Proximate composition analysis of chicken burgers from night market stalls and selected fast food restaurants


Citation

Azlan A., . and Unzil N. A., . and Sultana S., . Proximate composition analysis of chicken burgers from night market stalls and selected fast food restaurants. pp. 471-477. ISSN 2550-2166

Abstract

This study was aimed to determine and compare the proximate composition of chicken burgers from night market stalls and selected fast-food restaurants. The methods used for determination of proximate composition were AOAC Official Methods 973.48 960.39 991.43 990.19 and 999.11 for protein fat fibre moisture and ash respectively except total available carbohydrate. The energy content of all samples was calculated based on 4 4 and 9 kcal/100 g for carbohydrate protein and fat respectively. The protein content of burger samples from fast-food restaurant ranged 14.48-18.6 whereas the samples from night market stalls had protein content ranged 13.26-19. Fat contents of burger samples from fast-food restaurant and night market stalls were 18.57-19.11 and 26.33- 28.0 respectively. There were statistically significant differences (p0.05) in the percentage of insoluble dietary fibre but no significant differences were found for soluble and total dietary fibres in the burger samples between night market stalls and the restaurants. Night-stall burger samples had higher fibre content (0.14-0.20) than the fastfood restaurant samples which ranged 0.11-0.16. Burger samples from the fast-food restaurant had higher carbohydrate content ranged between 17.77 and 18.55 compared to night stall samples (7.70-8.94). Also the energy content of all burger samples ranged 296“360 kcal. There were significant differences for the protein fat carbohydrate energy and ash content of the burger samples between night market stalls and fast-food restaurants but not for moisture and fibre content. The findings indicated that the nutritional composition of burger samples varied among different locations where a variation in preparation method was observed.


Download File

Full text available from:

Abstract

This study was aimed to determine and compare the proximate composition of chicken burgers from night market stalls and selected fast-food restaurants. The methods used for determination of proximate composition were AOAC Official Methods 973.48 960.39 991.43 990.19 and 999.11 for protein fat fibre moisture and ash respectively except total available carbohydrate. The energy content of all samples was calculated based on 4 4 and 9 kcal/100 g for carbohydrate protein and fat respectively. The protein content of burger samples from fast-food restaurant ranged 14.48-18.6 whereas the samples from night market stalls had protein content ranged 13.26-19. Fat contents of burger samples from fast-food restaurant and night market stalls were 18.57-19.11 and 26.33- 28.0 respectively. There were statistically significant differences (p0.05) in the percentage of insoluble dietary fibre but no significant differences were found for soluble and total dietary fibres in the burger samples between night market stalls and the restaurants. Night-stall burger samples had higher fibre content (0.14-0.20) than the fastfood restaurant samples which ranged 0.11-0.16. Burger samples from the fast-food restaurant had higher carbohydrate content ranged between 17.77 and 18.55 compared to night stall samples (7.70-8.94). Also the energy content of all burger samples ranged 296“360 kcal. There were significant differences for the protein fat carbohydrate energy and ash content of the burger samples between night market stalls and fast-food restaurants but not for moisture and fibre content. The findings indicated that the nutritional composition of burger samples varied among different locations where a variation in preparation method was observed.

Additional Metadata

[error in script]
Item Type: Article
AGROVOC Term: Fast food
AGROVOC Term: Stalls
AGROVOC Term: Restaurants
AGROVOC Term: Proximate composition
AGROVOC Term: Fibre content
AGROVOC Term: Protein content
AGROVOC Term: Carbohydrate content
AGROVOC Term: Energy content
AGROVOC Term: Moisture content
AGROVOC Term: Ash content
Depositing User: Mr. AFANDI ABDUL MALEK
Last Modified: 24 Apr 2025 00:55
URI: http://webagris.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/10239

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Agris UPM is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.