| Literature DB >> 35681339 |
Oana Bianca Oprea1, Mona Elena Popa2, Livia Apostol3, Liviu Gaceu1,4,5.
Abstract
Grape seeds are one of the most accessible by-products of the wine industry in large quantities (about 2.4 million t/year). Numerous researchers have shown that grape seeds have a high potential for use as a functional ingredient in the food industry due to their high content of protein, fiber, minerals, and polyphenols. The aim of the paper is to evaluate the possibilities of using grape seed flour (GSF) in the bakery industry from both chemical and rheological points of view. Research shows that grape seed flour contains about 42 times more fiber than wheat flour and approximately 9 times more calcium, 8 times more magnesium, and 2 times more potassium. To assess this potential, four samples of bread from flour mixtures with 3%, 5%, 7%, and 9% (w/w) degree of replacement with GSF were prepared, analyzed, and compared with a control sample from 100% wheat flour. From a rheological point of view, the baking qualities deteriorate: the water absorption capacity (CH) decreases from 58.2% to 55.8%, the dough stability increases from 8.50 min to 9.83 min, the α slope varies from -0.066 Nm/min to -0.104 Nm/min, the β slope increases from 0.576 Nm/min to 0.630 Nm/min, and the γ slope varies from -0.100 Nm/min to -0.198 Nm/min. The sensory analyses performed by the panel of evaluators enclosed the sensorial characteristics of the samples with 3% and 5% GSF between the two control samples made from flour types 480 and 1250. The conclusions show that the sample containing 7% and 9% are unsatisfactory from rheological and sensorial points of view and the samples with 3% and 5% can be considered a fiber source and a Cu source, respectively, and are rich in Zn.Entities:
Keywords: bread; functional food; grape seed; nutritional properties; rheology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681339 PMCID: PMC9180234 DOI: 10.3390/foods11111589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Coding of experimental samples with the addition of partially defatted grape seed flour.
| Samples | Sample Composition ( |
|---|---|
| P0 | Sample 0–100% wheat flour type 480 |
| P1 | Sample 1–97% wheat flour type 480 + 3% defatted grape seed flour |
| P2 | Sample 2–95% wheat flour type 480 + 5% defatted grape seed flour |
| P3 | Sample 3–93% wheat flour type 480 + 7% defatted grape seed flour |
| P4 | Sample 4–91% wheat flour type 480 + 9% defatted grape seed flour |
Mixolab parameters correlation and significance.
| Parameter | Calculation Method | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Water Absorption (%) | Quantity of water required | Amount of water taken up by flour to achieve the desired consistency and create a quality end-product. |
| Time for C1 (min) | Time required to obtain C1 | Dough formation time: The stronger the flour, the longer it takes. |
| Stability (min) | Time during which torque is > C1–11% (constant T° phase) | Dough resistance to kneading: The longer it takes, the “stronger” the dough. |
| Amplitude (Nm) | Curve width at C1 | Dough elasticity: The higher the value, the greater the dough elasticity. |
Source: Mixolab Applications Handbook-May 2012 edition [55].
The technological process and the final recipe for obtaining the control sample P0.
| Control Sample (P0) |
|---|
| Direct Method Recipe |
Wheat flour type 480: 1.5 kg Yeast Pakmaya: 0.030 kg Salt: 0.015 kg Water: 1.050 L |
Chemical composition of the grape seed and wheat flours.
| Parameter | Grape Seed Flour | CV (%) | Wheat Flour | CV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture content (g/100 g) | 9.2 ± 0.10 a | 0.714 | 12.6 ± 0.09 b | 1.087 | <0.0001 |
| Ash (g/100 g) | 3.03 ± 0.13 a | 0.330 | 0.48 ± 0.01 b | 2.083 | <0.0001 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 16.32 ± 0.21 a | 0.429 | 12.01 ± 0.12 b | 0.999 | <0.0001 |
| Fat (g/100 g) | 5.92 ± 0.19 a | 0.337 | 1.03 ± 0.05 b | 4.854 | <0.0001 |
| Raw fiber (g/100 g) | 83.01 ± 0.78 a | 0.096 | 1.98 ± 0.12 b | 6.061 | <0.0001 |
| Sugars (g/100 g) | 11.31 ± 0.11 a | 6.454 | 1.02 ± 0.13 b | 12.750 | <0.0001 |
| Potassium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 360.23 ± 0.89 a | 0.247 | 187.13 ± 0.75 b | 0.401 | <0.0001 |
| Magnesium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 397.81 ± 0.97 a | 0.243 | 47.73 ± 0.55 b | 1.152 | <0.0001 |
| Calcium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 405.89 ± 1.17 a | 0.288 | 43.81 ± 0.59 b | 1.347 | <0.0001 |
| Iron (mg/100 g d.m.) | 0.78 ± 0.02 a | 2.564 | 1.11 ± 0.02 b | 1.802 | 0.0132 |
| Zinc (mg/100 g d.m.) | 0.73 ± 0.07 a | 9.589 | 5.43 ± 0.22 b | 4.052 | <0.0001 |
| Copper (mg/100 g d.m.) | 0.96 ± 0.1 a | 10.420 | 0.18 ± 0.02 b | 11.110 | <0.0001 |
Note: Values are the means of triplicate determinations. The results are presented as mean values ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05); CV, coefficient of variation.
