표제지

목차

Abbreviations 15

Abstract 16

Ⅰ. 서론 20

Ⅱ. 실험재료 및 방법 27

1. 실험 재료의 준비 27

1.1. 빈대떡 구성재료의 결정 27

1.2. 빈대떡 조리 29

2. 혼합물 실험 계획법(mixture design)과 반응 표면 분석(response surface methodology) 32

3. 소비자 기호도 조사(consumer acceptability test)와 물성검사(texture profile analysis) 37

3.1. 소비자 기호도 조사 (consumer acceptability test) 37

3.2. 물성 검사 (texture profile analysis) 39

4. 영양 성분 분석과 품질평가 42

4.1. 일반성분 분석 42

4.2. 전분의 호화도 42

4.3. 단백질의 품질평가 43

4.3.1 구성아미노산 분석 43

4.3.2 단백질 소화율(in vitro) 43

4.3.3 단백질 효율비(C-PER; computed protein efficiency ratio)와 예측소화율(DC-PER; discriminant computed protein efficiency ratio) 44

4.4. TBA value와 갈변도 46

4.5. 통계 분석방법 46

Ⅲ. 실험결과 및 고찰 47

1. 소비자 기호도(consumer acceptability) 47

1.1. 전통빈대떡의 기호도 48

1.1.1 10대의 소비자 기호도 50

1.1.2 20대의 소비자 기호도 68

1.1.3 30대이상의 소비자 기호도와 세대간 기호도 분석 83

1.2. 개량빈대떡의 기호도 100

1.2.1 10대의 소비자 기호도 및 전통빈대떡과의 비교 102

1.2.2 20대의 소비자 기호도 및 전통빈대떡과의 비교 117

1.2.3 30대이상의 소비자 기호도 및 전통빈대떡과의 비교와 세대간의 기호도 분석 132

2. 물성검사(Texture profile analysis) 148

2.1. 전통빈대떡의 물성 148

2.2. 개량빈대떡의 물성 161

2.2.1 10대의 개량빈대떡의 물성 161

2.2.2 20대의 개량빈대떡의 물성 172

2.2.3 30대이상의 개량빈대떡의 물성 182

3. 최적 혼합비율의 빈대떡의 영양성분과 품질 평가 193

3.1. 일반성분 193

3.2. 전분호화도 196

3.3. 단백질의 품질 평가 196

3.3.1 구성아미노산 조성 196

3.3.2 단백질 소화율, C-PER과 DC-PER 197

3.4. TBA value와 갈변도 198

3.5. 물성특성치 203

Ⅳ. 요약 및 결론 205

Ⅴ. 참고문헌 209

감사의 글 219

Table 1. Ingredients of mungbean pancake (MPC) from various Recipes(R) 30

Table 2. Mixture ratio of ten formulations in a three component simplex centroid design 36

Table 3. Analytical conditions of texture pofile analysis 40

Table 4. Changes of central temperature of MPC during texture analysis at room temperature 41

Table 5. Analytical conditions of amino acid analyzer 45

Table 6. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of traditional MPC in teenagers group from consumer acceptability test 51

Table 7. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of traditional MPC in the twenties group from consumer acceptability test 71

Table 8. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group from consumer acceptability test 88

Table 9. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of modified MPC in teenagers group from consumer acceptability test 105

Table 10. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of modified MPC in the twenties group from consumer acceptability test 120

Table 11. Regression for each dependent sensory attributes of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from consumer acceptability test 135

Table 12. The optimum mixture ratio and predicted sensory scores of traditional and modified MPC from consumer acceptability test depending on generations 147

Table 13. Regression for each texture attributes of traditional MPC 150

Table 14. Correlations of traditional MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture profile analysis in teenagers group 158

Table 15. Correlations of traditional MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture profile analysis in twenties group 159

Table 16. Correlations of traditional MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture profile analysis in the older than thirties group 160

Table 17. Regression for each texture attributes of modified MPC in teenagers group 163

Table 18. Correlations of modified MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture analysis in teenagers group 171

Table 19. Regression for each texture attributes of modified MPC in twenties group 173

Table 20. Correlations of modified MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture profile analysis in twenties group 181

Table 21. Regression for each texture attributes of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 184

Table 22. Correlations of modified MPC between consumer acceptability test and texture profile analysis in the older than thirties group 192

Table 23. Proximate composition and calorie amount of MPC with optimum mixture ratio from consumer acceptability test 195

Table 24. Total amino acid profile of MPC with optimum mixture ratio from consumer acceptability test 200

Table 25. Degree of gelatinization, protein digestibility, C-PER and DC-PER of MPC with optimum mixture ratio from consumer acceoptability test 201

Table 26. TBA value and eveloped brown-pigment of MPC with optimum mixture ratio from consumer acceptability test 202

Table 27. Texture profile analysis of MPC with optimum mixture ratio 204

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of traditional and modified mungbean pancake preparation 31

Figure 2. A three component simplex centroid design 35

Figure 3. Questionnaire of consumer acceptability test 38

Figure 4. Normal probability plot of the residuals for five sensory attributes of traditional MPC in teenagers group 52

Figure 5. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall accoptability of traditional MPC in teenagers group 57

Figure 6. Surface plot and contour plot for overall acceptability of traditional MPC in teenagers group 58

Figure 7. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of traditional MPC in teenagers group 59

Figure 8. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of traditional MPC in teenagers group 60

