Hindawi

Journal of Food Quality

Volume 2019, Article ID 8635806, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8635806

Research Article
Influence of Fenugreek Flour (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.)
Addition on the Technofunctional Properties of Dark
Wheat Flour

Simona Maria Man , Adriana Păucean , Ioana Daniela Călian , Vlad Mureşan ,
Maria Simona Chiş , Anamaria Pop , Andruţa Elena Mureşan , Monica Bota,
and Sevastiţa Muste
Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Food Science and Technology,
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 3-5, Mănăştur Street,
400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Correspondence should be addressed to Adriana Păucean; [email protected]

Received 14 February 2019; Accepted 8 April 2019; Published 19 May 2019

Academic Editor: Luca Campone

Copyright © 2019 Simona Maria Man et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Evaluation of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and dark wheat flour (type 1250) blends was performed, and the effect of
fenugreek flour on the physicochemical, textural, microbiological, and sensory characteristics of wheat bread was studied. The
fenugreek flour was blended with wheat flour at different levels: 2%, 5%, and 8% for preparing bread samples. Even if a decrement of
bread’s crumb textural properties was recorded with fenugreek flour addition, the improved content in protein, ash, fiber, and
antioxidant compounds was noticeable. The results of the sensory analysis indicated that the bread sample fortified with 2% and 5%
fenugreek flour has the highest acceptability score. However, considering the health benefits of fenugreek bioactive compounds and
their influence on overall quality of bread, it can be concluded that bread supplementation up to 5% fenugreek flour is optimal.

1. Introduction type-2 diabetes mellitus [4]. Moreover, mucilage, tannins,

pectin, and hemicellulose inhibit bile salt absorption in the
Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a leguminous colon and hence facilitate low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
herb which belongs to the family Fabaceae. The plant seeds cholesterol reduction in blood [5]. Phenolic compounds, for
are used in Asia, Africa, and Mediterranean countries as instance, through their antioxidant activity, are hypothe-
one of the ingredients in daily diets [1] and in some domains sized to have cancer-suppressing ability [6]. The study
such as medicine, nutrition, beverages, fragrances, cos- conducted by Joglekar et al. [7] on the antioxidant activity of
metics, or industrial purposes [2]. The pharmacological Aegle marmelos, fenugreek, and Coriander sativum showed
effects of fenugreek are antimicrobial, anticholesterolemic, that fenugreek is positioned on the second place regarding
carminative, febrifuge, laxative, restorative, uterine tonic, the phenolic content but on the first place if the flavonoids
expectoral, galactogogue, anticarcinogenic, antiinflammatory, content is quantified; also, fenugreek showed the highest
antiviral, antioxidant, hypotensive, etc. [3]. superoxide and free-radical scavenging activity among the
Fenugreek has a beneficial effect on cleansing the blood, studied species. Fenugreek contains protein (∼30%), fiber
and as a diaphoretic, it is able to bring on sweat and to help (∼30%), fat (∼7.5%), available lysine (5.7 g/16 g·N), vitamins,
detox the body. The galactomannan-rich soluble fiber and minerals [8]. Flour fortified with 8–10% fenugreek fiber
fraction of fenugreek seeds may be responsible for the an- has been used to prepare bakery foods such as pizza, bread,
tidiabetic activity. Clinical analysis showed that glycemic muffins, and cakes with acceptable sensory properties [9].
control was improved in a small study of patients with mild Losso et al. [4] incorporated fenugreek in bread and
2 Journal of Food Quality

