| Literature DB >> 35267349 |
Carolina Cantele1, Martina Tedesco1, Daniela Ghirardello1, Giuseppe Zeppa1, Marta Bertolino1.
Abstract
Coffee silverskin (CS), a by-product obtained by the coffee industry after the roasting process, is scientifically known to be a source of fiber and polyphenols, which could contribute to human health. In this work, the production of CS-enriched biscuits is proposed, where the CS from Arabica and Robusta type and a decaffeinated blend of the two were used at three different levels as a replacement for wheat flour. The biscuits were analyzed for their physicochemical properties, consumer acceptability, and the bioaccessibility of polyphenols after in vitro digestion was estimated in order to identify the formulation most appreciated by consumers and most promising in terms of nutritional and biofunctional potential. From the results, CS-based biscuits represent an interesting possibility to create a more sustainable coffee chain, thanks to the valorization of the silverskin, especially if a decaffeinated CS is considered. In fact, a 4% replacement of the wheat flour with decaffeinated CS is able to give a final product with a high content of accessible polyphenols and a biscuit appreciated by the consumer.Entities:
Keywords: antiradical activity; bioaccessibility; by-products; coffee silverskin; decaffeination; in vitro digestion; polyphenols
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267349 PMCID: PMC8909313 DOI: 10.3390/foods11050717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Chemical composition of the three different types of coffee silverskin (Arabica, Robusta, and decaffeinated blend).
| Arabica | Robusta | Decaffeinated | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caffeine (g/100 g) | 0.65 ± 0.06 | 1.03 ± 0.08 | 0.03 ± 0.01 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 15.47 ± 0.78 | 20.87 ± 0.91 | 15.57 ± 0.79 |
| Fat (g/100 g) | 2.54 ± 0.18 | 1.70 ± 0.13 | 2.39 ± 0.17 |
| Carbohydrates (g/100 g) | 14.57 ± 0.28 | 9.45 ± 0.17 | 13.79 ± 0.38 |
| Dietary fibre (g/100 g) | 58.32 ± 5.02 | 57.18 ± 4.95 | 58.09 ± 5.00 |
| Water (g/100 g) | 2.00 ± 0.01 | 1.26 ± 0.02 | 1.84 ± 0.01 |
Formulation of the vegan biscuits. Quantities are reported in grams.
| Ingredients | 0CS | 2CS | 4CS | 6CS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat flour | 420 | 411.6 | 403.2 | 394.8 |
| Silverskin | 0 | 8.4 | 16.8 | 25.2 |
| Oat milk | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 |
| Sucrose | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 |
| Margarine | 180 | 180 | 180 | 180 |
| Baking powder | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Salt | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Values (means ± standard deviation) of moisture, water activity (aw), and CIELAB parameters (L*, lightness; h, hue; C*, chroma) of the CS-added biscuits. Results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s post hoc test are reported both between different percentages of integration of CS (column) and the different types of silverskin (row).
| %CS | CSA | CSR | CSD |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture (%) | 0 | 4.27 ± 0.18 a | 4.27 ± 0.18 a | 4.27 ± 0.18 a | |
| 2 | 5.44 ± 0.12 bA | 7.19 ± 0.42 cbB | 6.69 ± 0.17 dB | *** | |
| 4 | 5.61 ± 0.04 bA | 7.38 ± 0.15 cC | 6.34 ± 0.12 cB | *** | |