The daily values of nutrients recommended per day (RDI) [60].
| Constituents | RDI (FDA 2011) mg |
|---|---|
| Potassium | 4700 |
| Calcium | 1000 |
| Magnesium | 400 |
| Iron | 18 |
| Sodium | 2400 |
| Zinc | 15 |
| Manganese | 4 |
| Copper | 2 |
Source: FDA. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/nutritioneducation (accessed on 23 March 2022).
Experimental results of the nutritional composition and mineral content of wheat flour mixtures with the addition of grape seed flour.
| Parameter/Sample | P0 (0% GSF) | P1 (3% GSF) | P2 (5% GSF) | P3 (7% GSF) | P4 (9% GSF) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ash (% d.m.) | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 0.66 ± 0.02 | 0.71 ± 0.02 |
| Protein (% d.m.) | 12.01 ± 0.12 | 12.16 ± 0.1 | 12.22 ± 0.09 | 12.31 ± 0.01 | 12.47 ± 0.09 |
| Fat (% d.m.) | 1.03 ± 0.05 | 1.20 ± 0.06 | 1.31 ± 0.07 | 1.43 ± 0.06 | 1.55 ± 0.07 |
| Raw fiber (% d.m.) | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 4.47 ± 0.21 | 6.03 ± 0.32 | 7.65 ± 0.47 | 9.27 ± 0.56 |
| Sugars (% d.m.) | 1.98 ± 0.12 | 1.36 ± 0.13 | 1.53 ± 0.14 | 1.74 ± 0.15 | 1.95 ± 0.16 |
| Potassium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 187.13 ± 0.75 | 192.32 ± 0.88 | 195.79 ± 0.93 | 199.25 ± 1.02 | 202.71 ± 1.11 |
| Magnesium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 47.73 ± 0.55 | 58.23 ± 0.68 | 65.23 ± 0.71 | 72.24 ± 0.78 | 79.24 ± 0.79 |
| Calcium (mg/100 g d.m.) | 43.81 ± 0.59 | 54.67 ± 0.89 | 61.91 ± 0.96 | 69.16 ± 1.07 | 76.40 ± 1.29 |
| Iron (mg/100 g d.m.) | 1.11 ± 0.02 | 1.10 ± 0.02 | 1.09 ± 0.02 | 1.08 ± 0.02 | 1.07 ± 0.02 |
| Zinc (mg/100 g d.m.) | 5.43 ± 0.22 | 5.29 ± 0.20 | 5.20 ± 0.20 | 5.10 ± 0.18 | 5.01 ± 0.16 |
| Copper (mg/100 g d.m.) | 0.18 ± 0.09 | 0.20 ± 0.10 | 0.22 ± 0.11 | 0.23 ± 0.12 | 0.25 ± 0.13 |
Note: The values obtained are the average of three consecutive determinations ± SD.
Rheological characteristics of 100% wheat flour and flour mixtures.
| P0 (100% Wheat Flour) | P1 (97% Wheat Flour + 3% Grape Seed Flour) | P2 (95% Wheat Flour + 5% Grape Seed Flour) | P3 (93% Wheat Flour + 7% Grape Seed Flour) | P4 (91% Wheat Flour + 9% Grape Seed Flour) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water Absorption (%) | 58.2 ± 0.06 a | 58.0 ± 0.06 a | 56.7 ± 0.1 b | 56.2 ± 0.11 c | 55.8 ± 0.08 d |
| Stability (min) | 8.50 ± 0.33 a | 9.10 ± 0.26 a,b | 9.26 ± 0.18 b,c | 9.48 ± 0.13 b,c | 9.83 ± 0.22 b,c,d |
| Amplitude (Nm) | 0.100 ± 0.01 a | 0.104 ± 0.01 a | 0.081 ± 0.01 a | 0.078 ± 0.01 a,b | 0.075 ± 0.01 a,b |
| α | −0.066 ± 0.003 a | −0.074 ± 0.002 b | −0.086 ± 0.002 c | −0.094 ± 0.003 d | −0.104 ± 0.002 e |
| β | 0.576 ± 0.003 a | 0.588 ± 0.004 b | 0.604 ± 0.005 c | 0.618 ± 0.004 d | 0.630 ± 0.005 e |
| γ | −0.100 ± 0.002 a | −0.118 ± 0.003 b | −0.136 ± 0.003 c | −0.164 ± 0.010 d | −0.198 ± 0.010 e |
| C1 | 1.143 ± 0.01 a | 1.065 ± 0.03 b | 1.074 ± 0.01 b | 1.081 ± 0.02 b | 1.068 ± 0.03 b |
| C2 | 0.461 ± 0.02 a | 0.469 ± 0.01 a | 0.468 ± 0.01 a | 0.428 ± 0.02 a | 0.416 ± 0.03 a |
| C3 | 2.041 ± 0.01 a | 2.090 ± 0.02 a,b | 2.106 ± 0.01 a,b | 2.129 ± 0.01 a,b | 2.211 ± 0.02 b |
| C4 | 1.553 ± 0.01 a | 1.479 ± 0.01 b | 1.458 ± 0.01 b,c | 1.436 ± 0.02 c | 1.429 ± 0.02 c |
| C5 | 3.131 ± 0.09 a | 3.083 ± 0.1 a | 3.009 ± 0.12 a | 2.873 ± 0.08 a,b | 2.632 ± 0.11 b |
Note: Values are the means of triplicate determinations. The results are presented as mean values ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Experimental results obtained from rheological and enzymatic analyses performed with the Mixolab apparatus Chopin + protocol for the five flour samples.
| Mixolab Parameters, Chopin + Protocol | Samples of Flour Mixtures | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | ||
| Phase 1 | C1 (Nm) | 1.143 ± 0.01 a | 1.065 ± 0.03 b | 1.074 ± 0.01 b | 1.081 ± 0.02 b | 1.068 ± 0.03 b |
| TC1 (min) | 1.20 ± 0.1 a | 1.22 ± 0.08 a | 1.12 ± 0.07 b | 1.09 ± 0.1 b | 1.05 ± 0.1 c | |
| Phase 2 | C2 (Nm) | 0.461 ± 0.02 a | 0.469 ± 0.01 a | 0.468 ± 0.01 a | 0.428 ± 0.02 a | 0.416 ± 0.03 a |
| TC2 (min) | 16.62 ± 0.13 a | 16.68 ± 0.11 a | 16.40 ± 0.08 a | 16.63 ± 0.12 a | 17.00 ± 0.08 a | |
| C1-C2 (Nm) | 0.682 ± 0.01 a | 0.596 ± 0.02 b | 0.606 ± 0.01 b | 0.653 ± 0.01 a | 0.652 ± 0.02 a | |
| Phase 3 | C3 (Nm) | 2.041 ± 0.01 a | 2.090 ± 0.02 a,b | 2.106 ± 0.01 a,b | 2.129 ± 0.01 a,b | 2.211 ± 0.02 b |
| TC3 (min) | 24.75 ± 0.48 a | 24.30 ± 0.30 a | 24.08 ± 0.24 a | 23.63 ± 0.05 a | 23.62 ± 0.04 a | |
| C3-C2 (Nm) | 1.58 ± 0.01 a | 1.621 ± 0.01 b | 1.638 ± 0.01 b | 1.701 ± 0.02 b | 1.795 ± 0.02 c | |
| Phase 4 | C4 (Nm) | 1.553 ± 0.01 a | 1.479 ± 0.01 b | 1.458 ± 0.01 b,c | 1.436 ± 0.02 c | 1.429 ± 0.02 c |
| TC4 (min) | 30.95 ± 0.18 a | 30.67 ± 0.12 a | 29.95 ± 0.10 a | 29.43 ± 0.08 a,b | 28.75 ± 0.06 b | |
| C3-C4 (Nm) | 0.488 ± 0.01 a | 0.611 ± 0.01 b | 0.648 ± 0.01 b | 0.693 ± 0.02 c | 0.782 ± 0.02 d | |
| Phase 5 | C5 (Nm) | 3.131 ± 0.09 a | 3.083 ± 0.10 a | 3.009 ± 0.12 a | 2.873 ± 0.08 a,b | 2.632 ± 0.11 b |
| TC5 (min) | 45.02 ± 0.01 a | 45.02 ± 0.01 a | 45.02 ± 0.01 a | 45.02 ± 0.01 a | 45.02 ± 0.01 a | |
| C5-C4 (Nm) | 1.578 ± 0.01 a | 1.604 ± 0.01 a | 1.551 ± 0.01 b | 1.437 ± 0.01 c | 1.203 ± 0.01 d | |
Note: Values are the means of triplicate determinations. The results are presented as mean values ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 1The influence of the substitution level of grape seed flour on the Mixolab curves.
