使用脱脂芝麻饼粉、鹰嘴豆粉、咖啡银皮和石榴汁作为天然着色剂的创新植物汉堡肉饼:对营养和可接受性的影响

A. El-Anany, Rehab F.M. Ali, M. S. Almujaydil, Reham M. Algheshairy, R. Alhomaid, Hend F. Alharbi
{"title":"使用脱脂芝麻饼粉、鹰嘴豆粉、咖啡银皮和石榴汁作为天然着色剂的创新植物汉堡肉饼:对营养和可接受性的影响","authors":"A. El-Anany, Rehab F.M. Ali, M. S. Almujaydil, Reham M. Algheshairy, R. Alhomaid, Hend F. Alharbi","doi":"10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose\nThis study aims to evaluate the nutrient content and acceptable qualities of plant-based burger patties (PBBP) formulated with chickpea flour, defatted sesame cake (DSC) flour, coffee silver skin and pomegranate juice as colorant.\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe chemical composition, energy value, cholesterol content, amino acid composition, cooking loss, pH, color characteristics and sensory attributes of PBBP were analyzed using official procedures and compared to beef burger. \n\nFindings\nPBBP had a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is nearly close to the protein content of the beef burger (18.1 g/100g). The fat content of the PBBP was approximately three times lower than that of the beef burger. The fiber content in PBBP was approximately 23 times as high as that in beef burgers samples (p = 0.05). The raw PBBP samples supplies 178 Kcal/100g, whereas beef burger possessed 259 Kcal/100g. Neither the raw nor the cooked PBBP samples contained any cholesterol. Both the beef and PBBP displayed acceptability scores higher than 7.0, which suggests that PBBP was well accepted.\n\nOriginality/value\nIt is concluded that the PBBP sample exhibited a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is comparable to the protein level of beef burgers (18.1 g/100g). The fat level of the PBBP samples was significantly lower than that of the beef burger samples. Uncooked PBBP samples contained significantly higher fiber content compared to beef burger samples. No cholesterol was found in raw or cooked PBBP samples. Overall acceptance scores for both beef and PBBP samples exceeded 7.0, suggesting that the proposed product (PBBP) was received favorably.\n","PeriodicalId":509279,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Food Science","volume":"53 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovate plant-based burger patties using defatted sesame cake flour, chickpea flour, coffee silver skin and pomegranate juice as natural colorant: effects on nutritional and acceptability aspect\",\"authors\":\"A. El-Anany, Rehab F.M. Ali, M. S. Almujaydil, Reham M. Algheshairy, R. Alhomaid, Hend F. Alharbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose\\nThis study aims to evaluate the nutrient content and acceptable qualities of plant-based burger patties (PBBP) formulated with chickpea flour, defatted sesame cake (DSC) flour, coffee silver skin and pomegranate juice as colorant.\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe chemical composition, energy value, cholesterol content, amino acid composition, cooking loss, pH, color characteristics and sensory attributes of PBBP were analyzed using official procedures and compared to beef burger. \\n\\nFindings\\nPBBP had a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is nearly close to the protein content of the beef burger (18.1 g/100g). The fat content of the PBBP was approximately three times lower than that of the beef burger. The fiber content in PBBP was approximately 23 times as high as that in beef burgers samples (p = 0.05). The raw PBBP samples supplies 178 Kcal/100g, whereas beef burger possessed 259 Kcal/100g. Neither the raw nor the cooked PBBP samples contained any cholesterol. Both the beef and PBBP displayed acceptability scores higher than 7.0, which suggests that PBBP was well accepted.\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nIt is concluded that the PBBP sample exhibited a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is comparable to the protein level of beef burgers (18.1 g/100g). The fat level of the PBBP samples was significantly lower than that of the beef burger samples. Uncooked PBBP samples contained significantly higher fiber content compared to beef burger samples. No cholesterol was found in raw or cooked PBBP samples. Overall acceptance scores for both beef and PBBP samples exceeded 7.0, suggesting that the proposed product (PBBP) was received favorably.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":509279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition & Food Science\",\"volume\":\"53 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition & Food Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究旨在评估用鹰嘴豆面粉、脱脂芝麻饼(DSC)面粉、咖啡银皮和石榴汁作为着色剂配制的植物基汉堡肉饼(PBBP)的营养成分含量和可接受品质。研究结果PBBP的蛋白质含量为16.0克/100克,几乎接近牛肉汉堡的蛋白质含量(18.1克/100克)。PBBP 的脂肪含量比牛肉汉堡低约三倍。生牛肉饼中的纤维含量约为牛肉汉堡样品的 23 倍(p = 0.05)。生牛肉饼样本的热量为 178 千卡/100 克,而牛肉汉堡的热量为 259 千卡/100 克。生和煮熟的多酚多糖样本都不含胆固醇。牛肉和多脆多汁牛肉饼的可接受性得分均高于 7.0,这表明多脆多汁牛肉饼的可接受性很高。原创性/价值结论多脆多汁牛肉饼样本的蛋白质含量为 16.0 克/100 克,与牛肉汉堡的蛋白质含量(18.1 克/100 克)相当。多溴联苯样本的脂肪含量明显低于牛肉汉堡样本。与牛肉汉堡样本相比,未烹煮的多溴联苯样本的纤维含量明显较高。生的和熟的多脆肉饼样本都没有发现胆固醇。牛肉和多脆肉饼样本的总体接受度得分均超过 7.0,表明拟议产品(多脆肉饼)受到欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Innovate plant-based burger patties using defatted sesame cake flour, chickpea flour, coffee silver skin and pomegranate juice as natural colorant: effects on nutritional and acceptability aspect
Purpose This study aims to evaluate the nutrient content and acceptable qualities of plant-based burger patties (PBBP) formulated with chickpea flour, defatted sesame cake (DSC) flour, coffee silver skin and pomegranate juice as colorant. Design/methodology/approach The chemical composition, energy value, cholesterol content, amino acid composition, cooking loss, pH, color characteristics and sensory attributes of PBBP were analyzed using official procedures and compared to beef burger.  Findings PBBP had a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is nearly close to the protein content of the beef burger (18.1 g/100g). The fat content of the PBBP was approximately three times lower than that of the beef burger. The fiber content in PBBP was approximately 23 times as high as that in beef burgers samples (p = 0.05). The raw PBBP samples supplies 178 Kcal/100g, whereas beef burger possessed 259 Kcal/100g. Neither the raw nor the cooked PBBP samples contained any cholesterol. Both the beef and PBBP displayed acceptability scores higher than 7.0, which suggests that PBBP was well accepted. Originality/value It is concluded that the PBBP sample exhibited a protein value of 16.0 g/100g, which is comparable to the protein level of beef burgers (18.1 g/100g). The fat level of the PBBP samples was significantly lower than that of the beef burger samples. Uncooked PBBP samples contained significantly higher fiber content compared to beef burger samples. No cholesterol was found in raw or cooked PBBP samples. Overall acceptance scores for both beef and PBBP samples exceeded 7.0, suggesting that the proposed product (PBBP) was received favorably.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信