CHAPTER IV

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Effect of Sweet Potato Flour on the Acceptability of Muffin Making

The results for sensory evaluation using Hedonic Rating Scale (HRS) are presented

in the following tables and graphs.

4.2 Acceptability of Evaluation using Hedonic Rating Scale

The fifteen (15) experimental samples were coded with random numbers, including

the Control were presented to a panel of ten (10) for the determination of each product

acceptability.

75
Figure 14: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Color

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.1 Color

In terms of color, the result shows that the formulation 1, 8, 10 and 13 got the

highest mean of 7.0 which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is formulation 2 which

got the mean of 6.9 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 5, 11 and 12 got

the mean of 6.8 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 4 got the mean of 6.6

which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 6 and 14 got the mean of 6.5 which

corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 9 got the mean of 6.3 which corresponds to

liked slightly. Formulation 3 and 7 got the mean of 6.2 which corresponds to liked slightly.

And formulation 15 got the lowest mean of 5.3 which is neither liked nor disliked by the

panelist.

76
Figure 15: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Texture

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.2 Texture

In terms of texture, the result shows that the formulation 2 got the highest mean of

7.1 which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is formulation 12 got the mean of 6.8

which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 1, 10 and 11 got the mean of 6.6

which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 8 and 9 got the mean of 6.4 which

corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 5 got the mean of 6.2 which corresponds to liked

slightly. Formulation 13 got the mean of 6.1 which corresponds to liked slightly.

Formulation 14 got the mean of 6.0 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 6 got

the mean of 5.9 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 3 got the mean of 5.1

77
which corresponds to neither liked nor disliked. And formulation 15 got the lowest mean of

4.6 which is disliked slightly by the panelist.

Figure 16: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Taste/Flavor

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.3 Taste / Flavor

In terms of taste / flavor, the result shows that the formulation 1 and 8 got the

highest mean of 6.8 which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is formulation 9, 12

and 13 which got the mean of 6.7 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 2, 5,

7, 10 and 11 got the mean of 6.6 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 4 got

the mean of 6.5 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 3 and 6 got the mean

of 6.2 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 15 got the mean of 6.1 which

78
corresponds to liked slightly. And formulation 14 got the lowest mean of 6.0 which is liked

slightly by the panelist.

Figure 17: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Tenderness

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.4 Tenderness

In terms of tenderness, the result shows that the formulation 9 and 11 got the

highest mean of 6.7 which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is formulation 12 got

the mean of 6.6 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 7 got the mean of 6.4

which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 5, 6, 9 and 11 got the mean of 6.3 which

corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 7 got the mean of 6.2 which corresponds to liked

slightly. Formulation 2 and 4 got the mean of 6.1 which corresponds to liked slightly.

79
Formulation 3 got the mean of 5.6 which corresponds to liked slightly. And formulation 15

got the lowest mean of 5.1 which is neither liked nor disliked by the panelist.

Figure 18: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Odor / Aroma

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.5 Odor / Aroma

In terms of odor / aroma, the result shows that the formulation 12 got the highest

mean of 6.9 which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is formulation 2 and 10 which

got the mean of 6.6 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 1, 7 and 8 got the

mean of 6.5 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 4, 5, 6 and 13 got the

mean of 6.4 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 11 got the mean of 6.2 which

corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 14 got the mean of 6.0 which corresponds to

80
liked slightly. Formulation 9 and 15 got the mean of 5.9 which corresponds to liked

slightly. And formulation 3 got the lowest mean of 5.8 which is liked slightly by the

panelist.

Figure 19: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on Firmness

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor dislike

4.2.6 Firmness

In terms of firmness, the result shows that the 8 and 9 got the highest mean of 6.6

which is liked moderately by the panelist. Next is Formulation 2 got the mean of 6.4 which

corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 13 got the mean of 6.3 which corresponds to

liked slightly. Formulation 10 got the mean of 6.2 which corresponds to liked slightly.

Formulation 5 and 7 got the mean of 6.1 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 6

got the mean of 6.0 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 15 got the mean of 5.8

81
which corresponds to liked slightly. And formulation 3 and 4 got the lowest mean of 5.4

which is neither liked nor disliked by the panelist.

