Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Maestra en Ciencia y Tecnologa de Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias Qumico Biologicas, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa (FCQB-UAS),
Lichis #1986, La Campina, 80 060 Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico
b
Ingeniera Bioqumica, FCQB-UAS
c
Departamento de Graduados en Alimentos, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias, Biologicas, Instituto Politecnico Nacional
d
Centro de Desarrollo en Productos Bioticos, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Yautepec, Morelos, Mexico
e
Programa Regional del Noroeste para el Doctorado en Biotecnologa, FCQB-UAS
f
Centro de Investigaciones Regionales del Noroeste, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrcolas y Pecuarias, Valle de Culiacan,
Sinaloa, Mexico
Received 4 April 2005; received in revised form 30 June 2005; accepted 30 June 2005
Abstract
The objective of this investigation was to evaluate physico-chemical and nutritional properties of tempeh our from a quality
protein maize (QPM). In comparison to untreated QPM, the QPM tempeh our showed a higher (Pp0:05) gelatinization
temperature (81.7 vs 73.9 1C), and resistant starch (4.24 vs 1.9 g/100 g dry our), and a lower (Pp0:05) gelatinization enthalpy (1.94
vs 2.74 J/g) and total starch content (56.9 vs 62.6 g/100 g dry our). The essential amino acids (EAAs) content of raw QPM our was
improved by the solid-state fermentation process. The contents of His, Ile, and Leu increased (Pp0:05) in 0.81, 0.52, and 1.46 g/
100 g protein, respectively. The total sulphur and total aromatic EAAs increased (Pp0:05) in 0.55 and 3.45 g/100 g protein,
respectively. In untreated QPM our, the rst and second limiting EAAs were Lys and Trp, with EAAs score of 0.72. First and
second limiting EAAs in QPM tempeh our were Trp and Lys, with an EAAs score of 0.84. The SSF process increased (Pp0:05)
nutritional indicators as follows: protein efciency ratio (PER) from 1.78 to 2.10, calculated PER from 1.43 to 1.74, and protein
digestibility corrected amino acid score from 0.55 to 0.83. It is concluded that based mainly on its nutritive value, fermented our
may be considered for the fortication of widely consumed cereal-based food product (tortillas, bread, cookies, atoles).
r 2005 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nutritional; Quality protein maize; Tempeh
1. Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L) is the third most important food
crop in the world and a major source of energy, protein,
Corresponding author. Maestr a en Ciencia y Tecnolog a de
Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias Qu mico Biologicas, Universidad
Autonoma de Sinaloa (FCQB-UAS), Lichis #1986, La Campina, 80
060 Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. Tel.:+52 66772136615;
fax: +52 6677 13 66 15.
E-mail address: creyes@uas.uasnet.mx (C. Reyes-Moreno).
0023-6438/$30.00 r 2005 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2005.07.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.O. Cuevas-Rodrguez et al. / LWT 39 (2006) 10721079
1073
2.2. Methods
2.1. Materials
The QPM (Z. mays L) V 537 variety was obtained
from the National Research Institute for Forestry,
Agriculture and Livestock (INIFAP) Culiacan, Experimental Station, Sinaloa, Mexico. The grains were
harvested, shelled, cleaned and stored in tightly sealed
containers at 4 1C until used. R. oligosporus was
obtained from the Microbiology Laboratory, National
School of Biological Sciences, National Polytechnical
Institute (Mexico, DF).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1074
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.O. Cuevas-Rodrguez et al. / LWT 39 (2006) 10721079
1075
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1076
Table 1
Physico-chemical properties of quality protein maize tempeh ours
Property1
Colour
Hunter L value
DE
PSI (%)
Bulk density (g/cm3)
aW
Tg (1C)
DH (J/g)
Total starch (g/100 g d.m.)
Resistant starch (g/100 g d.m.)
pH
WAI (g gel/g solids, d.m.)
WSI (g solids/g original solids)
Dispersability (%)
QPM Flour2
Unfermented
Tempeh
91.970.4a
9.270.5b
71.9471.87b
0.54470.01a
0.4970.03a
73.970.3b
2.7470.3a
62.971.9a
1.970.13b
6.1270.09a
1.370.02b
9.370.27b
34.470.49b
82.370.5b
21.770.6a
79.5972.22a
0.49270.01b
0.4870.05a
81.770.7a
1.9470.8b
56.972.5b
4.370.44a
4.570.10b
2.970.0a
8.270.21a
45.370.01a
1
DE total colour diference, PSI particle size index, aW water
activity, Tg gelatinization temperature, DH gelatinization enthalpy, WAI water absorption index, WSI water solubility index.
2
Means were separated by rows using Duncan0 s multiple range test.
