| Literature DB >> 33841844 |
Amirhossein Razjoo1, Maryam Azizkhani1, Reza Esmaeilzadeh Kenari2.
Abstract
Today, the lack of a proper nutritional formulation of the diet for soldiers is well felt. In this study, a newly formulated food supplement (FFS) was designed to supply all essential nutrients like protein, carbohydrate, oil, fat-soluble vitamins, and minerals, and Lepidium sativum L. seed (shahi) gum and Amygdalus scoparia Spach (zedo) gum were applied to FFS to promote physicochemical and sensory properties of FFS. The samples were developed by preparing emulsion including meat powder (45.0 g/100 g), soybean powder (25.0 g/100 g), and plant oils (15.0 g/100 g). Iron, zinc, and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) were also added to the formulation, and response surface methodology was used to optimize the effects of shahi and zedo gum at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g/100 g in FFS. The results showed that using hydrocolloids in appropriate amounts enhanced the sensory properties of FFS. Hydrocolloids protected the moisture content of FFS samples and also decreased the reduction of vitamins and minerals during 14 days of storage at 4°C. The hydrocolloids improved the color indices and intrinsic viscosity of samples. The results of this study recommend the use of 1.26 g/100 g of shahi gum and 0.95 g/100 g of zedo gum to produce formulated food supplement for soldiers. This formulation supplies calories and provides some of the essential vitamins and food components to the body.Entities:
Keywords: energy intake; food supplement; shahi gum; zedo gum
Year: 2021 PMID: 33841844 PMCID: PMC8020937 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
The amount of ingredients in FFS
| Ingredient | Amount (100 g) |
|---|---|
| Meat powder | 45.0 g |
| Soy powder | 25.0 g |
| Canola oil | 12.0 g |
| Sesame seed oil | 1.5 g |
| Rice bran oil | 1.5 g |
| Sodium chloride | 0.5 g |
| Vitamin E | 1.0 g |
| Vitamin A | 3.0 mg |
| Vitamin K | 50.0 µg |
| Vitamin D | 50.0 µg |
| Iron | 20.0 mg |
| Zinc | 30.0 mg |
| Zedo or shahi gum | 0.5, 1, or 2 g |
| Water | 14, 13.5 or 12.5 g |
Central composite design and responses
| Experiment no | Uncoded (coded) levels | Calorie (Cal/100 g) | Viscosity at 50/s (Pa s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shahi | Zedo | Observed | Predicted | Observed | Predicted | |
| 1 | 0 (−1) | 1 (0) | 249.69 | 249.74 | 0.152 | 0.150 |
| 2 | 2 (+1) | 2 (+1) | 257.44 | 255.06 | 1.73 | 1.73 |
| 3 | 1 (0) | 0 (−1) | 250.13 | 252.15 | 0.707 | 0.705 |
| 4 | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 253.00 | 252.69 | 0.835 | 0.838 |
| 5 | 0 (−1) | 2 (+1) | 255.10 | 256.43 | 2.11 | 2.12 |
| 6 | 1 (0) | 2 (+1) | 255.31 | 248.12 | 1.89 | 1.91 |
| 7 | 2 (+1) | 0 (−1) | 252.68 | 255.76 | 1.08 | 1.06 |
| 8 | +1 (0) | 1 (0) | 248.12 | 253.04 | 0.998 | 0.996 |
| 9 | 2 (+1) | 1 (0) | 256.79 | 255.32 | 1.35 | 1.33 |
| 10 | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 247.58 | 247.58 | 0.512 | 0.511 |
Ten experimental settings (eight factorial points and two center points) were generated using the Design of Expert software.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) in linear model
| Factor |
| Sum of square | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calorie (Cal) | |||||
| Model | 2 | 103.15 | 51.57 | 31.59 | .00 |
| Shahi gum | 1 | 52.24 | 52.24 | 32.05 | .00 |
| Zedo gum | 1 | 50.81 | 50.81 | 31.12 | .00 |
| Residual | 7 | 11.43 | 1.63 | ||
| Lack of fit | 6 | 10.20 | 1.70 | 1.38 | .57 |
| Pure error | 1 | 1.23 | 1.23 | ||
| Viscosity at 50/s (Pa s) | |||||
| Model | 2 | 2.30 | 1.15 | 6.33 | .02 |
| Shahi gun | 1 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 1.85 | .21 |
| Zedo gum | 1 | 1.96 | 1.96 | 10.80 | .01 |
| Residual | 7 | 1.27 | 0.18 | ||
| Lack of fit | 6 | 0.91 | 0.15 | 0.43 | .82 |
| Pure error | 1 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
Values are significant at 95% confidence level.
FIGURE 13d response surface plots of interaction between shahi gum with zedo gum on a) calorie (Cal) and b) viscosity (Pa s)
Calorific value and viscosity of optimized samples
| Code | Shahi gum (g/100 g) | Zedo gum (g/100 g) | Calorific value (Cal/100 g) | Viscosity at 50/s (Pa s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.00 | 0.00 | 242.06 ± 5.05a,
| 0.51 ± 0.01d |
| FFS‐A | 1.26 | 0.95 | 266.06 ± 6.80a | 1.74 ± 0.05b |
| FFS‐B | 0.79 | 1.04 | 243.0 ± 5.68a | 1.57 ± 0.05c |
| FFS‐C | 0.99 | 1.17 | 252.86 ± 6.27a | 1.82 ± 0.04a |
| FFS‐D | 0.92 | 1.23 | 277.03 ± 8.75a | 1.84 ± 0.02a |
| FFS‐E | 0.44 | 1.21 | 262.58 ± 7.13a | 1.54 ± 0.05c |
Different lowercase letter indicates the significant statistical differences at p < .05.
FIGURE 2a. Change in the lightness of FFS samples during storage, b. Change in redness of FFS samples during storage c. Change in yellowness of FFS samples during storage d. Change in the moisture content of FFS samples during storage. Different uppercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among samples at p < .05. Different lowercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among day 0 and day 14 at p < .05
FIGURE 3a. Change in iron content of FFS samples during storage, b. Change in zinc content of FFS samples during storage c. Change in vitamin E of FFS samples during storage d. Change in vitamin A of FFS samples during storage. e. Change in vitamin D of FFS samples during storage. f. Change in vitamin K of FFS samples during storage. Different uppercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among samples at p < .05. Different lowercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among day 0 and day 14 at p < .05
FIGURE 4a. Change in the color score of FFS samples during storage, b. Change in taste score of FFS samples during storage, c. Change in appearance score of FFS samples during storage, d. Change in odor score of FFS samples during storage. Different uppercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among samples at p < .05. Different lowercase letters indicate a statistical difference in studied variables among day 0 and day 14 at p < .05