laporan skripsi-revisi
TRANSCRIPT
THESIS
TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL COOKIES
WITH THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia hispanica L.) FLOUR
Written as partial fulfillment of the academic requirementsto obtain the degree of Sarjana Teknologi Pertanian Strata Satu
By :
NAME : ANGGADA PUTRANPM : 03420110004
FOOD TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENTFACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN2015
STATEMENT OF THESIS AUTHENTICITY
I, a student of Food Technology Department, Faculty of Science and Technology,
Universitas Pelita Harapan,
Name : Anggada Putra
Student Id. Number : 03420110004
Department : Food Technology
hereby declare that my thesis, entitled “TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF
FUNCTIONAL COOKIES WITH THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia
hispanica L.) FLOUR” is:
1) An original piece of work, written and completed on my own, based on lecture
notes, data observation, reference books, journals, and other sources as listed
on the work cited section.
2) Not a duplication of other writings that have been published or used for
obtaining the degree of Sarjana in any Universities, except for passages that
include information on respective references.
3) Not a translation of other works.
I understand that if my statement above is proven untrue, this Thesis will be
cancelled.
Tangerang, July 14th 2015
(ANGGADA PUTRA)
UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
APPROVAL BY THESIS SUPERVISORS
TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL COOKIES WITH
THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia hispanica L.) FLOUR
Written by :
Name : Anggada Putra
Student Id. Number : 03420110004
Department : Food Technology
has been examined in the thesis examination for obtaining the degree of Sarjana
Teknologi Pertanian Strata Satu in the Food Technology Department, Faculty of
Science and Technology, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Karawaci - Tangerang,
Banten, and has been approved by the thesis supervisors.
Tangerang, July 14th, 2015
Approved by:
Supervisor Co-Supervisor
(Prof. Dr. C. Hanny Wijaya) (Jeremia M. Halim, MP)
Acknowledged by:
Head of Department Dean
(Julia Ratna Wijaya, MAppSc) (Prof. Dr. Manlian Ronald. A., ST,
MT.)
UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
APPROVAL BY THESIS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
We the undersigned, certify that a thesis defense has been held on June 30th, 2015,
as partial fulfillment of the academic requirements to obtain the degree of Sarjana
Teknologi Pertanian Strata Satu in Food Technology Department, Faculty of
Science and Technology, Universitas Pelita Harapan, for the student:
Name : Anggada Putra
Student Id. Number : 03420110004
Department : Food Technology
Faculty : Science and Technology
with the following title “TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL
COOKIES WITH THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia hispanica L.) Flour” and
that the thesis was successfully defended, henceforth approved by the examination
committee.
Examiners Signature
1. Dr. Hardoko Head of Examiners
2. Prof. Dr. C. Hanny Wijaya Member
3. Lisa A. Yakhin, M. Eng Member
ABSTRACT
Anggada Putra (03420110004)
TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL COOKIES WITH THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia hispanica L.) FLOUR (xiii + 51 pages: 14 figures, 14 tables, and 24 appendices)
The addition of chia flour towards the formulation of baked products, including pound cake and bread shows that it can decrease the specific volume and texture parameter of these products, respectively. This research’s objective is to obtain the best formulation of chia flour and hydrogenated vegetable fat (HVF) to produce cookie with optimum texture quality based on sensory evaluation and physico-chemical analysis. Different contents of chia flour (0 - 30 g) and HVF (33 - 55 g) were added to the cookie mix using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) based on 22 central composite rotational design (CCRD). Chia flour and HVF significantly affects the acceptability of cookies produced in terms texture. Physicochemical parameters, including hardness, fracturability, spread ratio, and moisture content were also affected. The formula to obtain cookie with optimum texture is 20.45 g of chia flour and 55.00 g of HVF. The nutrition content of optimum chia cookie is 8.75 % protein, 27.81 % fat, 1.64 % omega-3 fatty acid, 1.18 % ash, 58.46 % carbohydrate, 9.16 % total dietary fiber, and 3.80 % moisture content. Based on the nutrition content, optimum chia cookie can be claimed as a good source of fiber and high source of α-linolenic acid (ALA) according to FDA.
Keyword: Chia, Fat, Cookie, Omega-3, Dietary Fiber, Texture.References: 47 (1992 - 2015)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise the Lord for His blessing during the research and the making of
thesis report that this report can be finished well. The completion of thesis report
entitled “TEXTURE OPTIMIZATION OF FUNCTIONAL COOKIES
WITH THE ADDITION OF CHIA (Salvia hispanica L.) FLOUR” is one of
the requirements to achieve bachelor degree in Sarjana Strata Satu Teknologi
Pangan. Author realizes that the report could not be finished without the
guidance, assistance, prayer, and support from many parties. Hence, author would
like to express gratitude to those who help and support author during this time,
including:
1. Prof. Dr. C. Hanny Wijaya as the thesis supervisor for the guidance, time,
and support during research and thesis writing.
2. Mr. Jeremia Halim as thesis co-supervisor for the guidance, advice, and
support during the research and thesis report writing.
3. Ms. Julia Ratna Wijaya, MAppSc as the head of Food Technology
Department who gave chance to author to complete this thesis.
4. Beloved father and mother for the endless love, prayers, and supports for
author. And also for brothers who supports during the most difficult time.
5. Mr. Hendra, Mr. Aji, Mr. Darius and Mrs. Meri as laboratory assistant for
the help and support during research in laboratories.
6. Anastasia Stephanie, Nicholas Adams, Gabriel Eugenie, Amanda Inggita,
and Alvin Kusuma who accompanied, helped, and being cooperative with
the author during work in laboratories.
7. Edison Sutiono, Marvin Setiawan, Natanael Leon, and Aditya Febrian for
constant support during the research and the completion of report.
8. All members of C Class of Food Technology 2011 Universitas Pelita
Harapan who are not be mentioned above.
9. All friends and close relatives that have not been mentioned but provided
help and support for author during internship and report completion.
Author realized author might have done mistakes during research and
report completion. Therefore, the author would welcome any critics and
suggestions upon this report. Finally, author hopes that this report would be useful
for the reader.
Tangerang, July 14th, 2015
Author
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER page
STATEMENT OF THESIS AUTHENTICITY
APPROVAL BY THESIS SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL BY THESIS EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................xii
LIST OF APPENDICES....................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1
1.1 Background....................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Problem..........................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives.......................................................................................................2
1.3.1 General Objectives..................................................................................2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives.................................................................................2
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................4
2.1 Overview of Cookie.......................................................................................4
2.1.1 Pressed Cookies......................................................................................4
2.2 Cookie Ingredients.........................................................................................4
2.2.1 Flour........................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Sugar.......................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Fat...........................................................................................................5
2.2.4 Egg..........................................................................................................6
2.2.5 Leavening Agent.....................................................................................6
2.2.6 Water.......................................................................................................7
2.2.7 Additional Ingredients.............................................................................7
2.3 Cookie Processing..........................................................................................8
2.4 Chia................................................................................................................9
2.4.1 Nutritional Value of Chia Seed.............................................................10
2.4.2 Utilization of Chia Seed in Food...........................................................12
2.5 Omega-3 Fatty Acid.....................................................................................13
2.6 Dietary Fiber................................................................................................15
2.7 Response Surface Methodology...................................................................16
2.7.1 Central Composite Design....................................................................16
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................18
3.1 Materials and Equipments............................................................................18
3.2 Research Procedure......................................................................................18
3.2.1 Preliminary Research............................................................................18
3.2.2 Main Research.......................................................................................20
3.3 Experimental Design....................................................................................23
3.3.1 Preliminary Research............................................................................23
3.3.2 Main Research.......................................................................................23
3.4 Analysis Procedure......................................................................................24
3.4.1 Physico-chemical Analysis...................................................................24
3.4.2 Sensory Evaluation...............................................................................28
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION...................................................30
4.1 Overview......................................................................................................30
4.2 Nutritional Content of Chia Flour................................................................30
4.3 Determination of Mixing Method................................................................31
4.4 Formula Optimization of Cookies................................................................33
4.4.1 Optimization of Sensory Evaluation Result..........................................34
4.4.2 Optimization of Physical Analysis Result............................................36
4.4.3 Optimal Formula Recommendation......................................................45
4.5 Product Verification.....................................................................................46
4.6 Product Comparison.....................................................................................47
4.6.1 Sensory Evaluation Result....................................................................47
4.6.2 Physico-chemical Analysis...................................................................48
4.6.3 Nutrition Composition..........................................................................49
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.......................................51
5.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................51
5.2 Suggestion....................................................................................................51
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................52
APPENDICES......................................................................................................56
LIST OF TABLES
page
Table 2.1 Composition of chia seed per 100 g......................................................11
Table 3.1 Basic formulation for cookies................................................................19
Table 3.2 Concentration composition of cookies formula.....................................22
Table 3.3 Formulation Combination Model..........................................................22
Table 3.4 Optimization cookies formula goal and importance..............................22
Table 4.1 Nutritional Content of Chia Flour..........................................................30
Table 4.2 Hardness Value of Cookie Made With Different Mixing Methods.......33
Table 4.3 Statistical Model for Each Responses....................................................34
Table 4.4 Criteria and Goals of Each Responses for Optimal Cookie Formulation
................................................................................................................................46
Table 4.5 The Optimal Formula of Cookie Formulated With Chia Flour.............46
Table 4.6 Comparison Between Prediction Value and The Actual Result............47
Table 4.7 Result of Sensory Evaluation Test.........................................................47
Table 4.8 Result of Physico-chemical Analysis.....................................................48
Table 4.9 Nutritional Content of Optimum Chia Cookie and Control Cookie......49
LIST OF FIGURES
page
Figure 2.1 Salvia hispanica L................................................................................10
Figure 3.1 Flowchart of the cookies making..........................................................21
Figure 4.1 Result of Paired Comparison Test........................................................31
Figure 4.2 Result of Paired Preference Test..........................................................32
Figure 4.3 3-D Graph for Texture Response Based on Hedonic Test...................35
Figure 4.4 Contour Graph for Texture Response Based on Hedonic Test............36
Figure 4.5 3-D Graph for Hardness Value.............................................................37
Figure 4.6 Contour Graph for Hardness Value......................................................37
Figure 4.7 3-D Graph for Fracturability Value......................................................40
Figure 4.8 Contour Graph for Fracturability Value...............................................39
Figure 4.9 3-D Graph for Spread Ratio..................................................................41
Figure 4.10 Contour Graph for Spread Ratio.........................................................42
Figure 4.11 3-D Graph for Moisture Content........................................................45
Figure 4.12 Contour Graph for Moisture Content.................................................44
LIST OF APPENDICES
page
Appendix A. Identification Result.......................................................................A-1
Appendix B. Questionnaire of Comparison Test.................................................B-1
Appendix C. Result of Comparison Test.............................................................C-1
Appendix D. Statistical Analysis of Comparison Test........................................D-1
Appendix E. Result of Texture Analysis in Preliminary Analysis.......................E-1
Appendix F. Questionnaire of Hedonic Test........................................................F-1
Appendix G. Result of Hedonic Test..................................................................G-1
Appendix H. Analysis of Texture Response........................................................H-1
Appendix I. Result of Hardness and Fracturability Analysis................................I-1
Appendix J. Analysis of Hardness Response........................................................J-1
Appendix K. Analysis of Fracturability Response..............................................K-1
Appendix L. Data of Spread Ratio.......................................................................L-1
Appendix M. Analysis of Spread Ratio Response..............................................M-1
Appendix N. Data of Moisture Content...............................................................N-1
Appendix O. Analysis of Moisture Content Response........................................O-1
Appendix P. Questionnaire for Verification Test.................................................P-1
Appendix Q. Result of Hedonic Test in Verification Test..................................Q-1
Appendix R. Result of Physicochemical Analysis in Verification Test..............R-1
Appendix S. Questionnaire for Product Comparison...........................................S-1
Appendix T. Result of Hedonic Test in Product Comparison..............................T-1
Appendix U. T-Test Analysis for Hedonic Test in Product Comparison............U-1
Appendix V. Physicochemical Analysis Result in Product Comparison............V-1
Appendix W. Analysis for Physicochemical Test in Product Comparison........W-1
Appendix X. Result of Proximate Analysis.........................................................X-1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Biscuits and cookies are food products which have a very significant part
in the food industry in most countries (Manley, 2011). The reasons for this are due
to their relatively long shelf life, great convenience as food products, good value
for money, and human affinity, especially children, towards products which
contains sugar. However, according to Manley (2011), and Bassinello et al.
(2011) cookie lacks dietary fiber and essential fatty acids.
The interest on research, development and commercialization of functional
food ingredients, nutraceuticals and dietary supplements have been growing
around the globe (McManus et al., 2011). Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) is an annual
plant which grows mainly in South America, known to be rich in dietary fiber and
omega-3 fatty acid. For this reasons, it is expected that chia seeds can be utilized
as an ingredient for functional food, which in this case acts as a substitute of
wheat flour in formulation of cookie (Reyes Caudillo et al., 2007). Research done
by Pizarro et al. (2013) and Steffolani et al. (2015) shows that chia flour can be
added into the formulation of pound cake and bread, respectively. However, the
result of both experiments showed that the addition of chia can decrease the
specific volume of the final product and texture parameter based on sensory
evaluation result, but an increase in the amount of hydrogenated vegetable fat can
help overcome the problem. Fat is important for texture parameter, due to its
ability to prevent excessive gluten development by preventing water from reacting
1
with glutenin and gliadin to form gluten. Optimization of the amount of chia flour
and hydrogenated vegetable fat added is expected to produce cookies with
acceptable texture comparable to most cookies. However, because of the usage of
new ingredient in the making of cookies, the method used to make the cookie
need to be adjusted (Novianty, 2015). Therefore it is important to determine the
best mixing method.
1.2 Research Problem
The addition of chia flour in wheat flour-based product such as cake and
bread is known to cause a decrease in its specific volume and lower texture
acceptability compared to the control. The mixing method of cookie have to be
adjusted as well, as new ingredient is incorporated in the formulation. The correct
amount of hydrogenated vegetable fat is known to be able to increase the specific
volume and texture characteristics of the wheat flour-based product. Hence,
finding the correct formulation of chia seeds flour and hydrogenated vegetable fat
for use in cookie making is expected to overcome this problem.
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General Objectives
The general objective of this research was to produce cookies with the
optimal texture using chia flour and hydrogenated vegetable fat.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this research were:
1. To determine the best mixing method of cookie made with the addition of chia
flour.
2
2. To study the effects of incorporating different amount of chia flour and
hydrogenated vegetable fat towards the texture characteristics of cookie.
3. To evaluate the acceptability of texture parameter of cookie made with the
addition of chia flour based on sensory evaluation.
3
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of Cookie
Cookie is a name which originally comes from the dutch word Koekje,
which basically means a small cake. Most of the components found in cookie is
the same as cake, but it is different in that it contains lower water content and
higher sugar and fat content. Based on its dough or batter’s fluidity, cookies can
be classified into bar, dropped, pressed, molded, rolled, and icebox/refrigerator
cookie (Brown, 2011; Manning, 2011).
2.1.1 Pressed Cookies
Pressed cookies have a flour mixture which is viscous enough to be stuffed
into a pastry bag or cookie press. Examples of cookies of this type are ladyfingers
and coconut macaroons (Brown, 2011).
2.2 Cookie Ingredients
Main ingredients used in making cookies are flour, sugar, fat, egg,
leavening agent, and water. Additional ingredients might be added depending on
the desired final product (Sumnu and Sahin, 2008).
2.2.1 Flour
Wheat flour is the most used flour in cookie making. In cookie, gluten
formation is avoided, so soft wheat flour is generally preferred than heavy wheat
flour. The reason is because the desired texture for cookie is crispy and soft, and
heavy wheat flour with high protein content causes the the texture of the cookie to
4
become hard and thick. Moreover, higher protein concentration have been
correlated with reduced diameter in cookie making as well, although other factors
are suspected to play a role as well. Rate of spreading of cookie dough is found to
be faster as well in cookies made from soft wheat flour. This is because the
amount of soluble starch in soft wheat flour is low, and causes the dough to be
less viscous which in turn increases its spreading rate (Brown, 2011; Sumnu and
Sahin, 2008).
2.2.2 Sugar
Sugar is added into cookie to add sweetness, acts as a tenderizing agent,
and affects spread. It was observed using a farinograph, that an increase in sugar
concentration reduces the consistency and cohesion of cookie dough. As a
hardening agent, sugar crystallizes as the cookie dough cools down after baking
and thereby makes the product crispy. However, it can act as softener in moderate
amounts, due to sugar’s ability to retain water. Sugar also makes the final product
to become fragile, because it controls hydration and tends to disperse starch and
protein molecules, which in turn prevents the formation of a continuous mass
(Sumnu and Sahin, 2008).
2.2.3 Fat
Fat is an essential ingredient in cookie, as its addition influences the
texture and taste of cookies, which makes the cookie crispier because this allows
the dough to spread as it cooks on the cookie sheet (Jacob and Leelavathi, 2007).
Fat has the function of preventing water from forming gluten network with
glutenin and gliadin protein from wheat flour, thereby making the dough less
resistant to mixing. Formation of gluten makes cookie dough more elastic and
5
resistant to mixing, making the end product hard. Fat also entraps air particles in
the dough, thereby increasing the total volume and lower the density of cookie
produced. Additionally, during baking the fat melts and helps the cookie dough
spread in the cooking sheet. This makes cookie have its characteristic soft and
crispy texture (Jacob and Leelavathi, 2007).
The source of fat used for cookie varies, but vegetable fat is generally used
more compared to animal fat, due to the origin of these materials, their quality is
variable and can cause issues to the final product. Also, as manufacturers wanted
to sell their product to all consumers, including the vegetarians, vegetable fat
becomes preferrable (Sumnu and Sahin, 2008; Manley, 2011).
2.2.4 Egg
The addition of egg into cookie dough helps in puffing, emulsifying the
dough, due to the presence of lecithin, which is an emulsifier. Emulsifier helps
entrap air particles and allow water to mix with fat, preventing it from reacting
with glutenin and gliadin to form gluten (Jacob and Leelavathi, 2007). This results
in a creamier and smoother texture in cookies. Presence of fat in egg contributes
to the final taste and add the total fat in cookies as well. The egg white component
contributes toward the structure or shape of the cookie dough, due to the drying
effect it has (Sumnu and sahin, 2008; Manley, 2011).
2.2.5 Leavening Agent
The presence of leavening agent causes the cookie dough to rise, which in
turn causes the final product to have greater volume and superior texture.
Leavening agent may be of physical, biological, or chemical in nature (Sumnu and
Sahin, 2008). Physical leavening agents are air and steam, which is done through
6
mechanical action, such as creaming, beating, or heating. Biological leavening
agents are yeasts and bacteria. Carbon dioxide produced by these microorganisms
through fermentation causes the dough to rise. Chemical leavening agents are
baking powder and baking soda, which yields carbon dioxide when it is heated or
mixed with acid. Sodium bicarbonate is the most commonly used chemical
leavening agent (Brown, 2011).
2.2.6 Water
Water is used in a very small amount in cookie making, usually only about
3 - 4 % of the whole cookie formulation. It’s purpose is generally to dissolve dry
ingredients and provide steam for leavening during baking. Too much water is
unfavorable, because it will induce the formation of gluten in the dough, causing
the texture of the cookie to be less crispy and more hard (Brown, 2011).
2.2.7 Additional Ingredients
Nonfat dry milk is sometimes added into cookies to give subtle flavor and
textural improvements and to aid surface coloring (Brown, 2011). Reducing agent
can also be added as an additive to increase cookie spread, by reducing disulfide
bonds to the sulfhydryl group, thereby decreasing dough stability. Cornstarch
sometimes is used in cookie as anticaking agent, drying agent, formulation aid,
processing aid, surface-finishing agent. Other food additives which is used in
cookies are potassium sorbate as preservative, soybean lecithin as emulsifier, and
whey as a binder ot extender to provide a uniform texture (Sumnu and Sahin,
2008).
7
2.3 Cookie Processing
The processing of cookie is basically comprised of four steps, which are
dough making, processing and shaping, baking, cooling and packaging. The first
step of the process is dough making. In this step, all ingredients used to make
cookies are mixed together to form a dough. During mixing, the protein in flour
contacts with water and swell. If the mixing is continued, the protein containing
water will form a three-dimensional gluten network. Sugar should be dissolved by
the water in this process, as otherwise the sugar crystal will caramelize during
baking, causing brown spots. Dough temperature is also important in terms of the
fat used. At high temperatures, the fat will melt and the dough becomes fatty. The
dough should be maintained to have plastic-like texture (Sumnu and Sahin,
2008). Depending on the desired cookie characteristic, cookie processing can
categorized into one step and two step mixing (Hui, 2006). In two step mixing, the
fat and sugar are mixed first, followed by egg, and finally the flour and other dry
ingredients. Mixing cookie ingredients in two stages can minimize the
development of gluten in the flour, which is desirable in cookie dough. By
mixing the cookie ingredient in two stages, the fat will be more evenly dispersed
around the flour particles, and therefore rendering them less available to water and
preventing gluten development. In one-stage mixing, all the ingredients are mixed
at once. However, in this step the baker has less control over the mixing, and
therefore, the gluten development as well. However, it can be used when over-
mixing is not a serious problem, for example in the making of chewy cookies.
The second step is processing and shaping. In this step the doughs are
shaped to the desired form. The machines used for processing varies depending on
8
the hardness of the dough. Very soft dough needs to be deposited directly onto the
steel oven band invariably. For soft and usually sticky dough, it needs to be
extruded and cut using wire-cut machine. Dough which are stiff should be
extruded on a bar machine or rout press machine (Sumnu and Sahin, 2008).
The third step is baking. In this process, the dough of the cookies should
be placed far enough apart on the baking sheet to prevent them from touching
together during baking. Cool cooking sheets should be places as well on the
baking sheet to prevent overspreading (Brown, 2011). Temperatures ranging
between 163 - 191 oC are usually used in baking of cookies. The next and last step
after baking is cooling and packaging. After baking, the cookies should be placed
on a cloth band and cooled down in room temperature. Placing the recently baked
cookie on a temperature which is too cold might cause cracking on the surface.
The cookies can be placed on the packaging after it is sufficiently cooled down
(Sumnu and Sahin, 2008).
2.4 Chia
Chia is a plant native to the central valleys of Mexico and northern
Guatemala. The word “chia” is a Spanish adaptation of the word chian or chien in
its plural form, meaning “oily”, which comes from Nahuatl, the language of Aztec
people. Chia plant, which name in latin is Salvia hispanica L., belongs to the
Lamiaceae family, which makes them a part of the mint family. It is
approximately a meter tall, with opposite, petiolate, and serrated leaves that are 4
to 8 cm long and 3 to 5 cm wide. The plant grows mainly in mountainous areas
and has little tolerance to abiotic phenomena, such as freezing and sunless
9
locations, however it is semi-tolerant to acid soils and drought. It is an annual herb
and usually blooms suring the summer months (Munoz et al., 2013).
Seeds of chia plant are small (1.87± 0.1 mm length, 1.21 ± 0.08 mm width
and 0.88 ± 0.04 mm thickness) with an oval flattened shape and ranged in colour
from dark coffee to beige with small darker spots (Ixtaina, et al., 2008). Its seeds
was once used by the Aztecs as a food, and acquired importance as a staple crop
in central Mexico between 1500 and 900 BC. At the time, only corn and beans
surpassed chia in term of importance (Munoz et al., 2013).
Figure 2.1 Salvia hispanica L.Source: Munoz et al. (2013)
2.4.1 Nutritional Value of Chia Seed
Chia seed has been a subject of interest for food scientists and industries
due to the components found inside. It is rich in protein, fat, and dietary fiber
(Ayerza, 1995; Ayerza and Coates, 2005). Additionally, other components such as
vitamins, minerals, and antioxidant are also present in chia seed (Munoz et al.,
2013). Table 2.1 shows the composition of chia seed.
10
Table 2.1 Composition of chia seed per 100 gComponent Content
Energy (Kcal.) 486Proteins (g) 9 - 23Total fat (g) 25 - 35Saturated fatty acid (g) 3.1 - 3.4Monounsaturated fatty acid (g) 2.309
Polyunsaturated fatty acid (g) 23.6 - 27.75Trans fatty acid (g) 0.14Omega-3 fatty acid (g) 17.83 gCarbohydrate (g) 42.12Total dietary fiber (g) 18 - 41Vitamin C (mg) 1.6Niacin (mg) 8.83Thiamin (mg) 0.62Riboflavin (mg) 0.17Calcium (mg) 631Potassium (mg) 407Phosphorus (mg) 860Iron (mg) 7.72Source: Munoz et al. (2013); Reyes-Caudillo et al. (2007); Ayerza and Coates (1996).
Dietary fiber is found in large amount in chia seeds, which is about 18 - 41
g/ 100 g seeds (Reyes-Caudillo et al., 2007). The recommended daily intake
(RDI) of dietary fiber for adult is generally in the range of 20 to 35 g/ day. This
means that consumption of about 100 g of chia seeds can fulfill the RDI of dietary
fiber in one day (Munoz et al., 2013).
One of the most important nutritional component found in chia seed is the
fat or lipid. Its content is approximately between 25 - 35 g/ 100 g of seeds (Ayerza
and Coates, 2011; Ixtaina et al., 2011). Total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)
found in the seed is more than 80.5 % of the total fats. However, the main
constituent of the fat content in chia seed is ω-3α-linolenic fatty acid, which
consists 56.9 - 64.8 % of the total fat, the highest compared to any known plant
source (Munoz et al., 2013).
11
2.4.2 Utilization of Chia Seed in Food
Chia seed utilization as a food or ingredient of food began only recently. It
was approved as a Novel Food by the European Parliament and Council of Europe
in 2009. Some of the most important applications of the seeds include its use as a
nutritional supplement and as an ingredient in cereal bars, biscuits, pasta, bread,
snacks and yogurt. Also, due to abundance of essential fatty acids in the seed, it
can be used as an oil. Another application of chia seed is using its mucilage. This
component is composed mainly of polysaccharides in form of soluble fiber. A
recent study shows that the mucilage can be used as the new source of
polysaccharides, with the potential to generate different polymer blends to
produce films and coatings with improved properties. (Munoz et al., 2013).
Pizarro et al. (2013) studied the incorporation of whole chia flour (WCF)
in pound cake. In the research, different contents of WCF (0 - 30 g/ 100 g flour
mixture) and hydrogenated vegetable fat (HVF) (12 - 20 g/ 100 g flour mixture)
were added to the cake mix based on a 22 central composite rotational design
(CCRD). The result showed that WCF addition decreased the specific volume and
colour parameters of the cakes, however, variation of WCF and HVF content
contributed to maintenance of the moisture during storage. The best formulation
was found in cake containing up to 15 g WCF/100 g flour mixture and from 16 to
20 g HVF/100 g flour mixture. The cake was found to present higher protein,
lipid, and ash content than the control cake. The omega-3 fatty acid content also
increases considerably. The sensory test of the cake shown that it has good
sensory acceptance and a greater purchasing intention.
12
Coelho and Salas-Mellado (2014) researched the effect of substituting chia
flour or seeds for wheat flour on the quality of bread. In the research, the HVF
content was reduced and chia seeds or flours were added to the formulations of
wheat flour based on a 22 CCRD. The best formulation was found on bread with
7.8 g chia flour/ 100 g flour mixture and 0.9 g HVF/ 100 g flour mixture and
bread with 11.0 g chia seeds/ 100 g flour mixture and 1.0 g HVF/ 100 g flour
mixture, which results in a reduction of 27% and 24% level of saturated fat
respectively, compared to the control bread. The ratio of PUFA and saturated fats
(PUFA:SAT) was increased to 3.1 and 3.9 respectively, compared to the control
bread (1.01). Dietary fiber content was increased to 2.0% and 5.7%, while the ω-
3α-linolenic fatty acid was increased to 1.21% and 1.85% respectively, a
significant increase compared to the control bread, which has a dietary fiber
content of 0.3% and ω-3α-linolenic fatty acid content of 0.03%. Based on the
sensory evaluation test, bread formulated with chia seeds or flour obtained high
level of acceptability test and purchase plans, with chia flour bread obtaining
higher index of purchase intent than the chia seed bread.
2.5 Omega-3 Fatty Acid
Omega-3 fatty acid is a type of polyunsaturated fatty acid. The term
omega-3 is in reference to the carbon molecule adjacent to a double bond
numbered from the methyl end of the molecule. An example of omega-3 fatty acid
is docosahexanoic fatty acid (DHA). It is a molecule with a backbone of 22
carbon chains and contains 6 double bonds, with the first double bond located on
carbon 3 from the methyl end. The other two commonly found omega-3 fatty acid
13
in food are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)
(McManus et al., 2011).
Among the three commonly found omega-3 fatty acids in food, ALA is
the only one not naturally produced by human body, and so it is considered to be
an essential fatty acid. However, enzymes in human body can convert ALA into
EPA and DHA, which have long been associated with health promoting effects
(Larsen et al., 2011). According to McManus et al. (2011), consumption of
omega-3 fatty acids have been related to positive health outcomes, notably in the
areas of infant development, cardiovascular disease, platelet aggregation,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cancer, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression
and inflammation.
According to Simopoulos and Cleland (2003), maintaining an
omega-6/omega-3 ratio of 4:1 or less is recommended. High ratio of
omega-6/omega-3 is detrimental to health and can lead to the development of
chronic disease. Improving the intake of omega-3 fatty acid is essential for brain
function and management of cardiovascular disease, arthritis, and cancer. Further
research by Gow and Hibbeln (2014) also shows that omega-3 and omega-6
intake needs to be balanced for optimal physical and mental health, and excessive
intake of one type of fatty acid may inhibit the conversion of the other.
Furthermore, supplementation of omega-3 towards children in the experiment
shows some improvement in terms of learning capacity and behavior, especially
in children who are underachieving, have ADHD-like symptoms, and/or have
severe misconduct.
14
2.6 Dietary Fiber
According to Brown (2011), dietary fiber is defined as the undigested
portion of carbohydrates remaining in a food sample after exposure to digestive
enzymes. Dietary fibers are usually found in plant foods and includes
polysaccharides and lignin. More recently, however, the definition has been
expanded to include oligosaccharides, such as inulin and resistant starches.
Dietary fibers are usually classified based on its solubility, which are soluble and
insoluble fiber. Insoluble fiber cannot be dissolved in water, and usually acts as a
sponge in the intestine by soaking up water. Soluble fibers readily dissolves in
water, and may benefit health by lowering high blood cholesterol levels and
reducing high blood glucose. Example of soluble fibers are beta-glucans, pectins,
gums, and some hemicelluloses (Anderson et al., 2009). Foods containing soluble
fibers include dried beans, peas, lentils, oats, rice bran, barley, and oranges.
Insoluble fibers are found mostly in whole wheat (wheat bran) and rye products,
along with banana. Examples of insoluble fibers are cellulose, lignin, and some
hemicelluloses (Anderson et al., 2009; Brown, 2011).
High intake of dietary fibers have been associated with a lot of health
benefits. Its main effect is to regulate intestinal degradation and absorption of
nutrients as well as their transit along the gut (Taghipoor, et al., 2014). Lower
prevalence of coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes,
obesity, and certain gastrointestinal diseases have been proven by consuming high
intake of dietary fiber (Anderson et al., 2009). One of the reason is because fibers
are found to be able to lower blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.
Improved glycemia and insulin sensitivity is also caused by high intake of dietary
15
fiber. Dietary fibers are also found to be able to significantly enhances weight loss
of obese individuals. Recent researches shows that intake of inulin and certain
soluble fibers might enhances immune function in humans, although further
research need to be done to prove it (Anderson et al., 2009).
2.7 Response Surface Methodology
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is a collection of mathematical and
statistical techniques that are useful for the modeling and analysis of problems, in
which a response of interest is influenced by several variables and the objective is
to optimize this response (Montgomery, 2001). This method is able to process
responses based on precise maps using mathematical models to achieve one spot
that meet all of the required target. RSM is often used by industries to optimize a
certain factor in the process to achieve the best end product with minimal loss
(Montgomery, 2001).
2.7.1 Central Composite Design
Central Composite Design contains an imbedded factorial or fractional
factorial design with center points that is added with a group of “star points”
which allow estimation of a curvature (NIST, 2012). The distance from the central
to the factorial point is defined as +1, while the distance from the central point to
the star point is |α|>1. The value of α depends on the properties based on the
design and the numbers of factors involved. The star points represents the extreme
value for each of the factor involved in the design. The number of star points
always contains twice as there are factors in the design. There are three types of
central composite design, which are circumscribed, inscribed and face centered.
16
Circumscribed designs are the original form of central composite design. This
design has circular, spherical or hyperspherical symmetry and requires 5 levels for
each factor. Inscribed type is usually used whereby the limits for each factor are
truly limits. It is basically a scaled down circumscribed design with each factor
level of the design divided by α to generate the inscribed design. Face centered
type’s star points is at the center of each face of the factorial space, so α = + 1
(NIST, 2012).
17
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Materials and Equipments
Materials used in this experiment include chia (Salvia hispanica L.) seeds
obtained from SuperFood Indonesia in Jakarta, wheat flour with brand “Kunci
Biru”, margarine/hydrogenated vegetable fat (HVF) with brand “Blue Band”,
sugar, egg yolk, baking powder, and vanilla powder. For analysis, materials which
were used includes H2O2 ex.Merck, H2SO4 ex.Merck, K2SO4 ex.Merck, NaOH
ex.Merck, HCl ex.Merck, mixed indicator (100 mL of 0.1% methyl red with 200
mL of 0.2% bromocresol green) ex.Merck, Boric acid ex.Merck, Hexane PA
ex.Merck, Na3PO4 ex.Sigma-Aldrich, termamyl enzyme ex.Merck, pepsin enzyme
ex.Merck, pancreatin ex.Merck, ethanol ex.Merck, and acetone ex.Merck.
Equipments used in this experiment were dry blender, sifter, blender, oven,
mixer, stove, cookie cutter, balance “Mettler Toledo”, and pan. For the analysis,
equipments used were oven “Memmert”, kjeldahl system “VELP Scientifica UDK
127”, kjeldahl flask, desiccator “Duran”, muffle furnace “Thermoline 48000”,
tongs, texture analyzer “VELP Scientifica UDK 127”, evaporating dish, filter
paper, erlenmeyer, soxhlet equipment, and burette.
3.2 Research Procedure
3.2.1 Preliminary Research
3.2.1.1 Nutritional Content Analysis of Chia Flour
18
Chia flour was analysed for its nutritional content by using proximate
analysis. The seeds was initially grounded using dry blender before sieving
through 20-mesh screen. Proximate analysis was used to determine the
carbohydrate, protein, fat, moisture, ash content, dietary fiber and omega-3 fatty
acid.
3.2.1.2 Determination of Mixing Method
This step was done to determine the method which gives the best texture
for the cookies. Two types of mixing method were used to make the cookies,
which are one stage mixing and two stages mixing. Basic formula shown in Table
3.1 was used for preliminary research.
Table 3.1 Basic formulation for cookiesIngredients Amount (g)Wheat flour 100Chia flour 15Margarine/HVF 55Sugar 70Egg 40Vanilla powder 0.2Baking powder 0.2
Source: Novianty (2015)
In one stage mixing, all ingredients were weighed, placed in the mixer, and
then mixed at low speed until the mixture becomes uniform. For two stages
mixing, all the ingredients were weighed and then placed separately. First, the fat,
sugar, and salt were put in the mixer and then mixed at low speed until the texture
is light and fluffy. Afterwards, eggs and other liquid ingredients were added and
blended at low speed. Then, the flour and leavening agent were added and mixed
until it becomes homogen. Sensory analysis and texture analyzer was used to
determine the best mixing method (Bassinello et al., 2011).
19
3.2.2 Main Research
In the main research, the first activity done was making cookies with
different formulation of chia flour and hydrogenated vegetable fat (HVF), which
was determined according to a 22 Central Composite Rotational Design. Before
making the cookies, all chia seeds were grinded using dry blender and sieved
through a 20-mesh screen and packed in plastic containers. Afterwards, all
ingredients used in the formulation, which are wheat flour, chia flour, HVF, sugar,
egg, vanilla powder, and baking powder were weighed according to the
formulations, shown in Table 3.3. Next, all the ingredientes were mixed together
using the proper mixing method, which was determined in the preliminary
research. Using a cookie cutter, the dough was shaped and then placed into
margarine-smeared pan. After that, the dough was baked at 145 oC for
approximately 15 - 20 minutes. The cookies were cooled down after the baking
process is finished. Figure 3.1 shows the flowchart of cookie production.
The second activity was evaluating the physico-chemical characteristics of
the cookie produced, which includes the spread of the cookies, texture, color, and
moisture content. The third activity was sensory test to evaluate the preference of
panelists towards the cookie produced using hedonic test. After the result from the
physico-chemical analysis and sensory evaluation comes out, Response Surface
Method (RSM) was used to determine the recommended best composition.
Verification test was done afterwards towards the recommended composition.
After the optimum or best cookie formulation is determined, proximate analysis
was done to analyse the difference of the components inside the cookie between
cookies made with chia flour and the control cookie. The analysis includes
20
carbohydrate content, protein content, fat content, ash content, fiber content, and
omega-3 content. The last activity was comparing the physical characteristics and
the result of the proximate analysis between the experimental cookies and control
cookies.
Grinding chia seeds into flour using dry blender and sieved through 20-mesh screen
Ingredient are weighted according to formulation (refer to Table 3.3)
Chia and wheat flour are mixed with HVF, sugar, egg, vanilla powder, and baking powder with the proper method determined from preliminary research
The dough is shaped using cookie cutter, and then placed into the margarine-smeared pan
The dough is baked at 150oC for 15 minutes
Let the cookies cool
Figure 3.1 Flowchart of the cookies makingSource: Novianty (2015), with modification
3.2.2.1 Determination of Chia Cookie Formulation
Detemination of formula used to produce chia cookies was conducted
using RSM with Design Expert 7.0®. This method was used to help the
optimization of composition of component used in the cookies, by recommending
the best formulation to be used based on responses to each formulation. There are
two factors used in this research, which are chia flour and HVF. Table 3.2 shows
the upper and lower level of chia flour and HVF used, and the cookies
formulation for optimization can be seen in Table 3.3. Table 3.4 shows the goal
and importance of each parameter. Texture parameter was set to the highest level,
which is 5, as it is the main objective of this research. Sensory evaluation result
was done to determine which cookie formulation have the highest acceptability in
texture parameter. Afterwards, physico-chemical analysis was done to determine
the effect of different compositions of chia flour and HVF towards the texture
21
characteristics of cookie. The RSM recommended the optimal composition to
produce chia cookies.
Table 3.2 Concentration composition of cookies formulaFactor -α Level (g) -1 Level (g) 0 +1 Level (g) +α Level (g)
Chia Flour 0.00 4.39 15 25.61 30HVF 33.00 36.22 44.00 51.78 55
Table 3.3 Formulation Combination ModelNo Chia Flour (g) HVF (g)
1 4.39 36.222 15.00 44.003 4.39 51.784 25.61 51.785 25.61 36.226 15.00 44.007 15.00 44.008 15.00 55.009 30.00 44.0010 15.00 44.0011 15.00 33.0012 15.00 44.0013 0.00 44.0014 15.00 44.00
Table 3.4 Optimization cookies formula goal and importanceFactor Goal ImportanceOrganoleptic Texture Maximize 5Physico-chemical Hardness Is in range 3characteristics Fracturability Is in range 3
Cookies spread Is in range 3Moisture content Is in range 3
3.2.2.2 Verification Test
This test was done to verify the formula given by the RSM. It was done by
producing cookies based on the recommended formulation and then conduct
physico-chemical analysis and sensory evaluation towards the cookies. The result
of the tests was compared with the prediction value of RSM.
22
3.2.2.3 Product Comparison
To observe the effects given by the addition of chia flour, comparison was
done by comparing the experimental cookies with control cookies. The nutritional
content, physico-chemical properties, and sensory evaluation result is compared
with control cookies.
3.3 Experimental Design
3.3.1 Preliminary Research
The treatment done in the preliminary research was to compare the effects
of different mixing method towards the physical characteristic of the cookies
produced. The data was analysed using binomial test with two factors, which was
one-stage and two-stage mixing method. The hypothesis are as follows:
H0 = There is no effect of different mixing method towards panelist preference.H1 = There is an effect of different mixing method toward panelist preference.
3.3.2 Main Research
3.3.2.1 Chia Cookies Formula Determination
The experimental design for this research was done to determine the best
formulation of cookies using the optimal concentration of chia flour and HVF
using RSM method. The Design Expert processed the result of the analysis and
recommend the best formulation. The statistical model of this research is written
below:
Y = β1X1 + β2X2
Y = Response functionβ = Linear coefficientX1 = Chia flour concentrationX2 = HVF concentration
23
3.3.2.2 Product Comparison
Components and physical properties of experiment cookies and control
cookies were compared using independent sample t-test. Dependent sample t-test
was used when comparing the sensory parameters between experiment and
control cookies. The statistical model is as follows:
Yij = μ + Ai + εij
Yij = Observation value from experiment cookies at level 1 and repetition j.μ = Actual mean valueAi = Effect of formulation at level iεij = Error factorH0 = There is no difference between experiment cookies and control cookies H1 = There is a difference between experiment cookies and control cookies
3.4 Analysis Procedure
3.4.1 Physico-chemical Analysis
3.4.1.1 Cookies texture (Bourne, 2002)
Texture analyzer was used to determine the cookie texture. Hardness value
was considered as the maximum force obtain in the curve and fracturability as the
linear distance towards the maximum point. The studies was conducted using a 2
mm probe at a crosshead speed of 3 mms-1. Parameters measured were hardness
and fracturability.
3.4.1.2 Cookies spread (Sharif et al., 2009)
Spreading of cookie was observed manually using a ruler. The height and
diameter of the cookies before and after baking was observed as well. The height
was observed by placing six cookies horizontally (from edge to edge), and has its
height measured while the cookies are rotated 90o. Thickness was measured by
placing six cookies to one another.
24
Spread factor = Weight
Thickness x Correction Factor x 10
3.4.1.3 Proximate Analysis
3.4.1.3.1 Moisture Content (AOAC, 2005)
Analysis of moisture content was done using oven method. First, 5 grams
of sample was transferred to the constant evaporating dish and placed in the oven
at 105 oC for 6 hours. After drying, the sample was moved into a desiccator to
cool down. Weighing process was done afterwards, and finished until the constant
weight is achieved.
Moisture Content (Wet Basis) = W 1−W 2
W 1 x 100
Where: W1 = weight (g) before dryingW2 = weight (g) after drying
3.4.1.3.2 Ash Content (AOAC, 2005)
Determination of ash content of cookies was done using dry ashing
method. Approximately 3 g of sample was weighed and put in the constant
crucible, which was digested until no smoke is formed. The crucible was then
placed in a muffle furnace, which afterwards was ignited at 550 oC until light gray
ash was obtained. The obtained ashes was then cooled in desiccator and weighed.
% Ash content (dry basis) = x− y
z × 100%
where: x = weight after ashing
y = weight of crucible
z = original sample weight
3.4.1.3.3 Protein Content (AOAC, 2005)
25
Kjeldahl method was used to analyze the protein content. Fat free sample
weighing around 2 g was wrapped with a filter paper and placed in digestion
flask. The flask was then added with 7 g of K2SO4 and 0.05 g of Selenium. It was
then followed by the addition of 10 mL H2SO4 and 10 mL H2O2. The sample was
destructed until clear solution was obtained. Afterwards, the solution was cooled
down with the addition of 50 mL NaOH. The flask was then connected to a
distilling bulb on a condenser, in which the tip was immersed in a solution of
boric acid mixed with 3 drops of indicator. The distillation process was done for
about 5 minutes. Any excess acid in the distillate was then titrared using HCl
solution until pink color is achieved.
% Protein = ¿¿ x 100%
Where: A = Volume (ml) of titrationB = Volume (ml) of blankN = N HClW = weight (mg) of sample14.007 = atomic weight of nitrogen6.25 = protein conversion factor
3.4.1.3.4 Fat Content (AOAC, 2000)
Fat content analysis was done using soxhlet method. Approximately 5 g of
sample was wrapped in filter paper and put into extraction thimble. Hexane was
then added into the boiling flask. Afterwards, boiling flask, soxhlet flask, and
condenser was assembled. Fat was then extracted in a soxhlet extractor for 6
hours. Then the boiling flask with extracted fat was dried in oven at 105 oC until
constant. After drying, the sample was cooled down in the desiccator, and then
weighed.
% Fat content (dry basis) = weight of fat extracted (g) × 100%Weight of sample (g)
26
3.4.1.3.5 Carbohydrate Content (AOAC, 2005)
Determination of carbohydrate content was done using difference method.
Carbohydrate content (%) = 100% - (% moisture + % ash + % protein + % fat)
3.4.1.4 Dietary Fiber Content
Approximately 1 g of dry fat free sample was placed in Erlenmeyer, and
0.1 M sodium phosphate is added. Afterwards, 0.1 ml of termamyl enzyme was
added into the mixture, and then covered with aluminium foil. The mixture was
then incubated in a water bath at 100 oC for 15 minutes. The mixture was then
cooled down, and afterwards 20 ml aquadest and 1 M HCl was added. The pH of
this mixture should be 1.5. Afterwards, 100 mg of pepsin enzyme was added, and
then the erlenmeyer flask was covered again and incubated in water bath at 40 oC
for 60 minutes. HCl addition was done to adjust the pH to 4.5. The mixture was
then filtered with a dry crucible which have been weighed and contains 0.5 g of
dry celite. The mixture was then washed twice with 10 ml of aquadest. The filtrate
was then used to determine the soluble fiber, while the precipitates were used to
determine the insoluble fibers. The precipitate was washed with 10 ml of 95%
ethanol and 10 ml acetone twice. Afterwards, the precipitate was dried in 105 oC
until it reaches constant weight. Then, the precipitate was ashed in furnace at 550
oC for 5 hours.
% Insoluble fiber = (A – B – C)/W x 100%
A = weight after dried (g)B = weight after ashed (g)C = weight of fat free blank (g)W = sample weight (g)
27
The soluble fiber was determined by adding water into the resulting filtrate
until the volume reaches 100 mL. Afterwards, 400 ml of 95% ethanol was added
and the mixture was cooled for 1 hour. The mixture was then filtered with dry
crucible which have been weighed and contains 0.5 g of celite. The resulting
filtrate was washed twice with 10 ml of 78% ethanol, 10 ml 95% ethanol, and 10
ml acetone. Afterwards it was dried in 105 oC until constant weight was reached.
The filtrate was then ashed in furnace at 550 oC for 5 hours and cooled down in
desiccator before weighing.
% Soluble fiber = (A – B – C)/W x 100%
A = weight after dried (g)B = weight after ashed (g)C = weight of fat free blank (g)W = sample weight (g)Total dietary fiber = insoluble fiber + soluble fiber
3.4.1.5 Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content
Omega-3 analysis was done using gas chromatography. Initially, the
samples were dried and has its fat content extracted, using fat extraction method
from AOAC (2000). Afterwards, the fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) found in
the fat were obtained and the compositions determined via gas chromatography
with a flame ionisation detector (FID). Omega-3 fatty acid was determined and
has its content calculated, with the result expressed as g per 100 g of fat (AOCS,
2005).
3.4.2 Sensory Evaluation
Hedonic test was used in the sensory evaluation. Texture parameter is used
in this test. A total of 75 panelists was used. In the test, 1 indicates the least
preferred cookie, while 7 indicates the most preferred cookie. Panelists were
28
asked to determine the score by eating each of the cookie sample. Mineral water
was provided and panelists must take a sip of water in between tasting each of the
samples. Afterwards panelists have to write the score in the form (Meilgaard et
al., 2007).
29
CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Overview
The cookies made were pressed cookies, with the addition of chia seed
flour. Proximate analysis of the chia seeds and determination of the best mixing
method were done first before the main experiment was commenced. The main
experiment was done to determine the optimal cookie formulation, the verification
of the formula, and characterization of the product.
4.2 Nutritional Content of Chia Flour
Chia flour is the main component in the making of the cookies. The
nutritional content of chia flour can be seen in Table 4.1. The identification result
is written in Appendix A.
Table 4.1 Nutritional Content of Chia FlourNutrition Chia SeedProtein (%) 17.24 ± 0.10Fat (%) 30.97 ± 0.25
Omega-3 ( %) 19.14Ash (%) 1.66 ± 0.13Carbohydrate (%) 41.88 ± 0.35Total Dietary Fiber (%) 42.60Moisture (%) 8.25 ± 0.38
The nutritional value of chia flour closely matches the value from USDA,
in which it is written as follows: 16.54 g protein/100 g, 30.74 g fat/100 g, 17.83 g
omega-3 fatty acids/100 g, and 42.12 g carbohydrate/100 g. However the total
30
dietary fiber content of chia flour was significantly higher than the value from
USDA, which is written as 34.4 g dietary fiber / 100 g (Munoz et al., (2013).
4.3 Determination of Mixing Method
The mixing method of the cookies was determined based on the sensory
evaluation of the cookie’s texture. As fibers are found in large amount in chia
seeds, and it can affect the texture of the cookie produced, hence texture is the
parameter analyzed. Based on the result of the sensory evaluation, the best mixing
method is used. Two mixing method used in this experiment are one-stage and
two-stage mixing. Paired comparison and paired preference test were used in the
determination of mixing method. In paired comparison test, panelist were asked to
determine which cookie is more hard to bite, while in paired preference test, the
preferred cookie is chosen. Appendix B shows the questionnaire of both tests. The
result of the test is as shown in Figure 4.1 and 4.2.
96%
4%
One-stageTwo-stage
Figure 4.1 Result of Paired Comparison TestNote : One-stage = 72 panelists; Two-stage = 3 panelists
31
16%
84%
One-stageTwo-stage
Figure 4.2 Result of Paired Preference TestNote : One-stage = 12 panelists; Two-stage = 63 panelists
The sensory evaluation data of both tests are found in Appendix C, while
the statistical analysis are found in Appendix D. The result from both the paired
comparison and paired preference test shows that there are significant differences
between cookies made with one-stage and two-stage mixing. In the paired
comparison test, cookie made with one-stage mixing is significantly harder than
cookie made with two-stage mixing. The paired preference test shows that cookie
made with two-stage mixing is more preferable than cookie made with one-stage
mixing. The result is backed by result from texture profile analysis, which can be
seen in Appendix E. Table 4.2 shows the average of hardness value of cookie
made with one-stage and two-stage mixing respectively. According to Hui (2006),
mixing cookie ingredients in two stages can minimize the development of gluten
in the flour, which is desirable in cookie dough. By mixing the cookie ingredient
in two stages, the fat will be more evenly dispersed around the flour particles, and
therefore rendering them less available to water and preventing gluten
development. High protein content, which causes gluten development in cookie
32
dough is associated with harder cookies (Gaines, 1992). In one-stage mixing, the
baker has less control over the mixing, and therefore, the gluten development as
well. However, it can be used when over-mixing is not a serious problem, for
example in the making of chewy cookies (Hui, 2006).
Table 4.2 Hardness Value of Cookie Made With Different Mixing MethodsMixing Method Hardness (g)
One-stage mixing 2944,10 ± 156,54
Two-stage mixing 1864,33 ± 176,78
4.4 Formula Optimization of Cookies
This step was done to find the formula to made cookies from chia seeds
with the best texture based on the sensory evaluation. The sensory evaluation
questionnaire can be seen on Appendix F. Parameter evaluated is texture. The test
was done in the span of two weeks, in which the panelists must evaluate the
sensory attributes of 3 and 4 samples each week, with a total of 14 samples, which
was done to avoid sensory fatigue. According to Stone and Sidel (2004), sensory
fatigue can happen if panelists are asked to evaluate too many samples, and
consequently, the evaluation result becomes inaccurate. The result of the sensory
evaluation can be seen on Appendix G. Texture analysis, moisture content, and
spread rate were used to obtain objective data regarding the parameters of the
cookies.
The data obtained from the experiment were analyzed using Response
Surface Methodology (RSM). RSM is a mathematical and statistical method to
optimize responses from several variables (Montgomery, 2001). In this case, the
responses are all the parameters which was measured and the variables are the
chia flour and hydrogenated vegetable fat (HVF). Through RSM, the best
33
combination of chia flour and HVF to obtain cookies with the optimal texture can
be found. The analysis result from RSM shows the appropriate statistical model
for each responses. Table 4.3 shows the appropriate statistical model of each
responses.
Table 4.3 Statistical Model for Each ResponsesResponse Model P-value model P-value Lack of fit
Texture Linear 0.0011 0.4712
Hardness Linear 0.0003 0.4558
Fracturability Quadratic 0.0003 0.2622
Spread ratio Quadratic 0.0001 0.0404
Moisture content Linear 0.0026 0.7306
In RSM, the P-value of the statistical model must be significant to show
that it is the most appropriate model (<0.05). While for the P-value in lack of fit
must be not significant to indicate that the chosen model is appropriate (>0.05)
(NIST, 2012). As shown in Table 4.3, all the responses has P-value less than 0.05,
which means all the selected models are significant, indicating that there are
significant differences found between the different compositions of chia flour and
HVF. However, in lack of fit, the P-value of spread ratio was found to be
significant, which means that the selected model does not accurately fit the data,
however, as the P-value model is significant, it means that although the different
composition of chia flour and HVF affected the spread ratio significantly, the
selected model does not represent the data accurately.
4.4.1 Optimization of Sensory Evaluation Result
Sensory evaluation was done to evaluate the preference of panelists in
terms if its texture. The texture of cookies is the most important parameter in
cookies. What differentiates cookies with the other bakery product is its
34
crispiness. The interaction between fat and flour used is what made the
characteristic crispiness of the cookies. The resulting interaction between chia
flour, wheat flour, and HVF in this experiment were measured in terms of
desirability in the sensory evaluation test. Table 4.3 shows the P-value for model
and lack of fit in fit summary test, and linear model was found to be the most
appropriate model to represent the data. Figure 4.3 shows the 3-D graph for
texture response, while Figure 4.4 shows the contour graph. Appendix H shows
the statistical analysis of texture response. According to the analysis, chia flour
and HVF significantly affects the texture response. Shown below is the final
equation for texture response:
Y= 2.54849 - 0.033123 A + 0.066099 B
Note:Y = Hedonic score for textureA = Chia flourB = HVF
Figure 4.3 3-D Graph for Texture Response Based on Hedonic Test
35
Figure 4.4 Contour Graph for Texture Response Based on Hedonic Test
The result of the sensory evaluation test shows that panelists prefer
cookies made with less chia flour and high amount of HVF. From the graph, it can
be concluded that high concentration of HVF can offset the undesirability of high
amount of chia flour. The result is similar to experiments done by Pizarro et al.
(2013) and Steffolani et al. (2015), whereby pound cake and bread added with
chia flour decreases its texture desirability respectively.
4.4.2 Optimization of Physical Analysis Result
4.4.2.1 Hardness
Hardness is considered to be the force needed to bite through the cookie in
a single bite (Bourne, 2002). Fit summary test from RSM in Table 4.2 shows that
linear model is suitable to represent the hardness response. The graph for hardness
response can be seen in Figure 4.5 and 4.6. Appendix I and Appendix J shows
result of hardness analysis and the statistical analysis of the hardness response
respectively. The statistical analysis result shows that both chia flour and HVF
36
significantly affects the hardness response. The equation for hardness response is
as follows:
Y= 5754.73699 + 12.08214 A - 62.86553 B
Note:Y = Hardness valueA = Chia FlourB = HVF
Figure 4.5 3-D Graph for Hardness Value
Figure 4.6 Contour Graph for Hardness Value
37
Based on the result shown in the graph and equation, it can be seen that
chia flour significantly increases the hardness of cookie, while HVF decreases it.
According to Pizarro et al. (2013), chia seed contains high amount of dietary
fibers, which in turn disturbs the fat and air distribution in the dough by exerting
physical impairment towards the dough.. Fat distribution is especially important in
cookie, as fat impedes gluten formation by breaking the long gluten strands in the
dough and help stabilize air cells. According to Gaines (1992), gluten formation is
associated with hard cookies, as the gluten structure . With the fat distribution
interrupted, gluten formation occurs, and consequently the cookies become harder
due to gluten’s tough and elastic nature. The result, compared with the sensory
evaluation result of texture parameter shows that cookies with hard texture is
undesirable according to panelists. Therefore, it can be concluded that the addition
of chia flour increase the hardness of cookie, and HVF can help decrease it.
4.4.2.2 Fracturability
According to Bourne (2002), fracturability is the force needed to shatter a
cookie in a single bite. Based on fit summary test, quadratic model fits the
fracturability response data. Figure 4.7 and 4.8 shows the graph for fracturability
response. Red color indicates high value and low value is indicated with blue
color. The result of fracturability analysis is shown in Appendix I. Appendix K
shows the statistical analysis of fracturability response. According to the analysis,
all the factors are significant, except for the quadratic HVF (B2) factor. This is
because the p-value is above 0.05, meaning that the factor does not significantly
affect the fracturability response and as a result, it is not put on the final equation.
Below is the equation for the fracturability response:
38
Y= 11.70780 + 0.087422 A - 0.021202 B - 3.94545 x 10-3 AB + 1.61889 x 10-3 A2
Note:Y = Fracturability valueA = Chia FlourB = HVF
Figure 4.7 3-D Graph for Fracturability Value
Figure 4.8 Contour Graph for Fracturability Value
Based on the interaction term and the graph, it can be seen that the
addition of HVF significantly increases the fracturability of cookie in low amount
39
of chia flour, but the effect is not significant if the chia flour is added in large
amount. Addition of HVF higher than used in this research might be needed to
maintain high fracturability value. Chia flour have a very small positive quadratic
effect towards the fracturability of cookie, whereby in small and high amount, the
value actually increases. Similar to the texture response, the change in
fracturability value is also affected due to the large amount of dietary fiber found
in the chia flour (Pizarro et al., 2013). As more chia flour is added, so does the
dietary fibers, therefore causing the fat to be unevenly distributed. This is because
fiber exerts physical impairment toward the dough, by displacing the fat
distribution around the dough. According to Jacob and Leelavathi (2006), fat
helps increases the crispiness of cookie, which is associated with high
fracturability. This is due to fat’s ability to break long gluten strains in the dough,
which consequently causes the dough to soft and less viscous. The resulting
dough after baking will be soft and crispy. Due to uneven distribution of fat, these
long gluten strains were not broken and the cookie becomes harder to fracture,
due to gluten’s tough and elastic nature. This is supported by research done by
Novianty (2015), whereby the incorporation of ingredient with high amount of
dietary fiber decreases the fracturability of cookies. The result, compared with the
result of sensory evaluation in texture parameter, shows that low fracturability
value of cookie is undesirable according to panelists. Therefore it can be
concluded that chia flour significantly decreases the fracturability of cookie, while
HVF can increase it in low amount of chia flour.
40
4.4.2.2 Spread Ratio
Spread ratio is defined as the ratio between the diameter of cookies and its
thickness. The value is directly proportional of its diameter and inversely with its
thickness. Fit summary test from RSM shown in Table 4.3 shows that the
quadratic model fits the data for spread ratio. However, the P-value for lack of fit
was shown to be significant. The possible explanation for this is the high standard
deviation of the data. The result and statistical analysis for spread ratio response is
shown in Appendix L and Appendix M respectively. Result of the statistical
analysis shows that the quadratic HVF factor (B2) is not significant (p-value >
0.05), therefore it is not included in the final equation. Figure 4.9 shows the 3-D
graph for spread ratio response, with blue color indicating low spread ratio and
red color indicating the otherwise. The contour graph is shown in Figure 4.10.
Below is shown the equation for spread ratio response:
Y= -0.63690 + 0.12724 A + 1.37668 B - 0.023727 AB + 0.013871 A2
Note:Y = Spread ratio valueA = Chia FlourB = HVF
Figure 4.9 3-D Graph for Spread Ratio
41
Figure 4.10 Contour Graph for Spread Ratio
From the result of the experiment represented on the graph, it can be seen
that HVF significantly increases the spread ratio of cookie in low amount of chia
flour, however the effect is not significant if the chia flour concentration is higher.
Chia flour have very small positive quadratic effect towards the spread ratio of
cookie, whereby in small and high amount, the value actually increases.
According to experiment done by Pizarro et al. (2013), high fiber content of chia
seed lowers the specific volume of cake formulated with the addition of chia flour.
The author concluded that the cause is the high amount of fiber found in chia
seed, which interferes the distribution of fat and air around the dough. As fat were
distributed unevenly, gluten formation occurs uncontrollably, thereby causing the
dough to be tough and elastic, making it harder to spread during baking. Another
experiment done by Saeed et al. (2012) which studies the effect of sweet potato
flour on the quality of cookie also reports that high content fiber decreases the
42
width or diameter of the cookies produced. The journal mentions that high water
absorption capacity of sweet potato flour also contributes toward the decreasing
spread ratio of the final product, which decreases the amount of free water present
in the dough. The loss of free water creates viscous dough, which in turn
decreases the spread ratio in its final product. Based on manuscript written by
Munoz et al. (2013), chia seed is known to possess high water absorption capacity
as well, as the insoluble fibers has the ability to absorb high amount of water, and
as such, it further decreases the spread ratio of the final product. In this
experiment, spread ratio seems to be increased in low amount of chia flour by
increasing HVF content, as the fiber content is still relatively low, however when
the chia flour concentration is high, the fiber content becomes so high that
increasing HVF will not have any effect any longer. Increasing the amount of
HVF higher than used in present study might be beneficial to help increase spread
ratio in high amount of chia flour.
4.4.2.3 Moisture Content
According to the fit summary test, linear model fits the data for moisture
content response. Moisture content is one of the most important parameter of
cookie, as it influences the texture of the cookie formed. Low moisture content
increases the crispiness of cookie, while higher moisture content form soft cookie
(Hui, 2006). Appendix N shows the data of moisture content, while Appendix O
shows the statistical analysis for moisture content response. All factors in the
experiment significantly affects the moisture content response according to the
statistical analysis. The data for the moisture content response is represented in a
43
3-D and contour graph in Figure 4.11 and 4.12 respectively. The resulting
equation for moisture content response is as follows:
Y= 6.16682 + 0.056443 A - 0.072952 B
Note:Y = Moisture contentA = Chia FlourB = HVF
Figure 4.11 3-D Graph for Moisture Content
Figure 4.12 Contour Graph for Moisture Content
44
Chia flour was found to significantly increases the moisture content of
cookie. The possible explanation for this is the water absorption capability of chia
flour. According to Munoz et al. (2013), one of chia seed’s characteristic is its
ability to absorb large amount of water, due to its insoluble fiber content.
Experiment done by Novianty (2015) shows that the addition of ingredient with
high water absorption capability can increase the moisture content of cookie. The
insoluble fibers absorb free water, thereby making the dough more viscous. This
creates harder and less crispy cookies, which correlates with the result of hardness
and fracturability parameter.
4.4.3 Optimal Formula Recommendation
The optimal formula of chia flour and HVF in the cookie was determined
by Design Experiment via RSM, based on the data of the experiment. To
determine the optimal composition, goals were set for each responses and
variables, with particular focus on the texture parameter from the sensory
evaluation result, as the goal of this response is to obtain cookie with optimal
texture. To help this, the importance was set, with 5 as the highest priority and 1
as the lowest priority. The Design Expert optimized the formulation according to
goals with highest importance first, followed by the least important. Chia flour
and texture’s importance was set to 5, as the objective of this research is to obtain
cookie with highest amount of chia flour while having the best texture quality as
well. The criteria and goals for each response can be seen in Table 4.4.
45
Table 4.4 Criteria and Goals of Each Responses for Optimal Cookie FormulationFactors Goal Lower Limit Upper Limit Importance
Chia Flour (g) Maximize 0 30 5
HVF (g) In range 33 55 3
Texture Maximize 3.95 5.84 5
Hardness (g) In range 2361.19 3930.77 3
Fracturability (mm) In range 12.028 13.637 3
Spread ratio In range 27.59 44.295 3
Moisture content (%) In range 2.65 6.01 3
Based on goals set previously, the Design Expert determined the optimal
composition of chia flour and HVF and gave the desirability value. The
desirability value is between 0 to 1, and the target is to achieve value as high as
possible, with 1 as the ideal response value (NIST, 2012). The optimal formula
recommended by the Design Expert can be seen in Table 4.5. Afterwards, the
optimal formula needs to be verified using sensory evaluation and physico-
chemical analysis and compared to the prediction value calculated by Design
Expert.
Table 4.5 The Optimal Formula of Cookie Formulated With Chia Flour
Formulation Chia Flour (g) HVF (g) Desirability
1 20.45 55.00 0.702
4.5 Product Verification
This step was done to verify the formulation recommended by the Design
Expert. In order to verify the formulation, sensory evaluation and physico-
chemical test was done. Appendix P and Appendix Q shows the questionnaire and
result of the sensory evaluation test respectively. Appendix R shows the
physicochemical analysis result. The comparison between the prediction value
and the actual result is shown in Table 4.6.
46
Table 4.6 Comparison Between Prediction Value and The Actual Result
Response Predicted Actual 95% CI low
95% CI high
95% PI low
95% PI high
Texture 5.51 5.25 5.07 5.94 4.66 6.36Hardness 2544.11 2574.84 2242.85 2845.38 1955.12 3133.10
Fracturability 12.53 12.83 12.22 12.83 12.06 12.99Spread Ratio 31.39 30.16 28.55 34.23 27.08 35.70
Moisture content 3.31 3.80 2.66 3.95 2.05 4.57
Based on the result in the table, it can be seen that some value are larger
than the predicted value, and some are smaller. However, as the value is still
within the 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI), it is still
acceptable. The 95% CI is defined as the range in which the process average is
expected to fall into 95% of the time, while 95% PI is the range in which and
individual value is expected to fall into 95% of the time (NIST, 2012).
4.6 Product Comparison
4.6.1 Sensory Evaluation Result
Hedonic test was done to determine the panelists preference between
control cookie and optimal chia cookie. The parameters observed are color,
aroma, texture, and taste. Appendix S and Appendix T shows the questionnaire
and data from the sensory evaluation. The data was further analysed using
dependent sample t-test, and is shown in Appendix U. The result of the sensory
evaluation test can be seen in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Result of Sensory Evaluation TestParameter Optimum ControlAroma 5.56 ± 0.89 a 5.77 ± 0.92 aColor 5.32 ± 1.22 a 5.87 ± 0.70 bTaste 5.61 ± 0.84 a 6.09 ± 0.74 bTexture 5.25 ± 1.24 a 6.08 ± 0.88 b
Note: Score 1: Least Desirable 7: Most Desirable
According to t-test analysis, there is no significant difference in terms of
aroma between the control cookie and optimum chia cookie. However, for color,
47
taste, and texture, the result significantly shows that panelist prefer the control
cookie compared to the optimum chia cookie. Color parameter of optimal chia
cookie was lower than control cookie due to greyish color formed in its texture,
which is similar to experiment done by Steffolani et al. (2015) regarding the
addition of chia flour into bread. The result for taste and texture also matches the
result of experiment done by Pizarro et al. (2013) about the addition of chia flour
into pound cake, which was lower compared to the control cake. Texture
parameter is lowered possibly due to higher hardness and lower fracturability of
optimum chia cookie compared to control cookie, caused by high content fiber of
chia seed which disrupts fat distribution, thereby allowing gluten to form in the
dough. The average scores for aroma, color, taste, and texture indicates that
optimum chia cookie is quite acceptable according to the panelists.
4.6.2 Physico-chemical Analysis
Parameters observed in physico-chemical analysis are hardness,
fracturability, spread ratio, and moisture content. Appendix V shows the data from
the physico-chemical analysis. Independent sample t-test analysis of the data
obtained can be seen on Appendix W. Table 4.8 shows the result of the physico-
chemical analysis.
Table 4.8 Result of Physico-chemical Analysis
Parameter Control OptimumHardness (g) 2017.13 ± 240.43 a 2574.84 ± 220.38 b
Fracturability (mm) 14.55 ± 0.34 a 12.83 ± 0.40 bSpread ratio 37.38 ± 1.13 a 30.16 ± 1.12 b
Moisture Content (%) 2.31 ± 0.24 a 3.80 ± 0.45 b
Based on t-test analysis, all the parameters tested between the control
cookie and optimum chia cookie differ significantly. Control cookie has
48
significantly lower hardness and higher fracturability value compared to optimum
chia cookie. This is caused by high amount of fiber found in chia seed, which
impedes fat distribution, causing gluten to be formed which hardens the cookie
texture. Spread ratio of control cookie was also found to be significantly higher
than the optimum chia cookie, which is caused by high amount of fiber in chia
seed. The fiber impedes spread of fat, which is important in helping cookie dough
to spread as it cooks in the cooking sheet. Optimum chia cookie has significantly
higher moisture content compared to the control cookie, due to high water
absorption capacity of chia seed, which has high amount of unsoluble fiber.
4.6.3 Nutritional Composition
The nutritional value of optimum chia cookie is compared with control
cookie. This is done in order to know whether there are differences between the
nutritional value of optimum chia cookie and control cookie. The result of the
analysis is shown in Appendix X. Table 4.9 shows the data for nutritional content
of both optimum chia cookie and control cookie.
Table 4.9 Nutritional Content of Optimum Chia Cookie and Control CookieNutrition Optimum Control
Protein (%) 8.75 ± 0.01 7.21 ± 0.10Fat (%) 27.81 ± 0.05 28.10 ± 0.83
Omega-3 ( %) 1.64 0.09Ash (%) 1.18 ± 0.06 0.90 ± 0.01Carbohydrate (%) 58.46 ± 0.64 61.48 ± 1.21Total Dietary Fiber (%) 9.16 8.32Moisture (%) 3.80 ± 0.53 2.31 ± 0.29
As seen on Table 4.9, the nutrition content of optimum chia cookie and
control cookie is only slightly different. The protein, total dietary fiber, and
moisture content of optimum chia cookie is slightly higher compared to control
cookie. The carbohydrate content of control cookie is slightly higher than
49
optimum chia cookie, while the fat content between the two cookies is very
similar. However, the most significant difference between optimum chia cookie
and control cookie is in its omega-3 fatty acid content, which was around 1.64 %
(1636.10 mg/100 g) compared to 0.09 % (87.45 mg/100 g) found in control
cookie.
According to standard set by FDA (2013), food is said to be a good source
of fiber if it contains 10 - 19 % or more of the daily value per reference amount
customarily consumed (RACC). The RACC of cookie is 30 g, and the daily value
for fiber is 25 g. The fiber content of optimum chia cookie is 9.16 %, which is
2.75 g. The amount is about 10.99 % of the daily value for fiber, meaning that it
can be claimed as a good source of fiber.
FDA (2014) allows food to be claimed high in α-linolenic acid (ALA) if it
contains ALA higher than 320 mg per RACC. Omega-3 fatty acid found in chia
seed is exclusively ALA, and so the standard can be used (Munoz et al., 2013).
The ALA content found in optimum chia cookie is 1636.10 mg/ 100 g, which
means the value per RACC is 490.83 mg. This value is significantly higher than
the minimal value, meaning that optimum chia cookie can be claimed to be a high
source of ALA.
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
The best mixing method to produce chia cookie with a better texture is
two-stage mixing method. Two-stage mixing produce softer cookies than one-
stage mixing method. High amount of chia flour lowers the spread ratio of the
cookie dough. It also formed hard and less crispy cookies, and increases its
moisture content, which makes the cookie less desirable in terms of texture. HVF
is important to maintain the cookie’s softness, crispiness, and decrease its
moisture content. Spread ratio of cookie dough was also increased in high amount
of HVF. The best formulation to produce chia cookie with the optimum texture is
20.45 g of chia flour and 55.00 g of HVF respectively. The texture parameter of
the cookie produced are as follows: moisture content 3.80%, hardness value
2574.84 g, fracturability value 12.83, spread ratio 30.16. It was well liked by
panelists in sensory evaluation test, obtaining the average score of 5.25 in the
texture parameter. The experimental cookie was found to have high amount of
omega-3 fatty acids and dietary fibers.
5.2 Suggestion
Further addition of HVF might be beneficial to further optimize the
texture, however consideration needs to be taken considering the amount of
saturated fatty acid in it. Addition of reducing agent might be beneficial to
increase spread ratio of dough and reducing hardness of cookie produced.
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington: AOAC Inc., 2000.
AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington: AOAC Inc., 2005.
AOCS. Fatty Acid Composition by Gas Chromatography. USA: American Oil Chemists Society, 2005.
