Evaluation of the chemical, physical and nutritional composition and sensory acceptability of different sweet potato cultivars

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the chemical, physical and nutritional composition and sensory acceptability of different sweet potato cultivars to classify the best genotypes for human consumption. We evaluated ten genotypes extracted from the Germplasm bank of Midwest State University, Brazil. The cultivars were evaluated regarding their sensory acceptability and chemical (reducing sugar; nonreducing sugar; total sugar; pH; total soluble solids; titratable acidity; total soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio; and instrumental colour) and nutritional composition (moisture; ash; protein; lipid; carbohydrate; energy value; total carotenoid; and ascorbic acid). Greater scores (p < 0.05) for overall acceptance were obtained for the white pulp genotypes Amorano, Júlia, UGA 45, and UGA 49. There was a statistical difference (p < 0.05) in the chemical and nutritional composition of sweet potatoes, except for the pH values. Generally, tuber have a light colour (values of L* greater than 50) with a yellow shade (b*) and green subshade (negative a* values). The exception was noticed in the UGA 34 genotype, which presented a higher red shade (positive a* value) and a yellow subshade. The cultivars more indicated for human consumption were the UGA 34 (favorable nutritional profile), UGA 45 (better acceptability and favorable chemical and nutritional composition), and Amorano (better acceptability and favorable chemical composition). On the other hand, the UGA 29 genotype may be characterized as the less appropriated for consumption. That, due to its less acceptance from the consumers and an inferior chemical and nutritional characterization. We conclude that the Brazilian sweet potato cultivars more indicated for human consumption are the UGA 34, UGA 45 and Amorano, considering that present more favorable chemical, nutritional and sensory acceptability characteristics. The UGA 29 genotype may be characterized as less recommended for consumption.

Carbohydrate and bioactive compounds composition of starchy tropical fruits and tubers, in relation to pre and postharvest conditions: A review

“…It is noteworthy that the energy contents of the plant foods cited in the present study are all in the range of 1,100 to 1,800 kJ.100 g −1 of DW. This is related to the carbohydrate contents of these crops, which were alike and amounted 73% to 96% of dry matter, as reported in yam, sweet potato, and jackfruit seeds (De Oliveira et al., ; Juárez‐Barrientos et al., ; Perez et al., ). These starchy fruits and tubers are major staple foods that can be used all year long or if there is a grains shortage.…”

“…(), the cellulose content of tubers varies from 2.1 g/100 g of DW in some Dioscoreaceae to 4.2 g in sweet potato. Globally, root and tuber crops have a rather good nutritional profile with high contents in fibers and a low lipid content, under 1 g/100 g DW in yam and sweet potato (Adepoju, Boyejo, & Adeniji, ; De Oliveira et al., ; Perez et al., ). However, they are deficient in vitamins, with the exception of vitamin C in cassava and Dioscorea cayenensis and vitamin A in yellow‐orange fleshed roots (Chandrasekara & Kumar, ).…”

“…(b) Champagne et al., ; Chandrasekara & Kumar, ; Omar et al., (c) Champagne et al., ; Dako et al., ; De Oliveira et al., ; Dilworth et al., ; Rumbaoa et al., ; Sateesh & Solomon, …”

“…(c) Champagne et al., ; Dako et al., ; De Oliveira et al., ; Dilworth et al., ; Rumbaoa et al., ; Sateesh & Solomon,…”

Chemical quality and bioactive compounds of sweet potatoes under phosphate fertilization

“…The pH of the cultivar BRS Cuia was reduced up to the P 2 O 5 dose of 180 kg ha -1 , while the cultivar Paraná showed an increase in pH ranging from 9 to 10% compared to the treatment that did not receive doses of P. The doses of P did not influence the pH of the cultivar BRS Amélia (Figure 3A). Oliveira et al (2019) mention that factors such as climate, soil and fertilizers, as well as pre-and postharvest conditions and types of storage, have little influence, since the evaluated sweet potato genotypes received the same methodological treatments, and that, in addition, the differences observed are mainly due to the intrinsic characteristics of each cultivar.…”