4.7 Article

An evaluation of the effect of curdlan and scleroglucan on the functional properties of low-fat processed cheese spreads

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113564

关键词

beta-glucan; Texture; Spreadability; Functional properties

资金

  1. Minister of Education and Science [010/RID/2018/19, 17.610.005-110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The applicability of curdlan and scleroglucan as functional additives in low-fat processed cheese spreads was evaluated. Results showed that adding curdlan and scleroglucan improved particle distribution and hardness, but decreased spreadability and meltability. The experimental spreads had a more yellow color, without adverse effects on taste and aroma, and even enhanced the cheesy flavor.
The applicability of curdlan (CU) and scleroglucan (SC) as functional additives in the production of low-fat processed cheese spreads (PCS) was evaluated. The experimental cheeses were produced with 0.5% and 1% addition of highly pure CU and SC. Polysaccharides significantly contributed to uniform particle size distribution and an increase in diameters D[4.3] and D[3.2]. In PCS containing 1% CU or SC, dispersed phase (fat) particles were smaller than in PCS containing 0.5%. In comparison with commercially produced cheeses and control PCS, the addition of CU and SC significantly increased hardness and adhesion, and decreased spreadability and meltability by around 45%. The experimental PCS were significantly more yellow (average b* = 18.7) than the control PCS (b* = 12.4). Cheeses containing polysaccharides had a coarser and harder microstructure with numerous complexes. A sensory analysis revealed that the addition of CU and SC did not adversely affect the taste and aroma of the products, and even enhanced their cheesy flavor. The content of polysaccharide additives in low-fat PCS should not exceed 0.5%. The study demonstrated that PCS containing beta-glucans offer an excellent alternative to full-fat PCS.

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