<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02451nam a22001697a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="003">OSt</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20250331131222.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">250331b        |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">NVSU</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Juan, Nicole Joy A.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Physico-chemical and sensory quality of ginger-fruit juice blend/</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Nicole Joy A. Juan</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bayombong:</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Nueva Vizcaya State University;</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">2017.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">xii, 40 leaves :</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">photos ;</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">28 cm.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This study aimed to develop a ginger-fruit juice blend of desirable sensory quality and general acceptability of the ginger-fruit blend and determine the physico-chemical characteristic of the juices in terms of sourness (pH) and sweetness (soluble solids). It also aimed to determine which of the fruit-infused ginger-based juices has the highest market potential.
Results of the analysis on the physico-chemical characteristic of the raw materials showed that passion fruit was the sourest (3.0) followed by pineapple (3.89) and citrus (4.2). The pH of the 1" and 2th extract of ginger was 6.5 and 7.0, respectively. This result indicates that the three fruit juices are classified as acid foods while the ginger juice is non-acid food. In terms of soluble solids (SS), the pineapple juice registered the highest reading (12&#xB0;Bx) followed by citrus (9"Bx) and passion fruit. The SS of the 1" and 2nd extract of ginger was 5 and 1 &#xB0;Bx, respectively.
No significant difference in terms of appearance/color but citrus and pineapple had the highest mean rating of 7-7.1 which has descriptive equivalent of "Like Moderately". In terms of taste, aroma and general acceptability, ginger-passion fruit blend was found to be significantly more desirable than the other ginger-fruit blends. It obtained the highest mean rating (7.7, 7.3 and 7.7) respectively with a descriptive equivalent of "Like Moderately and Like Very Much".
The ANOVA showed that differences on the quality factors of ginger-fruit juice blends were significant except on appearance/color. Only passion fruit juice significantly enhanced the taste and aroma as well as general acceptability of the ginger-fruit juice blend. While pineapple significantly enhanced the aroma of the ginger-based juice blend, it failed to enhance its taste as well as general acceptability. Of the three ginger-fruit juice blends, the passion fruit blend has the highest market potential.

</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="504" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bibliographical References</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">U</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">0</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">631</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">631</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">NVSUBAY</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">NVSUBAY</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">REF</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2025-03-31</subfield>
    <subfield code="e">Donation</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">U (BSHT) 	J91p 2017</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">U1002</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2025-03-31 13:13:44</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2025-03-31</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">U</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
