Chemical Composition and Mineral Contents of Gluten Free Flat Bread Fortified with Lentil and Lupin Flour

Chemical Composition and Mineral Contents of Gluten Free Flat Bread Fortified with Lentil and Lupin Flour

H. E. Ahmed, Z. A. Nofal, H. Y. Yousef ^*, Z. H. Saad

Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

*Corresponding author E-mail: hanyyousef @azahar.edue.eg (H. Yousef)

ABSTRACT 

Most of the gluten-free bakery products consist of corn flour, rice flour and corn starch, which leads to poor in nutrients (low nutritional value), so the present research was carried out to study the effect of fortify gluten free blends consists of brown rice flour, millet flour and tapioca starch at deferent levels with lentil flour and lupine flour. Chemical composition, mineral contents, sensory evaluation and bread staling during storage at room temperature for zero, 24, 48 and 72 hours was conducted. Results indicated that lupine flour was high in protein content, fat, Ca, K and Mg, compared to lentil flour which is high in fiber and Fe. Millet flour was high in ash content and brown rice flour was high in Mn. Regarding to sensory evaluation, GF flat bread samples prepared from (Groups A and B) were take higher total acceptability, and they expressed as superior samples. Followed by samples prepared from (Group E) then (Group C). The least two group’s bread samples in total acceptability were (Group F) then (Group D).

Keywords: bread, gluten, lentil flour, lupin flour.

INTRODUCTION

Gluten-free foods on the grocery shelves could be hard to find. Not so much, now. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants you to know that foods labelled as "gluten-free". These requirements are important for people with celiac disease, who face potentially life-threatening illnesses if they eat gluten, typically found in breads, cakes, cereals, pastas, and many other foods. Some individuals may not have celiac disease but may still be sensitive to gluten. As one of the criteria for using the claim “gluten-free,” FDA set a limit of less than 20 ppm for the unavoidable presence of gluten in foods that carry this label. Qiu Chen et al., (2019) investigated the effect of various milling conditions on rice flour properties. Milling speed had less effect on digestibility than did milling duration for waxy rice flour, but speed had a greater effect on the digestibility of low- and high-amylose rice flour. Dough strength was positively influenced by rice and moong flour. Higher levels of sorghum and rice tend to possess higher scores for sensory acceptability. Encina et al., (2019) assess the combined effect of guar gum (GG) and water content (WC) on the rheological properties of batter, and the physicochemical and textural properties of bread. Batches of gluten-free bread used a base formulation of rice (50%), maize (30%) and quinoa flour (20%), with different levels of GG (2.5, 3.0 or 3.5%) and water (90, 100 or 110%) in a full factorial design. Lee Young et al., (2019) study the effect of hammer milling and jet milling on germinated brown rice (GBR). The jet milling of GBR resulted in flour with different particle sizes. As the particle size decreased, the amount of damaged starch increased. The jet-milled GBR flour was slightly lower than that of the hammer-milled flour. Rybicka et al., (2019) foundthe highest nutritional benefits for protein, magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc, iron and manganese in bread prepared with millet. The highest consumer acceptance of people on gluten-free diet was noticed for breads with quinoa and millet. Tortoe et al., (2019) evaluated flour of five new varieties of improved certified pearl millet. The bread showed no interactive effect between variety and replacement level with millet flour at 20%. Bouakkadia et al., (2015) studied the 4 legumes (peanut, soybean, sesame and lentil). Our results contribute to increase the repertoire of legume allergens that may improve the diagnosis, categorize patients and thus provide a better treatment of patients. Li L, et al., (2019) isolate starches of a high purity from starch-rich pea, lentil and fava bean flours. The isolated starches showed amylose contents and amylopectin branch-chain-length distributions similar to those of commercial pea starch. The desirable functionality of the starches (e.g., strong gelling ability) renders them suitable for some specific industrial applications, and further modifications can be utilized to enhance their functionality for broader use. Xu et al., (2019) investigated the chemical composition, thermal, pasting, and moisture adsorption properties of flour from chickpea, lentil and yellow pea, protein content increased for germinated lentil, had the highest protein content. Total starch decreased in lentil and yellow pea flour during germination, while there was no significant change in germinated chickpea flour. The highest final viscosities for chickpea, lentil, and yellow pea. Emma Stirling, (2019): reported that Lupin is good news for those with gluten problems and vegans, it is high in plant protein. Immunology and Allergy only around 5 per cent of children and 2 per cent of adults have food allergies and the confirmed cases of lupin allergies have been few. Gurjral et al., (2012) declared that celiac disease, a genetic condition experienced by 0.5–1.0% of the population worldwide, is gluten-sensitive immune-mediated enteropathy. Stantiall, and Serventi, (2018) reported that. There is a growing need for gluten-free bakery products. Currently, gluten-free bakery products deliver lower protein, fiber and mineral content and elevated glycemic index (GI) than gluten-containing foods. Only a mixture of rice and buckwheat flour or a low addition of either egg white or whey protein has shown potential for the improvement of both nutrition and sensory qualities. Rybicka et al., (2019) studied the recipe, nutritional characteristics (fat, protein, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, copper, iron, zinc, and manganese). The objective of this study was to develop gluten-free flat bread to produce acceptable dough and bread properties. Flat bread was tested for physical, chemical, nutritional, sensory evaluation and staling rate also compared with refined wheat flour and commercial gluten free flour as a control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Raw Materials:

Brown Rice Flour (BRF), Millet Flour (MLF), Tapioca Starch (TPS), Lentil Flour (LNF), Lupin Flour (LUF), Gums Mixture [ (GM) (water-soluble tamarind seed gum and agar agar)], single - action baking powder and vanilla were obtained from Epics Group for Food Industries, 6^th of October city, Giza, Egypt.

Fresh eggs, sugar, were purchased from a local market.

Flat Bread Preparation

Flat bread was prepared according to the method of Gularte et. al. (2012) using different ratios of some additives, as shown in table (1). The processing of preparation flat bread samples was shown in fig. (1) and formula used to preparing flat bread was as follows:       

Blended flour = 100 % - Yeast = 1 % - Salt =1 % - Oil = 5 %

Water ~ 75 - 80 %

Chemical analysis:

Chemical analysis including moisture content, ash content, crude fiber, protein content and total lipids were determined according to the method described in A.O.A.C (2000). Total carbohydrate was calculated by difference. The minerals elements, namely: Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg) and Manganese (Mn) According to the method described in A.O.A.C (2005).

Sensory Evaluation of Flat bread

Flat bread was evaluated for Loaf rising, Crust Quality, Crust color, Crumb color, Crumb uniformity, Odor, Taste and Total Scores. The quality scoring was conducted by experienced panelists from food technology research institute (FTRI) to evaluate organoleptically the different characteristics of flat bread loaves. Score of each parameter as reported by (Twillman and white, 1988) as follows:

Loaf rising:10, crust quality:10, crust color:15, crumbcolor:15, crumb uniformity:10, odor:20, taste:20 and total scores:100.

Determination of staling rate for flat bread:

The staling of flat bread at different storage times 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours at room temperature, was tested by determination of alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) according to the method of Kitterman and Rubenthaler (1971)

% AWRC=(Weight of tube sample after centrifuge - Weight of empty tube/ Weight of sample) 100

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chemical properties of Brown rice flour (BRF), Millet flour (MLF), Tapioca starch (TS), Lentil flour (LNF), Lupine flour (LUF), Tamarind seed gum (TSG) and Agar Agar (Ag Ag) were presented in table (2).

Data given in table (2) it cleared that the highest flour in protein present was lupine followed by lentil and the lowest was tapioca starch. Values were 36.2, 25.8 and 0.1 % for lupine, lentil and tapioca starch respectively. Data showed that chemical properties of brown rice flour, millet flour and tapioca starch were 2.2, 4.2 and 0.0 % total fats, 2.6, 8.5 and 0.5 % fiber, 1.0, 4.1 and 0.1 % ash content respectively. These data were in agreement with those obtained by Iuliana Aprodu and Iuliana Banu (2015), Villarino et al., (2016) and Matthew Nosworthy  et al., (2018).

Data in table (3) showed the mineral contentsof raw materials and gums mixtuer (mg /100 g). From data, it can be observed that brown rice flour was higher in Fe, Zn, K, Mg and Mn than millet flour, but millet flour was higher in Ca and Na than brown rice flour. Values were, 1.9, 2.5, 288, 111 and 3.96 (mg/100 g) for brown rice flour. Ca and Sodium in millet flour were higher than in brown rice flour, values were 20 and 9.8 (mg / 100 g), respectively.

Regarding to fortificants (lentil flour and lupine flour), it can be noticed that lupine flour was higher in Ca, Na, K, Mg and Mn than lentil flour, values were 176, 15, 1013, 198 and 2.4 (mg / 100 g) for above-mentioned minerals for lupine flour, compared to 56, 6, 955, 122 and 1.3 (mg / 100 g) for lentil flour, respectively. From the same table it can observed that lupine flour and lentil flour were higher nutrient than all other ingredients followed by brown rice flour. On the other hand, tapioca starch was the least nutrient compare with other ingredients. When compared between two gums, it can be noticed that agar agar recorded high content of all minerals compared with tamarind seed gum. Agar agar was very high in Ca, Fe, Zn, K, Mg and Mn. These results are in agreements with Duodu KG and Jideani AIO. (2018), Jose C Jimenez-Lopez et al., (2020) and Michael, et al., (2021).

The main chemical composition of gluten free flat bread prepared from blends of brown rice flour, millet flour, tapioca starch and fortified with lentil flour or lupine flour at different levels, compared to flat bread prepared from wheat flour as (CONTROL–1) and commercial gluten free flour as (CONTROL– 2) are shown in table (4).  Data illustrated in table (4) declared that gluten free flat bread samples prepared from millet flour with tapioca starch (group B) were higher in protein, fat, fiber and ash contents than bread samples prepared from brown rice flour with tapioca starch (group A) at all ratios of blends. Protein, fat, fiber and ash % values were 6.67, 2.53, 5.43 and 2.51 % for (group B) samples at (60% millet and 40% tapioca starch), compared to 5.11, 1.33, 1.89 and 0.65% for (group A) samples at (60% brown rice flour and 40% tapioca starch). The same trend was observed with bread samples fortified with lentil flour (group E) and (group F). On the other hand, when comparing between brown rice flour fortified with lentil flour and lupine flour (group C) and (group E), bread samples fortified with lupine flour (group E) were higher than bread samples fortified with lentil flour (group C) in protein, fat and ash content except fiber content. Protein, fat and fiber values of bread samples (group E) were 8.31, 2.19 and 3.63% at (55% brown rice flour, 35% tapioca starch and 10% lupine flour) compared to 7.27, 1.33 and 4.78% of bread samples (group C) at (55% brown rice flour, 35% tapioca starch and 10% lentil flour). These results are in agreements withLee YP, et al., (2006), Viveros et al., (2007) and Hodgson et al., (2010).

Results in table (5) showed the minerals in gluten free flat bread samples prepared from brown rice flour, millet flour and tapioca starch fortified with lentil flour and lupine flour at different levels. Data in this table, declared that prepared bread from millet flour with tapioca starch fortified with lupine flour recorded high Ca content (group F) compared with all other blended flour. Calcium values were 33, 26, 21 and 14 (mg/100g) for (groups F, E, D and C) at the same level of blends (15% tapioca) compare to 120 and 19 (mg/100g) for bread prepared from wheat flour (Control – 1) and prepared from commercial Gluten Free flour (Control – 2). Data also declared that, bread samples prepared from blend flour (group - C) was high Fe content (3.6 mg / 100g) compared with all other bread samples prepared with any other groups, followed by bread samples prepared from (group - D), Fe content recorded 3.4 (mg / 100 g). Concerning to K and Mg contents, gluten free flat bread prepared from (group – E) was higher values of mentioned minerals than all bread prepared from other groups, followed by bread prepared from (group – C).

Bread samples prepared from millet flour and tapioca starch and fortified with lentil flour (group D) were less content in Calcium, Potassium, and Magnesium than bread samples prepared from millet flour and tapioca starch fortified with lupin flour (group F).

On the other hand, Zn, Na and Mn contents were almost the same content in two groups under study. 

These results may be due to the increase in these minerals in the raw materials used. These results were in parallel with Suliburska et al., (2013), Larretxi et al., (2019) and Rogaska et al., (2020).

The produced flat bread was evaluated for their sensory characteristics and the summery of obtained results are shown in table (6) which declared the total external properties, total internal properties and total acceptability. From results presented in table (6), it could be noticed that addition of tapioca starch to brown rice flour and millet flour (Groups A and B) lead to enhancing the external and internal properties as well as total acceptability of flat bread compared to all other group blends, and almost equal to samples prepared from wheat flour (Control-1), in addition of all GF flat bread under this study were higher scores and more acceptable than GF bread sample prepared from commercial flour (Control-2). From data illustrated in table (6), it could be noticed that, GF flat bread samples prepared from (Groups A and B) take higher total acceptability, and they expressed as superior samples. Followed by samples prepared from (Group E) which is prepared from Brown rice flour and tapioca starch fortified with lupin flour, then (Group C) which prepared from Brown rice flour and tapioca starch fortified with lentil flour. The supper samples values ranged from 91.5 to 95.5% for (Group A), followed by 91% to 93.5% for (Group B) then from 88 % to 90.5 % for (Group E) and from 87 % to 90% for (Group C), finally the least values ranged from 83% to 87% was recorded with (group D), respectively. These results are in compatible with Feizollahi et al., (2018)) and Abrantes et al.,  (2019).

Alkaline water retention capacity is (AWRC) considered as a simple and quick test to determine staling of bread. Higher values of (AWRC) means higher freshness of bread. The change in freshness characteristics of bread produced by brown rice flour or millet flour with tapioca starch and fortified with lupin flour or lentil flour, compared with the samples prepared from wheat flour (Control – 1) and commercial gluten free flour (Control – 2) were carried out after storage times of 0, 24, 48 and 72 hr. at room temperature, the obtained results are shown in Table (7). From above results, it could be noticed that flat bread prepared from brown rice flour were fresher than bread prepared from millet flour after all times of storage. Regarding to flat bread samples prepared from brown rice flour and tapioca starch fortified with lupine flour (Group E), it can be observed that these bread samples were fresher than bread prepared from brown rice flour and tapioca starch fortified with lentil flour (Group C). AWRC values of (Group E) ranged from 336 to 353 % after 24 hr. of storage, compared to 334 to 349 for bread samples fortified with lentil flour (Group C) after the same time of storage. The same trends were noticed with other storage times. Concerning the same fortifications with lupine and lentil flour with millet flour and tapioca starch (Grups F and D), the same above trends were observed at different storage times. In general, there was a gradual decrease in AWRC% (low freshness) for all different flat bread samples during storage periods, this may be due to crystallization of amylose after baking processing during bread storage, or may be due to the fact that lentil flour had a gelatinization temperature, that differs from lupine flour, and lead to effect on starch granules retrogradation. These results were agreement with Seleem, (2000), Nassar ( 2017), Ammar et al., (2020) and Matsushita et al., (2020).

CONCLUSION:

According to the previous results of the tested products, it could be concluded that, effect of adding tapioca starch to brown rice flour or to millet flour was the best additive when preparing gluten free bread, and lupin flour was better than lentil flour as a fortificants.

REFERENCES

Abrantes, S.G., Rennan, P.G., Henrique, V.M., Hanndson, A.S., Mário, E.R.M.C., Maria, E.M.D. 2019: Production of prebiotic gluten-free bread with red rice flour and different microbial transglutaminase concentrations: modelling, sensory and multivariate data analysis. J Food Sci Technol, 56(6):2949-2958

Ammar, A.S., Faisal, M.A., Mohammed, B. 2020: Shelf life extension of wheat bread by alhydwan flour and Carboxymethylcellulose and improvement of their quality characteristics, dough rheological and microstructure. Int. J. Biol. Macromol 1; 156:851-857.

A.O.A.C. 2000: Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 17^th Ed., Published by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, Virginia, USA.

A.O.A.C. 2005: Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 18 ^th Ed., Published by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington , Virginia, USA

Bouakkadia, H., Boutebba, A., Haddad, I., Vinh, J., Guilloux, L., Sutra, J.P., Sénéchal, H., Poncet, P. 2015: Immunoproteomics of non-water-soluble allergens from 4 legumes flours: peanut, soybean, sesame and lentil. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2015 Nov-Dec;73(6):690-704.

Duodu, K.G., Jideani, A.I.O. 2018: Effect of malting period on physicochemical properties, minerals, and phytic acid of finger millet (Eleusine coracana) flour varieties. Food Sci Nutr. 22;6(7):1858-1869.

Emma, S. 2019: Bakers love the new 'it' gluten-free flour, lupin, but it comes with an allergy alert. https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2019/05/13/bakers-love-new-it-gluten-free-flour-lupin-it-comes-allergy-alert.

Encina, C., Cadavez, V., Monteiro, F., Teixeira, J., Gonzales, U. 2019: Physicochemical and textural quality attributes of gluten-free bread formulated with guar gum. European Food Research and Technology V. 245 (2):443-458.

FDA: US Food and Drug Administration.https://www.fda.gov/food/new-nutrition-facts-label/daily-value-new-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels.

Feizollahi, L.M., Mohammad, A.M., Sahar, J., Haleh, H., Bahman, N., Sajjad, L. 2018: Sensory, digestion, and texture quality of commercial gluten-free bread: Impact of broken rice flour type. J Texture Stud., Feb 8.

Gularte, M.A., de la Hera, E., Gómez, M., Rosell, C.M. 2012: Effect of different fibers on batter and gluten-free layer cake properties. Food Sci Technol.;48(2):209–214. 

Gurjral, N., Freeman, H.J., Thomson, A. 2012: Celiac disease: Prevalence, diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 6036–6059.

Hodgson, M., Lee,Y.P., Puddey, I.B., Sipsas, S., Ackland, T.R., Beilin, L.J., elski, R., Mori,T.A. 2010: Effects of increasing dietary protein and fiber intake with lupine on body weight and composition and blood lipids in overweight men and women. International Journal of Obesity

Jie, X., Hui, Z., Xiaona, G., Haifeng, Q. 2011: The impact of germination on the characteristics of brown rice flour and starch. J Sci Food Agric., 30;92(2):380-7.

Jose, C.J.L., Karam, B.S., Alfonso, C. 2020: Legumes for Global Food Security. Front Plant Sci., 7;11:926.

Kitterman, J.S., Rubenthaler, G.L. 1971: “Assessing the quality of early generation wheat selection with the micro ARWRC”, cereal Sci. to Day 16, 8, 313-318.

Larretxi, I.T., Virginia, N., Jonatan, M. 2019: Micronutrient Analysis of Gluten-Free Products: Their Low Content Is Not Involved in Gluten-Free Diet Imbalance in a Cohort of Celiac Children and Adolescent. Foods, 7;8(8):321.

