Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530

DOI 10.1007/s00217-007-0565-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Textural and colour changes during storage and sensory shelf life
of muffins containing resistant starch
R. Baixauli Æ A. Salvador Æ S. M. Fiszman

Received: 6 November 2006 / Revised: 22 December 2006 / Accepted: 8 January 2007 / Published online: 8 March 2007

Springer-Verlag 2007

Abstract The effect on baked muffins of progressively degradation not absorbed in the small intestine of healthy
replacing wheat flour with resistant starch (RS) (26/0, 21/5, individuals [2].
16/10, 11/15 and 6/20) was studied. In this study, texture It is well-known and documented that the physiological
profile analysis (TPA) and the elastic recovery test were effects of RS include reducing the glycemic response,
used to evaluate the effects of RS on the textural properties acting as a functional prebiotic for some probiotic mi-
of fresh and stored muffins (from 0 to 16 days). Textural crooorganisms and increasing the production of short chain
parameter values decreased with the increase of RS; fatty acids in the large intestine, but RS is also important in
springiness and cohesiveness reflected better than the tex- the diet because of its interactions with other dietary
tural differences for fresh muffins. Changes in the textural components, including not only macronutrients such as fats
parameter values with storage time were smaller at higher and protein but also micronutrients such as minerals [3–6].
RS levels. Survival analysis methodology was used to Also, as a functional food ingredient, its low water-holding
estimate the changes in muffin shelf life. Shelf life time of capacity provides good handling properties during pro-
control muffin is higher than 20% RS muffin for 25% cessing [7]. RS appears to possess a unique combination of
consumer rejection but this behaviour is the opposite for physiological and functional properties compared to tradi-
50% consumer rejection. tional types of fibre, which are generally associated with a
coarser texture.
Keywords Resistant starch
Muffins
Texture
The mean DF intake in Europe is 20 g/day and the mean
TPA
Elastic recovery
Shelf life
Survival analysis RS intake in Europe is likely to be low, about 4.1 g/day [3].
One way to ensure that the general population receives
adequate amounts of fibre in the diet is to fortify food that
Introduction would not normally be associated with fibre fortification
but is often eaten as snacks, or muffins or cakes that would
Resistant starch (RS) became available commercially some normally be consumed for breakfast.
years ago as a food ingredient with a nutritional label Several dietary fibres have been employed to produce
listing as dietary fibre (DF). There is no globally agreed high fibre content muffins and cakes. Peach dietary fibre
definition of DF. One of the latest definitions is: ‘‘DF is the (0–10%) has been added to muffins [8]; Polizzoto et al. [9]
edible parts of plants that are resistant to digestion and and Shafer and Zabik [10] studied the effect of different
absorption in the human small intestine with complete or dietary fibre sources (a-cellulose, corn bran, oat hulls, rice
partial fermentation in the large intestine’’ [1]. RS has been bran, soy bran, wheat bran and oat bran) in muffins and
defined as the sum of starch and the products of starch layer cakes, respectively; isolated fibres from wheat,
pineapple and field beans seed hull have been included (5%
w/w) in a sponge cake and its sensory and physical prop-
R. Baixauli
A. Salvador
S. M. Fiszman (&)
erties evaluated [11]; while Chen et al. [12] compared
Instituto de Agroquı́mica y Tecnologı́a de Alimentos (CSIC),
Apartado de Correos 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain apple fibre with wheat and oat bran to evaluate the chem-
e-mail: [email protected] ical and physical properties and their effects on muffins.

123
524 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530

Texture is one of the main characteristics of bakery 21/5, 16/10, 11/15 and 6/20 percent respectively. The batter
products that can be affected by the addition of DF; it can formulation (expressed as a percentage of weight) consisted
be determined by instrumental or sensory methods. of wheat flour (Harinera Vilafranquina, S.A., Teruel, Spain)
Instrumental methods offer some advantage over sensory (composition according to the miller: 14.5% moisture,
analysis because they are rapid and objective. Baeva et al. 10.1% protein); resistant starch (HI-MAIZE 260, National
[13] made a study of texture (sensory and instrumental) to Starch Food Innovation, Manchester, United Kingdom)
compare normal and energy reduced sponge cakes; Sahi (composition data provided by the supplier: 12% moisture,
and Alava [14] studied the crumb structure of sponge cakes 63.9% dietary fibre), sugar (26%) (Azucarera Ebro, Madrid,
to evaluate the effect of different emulsifiers; texture pro- Spain); liquid pasteurized egg white (14%) and liquid pas-
file analysis of cake crumb was performed by Singh Gujral teurized yolk (7%) (Ovocity, Llombay, Spain); full-fat milk
et al. [15] to study the effect of sodium lauryl sulphate; and (13%) (Puleva Food, Granada, Spain); refined sunflower oil
Kamel and Rasper [16] investigated the effect on cake (12%) (local supermarket), sodium bicarbonate (1.03%),
crumb firmness of preparing reduced-calorie cakes with citric acid (0.79%) and grated lemon peel (0.18%). The egg
sorbitol or polydextrose to replace sugar. white was whipped in a mixer (Kenwood Major Classic,
Storage stability or the shelf life of baked products could UK) for 2 min at speed 7 (maximum). Sugar was then added
be defined as maintenance the sensory and physical char- and mixed in for 30 s at speed 7. Egg yolk, citric acid and
acteristics associated with freshness such as crumb ten- half of the milk were added and mixed in at speed 3 for
derness, compressibility and moistness by preventing 1 min. Wheat flour RS, sodium bicarbonate and grated
alteration associated with staling during storage [17, 18]. lemon peel were added and mixed in at speed 3 for 1 min.
However, sensory methods are the only ones that make it Oil and the rest of the milk were added and mixed in at speed
possible to assess consumer acceptance. Consumers expect a 4 for 3 min. The batter was placed in an automatic dosing
product with a soft, spongy, tender crumb, but also a certain unit (positive displacement pumps, output shaft speed = 109
degree of resistance, not crumbling easily; these character- rpm, output shaft torque = 7.6 Nm) (Edhard Corp., Hack-
istics worsen with storage time and, in general, consumer ettstown, USA), and each paper muffin cup (50 mm diam-
rejection of the product occurs before any microbiological eter) was filled with 40.5 g of batter. The muffins were baked
spoilage makes it unsuitable for human consumption [19]. in a conventional oven for 6 min at 225 C and for a further
Different methods may be used to determine the sensory 6 min at 175 C. The oven and oven trays were always the
shelf life of a food product using consumer data. In the same, the trays were placed at the same level in the oven and
failure cut-off point method, shelf life is determined as the the number of muffins baked was always the same. The
time when the first significant change in overall acceptability muffins from each formulation and for each storage time
is detected. At this time, consumers detect a change in the were prepared twice, on different days, with 24 muffins in
sensory characteristics of the product with respect to the each batch.
fresh product. However, this does not mean that consumers After cooling, the muffins were packed in polyethylene
would refuse to consume the product [20]. In order to esti- bags that were heat-sealed and stored in an environmental
mate sensory shelf life based on consumer rejection of a food chamber at room temperature (20 ± 2 C). The muffin
product, survival analysis can be applied. This methodology samples were evaluated on days 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 16.
focuses on the shelf life risk of the consumer’s rejecting the
product. Survival analysis has been used to estimate the shelf
life of some baked products [21, 22]. Measurement of colour
The objectives of this study are to compare the influence
of replacing increasing proportions of wheat flour with four The instrumental measurement of the muffin colour was
different levels of RS on the textural properties of the carried out with a Hunter Labscan II colorimeter, and the
muffins, freshly baked and stored for two weeks, and to results were expressed in accordance with the CIELAB
assess the sensory shelf life of the muffins containing system with reference to illuminant D65 and a visual angle
resistant starch. of 10. The measurements were performed through a
6.4 mm diameter diaphragm containing an optical glass.
The parameters determined were L* (L* = 0 [black] and
Materials and methods L* = 100 [white]), a* (–a* = greenness and +a* = red-
ness), b* (–b* = blueness and +b* = yellowness), C*
Batter and muffin preparation chroma (saturation) and H* hue, as defined by the fol-
lowing equations:
Five formulations were prepared using the same quantity of

all the ingredients except the flour and RS, which were 26/0, C  ¼ a2 þ b2 H  ¼ arctan ðb =a Þ

123
Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530 525

The total colour difference (DE*) between the control test derivative of the Novo Nordisk modified version of the
muffin and the muffins with RS was calculated as follows: AACC method 74-09) [25]. The percentage of recovery or
elastic recovery was measured by compressing a 2.5 cm
 1=2
thick, 2.5 cm diameter cylinder of muffin crumb with the
DE ¼ ðDL Þ2 þ ðDa Þ2 þ ðDb Þ2
upper and lower ends removed at a test speed of
7.5 mm s–1 and a strain of 50% of the original height for
The values used to determine if the total colour differ- 10 s, after which the probe was removed at a speed of
ence was visually obvious were the following [23]. 10 mm s–1. The compression was performed using a
DE* < 1 colour differences are not obvious for the 75 mm diameter aluminium plate (P/75). The elastic
human eye recovery was measured as:
1 < DE* < 3 colour differences are not appreciative by
F10
the human eye  100 ¼ %recovery
DE* > 3 colour differences are obvious for the human Fmax
eye.
where Fmax is the maximum force and F10 is the force after
Three muffins of each formulation were measured on 10 s.
day 0. Each muffin was cut in two halves to measure the
crumb colour, and measurements were made in each Sensory analysis
muffin. All the measurements were made by placing the
sample directly on the colorimeter diaphragm. Testing was carried out in a sensory laboratory equipped
with individual booths [26]. Consumers were recruited
Instrumental texture measurements among workers from the Instituto de Agroquı́mica y Tec-
nologı́a de Alimentos, Valencia, Spain. Forty persons, 22–
Instrumental parameters were measured with a TA-XT.plus 60 years old, approximately half female, half male, who
Texture Analyzer using the Texture Exponent software consumed muffins frequently, were used for the study. The
(version 2.0.7.0. Stable Microsystems, Godalming, UK). testing was carried out in two sessions. At each session the
Six muffins per formulation and storage time were studied consumers received a muffin from each of the different
in each textural test. All formulations were measured in storage times of two types of muffin (control and 20% RS).
duplicate (two different preparations in different days). For each sample, the consumers answered yes or no
to the question ‘‘Would you normally consume this prod-
Texture profile analysis (TPA) uct?’’ [19, 20]. The answers (yes or no) were used to
calculate the sensory shelf life of the muffins using survival
Muffin crumbs (2.5 cm sided cubes) were evaluated after analysis methodology.
removing the upper and lower ends. The test speed was Data acquisition and analysis was performed using
1 mm s–1 with a strain of 50% of the original cube height and Compusense five release 4.6 software (Compusense Inc.,
a 5 s interval between compression cycles. A trigger force of Guelph, ON, Canada).
5 g was selected. The compression was performed using a
75 mm diameter aluminium plate (P/75). The cubes were Statistical analysis
compressed twice to give a TPA from which the three pri-
mary textural parameters [24] were obtained: hardness (the Survival analysis methodology was used to estimate shelf
peak force during the first compression cycle), springiness life, using the results obtained from consumers when asked
(the height that the food recovers during the time that elapses if they would normally consume the samples, a method
between the end of the first bite and the start of the second recently introduced by Hough et al. [19]. Its key concept is
bite) and cohesiveness (the ratio of the positive force area to focus the shelf-life hazard on the consumer rejecting the
during the second compression portion to the positive force product rather than on the deterioration. A random variable
area during the first compression), as well as resilience (area T is defined as the storage time at which the consumer
during the withdrawal of the first compression divided by the rejects the sample; the survival function S(t) can be defined
area of the first compression. as the probability of a consumer accepting a product be-
yond time t, so S(t) = P(T > t). Alternatively, the cumu-
Elastic recovery test lative distribution function, F(t) = 1 – S(t), can be defined
as the probability of a consumer rejecting a product before
Elastic recovery was measured according to the Standard time t, that is F(t) = P(T £ t). Usually, survival times are
Procedure for Muffin Firmness and Elasticity (a relaxation not normally distributed and models such as Weibull

123
526 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530

distribution for T are chosen. The survival function is given ciative by the human eye (1 < DE* < 3). At 15 and 20%
by: RS the colour differences are obvious for the human eye:
  the samples were less yellowish and less colourfulness.
ln ðtÞ  l
SðtÞ ¼ Ssev
r Texture profile analysis

where l and r are the model’s parameters. The probability A prior study was performed to determine the compression
of a consumer rejecting a product, F(t) = P(T £ t), must be percentage that would discriminate adequately between the
chosen. 25 and 50% rejection probabilities were chosen. differences among the samples. TPA was carried out at
These percentages have been used to estimate the shelf life 50% of compression; this value has been used in other
of several foods [21, 27–29]. The SPLIDA software studies [8, 15, 30, 31], although other compression values
package for S-PLUS (Insightful Corporation, Seattle, USA) such as 30% have been reported [32], 35% [14], 40% [33]
was used to calculate the survival curves. or 60% [34], indicating that there is not a clear criterion for
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to this experimental condition. Although chewiness was cal-
study the effect of the increasing replacement of wheat culated, the data are not shown because its behaviour was
flour by different levels of RS. Least significant differences the same as for hardness. The TPA curves are shown in
were calculated by Fisher’s test. These analyses were Fig. 1.
performed using SPSS for Windows Version 12 (SPSS The ‘‘hardness’’ values (Fig. 2) of the muffins with RS
Inc., USA). were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than those of the con-
trol muffins and although the decrease in hardness was not
linear with wheat replacement, the lowest hardness value
Results and discussion was for the highest concentration of RS (20%).

Influence of resistant starch

Colour analysis

The variation in the colour parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, H*)
and DE* due to addition of RS is shown in Table 1. The
higher the concentration of RS, the redness, the yellowness
and consequently the chroma of muffins decreased. The
‘‘white’’ colour of the RS incorporated acted as diluting
the pigmented elements of the formulation. For the same
reason, the brightness and the hue values increased with the
RS concentration.
In order to study the total colour differences between
muffins in relation to RS concentration, the values of DE*
were calculated. The reference taken in each case was the
colour of the control muffin (day 0). The value of DE*
(Table 1) increased as the concentration of RS increased.
At 5 and 10% RS the colour differences were not appre- Fig. 1 TPA curves for fresh muffins at different RS concentrations

Table 1 Colour parameter values of muffins at different RS concentrations

L* a* b* C* H* DE*

Control 75.9a (2.3) 0.06ab (0.08) 24.0ab (0.4) 24.0ab (0.4) 89.9a (0.3)
5% 80.1a (1.0) –0.29a (0.18) 25.3a (0.7) 25.3a (0.7) 90.7a (0.4) 2.44
10% 77.7a (0.6) –0.02ab (0.14) 22.5c (0.8) 22.5c (0.8) 90.0a (0.3) 2.34
15% 79.7a (1.3) –0.11b (0.14) 23.3bc (0.8) 23.3bc (0.8) 89.8a (0.5) 3.07
20% 77.1a (4.1) –0.16ab (0.28) 20.4d (0.6) 20.4d (0.6) 90.5a (0.6) 4.49
Values in parentheses are standard deviations
Means in the same column without a common lower-letter differ (P < 0.05) according to the Tukey multiple range test

123
Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530 527

enriched pasta: significantly reduced firmness and elasticity

values were obtained with fibre addition; this reduction was
related to the disruptive behaviour of the fibre on the
protein–starch binding during pasta matrix formation.

