See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358768675

Apple Varieties

Research · February 2022

DOI: 10.18805/ajdfr.DR-1354

CITATIONS READS

0 710

3 authors, including:

Jaspreet Kaur
Mohan Lal Sukhadia University
10 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaspreet Kaur on 22 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asian J. Dairy & Food Res, 37(3) 2018: 242-245 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE
Print ISSN:0971-4456 / Online ISSN:0976-0563 www.arccjournals.com

Preparation and quality assessment of apple bar from different varieties

Meenakshi Devi, S.R. Vyas and Jaspreet Kaur*
Department of Food Science and Nutrition,
Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Banaskatha-385 506, Gujarat, India.
Reeceived: 24-02-2018 Accepted: 24-05-2018 DOI: 10.18805/ajdfr.DR-1354
ABSTRACT
Experimental apple bar was developed from four different varieties (treatment) of apple. The varieties were Fuji (T1),
Adani (T2), Deluxe (T3) and Red delicious (T4). Fruit bars were evaluated for their nutritional and sensory properties. The
study showed that apple bars developed from Red delicious variety showed maximum fiber (0.26 %), potassium content
(126 mg %) while the maximum moisture content (14.72 %) in Deluxe variety apple bar and total carbohydrate (28.83%)
was found in apple fruit bars developed by Adani variety. The results of sensory evaluation test revealed that appearance,
colour, flavour, taste and overall acceptability scores were highly significant. But sensory scores such as flavour, taste and
overall acceptability was found higher in sample T4 as compared to other samples. Among the four different varieties of
apple for preparation of apple bar and their nutritional and sensory evaluation it can be conclude that the variety Red
delicious was found superior in all aspects.
Key words: Apple, Apple bar, Delicious, Varieties.
INTRODUCTION Fruit bars are high calorie foods and are a rich
Apple (Malus domestica B.) belongs to the rose source of the vitamins and minerals. Fruit bars mainly made
family Rosacaese and it is a widely cultivated fruit. It is the up of fruit pulps and this bar is a good nutritional supplement
main fruit crop in the temperate regions of the world (Luby, product.
2003). China is the largest apple producing country in the
MATERIALS AND METHODOS
world. World apple production in 2016 recorded of area as
Fruit bars were prepared by method which given
893.39 million tones (FAO, 2017). India produced 28.72
by Thilagavathi and Swapna (2011) with slight modification.
million tone from 23.86 lakh hectares in 2016 where major
The method followed was take 2 kg mature fresh repined
apple producing states were: Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand,
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu apple then chopped into large pieces (seeds were removed).
(FAO, 2017). Made pulp and added 600 g sugar. Boiled it above 90°C, at
68°brix and added citric acid 0.05 per cent (5 ml) when
Apple from nutritional and medicinal point of view obrix reaches about 68-70° brix stop the heating . Add apple
is important in daily diet which is evident as the most essence (5 ml) and spread it on plates then cool for 8 hours
recognizable expression “An apple a day keeps the doctor and cut in to pieces.
away”. Consumption of apple is associated with reduced risk
of some cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, diabetes and Nutritional analysis: Nutrient content of developed Apple
obesity (De Oliveira et al.2003). Bar was analysed by different methods as: moisture content
of the apple bar was estimated as per official method of
Apple fruit has multiple uses and this fact makes it
A.O.A.C. (1984).Total carbohydrate content was determined
popular in the entire world even in areas where it is more
by Anthrone Method given by Sadasivam and Manickam
difficult to grow. Apple can not only eaten fresh but as various
products such as juice, juice concentrate, juice blends, sauce, (1992).The ascorbic acid was determined titrimetrically
bar, wine, apple cider vinegar, dried and apple products, using 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye by the method
sliced apple products, baked apple products and canned described by Ranganna (1979). Fiber content was determined
products (Folta and Gardiner, 2009). Nutritional values of by method of A.O.A.C (1980). Potassium content was
apple in 100 g are given in Table 1. determined by flame photometric method given by Jackson
(1973).
Large numbers of fruit bar products are available
in the market. Fruit bar, also called fruit slab is a dehydrated Sensory evaluation: The sensory quality of developed apple
fruit-based confectionery product which is often eaten as bar was assessed by the method suggested by Ranganna
snack or dessert. Fruit bars are made from pulpy fruits or by (1999).Composite scoring test was used to measure the
mixing the pulps of fruits that are commercially in demand. acceptability of bar. Semi-trained panel of 20 judges
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: jaspreetmaan9319@gmail.com
 Volume 37 Issue 3 (September 2018) 243
Table 1: Nutritional values of apple (per 100 g). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Constituents Values For the development of bar from different varieties
Water 85.56 (g)
of apple where basic ingredients viz., apple pulp, sugar, apple
Potassium 107 (mg) essence, citric acid, sodium benzoate and pectin were used.
Energy 52 (kcal) The study was planned and developed bar from four varieties
Carotene 45 (µg) i.e., Fuji, Adani, Deluxe and Red delicious and evaluated
Carbohydrate 13.80 (g) its nutritional, chemical and sensory characteristics as well
Phosphorus 14 (mg) as its keeping quality.
Sugar 10.39 (g)
Vitamin ‘C’ 4.6 (mg) Plate-1 show photographs of different varieties of
Fiber 2.4 (g) apple and Plate-2 show photographs of developed bar from
different varieties of apple.
Source : USDA (2012).
Nutritional composition of apple bar: The moisture content
of the samples ranged from 13.89 (T3) to 14.72 (T4) per cent.
consisting of faculty members and students of department The highest moisture content was 14.72 per cent in sample
of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Science T4 as compared to other samples. The total carbohydrate
and Nutrition were asked to evaluate the products for content of the samples ranged from 27.04 (T3) to 28.38 (T2)
appearance, colour, flavour, taste and overall acceptability. Each per cent. The highest total carbohydrate content was 28.38
parameter has 10 score, and final score was 50 out of 50. per cent in sample T2 as compared to other samples.. Similar
Keeping quality evaluation: Keeping quality was evaluated studies conducted by Thilagavathi et al. (2011) for nutrient
physically and based on sensory analysis. The developed analysis of developed apple bar from red delicious variety
apple bar kept at room temperature. The developed samples the total carbohydrate in apple bar to be 28.53 per cent.
were checked every two days interval taste and external The ascorbic acid content of the samples ranged
appearance was determined physically. from 2.08 (T1) to 2.37 per cent (T3).The highest ascorbic
Statistical analysis: The experiment was carried out by the acid content was 2.37 per cent in sample T1 as compared to
complete randomized design (CRD) repeating each treatment other samples. Thilagavathi et al. (2011) reported that
five times. The data obtained for each characteristic was nutrient analysis of developed apple bar from Red delicious
subjected to statistical analysis as per the procedure of CRD variety the ascorbic acid content is 2.28 per cent. The fiber
suggested by Snedecor and Cochran (1980). content of the samples ranged from 0.15 (T3) to 0.26 (T4)

