alexa Effect of Different Levels of Sucrose-Glucose Mixture on Overall Quality of Guava Bar | OMICS International
ISSN: 2157-7110
Journal of Food Processing & Technology

Like us on:

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Effect of Different Levels of Sucrose-Glucose Mixture on Overall Quality of Guava Bar

Ashbala Shakoor1, Muhammad Ayub1, Said Wahab1, Majid Khan1, Arsalan Khan2* and Ziaur Rahman1

1The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Paksitan

2Agriculture Research Institute, ARI Tarnab Peshawar, Pakistan

*Corresponding Author:
Arsalan Khan
Agriculture Research Institute, ARI Tarnab Peshawar, Pakistan
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: April 17, 2015; Accepted Date: May 25, 2015; Published Date: June 01, 2015

Citation: Shakoor A, Ayub M, Wahab S, Khan M, Khan A, et al. (2015) Effect of Different Levels of Sucrose-Glucose Mixture on Overall Quality of Guava Bar. J Food Process Technol 6: 469. doi: 10.4172/2157-7110.1000469

Copyright: © 2015 Shakoor A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Processing & Technology

Abstract

The effect of sucrose-glucose mixture was studied on the overall quality of guava bar stored at room temperature (25-30°C) during three months storage period. Different ratio of sucrose glucose mixture was used. All the treatments were analyzed for physicochemical characteristics and sensory (color, texture, taste and overall acceptability). The results showed that decreased were observed in water activity (from 0.68 to 0.62), moisture (from 18.59 to 14.43), pH (from 3.87 to 3.69) and ascorbic acid (from 3.87 to 3.69) color (from 7.67 to 5.63), texture (from 7.67 to 5.63), taste (from 7.42 to 5.37) and overall acceptability (from 7.53 to 5.48), while reducing sugar (from 14.16 to 14.41), titratable acidity (1.13 to 1.33), and total soluble solids (from 61.85 to 63.70) was increased. The overall results showed that treatment GL2 followed by GL5 were found adequate both physicochemical and sensory evaluation.

Keywords

Bar; Guava; Guar gum; Sucrose; Glucose

Introduction

Guava (Psidium guajava L.) belongs to the family Myrtaceae, characterized by 80 genera and 3000 species [1,2]. It has originated from Mexico to Peru [3]. In terms of area and production, guava is the fourth most important fruit after mango, banana and citrus [4]. In Pakistan, guava fruit stands at number three in terms of production, after mango and banana [5]. A guava fruit has a mass of 150-250 grams.

Fruit leather is an intermediate moisture food (IMF), also called as fruit roll, fruit bar or fruit sheet commercially, and developed by dehydration of fruit pastes into leathery sheet [6]. Fruit leathers are probably, originated from the times of Persian Empire. They are recognized with different names in different nations; “Qamar al deen” in Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries,“Bastegh” or “Pastegh” in Armenia, “Pestil” in Turkey and “Fruit roll” or “Fruit leather” in the United States. In scientific literature, the last name, “Fruit leather” is mostly used. Fruit leather having water activity less than 0. 6 and moisture content of 8-15%. They contain acids and sugar naturally, while humectants are purposely added to minimize water activity and to provide softness even at lower moisture levels [7]. Guar gum is consider as one of the main gums. Guar gum is achieved from a legume crop. It is a complex carbohydrate, broadly grown in Pakistan and India and has very low price. Xanthan and Guar gums are widely used for the thickness of food products all over the food industries [8].

Materials and Methods

The research was conducted in the laboratory of the Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar. Good quality fresh, mature and healthy guava was bought from the Peshawar local market and was transported to the laboratory. The diseased free fruit was selected and washed with water in order to remove dust, dirt and any other foreign material. The fruit was peeled, trimmed, cut and dipped in 1% citric acid to prevent oxidation. Then the fruit was blended in order to get the pulp. After that the treatments (20 obrix) were prepared. Each treatment were poured in stainless steel trays and kept in cabinet drier at 550C. The treatments were GL0 = Control, GL1 = Guava pulp with sucrose + glucose (1:1) and guar gum (0.25%), GL2 = Guava pulp with sucrose + glucose (7:3) and guar gum (0.25%), GL3 = Guava pulp with sucrose + glucose (3:7) and guar gum (0.25%), GL4 = Guava pulp with sucrose + glucose (10:0) and guar gum (0.25%), GL5 = Guava pulp with sucrose + glucose (0:10) and guar gum (0.25%).

Packaging

The prepared bar was wrapped with aluminum foil and then packed in a transparent polythene bags.

Chemical analysis

Ascorbic acid: Ascorbic acid determination was done by the standard method as detailed in the AOAC [9] method no 967.21.

Titratable acidity: The titratable acidity was measured by the standard method of AOAC [9] method no 942.15.

pH: pH was measured by using the standard method of AOAC [9] method no 2005.02.

Total soluble solids: The total soluble solids (TSS) were determined by the standard methods of AOAC [9] method no 932.14 and 932.12, using Atago digital refractometer at room temperature.

Reducing sugar: Reducing sugars was determined by Lane and Eynon recommended procedure as explained in AOAC [9] method no 920.183.

Water activity (aw): Water activity was measured by using Novasina RTD 502 apparatus (Novasina, Pfapfikkon, Switzerland).

Moisture (%): Moisture of the sample was determined by the standard method of AOAC [9] method no 925.45.

Total microbial count: The sample was analyzed for the total microbial count by the total plate count method as describe Dillello.

Sensory evaluation: The guava bar was sensory judged for taste, color, overall acceptability and texture by the panels of 10 judges. The evaluation was carried out by using 9 points hedonic scale of Larmond [10].

Statistical analysis

All the data concerning treatments and storage interval were statistically analyzed by means of completely Randomized Design (CRD) 2 Factorial and the means were separated by applying least significant difference (LSD) Test at 5% possibility level as defined by Steel and Torrie [11].

Results and Discussion

Chemical analysis

Water activity (aw): Mean values for aw reduced from 0.68 to 0.62 for the period of the storage. Highest mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 and GL2 (0.66) followed by GL3 and GL4 (0.65), in compare lowest mean values were documented in GL0 and GL1 (0. 64). During the storage highest fall in aw was recorded in GL0 (10.45%) followed by GL1 (8.96), in contrast minimum fall was recorded in GL3 (4.48) followed by GL5 (7.35) (Table 1). The association of the added sugars and water through hydrogen bonding reduction was occurred in aw. Invert sugar acts as bonding agent and the water passage at the product surface is slow. This action delays the creation of sugar recrystallization on the product surface for the duration of storage [12]. Low water activity value provides a margin of safety for the storage of acid foods at ambient temperatures, because it would not only prevent growth of pathogenic microorganism but also would strongly inhibit growth of non-pathogenic fungi and yeasts as well [13]. In a similar study, Babalola et al. [14] found a decrease in aw during study of guava and pawpaw leather (from 0.64- 0.61), Huang and Hung [15] also reported a decrease in aw during study of pear fruit leather(from 0.44- 0.37) and Irwandi et al. [16] found a decrease in aw during study of durian fruit leather from (0.597-0.573) respectively.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60 10.45 0.63 e
GL1 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 8.96 0.64d
GL2 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 8.70 0.66 a
GL3 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 4.48 0.65bc
GL4 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.62 8.82 0.65 c
GL5 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 7.35 0.66 ab
Mean 0.68 a 0.67 b 0.66 c 0.65 d 0.64 e 0.63 f 0.62 g    

Table 1: Effect of storage period and treatments on water activity (aw) of guava bar.

Moisture (%): The mean values for moisture decrease from 18.59 to 14.43 during storage. Highest mean values for treatments were observed in GL0 (18.44) followed by GL1 (16.46), in contrast lowest mean values were recorded in GL2 (15.59) followed by GL5 (15.80) and GL4 (16.33). During storage highest fall in moisture content was recorded in GL2 (30.53%) followed by GL5 (28.45%), in compare minimum fall was observed in GL0 (0.76%) followed by GL1 (21.50%) (Table 2).There was a strong relationship between moisture content and aw the higher the moisture content the higher the aw. Similar observations were made on kiwifruit leather by Lodge [17] and jackfruit leather by Che Man and Taufik [18]. In a similar study, Huang and Hung [15] found a decrease in moisture during study of pear fruit leather (12.13-7.97) and Irwandi et al.[16] also observed a decrease in moisture during study of durian fruit leather (15.82-14.36) respectively.

