Development of gluten-free pasta by incorporating jackfruit seed powder in chickpea flour

Figures (5) Tables (5)

Figure 1.
Pasta prepared by different formulations. B₀ (100% semolina, control); B₅₀ (50% JSP + 50% CP); B₆₀ (60% JSP + 40% CP); B₇₀ (70% JSP + 30% CP); and B₈₀ (80% JSP + 20% CP). JSP: jackfruit seed powder; CP: chickpea flour.
Figure 2.
Relationship between cooking time, cooking loss, and cooking weight of control sample B₀ and different pasta formulations B₅₀, B₆₀, B₇₀, and B₈₀.
Figure 3.
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of control sample B₀ and different pasta formulations B₅₀, B₆₀, B₇₀, and B₈₀.
Figure 4.
FTIR spectra of control sample B₀ and different pasta formulations B₅₀, B₆₀, B₇₀, and B₈₀.
Figure 5.
Sensory characteristics of control sample B₀ and different pasta formulations B₅₀, B₆₀, B₇₀, and B₈₀.

Table 1.

Experimental design and standardized proportions of control and composite flours for pasta production.

Formulation	Moisture (g/100 g)	Ash (g/100 g)	Fat (g/100 g)	Protein (g/100 g)	Crude fiber (g/100 g)	Carbohydrate (g/100 g)	Amylose (g/100 g)	Starch (g/100 g)	Energy (kcal/100 g)
B₀	11.43 ± 0.14^a	0.75 ± 0.11^d	2.67 ± 0.36^a	11.06 ± 0.20^c	1.47 ± 0.40^a	72.77 ± 0.31^b	25.73 ± 0.65^a	74.26 ± 0.65^d	402.57 ± 0.42^a
B₅₀	9.50 ± 0.30^b	1.36 ± 0.08^c	1.99 ± 0.30^ab	11.10 ± 0.20^a	1.35 ± 0.28^a	70.38 ± 0.18^d	24.17 ± 0.74^b	75.82 ± 0.74^c	386.97 ± 0.53^c
B₆₀	9.71 ± 0.01^b	1.67 ± 0.14^b	1.76 ± 0.26^b	11.43 ± 0.10^b	1.38 ± 0.32^a	71.64 ± 0.39^c	23.49 ± 0.37^bc	76.51 ± 0.37^bc	389.74 ± 0.72^bc
B₇₀	9.74 ± 0.12^b	1.93 ± 0.08^ab	1.29 ± 0.23^bc	12.90 ± 0.20^c	1.49 ± 0.23^a	74.12 ± 0.30^a	22.70 ± 0.38^cd	77.54 ± 0.28^ab	388.67 ± 1.66^c
B₈₀	9.79 ± 0.01^b	2.08 ± 0.05^a	0.96 ± 0.24^c	14.20 ± 0.20^c	2.01 ± 0.29^a	74.54 ± 0.23^a	21.54 ± 0.41^d	78.46 ± 0.41^a	392.42 ± 1.49^b
The sample size is three (n = 3). Results are presented as percentages and represented as mean values along with standard deviations. Different subscript letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 2.

Nutritional composition of formulated pasta.

Formulation	Antioxidant activity (%)	TPC (mg GAE/g)	L*	a*	b*	ΔE	WHC (g/g)	OHC (g/g)
B₀	13.11 ± 0.15^d	30.36 ± 0.11^e	79.17 ± 0.09^a	1.06 ± 0.02^a	5.70 ± 0.12^e	0.00	1.59 ± 0.14^b	1.15 ± 0.14^a
B₅₀	31.93 ± 0.11^c	74.43 ± 0.15^d	76.38 ± 0.41^b	−1.24 ± 0.17^d	37.57 ± 0.10^a	32.06	2.32 ± 0.20^ab	1.17 ± 0.08^a
B₆₀	32.51 ± 0.77^c	83.07 ± 0.05^c	72.94 ± 0.23^c	−0.84 ± 0.19^c	34.33 ± 0.02^b	29.35	2.52 ± 0.19^a	1.29 ± 0.18^a
B₇₀	39.47 ± 0.15^b	87.30 ± 0.10^b	68.52 ± 0.17^d	0.14 ± 0.08^b	32.59 ± 0.07^c	28.94	2.54 ± 0.39^a	1.34 ± 0.28^a
B₈₀	44.03 ± 0.10^a	95.01 ± 0.26^a	61.91 ± 0.06^e	0.37 ± 0.09^b	25.23 ± 0.04^d	26.08	2.78 ± 0.37^a	1.36 ± 0.32^a
The sample size is three (n = 3). Results are presented as percentages and represented as mean values along with standard deviations. Different subscript letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 3.

Antioxidant, total phenol content, color, water holding, and oil holding characteristics of formulated pasta.

Formulation	Hardness (N)	Fracturability (N)	Adhesiveness (N.s)	Springiness	Cohesiveness	Gumminess (N)	Chewiness (N)	Resilience
B₀	2.76 ± 0.68^a	1.79 ± 0.03^a	−0.01 ± 0.01^a	2.94 ± 0.45^a	0.26 ± 0.00^a	0.71 ± 0.17^a	2.06 ± 0.26^a	0.04 ± 0.01^a
B₅₀	2.66 ± 0.78^a	1.69 ± 0.03^a	−0.01 ± 0.01^a	0.07 ± 0.01^b	0.07 ± 0.01^b	0.20 ± 0.09^b	0.01 ± 0.01^b	0.02 ± 0.00^a
B₆₀	2.29 ± 0.86^a	1.54 ± 0.01^b	−0.01± 0.01^a	0.13 ± 0.01^b	0.08 ± 0.01^b	0.20 ± 0.09^b	0.02 ± 0.01^b	0.03 ± 0.00^a
B₇₀	2.16 ± 0.87^a	1.46 ± 0.03^bc	−0.02 ± 0.01^a	0.18 ± 0.02^b	0.08 ± 0.01^b	0.19 ± 0.10^b	0.03 ± 0.02^b	0.03 ± 0.01^a
B₈₀	2.09 ± 0.90^a	1.41 ± 0.07^c	−0.02 ± 0.01^a	0.20 ± 0.02^b	0.09 ± 0.01^b	0.19 ± 0.10^b	0.04 ± 0.02^b	0.03 ± 0.01^a
The sample size is three (n = 3). Results are presented as percentages and represented as mean values along with standard deviations. Different subscript letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 4.

Texture profile of formulated pasta.

Peak	B₀	B₅₀	B₆₀	B₇₀	B₈₀	Functional groups	Compounds
1	3,279.35	3,275.41	3,276.42	3,279.64	3,274.13	O–H (stretching, strong) N–H (stretching, medium)	Hydroxyl
2	2,925.76	2,925.39	2,924.32	2,925.70	2,923.98	C–H (stretching, medium) N–H (stretching, strong) O–H (stretching, weak)	Alkane
3	1,644.74	1,634.00	1,634.34	1,633.95	1,634.90	C=O (stretching, strong) C=N (stretching, strong)	Cyclic alkene
4	1,336.12	1,402.93	1,402.92	1,403.28	1,405.03	C–H (stretching, strong)	Alkane
5	1,148.93	1,148.60	1,148.64	1,148.68	1,148.84	C–N (stretching, medium) C–O (stretching, strong)	Alkyl amine
Note: FTIR peak assignments were used to identify functional groups and corresponding compounds in pasta formulations, highlighting structural variations across treatments.

Table 5.

FTIR peaks and functional group of control sample (B₀) and different pasta formulations B₅₀, B₆₀, B₇₀, and B₈₀.