Nutrient and specification enhancement of fortified Asian noodles by chickpea flour substitution and transglutaminase treatment

Figures & data

Table 1. Element composition of chickpea flour (CF) and wheat flour (WF) (g/100 g)

Element composition	WF	CF	WF+10%CF	WF+20%CF
Moisture	8.9 ± 0.3	8.6 ± 0.4	8.8 ± 0.6	8.9 ± 0.4
Protein	13.0 ± 1.0	25.0 ± 1.1***	14.3 ± 0.9	17.8 ± 1.2**
Ash	1.1 ± 0.2	2.8 ± 0.4**	1.42 ± 0.3	1.58 ± 0.5
Fat	1.1 ± 0.3	4.4 ± 0.4***	1.39 ± 0.5	1.87 ± 0.4*
Total carbohydrate	74.8 ± 1.0	57.7 ± 1.1***	73.6 ± 0.9	71.4 ± 1.0**
Total dietary fiber	0.8 ± 0.1	1.7 ± 0.3**	0.91 ± 0.5	1.01 ± 0.1*

Values are indicated as means ± SD of 3 replications.

Values with * (p< 0.05), ** (p< 0.01), or *** (p< 0.001) are significantly different among WF, CF and mixed flours by t-test.

Table 2. Mixolab parameters, dough rheological, structural, and pasting properties of flour blends of wheat flour (WF) and chickpea flour (CF) treated by transglutaminase (TGase)

Flour blend		WF (control)		WF+10% CF					WF+20% CF
TGase (%)		0		0	0.4	0.8	1.2		0	0.4	0.8	1.2
MixoLab parameters
Water absorption (%)		59.3 ± 0		59.5 ± 0 a	58.1 ± 0 b	57.3 ± 0 c	56.7 ± 0 c		60.3 ± 0 a***	60.2 ± 0 a***	59.3 ± 0 b***	59.0 ± 0 b***
Development time (min)		1.4 ± 0.21		3.65 ± 0.14 a	3.54 ± 0.12 a	3.7 ± 0.04 a	3.35 ± 0.39 a		3.35 ± 0.25 a	3.48 ± 0.15 a	3.57 ± 0.09 a*	3.58 ± 0.49 a
Stability (min)		8.15 ± 0.45		7.47 ± 0.09 b	7.83 ± 0.5 a	7.48 ± 0.36 b	7.26 ± 0.46 b		5.06 ± 0.08 c***	5.59 ± 0.02 b***	6.6 ± 0.25 a*	3.6 ± 0.49 d***
C2 (Nm)		0.49 ± 0		0.4 ± 0 a	0.39 ± 0 a	0.4 ± 0 a	0.4 ± 0 a		0.27 ± 0 c***	0.31 ± 0.01 b***	0.31 ± 0 b***	0.34 ± 0.01 a***
C3 (Nm)		1.74 ± 0.02		1.68 ± 0.01 c	1.77 ± 0.01 b	1.77 ± 0.03 b	1.85 ± 0.05 a		1.55 ± 0.01 b***	1.43 ± 0.01 d***	1.51 ± 0.01 c***	1.57 ± 0.01 a***
Setback_MixLab		1.02 ± 0.05		1.56 ± 0.01 b	1.73 ± 0.01 a	1.38 ± 0.07 c	1.28 ± 0.08 c		1.46 ± 0 b***	2.02 ± 0.01 a***	1.48 ± 0.07 b	1.25 ± 0.13 c
Dynamic viscoelasticity^†
Log a*^†		5.57 ± 0.01		5.62 ± 0.01 c	6 ± 0.05 a	5.85 ± 0.02 b	5.95 ± 0.02 a		5.21 ± 0.06 b***	6.12 ± 0.02 a**	6.15 ± 0.02 a***	6.1 ± 0.01 a***
b*		0.84 ± 0		0.84 ± 0 b	0.89 ± 0 a	0.89 ± 0 a	0.9 ± 0 a		0.8 ± 0 c***	0.9 ± 0 b***	0.9 ± 0 a**	0.9 ± 0 a**
Pasting property
Peak viscosity		1420 ± 13		1461 ± 22 c	1545 ± 15 ab	1588 ± 15 a	1536 ± 23 b		1104 ± 5 b***	1095 ± 1 b***	1152 ± 23 a***	1074 ± 12 b***
Trough viscosity		992 ± 20		1005 ± 3 b	1085 ± 15 a	1111 ± 25 a	1084 ± 15 a		793 ± 13 c***	829 ± 3 ab***	843 ± 13 a***	804 ± 13 bc***
Breakdown		441 ± 21		454 ± 23 a	460 ± 22 a	477 ± 12 a	452 ± 9 a		311 ± 11 a***	266 ± 3 b***	309 ± 11 a***	270 ± 3 b***
Final viscosity		2080 ± 32		2122 ± 37 a	2155 ± 15 a	2179 ± 43 a	2124 ± 22 a		1654 ± 17 a***	1571 ± 9 b***	1579 ± 25 b***	1511 ± 25 c***
Setback_RVA		1101 ± 39		1126 ± 36 a	1071 ± 7 ab	1067 ± 22 b	1040 ± 8 b		861 ± 5 a***	742 ± 12 b***	736 ± 13 b***	707 ± 12 c***

Values are presented as the mean ± SD, n = 3. Values within a row at a same addition level of chickpea flour followed by a different lower-case letter are significantly different by ANOVA followed a Tukey’s test (p< 0.05); At a same TGase level, * (p< 0.05), ** (p< 0.01), or *** (p< 0.001) indicates significantly different between “WF+10%CF” and “WF+20%CF” by t-test; Almost any treatment showed highly significant difference to control (WF) by ANOVA followed by a Dinette test (p< 0.001), except in most cases for the sample “WF+10% CF” (i.e. trough viscosity, breakdown, final viscosity, setback_RVA, log a* and b*); and in a few cases for the sample “WF+10% CF treated by various dosage of TGase” (i.e. C₃, breakdown, final viscosity and setback_RVA). The results were not shown for clarity.

^†The values of a* are equal to η* at 1 rad/s, at room temperature, frequency range from 0.01 to 10 rad/s; The coefficient (R²) of power law of complex modulus (η*) was > 0.999 in all cases.

Figure 1. Effect of CF addition and TGase treatment at various dosage on dynamic moduli (G´, Gʺ), Tan δ and complex modulus (η*) of dough made from wheat flour (WF) supplemented with 10% and 20% chickpea flour (CF). □, WF (control); black solid symbols, WF+10%CF; blue solid symbols, WF+20%CF

Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy images of noodle samples. Left panel: raw noodles; Right panel: cooked noodles. From top to bottom: WF (A and B), WF+10%CF (C and D), WF+20%CF (E and F), WF+10%CF+0.4%TGase (G and H), and WF+20%CF+0.8%TGase (I and J). Abbreviations: WF, wheat flour; CF, chickpea flour; and TGase, transglutaminase

Table 3. Noodle color, noodle cooking quality, and sensorial properties of flour blends of wheat flour (WF) and chickpea flour (CF) treated by transglutaminase (TGase)

