ESRA CAPANOGLU1 and DILEK BOYACIOGLU Faculty of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Food Engineering Department Istanbul Technical University Maslak, 34469, Istanbul, Turkey
Accepted for Publication November 6, 2007

ABSTRACT Almond paste is an economically valuable product produced from almonds, sugar and a small amount of water. Oxidative rancidity and oil separation are the major problems that are encountered in the paste products affecting the shelf life. Another problem appears to be drying on the surface of the product resulting in poor consumer acceptability. In this study, the formulation of product was altered by adding a commercial stabilizer, antioxidant mixture and maltose syrup to prevent undesirable quality changes during storage at 4C and 30C. Peroxide value, free fatty acid and Rancimat analysis showed that the addition of antioxidant mixture prevented oxidation effectively and improved sensory scores significantly (P Յ 0.05). Although stabilizer addition had a detrimental effect on the textural properties, samples that have maltose had high sensory scores. The results showed that incorporation of maltose syrup and antioxidant may improve the texture and shelf life of almond paste.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The available literature on almond paste is mainly focused on the microbiological quality of the product and the prevention of spoilage reactions by modifying packaging materials. However, there is no report on the optimization of the composition to extend the shelf life of almond paste. Turkish almond paste, a healthy and expensive dessert, is a specialty product that is manufactured by using traditional grinding equipment. However, the limited shelf life of this product decreases its export potential resulting in economical

Corresponding author. TEL: +90-212-285-6015; FAX: +90-212-285-6039; EMAIL: capanogl@

Journal of Food Quality 31 (2008) 429–445. © 2008 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Besides. 2005. are quite different from those of Marzipan. 1994). we aimed to improve the quality and shelf life of Turkish almond paste by modifying its formulation in order to minimize the undesirable changes that occur during storage. on the other hand. Surface drying and subsequently. In our study. . 2006). and fiber components (Jambazian et al. protein (Aydin 2003). Kurlandsky and Stote 2006). Turkish almond paste. Hinds et al. Incorporation of antioxidants and stabilizers has provided effective results especially for other paste-type products (Woodroof 1973. The formulation and sensory characteristics. is traditionally manufactured from almond. Young and Cunningham 1991). processes such as cutting. powdered sugar and a small amount of water. can be defined as a solid mixture of ground almonds and glucose syrup in the proportion of 90/10 (wt/wt. Due to its high oil content. Loureiro 2000). Kornsteiner et al. The major quality problems in such type of paste products are associated with oxidative rancidity and oil separation. BOYACIOGLU losses. which greatly determine the shelf life of the product (Boyce 1999. Casas et al. Almond paste. 1995). the Mediterranean and the Marmara regions of Turkey. the stability of the product is particularly low during storage. one of the most favorite almond products. The objective of this study was to improve the quality and shelf life of Turkish almond paste by partially replacing the traditional sugar powder with maltose syrup and addition of stabilizer and antioxidant mixture in order to minimize the undesirable changes that occur during storage. blanching and prolonged mixing reduce the shelf life stability of nuts and their products (Woodroof 1973. Almond and its products are known to be healthy foodstuffs due to their favorable fatty acid profile. the cracks occurring on the surface of the product also influence consumer acceptability.) is a perennial plant growing in inner Anatolia. 2005. Although microbiological quality of almond paste and modifications on packaging materials have been investigated by many researchers (Faid et al. flavonoid. CAPANOGLU and D. Therefore. mixing with sugar and finally grinding the mixture using a special mill used in Turkey. high levels of a-tocopherol (Jambazian et al. improved shelf life and quality of the product is of importance from the economical point of view. Sanders et al. Cunningham 1999).430 E. Faid et al. there is limited information on lipid oxidation reactions and loss of moisture in those products (Baiano and Del Nobile 2005). INTRODUCTION Almond (Amygdalus communis L. 1993. Therefore. such as texture and flavor of Turkish almond paste. The basic manufacturing steps of Turkish almond paste include: blanching and removal of the skin of almonds. the possibility of using food additives to overcome those problems deserves attention for improving the quality and shelf life of the product. 1999. Shewfelt and Young 1977. 1995.

Traditional production method involved washing and cooking of raw almonds in boiling water for 5 min. Inc.5% 0. Maltose Syrup. Dehulled almonds were mixed with powdered sugar and ground in a special designed mill. Inc. † Represents the concentration based on 1 kg of almond paste oil. Turkey.5% 0. F. ‡ Represents the amount based on the total weight of the sample. AS. AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONS INTO MANUFACTURED ALMOND PASTES Sample description C M A S AM SM AS ASM Maltose* – 20% – – 20% 20% – 20% Antioxidant† – – 200 ppm – 200 ppm 200 ppm 200 ppm Stabilizer‡ – – – 0.5% * Replacement amount of total sugar.. AM. Control. Commercial almond and powdered sugar materials were provided by Patisserie d’ARC Kemer Pastry Shop in Antalya.. 006111-EF21c. Co.5% – 0.). product no.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 431 MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Food additives that were used were Palsgaard 6111® (hydrogenated triglycerides obtained from vegetable oil in powder form. Hoffmann-La Roche. 0486582. Inc. S. Co. The control sample contained neither additive nor maltose syrup. SM. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.) and mixed tocopherols (clear viscous oil. Co. M. C. Maltose syrup (43–45 DE) was obtained from Cargill. Teknarom Food Additives. Stabilizer. Antioxidant. The mill contained two smooth rolls operating in TABLE 1. Two replicates of samples were manufactured within 3 days. . A. Experiment Almond paste samples were produced using seven different formulations as given in Table 1. Boiled almonds were then dried by means of cheesecloth and the outer shells of almonds were removed on the marble bench manually.. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. Antioxidant + Stabilizer. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup. AMS. where the production trials were carried out. identification no.

5 mL/min and the split flow was 75 mL/min with a split ratio of 50:1. CAPANOGLU and D.22 and 923. Methyl esters of oil extracts were prepared according to the AOAC method 963.5–2. The injector and detector temperature were both 250C. free fatty acid and Rancimat values on the 5th. the extracted oil was subjected to the analysis of peroxide and free fatty acids according to the AOAC methods 965. Rancimat analysis was performed using Metrohm 743 Rancimat device at conditions of 120C and 20 L/h airflow with 2.0 mm diameter). 12th.25 mm film) column. The temperature ramp was 5C/min. The oven was programmed to run at 165C for 3 min. 0. Fat content and total sugars were analyzed using AOAC method 948.28. The samples were divided into two groups and tightly sealed in boxes. Analyses on Shelf Life The changes in quality of paste samples were monitored by observing the peroxide. Antioxidants and stabilizers were added to specific samples at the third grinding step.432 E. respectively (AOAC 1990). BOYACIOGLU reverse action to each other.48 (AOAC 1990). the mixture was kneaded manually with addition of a small amount of water on the marble bench in order to form a homogenous mixture.5 g of almond paste oil sample. Sugar powder replacement was at 20%. Maltose syrup was added to certain samples at this stage. Protein analysis was based on the AOAC method 950. 220C for 1 min and 225C for 3 min. respectively. a descriptive sensory test was carried out with 10 panelists using a .45 (AOAC 1990) and Turkish Standard method 2131 (Turkish Standard 1987). Compounds were separated on a Zebron DB-Wax (30 m. and were then immediately stored at 4C (refrigerator) and 30C (incubator) for 26 days. In order to follow the changes of sensory attributes of the samples stored at 4C. respectively (AOAC 1990). 19th and 26th days of storage both for 4C and 30C. Following the removal of ether phase on a rotary evaporator.22 (AOAC 1990) to determine the fatty acid composition using a Thermo Quest Trace-GC 2000 gas chromatograph coupled to a Flame Ionization Detector (FID). Almond oil was extracted from pastes with 250 mL petroleum ether in flasks.33 and 940.09. The paste was shaped into rolls manually and cut into 4 cm pieces. Finally. Calculation of fatty acid concentration was based on peak areas. Analysis of Composition and Characterization Moisture and ash contents were analyzed according to the AOAC method 925. Carrier gas flow was 1. Only the samples stored in refrigerator were presented to the sensory panel during 4 weeks of storage period. This grinding step was repeated three times to obtain a desired particle size (1. The mixture was left overnight in a dark room at room temperature after thorough mixing.

0 to 25. In contrast to the decreases in oil and protein contents. Statistical Analysis All treatments were replicated twice and the chemical analyses were performed in duplicates for each sample.5 to 10. Muego-Gnanasekharan and Resurreccion 1992. 19th and 26th days of storage. rancid.6% and 27. Panelists were trained for 5 h on panel terminology and structured scale prior to testing samples.1% in paste sample. the amount of protein in paste samples was 43. cardboard flavor. adhesiveness. sweetness and bitterness (due to the bitter taste of almonds) and the texture attributes on the basis of oiliness. 1993. The variety and composition of almonds can play an important role in determining the shelf life of paste products (Shewfelt and Young 1977). 12th.3% and 9. 2004. Results obtained are close to the values reported for almond kernels and almond paste as 21. sandy and gummy texture (Resurreccion 1988. Meilgaard et al. SPSS Inc. 50. In order to prevent the fatigue of the panelists. Abegaz and Kerr 2006. and 19.5% when processed into paste.8% oil.0% protein. Chicago. respectively (USDA 2001).8% carbohydrate. The panel evaluated the samples in separate booths. dryness. The differences in formulations for each property were analyzed by ANOVA where panelists were accepted as block on SPSS software (version 11. 1999. The panel evaluated the flavor characteristics of raw. IL).5 for Windows XP. Results of chemical analyses were also evaluated by ANOVA using factorial design where factors were storage temperature.8% and 47. Since a small amount of water has been added to the formulation.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 433 0 (none) – 7 (strong) structured scale on the 5th. Orthogonal contrasts method was also used in order to evaluate the effect of each additive at the end of storage period for 4C (Montgomery 1984). Abegaz et al. four samples were presented at each session. Similarly. Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test was further employed to detect differences between treatments for each attribute. the moisture amount increased from 7. Lee and Resurreccion 2006). time and formulations. . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The compositions of almond kernels and control almond paste sample are presented in Table 2. The samples were coded using three-digit random numbers..6% less than that of almond kernels. cooked. and no special lighting (white lights) was used. The fat content of almond kernels decreased from 54. the carbohydrate content of paste sample increased almost three times compared to that of kernels due to the addition of sugar powder.

Hamilton and Bhati 1987). to balance the moisture content of products (Minifie 1989).9 37. The moisture content of the control sample at the beginning of storage was 10. 2000.5%) followed by linoleic acid with a lesser amount (17.0 1. † Nitrogen content multiplied with factor of 5.21–12.9 17. However.67%) as expected (Table 3).5 2.86–14.15%.5 54. Those quality defects were not observed in samples containing maltose syrup compared to other samples.5 6. representing the highest values in all formulations during storage at both temperatures.4 10. Based on the GC analysis. During 4 weeks of storage the losses in moisture contents of paste samples stored at 4C were in the range of 3.1 1. 2003). Such small differences can be explained by variations in variety and place of cultivar (Holaday and Pearson 1974. CAPANOGLU and D. In addition. COMPOSITION OF ALMOND KERNELS AND CONTROL PASTE* Analysis (%) Moisture Ash Protein† Total carbohydrates Total sugar Fat Fatty Oleic Linoleic Palmitic Stearic Linolenic Behenic acid (22:0) Almond kernels 7. Similar to those findings.434 E.5 Control paste 10.1 52.42%. The fatty acid profile of almonds may affect the shelf life of the product since high degree of unsaturation makes those products very sensitive to oxidation reactions (Severini et al. Those losses in samples stored at 30C were slightly higher (4. maltose syrup addition was claimed to improve the textural characteristics by decreasing the moisture loss and thereby providing a soft texture (Potter and Hotchkiss 1995) and.7 25. An almond variety grown in North America was reported to have 68.9 1. the highest moisture loss was at 30C (14.18.0% oleic acid and 23.2 72. at 20% level. The moisture contents of maltose syrup containing formulations changed between 10.3% linoleic acid (Hamilton and Bhati 1987).0 0.5 4. oleic acid was major fatty acid (72.5 17.5%) in almond kernels (Table 2). the surface of paste samples was observed to be dry rendering to the formation of cracks as storage time increased.01–12.9 17. BOYACIOGLU TABLE 2.67%) in .5 – – – – – – * Values represent average of duplicate results on as is basis.1%.

1 11.9 Ϯ 0.1 9.2 10.1 QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE * Values are means of duplicates.1 10.1 11.1 Ϯ 0.3 Ϯ 0.2 Ϯ 0.1 9.4 Ϯ 0.1 9.1 10.2 Ϯ 0.2 Ϯ 0.1 10. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.1 11.2 11.4 26 days 5 days 12 days 19 days 8.2 11.6 Ϯ 0.1 11.8 Ϯ 0.1 Ϯ 0.1 10.8 Ϯ 0.1 9. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. AMS.8 Ϯ 0.9 Ϯ 0.2 Ϯ 0.2 10.2 8.0 Ϯ 0.1 Ϯ 0.0 26 days 8.9 Ϯ 0.0 8. Control. A.0 8.7 Ϯ 0.1 11.2 10. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup.1 11.1 10.1 Ϯ 0.1 10.4 Ϯ 0.1 10.1 10.7 Ϯ 0.9 Ϯ 0.1 12.4 Ϯ 0.0 11.1 9.1 8.3 Ϯ 0.2 12.6 Ϯ 0.1 Ϯ 0.2 Ϯ 0.2 Ϯ 0.1 Ϯ 0.4 Ϯ 0.1 9.1 10.9 Ϯ 0.6 Ϯ 0.0 Ϯ 0.1 11. C.0 11.2 Ϯ 0.0 8.5 Ϯ 0. Stabilizer.3 Ϯ 0.3 Ϯ 0.1 11.5 Ϯ 0.0 10.2 11.5 Ϯ 0.1 10.5 Ϯ 0.9 Ϯ 0.0 11.1 10.6 Ϯ 0.4 Ϯ 0.7 Ϯ 0.1 11.4 Ϯ 0.4 Ϯ 0.0 Ϯ 0. AM.5 Ϯ 0.7 Ϯ 0. M.1 11.1 Ϯ 0. Antioxidant + Stabilizer.1 11.1 9.7 Ϯ 0.1 10.5 Ϯ 0.0 Ϯ 0. 435 .9 Ϯ 0.8 Ϯ 0.0 Ϯ 0.1 Ϯ 0. MOISTURE CONTENT OF FORMULATIONS DURING STORAGE* 30C 19 days 9.1 12. Antioxidant.1 9.1 Ϯ 0.9 Ϯ 0.1 12.1 11. Maltose Syrup. AS. S.0 9. SM.1 Ϯ 0.1 10.1 Ϯ 0.1 10.1 9.1 Ϯ 0.1 10.1 11.4 Ϯ 0.1 10.0 Ϯ 0.TABLE 3.1 Moisture (%) 4C 5 days 12 days C A S M AS SM AM ASM 10.1 9.0 11.

However.20–36. Chu and Hsu 1999. For all the formulations.62 h at 4C at the end of 26 days. The fatty acid contents of paste samples became significantly different after the second week of storage (P Յ 0.16 h) were significantly less than those of samples containing antioxidant in their formulation (4.58%) with respect to the control at the 26th day of storage at 4C. The changes in free fatty acid values of paste samples during 4 weeks of storage are presented in Fig.05). 1993).28 h) for both 4C and 30C (P Յ 0. peroxide and free fatty acid values increased as the storage time progressed at both storage temperatures.05).92 to 1.05).05) than those of samples stored 4C.29–4. LopezAlonso and Antolin-Giraldo 2004). samples containing antioxidant and stabilizer had lower peroxide (1. which might be associated to the presence of expanded surface cracks in this sample. Figure 1 represents the changes in peroxide value of paste samples. the increases in those values were much higher in samples stored at 30C (P Յ 0. indicating lower oxidation rates. maltose-containing samples had significantly lower peroxide values at the end of the storage period (26 days) with respect to the control.21 meq/kg oil) and free fatty acid values (0. induction periods in samples stored at 30C were significantly lower (P Յ 0. MuegoGnanasekharan and Resurreccion 1992. The induction periods of the control sample decreased from 4. The lowest oxidation rate was observed in the . Changes in the induction periods obtained from Rancimat test are presented in Fig. Labuza 1982.436 E. However. Garcia-Pascual et al. Tocopherol-added samples had the lowest peroxide values changing from 0. as expected. This effect might be due to the change in water activity by the addition of maltose syrup. At the first week of storage there were no significant difference in peroxide and free fatty acid values between control sample and the maltose syrup added formulation (P Յ 0. Similarly. the variation in peroxide values between samples became apparent on the 19th day of storage (P Յ 0. 3. BOYACIOGLU the sample containing antioxidant and stabilizer. 2003). Combination of low temperature storage and addition of antioxidant resulted in low peroxide values. The impact of sugars on water activity in foods is a very complex relationship and is not easily expressed (Knecht 1990). however. 2.16 to 0.05). Maltose syrup is especially used to provide beneficial effects on the sensory characteristics of paste type samples (Potter and Hotchkiss 1995. There was no difference among samples at 5th and 12th days of storage.23 meq/kg oil at 4C during the 26 days storage period. CAPANOGLU and D. The induction periods of control samples (0. Low oxidation rate in those samples was due to the prevention of oil phase separation and less exposure to oxygen by the effect of stabilizer in combination with the protective effect of the antioxidant (Sanders et al. In general. Hamilton and Bhati 1987.05) as expected since the oxidation mechanism slows down at lower temperatures (Woodroof 1973.

A.0 0.5 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 3. AMS.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (a) storage at 4C 3.5 1. Control. 1. Antioxidant + Stabilizer.0 Peroxide Value (meq/kg) 2.5 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 3.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 437 3. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. SM. AM. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.0 1.5 2. PEROXIDE VALUES OBTAINED AT (A) 4C (B) 30C FOR 26 DAYS OF STORAGE C.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (b) storage at 30C FIG.0 Peroxide Value (meq/kg) 2. Maltose Syrup.5 2. S.5 0. Antioxidant. M. Stabilizer.5 1. . AS.5 0.0 1.0 0.

AM. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. AS.0 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 1. SM.8 0. Maltose Syrup.2 0.438 E. Antioxidant + Stabilizer.4 0. BOYACIOGLU 2. Control. FREE FATTY ACID VALUES OBTAINED AT (A) 4C (B) 30C FOR 26 DAYS OF STORAGE C. S. 2. A. Stabilizer.8 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (b) storage at 30C FIG.4 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (a) storage at 4C 2. M. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup.0 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 1. AMS. CAPANOGLU and D.6 FFA (% Oleic Acid) 1. Antioxidant.6 FFA (% Oleic Acid) 1. .2 0. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.

AS.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 439 40 30 Induction Time (h) 20 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (a) storage at 4C 40 SM AM AS AMS A M S C 30 Induction Time (h) 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Storage Period (days) (b) storage at 30C FIG. SM. 3. Stabilizer. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. Maltose Syrup. Antioxidant. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup. Control. Antioxidant + Stabilizer. AM. S. A. AMS. M. . RANCIMAT VALUES OBTAINED AT (A) 4C (B) 30C FOR 26 DAYS OF STORAGE C. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup.

the effect of antioxidant and stabilizer addition together on rancimat values was not significantly different from their separate incorporation into the formulation. However. maltose-containing samples were not significantly different from the control with respect to their free fatty acid values but were different in peroxide.05). bitterness. peroxide and fatty acid values would be more meaningful to interpret the oxidation reactions rather than rancid flavor descriptions provided by sensory panel. The sensory attributes of all formulations at 26th day of storage is presented in Table 4. Accordingly. The results of the sensory analysis carried out to access changes during storage showed that rancid flavor. combined use of stabilizer and maltose did not provide an additional positive effect on free fatty acid and peroxide values.05). oily and dry texture differed between formulations significantly (P Յ 0. the rancidity.05). Therefore.9) was found to be significantly lower than those of formulations containing antioxidant and/or maltose (P Յ 0. contrasts were formed using “orthogonal contrasts method” (Montgomery 1984). rancimat and moisture content values (P Յ 0. On the other hand. The characteristics of rancid flavor. antioxidant and stabilizer at 4C (Fig. Shahidi and Wanasundara (1997) and Rudnik et al. bitter taste.440 E. . Stabilizer addition resulted in more dry surface characteristics compared to the maltose added samples. rancimat and moisture content values from samples stored at 4C at 26th day of storage. 4). The differences in bitter taste scores might also be associated to unavoidable heterogeneous dispersion of bitter almonds in samples. Maltose syrup provided a positive effect on texture of samples leading to a more gummy feeling.05). The high score of bitter taste for this formulation supports this explanation. BOYACIOGLU sample containing maltose. Similarly. gummy and oily texture increased whereas scores of sweetness. (2001). According to the results. CAPANOGLU and D. This might be due to the higher content of bitter almonds in sample misleading the rancid perception of the panelists since commercial almonds may contain those kernels at a certain extent. Similar reductions in the oxidation rates in the presence of antioxidants have been reported by Hudson (1990). 3).2 Ϯ 0. cardboard flavor. bitter taste and sandy texture decreased in the control sample as the storage period extended. The highest rancid flavor score was observed in antioxidant containing formulation at the end of the storage period (Table 4). oiliness and dryness were significantly different in different formulations (P Յ 0. peroxide. Spider-web diagram given for the control sample at the 5th and 26th days of storage presents the changes in sensory properties of product (Fig. The oily texture of the formulation-containing stabilizer (2.05) during the storage period (data not shown). In order to evaluate the effect of each additive on free fatty acid. individual addition of antioxidant or stabilizer improved the shelf life by retarding the lipid oxidation reactions compared to control sample (P Յ 0.

Inc.. Authors would like to thank to Teknarom Food Additives. the addition of proper stabilizer may have a positive effect on the prevention of lipid oxidation. it may affect the formation of undesirable dry and cracked surface and may lower the quality of almond paste. it has been claimed that maltose syrup addition may delay drying and. On the other hand.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 441 raw 5 dry 4 3 sandy 2 1 0 gummy cardboard rancid cooked sticky sweet oily bitter 5th day 26th day FIG. Co.. These results suggest that incorporation of maltose syrup and tocopherol may improve the shelf life and quality of Turkish-type almond paste. Institute of Science and Technology Graduate Support Project. In conclusion. Hoffmann-La Roche.. for donating food additives . maltose syrup addition may have many positive effects such as balanced moisture content. Antioxidant addition can effectively prevent rancidity by protecting the product against oxidation reactions. Co.. may improve the chewing characteristics of the product (Potter and Hotchkiss 1995). Inc. 4. SPIDER WEB DIAGRAM OF THE CONTROL SAMPLE FOR 5TH AND 26TH DAYS ˙CATES) OF STORAGE (VALUES ARE MEANS OF DUPLI Consistent to previous findings. shiny appearance and improved texture in such products. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was financially supported by the Istanbul Technical University. hence. Istanbul (Turkey). F. Istanbul (Turkey). However.

3a 2.3 Ϯ 1.5a 2.5ab 1.1c 3.6 Ϯ 1.7a 1.2 Ϯ 0.7a 1.8a 3.0 Ϯ 0.4a 2.8 Ϯ 1.9 Ϯ 2.4 Ϯ 1.1 Ϯ 0. A.6a 2.4 Ϯ 1.8 Ϯ 1. M.5 Ϯ 1.2 Ϯ 1.3a 3.8a 1. Antioxidant + Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.7ab 3.7a 4.0ab 1.5 Ϯ 1. Antioxidant + Maltose Syrup.9 Ϯ 0.7 Ϯ 1.5ab 2. † Samples stored at 4C.8a 3. SM.4 Ϯ 1.442 TABLE 4.9ab * Values are means of duplicates.5 Ϯ 1.3b 1. Stabilizer.0 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.7 Ϯ 2.3bc 1.8a 1.4abc 1.4 Ϯ 1.7a 1. S.1 Ϯ 2.0 Ϯ 1.2ab 3.6a 3.2a 2.6 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.1 Ϯ 2.4a 3.9a 2.4 Ϯ 1.0 Ϯ 0.8 Ϯ 1.1a 3. Maltose Syrup.2a 3. AS. AMS.5a 4.2c 4.8 Ϯ 1.5 Ϯ 1.8 Ϯ 1.7a 1.1 Ϯ 1.2 Ϯ 3.6 Ϯ 1.9 Ϯ 1.1a 1.3bc 2.6b 2.0 Ϯ 1.1a 2.9 Ϯ 1.5a 3. .4 Ϯ 1.4 Ϯ 1.7 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.0a 4.7a 1.7 Ϯ 1.5 Ϯ 1.4a 1.0a 1.2a 2.9a 2.5bc 1.6 Ϯ 0.4 Ϯ 2.7a 2.9a 2.3c 3.0a 3. Stabilizer + Maltose Syrup.8 Ϯ 1.0a 3.5a 1.0a 2. C.7 Ϯ 1.5 Ϯ 1. AM.6a 1.6 Ϯ 1.7bc 3.5 Ϯ 2.8a 2.1 Ϯ 1.2a 3.3 Ϯ 1.8 Ϯ 1.2a 1.2a 4.8 Ϯ 1.7 Ϯ 1. Control. CAPANOGLU and D.7 Ϯ 1.5bc 1.8 Ϯ 1.9a 1. SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF FORMULATIONS AT 26TH DAY OF STORAGE*† S 1.1 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.5 Ϯ 1.8 Ϯ 1. The values having different letters in rows are significantly different (P Յ 0.8a 3.1a 1.1 Ϯ 2.6b M AS SM AM ASM 1.1a 3. Antioxidant.8 Ϯ 1. BOYACIOGLU Raw taste Cooked aroma Rancid flavor Cardboard flavor Sweet taste Bitter taste Oily texture Sticky texture Gummy texture Sandy texture Dry texture 1.2 Ϯ 1.3a 3.6 Ϯ 1.2a 2.0 Ϯ 1. Antioxidant + Stabilizer.9ab 1. ‡ Sensory attributes were evaluated using a 0 (none) – 7 (strong) structured scale.2a 1.8a 1.2 Ϯ 1.1a 2.8 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.5a 3.2b 3.1 Ϯ 1.0a 1.4a 3.9 Ϯ 2.7 Ϯ 1.2a 2.8 Ϯ 1.9a 1.5abc 2.4 Ϯ 1.0c 1.7ab 2.2 Ϯ 2.9a 2.2ab 4.5a 3.5a 3.6 Ϯ 2.9 Ϯ 1.6 Ϯ 1.5 Ϯ 1.8 Ϯ 1.1 Ϯ 1.05).8 Ϯ 1.4ab 3.5a 4.0 Ϯ 1.2 Ϯ 2.2ab 3.6a 3.6 Ϯ 1.1 Ϯ 0.5a 2.4 Ϯ 1.8ab Attributes‡ C A E.

R. CUNNINGHAM. 59. VALDERRAMA. A. BAIANO.. 66. 84(2). Elsevier Applied Science. and KOEHLER..QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 443 and maltose syrup. CASAS. 15th rev. and KERR.. HINDS. Princeton. Effect of moisture. 1999.M. 27–35.L. Biotechnol. 547– 550. MATEOS. S. The role of moisture in flavor changes of model peanut confections during storage. M. ABEGAZ. Almond paste: physicochemical and microbiological characterization and preservation with sorbic acid and cinnamon. 2004.M.E. Technol.H. L. 2005. BOYCE. M. CARBONELL. J. 2006. E. DC. 66... Food Technol. London. 1994. and SALAZAR. 1987. Conference Notes. and PEINADO.J. Washington. 1999.G. A. 1999. BAKHY. Effects of antioxidants on peanut oil stability. J. M. and TANTAOUI-ELARAKI. AOAC. M. K. Y. Food Chem. 315–320. ed. 1990. 215–225. V. 643–657. KERR. R. LWT-Food Sci. 1999. 60. C. WI.J. Physical properties of almond nut and kernel. ANCHAD. In USA: 53rd PMCA Production Conference (The Manufacturing Confectioner. HAMILTON. 487–495. Sorbate detoxification by spoilage yeasts isolated from marzipan products. W. FAID.) pp. WI. Recent Advances in Chemistry and Technology of Fats and Oils. 1995.. 201–209. CHINNAN. Ed.F.A. and BHATI. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. R. P. sugar and tertiary butylhydroquinone on color. S. D. (The Manufacturing Confectioner. A. Confectionery pastes from almonds.G. Food Prot. 2003. Food Sci. 36–42.L. texture and microstructure of peanut paste. 3(2). In USA: 53rd PMCA Production Conference. Shelf life extension of almond paste pastries.. and BEUCHAT. AYDIN. H. REFERENCES ABEGAZ. 29. CHU. J. J. Official Methods of Analysis. . ed. P. 37(2). W. In addition the authors would like to express their appreciation to Patisserie d’ARC Kemer Pastry Shop. Conference Notes. Food Qual. J. Unhydrogenated palm oil as a stabilizer for peanut butter. Princeton. Food Eng. J. M. 87–91.) pp. 29–34. 58. 2003. Food Eng. Antalya (Turkey) for providing raw materials and for making provision for the use of the manufacturing plant. 816–820. and HSU.J. Biosyst Eng. M. E. Influence of storage conditions on the quality of shelled and roasted almonds.. Peanut pastes. GARCIA-PASCUAL. and DEL NOBILE. E.

