Development and Stability of Cupuassu Candy Light

Josepha Lays Sousa Lima de Holanda¹, Gabrielli Nunes Clímaco^2, , Virlane Kelly Lima Hunaldo¹, Paulo Roberto Barros Gomes³, Maria Alves Fontenele¹, Adriana Crispin de Freitas¹, Leonardo Hunaldo dos Santos¹, Jaisane Santos Melo Lobato¹, José de Ribamar Macedo Costa¹ and Karuane Saturnino da Silva Araújo⁴

¹Depatment of Food Engineering, Federal University of Maranhão, Imperatriz, Maranhão, Brasil

²Depatment of Food Engineering, Faculty of Food Engineering - Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil

³Coordination of Teaching, Research and Extension, Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Pará, Paragominas, Pará, Brasil

⁴State University of the Tocantina Region of Maranhão, Imperatriz, Maranhão, Brasil

Cite this paper:
Josepha Lays Sousa Lima de Holanda, Gabrielli Nunes Clímaco, Virlane Kelly Lima Hunaldo, Paulo Roberto Barros Gomes, Maria Alves Fontenele, Adriana Crispin de Freitas, Leonardo Hunaldo dos Santos, Jaisane Santos Melo Lobato, José de Ribamar Macedo Costa and Karuane Saturnino da Silva Araújo. Development and Stability of Cupuassu Candy Light. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2020; 8(3):149-154. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-8-3-5

Abstract

The present work had as objective the development of three cupuassu candy formulations, varying the type and concentration of the sweetener, and evaluation of the physical-chemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics during 180 days of storage. The cupuassu pulps used were obtained from the local market in the city of Imperatriz-MA. The three formulations were produced with partial substitution of sucrose, being cyclamate/saccharin in F1, sucralose in F2 and stevia in F3. The other ingredients were sugar and pectin. The candies were standardized at 70ºBrix and analyzed for pH, soluble solids content, titratable acidity, total sugars and reducing sugars. For microbiological analyzes, molds and yeasts, aerobic mesophilic bacteria and thermotolerant coliforms were analyzed. Sensory analysis was performed using the hedonic scale, the intention to purchase the product using the structured 5-point scale and the attributes acidity and sweetness using the Ideal scale. For the analysis of the results, a randomized block experiment was considered, studying the stability (0, 45, 90, 135 and 180 days) of the physical-chemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics for the three formulations mentioned above. In formulations F1, F2 and F3 there was a significant variation for pH and acidity; pH and SST and; pH, SST, total and reducing sugars, respectively, during the 180-day storage period. Microbiological analyzes showed the absence of all analyzed species, and the sensory attributes, purchasing attitude and ideal scale did not differ according to time for the three formulations, except for color and texture, for the quadratic model of formulation 3.

Keywords:
formulation sweeteners acceptability

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	S. Bialkova, L. Sasse, and A. Fenko, “The role of nutrition labels and advertising claims in altering consumers’ evaluation and choice,” Appetite, vol. 96, pp. 38-46, 2016.
[2]	M. Ingle, J. Patil, and R. Nawkar, “Nutritional evaluation of sugar free aonla candy,” Asian J. Dairy Food Res., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 323-326, 2016.
[3]	Brasil, Resolução Normativa no 9 de 1978. 1978.
[4]	X. Luo, J. Arcot, T. Gill, J. C. Y. Louie, and A. Rangan, “A review of food reformulation of baked products to reduce added sugar intake,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2019.
[5]	M. Carocho, P. Morales, and I. C. F. R. Ferreira, “Sweeteners as food additives in the XXI century : A review of what is known, and what is to come,” Food Chem. Toxicol., vol. 107, pp. 302-317, 2017.
[6]	A. C. Sylvetsky and K. I. Rother, “Physiology & Behavior Trends in the consumption of low-calorie sweeteners,” Physiol. Behav., vol. 164, pp. 446-450, 2016.
[7]	M. Gupta, P. D. Sciences, and S. Arabia, “Sugar Substitutes : Mechanism , Availability , Current Use and Safety Concerns-An Update,” Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci., vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 1888-1894, 2018.
[8]	G. P. Parpinello, A. Versari, M. Castellari, and S. Galassi, “STEVIOSIDE AS A REPLACEMENT OF SUCROSE IN PEACH JUICE : SENSORY EVALUATION,” J. Sens. Stud., vol. 16, pp. 471-484, 2001.
[9]	A. V. Carvalho, N. Horacio, P. García, and J. A. Farfán, “Proteins of cupuacu seeds ( Theobroma grandiflorum Schum ) and changes during fermentation and roasting,” Ciência e Tecnol. Aliment., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 986-993, 2008.
[10]	A. L. F. Pereira et al., “Impact of fermentation conditions on the quality and sensory properties of a probiotic cupuassu (Theobroma grandiflorum) beverage,” Food Res. Int., 2017.
[11]	G. N. Clímaco, V. Kelly, G. Abreu, T. D. O. Lemos, A. Lúcia, and F. Pereira, “Mixed Nectar of Cupuassu ( Theobroma grandiflorum ) and Green Tea and the Effect of Preservatives and Storage on Nutritional and Sensorial Characteristics,” J. food Nutr. Res., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 361-369, 2019.
[12]	SAS Institute Inc., “User’s Guide.” Cary, North Carolina, 2004.
[13]	I. A. L.- IAL, Métodos físicos-químicos para análise de alimentos, IV. São Paulo, 2008.
[14]	APHA, Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods, 5a Ed. Washington, DC: APHA Press, 2015.
[15]	H. J. MACFIE, N. BRATCHELL, K. GREENHOFF, and L. V. VALLIS, “Designs To Balance the Effect of Order of Presentation and First-Order Carry-Over Effects in Hall Tests,” J. Sens. Stud., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 129-148, 1989.
[16]	D. R. Peryam and F. J. Pilgrim, “Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences.,” Food Technol., vol. 11, Suppl., pp. 9-14, 1957.
[17]	M. Meilgaard, G. V. Civille, and B. T. Carr, Sensory evaluation techniques, 2nd ed. Flórida: CRC Press, 1991.
[18]	Brasil, “NSTRUÇÃO NORMATIVA No 12, DE 4 DE SETEMBRO DE 2003. Regulamento Técnico para Fixação dos Padrões de Identidade e Qualidade Gerais para Suco Tropical,” Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.idec.org.br/pdf/instrucao-normativa-12.pdf.
[19]	E. Kiranmai, K. Rajeswari, S. Sharma, and K. U. Maheswari, “Standardization and development of tamarind candy by blending with mango pulp,” J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2042-2047, 2018.
[20]	J. F. Chim, R. C. Zambiazi, and M. H. Bruscatto, “DOCES EM MASSA LIGHT DE MORANGO : CARACTERIZAÇÃO FÍSICO-QUÍMICA E SENSORIAL,” Alim. Nutr., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 295-301, 2006.
[21]	S. S. Schiffman and K. I. Rother, “Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview Of Biological Issues,” J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 339-451, 2013.
[22]	Brasil, RESOLUÇÃO-RDC No 12, DE 02 DE JANEIRO DE 2001. 2001.
[23]	G. N. Clímaco et al., “Influence of the Use of Sucralose in Cupuassu Candy Preparation,” J. Food Nutr. Res., vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 674-678, 2019.
[24]	C. C. F. da Silva, M. Caliari, M. S. S. Júnior, R. C. D. Marques, A. D. P. Beléia, and M. C. Garcia, “Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Sugar Cane Candies with Roasted Peanut and Extruded Rice Bran,” J. food Nutr. Res., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 163-169, 2016.
[25]	J. D. M. DIAS et al., “DESENVOLVIMENTO E AVALIAÇÃO DAS CARACTERÍSTICAS FÍSICO- QUÍMICAS E DA ACEITAÇÃO SENSORIAL DE DOCE EM MASSA DE CUPUAÇU,” Bol. do Cent. Pesqui. Process. Aliment., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2019.
[26]	N. Sidhu, M. Arora, and M. S. Alam, “Biochemical , Microbial Stability and Sensory Evaluation of Osmotically Dehydrated Kinnow Peel Candy and Peel Powder,” Int. J. Sci. Res., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1428-1437, 2016.
[27]	G. G. Granada, R. C. Zambiazi, C. Rosane, B. Mendonça, and E. Silva, “Caracterização física, química, microbiológica e sensorial de geléias light de abacaxi,” Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 629-635, 2005.
[28]	S. Struck, D. Jaros, C. S. Brennan, and H. Rohm, “Review Sugar replacement in sweetened bakery goods,” Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., pp. 1-14, 2014.