Elastic recovery

The elastic recovery was calculated from the relaxation

curves shown in Fig. 3.
The elastic recovery results on day 0 are shown in Ta-
Fig. 2 Effect of different RS concentrations on TPA parameter ble 2. The values at 5 and 10% RS were the same as for the
values for fresh muffins control muffins, but at higher concentration of RS this
value decreased significantly. The results are in agreement
with Singh et al. [38], who studied the relaxation behaviour
The ‘‘springiness’’ value is shown in Fig. 2. Springiness of some foods. They reported that angel cakes and pound
decreased as RS rose; this decrease was clear and signifi- cakes showed a % recovery in the range of 50–40 and
cant from 15% of RS. At lower concentrations of RS (5 and reported that this may be due to the cross-linked protein
10%) there were no significant differences compared to the structure formed during the baking process. The elastic
control. recovery value indicates the elastic and the viscous com-
The ‘‘cohesiveness’’ parameter (Fig. 2) decreased with ponent, which are correlated with the gliadin and glutenin
the addition of RS; at 5 and 10% the decrease in this fractions present in wheat gluten protein.
parameter was so slight that there were no significant dif- Similar studies were carried out by Kamel and Rasper
ferences compared to the control muffin, at higher con- [16] to examine the effect of emulsifiers on the texture of
centrations of RS (15 and 20%) the cohesiveness value reduced-calorie cakes, which showed that the elastic
decreased significantly but there were no differences be- recovery values consistently fell when higher concentra-
tween these two formulations. The lower cohesiveness tions of emulsifiers were applied, and by Shearer and Da-
values would indicate that less energy was required for the vies [39] to evaluate changes of freshly baked muffins with
second compression. flaxseed oil or full-fat flaxseed meal. Freshly baked muffins
The addition of RS produced a very slight decrease in prepared with flaxseed meal were less elastic (ability of a
the ‘‘resilience’’ parameter (Fig. 2) at 5 and 10% RS, but muffin to relax while compressed) than the control muffins.
the decrease was not significant (P < 0.05). At greater RS The results of elastic recovery were in agreement of
concentrations (15 and 20%) the resilience value decreased TPA data: muffins containing higher RS concentration
significantly. The pattern of behaviour was the same as for showed a less cohesive and elastic structure.
the springiness parameter.
These results did not agree with the study by Grigelmo-
Miguel et al. [8], who reported that adding peach dietary
fibre to muffins increased their hardness although their
springiness and cohesiveness did not differ from those of
muffins without dietary fibre.
A possible explanation of the decrease in resilience and
springiness with the addition of RS is that the product
matrix becomes denser. At the higher RS level the number
and area of the gas cells [35] and the height of the final
baked muffins decreased (4.70 cm for control; 4.50 cm for
10% RS and 3.84 cm for 20% RS), and therefore, the
samples were less able to recover after deformation. In fact,
a volume reduction in bread with b-glucan addition was
reported attributable to gluten dilution, resulting in an
underdeveloped gluten network; this would limit the ex-
tend of dough inflation and gas cell stability during prov-
ing, with a reduced loaf volume [36]. Similar results Fig. 3 Elastic recovery curves for fresh muffins with different RS
were found by Tudorica et al. [37] in dietary fibre concentrations

123
528 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530

Table 2 Elastic recovery parameter values of muffins at different storage times

Days
0 2 4 7 9 11 14 16

Control 47.6Aa (0.8) 42.4b (0.5) 39.4c (0.7) 37.6d (0.8) 36.5efg (0.9) 36.8ef (0.3) 36.3efg (0.7) 36.1eg (0.5)
5% 47.9Aa (0.9) 42.2b (0.4) 38.7cd (0.5) 38.6cd (0.8) 38.1cdf (0.5) 37.5df (0.4) 35.6g (1.4) 35.1g (1.3)
10% 47.5Aa (0.6) 43.6b (0.3) 39.7c (0.2) 39.3c (0.5) 39.4c (0.3) 38.1d (0.3) 37.5e (0.6) 37.1e (0.6)
15% 43.8Ba (0.4) 41.7b (0.8) 38.8c (0.4) 38.6c (0.4) 37.2dg (0.3) 39.3e (0.2) 37.7fg (0.4) 37.4dfg (0.3)
20% 40.9Ca (0.7) 38.9b (0.7) 38.3cdf (0.4) 38.2cdef (0.7) 37.9cdef (0.3) 37.7defg (0.3) 37.9cdef (0.5) 37.3eg (0.4)
Values in parentheses are standard deviations
Mean in the same row without a common lower-letter differ (P < 0.05) according to the least significant difference multiple range test
For fresh muffins (day = 0), mean in the same column without a common capital-letter differ (P < 0.05) according to the least significant
difference multiple range test

