Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Effect of Calcium Chloride on the Preparation of Low-fat Spreads from Buffalo and Cow Butter

Ahmed Mohamed Abdeldaiem1,2 , Qingzhe Jin1, Ruijie Liu1, Xingguo Wang1

1State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Synergetic Innovation Center of Food Safety and Nutrition, School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, Jiangsu, China; 2Department of Dairy Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia-41522, Egypt.

For correspondence:-  Ahmed Abdeldaiem   Email: wxg1002@qq.com

Received: 11 January 2014        Accepted: 29 March 2014        Published: 23 April 2014

Citation: Abdeldaiem AM, Jin Q, Liu R, Wang X. Effect of Calcium Chloride on the Preparation of Low-fat Spreads from Buffalo and Cow Butter. Trop J Pharm Res 2014; 13(4):519-526 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v13i4.5

© 2014 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effects of CaCl2 on the preparation of low-fat spreads from buffalo and cow butter.
Methods:  Buffalo and cow butter-based low-fat spreads (B-LFS and C-LFS) were treated with CaCl2 (0, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, and 0.08%) at pH 5.5 and stored at 4°C. They were sampled after 3, 30, 60, and 90 days, and analysed for sensory, morphological, rheological, and melting properties using a 9-point hedonic scale, digital camera, texture analyser TA-XT 2i, Physica MCR 301 rheometer, and differential scanning calorimeter, respectively. 
Results: Sensory evaluation results showed that control samples were the best of all the treatments; additionally, no phase separation was found in samples treated with 0, 0.02 or 0.04% CaCl2, but separation occurred with 0.06 and 0.08% CaCl2. Generally, hardness and viscosity of samples decreased with increasing CaCl2 concentrations; however, these parameters increased during storage. Increasing CaCl2 concentrations didn’t affect the melting profiles of the spreads, but the parameter varied for B-LFS during storage. Furthermore, the temperature range of the high melting zones of the B-LFS samples was greater than that of C-LFS samples.  
Conclusion: Sensory, morphological, and rheological properties were affected by CaCl2 concentrations but there were negligible effects on the melting behaviour of the spreads.

Keywords: Buffalo butter, Cow butter, Calcium chloride Low-fat spread, Sensory, Morphology, Melting

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates