CC BY
7
2024 Т. 54 № 2 / Техника и технология пищевых производств / Food Processing: Techniques and Technology
ISSN 2074-9414 (Print) ISSN 2313-1748 (Online)
https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2024-2-2503 Original article
https://elibrary.ru/WWYZRU Available online at https://fptt.ru/en
Gelatin Jelly Candy from Mackerel Skin (Scomberomorus commersonii)
®
Agustiana* , Siti Aisyah, Hafni Rahmawati , D.E. Anggraini, Aolia Ramadhani
Universitas Lambung Mangkurat^-^, Banjarmasin, Indonesia
Received: 18.08.2023 Agustiana: agustiana.fpk@ulm.ac.id,
Revised: 01.11.2023 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3991-4454
Accepted: 05.12.2023 Hafni Rahmawati: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5707-2759
Aolia Ramadhani: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-8895
© Agustiana, S. Aisyah, H. Rahmawati, D.E. Anggraini, A. Ramadhani, 2024
Abstract.
Jelly candies are colorful, delicious, and loved by children. Mackerel skin gelatin has a good nutritional potential to increase the protein content in jelly candy. The present study tested consumer acceptance, proximate value, and quality of gelatin jelly candy fortified with eight different natural flavorings: honey, date juice, olive oil, soy milk, goat's milk, grape juice, avocado, and pumpkin.
Gelatin was extracted from mackerel (Scomberomorus commersonii) skin. The quality assessment involved tests on the water, ash, fat, and protein contents, as well as bacterial contamination. The sensory evaluation involved a hedonic test with 10 panelists, who found all samples acceptable in appearance, smell, flavor, and texture.
The average score for each criterium was 7.00 out of 9.00. The sample with soy milk proved to have the most optimal formulation: water (9.76 ± 0.70%), ash (0.21 ± 0.02%), protein (16.20 ± 0.37%), fat (2.32 ± 0.50%), carbohydrate (51.61 ± 0.80%), reducing sugar (0.14 ± 0.01%). All samples were free from Salmonella sp. and Escherichia coli, with a total plate count of 1x102 colonies per 1 g.
The jelly candy with mackerel skin gelatin was high in protein, had a favorable sensory profile, and met the Indonesia National Standard for this type of food products.
Keywords. Gelatin, halal gelatin, jelly candy, nutritional value, quality, mackerel skin, Scomberomorus commersonii
Funding. The research was supported by The Compulsory Research Lecturer Program with PNBP Financing Scheme at the Lambung Mangkurat UniversityR0R, fiscal year 2021 (main cluster), contract No. 010.49/UN 8.2/PL/2021.
For citation: Agustiana, Aisyah S, Rahmawati H, Anggraini DE, Ramadhani A. Gelatin Jelly Candy from Mackerel Skin (Scomberomorus commersonii). Food Processing: Techniques and Technology. 2024;54(2):236-244. https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2024-2-2503
https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2024-2-2503 https://elibrary.ru/WWYZRU
Оригинальная статья https://fptt.ru
®
Жевательный мармелад с желатином из кожи скумбрии (БсотЬеготогив соттегвопИ)
Агустиана* , С. Айсия, X. Рахмавати , Д. Э. Анггрэйни, А. Рамадхани
Университет Ламбунг Мангкурат?^, Банджармасин, Индонезия
Поступила в редакцию: 18.08.2023 Принята после рецензирования: 01.11.2023 Принята к публикации: 05.12.2023
*Агустиана: agustiana.fpk@ulm.ac.id, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3991-4454 Х. Рахмавати: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5707-2759 А. Рамадхани: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-8895
© Агустиана, С. Айсия, Х. Рахмавати, Д. Э. Анггрэйни,
А. Рамадхани, 2024
Аннотация.
Жевательный мармелад - это яркое и вкусное лакомство, которое пользуется спросом у детей. Желатин из кожи скумбрии (Scomberomorus commersonii) обладает хорошими питательными свойствами и может способствовать увеличению содержания белка в жевательном мармеладе. Описали потребительскую привлекательность, пищевую ценность и качество жевательного мармелада с желатином из кожи скумбрии и 8 натуральными ароматизаторами: мед, финиковый сок, оливковое масло, соевое молоко, козье молоко, виноградный сок, авокадо и тыква.
Желатин экстрагировали из кожи скумбрии (S. commersonii). Качество мармелада оценивали по содержанию влаги, золы, жира, белка и наличию бактерий. Органолептическая оценка заключалась в проведении гедонического теста: десять экспертов оценили все образцы как приемлемые по внешнему виду, запаху, вкусу и текстуре. Средний балл по каждому критерию составил 7,0 из 9,0. Оптимальным по составу оказался образец с соевым молоком: содержание влаги составило 9,76 ± 0,70 %, золы - 0,21 ± 0,02 %, белка - 16,20 ± 0,37 %, жира - 2,32 ± 0,50 %, углеводов -51,61 ± 0,80 %, редуцирующего сахара - 0,14 ± 0,01 %. В образцах не обнаружены Salmonella sp. или Escherichia coli; общее количество бактерий составило 1*102 колоний на 1 г.
Жевательный мармелад с желатином из кожи скумбрии оказался богат белком, продемонстрировал хорошие орга-нолептические свойства и соответствовал государственному стандарту, принятому в Индонезии для данного типа пищевых продуктов.
Ключевые слова. Желатин, халяльный желатин, желейные конфеты, пищевая ценность, качество, кожа скумбрии, Scomberomorus commersonii
Финансирование. Исследование было поддержано Программой обязательных исследований по схеме PNBP для преподавателей Университета Ламбунг Мангкурат"011 в 2021 финансовом году (основной кластер), договор № 010.49/ UN 8.2/PL/2021.
Для цитирования: Жевательный мармелад с желатином из кожи скумбрии (БеотЪеготогиз еоттегзопи) / Агустиана [и др.] // Техника и технология пищевых производств. 2024. Т. 54. № 2. С. 236-244. (На англ.). https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2024-2-2503
Introduction
Gelatin is a protein commonly extracted from cartilage, skin, and scales of cows, pigs, and fish [1]. Halal gelatin cannot contain any pig-based products. As a rule, it is extracted from fish, e.g., mackerel (Scomberomorus commersonii) [2]. Gelatin preparations are part of various foods and non-food products. Gelatin serves as an emulsifier, a stabilizer, a microencapsulation agent, as a component of biodegradable packaging, etc. [3]. Its most useful property is the ability to form gels with convenient
viscosity and melting point. As a result, gelatin is a popular component of various candy products [1].
Candy can be hard and soft. As a rule, candy contains cane sugar, corn sugar, flavorings, dyes, and gelling agents. Gelatin-based candy is called jelly candy and has a higher sugar content [4]. Jelly candy is often fortified with vitamins and minerals to improve children's diet [5]. Some sorts of jelly candy involve natural flavorings, e.g., nutmeg extract, strawberries and mangoes [6-8]. However, some confectionery industries prefer synthetic acid
flavorings with unreliable safety, e.g., citric acid, tartaric acid, and lactic acid [9]. According to Yanchenko et al., the food industry does not meet nutrition standards in this sphere because producers ignore consumer safety to maximize profit [10]. In addition, jelly candy is rarely rich in protein. Fish skin gelatin may solve this problem by fortifying jelly candy with protein.
Natural flavorings with vitamins and minerals offer good prospects for candy production. According to Kia et al., food products with natural additives are health-beneficial [11]. In this research, we used such natural ingredients as honey, date juice, olive oil, soy milk, goat's milk, grapes, avocado, and pumpkin. These flavorings are expected to raise the consumer attractiveness of ha-lal gelatin candy. Furthermore, jelly candy made from mackerel skin gelatin potentially provides protein intake and reduces sugar consumption. This study featured consumer acceptance, proximate value, and quality profile of jelly candy with mackerel skin gelatin fortified with eight different natural flavorings.
Study objects and methods
Extracting mackerel skin gelatin. We used the protocol described by Rahmawati & Pranoto to extract gelatin from mackerel skin [12]. After soaking dried mackerel skin in water for ± 5 h, we heated it for ± 1 min to remove the remaining impurities. Then, the sample was soaked in 0.05 M of ethanolic acid (CH3COOH) solution for 10 h. The extraction process involved heating with H2O at 80°C for 2 h. Finally, the gelatin extract remained three days in an oven at 55°C.
Preparing gelatin jelly candy. We designed eight different natural flavorings, i.e., honey, date juice, olive oil, soy milk, goat's milk, grape juice, avocado, and pumpkin. Each test was performed in triplicate. The formulation and technology for jelly candy with fish skin gelatin was borrowed from Eletra et al. with some modifications [13]. We mixed 75 g gelatin, 85 g sucrose, 5 g salt, and 85 g natural ingredients. After adding 300 mL cold water, we stirred the mix until it became homogeneous. The sample was then heated at 100°C for 2 min, molded with soft silicone bear-shape templates, and cooled.
Water content analysis. To analyze the water content, we appealed to the method published by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [14]. The samples were weighed up to 2.00 ± 0.01 g on a porcelain dish of known weight and dried in an oven at 105°C for 3 h. After being cooled in a desiccator, the weighing was repeated.
Ash content analysis. The samples were weighed up to 2.00 ± 0.01 g on a porcelain dish of known weight, ignited on a burner flame, and burned in an electric furnace at < 550°C until complete combustion. Then, they were cooled in a desiccator and weighed until constant mass [14].
Fat content analysis. We placed 2.00 ± 0.01 g of each sample into a cotton-lined paper bag. The paper sleeve was covered with cotton, dried in an oven at < 80°C for ± 1 h, and put into the Soxhlet extraction apparatus
connected to an oil bottle with boiling chips. After drying, we determined the weight and extracted the sample with hexane for ± 6 h. Then we filtered the hexane and dried the fat extract in an oven at 105°C, cooled it, and weighed. The cooling process continued until constant weight [14].
Protein content analysis. The analysis of protein content relied on the method recommended by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [14]. During the digestion, we put 1.00 ± 0.01 g of each sample into a 100 mL Kjehdahl flask with 10 mL of concentrated sulfu-ric acid. A catalyst was added to speed up the digestion. After the distillation, the digestion results were diluted with distilled water up to 100 mL. After homogenization and cooling, we pipetted 5 mL into a distillation flask. A total of 10 mL of 30% sodium hydroxide solution penetrated through the walls of the still flask until a layer formed under the acid solution. The container was filled with 10 mL of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid solution and drained with a methyl red indicator. The titration was accommodated in an Erlenmeyer flask with 0.1 N hydrochloric acids and five drops of methyl red indicator. The mix was titrated directly using a 0.1 N sodium hydroxide solution. The titration resulted in a pink-to-yellow color. This treatment was repeated three times for each sample.
Total plate count. The total plate count method belonged to Salanggon et al. [15]. A total of 25 g of each sample was weighed aseptically. After adding 225 mL Butterfield's phosphate buffer, we homogenized the mix for 2 min and diluted it. The homogenate was put with a sterile pipette into a vial containing 9 mL of Butterfield's phosphate buffer solution to obtain a sample with a dilution of 10-2. Each dilutant was stirred at least 25 times to obtain further dilutants (10-3, 10-4, 10-5, etc.). The volume of each diluent was 1 mL, and the procedure was repeated in a sterile petri dish with a sterile pipette. In each petri dish, 12-15 mL of medium was cooled to 5°C for the plate count agar method. After the agar hardened, it was incubated at 35°C for 8 h to count the number of bacterial colonies in the petri dish.
Screening of Escherichia coli. We homogenized 25 g of each sample with 225 mL peptone buffer and then fortified it at 37°C for 18 h. Next, 1 mL of the sample was inoculated directly into 9 mL of MacConkey broth (CM5a; Oxoid) and then incubated at 37°C for 18 h [16]. After that, we sprayed the fortified broth preparations directly onto eosin methylene blue agar and incubated them at 37°C for 18-24 h. The isolates were confirmed biochemically using an E. coli antiserum express diagnostic kit. E. coli O antiserum consisted of polyclonal antibodies used for zero-classification of E. coli O antigens.
Screening Salmonella sp. At the pre-fortification stage, the collected samples were serially diluted (10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, etc.) using peptone water [17]. At the fortification stage, we planted them on sterile se-lenite cystine broth selective media and incubated at
37°C for 24 h. After the fortification stage in each dilution, 1 mL was planted on xylose lysine deoxycholate. We analyzed bacteria growth by counting the colonies and observing their morphology. Purification involvedthe quadrant streaking method, with presupposed xylose lysine deoxycholate media and incubation at 37°C for 48 h. The purification process targeted colonies with different colony morphology that belonged to gram-negative bacteria.
After that, we selected two types of colonies. Each colony was duplicated so that eventually 40 colonies were obtained. The purification results were grown on slanted nutrient agar, incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and stored at -20°C as stock culture. The storage condition of pure bacterial isolates involved 60% glycerol in a ratio of 1:1 at -80°C.
Sensory analysis. Each sample was placed on a white plastic plate together with a glass of water, coded, and served to panelists randomly in a well-lit environment. The panel consisted of 10 trained panelists from the laboratory of testing and quality control of fishery products, Banjarbaru, South Kalimantan. The criteria included appearance, smell, texture, and flavor. The panelists rated the acceptance using a nine-point hedonic scale: 1 - dislike extremely, 2 - dislike very much, 3 - dislike moderately, 4 - dislike slightly, 5 - neither like nor dislike, 6 - like slightly, 7 - like moderately; 8 - like very much, 9 - like extremely.
Data analysis. All data that passed the homogeneity and normality tests were further analyzed using SPSS 20.0 for Windows and ANOVA Analysis of Variance (p < 0.05) followed by the Duncan's Test.
Results and discussion
Mackerel skin gelatin characterization. The water content in fish skin gelatin was 6.45%, which was lower than in the raw material (Table 1). In this research, the water content exceeded that reported by Viji et al. as 4.81 ± 0.41% [18]. However, it was lower than the data published by Ismail & Abdullah as 6.93% [19]. Yet, the water content met the Indonesian National Standard No. 01-3735-1995 Gelatin quality and test method. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives defines the maximum of 18%, and the Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America mentions 10.5 ± 1.5% [20, 21].
According to Esfahani et al., water content determines the stability of dry products [22]. High water content causes particle agglomeration and accelerates microbial growth and oxidation. Ash content was essential for evaluating gelatin quality, especially in terms of mineral content and purity. The ash content of fish skin gelatin (Table 1) meets the standards specified by the Indonesian National Standard (3.25%), the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (max. 2.00%), and the Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America 0.5 ± 0.4-1.5 ± 0.5% (Indonesian National Standard No. 013735-1995) [20]. Specifics of aquatic environment, habi-
tat, and species affect the ash content of fish skin gelatin. Its ash content also depends on the extraction process [23].
In this research, the protein content of gelatin depended on the time and concentration of chemicals used. This concentration broke more amino acid bonds, so that more protein broke down during extraction. The resulting protein content in gelatin was 91.52%, which exceeded the initial data for dry fish skin (69.76%) and wet fish skin (35.63%). The protein content in gelatin met the Indonesian National Standard (87.25%). However, our results exceeded those obtained by Zarubin et al. by 73.2 ± 0.9% [23]. The difference in the protein content resulted from the differences in the concentration of acid and base used during extraction. Acid and base concentration and immersion time combined were reported to produce high protein content [24].
Fat content is known to affect the quality of raw materials during storage. The fat content of skin gelatin equaled 0.73%, which was lower than the initial data for dry skin (4.85%) and wet skin (2.24%). This result was similar to that reported by Gunawan et al. as 0.71 ± 0.07% [24]. High-fat content shortens the shelf-life of gelatin and affects the quality of gelatin in the application process [23]. In our research, the value of carbohydrates in gelatin was 6.45%, which was much less than the initial data for dry fish skin (20.18%) and wet fish skin (60.74%). Carbohydrates are not considered as an essential parameter in gelatin production: the essential parameters include protein, water, and ash.
Sensory profile of gelatin jelly candy. Sensation is a psycho-physiological process in which sensory recognition of object characteristics is carried out through stimuli received by the senses [25]. In our research, the sensory evaluation results for the appearance ranged from "liked moderately" to "like very much". Figure 1 shows that the liquid honey-flavored sample received a bigger score than date juice, olive oil, and grape juice. The natural color of honey, clear brown when added, turned light brown. Adding olive oil and date juice made the jelly candy blackish-brown while adding grape juice made it yellowish [26, 27]. The appearance score of the soy milk and goat's milk samples was very similar; both were yellow-brown but not like the honey sample. The milk powder had a color similar to that of the jelly candy formulation. According to Charoenphun, milk powder
Table 1. Mackerel skin gelatin proximate Таблица 1. Предварительный анализ состава кожи скумбрии
Proximate, % Mackerel Mackerel Mackerel
raw skin dry skin gelatin
Water 60.74 20.18 6.45
Ash 5.23 2.36 0.86
Protein 35.63 69.76 91.52
Fat 4.85 2.24 0.73
Carbohydrate 60.74 20.18 6.45
Honey (liquid)
Pumpkin (paste)
8.2 7.9 7.6
7.3
Dates juice (liquid)
Avocado (paste)
Grape juice (liquid)
Olive oil (liquid)
Goat's Milk (powder)
Appearance/Color Flavor
Soy Milk (powder)
Odor Texture
Figure 1. Sensory analysis of gelatin jelly candy
Рисунок 1. Органолептический анализ жевательного мармелада с желатином из кожи скумбрии
makes jelly candy light yellow or pale white [28]. Avocado and pumpkin turned the gelatin black. The problem is that avocado naturally produces ethylene gas, which is associated with ripening. It converts methionine to S-adenosylmethionine, which causes blackness when added to food [29].
The smell category received "like moderately" from all panelists. The samples with goat's milk powder had the highest score for smell (7.6), followed by olive oil (7.3) and honey, grape juice, date juice, soy milk, avocado, and pumpkin (7.1-7.2). The aroma of goat's milk turned out to be stronger than that of the other flavorings.
Even unprocessed, goat's milk has a strong smell and taste caused by caproic acid [30]. The specific aroma can be removed by adding rare sugar (D-psychose, D-taga-tose, D-sorbose): it would neutralize caproic acid with a glycation reaction. Znamirowska et al. stated that fresh goat's milk contains protein (2.69 ± 0.22%), fat (2.98 ± 0.53%), and general acidity (6.20 ± 1.20%) [31].
The flavor category also received "like moderately" from most panelists, the score ranging from 7.0 to 7.4. The avocado paste sample had the highest score of 7.4. Avocado has a naturally sweet taste, soft and savory. The savory flavor comes from the fat vegetable content of 0.712.15% and the total fatty acid content of 37-85% [32].
The texture evaluation ranged from "like moderately" to "like very much". The sample fortified with olive oil demonstrated a significant difference from other samples in this respect. Olive oil has a characteristic yellowish-gold color, sometimes greenish, and its relatively thick texture is rather oily. According to Bermudez-Oria et al., gelatin serves as a stabilizer, as well as an adhesive and gelling agent in jelly candy while olive oil gives it an oily and shiny chewy texture [33].
Gelatin jelly candy proximate analysis. Table 2 shows the proximate analysis of gelatin jelly candy with various natural ingredients. Water content had no significant effect (p > 0.05): each natural ingredient brought about different water content. The samples with soy milk and goat's milk powder produced the best water content between 9.76 ± 0.70 and 9.92 ± 0.68%. Initially, soy milk powder contains 3.31 ± 0.27% water, and goat's milk powder has 5.48 ± 0.23% water [34, 35]. Honey, dates, olive oil, and grapes added in liquid form resulted in very high water content compared to pasta ingredients (avocado and pumpkin). The correlation with the initial water content in the natural raw materials is very strong: honey contains 5.20 ± 0.33% of water while grapes contain 21.17 ± 0.76%, avocado contains 34.28 ± 0.95%, and pumpkin contains 14.18 ± 0.22% [36-39].
Table 2. Proximate analysis of gelatin jelly candy
Таблица 2. Предварительный анализ состава жевательного мармелада с желатином из кожи скумбрии
Natural ingredients, Proximate, %
form Water Ash Protein Fat Carbohydrate Sugar reduction
Honey (liquid) 1Q.25 i Q.42a Q.13 i Q.Q1a 15.67 i Q.52a 2.2Q i Q.23a 63.93 i 1.28a 0.18 ± 0.07a
Date juice (liquid) 14.Q9 i Q.84b Q.32 i Q.Q1b 15.82 i Q.53 a 2.35 i Q.26a 64.Q3 i 1.14b 0.26 ± 0.03a
Olive oil (liquid) 1Q.71 i Q.6Qa Q.18 i Q.Q1c 15.77 i Q.67a 2.Q9 i Q.22a 58.26 i 1.6Qc 0.13 ± 0.05a
Soy milk (powder) 9.76 i Q.7Qa Q.21 i Q.Q2d 16.2Q i Q.37a 2.32 i Q.5Qa 51.61 i Q.8Qc 0.14 ± 0.01a
Goat's milk (powder) 9.92 i Q.68a Q.2Q i Q.Q3cde 13.97 i Q.36b 1.99 i Q.28a 57.57 i Q.79ad 0.17 ± 0.09a
Grape juice (liquid) 1Q.82 i Q.78a Q.15 i Q.Q1a 13.62 i Q.37» 2.31 i Q.33a 62.55 i Q.59ade 0.18 ± 0.05a
Avocado (paste) 1Q.23 i Q.46a Q.18 i Q.Q1cef 14.19 i Q.45b 1.67 i Q.3Qa 63.94 i 1.46adef 0.12 ± 0.05a
Pumpkin (paste) 1Q.48 i Q.56a Q.14 i Q.Q2a 14.39 i Q.64b 2.29 i Q.35a 61.81 i 1.2Qaeg 0.22 ± 0.05a
Indonesian National 2Q.QQ 3.QQ - - - 25.00
Standard for jelly candy
Note: Means in the rows with different superscripts are significantly (p < 0.05) different.
Примечание: Средние значения с разными верхними индексами существенно различаются (p < 0,05).
Water content greatly affects the quality and durability of gelatin jelly candy [40]. In our study, the overall water content of gelatin jelly candy fell within the standards set by Indonesian National Standard No. 3547-2-2008 Jelly candy with its maximum of 20.00%. The variance analysis showed that adding natural ingredients affected the water content significantly (p < 0.05). The highest ash content of 0.21 ± 0.02% belonged to the sample fortified with soy milk powder. However, the value of ash content in this study met the standards required by the Indonesian National Standard (max. 3.00%). The high ash content in the samples with soy milk and goat's milk powder was due to the initial mineral content in the raw materials. The ash content of soy milk powder is 0.40 ± 0.05%, and that of goat's milk is 0.07 ± 0.00% [34, 41].
During processing, the total minerals in the raw materials did not change significantly. The ash content and that of gelling agents were higher in the final product. The ash content tended to be lower in the samples with liquid honey, olive oil, date juice, and grapes, as well as in avocado and pumpkin pastes. Obviously, the fruit extraction process reduced the mineral content in the fruit juice. The components are easily decomposed or evaporated during fruit ashing [42].
Table 2 showed that the value of protein content ranged from 13.62 ± 0.37 to 16.20 ± 0.37%. According to the variance analysis, the natural ingredients produced a significant effect on the protein content (p < 0.05). The highest protein content of 16.20 ± 0.37% belonged to the sample fortified with soy milk powder. Fresh soy milk contains 23.08 ± 0.16% protein while powdered soy milk has a protein content of 5.09 ± 0.29% [34, 43]. Interestingly, the protein content of gelatin produced a very high protein content of 91.52%.
Protein intake is needed to build muscle mass, especially in toddlers. Jelly candy can deliver bioactive compounds required by the toddler's body. The protein content in the samples fortified with natural ingredients in liquid form (honey, olive oil, dates, and grapes) and paste form (avocado and pumpkin) also had a relatively high protein content [44]. Kia et al. reported that jelly candy with gelatin had a higher protein content [11].
The natural ingredients produced no significant effect on fat content (p < 0.05). In the sample with soy milk powder, the fat content was 2.32 ± 0.50%. The high and low-fat content ofjelly candy depended on the differences in the raw materials used. According to Nemo & Bacha, the fat content in honey is 0.27 ± 0.20% [36]. Other studies reported the following fat contents for different raw materials: soy milk powder - 11.36 ± 0.44%, goat's milk powder - 1.02 ± 0.09%, grapes - 0.64 ± 1.17%, avocado -6.66 ± 0.10, pumpkin - 4.50 ± 0.21% [34, 37-39, 41].
The total value of carbohydrates in this study ranged from 51.61 ± 0.80 to 64.03 ± 1.14%. The variance analysis showed that adding natural ingredients to gelatin jelly candy had a significant impact on total carbohydrates (p < 0.05). The highest total carbohydrate value belon-
ged to the sample fortified with date juice and equaled 64.03 ± 1.14%, probably because the calculation of carbohydrates was carried out using the by-difference method. The high value of carbohydrates in each treatment managed to meet the requirements for energy intake.
Liu et al. explained that carbohydrates give food a sweet taste, especially monosaccharides and disaccha-rides that provide energy for the body [44]. The value of carbohydrates in our study depended on the raw materials. The level of carbohydrates was quite high in grapes (49.17 ± 2.31%), avocado (54.23 ± 0.02%), and pumpkin (61.71 ± 0.10%) [37-39].
Sugar residue is a substance left after a specific chemical process; this residue could be likened to salt. In our research, the mean value ranged from 0.12 ± 0.05 to 0.26 ± 0.05%. The results followed the Indonesian National Standard for jelly candy with its maximum of 25.00%. The statistical analysis of the sugar reduction between the samples revealed no significant effect (p > 0.05). It was because the sugar residue came from the sucrose produced by jelly candy. Garusti et al. stated that palm sugar contains 87.10% sucrose with 6.06% reducing sugar [45]. The content of reducing sugars depends on the inversion of sucrose into reducing sugars. The low level of reducing sugar in the study was due to the natural ingredients used. Reducing sugar in natural ingredients tends to be lower and can be easily synthesized by the body [46].
Microbiological analysis. The total plate count value was < 1x102 colonies per 1 g, which met the Indonesian National Standard for jelly candy, i.e., 3*103 colonies per 1 g (Indonesian National Standard No. 35472-2008). The low total plate count could be explained by the fact that sucrose has antibacterial properties. In Balakrishnan et al., sucrose was oxidized to form ace-tals in the heating process [47]. The acetal group can release cation-charged ions that interact with the ani-onic charge of the microbial cell membrane through electrostatic bonds, thus increasing cell permeability, and cell leakage leads to cell death.
All samples of gelatin jelly candy exhibited negative results for E. coli and Salmonella sp. The results also met the Indonesian National Standard. The absence of E. coli and Salmonella sp. could be traced to the natural antibacterial activity of the ingredients added. According to Handayani et al., some natural ingredients in liquid form have antibacterial properties against Staphy-lococcus aureus and E. coli at a maximum concentration of 0.04 g/mL [48].
Conclusion
The mackerel skin gelatin jelly candy fortified by different natural flavorings was well received by panelists, with evaluations ranging from "like moderately" to "like very much". The nutritional quality of the gelatin jelly candy met the Indonesian National Standard. The best results belonged to the samples fortified with soy milk: it had the highest protein and the lowest carbohydrate
contents. Further research will feature the amino acids in each flavor sample of gelatin jelly candy.
Contribution
The authors were equally involved in writing the manuscript and are equally responsible for plagiarism.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the Rector of Universitas Lambung Mangkurat for providing funds through The Compulsory Research Lecturer Program with the PNBP Financing Scheme at the Lambung Mangkurat University, fiscal year 2021 (main cluster).
Критерии авторства
Авторы в равной степени участвовали в написании рукописи и несут равную ответственность за плагиат.
Конфликт интересов
Авторы заявляют об отсутствии потенциальных конфликтов интересов в отношении исследования, авторства и/или публикации данной статьи.
Благодарности
Авторы выражают благодарность ректору Университета Ламбунг Мангкурат за финансирование проекта в рамках Программы обязательных исследований по схеме PNBP для преподавателей Университета Ламбунг Мангкурат в 2021 финансовом году (основной кластер).
References
1. Said NS, Sarbon NM. Response surface methodology (RSM) of chicken skin gelatin based composite films with rice starch and curcumin incorporation. Polymer Testing. 2020;81:106161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106161
2. Xiong Y, Kamboj M, Ajlouni S, Fang Z. Incorporation of salmon bone gelatine with chitosan, gallic acid and clove oil as edible coating for the cold storage of fresh salmon fillet. Food Control. 2021;125:107994. https://doi.org/10.1016/). foodcont.2021.107994
3. Voroshilin RA, Kurbanova MG, Ostapova EV, Makhambetov EM, Petrov AN, Khelef MEA. Effect of gelatin drying methods on its amphiphilicity. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):252-261. https://doi.org/10.21603/2308-4057-2022-2-534
4. Efe N, Bielejewski M, Tritt-Goc J, Mert B, Oztop MH. NMR relaxometry study of gelatin based low-calorie soft candies. Molecular Physics. 2019;117(7-8):1034-1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2018.1564392
5. Firdaus F, Kresnanto VA, Fajrianto F. Variation of sucrose content as sweetener in nutraceutical formulation of gummy candies yellow passion fruit juice (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa). Teknoin. 2014;20(4):1-13.
6. Matulyte I, Marksa M, Bernatoniene J. Development of innovative chewable gel tablets containing nutmeg essential oil microcapsules and their physical properties evaluation. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(6):873. https://doi.org/10.3390/ pharmaceutics13060873
7. Ali MR, Mohamed RM, Abedelmaksoud TG. Functional strawberry and red beetroot jelly candies rich in fibers and phenolic compounds. Food Systems. 2021;4(2):82-88. https://doi.org/10.21323/2618-9771-2021-4-1-82-88
8. Sachlan PAAU, Mandey LC, Langi TM. Organoleptic properties of kuini mango (Mangifera odorata Griff) jelly candy with different concentration of glucose syrup and gelatine. Agricultural Technology Journal. 2019;10(2):113-118. https://doi.org/10.35791/jteta.10.2.2019.29121
9. Kim EH-J, Paredes D, Motoi L, Eckert M, Wadamori Y, Tartaglia J, et al. Subthreshold chemesthetic stimulation can enhance flavor lastingness of a soft chewable candy. Food Research International. 2021;140:109883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodres.2020.109883
10. Yanchenko EV, Volkova GS, Kuksova EV, Virchenko II, Yanchenko AV, Serba EM, et al. Chemical composition and sensory profile of sauerkraut from different cabbage hybrids. Food Processing: Techniques and Technology. 2023;53(1):131-139. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2023-1-2420; https://elibrary.ru/FOEDXY
11. Kia EM, Ghaderzadeh S, Langroodi AM, Ghasempour Z, Ehsani A. Red beet extract usage in gelatin/gellan based gummy candy formulation introducing Salix aegyptiaca distillate as a flavouring agent. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2020;57:3355-3362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04368-8
12. Rahmawati H, Pranoto Y. Physico-chemical of gelatin extracted from fresh and dry swamp ell and catfish skin. Fish Scientiae. 2012;2(3):18-30. https://doi.org/10.20527/fs.v2i3.1148
13. Eletra Y, Susilawati, Astuti S. The effect of gelatin concentration on sensory characteristic of goat milk jelly candy. Jurnal Teknologi and Industri Hasil Pertanian. 2013;18(2):185-195. (In Indonesian).
14. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Washington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2005.
15. Salanggon AM, Hanifah H, Tanod WA, Hermawan R. ALT bacteria and mold of wet noodles squid with different storage times. Kauderni: Journal of Fisheries, Marine, and Aquatic Science. 2020;2(1):45-51. https://doi.org/10.47384/ kauderni.v2i1.28
16. Hussein MA, Merwad AMA, Elabbasy MT, Suelam IIA, Abdelwahab AM, Taha MA. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus and shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli in fish in Egypt: Quality parameters and public health hazard. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2018;19(4). https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2018.2346
17. Akbar MY, Diansyah G, dan Isnaini. Detection of Salmonella sp. contamination in anchovy (Stolephorus spp.) as fisheries product in Sungsang Waters Banyuasin District South Sumatera. Maspari Journal. 2016;8(1):25-30. (In Indonesian).
18. Viji P, Phannendra TS, Jesmi D, Rao BM, Das PHD, George N. Functional and antioxidant properties of gelatin hydrolysates prepared from skin and scale of sole fish. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology. 2019;28(10):976-986. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2019.1672845
19. Ismail N, Abdullah HZ. The extraction of gelatin from black tilapia fish skins with different acid concentration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1150:012041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1150/1/012041
20. Edible gelatin. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2004.
21. Gelatin handbook. Iowa: Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America; 2019. 26 p.
22. Esfahani R, Jafari SM, Jafarpour A, Dehnad D. Loading of fish oil into nanocarriers prepared through gelatin-gum Arabic complexation. Food Hydrocolloids. 2019;90:291-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.12.044
23. Zarubin NYu, Kharenko EN, Bredikhina OV, Arkhipov LO, Zolotarev KV, Mikhailov AN, et al. Application of the Gadidae fish processing waste for food grade gelatin production. Marine Drugs. 2021;19(8):455. https://doi.org/10.3390/ md19080455
24. Gunawan F, Suptijah P, Uju U. Extraction and characterization of mackerel (Scomberomorus commersonii) skin gelatin from Bangka Belitung Islands Province. Jurnal Pengolahan Hasil Perikanan Indonesia. 2017;20(3):568-581. https:// doi.org/10.17844/jphpi.v20i3.19814 (In Indonesian).
25. Sergev AI, Kalinina IG, Shilkina NG, Barashkova II, Gradova MA, Motyakin MV, et al. Effect of elevated storage temperatures on the physicochemical and sensory properties of apple puree. Food Processing: Techniques and Technology. 2023;53(2):259-271. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2023-2-2430; https://elibrary.ru/SDZLSC
26. Burapalit K, Kitsawad K, Tipvarakarnkoon T. Physicochemical and sensory properties of juice from different types of date. Food and Applied Bioscience Journal. 2020;8(2):40-52.
27. Jeon J-E, Lee L-I. Effects of adding green grape juice on quality characteristics of konjak jelly. Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture. 2019;34(5):629-636. https://doi.org/10.7318/KJFC/2019.34.5.629
28. Charoenphun N. A study of optimum formula for healthy Thai jelly sugar candy production. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology. 2021;18(15):9655. https://doi.org/10.48048/wjst.2021.9655
29. Garcia F, Davidov-Pardo G. Recent advances in the use of edible coatings for preservation of avocados: A review. Journal of Food Science. 2021;88(1):6-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15540
30. Zine-eddine Y, Zinelabidine LH, Kzaiber F, Oussama A, Boutoial K. Analysis of acceptance and factors affecting the consumption of goat's milk in Morocco. Small Ruminant Research. 2021;197:106338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. smallrumres.2021.106338
31. Znamirowska A, Kalicka D, Pawlos M, Szajnar K. Quality of yoghurts from goat's milk enriched with magnesium chloride. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences. 2015;4(4):369-372. https://doi.org/10.15414/ jmbfs.2015.4.4.369-372
32. Cervantes-Paz B, Yahia EM. Avocado oil: Production and market demand, bioactive components, implications in health, and tendencies and potential uses. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2021;20(4):4120-4158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12784
33. Bermúdez-Oria A, Rodríguez-Gutiérrez G, Rubio-Senent F, Fernández-Prior Á, Fernández-Bolaños J. Effect of edible pectin-fish gelatin films containing the olive antioxidants hydroxytyrosol and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol on beef meat during refrigerated storage. Meat Science. 2018;148:213-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.003
34. Purbasari D. Application of the foam-mat drying method in processing of instant soybean milk powder. Jurnal Agroteknologi. 2019;13(01):52-61. https://doi.org/10.19184/j-agt.v13i01.9253 (In Indonesian).
35. de Oliveira AH, Mata MERMC, Mauri F, Duarte MEM, Pasquali M, Lisboa HM. Influence of spray drying conditions on the properties of whole goat milk. Drying Technology. 2020;39(6):726-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2020.1714647
36. Nemo R, Bacha K. Microbial quality, physicochemical characteristics, proximate analysis, and antimicrobial activities of honey from Anfilo district. Food Bioscience. 2021;42:101132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101132
37. Ahmed IAM, Ozcan MM, Juhaimi FA, Babiker EFE, Ghafoor K, Banjanin T, et al. Chemical composition, bio-active compounds, mineral contents, and fatty acid composition of pomace powder of different grape varieties. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2019;44(7):e14539. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14539
38. García-Vargas MC, Contreras MM, Gómez-Cruz I, Romero-García JM, Castro E. Avocado-derived biomass: Chemical composition and antioxidant potential. Proceedings. 2021;70(1):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods_2020-07750
39. Mardiah, Fitrilia T, Widowati S, Andini SF. Proximate composition of three varieties of pumpkin flour (Cucurbita sp.). Jurnal Agroindustri Halal. 2020;6(1):97-104. https://doi.org/10.30997/jah.v6i1.2679 (In Indonesian).
40. Meilianti, Aznury M, Yuniar, Sofia, Farhan I, Agustina L. Characterization of red beetroot soft jelly candy with guava extract and gel colloid added. Journal of Physics Conference Series. 2020;1500:012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1500/1/012053
41. Nurwantoro N, Susanti S, Rizqiati H. Yield, ash content, fat content, and total yeast kefir goat milk powder with different drying methods. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Sustainable Development of Rural Resources and Local Wisdom IX. Banyumas: Universitas Jenderal Soedirman; 2019. p. 297.
42. Satria RR, Ubaidillah U, Imaduddin F. Analytical approach of a pure flow mode serpentine path rotary magneto-rheological damper. Actuators. 2020;9(3):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/act9030056
43. Gamba RR, Koyanagi T, Pelaez AL, de Antoni G, Enomoto T. Changes in microbiota during multiple fermentation of kefir in different sugar solutions revealed by high-throughput sequencing. Current Microbiology. 2021;78:2406-2413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-021-02501-0
44. Liu K, Chen Y-Y, Zha X-Q, Li Q-M, Pan L-H, Luo J-P. Research progress on polysaccharide/protein hydrogels: Preparation method, functional property and application as delivery systems for bioactive ingredients. Food Research International. 2021;147:110542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110542
45. Garusti, Yogi YA, Nurindah N. Analysis of tanjung sugar quality of three sugarcane varieties. Jurnal Littri. 2019; 25(2):91-99. https://doi.org/10.21082/jlittri.v25n2.2019.91-99 (In Indonesian).
46. Irfianti A, Sunarharum WB. Exploration of chemical physical characteristics and the component of sugar at garifta mango (Mangifera indica). Jurnal Pangan dan Agroindustri. 2019;7(2):47-52. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jpa.2019.007.02.5 (In Indonesian).
47. Balakrishnan P, Sreekala MS, Geethamma VG, Kalarikkal N, Kokol V, Volova T, et al. Physicochemical, mechanical, barrier and antibacterial properties of starch nanocomposites crosslinked with pre-oxidised sucrose. Industrial Crops and Products. 2019;130:398-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.01.007
48. Handayani DS, Pranoto, Saputra DA, Marliyana SD. Antibacterial activity of polyeugenol against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2018;578:012061. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1757-899X/578/1/012061
