Introduction of Jahangir - a New Mandarin- Based on Elite Physicochemical and Organoleptic Properties of Fruits

علوم باغبانی

Article 6, Volume 35, Issue 3 - Serial Number 51, June 2021, Pages 383-398   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhs.2021.61812.0

Authors

Javad Fattahi Moghadam^{* 1}; Seyyedeh Elham Seyedghasemi¹; Tahereh Raiesi²

¹Citrus and Subtropical Fruits Research Center, Horticultural Science Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ramsar, Iran

²پژوهشکده مرکبات و میوه‌های نیمه‌گرمسیری، موسسه تحقیقات علوم باغبانی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، رامسر، ایران

Abstract

Introduction: The foreign and domestic markets are demanding for high quality citrus varieties. The physical and chemical properties of the newly released cultivars are also important for fresh market or processing. The fruit quality is a complex combination of size, firmness, taste, texture, pleasant aromas caused by a chemical compounds (soluble solid content, sugars, organic acids, aromas) and bioactive properties. Therefore, it is important to consider these indices for the introduction of a new cultivar. In this regard, the Citrus and Subtropical fruits Research Center has focused on improving its appearance, internal and organoleptic quality in releasing the new Jahangir cultivar compared to the Clementine as control.
Materials and Methods: In this study, Jahangir fruits a hybrid between Clementine mandarin (female parent) and Salustiana orange (male parent) (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tanaka × C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck cv. Salustiana) was used for comparison with Clementine (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex) Tanaka) as control during the last two years lead to the cultivar introduction. Fruits were randomly selected from different locatiosn on the tree (15 fruits from three trees) and evaluated at harvesting time (zero storage point). Then 30 fruits per box selected and placed in cold storage (5 °C, 85% RH). Different physico-biochemical and sensory characteristics of fruits were evaluated at 0, 20 and 40 days intervals during storage. Characteristics evaluation were including fruit lenght, width, thickness, arithmetic, geometric, equivalent and harmonic means, fruit aspect ratio, sphericity, surface area, true volume, apparent volume, volume error, density, peel and pulp firmness, peel thickness, weight, juice percentage, seed number, peel color indices (L*, a*, b*, hue angle, chroma and CCI), total soluble solid (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), technological index (TI), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total phenol, ascorbic acid and antioxidant capacity during experiment.
Results and Discussion: Results showed that fruit size (length and two diameters), weight, means of arithmetic, geometric, equivalent and harmonic diameters, surface area and true volume of Jahangir mandarin were significantly higher than Clementine. The different mean diameters of each cultivar was the same as that equivalent diameter that is the most real mean fruit diameter. The higher spherical coefficient (>1) also indicated that Jahangir fruit was longer than the control. Additionally, aspect ratio of Jahangir was also higher than Clementine, which means that Jahangir fruit was a few flat than control. Jahangir had higher levels of L*, b*, C and hue than the control of clementine. In contrast, Jahangir's a* and CCI indices were lower than those of clementine. Therefore, except for L* which is slightly lower than citrus standard (65-70), other indices in both cultivars were conformity within the citrus standard range. Seeds of Jahangir were more than control but both were in the mid seed group (9-15 seeds) of citrus. Jahangir peel was also less easily peeled than control. The weight loss of Jahangir fruit was significantly (almost half) lower than that of clementine at each sampling but increased during storage. It seems Jahangir has a peel with higher density and adhesion than to clementine, which partly prevents the fruit from dehydration. The amount of TSS of fruit juice was higher than that of clementine at harvest and storage but increased in both cultivars during storage. In addition, TA (0.34%) was lower in Jahangir fruit than Clementine (0.45%). Therefore, the ratio of TSS to TA was much higher in Jahangir mandarin (44.25) than clementine (26.16). Juice percentage of Jahangir fruit (44.87%) was significantly higher than Clementine (40.12%). The high percentage of Jahangir fruit juice is a positive trait for this cultivar. Technology index changed depending on cultivar and also during storage. This index was higher in Jahangir fruit than in Clementine with 6.45 and 4.67, respectively. The antioxidant capacity only affected significantly by storage time which showed a decreasing trend during storage. Ascorbic acid content was only affected by cultivar and was higher in control than Jahangir. Lower levels of ascorbic acid in the Jahangir may be due to increased respiration that results in the elimination of ascorbic acid. The phenolic content of Jahangir fruit was higher (0.43 mg/g) than clementine (0.4 mg/g). PCA analysis showed that most of the Jahangir samples placed in the left part of the PCA graph which were dominated by the traits such as taste, sweetness, good peel and pulp appearance and overall acceptance and were more accepted by the sensory evaluators.
Conclusion: In this study, different qualitative characteristics of Jahangir fruit compared to Clementine which are important for the producers. Accordingly, the Jahangir fruit was larger in size but slightly flatter than the Clementine fruit. Jahangir fruit peel color indices were within the standard range of citrus fruits. Jahangir fruit is favored among commercial available mandarins due to ease of peeling, high juice percentage, technology index, vitamin C, phenol and antioxidant capacity. It also had better storability than Clementine because of less water loss and decline of organoleptic properties.

Keywords

Cultivar release; Fruit quality; Nutrition value; Storability

References

1. Abdullah M.H.R.O., Chng P.E., and Yunus N.A. 2012. Some physical properties of Musk Lime (Citrus microcarpa). International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering 6: 1122- 1125.
2. Aghajanpour S., Ghasemnejad M.A., and Faghih-Nasiri M. 2011. Hesperidin and naringin amounts of mandarin fruits affected by rootstock and variety, Master thesis, Saveh Azad University. (In Persian with English abstract)
3. Alferez F. 2005. Low relative humidity at harvest and before storage at high humidity influence the severity of postharvest peel pitting in citrus. Horticultural Science 130(2): 225–231.
4. Bons H.K., Kaur N., and Rattanpal H.S. 2015. Quality and quantity improvement of citrus: role of plant growth regulators. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology 8(2): 433-447.
5. Bor J.Y., Chen H.Y., and Yen G.C. 2006. Evaluation of antioxidant activity and inhibitory effect on nitric oxide production of some common vegetables. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 54: 1680- 1686.
6. Brand-Williams W., Cuvelier M.E., and Berset C. 1995. Use of free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. Lebens Wissen and Technology 28: 25-30.
7. Chahidi B., El-Otmani M., Luro F., Srairi I., and Tijane M. 2007. Fruit quality characterization of seven clementine cultivars. Journal of Applied Horticulture 9(2):162-166.
8. ‎Dou H., and Gmitter F. 2007. Postharvest quality and acceptance of LB8-9 mandarin as a new ‎fresh fruit cultivar. HortTechnology 17(1): 72-77. ‎
9. Faasema J., Abu J.O., and Alakali J.S. 2011. Effect of packaging and storage condition on the quality of sweet orange (Citrus cinesis). Journal of Agricultural Technology 7(3): 797-804.
10. ‎ 2017. Citrus fruit fresh and processed annual statistics. Commodities and Trade Division, FAO of the ‎UN, Rome.‎
11. Fatahi J., Hamidoghli Y., Fotouhi R., Ghasemnejad M., and Bakhshi D. 2011. Assessment of fruit quality and antioxidant activity of three citrus species during ripening. South Western Journal of Horticulture, Biology and Environment 2(2): 113-128.
12. Fatahi Moghadam J., Seyed Ghasemi S.E., and Madani S. 2017. The effect of five rootstocks on physical, mechanical and chemical characteristics of 'Yashar' fruits -a new mandarin- during ripening stages. Journal of Plant Production Research 24(2): 109-123. (In Persian with English abstract)
13. Fatahi Moghadam J., Seyed Ghasemi S.E., and MohamadAlyan Y. 2017. Effect of rootstock on fruit quality of yashar mandarin at harvest time and during storage. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 18(2): 177-194. (In Persian with English abstract)
14. Fatahi Moghadam J., Seyed Ghasemi S.E., and Najafi K. 2018. Evaluation of fruit physico-chemical characteristics of new mandarins Noushin (Citrus reticulata Noushin) and Shahin (Citrus reticulata cv. Shahin) during different harvesting times. The Plant Production (Scientific Journal of Agriculture) 40(4): 77-91. (In Persian with English abstract)
15. Hassan Z.H., Lesmayati S., Qomariah R., and Hasbianto A. 2014. Effects of wax coating applications and storage temperatures on the quality of tangerine citrus (Citrus reticulata) var. Siam Banjar. International Food Research Journal 21(2): 641-648.
16. Herath H.M.D., Chadrajith V.G.G., and Ranaweera K.K.D.S. 2018. Evaluation and comparison of the physicochemical properties of different varieties of citrus species. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition 3(3): 29-34.
17. Iqbal M., Khan M.N., Zafar M., and Munir M. 2012. Effect of harvesting date on fruit size, fruit weight and total soluble solids of feutrell’s early and kinnow cultivars of Mardan (Citrus Reticulata) on the economic conditions of farming community of Faisalabad. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 28(1): 19-21.
18. Jahangirzadeh E., Rastegar H., Hayatbakhsh E., and Mohamad-Aliyan Y. 2009: Selection from F1 ‎progenies hybrid of sweet orange ×‎‏ ‏clementine and evaluation of their clematical adaptation in North ‎and South of Iran (second stage). Final report of project. Agricultural Research, Education and ‎Extension Organization, Iran Citrus Research Institute 47-17-17-93103. (In Persian with English abstract)
19. Jimenez C.M., Cuquerella J., and Martinez-Javaga J.M. 1981. Determination of a color index for citrus ‎fruit degreening. Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture 2: 750-753. ‎
20. Julhia L., Belmin R., Meynard J.M., Pailly O., and Casabianca F. 2019. Acidity drop and coloration in clementine: implications for fruit quality and harvesting practices. Front. Plant Science 10:754.
21. Kader A.A. 2008. Flavor quality of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 88:1863–1868.
22. ‎Khan I.A., and Kender W.J. 2007. Citrus breeding: Introduction and objectives. In: Khan IA (ed).‎ Citrus genetics, breeding and biotechnology. CAB int. Oxf. Pp 1-8.‎
23. Kluge R.A., Luiza M., Jomori L., Jacomino A.P., Carolina M., Vitti D., and Padula M. 2003. Intermittent warming in ‘Tahiti’ lime treated with an ethylene Inhibitor. Postharvest Biology and Technology 29: 195-203.
24. Ladaniya M.S. 2008. Fruit quality control, evaluation, and analysis. Citrus Fruit 19: 475-499.
25. Marcilla A., Martinez M., Carot J.M., Palou L., and del Rio M.A. 2009. Relationship between sensory and physico-chemical quality parameters of cold stored ‘Clemenules’ mandarins coated with two commercial waxes. Spanish Journal Agriculture Research 7: 181–189.
26. Mayuoni L., Tietel Z., Patil B.S., and Porat R. 2011. Does ethylene degreening affect internal quality of citrus fruit? Postharvest Biology and Technology 62: 50–58.
27. Meyers K.J., Watkins C.B., Pritts M.P., and Liu R.H. 2003. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of strawberries. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 6887-6892.
28. Naczk M., and Shahidi F. 2006. Phenolics in cereals, fruits and vegetables: occurrence, extraction and analysis. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 41: 1523-1542.
29. Ojha P., Bahadur Karki T., and Sitaula R. 2016. Physio-chemical and functional quality evaluation of mandarin peel powder, Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 18: 575-582.
30. Phisut N., Rattanawedee M., and Aekkasak H. 2013. Effect of osmotic dehydration process on the physical, chemical and sensory properties of osmo-dried cantaloupe. International Food Research Journal 20(1): 189196.
31. Rokaya P.R., Baral D.R., Gautam D.M., Shrestha A.K., and Paudyal K.P. 2016. Effect of ‎postharvest treatments on quality and shelf life of mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco). American ‎Journal of Plant Sciences 7: 1098-1105.‎
32. Shimada T., Fuiii H., Endo T., Yazaki J., Kishimoto N., and Shimbo K. 2005. Toward comprehensive expression profiling by microarray analysis in citrus: monitoring the expression profiles of 2213 genes during fruit development. Plant Science 168: 1383–1385.
33. Stitou M., Fadli A., Chetto O., Talha A., Benkirane R., and Benyahia H. 2017. Fruit quality analysis in four new mandarin hybrids during maturation period. Annual Research & Review in Biology 18(6): 1-10.
34. Tadeo F.R., Cercós M., Colmenero-Flores J.M., Iglesias D.J., Naranjo M.A., and Ríos G. 2008. Molecular physiology of development and quality of citrus. Advances in Botanical Research, 47: 147–223.
35. Tietel Z., Plotto A., Fallik E., Lewinsohn E., and Porat R. 2010. Taste and aroma of fresh and stored mandarins. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 91: 14-23.
36. Wern K.H., Haron H., and Keng C.B. 2016. Somparison of total phenolic contents (TPC) and antioxidant activities of fresh fruit juices, commercial 100% fruit juices and fruit drinks. Sains Malaysiana 45(9): 1319–1327.
37. Xu G., Liu D., Chen J., Ye X., Maa Y., and Shi J. 2008. Juice components and antioxidant capacity of citrus varieties cultivated in China. Food Chemistry 106(2): 545-551.
38. Zhang H. 2007. Electrical properties of foods. USA. 1:485.