Content uploaded by Eke-Ejiofor Joy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eke-Ejiofor Joy on Mar 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences
2016; 5(1): 47-52
Published online February 1, 2016 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijnfs)
doi: 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160501.17
ISSN: 2327-2694 (Print); ISSN: 2327-2716 (Online)
Preparation and Evaluation of Granola – a Breakfast Cereal,
Sustituted with Maize (Zea May) and Coconut (Cocos
Nucifera) Blend
Eke - Ejiofor Joy
*
, Beleya Ellen Aswei, Gbarasogo Mbarabari
Nicholas
Department of Food Science and Technology, Rivers State University of Science and Technology Nkpolu, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Email address:
joyekee@yahoo.co.uk (Eke - Ejiofor J.)
To cite this article:
Eke - Ejiofor Joy, Beleya Ellen Aswei, Gbarasogo Mbarabari Nicholas. Preparation and Evaluation of Granola – a Breakfast Cereal,
Sustituted with Maize (Zea May) and Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) Blend. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences.
Vol. 5, No. 1, 2016, pp. 47-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160501.17
Abstract:
Granola was produced using three varieties of maize namely, yellow, white and pop and oat as control. Coconut
was added to the granola sample in order to replace walnut in the control. They were subjected to sensory, chemical and
functional evaluation. Sensory analysis showed that there was significant difference in their color and taste, while flavor,
texture, crispness and overall acceptability showed no significant difference (p≥0.05). Chemical analysis result showed that oat
based granola had the highest value for fat, protein, energy, sugar, starch and amylopectin, while yellow maize granola had the
highest value for moisture content and carbohydrate and white maize granola had the highest value for crude fibre and
amylose. Granola produced from pop maize had the highest value for ash. There was no significant difference (P≥0.05) in ash,
protein energy and amylopectin between oat granola (control) and maize based granola samples. Functional analysis of the
samples showed that oat granola had the highest value for water absorption capacity and swelling power. Yellow maize granola
had the highest value for dispersibility and bulk density. Pop corn granola had the highest value for solubility. There was no
significant difference (P≥0.05) in bulk density and water absorption capacity.
Keywords:
Granola, Substitution, Preparation, Evaluation, Maize, Coconut, Breakfast - Cereal
1. Introduction
Granola is a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal that is made
from grain typically high in carbohydrate, low fat and often a
good source of fibre (Annelisse, 2009). It is a breakfast food
made from oats, walnut, peanut and wheat which is usually
baked until it is dry and crisp. A breakfast cereal therefore
can be said to be a ready to cook, ready to eat convenient
food product. They include puffed, flaked, shredded and
granular products made from wheat, maize, oats, rice and
barley. They may be enriched with sugar, honey, a malt
extract and fortified with vitamins, minerals and nutrients
(Annelisse, 2009).
Besides serving granola as food for breakfast, it is also
eaten by those who are hiking or camping because of it
lightweight and high calories. Granola is often eaten with
yoghurt, honey, fruit and milk. It can also serves as topping
for various types of pastries and/or dessert.
Oat and walnut are the main raw materials for the
production of granola, which is relatively high in cost due to
the fact that it is not grown in Nigeria. Granola is unpopular
and therefore its consumption is very low and so stands the
status of a smuggled product from Ghana where it is more of
a staple food. There is little information in literature on the
product granola and therefore this research.
Maize which is locally available and of low cost may serve
as a substitute for oat and coconut for African walnut in the
production of substitute granola. It is the most widely grown
crop (FAO, 2009) and the fourth most consumed cereal in the
past two decades, below sorghum, millet and rice (FAOSTAT
2012). Being among the primary food staples, maize
consumption is widespread across the country and among
households of different status. It is widely used in the
preparation of traditional foods, and has two major types,
white and yellow with a high content of carbohydrate,
moderate protein (zein), fat, but rich in fibre, mineral and
vitamin. Its protein contains low amount of gluten but a good
source of starch which is used for baking and its oil used for
cooking (Watson 1987).
