4.4 Article

Effect of partial sugar replacement with ultrasonically treated citrus pectin on aeration and rheological properties of batter

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.13827

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultrasound treatment was applied on citrus pectin solution prior mixing into batter as partial replacement of sugar content. The pectin solutions were treated with ultrasound at 20%, 40%, and 60% amplitude for 5, 15, and 25min. It was then replaced with 20% and 30% of sugar content in batter formulation. Aeration properties were tested by measuring batter density and rheological properties of batter, also volume and hardness of cake. The results shown that 20% of sugar replacement with non-treated pectin in batter system gave lower batter density at lower viscosity, and higher consistency index with less viscoelasticity produced lower cake volume and cake hardness compared with 30% of sugar replacement. Ultrasound treatment on pectin solution at shorter duration was able to further reduce the batter density which increases the cake aeration by producing higher cake volume with lower hardness compared with non-treated pectin in lower level of sugar replacement. Practical applicationsThe application of pectin in small amount to replace relatively large amount of sugar in baking helps in cost-saving and served to curb the problems of consumers who cannot consume high sugar intake due to health problem such as diabetes and obesity. Pectin is used in low-sugar products due to its gel-forming properties. In this research, ultrasound wave is proposed to replace the functionality of sugar in pectin to give the gelation properties, meantime to create aeration by alter its rheological properties. It was found that ultrasound has the ability to increase the viscosity of foam and batter in eggless cake product in previous research. The ultrasonic treatment applied at higher power range and relatively low frequencies has the capability inducing acoustic cavitation and promotes bubbles stability in aerated food.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据