra, Dashehari, Banganpalli and Totapuri.
Physicochemical properties of mango juice
The juice yield and physicochemical properties of different
varieties of mango juice were analyzed (Table 1). All the
mango varieties showed significant (p \ 0.05) variation in
their physicochemical properties. Banganapalli & Totapuri
variety gave the maximum juice yield, whereas, Alphanso
and Langra showed the minimum juice yield (Table 1).
Juice yield is an important parameter in wine production as
it depicts the final quantity of the wine. Fruits with high
juice yield were preferred for wine production relative to
low juice yielding fruits for economic purposes. The
minimum and maximum pH value of 3.3 ± 0.35 to
4.6 ± 1.30 were observed in Totapuri and Langra varieties, respectively (Table 1). The pH of the fruit juice plays
an important role in flavor promotion as well as a preservative (Akhtar et al. 2010). The main prerequisite for fermentation is sugar content in the fruit juice. The total
soluble solids (TSS) of the mango juice ranged from
13.26 ± 1.12 to 18.60 ± 1.27 8Brix. The minimum and
maximum TSS was observed in Totapuri and Alphonso
varieties, respectively (Table 1). The TSS value of
Dashehari and Langra were comparable to Banganapalli
varieties. However, the TSS value for local varieties
(Dashehari and Langra) was lesser in comparison to previous findings of Rajendra kumar et al. (2001) who
reported that Northern India Dashehari variety possessed
high TSS of 25.75% with a total sugar content of 21.2%.
The significant (p \ 0.05) difference in TSS in same cultivar occurred due to demographic variation and harvesting
performed in different months. The reducing sugar content
of the Dashehari and Langra mango juice was comparable
to the Banganapalli (Table 1). Although, maximum and
minimum reducing sugar content of 17.40 ± 1.0 to
12.50 ± 1.10% was observed in Banganapalli and Totapuri varieties, respectively (Table 1). The titratable acidity
(TA) as tartaric acid varied from 0.32 to 0.48%. The TA of
Langara and Dashehari varieties showed insignificant
(p [ 0.05) variation and was in close proximity to Banganapalli variety (Table 1).
J Food Sci Technol
Table 1 Physicochemical properties of juice of different mango varieties
TSS (oB)
Mango varieties
Juice yield (ml/Kg)
PH
Alphonso
550 ± 15aw*
3.7 ± 0.80aw*
Langara
ax**
560 ± 12
aw*
aw**
4.6 ± 1.30
bw*
18.60 ± 1.27bx*
bw**
15.57 ± 0.72
bw**
Reducing sugar (% w/v)
TA# (%)
16.60 ± 0.80aw*
0.44 ± 0.01aw**
14.20 ± 1.20
bx*
0.32 ± 0.03aw**
az*
0.39 ± 0.00aw***
Dashehari
580 ± 14
4.1 ± 0.95
16.53 ± 0.92
16.20 ± 1.40
Banganapalli
600 ± 17ay*
4.2 ± 0.85bw**
16.72 ± 1.28bx*
17.40 ± 1.0cw*
az*
az***
Totapuri
590 ± 20
3.3 ± 0.35
az**
13.26 ± 1.12
12.50 ± 1.10
aw*
0.34 ± 0.06aw*
0.48 ± 0.04aw**
#As Tartaric acid; As acetic acid; First superscript letter (a-d) shows the significant difference (p \ 0.05) among a particular row, second
superscript letter (w-z) shows the significant difference (p \ 0.05) among a particular column for a specific attribute. Results are expressed as
n = 3, SD ± 0.05, *p B 0.05; **p B 0.01; ***p B 0.001
Physicochemical properties of mango wine
The pH level affects the aroma, flavor and mouthfeel of the
wine. The pH value was significantly (p \ 0.05) affected
by inoculam type. S1 samples showed significant
(p \ 0.05) pH decrease in comparison to S2 in each mango
variety wine (Table 2). The maximum pH values of
4.0 ± 0.15 and 4.1 ± 0.17 was observed in both the
treatments (S1 and S2) of Langra wine. Similarly, minimum pH value was observed in Totapuri wine in both S1
and S2 treated samples (Table 2). Dashehari wine showed
pH value of 3.7 in S2 sample, which was closer to Baganpalli variety wine. It is previousely reported, that
optimum pH for wine is 3.5-3-8 (Reddy and Reddy, 2005).
The pH value of Alphonso and Totapuri variety wine was
lower in comparison to local varieties. The extreme low pH
(\ 3.2) value imparts acidic taste and is undesirable in
wine making. The TSS content varied significantly with
different inoculums in all the mango varieties wine. The
maximum TSS score of 13.8 ± 0.78 & 13.4 ± 0.47% was
observed in Langra wine with S1 and S2 samples,
respectively. The minimum TSS score of 5.2 ± 0.26 &
6.1 ± 0.26% were observed in S2 samples of Banganapalli
and Dashehari wine, respectively (Table 2). The significant (p \ 0.05) reduction in the TSS during wine production may be due to the faster yeast activity that converted
sugars into alcohol in lesser time. Previously, a similar
finding was reported in peach-based wine (Joshi et al.
2005).
The sugar content of a given fruit is necessary for wine production, as magnitude of sugar fermentation is the measure of alcohol yield. Similarly, reducing
sugar content also affects the aroma and flavor of wine,
which are the main factors that determine its quality
and value (Molina et al. 2007). The reducing sugar content
changed significantly (p \ 0.05) in S2 samples. The maximum reduction in reducing sugar content was estimated in
Banganapalli and Dashehari wine with S1 sample
(Table 2). The higher the reduction in reducing sugar
content more is ethanol production. The low reducing sugar
content (2.0 g/L) of Dashehari variety deduced that in S2
sample, conversion of sugar to alcohol was higher in
comparison to other mango varieties (Table 2).
The present study also revealed a consistent increase in
the TA of all the mango wines throughout the fermentation
process. The TA increased significantly after fermentation
in both group of samples. Among S1 samples, maximum
TA score observed in Alphonso wine, i.e., 0.650% and
Dashehari wine showed a minimum score, i.e., 0.615%
(Table 2). The maximum TA observed in Banganapalli
wine, i.e., 0.698% and Dashehari wine had a minimum
score, i.e., 0.657, among S2 samples (Table 2). The TA of
fine quality wine is expected to be in the range of 0.5 to
1.0% (Chilaka et al. 2010). The above finding clearly
suggest that S2 samples showed better acceptability as the
yeast culture showed better resistant towards acidic condition and it also facilitates the shelf life of product as
higher acidity restricts the bacterial growth and poses
tremendous preservative properties. Simultaneously, it can
be clearly deduced from the Table 2, that S2 treated
Dashehari mango wine showed optimal TA value.
The maximum and minimum volatile acidity (VA) of
0.52 ± 0.00 and 0.12 ± 0.00% was observed in Totapuri
and Langra wine in S1 samples. Similarly, maximum and
minimum VA of 0.45 ± 0.13 and 0.11 ± 0.00% were
observed in Totapuri and Dashehari wine, respectively in
S2 samples (Table 2). Volatile acidity affects the aroma
and flavor of the wine. At higher levels of acetic acid, it
causes spoilage of product; also may stimulate the formation of unpleasant volatile compounds viz. ethyl acetate
that has an odor like fingernail polish (Moreno and Polo
2005). This clearly suggests that S2 samples of Dashehari
wine possessed better organoleptic properties and more
shelf life owing to their low VA.
123
123
0.680
0.640
2.5 ± 0.20
2.5 ± 0.22
11.2 ± 0.37
11.8 ± 0.19
3.0 ± 0.15
3.0 ± 0.10
Totapuri wine
#As Tartaric acid; As acetic acid; First superscript letter (a-d) shows the significant difference (p \ 0.05) among a particular row, second superscript letter (w-z) shows the significant
difference (p \ 0.05) among a particular column for a specific attribute. Results are expressed as n = 3, SD ± 0.05, *p B 0.05; **p B 0.01; ***p B 0.001
0.45 ± 0.13aw**
0.698
2.1 ± 0.15
5.2 ± 0.26
6.5 ± 0.23
3.8 ± 0.10
aw**
aw**
3.5 ± 0.10
Banganapalli wine
aw*
ay*
aw**
2.0 ± 0.13
aw*
0.647
0.52 ± 0.00
0.14 ± 0.00aw***
aw**
aw***
0.657
2.2 ± 0.28
6.1 ± 0.26
7.2 ± 0.27
3.7 ± 0.10
aw***
aw**
3.6 ± 0.10
Dashehari wine
aw**
aw*
aw**
2.1 ± 0.08
aw**
0.615
0.27 ± 0.06
0.11 ± 0.00aw***
cz***
0.750
2.7 ± 0.13
13.4 ± 0.47
13.8 ± 0.78
4.1 ± 0.17
az**
ax*
4.0 ± 0.15
Langra wine
aw*
aw*
aw*
2.6 ± 0.09
cw***
0.634
0.23 ± 0.00
0.16 ± 0.00aw***
ax***
0.687
cw***
aw**
az*
bw*
ay*
ax*
2.6 ± 0.11aw**
10.2 ± 0.57az*
11.0 ± 0.77bw*
3.4 ± 0.10aw*
3.2 ± 0.10aw*
Alphonso wine
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
2.5 ± 0.10ay**
0.650
0.12 ± 0.00
0.25 ± 0.00aw***
0.35 ± 0.13aw**
S2
S1
S2
S1
VA (in g/L of acetic acid)
TA (%)
Reducing sugar (% w/v)
TSS (°B)
PH
Mango varieties
Table 2 Estimation of physiochemical properties of mango wine produced from different mango varieties by fermentation using ISY (S1) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 (S2)
strains
J Food Sci Technol
Table 3 Ethanol content in the wine produced from different mango
varieties by fermentation using ISY (S1) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 (S2) strains
Mango variety
Ethanol (% w/v)
S1a
S2b
Alphonso
8.8
Langara
9.7
9.5
Dashehari
11.5
12.0
Banganapalli
13.0
13.0
8.6
8.5
Totapuri
9.0
a
S1 represents the ISY
b
S2 represents the Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 178 strain
Ethanol estimation
The alcohal content of all the samples of mango wine were
deduced by GC. Both the yeast culture showed insignificant (p [ 0.05) variation in alcohol content (Table 3). The
Banganapalli and Dashehari wine showed maximum
ethanol content of 13 and 12% (v/v), respectively in S2
samples. Previously, the alcohol content in Banganapalli
was reported to be 14.2% which is in close proximity to
current investigation (Varakumar et al. 2011). However,
Totapuri wine showed least ethanol content of 8.5% (v/v)
(Table 3). There is no previous such reports on Dashehari
wine and our investigation suggests that wine prepared
from Dashehari mango varieties using S2 strain possesed
higher alochol content. Figure 2 A represents the GC
profile of pure ethanol, Dashehari and Totapuri mango
wine where, the peak obtained at retention time (RT) of
3.90 min represents ethanol. The GC profile of S2 treated
Totapuri wine sample showed additional peak (RT7.98 min) which represents isobutyl alcohol (Fig. 3iii).
HPLC analysis
HPLC analysis of S1 and S2 treated Dashehari and Langra
wine was done for estimation of flavonoids and polyphenols. The HPLC profile of different wine showed a variety
of flavonoids and polyphenolic compounds represented by
their retention time (RT). The S1 treated Dashehari wine
comprised gallic acid (4.4 min), Ethyl propionate
(4.6 min), 2-furan methanol (4.99 min), methyl gallate
(5.21 min), n-Butyl acetate (7.72 min), Protocatechuic acid
(9.85 min), Ethyl valerate (10.21 min), p-Hydroxybenzoic
acid (11.78 min) (Fig. 3i). Gallic acid (3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid) is phytochemical considered as potential
functional food ingredient having high antioxidant properties (Sethiya et al. 2014). Ethyl propionate, 2-furan
methanol, methyl gallate, n-Butyl acetate, Ethyl valerate
J Food Sci Technol
Fig. 2 GC–MS chromatogram
of the i standard ethanol, ii
Dashehari and iii Totapuri
mango wine. Nucon gas
chromatograph instrument was
used with 5% Carbowax 20 m
glass column on Carbopack-B
80/120 mesh. 6 ft (2 m) 2
mmID1/4 mm, Detectot type:
UV
gives characteristic fruity odor, flavor and shows antimicrobial property. Protocatechuic acid (PCA) is phenolic
compound which exhibit antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti
inflammatory, antidiabetic, anticancer, analgesic, hepatoprotective, neurological and nephro-protective activities
(Kakkar and Bais 2014). p-Hydroxybenzoic acid shows
antioxidant, antibacterial and antifungal properties. The
phenolics present in fermented beverage can be extracted
and can serve as additives in food pharma and cosmetic
industries as previously reported in the mango seed extracts
mixed with palm stearin (Jahurul et al. 2014).
In contrary, S2 treated Dashehari wine comprised; gallic
acid (4.4 min), Galloyl-A-type procyanidin (5.2 min),
isopropyl alcohol (5.37 min), furanone (6.21 min), 2,2,6Trimethyl-6-vinyltetrahydropyran (8.91 min), Ethyl valerate (10.21 min), b-Pinene (11.47 min) and Caffeoyl-quinic
acid (12.15 min) (Fig. 3ii). Methyl gallate and Caffeoylquinic acid tannins derivatives have been found to have
123
J Food Sci Technol
Fig. 3 i HPLC chromatogram
of S1 treated Dashehari wine
showing individual flavonoid
and polyphenol peak at specific
retention time (RT). Peak 1
(4.4 min), Peak 2 (4.6 min),
Peak 3 (4.99 min), Peak 4
(5.21 min), Peak 7 (7.72 min),
Peak 9 (8.47 min), Peak 10
(10.21 min) and peak 12
(11.78 min). ii. HPLC
chromatogram of S 2 treated
Dashehari wine showing
individual flavonoid and
polyphenol peak at specific
retention time (RT). Peak 1
(4.4 min), Peak 2 (5.2 min),
Peak 4 (5.37 min), Peak 5
(6.21 min), Peak 9 (8.91 min),
Ethyl valerate (10.21 min),
Peak 12 (11.47 min), Peak 13
(12.15 min). iii. HPLC
chromatogram of S 1 treated
Langra wine showing individual
flavonoid, sugar and polyphenol
peak at specific retention time
(RT). Peak 1 (4.4 min), Peak 6
(7.19 min), Peak 7 (8.10 min),
Peak 8 (8.31 min), Peak 10
(10.12). iv. HPLC
chromatogram of S 2 treated
Langra wine showing individual
flavonoid, sugars and
polyphenol peak at specific
retention time (RT). Peak 1
(4.4 min), Peak 2 (4.67 min),
Peak 3 (4.89 min), Peak 4
(5.32 min), Peak 5 (5.90 min),
Peak 7 (8.04 min), Peak 8
(8.35 min), Peak 9 (8.8 min),
Peak 10 (10.14 min), Peak 11
(10.44 min) Peak 12
(11.44 min)
123
J Food Sci Technol
strong antioxidative properties (Okamura et al., 1993).
Galloyl-A-type procyanidin is responsible for astringency
when consumed (Naish et al., 1993). Caffeoyl-quinic acid
is responsible for acidity and prevents microbial growth in
wine. 2,2,6-Trimethyl-6-vinyltetrahydropyran also imparts
the antioxidant properties by inhibiting the oxidation of
hexanal. b-Pinene is monoterpene present in fruits and
performs wide range of pharmacological studies such as
antioxidants, antibiotic resistance modulation, anticoagulant, antitumour, antimicrobial, antimalarial, analgesic and
anti-inflamatory activities (Salehi et al., 2019).
S1 treated Langra wine comprised; gallic acid
(4.4 min), camphene (7.19 min), hexanal (8.10 min), isobutyl alcohol (8.31 min), Ethyl valerate (10.12) (Fig. 3iii).
Camphene is terpenoid, which provides cytoprotective,
antioxidant potential and prevents lungs inflammation
(Tiwari and Kakkar, 2009).
Similarly, S2 treated Langra wine comprised; gallic acid
(4.4 min), Ethyl propionate (4.67 min), galloyl glucose
(4.89 min), isopropyl alcohol (5.32 min), isobutyl acetate
(5.90 min), hexanal (8.04 min), isobutyl alcohol
(8.35 min),
2,2,6-Trimethyl-6-vinyltetrahydropyran
(8.8 min), citric acid (10.14 min), maltose (10.44 min)
tartaric acid (11.44 min) (Fig. 3iv). The polyphenols and
flavonoids attributed higher antioxidant properties in
mango wine. Similar antioxidant and functional attributes
were reported in pink guava products (Ooi et al. 2019).
Cost economics
In the present investigation, 580 mL of juice was extracted
from 1 kG of Dashehari mangoes. To produce 1 L of wine,
it requires 1305 mL of juice as after fermentation and
evaporation losses. It clearly deduced that approximately
2.25 kG mangoes are required to produce 1 L wine, where
the cost of raw material (mango) was Rs. 100/– as per the
market price. It is also worth mentioning that about 40% of
the raw material cost would be cost of processing including
recovery. Hence, 1 L of mango wine will cost approximately, Rs. 250/-. However, the actual cost of production
will be determined only after scale up.
Conclusion
As mangoes are grown widely as popular fruits, their use in
wine production would go a long way in contributing
considerably to the economy of not only Indian, but also
international mango producers. The quality of wine is
predominantly affected by chosen raw material and
inoculum type. In the present study, the local mango
variety of northern India (Dashehari) inoculated with
Saccharomyces cerevisae MTCC178, showed better
potential in wine making owing to its new physicochemical
and functional attributes and alcohol content. The postharvest loss of local variety during tropical climate is very
high; this study targeted the utilization of abundances to
minimize wastage. HPLC analysis of Dashehari wine
revealed the presence of flavonoids and polyphenols, which
can be beneficial in prevention of cancer, skin and cardiovascular diseases. Production can be further scaled up in
high capacity reactors for its commercialization as a
functional beverage.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to School of Biochemical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology BHU, Varanasi for providing GC and HPLC facility.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest between the
authors. The authors mutually agree to submit the manuscript in the
Journal of Food Science and Technology.
References
Akhtar S, Riaz M, Ahmad A, Nisar A (2010) Physico-chemical,
microbiological and sensory stability of chemically preserved
mango pulp. Pak J Bot 42:853–862
Chilaka CA, Uchechukwu N, Obidiegwu JE, Akpor OB (2010)
Evaluation of the efficiency of yeast isolates from palm wine in
diverse fruit wine production. Afr J Food Sci 4(12):764–774
Coulibely WH, N’guessan KF, Coulibaly I, Cot M, Rigou P, Djè KM
(2016) Influence of freeze-dried yeast starter cultures on volatile
compounds of tchapalo, a traditional sorghum beer from côte
d’Ivoire. Beverages 2(35):33–90
Dars AG, Hu K, Liu Q, Abbas A, Xie B, Sun Z (2019) Effect of
thermo-sonication and ultra-high pressure on the quality and
phenolic profile of mango juice. Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods8080298
Galanakis CM (2020) The food systems in the era of the coronavirus
(covid-19) pandemic crisis. Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods9040523
Gloria MBA, Silva PS, Labanca RA (2011) Functional potential of
tropical fruits with respect to free bioactive amines. Food Res Int
44:1264–1268
Jahurul MHA, Zaidul ISM, Norulaini NAN, Sahena F, Kamaruzzaman BY, Ghafoor K, Omar AKM (2014) Cocoa butter replacers
from blends of mango seed fat extracted bysupercritical carbon
dioxide and palm stearin. Food Res Int 65:401–406
Joshi V, Sharma S, Bhushan S (2005) Effect of method of preparation
and cultivar on the quality of strawberry wine. Acta Aliment
34:339–353. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/952943
Kakkar S, Bais S (2014) A review on protocatechuic acid and its
pharmacological potential. ISRN Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2014/952943
Kaleem M, Ahmad A, Ahmed Z, Shafiq H (2015) Therapeutic
potential of flavonoids and their mechanism of action against
microbial and viral infections: a review. Food Res Int
77(2):221–235
Kumar Rajendra, Patel MP, Bose US, Tripathi SK (2001) Physicochemical studies of some important mango varieties of Madhya
Pradesh. Crop Res 22:38–42
123
J Food Sci Technol
Maldonado-Celis ME, Yahia EM, Bedoya R, Landázuri P, Loango N,
Aguillón J, Restrepo B, Ospina JCG (2019) Chemical composition of mango (Mangifera indica L) fruit: nutritional and
phytochemical compounds. Front Plant Sci 23:9. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpls.2019.01073
Molina AM, Swiegers JH, Varela C, Pretorius IS, Agosin E (2007)
Influence of wine fermentation temperature on the synthesis of
yeast-derived volatile aroma compounds. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 77:675–687
Moreno AMV, Polo MC (2005) Winemaking biochemistry and
microbiology: current knowledge and future trends. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 45:265–286
Naish M, Clifford MN, Birch GG (1993) Sensory astringency of 5-Ocaffeoylquinic acid, tannic acid and grape-seed tannin by a timeintensity procedure. J Sci Food and Agricul 61:57–64
Okamura H, Mimura A, Yakou Y, Niwano M, Takahara Y (1993)
Antioxidant activity of tannins and flavonoids in Eucalyptus
rostrata. Phytochem 33:557–561
Ooi CW, Nagarajan J, Krishnamurthy NP, Nagasunda RR, Raghunandan ME, Galanakis CM (2019) A facile water-induced
complexation of lycopene and pectin from pink guava byproduct: Extraction, characterization and kinetic studies. Food
Chem 296:47–55
Palafox CH, Yahia E, González AG (2012) Identification and
quantification of major phenolic compounds from mango
(Mangifera indica cv. Ataulfo) fruit by HPLC–DAD–MS/MSESI and their individual contribution to the antioxidant activity
during ripening. Food Chem 135:105–111
Pierson JT, Curry MC, Shaw PN, Dietzgen RG, Gidley MJ, Roberts
TSJ, Monteith GR (2015) Polyphenolic contents and the effects
of methanol extracts from mango varieties on breast cancer cells.
Food Sci Biotechnol 24:265–271
Reddy L, Reddy O (2005) Production and characterization of wine
from mango fruit (Mangifera indica L). World J Microbiol
Biotechnol 21:1345–1350
123
Reddy LV, Reddy LP, Wee YJ, Reddy OVS (2011) Production and
characterization of wine with sugarcane piece immobilized yeast
biocatalyst. Food Bioprocess Technol 4:142–148
Salehi B, Upadhyay S, Orhan IE, Jugran AK, Jayaweera SLD, Dias
DA, Sharopov F, Taheri Y, Martins N, Baghalpour N, Cho WC,
Sharifi-Rad J (2019) Therapeutic potential of a- and b-pinene: a
miracle gift of nature. Biomolelues 9(11):738
Sethiya NK, Trivedi A, Mishra S (2014) The total antioxidant content
and radical scavenging investigation on 17 phytochemical from
dietary plant sources used globally as functional food. Biomed
Prev Nutr 4(3):439–444
Tiwari M, Kakkar P (2009) Plant derived antioxidants: geraniol and
camphene protect rat alveolar macrophages against t-BHP
induced oxidative stress. Toxicol In Vitro 23(2):295–301
Varakumar S, Kumar YS, Reddy OVS (2011) Carotenoid composition of mango (Mangifera indica L.) wine and its antioxidant
activity. J Food Bioch 35:1538–1547
Versari A, Ricc KJ, Olejar GP, Parpinello PA, Kilmartin A (2015)
Application of Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy
in the characterization of tannins. Appl Spect Rev
50(5):407–442
WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on
COVID-19—11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.
who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-openingremarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020.
Accessed 13 April 2020
Winner L (2004) Introduction to biostatistics. University of Florida,
Gainesville, pp 1–20
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.