Cited by 95Food composition and propertiesProteins in Food SystemsMeat and Animal Product Quality

Extrusion parameters and consumer acceptability of a peanut‐based meat analogue

Rehrah, Djaafar, Ahmedna, Mohamed, Goktepe, Ipek, Yu, Jianmei·2009·International Journal of Food Science & Technology

Abstract

Summary Despite its high protein content and low cost, defatted peanut flour (DPF) remains underutilised in human foods. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the best extrusion parameters for a peanut‐based textured meat analogue (TMA); (2) develop new TMA products from DPF and (3) evaluate their consumer acceptability. Preliminary runs using a wide range of extrusion parameters were conducted. A central composite RSM design was used to determine the optimal extrusion conditions within the best ranges revealed by the preliminary runs. Three levels of moisture, screw‐speed and barrel temperature were used in 31 runs. Expansion ratio, bulk density, texture profile, water absorption/solubility indexes of the extrudates were determined and used as indicators of product quality. Peanut‐based TMAs produced at optimal extrusion conditions were flavoured with beef flavour and evaluated by a 60‐member sensory panel for flavour, texture, and overall liking, using a 9‐point hedonic scale. Optimisation studies revealed that the most important extrusion conditions are in descending order: protein content, temperature, moisture and screw‐speed. Extrusion conditions that produced the best TMA were 60–65% protein, 50–55% moisture, 160–165 °C and 80–90 r.p.m. Sensory acceptability of snacks incorporating peanut‐based TMAs was similar or better than those containing soya‐based TMAs in terms of flavour, texture, off‐flavour and overall liking. TMA produced from inexpensive DPF has the potential to compete with commercial meat analogues, thereby adding value to the peanut industry.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02035.x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rehrah, D., Ahmedna, M., Goktepe, I., & Yu, J.
Affiliations
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ahmedna, Mohamed
Venue
International Journal of Food Science & Technology
Published
2009-09-15
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
2075-2084
ISSN
  • 0950-5423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2621
OpenAlex
W2126561141
Cited by
95
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Food Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
Keywords
extrusion parameters, consumer acceptance, sensory evaluation, expansion ratio, bulk density, water absorption, water solubility, screw speed, barrel temperature, moisture content

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review