Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

The Effects of Some Coating Materials and Frying Times on Chicken Meatballs

Bazı Kaplama Maddelerinin ve Kızartma Sürelerinin Tavuk Köftelerin Kalite Özelliklerine Etkisi

Pages
52–65
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed that the best coating process was using wheat protein or pea protein as pre-dusting materials, 2% starch for batter, and 3 min frying time

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, chicken meatballs were pre-dusted with wheat protein and pea protein isolate as the first coating.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Next they were coated with 1, 2, and 3% pea starch batters as the second coating, and then breaded with bread crumbs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed that the best coating process was using wheat protein or pea protein as pre-dusting materials, 2% starch for batter, and 3 min frying time
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, chicken meatballs were pre-dusted with wheat protein and pea protein isolate as the first coating. Next they were coated with 1, 2, and 3% pea starch batters as the second coating, and then breaded with bread crumbs. Finally, they were fried at 180 oC for 3, 5, and 7 min. Pre-dusting materials were found to enhance some physical, chemical and sensorial properties of meatballs after frying. However, they equally had impact on the final products. The performance values of batter materials were better compared to the control. Especially, 2% and 3% levels of starch had more effect than the control and 1%. Additionally, three and five minutes of frying time revealed good results for meatballs. Results showed that the best coating process was using wheat protein or pea protein as pre-dusting materials, 2% starch for batter, and 3 min frying time

Özet

Bu çalışmada tavuk köfteler öncelikle buğday proteini ve bezelye proteini izolatları ile ön kaplama yapılmıştır. Daha sonra su ile hazırlanan % 1, % 2 ve % 3'lük bezelye nişastası çözeltileriyle daldırma şeklinde ikinci kaplamaya tabii tutulmuşlardır. Son olarak, galeta ununa bulanarak 180 oC'de 3, 5 ve 7 dakika kızartılmışlardır. Buğday proteini ve bezelye proteini köftelerin kızartma sonrası bazı fiziksel, kimyasal ve duyusal özelliklerini iyileştirirken, son ürün üzerinde eşit etkiye sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir. İkinci kaplamalarda, nişasta çözeltilerinin performansı kontrol örneğine göre daha iyi olmuştur. Özellikle nişastanın % 2 ve % 3'lük çözeltileri kontrol örneği ve % 1'lik çözeltiye göre köfteler üzerinde daha olumlu etkiye sahip olmuştur. Ayrıca köfteleri kızartmada 3 ve 5 dakika süre uygulaması daha olumlu bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak en iyi kaplama ve kızartma süresi, ön kaplamalarda buğday proteini veya bezelye proteini, çözelti tipi kaplamalarda % 2'lik nişasta belirlenirken, kızartma süresi olarak 3 dakika yeterli olmuştur

🔖

Cite This Article

KILINÇÇEKER, O. (2022). The Effects of Some Coating Materials and Frying Times on Chicken Meatballs. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 52–65. https://ajindex.com/articles/428526

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Debeaufort, F., Quezada-Gallo, J.A., Voilley, A., Crit Rev in Food Sci., 38, 299-313
  2. Gennadios, A., Hana, M.A., Kurth, L.B., Leb-Wis-Und-Tech., 30, 337-350
  3. Mallikarjunan, P., Chinnan, M.S., Balasubramaniam, V.M., Philips, R. D., LebWiss-Und-Tech., 30, 709–714
  4. Khalil, A.H., Food Chem., 66, 201–208
  5. Kulp, L., Loewe, R., Batters and breadings in food processing. American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc, Minnesota 55121-2097, USA. 276s. 1990
  6. Choi, W.S., Han, J.H., J of Food Sci., 66, 319-322, 2001
  7. Mehyar, G. F., Han J. H., J of Food Sci., 69, 449-454
  8. Mehyar, G. F., Han, J.H., Holley, R. A., Blank, G., A. Hydamaka, Poultry Sci., 86, 386-393, 2007
  9. Kowalczyk, D., B. Baraniak, J of Food Eng., 105, 295-305, 2011
  10. Sun, Q., Xiong, C.S.L., Carb Poly., 101, 1134-1139, 2014
  11. Elgün, A., Ertugay, Z., Certel, M., Kotancılar, G., Analytical quality control and laboratory application guide in cereal and cereal products (in Turkish). Atatürk Uni Ziraat Fak Yay No. 335, Erzurum, Turkey, 1998
  12. Dogan, I.S., Unal, S. S., Ege Üniv Müh Fak Gıda Müh Der., 8, 7–35, 1990
  13. Kılınççeker, O., Food Tech and Biotech., 49, 237-243, 2011
  14. Dogan, I.S., Int. J. Food Sci. and Technol., 41, 569-576, 2006
  15. Offical methods of analysis (17th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington; 2002
  16. Kilincceker, O., Hepsag, F., J of Ani. and Vet. Adv., 10, 2256-2262, 2011
  17. Kilincceker, O., Hepsag, F., Food and Bioprocess Technology, 5, 1349-1354, 2012
  18. Sahin, S., Sumnu, S.G., Altunakar, B., J Sci Food Agr., 85, 2375-2379, 2005
  19. Kilincceker, O., Dogan, I.S., Kucukoner, E., LWT- Food Sci and Technol., 42, 868- 873, 2009
  20. Dogan, S.F., Sahin, S., Sumnu, G., J of Food Eng., 1, 127-132, 2005
  21. Kılınççeker, O., Foc. on Mod Food Ind., 2, 36-42, 2013.