Carbohydrate composition, viscosity, solubility, and sensory acceptance of sweetpotato- and maize-based complementary foods

Figures & data

Table 1. Carbohydrate composition¹ (g/100 g dry matter basis) of sweetpotato- and maize-based complementary foods

Complementary food	Maltose	Sucrose	Free glucose	Free fructose	Starch^2	Total dietary fibre^3	Total available carbohydrate^4
Sweetpotato-based
Extrusion-cooked ComFa	27.50 (2.45)^a	10.20 (0.31)^a	1.24 (0.04)^b	3.07 (0.37)^a	11.32 (1.87)^b	10.25 (2.29)^a	56.07 (1.97)^a
Roller-dried ComFa	30.85 (3.84)^a	10.53 (1.06)^a	1.34 (0.03)^a	2.94 (1.04)^a	10.53 (3.70)^b	10.57 (1.21)^a	58.92 (0.83)^a
Oven-toasted ComFa	25.43 (1.17)^a	10.08 (0.43)^a	1.40 (0.05)^a	2.61 (0.46)^a	13.75 (0.72)^b	8.16 (0.77)^a,b	53.28 (0.94)^a,b
Maize-based
Enriched Weanimix	1.06 (0.18)^b	2.01 (0.12)^b	0.07 (0.02)^c	0.39 (0.13)^b	46.72 (0.64)^a	6.08 (0.44)^b	50.25 (0.75)^b
P	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.002	<0.0001	0.01	<0.0001

¹Value is mean (standard deviation) of triplicate; values with the same superscript letter in a column are not significantly different (P>0.05).

²Starch = total available carbohydrate minus sum of maltose, sucrose, free glucose, and free fructose; the starch content for extrusion-cooked ComFa and roller-dried ComFa was corrected for approximately 3 g/100 g of lactose from skimmed milk powder 24, an ingredient.

^3,4Data previously published 16; Tukey's studentised range test was used for the post-hoc mean analysis instead of least significant difference in published manuscript.

Fig. 1.  Viscosity during cooking (peak viscosity), at serving (consume viscosity), and during storage (final viscosity) of porridge from the complementary foods.

Bar value (mean±standard deviation, n=3).

Bar with different letter for each variable for complementary foods was significantly different (P<0.0001).

Fig. 2.  The water solubility index of the complementary foods.

Bar value (mean±standard deviation, n=3).

Bar with a different letter for each variable was significantly different (P<0.0001).

Table 2. Correlation coefficient¹ between carbohydrate composition, apparent viscosity, and water solubility index (WSI)

	Physical property
Carbohydrate fraction	Peak viscosity^2	Consume viscosity^3	Final viscosity^4	WSI
Simple sugars^5	−0.992 (0.008)	−0.992 (0.008)	−0.992 (0.008)	0.998 (0.002)
Total dietary fibre	−0.852 (0.148)	−0.854 (0.146)	−0.854 (0.146)	0.935 (0.065)
Starch	0.995 (0.005)	0.996 (0.004)	0.996 (0.004)	−0.995 (0.005)

¹Cell content: Pearson correlation coefficient (P-value) using all the formulations.

²Maximum apparent viscosity during heating or the heating/holding phase during Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) test.

³Viscosity corresponding to approximately 45°C.

⁴Viscosity during storage, recorded at 25°C.

⁵Sum of maltose, sucrose, free glucose, and fructose.

Fig. 3.  Diagrammatic presentation of product liking for sensory attributes and choice to give the formulations as complementary food to infants by 20 female sensory participants.

Sensory attribute with P<0.05 indicates that significant difference among the complementary foods; italicised value in parenthesis is asymptotic significance from Kruskal–Wallis test.

A 9-point hedonic scale was used (1 = least acceptable/dislike extremely; 5 = neutral; 9 = highly acceptable/like extremely) for all attributes except for willingness to give product to babies (1 = not likely; 5 = neutral; 9 = very likely).

Fig. 4.  Diagrammatic presentation scoring for sweetness intensity of the complementary food formulations on just-about-right scale by 20 female sensory participants.

Scoring was done on a 9-point scale, and responses were categorised as ‘much too low’ (≤2), ‘too low’ 3 4, just-about-right 5, ‘too high’ 6 7, and ‘much too high’ (≥8).

Fig. 5.  Diagrammatic presentation scoring for saltiness intensity of the complementary food formulations on just-about-right scale by 20 female sensory participants.

Scoring was done on a 9-point scale, and responses were categorised as ‘much too low’ (≤2), ‘too low’ 3 4, just-about-right 5, ‘too high’ 6 7, and ‘much too high’ (≥8).

FoodWorks. Foodworks 2009 Version6. Highgate HillQLD, Australia: Xyris Software.2009.

 Google Scholar

Amagloh FK, Hardacre A, Mutukumira AN, Weber JL, Brough L, Coad J. Sweet potato-based complementary food for infants in low-income countries. Food Nutr Bull. 2012; 33: 3–10.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mosha AC, Svanberg U. Preparation of weaning foods with high nutrient density using flour of germinated cereals. Food Nutr Bull. 1983; 5: 10–4.

 Google Scholar

Kikafunda JK, Walker AF, Abeyasekera S. Optimising viscosity and energy density of maize porridges for child weaning in developing countries. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 1997; 48: 401–9. 10.3402/fnr.v57i0.18717.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amagloh FK, Hardacre A, Mutukumira AN, Weber JL, Brough L, Coad J. A household-level sweet potato-based infant food to complement vitamin A supplementation initiatives. Matern Child Nutr. 2012; 8: 512–21. 10.3402/fnr.v57i0.18717.

 Google Scholar

Jones D, Chinnaswamy R, Tan Y, Hanna M. Physiochemical properties of ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Cereal Foods World. 2000; 45: 164–8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nguyen VH, Mouquet-Rivier C, Treche S. Effects of starch, lipid and moisture contents on extrusion behavior and extrudate characteristics of rice-based blends prepared with a very-low-cost extruder. J Food Process Eng. 2010; 33: 519–39.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar