4.5 Article

Roasting temperature impact on bioactive compounds and PAHs in Carob powder (Ceratonia siliqua L.)

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13197-021-04989-7

关键词

Organoleptic properties; Polyphenols; Flavonoids; Ceratonia siliqua L; Dietary fibers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the impact of roasting temperatures on carob pods powder, showing significant changes in chemical composition and sensory properties. Roasting at 120 and 150 degrees Celsius resulted in the best taste and overall acceptability.
The impact of roasting temperatures (100, 120, 150 and 180 degrees for 25 min) on the bioactive compounds, sensory and physicochemical properties of carob pods powder as well as the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons content (PAHs) were studied. The study also investigated whether roasting the dried carob pods (PO) or dried carob powder (CPW) is better used in the food industry. Increasing roasting temperatures resulted in several changes in the chemical composition of carob pods powder, as evidenced by significantly lower water content, protein, fat, total sugar and pH values. This increase also was accompanied by a significant increase in ash, fibers, total polyphenols, total flavonoids, and condensed tannins contents. Raw carob powder and roasted powder at 180 degrees C showed the least acceptable organoleptic properties while roasting powders at 120 and 150 degrees C showed the best results in terms of taste, color, odor, texture, and overall acceptability. PAHs ranged from 3.37 to 22.59 mu g/kg, and carcinogenic PAHs ranged from 1.38 to 10.16 mu g/kg of roasted carob powder. The difference among the detected levels in different roasting degrees was significant (P <= 0.5). Carob powder roasted at 180 degrees C had a total PAHs content higher than other samples roasted at lower temperatures. Roasting at higher temperatures was not acceptable and not applicable due to the occurred partial carbonization and undesired sensorial characteristics formation.

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

4.5
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