| Literature DB >> 36010510 |
Alessio Cimini1, Alessandro Poliziani1, Gabriele Antonelli1, Francesco Sestili2, Domenico Lafiandra2, Mauro Moresi1.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the main biochemical, technological, and nutritional properties of a few samples of fresh pasta composed of commercial common wheat flour blended with increasing percentages, ranging from 0 to 100%, of high-amylose wheat flour. Although the technological parameters of such samples remained practically constant, fresh pasta samples including 50 to 100% of high-amylose wheat flour were classifiable as foods with a low in vitro glycemic index of about 43%. However, only fresh pasta made of 100% high-amylose wheat flour exhibited a resistant starch-to-total starch ratio greater than 14% and was therefore eligible to claim a physiological effect of improved glucose metabolism after a meal, as according to EU Regulation 432/2012.Entities:
Keywords: amylose; consistency; cooking loss; egg-free fresh pasta; energy consumption; in vitro glycemic index; resistant starch
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010510 PMCID: PMC9407497 DOI: 10.3390/foods11162510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Chemical compositions of the high-amylose (HAWF) and type 00 (00 BWF) common wheat flours used in this work.
| Component | HAWF | 00 BWF | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture | 14.3 ± 0.1 a | 12.7 ± 0.1 b | g/100 g wet matter |
| Total starch (TS) | 64.5 ± 0.4 a | 73.0 ± 0.5 b | g/100 g wet matter |
| Resistant starch (RS) | 10.9 ± 0.7 a | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | g/100 g wet matter |
| Amylose (AM) | 54.4 ± 0.5 | n.d. | g/100 g wet matter |
| Raw protein (6.25 × N) | 10.8 ± 0.1 a | 11.5 ± 0.3 b | g/100 g wet matter |
| Fat | 2.1 ± 0.2 a | 2.0 ± 0.2 a | g/100 g wet matter |
| Fiber | n.d. | 2.5 ± 0.2 | g/100 g wet matter |
| Ash | 0.50 ± 0.00 a | 0.50 ± 0.00 a | g/100 g wet matter |
n.d.: not determined. Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among the mean values of the chemical composition of the fresh pasta samples differing in xF at the probability level of 0.05.
Effect of the percentage (xF) of high-amylose wheat flour (HAWF) in the flour mixture used to prepare fresh pasta samples on the main biochemical and technological properties of the pasta when cooked at different water-to-pasta ratios (WPR).
| Parameter | Fresh Pasta Enriched with High-Amylose Wheat Flour | Unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAWF content, xF | 0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | g/g |
| Moisture content, xW | 31.2 ± 0.5 a | 31.6 ± 0.3 a | 30.7 ± 0.9 a | 30.8 ± 0.8 a | 32.6 ± 0.8 a | % |
| Total starch content, xTS | 80.0 ± 1.2 a | 78.9 ± 0.2 a | 77.4 ± 1.6 b | 77.0 ± 1.4 b | 77.0 ± 1.1 b | % |
| Resistant starch content, xRS | 0.59 ± 0.01 a | 1.8 ± 0.2 b | 3.64 ± 0.02 c | 6.3 ± 0.2 d | 11.3 ± 0.3 e | % |
| Optimal cooking time, OCT | 3.5 ± 0.3 a | 3.5 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.2 a | min |
| Water uptake, WU | 0.74 ± 0.02 a | 0.70 ± 0.02 a | 0.68 ± 0.02 a | 0.67 ± 0.07 a | 0.80 ± 0.02 b | g/g |
| Cooking loss, CL | 0.070 ± 0.002 a,b | 0.058 ± 0.007 b | 0.077 ± 0.015 a | 0.087 ± 0.011 a | 0.086 ± 0.016 a | g/g |
| Optimal cooking time, OCT | 3.5 ± 0.3 a | 3.5 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.3 a | 3.0 ± 0.2 a | min |
| Water uptake, WU | 0.75 ± 0.05 a | 0.74 ± 0.12 a | 0.69 ± 0.08 a | 0.74 ± 0.04 a | 0.74 ± 0.04 a | g/g |
| Cooking loss, CL | 0.047 ± 0.006 c | 0.044 ± 0.001 c | 0.054 ± 0.005 b,c | 0.059 ± 0.002 b | 0.076 ± 0.009 a | g/g |
Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant difference among the parameter means of the fresh pasta samples differing in xF at the probability level of 0.05.
Figure 1Effect of the percentage (xF) of high-amylose wheat flour in the flour mixture used to prepare fresh pasta samples on the total starch (xTS: ○) and resistant starch (xRS: △) weight fractions of the pasta.
Effect of the percentage (xF) of high-amylose wheat flour in the flour mixture used to prepare fresh pasta samples on the textural properties of cooked pasta strands when using different water-to-pasta ratios (WPR).
| Parameter | Fresh Pasta Enriched with High-Amylose Wheat Flour | Unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAWF content, xF | 0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | g/g |
| Hardness, F30 | 2.2 ± 0.8 b | 3.1 ± 0.1 a | 3.7 ± 0.4 a | 3.9 ± 0.1 a | 3.9 ± 0.6 a | N |
| Hardness, F90 | 11.3 ± 1.4 a,b | 13.3 ± 1.0 a | 12.8 ± 1.1 a | 11.8 ± 0.7 a | 9.2 ± 2.3 b | N |
| Springiness, S | 2.18 ± 0.08 a | 2.12 ± 0.03 a,b | 2.05 ± 0.04 b,c | 1.96 ± 0.04 c | 2.05 ± 0.07 b,c | mm |
| 12.1 ± 3.0 a | 14.3 ± 0.6 a | 11.8 ± 1.3 a | 11.9 ± 2.1 a | 11.6 ± 2.4 a | - | |
| Initial diameter, Ø | 2.46 ± 0.07 a | 2.36 ± 0.02 a,b | 2.30 ± 0.04 b | 2.20 ± 0.05 c | 2.29 ± 0.07 b | mm |
| Hardness, F30 | 2.8 ± 0.2 b | 3.2 ± 0.3 b | 3.9 ± 0.1 a | 4.1 ± 0.5 a | 3.3 ± 0.1 b | N |
| Hardness, F90 | 13.0 ± 0.6 a,b | 12.8 ± 1.7 a,b | 13.6 ± 0.5 a | 11.8 ± 0.7 b | 8.9 ± 0.5 c | N |
| Springiness, S | 2.12 ± 0.02 a | 2.07 ± 0.04 a,b | 2.04 ± 0.07 a,b,c | 1.96 ± 0.04 c | 1.97 ± 0.09 b,c | mm |
| 14.8 ± 0.1 a | 12.8 ± 1.1 b | 11.8 ± 2.0 b | 11.9 ± 2.4 b | 14.6 ± 2.3 a,b | - | |
| Initial diameter, Ø | 2.37 ± 0.02 a | 2.32 ± 0.06 a,b | 2.29 ± 0.07 a,b,c | 2.20 ± 0.05 c | 2.22 ± 0.09 b,c | mm |
Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among the parameter means of the fresh pasta samples differing in xF at the probability level of 0.05.
Figure 2Cooked fresh pasta samples made of common and high-amylose wheat flours, the percentage fraction (xF) of the latter being equal to 1 (a) or 0.7 (b) g/g.
Effect of the percentage (xF) of high-amylose wheat flour in the flour mixture used to prepare fresh pasta samples on the cooking energy needs (ES) and distribution of cooking water when using different water-to-pasta ratios (WPR).