Figure 20: This figure shows the graphical representation of the result in Hedonic Rating Scale on General

Acceptability

Parameters:
9-like extremely 4-dislike slightly
8-like very much 3-dislike moderately
7-like moderately 2-dislike very much
6-like slightly 1 dislike extremely
5-neither like nor disliked

4.2.7 General Acceptability

In terms of general acceptability, the result shows that the formulation 1 got the

highest mean of 7.7 which is liked very much by the panelist. Next is formulation 10 and

12 which got the mean of 6.8 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 13 got

the mean of 6.7 which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 2 got the mean of 6.6

which corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 9 got the mean of 6.5 which

corresponds to liked moderately. Formulation 4 and 8 got the mean of 6.3 which

82
corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 11 and 14 got the mean of 6.2 which corresponds

to liked slightly. Formulation 7 got the mean of 6.1 which corresponds to liked slightly.

Formulation 3 and 5 got the mean of 6.0 which corresponds to liked slightly. Formulation 6

got the mean of 5.8 which corresponds to liked slightly. And formulation 15 got the lowest

mean of 5.0 which is neither liked nor disliked by the panelist.

Line Graph for the General Acceptability of

HRS
Hedonic Rating Scale (HRS)

Series1
12 Series2
Series3
10
Series4
8 Series5
6 Series6
4 Series7
Series8
2 Series9
0 Series10
Series11
r
or

ss

ss
o

Series12
av
ol

ne

ne
ro
C

Fl

er
rm

/A

Series13
nd
Fi

r
do

Te

Series14
O

Series15

Figure 21: This figure shows the line graph of Hedonic Rating Scale in General Acceptability of Sweet Potato

Muffin

83
 Web Graph of the Hedonic Rating Scale
Color
10

5
Tenderness Flavor

Odor / Aroma Firmness

Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

Series6 Series7 Series8 Series9 Series10

Series11 Series12 Series13 Series14 Series15

Figure 22: This figure shows the web graph of the Hedonic Rating Scale

4.3. Microbial Analysis Result

4.3.1 Yeast and Mold Count

Table 11: Shows the result in the Yeast and Mold Analysis

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

Yeast and Molds, CFU / g <10* Pour Plate
-1
*<10 means zero count in 10 sample dilution

In conducting this experiment, the AOAC method was used in the analysis and the

test method was Pour Plate method. Based on results, <10 CFU / g was obtained which

means that zero count in 10-1 sample dilution.

4.3.2 pH

84
Table 12: Shows the result in pH Analysis

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

pH, 10% w/w 6.80 @ 26.0°C Electrometry

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was the electrometry method.

Results showed, 6.80 @ 26.0°C.

4.4 Proximate Analysis Result

4.4.1 Ash

Table 13: Shows the result in Ash Analysis

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

Ash, g / 100 g 2.2 Gravimetry

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was the gravimetry method.

The result was 2.2 g / 100 g.

4.4.2 Moisture

Table 14: Shows the result in Moisture Content Analysis of Sweet Potato Muffin

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

Moisture, g /100 g 22.3 Gravimetry @ 105°

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was gravimetry method @

105°C. The result was 22.3 was obtained.

4.4.3 Protein

Table 15: Crude Protein Analysis

85
Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology
Protein (N x 6.25), g / 100 g 4.8 Kjeldahl

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was Kjeldal method. The result

was 4.8 g / 100 g was obtained.

4.4.4 Fat

Table 16: Shows the result in Crude Fat Analysis

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

Fat, g / 100 g 12.4 Acid Hydrolysis

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was Acid Hydrolysis method.

The result was 12.4 g / 100 g was obtained.

4.4.5 Carbohydrates

Table 17: Shows the result in Carbohydrates Analysis

Parameters Sweet Potato Muffin Methodology

Total Carbohydrates, g / 100 58.3 By Computation
g
Legend:

% Carbohydrates = 100 – (% moisture + % ash + % protein + % fat)

In conducting this analysis, the AOAC method used was by computation. The result

was 58.3 g / 100 g was obtained.

4.4.6 Moisture

Table 18: Shows the result in Moisture Content Analysis of Sweet Potato Flour

86
Parameters Sweet Potato Flour Methodology
Moisture, g / 100 g 8.0 Gravimetry @ 105°C

In conducting this analysis, AOAC method used was gravimetry @ 105°C. 8.0% of

sweet potato flour was obtained. A moisture content of a flour of less than 13% has been

reported to prevent the growth of all organisms, the result signifies that the product is good

/ acceptable.

87
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet3 4v*16c)
46

44

42
Cake Flour

40

38
8.8
8.6
8.4
36 8.2
8
7.8
7.6
34 7.4
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.2
Camote Flour

Figure 23: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Color in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet3 4v*16c)

8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2

Figure 24: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Color in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

88
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet3 4v*16c)
Color = -15.863+1.219*x+0.0749*y-0.0135*x*x-0.0091*x*y+0.0071*y*y
26

24

22
Fat

20

18

16 8.6
8.4
8.2
8
14 7.8
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.6
Camote Flour

Figure 25: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Color in Camote Flour and Fat

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

Color = -15.863+0.0749*x+1.219*y+0.0071*x*x-0.0091*x*y-0.0135*y*y

8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6

Figure 26: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Color in Camote Flour and Fat

89
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
26

24

22
Fat

20

18

8.6
8.4
16 8.2
8
7.8
7.6
14 7.4
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.2
Camote Flour

Figure 27: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Odor / Aroma in Camote Flour and Fat

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2

Figure 28: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Odor / Aroma in Camote Flour and Fat

90
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
46

44

42
Cake Flour

40

38

8.4
36 8.2
8
7.8
7.6
34 7.4
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.2
Camote Flour

Figure 29: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Odor / Aroma in Camote Flour and Cake
Flour

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2

Figure 30: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Odor / Aroma in Camote Flour and Cake
Flour

91
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
26

24

22
Fat

20

18

16 8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
14 8
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.8
Camote Flour

Figure 31: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Flavor in Camote Flour and Fat

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8

Figure 32: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Flavor in Camote Flour and Fat

92
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
46

44

42
Cake Flour

40

38

36
9.5
9
8.5
34 8
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.5
Camote Flour

Figure 33: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Flavor in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5

Figure 34: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Flavor in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

93
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
26

24

22
Fat

20

18

16
9.4
9
8.6
14 8.2
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.8
Camote Flour

Figure 35: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Firmness in Camote Flour and Fat

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

9.4
9
8.6
8.2
7.8

Figure 36: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Firmness in Camote Flour and Fat

94
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)
46

44

42
Cake Flour

40

38

36
9
8.8
8.6
34 8.4
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
8.2
Camote Flour

Figure 37: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Firmness in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*15c)

9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2

Figure 38: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Firmness in Camote Flour and Cake Flour

95
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*16c)
Tenderness = 12.3553-0.0767*x-0.1769*y-0.0014*x*x+0.0068*x*y-0.002*y*y
26

24

22
Fat

20

18

16 8.4
8.2
8
7.8
14 7.6
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.4
Camote Flour

Figure 39: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Tenderness in Camote Flour and Fat

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*16c)

Tenderness = 12.3553-0.0767*x-0.1769*y-0.0014*x*x+0.0068*x*y-0.002*y*y

8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4

Figure 40: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Tenderness in Camote Flour and Fat

96
 3D Contour Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*16c)
46

44

42
Cake Flour

40

38

36
8.4
8.2
8
34 7.8
34 36 38 40 42 44 46
7.6
Camote Flour

Figure 41: This figure shows the Contour Plot of Tenderness in Camote Flour and Cake
Flour

3D Surface Plot (Spreadsheet4 4v*16c)

8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6

Figure 42: This figure shows the Surface Plot of Tenderness in Camote Flour and Cake
Flour

97
 In figure 23 shows the contour plot in color of cake flour and camote flour while in
figure 24 shows the surface plot in color of cake flour and camote flour. In both figures 23
and 24 shows that when the level of factors of cake flour increases from 39 to 38 up to 41,
and level of camote flour also increases from 39 to 38 up to 41, there is an increase in flour
of 8.3 to get the optimum color or it has a slightly yellow color.

In figure 25 shows the contour plot in color of fat and camote flour while in figure
26 shows the surface plot in color of fat and camote flour. In both figures 25 and 26 shows
that both plot doesn’t show an optimum color using fat and camote flour.

In figure 27 shows the contour plot in odor / aroma of fat and camote flour while in
figure 28 shows the surface plot in odor / flavor of fat and camote flour. In both figures 27
and 28 shows that when the level of factors of fat increases from 18 to 19 up to 22, and
level of camote flour also increases from 37 to 39 up to 43, there is an increase in flour of
8.08 to get the optimum odor/ aroma or it has a slightly camote odor / aroma.

In figure 29 shows the contour plot in odor / aroma of cake flour and camote flour
while figure 30 shows the surface plot in odor/ aroma of cake flour and camote flour. In
both figures 29 and 30 shows that when the level of factors of cake flour increases, and
level of camote flour also increases from 36 to 40 up to 42, there is an increase in flour of
8.08 to get the optimum odor / aroma or it has a slightly camote odor / aroma.

In figure 31 shows the contour plot in flavor of fat and camote flour while in figure
32 shows the surface plot in flavor of fat and camote flour . In both figures 31 and 32
shows that when the level of factors of fat decreases from 20 to 15, and level of camote
flour also decreases from 45 to 35 , there is an increase in flour of 8.07 to get the optimum
flavor or it has a slightly camote flavor.

In figure 33 shows the contour plot in flavor of cake flour and camote flour while in
figure 34 shows the surface plot in flavor of fat and camote flour. In both figures 33 and 34
shows that when the level of factors of camote flour decreases from 40 to 35, and level of

98
cake flour also decreases from 45 to 35, there is an increase in flour of 8.07 to get the
optimum flavor or it has a slightly camote flavor.

In figure 35 shows the contour plot in firmness of fat and camote flour while in
figure 36 shows the surface plot in firmness of fat and camote flour. In both figures 35 and
36 shows that when the level of factors of fat decreases from 16 to 14, and level of camote
flour increases from 34 to 41 up to 43, there is an increase in flour of 8.6 to get the
optimum firmness or it has a slightly soft.

In figure 37 shows the contour plot in firmness of cake flour and camote flour while
in figure 38 shows the surface plot in firmness of cake flour and camote flour. In both
figures 37 and 38 shows that when the level of factors of cake flour decreases from 36 to
34, and the level of camote flour also decreases from 36 to 40 up to 44, there is an increase
in flour of 8.6 to get the optimum firmness or it has a slightly soft.

In figure 39 shows the contour plot in tenderness of fat and camote flour while in
figure 40 shows the surface plot in tenderness of fat and camote flour. In both figures 39
and 40 shows that when the level of factors of fat decreases from26 to 18, and the level of
camote flour also decreases from 39 to 35, there is a decrease in flour of 8.07 to get the
optimum tenderness or it has a slightly soft.

In figure 41 shows the contour plot in tenderness of cake flour and camote flour
while in figure 42 shows the surface plot in tenderness of cake flour and camote flour. In
both figures 40 and 41 shows that when the level of factors of cake flour increases from 34
to 46, and the level of camote flour also decreases from 35 to 34, there is a decrease in
flour of 8.07 to get the optimum tenderness or it has a slightly soft.

99
Figure 43: Superimposed region for physical measurement of Sweet Potato Muffin
processed for formulation optimization.

The contour plots were overlapped at only two regions; the color and firmness. The

shaded areas should suppose to represent the optimum region for all the attributes: color,

flavor, odor / aroma, tenderness and firmness. However, in the study conducted, flavor is

the most important criteria being considered by the panelist. The tenderness was far from

the optimum region because the cake flour and fat were very high from the other attributes.

From these results, it was shown that the formulation of sweet potato muffin should

be directed towards using the cake flour level from 34 to 35 grams, fat proportion of 14 to

15 grams and camote flour level of 34 to 36 grams.

100