Figure 9. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of traditional MPC in teenagers group 61

Figure 10. Surface plot and contour plot for color of traditional MPC in teenagers group 62

Figure 11. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flovor of traditional MPC in teenagers group 63

Figure 12. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of traditional MPC in teenagers group 64

Figure 13. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of traditional MPC in teenagers group 65

Figure 14. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of traditional MPC in teenagers group 66

Figure 15. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of traditional MPC in teenagers group 67

Figure 16. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall acceptability of traditional MPC in the twenties group 72

Figure 17. Surface plot and contour plot for overall acceptability of traditional MPC in the twenties group 73

Figure 18. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of traditional MPC in the twenties group 74

Figure 19. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of traditional MPC in the twenties group 75

Figure 20. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of traditional MPC in the twenties group 76

Figure 21. Surface plot and contour plot for color of traditional MPC in the twenties group 77

Figure 22. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flavor of traditional MPC in the twenties group 78

Figure 23. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of traditional MPC in the twenties group 79

Figure 24. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of traditional MPC in the twenties group 80

Figure 25. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of traditional MPC in the twenties group 81

Figure 26. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of traditional MPC in the twenties group 82

Figure 27. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall acceptability of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 89

Figure 28. Surface plot and contour plot for overall accepability of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 90

Figure 29. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 91

Figure 30. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 92

Figure 31. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 93

Figure 32. Surface plot and contour plot for color of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 94

Figure 33. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flavor of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 95

Figure 34. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 96

Figure 35. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 97

Figure 36. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 98

Figure 37. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of traditional MPC in the older than thirties group 99

Figure 38. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall accptability of modified MPC in teenagers group 106

Figure 39. Surface plot and contour plot for overall accoptability of modified MPC in teenagers group 107

Figure 40. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of modified MPC in teenagers group 108

Figure 41. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of modified MPC in teenagers group 109

Figure 42. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of modified MPC in teenagers group 110

Figure 43. Surface plot and contour plot for color of modified MPC in teenagers group 111

Figure 44. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flavor of modified MPC in teenagers group 112

Figure 45. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of modified MPC in teenagers group 113

Figure 46. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of modified MPC in teenagers group 114

Figure 47. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of modified MPC in teenagers group 115

Figure 48. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of modified MPC in teenagers group 116

Figure 49. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall accptability of modified MPC in the twenties group 121

Figure 50. Surface plot and contour plot for overall acceptability of modified MPC in the twenties group 122

Figure 51. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of modified MPC in the twenties group 123

Figure 52. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of modified MPC in the twenties group 124

Figure 53. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of modified MPC in the twenties group 125

Figure 54. Surface plot and contour plot for color of modified MPC in the twenties group 126

Figure 55. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flavor of modified MPC in the twenties group 127

Figure 56. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of modified MPC in the twenties group 128

Figure 57. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of modified MPC in the twenties group 129

Figure 58. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of modified MPC in the twenties group 130

Figure 59. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of modified MPC in the twenties group 131

Figure 60. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for overall acceptability of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 136

Figure 61. Surface plot and contour plot for overall acceptability of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 137

Figure 62. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for appearance of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 138

Figure 63. Surface plot and contour plot for appearance of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 139

Figure 64. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for color of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 140

Figure 65. Surface plot and contour plot for color of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 141

Figure 66. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for flavor of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 142

Figure 67. Surface plot and contour plot for flavor of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 143

Figure 68. Cox response plot and response optimization curve for hardness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 144

Figure 69. Surface plot and contour plot for hardness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 145

Figure 70. Overlaid contour plot for five sensory attributes of modified MPC in the older than thirties group 146

Figure 71. Cox response plot for hardness of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 151

Figure 72. Cox response plot for adhesiveness of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 152

Figure 73. Cox response plot for springiness of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 153

Figure 74. Cox response plot for cohesiveness of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 154

Figure 75. Cox response plot for gumminess of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 155

Figure 76. Cox response plot for chewiness of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 156

Figure 77. Cox response plot for resilience of traditional MPC from texture profile analysis 157

Figure 78. Cox response plot for hardness of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 164

Figure 79. Cox response plot for adhesiveness of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 165

Figure 80. Cox response plot for springiness of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 166

Figure 81. Cox response plot for cohesiveness of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 167

Figure 82. Cox response plot for gumminess of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 168

Figure 83. Cox response plot for chewiness of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 169

Figure 84. Cox response plot for resilience of modified MPC in teenagers group from texture profile analysis 170

Figure 85. Cox response plot for hardness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 174

Figure 86. Cox response plot for adhesiveness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 175

Figure 87. Cox response plot for springiness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 176

Figure 88. Cox response plot for cohesiveness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 177

Figure 89. Cox response plot for gumminess of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 178

Figure 90. Cox response plot for chewiness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 179

Figure 91. Cox response plot for resilience of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 180

Figure 92. Cox response plot for hardness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from texture profile analysis 185

Figure 93. Cox response plot for adhesiveness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from texture profile analysis 186

Figure 94. Cox response plot for springiness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from texture profile analysis 187

Figure 95. Cox response plot for cohesiveness of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from texture profile analysis 188

Figure 96. Cox response plot for gumminess of modified MPC in the older than thirties group from texture profile analysis 189

Figure 97. Cox response plot for gumminess of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 190

Figure 98. Cox response plot for chewiness of modified MPC in the twenties group from texture profile analysis 191