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