Sugar-free popping candy and preparation method thereof

Abstract

Sugar-free popping candy comprises the following ingredients: 40%-79% isomalt, 20%-40% refined sugar-free polydextrose, 0.5%-0.7% carbon dioxide, 0%-20% maltitol, and 0%-1.0% ingredients. The preparation method includes weighing the raw materials, mixing, dissolving, boiling and dehydrating the sugar, aerating, cooling, discharging, screening, and packaging.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the field of food technology, and in particular to a sugar-free popping candy and a preparation method thereof. Background Art

[0002] Popping candy is an innovative candy. To make it, high-pressure carbon dioxide gas is added to hot sugar syrup, forming tiny, high-pressure bubbles within the candy. As the candy cools, the pressure is released, causing it to break apart, but the bubbles remain within the fragments. Because the compressed carbon dioxide is incorporated into the candy, when the candy is placed in the mouth, the sugar melts, the carbon dioxide rushes out, and the particles crackle on the tongue.

[0003] Early popping candies were primarily made from lactose, sugar, and syrup, supplemented by acidulants (such as citric acid and malic acid), colorants (such as Allura Red and Brilliant Blue), and flavors (such as strawberry and grape flavors). Early popping candies were high in sugar and calories, significantly impacting blood sugar levels and contributing to tooth decay, hindering their widespread popularity. As living standards improve and people become more health-conscious, isomalt is rapidly replacing lactose, sugar, and syrup as the primary ingredient in popping candies to adapt to this health trend.

[0004] The prior art discloses a sugar-free popping candy and its preparation method. The composition of the popping candy is 98.4% to 99.4% isomalt, 0.5% to 0.6% carbon dioxide, and 0.1% to 1% of ingredients. This provides a new generation of popping candy with isomalt as the primary ingredient, making it healthier. However, because isomalt has a glass transition temperature of only 33°C, it softens when stored or transported above 33°C, allowing carbon dioxide to escape, resulting in a loss of the popping candy's bouncy feel, seriously affecting the quality of the sugar-free popping candy.

[0005] Therefore, how to ensure that popping candy is healthy and sugar-free while also raising its glass transition temperature, and better retaining carbon dioxide at higher storage and transportation temperatures to maintain its popping feeling, thereby extending the product's shelf life, has become a technical problem that needs to be solved urgently. Summary of the Invention

[0006] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present application provides a sugar-free popping candy and a preparation method thereof.

[0007] In a first aspect, the present application provides a sugar-free popping candy comprising the following components in percentage by mass:

[0008] Isomalt 40%~79%;

[0009] Refined sugar-free polydextrose 20%~40%;

[0010] Carbon dioxide 0.5%~0.7%;

[0011] Maltitol 0%~20%;

[0012] Ingredients 0%~1.0%.

[0013] By employing the above technical solution, refined sugar-free polydextrose is made sugar-free by removing glucose to less than 0.5% through ultrafiltration. Therefore, isomalt and refined sugar-free polydextrose are sugar-free and do not break down into sugar after cooking, fulfilling the healthy, sugar-free characteristics of sugar-free popping candies. Refined sugar-free polydextrose has a high glass transition temperature and does not discolor when cooked at 150°C. Therefore, adding refined sugar-free polydextrose can raise the glass transition temperature of the popping candies, ensuring that the finished sugar-free popping candies also have a high glass transition temperature and do not discolor when cooked at 150°C. Furthermore, refined sugar-free polydextrose has low hygroscopicity and is not easily absorbed by water. This makes the finished sugar-free popping candies less susceptible to moisture absorption even at higher storage and transportation temperatures, maintaining surface stress and preventing carbon dioxide from escaping. The high glass transition temperature and low hygroscopicity of refined sugar-free polydextrose enable the finished sugar-free popping candies to retain carbon dioxide effectively even at higher storage and transportation temperatures, maintaining their popping sensation. Sugar-free popping candies made by mixing isomalt and refined sugar-free polydextrose and then infusing it with carbon dioxide form a hard candy after melting, rather than becoming powdery. Maltitol also has a certain amount of stress, which prevents carbon dioxide from escaping, thus ensuring the popping sensation of sugar-free popping candies. Furthermore, maltitol is low in calories and has a certain sweetness, making it a suitable alternative to lactose, white sugar, syrup, and other ingredients in popping candies. It can also raise the glass transition temperature of the finished sugar-free popping candies to a certain extent. However, maltose is hygroscopic, so adding a small amount of maltitol can further raise the glass transition temperature of the finished popping candies without affecting the surface stress, which prevents carbon dioxide from escaping.

