## 3 Results and Discussion
### Main Characteristics of the Fruits and Overall Composition
The soil and climatic conditions, such as the average temperature, likely explained these variations. The measured DM contents were similar to those reported by [PERSON] et al. [13] and [PERSON] [28] for the same fruit, with an average value of around 26 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\). However, these contents were higher than those reported by [PERSON] et al. [29] for fruits of the same genus, _A. laurina_ R.Br. [PERSON], with a content of 18 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\), and by [PERSON] et al. [8] for _A. quangensis_, which had an average content of 17 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\). The average TSSs concentration of the samples ranged from 16 to 20 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) FM. Statistically, no significant difference was observed between the AbM22 and AbHb22 samples at \(p>0.05\). When comparing the TSSs and DM values, we observed that approximately 80% of the DM consists of soluble components. It was noteworthy that the TSSs content was quite high compared to that of other wild fruits, such as Umbu-caja (_Spondias tuberosa \(\times\) S. mombin_), with an average of 10% [30], and jaboticaba (_Myricaria jaboticaba_) fruit, with average of 13-16% [31], but comparable to banana, with TSSs values ranging from 20 to 25 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) FM [32], and soursop (_Annona muricata_), with an average of around 23% [33]. The measured pH values were similar, ranging from 3.1 to 3.3. The highest pH values were obtained in the Ab21 and AbHa22 samples. The TA contents ranged between 1.86 and 2.62 g eq. cit\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) FM. Statistically, the Ab21 samples were significantly different from the other samples at \(p<0.05\). These results were slightly higher than those found by [PERSON] et al. [13] for the same fruit (1.2 g eq. cit\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) FM). For comparison with a fruit of the same genus _A. laurina_, [PERSON] et al. [29] reported a pH value of 3.09, which was similar to the results obtained in this study, as well as those reported by [PERSON] et al. [13] for the same species (_A. bebalmii_), which had a pH value of 3.1. The analysis of the organic acid profile revealed two major compounds: citric acid and malic acid. Citric acid was predominant, accounting for 70% \(w/w\) of organic acids. The acid contents were highest in AbHa22, followed by AbM22, then Ab21, and lowest in AbHb22. As with sugars, these variations from one sample to another can be explained by a multitude of factors. The measured acid contents were much higher than those reported by [PERSON] et al. [29] in the _A. laurina_ fruit, with averages of 9.64 and 0.93 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) of DM for citric and malic acids, respectively, or by [PERSON] et al. [13] in loengo fruit, with 5.26 and 0.44 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) of DM, respectively. The sugar/acid ratio (TSSs/TA) is an important quality factor. It is often used to determine the stage of ripeness of fruits. Furthermore, it accurately represents their taste quality, with a higher ratio generally being a guarantee of better organoleptic quality. In our case, the fruits from Malanje and Huambo showed the highest TSSs/TA ratios. The values obtained showed that the high acidity of the pulp was compensated by its high sugar content. These values were of the same order of magnitude as the 6 to 17 g\({}_{\text{sugar}}\cdot{\text{g}}_{\text{acid}}^{-1}\) obtained on plum cultivars (_Prunus domestica_ L.) by [PERSON] et al. [34], but considerably lower than those reported on several mango varieties by [PERSON] et al. [35], which oscillated between 23 and 133 g\({}_{\text{sugar}}\cdot{\text{g}}_{\text{acid}}^{-1}\). In terms of protein, the AbHB22 and AbHa22 fruits showed significantly higher contents, with around 8.1 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) of DM compared to the other two samples. These values were of the same order of magnitude as those reported by [PERSON] et al. [13] in loengo fruit, with 7.4 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) of DM, but higher than those reported by [PERSON] et al. [29] in _A. laurina_, with an average total protein content of 1.56 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) of DM.