Comparative study of physico-chemical composition, functional, morphological and pasting properties of major and minor millet flours as a gluten free alternative to wheat flour

Mohona Munshi, Kavya Dashora
{"title":"Comparative study of physico-chemical composition, functional, morphological and pasting properties of major and minor millet flours as a gluten free alternative to wheat flour","authors":"Mohona Munshi,&nbsp;Kavya Dashora","doi":"10.1016/j.meafoo.2024.100202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The present study compares the major (finger, sorghum, pearl) and minor millet flours (barnyard, foxtail, kodo, little, proso) with wheat flour for their nutritional (proximate, mineral and polyphenolic content), antinutritional, functional, morphological, and pasting properties. The millet flours protein content varied from 13.71 to 6.39 g/100 g, followed by ash content varied from 2 to 1.02 %, lipid varied from 1.62 to 5.68 %, carbohydrate 67.78–73.70 %, crude fibre 0.92–4.77 g/100 g and moisture 9.45–12.69 % as compared to the wheat flour having 12.07 g/100 g, 1.22 %, 1.67 %, 71.89 %, 2.26 g/100 g and 10.89%, respectively was determined using official protocols of AOAC (Association of official analytical chemists). Calcium was found to be significantly higher in finger millet flour 87.02mg/100 g. Atomic spectrometer, rapid-visco analyser (RVA), fourier transform infra- red spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscope (SEM) and differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) was used to measure minerals, pasting, functional, morphological and thermal properties respectively. The raw millet flours showed good pasting properties as in barnyard millet flour with 1216 cp peak viscosity and pearl millet flour having 88.05 °C pasting temperature which is approximately similar to the wheat flour used as control. The highest total phenolic content was found to be in finger millet flour i.e. 1318.12 mgGAE/100 g. The antinutritional factors namely tannin and phytic acid was lowest found to be in foxtail millet flour 8.03mg/100 g and 0.37mol g<sup>-1</sup>. Functional properties such as water holding capacity was found to be good in finger millet flour (3.12 g g<sup>-1</sup>) and oil holding capacity was good in kodo millet flour (2.50 g g<sup>-1</sup>), the foaming capacity was good in barnyard (4.11 %) whereas dispersibility was good in little millet flour (85.02 g/ml) compared to wheat flour. The FTIR revealed the presence of amide group and the presence of starch protein complex. The thermal analysis showed the presence of higher amounts of proteins and lipids in the minor millet flours. Significant differences (<em>p</em> ≤ 0.05) were also determined in most of the values of the millet flours. This present work on comparative study would contribute to reduce risk of over-reliance on staple gluten containing cereals, and to formulate and optimize healthy food products of different preferences from the above-mentioned gluten free nutritive flour in combinations or as alone.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100898,"journal":{"name":"Measurement: Food","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement: Food","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772275924000698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study compares the major (finger, sorghum, pearl) and minor millet flours (barnyard, foxtail, kodo, little, proso) with wheat flour for their nutritional (proximate, mineral and polyphenolic content), antinutritional, functional, morphological, and pasting properties. The millet flours protein content varied from 13.71 to 6.39 g/100 g, followed by ash content varied from 2 to 1.02 %, lipid varied from 1.62 to 5.68 %, carbohydrate 67.78–73.70 %, crude fibre 0.92–4.77 g/100 g and moisture 9.45–12.69 % as compared to the wheat flour having 12.07 g/100 g, 1.22 %, 1.67 %, 71.89 %, 2.26 g/100 g and 10.89%, respectively was determined using official protocols of AOAC (Association of official analytical chemists). Calcium was found to be significantly higher in finger millet flour 87.02mg/100 g. Atomic spectrometer, rapid-visco analyser (RVA), fourier transform infra- red spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscope (SEM) and differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) was used to measure minerals, pasting, functional, morphological and thermal properties respectively. The raw millet flours showed good pasting properties as in barnyard millet flour with 1216 cp peak viscosity and pearl millet flour having 88.05 °C pasting temperature which is approximately similar to the wheat flour used as control. The highest total phenolic content was found to be in finger millet flour i.e. 1318.12 mgGAE/100 g. The antinutritional factors namely tannin and phytic acid was lowest found to be in foxtail millet flour 8.03mg/100 g and 0.37mol g-1. Functional properties such as water holding capacity was found to be good in finger millet flour (3.12 g g-1) and oil holding capacity was good in kodo millet flour (2.50 g g-1), the foaming capacity was good in barnyard (4.11 %) whereas dispersibility was good in little millet flour (85.02 g/ml) compared to wheat flour. The FTIR revealed the presence of amide group and the presence of starch protein complex. The thermal analysis showed the presence of higher amounts of proteins and lipids in the minor millet flours. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were also determined in most of the values of the millet flours. This present work on comparative study would contribute to reduce risk of over-reliance on staple gluten containing cereals, and to formulate and optimize healthy food products of different preferences from the above-mentioned gluten free nutritive flour in combinations or as alone.
作为无麸质小麦粉替代品的主要小麦粉和次要小麦粉的理化成分、功能、形态和糊化性能比较研究
本研究比较了主要粟粉(手指粟、高粱粟、珍珠粟)和次要粟粉(稗子粟、狐尾粟、科多粟、小粟、原粟)与小麦粉的营养(近似物、矿物质和多酚含量)、抗营养、功能、形态和糊化特性。小麦粉的蛋白质含量从 13.71 克/100 克到 6.39 克/100 克不等,灰分含量从 2%到 1.02%不等,脂质含量从 1.62%到 5.68%不等,碳水化合物含量从 67.78%到 73.70%不等,粗纤维含量从 0.92 克/100 克到 4.77 克/100 克不等,水分含量从 9.45%到 12.69%不等。根据 AOAC(官方分析化学家协会)的官方规程测定,小麦粉的水分为 9.45-12.69%,而小麦粉的水分分别为 12.07 克/100 克、1.22%、1.67%、71.89%、2.26 克/100 克和 10.89%。原子光谱分析仪、快速维斯科分析仪(RVA)、傅立叶变换红外光谱仪(FTIR)、扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和差示扫描量热仪(DSC)分别用于测量矿物质、糊化性、功能性、形态和热性能。未加工的小米粉显示出良好的糊化性能,如稗子粉的峰值粘度为 1216 cp,珍珠小米粉的糊化温度为 88.05 °C,与用作对照的小麦粉大致相似。抗营养因子,即单宁和植酸含量最低的是狐尾小麦粉,分别为 8.03mg/100 g 和 0.37mol g-1。与小麦粉相比,稗子的发泡能力(4.11 %)较好,而小米粉的分散性(85.02 g/ml)较好。傅立叶变换红外光谱显示了酰胺基团和淀粉蛋白质复合物的存在。热分析表明,小米粉中含有较多的蛋白质和脂质。此外,还确定小米粉的大部分数值存在显著差异(p ≤ 0.05)。这项比较研究工作将有助于降低过度依赖含麸质谷物主食的风险,并利用上述无麸质营养面粉组合或单独配制和优化不同偏好的健康食品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信