Flour blend		WF (control)		WF+10% CF					WF+20% CF
TGase (%)		0		0	0.4	0.8	1.2		0	0.4	0.8	1.2
Noodle color
L*		80.5 ± 0.3a		71.6** ± 1.0b	70.9 ± 0.7b***	71.6 ± 0.4b**	71.9 ± 0.8b**		69.7 ± 0.36 c***	69.66 ± 0.5 c***	69.66 ± 0.4 c***	69.66 ± 0.7 c***
a*		0.3 ± 0.0a ±		0.8 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.8 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.7 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.8 ± 0.0b*** ±		1.0 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.96 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.90 ± 0.1b*** ±	0.88 ± 0.1b*** ±
b*		9. 9 ± 0.1a		13.1 ± 0.2b** ±	13.0 ± 0.1b** ±	12.9 ± 0.3b** ±	12.9 ± 0.2b** ±		12.0 ± 0.1b** ±	12.5 ± 0.3b** ±	11.9 ± 0.1b** ±	12.6 ± 0.2b** ±
Cooking and sensory quality
Cooking loss (%)		2.9 ± 0.2		6.1 ± 0.3 a	3.7 ± 0.2 b	4.2 ± 0.3 b	5.7 ± 0.3 a		11.3 ± 0.2 a***	9.1 ± 0.4 b***	6.1 ± 0.2 d***	8.1 ± 0.3 c***
Chewiness		7 ± 0		6.0 ± 0.4 b	6.7 ± 0.3 a	6.7 ± 0.2 ab	6 ± 0.2 b		3.5 ± 0.2 b***	4.9 ± 0.2 a***	5.3 ± 0.2 a***	5 ± 0.2 a**
Springiness		7 ± 0		5.8 ± 0.3 b	6.9 ± 0.3 a	6.8 ± 0.2 a	6 ± 0.2 b		4.2 ± 0.3 b**	5.3 ± 0.3 a**	5.9 ± 0.3 a*	5.8 ± 0.3 a
Mouthfeel		7 ± 0		6.5 ± 0.3 b	7.8 ± 0.2 a	6.8 ± 0.2 b	6.5 ± 0.2 b		3.2 ± 0.3 c***	4.1 ± 0.3 b***	5.2 ± 0.3 a***	5.2 ± 0.2 a**
Integrity		7 ± 0		6.3 ± 0.2 ab	6.9 ± 0.2 a	6.7 ± 0.2 a	6 ± 0.2 b		4.7 ± 0.2 b***	5.5 ± 0.2 a***	5.9 ± 0.2 a*	5.7 ± 0.2 a
Total score		7 ± 0		6.0 ± 0.3 c	7.9 ± 0.3 a	7.1 ± 0.2 b	6.3 ± 0.2 c		5.1 ± 0.2 b**	6.3 ± 0.2 a**	6.5 ± 0.2 a*	6.3 ± 0.3 a

Values are presented as the mean ± SD, n = 3. Values within a row at a same addition level of chickpea flour followed by a different lower-case letter are significantly different by ANOVA followed a Tukey’s test (p< 0.05); At a same TGase level, * (p< 0.05), ** (p< 0.01), or *** (p< 0.001) indicates significantly different between “WF+10%CF” and “WF+20%CF” by t-test; a*, redness – greenness; b*, yellowness – blueness; L*, lightness.

Table 4. The quantification of some main protein subunits of SDS-PAGE electrophoretograms

Lane #10		Lane #1		Lane #4		Lane #7		Lane #11		Lane #2
Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification
1	0.17	1	0.14	1	0.27	1	0.26	1	0.24	1	0.28
2	0.43	2	0.23	2	0.23	2	0.03	2	0.23	2	0.25
3	0.54	3	0.11	3	0.37	3	0.02	3	0.13	3	0.22
4	1.14	4	0.87	4	0.00	4	0.40	4	0.19	4	0.81
				5	0.76	5	0.06
						6	0.63
Lane #5		Lane #8		Lane #12		Lane #3		Lane #6		Lane #9
Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification	Band	Relative quantification
1	0.32	1	0.15	1	0.26	1	0.47	1	0.06	1	0.84
2	0.33	2	0.20	2	0.25	2	0.39	2	0.37	2	0.14
3	0.33	3	0.22	3	0.19	3	0.52	3	0.31	3	0.12
4	0.58	4	0.31	4	0.24			4	0.28	4	0.13

Figure 3. SDS-PAGE of cooked noodles. Left lane: standard marker. CF addition level (%) and TGase dosage (%) are indicated at bottom for Lane # 1–12. Lane #1, #4, #7 and #10 are wheat flour control (0% CF); and Lane #10, #11 and #12 are TGase treatment control (0% TGase). The results indicated that chickpea proteins were involved in the cross-linked network catalyzed by TGase