02104naa a2200277 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902200140006002400430007410000180011724501180013526000090025352013060026265000130156865000170158165000150159865000200161365300120163370000170164570000200166270000210168270000180170370000180172170000220173977300650176121403752022-07-12 2021 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d a1678-457X7 ahttps://doi.org/10.1590/fst.034212DOI1 aGRIGIO, M. L. aNutraceutical potential, quality and sensory evaluation of camu-camu pure and mixed jelly.h[electronic resource] c2021 aThe objective of this work was to formulate and to characterize chemically and physically different formulations of camu-camu jellies, with or without mixture of other fruits. Their sensory acceptance was evaluated by identifying the formulations with greater acceptability while maintaining their nutraceutical potential. The formulations were: camu-camu jelly, camu-camu jelly with jabuticaba, camu-camu jelly with guava, camu-camu jelly with acerola, camu-camu jelly with passion fruit and camu-camu jelly with papaya. Untrained tasters were used to assess consumer acceptability. In a second scale the purchase intention was evaluated. The following variables were also analyzed: pH, soluble solids, titratable acidity, ratio (SS/TA), ascorbic acid, total anthocyanins and flavonoids, phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity by the DPPH and FRAP methods. The results showed that camu-camu jelly without mixtures was not well accepted in the sensory test when compared to the others. The greatest preference was for mixed jams of camu-camu with guava and jabuticaba, in which they obtained greater acceptance and purchase intention. Jellies with higher levels of bioactive compounds and antioxitant activity obtained low acceptance and purchase intention, perhaps due to their high astringency. aAcerolas aAntioxidants aJabuticaba aMyrciaria Dubia aCaçari1 aMOURA, E. A.1 aCARVALHO, G. F.1 aZANCHETTA, J. J.1 aCHAGAS, P. C.1 aCHAGAS, E. A.1 aDURIGAN, M. F. B. tFood Science and Technology, Campinas, Ahead of Print, 2021.