Physicochemical indicators of experimental breads with the addition of GSF.
| Sample | Mass | Specific Volume (cm3/100 g) | Porosity (%) | Elasticity (%) | Flavor | Humidity (%) | Acidity (degree) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P0: 0% | 0.680 | 290 | 84.3 | 95 | Pleasant, characteristic of well-baked white bread | 43.7 | 1.2 |
| P1: 3% | 0.675 | 278 | 82 | 92 | Pleasant, similar to black bread, well baked | 42.3 | 1.6 |
| P2: 5% | 0.681 | 220 | 61 | 92 | Aroma of wine, sticky to chew | 41.1 | 1.9 |
| P3: 7% | 0.672 | 208 | 56.8 | 87 | Strong smell and taste of wine, sticky to chew, a slight feeling of sand, annoying | 39.8 | 2.0 |
| P4: 9% | 0.674 | 197 | 50.8 | 83 | Strong odor and taste of yeast, sticky to chew, intense sandy feeling, annoying | 37.6 | 2.2 |
Figure 2Bread slices of samples P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4.
Summary of scores obtained by the panel evaluation of bread samples with the addition of GSF.
| Sensorial Attribute | Crust Color | Core Color | The Uniformity of the Core Pores | The Softness of the Core | The Core Crumbliness | Bitter Taste | Salty Taste | Sour Taste | Specific Aroma | Persistence of Aroma after Chewing and Swallowing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | ||||||||||
| P0: 0% | 1.51 | 1.17 | 3.51 | 4.32 | 2.16 | 1.17 | 1.42 | 1.42 | 2.66 | 1.66 |
| P1: 3% | 2.05 | 3.67 | 3.62 | 4.12 | 2.99 | 1.21 | 1.46 | 2.12 | 2.73 | 2.02 |
| P2: 5% | 2.57 | 4.06 | 3.87 | 3.88 | 3.84 | 1.87 | 1.49 | 2.46 | 2.81 | 2.78 |
| P3: 7% | 3.04 | 4.42 | 4.02 | 3.67 | 4.32 | 2.54 | 1.50 | 2.79 | 2.9 | 3.53 |
| P4: 9% | 3.48 | 4.81 | 4.21 | 3.47 | 4.63 | 3.01 | 1.52 | 3.14 | 3.03 | 4.37 |
| PN | 3.63 | 3.53 | 4.19 | 3.52 | 3.68 | 2.26 | 1.58 | 2.03 | 3.68 | 2.76 |
Figure 3Results of sensory analysis of bread samples with the addition of GSF.
Figure 4Results of the hedonic test of bread samples with the addition of GSF.
Synthesis of nutritional indicators for the studied baking samples.
| Quality Indicator | Total Fiber (g/100 g) | Ca (% of RDI) | Mg (% of RDI) | K (% of RDI) | Cu (% of RDI) | Fe (% of RDI) | Zn (% of RDI) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P0: control sample WF type 480 | 1.46 | 3.95 | 10.54 | 7.29 | 14.00 | 5.86 | “rich in Zn” | 38.8 ** | ||||
| P1: 97% WF + 3% GSF a | Commercial use | “source of fiber” | 3.51 * | 4.95 | 12.74 | 7.52 | “source of Cu” | 15.00 * | 6.00 | 37.1 ** | ||
| P2: 95% WF + 5% GSF a | 4.24 * | 5.51 | 12.94 | 7.78 | 16.00 * | 6.07 | 37.4 ** | |||||
| P3: 93% WF + 7% GSF b | Medical use | 5.54 * | 6.68 | “source of Mg” | 15.01 * | 8.42 | 17.00 * | 6.21 | 37.7 ** | |||
| P4: 91% WF + 9% GSF c | Special use | “rich in fiber” | 7.37 ** | 7.43 | 15.83 * | 8.59 | 19.00 * | 6.43 | 39.8 ** | |||
Note: * 15% of the RDI, “source of…”; ** 30% of the RDI, “rich in…”; a—commercial use; b—medical use; c—special use (food banks, military use, etc.).