Lee, Y., Shim, M., Goh, H., Mok, C., Pradeep, P. 2019: Effect of jet milling on the physicochemical properties, pasting properties, and in vitro starch digestibility of germinated brown rice flour. Food Chemistry, V. 282:164-168.

Li, L., Yuan, T.Z., Setia, R., Raja, R.B., Zhang, B., Ai, Y. 2019: Characteristics of pea, lentil and faba bean starches isolated from air-classified flours in comparison with commercial starches. Food Chem. 2019 Mar 15; 276:599-607.

Iuliana, A., Iuliana, B. 2015: Rheological, thermo-mechanical, and baking properties of wheat-millet flour blends. Food Sci Techno Int.,21(5):342-53.

Matsushita, A.T., Daisuke, G., Dennis, M.S., Takao, M., Kanenori, T., Hiroaki, Y. 2020: Effect of combining additional bakery enzymes and high pressure treatment on bread making qualities. J Food Sci Technol.;57(1):134-142.

Matthew, G.N., Gerardo, M., Adam, J.F., James, D.H. 2018: Effect of processing on the in vitro and in vivo protein quality of red and green lentils (Lens culinaris). Food Chem.,1;240:588-593.

Michael, P.R., Pamela, M.D., Zenaida, R.N., Roberto, G.P. 2021: Assessing mineral profiles for rice flour fraud detection by principal component analysis based data fusion. Food Chem., (1); 125:128.

Nassar, N.R.A., Heikal, Y.A., Ramadan, I.E., Abou-Donia, M.A.M., Abdel-Rahman, G.N. 2017: Characteristics of pan bread and Balady bread produced from different Saccharomyces Cerevisiae strains. Egypt. J. Food Sci. 45: 29-41.

Qiu, C., Li, P., Li, Z., Corke, H., Sui, Z. 2019: Combined speed and duration of milling affect the physicochemical

Rogaska, J.R., Joanna, S., Zbigniew, K. 2020: A Comparative Study of the Bioavailability of Fe, Cu and Zn from Gluten-Free Breads Enriched with Natural and Synthetic Additives. Foods, 12;9(12):1853

Rybicka, I., Doba, K., Binczak, O. 2019: Improving the sensory and nutritional value of gluten-free bread. International Journal of Food Science & Technology; 54(9):2661-2667.

Seleem, H.A.S. 2000: Studies on addition of some corn and sorghum varieties to wheat flour and balady bread characteristic. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.

Sophie, E.S., Luca, S. 2018: Nutritional and sensory challenges of gluten-free bakery products: a review. Int J Food Sci Nutr., ;69(4):427-436.

Suliburska, Z.K., Julita, R., Agnieszka, G. 2013: Evaluation of the content and the potential bioavailability of minerals from gluten-free products. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment.;12(1):75-9.

Tortoe, C., Akonor, P., Hagan, L., Kanton, R., Asungre, P., Ansoba, E. 2019: Assessing the suitability of flours from five pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum) varieties for bread production.   International Food Research Journal, V. 26(1):329-336.  

Twillman, T.J., white, P.J, 1988: Influence of monoglycerides on the texture, shelf life and dough rheology of corn tortillas. Cereal Chemistry, 65, 3, pp 253-57.

Villarino, C.B., Jayasena, V., Coorey, R., Chakrabarti-Bell, S., Johnson, S.K. 2016: Nutritional, Health, and Technological Functionality of Lupin Flour Addition to Bread and Other Baked Products: Benefits and Challenges. Food Sci Nutr.;56(5):835-57.

Viveros, A., Centeno, C., Arija, I., Brenes, A. 2007: Cholesterol-lowering effects of dietary lupine in chicken diets. Poult Sci. 2007; 86: 2631–2638.

Xu, M., Jin, Z., Simsek, S., Hall, C., Rao, J., Chen, B. 2019: Effect of germination on the chemical composition, thermal, pasting, and moisture sorption properties of flours from chickpea, lentil, and yellow pea. Food Chem. 2019 Oct 15; 295:579-587.