Comparative study of physicochemical and hedonic response of ginger rhizome and leaves enriched patties

Abstract

The present investigation was an attempt to compare the phytoceutic potential of ginger rhizome and ginger leaves of the Suravi variety. For this purpose, both rhizome and leaves were dried and used for the preparation of patties. After that, patties were assessed for colour tonality, texture, total phenolic content and hedonic response such as colour, taste, flavour, texture and overall acceptability. The results depicted that L* and b* values changed significantly during the storage interval; however, b* value was also affected by treatments whilst L* and a* values did not impart any momentous effect. For texture, the highest value was observed for patties with ginger rhizome powder (0.067 ± 0.0032 N) followed by patties with ginger leaf powder (0.060 ± 0.0029 N) and then control patties (0.057 ± 0.0026 N). For total phenolic content (TPC), maximum phenolic contents were observed as 84.80 ± 3.31 mg GAE 100 g–1 in treatment T2 followed by 75.68 ± 2.95 mg GAE 100 g–1 in T1 and 61.70 ± 2.41 mg GAE 100 g–1 in T0. For hedonic response, all the parameters changed significantly during the storage interval; however, flavour, taste and overall acceptability changed momentously with treatments. The findings of the current investigation demonstrated that ginger leaves have a higher antioxidant potential as compared to the ginger rhizome and control patties, and they should be incorporated into food products.

Full text

402
Original Paper Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
Comparative study ofphysicochemical and hedonic
response ofginger rhizome and leaves enriched patties
S T1, M F J C2, S Z3,
T M2*, A K2, S J-U-R2, R I4,
A L2, S A2, Z A1, A S5
1Department ofFood Science and Technology, Faculty ofAgriculture and Environment,
Islamia University Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
2Department ofFood Science and Technology, Faculty ofEngineering and Technology,
Khawaja Fareed University ofEngineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan
3College ofFood Science and Technology, Henan University ofTechnology, Zhenzhou, China
4Department ofFood Science and Technology, Faculty ofScience and Technology,
Government College Women University, Madina Town Faisalabad, Pakistan
5Food Science and Agro-Industry, UniLaSalle International Campus deRouen –Normandy University,
Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
*Corresponding author: tariq.mehmood@kfueit.edu.pk
Citation: Tanweer S., Chughtai M.F.J., Zainab S., Mehmood T., Khaliq A., Junaid-Ur-Rahman S., Iqbal R., Liaqat A., AhsanS.,
Ahmad Z., Shehzad A. (2021): Comparative study of physicochemical and hedonic response ofginger rhizome and leaves
enriched patties. Czech J. Food Sci., 39: 402–409.
Abstract: epresent investigation was anattempt tocompare thephytoceutic potential ofginger rhizome and ginger
leaves ofthe Suravi variety. Forthis purpose, both rhizome and leaves were dried and used for thepreparation ofpatties.
After that, patties were assessed for colour tonality, texture, total phenolic content and hedonic response such ascolour,
taste, flavour, texture and overall acceptability. eresults depicted that L* and b*values changed significantly during
thestorage interval; however, b*value was also affected bytreatments whilstL* and a*values did not impart any mo-
mentous effect. Fortexture, thehighest value was observed for patties with ginger rhizome powder (0.067±0.0032N)
followed bypatties with ginger leaf powder (0.060 ± 0.0029N) and then control patties (0.057±0.0026 N). For to-
tal phenolic content (TPC), maximum phenolic contents were observed as 84.80 ± 3.31 mg GAE 100 g–1 in treat-
mentT2followed by75.68±2.95mgGAE100g–1 inT1 and 61.70±2.41mgGAE100g–1 inT0. Forhedonic response,
all theparameters changed significantly during the storage interval; however, flavour, taste and overall acceptability
changed momentously with treatments. efindings ofthe current investigation demonstrated that ginger leaves have
ahigher antioxidant potential ascompared tothe ginger rhizome and control patties, and they should beincorporated
into food products.
Keywords: nutrified patties; gingerol; bioactive ingredients; antioxidants; nutraceutics; phytoceuticals
Concomitantly, theconsequence probability ofnovel
foods indaily diet for sustaining thepreventive ability
aswell asbioactive potential isone ofthe prime tasks
for the researchers in the field of nutrition and food
sciences. Besides to the changing lifestyle of consum-
ers, occurrence and increasing level of disorders mo-
tivates the exploration of effective and healthy diets
based onfunctional nutrients, such asfunctional foods.
e utilisation of new bioactive compounds ensued
in an innovative area where the industries emphasise

403
Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409 Original Paper
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
their outcomes ofthe manufacturing of economically
and technically more reliable processes. eprime pur-
pose of designer foods is to promote the nutritional,
functional characteristics along with sensory properties
offood products (Bonilla etal. 2015).
In this context, herbs and spices with special refer-
ence toginger asone of the imperative plants having
medicinal properties are cultivated in different coun-
tries. e ginger, scientifically known asZingiber of-
ficinale, belongs tothe family Zingiberaceae (Agrahari
etal. 2015). Itiswell-reputed for its phytoceutic prop-
erty that can beascribed toanumber ofbioactive enti-
ties such asgingerols, shogaols and zingiberene (Butt
and Sultan 2011). e ginger leaves have also been
utilised for the flavouring of foods along with their
nutritional value. echemical constituents ofginger
leaves proved that ithas about 80%moisture content
followed by12.3% carbohydrates, 2.4%fats, 2.3%pro-
teins and 1.2%minerals (Murthy et al. 2015). How-
ever, theginger leaves are considered a major source
of iron, calcium, magnesium and potassium, along
with anumber ofvitamins such asthiamine, ascorbic
acid, niacin and riboflavin. echemical composition
ofginger rhizome, aswell asflowers, varies depending
upon variety, sowing method, agronomic conditions,
curing, harvesting, drying and storage. Contrasting
tothe ginger rhizome, ginger leaves have some quan-
tity of bioactive ingredients in fresh as well as dried
form (Chan etal. 2011).
Baking is one of the complex processes involved
in the processing of food products which involves
many physical and biochemical changes that further
lead to the development of sensory attributes, tex-
ture improvement, formation ofcolour, and synthesis
ofhealth-boosting ingredients (Haase etal. 2012). Al-
though baked products are among theprime vehicles
for theamalgamation ofspices, theaddition ofginger
has apositive influence onthe physical aswell aschem-
ical attributes ofbaked products due toits health ben-
efits and nutritional value (Tuncel etal. 2014).
e amalgamation ofbioactive entities like antioxi-
dants and secondary metabolites inanumber ofbaked
products, viz. cookies, bars, patties and bread, has been
used owing tothe awareness ofcomminutes concern-
ing their health stratum (Sivam etal. 2010), although
bakers are exploring theaddition ofbioactive moieties
instead ofsynthetic chemicals inthe form ofpreserva-
tives and additives. ese secondary ingredients also
hinder themould attack onbakery products (Ibrahim
etal. 2015), which further leads tothe increased shelf
life ofthe product (Debbarma etal. 2012).
Ginger rhizome, aswell asleaves, isbasically used for
themanufacturing ofbaked products, curries and con-
diments, being anexcellent source ofpleasant flavour-
ing and aromatic attributes (Malipatil etal. 2015). From
theprevious era, ginger rhizome has been added toen-
hance theflavour, taste, colour and aroma offood prod-
ucts; however, for decades, ginger leaves have only been
reported to contribute flavour to food products (Ga-
neshpillai etal. 2011). Furthermore, ginger rhizome and
leaves have solid indices that prove their abilitytomiti-
gate lipid peroxidation inbaked products owing tothe
strong antioxidant profile, hence labelled asclean moi-
ety for thefood product (Embuscado 2015).
In the present era, individuals are focusing on the
foods that can provide them taste as well as health-
-boosting properties . Inthis context, ginger has become
famous owing to its bioactive compounds nowadays;
ginger leaves are emerging part from herbs and spices
that have thesame biologically active compound but
inhigher concentration. Furthermore, thetemperature
has noimpact onthe nutraceutical property ofleaves,
and they have thesame activity both in a fresh form
aswell asdried form. epresent investigation proved
that ginger leaves have more antioxidant properties
ascompared toginger rhizome.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ginger rhizome and ginger leaves asraw material with
special reference tothe Suravi variety (IDNo.008) were
procured from South China and stored in Functional
and Nutraceutical Food Research Section ofNational In-
stitute ofFood Science and Technology (NIFSAT), USA.
All the reagents and their standards were purchased
from Tokyo Japan (Sigma-Aldrich) and Germany.
Preparation ofsamples
Fresh rhizome and leaves ofthe Suravi variety were
washed and cut into homogeneous small pieces toget
uniformity. en, therhizome and leaves were dried
in a vacuum (food vacuum dehydrator; Colzer, USA)
and then ground toproduce afine powder (multifunc-
tion herbs grinder; Swing Grinders, China). efinal-
ised powder ofginger was used for all thefurther tests
and analyses.
Product development
In the phase of product development, two types
ofpatties were prepared incontrast to control patties
byusing themethod No.10-50D ofthe American As-
sociation ofCereal Chemists (AACC). eT0consist-

404
Original Paper Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
ed ofcontrol patties (without any ginger part), T1was
enriched with ginger rhizome powder, and T2was aug-
mented with ginger leaf powder. enutrified patties
owing to the presence of ginger rhizome and leaves
asasource offunctional food were prepared bythe ad-
dition offine flour, oil, sugar, eggs, salt and baking pow-
der. eginger rhizome and ginger leaves were added
atanamount of10% inwhite flour for themanufactur-
ing ofpatties after the optimisation of the recipe de-
pending upon thesensory characteristics asdiscussed
byWadikar and Premavalli (2012). eresultant pat-
ties were stored atroom temperature for 96h (Table1).
Treatments used for product development
Physicochemical analyses ofpatties. Forthe compar-
ison ofphysicochemical properties, three types ofpatties
were assessed for colour tonality, texture and total phe-
nolic content during thestorage time of4days. eco-
lour and texture parameters were analysed byfollowing
theguideline ofParn etal. (2015); however, themethod
ofSharma and Gujral (2014) was followed todetermine
thetotal phenolic content ofnutrified patties.
Colour. e colour of ginger rhizome and ginger
leaves enriched patties was determined byusing aCIE-
-Lab colourimeter [Colour Tech-PCM; Commission In-
ternational del'Eclairage (CIELAB) Space, USA]. Before
the analysis, theCIE-Lab colourimeter was calibrated
with the help of calibration plates by using the level
atzero for a pure white plate. evalue for lightness
ranges from 0to100, which means 0for black and 100for
white. Similarly, samples were analysed for thea*value,
which showed theredness ofthe product if+ve (posi-
tive) and thegreenish product if–ve (negative). Simi-
larly, theb*value indicated the yellowish shade of the
product when the value is positive and the greenness
shade ofthe product when thevalue isnegative.
Texture analysis. e texture of nutrified ginger
rhizome and ginger leaves enriched patties was evalu-
ated using aTA-XT single arm texture analyser (Stable
Micro System; Surrey, United Kingdom) that was over-
loaded with 2 kg of weight force. e force required
tobreak thepatties was measured against thedisk probe
of35mm in diameter attached with the time curve;
this probe was comprised of2cycle based compression
and displacements having thespeed of10mmmin–1.
etexture analyser had built-in software that was fur-
ther utilised togenerate thepeaks ofdata analysis.
Total phenolic content (TPC). eTPC ofnutrified
ginger patties was evaluated byfollowing theguidelines
ofSharma and Gujral (2014). Forthe invitro TPCanal-
ysis ofginger patties, 20g ofpatties from each treatment
was extracted via Soxhlet extraction method inwhich
ethanol was used as an organic solvent for 90-minute
cycles (soxhlet apparatus; Zhengzhou Laboao, China).
eTPC inginger patties was measured using 50µL
ofeach ginger extract with 250µL ofFolin-Ciocalteu
reagent in the same test tube and 750 µL of sodium
carbonate solution (20%). After the mixing of these
solutions, thetest tube was filled with distilled water
tomake thetotal volume of5mL. After therest timing
of2h, themixture was assessed by ultraviolet/visible
(UV/Vis) spectrophotometer @765nm (CE7200; Ce-
cil Instruments, USA) wavelength against the control
solution towhich all thesolutions were added except
samples ofginger patties. en TPC was assessed, and
thevalues were verbalised against gallic acid equivalent
(GAE) inmgGAE100g–1 asstandard.
Hedonic response. eresultant ginger patties were
evaluated for hedonic response by the trained panel
ofassessors asdescribed byParn etal. (2015). Accord-
ing to his method, a 9-point hedonic scale was used
by assessors at specific time and place. At the given
time, theginger patties (control, enriched with ginger
rhizome and ginger leaves) were prepared and blindly
labelled with different codes and arranged in plates.
eserving size and quantity were maintained for all
the blind samples. e hedonic response attributes
of products, i.e.colour, texture, taste, flavour and
overall acceptability, were based on a 9-point scale.
Allassessors took part inthe evaluation in a sensory
evaluation laboratory in well-lighted and ventilated
cabins ofthe NIFSAT, University ofAgriculture, Faisal-
abad, Pakistan. Abottle ofpotable water was supplied
toeach assessor asataste purifier before theevaluation
ofeach treatment.
Statistical analysis
All the experiments were conducted in the form
oftriplets. edata obtained were subjected tothe sta-
tistical analyses by applying a completely randomised
design byusing Costat-2003, Co-Hort, v6.1. eprob-
ability and significance level were determined byanaly-
sis ofvariance (ANOVA) byusing a two-factor factorial
design under completely randomised design (CRD)
asfollowed byMontgomery (2008).
Table 1: Treatments used for product development
Treatments Description
T0control patties
T1ginger patties with ginger rhizome (10%)
T2ginger patties with ginger leave (10%)

405
Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409 Original Paper
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physicochemical analyses of patties. e patties
from different treatments with 10% ofginger rhizome
and 10% of ginger leaves were further analysed for
thecolour, texture, and total phenolic content ofpat-
ties toevaluate thechanges from theproduction time
to9h ofstorage.
Colour. esensory evaluation marks ofthe judges
suggested the acceptance of the food colour that
is mainly depending upon thecolour of the product.
e colour was determined with CIELAB colour op-
erating system toevaluate L* (brightness), a* (greenish
toreddish) and b* (yellowish tobluish) value. esta-
tistical value for the colour of patties depicted that
thestorage time exerted amomentous effect onthe co-
lour tonality; however, theinteraction oftreatment and
storage had anon-significant effect oncolour.
eL*values (Table2) for control patties (T0), patties
with ginger rhizome powder (T1) and patties with gin-
ger leaf powder (T2) were 60.02±2.34, 57.90±2.26 and
59.24±2.31, respectively atthe 0thday ofpatties; how-
ever, during thestorage interval of4days, theL*value
ofdifferent treatments decreased to56.61±2.04 when
it was 60.84 ± 2.06 at the start of storage. Similarly,
thea*values for different treatments were 6.32±0.25,
6.12± 0.24 and 5.06±0.20 for T0, T1andT2, accord-
ingly. During the storage interval, the a* value in-
creased from 4.31 ± 0.16 to 7.24±0.26 as a function
oftime forT2, which was observed asamaximum in-
crease inall treatments ofginger patties. Itwas also ob-
served that thecolour ofthe products changed towards
the yellowish shade during the time interval of 9 h,
which indicated that theb*value increased. eb*val-
ue for control patties was 32.38±1.26 atthe start; how-
ever, itincreased highest inpatties with ginger rhizome
powder, and thevalue was observed as 32.38 ±1.26.
During the 4-day storage time, the overall b* value
changed to36.40±1.32 from 34.62±1.20 atthe end.
From thefindings ofthe current investigation, itwas
concluded that theuse of ginger changed the colour
inthe case of both ginger leaves and ginger rhizome;
however, agreater change was observed for the pat-
ties made from ginger rhizome owing tothe presence
of shogaol that provides yellowish colour; in ginger
leaf powder gingerol was present and imparted asmall
Table 2: Effect oftreatments and storage oncolour tonality ofginger patties (mean±SD; n=5)
Parameters Storage interval
(h)
Treatments Means
T0T1T2
L*
0 61.12 ± 2.08 60.54 ± 2.06 60.86 ± 2.07 60.84 ± 2.06a
24 60.92 ± 1.95 59.88 ± 1.92 60.04 ± 1.92 60.28 ± 1.93a
48 60.08 ± 1.80 58.32 ± 1.75 59.50 ± 1.79 59.30 ± 1.78ab
72 59.76 ± 2.27 56.52 ± 2.15 58.45 ± 2.22 58.24 ± 2.21b
69 58.24 ± 2.10 54.24 ± 1.95 57.36 ± 2.06 56.61 ± 2.04c
means 60.02 ± 2.34 57.90 ± 2.26 59.24 ± 2.31 –
a*
0 4.02 ± 0.14 4.38 ± 0.15 4.54 ± 0.15 4.31 ± 0.16
24 4.46 ± 0.16 5.24 ± 0.17 5.60 ± 0.18 5.10 ± 0.16
48 4.90 ± 0.17 6.12 ± 0.18 6.56 ± 0.20 5.86 ± 0.18
72 5.78 ± 0.22 7.04 ± 0.24 7.14 ± 0.27 6.65 ± 0.20
96 6.12 ± 0.24 7.82 ± 0.30 7.78 ± 0.30 7.24 ± 0.29
means 5.06 ± 0.20 6.12 ± 0.24 6.32 ± 0.25 –
b*
0 31.52 ± 1.07 37.64 ± 1.28 34.70 ± 1.18 34.62 ± 1.20c
24 32.08 ± 1.03 38.32 ± 1.23 35.26 ± 1.15 35.22 ± 1.14bc
48 32.22 ± 0.97 38.62 ± 1.16 35.54 ± 1.07 35.46 ± 1.06bc
72 32.74 ± 1.24 39.16 ± 1.49 35.92 ± 1.36 35.94 ± 1.28b
96 33.36 ± 1.20 39.48 ± 1.42 36.36 ± 1.31 36.40 ± 1.32a
means 32.38 ± 1.26c 38.64 ± 1.51a 35.56 ± 1.39b–
a–cData with different superscript letters within columns are significantly different (P<0.05); T0 –control patties;
T1–patties filled with 10% ginger rhizome powder; T2–patties filled with 10% ginger leaves powder; SD –standard
deviation

406
Original Paper Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
change in the colour of the product (Mansour and
Khalil 2000; Min et al. 2009; Moiseev and Cornforth
2009; Akwetey 2012).
Texture. etexture isanessential and prime factor
for thecharacteristics of the product that can be as-
sessed during touch and also chewing and swallow-
ing. estatistical analysis proved that thetreatments,
aswell asstorage interval, exerted asignificant effect
on the hardness of patties; however, the interaction
showed anon-significant effect onthe texture ofpat-
ties. emean values (Table3) regarding thehardness
of patties depicted that the value was highest in T1
having 10% ofginger rhizome powder and the value
was 6.7±03N; itwas 6.0±0.3N for T2 having 10%
ofginger leaf powder and 5.8±0.19N for control pat-
ties. Moreover, theoverall reduction inhardness was
5.2 ± 0.19 N at the 96thh while it was 7.0 ±0.19 N
atthe0thh.
e findings of the current investigation were
in line with other researches, which proved that the
texture of patties depends upon the filling material
as well as baking time and temperature. However,
the texture decreased during thestorage interval due
to the moisture absorption by baked products along
with the effect of environmental changes on texture
(Verma etal. 2008; Min et al. 2009; Rosli et al. 2011;
Abdel-Samie etal. 2014).
Total phenolic content. Rancidity isthe main prob-
lem for the quality of baked products that reduce
theattention ofconsumers. Inthe present era, thefood
manufacturing industries are working to find the ease
inthe production of products via theaddition of func-
tional foods and nutraceuticals that elevate the an-
tioxidant perspectives of baked products along with
improvement inthe shelf life of processed food prod-
ucts. Inthe present investigation, thebioactive moieties
ofginger rhizome and ginger leaves were incorporated
into patties, and then thepatties were stored for 4days.
estatistical analysis indicated that thetreatments and
storage interval had a momentous effect on the TPC
of patties; however, the interaction showed a non-sig-
nificant effect onthe total phenolic content ofpatties.
e mean values for TPC of patties (Table3) indi-
cated that maximum TPC was observed in T2 (ginger
leaf patties) as84.80± 3.31 mg GAE 100g–1, followed
by 75.68 ± 2.95 mg GAE 100 g–1 in T1 (ginger rhi-
zomepatties) and 61.70±2.41mgGAE100g–1 incon-
trol patties. However, during thestorage interval, TPC
ofpatties decreased gradually with thepassage oftime.
e phenolic content was 79.82±2.71mgGAE100g–1
atthe start and decreased to68.76± 2.48mgGAE100g–1;
however, a maximum reduction was observed in gin-
ger leaves based patties (T2) when the contentof91.08±
±3.10mgGAE100g–1 was reduced to 79.14 ± 2.85mg
GAE100g–1 at the 96thh of storage interval. e findings
of the current research work were correlated with the re-
searches that proved that the TPC of patties decreased
during thestorage interval due to the interaction of bio-
active ingredient with air (Rodríguez-Carpena etal. 2011;
Ibrahim etal. 2012; Duthie etal. 2013).
Table 3. Effect oftreatments and storage ontexture and TPC ofginger patties (mean±SD; n=10)
Parameters Storage interval
(h)
Treatments Means
T0T1T2
Texture
(N)
0 0.066 ± 0.0019 0.075 ± 00.0020 0.072 ± 0.0020 0.072 ± 0.0020a
24 0.063 ± 0.0020 0.072 ± 0.0020 0.064 ± 0.0020 0.066 ± 0.002b
48 0.057 ± 0.0020 0.069 ± 0.0020 0.060 ± 0.0020 0.062 ± 0.0029bc
72 0.051 ± 0.0020 0.064 ± 0.0029 0.058 ± 0.0029 0.057 ± 0.0029c
69 0.046 ± 0.0019 0.060 ± 0.0029 0.052 ± 0.0029 0.051 ± 0.0029d
means 0.057 ± 0.0020 0.067 ± 0.0029a 0.060 ± 0.0029b–
TPC
(mg GAE 100g–1)
0 67.62 ± 2.30 80.76 ± 2.75 91.08 ± 3.10 79.82 ± 2.71a
24 64.40 ± 2.06 78.24 ± 2.50 87.52 ± 2.80 76.72 ± 2.46b
48 61.46 ± 1.84 75.32 ± 2.26 84.74 ± 2.54 73.84 ± 2.22c
72 58.18 ± 2.21 73.84 ± 2.81 79.24 ± 2.85 71.14 ± 2.70d
96 56.82 ± 2.05 70.22 ± 2.53 79.24 ± 2.85 68.76 ± 2.48e
means 61.70 ± 2.41c 75.68 ± 2.95b 84.80 ± 3.31a–
a–eData with different superscript letters within columns are significantly different (P<0.05); T0 –control patties;
T1–patties filled with 10% ginger rhizome powder; T2–patties filled with 10% ginger leaves powder; TPC –total phe-
nolic content; SD –standard deviation

407
Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409 Original Paper
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
Furthermore, total phenolic content also differed
intreatments owing tothe change inthe concentration
ofgingerol inrhizome and leaves. According tonumer-
ous scientists, dried ginger has more shogaol as com-
pared togingerol; however, ineither fresh ordried ginger
leaves, only gingerol ispresent (Sharifi-Rad etal. 2017).
Hedonic response. ehedonic response ofginger
rhizome and ginger leaves based patties was conducted
under thewhite spectrum oflight atroom temperature.
Onthe day ofevaluation, theginger patties were evalu-
ated onthe basis ofacceptability bymarking thescore
on a 9-point scale. e statistical analysis regarding
thehedonic response showed that thetreatments had
asignificant effect onall thehedonic responses except
colour owing to the change in filling only; however,
storage showed amomentous decline inall theaspects
ofhedonic responses although theinteraction oftreat-
ments and storage exerted a non-significant effect
onall thehedonic attributes.
Colour is the most important parameter on which
thesuccess ofany product depends because if thecon-
sumer does not like thecolour, noone will taste oreven
touch it. emean values regarding thecolour ofpat-
ties (Table4) proved that treatments did not impart
Table 4: Effect oftreatment and storage onhedonic response ofginger patties (mean±SD; n=10)
Parameters Storage interval
(h)
Treatments Means
T0T1T2
Colour
0 7.20 ± 0.25 7.18 ± 0.26 7.22 ± 0.24 7.20 ± 0.25a
24 7.18 ± 0.23 7.12 ± 0.24 7.18 ± 0.23 7.16 ± 0.22b
48 7.16 ± 0.21 7.08 ± 0.22 7.14 ± 0.21 7.12 ± 0.20c
72 7.10 ± 0.27 7.04 ± 0.28 7.10 ± 0.26 7.08 ± 0.27d
69 7.06 ± 0.25 6.98 ± 0.24 7.08 ± 0.25 7.04 ± 0.24e
means 7.14 ± 0.28 7.08 ± 0.27 7.14 ± 0.23 –
Flavour
0 7.22 ± 0.24 6.96 ± 0.23 7.42 ± 0.25 7.20 ± 0.25a
24 7.18 ± 0.23 6.74 ± 0.22 7.26 ± 0.23 7.06 ± 0.23ab
48 6.86 ± 0.21 6.62 ± 0.20 7.04 ± 0.21 6.84 ± 0.21b
72 6.52 ± 0.25 6.46 ± 0.26 6.88 ± 0.26 6.62 ± 0.24bc
96 6.40 ± 0.23 6.34 ± 0.23 6.70 ± 0.24 6.48 ± 0.22c
means 6.84 ± 0.27b 6.62 ± 0.26c 7.06 ± 0.28a–
Taste
0 7.42 ± 0.28 7.24 ± 0.25 7.48 ± 0.24 7.38 ± 0.18a
24 7.34 ± 0.27 7.16 ± 0.21 7.40 ± 0.22 7.30 ± 0.22a
48 7.22 ± 0.23 7.04 ± 0.24 7.28 ± 0.27 7.18 ± 0.28b
72 7.08 ± 0.25 6.96 ± 0.26 7.14 ± 0.25 7.06 ± 0.29c
96 6.86 ± 0.22 6.88 ± 0.23 7.02 ± 0.24 6.92 ± 0.22d
means 7.18 ± 0.25b 7.06 ± 0.28c 7.26 ± 0.20a–
Texture
0 7.48 ± 0.34 7.46 ± 0.28 7.44 ± 0.30 7.46 ± 0.21a
24 7.36 ± 0.32 7.34 ± 0.31 7.38 ± 0.35 7.36 ± 0.23b
48 7.24 ± 0.31 7.24 ± 0.27 7.26 ± 0.32 7.24 ± 0.27c
72 7.12 ± 0.29 7.10 ± 0.29 7.14 ± 0.34 7.12 ± 0.29d
96 7.02 ± 0.33 7.06 ± 0.32 7.10 ± 0.32 7.06 ± 0.28e
means 7.24 ± 0.28 7.24 ± 0.29 7.26 ± 0.27 –
Overall
acceptability
0 7.54 ± 0.26 7.22 ± 0.23 7.56 ± 0.30 7.44 ± 0.25a
24 7.36 ± 0.22 7.18 ± 0.21 7.42 ± 0.34 7.32 ± 0.23b
48 7.30 ± 0.21 7.12 ± 0.25 7.36 ± 0.23 7.26 ± 0.28b
72 7.18 ± 0.25 7.02 ± 0.28 7.22 ± 0.24 7.14 ± 0.31c
96 7.02 ± 0.28 6.94 ± 0.26 7.16 ± 0.31 7.04 ± 0.30d
means 7.28 ± 0.24b 7.10 ± 0.30c 7.34 ± 0.25a–
a–eData with different superscript letters within columns are significantly different (P<0.05); T0 –control patties;
T1–patties filled with 10% ginger rhizome powder; T2–patties filled with 10% ginger leaves powder; SD –standard
deviation

408
Original Paper Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
any significant change incolour. e maximum score
of7.08 ± 0.27 was observed for control patties; how-
ever, for T2 (ginger leaves based patties), the colour
score was 7.14 ± 0.28 while itwas 7.14 ±0.23 for T1
(ginger rhizome based patties). During thestorage in-
terval of4days, an overall reduction in colour score
was from 7.20 ± 0.25 to 7.04± 0.24. If the consumer
likes ordislikes theproduct, it depends upon thefla-
vour after colour. estatistical analysis proved that
the treatments along with storage had a momentous
effect onthe flavour.
e score for flavour was 7.06±0.28, 6.62±0.26 and
6.84 ± 0.27 in T0, T1 and T2, respectively. echange
in flavour was due to the pungent flavour of ginger
rhizome that imparted a change in ginger based pat-
ties. Similarly, the flavour marks decreased from
7.20 ±0.25 to 6.4 ± 0.22 during the storage of 96 h.
Furthermore, themeans for taste showed a maximum
score for ginger leaf patties, i.e. 7.26 ± 0.20, while for
ginger rhizome based patties, the taste score was
7.06± 0.28 and for control patties, it was 7.18 ±0.25;
however, during thestorage interval, thetaste marks de-
creased to6.92±0.22 when they were 7.36±0.18 atthe
start. ecrusty nature ofthe product istotally depen-
dent onthe texture. emaximum score for thetexture
ofpatties was observed for T2 (7.26±0.27), and itwas
7.24±0.29 and 7.24±0.28 forT1 andT0. escores for
texture during thestorage interval proved a significant
reduction to7.46 ±0.21 while they were 7.06±0.28 at
the start ofstorage duration. Inthe case of overall ac-
ceptability, thebest scores were given tothe patties filled
with ginger leaves, i.e.7.34±0.25, and thelowest score
of7.10±0.30 was obtained for patties filled with ginger
rhizome due topungent smell and aftertaste. However,
during the4-day storage interval, theoverall acceptabili-
ty ofpatties was reduced from 7.44±0.25 to7.04±0.30.
From thehedonic response, itwas revealed that thepat-
ties filled with ginger leaves got thehighest marks.
e outcomes ofthe present investigation were inline
with thefindings ofother scientists. According totheir
results, thehedonic response of patties decreased dur-
ing thestorage interval due tothe reduced freshness and
increased the dull and soft texture of baked products
(Ali and Rasool 2007; Verma etal. 2008; Devatka etal.
2010; Nisar etal. 2010; Apata etal. 2011; Akwetey 2012).
CONCLUSION
Ginger rhizomes have an enriched phytochemical
profile, particularly with antioxidant potential. epat-
ties were enriched with rhizome and leaves, and itwas
inferred that sensory parameters of enriched prod-
ucts were excellent with respect toaesthetic look, or-
ganoleptic attributes and consumer acceptability ofthe
product. Itisstrongly recommended that bakery prod-
ucts, mainly patties, should beenriched with ginger rhi-
zome and leaves due totheir diversified and enhanced
medicinal benefits.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Samie M.A.S., Wan J., Haung W., Chung O.K.,
XuB. (2014): Effects ofcumin and ginger asantioxidants
ondough mixing properties and cookie quality. Cereal
Chemistry, 87:454–460.
Agrahari P., Panda P., Verma N.K., Khan W.U., Darbari S.
(2015): Abrief study on Zingiber officinale –Areview.
Journal ofDrug Discovery and erapeutics, 3:20–27.
Akwetey W.Y. (2012): Enhancing eating quality ofchicken
patties through pre-rigor processing. Journal of Animal
Science, 2:771–776.
Ali S.W., Rasool G. (2007). Chemical and sensory character-
istics offrozen stored patties fried indifferent vegetable
oils. Pakistan Journal ofAgricultural Sciences, 44:3–6.
Apata E.S., Eniolorunda O.O., Ayantuga D.T., Apata O.C.,
Okubanjo A.O. (2011): Physicochemical and organoleptic
assessment ofpatties from beef and antelope meat. Inter-
national Journal ofAgricultural Sciences, 1:1–5.
Bonilla J., Vargas F.C., Oliveira T.G., Makishi G.L.A., So-
bralP.J.A. (2015): Recent patents on the application
ofbioactive compounds infood: Ashort review. Current
Opinion inFood Science, 5:1–7.
Butt M.S., Sultan M.T. (2011): Ginger and its health claims:
Molecular aspects. Critical Reviews inFood Science and
Nutrition, 51:383–393.
Chan E.W.C., Lin Y.Y., Wong S.K. (2011): Antioxidant prop-
erties of ginger leaves: An overview. Free Radicals and
Antioxidants, 1:1–11.
Debbarma J., Kishore P., Nayak B.B., Kannuchamy N.,
Gudipati V. (2012): Antibacterial activity ofginger, euca-
lyptus and sweet orange peel essential oils on fish-borne
bacteria. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation,
37:1022–1030.
Devatka S.K., Narsaiah K., Borah A. (2010): Antioxidant
effect ofextracts ofkinnow rind, pomegranate rind and
seed powders incooked goat meat patties. Meat Sciences,
85:155–159.
Duthie G., Campbell F., Bestwick C., Stephen S., Russell W.
(2013): Antioxidant effectiveness ofvegetable powders
onthe lipid and protein oxidative stability ofcooked
turkey meat patties: Implications for health. Nutrition,
5:1241–1252.

409
Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 39, 2021 (5): 402–409 Original Paper
https://doi.org/10.17221/261/2020-CJFS
Embuscado M.E. (2015): Spices and herbs: Natural sources
ofantioxidants – A mini review. Journal ofFunctional
Foods, 18:811–819.
White B. (2007): Ginger: An overview. American Family
Physician, 75:1689–1691.
Ganeshpillai M., Murugan P., Singh A. (2011): Experimental
analysis of microwave drying kinetics and characteriza-
tion ofginger rhizome. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation, 36:401–411.
Haase N.U., Grothe K.H., Mattaus B., Vosmann K., Lind-
hauerM.G. (2012): Acrylamide formation and antioxidant
level inbiscuits related torecipe and baking. Food Addi-
tives and Contaminants, 29:1230–1238.
Ibrahim H.M., Moawad R.K., Emam W.H. (2012): Antioxidant
effect ofpomegranate rind, seed extracts and pomegran-
ate juice onlipid oxidation and some quality properties
ofcooked beef patties. Journal ofApplied Sciences and
Research, 8:4023–4032.
Ibrahim U.K., Salleh R.M., Maqsood-ul-Haque S.N.S. (2015):
Bread towards functional food: Anoverview. International
Journal ofFood Engineering, 1:39–43.
Malipatil N.B., Manjunath S., Shruthi D.P. (2015): Evaluation
ofeffect of aqueous extract ofZingiber officinale Roscoe
(ginger) onacute and chronic inflammation inadult albino
rats. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Clinical Research,
8:113–116.
Mansour H., Khalil A.H. (2000): Evaluation ofantioxidant ac-
tivity ofsome plant extracts and their application toground
beef patties. Food Chemistry, 69:135–141.
Min B., Chen M.H., Green B.W. (2009): Antioxidant activi-
ties ofpurple rice bran extract and its effect onthe quality
oflow-NaCl, phosphate-free patties made from chan-
nel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) belly flap meat. Journal
ofFood Science, 74:268–277.
Moiseev V., Cornforth D.P. (2009): Treatments for preven-
tionof persistent pinking in dark-cutting beef patties.
Journal ofFood Science, 64:738–743.
Montgomery D.C. (2008): Design and Analysis of Experi-
ments. 7thEd. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, John Wiley
&SonsInc.: 162–264.
Murthy P.S., Gautam R., Naik J.P. (2015): Ginger oleoresin
chemical composition bioactivity and application asbio-
-preservatives. Journal ofFood Processing and Preserva-
tion, 39:1905–1912.
Nisar P.U., Chatli M.K., Sharma M.D.K., Sahoo J. (2010): Effect
ofcooking methods and fat levels onthe physico-chemical,
processing, sensory and microbial quality ofbuffalo meat
patties. Journal ofAnimal Sciences, 23:1380–1385.
Parn O.J., Bhat R., Yeoh T.K., Al-Hassan A.A. (2015): Devel-
opment ofnovel fruit bars byutilizing date paste. Food Bio
Sciences, 9:20–27.
Rodríguez-Carpena J.G., Morcuende D., Kylli A.P., EstevezM.
(2011): Avocado (Persea americanaMill.) phenolics, invi-
tro antioxidant and antimicrobial activities and inhibition
oflipid and protein oxidation inpatties. Journal ofAgri-
culture and Food Chemistry, 59:5625–5635.
Rosli W.I., Solihah M.A., Aishah M., Fakurudin N.A., Moh-
sinS.S.J. (2011): Colour, textural properties, cooking
characteristics and fiber content ofchicken patty added
with oyster mushroom (Pleurotus sajor-caju). International
Food Research Journal, 18:621–627.
Sharifi-Rad M., Varoni E.M., Salehi B., Sharifi-Rad J., Mat-
thews K.R., Ayatollahi S.A., Kobarfard F., Ibrahim S.A.,
Mnayer D., Zakaria Z.A., Sharifi-Rad M., Yousaf Z., IritiM.,
Basile A., Rigano D. (2017): Plants ofthe genus Zingiber
asasource ofbioactive phytochemicals: From traditional
topharmacy. Molecules, 22:2145.
Sharma P., Gujral H.S. (2014): Antioxidant potential ofwheat
flour chapatties asaffected byincorporation ofbarely flour.
Food Science and Technology, 56:118–123.
Sivam A.S., Sun-Waterhouse D., Siew Y.Q., Perera C.O.
(2010): Properties ofbread dough with added fiber poly-
saccharides and phenolic antioxidants: Areview. Journal
ofFood Science, 75:163–174.
Tuncel N.B., Yilmaz N., Kocabiyik H., Uygur A. (2014):
eeffect of infrared stabilized rice bran substitution
onphysicochemical and sensory properties ofpan bread:
PartI. Journal ofCereal Science, 59:155–161.
Verma A.K., Lakshmanan V., Mendirattal S.K., Anjane-
yuli A.S.R. (2008): Quality characteristics and storage
stability ofpatties from buffalo head and heart meats.
Journal ofFood Science and Technology, 43:1798–1806.
Wadikar D.D., Premavalli K.S. (2012): Optimization ofginger
based ready-to-drink appetizer byresponse surface meth-
odology and its shelf stability. Journal ofFood Processing
and Preservation, 36:489–496.
Received: October 28, 2020
Accepted: July 26, 2021