Antioxidant Activity in Pulp and Peel of Three Mango Varieties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to estimate the content of total polyphenols and flavonoids and to investigate in-vitro antioxidant potential of methanolic extracts of peel and pulp in three Indian mango varieties. Antioxidant activity was assessed using [2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid)] ABTS+ assay, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) assay, ferric-reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) assay, and phosphomolybdate assay for Total Antioxidant Capacity (TAC). Total phenolic and flavonoid content was also determined, and expressed in gallic acid equivalent (GAE) and quercetin equivalent (QE), respectively. Results of this study indicated that methanolic extracts of mango peel had significantly higher antioxidant activity compared to that of pulp (29.69 and 3.12), irrespective of the method or variety used. Free radical scavenging and antioxidant activity may be attributed to presence of phenolic (24.61mg GAE/g DM in the peel and 2.01mg GAE/g DM in the pulp) and flavonoid compounds (24.95mg QE/g DM in the peel and 16.15mg E/g DM in the pulp). Antioxidant activity determined by ABTS, DPPH and FRAP assays in mango peel was significantly higher than in the mango pulp (24.95 1.96mg TE /g DM, 23.68 versus 4.60mg BHA/g DM and 40.52 versus 2.781mg TE/g DM), respectively. Results for scavenging activity against DPPH were 96.18% for the peel and 23.86% for the pulp, while, free radical scavenging activity results using ABTS+ assay were 99.62% in the peel and 13.46% in the pulp. Our study justifies research in processing of mango peel into useful, functional food ingredients (powders or extracts).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".