Textural properties during storage muffins, as their hardness value doubled over the 16 days
of storage. In this case, 20% RS proved effective for
The textural properties of the muffins were evaluated over obtaining softer muffins than the control samples and, as
a 16-day storage period. This study reflects the textural can be observed in Fig. 4a, it diminished the hardening of
changes in the samples prepared with different RS levels the muffins during storage. These results are in agreement
that took place during storage. with Yue and Waring [40] who have shown that muffins
As can be observed in Fig.4a, the value for the ‘‘hard- formulated with 40% TDF (total dietary fibre) resistant
ness’’ parameter of the control muffin tripled over 16 days starch remained softer than the control during a 2-week
of storage. The muffins with 5, 10 and 15% RS behaved in storage period.
the same way. The muffins with 20% RS were softer than The ‘‘springiness’’ parameter did not provide informa-
the control muffins on day 0 and the evolution of their tion, as can be observed in Fig. 4b. Non-significant dif-
textural parameters over the storage time was different. ferences with storage time were found, although the values
Muffins with 20% RS were always softer than the other were lower in the presence of RS.

Fig. 4 TPA parameter values

of muffins with different RS
concentrations as a function of
storage time. Hardness (a),
springiness (b), cohesiveness (c)
and resilience (d)

123
Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530 529

Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to the Comisión In-

terministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (Project AGL 2003-09208-
C03-02) for the grant awarded to author R. Baixauli. The authors are
also grateful to National Starch Food Innovation for supplying the
resistant starch.