[0014] In summary, the sugar-free popping candy made by mixing isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose and maltitol can not only ensure that the popping candy is healthy and sugar-free, but also increase the glass transition temperature of the popping candy. It can also better retain carbon dioxide at higher storage and transportation temperatures, maintain its popping feeling, and thus extend the shelf life of the product.

[0015] In some embodiments, a sugar-free popping candy includes the following components in percentage by weight:

[0016] Isomalt 49%~69.5%;

[0017] Refined sugar-free polydextrose 25%~35%;

[0018] Carbon dioxide 0.5%~0.6%;

[0019] Maltitol 4%~15%;

[0020] Ingredients 0%~1.0%.

[0021] After optimizing the above-mentioned raw material ratios, the jumping feeling of sugar-free popping candy has been further improved.

[0022] In some embodiments, the ingredients are selected from one or more of natural menthol, flavors and fragrances, mogrosides, and natural pigments.

[0023] Adding the above ingredients to popping candy can make the popping candy have different colors and flavors, thereby meeting the taste needs of more people, and will not affect its own properties and jumping feeling.

[0024] In a second aspect, the present application discloses a method for preparing sugar-free popping candy, comprising the following steps:

[0025] (1) Weighing: Weigh isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, maltitol and ingredients;

[0026] (2) Mixing: uniformly mixing the raw materials weighed in step (1) to obtain a mixture;

[0027] (3) Dissolving: Add deionized water to the mixture in step (2) and heat to dissolve until the mixture is completely dissolved to form a syrup, which is then filtered;

[0028] (4) Dehydration: The filtered syrup is boiled at a temperature of 145°C to 155°C, and then vacuum dehydration is performed at a vacuum degree of -0.04 to -0.09 MPa;

[0029] (5) Aeration: Stir and inject carbon dioxide into the vacuum dehydrated syrup at a pressure of 3.0-4.5 MPa for 5-15 minutes;

[0030] (6) Cooling and discharging: The aerated syrup is cooled and formed. The cooling time is 4 to 6 hours and the molding pressure is 3.0 to 4.0 MPa to obtain block popping candy.

[0031] (7) Screening: Crushing the block popping candy in step (6) and screening it to obtain granular popping candy;

[0032] (8) Packaging: The popping candies with appropriate granules in step (7) are quality inspected and sealed for packaging.

[0033] By adopting the above preparation method, the syrup can be made into a hard candy shape, which is not easy to become powdery, and the yield of the finished product can be improved. More carbon dioxide can be filled inside, and the carbon dioxide is not easy to escape, so that the finished popping candy can have a stronger popping feeling and a better taste when eaten.

[0034] In some embodiments, in step (3), the mass ratio of the mixture to deionized water is 7:(1-1.5).

[0035] After the mixture in the above mass ratio is mixed with deionized water, not only can the mixture be completely dissolved, but also a syrup with moderate viscosity can be formed, which has good fluidity, is convenient for subsequent filtration and sugar dehydration, and forms popping candies with better morphology, which is convenient for subsequent inflation.

[0036] In some embodiments, in step (4), the moisture content of the syrup after vacuum dehydration is ≤2.0%.

[0037] The dehydrated syrup has less water and increased viscosity, making it easier to inject more carbon dioxide into the syrup under subsequent inflation pressure, so that the syrup contains more carbon dioxide and is not easy to lose, thereby increasing the jumping feeling of the popping candy.

[0038] In some embodiments, in step (7), the mesh size of the sieve used for sieving is 4 to 30 meshes.

[0039] In the above embodiment, the jumping feeling experience of the screen with a good mesh size will not make people uncomfortable due to too large particles or there will be no jumping feeling experience due to too small particles.

[0040] In summary, this application includes at least one of the following beneficial technical effects:

[0041] 1. This application uses a mixture of isomalt and refined sugar-free polydextrose as the main raw materials for popping candy. The sugar-free popping candy made from the mixture of isomalt and refined sugar-free polydextrose can not only ensure the health and sugar-free nature of the popping candy, but also increase the glass transition temperature of the popping candy. It can also better retain carbon dioxide at higher storage and transportation temperatures, maintain its popping feeling, and thus extend the shelf life of the product.

