article · Journal of Food Innovation, Nutrition, and Environmental Sciences
This study was aimed at comparing the effects of natural and alternative ripening agents, namely natural ripening, calcium carbide, cassava peel, and unripe wild mango, on the nutritional attributes of plantain (Musa paradisiaca) under a completely randomized design. All the nutritional parameters studied were significantly different (p < 0.05). Natural ripened plantain flour (NRPF) sample exhibited the highest proximate values in terms of moisture (4.53%), crude fat (6.18%), crude fibre (2.85%), crude protein (5.91%), and ash (4.17%), while the peak carbohydrate by difference (84.42%) was obtained in calcium carbide–treated plantain flour (CCTPF) sample. Potassium concentration was highest (76.38 mg/100g) in cassava peel–treated plantain flour (CPTPF) sample, lowest in CCTPF sample (49.20 mg/100g) whereas the peak concentration of calcium (64.63 mg/100g) was obtained in CCTPF sample. The highest sugar concentrations of sucrose (82.48 g/100g), fructose (93.50 g/100g), and glucose (84.22 g/100g) were obtained in CPTPF, while the lowest sucrose content (74.88 g/100g), and highest phytochemical levels in terms of phytate (5.94 mg/100 g), oxalate (15.69 mg/100g), tannins (0.58 mg100/g), and phytic acid (1.67 mg/100 g) were exhibited by CCTPF sample. The scavenging potentials of DPPH, flavonoids and total phenols as antioxidants were most prominent in the NRPF sample, and least prominent in CCTPF sample. Sensory attributes of the samples ranked in the descending order: NRPF > unripe mango-treated plantain flour (UMTPF) > CPTPF > CCTPF in terms of aroma, taste, chewiness, firmness greasiness and general acceptability. In conclusion, natural and bio-based ripening methods preserved the nutritional qualities of the samples studied whereas calcium carbide, as an artificial ripening inducer, negatively degraded the nutritional qualities.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.70851/jfines.2026.3(1).46.57
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.