Effect of Different Molasses Types as Natural Binding Agents on the Physicochemical, Antioxidant, Color, and Textural Properties of Fruit Bars During Storage

Öz

This study investigated the effects of different natural binding agents (grape, mulberry, and carob molasses) on the physicochemical, antioxidant, color, and textural properties of fruit bars during storage. Samples were stored at 4 °C and 25 °C for three months. Storage temperature significantly affected moisture content, with higher values at 4 °C (13.29%) compared to 25 °C (12.73%), indicating increased moisture loss at higher temperature. Antioxidant activity also decreased at elevated temperature, from 2138.66 to 1746.42 mg TE/kg, while total phenolic content remained relatively stable (3002.03–3180.48 mg GAE/kg). Among formulations, mulberry and grape molasses exhibited the highest phenolic content (3651.64 and 3609.38 mg GAE/kg, respectively) and antioxidant activity (3325.39 and 1757.42 mg TE/kg), whereas the control sample showed the lowest values. Color parameters were significantly influenced by storage conditions, with L* values decreasing from 39.47 (4 °C) to 35.23 (25 °C), indicating enhanced browning at higher temperature. Regarding textural properties, grape molasses resulted in the highest hardness (10852.1) and chewiness (3979.39), while mulberry and carob molasses produced softer structures. Storage time increased hardness from 8098.27 to 10904.83 and chewiness from 3224.46 to 4106.8 over three months. Overall, molasses incorporation improved functional properties but significantly influenced color and texture. These findings highlight the importance of formulation and storage conditions in developing high-quality fruit-based snack products.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fruit bars
• molasses
• phenolic compounds
• texture analysis
• storage effects

Doğal Bağlayıcı Olarak Farklı Pekmez Türlerinin Meyve Barlarının Fizikokimyasal, Antioksidan, Renk ve Tekstürel Özellikleri Üzerine Depolama Süresince Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, doğal bağlayıcı olarak kullanılan farklı pekmez türlerinin (üzüm, dut ve keçiboynuzu) meyve barlarının fizikokimyasal, antioksidan, renk ve tekstürel özellikleri üzerine depolama süresince etkileri araştırılmıştır. Numuneler 4 °C ve 25 °C’de üç ay süreyle depolanmış ve belirli aralıklarla analiz edilmiştir. Depolama sıcaklığının nem içeriği ve antioksidan aktivite üzerinde önemli etkisi olduğu belirlenmiştir. Daha yüksek nem içeriği 4 °C’de (%13,29), 25 °C’de (%12,73) kıyasla elde edilmiştir ve bu durum yüksek sıcaklıkta artan su kaybı ile ilişkilendirilmiştir. Antioksidan aktivite yüksek sıcaklıkta azalma göstermiştir (2138.66’dan 1746.42 mg TE/kg’a). Toplam fenolik madde içeriği ise depolama süresince nispeten stabil kalmıştır (3002.03–3180.48 mg GAE/kg). Formülasyonlar arasında en yüksek fenolik içerik ve antioksidan aktivite dut ve üzüm pekmezli örneklerde belirlenmiştir. Renk parametreleri hem formülasyon hem de depolama koşullarından önemli ölçüde etkilenmiş, yüksek sıcaklıkta depolanan örneklerde L* değerinin 39.47’den 35.23’e düşmesi ile daha koyu renk oluşumu gözlenmiştir. Tekstürel özellikler açısından üzüm pekmezi en yüksek sertlik (10852.1) ve çiğnenebilirlik (3979.39) değerlerini göstermiş, dut ve keçiboynuzu pekmezi ise daha yumuşak yapı oluşturmuştur. Depolama süresi boyunca sertlik ve çiğnenebilirlik değerlerinde artış gözlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, pekmez kullanımı meyve barların fonksiyonel özelliklerini artırırken renk ve tekstür üzerinde önemli değişimlere neden olmuştur. Bu bulgular, fonksiyonel meyve bazlı atıştırmalıkların geliştirilmesinde formülasyon ve depolama koşullarının optimize edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antioksidan aktivite
• depolama stabilitesi
• meyve barı
• pekmez
• tekstürel özellikler

Kaynakça

1. [1] Liu, R. H. (2013). Health-promoting components of fruits and vegetables in the diet. Advances in Nutrition, 4(3), 384S–392S.
2. [2] Scalbert, A., Johnson, I. T., & Saltmarsh, M. (2005). Polyphenols: antioxidants and beyond. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(1), 215S–217S.
3. [3] Boukid, F., Klerks, M., Pellegrini, N., Fogliano, V., Sanchez-Siles, L., Roman, S., et al. (2022). Current and emerging trends in cereal snack bars: implications for new product development. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 73(5), 610–629.
4. [4] Kosicka-Gębska, M., Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M., Gębski, J., Sajdakowska, M., Niewiadomska, K., & Nicewicz, R. (2022). Consumer motives for choosing fruit and cereal bars. Nutrients, 14(13), 2710.
5. [5] Saravanan, G., Yusri, A. S., & Sarbon, N. M. (2026). Nutritional value, physicochemical properties, antioxidant activity and sensory acceptability of fruit-based energy bars. Food Chemistry Advances, 10, 101196.
6. [6] Sun-Waterhouse, D., Teoh, A., Massarotto, C., Wibisono, R., & Wadhwa, S. (2010). Comparative analysis of fruit-based functional snack bars. Food Chemistry, 119(4), 1369–1379.
7. [7] Kosicka-Gębska, M., Sajdakowska, M., Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M., Gębski, J., & Gutkowska, K. (2024). Consumer perception of innovative fruit and cereal bars. Nutrients, 16(11), 1606.
8. [8] Eyiz, V., Tontul, İ., & Türker, S. (2020a). The effect of edible coatings on physical and chemical characteristics of fruit bars. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, 14(3), 1775–1783.

9. [9] Deseo, M. A., Elkins, A., Rochfort, S., & Kitchen, B. (2020). Antioxidant activity and polyphenol composition of sugarcane molasses extract. Food Chemistry, 314, 126180.
10. [10] Farmani, B., Djordjević, M., Mohammadkhani, S., & Djordjević, M. (2025). Assessing sugarcane molasses’ bioactive compound content upon ultrasound-assisted hydroethanolic extraction. Agriculture, 15(2), 158.
11. [11] Acar, A., & Arslan, D. (2025). Modulation of minor compounds and oxidoreductase enzyme activity by additives during olive oil malaxation. Food Bioscience, 107825.
12. [12] Tontul, İ., & Topuz, A. (2018). Production of pomegranate fruit leather using hydrocolloid mixtures. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 41(3), e12657.
13. [13] Öney, B. N., Ertaş, N., Türker, S., Aydın, M., & Eyiz, V. (2020). Simit production using sourdough method. NEU Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(1), 1–11.
14. [14] American Association of Cereal Chemists. (2000). Approved methods of the AACC.
15. [15] Eyiz, V., Tontul, İ., & Türker, S. (2020b). Edible coating of cereal bars using different biopolymers. Gıda, 45(5), 1019–1029.
16. [16] Dubey, P. K., & Roy, S. (2025). Development of gluten-free functional snack bar using pseudocereals and dates. Food Chemistry Advances, 7, 100999.
17. [17] López, J., Cea, R., Tiznado, N., Fernández, E., González, M. L., Pizarro-Oteíza, S., et al. (2025). Development of cereal bars enriched with Andean grains and calafate. Foods, 14(23), 4127.
18. [18] Kausar, T., Aslam, K., Hussain, A., Arshad, R., Waqas, M. T., Bilal, M., et al. (2025). Development and evaluation of food bars using fruit pomace. Discover Food, 5(1), 304.
19. [19] Molina-Cortés, A., Sánchez-Motta, T., Tobar-Tosse, F., & Quimbaya, M. (2020). Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of molasses. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11(7), 3453–3563.
20. [20] Payet, B., Shum Cheong Sing, A., & Smadja, J. (2006). Phenolic constituents and antioxidant activity in cane sugar products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(19), 7270–7276.
21. [21] Molina-Cortés, A., Tobar-Tosse, F., Quimbaya, M., Álvarez-Rivera, G., Cifuentes, A., & Jaramillo-Botero, A. (2025). Sugarcane by-products as bioactive sources. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 19788.
22. [22] Shahidi, F., & Ambigaipalan, P. (2015). Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods. Journal of Functional Foods, 18, 820–897.
23. [23] Lund, M. N., & Ray, C. A. (2017). Control of Maillard reactions in foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 65(23), 4537–4552.
24. [24] Hongsprabhas, P., & Israkarn, K. (2019). Influences of temperature during storage on Maillard reactions.
25. [25] Martins, S. I., Jongen, W. M., & Van Boekel, M. A. (2000). A review of Maillard reaction in foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11(9–10), 364–373.
26. [26] Chen, P., Cheng, F., Wei, L., Wang, S., Zhang, Z., Hang, F., et al. (2022). Maillard reaction and color development during storage. Food Science and Technology, 42, e43722.
27. [27] Loveday, S. M., Hindmarsh, J. P., Creamer, L. K., & Singh, H. (2009). Physicochemical changes in protein bars during storage. Food Research International, 42(7), 798–806.
28. [28] Pathare, P. B., Opara, U. L., & Al-Said, F. A. (2013). Colour measurement and analysis in foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(1), 36–50.
29. [29] Abid, F., Bilal, M., Bakhtawar, F., Firdous, N., Malik, M. M. T., Hussain, A., et al. (2025). Development of mango-date fruit bars enriched with quinoa. Italian Journal of Food Science, 37(4), 295.
30. [30] Çelik, B. A., Malçok, S. D., Ömeroğlu, P. Y., & Tamer, C. E. (2025). Optimization of fruit-based oatmeal bar production. Gıda, 50(2), 284–316.
31. [31] Karwacka, M., Galus, S., & Janowicz, M. (2024). Freeze-dried snack development and characterization. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 61(7), 1363–1373.
32. [32] Aussanasuwannakul, A., & Kantrong, H. (2026). Texture phenotypes of fiber-enriched snacks. Foods, 15(4), 758.