[0042] 2. This application also adds a small amount of maltitol to the raw materials of the popping candy. This small amount of maltitol can further increase the glass transition temperature of the finished popping candy without affecting the surface stress, making it difficult for carbon dioxide to escape. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0043] The present application is further described in detail below with reference to the following examples and comparative examples.

[0044] The refined sugar-free polydextrose used in the following examples and comparative examples is obtained by dissolving commercially available ordinary polydextrose with a sugar content of about 3% in deionized water and then removing the sugar by ultrafiltration. The final result is polydextrose with a sugar content of less than 0.5%, which meets the requirements of sugar-free polydextrose and is hereinafter referred to as refined sugar-free polydextrose.

[0045] Other raw materials used in the examples and comparative examples can be obtained from commercial sources. Example 1

[0046] (1) Weighing: Weigh 6.945 kg of isomalt and 3 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose;

[0047] (2) Mixing: uniformly mixing the raw materials weighed in step (1) to obtain a mixture;

[0048] (3) Dissolving: The mixture in step (2) and 1.42 kg of deionized water were added to a hot melt reactor and heated to dissolve until the mixture was completely dissolved to form a syrup, and then filtered using a 40-mesh filter;

[0049] (4) Sugar boiling and dehydration: The filtered syrup is transported to the sugar boiling equipment for sugar boiling at a temperature of 150°C, and then vacuum dehydration is performed at a vacuum degree of -0.07 MPa;

[0050] (5) Aeration: The vacuum-dehydrated syrup is transferred to a mixing pot, stirred, and 0.055 kg of carbon dioxide is injected into the syrup. The inflation pressure is 3.8 MPa and the inflation time is 10 minutes.

[0051] (6) Cooling and discharging: The aerated syrup is transported to the cooling pipe for cooling and molding. The molding pressure is 3.5 MPa and water circulation is used for cooling. The cooling time is 5 hours. Then the loading car is placed directly below the discharge port and the valve is opened to discharge the material to obtain block popping candy.

[0052] (7) Sieving: The block popping candy in step (6) is roughly crushed and placed on a rotary vibrating sieve to obtain coarse popping candy particles, and then the fine powder is discarded to obtain popping candy particles of moderate size, with a popping candy particle size of 15 mesh;

[0053] (8) Packaging: The popping candies with appropriate granules in step (7) are subjected to quality inspection and sealed for packaging after passing the quality inspection. Example 2

[0054] The difference between Example 2 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 4.945 kg of isomalt, 3 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose and 2 kg of maltitol were weighed. Example 3

[0055] The difference between Example 3 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 6.91 kg of isomalt, 3 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, 0.01 kg of natural menthol, 0.015 kg of flavors and spices, and 0.01 kg of mogroside are weighed. Example 4

[0056] The difference between Example 4 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 6.9146 kg of isomalt, 3 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, 0.020 kg of flavors and spices, 0.0004 kg of cochineal natural pigment, and 0.01 kg of mogroside are weighed. Example 5

[0057] The difference between Example 5 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 6.9146 kg of isomalt, 3 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, 0.020 kg of jasmine tea flavor essence, 0.0004 kg of natural pigment, and 0.01 kg of mogroside are weighed. Example 6

[0058] The difference between Example 6 and Example 2 is that in step (1), 4 kg of isomalt, 4 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, and 1.93 kg of maltitol are weighed, and in step (5), 0.07 kg of carbon dioxide is used. Example 7

[0059] The difference between Example 7 and Example 2 is that in step (1), 7.9 kg of isomalt, 2 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, and 0.05 kg of maltitol are weighed, and in step (5), 0.05 kg of carbon dioxide is weighed. Example 8

[0060] The difference between Example 8 and Example 2 is that in step (1), 6 kg of isomalt, 3.5 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, and 0.44 kg of maltitol are weighed, and in step (5), 0.06 kg of carbon dioxide is used. Example 9

[0061] The difference between Example 9 and Example 2 is that in step (1), 6.5 kg of isomalt, 2.5 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, and 0.945 kg of maltitol are weighed. Example 10

[0062] The difference between Example 10 and Example 1 is that in step (3), 2.131 kg of deionized water is added. Example 11

[0063] The difference between Example 11 and Example 1 is that in step (3), 0.71 kg of deionized water is added. Example 12

[0064] The difference between Example 12 and Example 1 is that in step (3), 2.84 kg of deionized water is added. Example 13

[0065] The difference between Example 13 and Example 1 is that in step (7), the mesh size of the sieve is 4 meshes. Example 14

[0066] The difference between Example 14 and Example 1 is that in step (7), the mesh size of the sieve is 30 meshes.

