sign in sign up
<<
Home , Boletus edulis

Boletus Edulis Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product

Romina Alina VLAIC1 1 1 1 Anamaria POP1 1 1 , Crina Carmen MUREȘAN *, Sevastiţa MUSTE , Vlad MUREȘAN, , Georgiana1Food Engineering PETRUŢ Department,and Andruța University MUREȘAN of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, 3-5 Calea Mănăştur Street, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

ISSN-L 2344-2344; Print ISSN 2344-2344; Electronic ISSN 2344-5300 DOI:Bulletin 10.15835/buasvmcn-fst: UASVM Food Science and 2018.0022 Technology 76(1)/2019

Abstract

Mushroom powder was added to bread in different proportions, namely: 3%, 6% and 9%, in to improve the nutritional properties of bread. Thus, the new products, had increased contents of from 6.60% to 7.79% and from 0.78% to 1.43%. Moreover, the content of also increased from 39.88 to 84.46 mg GAE/100 g, and the antioxidant activity increased from 16.81% to 27.91%. According to the sensory analysis, performed by means of the hedonic test, the most appreciated bread was that fortified with 6% of mushroom powder. In terms compounds.of texture profile, Bread the enriched sample with with more 6% thanof mushroom 3 % mushroom powder powder recorded is a theproduct best withresults. high Nowadays, nutritional this value. product has a positive impact on the consumers, who take a growing interest in functional products, that are rich in active Keywords:

bread, fortification, mushroom

Introduction Bread is one of the basic foods in human According to Codex General Principles for tothe the Addition addition of of Essential one or more Nutrients essential to Foods, nutrients the nutrition, as it provides a major source of concept of “fortification” or “enrichment” is similar nutrients such as , and that/those particular nutrient/ nutrients is/ some important microelements like , to a food product, irrespective of whether or not potassium, , , manganese, used in order to prevent or correct an existing , etc. The process of bread production dates are normally contained in foods. Fortification is back 12,000 years ago when the mandatory ingredients were flour and water, to which yeast deficiency of one or more nutrients in the whole was added at a later date (Vasileva et al., 2018). population or certain specific groups (Codex improveSome substances and facilitate such as bran,different pulp, technological , plant Alimentarius Commission, 1987). Historically and herb extracts, etc. If added to various foods, speaking, the implementation of food fortification and extend their shelf life. The popularity of in highly developed countries dates back long addingprocesses, ingredients provide them that withare richfunctional in micro- property and ago. Since the early 1940s, fortification of cereal macro- nutrients is due to the special interest products with thiamine, riboflavin and niacin has become common practice (Allen et al., 2006). In developing countries, fortification has become that consumers take in “redefined” healthy foods rapidincreasingly progress attractive in their in recentimplementation years. Thus, phase the (Gawlik-Dziki et al., 2013; Prokopov et al., 2015). initiated fortification programs have made more Edulis 53

Mushroom Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product

rare cases of allergy caused by digestion-stabile than it had initially been planned (Mozaffarian et , 2015). Although thereBoletus are edulis studies reporting al., 2018). populationAccording with to Svetlana and Popel’s micronutrients research, the is itsprotein nutritional at 75 kDa properties in and for its(Helbling anti-tumour et al., most efficient and accessible way of providing the 2002), this type of mushroom is recommended for the additional fortification of daily food products thateffect it in inhibitskidney cancerselectively (Wang the et al.,proliferation 2014), colon of and consumer foods (especially that of flour cancer (Lemieszek et al., 2013) and for the fact lifeand by bakery any means products) and withit should these not substances, diminish Food fortification should not reduce the shelf withseveral various malignant protein cell lines additions (Bovi ethas al., 2011).also been studiedThe byfortification other authors of bread because and bakery of the products impact bythe assimilating nutritional other and sensorynutrients qualitiescontained of therein these products, by substantially altering their taste or industry has produced varieties of bread such as: people worldwide are currently suffering from proteins have on the human body. Thus, the bakery (Popel et al., 2011). It is estimated that two billion Ragycentron Consumer needs and preferences regarding canadumsoybean bread with chickpeas (Serventi et al., micronutrient malnutrition (Liu et al., 2018). bread2018), with bread fortified isolate with and cobia ( caseinate ) (Fagundes et al., 2018), gluten - free doesthe type not ofconsider bakery breadproducts just have an energy greatly supplying changed Cumin cyminum in recent years. Thus, the contemporary consumer (VillanuevaCarum et carvi al., 2018), protein fortified bread functional value and adds nutritional value to with cumin and ( ) and caraway product any more, but also a product that has seeds ( ) (Sayed et al., 2018). Since white bread is less nutritious, due to the use of their daily diet (Păucean, 2017). studyrefined is to flour improve in the the production nutritional properties process to of the an Known as the “food of the gods”, detriment of whole grain flour, the aim Boletus of this are appreciated not only for their unique and edulis subtle flavor (Beluhan et al., 2011) but also for assortments.assortment of white bread fortified with their nutritional value (Akyüz et al., 2010), for mushroom and to analyze the proposed their high fiber and protein content (Valverde Materials and Methods et al., 2015), fatty acids, vitamins and other Materials biologically active compounds (Heleno et al., The raw and auxiliary materials used in the important2012). The due antioxidant to the compounds of biological in mushrooms, activities Boletus thatparticularly include the polyphenols, absorbtion have of free become radicals highly and edulis inhibition of low-density lipoprotein oxidation groundstudy were mushrooms as follows: purchased 550 wheat as a flour,powder from mushroom powder (lyophilization and Boletus edulis is a mushroom species with many(Keleș etnutritional al., 2011). properties. In a comparative 3Aorex samples Grup with Srl different – Figure percentages 1), fresh yeast, of mushroom salt and study of the most used 5 mushroom species in water. The products, namely: a control sample and

Boletus edulis was reported as having the highest presentedpowder, were in Figure produced 2. in the pilot station of proteinRomania, content carried of out 36.24 by Fogarasig/100g. etIt al.,also (2018), has a UASVM-CNPhysico-chemical (Table 1). Theanalyses obtained products are

Fourteenvery low fat content elements (1.92 were g/100 also g) asfound well in as the a Physico-chemical characteristics (moisture, Boletussmall amount edulis of carbohydrates (46.23 g/100g). ash, protein, crumb porosity and elasticity) were determined according to Romanian official mushroom content - Ba, Ca, Cd, Co, methods SR 91:2007. (N) content was Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Sr, V and Zn. Vitamins determined by Kjeldhal apparatus and crude such as those in complex B (B1, B2, B3, B6), protein was calculated utilizing 5.7 as N conversion C, E, β-carotene, lycopene and significant amounts factor for vegetable products protein (SR ISO of total phenols 446 mg/100g and total flavonoids 1871/2002), the fat content was determined 32 mg/100g were also reported (Jaworska et al. according to Bulletin SR UASVM ISO 6492:2001,Food Science and Technology and the 76 acidity(1) / 2019 54 VLAIC et al.

Figure 1. The process of mushroom powder production

Table 1. The recipe for classic bread and bread enriched with mushroom powder

Raw and auxiliary materials U.M. Leaven Dough Total Classic bread (PM) 40 60 100 1 0.5 1.5 550 wheat flour kg - 1.8 1.8 Yeast -1,5% out of the total flour kg Water l 34 34 68 Salt -1,8% out of the total flour kg Bread enriched with mushroom powder 3% out of the total flour (P1) 40 57 97 Mushroom powder - 3% out of the 550 wheat flour kg – 3 3

kg 1 0.5 1.5 total flour – 1.8 1.8 Yeast -1.5% out of the total flour kg Water l 34 34 68 Salt -1.8% out of the total flour kg Bread enriched with mushroom powder 6% out of the total flour (P2) 40 54 94 Mushroom powder -6% out of the 550 wheat flour kg – 6 6

kg 1 0.5 1.5 total flour – 1.8 1.8 Yeast -1,5% out of the total flour kg Water l 34 34 68 Salt -1,8% out of the total flour kg Bread enriched with mushroom powder 9% out of the total flour (P3) 40 51 91 Mushroom powder 9% out of the 550 wheat flour kg – 9 9

kg 1 0.5 1.5 total flour – 1.8 1.8 Yeast -1,5% out of the total flour kg Water l 34 34 68 Salt -1,8% out of the total flour kg mushroom powder; P2 – bread with 6% mushroom powder; P3 – bread with 9% mushroom powder; *PM – control sample - Classic bread - was made without the addition of mushroom powder; P1 – bread with 3%

Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 Boletus Edulis 55

Mushroom Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product

Figure 2.

Final products (PM, P1, P2, P3) *PM – control sample; P1 – sample with 3% MP; P2 – sample with 6% MP; P3 – sample with 9% MP. sample was replaced with methanol. The calibration according to STAS 90/1988. curve was performed using different concentration contentTotal by carbohydrates the ethyl alcohol were methodcalculated 67% based (v/v) on 2

of gallicDetermination acid standard of (r2,2-diphenylpicrylhy=0.9936) and the results­ the following equation 1 from the content of mois­ weredrazil expressed radical as mg scavenging GAE/100 capacityg fresh weigh. (DPPH) ture, protein, , and ash (Barros et al., 2008): performed according to a method reported by Total carbohydrates (g/100g) = 100 – [moisture(1) The DPPH scavenging activity assay was (g/100g) + protein (g/100g) + (g/100g) + Energyash (g/100g)] value was calculated based on the Brand-Williams et al. (1995). A volume of 3.9 ml of methanolic DPPH (0.025g/l) solution was allowed 2O. The absorbance was mea­ and lipid using the energy factors suredto react at 515in darkness, nm against for methanol. 30 minutes The with antioxidant 10µl of following equation 2 from the content of protein, activitysample andwas 90 calculated µl of H as follows:

(Barros et al., 2007): d – As d (2) Energy value (kcal/100g) = 4 x (g protein + g % DPPH scavenging activity = [(A )/A ] ∙ 100 Quantification of total phenolics content where Ad carbohydrate) + 9 x g lipid In order to obtain the extract for the determi­ and As the absorbance of the sample. nation of total polyphenols and antioxidant Texturewas analysis the absorbance of DPPH solution The texture analysis was performed using the ml methanol using an ultrasonication bath for 10 minactivity, and 1g then of flourwas centrifugedmaterial was at extracted 4000 rpm with for 1020 min. The extract was collected and stored at -18 °C Brookfield equipment. Test type: Texture profile for further analysis. analysis: target value 40% of the deformation, The total phenol content was determined by maximum test load 5 g; test speed, 1 mm/s; geometry used: TA11/1000 Brookfield Kit samples mm- Standard in length; AOAC, waiting cylindrical time between shape, compression diameter of waterthe Folin-Ciocalteu and 0.5 ml of methodFolin–Ciocalteu (Singleton reagent. et al., After1999). 4 ramps:25.4 mm, 5 s. transparent Sample Dimensions: acrylic, weight 2.5 x 2.5 of 21x 2.5 g, cm 35 An aliquot of 0.1ml of extract was mixed with 6 ml of 2CO3 were computed by Texture Pro CT V1.6 software. withmin, 1.5distilled ml Na water. solution After incubation (7.5%) was for added 120 minand middleAcceptability crumb. The test specific performed texture on the parameters 9-point the sample was diluted to a final volume of 10 ml hedonic test The sensory evaluation of bread was perfor­ at room temperature, the absorbance was read at med by means of the hedonic test according to 750 nm, using a Shimadzu UV-1700 PharmaSpec spectrophotometer, against the blank, in which the Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 56 VLAIC et al.

Table 2. The physicochemical characteristics of the mushroom powder andISO 13299:2016.served to instructed Briefly, consumers.the samples The were samples sliced (thickness of slices was of about 1.5 cm), encoded Sample MP from the oven. Sensory characteristics of samples Moisture [%] 7.05 ± 0.01 were evaluated analyzed 6by hours a panel after of 60 they trained were assessors removed Ash [%] 7.38 ± 0.25 Acidity [°acidity] 7.62 ± 0.49 aged between 19 and 53. The degree of pleasure Protein [%] 27.88 ± 1.21 (43 female assessors and 17 male assessors), for different types of bread was rated based on a Fat [%] 3.12 ± 0.05 Total carbohydrates [g/100g] 54.57 ± 0.38 9-point hedonistic scale (1 being “extreme dislike” 357.88 ± 3.61 1286.30 ±7.27 theand sensory 9 being attributes “greatly like”). that were Overall evaluated. acceptability, Water Energy value [kcal/100g] 36.14 ± 0.20 wassmell, used color, to rinse texture, the mouth appearance before and and taste after wereeach Total phenols[mg GAE/100 g] test. DPPH inhibition [% RSA] Statistical analysis The results of three independent assays *MP - mushroom powder and their derivatives. Of the such as: oligosaccharides, , (performed with replicates each) were expressed are the most representative constituents. comparison tests being performed at a 95% oligosaccharide structure, and α,α- as mean value ± SD; for each parameter Tukey’s The most important polysaccharides from confidence level. Results and discussions itmushrooms is important are to highlight and that , they can which also can be Mushroom powder analysis be generally found in animal products. However, The mushroom powder used in the techno­ found in mushrooms, although mushrooms are of vegetable origin (Kalač, 2012). The nutritional logical process of producing fortified bread was account the results obtained in Table 2 for Boletus quality of mushrooms is mainly given by the subjected to physicochemical analysis. Taking into edulis content of polysaccharides, which have a prebiotic effect (Aida et al., 2009). Information on the mushrooms, it can be stated that they are in content of mushrooms is divided keeping with the literature data. For instance, in Boletus edulis mushrooms has a value of 7.23% into soluble fibers (4%-9%) and insoluble fibers the literature, the moisture content of dehydrated (22%-30%). These fibers confer the matrix high in thisstudy. The 7.38% of mineral content found nutritionalThe characteristics, content due found to their in the significant studied (Nagy, 2016) which is close to 7.05% obtained in this study for lyophilisated mushrooms ranges values (Kalač, 2009).

mushrooms reaches 1286.30 mg GAE/100 g, within the literature reference values (5.26% Boletus edulis arewhile close in the to specialty the content literature, of polyphenols Keleş et al., found (2011) in - 8.38%) (Heleno et al., 2015; Nagy, 2016). In thereported present results study. (12775.56 mg GAE/kg), which literatureaddition, forvaries the between same variety 10.65% of and 36.90% The results obtained in the current study are mushrooms, the protein content found in the The results reported in the literature were similar (Heleno et al., 2015, Beluhan et al., 2011) while toin ours keeping for all with the thosecompounds reported of Boletus in the edulis literature. that presentthe lipid study content are between also close 1.92% to the and aforementioned 3.10% (Nagy, 2016; Cheung et al., 2013). Both values found in the of proteins and essential amino acids along with thewere low analysed fat content in our instudy. The significant mushrooms amount literature data (Table 2). Boletus edulis are the main elements that confer them real value For carbohydrates, our findings (54.57 g/100 ofg) theare driedcloser mushrooms to 51.70 g/100g is given which by carbohydrates. was reported by Cheung et al. (2013). A percentage of 50%-60% (Vamanu, 2013; Mureşan et al., 2017). Hence, the purpose of fortification with mushroom powders This group of carbohydrates, also called total is highly justified. sugars, Bulletin UASVM encompassesFood Science and Technology various 76 (1) / 2019 compounds, Boletus Edulis 57

Mushroom Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product Analysis of bread samples The results presented in Table 3 illustrate vitamins and ensure their absorption within the the variation for the three functional bread composition play a role in transporting A, D, B prototypes obtained from the mixture of wheat played by the lipids in the mushrooms should Boletus digestive tract. Furthermore, some other roles edulis mushrooms powder. In order to highlight theflour advantages (type 550) and/orwith 3%, disadvantages 6% and 9% ofof bread also be highlighted, namely: tissue regeneration, nervous system formation, functional gland (thyroid),Another antibody advantage formation of adding and normalmushroom skin consideredfortification, as thesea control samples sample. also include bread powderfunctioning is the (Pedneault reduction et in al, the 2006). total carbohydrate madeA exclusivelycomparative from analysis wheat offlour the (PM), samples which was is content from 46.39 g/100 g to 44.75 g/100g also carried out in order to explain the impact that and the increase in the energy level from 218.98 the different proportions of mushroom powder The absence of gluten in the mushroom variation. powderkcal/100 causes g to 223.03 a reduction kcal/100 in theg. bread elasticity incorporatedThe studied in the bread wheat samples flour hadhad onthe the moisture results alongside with the addition increase of 94.82% to content between 44.76% and 44.28%. According 89.04%. This addition also causes a minor decrease to these percentages, moisture decreases in porosity, which could be noticed in other types insignificantly statistically. A similar decrease of breadThe -bread fortified prepared with pumpkin without (Păucean addition et al.,of foundhas been as slightly recorded increased for bread with with the maizeaddition germ of mushroom2014) or maize powder germ hasflour been (Păucean found et al.,as 2013).having flour (Păucean et al., 2013). The ash content was mushroom powder, and similar minor increases a polyphenol content of 39.88 mg GAE/100 g, were reported in the case of lentil bread (Previtali classicalwhich increased, bread are though,slightly higher to 64.46 than mg those GAE/100 in the et al., 2014). The maximum value obtained in g in the case of fortified bread. The results for the current study, for the bread variety with 9% addition of mushroom powder was of 2.16°, this literature (30.9 mg GAE/100 g) but they can be proteinsvalue being has within become the maximum a highly limit debated (3° acidity) issue thathighly wheat influenced seeds by andbread wheat baking bread parameters contained (Lim allowed by STAS 90-1988. The quality of vegetable et al., 2011). Alvarez-Jubete et al., (2010) reported with vegetable sources is increasingly promoted inbecause the “world the consumptionof nutrition” at of present. products Due fortified to the the53.1 polyphenol mg GAE/100 content g and may 29.1 even mg GAE/100 reach 150.5 g total mg importance of the presence of essential amino phenols, respectively. Depending on the addition, vegetable protein sources. The low content of pertainingGAE/100 g forto theturmeric most 8% serious (Lim etlife al., threatening 2011). acids in the body, nutritionists recommend using As proved in literature, chronic diseases wheat protein in certain essential amino acids, pathology, such as: coronary heart disease and Breadespecially with lysine, mushroom makes powder wheat comes flour proteinwith high be whichcancer, can are result caused in the by processesrelease of reactive taking place oxygen in considered as inferior quality (Păucean, 2017). the cell metabolism or the peroxidation of lipids, 6.60% to 7.79%. Increases in protein content have quality protein intake, showing increases from species and free radicals. Antioxidants fight against free radicals to reduce the risk of chronic diseases. also been reported for lentil bread (Previtali et al., In the present study, the antioxidant capacity 2014), for pasta with mushroom powder (from foundwas evaluated to have basedincreased on DPPH from free13.91% radicals, RSA and to 14.2% to 18.27%) (Mureşan et al., 2017), and the antioxidant activity of the fortified bread was for soybean bread with chickpeas (Serveti et al., there2018). is also a slight increase in fat content from the21.91% antioxidant RSA. In theactivity case ofvaried other from studies, about additions, 13% to Alongside with the growth of protein content, such as: fiber, oat, rice and cellulose showed that powder in the bread. The lipids in the mushroom 0.78% to 1.74%, due to the addition of mushroom 35% RSA (Regaree et al., 2011). Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 58 VLAIC et al.

Table 3. Physico-chemical characteristics and energy value of bread samples Sample PM* P1* P2* P3* Moisture [%] 44.76a ± 0.81 44.45a ± 0.13 44.32a ± 0.02 44.28a ± 0.04 Ash [%] 1.47b ± 0.02 1.51b ± 0.02 1.71a ± 0.02 1.75a ± 0.02 Acidity [°acidity] 1.61c ± 0.02 1.88b ± 0.04 1.99ab ± 0.06 2.16a ± 0.05 Protein [%] 6.60b ± 0.14 6.82b ± 0.12 7.18b ± 0.15 7.79b ± 0.18 Fat [%] 0.78b ± 0.11 1.02ab ± 0.14 1.25ab ± 0.14 1.43a ± 0.11 Total carbohydrates [g/100g] 46.39a ± 0.27 46.24a ± 0.39 45.78ab ± 0.08 44.75b ± 0.33 218.98a ± 2.63 221.42a ± 3.3 223.09a ± 2.18 223.03a ± 3.03 Porosity [%] 78.39a ± 0.70 81.26a ± 1.01 79.39a ± 0.75 78.15a ± 0.81 Energy value [kcal/100g] Elasticity [%] 94.82a ± 0.88 93.70ab ± 0.75 91.52bc ± 0.70 89.04c ± 0.78 39.88c ± 0.42 42.27c ± 0.58 51.51b ± 0.85 64.46a ± 0.92 13.91c ± 1.37 16.81bc± 1.10 19.11ab ± 0.20 21.91a ± 0.77 Total phenols [mg GAE/100 g] DPPH inhibition [% RSA] sample with 6% MP; P3 – sample with 9% MP. Identical superscripts letters within rows indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05); *PM – control sample; P1 – sample with 3% MP; P2 –

Table 4 Sample Hardness Hardness Total Work Total Work Cohesive­ Springiness Gummi­ Chewiness Sam­ple Length Cycle 1 Cycle 2 . Texture profile analysesCycle (means±standard 1[mJ] Cycle deviations) 2 [mJ] ness [n.a.] Index [n.a.] ness [g] Index [g] [mm] [g] [g] 24.12a± 349b± 26.7b± 326b± 20.7b± 0.73a± 0.94a± 253b± 238b± PM 0.46 46 3.0 40 2.2 0.02 0.01 27 28

23.91a± 305b± 22.6b± 283b± 16.7c± 0.68ab± 0.92b± 209b± 191b± P1 0.20 16 0.9 14 0.4 0.02 0.01 5 4

23.87a± 327b± 23.9b± 304b± 17.8bc± 0.70ab± 0.91b± 227b± 206b± P2 0.20 12 0.8 11 0.6 0.01 0.01 9 9

23.68a± 498a± 36.7a± 459a± 26.6a± 0.67b± 0.91b± 333a± 304a± P3 0.33 18 2.3 17 2.0 0.03 0.01 23 23

– sample with 6% MP; P3 – sample with 9% MP. Identical superscripts letters within columns indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05); *PM – control sample; P1 – sample with 3% MP; P2

sample showed the highest hardness compared The quality of a food product is selected by its index (0.94) and cohesiveness (0.74). The P3 texture, by analysing it from various standpoints mushroom powder while the closest values of thesuch organoleptic as: sensory, and shelf textural life, total properties appearance of bread or to the control sample, because of the addition of nutritional value (Day et al., 2016). To evaluate springiness index (0.91) and cohesiveness (0.70) samples, after the fortification with different to the control sample were shown by P2, which is Figurepercentages 1 shows of sectional mushroom samples powder, compared their textural to the consideredSensory the analysis most suitablewas performed fortified for sample all the in controlprofile sample. after baking, Table 4 was shows thoroughly the main studied.textural terms of texture (Figure 3). parameters which compare the bread samples four bread samples. The sensory quality of food ofproducts products. is a The key hedonicfactor in test the consumer’sis often used decision- in order objectively. As expected, the control sample had making process for the acceptance and purchase the lowest values of hardness, gumminess and chewiness, while having the highest springiness to determine the consumer’s attitude towards Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 Boletus Edulis 59

Mushroom Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product

500 File Data Data Set #1 Load (g) 450 Data Set #2 Load (g)

400 Data Set #3 Load (g) Data Set #4 Load (g) 350

300

250 Load (g) 200

150

100

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time (s)

Figure 3.

Analysis of the textural profile for 1-PM, 2-P1, 3-P2, 4-P3 *PM – control sample; P1 – sample with 3% MP; P2 – sample with 6% MP; P3 – sample with 9% MP.

Figure 4. Acceptability test performed on the 9-point hedonic test

*PM – control sample; P1 – sample with 3% MP; P2 – sample with 6% MP; P3 – sample with 9% MP.

Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 60 VLAIC et al. food by measuring their level of acceptance of a new product or in order to improve an existing 232 PN-III-P2-2.1-CI-2018-1352 . PN-III-P2-2.1-CI-2018-1428, CNCS - UEFISCDI - CI References andproduct general (Meilgard acceptance et al., 1991). presented in Figure 4 1. wereThe evaluated appearance, by the colour,hedonic texture, test for smell,the sensory taste Mushroom as a potential source of prebiotics: a review. Aida M N A, Shuhaimi M, Yazid M, Maaruf A G, (2009). analysis. 575. Doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2009.07.007 In terms of appearance and colour the most 2. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20(11-12): 567–

Alvarez-Jubete L, Wijngaard H, Arendt E K, Gallagher E, samplesappreciated was sample less appreciated was P2 with than a score that of of 7.33, the (2010). Polyphenol composition and in vitro antioxidant and 7.43, respectively. The texture of the fortified 770–778.activity of Doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.07.032 amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. , 119(2): score: 7.31. 3. control sample (PM), P1 obtaining the highest 97-102.Akyüz M, Doi:10.3906/biy-0805-17 Kirbağ S, (2010). Nutritive value of wild edible generally led to an increase in the texture of 4. and cultured mushrooms. Turkish Journal of Biology, 34: The addition of rich fibre ingredients has 5. Allen L, Benoist B, Dary O, Hurrell R, (2006). Guidelines on crumbs by crosslinking gluten proteins (Fărcaş food fortification with micronutrients. WHO Library. higheret al., 2014).as mushroom Thus, highpowder consumer is added. reticence The most to Barros L, Baptista P, Correia D M, Sá Morais J, Ferreira I stronger odour can be justified, because it becomes C F R, (2007). Effects of Conservation Treatment and Cooking on the Chemical Composition and Antioxidant with a score of 7.46. The same preference was Doi:10.1021/jf070407oActivity of Portuguese Wild Edible Mushrooms. Journal appreciated sample with regard to odour was P1, reported for taste. 6. of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55(12): 4781–4788. evaluation revealed that the sample of bread with asBarros source L, Cruzof nutrients T, Baptista and P, nutraceuticals. Estevinho L M,Food Ferreira and Regarding overall acceptance, the sensory I C F R, (2008). Wild and commercial mushrooms fct.2008.04.030 Chemical Toxicology, 46(8): 2742–2747. Doi:10.1016/j. sample6% mushroom of all. powder fortification (P2) obtained 7. and non-volatile components of Croatian wild edible the highest score, being the most appreciated Beluhan S, Ranogajec A, (2011). Chemical composition Conclusions Doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.07.081 8. mushrooms. Food Chemistry, 124(3): 1076-1082. the addition of increasing amounts of mushroom To conclude, this study has demonstrated that Bovi M, Carrizo M E, Capaldi S, Perduca M, ChiarelliBoletus L R, edulisGalliano M & Monaco H L, (2011). Structure of a lectin doi:10.1093/glycob/cwr012with antitumoral properties in king ( powder into bread has improved its quality 9. ) mushrooms. Glycobiology, 21(8): 1000–1009. characteristics. In the present study, four samples free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT - of bread were used, three of which were fortified Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier M E, Berset C, (1995). Use of a with mushroom powder in different percentages, namely: 3%, 6% and 9% while the fourth one 10. Food Science and Technology, 28(1): 25–30. Doi:10.1016/ s0023-6438(95)80008-5 was the control sample. This fortification process Codex Alimentarius Commission. General Principles for led to an increased nutritional content (high the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods CAC/GL 09- wasprotein, assessed fibre, minerals,by means polyphenols,of sensory and antioxidant texture 1987 (amended 1989, 1991). Rome, Joint FAO/ WHO Food analysis.activity) inThe the resultsbread samples. of this Overallstudy showacceptance how Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commision, Boletus 11. 1987 (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/ standards/299/CXG_009e.pdf, accessed 7 October 2018) edulis appropriate and significant the use of the 12. Day L, Golding M, (2016). Food Structure, Rheology and Texture, Reference Module in Food Sciences.5. mushroom powder is. Thus, when used as Improvement of protein content and effect on helps diversify the assortment range and obtain Fagundes G A, Rocha M, Salas-Mellado M M, (2018). a source of fortification in the bakery industry, it technological properties of wheat bread with the addition innovative and nutritionally superior products. Rachycentron canadum pp – pp. Acknowledgement. 13. by cobia ( ). Food Research (2018): by a project of the Romanian National Authority This work was supported Fărcaș A C, Socaci S A, Tofană M, Mureşan C, Mudura E, Salanţă L, Scrob S, (2014). Nutritional properties and volatile profile of brewer’s spent grain supplemented for Bulletin Scientific UASVM Food Research, Science and Technology CNCS 76- UEFISCDI(1) / 2019 - CI 245 Boletus Edulis 61

Mushroom Flour-Based Wheat Bread as Innovative Fortified Bakery Product 26. 9714. 14. bread. Romanian Biotechnological Letters, 19(5): 9705- 27. Meilgard M, Civille GV, Carr B T, (1991). Sensory Evaluation ofTechniques. modern 2ed.nutrition USA, (eds) science—implications Boca Roton, CRC Press for Inc., current 354. Fogarasi M, Socaci S A, Dulf F V, Diaconeasa Z M, Fărcas A Mozaffarian D, Rosenberg I & Uauy R, (2018). History C, Tofană M, Semeniuc C A, (2018). Bioactive Compounds molecules23123272and Volatile Profiles of Five Transylvanian Wild Edible 28. research, dietary guidelines, and food policy. BMJ, k2392. 15. Mushrooms. Molecules, 23: 3272. Doi:10.3390/ Doi:10.1136/bmj.k2392 theMuresan Exploitation C C, Farcas of Mushroom A, Man S,Flour Suharoschi in Pasta. R, Bulletin Vlaic R Gawlik-Dziki U, Świeca M, Dziki D, BaraniacAllium B,cepa Tomilo ofA, University (2017). Obtaining of Agricultural a Functional Sciences Product and Veterinary Through J & Czyż J, (2013). Quality and antioxidant properties offoodchem.2012.09.151 breads enriched with dry onion ( L.) 16. skin. Food Chemistry, 138: 1621–1628. Doi:10.1016/j. 29. Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Food Science and Technology, 74(1): 17. Doi:10.15835/buasvmcn-fst:12641 Boletus edulis: a digestion-resistant allergen may be of some vegetable sources rich in bioactive compounds in Helbling A, Bonadies N, Brander K A & Pichler W J, (2002). orderNagy M, to (2016). obtain Researchan innovative regarding meat the product. upper valorizationPhd Thesis. UASVM-CN 17. relevant for food allergy. Clinical Experimental Allergy, 30. 32(5): 771–775. Doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2002.01400.x Heleno S A, Barros L, Martins A, Queiroz M J R P, Păucean A, Man S, (2013). Influence of defatted maize fromSantos-Buelga Northeastern C, Ferreira Portugal: I Chemical C F R, (2012).Compounds Phenolic, with germ flour addition in wheat: maize bread formulations. Polysaccharidic, and Lipidic Fractions of Mushrooms 31. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 19(3): 298-304. Cucurbita Antioxidant Properties. Journal of Agricultural and Food 18. maximaPăucean A, Man S, (2014). Physico-chemical and sensory Chemistry, 60(18): 4634–4640. Doi:10.1021/jf300739m evaluations of wheat bread with pumpkin ( Heleno S A, Barros L, Martins A, Morales P, Fernández- 32. ) pulp incorporated. Journal of Agroalimentary bioaccessibilityRuiz V, Glamoclija studies J, Ferreira with I Cwild F R, edible(2015). mushrooms. Nutritional Processes and Technologies, 20(1): 26-32. value, bioactive compounds, antimicrobial activity and 33. Păucean A, Man S, (2015). Tehnologia produselor vegetale. Doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2015.04.028 Editura Academic Press, Cluj Napoca. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 63(2): 799–806. 19. Pǎucean A, (2017). Tendinţe modern privind creşterea Composition and antioxidant properties of wild mush­ 34. valorii nutritive a fǎinii de grâu şi a produselor de roomsJaworska Boletus G, Pogoń edulis K, and Skrzypczak A, badius Bernaś prepared E, (2015). for Fattypanificaţie. acid Edituracomposition Mega, Clujof Napoca.lipids from mushrooms belongingPedneault toK, theAngers family P, BoletaceaeGosselin A, Tweddell R J, (2006). 10.1007/s13197-015-1933-x 20. consumption. J Food Sci Technol, 52(12): 7944–7953. Doi: 35. . Mycological Research, value of European species of wild growing mushrooms: 110(10): 1179–1183. Doi:10.1016/j.mycres.2006.05.006 Kalač P, (2009). Chemical composition and nutritional Popel S, Draganova E, Parşacova L, Colesnicenco A, foodchem.2008.07.077 Evtodienco L, Cropotova J, (2011). Fortifierea făinii de A review. Food Chemistry, 113(1): 9–16. Doi:10.1016/j. 21. grâu cu suplimente de vitamine şi minerale. Papers of the value of European species of wild growing mushrooms. 36. Sibiu Alma Mater University Conference, FLftfa Editiom Kalač P, (2012). Chemical composition and nutritional 24-26 March 2011, Sibiu. Previtali M A, Mastromatteo M, De Vita P, Ficco D B M, Nova Science Publisher, In S. Andres & N. Baumann (Eds.), 22. Conte A, Del Nobile M A, (2014). Effect of the lentil flour Mushrooms: Types, properties and nutrition pp. 130–151. and hydrocolloids on baking characteristics of wholemeal Keleş A, Koca İ, Gençcelep H, (2011). Antioxidant ijfs.12559durum wheat bread. International Journal of Food 23. Properties of Wild Edible Mushrooms. J Food Process Science & Technology, 49(11): 2382–2390. Doi:10.1111/ Technol, 2:130. Doi:10.4172/2157- 7110.100013 37. Lemieszek M K, Cardoso C, Ferreira MilheiroBoletus Nunesedulis Prokopov T, Goranova Z, Baeva M, Slavov A & Galanakis biologicallyF H, Ramos active Novo biopolymers Amorim de induce Barros cell A cycle I, Marques arrest 29:C, (2015). 493–500. Effects Doi: 10.1515/intag-2015-000 of powder from white cabbage outer G, Pożarowski P & Rzeski W, (2013). 38. leaves on sponge cake quality. International Agrophysics, in human colon adenocarcinoma cells. Food & Function, 24. Ragaee S, Guzar I, Dhull N, Seetharaman K, (2011). 4(4), 575. Doi:10.1039/c2fo30324h Effects of fiber addition on antioxidant capacity and Lim H S, ParkCurcuma S H, Ghafoor longa K, Hwang S Y, Park J, (2011). lwt.2011.06.016nutritional quality of wheat bread. LWT - Food Science Quality and antioxidant properties of bread containing 39. and Technology, 44(10): 2147–2153. Doi:10.1016/j. foodchem.2010.08.016turmeric ( L.) cultivated in South Korea. Food Chemistry, 124(4): 1577–1582. Doi:10.1016/j. 25. Sayed A B, Talou T, Straumite E, Sabovics M, Kruma Z, Saad Z, Merah O, (2018). Protein Bread Fortification with Liu O R, Molina R, Wilson M, Halpern B S, (2018). Cumin and Caraway Seeds and By-Product Flour. Foods, org/10.7717/peerj.4733Global opportunities for mariculture development to 7(3): 28. Doi:10.3390/foods7030028 promote human nutrition. PeerJ 6:e4733. https://doi.

Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019 62 VLAIC et al.

40. 45.

Serventi L, Vittadini E, Vodovotz Y, (2018). Effect Villanueva M, Pérez-Quirce S, Collar C, Ronda F, (2018). Doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2017.11.012of chickpea protein concentrate on the loaf quality Impact of acidification and protein fortification on 41. of composite soy-wheat bread. LWT, 89: 400–402. 96:rheological 446–454. and Doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2018.05.069 thermal properties of wheat, corn, potato Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates 46. and tapioca starch-based gluten-free bread doughs. LWT, andSingleton antioxidants V L, Orthofer by means R, Lamuela-Raventós of folin-ciocalteu R M, reagent. (1999). andWang nutritional X M, Zhang value J, Wu of L H,edible Zhao wild-grownY L, Li T, Li Jmushroom Q, Wang Y Z, Liu H G, (2014). A mini-review of chemical composition 42. Methods in Enzymology, 14, 152–178. Doi:10.1016/ foodchem.2013.11.062 s0076-6879(99)99017-1 47. from . Food Chemistry, 151: 279–285. Doi:10.1016/j. Valverde M E, Hernández-Pérez T & Paredes-López O, Microbiology.(2015). Edible 1–14. Mushrooms: Doi:10.1155/2015/376387 Improving Human Health 48. *** STAS 90/1988. Determinarea acidității. Controlul 43. and Promoting Quality Life. International Journal of calității în industria panificației. 49. *** SR ISO 6492:2001. Nutreţuri. Determinarea Vamanu E & Nita S, (2013). Antioxidant Capacity and conţinutului de grăsime. fromthe Correlationthe Wild Edible with Boletus Major edulis Phenolic Mushroom. Compounds, BioMed 50. *** SR ISO 1871-2002. Determinarea proteinei totale. Anthocyanin, and Content in Various Extracts Metoda Kjeldahl. 44. *** STAS 91-2007. Pâine şi produse proaspete de patiserie. Research International, 1–11. Doi:10.1155/2013/313905 51. Metode de analiză Vasileva I, Denkova R, Chochkov R, Teneva D, Denkova Lavandula angustifolia Melissa Officinalis *** ISO 13299:2016 Sensory analysis. Methodology – Z, Dessev T, Denev P, Slavov A, (2018). Effect of lavender General guidance for establishing a sensory profile. 253:( 13–21. Doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.131 ) and melissa ( ) waste on quality and shelf life of bread. Food Chemistry,

Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 76 (1) / 2019