Treatment Storage Interval Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 %Decrease
GL0 18.53 18.50 18.47 18.44 18.41 18.39 18.39 0.76 18.45a
GL1 18.97 18.45 17.59 16.47 15.21 14.54 13.99 26.26 16.46b
GL2 18.30 17.59 16.76 15.39 14.61 13.81 12.71 30.53 15.59c
GL3 18.90 18.00 17.46 16.71 15.51 14.41 13.84 26.79 16.40bc
GL4 18.45 17.50 16.56 16.01 15.96 15.37 14.48 21.50 16.33bc
GL5 18.39 17.05 16.43 15.83 15.17 14.57 13.16 28.45 15.80bc
Mean 18.59a 17.85ab 17.21bc 16.47cd 15.81de 15.18ef 14.43f    

Table 2: Effect of storage period and treatments on (%) moisture of guava bar.

Microbial count: The mean values for microbial count reduced from 13.33 × 101 to 5.17×101 cfu/g for the period of storage. Highest mean values for treatments were perceived in GL1 (10.29×101) cfu/g followed by GL4 (9.43×101), in contrast lowest mean values were recorded in GL5 (7.71×101) cfu/g followed by GL2 (8×101) cfu/g. During storage highest fall in microbial count was recorded in GL2 (76.29×101 %) followed by GL5 (69.23×101%), in compare minimum fall was observed in GL0 (50×101) and GL1 (50×101%) followed by GL4 (57.14×101%) (Table 3). According to Troller [19,20], most of the microorganisms can barely survive aw lower than 0.60. Similar result of microbial count was reported by Huang and Hung [15] the results of microbiological examine stated in forgoing studies [19]. Decrease of microorganism might be due to low water activity, low pH and low moisture content minimum water activity required for microbial growth [20], and its pH (3.8) was below the lower limit for bacterial growth (4.0), allowing only moulds and yeasts to grow [21]. Also, different preservation factors, such as pH and water activity, usually have not just an additive effect on food stability, but act synergistically to inhibit microbial growth [22].

Treat Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 12×102 11×102 10×102 9×102 8×102 7×102 6×102 50.00×102 9.00×102 b
GL1 14x101 12x101 9x101 8x101 7x101 6x101 5x101 50.00x101 10.29x101 a
GL2 13x101 12x101 10x101 7x101 6x101 5x101 3x101 76.92x101 8.00x101cd
GL3 13x101 10x101 9x101 7x101 6x101 5x101 4x101 64.29x101 8.71x101bc
GL4 14x101 12x101 10x101 9x101 8x101 7x101 6x101 57.14x101 9.43x101 b
GL5 15x101 13x101 11x101 10x101 9x101 8x101 7x101 69.23x101 7.71x101d
Mean 13.33x101a 11.67x101 a 9.83x101a 8.33x101a 7.33x101a 6.33x101a 5.17x101a    

Table 3: Effect of storage period and treatments on Microbial load (cfu/g) of guava bar.

Reducing sugar (%): The mean values for reducing sugar increased from 14.16 to 14.41 for the period of the storage. Highest mean values for treatments were perceived in GL1 (17.85) followed by GL3 (17.35), while the lowest mean values were recorded in GL0 (3.86) followed by GL1 (14.58). During storage the highest raise in reducing sugar was recorded in GL0 (17.73%) followed by GL5 (2.68%), while lowest raise was observed in GL1 (0.07%) followed by GL3 (0.12%) as shown in Table 4. Due to the transposition of non-reducing sugars into reducing sugars and the modification of polysaccharides to monosaccharide’s the reducing sugar is increase. In a similar result, Sharma et al. [23] reported an increase in reducing sugar (from 43.1-49.8) and Phimpharian et al. [24] also found an increase in reducing sugar from (20.9 to 26.3) respectively. The increase in reducing sugars has also been observed during storage of mango leather by Rao and Roy [25]. Similar results have been record in sapota -papaya bar during 3 months of storage period [26] and in apricot - soy toffees [27].

