No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In the current study, the nutritional values, volatiles compounds, and sensory qualities of pea pastes cooked in iron pot and clay pot were compared. Results showed that the iron pot‐cooked pea pastes contained profoundly more iron, total sugar, and starch than the clay pot‐cooked ones, and the effects were found related to iron ion by comparing the results between clay pot‐cooked pastes with and without iron ion addition. Samples prepared with the two utensils demonstrated similar contents of protein, polyphenol, and tannin, but differed in the composition of some volatile alcohols, alkanes, aldehydes, ketones, esters, and organic acids. The clay pot‐cooked samples had higher score of “color,” “mouthfeel,” “taste,” and “overall quality” than the iron pot‐cooked pastes. In conclusion, iron pot can allow the production of iron‐enriched pea pastes whose sensory qualities are remarkably lower than those of the clay pot‐cooked samples but are still in the acceptable range. Practical applications Iron utensil plays an important role in modern food industry due to its durability and convenience to handle. Cooking with iron pot is a simple and useful method of dietary iron fortification for the prevention of iron‐deficiency anemia in developing countries. Pea paste is a popular legume food with high nutritional value and good palatability. Traditional pea paste producers believe cooking with clay pots can give rise to product with more desirable features than using iron pots. However, there were no scientific evidences regarding the effects of cooking utensils on pea paste qualities. It has been proved in the current study that iron pot can allow the production of iron‐enriched pea pastes whose sensory qualities are remarkably lower than those of the clay pot‐cooked samples but are still in acceptable range.

No abstract

The physicochemical properties of pea, chickpea, and wheat starch mixed with different sweeteners, namely, glucose, sucrose, maltitol, and oligofructose, at different sweetener/starch ratios of 0, 5, 10, and 20% (w/w) were investigated. The gelatinization temperatures (To, Tp, and Tc) of the starches increased significantly (p < 0.05) with the addition of sweeteners. The effect of sweeteners on raising gelatinization temperatures followed the order: oligofructose > maltitol > sucrose > glucose > control (water alone). Based on the different combinations, the enthalpy of the three starches increased, remained unchanged, or decreased. Rapid viscosity analyzer (RVA) measurements showed that sucrose, oligofructose, and maltitol were more effective in raising the peak viscosity of starches than glucose. Breakdown and setback were decreased significantly in glucose–starches combinations. Texture profile analysis (TPA) revealed that sweeteners increased the hardness of starch gels to varying degrees as compared to the control. In all cases, the pea and chickpea starch were more sensitive to the addition of sweeteners during paste formation than wheat starch, which might be attributed to the higher amylose content in legume starches. The molecular size and number of hydroxyl groups of the sweeteners should be highly considered in discussing the physicochemical changes of the starches. The results provide new evidence for the effect of sweeteners on starch gelatinization and for the development of sugar‐free starch food.

No abstract