Saltar al contenido
República del Perú · Observatorio de la producción científica universitaria
OApol.org Observatorio de Inteligencia Científica Universitaria del Perú
OApol.org
Inicio Universidades Publicaciones Investigadores
Repositorios
Tesis y trabajos académicosRevistas
Indicadores
Ranking trimestralRanking por carreraObjetivos de Desarrollo SostenibleReporte OCDERed neuronal 3D
Acerca
MetodologíaPrivacidad

Nutritional quality and evaluation physic, sensory and biological of conventional and gluten-free breads

García-Ramón F.; Alvarez H.; Sotelo-Méndez A.; Gonzáles Huaman T.; Norabuena E.; Zarate Sarapura E.; Sumarriva Bustinza L. · Nutricion Clinica y Dietetica Hospitalaria (2022) · DOI: 10.12873/421garcia

Resumen

Introduction: Commercially available gluten-free breads are characterized by low volume, crumbly texture and increased crumb toughness, which can be improved with the inclusion of pseudocereals. Quinoa flour is an excellent source of high quality vegetable protein and has important nutritional benefits for human health. Aim: Evaluate the nutritional, physical and sensory characteristics of gluten-free and conventional breads packaged in a Coextruded Polyamide-Polyethylene (COEX PA-PE) material during storage, as well as the biological parameters in Holtzman rats. Materials & methods: Two formulations were developed: gluten-free bread (PLGQ) containing potato starch (AP) and Pasankalla quinoa flour (HQ); while the gluten-containing bread (PCG) was made from wheat flour (HT). Proximal composition, alveolar structure, specific volume, total polyphenols (TFP), total dietary fiber (TDF) and biological evaluation were analyzed. Also, slices of both breads were placed in COEX PA-PE, stored (25 ºC; 80% RH) and evaluated (firmness, moisture, aw and sensory acceptability). Results and discussions: Significant differences (p<0,05) were found among the breads. The PLGQ showed high FDT content (18,49%), PFT (118,46 mg AGE/100g), biological value (VB: 84,86%), apparent digestibility (DA: 91,85%), net protein retention (NPR: 3,25), protein efficiency ratio (PER: 2,81), alveolar area and structure (4,37 mm2 and 85,67 number of alveoli/cm2). Likewise, firmness was higher (3,47N) in PLGQ compared to PCG (3,18N). Finally, overall acceptability was better in PLGQ. Conclusions: PLGQ had better nutritional quality, physical, sensory and biological evaluation parameters with respect to PCG. In addition, the PLGQ portion is considered high in FDT.

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina; Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica; Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería; Universidad Nacional del Callao; Universidad Nacional de Educación Enrique Guzmán y Valle