Analysis shows reduced sensory quality in green chickpea burfi during storage, indicating shifts in physico-chemical properties.
Storage conditions were known to bring about some physicochemical changes in the product. The present investigation was therefore carried out to examine effect of storage period on the sensory, physico-chemical and microbial quality of two samples made i.e. (T0) burfi without green chickpea and (T1) burfi added with green chickpea at an interval of 2 days. The optimized product was prepared with green chickpea paste @ 4 per cent and sugar was 25 per cent of khoa. The prepared green chickpea burfi was packed in laminate paper board boxes and stored at room temperature 30±1ºC and compared with control i.e. sample with 30 per cent sugar but without green chickpea paste for 6 days. During storage of burfi, the sensory scores for all attributes were decreased significantly (P?0.05) in burfi samples. The overall acceptability score was decreased from 7.92±0.01 to 6.15±0.01 and 8.26±0.01 to 6.17±0.01 in T0 and T1 respectively at the end of storage period (up to 6th days). Overall acceptability score of 6.0 as the minimum desirable for an “acceptance” of product, on the basis of sensory evaluation, the burfi incorporated with green chickpea (T1) and Burfi without chickpea that is control (T0) could be stored up to 6th days at room temperature 30±1ºC. During storage due to the loss of moisture content the other parameters such as fat, protein, reducing sugar, non-reducing sugar, total ash was slightly increased. The standard plate count, yeast and mould count of both samples increased during storage. The SPC counts were increased from 2.92 to 3.81 and 3.76 to 4.33 log10/g in T0 and T1, respectively. The growth rate of bacteria was higher in chickpea burfi (T1) than control sample (T0). There was increase in yeast and mould count from 1.34 to 1.38 and 1.40 to 1.44 log 10/g in T0 and T1 respectively. The coliform count was found to be nil in both samples up to 6th day of storage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baburao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: