WFL Publisher Science and Technology Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980 Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.12 (3&4): 51-55. 2014

www.world-food.net

Peanut protein isolates improve the nutritional quality of muffins that can be handy tool to cure protein energy malnutrition in developing economies Muhammad Sibt-e-Abbas 1*, Masood Sadiq Butt 1, Muhammad Tauseef Sultan 2, Atif Nisar Ahmad 2, Muhammad Abrar 1 and Mir Muhammad Nasir Qayyum 3 1 2

National Institute of Food Science & Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60000, Pakistan. 3 Karakram University, Gilgit 15100, Pakistan. *e-mail: [email protected]

Received 7 July 2014, accepted 12 September 2014.

Abstract The developing economies are facing the menace of malnutrition particularly due to inadequate intake of quality proteins. The people using wheat and rice as staples need to increase the intake of quality proteins, e.g. nuts and animal proteins. In the present research, proteins extracted from partially defatted peanut flour (DPF) of indigenous varieties, i.e. GOLDEN and BARI 2011, were supplemented with straight grade wheat flour in various proportions. These flours were subjected to rheological characteristics studies. After rheology muffins were prepared using these flour blends. Muffins were then tested for physical characteristics including colour, texture and volume. At the end, the sensory evaluation was performed by trained panellists. Results regarding the rheological properties, i.e. farinograph and mixograph, revealed that peanut protein isolates positively affected the rheology of dough. Best results for water absorption (%) were shown by T4. Similar results were noted for dough development time (min) and dough stability time (min). The physical characteristics of muffins indicated an increase in quality and nutritional status by the addition of protein isolates. T3 showed notable result for colour. Furthermore, sensory evaluation of muffins showed remarkable results on 15% supplementation of wheat flour with peanut protein isolates. Conclusively, the protein isolates obtained from defatted peanut flour or meal left after oil extraction can be effectively utilized for the supplementation of bakery products, i.e. muffins. As these bakery products are gaining much popularity in the developing economies, hence these can play an imperative role to curtail the increasing risks of malnutrition. Key words: Peanut, protein isolates, composite flour, muffins.

Introduction Malnutrition is a major nutritional dilemma in the developing countries. It persists due to insufficient intake of nutrients resulting in adverse effects on body building and function. Malnourished people either do not have enough calories in their diet or are eating a diet that lacks protein, vitamins or trace minerals 1. Protein malnutrition is one of such example that causes severe effects on immune functions, growth and development of children, their learning ability and work efficiency. Approximately 70% of the world’s malnourished children live in Asia, resulting in the region having the highest concentration of childhood protein energy malnutrition 2, 3. The role of proteins in human nutrition is substantial. According to Modern Nutrition Recommendations, human beings should rely mostly on vegetable and legume proteins to meet the protein requirement in their diet. In addition to their nutritional value, proteins provide great potential as functional food ingredients enhancing the useful properties when incorporated into food commodities. In order to utilize a byproduct as a protein source, it should contain high protein content and protein value (quality) based on well-balanced essential amino acids. Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) are among the most vital sources of vegetable oil throughout the world. Peanuts also contain appreciable quantity of valuable proteins. Peanut protein isolates generally contain 47-55% high quality protein with high essential

amino acid content, which lends itself being used in many food applications 4-6. These protein isolates can be utilized as functional ingredients in various food products to improve the nutritional and textural properties of the product 7. The supplementation of various food products with peanut protein isolates can play a vital role in the reduction of protein deficiency 8. As the demand of bakery products is increasing at the rate of 10.07% per annum so these are considered as excellent vehicle for fortification, value addition and feeding at mass scale. Among the bakery products, muffins (cupcake) prove to be an excellent tool for the supplementation of peanut protein isolates as their consumption in world is more than 46% of all other savoury foods 9. The present research project explicated the role of peanut protein isolates as a tool against protein deficiency and potential source for supplementation of baked products. Materials and Methods Procurement of raw materials: Two varieties of peanut (GOLDEN and BARI 2011) were procured from Barani Agriculture Research Institute Chakwal. Chemicals and other consumables were purchased from local market. The protein isolates were prepared in the post graduate laboratories of National Institute of Food Science & Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (3&4), July-October 2014

51

Preparation of peanut protein isolates supplemented blends: Peanut protein isolates of the two varieties (GOLDEN and BARI 2011) were supplemented with straight grade flour in various proportions as given in Table 1. Table 1. Composition of different composite flours. Treatments T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Straight grade flour (%) 100 95 90 85 80 95 90 85 80

Peanut protein isolates (%) (GOLDEN) 0 5 10 15 20 ---------

Peanut protein isolates (%) (BARI 2011) ----------5 10 15 20

Sensory evaluation of protein enriched muffins: The muffins were evaluated for taste, colour, flavour, texture, aroma, and overall quality on a sensory evaluation Performa. All evaluations were conducted at room temperature on the same day, in the National Institute of Food Science and Technology (NIFSAT), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad according to the procedure described by Meilgaard et al. 15. Statistical analysis: The data obtained for each parameter was subjected to statistical analysis in order to determine the level of significance as described by Steel et al. 16. Results and Discussion The present study was designed to explore the nutritional value of peanut protein isolates with special reference to supplementation in bakery products, i.e. muffins.

Rheological characteristics of composite flours: The physical properties of flour supplemented with different levels of peanut protein isolates such as water absorption, dough development time, dough stability time, mixing tolerance index and softening of dough was studied by Brabender Farinograph (Method No. 54-21) and mixing time and peak height percentage was determined by running the flour samples through Mixograph (Method No. 5440A) according to their respective methods as outlined in AACC 10. Preparation of protein enriched muffins: Muffins were prepared with supplemented blends and of control treatment as mentioned in Table 1 by following the method described by Shearer and Davies 11 with some modifications. Physical analysis of protein enriched muffins: The colour of muffins was determined with the help of hand held tristimulus colormeter II (Mod, Neuhaus Neotec, Germany, Colormeter, Colortest 11 serial no. 95808) as described by Baixauli et al. 12. The textural study was conducted by using texture analyser (Model TA-XT2, Stable Microsystems, Surrey, UK) with a 5 kg load cell as described by Piga et al. 13. It gives the measurements of the hardness (firmness) and resistance (fracturability) of the muffins to bend or snap. Muffin volume was measured after baking by rapeseed displacement method according to procedure as described in AACC 10. The muffin was placed in the container filled with rapeseeds and the volume of rapeseeds displaced by the muffin was recorded according to Keskin et al. 14.

Rheological analysis: The rheological characteristics of straight grade wheat flour containing different levels of peanut protein isolates from two peanut varieties (GOLDEN and BARI 2011) were studied for the parameters such as water absorption, dough development time, dough stability time, mixing tolerance index and softening of dough by using Brabender Farinograph. T1 to T8 treatments were prepared using different concentrations of peanut protein isolates while T0 was control treatment with no addition of protein isolates. First four treatments were formulated using protein isolates from GOLDEN peanut variety (T1 5%, T2 10%, T3 15%, T4 20%) while the other four treatments were prepared using protein isolates from BARI 2011 peanut variety (T5 5%, T6 10%, T7 15%, T8 20%). The data representing the effects of various levels of peanut protein isolates on the farinographic characteristics of the dough are given in Table 2. The data regarding water absorption indicated that the values are not significantly different from each other. It was obvious from the results that water absorption was higher in T8 (66.90±0.30) followed by T7 (65.40±0.30) and T4 (65.10±0.20), while lowest water absorption was observed in T5 (62.10±0.30). The results revealed that the water absorption increased with the increasing levels of protein isolates. These results are in conformity with the findings of Azizi et al. 17 and Ravi et al. 18. They observed that the percent water absorption increases with the addition of protein isolates. Dough development time is defined as the time required for the development of gluten. The present results for this trait indicated a highly significant difference among the treatments. Mean values for the dough development time of different treatments (Table 2)

Table 2. Farinographic characteristics of flour blends. Treatments T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Water absorption (%) 62.76±0.15a 64.90±0.20a 63.40±0.20a 64.10±0.20a 65.10±0.20a 62.10±0.30a 62.30±0.20a 65.40±0.30a 66.90±0.30a

Dough development time (min) 6.70±0.10a 5.40±0.10d 4.70±0.20e 5.30±0.20d 5.80±0.30c 6.50±0.20ab 5.60±0.25cd 6.80±0.30a 6.20±0.30b

Dough stability time (min) 11.50±0.20d 14.50±0.20a 13.60±0.20b 12.20±0.20c 14.20±0.30a 11.90±0.20c 13.30±0.20b 11.30±0.20d 14.40±0.20a

Mixing tolerance index (BU) 30.00±2.51e 35.00±2.00d 40.00±2.08c 50.00±2.52a 20.00±2.00f 33.00±2.00de 40.00±2.00c 35.00±2.00d 44.00±3.00b

Softening of dough (BU) 47.00±2.51ef 63.00±2.52cd 71.00±2.52b 61.00±3.05d 48.00±3.00ef 75.00±2.00a 50.00±2.00e 66.00±3.00c 46.00±2.00f

* Means sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different. T0 = 100% straight grade wheat flour (SGF). T1 = 95% SGF and 5% peanut protein isolate (GOLDEN). T2 = 90% SGF and 10% peanut protein isolate (GOLDEN). T3 = 85% SGF and 15% peanut protein isolate (GOLDEN). T4 = 80% SGF and 20% peanut protein isolate (GOLDEN). T5 = 95% SGF and 5% peanut protein isolate (BARI 2011). T6 = 90% SGF and 10% peanut protein isolate (BARI 2011). T7 = 85% SGF and 15% peanut protein isolate (BARI 2011). T8 = 80% SGF and 20% peanut protein isolate (BARI 2011).

52

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (3&4), July-October 2014

indicated that the highest value (6.80±0.30 min) was found Table 4. Physical characteristics of muffins supplemented with peanut in T7 followed by T0 (6.70±0.10) while it was lowest for T2 protein isolates. (4.70±0.20 min). These results are in agreement with the Firmness Fracturability Volume Treatments Colour (CTn) findings of Azizi and Rao 19, Sim et al. 20. The mean values (g) (mm) (cm3) T0 159.33±4.16cd 216.67±28.86a 865.27±31.24a 86.74±0.14a showed that the highest value for dough stability time T1 162.67±8.73bcd 116.67±14.43de 769.22±24.24b 87.61±0.33b was observed in T1 (14.50±0.20 min) and the lowest value 162.67±4.93bcd 133.33±14.43bcd 715.23±8.07c 84.58±0.10c T2 was obtained in T7 (11.30±0.20 min). The above findings a cde d 181.97±4.72 116.67±14.43 675.33±16.94 84.38±0.15c T3 are in close agreement with the results of Ravi et al. 18 and 161.67±4.04bcd 83.333±14.43e 589.56±10.10e 83.76±0.10d T4 Indrani and Rao 21. 159.67±19.00d 116.67±38.18cde 514.13±8.15f 83.14±0.09e T5 d bc g 153.33±11.54 141.67±38.18 478.13±15.13 81.17±0.13f T 6 The data for the analysis of variance for mixing tolerance abc de h 174.00±9.00 91.667±28.87 429.41±8.65 80.14±0.07g T7 index indicate a highly significant difference among 176.00±9.00ab 166.67±28.87b 412.37±13.36h 79.31±0.12h T8 treatments. The mean values for mixing tolerance index * Means sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different. show the highest value for T3 (50.00±2.52 BU) followed by T8 (44.00±3.00 BU) and T2 (40.00±2.00 BU) while it was lowest and fracturability. Hardness (firmness) was calculated in terms of for T4 (20.00±2.00 BU). These results are in conformity with the maximum force (g) and fracturability was determined in terms of values as observed by Ravi et al. 18 and Azizi and Rao 19. The distance (mm). Hardness can be defined as the peak force during mean values for softening of dough showed a maximum value for the first compression cycle (first bite). It is the force required to T5 (75.00±2.00 BU) and a minimum value for T8 (46.00±2.00 BU). attain a given deformation. The values for the hardness of muffins The above mentioned results are in conformity with the findings ranged from 412.37 g to 865.27 g. The mean values (Table 4) indicated maximum hardness value for T0 (865.27±31.24 g) and of Asghar et al. 22. The results of mixographic studies are shown in Table 3. These minimum value for T8 (412.37±13.36 g). The results are in agreement results showed that maximum mixing time was observed for T3 with the observations of Azizi and Rao 19 and Ashwini et al. 25. (3.00±0.20 min) while it was minimum for T5 (1.15±0.02 min). The Fracturability (also known as brittleness) is the force at first present results are in harmony with the findings of Indrani and significant break in the curve. It is the force with which the material Rao 21 and Asghar et al. 22. Mean values for peak height percentage or the product fractures. The mean values for the fracturability of indicated that ranged between 31% and 50%. The mean values muffins are given in Table 4. It is obvious from the mean values explicated maximum peak height percentage for T5 (50.00±3.00%) that maximum fracturability was observed in T1 (87.61±0.33 mm) followed by T3 (43.00±6.55%) and T7 (41.50±0.20%) while the followed by T0 (86.74±0.14 mm) and T2 (84.58±0.10 mm) while minimum value was observed for T6 (31.50±0.10%). These results minimum value for fracturability was observed in T8 (79.31±0.12 mm). These results are similar to the findings of Ashwini et al. 25. are in concurrence with the findings of Indrani and Rao 21. Table 3. Mixographic characteristics of flour blends. Treatments T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Mixing time (min) 1.45±0.02f 2.15±0.20d 2.30±0.03c 3.00±0.20a 1.30±0.02g 1.15±0.02h 2.00±0.02e 2.45±0.02b 2.00±0.04e

Peak height (%) 41.50±0.10b 40.00±4.00bc 34.50±0.20cd 43.00±6.55b 33.00±2.00d 50.00±3.00a 31.50±0.10d 41.50±0.20b 41.50±0.10b

* Means sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different.

Measurement of physical characteristics of muffins: Colour value was determined by using colour meter II. It was first calibrated with the standards having lower and upper limits (51-200), respectively. The mean values for colour (Table 4) showed that the highest value was observed in T3 (181.97±4.72 CTn) and the lowest in T6 (153.33±11.54 CTn). The above mentioned colour values are in agreement with Azizi and Rao 19 and Abu-Ghoush et al. 23. Volume of muffins is affected by various factors such as quality of flour, type of ingredients and processing conditions. The mean values for the volume of muffins given in Table 4 indicated that the maximum value for volume was observed in T0 (216.67±28.86 cm3) followed by T8 (166.67±28.87 cm3) and T6 (141.67±38.18 cm3) while the minimum value was observed in T4 (83.333±14.43 cm3). The current findings are in concord with Azizi and Rao 19, Kaur et al. 24 and Ashwini et al. 25. Texture of muffins was measured in terms of hardness (firmness)

Sensory evaluation of muffins: Sensory characteristics are much significant towards the liking and disliking of product, i.e. muffins. Muffins with light brown and creamy colour with soft texture are usually preferred by the consumers. Sensory evaluation of muffins was carried out by a trained panel for the attributes such as colour, taste, flavour, tenderness, moistness and overall acceptability. The results pertaining to all sensory parameters of muffins (Table 5) are discussed in detail hereunder. The mean values indicated that the highest score for colour (6.66±0.51) was assigned to the treatments T3 and T7 while the lowest score (4.83±0.75) for this attribute was given to T4. These findings revealed that the muffins prepared by using 15% protein isolates from GOLDEN (T3) and BARI 2011 (T7) showed highest results for the colour score 6.66. The mean scores for flavour of muffins indicated that the muffins prepared from T0 and T5 got the highest scores for flavour (7.00±0.89) followed by T2 which obtained 6.66±0.51 score for flavour. Muffins prepared from T4 were found to be disliked by the judges regarding their flavour score, i.e. 5.33±0.51. The current results are also similar to the findings of McGuire et al. 9 who declared that addition of protein isolates in any product caused changes in taste, flavour, texture and overall acceptability scores. The mean scores assigned by the panellists to the texture of muffins revealed that the control muffins (T0) got 6.83±0.75 score for texture. The muffins prepared from T3 and T7 were considered more acceptable by the panellists regarding the texture as 6.50±0.54 and 6.66±0.51, respectively. Mean scores for tenderness of muffins indicated that the highest tenderness score (6.66±0.51) was assigned to T3 and T7 followed by T1, T2 and T6 (6.33±0.51). The

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (3&4), July-October 2014

53

Table 5. Sensory evaluation of muffins. Treatments T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Colour 6.50±0.54a 6.00±0.63a 6.50±0.54a 6.66±0.51a 4.83±0.75b 6.16±0.75a 6.16±0.40a 6.66±0.51a 5.00±0.63b

Flavour 7.00±0.89a 6.33±0.81a 6.66±0.51a 6.50±0.54a 5.33±0.51b 7.00±0.89a 6.33±0.81a 6.50±0.54a 5.50±0.54b

Texture 6.83±0.75ab 6.50±0.54ab 6.16±0.75bc 6.50±0.54ab 5.50±0.54cd 7.00±0.89a 6.50±0.54ab 6.66±0.51ab 5.00±0.89d

Tenderness 6.00±0.63ab 6.33±0.51a 6.33±0.51a 6.66±0.51a 5.33±0.51bc 6.16±0.75a 6.33±0.51a 6.66±0.51a 5.00±0.63c

Moistness 6.50±0.54a 5.66±0.51bc 6.16±0.40ab 6.50±0.54a 5.66±0.81bc 6.66±0.51a 5.50±0.54c 6.50±0.54a 5.33±0.51c

Shape 6.83±0.98ab 6.33±0.51ab 6.16±0.75b 7.16±0.75a 4.66±0.81c 6.50±0.83ab 6.16±0.75b 7.00±0.89ab 4.83±0.75c

Acceptability 5.16±1.16c 5.50±0.54bc 6.33±1.03ab 6.50±0.54a 5.00±0.89c 6.16±0.98ab 5.50±0.54bc 6.50±0.54a 5.00±0.63c

* Means sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different.

results further indicated that T8 muffins got the lowest tenderness score 5.00±0.63. The mean values for this attribute showed that the highest value (6.66±0.51) was observed in T5 followed -by T0, T3 and T7 having moistness score of 6.50±0.54. The lowest moistness score (5.33±0.51) was recorded in T8. Mean values for shape ranged from 4.83±0.75 (T8) to 7.16±0.75 (T3). Muffins prepared from T4 were assigned the lowest score 4.66±0.81. Mean values indicated that the overall acceptability scores of muffins showed a slight variation with the addition of varying concentrations of peanut protein isolates. The highest score (6.50±0.54) was assigned to T3 and T7. The judges slightly disliked muffins prepared from T4 and T8 and assigned overall acceptability score of 5.00±0.89 to both. The current results are in agreement to the findings of Shearer and Davies 11 and Ramcharitar et al. 26. The current results regarding sensory evaluation of muffins prepared using different concentrations of peanut protein isolates from two peanut varieties (GOLDEN and BARI 2011) revealed that the treatments T3 (15% protein isolates from GOLDEN peanut variety) and T7 (15% protein isolates from BARI 2011 peanut variety) showed the best results and were assigned maximum scores by the panellists in terms of likeness. Conclusions The overall results that peanut is a vital source of protein and the protein isolates exhibit remarkable rheological properties when blended with straight grade wheat flour. In the limelight of these properties, peanut protein isolates can be utilized for improving the quality of muffins and value addition. The physical and sensory attributes of muffins prepared using different levels of protein isolates revealed that the treatment with 15% supplementation showed better results. Thus, muffins enriched with peanut protein isolates can be a handy tool to cope with protein deficiency among the vulnerable groups. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to National Institute of Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad for providing instrument facilities to carry out analyses. The authors are also thankful to Dr. Muhammad Shahid (Assistant Professor) for their valuable suggestions and inputs regarding the research. References Powell, K. 2007. Functional foods from biotech: An unappetizing prospect. Nat. Biotechnol. 25:525-531. 2 Khor, G. L. 2003. Update on the prevalence of malnutrition among children in Asia. Nepal Med. Coll. J. 5(2):113-122. 3 Black, R. E., Caulfield, L., Bhutta, Z. A. and Cesar, G. 2008. Malnutrition 1

54

kills directly, not indirectly. Victora 371:1749-1750. Kain, R. J., Chen, Z., Sonda, T. S. and Abu-Kpawoh, J. C. 2009. Study on the effects of enzymatic hydrolysis on the physical, functional and chemical properties of peanut protein isolates extracted from defatted heat pressed peanut meal flour (Arachis hypogaea L.). Pak. J. Nutr. 8(6):818–825. 5 Rehrah, D., Ahmedna, M., Goktepe, I. and Yu, J. M. 2009. Extrusion parameters and consumer acceptability of a peanut-based meat analogue. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 44(10):2075-2084. 6 Ma, T., Wang, Q. and Wu, H. 2010. Optimization of extraction conditions for improving solubility of peanut protein concentrates by response surface methodology. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43:1450–1455. 7 Makri, E., Papalamprou, E. and Doxastakis, G. 2005. Study of functional properties of seed storage proteins from indigenous European legume crops (lupin, peas, broad bean) in admixture with polysaccharides. Food Hydrocoll. 19:583–594. 8 Rayner, M., Scarborough, P. and Williams, C. 2003. The origin of guideline daily amounts and the food standers agency guidance on what counts as a lot and a little. Public Health Nutr. 7:549–556. 9 McGuire, B., Chambers, E., Godwin, S. and Brenner, S. 2001. Estimating portion size of muffins. Res. Professional Brief. 101(4):470–472. 10 AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists) 2000. Approved methods of American Association of Cereal Chemists. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota. pp. 59-68. 11 Shearer, A. E. H. and Davies, C. G. A. 2005. Physiochemical properties of freshly baked and stored whole-wheat muffins with and without flaxseed meal. J. Food Qual. 28:137–153. 12 Baixauli, R., Sanz, T., Salvador, A. and Fiszman, S. M. 2008. Muffins with resistant starch: Baking performance in relation to the rheological properties of the batter. J. Cereal Sci. 47:502–509. 13 Piga, A., Catzeddu, P., Farris, S., Roggio, A. T. and Sanguinetti, E. S. 2005. Texture evaluation of Amaretti cookies during storage. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 221:387–391. 14 Keskin, S. O., Sumnu, G. and Sahin, S. 2004. Bread baking in halogen lamp-microwave combination baking. Food Res. Int. 10:89–94. 15 Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 4th edn. C.R.C. Press L. L. C., New York. 16 Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H. and Dickey, D. A. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. 17 Azizi, M. H., Rajabzadeh, N. and Riahi, E. 2003. Effect of monodiglycerides and lecithin on dough rheological characteristics and quality of bread. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 36:189–193. 18 Ravi, R., Manohar, R. S. and Rao, P. H. 2000. Influence of additives on the rheological characteristics and baking quality of wheat flours. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2(10):202–208. 19 Azizi, M. H. and Rao, G. V. 2004. Effect of surfactant gels on dough rheological characteristics and quality of bread. J. Food Qual. 27:320– 336. 20 Sim, S. Y., Cheng, L. H. and Aziah, A. A. N. 2009. Effects of selected gums on wheat flour or dough properties. Asian J. Food Agro-Ind. 2(4):937–947. 21 Indrani, D. and Rao, G. V. 2003. Influence of surfactants on rheological 4

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (3&4), July-October 2014

characteristics of dough and quality of parotta. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 38:47–54. 22 Asghar, A., Anjum, F. M., Butt, M. S., Tariq, M. W. and Hussain, S. 2007. Rheological ad storage effect of hydrophilic gums on the quality of frozen dough pizza. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 13(2):96–102. 23 Abu-Ghoush, M., Herald, T. J. and Aramouni, F. 2010. Comparative study of egg white protein and egg alternatives used in an angel food cake system. J. Food Sci. Technol. 34:411–425. 24 Kaur, A., Singh, G. and Kaur, H. 2000. Studies on the use of emulsifiers and hydrocolloids as fat replacers in baked products. J. Food Sci. Technol. 37(3):250–255. 25 Ashwini, A. I., Jyotsna, R. and Indrani, D. 2009. Effect of hydrocolloids and emulsifiers on the rheological, microstructural and quality characteristics of eggless cake. Food Hydrocoll. 23:700–707. 26 Ramcharitar, A., Badrie, N., Mattfeldt-Beman, M., Matuso, H. and Ridley, C. 2005. Consumer acceptability of muffins with flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum). J. Food. Sci. 7(7):504–507.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.12 (3&4), July-October 2014

55