99D-24 |
|
J. MILÁN CARRILLO1, E. O. Cuevas Rodríguez1, C. Reyes Moreno2, and O. Cárdenas-Valenzuela1. (1) Facultad de Ciencias Químico Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria, Culiacán, 80000, Mexico, (2) Maestría en Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Ciencias Químico Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa. Culiacá, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, CU, Col Universitaria, Angel Flores y Riva Palacio, Culiacán, Sinaloa, 80000, Mexico Solid state fermentation (SSF) represents a technological alternative for processing a great variety of legumes and/or cereals, to improve their nutritional quality and to obtain edible products with palatable sensorial characteristics. The objectives of this work were (1) to determine the best combination of SSF process variables (temperature / time) for producing chickpea tempeh flour, and (2) to characterize physicochemical and nutritional properties of the product. Response surface methodology was applied as optimization technique, over three response variables: In vitro protein digestibility (PD), true protein (TP), and water absorption index (WAI). A central composite experimental design with two factors and five levels was used. The process variables, FT and Ft, had variation levels of 31-36 ¢XC and 48-72 h, respectively. Rhizopus oligosporus (1 x 109 spores l-1, in distilled water) was used as starter. Prediction models for response variables were developed as a function of process variables. Conventional graphical method was applied to obtain maximum PD, TP, and WAI. Contour plots of each of the response variables were superimposed to obtain a contour plot for observation and selection of the best combination of FT (34.9¢XC) and Ft (51.3 h) for producing of chickpea tempeh, which was dried (52¢XC, 24 h), and milled to pass through a 80-US mesh (0.180mm) screen to obtain optimized chickpea tempeh flour. This flour had higher (p „T 0.05) TP (25.7 vs 19.7 %, DM), total color difference (30.3 vs 16.7), WAI (4.18 vs 2.15 k gel.kg-1, DM), available lysine (42.7 vs 30.4 g lysine. kg -1 protein, DM) and PD (83.2 vs 72.2 %), and lower lipid content (2.6 vs 6.1%, DM), phytic acid (1.1 vs 10.85 g phytic acid.kg-1, DM), tannins (2.65 vs 21.95 g catechin.kg-1, DM), and pH (5.9 vs 6.3) than raw chickpea flour.
Session 99D, Food Microbiology: General
|