| Parameter | Fresh Pasta Enriched with High-Amylose Wheat Flour | Unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAWF content, xF | 0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | g/g |
| Cooking energy, | 1.81 ± 0.01 a | 2.32 ± 0.03 b | 2.02 ± 0.05 b | 1.97 ± 0.24 a,b | 1.29 ± 0.04 c | kWh/kg |
| Perc. of pasta water, | 84.2 ± 0.5 a | 82.3 ± 0.2 a | 84.7 ± 0.6 a | 85.0 ± 2.9 b | 89.1 ± 0.1 c | % |
| Perc. of water absorbed, | 7.4 ± 0.2 a | 7.0 ± 0.2 a | 6.8 ± 0.2 a | 6.7 ± 0.7 a | 8.0 ± 0.2 b | % |
| Perc. of water evaporated, | 8.5 ± 0.3 a | 10.7 ± 0.0 a | 8.5 ± 0.4 a | 8.3 ± 2.2 a | 2.8 ± 0.2 b | % |
| Cooking energy, | 1.10 ± 0.06 a | 1.12 ± 0.08 a | 1.00 ± 0.03 a | 1.10 ± 0.04 a | 0.58 ± 0.01 b | kWh/kg |
| Perc. of pasta water, | 45 ± 6 a | 43 ± 8 a | 48 ± 4 a | 51 ± 9 a | 60 ± 2 b | % |
| Perc. of water absorbed, | 25 ± 2 a | 25 ± 4 a | 23 ± 3 a | 25 ± 1 a | 24 ± 1 a | % |
| Perc. of water evaporated, | 30 ± 4 a | 32 ± 4 a | 29 ± 2 a | 24 ± 7 a | 16 ± 1 b | % |
Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among the parameter means of the fresh pasta samples differing in xF at the probability level of 0.05.
Figure 3Time course of simulated in vitro starch digestion using white bread (✕, —) or cooked fresh pasta samples enriched with different percentages (xF) of high-amylose wheat flour (⬤, — ⋅ ⋅ —: xF = 0 g/g; ☐, - - -: xF = 0.2; g/g; △, ……: xF = 0.5 g/g; ◆, — ⋅ —: xF = 0.7 g/g; ∗, — ⋅ ⋅ —: xF = 1 g/g): comparison between the experimental concentrations of glucose released (CG: open or closed symbols) and those calculated (continuous, broken or dash-dotted lines) using the exponential model (Equation (4)) and corresponding empirical constants listed in Table 5 vs. time (t).
Modeling of the simulated starch digestion process of the target product (white bread) and a few fresh pasta samples containing different fractions (xF) of a high-amylose wheat flour via the exponential and Peleg models, as well as estimation of the areas (AUC) enclosed by the corresponding digestograms for a digestion time of 180 min by using the above mathematical models and trapezoidal rule, starch hydrolysis index (SHI) and in vitro glycemic index (GI).
| Parameter | White Bread | Fresh Pasta Enriched with High-Amylose Wheat Flour | Unit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| xF | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | g/g |
|
| 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.053 ± 0.02 | 0.019 ± 0.008 | 0.005 ± 0.007 | 0.021 ± 0.021 | ~0 | g/L |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.518 | 0.50 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.34 | g/L |
|
| 0.0145 | 0.0087 | 0.0094 | 0.0083 | 0.0063 | 0.0048 | min−1 |
| R2 | 0.916 | 0.975 | 0.940 | 0.995 | 0.986 | 0.988 | - |
|
| 68.3 a | 49.4 b | 39.8 c | 31.6 d | 29.7 d | 19.3 e | g min/L |
|
| 94 | 71 | 58 | 48 | 46 | 33 | % |
|
| |||||||
|
| 115 ± 22 a | 163 ± 10 b | 129 ± 41 a,b | 232 ± 13 c | 265 ± 22 c | 371 ± 37 d | L min/g |
|
| 1.9 ± 0.3 a | 1.9 ± 0.1 a | 2.5 ± 0.2 b | 2.3 ± 0.1 b | 2.5 ± 0.1 b | 2.7 ± 0.2 b | L/g |
|
| 0.88 | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.96 | - |
|
| 74.5 a | 53.2 b | 44.9 b | 34.1 d | 33.7 d | 22.9 e | g min/L |
|
| 94 | 70 | 60 | 48 | 47 | 35 | % |
|
| |||||||
|
| 77 ± 7 a | 51 ± 2 b | 46 ± 3 b | 34 ± 2 c | 32 ± 6 c,d | 27 ± 1 d | g min/L |
|
| 100 | 66 ± 2 a | 59 ± 3 b | 44 ± 2 c | 42 ± 8 c | 36 ± 1 c | % |
|
| 94 | 65 ± 2 a | 59 ± 3 b | 46 ± 2 c | 44 ± 7 c | 39 ± 1 c | % |
Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences among the parameter means of the fresh pasta samples differing in xF at the probability level of 0.05.