Means with same letter are not signicantly different at Pp0:05.
in the QPM tempeh our suggests more severe processing conditions, because a drastic thermal treatment
produces starch gelatinization with a higher degree of
disorganization (Bello-Perez, Osorio-D az, Agama-Acevedo, Nunez-Santiago, & Paredes-Lopez, 2002) for this
reason, when QPM tempeh our was treated in the
DSC, only a small endotherm was found. Furthermore,
the lower enthalpy value in QPM tempeh our indicate
that, as a result of processing conditions, starch becomes
more gelatinized in QPM tempeh our than in raw QPM
our.
Appreciable variation (62.6 vs 56.9 g/100 g dry our)
for TS was recorded between untreated QPM and QPM
tempeh ours content (Table 1). TS values were slightly
greater in the untreated QPM our than in the QPM
tempeh our. This may be a consequence of partial
removal of nonstarch constituents during SSF process.
The RS value in the raw QPM our was similar to that
reported by Garc a-Alonso et al. (1999) and RendonVillalobos, Bello-Perez, Osorio-D az, Tovar, and Paredes-Lopez (2002) in maize our (Table 1). QPM
tempeh our showed signicantly higher RS values than
original raw QPM our. This result can be explained
based on the heat treatments that the grain suffers
during the SSF process. These treatments promoted the
interaction of the starch with other components
(proteins, lipids or itself) making it less accessible to
enzyme hydrolysis (Saura-Calixto et al., 1993). Biliaderis
(1992) reported that during the thermal processing of
foods rich in starch, RS is formed due to amylose
retrogradation. RSs have been introduced in recent
years as functional ingredients important to human
nutrition. The physiological importance of RS has been
investigated in relation to reduction of the glycemic and
insulinemic response to a food, as well as hypocholesterolemic effects and protective effects against colorectal
cancer (Asp, Van Amelsvoort, & Hautvast, 1996).
Fermented sample showed higher WAI than unfermented QPM; partial protein denaturation and starch
gelatinization, which occurred during cooking step,
could all be responsible for the increased WAI of
tempeh our. WAI of tempeh our might be related to
our starch damage. Heat processing of bean ours
resulted in higher water absorption capacities than
unfermented ours (Narayana & Narasinga, 1982).
3.2. Eaa content of QPM tempeh flour
EAAs content of unfermented QPM and tempeh
ours is shown in Table 2. Unfermented QPM and
tempeh ours contained 41.31 and 48.64 g EAA/100 g
protein, respectively; these values are higher than those
recommended by FAO /WHO for children 25 years old
(33.9 g EAA/100 g protein). When compared with FAO/
WHO reference standards, the proteins from unfermented QPM showed higher values of EAAs such as His,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.O. Cuevas-Rodrguez et al. / LWT 39 (2006) 10721079
1077
Table 2
Essential amino acid contents of QPM tempeh ours
EAA
His
Ile
Leu
Lys
Meth+Cys
Phe+Tyr
Thr
Trp
Val
Total
First lim EAA
Second lim EAA
QPM our1,2
Unfermented
Tempeh
3.22b (1.69)
2.33b (0.83)
8.47b (1.28)
4.20b (0.72)
5.63b (2.25)
7.05b (1.11)
3.52b (1.04)
0.80b (0.73)
6.09a (1.74)
41.31
Lys
Trp
4.03a (2.12)
2.85a (1.02)
9.93a (1.50)
5.67a (0.98)
6.18a (2.47)
10.5a (1.67)
4.31a (1.27)
0.92a (0.84)
4.25b (1.21)
48.64
Trp
Lys
1.9
2.8
6.6
5.8
2.5
6.3
3.4
1.1
3.5
33.9
Means were separated by rows using Duncan0 s multiple range test. Means with same letter are not signicantly different at Pp0:05.
Values in parentheses are the essential amino acids score.
3
FAO/WHO (1991).
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1078
Table 3
Nutritional properties of quality protein maize tempeh ours
Property1
QPM Flour2
Casein
Unfermented
Tempeh
78.5071.2c
83.6070.9b
90.0071.2a
73.9071.6c
76.6071.1c
1.7870.05c
2.1370.02c
1.4370.8c
0.5570.03c
84.2072.1b
86.8070.8b
2.1070.03b
2.5670.03b
1.7470.6b
0.8370.02b
90.7071.7a
93.2071.1a
2.5070.05a
2.8670.05a
2.5070.7a
1.1170.01a
PER protein efciency ratio, NPR net protein retention, C-PER calculated protein efciency ratio, PDCAAS protein digestibility
corrected amino acid score.
2
Means were separated by rows using Duncan0 s multiple range test. Means with same letter are not signicantly different at Pp0:05.
4. Conclusions
The study showed that the SSF process could be
applied to improve the nutritional characteristics of
QPM. In comparison to unfermented QPM ours, the
QPM tempeh our showed higher (Pp0:05) gelatinization temperature, and RS, and a lower (Pp0:05)
References
AACC. (1995). Approved methods of the American Association of
Cereal Chemists (9th ed.). MN, USA: St. Paul.
