| Literature DB >> 35407007 |
Laure Foucher1,2, Maria João Barroca3,4, Yuliya Dulyanska1,5, Paula M R Correia1,5, Raquel P F Guiné1,5.
Abstract
The main purpose of this work is the development of a value-added product (candied chestnuts) from Portuguese chestnut (Castanea sativa) cultivars (Martainha, Longal and Judia), as a way to minimize product loss and wastes. To accomplish this goal, the effects of rehydration, cooking, and syrup conditions on composition, textural properties, and colour parameters of candied chestnuts were investigated. The obtained results revealed that the optimal conditions to prepare candied chestnuts with a sweet taste, dark brown colour, with a crispy texture on the outside and smooth texture in the inner flesh were rehydration at 45 °C for a period of 5 h, cooking in a pressure pan for 15 min, and an immersion process with sucrose syrup for two days (syrup with 25% of sucrose on the first day and syrup of 50% of sucrose on the second day). During the process, the drying loss, hydration ratio, and cooking gain of the different cultivars were about 90%, 79%, and 130%, respectively. The total colour difference of candied chestnuts ranged from 24.18 (Longal) to 29.95 (Judia), the stickiness was moderately intense, and the adhesiveness was high for the three varieties. Longal candied chestnuts were the softest and Martainha candied chestnuts were the hardest, the most elastic, and cohesive. Moreover, the candied chestnuts presented a moisture content ranging from 52.70% and 54.23%, amounts of carbohydrates in the range of 88.58 to 91.87 g/100 g d.m, values of protein (6.55-9.51 g/100 g d.m.), values of ash (0.78-1.98 g/100 g d.m.), and fat (0.87-1.58 g/100 g d.m.). In conclusion, the chestnuts of Portuguese cultivars Martainha, Longal and Judia reveal a good potential to produce candied products with high added value.Entities:
Keywords: Portuguese cultivars; candied chestnut; chestnut products; new foods
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407007 PMCID: PMC8998049 DOI: 10.3390/foods11070917
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Chestnut cultivars native from Portugal used in the study [14].
Nutritional characterization of the regional cultivars of chestnut [14].
| Components | Martainha | Longal | Judia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macro components (g/100 g d.m.) * | |||
| Total sugars | 37.3 ± 1.1 | 38.8 ± 1.6 | 31.5 ± 1.8 |
| Ash | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | 1.7 ± 0.1 |
| Fat | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.1 |
| Protein | 4.9 ± 0.6 | 5.3 ± 0.4 | 5.6 ± 0.5 |
| Fibre | 3.9 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 3.3 ± 0.1 |
| Starch | 39.3 ± 2.3 | 38.5 ± 1.1 | 39.5 ± 1.7 |
| Vitamins (mg/100 g d.m.) * | |||
| Thiamine (B1) | 1.19 ± 0.03 | 0.75 ± 0.07 | 1.13 ± 0.09 |
| Riboflavin (B2) | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.37 ± 0.02 |
| Niacin (B3) | 4.18 ± 0.09 | 5.6 ± 0.03 | 5.40 ± 0.04 |
| Ascorbic acid (Vit. C) | 121.0 ± 0.0 | 104.0 ± 0.1 | 111.0 ± 0.4 |
* Values expressed as mean value ± standard deviation per 100 g of dry matter.
Figure 2Dehydrate chestnut-“castanha pilada”.
Figure 3Final recipe for the production of candied chestnuts.
Figure 4Martainha Chestnuts at different stages of processing.
Figure 5Texture analysis: curve force versus time for cutting test.
Figure 6Texture analysis: curve force versus time for compression test (TPA).
Moisture content of the regional cultivars of chestnut used.
| Moisture Content (g/100 g) | Martainha | Longal | Judia |
|---|---|---|---|
| In natura (before convective drying) 1 | 60.03 ± 0.73 a | 59.71 ± 1.05 a | 60.96 ± 0.12 a |
| After drying 1 | 6.00 ± 0.62 ab | 6.44 ± 0.98 a | 5.36 ± 0.32 b |
| After rehydration 1 | 47.63 ± 1.98 a | 47.52 ± 2.04 a | 48.01 ± 2.10 a |
| After cooking 1 | 62.10 ± 2.24 a | 61.85 ± 2.17 a | 62.45 ± 1.87 a |
| After syrup treatment 1 | 54.11 ± 1.67 a | 55.61 ± 1.98 a | 54.57 ± 2.04 a |
| Drying loss (%) 2 | 90.0 | 89.2 | 91.2 |
| Hydration ratio (%) 3 | 79.3 | 79.6 | 78.8 |
| Cooking gain (%) 4 | 130.4 | 130.2 | 130.1 |
1 Values in the same line with the same letter are not significantly different (ANOVA with test Tukey, p < 0.05). 2 Drying loss = (initial moisture-moisture after drying)/initial moisture × 100 %. 3 Hydration ratio = moisture after rehydration/initial moisture × 100 %. 4 Cooking gain = moisture after cooking/moisture after rehydration × 100 %.
Figure 7Rehydration procedure: variation of moisture content along time (left) and mass gain (right).
Colour coordinates along the process and for different cooking options for cultivar Martainha.
| Textural Parameters | Δ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In natura | 62.31 ± 4.22 a | 7.35 ± 1.61 b | 34.83 ± 2.50 a | - |
| Dried | 36.71 ± 5.16 e | 14.98 ± 3.74 a | 26.48 ± 5.44 c | 27.99 |
| Hydrated | 56.98 ± 3.50 b | 4.03 ± 1.25 c | 26.04 ± 3.51 c | 10.46 |
| Boiled 15 min | 57.55 ± 4.82 b | 4.21 ± 1.42 c | 27.12 ± 3.41 bc | 9.59 |
| Boiled 30 min | 58.14 ± 5.52 b | 4.42 ± 0.89 c | 29.14 ± 2.99 b | 7.64 |
| Pressure cooked 1 h | 54.71 ± 4.66 c | 4.10 ± 2.06 c | 26.88 ± 4.18 b | 11.47 |
| Pressure cooked 30 min | 55.43 ± 6.73 bc | 4.13 ± 1.65 c | 27.04 ± 3.74 b | 10.89 |
| Pressure cooked 15 min | 54.16 ± 6.48 c | 3.95 ± 1.63 c | 25.88 ± 3.81 c | 12.58 |
| Candied | 42.79 ± 4.95 b | 8.07 ± 2.02 b | 24.79 ± 4.26 d | 21.96 |
Values in the same column with the same letter are not significantly different (ANOVA with test Tukey, p < 0.05). 1 ΔE was calculated with the fresh sample (in natura) as reference.
Figure 8Colour coordinates for the three candied chestnuts (left) and total colour difference having the fresh fruits as reference (right).
Textural parameters along the process and for different cooking options.
| Textural Parameters | In Natura | Dried | Hydrated | Cooked | Candied | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiled | Boiled | Pressure | Pressure | Pressure | |||||
| Cut test | |||||||||
| Firmness (N) 1 | 152.04 ± 12.04 b | 185.64 ± 10.21 a | 116.91 ± 7.86 c | 64.08 ± 7.23 d | 59.16 ± 5.42 d | 3.61 ± 1.40 h | 6.07 ± 0.36 g | 15.16 ± 1.14 e | 10.41 ± 3.09 f |
| Stickiness (N) 1 | −0.51 ± 0.30 a | −0.23 ± 0.12 a | −1.74 ± 0.41 b | −1.75 ± 0.24 b | −2.03 ± 0.23 c | −2.63 ± 0.11 c | −2.40 ± 0.14 c | −2.28 ± 0.12 c | −4.99 ± 0.18 d |
| Adhesiveness (N) 1 | −2.07 ± 0.81 a | −1.77 ± 0.49 a | −6.66 ± 0.56 b | −14.32 ± 1.16 e | −14.77 ± 0.93 e | −15.20 ± 1.33 e | −12.8 ± 0.85 d | −9.48 ± 2.81 c | −23.59 ± 0.51 f |
| Compression test | |||||||||
| Hardness (N) 1 | 375.42 ± 24.12 b | 451.57 ± 19.24 a | 128.39 ± 9.97 c | 80.54 ± 6.41 d | 62.04 ± 4.85 e | 12.32 ± 2.74 h | 12.75 ± 1.84 h | 19.25 ± 3.99 f | 15.81 ± 3.94 g |
| Springiness (%) 1 | 45.78 ± 4.85 c | 44.26 ± 6.71 c | 71.29 ± 5.41 a | 55.46 ± 8.12 b | 56.41 ± 4.52 b | 57.21 ± 2.84 b | 55.41 ± 6.12 b | 54.71 ± 9.14 b | 48.26 ± 4.27 c |
| Resilience (%) 1 | 32.12 ± 1.25 a | 29.58 ± 1.46 b | 21.24 ± 0.54 d | 25.69 ± 4.12 c | 23.54 ± 3.17 c | 26.51 ± 2.74 c | 26.98 ± 5.12 c | 25.89 ± 3.85 c | 27.25 ± 4.58 c |
| Cohesiveness (%) 1 | 21.54 ± 4.95 c | 23.71 ± 4.78 c | 58.43 ± 7.52 a | 25.41 ± 5.71 c | 24.78 ± 6.11 c | 26.43 ± 5.55 c | 27.23 ± 2.48 b | 25.95 ± 5.48 c | 29.41 ± 5.88 b |
| Chewiness (N) 1 | 35.43 ± 4.72 b | 47.63 ± 5.66 a | 33.36 ± 4.62 b | 11.05 ± 3.41 c | 8.33 ± 1.77 d | 1.78 ± 0.09 e | 1.92 ± 0.44 e | 1.25 ± 0.87 e | 2.09 ± 0.56 e |
1 Values in the same line with the same letter are not significantly different (ANOVA with test Tukey, p < 0.05).
Figure 9Textural parameters of the candied chestnuts.
Nutritional composition of the candied chestnuts.
| Composition | Candied Martainha 1 | Candied Longal 1 | Candied Judia 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture 2 | 52.70 ± 0.14 c | 53.17 ± 0.30 b | 54.23 ± 0.57 a |
| Carbohydrates 2 | 41.90 ± 1.27 ab (88.58) | 41.65 ± 0.49 b (88.94) | 42.05 ± 0.78 a (91.87) |
| Ash 2 | 0.84 ± 0.14 b (1.78) | 0.93 ± 0.02 a (1.98) | 0.36 ± 0.15 c (0.78) |
| Fat 2 | 0.45 ± 0.07 b (0.95) | 0.74 ± 0.16 a (1.58) | 0.40 ± 0.00 c (0.87) |
| Protein 2 | 4.50 ± 0.28 a (9.51) | 3.85 ± 0.49 b (8.22) | 3.00 ± 1.41 b (6.55) |
| Energy (kcal/100 g) | 190 | 189 | 184 |
| Energy (J/100 g) | 794 | 790 | 769 |
1 Values expressed as mean value ± standard deviation in g/100 g of sample (mean expressed in dry matter as g/100 g d.m.). 2 Values in the same line with the same letter are not significantly different (ANOVA with test Tukey, p < 0.05).