. KURLANDSKY. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Techniques.F. and SABATE. John Wiley and Sons.M. S. 2006. A User’s Guide to Sucrose (N. 57. and RESURRECCION. J.A. and STOTE.W. 1992. 1385–1389. 98(2). total oil and total protein in peanuts. K.. MUEGO-GNANASEKHARAN. MEILGAARD. and ELMADFA. 23(188). 2006. CIVILLE.F. HUDSON. 1989.L. Effects of genotype and production area on the fatty acid composition. Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of peanut paste stored at different temperatures.. and CARR. Am. 1974. 1982. LABUZA. G. Pennington and C. Food Antioxidants. and RESURRECCION. Almonds in the diet simultaneously improve plasma alfa-tocopherol concentrations and reduce plasma lipids. AVI Book. 3rd Ed. 2000. J. Technol.. Inc. K. Chapman and Hall Inc. M. V. BOYACIOGLU HOLADAY. WAGNER. Baker.J. 2004. .L. J. 1984. J. RAJARAM. Tocopherols and total phenolics in 10 different nut types. and Confectionery: Science and Technology. Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of peanut paste as affected by processing conditions. LWT-Food Sci. 46–65.A. and ANTOLIN-GIRALDO.V. 2006.N.S. 5th Ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold..H. 321–336. K.A. Increasing the period of expiry of sweet yolks. C. CRC Press. J. Spoilage yeasts in foods and beverages: Characterisation and ecology for improved diagnosis and control. D. Food Process.H. 247–256.V. TANZMAN. A. LOUREIRO. 26. and RESURRECCION. 105. Chocolate. K. eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 39. JAMBAZIAN. New York. London. R. 1990. R. 1999. B. M. B. and PEARSON. Pres. LOPEZ-ALONSO. Cocoa. S.R. G. P. Inc.V. 449–454. Shelf-life Dating of Foods. In Sugar. 56– 62. New York.L. C. Food & Nutrition Press. A. Cardioprotective effects of chocolate and almond consumption in healthy women.. 1995. Properties of sugar. 2nd Ed. 39(8). 17.. LEE. KORNSTEINER. J. 2005. POTTER. KNECHT. Elsevier Applied Science. Int. Food Res. J.W. B. Food Sci. New York. Food Sci. Diet Assoc.) pp. A. 381– 387. J. CAPANOGLU and D. MINIFIE. Aliment Eq. New York. Nutr.T. New York.P. I. Food Science. 872–882. 33(3–4).. Consumer acceptance of roasted peanuts affected by storage temperature and humidity conditions.. E.E. London. Food Chem.C. MUEGO-GNANASEKHARAN. N. 1990.B.F. and HOTCHKISS. MONTGOMERY. HADDAD.444 E. Design and Analysis of Experiments.-Tecnol. T. 509–516. Res. 1206–1209.V.

J.R. DE PILLI. 1973. In Natural Antioxidants. and YOUNG. 1997. 289–309.QUALITY AND SHELF LIFE OF TURKISH ALMOND PASTE 445 RESURRECCION. Food Sci. T. Pres. 48. Turkey.T.V. In Shelf-Life Studies of Foods and Beverages (G. SEVERINI. Shelf life of peanuts and peanut products. YOUNG. 1148–1152. http://www. Health Effects and Applications (F. J.. Comparison of flavor quality of peanut based pastes and peanut butter by sensory methods. . 2000. 4635–4640. C.. D. ed. 2003. 1987.. New York. S. Products. Cereal Food World. Champaign. 2006). T. C. BAIANO. A.. R. Food Sci 53. and WINIARSKA. The AVI Publishing Com. RUDNIK. A. 2001. T. E. and WANASUNDARA.G. GWARDIAK. SANDERS.) pp. T. F. SHAHIDI. Acta. Shahidi. Agric. 1827–1830. 370. Elsevier Science Publishers.. Chemistry. SZCZUCINSKA. Thermochim. A.H..nal. Measurement of Lipid Oxidation and Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity. Peanuts: Production. VERCELLOTTI. C.. CT. Exploring the partnership of almonds with cereal foods. A. WOODROOF. U. J. 1991. GOMES. USA. Charalambous. ROMANI. SZULC. 321–335.. SEVERINI.. DE PILLI. IL. Autoxidation of packed almonds as affected by Maillard reaction volatile compounds derived from roasting. 42. T. Food composition data.. 1993. and MASSINI.A. 1977. Comparative studies of oxidative stability of linseed oil. 27. Turkish Standards Institute.N. Westport. A. USDA. C. ed.L. Total Ash Content.T. and CUNNINGHAM.) pp. J. J. S. Autoxidation of packed roasted almonds as affected by two packaging films. 412–418. 36. SHEWFELT. 1988. Storage stability of peanut-based foods: a review. Food Chem. 2001. H. 135–140. J.K. AOCS Press.. Inc. and GOMES. Processing. 379–397.usda. TURKISH foodcomp/Data (accessed December 15. and GRIMM. Ankara. A. Food Process.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful