4.7 Article

Effect of lyophilized chive (Allium wakegi Araki) supplementation to the frying batter mixture on quality attributes of fried chicken breast and tenderloin

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY-X
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100216

Keywords

Chicken meat Deep-frying; Lyophilized chives Physicochemical properties; Sensory characteristics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The addition of lyophilized chives to batter mixtures for frying chicken breasts and tenderloins affected the properties, frying results, and sensory characteristics. The amount of lyophilized chives was directly proportional to the viscosity and crispness of the batter, but inversely proportional to the lightness, redness, yellowness, and pH. Sensory panelists rated the samples with 5% lyophilized chive supplementation in breast samples and 3% or 5% supplementation in tenderloin samples the highest.
Batter mixtures for frying chicken breasts and tenderloins were supplemented with different amounts (0, 3, 5, and 7%) of lyophilized chives (Allium wakegi Araki). The viscosity of the batter mixture, crispness of the fried batter, fat and ash contents, caloric value, coating pickup, and frying yield were directly proportional, whereas the lightness, redness, yellowness, and pH were inversely proportional, to the amount of lyophilized chives in the batter. Principal component analysis revealed that the aromatic profiles varied between the 0%, 3%, and 5% lyophilized chive-supplemented groups in both the breast and tenderloin samples. However, the aromatic pro-files of the 7% and 5% lyophilized chive-supplemented samples were similar. The taste profile of the 7% lyophilized chive-supplemented sample was different from those of the 0%, 3%, or 5% lyophilized chive- supplemented samples. The sensory characteristics of the 5% lyophilized chive-supplemented breast samples and 3% or 5% lyophilized chive-supplemented tenderloin samples received the best scores by sensory panelists.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available