The dragon fruit powder
burfi prepared under various treatments were subjected to analysis
viz., moisture, fat, protein, ash, titratable acidity, total carbohydrate, pH, crude fiber and total solids.
Moisture content
It was observed from Table 1 that mean moisture content in T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 were 14.25, 13.92, 13.23, 12.68,12.31 and11.03 per cent, respectively. Basically, all the treatments showed the significant difference for moisture content in dragon fruit burfi. As dragon fruit powder increased in
burfi, the moisture content in
burfi was decreased. This might be due to dragon fruit powder powder soak the moisture content in
burfi and also due to less content of moisture in dragon fruit powder. ‘The maximum moisture observed for treatment T
1 (14.25%) whereas, minimum moisture obtained for T
6 (11.03%).
Satav et al., (2014) observed that the average moisture content of
burfi blended with different levels of walnut powder in T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4 and T
5 were 16.85, 16.59, 16.33,16.07 and 15.82 per cent respectively. All the treatments showed the significant difference for moisture contents in walnut powder
burfl. As walnut powder increased in
burfl, the moisture content in
burfl was decreased
Rasane et al., (2012) studied the Sensory and texture profile analysis of burfi samples manufactured in varanasi and the moisture content of burfi ranged from 15.71-19.10%, 15.00-20.45%, 14.69-18.56% for plain, radha priya burfi and chocolate burfi.
Fat content
It found that in Table 1, 1 the average fat content in dragon fruit
burfi was 21.47, 19.67, 18.35, 17.79, 16.38 and 15.71 per cent for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 respectively. It was also observed that maximum fat content was observed for treatment T
1 (21.47) and minimum fat content in T
6 (15.71). The fat content of
burfi was significantly influenced by the addition of dragon fruit powder powder in the
burfi. As the dragon fruit powder level increases the fat content of
burfi decrease significantly. It might be due to low fat content found in dragon fruit powder.
Wasnik et al. (2015) observed the fat content of santra
burfi prepared in proportions of 100:0 (T0), 95:05 (T1), 90:10 (T2), 85:15 (T3), 80:20 (T4) and 75:25 (T5)
khoa to orange pulp as 20.0, 19.1, 18.2, 17.4, 16.7 and 16.0 per cent respectively.
Protein content
From the above Table 1 it was observed that for treatments T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 the protein content of the product 14.21, 13.78, 12.60, 11.45 11.32 and 11.24 per cent respectively. The differences were statistically significant among the various treatments in
burfi preparation. It was observed that as the addition of dragon fruit powder, the protein content of the product was also decreased. This might be due to replacement of milk solids by dragon fruit powder and low protein contents (1.5%) in the dragon fruit powder as compared to the protein content in
khoa.
More or less similar results were reported by
Ingale (2000) reported that addition of ash gourd pulp (20, 30 and 40 per cent) in
kalak and decreased the protein content significantly in finished products from 15.13 to 9.93 per cent.
Ash content
From above Table 1 indicate that the ash content of
burfi in treatments T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4,T
5 and T
6 were 2.45, 2.50, 2.62, 2.66, 2.75 and 2.81 per cent respectively. As the dragon fruit powder level increases the ash content level of the product was also increased. This was might be due to the higher content of mineral in dragon fruit and high amount of total solids in
burfi.
More or less similar results were reported by
Satav et al. (2014) that the ash content in treatments T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4 and T
5 were 2.50, 2.60, 2.77, 2.85 and 2.92 per cent respectively among the treatment T
2 and T
3. As the walnut powder level increases the ash content level of the product was also increased.
Titratable acidity
From the above Table 1, it is observed that the titratable acidity content in
burfi for treatments T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 were 0.51, 0.54, 0.57, 0.60, 0.62 and 0.65 as the dragon fruit powder increases in
burfi, the acidity percent in
burfi was also increased it may due to high amount of vitamin C found in dragon fruit powder. Highest titratable acidity was observed in treatment T
6 (0.65) whereas lowest acidity in treatment T
1 (0.51). Increase in acidity content showed because of increases the level of dragon fruit powder added in
burfi preparation.
The results of present investigation are close in agreement with the findings of
Sawant (2020) observed that the acidity content in orange
burfi prepared with khoa and orange pulp in proportion of 100:0 (T1), 90:10 (T2), 85:15 (T3), 80:20 (T4) and 75:25 (T5) treatments were 0.31, 0.34, 0.36, 0.38 and 0.40 per cent respectively acidity content in orange
burfi increased with the increased orange pulp level.
Total carbohydrate
From Table 1 it was observed that total carbohydrate content was increased from treatments T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 as 47.16, 49.36, 52.31, 53.93, 55.58 and 57.40 per cent respectively. Highest total sugar in treatment T
6 (57.40%) was observed whereas lowest one in treatment T
1 (47.16%). These differences may be due to because of total carbohydrates already present in dragon fruit powder.
Simultaneously, results were match with
Shelke (2008) who reported carbohydrate content of the mango
burfi was in the range of 38.94 to 44.40 per cent
Pawar (2015) reported dried date
burfi contains total carbohydrate in treatments T
0, T
1, T
2 and T
3 as 47, 49, 51 and 53 per cent respectively.
Crude fiber
From above Table 1 it is observed that that the average crude fiber content of products was 0.49, 0.77, 0.90, 1.50, 1.65 and 1.82 per cent for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6, respectively. The highest crude fiber content was recorded for treatment T
6 (1.8) and the lowest crude fiber content was recorded for treatment T
1 (0.49). All trials were significantly differed from each other. It was also concluded that as the addition of dragon fruit powder level increases the crude fiber content is also increases due to high amount of fiber present in the dragon fruit.
Patil (2022) observed that average crude fiber content of products was 0.15, 0.16, 0.17, 0.20 and 0.21 per cent recorded for treatment T
5 (0.21) and the lowest crude fiber content was recorded for treatment T
1 (0.15). All trials were significantly differed from each other for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4 and T
5, respectively.
Total solid
From above Table 1, 1 it was observed that the average total solids content of product was found to be 85.76, 86.06, 86.78, 87.31, 87.70 and 88.97 per cent for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 respectively.
The highest total solids content was recorded for treatment T
6 (88.97) and the lowest total solids content was recorded for treatment T
1 (85.76). All trials were significantly differed from each other. It was also presented that as the addition of dragon fruit powder level increases the total solids content of product increases with decrease in moisture content. This might be due to the high total solids content of dragon fruit powder.
More or less similar results were reported by
Kamble et al., (2010), reported total solid content of pineapple pulp
burfi is (83.53 to 80.73%).
pH content
From above Table 1 it was observed that the average pH content of dragon fruit
burfi was found to be 6.38, 5.80, 5.49, 5.38, 5.29 and 5.22 for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 respectively. The highest pH content was recorded for treatment T
1 (6.38) and the lowest pH content was recorded for treatment T
6 (5.22). All treatments were differed from each other. It was also presented that as the addition of dragon fruit powder level increases the pH content of product decreases with increase in titratable acidity.
The above results for pH score are comparable with the finding of following research workers.
Rao et al., (1993) noticed that the pH value of cashew nut
burfi treated with potassium sorbate and BHA was reported in the ranges from 6.48 to 6.55.
Textural properties of dragon fruit burfi
Texture describes what we experienced in our mouth while eating
burfi i.e., initial mouthfeel, hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess and chewiness. Texture profile analysis is the double compression test in which bite- sized
burfi (1 cm
3) is compressed twice to mimic the action caused during chewing of
burfi and hence it is called “two-bite test”. It can quantify multiple textural parameters in just one experiment. The textural profile of
burfi was measured in terms of hardness, cohesiveness, springiness adhesiveness and gumminess.
Hardness
Hardness is the most assessed parameters of dragon fruit
burfi in determining the texture of
burfi. In objective texture profile studies, hardness refers to the peak force that result from a sample being compressed to a given distance, time, or it is defined as the force necessary to attain deformation. On a two-bite force distance curve, it means the highest point of the peak in the first bite at predefined compression cycle. From Table 2 it was observed that the hardness value of
burfi samples was 0.615, 0.960, 1.244, 1.308, 1.727 and 1.929 for treatment T
1, T
2, T
3, T
4, T
5 and T
6 respectively.
It was also observed that the lowest value was observed for treatment T
1 and the highest in treatment T
6 this highest hardness was observed due to low moisture content and increasing amount of dragon fruit powder added in
burfi from T
2 to T
6.
