بهینه‌سازی فرمولاسیون خامه شیرین کم‌کالری با استفاده از روش سطح پاسخ

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی لاتین

نویسندگان

• فرشته حسینی
• زینب رفتنی امیری

گروه علوم و صنایع غذایی، دانشکده مهندسی زراعی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری.

https://doi.org/10.22067/ifstrj.v0i0.70033

چکیده

در این تحقیق، تأثیر استویا (04/0-0 درصد وزنی) به‌عنوان جایگزین ساکارز، کنسانتره پروتئینی شیر (4-0 درصد وزنی) و نشاسته اصلاح‌شده ذرت مومی (3-0 درصد وزنی) به‌عنوان جایگزین‌های چربی بر روی خصوصیات فیزیکوشیمیایی و حسی خامه 15 درصد چربی با استفاده از طرح مرکب مرکزی چرخش‌پذیر بررسی شد. برای بهینه‌سازی فرمولاسیون خامه کم‌کالری از روش سطح پاسخ استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که افزایش جایگزینی ساکارز با استویا و غلظت کنسانتره پروتئینی شیر موجب افزایش اسیدیته خامه شد، در حالی‌که pH کاهش یافت. با افزایش جایگزینی ساکارز با استویا در خامه، سفتی بافت، ویسکوزیته ظاهری و قوام کاهش یافت، در حالی‌که افزایش غلظت کنسانتره پروتئینی شیر و نشاسته اصلاح‌شده منجر به افزایش فاکتورهای ذکر شده گردید. بر اساس بهینه‌سازی چند پاسخ، سطوح بهینه برای استویا 034/0 درصد، کنسانتره پروتئینی شیر 64/1 درصد و نشاسته اصلاح‌شده 30/2 درصد تعیین و مقادیر اسیدیته 15/0درصد بر مبنای اسیدلاکتیک، pH 5/6، سفتی بافتN  4/1، ویسکوزیته ظاهری             mPa.s 3/28730 و قوام cm/30se 52/0 پیش‌بینی شدند. ارزش کالری خامه فرموله شده 46/44 درصد کمتر از نمونه شاهد (حاوی 30 درصد چربی و 12 درصد ساکاروز) بود. خامه فرموله شده از نظر پذیرش کلی اختلاف معنی داری با شاهد نداشته و در عین حال امتیاز بالاتری از نظر مزه و حالت خامه ای داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• خامه کم‌کالری
• استویا
• کنسانتره پروتئینی شیر
• نشاسته اصلاح‌شده
• روش سطح پاسخ
• بهینه‌سازی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Optimization of low-calorie sweet cream formulation via response surface methodology

نویسندگان [English]

• Fereshteh Hosseini
• Zeynab Raftani Amiri

Department of Food Science and Technology, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Mazandaran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

In this study, the effect of stevia (0-0.04 g/100g) as a sucrose replacer, milk protein concentrate (mpc) (0-4 g/100g), and modified waxy corn starch (0-3 g/100g) as fat replacers on the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of 15% fat cream were analyzed using a central composite rotatable design. Response surface methodology was used for optimization of low calorie cream formulation. Results showed that an increase in sucrose substitution with stevia and mpc concentration was followed by an increase in cream acidity, while pH decreased. Increasing sucrose substitution with stevia in cream decreased firmness, apparent viscosity and consistency, whereas increasing concentration of milk protein concentrate and modified starch increased the cream firmness, apparent viscosity and consistency. However, according to multiple response optimization, the optimum levels of 0.034 g/100g stevia, 1.64 g/100g mpc and 2.30 g/100g modified starch predicted acidity 0.15% acid lactic, pH 6.5, firmness 1.4 N, apparent viscosity 28730.3 mPa.s and consistency 0.52 cm/30 s. The calorie value of formulated cream was 46.44% less than the control sample (cream with 30% fat and 12% sucrose), and no significant difference in total acceptance between them was found, while formulated cream had higher score for taste and creamy state.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Low calorie cream
• Stevia
• Milk protein concentrate
• Modified starch
• Response surface methodology
• Optimization

مراجع

1. Alizadeh M, Azizi-Lalabadi M and Kheirouri S (2014). Impact of Using Stevia on Physicochemical, Sensory, Rheology and Glycemic Index of Soft Ice Cream. Food and Nutrition Sciences 5: 390–396.
2. Aminigo E.R, Metzger L and Lehtola P.S (2009). Biochemical composition and storage stability of a yogurt-like product from African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa). International Journal of Food Science and Technology 44: 560–566.
3. AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis.
4. Bagheri F, Radi M and Amiri S (2014). Use of Sweetener Stevioside for Produce Dietary Breakfast Cream. Agriculture Science Developments 3(9): 284–291.
5. Banach J.C (2012). Modification of milk protein concentrate and applicability in high-protein nutrition bars. MS Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
6. Barzegari M (2012). The effect of xanthan and carboxy methyl cellulose substitution with Persian gum on the quality of mayonnaise. MS Thesis, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University.
7. Brandle JE and Telmer PG (2007). Steviol glycoside biosynthesis. Phytochemistry 68: 1855–1863.
8. Cardello HMAB, Dasilva MAPA and Damasio MH (1999). Measurement of the relative sweetness of stevia extract, aspartame and cyclamate/saccharin blend as compared to sucrose at different concentrations. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 54: 119–130.
9. Drake MA, Truong VD and Daubert CR (1999). Rheological and sensory properties of reduced-fat processed cheeses containing lecithin. Journal of Food Science 64: 744–747.
10. Emam-Djome Z, Mousavi ME, Ghorbani AV and Madadlou A (2008). Effect of whey protein concentrate addition on the physical properties of homogenized sweetened dairy creams. International Journal of Dairy Technology 61(2): 183–191.
11. FAO (2000). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Codex standard for cream for direct consumption, 2nd edn. In Codex Alimentarius: Milk and milk products, pp. 39–41.
12. Gonzalez-Martinez C, Becerra M, Chafer M, Alborz A, Carot JM and Chiralt A (2002). Influence of substituting milk powder for whey powder on yoghurt quality. Food Science and Technology 13: 334–340.
13. Guggisberg D, Piccinali P and Schreier K (2011). Effects of sugar substitution with Stevia, Actilight and Stevia combinations or Palatinose on rheological and sensory characteristics of low-fat and whole milk set yoghurt. International Dairy Journal 21: 636–644.
14. Kovacova R, Stetina J and Curda L (2010). Influence of processing and κ-carrageenan on properties of whipping cream. Journal of Food Engineering 99: 471–478.
15. Lindley M.G (2012). Natural High-Potency Sweeteners. In: Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. (O’Donnell K and Kearsley M.W eds.), John Wiley & Sons. New Delhi, pp: 185–207.
16. Myers R.H, Montgomery D.C and Anderson-Cook C.M (2009). Response Surface Methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley and Sons. New Jersey.
17. Oliveira M.N, Sodini I, Remeuf F and Corrieu G (2001). Effect of milk supplementation andculture composition on acidification, textural properties and microbiological stability of fermentedmilks containing probiotic bacteria. International Dairy Journal 11: 935–942.
18. Ortega-Ojeda F.E, Larsson H and Eliasson A.C (2005). Gel formation in mixtures of hydrophobically modified potato and high amylopectin potato starch. Carbohydrate Polymers 59: 313–327.
19. Patel M.R, Baer R.J and Acharya M.R (2006). Increasing the Protein Content of Ice Cream. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 1400–1406.
20. Prakash I, DuBois G.E, Clos J.F, Wilkens K.L and Fosdick L.E (2008). Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food and Chemical Toxicology 75–82.
21. Salminen S and Hallikainen N (2002). Sweeteners. In: Food Additives. (Branen A.L, Davidson P.M, Salminen S and Thorngate III J.H eds.), Marcel Dekker. New York, pp: 447–475.
22. Tadhani M and Subhash R (2006) Preliminary studies on Stevia rebaudiana leaves: proximal composition, mineral analysis and phytochemical screening. Journal of medical sciences 6(3): 321–326.
23. Tesch S, Gerhards Ch and Schubert H (2002). Stabilization of emulsions by OSA starches. Journal of Food Engineering 54: 167–174.
24. Thaiudom S and Khantarat K (2011). Stability and rheological properties of fat-reduced mayonnaises by using sodium octenyl succinate starch as fat replacer. Procedia Food Science 1: 315–321.
25. Woo K.S, Seib P.A (2002). Cross-Linked Resistant Starch: Preparation and Properties. Cereal Chemistry 79(6): 819–825.
26. Worrasinchai S, Suphantharika M, Pinjai S and Jamnong P (2006). ß-Glucan prepared from spent brewer’s yeast as a fat replacer in mayonnaise. Food Hydrocolloids 20: 68–78.