4.7 Article

Technological, sensory, nutritional and bioactive potential of pan breads produced with refined and whole grain buckwheat flours

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY-X
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100243

Keywords

Bread quality; Mineral bioaccessibility; Phenolic compounds; Starch hydrolysis

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [01P4531-13, 817163-2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluates the nutritional quality and bioactive potential of breads made with different ratios of buckwheat flour to wheat flour. The results show that breads made with whole buckwheat flour have higher mineral and fiber contents, while those made with refined buckwheat flour have higher bioaccessibility. The levels of rutin and quercetin increase after baking. The study also finds that breads with 30% buckwheat flour are well accepted by consumers.
The nutritional quality and bioactive potential of breads made with partial replacement of refined wheat flour (RWF) with 30% or 45% refined buckwheat flour (RBF) or whole buckwheat flour (WGBF) was assessed through mineral bioaccessibility, starch digestibility, dietary fiber content and bioactive potential by determining rutin and quercetin levels during processing. Moreover, technological quality and sensory acceptance were also evaluated. Breads made with 30% or 45% WGBF showed higher mineral and fiber contents compared to the control, while the formulations with RBF showed higher bioaccessibility. No changes were observed in the rutin levels of the dough before and after fermentation, but after baking, rutin and quercetin levels increased. The highest starch hydrolysis was found in the formulation containing 45% RBF. The formulations made with 30% RBF or 30% WGBF were well accepted by consumers. Our study shows interesting results, as few studies report the effect of processing on bioactive compounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available