University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural

Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska

2012

Flavor and Antioxidant Capacity of Peanut Paste and Peanut

Butter Supplemented with Peanut Skins
Chellani S. Hathorn
North Carolina State University at Raleigh

Timothy H. Sanders
USDA, ARS, tim.sanders@ars.usda.gov

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub

Hathorn, Chellani S. and Sanders, Timothy H., "Flavor and Antioxidant Capacity of Peanut Paste and
Peanut Butter Supplemented with Peanut Skins" (2012). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty.
1102.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1102

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research
Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Flavor and Antioxidant Capacity of Peanut Paste
and Peanut Butter Supplemented
with Peanut Skins
Chellani S. Hathorn and Timothy H. Sanders

Abstract: Peanut skins (PS) are a good source of phenolic compounds. This study evaluated antioxidant properties and
flavor of peanut paste and peanut butter enhanced with peanut skins. PS were added to both materials in concentrations
of 0.0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 5.0%, 10.0%, 15.0%, and 20.0% (w/w). PS, peanut paste, and peanut butter used in the study had
initial total phenolics contents of 158, 12.9, and 14.1 mg GAE/g, respectively. Hydrophilic oxygen radical absorbance
capacity (H-ORAC) of peanut skins was 189453 µMol Trolox/100 g and addition of 5% PS increased H-ORAC of
peanut paste and peanut butter by 52% to 63%. Descriptive sensory analysis indicated that the addition of 1% PS did not
change intensity of descriptors in the sensory profile of either peanut paste or peanut butter. Addition of 5% PS resulted in
significant differences in woody, hulls, skins; bitter; and astringent descriptors and 10% PS addition resulted in significant
differences in most attributes toward more negative flavor.
Keywords: antioxidants, descriptive sensory analysis, peanut, peanut butter, peanut skins

Practical Application: Peanut skins are a low-value residue material from peanut processing which contain naturally
occurring phenolic compounds. The use of this material to improve antioxidant capacity and shelf-life of foods can add
value to the material and improve the nutritional value of foods. The improved nutritional qualities and unchanged flavor
profile occurring with low levels of peanuts skins in peanut paste and peanut butter suggest potential application of this
technology in various food industries.

S: Sensory & Food

Introduction against oxidative stress, which has been implicated in atheroscle-
rosis, diabetes mellitus, chronic inflammation, and some types

Quality
Peanuts are an important crop in many parts of the world.
Recent data suggest that production of peanuts in the United of cancers in humans (Karadag and others 2009). Procyanidins
States is about 2 million tons (USDA 2011). Peanut skins (testae were reported to have an antihyperglycemic effect in rats with in-
or seed coat), comprising about 3.0% (w/w) of a peanut seed, are duced diabetes (Pinent and others 2004; El-Alfy and others 2005).
low-value, residue materials resulting from peanut blanching and Plasma cholesterol levels were reduced in rats fed a diet contain-
roasting. Removal of the skin is normally done in preparation for ing procyanidins (Osakabe and Yamagishi 2009; Shimizu-Ibuka
the production of products such as peanut butter. Approximately and others 2009). Further, Frankel (1998) reported that phenolic
60000 tons of peanut skins are accumulated annually in the United compounds may reduce lipid oxidation in lipid-containing foods.
States as a result of peanut processing. Peanut skin use is generally O’Keefe and Wang (2006) evaluated the effect of extracts from
limited to animal feeds (Nepote and others 2004; Ha and others peanut skins on the storage stability of ground beef (250 g), and
2007). The potential exists for value added use of this material found that 200 to 400 ppm was the optimal concentration of ex-
to improve antioxidant capacity and shelf-life of lipid-containing tract to reduce lipid oxidation. Nepote and others (2004) observed
foods. that the addition of peanut skin extracts to honey roasted peanuts
The concentration of peanut skin tannins from 6 varieties of provided some protection against lipid oxidation.
peanuts ranged from 289 to 468 mg/g (Sanders 1979). Karchesy The oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay (ORAC) is used
and Hemingway (1986) reported 17% (w/w) procyanidins in to determine the inhibition of peroxyl radical induced oxidation in
peanuts skins. Lou and others (1999) identified 6 A-type procyani- food and biological materials (Karadag and others 2009). ORAC
dins from the water-soluble fraction of peanut skin extracts. Pro- specifically measures peroxyl radical quenching of fluorescence
cyanidins and other phenolic compounds may provide protection of fluorescein. Ballard and others (2009) reported the ORAC of
peanut skins to be as high as 214900 µMol Trolox/100 g. Davis
and others (2010) reported that ORAC of peanut skins increased
with increased degree of roast.
MS 20120656 Submitted 5/9/2012, Accepted 8/13/2012. Author Hathorn is with Descriptive sensory analysis (DSA) is a powerful and compre-
Dept. of Food, Bioprocessing, Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, hensive tool used in sensory science to generate quantitative and
NC 27695, U.S.A. Author Sanders is with USDA, ARS, MQHRU, Dept. of Food,
Bioprocessing, Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695,
qualitative data. DSA can be used to evaluate quality control pa-
U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Sanders (E-mail: tim.sanders@ars.usda.gov). rameters, test the effects of ingredients, aid in evaluating pro-
cessing methods, and can be correlated with other sensory data
Journal of Food Science C 2012 Institute of Food Technologists
R

