| Literature DB >> 36217468 |
Getaneh Firew Alemayehu1,2, Sirawdink Fikreyesus Forsido1, Yetenayet B Tola1, Endale Amare3.
Abstract
Oat (Avena sativa) is well-known for its nutritional value and health-promoting properties. There are only a few oat-based value-added products on the market in Ethiopia, and this study attempted to develop a new product that is both nutritionally enhanced and sensory acceptable, therefore, the objective of this study was to optimize the nutritional and sensory properties of a beverage made from oat, lupine (Lupinus albus), stinging nettle (Urtica simensis), and premix. D-optimal mixture experimental design was used to generate 11 runs applying the following constraints: 60-70% toasted oat, 10-25% roasted and soaked de-bittered white lupine, 5-15% boiled stinging nettle leaves, and 10% premix (flour of toasted black cardamom (2.8%), malted wheat (2.8%), pumpkin (2.6%), spiced chili peppers (1.1%), and table salt (0.7%). Statistical model evaluation and optimization were carried out using Minitab 19 software. The nutritional composition of the product was assessed, and results show that increasing the proportion of oat flour in the blend resulted in a significant (p < 0.05) increase in fat, carbohydrate, gross energy, and mineral contents (Fe, Zn). An increase in lupine flour increased crude protein, crude fiber, gross energy, phytate, tannin, oxalate, and antinutrient to mineral molar ratios. In contrast increased in stinging nettle leaf powder increased the ash and beta-carotene contents. Sensory of 11 composite sample beverages and control (90% oat plus 10% premix) were also carried out by 50 untrained panelists. Consequently, eight responses were optimized: protein, fat, Fe, Zn, beta-carotene, taste, appearance, and overall acceptability. The optimal blending ratio obtained was 70% oats, 11.3% lupine, 8.7% stinging nettle flour, and 10.0% premix. The study's findings suggested that the optimal combination of these traditionally processed ingredients in a beverage can be considered a valuable food with the potential to improve diet quality.Entities:
Keywords: Composite flour; Fermentation; Lupine; Oat-based beverage; Stinging nettle; Toasting
Year: 2022 PMID: 36217468 PMCID: PMC9547211 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10771
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
The percentage ratio and actual weight (gram) of the ingredients in 11 blended beverages and control.
| Run | Components (%) | Run | Components (g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oat | Lupine | Stinging nettle | Premix | Oat | Lupine | Stinging nettle | Premix | ||
| 1 | 65 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 115.6 | 17.8 | 26.7 | 17.8 |
| 2 | 70 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 124.5 | 26.7 | 8.9 | 17.8 |
| 3 | 62.5 | 15 | 12.5 | 10 | 3 | 111.1 | 26.7 | 22.2 | 17.8 |
| 4 | 65 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 115.6 | 26.7 | 17.8 | 17.8 |
| 5 | 62.5 | 20 | 7.5 | 10 | 5 | 111.1 | 35.6 | 13.3 | 17.8 |
| 6 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 6 | 106.7 | 26.7 | 26.7 | 17.8 |
| 7 | 65 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 7 | 115.6 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 17.8 |
| 8 | 60 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 106.7 | 44.5 | 8.9 | 17.8 |
| 9 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 124.5 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 17.8 |
| 10 | 67.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 120.0 | 22.2 | 17.8 | 17.8 |
| 11 | 67.5 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 11 | 120.0 | 26.7 | 13.3 | 17.8 |
| Control | 90% oat (control) 10 | Control | 160.0 | 0 | 0 | 17.8 | |||
Proximate composition, calorific value, minerals, beta-carotene contents of oat-based beverages (dry base).
| Run | Components (%) | Proximate (g/100 g DW) | Energy (kcal/100 g DW) | Minerals (mg/100 g DW) | β-car (μg/g DW) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oat | Lup. | S.N | Prem. | Moisture | Protein | Fat | Fiber | Ash | Total CHO | Ca | Fe | Zn | |||
| 1 | 65 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 9.5 ± 0.10 | 16.6 ± 0.53 | 7.5 ± 0.27 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 3.3 ± 0.10 | 72.6 ± 1.75 | 416.7 ± 1.22 | 52 ± 1.00 | 3.7 ± 0.10 | 3.5 ± 0.17 | 11.5 ± 0.10 |
| 2 | 70 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 10.5 ± 0.10 | 19.9 ± 0.46 | 10.1 ± 0.53 | 3.6 ± 0.27 | 3.1 ± 0.17 | 66.9 ± 0.30 | 430.9 ± 3.61 | 55 ± 2.65 | 4.2 ± 0.10 | 4.2 ± 0.27 | 8.0 ± 0.20 |
| 3 | 62.5 | 15 | 12.5 | 10 | 9.4 ± 0.10 | 18.8 ± 0.52 | 8.9 ± 0.27 | 3.3 ± 0.17 | 3.2 ± 0.10 | 69.1 ± 0.66 | 425.1 ± 1.47 | 47 ± 1.73 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 3.7 ± 0.10 | 11.1 ± 0.35 |
| 4 | 65 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 9.7 ± 0.17 | 19.4 ± 0.46 | 10 ± 0.70 | 3.2 ± 0.56 | 3 ± 0.17 | 67.6 ± 1.18 | 431.6 ± 3.29 | 48 ± 1.32 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 10.8 ± 0.30 |
| 5 | 62.5 | 20 | 7.5 | 10 | 10.2 ± 0.10 | 20 ± 0.46 | 9.6 ± 0.20 | 3.9 ± 0.27 | 3 ± 0.20 | 67.4 ± 0.27 | 428.2 ± 2.31 | 48 ± 0.87 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 3.7 ± 0.17 | 9.5 ± 0.10 |
| 6 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 10 ± 0.62 | 18.7 ± 0.56 | 8.4 ± 0.56 | 3.9 ± 0.20 | 3.4 ± 0.36 | 69.5 ± 1.18 | 420.6 ± 2.86 | 48.5 ± 0.61 | 3.6 ± 0.10 | 3.4 ± 0.17 | 11.4 ± 0.70 |
| 7 | 65 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 9.5 ± 0.17 | 18.1 ± 0.80 | 9.7 ± 0.10 | 3.1 ± 0.10 | 3.2 ± 0.10 | 69 ± 0.90 | 429.5 ± 0.82 | 48 ± 0.35 | 4.1 ± 0.35 | 3.9 ± 0.10 | 11.2 ± 0.17 |
| 8 | 60 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 9.5 ± 0.10 | 20.2 ± 0.92 | 8.8 ± 0.10 | 3.9 ± 0.27 | 3 ± 0.17 | 68 ± 1.32 | 424.2 ± 0.87 | 45 ± 0.20 | 3.8 ± 0.10 | 3.5 ± 0.17 | 7.5 ± 0.17 |
| 9 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10.4 ± 0.17 | 17.2 ± 0.27 | 9.9 ± 0.36 | 2.8 ± 0.10 | 3.1 ± 0.30 | 69.8 ± 0.36 | 431.5 ± 3.06 | 55 ± 0.35 | 5 ± 0.44 | 4.4 ± 0.10 | 11 ± 0.17 |
| 10 | 67.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 10 | 10 ± 0.20 | 18 ± 0.56 | 9.8 ± 0.30 | 2.9 ± 0.10 | 2.9 ± 0.17 | 69.3 ± 0.60 | 431.6 ± 0.82 | 51 ± 3.47 | 4 ± 0.36 | 4.1 ± 0.10 | 10.6 ± 0.17 |
| 11 | 67.5 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 10 ± 0.35 | 19.4 ± 0.36 | 9.8 ± 0.10 | 2.9 ± 0.27 | 2.9 ± 0.00 | 67.9 ± 0.44 | 431.6 ± 0.36 | 51 ± 0.44 | 4 ± 0.17 | 4.1 ± 0.27 | 9.2 ± 0.17 |
| 90% oat (control) 10 | 9.8 ± 0.44 | 14.8 ± 0.56 | 10.2 ± 0.17 | 2.2 ± 0.10 | 1.8 ± 0.27 | 73.2 ± 0.35 | 439.4 ± 1.95 | 40 ± 0.95 | 3.3 ± 0.10 | 2.5 ± 0.27 | 7.3 ± 0.17 | ||||
Values are means ± standard deviation of 3 analyses. The sum of oats, lupine, and stinging nettle in a run amounted to 90%, and 10% was the premix in all the runs. Lup: lupine, S.N: stinging nettle, Prem: premix, CHO: carbohydrate; β-car: β-carotene.
Analysis of variance p-value of nutritional composition and sensory properties of the beverage prepared from blends of oat, lupine, and stinging nettle.
| Regression Model | Proximate | Energy | Minerals | β-Carotene | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture | Protein | Fat | Fiber | Ash | Total CHO | Ca | Fe | Zn | β-car | ||
| Lineara | 0.427 | 0.048 | 0.074 | 0.072 | 0.036 | 0.298 | 0.02 | 0.012 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.01 |
| Quadratica | 0.237 | 0.003 | 0.043 | 0.125 | 0.082 | 0.200 | 0.019 | 0.011 | 0.036 | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Oat∗Lupine | 0.19 | 0.035 | 0.796 | 0.604 | 0.327 | 0.479 | 0.823 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.036 | 0.425 |
| Oat∗Stinging nettle | 0.144 | 0.347 | 0.113 | 0.066 | 0.018 | 0.714 | 0.028 | 0.005 | 0.851 | 0.233 | 0.005 |
| Lupine∗Stinging nettle | 0.419 | 0.055 | 0.011 | 0.044 | 0.117 | 0.021 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.088 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 0.47 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.64 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.98 | |
CHO: carbohydrate; β-car: β-carotene. Model fitting method used is mixture regression. Regression p-value ≤ 0.05 indicates the model explains variation in the response.
Anti-nutrients and molar ratios of anti-nutrients to minerals of oat-based beverages.
| Run | Components (%) | Antinutrients (mg/100 g DW) | Molar ratios of antinutrients to minerals | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oat | Lup. | S.N | Prem. | Phy | Tan | Ox | (Phy: Ca)1 | (Ox: Ca)2 | (Phy: Fe)3 | (Phy: Zn)4 | (Phy∗Ca: Zn)5 | |
| 1 | 65 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 164 ± 2.65 | 17 ± 1.35 | 16 ± 0.66 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 3.75 ± 0.07 | 4.64 ± 0.22 | 6.02 ± 0.18 |
| 2 | 70 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 170 ± 1.37 | 21 ± 0.78 | 23 ± 0.35 | 0.19 0 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 3.42 ± 0.11 | 4.02 ± 0.27 | 5.51 ± 0.37 |
| 3 | 62.5 | 15 | 12.5 | 10 | 169 ± 1.00 | 21 ± 0.35 | 22 ± 0.70 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 3.76 ± 0.12 | 4.52 ± 0.10 | 5.31 ± 0.11 |
| 4 | 65 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 169 ± 2.02 | 20 ± 0.61 | 21 ± 1.73 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 3.76 ± 0.12 | 4.41 ± 0.08 | 5.28 ± 0.10 |
| 5 | 62.5 | 20 | 7.5 | 10 | 173 ± 0.82 | 23 ± 0.52 | 24 ± 0.46 | 0.22 ± 0.00 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 3.85 ± 0.12 | 4.63 ± 0.19 | 5.55 ± 0.13 |
| 6 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 171 ± 0.82 | 22 ± 0.44 | 20 ± 0.17 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | 0.19 ± 0.00 | 4.02 ± 0.13 | 4.99 ± 0.23 | 6.04 ± 0.20 |
| 7 | 65 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 166 ± 1.51 | 19 ± 0.46 | 19 ± 0.53 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | 0.18 ± 0.00 | 3.42 ± 0.26 | 4.22 ± 0.12 | 5.05 ± 0.09 |
| 8 | 60 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 173 ± 1.23 | 24 ± 0.78 | 25 ± 1.25 | 0.23 ± 0.00 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 3.85 ± 0.10 | 4.91 ± 0.22 | 5.5 ± 0.27 |
| 9 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 163 ± 0.36 | 19 ± 1.14 | 15 ± 0.40 | 0.18 ± 0.00 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 2.77 ± 0.26 | 3.67 ± 0.08 | 5.04 ± 0.11 |
| 10 | 67.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 10 | 168 ± 0.92 | 19 ± 0.44 | 19 ± 0.46 | 0.2 ± 0.00 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 3.57 ± 0.33 | 4.06 ± 0.09 | 5.16 ± 0.27 |
| 11 | 67.5 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 169 ± 0.36 | 20 ± 0.46 | 22 ± 0.17 | 0.2 ± 0.00 | 0.2 ± 0.00 | 3.58 ± 0.15 | 4.09 ± 0.25 | 5.21 ± 0.33 |
| 90% oat (control) | 10 | 197.4 ± 1.39 | 28.5 ± 0.46 | 31.4 ± 0.44 | 0.3 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 5.06 ± 0.13 | 7.89 ± 0.86 | 7.86 ± 0.81 | |||
Values are means ± standard deviation of 3 analyses. The sum of oats, lupine, and stinging nettle in a run amounted to 90%, and 10% was the premix in all the runs. Lup: lupine, S.N: stinging nettle, Prem: premix, Phy: phytate; Tan: tannin; Ox: Oxalate; (Phy: Ca)1: molar ratio of phytate to calcium; (Ox: Ca)2: molar ratio of oxalate to calcium; (Phy: Fe)3: molar ratio of phytate to iron; (Phy: Zn)4: molar ratio of phytate to zinc; (Phy∗Ca: Zn)5: mole of phytate∗mole of calcium/mole of zinc.
Analysis of variance p-value of antinutritional and the molar ratio of anti-nutrient to minerals of sample beverages prepared from blends of oat, lupine, stinging nettle, and premix.
| Regression Model | Anti-nutrients | Molar ratio of Anti-nutrient to Minerals | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phytate | Tannin | Oxalate | (Phy:Ca)1 | (Ox: Ca)2 | (Phy: Fe)3 | (Phy: Zn)4 | (Phy∗Ca: Zn)5 | |
| Lineara | 0.207 | 0.016 | 0.018 | 0.119 | 0.026 | 0.051 | 0.093 | 0.046 |
| Quadratica | 0.021 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.108 | 0.011 | 0.068 | 0.089 | 0.089 |
| Oat∗Lupine | 0.222 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.172 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.077 | 0.657 |
| Oat∗Stinging nettle | 0.201 | 0.011 | 0.806 | 0.041 | 0.126 | 0.824 | 0.51 | 0.039 |
| Lupine∗Stinging nettle | 0.288 | 0.012 | 0.689 | 0.122 | 0.241 | 0.186 | 0.63 | 0.037 |
| R2 (adjusted) | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.9 | 0.91 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.59 |
Notes: Model fitting method used is mixture regression. (Phy: Ca)1: molar ratio of phytate to calcium; (Ox: Ca)2: molar ratio of oxalate to calcium; (Phy: Fe)3: molar ratio of phytate to iron; (Phy: Zn)4: molar ratio of phytate to zinc; (Phy∗Ca: Zn)5: mole of phytate∗mole of calcium/mole of zinc.