FUJI ADANI DELUXE RED DELICIOUS

Plate 1 : Different varieties of apple

Plate 2 : Developed bar by defferent varieeties of apple

244 ASIAN JOURNAL OF DAIRY AND FOOD RESEARCH
Table 2 : Evaluated nutritional composition of apple bar.
Treatments Moisture Carbohydrate Ascorbic acid Fiber Potassium
T1 14.10 27.28 2.37 0.17 114.80
T2 14.16 28.38 2.16 0.19 115.00
T3 13.89 27.04 2.08 0.15 108.60
T4 14.72 27.70 2.20 0.26 126.00
S.Em. 0.117 0.322 0.053 0.011 2.110
C.D. 0.351 0.965 0.160 0.033 6.325
CD 1.84 2.61 5.41 12.47 4.06

Table 3: Sensory evaluation of apple bar.

Treatments Appearance Colour Flavour Taste Overall acceptability
T1 6.60 6.80 7.05 7.25 7.05
T2 8.25 8.30 7.90 7.80 8.15
T3 5.75 5.45 5.60 6.15 6.10
T4 7.85 7.50 8.40 8.65 8.90

per cent. The highest fiber content was 0.26 per cent in
sample T4 as compared to other samples. In another study
Take et al. (2012) found that ascorbic acid content in fortified
sapota-papaya fruit bar is 1.38 per cent. The potassium
content of the samples ranged from 108.60 (T3) to 126.00
(T4) per cent. The highest potassium content was 126.00
percent in sample T4 as compared to other samples. In another
study Thilagavathi et al. (2011) reported that nutrient analysis
of developed apple bar Red delicious variety the potassium
content is 148 mg. The results were in general agreement
with the findings of Al-Hooti et al. (1997) who found 23.2
mg potassium in date bars containing almonds, sesame, oat
and skim milk powder.
Sensory evaluation of apple bar: The results of sensory
evaluation test revealed that appearance, colour, flavour, taste
and overall acceptability scores were highly significantly.
The highest appearance score was (8.25) in sample T2 while,
the lowest appearance score was (5.75) in sample T3 of the
developed apple bar. The highest colour score was (8.30) in
sample T2 while the lowest colour score was (5.45) in sample
T3 of the developed apple bar.These difference are due to
different varieties of apple. Thilagavathi et al. (2011) found
that the colour score from 7.72 to 4.95 of developed apple
bar from Red delicious variety.
The highest flavor score was (8.40) in sample T4
while the lowest flavor score was (5.60) in sample T3 of the
developed apple bar. The highest taste score was (8.65) in
sample T4 while the lowest taste score was (6.15) in sample
T3 of the developed apple bar. Similar score found by Khan
et al. (2014) that the sensory score of taste ranged between
7.73 to 5.85 in guava bar stored at room temperature during
three months storage and Thilagavathi et al. (2011) found
that the taste score from 8.70 to 7.23 of developed apple bar
by Red delicious variety.
The highest overall acceptability score was (8.90)
in sample T4 while the lowest overall acceptability score was
(6.10) in sample T3 of the developed apple bar. Higher overall
acceptability score was found in sample T4 as compared other
samples. Khan et al. (2014) found overall acceptability 7.50
to 5.56 in guava bar stored at room temperature during three
months storage. Thilagavathi et al. (2011) found that the
overall acceptability score from 7.36 to 6.89 of developed
apple bar by Red delicious variety.
Keeping quality evaluation of apple bar: The keeping
quality of experimental bar developed by different varieties
of apple was evaluated. Apple bar kept in good condition
one month at room temperature, but after one month taste
and external appearance of developed apple bar was bitter
and hard, respectively. Khan et al. (2014) effect of sucrose
and stabilizer on the overall quality of guava bar. Guava bar
was best for nutrients element and appearance at 15 days
storage.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, consumers have become more
health conscious in their food choices, but have less time to
prepare healthful meals. As a result the market demand for
“minimally processed” or “lightly processed” foods has
rapidly increased. Fruit bars are very versatile in their usage
pattern and an important product, which is generally manu-
factured by drying ripe pulp into leathery sheets or bars.
Consuming fruit bar is an economic and convenient value-
added substitute for natural fruits. Furthermore, fruit bar has
far fewer calories, less than 100 kcal per serving, than many
other snacks. Fruit pulp-based fruit bars are nutritious and
organoleptically acceptable to customers.
In context of study, among the four different
varieties of apple for preparation of apple bar and their
nutritional and sensory evaluation it can concluded that the
variety Red delicious was found superior in all aspects. Fruit
bar are not really rich in nutrients but unlike junk food they
are not totally devoid of nutrient. It is their taste and texture
which are appealing to the consumers.
 Volume 37 Issue 3 (September 2018) 245
REFERENCES
A.O.A.C. (1980). Official Methods of Analysis (10th Edn). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.
A.O.A.C. (1984). Official Methods of Analysis (14th Edn.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.
De-Oliviera, M.C.; Sichieri, R. and Moura, A.S. (2003). Weight loss associated with a daily intake of three apples or three pears
among overweight women. J. S. Stud.. 19: 253-256.
FAO (2017). Fruit Area, Yield and Production Report. Food and Agriculture Organization. Paper No.1.
Folta, K.M. and Gardiner, S.E. (2009). Plant genetics and genomics.Genetics and genomics of Rosaceae. STM. 6: 162.
Hooti, Al S.; Sidhu, J.S.; Al-Otaib, H.; Al-Ameeri and Qabazard, H. (1997). Date bars fortified with almonds, sesame seeds, oat flakes
and skim milk powder. Pl. Foods and Hum. Nutri.,50: 125-135.
Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.112.
Khan, M.A.; Durrani, Y.; Wahab, S.; Ali Muhammad, S.A.; Ali, A.S.; Arsalan and Rehman, Z. (2014). Effect of sucrose and stabilizer
on the overall quality of guava bar. Wld. J. Pharma. and Pharmaceutical Sci., 3: 130-146.
Luby, J.J. (2003). Taxonomic classification and brief history. In : Apples. Botany, Production and Uses (Ed. Ferree, D.C., Warrington,
I.J.). CAB International, Wallingford, U.K., 1-14.
Ranganna, S. (1979). Manual of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruits and Vegetables Products. Tata McGrew Hill Publishing Co.
Ltd. New Delhi. 255.
Ranganna, S. (1999). Manual of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruits and Vegetables Products. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co.
Ltd., New Delhi. p. 630.
Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A. (1992). In : Biochemical Methods for Agricultural Sciences. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi. 45-46.
Snedecor, W.G. and Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH publishing Co., New Delhi.
Take, M.; Madhukar, G.; Bhotmange and Shastri, P. (2012). Preparation of fortified sapota-papaya fruit bar. J. Nutr. Food Sci., 6 (2).
Thilagavathi S., Splinter, W.M.; Stewart, J.A. and Muir, J.G. (2011). The effect of preoperative apple bar and apple juice on gastric
contents, thirst and hunger in children. Can J. Anaesth., 36: 55-58.
Thilagvathi, S. and Swapna, S. (2011). Method preparation of apple bar. Indian Food Packer.65 (3): 31-34.
USDA (2012). Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Report of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 21-28

View publication stats