3.8 Article

Sucralose and maltodextrin-An altrernative to low fat sugar free ice-creamd

期刊

出版社

SOC SCIENCE & NATURE
DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/11.1/19

关键词

ICE CREAM; LOW FAT; RSM; SORBITOL; SUCRALOSE

资金

  1. UGC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent past; change in lifestyle has paved the way for many diseases like obesity and diabetes with huge demand for reduced calories low fat sugar free products. Therefore, to meet the demand of the current market a low-fat sugar free ice-cream was prepared. The per kg final formulation provided by response surface methodology (RSM) to prepare desirable low-fat sugar free ice cream is 751ml skim milk, 31gm cream, 65gm SMP, 18.2ml sorbitol, 30gm maltodextrin, 70gm polydextrose, 12.5gm WPC-70, 0.009gm sucralose and 5gm emulsifier. RSM was used to investigate the influence of predictor variables (sorbitol and sucralose) on ice-cream color and appearance, body and texture, flavor and taste and melting resistance. 1-3% level of sorbitol and 0.005-0.015% sucralose was varied. Finally, 2.33% sorbitol and 0.009% sucralose were obtained as optimum levels. Available literature indicated levels of Maltodextrin as fat replacer was found effective at 3% and polydextrose at 7% in providing bulk to the ice-cream without affecting the sensory attributes and Physico-chemical parameters. Low calorie sweeteners sorbitol and sucralose on comparison to sucrose were effective in imparting sweetness without adding calorie to the prepared ice-cream. Prepared ice-cream was effective in mimicking mouth feel of full fat ice-cream. The Optimized ice-cream was analyzed for various parameters including Total solids, fat, protein, moisture, titrable acidity, ash, carbohydrate and overrun as 30.44, 2.40, 4.69, 69.56, 0.135, 1.34, 22.01 and 61.6g/100 g respectively. The total plate count (TPC) of freshly prepared ice cream was 1.5x103, yeast & tmould was absent and coliform count was found nil. The calorific value of ice-cream was reduced from 200 kcal to 116.74 kcal/100 gram

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

3.8
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