Qualimetric assessment of diets Oleg Kuzmin, Kateryna Levkun, Anastasiia Riznyk National University of food Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine Abstract Keywords: Qualimetry Rating Diet Norm Article history: Received 06.11.2016 Received in revised form 06.03.2017 Accepted 30.03.2017 Corresponding author: Oleg Kuzmin E-mail: kuzmin_ovl@ nuft.edu.ua DOI: 10.24263/2304- 974X-2017-6-1-7 Introduction. The work’s objective is to analyze quality rating of diets from the standpoint of physiological need norms of a person and a daily ration, to further determine the balance of nutrition. Materials and methods. The daily ration of human nutrition (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and the norms of the physiological needs of the average person – to determine the complex quantitative assessment of the quality of diets. An additive mathematical model as most widespread in a qualimetry is used for joining the quality rating into the generalized (complex) index. Methods – qualimetric. Results and discussion. Taking into account the norms of physiological needs of a common person, the complex- quantitative estimation of quality of one meal is calculated, the three-level hierarchical structure of the system of qualitative indexes is developed: the third level simple indexes are grouped in the qualitative indexes, which form the second level of structure systems hierarchy, which, in turn, form the first level, and then - in the complex index of zero level, which characterizes quality rating of diets. Basic qualitative indexes (Рbasic) of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins are the following: for proteins – 0,15; fats – 0,17; carbohydrates – 0,68; sodium – 0,45; potassium – 0,34; calcium – 0,07; magnesium – 0,03; phosphorus – 0,11; thiamine – 0,02; ribofflavinum – 0,02; perydoxine – 0,02; cevitamic acid – 0,94. Weight coefficients (m) are the following: proteins – 0,50; fats – 0,40; carbohydrates – 0,10; sodium – 0,03; potassium – 0,05; calcium – 0,25; magnesium – 0,50; phosphorus – 0,17; thiamine – 0,36; ribofflavinum – 0,32; perydoxine – 0,31; cevitamic acid – 0,01. The biggest value of the complex index (К0) is obtained in breakfast – 1,60, the lowest value is typical for supper – 1,09. Conclusion. For the set daily ration, the complex qualitative indexes for the group of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins are determined. The most balanced values of qualitative index are set, that is typical for a supper №2 with the estimation – 1,09. Introduction A qualitative index of a product is a quantitative characteristic of one or several properties of a product, which characterize its quality, and is considered in terms of certain conditions of its creation, exploitation or consuming (Azgaldov et al, 2011, 2015; Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008; Zinchenko, Koretska, 2013) [1, 2, 4, 11]. According to the amount of characterized properties the indexes are divided into simple and complex (Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008; Koval, Guts, 2013) [4, 9]. Simple qualitative index identifies one of its properties, for example contents of water, sugar, fat etc (Sébédio, 2017; Kuzmin et al, 2014-2016) [3, 5-8]. They are determined by the industry regulatory document. Complex index identifies several properties of a product. It can be related to both set of properties, which determine quality, and certain group of properties (Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [4]. If ever one index is equal to zero, complex index is also equal to zero (Azgaldov et al, 2011; Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [1, 4]. There are two methods of a product quantitative estimation - differential and complex. A product quantitative estimation is a set of operations, which includes: qualitative indexes’ nomenclature selection of a product, value determination of these indexes and their comparison with basic indexes (Koval, Guts, 2013; Niemirich, Novosad, 2013; Zinchenko, Koretska, 2013) [9-11]. Qualimetric methods can be used in any food as well as the results