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase  
GL0 3.26 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.96 3.96 3.97 17.88 3.86f
GL1 14.57 14.57 14.57 14.58 14.58 14.58 14.58 0.07 14.58e
GL2 17.77 17.79 17.82 17.86 17.89 17.91 17.93 0.89 17.85a
GL3 17.34 17.34 17.35 10.35 17.35 17.36 17.36 0.12 17.35b
GL4 15.99 16.02 16.06 16.09 16.13 16.15 16.17 1.11 16.09d
GL5 16.00 16.42 16.42 16.43 16.43 16.43 16.44 2.68 16.37c
Mean 14.16b 14.35a 14.36a 14.38a 14.39a 14.40a 14.41a    

Table 4: Effect of storage period and treatments on (%) reducing sugar of guava bar.

Total soluble solids: The mean values for Total soluble solids increased from 61.85 to 63.70 for the period of storage. Extreme mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (79.49) followed by GL5 (79.19), but in contrast the deepest mean values were registered in GL0 (14.91) followed by GL1 (78.04). During storage the highest raise in TSS was recorded in GL1 (20%) followed by GL5 (16.67%), while lowest raise was observed in GL0 (13.93%) followed by GL2 (14.53%) (Table 5). The increase in TSS might be due to the renovation of starch and other insoluble carbohydrates into sugars and also due to the loss of moisture content that tends to increase total soluble solid. In a similar result, Phimpharian et al. [24] reported an increase in TSS (from 82.42-86.9).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase
GL0 14.00 14.40 14.70 15.00 15.20 15.40 15.70 13.93 14.91 f
GL1 77.10 77.40 77.70 78.00 78.40 78.70 79.00 20.00 78.04 e
GL2 78.50 78.90 79.20 79.50 79.80 80.10 80.40 14.53 79.49 a
GL3 77.80 78.10 78.40 78.80 79.10 79.40 79.70 15.61 78.76 c
GL4 77.40 77.80 78.10 78.50 78.80 79.20 79.50 14.89 78.47 d
GL5 78.20 78.50 78.90 79.30 79.60 79.80 80.00 16.67 79.19 b
Mean 61.85 g 62.20 f 62.50 e 62.83 d 63.13 c 63.40 b 63.70 a    

Table 5: Effect of storage period and treatments on TSS (obrix) of guava bar

Titratable acidity: Acidity is the quantity of shelf life of the product. Titrable acidity studied to confirm physico-chemical changes during preparation [28] and during storage [29]. The mean values for Titratable acidity increased from 1.13 to 1.33 for the period of storage. Best mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (1.45) followed by GL5 (1.42), but in contrast the lowest mean values were listed in GL0 1. 30) followed by GL1(1. 36). For the period of storage the highest raise in acidity was recorded in GL2 (15.38%) followed by GL4 (14.77%), while deepest raise was perceived in GL0 (19.47%) followed by GL5 (12.50%) (Table 6). The increase in acidity might be due to development of acidic substances by the degradation of pectic bodies or breakdown and also attributed to hydrolysis of polysaccharides and non-reducing sugars through utilization of acids for converting them to hexose sugar. Rao and Roy [25] found an increase in acidity during storage of mango sheet (from 0.3-0.75). Manu et al. [30] noticed increase in acidity during storage of mango leather (from 0.37 and 0.44). Similarly Jain and Nema [31] observed an increase in acidity during study of guava leather (from 0.42-0.48) respectively. Acidiy of guava fruit bar increased while pH decreased during storage as per the study result of Gowda et al.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
Initial 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase
GL0 1.22 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.39 12.23 1.30 f
GL1 1.24 1.29 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.46 15.07 1.36 e
GL2 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.54 11.69 1.45 a
GL3 1.32 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.50 12.00 1.41 c
GL4 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.49 14.77 1.38 d
GL5 1.33 1.35 1.39 1.42 1.46 1.49 1.52 12.50 1.42 b
Mean 1.13g 1.17f 1.21e 1.24d 1.27 c 1.30 b 1.33 a    

Table 6: Effect of storage period and treatments on (%) Titratable acidity of guava bar.

pH: The mean values for pH reduced from 3.87 to 3.69 for the period of storage. Highest mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (3.87) followed by GL5 (3.79) and GL3 (3.78), in contrast lowest mean values were noted in GL0 (3. 75) followed by GL1 (3.76) and GL4 (3.77). During storage highest fall in pH was recorded in GL3 (5.40%) followed by GL5 (5.04%), in compare minimum fall was observed in GL2 (4.13%) followed by GL4 (4.29%) (Table 7). The changes in pH values might be due to increase in acidity and also due to the other chemical that occur during storage interval. Phimpharian et al. [24] noticed a reduction in pH values during storage of pineapple leather (from 3.6-3.8). Azeredo et al. [32] observed a decrease in pH values during storage of mango leathers (from 3.8-3.5). Similarly Natalia et al. [33] also observed a decrease in pH values during study of apple leather (from 3.50-3.30) respectively.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean 
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 3.84 3.81 3.78 3.75 3.73 3.70 3.67 4.43 3.75 d
GL1 3.86 3.82 3.79 3.77 3.74 3.70 3.67 5.03 3.76 c
GL2 3.87 3.85 3.83 3.80 3.77 3.74 3.71 4.13 3.80 a
GL3 3.89 3.84 3.82 3.78 3.75 3.72 3.68 5.40 3.78 b
GL4 3.85 3.83 3.80 3.77 3.75 3.71 3.69 4.29 3.77 c
GL5 3.89 3.86 3.82 3.79 3.76 3.72 3.69 5.04 3.79 ab
Mean 3.87 a 3.84 b 3.81 c 3.78 d 3.76 e 3.72 f 3.69 g    

Table 7: Effect of storage period and treatments on pH of guava bar

Ascorbic acid (Vit. C): Fruits and vegetables are important sources of ascorbic acid. The ascorbic acid content decreased during storage due to oxidation of ascorbic acid to dehyro ascorbic acid. Hence, vitamin C assessment was found out during the storage period. The mean values for ascorbic acid decreased from 92.34 to 74.42 for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were observed in GL2 (84.78) followed by GL5 (83.77), but in difference the deepest mean values were registered in GL0 (78.60) followed by GL1 (82.50). During storage the highest raise in ascorbic acid was recorded in GL0 (21.47%) followed by GL1 (20.11%), while lowest raise was observed in GL2 (16.83%) followed by GL3 (18.93%) (Table 8). Temperature has a major effect on the rate of loss of ascorbic acid. Losses of ascorbic acid were increased with the increase in temperature [34]. The ascorbic acid content decreased during storage [35]. Loss of ascorbic acid might be due to its oxidation to dehydro ascorbic acid followed by more degradation to 2, 3 - diketogulonic acid and finally to furfural complexes which go in browning reactions Sharma et al. [23]. Sharma et al. [23] noticed loss of ascorbic acid during study of apricot fruit (from 9.5-8.6). Jain and Nema [31] noticed loss of ascorbic acid during study of guava leather (176.27- 104.87mg/g) and Ayshaye et al. [36] found a decrease in ascorbic acid during storage of pawpaw (from 83.33- 74.70 and guava leather (260.0- 237.0) respectively. Loss of ascorbic acid has earlier been reported in mango leather during of 3 months storage by Rao and Roy [25]. Similar results have been reported by Sreemathi et al. [26] in sapota -papaya bar during 3 months of storage.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 90.40 85.00 79.50 77.00 75.30 72.00 71.00 21.47 78.60 d
GL1 92.00 89.00 85.50 82.50 78.50 76.50 73.50 20.11 82.50 c
GL2 92.33 90.50 87.50 85.00 81.33 80.00 76.79 16.83 84.78 a
GL3 93.50 88.00 85.83 81.83 79.82 77.23 75.83 18.90 83.15bc
GL4 92.67 87.83 84.83 81.57 79.57 77.56 74.56 19.54 82.66 c
GL5 93.17 89.99 85.79 82.82 80.87 78.87 74.87 19.64 83.77 b
Mean 92.34 a 88.39 b 84.82 c 81.79 d 79.23 e 77.03 f 74.42 g    

Table 8: Effect of storage period and treatments on Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) of guava bar.

Sensory evaluation

Color: Initially the mean score of judges for color of guava bar of GL0 to GL5 was 6, 8, 8, 8, 8 and 8 which was gradually decrease to 3.5, 6.1, 6.5, 5.9, 5.8 and 6. 0 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.67 to 5. 63 for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (7.2571) 5.8 and 6. 0 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.67 to 5. 63 for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (7.2571) followed by GL1 (7. 0857), but in contrast the lowest mean values were listed in GL0 (4.7000) followed by GL4 (6. 9143) [37-39]. For the period of storage the highest fall in color was recorded in GL0 (41.67%) followed by GL1 (27.50%), while lowest fall was observed in GL2 (18.75%) followed by GL5 (23.75%) (Table 9). A decrease in color might be due to browning reaction (millard) that occure during heating process in the drier. In a similar study, Jain and Nema [31] reported loss of color during storage of guava leather (7.10-6.16). Naz [39] also observed a decrease in color during her study (from 6-5) and Babalola et al. [14] (from 6.8-5.2) respectively.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 6 5.6 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.5 41.67 4.70 d
GL1 8 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 5.8 27.50 6.91 c
GL2 8 7.8 7.5 7.2 7 6.8 6.5 18.75 7.26 a
GL3 8 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6 25.00 7.01bc
GL4 8 7.6 7.3 7 6.8 6.4 5.9 26.25 7.00bc
GL5 8 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.1 23.75 7.09 b
Mean 7.67 a 7.33 b 6.98 c 6.67 d 6.35 e 6.00 f 5.63 g    

Table 9: Effect of storage period and treatments on color of guava bar.

Texture: Originally the mean score of juries for texture of guava bar of GL0 to GL5 was 5, 8, 8, 8, 8 and 8 which was progressively reduced to 3.1, 5. 6, 6.5, 5.9, 5. 7 and 6 correspondingly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.67 to 5. 63 for the period of storage. Maximum mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (7.2286) followed by GL1 (7. 0286), but in contrast the deepest mean values were listed in GL0 (3.9714) followed by GL4 (6.7000). During storage the highest fall in texture was recorded in GL0 (38.00%) followed by GL1 (30.00%), while lowest fall was observed in GL2 (18.75%) followed by GL5 (25.00%) (Table 10). The texture of fruit leathers is mostly affected by their moisture content and drying temperatures by Che-man et al. [39]. High temperatures and long drying times are related with lower moisture content and rigid texture. Differences in texture of leathers might also be due to variations in genetic makeup of the fruit, rate of water immersion from the surroundings and protein content of the fruit amongst others by Babalola et al. [39]. The texture of fruit leather is also affected by the addition of sugar, which is occasionally completed in order to recover the flavor of the leather by Jain and Nema [31]. Similar result of texture was reported by Naz [37] (from 7-6).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 5 4.6 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.1 38.00 3.97 d
GL1 8 7.5 7.1 6.6 6.2 5.9 5.6 30.00 6.70 c
GL2 8 7.7 7.5 7.2 7 6.7 6.5 18.75 7.23 a
GL3 8 7.7 7.3 7 6.7 6.3 5.9 26.25 6.99 b
GL4 8 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.3 6 5.7 28.75 6.77 c
GL5 8 7.6 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.4 6 25.00 7.03 b
Mean 7.40 a 7.02 b 6.62 c 6.28 d 5.98 e 5.66 f 5.36 g    

Table 10: Effect of storage period and treatments on texture of guava bar.

Taste: Initially the mean score of juries for taste of guava bar of GL0 to GL5 was 4.5, 8, 8, 8, 8 and 8which was gradually decrease to 2.50, 5.60, 6.30, 5.90, 5.70 and 6.20 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.42 to 5. 37 for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 and GL5 (7.1143) followed by GL1 (6.9429), but in contrast the deepest mean values were registered in GL0 (3.4857) followed by GL4 (6.7143). During storage the highest fall in taste was recorded in GL0 (44.44%) followed by GL1 (30.00%), while lowest fall was observed in GL2 (21.25%) followed by GL5 (22.50%) (Table 11). Taste and smell perceptions noted when food is taken. The overall flavor impression is the result of taste perceived by the taste buds in the mouth and the aromatic conpounds detected by the epithelium in the olfactory organ in the nose. Jain and Nema [31] recorded a decrease in taste during study of guava leather (from 6.19-6.02), Okilya et al. [38] also found a decrease in taste (from 6.63-4.33) respectively.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
                GL0 4.50 4.10 3.70 3.50 3.20 2.90 2.50 44.44 3.49 d
                GL1 8.00 7.40 7.10 6.70 6.30 5.90 5.60 30.00 6.71 c
                GL2 8.00 7.70 7.40 7.10 6.80 6.50 6.30 21.25 7.11 a
                GL3 8.00 7.60 7.20 6.90 6.70 6.30 5.90 26.25 6.94 b
                GL4 8.00 7.50 7.10 6.80 6.40 6.00 5.70 28.75 6.79 c
GL5 8.00 7.70 7.40 7.10 6.80 6.60 6.20 22.50 7.11 a
Mean 7.42 a 7.00 b 6.65 c 6.35 d 6.03 e 5.70 f 5.37 g    

Table 11: Effect of storage period and treatments on taste of guava bar.

Overall acceptability: Primarily the mean score of juries for overall acceptability of guava bar of GL0 to GL5 was 5.2, 8, 8, 8, 8 and 8which was gradually decrease to 3, 5.7, 6.4, 6, 5.8 and 6 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.53 to 5. 48 for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in GL2 (7.20) followed by GL5 (7. 04), but in contrast the deepest mean values were listed in GL0 (4. 06) followed by GL1 (6.77). During storage the highest fall in overall acceptability was recorded in GL0 (42.31%) followed by GL1 (28.75%), while lowest fall was observed in GL2 (20.00%) followed by GL5 and GL3 (25.00%) (Table 12). Overall acceptability generally related to all sensory attributes. It is stated that the suitability of fruits and vegetables is influenced by their aroma by Karmas and Harris [39]. Sharma et al. [23] noticed a decrease in overall acceptability during storage of apricot fruit bar (from7.8-7.2) respectively.

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
GL0 5.2 4.8 4.3 4 3.7 3.4 3 42.31 4.06 d
GL1 8 7.5 7.1 6.7 6.4 6 5.7 28.75 6.77 c
GL2 8 7.7 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.4 20.00 7.20 a
GL3 8 7.6 7.3 7 6.8 6.4 6 25.00 7.01 b
GL4 8 7.6 7.2 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.8 27.50 6.86 c
GL5 8 7.7 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.4 6 25.00 7.04 b
Mean 7.53 a 7.15 b 6.80 c 6.47 d 6.17 e 5.83 f 5.48 g    

Table 12: Effect of storage period and treatments on overall acceptability of guava bar.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In present study, guava bar was prepared by using different level of sucrose glucose mixture with guar gum. The samples were analyzed for physicochemical, microbiologically and sensory. From this study, physic chemically the samples GL2 prepared by sucrose: glucose (7:3) followed by GL5 prepared by sucrose (10: 0) showed best result, while GL0 prepared by guava pulp and followed by GL1 prepared by sucrose: glucose (50: 50) showed lowest result. Sensory and microbiologically GL2 followed by GL5 showed good result, while GL0 followed by GL1 showed lowest result [40].

Recommendations

1. Study should be carried out in the effect of different packaging materials with different temperature.

2. Study the effect of different drying methods with different temperature.

3. Further study should be carried out that maintains color clarity.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • 19th Global Summit on Food & Beverages
    September 14-15, 2018, Virginia, USA

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12018
  • [From(publication date):
    August-2015 - Jul 22, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8215
  • PDF downloads : 3803
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

+1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
Leave Your Message 24x7