Sensory and physicochemical evaluation of low-fat chicken mortadella with added native and modified starches

The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of adding different starches (native and modified) on the physicochemical, sensory, structural and microbiological characteristics of low-fat chicken mortadella. Two formulations containing native cassava and regular corn starch, coded CASS (5.0 ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of food science and technology 2015-07, Vol.52 (7), p.4360-4368
Main Authors: Prestes, R. C., Silva, L. B., Torri, A. M. P., Kubota, E. H., Rosa, C. S., Roman, S. S., Kempka, A. P., Demiate, I. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
carbohydrate structure
Cassava
cassava starch
Chemistry
Chemistry and Materials Science
Chemistry/Food Science
Chemosensory perception
Chickens
cohesion
color
cooling
Corn
corn starch
food quality
Food Science
Freezing
Functional foods & nutraceuticals
Laboratories
Light microscopy
lipids
Meat processing
Meat products
Microscopy
modified starch
mortadella
Nutrition
Original
Original Article
Physical properties
Poultry
Raw materials
sensory evaluation
Starch
Studies
texture
water activity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of adding different starches (native and modified) on the physicochemical, sensory, structural and microbiological characteristics of low-fat chicken mortadella. Two formulations containing native cassava and regular corn starch, coded CASS (5.0 % of cassava starch) and CORN (5.0 % of regular corn starch), and one formulation produced with physically treated starch coded as MOD1 (2.5 % of Novation 2300) and chemically modified starch coded as MOD2 (2.5 % of Thermtex) were studied. The following tests were performed: physicochemical characterization (moisture, ash, protein, starch and lipid contents, and water activity); cooling, freezing and reheating losses; texture (texture profile test); color coordinates (L*, a*, b*, C and h); microbiological evaluation; sensory evaluation (multiple comparison and preference test); and histological evaluation (light microscopy). There was no significant difference ( p  > 0.05) for ash, protein, cooling loss, cohesiveness or in the preference test for the tested samples. The other evaluated parameters showed significant differences ( p  
ISSN:0022-1155
0975-8402
DOI:10.1007/s13197-014-1496-2