Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273790305
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
G. Padmaja
Central Tuber Crops Research Institute
39 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 November 2014
Received in revised form 25 February 2015
Accepted 25 February 2015
Available online 9 March 2015
Keywords:
Cooking loss
Starch digestibility
Glycaemic index
Sensory evaluation
Starch and our noodles
Sweet potato
a b s t r a c t
The effect of a resistant starch source, NUTRIOSE FB06 at 10%, 15% and 20% in sweet potato our (SPF)
and 5% and 10% in sweet potato starch (SPS) in reducing the starch digestibility and glycaemic index of
noodles was investigated. While NUTRIOSE (10%) signicantly reduced the cooking loss in SPF noodles,
this was enhanced in SPS noodles and guar gum (GG) supplementation reduced CL of both noodles. In
vitro starch digestibility (IVSD) was signicantly reduced in test noodles compared to 73.6 g glucose/
100 g starch in control SPF and 65.9 g in SPS noodles. Resistant starch (RS) was 54.96% for NUTRIOSE
(15%) + GG (1%) fortied SPF noodles and 53.3% for NUTRIOSE (5%) + GG (0.5%) fortied SPS noodles, as
against 33.8% and 40.68%, respectively in SPF and SPS controls. Lowest glycaemic index (54.58) and
the highest sensory scores (4.23) were obtained for noodles with 15% NUTRIOSE + 1% GG.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Pasta or spaghetti is a traditional Italian food, which is easy to
cook and contains complex carbohydrates that impart the slow
digestibility property (Bjrck, Liljeberg, & Ostman, 2000; Fardet
et al., 1998).
With a view to increasing the functional benets of pasta, several workers have attempted fortication with non-wheat additives, ber and protein sources, resistant starch etc. (Chillo,
Laverse, Falcone, Protopapa, & Del Nobile, 2008; Gelencsr, Gal,
Hodsayi, & Salgo, 2008; Goi & Valentin-Gamazo, 2003). The rapid
increase in lifestyle diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, cancer and cardiovascular problems coupled with the global awareness on these issues have increased the demand for ber
enriched health foods (Buttriss & Stokes, 2008; Tucker & Thomas,
2009). Glycaemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrate rich foods,
based on their relative ability to release glucose into blood (Bjrck
et al., 2000). Consumption of low glycaemic foods rich in ber has
been reported to reduce obesity and its linked problems such as
diabetes and heart disease as well as in exerting protective effects
against certain types of cancer (Buttriss & Stokes, 2008; Gelencsr
218
219
Estimated glycaemic index (EGI) was computed using the formula of Goi, Garcia-Alonso, and Calixto (1997) as below:
Table 1
Cooking characteristics* of sweet potato our (SPF) and starch (SPS) noodles fortied
with RS rich NUTRIOSE.
Sample
Swelling index
2.09ab
1.54b
2.10ab
2.35a
2.24ab
2.07ab
2.89a
2.68bc
2.83ab
2.66c
2.48d
*
Statistical comparison was made between the treatments and the respective
controls (C1 or C2). Means with the same superscript in each column (for our
noodles and starch noodles separately) are not statistically signicant.
220
Table 2
Nutritional characteristics* of sweet potato our and starch noodles enriched with RS
rich NUTRIOSE (cooked samples on dry basis).
Sample
9.80
10.16
9.98
9.03
10.15
10.33
17.68
16.81
15.93
14.88
15.23
Table 3a
In vitro starch digestibility of sweet potato our (SPF) noodles enriched with RS rich
NUTRIOSE.
Treatments
Statistical comparison was made between the treatments and the respective
controls (C1 or C2). Means with the same superscript in each column (for our
noodles and starch noodles separately) are not statistically signicant.
**
Mean value from only two observations.
40 min.
60 min.
80 min.
100 min.
120 min.
66.98a
46.37d
43.68e
61.87b
70.22a
52.86c
49.12d
65.10b
73.55a
59.76c
53.22d
68.47b
52.55c
48.75d
54.76d
50.05e
*
Statistical comparison was made between the treatments and the control;
Means with the same superscript in each column are not statistically signicant.
221
SDS
RS
17.70b
20.57a
21.65a
16.68b
33.80e
46.21c
52.11b
38.38d
50.72b
54.96a
*
Statistical comparison was made between the treatments and the control;
Means with the same superscript in each column are not statistically signicant.
Table 4a
In vitro starch digestibility of sweet potato starch (SPS) noodles enriched with RS rich
NUTRIOSE.
Treatments
40 min.
60 min.
80 min.
100 min.
120 min.
Fig. 1a. Estimated glycaemic indices of sweet potato our noodles fortied with
NUTRIOSE; bars with the same alphabets on the top are not signicantly different.
Fig. 1b. Estimated glycaemic indices of sweet potato starch noodles fortied with
NUTRIOSE; other footnotes as in Fig. 1a.
1a). EGI for T4 (0.5% GG along with 15% NUTRIOSE) was not signicantly different from T2 (without GG), indicating that at least 1%
GG fortication is necessary to get the desired glycaemic index
lowering effect.
The control SPS noodles had EGI of 62.95 and NUTRIOSE fortication signicantly brought it down to 58.38 (5% NUTRIOSE) and
59.37 (10% NUTRIOSE) respectively (Fig. 1b). It was observed from
earlier studies on SPS noodles in our laboratory that the control SPS
noodles from 100% starch had EGI of 78.64 and 20% WPC fortied
SPS noodles had EGI of 70.6 (unpublished data). It could be therefore concluded from the present study that oil addition to the mix
alone could bring down the EGI by 7 units. There are reports that
starch-lipid complexes could restrict the swelling of starch and
its digestion (Kim & Seib, 1993). Guar gum (0.5%) exerted a complementary action with 5% NUTRIOSE in further reducing the EGI
Table 4b
Starch fractions (g per 100 g starch in cooked noodles on dry basis) in SPS noodles
enriched with RS rich NUTRIOSE.
Sample
SDS
RS
57.82a
50.41c
55.56d
60.75a
50.75d
57.35b
65.91a
55.31c
62.96b
19.11a
12.52c
17.08b
40.68d
50.22b
43.33c
47.64e
52.85c
51.88d
55.04c
53.31a
50.46b
*
Statistical comparison was made between the treatments and the control;
Means with the same superscript in each column are not statistically signicant.
*
Means with the same superscript in each column are not statistically
signicant.
222
Appearance
Flavor
Mouth feel
Overall acceptability
3.20a
3.27a
2.23b
1.57c
3.23b
3.10b
2.10c
1.53d
3.40
3.40a
2.17c
4.23a
3.30b
b
3.13
3.40b
2.40c
4.13a
3.13b
*
Values are mean of the data collected from ve panellists. Using 5 point
hedonic scale (5 like extremely; 4 like very much; 3 like moderately; 2
dislike very much; 1 dislike extremely). Statistical comparison was made between
the treatments and the respective controls (C1 or C2). Means with the same
superscript in each column (for our noodles and starch noodles separately) are not
statistically signicant.
4. Conclusion
NUTRIOSE FB06 fortication to sweet potato our (SPF) and
starch (SPS) signicantly reduced the starch digestibility and glycaemic index of noodles. Guar gum at 0.5% in SPS noodles and
1.0% in SPF noodles complemented the effect of NUTRIOSE in
enhancing the resistant starch content and further reducing the
GI of noodles. High protein retention in the whey protein fortied
noodles coupled with the low cooking loss made the products well
acceptable with high sensory scores for appearance, avor and
mouth feel. Slow and progressive starch digestibility indicates
the prospective potential of the products as low glycaemic foods.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded through a Research grant from the Indian
Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India (IRIS ID No. 200906980). The authors also acknowledge the facilities provided by
the Director, ICAR-CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram, India and the help
extended by Dr. J. Sreekumar, Senior Scientist (Agricultural
Statistics), ICAR-CTCRI in the statistical analysis.
References
AOAC (1995). Ofcial Methods of Analysis (16th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of
Analytical Chemists.
Asp, N. G., & Bjrck, I. (1992). Resistant starch. Trends in Food Science and Technology,
3, 111114.
Bjrck, I., Liljeberg, H., & Ostman, E. (2000). Low glycaemic-index foods. British
Journal of Nutrition, 83, 149155.
Brennan, C. S., Blake, D. E., Ellis, P. R., & Schoeld, J. D. (1996). Effects of guar
galactomannan on wheat bread microstructure and on in vitro and in vivo
digestibility of starch from pasta. Journal of Cereal Science, 24, 151160.
Briani, G., Bruttomesso, D., Bilardo, G., Giorato, C., Duner, E., Iori, E., et al. (2006).
Guar-enriched pasta and guar gum in the dietary treatment of type II diabetes.
Phytotherapy Research, 1, 177179.
Buttriss, J. L., & Stokes, C. S. (2008). Dietary bre and health. Nutrition Bulletin, 33,
186200.
223