Next Article in Journal
Economical Configuration of Oxygen-Enriched Air Production Process Using Polysulfone-Based Composite Membranes
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrocarbon Generation and Residue Features of Ediacaran High-Maturity Source Rocks and Their Significance in Gas Exploration in Sichuan Basin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/pr11113194
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of the Effects of Jackfruit Seed Flour and Jackfruit Seed Starch in the Cookie Manufacturing Process

by
Chi Khang Van
1,*,
Thi Han Nguyen
2,
Trinh Thi Nhu Hang Nguyen
1,
Phu Thuong Nhan Nguyen
2,
Thi Tuu Tran
1 and
Quang Binh Hoang
1,*
1
Institute of Applied Technology and Sustainable Development, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
2
Department of Natural Products, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2023, 11(11), 3194; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11113194
Submission received: 30 July 2023 / Revised: 3 October 2023 / Accepted: 4 October 2023 / Published: 8 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Process Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Jackfruit seed flour (JSF) and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) are utilized from agricultural by-products to take advantage of abundant raw materials. In this study, JSF and JSS were utilized to replace wheat flour in cookie products at various ratios of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, and we assessed their effect cookies on nutritional quality, physicochemical properties, and sensory evaluation of the product. The results showed that JSF and JSS demonstrated significant potential in various cookie recipes. Jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSFCs), in particular, stood out due to their high nutritional content and exceptional physicochemical properties. On the other hand, results from sensory evaluation of jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSSCs) revealed they had a similar taste to wheat flour cookies (CCs) and were highly favored by participants. Notably, JSFCs exhibited a high fiber content of 4.67%, which indicates that JSF could provide numerous health benefits. Furthermore, JSFCs exhibited significantly higher polyphenol content and DPPH radical scavenging activity than JSSCs. The morphological properties of cookies and flours varied considerably among the products. This study supports sustainability by promoting eco-friendly ingredients, reducing the environmental impact compared to wheat flour. It also benefits local economies by repurposing overlooked jackfruit seeds as valuable raw materials, thus minimizing waste.

1. Introduction

Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) is native to the Western Ghats of India, Malaysia, and also found in other regions including central and eastern Africa, southeastern Asia, the Caribbean, Florida, Brazil, Australia, Puerto Rico, and various Pacific Islands [1]. Jackfruit seed contains a high nutritional content, due to the presence of starch (approximately 22%), fiber (3.19%), polyphenols, and prebiotic compounds. Studies have indicated that jackfruit seeds are able to regulate blood sugar levels and curb appetite, contributing significantly to weight loss [2]. Additionally, jackfruit seed has been recognized for its anti-inflammatory properties, oxidative stress alleviation, digestion support, and cognitive enhancement [3,4]. The compositions of JSS and JSF are different due to variations in the manufacturing processes. While JSF has a richer fiber content than JSS, the latter possesses a significantly higher starch content. Despite their distinct compositions, both flours exhibit excellent potential when being incorporated into cookie recipes.
Cookies, which originate from European countries, have evolved into a beloved treat worldwide [5,6]. Cookies are made from a combination of butter, sugar, flour, and eggs, with a subtly sweet flavor and various shapes, consumed as daily snacks and given as gifts [7]. While traditional European cookies tend to be round, thin, and crispy, manufacturers from other parts of the world have introduced distinctive shapes and designs to their cookies. Many studies have incorporated different flours when making cookies to enhance their nutritional and sensory qualities. Agustin et al., (2022) improved the antioxidant activity and organoleptic properties of the final product by adding 10% defatted sesame flour to cookies [8]. Meanwhile, Hoang et al., (2022) used enzyme-treated corncod flour in cookies, resulting in low hardness and high sensory preference [9]. The presence of 50.22% black soybean flour in cookies also increased the potential for large-scale production [10]. However, the potential of combining jackfruit seed flour with jackfruit seed starch in cookie recipes has been little explored.
Based on the statistical report from the Crop Production Department (the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam) in 2018, the cultivation area of Thai jackfruit in Vietnam spans 26,174 hectares, yielding 307,534 tons. This significant quantity of discarded jackfruit seeds highlights the environmental impact and the wastage of valuable raw materials. Incorporating jackfruit seed flour and starch into cookies presents a potential solution. Utilizing JSS as a substitute for flour can contribute to reducing gluten intake in the diet, thereby lowering the risk of digestive issues and other health-related concerns [11]. With its remarkable nutritional value, particularly in terms of fiber content, JSF holds great potential as a promising health-enhancing product.
Traditional cookies, while cherished for their classic flavors and textures, often possess certain inherent limitations in terms of nutritional value and sustainability [5]. These limitations stem primarily from the predominant use of wheat flour in standard recipes. However, a paradigm shift is underway in the world of baking, where the incorporation of innovative ingredients holds the promise of addressing these weaknesses. The integration of JSF and JSS into cookie recipes offers a compelling solution to the shortcomings of traditional cookies. These innovative ingredients present a range of advantages. The inclusion of JSF and JSS diversifies the ingredient matrix of cookies, introducing unique flavor notes and textural attributes. The nutty undertones of jackfruit-seed-based cookies offer a departure from the uniform taste of traditional cookies, appealing to those seeking novel culinary experiences. Moreover, the use of jackfruit seeds, often discarded as waste, contributes to waste reduction and resource optimization. This sustainable approach aligns with global efforts to minimize food waste and maximize the utilization of available resources, thereby reducing the environmental impact of cookie production.
This research set out with two primary objectives: firstly, to investigate the influence of the substitution ratio of JSF and JSS in cookie recipes; secondly, to compare the nutritional, physicochemical, and morphological properties of JSFCs and JSSCs at the optimal substitution ratio. Various analytical methods were employed to assess these properties throughout the study, thereby providing valuable insights into the impact of JSF and JSS substitution on cookie quality and potential applications in the food industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Jackfruit seeds were purchased at Thu Duc agricultural wholesale market (Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam). The production process of JSF followed that use in the previous study by Eke-Ejiofor et al., (2014) with slight modifications [12], and JSS was extracted following the method described by Sarkar et al., (2021) [13]. Wheat flour (number 13, Bakers’ Choice, Interflour, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam), unsalted butter (Cai Lan, Calofic, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam), salt (Muoi tinh say, Sosal Group, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam), sugar (baking sugar, TTC Bien Hoa, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam), eggs (Ba Huan, Ba Huan company, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam), vanilla essence (Rayner’s, Rayner Group, West Sussex, UK), milk powder (Nzmp, Fonterra, Auckland, New Zealand), and baking powder (Bio Baker, Bioganic, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam) were purchased at a local supermarket (Thu Duc City, Vietnam).

2.2. The Cookie Preparation

The processing cake recipe was sourced from Shafi et al., with slight modifications [14]. Firstly, unsalted butter was allowed to cool at room temperature for 15 min and mixed with sugar and salt in a blending machine (SM-1511, SGE, Singapore City, Singapore) for 5 min. Then, eggs, milk powder, baking powder, and vanilla essence were added and mixed for 1 min. Next, the combinations of wheat flour and JSF or JSS at the rates of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% were added and mixed well. Control cookies were prepared with 100% wheat flour. The doughs were rolled out to a thickness of 5 mm and cut into rounds with a diameter of 5 cm. The cookies were then baked at 170 °C for 22 min. After the cookies had completely cooled, they were packed in aluminum-coated plastic bags and stored at room temperature (29–31 °C).

2.3. Analysis Method

2.3.1. Nutrition

Moisture, protein, lipid, ash, and fiber contents were determined using the method described in AOAC (2005) [15]. The total carbohydrate content was determined via the method proposed by Soares et al., (2018). This was achieved by taking 100% from the sum of moisture, protein, lipids, and ash percentages [16].

2.3.2. Physical Properties

The diameter and thickness of the cookies were measured by using an electronic ruler [17]. The spread ratio of the cookies was determined using the formula specified in AOAC (2005) [15].
S p r e a d   r a t i o = d i a m e t e r   c m t h i c k n e s s   c m

2.3.3. Color Attributes

Color change was measured using a colorimeter (CR-400, Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan). The tristimulus values were automatically calculated from the spectrum by means of a computer program. Results were expressed in the CIE L* (lightness, color transition from dark to light), a* (red-green intensity), and b* (yellow-blue intensity) color space parameters [18]. The color difference (ΔE*) was calculated as follows:
Δ E = L * 2 − L * 1 2 + a * 2 − a * 1 2 + b * 2 − b * 1 2

2.3.4. Water Activity

The water activity of the samples was determined using a water activity meter (Ms1 AW, Novasina, Lanchen, Switzerland). Each water activity measurement represented the average value of three replicates [19].

2.3.5. Oil Holding Capacity and Water Holding Capacity

The oil holding capacity described by Wang et al., (2019) was slightly modified. Firstly, 1 g of the product (M0) was placed into a 100 mL glass beaker. Then, 75 mL of oil was added and stirred for 24 h. Subsequently, the solution was centrifuged at a speed of 3000 rpm for 15 min. The upper floating liquid was removed, and the weight of the sediment (M1) was recorded [20]. The OHC was calculated as follows:
O H C   g / g = M 1 − M 0 M 0
The water holding capacity was determined using the method of Wang et al., (2019). Firstly, 1 g (M0) of the product was placed into a 100 mL glass beaker. Then, 75 mL of distilled water was added and stirred for 24 h. Subsequently, the solution was centrifuged at a speed of 3000 rpm for 15 min. The upper floating liquid was removed, and the weight of the sediment (M1) was recorded [20]. The WHC was calculated as follows:
W H C   g / g = M 1 − M 0 M 0

2.3.6. Hardness

The hardness was measured by using a Texture analyzer (TA.XT Plus, Stable Microsystem, Surrey, UK) [21].

2.3.7. Peroxide Value

The peroxide value was determined using the iodometric titration method of Denisa et al., (2019). Two Erlenmeyer flasks of 250 mL capacity were prepared, and 5 g of fat extracted from the cookies sample was weighed into the first Erlen flask. Then, 30 mL of acetic acid solution and 20 mL of chloroform (v/v) solution were added to each flask, and they were evenly mixed. One milliliter of saturated KI solution was added, and the flasks were shaken well and left in place for up to 10 min. Then, 20 mL of distilled water and 1 mL of 1% starch solution were added to each flask and mixed evenly. The mixture was titrated with 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate solution until the blue color disappeared [22].
P V   m e q   O 2 / k g = ( V m − V B ) × N × 1000 m
where:
PV: peroxide value expressed in meq O2/kg.
Vm: consumption of sodium thiosulfate solution in the main test (mL).
VB: consumption of sodium thiosulfate solution in the blank test (mL).
N: molar concentration (molarity) of the sodium thiosulfate solution (mol/L).
m: weight of the substance measured (g).
1000: conversion factor from g to kg.

2.3.8. Total Polyphenol Content (TPC)

The method here followed that in the previous study by Lim et al., (2007). The combination of 0.3 mL of extract and 1.5 mL of 10% Folin–Ciocalteu was shaken in a test tube. The mixture was left to stand for 5 min in the dark. Then, 1.2 mL of 7.5% Na2CO3 was added to the mixture and shaken well. The sample was tested for optical density at 765 nm after 30 min of reaction at room temperature (23–25 °C) in the dark using a UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Evolution 60S, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The sample’s TPC was given as mg of gallic acid equivalent per 100 g of dry matter [23].
T P C m g / 100   g   D M = y − b × V × d f × 100 a × m × 100 % − M C % × 1000
where:
TPC: total polyphenol content (mg/100 g DM).
y: optical density value of the analyzed sample.
a, b: coefficients in the gallic acid standard curve equation.
V: sample extract volume (mL).
df: dilution factor.
m: weight of sample (g).
100/1000: conversion factor from µg/g to mg/100 g.
MC: moisture content of the sample (%).

2.3.9. DPPH Radical Scavenging Activity

The 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging method was employed to dilute the sample to an appropriate concentration range. A volume of 0.5 mL of the diluted sample was drawn into the test tube. The control sample was substituted with ethanol (99.5%). Subsequently, 1.5 mL of DPPH solution (OD517 nm = 1.1 ± 0.02) was drawn into the test tube and kept in darkness for 30 min. The optical absorbance at 517 nm was measured using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) was used as the standard for comparison [24].
D P P H   m g / 100   g   D M = y − b × V × d f × 100 a × m × 100 % − M C % × 1000  
where:
DPPH: DPPH radical scavenging activity (mg/100 g DM).
y: optical density value of the analyzed sample.
a, b: coefficients in the gallic acid standard curve equation.
V: sample extract volume (mL).
df: dilution factor.
m: weight of sample (g).
100/1000: conversion factor from µg/g to mg/100 g.
MC: moisture content of the sample (%).

2.3.10. Sensory Evaluation

The method here was sourced from Ha et al., (2010) and TCVN 3215:1979. The samples were evaluated through a taste evaluation test with a scale with 6 levels and 5 points (scores ranging from 0 to 5). A score of 0 indicated a damaged product, scores from 1 to 5 represented decreasing levels of defects, and a score of 5 indicated the highest-quality product. The observer refrained from consuming any food for 30 min prior to testing the samples. The samples were presented in white glasses, with each sample assigned a unique 3-digit number. After every sample test, the evaluator used filtered water to cleanse their palate. Thirty trained evaluators majoring in university studies offered their sensory perceptions of the samples [25,26].

2.3.11. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

The flours and cookies were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (S4800, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) under an acceleration voltage of 10 kV at magnifications of 500 and 2000 [27].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were collected and analyzed using ANOVA and Fisher’s multiple range, and p < 0.05 was regarded as significantly different. The data were analyzed using Statgraphics software (version 18, Statgraphics Technologies, Inc., The Plains, VA, USA) and were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Substitution Ratios of Jackfruit Seed Flour or Jackfruit Seed Starch on Cookie Quality

3.1.1. Physical Properties

The diameter, thickness, and spread ratio are the physical parameters used to assess the suitability of ingredients for cookies. Table 1 presents the diameter, thickness, and spread ratio of JSFCs and JSSCs at substitution rates of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. The thickness of JSSCs and JSFCs ranged from 3.87 to 3.93 mm. As the ratio of JSS replacement increased, the diameter and spread ratio of JSSCs tended to increase. On the other hand, as the replacement rate of JSF increased, the diameter and spread ratio of JSFCs tended to decrease. The spread ratio of JSSCs was significantly higher than those of the CC and JSFC samples. The high water absorption property of JSS made the flour mixture in JSSCs more viscous and pliable. During baking, the temperature increased, resulting in gelatinization of the JSS in the cookies. Gelatinization occurred when starch absorbed water and the glucose chains in the starch started to break down, forming a gelatin network. Simultaneously, as the cookies baked, the temperature inside increased, causing the water in the dough to turn into steam. The resulting steam pressure created air pores in the cookies, contributing to their expansion [28]. The spread ratio of JSFCs tended to decrease as the JSF replacement rate increased, which was attributed to JSFCs’ ability to form polymer networks [29]. Research conducted by Oluwamukomi et al., (2012). indicated that the addition of cassava flour at increasing ratios of 10%, 20%, and 30% in cookie products led to an increase in spread ratio from 1.6 to 1.64 [5]. Conversely, Mridula and Camino (2015) demonstrated that increasing the substitution rate of sorghum and soybean flour resulted in a significant decrease in the baking spread ratio of cookies [23].

