Research ArticleReceived: 30 November 2010 Revised: 17 october 2011 Accepted: 5 March 2012 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.5691

Quality characteristics of low-fat chickennuggets: effect of common salt replacementand added bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria L.)Arun Kumar Verma,∗ Brahma Deo Sharma and Rituparna Banerjee

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is growing demand for the meat products having healthier characteristics. In an endeavour to developlow-salt, low-fat and high-fibre chicken nuggets an investigation was carried out to observe the effects of partial replacement(40%) of sodium chloride in pre-standardised low-fat chicken nuggets (Control, 20 g kg−1 NaCl) with a salt substitute blend aswell as incorporation of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria L.) in the resulting low-salt, low-fat products at three different levels,i.e. 50, 75 and 100 g kg−1 (Treatments, 12 g kg−1 NaCl) on the various quality attributes.

RESULTS: Sodium chloride replacement decreased (P < 0.01) emulsion and product pH, cooking yield, moisture, ash, yellowness,hue value and textural properties. pH values, moisture and dietary fibre increased (P < 0.01) while cooking yield, % protein,textural properties and total cholesterol were decreased with the incorporation of bottle gourd in low-salt, low-fat nuggets.Sensory attributes of the product were not affected with salt replacement; however, inclusion of bottle gourd at higher levelsdecreased (P < 0.05) flavour and texture scores.

CONCLUSION: The results suggest that low-salt, low-fat and high-fibre chicken nuggets can be developed with the use of a saltsubstitute blend and bottle gourd without affecting their acceptability.c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: physicochemical properties; texture profile analysis; bottle gourd; chicken nuggets

INTRODUCTIONA number of observational studies have supported an associationof increased risk of morbidity and mortality from cardiovasculardiseases with increased sodium intake.1 The current recommenda-tion of the World Health Organization is to reduce sodium intaketo 2 g day−1,2 the average daily common salt intake form foodsin India is 10 g day−1 person−1.3 Consumption of meat and meatproducts also contributes a significant amount of sodium chloridein the daily diet. Based on the scientific information, the meatindustry and consumers have become more aware of the possiblerelationship between sodium intake and hypertension, resultingin increased demands for a variety of reduced-salt meat productsin many countries. On the other hand, the dietary fibre contentin meat and meat products is low and regular consumption ofmeat products is associated with various health disorders suchas colon cancer, obesity and cardiovascular diseases.4,5 Variousreports have revealed that intake of fibre reduces the risk of suchdiseases.6,7 Addition of fibre to meat products is also techno-logically advantageous since it retains water, decreases cookinglosses, has a neutral flavour and has previously been used invarious emulsion-based meat products.8,9

Common salt is an essential ingredient in processed meatproducts, contributing to the water-holding capacity, colour, fat-binding properties and flavour. Additionally, salt decreases wateractivity, leading to increased shelf life. A mere reduction of saltcontent in the formulation has not proved to be a suitable approachfor the development of low-salt meat products. There is a need for

various salt substitutes or other ingredients as well as an alterationin processing techniques to produce well-accepted meat products.Several studies state that potassium chloride and potassium lactatecould be used as partial substitutes of NaCl in meat products.10

Potassium chloride has similar functional properties to NaCl, but itsaddition to meat products is mainly limited by its bitter taste.11 Anattempt to reduce the sodium content in meat products has beenmade by various workers in frankfurters,12 fermented sausages13

and ground pork patties.14

A variety of dietary fibre ingredients, such as oat fibre,8

peach fibre,15 apple pulp,16 oat bran,17 rice bran,18 cereal andfruit fibres,19 have been used in meat products to replace fatas well as to enrich with dietary fibre. Quality characteristicsand storage stability of low-fat functional chicken nuggets withadded salt substitute blends and high-fibre ingredients in variouscombinations have been reported by Verma et al.20

Vegetables are usually used as a source of plant protein inthe human diet. However, dietary fibre is also present as oneof the diet’s main constituents.21 Epidemiological studies havepointed out that consumption of fruits and vegetables imparts

∗ Correspondence to: Arun Kumar Verma, Goat Products Technology Lab,Central Institute for Research on Goats, Makhdoom, Farah, Mathura, U.P.,281 122, India. E-mail: arun.lpt2003@gmail.com

Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute,Izatnagar, Bareilly, U.P., 243 122, India

J Sci Food Agric (2012) www.soci.org c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry

www.soci.org AK Verma, BD Sharma, R Banerjee

health benefits, e.g. reduced risk of coronary heart disease andstroke, as well as certain types of cancer. Apart from dietary fibre,these health benefits are also attributed to organic micronutrientssuch as carotenoids, polyphenolics, tocopherols, vitamin C etc.22

and incorporation of vegetables such as bottle gourd in meatproducts would definitely provide such healthy ingredients.However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reportsin the literature regarding the use of vegetables, in particularbottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria L.) solely as a source of fibrein meat products. Therefore, the present study was undertakento develop low-salt, low-fat and high-fibre functional chickennuggets through replacement of sodium chloride and inclusion ofbottle gourd in the pre-standardised low-fat chicken nuggets andobserve their effect on the physicochemical parameters, colourvalues, and textural, lipid and sensory properties of the product.

MATERIALS AND METHODSRaw materialsDressed chickens, procured from Central Avian Research Institute,Izatnagar, were packed in clean low density polyethylene bagsand quickly brought to the laboratory of the Livestock ProductsTechnology Division. After careful deboning, meat was packagedin polyethylene bags and stored frozen at −18◦ C until furtheruse. Other additives used were sodium chloride (Tata ChemicalsLtd, Mumbai, India), a salt substitute blend composed ofpotassium chloride (2.0 g kg−1), citric acid (0.3 g kg−1), tartaric acid(0.3 g kg−1) and sucrose (10.0 g kg−1) (Qualigens Fine Chemicals,Mumbai, India), sodium hexametaphosphate (Shital Enterprise,Ahmedabad, India), sodium nitrite (Merck Specialities Private Ltd,Mumbai, India), refined sunflower oil (Agro Tech Foods Ltd, NewDelhi, India), carrageenan, sodium alginate (CDH Private Ltd, NewDelhi, India), liquid egg white, bottle gourd, condiments (onionand garlic paste), and refined wheat flour and spice mix. Freshbottle gourd was shredded and blanched for 7 min at 80 ◦C andthen ground to the consistency of fine paste (moisture, 92.65%fat, 0.17%; protein, 0.85%; ash, 0.74%; and dietary fibre, 1.12%).The formulation of Control and treated nuggets having partiallyreplaced common salt and different levels of bottle gourd is givenin Table 1. In India, it is a common practice to incorporate sodiumnitrite in emulsion-based meat products, e.g. chicken nuggets, toachieve positive effects on organoleptic characteristics.

Detailed studyIn the present study 40% common salt of pre-standardised low-fat chicken nuggets (Control, 20 g kg−1 NaCl), was substitutedby the salt substitute blend. In the resultant low-salt, low-fatproduct (Treatment I), bottle gourd was incorporated as a sourceof dietary fibre at three different levels, i.e. 50 (Treatment II),75 (Treatment III) and 100 g kg−1 (Treatment IV). These low-salt, low-fat (Treatment I) and low-salt, low-fat and high-fibrechicken nuggets (Treatments II, III and IV) were evaluated forvarious physicochemical, colour, textural, lipid profile and sensoryproperties against pre-standardised low-fat chicken nuggets(Control).

Product processingChicken meat was partially thawed for 12 h, cut into smallcubes and double minced in a mincer (Model- 9152; Electrolux,Pordenone, Italy). Meat emulsion was prepared in a bowl chopper(Seydelmann K20, Ras, Germany). In a pre-weighed quantity

Table 1. Formulation for the control and treatment of nuggets

Treatments

Ingredient Control I II III IV

Lean meat (g kg−1) 751.4 746.8 696.8 671.8 646.8

Sodium chloride(g kg−1)

20 12 12 12 12

Sodiumhexametaphosphate(g kg−1)

5 5 5 5 5

Sodium nitrite(mg kg−1)

150 150 150 150 150

Potassium chloride(g kg−1)

– 2 2 2 2

Citric acid (g kg−1) – 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Tartaric acid (g kg−1) – 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Sucrose (g kg−1) – 10 10 10 10

Ice flakes (g kg−1) 65 65 65 65 65

Egg white (g kg−1) 15 15 15 15 15

Refined sunflower oil(g kg−1)

70 70 70 70 70

Condiment mix(g kg−1)a

30 30 30 30 30

Carrageenan (g kg−1) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

Sodium alginate(g kg−1)

1 1 1 1 1

Bottle gourd (g kg−1) – – 50 75 100

Spice mix (g kg−1)b 15 15 15 15 15

Refined wheat flour(g kg−1)

20 20 20 20 20

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chickennuggets; Treatments II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with50, 75 and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.a Condiment mix: onion and garlic (1 : 1).b Spice mix: cumin, coriander, aniseed, black pepper, caraway,capsicum, cardamom, dried ginger, cinnamon, clove, bay leave, nutmegand mace.

of minced chicken meat, salt/salt substitute blends, sodiumhexametaphosphate, and sodium nitrite were added and choppedfor 2–3 min with simultaneous addition of ice flakes. After addingliquid egg white and chopping again for 1 min, refined sunfloweroil was slowly incorporated while chopping until it was completelydispersed in the batter. Condiment paste, carrageenan, sodiumalginate, bottle gourd, dry spice mix and refined wheat flour wereadded. Chopping continued until there was uniform dispersion ofall the ingredients and the desired consistency of the emulsionwas achieved. About 360 g of emulsion was taken and placed ina stainless steel mould. The mould was covered with a lid andtied with thread then steam cooked for a pre-standardised 35 minto achieve an internal temperature of about 85 ◦C. Chicken meatblocks so obtained were sliced and cut into pieces to obtainnuggets (∼1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 cm3).

AnalysisAll the products were analysed for physicochemical, colour,textural parameters, lipid profile and sensory characteristics.Six samples (duplicate in three batches) for all five types ofproducts (Control and four Treatments) were evaluated for variousparameters such as pH, cooking yield, proximate composition,dietary fibre, and product colour, texture profile analysis as well as

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric (2012)

Effect of salt replacement and bottle gourd on chicken nuggets www.soci.org

lipid profile. In case of sensory analysis, 30 samples were analysed(ten samples in three batches) and for emulsion stability, analysisof nine samples (triplicate in three batches) was conducted.

Determination of pHThe pH of emulsion and cooked products was determined byblending 10 g of sample with 50 mL of distilled water using anUltra Turrax T 25 tissue homogeniser (Janke and Kunkel, IKALabortechnik, Staufen, Germany) at 8000 rpm for 1 min. The pH ofthe suspension was recorded by dipping combined glass electrodeof Elico digital pH meter, Model LI 127 (Elico Ltd, Hyderabad, India).

Emulsion stability and cooking yieldEmulsion stability was determined according to the method ofTownsend et al.23 with some modifications. Emulsion samples,each of about 25 g, were placed in polyethylene bags and heatedat 80 ◦C in a thermostatically controlled water bath for 20 min. Thestability was calculated from the weight loss during cooking andexpressed as g kg−1 of the initial weight. The cooking yield wasobtained by measuring weight of meat blocks for each Treatmentand calculating the ratio of cooked weight to raw weight andexpressed as g kg−1.

Proximate analysis and dietary fibreMoisture, protein, fat, ash and dietary fibre contents of the productswere determined as per the standard procedures of Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists.24

Instrumental colourThe colour of cooked chicken nuggets was compared using aLovibond Tintometer (Model F; Amesbury, UK). Samples from twodifferent nuggets for each product were taken in the sampleholder and secured against the viewing aperture. The samplecolour was matched by adjusting red (a) and yellow (b) units,while keeping the blue units fixed at 2. The corresponding colourunits were recorded. The hue and chroma (saturation) values

were determined using the formulae tan−1(b/a) and (a2 + b2)12 ,

respectively.

Texture profile analysisThe textural properties of nuggets were evaluated using thetexturometer (Stable Micro System Model TA.XT 2i/25; Surrey,UK) at Post Harvest Technology, Central Avian Research Institute,Izatnagar. Texture profile analysis25 was performed using centralcores of two pieces of each sample (1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 cm3) whichwere compressed twice to 60% of the original height. A crossheadspeed of 3 mm s−1 was used applying 0.15 N load cell and 75 mmcompression platen probe (P75). The following texture parameterswere determined: hardness (N cm−2), the maximum force requiredto compress the sample; adhesiveness (N s), work necessary topull the compressing plunger away from the sample; springiness(cm), ability of the sample to recover its original form after thedeforming force was removed; cohesiveness (dimensionless), theratio of positive force during the second compression cycle to thatof the first compression cycle (downward strokes only); gumminess(N cm−2), the force necessary to disintegrate a semisolid sample forswallowing (hardness × cohesiveness); and chewiness (N cm−1),the work to masticate the sample for swallowing (springiness ×gumminess).

Lipid profileThe fat content of the samples was extracted according to Folchet al.26 and total lipids were determined gravimetrically. Thedifferent components of lipids, including total phospholipids,glycolipids and free fatty acids were measured by standardprocedures as described by Marinetti,27 Raughan and Batt28 andKoniecko,29 respectively, whereas total glycerides were indirectlycalculated by subtracting all these from total lipid values.

Total cholesterol content in the lipid extracts was determinedaccording to procedure described by Sabir et al.30 Two hundredmicrolitres of standard cholesterol solution (1 mg in 1 mL ofchloroform) or lipid extract was taken in the test tube. Then, 2 mLeach of chloroform and Liberman–Burchard reagent (preparedby dissolving 0.5 mL of sulfuric acid in 10 mL of acetic anhydride,covered and kept in an ice bucket) was added in the test tubes. Thetubes were covered and kept in the dark for 15 min. A blank wasprepared using 200 µL of chloroform instead of lipid extract andtreated in similar fashion. The colour complex (green) developedwas measured by reading the optical density at 640 nm in aspectrophotometer (Scanning minispec SL 117; Elico, Hyderabad,India) and expressed as g kg−1 of product.

Sensory evaluationA sensory evaluation method using an eight-point descriptivescale31 was followed, where 8 = excellent and 1 = extremelypoor. The sensory panel consisted of ten trained scientists andpostgraduate students of the division. Three-digit coded sampleswere served to the panellists in random order. The nature of theexperiments was explained to the panellists without disclosingthe identity of samples. The panellists were asked to rate theirpreference based on the eight-point descriptive scale on thesensory evaluation pro forma for different traits. Samples werewarmed using a microwave oven for 1 min. Water was providedto rinse the mouth between the samples. The panellists judgedthe samples for general appearance, flavour, texture, saltiness,juiciness and overall acceptability.

Statistical analysisThe statistical design of the study was a five Treatments ×three Replications randomised block design. All chemical andphysical determinations were in triplicate. There were ten sensorydeterminations for each Treatment–Replication combination.Data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance. Duncan’smultiple range test and critical difference were determined at the5% significance level.32

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONEmulsion and product pHEmulsion and product pH values of the Treatments weresignificantly lower (P < 0.01) as compared to control product(Table 2). The result was as per expectation because the saltsubstitute blend used in treated products contained food gradecitric and tartaric acids. Among products with bottle gourd, anincrease in pH values was observed with the increasing levelsand products with 75 and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd had higher(P < 0.01) values than low-salt, low-fat chicken nuggets. Thepresent results could be attributed to dilution of acidic medium ofmeat batter with the addition of bottle gourd. Similar results wereobserved by Yilmaz33 in low-fat meatballs to which rye bran hadbeen added.

J Sci Food Agric (2012) c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

www.soci.org AK Verma, BD Sharma, R Banerjee

Table 2. Effect of common salt replacement and incorporation of bottle gourd on the physicochemical properties of low fat chicken nuggets

Treatments

Parameter Control I II III IV

Emulsion pH 5.93 ± 0.01a 5.66 ± 0.02c 5.74 ± 0.02b 5.77 ± 0.01b 5.78 ± 0.02b

Product pH 6.04 ± 0.01a 5.78 ± 0.04c 5.83 ± 0.02bc 5.85 ± 0.01b 5.88 ± 0.01b

Emulsion stability∗ (g kg−1) 943.86 ± 6.82a 933.16 ± 2.06a 914.33 ± 2.82b 915.92 ± 3.49b 916.49 ± 1.86b

Cooking yield (g kg−1) 959.27 ± 1.37a 950.90 ± 1.76b 941.20 ± 1.32c 942.58 ± 1.85c 942.13 ± 3.61c

Moisture (g kg−1) 645.15 ± 1.99b 639.82 ± 1.94c 647.42 ± 2.23b 654.82 ± 1.97a 657.53 ± 0.27a

Protein (g kg−1) 171.62 ± 2.49a 169.08 ± 5.96a 152.52 ± 4.00b 145.22 ± 4.26b 141.08 ± 5.00b

Moisture protein ratio 3.76 ± 0.04c 3.81 ± 0.13c 4.26 ± 0.10b 4.53 ± 0.14ab 4.69 ± 0.16a

Fat (g kg−1) 93.80 ± 1.40 91.55 ± 0.69 92.65 ± 1.13 92.03 ± 0.77 90.58 ± 0.84

Ash (g kg−1) 33.27 ± 0.35a 27.65 ± 0.74b 26.78 ± 0.32b 27.50 ± 0.53b 25.97 ± 0.64b

Dietary fibre (g kg−1) 8.67 ± 0.38d 8.77 ± 0.30d 12.58 ± 0.28c 15.80 ± 0.36b 19.90 ± 0.43a

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets; Treatments II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with 50, 75and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.Mean ± SE with the different superscripts across a row differ significantly (P < 0.05).N = 6; ∗n = 9.

Emulsion stability and cooking yieldEmulsion stability was non-significantly decreased with saltreplacement, while incorporation of bottle gourd in low-salt, low-fat nuggets significantly decreased (P < 0.01) stability (Table 2).The reason behind relatively lower emulsion stability in Treatmentproducts might be due to a lower amount of common salt intheir formulations; thus decreasing the amount of extracted salt-soluble proteins which are mainly responsible for the formationof stable meat batter. Incorporation of bottle gourd in the low-salt, low-fat products might have affected the emulsion stabilityin two ways. First, it was added in place of lean meat in theformulation, thus reducing the overall protein content necessaryfor the stabilisation of emulsion. Second, it might have interruptedthe formation of the three-dimensional protein matrix. Accordingto Carballo et al.34 sodium chloride solubilises meat proteins, andthus increases the number of locations in the polypeptide chainscapable of interacting during heating. The result is a stable, elasticand rigid protein gel matrix with good water- and fat-bindingproperties. The emulsion stability of low-fat functional chickennuggets was significantly decreased with salt replacement and theaddition of high-fibre ingredients.20 The cooking yield of controlproduct was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than Treatments.Products with bottle gourd had lower (P < 0.01) cooking yieldin relation to the Control and Treatment I. Yield of the productsmainly depends upon stability of meat batter, which is determinedby the concentration of extracted proteins. As treated productshad comparatively lower emulsion stability, they lost more waterwhile cooking and received a low product yield. The present resultwas in accordance with the findings of Ruusunen et al.14 whoreported a marked increase in cooking loss of ground meat pattiesas the sodium chloride level was reduced.

Proximate analysisThe proportion of moisture in the product was significantlydecreased (P < 0.01) with salt replacement. In our study, theamount of common salt was relatively higher in low-fat (Control)product formulations in relation to Treatments, which could haveextracted more meat proteins responsible for more moisturebinding.35 In a study with the chicken meat batter, Gordon andBarbut36 found a higher protein extraction while increasing the

NaCl from 1.5 to 2.5%. However, incorporation of bottle gourdin low-salt, low-fat chicken nuggets increased (P < 0.01) the %moisture, where products with 75 and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourdhad a significantly higher value than Control and low-salt, low-fatnuggets (Table 2). The added bottle gourd in low-salt, low-fatproducts might have contributed to higher % moisture in theseproducts. The above result was consistent with the findings byGrigelmo-Miguel et al.15 in low-fat, high dietary fibre frankfurterincorporated with peach dietary fibre, and Lin and Lin37 in Chinese-style meatballs incorporated with bacterial cellulose (Nata).

There was a significantly higher (P < 0.01) proportion of proteinin the Control and low-salt, low-fat products in comparisonto nuggets with added bottle gourd. This might be due toreplacement of meat with bottle gourd, which has a much lowerprotein content. The % of protein among products having bottlegourd did not differ significantly; however, it decreased graduallyas the levels increased. According to Troutt et al.,38 the proportionof protein in low-fat beef patties was significantly decreased bythe addition of polydextrose and oat flour as texture-modifyingingredients. A similar result was also observed by Huang et al.18

in emulsified pork meatballs incorporated with rice bran at alevel of 5% and above. Low salt, low-fat chicken nuggets withbottle gourd had a significantly higher (P < 0.01) moistureprotein ratio than other products. As expected, there were nosignificant differences (P > 0.05) in the % fat between Controland Treatments due to same level of added refined sunfloweroil. The % ash of the Control was significantly higher (P < 0.01)as compared to the Treatment products. This was in agreementwith the findings by Mendoza et al.39 in low-fat, dry-fermentedsausages incorporated with inulin as a fat substitute. In a study withlow-sodium frankfurters, Jimenez-Colmenero et al.12 also reporteda significant decrease in ash content when trans-glutaminase,potassium chloride, sodium caseinate and dietary fibre were usedas salt replacers. However, the differences in the ash contentamong Treatments were insignificant. The dietary fibre content inlow-salt, low-fat nuggets with bottle gourd was significantly higher(P < 0.01) than in the Control and low-salt, low-fat product. Thefibre content was further increased (P < 0.01) with the increasinglevels of bottle gourd. The present finding is very significantparticularly when diet and well-being are being correlated, as in

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric (2012)

Effect of salt replacement and bottle gourd on chicken nuggets www.soci.org

recent years, which was solely attributed to added bottle gourd.According to Hanif et al.40 vegetables, in particular bottle gourd,are good sources of fibre, which avoids constipation and lowersthe body cholesterol level, and consequently decreases the risk ofcardiovascular diseases.

Instrumental colourSalt replacement did not affect redness and chroma values;however, yellowness was significantly increased while a decreasein hue value was observed (Table 3). All the colour parametersof low-salt, low-fat chicken nuggets with bottle gourd werecomparable (P > 0.05) to Control. However, redness was slightlydecreased (P > 0.05) with the higher levels of bottle gourd.Incorporation of bottle gourd might have resulted in dilution ofmeat pigment concentration leading to a decrease in the rednessvalue. Yilmaz41 reported decreased in meatball redness with higherwheat bran addition. Similar results were also observed by Yilmazand Daglıoglu17 and Lin and Huang.42 The product with 50 g kg−1

bottle gourd had a significantly lower (P < 0.05) yellowness valueand a higher hue value than Treatment I.

Textural propertiesTexture profile analysis exhibited a significant decrease (P < 0.01)in hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness valueswith salt replacement (Table 4). Incorporation of bottle gourdin low-salt, low-fat chicken nuggets resulted additional decrease(P < 0.01) in these values. However, adhesiveness and springinessvalues were not affected with salt replacement and bottle gourd

incorporation. Extracted proteins play a major role in the texturalproperties of meat products and amount of added common saltdetermines its concentration. The Treatment products contained40% less common salt than the Control, which could have loweredthe desired ionic strength of meat batter necessary for proteinextraction and thus the amount of extracted proteins responsiblefor the formation of three-dimensional networks. The amount ofextracted protein could have further decreased when added bottlegourd replaced lean meat. As gumminess and chewiness valuesare secondary parameters, they were affected in a similar fashionbecause, as primary parameters, they depend on salt replacementand bottle gourd addition. Other workers have also reported anincrease in product hardness with increase in salt and fat content.43

A decrease in hardness value in low-fat, high dietary fibrefrankfurters with the increasing concentration of peach dietaryfibre suspension has been reported by Grigelmo-Miguel et al.15

Similar results were also observed by Garcıa et al.23 in low-fat dryfermented sausages. Verma et al.16 observed significant decreasein the hardness value of low-fat chicken nuggets due to sodiumchloride replacement and apple pulp inclusion. Some reportshave also indicated a decrease in cohesiveness, chewiness andgumminess values when inulin and bacterial cellulose (Nata) wereadded in the fermented sausages and meatballs, respectively.37,39

Lipid profileThe lipid profile of Control and Treatment I was almost similar;however, low-salt, low-fat products with bottle gourd had lowervalues and all the parameters were gradually decreased withhigher levels of bottle gourd (Table 5). Total cholesterol content

Table 3. Effect of common salt replacement and incorporation of bottle gourd on the instrumental colour of low fat chicken nuggets

Treatments

Parameter Control I II III IV

Redness 2.83 ± 0.05 2.68 ± 0.09 2.80 ± 0.05 2.78 ± 0.03 2.73 ± 0.03

Yellowness 3.20 ± 0.06b 3.35 ± 0.04a 3.20 ± 0.04b 3.27 ± 0.03ab 3.28 ± 0.03ab

Hue 50.76 ± 1.61a 45.64 ± 1.41b 50.12 ± 1.40a 48.77 ± 0.49ab 47.67 ± 0.35ab

Chroma 4.28 ± 0.04 4.30 ± 0.07 4.25 ± 0.02 4.29 ± 0.04 4.27 ± 0.04

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets; Treatments II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with 50, 75and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.Mean ± SE with the different superscripts across a row differ significantly (P < 0.05).n = 6.

