4.7 Article

Effects of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) as fat replacers on the microstructure and sensory characteristics of fried beef patties

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 236-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.11.021

关键词

Carboxymethyl cellulose; Microcrystalline cellulose; Beef patties; Fibers; Fat replacer

资金

  1. DANISCO A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) or carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) can be used as potential fat replacers; both are non-digestible fibers. The objective of this study was, therefore, to assess the impact of added CMC/MCC on the microstructural/functional characteristics of beef patties. Therefore, low-fat beef patties were formulated with CMC/MCC at concentrations of 0.5-3.0 wt%. For this formulation, 10 wt% of the ground beef was replaced using a dispersion of CMC or MCC in water. The influence of the addition of MCC and CMC on the sensory characteristics, such as the texture, color, taste, flavor, and juiciness, of fried beef patties was evaluated by using a hedonic scale from 0 to 10 (5 = optimal). The confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) measurements and sensory evaluation all indicated that addition of CMC (>1 wt%) led to destabilization of the microstructure, sensory quality and texture of fried beef patties, which, upon heating, could no longer be converted into a protein network with coarse meat and fat particles, a fact that was also revealed in the CLSM images. By contrast, the CLSM images prove that MCC was highly compatible with the matrix and improved the texture in the sensory evaluation with increasing concentration compared to the control. The best sensory evaluation achieved was with the beef patties containing 2 wt% MCC. Generally, hot samples containing MCC had more juiciness than the control and had a fat-like mouthfeel. Contrarily, CMC is not suitable as a fat replacer in concentrations more than 0.5 wt%. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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