Addo, K., Lykins, S., & Cotton, C. (1996). Indigenous fermentation
and soy fortication: Effects on protein quality and carbohydrate
digestibility of a traditional Ghanaian corn meal. Food Chemistry,
57, 377381.
Anderson, R. A., Conway, H. F., Pfeifer, V. F., & Grifn, E. (1969).
Gelatinization of corn grits by roll and extrusion cooking. Cereal
Science Today, 14(11), 47 1112.
AOAC. (1998). Ofcial methods of analyses, Association of Ofcial
Analytical Chemists (16th ed.). Washington, DC, USA.
Asp, N. G., Van Amelsvoort, J. M. N., & Hautvast, J. G. A. (1996).
Nutritional implications of resistant starch. Nutrition Research
Reviews, 9, 131.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.O. Cuevas-Rodrguez et al. / LWT 39 (2006) 10721079
Barragan-Salgado, M. L., & Serna-Sald var, S. O. (2000). Production
and nutritional evaluation of liqueed weaning foods from malted
sorghum quality protein maize, and other cereals. Cereal Chemistry, 77(5), 652656.
Bedolla, S., & Rooney, L. W. (1982). Cooking maize for masa
production. Cereal Foods World, 27, 219221.
Bello-Perez, l. A., Osorio-D az, P., Agama-Acevedo, E., NunezSantiago, C., & Paredes-Lopez, O. (2002). Chemical, physicochemical and rheological properties of masa and nixtamalized corn
our. Agrociencia, 36, 319328.
Biliaderis, C. G. (1992). Structures and phases transitions of starch in
food systems. Food Technology, 46, 98109.
Bindlingmeyer, B. A., Cohen, S. A., & Tarvin, T. L. (1984). Rapid
analysis of aminoacids using precolum derivitization. Journal of
Chromatography, 336, 93104.
Buzzigoli, G., Lanzone, L., Ciorciaro, D., Fascerra, S., Cerri, M.,
Scandroglio, A., et al. (1990). Characterization of a reversed.phase
high performance liquid chromatographic system for determination of blood amino acids. Journal of Chromatography, 507,
8593.
CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Ma z y Trigo).
(1985). CIMMYT Research High Lights, CIMMYT Mexico City.
Cohen, S. A., & Strydom, D. J. (1988). Amino acids analysis utilizing
phenylisothiocyanate derivatives. Analytical Biochemistry, 174,
116.
Cuevas-Rodr guez, E. O., Milan-Carrillo, J., Mora-Escobedo, R.,
Cardenas- Valenzuela, O. G., & Reyes-Moreno, C. (2004). Quality
protein maize (Zea mays L) tempeh our through solid state
fermentation process. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und-Technologie,
37, 5967.
Desing Expert. (2002). Version 6.04. MN, USA: STAT-EASE Inc.
Eggum, B. O. (1973). A study of certain factors inuencing protein
utilization in rats and pigs. Publication 406; Report National
Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen. Danish.
Egounlety, M., & Aworh, O. C. (2003). Effect of soaking, dehulling,
cooking and fermentation with Rhizopus oligosporus on the
oligosaccharides, trypsin, inhibitor, phytic acid and tannins of
soybean (Glycine max Merr.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp),
and grounbean (Macrotyloma geocarpa Harms). Journal of Food
Engineering, 56, 249254.
FAO/WHO. (1991). Protein Quality Evaluation (p. 66). Rome, Italy:
Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations.
Garc a-Alonso, A., Goni, I., Jimenez-Escrig, A., Mart n-Carron, N.,
Bravo, L., & Saura-Calixto, F. (1999). Assessment of some
parameters involved in the gelatinization and retrogradation of
starch. Food Chemistry, 66, 181187.
Goni, I., Garc a-Alonso, A., & Saura-Calixto, F. (1997). A starch
hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutrition Research, 17, 427437.
Hachmeister, K. A., & Fung, D. Y. C. (1993). Tempeh: A moldmodied indigenous fermented foods made from soy beans and/or
cereal grains. Criticals Reviews in Microbiology, 19, 137188.
Hamad, A. M., & Fields, M. (1979). Evaluation of protein quality and
available lysine of germinated and fermented cereals. Journal of
Food Science, 44, 456459.
Henley, E. C., & Kuster, J. M. (1994). Protein quality evaluation by
protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scoring. Food Technology, 48(4), 7477.
Hirs, C. W. H. (1967). Performic acid oxidation. Methods in
Enzymology, 11, 197199.
Hsu, H. W., Sutton, N. E., Banjo, M. O., Satterlee, l. D., & Kendrick,
J. G. (1978). The C-PER and T-PER assays for protein quality.
Food Technology, 32, 6973, 68.
Hsu, H. W., Vavak, D. l., Satterlee, l. D., & Miller, G. A. (1977). A
multienzyme technique for estimating protein digestibility. Journal
of Food Science, 42, 12691273.
1079