| Literature DB >> 26989411 |
Sherif R Mohamed1, Tarek A El-Desouky1, Ahmed M S Hussein2, Sherif S Mohamed3, Khayria M Naguib1.
Abstract
The aims of the current work are in large part the benefit of rice straw to be used as adsorbent material and natural source of fiber in Fino bread. The rice straw was subjected to high temperature for modification process and the chemical composition was carried out and the native rice straw contained about 41.15% cellulose, 20.46% hemicellulose, and 3.91% lignin while modified rice straw has 42.10, 8.65, and 5.81%, respectively. The alkali number was tested and showed an increase in the alkali consumption due to the modification process. The different concentrations of modified rice straw, aflatoxin B1, and pH were tested for removal of aflatoxin B1 from aqueous media and the maximum best removal was at 5% modified rice straw, 5 ng/mL aflatoxin B1, and pH 7. The modified rice straw was added to Fino bread at a level of 5, 10, and 15% and the chemical, rheological, baking quality, staling, and sensory properties were studied. Modified rice straw induced an increase of the shelf life and the produced Fino bread has a better consistency.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26989411 PMCID: PMC4771912 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6869582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Toxicol ISSN: 1687-8191
Chemical properties of native and modified rice straw and alkali number.
| Samples | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) % | Acid detergent fiber (ADF) % | Acid detergent lignin (ADL) % | Alkali number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS | 20.46 | 41.15 | 3.91 | 65.43 ± 0.79 | 46.48 ± 0.4 | 4.93 ± 0.2 | 8 |
| MRS | 8.65 | 42.10 | 5.81 | 56.78 ± 0.68 | 48.14 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 36 |
Effect of modified rice straw powder and different AFB1 and pH values on the removal of aflatoxin B1 at 25°C for 30 min (n = 3) in aqueous media.
| Percentage of modified rice straw powder | Concentrations of AFB1 (ng/mL) | Reduction % (mean ± SD) | Initial level of AFB1 (ng/mL) with 5% MRS | Concentrations of AFB1 after treatment (ng/mL) | Reduction % (mean ± SD) | pH with 5% MRS + 5 ng/mL AFB1 | Concentrations of AFB1 after treatment (ng/mL) | Reduction % (mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 3.87a ± 0.476 | 22.6 ± 9.52 | 5 | 0.285a ± 0.117 | 94.3 ± 2.34 | 4 | 0.621a ± 0.07 | 87.6a ± 1.41 |
| 2% | 2.06b ± 0.185 | 58.6 ± 3.71 | 10 | 0.764b ± 0.183 | 92.3 ± 1.83 | 7 | 0.286b ± 0.172 | 94.3b ± 2.34 |
| 3% | 1.66b ± 0.336 | 66.8 ± 2.97 | 15 | 1.76c ± 0.171 | 88.3 ± 1.13 | 9 | 0.687a ± 0.087 | 86.25a ± 1.75 |
| 4% | 1.03c ± 0.131 | 79.4 ± 2.61 | 20 | 2.99d ± 0.14 | 85.05 ± 0.71 | |||
| 5% | 0.285d ± 0.117 | 94.3 ± 2.34 | 25 | 3.84e ± 0.496 | 84.6 ± 1.99 |
Mean ± standard deviation. The values not followed by the same letters are significantly different at 5% level.
Figure 1HPLC chromatogram of AFB1 (5 ng/mL) after incubation with different percentages of MRS at 25°C for 30 min.
Figure 2It shows the HPLC chromatogram of AFB1 (5 ng/mL) after incubation with MRS at different pH values.
Proximate composition of raw materials and Fino bread (on dry weight basis).
| Samples | Moisture (%) | Protein (%) | Fat (%) | Fiber (%) | Ash (%) | TC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WF 72% extraction | 12.56e ± 0.09 | 11.65a ± 0.06 | 1.22e ± 0.01 | 0.46f ± 0.01 | 0.51f ± 0.02 | 86.16a ± 0.82 |
| MRS | 11.15f ± 0.11 | 5.8f ± 0.12 | 0.91f ± 0.03 | 46.22a ± 0.86 | 15.13a ± 0.003 | 31.94f ± 0.81 |
| Fino bread from | ||||||
| WF (Control) | 34.15d ± 0.13 | 10.56b ± 0.09 | 2.05a ± 0.07 | 0.65e ± 0.001 | 1.12e ± 0.001 | 85.62b ± 0.65 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 35.87c ± 0.33 | 10.06c ± 0.09 | 2.00b ± 0.05 | 2.95d ± 0.006 | 1.92d ± 0.003 | 83.07c ± 0.56 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 37.18b ± 0.09 | 9.42d ± 0.12 | 1.85c ± 0.06 | 5.72c ± 0.007 | 2.65c ± 0.002 | 80.36d ± 0.60 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 38.85a ± 0.11 | 8.85e ± 0.15 | 1.75d ± 0.04 | 8.12b ± 0.003 | 3.42b ± 0.003 | 77.86e ± 0.55 |
| LSD at 0.05 | 1.12 | 0.46 | 0.046 | 2.31 | 0.85 | 2.50 |
Note: WF: wheat flour, MRS: modified rice straw, and TC: total carbohydrate was calculated by differences = 100 − (% protein + % fat + % fiber + % ash).
The values not followed by the same letters are significantly different at 5% level.
Farinograph parameters of dough prepared from different formulas.
| Samples | Water absorption (%) | Arrival time (min) | Dough development time (min) | Stability time (min) | Weakening (BU) | Mixing tolerance index (BU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WF (control) | 61.0 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 9.0 | 90 | 45 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 62.5 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 7.5 | 110 | 60 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 65.4 | 2.5 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 130 | 70 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 67.9 | 2.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 150 | 80 |
Extensograph parameters of dough prepared from different formulas.
| Samples | Extensibility ( | Resistance to | Ratio ( | Energy (Cm) 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WF (control) | 110 | 500 | 4.5 | 78 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 90 | 320 | 3.56 | 65 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 70 | 240 | 3.43 | 50 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 60 | 180 | 3.00 | 35 |
Baking quality of Fino bread as affected by the addition of MRS.
| Samples | Weight (gm) | Volume (cm) | Specific volume (gm/cm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| WF (control) | 67.5d ± 0.06 | 285a ± 0.06 | 4.22a ± 0.06 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 73.50c ± 0.06 | 260b ± 0.06 | 3.54b ± 0.06 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 78.5b ± 0.06 | 245c ± 0.06 | 3.12c ± 0.06 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 83.0a ± 0.06 | 225d ± 0.06 | 2.71d ± 0.06 |
| LSD at 0.05 | 5.36 | 15 | 0.41 |
The values not followed by the same letters are significantly different at 5% level.
Freshness properties of Fino bread as affected by the addition of MRS.
| Samples | Water retention capacity (freshness) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Zero time | 3 days | 7 days | |
| WF (control) | 280.2d ± 0.06 | 271.8d ± 0.06 | 263.6d ± 0.06 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 287.0c ± 0.06 | 278.6c ± 0.06 | 270.5c ± 0.06 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 295.0b ± 0.06 | 288.8b ± 0.06 | 279.3b ± 0.06 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 302.2a ± 0.06 | 297.6a ± 0.06 | 290.4a ± 0.06 |
| LSD at 0.05 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
The values not followed by the same letters are significantly different at 5% level.
Sensory evaluation of blended Fino bread.
| Samples | Taste (20) | Aroma (20) | Mouth feel (10) | Crumb texture (15) | Crumb color (10) | Break & shred (10) | Crust color (10) | Symmetry shape (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WF (control) | 18.8a ± 0.62 | 18.5a ± 0.64 | 9.1a ± 1.45 | 8.8a ± 0.62 | 8.0a ± 0.52 | 9.12 ± 0.42 | 8.6a ± 0.22 | 4.4 ± 0.52 |
| 95% WF + 5% MRS | 16.9b ± 0.56 | 18.0b ± 0.89 | 8.6b ± 1.12 | 8.1b ± 0.52 | 7.1b ± 0.49 | 8.82 ± 0.42 | 7.6ab ± 0.18 | 4.3 ± 0.82 |
| 90% WF + 10% MRS | 15.8c ± 0.39 | 17.3c ± 0.81 | 7.8c ± 1.32 | 7.5c ± 0.68 | 6.6c ± 0.56 | 8.65 ± 0.42 | 6.7b ± 0.26 | 4.2 ± 0.79 |
| 85% WF + 15% MRS | 14.6d ± 0.26 | 16.7d ± 0.66 | 6.9d ± 1.62 | 6.2d ± 0.42 | 6.2d ± 0.42 | 8.45 ± 0.42 | 5.92b ± 0.19 | 4.1 ± 0.74 |
| LSD at 0.05 | 1.16 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.65 | 0.35 | NS | 1.25 | NS |
The values not followed by the same letters are significantly different at 5% level.