. 2020 Jun 11;9(6):772. doi: 10.3390/foods9060772

Table 3.

Texture profile analysis result of HMMA at different formulations and target moisture content ¹.

Formula	Moisture Content (%)	Hardness (g)	Springiness	Resilience	Chewiness (g)
0% HPC (100% SPI)	70	527 ± 33 ^aC	0.99 ± 0.01 ^aA	0.51 ± 0.01 ^aB	459 ± 34 ^aC
0% HPC (100% SPI)	75	545 ± 66 ^aB	0.99 ± 0.00 ^aA	0.48 ± 0.01 ^bB	465 ± 44 ^aC
20% HPC	65	3444 ± 186 ^aA	0.88 ± 0.14 ^aA	1.59 ± 0.88 ^aA	2944 ± 123 ^aA
	70	1911 ± 18 ^bA	0.95 ± 0.06 ^aA	0.55 ± 0.02 ^aB	1630 ± 19 ^bA
	75	798 ± 21 ^cA	0.96 ± 0.05 ^aA	0.52 ± 0.01 ^aA	670 ± 8 ^cB
40% HPC	65	3275 ± 76 ^aA	0.91 ± 0.14 ^aA	0.57 ± 0.03 ^bA	2692 ± 71 ^aB
	70	1700 ± 66 ^bB	1.19 ± 0.12 ^aA	1.66 ± 0.26 ^aA	1435 ± 44 ^bB
	75	851 ± 42 ^cA	0.97 ± 0.04 ^aA	0.51 ± 0.04 ^bAB	721 ± 29 ^cA
60% HPC	65	2640 ± 84 ^aB	1.02 ± 0.19 ^aA	1.20 ± 0.60 ^aA	2128 ± 34 ^aC
	70	1719 ±116b ^bB	0.93 ± 0.04 ^aA	0.52 ± 0.07 ^aB	1410 ± 59 ^bB
	75	Too soft and brittle to measure

¹ All values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05) between different target moisture at the same HMMA formulation, and different uppercase letters indicate a significant difference between different HMMA formulations at the same target moisture content.