demonstrated that fenugreek in food helps in reduction of FF substitution, was served as control. The bread dough was
blood sugar. Also, Hussein et al. [10] showed that fenugreek obtained according to AACC 10–10.03 in a laboratory spiral
seed (raw, soaked, and germinated) significantly reduced mixer (type Hobart) by kneading 1000 g flour, 18 g iodized
total lipids, serum total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol salt, and 25 g fresh yeast (Pakmaya Yeast Rompak, Romania)
but nonsignificant changes in triglycerides and serum with water 650 ml for control bread (B_WO) and 670 ml,
HDL-cholesterol were observed. Supplementation of basal 685 ml, 700 ml, respectively, for bread supplemented with
diets with fenugreek leaves, seeds (dry and germinated), and fenugreek flour (B_WF2%, B_WF5%, and B_WF8%,), in
wheat flour supplemented with germinated fenugreek order to achieve the specific consistence. For this purpose, the
powder at 5–10% levels increased the total proteins, fibers, correct water amount was obtained by assessing the blends’
iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin B2, carotene, vitamin E, and WAC. First step was dough kneading for about 8–10 minutes,
vitamin C contents [11]. after that the dough was maintained for 60–90 minutes at a
This study aimed to evaluate blends of fenugreek flour temperature of 28–32°C for bulk fermentation. Next step is
and wheat flour type 1250 in order to assess their suitability dividing the dough into two equal-weight parts and shaping
for bread production; for this purpose, the physicochemical, them in an oval shape, after which the pieces are placed in
textural, microbiological, and sensory characteristics of trays and introduced into the fermentation room for 30–
fenugreek-supplemented bread were determined. 40 minutes at a temperature of 35–40°C and relative humidity
of 75–85%. After the fermentation, the products are baked at a
2. Materials and Methods temperature of 220°C for about 30–40 minutes.

2.1. Procurement of Raw Materials. All the raw materials

were purchased from the local market, from specialized 2.4. Total Phenols and Antioxidant Activity Determination.
stores. Fenugreek flour is obtained from India. A com- Total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity extracts
mercial wheat flour type 1250, with 13.8% moisture and from the samples were prepared as described by Bunea et al.
28.3% gluten content was used. The fenugreek flour (FF) was [16] with some slight modifications by Chiş et al. [17].
blended with wheat flour type 1250 in different portions (2%, Shortly, one gram of sample was extracted three times with
5%, and 8%) for producing wheat-fenugreek bread. 100 mL acidified methanol (85 : 15 v/v, MeOH : HCl) by
maceration under continuous stirring (Velp magnetic stir-
2.2. Proximate Composition Analysis of the Flours and Breads. rer, EU) for 24 h. The filtrates were combined in a total
The chemical characteristics were carried out according to extract, which was dried by using a vacuum rotary evapo-
rator at 40°C. The dry residues were redissolved in 10 mL
AACC Approved Methods [12]. Moisture (44–15.02), lipids
(30–25.01), ash (08–01.01), crude fiber (32–07.01), and methanol (99.9% purity) and filtered through a 0.45 μm
protein were measured using the Kjeldahl method (46– nylon filter (Millipore) [17].
11.02); the nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor was 5.7. The content of total phenolics in extracts was determined
Total carbohydrate (%) content was calculated as the dif- by the Folin–Ciocalteu method described by Singleton and
ference: 100 − (moisture + ash + proteins + lipids + crude fi- Joseph [18] modified by Dordević et al. [19]. Shortly, 100 μl
bers), a method reported also by Kasaye and Jha [13]. Water of each extract was shaken for 1 min with 500 μl of Folin–
absorption capacity (WAC) was determined by the method Ciocalteu reagent and 6 mL of distilled water. After the
described by Sosulski et al. [14] and modified by Chandra mixture was shaken, 2 mL of 15% Na2CO3 was added and
et al. [15]. One gram of sample was mixed with 10 mL the mixture was shaken once again for 0.5 min. Finally, the
distilled water, allowed to stand at ambient temperature solution was brought up to 10 mL by adding distilled water.
(30 ± 2°C) for 30 min, and then centrifuged for 30 min at Samples were kept in the dark for 2 h, and then, absorbance
was read at 720 nm on the UV/visible spectrophotometer
3000 rpm or 2000 × g. The volume of water on the sediment
Schimadzu 1700 (Japan). The total phenol content was
water was measured. Water absorption capacities were
assessed by plotting the gallic acid calibration curve (from 1
calculated as ml of water absorbed per gram of flour, and
to 1500 μg/mL) and expressed as milligrams of gallic acid
expressed in %. Two hour after baking, the loaves were
equivalents (GAE) per gram of dried extract. The equation
weighed and bread volume was determined according to
for the gallic acid calibration curve was y � 1.02295x +
AACC Approved Method 10–05.01 procedure [12]. The
0.08740, R2 � 0.99614.
weight of the bread was taken using a digital balance. The
bread volume was determined by the seeds displacement The antioxidant activity was determined by using the
method. The volume of seeds displaced by the loaf was radical DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl) scavenging
considered as the loaf bread volume. Specific volume (SV) of capacity assay as described by Nenadis and Tsimidou [20]
bread was expressed as the volume/weight ratio (cm3/g) and modified by Dordević et al. [19]. The phenolic extracts
(0.1 mL) were mixed with DPPH solution (3.9 mL), kept in
multiplied by 100 of finished bread.
the dark at ambient temperature, and the absorbance of the
mixtures was recorded at 515 nm after exactly 30 minutes
2.3. Baking Test. Experimental breads were obtained from against methanol as blank. Negative control was prepared
wheat flour type 1250 blends containing 0% (100% wheat using 0.1 mL methanol and 3.9 mL of DPPH. The radical-
flour type 1250) and 2%, 5%, and 8% of FF (as wheat flour scavenging activity was calculated according to the following
replacement). The bread prepared, from wheat flour without equation:
Journal of Food Quality 3

