| Literature DB >> 35630579 |
Qibo Zhang1, Lu Huang1, He Li1, Di Zhao1, Jinnuo Cao2, Yao Song3, Xinqi Liu1.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of sweet potato starch (SPS) and konjac glucomannan (KGM) on the textural, color, sensory, rheological properties, and microstructures of plant-based pork rinds. Plant-based gels were prepared using mixtures of soy protein isolate (SPI), soy oil, and NaHCO3 supplemented with different SPS and KGM concentrations. The texture profile analysis (TPA) results indicated that the hardness, cohesiveness, and chewiness of the samples improved significantly after appropriate SPS and KGM addition. The results obtained via a colorimeter showed no significant differences were found in lightness (L*) between the samples and natural pork rinds after adjusting the SPS and KGM concentrations. Furthermore, the rheological results showed that adding SPS and KGM increased both the storage modulus (G') and loss modulus (G''), indicating a firmer gel structure. The images obtained via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that the SPS and KGM contributed to the formation of a more compact gel structure. A mathematical model allowed for a more objective sensory evaluation, with the 40% SPS samples and the 0.4% KGM samples being considered the most similar to natural pork rinds, which provided a comparable texture, appearance, and mouthfeel. This study proposed a possible schematic model for the gelling mechanism of plant-based pork rinds: the three-dimensional network structures of the samples may result from the interaction between SPS, SPI, and soybean oil, while the addition of KGM and NaHCO3 enabled a more stable gel structure.Entities:
Keywords: composite gel; gelling mechanism; plant-based pork rinds; rheology; texture
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630579 PMCID: PMC9143635 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
The Texture profile analysis (TPA) of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS and KGM concentrations.
| Type and Proportion | Hardness (g) | Cohesiveness | Springiness | Chewiness (mJ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPS | ||||
| 10% | none | none | none | none |
| 20% | 312.67 ± 28.57 d | 0.66 ± 0.03 c | 0.93 ± 0.01 a | 5.67 ± 0.71 d |
| 30% | 1941.67 ± 42.72 c | 0.55 ± 0.02 d | 0.91 ± 0.01 a | 28.63 ± 0.38 c |
| 40% | 3098.67 ± 60.19 b | 0.64 ± 0.03 c | 0.92 ± 0.03 a | 53.59 ± 0.61 b |
| 50% | 6681.33 ± 122.27 a | 0.76 ± 0.02 b | 0.93 ± 0.02 a | 138.67 ± 2.38 a |
| Natural pork rinds | 2078.67 ± 55.81 c | 0.93 ± 0.02 a | 0.92 ± 0.03 a | 52.27 ± 1.64 b |
| KGM | ||||
| 0% | 2181.67 ± 122.52 b | 0.60 ± 0.03 c | 0.89 ± 0.02 a | 34.82 ± 1.23 c |
| 0.2% | 1941.67 ± 42.72 c | 0.52 ± 0.02 d | 0.91 ± 0.01 a | 26.70 ± 0.46 e |
| 0.4% | 2134.33 ± 143.40 b | 0.54 ± 0.01 d | 0.91 ± 0.04 a | 30.04 ± 1.44 d |
| 0.6% | 2138.33 ± 25.38 b | 0.63 ± 0.02 c | 0.88 ± 0.01 a | 34.98 ± 0.82 c |
| 0.8% | 2453.67 ± 69.92 a | 0.73 ± 0.03 b | 0.89 ± 0.03 a | 46.79 ± 1.45 b |
| Natural pork rinds | 2078.67 ± 55.81 b,c | 0.93 ± 0.02 a | 0.92 ± 0.03 a | 52.27 ± 1.64 a |
Different lowercase superscript letters (a–e) in the same column denote significant differences (p < 0.05). All data are presented as mean values ± standard error (n = 3).
Figure 1The color parameters of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS (A) and KGM (B) concentrations. Different lowercase letters (a–f) in the same color group denote significant differences (p < 0.05).
The preliminary sensory score of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS and KGM concentrations (v1, v2, v3, and v4 represented very good, good, medium, and bad, respectively).
| Group | Appearance | Chewiness | Stickiness | Cohesiveness | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPS | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 |
| 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| 20% | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
| 30% | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| 40% | 2 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| 50% | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| KGM | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 | v1 | v2 | v3 | v4 |
| 0% | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
| 0.2% | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| 0.4% | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| 0.6% | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| 0.8% | 0 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
Figure 2The SCS (A) and photographic images (B,C) of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS and KGM concentrations.
Figure 3The G’ and G’’ of the plant-based pork rinds (frequency scanning) containing different SPS (A,B) and KGM (C,D) concentrations.
Figure 4The G’ and G’’ of the plant-based pork rinds (temperature scanning) containing different SPS (A,B) and KGM (C,D) concentrations.
Figure 5The microstructures of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS (A,B) and KGM (C,D) concentrations and natural pork rinds (E,F).
Figure 6A schematic model showing the gelling mechanism (A) and internal layout (B) of the plant-based pork rinds containing different SPS and KGM concentrations.