Instrumental Textural Profile Analysis of Soy Fortified Pressed Chilled Acid Coagulated Curd (Paneer)

Figures & data

Table 1 Levels, codes, and intervals of variations of independent variables

		Levels
Variables	Codes	−1	−0.5	0	0.5	1	Interval of variation
Fat content in buffalo milk (%)	FAT	0	1.5	3	4.5	6	1.5
Proportion of soy milk in blend (%)	SOY	0	10	20	30	40	10

Figure 1. Process flow chart for the preparation of soy fortified paneer.

Figure 2. Typical texture profile curve generated by the texture analyzer TA.XT 2.

Table 2 Texture profile data of SFP sample prepared using different combinations of fat content in milk and proportion of soy milk in the blend

Variables
FAT		SOY		Textural characteristics
ε F	X1	ε S	X 2	Hardness (N)	Cohesiveness	Adhesiveness (N s)	Springiness	Chewiness (N)
0	−1	0	−1	11.176	0.743	−0.002	0.682	5.663
0	−1	10	−0.5	8.320	0.710	−0.002	0.618	3.651
0	−1	20	0	8.049	0.684	−0.013	0.737	4.058
0	−1	30	0.5	7.007	0.668	−0.008	0.806	3.773
0	−1	40	1	8.550	0.658	−0.009	1.059	5.958
1.5	−0.5	0	−1	10.765	0.706	−0.008	0.661	5.023
1.5	−0.5	10	−0.5	4.977	0.593	−0.039	0.709	2.093
1.5	−0.5	20	0	5.335	0.652	−0.019	0.543	1.889
1.5	−0.5	30	0.5	4.559	0.656	−0.021	0.646	1.929
1.5	−0.5	40	1	5.769	0.630	−0.025	0.846	3.075
3	0	0	−1	12.272	0.678	−0.006	0.665	5.525
3	0	10	−0.5	7.011	0.645	−0.022	0.566	2.560
3	0	20	0	5.281	0.604	−0.028	0.661	2.108
3	0	30	0.5	3.329	0.611	−0.033	0.562	1.143
3	0	40	1	2.821	0.584	−0.034	0.701	1.155
4.5	0.5	0	−1	12.037	0.646	−0.017	0.876	6.812
4.5	0.5	10	−0.5	6.946	0.596	−0.039	0.583	2.414
4.5	0.5	20	0	4.238	0.599	−0.033	0.566	1.437
4.5	0.5	30	0.5	4.159	0.620	−0.027	0.508	1.310
4.5	0.5	40	1	2.303	0.585	−0.046	0.677	0.912
6	1	0	−1	13.721	0.622	−0.015	1.112	9.491
6	1	10	−0.5	8.496	0.597	−0.025	0.856	4.342
6	1	20	0	3.975	0.672	−0.016	0.532	1.421
6	1	30	0.5	2.444	0.570	−0.043	0.660	0.919
6	1	40	1	1.617	0.569	−0.050	0.721	0.663
Standard deviation				3.406	0.046	0.013	0.153	2.231

ε—real values, X—Coded value.

Table 3 Regression models for the textural characteristics of the soyfortified paneer

Textural characteristics	Regression model	R ^2
Hardness (HD)	11.16 − 0.497 FAT − 0.357 SOY + 0.153 FAT^2 + 0.0072SOY^2 − 0.0394 FAT SOY	0.9761
Cohesiveness (CO)	0.721 − 0.0316 FAT − 0.0015 SOY + 0.0029 FAT^2	0.8395
Chewiness (CH)	5.53 − 0.549 FAT − 0.233 SOY + 0.177 FAT^2 + 0.006 SOY^2−0.0349 FAT SOY	0.9743
Springiness (SP)	0.705 − 0.0423 FAT − 0.010 SOY + 0.017 FAT^2 + 0.0004 SOY^2 − 0.0031 FAT SOY	0.9239
Adhesiveness (AD)	−0.0076 − 0.0067 FAT + 0.00097 FAT^2 − 0.00014 FAT SOY	0.8410

Table 4 Constraints (lower bound and upper bound) set for independent variables

	Lower bound (≥)		Upper bound (≤)
Independent variable	Real	Coded	Real	Coded
FAT (X 1)	0	−1	6	+1
SOY (X 2)	0	−1	40	+1

Table 5 Ranges of independent variables for optimum responses

	Responses
Independent variables	Hardness	Cohesiveness	Chewiness	Springiness	Adhesiveness
FAT
Lower bound (≥)	2.651	1.5	2.420	2.747	3.996
Upper bound (≤)	3.350	6.0	2.958	5.773	4.984
SOY
Lower bound (≥)	14.478	10	14.7683	19.390	17.717
Upper bound (≤)	16.223	36.53	19.141	25.188	33.254

Figure 3. Optimization of fat content in buffalo milk and proportion of soy milk in blend for SFP with textural characteristics similar to those of control paneer sample made from buffalo milk of 6% fat content.