Anderson, James W., Pat Baird, Richard H. Davis Jr., Stefanie Ferreri, Mary Knudtson, Ashraf Koraym, Valerie Waters, and Christine L. Williams. “Health Benefits of Dietary Fiber”. Nutrition Reviews 67 (4): 188 - 205, 2009.
Ayerza, Ricardo. “Oil Content and Fatty Acid Composition of Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) from northwestern locations in Argentina”. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 72: 1079 - 1081, 1995.
Ayerza, Ricardo and Wayne Coates. “Ground Chia Seed and Chia Oil Effects on Plasma Lipids and Fatty Acids in the Rat”. Nutrition Research 25: 995 - 1003, 2005.
Ayerza, Ricardo and Wayne Coates. “Protein Content, Oil content, and Fatty Acid Profiles as Potential Criteria to Determine the Origin of Commercially Grown Chia (Salvia hispanica L.)”. Industrial Crops and Products: 1366 - 1371, 2011.
Bassinello, Priscila Z., Daniela de G.C. Freitas, Jose Luiz R. Ascheri, Cristina Y. Takeiti, Rosangela N. Carvalho, Selma N. Koakuzu, Ana V. Carvalho. “Characterization of Cookies Formulated With Rice and Black Bean Extruded Flours”. Procedia Food Science 1: 1645 - 1652, 2011.
Bourne, Malcolm. 2002. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement. London: Academic Press
Brown, Amy. Understanding Food Principles & Preparation 4th ed. USA: Wadsworth, 2011.
Coates, Wayne and Ricardo Ayerza. “Production Potential of Chia in Northwestern Argentina”. Industrial Crops and Products 5: 229 - 233, 1996.
52
Christina. “Pemanfaatan Tepung Kacang Hijau Sebagai Subsitusi Tepung Terigu dalam Pembuatan Cookies”. Thesis report. Universitas Pelita Harapan, 2008
Coelho, Michele Silveira and Myriam de las Mercedes Salas-Mellado. “Effects of Substituting Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) Flour or Seeds for Wheat Flour on the Quality of the Bread”. Food Science and Technology: 1 - 8, 2014.
Coorey, Ranil, Audrey Tjoe, and Vijay Jayasena. “Gelling Properties of Chia Seed and Flour”. Journal of Food Science 79 (5): 859 - 866, 2014.
deMan, John M. Principles of Food Chemistry 3rd ed. Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1999.
Food and Drug Administration. “Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims, Alpha-Linolenic Acid, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, and Docosahexaenoic Acid Omega-3 Fatty Acids”. Home page on-line. Available from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/28/2014-09492/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-alpha-linolenic-acid-eicosapentaenoic-acid-and-docosahexaenoic#h-10; Internet; accessed 1 June 2015.
Food and Drug Administration. “Guidance for Industry: A Food Labeling Guide (10. Appendix B: Additional Requirements for Nutrient Content Claims)”. Home page on-line.Available from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064916.htm#relative; Internet; accessed 1 June 2015.
Gaines, Charles S, Anita Kassuba, Patrick Finney and John Donelson. “Instrumental Measurement of Cookie Hardness”.Journal of Cereal Chemistry 69(2): 120-125, 1992
Gow, Rachel V. and Joseph R. Hibbeln. “Omega-3 Fatty Acid and Nutrient Deficits in Adverse Neurodevelopment and Childhood Behaviors”. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am 23: 555 - 590, 2014.
Hui, Yiu H. 2006. Handbook of Food Science Technology and Engineering, volume 4. Florida: CRC Press.
Ixtaina, Vanesa Y., Susana M. Nolasco, and Mabel C. Tomas. “Physical Properties of Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) Seeds”. Industrial Crop and Products 28: 286 - 293, 2008.
Ixtaina, V.Y., M.L. Martinez, V. Spotorno, C. Mateo, D.M. Maestri, B.W.K. Diehl, et al. “Characterization of Chia Seed Oils Obtained by Pressing and Solvent Extraction”. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 24: 166-174, 2011.
53
Jacob, Jissy and K. Leelavathi. “Effect of Fat-type on Cookie Dough and Cookie Quality”. Journal of Food Engineering 79: 299 - 305, 2007.
Kumar, P., R.K. Yadava, B. Gollen, S. Kumar, R.K. Verma, S. Yadav. “Nutritional Contents and Medicinal Properties of Wheat: A Review”. Life Sciences and Medicine Research: 1 - 10, 2011.
Kummerow, Fred A. “Improving Hydrogenated Fat for the World Population”. Prevention and Control 1: 157 - 164, 2005.
Larsen, R., K.E. Eilertsen, E.O. Elvevoll. “Health Benefits of Marine Foods and Ingredients”. Biotechnology Advances 29: 508 - 518, 2011.
Maache-Rezzoug, Z., J.M. Bouvier, K. Allaf, and C. Patras. “Effect of Principal Ingredients on Rheological Behaviour of Biscuit Dough and on Quality of Biscuits”. Journal of Food Engineering 35: 23 - 42, 1998.
Manley, Duncan. Manley’s Technology of Biscuits, Crackers and Cookies 4th ed. UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011.
Marineli, Rafaela da Silva, Erica Aguiar Moraes, Sabrina Alves Lenquiste, Adriana Teixeira Godoy, Marcos Nogueira Eberlin, and Mario Roberto Marostica Jr. “Chemical Characterization and Antioxidant Potential of Chilean Chia Seeds and Oil (Salvia hispanica L.)”. Food Science and Technology 59: 1304 - 1310, 2014.
McManus, Alexandra, Margaret Merga, and Wendy Newton. “Omega-3 Fatty Acids. What Consumers Need to Know”. Appetite 57: 80 - 83, 2011.
Meilgaard, Morten C., Gail Vance Civille, and B. Thomas Carr. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 4th ed. Florida: CRC Press, 2007.
Montgomery, Douglas C. Design and Analysis of Experiments 5th ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
Munoz, Loreto A., Angel Cobos, Olga Diaz, and Jose Miguel Aguilera. “Chia Seed (Salvia hispanica): An Ancient Grain and A New Functional Food”. Food Reviews International: 1 - 39, 2013.
NIST, 2012. “Central Composite Design (CCD)”. Home page on-line. Available from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section3/pri3361.htm; Internet; accessed 18 May 2015.
NIST. 2012. “Multiple Responses: The Desirability Approach”. Home page on-line. Available from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri5 322.htm; Internet; accessed 18 May 2015.
54
NIST. 2012. “Process Modeling”. Home page on-line. Available from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmd/section4/pmd446.htm ; Internet, accessed 18 May 2015.
Novianty, Debby. “Optimization Composition of Wheat (Triticum spp.), Canna (Canna edulis), and Jack Bean (Canavalia ensiformis) Flour Towards Cookies Quality”. Sarjana Pertanian, Universitas Pelita Harapan, 2015.
Pizarro, Patricia Luna, Eveline Lopes Almeida, Norma Cristina Samman, and Yoon Kil Chang. “Evaluation of Whole Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) Flour and Hydrogenated Vegetable Fat in Pound Cake”. Food Science and Technology 54: 73 - 79, 2013.
Reyes-Caudillo, E., A. Tecante, and M.A. Valdivia-Lopez. “Dietary Fiber Content and Antioxidant Activity of Phenolic Compounds Present in Mexican Chia (Salvia hispanica L.) Seeds”. Food Chemistry 107: 656 - 663, 2008.
Saeed, Shazia, Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, Humaira Kausar, Saima Parveen, Sharoon Masih, and Abdus Salam. “Effect of Sweet Potato Flour on Quality of Cookies”. J. Agric. Res. 50 (4): 525 - 538, 2012.
Shahidi, Fereidoon. “Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods: Whole versus Processed Foods”. Trends in Food Science & Technology 20: 376 - 387, 2009.
Sharif, Mian K., Masood S. Butt, Faqir M. Anjum and Haq Nawaz. “Preparation of Fiber and Mineral Enriched Defatted Rice Bran Supplemented Cookies”. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 8(5): 571-577, 2009.
Simopoulos, A.P., and L.G. Cleland. “Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence”. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 92: 1-13, 2003.
Steffolani, Eugenia, Mario M. Martinez, Alberto E. Leon, and Manuel Gomez. “Effect of Pre-hydration of Chia (Salvia hispanica L.), Seeds and Flour on The Quality of Wheat Flour Breads”. Food Science and Technology 61: 401 - 405, 2015.
Stone, Herbert and Joel L. Sidel. Sensory Evaluation Practices 3rd ed. California: Elsevier, 2004.
Sumnu, Servet Gulum and Serpil Sahin. Food Engineering Aspects of Baking Sweet Goods. New York: Springer, 2006.
Taghipoor, M., G. Barles, C. Georgelin, J.R. Licois, P. Lescoat. “Digestion Modeling in the Small Intestine: Impact of Dietary Fiber”. Mathematical Biosciences 258: 101 - 112, 2014.
55
APPENDICES
56
Appendix A. Identification Result
ProteinSample mL HCl Weight (g) % Nitrogen % Protein Average
1 20,84 2,1251 2,75 17,17 17,242 20,16 2,0394 2,77 17,31
Calculation:% Protein = ¿¿ x 100%
= 20,84 mL x 0,2 N x 14,007 x 6,25 x 100%2125,1 mg
= 17,17%Fat
Sample Weight (g) Flask (g) Boiling Chip (g)
Final Weight
(g)% Fat Average
1 5,0051 105,9132 3,1861 1,5591 31,1530,97
2 5,0177 106,6245 1,5151 1,5449 30,79
Calculation:
% Fat = weight of fat extracted (g)
weight of sample (g) × 100%
= 1,5591 x 100% 5,0051 = 31,15%
Ash
SampleWeight
(g) Crucible (g) Final Weight (g) % Ash Average1 5,0345 20,9339 0,0790 1,57 1,662 5,0122 29,2951 0,0877 1,75
Calculation:
% Ash content = x− y
z × 100%
= (21,0129 - 20,9339) x 100% 5,0345
= 1,57%
Moisture Sample Weight Crucible (g) Final Weight (g) % Moisture Content Average
1 5,1224 39,0469 4,7136 7,98 8,252 5,1883 41,1139 4,7463 8,52
Calculation:
% Moisture content ¿ W 1−W 2W 1
X 100 %
= 5,1224 - 4,7136 x 100%5,1224
= 7,98 %Carbohydrate
NoCarbohydrate Content (%) Average (%)
1 42,13 41,88
A-1
2 41,63
Calculation:% Carbohydrate = 100% - %Moisture - %Ash - %Fat - %Protein
= 100% - 8,25% - 1,66% - 30,97% - 17,24% = 41,88%
A-2
Fiber and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content of Chia Seed
A-3
Appendix B. Questionnaire of Comparison Test
SIMPLE COMPARISON TEST
Product : CookiesName : Date :
Cicipi sampel dari kiri ke kanan. Jangan mencicipi ulang sampel. Tulis kode dari sampel yang lebih keras. Bilas mulut dengan air sebelum mencicipi sampel berikutnya.
Code
SIMPLE PAIRED PREFERENCE TEST
Product : CookiesName : Date:
Cicipi sampel dari kiri ke kanan. Jangan mencicipi ulang sampel. Tulis kode dari sampel yang lebih disukai. Bilas mulut dengan air sebelum mencicipi sampel berikutnya.
Code
B-1
Appendix C. Result of Comparison Test
Simple Comparison Test
No Answer1 One-stage2 One-stage3 One-stage4 One-stage5 One-stage6 One-stage7 One-stage8 One-stage9 One-stage
10 One-stage11 One-stage12 One-stage13 One-stage14 One-stage15 One-stage16 One-stage17 One-stage18 One-stage19 One-stage20 One-stage21 One-stage22 One-stage23 One-stage24 One-stage25 One-stage26 One-stage27 One-stage28 One-stage29 One-stage30 One-stage31 One-stage32 One-stage33 One-stage34 One-stage35 One-stage36 One-stage37 One-stage38 One-stage39 One-stage
No Answer
C-1
40 One-stage41 One-stage42 One-stage43 One-stage44 One-stage45 One-stage46 One-stage47 One-stage48 One-stage49 One-stage50 One-stage51 Two-stage52 One-stage53 One-stage54 One-stage55 One-stage56 One-stage57 One-stage58 One-stage59 One-stage60 One-stage61 One-stage62 One-stage63 Two-stage64 Two-stage65 One-stage66 One-stage67 One-stage68 One-stage69 One-stage70 One-stage71 One-stage72 One-stage73 One-stage74 One-stage75 One-stage
C-2
Simple Paired Preference Test
No Answer
1 Two-stage2 One-stage3 Two-stage4 Two-stage5 Two-stage6 One-stage7 Two-stage8 Two-stage9 Two-stage
10 Two-stage11 One-stage12 Two-stage13 Two-stage14 Two-stage15 One-stage16 Two-stage17 Two-stage18 One-stage19 Two-stage20 One-stage21 Two-stage22 Two-stage23 One-stage24 Two-stage25 Two-stage26 Two-stage27 Two-stage28 Two-stage29 Two-stage30 Two-stage31 Two-stage32 One-stage33 Two-stage34 Two-stage35 Two-stage36 Two-stage37 Two-stage38 Two-stage39 Two-stage
No Answer40 Two-stage
C-3
41 One-stage42 Two-stage43 Two-stage44 Two-stage45 Two-stage46 Two-stage47 Two-stage48 Two-stage49 Two-stage50 Two-stage51 Two-stage52 Two-stage53 Two-stage54 Two-stage55 Two-stage56 Two-stage57 Two-stage58 Two-stage59 Two-stage60 Two-stage61 Two-stage62 Two-stage63 Two-stage64 One-stage65 One-stage66 One-stage67 Two-stage68 Two-stage69 Two-stage70 Two-stage71 Two-stage72 Two-stage73 Two-stage74 Two-stage75 Two-stage
C-4
Appendix D. Statistical Analysis of Comparison Test
Simple Comparison Test
Binomial Test
Category N Observed Prop.
Test Prop. Exact Sig. (2-tailed)
Simple Comparison
Group 1 One stage 72 ,96 ,50 ,000
Group 2 Two stage 3 ,04
Total 75 1,00
Simple Paired Preference Test
Binomial Test
Category N Observed Prop.
Test Prop. Exact Sig. (2-tailed)
Preference
Group 1 Two stage 63 ,84 ,50 ,000
Group 2 One stage 12 ,16
Total 75 1,00
D-1
Appendix E. Result of Texture Analysis in Preliminary Analysis
Mixing Hardness
One Stage
2753,3 g3077,4 g2878,8 g3066,9 g
Two Stage
1828,5 g1687,0 g1832,5 g2109,3 g
E-1
Appendix F. Questionnaire of Hedonic Test
UJI HEDONIK
Produk : CookiesNama : Tanggal :
Cicipi sampel dari kiri ke kanan, lalu nyatakan tingkat kesukaan masing-masing sampel berdasarkan parameter yang diuji dengan skala 1-7. Jangan membandingkan antar sampel. Bilas mulut dengan air sebelum mencicipi sampel berikutnya.
KodeTekstur
Keterangan:1 : Sangat tidak suka2 : Tidak suka3 : Agak tidak suka4 : Netral5 : Agak suka6 : Suka7 : Sangat suka
F-1
Appendix G. Result of Hedonic Test
Week 1Texture
Formulation 1 Formulation 2 Formulation 33 5 75 4 62 5 75 4 57 5 66 6 76 5 76 4 56 6 64 4 77 7 76 5 67 6 75 5 56 6 66 7 75 3 53 4 45 4 65 5 66 6 74 6 53 6 63 6 65 5 67 6 77 5 75 5 53 3 37 6 55 5 54 1 65 7 76 7 72 5 52 5 25 5 67 5 64 5 56 6 6
G-1
6 7 66 6 76 4 76 4 55 3 65 4 75 5 55 3 56 6 56 7 56 5 65 5 65 5 63 2 55 6 63 3 42 6 67 6 75 6 74 4 65 3 61 3 43 6 64 6 57 7 75 5 65 6 73 7 64 6 53 4 65 6 55 6 66 6 65 5 64 5 6
4,89 5,11 5,84Note : Formulation 1 : 4.39 g Chia Flour and 36.22 g HVF
Formulation 2 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFFormulation 3 : 4.39 g Chia Flour and 51.78 g HVFScore 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
G-2
Texture
G-3
Formulation 4 Formulation 5 Formulation 6 Formulation 77 3 4 46 5 5 65 5 4 55 3 4 46 6 5 65 3 4 55 4 4 35 4 4 46 5 4 54 6 7 62 2 3 36 5 6 57 6 5 73 2 5 55 6 5 57 7 6 57 7 4 55 2 4 43 3 4 44 3 3 37 2 4 66 6 4 46 6 4 56 3 4 55 5 4 45 6 5 56 4 4 43 6 5 65 3 4 45 5 4 45 4 4 46 2 4 46 5 5 56 6 4 44 2 4 47 7 5 76 6 6 66 3 4 45 4 4 45 4 4 47 5 7 76 5 4 57 3 4 6
G-4
5 5 5 56 3 5 65 3 4 55 6 5 36 5 5 54 4 6 66 3 4 57 5 5 66 6 6 77 7 4 46 5 5 66 5 5 45 4 3 47 2 4 56 7 4 66 3 4 56 5 5 56 3 3 46 4 5 54 5 4 56 6 4 65 5 5 67 6 6 76 6 5 65 4 5 56 4 5 55 3 5 55 3 5 56 3 5 56 6 5 56 5 5 43 4 5 6
5,52 4,45 4,56 4,95Note : Formulation 4 : 25.61 g Chia Flour and 51.78 g HVF
Formulation 5 : 25.61 g Chia Flour and 36.22 g HVFFormulation 6 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFFormulation 7 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFScore 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
G-5
Week 2Texture
Formulation 8 Formulation 9 Formulation 105 4 36 4 46 4 55 2 34 5 54 3 47 3 36 2 33 3 27 4 56 3 57 7 77 5 67 7 77 7 77 7 77 7 73 3 36 5 56 5 66 5 66 5 42 2 26 5 37 5 66 3 63 3 55 5 66 6 67 3 33 2 34 3 53 6 53 2 56 6 65 5 75 1 74 2 34 4 46 3 67 4 36 3 6
G-6
5 4 47 6 66 7 77 6 56 2 63 2 36 3 57 5 35 6 56 4 53 3 65 3 57 3 55 5 66 3 65 2 25 3 45 3 54 2 46 2 35 3 46 5 55 2 46 1 26 3 56 5 56 3 66 4 55 4 46 6 55 2 26 6 66 5 3
5,45 3,95 4,73Note : Formulation 8 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 55.00 g HVF
Formulation 9 : 30.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFFormulation 10 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFScore 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
Texture
G-7
Formulation 11 Formulation 12 Formulation 13 Formulation 142 5 5 55 5 5 45 5 5 45 4 5 55 4 6 45 4 4 45 4 5 53 4 5 45 4 5 53 5 5 32 7 5 73 4 4 32 6 2 24 7 6 53 6 5 52 6 4 23 6 4 66 7 7 63 6 7 63 6 7 65 5 6 55 6 6 54 6 5 63 6 5 64 3 3 34 3 3 32 6 3 52 6 3 53 6 5 73 6 5 74 7 6 44 7 7 46 6 6 66 6 6 64 4 6 64 4 6 65 6 6 56 6 6 63 6 7 63 5 5 55 7 6 66 6 6 73 6 6 7
G-8
4 6 6 55 2 6 52 3 3 36 6 6 63 7 6 66 6 6 62 5 6 62 5 6 65 7 6 63 5 6 52 5 6 33 5 7 62 6 5 63 5 5 64 6 5 57 6 7 73 5 3 65 5 5 52 5 6 65 6 7 73 7 6 36 3 7 74 7 5 66 6 5 75 3 4 34 4 5 45 5 6 66 6 7 62 6 6 55 5 5 53 6 6 67 6 6 6
3,97 5,39 5,40 5,23Note : Formulation 11 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 33.00 g HVF
Formulation 12 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFFormulation 13 : 0.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFFormulation 14 : 15.00 g Chia Flour and 44.00 g HVFScore 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
G-9
Appendix H. Analysis of Texture Response
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value p-value
Block 0,102857143 1 0,102857 Model 3,102074053 2 1,551037 14,42464 0.0011 A-Chia Flour 0,987440836 1 0,987441 9,1832 0.0127
B-HVF 2,114633217 1 2,114633 19,66609 0.0013Residual 1,075268804 10 0,107527
Lack of Fit 0,678135471 6 0,113023 1,138384 0.4712
Pure Error 0,397133333 4 0,099283
Cor Total 4,2802 13
Std. Dev. 0,327912916 R-Squared 0,742595Mean 4,96 Adj R-Squared 0,691114C.V. % 6,611147498 Pred R-Squared 0,516089PRESS 2,021463363 Adeq Precision 10,06393
Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard
Error95% CI
Low95% CI High VIF
Intercept 4,96 10,08763
84,76472
95,15527
1
Week 10,08571428
6 1 Week 2 -0,08571429 A-Chia Flour -0,35132621 1
0,115935 -0,60964 -0,09301 1
B-HVF0,51412950
9 10,11593
50,25581
10,77244
8 1
H-1
Appendix I. Result of Hardness and Fracturability Analysis
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
1
2287,9 12,3692668,6 12,5922538,7 12,645
3316 12,135Average 2702,8 12,535
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
2
2631,54 13,2952480,432 11,8483112,081 12,3473121,728 12,411
Average 2836,445 12,475
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
3
2048,33 14,3372591,644 14,1473079,076 13,0263209,374 13,039
Average 2732,106 13,637
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
4
2435,85 13,0872567,389 12,5872900,406 11,6992854,929 11,966
Average 2689,643 12,335
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
5
3499,67 12,2453054,614 12,4334298,827 12,7463374,608 12,124
Average 3556,93 12,387
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
6
2592,608 13,283112,357 13,153013,547 11,699
3299,64 12,291Average 3004,538 12,605
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
7 3291,784 13,535
I-1
2905,987 12,8153542,184 12,0343923,709 11,686
Average 3415,916 12,518
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
8
2034,342 11,862314,578 13,122312,855 12,9592782,992 13,379
Average 2361,192 12,830
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
9
3469,903 12,1063866,036 12,63163,553 11,8734799,488 11,534
Average 3824,745 12,028
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
10
2958,217 12,0252793,19 12,473
2934,514 11,9123638,031 12,113
Average 3080,988 12,131
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
11
3742,008 12,5673291,44 12,613
4359,394 11,9994330,247 11,419
Average 3930,772 12,150
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
12
4351,814 12,7182620,928 12,9
2919,63 12,0262560,568 11,999
Average 3113,235 12,411
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
13
2458,451 13,5314507,332 13,593
2597,57 13,1842715,81 13,147
Average 3069,791 13,364
I-2
Formulation Hardness (g)Fracturability
14
2919,561 12,6274365,526 11,8872609,697 11,885
2925,9 12,125Average 3205,171 12,131
I-3
Appendix J. Analysis of Hardness Response
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value p-value
Block 44961,52464 1 44961,52 Model 2044184,212 2 1022092 19,80996 0.0003 A-Chia Flour 131380,1965 1 131380,2 2,546381 0.1416 B-HVF 1912804,016 1 1912804 37,07353 0.0001Residual 515948,7 10 51594,87 Lack of Fit 329886,2767 6 54981,05 1,181991 0.4558Pure Error 186062,4233 4 46515,61 Cor Total 2605094,437 13
Std. Dev. 227,1450418 R-Squared 0,798468Mean 3169,885857 Adj R-Squared 0,758162C.V. % 7,165716748 Pred R-Squared 0,56655PRESS 1109689,381 Adeq Precision 11,71191
Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard
Error95% CI
Low95% CI High VIF
Intercept 3169,885857 1 60,70707 3034,622 3305,15 Week 1 -56,67042857 1 Week 2 56,67042857 A-Chia Flour 128,1503982 1 80,3079 -50,7868 307,0875 1B-HVF -488,9790404 1 80,3079 -667,916 -310,042 1
J-1
Appendix K. Analysis of Fracturability Response
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value p-value
Block 0,14955779 1 0,149558
Model 2,54347496 5 0,508695 31,44128 0.0001 A-Chia Flour 1,39394013 1 1,39394 86,15626 < 0.0001 B-HVF 0,50584962 1 0,50585 31,26541 0.0008 AB 0,332929 1 0,332929 20,57758 0.0027 A^2 0,27045704 1 0,270457 16,71633 0.0046 B^2 0,05767488 1 0,057675 3,564753 0.1010Residual 0,11325447 7 0,016179 Lack of Fit 0,05221513 3 0,017405 1,140579 0.4339Pure Error 0,06103933 4 0,01526 Cor Total 2,80628721 13
Std. Dev. 0,12719752 R-Squared 0,957371Mean 12,5383571 Adj R-Squared 0,926921C.V. % 1,0144672 Pred R-Squared 0,800375PRESS 0,53034912 Adeq Precision 18,36092
Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard
Error95% CI
Low95% CI High VIF
Intercept 12,3785 1 0,051928 12,25571 12,50129 Week 1 0,10335714 1 Week 2 -0,10335714 A-Chia Flour -0,41742366 1 0,044971 -0,52376 -0,31108 1B-HVF 0,25145815 1 0,044971 0,145118 0,357798 1AB -0,2885 1 0,063599 -0,43889 -0,13811 1A^2 0,191375 1 0,046807 0,080693 0,302057 1,005952B^2 0,088375 1 0,046807 -0,02231 0,199057 1,005952
K-1
Appendix L. Data of Spread Ratio
Formulation Result Average1 34,47 33,28 33,8752 33,26 34,39 33,8253 45,07 42,29 43,684 30,37 29,1 29,7355 27,22 27,96 27,596 35,5 33,49 34,4957 33,73 33,37 33,558 33,02 35,5 34,269 29,77 27,61 28,69
10 31,56 30,78 31,1711 29,4 31,5 30,4512 33,33 32,24 32,78513 44,41 44,18 44,29514 33,81 31,14 32,475
Calculation:
Spread ratio = Weight
ThicknessxCorrection Factor x 10
= 13.1 cm x 1 x 10 3.8 cm = 34.47
L-1
Appendix M. Analysis of Spread Ratio Response
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value p-value
Block 0,55004464 1 0,550045 Model 300,159447 5 60,03189 31,87087 0.0001 A-Chia Flour 225,556084 1 225,5561 119,7475 < 0.0001 B-HVF 38,3607135 1 38,36071 20,36567 0.0028 AB 15,327225 1 15,32723 8,137209 0.0246 A^2 17,983202 1 17,9832 9,547264 0.0176 B^2 1,90742316 1 1,907423 1,012649 0.3478Residual 13,1851816 7 1,883597 Lack of Fit 11,1967982 3 3,732266 7,508142 0.0404Pure Error 1,98838333 4 0,497096 Cor Total 313,894673 13
Std. Dev. 1,37244212 R-Squared 0,957921Mean 33,6446429 Adj R-Squared 0,927865C.V. % 4,07922927 Pred R-Squared 0,687408PRESS 97,9490679 Adeq Precision 15,75955
Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard
Error95% CI
Low95% CI High VIF
Intercept 33,0433333 1 0,560297 31,71844 34,36823 Week 1 0,19821429 1 Week 2 -0,19821429 A-Chia Flour -5,30985033 1 0,485232 -6,45724 -4,16246 1B-HVF 2,18976921 1 0,485232 1,042379 3,33716 1AB -1,9575 1 0,686221 -3,58015 -0,33485 1A^2 1,56052083 1 0,505045 0,366279 2,754763 1,005952B^2 -0,50822917 1 0,505045 -1,70247 0,686013 1,005952
M-1
Appendix N. Data of Moisture Content
Sample Weight Crucible (g)
Final Weight
(g) % Moisture Content Average
1
5,1541 40,5186 4,9624 3,72
3,974,9908 25,0334 4,7837 4,15
5,0603 41,3585 4,8655 3,85
5,1251 41,7284 4,9129 4,14
2
4,9860 39,7667 4,8299 3,13
3,745,0011 39,0762 4,8261 3,50
5,1132 41,7285 4,9036 4,10
4,9813 25,0343 4,7711 4,22
3
5,0235 19,7636 4,9080 2,30
2,885,0852 25,0343 4,9540 2,58
5,1104 19,2613 4,9438 3,26
5,0012 19,7390 4,8332 3,36
4
5,1263 41,1094 4,9187 4,05
4,305,0046 40,5186 4,7864 4,36
5,0021 19,2613 4,7890 4,26
4,8991 39,0724 4,6782 4,51
5
5,0535 20,0691 4,7584 5,84
6,015,0782 20,6811 4,7847 5,78
5,1332 39,0436 4,8175 6,15
5,0132 19,7636 4,6984 6,28
6 5,0417 39,0724 4,8506 3,79 3,75
N-1
4,9514 19,2252 4,7583 3,90
4,9931 25,0343 4,8153 3,56
5,1104 41,1094 4,9198 3,73
7
5,0812 25,0343 4,9049 3,47
4,185,0292 41,7284 4,8416 3,73
5,0034 19,2239 4,7697 4,67
4,9879 19,7641 4,7465 4,84
8
4,9881 39,7655 4,8335 3,10
2,955,0877 41,3585 4,9142 3,41
5,0112 19,7390 4,8398 3,42
4,8991 20,0691 4,8080 1,86
9
5,0452 41,7284 4,8500 3,87
3,855,0008 39,0724 4,7923 4,17
4,9621 20,6811 4,7537 4,20
5,1012 19,2252 4,9405 3,15
10
5,0439 39,0436 4,8502 3,84
4,045,1116 40,5186 4,9010 4,12
5,0334 19,2613 4,8215 4,21
5,0122 25,0343 4,8127 3,98
11
4,9920 41,1094 4,7828 4,19
4,184,9873 19,7636 4,7649 4,46
5,0092 39,7655 4,7848 4,48
4,9903 41,3585 4,8116 3,58
12 5,1224 25,0343 4,9959 2,47 2,65
N-2
5,0198 19,2613 4,8848 2,69
5,0032 41,7284 4,8651 2,76
5,0192 39,0724 4,8842 2,69
13
4,9684 19,2252 4,8273 2,84
2,914,9904 20,6811 4,8412 2,99
5,0120 40,5186 4,8551 3,13
4,9982 39,0436 4,8652 2,66
14
5,1149 20,0691 4,9287 3,64
3,845,0091 19,7390 4,8147 3,88
5,2093 19,7620 5,0014 3,99
5,0056 41,1095 4,8124 3,86
Calculation:
Moisture content % ¿ W 1−W 2W 1
X 100 %
= 5.0011 - 4.7962 x 100%5.0011
= 4.10 %
N-3
Appendix O. Analysis of Moisture Content Response
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F value p-value
Block 1,38915 1 1,38915 Model 5,44310992 2 2,721555 11,48015 0.0026 A-Chia Flour 2,86724705 1 2,867247 12,09471 0.0059 B-HVF 2,57586288 1 2,575863 10,86559 0.0081Residual 2,3706615 10 0,237066 Lack of Fit 1,1150615 6 0,185844 0,592047 0.7306Pure Error 1,2556 4 0,3139 Cor Total 9,20292143 13
Std. Dev. 0,48689439 R-Squared 0,696605Mean 3,80357143 Adj R-Squared 0,635926C.V. % 12,8009794 Pred R-Squared 0,421504PRESS 4,52023404 Adeq Precision 10,15444
Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard
Error95% CI
Low95% CI High VIF
Intercept 3,80357143 10,13012
83,51362
84,09351
5 Week 1 0,315 1 Week 2 -0,315 A-Chia Flour 0,59867009 1
0,172143
0,215111
0,982229 1
B-HVF-
0,56743534 10,17214
3 -0,95099 -0,18388 1
O-1
Appendix P. Questionnaire for Verification Test
UJI HEDONIK
Produk : CookiesNama : Tanggal :
Cicipi sampel dari kiri ke kanan, lalu nyatakan tingkat kesukaan masing-masing sampel berdasarkan parameter yang diuji dengan skala 1-7. Jangan membandingkan antar sampel. Bilas mulut dengan air sebelum mencicipi sampel berikutnya.
KodeTekstur
Keterangan:1 : Sangat tidak suka2 : Tidak suka3 : Agak tidak suka4 : Netral5 : Agak suka6 : Suka7 : Sangat suka
P-1
Appendix Q. Result of Hedonic Test in Verification Test
TextureOptimum
Formulation3566647665652354776676557554563665556766
Q-1
74573356645377436766436664455565556
5,25Note : Optimum Formulation : 20.45 g Chia Flour and 55.00 g HVF
Score 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
Q-2
Appendix R. Result of Physicochemical Analysis in Verification Test
Hardness and Fracturability
Hardness (g)Fracturability
2558,721 -12,5812766,731 -13,1072271,113 -12,4152702,787 -13,2272574,838 -12,8325
Spread RatioSpread Ratio Average
29,37 30,1630,95
Spread ratio = Weight
ThicknessxCorrection Factor x 10
= 12.54 cm x 1 x 10 4.27cm = 29.37
Moisture Content
Sample Weight Crucible (g)Final Weight (g) % Moisture Content Average
Optimum
4,9902 41,1094 4,7871 4,07
3,85,0402 41,3585 4,8250 4,275,1103 41,7284 4,9289 3,554,9969 25,0343 4,8325 3,29
% Moisture content ¿ W 1−W 2W 1
X 100 %
= 5.0014 - 4.7979x 100%5.0014
= 4.07 %
R-1
Appendix S. Questionnaire for Product Comparison
UJI HEDONIK
Produk : CookiesNama : Tanggal :
Cicipi sampel dari kiri ke kanan, lalu nyatakan tingkat kesukaan masing-masing sampel berdasarkan parameter yang diuji dengan skala 1-7. Jangan membandingkan antar sampel. Bilas mulut dengan air sebelum mencicipi sampel berikutnya.
KodeWarnaAromaTekstur Rasa
Keterangan:1 : Sangat tidak suka2 : Tidak suka3 : Agak tidak suka4 : Netral5 : Agak suka6 : Suka7 : Sangat suka
S-1
Appendix T. Result of Hedonic Test in Product Comparison
Warna Aroma Tekstur RasaOptimu
m ControlOptimu
m ControlOptimu
m ControlOptimu
m Control5 6 4 5 3 6 6 65 6 5 6 5 5 5 63 6 5 6 6 5 6 64 6 4 6 6 6 5 66 6 7 5 6 7 6 76 5 6 5 4 5 6 66 6 6 5 7 6 7 54 6 6 7 6 7 5 73 7 6 6 6 7 5 74 5 6 7 5 7 7 66 5 6 7 6 7 5 66 6 5 6 5 6 5 67 6 6 5 2 5 3 66 6 6 4 3 5 7 57 6 4 7 5 6 4 67 6 7 7 4 6 7 67 6 4 6 7 7 5 76 6 4 6 7 7 5 77 5 5 3 6 3 5 66 4 4 7 6 7 6 57 6 4 5 7 6 4 66 6 5 5 6 6 5 66 7 6 6 5 7 6 65 6 5 6 5 5 6 67 5 6 5 7 5 7 64 6 6 5 5 6 7 64 6 7 6 5 7 6 76 6 6 6 4 7 7 75 6 7 6 5 7 6 76 7 6 6 6 6 6 66 5 6 4 3 4 4 65 5 6 6 6 6 6 66 7 6 7 6 7 6 76 7 6 6 5 6 6 56 5 6 6 5 6 5 56 7 6 6 5 6 5 77 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 5 6 7 6 6 66 6 5 5 6 6 5 74 6 4 6 6 6 5 6
T-1
5 5 5 4 7 5 6 47 6 5 6 4 7 6 76 5 7 4 5 5 6 67 6 7 6 7 7 7 73 6 4 5 3 6 4 64 5 6 5 3 5 5 64 6 6 6 5 5 6 56 7 6 6 6 7 6 66 6 6 5 6 6 5 63 4 5 7 4 7 6 56 6 6 6 5 7 5 73 6 6 7 3 6 5 64 5 6 4 7 5 5 44 5 5 6 7 6 6 55 7 4 6 4 6 6 52 6 5 6 3 6 5 65 6 5 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 7 7 7 65 6 6 5 6 6 6 76 7 5 6 6 6 6 76 5 6 7 4 7 6 75 7 6 6 3 7 7 75 5 6 6 6 6 5 65 5 6 4 6 4 5 65 7 6 6 6 6 5 67 6 6 6 4 7 6 74 6 4 7 4 7 5 75 6 7 7 5 6 6 63 6 6 4 5 5 5 56 6 6 5 5 5 6 56 6 7 6 6 6 6 65 5 4 7 5 7 5 66 5 5 7 5 7 5 64 7 6 6 5 7 6 75 6 5 7 6 7 5 7
5,32 5,87 5,56 5,77 5,25 6,08 5,61 6,09Note : Optimum Formulation : 20.45 g Chia Flour and 55.00 g HVF
Control Formulation : 0.00 g Chia Flour and 55.00 g HVFScore 1 : Least Desirable 7 : Most Desirable
T-2
Appendix U. T-Test Analysis for Hedonic Test in Product Comparison
Aroma
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1aroma_control 5,7733 75 ,92376 ,10667
aroma_optimum 5,5600 75 ,88897 ,10265
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1aroma_control &
aroma_optimum
75 -,107 ,363
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 aroma_control - aroma_optimum ,21333 1,34861 ,15572 -,09695 ,52362 1,370 74 ,175
U-1
ColorPaired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1color_control 5,8667 75 ,70391 ,08128
color_optimum 5,3200 75 1,22099 ,14099
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 color_control & color_optimum 75 ,035 ,768
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 color_control - color_optimum ,54667 1,38811 ,16029 ,22729 ,86604 3,411 74 ,001
U-2
Taste
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1taste_control 6,0933 75 ,73839 ,08526
taste_optimum 5,6133 75 ,83655 ,09660
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 taste_control & taste_optimum 75 -,028 ,810
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 taste_control - taste_optimum ,48000 1,13137 ,13064 ,21970 ,74030 3,674 74 ,000
U-3
Texture
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1texture_control 6,0800 75 ,88164 ,10180
texture_final 5,2533 75 1,24220 ,14344
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 texture_control & texture_final 75 ,080 ,495
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 texture_control - texture_final ,82667 1,46466 ,16912 ,48968 1,16365 4,888 74 ,000
U-4
Appendix V. Physicochemical Analysis Result in Product Comparison
Hardness and FracturabilityHardness (g) Fracturability
Control Optimum Control Optimum
1933,006 2558,721 14,725 12,581
2337,385 2766,731 14,051 13,107
2033,047 2271,113 14,605 12,415
1765,08 2702,787 14,821 13,2272017,13 2574,84 14,55 12,83
Spread RatioFormulation Spread Ratio Average
Optimum29,37
30,1630,95
Control36,58
37,3838,18
Spread Ratio = Weight
ThicknessxCorrection Factor x 10
= 12.54 cm x 1 x 10 4.27 cm = 29.37
Moisture Content
Sample Weight Crucible (g)Final Weight (g) % Moisture Content Average
Optimum
4,9902 41,1094 4,9902 4,07
3,805,0402 41,3585 5,0402 4,275,1103 41,7284 5,1103 3,554,9969 25,0343 4,9969 3,29
Control
5,0335 39,0724 4,9258 2,14
2,315,1204 20,0691 5,0144 2,075,0008 20,6811 4,8748 2,525,0192 39,0436 4,8927 2,52
% Moisture content ¿ W 1−W 2W 1
X 100 %
= 5.0014 - 4.7979x 100%5.0014
= 4.07 %
V-1
Appendix W. Analysis for Physicochemical Test in Product Comparison
Hardness
Group Statistics
Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
HardnessControl 4 2017,1295 240,43202 120,21601
Optimal 4 2574,8380 220,38036 110,19018
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Hardness
Equal variances assumed
,008 ,933 -3,420
6 ,014 -557,70850 163,07595 -956,74096 -158,67604
Equal variances not assumed
-3,420
5,955 ,014 -557,70850 163,07595 -957,47192 -157,94508
W-
1
Fracturability
Group Statistics
Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
FracturabilityControl 4 14,5505 ,34452 ,17226
Optimal 4 -12,8325 ,39520 ,19760
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Fracturability
Equal variances assumed
,676 ,443 104,458 6 ,000 27,38300 ,26214 26,74156 28,02444
Equal variances not assumed
104,458 5,890 ,000 27,38300 ,26214 26,73866 28,02734
W-
2
Spread Ratio
Group Statistics
Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Spread_ratioControl 2 37,3800 1,13137 ,80000
Optimal 2 30,1600 1,11723 ,79000
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Spread_ratio
Equal variances assumed
32940614417348,785 ,000 6,422 2 ,023 7,22000 1,12432 2,38243 12,05757
Equal variances not assumed
6,422 2,000 ,023 7,22000 1,12432 2,38170 12,05830
W-
3
Moisture Content
Group Statistics
Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Moisture_contentControl 4 2,3125 ,24130 ,12065
Optimal 4 3,7950 ,45325 ,22662
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Moisture_content
Equal variances assumed
5,985 ,050 -5,774
6 ,001 -1,48250 ,25674 -2,11072 -,85428
Equal variances not assumed
-5,774
4,574 ,003 -1,48250 ,25674 -2,16138 -,80362
W-
4
Appendix X. Result of Proximate Analysis
Fat Content
SampleWeight
(g) Flask (g) Boiling Chip (g)
Final Weight
(g) % Fat AverageOptimum 1 5,0442 105,9132 3,1861 1,4048 27,85
27,82Optimum 2 5,0958 106,6245 1,5151 1,4159 27,78
Control 1 5,0162 109,4990 1,1623 1,3799 27,5128,10
Control 2 5,0168 101,3740 1,5494 1,4393 28,69
Calculation:
% Fat = weight of fat extracted(g)
weight of sample (g) × 100%
= 1.4048 x 100% 5.0442 = 27.85%
Protein Content
SamplemL HCl Weight % Nitrogen % Protein Average
Optimum 1 10,24 2,0522 1,40 8,74 8,75Optimum 2 10,36 2,0740 1,40 8,75
Control 1 8,66 2,1251 1,14 7,14 7,21Control 2 8,42 2,0263 1,17 7,28
Calculation:% Protein = ¿¿ x 100%
= 10.24 mL x 0.2 N x 14.007 x 6.25 x 100%2052.2 mg
= 8.74 %
Ash Content
SampleWeight (g) Crucible (g) Final Weight (g) % Ash Average
Optimum 1 5,0061 20,9339 0,0790 1,23 1,19Optimum 2 5,0573 29,2951 0,0877 1,14
Control 1 5,0135 18,7396 0,0456 0,91 0,90Control 2 5,0585 21,4284 0,0450 0,89
Calculation:
% Ash content = x− y
z × 100%
= (20.9880 - 20.9339) x 100% 5.0061
= 1.13%
X-1
Moisture Content
SampleWeight Crucible (g) Final Weight (g) % Moisture Content Average
Optimum 1 5,0442 39,0469 4,8339 4,17 3,80Optimum 2 5,0958 41,1139 4,9215 3,42
Control 1 5,0162 39,7879 4,9104 2,11 2,32Control 2 5,0168 41,3621 4,8904 2,52
Calculation:
% Moisture content ¿ W 1−W 2W 1
X 100 %
= 5.0367- 4.8267 x 100%5.0367
= 4.17 %
Carbohydrate Content
Formulation Carbohydrate Content (%)
Average (%)
Optimum58,01
58,4658,91
Control62,33
61,4860,62
Calculation:% Carbohydrate = 100% - %Moisture - %Ash - %Protein - %Fat
= 100% - 3.80% - 1.19% - 8.75% - 27.82% = 58.46%
X-2
Fiber and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content of Control Cookie
X-3
Fiber and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Content of Chia Cookie
X-4