| 6 | 6.05 ± 0.03 cB | 6.60 ± 0.06 bC | 5.77 ± 0.08 bA | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** | ||
| aw | 0 | 0.31 ± 0.00 a | 0.31 ± 0.00 a | 0.31 ± 0.00 a | |
| 2 | 0.41 ± 0.00 bA | 0.52 ± 0.00 cC | 0.47 ± 0.01 cB | *** | |
| 4 | 0.42 ± 0.01cA | 0.52 ± 0.00 cC | 0.46 ± 0.01 bcB | *** | |
| 6 | 0.44 ± 0.05 dA | 0.49 ± 0.00 bB | 0.45 ± 0.01 bA | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** | ||
| 0 | 56.78 ± 0.85 d | 56.78 ± 0.85 d | 56.78 ± 0.85 d | ||
| 2 | 53.57 ± 0.73 cC | 49.25 ± 0.89 cB | 43.17 ± 0.88 cA | *** | |
| 4 | 50.26 ± 0.52 bC | 42.79 ± 0.75 bB | 35.02 ± 1.20 bA | *** | |
| 6 | 47.43 ± 0.73 aC | 38.00 ± 0.56 aB | 30.67 ± 0.29 aA | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** | ||
|
| 0 | 70.78 ± 0.44 a | 70.78 ± 0.44 b | 70.78 ± 0.44 d | |
| 2 | 71.73 ± 0.51 bB | 72.77 ± 0.59 dC | 70.26 ± 0.36 cA | *** | |
| 4 | 71.31 ± 0.29 bB | 71.95 ± 0.61cC | 67.25 ± 0.27 bA | *** | |
| 6 | 71.34 ± 0.39 bC | 70.17 ± 0.46 aB | 64.89 ± 0.42 aA | *** | |
|
| ** | *** | *** | ||
|
| 0 | 34.66 ± 0.45 d | 34.66 ± 0.45 d | 34.66 ± 0.45 d | |
| 2 | 32.03 ± 0.60 cC | 29.77 ± 0.47 cB | 27.11 ± 0.36 cA | *** | |
| 4 | 31.38 ± 0.17 bC | 27.86 ± 0.60bB | 23.37 ± 0.59 bA | *** | |
| 6 | 30.04 ± 0.40 aC | 26.74 ± 0.72 aB | 21.29 ± 0.24 aA | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** |
CSA, Arabica coffee silverskin; CSR, Robusta coffee silverskin; CSD, decaffeinated coffee silverskin. Means followed by the same lower-case (columns) and upper-case (rows) letters are not significant different at p < 0.05. Significance: ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant.
Figure 1Visual comparison of the color between the control and the biscuits added with 2%, 4%, and 6% of CSA (Arabica coffee silverskin), CSR (Robusta coffee silverskin), and CSD (decaffeinated coffee silverskin). From left to right: 0C; 2CSA, 4CSA, 6CSA; 2CSR, 4CSR, 6CSR; 2CSD, 4CSD, 6CSD.
Results (means ± standard deviation) of weight loss, spread and hardness of the CS-added biscuits. Results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s post hoc test are reported both between different percentages of integration of CS (column) and between the different types of silverskin (row).
| %CS | CSA | CSR | CSD |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight loss (g) | 0 | 50.19 ± 3.54 | 50.19 ± 3.54 | 50.19 ± 3.54 | |
| 2 | 53.62 ± 1.41 | 54.22 ± 1.42 | 51.40 ± 0.00 | ns | |
| 4 | 51.67 ± 1.04 | 54.60 ± 0.68 | 52.55 ± 0.78 | ns | |
| 6 | 48.46 ± 0.19 A | 52.34 ± 0.20 B | 54.05 ± 0.21 C | *** | |
|
| ns | ns | ns | ||
| Spread | 0 | 6.49 ± 0.21 b | 6.49 ± 0.21 b | 6.49 ± 0.21 c | |
| 2 | 5.43 ± 0.18 aB | 4.15 ± 0.12 aA | 4.44 ± 0.18 aA | ** | |
| 4 | 5.22 ± 0.03 a | 4.25 ± 0.43 a | 4.86 ± 0.02 b | ns | |
| 6 | 4.85 ± 0.30 a | 4.57 ± 0.18 a | 4.73 ± 0.04 a | ns | |
|
| ** | ** | *** | ||
| Hardness (N) | 0 | 64.92 ± 8.91 a | 64.92 ± 8.91 | 64.92 ± 8.91 a | |
| 2 | 82.81 ± 18.88 aB | 75.65 ± 14.78 | 67.05 ± 5.02 a | ns | |
| 4 | 85.75 ± 10.69 bB | 70.36 ± 7.52 A | 104.76 ± 3.65 bC | *** | |
| 6 | 67.12 ± 15.40 a | 65.85 ± 11.54 | 86.71 ± 28.15 ab | ns | |
|
| * | ns | ** |
CSA, Arabica coffee silverskin; CSR, Robusta coffee silverskin; CSD, decaffeinated coffee silverskin. Means followed by the same lower-case (columns) and upper-case (rows) letters are not significant different at p < 0.05. Significance: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001; ns = not significant.
Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test on consumer acceptance evaluation. Results are reported as sum of the ranks.
| Attribute | Samples |
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0CS | 2CSA | 4CSA | 6CSA | 2CSR | 4CSR | 6CSR | 2CSD | 4CSD | 6CSD | ||
| Appearance | 15,072 d | 14,904 cd | 11,880 abcd | 9184 ab | 10,448 ab | 10,032 ab | 8424 a | 13,024 bcd | 11,672 abcd | 10,800 abc | *** |
| Odour | 14,328 cd | 11,080 abcd | 11,280 abcd | 10,920 abc | 10,056 abc | 9432 ab | 7840 a | 15,864 d | 13,480 bcd | 11,160 abcd | *** |
| Taste | 14,696 b | 8424 a | 9240 a | 8792 a | 11,720 ab | 11,272 ab | 8952 a | 15,272 b | 14696 b | 12,376 ab | *** |
| Flavour | 10,496 abc | 8920 ab | 8360 a | 10,864 abc | 10,176 ab | 11,888 abc | 11,112 abc | 14,904 c | 15,480 c | 13,240 bc | *** |
| Texture | 13,032 bc | 9344 ab | 9040 ab | 8072 a | 10,776 abc | 10,256 ab | 11,376 abc | 14,776 bc | 15,480 d | 13,288 bc | *** |
| Overall Liking | 14,576 bc | 9096 a | 8632 a | 9352 a | 10,960 ab | 11,472 abc | 9576 a | 15,304 c | 14,576 bc | 11,896 abc | *** |
| Purchase Interest | 13,488 bcd | 8736 a | 8472 a | 9720 ab | 11,768 abcd | 11,896 abcd | 10,232 ab | 14,616 cd | 15,368 d | 11,144 abc | *** |
CSA, Arabica coffee silverskin; CSR, Robusta coffee silverskin; CSD, decaffeinated coffee silverskin. Means followed by the same lower-case letters are not significant different at p < 0.05. Significance: *** = p < 0.001.
Values (means ± standard deviation) of total phenolic content (TPC) and radical scavenging activity (RSA) of the CS-added biscuits. Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s post hoc test are reported both between different percentages of integration of CS (column) and the different types of CS (row).
| % CS | CSA | CSR | CSD |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | 0 | 0.41 ± 0.02 a | 0.41 ± 0.02 a | 0.41 ± 0.02 a | |
| 2 | 0.42 ± 0.01 aB | 0.41 ± 0.00 aA | 0.72 ± 0.00 bC | *** | |
| 4 | 0.47 ± 0.01 bA | 0.44 ± 0.01 bA | 1.03 ± 0.03 cB | *** | |
| 6 | 0.49 ± 0.01 bA | 0.57 ± 0.01 cB | 1.36 ± 0.01 dC | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** | ||
| RSA | 0 | 0.43 ± 0.11 a | 0.43 ± 0.11 b | 0.43 ± 0.11 a | |
| 2 | 0.93 ± 0.06 bB | 0.21 ± 0.01 aA | 1.13 ± 0.01 bC | *** | |
| 4 | 1.42 ± 0.05 cB | 0.34 ± 0.02 bA | 2.60 ± 0.01 cC | *** | |
| 6 | 1.82 ± 0.06 dB | 0.71 ± 0.04 cA | 3.40 ± 0.03 dC | *** | |
|
| *** | *** | *** |
GAE, gallic acid equivalents; TE, Trolox equivalents. Means followed by the same lower-case (columns) and upper-case (rows) letters are not significant different at p < 0.05. Significance: *** = p < 0.001.
Figure 2(a) TPC (mg GAE/g) and (b) RSA (μmol TE/g) of the biscuits before (pre-GID; bars with no pattern) and after (post-GID; bars with dot pattern) gastrointestinal digestion (GID); CSA, Arabica coffee silverskin; CSR, Robusta coffee silverskin; CSD, decaffeinated coffee silverskin. Results of ANOVA with Duncan’s post hoc test are reported within the different types of biscuits before GID and after GID. Bars with different lower-case letters are significantly different at p < 0.05. Significance: *** = p < 0.001.