| 000 | 01926nam a2200253 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | vtls000058564 | ||
| 003 | KUKTEM | ||
| 005 | 20251114204435.0 | ||
| 008 | 120305t2010 my a f m 001 0 eng d | ||
| 020 | _aTHE0004769(Local) | ||
| 039 | 9 |
_a201905151110 _bsmfh _y201203051529 _zida |
|
| 040 | _aUMP | ||
| 090 | _aTP453.P7 H39 2010 rs Bc. | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aNur Hazwani Rosli | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aComparison between primary method analysis in determination of nutrient content in tempeh / _cNur Hazwani Rosli |
| 260 |
_aKuantan, Pahang : _bUMP, _c2010 |
||
| 300 |
_axv,73 p. : _bill. (some col.) ; _c30 cm. + _e1 CD-ROM |
||
| 502 | _aProject paper (Bachelor of Chemical Engineering) -- Universiti Malaysia Pahang - 2010 | ||
| 504 | _aBibliography : p. [64]-66 | ||
| 520 | 3 | _aThe objective of this study is to compare the analysis of nutrient content in tempeh by using primary method analysis and Near Infrared (NIR) analysis and the nutrient content utilized from using different types of packaging also been compared. The nutrient content that is analyzed is protein content, fat content, fiber and also ash content. Random samples from Kuantan area were taken to be analyzed with primary method analysis and NIR analysis. Tempeh samples with different types of packaging also been analyzed on the nutrient content. From here the nutrient utilized in each types of packaging were compared. From the results, it shows that there are similarities on the analysis between conventional method and NIR analysis. The percentage differences are about 2 to 20% difference depending on the errors during the analysis. The results also show that the plastic packaging utilizes lower protein content than paper packaging but preserved longer by using plastic packaging. | |
| 650 | 0 |
_aProteins _xAnalysis |
|
| 650 | 0 | _aInfrared spectroscopy | |
| 999 |
_aVIRTUA40 _c2079 _d2085 |
||
| 999 | _aVTLSSORT0080*0200*0400*0900*1000*2450*2600*3000*5020*5040*5200*6500*6501*9992 | ||