Sensory scores of beverages made from flours of oats, lupine, stinging nettle, and premix.
| Run | Components (%) | Sensory Analysis | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oat | Lup. | S.N | Prem. | Taste | Appearance | Aroma | Mouth feel | consistency | Overall Acceptance | |
| 1 | 65 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 3.8 ± 0.13 | 3.8 ± 0.81 | 3.2 ± 0.14 | 3.3 ± 0.11 | 3.9 ± 0.11 | 3.7 ± 0.21 |
| 2 | 70 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 4.2 ± 0.21 | 4.2 ± 0.55 | 3.5 ± 0.22 | 3.6 ± 0.17 | 4.5 ± 0.23 | 4.3 ± 0.36 |
| 3 | 62.5 | 15 | 12.5 | 10 | 3.8 ± 0.31 | 3.7 ± 0.09 | 3.3 ± 0.61 | 3.3 ± 0.52 | 3.9 ± 0.54 | 3.6 ± 0.51 |
| 4 | 65 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 3.7 ± 0.11 | 3.7 ± 0.14 | 3.1 ± 1.22 | 3.0 ± 0.29 | 4.0 ± 0.12 | 3.6 ± 0.33 |
| 5 | 62.5 | 20 | 7.5 | 10 | 3.6 ± 0.09 | 4.0 ± 0.36 | 3.0 ± 1.30 | 3.0 ± 0.13 | 3.9 ± 0.09 | 3.7 ± 0.42 |
| 6 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 3.6 ± 0.05 | 3.5 ± 1.42 | 3.1 ± 1.42 | 3.2 ± 1.24 | 3.8 ± 0.08 | 3.5 ± 0.12 |
| 7 | 65 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 3.7 ± 0.12 | 3.6 ± 0.99 | 3.1 ± 0.98 | 3.1 ± 1.13 | 3.9 ± 0.12 | 3.8 ± 1.23 |
| 8 | 60 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 4.5 ± 0.25 | 4.5 ± 1.30 | 3.0 ± 0.99 | 3.1 ± 0.84 | 3.7 ± 1.30 | 4.0 ± 0.23 |
| 9 | 70 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 4.5 ± 0.07 | 4.2 ± 1.51 | 3.5 ± 1.21 | 3.6 ± 0.31 | 4.5 ± 0.83 | 4.2 ± 0.12 |
| 10 | 67.5 | 12.5 | 10 | 10 | 3.7 ± 0.04 | 3.8 ± 0.84 | 3.2 ± 0.52 | 3.5 ± 0.14 | 4.1 ± 0.21 | 3.9 ± 0.13 |
| 11 | 67.5 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 3.8 ± 0.01 | 3.8 ± 0.34 | 3.3 ± 0.11 | 3.5 ± 0.34 | 4.0 ± 0.33 | 4.0 ± 0.12 |
| 90% oat (control) | 10 | 3.5 ± 0.24 | 3.6 ± 0.88 | 3.0 ± 0.90 | 3.6 ± 0.15 | 4.2 ± 0.12 | 3.9 ± 0.07 | |||
Values are mean ± standard deviation of 50 rankings on a five-point hedonic scale. Lup: lupine, S.N: stinging nettle, Prem: premix.
Analysis of variance p-value of nutritional composition and sensory properties of the beverage prepared from blends of oat, lupine, and stinging nettle.
| Regression Model | Sensory Analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taste | Appearance | Aroma | Mouth feel | Consistency | Overall acceptability | |
| Lineara | 0.021 | 0.027 | 0.342 | 0.345 | 0.222 | 0.053 |
| Quadratica | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.326 | 0.397 | 0.132 | 0.035 |
| Oat∗Lupine | 0.012 | 0.02 | 0.214 | 0.233 | 0.055 | 0.032 |
| Oat∗Stinging nettle | 0.093 | 0.147 | 0.112 | 0.139 | 0.077 | 0.038 |
| Lupine∗Stinging nettle | 0.332 | 0.08 | 0.991 | 0.768 | 0.411 | 0.123 |
| 0.77 | 0.89 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.87 | 0.91 | |
Notes: Model fitting method used is mixture regression. A regression p-value less than or equal to 0.05 indicates the model explains variation in the response.
Figure 1Overlaid contour plots that show the sweet spot for nutritional and sensory analysis. Notes; The white area shows the "sweet spot" that optimizes the response variables listed in the respective legends.