Journal of Scientific & Industrial ResearchVol. 65, December 2006, pp. 995-999

A comparative study of non-conventional coagulants vis-a-vis traditionalcoagulant on chhana (an acid and heat coagulated product from milk)

Mahuya 8andyopadhyay, Runu Chakraborty and Utpal Raychaudhuri*Department of Food Technology and Biochemical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032

Received 10 November 2005; accepted 15 lilly 2006

Three non-conventional, low cost, food grade organic acids (acetic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid) were effectivelyused as coagulant at three different concentrations (0.5, 1 and 2%) in the manufacture of chhana (a heat and acid coagulated.milk protein mass and an Indian equivalent to cottage cheese) as substitute for sour whey. Chhana prepared by all type ofcoagulants including sour whey were found similar in quality. Concentrations (0.5 and 1%) of three acids produced higher . I .

yield than sour whey. Fumaric acid (all conc.), tartaric acid (l & 2%) and acetic acid (2%) gave higher total solid recoverythan sour whey. Chhana made by three acids (l & 2%) contained higher fat and protein than chhana made by sour whey.The three organic acid coagulants produced little bit hardy, chewy, gummy, elastic and cohesive chhana than sour whey butthat chhana could be better utilized for making dry chhana sweets. All three organic acid coagulants (1%) were effectivelyused in the manufacture of chhana as substitute for sour whey.

Keywords: Chhana, Sour whey, Fat, TextureIPC Code: GOINI/OO

Introduction.A heat- and acid-coagulated milk protein mass,

traditionally known as chhana, analogous to cottagecheese.', has high potential in manufacturing differentkinds of traditional sweets in India (chhana-basedsweet products are very popular and widely-availablein India specially in the eastern part). Chhana ishighly recommended for diabetic patients on accountof its high protein and low sugar content. Withprogressive increase in the volume of milk beinghandled by the organized sector of the dairy industry,increasing commercial interest in chhana and otherindigenous dairy products has been apparent in recenttimes". The present business volume of chhana inIndia is about g.l'z million tons, valued at Rs 6 billionannually'.

Generally, organic acids like citric, lactic or theirsalts (calcium lactate), lemon juice and sour whey areemployed as coagulant for chhana preparation".Considerable research works have been carried out tofind out the most suitable coagulant and itsconcentration with respect to yield, .chemical andsensory qualities as well as textural attributes ofchhana"!". In ;a recent study':', citric acid (0.5%),

lactic acid (0.5%) with distilled water as 'dilution'media, and calcium lactate (4-8%) with sour whey as,dilution media was ideal to get similar Texture ProfileAnalysis (TPA) readings to normal chhana. Uses oftartaric acidI6

-18

, fumaric acidl9 and acetic acid2o.havebeen proved to be effective in the production ofpaneer and soy paneer. Recovery of proteirr" in soypaneer was observed highest with acetic acid ascoagulant followed by citric, tartaric and lactic acids,Soy paneer coagulated with tartaric acid21 showedhighest yield and better acceptability compared toacetic acid, citric acid and lactic acid. This studyinvestigates the suitability of using tartaric acid,fumaric acid and acetic acid as coagulant for chhanapreparation over sour whey.

Materials and MethodsPreparation of Coagulant Solution

Acetic acid, fumaric acid and tartaric acid wereused as coagulant's (0.5, 1,2%), which were dissolvedin distilled water. Sour whey (pH 3.4) was used ascontrol.

Preparation of ChhanaPasteurized, homogenized, vitamin A-enriched

cow's milk (standardized to 3.5 % fat), from an ISO9002- and HACCP 'certified local dairy plant wasused for chhana preparation. For manufacture of

*Author for correspondenceTelefax: 913324137121E-mail: urcfoodtechtsiyahoo.co.in

with the help of Analysis ToolPak program underMicrosoft Excel 2000. One-way ANOV A was used todetermine the main effects of treatrnents'". Meanswere compared by Fisher's Least SignificantDifference Test at a significance level of p :s 0.05.

Results and Discussion

996 J SCI IND RES VOL 6S DECEMBER 2006

chhana, milk (250 ml) was heated to 95°C on a LPGgas oven and subsequently cooled to 75-80°e.Coagulant solution was added to the hot milk, andmixture was stirred slowly till clear greenish wheyappears. After one minute, whey from chhana wasdrained through a plastic strainer and chhana was lefton the strainer for 2 h for better drainage of the whey. Itwas then manually squeezed (moisture, 54-57%) andwas weighed.

Proximate AnalysisProtein, ash and total solid contents were determined

in triplicate for each of the 10 samples of chhanaaccording to AOAC methods+ no. 16.200, 16.198 and16.032 respectively. Tritable acidity was analyzedaccording to AOAC method no.16.20122 with littlemodifications. Sample (10 g) was mixed with CO2 freedistilled water. Then the volume was made up to100 ml. Diluted sample was then centrifuged at 10000rpm for 10 min. Supernatant was collected carefullyand was used for titration against 0.1 N NaOH.Moisture contenr ', fat24 and lactosef of chhana weremeasured.

pH DeterminationA digital pH meter (Model Ll-120, ELlCOPrivate

Ltd., Hyderabad, India) with a 3 in 1 combination pHelectrode was used to determine pH of whey at 23°e.

InstrumentalTexture Profile AnalysisTextural properties were measured with an Instron

Universal Testing Machine, Table Model <;101 (InstronLtd., High Wycombe, Bucks, UK), operai ing in thecompression mode. The machine was fitted with a 100N (N= Newton) load cell. Three cubes were preparedfrom each lot of coagulated milk (chhana) with acubical dice (20 mm x 20 mm x 20 mm).Cubes wereprepared at room temperature (28-32°C) and left at23°C under a plastic tray (to avoid the drying up ofupper surface of the cubes) for at least 20 min prior totesting. Each sample was compressed axially in twoconsecutive compression cycles by a 40 mm diam flatplate probe attached to the moving crosshead. Testingconditions were: compression ratio, 50 % deformationfrom the initial height of the sample; cross head speed(pre and post test speed), 20 mm/min; and chart speed,20 mm/min. Force-distance curve obtained was used toderive various texture profile parameters".

Statistical. Analysis. Analysis of variance of yield, proximate analysis,

pH and instrumental texture profile analysis was done

YieldThe yield of chhana obtained from sour whey was

similar to the yield from all the concentrations of non-conventional coagulant (Table 1). Better yield ofchhana at lower concentration of coagulant isapparently due to the higher retention of moisture andnot due to the presence of more milk solids in theproduct". Similarly, total solid recovery of chhana wasmore or less similar for all concentrations ofcoagulants as well as sour whey. Only fumaric acid(2%) gave significant higher recovery (P :::; 0.05).Volume of coagulant requirement and that of wheydrained are interrelated to each other. Becausecoagulation of milk with higher coagulantconcentration required lesser volume of coagulant andvice versa, it regulated the volume of whey drainage.Both these parameters showed significantly differentresult (P :::;0.05). Volume of coagulant requirementfor sour whey was similar to 1% concentration ofacetic acid and fumaric acid and 2% concentration oftartaric acid. In case of volume of whey drained, theresult of sour whey was similar (p > 0.05) to all theorganic acid coagulant (1 & 2%). pH of whey was notaffected by the type and concentration of coagulant.

Proximate Analysis of ChhanaMoisture content of chhana significantly (P :s 0.05)

varies with the concentration of coagulant as well asbetween the coagulants (Table 2). Moisture content ofchhana obtained from sour whey showed more or lesssimilar result with non-conventional coagulants (l &2 %). Higher moisture content of chhana [coagulatedby coagulant (0.5%)] may be because of theincomplete coagulation. Fat content of chhana alsovaries significantly (P:S 0.05) between the treatments,All the three organic acid coagulants (2%) gavehigher percentage of fat in' chhana than lowconcentration of coagulants as well as sour whey.This is perhaps due to lower moisture content ofchhana obtained from high coagulant concentrationthan the chhana obtained from sour whey and lowconcentration of coagulant. Fumaric acid (2%)gave highest percentage of fat in chhana than all othercoagulants. Protein content of chhana though varies

r--0\0\

\

-<z-<::r:::r:uu,o{/J~z<So<oU-l-cZof:::5-<c:::~ClZ<-l-<Bf:::ztn>Buzozzo>--Cl

~{/J

~

Table I-Effect of type and concentration of coagulant on chhana yield

Properties Sour whey Acetic acid Fumaric acid Tartaricgcid% % %

0.5 I 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 I 2

Chhana yield, % 19.94±1.97 20.57±0.55 19.16±1.87 18.94±0.94 20.74±D.19 20.49±1.78 20.16±1.17 20.77±D.79 20.36±0.61 19.44±D.54

Total solid recovery, % 54.81±0.62" 54.48±0.96' 54.67±0.62' 55.44±0.2S' 55.45±0.21 a 55.85±1.4S· 56.87±0.46·b 54.64±0.36 a 55.3I±O.35' 55.62±0.15'Volume of whey drained, 676±60" 78S±28b 680±S' 672±!1.14' SI3.67±23.25°C 717.33±14.19·b 656.67±24.6S' 91O±30d 730±66·b 727±57'bmill milk

Volume of coagulant 101±6.56' 202±5.29d 90.88±9.19' 60.67±3.06b 202±7.2Id 99.67±2.52· 50±3b 297.67±6.03c 134.67±14.05c 96.67±13.87'requirement, mill milk

PH of whey 5.46±O.1O 5.47±0.05 5.47±0.06 5.37±0.20 5.69±0.06 5.57±0.15 5.56±0.ll 5.59±0.03 5.54±O.lO 5.4l±0.07

Data represent means of three samples analyses (n=3) ± s.d.a. b.c .dMeans in the same row with the same letter are not significantly different at p:S 0.05.

Table 2-Effect of type and concentration of coagulant on the chemical characteristics of chhana

Properties Sour whey Acetic acid Fumaric acid Tartaric acid% % %

0.5 I 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 I 2

Moisture, % 56.06±0.67' 59.S9±0.SSb 56.34±0.OS' 55.47±0.73' 59.77±0.7Ib 56.11 ±0.S6' 54.36±0.65'c 59.97±0.41 b 56.SS±0.9I' 55.64±0.97'c

Fat, % 21.33±1.04' 17.67±0.76b 21.83±1.76' 25±1.5"C 17.83±1.26'b 22.33±1.76ac 25.S3±1.61 ac 17.67±1.5'b 22. 17±l.04ac 25.67±2.25ac

Protein, % 17.16±0.17' ! I.4S±0.50b 17.2S±0.23' 17.3S±0.30' I I.74±0.46 b 17.34±0.27" 17.50±0.26 a 13.76±0.29c IS.OS±0.42,d 19.12±0.21 c

Tritable acidity, ml 0.1 N 2S.45±4.4S' 24.32±2.22' 24.32±2.22' 24.32±2.22" 28.45±5.93 a 32.33±2.24'b 32.33±2.24·b 26.8S±3.S4,b 32.33±2.24'b 34.92±0.0 1abcNaOH/lOOgLactose, % 2.60±O.22 a 2.67±O.14 a 2.S9±O ..14 a 2.40±O.31 ' 2.64±O.13' 2.45±O.21' 2.15±O.13" 2.66±0.11 ab 2.52±0.23 a 2.31±0.19'Ash. % 1.28±0.03 a I. 17±O.ORa 1.33±0.06'd 1.46±0.06bd 1.I8±O.06 a 1.39±0.04"W 1.53±O.07. be l.lS±0.04 a 1.36±0.06'bd I. 48±0, 03 be

Data represent means of three samples analyses (n=3) ± s.d.a. b.c .dMeans in the same row with the same letter are not significantly different at p:S 0.05

"

Table ~Effect of type and concentration of coagulant on the physical properties of chhana

Properties Sour whey Acetic acid Fumaric acid Tartaric acid% % %

0.5 I 2 0.5 I 2 0.5 I 2Hardness, N 1.72±O.O9' 1.2±O.OS b 1.66±O.04' I.S4±O.09 a l.35±O.07°C 1.7±0.II' 2.08±O.20'd 1.35±0.07 be 1.61 ±O.15' l.79±O.ll'Cohesi veness 0.09±O.04' 0.22±O.02b 0.23±O.02 b 0.24±O.05b 0.23±0.03b 0.23±O.02 b 0.24±0.02 b 0.19±0.03 b 0.20±0.04 b 0.22±O.03'Springiness, mm 0.58±O.38 a 1.5±O.5 b I.S3±0.76 b 2.00±O.50b 1.50±O b 1.83±O.29 b 2.00±Ob 1.33±0.29 ab 1.33±O.29 ab 2.00±ObGumminess, N 0.15±O.06a 0.26±O.01· 0.37±O.04'b 0.44±O.07bc 0.31±0.05ab 0.40±0.03°C 0.50±O.07bc O.26±O.05·b O.32±0.07'bc O.39±O.04bc

Chewiness, Nmm O.IO±0.09' O.39±O.l3a 0.70±O.32'c O.86±O.16c O.46±O.OSaoc 0.73±O.16'1>c 1.0!±O.13c 0.34±O.09·b 0.4I±O.02'bc O.7S±O.OSbc

>---<>--::r:Cl-c0-o>--oZ-<1=0

Data represent means of three samples analyses (n=3) ± s.d.a.b.c.dMeans in the same row with the same letter are not significantly different at p:S 0.05

chhana. As the coagulant concentration increased, theacidity of coagulant solution was increased; thislowered pH of whey (Table 1) and this reducedmoisture content (Table 2), which is responsible formaking the chhana elastic. Moisture content has beensignificantly (P ::: 0.05) negatively correlated with allthe Instron parameters ". Lower moisture chhana(Table 2) resisted deformation and did not ruptureeasily, and thus was found to be more cohesive byInstron measurement. But the cohesiveness of chhanaobtained from sour whey varied significantly(P :::0.05) with all the coagulant of any concentration.

Springiness" (rate and extent to which a deformedmaterial goes back to its initial condition afterwithdrawal of deforming force) of chhana made bysour whey was significantly lower (P ::: 0.05) thanthose from other coagulants. In non-conventionalcoagulants, springiness of chhana increased withincrease in coagulant concentration but did not reachsignificant level.

Gumminess (energy required for disintegrating asemi solid food product to a state ready forswallowing; the product of hardness andcohesiveness) of chhana significantly varied with thetype and also concentration of coagulant. Chhanamade from sour whey had lowest gumminess than allother concentration of coagulants. There was a slightincrease in gumminess of chhana with increasedconcentration. At all concentrations, fumaric acidgave higher gumminess of chhana compared to othercoagulants.

Chewinessv" (energy required to masticate a solidfood product to a state ready for swallowing) ofchhana made from sour whey was significantly lowerthan any of the coagulants. In non-conventionalcoagulants, chewiness of chhana significantlyincreased with increase in coagulant concentration.

998 J SCI IND RES VOL 65 DECEMBER 2006

significantly; variation with sour whey was minimum(except 0.5 % coagulant) in all the three cases. Proteincontent of chhana made by low concentration ofcoagulant was lower than the protein content ofchhana obtained from higher concentration ofcoagulant (Table 2). Tartaric acid gave higher proteincontent in chhana at each concentration compared tothe other two coagulants at the respectiveconcentrations. Coagulation with lower concentrationof coagulant cause heavy loss of solid mass in thewhey, which may be the reason of lower proteincontent in chhana. Titrable acidity of chhana variessignificantly between the coagulants. Tartaric acid(2%) provided the highest titrable acidity value ofchhana whereas acetic acid provided the lowesttitrable acidity value. Chhana made by fumaric andtartaric acids at 0.5 % concentration have similartitrable acidity with the chhana made by sour whey.Lactose content of chhana from sour whey wassimilar with that obtained from other coagulants(except 2% conc.) of fumaric acid. With increase incoagulant concentration, there was a gradual decreasein the lactose content of chhana. With increase inconcentration of coagulant, process of coagulationapproaches an end point and maximum lactose is lostin whey due to high solubility of lactose in water. Ashcontent of chhana has increased significantly(P ::: 0.05) with increase in coagulant concentration(Table 2). Coagulants generally contain minerals,which mix with chhana during coagulation. Thismight be the cause of increasing ash content withincreasing coagulant concentration. Ash content ofsour whey chhana is comparable to the ash content ofchhana made by organic acid coagulants (0.5-1 %).

Texture of ChhanaHardness (the force necessary to produce a given

deformation) of chhana obtained from sour wheyvaried significantly (P :::0.05) with that obtained fromlowest concentration of coagulant (Table 3). At higherconcentration of coagulant, hardness of chhana wassimilar to that obtained from sour whey. Normally,hardness of chhana increased with increasingconcentration of coagulant because of the reducedmoisture content of chhana.

Cohesiveness (extent to which chhana may bedeformed prior to rupture) of chhana was similarwithin the coagulants irrespective of theirconcentration (Table 3). Although insignificant, butwith increased coagulant concentration for all acids,there were slight increase in the cohesiveness of

ConclusionsSour whey, most traditional coagulant used by all

sweet-product manufacturers in India, gives the bestyield and textural quality of chhana required formaking different types of sweets. But due to highBOD520 level (30000 mg/l), sour whey causes severecontamination in sweet product. In presentexperiment, it has been found that low cost, foodgrade, organic acids (acetic acid, fumaric acid andtartaric acid) can be used in the manufacture ofchhana without affecting yield and quality. Even thefat and protein content of chhana were highercompared to sour whey when chhana was produced

BANDYOPADHY AY et al: STUDY ON NON-CONVENTIONAL AND TRADITIONAL COAGULANTS OF CHHANA 999

from all three organic acid coagulants (2% conc.). Interms of yield, all the three organic acids (0.5%) ofcoagulant were better than sour whey coagulant.Regarding texture, although organic acid coagulantsproduced harder, chewy, gummy, elastic and cohesivechhana than sour whey but that chhana could be betterutilized for making sandesh type sweets. Comparingyield and overall quality, all the three organic acidcoagulants (l %) can be effectively used in themanufacture of chhana as a substitute for sour wheyand these coagulants can reduce the BOD relatedcontamination in sweets.

AcknowledgementAuthors thank Ministry of Food Processing and

Horticulture, Govt of West Bengal (India) forfinancial support for this project.

References1 Adhikari A K, Mathur 0 N & Patil G R, Effect of process

variables on mineral retention and textural properties ofchhana, Jpn J Dairy Food Sci, 41 (1992) AI39-AI48.

2 Patel R K, Recent advances in dairy development, collection,processing and marketing of dairy products, in Study Meetingon Dairy farming (Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo,Japan) 1988,20.

3 Aneja R P, Traditional dairy delicacies-A compendia, inDairy India, edited by P R Gupta (Baba BarakhanathPrinters, New Delhi, India) 1997, 3-26.

4 Rajorhia G S & Sen D C, Technology of chhana- A review,indian J Dairy Sci, 41 (1988) 141-148.

5 De S & Ray S C, Studies on the indigenous method ofchhana making. Part 1. The influence of the conditions ofcoagulation and the type of milk on the production ofchhana, Indian J Dairy Sci, 7 (1954) 113-125.

6 Singh G P & Ray T K, Effect of milk coagulants on thequality of chhana and chhana whey, J Food Sci Technol, 14(1977) 205-267.

7 Sen D C & De S, Studies on calcium lactate as chhanacoagulant, J Food Sci Tee/mol, 21 (1984) 243-244.

8 Sen D C, Influence of calcium lactate strength on yield andsensory properties of chhana, Asian J Dairy Res, 4 (1985)36-38.

9 Sen D C, Effect of coagulation temperatures and compositionof calcium lactate chhana, Indian J Dairy Sci, 39 (1986) 244-246.

10 Sen D C & Rajorhia G S, Potential application of calciumlactate as chhana coagulant, Indian Dairyman, 38 (1986a)475-477.

11 Sen D C & Rajorhia G S, Influence of pH of coagulation onchhana yield and quality using calcium lactate, Asian J DairyRes,S (1986b) 30-32.

12 Joshi S V, Majgaonkar S V & Toro V A, Effect of differentcoagulants on yield and sensory quality of chhana prepared

from milk of cow, buffalo and goat, Indian J Dairy Sci, 44(1991) 380-383.

13 Sharma R B, Gupta M P & Ogra J L, Sensory quality ofchhana prepared from goat milk using different coagulants,concentrations and temperatures, Small -Ruminant-Res, 17(1995) 187-192.

14 Sharma R B, Gupta M P & Ogra J L, Factors affecting yieldand chemical quality of goat milk chhana, Small -Ruminant-Res, 27 (1998) 257-262.

15 Bandyopadhyay M, Chakraborty R & Raychaudhuri U, Theeffects of coagulants on the texture of chhana (an acid andheat coagulated product from milk), lnt J Food Sci Tee/mol,40 (2005) 799-810.

16 Shukla F C, Madhu B & Sekhon K S, A report on ICARproject (1984). Cited in Makhal S & Sen D C, Exploration ofattributes influencing the quality of paneer- A review, JDairying Foods & H S, 20 (2001) 71-79.

17 Nasirn M, Mital B K & Tyagi S M, Development of aprocess for preparation of soypaneer, J Food Sci Technol, 23(1986) 69-72.

18 Sachdeva S & Singh S, Use of non-conventional coagulantsin the manufacture of paneer, J Food Sci Tee/mol, 24 (1987)317-319.

19 Pandit M & Sen D C, Effect of different strengths of fumaricacid and sour whey on soypaneer, Indian J Animal Health,37 (1998) 61-64.

20 Vishweshwaraiah L & Anantakrisknan C P, Indian J DairySci, 39 (1986) 484-485. Cited in Makhal S & Sen D C,Exploration of attributes influencing the quality of paneer -A review, J Dairying Foods & H S, 20 (2001) 71-79.

21 Grover M & Tyagi S M, Studies on soypaneer, J Food SciTechnol, 26 (1989) 194-197.

22 Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC, International, n"edn (AOAC, Washington DC) 1970,247,273.

23 IS: 2785, Specification for hard cheese, processed cheeseand processed cheese spread, (Indian Standards Institutions,Manak Bhavan, New Delhi) 1964.

24 IS: 1224, Determination of fat by Gerber method (IndianStandards Institutions, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi), 1977,Part II.

25 James C S, Analytical Chemistry of Foods (BlackieAcademic & Professional, Glasgow, New Zealand) 1995,130.

26 Bourne M C, Texture profile analysis, Food Tee/111ol, 32(1978) 62-66, 72.

27 Gacula M C & Singh J, Statistical Methods in Food andConsumer Research, (Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida32887) 1984,85-86,105-109.

28 Adhikari A K, Mathur 0 N & Patil G R, Texture andmicrostructure of chhana and rasogolla made from buffalomilk. Alist J Dairy Tee/mol, 48(2) (1993) 52-58.

29 Civille G V & Szczesniak A S, Guidelines for training atexture profile panel, J Texture Stud, 7 (1973) 353-372.

30 Szczesniak A S, Texture measurements, Food Technol, 20(1966) 52-58.

31 Yang CST & Taranto M V, Textural properties ofMozzarella cheese analogs manufactured from soybeans, JFood Sci, 47 (1982) 906-910.