Author
Listed:
- Tajnuba Sharmin
(Assistant Professor, Department of Food Engineering, NPI University of Bangladesh, Manikjgonj)
- Neaj Ahmed
(B.Sc in Food and Process Engineering, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University)
Abstract
Nata de coco is a complementary treat of beverages made from coconut milk or water which was fermented by Acetobacter Xylinum bacteria. Although most nata are generally made with coconut milk or water, nata de coco can be made using other ingredients such as coconut milk, molasses or molasses, and other juices such as melons, pineapples, oranges, bananas, guavas, strawberries etc. This study was undertaken to design, construct and develop a new Strawberry flavored Nata De Coco and Nata De Coco drink and its comparative quality assessment respect to comparative quality evaluation of Nata De Coco drink. Best quality Nata De Coco were obtained by using 71.34% water, 13% Sugar, 15% Nata De Coco, 0.03% Gellan Gum, 0.06% Sodium Citrate, 0.12% Calcium Lactate, 0.01% Ascorbic Acid, 0.03% Potassium Sorbate, 0.012% Sodium Benzoate, 0.12%,Strawberry Flavor, 0.23% Citric Acid Anhydrous, 0.05% Liquid Cap. Overall analysis shows that Nata De coco Drinks which are produced with 15% Nata De Coco shows the best results and for other parameters results are respectively 0.23%, 0.0144 acidity; 13 ± 0.2 °Brix and pH 3.6± 0.1. As per evaluation of three samples, average value of taste of sample S3 is accepted. Because we used less citric acid in S1, more less citric acid in S3. Taste of S3 is accepted because taste quality of S1 & S2 is not perfect as per standard. Flavor of sample S3 is better than S1 & S3.Organoleptic test of S3 is better than S1 & S2. At the end of all evaluation, S3 is accepted for manufacturing. Because it is tasted well among the samples are made.
Suggested Citation
Tajnuba Sharmin & Neaj Ahmed, 2021.
"Development Of Nata De Coco And Strawberry Flavored Nata De Coco Drink And Comparative Quality Evaluation,"
Science Heritage Journal (GWS), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 34-40, October.
Handle:
RePEc:zib:zbngws:v:5:y:2021:i:2:p:34-40
DOI: 10.26480/gws.02.2021.34.40
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zib:zbngws:v:5:y:2021:i:2:p:34-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Zibeline International Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://jscienceheritage.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.