Experimental Foods Research Paper

1,507
-1

Published on

Published in: Self Improvement, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,507
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Experimental Foods Research Paper

  1. 1. How Changing the Peanut Butter in Cookies Effects Mouth Feel, Color, Taste, Volume, and Cell Size A Research Paper Submitted to Jodie Seybold, MS, RD, LDN In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for FDNT 362 Experimental Foods Sara Mastrine Indiana University of Pennsylvania December 5, 2011
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM…………………………………………………………………..1 Abstract/acknowledgments………………………………………………………………. 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….2 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………. 3 Disease…………………………………………………………………………………….3 Variables…………………………………………………………………………………..5 Peanuts…………………………………………………………………………….5 Cashews…………………………………………………………………………...7 Soy………………………………………………………………………………...8 Hazelnuts……………………………………………………………………….. 10 CHAPTER III: METHODS AND MATERIALS……………………………………………… 12 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Cookie Preparation……………………………………………………………………... 12 Sensory Evaluations……………………………………………………………………. 14 Objective Tests…………………………………………………………………………. 16 SPSS Instructions………………………………………………………………………. 17 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS………………………………………………………………………21 Judges……………………………………………………………………………………21 Factors………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Objective data………………………………………………………………………….. 22 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………. 23 SPSS Data-Judges……………………………………………………………………… 23 SPSS Data-Factor………………………………………………………………………. 23 SPSS Data-Objective Tests……………………………………………………………... 25 Connections to previous studies………………………………………………………… 25 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………….26 2
  3. 3. Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….27 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………… 29 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………. 31 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….. 36 Appendix A- Nutrient Analysis (USDA Handbook 8)…………………………………. 36 Appendix B- Original recipe…………………………………………………………......42 Appendix C- Official market order………………………………………………………44 Appendix D- SPSS output……………………………………………………………… 45 Appendix E- Photographs………………………………………………………………. 51 Appendix F- Bar Graphs…………………………………………………………………59 3
  4. 4. Abstract Sensory and objective characteristics of peanut butter cookies prepared using cashew butter, soy butter, or Nutella hazelnut spread in place of the peanut butter were evaluated in this study. Peanut butter cookies were prepared in order to make them acceptable for those with peanut protein sensitivity to consume. Individuals with peanut allergies could benefit from information obtained in this study due to the fact that possible peanut butter protein substitutions were found. Cashew butter (p=0.917) was similar to peanut butter in regards to mouth feel of the cookies. Nutella hazelnut spread (p=0.025) showed a significant difference in mouth feel compared to peanut butter. Soy butter (p=0.992) was comparable in color to the peanut butter cookies. Nutella hazelnut spread (p=0.000), again, showed a significant difference compared to the peanut butter cookies in regards to color. None of the variables were alike in taste compared to the peanut butter control due to the fact that all variables had p-values less than 0.05. All of the cookie variables had similar volumes and cell sizes when evaluated using volumeter and ink blot tests. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mrs. Jodie Seybold for assisting me with any questions or concerns I encountered during this study. Mrs. Seybold’s graduate assistants deserve thanks for providing all ingredients and materials each week. I would also like to thank my sensory panel testers for being truthful with their evaluations and providing me with accurate data. Thanks also go out to all of my classmates who all helped each other successfully complete this experiment. 1
  5. 5. Introduction Peanut allergy can cause severe or deadly consequences to sensitive individuals if they consume even trace amounts of peanut protein. Peanut products are found in many different types of foods and they can be very difficult to avoid. Accidental consumption of the protein found in peanuts by sensitive individuals may lead to anaphylaxis, which is characterized by difficulty breathing, lack of consciousness, and paleness. The inability to tolerate peanut protein means that sensitive individuals will miss out on being able to consume baked goods such as peanut butter cookies. There are a number of products that could be used to replace the peanut butter in a peanut butter cookie recipe, and this study sought to determine the effect that changing the peanut butter protein will have on sensory and objective characteristics of the cookies. Cashew butter, soy nut butter, and Nutella hazelnut spread were each used in separate batches of cookies to determine the changes in mouth feel, color, taste, volume, and cell size compared to the peanut butter control recipe. It was hypothesized that the cookies’ mouthfeel, color, and taste will be significantly different when the type of nut protein is changed. It was also hypothesized that changing the type of nut protein in peanut butter cookies will significantly change the volume of the cookies. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect that using different types of nut protein in place of the peanut butter in peanut butter cookies will have on the sensory and objective characteristics of the cookies. 2
  6. 6. Review of Literature Disease Food allergies such as peanut, tree nuts, and fruit are becoming increasingly widespread, affecting 2.4 to 3.7 percent of the population (Le, 2008, pg. 910). Among these types of allergies, peanut allergy is known to produce the most severe reactions in sensitive patients (Le, 2008, pg. 914). In contrast with other common food allergies, an allergy to peanuts is unrelenting throughout life and is seldom outgrown (Lehmann, 2006, pg. 463). There is no known cure or treatment for peanut allergy, so avoiding the allergen is the only way to combat a potentially life-threatening reaction (Lehmann, 2006, pg. 463). This type of reaction, known as anaphylaxis is defined as “ a manifestation of a type 1 or acute allergic reaction in which the offending allergen binds with pre-formed IgE antibodies attached to receptors on mast cell or basophils,” (Dunbar, 2011, pg. 29). Anaphylaxis is also sometimes referred to as immediate hypersensitivity, meaning that it occurs very suddenly after exposure to the allergen (Hitomi, 2010, pg. 601). This reaction can affect the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and central nervous systems (Dunbar, 2011, pg. 30). Symptoms such as difficulty swallowing and breathing, wheezing, paleness, and loss of consciousness can occur within the first few minutes of an allergic attack (Dunbar, 2011, pg. 30). Antihistamines, adrenaline, inhaled beta2 agonists, oxygen, corticosteroids, and fluids are among the treatments for a patient experiencing an allergic reaction as severe as anaphylaxis (Dunbar, 2011, pg. 31-32). The protein in peanuts, Arachishypogaea, is what causes reactions in those with allergies. The major allergens in peanuts are the seed storage proteins, named Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 (Lauer, 2009, pg. 1437). There are also eight more allergens found in the peanut, Ara h 4-11, which are less potent than Ara h 1-3 (Lauer, 2009, pg. 1427-1428). 3
  7. 7. Many studies have been conducted to determine possible cures or prevention methods for peanut allergies. One study investigated the role of Allergin-1, which is an immunoglobulin-like receptor, and its involvement in anaphylactic responses (Hitomi, 2010, pg.605). To perform this study, experimenters focused on allergic responses of Allergin-1 deficient mice and found the presence of this receptor decreases anaphylactic symptoms (Hitomi, 2010, pg. 605-606). Another study aimed to determine the effect that peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) would have on peanut-allergic patients (Clark, 2009, pg. 1218). This was performed by administering children with a peanut allergy and increasing dose of peanut flour each day (Clark, 2009, pg. 1218). While performing the experiment, several of the subjects experienced reactions, including one case of anaphylaxis (Clark, 2009, pg. 1219). However, the study ultimately concluded that there was a significant increase in the dose threshold for all participants (Clark, 2009, pg. 1219). In fact, the dose threshold reached approximately ten peanuts, which, as Clark states, is more than is probable for an accidental consumption (Clark, 2009, pg. 1218). In still another study, George Du Toit and his team questioned the relevance of peanut consumption early in life to whether one would develop and allergy (Du Toit, 2008, pg. 984). They also suggested that differences in cooking methods of peanuts between cultures could have an effect on the prevalence of peanut allergy, since roasting causes allergens to become heightened (Du Toit, 2008, pg. 988). Tests have been done to determine whether the major peanut allergen Ara h 2 can be reduced with genetic engineering (Dodo, 2008, pg. 135). To perform this study, wild-type control peanut seeds were compared with genetically modified transgenic peanuts seeds (Dodo, 4
  8. 8. 2008, pg. 135). The researchers tested the seeds for amount of the Ara h 2 protein and the resulting allergenicity of the peanut seeds (Dodo, 2008, pg. 135). It was concluded that the transgenic seed contained only 2.87- 6.24 percent Ara h2 compared to 27.73 percent in the control wild-type peanut seeds, significantly decreasing the allergen potential (Dodo, 2008, pg. 139). In addition to the science-based research of peanut allergy, several psychological studies have been done to determine the effects this disease has on everyday life, not only of the individual affected, but also their families (King, 2009, pg. 461). One study asked individuals with peanut allergies and their family members (mothers, fathers, and siblings) to complete a questionnaire to assess influence of peanut allergy on quality of life (King, 2009, pg. 461). They found that this disease has a significant impact on stress and anxiety within the family (King, 2009, pg. 461). Research has been done to find ways to enable peanut-allergic patients to enjoy some of the came foods as everyone else without risking a potentially deadly allergic response. Peanut butter is one of the most popular sources of peanut protein and is used in many types of baked goods (Le, 2008, pg. 910). The use of alternate nut products in baked goods could provide these individuals with the ability to consume these foods. Studies have shown that peanut allergy is the most prevalent of food allergies, so variables such as cashew butter, soy nut butter, and hazelnut spreads can be used to substitute for peanut butter in many cases (Le, 2008, pg. 910). Variables Peanuts 5
  9. 9. About 700 million pounds of peanut products are consumed in America each year and 50 percent of that is in the form of peanut butter (Jolly, 2005, pg. 88). One study sought to determine reasons for contributing to consumers’ choice to purchase and eat peanut butter and peanut butter products using a survey method of collecting data (Jolly, 2005, pg. 89). Particularly of interest were the sensory attributes of the product, but the study also looked at age, ethnicity, gender, income, allergies, and social events (Jolly, 2005, pg. 88). The study found that taste was the most important quality contributing to consumers’ acceptability of the product, followed by texture and nutritional qualities (Jolly, 2005, pg. 91). Crunchiness was the ideal texture for peanut butter among subjects in the study and taste was rated as high due to the content of fat (Jolly, 2005, pg. 92). Another study evaluated the effect of roasting and storage time on sensory characteristics of peanut butter (Tomlins, 2008, pg. 165). A semi-trained panel was used to evaluate the following sensory attributes: oily appearance, spotty appearance, attractiveness, brown color, viscosity, burnt taste, salty taste, roasted taste, sweetness, stale odor, smooth texture, and sticky texture (Tomlins, 2008, pg. 167). Color, roasted taste, burnt taste, spotty appearance, sticky texture, and smooth texture all had significant differences with increased roasting times, while salty taste, viscosity, stale odor, and oily appearance did not show a significant difference (Tomlins, 2008, pg. 168). In regards to increased storage times, the study concluded that all sensory attributes were linear and showed no significant differences (Tomlins, 2008, pg. 175). The effects of roasting time were evaluated in another study, which sought to determine the relationship between color, flavor, and aroma (Pattee, 1991, pg. 519). They found that increasing roasting times affects the intensity of the golden brown color of the peanut butter, 6
  10. 10. which is caused by sugar/ amino acid reactions and caramelization of sugars during heating (Pattee, 1991, pg. 519). Cashews Some studies have shown that cashew nut can cause allergic reactions comparable to that of peanuts (Clark, 2007, pg. 913). The cashew, Annacardiumoccidentale, contains three protein allergens named Ana o1, Ana o 2, and Ana o 3 (Willison, 2008, pg.1229). Cashew nuts are obtained from the fruit of a certain type of evergreen tree (Adeyeye, 2007, pg. 242). This pearshaped fruit is called a cashew apple and contains the kidney-shaped cashew nut at its base (Adeyeye, 2007, pg. 242). They are usually eaten after roasting as a snack or used in baked goods. The way in which the cashew is processed can have a significant effect on the physical properties of the processed cashew (Mohod, 2010, pg. 125). The cashew can be processed using the roasting process or the steam cooking process (Mohod, 2010, pg. 126). Before beginning either method, the moisture content of the freshly harvested cashews is reduced by sun drying for a few days (Mohod, 2010, pg. 126). The roasting process can be done using drum roasting or oil roasting (Mohod, 2010, pg. 126). Drum roasting involves passing the cashew nuts through a heated drum, while oil roasting involves passing the cashews though a hot oil bath (Mohod, 2010, pg. 126). Steam cooking is the most widely used method of preparing cashew nuts, in which the cashews are steam boiled (Mohod, 2010, pg. 127). After both processes are completed, roasted nuts are shelled using a wooden mallet and steamed nuts are cut using blades to remove shells 7
  11. 11. (Mohod, 2010, pg. 127). The kernels are then dried, graded, and packaged before being made available to consumers (Mohod, 2010, pg. 127). The grading process is important because, as one study showed, different grades of kernel produce different sensory characteristics of cashew nut butter (Lima, 2012, pg. 180). This study evaluated differences in appearance (color, shininess, graininess, thickness), aroma (nutty, roasted, rancid), flavor (nutty, sweet, salty, roasted, rancid), and texture (consistency and graininess), and found that there were significant differences among these attributes (Lima, 2012, pg. 180). Roasting the cashew can cause textural changes and therefore change instrumental and sensory aspects of the nut (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 263). One study investigated the changes in shear force of the cashews using the Kramer test and determined that with an increase in temperature and roasting time, the shear force significantly decreased (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 266). A crunchier texture also developed with the increases time and temperature (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 266). Using a reflectance spectrometer, the color lightness index and total color difference were measured (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 265). This same study examined sensory changes using a trained panel that tested the cashew’s appearance, taste, and overall acceptability after roasting using a nine-point hedonic scale (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 266). This sensory panel showed that the ideal cashew was roasted at moderate temperatures of 140-160 degrees Celsius (Wanlapa, 2007, pg. 270). Soy Soy foods are becoming increasingly popular as a substitution for foods such as animal proteins (tofu) and nut butters (soy nut butter) in order to avoid allergic reactions to these products (Lokuruka, 2010, pg. 2440). The protein in soybeans, Glycine max L., is referred to as 8
  12. 12. P34 or Gly m BD 30K (Wilson, 2008, pg. 106). It is known for its high level of nutritional benefits due to the fact that its protein is complete, meaning it includes all essential amino acids (Lokuruka, 2010, pg. 2443). Incorporating soy proteins into baked products to may be a good option for those with allergies because it has been suggested that by hydrolyzing soy proteins can reduce or eliminate its allergenic properties (Wilson, 2008, pg. 113). One study showed the effects of soy proteins on the sensory characteristics of meal replacement bars (Childs, 2007, pg. 425). This was done by providing a trained sensory panel with bars made with soy proteins and having them rate the flavor and textural qualities (Childs, 2007, pg. 425). The panelists described the soy protein bars as containing nutty, cereal, and hay flavors, (Childs, 2007, pg. 429). The texture of the soy bars was described as hard and fracturable, which lowered the acceptability of the bars (Childs, 2007, pg. 433). Another study examined the influence of soy flour on sugar-snap cookies in regard to texture and found that it had a negative effect on the baked product (Ryan, 2006, pg. 442). The cookies were also rated on appearance, such as color, surface cracking, fracture force, and spread ratio (Ryan, 2006, pg. 449). The data showed that soy cookies were thicker, perhaps due to the ability of soy to absorb water (Ryan, 2006, pg. 451). The use of soy also made the cookies harder in texture and produced a darker, more yellow color (Ryan, 2006, pg. 452-454). Soy cookies showed less cracking on the surface and a more puffy appearance than the control (Ryan, 2006, pg. 454-455). This study concluded that soy has a significant influence on the outcome of baked goods (Ryan, 2006, pg. 455). One experiment used soy protein in place of wheat flour in order study the changes it would have on wheat cookies (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 1705). They evaluated sensory properties such 9
  13. 13. as color, aroma, taste, crispiness, and acceptability of the cookies (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 17051706). This study concluded that sensory qualities improved with the use of soy protein (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 1705) Chemical composition, including moisture, protein, carbohydrate, and fat content of the cookies was also examined (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 1705). It was determined that the content of protein and moisture was increased, while the content of carbohydrates and fat decreased on the cookies with the incorporation of soy (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 1705). Hazelnuts Hazelnuts, along with cashews, are classified as tree nuts and have been shown to be beneficial to overall health (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 142). In fact, a study was done to determine how tree nut consumption in one’s diet can enhance nutritional quality (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 142). Tree nuts are high in a number of nutrients including protein, unsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins E and K, and potassium and contain little saturated fats or sodium (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 142). There is evidence that tree nuts such as cashews and hazelnuts reduce the risk of hypertension, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 142). However, the hazelnut, Corylusavellana, contains the protein Cor a 9, which can be allergenic (Dooper, 2008, pg. 229). The investigators in this study used a survey to obtain their data and found that those participants who consumed tree nuts had diets higher in unsaturated fatty acids, fiber, fruits, vegetables, milk, and a number of vitamins and minerals than those who did not consume tree nuts (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 144). Diets high in tree nut intake also showed lower levels of carbohydrates, alcohol, and sodium (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 144). However, the study concluded that even with significant benefits, tree nut and tree nut butter consumption in the United States was 10
  14. 14. low ( O’Neil, 2010, pg. 148). The researchers suggest adding a separate nut category to the food guide pyramid (O’Neil, 2010, pg. 148). One popular way to include more hazelnuts into the diet is the use of hazelnut spreads such as Nutella®. Hazelnuts are also incorporated into foods such as chocolate, cookies, cakes, and breakfast cereals (Roder, 2009, pg. 106). Textural properties of various types of hazelnut spreads have been tested using sensory evaluations and instrumental tests (Di Monaco,2008, pg. 460). Texture is defined as “the sensory and functional manifestation of the structural, mechanical, and surface properties of food detected through the senses of vision, hearing, touch, and kinesthetic,” (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 461). The texture of a food is an important feature contributing to the overall appeal of a food (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 461). This study sought to examine textural properties such as spreadability and meltability using both sensory and instrumental data (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 461). Sensory evaluations were performed using a panel of eight trained testers (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 462). Using a rating scale of one to ten, the evaluators judged the following properties: brightness, graininess, adhesiveness to spoon, fluidness, spreadability, sweetness, hazelnut flavor, cocoa flavor, rancidity, meltability, adhesiveness to mouth, flouriness, and oiliness (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 464). Strain sweep tests, frequency sweep tests, and stress-relaxation tests were performed with the use of a Dynamic Analyzer ARES-LS (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 465). A differential scanning calorimeter was used to obtain thermal measurements and a scanning electron microscope was used to study the samples’ microstructures (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 465). The data acquired with the instrumental and sensory tests were analyzed with ANOVA software and showed that there are significant differences in characteristics of all samples, so incorporating these hazelnut spreads into baked goods can produce a considerably unique result (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 466). 11
  15. 15. Methods and Materials Peanut butter cookies were prepared following the recipe on page 408 in The Good Housekeeping Illustrated Cookbook (Sterling Publishing, 1989). The recipe was halved and converted into metric units of measure. This was done using the USDA Handbook 8 (Appendix A). To obtain information from USDA Handbook 8, the amount of each ingredient in the recipe was entered into the website and a metric conversion was given. Also provided by the USDA Handbook 8 were the nutrient values for the recipe including calories, protein, fats, carbohydrates, fiber, sugar, and vitamins and minerals. This was done four times using the different variables in each recipe. The cookies were prepared four ways using different variables to replace the peanut butter protein. Creamy peanut butter was used to prepare the control batch, followed by cashew butter, soy nut butter, and Nutella hazelnut spread as the substituted variables in the next three batches. The cookies were then evaluated using sensory evaluations and objective tests. Sensory evaluations tested for mouth feel, color, and taste of the cookies. The volumeter and ink blot test were used to obtain the objective data. Cookie preparation After performing a trial test, oven temperature was reduced from 350 degrees Fahrenheit to 325 degrees Fahrenheit and cooking time was adjusted according to the variables. For the control recipe, all ingredients were weighed in grams using a small kitchen scale, model AWS SC-501 (Figure 2). Two hours prior to mixing and baking, all ingredients were weighed out, with the exception of the egg. Before weighing out each ingredient, the scale had to be tarred. To do this, the scale was turned on, and a clear plastic weighing boat was placed on the scale (Figure 3). The TARE button was pushed in order to zero the scale and allow for a measurement 12
  16. 16. that did not include the weight of the weighing tray. Then, all-purpose flour was placed into the tray until the weight reached 140.63 grams (Figure 4). The flour was then removed from the scale and placed into a plastic Ziploc bag. The all-purpose flour was weighed this way three more times, tarring the scale each time, to be used for the other three recipes. Next, 111.87 grams of honey was weighed out four times and covered in plastic wrap before setting aside (Figure 5). Then, 50 grams of sugar was measured out four times using the same weighing procedure as the flour (Figure 6). The sugar was placed into four separate Ziploc bags and set aside. Butter was softened using a General Electric Sensor microwave set on high for 30 seconds, and weighed to 56.75 grams four times (Figure 7). The four bowls of softened butter were each covered in plastic wrap and allowed to set out. Next, 1.15 grams of double-acting baking powder was weighed out four times and placed into plastic Ziploc bags (Figure 8). Finally, 129 grams of creamy peanut butter was weighed and covered with plastic wrap (Figure 9). Then, 123 grams of cashew butter, 128 grams of soy nut butter, or 148 grams of Nutella hazelnut spread were measured out the same way as the peanut butter and set aside, also covered in plastic wrap (Figures 10, 11, 12). Two hours after pre-measuring, the mixing and baking process was started. Egg was weighed to 50 grams for each of the four recipes and the General Electric oven was preheated to 325 degrees Fahrenheit (Figure 13). Using a large mixing bowl, the control recipe was prepared by combining all ingredients together and mixing with a medium wooden spoon for fifty strokes. A rubber spatula was also used periodically during mixing to scrape the sides of the bowl. After ingredients were slightly blended, a Kitchen Aid household electric stand mixer, model K45 set to medium speed was used for one minute to beat ingredients into a well blended dough. With a metal teaspoon and hands, dough was formed into balls and dropped onto a Farberware non-stick baking sheet in four rows of five, totaling twenty cookies per batch. A fork 13
  17. 17. dipped in flour was used to press down the top of each cookie prior to baking (Figure 14). They were then placed into the oven and baked for ten minutes. When done, cookies were removed from the oven and transferred to wire cooling rack using a metal turner. After ten minutes, when completely cool, cookies from each batch were prepared for the sensory evaluations and objective tests. Cashew Butter To prepare the cashew butter variable cookies, the same steps as the control recipe were taken. However, the cashew butter had to be stirred prior to measuring due to oil separation. Soy Butter The soy butter variable cookies were prepared using the same procedure as the control recipe. No changes had to be made during the baking process. Nutella hazelnut spread The Nutella variable required slight adjustments to the baking procedure. Since the dough was runnier than the other variables, they did not need to be pressed down with a fork before baking. The baking time was also adjusted to 15 minutes. Sensory Evaluations Sensory evaluations were performed using trained panelists to determine the differences in mouth feel, color, and taste of each batch of cookies. Each batch was assigned a random three-digit number. Panelists were not aware which cookie contained which variable. The five panelists were presented with a sample from each batch on a paper plate divided into fourths and 14
  18. 18. marked with the three-digit number (Figure 15). Prior to the experiment testers were trained on how to properly evaluate the characteristic of a food product. Each panelist learned how to use the rating scale on the sensory scorecard and how to rinse their mouth with water between tastings of each product. They were also instructed to leave each sample in their mouth for at least twenty seconds in order to get an accurate rating. At the time of testing, each panelist filled out a chart on the scorecard using a rating scale of one to five (Figure 1). For mouth feel, cookies were rated crispy, moderate, or chewy, with one being crispy and five being chewy. Color was rated on a scale of light brown to dark brown, starting with one as light brown and increasing to five as dark brown. Taste was rated using the descriptions: strong nut flavor, light nut flavor, and no nut flavor. A rating of one meant a strong nut flavor and a rating of five meant no nut flavor was detected. Figure 1 Sensory Scorecard Peanut Butter Cookies Scorecard: Characteristic 158 309 472 748 Mouth feel a Color b Taste c a Mouth feel 1________ Crispy 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5 Moderate Chewy b Color 1________ c Light brown Taste 1________ Strong nut flavor 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5 Medium brown Dark brown 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5 Light nut flavor No nut flavor Note: This figure shows an example of the sensory scorecard used by the judges to evaluate dependent variables. Figure 1 Sensory Scorecard 15
  19. 19. Objective Tests Objective tests were performed on the cookies using the volumeter to test for changes in volume between the batches and the ink blot test to test of differences in cell size (Figure 16, 17). One cookie from each batch was selected for the volumeter test and wrapped in plastic wrap (Seybold, 2011). Next, each sample was weighed in grams using the kitchen scale and weight was recorded to the nearest hundredths place (Seybold, 2011). The locks on the top and the base reservoirs were checked to be sure they were securely locked (Seybold, 2011). The metal column slide was released and the rape seeds were allowed to fall (Seybold, 2011). The calibration reading was taken by recording where the seeds fell in the column, with each line meaning five centimeters-cubed (Seybold, 2011). Placing one hand on each reservoir, the volumeter was inverted 180 degrees and the rape seeds were again allowed to fall, this time into the top reservoir (Seybold, 2011). After the rape seed stopped falling, the metal column slide was pushed shut and the column was rotated back to its initial position (Seybold, 2011). The bottom reservoir was then opened and the first sample was placed inside (Seybold, 2011). After closing and securely locking the bottom reservoir, the metal column slide was released again and the rape seeds were able to fall (Seybold, 2011). When the rape seeds stopped falling, the new reading was recorded (Seybold, 2011). The volumeter was again rotated 180 degrees while holding the top and bottom reservoirs, and the rape seeds were able to fall into the top reservoir (Seybold, 2011). The metal column slide was then shut and the column was rotated back up (Seybold, 2011). The bottom reservoir was opened and the sample was removed (Seybold, 2011). This test was performed three more times using a sample form each batch of cookies. To 16
  20. 20. find the volume of each cookie, the calibration reading was subtracted from the sample reading for each sample. The ink blot test was performed on a sample from each of the four batches. To conduct this test, a large sheet of white paper was divided into four equal sections. The bottom of the first sample cookie was lightly painted using a sponge brush and black acrylic paint. The cookie was then placed straight down on the paper and pressed firmly for ten seconds. The cookie was then lifted straight off the paper to produce a print of the cells. This process was repeated for the next three samples. After the prints were allowed to dry, three cells from each print were selected and measured in centimeters using Vernier Calipers, or V-calipers in order to obtain a four-digit decimal number. Each cell was measured top to bottom and left to right. To get the measurement from the V-calipers, the arms were moved together so that each side touched the paint edge of the cell. The V-calipers were read by looking at which two numbers the zero fell between on the centimeter scale, which is the main body of the calipers, and using the lowest one. This was the number for the first digit, before the decimal place. The next digit, to the right of the decimal place, came from looking at which two millimeter marks the zero fell between, and again using the lowest. To obtain the last two digits on the reading, the movable part of the V-calipers was examined to find which mark lined up the best with the marks on the main body. SPSS instructions After all sensory and objective tests were performed and all data was collected, the data was entered into SPSS to determine whether there were significant differences between the variables. To enter the data, the following steps were taken, as given by Seybold (2011): 17
  21. 21. Open document “FDNT 362 Template”. Click on VARIABLES VIEW in the bottom left-hand corner. In the VALUES column, click in the right-hand corner of the 2nd (FACTOR) row. A box will appear titled VALUE LABELS. Change the values to match your experiment. Keep 1 = CONTROL the same; change 2, 3 & 4 to match your variables. In the VALUE BOX, type “2”. In the LABEL box, type (blank). Click the ADD button. The message will ask if you want to replace, click OK. Continue for variables 3 & 4. Under the LABELS column, rows 4 – 14, change the labels to match your experiment. Please keep WEEK 1; WEEK 2; WEEK 3 the same. In the lower left-hand corner, click on DATA VIEW. Leave the columns JUDGE; FACTOR; AND WEEK alone. No data will be entered in these columns. Begin entering data collected for WEEK ONE. Separate your scorecards out by judge (for WEEK ONE). Also, you will need to know which data is for your control; variation one; variation two; and variation 3. Enter in your data for judge #1, week #1; then judge #2, week #1; then judge #3, week #1; etc. Continue for week #2 & week #3. When you are completely finished entering in sensory data, you may enter objective data. Begin entering data for objective #1 in row 21, column OBJECTIVE 1. Separate your objective data as follows: Control data for weeks 1, 2, 3; Variation #1 data for weeks 1, 2, 3; etc. Continue for objective #2 data. Once all data has been entered, you will need to compute the averages for your sensory data. Open document “FDNSyntax Template2”. With your cursor, highlight lines 30-33 (beginning with COMPUTE, and ending with EXECUTE). In the toolbar, click on RUN and SELECTION.Bring up your data template. You should see the averages for your sensory variables in the far right-hand column (Seybold, 2011). The first test that was run was the One-Way ANOVA test to determine if there were discrepancies among the judges. This was done by performing the following steps, as given by Seybold (2011): Click on ANALYZE – COMPARE MEANS – ONE-WAY ANOVA.DEPENDENT LIST: Select SENSORY1AVE from left-hand column, 18
  22. 22. click on arrow button to add. Repeat for SENSORY2AVE AND SENSORY3AVE.FACTOR: add JUDGE from left-hand column.Click POSTHOC button; click TUKEY – CONTINUE - OK.Review the ANOVA box. In the “Sig.” column if any values are less than .05, there were discrepancies with your judging. If not, your judges were consistent in their evaluation of sensory characteristics (Seybold, 2011). Next, a One-Way ANOVA test was performed to determine if there were significant differences in sensory evaluations between the control recipe and the variables. To do this, the following steps were taken, as given by Seybold (2011): Repeat steps 1 & 2. For FACTOR – ADD FACTOR. Click POSTHOC button; click TUKEY – CONTINUE - OK. Review the ANOVA box. In the “Sig.” column, are any of your values less than .05? If YES: There were significant differences between your control recipe and your variations, in terms of sensory characteristics evaluated. If NO: There were no significant differences between your control recipe and variations in terms of sensory characteristics evaluated. IF YES – REVIEW THE BOX MULTIPLE COMPARISONS, “Sig.” column. Focus on the sensory variable average where significance was identified. Any value(s) less than .05 indicates significant differences for a particular sensory variable, between specific recipe(s) (Seybold, 2011). Finally, a One-Way ANOVA test was performed on the objective data. The following procedure was performed, as given by Seybold (2011): Click on ANALYZE – COMPARE MEANS – ONE-WAY ANOVA.DEPENDENT LIST: Select Objective Name [Objective 1] from lefthand column – click on arrow button to add. Repeat for Objective Name [Objective 2].FACTOR: add FACTOR from left-hand column.Click POSTHOC button; click TUKEY – CONTINUE - OK. Review the ANOVA box. In the “Sig.” column, are any of your values less than .05? If YES: there were 19
  23. 23. significant differences between your products – REVIEW THE BOX MULITPLE COMPARISONS, “Sig.” column. What specific variables were significantly different than the variable being compared? If NO: your data was not significant for that objective test. This means that each variable was similar – which is a good thing for ingredient substitutions. IF YES – REVIEW THE BOX MULTIPLE COMPARISONS, “Sig.” column. Any value(s) less than .05 indicates discrepancies between judges with the sensory characteristics (Seybold, 2011). 20
  24. 24. Results ANOVA and multiple comparison tests were run on sensory and objective data using SPSS. The first test showed how each judges’ evaluation compared to the other four judges’ evaluation of each sensory variable. The ANOVA test proved that there were no significant differences between the judges because each p-value was greater than 0.05. This meant that the judges were consistent in their evaluations each week. All judges gave similar scores when rating each variable. The second test that was run compared each factor to the control (see Table 2, Appendix D). A p-value of less than 0.05 in this test meant that there were significant differences between each recipe using the different variables. In the case of mouth feel, there was a significant difference between the peanut butter control recipe and the Nutella hazelnut spread recipe (p=0.025). The cashew butter variable (p=0.917) had aninsignificant difference in mouth feel compared to the peanut butter control. Nutella hazelnut spread (p=0.000) had asignificant difference in color compared to the control recipe. However, the soy butter variable (p=0.992) was similar to the control in color with an insignificant difference. Also for color, the significant differences between the other three variables when compared to each other were low. In fact, Nutella (0.000) had a very significant difference when compared to all other variables. The significant difference between cashew butter and soy butter was (0.059), which is very close to being significantly different, even if it is greater than 0.05. Finally, this test showed that each of the three variables were significantly different than the control in taste, each with p-values of less than 0.05. 21
  25. 25. Using SPSS, tests were also run on the objective data obtained with the volumeter (p=0.525) and ink blots (p=0.212). In both cases, there were insignificant differencesbetween all of the variables when compared to the control using objective testing. This means that all had similar volumes (densityand specific volume) and cell sizes(see Appendix F; bar graphs 1, 2, and 3). Table 2 Table of Means for Dependent Variables: Sensory Evaluation Dependent Variable Mouthfeel Condition Mean Standard Deviation P-significance Peanut Butter Cashew Butter .26667 .41500 .917 Soy Butter .80000 .41500 .256 Nutella 1.33333 .41500 .025 Color Peanut Butter Cashew Butter .60000 .24037 .099 Soy Butter -.06667 .24037 .992 Nutella -2.40000 .24037 .000 Taste Peanut Butter Cashew Butter -1.40000 .33166 .003 Soy Butter -1.20000 .33166 .011 Nutella -1.3333 .33166 .005 Note: SPSS was used to create averages from three consecutive weeks of data for each sensory evaluation. A pvalue of <.05 represents discrepancies between judges. Table 2 Table of Means for Dependent Variables: Sensory Evaluation 22
  26. 26. Discussion SPSS Data- Judges The SPSS data comparing the judges’ evaluations of the sensory variables showed that there were no discrepancies between the five judges. All p-values were greater than 0.05, meaning that each judge gave a similar rating for each of the sensory evaluations. The ANOVA test showed thep-values for mouth feel (p=0.801), color (p=0.990), and taste (p=0.627). The fact that all of the p-values were very high above 0.05 exhibits that all of the testers used in this experiment were well trained to judge the product. The scores they gave for each variable were well-thought out so that an accurate assessment of the cookies could be obtained. A p-value of less than 0.05 would mean that each judge gave a different rating for the variables, so the data would therefore be inaccurate. This data shows that the judges gave consistent rating for each variable every week. In this case, however, many of the p-values reached (p=1.000). For instance, for the mouth feel variable, judges one and two gave the exact same rating. SPSS Data-Factor The SPSS data comparing the differences in sensory characteristic of each variable showed that there were significant differences between the control and each of the variables. The ANOVA chart showed that the p-values for all variables were less than 0.05. In the multiples comparison chart, a high p-value signifies that the variable would be an adequate substitute for the control with an obvious difference in the sensory evaluation. For mouth feel, there was aninsignificant difference of between the control and the 23
  27. 27. cashew butter variable (p=0.917). Therefore, cashew butter would be an acceptable substitute for peanut butter in regards to mouthfeel. On the other hand, also for mouth feel, there was a significant differencebetween the control and the Nutella hazelnut spread variable (p=0.025), meaning that there was a noticeable difference in mouth feel. Therefore, Nutella would not be a good alternative for peanut butter in this case. For color, there was aninsignificant difference between the control and the soy nut butter variable(p=0.992). The high p-value demonstrates that the soy nut cookies were similar in color to the control cookies and that soy nut butter would be a suitable replacement for peanut butter in respect to color. Alternatively, the Nutella hazelnut spread variable (p=0.000) had a very significant difference when compared, not only to the control, but to all other variables. This means that replacing the peanut butter with Nutella in the cookie recipe resulted in a very different outcome in regard to color. For taste, the SPSS data showed the cashew butter, soy nut butter, and Nutella hazelnut spread variables were all similar to each other, but none of the variables were similar to the control. There was avery significant difference between the control and the cashew butter variable (p=0.003), soy butter variable (p=0.011), and Nutella hazelnut spread variable (p=0.005). All of these p-values are less than 0.05, meaning that none of the variables would be an acceptable substitute for the peanut butter in regards to taste. A clear difference would be detected by using any of these variables as a replacement. However, when compared to each other, all of the variables exhibited a high p-value, which means they were similar in taste to each other, demonstrating that there was not a detectable difference in taste between the cashew butter, soy nut butter, or Nutella hazelnut spread. 24
  28. 28. SPSS Data- Objective Tests The SPSS result for the objective comparisons showed that there was not a significant difference between any of the variables in regards to both the volumeter and ink blot testing. For the volumeter test, there was an insignificant difference between groups (p=0.525), meaning that all variables had a similar volume. Density and specific volume between the variables were also similar (Bar Graphs 1 and 2). The same was true for the ink blot testing. All variables were similar to the control in regard to cell size (Bar Graph 3). The ANOVA test showed an insignificant difference between groups (p=0.212). This data demonstrates that by replacing the peanut butter with cashew butter, soy nut butter, or Nutella hazelnut spread does not result in a significant change in the volume of the cookies or the cell size of the cookies. Connections to previous studies Most of the studies done on peanuts deal with the effect that roasting times have on sensory characteristics. While this differs slightly from the experiment performed here, it is similar in that a rating scale is often used to evaluate the same characteristics as this experiment, such as mouth feel (texture), color, and taste (Tomlins, 2008, pg.165-182). Previous studies show that these qualities are affected by roasting times and this study shows that the same qualities are affected by using different variables in the recipe (Pattee, 1991, pg. 519-523). Studies on the properties of cashews show similar findings, also using trained sensory panels to evaluate texture, color, and taste. Similar to this experiment, flavor has been rated in 25
  29. 29. regards to the amount of nut flavor in the baked goods. Previous studies on cashews show that these characteristics are affected by the type of method used to process the cashews, such as roasting or steam cooking (Mohod, 2010, pg. 125-132). This is different from this experiment because the type of processing was not studied, but changes in sensory evaluations are comparable between previous studies on cashews and this experiment. Many studies have been done on the effects of soy products in baked goods, much like this experiment. For example, a study on the use of soy in meal replacement bars showed similar results to the findings of this experiment (Childs, 2007, pg. 425-434). Although the panel in this study was evaluating a different type of baked product, similar flavor and textural qualities were assessed. A study more closely related to this experiment involved the evaluation of sensory characteristics on cookies containing soy (Ryan, 2006, pg. 442-457). The study found that the cookies were thick, puffy, and had a yellowish color, very much like the soy nut cookies produced in this experiment. More studies have been done on the sensory characteristics of hazelnut spreads themselves than there have been on how they affect the outcome when used to make baked products. However, the same types of sensory variables were compared in one study, such as differences in texture and nut flavor between different types of hazelnut spreads (Di Monaco, 2008, pg. 460-479). Another similarity between Di Monaco’s study and this experiment was that the researchers in the previous study used ANOVA software to evaluate the data obtained during their experiment. Hypotheses 26
  30. 30. The hypothesis that changing the type of nut protein in peanut butter cookies will significantly change the cookies’ taste and mouth feel was proven by the data shown in the multiple comparison chart. Each variable showed a significant difference in taste when compared to the control recipe because they all had p-values less than 0.05. Mouth feel was also proven to be significantly different between the control and the Nutella hazelnut spread variable (p=0.025). The mouth feel of the cashew butter (p=0.917), however, showed an insignificant difference compared to the control so the hypothesis was disproven in this aspect. The data proves the hypothesis that changing the type of nut protein in peanut butter cookies will significantly change the color of the cookie, especially in regards to the Nutella hazelnut spread variable(p=0.000), when compared to all other variables. However, the soy nut butter protein (p=0.992) did not show a significant change in color compared to the control. The data shown in the SPSS chart for objective measurements disproves the hypothesis that changing the nut protein in peanut butter cookies will significantly change the volumes of the cookie. Instead, the null hypothesis was proven due to the fact that the p-values showed that there were no significant differences between any of the variables in regards to volume. Limitations The results obtained during this experiment may have been affected by some of the unavoidable limitations of the study. Time was one of the factors that may have affected the outcomes. This experiment had to be performed within a time period of only three hours a week for four weeks. During these three hours, all four batches of cookies had to be prepared and sensory and objective tests had to be run. There was also a space limitation during 27
  31. 31. thisexperiment as each participant was only provided a limited amount of space to prepare their products. The ingredients used may also have had some effect on the outcome of the cookies. For example, in this case, the brand of cashew butter used during the 3rd week was different than the previous week, which may have produced a slightly different sensory or objective test result. Another limitation of this experiment was the number of testers that were available for sensory evaluations. 28
  32. 32. Conclusion The type of protein found in nut butters is responsible for causing severe allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Baked goods can be modified in order to change the protein so that allergic individuals can consume these products, as proven in previous studies. This study found that changing the type of protein in a peanut butter cookie recipe by replacing the peanut butter with cashew butter, soy nut butter, or Nutella hazelnut spread can lead to some noticeable sensory differences in the cookies. However, it was also proven in the SPSS data that nut butters such as cashew (p=0.917) can be used to replace the peanut butter in this recipe without causing significant differences in the mouth feel of the cookies. The cashew butter replacement would only change the color and taste of the cookies slightly. In fact, in regard to taste, all variables caused a detectable difference in the nutty flavor of the cookies, so none of them would be adequate substitutes in this case. The soy nut butter variable (p=0.992) was very similar in color to the peanut butter control, making it a good replacement in regards to color. The Nutella hazelnut spread cookies (p=0.000) were very different in appearance with a very dark brown color, most likely caused by the chocolate flavor in the spread. The Nutella hazelnut spread (p=0.025) also caused a noticeable difference in the mouth feel of the cookies, proving that this particular variable would not be a suitable replacement for the peanut butter in this recipe in regards to any of the sensory characteristics evaluated in this experiment. The SPSS data disproved the hypothesis that changing the type of protein would significantly change the volume of the cookies. After testing the data obtained from the volumeter tests, no significant difference in volume between any of the variables was shown. All of the cookie variables had close to the same volume, density, and specific volume. The 29
  33. 33. SPSS test performed on the data obtained from the ink blot tests also showed no significant differences in the cell sizes between any of the variables. From the information obtained as a result of this study, it would seem that more research should be done on how to make these variables acceptable substitutes for peanut butter in baked good recipes. The problem of peanut allergy is critical and many people affected with this would benefit from more of this type of research. Peanut products are very popular among consumers and it can difficult for peanut allergic individuals to avoid these products. Specifically, it seems cashew butter would be the best alternative to devote more research to because this experiment found the cookies made with cashew butter to have similar qualities to those made with peanut butter. Having more options or substitutes available for peanut butter would increase quality of life, decrease the risk of severe allergic responses or anaphylaxis, and could potentially save many lives. 30
  34. 34. References Adeyeye, E. I., Asaolu, S. S., &Aluko, A. O. (2007). Amino acid composition of two masticatory nuts (Cola acuminata and Garcinia kola) and a snack nut (Anacardiumoccidentale). International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition, 58(4), 241-249. Childs, J. L., Yates, M. D., & Drake, M. A. (2007). Sensory Properties of Meal Replacement Bars and Beverages Made from Whey and Soy Proteins. Journal of Food Science, 72(6), S425-S434. Clark, A. T., Anagnostou, K. K., & Ewan, P. W. (2007). Cashew nut causes more severe reactions than peanut: case-matched comparison in 141 children. Allergy, 62(8), 913-916. Clark, A. T., Islam, S. S., King, Y. Y., Deighton, J. J., Anagnostou, K. K., & Ewan, P. W. (2009). Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy.Allergy, 64(8), 12181220. Di Monaco, R., Giancone, T., Cavella, S., &Masi, P. (2008). Predicting texture attributes from microstructural, rheological, and thermal properties of hazelnut spreads. Journal of Texture Studies, 39(5), 460-479. Dodo, H. W., Konan, K. N., Chen, F. C., Egnin, M., &Viquez, O. M. (2008).Alleviating peanut allergy using genetic engineering: the silencing of the immunodominant allergen Ara h 2 leads to its significant reduction and a decrease in peanut allergenicity.Plant Biotechnology Journal, 6(2), 135-145. 31
  35. 35. Dooper, M. W., Plassen, C., Holden, L., Moen, L. H., Namork, E., &Egaas, E. (2008). Antibody binding to hazelnut (Corylusavellana) proteins: the effects of extraction procedure and hazelnut source. Food & Agricultural Immunology, 19(3), 229-240. Dunbar, H., &Luyt, D. (2011).Triggers, clinical features and management of anaphylaxis in children.Nursing Children & Young People, 23(5), 29-35.Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Du Toit, G. (2008). Early consumption of peanuts in infancy is associated with a low prevelence of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clinical Immunology, 122(5), 984-991. Retrieved from http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/42633/1/IND44389411.pdf Hitomi, K., Tahara-Hanaoka, S., Someya, S., Fujiki, A., Tada, H., Sugiyama, T., & ... Shibuya, A. (2010). An immunoglobulin-like receptor, Allergin-1, inhibits immunoglobulin E– mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Nature Immunology, 11(7), 601-607. Jolly, C. M., Hinds, M. J., Lindo, P., Ligeon, C., & Weiss, H. (2005). Consumers acceptance of peanut butter and products containing peanut butter in two southern states in the u.s.Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 17(2), 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com King, R. M., Knibb, R. C., &Hourihane, J. B. (2009).Impact of peanut allergy on quality of life, stress and anxiety in the family.Allergy, 64(3), 461-468. Lauer, I. I., Dueringer, N. N., Pokoj, S. S., Rehm, S. S., Zoccatelli, G. G., Reese, G. G., & ... Scheurer, S. S. (2009). The non-specific lipid transfer protein, Ara h 9, is an important allergen in peanut. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 39(9), 1427-1437. 32
  36. 36. Le, T. M., Lindner, T. M., Pasmans, S. G., Guikers, C. H., van Hoffen, E. E., BruijnzeelKoomen, C. M., &Knulst, A. C. (2008). Reported food allergy to peanut, tree nuts and fruit: comparison of clinical manifestations, prescription of medication and impact on daily life.Allergy, 63(7), 910-916. Lehmann, K. (2006). Structure and stability of 2s albumin-type peanut allergens: implications for the severity of peanut allergic reactions. Biochem J, 395, 463-472. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1462689/?report=abstract Lima, J. R., Garruti, D. S., & Bruno, L. M. (2012). Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics of cashew nut butter made from different kernel grades-quality. LWT - Food Science & Technology, 45(2), 180-185. Lokuruka, M. I. (2010). Soybean nutritional properties: the good and the bad about soy foods consumption-a review. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition & Development, 10(4), 2439-2459.Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Mohod, A., Khandetod, Y., &Sengar, S. (2010). Eco-friendly utilization of parabolic concentrating solar cooker for extraction of cashew nut shell oil and household cooking.International Journal Of Sustainable Energy, 29(3), 125-132. Mohsen, S. M., Fadel, H. M., Bekhit, M. A., Edris, A. E., & Ahmed, M. S. (2009). Effect of substitution of soy protein isolate on aroma volatiles, chemical composition and sensory quality of wheat cookies. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 44(9), 1705-1712. 33
  37. 37. O'Neil, C. E., Keast, D. R., Fulgoni III, V. L., &Nicklas, T. A. (2010). Tree nut consumption improves nutrient intake and diet quality in US adults: an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 19(1), 142-150. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Pattee, H. E., Young, C. T., &Giesbrecht, F. G. (1991).Comparison of peanut butter color determination by CIELAB L a b and Hunter color-difference methods and the relationship of roasted peanut color to roasted peanut flavor response.Journal Of Agricultural And Food Chemistry, 39(3), 519-523. Röder, M., Vieths, S., &Holzhauser, T. (2009). Commercial lateral flow devices for rapid detection of peanut ( Arachishypogaea) and hazelnut ( Corylusavellana) crosscontamination in the industrial production of cookies. Analytical &Bioanalytical Chemistry, 395(1), 103-109. Ryan, K. J., & Brewer, M. S. (2006). Physical properties of sugar-snap cookies using granule surface deproteinated wheat starch. Journal of Texture Studies, 37(4), 442-457. Seybold, J. (2011). Volumeter Operating Instructions. Experimental Foods Lab. Retrieved on October 6, 2011 from https://moodle.iup.edu/course/view.php?id=40459. The Good Housekeeping Illustrated Cookbook. (1989). Peanut-butter cookies.Pg.408. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. 34
  38. 38. Tomlins, K., Rukuni, T., Mutungamira, A., Mandeya, S., &Swetman, A. (2008). Effect of roasting time and storage time on sensory and consumer acceptability of peanut butters in southernafrica. Tropical Science, 47(2), 165-182. Retrieved from http://www.interscience.wiley.com Wanlapa, A., & Jindal, V. K. (2006).Instrumental and sensory evaluation of textural changes during roasting of cashew kernels.Journal of Texture Studies, 37(3), 263-275. Willison, L. N., Tawde, P. P., Robotham, J. M., Penney, R. M., Teuber, S. S., Sathe, S. K., & Roux, K. H. (2008). Pistachio vicilin, Pis v 3, is immunoglobulin E-reactive and crossreacts with the homologous cashew allergen, Ana o 1. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 38(7), 1229-1238. Wilson, S. S., Martinez-Villaluenga, C. C., & De Mejia, E. G. (2008).Purification, Thermal Stability, and Antigenicity of the Immunodominant Soybean Allergen P34 in Soy Cultivars, Ingredients, and Products.Journal of Food Science, 73(6), T106-T114. 35
  39. 39. Appendix A Nutrient Analysis (USDA Handbook 8) Peanut Butter Cookies-Control-(Peanut Butter) AP flour Amount needed 140.625 g Energy (kcal) 512 kcal Protein Peanut butter 129 g Honey Sugar 111.87 g 50 g Butter or margarine 56.75 g 14.53 g 759 kcal 32.37 g 340 kcal 0.34 g Value per amount 194 407 kcal kcal 0g 0.48 g Total lipid 1.38 g 65.00 g 0g 0g 46.03 g Saturated fat 0.218 g 0g 0g 29.151 g Monounsaturate d fat Polyunsaturated fat CHO by difference Fiber Sugars, total 0.122 g 0g 0g 11.929 g 0g 0g 1.727 g 107.31 g 13.558 g 31.239 g 18.268 g 25.23 g 7.7 g 11.89 g Sucrose 0g 11.20 g Glucose 0g 0.70 g Fructose 0g 0g 0g 0g Lactose Maltose Galactose Starch Calcium 0g 0g 0g 0g 21 mg 0g 0g 0g 6.18 g 55 mg 39.99 g 45.80 g 0g 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 7 mg 49.99 g 0g 49.90 g 49.90 g 0g 0.03 g 3.8 g 0.39 g 92.18 g 0.2 g 91.87 g 1.00 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 14 mg Iron 6.53 mg 31 mg 0.47 mg 2 mg 0.03 mg 0 mg 0.01 mg Magnesium 2.41 mg 199 mg Phosphorus 152 mg 462 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg Potassium 150 mg 837 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg Sodium 3 mg 592 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg Zinc 0.98 mg 0.203 mg 0.682 mg 47.7 mcg 0 mg 0.25 mg 0.040 mg 0.089 mg 0.9 mcg 0.6 mg 0.01 mg 0.004 mg 0.002 mg 0.3 mcg 0 mg 0.05 mg Copper 3.75 mg 0.610 mg 1.891 mg 7.2 mcg 0 mg Manganese Selenium Vitamin C 36 0.581 g 0g 0.03 g 0g 0g 1 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mcg 0 mg Egg 50 g Baking powder 1.15 g 72 kcal 6.28 g 4.75 g 1.56 3g 1.82 9g 0.95 6g 0.36 g 0g 0.18 g 0g 1 kcal 0.18 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 28 mg 0.88 mg 6 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 68 mg 99 mg 69 mg 71 mg 0.65 mg 0.03 6 mg 0.01 4 mg 15.3 mcg 0 mg 25 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0.32 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0.13 mg 0 mg 0 mg 122 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mg Total Total/Serving 549.39 5g 30.522 g 2285 kcal 54 g 126.94 kcal 117.16 g 44.49 g 45.119 g 21.532 g 275.42 g 11.7 g 154.26 g 62.1 g 6.51 g 40.87 g 45.80 g 0g 1.16 g 3.47 g 6.18 g 193 mg 10.46 mg 239 mg 756 mg 1129 mg 1197 mg 5.69 mg 0.893 mg 2.678 mg 72 mcg 0.6 mg 2.27 g 3g 2.47 g 2.51 g 1.196 g 15.30 g 0.65 g 8.57 g 3.45 g 2.54 g 0g 0.06 g 0.19 g 0.34 g 10.72 mg 0.58 mg 13.27 mg 42 mg 62.72 mg 66.5 mg 0.32 mg 0.049 mg 0.149 mg 4 mcg 0.03 mg
  40. 40. Thiamin 0.094 mg 0.135 mg 17.290 mg 1.367 mg 0.700 mg 95 mcg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.043 mg 0.135 mg 0.076 mg 0.027 mg 2 mcg 0.009 mg 0 mg 0.019 mg 0 mg 0.062 mg 0 mg 0.002 mg Folate, total 1.104 mg 0.695 mg 8.303 mg 0.616 mg 0.062 mg 257 mcg 0 mcg 2 mcg Vitamin B-12 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg Vitamin A, IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU Vitamin E (alphatocopherol) Vitamin D 0.08 mg 11.60 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU Vitamin K 0.4 mcg 0.8 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg Riboflavin Niacin Pantothenic acid Vitamin B-6 0.024 mg 1.221 mg 1.13 mg 25.789 mg 2.887 mg 0.876 mg 380 mcg 0.55 mcg 1688 IU 13.53 mg 0.068 mg 0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU 0 mcg 5.3 mcg 0.29 mcg 0.02 0 mg 0.22 9 mg 0.03 7 mg 0.76 6 mg 0.08 5 mg 24 mcg 0.45 mcg 270 IU 0.53 mg 0 mg 41 IU 0.1 mcg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 IU 0 mg 0.06 mg 1.43 mg 0.160 mg 0.049 mg 21.11 mcg 0.03 mcg 93.78 IU 0.75 mg Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 1-(Cashew Butter) AP flour Cashew butter 111.87 g Sugar Butter or margarine 50 g 56.75 g Egg Baking powder Total Total/Serving 1.15 g 533.39 5g 29.633 g 72 kcal 6.28 g 4.75 g 1.56 3g 1.82 9g 0.95 6g 0.36 g 0g 0.18 g 0g 1 kcal 2277 kcal 44.11 g 115.4 g 43.429 g 51.156 g 13.957 g 285.48 g 6.6 g 148.78 g 50.9 g 126.5 kcal 0g 0g 0g 0g 40.17 g 45.80 g 0g 2.23 g 0g 0.18 g 0g Amount needed 140.625g Energy (kcal) Protein 512 kcal 751 kcal 340 kcal 14.53 g 22.48 g 0.34 g Total lipid 1.38 g 63.24 g 0g 0g 46.03 g Saturated fat Monounsat urated fat Polyunsatur ated fat CHO by difference Fiber Sugars, total Sucrose 0.218 g 12.497 g 0g 0g 29.151 g 0.122 g 37.276 g 0g 0g 11.929 g 0.581 g 10.693 g 0g 0g 1.727 g 107.31 g 35.29 g 92.18 g 0.03 g 3.8 g 0.39 g 2.6 g 6.41 g 0.2 g 91.87 g 0g 0g 1.00 g Glucose 0g 0g 39.99 g 49.99 g 0g 49.90 g 49.90 g 0g Fructose 0g 0g 45.80 g 0g Lactose 0g 0g 0g 0g 37 123 g Honey 50 g Value per amount 194 407 kcal kcal 0g 0.48 g 0g 0.03 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0.32 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 2.45 g 6.41 g 2.41 g 2.842 g 0.775 g 15.86 g 0.36 g 8.27 g 2.83 g 2.54 g 0g
  41. 41. Maltose Galactose Starch Calcium 0g 0g 0g 21 mg 0g 0g 0g 55 mg 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 7 mg 0g 0g 0g 0 mg 0g 0g 0g 14 mg Iron 6.53 mg 6.44 mg 0.47 mg 0.01 mg Magnesium 31 mg 330 mg 2 mg 0.03 mg 0 mg Phosphorus 152 mg 585 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg Potassium 150 mg 699 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg Sodium 3 mg 786 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg Zinc 0.98 mg 6.60 mg 0.25 mg 0.05 mg Copper 0.203 mg 2.803 mg Manganese 0.682 mg 1.043 mg Selenium 47.7 mcg 14.7 mcg 0.040 mg 0.089 mg 0.9 mcg Vitamin C Thiamin 0 mg 1.104 mg 0 mg 0.399 mg 0.6 mg 0 mg 0.01 mg 0.004 mg 0.002 mg 0.3 mcg 0 mg 0 mg Riboflavin 0.695 mg 0.239 mg 8.303 mg 2.047 mg 0.009 mg 0 mg 0.019 mg Niacin Pantothenic acid Vitamin B-6 0.616 mg 1.537 mg 0 mg 0.062 mg 0.062 mg 0.323 mg 0 mg 0.002 mg Folate, total 257 mcg 87 mcg 0.043 mg 0.135 mg 0.076 mg 0.027 mg 2 mcg 0 mcg 2 mcg Vitamin B12 Vitamin A, IU Vitamin E (alphatocopherol) Vitamin D 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 0.08 mg 1.18 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU Vitamin K 0.4 mcg 44.4 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 1 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mcg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.024 mg 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 193 mg 14.49 mg 370 mg 879 mg 991 mg 1391 mg 8.54 mg 3.086 mg 1.83 mg 79.5 mcg 0.6 mg 1.526 mg 1.234 mg 10.546 mg 3.057 mg 0.499 mg 372 mcg 0.55 mcg 1688 IU 3.11 mg 0.09 g 0.19 g 0g 10.72 mg 0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU 0 mcg 48.9 mcg 2.72 mcg 0g 0g 0g 28 mg 0.88 mg 6 mg 0g 0g 0g 68 mg 99 mg 69 mg 71 mg 0.65 mg 0.03 6 mg 0.01 4 mg 15.3 mcg 0 mg 0.02 0 mg 0.22 9 mg 0.03 7 mg 0.76 6 mg 0.08 5 mg 24 mcg 0.45 mcg 270 IU 0.53 mg 25 mg 41 IU 0.1 mcg 0.13 mg 0 mg 0 mg 122 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 IU 0 mg 0.805 mg 20.56 mg 48.8 mg 55.05 mg 77.27 mg 0.47 mg 0.171 mg 0.10 mg 4.42 mcg 0.03 mg 0.083 mg 0.069 mg 0.586 mg 0.169 mg 0.028 mg 20.67 mcg 0.03 mcg 93.78 IU 0.17 mg Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 2-(Soy Butter) AP flour Amount needed 38 140.6 25g Soy butter Honey 111.87 g Butter or margarine Egg 50 g 128 g Sugar 56.75 g 50 g Baking powder 1.15 g Total 538.39 5g Total/Serving 29.911 g
  42. 42. Energy (kcal) Protein 512 kcal 14.53 g 1.38 g 680 kcal 28 g 340 kcal 0.34 g 44 g 0g Saturated fat Monounsat urated fat Polyunsatu rated fat CHO by difference Fiber Sugars, total Sucrose 0.218 g 0.122 g 0.581 g 107.3 1g 3.8 g 0.39 g 6g 0g 23.04 g 28.4 g 0g 40 g 0g 0g 92.18 g 0.2 g 91.87 g 1.00 g Glucose 0g 0g Fructose 0g 0g Lactose Maltose Galactose Starch Calcium 0g 0g 0g 0g 21 mg Iron 6.53 mg 31 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 240 mg 80 mg Total lipid Magnesiu m Phosphoru s Potassium Sodium Zinc Copper 152 mg 150 mg 3 mg 0.98 mg 0.203 mg 12 g 12 g 0g 39.99 g 45.80 g 0g 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 7 mg Value per amount 407 kcal 72 kcal 0.48 g 6.28 g 0g 46.03 g 4.75 g 0g 29.151 g 1.56 3g 0g 11.929 g 1.82 9g 0g 1.727 g 0.95 6g 49.99 0.03 g 0.36 g g 0g 0g 0g 49.90 0.03 g 0.18 g g 49.90 0g 0g g 0g 0g 0.18 g 0g 0g 0g 194 kcal 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 14 mg 0.03 mg 0 mg 0.01 mg 0 mg 0.47 mg 2 mg 0 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 0 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 560 mg 0 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg 0.25 mg 0.040 mg 0.01 mg 0.004 mg 0.05 mg 0 mg 1 mg 0 mg Manganes e 0.682 mg 0 mg 0.089 mg 0.002 mg 0 mg Selenium 47.7 mcg 0 mg 0 mcg 0.3 mcg 0 mg 0.6 mcg 0 mg 0.9 mcg 0.6 mg Thiamin 1.104 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg Riboflavin 0.695 mg 0 mg 0.043 mg 0.009 mg 0.019 mg Niacin 8.303 mg 0 mg 0.135 mg 0 mg 0.024 mg Vitamin C 39 0 mg 0g 0g 0g 0g 28 mg 0.88 mg 6 mg 99 mg 69 mg 71 mg 0.65 mg 0.03 6 mg 0.01 4 mg 15.3 mcg 0 mg 0.02 0 mg 0.22 9 mg 0.03 7 mg 2206 kcal 49.63 g 96.16 g 36.932 g 36.92 g 31.664 g 290.19 g 16 g 154.37 g 50.90 g 40.17 g 45.80 g 0g 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 378 mg 88.05 mg 40 mg 122.56 kcal 294 mg 292 mg 1165 mg 1.94 mg 0.283 mg 16.33 mg 0 mg 0.787 mg 0.04 mg 0 mcg 64.8 mcg 0.6 mg 3.6 mcg 0 mg 1.127 mg 0.063 mg 0 mg 0.995 mg 0.055 mg 0 mg 8.499 mg 0.472 mg 1 kcal 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0.32 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 68 mg 0.13 mg 0 mg 25 mg 0 mg 122 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 2.76 g 5.34 g 2.022 g 2.05 g 1.759 g 16.12 g 0.89 g 8.58 g 2.83 g 2.23 g 2.54 g 0g 0.09 g 0.19 g 0g 21 mg 4.89 mg 2.22 mg 16.22 mg 64.72 mg 0.11 mg 0.02 mg 0.03 mg
  43. 43. Pantotheni c acid 0.616 mg 0 mg 0.076 mg 0 mg 0.062 mg Vitamin B6 0.062 mg 0 mg 0.027 mg 0 mg 0.002 mg Folate, total Vitamin B12 Vitamin A, IU Vitamin E (alphatocopherol) Vitamin D 257 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 2 mcg 0 mg 2 mcg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 0.08 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU Vitamin K 0.4 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 0.76 6 mg 0.08 5 mg 24 mcg 0.45 mcg 270 IU 0.53 mg 0 mg 1.52 mg 0.08 mg 0 mg 0.176 mg 0.009 mg 0 mcg 285 mcg 0.50 mcg 1688 IU 1.93 mg 15.83 mcg 41 IU 0.1 mcg 0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU 0 mcg 4.5 mcg 0.25 mcg 0 mcg 0 IU 0 mg 0.03 mcg 93.78 IU 0.11 mg Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 3-(Nutella) AP flour Amount needed Nutella Honey Sugar 148 g 111.87 g 50 g Value per amount 194 407 kcal kcal 0g 0.48 g 140.625 g Butter or margarine 56.75 g Energy (kcal) Protein 512 kcal 801 kcal 14.53 g 8.01 g 340 kcal 0.34 g Total lipid Saturate d fat Monoun saturate d fat Polyuns aturated fat CHO by differenc e Fiber Sugars, total Sucrose 1.38 g 44.00 g 0g 0g 46.03 g 0.218 g 42.066 g 0g 0g 29.151 g 0.122 g 0g 0g 0g 11.929 g 0.581 g 0g 0g 0g 107.31 g 92.00 g 92.18 g 3.8 g 0.39 g 8.0 g 79.99 g 0g Glucose Fructose 40 Egg 50 g Baking powder 1.15 g Total Total/Serving 513.3 95 g 28.52 g 2327 kcal 29.64 g 96.16 g 72.99 8g 13.88 g 129.28 kcal 72 kcal 6.28 g 4.75 g 1.56 3g 1.82 9g 1 kcal 1.727 g 0.95 6g 0g 3.264 g 0.181 g 49.99 g 0.03 g 0.36 g 0.32 g 342.1 9g 19.01 g 0.2 g 91.87 g 0g 49.90 g 0g 0.03 g 0g 0g 1.00 g 49.90 g 0g 0g 0g 39.99 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 45.80 g 0g 0g 0.18 g 0g 12 g 222.3 6g 50.90 g 40.17 g 45.80 0.6 g 12.35 g 0g 0g 0.18 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 1.65 g 5.34 g 4.055 g 0.77 g 2.83 g 2.23 g 2.54 g
  44. 44. Lactose Maltose Galactos e Starch Calcium 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 21 mg 0g 160 mg 0g 7 mg 0g 0 mg 0g 14 mg 0g 68 mg Iron 6.53 mg 6.48 mg 31 mg 95 mg 0.03 mg 0 mg 0.01 mg Magnesi um Phospho rus Potassiu m Sodium 0.47 mg 2 mg 152 mg 225 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 150 mg 602 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 3 mg 61 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg Zinc 0.98 mg 1.57 mg 0.203 mg 0.694 mg 0.01 mg 0.004 mg 0.05 mg Copper 0.25 mg 0.040 mg Mangan ese 0.682 mg 1.285 mg 0.089 mg 0.002 mg 0 mg Seleniu m Vitamin C Thiamin 47.7 mcg 0 mg 5.3 mcg 0.3 mcg 0 mg 0.6 mcg 0 mg 0.9 mcg 0.6 mg 1.104 mg 0.126 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg Riboflavi n 0.695 mg 0.252 mg 0.043 mg 0.009 mg 0.019 mg Niacin 8.303 mg 0.632 mg 0.135 mg 0 mg 0.024 mg Pantoth enic acid 0.616 mg 0.528 mg 0.076 mg 0 mg 0.062 mg Vitamin B-6 0.062 mg 0.121 mg 0.027 mg 0 mg 0.002 mg Folate, total Vitamin B-12 Vitamin A, IU Vitamin E (alphatocopher 257 mcg 21 mcg 2 mcg 0 mg 2 mcg 0 mcg 0.40 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0 IU 4 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 0.08 mg 7.34 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0g 28 mg 0.88 mg 6 mg 99 mg 69 mg 71 mg 0.65 mg 0.03 6 mg 0.01 4 mg 15.3 mcg 0 mg 0.02 0 mg 0.22 9 mg 0.03 7 mg 0.76 6 mg 0.08 5 mg 24 mcg 0.45 mcg 270 IU 0.53 mg 41 1 mg 0 mg 0 mg g 0g 1.61 g 3.47 g 0g 0.09 g 0.19 g 0g 298 mg 14.53 mg 135 mg 519 mg 894 mg 666 mg 3.51 mg 0.977 mg 0g 16.56 mg 0 mg 2.072 mg 0.115 mg 0 mcg 70.1 mcg 0.6 mg 1.253 mg 3.89 mcg 0 mg 1.247 mg 0.069 mg 0 mg 9.131 mg 0.507 mg 0 mg 2.048 mg 0.114 mg 0 mg 0.297 mg 0.0165 mg 0 mcg 306 mcg 0.95 mcg 1692 IU 9.27 mg 17 mcg 0.13 mg 0 mg 25 mg 0 mg 122 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 IU 0 mg 0.81 mg 7.5 mg 28.83 mg 49.67 mg 37 mg 0.19 mg 0.054 mg 0.03 mg 0.069 mg 0.05 mcg 94 IU 0.515 mg
  45. 45. ol) Vitamin D Vitamin K 42 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU 0.4 mcg 2.8 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 41 IU 0.1 mcg 0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU 0 mcg 7.3 mcg 0.41 mcg
  46. 46. Appendix B Original Recipe (The Good Housekeeping Illustrated Cookbook, 1989, pg. 408) Table 1 U.S. measurements of ingredients converted to metric units Ingredient US measurement Metric conversion All-purpose flour 11/8 cups 140.63 grams Creamy peanut butter 1 /2 cup 129 grams Honey 1 /3 cup 111.87 grams Sugar 1 /4 cup 50 grams Butter or margarine, softened 1 /4 cup 56.75 grams Egg 1 each 50 grams Double-acting baking powder 1 1.15 grams /4 teaspoon Note: The original recipe was converted from English measurements to Metric measurements. Table 1 U.S. measurements of ingredients converted to metric units 1) Preheat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Into large bowl, measure all ingredients. With mixer at medium speed, beat until well mixed, occasionally scraping bowl. 2) With hands, shape dough into 1 1/2 inch balls; place 3 inches apart on cookie sheets. 3) Dip a fork into flour a press deeply across top of each cookie; repeat in opposite direction. Bake in oven 15 minutes or just until cookies are lightly browned. 4) With pancake turner, immediately remove cookies to wire racks; allow to cool. Store in tightly covered container. 43
  47. 47. Appendix C Official Market Order Recipe: Peanut Butter Cookies Amount Ingredient 140.63 g All-purpose flour 129 g Creamy peanut butter* 111.87 g Honey 50 g Sugar 56.75 g Butter or margarine 50g Eggs, whole 1.15 g Double-actin baking powder Variables (* = control ingredient) 123 g Cashew butter 128 g Soy butter 148 g Nutella Market Order Sheet Ingredient Produce Meats/seafood Creamy peanut butter Cashew butter Soy butter Nutella Cold/Frozen/Dairy/ Bread Butter or margarine, salted Eggs, large Baking/Canned All-purpose flour Honey Sugar Double-acting baking powder 44 Amount Needed 387 g 369 g 384 g 444 g 681 g 600 g 1687.56 g 1342.44 g 600 g 13.8 g
  48. 48. Appendix D SPSS output ANOVA Sum of Squares Sensory1Ave Mean Square 4 .297 10.944 15 12.133 4 .131 Within Groups 28.056 15 1.870 Total 28.578 19 Between Groups 1.644 4 .411 Within Groups 9.306 15 .620 10.950 Sig. 19 .522 F .730 Total Sensory3Ave 1.189 Within Groups Sensory2Ave Between Groups df 19 Between Groups Total .407 .801 .070 .990 .663 .627 Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Mean 95% Confidence Interval Difference (IDependent Variable (I) judge (J) judge Sensory1Ave 2 -.08333 .60400 3 -.16667 4 -1.9484 1.7818 .60400 .999 -2.0318 1.6984 .25000 .60400 .993 -1.6151 2.1151 -.50000 .60400 .918 -2.3651 1.3651 1 .08333 .60400 1.000 -1.7818 1.9484 -.08333 .60400 1.000 -1.9484 1.7818 .33333 .60400 .980 -1.5318 2.1984 5 -.41667 .60400 .956 -2.2818 1.4484 1 .16667 .60400 .999 -1.6984 2.0318 2 .08333 .60400 1.000 -1.7818 1.9484 4 .41667 .60400 .956 -1.4484 2.2818 5 45 1.000 4 3 Upper Bound 3 2 Lower Bound 5 1 J) Std. Error Sig. -.33333 .60400 .980 -2.1984 1.5318
  49. 49. 4 .60400 .956 -2.2818 1.4484 -.75000 .60400 .728 -2.6151 1.1151 1 .50000 .60400 .918 -1.3651 2.3651 .41667 .60400 .956 -1.4484 2.2818 .33333 .60400 .980 -1.5318 2.1984 .75000 .60400 .728 -1.1151 2.6151 2 .25000 .96705 .999 -2.7362 3.2362 .25000 .96705 .999 -2.7362 3.2362 -.16667 .96705 1.000 -3.1528 2.8195 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862 1 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862 -.41667 .96705 .992 -3.4028 2.5695 5 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362 1 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362 2 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862 4 -.41667 .96705 .992 -3.4028 2.5695 5 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362 1 .16667 .96705 1.000 -2.8195 3.1528 2 .41667 .96705 .992 -2.5695 3.4028 3 .41667 .96705 .992 -2.5695 3.4028 5 .16667 .96705 1.000 -2.8195 3.1528 1 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862 2 .25000 .96705 .999 -2.7362 3.2362 3 .25000 .96705 .999 -2.7362 3.2362 4 -.16667 .96705 1.000 -3.1528 2.8195 2 -.66667 .55694 .753 -2.3865 1.0531 3 -.33333 .55694 .973 -2.0531 1.3865 4 -.16667 .55694 .998 -1.8865 1.5531 5 .16667 .55694 .998 -1.5531 1.8865 1 .66667 .55694 .753 -1.0531 2.3865 3 .33333 .55694 .973 -1.3865 2.0531 4 .50000 .55694 .893 -1.2198 2.2198 5 46 -.41667 4 3 1.5318 3 2 -2.1984 5 1 .980 4 Sensory3Ave .60400 3 5 -.33333 4 4 1.6151 3 3 -2.1151 2 2 .993 5 1 .60400 3 Sensory2Ave -.25000 2 5 1 .83333 .55694 .580 -.8865 2.5531 1 .33333 .55694 .973 -1.3865 2.0531
  50. 50. 2 .973 -2.0531 1.3865 .16667 .55694 .998 -1.5531 1.8865 5 .50000 .55694 .893 -1.2198 2.2198 1 .16667 .55694 .998 -1.5531 1.8865 2 -.50000 .55694 .893 -2.2198 1.2198 3 -.16667 .55694 .998 -1.8865 1.5531 5 .33333 .55694 .973 -1.3865 2.0531 1 -.16667 .55694 .998 -1.8865 1.5531 2 -.83333 .55694 .580 -2.5531 .8865 3 -.50000 .55694 .893 -2.2198 1.2198 4 5 .55694 4 4 -.33333 -.33333 .55694 .973 -2.0531 1.3865 ANOVA Sum of Squares Sensory1Ave df Mean Square 5.244 3 1.748 Within Groups 6.889 16 12.133 19 Between Groups 26.267 3 8.756 2.311 16 .144 28.578 19 Between Groups 6.550 3 2.183 Within Groups 4.400 16 .275 10.950 19 Within Groups Total Sensory3Ave Sig. .431 Total Sensory2Ave Between Groups F Total 4.060 .025 60.615 .000 7.939 .002 Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD 95% Confidence Interval Dependent Mean Difference Variable (I) Fiber (J) Fiber Sensory1Ave Control-Peanut Cashew Butter 47 Std. (I-J) Error .26667 Lower Sig. .41500 .917 Upper Bound Bound -.9206 1.4540
  51. 51. Butter Soy Butter .80000 .41500 .256 -.3873 1.9873 * .41500 .025 .1460 2.5206 -.26667 .41500 .917 -1.4540 .9206 .53333 .41500 .585 -.6540 1.7206 Nutella 1.06667 .41500 .086 -.1206 2.2540 Control-Peanut -.80000 .41500 .256 -1.9873 .3873 -.53333 .41500 .585 -1.7206 .6540 .53333 .41500 .585 -.6540 1.7206 * .41500 .025 -2.5206 -.1460 -1.06667 .41500 .086 -2.2540 .1206 -.53333 .41500 .585 -1.7206 .6540 .60000 .24037 .099 -.0877 1.2877 -.06667 .24037 .992 -.7544 .6210 * .24037 .000 -3.0877 -1.7123 -.60000 .24037 .099 -1.2877 .0877 -.66667 .24037 .059 -1.3544 .0210 * .24037 .000 -3.6877 -2.3123 .06667 .24037 .992 -.6210 .7544 .66667 .24037 .059 -.0210 1.3544 -2.33333 * .24037 .000 -3.0210 -1.6456 2.40000 * .24037 .000 1.7123 3.0877 3.00000 * .24037 .000 2.3123 3.6877 2.33333 * .24037 .000 1.6456 3.0210 -1.40000 * .33166 .003 -2.3489 -.4511 Soy Butter -1.20000 * .33166 .011 -2.1489 -.2511 Nutella -1.33333 * .33166 .005 -2.2822 -.3844 1.40000 * .33166 .003 .4511 2.3489 Soy Butter .20000 .33166 .930 -.7489 1.1489 Nutella .06667 .33166 .997 -.8822 1.0156 Nutella Cashew Butter Control-Peanut 1.33333 Butter Soy Butter Soy Butter Butter Cashew Butter Nutella Nutella Control-Peanut -1.33333 Butter Cashew Butter Soy Butter Sensory2Ave Control-Peanut Cashew Butter Butter Soy Butter Nutella Cashew Butter Control-Peanut -2.40000 Butter Soy Butter Nutella Soy Butter Control-Peanut -3.00000 Butter Cashew Butter Nutella Nutella Control-Peanut Butter Cashew Butter Soy Butter Sensory3Ave Control-Peanut Butter Cashew Butter Cashew Butter Control-Peanut Butter 48
  52. 52. * .33166 .011 .2511 2.1489 Cashew Butter -.20000 .33166 .930 -1.1489 .7489 Nutella Soy Butter -.13333 .33166 .977 -1.0822 .8156 * .33166 .005 .3844 2.2822 -.06667 .33166 .997 -1.0156 .8822 .13333 .33166 .977 -.8156 1.0822 Control-Peanut 1.20000 Butter Nutella Control-Peanut 1.33333 Butter Cashew Butter Soy Butter *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. ANOVA Sum of Squares Volumeter df Mean Square Between Groups 241.667 3 80.556 Within Groups 800.000 8 11 Between Groups .294 3 .098 Within Groups .417 8 .052 Total .711 11 Total Ink blot Sig. 100.000 1041.667 F .806 .525 1.879 .212 Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD 95% Confidence Interval Mean Dependent Difference Std. Error Lower Bound Bound Variable (I) Fiber (J) Fiber (I-J) Volumeter Control-Peanut Cashew Butter 8.33333 8.16497 .743 -17.8138 34.4804 Butter Soy Butter -1.66667 8.16497 .997 -27.8138 24.4804 49 Sig. Upper
  53. 53. Nutella -3.33333 8.16497 .976 -29.4804 22.8138 Control-Peanut -8.33333 8.16497 .743 -34.4804 17.8138 Soy Butter -10.00000 8.16497 .630 -36.1471 16.1471 Nutella -11.66667 8.16497 .517 -37.8138 14.4804 1.66667 8.16497 .997 -24.4804 27.8138 Cashew Butter 10.00000 8.16497 .630 -16.1471 36.1471 Nutella -1.66667 8.16497 .997 -27.8138 24.4804 3.33333 8.16497 .976 -22.8138 29.4804 11.66667 8.16497 .517 -14.4804 37.8138 Soy Butter 1.66667 8.16497 .997 -24.4804 27.8138 Control-Peanut Cashew Butter -.20200 .18643 .709 -.7990 .3950 Butter Soy Butter -.04800 .18643 .994 -.6450 .5490 Nutella .23433 .18643 .612 -.3627 .8314 Control-Peanut .20200 .18643 .709 -.3950 .7990 Soy Butter .15400 .18643 .841 -.4430 .7510 Nutella .43633 .18643 .168 -.1607 1.0334 Control-Peanut .04800 .18643 .994 -.5490 .6450 -.15400 .18643 .841 -.7510 .4430 .28233 .18643 .473 -.3147 .8794 -.23433 .18643 .612 -.8314 .3627 Cashew Butter -.43633 .18643 .168 -1.0334 .1607 Soy Butter -.28233 .18643 .473 -.8794 .3147 Cashew Butter Butter Soy Butter Control-Peanut Butter Nutella Control-Peanut Butter Cashew Butter Ink blot Cashew Butter Butter Soy Butter Butter Cashew Butter Nutella Nutella Control-Peanut Butter 50
  54. 54. Appendix E Photographs Figure 2.This figure shows the scale that was used to weigh each ingredient during cookie preparation. Photograph 1 Figure 3: This figure shows the plastic boat used to weigh each ingredient. Photograph 3 51
  55. 55. Figure 4: This figure shows the amount of all-purpose flour used in the recipes. Photograph 4 Figure 5: This figure shows the amount of honey used in each recipe. Photograph 5 52
  56. 56. Figure 6: This figure shows the amount of sugar used in the recipes. Photograph 6 Figure 7: This figures shows the amount of butter used in the each recipe after it was softened. Photograph 7 53
  57. 57. Figure 8: This figure shows the amount of double-acting baking powder used in each recipe. Photograph 8 Figure 9: This figure shows the amount of creamy peanut butter used in the control recipe. Photograph 9 54
  58. 58. Figure 10: This figure shows the amount of cashew butter used in place of peanut butter in the variable 1 recipe. Photograph 10 Figure 11: This figure shows the amount of soy butter used in place of peanut butter in the variable 2 recipe. Photograph 11 55
  59. 59. Figure 12: This figure shows the amount of Nutella hazelnut spread used in the variable 3 recipe. Photograph 12 Figure 13: This figure shows the amount of egg used in each recipe. Photograph 13 56
  60. 60. Figure 14: This figure shows how the baking sheet was prepared prior to baking. Photograph 14 Figure 15: This figure shows the plate that was presented to the judges during sensory evaluations. Photograph 15 57
  61. 61. Figure 16: This figure shows the volumeter used to determine the volume of a cookie from each batch. Photograph 16 Figure 17: This figure shows the ink blot tests used to determine cell size in a cookie from each batch. Photograph 17 58
  62. 62. Appendix F Bar Graphs Bar Graph 1 Density 0.7 grams/centimeters3 0.6 0.5 0.4 Control Cashew butter 0.3 Soy butter 0.2 Nutella 0.1 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week Note: This graph depicts the density of each variable obtained from data collected using the volumeter over three consecutive weeks. Bar Graph 1 Density 59
  63. 63. Bar Graph 2 Specific Volume 3 centimeters3/grams 2.5 2 Control 1.5 Cashew butter Soy butter 1 Nutella 0.5 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week Note: This graph depicts the specific volume of each variable obtained from data collected using the volumeter over three consecutive weeks. Bar Graph 2 Specific Volume 60
  64. 64. Bar Graph 3 Ink Blot-cell size 1.2 1 centimeters 0.8 Control 0.6 Cashew butter Soy butter 0.4 Nutella 0.2 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week Note: This chart depicts cell size of each variable obtained from data collected using ink blot tests over three consecutive weeks. Bar Graph 3 Ink Blot-cell size 61
  65. 65. 62

×