| Literature DB >> 28070311 |
Olugbenga O Awolu1, Olufunmilayo S Omoba1, Olumide Olawoye1, Modupe Dairo2.
Abstract
Optimization of the production and evaluation of the quality of maize-based snack supplemented with soy and tigernut flour was carried out. Experimental design for the composite flour was carried out using optimal design model of response surface methodology. The variables were toasted maize flour (75-85%), soy flour (10-20%), and tigernut flour (5-10%); while the responses were proximate composition and mineral contents. Three blends were selected from optimization results; runs 2, 7, and 11. The functional properties, pasting properties, antioxidant, antinutritional, and amino acid profile of the three blends were evaluated. In addition, sensory evaluation of the cookies produced from the three blends was determined. The results (75/100 g toasted maize flour, 20/100 g soy flour, and 5/100 g tigernut flour) had 16.4/100 g protein, 4.2/100 g ash, 3.5/100 g moisture, 58.5/100 g carbohydrate, 3.0/100 g crude fiber, 14.4/100 g fat, 30.20 ppm calcium, 38.90 ppm potassium, 0.25 ppm manganese, 1.91 ppm iron, 0.14 ppm copper, and 0.98 ppm zinc contents. It also had best overall acceptability.Entities:
Keywords: Amino acid profile; optimization; pasting; proximate; snack toasted maize
Year: 2016 PMID: 28070311 PMCID: PMC5217868 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Proximate composition (g/100 g) of the composite blends from toasted maize, soy, and tigernut flour
| Runs | A(%) | B(%) | C(%) | Protein | Ash | Moisture | CHO | Crude fiber | Fat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 81.702 | 10.000 | 8.298 | 12.9 | 4.6 | 5.0 | 59.9 | 3.5 | 14.1 |
| 2 | 75.000 | 20.000 | 5.000 | 16.4 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 58.5 | 3.0 | 14.4 |
| 3 | 75.117 | 17.308 | 7.576 | 14.9 | 4.2 | 5.2 | 56.4 | 3.3 | 16.0 |
| 4 | 77.437 | 17.563 | 5.000 | 12.5 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 59.3 | 3.2 | 16.4 |
| 5 | 75.117 | 17.308 | 7.576 | 14.8 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 57.4 | 3.3 | 15.2 |
| 6 | 78.567 | 11.433 | 10.000 | 14.4 | 4.4 | 5.4 | 55.8 | 4.1 | 15.9 |
| 7 | 77.290 | 15.138 | 7.572 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 61.5 | 3.3 | 14.8 |
| 8 | 85.000 | 10.000 | 5.000 | 11.2 | 3.7 | 6.0 | 63.3 | 3.0 | 12.8 |
| 9 | 81.702 | 10.000 | 8.298 | 13.8 | 4.7 | 5.2 | 59.6 | 3.6 | 13.1 |
| 10 | 75.000 | 20.000 | 5.000 | 16.4 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 55.6 | 3.1 | 15.4 |
| 11 | 76.299 | 13.701 | 10.000 | 15.0 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 55.4 | 4.0 | 16.2 |
| 12 | 85.000 | 10.000 | 5.000 | 12.8 | 3.8 | 5.3 | 62.3 | 3.0 | 12.8 |
| 13 | 76.299 | 13.701 | 10.000 | 15.1 | 4.6 | 6.4 | 54.0 | 4.0 | 15.9 |
| 14 | 80.152 | 12.337 | 7.511 | 12.5 | 3.5 | 6.6 | 57.1 | 3.4 | 16.9 |
| 15 | 82.540 | 12.460 | 5.000 | 10.9 | 2.6 | 5.5 | 63.0 | 3.1 | 14.9 |
| 16 | 79.683 | 14.616 | 5.701 | 13.5 | 3.2 | 7.3 | 56.8 | 3.3 | 15.9 |
A, toasted maize flour; B, soy flour; C, tigernut flour; CHO, carbohydrate.
Figure 13D plot showing the effect of variables on (A) protein content, (B) moisture content, (C) carbohydrate (CHO), (D) crude fiber, and (E) fat.
Mineral composition of composite blends of toasted maize, soy, and tigernut flour
| Runs | A(%) | B(%) | C(%) | Ca (ppm) | K (ppm) | Mn (ppm) | Fe (ppm) | Cu (ppm) | Zn (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 81.702 | 10.000 | 8.298 | 40.80 | 50.00 | 0.17 | 1.52 | 0.11 | 1.09 |
| 2 | 75.000 | 20.000 | 5.000 | 30.20 | 38.90 | 0.25 | 1.91 | 0.14 | 0.98 |
| 3 | 75.117 | 17.308 | 7.576 | 30.80 | 40.60 | 0.26 | 1.73 | 0.14 | 1.12 |
| 4 | 77.437 | 17.563 | 5.000 | 43.50 | 54.60 | 0.21 | 1.83 | 0.19 | 0.83 |
| 5 | 75.117 | 17.308 | 7.576 | 30.50 | 40.50 | 0.30 | 1.76 | 0.14 | 1.11 |
| 6 | 78.567 | 11.433 | 10.000 | 55.70 | 60.30 | 0.16 | 1.61 | 0.16 | 0.85 |
| 7 | 77.290 | 15.138 | 7.572 | 30.10 | 64.70 | 0.30 | 2.44 | 0.18 | 1.41 |
| 8 | 85.000 | 10.000 | 5.000 | 49.60 | 59.30 | 0.20 | 2.06 | 0.26 | 0.77 |
| 9 | 81.702 | 10.000 | 8.298 | 40.70 | 50.30 | 0.17 | 1.53 | 0.11 | 1.09 |
| 10 | 75.000 | 20.000 | 5.000 | 30.10 | 39.00 | 0.24 | 1.90 | 0.14 | 0.95 |
| 11 | 76.299 | 13.701 | 10.000 | 48.40 | 51.10 | 0.28 | 2.60 | 0.11 | 1.20 |
| 12 | 85.000 | 10.000 | 5.000 | 49.60 | 59.30 | 0.21 | 2.05 | 0.27 | 0.80 |
| 13 | 76.299 | 13.701 | 10.000 | 47.90 | 50.90 | 0.26 | 2.59 | 0.10 | 1.21 |
| 14 | 80.152 | 12.337 | 7.511 | 51.40 | 40.70 | 0.18 | 1.75 | 0.24 | 0.88 |
| 15 | 82.540 | 12.460 | 5.000 | 49.60 | 41.30 | 0.26 | 2.02 | 0.22 | 1.18 |
| 16 | 79.683 | 14.616 | 5.701 | 47.30 | 39.80 | 0.22 | 2.01 | 0.16 | 1.05 |
A, toasted maize flour; B, soy flour; C, tigernut flour.
Functional properties of toasted maize, soy, and tigernut flour composite blend
| Sample | BD (g/mL) | SI | FC(%) | FS(%) | WAC (gs−1) | (LGC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 31.37 | 19.61 | 4.00 | 0.40 |
| 7 | 0.81 | 0.70 | 17.65 | 9.80 | 3.70 | 0.40 |
| 11 | 0.82 | 0.70 | 21.57 | 5.88 | 3.70 | 0.40 |
BD, bulk density; SI, solubility index; FC, foaming capacity; FS, foaming stability; WAC, water absorption capacity; LGC, least gelation concentration.
Pasting properties of toasted maize, soy, and tigernut flour composite blends values are mean of triplicate samples
| Sample | Peak viscosity (RVU) | Trough | Breakdown viscosity (RVU) | Final viscosity (RVU) | Set back viscosity (RVU) | Peak time (min) | Pasting temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 199.00 | 194.00 | 5.00 | 235.58 | 41.58 | 6.54 | 83.65 |
| 7 | 221.42 | 157.00 | 64.42 | 237.08 | 80.08 | 6.74 | 84.25 |
| 11 | 222.08 | 140.42 | 81.67 | 233.00 | 92.58 | 6.66 | 82.58 |
Result of oxalate, phytate, and total phenol constituent of the three best blends
| Sample | Oxalate (mg/100 g) | Total phenol (mg/100 g) | Phytate (mg/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3.53 ± 0.02 | 4.75 ± 0.02 | 5.95 ± 0.02 |
| 7 | 3.79 ± 0.01 | 4.63 ± 0.01 | 6.07 ± 0.01 |
| 11 | 3.54 ± 0.02 | 4.56 ± 0.02 | 5.78 ± 0.01 |
Amino acid profile of the three best blends
| Amino acid | Sample 2 (mg/100 g) | Sample 7 (mg/100 g) | Sample 11 (mg/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valine | 1889.22 | 1777.55 | 1669.25 |
| Threonine | 377.74 | 350.25 | 336.36 |
| Isoleucine | 557.35 | 525.28 | 562.25 |
| Leucine | 1126.25 | 1077.25 | 1114.25 |
| Methionine | 163.36 | 157.57 | 150.25 |
| Phenylalanine | 785.85 | 740.12 | 705.25 |
| Lysine | 1332.25 | 1263.36 | 1244.25 |
| Histidine | 444.25 | 420.25 | 433.36 |
| Tryptophan | 238.38 | 220.02 | 221.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Alanine | 654.54 | 625.25 | 640.36 |
| Aspartate | 196.36 | 192.25 | 189.65 |
| Glutamate | 2244.25 | 2228.33 | 2202.25 |
| Serine | 1166.33 | 1144.22 | 1098.85 |
| Glycine | 667.67 | 650.42 | 625.58 |
| Proline | 666.33 | 642.25 | 635.35 |
| Arginine | 685.85 | 657.57 | 633.36 |
| Tyrosine | 374.22 | 340.45 | 355.58 |
| Cysteine | 119.63 | 112.25 | 109.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AA, Amino acid.
Result of sensory evaluation of cookies produced from the three best blends
| Sample | Appearance | Color | Taste | Texture | Flavor | Crispiness | Overall acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 7.10a | 6.30a | 7.90a | 6.40a | 7.00b | 7.30a | 8.00a |
| 7 | 7.10a | 6.00a | 6.60a | 6.80a | 6.70a | 7.40a | 7.70ab |
| 11 | 6.50a | 5.60a | 6.50a | 7.50a | 6.00ab | 7.60a | 7.30b |