[0067] Comparative Example 1

[0068] The difference between Comparative Example 1 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 9.945 kg of maltitol was weighed.

[0069] Comparative Example 2

[0070] The difference between Comparative Example 2 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 4.9725 kg of isomalt and 4.9725 kg of maltitol were weighed.

[0071] Comparative Example 3

[0072] The difference between Comparative Example 3 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 6.9615 kg of isomalt and 2.9835 kg of oligofructose were weighed.

[0073] Comparative Example 4

[0074] The difference between Comparative Example 4 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 9.945 kg of isomalt was weighed.

[0075] Comparative Example 5

[0076] The difference between Comparative Example 5 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 6.9615 kg of isomalt and 2.9835 kg of maltitol were weighed.

[0077] Comparative Example 6

[0078] The difference between Comparative Example 6 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 1.4918 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose and 8.4532 kg of isomalt were weighed.

[0079] Comparative Example 7

[0080] The difference between Comparative Example 7 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 1.4918 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose, 1.989 kg of maltitol, and 6.4642 kg of isomalt were weighed.

[0081] Comparative Example 8

[0082] The difference between Comparative Example 8 and Example 1 is that in step (1), 9.945 kg of refined sugar-free polydextrose was weighed.

[0083] Comparative Example 9

[0084] Comparative Example 9 is commercially available popping candy with sugar.

[0085] Comparative Example 10

[0086] The difference between Comparative Example 10 and Example 1 is that in step (4), the sugar boiling temperature is 120° C., and then vacuum dehydration is performed with a vacuum degree of -0.02 MPa.

[0087] Comparative Example 11

[0088] The difference between Comparative Example 11 and Example 1 is that in step (5), the inflation pressure is 2 MPa and the inflation time is 18 minutes;

[0089] Two groups of finished sugar-free popping candies prepared in the above examples and comparative examples were collected. One group was placed at 40°C for one month and then tested for popping sensation and shape. The other group was directly tested for popping sensation. The experimental results are summarized as follows:

[0090] Table 1 Performance and popping sensation of sugar-free popping candies of Examples 1-14 and Comparative Examples 1-11

[0091] Serial number Finished popping candy performance Moisture Jumping sensation Glass transition temperature (℃) After being placed at 40℃ for 1 month, the Example 1 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.0 47 8.7 Example 2 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.2 47.3 9.3 Example 3 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.3 47.5 9.3 Example 4 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.3 47.6 9.4 Example 5 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.2 47.5 9.3 Example 6 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 8.9 47 8.8 Example 7 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.1 47.2 9.0 Example 8 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 10.0 48 9.9 Example 9 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.8 47.9 9.6 Example 10 Forming popping candy with excellent performance <2% 9.1 47.1 8.9 Example 11 Popping candy is formed, and the sugar body has more pores <2% 8.6 46.9 8.1 Example 12 Forming popping candy <2% 8.5 46.7 8.0 Example 13 Forming popping candy <2% 9.0 46.5 8.1 Example 14 Forming popping candy <2% 9.2 46.6 9.0 Comparative Example 1 Unable to become popping candy >2% / / / Comparative Example 2 Forming popping candy <2% 4.8 37 After being placed at 40℃ for 1 day, the jumping sensation completely disappeared Comparative Example 3 Unable to make popping candy, the sugar has been burnt and carbonized >2% / / / Comparative Example 4 Forming popping candy <2% 8.9 33 After being placed at 40℃ for 1 day, all the food was agglomerated and the jumping sensation was severely lost. After 5 days, the jumping sensation was completely lost. Comparative Example 5 Forming popping candy <2% 6.5 38 After being placed at 40℃ for 1 day, all the food was agglomerated and the jumping sensation was severely lost. After 5 days, the jumping sensation was completely lost. Comparative Example 6 Forming popping candy <2% 8.7 38.6 After 3 days at 40℃, the caking sensation was significantly reduced and completely disappeared after 8 days. Comparative Example 7 Forming popping candy <2% 9.1 39.1 After 10 days at 40℃, the caking sensation was significantly reduced and the caking sensation disappeared completely after 15 days. Comparative Example 8 Forming popping candy <2% 8.5 39.4 After 18 days at 40℃, the caking sensation was significantly reduced and the caking sensation was completely lost after 25 days. Comparative Example 9 Popping candy available on the market / 10.0 50 9.7 Comparative Example 10 Unable to form popping candy >3% / / / Comparative Example 11 Unable to form popping candy >2% / / /

