Advertisement

Food Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 933–940 | Cite as

Optimization of ingredient and processing levels for the production of coconut yogurt using response surface methodology

  • Harisun YaakobEmail author
  • Nor Rashidah Ahmed
  • Siti Khairunnisa Daud
  • Roslinda Abd Malek
  • Roshanida Abdul Rahman
Research Article

Abstract

In this study, response surface methodology (RSM) was employed to optimize the ingredient formulation and processing parameters of coconut milk yogurt production such as temperature, time, and amount of starter culture on the sensory evaluation responses. Besides, the physicochemical properties such as pH, titratable acidity, and viscosity of the yogurt were also analysed. The analyses show that the coconut yogurts have a pH from 4.01 to 5.79, acidity from 0.461 to 2.079 (%), and viscosity from 433 to 21,833 cp during the optimization process. From the analysis of variance, the R2 of all response variables is more than 0.73 that indicates that a high proportion of variability was explained by the model. Based on the response surface 3D plot of the sensory evaluation, the optimum acceptability of the coconut yogurt processing parameter are at temperature of 37oC, 8 h of the fermentation duration, and 3%(w/w) of the starter culture.

Keywords

coconut yogurt sensory response surface methodology optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fadela C, Abderrahim C, Ahmed B. Sensorial and physico-chemical characteristics of yoghurt manufactured with ewe’s and skim milk. World J. Dairy Food. Sci. 4: 136–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin HH, Pai CC. Process for producing natto yogurt. U.S. Patent 20090011081 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rao D, Pulusani S, Chawan C. Technical notes: Preparation of yogurt-like product from cowpeas and mung beans. Int. J. Food. Sci. Tech. 23: 195–198 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akoma O, Elekwa U, Afodunrinbi A, Onyeukwu G. Yogurt from coconut and tigernuts. Afr. J. Food.Technol. 5: 132–134 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mårtensson O, Staaf J, Dueñas-Chasco M, Irastorza A, Öste R, Holst O. A fermented, ropy, non-dairy oat product based on the exopolysaccharide producing strain Pedioccocus damnosus. Adv. Food Sci. 24: 4–11 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aminigo E, Metzger L, Lehtola P. Biochemical composition and storage stability of a yogurt-like product from African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa). Int. J. Food. Sci. Tech. 44: 560–566 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Imele H, Atemnkeng A. Preliminary study of the utilization of coconut in yogurt production. Afr. J. Food Technol. 6: 11–12 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanful R. Promotion of coconut in the production of yoghurt. Afr. J. Food. Sci. 3: 147–149 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabbe S. Familiarity and purchasing intention of Belgian consumers for fresh and processed tropical fruit products. Brit. Food J. 110: 805–818 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narataruksa P, Pichitvittayakarn W, Heggs P, Tia S. Fouling behavior of coconut milk at pasteurization temperature. J. Appl. Thermal. Eng. 30: 1387–1395 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simuang J, Chiewchan N, Tansakul A. Effect of fat content and temperature on the apparent viscosity of coconut milk. J. Food Eng. 64: 193–197 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tansakul A, Chaisawang P. Thermophysical properties of coconut milk. J. Food Eng. 73: 276–280 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanchez P, Rasco P. Coconut milk (gata) in yoghurt manufacture. Philipp. J. Coconut Stud. 9: 42–50 (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gan H, Karim R, Muhammad SK, Bakar J, Hashim D, Rahman R. Optimization of the basic formulation of a traditional baked cassava cake using response surface methodology. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 40: 611–618 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colmenero F, Barreto G, Mota N, Calballo J. Influence of protein and fat content and cooking temperature on texture and sensory evaluation of bologna sausage. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 28: 481–487 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thakur S, Saxena D. Formulation of extruded snack food (gum based cereal — pulse blend): Optimization of ingredients levels using response surface methodology. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 33: 354–361 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallagher E, O’Brien C, Scannell AG, Arendt E. Use of response surface methodology to produce functional short dough biscuits. J. Food. Eng. 56: 269–271 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vatsala C, Saxena C, Rao P. Optimization of ingredients and process conditions for the preparation of puri using response surface methodology. Int. J. Food. Sci. Tech. 36: 407–414 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wadikar D, Majumdar T, Nanjappa C, Premavalli K, Bawa A. Development of shelf stable pepper based appetizers by response surface methodology (RSM). LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 41: 1400–1411 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deshpande R, Chinnan M, McWatters K. Optimization of a chocolate-flavored, peanut-soy beverage using response surface methodology (RSM) as applied to consumer acceptability data. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 41: 1485–1492 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adinarayana K, Ellaiah P. Response surface optimization of the critical medium components for the production of alkaline protease by a newly isolated Bacillus sp. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 5: 272–278 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bezerra M, Santelli R, Oliveira E, Villar L, Escaleira L. Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76: 965–977 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olubamiwa A, Kolapo A, Odetoyinbo B. Effect of different starter cultures on the chemical composition and acceptability of soy — yogurt. Int. J. Food. Agr. Res. 4: 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adesoji A, Ogunjobi A, Fagade, O, Babayemi O. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum starter culture on the microbiological succession, chemical composition, aerobic stability, and acceptability by ruminant of fermented panicum maximum grass. Au. J. T. 14: 11–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lima CJ, Coelho L, Contiero J. The use of response surface methodology in optimization of lactic acid production: Focus on medium supplementation, temperature, and pH control. Food Technol. Biotech. 48: 175–181 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Varnalis A, Brennan J, MacDougall D, Gilmour S. Optimization of high temperature puffing of potato cubes using response surface methodology. J. Food. Eng. 61: 153–163 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obi T, Henshaw F, Atanda O. Quality evaluation of plain-stirred probiotic yoghurt produced from skim and whole milk powder during refrigerated storage. Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 9: 1203–1213 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Güler-Akin MB, Akin MS. Effect of cysteine and different incubation temperatures on the microflora, chemical composition, and sensory characteristics of bio-yogurt made from goat’s milk. Food Chem. 100: 788–793 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kneifel W, Jaros D, Erhard F. Microflora and acidification properties of yogurt and yogurt-related products fermented with commercially available starter cultures. Int. J. Food. Microbiol. 18: 179–189 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morales C, Montes A, de Gante A. Effect of the partial substitution of sucrose by neotame on the sensory and consistency characteristics of plain yogurt. Rev. Mex. Ing. Quim. 6: 203–209 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Food Science and Technology and Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harisun Yaakob
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nor Rashidah Ahmed
    • 2
  • Siti Khairunnisa Daud
    • 2
  • Roslinda Abd Malek
    • 1
  • Roshanida Abdul Rahman
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Bioproduct DevelopmentUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudai, JohorMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PahangGambang, Kuantan, PahangMalaysia
  3. 3.Faculty of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudai, JohorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations