| Literature DB >> 30510961 |
Dayanne Vigo Miranda1, Meliza Lindsay Rojas2, Sandra Pagador1, Leslie Lescano3, Jesús Sanchez-Gonzalez3, Guillermo Linares3.
Abstract
An agroindustrial by-product (cactus pear peel) and whole grains flour (brown rice and amaranth) were used to present a gluten-free snack proposal. The effect of 5% (F1), 7% (F2), and 10% (F3) substitution of brown-rice flour for yellow cactus pear peel powder (Opuntia ficus-indica) on the snack physical, sensorial, and nutritional properties was evaluated. In addition, 20% of amaranth flour (Amaranthus caudatus) was used for all formulations. As the percentage of substitution increased, the a⁎ value increased, while the L⁎ decreased. The control snacks presented higher hardness, while the snacks with 10% substitution presented a greater crispness. The sensorial properties (overall liking, colour, crispness, and oiliness) reported that the samples containing cactus pear peel powder were the most accepted. The fat content decreased as the substitution percentage increased. The F3 formulation presented the best physical and sensorial properties and when compared with other commercial snack brands, it presented low fat and an adequate protein and fibre content. Therefore, snacks based on brown rice, amaranth, and cactus pear by-product could be considered as a good option of gluten-free product, contributing to reducing the lack of gluten-free products on the markets.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30510961 PMCID: PMC6231374 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7120327
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Main nutritional compounds of cactus pear peel powder, amaranth flour, and brown rice flour.
| Compound (x 100g of product) | Cactus pear peel | Amaranth | Brown rice | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | g | 5.71 | 13.33 | 7.23 |
| Total Fat | g | 3.33 | 6.67 | 2.78 |
| Fibre, total dietary | g | 64.15 | 11.10 | 4.60 |
| Carbohydrates | g | 71.84 | 66.67 | 76.48 |
| Total carotenoids | mg | 217.11 | Nr | nr |
| Calcium | mg | Nr | 178.00 | 11 |
| Iron | mg | Nr | 7.20 | 1.98 |
nr: nonreported. Mean values obtained from (1) Elhassaneen and Ragab [18], (2) Diaz‐Vela and Totosaus [12], and (3) USDA [21].
Snacks formulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | - | 20 | 80 |
| Formulation 1 (F1) | 5 | 20 | 75 |
| Formulation 2 (F2) | 7 | 20 | 73 |
| Formulation 3 (F3) | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Figure 1Snacks obtained with the different used formulations.
Figure 2Typical curve of force (N) versus time (s) showing the maximum compression force used for describing the snack texture.
Instrumental colour parameters in the different formulations of snacks∗.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| L | 50.17 ± 2.22a | 43.29 ± 1.24b | 34.41 ± 0.29b | 32.11 ± 0.53c |
| a | 4.55 ± 0.82a | 5.94 ± 0.93a | 6.72 ± 0.42a | 10.37 ± 0.95b |
| b | 22.21 ± 1.59a | 23.71 ± 0.64b | 21.80 ± 0.25a | 22.80 ± 0.73a |
| ΔE | - | 7.35 ± 1.44a | 15.96 ± 1.98b | 19.10 ± 2.23b |
∗mean ± standard deviation. Differences among letters indicate significant differences among formulations (α=5%).
Figure 3Texture (force (N)) and moisture content (%) for each snack formulation.
Fat content (%) for the snacks obtained with different formulations∗.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| 31.75 ± 0.01a |
|
| 30.08 ± 0.01b |
|
| 30.41 ± 0.01b |
|
| 26.89 ± 0.13c |
∗mean ± standard deviation. Differences among letters indicate significant differences among formulations (α=5%).
Figure 4Average of the overall liking scores of each formulation, using a 7-point hedonic scale.
Results of the sensory attributes (colour, crispiness, and oiliness) evaluated for the different snacks formulation∗.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3.15 ± 1.12a | 4.21 ± 1.31b | 5.43 ± 0.89c | 5.79 ± 0.82d |
|
| 2.43 ± 1.29a | 4.58 ± 1.26b | 4.9 ± 1.10c | 5.10 ± 1.29c |
|
| 4.19 ± 1.47a | 3.7 ± 1.23b | 3.94 ± 1.31b | 2.97 ± 1.19c |
∗mean ± standard deviation. Differences among letters indicate significant differences among formulations (α=5%).
Nutritional comparison of fried snacks with other brands.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26.89 | 36.73 | 35.71 | 28.57 |
|
| 7.22 | 7.14 | 7.14 | 7.14 |
|
| 2.13 (CF) | 3.57 (DF) | 3.57 (DF) | 3.57 (DF) |
∗Data obtained from nutrition facts reported in the product label. CF: crude fibre; DF: dietary fibre.