Trova il tuo prossimo libro preferito

Abbonati oggi e leggi gratis per 30 giorni
Dietary Fiber: Properties, Recovery, and Applications

Dietary Fiber: Properties, Recovery, and Applications

Leggi anteprima

Dietary Fiber: Properties, Recovery, and Applications

815 pagine
9 ore
Jun 13, 2019


Dietary Fiber: Properties, Recovery and Applications explores the properties and health effects of dietary fiber, along with new trends in recovery procedures and applications. The book covers the most trending topics of dietary fiber applications, emphasizing polyphenol properties, bioavailability and metabolomics, target sources, recovery and emerging technologies, technological aspects, stability during processing, and applications in the food, beverage and nutraceutical sectors. Written by a team of experts in the field of dietary fiber, this book is ideal for chemists, food scientists, technologists, new product developers and academics.

  • Thoroughly explores dietary fiber properties and health effects in light of new trends in recovery procedures and applications
  • Covers issues in three critical dimensions: properties, recovery and applications
  • Focuses on applications in food additives, as well as recovery from plant processing by-products
Jun 13, 2019

Correlato a Dietary Fiber

Libri correlati
Articoli correlati

Anteprima del libro

Dietary Fiber - Academic Press



Charis M. Galanakis, Food Waste Recovery Group, ISEKI Food Association, Vienna, Austria, Research & Innovation Department, Galanakis Laboratories, Chania, Greece

Since the mid-1970s, interest in the role of dietary fiber in health and nutrition has prompted a wide range of research and received considerable public attention. Today, supplementing foods with dietary fiber can result in fitness-promoting foods that are lower in calories, cholesterol, and fat. The effectiveness of dietery fiber depends on preserving food’s stability, bioactivity, and bioavailability during handling, extraction, and processing. In recent years, researchers have investigated these issues, and the development of dietary fiber in functional food and nutraceutical industries has attracted great interest. Indeed, recent advantages in food processing (e.g., nonthermal technologies, etc.), new developments, and research studies in the field are consistently being released. Modern food chemists and technologists often deal with new product development and functional foods. Thereby, more integral information is needed in a new reference connecting properties and health effects of dietary fiber with recovery and processing issues, as well as industrial applications in the food industry.

Following these considerations, this book fills the gap existing in current literature by providing information in the three most relevant parts: properties, recovery, and applications. The ultimate goal is to support the scientific community, professionals, and enterprises that aspire to develop industrial and commercialized applications of dietary fiber. The book consists of 10 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the history and evolution of the state of dietary fiber with an account of refinements in extraction methods and legal definitions. Although chemical compositions and analytical methods still play an important role in the definition of dietary fiber, physiological activity has also been taken into consideration. The precise definition of dietary fiber is still evolving; one area of particular interest is whether oligosaccharides’ degrees of polymerization 3–9 should be considered as dietary fiber or not. Decades of scientific research have initiated the expansion of the term dietary fiber to include indigestible oligosaccharides with their degrees of polymerization between 3 and 9; hence responding to the positive health benefits of dietary fiber as well as fulfilling the needs in food-labeling regulations. In Chapter 2, classification, technological properties, and sustainable sources of soluble dietary fiber and insoluble dietary fibers are discussed.

In Chapter 3, the behavior of dietary fiber in the human digestive tract is discussed and linked to its physiological effect with special attention to the modulation of bioavailability by the plant cell walls, the effect of dietary fiber on the rheological and colloidal state of digesta, the binding of dietary fiber with phenolic compounds, bile salts, mineral ions, digestive enzymes, and dietary fiber fermentation in the large intestine and the corresponding effect on microbiota composition. Chapter 4 revises the current evidence from human trials and epidemiological studies on the impact of fiber-rich foods and isolated dietary fiber on body-weight management and nutritional issues. Chapter 5 discusses the health effects of dietary fiber and its boosting effect on other antioxidant molecules when glycosylated with them.

The traditional and innovative official methods developed to analyse dietary fiber are discussed in detail in Chapter 6, paying special attention to the recent advances in chromatographic methods (liquid, gas, and thin-layer chromatography), non-chromatographic techniques (field-flow fractionation (FFF) and capillary electrophoresis), and other analytical tools to elucidate the chemical structure of carbohydrates (e.g., nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)). Chapter 7 discusses the conventional and emerging technologies used for the recovery of dietary fiber from plant agroindustrial by-products.

Chapter 8 revises the current knowledge of the health effects of dietary fiber and prebiotic and dairy applications. The positive health effects of specific fibers on defecation, reduction of postprandial glycemic response, and maintenance of normal blood cholesterol levels are generally accepted, but other presumed health benefits of dietary fibers are still debated. Chapter 9 introduces the application of dietary fiber in wheat flour products. It starts by presenting the quality characteristic, including water distribution; textural parameters; loaf volume; cooking properties; staling issues of biscuits, breads, steamed breads and noodles modified by soluble, as well as insoluble dietary fibers. Finally, Chapter 10 discusses the main issues and topics concerning the use of dietary fibers in meat-product formulation and manufacturing.

Conclusively, the book supports the modern applications of dietary fiber and reveals those that are under development. It is intended to support food scientists, technologists, engineers, chemists, and new product developers working in the whole food science field, as well as relevant researchers, academics, and professionals. It could be used by university libraries and institutes all around the world as a textbook and as ancillary reading in undergraduate and postgraduate level multidiscipline courses dealing with nutritional and food chemistry, as well as food science, technology, and processing.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the authors of this book for their collaboration and qualitative work in bringing together all issues of dietary fiber in one integral comprehensive text. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to collaborate with so many knowledgeable colleagues from Argentina, China, Ireland, Italy, India, Mexico, Romania, and Spain. Their acceptance of the book’s approach, editorial guidelines, and timeframe is highly appreciated. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Food Waste Recovery Group of ISEKI Food Association; as well as to thank the acquisition editor Megan Ball for her honorary invitation to lead this project; Katerina Zaliva (the book manager); and all the Elsevier team for their assistance during production.

Last but not least, is a message for you, the reader. This kind of collaborative project might generate debates upon specific scientific matters. Instructive comments and even criticism are and always will be welcome. Thus, if you find any mistake or if you have an objection to content within the book, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Chapter 1

Definitions and Regulatory Perspectives of Dietary Fibers

M. Cruz-Requena⁎; S. Escobedo-García†; J.A. Salas-Tovar†; Y. Mora-Cura‡; M.L. Chávez-González†; F. Castillo-Reyes§; A.C. Flores-Gallegos†; R. Rodríguez-Herrera†    ⁎ GreenCorp Biorganiks de México, S.A. de C.V, Saltillo, Mexico

† Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Universidad Autonoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Mexico

‡ Biorganix Mexicana SA de CV, Ramos Arizpe, Mexico

§ Saltillo Experimental Station, National Research Institute for Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock Research (INIFAP), Saltillo, Mexico


This chapter discusses the history and evolution of the state of dietary fiber (DF) with account of refinements in extraction methods and legal definitions subsequent to the launch of DF hypothesis. For a long time, defining and regulating DF relied heavily on their chemical compositions and analytical methods. Although chemical compositions and analytical methods still play an important role on DF definition, physiological activity has also been taken into consideration. The precise definition of DF is still evolving, particularly whether oligosaccharides degrees of polymerization 3–9 should be considered as DF or not. Decades of scientific research have initiated the expansion of the term DF to include indigestible oligosaccharides with their degrees of polymerization between 3 and 9, hence responding to the positive health benefits of DF as well as fulfilling the needs in food labeling regulations.


Dietary fibers; Resistant starch; Oligosaccharides; DF extraction methods

Chapter Outline


1.2History of DF Concept

1.3Legal Definitions of DF

1.3.1Definitions of DF: Institutions and Organizations Worldwide

1.3.2Legal Status of DF Worldwide

1.3.3Declaration of DF on Label

1.4DF and Its Components





1.4.5Resistant Starch



1.5DF Extraction Methods

1.5.1Fractionation of Fiber

1.5.2Dry Processing

1.5.3Wet Processing

1.5.4Gravimetric Methods

1.5.5Enzymatic-Chemical Methods

1.5.6Physical and Microbial Methods

1.6Physiological Activity of DF

1.6.1Satiety Hormones and Obesity

1.6.2Fermentability and DF

1.6.3DF and Metabolic Diseases

1.7Future Trends


1.7.2Quantification Methodologies

1.7.3Natural Fiber Effect


1.7.5Current Intakes




Further Reading


This project was financially supported through the Project: FON.SEC. SAGARPA-CONACYT CV-2015-4-266936. S.E.G and J.A.S.T want to thank CONACYT for the financial support during their postgraduate studies.

1.1 Introduction

Dietary fiber (DF) comprises highly complex substances including natural and modified materials with substantial variations in physical and chemical properties which are not hydrolyzed by endogenous enzymes in the human small intestine, showing potential physiological effects (Poutanen et al., 2018). DF has been extensively studied due to its beneficial physiological effects, which are directly related to their different physicochemical properties, such as solubility, fermentability, water absorption, binding ability, viscosity, and bulking ability, among others. Indeed, one of the principal classifications of DF is based on water solubility, where fiber is divided in two groups, soluble and insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), which show a different effect on gastrointestinal tract and hence, different physiological health effect. However, until this day, the underlying mechanisms of the beneficial effect of DF are not completely understood (Müller, Canfora, & Blaak, 2018). In spite of this, DF intake has been suggested to improve glycemic control, reduce lipid levels, exhibit prebiotic effects, and may be a useful tool for weight management (Khan et al., 2018).

Diets differing in quantity of soluble and insoluble fiber may have different effects on body weight gain and carbohydrate metabolism, but a contributing factor may be altering the rate of glucose absorption in the gut (Wang et al., 2007). Both types of fiber, together or separately, have contributed to the improvement of human health. Increasing DF intake may help to reduce weight gain and promote weight loss by decreasing the energy density of the diet (Burton-Freeman, Liyanage, Rahman, & Edirisinghe, 2017). Soluble dietary fiber (SDF) include β-glucan, psyllium, pectins, guar gum, arabinoxylans, and inulin and has been associated with some beneficial effects on human organisms, such as reduction of cholesterol levels, decrease of gastric emptying and small intestine transit time, prebiotic effect, and fecal bulk effect (Surampudi, Enkhmaa, Anuurad, & Berglund, 2016). While iIDF include cellulose, hemicellulose, chitosan, lignin, etc., IDF can have properties such as water insolubility, decreased fermentability, and stool bulk forming (Surampudi et al., 2016).

1.2 History of DF Concept

The concept of DF has been developing for many years, and even now, there is not a complete agreement on its precise definition, basically because of the discrepancy on the carbohydrates included in the DF, in addition to its physiological effects and the methods employed to determine DF. The term DF arose from the hypothesis that linked the potential effects on a population's health with the inclusion or exclusion of low-processed foods that are rich in fiber. Hipsley (1953) coined the DF concept after his observations on the relevance of fiber ingestion on the reduction of certain diseases. Even though initially, this idea was not given enough relevance, the subsequent publications of Trowell offered a wider vision of DF significance, as well as, a more concrete concept, which encompassed the information regarding this topic at that time. In the beginning, Trowell defined DF as the plant cell wall materials that are nondigestible by human enzymes, including among them cellulose, lignin, uronic acids, hemicelluloses, and others (Trowell, 1972a, 1972b). The latter definition was closely related to the division of carbohydrates in available and unavailable established by McCance and Lawrence (1929), from which unavailable carbohydrates represented those carbohydrates that were not hydrolyzed by human digestive tract enzymes and thus were not directly absorbed.

Likewise, Trowell stated that DF and crude fiber were not synonyms (Trowell, 1972a). The crude fiber was a concept established earlier than DF term, the former refers to portion of foodstuffs that is resistant to hydrolysis by boiling acid and later by alkali, which mainly symbolizes the amounts of cellulose and lignin in a product (Cummings, 1973). On the other hand, according to Trowell, the ability to prevent certain disease was attributable to DF instead of crude fiber (Trowell, 1972a). However, recognizing some shortcomings on its initial definition, Trowell et al. (1976) observed that consideration as DF of only those materials of plant cell wall that were not hydrolyzed by human enzymes was excluding all those nondigestible plant materials that were not in the cell wall, but within the cell. Hence, the concept of DF was reestablished as the plant polysaccharides and lignin, which were not hydrolyzed by human digestive enzymes.

As aforementioned, an important issue in evolution of DF concept were the methods employed for its determination, because if based on the definition adopted, there would be defined the analytical strategy implemented. It was a difficult target to obtain a generally applicable method for DF analysis, because of the discrepancies existing between food chemists and health experts, along the time. Development of a method for DF analysis by Widdowson and McCance (1935) included determination of available carbohydrates as glucose, fructose, sucrose, and starch by mean of α-amylase (E.C. hydrolysis served as a first step for the subsequent gravimetric estimation of unavailable carbohydrates or roughage, by subtracting values of starch, protein, and fat (McCance, Widdowson, & Shackleton, 1936). Around the same time, Williams and Olmsted (1935) achieved an approach for simulation of a physiological digestion, and thus to nondigestible compounds determination, with the adaptation of a method for estimation of indigestible residue, based on sample processing with acid and a multienzyme complex, that included α-amylase, pepsin (E.C., and pancreatin. It was in 1975 when Hellendoorn, Noordhoof, and Slagman took back the principles established by Williams and Olmsted to improve the physiological-related digestion process, for the later gravimetric estimation of DF (Hellendoorn, Noordhoof, & Slagman, 1975). The enzymatic-gravimetric method was refined in a series of collaborative studies by Prosky, Asp, Schweizer, DeVries, Furda, and Lee, which included analysis of high molecular weight soluble and insoluble polysaccharides plus lignin (Lee, Prosky, & DeVries, 1992; Prosky, Asp, Schweizer, DeVries, & Furda, 1988), which in turn would be adopted as the AOAC methods 985.29 and 991.43.

Likewise, Southgate takes the basis of the unavailable carbohydrates for the development of a procedure for DF quantification, with the sequential analysis of sugars, starch, cellulose, lignin, and other noncellulosic polysaccharides with a single sample (Southgate, 1969). Later, the modification of this method by Englyst, Quigley, and Hudson (1994) allowed a more accurate determination of carbohydrates through specific chromatographic methods; It also included use of pancreatin, α-amylase, and pullulanase (E.C. In the works of Englyst and coworkers, the term nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP) was used as an alternative expression for DF, since by that time, NSP represented chemically the major portion of DF, taking as a reference mainly the structural components of the plant cell wall. Additionally, in Englyst's method, resistant starch (RS) was scattered and, like lignin, were not be considered as part of NSP value (Englyst & Cummings, 1984). This method laid the foundations for the enzymatic-chemical determination of DF. In the same way, the determination of NSP was also possible through the Uppsala method (AOAC method 994.13), that unlike Englyst's method, considered the α-amylase resistant-starch and lignin, which made this a procedure that matched with Trowell's DF definition (Theander, Åman, Westerlund, Andersson, & Pettersson, 1995).

At the same time, there was an increasing attention in non-previously encompassed fractions of DF, which moved away from the analytical methods of that time, but fulfilled the consideration of being not hydrolyzed by human digestive enzymes. In a couple of international surveys conducted by Prosky and Lee, an agreement existed for inclusion of nondigestible oligosaccharides (NDO), as well as, digestion-RS within DF (DeVries, Prosky, Li, & Cho, 1999). This led to the classification of dietary carbohydrates according to its degree of polymerization (DP), composition, and its physiological effect (Cummings et al., 1997). Additionally, this modification in the DF definition allowed for the incorporation of carbohydrates, such as fructans, fructooligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharides (GOSs), polydextrose, resistant-maltodextrins, and RS (McCleary & Rossiter, 2004). The individual quantity of each component could be later estimated by specific methods and added to DF value (Craig, Holden, & Khaled, 2001; De Slegte, 2002; McCleary, McNally, & Rossiter, 2002; McCleary, Murphy, & Mugford, 2000). Resistant-maltodextrin can be assessed by the method proposed by Gordon and Okuma (2002) (AOAC 2001.03). The latter surged after their observation that not all components of DF were fully recovered after ethanol precipitation in Prosky's method since low molecular weight soluble DF does not precipitate in 78% ethanol. Hence, through the analysis of the filtered after ethanol precipitation, it was possible to estimate the low-molecular–weight-resistant maltodextrins by liquid chromatography. Furthermore, in this method, DF was defined as the nondigestible carbohydrates that preserve a DP of three or higher after enzymatic hydrolysis.

In the 27th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary, a definition of DF was resolute as carbohydrate polymers with a DP not lower than 3, which are neither digested nor absorbed in the small intestine. When DF came from plant material, this also considered other compounds associated with polysaccharides in the plant cell wall, such as lignin, protein fractions, phenolic compounds, waxes, saponins, phytates, cutin, phytosterols, and others. Likewise, DF has to consist of carbohydrates’ polymers naturally occurring in the food as consumed or have been obtained from raw material by physical, enzymatic, or chemical methods, besides considering synthetic carbohydrate polymers. Additionally, DF must have properties like decrease intestinal transit time and increase stool bulk, be fermentable by colonic microflora, reduce blood total and/or LDL cholesterol levels, reduce post-prandial blood glucose and/or insulin levels (Codex Alimentarius, 2006). Some modifications were made to this definition in 2009, concisely DF was considered as carbohydrate polymers with 10 or more monomeric units, which are not hydrolyzed by the endogenous enzymes in the small intestine of humans, where the decision to include carbohydrates from 3 to 9 monomeric units would be left to each nation's authorities. Meanwhile, regarding DF sources, they were the same as previously described, but synthetic and modified carbohydrate polymers must be shown to have a physiological effect of benefit to health, demonstrated by scientific evidence (Codex Alimentarius, 2010). The disagreements in the inclusion or exclusion of NDO with DP 3–9 came to arise because it was felt that NDO did not comply with some of the physiological effects associated with DF (Codex Alimentarius, 2008).

DF, as defined by Codex Alimentarius, can be assessed according to AOAC methods 2009.01 and 2011.25, which includes break up DF in: high-molecular-weight DF (HMWDF) and low-molecular-weight soluble DF (LMWSDF) (McCleary et al., 2010), as well as, separation of DF according to its solubility in water and 78% ethanol-like water insoluble DF (IDF), water-soluble DF that precipitates in 78% ethanol (SDFP), and the DF soluble in both water and 78% ethanol (SDFS) (McCleary et al., 2012). Furthermore, some improvements to these analytical methods have been made, particularly in order to mimic the human digestion process, which also minimizes over/underestimation of DF content (McCleary, 2014; McCleary, Sloane, & Draga, 2015). Changes within the DF concept by different authors over time are summarized in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

a Referred as unavailable carbohydrates or indigestible residue instead of DF.

Currently, the DF definition of Codex Alimentarius is generally accepted, though there are other definitions that also include animal fibers (e.g., chitosan) (Borderías, Sánchez-Alonso, & Pérez-Mateos, 2005). As mentioned above, DF has been shown to have some specific properties like being able to modify the rate of digestion by different means, such as slowing gastric emptying, preventing specific enzyme activity toward certain diet components (e.g., starch hydrolysis), and by limiting the nutrient availability for absorption (e.g., lipids and glucose), due to the ability of some components of HMWDF to form a gel (Qi, Al-Ghazzewi, & Tester, 2018). Likewise, IDF can increase fecal bulk, while most soluble DF do not, but instead are fermented by gut bacteria for production of metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). The latter are recognized to be important factors for host metabolism regulation, immune system, and cell growing. On the one hand, DF acts as an energy source for gut microbiota and protects host intestinal mucus by stimulating its production (Makki, Deehan, Walter, & Bäckhed, 2018). In addition, some fibers can promote the selective development of specific microorganisms through its consumption, conferring health benefits (prebiotic effect) to the host. Disorders like irritable bowel syndrome and diabetes mellitus type 2 can be reduced by the consumption of certain fibers (So et al., 2018).

1.3 Legal Definitions of DF

Different definitions of DF have been considered over the years; however, there is not an accepted universal definition or even an organization that regulates the use of DF in foods or on labels worldwide. On the other hand, there are several institutions that handle their own definitions and that many countries use as a guide. Some of these institutions are: the CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), the AACCI—Cereals & Grains Association, the AOAC International (Association of Analytical Communities), the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute), the IOM (Institute of Medicine), the FNB (Food and Nutrition Standards) and the FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand) (FAO/WHO, 2010; Lunn & Buttriss, 2007; Slavin, 2013). In order to push regulations in food labeling, these institutions have attempted to standardize the definition of DF based on chemical composition and the physiological role in human health (Trowell, 1978; Miller, 2014). In general, DF is considered as a group of carbohydrates and resistant compounds to digestion by enzymes in the small intestine and that they are partially or totally fermented by the gut microbiota with favorable health effects (Fuller, Beck, Salman, & Tapsell, 2016; Jones, 2013). The main differences in definitions are divided into three different areas:

1.Chemical composition, whose definition is highly related to the type of analysis to quantify it.

2.Physiological effects. There are several investigations that report new sources of DF in which its functionality is evaluated in vitro according to its degree of solubility, hydration capacity, cation exchange capacity (related with mineral absorption), degree of fermentation, fat retention capacity, among other functionalities (Mora et al., 2013; Slavin, 2013). At the same time, the different mechanisms of overweight and obesity regulation, the glycemic index and type II diabetes, colon cancer and constipation, all known as NCDs (noncommunicable diseases) have been identified.

3.Food and food processing. Another topic of discussion is whether the carbohydrates in the fiber should be intrinsically or extrinsically in the food. Those carbohydrates that can be extracted from DFs as edible material are known as intrinsic and those carbohydrates modified or that can be added to foods are the extrinsic ones (Mudgil & Barak, 2013).

1.3.1 Definitions of DF: Institutions and Organizations Worldwide

Each source of DF is different due to its chemical complexity. The degree of carbohydrate polymerization has been a subject of debate. In the first related DF investigations, they only included the polymers greater than 10 monomers as DF. However, in 2009, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) supported by other institutions declared consensus to include the term oligosaccharides from 3 to 9 monomers (DP 3–9) as DF (De Menezes, Giuntini, Dan, Sardá, & Lajolo, 2013). This definition has been adopted by several regulatory authorities, including the European Union, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (FAO/WHO, 2010; McCleary, Sloane, Draga, & Lazewska, 2013; Mudgil & Barak, 2013). These carbohydrates are not digested or absorbed by the small intestine but can be fermented by the microbiota of the large intestine. They can also be considered as prebiotics that have been widely studied for the benefit of human health (Gibson & Roberfroid, 1995). As mentioned earlier, a world definition of DF does not exist; Each institution or organization involved has its own definition. Next, mention is made of the main institutions worldwide that have worked and continue to work on the definition of DF.

CAC-Codex Alimentarius (2009). Its definition of DF includes polymers of carbohydrates with 10 or more monomer units, which are not hydrolyzed by the enzymes of the small intestine of humans. These polymers can belong to different categories: edible polysaccharides intrinsic in food; polysaccharides obtained from raw food material extracted by physical, chemical, or enzymatic processes; and synthetic polysaccharides. The latter must show a proven physiological human health benefit. The oligosaccharides of DP 3–9 are considered DF. It includes resistant oligosaccharides, RS, and resistant maltodextrins (Miller, 2014).

FDA-Food and Drug Administration. DF is considered soluble and insoluble carbohydrates that are nondigestible, intrinsic, isolated, or synthetic and have physiological effects that are beneficial for human health. These effects include the regulation of glucose and cholesterol in the blood, reduction of caloric intake, and increase in the frequency of bowel movements. This includes mixed plant cell wall fibers, arabinoxylan, alginate, inulin, RS, GOS, polydextrose, and resistant maltodextrins (FDA, 2018; FDA et al., 2018).

EFSA-European Food Safety Authority (2010). Its definition includes nondigestible carbohydrates including lignin and all nondigestible carbohydrates in the human small intestine and that pass through the large intestine. It also includes NSP, RS, and resistant oligosaccharides.

AACC-American Association of Cereal Chemists (2001). Its definition includes those edible parts of plants or similar carbohydrates that are resistant to digestion and absorption in the human small intestine with complete or partial fermentation in the large intestine. This definition includes polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, lignin, and associated plant substances. DFs promote beneficial physiological effects including laxation, attenuation of blood cholesterol, and attenuation of blood glucose. It includes resistant oligosaccharides, RS, and resistant maltodextrins (Miller, 2014).

IOM-Institute of Medicine (2001). It handles three terms: DF, functional fiber, and total DF. DF consists of nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsically and intact in plants. Functional fiber is composed of isolated nondigestible carbohydrates with beneficial physiological effects in humans. Total fiber is the sum of DF and functional fiber. It includes resistant oligosaccharides, RS, and resistant maltodextrins.

HC-Health Canada (2010). The DF consists of natural edible carbohydrates (DP > 2) of vegetal origin are not digested or absorbed by the small intestine, including the new accepted DFs. The new DFs are an ingredient manufactured from DF. This consists of carbohydrates (DP > 2) extracted naturally or produced synthetically that are not digested by the small intestine. It must be shown that these have beneficial physiological effects on human health and belong to one of the following categories: it has not traditionally been used for human consumption to any significant extent; it has been processed so as to modify the properties of the fiber; or it has been highly concentrated from a plant source. It includes resistant oligosaccharides, RS, and resistant maltodextrins (Miller, 2014).

FSANZ-Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2001). DF consists of the edible plant parts or their extracts and their synthetic analogues, which are resistant to digestion and absorption and which are generally partially or totally fermented in the large intestine, promoting the following physiological effects: laxation, cholesterol reduction in blood, and modulation of blood glucose. It includes resistant polysaccharides, oligosaccharides (DP > 2), lignin, and RS.

1.3.2 Legal Status of DF Worldwide

For DF to be included or legally considered in food labels, it is necessary that it be quantified by a recognized official method (AOAC), and in some cases, that its functionality is also recognized. For now, there are some terms in legal debate such as oligosaccharides, intrinsic compounds, and addition of extrinsic compounds to food, as well as the functionality of DF. Below is a brief discussion of the legal implications of each term. Oligosaccharides (DP 3-9)

The inclusion of the term oligosaccharides to the DF definition opened a panorama of debate between those institutions or countries that adopt or did not adopted this term. This is due to the fact that there is not an accepted official analytical method of reference for the determination of oligosaccharides in foods. Countries such as the United States do not consider oligosaccharides as DF because of the fact that there is no official measurement method; therefore, they cannot be included in the label (Slavin, 2013). However, countries such as Taiwan, which consider oligosaccharides 3–9 and lignin as part of their definition of DF, still use the reference method AOAC 985.29, which leads to the underestimation of DF content in a food. It therefore creates a conflict on the label. Table 1.2 shows those institutions and countries that consider oligosaccharides as DF. These countries advocate changes in the labeling systems based on research advances, their research on DF has measurable bases. For now, however, the analysis methodologies are still under debate.

Table 1.2

(Miller, J. (2014). CODEX-aligned dietary fiber definitions help to bridge the fiber gap. Nutrition Journal 13(1), 1–10; Dai, F., & Cahu, C. (2017). Classification and regulatory perspectives of dietary fiber. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 25, 37–42; Williamson, P. S. (2017). A brief overview and comparison of global fiber regulations. Cereal Foods World 62(3), 95–97.) Intrinsic and Extrinsic DF

The intrinsic and extrinsic terms are included in some definitions such as that of the FDA, the CODEX Alimentarus Commission (CAC), the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), and Health Canada (HC). The term intrinsic refers to compounds that are naturally contained in the DF. These fibers (intrinsic) occur in foods such as vegetables, whole grains, fruits, cereal bran, flaked cereal, and flours. The fibers are also considered to be intact because they have not been removed from the food but can be extracted (physical, chemical, or enzymatic methods). Extrinsic refers to all those extracted compounds (chemical, physical, or enzymatic methods) and synthetic analogues that are incorporated into food and must comply with some physiological effects that are beneficial to human health; these fibers are also known as added fibers. DF Functionality

It is important to understand why DF is considered a nutriment by some institutions and why it is therefore necessary to incorporate it into the daily diet. There are numerous physiological benefits related to the consumption of DF in intestinal health (laxation, improves intestinal transit time, glycemic control, cholesterol reduction, maintenance of weight, reduces the caloric index, increases satiety, increases the absorption of minerals, and some compounds serve as a prebiotic for the beneficial intestinal microbiota known as probiotics) (Grabitske & Slavin, 2009; Howlestt et al., 2010; Jones, 2013). Not all countries or institutes have accepted the beneficial physiological effects of DF (FDA, 2018).

