| Literature DB >> 28231114 |
Viren Ranawana1, Vassilios Raikos2, Fiona Campbell3, Charles Bestwick4, Phyllis Nicol5, Lesley Milne6, Garry Duthie7.
Abstract
There is increasing emphasis on reformulating processed foods to make them healthier. This study for the first time comprehensively investigated the effects of fortifying bread (containing oil as an ingredient) with freeze-dried vegetables on its nutritional and physico-chemical attributes. Breads fortified with carrot, tomato, beetroot or broccoli were assessed for nutrition, antioxidant potential, storage life, shelf stability, textural changes and macronutrient oxidation. Furthermore, using an in vitro model the study for the first time examined the impact of vegetable addition on the oxidative stability of macronutrients during human gastro-intestinal digestion. As expected, adding vegetables improved the nutritional and antioxidant properties of bread. Beetroot and broccoli significantly improved bread storage life. None of the vegetables significantly affected bread textural changes during storage compared to the control. Lipid oxidation in fresh bread was significantly reduced by all four types of vegetables whilst protein oxidation was lowered by beetroot, carrot and broccoli. The vegetables demonstrated varying effects on macronutrient oxidation during gastro-intestinal digestion. Beetroot consistently showed positive effects suggesting its addition to bread could be particularly beneficial.Entities:
Keywords: bread; digestion; oil; oxidative stability; storage properties; vegetables
Year: 2016 PMID: 28231114 PMCID: PMC5224574 DOI: 10.3390/foods5010019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Compositional information of the breads.
| Plain Bread | Broccoli Bread | Carrot bread | Tomato Bread | Beetroot Bread | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture | 37.6 | 37.3 | 36.9 | 37.5 | 36.7 |
| Protein | 17.1 | 13.9 | 11.4 | 12.0 | 11.8 |
| Total Carbohydrates | 68.2 | 59.3 | 58.8 | 60.3 | 60.2 |
| Fat | 11.3 | 11.9 | 12.2 | 11.8 | 11.4 |
| Ash | 2.8 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| NSP | 4.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| α- and γ-Tocopherol | 39.9 | 93.7 | 22.8 | 70.7 | 30.1 |
| α-Carotene | - | - | 31.0 | - | - |
| β- Carotene | 0.2 | 23.3 | 119.0 | 32.3 | 0.2 |
| β-Cryptoxanthin | - | - | 0.5 | - | - |
| Lutein/Zeaxanthin | 2.9 | 28.3 | 3.6 | 6.0 | 3.4 |
| Lycopene | - | - | 4.6 | 97.5 | - |
Protein was measured as N and converted using a factor of 6.25; Tocopherols and Carotenoids are in µg/g of dry matter, Proximate values are g per 100 g of dry matter; NSP = Non-Starch Polysaccharides (Rhamnose, Fucose, Arabinose, Xylose, Mannose, Galactose, Uronic acid); Blank cells indicate no detectable levels.
Figure 1Antioxidant potential of the breads. Antioxidant potential of breads measured using FRAP (A) and HORAC (B) assays. Treatments with asterisks are significantly different to the plain bread (p < 0.05). Values are means ± SE (n = 3).
Figure 2Oxidative stability of the breads measured using the Rancimat. Treatments with asterisks are significantly different to the plain bread (p < 0.05). Values are means ± SE (n = 4).
Figure 3Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) (A) and Protein Carbonyl (PC) (B) contents in the fresh breads. Treatments with asterisks are significantly different to the plain bread (p < 0.05). Values are means ± SE (n = 3).
Changes in the texture profile of bread during storage.
| Hardness (g) | Cohesiveness | Gumminess (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | |||
| Plain | 279.3 ± 16.7 a | 0.58 ± 0.2 a | 192.0 ± 31.2 a |
| Carrot | 488.7 ± 24.9 a | 0.43 ± 0.1 a | 257.7 ± 41.6 a |
| Tomato | 392.0 ± 38.1 a | 0.44 ± 0.1 a | 237.0 ± 44.5 a |
| Beetroot | 696.7 ± 73.6 ab | 0.47 ± 0.0 a | 335.7 ± 49.0 a |
| Broccoli | 1304.0 ± 434.3 b | 0.42 ± 0.1 a | 424.7 ± 236.0 a |
| Day 1 | |||
| Plain | 409.0 ± 8.5 a | 0.41 ± 0.0 a | 193.3 ± 28.5 a |
| Carrot | 733.7 ± 35.5 ab | 0.41 ± 0.0 a | 360.3 ± 82.1 ab |
| Tomato | 682.3 ± 59.8 ab | 0.34 ± 0.0 ab | 260.7 ± 54.9 a |
| Beetroot | 785.7 ± 40.5 ab | 0.37 ± 0.0 ab | 344.3 ± 5.6 ab |
| Broccoli | 1220.7 ± 469.3 b | 0.32 ± 0.0 b | 573.0 ± 110.2 b |
| Day 2 | |||
| Plain | 616.0 ± 92.0 a | 0.37 ± 0.0 a | 315.7 ± 105.5 a |
| Carrot | 775.7 ± 113.0 ab | 0.36 ± 0.0 ab | 348.7 ± 66.3 a |
| Tomato | 787.3 ± 111.3 ab | 0.31 ± 0.0 ab | 288.7 ± 15.3 a |
| Beetroot | 1082.7 ± 53.0 ab | 0.32 ± 0.0 ab | 384.7 ± 2.9 a |
| Broccoli | 1432.0 ± 367.6 b | 0.28 ± 0.0 b | 560.0 ± 119.4 a |
| Day 4 | |||
| Plain | 915.0 ± 133.0 a | 0.34 ± 0.0 a | 343.7 ± 62.6 a |
| Carrot | 991 ± 149.7 a | 0.31 ± 0.0 a | 412.3 ± 83.6 a |
| Tomato | 965.0 ± 233.3 a | 0.28 ± 0.0 a | 276.3 ± 71.4 a |
| Beetroot | 1310.7 ± 33.4 a | 0.29 ± 0.0 a | 414.7 ± 59.5 a |
| Broccoli | 1649.0 ± 544.4 a | 0.31 ± 0.0 a | 533.3 ± 240.3 a |
Values are means ± standard deviations (n = 4); Values with different superscripts within a column for each day are significantly different (p < 0.05); Cohesiveness is unit-less.
Figure 4Physical appearance and size comparison of the baked breads. From left to right: Plain, Carrot, Tomato, Beetroot and Broccoli.
Figure 5Temporal changes in TBARS (A) and protein carbonyls (B) production during gastrointestinal digestion of the breads. Solid and broken lines represent the salivary/gastric, and intestinal phases of digestion respectively. Values are means ± SE (n = 6).