|
Effect of substitution of almond powder with dried watermeal (Wolffia arrhiza (L.)) in macaron shells |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | Wanlapa Potasin |
| Title | Effect of substitution of almond powder with dried watermeal (Wolffia arrhiza (L.)) in macaron shells |
| Contributor | Sarawoot Nienvitoon, Achiraya Rongthong, Saowanee Leekear |
| Publisher | Mahasarakham University |
| Publication Year | 2569 |
| Journal Title | Journal of Science and Technology Mahasarakham University |
| Journal Vol. | 45 |
| Journal No. | 3 |
| Page no. | 287-297 |
| Keyword | Watermeal, macarons, almond powder |
| URL Website | https://li01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/scimsujournal |
| Website title | Journal of Science and Technology Mahasarakham University |
| ISSN | 1686-9664 (Print), 2586-9795(Online) |
| Abstract | Watermeal is a highly nutritious alternative food source derived from local plants. This research aimed to study formula and production process of substitution of almond powder with dried watermeal in macaron shells, investigate their physical and chemical qualities, and evaluate consumer acceptance. Three basic macaron formulas were selected and tested for consumer acceptance based on appearance, color, odor, taste, texture and overall liking by 50 consumers using a 9-point hedonic scale. The most accepted basic formula was chosen to determine the optimal ratio of watermeal substitution. Almond powder in the basic formula was substituted with dried watermeal at five levels: 0%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% and 10%. Subsequently, these formulations were analyzed for their physical and chemical qualities, as well as consumer acceptance. The formula with the highest consumer acceptance was selected for nutritional analysis to compare with the basic formula. The results indicated that consumers gave the highest acceptance to the 5% substitution of dried watermeal in macaron shells, with average scores for appearance, color, odor, taste, texture and overall liking of 7.4 ± 1.4, 7.4 ± 1.1, 7.2 ± 1.6, 6.7 ± 1.5, 6.6 ± 1.7 and 7.1 ± 1.7, respectively. The physical qualities included a lightness value (L*) of 70.79 ± 0.74, a redness value (a*) of 1.52 ± 0.17 and a yellowness value (b*) of 12.90 ± 0.41. The chemical quality, specifically water activity (aw), was 0.70 ± 0.02. The nutritional composition consisted of 13.02 ± 0.20% moisture, 7.84 ± 0.03% protein, 24.49 ± 0.01% fat, 1.14 ± 0.06% fiber and 1.42 ± 0.01% ash. |
