Instrumental Textural Characteristics of Restructured Carrot Cubes

Figures & data

Table 1 Experimental design used to obtain different combinations of sodium alginate (x₁), calcium hydrogen phosphate (x₂), and glucono-δ-lactone (x₃) for restructuring carrot and experimental data for response variables.

Assay number	Variables						Response Variable
	Coded			Actual
Sl.No.	X1	X2	X3	Sod. alginate (%)	Ca Salt (%)	Glucono-δ-lactone (%)	Y(Hardness) (N)
1	−1	−1	−1	1.0	0.5	1.0	3.814
2	−1	−1	+1	1.0	0.5	2.0	3.966
3	−1	+1	−1	1.0	1.5	1.0	4.240
4	−1	+1	+1	1.0	1.5	2.0	5.822
5	+1	−1	−1	2.0	0.5	1.0	5.991
6	+1	−1	+1	2.0	0.5	2.0	6.173
7	+1	+1	−1	2.0	1.5	1.0	7.347
8	+1	+1	+1	2.0	1.5	2.0	10.130
9	+1.682	0	0	2.341	1.0	1.5	9.383
10	−1.682	0	0	0.659	1.0	1.5	3.285
11	0	+1.682	0	1.5	1.841	1.5	6.251
12	0	−1.682	0	1.5	0.159	1.5	2.070
13	0	0	+1.682	1.5	1.0	2.341	7.254
14	0	0	−1.682	1.5	1.0	0.659	3.758
15	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.260
16	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.585
17	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.216
18	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.461
19	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.486
20	0	0	0	1.5	1.0	0	6.363

Table 2 Mechanical properties of restructured carrot as a function of pulp concentration.

Pulp level (%)	Stress at failure (kPa)	Strain at failure	Deformability modulus (kPa)
0	115.80 ± 1.02	1.077 ± 0.012	109.88 ± 0.54
20	74.10 ± 1.30	1.005 ± 0.007	76.94 ± 0.22
40	58.69 ± 0.66	0.963 ± 0.007	63.19 ± 0.70
60	45.17 ± 0.70	0.883 ± 0.008	52.68 ± 0.70
80	26.36 ± 0.46	0.671 ± 0.003	40.65 ± 0.55
90	15.76 ± 0.27	0.591 ± 0.011	32.64 ± 0.41
Mean ± SD (n = 5).

Table 3 Instrumental texture profile of restructured carrot as a function of pulp concentration.

Pulp level (%)	Hardness (N)	Springiness (mm)	Cohesiveness	Gumminess (N)	Chewiness (Nmm)	Resilience
0	12.488 ± 0.288	7.130 ± 0.022	0.736 ± 0.001	9.196 ± 0.208	65.56 ± 1.27	0.448 ± 0.004
20	10.450 ± 0.109	7.104 ± 0.042	0.700 ± 0.003	7.315 ± 0.075	51.96 ± 0.54	0.411 ± 0.004
40	8.745 ± 0.112	7.045 ± 0.028	0.666 ± 0.004	5.823 ± 0.101	41.02 ± 0.68	0.371 ± 0.003
60	7.672 ± 0.224	6.968 ± 0.028	0.608 ± 0.002	4.665 ± 0.146	32.50 ± 0.97	0.310 ± 0.005
80	6.362 ± 0.194	6.514 ± 0.029	0.562 ± 0.003	3.576 ± 0.110	23.29 ± 0.67	0.259 ± 0.005
90	4.782 ± 0.194	6.056 ± 0.031	0.490 ± 0.012	2.343 ± 0.109	14.19 ± 0.71	0.219 ± 0.006
Mean ± SD (n = 5).

Figure 1 Typical Force-time Curve of Instrumental Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) of Carrot/alginate Gel.

Figure 2 Response surface for the hardness of restructured carrot as a function of: (A) glucono-δ-lactone and alginate concentration at constant calcium salt concentration; (B) glucono-δ-lactone and calcium salt concentration at constant alginate concentration; (C) calcium salt and alginate concentration at constant glucono-δ-lactone concentration.

Table 4 Regression coefficients and analyses of variance of the second order polynomial models, showing the relationships among response and independent variables.

Coefficient	Hardness Y
Intercept
Bo	6.374
Linear
B1	1.613*
B2	1.069*
B3	0.777*
Quadratic
B11	0.120
B22	−0.649*
B33	−0.173
Interaction
B12	0.383
B13	0.150
B23	0.500*
R^2	0.958
F	25.25
P≤	0.05

Table 5 Effect of alginate level and heat treatment on the texture profile of carrot pulp.

Alginatelevel	Heat treatment	Hardness (N)	Springiness (mm)	Cohesiveness	Gumminess(N)	Chewiness (Nmm)	Resilience
1.5%	UT	6.978 ± 0.062	6.760 ± 0.005	0.607 ± 0.003	4.236 ± 0.027	28.63 ± 0.17	0.315 ± 0.004
1.5%	T	8.074 ± 0.111	6.440 ± 0.005	0.570 ± 0.006	4.602 ± 0.090	29.64 ± 0.57	0.285 ± 0.004
2.0%	UT	8.795 ± 0.016	6.968 ± 0.007	0.666 ± 0.005	5.857 ± 0.043	40.81 ± 0.32	0.371 ± 0.005
2.0%	T	9.574 ± 0.014	6.872 ± 0.007	0.630 ± 0.004	6.032 ± 0.048	41.45 ± 0.36	0.341 ± 0.003
2.5%	UT	10.164 ± 0.138	7.368 ± 0.003	0.688 ± 0.005	6.993 ± 0.093	51.52 ± 0.69	0.409 ± 0.006
2.5%	T	11.664 ± 0.210	7.048 ± 0.035	0.649 ± 0.005	7.570 ± 0.149	53.35 ± 0.81	0.383 ± 0.004
Mean ± SD (n = 5); UT = without thermal treatment; T = with thermal treatment in boiling water for 25 min.