| Literature DB >> 22163633 |
Jovanka V Popov-Raljić1, Jovanka G Laličić-Petronijević, Aneta S Georgijev, Vladimir S Popov, Mića A Mladenović.
Abstract
In this study, pralines manufactured by hand were evaluated sensorially. These pralines were obtained from dark chocolate containing 60% cocoa components, filled with Apis mellifera carnica Poll drone larvae, blossom honey and a blossom honey/pollen mixture from the protected region of Stara Planina-Eastern Serbia (a specific botanical region). The objectives of this study were investigations related to the use of sensory analysis for quality assessment of new functional products with potential benefits for human health, in particular of desserts based on dark chocolate pralines filled with different bee products characterized by a specific botanical and geographic origin, as well as of their storage properties and expected shelf life. Sensory quality (appearance, texture, odor and taste were evaluated by a group of experienced panelists immediately after the production (day 0), and then after 30, 90 and 180 days of storage under ambient conditions (temperature 18-20 °C). The results were statistically analyzed by the two-factorial analysis of variance (MANOVA) and with the LSD-test. It is possible to conclude that the storage time and composition of dark chocolate pralines containing different honey-bee products have statistically highly significant (p < 0.01) influence on the sensorially evaluated properties of pralines.Entities:
Keywords: Apis mellifera carnica Poll drone larvae; blossom honey; dark chocolate pralines; pollen; sensory attributes; storage
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 22163633 PMCID: PMC3231204 DOI: 10.3390/s100907913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Visual appearance of hand made pralines with different bee-product fillings after 180 days of storage at ambient temperature.
Sensory evaluation of the chocolate praline quality using the scoring procedure.
| APPEARANCE | 5
| 2 | Appropriate form; irreproachable color; smooth, bright surface; clear engraving
|
| 4
| Insignificant deviation of form; irreproachable color; smooth, bright surface; engraving less clear
| ||
| 3
| Deviations of form; lower quality color; fingerprints on the surface; air bubbles; engraving less clear
| ||
| 2
| More pronounced form deviations; partially white of gray surface; presence of cuttings
| ||
| 1
| Form distorted; surface gray or white; higher damages; bad engraving
| ||
| TEXTURE | 5
| 3 | Break straight, homogenous, fragile; structure homogenous; texture smooth; firmness appropriate
|
| 4
| Break uneven; structure homogenous; firmness appropriate
| ||
| 3
| Break uneven, air bubbles; firmness inappropriate; fat bloom appearance on the break
| ||
| 2
| Break uneven; texture roughly-granular; fat bloom on the break
| ||
| 1
| Crumbling; texture roughly granular; fat bloom
| ||
| Chewiness and other textural properties | 5
| 4 | Appropriate chewiness; melting in the mouth
|
| 4
| Slower melting; good chewiness, spreadiness
| ||
| 3
| Average chewiness; spreadiness; weak sandiness
| ||
| 2
| Slow melting; sandiness; stickiness
| ||
| 1
| Slow melting; heavy sandiness; stickiness
| ||
| 5
| 4 | Appropriate; rounded; aromatic
| |
| 4
| Appropriate poorer rounded; aromatic
| ||
| 3
| Appropriate; poor rounded; weakly aromatic
| ||
| 2
| Not appropriate; sourish; staled
| ||
| 1 | Foreign odor; sour; staled; mouldy | ||
| 5
| 7 | Appropriate; rounded; aromatic
| |
| 4
| Appropriate, less rounded; aromatic
| ||
| 3
| Poorly rounded; poorly aromatic
| ||
| 2
| Sourish; not rounded
| ||
| 1 | Foreign taste; sour; bitter | ||
Figure 2.Box-plots for sensory attribute appearance of the filled pralines: Sample 1—filled with honeybee drones larvae; Sample 2—filled with the blossom honey; Sample 3—filled with combination of blossom honey and pollen, during 180 days of storage.
Figure 7.Box plots for weighted mean score for the evaluated sensory attributes of the filled pralines (labels as in the Figure 2), during 180 days of storage.
Figure 3.Box-plots for sensory attribute texture—structure, break and firmness of the filled pralines (labels as in the Figure 2), during 180 days of storage.
Figure 4.Box-plots for sensory attribute texture—chewiness of the filled pralines (labels as in the Figure 2), during 180 days of storage.
Figure 5.Box plots for sensory attribute aroma—odor of the filled pralines (labels as in the Figure 2), during 180 days of storage.
Figure 6.Box plots for sensory attribute aroma—taste of the filled pralines (labels as in the Figure 2), during 180 days of storage.
Results of the Levene test for the homogeneity of variances of the praline samples with different fillings.
| Appearance | |||
| Texture | Structure, break and firmness | 0.706 | 0.727 |
| Chewiness | 0.637 | 0.789 | |
| Aroma | Odor | ||
| Taste | 0.830 | 0.612 | |
| Weighted mean value of scores | 0.801 | 0.639 | |
Results of the analyses of variances for sensory attributes of the praline samples with different fillings.
| Appearance | 227.189 | 628.980 | 106.366 | ||||
| Texture | Structure, break and firmness | 73.353 | 613.681 | 16.773 | |||
| Chewiness | 49.042 | 198.478 | 2.958 | ||||
| Aroma | Odor | 43.731 | 198.470 | 11.492 | |||
| Taste | 38.874 | 553.000 | 3.414 | ||||
| Weighted mean value of the scores | 156.226 | 1502.620 | 27.011 | ||||