Sensory and chemical characteristics, glycaemic response, and nutritional studies of white pan bread fortified with split yellow pea (Pisum sativum L.) flour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Yellow pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a valuable source of nutrients that is produced widely in Canada. However, food applications of pea have been commonly limited due to its undesirable beany off-flavor. This study is in line with attempts to improve the acceptability of pea-enriched pan bread that provides a health benefit to consumers. The specific objectives of this work were: i) To develop white pan bread fortified with 20% split yellow pea flour; ii) To characterize the sensory properties of the developed breads (100%W , USYP , RT0% , RT10% ); iii) To evaluate pea flour's chemical profile (volatile and non-volatile compounds) as affected by Revtech processing, and iv) To determine the breads’ postprandial glycaemic and satiety responses in healthy adults. Methods: Pea flour was heat treated using Revtech processing at 140˚C (residence time of 4 min) in dry condition (RT0%) and in the presence of 10% steam (RT10%). The consumer acceptability of produced breads was assessed by 110 consumers using 9-point hedonic scale. Descriptive analysis of the bread's sensory attributes was further defined and measured using 15 cm line scales by 11 trained panellists. The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in pea flour were collected using Likens Nickerson apparatus and analyzed by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). A nontargeted metabolomics approach was used to analyze the phytochemical profiles of pea flour using liquid chromatography quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques. A randomized controlled crossover trial evaluated the glycaemic response of developed breads using 24 healthy adults. Participants consumed 50g of available carbohydrates from different bread variants. Blood samples were collected and analyzed for glucose and plasma insulin at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes post-meal. Appetite sensations were measured using a visual analogue scale. Results: Among pea-enriched breads, RT10% had a significantly higher aroma, flavor, and overall acceptability and appeared to be the closest to the control white wheat bread (100%W). The overall acceptability for all bread variants was scored above 6 (defined as "like slightly"), indicating the acceptability of the end products among consumers. Attributes associated with RT10% included wheaty, sweet and yeast aromas and wheaty flavor, while attributes associated with USYP and RT0% were pea and nutty aroma and flavor. The concentrations of several VOCs with known contribution to beany off-flavor, such as heptanal, (E)-2-heptenal, 1-octen-3-ol, octanal, and (E)-2-octenal were significantly (p<0.05) decreased in both RT0% and RT10% flours. These changes may be attributed to the significant decrease in the LOX activity in heat-treated flours and the subsequent reduction in fatty acid oxidation. Results of the clinical trial showed no significant difference in the postprandial glucose and insulin responses of different bread treatments. However, pea-containing variants demonstrated favourable satiety responses with significantly higher fullness and lower hunger, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption ratings compared to 100%W.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".