3.1.2. Color Attributes

The color reflects an external characteristic of cookies, contributing to a product’s identity is presented in Figure 1. Table 2 describes the color indexes L*, a*, and b* of JSSCs and JSFCs at several substitution ratios of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. The L* and b* values decreased, and a* increased as the ratio of JSS and JSF increased. At the replacement ratios of 10%, 20%, and 30% JSS, the L* and b* indexes of JSSC were not significantly different from those of CCs (p > 0.05). However, substituting 40% of JSS in the cookies led to a significant decrease in L* and b* values. In contrast, L* and b* indexes of JSFCs decreased markedly when the JSF replacement ratio increased. This could be explained by the dark brown color and high polyphenol content in JSF, which altered the L* and b* values of JSFCs [30]. The increase in ΔE index with the increase in JSS and JSF replacement ratios reflected the color difference between JSFCs/JSSCs and CCs. At the replacement ratio of 30% JSF and 30% JSS, the ΔE index was significantly different from the 10% and 40% replacement ratios but not significantly different from the 20% replacement ratio at the 95% confidence level. The ΔE color difference of JSFCs was markedly higher than that of JSSCs. Studies conducted by Bolarinwa et al., (2019), Shazia et al., (2014), and Gianluca et al., (2018) noted that increasing the content of potato starch, sweet potato flour, and alfalfa seed flour in cookies led to a significant decrease in brightness (L*) and yellowness (b*) compared to traditional cookies [31,32,33]. Augustin et al., (2022) also reported a decrease in L* from 28.38 to 24.23, but the value of a* varied between 6.38 and 7.06 [8].

3.1.3. Physicochemical Properties

Table 3 presents the physicochemical properties of JSSCs and JSFCs at various substitution ratios. Moisture content and water activity are critical parameters for predicting microbial growth and product stability in cookies [34]. The MC of both JSSCs and JSFCs ranged from 2.06% to 2.80%, which fell below the threshold of 4% according to TCVN 5909:1995. The water activity levels in all types of cookies were within the range of 0.33 to 0.36, which was lower than the minimum water activity of 0.60 required for microbial growth [35]. The MC and water activity of JSSCs and JSFCs were not significantly different from CCs. This could be attributed to the fact that all sampled cookies were baked under the same time and temperature conditions, resulting in similar MC and water activity. The substitution of wheat flour with JSS and JSF at ratios of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% did not significantly affect the MC and water activity of cookies (p > 0.05). Studies conducted by Simone et al., (2015), Moneera et al., (2022), and Cinu et al., (2022) reported similar MC and water activity values for tapioca cookies (2.97%, 0.30), alfalfa seed flour cookies (3.32%, 0.36), and wheat cookies (0.32 and 4.14%), respectively [6,30,36]. However, the results obtained in this study were higher than those reported by Libor et al., (2006), who found a moisture content and water activity of 1.98% and 0.25, respectively [37].
Polyphenols are among the primary compounds of interest derived from plants due to their numerous beneficial biological activities for human health, including antioxidant properties, anti-inflammatory abilities, cancer prevention, and cardiovascular-disease-related benefits [33]. The TPC in cookies gradually decreased with in the increasing substitution ratio of JSS. The TPC decreased by 34.13 mgGAE/100 g DM, 33.73 mgGAE/100 g DM, 32.90 mgGAE/100 g DM, and 29.60 mgGAE/100 g DM, respectively, with each 10% increment in the JSS replacement ratio from 10% to 40%. This decline could be attributed to the TPC in specific parts of the plant, such as the bark, seeds, leaves, or fruit. Jackfruit seeds were abundant in polyphenols, mainly located in the seed coat. Removing the seed coat during starch processing led to a reduction in the TPC of JSS. In contrast, an increase in the addition ratio of JSF to cookies resulted in high TPC. The highest TPC of JSFCs (102.04 mgGAE/100 g DM) was observed at the 40% substitution ratio, while the lowest content (34.61 mgGAE/100 g DM) was at the 10% replacement ratio. JSF contained various groups of polyphenols, such as flavonoids, phenolic acids, proanthocyanins, and catechins, which were abundant in the seed coat [38]. Hence, increasing the mixing ratio of JSF in cookies enhanced the product’s TPC. Overall, at different substitution ratios, JSFCs exhibited a significantly higher TPC than JSSCs and CCs. A study by Antonios et al., (2017) investigating the effect of substituting rye flour in cookies at ratios of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% showed that higher rye flour substitution led to an increasing trend in TPC, peaking at 53 mgGAE/100 g DM at a 40% substitution ratio [39]. Similarly, Tran et al., (2021) indicated that gradually adding 5–25% coffee grounds to cookie products resulted in a progressive increase in TPC from 204 mgGAE/100 g DM to 678 mgGAE/100 g DM [40]. In contrast, Chinedum et al., (2014) recorded that as the replacement ratio of tapioca flour increased from 10% to 40%, the TPC in bread decreased from 16.35 mgGAE/100 g DM to 3.37 mgGAE/100 g DM [41].
The antioxidant capacity of cookies was assessed using a DPPH assay. As the rate of JSS substitution in the cookie products increased, the DPPH radical scavenging activity was reduced. The highest DPPH radical scavenging activity for JSSCs (11.64 mgAAE/100 g DM) was observed at the 10% substitution ratio, while the lowest (10.35 mgAAE/100 g DM) was at the 40% substitution ratio. Conversely, with each increment in the JSF substitution ratio in cookies (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%), the DPPH radical scavenging activity of JSFCs tended to increase, at a value of 11.87 mgAAE/100 g DM, 12.16 mgAAE/100 g DM, 12.58 mgAAE/100 g DM, and 13.20 mgAAE/100 g DM, respectively. The DPPH radical scavenging activity of both JSSCs and JSFCs at 30% was different from 10% and 40% but not significantly different from 20% (p > 0.05). The changes in DPPH radical scavenging activity due to the addition of JSF and JSS were related to the TPC in cookies [42]. A study by Tran et al., (2021) reported that DPPH radical scavenging activity increased gradually from 140 mgAAE/100 g DM to 3813 mgAAE/100 g DM when the addition rate of 5–25% coffee grounds to cookie products was increased [40]. These findings were similar to the results obtained by Antonios et al., (2017), where the DPPH radical scavenging activity increased from 17.55 mgAAE/100 g DM to 24.68 mgAAE/100 g DM with an increase in the rye replacement ratio from 10% to 40% [39]. Moreover, Chinedum et al., (2014) investigated the addition of cassava flour to cookies at ratios of 5%, 10%, and 15%, showing that increasing the addition ratio from 5% to 15% reduced the DPPH radical scavenging activity for cookies from 87.10 to 75 mgAAE/100 g DM [41].

3.1.4. Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation was conducted to assess the cookies’ suitability for consumer tastes. Table 4 presents the impact of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% JSS and JSF addition ratios on the cookies’ sensory quality. For JSSCs, the texture, color, and odor sensory scores tended to decrease as the JSS substitution ratio increased. The highest sensory scores for texture, color, and odor at the 10% substitution ratio were 4.00, 3.80, and 3.43, respectively, while the lowest scores at the 40% substitution ratio were 3.50, 2.53, and 3.23, respectively. However, the taste of cookies did not show a clear trend, with the highest sensory score (3.43) at the 30% substitution ratio. General acceptability represented the most comprehensive assessment of sensory quality, with the overall acceptability score being the highest at the 10% substitution ratio and the lowest at the 40% substitution ratio. For JSFCs, the texture and color sensory scores also tended to decrease as the JSF replacement ratio increased. The highest sensory scores for texture and color at the 10% substitution ratio were 3.67 and 3.83, respectively, while the lowest scores at the 40% substitution ratio were 2.90 and 2.07, respectively. However, there was no significant trend in the odor and taste scores, with 20% having the highest odor score and 30% having the highest taste preference. The JSFCs at the 10% replacement ratio received the highest overall acceptance score of 3.48, while the 40% ratio received the lowest overall acceptance score of 2.43. At the 30% substitution ratio, no significant differences were observed compared to 10%, 20%, and 30% (p > 0.05), yet it was significantly different from 40% at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05). In general, the overall acceptability of JSSCs was higher than that of JSFCs but lower than that of CCs. Based on the obtained results, selecting an appropriate ratio depended on various factors, but primarily the overall acceptability score as perceived by the evaluators. The research aimed to determine the maximum ratio of JSS and JSF that would meet consumer tastes. The 40% JSF replacement ratio, despite its high nutritional content, did not satisfy the sensory scores and thus was not selected in the study. The 30% JSF replacement ratio was deemed the best ratio that met both nutritional composition and sensory requirements. Similarly, for JSSCs, the 30% replacement ratio did not differ significantly in nutritional composition and sensory scores compared to the 10% and 20% ratios. However, the results for the 40% JSS replacement ratio showed considerable differences from the other ratios and meant 40% was excluded from further consideration. The research goal was to maximize the replacement of JSS and JSF in cookies. Consequently, for both types of cookies, the 30% ratio was evaluated as a promising substitute for wheat flour in this study.

3.2. Comparison of Jackfruit Seed Starch Cookies and Jackfruit Seed Flour Cookies

Both JSFCs and JSSCs at a 30% substitution ratio were chosen to be compared with CCs (cookies made from 100% wheat flour). The selection for comparison was based on achieving a 30% replacement ratio in both JSSCs and JSFCs, as they exhibited comparable physicochemical compositions and received high sensory scores. The nutritional composition, physicochemical properties, and sensory evaluation were selected as the main criteria.

3.2.1. Nutrition

Table 5 presents the nutritional contents of JSSCs and JSFCs compared to CCs. Protein, along with carbohydrates and lipids, is an important nutrient essential for baked products, contributing to structure, nutrition, plasticity, elasticity, and the characteristic color and flavor of cookies after baking [43]. The protein contents of CCs, JSFCs, and JSSCs were 8.92%, 8.74%, and 7.69%, respectively, all exceeding the 3.70% requirement according to TCVN 5909:1995. JSFCs exhibited a relatively high protein content, nearly identical to CCs, indicating the contribution of JSF to the product’s protein content. This result aligns with Hasan et al., (2010), who reported JSFC protein content ranging from 5.48% to 8.63% [44], and Amit et al., (2014), who reported soy flour cookies with protein content ranging from 6.10% to 10% [45], but lower than Atinuke et al., (2014), who reported yam flour cookies with protein content ranging from 12.60% to 14.71% [46]. The fat content in foods plays a crucial role in providing energy, enhancing taste, and facilitating the absorption of vitamins and nutrients in the body [47]. CCs, JSSCs, and JSFCs exhibited fat contents of 22.33%, 22.37%, and 21.75%, respectively, all exceeding 20% in accordance with TCVN 5909–1995. These results were higher than Hasan et al., (2010), who reported jackfruit seed flour cookies with fat content ranging from 11.62% to 12.50% [44], and similar to Florence et al., (2020), who reported fat contents with wheat flour, unripe plantain flour, and pumpkin seed flour ranging from 18.73% to 22.67% [48]. Ash content plays an important role in providing minerals and trace elements to the body. The ash contents of CCs, JSSCs, and JSFCs were 0.94%, 0.89%, and 1.67%, respectively, with JSFCs exhibiting significantly higher ash content than the other two cookies. These differences in total ash content may reflect the use of different flours in cookie production. This result was similar to Hasan et al., (2010), who reported fiber contents in jackfruit seed flour cookies ranging from 1.02% to 1.85% [44], but lower than Idowu et al., (2014), who reported total ash contents in cookies made from wheat flour and yam flour at 1.37% and 2.42%, respectively [46]. Fiber, including cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and soluble fiber, is a crucial component of plant-based foods. The fiber content was highest (4.67%) in JSFCs and lowest (2.00%) in JSSCs. JSFCs demonstrated a higher nutritional benefit in providing fiber to the body compared to CCs and JSSC. Fiber plays an essential role in maintaining digestive function, supporting gut health, and reducing the risk of disease. Therefore, JSFCs may be a better choice for individuals interested in increasing their dietary fiber intake. Narsing et al., (2017) reported fiber contents in wheat flour cookies and spinach flour cookies at 0.89% and 2.87%, respectively [35]. Carbohydrates are a crucial group of substances providing the main energy source for the body [49]. The carbohydrate contents in CCs, JSSCs, and JSFCs were 68.37%, 69.07%, and 67.20%, respectively, showing similar levels among all three cookies.

3.2.2. Physicochemical Properties and Chemical Composition

Table 6 presents the physicochemical properties and chemical compositions of JSSCs and JSFCs compared to CCs. Overall, all three types of cookies exhibited relatively low moisture content and water activity, ranging from 2.35% to 2.80% and 0.33 to 0.35, respectively. Water holding capacity (WHC), which indicates the ability to retain moisture and maintain stable moisture and texture, was the highest in CCs (1.64 g/g), followed by JSSCs (1.53 g/g) and then JSFCs (1.45 g/g). The lower WHC in JSSCs and JSFCs compared to CCs can be attributed to the absence of gluten in JSF and JSS, as gluten in wheat flour can form an elastic network that retains water and prevents water loss [50]. These results aligned with Camino et al., (2016), who reported WHCs of wheat flour cookies supplemented with rice flour ranging from 0.93 to 2.01 g/g [51], and were lower than those reported by Florence et al., (2020), who investigated the effect of adding banana peel flour and pumpkin seed flour to cookies, resulting in WHCs ranging from 2.12 to 4.29 g/g [48]. Oil holding capacity (OHC), which affects texture, crispiness, and shelf life of cookies, was similar in JSFCs (1.72 g/g) and CCs (1.76 g/g), while JSSCs exhibited lower OHC (1.36 g/g). These results were similar to Camino et al., (2016), who reported OHCs of cookies supplemented with rice flour ranging from 1.82 to 1.96 g/g [51], and were higher than those reported by Florence et al., (2020), who investigated the effect of adding banana peel flour and pumpkin seed flour to cookies, resulting in OHCs ranging from 0.09 to 1.10 g/g [48]. Color directly influenced the sensory quality of cookies. The L* and b* values of JSSCs were similar to those of CCs but significantly different from those of JSFCs. JSSCs exhibited the characteristic yellow color of traditional products, while JSFCs had the characteristic brown color of products made from new raw materials. The peroxide value, an indicator of fat rancidity and the degree of primary lipid oxidation, ranged from 0.73 meq O2/kg to 0.80 meq O2/kg in the cookies, in accordance with TCVN 12940:2020 on peroxide content in baked products (less than 20 meq O2/kg). JSFCs exhibited a lower peroxide index, while JSSCs had a higher value than CCs. However, in general, the peroxide values of all three types of cookies were not significantly different at the 95% confidence level (p > 0.05).
Hardness is a crucial quality attribute that impacts the texture of cookies. The protein and fiber contents of the ingredients are believed to influence the firmness and textural properties of cookies [52]. The hardness values for CCs, JSSCs, and JSFCs were 3.27 N, 3.72 N, and 5.8 N, respectively. In general, JSFCs exhibited greater hardness than CCs and JSSCs, which can be attributed to their higher protein and fiber contents. The obtained results were lower than those in the study by Dipika et al., (2015), which recorded the hardness of cookies supplemented with cereal flour ranging from 15.05 N to 17.22 N [53]. Similarly, they were lower than the study by Pravin et al., (2022), which noted that the hardness of cookies supplemented with corn flour, rice flour, and soybean flour ranged from 33.91 N to 47.54 N [54].
Polyphenols are regarded as one of the paramount bioactive groups in the human diet. They possess potent antioxidant capabilities, and various clinical studies in epidemiology and nutrition have provided evidence supporting their health-promoting properties [55]. JSFCs had the highest TPC of 81.40 mg GAE/100 g DM, while CCs and JSSCs had similar TPCs at 34.42 mgGAE/100 g DM and 32.94 mgGAE/100 g DM, respectively. These results indicated that JSFCs had a greater ability to provide polyphenol compared to wheat flour and JSS. The obtained results were similar to the study by Antonios et al., (2017), which recorded the polyphenol content in rye flour as 53 mgGAE/100 g DM [39], and lower than the study by Tran et al., (2021), which recorded the polyphenol contents in coffee grounds cookies ranging from 204 mgGAE/100 g DM to 678 mgGAE/100 g DM [40]. The DPPH radical scavenging activities of CCs, JSSCs, and JSFCs were 11.70 mgAAE/100 g DM, 10.57 mgAAE/100 g DM, and 12.58 mgAAE/100 g DM, respectively. Similar to the polyphenol content, the DPPH radical scavenging activity of JSFCs was also higher than those of CCs and JSSCs, indicating a positive correlation between TPC and DPPH radical scavenging activity. The results obtained were lower than the studies by Chinedum et al., (2014), Vaishnavi et al., (2017), and Marijana et al., (2011), which recorded the DPPH radical scavenging activities of cassava flour, jackfruit seed flour, and buckwheat flour as 87.10, 50–250, and 126 mgAAE/100 g DM, respectively [41,56,57].

3.2.3. Sensory Evaluation

Table 7 displays the sensory attributes of texture, color, smell, and taste of JSSCs and JSFCs compared to CCs. Sensory evaluation played a pivotal role in quality assessment as it is important for meeting consumer preferences. JSSCs scored highest in texture and color with scores of 4.20 and 4.07, respectively, and closely resembled CCs. On the other hand, JSFCs were favored for smell and taste with sensory scores of 3.40 and 3.57, respectively, compared to JSSCs. Overall, JSSCs had a higher overall acceptability score than JSFCs. JSSCs’ similarity in color and taste to CCs made it well-received by consumers, while JSFCs, being a new product with distinct colors and flavors, require time for consumers to adapt their preferences. JSSCs (traditional product) and JSFCs (new product) offer two distinct choices to meet the diverse demands of the cookie market. Hence, the selection of cookies may depend on their intended use, individual preferences, the local culture, and personal health.

3.2.4. Morphological Properties

Scanning electron microscopy is a microscopic analysis method used for observing and surveying the surface of a sample at high magnification. SEM microanalysis utilizes an electron beam to scan the sample surface and gather information on the shape, structure, size, and distribution of samples [58]. The microstructures of flour and cookies are depicted in Figure 2. JSS exhibited a predominant semi-oval and bell shape (Figure 2B). The smooth surface was akin to potato starch but differed in shape and size [59]. JSS beads had a characteristic flat surface, indicating the influence of heat treatment on the grain’s microstructure. Figure 2C shows that JSF contained starch and a protein matrix with broken cell walls after roasting. Wheat flour was slightly spherical with a structure similar to JSF (Figure 2A). The surface structure of flours indicated the microstructure of the resulting cookies from these flours. The longitudinal section of a JSSC (Figure 2E) revealed clusters of starch granules in the protein matrix. The structure possessed small and evenly distributed pores, resulting in a relatively soft cake texture and low cake stiffness [60]. For CC (Figure 2D), the cake structure contained fewer small pores, similar to the JSSC. However, incorporating JSF into the cookies increased their fiber content, causing the protein matrix’s continuity to be disrupted by the fiber, leading to the appearance of larger pores (Figure 2F). The formation of larger and deeper pores was due to the expansion of air bubbles and the release of air during baking [10]. This result aligned with the findings of Liping Yang et al., (2022), Dachana et al., (2010), and Dan Xu et al., (2020) in cookies combined with soybean flour [10], moringa leaf flour [61], and potato flour [27], respectively.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the effect of replacing JSF and JSS at different ratios on the nutrition, physicochemical, and sensory evaluation properties of cookies. Experiments showed that the best of those tested was 30% of JSF or JSS in the cookie recipes. The moisture content, water activity, TPC, DPPH radical scavenging activity, and overall acceptability score of JSFCs at the 30% substitution ratio were 2.35%, 0.34, 81.40 mgGAE/100 g DM, 12.58 mgAAE/100 g DM, and 3.42, respectively. On the other hand, the parameters of moisture content, water activity, TPC, DPPH radical scavenging activity, and overall acceptability score of JSSCs at the 30% substitution ratio were 2.80%, 0.35, 32.94 mgGAE/100 g DM, 10.57 mgAAE/100 g DM, and 3.52, respectively. The greater hardness of JSFCs (5.80 N) than JSSCs (3.72 N) can be attributed to the disparity in fiber content between the two types of cookies. The morphological characteristics of the cookies confirmed the physical difference in the two variants. The exploration of jackfruit seeds as a cookie ingredient is of utmost importance to address the market’s demands. Both JSF and JSS offer gluten-free health benefits that are promising to diversify the sweets market in the future. This finding contributes to environmental sustainability by mitigating adverse impacts, and fosters the development of cookie products with elevated nutritional profiles and distinctive sensory attributes, thus aligning with the demands and preferences of the market and consumers. For future research, we recommend exploring the scalability of using JSF or JSS in larger-scale baking processes and assessing their economic viability for commercial production. Further investigations into potential variations in sensory preferences among different consumer groups and the development of innovative recipes incorporating jackfruit seed flour would also contribute to expanding their utilization in the baking industry.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, C.K.V.; data curation, Q.B.H. and C.K.V.; formal analysis, C.K.V. and T.H.N.; conceptualization, C.K.V. and T.T.N.H.N.; methodology, C.K.V. and P.T.N.N.; investigation, T.H.N. and T.T.T.; writing—review and editing, C.K.V., Q.B.H. and T.H.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Youth Incubator for Science and Technology Programme, managed by the Youth Promotion Science and Technology Center of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union and by the Department of Science and Technology of Ho Chi Minh City (contract number 21/2022/HĐ-KHCNT-VU, signed on 30 December 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Prakash, O.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, A.; Gupta, R. Review Article Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit): An Overview. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2009, 3, 353–358. [Google Scholar]
  2. Trejo Rodríguez, I.S.; Alcántara Quintana, L.E.; Algara Suarez, P.; Ruiz Cabrera, M.A.; Grajales Lagunes, A. Physicochemical Properties, Antioxidant Capacity, Prebiotic Activity and Anticancer Potential in Human Cells of Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) Seed Flour. Molecules 2021, 26, 4854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aware, C.; Patil, R.; Gaikwad, S.; Yadav, S.; Bapat, V.; Jadhav, J. Evaluation of L-Dopa, Proximate Composition with In Vitro Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Activity of Mucuna macrocarpa Beans: A Future Drug for Parkinson Treatment. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2017, 7, 1097–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baliga, M.S.; Shivashankara, A.R.; Haniadka, R.; Dsouza, J.; Bhat, H.P. Phytochemistry, Nutritional and Pharmacological Properties of Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam (Jackfruit): A Review. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1800–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oluwamukomi, M.O.; Oluwalana, I.B.; Akinbowale, O.F. Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Wheat-Cassava Composite Biscuit Enriched with Soy Flour. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2011, 5, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
  6. Montes, S.d.S.; Rodrigues, L.M.; Cardoso, R.d.C.V.; Camilloto, G.P.; Cruz, R.S. Tapioca and Rice Flour Cookies: Technological, Nutritional and Sensory Properties. Ciênc. Agrotecnol. 2015, 39, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, Y. Advanced Properties of Gluten-Free Cookies, Cakes, and Crackers: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lucini Mas, A.; Brigante, F.I.; Salvucci, E.; Ribotta, P.; Martinez, M.L.; Wunderlin, D.A.; Baroni, M.V. Novel Cookie Formulation with Defatted Sesame Flour: Evaluation of Its Technological and Sensory Properties. Changes in Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant Activity, and Gut Microbiota after Simulated Gastrointestinal Digestion. Food Chem. 2022, 389, 133122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hoang, N.H.; Do, H.H.; Dang, T.H.Y.; Ton, N.M.N.; Tran, T.T.T.; Le, V.V.M. Fiber-Enriched Biscuits Prepared with Enzyme-Treated Corncob Powder: Nutritional Composition, Physical Properties, and Sensory Acceptability. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, H.; Guo, L.; Zheng, S.; Du, C. Effect of Black Soybean Flour Particle Size on the Nutritional, Texture and Physicochemical Characteristics of Cookies. LWT 2022, 164, 113649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carpentieri, S.; Larrea-Wachtendorff, D.; Donsì, F.; Ferrari, G. Functionalization of Pasta through the Incorporation of Bioactive Compounds from Agri-Food by-Products: Fundamentals, Opportunities, and Drawbacks. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 122, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eke-Ejiofor, J.; Beleyaq, E.A.; Onyenorah, N.I. The Effect of Processing Methods on the Functional and Compositional Properties of Jackfruit Seed Flour. Int. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2014, 3, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sarkar, S.; Kumar, A.; Dey, J.K.; Dey, U. Isolation of Starches from Non-Conventional Sources of North-Eastern Region of India. Pharma Innov. 2021, 10, 1117–1119. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shafi, M.; Baba, W.N.; Masoodi, F.A.; Bazaz, R. Wheat-Water Chestnut Flour Blends: Effect of Baking on Antioxidant Properties of Cookies. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 4278–4288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Principle, A.; Apparatus, B. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL 18th Edition, 2005; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 4–5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Soares Araújo, R.R.; dos Santos Benfica, T.A.R.; Ferraz, V.P.; Moreira Santos, E. Nutritional Composition of Insects Gryllus assimilis and Zophobas morio: Potential Foods Harvested in Brazil. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2019, 76, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Suriya, M.; Rajput, R.; Reddy, C.K.; Haripriya, S.; Bashir, M. Functional and Physicochemical Characteristics of Cookies Prepared from Amorphophallus paeoniifolius Flour. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 2156–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moritsuka, N.; Kawamura, K.; Tsujimoto, Y.; Rabenarivo, M.; Andriamananjara, A.; Rakotoson, T.; Razafimbelo, T. Comparison of Visual and Instrumental Measurements of Soil Color with Different Low-Cost Colorimeters. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 65, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, W.; Xu, D.; Li, D.; Guo, L.; Su, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, F.; Xu, X. Effect of Pigskin-Originated Gelatin on Properties of Wheat Flour Dough and Bread. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 94, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, C.; Li, L.; Sun, X.; Qin, W.; Wu, D.; Hu, B.; Raheem, D.; Yang, W.; Dong, H.; Vasanthan, T.; et al. High-Speed Shearing of Soybean Flour Suspension Disintegrates the Component Cell Layers and Modifies the Hydration Properties of Okara Fibers. LWT 2019, 116, 108505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bejaei, M.; Stanich, K.; Cliff, M.A. Modelling and classification of apple textural attributes using sensory, instrumental and compositional analyses. Foods 2021, 10, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duta, D.E.; Culetu, A.; Mohan, G. Sensory and Physicochemical Changes in Gluten-Free Oat Biscuits Stored under Different Packaging and Light Conditions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 3823–3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lim, Y.Y.; Quah, E.P.L. Mridula and Camino. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miśkiewicz, K.; Nebesny, E.; Rosicka-Kaczmarek, J.; Żyżelewicz, D.; Budryn, G. The Effects of Baking Conditions on Acrylamide Content in Shortcrust Cookies with Added Freeze-Dried Aqueous Rosemary Extract. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 4184–4196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Roy, J.; Roy, S.; Ali, M.J.; Hossain, M.R.; Sarker, M.S.H. Effect of Drying Temperature on Physiochemical Properties of Powder from Blanched and Unblanched Lemon Peel and Sensory Quality Evaluation of the Powder Fortified Biscuits. J. Food Eng. Technol. 2021, 10, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tư, H.D. Kỹ Thuật Phân Tích Cảm Quan Thực Phẩm; Khoa Học Kỹ Thuật: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2009; p. 145. [Google Scholar]
  27. Xu, D.; Zhou, X.; Lei, C.; Shang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, F.; Liu, G. Development of Biscuits and Cookies Using Raw Dehydrated Potato Flour and Its Nutritional Quality and Volatile Aroma Compounds Evaluation. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baldino, N.; Gabriele, D.; Lupi, F.R.; De Cindio, B.; Cicerelli, L. Modeling of Baking Behavior of Semi-Sweet Short Dough Biscuits. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2014, 25, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saha, S.; Gupta, A.; Singh, S.R.K.; Bharti, N.; Singh, K.P.; Mahajan, V.; Gupta, H.S. Compositional and Varietal Influence of Finger Millet Flour on Rheological Properties of Dough and Quality of Biscuit. LWT 2011, 44, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aljobair, M.O. Physicochemical, Nutritional, and Sensory Quality and Storage Stability of Cookies: Effect of Clove Powder. Int. J. Food Prop. 2022, 25, 1009–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kamal, M.; Islam, M.; Aziz, M. Effect of Sweet Potato Flour of Two Local Varieties on Quality of Breads. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2014, 11, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bolarinwa, I.F.; Muhammad, K. Functional Properties, Antioxidant Activities and Storage Stability of Cookies from Germinated Brown Rice and Rice-Potato Starch Composite Flour. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2019, 42, 503–518. [Google Scholar]
  33. Giuberti, G.; Rocchetti, G.; Sigolo, S.; Fortunati, P.; Lucini, L.; Gallo, A. Exploitation of Alfalfa Seed (Medicago sativa L.) Flour into Gluten-Free Rice Cookies: Nutritional, Antioxidant and Quality Characteristics. Food Chem. 2018, 239, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pittia, P.; Antonello, P. Chapter 2—Safety by Control of Water Activity: Drying, Smoking, and Salt or Sugar Addition. In Regulating Safety of Traditional and Ethnic Foods; Prakash, V., Martín-Belloso, O., Keener, L., Astley, S., Braun, S., McMahon, H., Lelieveld, H., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 7–28. ISBN 9780128006054. [Google Scholar]
