Top Banner
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
93

Experimental Foods Research Paper

Aug 30, 2014

Download

Self Improvement

Sara Mastrine

 
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 2: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 3: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 4: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 5: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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’ mouth feel,

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

Page 6: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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, Arachis hypogaea, 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

Page 7: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 8: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 9: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 10: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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, Annacardium occidentale, 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 pear-

shaped 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

Page 11: Experimental Foods Research Paper

(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

Page 12: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 13: Experimental Foods Research Paper

as color, aroma, taste, crispiness, and acceptability of the cookies (Mohsen, 2009, pg. 1705-

1706). 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, Corylus avellana,

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

Page 14: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 15: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 16: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 17: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

Page 18: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 1Sensory Scorecard

Peanut Butter CookiesScorecard:

Characteristic 158 309 472 748

Mouth feel a

Color b

Taste c

a Mouth feel1________ 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5

Crispy Moderate Chewyb Color

1________ 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5 Light brown Medium brown Dark brownc Taste

1________ 2_______ __3_____ ____4________ _5 Strong nut flavor 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

Objective Tests

15

Page 19: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

find the volume of each cookie, the calibration reading was subtracted from the sample reading

for each sample.

16

Page 20: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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):

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

17

Page 21: Experimental Foods Research Paper

& 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, 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,

18

Page 22: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 left-hand 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 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

19

Page 23: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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).

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’

20

Page 24: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 an insignificant difference in mouth feel

compared to the peanut butter control. Nutella hazelnut spread (p=0.000) had a significant

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.

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 differences between

all of the variables when compared to the control using objective testing. This means that all had

21

Page 25: Experimental Foods Research Paper

similar volumes (density and 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 Condition Mean Standard Deviation P-significanceMouthfeel Peanut Butter

Cashew ButterSoy ButterNutella

-.26667.800001.33333

-.41500.41500.41500

-.917.256.025

Color Peanut ButterCashew ButterSoy ButterNutella

-.60000-.06667-2.40000

-.24037.24037.24037

-.099.992.000

Taste Peanut ButterCashew ButterSoy ButterNutella

--1.40000-1.20000-1.3333

-.33166.33166.33166

-.003.011.005

Note: SPSS was used to create averages from three consecutive weeks of data for each sensory evaluation. A p-

value of <.05 represents discrepancies between judges.

Table 2 Table of Means for Dependent Variables: Sensory Evaluation

Discussion

SPSS Data- Judges

22

Page 26: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 the p-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 an insignificant difference of between the control and the

cashew butter variable (p=0.917). Therefore, cashew butter would be an acceptable substitute

for peanut butter in regards to mouth feel. On the other hand, also for mouth feel, there was a

significant difference between the control and the Nutella hazelnut spread variable (p=0.025),

23

Page 27: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 an insignificant 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 a very 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.

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

24

Page 28: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

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

25

Page 29: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

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

26

Page 30: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 this

experiment as each participant was only provided a limited amount of space to prepare their

products.

27

Page 31: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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.

Conclusion

28

Page 32: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

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.

29

Page 33: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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.

References

30

Page 34: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 (Anacardium

occidentale). 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), 1218-

1220.

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

Page 35: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Dooper, M. W., Plassen, C., Holden, L., Moen, L. H., Namork, E., & Egaas, E. (2008). Antibody

binding to hazelnut (Corylus avellana) 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

Page 36: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Le, T. M., Lindner, T. M., Pasmans, S. G., Guikers, C. H., van Hoffen, E. E., Bruijnzeel-

Koomen, 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

Page 37: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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 ( Arachis hypogaea) and hazelnut ( Corylus avellana) cross-

contamination 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

Page 38: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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

southern africa. 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 cross-

reacts 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

Page 39: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Appendix ANutrient Analysis (USDA Handbook 8)

Peanut Butter Cookies-Control-(Peanut Butter)

AP flour

Peanut

butter

Honey

Sugar Butter or margarine

Egg Baking powde

r

Total Total/Serving

Amount needed

140.625g

129 g 111.87 g

50 g 56.75 g 50 g 1.15 g 549.395g

30.522 g

Value per amountEnergy (kcal) 512

kcal759 kcal

340 kcal

194 kcal

407 kcal 72 kcal

1 kcal 2285 kcal

126.94 kcal

Protein 14.53 g 32.37 g

0.34 g 0 g 0.48 g 6.28 g

0 g 54 g 3 g

Total lipid 1.38 g 65.00 g

0 g 0 g 46.03 g 4.75 g

0 g 117.16 g

6.51 g

Saturated fat 0.218 g 13.558 g

0 g 0 g 29.151 g 1.563 g

0 g 44.49 g

2.47 g

Monounsaturated fat

0.122 g 31.239 g

0 g 0 g 11.929 g 1.829 g

0 g 45.119 g

2.51 g

Polyunsaturated fat

0.581 g 18.268 g

0 g 0 g 1.727 g 0.956 g

0 g 21.532 g

1.196 g

CHO by difference

107.31 g

25.23 g

92.18 g

49.99 g

0.03 g 0.36 g

0.32 g 275.42 g

15.30 g

Fiber 3.8 g 7.7 g 0.2 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 11.7 g 0.65 gSugars, total 0.39 g 11.89

g91.87 g

49.90 g

0.03 g 0.18 g

0 g 154.26 g

8.57 g

Sucrose 0 g 11.20 g

1.00 g 49.90 g

0 g 0 g 0 g 62.1 g 3.45 g

Glucose 0 g 0.70 g 39.99 g

0 g 0 g 0.18 g

0 g 40.87 g

2.27 g

Fructose 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

2.54 g

Lactose 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gMaltose 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 1.16 g 0.06 gGalactose 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0.19 gStarch 0 g 6.18 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 6.18 g 0.34 gCalcium 21 mg 55 mg 7 mg 0 mg 14 mg 28

mg68 mg 193

mg10.72 mg

Iron 6.53 mg 2.41 mg

0.47 mg

0.03 mg

0.01 mg 0.88 mg

0.13 mg

10.46 mg

0.58 mg

Magnesium 31 mg 199 mg

2 mg 0 mg 1 mg 6 mg

0 mg 239 mg

13.27 mg

Phosphorus 152 mg 462 mg

4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 99 mg

25 mg 756 mg

42 mg

Potassium 150 mg 837 mg

58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 69 mg

0 mg 1129 mg

62.72 mg

Sodium 3 mg 592 mg

4 mg 0 mg 405 mg 71 mg

122 mg 1197 mg

66.5 mg

Zinc 0.98 mg 3.75 mg

0.25 mg

0.01 mg

0.05 mg 0.65 mg

0 mg 5.69 mg

0.32 mg

Copper 0.203 mg

0.610 mg

0.040 mg

0.004 mg

0 mg 0.036 mg

0 mg 0.893 mg

0.049 mg

Manganese 0.682 mg

1.891 mg

0.089 mg

0.002 mg

0 mg 0.014 mg

0 mg 2.678 mg

0.149 mg

36

Page 40: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Selenium 47.7 mcg

7.2 mcg

0.9 mcg

0.3 mcg

0.6 mcg 15.3 mcg

0 mcg 72 mcg

4 mcg

Vitamin C 0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mg

0 mg 0 mg 0 mg

0 mg 0.6 mg

0.03 mg

Thiamin 1.104 mg

0.094 mg

0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.020 mg

0 mg 1.221 mg

0.068 mg

Riboflavin 0.695 mg

0.135 mg

0.043 mg

0.009 mg

0.019 mg 0.229 mg

0 mg 1.13 mg

0.06 mg

Niacin 8.303 mg

17.290 mg

0.135 mg

0 mg 0.024 mg 0.037 mg

0 mg 25.789 mg

1.43 mg

Pantothenic acid

0.616 mg

1.367 mg

0.076 mg

0 mg 0.062 mg 0.766 mg

0 mg 2.887 mg

0.160 mg

Vitamin B-6 0.062 mg

0.700 mg

0.027 mg

0 mg 0.002 mg 0.085 mg

0 mg 0.876 mg

0.049 mg

Folate, total 257 mcg

95 mcg

2 mcg 0 mcg 2 mcg 24 mcg

0 mcg 380 mcg

21.11 mcg

Vitamin B-12 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0.45 mcg

0 mcg 0.55 mcg

0.03 mcg

Vitamin A, IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 270 IU

0 IU 1688 IU

93.78 IU

Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)

0.08 mg 11.60 mg

0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0.53 mg

0 mg 13.53 mg

0.75 mg

Vitamin D 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU 41 IU

0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU

Vitamin K 0.4 mcg 0.8 mcg

0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 0.1 mcg

0 mcg 5.3 mcg

0.29 mcg

Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 1-(Cashew Butter)

AP flour Cashew butter

Honey Sugar Butter or margarin

e

Egg Baking powder

Total Total/Serving

Amount needed

140.625g 123 g 111.87 g

50 g 56.75 g 50 g

1.15 g 533.395 g

29.633 g

Value per amountEnergy (kcal)

512 kcal 751 kcal 340 kcal

194 kcal

407 kcal 72 kcal

1 kcal 2277 kcal

126.5 kcal

Protein 14.53 g 22.48 g 0.34 g 0 g 0.48 g 6.28 g

0 g 44.11 g

2.45 g

Total lipid 1.38 g 63.24 g 0 g 0 g 46.03 g 4.75 g

0 g 115.4 g

6.41 g

Saturated fat

0.218 g 12.497 g 0 g 0 g 29.151 g 1.563 g

0 g 43.429 g

2.41 g

Monounsaturated fat

0.122 g 37.276 g 0 g 0 g 11.929 g 1.829 g

0 g 51.156 g

2.842 g

Polyunsaturated fat

0.581 g 10.693 g 0 g 0 g 1.727 g 0.956 g

0 g 13.957 g

0.775 g

CHO by difference

107.31 g 35.29 g 92.18 g 49.99 g

0.03 g 0.36 g

0.32 g 285.48 g

15.86 g

Fiber 3.8 g 2.6 g 0.2 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 6.6 g 0.36 g

37

Page 41: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Sugars, total

0.39 g 6.41 g 91.87 g 49.90 g

0.03 g 0.18 g

0 g 148.78 g

8.27 g

Sucrose 0 g 0 g 1.00 g 49.90 g

0 g 0 g 0 g 50.9 g 2.83 g

Glucose 0 g 0 g 39.99 g 0 g 0 g 0.18 g

0 g 40.17 g

2.23 g

Fructose 0 g 0 g 45.80 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

2.54 g

Lactose 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gMaltose 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0.09 gGalactose 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0.19 gStarch 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gCalcium 21 mg 55 mg 7 mg 0 mg 14 mg 28

mg68 mg 193

mg10.72 mg

Iron 6.53 mg 6.44 mg 0.47 mg

0.03 mg

0.01 mg 0.88 mg

0.13 mg 14.49 mg

0.805 mg

Magnesium

31 mg 330 mg 2 mg 0 mg 1 mg 6 mg

0 mg 370 mg

20.56 mg

Phosphorus

152 mg 585 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 99 mg

25 mg 879 mg

48.8 mg

Potassium 150 mg 699 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 69 mg

0 mg 991 mg

55.05 mg

Sodium 3 mg 786 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg 71 mg

122 mg 1391 mg

77.27 mg

Zinc 0.98 mg 6.60 mg 0.25 mg

0.01 mg

0.05 mg 0.65 mg

0 mg 8.54 mg

0.47 mg

Copper 0.203 mg 2.803 mg 0.040 mg

0.004 mg

0 mg 0.036 mg

0 mg 3.086 mg

0.171 mg

Manganese

0.682 mg 1.043 mg 0.089 mg

0.002 mg

0 mg 0.014 mg

0 mg 1.83 mg

0.10 mg

Selenium 47.7 mcg 14.7 mcg 0.9 mcg

0.3 mcg

0.6 mcg 15.3 mcg

0 mcg 79.5 mcg

4.42 mcg

Vitamin C 0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg

0 mg 0.6 mg

0.03 mg

Thiamin 1.104 mg 0.399 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.020 mg

0 mg 1.526 mg

0.083 mg

Riboflavin 0.695 mg 0.239 mg 0.043 mg

0.009 mg

0.019 mg 0.229 mg

0 mg 1.234 mg

0.069 mg

Niacin 8.303 mg 2.047 mg 0.135 mg

0 mg 0.024 mg 0.037 mg

0 mg 10.546 mg

0.586 mg

Pantothenic acid

0.616 mg 1.537 mg 0.076 mg

0 mg 0.062 mg 0.766 mg

0 mg 3.057 mg

0.169 mg

Vitamin B-6

0.062 mg 0.323 mg 0.027 mg

0 mg 0.002 mg 0.085 mg

0 mg 0.499 mg

0.028 mg

Folate, total

257 mcg 87 mcg 2 mcg 0 mcg 2 mcg 24 mcg

0 mcg 372 mcg

20.67 mcg

Vitamin B-12

0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0.45 mcg

0 mcg 0.55 mcg

0.03 mcg

Vitamin A, IU

0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 270 IU

0 IU 1688 IU

93.78 IU

Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)

0.08 mg 1.18 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0.53 mg

0 mg 3.11 mg

0.17 mg

38

Page 42: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Vitamin D 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU 41 IU

0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU

Vitamin K 0.4 mcg 44.4 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 0.1 mcg

0 mcg 48.9 mcg

2.72 mcg

Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 2-(Soy Butter)

AP flour

Soy butter

Honey Sugar Butter or margarine

Egg Baking powder

Total Total/Serving

Amount needed

140.625g

128 g 111.87 g

50 g 56.75 g 50 g 1.15 g 538.395 g

29.911 g

Value per amountEnergy (kcal)

512 kcal

680 kcal

340 kcal

194 kcal

407 kcal 72 kcal

1 kcal 2206 kcal

122.56 kcal

Protein 14.53 g

28 g 0.34 g 0 g 0.48 g 6.28 g

0 g 49.63 g

2.76 g

Total lipid 1.38 g 44 g 0 g 0 g 46.03 g 4.75 g

0 g 96.16 g

5.34 g

Saturated fat

0.218 g

6 g 0 g 0 g 29.151 g 1.563 g

0 g 36.932 g

2.022 g

Monounsaturated fat

0.122 g

23.04 g

0 g 0 g 11.929 g 1.829 g

0 g 36.92 g

2.05 g

Polyunsaturated fat

0.581 g

28.4 g 0 g 0 g 1.727 g 0.956 g

0 g 31.664 g

1.759 g

CHO by difference

107.31 g

40 g 92.18 g

49.99 g

0.03 g 0.36 g

0.32 g 290.19 g

16.12 g

Fiber 3.8 g 12 g 0.2 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 16 g 0.89 gSugars, total

0.39 g 12 g 91.87 g

49.90 g

0.03 g 0.18 g

0 g 154.37 g

8.58 g

Sucrose 0 g 0 g 1.00 g 49.90 g

0 g 0 g 0 g 50.90 g

2.83 g

Glucose 0 g 0 g 39.99 g

0 g 0 g 0.18 g

0 g 40.17 g

2.23 g

Fructose 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

2.54 g

Lactose 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gMaltose 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0.09 gGalactose 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0.19 gStarch 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gCalcium 21 mg 240

mg7 mg 0 mg 14 mg 28

mg68 mg 378

mg21 mg

Iron 6.53 mg

80 mg 0.47 mg

0.03 mg

0.01 mg 0.88 mg

0.13 mg 88.05 mg

4.89 mg

Magnesium

31 mg 0 mg 2 mg 0 mg 1 mg 6 mg

0 mg 40 mg 2.22 mg

Phosphorus

152 mg

0 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 99 mg

25 mg 294 mg

16.33 mg

Potassium 150 mg

0 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 69 mg

0 mg 292 mg

16.22 mg

Sodium 3 mg 560 mg

4 mg 0 mg 405 mg 71 mg

122 mg 1165 mg

64.72 mg

Zinc 0.98 mg

0 mg 0.25 mg

0.01 mg

0.05 mg 0.65 mg

0 mg 1.94 mg

0.11 mg

Copper 0.203 0 mg 0.040 0.004 0 mg 0.03 0 mg 0.283 0.02 mg

39

Page 43: Experimental Foods Research Paper

mg mg mg 6 mg

mg

Manganese

0.682 mg

0 mg 0.089 mg

0.002 mg

0 mg 0.014 mg

0 mg 0.787 mg

0.04 mg

Selenium 47.7 mcg

0 mcg 0.9 mcg

0.3 mcg

0.6 mcg 15.3 mcg

0 mcg 64.8 mcg

3.6 mcg

Vitamin C 0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg

0 mg 0.6 mg 0.03 mg

Thiamin 1.104 mg

0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.020 mg

0 mg 1.127 mg

0.063 mg

Riboflavin 0.695 mg

0 mg 0.043 mg

0.009 mg

0.019 mg 0.229 mg

0 mg 0.995 mg

0.055 mg

Niacin 8.303 mg

0 mg 0.135 mg

0 mg 0.024 mg 0.037 mg

0 mg 8.499 mg

0.472 mg

Pantothenic acid

0.616 mg

0 mg 0.076 mg

0 mg 0.062 mg 0.766 mg

0 mg 1.52 mg

0.08 mg

Vitamin B-6

0.062 mg

0 mg 0.027 mg

0 mg 0.002 mg 0.085 mg

0 mg 0.176 mg

0.009 mg

Folate, total

257 mcg

0 mcg 2 mcg 0 mg 2 mcg 24 mcg

0 mcg 285 mcg

15.83 mcg

Vitamin B-12

0 mcg 0 mg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0.45 mcg

0 mcg 0.50 mcg

0.03 mcg

Vitamin A, IU

0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 270 IU

0 IU 1688 IU

93.78 IU

Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)

0.08 mg

0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0.53 mg

0 mg 1.93 mg

0.11 mg

Vitamin D 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU 41 IU

0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU

Vitamin K 0.4 mcg

0 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 0.1 mcg

0 mcg 4.5 mcg

0.25 mcg

Peanut Butter Cookies-Variable 3-(Nutella)

AP flour

Nutella Honey Sugar Butter or margarine

Egg Baking powder

Total Total/Serving

Amount needed

140.625g

148 g 111.87 g

50 g 56.75 g 50 g 1.15 g 513.395 g

28.52 g

Value per amountEnergy (kcal)

512 kcal 801 kcal 340 kcal

194 kcal

407 kcal 72 kcal

1 kcal 2327 kcal

129.28 kcal

Protein 14.53 g 8.01 g 0.34 g 0 g 0.48 g 6.28 g

0 g 29.64 g

1.65 g

Total lipid

1.38 g 44.00 g 0 g 0 g 46.03 g 4.75 g

0 g 96.16 g

5.34 g

Saturate 0.218 g 42.066 g 0 g 0 g 29.151 g 1.56 0 g 72.99 4.055 g

40

Page 44: Experimental Foods Research Paper

d fat 3 g 8 gMonounsaturated fat

0.122 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 11.929 g 1.829 g

0 g 13.88 g

0.77 g

Polyunsaturated fat

0.581 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 1.727 g 0.956 g

0 g 3.264 g

0.181 g

CHO by difference

107.31 g

92.00 g 92.18 g 49.99 g 0.03 g 0.36 g

0.32 g 342.19 g

19.01 g

Fiber 3.8 g 8.0 g 0.2 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 12 g 0.6 gSugars, total

0.39 g 79.99 g 91.87 g 49.90 g 0.03 g 0.18 g

0 g 222.36 g

12.35 g

Sucrose 0 g 0 g 1.00 g 49.90 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 50.90 g

2.83 g

Glucose 0 g 0 g 39.99 g 0 g 0 g 0.18 g

0 g 40.17 g

2.23 g

Fructose 0 g 0 g 45.80 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 45.80 g

2.54 g

Lactose 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gMaltose 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 1.61 g 0.09 gGalactose

0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 3.47 g 0.19 g

Starch 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 gCalcium 21 mg 160 mg 7 mg 0 mg 14 mg 28

mg68 mg 298

mg16.56 mg

Iron 6.53 mg 6.48 mg 0.47 mg

0.03 mg

0.01 mg 0.88 mg

0.13 mg 14.53 mg

0.81 mg

Magnesium

31 mg 95 mg 2 mg 0 mg 1 mg 6 mg

0 mg 135 mg

7.5 mg

Phosphorus

152 mg 225 mg 4 mg 0 mg 14 mg 99 mg

25 mg 519 mg

28.83 mg

Potassium

150 mg 602 mg 58 mg 1 mg 14 mg 69 mg

0 mg 894 mg

49.67 mg

Sodium 3 mg 61 mg 4 mg 0 mg 405 mg 71 mg

122 mg 666 mg

37 mg

Zinc 0.98 mg 1.57 mg 0.25 mg

0.01 mg

0.05 mg 0.65 mg

0 mg 3.51 mg

0.19 mg

Copper 0.203 mg

0.694 mg 0.040 mg

0.004 mg

0 mg 0.036 mg

0 mg 0.977 mg

0.054 mg

Manganese

0.682 mg

1.285 mg 0.089 mg

0.002 mg

0 mg 0.014 mg

0 mg 2.072 mg

0.115 mg

Selenium

47.7 mcg

5.3 mcg 0.9 mcg

0.3 mcg

0.6 mcg 15.3 mcg

0 mcg 70.1 mcg

3.89 mcg

Vitamin C

0 mg 0 mg 0.6 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg

0 mg 0.6 mg

0.03 mg

Thiamin 1.104 mg

0.126 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0.003 mg 0.020 mg

0 mg 1.253 mg

0.069 mg

Riboflavin

0.695 mg

0.252 mg 0.043 mg

0.009 mg

0.019 mg 0.229 mg

0 mg 1.247 mg

0.069 mg

Niacin 8.303 0.632 mg 0.135 0 mg 0.024 mg 0.03 0 mg 9.131 0.507 mg

41

Page 45: Experimental Foods Research Paper

mg mg 7 mg

mg

Pantothenic acid

0.616 mg

0.528 mg 0.076 mg

0 mg 0.062 mg 0.766 mg

0 mg 2.048 mg

0.114 mg

Vitamin B-6

0.062 mg

0.121 mg 0.027 mg

0 mg 0.002 mg 0.085 mg

0 mg 0.297 mg

0.0165 mg

Folate, total

257 mcg 21 mcg 2 mcg 0 mg 2 mcg 24 mcg

0 mcg 306 mcg

17 mcg

Vitamin B-12

0 mcg 0.40 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 0.10 mcg 0.45 mcg

0 mcg 0.95 mcg

0.05 mcg

Vitamin A, IU

0 IU 4 IU 0 IU 0 IU 1418 IU 270 IU

0 IU 1692 IU

94 IU

Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)

0.08 mg 7.34 mg 0 mg 0 mg 1.32 mg 0.53 mg

0 mg 9.27 mg

0.515 mg

Vitamin D

0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 0 IU 34 IU 41 IU

0 IU 75 IU 4.17 IU

Vitamin K

0.4 mcg 2.8 mcg 0 mcg 0 mcg 4.0 mcg 0.1 mcg

0 mcg 7.3 mcg

0.41 mcg

42

Page 46: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Appendix BOriginal 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 1/4 teaspoon 1.15 grams

Note: The original recipe was converted from English measurements to Metric measurements.

Table 1 U.S. measurements of ingredients converted to metric units

43

Page 47: Experimental Foods Research Paper

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.

Appendix COfficial Market Order

Recipe: Peanut Butter Cookies

Amount Ingredient

140.63 g All-purpose flour129 g Creamy peanut butter*111.87 g Honey50 g Sugar56.75 g Butter or margarine50g Eggs, whole1.15 g Double-actin baking powderVariables (* = control ingredient)123 g Cashew butter128 g Soy butter148 g Nutella

Market Order Sheet

Ingredient Amount NeededProduceMeats/seafoodCreamy peanut butter 387 gCashew butter 369 g

44

Page 48: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Soy butter 384 gNutella 444 gCold/Frozen/Dairy/ BreadButter or margarine, salted 681 gEggs, large 600 gBaking/CannedAll-purpose flour 1687.56 gHoney 1342.44 gSugar 600 gDouble-acting baking powder 13.8 g

Appendix D

SPSS output

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Sensory1Ave Between Groups 1.189 4 .297 .407 .801

Within Groups 10.944 15 .730

Total 12.133 19

Sensory2Ave Between Groups .522 4 .131 .070 .990

Within Groups 28.056 15 1.870

Total 28.578 19

Sensory3Ave Between Groups 1.644 4 .411 .663 .627

Within Groups 9.306 15 .620

Total 10.950 19

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

Dependent Variable (I) judge (J) judge

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Sensory1Ave 1 2 -.08333 .60400 1.000 -1.9484 1.7818

3 -.16667 .60400 .999 -2.0318 1.6984

45

Page 49: Experimental Foods Research Paper

4 .25000 .60400 .993 -1.6151 2.1151

5 -.50000 .60400 .918 -2.3651 1.3651

2 1 .08333 .60400 1.000 -1.7818 1.9484

3 -.08333 .60400 1.000 -1.9484 1.7818

4 .33333 .60400 .980 -1.5318 2.1984

5 -.41667 .60400 .956 -2.2818 1.4484

3 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 -.33333 .60400 .980 -2.1984 1.5318

4 1 -.25000 .60400 .993 -2.1151 1.6151

2 -.33333 .60400 .980 -2.1984 1.5318

3 -.41667 .60400 .956 -2.2818 1.4484

5 -.75000 .60400 .728 -2.6151 1.1151

5 1 .50000 .60400 .918 -1.3651 2.3651

2 .41667 .60400 .956 -1.4484 2.2818

3 .33333 .60400 .980 -1.5318 2.1984

4 .75000 .60400 .728 -1.1151 2.6151

Sensory2Ave 1 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

5 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862

2 1 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362

3 .00000 .96705 1.000 -2.9862 2.9862

4 -.41667 .96705 .992 -3.4028 2.5695

5 -.25000 .96705 .999 -3.2362 2.7362

3 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

4 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

5 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

46

Page 50: Experimental Foods Research Paper

4 -.16667 .96705 1.000 -3.1528 2.8195

Sensory3Ave 1 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

2 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 .83333 .55694 .580 -.8865 2.5531

3 1 .33333 .55694 .973 -1.3865 2.0531

2 -.33333 .55694 .973 -2.0531 1.3865

4 .16667 .55694 .998 -1.5531 1.8865

5 .50000 .55694 .893 -1.2198 2.2198

4 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

5 1 -.16667 .55694 .998 -1.8865 1.5531

2 -.83333 .55694 .580 -2.5531 .8865

3 -.50000 .55694 .893 -2.2198 1.2198

4 -.33333 .55694 .973 -2.0531 1.3865

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Sensory1Ave Between Groups 5.244 3 1.748 4.060 .025

Within Groups 6.889 16 .431

Total 12.133 19

Sensory2Ave Between Groups 26.267 3 8.756 60.615 .000

Within Groups 2.311 16 .144

Total 28.578 19

Sensory3Ave Between Groups 6.550 3 2.183 7.939 .002

Within Groups 4.400 16 .275

Total 10.950 19

47

Page 51: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

Dependent

Variable (I) Fiber (J) Fiber

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Sensory1Ave Control-Peanut

Butter

Cashew Butter .26667 .41500 .917 -.9206 1.4540

Soy Butter .80000 .41500 .256 -.3873 1.9873

Nutella 1.33333* .41500 .025 .1460 2.5206

Cashew Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

-.26667 .41500 .917 -1.4540 .9206

Soy Butter .53333 .41500 .585 -.6540 1.7206

Nutella 1.06667 .41500 .086 -.1206 2.2540

Soy Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

-.80000 .41500 .256 -1.9873 .3873

Cashew Butter -.53333 .41500 .585 -1.7206 .6540

Nutella .53333 .41500 .585 -.6540 1.7206

Nutella Control-Peanut

Butter

-1.33333* .41500 .025 -2.5206 -.1460

Cashew Butter -1.06667 .41500 .086 -2.2540 .1206

Soy Butter -.53333 .41500 .585 -1.7206 .6540

Sensory2Ave Control-Peanut

Butter

Cashew Butter .60000 .24037 .099 -.0877 1.2877

Soy Butter -.06667 .24037 .992 -.7544 .6210

Nutella -2.40000* .24037 .000 -3.0877 -1.7123

Cashew Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

-.60000 .24037 .099 -1.2877 .0877

Soy Butter -.66667 .24037 .059 -1.3544 .0210

Nutella -3.00000* .24037 .000 -3.6877 -2.3123

Soy Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

.06667 .24037 .992 -.6210 .7544

Cashew Butter .66667 .24037 .059 -.0210 1.3544

Nutella -2.33333* .24037 .000 -3.0210 -1.6456

Nutella Control-Peanut

Butter

2.40000* .24037 .000 1.7123 3.0877

48

Page 52: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Cashew Butter 3.00000* .24037 .000 2.3123 3.6877

Soy Butter 2.33333* .24037 .000 1.6456 3.0210

Sensory3Ave Control-Peanut

Butter

Cashew Butter -1.40000* .33166 .003 -2.3489 -.4511

Soy Butter -1.20000* .33166 .011 -2.1489 -.2511

Nutella -1.33333* .33166 .005 -2.2822 -.3844

Cashew Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

1.40000* .33166 .003 .4511 2.3489

Soy Butter .20000 .33166 .930 -.7489 1.1489

Nutella .06667 .33166 .997 -.8822 1.0156

Soy Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

1.20000* .33166 .011 .2511 2.1489

Cashew Butter -.20000 .33166 .930 -1.1489 .7489

Nutella -.13333 .33166 .977 -1.0822 .8156

Nutella Control-Peanut

Butter

1.33333* .33166 .005 .3844 2.2822

Cashew Butter -.06667 .33166 .997 -1.0156 .8822

Soy Butter .13333 .33166 .977 -.8156 1.0822

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Volumeter Between Groups 241.667 3 80.556 .806 .525

Within Groups 800.000 8 100.000

Total 1041.667 11

Ink blot Between Groups .294 3 .098 1.879 .212

Within Groups .417 8 .052

Total .711 11

49

Page 53: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

Dependent

Variable (I) Fiber (J) Fiber

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Volumeter Control-Peanut

Butter

Cashew Butter 8.33333 8.16497 .743 -17.8138 34.4804

Soy Butter -1.66667 8.16497 .997 -27.8138 24.4804

Nutella -3.33333 8.16497 .976 -29.4804 22.8138

Cashew Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

-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

Soy Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

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

Nutella Control-Peanut

Butter

3.33333 8.16497 .976 -22.8138 29.4804

Cashew Butter 11.66667 8.16497 .517 -14.4804 37.8138

Soy Butter 1.66667 8.16497 .997 -24.4804 27.8138

Ink blot Control-Peanut

Butter

Cashew Butter -.20200 .18643 .709 -.7990 .3950

Soy Butter -.04800 .18643 .994 -.6450 .5490

Nutella .23433 .18643 .612 -.3627 .8314

Cashew Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

.20200 .18643 .709 -.3950 .7990

Soy Butter .15400 .18643 .841 -.4430 .7510

Nutella .43633 .18643 .168 -.1607 1.0334

Soy Butter Control-Peanut

Butter

.04800 .18643 .994 -.5490 .6450

Cashew Butter -.15400 .18643 .841 -.7510 .4430

Nutella .28233 .18643 .473 -.3147 .8794

50

Page 54: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Nutella Control-Peanut

Butter

-.23433 .18643 .612 -.8314 .3627

Cashew Butter -.43633 .18643 .168 -1.0334 .1607

Soy Butter -.28233 .18643 .473 -.8794 .3147

Appendix EPhotographs

Figure 2. This figure shows the scale that was used to weigh each ingredient during cookie preparation.

Photograph 1

51

Page 55: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 3: This figure shows the plastic boat used to weigh each ingredient.

Photograph 3

Figure 4: This figure shows the amount of all-purpose flour usedin the recipes.

Photograph 4

52

Page 56: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 5: This figure shows the amount of honey used in each recipe.

Photograph 5

Figure 6: This figure shows the amount of sugar used in the recipes.

Photograph 6

53

Page 57: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 7: This figures shows the amount of butter used in the eachrecipe after it was softened.

Photograph 7

Figure 8: This figure shows the amount of double-acting bakingpowder used in each recipe.

Photograph 8

54

Page 58: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 9: This figure shows the amount of creamy peanut butter used in the control recipe. Photograph 9

Figure 10: This figure shows the amount of cashew butter used in place of peanut butter in the variable 1 recipe.

Photograph 10

55

Page 59: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 11: This figure shows the amount of soy butter used in place of peanut butter in the variable 2 recipe.

Photograph 11

Figure 12: This figure shows the amount of Nutella hazelnut spread used in the variable 3 recipe.

Photograph 12

56

Page 60: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 13: This figure shows the amount of egg used in each recipe.

Photograph 13

Figure 14: This figure shows how the baking sheet was prepared prior to baking.

Photograph 14

57

Page 61: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 15: This figure shows the plate that was presented to the judgesduring sensory evaluations.

Photograph 15

Figure 16: This figure shows the volumeter used to determine the volume of a cookie from each batch.

Photograph 16

58

Page 62: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Figure 17: This figure shows the ink blot tests used to determine cell size in a cookie from each batch.

Photograph 17

Appendix F

Bar Graphs

Bar Graph 1

Density

Week 1 Week 2 Week 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

ControlCashew butterSoy butterNutella

Week

gram

s/ce

ntim

eter

s3

59

Page 63: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Note: This graph depicts the density of each variable obtained from data collected using the volumeter over three consecutive weeks.

Bar Graph 1 Density

Bar Graph 2

Specific Volume

Week 1 Week 2 Week 30

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

ControlCashew butterSoy butterNutella

Week

centi

met

ers3

/gra

ms

Note: This graph depicts the specific volume of each variable obtained from data collected

using the volumeter over three consecutive weeks.

60

Page 64: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Bar Graph 2 Specific Volume

Bar Graph 3

Ink Blot-cell size

Week 1 Week 2 Week 30

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

ControlCashew butterSoy butterNutella

Week

centi

met

ers

Note: This chart depicts cell size of each variable obtained from data collected using ink blot tests over three consecutive weeks.

61

Page 65: Experimental Foods Research Paper

Bar Graph 3 Ink Blot-cell size

62