FORTIFICATION OF PASTA WITH BARLEY FRACTION HIGH B-GLUCAN AND QUINOA FLOUR

Introduction:

Pasta is a sort of food with high acceptability worldwide because it is a part of the diet of many nations, relatively inexpensive and can be prepared easily (International Pasta Organization, 2011). As a wheat-derived staple food with a very long shelf life, it comes in the second order just after bread in world consumption (Madhumitha, 2011, Duda et. al., 2019). Semolina flour has a limited nutritional profile and is lacking in the amino acids lysine and threonine (Zhao et. al., 2005 & Gopalakrishnan et. al., 2019). Quinoa and barely are two foods that have been gaining a lot of recognition in the market for their high quality nutritional profile. Quinoa as pseudo-cereal and barley are rich in histidine, lysine and amino acids that traditional semolina flour lack (Mastromatteo et. al., 2011). Both of those foodstuffs can be used to replace or fortify typical durum wheat flour. Fortification of foods has been used by the food industry for years and continues to be beneficial in providing consumers with good nutrition (FDA, 1999).

The trend of foods and turning towards products that are naturally high in components with health-promoting effects has boosted that traditionally neglected cereals for human nutrition such as barley, but rich in health-related components, are currently being reconsidered as a part of a healthy human diet (Lahouar et. al., 2016). Barley is the fourth cereal in the world in cultivated area and grows in a wider range of environmental conditions (FAO, 1999). It is mostly cultivated and grows in an appropriate condition. It is rich source of some essential amino acids, minerals such as (Fe, Zn, K, Mg, Mn, Se, P and Cu) , vitamins ( B₁, B₂, B₃, B₆ and folate) , useful nutritional polysaccharide. Moreover, it has many classes of phenolic compounds. As well as, barley is considered as suitable source for supplying fiber as β-glucan (water soluble fiber) Din et. al., (2018) and Jyoti & Chanu, (2018) that regulates blood glucose level minimize plasma cholesterol levels, also reduce glycemic index and risk of colon cancer. Barley is a cereal that increasingly incorporated in already, used in new food products such as pasta and bread; either as a whole grain or as a food ingredient (Holtekjolen et. al., 2011). Mainly due to the presence of β-glucan and phenolic compounds which have the potential to lower cholesterol and blood glucose levels (Cavallero et. al., 2002& Sima et. al., 2018). The benefits of dietary fiber on inflammatory bowel disease may be related to the fermentative production of butyrate in the colon which appears to decrease the inflammatory response (Rose et. al., 2007). Products containing β-glucan have numerous functional food applications to reduce fat content and calories in a variety of foods (Lee et. al., 2007).

The pasting properties of barley flours also impact textural attributes and consumer acceptance of food product. Because of the importance of viscosity for potential health benefits and sensory attributes understanding the factors which may influence the viscosity of β-glucans will be beneficial for developing barley-based food products with enhanced health benefits (Jyoti and Chanu, 2018). Costas and Marta, (2007) demonstrated that the concentration, molecular weight (MW), and structural features of β-glucans influence its physical properties (viscosity and solubility).

 In addition, barley is gaining renewed interest as an ingredient for production of functional foods due to its high contents of bioactive compounds such as glucans, tocopherols and tocotrienols (Gallegos-Infante et. al., 2010 and Inglett et. al., 2011).

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is usually referred to as a pseudo-cereal since it is not a member of the Gramineae family, but it produces seeds that can be milled into flour and used as a cereal crop. The embryo can hold 60% of the seed weight and it forms a ring around the endosperm that loosens when the seed is cooked (National Research Council, 1989). Quinoa contains a complete protein. It is high in essential amino acids, fatty acids. It's a good source of vitamin C, E and several of the vitamins B (Jancurova et. al., 2009). Quinoa contains between14 and 18% protein, with characteristics similar to milk protein. It is also a source of calcium, magnesium, zinc and iron (Jyoti and Chanu, 2018).

The objective of this research is to prepare pasta products fortified with barley fraction D (FD) (high β-glucan) and quinoa flour for producing pasta with high nutritional value and more acceptable product.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials:

Hull-less barley grains (Giza 129) and Quinoa, Chenopodium quinoa Willd (Regalona cultivar) were obtained from field crops, Raas Sedr Research, Desert Research Center of Egypt. Semolina (Durum wheat semolina type A, 14.5% moisture) was obtained from El-Maleka Company for food industry, Egypt. Turmeric (curcuma longa), as a color and other ingredients were obtained from local market. Guar gum and vit.C were obtained from Alpha Zyme Company, El-Asher of Ramadan, Sharkiya, Egypt.

Methods:

Fifty kilograms of Barley were hulled by using barley huller, ground, then fractionated into four fractions A, B, C and D according to the method described by Knuckles, et. al., (1992) at Desert Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt.

Thirty kilograms of Quinoa grains were washed many times with hot water to remove the hulls and saponins until there was no more foam in washing water according to the method of Atef et. al., (2014), then dried at 50˚C. The quinoa seeds were ground to fine powder in a stainless steel electric grinder and sifted through a 60 mesh sieve then stored in polyethylene bags at -18˚C.

Preparation of pasta products:

Pasta formulas were prepared according to the procedure described by Yousif et. al., (2012) with some modifications. Semolina, barley fraction D (high β-glucan) and quinoa flour, salt, turmeric, (as color), guar gum and vitamin C were mixed with water in different rates as shown in Table (1). Pregelatinized starch was added to quinoa pasta. After mixing, the dough was pressed into an initial dough sheet by passage through the rolls of the laboratory machine (Titania, 1932, 10024 Moncalieri). The final dough sheet had a thickness of 1 mm immediately after sheeting; the dough sheet was cut into 5 mm-wide noodles strips.

Drying process: the pasta was dried by using the method described by Lucia et. al., (2011) with some modifications, the process conditions was applied to the following steps:

• Step 1: time 20 min at 50 °C.
• Step 2: time 6 hours at 80 °C,
• Step 3: over night at room temperature (19-20) °C.

Table (1): The prepared different pasta formulas.  

S₁= 100% semolina                 S₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D                 S₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% FD.   S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa                             S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa

S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa             Q₁= Quinoa 100%                    Q₂= Quinoa90%+ 10% F.D

Q₃ = Quinoa 80% + 20%F.D    Q₄= Quinoa70% + 30% F.D(Pregelatinization of starch before adding to the flour.)

Where (F.D.) =Fraction D. from barley flour.          S= semolina .          Q =quinoa

Chemical analysis:

Fat and crud fiber of raw materials and pasta products were estimated according to (A.O.A.C. 2007). Moisture, protein, and ash were determined using (Inframatic 8600 NIR Analyzer with 6-7 narrowband interference filters (6-7 wavelengths).Total carbohydrates were calculated by difference. Calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese and potassium were determined using ICP (the inductively coupled argon plasma. ICAP 6500 Duo, Thermo Scientific, England.1000mg/l multi. Element certified standard solution, Merck, Germany was used as stock solution, for instrument standardizations).Amino acids were determinedafter acid hydrolysis according to the method of Pellet and Young, (1980) using amino acid analyzer. Total phenolic were determined, that the prepared extracts were carried out according to Carciochi et. al., (2014) with some modification. Total phenols were determined according to the methodology described by (Renata et. al., 2012). The quantification of phenolic compounds was performed spectrophotometrically by measuring the absorbance in UV-VIS spectrophotometer Shimadzu 1240, at 725 nm, and a gallic acid (10-100 μg/mL) in 95% ethanol was used for obtaining a standard curve. β-glucan was determined according to the method of ( Aman and Hadden Graham, 1987).

Physical properties of pasta products:

- The texture of pasta products was determined by Tension-compression cyclic texture-meter Model Dillon.

- The color of pasta products was determined by hunter lab. color.

- Cooking quality of pasta products according to (Yousif et. al., 2012).

The cooking quality of pasta was determined according to Yousif et. al., (2012). Optimum cooking time was the time required for the opaque central core of the noodle to disappear when squeezed gently between two glass plates after cooking. Twenty five gram of noodles were cooked for optimum time in 300 ml boiling water in a beaker rinsed in tap water then drained for 15 min before weighed. Percentage of increased weight was calculated as a cooking yield. Solid contents in the cooking water were determined by drying at 105 C˚ overnight. The cooking loss was expressed as a percentage of the difference between the solid weight and initial dry matter. Volume increase was calculated by dividing the water displacement of cooked pasta on the water displacement of an equivalent amount of uncooked pasta.

Volume increase of cooked pasta =

 × 100

Sensory evaluation:-

The prepared pasta samples were evaluated organoleptically according to the method described by Lucia et. al., (2011). Ten panelists in the desert research center were requested to evaluate the most acceptable samples for sensory attributes of non-cooked pasta (Color, Homogeneity, Resistant to break, Overall quality) and cooked pasta (Elasticity, Firmness, Adhesiveness, Color, homogeneity, Odor, taste and over all acceptability). Moreover, a ten-point hedonic rating scale, where 1 corresponded to extremely unpleasant, 10 to extremely pleasant and 5 to acceptable, was used to quantify each attribute.

Results and discussion:

Chemical composition of raw materials:

 The chemical composition of raw materials is shown in Table (2). Results showed that the barley flour fraction enriched with β-glucan, (F.D), recorded the highest percentage of protein followed by quinoa then semolina (18.88±0.0, 18.47±0.01 and 16.80±0.02, respectively). Significant differences were noticed among quinoa flour and other samples. Quinoa revealed higher fat value than the other two types of flour. Ash content of quinoa and F.D was significantly different from that of the semolina flour. In this concern, Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) indicated that quinoa contains high protein, fat and ash contents. Barley fraction D showed highest fiber content compared to the other flour types. Data in table (3) showed that fraction D contained high amount of β-glucan and protein (17.63% and 18.88%) compared to that in barley flour (5.41% and 14.31%), respectively. In this concern, this result agrees with the findings of Knuckles et. al., (1992) who indicated that the β - glucan percentage in fraction D was higher than that of the barley flour.

Table (2): Chemical composition of raw materials (g/100g dry wt.basis).

The chemical composition of pasta samples:

 Data in Table (3) revealed that the highest protein value was in pasta sample S₄ containing 70% semolina + 30% F.D followed by pasta sample S₇ containing 70% semolina + 30% quinoa (17.74±0.02a, 17.76±0.04a g/100g, respectively). It is clear that the addition of Q or F.D, which are rich in protein, increases the protein content of pasta. That was clear in the samples of quinoa pasta where the protein content increased in all samples, the highest protein content (19.52%) was in sample Q₄ (70%Q+30%FD). These data are in accordance with the results of Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) who reported that quinoa has a high protein value (12.9-16.5%). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), (2016) reported that quinoa has higher protein content than wheat (13.21g/100 g), corn (9.42 g/100 g) and barley (12.48 g/100 g). Also, Hussein et. al., (2006) showed that adding barley extractions and different types of barley flour to wheat flour improved the protein content. The pasta sample S₄ containing 70% semolina + 30% F.D was the highest in ash content, followed by pasta sample S₃ containing 80% semolina + 20 % F.D (1.73% and 1.56%, respectively). In quinoa pasta the ash content raised in all samples, the highest percentage was in Q₄ (1.98%). These data are in harmony with Byung and Steven, (2008), who revealed that barley grains contained 1.5–2.5% minerals which can be ascribed to F.D or quinoa which have a high content of minerals. These data are similar to the results of Sawsan et. al., (2010), who revealed that the replacement of semolina by barley flour increased the ash level. Pasta samples S₇ and S₆ recorded the highest values in fat (2.80%and 2.69%, respectively); this is due to the high fat content of quinoa. In this concern Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) showed that quinoa seeds oil ranged from 2 to 10%. The highest fiber content was in S₄ sample (1.21%), while having the lowest carbohydrate content (76.84%) compared to the other samples. These results agree with Din et. al., (2018), who reported that barley can be used as a good source of soluble dietary fiber (β- glucan). The highest fat value was noticed in quinoa pasta. It is clear that the addition of quinoa increases the protein, fat and ash values and reduces the carbohydrates value. These results agree with the findings of Sirpaul et. al., (2019), who reported that quinoa posses adequate amounts of protein, fat, ash, and carbohydrates. Hussein et. al., (2006) showed that adding barley extractions and different types of barley flour to wheat flour improved the protein content. Also, Sawsan et. al., (2010) illustrated that the replacement of semolina by barley flour led to the increase of protein, fiber and ash contents.

Table (3): Chemical composition of pasta samples (on dry wt).

S₁= 100%semolina                  s₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D s₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

 S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% FD.                  S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa

 S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa                             S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa

S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa                             Q1= Quinoa 100%

Q2= Quinoa90%+ 10% F.D                     Q₃ = Quinoa80% + 20% F.D    Q 4= Quinoa70% +30% F.D

Where (F.D.) =Fraction D. from barley flour.S= semolina . Q =quinoa

Regarding total phenols (Table 3) of the semolina pasta, sample S₄ had the highest phenols content followed by pasta samples S₃ and S₂ (0.69, 0.62 and 0.58 mg/g, respectively).This may be ascribed to F.D which contains high amounts of total phenols. This result agrees with Emmanuel and Yao Tang, (2017) who reported that whole grain barley contains phytochemicals including phenolic acids, these phytochemicals exhibit strong antioxidants. S₆ and S₇ Pasta samples showed higher values of total phenols than S₁ (100%simolina), this may be due to the high total phenols content of quinoa. All samples of quinoa pasta revealed high content of phenols, the highest of all was Q₁ (0.98mg/g).These data are in harmony with the study of Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) on six types of quinoa from Chile, they revealed that the studied quinoa seeds have high amounts of phenolic and flavonoid compounds.

Data in Table (4) showed amino acids profile of different prepared pasta. Results revealed that the high valine and methionine values were in pasta S₁, S₄ and S₇. These increases could be ascribed to the addition of fraction D or quinoa flour. It could be noticed that the S₇ pasta showed high lysine content (01.36±0.11b g/100g), followed by S₄ and S₁ (1.26 ±0.08, 1.15± 0.09, respectively), while the highest value was for Q₁ (1.78%). It is clear that the supplementation with quinoa and (F.D) increases the values of the most essential amino acids in pasta products. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) who reported that the essential amino acids found in quinoa in good concentrations are like casein (protein of milk). Data disclosed that the addition of F.D (high in β-glucan) to formulas of pasta increases the percentages of the most essential amino acids of some samples as lysine, threonine and histidine. In this regard, Assem and Nassef (2004) and Sawsan et. al., (2010) indicated that the supplementation of semolina with hull-less barley flour for pasta products (by 10 or 30%) improved its nutritional value.

The obtained results (Table 4) showed that the highest contents of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn and Zn were noticed in pasta sample Q₁ (containing 100% quinoa). In this regard, USDA, (2016) clarified that quinoa contains high mineral content. As well as, Nascimento et. al., (2014) reported that quinoa contains 5.45mg Fe/100g. Also, Jyoti and Chanu, (2018) found that quinoa has high level of magnesium.

Table (4): Amino acids contents and minerals of different pasta

S₁ = semolina100% as control, S₄ = semolina70% + 30% F.D, S₇= semolina70%+ 30% Q,

Q₁= quinoa 100% as control, Q₃ = quinoa80%+20% F.D.

F.D =Fraction D. from barley flour.      

Physical properties:   

Hunter lab color:

Data in figure (2) revealed that the highest lightness value (L) noticed in pasta sample S₇, while pasta samples S₄ was the lowest value. The highest redness value (a) noticed in pasta sample S₄, while pasta sample S₆ recorded the lowest value. The pasta sample S₁was the highest yellowness value (b) followed by S₇, however the pasta sample S₄ recorded the lowest. This may be ascribed to barley flour which could be the cause of the darker color. These results are in agreement with the findings of Marconi, et. al., (2000), Sawsan, et. al., (2010) and Garsa, (2017), who reported that color values of all barley pastas are similar, however, they were darker (low L* values and higher a* values) and less yellow (low b* values) than durum wheat pasta which could be ascribed to the addition of fraction D or quinoa flour. The results are in agreement with Schoenlechner et. al., (2010), Susanna et. al., (2012), Fiorda et. al., (2013), Andrew, (2014), and Sharma et. al., (2018), who reported that a-value (redness), was found to increase by increasing the content of quinoa. It can be concluded that the amount of quinoa flour added to pasta significantly affects redness. Bright yellow pasta is achieved by having both high b* values and low a* values.

Figure (2):Hunter lab color of semolina and Quinoa pasta

S₁= semolina100% S₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D S₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% F.D

S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa

Q₁= 100%quino Q₂= 90% quinoa+ 10% F.D Q₃ = 80% quinoa+ 20% F.D

Q₄= 70% quinoa+ 30% F.D S= semolina Q =quinoa Where (F.D.) =Fraction D. from barley flour

Texture of un- cooked pasta:

The textural property was determined by measuring the force required to break pasta. The higher value of peak force required in gram, to breakdown the sample, means higher in the breaking stress of the sample. It is clear from (Fig.3) that the highest breaking stress value was noticed in pasta sample S₄ (70% semolina + 30 % F.D), followed by pasta sample Q₄ (80% quinoa + 30% F.D), meanwhile the pasta sample S₇ (70 % semolina + 30 % quinoa) was the lowest. This may be ascribed to the increase of the quinoa contents that led to the reduction in breaking stress. This result agrees with Mastromatteo et. al., (2011), who reported that quinoa decreases the firmness of pasta. F.D gave the pasta sample high breaking stress because of its low starch content and high β-glucan. These data are in agreement with Fiorda et. al., (2013) and Sharma et. al., (2018), who reported that breaking stress decreased by increasing the starch proportion. Also F.D has hydrocolloid attributes which gave the pasta dough higher texture levels during baking than the other samples. This result agrees with Beatriz et. al., (2014), who found that texture score increased by increasing hydrocolloids especially guar gum.

Fig 3: The texture of semolina and quinoa pastas.

 S₁= semolina100% s₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D S₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

 S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% F.D S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa

 S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa

 Q₁= 100%Quino Q₂= 90% Quinoa+ 10% F.D

 Q₃ = 80% Quinoa+ 20% F.D Q₄= 70% Quinoa+ 30% F.D

 S= semolina Q =quinoa Where (F.D.) =Fraction D. from barley flour

The cooking quality of semolina and quinoa pasta:

a-    Semolina pasta:

Data in table (5) and (Fig.4) showed that the highest cooking time value was noticed in pasta sample S₁ containing 100% semolina followed by pasta sample S₂ containing 90 % semolina + 10 % F.D. (15.17 ± 0.11, 14.87 ± 0.15min., respectively), meanwhile the pasta sample S₇ took the lowest cooking time (5.83 ± 0.14 min ). This may be ascribed to the addition of quinoa flour which weakens the gluten net. The highest cooking loss (Fig.4) was in pasta samples S₇followed by S₆ (18.94 ± 0.01, 18.51 ± 0.12, respectively), while the pasta sample S₂ recorded the lowest value (6.35 ± 0.02). This result agrees with Zahran et. al., (2004) and Garsa, (2017), who illustrated that the high levels of total dietary fiber and β-glucan in barley resulted in an increase in the water holding capacity of pasta.

The highest volume increase values were in pasta samples S₇, S₄ and S₃ (299.67 ± 0.21, 299.33 ± 0.42 and 299.33 ± 1.12, in succession), while pasta sample S2recorded the lowest value (223.33 ± 1.05). This may be attributed to the water retention behavior of F.D. This result is in harmony with the findings of Garsa, (2017), who showed that high fiber pasta had high volume and weight.

The highest weight increase was seen in pasta sample S₇, while the pasta sample S₅ recorded the lowest value (173.33 ± 0.56 and 106.67 ± 0.21, respectively). These data are in agreement with Silva et. al., (2013) and Padalino et. al., (2016) who found that hydrocolloids have high water binding capacity.

b-    Quinoa pasta:

Regarding the cooking time of quinoa pasta, sample Q₄ showed the highest value, while pasta sample Q₁ was the lowest (6.60±0.13, 3.83±0.17 min, in succession). These data are in an agreement with Beatrize et. al., (2014), padalino et. al., (2011) and padalino et. al., (2016) and Chillo et. al., (2008), which attributed the increase in the speed of water penetration of the core to the physical disruption of the gluten matrix caused by the addition of non gluten material.

The pasta sample Q₁ recorded the highest value in cooking loss followed by Q₂, however the pasta sample Q₄ recorded the lowest value (18.49±0.01, 11.19±0.06 and 10.63±0.20 %, respectively). This result agree with the findings of Andrew, (2014), who revealed that the increase in cooking loss can be attributed to the gluten structure weakness (as a result of the addition of a non-gluten material), which allowed more solids from the noodles to leach out into the cooking water, also can be attributed to starch damage, as the increased levels of starch damage led to an increase in cooking loss. Also the addition of F.D, which is a hydrocolloid, led to a decrease in cooking loss. These data are in agreement with Beatrize et. al., (2014), padalino et. al., (2011) and padalino et. al., (2016), who showed that the hydrocolloids improve cooking quality and decrease cooking loss. The pasta sample Q₄ recorded the highest value in volume increase (Fig.5), while pasta sample Q₁ recorded the lowest value (350.00±0.00 and 299.67±0.21, respectively). The highest weight increase (Fig.5) was seen in pasta sample Q₄, while the pasta sample Q₁ was the lowest (229.17 ± 0.11 and 157.03 ± 0.09, in succession). These results are in harmony with Beatrize, et. al., (2014) padalino et. al., (2016), who reported that hydrocolloids are compounds with great molecular masses, has the ability to bind large amounts of water.

Fig 4: cooking time and cooking loss of semolina and quinoa pasta.

 S₁= semolina100%                                 s₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D                  S₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

 S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% F.D S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa

 S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa             S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa

 Q₁= 100%Quinoa                   Q₂= 90% Quinoa+ 10% F.D

 Q₃ = 80% Quinoa+ 20% F.D   Q₄= 70% Quinoa+ 30% F.D

 S= semolina            Q =quinoa

Fig 5: volume and weight increase of semolina and quinoa pasta

 S₁= semolina100%                  s₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D                  s₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

 S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% F.D S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa

 S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa             S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa

 Q₁= 100%Quinoa                    Q₂= 90% Quinoa+ 10% F.D

 Q₃ = 80% Quinoa+ 20% F.D   Q₄= 70% Quinoa+ 30% F.D

 S= semolina                            Q =quinoa (F.D.) =Fraction D. from barley flour

Table (5): Cooking quality of semolina and quinoa pasta.

S₁= semolina100% S₂= 90 % semolina+ 10% F.D S₃= 80% semolina+ 20% F.D

S₄= 70% semolina+ 30% F.D S₅ = 90% semolina+ 10% quinoa                             S₆= 80% semolina+ 20% quinoa

S₇ = 70% semolina+ 30% quinoa            Q₁= 100%Quinoa     Q₂= 90% Quinoa+ 10% F.D

 Q₃ = 80% Quinoa+ 20% F.D Q₄= 70% Quinoa+ 30% F.D

Sensory evaluation of pasta:

a- Cooked and non- cooked semolina pasta:

Data presented in Table (6) illustrated that the highest color value was noticed in pasta sample S₁ containing 100 % semolina followed by S₂ containing 90 % semolina + 10 % F.D, meanwhile the pasta sample S₄ containing 70 % semolina +30 % F.D recorded the lowest value (9.5±0.67and 7.65±1.18, respectively). This may be ascribed to F.D. These results agree with hunter lab values (Fig.2) and with Garsa, (2017), who showed that barley flour is the main factor of color in dark pasta.

The applied seven pasta samples didn’t exhibit any significant difference in homogeneity, considering that the highest homogeneity value was in pasta sample S₁(control) followed by pasta sampleS₂ containing 90 %semolina + 10 %F.D, while the pasta sample S₄ recorded the lowest value (9.45±0.83, 8.90±0.84 and 7.80±1.23, in succession).

The highest value of break resistance in pasta was sample S₁ followed by S₂, while the lowest one was S₇ (9.20±0.75, 8.90±0.66 and 7.65±0.53, in succession). This may be ascribed to the addition of quinoa which seems to be the cause of the reduction in breaking stress. This result agrees with Mastromatteo et. al., (2011), who reported that quinoa, decreases the firmness of pasta. Moreover F.D gave the pasta sample high breaking stress because of its low starch content. These data is in harmony with Fiorda et. al., (2013) and Sharma et. al., (2018), who reported that the breaking stress decreased by increasing the starch proportion. In addition to that, F.D has hydrocolloid attributes which gave the dough pasta higher texture levels during drying than other samples. This result agrees with Beatriz et. al., (2014), who found that the texture score increased by increasing hydrocolloid.

The highest value for the overall quality of pasta was pasta sample S₁ followed by S₂, however, the pasta sample S₄ had the lowest value (14.35±0.82, 13.65±0.94 and 11.35±1.94, respectively). This may ascribed to presence of fraction D (hydrocolloid) which is improved the quality of pasta. This result agree with padalino et. al., 2011, who reported that The presence of hydrocolloids improved the sensorial properties of pasta samples.

Meanwhile the highest value of elasticity was of sample S₁ (9.35± 0.2) followed by S₅ (8.45±0. 6), while the pasta samples S₇ and S₆ were the lowest (7.50± 0. 4 and 7.55±0.2, respectively), this could be due to chewiness (Chewiness is the energy required to chew solid food until it is ready for swallowing), that’s may be the reason why pasta samples fortified by quinoa, especially high levels, were chewier than the control pasta. These data are in agreement with Andrew, (2014) who revealed that pasta with the highest levels of chewiness contained the largest amounts of quinoa (20- 30 %) flour. It could be noticed that S₁ (100 % semolina) showed high firmness value (9.10±0.88) followed by S₂ (8.50±0.88), while the pasta sample S₇ recorded the lowest (7.40±0.94). This effect on firmness may be attributed to the quinoa flour. Also in barley F.D samples this may be ascribed to barley F.D (high in β –glucan). These results agree with Padalino et. al., (2011), who reported that the increase in the oat bran content led to a decrease in the elasticity and firmness of the spaghetti when compared to the control sample.

No significant differences were observed between all pasta samples in Adhesiveness considering that the highest adhesiveness value was in pasta sample S₁ (8.80±1.48) followed by S₅ (8.60±0.84). It could be noticed that pasta sample S₁ showed significantly high color value after cooking compared with the other samples (9.35±0.63) followed by pasta sample S₅(8.55±0.76), while the pasta sample S₄ recorded the lowest (7.95±0.59). These results are similar to Garsa, (2017), who showed that barley flour is responsible for the darker color in pasta. Meanwhile, the darker color in pasta containing quinoa may be because of the pigments as mentioned before or the high ash content. This result is in harmony with Andrew, (2014), who illustrated that the redness increased (a* value increased) significantly (p<0.05) as more quinoa flour was added. It can be concluded that the amount of quinoa flour added to pasta significantly affects redness.

The highest value of the homogeneity attribute was noticed in pasta S₁ followed by S₅, however pasta sample S₆ was the lowest (9.50±0.67, 8.60±0.94 and 7.95±1.01, respectively). It is clear that there was no significant difference between all pasta samples in Odor. The highest taste value was noticed in pasta sample S₁ (23.70±3.47) followed by S₂ (22.90±1.79), while the pasta sample S₄ was the lowest (20.30±2.6). The pasta sample S₁ (100% semolina) recorded the highest overall acceptability value followed by S₅ (90% semolina + 10 % quinoa) and S₂ (90 % semolina + 10 % F.D), meanwhile pasta sample recorded the lowest S₄ containing 70 % semolina + 30 % F.D (14.5±0.85, 13.8±1.23, 13.6±1.07 and 12.0±1.41, in succession).

جدول 6 بالعرض

Cooked and non- cooked quinoa pasta:

Data shown in Table (7) shows the Sensory evaluation of cooked and non-cooked pasta made with Quinoa. No significant differences were found between all the pasta samples, considering that the highest color value before cooking was noticed in pasta sample Q₁containing 100% quinoa followed by Q₂ containing 90% quinoa+10%F.D, while the pasta sample Q₄ containing 70% quinoa+30% F.D recorded the lowest value . This may be ascribed to F.D which may be the cause of the darker color. These results agree with Sawsan et. al., (2010) and Garsa, (2017) who showed that the barley flour is the main factor of the dark color in pasta.

Concerning the pasta homogeneity attribute, the applied seven pasta samples in table (7) were not able to exhibit any significant difference in homogeneity, considering that the highest homogeneity value was in pasta sample Q₂, while pasta sample Q₄ recorded the lowest value (8.50±1.08).

No significant differences were found between the pasta samples in break resistance and the overall quality, considering that the highest value was noticed in pasta sample Q₁ (8.5±1.08, 13.5±1.08, respectively), while the Q₄ recorded the lowest (7.95±1.01, 12.7±1.03, in succession).

elasticity, firmness, homogeneity and taste, the applies seven pasta samples were not able to exhibit any significant difference keeping in mind that the highest value was in pasta sample Q₁ (7.65±1.11, 8.1±0.88, 8.4±0.97, 22.4±0.44, respectively), while the lowest values of pasta samples Q₃ (6.9±1.1) in elasticity, Q₂ (6.9±1.1) in firmness, Q₃ (8.2±1.01) in homogeneity. Also, the applies seven pasta samples were not able to exhibit any significant difference keeping in mind that the highest Odor value was in pasta sample Q₂, however pasta sample Q₃ recorded the lowest (13.80±1.316, 12.50±0.972, in sucession). This could due to F.D and guar gum which are rebonsible of improving in the sensory evauation. These results agree with padalino et. al., (2011), Beatrize et. al., (2014), and padalino et. al., (2016), who reported hydrocolloids improved the sensory evaluation of pasta samples, Elasticity, firmness, homogeneity, Oder and taste, no significant between all pasta samples.

The highest adhesiveness value was noticed in pasta sample Q₁ followed by Q₄, while the pasta sample Q₂ was the lowest (8.15±1.16, 8.1±1.02 and 7.95±1.26, respectively). This may ascribe to increase F.D percentage and decrease quinoa flour percentage then decrease starch amount which pregelatinized and improved the quality of pasta. This result is similar to Padalino et. al., 2011, who reported that the increase of the oat bran percentage and consequent decreasing of the amount of maize flour used decreased the quantity of pregelatinized maize starch available to structure the dough. Finally, no significant difference between all pasta sample in most parameters keeping in mind that pasta sample Q1 which contain 100% quinoa recorded the highest values. These may ascribe to quinoa flour plus F.D and guar gum (hydrocolloids) able to form a good network. This result is harmony with Mastromatteo et. al., (2011) and Sharma et. al., (2018), who suggested that quinoa flour, shows a good ability to form a physical network such as that formed by gluten. Also, agree with Beatrize et. al., (2014), padalino et. al., (2011) and padalino et. al., (2016), who reported hydrocolloids, improved the sensory evaluation and quality of pasta samples.

جدول 7 بالعرض

CONCLUSION

 Finally, results of the consumer acceptance test indicated that panelists significantly (p<0.01) preferred the control pasta. Since all pasta variations received scores above neutral, it was determined that the addition of FD and quinoa flours does not adversely affect the acceptability of pasta products.

In conclusion, the pasta product with the most beneficial ratio of FD and quinoa flours is that containing 70% semolina + 30% F.D followed by pasta sample S₇ containing 70% semolina + 30% quinoa. Formula S₄ and S₇ had the highest protein content and the best amino acid profile, along with increased fat and fiber content. Its cooking loss was found to be in an acceptable range, and besides having lower values of cohesiveness, the texture attributes were not adversely affected by fortification. The color characteristics of pasta S₄ were also closest to that of the control, leading to a high level of visual acceptability. The semolina pasta sample S₄ was the highest phenols content. This may ascribed to F.D (high in β- glucan) which contains high amounts of total phenols. It could be noticed that pasta S₇ showed high lysine content.

All samples of quinoa pasta revealed high content of phenols, the highest of all was Q₁. It is clear that the supplementing with quinoa and (F.D) increase the values of most essential amino acids in pasta products. Addition of F.D (high in β-glucan) to formulas of quinoa pasta increases the percentages of essential amino acids of samples as lysine, threonine and histidine. The high Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn and Zn contents were noticed in pasta samples Q₁ containing 100%quinoa.

Accordingly, it can be determined that the addition of quinoa flour and FD had the greatest effect on fortifying wheat pasta. Quinoa pasta (Q₁, Q₂, Q₃ and Q₄) had high nutritional value than semolina pasta. Data concluded the possibility of producing pasta relatively higher in fiber, β-glucan and protein without considerable bad effects on its cooking quality and sensory properties, and also has many benefits for health of diabetes, high cholesterol patients and heart diseases.