Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Peel reflectance average in the visible range(solid line) ± standard deviation(dashed lines) calculated from all mango
cultivars studied (A) completed by diagram of the color of the visible spectra, and by a diagram of the maximal
absorbance of pigments(B), i.e., chlorophyll a (431.5 and 665.6 nm),chlorophyll b(460.3 and 647.6 nm)(wellburn,1994),
anthocyanins (550 nm) (merzlyak et al, 2003b), and carotenoids(479, 456 and 449nm) (wellburn,1994).(C-J) peel
reflectance measurements in the visible range according to the mango cultivars studied. The color of each curve
corresponds to the color of the peel sample. (For interpretation of the references to colors in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Models calibrated using the 33 peel hue angle values were compared
samples were applied to all reflectance between cultivars according to the non-
measurements in order to predict the parametric test of Kolmogorov–Smirnov.
peel contents in pigments of cultivars
studied. Multiple comparisons between cultivars
of the predicted pigment content
2.4. Statistical analysis averages were performed using Tukey’s
test performed with the HSD test R
All analyses and graphical renderings function provided in the Agricolae
were performed with R software (Team, package. For all statistical analysis, the
2012) implemented with Colorspace null hypothesis was rejected, i.e.,
(Ihaka et al.,2008) and PLS packages absence of effect or difference, when the
(Mevik and Wehrens, 2007). The P-value was lesser or equal to the
probability density function of the hue significant level of 0.05.
angle values was calculated for each
cultivar using the density function of R
software. The probability densities of the
3. Results and discussion
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
content in the fresh peel varied from different pig-ments in the visible range (Table 1). Various
indexes are proposedin the literature. The ones used in this
14.37 to 35.9 _g gFW−1, in line with the study were inspired bythose found by Merzlyak et al.
measurements of Ketsa et al. (1999) who (2003a,b). Since reflectance dataare composed of many noisy
found that the β-carotenoid content, i.e., and collinear variables, the use of PLSregression is
recommended (Wold et al., 2001) and commonly used(Nicolaï
the main carotenoid pigment in mango et al., 2007). Moreover, multivariate analysis, such as
peel (Medlicott et al., 1986), for Nam Doc PLSregression, of absorbance values was found to improve the
Mai and Tongdum mangoes varied from pre-diction of pigment performed with linear regression
(Zude-Sasseet al., 2002). The cross validation leave-one-out
5 to 25 _g gFW−1 of fresh peel. method used todetermine the number of latent variables for
Concerning anthocyanin content in the the PLSR (Fig. 3)made it possible to maximize the predictive
peel, measurements varied from 0 ability of the modeland to avoid model over-fitting (Cornillon,
2010). The averageRMSE ratios of measured pigment contents
to100.6 _g gFW−1. Ajila et al. (2007a) were 6.8%, 5.9%, 10.3%,and 15.3%, for chlorophyll a,
reported anthocyanin contents in the dry chlorophyll b, carotenoid and antho-cyanin, respectively.
mango peel varying between 2030 and Higher prediction errors were observed foranthocyanin
pigment (Fig. 3D) compared to the other pigments(Fig. 3A–C).
5650 _g gDW−1,contrary to Berardini et The assessment of pigment contents using peel
al. (2005a,b) who reported anthocyanin spectralmeasurements assumes that the optical pigment
contents varying between 0.211 and 3.72 features remainthe same in the different cultivars and
through different stages offruit development (Merzlyak et al.,
_g gDW−1 for several mango cultivars, 2003b). However, anthocyaninoptical features are affected by
and to Dorta et al. (2012) who reported several factors such as pH, tem-perature, light and presence
of enzymes, flavonoids and metallicions (Casta˜neda-Ovando
values fluctuating between 15 and 33 _g
et al., 2009). These variations can explainFig
gDW−1 for ripe Keitt mangoes
.Differences between authors are
probably related to the differences in
extraction and measurement methods
used.
Several authors (Mielke et al., 2012; Gitelson et al.,
2001;Merzlyak et al., 2003b) estimated the pigment content
in the peelusing indexes related to the optical features of the