ARUN KUMAR SONI · the bonafide research work carried out by Shri ARUN KUMAR SONI under my guidance...
Transcript of ARUN KUMAR SONI · the bonafide research work carried out by Shri ARUN KUMAR SONI under my guidance...
STUDIES ON RECIPE STANDARDIZATION AND SHELF LIFE OF NECTAR BEVERAGE FROM CARROT
AND CARROT-BEETROOT COMBINATIONS
M.Sc. (Ag.) THESIS
by
ARUN KUMAR SONI
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (C.G.)
2009
STUDIES ON RECIPE STANDARDIZATION AND SHELF LIFE OF NECTAR BEVERAGE FROM CARROT
AND CARROT-BEETROOT COMBINATIONS
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)
by
ARUN KUMAR SONI
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
Master of Science
In
Agriculture
(HORTICULTURE)
Roll No. 9876 ID No. UG/Ag/Bsp/2002/08
AUGUST, 2009
CERTIFICATE-I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “STUDIES ON RECIPE
STANDARDIZATION AND SHELF LIFE OF NECTAR BEVERAGE FROM
CARROT AND CARROT-BEETROOT COMBINATIONS” submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of “Master of Science in
Agriculture” of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, is a record of
the bonafide research work carried out by Shri ARUN KUMAR SONI under my
guidance and supervision. The subject of the thesis has been approved by the
Student's Advisory Committee and the Director of Instructions.
No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma
(certificate awarded etc.) or has been published / published part has been fully
acknowledged. All the assistance and help received during the course of the
investigations have been duly acknowledged by him.
Date: Chairman
Advisory Committee
THESIS APPROVED BY THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman : Dr. S. N. Dikshit ______________________
Member : Dr. N. Shukla ______________________
Member : Shri K. K. Agrawal ______________________
Member : Dr. Ravi R. Saxena ______________________
CERTIFICATE – II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “STUDIES ON RECIPE
STANDARDIZATION AND SHELF LIFE OF NECTAR BEVERAGE FROM
CARROT AND CARROT-BEETROOT COMBINATIONS” submitted by
ARUN KUMAR SONI to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
(C.G.) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M.Sc. (Ag.) in the
Department of Horticulture has been approved by the external examiner and
Student's Advisory Committee after an oral examination.
EXTERNAL EXAMINER
Date
Major Advisor ________________________
Head of the Department/Section ________________________
Dean/ Dean Faculty ________________________
Director of Instructions ________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“Education plays vital role in personal and social development and teacher plays a fundamental role in imparting education. Teachers have crucial role in shaping young people not only to face the further with confidence but also to build up it with aim and responsibility. There is no substitute for teacher pupil relationship”.
It is my unique privilege to study and conduct my research under Dr. S. N. Dikshit, Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.), who provided me the research insight, illuminating guidance, continuous encouragement, scholarly suggestions, constructive criticism and plausible appreciation during the investigation. I am highly indebted to him for his invaluable painstaking efforts taken towards my study while devoting his precious time.
I am grateful to the members of my Advisory Committee Dr. N. Shukla, Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, Shri K.K. Agrawal, Associate Professor (Department of Soil Science) and Dr. Ravi R. Saxena, Associate Professor (Department of Agricultural Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science) for their full-fledged co-operation, able guidance and valuable suggestions.
I have immense pleasure in expressing my whole heartful thanks to Dr. D. A. Sarnaik, Professor and Head, Department of Horticulture for his co-operation and suggestions.
I am heartly thankful to Dr. Prabhakar Singh, Professor, Dr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Scientist, Dr. Vijay Kumar, Shri Dhananjay Sharma, Assistant Professor, Shri Tarsius Tirkey, Assistant Professor, Shri Jitendra Trivedi, Assistant Professor, Shri Satish Verma, Assistant Professor, Shri Pravin Sharma, Assistant Professor, Shri G. L. Sharma, Assistant Professor, Shri Prashant Dubey, Shri Sameer Tamrakar and Shri Narendra Agrawal for his valuable suggestions and co-operation during the investigation.
I am grateful to Hon’ble Vice Chancellor Dr. M. P. Pandey, Director of Instructions , Dr. U. K. Mishra, Director Research Services Dr. S. S. Shaw and Dr. R. L. Pandey, Dean, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur for extending necessary facilities for the investigation.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. M. Pandey, and Shri U. K. Watti for giving me their kind help during my present study.
I have no words to express my heartful thanks to Akash Solanki, Kamlesh Sinha , Purushottum and Gautam for their co-operation during the thesis work.
I would also be thankful to all my seniors Mr. Hemant Panighrahi, Smt. Annu Verma, Deepti Patel, Pushplata Tirky, Meena juri, M.S. Paikra, P.C. Chourasia,
Devshankar Ram, colleagues, Ram Chandra, Toran, Roshan, Ashutosh, Devendra, Manju lata, Nilesh, Shailendra, Nisha, Sarita, Sakshi, Neelam, Anjani, Kirti, Sharda Ram, Anjum, Kiran and juniors Mayaram, Kanhaiya, Vijay, Kamal, Vajid, Keshav, Karan, Deepprinyanka, Archana, Kunti, Preeti, Eshu, Bhuwaneshwari, Vivek, Omprakash, Kavi for their support, affection, encouragement and cooperation which made my path easier.
I would like to express my thanks to my everlasting friends Ravishankar, Navalkishore, Umesh, Santosh Bhagat, Rakesh, Niraj, Santosh Soni, Bhuneshwari, Nisha, who remained always very close to my heart and shared my all bright and dull phases of life with lots of smiles and courage.
Diction is not enough to express the respect and heartfelt gratitude to my beloved parents Father Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, Mother Smt. Sarita Soni, elder Brother Tarun Kumar Soni (J.T.O. in B.S.N.L.) Sister Sonika Soni and my all family members whose obstinate sacrifice, filial affection and blessing made my path earlier.
At last, I would like to convey my grateful thanks to all those unmentioned persons who helped me to see my dream comes true.
How can I express my thanks to “God” because there is no any word to express it. So, my lord, please realize and accept my feelings. Department of Horticulture (Arun Kumar Soni) College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE
No.
I INTRODUCTION
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
2.1.1 Physical composition
2.1.2 Chemical composition
2.2 Processed products
2.3 Nectar
2.3.1 Standardize recipe for nectar
2.4 Changes of chemical composition in juice/ beverage
2.4.1 β-carotene
2.4.2 Acidity
2.4.3 Total Soluble Solids (TSS)
2.4.4 Sugars
2.5 Organoleptic evaluation
III
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.1.1
3.4.1.2
3.4.1.3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Geographical situation
Climate
Weather condition during storage period
Experimental details
Standardization of recipe for preparation of carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar
Treatments of recipe standardization for carrot nectar
Treatments of recipe standardization for carrot-beetroot
nectar
Standardized treatments of carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar
3.5 Preparation of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar beverage
3.5.1 Selection of carrot and beetroot
CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE
No.
3.5.2 Extraction of pulp/juice
3.5.3 Preparation of nectar
3.5.4 Filtration
3.5.5 Bottling and sealing
3.5.6 Pasteurization
3.5.7 Storage
3.6 Observations recorded
3.6.1 Physical characters of carrot
3.6.1.1 Weight of carrot (g)
3.6.1.2 Weight of pulp (g)
3.6.1.3 Weight of non-edible waste (g)
3.6.2 Chemical analysis of pulp and nectar
3.6.2.1 β-carotene (mg/100 g)
3.6.2.2 Acidity (%)
3.6.2.3 Total Soluble Solids (%)
3.6.2.4 Sugars (%)
3.6.2.5 Sugar: acid ratio
3.7 Organoleptic evaluation
3.8 Statistical analysis
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
4.1.1 Physical composition
4.1.2 Chemical composition
4.2 Organoleptic evaluation of carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar during recipe standardization
4.2.1 Recipe standardization for nectar prepared from carrot
4.2.2 Recipe standardization for nectar prepared from carrot-
beetroot
4.3 Organoleptic score of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
during storage
4.4 Chemical changes in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
during storage
4.4.1 β-carotene
CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE
No.
4.4.2 Acidity
4.4.3 Total soluble solids
4.4.4 Sugar: acid ratio
4.4.5 Reducing sugar
4.4.6 Non-reducing sugar
4.4.7 Total sugar
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
WORK
ABSTRACT
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
No. PARTICULARS
PAGE
No.
4.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
4.2.1 Organoleptic evaluation of carrot nectar beverage during
recipe standardization
4.2.2 Organoleptic evaluation of carrot-beetroot nectar
beverage during recipe standardization
4.3.1 Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar for colour as affected by the different
preservatives
4.3.2 Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar for aroma as affected by the different
preservatives
4.3.3 Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar for taste as affected by the different preservatives
4.3.4 Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar for appearance as affected by the different
preservatives
4.3.5 Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar for overall acceptability as affected by the
different preservatives
4.4.1 Effect of different treatments on β-carotene (mg/100 ml)
in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.2 Effect of different treatments on acidity (%) in carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.3 Effect of different treatments on TSS (%) in carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.4 Effect of different treatments on sugar : acid in carrot
and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.5 Effect of different treatments on reducing sugar (%) in
carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.6 Effect of different treatments on non-reducing sugar (%)
in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.7 Effect of different treatments on total sugar (%) in carrot
and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
No. PARTICULARS
BETWEEN
PAGES
3.1 Weekly meteorological data during storage period
of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar (15th Jan. to 29th
April 2009)
3.2 Flow-sheet for extraction of carrot pulp
3.3 Flow-sheet for extraction of beetroot juice
3.4 Flow-sheet for preparation of nectar/ blended nectar
4.4.1 Changes in β-carotene (mg/100 ml) of carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.2 Changes in acidity (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar during storage
4.4.3 Changes in TSS (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot
nectar during storage
4.4.4 Changes in sugar : acid ratio of carrot and carrot-
beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.5 Changes in reducing sugar (%) of carrot and carrot-
beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.6 Changes in non-reducing sugar (%) of carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
4.4.7
Changes in total sugar (%) of carrot and carrot-
beetroot nectar during storage
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE
No. PARTICULARS
BETWEEN
PAGES
1. Carrot nectar beverage at the time of preparation
2. Carrot-beetroot nectar beverage at the time of
preparation
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PARTICULARS PAGE No.
I Weekly meteorological data during storage
period of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar (15th
Jan. to 29th April 2009)
II Hedonic rating test
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Description
% Per cent
B Degree Brix
C Degree Celsius
CD Critical difference
C.G. Chhattisgarh
CRD Completely Randomized Design
cm Centimetre
cv. Cultivar
CV Coefficient of variation
et al. and others/ co-workers
Fig. Figure
FPO Fruit Product Order
g
ha
Gram
Hectare
i.e. That is
KMS Potassium meta-bi-sulphite
mg Milligram
ml Millilitre
MT Metric tones
NS Non-significant
RTS Ready-to-serve
SB Sodium benzoate
S. No. Serial Number
SEm Standard error of mean
T Treatment
TSS Total soluble solids
viz.
wt
For example
Weight
& And
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
India is the second largest producer of vegetables after China and
produced nearly 125.88 million MT of vegetables (Anon, 2008a). Vegetables
are major source of vitamins and minerals. Since, they are highly perishable
in nature, they need to be processed into various value-added products.
India is well-known for its culture and hospitality, natural as well as synthetic
beverages are always an important part of guest dine. Sharbat consists of
sugar syrup flavoured with artificial or natural products like fruits and herbs,
have been produced in India from immemorial time and well-known
throughout the country. However, to-day’s markets are flooded with variety of
beverages like mango, apple, guava, litchi, grape or pineapple etc. (Anon,
2008b).
Carrot (Daucus carota L.) is an important root vegetable crop
cultivated extensively in the country particularly during winter season.
Afghanistan is the primary centre of origin of carrot. The cultivation of carrot
can be traced in Asia Minor in the 10th and 11th centuries. In India, the carrot
is said to have been introduced from Persia. The total area under carrot in
the world is 1087.9 thousand ha and the total world production of carrot is
26.89 million tonnes (Dhaliwal, 2007). The area under carrot cultivation in
India was reported to be 22,538 ha with an annual production of 4.14 lakh
tonnes (Natarajan and Veeraragavanthatham, 2001). The total area under
carrot cultivation in Chhattisgarh is 1157 ha and the production is 13101
metric tonnes (Anon, 2008c).
Carrot is known for its β-carotene and carotenoids content besides
appreciable amounts of vitamin B1, B2, B6, B12 and minerals (Syed et al.,
1986). Hundred gram of edible portion of carrot root contains 86 g water, 0.9
g protein, 0.2 g fat, 10.6 g carbohydrates, 1.2 g fibre, 1890 µg carotene, 3 mg
vitamin C, 48 Kcal energy, 1.1 g minerals, 2.2 mg iron, 0.04 mg thiamine,
0.02 mg riboflavin, 0.5 mg niacin, 15 µg folic acid, 80 mg calcium and 30 mg
phosphorus.
Carrot is known to reduce cancer in animals by 40%. Carrot juice, with
its rapid alkalizing effect, helps in controlling anaemia, liver trouble, acidosis,
blood poisoning, circulatory disorders and ulcers. It also helps in treatment of
ailments such as gall stones and gout. Carrot contains a plant hormone
tocokinin which is closely analogous to insulin and has proved to be
beneficial for diabetics. Rheumatic ailments, which are often a result of poor
nutrition, respond well to carrot juice. Carrot juice can also be prepared but it
is not consumed as such because of its unacceptable (slightly bitter) taste
and it needs special attention for its processing to develop an acceptable
beverage. Processing of carrot juice in India has not received adequate
attention, though it is a vegetable of considerable economic importance.
Carrot is more popular in the day-to-day use for making curries,
salads, juices, pickles, preserves, sweet meats and soups. Carrot juice and
its blends are the most popular non-alcoholic beverages (Schieber et al.,
2001) and steady increase in carrot juice consumption has been reported
from various countries (Chen and Tang, 1998). Hence, there is an urgent
need to develop new value-addition technology through which fresh
vegetables can be utilized during glut for development of new products,
addition of new flavour, nutrition to consumer diet, and finally profit to
growers. Vegetables beverages, pickles, juices, salads etc. are the different
form of value-addition. Out of these, vegetable beverages have an important
place because they are easily digestible, highly-refreshing, thirst-quenching
and nutritionally rich.
Beet (Beta vulgaris Linn.) is grown mainly in kitchen and market
gardens. It probably originated in the Mediterranean region or western Asia.
Hundred gram of edible portion of beet-root contains 87.7g water, 1.7 g
protein, 0.1 g fat, 8.8 g carbohydrates, 88 mg vitamin C, 0.8 g minerals, 1.0
mg iron, 0.04 mg thiamine, 0.09 mg riboflavin, 200 mg calcium, 55 mg
phosphorus and potassium 43 mg. It is eaten raw as salad, cooked with
other vegetables and used in the preparation of pickles and chutneys.
Natural drinks are now-a-days become popular due to its pleasant
taste, natural aroma and health supportive role. Natural beverages are very
demanding throughout the year, especially during hot summer months,
demand is much more due to its thirst quenching property. It is also a rich
source of minerals, vitamins and many other nutritional compounds. Natural
beverages are preferred and appreciated by all age groups at every
occasion. It is easily digestible, highly refreshing and nutritionally superior
than many synthetic and aerated drinks, but consumption of synthetic
beverages are much higher than natural juices/beverages. Traditionally, our
country has been well-known for offering syrup or sharbat. Amongst these,
fruit juice and beverage have an important place. Being rich in essential
minerals, vitamins and other nutritive factor, they are liked and appreciated
by people of all ages and acceptable on all occasions.
Nectar is a non-fermented beverage, produced from the dissolution of the
edible portion of the fruit and sugars in water for direct consumption, and
could be added of acids, respecting the characteristics and composition
established for each fruit, such as sensory attributes, juice content, soluble
solids, total acidity and total sugar (Brasil, 2003). Nectar is prepared by using
single fruit or blending of two or more fruits.
However, no systematic research work on carrot nectar has been
done so far. Therefore, it becomes important that knowledge of physico-
chemical composition of carrot, recipe of carrot nectar and its blending with
beetroot can be achieved. Looking to the above facts, the present
investigation was undertaken with the following objectives:
Objectives of investigation:
1. To study the physico-chemical composition of carrot,
2. To standardize the recipe for carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar,
3. To assess effect of different preservatives on keeping quality of
carrot nectar and carrot-beetroot nectar,
4. To study the chemical composition of nectar/blended nectar during
storage under ambient condition.
CHAPTER-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Efforts have been made on the utilization of various fruits for the
preparation of different processed products and methods have been adopted
for the processing of fruits as jelly, jam, canning, beverages, juice
concentrate, fruit bar and powder etc. However, the information regarding
processing of vegetables especially carrot as RTS and nectar beverages is
lacking. Hence, an experiment entitled “Studies on recipe standardization
and shelf life of nectar beverage from carrot and carrot-beetroot
combinations” was conducted during the year 2008-09. The important
review of literature relevant to present investigation on various aspects is
briefly described in this chapter under the following heads:
2.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
2.2 Processed products
2.3 Nectar
2.4 Changes of chemical composition in juice/beverage
2.5 Organoleptic evaluation
2.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
2.1.1 Physical composition
Pal and Roy (1985) observed the effect of maturity on physical
parameters of carrot cv. Nantes and found that there was progressive
increment in physical parameters viz., root yield, root length, root diameter,
root weight and root volume with advancement of maturity and root weight of
carrot was found to be 17.50 g, 27.05 g and 27.88 g at 110, 120 and 130
days after sowing, respectively.
2.1.2 Chemical composition
Pal and Roy (1985) observed the effect of maturity on chemical
parameters of carrot cv. Nantes and found that reducing sugar, total sugar
and total carotenoids increased with the delay in maturity.
According to Srivastava and Kumar (2003), per hundred gram of
edible portion of carrot contains 1890 µg carotene.
2.2 Processed products
Dhaliwal and Hira (2001) reported that four different combinations of
carrot juice with two levels each of beetroot (Beta vulgaris; 5 and 10 %) and
black carrot (an Afghan cv. of Daucus carota; 10 and 20 %) juice were
prepared and stored for 6 months in glass bottles at room temperature (25o ±
3oC). The juices were tested for sensory scores as well as physico-chemical
and nutritional characteristics every month. Mean sensory scores of juices
decreased non-significantly and no significant changes were observed in pH,
acidity, total solids, viscosity and mineral content of the juices during storage.
During pasteurization, 11.11-13.09 % ascorbic acid and 14.00-20.47 % β-
carotene were lost, while storage for 6 months resulted in 71.26-80.28 %
losses in ascorbic acid and 56.60-66.57 % losses in β-carotene contents.
Nath and Yadav (2002) evaluated various ratio of kinnow mandarin
and ginger juice for preparation of blended squash and found that 25:5 was
an ideal ratio for overall acceptability.
Dhaliwal and Hira (2004) reported that four different combinations of
carrot juice with two levels of spinach (4.5 and 9 %) were prepared and
stored for 6 months in glass bottles at room temperature (32-40oC). The
bottle contents were tested for sensory scores and physico-chemical
characteristics every month. Mean sensory scores of juices decreased non-
significantly and no significant changes were observed in pH, acidity, total
solids, viscosity and mineral content of juices during storage. During
pasteurization, 7-11 % ascorbic acid and 14.18-24.56 % β-carotene were
lost, while storage for six months resulted in 80.00-88.75 % losses in
ascorbic acid and 52.02-61.41 % losses in β-carotene contents.
Chawla et al. (2005) reported that carrot pickle stored at room
temperature for four months showed significant reduction in β-carotene and
ascorbic acid contents. Storage did not affect the total sugars however,
reducing sugar increased and the non-reducing sugar decreased
significantly. The iron content of pickle decreased whereas, the sodium
content increased during storage. The total soluble solid content and pH
were reduced and there was an increase in acidity.
Branco et al. (2007) reported that blend of orange and carrot juice with
different proportions of carrot (5 and 25 %) was developed with different
degrees of soluble solids (15 and 30o Brix). The physical and chemical
stability of the blend was also investigated during a period of 60 days. The
results showed that the formulation with the most sensorial preference was
found with 5 % of carrot and concentration upto 15o Brix. The concentration
process and the storage, for the period of 60 days, caused a significant
reduction in the contents of ascorbic acid and total carotene.
Sagar (2009) observed that there was a decrease in β-carotene in
dehydrated carrot shreds at both low and high temperature as well as
storage period and a slight decrease in acidity was noticed in dehydrated
carrot shred during storage.
2.3 Nectar
As per FPO specification, the juice content in fruit nectar, should not
be less than 20 per cent, whereas for pineapple and orange, the juice should
not be less than 40 per cent and TSS should not be less than 150 Brix and
contains no preservative (Ranganna, 1986).
Nectar is a non- fermented beverage, produced from the dissolution of
the edible portion of the fruit and sugar in water, for direct consumption and
could be added of acid, respecting the characteristics and compositions
established for each fruit, such as sensory attributes, juice content, soluble
solids, total acidity and total sugar (Brasil, 2003).
Srivastava and Kumar (2003) indicated that nectar beverages
contains at least 20 per cent fruit juice/pulp and 15 per cent TSS having
about 0.3 per cent acid and it is not diluted before serving.
2.3.1 Standardize recipe for nectar
Singh and Dhawan (1983) reported that an ideal nectar of papaya and
guava fruits should contain 20 per cent pulp, 14 per cent total soluble solids
and 0.3 per cent acidity.
Khurdiya and Roy (1984) reported that nectar with composition of 20
per cent jamun juice, 16.3 per cent total soluble solids and 0.52 per cent
acidity was considered as an ideal recipe.
Singh (1988) reported that 20 per cent juice and 15 per cent total
soluble solids with 0.3 per cent acidity was found suitable for making nectar
of litchi fruits.
Vyas et al. (1989) observed that during standardization of juice
extracted from petals of Rhododendron flowers for preparation of refreshing
nectar, a combination having 20 per cent juice, 150 Brix, 0.3 per cent acidity
alongwith strawberry and raspberry flavour (mixed in 1:1 at 400 ppm level)
and carmosine colour at 20 ppm was found to be the most flavoured blend.
Singh (1990) reported that 20 per cent pulp, 200 Brix and 0.3 per cent
acidity served as an ideal recipe for mango nectar.
Chakraborthy et al. (1991) worked on varietal screening of mangoes
of Uttar Pradesh for their suitability to produce canned nectar, juice and pulp.
They prepared mango nectar which contained 20% pulp, 15 Brix and 0.3%
acidity.
Kumar and Singh (1998) reported 20 per cent pulp, 13 per cent TSS
and 0.3 per cent acidity for the preparation of papaya nectar.
Rabbani and Singh (1998) reported that composition of 20 per cent
juice, 14 per cent total soluble solids and 0.3 per cent acidity was found to be
ideal for mango nectar.
An optimized formulation for a mango and acerola nectar contained 9 %
acerola pulp, 150
Brix and ascorbic acid content of 76 mg 100 g-1
(Matsuura et al.,
1999).
Doodhnath and Barie (2001) reported that watermelon nectar with 20
per cent or 25 per cent TSS, 0.20 per cent xanthan gum, 0.15 per cent citric
acid and pH 3.75-3.87 were most highly preferred by panelists.
Saravanan et al. (2004) worked on standardization of recipe for
papaya nectar and its storage. Sensory evaluation of the products indicated
that papaya nectar consisting of 23% pulp, 150 Brix total soluble solids (TSS)
and 0.3% acidity had the highest acceptability due to better taste and flavour.
Shukla (2005) reported that the blended nectar of guava (70%) and
pineapple (30%), the recipe 20 per cent pulp, 17 per cent TSS and 0.2 per
cent acidity was found suitable.
Verma and Gehlot (2006) found that nectar of composition 20 per cent
juice, 15 per cent TSS and 0.25 per cent acidity was best for the preparation
of bael nectar.
According to Choudhary et al. (2008), guava nectar having
composition of 20 per cent pulp, 17 per cent TSS and 0.3 per cent acidity
served as a good nectar.
2.4 Changes of chemical composition in juice/beverage
2.4.1 β-carotene
Saravanan et al. (2004) observed that total carotenoids were
degraded in papaya nectar throughout the storage period.
Deka et al. (2005) found that the total carotenoid content got
decreased over a period of 6 months during storage of mango-pineapple
spiced beverages. After 6 months of storage, the final retention of total
carotenoids was 87.53-90.24 per cent in different containers.
Tandon et al. (2007) found that the carotenoids content of bael-
papaya blended RTS beverages was decreased by around 11-55 per cent
after 6 months of storage.
2.4.2 Acidity
Kalra and Tandon (1984) reported that titrable acidity increased by
0.02 to 0.04 per cent in guava nectar.
Wasker and Khurdiya (1987) reported that increase in acidity of
phalsa nectar was observed during storage for two months.
Singh (1988) found that per cent total acidity of the RTS and nectar
from litchi fruits did not change upto three months of storage and thereafter it
increased slightly.
Tripathi et al. (1992) reported that the acidity of RTS beverages
prepared from pineapple-guava blend (90:10) was found decreasing (0.4 to
0.36%) throughout the storage period of three months at ambient
temperature.
Singh and Singh (1994) reported that acidity of litchi RTS and nectar
did not change upto three months of storage and thereafter it increased
slightly.
Attri and Maini (1995) found that the acidity of salt-treated galgal juice
(Citrus pseudolimon Tan.) decreased from 4.85-3.35 per cent, whereas the
acidity in KMS preserved juice decreased from 5.78-5.20 per cent.
Baramanray et al. (1995) found that the titrable acidity of guava nectar
increased significantly during storage period. This increase was 8.5 per cent
at 90 days over 0 day of storage.
Saxena et al. (1996) found that the acidity of RTS beverage prepared
from grape and mango blend was decreased during storage.
Attri et al. (1998) reported that the acidity was found to increase by
blending pear with apricot and plum pulp, whereas it got reduced with apple
juice and apple concentrate both during blending and after six months of
storage at ambient temperature.
Prasad and Mali (2000) also found increased acidity during storage of
pomegranate squash. It could be due to the organic acid degradation.
Kalsi and Dhawan (2001) studied on guava fruit bar and found a
significant increase in acidity, initially it was 1.31 per cent which increased to
2.06 per cent after 60 days storage.
Kumar and Manimegalai (2001) reported a gradual increase in the acidity of
the blended RTS samples of pineapple, pear and pomegranate stored at room
temperature condition and in refrigerator.
Sarolia and Mukherjee (2002) reported that titrable acidity of the lime
juice decreased throughout the storage period.
Choudhary (2004) found that the acidity in guava nectar and RTS
increased with all the cultivars and recipe treatments, at increasing period of
storage upto 150 days under ambient condition.
According to Sharma and Singh (2004), decrease in acidity was more
pronounced at room temperature as compared to low temperature (-40C) and
freezing temperature (-18OC) in kagzi lime juice.
Saravanan et al. (2004) observed that the acidity decreased slightly in
papaya nectar during storage.
Deka et al. (2005) found that the decrease in acidity in coloured
bottles was less as compared to white bottles of mango-pineapple spiced
beverages. The low temperature storage was better as compared to cool
chamber and ambient temperature.
Mandal and Pathak (2005) studied on changes during storage of
pineapple and phalsa nectar and indicated that the total acidity of nectar did
not change upto 1 month of storage.
Nath et al. (2005) found a gradual and consistent decrease in acidity
in ginger-kinnow blended squash during storage period.
Singh et al. (2005) observed that acidity of bael and bael blended RTS
beverages decreased throughout the storage period of 6 months.
According to Jain et al. (2006), acidity of the aonla squash increased
continuously during storage.
Verma and Gehlot (2006) observed that there was a slight decrease in
acidity percentage of bael RTS drink, nectar and squash prepared with
different recipes during storage period.
Singh et al. (2006) observed that there was a significant increase in
the acidity incorporation of carrot juice in the preparation of flavoured milk
from buffalo and cow milk during storage of 4 days.
Tandon et al. (2007) found that the titrable acidity decreased slightly
from 0.26-0.20 or 0.21 per cent of the bael-papaya blended RTS beverages
till 3 months of storage.
Choudhary et al. (2008) observed that the acidity in guava nectar of all
the four varieties increased during storage.
Reddy and Chikkasubbanna (2008) found that the product of lime-
blended amla squash could be stored for 90 days with a decreasing trend in
acidity during storage.
2.4.3 Total Soluble Solids (TSS)
Kalra and Tandon (1984) reported that TSS of guava nectar was
decreased by 0.5 to 1.0 per cent during storage.
Sethi (1993) reported that low temperature was more promising than
ambient temperature for long-term preservation of litchi juice. He also
reported an increase in the total soluble solids during storage.
Singh and Singh (1994) reported that the TSS of litchi nectar slightly
increased with time during storage period.
Attri and Maini (1995) found that the TSS increased from 26-28.2 per
cent in galgal juice (Citrus pseudolimon Tan.) stored with 20 per cent salt,
whereas the increase was from 8.5-9.2 per cent with 2000 ppm KMS during
storage.
Baramanray et al. (1995) found that TSS of guava nectar was
increased during storage period. During 90 days of storage, TSS increased
by 0.93 per cent.
Sheeja and Prema (1995) reported an increase in total soluble solids
during storage of papaya squash.
Jain et al. (1997) reported no change in TSS of mango nectar during
storage.
Pandey and Singh (1999) reported an increase in TSS of the RTS
beverage prepared from guava.
Deka (2000) found an increasing trend in TSS during storage at
ambient and low temperature in lime-aonla and mango-pineapple spiced
RTS beverages. However, the rate of increase was more at ambient
temperature (12.5-36C) as compared to low temperature (41C).
Kumar and Manimegalai (2001) prepared RTS beverages from pineapple,
pear and pomegranate fruits and stored at room temperature and in refrigerator. The
initial TSS of the RTS prepared from pineapple (control), pineapple: pear (1:1),
pineapple: pomegranate (1:1) and pineapple: pear: pomegranate (1:1:1) was 16, 16,
15, and 15B, respectively and were maintained throughout the storage period.
Neither the storage temperature nor the storage period showed an influence on the
TSS of the RTS sample.
Sarolia and Mukherjee (2002) reported that lime juice TSS increased
during storage at 4±20C temperature and the use of KMS (0.1%) was
effective for extending its shelf life upto 75 days.
Choudhary (2004) also found gradual increase in total soluble solids in
guava nectar during storage period of 150 days at ambient conditions.
Kannan and Thirumaran (2004) reported that total soluble solids in
jamun RTS increased during storage.
Saravanan et al. (2004) observed that the TSS of papaya nectar were
slightly increased during storage.
Deka et al. (2005) found the linear increase in TSS content of the
mango-pineapple spiced beverages with the advancement of the storage
period. The increase in TSS was low both at low temperature and cool
chamber as compared to ambient temperature.
Mandal and Pathak (2005) studied on changes during storage of
pineapple and phalsa nectar and indicated that the TSS increased slightly
after five months of storage.
Nath et al. (2005) found that the TSS of the blended ginger-kinnow
squash increased with the increase in storage period at room temperature.
Sharma and Singh (2005) found that the TSS of lime juice was increased with
an increase in storage period upto 90 days.
Singh et al. (2005) observed that during storage period of 6 months,
TSS increased upto 3 months with a subsequent decline thereafter in case of
bael and bael blended RTS beverages.
According to Jain et al. (2006), TSS of the aonla squash increased
continuously during storage.
Jain et al. (2007) reported that total soluble solids of aonla nectar
increased continuously during storage.
Tandon et al. (2007) found that the TSS content of the bael-papaya
blended RTS beverages remained almost same during 6 months of storage.
Thakre (2007) reported that TSS of 50:50 papaya and banana
blended nectar was increased under refrigerated condition and did not
change under ambient condition. Whereas, TSS for 100:0 papaya and
banana nectar remained unchanged during storage under both conditions.
Choudhary et al. (2008) observed that the TSS content in guava
nectar showed an increasing trend in all the varieties at increasing period of
storage upto 5 months at ambient condition.
Reddy and Chikkasubbanna (2008) found that the product of lime-
blended amla squash could be stored for 90 days with a slight increase in
TSS.
2.4.4 Sugars
Godara and Pareek (1985) reported that the total sugar increased
significantly slightly under storage at 13.20 C as well at room temperature
(25 ± 50 C). The reducing sugar also increased and there was a
corresponding decrease in non-reducing sugar during 5 months of storage
life of date juice RTS beverage.
Sahni and Khurdiya (1989) studied the effect of storage temperature
on mango nectar and observed a rapid increase in values of reducing sugar
at ambient temperature.
Khurdiya and Sagar (1991) observed significant increase in reducing
sugar in guava nectar with the advancement of storage period.
Tripathi et al. (1992) reported that there was a continuous increase in
the values of reducing sugars (4.8 to 11.5 %) and total sugars (11.2 to 18.6
%) in the RTS beverages prepared from pineapple-guava blends during
three months of storage.
Baramanray et al. (1995) found that there was a significant increase in
total and reducing sugars content in stored guava nectar, in case of reducing
sugar content increase was upto the level of 48.8 per cent at 90 days of
storage. Non-reducing sugar content decreased from 9.58 per cent at 0 day
to 7.55 per cent at 90 days of storage.
Sheeja and Prema (1995) also reported significant increase in
reducing sugar in papaya squash during storage.
Jain et al. (1996) worked on evaluation of late maturing mango
varieties as nectar and RTS. They reported an increase in reducing sugars
during storage.
Jain et al. (1997) worked on evaluation of early maturing mango
varieties for preparation of beverages as nectar and RTS. They reported an
increase in reducing sugars during storage.
Attri et al. (1998) reported that the reducing sugars were found to
increase with the increase in the blending ratio of pear with apple juice or
apple juice concentrate whereas it decreased with apricot and plum. They
further reported that during storage both total and reducing sugars increased
significantly, whereas non-reducing sugar decreased in all the sand pear
juice blends. The increase may be attributed to the hydrolysis of
starch/sucrose into sugars.
Shrivastava (1998) reported that reducing sugar increased during
storage of mango pulp as well as mango RTS drinks, while non-reducing
sugar was found to be decreased.
Deka (2000) found highest total sugars of 9.53 per cent in grape: mango
(95:5) followed by mango: pineapple (85:15), grape: pineapple (85:15) and lime:
aonla (95:5) RTS beverages. The higher total sugar contents in grape: mango (95:5)
might be due to the higher sugar content in grape (15.19 %) and mango pulp (13.97
%) as compared to other fruit juices.
Tiwari (2000) reported an increase in reducing sugars content during storage
of the RTS beverages prepared from guava-papaya (70:30) blends.
Kalsi and Dhawan (2001) studied on guava fruit bar and found a
significant increase in reducing and total sugars content of fruit bar, initially
total sugar content was 78.73 per cent which increased to 86.42 per cent and
reducing sugar content was 49.96 per cent which increased to 71.45 per cent
after 60 days of storage.
Kalsi et al. (2002) observed that total sugar and reducing sugar
content was maximum in vaccum concentration than open concentration
method of guava juice concentrate.
Sarolia and Mukherjee (2002) reported that the use of KMS (0.1%)
was effective to preserve lime juice and for extending its shelf life upto 75
days. The total and reducing sugar increased during storage.
Bons and Dhawan (2003b) reported that no significant increase in
total sugar was observed initially in guava juice concentrate and thereafter, a
significant increase in sugars was noticed during 30-90 days of storage.
Choudhary (2004) reported that there was an increasing trend of total
sugar and reducing sugar in guava nectar with increasing period of storage
under ambient condition. The non-reducing sugar in nectar showed a
decreasing trend with increase in the period of storage. The variation in
different fraction of sugar might be due to hydrolysis of polysaccharides like
starch, pectin and inversion of non-reducing sugar into reducing sugar, as
increase in reducing sugar was correlated with the decrease in non-reducing
sugar. The increased level of total sugar was probably due to conversion of
starch and pectin into simple sugars.
Saravanan et al. (2004) observed that total sugar content of papaya
nectar increased slightly during storage. There was a considerable increase
in reducing sugar with corresponding decline in non-reducing sugar in
papaya nectar.
Deka et al. (2005) found that during storage of mango-pineapple
spiced beverages, there was a gradual increase in reducing and total sugars.
The rate of increase of reducing sugars was 21.09 per cent at the end of 6
months storage.
Sharma and Singh (2005) found that the total sugar and reducing sugar of
lime juice increased with increase in storage period.
Singh et al. (2005) observed that during storage period of 6 months,
total sugar of bael and bael blended RTS beverages increased upto 3
months with a subsequent decline thereafter. Reducing sugar showed an
increasing trend throughout the storage period and non-reducing sugar
decreased throughout the storage period of 6 months.
According to Jain et al. (2006), the total sugar of the aonla squash
increased continuously during storage.
Verma and Gehlot (2006) observed a significant increase in reducing
and total sugar content of bael beverages viz., RTS, nectar and squash with
the advancement in storage period.
Sudha et al. (2007) reported that total sugar content of the value-
added products from sapota increased during storage.
Tandon et al. (2007) found that the reducing sugars content was
increased sharply in bael-papaya blended RTS beverages and the change in
total sugar content of bael-papaya blended RTS beverage was almost
negligible during storage for 6 months.
Choudhary et al. (2008) observed that the total and reducing sugar
content in guava nectar showed an increasing trend in all the four varieties
and the non-reducing sugar in nectar showed a decreasing trend with
increasing period of storage upto 5 months under ambient condition.
Reddy and Chikkasubbanna (2008) found that the product of lime-
blended amla squash could be stored for 90 days with a slight increase in
reducing and total sugars content during storage.
2.5 Organoleptic evaluation
Waskar and Khurdiya (1987) observed that organoleptic quality of
phalsa beverages such as nectar was acceptable upto two months at room
temperature.
Nectars formulated with orange and passion fruit juices had a reduction in
sensory acceptance for blends with an increased proportion of passion fruit juice,
which was attributed to the strong flavour of passion fruit juice (Shaw and Wilson
III, 1985).
Kalra et al. (1991) evaluated mango-papaya blended beverages which
had the ratio of 1:0, 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 and 0:1. The study indicated that 25.33 per
cent papaya pulp could be incorporated in mango beverages without
affecting the quality and acceptability of the product.
Baramanray et al. (1995) found that quality deteriorated with increase
in storage time in guava nectar.
The different nectars showed best sensory acceptance for a product
formulated with papaya pulp and passion fruit juice (90:10 proportion) as compared
to nectars prepared with mango pulp and papaya pulp, passion fruit juice and pear
juice, mango pulp and pear juice and pear juice and papaya pulp (Imungi and Choge,
1996).
Chauhan et al. (1997) found the best combination of sugarcane juice
beverages by blending of cane juice (55%), lemon juice (2.5%), ginger juice
(2.0%), mint extract (0.4%), colour (0.2%) and water (40%).
Pandey and Singh (1998) reported that organoleptic quality
determines the storage stability of product. There is gradual increase in the
organoleptic quality of guava squash and it was found acceptable upto 6
months.
Thakur and Barwal (1998) observed a considerable decrease in
sensory mean score for taste, flavour and overall acceptability in the squash
of Kiwi fruit during storage. The sensory mean score for each attribute was
highest on the day of preparation, which decreased with the passage of
time in storage.
Pandey and Singh (1999) reported a gradual decrease in organoleptic
quality of the guava RTS beverage and it was acceptable upto 4 months.
Deka (2000) reported that the quality of the RTS beverages could be
improved by blending different fruit juice/pulp (mango, lime, aonla, grape,
pineapple) in appropriate proportions. Lime-aonla (lime 95% + aonla 5%)
beverage was the best among the beverages liked.
Dwivedi and Mitra (2000) observed the organoleptic evaluation of litchi
squash and cultivar Bedana was found to be best. The squash prepared from
fruits of cultivar Bedana scored highest value 7.5 followed by Bombai (7.0).
All other cultivar had poor organoleptic value of 6.5.
Nectars produced with guava and papaya pulp (70:30) had a high sensory
quality score, mainly due to consistency and flavour (Tiwari, 2000).
The addition of acerola pulp upto a limit of 34 % to a papaya and acerola
nectar did not affect the sensory acceptance of the nectar and presented approximate
170 mg 100 g-1
ascorbic acid. The optimum level of sugar was between 8.5 % and
16 % (Folegatti et al., 2000).
Ziena (2000) evaluated sensory properties of the lime juices stored
under refrigeration (5±10C) and freezing (-20±10C) temperature and he found
that the juices were acceptable upto 27 and 21 weeks for dark-green and
light-greenish juices, respectively. Frozen juices were acceptable upto the
end of experiment.
Kalsi and Dhawan (2001) studied on guava fruit bar and found that a
significant reduction in organoleptic rating was also observed.
Kumar and Manimegalai (2001) reported that the decline in score values for
overall acceptability in blended RTS beverage of pineapple, pear and pomegranate
might be due to the degradation of colour and the changes occurred in appearance
and taste of the stored products. The RTS stored in refrigeration had maintained
higher score values throughout the storage period for all the attributes.
Nath and Yadav (2002) evaluated various ratio of kinnow mandarin
and ginger juice for blended squash and found that the ratio 25:5 was ideal
for overall acceptability with a score of 8.2.
Pineapple juice (20.9 mg 100 g-1 ascorbic acid) added with 10 %
acerola juice (1000 mg 100 g-1 ascorbic acid) resulted in product with about
five times the vitamin C content of pineapple juice and sensorial analyses
showed no difference between treatments (Matsuura and Rolim, 2002).
Prasad and Nath (2002) reported that clarified sugarcane juice could
replace sugar upto 100 per cent in the preparation of the lime RTS beverage
without adversely affecting the quality.
Bons and Dhawan (2003a) observed that organoleptic evaluation of
guava RTS beverage showed maximum score (32.5) when prepared from
pulp treated with KMS 0.07 per cent and stored at freezing temperature
followed by score of 31.8 in the beverage prepared from the pulp treated with
KMS 0.1 per cent at low temperature. These beverages were compared with
beverage prepared from fresh guava pulp.
Kumar and Manimegalai (2003) reported that in whey-based
pineapple fruit juice RTS beverage, sensory quality attributes were found to
be highly acceptable even after storing for 3 months under refrigeration.
Deka et al. (2004) reported that the lime-aonla spiced RTS beverages
showed a gradual decrease in sensory quality when stored in white and
amber coloured bottles for 6 months at ambient temperature (12.5-360C),
cool chamber (10-29.60C) and low temperature (4±10C).
Pandey (2004) prepared RTS beverage using guava fruits and
reported that the organoleptic quality gradually decreased during storage
under ambient condition. The beverages were subjected to sensory
evaluation using a 9-point hedonic scale.
Pinto et al. (2004) reported that the incorporation of ginger juice at the
rate of 4 per cent was advocated in manufacturing of ice-cream and had
superior flavour over vanilla ice-cream.
Saravanan et al. (2004) observed that the papaya nectar with higher
pulp level of 23 per cent had excellent colour, appearance, aroma, taste and
overall acceptability.
Deka et al. (2005) found that the sensory quality of the mango-
pineapple spiced beverages got decreased linearly over a period of 6 months
irrespective of storage conditions and glass containers. The percentage
decrease of overall quality was 7.51 per cent at low temperature as against
19.95 per cent at ambient temperatures.
Mandal and Pathak (2005) studied the changes during storage of
pineapple and phalsa nectar indicated that the organoleptic scores of nectar
decreased gradually during storage at room temperature. The acceptability of
nectar was maintained upto 5 months.
Nath et al. (2005) found that the sensory flavour score decreased
continuously with increase in storage period in case of ginger-kinnow
blended squash.
Singh et al. (2005) observed that the organoleptic quality of bael and
blended bael RTS decreased with the increase in storage period. However,
organoleptic score of RTS remained above the acceptable point even after 6
months of storage.
Jain et al. (2006) studied the suitability of eight aonla cultivars viz.,
Banarasi, Chakaiya, Francis, Kanchan, Krishna, NA-10, NA-6 and NA-7 for
preparation of squash and their shelf life and reported that among the
cultivars of aonla, “Chakaiya” was found most suitable cv. for preparation of
squash. The squash prepared from the cv. Chakaiya recorded significantly
highest organoleptic score 8.4 and it remained acceptable upto period of 6
months during storage at room temperature.
Verma and Gehlot (2006) observed that bael nectar prepared with 20
per cent pulp, 15 per cent TSS and 0.25 per cent acidity were found most
acceptable.
Tandon et al. (2007) found that a declining trend was observed in the
overall organoleptic quality of the bael-papaya blended RTS beverages.
Choudhary et al. (2008) observed that the organoleptic score of guava
nectar prepared from four guava varieties were decreased during storage.
CHAPTER-III
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This chapter deals with a concise description of the material used and
the technique adopted during the course of investigation. The present
investigation entitled “Studies on recipe standardization and shelf life of
nectar beverage from carrot and carrot-beetroot combinations” was
conducted at Fruit Processing Laboratory of the Department of Horticulture,
College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)
during the year 2008-09.
The details regarding material used and techniques applied during the course
of investigation have been described in this chapter.
3.1 Geographical situation
Raipur is situated in the central part of the Chhattisgarh and lies at
21.16 N latitude and 81.36 E longitude at an altitude of 289.56 metres
above mean sea level under Chhattisgarh plains.
3.2 Climate
Raipur comes under dry, sub-humid agro-climatic region of
Chhattisgarh plains. The average annual rainfall ranges from 1200-1400 mm,
out of which about 85 per cent is received from the third week of June to mid
of September and very little during October to February. May is the hottest
month and December is the coolest. The maximum temperature goes as
high as 46C during summer and
minimum as low as 6C during winter months. The atmospheric humidity is
high from June to September.
3.3 Weather condition during storage period
The meteorological observation during the period of investigation has
been shown in Fig. 3.1 and Appendix-I.
3.4 Experimental details
Crops : Carrot and Beetroot
Processed product : Nectar beverage
Design of experiment : Completely Randomized Design
Number of replications : Three
Number of treatments : Eight
Storage of product : Upto acceptability through sensory evaluation
at 30 days interval
Chemical used : Potassium metabisulphite and Sodium
benzoate
3.4.1 Standardization of recipe for preparation of carrot and carrot-
beetroot nectar
Treatment details
Different recipes were prepared for carrot nectar and carrot-beetroot
nectar and organoleptically tested to find out the acceptable recipe to
prepare the beverages from carrot and carrot-beetroot. After standardization
of nectar from carrot and carrot-beetroot, the acceptable nectar was kept for
further storage study. Different preservatives were also added to enhance
the shelf life of acceptable nectar.
3.4.1.1 Treatments of recipe standardization for carrot nectar
The following recipes were tested to standardize carrot nectar
3.4.1.2 Treatments of recipe standardization for carrot-beetroot
nectar
The following recipes were tested to standardize carrot-beetroot
nectar
Treatments Pulp (%) TSS (%) Acidity (%)
T1 20 13 0.3
T2 20 14 0.3
T3 20 15 0.3
T4 20 16 0.3
T5 20 17 0.3
Treatments Pulp (%) TSS (%) Acidity (%)
T1 (1% beetroot
juice)
20 13 0.3
T2 (1% beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3
T3 (1% beetroot
juice)
20 15 0.3
T4 (1% beetroot
juice)
20 16 0.3
T5 (1% beetroot
juice)
20 17 0.3
T6 (2% beetroot
juice)
20 13 0.3
T7 (2% beetroot 20 14 0.3
juice)
T8 (2% beetroot
juice)
20 15 0.3
T9 (2% beetroot
juice)
20 16 0.3
T10 (2% beetroot
juice)
20 17 0.3
T11 (3% beetroot
juice)
20 13 0.3
T12 (3% beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3
T13 (3% beetroot
juice)
20 15 0.3
T14 (3% beetroot
juice)
20 16 0.3
T15 (3% beetroot
juice)
20 17 0.3
3.4.1.3 Standardized treatments of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
To enhance the shelf life of standardized treatments of carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar potassium metabisulphite and sodium benzoate were
added.
3.5 Preparation of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar beverage
3.5.1 Selection of carrot and beetroot
Mature carrot and beetroot were selected for the preparation of nectar
beverage. Carrot and beetroot were washed in running tap water to remove
dirt and dust particles.
Treatments Pulp
(%)
TSS
(%)
Acidit
y
(%)
Preservative
(%)
T1 (Carrot pulp) 20 14 0.3 ----
T2 (Carrot pulp) 20 14 0.3 0.1 % KMS
T3 (Carrot pulp) 20 14 0.3 0.1 % SB
T4 (Carrot pulp) 20 14 0.3 0.05 % KMS
+ 0.05 % SB
T5 (Carrot pulp +1 % beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3 ----
T6 (Carrot pulp +1 % beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3 0.1 % KMS
T7 (Carrot pulp +1 % beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3 0.1 % SB
T8 (Carrot pulp +1 % beetroot
juice)
20 14 0.3 0.05 % KMS
+ 0.05 % SB
3.5.2 Extraction of pulp/juice
After peeling, both the end of carrot was removed. Carrot was cut in
small pieces and boiled with water in 1:1 ratio. Boiled material were ground
with the help of mixer-grinder to find the pulp. In case of beetroot after
removal of the peel, it was cut into small pieces and ground with the help of
mixer-grinder to extract juice through muslin cloth.
3.5.3 Preparation of nectar
After the pulp/juice extraction, 20 per cent pulp/juice of carrot and
beetroot was taken as per the treatments for nectar preparation. The
preferable per cent of TSS and 0.3 per cent acidity were maintained by
addition of sugar, citric acid and water for all the treatments.
3.5.4 Filtration
The prepared nectar beverages were again filtered through a muslin
cloth to obtain a uniform consistent product.
3.5.5 Bottling and sealing
The product was poured into hot, sterilized bottles of 250 ml capacity
and sealed airtight by crown-corking machine.
3.5.6 Pasteurization
The filled bottles were pasteurized in boiling water till the temperature
of product reaches 80C. It took about 15-20 minutes to attain required
temperature.
3.5.7 Storage
The bottles of nectar beverage were kept at ambient condition for
further studies at 30 days interval.
3.6 Observations recorded
3.6.1 Physical characters of carrot
Carrot was taken for physical characters under each replication.
3.6.1.1 Weight of carrot (g)
Randomly selected 10 mature carrots were weighed separately on
sensitive electronic balance and their mean weight was recorded in gram for
each replication.
3.6.1.2 Weight of pulp (g)
After peeling and cutting of both the end of carrot, remaining portion of
carrot was weighed.
3.6.1.3 Weight of non-edible waste (g)
The weight of non-edible wastes was calculated by deducting the
weight of pulp from weight of carrot:
Weight of non-edible waste (g) = Weight of carrot – weight of pulp (g)
3.6.2 Chemical analysis of pulp and nectar
Chemical analysis of pulp and nectar beverages prepared from carrot
pulp and blended with beetroot juice was carried out upto acceptability at 30
days interval during storage under ambient condition.
3.6.2.1 β-carotene (mg/100 mg)
Taken 5 g of fresh sample and crushed in 10-15 ml acetone, adding a
few crystal of anhydrous sodium sulphate, with the help of pestle and mortar.
The supernatant was decanted into a beaker. Repeated the process twice
and transfered the combined supernatant to a separatory funnel, added 10-
15 ml petroleum ether and mixed thoroughly. Two layer will separated out on
standing. The lower layer was discarded and collected upper layer in a 100
ml volumetric flask, made up the volume to 100 ml with petroleum ether and
optical density was recorded at 452 nm using petroleum ether as blank.
3.6.2.2 Acidity (%)
The acidity of the pulp and nectar was determined by the procedure given by
Ranganna (1997). Total acid content was estimated by titrating 10 g of pulp or 10 ml
of nectar against 0.1 N NaOH using phenolphthalein as an indicator. The end point
appeared as light pink colour. Acidity was calculated by the titre value with the help
of following formula:
Titre × Normality × Volume × Equivalent × 100
of alkali made up weight of acid
Acidity (%) =
Volume of sample taken × Weight or volume × 1000
for estimation of sample taken
3.6.2.3 Total soluble solids (%)
Total soluble solids (TSS) of carrot pulp and nectar were determined
with the help of hand refractometer, which is based on the principle of total
refraction.
3.6.2.4 Sugars (%)
Sugars were determined by the method of Lane and Eynon as
described by Ranganna (1997).
Reagents
1. Fehling’s solution A : Copper sulphate 69.28 g and volume made up to
one litre.
2. Fehling’s solution B : Potassium sodium tartrate 346 g and sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) 100 g and volume made up to one litre.
3. Methylene blue indicator : Methylene blue 1% aqueous.
4. Neutral lead acetate (45 %) solution.
5. Potassium oxalate (22 %) solution.
6. Standard invert sugar solution: AR sucrose 9.5 g and concentrate HCI
5 ml and volume up to 100 ml.
This solution was allowed to stand for further three days at 20-250C
for inversion to take place and could be used for several months during
analysis.
Twenty five ml of invert sugar solution was taken in a flask and added
50 ml distilled water, then neutralized with 20% NaOH in the presence of
phenolphthalein as an indicator until the solution turned into pink colour, then
acidified with 1N HCI till pink colour disappears. The volume was made up to
the mark with distilled water (1 ml = 2.5 mg of invert sugar).
A. Reducing sugar
The reducing sugar was estimated by taking 25 ml of filtered
juice/nectar into 250 ml of volumetric flask and 100 ml of distilled water was
added to it and this was neutralized with 1 N NaOH. Then, 2 ml of lead
acetate solution was added in it. It was shaked well and stand for 10 minutes.
Thereafter, 2 ml of potassium oxalate solution was added. The volume was
made up with water and filtered. This process was necessary to get clarified
solution.
Five ml of the Fehling‟s solution A and B was taken in a 250 ml conical
flask. Burette was filled with the clarified sugar solution. Conical flask was heated in
an open flame. Two to four ml sugar solution was poured and 1-2 drop methylene
blue indicator was added. Now, this solution was kept for heating and sugar solution
was added to it. The end point appeared with brick-red colour. The reducing sugar
was expressed in per cent and calculated by the following formula:
Invert sugar (mg) × Dilution × 100
Reducing sugar (%) =
Titre × Weight or volume × 1000
of sample taken
B. Total sugar
The total sugar was estimated by taking 50 ml aliquot of clarified and
deleaded solution in the 250 ml of volumetric flask. Five ml of HCI was added
in it and it was allowed to stand at room temperature for 24 hours. This was
neutralized with concentrate NaOH solution and made up the volume up to
250 ml. An aliquot was taken and total sugars were determined as invert
sugars.
Invert sugar (mg) × Dilution × 100
Total sugar as =
invert sugar (%) Titre × Weight or volume × 1000
of the sample
Sucrose (%) = (Total invert sugar (%) - Reducing sugar originally present
(%)) × 0.95
Total sugar (%) = Reducing sugar (%) + Sucrose (%).
C. Non-reducing sugar
Non-reducing sugar was determined by subtracting the value of
reducing sugar from total sugar.
3.6.2.5 Sugar: acid ratio
The sugar: acid ratio was determined by dividing TSS of the pulp or
nectar with acidity of pulp or nectar.
3.7 Organoleptic evaluation
The nectar beverages prepared from carrot and carrot-beetroot
combinations were subjected to sensory evaluation at 30 days interval by the
panel of five judges following the hedonic rating scale as described by
Ranganna (1997). The products were evaluated for colour, aroma, taste and
overall acceptability.
The overall acceptability of products was based upon the mean scores
obtained from all the characters studied under the organoleptic test. The products
which scored seven or more for overall acceptability were considered as acceptable.
The mean scores obtained for different products were calculated.
3.8 Statistical analysis
Data recorded on various aspects in the laboratory were subjected to
statistical analysis of variance as given by Steel and Torrie (1981).
Fig. 3.2 : Flow-sheet for extraction of carrot pulp
Sorting and washing
Peeling
Cut the both end of carrot
Cutting into pieces
Boiling of carrot pieces with water (1:1 ratio)
Grind in mixer
Pulp
Selection of carrot
Cooling
Fig. 3.3 : Flow-sheet for extraction of beetroot juice
Selection of beetroot
Sorting and washing
Peeling
Cut the both end of beetroot
Cutting into pieces
Grind in mixer
Sieving of pulp through muslin cloth and squeezing
Juice
Fig. 3.4 : Flow-sheet for preparation of nectar/ blended nectar
``
Preparation of syrup
Blending of carrot pulp and beetroot juice as per the treatments
Water
Addition of sugar
Boiling
Addition of citric acid
Filtering
Syrup
Mixing of 20 % pulp/juice with prepared syrup
Boiling
Filtration
Bottling and Sealing
Pasteurization
Extracted pulp or filtered juice
Storage under ambient
condition
For nectar Pulp/Juice - 20 % TSS - 14 % Acidity - 0.3 %
Addition of preservatives as per
the treatments
CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data recorded and results obtained on various aspects of carrot and carrot-
beetroot nectar during the course of investigation have been presented in
appropriate table and figures alongwith statistical interpretations. Results and
discussions which are briefly elucidated under the following heads:
4.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
4.2 Organoleptic evaluation of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
during recipe standardization
4.3 Organoleptic score of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during
storage
4.4 Chemical changes in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during
storage
4.1 Physico-chemical composition of carrot
4.1.1 Physical composition
Data pertaining to physico-chemical composition of carrot is presented in
Table 4.1.
Data showed that the average weight of carrot was 21.8g. Similar results
pertaining to weight of carrot was obtained by Pal and Roy (1985) for this trait.
The weight of non-edible waste and pulp were observed as 5.2g and 16.6g,
respectively.
4.1.2 Chemical composition
Data with respect to chemical composition of carrot presented in Table
4.1 revealed that total soluble solids (TSS), acidity and β-carotene were recorded
9.5 per cent, 0.13 per cent and 2.52 mg/100g, respectively during the course of
investigation.
Reducing sugar, non-reducing sugar, total sugar and sugar : acid ratio
were recorded 2.55 per cent, 5.4 per cent, 7.95 per cent and 73.08 respectively.
Similar results were reported by Pal and Roy (1985) who recorded total sugar in
carrot in the range of 6.81 to 8.08 per cent in 110 days to 130 days.
4.2 Organoleptic evaluation of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during
recipe standardization
4.2.1 Recipe standardization for nectar prepared from carrot
A panel of five judges did organoleptic evaluation of carrot nectar
prepared from different recipes. The organoleptic scores are presented in
Table 4.2.1.
The different treatments as recipes recorded organoleptic score between
6.4 to 7.4. The highest score was obtained by recipe T2 (7.4) with rating „like
moderately‟. The rest of the recipes were recorded score lower than the
acceptable score 7.0.
Among all the recipes, the recipe T2 not only gained highest score in
overall acceptability but also recorded highest score in colour (7.0), appearance
(7.0), aroma (7.2) and taste (8.0).
These five recipes differed only in their TSS content, of which T2
contained 14 per cent TSS. The result of organoleptic evaluation showed that the
judges liked medium TSS (14 %) of nectar. Similar finding was also reported by
Rabbani and Singh (1988) in the nectar of sucking mango varieties.
4.2.2 Recipe standardization for nectar prepared from carrot-beetroot
Data with respect to organoleptic evaluation for recipe standardization of
carrot-beetroot nectar are presented in Table 4.2.2.
The highest score for overall acceptability was recorded by T2 (7.2)
having got rating “like moderately”. Among all the recipes, only T2 reached
above the acceptability limit of 7.0 and rest all the treatments of recipes have got
score below 7.0. The recipe T2 not only recorded higher score in overall
acceptability but also recorded highest marks in colour (7.2), appearance (7.0),
aroma (7.2) and taste (8.2) as compared to rest of the recipes.
These fifteen recipes were different in their TSS content and per cent of
beetroot juice added in the recipe. The recipe T2 contained 14 % TSS and 1 %
beetroot juice. The result of organoleptic evaluation showed that the judges liked
14 % TSS with 1 % beetroot juice of nectar. The present findings are in
accordance with the report of Dhaliwal and Hira (2001) in combination of carrot
juice with beetroot juice.
4.3 Organoleptic score of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during
storage
Organoleptic evaluation of nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot stored
under ambient condition was done at 30 days interval by a panel of five judges.
Data pertaining to change in colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall
acceptability score of nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot during storage under
ambient condition are presented in Table 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5,
respectively.
The mean score of colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall
acceptability of different treatments were recorded at 0, 30, 60 and 90 days at
monthly intervals and observed that nectar continuously decreased their colour,
aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability of different treatment upto 90
days.
At the time of nectar preparation (0 day), maximum mean score of colour,
aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability were recorded 8.6, 8.0, 8.4, 8.8
and 8.4, respectively in T1. While, minimum mean score of colour, aroma, taste,
appearance and overall acceptability were recorded 8.0 (T2 & T8), 7.4 (T4, T6 &
T8), 7.6 (T4 & T8), 8.2 (T2, T4 & T6) and 7.6 (T6 & T8), respectively.
After 30 days of storage, maximum mean score of colour, aroma, taste,
appearance and overall acceptability were recorded 8.0, 7.8, 8.0, 7.8 and 7.8,
respectively under T1. While, minimum mean score of colour, aroma, taste,
appearance and overall acceptability were observed as 7.6 (T6 & T8), 7.0 (T6 &
T8), 7.0 (T8), 7.4 (T6) and 7.2 (T4 & T6), respectively.
After 60 days of storage, maximum mean score of colour, aroma, taste,
appearance and overall acceptability were observed 8.0 (T1), 7.4 (T1 & T5), 7.8
(T1 & T5), 7.8 (T1 & T5) and 7.6 (T1), respectively. Whereas, minimum mean
score of colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability were recorded
7.2 (T8), 6.6 (T8), 6.4 (T8), 7.0 (T8) and 7.0 (T4, T6 & T8), respectively.
At 90 days of storage, maximum mean score of colour, aroma, taste,
appearance and overall acceptability were observed 7.8 (T1), 6.8 (T1), 7.2 (T1),
7.4 (T1, T3& T5) and 7.0 (T1 & T5), respectively. While, minimum mean score of
colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability were recorded to 6.8
(T8), 5.8 (T8), 5.8 (T6 & T8), 6.4 (T8) and 6.2 (T4, T6 & T8), respectively. The
organoleptic score below the seven value indicated the non-suitability of the
product for consumption. The nectar had a gradual decrease in organoleptic
quality during storage period at ambient condition.
There was a considerable decrease in sensory mean score for taste, flavour
and overall acceptability during storage. There are many extrinsic factors which
determines the storage stability of product and temperature plays an important
role among them. There are certain biochemical changes which occurs under low
PH and high temperature that leads to formation of brown pigment and produces
off flavour in the beverage.
The other possible reasons could be the loss of volatile aromatic
substances responsible for flavour and taste which decreased acceptability in
storage at ambient condition. The present findings are in accordance with the
view of Baramanray et al. (1995) in guava nectar.
4.4 Chemical changes in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
during storage
4.4.1 β-carotene
Data pertaining to effect of different treatments on β-carotene in nectar of
carrot and carrot-beetroot during ambient storage condition are presented in Table
4.4.1 and illustrated in Fig. 4.4.1.
It is evident from the data that β-carotene content in nectar showed a
decreasing trend with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on β-
carotene content differed significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90 days
of storage. At the time of preparation, maximum β-carotene was recorded with
the treatment T1 (0.89 mg/100 ml) followed by T4, T7, T2 and T3 and it was
recorded minimum under the treatment T6 (0.84 mg/100 ml). The treatments T1,
T4, T7, T2, T3, T5 and T8 were statistically at par.
After 30 days of storage, the β-carotene was found to be maximum with
the treatment T1 (0.87 mg/100 ml) followed by T4, T5, T3 and T2, while, the
minimum β-carotene content was recorded with the treatment T6 (0.82 mg/100
ml). The treatments T1, T4, T5 and T3 were statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the β-carotene was found to be significantly
higher with the treatment T6 (0.83 mg/100 ml), which was followed by the
treatments T7, T1, T5 and T8. The minimum β-carotene was recorded under the
treatment T3 (0.78 mg/100 ml). The treatments T6, T7, T1, T5 and T8 were
statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, the β-carotene was found to be significantly higher
with the treatment T3 (0.79 mg/100 ml) followed by T1, T4, T2 and T8, whereas, it
was recorded minimum under the treatment T7 (0.71 mg/100 ml). The treatments
T3, T1, T4, T2, T8 and T5 were statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the β-carotene was
found to be higher with the treatment T1 (0.84 mg/100 ml) whereas, the minimum
β-carotene was recorded under the treatments T6 and T7.
The results revealed that throughout the storage period, there was
degradation in the β-carotene. The decrease in β-carotene during storage period
might be due to its unstable and photosensitive nature. Similar observation was
made by Saravanan et al. (2004) in papaya nectar during storage period. The
degradation in total carotenoids was also observed by Deka et al. (2005) in
mango-pineapple spiced beverages and Tandon et al. (2007) in bael-papaya
blended RTS beverages.
4.4.2 Acidity
Data with respect to effect of different treatments on the acidity of carrot
and carrot-beetroot nectar under ambient condition of storage are presented in
Table 4.4.2 and depicted in Fig.4.4.2.
It is vivid from the data that acidity of nectar showed an increasing trend
with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). A non-significant difference in
acidity was observed at the time of preparation. The acidity of nectar was found
to be significant between the treatments from 30 to 90 days of storage.
At 30 days of storage, the titrable acidity was found to be significantly
higher in the treatment T4 (0.41 %) followed by T1, T2, T5 and T8. While, the
minimum acidity was observed with the treatment T6 (0.34 %) and it was at par
with the treatment T7.
After 60 days of storage, the acidity was found significantly higher in the
treatment T3 (0.63 %) followed by T4, T2, T6, T8, while, the minimum acidity was
observed under the treatment T1 (0.45 %). The acidity was found to be similar
with the treatments T3 and T4.
At 90 days of storage, maximum acidity was recorded with the treatment
T5 (0.78 %) followed by T3, T8 T2 and T7, while, the minimum acidity was noted
under the treatment T4 (0.63 %). The treatments T4 and T6 were statistically at
par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the acidity was found
to be minimum in T1 (0.46 %) whereas, it was maximum in T5 (0.51 %). Hence
T1 observed to have maximum shelf life due to its low acidity per cent.
The increase in acidity of nectar during storage may be due to formation
of organic acids. Similar findings have also been reported in guava beverages
(Choudhary et al., 2008; Baramanray et al., 1995 and Kalra and Tandon, 1984),
RTS and nectar from litchi (Singh, 1988) and phalsa nectar (Wasker and
Khurdiya, 1987).
4.4.3 Total soluble solids (TSS)
Data recorded on the effect of different treatments on total soluble solids
of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar stored under ambient condition are presented
in Table 4.4.3 and illustrated in Fig. 4.4.3.
It is apparent from the data that total soluble solids content in nectar
showed a decreasing trend with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The
total soluble solids content of nectar showed non-significant differences at the
time of preparation (0 day), while it was found significant from 30 to 90 days of
storage.
After 30 days of storage, the TSS value was recorded maximum in the
treatment T6 (13.90 %) followed by T7, T1 T5 and T3 and it was found to be
similar with T6 and T7. While, the minimum TSS was observed with the
treatment T2 (13.57 %). The treatments T6, T7, T1, T5, T3 T4 and T8 were
statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the maximum TSS was determined in the
treatment T4 (13.77 %) followed by T6, T7, T1 and T3. While, the minimum TSS
was recorded with the treatment T2 (13.50 %). The treatments T4, T6, T7, T1, T3
and T5 were statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, the TSS was recorded maximum in the treatment T4
(13.63 %) followed by T1, T3, T5 and T6, whereas, the minimum TSS was
observed in the treatment T8 (13.33 %). The treatments T4, T1, T3, T5 and T6 were
statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the TSS was found to
be maximum in T4 (13.81 %) while, the minimum TSS was observed under the
treatment T2 (13.64 %).
In conformity of present findings, the decreasing trend of TSS was
reported by Kalra and Tondon (1984) in guava nectar.
4.4.4 Sugar: acid ratio
Data pertaining to effect of different treatments on the sugar: acid ratio of
nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot during ambient storage condition are
presented in Table 4.4.4 and illustrated through Fig.4.4.4.
Data revealed that sugar: acid ratio in nectar showed a decreasing trend
with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The ratio showed non-significant
difference at the time of preparation. The ratio differed significantly from 30 to
90 days of storage.
After 30 days of storage, the ratio was recorded maximum in the
treatment T6 (40.97) followed by T7, T3, T5 and T1. The minimum sugar: acid
ratio was recorded with the treatment T4 (33.90). The treatments T7, T3, T5, T1, T8
and T2 were statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the sugar: acid ratio was found maximum in the
treatment T1 (30.29) followed by T5, T7, T6 and T2. The minimum ratio was
observed with the treatment T3 (21.77). The treatments T5, T7, T6, T2 and T8 were
statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, T4 contained maximum ratio of 21.56 followed by
T6, T2, T1 and T7. The minimum sugar: acid ratio of 17.47 was recorded in the
treatment T5 (carrot pulp + 1% beetroot juice). The treatments T4 and T6 were
statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the sugar : acid ratio
was found to be maximum in T1 (32.86 %) while, the minimum sugar : acid ratio
was observed under the treatment T2 (30.89 %).
The lower sugar : acid ratio was due to lower TSS and/or higher acidity of
prepared product. It is also an important trait of acceptable quality upto a certain
limit.
4.4.5 Reducing sugar
Data obtained pertaining to effect of different treatments on reducing
sugar in the nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot under ambient condition storage
are presented in Table 4.4.5 and illustrated in Fig. 4.4.5.
It is apparent from the data that reducing sugar content in nectar showed
an increasing trend with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on
reducing sugar content differed significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90
days of storage.
At the time of preparation, maximum reducing sugar was recorded with
the treatment T4 (2.59 %) followed by T3, T1, T2 and T6. The minimum reducing
sugar was recorded with the treatment T7 (2.11 %). The treatments T3, T1 and T2
were statistically at par.
After 30 days of storage, the reducing sugar was recorded significantly
higher in the treatment T3 (2.63 %) followed by T6, T4, T8 and T3. It was
minimum with the treatment T1 and T7 (2.40 %). The treatments T3, T6, T4, T8
and T2 were statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the reducing sugar was found to be significantly
higher with the treatment T7 (2.78 %) followed by T3, T6, T8 and T5. The
reducing sugar was recorded minimum in the treatment T1 (2.42 %). The
treatments T7, T3, T6, T8, T5 and T4 were statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, a significant higher reducing sugar was observed
with the treatment T6 (2.97 %) as compared to rest of the treatments, which is
followed by the treatment T3, T8, T7 and T5. Reducing sugar content was recorded
minimum with the treatment T2 (2.63 %). The treatments T6, T3, T8, T7, T5 and T4
were statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the reducing sugar
was recorded maximum in T3 (2.67 %) while, the minimum reducing sugar was
observed under the treatment T1 (2.46 %).
The increased level of reducing sugar was probably due to gradual loss of
moisture and hydrolysis of polysaccharides into sugars. Similar findings have
also been reported in beverages of guava (Choudhary et al., 2008; Baramanray et
al., 1995 and Khurdiya and Sagar, 1991), mango nectar and RTS (Jain et al.,
1996 and Jain et al., 1997), papaya nectar (Saravanan et al., 2004) and bael
beverages (Verma and Gehlot, 2006).
4.4.6 Non-reducing sugar
Data with respect to non-reducing sugar as influenced by different
treatments under ambient storage condition of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
are presented in Table 4.4.6 and illustrated in Fig. 4.4.6.
It is evident from the data that non-reducing sugar content in nectar
showed an increasing trend at 0 to 30 days. At the time of preparation, non-
reducing sugar content was recorded maximum with the treatment T7 (7.94 %)
followed by T2, T5, T8 and T6. The minimum non-reducing sugar of 6.82 per cent
was recorded under the treatment T1. The treatments T7, T2, T5, T8 and T6 were
statistically at par.
After 30 days of storage, the non-reducing sugar was found to be
significantly higher with the treatment T2 (10.50 %) as compared to rest of the
treatments. The minimum non-reducing sugar of 7.94 per cent was recorded with
the treatment T7. The treatments T2, T3, T8, T6 and T5 were statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the non-reducing sugar was found to be
significantly higher with the treatment T3 (10.50 %) followed by T6, T4, T2 and
T7. It was recorded minimum in the treatment T1 and T8 (8.73 %). The treatments
T3, T6, T4, T2 and T7 were statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, the non-reducing sugar was found to be maximum
in T6 (11.11 %) followed by T6, T4, T2 and T7, and it was recorded minimum in
the treatment T4 (9.60%). The treatments T6, T7, T8 T3, T1, T2 and T5 were
statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the non-reducing sugar
was found to be maximum in T6 (9.66 %) whereas, the minimum non-reducing
sugar was observed under the treatment T1 (8.62 %).
4.4.7 Total sugar
Data recorded with respect to effect of different treatments on total sugar
in nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot during ambient storage condition are
presented in Table 4.4.7 and illustrated in Fig. 4.4.7.
It is vivid from the data that total sugar content in nectar showed an
increasing trend with increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on
total sugar content differed significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90
days of storage. At the time of preparation, maximum total sugar was recorded
with the treatment T7 (10.05 %) followed by T2, T5, T8 and T6, while, it was
recorded minimum under the treatment T1 (9.14 %). The treatments T7, T2, T5, T8,
T6 and T4 were statistically at par.
After 30 days of storage, the total sugar was found to be significantly
higher with the treatment T3 (13.08 %) followed by T2, T8, T6 and T5, whereas,
the minimum total sugar content was observed with the treatment T7 (10.34 %).
The treatments T3, T2, T8 and T6 were statistically at par.
After 60 days of storage, the total sugar was found to be significantly
higher with the treatment T3 (13.26 %), which was followed by T6, T4, T7 and T2.
While, the minimum total sugar was recorded under the treatment T1 (11.15 %).
The treatments T3, T6, T4 and T7 were statistically at par.
At 90 days of storage, significantly a higher level of total sugar was
observed with the treatment T6 (14.09 %) followed by T7, T8, T3 and T5 and it
was recorded minimum under the treatment T4 (12.39 %). The treatments T6, T7
and T8 were statistically at par.
On the basis of mean of all storage period in days, the total sugar was
observed maximum in T6 (12.29 %) while, the minimum total minimum sugar
was recorded under the treatment T1 (11.06 %).
The increased level of total sugar was probably due to conversion of starch
into simple sugar. Similar finding have also been reported in beverages of guava
(Choudhary et al., 2008; Baramanray et al., 1995), date juice RTS beverage
(Godara and Pareek, 1985), papaya nectar (Saravanan et al., 2004), mango-
pineapple spiced beverages (Deka et al., 2005), bael beverages viz. RTS, nectar
and squash (Verma and Gehlot, 2006) and value-added products from sapota
(Sudha et al., 2007).
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK
The present investigation entitled “Studies on recipe standardization
and shelf life of nectar beverage from carrot and carrot-beetroot
combinations” was conducted at Fruit Processing Laboratory of the Department
of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur (C.G.) during the year 2008-09.
The experimental material consisted of carrot and beetroot, which were
procured from local market. The five recipes of carrot nectar, consisting 20 per
cent pulp, 0.3 per cent acidity and varying levels of TSS (13, 14, 15, 16, and 17
%) and fifteen recipes of carrot-beetroot nectar, having 20 per cent pulp with each
of 1, 2 and 3 % beetroot juice, 0.3 per cent acidity and varying levels of TSS (13,
14, 15, 16, and 17 %) were prepared and used to standardize an ideal recipe of
nectar. The organoleptic evaluation was carried out as per nine point Hedonic
rating scale by a panel of five judges. The nectar, which obtained score „7‟ and
above was considered as acceptable for ideal nectar.
After standardization of recipe for nectar prepared from carrot and carrot-
beetroot, the acceptable nectar were kept for further storage study under ambient
condition. Different preservatives i.e., potassium metabisulphite and sodium
benzoate were also added to enhance the shelf life of acceptable nectar. The
observations for sensory qualities as well as for chemical composition were
recorded at 30 days interval.
The results of experiment obtained during studies are summarized as
follows:
1. The nectar of carrot (14 % TSS) and carrot-beetroot (14 % TSS and 1 %
beetroot juice) gained maximum organoleptic score of 7.4 and 7.2,
respectively.
2. The recipe containing 20 per cent pulp, 14 per cent TSS and 0.3 per cent
acidity was found acceptable for preparation of carrot nectar and 20 per cent
pulp, 14 per cent TSS with 1.0 per cent beetroot juice and 0.3 per cent
acidity was found acceptable for preparation of carrot-beetroot nectar.
3. The nectar prepared from carrot and carrot-beetroot was remained
acceptable only for 90 days under ambient condition.
4. Total soluble solids (TSS) content in nectar showed a decreasing trend with
increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The TSS content of nectar
showed non-significant differences at the time of preparation (o day), while
it was found significant from 30 to 90 days of storage.
5. The acidity of nectar showed an increasing trend with increasing period of
storage (0 to 90 days). A non-significant difference in acidity was observed
at the time of preparation. The acidity of nectar was found to be significant
between the treatments from 30 to 90 days of storage.
6. The sugar: acid ratio in nectar showed a decreasing trend with increasing
period of storage (0 to 90 days). The ratio showed non-significant
difference at the time of preparation. It differed significantly from 30 to 90
days of storage.
7. The reducing sugar content in nectar showed an increasing trend with
increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on reducing sugar
content differed significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90 days of
storage.
8. The non-reducing sugar content in nectar showed an increasing trend at 0 to
30 days.
9. Total sugar content in nectar also showed an increasing trend with
increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on total sugar content
differed significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90 days of storage.
10. The β-carotene content in nectar showed a decreasing trend with increasing
period of storage (0 to 90 days). The data on β-carotene content differed
significantly between the treatments from 0 to 90 days of storage.
11. Organoleptic evaluation of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar stored under
ambient condition was done at 30 days interval by a panel of five judges.
The mean score of colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall
acceptability of different treatments were recorded at 0, 30, 60 and 90 days
intervals and observed that nectar continuously decreased their colour,
aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability at different treatments
upto 90 days.
12. The organoleptic score of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar also decreased
during storage upto 90 days under ambient condition, when the nectar was
preserved by the use of sodium benzoate and potassium meta-bi-sulphite.
Conclusion
1. In recipe standardization of nectar from carrot and carrot-beetroot, the
acceptance of carrot nectar was ranked first and carrot-beetroot obtained
second position in acceptance.
2. The recipe containing 20 per cent pulp, 14 per cent TSS and 0.3 per cent
acidity was found best for nectar preparation from carrot.
3. For carrot-beetroot nectar, the recipe containing 20 per cent carrot pulp, 14
per cent TSS with 1 per cent beetroot juice having 0.3 per cent acidity was
found the best.
4. The nectar of carrot and carrot-beetroot can be stored upto 90 days under
ambient condition.
5. The nectar continuously decreased their colour, aroma, taste, appearance
and overall acceptability with different treatments upto 90 days of storage.
But, it could be found acceptable upto 90 days of storage under ambient
condition.
Suggestions for future work
1. The experiment is based on the results of one year research work. Hence, it
may be repeated for one year more to find out conformity of the results.
2. Carrot is known for its β-carotene and carotenoids content besides
appreciable amounts of vitamin B1, B2, B6, B12 and minerals. Carrot is
known to reduce cancer in animals by 40%. Carrot juice, with its rapid
alkalizing effect, helps in controlling anaemia, liver trouble, acidosis,
blood poisoning, circulatory disorders and ulcers. It also helps in treatment
of ailments such as gall stones and gout. Carrot contains a plant hormone
tocokinin which is closely analogous to insulin and has proved to be
beneficial for diabetics. Rheumatic ailments, which are often a result of
poor nutrition, respond well to carrot juice. But, its juice can not be
consumed as such because of its unacceptable (slightly bitter) taste and
hence, it needs special attention for its processing to develop an acceptable
beverage. Processing of carrot juice in India has not received adequate
attention so far, though it is a vegetable of considerable economic
importance.
3. A very little work has been done so far in the field of vegetable
preservation technology in Chhattisgarh as well as in India for
development of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar. Hence, attention should
be given for development of newer carrot and carrot-beetroot based
drinks.
4. Research work should be intensified for the processing of beverages
based on locally available raw material.
Studies on recipe standardization and shelf life of nectar beverage
from carrot and carrot-beetroot combinations by
Arun Kumar Soni
ABSTRACT
The present investigation entitled “Studies on recipe standardization
and shelf life of nectar beverage from carrot and carrot-beetroot
combinations” was conducted at Fruit Processing Laboratory of the Department
of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur (C.G.) during the year 2008-09. The aim of investigation was to study the
physico-chemical composition of carrot, to standardize the recipe for carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar, to assess effect of different preservatives on keeping
quality of carrot nectar and carrot-beetroot nectar and to study the chemical
composition of nectar/blended nectar during storage under ambient condition. For
these objectives, two recipe treatments for each three level of preservatives (0.1
% potassium-meta-bi-sulphite, 0.1 % sodium benzoate and 0.05 % potassium-
meta-bi-sulphite + 0.05 % sodium benzoate) alongwith control of recipe were
framed out under Completely Randomized Design with three replications.
Fresh carrot and beetroot were procured from local market and analysed
for the physico-chemical composition of carrot. In recipe standardization of
nectar from carrot and carrot-beetroot, the acceptance of carrot nectar was ranked
first and carrot-beetroot obtained second position in acceptance. The recipe
containing 20 per cent pulp, 14 per cent TSS and 0.3 per cent acidity was found
best for nectar preparation from carrot. For carrot-beetroot nectar, the recipe
containing 20 per cent carrot pulp, 14 per cent TSS with 1 per cent beetroot juice
having 0.3 per cent acidity was found the best. Organoleptic evaluation of carrot
and carrot-beetroot nectar were tested periodically at 30 days interval for their
various chemical constituents and it was found that carrot nectar without
preservative was the best treatment among all treatments during storage upto 90
days.
Acidity, reducing sugar and total sugar showed an increasing trend with
increasing period of storage (0 to 90 days) under ambient condition. While, there
was a decreasing trend for total soluble solids, β-carotene, sugar : acid ratio and
organoleptic score during ambient storage condition upto 90 days. Among the
various treatment combinations evaluated in this investigation, the nectar
prepared from carrot (20 % pulp, 14 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity) recorded highest
organoleptic score for colour, aroma, taste, appearance and overall acceptability
followed by carrot–beetroot nectar (20 % carrot pulp with 1 % beetroot juice, 14
% TSS and 0.3 % acidity).
Department of Horticulture Dr. S.N. Dikshit
College of Agriculture, IGKV, (Major Advisor)
Raipur (C.G.)
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2008a. Area and production under horticultural crops, Indian
Horticulture Database, p.10, (c.f. www.nhb.gov.in).
Anonymous, 2008b. Indian Pediatrics. 45 : 215-217, (c.f. www.Indian Pediatrics-
Editorial.htm.).
Anonymous, 2008c. Area and Production of Fruits and Vegetables, (c.f.
Directorate of Horticulture, State Government Chhattisgarh, Raipur).
Attri and Maini, S. B. 1995. Physico-chemical changes in galgal juice stored with
salt and potassium matabisulphite. Indian J. Hort., 52 (1) : 24-26.
Attri, B.L., Lal, B.B. and Joshi, V.K. 1998. Physico-chemical characteristics,
sensory quality and storage behaviour of sand pear juice blended with
temperate fruit juices/ pulps. Indian Fd. Pack., 52 (6) : 36-42.
Baramanray, A., Gupta, O.P. and Dhawan, S.S. 1995. Evaluation of guava
(Psidium guajava L.) hybrids for making nectar. Haryana J. Hort. Sci.,
24 (2) : 102-109.
Bons, H.K. and Dhawan, S.S. 2003a. Effect of preserved guava pulp on quality of
ready-to-serve beverage. Crop Res., 25 (2) : 360-363.
Bons, H.K. and Dhawan S.S. 2003b. Evaluation of methods for preparation of
guava juice concentrate. Crop Res., 25 (2) : 364-368.
Branco, I. G., Sanjinez-Argandona, E. J., Silva, M. M. da, Paula, T. M. de 2007.
Sensorial evaluation and physico-chemical stability of a blend of orange
and carrot.Ciencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 27(1):7-12, (c.f. CAB
abstract, Vol.61).
Brasil, Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento. Instrucao narmativa
n 12, de 4 de stembro de 2003. Aprovar o regulamento tecnico para a
fixacao de padrocs de identidade e qualidade gerais de sucos tropicais
e nectars e outros. Diario Oficial da Uniao, 9 set. Secao, p.2, (c.f. CAB
abstract, Vol.61).
Chakraborthy, S., Bisht, H.C., Agarawal, M.D,. Verma, L.N., Shukla, I.C.,
Madaiah, N., Krishnaprakash, M.S. and Nanjundaswamy, A.M. 1991.
Studies on varietal screening of mangoes of Uttar Pradesh for their
suitability for production of canned nectar, juice and pulp. Indian Fd.
Pack., 45 (5) : 49-56.
Chauhan, S.K., Joshi, V.K. and Lal, B.B. 1997. Preparation and evaluation of a
refreshing sugarcane juice beverages. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 56 (4) : 220-
223.
Chawla, P., Ghai, S.and Sandhu, K.S. 2005. Studies on nutritional and
organoleptic characteristics of carrot pickle during storage. J. Food Sci.
Technol., 42 (4) : 358-360.
Chen, B.H. and Tang, Y.C. 1998. Processing and stability of carotenoid powder
from pulp waste. J. Agric. Food Chem., 46 : 2312-2318.
Choudhary, M.L. 2004. Evaluation of guava (Psidium guajava L.) varieties for
processing into nectar and ready-to-serve beverages. M.Sc.(Ag.)
Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.).
Choudhary, M.L., Dikshit, S.N., Shukla, N. and Saxena R.R. 2008. Evaluation of
guava (Psidium guajava L.) varieties and standardization of recipe for
nectar preparation. J. Hort. Sci., 3 (2) : 161-163.
Deka, B.C. 2000. Preparation and storage of mixed fruit juice spiced beverages.
Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.
Deka, B.C., Sethi, V. and Saikia, A. 2005. Changes in quality of mango-pineapple
spiced beverage during storage. Indian J. Hort., 62 (1) : 71-75.
Deka, B.C., Sethi, V., Suneja, P. and Srivastava, V.K. 2004. Physico-chemical
changes of lime-aonla spiced beverage during storage. J. Fd. Sci.
Technol., 41 (3) : 329-332.
Dhaliwal, M. and Hira, C.K. 2001. Effect of storage on physico-chemical and
nutritional characteristics of carrot-beetroot and carrot-blackcarrot
juices. J. Food Sci. Technol., 38 : 343-347.
Dhaliwal, M. and Hira, C.K. 2004. Effect of storage on physico-chemical and
nutritional characteristics of carrot-spinach and carrot-pineapple juices.
J. Food Sci. Technol., 41 : 613-617.
Dhaliwal, M.S. 2007. Handbook of vegetable crops. Kalyani Publishers, New
Delhi, pp.13-18.
Doodhnath, L., and Barie, N., 2001. Processing and quality evaluation of Ready-
to- serve watermelon nectars. J. Food Sci. Technol., 2001; 38 (5) : 495-
498.
Dwivedi, A.K. and Mitra, S.K. 2000. Performance of litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.)
cultivars for processing into squash. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 29 (3-4) :
176-177.
Folegatti, M. I. S., Ferreira, D. C., Matsuura, F. C. A. U. 2000. Otimizacao da
aceitacao de nectar de mamao e acerola atraves de metodologia de
superficie de resposta. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Ciencia e
Tecnologia de Alimentos, 17., Fortaleza, Anais Campinas: SBCTA, v.1,
p.319, (c.f. CAB abstract, Vol.61).
Godara, R.K. and Pareek, O.P. 1985. Effect of temperature on storage life of
ready-to- serve date juice beverage. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 55 (5) : 347-
349.
Imungi, J.K. and Choge, R.C. 1996. Some physico-chemical characteristics of four
Kenyan tropical fruits and acceptability of blends of their beverage
nectars. Ecology Food Nutrition, 35 (4) : 285.
Jain, Vijay, Tiwari B.L., Sharma, H.G. and Saxena, R.R. 1996. Evaluation of late
maturing mango varieties for the preparation of beverages as nectar
and RTS. Indian Fd. Pack., 50 (3) : 9-14.
Jain, Vijay, Tiwari, B.L. and Sharma, H.G. 1997. Evaluation of early maturing
mango varieties for the preparation of beverages, nectar and RTS.
Orissa J. Hort., 25 (1) : 40-45.
Jain, V., Singh, P. and Singh A.K. 2006. Screening of aonla cultivars for making
squash. Indian J. Arid Hort., 1 (1) : 44-46.
Jain, V., Singh, P. and Singh, A.K. 2007. Screening of aonla cultivars for making
nectar. Indian Fd. Pack., pp.116-120.
Kalra, S.K. and Tandon, D.K. 1984. Guava nectars from sulphited pulp and their
blends with mango nectar. Indian Fd. Pack., 38 (1) : 74-77.
Kalra, S.K., Tandon, D., Garg, N. and Singh, B.P. 1991. Quality evaluation of
some market fruit drinks. Indian Fd. Pack., 45 (3) : 48-53.
Kalsi, H. and Dhawan, S. S. 2001. Studies on the preparation and storage of
guava fruit bar. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 30 (3&4) : 187-189.
Kalsi, H., Dhawan, S.S. and Singh, R. 2002. Studies on extraction and
concentration of guava juice. Crop Res., 24 (1) : 184-187.
Kannan, S. and Thirumaran, A.S. 2004. Studies on storage life of jamun
(Syzygium cuminii Rom) fruit products. J. Food Sci. Technol., 41 (2) :
186-188.
Khurdiya, D.S. and Roy, S.K. 1984. Anthocyanin a quality index in jamun
beverages. Indian Fd. Pack., 38 (6) : 71-76.
Khurdiya, S. and Sagar, V.R. 1991. Note on processing and storage of guava
nectar. Indian J. Hort., 48 (1) : 19-21.
Kumar, S. and Singh, I.S. 1998. Studies on processing of papaya (Carica
papaya) fruits. Prog. Hort., 30 (3/4) : 139-147.
Kumar, S.R. and Manimegalai, G. 2001. Storage stability of mixed fruit juice,
RTS beverages in different storage conditions. Beverage & Food
World, 28 (2) : 28-29.
Kumar, S.R. and Manimegalai, G. 2003. A study on storage behaviour of whey-
based pineapple juice RTS beverage. Indian Fd. Pack., pp.51-55.
Mandal, P. and Pathak, S. 2005. Studies on blending of pineapple juice with
different ratios of phalsa juice for preparation of nectar beverages.
Orissa J. Hort., 33 (1) : 65-68.
Matsuura, F.C.A.U. and Rolim, R.B. 2002. Avaliacao da adicao de suco de
acerola em suco de abacaxi visando a producao da um blend com alto
teor de vitamina C. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, v. 24, p.138-141,
(c.f. CAB abstract, Vol.61).
Matsuura, F.C.A.U., Folegatti, M.I.S., Cardoso, R.L., Da Silva, M.A.A.P. 1999.
Otimizacao da aceitacao de nectar de manga enriquecido com acerola
atraves de metodologia de superficie de resposta e mapa de
preferencia. In: Simposio Latino Americano De Ciencia De Alimentos,
3., Campinas, 1999. Analis Campinas: Unicamp, p.210, (c.f. CAB
abstract, Vol.61).
Natarajan, S. and Veeraragavanthatham, D. 2001. Carrot (Daucus carota L.).
In : Vegetables,Tubercrops and Spices. Thamburaj T., Narendra
Singh(eds).ICAR, New Delhi, pp.151-156.
Nath, A. and Yadav, D.S. 2002. Standardization of ginger-kinnow, a blended
beverage from Kinnow mandarin juice. Indian J. Citriculture, 1 (2) : 189-
192.
Nath, A., Yadav, D. S., Sarma, P. and Dey, B. 2005. Standardization of ginger –
kinnow squash and its storage. J. Food Sci. Technol., 42 (6) : 520-522.
Pal, R.K. and Roy, S.K. 1985. Changes in physico-chemical composition of carrot.
Division of Fruits and Horticultural Technology IARI, New Delhi, pp.74-
78.
Pandey, A.K. and Singh, I.S. 1998. Studies on preparation and preservation of
guava squash. Prog. Hort., 34 (3-4) : 190-193.
Pandey, A.K. and Singh, J. 1999. Studies on preparation and preservation of
guava ready-to-serve beverage. Indian J. Hort., 56 (2) : 130-132.
Pandey, A.K. 2004. Study about the storage stability of guava beverages.
Prog.Hort., 36 (1) : 142-145.
Pinto, S.V., Jana, A.H. and Solanky, M.J. 2004. Ginger juice-based herbal ice-
cream and its physico-chemical and sensory characteristics. Indian J.
Dairy Sci., 57 (5) : 315-319.
Prasad, R.N. and Mali, P.C. 2000. Changes in physico-chemical characteristics of
pomegranate squash during storage. Indian J. Hort., 57 (1) : 18-20.
Prasad, K. and Nath, N. 2002. Comparison of sugarcane juice-based beverage
optimisation using response of surface methodology with fuzzy method.
Sugar Tech., 4 (3/4) : 109-115.
Rabbani, A. and Singh, I.S. 1998. Evaluation of local sucking mango varieties for
beverage industry. Acta Hort., 231 : 715-720.
Ranganna, S. 1986. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and
vegetable products. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi,
p.1093.
Ranganna, S. 1997. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and
vegetable products. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
Reddy, A. H. and Chikkasubbanna, V. 2008. Standardization of recipe and
storage behaviour of lime blended amla squash. Asian J. Hort., 3 (2) :
203-207.
Sagar, V.R. 2009. Changes in quality of ready-to-eat dehydrated carrot shreds
during storage. J. Food Sci. Technol., 46 (2) : 177-78.
Sahni, C.K. and Khurdiya, D.S. 1989. Effect of ripening and storage temperature
on quality of mango nectar. Indian Fd. Pack., 43 (6) : 5-11.
Saravanan, K., Godra, R.K., Goyal, R.K. and Sharma, R.K. 2004. Standardization
of recipe for papaya nectar and its storage. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 33
(3&4) : 204-206.
Sarolia, D.K. and Mukherjee, S. 2002. Comparative efficacy of different
preservation methods in keeping quality of lime (Citrus aurantifolia
Swingle (L.)) juice during storage. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 31 (3/4) : 185-
188.
Saxena, A.K., Teotia, M.S. and Berry, S.K. 1996. Studies on the development of
grape-mango and grape-pineapple beverage blends. Indian Fd. Pack.,
50 : 26.
Schieber, A., Stintzing, F.C. and Carle, R. 2001. By-products of plant food
processing as
a source of functional compounds-recent developments. Tr. Food Sci.
Technol., 12 : 401-413, (c.f. J.Food Sci. Technol., 43 (5) : 470-473).
Sethi, V. 1993. Changes in physico-chemical characteristics of litchi squash
during storage at different temperature. Indian J. Hort., 50 (4) : 327-332.
Sharma, A. and Singh, K. 2004. Effect of different treatments on physico-chemical
changes in lime juice during storage. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 33 (3&4) :
207-208.
Sharma, A. and Singh, K. 2005. Effect of different treatments on TSS, sugars,
viscosity and suspended pulp of lime juice during storage. Haryana
J. Hort. Sci., 34 (1-2) : 45-46.
Shaw, P.E. and Wilson, C.W. III, 1985. Sensory evaluation of passion fruit orange
juice blends. Lebensmitted Wissenschaft and Technoloie, 21(6):358,
(c.f. CAB abstract, Vol.61).
Sheeja, N. and Prema, L. 1995. Impact of pre-treatments on the shelf life quality
of papaya squash. South Indian Hort., 43 (1&2) : 49-51.
Shrivastava, J.S. 1998. Comparative study of RTS drinks prepared from
Dashehari and Banganpalli mangoes. Indian Fd. Pack., 52 (2) : 38-42.
Shukla, Abha, 2005. Study on physico-chemical characteristics, sensory quality
and storage behaviour of blended beverages (nectar and RTS)
prepared from guava and pineapple. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur
(C.G.).
Singh, I.S. and Dhawan, S.S. 1983. Potentiality of various fruits for processing
industry. Indian Fd. Pack., 37 (3-4) : 47-53.
Singh, P. 1988. Studies on ripening and processing of litchi (Litchi chinensis
Sonn) fruits. Ph.D. Thesis, NDUA & T, Kumarganj, Faizabad, (U.P.).
Singh, R.N. 1990. Mango, I.C.A.R., New Delhi,
Singh, Prabhakar, and Singh, I.S. 1994. Physico-chemical changes during storage
of litchi (Litchi chinensis) beverages. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 64 (3) : 168-
170.
Singh S., Godara, R.K., Saini, R.S. and Sharma, J.R. 2005. Standardization of
processing technology for bael/blended bael (Aegle marmelos) ready-
to-serve beverages. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 34 (3-4) : 263-265.
Singh, C., Grewal, K. S. and Sharma, H. K. 2006. Effect of incorporation of carrot
juice in the preparation of flavoured milk. J. Food Sci. Technol., 43 (1) :
80-82.
Srivastava, R.P. and Kumar, S. 2003. Fruit and vegetable preservation, principles
and practices. International Book Distributing Co. Lucknow.
Sudha, R., Ponnuswami, V. and Kavino, M. 2007. Value addition for long term
storage of sapota fruit products. Indian J. Hort., 64 (4) : 467-468.
Syed, M., Sabir, A.W.,Chaudhary, F.M.and Bhatty, M.K. 1986. Antimicrobial
activity of the essential oils of umbelliferae family,Trachyspermum,
Apium grevolens oils. Pakistan J. Sci. Ind. Res., 29 : 189-192, (c.f. J.
Food Sci. Technol., 46 (2) : 177-178).
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. 1981. Principles and procedures of statistics.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
Tandon, D.K., Kumar, S., Dikshit, A. and Shukla, D.K. 2007. Storage study on
bael-papaya blended RTS beverages. Indian Fd. Pack., pp.91-97.
Thakre, M. 2007. Studies on blending of papaya and banana pulp for preparation
of nectar. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (CG.).
Thakur, K.S. and Barwal, V.S. 1998. Studies on preparation and evaluation of
squash from unmarketable kiwi fruit. Indian Fd. Pack., 52 (1) : 26-29.
Tiwari, R.B. 2000. Studies on blending of guava and papaya pulp for RTS
beverage. Indian Fd. Pack., pp.68-72.
Tripathi, V.K., Lyndgoh, K. and Singh, S. 1992. Studies on blending of pineapple
juice with different ratios of guava juice for preparation of RTS
beverages. Prog. Hort. 24 (1-2) : 60-65.
Verma, S. and Gehlot, R. 2006. Development and evaluation of bael beverages.
Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 35 (3&4) : 245-248.
Vyas, K.K., Sharma, P.C., Joshi, V.K. and Shrivastava, M.P. 1989.
Standardization of a method for juice extraction and preparation of
refreshing nectar from Rhodo petals (Rhododendron abroreaum). Indian
Fd. Pack., 43 (4) : 8-12.
Wasker, D.P. and Khurdiya, D.S. 1987. Processing and storage of phalsa
beverages. Indian Fd. Pack., 41 : 7-16.
Ziena, H.M.S. 2000. Quality attributes of bearss seedless lime (Citrus latifolia
Tan.) juice during storage. Food-Chemistry, 71 (2) : 167-172.
APPENDIX-II
HEDONIC RATING TEST
Name : Product :
Product
Colour
Appearance
Aroma
Taste
Overall acceptability
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
Grade Point :
9 Liking extremely 6 Like slightly 3 Dislike moderately
8 Like very much 5 Neither like nor dislike 2 Dislike very much
7 Like moderately 4 Dislike slightly 1 Dislike extremely
Signature
T14
T15
APPENDIX-I
Weekly meteorological data during storage period of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar
Standard
Meteorological
Weeks
Month
and
Date
Max.
Temp.
(°C)
Min.
Temp.
(°C)
Rainfall
(mm)
Relative Humidity
(%)
Wind
Velocity
(Kmph)
Evaporation
(mm)
Sunshine
(hours)
I II
3 Jan 15-21 29.5 12.4 0.0 87 30 2.4 3.9 8.9
4 22-28 32.5 13.1 0.0 84 26 2.4 4.2 9.2
5 Jan/Feb 29-04 32.5 15.0 0.0 78 25 2.3 4.1 6.9
6 Feb 05-11 32.8 15.9 0.0 74 27 2.9 5.0 8.6
7 12-18 32.4 14.4 0.0 77 23 3.2 4.9 8.7
8 19-25 34.7 16.8 0.0 72 20 3.1 5.6 8.7
9 Feb/Mar 26-04 36.5 17.1 0.0 68 14 3.7 7.2 9.7
10 Mar 05-11 37.2 18.8 0.0 58 18 3.5 6.8 7.0
11 12-18 35.7 18.5 0.0 64 14 3.0 5.7 6.4
12 19-25 36.3 19.6 2.2 59 22 5.2 7.5 7.0
13 Mar/Apr 26-01 38.0 20.7 0.0 56 17 4.1 7.8 8.0
14 Apr 02-08 39.9 22.5 0.0 45 15 4.3 9.6 8.3
15 09-15 38.2 21.5 15.0 48 14 4.7 9.8 9.2
16 16-22 42.1 24.4 0.0 41 12 5.0 10.6 8.8
17 23-29 42.0 22.9 0.0 36 07 4.0 10.8 9.4
Table 4.2.1: Organoleptic evaluation of carrot nectar beverage during recipe standardization
Recipe Colour Appearance Aroma Taste
Overall
acceptability Rating
T1 (20 % pulp, 13 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.6
6.8
5.8
6.4
6.4
Like slightly
T2 (20 % pulp, 14 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
7.0
7.0
7.2
8.0
7.4
Like moderately
T3 (20 % pulp, 15 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.8
6.6
6.4
7.0
6.8
Like slightly
T4 (20 % pulp, 16 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.4
6.6
Like slightly
T5 (20 % pulp, 17 % TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.4
6.6
Like slightly
Table 4.2.2: Organoleptic evaluation of carrot-beetroot nectar beverage during recipe standardization
Recipe Colour Appearance Aroma Taste
Overall
acceptability Rating
T1 (20 % pulp with 1 % beetroot juice,13 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.4 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.6 Like slightly
T2 (20 % pulp with 1 % beetroot juice, 14 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
7.2 7.0 7.2 8.2 7.2 Like moderately
T3 (20 % pulp with 1 % beetroot juice, 15 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.4 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.6 Like slightly
T4 (20 % pulp with 1 % beetroot juice, 16 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.6 6.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 Like slightly
T5 (20 % pulp with 1 % beetroot juice, 17 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
6.6 6.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 Like slightly
T6 (20 % pulp with 2 % beetroot juice, 13 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
5.6 6.0 5.6 6.4 6.0 Like slightly
T7 (20 % pulp with 2 % beetroot juice, 14 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
5.8 6.2 5.4 7.6 6.2 Like slightly
T8 (20 % pulp with 2 % beetroot juice, 15 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
5.6 6.2 5.0 6.0 5.8 Neither like nor
dislike
T9 (20 % pulp with 2 % beetroot juice, 16 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity)
5.4 6.4 5.2 6.6 6.0 Like slightly
T10 (20 % pulp with 2 % beetroot juice, 17 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.8 5.8 5.0 6.8 5.8
Neither like nor
dislike
T11 (20 % pulp with 3 % beetroot juice, 13 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.2 6.0 4.8 6.0 5.6
Neither like nor
dislike
T12 (20 % pulp with 3 % beetroot juice, 14 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.0 5.4 5.0 7.6 5.6
Neither like nor
dislike
T13 (20 % pulp with 3 % beetroot juice, 15 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.2 4.8 5.2 6.2 5.4
Neither like nor
dislike
T14 (20 % pulp with 3 % beetroot juice, 16 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.4 5.6 5.2 6.4 5.6
Neither like nor
dislike
T15 (20 % pulp with 3 % beetroot juice, 17 %
TSS and 0.3 % acidity) 5.0 5.2 5.0 6.0 5.2
Neither like nor
dislike
Table 4.4.3 : Effect of different treatments on TSS (%) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during staorage
Treatments
TSS (%)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 14 13.87 13.63 13.57 13.77
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 14 13.57 13.50 13.47 13.64
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 14 13.83 13.63 13.57 13.76
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 14 13.83 13.77 13.63 13.81
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 14 13.87 13.63 13.57 13.77
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 14 13.90 13.73 13.57 13.80
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 14 13.90 13.73 13.40 13.76
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05
%SB) 14 13.83 13.60 13.33 13.69
Mean 14 13.83 13.65 13.51 13.75
SEm± - 0.06 0.05 0.05 -
CV (%) 0.62 0.81 0.63 0.66 -
CD at 5% NS 0.19 0.15 0.15 -
Table 4.4.2 : Effect of different treatments on acidity (%) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
Acidity (%)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 0.30 0.39 0.45 0.71 0.46
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 0.30 0.39 0.59 0.70 0.50
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 0.30 0.38 0.63 0.72 0.49
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 0.30 0.41 0.63 0.63 0.49
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 0.30 0.39 0.56 0.78 0.51
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 0.30 0.34 0.59 0.68 0.48
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 0.30 0.37 0.57 0.70 0.49
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 %SB) 0.30 0.39 0.59 0.72 0.50
Mean 0.30 0.38 0.58 0.71 0.49
SEm± - 0.01 0.01 0.01 -
CV (%) 5.22 4.86 4.68 4.88 -
CD at 5% NS 0.03 0.05 0.06 -
Table 4.4.5 : Effect of different treatments on reducing sugar (%) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
Reducing sugar (%)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 2.33 2.40 2.42 2.68 2.46
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 2.21 2.47 2.55 2.63 2.47
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 2.37 2.63 2.76 2.93 2.67
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 2.59 2.51 2.62 2.79 2.63
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 2.12 2.42 2.66 2.86 2.52
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 2.18 2.61 2.71 2.97 2.62
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 2.11 2.40 2.78 2.88 2.54
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 %SB) 2.15 2.51 2.67 2.90 2.56
Mean 2.26 2.49 2.65 2.83 2.56
SEm± 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.07 -
CV (%) 4.65 3.66 4.70 4.57 -
CD at 5% 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.22 -
Table 4.4.7 : Effect of different treatments on total sugar (%) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
Total sugar (%)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 9.14 11.27 11.15 12.74 11.06
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 9.92 12.97 12.31 12.66 11.97
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 9.55 13.08 13.26 13.04 12.23
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 9.61 11.27 12.65 12.39 11.48
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 9.74 12.02 11.98 12.88 11.66
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 9.73 12.51 12.81 14.09 12.29
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 10.05 10.34 12.53 13.54 11.62
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 9.74 12.86 11.41 13.50 11.88
Mean 9.69 12.04 12.26 13.11 11.77
SEm± 0.16 0.32 0.31 0.34 -
CV (%) 2.95 4.65 4.41 4.56 -
CD at 5% 0.49 0.97 0.94 1.03 -
Table 4.4.6 : Effect of different treatments on non-reducing sugar (%) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
Non-reducing sugar (%)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 6.82 8.87 8.73 10.06 8.62
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 7.71 10.50 9.76 10.03 9.50
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 7.18 10.45 10.50 10.10 9.56
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.02 8.75 10.03 9.60 8.85
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 7.62 9.60 9.33 10.03 9.15
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 7.55 9.90 10.09 11.11 9.66
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 7.94 7.94 9.74 10.66 9.07
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.58 10.35 8.73 10.60 9.32
Mean 7.43 9.55 9.61 10.27 9.22
SEm± 0.16 0.32 0.34 0.37 -
CV (%) 3.75 5.72 6.21 6.23 -
CD at 5% 0.48 0.95 1.03 1.11 -
Table 4.4.1 : Effect of different treatments on β-carotene (mg/100 ml) in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
β-carotene (mg/100 ml)
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 0.89 0.87 0.81 0.78 0.84
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.77 0.82
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.79 0.82
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 0.88 0.86 0.80 0.78 0.83
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.75 0.82
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 0.84 0.82 0.83 0.74 0.81
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 0.88 0.83 0.82 0.71 0.81
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 0.86 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.82
Mean 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.76 0.82
SEm± - 0.01 0.01 0.01 -
CV (%) 1.88 2.34 1.70 3.38 -
CD at 5% 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 -
Table 4.4.4 : Effect of different treatments on sugar : acid ratio in carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Treatments
Sugar : acid ratio
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90 Mean
T1 (carrot pulp) 46.67 35.27 30.29 19.20 32.86
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 46.22 35.08 23.02 19.25 30.89
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 47.42 36.49 21.77 18.79 31.12
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 46.22 33.90 21.99 21.56 30.92
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 46.23 35.88 24.59 17.47 31.04
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 46.67 40.97 23.15 19.96 32.69
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 46.67 37.26 24.23 19.17 31.83
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB)
47.43 35.20 22.93 18.47
31.01
Mean 46.69 36.26 24.00 19.23 31.55
SEm± - 1.01 0.68 0.58 -
CV (%) 5.25 4.83 4.93 5.21 -
CD at 5% NS 3.03 2.05 1.73 -
Table 4.3.1 : Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar for colour as affected by the
different preservatives
Treatments Colour
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90
T1 (carrot pulp) 8.6 8.0 8.0 7.8
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.4
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.6
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.2
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 8.4 7.8 7.8 7.6
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 8.2 7.6 7.4 7.0
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 8.2 7.8 7.4 7.2
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 8.0 7.6 7.2 6.8
Table 4.3.2 : Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar for aroma as affected by the
different preservatives
Treatments Aroma
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90
T1 (carrot pulp) 8.0 7.8 7.4 6.8
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 7.6 7.4 7.0 6.4
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.6
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.4 7.2 6.8 6.4
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 8.0 7.6 7.4 6.6
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 7.4 7.0 6.8 6.0
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 7.8 7.6 7.0 6.2
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.4 7.0 6.6 5.8
Table 4.3.4 : Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar for appearance as affected
by the different preservatives
Treatments Appearance
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90
T1 (carrot pulp) 8.8 7.8 7.8 7.4
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 8.2 7.6 7.4 7.0
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 8.6 7.8 7.6 7.4
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 8.2 7.6 7.2 6.8
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 8.6 7.8 7.8 7.4
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 8.2 7.4 7.2 6.6
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 8.4 7.8 7.4 6.8
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 8.4 7.6 7.0 6.4
Table 4.3.3 : Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar for taste as affected by the
different preservatives
Treatments Taste
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90
T1 (carrot pulp) 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.2
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 8.0 7.4 6.8 6.2
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 7.8 7.6 7.0 6.2
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.6 7.2 6.6 6.6
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 8.4 7.8 7.8 7.0
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 8.2 7.4 6.6 5.8
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 7.8 7.2 6.8 6.0
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.6 7.0 6.4 5.8
Table 4.3.5 : Organoleptic score of stored carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar for overall acceptability as
affected by the different preservatives
Treatments Overall acceptability
Storage period (in days)
0 30 60 90
T1 (carrot pulp) 8.4 7.8 7.6 7.0
T2 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % KMS) 7.8 7.4 7.2 6.6
T3 (carrot pulp + 0.1 % SB) 8.0 7.6 7.4 6.8
T4 (carrot pulp + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.8 7.2 7.0 6.2
T5 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice) 8.4 7.6 7.4 7.0
T6 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice +0.1 % KMS) 7.6 7.2 7.0 6.2
T7 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.1 % SB ) 7.8 7.6 7.4 6.6
T8 (carrot pulp+1%beetroot juice + 0.05 % KMS + 0.05 % SB) 7.6 7.4 7.0 6.2
Fig. 3.1: Weekly meteorological data during storage period of carrot-beetroot nectar
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Standard meteorological weeks
Tem
per
atu
re,
Ra
infa
ll a
nd
Rel
ati
ve
hu
mid
ity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Win
d v
elo
city
, E
va
po
rati
on
an
d S
un
shin
e
Rainfall (mm) Max. Temp. (°C) Min. Temp. (°C) Relative Humidity (%) I
Relative Humidity (%) II Wind Velocity (Kmph) Evaporation (mm) Sunshine (hours)
Fig. 3.1 Weekly meteorological data during storage period of carrot and
carrot-beetroot nectar (15 Jan to 29th April 2009)
Table 4.1: Physico-chemical composition of carrot
S. No. Characters Mean value
A.
1.
2.
3.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Physical composition
Weight of carrot (g)
Weight of non-edible waste (g)
Weigh of pulp (g)
Chemical composition
Total soluble solid (%)
Acidity (%)
β-carotene (mg/100 g)
Sugar: acid ratio
Reducing sugar (%)
Total sugar (%)
Non-reducing sugar (%)
21.8
5.2
16.6
9.5
0.13
2.52
73.08
2.55
7.95
5.40
Plate 2 : Carrot-beetroot nectar beverage at the time of
preparation
Plate 1 : Carrot nectar beverage at the time of preparation
12.8
13
13.2
13.4
13.6
13.8
14
14.2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
TSS
(%)
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.3 : Changes in TSS (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2 T4T1 T3 T7T6T5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
Acid
ity (
%)
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.2 : Changes in acidity (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T2T4T1
T3 T7T6T5 T8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
Red
ucin
g s
ug
ar
(%)
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.5 : Changes in reducing sugar (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2 T4T1 T3 T7T6T5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
To
tal s
ug
ar
(%)
Fig. 4.4.7 Changes in total sugar (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2 T4T1 T3 T7T6T5
30 60 900
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
No
n-r
ed
ucin
g s
ug
ar
(%)
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.6 : Changes in non-reducing sugar (%) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2 T4T1 T3T7T6T5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
β -
caro
ten
e (m
g/1
00 m
l)
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.1 : Changes in β -carotene (mg/100 ml) of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2T4T1 T3 T7T6T5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Treatments
Su
gar:
acid
rati
o
0 30 60 90
Fig. 4.4.4 : Changes in sugar : acid ratio of carrot and carrot-beetroot nectar during storage
Days
T8T2 T4T1 T3 T7T6T5