  35. Galla, N.R.; Pamidighantam, P.R.; Karakala, B.; Gurusiddaiah, M.R.; Akula, S. Nutritional, Textural and Sensory Quality of Biscuits Supplemented with Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2017, 7, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Varghese, C.; Wolodko, J.; Chen, L.; Doschak, M.; Srivastav, P.P.; Roopesh, M.S. Influence of Selected Product and Process Parameters on Microstructure, Rheological, and Textural Properties of 3D Printed Cookies. Foods 2020, 9, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Červenka, L.; Brožková, I.; Vytřasová, J. Effects of the Principal Ingredients of Biscuits upon Water Activity. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2006, 45, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  38. Xu, Y.C.; Leung, S.W.S.; Yeung, D.K.Y.; Hu, L.H.; Chen, G.H.; Che, C.M.; Man, R.Y.K. Structure-Activity Relationships of Flavonoids for Vascular Relaxation in Porcine Coronary Artery. Phytochemistry 2007, 68, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Drakos, A.; Kyriakakis, G.; Evageliou, V.; Protonotariou, S.; Mandala, I.; Ritzoulis, C. Influence of Jet Milling and Particle Size on the Composition, Physicochemical and Mechanical Properties of Barley and Rye Flours. Food Chem. 2017, 215, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tra, T.T.T.; Phúc, L.N.; Yn, V.T.N.; Sang, L.T.; Thu, N.T.A.; Nguyet, T.N.M.; Mn, L.V.V. Use of Wheat Flour and Spent Coffee Grounds in the Production of Cookies with High Fiber and Antioxidant Content: Effects of Spent Coffee Grounds Ratio on the Product Quality. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 947, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Eleazu, C.; Eleazu, K.; Aniedu, C.; Amajor, J.; Ikpeama, A.; Ebenzer, I. Effect of Partial Replacement of Wheat Flour with High Quality Cassava Flour on the Chemical Composition, Antioxidant Activity, Sensory Quality, and Microbial Quality of Bread. Prev. Nutr. Food Sci. 2014, 19, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sato, E.; Kohno, M.; Hamano, H.; Niwano, Y. Increased Anti-Oxidative Potency of Garlic by Spontaneous Short-Term Fermentation. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2006, 61, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Westerterp-Plantenga, M.S. The Significance of Protein in Food Intake and Body Weight Regulation. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2003, 6, 635–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hasan, S.M.K.; Hossain, M.A.; Hossain, M.J.; Roy, J.; Sarker, M.S.H. Preparation of Biscuit from Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) Seed Flour. Agriculturists 2010, 8, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kulthe, A.A.; Pawar, V.D.; Kotecha, P.M.; Chavan, U.D.; Bansode, V.V. Development of High Protein and Low Calorie Cookies. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Idowu, A. Development, Nutrient Composition and Sensory Properties of Biscuits Produced from Composite Flour of Wheat and African Yam Bean. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2014, 4, 1925–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schopf, M.; Scherf, K.A. Water Absorption Capacity Determines the Functionality of Vital Gluten Related to Specific Bread Volume. Foods 2021, 10, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Bello, F.A. Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Cookies Produced from Wheat, Unripe Plantain and Germinated Fluted Pumpkin Seed Composite Flour. Food Sci. Qual. Manag. 2020, 96, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cummings, J.H.; Stephen, A.M. Carbohydrate Terminology and Classification. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, S5–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Cappelli, A.; Oliva, N.; Cini, E. A Systematic Review of Gluten-Free Dough and Bread: Dough Rheology, Bread Characteristics, and Improvement Strategies. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mancebo, C.M.; Rodriguez, P.; Gómez, M. Assessing Rice Flour-Starch-Protein Mixtures to Produce Gluten Free Sugar-Snap Cookies. LWT 2016, 67, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brennan, C.S.; Samyue, E. Evaluation of Starch Degradation and Textural Characteristics of Dietary Fiber Enriched Biscuits. Int. J. Food Prop. 2004, 7, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Agrahar-Murugkar, D.; Gulati, P.; Kotwaliwale, N.; Gupta, C. Evaluation of Nutritional, Textural and Particle Size Characteristics of Dough and Biscuits Made from Composite Flours Containing Sprouted and Malted Ingredients. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 5129–5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ojha, P.; Pathak, G.; Maharjan, S.; Manandhar, U.; Maharjan, S.; Karki, R. Quality and textural properties evaluation of gluten-free biscuit developed from maize, rice, buckwheat, and soybean. Sci. Study Res. Chem. Chem. Eng. Biotechnol. Food Ind. 2022, 23, 295–305. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, H.; Tsao, R. Dietary Polyphenols, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Effects. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016, 8, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bhat, V.; Mutha, A.; Dsouza, M.R. Pharmacognostic and Physiochemical Studies of Artocarpus heterophyllus Seeds. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2017, 10, 525–536. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sakac, M.; Torbica, A.; Sedej, I.; Hadnadev, M. Influence of Breadmaking on Antioxidant Capacity of Gluten Free Breads Based on Rice and Buckwheat Flours. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 2806–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Goldstein, J.I.; Newbury, D.E.; Michael, J.R.; Ritchie, N.W.M.; Scott, J.H.J.; Joy, D.C. Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781493966745. [Google Scholar]
  59. Azeez, S.; Lasekan, O.; Jinap, S.; Sulaiman, R. Effect of Roasting Conditions on the Browning Intensity and Structural Changes in Jackfruit (Artocarpus hetrophyllus) Seeds. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 8050–8058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Baer, C.; Jaeschke, T.; Mertmann, P.; Pohl, N.; Musch, T. A MmWave Measuring Procedure for Mass Flow Monitoring of Pneumatic Conveyed Bulk Materials. IEEE Sens. J. 2014, 14, 3201–3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dachana, K.B.; Rajiv, J.; Indrani, D.; Prakash, J. Effect of Dried Moringa (Moringa oleifera Lam) Leaves on Rheological, Microstructural, Nutritional, Textural and Organoleptic Characteristics of Cookies. J. Food Qual. 2010, 33, 660–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 11 03194 g001
Figure 1. Photographs of control cookies, jackfruit seed starch cookies (JSSCs) with S10 (10% JSS) S20 (20% JSS), S30: (30% JSS), S40 (40% JSS), and jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSFCs) with F10 (10% JSF), F20 (20% JSF), F30 (30% JSF), F40 (40% JSF).
Figure 1. Photographs of control cookies, jackfruit seed starch cookies (JSSCs) with S10 (10% JSS) S20 (20% JSS), S30: (30% JSS), S40 (40% JSS), and jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSFCs) with F10 (10% JSF), F20 (20% JSF), F30 (30% JSF), F40 (40% JSF).
Processes 11 03194 g001
Processes 11 03194 g002
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) of flours at 2000 magnification and cookies at 50 magnification. (A) Wheat flour, (B) jackfruit seed starch (JSS), (C) jackfruit seed flour (JSF), (D) wheat flour cookies (CCs), (E) jackfruit seed starch cookies (JSSCs), (F) jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSFCs).
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) of flours at 2000 magnification and cookies at 50 magnification. (A) Wheat flour, (B) jackfruit seed starch (JSS), (C) jackfruit seed flour (JSF), (D) wheat flour cookies (CCs), (E) jackfruit seed starch cookies (JSSCs), (F) jackfruit seed flour cookies (JSFCs).
Processes 11 03194 g002
Table 1. Physical properties of cookies prepared with CC, JSS and JSF at different ratios.
Table 1. Physical properties of cookies prepared with CC, JSS and JSF at different ratios.
Cookie SamplesDiameter (cm)Thickness (mm)Spread Ratio
CC5.97 a ± 0.063.97 a ± 0.061.50 a ± 0.03
JSSC
10%6.03 bc ± 0.063.93 a ± 0.061.52 bc ± 0.15
20%6.07 abc ± 0.063.93 a ± 0.061.54 bc ± 0.15
30%6.13 ab ± 0.153.90 a ± 0.101.57 ab ± 0.16
40%6.17 a ± 0.123.87 a ± 0.121.57 a ± 0.16
JSFC
10%5.83 b ± 0.063.93 a ± 0.061.47 ab ± 0.03
20%5.63 c ± 0.063.93 a ± 0.061.43 abc ± 0.07
30%5.47 d ± 0.063.90 a ± 0.101.40 bc ± 0.05
40%5.30 e ± 0.103.87 a ± 0.121.37 c ± 0.05
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–e) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 2. Color attributes of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Table 2. Color attributes of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Cookie SamplesL*a*b*ΔE
CC71.25 a ± 1.435.58 c ± 0.1828.49 a ± 1.03-
JSSC
10%70.01 a ± 0.907.28 b ± 0.6928.35 a ± 0.832.75 b ± 1.07
20%69.77 a ± 0.907.73 ab ± 0.4827.33 ab ± 0.453.35 b ± 1.06
30%69.77 a ± 1.357.90 ab ± 0.4527.30 ab ± 0.553.84 ab ± 1.02
40%66.83 b ± 1.068.25 a ± 0.2726.73 b ± 0.695.63 a ± 0.85
JSFC
10%57.79 b ± 1.5712.28 b ± 0.2320.33 a ± 1.1417.21 c ± 0.78
20%49.73 c ± 1.0912.38 ab ± 0.3115.40 ab ± 0.4226.10 b ± 2.28
30%49.68 c ± 0.4712.73 ab ± 0.1215.27 ab ± 0.1726.30 b ± 1.83
40%45.56 d ± 1.0912.75 a ± 0.2312.35 b ± 0.4231.22 a ± 1.45
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–d) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 3. Physicochemical properties of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Table 3. Physicochemical properties of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Cookie
Samples		Moisture
Content (%)		Water
Activity		TPC
(mgGAE/100 g DM)		DPPH
(mgAAE/100 g DM)
CC2.35 a ± 0.090.33 a ± 0.0234.42 d ± 0.4711.70 d ± 0.14
JSSC
10%2.06 b ± 0.060.35 a ± 0.0134.13 ab ± 0.1211.64 a ± 0.29
20%2.71 a ± 0.260.36 a ± 0.0133.73 b ± 0.3210.83 b ± 0.14
30%2.80 a ± 0.610.35 a ± 0.0132.94 c ± 0.1510.57 bc ± 0.05
40%2.65 ab ± 0.350.36 a ± 0.0229.60 d ± 0.1210.35 c ± 0.02
JSFC
10%2.32 a ± 0.140.33 a ± 0.0134.61 d ± 0.4911.87 cd ± 0.28
20%2.46 a ± 0.190.33 a ± 0.0256.58 c ± 1.5412.16 c ± 0.08
30%2.35 a ± 0.070.34 a ± 0.0281.40 b ± 1.3812.58 b ± 0.05
40%2.38 a ± 0.190.34 a ± 0.01102.04 a ± 1.5613.20 a ± 0.22
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–d) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 4. Sensory evaluation of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Table 4. Sensory evaluation of cookies prepared with wheat flour and jackfruit seed starch (JSS) or jackfruit seed flour (JSF) with different ratios.
Cookie
Samples		TextureColorOdorTasteOverall Acceptability
CC4.20 a ± 0.804.07 a ± 0.913.63 ab ± 0.723.70 a ± 0.703.90 a ± 0.28
JSSC
10%4.00 a ± 0.953.8 ab ± 0.963.43 a ± 0.733.43 a ± 1.073.67 a ± 0.93
20%3.93 ab ± 0.913.6 ab ± 1.103.33 a ± 0.843.43 a ± 0.633.57 a ± 0.19
30%3.93 ab ± 0.783.33 b ± 1.093.33 a ± 0.963.47 a ± 1.103.52 a ± 0.15
40%3.50 b ± 0.972.53 c ± 1.133.23 a ± 0.772.70 b ± 0.892.99 b ± 0.14
JSFC
10%3.67 b ± 1.153.83 a ± 0.953.47 b ± 0.733.27 ab ± 1.113.56 ab ± 0.25
20%3.60 b ± 0.893.23 b ± 1.143.93 a ± 0.983.13 b ± 1.383.48 ab ± 0.16
30%3.50 b ± 0.683.20 b ± 1.023.40 b ± 0.863.57 ab ± 0.773.42 b ± 0.37
40%2.90 c ± 0.882.07 c ± 0.872.40 ± 0.772.33 c ± 1.152.43 c ± 0.35
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–c) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 5. Nutritional composition of cookies.
Table 5. Nutritional composition of cookies.
Cookie SamplesCCJSSCJSFC
Protein content (% DM)8.92 a ± 0.107.69 b ± 0.208.74 a ± 0.16
Fat content (% DM)22.33 a ± 0.2022.37 a ± 0.2521.75 b ± 0.22
Ash content (% DM)0.94 b ± 0.040.89 b ± 0.031.67 a ± 0.12
Crude fiber (% DM)2.13 b ± 0.122.00 b ± 0.204.67 a± 0.50
Carbohydrate content (% DM)68.37 b ± 0.0169.07 a ± 0.1567.20 c ± 0.07
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–c) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 6. Physicochemical properties and chemical composition of cookies.
Table 6. Physicochemical properties and chemical composition of cookies.
Cookie SamplesCCJSSCJSFC
Moisture content (% DM)2.35 a ± 0.092.80 a ± 0.612.35 a ± 0.07
Water activity0.33 a ± 0.020.35 a ± 0.010.34 a ± 0.02
Water holding capacity (g/g)1.64 a ± 0.051.53 ab ± 0.041.45 b ± 0.07
Oil holding capacity (g/g)1.76 a ± 0.041.36 b ± 0.051.72 a ± 0.04
L*71.25 a ± 1.4369.77 a ± 1.3549.68 b ± 0.47
a*5.58 c ± 0.187.90 b ± 0.4512.73 a ± 0.12
b*28.49 a ± 1.0327.30 a ± 0.5515.27 b ± 0.17
PV (meqO2/kg)0.77 a ± 0.210.80 a ± 0.280.73 a ± 0.14
Hardness (N)3.27 c ± 0.523.72 b ± 0.375.80 a ± 0.36
TPC (mgGAE/100 g DM)34.42 b ± 0.4732.94 b ± 0.1581.40 a ± 1.38
DPPH (mgAAE/100 g DM)11.70 b ± 0.1410.57 c ± 0.0512.58 a ± 0.05
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a–c) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Table 7. Sensory evaluation of cookies.
Table 7. Sensory evaluation of cookies.
Cookie SamplesCCJSSCJSFC
Texture4.20 a ± 0.803.93 a ± 0.783.50 b ± 0.68
Color4.07 a ± 0.913.33 b ± 1.093.20 b ± 1.02
Odor3.63 a ± 0.723.33 a ± 0.963.40 a ± 0.86
Taste3.70 a ± 0.703.47 a ± 1.103.57 a ± 0.77
Overall acceptability3.90 a ± 0.283.52 ab ± 0.153.42 b ± 0.37
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between means in the same column are denoted by different lowercase letters (a,b) with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Van, C.K.; Nguyen, T.H.; Nguyen, T.T.N.H.; Nguyen, P.T.N.; Tran, T.T.; Hoang, Q.B. Comparison of the Effects of Jackfruit Seed Flour and Jackfruit Seed Starch in the Cookie Manufacturing Process. Processes 2023, 11, 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11113194

AMA Style

Van CK, Nguyen TH, Nguyen TTNH, Nguyen PTN, Tran TT, Hoang QB. Comparison of the Effects of Jackfruit Seed Flour and Jackfruit Seed Starch in the Cookie Manufacturing Process. Processes. 2023; 11(11):3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11113194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Van, Chi Khang, Thi Han Nguyen, Trinh Thi Nhu Hang Nguyen, Phu Thuong Nhan Nguyen, Thi Tuu Tran, and Quang Binh Hoang. 2023. "Comparison of the Effects of Jackfruit Seed Flour and Jackfruit Seed Starch in the Cookie Manufacturing Process" Processes 11, no. 11: 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11113194

APA Style

Van, C. K., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, T. T. N. H., Nguyen, P. T. N., Tran, T. T., & Hoang, Q. B. (2023). Comparison of the Effects of Jackfruit Seed Flour and Jackfruit Seed Starch in the Cookie Manufacturing Process. Processes, 11(11), 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11113194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop