@article{ajfst2020856,
author={{U.F, Muotolu and I.E, Mbaeyi-Nwaoha},
title={Quality Assessment of Formulated Table Wine from Blends of Starfruit (<i>Averrhoa carambola</i>) and Peter Mango (<i>Mangifera indica</i>) Fruits},
journal={American Journal of Food Science and Technology},
volume={8},
number={5},
pages={211--225},
year={2020},
url={http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajfst/8/5/6},
issn={2333-4835},
abstract={Table wine was produced from the juice of the starfruit and Peter mango. Fermentation of the juice lasted for 7days at 28ˇŔ2ˇăC. The juice samples were blended before fermentation (prefermented and coded as SMs) and other wine samples were obtained from individually fermented wine (postfermented and coded as SMp) at the ratio of starfruit to Peter mango 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40 and 50:50, aged for two weeks, bottled and corked. A commercial wine served as control. Sensory evaluation was carried out using a 9-point Hedonic Scale and the data were statistically analysed. The starfruit had 76.0% yield, 88.67% moisture, 9.33 ˇăBrix total soluble solid, pH 2.20, 1.99% pectin 0.003% methanol 0.0031 and titrable acid while the Peter mango had 53.0% yield, 62.53% moisture, 38.4 ˇăBrix total soluble solids, pH 3.90, pectin 4.26%, methanol 0.0376 % and titrable acidity 0.20%. The prefermented wine had decrease in alcohol from (8.10 - 7.33%), total soluble solids (4.00 - 17.90 ˇăBrix), titratable acidity (0.29 - 0.26), pectin (4.13 - 4.40%), methanol (0.0190 - 0.0201%) and pH (2.30 to 3.00). There were decreases in moisture (96.40 - 82.93%), protein (0.42 - 16.10%), ash (0.60 - 0.027%), fat (0.10 - 0.13%), carbohydrate (2.68 - 16.10%) and crude fiber was not detected. There were increases in provitamin A content (12.57 - 22.37mg/100ml), Vitamin B<SUB>1</SUB> (0.00260 - 0.0410mg/100m)l Vitamin C (11.76 - 14.00mg/100ml) and carotenoid (21.03 - 62.17mg/ml). There were increases in iron (0.009 - 0.06mg/ml), potassium (2.05 - 7.95mg/100ml) and decrease in magnesium content (2.10 - 0.83mg/100). The total viable count ranged from (1.0x10<SUP>1</SUP> to 2.8x10<SUP>1</SUP>cfu/ml) while mould count ranged from 0.4x10<SUP>1</SUP> to 1.7x10<SUP>1</SUP>cfu/ml. For the postfermented wine, alcohol content ranged from (8.70 - 11.70%), methanol (0.0199 - 0.0200 %) and decrease in pH from (3.50 - 3.33). There was decrease in moisture content 90.17 - 84.07%, protein 0.33 - 0.43%, ash 0.17 - 0.27% carbohydrate 8.91 - 15.10% and crude fiber not detected. There were decreases in the provitamin A content (44.23 - 19.27mg/100ml), vitamin B<SUB>1</SUB> (0.0290 - 0.0373mg/100ml), vitamin C (11.28 - 14.65m/100ml) and decrease in carotenoid content (63.30 - 30.07mg/100ml). There were increase in the iron content (0.005 - 0.01mg/100ml), potassium (3.11 - 9.84mg/100ml) and magnesium content (0.83 - 0.83mg/100ml). There was decrease in total viable count from 3.0x10<SUP>1 </SUP>- 2.3x10<SUP>1</SUP>cfu/ml and mould count (2.8 x10<SUP>1 </SUP>to 1.4 x10<SUP>1 </SUP>cfu/ml). The control sample was most preferred with highest score in colour (7.65) and flavor (6.50). The postfermented wine of the ratio 80:20 was more preferred by the panelists and had highest score in after taste (5.95) and overall acceptability (6.10). There were no significant (p>0.05) differences in most of the attributes because the formulated wines compared favourably with the control in taste, aftertaste, mouth feel and overall acceptability.},
doi={10.12691/ajfst-8-5-6}
publisher={Science and Education Publishing}
}