Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fruit Bars
Fruit Bars
net/publication/324106006
fruit bars
CITATIONS READS
0 497
1 author:
Tv Hymavathi
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University
53 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Tv Hymavathi on 30 March 2018.
393
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:59 2011-11-25
394
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:59 2011-11-25
was given to provide 50 g of carbohydrates for each subject. DRYING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FRUIT BARS
The subjects were given 250 ml of water to drink with the fruit Moisture
bars. Treatments Content (%) Characteristics
PT0 16 Not sticky and less pliable
Blood glucose levels were measured by using Horizon one
Sticky and not easy to remove from the
touch Glucometer in capillary whole blood obtained by finger PT1 18 tray
prick in the fasting state and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120
PT2 18 Not easy to remove from the tray
minutes after the consumption of fruit bars. Capillary blood
More Sticky and not easy to remove
samples may be preferable to venous blood samples for PT3 19 from the tray
reliable glycemic index testing. After the consumption of
Less Sticky and More pliable, easy to
food, glucose concentrations change to a greater degree in PT4 17 remove from the tray
capillary blood samples than in venous blood samples. Sticky and not easy to remove from the
Therefore, capillary blood may be a more relevant indicator of PT5 19 tray
the physiologic consequences of high-glycemic index foods Sticky and not easy to remove from the
[21]. PT6 18 tray
3. Determination of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load of BT0 15 Not sticky and less pliable
Fruit Bars Less Sticky and More pliable, easy to
BT1 16 remove from the tray
The incremental area under two hour glucose response
curve (IAUC) was calculated according to the formula used by BT2 17 Sticky and not pliable
[10]. Glycemic index of the fruit bars were calculated by More Sticky and not easy to remove
BT3 19 from the tray
applying the following formula.
BT4 17 Sticky and not pliable
Sticky and not easy to remove from the
Glycemic index BT5 17 tray
More Sticky and not easy to remove
IAUC of test food BT6 17 from the tray
= × 100
IAUC of reference food B. Organoleptic Characteristics of Papaya Bar
The scores for colour of the papaya bars ranged from 3.3 to
Glycemic loads of control and treated papaya bar were 4.6 and texture from 3.3 to 4.5 on hedonic scales. The scores
calculated by using the following formula for flavour, taste and over all acceptability ranged from 3.4 to
4.1, 3.1 to 4.4 and 3.4 to 4.4 respectively (Table III).
Glycemic load = Glycemic index/100 ×dietary carbohydrate
Among the liquid FOS treatments,PT2 i.e. the papaya bar
content of serving
incorporated with 80% liquid FOS + 20% IN received highest
total mean scores (20.2) and was best accepted followed by
PT1 (19.4) and PT3 ( 18.1).
Among the powder FOS treatments, PT4 was preferred with
highest total mean scores (22) and accepted well in terms of
395
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:59 2011-11-25
colour, texture, flavor, taste and over all acceptability followed The results indicated that the addition of IN and FOS
by PT5 (20) and PT6 (19.9). It was found that, among all the improved the sensory properties of the papaya and banana
treatments, PT4 was best accepted with highest total mean fruit bars when compared to their respective controls. In all
scores (22) parameters, incorporation of FOS exerted beneficial effects on
It was found that PT4 had significantly higher score for the quality of the bars. The fruit bar with 90%FOS +10% IN in
colour, compared to PT0, PT1 and PT3 (P= 0.05) and it had both papaya and banana bars were best accepted compared to
higher score for texture compared to PT0, PT3 and PT6.PT4 also other proportions. Due to the incorporation of IN and FOS, the
hadbetter flavor than PT0, PT1, PT3 and PT5. With regardto taste fruit bars developed were pliable and the texture was
among the various treatments, PT4had higher scores compared improved over the control bars. IN and FOS allowed the
to PT0, PT1, PT3 and PT6. The overall acceptability of PT4 had development of fruit bars without compromising on taste and
significant higher scorethan PT0 andPT3 (P=0.05). Though texture. The increase in acceptability with the decrease of IN
statistically not significant, the scores of other treatments were might be due to increase in hardness of the bars. Though the
lower than those of PT4. firmness is desirable quality in fruit bars, too much of firmness
TABLE III may not be acceptable.
SENSORY EVALUATION SCORES FOR FRUIT BARS (VALUES ARE MEAN ±
STANDARD DEVIATION) D. Physico-Chemical and Proximate Composition of
Treatments Colour Texture Flavor Taste Over Papaya and Banana Fruit bars
all
acceptability Physico- chemical and proximate composition was analysed
PT0 3.3±0.99 3.3±0.86 3.4±0.71 3.1±0.99 3.4±0.71 for control and best accepted papaya and banana bars (Table
PT1 4.0±0.74 4.0±0.70 3.6±0.60 3.8±0.60 4.0±0.70 IV and V). The moisture content of all bars ranged between 15
to 17%. PT0andPT4contained 16 and 17 and BT0 andBT1
PT2 4.1±0.69 4.1±0.69 4.0±0.42 3.9±0.55 4.1±0.48
International Science Index 59, 2011 waset.org/publications/16010
396
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:59 2011-11-25
The total, reducing and non-reducing sugars content in 0.4g of FOS/ 100 g of bar. The initial content of 13.5 g /100g
papaya bar of PT0 were 37.5g, 15.38g and 22.12g respectively of FOS in the pulp mixture was reduced to 5.7 g in papaya
and the values were decreased to 36g, 14.56g and 21.44g bar and 0.4g in banana bar after dehydration of the pulp for 4-
respectively in the papaya bar of PT4due to the lower amount 5 hours. The reduction in the quantity might be the result of
of sugars in powder FOS. Reference [9] reported the total and the degradation of FOS. More degradation was seen in case of
reducing sugars of fruit bar (prepared from blend of guava and banana bar.ThepH and temperature influence the degradation
papaya) as 55.97g and 7.74 respectively. Since only the of FOS. Reference [12]reported that FOS are degraded at 60°-
papaya fruit was used in the present study, the values of total 100°C temperature and 2.7- 3.3 pH.In the present study
and reducing sugars in the present study may be less compared though the fruit pulp was dehydrated at 60°C and the pH was
to the study reported by [9]. 3.8 and 3.9, still there was substantial reduction in the quantity
Similarly, total, reducing and non-reducing sugars content of FOS in fruit bars, this might be due to the longer duration
in the banana bar of BT0were estimated as 52.60g, 14.0g and of heating (4-5 hours).
38.60g respectively whereas in the BT1 treatment, the total,
reducing and non- reducing sugars were increased to 55.45g, F. Determination of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load of
16.25g and 39.20g respectively. The slight increase was Papaya bars
noticed after addition of liquid FOS in banana bar. The average blood glucose levels of the subjects on three
TABLE V occasions at different intervals after consumption of glucose,
PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF SELECTED FRUIT BARS control papaya bar and treated bar were measured. The IAUC
Nutrients PT0 PT4 BT0 BT1
values for the papaya bars and glucose are given in Table VI.
(%) TABLE VI
International Science Index 59, 2011 waset.org/publications/16010
Protein(g) 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 MEAN IAUC OF THE PAPAYA FRUIT BARS
397
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:59 2011-11-25
and treated papaya bar were calculated as 10.15 and 8.262 for [17] C. S. Brennan, V. Kuri, and C. M. Tudorica, “Inulin-enriched pasta:
effects on textural properties and starch degradation,” Food Chemistry.,
20g of papaya bar/ one serving. vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 189-193, June, 2004.
[18] S. K. Chauhan, B. B. Lai, and V. K. Joshi, “Preparation and Evaluation
IV. CONCLUSION of Protein enriched mango fruit bar,” Indian Food packer.,vol. 97, pp. 5-
9, September- October, 1997.
There is no doubt that functional foods generate one of the [19] Y. B. Cheman, and Taufik, “Development and stability of Jack fruit
most promising and dynamically developing segments of food leather,” Tropical Science., vol. 32, pp. 245- 250, 1995.
industry. Functional foods have been developed virtually in all [20] Food and Agriculture Organization/ World Health Organization,
“Carbohydrates in human nutrition.” Report of a joint FAO/World
food categories, so this new type of incorporation of prebiotics Health Organization., Expert Consultation, FAO Food and Nutrition
in Fruit bars can be a good idea for enterprises to bring out Paper, vol. 66, pp.1-140, 1998.
potential functional product. The developed papaya and [21] K. Foster-Powell, S. H. A. Holt, and J. C. Brand-Miller, “International
table of glycemic index and glycemic load values,” American Journal of
banana bars can supply nutritional requirements as well as Clinical Nutrition.,vol. 76, no. 1, pp.5–56, Nov. 2002.
health benefits from IN and FOS and it can be served as good [22] T. Kamada, M. Nakajima, H. Nabetani, N. Saglam, and S. Iwamoto,
functional fruit bar for people of all age groups. Incorporation “Availability of membrane technology for purifying and concentrating
oligosaccharides.” European Food Research Technology., vol. 214, no.
of prebiotic compounds viz., IN and FOS can be 5, pp. 435–440, March. 2002.
recommended for the development of other fruit bars also.
Therefore, functional components can be imparted to the
public and the potential of functional foods and constituents
can be realized.
REFERENCES
International Science Index 59, 2011 waset.org/publications/16010
398