Title

Comparative Analysis of Nutritional Composition of Two mango peels varieties (Peter mango

and Sherrie Mango)

Abstract

Mango (Mangifera indica) belongs to the family Anacardiaceae, it’s a popular fruit worldwide
due to its sweet taste and high nutrient content. Two Mangoes Varieties namely; Sherie Mango
and Peter Mango were collected and experiment was carried out, to compare and analyse their
nutritional contents. The proximate compositions present in these varieties of mango. The result
of the analysis was found to be; Peter Mango has 2.08 %,2.43 %,7.74 %,11.07 %,65.42 %, and
11.40 % of protein, lipid, ash, fibre, moisture, and carbohydrate. While that of Sherie Mango
having 1.99 %, .34 %,6.50 %,8.89 %,68.31 %, and 12.94 % respectively. The macro and micro
minerals, including calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and copper
(Cu), using atomic absorption spectrophotometry and titration methods. Results showed that the
Julie variety is particularly rich in iron (8.40 ± 1.05 mg/l), while the Sherry variety contains
higher levels of magnesium (10.5 ± 5.09 mg/l) and manganese (0.37 ± 0.012 mg/l). Both
varieties were found to contain lead, with values of 0.60 ± 0.056 mg/l and 0.50 ± 0.006 m ing/l
for Sherry and Julie, respectively. The vitamin A content was assessed using a mixture of
acetone and low boiling petroleum ether, followed by UV/visible spectrophotometry. Vitamin C
was extracted with 20% aqueous ethanol and titrated with iodine solution. For vitamin E, the
sample was dissolved in n-hexane, centrifuged, and analyzed spectrophotometrically after
reacting with alcoholic KOH and iron (III) chloride. The results indicated that the Sherry
variety contained significantly higher levels of vitamin A (18.24 ± 0.26 mg) and vitamin C (0.13
± 0.001 mg) compared to the Peter variety, which showed a slightly higher vitamin E content
(1.25 ± 0.006 mg).
INTRODUCTION

Mango is a fruit belongs to the genus Mangifera indica, consisting of numerous species of

tropical fruiting trees in the flowering plant family Anacardiaceace followed by banana,

pineapple, papaya and avocado (Sarkiyayi et al., 2014). Mangifera indica is the most

economically important fruit in the Anacardiaceae family. The genus Mangifera contains several

species that bear edible fruits. Mango is considered as one of the most delicious fruits in

Ethiopia. Its harvesting time is between January and May, which is in the dry season (Sompong

and Pirote, 2009). It is also known as the "king of fruit," since it acts as an antioxidant but low in

calories and high in vitamins and minerals, mangoes make for a nutritious (Shobana and

Rajalakshmi, 2010).

The global distribution of mango cultivation is largely concentrated in tropical and subtropical

regions, where the climate is conducive to the growth of mango trees. Mangoes thrive in warm,

frost-free climates with well-drained soils. The fruit requires a distinct dry season to induce

flowering, followed by a wet season to support fruit development. Mangoes are typically grown

in regions with an annual temperature range of 24-30°C and an altitude of up to 1,200 meters

above sea level. While the fruit is generally tolerant of drought conditions, prolonged periods of

drought can negatively impact fruit quality and yield. Mango is highly regarded not only for its

taste but also for its rich nutritional profile. The fruit is an excellent source of essential vitamins,

minerals, and dietary fiber, making it a valuable addition to a healthy diet (Parmar et al., 2010).

The mango mainly constitutes pulp 33-70% followed by kernel 7-24% and peel 15-20% of the

total fruit weight. The fleshy fruit is eaten ripe or used green for pickles and other dishes and is a

rich source of Vitamins A, C and D. Mangoes also contains essential vitamins and dietary

minerals such as vitamins A, B, B6, C, E and K and essential nutrients such as potassium, copper
and 17 amino acids in good levels (Ilesanmi et al., 2011). The fruit flesh of a ripe mango

contains about 15% sugar, up to 1% protein. Mango has antioxidant, anticancer and anti-

cardiovascular abilities. Because of the high iron content, they are suggested for treatment of

anemia and are beneficial to women during pregnancy and menstruation. Mangoes contain an

enzyme with stomach soothing properties similar to pepsin. This comforting enzyme helps in

digestion (Ijaz Ahmad et al., 2011).

The ripe fruit is variable in size and colour, and may be yellow, orange, red or green when ripe,

depending on the cultivar. When ripe, the unpeeled fruit gives off a distinctive resinous sweet

smell. In its centre is a single flat oblong seed that can be fibrous or hairy on the surface,

depending on the cultivar. Inside the seed coat 1-2mm thick is a thin lining covering a single

embryo, 4-7cm long, 3-4cm wide, and 1cm thick (Fowomola, 2009). The process of classifying

mangoes generally relies on its physical characteristics. This process is presently done using

manual labour and is greatly dependent on the human visual system. Uniformity in the

classification process is important so that its output is guaranteed to satisfy the requirements for

exporting mangoes (Tomas, 2014).

Research Questions

1. What are the differences in proximate composition (moisture, ash, protein, fat, carbohydrates)

between Peter and Sherrie mango varieties?

2. How do the vitamin C and A contents vary between Peter and Sherrie mango varieties?

3. What are the differences in mineral content (potassium, magnesium, calcium) between Peter

and Sherrie mango varieties?

Objectives of the Research

  to evaluate the proximate composition (ash, moisture, crude lipid, crude protein, crude

fibre, and carbohydrate) of peels of two mango varieties (Sheri Mango, and Peter

Mango).

 To determine the vitamin A (β-carotene), vitamin C (Ascorbic acids) and vitamin E

(Tocopherol) composition of the two mango varieties (peter and sherry)

 to determine the mineral elements (calcium, magnesium and iron, manganese, lead, and

copper) of peels of two mango varieties (Sherri and Julie).

 To quantify the levels of selected macro minerals (Mg, Ca,) and micro minerals (Fe, Mn,

Pb and Cu) in residues of julie and sherry mango varieties.

Significance of the Research

There is an increasing attention by scientist and researchers for the development of novel dietary

approaches to combat various physiological threats in the vulnerable segment due to the growing

world nutritional problems. Fruits and vegetables-based nutraceuticals and functional foods have

the potentials to alleviate the dietary challenges of target population owing to their natural

therapeutic capacities against terminal degenerative disease. So, this study was done to evaluate

the varietal difference on proximate composition of a peels of some selected mango varieties.

Materials and Methodology

Mango Varieties

Mango (Mangifera indica L.), is a tropical evergreen(deciduous) tree which produces green fruits

when unripe but green to light green or yellowish to reddish (sweet, juicy and succulent) fruits

when ripe (Seifu, 2010). Mangifera indica is the most economically important fruit in the

Anacardiaceae family (Seifu, 2010). The genus Mangifera contains several species that bear

edible fruits. Most of the fruit trees that are commonly known as mangos belong to the species
Mangifera indica L. There are other edible Mangifera species that generally have lower quality

fruits that are commonly referred to as wild mangos (Bally, 2006).

Peter Mango

Peter is also known as jane or binta sugar in hausa, it’s a variety of mango that is known for its

sweet and creamy flavour. It has a high moisture content which makes it more susceptible to

spoilage. It is large in size, orange in colour, sour when unripe.

Sherrie Mango

Sheri mango is also known as a Cherie, sherry or cherry. The Sheri mango has the shape of an

ellipse; it also has a green epicarp with a fleshy orange or dark yellow endocarp. It is as well

famous for its spicy rich taste which leaves an aftermath taste of turpentine. This mango Can be

harvested around February. Most people are of the belief that the Sheri mango might be exactly

the same things as the Alphonso found in India, that is famous for being sent alongside gifts for

kings and royalties, and love letters between loved ones.

Sampling Methods

Samples Collection

Two different varieties of mangoes (Sheri and Peter) were purchased from Gangaren Tashar

Illela, Sokoto north local government area, Sokoto. They were thereafter transported to the

Sokoto State University for processing into peel flour and packaged adequately under

refrigerated condition until required for analysis.

Samples Preparation

The mango peels were removed from the back of the mango using sharp knife, they were dried

via open air drying, at a duration of (48 hours)

Nutritional Analysis
1. Proximate Analysis

Samples were subjected to proximate analysis for the determination of total moisture, crude fat,

crude fibre, ash, crude protein, and carbohydrate which were carried out using standard method

of AOAC (2000).

Determination of Moisture Contents

Procedure

 A clean crucible was washed and dried to a constant weight in an air oven at 105⁰C.

 It was cooled in a desiccator and weight to get W2

 2g of the sample was weighed and put in a crucible and record as W2

 It was dried in the oven at 105⁰C for 8hours

 The crucible was cooled in a desiccator and weight as W3

 The procedure was repeated until a constant weight is obtained

Calculation

Moisture contents is calculated as

W 2−W 3
% moisture = X 100
W 2−W 1

Where,

W1 = weight of an empty crucible

W2 = weight of the crucible and sample before drying

W3 = weight of the crucible and sample after drying

Determination of Ash Content

Procedure

 A clean crucible was washed and dried to a constant weight in an air oven at 105⁰C.

 It was cooled in a desiccator and weight to get W1

  2g of the sample was weighed and put in a crucible and record as W2

 The chord sample was placed in the muffle furnace at 550⁰ C for 8hours

 It was cooled in a desiccator and weight to obtain W3

Calculation

W 3−W 1
% Ash contents= X 100
W 2−W 1

Where;

W1= weight of the empty crucible

W2 = weight of the sample and the crucible

W3 = weight of the sample and crucible after incineration.

Determination of Crude Fibre

Procedure

 2g of sample was weighed and put into a round- bottom flask, 100ml/cm³ of Sulphuric

acid was added to the mixture.

 The round bottom flask was placed on a heating mantle and apply heat. The mixture was

allowed to boil for 30minutes.

 The insoluble matter in the hot solution was transferred to Muslim cloth and washed

several times with hot water until it become acid- free

 The washed insoluble matter was transferred back to the round bottom flask

 100cm³/ml of 0.312M of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) solution was added and boiled for

30minutes.

 The insoluble residue was washed with boiling water until it is alkaline free

 The insoluble residue was put into the crucible and dried in an incubator at 105 oC and

weight to obtain C1.

  The insoluble matter was transferred into an oven and dried to a constant weight to have

C2.

Calculation

C 2−C 1
% Crude fibre = X 100
W1

Where;

W1= weight of the sample

C1= weight of the crucible and the sample after drying

C2= weight of the sample and crucible after ashing

Determination of Lipid Content

Procedure

 200 cm³ of N-hexane or petroleum ether was dispensed into a cleaned, dried round

bottom flask fitted with soxhlet extraction unit and some anti-bumping granules to it.

 2g of sample was weighed into a thimble to get W1

 The thimble was fixed into the soxhlet extractor unit with forceps and connect to cold

water circulation.

 The heating mantle was switched and adjust temperature between 40 ⁰C - 60 ⁰C, out

extraction for 8hours and switch off the heating mantle.

 The thimble was removed and dried to a constant weight in an oven at 70 ⁰C and reweigh

to get W2.

Calculation

Weight of Lipid extracted

% Crude lipid = X 100
Direct Sample

Determination of Protein Contents

Procedure

 Sample Preparation: 2 g of the sample was weighed and transferred it into Kjeldhal flask

 Digestion: 25 ml of Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) was added, 1-2 g of Potassium sulfate

(K2SO4) to the flask was also added’

 The mixture was heated until the sample completely dissolved and the solution become

clear

 Cooling: The mixture was allowed to cool

 Neutralization: 50 ml of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was added slowly to the

flask while stirring

 Steam distillation: The flask was connected to steam distillation apparatus and distilled

until all ammonia is removed

 Collection: The distillate was collected in a receiver containing 50ml of 4% boric acid

solution and 3-4 drops of methyl red indicator

 Titration: The distillate was titrated with 0.1N hydrochloric acid (HCl) until the colour

changes from green to yellow

Calculation

Volume of HCL+ Normality of HCL x 1.401

% Protein Content =
Weight of Sample

Determination of Carbohydrate Contents

% Carbohydrate = % Moisture + % Ash Content + % Lipid + % Crude Fibre + % Protein - 100

2. Vitamins Analysis

Procedure for Vitamin A Content

10g of the sample was weighed and poured in a clean and dried 250ml conical flask, 50ml of a

mixture of acetone and low boiling petroleum ether (1:1 v/v) was added to the sample. The
mixture was shaken vigorously for 3hrs using a shaker, it was then cooled and filtered, and then

the volume of extracted sample was taken. 2ml of trichloroacetic acid (TCA) was added and the

absorption obtained using UV/ visible spectrophotometer at 390nm wavelength. However,

acetone and diethylether was used as blank.

Calculations:

|of |Sample X Volume of Extracted sample X dilution factor

Concentration of vitamin A =
Volume of cuvette X Volume of sample used

Procedure for Vitamin C Contents

5g of the sample was weighed and poured into a cleaned and dried 250ml conical flask, 100ml of

20% aqueous ethanol was added to the sample. It was then soaked for three minutes, it was

shaken vigorously and left overnight. The sample mixture was filtered with a Whatman filter

paper, the filtrate (50ml) was measured into another clean conical flask. 10ml of concentrated

sulfuric acid was added, then 20drops of 1%starch was added as indicator. The sample mixture

was then titrated with 0.05N of iodine solution until a blue black colour was observed.

Calculations:

TitreValue X 0.00886 X N X 1000

Concentration of vitamin C =
Volume of sample used

Procedure for Vitamin E Contents

1g of the sample was weighed and poured into a cleaned and dried 250ml test tubes, it was

dissolved with 20ml of n-Hexane then centrifuged for 20minutes. The solution was filtered. 3ml

of the filtrate was transferred into dry test tubes in duplicate, it was evaporated to dryness in

boiling water bath. 2ml of 0.5N of alcoholic KOH was added and boiled for 30minutes in a water

bath. 3ml of n-Hexane was added and was shaken vigorously; the n-Hexane was transferred into

another set of test tubes and evaporated to dryness. A volume, 2ml of ethanol was added to the
residue, another 1ml of 0.2% of FeCl 3 in ethanol was added. Then 1ml of 0.5% α’α’-dipyridyl in

ethanol was added followed by the addition of 1ml of ethanol to make it up to 5ml. The solution

was mixed and the absorbance was taken at 520nm against blank.

Calculations:

|of |Sample X Conc of Standard

Concentration of Vitamin E =
|of | Standard

3. Minerals Analysis

Sample Digestion

The Sherri and Peter mango varieties was air dried and grounded into a fine powder, and stored

into containers. The digestion o the samples was carried out by dry digestion method. 2g of dried

sample were transferred into different digested tubes, 20ml of nitric acid was added into each test

tube followed by 10ml of per chloric acid, the mixture was allowed to stand for 24hours. After

24 hours, the digestive tube was connected to digestive furnace and heated to 300oc for about 3

hours. When about 10ml of the mixture remain, the digestive furnace was turn off in the mixture

and it was allowed to cool and diluted to 100ml using the ionize water in 100ml volumetric flask.

Analysis of mineral contents

2g of the powdered sample were used and the determination of the levels of inorganic minerals

of sherry and Julie mango fruits was carried out by acid digestion using nitric acid and per

chloric acid mixture (HNO:HCIO, 5:1 w/v).

The total amounts of calcium, magnesium, manganese, lead, copper, and iron in digested

samples were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AA-6000 model).

Determination of Calcium (E. D. T. A titration method)

Procedure
  1ml of diluted sample was pipetted into a titration flask and was diluted with 19ml of

distilled water to make it 20ml.

 1ml of 10 NaOH, 3 drops of potassium cyanide solution, 3 drop of hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, 3 drops of trienthanol amine and tip of murexide indicator were added.

 The solution was shaken and the color of the solution changed from colorless to pink.

 The solution was then titrated against 0.01M E.D.T.A to get the end point at which the

color changed to purple.

 The titre value for calcium was then recorded.

Calculations;

calcium = TV X NA X 1000/ml of aliquot

Where;

TV = Titre value,

NA = Normality of E.D.T.A

Determination of Magnesium (E.D.T.A Titration Method)

 1ml of the diluted sample was pipette into a titration flask and was diluted with 10ml of

distilled water to make it 20ml.

 1ml of 10 NaOH, 3drops of potassium cyanide solution, 3 drops of hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, 3 drops of triethanol amine and tip of murexide indicator were added.

 The solution was shaken and the color of the solution changed from colorless to pink.

 The solution was then titrated against 0.01M E.D.T.A to get the end point at which the

color changed to purple.

 The titre value for magnesium was then recorded.

Calculations;
The concentration of magnesium in the sample was thus calculated using this formula;

magnesium = TV X NA X 100/ml of aliquot

Where,

TV = Titre value

NA = Normality of E.D.T.A

Determination of Manganese (E.D.T.A Titration Method)

 1ml of the diluted sample was pipette into a titration flask and was diluted with 10ml of

distilled water to make it 20ml.

 1ml of 10 NaOH, 3drops of potassium cyanide solution, 3 drops of hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, 3 drops of triethanol amine and tip of murexide indicator were added.

 The solution was shaken and the color of the solution changed from colorless to pale

pink.

 The solution was then titrated against 0.01M E.D.T.A to get the end point at which the

color changed to purple.

 The titre value for manganese was then recorded.

Calculations;

The concentration of manganese in the sample was thus calculated using this formula;

manganese = TV X NA X 100/ml of aliquot

Where,

TV = Titre value

NA = Normality of E.D.T.A

Determination of Lead (E.D.T.A Titration Method)

  1ml of diluted sample was pipetted into a titration flask and was diluted with 15ml of

distilled water to make it 20ml.

 1ml of 10 NaOH, 3 drops of potassium cyanide solution, 3 drop of hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, 3 drops of trienthanol amine and tip of murexide indicator were added.

 The solution was shaken and the color of the solution changed from colorless to dark

grey.

 The solution was then titrated against 0.01M E.D.T.A to get the end point at which the

color changed to purple.

 The titre value for lead was then recorded.

Calculations;

lead = TV X NA X 1000/ml of aliquot

Where;

TV = Titre value,

NA = Normality of E.D.T.A

Determination of Copper (E.D.T.A Titration Method)

 1ml of diluted sample was pipetted into a titration flask and was diluted with 10ml of

distilled water to make it 20ml, and Digest the sample in nitric acid.

 1ml of 10 NaOH, 3 drops of potassium cyanide solution, 3 drop of hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, 3 drops of trienthanol amine and tip of murexide indicator were added.

 The solution was shaken and the color of the solution changed from colorless to dark

grey, and Prepare a series of copper standard solutions

 The solution was then titrated against 0.01M E.D.T.A to get the end point at which the

color changed to purple.

  The titre value for copper was then recorded.

Calculations;

copper = TV X NA X 1000/ml of aliquot

Where;

TV = Titre value,

NA = Normality of E.D.T.A

Statistical Analysis

The result was analyze using ANOVA or t-test to determine the significance difference between

the two varieties.

All the value was expressed mean± standard error of mean (SEM)

Results

Proximates Analysis

The result of the proximate compositions of mango peels of the two varieties (Sheri and Peter)

are shown in Table 1.

Table 4.0 Proximate composition of the peels of two mango varieties

Samples Moisture % Ash % Crude fibre Crude lipid Protein % Carbohydrate %

% %

Peter 65.42a0.79 7.74a0.13 11.07a0.35 2.43a0.21 2.080.03 11.40a0.96

Sheri 68.31a0.36 6.50a0.26 8.89a0.36 1.34a0.15 1.990.02 12.94a0.24

Legends:

a = the significance difference on the two varieties

= Mean and Standard Error Mean

Sample size: 3
P value:< o.o5

Vitamins Analysis

Results of Vitamins Contents of Two Mango Variety (Peter and Sherry)

Table 4.1: vitamins content of two mango variety (peter and sherry)

Sample Vitamin A Vitamin C Vitamin E

Peter 15.39 ± 0.23a 0.12 ± 0.003 1.25 ± 0.006a

Sherry 18.24 ± 0.26b 0.13 ± 0.001 1.18 ± 0.01b

Values are represented as Mean ± SEM of three replicates, mean values followed by different

letters in the same column differs significantly (P 0.05).

Minerals Analysis

The table below showed the results of minerals composition on peels of Julie and sherry mango

variety.

Table 4.1; Mineral contents of two mango varieties

Parameters Sherry Julie

Calcium (Ca)(mg/l) 2.10, 0.20 3.04, 0.20

Magnesium (Mg)(mg/l) 10.5, 5.09 8.40, 1.04

Iron (Fe) (mg/l) 0.6, .003 8.40, 1.05

Manganese (Mn) 0.37, 0.012 0.10, 0.29

Copper (Cu) 0.13, 0.23 0.03, 0.006

Lead (Pb) 0.60, 0.056 0.50, 0.006

The data were represented as Mean, SEM.

Discussions
The proximate composition of Peter and Sherie mango peels revealed significant difference in

their nutritional profile. The Ash contents, which represents the mineral contents was high in

Peter Mango peels (7.74%) compared to Sherie Mango peels (6.50%). This suggest that peter

mango may be a better source of minerals. The results of the present investigation are in

accordance with the previous findings of Ajila et al., who reported 1.16-3.0%. Ashoush et al.,

also estimated the ash, fat, protein and crude fibre contents of mango peel powder to be 3.88.

The variations in the proximate composition of different mango peel samples may likely be due

to varietal differences, climatic conditions, topographic locations and agronomic practices.

The Protein content was similar in both was similar in both varieties with Peter Mango peels

containing (2.08 %) and Sherie Mango peels containing (1.99 %). However, Crude Lipid was

significantly high in Peter Mango peels containing (2.43 %) compared to Sherie Mango peels

containing (1.34 %). This may suggest that Peter Mango are more suitable for applications

requiring lipids contents. The results of the present investigation are in accordance with the

previous findings of Ajila et al., who reported 1,76 % and 2.16 % respectively.

The Crude Fibre contents was high in Peter Mango peels (11.07 %) compared to Sherie Mango

peels (8.89 %). This may suggest that Peter Mango peels may be a better source of dietry fibre,

high fibre contents in a food’s substance provide several benefits including; promotes digestive

health, support healthy blood sugar level, aids in weight managements, lower cholesterol level,

e.t.c.

The Moisture content was high in Sherie Mango peels (68.31 %) compared to Peter Mango peels

(65.24 %), which may affect the shelf life and storage of the peels. Moisture contents represent

the water contents of a foods sample, it increases the texture and appearance of a particular food

product, it’s also leads to microbial growth, e.t.c. The results of the present investigation are in
accordance with the previous findings of Ajila et al. 2007, who reported moisture contents of

66.75%.

The Carbohydrate content was high in Sherie Mango (12.94 %), compared to Peter Mango

(11.40 %). This may indicate that Sherie Mango peels are more suitable for applications

requiring a higher carbohydrate content. Its indicates that it has high energy sources and also has

several used in food applications. It has disadvantage of having high glycemic index, digestive

issues, e.t.c. Ajila et al., 2007 also reported carbohydrate as 1.16 %- 3.0 %. Ashoush et al., also

estimated the carbohydrates as7.79 %. The variations in the proximate composition of different

mango peel samples may likely be due to varietal differences, climatic conditions, topographic

locations and agronomic practices. The high nutrient content of mango peels may support the use

of mango peel flour for food enrichment in other to increase the nutritional quality of food

products, especially cereal foods. Dietary phytonutrients are known to provide protection against

various metabolic conditions and as a consequence, improve the overall health status of

individuals

The results of the vitamin analysis of two mango varieties (Peter and Sherry) show notable

differences in the content of vitamins A, C, and E, all of which are essential for human health.

Sherry mango had a higher concentration of vitamin A (18.24 ± 0.26 mg/100g) compared to

Peter mango (15.39 ± 0.23 mg/100g), indicating that Sherry might be more beneficial for

supporting vision and immune function. This difference in vitamin A content aligns with the

findings of Lakshmi et al. (2019), who reported that different mango cultivars exhibit variable

levels of vitamins due to genetic and environmental factors.

The vitamin C content in both varieties was relatively low, with Sherry (0.13 ± 0.001 mg/100g)

slightly surpassing Peter (0.12 ± 0.003 mg/100g). Although the levels are minimal compared to
other vitamin C-rich fruits like oranges, these values are consistent with mangoes being a

moderate source of vitamin C, as shown by similar studies (Choudhary and Mishra, 2020).

Regarding vitamin E, Peter mango had a higher content (1.25 ± 0.006 mg/100g) compared to

Sherry (1.18 ± 0.01 mg/100g). This slight difference could be attributed to varietal differences,

but both values align with research by Singh and Tandon (2021), who noted that mango varieties

show variability in tocopherol levels, which is important for skin health and antioxidant activity.

When compared to other fruits, such as guava or papaya, mangoes generally have lower levels of

vitamin C but higher levels of vitamin A and E. For instance, according to Ahmed and Ram

(2022), papaya contains higher vitamin C but lower vitamin A and E levels, highlighting the

nutritional diversity among tropical fruits.

The analysis of the mineral content of two mango varieties, Sherry and Julie, highlights

significant variations in their composition. These variations can provide insight into their

potential nutritional benefits and compare them to other plant species.

Calcium (Ca):

Julie contains higher levels of calcium (3.04 ± 0.20 mg/l) compared to Sherry (2.10 ± 0.20 mg/l).

Calcium is essential for bone health, muscle function, and nerve signaling. Similar calcium

content was found in Moringa oleifera leaves (3.29 mg/g) as reported by Saini et al. (2014),

indicating that both mango varieties can contribute to the dietary intake of calcium, though

Moringa has a slightly higher concentration.

Magnesium (Mg):

Sherry exhibited a higher magnesium concentration (10.5 ± 5.09 mg/l) compared to Julie (8.40 ±

1.04 mg/l). Magnesium is vital for energy production, muscle contraction, and bone health.

According to Akpabio et al. (2012), Carica papaya leaves contained 13.6 mg/l of magnesium,
which is higher than both mango varieties. However, the levels in Sherry and Julie still

contribute meaningfully to magnesium intake.

Iron (Fe):

Julie contained significantly more iron (8.40 ± 1.05 mg/l) than Sherry (0.6 ± 0.003 mg/l). Iron is

critical for oxygen transport in the blood. The iron concentration in Julie is comparable to that in

Solanum melongena (8.50 mg/100g) as reported by Adeboye et al. (2021). The low iron content

in Sherry suggests that it may not be as effective for boosting iron intake as Julie.

Manganese (Mn):

Sherry showed a higher manganese content (0.37 ± 0.012 mg/l) than Julie (0.10 ± 0.29 mg/l).

Manganese is essential for enzyme function and bone formation. Compared to Vigna unguiculata

(0.85 mg/100g), as reported by Faruq et al. (2017), both mango varieties have lower manganese

levels, suggesting they are not a significant source of this mineral.

Copper (Cu):

Sherry also contained more copper (0.13 ± 0.23 mg/l) than Julie (0.03 ± 0.006 mg/l). Copper is

important for cardiovascular health and immune function. The copper content of Cucumis

sativus (cucumber) was reported at 0.45 mg/100g by Akpabio et al. (2012), which is higher than

both mango varieties.

Lead (Pb):

Both Sherry (0.60 ± 0.056 mg/l) and Julie (0.50 ± 0.006 mg/l) showed detectable levels of lead.

Lead is a toxic heavy metal and its presence in any food source is concerning, although the levels

here are within acceptable limits for food safety according to the World Health Organization

(WHO). Lower lead concentrations in Vigna unguiculata (0.25 mg/100g) as noted by Faruq et al.

(2017) suggest that mango varieties contain higher levels of lead than some other plant foods.
Conclusion

The comparative analysis of the Nutritional composition of Peter and Sherie Mango peels

revealed significant differences in their nutritional profiles. Peter Mango peels had a higher ash,

crude lipid, and crude fibre content, while Sherie Mango peels had a higher moisture and

carbohydrate content. These differences suggest that the two varieties may be suitable for

different applications.

Peter Mango peels may be more suitable for applications requiring a higher mineral and fibre

content, such as animal feed or dietary supplements. On the other hand, Sherie Mango peels may

be more suitable for applications requiring a higher carbohydrate content, such as food products

or biofuels.

The results of this study highlight the importance of considering the proximate composition of

mango peels when selecting varieties for specific applications. Future studies can focus on

exploring the functional properties and potential uses of these mango peel varieties.

The vitamin analysis of Peter and Sherry mango varieties revealed distinct differences in their

vitamin content, making each variety beneficial for different nutritional needs.

Vitamin A: Sherry mango exhibited a higher vitamin A content (18.24 ± 0.26 mg/100g)

compared to Peter mango (15.39 ± 0.23 mg/100g). This suggests that Sherry mango is more

advantageous for supporting vision and immune function due to its higher beta-carotene levels.

Vitamin C: Both varieties contained low levels of vitamin C, with Sherry (0.13 ± 0.001

mg/100g) slightly surpassing Peter (0.12 ± 0.003 mg/100g). While these levels are modest

compared to other fruits like oranges, they align with the typical vitamin C profile of mangoes.
Vitamin E: Peter mango had a higher vitamin E content (1.25 ± 0.006 mg/100g) compared to

Sherry (1.18 ± 0.01 mg/100g), indicating its greater potential for antioxidant support and skin

health.

This study indicates that both mango varieties, Sherry and Julie, provide essential minerals such

as calcium, magnesium, and iron, with Julie being particularly rich in iron. Sherry, however,

contains more magnesium and manganese. When compared with other plants such as Moringa

oleifera and Solanum melongena, the mineral content in these mango varieties is lower in some

cases, but they still offer nutritional benefits. The presence of lead in both varieties should be

monitored due to its potential health risks. Overall, these mango varieties can be valuable sources

of certain essential minerals in the diet, especially in iron-deficient populations.

References

Ajila, C.M., Bhat, S. G and Rao, U. J. S. P. (2007). Valuable components of raw and ripe peels

from two Indian mango varieties. Food Chem., 102: S1006-1011

American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc; St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Bhat, R. (2007). Fat-soluble vitamins: Role in nutrition and health. Nutrition & Health, 16(1),

21–34.

Bhatnagar, S. P., and Subramanyam, D. (2011). Nutritional properties of mango. Journal of

Nutrition, 45(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnut.2010.10.005

Blomhoff, R., and Blomhoff, H. K. (2006). Biological functions and health implications of

carotenoids. Current Drug Metabolism, 7(3), 231–240.

Bompard, J. (1993). The mango: A tropical fruit of great importance. In Tropical Fruits and

Their Utilization (pp. 123–145).

Brand-Williams, W., Cuvelier, M., Berset, C. (1995). Use of a free radical method to evaluate

antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technology, 28, 25-30.

Brigelius-Flohé, R., and Traber, M. G. (1999). Vitamin E: Function and metabolism. Nutrition

Reviews, 57(9), 288–295.

Burns, J., Fraser, P. D. and Bramley, P. M. (2003). Identification and quantification of

carotenoids tocopherols and chlorophyll in commonly consumed fruits and vegetables.

Phytochemistry, 62, 939-947.

Carr, A. C., and Maggini, S. (2017). Vitamin C and immune function. Nutrients, 9(11), 1211.

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9111211

Desta H, (2005). Export potential of Ethiopia processed fruit and vegetables, export promotion

department.
Dharini S, Jiang Y, Yahia E (2010). Maintaining mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit quality

during the export chain. Food Research International; 44: 1254-1263.

EOL (2015). Mangifera indica. Encyclopedia of Life. Retrieved from https://eol.org

FAO (2004). Global mango production. Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO (2009). Utilization of tropical foods: fruit and leaves. Food and nutrition paper, via delle

terme dicaracalla, 00100 rome, Italy.

Fowomola M A (2010). Some nutrients and antinutrients contents of mango (Magnifera indica)

seed. African Journal of Food Science; 4(8): 472–476.

Gálvez-López, D., Colín-Cruz, A., Rojas-García, E., and Dávila-Aviña, J. (2010). Medicinal uses

of mango. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 4(3), 196–203.

https://doi.org/10.5897/JMPR09.775

Garrido, I., de Mello, J. A. G., and Barbosa, W. L. R. (2016). Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory

activity of mango (Mangifera indica L.) extracts in vitro. Journal of Medicinal Food,

19(5), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2016.3734

Grussu, D., Stewart, D., McDougall, G. J. (2011). Berry polyphenols inhibit α-amylase in vitro:

Identifying active components in rowanberry and raspberry. Journal of Agricultural and

Food Chemistry, 59:2324-2331.

Harbone, J. B. (1976). Phytochemicals methods a guide to modern technique of plant analysis. p.

1-150. London: Chapman and Hall

Harrison, E. H. (2005). Understanding the metabolism of vitamin A: A review of the evidence.

The Journal of Nutrition, 135(3), 738-743.

Hathcock, J. N. (2014). Vitamins: The issue of toxicity. Nutrition Reviews, 72(5), 293–302.
Ihekoronye, A. I and Ngoddy, P. O. (1985). Integrated Food Science and Technology for the

Tropics. Macmillan press publisher London. pp. 10-26, 293-300.

Ijaz A, Muhammad U, Sabiha R, Saeed M.K, Imran-ul- H (2011). Evaluation of quality of

mango (Mangifera indica L.) squashes available in Lahore market. Pakistan Journal of

Food Science; 21(1,4): 67-71.

Ilesanmi FF, Oyebanji OA, Olagbaju AR, Oyelakin MO, Zaka KO, Ajani AO, Olorunfemi MF,

Awoite TM, Ikotun IO, Lawal AO and Alimi JP (2011). Effect of polythene packaging

on the shelf life of mango fruits. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research;

2(7): 148-150.

Illoh, H. C. (1986). The mango tree in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, 12(1), 45–50.

Illoh, H. C., and Olorode, O. (1991). Cultivar variations in mango in Nigeria. Nigerian

Horticultural Journal, 7(1), 12–18.

ITIS (2015). Mangifera indica. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved from

https://itis.gov

Jacob, R. A., and Sotoudeh, G. (2002). Vitamin C function and status in chronic disease.

Nutrition Reviews, 60(3), 108–116.

Kamila de A M, Sergio M C, Maíra R U, Giuseppina P P L (2014). Sanitizers Effect in Mango

Pulp and Peel Antioxidant Compounds. Food and Nutrition Sciences; 5: 929-935.

Karunanithi, K., Ganesh, G., and Saranya, D. (2015). Mango: A review on its ethnobotany and

pharmacological properties. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 4(2), 60–68.

Menon R R & Goswami T K (2013). Mango Fruit Precooling Techniques. International Journal

of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences; 1(2): 31-42.

Pearson, O. (1991). Composition and Analysis of foods. 9th edition (ED) Kirk, R. S. and

Sawyer, R. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, England, Pp. 8-42, 299-300.

Philip Briggs. Ethiopia (2002): The Bradt Travel Guide. 3rd edition (Chalphont, Stpeters: Bradt,,

229

Pitchaon M (2011). Antioxidant capacity of extracts and fractions from mango (Mangifera indica

Linn.) seed kernels. International Food Research Journal; 18: 523-528.

Reddy, N. N. and Sistrunk, W. A. (1980). Effects of cultivar, size, storage and cooking methods

on carbohydrates and some nutrients of sweet potatoes. J. Food Sci., 45 (3), 682-684.