4.7 Article

Comparative study of the functional, thermal and pasting properties of flours from different field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) cultivars

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages 259-267

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.11.037

Keywords

flour; physicochemical; functional; thermal; pasting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physicochemical, functional, thermal and pasting properties of flours from field pea (LFP-48 and PG-3) and pigeon pea (AL-15 and AL-201) cultivars were determined and related to each other using Pearson correlation and principal component analysis (PCA). Field pea flours (FPF) were significantly (P < 0.05) different from pigeon pea flours (PPF) in their lower ash and higher fat and protein contents. FPF also exhibited higher L*, Delta E value, water solubility index (WSI), oil absorption capacity (OAC), foaming capacity (FC) and lower a*, b* value, water absorption index (WAI) and water absorption capacity (WAC) in comparison to PPF. FPF differed significantly from PPF in exhibiting lower transition temperatures (T-o, T-p, T-c), enthalpy of gelatinization (Delta H-gel), peak height index (PHI) and higher gelatinization temperature range (R). PCA showed that LFP-48 and PG-3 flours were located at the far left of the score plot with a large negative score, while the AL-15 and AL-201 flours had large positive scores in the first principal component. Several significant correlations between functional, thermal and pasting properties were revealed, both by Pearson correlation and PCA. Pasting properties of the flours, measured using the rapid visco analyzer (RVA), also differed significantly. PPF were observed to have higher pasting temperature (PT), peak viscosity (PV), trough viscosity (TV), breakdown (BV), final viscosity (FV) and lower setback viscosity (SV) as compared to FPF. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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