Keywords: Tomato-carrot juice; Hydrocolloids
According to the Office of Dietary Supplement [2], blending of juices helps in balancing out juices with weak or bland flavour, excessively strong flavours, primarily high acidity, astringency or bitterness, correcting low soluble solids level, improving poor colour or colour stability of otherwise desirable juices attributes, emphasizing unique nutritional and phytochemical properties and overcoming undesirable single strength juice consistency.
Tomatoes are the fruits of the plant Lycopersicon lycopersicum and are one of the most widely grown tropical vegetable. Tomato is known and grown world-wide and is processed to give various products [3]. In Nigeria, tomatoes are grown in large quantities and are seasonal. Tomato juice is an important product and the quality (taste) of juice is mostly judged by its combination of sourness (titratable acidity) and sweetness (total soluble solids) [4]. Daily consumption of tomato products provides at least 40 mg of lycopene, is enough to substantially reduce Low Density Lipids (LDL) oxidation. This lycopene level can be achieved by drinking just two glasses of tomato juice a day [5].
Carrot is an important root crop cultivated throughout the world for its fleshy edible roots; and is used for human consumption as well as animal feed. Carrots are rich source of beta- carotene (and contain appreciable amounts of thiamine and riboflavin [6]. Carotenoids in carrot and tomato have also been linked with enhancement of the immune system and decreased risk of degenerative diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, age-related macular degeneration, and cataract formation [7]. Carrot has long been a component of tomato blends. Sedimentation is a main problem in carrot juice. Several studies reported that cloud stability could be improved by using polysaccharides stabilizer and reducing pulp content, however this might affect texture attributes of the product [8].
Hydrocolloids are substances that form gels in contact with water. Such substances include both polysaccharides and proteins which are capable of one or more of the following: thickening and gelling aqueous solutions, stabilizing foams, emulsions and dispersions and preventing crystallization of saturated water or sugar solutions [9]. Examples of hydrocolloids are carboxymethylcellulose, guar gum, starch, xanthan gum, pectin, gelatine among others [10]. Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is a modified cellulose gum (cellulose is a component of plant fibre). In foods, it is used as a stabilizer, thickener, film former, suspending agent and extender. The allowable percentage range is 0.05 to 0.5% of the total product [11]. Xanthan gum is an extracellular polysaccharide secreted by Xanthomonas campestris. At low shear rates, solutions of xanthan gum have approximately 15 times the viscosity of guar gum and significantly more viscous than carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) or sodium alginate which accounts for its superior performance in stabilising suspensions [12]. In order to adjust the desired flow behaviour, Xanthan Gum is used in combination with other hydrocolloids [13]. Typically, Xanthan Gum is used at 0.1–0.2% concentration [14]. Concentrations of Xanthan Gum (XG) and Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) of 0.4–0.5% completely inhibit apple juice clarification. At lower gum concentrations, juices with CMC were more stable. At low shear rates, XG was more viscous than CMC, demonstrating that the greater stabilizing effect of CMC was basically due to its electro-negativity [15]. Alakali et al. [16] reported that the use of CMC at levels 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0% depressed the production of lactic acid (titratable acidity), increased the viscosity and showed significant differences (p > 0.05) in the ash content of thermized yogurt. The addition of guar gum had a greater effect on the increase of viscosity than CMC and xanthan gum supplementation. Xanthan gum also caused a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the apparent viscosity of the tomato ketchup [17]. Therefore, the present investigation was aimed at studying the effect of hydrocolloids on the physicochemical, some proximate, microbial and sensory properties of tomato-carrot juice blend.
Degree brix (° Brix): Degree brix (° Brix) was determined using Hand Refractometer (M 300002, Super Scientific, USA). The sample was placed on the prism of refractometer then the daylight plate was closed, and the scale where the boundary line intercepts was read. The percentage scale of the refractometer was shown in 100 grams of aqueous solution and was equal to Brix number (°Brix). All measurements were performed in triplicates and mean values were obtained.
Total ascorbic acid (a.a): Ascorbic acid was estimated using the method of AOAC [18]. Blank was prepared by titrating 0.2 ml of standardized 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol (dye) against 7.0 ml of extracting solution (oxalic acid) while standard ascorbic value was obtained by titrating dye against a mixture of 2 ml of blank a. a solution and 5 ml extracting solution. About 20 ml of tomato-carrot juice blend was made up to 50 ml with oxalic acid, the diluent was filtered and 5 ml of the extract was pipetted into a beaker and titrated with the dye. The coloured solution changed to pink to mark the end point. All analysis was carried out in triplicates.
Total reducing sugar content: The modified dinitrosalicylic acid method was used to determine the total reducing sugar of the samples [19].
Carotenoids and lycopene contents determination: About 0.6 g ± 0.01 g duplicate samples were weighed from each juice blend into conical flask wrapped with aluminium foil to exclude light. A 30 ml mixture of hexane-acetone-ethanol (2:1:1) was added to solubilize all lycopene (acetone contained 0.05% BHT). The flask was stoppered and agitated for 15 min on a magnetic stirrer to extract lycopene. This was confirmed when the solution became colourless. Five ml of distilled water was added to the mixture and sample was stirred for 5 minutes to separate the solution into polar and non-polar layers [20]. The solution was transferred into a separating funnel to separate into distinct polar (20 ml) and a non- polar (10 ml) layer containing the lycopene was filtered [21]. Absorbance of the upper layer was read at 502 nm for lycopene and 450 nm for carotenoids blanked with hexane using a UV-VIS Spectrophotometer (UNICAM UV/UV/ US/SPECT UVI 061408). Estimation of lycopene was based on extinction coefficient (3450) at 502 nm in hexane and carotenoid estimate is based on extinction coefficient (2500) at 450 nm in hexane [20]. Analysis was carried out in triplicates.
where A = absorbance.
Moisture content: The moisture content was determined according to AOAC [18].Two millilitres of each sample was measured into a weighed porcelain crucible and dried for 5 hours at 105°C to a constant weight. Calculation of moisture content was as follows:
Conductivity and level of sedimentation: The conductivity of the juice was measured using a conductivity meter (HI 8733, Hanna Instrument, Italy). The sediment at the bottom tube of the tomato-carrot juice blend was examined by observation of the physical appearance. Sediment was observed in both samples stored at ambient and refrigeration temperatures. Sedimentation level of each juice sample was calculated as follows and expressed in percentage:
Microbiological analysis: The microbial analysis carried out on each sample stored at ambient and refrigeration temperatures were Total Plate Count (TPC) and total Yeast and Mould Count (YMC). The media used (Nutrient agar and Potato Dextrose agar respectively) were prepared according to manufacturer’s instruction. The media and test tubes containing the 9 ml of distilled water were sterilized by autoclaving at 121°C for 15 minutes. A sterile pipette was used to aseptically add 1ml of sample to a labelled test tube containing 9 ml of sterilized distilled water. Further serial dilutions (10-1 to 10-4) were made with fresh sterile pipette for each dilution as described by Ogbulie et al. [24]. Fresh sterile pipettes were then used to aseptically transfer 1 ml of each sample dilution from the test tubes into corresponding labelled duplicate petri dishes.
Pour plating: Molten agar medium (Nutrient agar for bacteria, Potato dextrose agar for yeast and mould) were cooled to 45°C and aseptically poured over the samples in the petri dishes, swirled gently to mix and the plates were allowed to solidify. The plates were then inverted and incubated. Nutrient agar used for bacterial isolation was incubated at 37°C for 24- 48 hours while potato dextrose agar used for yeast and mold isolation was incubated at 37°C for 48-72 hours.
Estimation of bacterial number in a suspension: At the end of incubation periods, the number of colonies on each plate was counted. Average of the duplicates were taken and the number of colonies were multiplied by the dilution factor and calculated as 1ml of original sample [25].They were then expressed as colony forming unit per ml (cfu/ml) of the sample.
Sensory analysis: Sensory evaluation was carried out on the samples for overall acceptability using 5-point Hedonic scale, where a score of 1 indicated poor sensory attribute and a score of 5 indicated excellent sensory attribute. A panel of 15 judges familiar with tomato-carrot juice were selected and presented with the coded samples. Panelists were instructed to rinse their mouth between samples test to avoid effects of residual flavors [3].
Statistical analysis: Data generated from all the experiments were statistically analyzed using SPSS (Version 13) software and independent t sample test at level of significance p < 0.05 using LSD and Turkey’s test.
Time in Weeks |
Sample code |
pH |
Acidity (% citric |
(° Brix) |
Ash (%) |
Moisture (%) |
Total solids (g/100g) |
Viscosity (m Pa.s) |
Reducing |
Vitamin C |
0 |
Aa |
5.40±0.01 |
0.03±0.00 |
5.50±0.01 |
0.63±0.04 |
94.93±0.50 |
3.09±0.09 |
169.50±2.59 |
7.00±0.01 |
4.26±0.07 |
Ba |
5.32±0.01 |
0.17±0.04 |
5.30±0.01 |
0.53±0.11 |
94.33±0.08 |
3.47±0.08 |
165.80±2.23 |
6.00±0.04 |
4.15±0.14 |
|
2 |
Aa |
4.73±0.01 |
0.07±0.01 |
5.20±0.04 |
0.63±0.04 |
93.53±0.89 |
3.20±0.00 |
162.10±3.75 |
7.00±0.00 |
3.27±0.08 |
Ba |
4.64±0.01 |
0.29±0.00 |
5.10±0.16 |
0.60±0.00 |
94.00±0.42 |
3.10±0.16 |
156.90±3.31 |
8.00±0.00 |
3.14±0.00 |
|
Ar |
4.98±0.01 |
0.05±0.01 |
5.30±0.08 |
0.60±0.04 |
94.83±0.37 |
4.20±0.37 |
174.85±2.61 |
6.00±0.03 |
3.94±0.00 |
|
Br |
4.87±0.01 |
0.17±0.04 |
5.20±0.01 |
0.60±0.07 |
95.00±0.14 |
3.00±0.14 |
160.30±2.42 |
10.00±0.01 |
3.62±0.07 |
|
4 |
Aa |
5.03±0.01 |
0.14±0.02 |
5.30±0.14 |
0.60±0.00 |
94.67±0.89 |
3.33±0.22 |
144.70±3.75 |
5.00±0.02 |
2.75±0.08 |
Ba |
4.92±0.01 |
0.92±0.07 |
5.20±0.00 |
0.55±0.11 |
95.57±0.42 |
2.67±0.12 |
139.50± 2.98 |
10.00±0.00 |
2.40±0.00 |
|
Ar |
5.35±0.01 |
0.09±0.00 |
5.30±0.00 |
0.60±0.07 |
94.00±0.37 |
4.00±0.00 |
190.25±1.77 |
7.00±0.03 |
3.58±0.07 |
|
Br |
5.31±0.01 |
0.49±0.04 |
5.10±0.14 |
0.60±0.11 |
94.00±0.14 |
4.00±0.00 |
154.70± 1.95 |
8.00±0.04 |
2.68±0.04 |
|
6 |
Aa |
4.77±0.01 |
0.15±0.01 |
5.10±0.07 |
0.55±0.11 |
95.26±0.19 |
4.90±0.17 |
148.50±2.76 |
3.50±0.06 |
2.46±0.08 |
Ba |
4.64±0.01 |
0.30±0.02 |
5.10±0.11 |
0.50±0.00 |
95.20±0.42 |
4.60±0.19 |
124.80± 1.98 |
12.00±0.03 |
2.21±0.08 |
|
Ar |
5.36±0.01 |
0.12±0.00 |
5.40±0.08 |
0.56±0.04 |
93.75±0.37 |
5.36±0.17 |
199.70±1.77 |
14.00±0.01 |
3.26±0.04 |
|
Br |
5.30±0.01 |
0.20±0.07 |
5.10±0.08 |
0.53±0.11 |
93.35±0.14 |
4.67±0.09 |
147.90±4.10 |
12.00±0.02 |
2.36±0.07 |
|
8 |
Aa |
4.54±0.01 |
0.15±0.04 |
5.00±0.04 |
0.50±0.00 |
95.61±0.19 |
3.50±0.17 |
166.70±3.75 |
3.00±0.00 |
2.24±0.07 |
Ba |
4.62±0.01 |
0.40±0.07 |
4.90±0.07 |
0.31±0.01 |
95.33±0.42 |
3.67±0.07 |
96.80±3.12 |
12.00±0.07 |
1.96±0.08 |
|
Ar |
5.37±0.01 |
0.06±0.00 |
5.20±0.07 |
0.31±0.04 |
95.92±0.17 |
3.10±0.00 |
207.40±2.55 |
15.00±0.00 |
2.96±0.07 |
|
Br |
5.34±0.01 |
0.32±0.07 |
5.00±0.04 |
0.42±0.03 |
95.13±0.28 |
3.08±0.06 |
139.95±1.95 |
7.00±0.02 |
2.01±0.04 |
Time in Weeks |
Sample code |
Carotenoid (mg/100g) |
Lycopene (mg/100g) |
Conductivity (µS) |
Level of sedimentation (%) |
0 |
Aa |
3.90±0.17 |
4.97±0.05 |
5.03±0.16 |
96.25 |
Ba |
3.23±0.12 |
4.36±0.06 |
4.83±0.04 |
45.50 |
|
2 |
Aa |
3.28±0.11 |
3.60±0.03 |
5.10±0.07 |
75.40 |
Ba |
2.55±0.06 |
4.64±0.01 |
5.10±0.09 |
40.60 |
|
Ar |
3.39±0.05 |
4.10±0.05 |
4.93±0.04 |
85.50 |
|
Br |
2.88±0.09 |
4.68±0.03 |
4.67±0.04 |
43.25 |
|
4 |
Aa |
2.38±0.07 |
3.28±0.13 |
5.10±0.07 |
58.50 |
Ba |
2.28±0.29 |
3.19±0.05 |
5.47±0.08 |
39.50 |
|
Ar |
1.47±0.11 |
3.83±0.05 |
4.90±0.00 |
70.50 |
|
Br |
1.80±0.11 |
4.22±0.07 |
4.00±0.07 |
41.50 |
|
6 |
Aa |
2.33±0.13 |
2.68±0.09 |
5.40±0.00 |
53.20 |
Ba |
2.36±0.07 |
3.67±0.04 |
5.30±0.08 |
33.50 |
|
Ar |
2.40±0.19 |
3.83±0.01 |
5.00±0.07 |
55.50 |
|
Br |
2.08±0.16 |
4.22±0.18 |
4.63±0.00 |
38.30 |
|
8 |
Aa |
1.54±0.01 |
2.68±0.09 |
5.43±0.00 |
48.50 |
Ba |
1.52±0.01 |
3.67±0.04 |
5.00±0.10 |
30.00 |
|
Ar |
1.99±0.05 |
3.83±0.01 |
5.00±0.00 |
50.25 |
|
Br |
1.42±0.05 |
4.22±0.18 |
4.60±0.00 |
35.50 |
Time in Weeks |
Sample code |
Hue |
Value |
Chroma |
0 |
Aa |
2.5YR |
4.65 |
8.9 |
Ba |
2.5YR |
4.65 |
9.04 |
|
2 |
Aa |
2.5YR |
4.61 |
8.42 |
Ba |
2.5YR |
4.57 |
9.14 |
|
Ar |
2.5YR |
4.65 |
9.07 |
|
Br |
2.5YR |
4.57 |
9.09 |
|
4 |
Aa |
2.5YR |
4.61 |
10.16 |
Ba |
2.5YR |
4.57 |
11.29 |
|
Ar |
2.5YR |
4.65 |
10.37 |
|
Br |
2.5YR |
4.57 |
11.14 |
|
6 |
Aa |
2.5YR |
4.25 |
11.4 |
Ba |
2.5YR |
3.91 |
9.69 |
|
Ar |
2.5YR |
4.13 |
10.53 |
|
Br |
2.5YR |
4.15 |
10.53 |
|
8
|
Aa |
2.5YR |
4.25 |
9.69 |
Ba |
2.5YR |
3.97 |
11.45 |
|
Ar |
2.5YR |
3.91 |
9.74 |
|
Br |
2.5YR |
0.74 |
10.8 |
Value – The daylight reflectance of a specimen expressed on a scale extending from 0 for ideal black to 10 for ideal white by steps of approximately equal visual importance.
3.74 / 10.80) for blend without hydrocolloid at ambient and refrigeration temperature respectively. According to Qin et al. [37], the colour and cloud stability of cloudy carrot juice were improved by enzymatic hydrolysis and addition of hydrocolloids. The darker colour obtained in the blends without hydrocolloid could be due to oxidation of ascorbic acid and precipitation of pigments, as hydrocolloid helps in retaining these properties [38]. Qin et al. [37] also reported that change in colour of carrot juice product involves the co-precipitation of colour substances such as β-carotene with larger molecules or enzymatic and oxidative discolouration.
Time in Weeks |
Sample Code |
Total viable counts (log10cfu/ml) |
Yeast and mold counts (log10sfu/ml) |
0 |
Aa |
3.53±0.19 |
2.59±0.07 |
Ba |
3.57±0.04 |
2.68±0.02 |
|
2 |
Aa |
3.67±0.09 |
2.37±0.03 |
Ba |
3.41±0.10 |
2.49±0.01 |
|
Ar |
3.50±0.01 |
2.20±0.05 |
|
Br |
3.49±0.08 |
1.89±0.03 |
|
4 |
Aa |
3.52±0.07 |
2.36±0.13 |
Ba |
3.02±0.23 |
2.46±0.05 |
|
Ar |
3.40±0.14 |
2.39±0.05 |
|
Br |
3.41±0.11 |
1.50±0.07 |
|
6 |
Aa |
3.49±0.08 |
2.23±0.09 |
Ba |
3.30±0.22 |
2.30±0.04 |
|
Ar |
3.33±0.19 |
2.20±0.01 |
|
Br |
3.40±0.14 |
1.65±0.18 |
|
8 |
Aa |
3.47±0.11 |
2.04±0.00 |
Ba |
3.33±0.01 |
1.81±0.07 |
|
Ar |
3.27±0.05 |
1.65±0.21 |
|
Br |
2.81±0.15 |
1.30±0.00 |
|
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
Lower |
Upper |
||
Taste |
Equal variances assumed |
0.925 |
0.344 |
2.872 |
28 |
0.008 |
1.00000 |
0.34824 |
0.28667 |
1.71333 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
2.872 |
27.828 |
0.008 |
1.00000 |
0.34824 |
0.28647 |
1.71353 |
|
color |
Equal variances assumed |
0.652 |
0.426 |
3.199 |
28 |
0.003 |
1.26667 |
0.39601 |
0.45547 |
2.07786 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
3.199 |
27.978 |
0.003 |
1.26667 |
0.39601 |
0.45544 |
2.07789 |
|
sedimentation |
Equal variances assumed |
0.571 |
0.456 |
3.891 |
28 |
0.001 |
1.66667 |
0.42836 |
0.78921 |
2.54412 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
3.891 |
27.021 |
0.001 |
1.66667 |
0.42836 |
0.78778 |
2.54556 |
|
flavor |
Equal variances assumed |
2.549 |
0.122 |
3.182 |
28 |
0.004 |
1.20000 |
0.37712 |
0.42750 |
1.97250 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
3.182 |
24.108 |
0.004 |
1.20000 |
0.37712 |
0.42184 |
1.97816 |
|
Overall accept |
Equal variances assumed |
0.134 |
0.717 |
4.085 |
28 |
0.000 |
1.40000 |
0.34272 |
0.69796 |
2.10204 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
4.085 |
27.934 |
0.000 |
1.40000 |
0.34272 |
0.69789 |
2.10211 |
|
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
Lower |
Upper |
||
Taste |
Equal variances assumed |
0.949 |
0.338 |
1.876 |
28 |
0.071 |
0.66667 |
0.35546 |
-0.06145 |
1.39479 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
1.876 |
26.013 |
0.072 |
0.66667 |
0.35546 |
-0.06397 |
1.39730 |
|
color |
Equal variances assumed |
0.062 |
0.806 |
2.743 |
28 |
0.011 |
0.80000 |
0.29168 |
0.20251 |
1.39749 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
2.743 |
26.664 |
0.011 |
0.80000 |
0.29168 |
0.20116 |
1.39884 |
|
sedimentation |
Equal variances assumed |
5.742 |
0.023 |
0.957 |
28 |
0.347 |
0.40000 |
0.41786 |
-0.45594 |
1.25594 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
0.957 |
24.788 |
0.348 |
0.40000 |
0.41786 |
-0.46096 |
1.26096 |
|
flavor |
Equal variances assumed |
0.497 |
0.487 |
0.367 |
28 |
0.716 |
0.13333 |
0.36341 |
-0.61107 |
0.87774 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
0.367 |
27.502 |
0.717 |
0.13333 |
0.36341 |
-0.61168 |
0.87834 |
|
Overall accept |
Equal variances assumed |
0.572 |
0.456 |
2.800 |
28 |
0.009 |
0.93333 |
0.33333 |
0.25053 |
1.61614 |
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
2.800 |
27.252 |
0.009 |
0.93333 |
0.33333 |
0.24969 |
1.61698 |
- FAO. Principles and Practices of small and medium scale fruit juice processing. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 146. 2000.
- Office of Dietary Supplements. 2000.
- Ihekoronye A.I. and Ngoddy PO. Integrated Food Science and Technology for the Tropics. Macmillan publishers, London. 1985; pp 73, 306.
- Matsuoka T and Jha S N. Non-destructive determination of acid-brix ratio of tomato juice using near infrared spectroscopy. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2004; 39(4): 425-430. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00800.x.
- Rao A.V. Lycopene, Tomatoes, and the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2002; 227: 908-913.
- Harish K.S, Jasmeet K, Bhavesh C.S, Charanjv S. Bahadur S. Effect of pre-treatment conditions on physicochemical parameters of carrot juice. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2009; 44: 1-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01462.x.
- Rodriguez-Amaya D.B. Carotenoids and Food Preparation: The Retention of Provitamin A Carotenoids in Prepared, Processed, and Stored Foods. John Snow, Inc/OMNI Project, Campinas, SP, Brazil. 1997; pp 2, 7.
- Nelson PE, Tressler DK. (Eds). Fruits and Vegetables Juice Processing Technology.3rd edition AVI Publishing Co. 1980; pp 268–309.
- Martin L. Hydrocolloid recipe collection Oslo. 2007; pp 29.
- Durand A, Franks GV , Hosken R.W. Particle sizes and stability of UHT bovine, cereal and grain milks. Food Hydrocolloids. 2003; pp: 671- 678(8).
- Kawakami K, Okabe Y, Norisoye T. ‘Dissociation of Dimerized Xanthan In aqueous solution’ Carbohydr. Polym. 1990; 14: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0144-8617(90)90030-V.
- Harding N. E, IelpI L, Cleary J M. ‘Genetics and biochemistry xanthan gum production by Xanthomonas campestris’ in Food Biotechnology Microorganisms, eds Y. H. Hui and G. C. Khachatourians. VCH Publishers, New York. 1999; pp. 495–514.
- Mothé, C.E.and Correia, D.Z. (2003). Rheological Properties Of Cashew/Xanthan Gums Blends In Cashew Juice. 3rd International Symposium on Food Rheology and Structure, pp 491-492.
- Sharma B, Dhuldhoya N.C, Merchant U.C. Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) forming a gel. Journal of Polymers and the Environment. 2006; 14: (2), pp 195-202.
- Genovese D. B, Lozano J E. Effect of cloud particle characteristics on the viscosity of cloudy apple juice. Journal of Food Science. 2000; 65(4), 641–645. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2000.tb16065.x.
- Alakali J S, Okonkwo T M, Iordye E M. Effect of stabilizers on the physico-chemical and sensory attributes of thermized yogurt. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2008; 7 (2):158-163. DOI: 10.5897/ AJB08.543.
- Arash K, Amir G, Seyed M A , Seyed A M, Todor V. The rheological properties of ketchup as a function of different hydrocolloids and temperature. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2008; 44(3): 596-602. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01868.x.
- A.O.A.C. (2000).Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 17th ed. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD.
- Abiose, S.H. and Adedeji, A.A. (1994). Biochemical changes during fermentation of plantain. Nigerian Food Journal, 12:92-99.
- Sadler G, Davis J, Dezman D. Rapid extraction of lycopene and β-carotene from reconstituted tomato paste and pink grapefruit homogenate. Journal of food Science. 1990; 55(5): 1460-1. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb03958.x
- Sharma SK, Le Maguer M. Kinetics of lycopene degradation in tomato pulp solids under different processing and storage conditions. Food Research International. 1996; 29(3-4): 309-315. doi:10.1016/0963- 9969(96)00029-4.
- Davies BH. Carotenoids. In: Goodwin TW, editor. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Pigments. Academic Press: London; 1976.
- Sahin S, Sumnu SG. Physical Properties of Foods. Springer Science & Business Media: New York; 2006.
- Ogbulie JN, Uwazuoke JC, Oghiehor SI. Introductory Microbiology Practical. Springfield publishers: Nigeria: 1998.
- Olutiola PO, Famurewa O, Sonntag HG. An Introduction to General Microbiology: A Practical Approach. Pub Heidelberg, Germany: 1991.
- Nielsen SS. Chemical Analysis of Foods. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: Netherlands; 2003.
- Linberg JS. Quantitation of Dialysis: Historical Perspective. Serminars in Dialysis. 2001; 14(4): 238-245.
- Beristain CI, Sosa FC, Lobato-Calleros C, Pedroza-Islas R, Rodriguez ME, Verde-Calvo JR. Applications of soluble dietary fibers in beverages. Revista Mexicana de Ingenieria Quimica. 2006; 5(1): 81-95.
- Imeson A. Thickening and gelling agents for food. 2nd edn. Blackie Academic and Professional: London; 1997.
- Gavrilov AS. Industrial Production of Lycopene by a Microbiological Method. Applied Chemistry and Microbiology. 1996; 32 (5): 492-494.
- Shi J, Le Maguer M. Lycopene in Tomatoes: Chemical and Physical Properties Affected by Food Processing. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2000; 20(4): 293-334.
- Rodriguez-Amayal DB, Rodriguez EB, Amaya-Farfan J. Advances in Food Carotenoid Research: Chemical and Technological Aspects, Implications in Human Health. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition. 2006; 12 (1):101-121.
- Sevugan P, Sudhir KS. Electrical Conductivity of elected Juices: Influences of Temperature, Solids content, Applied voltage and Particle size. Food & Nutrition Press Inc: USA; 1991.
- Nussinovitch A. Hydrocolloid Applications: Gum Technology in the Food and other Industries. Chapman and Hall: Great Britain; 1997.
- Sinchaipanit P, Kerr WL. Effect of Reducing Pulp-Particles on the Physical Properties of Carrot Juice. ASEAN Food Journal. 2007; 14 (3): 205-214.
- Shu-chen Y. Effect of hydrocolloid compositions of Graptopetalum paraguayens and food gums on cloud stability of G. paraguayens juice. 2006; MSc thesis, China.
- Qin L, Xu S, Zhang W. Effect of enzymatic hydrolysis on the yield of cloudy carrot juice and the effects of hydrocolloids on colour and cloud stability during ambient storage. Journal of Science of Food And Agriculture. 2005; 85:505-512.
- Delcio S, Jose BP, Antonio C, June F, Marcio T, Patricia B. Hunter colour dimensions, sugar content, and volatile compounds in pasteurized yellow passion fruit juice (Passiflora edulis var flavicarpa) during storage. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2004; 47(2):233-245. Doi: 10.1590/S1516-89132004000200011.
- Salwa AA, Galal EA, Neimat EA. Carrot Yoghurt : Sensory, Chemical, Microbiological Properties and Consumer Acceptance. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2004; 3(6): 322-330.
- Szilard K, Judith MR, Quang DN, Agoston H. Changes of microbial population and some components in carrot juice during fermentation with selected Bifidobacterium strains. Process Biochemistry. 2008; 43(8): 816-821. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2008.03.008.
- Khayrul A, Maruf A, Sorifa A, Nurul I, Jong-Bang E. Effect of Carboxymethylcellulose and Starch as Thickening Agents on the Quality of Tomato Ketchup. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2009; 8(8):1144-1149. DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2009.1144.1149.
- Pastor MV, Costell E, Duran L. Effects of Hydrocolloids and aspartame on sensory, viscosity and sweetness of low calorie peach nectars. Journal of Texture Studies. 2007; 27(1): 61-79. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745- 4603.1996.tb00060.x.