48 Eke - Ejiofor Joy et al.: Preparation and Evaluation of Granola – a Breakfast Cereal, Sustituted with
Maize (Zea May) and Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) Blend
In Nigeria, coconut is grown mainly for food and wholly
eaten raw, until recently when it is being processed on a
small scale into candies and chips (Asiedu, 1989). Coconut
has various uses and its flour has been developed for use in
baking to combat malnutrition (Grinwood, 1975). It is used
as a source of sugar, dietary fibre, protein, antioxidant and
vitamin (Paniappan, 2002). The coconut residue is made into
flour (Timida et al., 2001) and believed to contain dietary
fibre, which has an important health implication in the
prevention of risk of chronic disease such as cancer,
cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Studies revealed that
consumption of high coconut flour increase fecal bulk
(Arancon, 1999). Coconut flour is gluten-free, though contain
a significant protein. Its flour is used as composite in the
baking of some product to improve the nutritional
composition. According to Barret et al., (2004) when coconut
flour is incorporated into wheat flour, it increases the amino
acid content especially lysine.
Peanut flour/paste remains underutilized and research is
needed to develop new value added products from this raw
material that is mainly used for livestock. Peanut has
assumed significance in the recent years as a protein source
in diets due to its high proteins content (25.80%). Its meal
can be dried and ground into a paste form that can be added
to various daily consumed foods (Zhao et al., 2011).
Continuous search for wholesome food and poor
nutritional quality of most readily available breakfast meal
have lead to the utilization of other cheap underutilized
and available food raw material which are desirable in
reducing the use of high cost raw material such as oat and
wheat to further enhance product development. This
research intends to develop an adequate and nutritionally
enriched breakfast meal to meet the need of the teeming
population of our society. The objectives of this study
therefore are, to prepare granola from locally available
raw materials such as maize, coconut and peanut and to
evaluate the sensory, chemical and functional properties of
the granola samples.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Maize (Zea may), oat (Avena sativa), peanut (Arachis
hypogaea), coconut (Cocos nucifera), wheat (Triticumspp),
milk, sugar, vegetable oil and vanilla flavor were Purchased
from Mile 3 Market, while African walnut was purchase from
“Spar” supermarket, all in Port Harcourt, Rivers State,
Nigeria.
2.2. Chemicals
Chemicals used for this analysis were of analytical grade
and were all obtained from the Biochemistry laboratory,
Department of Food Science and Technology, Rivers State
University of Science and Technology, Port-Harcourt, Rivers
State, Nigeria.
3. Methods
3.1. Preparation of Maize Meal
Maize grain (white, yellow and pop) varieties were sorted
to remove spoilt grains. They were cleaned, winnowed and
milled using a dry milling machine. The meal obtained were
then stored in an air-tight container for use in the preparation
of granola.
Source: Adapted from Houssou and Ayemor, (2002).
Figure 1. Flowchart for the production of maize meal.
Table 1. Recipe for the production of granola.
Ingredients Quantities
Standardgranola Alternativegranola
(control)
Oat 500g _
Maizemeal _ 500g
AfricanWalnut 80g _
Coconutmesh _ 80g
Groundpeanut 160g 160g
Wheatflour 100g 100g
Sugar 160g 160g
Water 200ml 200ml
Vegetableoil 16ml 16ml
Vanillaflavor 4ml 4ml
Source: George and Esther, (2003).
3.2. Preparation of Granola
Granola was prepared according to the method described
by George and Esther, (2003). Maize meal, coconut mesh,
ground peanut, wheat flour and sugar were weighed into a
bowl and mixed. Water, vegetable oil and vanilla flavor were
added to the weighed sample in the bowl and were mixed
into dough kneaded and cut into shape. The dough was
spread on the tray and baked in an oven at 130°C for one
hour. The baked product (granola) was allowed to cool and
subsequently store in an airtight container.
International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 2016; 5(1): 47-52 49
3.3. Sensory Evaluation
Granola samples were subjected to sensory evaluation
within 24 hours of production. The granola was evaluated in
two forms; dry and in milk solution the form in which it is to
be served. A uniform quantity of granola and milk/sugar
solution were given to all panelists in order to provide a base
for assessment.
The dry sample was evaluated for color/appearance,
crispness, aroma, taste, texture and overall acceptability
while granola in milk solution was evaluated for
color/appearance, taste, texture/mouthful flavor and overall
acceptability.
A questionnaire was used to assess the above mentioned
attributes using a 5-point hedonic scale with 5 = like
extremely, 4 = like very much, 3 = neither like nor dislike, 2
= dislike very much, 1 = dislike extremely (Larmond 1977).
Twenty (20) semi trained panelists drawn from within and
outside the Department of Food Science and Technology,
who are regular consumers of maize and coconut and who
were neither sick nor allergic to any component of the raw
material used for the production of the products at the time of
the evaluation, were involved in the assessment. The
panelists were instructed to rinse their mouth with water after
tasting each granola sample.
3.4. Statistical Analysis
Results were statistically analyzed by using analysis of
variance technique. Level of significance within means was
calculated by using the Duncan Multiple Range Test (Steel
and Torrie, 1980).
3.5. Chemical Analysis of Granola Samples
The chemical analysis of granola samples was determined
using the AOAC (1990) methods for moisture, ash, protein,
fat and fibre. Total carbohydrate was calculated by difference
of moisture, ash, protein, fat and fibre. The total energy value
of the samples was determined according to the method
described by Mahgoub (1999). Amylose content was
determined according to the method described by Williams et
al., (1970), while amylopectin was calculated by difference
(% Amylopectin = % starch - % amylose). Starch and sugar
was determined by the method described by Eke 2006.
3.6. Functional Properties
Dispersibility was determined by the method of Kulkarni
et al., (1991), while the relative bulk density of samples was
determined by the method described by Narayana and
Narasinya, (1984). The water absorption capacity was
determined using the method by Sosulski, (1962) while
swelling Power and Solubility was determined using the
method of Takashi and Sieb, (1988).
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Sensory Evaluation Result of Granola
Table 2 shows the sensory evaluation result of dry granola
samples prepared from three different maize varieties namely
white, yellow and pop corn.
Color ranged from 2.00 – 4.15 with samples C and D (pop
and yellow maize granola, respectively) as the most
preferred, while taste ranged from 2.90 – 4.15 with sample A
(control) having the highest score. Color and taste are
important sensory attributes which to a large extent
determines the acceptability of food products. In the present
study color and taste showed a significant difference
(p<0.05) between the control and the maize based products.
Flavor ranged from 3.10 – 3.30 with sampleD (yellow maize)
as the highest, while texture had 3.30 for sample A (control),
B (white maize) and C (pop corn maize) and 3.55 for sample
D (yellow maize), with no significant difference occurring in
texture. Crispness ranged from 3.30 – 4.00 with sample C
(popcorn) having the highest. Overall acceptability ranged
from 3.35 – 3.60 with samples A (control) and C (popcorn) as
the highest. Flavor, texture, crispness and overall
acceptability showed no significant differences (p>0.05)
amongst the samples. This suggests that acceptable granola
can be produce from the combination of maize, coconut and
peanut.
Table 2. Sensory evaluation result of dry granola samples.
Sample Color Taste Flavor Texture Crispness Overall Acceptability
A 2.00
a
±0.92 4.15
a
±1.14 3.20
a
±1.51 3.30
a
±1.45 3.45
a
±1.19 3.60
a
±1.14
B 3.30
b
±0.94 3.05
b
±1.09 3.10
a
±1.09 3.30
a
±1.22 3.30
a
±1.03 3.55
a
±0.99
C 4.15
a
±0.88 2.90
b
±1.16 3.25
a
±1.16 3.30
a
±0.98 4.00
a
±0.85 3.60
a
±0.95
D 4.15
a
±1.99 3.55
a
±1.31 3.30
a
±1.08 3.55
a
±1.28 3.30
a
±1.17 3.35
a
±1.35
Means with the same superscript in the same column are not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Key: A= Oat granola (control).
B= white maize granola.
C= popcorn granola.
D= yellow maize granola.
4.2. Sensory Evaluation of Granola in Milk/Sugar Solution
Table 3 shows the sensory evaluation result of granola
samples consumed in a given quantity of milk and sugar in
the ratio 3: 1, weight for weight. Color/Appearance ranged
from 2.70 – 4.05 with sample D (yellow maize) as the
highest, while taste, flavor, texture and overall acceptability
ranged from 2.95 – 4.05; 3.15-4.05; 3.10-3.75 and from 3.15
– 3.85 with sample A (control) having the highest
respectively.
50 Eke - Ejiofor Joy et al.: Preparation and Evaluation of Granola – a Breakfast Cereal, Sustituted with
Maize (Zea May) and Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) Blend
Table 3. Sensory evaluation result of granola in milk solution.
Sample Color Taste Flavor Texture Overall acceptability
A 2.70a±1.17 4.05a±1.09 4.05a±0.94 3.75a±1.02 3.85a±1.09
B 3.20a±0.95 3.40b±0.94 3.15b±1.18 3.10a±1.07 3.20a±1.11
C 3.50b±1.00 2.95b±1.09 3.25b±0.91 3.40a±1.27 3.50a±1.24
D 4.05a±1.24 3.05b±1.31 3.15b±1.34 3.10a±1.37 3.15a±1.18
Means with the same superscript in the same column are not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Key: A= Oat granola (control).
B= white maize granola.
C= popcorn granola.
D= yellow maize granola.
Table 4. Chemical composition of granola (%).
Sample M.C Ash Fat Crude
Protein Crude Fiber
CHO Energy
(Kcal/100g) Sugar Starch Amy Amylop
A 5.65b±0.21 1.47a±0.09 22.53a±0.68
10.92a±0.96
2.58b±0.14 56.58b±0.01
473.75a±6.02 11.17b±0.04
80.37a±0.15
40.11c±0.07
40.26a±0.07
B 6.60a±0.00 1.45a±0.02 20.69b±0.83
6.65a±0.72 3.91a±0.02 60.75a±0.08
455.32a±7.79 10.59b±0.0 74.29c±0.25
40.66a±0.07
33.63b±0.07
C 6.30a±1.28 1.53a±0.07 18.29c±0. 06
9.74a±0.24 2.06c±0.06 60.08a±0.08
451.89a±0.40 10.84b±0.04
77.35b±0.50
40.27c±0.07
37.08a±0.07
C 6.75a±0.07 1.43a±0.07 19.38c±1. 52
7.18a±2.41 3.70a±0.21 61.56a±0.00
450.19a±15.56
11.04a±0.04
76.25b±0.29
40.33b±0.15
35.92a±0.16
Means with the same superscript in the same column are not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Key: A= (control)
B= White maize granola
C= Popcorn granola
D= Yellow maize granola
M.C= Moisture content
CHO = Carbohydrate
Amy = Amylose
Amylop = Amylopectin
4.3. Chemical Composition of Granola
Table 4 shows the chemical evaluation result of granola
prepared from three different maize varieties namely white,
yellow and pop corn varieties. Moisture content ranged from
5.65% - 6.75% with sample A (control) as the least and
sample D (yellow maize) as the highest. Moisture content of
granola ranging from 5.65% to 6.75% is less than the finding
of Annelisse (2009) with the 15.1% with use of resistant
starch for production of granola bar. The low moisture
content of these products indicates that the product would
have an extended shelf life.
Ash content ranged from 1.43% - 1.53% with sample D
(yellow maize) as the least and sample C (popcorn) as the
highest. This result agrees with the finding of Jeffrey et al.,
(2011) who reported 1.50% ash content for corn meal, while
fat content ranged from 18.29% - 22.53% with sample C
(popcorn) as the least and sample A (control) the as highest.
Fat content of granola in this study agrees with the findings
of Annelisse (2009) with a value of 18.60%. The higher fat
content of sample A (control) may be as a result of high fat
content of African walnut, which was substituted with
coconut, thereby giving a product of less fat content. Fat
content may also be influenced by varietal difference
Protein content ranged from 6.65% – 10.92% with sample
B (white maize) as the least and sample A (control) as the
highest. Protein content in this work agrees with the finding
of Muhammad et al (2012) with a value of 9.00% of corn
grit. The protein result of sample A (control) with a higher
protein content is expected because of the presence of wheat
which is known for its high protein, in relation to maize.
Crude fibre result of 2.06% to 3.91% agrees with the
findings of Muhammad et al., (2012) with a value of 3.91%
for granola bar substituted with native syrup and dietary
fibre. This result indicates that maize is a rich source of fibre.
Carbohydrate content ranged from 56.85 – 61.56% with
samples A (control) as the least and sample D (yellow maize)
as the highest. This result agrees with the findings of Annelisse
(2009) with a value of 58.9%, while energy ranged from
451.89kcal/100g– 473.75kcal/100g with sample C (popcorn)
as the least and sample A (control) as the highest. This result
also is in agreement with the findings of Annelisse (2012) with
a value of 450kcal/100g. The result shows that despite the
change in the composition of the original ingredients, it did not
adversely affect the derivable energy in the new product.
Sugar and starch contents ranged from 10.59% to 11.17%
and from 74.29% to 80.37% with sample B (white maize) as
the least and sample A (control) as the highest respectively.
There were no significant differences (P≥0.05) in sugar and
starch contents of the samples.
Amylose content ranged from 40.11% to 40.27% with
sample A (oat granola) has the lowest value and sample B
(white maize) has the highest value, while the reverse was
the case for amylopectin which ranged from 33.63% to
40.26% with sample B (white maize) having the least and
sample A (control) having the highest. Amlyose is the linear
components of starch and it imparts definite characteristics to
starch and therefore, its content is an important criterion in
International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 2016; 5(1): 47-52 51
starch quality (Kurup, 1994). Amylose and amylopectin
showed significant difference (P≤0.05) between the
samples.
Table 5. Functional properties of granola samples.
Sample Dispersibility (%) Bulk Density (g/ml) WAC (g/g) Solubility Swelling Power (g/g)
A 66.00b±2.82 0.40a±0.01 1.04a±0.00 23.07b±0.49 5.89a±0.18
B 71.50a±2.12 0.46a±0.02 0.96a±0.01 23.89b±0.16 4.85b±1.16
C 73.00a±0.00 0.46a±0.00 0.95a±0.05 25.18a±0.16 4.57b±0.14
D 74.50a±0.70 0.47a±0.00 0.81b±0.00 25.15a±1.41 4.92b±0.01
Means with the same superscript in the same column are not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Key: A= Oat granola (control).
B= white maize granola.
C= popcorn granola.
D= yellow maize granola.
WAC = water absorption capacity.
4.4. Functional Properties of Granola
Table 5 shows the functional properties of granola
prepared from three different maize varieties namely white,
yellow and pop corn varieties.
Dispersibility and bulk density ranged from 66.00%-
74.50% and from 0.40 – 0.47g/ml with sample A (oat
granola, control) as the least and sample D (yellow maize)
as the highest. Dispersibility in water shows the ease of
break-up of agglomerates which allow particles to sink
below the surface and disperse rapidly in liquid (Tizazu and
Emire 2010), while bulk density is very important in
packaging and material handling since it enables a higher
amount of material occupy a smaller volume (Karma et al.,
1981). There was a significant difference (P≤0.05) between
oat based granola and maize based granola in dispersibility
and no significant different (P>0.05) in bulk density
amongst the samples.
Water absorption capacity ranged from 0.81-1.04g/g with
sample D (yellow maize) as the least and sample A (oat
granola, control) as the highest. Niba et al., (2001) described
water absorption capacity as an important processing
parameter that has implications for viscosity. Furthermore,
water absorption capacity is important in bulking and
consistency of products. Increase in water absorption
capacity in food systems enables end users to manipulate the
functional properties of the dough in the bakery products.
The yellow maize granola (sample D) was significantly
different (P≤0.05) from the other samples.
Solubility ranged from 23.07%-25.18% with sample A
(control) as the least and sample C (popcorn granola) as the
highest, while the reverse was the case for swelling power
which ranged from 4.57-5.89g/g with sample C (popcorn)
having the least value and sample A (control) having the
highest value. Solubility reflects the extent of intermolecular
cross bonding within the granule (Hari et al., 1989). In
agreement with the above statement, Safo-Kantanka et al.,
(1996) stated that the swelling power of a starch based food is
an indication of the strength of the hydrogen bonding between
the granules. Swelling power therefore is a measure of swollen
starch granule and the food eating quality is connected with
retention of swollen starch granules (Richard et al., 1991).
Swelling capacity is also a function of the product to rise when
having interaction with water. Finney (1994) reported that the
swelling capacity affects the temperature at which a product
forms gel in maize flour; a similar observation was made in the
present study. Solubility and swelling power showed
significant difference between the samples.
5. Conclusion
Granola can be prepared from maize meal and coconut. The
study has shown that maize and coconut can be substituted for
oat and walnut in the production of granola of acceptable
quality without altering the flavor, texture and crispness of the
original oat based product. Maize based granola showed an
increased value in carbohydrate, fibre and energy with energy
showing no significant difference, while functional properties
of the products also showed better dispersibility and solubility
of maize based granola. However there was no significant
difference in bulk density and water absorption capacity
between the maize based granola and the control. Therefore
maize and coconut can be used to produce an organoleptically,
nutritionally and acceptable breakfast cereal granola.
References
[1] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), 1990.
Official Method of Analysis, 17th Edition. Washington DC,
USA.
[2] Anneliss Eaigster (2009). Physicochemical and sensory
properties of resistant starch based cereal products and effects
on postprandial glycemic and oxidation stress responses in
Hispanic women. J Nutr. 27: 23-30.
[3] Aranco, R. N. (1999). Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook
Study: Asiedu, J. J., 1989. Processing tropical Crops – A
Technological Approach. The Macmillan Press Ltd.
[4] Barrett, A., Cardello, A., Maguire, P., Richardson, M.,
Kaletunc, G. and Lesher, L. (2002). Effects of sucrose ester,
dough conditioner and storage temperature on long-term
textural stability of shelf-stable bread. Cereal Chemistry 79:
806–811.
[5] Eke J. (2006): Chemical, functional and pasting properties of
starch and tapioca produced from selected hybrid cassava
(manihot esculenta crantz) cultivars. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis.
52 Eke - Ejiofor Joy et al.: Preparation and Evaluation of Granola – a Breakfast Cereal, Sustituted with
Maize (Zea May) and Coconut (Cocos Nucifera) Blend
[6] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2009. Economic
and Social Department: The Statistical Division.
[7] Finney, K. F (1994). Contribution of individual chemical
constituents to the functional (bread making) properties of
wheat in cereals 78 better Nutrition for the World Million
Minnesota. American Association of Cereal Chemist Inc.
[8] George Pamplona-Roger and Ester Malaxetxebarria (2003).
Recipes for Healing and Prevention. 3
rd
Edition in English.
[9] Grimwood, B. E. (1975) Coconut Palm Products. FAO, Rome.
[10] Hari, P. K, Gargs, S; Garys, S. K (1989). Gelatinization of
starch and modified starch. Starch 41(3): 88-91.
[11] Houssou, P. and G. S Ayemor (2002). Appropriate processing
and food functional property of maize flour. African Journal
of Science and Technology 3: 126-131p.
[12] Jelfrey, A. Gwirts and Maria Nieves Garcia-Casal (2011).
“Processing maize flour and corn meal food product.”
Department of Grain Science and Industry Kansa State
university Kansa. J. Food Science and technology. 28: 39-45
[13] Kulkarni, k. D, kulkarni, D. N and Ingle, U. M. (1991):
“Sorghum malt-based weaning formulation, preparation,
functional properties and nutritive Values”. Food and nutrition
bulletin 13(4): 322-327.
[14] Kurup G. T. (1994). Tuber crop starches central Tuber crops
Research Institute Sreekariyam. Thiruvananihapuram, Kerala
India. Tech Bulletin series 18.
[15] Larmond, E., (1977): Laboratory methods for sensory
Evaluation of food, Canda Pept Agric-Pub.
[16] Mahgoub, S. E. O., (1999). “Production and evaluation of
hydrolysate from an oilseed flour mixture. Food weaning
foods based on sorghum and legumes” Chem., 106: 1166-
1174. Plants Foods Hum. Nutr. 54: 29-42.
[17] Muhammed Madeem, Salim-ur-Rahman, Faqir Muhammad
Anjum, Mian Anjum Murtaza and Ghulam Mueen-ud-Din
(2012). “Development characterisation and optimization of
protein level in Date Bars using Response Surface
Methodology”. Institute food Sc & Nut. University of
Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan J. food science 50: 19-24.
[18] Narayana, K and Narasinga, Rao M. S (1984): Effect of partial
proteolysis on the functional properties of winged pea
(Psophocapustetragonolobus) flour. Journal of Food Science,
49: 944-947.
[19] Niba LL, Bokanga MM, Jackson FL, Schlimme D, Li BW
(2001) Physicochemical properties and starch granular
characteristics of flour from various manihot esculeata
genotypes. J. Food Sci. 67: 51-56.
[20] Paniappan G. C (2002). Chemical compositions, antioxidant
capacities and antiproliferative activities of coconut flours. J.
Agric. Food. Chem. 54: 3773-3778.
[21] Richard; J. R, Asaoka M. A, Blanshard J. M. V (1991). The
physico-chemical properties of cassava starch. Trop. Sci. 31:
189207.
[22] Safo-Kantanka K. O, Acquistucci R (1996). The physico-
chemical properties of cassava starch in relation to the texture
of cooked root. Ghana J. Agric. Sci. 28 (29): 69-90.
[23] Steel, R. G. D and Torrie, J. H (1980): Principles and
procedures of statistics. MC Graw Hill Pub. Comp. Inc. New
York UNE (Una Norma Espanola). (1974). 34-074-74.
[24] Sosulski, F. N. (1962): “The centrifugal method for
determining flour absorptivity chemistry 39: 344-346. State
University Ames, Iowa.
[25] Takashi, S. and Sieb, P. A. (1988): Paste and gel properties of
prime corn and wheat starches with and without native
Lipids”. Cereal chemistry 65: 474-475.
[26] Tizazu H., Emire S. A (2010). “Chemical composition,
physicochemical and functional properties of Lupin
(Lupinusalbus) seed grown in Ethiopia”. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 10(8). Pp
3029-3046.
[27] Trimidad PT., H. Y Divinagracia, C. M. Aida, C. A Faarida, S.
M Angelica, T. C Modesta, C. A. Askali, A. S Loyola and D.
B Masa (2001) “Coconut flour from residue: A good source of
Dietary fibre”. Indian coconut journal Nutr. 26: 430-435.
[28] Watson S. A (1987): Structures & Composition pp 33 – 80. In
Watson S. A and Ramstad R. E (Ed) Corn Chemistry and
Technology Am Soc. Cereal chem. 68: 372-378.
[29] Williams, P. C. Kuzina, F. D. and Hlynka, I. A. (1970): “A
rapid calorimetric procedure for estimating he amylase content
of starches and starch”. Cereal Chemistry 47(4): 411-413.
[30] Zhao Z. Y, K Glassman, V. Sewalt, N Wang, M. Miller, S.
Chang, T. Thompson and Y. Jung (2003). Nutritionally
improved transgenic sorghum. In: Vasil I. K. (ed) Plant
biotechnology 2002 and beyond. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 413.