No claim to original US government works

doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02953.x Vol. 77, Nr. 11, 2012 r Journal of Food Science S407
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
This article is a U.S. government work, and is not subject to copyright in the United States.
 Peanut skins in peanut products . . .

(Meilgaard and others 1999; McNeil and others 2002; Drake absorbance measurement at 765 nm using a SAFIRE2 microplate
2007). The peanut lexicon developed by Johnsen and others reader equipped with version 6.1 Magellan reader software (Tecan
(1988), with an addition by Sanders and others (1989), describes US, Raleigh, N.C., U.S.A.). Total phenolics were calculated as
both desirable and undesirable flavors of peanuts. This lexicon milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram (mg GAE/g).
has been used as a common communication tool among re-
searchers and various segments of the peanut industry. The peanut Hydrophilic-ORAC
lexicon has been used extensively to relate flavor to maturity and Hydrophilic oxygen radical absorbance capacity (H-ORAC)
curing (Sanders and others 1989), evaluate roast peanut flavor was determined using the procedure described by Prior and oth-
(Bett and others 1994), off-flavor development during storage ers (2003) and Davis and others (2010). All solutions and sam-
(Pattee and others 1999), and processing effects (Schirack and ples were prepared using pH 7.4 phosphate buffer. Solutions of
others 2006). Because of the antioxidant activity of phenolic com- 3.12, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 µM of Trolox (Aldrich, Milwaukee,
pounds, the goal of this research was to evaluate the nutritional Wis., U.S.A.) were used as the control standards. Approxi-
antioxidant properties and flavor of peanut paste and peanut butter mately 130 µL of standards and hydrophilic extracts were added
enhanced with peanut skins. to a Costar polystyrene flat-bottom black 96 microwell plate
(Corning, Acton, Mass., U.S.A.). Sixty micro liters of a 70 nM
Materials and Methods fluorescein (FL) solution was then added to the wells and then the
Roasted peanut skins, peanut paste, and peanut butter from plate was incubated in the SAFIRE2 for 15 min at 37 ◦ C. Next
runner-type peanuts were obtained from Jimbo’s Jumbos Inc. 60 µL of a 153 mM 2,2’-azobis (2-amindino-propane) dihy-
(Edenton, N.C., U.S.A.). Peanut paste was ground peanuts only drochloride (AAPH) (Wako, Richmond, Va., U.S.A.) solution was
while peanut butter contained added salt, sugar, and stabilizer added rapidly. Fluorescence excitation and emission wavelengths
which were less than 5% (w/w) of the peanut butter. Skins were were programmed to 485 and 535 nm. H-ORAC was calculated
milled using a laboratory grade Wiley Mill (Paul N. Gardner Co., using a regression equation between the concentration of Trolox
Inc., Pompano Beach, Fla., U.S.A.) fitted with a 0.5 mm sieve. and the net area under the curve. H-ORAC was reported as Trolox
Milled peanut skins were blended into peanut paste and peanut equivalents (µMol Trolox/100 g).
butter in concentrations of 0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 5.0%, 10.0%, 15%,
and 20.0% w/w. All samples were prepared in triplicate and all Lipophilic-ORAC
subsequent analyses were performed in triplicate. The L-ORAC procedure was carried out as described by
Prior and others (2003) and Davis and others (2010). A 7%
Color randomly methylated beta cyclodextrin (RMCD) (TrappsolR ;
The Hunter L, a, b system was utilized for color measurement. CTD, Inc., High Springs, Fla., U.S.A.) solution was pre-
Hunter L (0 = black, 100 = white) and a value (+value = red, pared in 50% acetone: 50% water (7% RMCD). Solutions of
–value = green) were determined using a HunterLab Colorimeter standards prepared in 7% RMCD ranged from 200 to 1.56
(HunterLab DP-9000TM Reston, Va., U.S.A.). µM of Trolox (Aldrich, Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.). Twenty-
five µL of standards and lipophilic extracts were added to
S: Sensory & Food

Sample extraction the 96-microwell plate. One hundred twenty µL 21.5 nM

Samples for lipophilic (L) and hydrophilic (H) ORAC analyses of fluorescein solution (prepared in 75 mM phosphate buffer) was
Quality

were extracted using a Dionex (Sunnyvale, Calif., U.S.A.) ASER added to samples using a multichannel pipette and incubated in
200 Accelerated Solvent Extractor (Prior and others 2003; Davis the SAFIRE2 for 15 min at 37 ◦ C. AAPH was prepared to a final
and others 2010). Approximately 1.0 g of sample was weighed concentration of 70 mM in phosphate buffer and 80 µL of AAPH
analytically and mixed with 25 g of clean sand. Samples and sand solution was added rapidly using a multichannel pipette. Data
were transferred to a 22 mL extraction cell and extracted with handling and export were the same as reported for H-ORAC.
1:1 hexane:dichloromethane for lipophilic analysis. Lipophilic ex- L-ORAC was calculated using a regression equation between
tracts (peanut skins) were dried using nitrogen and adjusted to a the concentration of Trolox and the net area under the curve.
final volume of 10 mL using acetone. Samples and sand were then L-ORAC was reported as Trolox equivalents (µMol Trolox/
extracted with 70:29.5:0.5 acetone:water:acetic acid (AWA) and 100 g).
brought to 50 mL final volume with additional AWA in prepara-
tion for hydrophilic analysis. Descriptive sensory analysis
Evaluation of peanut paste and peanut butter samples were
Total phenolics conducted by an experienced descriptive sensory panel (n = 6,
Total phenolics were determined using the Folin-Ciocalteu females; n = 6, males; >500 h experience) established using the
method (Waterhouse 2002) with modifications. Gallic acid SpectrumTM universal 15-point intensity scale. Panelists used the
(Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A.) standards were pre- peanut lexicon described by Johnsen and others (1988) and Sanders
pared with 0.0, 50.0, 100.0, 150.0, 250.0, 500.0 mg/L. Approxi- and others (1989). To mask color differences of the various con-
mately 0.1 mL of standard solution and hydrophilic extract samples centrations of peanut skins, all samples were presented in 2oz
were pipetted into test tubes, to which 7.9 mL of deionized wa- soufflé cups with lids under red lamps. Samples were equilibrated
ter and 0.5 mL Folin reagent (Sigma-Aldrich Co.) were added to to and served at room temperature (22 ◦ C).
each of the standard and sample solutions. After 1 min, 1.5 mL A carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) rinse (5.5 g/L, TIC Gums,
of sodium carbonate solution was added followed by vortexing. Belcamp, Md., U.S.A.) protocol described by Beecher and others
The sodium carbonate solution was prepared with 100 g anhydrous (2008) was used to minimize astringency carryover effects. Pan-
sodium carbonate in 400 mL water, which was allowed to sit for elists were trained an additional 7 h on bitter, astringency, and
24 h, filtered and brought to a final volume of 1 liter. Standards familiarization with the CMC protocol. After tasting the sample
and samples remained at room temperature for 2 h followed by and expectorating, panelists were instructed to rinse with CMC,

S408 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 77, Nr. 11, 2012

Peanut skins in peanut products . . .

Table 1– Intensity of attributes of peanut paste reference con- Table 3– Total phenolics (TP) and oxygen radical absorbance
taining 2% tannic acid. capacity (ORAC) of peanut paste (PP) and peanut butter (PB)
containing peanut skins (PS).
Attribute Intensity
PP PB
Roast peanutty 4.5
Sweet aromatic 3.0 H-ORAC H-ORAC
Dark roast 3.0 TP (µMol Trolox TP (µMol Trolox
Raw beany 2.0 % PS (GAE/g) /100 g) (GAE/g) /100 g)
Woody/Hulls/Skins 3.0
Sweet taste 2.5 0 12.9f 4041f 14.1f 5702f
Bitter 5.0 0.5 13.7ef 4625f 14.7f 6059ef
Astringency 4.0 1.0 14.4e 5846e 15.1e 6547e
5.0 20.8d 7737d 21.5d 8954d
10.0 25.5c 13004c 24.0c 15653c
Table 2– Hunter L and a value of peanut paste (PP) and peanut 15.0 27.4b 17145b 25.5b 18071b
butter (PB) containing peanut skins (PS). 20.0 31.9a 20063a 28.1a 20376a
a
PP PB Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

% PS L a L a Table 4–Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) of roasted

peanut skins.
0 49.5a 7.1c 48.5a 8.5d
0.5 48.1b 7.2c 46.8b 8.5d µMol Trolox /100 g ± SD
1.0 47.9c 7.2c 46.5b 8.5d
5.0 41.1d 7.9b 39.0c 8.9c Lipophilic 5617 ± 223
10.0 35.8e 8.6a 31.9d 9.4b Hydrophilic 189453 ± 6963
15.0 32.9f 8.7a 27.9e 9.4b Total 195070
20.0 29.2g 8.7a 25.3f 9.6a
a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).
reported to range from 36 to 280 mg GAE/g (Francisco and
Resurreccion 2008). Ballard and others (2009) reported that the
take a sip of water, a bite of cracker, then another sip of water fol- total phenolic content of an ethanolic extract of peanut skins was
lowed by a 2-min timed waiting period. A peanut paste reference 118 mg GAE/g. The phenolics content of roasted peanut skin
(Table 1), containing 2% w/w tannic acid, was used as a warm-up extracts using water, methanol, and ethanol solvents was 79.0,
sample prior to evaluating the test samples. Tannic acid, a plant 96.7, and 125.0 mg GAE/g, respectively (Yu and others 2005).
polyphenol, was added for increased bitter and astringent intensity Yu and others (2006) published total phenolics results of peanut
in the reference peanut paste. The order of sample presentation skins removed using direct peel, water blanching, and roasting.
was randomized for 4 replications and all samples were coded with Peanuts skins removed by direct peeling (130.8 mg GAE/g) and
random 3-digit codes. after roasting (124.3 mg GAE/g) had higher antioxidant activity
than skins removed by water blanching (15.1 mg GAE/g). Water

S: Sensory & Food

Statistical analysis blanching of the skin causes phenolic compounds to leach out,
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was generated using PROC resulting in a loss of skin color (Yu and others 2005). Based on

Quality
GLM and comparison of means were made using Duncan’s post data from our study, more than 95% of the phenolic compounds in
hoc test (SAS version 9.1, Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). Significance was peanut skins are hydrophilic and supports the concept of possible
established at P < 0.05. leaching of these compounds when skins are removed with water
blanching. The total phenolic content of peanut paste increased
Results and Discussion (P < 0.05) from 12.9 to 31.9 mg GAE/g across the range of
The L value for peanut paste and peanut butter containing 0% to PS added (Table 3) and from 14.1 to 28.1 mg GAE/g in peanut
20% (w/w) peanut skins ranged from 49.5 to 29.2 and 48.5 to 25.3, butter samples when peanut skins were added (Table 3). Currently,
respectively (Table 2). The increase in darkness of both peanut literature suggests that Americans consume about 1 g of phenolic
products was directly related to the quantity of skins added. The a compounds daily; however, there is no recommended daily dietary
value (red to green) increased significantly (P < 0.05) from 7.1 to intake of phenolic compounds (Scalbert and Williamson 2000;
8.7 and 8.5 to 9.6 for peanut paste and peanut butter, respectively, Williamson and Holst 2008).
as the concentration of peanut skins increased (Table 2). Stansbury L-ORAC of roasted peanut skins was 5617 ± 223 µMol
and others (1950) reported dark red extracts from peanut skins. Trolox/100 g, while the H-ORAC was 189453 ± 6963 µMol
Chukwumah and others (2009) evaluated the relationship between Trolox/100 g (Table 4). These values are similar to data published
peanut skin color and polyphenolic compounds. The redness of by Ballard and others (2009) and Davis and others (2010). ORAC
the peanut skin extracts correlated well with the concentration reported for roasted almond skins ranged from 80300 to 108000
of polyphenolic compounds present in the skins. Compounds, µMol Trolox/100 g (Garrido and others 2008). Davis and others
such as procyanidins, found primarily in woody or herbaceous (2010) found that roasting for longer times increased antioxidant
plants, are colorless but may convert to red-brown pigments under activity of peanuts, peanut flour, and skins. Increase in ORAC
atmospheric conditions or under light (Schwartz and others 1996). with roasting may be related to an increase in Maillard reaction
As such, differences in a value were observed in a collected sample products which, in addition to phenolic compounds, have antiox-
of raw skins (a = 8.8) and roasted (a = 10.2) peanut skins (data not idant activity.
presented), demonstrating an increase in red pigments in roasted The USDA (2007) report of the ORAC of approximately 277
skins. foods included raw peanuts as 3166 µMol Trolox/100 g. The re-
The total phenolics content of peanut skins used in the present port does not state whether or not the skin was intact; however,
study was 158 mg GAE/g. Peanut skin total phenolics have been based on published data, it is likely that the skin was removed.

Vol. 77, Nr. 11, 2012 r Journal of Food Science S409

 Peanut skins in peanut products . . .

Table 5–Descriptive sensory analysis of peanut paste containing peanut skins (PS).
% of PS Roast peanutty Sweet aromatic Dark roast Raw beany Woody/ Hulls/Skins Sweet taste Bitter Astringency
0 4.4a 3.0a 3.0a 2.0b 3.2d 2.7ab 2.8d 2.7d
0.5 4.6a 3.2a 3.0a 2.0b 3.3cd 2.9a 2.9cd 3.0cd
1.0 4.3a 3.0a 3.0a 2.0b 3.4cd 2.6ab 2.9cd 2.7d
5.0 4.3a 2.9ab 2.9a 2.1b 3.6c 2.5b 3.3c 3.4c
10.0 3.5b 2.6b 2.9a 2.2b 4.6b 2.2c 4.3b 4.4b
15.0 2.7c 2.2c 2.8a 2.1b 4.9b 1.9d 4.6b 4.3b
20.0 1.9d 1.6d 2.9a 2.4a 5.7a 1.5e 5.3a 5.3a
a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 6–Descriptive sensory analysis of peanut butter containing peanut skins (PS).
% of PS Roast peanutty Sweet aromatic Dark roast Raw beany Woody/ Hulls/Skins Sweet taste Bitter Astringency
0 4.0ab 2.9ab 2.9a 1.9a 3.0cd 2.8a 2.3d 1.6d
0.5 4.0ab 3.0ab 2.9a 2.0a 2.9d 3.0a 2.5cd 1.8d
1.0 4.2a 3.1a 2.9a 2.1a 3.3cd 3.1a 2.6cd 1.9d
5.0 3.9ab 3.0ab 2.9a 2.2a 3.6c 2.8a 3.1c 2.6c
10.0 3.5b 2.7bc 2.8a 2.2a 4.3b 2.7a 4.1b 3.5b
15.0 2.8c 2.5c 2.9a 2.2a 4.3b 2.6a 4.4b 3.7b
20.0 2.2d 2.0d 2.9a 2.1a 5.3a 1.9b 5.2a 4.3a
a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Davis and others (2010) reported slightly higher ORAC for raw Panelists described the skins as having “mild flavor and aroma”
blanched peanuts (3750 µMol Trolox/100 g). ORAC for almonds but descriptors such as woody and earthy were also reported. The
was reported as 4454 µMol Trolox/100 g (USDA 2007). The authors suggested that almond skins could be added to foods with
antioxidant activity of nuts is reduced when the skin is removed little change to flavor but did not report studies to demonstrate
(Schmitzer and others 2011). Nuts such as walnuts and pecans, that fact.
typically eaten with the skin intact, have an ORAC of 13541 Astringency intensity was higher in peanut paste than in peanut
and 17940, µMol Trolox/100 g, respectively (USDA 2007). The butter (Table 5 and 6). Viscosity of a material has an effect on
ORAC of peanut paste and peanut butter increased as the concen- perceived astringency. Smith and others (1996) demonstrated that
tration of peanut skins increased, and ranged from 4041 to 20063 astringency intensity decreased as viscosity was increased in aque-
and 5702 to 20376 µMol Trolox/100 g, respectively (Table 3). ous solutions of grape seed tannins using CMC. Similarly, Peleg
According to the USDA database (2007), peanut butter has an and Noble (1999) reported that perceived astringency decreased
antioxidant capacity of 3432 µMol Trolox/100 g. The differences with increasing viscosity of cranberry juice using CMC. Pectin has
S: Sensory & Food

in antioxidant capacity for peanut butter in the database and the also been reported to reduce perceived astringency in catechin-
value in this study (5702 µMol Trolox/100 g) may be related to based solutions (Hayashi and others 2005). Buck (2010) measured
Quality

peanut production area and market type used in the products as the yield stress, the minimum shear stress required to initiate flow,
well as process parameters, and/or composition of the 2 products. of peanut paste and commercial peanut butter. Peanut paste ranged
The addition of peanut skins at greater than 5% resulted from 0.58 to 2.02 kPa, while peanut butter had a yield stress of
in a decrease in roast peanutty intensity and an increase in 10.61 kPa. Because of the addition of stabilizer to prevent oil sep-
woody/hulls/skins, bitter, and astringency intensities in peanut aration, peanut butter is typically more viscous than peanut paste.
paste and peanut butter (Table 5 and 6). The panel did not detect The lower perceived astringency in peanut butter in the current
differences (P > 0.05) in roast peanutty intensity among samples study compared to peanut paste may be in part a result of increased
through 5.0% skins in peanut paste but differences were detected viscosity. Sucrose has been previously demonstrated to reduce per-
at 10% added skins (Table 5). Similar results were found in peanut ceived astringency, likely due to concentration and viscosity of the
butter (Table 6). Peanut skin is approximately 3% of the weight test solution (Lyman and Green 1990; Breslin and others 1993).
of unblanched peanuts and the results from this study provide Procyanidins have been identified as one of the key compounds
evidence that slightly more than the normal peanut skin weight in foods responsible for bitterness (Lopez and others 2007). The
may be added to peanut paste without discernable difference in molecular structure of phenolic compounds can affect bitter and
flavor. astringency perception. Low-molecular weight (<500) pheno-
Sweet aromatic is described as aromatics associated with sweet lic compounds tend to be bitter, while higher-molecular weight
material such as caramel, vanilla, molasses, and fruit (Johnsen and (>500) compounds tend to be astringent (Lea and Arnold 1978;
others 1988). For peanut paste, sweet aromatic did not become Robichaud and Noble 1990; Noble 1994; Peleg and others 1999).
significantly (P < 0.05) lower until 10% skins were added. The Low molecular weight compounds with antioxidant activity found
same was observed for peanut butter. Wood/hulls/skins is asso- in peanut skins, such as caffeic acid (MW = 180), chlorogenic
ciated with base peanut character (absence of fragrant top notes) acid (MW = 354), ellagic acid (MW = 302), and procyanidin
and related to dry wood, peanut hulls, and skins (Johnsen and monomers (MW = 289) may be perceived as bitter (Peleg and
others 1988). Since peanut skins are more closely associated with others 1999; Yu and others 2005). While A-type procyanidin
woody/hulls/skins, the addition of this material to peanut paste dimers (MW = 575), B-type procyanidin dimers (MW = 577),
and peanut butter should and did increase base peanut and woody A-type procyanidin trimers (MW = 863), B-type procyanidin
notes. Johnson (2007) used DSA to describe the flavor and aroma trimers (MW = 865), A-type procyanidin tetramers (MW =
profile of almond skins as toasted and toasted:nutty, respectively. 1149), and B-type procyanidin tetramers (MW = 1151) found

S410 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 77, Nr. 11, 2012

Peanut skins in peanut products . . .

in peanut skins tend to be more astringent (Peleg and others 1999; Karchesy JJ, Hemingway RW. 1986. Condensed tannins (4β → 8;2β → O→ 7)-linked pro-
cyanidins in Arachis hypogea L. J Agric Food Chem 34:966–70.
Yu and others 2005). The mechanism of astringency perception Lea AGH, Arnold GM. 1978. The phenolics of ciders: bitterness and astringency. J Sci Food
may result from a decrease in saliva lubrication caused by binding Agric 29:478–83.
and precipitation of proteins (Charlton and others 2002; Jöbstl and Lopez R, Mateo-Vivaracho L, Ferreira V. 2007. Optimization and validation of a taste dilution
analysis to characterize wine taste. J Food Sci 72:S345–51.
others 2004). Increases in bitter and astringent may be described as Lou H, Yamazaki Y, Sasaki T, Uchida M, Tanaka H, Oka S. 1999. A-type proanthocyanidins
unpleasant sensory attributes, which can negatively correlate with from peanut skins. Phytochemistry 54:297–308.
Lyman BJ, Green BG. 1990. Oral astringency: effects of repeated exposure and interactions with
consumer liking (Young and others 2005). sweeteners. Chem Senses 15:151–64.
McNeil KL, Sanders TH, Civille GV. 2002. Descriptive analysis of commercially available creamy
style peanut butters. J Sens Stud 17:391–414.
Conclusion Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. 1999. Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd ed. New York:
The addition of peanut skins to peanut paste and peanut butter CRC Press. p 387.
Nepote V, Grosso NR, Guzman CA. 2004. Radical scavenging activity of extracts of Argentine
significantly increased the total phenolics and ORAC. Addition peanut skins (arachis hypogagea) in relation to its trans-resveratrol content. J Argentine Chem
of 5% (w/w) of peanut skins to peanut paste and peanut but- Soc 92:41–9.
Noble AC. 1994. Bitterness in wine. Physiol Behav 56:1251–5.
ter resulted in increase of peanut skin related flavors and 10% O’Keefe SF, Wang H. 2006. Effects of peanut skin extract on quality and storage stability of beef
skins resulted in overall reduced flavor. This study indicated a products. Meat Sci 73:278–86.
Osakabe N, Yamagishi M. 2009. Procyanidins in theobroma cacao reduce plasma cholesterol
potential limited application for peanut skins in peanut paste and levels in high cholesterol-fed rats. J Clin Biochem Nutr 45:131–6.
peanut butter and perhaps in other products to improve nutritional Pattee HE, Giesbrecht FG, Isleib TG. 1999. Sensory attribute variation in low-temperature
stored roasted peanut paste. J Agric Food Chem 47:2415–20.
quality. Peleg H, Noble AC. 1999. Effect of viscosity, temperature and pH on astringency in cranberry
juice. Food Qual Pref 10:343–7.
Peleg H, Gacon K, Schlich P, Noble AC. 1999. Bitterness and astringency of flavan-3-ol
Acknowledgments monomers, dimmers and trimers. J Sci Food Agric 79:1123–8.
The authors thank the peanut sensory panel members and Ms. Pinent M, Blay M, Bladé MC, Salvadó MJ, Arola L, Ardévol, A. 2004. Grape seed-derived
procyanidins have an antihyperglycermic effect in streptozocin-induced diabetes rats and
Kristin Price for meaningful contributions to this work. insulinomimetic activity in insulin-sensitive cell lines. Endocrinology 145:4985–90.
Prior RL, Hoang H, Gu LW, Wu XL, Bacchiocca M, Howard L, Hampschwoodill M, Huang
DJ, Ou BX, Jacob R. 2003. Assays for hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant capacity (oxygen
References radical absorbance capacity (ORAC(FL)) of plasma and other biological and food samples. J
Ballard TS, Mallikarjuman P, Zhou K, O’Keefe SF. 2009. Optimizing the extraction of phenolic Agric Food Chem 51:3273–9.
antioxidants from peanut skins using response surface methodology. J Agric Food Chem Robichaud JL, Noble AC. 1990. Astringency and bitterness of selected Phenolics in wine. J Sci
57:3064–72. Food Agric 53:343–53.
Beecher JW, Drake MA, Luck PJ, Foegeding EA. 2008. Factors regulating astringency of whey Sanders TH. 1979. Effect of variety, location and year on tannin content of peanut seed coats.
protein beverages. J Dairy Sci 91:2553–60. Peanut Sci 6:62–4.
Bett KL, Vercellotti JR, Lovegren NV, Sanders TH, Hinsch RT, Rasmussen GK. 1994. A Sanders TH, Vercellotti JR, Crippen KL, Civille GV. 1989. Effect of maturity on roast color
comparison of the flavor and compositional quality of peanuts from several origins. Food and descriptive flavor of peanuts. J Food Sci 54:475–7.
Chem 51:21–7. Scalbert A, Williamson G. 2000. Dietary intake and bioavailability of polyphenols. J Nutr
Breslin PAS, Gilmore MM, Beauchamp GK, Green BG. 1993. Psychophysical evidence that 130:2073S–85.
oral astringency is a tactile sensation. Chem Senses 18:405–17. Schirack AV, Drake MA, Sanders TH, Sandeep KP. 2006. Impact of microwave blanching on
Buck VI. 2010. Rheological properties of peanut paste and characterization of fat bloom forma- the flavor of roasted peanuts. J Sens Stud 21:428–40.
tion in peanut-chocolate confectionary. [PhD dissertation]. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Poly- Schmitzer V, Slatnar A, Veberic R, Stampar F, Solar A. 2011. Roasting affects phenolic com-
technic Inst. and State Univ. 137 p. Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/ position and antioxidative activity of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana L.). J Food Sci 76:S14–9.
etd-04152010-105532/unrestricted/VinodiniI_D_2010.pdf. Accessed Oct 07, 2011. Schwartz SJ, Von Elbe JH, Giusti MM. 1996. Colorants. In: Damodaran S, Parkin KL, Fen-
Charlton AJ, Baxter NJ, Khan ML, Moir AJ, Haslam E, Davies AP, Williamson MP. 2002. nema OR, editors. Fennema’s food chemistry. 4th ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. p

S: Sensory & Food

Polyphenol/peptide binding and precipitation. J Agric Food Chem 50:1593–1601. 571–638.
Chukwumah Y, Walker LT, Verghese M. 2009. Peanut skin color: a biomarker for total polyphe- Shimizu-Ibuka A, Udagawa H, Kobayashi-Hattori K, Mura K, Tokue C, Takita T, Arai, S. 2009.
nolic content and antioxidative capacities of peanut cultivars. Int J Mol Sci 10:4941–52. Hypocholesterolemic effect of peanut skins and its fractions: a case record of rats fed on a

Quality
Davis JP, Dean LL, Price KM, Sanders TH. 2010. Roast effects on the hydrophilic and high-cholesterol diet. Biosci Biotecnol Biochem 73:205–8.
lipophilic capacities of peanut flours, blanched peanut seed and peanut skins. Food Chem 119: Smith AK, June H, Noble AC. 1996. Effects of viscosity on the bitterness and astringency of
539–47. grape seed tannin. Food Qual Pref 7:161–6.
Drake MA. 2007. Invited review: sensory analysis of dairy foods. J Dairy Sci 90:4925–37. Stansbury MF, Field ET, Guthrie JD. 1950. The tannin and related pigments in the red skins
El-Alfy AT, Ahmed AAE, Fatani AJ. 2005. Protective effect of red grape seeds proanthyocyanidins (testa) of peanut kernels. Am Oil Chem Soc 8:317–21.
against induction of diabetes by alloxan in rats. Pharama Res 52:264–70. United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC)
Francisco MLDL, Resurreccion AVA. 2008. Functional components in peanuts. Crit Rev Food of selected foods. p 1–34.
Sci Nutr 48:715–46. United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. World agricultural production. Peanut area,
Frankel EN. 1998. Lipid oxidation. Scotland: The Oily Press Ltd. p 303. yield and production. Table 13.
Garrido I, Monagas M, Gómez-Cordovés C, Bartolome, B. 2008. Polyphenols and antioxidant Waterhouse AL. 2002. Determination of total phenolics. In: Wrolstad ER, Acree ET, Haejung
properties of almond skins: influence of industrial processing. J Food Sci 73:C106–15. A, Decker AE, Penner HM, Reid SD, Schwartz JS, Shoemaker JS, Smith MD, Sporns P,
Ha HV, Pokorny J, Sakurai H. 2007. Peanut skin antioxidants. J Food Lipids 14:298–314. editors. Current protocols in food analytical chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Hayashi N, Ujihara T, Kohata K. 2005. Reduction of catechin astringency by the complexation p I 1.1.1–I 1.1.8.
of gallate-type catechins with pectin. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 69:1306–10. Williamson G, Holst B. 2008. Dietary reference intake (DRI) value for dietary polyphenols: are
Jöbstl E, O’Connell J, Faircloough JP, Williamson MP. 2004. Molecular model for astringency we heading in the right direction? British J Nutr 3:S55–8.
produced by polyphenol/protein interactions. Biomacromolecules 52:942–9. Young ND, Sanders TH, Drake MA, Osborne J, Civille G. 2005. Descriptive analysis and US
Johnsen PB, Civille GV, Vercellotti JR, Sanders TH, Dus, CA. 1988. Development of a lexicon consumer acceptability of peanuts from different origins. Food Qual Pref 16:37–43.
for the description of peanut flavor. J Sensory Stud 3:9–17. Yu J, Ahmedna M, Goktepe I. 2005. Effects of processing methods and extraction solvents on
Johnson HM. 2007. Almond skins as a natural antioxidant. [MSc thesis]. Clemson, SC: Clem- concentration and antioxidant activity of peanut skin phenolics. Food Chem 90:199–206.
son Univ. 86 p. Available from: http://etd.lib.clemson.edu/documents/1193079453/umi- Yu J, Ahmedna M, Goktepe I, Dai J. 2006. Peanut skin procyanidins: composition and antioxidant
clemson-1309.pdf. Accessed Aug 16, 2011. activities as affected by processing. J Food Comp Anal 19:364–71.
Karadag A, Ozcelik B, Saner S. 2009. Review of methods to determine antioxidant capacities.
Food Anal Methods 2:41–60.

Vol. 77, Nr. 11, 2012 r Journal of Food Science S411