1.3.3 Declaration of DF on Label

According to the FDA, the daily consumption of DF reflected in labels is 25 g for a diet of 2000 kcal/day or 30 g for a diet of 2500 kcal/day. In the United States, information on the amount of DF per serving should appear in the nutrition information panel unless the product contains less than 1 g of fiber. The declarations allowed in the United States are the following:

Fiber source: Products that contain at least 10% of the recommended daily value or 2.5 g of fiber.

High in fiber: Those products that contain at least 20% or 5 g of fiber.

The European Union is governed by EU regulation No. 1169/2011 (EU, 2011) that allows the voluntary declaration of fiber content on the nutrition label. The definition of DF in the European Union includes the intrinsic carbohydrates in the food and those that are not naturally in the food as long as they have some proven beneficial physiological effect. These carbohydrates must be measured with the methods proposed by the AOAC so that they can be declared on the label. According to the regulation (CE) 1924/2006 (EC, 2006), the permitted declarations of DF for products of the European Union are the following:

Fiber source: Product that contains at least 3 g of fiber per 100 g or at least 1.5 g of fiber per 100 kcal.

High in fiber: Product that contains at least 6 g of fiber per 100 g or at least 3 g of fiber per 100 kcal.

Most Latin American countries use the FDA and Codex guidelines for the inclusion of DF in food labeling.

1.4 DF and Its Components

As previously mentioned, each source of DF is different due to its chemical complexity, including polysaccharides as hemicellulose and cellulose and oligosaccharides. DF also includes molecules that are not carbohydrates such as lignin.

1.4.1 Hemicellulose

Hemicellulose is a heteropolysaccharide that is formed by more of one type of monomer normally of five or six monomeric residues; some of them are glucose, galactose, xylose, arabinose, mannose, and glucoronic acid, among others (Sjöström, 1993). It can be founded in the cell wall of plants and as part of lignocellulosic biomass, which is considered the second most abundant component of biomass in nature just after cellulose (Farhat et al., 2017).

1.4.2 Cellulose

Cellulose is a kind of homopolysaccharide composed by monomers of β-glucose linked by β-1,4-O-glycosidic bonds (Kian, Jawaid, Ariffin, & Karim, 2018). It is perhaps the most abundant organic biomolecule in nature due is the major component in terrestrial biomass and part of the cell walls of all plants. Cellulose, an IDF, is resistant to digestion, but around 50% is fermented in the colon, where partial digestion occurs (Mudgil & Barak, 2013).

1.4.3 Pectin

Pectin is a type of heteropolysaccharide conformed by three important domains: homogalacturonanes and ramnogalacturonanes I and II. It can be found in the primary cell wall of all higher plants (Verkempinck et al., 2018). Also, pectin is considered an important hydrocolloid widely used in food production (Kim, Miller, Lee, & Kim, 2016). Pectin can be used like a DF in structural modifications that can be carried out by chemical or enzymatic processes (Ngouémazong et al., 2011).

1.4.4 Gums

A variety of gums that could be consider into DF term. Guar gum is one of them, it is considering a soluble DF. Structurally, Guar gum is a polygalactomannan that is obtained from seeds of Cyamopsis tetragonalobus; chemically, galactomannan is constituted by monomers of mannose linked by β-d-(1,4)-glycosidic bonds, and monomers of galactose are linked to mannose. Also, this compound is widely used in food processing because it confers textural changes such as thickening and stabilizing (Gupta, Saurabh, Variyar, & Sharma, 2015).

1.4.5 Resistant Starch

RS is also part of DF and is defined as starch that is not hydrolyzed in the human small intestine (Buksa, 2018). RS is classified in subgroups: encapsulated starch, resistant granules, retrograded amylose, chemically modified starch, and amylose-lipid complex (Zhao, Andersson, & Andersson, 2018).

1.4.6 Oligosaccharides

Oligosaccharides or glycans are defined as carbohydrates that consist of 3–10 monosaccharide units, linear or branched, connected by α- and/or β-glycosidic linkages. The principal monosaccharides components of the oligosaccharides are d-glucose, d-galactose, d-mannose, l-Fucose, l-xylose, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine, N-acetylgalactosamine, d-glucuronic acid, d-galacturonic acid, l-iduronic acid, N-accetyl-d-neuramic acid, N-acetyl-d-muraminic acid, and 3-deoxy-α-d-manno-oct-2ulopyranosonic acid; and among the main oligosaccharides are Fructooligosaccharides (FOSs), galactooligosaccharides, lactulose, raffinose, and others (Zhao et al., 2017). A FOS is a linear oligosaccharide composed by 10–20 units of fructose linked by β 1–2 bonds. Examples of fructooligosaccharide are 1-kestose, nistose, and fructosil-nistose (Park, Jang, & Lim, 2016). GOSs are mainly obtained from enzymatic hydrolysis of lactose using β-galactosidase (Lans & Vodovotz, 2018); the product of this reaction is a mixture of GOS with a variable DP (Guo, Goff, & Cui, 2018).

1.4.7 Lignin

An organic polymer, lignan's structure contains functional groups such as phenolic, methoxyl, carboxyl, p-hydroxy-phenyl, and aliphatic hidroxyl (Li, Hua-Min, et al., 2018; Li, Li, et al., 2018). Lignin, considered a highly branched phenolic compound, is in fact the most abundant source of aromatic chemicals in nature, and structurally lignin is composed by phenylpropanoid units linked by carbon-carbon or carbon-oxygen bonds (Chen et al., 2018).

1.5 DF Extraction Methods

DF is a complex mixture of plant carbohydrate polymers that resist digestion by gastrointestinal enzymes and the subsequent absorption in the human small intestine. It includes cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin, gums, mucilage, and other polysaccharides and oligosaccharides associated with plant cells (Esposito et al., 2005). The most common DF extraction methods include dry processing, wet processing, chemical, gravimetric, enzymatic, physical, and microbial, or a combination of these methods (Maphosa & Jideani, 2016).

1.5.1 Fractionation of Fiber

Fiber can be classified as dietary or functional and can further be classified according to its molecular weight as high or low molecular weight (Slavin, 2013; Trumbo, Schlicker, Yates, & Poos, 2002). Moreover, DF can be classified according to its solubility in water as soluble or IDF (Prakongpan, Nitithamyong, & Luangpituksa, 2002). Fiber classification is important to facilitate its study because each part of fiber has different properties; this is possible through extraction of different parts of fiber. Fiber extraction can help to: separate it into individual components, identify/quantify fractions of interest, and eliminate the unwanted components. Numerous extraction methods have been investigated. The basis of all methods of extracting fiber is similar, but the approach differs depending on the desired end product, application, source of fiber, and the equipment used (Maphosa & Jideani, 2016). The extraction method can affect the behavior of fibers in food applications and in the human body. Additionally, other factors related to the extraction method (solvent, treatment intensity, and source of fiber) can affect the properties and composition of fibers after the extraction (Fuentes-Alventosa et al., 2009). The choice of extraction method used to isolate fibers depends on fiber composition, its complexity, chemical composition, DP, and presence of oligosaccharides. In addition, choice of method, contact time, temperature, and solvent are some parameters that highly affect the yield (Al-Farsi & Lee, 2008; Elleuch et al., 2011). The advantages and disadvantages of different extraction methods are presented in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3

Southgate (1969) was the first to fractionate the unavailable carbohydrates in foods; he outlined and updated a method of extraction for lignocellulosic materials, crude lignin, and cellulose fractions. Fiber can be extracted as a whole, called total fiber, as soluble and insoluble fiber, or as its individual components. It is well known that the physiological and physicochemical effects of fibers depend on their relative amount of individual fiber components, especially the content of soluble and insoluble fractions. Some methods of fiber extraction are used for industrial purposes, while others are used only for research purposes. Furthermore, some extraction methods are closely related with DF analytical methods. The fiber extraction methods are varied; there is not a global method used, and each analyst can modify the method in order to obtain the optimal conditions for its own study (Elleuch et al., 2011).

1.5.2 Dry Processing

Dry processing methods have been applied for research and industrial applications. These methods involve disintegration of samples by milling and air classification into starch and protein fractions. Therefore, the powder produced during the milling process contains two different particles, which differ in size and density. To separate those phases, a process called air classification is repeated several times to purify fractions (Muehlbauer, 2002). Wang, Suo, De Wit, Boom, and Schutyser (2016) found that dry processing fractionation does not affect the functional properties of defatted rice bran. Also, Termrittikul, Jittanit, and Sirisansaneeyakul (2018) used a dry-process with Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) to prepare a sample for inulin extraction, and they obtained a higher purity with this process than with a wet-milling process.

1.5.3 Wet Processing

The wet-milling methods use water for fiber extraction but differ in the reagents and conditions employed. There are different wet-milling methods, such as conventional, alkali, enzymatic, and modified wet milling. The conventional wet-milling process involves the soaking of raw materials in a sulfuric acid solution. Then the co-products and starch are physically separated. Traditional wet-milling processes take up to 36 h to be completed. Wronkowska and Haros (2014) used wet milling for starch extraction and found that this method did not change the properties of starch compared to raw

Hai raggiunto la fine di questa anteprima. Registrati per continuare a leggere!
Pagina 1 di 1


Cosa pensano gli utenti di Dietary Fiber

0 valutazioni / 0 Recensioni
Cosa ne pensi?
Valutazione: 0 su 5 stelle

Recensioni dei lettori