of their research. Method of a product quantitative estimation is based on comparison of the set of simple indexes’ values of an estimated product with a certain set of base indexes’ values, called differential (Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [4]. Complex method of a product quantitative estimation is based on expressing of the estimation rate by one number, which is a result of grouping of selected simple indexes to one complex index (Azgaldov et al, 2011, 2015; Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [1, 2, 4]. Complex method of a product quantitative estimation is prevailing (Wang et al, 2016; Rodgers, 2017; Perng, Oken, 2017; Grassi et al, 2017; Kim et al, 2017; Carbonneau et al, 2017; Kufley et al, 2017) [12-18]. But, a complex estimation of food products is not exclusive of differential estimation, because in some cases high value of complex qualitative index can disguise the low level of product’s quality according to some simple indexes. Each qualitative index, being a quantitative characteristic (extent) of one of object’s quality model (fact) should reflect (to greater or lesser extent) the ability (property) of the object (fact), meet public demands (interests, values) in certain conditions. Therefore, in order to form a qualitative index we should take into account following qualitative components: public demand, certain conditions, object and extent of its meeting. Qualitative index should provide an answer to the question: to what extent is this object (fact) able to meet public demand (interest, value) (Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [4]. It is better to represent the properties of food in a form of an hierarchical tree. Hierarchical structure of qualitative indexes of a product, manufactured by the industry regulatory document, is represented on the figure 1. During the modeling of a product quality in the form of properties’ hierarchical structure we decide that a quality, as the most generalized complex product property, is considered on the highest, null rate of an hierarchical set of properties (complex qualitative index), and its components – less generalized properties – are considered on the lowest, first hierarchical level (nutritive index). Nutritive indexes, in their turn, consist of an amount of even less generalized properties, situated on the even lower level – second level (macronutrients, vitamins, mineral matters) (Tsapanou et al, 2017; Ramsay et al, 2017; Nguyen et al, 2017; Roy et al, 2017; Bruce et al, 2017; Hoerster et al, 2016) [19-24]. Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of qualitative indexes of a diet On the third level each group of properties also consists of several indexes: macronutrients (proteins, fats, carbohydrates); vitamins (thiamine, ribofflavinum, perydoxine, cevitamic acid); mineral matters (calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium) (Moubarac et al, 2017; Zuniga et al, 2017; Andrade et al, 2016; Pham-Short et al. 2016; Nansel et al, 2016; Hu et al, 2016) [25-30]. Subordinate, so-called hierarchical, structure of properties appears which can be considered from increasing amount of levels (Kim et al, 2017; Nansel et al, 2016) [16, 29]. Building the hierarchical structure of properties we have gone down to the low level, where there are so-called simple properties. These simple properties can be measured by the certain method, and then, used as simple qualitative indexes. Well grounded choice of production indexes in estimating its qualitative rate has high priority. In order to make this choice, we should have at hand the nomenclature of qualitative indexes’ groups which meets demands of need and sufficiency. Materials and methods The daily ration of human nutrition (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and the norms of the physiological needs of the average person – to determine the complex quantitative assessment of the quality of diets. An additive mathematical model as most widespread in a qualimetry is used for joining the quality rating into the generalized (complex) index. Methods – qualimetric (Azgaldov et al, 2011, 2015; Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [1, 2, 4]. Method of a diet complex quantitative estimation (Topol’nik, Ratushnyj, 2008) [4]: 1. Index values for set diets are determined from the formula: ij ij ij MP M , (1) Мij – content of nutrient materials in group j in nutrition products included in the diet. 2. Analogously, due to recommended norm, basic indexes are determined; ijbasic ij ij MP M  , (2) Мij – regulatory і nutrient material in group j of daily ration material. 3. Simple indexes’estimation of proteins, fats, carbohydrates is calculated by the formula: z ij ij basic ij PK P        , (3) Pij – index of a nutrient material in daily ration; Pijbasic – basic (balanced) value of index of a nutrient material in daily ration (according to norms of physiological needs); z – index, that considers the influence of changing index value on qualitative rate of an object, that is equal to plus 1 in proteins and carbohydrates content estimating and minus 1 in fats content estimating. 4. Weight coefficient value of nutrient materials mij is calculated by the formula: basic ij basic ij ij basic ij basic ij P Pm Р Р          . (4) Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure is determined from the adaptive model: 1 1 int o j ij ij i j K M m K       , (5) Мj – weight coefficient value of nutrients. Results and discussions According to norms of physiological needs of a common person we have developed complex qualitative index of meal (Table 1). 1. Complex quality rating of breakfast Due to norms of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content, included in breakfast dishes, the calculation of nutrient materials found in canteen menu is provided (Table 2). Table 1 Norms of physiological needs of a common person at the age from 18 to 59 Nutrient material Norm Proteins, g 88,00 Fats, g 107,00 Carbohydrates, g 422,00 Total amount of nutrient materials, g: 617,00 Sodium (Na), mg 5000,00 Potassium (K), mg 3750,00 Calcium (Ca), mg 800,00 Magnesium(Mg), mg 400,00 Phosphorus (P), mg 1200,00 Total amount of mineral matters, mg 11150,00 Thiamine (В1), mg 1,60 Ribofflavinum (В2), mg 1,80 Perydoxine (В6), mg 1,90 Cevitamic acid (С), mg 85,00 Total amount of vitamins, mg 90,30 Absolute values of qualitative indexes of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins calculated by the formula (1) are the following: for proteins – Рp= 0,20; fats – Рf = 0,15; carbohydrates – Рc =0,65; sodium – РNa = 0,48; potassium – РK = 0,20; calcium – РСа = 0,09; magnesium – РMg = 0,03; phosphorus– РР = 0,20; thiamine – РB1 = 0,02; ribofflavinum – РB2 = 0,08; perydoxine – РB6 = 0,07; cevitamic acid– Рc = 0,83. Obtained results are brought in the Table 3. Analogously to the recommended norms of physiological needs (Table 1) basic values have been determined from the formula (2). Basic qualitative indexes of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins are the following: for proteins – Рpbasic = 0,15; fats – Рfbasic = 0,17; carbohydrates– Рcbasic = 0,68; sodium– РNabasic = 0,45; potassium – РKbasic = 0,34; calcium– РСаbasic = 0,07; magnesium– РMgbasic = 0,03; phosphorus– РРbasic= 0,11; thiamine – РB1basic= 0,02; ribofflavinum – РB2basic = 0,02; perydoxine – РB6basic = 0,02; cevitamic acid – Рcbasic= 0,94. Obtained results are brought in the Table 3. Table 2 Calculation of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content included in breakfast dishes Name of the dish Nutrient materials Diary butter Fried liver Dutch cheese Buckwheat porridge Wheat bread from first grade flour Tea with sugar Tomato Total Weight, g 20 75 30 150 100 200 100 675 Macronutrients, g: proteins 0,12 17,40 8,04 14,81 7,60 0,20 1,10 49,27 fats 16,50 7,65 8,19 3,90 0,90 0,00 0,20 37,34 carbohydrates 0,18 10,35 0,00 76,35 49,70 16,00 3,80 156,38 Mineral matters, mg: Na 14,80 456,00 330,00 988,50 488,00 0,00 40,00 2317,30 K 4,60 199,50 39,00 256,50 127,00 6,00 290,00 922,60 Ca 4,40 13,50 312,00 81,00 26,00 1,00 14,00 451,90 Mg 0,60 16,50 0,00 94,50 35,00 1,00 20,00 167,60 P 3,80 319,50 163,20 351,00 83,00 0,00 26,00 946,50 Vitamins, mg: В1 0,00 0,24 0,01 0,36 0,16 0,00 0,06 0,83 В2 0,02 1,97 0,11 0,20 0,08 0,00 0,04 2,41 В6 0,00 1,19 0,06 0,29 0,06 0,00 0,53 2,12 С 0,00 0,00 0,84 0,00 0,00 0,00 25,0 25,84 Table 3 Calculation of absolute values, basic values, weight coefficients and simple qualitative indexes Absolute values Basic values Weight coefficients Simple qualitative indexes Macronutrients Рp 0,20 Рp basic 0,15 mp 0,50 Кp 1,42 Рf 0,15 Рf basic 0,17 mf 0,40 Кf 1,13 Рc 0,65 Рcbasic 0,68 mc 0,10 Кc 0,94 Mineral matters РNa 0,48 РNabasic 0,45 mNa 0,03 КNa 1,08 РK 0,20 РKbasic 0,34 mK 0,05 КK 0,57 РСа 0,09 РСаbasic 0,07 mСа 0,25 КСа 1,31 РMg 0,03 РMgbasic 0,03 mMg 0,50 КMg 0,97 РР 0,20 РРbasic 0,11 mР 0,17 КР 1,83 Vitamins РB1 0,02 РB1basic 0,02 mB1 0,36 КB1 1,50 РB2 0,08 РB2basic 0,02 mB2 0,32 КB2 3,88 РB6 0,07 РB6basic 0,02 mB6 0,31 КB6 0,31 Рc 0,83 Рcbasic 0,94 mc 0,01 Кc 0,88 Weight coefficient value of nutrient materials mij has been calculated due to the recommended norms of physiological needs (Table 1) by the formula (4). Weight coefficients are the following: proteins – mp = 0,50; fats – mf = 0,40; carbohydrates – mc = 0,10; sodium– mNa = 0,03; potassium – mK = 0,05; calcium– mСа = 0,25; magnesium– mMg = 0,50; phosphorus– mР = 0,17; thiamine – mB1 = 0,36; ribofflavinum – mB2 = 0,32; perydoxine – mB6 = 0,31; cevitamic acid – mc = 0,01. Simple indexes’quality rating of proteins, fats, carbohydrates has been calculated by the formula (3) using data from Table 3. Simple indexes’estimation is the following: from proteins – Кp = 1,42; fats – Кf = 1,13; carbohydrates– Кc = 0,94; sodium– КNa = 1,08; potassium– КK = 0,57; calcium– КСа = 1,31; magnesium– КMg = 0,97; phosphorus– КР = 1,83; thiamine – КB1 = 1,50; ribofflavinum – КB2 = 3,88; perydoxine – КB6 = 0,31; cevitamic acid – Кc = 0,88. Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure has been determined from formula (5), in which weight coefficient values (M) are for macronutrients– 0,35; vitamins – 0,55; mineral matters– 0,1. Due to the calculation results breakfast has complex quality rate Ko = 1,60. 2. Complex quality rating of dinner Due to norms of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content, included in dinner dishes, the calculation of nutrient materials found in canteen menu is provided (Table 4). Table 4 Calculation of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content included in dinner dishes Name of the dish Nutrient materials Pickled cucumbers Borshch with cabbage and potato Dumplings Wheat porridge Rye bread Pastry gingerbread Compote Total Weight, г 50 250 115 150 150 50 200 965 Macronutrients, g: proteins 0,40 2,45 19,40 7,50 11,40 4,80 0,40 46,39 fats 0,05 5,15 17,70 0,66 1,65 2,80 0,00 28,02 carbohyd- rates 0,80 13,10 0,00 32,10 61,10 77,70 29,60 214,35 Mineral matters, mg: Na 0,00 782,00 656,60 585,00 874,50 11,00 24,00 2933,15 K 70,50 424,50 244,90 177,00 309,00 60,00 86,00 1371,95 Ca 11,50 41,50 16,10 33,00 57,00 9,00 17,00 185,10 Mg 7,00 29,50 21,85 36,00 73,50 0,00 9,00 176,85 P 12,00 47,20 166,70 153,00 234,00 41,00 12,00 665,95 Vitamins, mg: В1 0,01 0,06 0,30 0,12 0,27 0,08 0,06 0,84 В2 0,01 0,05 0,15 0,06 0,17 0,04 0,04 0,47 В6 0,05 0,21 2,65 0,21 0,09 0,06 0,53 3,26 С 2,50 6,85 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 25,0 9,35 Absolute values of qualitative indexes of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins calculated by the formula (1) are the following: for proteins – Рp = 0,16; fats – Рf = 0,10; carbohydrates – Рc =0,74; sodium– РNa = 0,55; potassium – РK = 0,27; calcium– РСа = 0,03; magnesium– РMg = 0,03; phosphorus– РР = 0,12; thiamine – РB1 = 0,06; ribofflavinum – РB2 = 0,04; perydoxine – РB6 = 0,23; cevitamic acid – Рc = 0,67 (Table 5). Table 5 Calculation of absolute values of qualitative indexes and estimation of simple indexes of nutrient materials Absolute values Basic values Weight coefficients Simple qualitative indexes Macronutrients Рp 0,16 Рp basic 0,15 mp 0,50 Кp 1,13 Рf 0,10 Рfbasic 0,17 mf 0,40 Кf 1,79 Рc 0,74 Рcbasic 0,68 mc 0,10 Кc 1,09 Mineral matters РNa 0,55 РNabasic 0,45 mNa 0,03 КNa 1,23 РK 0,27 РKbasic 0,34 mK 0,05 КK 0,76 РСа 0,03 РСаbasic 0,07 mСа 0,25 КСа 0,48 РMg 0,03 РMgbasic 0,03 mMg 0,50 КMg 0,92 РР 0,12 РРbasic 0,11 mР 0,17 КР 1,16 Vitamins РB1 0,06 РB1basic 0,02 mB1 0,36 КB1 3,40 РB2 0,04 РB2basic 0,02 mB2 0,32 КB2 1,71 РB6 0,23 РB6basic 0,02 mB6 0,31 КB6 0,09 Рc 0,67 Рcbasic 0,94 mc 0,01 Кc 0,88 Quality rating of simple indexes for a group of nutrient materials has been determined from the formula (3), as a result the values are the following: for proteins – Кp = 1,13; fats– Кf = 1,79; carbohydrates– Кc = 1,09; sodium– КNa = 1,23; potassium – КK = 0,76; calcium – КСа = 0,48; magnesium– КMg = 0,92; phosphorus – КР = 1,16; thiamine – КB1 = 3,40; ribofflavinum – КB2 = 1,71; perydoxine – КB6 = 0,09; cevitamic acid – Кc = 0,88. Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure has been determined from formula (5). Due to the calculation results breakfast has complex quality rate – Ko=1,57. 3. Complex quality rating of supper №1 Due to norms of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content, included in supper №1, the calculation of nutrient materials found in canteen menu is provided (Table 6). Absolute values of qualitative indexes of nutrient materials calculated by the formula (1) are the following: for proteins – Рp = 0,13; fats – Рf = 0,12; carbohydrates– Рc =0,75; sodium – РNa = 0,42; potassium – РK = 0,28; calcium – РСа = 0,08; magnesium– РMg = 0,04; phosphorus– РР = 0,18; thiamine – РB1 = 0,04; ribofflavinum – РB2 = 0,03; perydoxine – РB6 = 0,10; cevitamic acid – Рc = 0,83 (Table 7). Table 6 Calculation of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content included in supper №1 Name of the dish Nutrient materials Green peas Milk rice soup Natural minced schnitzel Cooked noodles Wheat bread from first grade flour Waffles Total Weight, g 50 250 75 150 100 50 675 Macronutrients, g: proteins 2,50 6,15 7,92 15,60 7,60 1,70 41,47 fats 0,10 7,85 11,28 1,35 0,90 15,10 36,58 carbohydrates 6,40 23,20 4,56 112,8 49,70 32,35 229,01 Mineral matters, mg: Na 1,00 455,50 199,80 15,00 488,00 3,50 1162,80 K 142,50 191,50 88,80 186,00 127,00 21,50 757,30 Ca 13,00 150,50 8,40 27,00 26,00 4,00 228,90 Mg 19,00 20,50 12,00 24,00 35,00 1,00 111,50 P 61,00 122,50 67,80 130,50 83,00 16,50 481,30 Vitamins, mg: В1 0,17 0,05 0,04 0,26 0,16 0,02 0,69 В2 0,10 0,16 0,07 0,12 0,08 0,01 0,53 В6 1,00 0,08 0,17 0,09 0,06 0.18 1,58 С 12,50 0,65 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 13,15 Quality rating of simple indexes of nutrient materials has been determined from the formula (3), as a result the values are the following: for proteins – Кp = 1,0; fats – Кf = 1,46; carbohydrates – Кc = 1,09; sodium – КNa = 0,95; potassium – КK = 0,82; calcium – КСа = 1,16; magnesium– КMg = 1,00; phosphorus – КР = 1,63; thiamine – КB1 = 2,44; ribofflavinum – КB2 = 1,71; perydoxine – КB6 = 0,20; cevitamic acid – Кc = 0,88. Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure has been determined from formula (5). Due to the calculation results supper №1 has complex quality rate – Ko=1,35. 4. Complex quality rating of supper №2 Due to norms of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content, included in supper №1, the calculation of nutrient materials found in canteen menu is provided (Table 8). Absolute values of qualitative indexes of nutrient materials calculated by the formula (1) are the following: for proteins – Рp = 0,11; fats – Рf = 0,32; carbohydrates – Рc = 0,57; sodium – РNa = 0,06; potassium– РK = 0,47; calcium– РСа = 0,17; magnesium – РMg = 0,05; phosphorus– РР = 0,25; thiamine– РB1 = 0,01; ribofflavinum – РB2 = 0,06; perydoxine – РB6 = 0,10; cevitamic acid – Рc = 0,83 (Table 9). Table 7 Calculation of absolute values of qualitative indexes and estimation of simple indexes of nutrient materials Absolute values Basic values Weight coefficients Simple qualitative indexes Macronutrients Рp 0,13 Рpbasic 0,15 mp 0,50 Кp 1,0 Рf 0,12 Рf basic 0,17 mf 0,40 Кf 1,46 Рc 0,75 Рcbasic 0,68 mc 0,10 Кc 1,09 Mineral matters РNa 0,42 РNabasic 0,45 mNa 0,03 КNa 0,95 РK 0,28 РKbasic 0,34 mK 0,05 КK 0,82 РСа 0,08 РСаbasic 0,07 mСа 0,25 КСа 1,16 РMg 0,04 РMgbasic 0,03 mMg 