Supplementary File s2

SUPPLEMENTARY FILE

Assessment of Shelf-lives of Black Pepper and Small Cardamom Cookies by Metal Oxide based Electronic Nose using Spoilage Index

Sayantani Dutta1, Paramita Bhattacharjee1*, Nabarun Bhattacharyya2

1Department of Food Technology and Biochemical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032, India

2Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), E-2/1 Block - GP, Sector - V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700091, India

*Corresponding author. E-mail:

Methods

Estimation of physical properties of cookies

Diameter (D), thickness (T), weight and spread ratio (SR=D/T) of cookies were determined by AACC method 10-50D (Arun et al. 2015). Hardness of cookies was assessed by a texture analyzer (TA.XT Express, Stable Micro Systems, England), equipped with a 10 kg load cell. The cookies were penetrated with a cylinder probe (SMSP/5, diameter 5 mm) to a distance of 15 mm at a trigger force of 5 g. The peak breaking forces (N) of cookies were estimated using the force-in-compression mode of analyzer. The texture analyzer was set at a return-to-start cycle, with a pre-test speed of 1.0 mm/s, test speed of 0.5 mm/s and post-test speed of 10 mm/s.

Color of cookies were assessed by Hunter Lab colorimeter (Konica Minolta Inc., Japan) at a 10° inclination from the light source and reported as L*, a* and b* values. L* value indicates lightness, with 100 for white and 0 for black; a* value indicates redness when positive and greenness when negative; b* value indicates yellowness when positive and blueness when negative. The color co-ordinates of these cookies were calibrated against a standard white plate. Chroma values and hue angles were calculated using standard equations (Eqs. S1-S2) (Chatterjee and Bhattacharjee 2014).

Chroma= (a*2 + b*2)1/2 (S1)

Hue angle= tan-1(b*/ a*) (S2)

Sensory evaluation of the cookie samples was conducted by a semi-trained panel of university faculty members and research scholars (10 men and 10 women) aged 20-45 years in accordance with the method reported by Ranganna (1986). The panelists were selected based on their interest and performances in screening tests conducted with a control sample and were familiar with the sensory attributes of cookies. The panelists used the standard 9-point hedonic scale to evaluate the custard samples (9 indicating ‘like extremely’ and 1 indicating ‘dislike extremely’) on the attributes of overall appearance, colour, odour, texture, taste and aftertaste. The individual samples were served in triplicate in each session and rounded off mean scores were represented graphically by radar plots (Ghosh and Bhattacharjee 2014).

Results and Discussion

Physical properties of cookies

Similar values of diameter, thickness and weight of control, black pepper and small cardamom cookies indicated no adverse change of these parameters of cookies on fortification with SC-CO2 extracts and post-extraction sample matrices of black pepper and small cardamom (Table S1). The spread factor obtained for the cookies were in the range of 4.52-4.69. Abdel-Samie et al. (2010) have obtained similar dimensions (4.03-4.26 cm diameter, 0.65-0.74 cm thickness) and spread factor (5.43-6.54) for cookies prepared with cumin and ginger powders. Hardness of the cookies was in the range of 48-52 N (Table S1), which was similar to the hardness reported by Jacob and Leelavathi (2007) for cookies prepared with hydrogenated fat.

From the L*, a*, b* values of cookies, it has been found that, application of extracts in cookies enhanced the brightness of the same (Table S1). The L* values of both EB and ES cookies (64.79±0.70 and 63.88±0.60, respectively) were enhanced significantly (P=0.0007 and P=0.0012, respectively) over that of the C cookies (60.88±0.20). On the other hand, cookies with post-extraction sample matrices had significantly (P<0.05) decreased redness and yellowness for RB (a*=5.69±0.29 and b*=20.79±0.46) and RS (a*=4.59±0.15 and b*=18.57±0.30) cookies compared to C cookies (a*=9.61±0.06 and b*=26.15±0.04). The sensory evaluation of the cookies revealed that the cookies formulated with extracts of black pepper and small cardamom achieved the highest sensory scores by the panelists (Fig. S1).

References

Abdel-Samie, M. A., Wan, J., Huang, W., Chung, O. K., & Xu, B. (2010). Effects of cumin and ginger as antioxidants on dough mixing properties and cookie quality. Cereal Chemistry, 87, 454-460.

Arun, K. B., Persia, F., Aswathy, P. S., Chandran, J., Sajeev, M. S., Jayamurthy, P., & Nisha, P. (2015). Plantain peel - a potential source of antioxidant dietary fibre for developing functional cookies. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52, 6355-6364.

Chatterjee, D., & Bhattacharjee, P. (2014). Use of eugenol-lean clove extract as a flavoring agent and natural antioxidant in mayonnaise: Product characterization and storage study. Journal of Food Science and Technology, doi: 10.1007/s13197-014-1573-6.

Ghosh, S., & Bhattacharjee, P. (2014). Supercritical carbon dioxide ex tract of Ocimum sanctum improves nutraceutical properties of ice cream. Nutrafoods, 13, 69-78.

Jacob, J., & Leelavathi, K. (2007). Effect of fat-type on cookie dough and cookie quality. Journal of Food Engineering, 79, 299-305.

Ranganna, S. (1986). Sensory evaluation. In: Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruit and Vegetable Products, 2nd edn. Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India, pp. 594-645.

Table S1 Physical properties of cookies

Sample / Diameter*
(cm) / Thickness*
(cm) / Spread ratio / Weight*
(g) / Hardness*
(N) / L* / a* / b* / Chroma / Hue angle (°)
C / 5.74±0.02a / 1.23±0.05a / 4.67a / 25.20±0.20a / 49.67±0.30b / 60.88±0.20b / 9.61±0.06d / 26.15±0.10c / 27.86±0.10c / 69.82±0.12a
EB / 5.65±0.03a / 1.25±0.04a / 4.52a / 25.10±0.30a / 48.35±0.50a / 64.79±0.70d / 9.70±0.05d / 27.09±0.14d / 28.77±0.15d / 70.30±0.14b
ES / 5.70±0.04a / 1.24±0.03a / 4.59 a / 25.20±0.10a / 49.55±0.30b / 63.74±0.60c / 8.53±0.04c / 28.23±0.16e / 29.49±0.16e / 73.19±0.17c
RB / 5.72±0.03a / 1.22±0.04a / 4.69a / 25.20±0.20a / 51.87±0.20c / 57.27±0.40a / 5.69±0.09b / 20.79±0.09b / 21.55±0.11b / 74.69±0.10d
RS / 5.68±0.03a / 1.23±0.03a / 4.62a / 25.10±0.20a / 52.04±0.40c / 56.94±0.20a / 4.59±0.06a / 18.57±0.13a / 19.13±0.12a / 76.12±0.13e

C- control cookies, EB- cookies formulated with extract of black pepper, ES- cookies formulated with extract of small cardamom, RB- cookies formulated with post-extraction sample matrix of black pepper, RS- cookies formulated with post-extraction sample matrix of small cardamom

*Values of diameter, thickness, weight, hardness and color parameters of cookies are mean±SD of three independent samples

Different letters in a column indicate significant difference at P ≤ 0.0

Fig. S1 Radar plot of hedonic scores of cookie samples