4.7 Article

Impact of soybean aging conditions on tofu sensory characteristics and acceptance

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 98, 期 3, 页码 1132-1139

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.8564

关键词

aroma; color; flavor; hedonic test; quantitative descriptive analysis; texture

资金

  1. State University of Londrina
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDTofu from aged soybeans is of poor quality, mainly with respect to texture. Texture defects described in the literature are contradictory. No study has investigated all sensory properties simultaneously. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of soybean aging conditions [natural: ambient temperature and RH, 18months, and accelerated: 30 degrees C, 84% relative humidity (RH), 6months] on all of the sensory characteristics and the acceptance of tofu. Texture and color were also evaluated via an instrumental method. The control condition was -20 degrees C and 47% RH. Coodetec 214 and BRS 267 cultivars were studied. RESULTSThe effect of soybean accelerated aging on tofu sensory characteristics and acceptance was more pronounced compared to the natural condition. The two cultivars had a similar behavior. Tofu control exhibited a light, uniform and bright color, cohesive appearance, sweet aroma and flavor, as well as a firm and elastic texture. Tofu made from both aged cultivars showed a gray color with dark spots, a rough appearance, fermented aroma, rancid flavor, an astringent and bitter taste, a fracturable texture and adherence to the oral cavity after chewing. These characteristics of tofu from aged soybeans implied a low acceptance by consumers. CONCLUSIONTofu from natural and accelerated aged soybeans has sensory attributes of appearance, as well as aroma, flavor and damaged texture, that are unacceptable by consumers. (c) 2017 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据