4.6 Article

Sensory optimization of broken-rice based snacks fortified with protein and fiber

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages S333-S338

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00853.x

Keywords

extruded rice-based snack; fiber; guar gum; protein; soy protein isolate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A 3-component mixture experiment was used to optimize the formulation of broken-rice based snack fortified with protein and fiber based on consumer sensory acceptability. Soy protein isolate and guar gum were used as a good source of protein and fiber, respectively, according to DRV (daily reference value) based on a 2000-calorie diet. A consumer panel evaluated sensory acceptability of color, crispness, and flavor, and overall liking of 12 experimental broken-rice based snack formulations. Predicted models derived from the restricted nonintercept regression analysis were used to plot mixture response surfaces (MRS) of each sensory attribute. Areas within the MRS plots having predicted acceptability scores of at least 6.5 (on a 9-point hedonic scale) for color, crispness, flavor, and overall liking were selected to derive a predicted optimum formulation range. Flavor acceptability was a limiting factor in attaining the optimum formulation range, which consisted of 40% to 48% broken-rice flour, 8% to 16% guar gum, and 20% to 33% soy protein isolate. To verify the obtained predicted models, the formulation containing 48% broken-rice flour, 8% guar gum, and 20% soy protein isolate, which was located in the optimum area, was chosen to support our effort to utilize and add value to broken rice. Selected physicochemical measurements of the chosen optimized formulation were determined. One serving size (30 g) of the chosen optimized snack product provided 6.58 g protein and 3.80 g dietary fiber, which met the US FDA definition of a good source of protein and dietary fiber.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available