[0092] As can be seen from Examples 1-9, Comparative Examples 1-9, and Table 1, Example 1, which only incorporates isomalt and refined sugar-free polydextrose as raw materials, already exhibits a good popping sensation, and maintains this good popping sensation even after being stored at 40°C for one month. Example 2, after adding maltitol, exhibits a slightly improved popping sensation, particularly an increase from 8.7 in Example 1 to 9.3 after being stored at 40°C for one month, demonstrating that maltitol can enhance the popping sensation of the sugar-free popping candies of this application to a certain extent. Examples 3-5, which incorporate other ingredients, not only improve the flavor of the popping candies but also enhance their popping sensation. Examples 6-9, by adjusting the amounts of isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, carbon dioxide, and maltitol added, revealed that when the amount of maltitol added was low, the popping sensation of the finished candies and the popping sensation after being stored at 40°C for one month were significantly improved. In particular, in Examples 8-9, when the mass percentage of maltitol added was approximately 4-10%, a better popping sensation was achieved, indicating that the ratio of isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, carbon dioxide, and maltitol has a significant impact on the popping sensation of the finished sugar-free popping candies. Comparative Example 1, which only added maltitol as a raw material, failed to produce popping candies at all due to maltitol's strong hygroscopicity, resulting in a candy with a moisture content greater than 2%. Comparative Example 2, using equal amounts of isomalt and maltitol as raw materials, produced popping candies, but the popping sensation was only 4.8, and the popping sensation completely disappeared after being stored at 40°C for one day. Comparative Example 3, using isomalt and oligofructose as raw materials, found that no popping candies could be formed at all. Moreover, the candies were completely blackened and carbonized during the cooking process, making them completely unsuitable for cooking at around 150°C. Comparative Example 4, using only isomalt as raw material, achieved a popping sensation of 8.9 when freshly made, but completely clumped after one day at 40°C, severely losing the popping sensation. After five days at 40°C, the popping sensation was completely lost. Comparative Example 5, using a mixture of 70% isomalt and 29.45% maltitol by weight, also completely clumped after one day at 40°C, severely losing the popping sensation. After five days at 40°C, the popping sensation was completely lost. Comparative Example 6 uses 85% by mass of isomalt and 14.45% of refined sugar-free polydextrose as raw materials. The hop sensation when the sugar is first made is 8.7, but after being placed at 40°C for 3 days, it clumps, the hop sensation is significantly weakened, and the hop sensation is completely lost after 8 days. Comparative Example 7 uses 65% by mass of isomalt, 14.45% of refined sugar-free polydextrose, and 20% of maltitol as raw materials. The hop sensation when the sugar is first made is 9.1, but after being placed at 40°C for 10 days, it clumps, the hop sensation is significantly weakened, and the hop sensation is completely lost after 15 days. Comparative Example 8 adds only refined sugar-free polydextrose as raw material. The hop sensation when the sugar is first made is 8.5, but after being placed at 40°C for 18 days, it clumps, the hop sensation is significantly weakened, and the hop sensation is completely lost after 25 days.Comparative Example 9 is a commercially available popping candy with sugar, which exhibits an excellent popping sensation. The experimental results above show that adding only one of isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, and maltitol as raw materials, or adding other sugars such as oligofructose, can produce a substantial popping sensation when freshly made. However, after being stored at 40°C, the popping candy quickly clumps and loses its popping sensation. This is because the sugar-free popping candy made with only isomalt in Comparative Example 4 has a glass transition temperature of approximately 33°C. Therefore, storage at 40°C causes sugar clumping and carbon dioxide escape, resulting in a loss of popping sensation. Comparative Example 5 is a popping candy made with isomalt and maltitol in a specific ratio. The glass transition temperature is approximately 38°C, so storage at 40°C also loses the popping sensation. Comparative Examples 4 and 5 represent two existing technologies. The present invention adds refined sugar-free polydextrose, which increases the glass transition temperature of the sugar-free popping candy while maintaining the sugar properties. Example 8 reaches 48°C. Therefore, there is basically no change when stored at 40°C for one month, and the popping candy still has a sufficient popping sensation.

[0093] In summary, the sugar-free popping candies produced by the technical solution disclosed in this application not only ensure the health and sugar-free popping candies compared to commercially available sugar-containing popping candies, but also have a popping sensation comparable to commercially available sugar-containing popping candies. Furthermore, compared to the sugar-free popping candies in the prior art, the glass transition temperature of the popping candies is increased, and carbon dioxide can be better retained at higher temperatures, maintaining the popping sensation and extending the shelf life of the product. This is because isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, and maltitol work together to produce a syrup that satisfies the following requirements: a high glass transition temperature, a hard candy-like shape after melting, no sugar and no decomposition of sugars after boiling, no discoloration when boiled at 150°C, weak hygroscopicity, and a certain amount of stress after becoming a hard candy. Therefore, sugar-free popping candies with excellent properties can be produced.

[0094] As can be seen from Examples 10-14, Comparative Examples 10-11, and Table 1, the preparation method of popping candies affects their performance. Deionized water of varying qualities was added in Examples 10-12, with Example 11 containing less deionized water. While popping candies were formed, the syrup was too viscous, creating numerous pores during subsequent aeration. This resulted in less carbon dioxide remaining within the candy, reducing the popping effect. The excessive addition of deionized water in Example 12 increased the time required for subsequent boiling and dehydration, wasting time and increasing costs. In Comparative Example 10, the boiling temperature and vacuum level during vacuum dehydration were both low, so the water content of the syrup was not completely removed, preventing candy from forming. In Comparative Example 11, the aeration pressure was low and the duration was short, resulting in insufficient gas infusion into the candy, significantly reducing the popping effect of the finished candy. In Example 13, the mesh size of the screen was too small, making the small particles more susceptible to melting and agglomeration. In contrast, the mesh size of the screen used in Example 14 was too large, resulting in a poorer eating experience for the finished popping candy. Therefore, the preparation method of the sugar-free popping candy disclosed in the present application can obtain sugar-free popping candy with better properties, popping feeling and eating experience.

[0095] The above are all preferred embodiments of the present application, and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present application. Therefore, any equivalent changes made based on the structure, shape, and principle of the present application should be included in the scope of protection of the present application.

Claims

1. A sugar-free popping candy, characterized by: The sugar-free popping candy is composed of the following components in percentage by mass: 49% to 69.5% of isomalt; 25% to 35% of refined sugar-free polydextrose; 0.5% to 0.6% of carbon dioxide; 4% to 15% of maltitol; and 0% to 1.0% of ingredients; the ingredients are selected from one or more of flavors and fragrances, mogroside, and natural pigments.

2. The sugar-free popping candy according to claim 1, wherein: The flavor and fragrance is natural menthol.

3. A method for preparing the sugar-free popping candy according to claim 1, characterized in that: (1) Weighing: Weigh isomalt, refined sugar-free polydextrose, maltitol, and ingredients; (2) mixing: uniformly mixing the raw materials weighed in step (1) to obtain a mixture; (3) Dissolving: adding deionized water to the mixture in step (2) and heating and dissolving the mixture until the mixture is completely dissolved to form a syrup, and then filtering, wherein the mass ratio of the mixture to deionized water is 7:(1-1.5); (4) Dehydration: The filtered syrup is dehydrated at a temperature of 145° C. to 155° C., and then vacuum dehydrated at a vacuum degree of -0.04 to -0.09 MPa. After vacuum dehydration, the water content of the syrup is ≤2.0%. (5) Aeration: Stir and inject carbon dioxide into the vacuum-dehydrated syrup at a pressure of 3.0 to 4.5 MPa for 5 to 15 minutes; (6) Cooling and discharging: The aerated syrup is cooled and formed into blocks. The cooling time is 4 to 6 hours and the forming pressure is 3.0 to 4.0 MPa to obtain block popping candies. (7) Screening: The block popping candy in step (6) is coarsely crushed and sieved to obtain granular popping candy, and the mesh size of the sieve used for screening is 4 to 30 mesh; (8) Packaging: The granular popping candies prepared in step (7) are subjected to quality inspection and sealed packaging.