References

1. De Vries JW (2003) Proc Nutr Soc 62:37–43

2. Asp NG, Björck I (1992) Trends Food Sci Technol 3(5):111–114
3. Asp NG, Van Amelsvoort JMM, Hauvast JGAJ (1996) Nutr Res
Rev 9:1–31
4. Brown IL (2004) J AOAC Int 87(3):727–732
5. Kendall CWC, Emam A, Augustin LSA, Jenkins DJA (2004) J
AOAC Int 7(3):769–774
6. Nugent AP (2005) Nutr Bull 30:27–54
7. Sajilata MG, Singhai RS, Kulkarni PR (2006) Compr Rev Food
Fig. 5 Percentage of consumers rejecting control and 20% RS Sci Food Saf 5:1–17
muffins versus storage time 8. Grigelmo-Miguel N, Carreras-Boladeras E, Martı́n-Belloso O
(2001) Food Sci Technol Int 7(5):425–431
The ‘‘cohesiveness’’ showed a significant fall over the 9. Polizzoto LM, Tinsley AM, Weber CW, Berry JW (1983) J Food
Sci 48:111–118
storage period (Fig. 4c), although this decrease was lower 10. Shafer MAM, Zabik ME (1978) J Food Sci 43:375–379
for 15% and 20% RS samples. Consequently, higher con- 11. Sreenath HK, Sudarshanakrishna KR, Prasad NN, Santhanam K
centrations of RS were effective in preventing a sharper (1996) Starch/Stärke 48(2):72–76
drop in this parameter. 12. Chen H, Rubenthaler GL, Leung HK, Baranowski JD (1988)
Cereal Chem 65(3):244–247
The same tendency was shown by the ‘‘resilience’’ 13. Baeva MR, Panchev IN, Terzieva VV (2000) Nahrung
(Fig. 4d) and confirmed by ‘‘elastic recovery’’ values 44(4):242–246
(Table 1). 14. Sahi SS, Alava JM (2003) J Sci Food Agr 83:1419–1429
15. Singh Gujral H, Rosell CM, Sharma S, Singh S (2003) Food Sci
Technol Int 9(2):89–93
Sensory analysis 16. Kamel BS, Rasper VF (1988) J Texture Stud 19:307–320
17. Paeschke T (1997) Cereal Foods World 42(5):391–395
Percentage rejection versus storage time was then plotted 18. Guy RCE (1983) J Sci Food Agric 34:477–491
(Fig. 5) using the Weibull distribution. The shapes of the 19. Hough G, Langohr K, Gómez G, Curia A (2003) J Food Sci
68:359–362
curves were different for the two different levels of RS 20. Giménez A, Varela P, Salvador A, Ares G, Fiszman S, Garitta L
chosen (control and 20%) as can be observed in Fig. 5. (2007) Food Qual Prefer 18(2):196–204
During the early days of storage the percentage rejection 21. Gámbaro A, Fiszman S, Giménez A, Varela P, Salvador A (2004)
was lower for the control muffins than for the 20% RS J Food Sci 69(9):401–405
22. Gámbaro A, Jiménez A, Varela P (2005) J Sens Stud 19:500–509
muffins, probably because the controls reminded the con- 23. Francis FJ, Clydesdale FM (1975). Food Colorimetry: theory and
sumers more of a typical muffin. As time went on, how- applications. The AVI Publishing Company Inc., Westport
ever, the reverse was found, as the percentage rejection was 24. Pons M, Fiszman SM (1996) J Texture Stud 27:597–624
higher for the control muffins than for the 20% RS muffins. 25. American Association of Cereal Chemists (2000) Approved
methods of the AACC, (10th ed). Method 74–09. AACC, St.
This could be because, as mentioned above, the texture of Paul, MN: the Association
the 20% RS muffins changed less over time. 26. ISO (1988) Sensory analysis. General guidance for design of test
rooms. Standard no. 8589. Geneva, Switzerland
27. Gacula MC, Singh J (1984) Statistical methods in food and
consumer research. Academic, New York, 505 pp
Conclusions 28. Cardelli C, Labuza TP (2001) LWT–Food Sci Technol 34:273–
278
The addition of RS in muffins produced a softer texture: the 29. Varela P, Salvador A, Fiszman S (2005) Postharvest Biol Technol
samples were less hard, elastic and cohesive reflecting a 38(1):18–24
30. Kim HYL, Yeom HW, Lim HS, Lim ST (2001) Cereal Chem
more tender structure; these effects were more evident at 78(3):267–271
higher concentrations of RS. During a storage period of 31. Lee S, Kim S, Inglett GE (2005) Cereal Chem 82(2):120–124
16 days the samples with RS remained softer than control 32. Khouryied HA, Aramouni FM, Herald TJ (2005) J Food Qual
samples. These results were confirmed by sensory shelf-life 28:439–451
33. Baik OD, Marcotte M, Castaigne F (2000) Food Res Int 33:599–
analysis: after 23 days of storage the predicted percentage 607
rejection by consumers for the RS-containing muffins was 34. Arunepanlop B, Morr CV, Karleskind D, Laye I (1996) J Food
lower than the control sample. Sci 61(5):1085–1093

123
530 Eur Food Res Technol (2008) 226:523–530

35. Baixauli R, Sanz T, Salvador A, Fiszman SM (2006) CON- 38. Singh H, Rockall A, Martin CR, Chung OK, Lookhart GL (2006)
GRESS: bubbles in food 2: novelty, health and luxury J Texture Stud 37:383–392
36. Symons LJ, Brennan CS (2004) J Food Sci 69(6):463–467 39. Shearer AEH, Davies CGA (2005) J Food Qual 28:137–153
37. Tudorica CM, Kuri V, Brennan CS (2002) J Agric Food Chem 40. Yue P, Waring S (1998) Food Aust 50(12):615–621
50:347–356

123