Quality assessment of different muskmelon genotypes (Cucumis melo L.) by chemical and organoleptic analysis

Introduction

Muskmelon botanically known as Cucumis melo. is a species of melon, that belongs to the family cucurbitaceae. It is one of the most demanding cucurbit. A popular and commercial crop in the tropics and subtropics, muskmelon is a stunning, juicy, delectable fruit that is grown all over the world for its nutritional and therapeutic qualities. This species is frequently known as cantaloupe, muskmelon, casaba, sweet melon and melon (Nayar and Singh, 1998) [18] . Although its exact origin is up for debate, most experts agree that melon originated in Africa. Although it favours hot climates, it grows well in all tropical and subtropical regions of the world (Kerge and Grum, 2000) [5] . It contain many vernacular names, like "Kharbooz" (Hindi), "Kharbuz" (Punjabi), "Sakkatoli" (Gujarati), "Kalinga" (Sanskrit), 'Velapalam' (Tamil) and 'Kekkari kai' (Kannada). The main areas under muskmelon cultivation in India are riverbeds of Jamuna, Ganges, Narmada rivers in the north and Pennar, Kaveri, Krishna and Godavari rivers in the south (Singh, 1998) [8] . The leading muskmelon-producing states include Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The cultivation of muskmelon is favoured in warm and semi-arid conditions, as the plant thrives in well-drained sandy loam soils with a pH range of 6.0 to 7.5. It contains vitamin A, B, C and minerals like magnesium, sodium and potassium. On an average, muskmelon fruit pulp contains 5.6 to 36 µg/g of β-carotene in fresh fruit pulp. It also provides 42.2 mg of ascorbic acid per 100 g of its edible portion, which supports a healthy immune system, helps fight bacterial infections, and aids in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Besides, melon fruit also possesses carbohydrates (8.36 g), proteins (0.88 g), water (89.7 g), dietary fiber (0.8 g), sugar and essential mineral salts. Its seeds are edible and greatly nutritious contain crude protein (34.4%) and oil (40-44%) which is valuable for painful discharge and suppression of urine (Shashikumar and Pitchaimuthu, 2016) [15] . Quality (high TSS and low acidity) of the muskmelon fruit is more important than yield for the local markets and export purpose. Therefore present experiment was carried out for the quality assessment of muskmelon fruits with regard to consumer preference.

Materials and Methods

The present experiment consists of 41 genotypes and one check of muskmelon. The plants were grown in three replications with spacing of 2 m x 60 cm over the four seasons viz., 2 February 2022 (summer season), 8 November 2022 (rabi season), 10 February 2023 (summer season) and 27 October 2023 (rabi season) in a Randomized Block Design with three replications at AICRP on vegetable crops, Department of Horticulture, MPKV,. Rahuri. A successful crop was raised by adhering to advised cultural customs. Five plants were randomly selected from each entry in each replication and observations recorded on quality traits through chemical analysis (Titratable acidity, total soluble solids, total sugar, reducing sugar and non-reducing sugar) and sensory score card (general appearance of fruit, flavour, sweetness, aroma and overall acceptability). The Mean values of the data recorded were analysed statistically adopting the method suggested by (Panse and Sukhatme, 1985) [11] .

Results and Discussion

Biochemical parameters

Total soluble solids ( 0 Brix) From the data presented in the Table . 1. It is seen that the range of variation for total soluble solids among the varieties was from 6.53 to 14.01 0 Brix in E1, 5.98 to 12.66 0 Brix in E2, 6.48 to 14.06 0 Brix in E3, 5.34 to 12.57 0 Brix in E4 and 6.25 to 13.32 0 Brix in average mean respectively. Among the different environments, genotype RHRMM-3 (14.01 0 Brix) recorded significantly high total soluble solids in El which were at par with genotype RHRMM-52 (13.84 0 Brix). In E2, significantly higher total soluble solids were recorded by the genotypes RHRMM-3(12.66 0 Brix) which were at par with genotypes RHRMM-52 (12.59 0 Brix) and RHRMM-90 (12.24 0 Brix). In E3, genotype namely RHRMM-3 (14.06 0 Brix) recorded significantly high total soluble solids which were at par with genotypes RHRMM-52 (13.69 0 Brix), RHRMM-90 (13.35 0 Brix), RHRMM-15 (12.95 0 Brix), RHRMM-76 (12.91 0 Brix), RHRMM-64 (12.81 0 Brix) and RHRMM-56 (12.61 0 Brix). In E4, significantly the maximum total soluble solids were recorded by the genotype RHRMM-3 (12.57 0 Brix) which was at par with genotype RHRMM-52 (12.41 0 Brix). However, genotype RHRMM-3 (13.32 0 Brix) recorded significantly high total soluble solids which were on par with genotypes RHRMM-52 (13.13 0 Brix) and RHRMM-90 (12.77 0 Brix) in average mean. The minimum total soluble solids was recorded by the genotype RHRMM-67 in El (6.53 0 Brix), genotype RHRMM-125 in E2 (6.11 0 Brix), genotype RHRMM-67 in E3 (6.48 0 Brix), genotype RHRMM-17 in E4 (5.34 0 Brix) and genotype RHRMM-67 (6.25 0 Brix) in average mean. In muskmelon, Total Soluble Solids (TSS) is a key trait that influences both fruit quality and consumer preference. TSS reflects the concentration of sugars, including the reducing sugar fructose and glucose, as well as the non-reducing sugar sucrose. Higher value of TSS in muskmelon is a desirable character since it contributes to sweetness this result confirmation with the studies conducted by Rastogi and Abidi (2006) [12] , Pandey et al. (2008) [10] , Ohashi et al.

(2009) [9 , Begum et al. (2010) [1] , Reddy et al. (2016) [21] , Venkatesan et al. (2016) [21] , Kaur et al. (2017) [4] and Indraja et al. (2021) [3] in muskmelon.

From the data presented in the Table 3. it is seen that the range of variation for non-reducing sugar among the genotypes was from 0.60 to 2.60 percent in E1, 0.25 to 2.47 percent in E2, 0.75 to 2.62 percent in E3, 0.32 to 2.55 percent in E4 and 0.59. A high level of non-reducing sugar is desirable, as it aligns with consumer preference. In muskmelon, the presence of abundant non-reducing sugar is considered a key quality trait. The sweetness observed in these genotypes is a result of the balance between carbohydrates and organic acids present in the fruit. Significantly the maximum nonreducing sugar obtained in E1 followed by E3 environments while, minimum non-reducing sugar was recorded in E4 environment followed by E2 environment. These results are similar to those obtained by Rastogi and Abidi (2006) [12] , Sudhakara and Manchali (2016) [19] and Shivakumara (2019) [16] in muskmelon.

Sensory evaluation (Organoleptic test) General appearance of fruit

The genotypes of muskmelon differed greatly for the general appearance of fruit (Table 4). [2] in melons were in line with the present study.

Flavour

The genotypes of muskmelon showed great variation to the trait of flavour ( [2] in melons, Senesi et al. (2005) [14] in muskmelon and Sushmitha (2013) [20] in muskmelon.

Sweetness

From the The sensory or eating quality of muskmelon fruit is primarily influenced by its sweetness, along with the presence of volatile aromatic compounds, as stated by Yadav and Asati (2005) [22] in water melon, Sushmitha (2013) [20] in muskmelon and Kumar (2017) [6] in muskmelon. [20] in muskmelon.

Overall acceptability

Among the 40 genotypes and one check, highest rating to overall acceptability was observed in RHRMM-3 (8.91) followed by RHRMM-64 (8.87), RHRMM-8 (8.80), RHRMM-76 (8.78) and RHRMM-52 (8.73). Lowest rating was recorded in the genotype RHRMM-67 (4.34).

Conclusion

TSS and total sugars, reducing sugars, non-reducing sugars were found maximum and minimum acidity in the genotypes RHRMM-3, RHRMM-52, RHRMM-90, RHRMM-15, RHRMM-64, RHAMM-64 and RHRMM-8 and these were also adjudged best in terms of general appearance of fruit, flavour, sweetness, aroma and overall acceptability. As a result, these genotypes can be used in the hybridization programme may be more advantageous for developing superior quality varieties.

References

1. Begum H, Thirupathi R, Reddy RVSK, Dilip BJ. Crop improvement in muskmelon. Andhra Pradesh Horticultural University. Tentative Technical Programme of Work. 2010; p.7-11.
2. Guerineau C, Danio E, Scandella D, Navez B, Lancelin N. Sensory evaluation of Charentais type melons: an exploratory tool. Acta Hortic. 2000;510:487-492.
3. Indraja G, Syed S, Madhumathi C, Priya BT, Sekhar MR. Genetic variability studies for horticultural traits in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.). Electron J Plant Breed. 2021;12(1):170-176.
4. Kaur A, Sharma M, Manan J. Comparative performance of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) hybrids at farmers' field in district Kapurthala. J Krishi Vigyan. 2017;6(1):24-31.
5. Kerge T, Grum M. The origin of melon, Cucumis melo: a review of the literature. In: 7th EUCARPIA Meeting on Cucurbit Genetics & Breeding. 2000; p.37-44.
6. Kumar A. Evaluation of open pollinated varieties and hybrids of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) under protected conditions [M.Sc. thesis]. Raipur: Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya; 2017.
7. Li HF, Chen ZHF, Jing M. Comparison of adaptability of muskmelon in open field of ecological region of oasis on the southern margin of Mu Us Desert. Acta Hortic. 2010;871:105-110.
8. Nayar NM, Singh R. Taxonomy, distribution, ethnobotanical uses. In: Nayar NM, More TA, editors. Cucurbits. USA: Science Publishers; 1998. p.1-18.
9. Ohashi A, Fahad AAL, Iqrar A. Evaluation of different muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) cultivars and production system in Oman. Int J Agric Biol. 2009;11(5):596-600.
10. Pandey S, Rai M, Prasanna HC, Kalloo G. 'Kashi Madhu': a new muskmelon cultivar with high total soluble solids. HortScience. 2008;43(1):245-246.
11. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: ICAR; 1985.
12. Rastogi S, Abidi AB. Biochemical evaluation of new muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) varieties grown in Eastern U.P. Indian J Agric Biochem. 2006;19(1):3738.
13. Ali SP, Asghar MA, Khan AR. Physico-chemical changes in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) as affected by harvest maturity stage. J Agric Res (Lahore). 2012;50(2):249-260.
14. Senesi E, Cesare LF, Prinzivalli C, Scalzo R. Evaluation of two varieties of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L. var. reticulatus Naud). J Sci Food Agric. 2005;85(8):1241-1251.
15. Shashikumar KT, Pitchaimuthu M. Heterosis and combining ability analysis of quantitative and qualitative traits in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.). Int J Agric. 2016;6:341-348.
16. Shivakumara YB. Evaluation of netted muskmelon (Cucumis melo L. var. cantalupensis Naudin) for growth, yield and quality [M.Sc. thesis]. Kerala: Kerala Agricultural University; 2019.
17. Shivaprasad MK. Studies on performance of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) hybrids under northern dry zone of Karnataka [PhD dissertation]. Bagalkot: Univ. of Horticultural Sciences; 2013.
18. Singh SP. Production technology of vegetable crops. Haryana: Agriculture Research Communication Centre; 1998. p.244-249.
19. Sudhakara T, Manchali S. Characterization of muskmelon local types of Karnataka for growth and yield attributing traits. Res Environ Life Sci. 2016;9:1210-1214.
20. Sushmitha P. Evaluation of certain varieties and hybrids of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) for yield and quality traits [M.Sc. thesis]. Andhra Pradesh: Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University; 2013.
21. Venkatesan K, Reddy BM, Senthil N. Evaluation of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) genotypes for growth, yield and quality traits. Electron J Plant Breed. 2016;7(2):443-447.
22. Yadav RK, Asati BS. Correlation among fruit characters in indigenous germplasm lines of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Haryana J Hortic Sci. 2005;34(1-2):135-136.