Análise físico-química e sensorial de doce de leite produzido sem adição de sacarose

Abstract

O objetivo foi avaliar doces de leite produzidos sem adição de açúcar. Realizaram-se três formulações: doce com adição de açúcar (A), com edulcorante sucralose (B) e doce com ciclamato, sacarina e sorbitol (C). Nos doces B e C utilizou-se a carragena. Realizaram-se análises físico-quimicas, microbiológicas, exigidas pela legislação vigente, e análise sensorial. Nas análises de acidez não houve diferença significativa entre as amostras. O teor de gordura, a atividade de água e textura das amostras não diferiram entre os doces B e C, e esses diferiram estatisticamente do A. Nas análises de pH houve diferença significativa entre os doces. O teor de sólidos solúveis do doce A apresentou 63 °Brix, e os doces B e C, 26 °Brix. Na aceitação, observou-se diferença significativa para todos os atributos avaliados. Para sabor, o doce A foi mais aceito que os doces B e C, e o doce B mais que o C. Para atributo de textura sensorial e impressão global, o doce A foi mais aceito que os doces B e C, e esses apresentaram a mesma aceitação. Na análise de textura instrumental, os doces B e C não obtiveram a mesma força de resistência à penetração que o doce A. Todas as análises microbiológicas dos doces A, B e C apresentaram-se dentro dos padrões exigidos pela legislação vigente. Doce de leite com sucralose (B) mostrou-se uma boa alternativa para substituição do doce de leite com sacarose (A), uma vez que obteve boa aceitação para o atributo sabor.

This study was carried out to evaluate a milk fudge recipe prepared without addition of sugar. Three formulations were prepared: milk fudge with addition of sugar (A), with the sweetener sucralose (B), and with cyclamate, saccharin and sorbitol (C). Carrageenan was used in the formulations B and C. Physiochemical and microbiological analyses required by the Brazilian legislation and sensory analysis were performed. No significant difference was found in the acidity analyses among the samples, whereas significant difference was found for pH among the formulations. There was no significant difference in fat content, water activity and texture between formulations B and C, which statistically differed from formulation A. Soluble solids content for formulation A was 63 °Brix, whereas for formulations B and C was 26 °Brix. There was significant difference for acceptance for all attributes under evaluation. The sensory analysis indicated a higher acceptance for the flavor of formulation, A than formulations B and C, and B was preferred to C. Sensory tests for texture and global impression indicated that formulation A was preferred to B and C, and the last two had the same acceptance. The fat content of formulation A was lower than the other two. In the instrumental texture analysis, formulations B and C had lower resistance to penetration than formulation A. All microbiological analyses of formulations A, B and C complied with the standards required by the legislation. Milk fudge formulated with sucralose (B) is thus a good market alternative to formulations with sucrose (A), since it had similar acceptance to common milk fudges.