4.6 Article

Instrumental and Sensory Texture Attributes of High-Protein Nutrition Bars Formulated with Extruded Milk Protein Concentrate

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 81, Issue 5, Pages S1254-S1262

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13270

Keywords

crumbliness; extrusion; protein bar; sensory analysis; texture profile analysis

Funding

  1. Dairy Research Inst. through the Univ. of Minnesota [H003889501]
  2. Iowa State Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous instrumental study of high-protein nutrition (HPN) bars formulated with extruded milk protein concentrate (MPC) indicated slower hardening compared to bars formulated with unmodified MPC. However, hardness, and its change during storage, insufficiently characterizes HPN bar texture. In this study, MPC80 was extruded at 2 different conditions and model HPN bars were prepared. A trained sensory panel and instrumental techniques were used to measure HPN bar firmness, crumbliness, fracturability, hardness, cohesiveness, and other attributes to characterize texture change during storage. Extrusion modification, storage temperature, and storage time significantly affected the instrumental and sensory panel measured texture attributes. The HPN bars became firmer and less cohesive during storage. When evaluated at the same storage conditions, the texture attributes of the HPN bars formulated with the different extrudates did not differ significantly from each other. However, textural differences were noted most of the time between the control and the HPN bars formulated with extruded MPC80. An adapted HPN bar crumbliness measurement technique produced results that were correlated with sensory panel measured crumbliness (r = 0.85) and cohesiveness (r = -0.84). Overall, the HPN bars formulated with extruded MPC80 were significantly softer, less crumbly, and more cohesive than the control during storage.

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