Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Comparisons on 10 non-meat protein fat substitutes for low-fat

Kung-wans
S.Y. Hsu *, Lung-Yueh Sun
Graduate Institute of Food Science and Technology, National Taiwan University, P.O. Box 23-14, Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC

Received 19 October 2004; accepted 5 February 2005

Available online 29 March 2005

Abstract

Non-meat proteins were used to replace pork fat in developing low-fat Kung-wans; an emulsified meatball. A one-way random-
ized complete block design was adopted for comparing two controls and 10 non-meat treatments. Results indicated that products
made of whey protein concentrate had a higher cooking loss and moisture content and was less intense in yellowness than the other
products. Products made of soybean products were adhesive, viscous and/or brittle, but were low in sensory acceptance on odor and
taste. Products made of sodium caseinate or egg white powder were brittle but were not attractive in color/appearance. Products
made of gelatin were hard, chewy and gummy, but were low in sensory acceptance on texture and color/appearance. Products made
of skimmed milk powder were not hard, chewy, adhesive, gummy or viscous, but were superior in sensory acceptance on color/
appearance, odor, taste and texture to the other products and were the best in overall acceptance.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Low-fat emulsified meatball; Kung-wan; Non-meat proteins; Fat substitutes

1. Introduction tion with three non-meat binders and reported that, at

Many research works have been done on applications
of various non-meat proteins as protein supplements,
ingredients, binders, extenders or fat/protein substitutes
in emulsified meat products. Lemaire (1978) reported a
textured soy protein concentrate incorporated in ham-
burgers to help the meat to hold its juices, retain its tex-
ture and to not develop mushiness during cooking.
Ensor, Mandigo, Calkins, and Quint (1987) indicated
that whey protein concentrate could provide a similar
stability, textural, and sensory scores to soy protein iso-
late and calcium-reduced non-fat dry milk when used as
binders in an emulsified sausage. Alvarez, Smith, Mor-
gan, and Booren (1990) used a twin-screw extruder to
restructure mechanically deboned chicken in combina-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 33664125; fax: +886 2
23620849.
E-mail address: gifsthsu@ntu.edu.tw (S.Y. Hsu).
concentrations of 10–30%, soy protein isolate and wheat
gluten were less effective than starch for increasing the
apparent tensile stress and Warner Bratzler shear stress
of the extruded products. Slavin (1991) indicated that
soy flour, soy protein concentrate, and isolated soy pro-
tein were commonly used as ingredients and protein sup-
plements in meat products. Ma, Yiu, and Khanzada
(1991) reported that the substituted part of wiener batters
with vital wheat gluten caused no significant decrease in
cooking yield or texture and batters containing acid-
solubilized gluten having a structure similar to all-meat
batters. Atughonu, Zayas, Herald, and Harbers (1998)
reported that sodium caseinate, soy protein isolate, whey
protein concentrate, and wheat germ flour could be used
as protein additives in comminuted meat products with-
out adversely affecting their physical characteristics.
Chin, Keeton, Miller, Longnecker, and Lamkey (2000)
used soy protein isolate and konjac blends as fat replace-
ments in low-fat bologna.

0260-8774/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.02.022
48 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53
Nomenclature
Hard hardness (g); breaking force of the product at
the first loading cycle in texture profile
analyses
Cohe cohesiveness; the ratio of storage work to
total work in the second loading cycle in tex-
ture profile analyses
Elas elasticity; the ratio of storage deformation to
total deformation in the second loading cycle
in texture profile analyses
Adhe adhesion (erg); the work needed to pull out
the plunger from the sample specimen in
the first unloading cycle in texture profile
analyses
Emulsified meatball, called ÔKung-wanÕ in Taiwanese,
is a popular meat product in Taiwan and related Chi-
nese communities. It is different from western style
meatballs in its processing method and product proper-
ties. As shown in a previous report (Hsu & Chung,
1998), Kung-wansÕ quality characteristics were different
from those of the other emulsified meat products. Con-
sumers prefer tender and juicier frankfurters or sausages
while they prefer harder and more elastic Kung-wans
products. Although Kung-wans are popular, they are
becoming a health concern of consumers because of high
animal fat content. As part of a series of studies in devel-
oping low-fat Kung-wans, gum-hydrates (Hsu & Chung,
1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001) or plant oils (Hsu & Yu, 2002,
2003a, 2003b) were used to replace pork fat in previous
studies. Effects of non-meat proteins on quality charac-
teristics and consumer acceptance of low-fat Kung-wans
deserved further investigation. Therefore, various non-
meat proteins were adopted to replace pork fat in mak-
ing low-fat Kung-wans. The aim of this study was to
compare the effects of two controls and 10 different
non-meat protein formulae on cooking yield, diameter,
proximate compositions, texture, color and sensory
qualities of the low-fat Kung-wans.
2. Materials and methods
Leg muscle tissues and back fat of market-size hogs
were purchased from a local meat packer. The hogs were
slaughtered and cooled in a 10 C cold room for one
day before being cut and shipped to a pilot plant. The
tissues were ground with a meat chopper fitted with a
plate with 15-mm diameter holes. The ground meat
was packaged in double plastic (Nylon/PE laminated
film) bags, 1.0 kg each, and stored at 20 C until used
within two months.
The emulsified meatballs or Kung-wans were manu-
factured according to the processing scheme in Fig. 1.
Brit brittleness (g); the force decrease after the
fracture point of the sample specimen in the
first loading cycle in texture profile analyses
Chew chewiness (g); breaking force · cohesive-
ness · elasticity
Gumm gumminess (g); breaking force · cohesiveness
Visc viscosity (g); the sticky force of the sample
specimen on the plunger in the first unloading
cycle in texture profile analyses
Hunter-Lab Hunter-L, a and b values. The Hunter-
L, a and b values of a standard white plate
were 90.49, 0.38 and 3.53 respectively
The processing conditions in Fig. 1 were chosen based
on preliminary experiments and were not necessary opti-
mal conditions for all formulae. A one-way completely
randomized design (Anderson & McLean, 1974, Chap.
4) was adopted for this study. As shown in Table 1,
the experimental design consisted of two controls and
10 non-meat protein formulae. The two controls were
a high-fat control obtained by adding 25% pork back
fat (CONF) and a low-fat control obtained by adding
10% pork back fat along with 15% water (CONT).
CONF was adopted to simulate the regular commercial
Kung-wan formula. CONT was adopted as low-fat
Kung-wan for comparison purposes.
Ten non-meat proteins included sodium caseinate (Ala-
nateTM 180, NZMP (ING) Limited, Taiwan Branch, Tao
1kg swine leg muscle tissue.
Ground with a meat chopper with 0.5-cm holes.
Ground with salt, sugar and phosphates, water and
non-meat proteins in an ice-cooled grinder for 13 min.
Blended with pork back fat for 3 min.
Shaped into meatballs of 3.0 cm diameter or
stuffed into sausage casing (Cellulose, 2.5 cm I.D.).
Heated in 80 oC hot water for 20 min.
Water-cooled to room temperature.
Final product vacuum-packed in laminated film (Nylon/PE) bags.
Fig. 1. Processing scheme of low-fat emulsified meatballs.
 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53 49

Table 1
Formulae of two controls and 10 different non-meat proteins for making low-fat Kung-wans
Notation Ingredients
CONF High-fat control 1; added 25% pork back fat
CONT Low-fat control; added 10% pork back fat and 15% water
CASS Added 4% sodium caseinate, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
WHEY Added 4% whey protein concentrate, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
NFDM Added 4% skimmed milk powder, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
SOYF Added 4% soybean flour, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
SOYC Added 4% soybean protein isolate Supro 620, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
SOYI Added 4% soybean protein isolate Supro Ex32, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
SOYT Added 4% texturized soybean protein, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
GLUT Added 4% Viten/Vital wheat gluten, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
EGGW Added 4% egg white powder, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
GELA Added 4% gelatin, 10% pork back fat and 12% water
The other ingredients were lean pork (100%), 2.5% NaCl, 4% sugar, and 0.3%, polyphosphates.

Yuan Hsian, Taiwan, ROC.) (CASS), whey protein con-
centrates (WPC High Gel, Sodiaal Industrie, Paris,
France.) (WHEY), skimmed milk powder (NZMP
(ING) Limited, Taiwan Branch, Tao Yuan Hsian, Tai-
wan, ROC.) (NFDM), soybean flour (Sunlight Foods
Co., Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.) (SOYF), an isolated soy pro-
tein known for good nutritional properties (Supro 620,
Protein Technologies International, St. Louis, MO,
USA.) (SOYC), another isolated soy protein known for
good emulsifying properties (Supro EX 32, Protein Tech-
nologies International, St. Louis, MO, USA.) (SOYI), tex-
turized soybean protein (Textured Soyproduct CM040,
Cargill Foods Inc., Amsterdam, Netherlands.) (SOYT),
wheat gluten (Viten/Vital Wheat Gluten, Roquette Frè-
res, Lestrem, France.) (GLUT), gelatin (Gemfont Co.,
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.) (GELA), and egg white powder
(Gemfont Co., Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.) (EGGW). Whey
protein concentrate, isolated soybean proteins, texturized
soybean protein, and wheat gluten were purchased from
the Gemfont Co. (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.).
Compositions of the other ingredients were fixed
at 2.5% NaCl, 4% sugar, and 0.3% polyphosphates
(which consisted of sodium polyphosphate and sodium
pyrophosphate at 50/50 w/w ratio, Kamino Chem. Co.
Inc., Osaka, Japan.). All percentages specified in these
formulations used the hog muscle tissues as a basis.
Three replications of each treatment combination were
randomly assigned to different meat samples. The total
number of specimens was 36. SAS (SAS Institute Inc.,
1988, Chap. 29) and SPSS (SPSS Inc., 1984) statistical
packages were used for statistical analyses.
Proximate compositions of the 10 non-meat proteins
were adopted from their providers and are listed in
Table 2. Cooking yields, moisture contents, crude lipid
contents, crude protein contents, texture profile analyses
indices and Hunter-Lab values of the Kung-wan prod-
ucts were measured according to the previous reports
(Hsu & Chung, 1998; Hsu & Yu, 2002). Eight sensory
panels based on a five-point hedonic scale also judged
the color/appearance, odor, taste, textures and overall
acceptance of each sample. A higher score signifies bet-
ter preference. Product diameters were measured with a
calipers while the product was kept in 80 C hot water
(Fig. 1). The mean of two measurements was taken for
each datum of cooking yield, diameter and proximate
compositions, respectively. The mean of five measure-
ments was taken for each texture profile analyses index
and Hunter-Lab datum, respectively.
3. Results and discussion
As shown in Tables 3–6, Kung-wans made of differ-
ent control ingredients; namely 25% pork back fat

Table 2
Proximate compositions of non-meat proteins
Non-meat proteins Moisture (%) Crude protein (%) Crude lipid (%) Ash (%) Carbohydrates (%)a
Sodium caseinate 3.9 91.7 0.7 3.6 0.1
Skimmed milk powder 4.0 32.4 0.8 7.9 54.9
Whey protein concentrate 5.0 77.0 8.0 5.0 5.0
Soybean flour 9.4 37.4 16.7 4.3 32.2
Soybean protein isolate Supro 620 6.0 84.6 1.0 4.5 3.9
Soybean protein isolate Supro Ex32 5.0 85.5 0.5 4.0 5.0
Texturized soybean protein 10.0 46.8 1.2 4.2 42.0
Viten/Vital Wheat gluten 8.0 83.0 1.5 1 6.5
Egg white powder 8.8 80.2 0.2 5.1 5.7
Gelatin 12.0 85.0 0.1 0.7 2.2
a
Calculated by difference.
50 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53

Table 3
Comparisons on cooking yield, diameter and proximate compositions of Kung-wans
Treatment Cooking yield (%) Diameter (cm) Moisture (%) Crude lipid (%) Crude protein (%)
CONF 99.79d 3.02ab 61.34d 17.51a 16.02a
CONT 98.04e 3.02ab 71.01a 7.90bc 15.34a
CASS 101.81ab 3.04ab 68.93bc 6.69d 17.84a
WHEY 98.63e 2.93ab 69.42b 8.10bc 18.00a
NFDM 99.79d 3.10a 68.68bc 8.39bc 18.05a
SOYF 99.50d 2.92b 68.45bc 7.64c 16.67a
SOYC 101.08c 3.06ab 68.49bc 7.98bc 16.68a
SOYI 101.25bc 3.00ab 68.65bc 7.70c 16.75a
SOYT 99.83d 2.98ab 68.03c 8.63b 16.40a
GLUT 99.68d 2.98ab 68.11c 7.96bc 17.76a
GELA 99.92d 3.02ab 68.20c 8.28bc 17.16a
EGGW 102.19a 3.05ab 69.06bc 7.83c 17.24a
Values in a column not followed by the same letter are significantly different, p < 0.05, n = 3.

Table 4 not affect their color (Table 4), it could have made the
Comparisons of Hunter-Lab color indicies of Kung-wans CONT not as hard, chewy and gummy as the CONF
Treatment Hunter-L Hunter-a Hunter-b (Table 5). This also resulted in lower cooking yields
CONF 69a 3.38a 10.16abc (Table 3) and inferior texture and overall acceptance
CONT 68a 3.09a 9.62bc of the CONT in sensory tests (Table 6). Similar results
CASS 70a 3.88a 10.55abc had been obtained in previous studies (Hsu & Chung,
WHEY 66a 3.08a 9.40c
NFDM 69a 2.98a 10.20abc
1999; Hsu & Yu, 2002), where 20% and 10%, respec-
SOYF 70a 3.49a 11.06a tively, of water were added.
SOYC 70a 2.93a 11.01a Low-fat Kung-wans made of non-meat proteins had
SOYI 69a 2.89a 10.44abc slightly more proteins and were similar in sizes as the
SOYT 68a 3.18a 11.03a controls (Table 3). Products made of skimmed milk
GLUT 69a 2.98a 10.71ab
GELA 67a 3.41a 11.08a
(NFDM) were larger than those made of soybean flour
EGGW 70a 3.32a 10.70ab (SOYF) (Table 3). High lipid and low protein concen-
Values in a column not followed by the same letter are significantly
trations of soybean flour (Table 2) could have resulted
different, p < 0.05, n = 3. in smaller SOYF. Although skimmed milk powder also
contained a low amount of proteins, its carbohydrate
concentration was the highest among the non-meat pro-
(CONF) or 10% pork back fat along with 15% water teins (Table 2). This could have resulted in a large diam-
(CONT), differed significantly in many quality attri- eter of the NFDM. It was noted that although crude
butes. The low-fat control (CONT) had a higher mois- protein concentrations in soybean protein isolates were
ture but lower lipid concentrations than the high-fat higher than those in skimmed milk powder, soybean
control (CONF) (Table 3). Although the difference did flour or texturized soybean protein (Table 2), crude

Table 5
Comparisons of texture profile analyses indices of Kung-wans
Treatment Hard Adhe Brit Visc Cohe Elas Chew Gumm
CONF 594bc 183cde 310e 121cd 0.8239ab 0.9525a 323ab 339ab
CONT 470d 151e 368de 100d 0.7884b 0.9091a 210c 223c
CASS 676ab 247abcd 724a 140abc 0.8131ab 0.9544a 332ab 349ab
WHEY 627abc 248abc 501abcde 155ab 0.8387ab 0.9686a 336ab 347ab
NFDM 612bc 176de 510abcde 115cd 0.8314ab 0.9553a 286b 299b
SOYF 545cd 221abcde 395cde 111cd 0.7959ab 0.9521a 296ab 310ab
SOYC 662ab 195bcde 639abc 130bc 0.8318ab 0.9284a 292ab 315ab
SOYI 671ab 280a 451bcde 162a 0.8398ab 0.9468a 323ab 340ab
SOYT 619abc 264ab 680ab 155ab 0.8313ab 0.9558a 314ab 329ab
GLUT 666ab 211abcde 567abcd 132bc 0.8362ab 0.9440a 337ab 357ab
GELA 716a 174e 554abcde 99d 0.8149ab 0.9589a 364a 380a
EGGW 586bc 218abcde 638abc 135abc 0.8574a 0.9572a 298ab 311ab
Values in a column not followed by the same letter are significantly different, p < 0.05, n = 3.
 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53 51

Table 6
Comparisons of sensory quality indices of Kung-wans
Treatment Color Odor Taste Texture Acceptance
CONF 3.49abc 3.43abcd 3.31ab 3.81ab 3.70ab
CONT 3.53ab 3.38abcd 3.06b 2.55d 2.81d
CASS 2.90d 3.48abcd 3.53ab 3.23abcd 3.66ab
WHEY 3.46abc 3.14bcd 3.59ab 3.17abcd 3.38abcd
NFDM 3.47abc 3.67a 3.69a 3.97a 3.97a
SOYF 3.41abc 3.29abcd 3.33ab 3.03bcd 3.22bcd
SOYC 3.86a 3.19abcd 3.00b 3.40abcd 3.19bcd
SOYI 3.11bcd 3.01cd 3.10ab 3.38abcd 3.12bcd
SOYT 3.17bcd 2.99d 3.06b 3.47abc 3.38abcd
GLUT 3.43abc 3.18abcd 3.25ab 3.54abc 3.48abc
GELA 2.17e 3.50abc 3.20ab 3.73ab 3.39abcd
EGGW 2.99cd 3.58ab 3.49ab 2.83cd 2.96cd
Values in a column not followed by the same letter are significantly different, p < 0.05, n = 3.

protein contents of their products did not have any
significant difference (Table 3). This could be due to a
low level (4%) of the non-meat proteins being
added and binding properties of the proteins could be
different.
As shown in Table 3, lipid contents of all products
containing non-meat proteins were less than 9%. CASS
had a lower lipid content than the other products pro-
bably due to high protein, low lipid and low carbohy-
drate concentrations of sodium caseinate (Table 2).
Moisture contents of all non-meat products were in be-
tween those of CONF and CONT. WHEY had a higher
moisture content than SOYT, GLUT and GELA (Table
3). EGGW, CASS, SOYI and SOYC had a higher cook-
ing yields than the other products. WHEY had the high-
est cooking loss and the highest moisture content among
the non-meat products (Table 3). This indicated that
more solid components in WHEY had been dissolved
and depleted in the cooking solution during the cooking
process. High lipid and low carbohydrate concentra-
tions of the whey protein concentrate (Table 2) could
have caused these results.
As shown in Table 4, the brightness and the red hue
(Hunter-a value) of the Kung-wans did not significantly
differ from one another. WHEY did not appear to be as
intense in yellowness as SOYF, SOYC, SOYT, GLUT,
GELA and EGGW. This could be due to a higher mois-
ture concentration and cooking loss of the WHEY than
the others (Table 3). Chin, Keeton, Longnecker, and
Lamkey (1999) showed that replacing 4% of meat pro-
tein in a low-fat bologna formulation with pre-hydrated
soy protein isolate resulted in increasing yellowness, but
decreasing redness of the product.
As shown in Table 5, cohesiveness and elasticity of
the Kung-wans were low and there was no significant
difference between different non-meat protein containing
products. GELA was significantly harder than NFDM,
SOYF and EGGW, and was significantly chewier and
gummier than NFDM. SOYI and SOYT were signifi-
cantly more adhesive than NFDM and GELA. CASS
and SOYT were significantly more brittle than SOYF.
SOYI, SOYT and WHEY were significantly more vis-
cous than NFDM, SOYF and GELA.
GELA appeared to be the most hardy, chewy,
gummy, but the least adhesive and viscous product.
CASS, SOYT, SOYC, and EGGW were relatively brit-
tle. SOYI and SOYT were relatively adhesive and
viscous. WHEY was relatively viscous. NFDM was rel-
atively not hardy, chewy, gummy, adhesive and viscous.
Many factors could affect textural properties of the
Kung-wan products. For examples, types, quantities
and qualities of the proteins in the non-meat proteins,
interactions of the proteins with the other components
in the raw materials, such as lipid, carbohydrate, mois-
ture, salt, sugar and polyphosphates. Processing condi-
tions, such as grinding and heating, could also affect
formation and stability of the emulsified products. Fur-
ther studies are needed to investigate the effects of these
factors and their interactions on textural properties of
the Kung-wan products.
As shown in Table 6, sensory panels gave the highest
preference scores on product color and appearance to
SOYC and below-average scores (i.e. < 3.00) to EGGW,
CASS and GELA. NFDM and EGGW smelled better
than SOYI and SOYT probably due to sensory panelsÕ
preferences for milk and egg odors over soybean flavor.
NFDM also tasted better than SOYC and SOYT prob-
ably due to a similar reason. EGGW had a below-aver-
age acceptance score (< 3.00) probably due to its inferior
texture and color. Sensory scores in texture of NFDM
were superior to that of SOYF and EGGW. Sensory
panelsÕ overall acceptance on NFDM was significantly
better than SOYF, SOYC, SOYI and EGGW. The over-
all acceptance score of NFDM was higher than the high-
lipid control (CONF) although not to a statistically
significant level (p < 0.05).
Soy products were known to modify color and develop
off-flavor in meat products. Miller, Davis, Seideman,
52 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53
Wheeler, and Ramsey (1986) extended beef bullock
restructured steaks with soy protein or wheat gluten
and reported that the blends had a high incidence of
off-flavor and had less desirable visual properties than
control blends. Wang and Zayas (1992) incorporated
soy flour, soy concentrate and corn germ protein flour
in the formulations of frankfurters. They reported that
the products had lower cooking losses than the control
and had no differences in their texture and color. How-
ever, atypical aroma and flavor profiles increased in
frankfurters with soy flour extension.
Homco-Ryan et al. (2004) studied the effects of mod-
ified corn gluten meals on quality characteristics of a
model emulsified meat product. They reported that all
corn gluten meal (CGM)-based substances contributed
the same degree of CGM off-odor intensity, but signifi-
cantly lowered pork odor intensity when compared
to soy protein isolate (SPI)-containing products and
controls. SPI and all CGM-based substances increased
grain-like odor. They also indicated that Visual off-color
was apparent in all meat products containing CGM-
based substances. Instrumental color evaluation indi-
cated that products containing CGM-based substances
were lighter, more yellow colored than control and
SPI-containing products. However, sensory denseness,
springiness and cohesiveness, and texture profile analy-
ses of the meat products were not affected.
It has been reported that texture appeared to be the
most important characteristic of Kung-wans and con-
sumers prefer a harder texture (Hsu & Chung, 1998).
It has also been shown that too hard a texture could
have negative effect on sensory qualities of Kung-wans
(Hsu & Yu, 2002). The current results indicated that
NFDM had better sensory qualities (Table 6) even
though it was not as hardy, chewy, gummy, adhesive
and/or viscous as the other products (Table 5). The re-
sults not only coincided with previous observations on
texture but also indicated that odor and taste of raw
materials, such as milk, egg white and soybeans, could
also significantly affect Kung-wansÕ sensory qualities
and their overall acceptance.
In summary, low-fat Kung-wans made of whey pro-
tein concentrate were high in cooking loss and moisture
content and were less intense in yellowness. Products
made of soybean materials were more adhesive, viscous
and/or brittle, but less favorable in odor and taste than
the other products. Products made of sodium caseinate
or egg white were brittle but were not attractive in color
and appearance. Products made of gelatin were hard,
chewy and gummy, but were not attractive in sensory
texture and color/appearance. Products made of
skimmed milk powder were not hard, chewy, adhesive,
gummy or viscous, but were superior in sensory color/
appearance, odor, taste and texture to the other prod-
ucts and obtained the best overall acceptance from the
sensory panels.
Acknowledgment
The National Science Council of the ROC Govern-
ment had funded this study (Project no. NSC-89-2214-
E-002-075).
References
Alvarez, V. B., Smith, D. M., Morgan, R. G., & Booren, A. M. (1990).
Restructuring of mechanically deboned chicken and nonmeat
binders in a twin-screw extruder. Journal of Food Science, 55(4),
942–946.
Anderson, V. L., & McLean, R. A. (1974). Design of experiments––A
realistic approach. New York, USA: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Atughonu, A. G., Zayas, J. F., Herald, T. J., & Harbers, L. H. (1998).
Thermo theology, quality characteristics, and microstructure of
frankfurters prepared with selected plant and milk additives.
Journal of Food Quality, 21(3), 223–238.
Chin, K. B., Keeton, J. T., Longnecker, M. T., & Lamkey, J. W.
(1999). Utilization of soy protein isolate and konjac blends in a low
fat bologna (model system). Meat Science, 53(1), 45–57.
Chin, K. B., Keeton, J. T., Miller, R. K., Longnecker, M. T., &
Lamkey, J. W. (2000). Evaluation of konjac blends and soy protein
isolate as fat replacements in low fat bologna. Journal of Food
Science, 65(5), 756–763.
Ensor, S. A., Mandigo, R. W., Calkins, C. R., & Quint, L. N. (1987).
Comparative evaluation of whey protein concentrate, soy pro-
tein isolate and calcium-reduced nonfat dry milk as binders in an
emulsion-type sausage. Journal of Food Science, 52(5), 1155–1158.
Homco-Ryan, C. L., Ryan, K. J., Wicklund, S. E., Nicolalde, C. L.,
Lin, S., McKeith, F. K., et al. (2004). Effects of modified corn
gluten meal on quality characteristics of a model emulsified meat
product. Meat Science, 67(2), 335–341.
Hsu, S. Y., & Chung, H.-Y. (1998). Effects of processing factors on
qualities of emulsified meatball. Journal of Food Engineering, 36,
337–347.
Hsu, S. Y., & Chung, H.-Y. (1999). Comparisons of 13 edible gum-
hydrate fat substitute for low-fat Kung-wan (an emulsified meat-
ball). Journal of Food Engineering, 40, 279–285.
Hsu, S. Y., & Chung, H.-Y. (2000a). Comparisons of three cooking
methods on qualities of low fat Kung-wans formulated with gum-
hydrate fat substitutes. Journal of Food Engineering, 43, 17–23.
Hsu, S. Y., & Chung, H.-Y. (2000b). Interactions of konjac, agar,
curdlan, gum j-carrageenan and reheating treatment in emulsified
meatballs. Journal of Food Engineering, 44, 199–204.
Hsu, S. Y., & Chung, H.-Y. (2001). Effects of j-carrageenan salt
phosphates and fat on qualities of low fat emulsified meatballs.
Journal of Food Engineering, 47(2), 115–121.
Hsu, S. Y., & Yu, S. H. (2002). Comparisons on 11 plant oil fat
substitutes for low-fat Kung-wans. Journal of Food Engineering, 51,
215–220.
Hsu, S. Y., & Yu, S. H. (2003a). Interaction effects of soybean oil
coconut oil palm oil and simmering treatment on low fat emulsified
meatballs. Journal of Food Engineering, 56(1), 105–109.
Hsu, S. Y., & Yu, S. H. (2003b). Cooking effects on low fat Kung-wans
formulated with plant oils. Journal of Food Engineering, 56(4),
299–305.
Lemaire, W. H. (1978). Foot long hamburger. Food Engineering,
50(12), ef3.
Ma, C. Y., Yiu, S. H., & Khanzada, G. (1991). Rheological and
structural properties of wiener-type products substituted with vital
wheat gluten. Journal of Food Science, 56(1), 228–233.
Miller, M. F., Davis, G. W., Seideman, S. C., Wheeler, T. L., &
Ramsey, C. B. (1986). Extending beef bullock restructured steaks
 S.Y. Hsu, L.-Y. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 74 (2006) 47–53 53

with soy protein, wheat gluten or mechanically separated beef.
Journal of Food Science, 51(5), 1169–1172.
SAS Institute Inc. (1988). SAS userÕs guide: Stat, version 6.03. Cary,
NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
Slavin, J. (1991). Nutritional benefits of soy protein and soy fiber.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 91(7), 816–819.
SPSS Inc. (1984). SPSS/PC for IBM PC/XT, version 1.10. Chicago, IL,
USA: SPSS Inc.
Wang, C. R., & Zayas, J. F. (1992). Comparatives study of corn germ
and soy proteins utilization in comminuted meat products. Journal
of Food Quality, 15(2), 153–167.