Result/ Discussion:

Moisture assays can be one of the most important analysis performed on a food product and yet
one of the most difficult from which to obtain accurate and precise data. Water is a major
constituent of most food products. The approximate, expected moisture content of a food can affect
the choice of the method of measurement. In oven drying methods, the sample is heated under
specified conditions, and the loss of weight is used to calculate the moisture content of the sample.
Forced draft ovens have the least temperature differential across the interior of all ovens, usually
not greater than 1◦C. Forced draft ovens circulate air with a fan so there is a uniform distribution
of heat throughout the cavity. Forced draft ovens with air distribution manifolds appear to have
added benefit where air movement is horizontal across shelving. Thus, no matter whether the oven
shelves are filled completely with moisture pans or only half filled, the result would be the same
for a particular sample.

This experiment is about the determination moisture content of food product through forced draft
oven. The sample used in this experiment is cream crackers. The cream crackers were grind using
the porcelain mortar and pestle. The two grams of the sample then were transferred into the
aluminum pan and the weight were recorded. Before transferring the sample into the pan, the
empty pan must also be weighted and record to the 4th decimal places. The samples were replicated
into two replicates. After that, transfer all of the aluminum pans to the pre-heated oven, 100C and
dry the samples for 24 hours. After 24 hours, turn off the oven and the pans were transferred using
tongs into a desiccator. The samples were allowed to cool to room temperature, approximately 20
minutes. The pans were weighted again and the result were recorded.

From the experiment the result obtained are, the weight of the empty pan for replicate 1 and 2 are
respectively 23.9897g and 20.1640g, while the weight of the pan with the sample for replicate 1
and 2 are respectively 25.9744g and 22.2044g. Furthermore, the weight of the sample themselves
for replicate 1 and 2 are 1.9847g and 2.0404g. The weight of the pan and the sample after drying
were recorded as 25.8982g and 22.1215g respectively for replicate 1 and 2, while the moisture
weight for replicate 1 and 2 are 0.0762g and 0.0829g. Other than that, the moisture of the sample
can be calculated using the formula (refer appendices), the moisture for replicate 1 is 3.8394% and
for replicate 2 is 4.0629%, so the mean of moisture for this sample is 3.9512%.

Based on the result obtained, the weight of containers (pans) with the sample for both replicate 1
and 2 after drying are less than the weight before the drying. Weight changes in drying methods
are assumed to be due to moisture loss. Moisture loss from a sample during analysis is a function
of time and temperature. This is because there is might be other chemical reactions happen that
can result in utilization of moisture which would reduce the moisture from the sample. Thus, there
would be less serious error happened such as loss of volatile constituents of the sample.

In order to obtain all the result, there might be several errors that can slightly affect the result. The
aluminum pans might contain remaining moisture and will fluctuate in weight during moisture
analysis. Moreover, the pans were handled by hands, not the tongs. This situation brings to
inaccurate result because when the pans handled by the hands, even the fingerprints have weight,
so the real weight of the sample or the pans cannot be obtained. Besides, fluctuate reading of the
analytical balance will also contribute to errors of the result.