Texture Analyzer

FST 202 FOOD QUALITY CONTROL TITLE : MEASUREMENT OF TEXTURE IN FOODS BY MEANS OF TEXTURE ANALYSER NAME

: NURFADHILAH BINTI JAAFAR

MEMBER’S NAMES: MUNAIM

SITI FATIMAH BT SHAIKH ABDUL

RAFIDAH BT MOHD SHAHRUN WAFA ATIQAH BT AMAN MAAMOR NURSABRINA BT ROSLI ID NUMBER GROUP SUBMITION DATE

: 2013698078 : AS 1165A2 : 8TH JULY 2015

LECTURER’S NAME ZABIDI

: MADAM MARDIANA BT AHAMAD

INTRODUCTION Texture was originally used to describe the structure, feel and appearance that are sensed by touch with the application of force. Food is described based on its specific quality of the textural properties and terms that are used to describe the food product. A high performance food texture analyzer known as Lloyd Instrument is used for the measurement of texture analysis. The textural properties of food can be determined by a popular double compression test known as Texture Profile Analysis. The parameter of the texture profile analysis is classified into two which are primary parameters and secondary parameters. The examples of primary parameters are hardness, cohesiveness, viscosity, elasticity and adhesiveness. In instances, the secondary parameters are to look out for the brittleness, chewiness, gumminess and greasiness of the food products. The fruits and vegetables freshness and texture is the attributes that play as important role for a functional performance during the processing stage to produce a quality finished food products. RESULTS Chips Cracker Sample

Load (g)

Probe

Fracturability (kg)

Chipster chips

5

HDP/CFS

0.409

Jacker chips

5

HDP/ CFS

0.208

Buns Sample

Gardenia

Load

Pro

Hardness

Springiness

Cohesiveness

Gumminess

Chewiness

Resilience

(g)

be

(g)

(g)

(g)

(g)

(g)

(g)

5

P/25

430.087

0.911

0.677

290.968

265.040

0.205

Daily’s

5

P/25

229.263

0.998

0.836

191.570

191.096

0.354

Candy jelly Sample Miow Miaow Fantasi

Load (g) 5 5

Probe P/2 P/2

Hardness (g) 85.404 60.905

Stickiness (g) -2936 -0.761

DISCUSSIONS Textural properties of different type of food are determined widely by Texture Profile Analysis. The test parameter needs to be set up first depending on the type of food need to be tested as the parameter may affect the TPA results. In this experiment, the baked goods, confectionary, and crackers are used for the findings of the TPA results for each brand of the food products. Based on the results, Chipster brand (0.409 kg) has the higher value of fracturability compared to Jacker (0.208 kg). It proves that Chipster cracker brand is easier to break with low force. Probe HDP/CFS is being used for the TPA of cracker products. Next, the Texture Profile Analysis for bakery products with Gardenia and Daily’s brands are identified with the use of probe P/25. The primary and secondary parameters are being identified for the TPA value of bakery products. The primary parameters identified for the bun are the hardness and springiness. Gardenia brand has the higher value of hardness but lower value of springiness compared to Daily’s brand. The hardness of the bread is related to processing stage. In instances, the firmer texture can be improved during the manufacturer of the bread. Springiness is referring to the breadcrumb texture. The lower value of springiness is might due to the time storage of the product that causes the strength of the crumb’s cell wall network become loosens. The secondary parameters recorded are cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness and resilience. Overall, Daily’s has the higher cohesiveness and resilience while Gardenia has higher value for chewiness and gumminess. Resilience is energy used by the bun to partially return to its original shape. Cohesiveness character in food is defined to the energy required to break down the product until it become palatable and can be swallowed. Cohesiveness of the bun is a positive characteristic for bakery products instead of gumminess effect which are the mutually

exclusive with chewiness since product would not be both a solid and semi-solid at the same time. The confectionary products such as candy gum, jelly and chewing gum are very popular these days. Candy gum is made up from glucose syrup, sugar, and inverts sugar with distinct type of gelatine. Miaow Miaow and Fantasi candy gum brands of TPA are conducted with probe P/2. Miaow Miaow has slightly higher value of hardness with 85.404 g while Fantasi Candy is 60.905 g.

The secondary parameter which is stickiness characteristics of the candy gum

shown that Miaow Miaow brand has lower value with -2936 g compared to Fantasia brand (0.761 g). When using the texture analyzer, make sure to use the appropriate probe for a specific product, so that the probe can be properly compressed and contact with the product surface. Besides that, set the appropriate parameter and ensure that there is no vibration surrounds the texture analyzer as it may affect the TPA readings.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the Chipster and Jacker have fracturability values of 0.409 kg and 0.208 kg respectively. Gardenia has a firm texture with the hardness value 430.087 g compared to Daily’s however it has higher value of chewiness (290.968 g) and gumminess (265.040g). Candy jelly of Miaow Miaow brand have lower stickiness (-2936 g) compared to Fantasia Brand. The Miaow Miaow and Fantasia brand has slightly differ in values of hardness which are 85.404 g and 60.905 g respectively.

QUESTIONS 1. Besides using instrumental methods to measure food texture, what are other ways to measure food texture? The other ways to measure the texture of the food is by fundamental, imitative and empirical methods. Fundamental method is based on measurement of physical properties such as stress and rheology while imitative method is to simulate the chewing mechanically. Empirical methods tend to use specific devices to give specific measurements which have been found to have practical value

2. Compare your results with other groups and you will find that even the same type of food product can have texture differences among each other. In your opinion, what could possibly be the reason for this? In my opinion, the results could be differences due to the samples height and the contact area of the food with probe. Besides that, the different percent of compression used in replication may also cause the textural differences values.

REFERENCES 1. Kilcast, D. (2004). Improving the Texture of Bread. In Texture in Food Solid Foods (p. 437). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2. Bourne, M. (2002). Principle of Objective Texture Measurement. In Food Texture and Viscosity Concept and Measurement (2nd ed., pp. 181-184). San Diego: Academic Press. 3. Rosenthal, A. (2010). Texture Profile Analysis - How Important Are The Parameters? Journal of Texture Studies, 672-684.

.