4.7 Article

Effect of grape pomace powder addition on chemical, nutritional and technological properties of cakes

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109950

关键词

Anthocyanins; Antioxidant capacity; Phenolics; Sensorial analysis; Vitis vinifera; Apigenin; (PubChem CID 5280443); Catechin (PubChem CID 9064); Ellagic acid (PubChem CID 5281855); Gallic acid (PubChem CID 370); Kaempferol (PubChem CID 5280863); Myricetin (PubChem CID 5281672); Protocatechuic acid (PubChem CID 72); Quercetin (PubChem CID 5280343); Tyrosol (PubChem CID 10393)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of the research was to study the influence of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomace powder, a by-product of wine manufacturing, on chemical composition, nutritional properties and physical characteristics of cakes prepared replacing bread wheat flour with 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% grape pomace powder. The addition of growing quantities of grape pomace powder gradually increased ash, lipid, proteins, fibres, free phenolics, anthocyanins and total polyphenol content as well as antioxidant capacity (DPPH, FRAP), while decreased moisture and pH. The main phenolics provided by grape pomace were catechin, gallic acid, quercitin, protocatechuic acid, kaempferol and apigenin. The phenolic acids and flavonoids content increased from 4.1 mg/kg DM (control) to 26.4-60.9 mg/kg DM (cake with 4%-10% grape pomace powder). The colour coordinates L* and a* diminished, while b* augmented. The cake containing 4% grape pomace powder showed the best sensory quality. The addition of grape pomace powder significantly improved the content in free phenolics, highly bioavailable, that are scarce in bread wheat, and thus the nutritional value of cakes without penalising their technological and sensorial attributes. Therefore, grape pomace powder utilisation will give foods with nutritionally enhanced properties; additionally, its utilisation will alleviate the ecological problems connected to its disposal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据