Table 4. Effect of common salt replacement and incorporation of bottle gourd on the textural properties of low fat chicken nuggets

Treatments

Parameter Control I II III IV

Hardness (N cm−2) 54.28 ± 4.02a 42.25 ± 1.39b 36.69 ± 4.21bc 29.53 ± 1.76cd 27.68 ± 1.88d

Adhesiveness (N s) 0.04 ± 0.02 0.02 ± 0.02 0.01 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02 0.01 ± 0.02

Springiness (cm) 0.82 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.01 0.80 ± 0.01 0.80 ± 0.02 0.81 ± 0.01

Cohesiveness (ratio) 0.45 ± 0.02a 0.36 ± 0.01c 0.34 ± 0.01c 0.40 ± 0.01b 0.41 ± 0.01b

Gumminess (N cm−2) 23.78 ± 0.94a 15.20 ± 0.50b 12.23 ± 1.19c 11.75 ± 0.79c 11.27 ± 0.86c

Chewiness (N cm−1) 19.47 ± 0.62a 12.46 ± 0.42b 9.69 ± 0.80c 9.34 ± 0.64c 9.11 ± 0.72c

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with 50, 75and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.Mean ± SE with the different superscripts row-wise differ significantly (P < 0.05).n = 6.

J Sci Food Agric (2012) c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

www.soci.org AK Verma, BD Sharma, R Banerjee

Table 5. Effect of common salt replacement and incorporation of bottle gourd on the lipid profile of low fat chicken nuggets

Treatments

Parameter Control I II III IV

Total lipid (g kg−1) 6.81 ± 0.25 6.80 ± 0.24 6.72 ± 0.27 6.56 ± 0.20 6.51 ± 0.18

Total phospholipids(g kg−1) 1.05 ± 0.01a 1.05 ± 0.01a 0.89 ± 0.02b 0.83 ± 0.01c 0.76 ± 0.01d

Total cholesterol (g kg−1) 0.09 ± 0.01a 0.09 ± 0.01a 0.09 ± 0.01a 0.08 ± 0.01ab 0.07 ± 0.01b

Total glycolipid (g kg−1) 70.33 ± 2.11 70.17 ± 2.01 69.17 ± 0.69 68.17 ± 1.01 67.17 ± 1.60

Free fatty acid (g kg−1) 1.00 ± 0.04 0.99 ± 0.04 0.96 ± 0.02 0.95 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.03

Total glyceride (g kg−1) 61.40 ± 2.09 61.06 ± 1.93 59.48 ± 1.46 58.47 ± 0.91 58.31 ± 2.00

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with 50, 75and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.Mean ± SE with the different superscripts across a row differ significantly (P < 0.05).n = 6.

Table 6. Effect of common salt replacement and incorporation of bottle gourd on the sensory attributes of low fat chicken nuggets

Treatments

Parameter Control I II III IV

General appearance 7.23 ± 0.05 7.27 ± 0.05 7.22 ± 0.06 7.18 ± 0.06 7.22 ± 0.06

Flavour 7.06 ± 0.06ab 7.12 ± 0.05a 7.05 ± 0.08ab 7.03 ± 0.06ab 6.90 ± 0.08b

Texture 7.15 ± 0.08ab 7.22 ± 0.04a 7.03 ± 0.07b 7.01 ± 0.06b 7.02 ± 0.06b

Saltiness 6.95 ± 0.08 7.03 ± 0.02 7.12 ± 0.08 7.13 ± 0.08 7.06 ± 0.08

Juiciness 7.07 ± 0.07 7.18 ± 0.04 7.13 ± 0.04 7.15 ± 0.06 7.17 ± 0.05

Overall acceptability 7.18 ± 0.05 7.18 ± 0.04 7.08 ± 0.06 7.11 ± 0.06 7.05 ± 0.07

Control: low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment I: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets; Treatment II, III and IV: low salt, low fat chicken nuggets with 50, 75and 100 g kg−1 bottle gourd.Mean ± SE with the different superscripts across a row differ significantly (P < 0.05).n = 30.

was significantly decreased (P < 0.01) at each level of added bottlegourd but total glycolipid was only affected at the 100 g kg−1

level (P < 0.01). This significant decrement in lipid parameters,particularly total cholesterol with the addition of bottle gourd inlow-salt, low-fat products might be due to replacement of leanmeat and ultimately meat fat. The reduction of total cholesterolin the products with bottle gourd has a great importance fromthe consumer’s health point of view as it is one of the maindeterminants for the chronic heart diseases. According to Jimenez-Colmenero et al.44 reducing the percentage of fat in the productdid not seem to be a viable method for lowering cholesterol in meatderivatives and less cholesterol could be obtained by replacingfat and lean meat raw materials with other vegetable materialscontaining no cholesterol. Cengiz and Gokoglu45 suggesteddecreasing the cholesterol content of frankfurter-type sausagesincorporated with citrus fibre and soy protein concentrate as fatreplacer. The cholesterol content of uncooked and cooked beefburgers decreased with the addition of wheat fibres.46

Sensory evaluationSensory evaluation of the products revealed that salt replacementand inclusion of bottle gourd did not significantly affect (P > 0.05)appearance, saltiness, juiciness and overall acceptability of theproducts (Table 6). However, texture and flavour scores weresignificantly decreased (P < 0.05) at the 75 and 100 g kg−1 levelsof bottle gourd, respectively. A decrease in the flavour scores of

these products at higher levels of bottle gourd could be attributedto a dilution of the meaty flavour in the products.

CONCLUSIONSThe findings of the present study showed that replacement ofsodium chloride and the incorporation of bottle gourd significantlyaffected various quality attributes of the products. However,sensory characteristics remained unaffected by salt replacement.The sensory attributes of low-salt, low-fat chicken nuggets withbottle gourd were comparable to the Control, except for the flavourand texture scores, which were affected at higher levels. Dietaryfibre content in the products can be enriched with incorporationof bottle gourd whereas the total cholesterol content decreased.Thus the development of highly acceptable low-salt, low-fat andhigh-fibre functional chicken nuggets can be achieved followingthis approach without compromising their acceptability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to thank the Head, Division of Post HarvestTechnology, CARI, Izatnagar, for providing facilities to evaluatetexture profile analysis and colour parameters of the products.The financial support extended by the Indian Veterinary ResearchInstitute (IVRI), Izatnagar, in the form of an Institute fellowship toA.K. Verma during PhD research is duly acknowledged.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric (2012)

Effect of salt replacement and bottle gourd on chicken nuggets www.soci.org

REFERENCES1 Law MR, Epidemiologic evidence on salt and blood pressure. Am J

Hypertens 10:42S–45S (1997).2 World Health Organization, Reducing Salt Intake in Populations. Report

of a WHO Forum and Technical Meeting. Geneva, Switzerland (2007).3 Kapil U, Pathak P and Singh P, Benefits and safety of dietary iodine

intake in India. Pakistan J Nutr 2:43–45 (2003).4 Tarrant PV, Some recent advances and future priorities in research for

the meat industry. Meat Sci 49:S1–S16 (1998).5 Larsson SC and Wolk A, Meat consumption and risk of colorectal

cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer119:2657–2664 (2006).

6 Eastwood MA, The physiological effect of dietary fibre: An update.Annu Rev Nutr 12:19–35 (1992).

7 Johnson IT and Southgate DAT, Dietary Fibre and Related Substances.Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 39–65 (1994).

8 Claus JR and Hunt MC, Low fat, high added water bologna formulatedwith texture modifying ingredients. J Food Sci 56:643–647, 652(1991).

9 Cofrades S, Troy DJ and Hughes E, The effect of fat level on texturalcharacteristics of low fat emulsion type meat products, in Proceedingof the 41st International Congress of Meat Science and Technology,20–25 August 1995, San Antonio, TX, USA. American Meat ScienceAssociation, pp. 66–67 (1995).

10 Terrell RN, Reducing the sodium content of processed meat. FoodTechnol 37:66–71 (1983).

11 Askar A, El-Samahy SK and Tawfik M, Pasterna and beef bouillon.The effect of substituting KCl and K-lactate for sodium chloride.Fleischwirtsch 73:289–292 (1994).

12 Jimenez-Colmenero F, Ayo MJ and Carballo J, Physicochemicalproperties of low sodium frankfurter with added walnut: Effectof transglutaminase combined with caseinate, KCl and dietary fibreas salt replacers. Meat Sci 69:781–788 (2005).

13 Gelabert J, Gou P, Guerrero L and Arnau J, Effect of sodium chloridereplacement on some characteristics of fermented sausages. MeatSci 65:833–839 (2003).

14 Ruusunen M, Vainionppa J, Lyly M, Lahteenmaki L, Niemisto M,Ahvenainen R, et al, Reducing the sodium content in meat products:The effect of the formulation in low-sodium ground meat patties.Meat Sci 69:53–60 (2005).

15 Grigelmo-Miguel N, Abadias-Seras MI and Martin-Belloso O, Char-acteristics of low-fat high-dietary fibre frankfurters. Meat Sci52:247–256 (1999).

16 Verma AK, Sharma BD and Banerjee R, Effect of sodium chloridereplacement and apple pulp inclusion on the physico-chemical,textural and sensory properties of low fat chicken nuggets. LWT-Food Sci Technol 43:715–719 (2010).

17 Yilmaz I and Daglıoglu O, The effect of replacing fat with oat branon fatty acid composition and physicochemical properties ofmeatballs. Meat Sci 65:819–823 (2003).

18 Huang SC, Shiau CY, Liu TE, Chu CL and Hwang DF, Effects of rice branon sensory and physico-chemical properties of emulsified porkmeatballs. Meat Sci 70:613–619 (2005).

19 Garcıa ML, Dominguez R, Galvez MD, Casas C and Selgas MD,Utilization of cereal and fruit fibres in low fat dry fermentedsausages. Meat Sci 60:227–236 (2002).

20 Verma AK, Sharma BD and Banerjee R, Quality characteristics andstorage stability of low fat functional chicken nuggets. FleischwirtschInt 24:52–57 (2009).

21 Rehman Z, Islam M and Shah WH, Effect of microwave andconventional cooking on insoluble dietary fibre components ofvegetables. Food Chem 80:237–240 (2003).

22 Schieber A, Stintzing FC and Carle R, By-products of plant foodprocessing as a source of functional compounds-recentdevelopments. Trends Food Sci Technol 12:401–413 (2001).

23 Townsend WE, Witnauer LP, Riloff JA and Swift CE, Comminuted meatemulsions. Differential thermal analysis of fat transition. FoodTechnol 22:319–323 (1968).

24 Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of Analysisof the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 16th edn. AOAC,Washington, DC (1995).

25 Bourne MC, Texture profile analysis. Food Technol 32:62–72 (1978).26 Folch J, Less M and Sloane-Stanley GH, A simple method for the

isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J BiolChem 226:497–509 (1957).

27 Marinetti GV, Chromatographic separation, identification and analysisof phosphatides. J Lipid Res 3:1–20 (1962).

28 Roughan PG and Batt RD, Quantitative analysis of sulfolipid(sulfoquinoxosyl diglyceride) and galactolipids (monogalactosyland digalactosyl diglycerides) in plant tissues. Anal Biochem22:74–88 (1968).

29 Koniecko EK, Handbook for Meat Chemists. Avery Publishing Group Inc.Wayne, New Jersey, pp. 68–69 (1979).

30 Sabir SM, Hayat I and Syed Gardezi DA, Estimation of sterols in ediblefats and oils. Pakistan J Nutr 2:178–181 (2003).

31 Keeton JT, Effect of fat and NaCl/phosphate levels on the chemicaland sensory properties of pork patties. J Food Sci 48:, 885 878–881(1983).

32 Snedecor GW and Cochran WG, Statistical Methods, 8th edn. Oxfordand IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi (1995).

33 Yilmaz I, Effects of rye bran addition on fatty acid composition andquality characteristics of low-fat meatballs. Meat Sci 67:245–249(2004).

34 Carballo J, Mota N, Barreto G and Jimenez-Colmenero F, Bindingproperties and colour of bologna sausage made with varyingfat levels, protein levels and cooking temperatures. Meat Sci41:301–313 (1995).

35 Somboonpanyakul P, Barbut S, Jantawat P and Chinprahast N,Textural and sensory quality of poultry meat batter containingmalva nut gum, salt and phosphate. LWT-Food Sci Technol40:498–505 (2007).

36 Gordon A and Barbut S, Effect of chloride salts on the protein extractionand interfacial protein film formation in meat batters. J Sci FoodAgric 58:227–238 (1992).

37 Lin KW and Lin HY, Quality characteristics of Chinese-style meatballcontaining bacterial cellulose (Nata). J Food Sci 69:107–111 (2004).

38 Troutt ES, Hunt MC, Johnson DE, Claus JR, Kastner CL and Kropf DH,Characteristics of low-fat ground beef containing texture-modifyingingredients. J Food Sci 57:19–24 (1992).

39 Mendoza E, Garcıa ML, Casas C and Selgas MD, Inulin as fat substitutein low fat, dry fermented sausages. Meat Sci 57:387–393 (2001).

40 Hanif R, Iqbal Z, Iqbal M, Hanif S and Rasheed M, Use of vegetablesas nutritional food: Role in human health. J Agric Biol Sci 1:18–22(2006).

41 Yilmaz I, Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of low fatmeatballs with added wheat bran. J Food Eng 69:369–373 (2005).

42 Lin KW and Huang HY, Konjac/gellan gum mixed gels improves thequality of reduced fat frankfurters. Meat Sci 65:749–755 (2003).

43 Matulis RJ, Mckeith FK, Sutherland JW and Brewer MS, Sensorycharacteristics of frankfurters as affected by fat, salt and pH. JFood Sci 60:42–47 (1995).

44 Jimenez-Colmenero F, Carballo F and Cofrades S, Healthier meat andmeat products: their role as functional foods. Meat Sci 59:5–13(2001).

45 Cengiz E and Gokoglu N, Changes in energy and cholesterol contentsof frankfurter-type sausages with fat reduction and fat replaceraddition. Food Chem 91:443–447 (2005).

46 Mansour EH and Khalil AH, Characteristics of low-fat beefburger asinfluenced by various types of wheat fibers. Food Res Int 30:199–205(1997).

J Sci Food Agric (2012) c© 2012 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa