Optimization of the Different Variables for the Development of a Cucumber-Based Blended Herbal Beverage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Physico-Chemical Analysis
2.2. Sensory Analysis
2.3. Statistical Analysis
2.4. Model Validation
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Effect of Variables on the Phyto-Chemical Attributes
3.2. Effect of Variables on the Quality Parameters
3.3. Effect of Variables on the Nutritional Parameters
3.4. Numerical Optimization
3.5. Cluster Analysis of the Different Variables Selected for the Development of a Novel Radish Beverage
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Caswell, H. The role of fruit juice in the diet: An overview. Nutr. Bull. 2009, 34, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, H.; Gupta, P. Fruit drinks how healthy and safe? Indian Pediatr. 2008, 45, 215. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Randazzo, W.; Corona, O.; Guarcello, R.; Francesca, N.; Germana, M.A.; Erten, H.; Moschetti, G.; Settanni, L. Development of new non-dairy beverages from Mediterranean fruit juices fermented with water kefir microorganisms. Food Microbiol. 2016, 54, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corona, O.; Randazzo, W.; Miceli, A.; Guarcello, R.; Francesca, N.; Erten, H.; Moschetti, G.; Settanni, L. Characterization of kefir-like beverages produced from vegetable juices. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 66, 572–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mukherjee, P.K.; Nema, N.K.; Maity, N.; Sarkar, B.K. Phytochemical and therapeutic potential of cucumber. Fitoterapia 2013, 84, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhardwaj, R.L.; Pandey, S. Juice blends—A way of utilization of under-utilized fruits, vegetables, and spices: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 51, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akusu, O.M.; Kiin-Kabari, D.B.; Ebere, C.O. Quality Characteristics of Orange/Pineapple Fruit Juice Blends. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 4, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
- Kadam, U.S.; Ghosh, S.B.; De, S.; Suprasanna, P.; Devasagayam, T.P.; Bapat, V.A. Antioxidant activity in sugarcane juice and its protective role against radiation induced DNA damage. Food Chem. 2008, 106, 1154–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, S.R.; Sabir, S.M.; Ahmad, S.D.; Boligon, A.A.; Athayde, M.L. Phenolic profile, antioxidant potential and DNA damage protecting activity of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Food Chem. 2014, 147, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zamir, R.; Khalil, S.A.; Shah, S.T.; Ahmad, N.; Saima, S. Antioxidant activity influenced by in vivo and in vitro mutagenesis in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 11686–11692. [Google Scholar]
- Kamarul Zaman, A.A.; Shamsudin, R.; Mohd Adzahan, N. Effect of blending ratio on quality of fresh pineapple (Ananas comosus L.) and mango (Mangifera indica L.) juice blends. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sadasivum, S.; Manickam, A. Biochemical Method for Agricultural Sciences; Wiley Eastern Limited: New Dehli, India, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C.L. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranganna, S. Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruit and Vegetable Products, 2nd ed.; Tata McGraw Hill Publication: New Delhi, India, 1986; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Amerine, M.A.; Pangborn, R.M.; Roessler, E.B. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1965; pp. 338–339. [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, V.K.; Kumar, V. Influence of different sugar sources, nitrogen sources and inocula on the quality characteristics of apple tea wine. J. Inst. Brew. 2017, 123, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Juhaimi, F.; Ghafoor, K.A. Total phenols and antioxidant activities of leaf and stem extracts from coriander, mint and parsley grown in Saudi Arabia. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 2235–2237. [Google Scholar]
- Albano, S.M.; Miguel, M.G. Biological activities of extracts of plants grown in Portugal. Ind. Crops Prod. 2011, 33, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, I.S.; Yang, M.R.; Lee, O.H.; Kang, S.N. Antioxidant activities of hot water extracts from various spices. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011, 12, 4120–4131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhat, S.; Kaushal, P.; Kaur, M.; Sharma, H.K. Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.): Processing, nutritional and functional aspects. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 8, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
- Kranz, S.; Bolling, B. Sugars and Citric Acid Differently Modulate DPPH Antioxidant Activity in Polyphenol-rich Fruit Juices. FASEB J. 2015, 29, 922.14. [Google Scholar]
- Sangeeta, S.H.; Khatkar, B.S. Studies on stability of sugarcane juice blended with anola juice at refrigerated and room temperature. Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 4, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar]
- Chauhan, O.P.; Singh, D.; Tyagi, S.M.; Balyan, D.K. Studies on preservation of sugarcane juice. Int. J. Food Prop. 2002, 5, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.K.; Jha, A.; Singh, CK.; Singh, K. Optimization of process and physico-chemical properties of ready-to-serve (RTS) beverage of cane juice with curd. Sugar Tech 2012, 14, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamerski, F.; da Silva, V.R.; Corazza, M.L.; Ndiaye, P.M.; de Aquino, A.D. Assessment of variables effects on sugar cane juice clarification by carbonation process. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, I.; Zeb, A.; Ayub, M. Evaluation of apple and apricot blend juice preserved with sodium benzoate at refrigeration temperature. World J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 7, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
- Rawat, K.; Pokhriyal, S. Preservation of sugarcane juice using hurdle technology. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 1455–1458. [Google Scholar]
- Gopalan, C.R.; Rama Sastri, B.V.; Balasubramanian, S.C. Nutrition Value of Indian Foods; National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research: Hyderabad, India, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Dogan, S.; Diken, M.E.; Dogan, M. Antioxidant, phenolic and protein contents of some medicinal plants. J. Med. Plants Res. 2010, 4, 2566–2572. [Google Scholar]
Trials | A | B | C | TSS (°Brix) | TA (%) | pH | Red. Sugars (%) | Tot. Sugars (%) | Total Proteins (mg) | Phenols (mg) | Ascorbic Acid (mg) | Antioxidant Activity (%) | Tannins (mg) | Overall Acceptability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.00 | 50 | 1.50 | 15 | 0.52 | 4.01 | 20.27 | 7.15 | 1.28 | 305.9 | 58.8 | 14 | 0.639 | 7.84 |
2 | 2.00 | 30 | 1.50 | 10 | 1.24 | 3.36 | 17.64 | 3.98 | 0.73 | 273.82 | 55.6 | 19 | 0.404 | 7.83 |
3 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 0.83 | 3.47 | 19.05 | 6.43 | 0.95 | 279.5 | 57.1 | 16 | 0.453 | 7.71 |
4 | 1.00 | 30 | 1.50 | 10 | 0.64 | 3.6 | 21.62 | 3.63 | 0.78 | 221.4 | 53.4 | 19.6 | 0.339 | 8.36 |
5 | 2.00 | 50 | 0.50 | 11 | 0.95 | 3.39 | 21.43 | 6.99 | 1.155 | 310.65 | 59.4 | 14 | 0.681 | 7.98 |
6 | 2.34 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 1.3 | 2.96 | 20.53 | 6.55 | 1 | 317.35 | 53.2 | 16.5 | 0.564 | 7.85 |
7 | 2.00 | 50 | 1.50 | 12 | 1.24 | 3.22 | 18.02 | 7.03 | 1.29 | 282.9 | 62.5 | 15 | 0.642 | 7.87 |
8 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.84 | 11.6 | 0.79 | 3.47 | 21.04 | 5.89 | 0.99 | 279.75 | 63.9 | 15.9 | 0.474 | 7.92 |
9 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 0.88 | 3.52 | 18.31 | 5.14 | 0.955 | 267.65 | 54.5 | 16.3 | 0.477 | 7.58 |
10 | 1.50 | 40 | 0.16 | 9 | 1.02 | 3.75 | 19.62 | 5.34 | 1.14 | 262.1 | 53.6 | 16.9 | 0.573 | 6.65 |
11 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 0.98 | 3.49 | 18.06 | 5.79 | 1.045 | 195.25 | 51.4 | 16 | 0.452 | 7.47 |
12 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 0.99 | 3.46 | 20.69 | 6.56 | 1.05 | 232.6 | 56.1 | 16 | 0.434 | 7.65 |
13 | 1.50 | 23.18 | 1.00 | 9 | 0.92 | 4.01 | 17.03 | 3.26 | 0.755 | 195.25 | 57.8 | 21.5 | 0.417 | 6.9 |
14 | 1.00 | 30 | 0.50 | 9.2 | 0.58 | 4.33 | 22.31 | 3.43 | 0.855 | 232.6 | 51.8 | 18.5 | 0.341 | 6.74 |
15 | 2.00 | 30 | 0.50 | 9 | 1.3 | 3.25 | 17.67 | 3.32 | 0.83 | 266.3 | 61.8 | 19.6 | 0.446 | 6.95 |
16 | 0.66 | 40 | 1.00 | 10 | 0.22 | 5.3 | 25.3 | 6.48 | 0.965 | 269.65 | 39.1 | 16.7 | 0.391 | 7.29 |
17 | 1.50 | 56.82 | 1.00 | 13 | 0.77 | 4.21 | 18.23 | 8.95 | 1.37 | 324.05 | 49.2 | 6.6 | 0.495 | 6.82 |
18 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10.2 | 0.9 | 3.47 | 19.25 | 5.66 | 1.065 | 281.95 | 56 | 16 | 0.472 | 7.62 |
19 | 1.00 | 50 | 0.50 | 10.8 | 0.44 | 4.78 | 23.34 | 6.7 | 1.195 | 292.4 | 50.2 | 14.5 | 0.643 | 6.78 |
20 | 1.50 | 40 | 1.00 | 10.2 | 0.92 | 3.67 | 20.69 | 6.53 | 0.935 | 283.95 | 51.84 | 16 | 0.471 | 7.33 |
Variables | DF | TSS | TA | pH | RS | TS | TP | Phenols | AA | Antioxidant Activity | Tannins | OA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | 9 | 16.23 | 20.36 | 12.78 | 19.41 | 11.89 | 11.93 | 6.59 | 8.58 | 3.43 | 3.35 | 9.20 |
A | 1 | 2.51 | 169.66 * | 83.69 * | 0.046 | 0.053 | 12.17 * | 25.31 * | 0.016 | 12.29 | 3.82 * | 4.96 |
B | 1 | 83.85 * | 6.62 * | 2.17 | 164.57 * | 101.70 * | 80.11 * | 1.99 | 72.90 * | 0.20 * | 22.04 | 0.30 |
C | 1 | 36.12 * | 2.515 × 10−3 | 6.24 * | 0.93 | 0.99 | 0.52 | 1.35 | 0.017 | 3.08 | 0.97 | 45.14 * |
A2 | 1 | 0.23 | 4.15 | 8.47 * | 0.55 | 1.398 × 10−3 | 2.74 | 17.99 * | 1.35 | 4.51 | 0.47 | 1.48 |
B2 | 1 | 9.63 * | 0.61 | 7.78 * | 1.22 | 0.72 | 3.90 | 4.40 | 1.63 | 0.25 | 0.072 | 9.11 * |
C2 | 1 | 1.61 | 0.012 | 0.069 | 1.35 | 3.66 | 0.091 | 1.30 | 0.94 | 5.60 | 2.47 * | 0.23 |
AB | 1 | 3.22 | 0.12 | 1.91 | 0.075 | 1.597 × 10−3 | 6.61 * | 1.99 | 0.000 | 4.316 × 10−3 | 0.43 | 5.93 * |
AC | 1 | 4.29 | 0.12 | 5.36 * | 0.023 | 8.149 × 10−4 | 0.41 | 0.010 | 2.541 × 10−3 | 1.56 | 0.15 | 9.01 * |
BC | 1 | 5.51 * | 2.08 | 0.26 | 5.76 * | 0.045 | 0.093 | 3.31 | 0.000 | 2.34 | 2.586 × 10−5 | 5.93 * |
Lack of Fit | 2.57 | 0.064 | 0.45 | 0.016 | 2.16 | 1147.03 | 6.08 | 19.60 | 113.67 | 0.047 | 0.41 | |
R2 | 0.9359 | 0.9482 | 0.9200 | 0.9458 | 0.9145 | 0.9148 | 0.8556 | 0.8854 | 0.7556 | 0.7510 | 0.8923 | |
Adj R2 | 0.8783 | 0.9017 | 0.8480 | 0.8971 | 0.8376 | 0.8381 | 0.7257 | 0.7822 | 0.5356 | 0.5268 | 0.7953 | |
CV% | 4.88 | 4.88 | 5.89 | 5.72 | 10.79 | 4.55 | 5.59 | 8.64 | 6.87 | 14.18 | 3.02 |
A | B | C | TSS (°Brix) | TA (%) | pH | Red. Sugars (%) | Tot. Sugars (%) | Total Proteins (mg) | Phenols (mg) | Ascorbic Acid (mg) | AA (%) | Tannins (mg) | OA | Desirability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.00 | 30.14 | 1.50 | Predicted | 10.14 | 0.53 | 3.88 | 0.768 | 4.114 | 223.92 | 22.27 | 19.438 | 53.52 | 0.35 | 8.27 | 0.952 |
Actual | 10.00 | 0.50 | 3.81 | 0.759 | 4.110 | 223.81 | 22.15 | 19.430 | 53.49 | 0.30 | 8.26 | ||||
Difference | 0.014 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.11 | 00.12 | 0.008 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Heena; Kumar, V.; Kaur, J.; Gat, Y.; Chandel, A.; Suri, S.; Panghal, A. Optimization of the Different Variables for the Development of a Cucumber-Based Blended Herbal Beverage. Beverages 2017, 3, 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages3040050
Heena, Kumar V, Kaur J, Gat Y, Chandel A, Suri S, Panghal A. Optimization of the Different Variables for the Development of a Cucumber-Based Blended Herbal Beverage. Beverages. 2017; 3(4):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages3040050
Chicago/Turabian StyleHeena, Vikas Kumar, Jaspreet Kaur, Yogesh Gat, Ashwani Chandel, Sheenam Suri, and Anil Panghal. 2017. "Optimization of the Different Variables for the Development of a Cucumber-Based Blended Herbal Beverage" Beverages 3, no. 4: 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages3040050
APA StyleHeena, Kumar, V., Kaur, J., Gat, Y., Chandel, A., Suri, S., & Panghal, A. (2017). Optimization of the Different Variables for the Development of a Cucumber-Based Blended Herbal Beverage. Beverages, 3(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages3040050