0,50 КMg 1,00 РР 0,18 РРbasic 0,11 mР 0,17 КР 1,63 Vitamins РB1 0,04 РB1basic 0,02 mB1 0,36 КB1 2,44 РB2 0,03 РB2basic 0,02 mB2 0,32 КB2 1,71 РB6 0,10 РB6basic 0,02 mB6 0,31 КB6 0,20 Рc 0,83 Рcbasic 0,94 mc 0,01 Кc 0,88 Table 8 Calculation of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content included in supper №2 Name of the dish Nutrient materials Chocolate covered curd cheese bar Apple juice Total Weight, g 100 200 300 Macronutrients, g: proteins 8,50 1,00 9,50 fats 27,80 0,00 27,80 carbohydrates 32,00 18,20 50,20 Mineral matters, mg: Na 43 12,0 55,0 K 181 240,0 421,00 Ca 137 14,0 151,0 Mg 35 8,0 43,00 P 213 14,0 227,00 Vitamins, mg В1 0,03 0,02 0,05 В2 0,31 0,02 0,33 В6 0,35 0,20 0,55 С 0,50 4,00 4,50 Table 9 Calculation of absolute values of qualitative indexes and estimation of simple indexes of nutrient materials Absolute values Basic values Weight coefficients Simple qualitative indexes Macronutrients Рp 0,11 Рpbasic 0,15 mp 0,50 Кp 0,76 Рf 0,32 Рfbasic 0,17 mf 0,40 Кf 0,55 Рc 0,57 Рcbasic 0,68 mc 0,10 Кc 0,84 Mineral matters РNa 0,06 РNabasic 0,45 mNa 0,03 КNa 0,14 РK 0,47 РKbasic 0,34 mK 0,05 КK 1,40 РСа 0,17 РСаbasic 0,07 mСа 0,25 КСа 2,35 РMg 0,05 РMgbasic 0,03 mMg 0,50 КMg 1,34 РР 0,25 РРbasic 0,11 mР 0,17 КР 2,35 Vitamins РB1 0,01 РB1basic 0,02 mB1 0,36 КB1 0,52 РB2 0,06 РB2basic 0,02 mB2 0,32 КB2 3,00 РB6 0,10 РB6basic 0,02 mB6 0,31 КB6 0,20 Рc 0,83 Рcbasic 0,94 mc 0,01 Кc 0,88 Quality rating of simple indexes of nutrient materials has been determined by the formula (3), as a result the values are the following: for proteins – Кp0 = 0,76; fats – Кf = 0,55; carbohydrates – Кc = 0,84; sodium– КNa = 0,14; potassium– КK = 1,40; calcium – КСа = 2,35; magnesium – КMg = 1,34; phosphorus– КР = 2,35; thiamine – КB1 = 0,52; ribofflavinum – КB2 = 3,00; perydoxine – КB6 = 0,20; cevitamic acid – Кc = 0,88. Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure has been determined from formula (5). Due to the calculation results supper №2 has complex quality rate – Ko=1,09. 5. Complex quality rating of dialy ration According to the canteen menu original data is calculated for determination of daily ration (Table 10). Absolute values of qualitative indexes of nutrient materials are the following: for proteins – Рp = 0,16; fats – Рf = 0,14; carbohydrates – Рc =0,70; sodium – РNa = 0,47; potassium – РK = 0,25; calcium– РСа = 0,07; magnesium– РMg = 0,04; phosphorus– РР = 0,17; thiamine – РB1 = 0,04; ribofflavinum – РB2 = 0,06; perydoxine – РB6 = 0,11; cevitamic acid – Рc = 0,79. The results are brought in the Table 11. Quality rating of simple indexes of nutrient materials has been determined by the formula (3), as a result the values are the following: for proteins – Кp = 1,06; fats – Кf = 1,21; carbohydrates – Кc = 1,03; sodium – КNa = 1,04; potassium– КK = 0,74;calcium – КСа = 1,00; magnesium – КMg = 1,00; phosphorus– КР = 1,53; thiamine – КB1 = 2,00; ribofflavinum – КB2 = 3,00; perydoxine – КB6 = 0,18; cevitamic acid – Кc = 0,85. Complex qualitative index of meal due to nutrient materials equation for two-level structure has been determined from formula (5). Due to the calculation results daily ration has complex quality rate Ko=1,39. Table 10 Calculation of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins content for daily ration Name of the dish Nutrient materials Breakfast Dinner Supper №1 Supper №2 Total Weight, g 675 965 675 300 2615 Macronutrients, g: proteins 49,27 46,39 41,47 9,50 146,62 fats 37,34 28,02 36,58 27,80 129,74 carbohydrates 156,38 214,35 229,01 50,20 649,94 Mineral matters, мг: Na 2317,30 2933,15 1162,80 55,0 6468,25 K 922,60 1371,95 757,30 421,0 3472,85 Ca 451,90 185,10 228,90 151,0 1016,90 Mg 167,60 176,85 111,50 43,0 498,95 P 946,50 665,95 481,30 227,0 2320,75 Vitamins, mg: В1 0,83 0,84 0,69 0,05 2,41 В2 2,41 0,47 0,53 0,33 3,75 В6 2,12 3,26 1,58 0,55 7,51 С 25,84 9,35 13,15 4,50 52,84 Table 11 Calculation of absolute values of qualitative indexes and estimation of simple indexes of nutrient materials Absolute values Basic values Weight coefficients Simple qualitative indexes Macronutrients Рp 0,16 Рpbasic 0,15 mp 0,50 Кp 1,06 Рf 0,14 Рfbasic 0,17 mf 0,40 Кf 1,21 Рc 0,70 Рcbasic 0,68 mc 0,10 Кc 1,03 Mineral matters РNa 0,47 РNabasic 0,45 mNa 0,03 КNa 1,04 РK 0,25 РKbasic 0,34 mK 0,05 КK 0,74 РСа 0,07 РСаbasic 0,07 mСа 0,25 КСа 1,00 РMg 0,04 РMgbasic 0,03 mMg 0,50 КMg 1,00 РР 0,17 РРbasic 0,11 mР 0,17 КР 1,53 Vitamins РB1 0,04 РB1basic 0,02 mB1 0,36 КB1 2,00 РB2 0,06 РB2basic 0,02 mB2 0,32 КB2 3,00 РB6 0,11 РB6basic 0,02 mB6 0,31 КB6 0,18 Рc 0,79 Рcbasic 0,94 mc 0,01 Кc 0,85 Obtained values of complex qualitative index of breakfast, dinner, supper №1, supper №2 and daily ration are brought in the Table 12. Table 12 Complex quality rating of daily rations Name Breakfast Dinner Supper № 1 Supper № 2 Daily ration К0 1,60 1,57 1,35 1,09 1,39 Due to the data (Table 12), we can draw a conclusion that the biggest value of the complex index К0max=1,60 is obtained in breakfast, the lowest value is typical for supper №2 К0min=1,09. Whereas, supper №2 is considered to be the most balanced meal with value К0=1,09, which is close to the optimal value of complex quantitative rating К0=1,00. Quality rating of daily rations in hotels and restaurants provides an opportunity to determine diet balance due to the norms of physiological need for daily ration. Conclusions Method of quality rating of daily rations in hotels and restaurants is considered. The structure of qualitative indexes and results of experimental research of complex diet quantitative rating are represented. Taking into account the norms of physiological need of a common person, complex qualitative rate of one meal and daily ration in a canteen is calculated. For this daily ration, complex qualitative indexes for group of macronutrients, mineral matters and vitamins are identified. The most balanced values of the complex qualitative index are determined which are common to super №2 with rate К0=1,09. References 1. Azgaldov G.G., Kostin, A.V. (2011), Applied Qualimetry: its Origins, Errors and Misconceptions, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(3), pp. 428–444. 2. Azgaldov G.G., Kostin A.V., Padilla Omiste A.E. (2015), The ABC of Qualimetry: The Toolkit for measuring immeasurable, Ridero. 3. Jean-Louis Sébédio (2017), Chapter Three - Metabolomics, Nutrition, and Potential Biomarkers of Food Quality, Intake, and Health Status, Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 82, pp. 83-116. 4. Topol’nik V.G., Ratushnyj A.S. (2008), Kvalimetrija v restorannom hozjajstve, Doneck: DonNUJeT. 5. Kuzmin O., Topol'nik V., Myronchuk V. (2014), Eduction of equilibrium state in vodkas by means of 1H NMR spectroscopy, Ukrainian journal of Food science, 2 (2), pp. 220-228. 6. Kuzmin O., Topol'nik V. (2014), Eduction of unsteady equilibrium in vodkas by means of 1H NMR spectroscopy, The advanced science journal, 10, pp. 43-46. 7. Kuzmin O., Kovalchuk Y., Velychko V., Romanchenko N. (2016), Improvement technologies of aqueous-alcoholic infusions for the production of syrups, Ukrainian Journal of Food Science, 4 (2), pp. 258-275. 8. Kuzmin O. (2015), Determination of systems with a steady equilibrium in vodkas, depending on transformation of hydroxyl protons, Ukrainian Journal of Food Science, 3 (1), pp. 33-41. 9. Koval O., Guts V. (2013), Food products assessment of quality, The Second North and East Eutopean Congress on Food «NEEFood-2013», NUFT, may 26-29, p. 149. 10. Niemirich A., Novosad O. (2013), Technology of emulsion sauces using zucchini powder, The Second North and East Eutopean Congress on Food «NEEFood-2013», NUFT, may 26-29, p. 145. 11. Zinchenko T., Koretska I. (2013), Importance function application (Harrington scale) in problems of mutiobjective optimization in confectionery recipes, The Second North and East Eutopean Congress on Food «NEEFood-2013», NUFT, may 26-29, p. 66. 12. Li Wang, Geeta Sikand, Nathan D. Wong (2016), Chapter 23 - Nutrition, Diet Quality, and Cardiovascular Health, Molecular Basis of Nutrition and Aging, pp. 315–330 13. Rodgers H.M. (2017), Chapter 12 - The Interrelationship of Obesity, Pain, and Diet/Nutrition, Nutritional Modulators of Pain in the Aging Population, pp. 143-149. 14. Perng W., Oken E. (2017), Chapter 15 - Programming Long-Term Health: Maternal and Fetal Nutrition and Diet Needs, Early Nutrition and Long-Term Health, 2017, pp. 375- 411. 15. Grassi S., Casiraghi E., Benedetti S., Alamprese C. (2017), Effect of low-protein diets in heavy pigs on dry-cured ham quality characteristic, Meat Science, 131, pp. 152- 157. 16. Do-Yeon Kim, Chang-O. Kim, Hyunjung Lim (2017), Quality of diet and level of physical performance related to inflammatory markers in community-dwelling frail, elderly people, Nutrition, 38, pp. 48-53. 17. Carbonneau E., Begin C., Lemieux S., Mongeau L., Paquette M.-C., Turcotte M., Labonte M.-E., Provencher V., A Health at Every Size intervention improves intuitive eating and diet quality in Canadian women, Clinical Nutrition, 36(3), 2017, pp. 747-754. 18. Kufley S., Scott J. E., Ramirez-Yanez G. (2017), The effect of the physical consistency of the diet on the bone quality of the mandibular condyle in rats, Archives of Oral Biology, 77, pp. 23-26. 19. A. Tsapanou, Y. Gu, D.M. O'Shea, M. Yannakoulia, M. Kosmidis, E. Dardiotis, G. Hadjigeorgiou, P. Sakka, Y. Stern, N. Scarmeas (2017), Sleep quality and duration in relation to memory in the elderly: Initial results from the Hellenic Longitudinal Investigation of Aging and Diet, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 141, pp. 217-225. 20. Samantha A. Ramsay, Lenka H. Shriver, Christopher A. Taylor (2017), Variety of fruit and vegetables is related to preschoolers' overall diet quality, Preventive Medicine Reports, 5, pp. 112-117. 21. Anh N. Nguyen, Lisanne M. de Barse, Henning Tiemeier, Vincent W.V. Jaddoe, Oscar H. Franco, Pauline W. Jansen, Trudy Voortman (2017), Maternal history of eating disorders: Diet quality during pregnancy and infant feeding, Appetite, 109, pp. 108-114. 22. Rajshri Roy, Anna Rangan, Lana Hebden, Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, Lie Ming Tang, Judy Kay, Margaret Allman-Farinelli (2017), Dietary contribution of foods and beverages sold within a university campus and its effect on diet quality of young adults, Nutrition, 34, pp. 118-123. 23. Bruce S., Devlin A., Air L., Cook L. (2017), Changes in quality of life as a result of ketogenic diet therapy: A new approach to assessment with the potential for positive therapeutic effects, Epilepsy & Behavior, 66, pp. 100-104. 24. Katherine D. Hoerster, Sarah Wilson, Karin M. Nelson, Gayle E. Reiber, Robin M. Masheb (2016), Diet quality is associated with mental health, social support, and neighborhood factors among Veterans, Eating Behaviors, 23, pp. 168-173. 25. Jean-Claude Moubarac, M. Batal, M.L. Louzada, E. Martinez Steele, C.A. Monteiro (2017), Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada, Appetite, 108, pp. 512-520. 26. Andrea Zuniga, Richard J. Stevenson, Mehmut K. Mahmut, Ian D. Stephen (2017), Diet quality and the attractiveness of male body odor, Evolution and Human Behavior, 38 (1), pp. 136-143. 27. Samantha Caesar de Andrade, Agatha Nogueira Previdelli, Chester Luiz Galvao Cesar, Dirce Maria Lobo Marchioni, Regina Mara Fisberg, (2016), Trends in diet quality among adolescents, adults and older adults: A population-based study, Preventive Medicine Reports, 4, pp. 391-396. 28. Anna Pham-Short, Kim C. Donaghue, Geoffrey Ambler, Sarah Garnett, Maria E. Craig (2016), Quality of Life in Type 1 Diabetes and Celiac Disease: Role of the Gluten- Free Diet, The Journal of Pediatrics, 179, pp. 131-138. 29. Tonja R. Nansel, Leah M. Lipsky, Miriam H. Eisenberg, Aiyi Liu, Sanjeev N. Mehta, Lori M.B. Laffel (2016), Can Families Eat Better Without Spending More? Improving Diet Quality Does Not Increase Diet Cost in a Randomized Clinical Trial among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116 (11), pp. 1751-1759. 30. Tian Hu, David R. Jacobs Jr, Nicole I. Larson, Gretchen J. Cutler, Melissa N. Laska, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer (2016), Higher Diet Quality in Adolescence and Dietary Improvements Are Related to Less Weight Gain During the Transition From Adolescence to Adulthood, The Journal of Pediatrics, 178, pp. 188-193.