Effect of grass pea and orange peel flour addition on the quality of sorghum flour

Figures & data

Table 1. Blend formulation

Flour blend	Sorghum flour (%)	Grass pea flour (%)	Orange peel flour (%)
B1	80	15	5
B2	65	25	10
B3	50	35	15

Note: B1= blend one, B2= blend two, B3= blend three.

Table 2. Proximate composition and energy content of individual and blend flours

Composition (%)	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Crude Protein	11.60 ± 0.9^d	29.47 ± 1.00^a	5.60 ± 0.66^e	16.30 ± 0.50^c	17.65 ± 0.44b^c	18.20 ± 0.30^b
Ash	1.76 ± 0.09^f	2.82 ± 0.12^d	4.06 ± 0.07^a	2.46 ± 0.09^e	3.15 ± 0.08^c	3.42 ± 0.04^b
Moisture	10.18 ± 0.48^a	8.80 ± 0.62^bc	8.40 ± 0.46^c	9.80 ± 0.17^ab	9.35 ± 0.15^abc	8.76 ± 0.03^bc
Crude fat	2.82 ± 0.02^a	1.30 ± 0.02^d	0.80 ± 0.03^e	2.69 ± 0.02^a	2.40 ± 0.10^b	2.03 ± 0.05^c
Crude fiber	7.30 ± 0.21^d	5.10 ± 0.10^e	12.23 ± 0.72^a	8.10 ± 0.07^cd	8.51 ± 0.03^bc	9.00 ± 0.20^b
Carbohydrate	73.64 ± 1.29^b	57.62 ± 1.35^d	81.14 ± 0.71^a	68.75 ± 0.60^c	67.45 ± 0.47^c	67.58 ± 0.25^c
Energy value kcal/100 g	366.34 ± 2.11^a	360.03 ± 2.86^c	354.19 ± 1.61^b	364.41 ± 1.13^ab	362.01 ± 0.62^ab	361.45 ± 0.21^b

Note: Results are presented as means ± SD of three replications. Mean values with different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (p < 0.05). S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour, Moisture on % wet basis.

Table 3. Mineral content of the individual and blend flours

Mineral content (mg/100 g)	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Calcium	49.84 ± 0.27^f	112.16 ± 0.42^d	927.04 ± 0.06^a	72.76 ± 0.33^e	148.86 ± 0.07^c	227.04 ± 0.07^b
Iron	1.28 ± 0.02^f	7.02 ± 0.03^b	13.76 ± 0.12^a	4.4 ± 0.04^e	4.78 ± 0.09^d	5.08 ± 0.09^c
Zinc	1.06 ± 0.05^f	2.04 ± 0.05^b	2.24 ± 0.04^a	1.32 ± 0.02^e	1.61 ± 0.03^d	1.84 ± 0.02^c

Note: Results are presented as means ± SD of three replications. Mean values with different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (p < 0.05). S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour.

Table 4. Functional properties of the individual and blend flours

Functional properties	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Water holding capacity (g/g)	1.10 ± 0.10^c	1.08 ± 0.02^c	2.85 ± 0.05^a	1.12 ± 0.02^c	1.28 ± 0.03^b	1.41 ± 0.03^b
Oil absorption Capacity (g/g)	1.25 ± 0.03^c	1.20 ± 0.05^c	1.76 ± 0.05^a	1.30 ± 0.04^c	1.40 ± 0.03^b	1.41 ± 0.02^b
Bulk Density(g/mL)	0.56 ± 0.00^cd	0.65 ± 0.01^a	0.52 ± 0.00^e	0.55 ± 0.01^d	0.58 ± 0.02^bc	0.59 ± 0.01^b
pH	6.28 ± 0.06^a	6.40 ± 0.02^a	5.10 ± 0.07^d	6.10 ± 0.05^b	6.08 ± 0.01^b	5.81 ± 0.03^c
Titrable acidity	0.19 ± 0.02^c	0.21 ± 0.02^bc	0.32 ± 0.03^a	0.23 ± 0.01^bc	0.24 ± 0.02^b	0.25 ± 0.02^b
Solubility index (WSI) (%)	22.03 ± 0.24^f	34.00 ± 0.23^a	32.00 ± 0.07^b	25.00 ± 0.39^e	27.00 ± 0.64^d	29.00 ± 0.15^c
Swelling capacity (%)	216.50 ± 0.92^d	212.04 ± 0.99^d	617.67 ± 6.51^a	250.38 ± 4.01^c	280.09 ± 5.66^b	292.01 ± 5.58^b

Note: Results are presented as means ± SD of three replications. Mean values with different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (p < 0.05). S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour.

Table 5. Anti-nutrient composition of the individual and blend flours

Composition (mg/100 g)	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Phytate	416.60 ± 0.57^b	420.02 ± 0.18^a	412.72 ± 0.05^c	410.99 ± 0.08^d	412.05 ± 0.12^c	414.01 ± 0.21^c
Tannin	BDL	144.34 ± 0.07^a	120.83 ± 0.17^c	116.96 ± 0.22^e	118.74 ± 0.18^d	138.39 ± 0.03^b

Note: Results are presented as means ± SD of three replications. Mean values with different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (p < 0.05). S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour.

Figure 1. % inhibitions of the standard solution.

Figure 2. % inhibitions of the individual and blend flours.

Table 6. Antioxidant capacity of the individual and blend flours

Method of assay	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
DPPH (%)	42.45 ± 21.50^ab	21.30 ± 3.09^b	54.46 ± 22.42^a	38.29 ± 11.75^ab	41.54 ± 12.60^ab	41.53 ± 20.15^ab
FRAP(mmolFe^2+/g)	262.83 ± 2.64^b	190.22 ± 0.71^d	311.53 ± 3.47^a	245.67 ± 1.23^c	249.63 ± 0.25^c	246.51 ± 0.45^c

Note: Results are presented as means ± SD of three replications for FRAP and ± SD of six different concentrations in DPPH assay of the extract. Mean values with different superscripts in a row show a significant difference (p < 0.05). S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour.

Table 7. Pasting properties of the individual and blend flours

	Sample code
Composition (mg/100 g)	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Peak 1	187.00	1829.00	440.00	80.00	65.00	52.00
Trough 1	29.00	301.00	311.00	10.00	15.00	21.00
Breakdown	158.00	1528.00	129.00	70.00	42.00	31.00
Final peak	81.00	445.00	917.00	19.00	29.00	41.00
Setback	52.00	144.00	606.00	9.00	14.00	20.00
Peak time	4.13	5.73	7.00	5.40	5.25	5.13
Pasting temperature	80.60	84.05	95.05	94.75	94.67	94.65

Note: S = sorghum flour, G = grass pea flour, O = orange peel flour.

Figure 3. FTIR spectrum of the individual flours.

Figure 4. FTIR spectrum of the blend flours.

Table 9. Shear stress and torque of the dough at minimum viscosity at a time, and shear rate of 400s and 100 (1/s) respectively

Quantity measured	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Shear stress (Pa)	52.77	710.02	6.89	0.046	28.051	276.35
Torque (mN·m)	3.36	45.17	0.44	0.003	1.79	17.58

Table 8. Shear stress and shear rate of the dough at maximum viscosity at a time of 20s

Quantity measured	Sample code
	S	G	O	B1	B2	B3
Shear stress(Pa)	99.819	66.37	3143.80	91.67	535.89	992.79
Shear rate (1/s)	1	1	0.3	1	1	0.997
Torque (mN·m)	6.3502	4.2224	200	5.832	34.092	63.159
Viscosity (mPa·s)	99823	66375	1.05E+07	91680	5.36E+05	9.95E+05

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.