4.7 Article

Impact of Maltitol and Sorbitol on Technological and Sensory Attributes of Biscuits

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10112545

关键词

biscuit; sugar replacement; water distribution; polyols; sensory properties

资金

  1. Pays de la Loire region
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 SWEET project [774293]
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [774293] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effects of fully replacing sugar with maltitol and sorbitol in short-dough biscuits. The reformulated biscuits had more compact shape and structure, but experienced a decrease in sensory properties. Among them, maltitol was considered an excellent potential substitute for this type of product.
Overconsumption of sugars in diets is associated with many health problems, including dental diseases, diabetes and obesity. However, removing sugar from products such as biscuits is still a challenge for manufacturers and has been limited in Europe since the evolution of the EU regulation in January 2018, allowing only polyols and non-sweetening bulking agents as sugar substitutes. This study investigated the effects of fully replacing sugar with two polyols, maltitol and sorbitol, in short-dough biscuits. Morphological, textural and visual characteristics were studied as well as sensory properties. The reformulated biscuits were more compact in shape and structure. They were also less prone to checking, which was attributed to a more homogeneous water distribution at the end of baking, especially with sorbitol. Polyol biscuits were surprisingly colourful, especially sorbitol ones, although polyols are not normally involved in Maillard reactions. Sensory tests, however, showed a depreciation of the products compared to the control. Sorbitol biscuits were the least preferred but maltitol ones were quite well accepted compared to the control. Thus, maltitol is an excellent potential substitute for this type of product.

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

4.7
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