AbsDPPH · Abssample fatty acids. The total phenolic content (TCP) in different
RSA[%] � · 100, (1) substitutions of FF ranged from 136 ± 4.24 mg GAE/100 g
AbsDPPH
(S0) to 379 ± 5.66 mg GAE/100 g (S3). The antioxidant ac-
where AbsDPPH � absorbance of DPPH solution and tivity (DPPH) in wheat-fenugreek flour ranged from
Abssample � absorbance of the sample. 33 ± 5.66% (S0) to 54 ± 4.24% (S3); results are consistent
with Afzal et al. [6]. The increase in the WAC for composite
flours could be associated with the hydrophilic character of
2.5. Texture Profile Analysis for Bread Samples. CT 3 Texture the protein of fenugreek flour [24].
Analyzer (Brookfield Engineering Labs), equipped with
10 kg load cell and the TA11/1000 cylindrical probe
(25.4 mm diameter AOAC Standard Clear Acrylic 21 g, 3.2. Physicochemical Properties of Loaf Bread. Physicochemical
35 mm length), was used in a texture profile analysis test characteristics of bread supplemented with fenugreek flour
(40% target deformation, 1 mm s−1 test and posttest speed, are presented in Table 2.
5 g trigger load, and 5 s recovery time). The specific texture The high fiber and protein content of the FF, compared
parameters were computed by Texture Pro CT V1.6 soft- to the wheat flour, contributed to a higher WAC in the
ware [21]. finished product and consequently increased the product
weight. Collar et al. [25] concluded that the physical
2.6. Sensory Evaluation. The sensory characteristics of bread properties of fiber including water holding, oil holding and
were evaluated by 25 trained sensory panels. The panelists swelling capacity, and viscosity or gel formation signifi-
were asked to evaluate colour, aroma, taste, flavor, texture, cantly affect product processing and quality. According to
and overall acceptability of the samples on a 9-point hedonic the results shown in Table 2, significant reduction in
scale, ranging from 9 as like extremely to 1 as dislike specific loaf volume was observed at all the levels of FF
extremely. supplementation. Maximum reduction in loaf specific
volume was observed in case of 8% FF supplementation
level. This may be due to the dilution effect on gluten
2.7. Microbiological Analysis. Total plate, yeast and molds, content with the addition of gluten-free flour to wheat
Coliforms, and E. coli counts were enumerated in bread flour that has been reported to be associated with specific
samples supplemented with fenugreek flour according to the loaf volume-decreasing effect of composite flours [26].
(EC) No 1441/2007 [22]. Also, the additions of fibers to bakery products lead to the
decrease of their volume as confirmed by the negative
2.8. Statistical Analysis. The results of three independent regression coefficient obtained as r � −0.987.
(n � 3) assays performed with replicates each were expressed Moisture content increased on fortification with FF,
as means ± standard deviations. Data were analyzed by one- which can be attributed to the high water binding capacity
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Minitab Statistical of seed flour. The protein content in wheat bread increased
Software v.16, for each parameter, Tukey’s comparison tests significantly (p < 0.05) with the amount of substitution of
were performed at a 95% confidence level; several correla- FF. The bread fortified with 8% FF had significantly higher
tions were computed by IBM SPPS Statistics 19, while protein content, and a negative linear relationship
principal component analysis was performed by The Un- (r � 0.991) between protein content and specific loaf vol-
scrambler X v.10.5.1 software. ume was noticed. Similarly, Sharma and Chauhan [26]
reported significantly higher protein content in breads
3. Results and Discussion prepared from blends of wheat-fenugreek flours. Regarding
the bread ash content and the crude fiber, in relation with
3.1. Chemical Composition of Flour. Chemical parameters for the FF addition, there is a direct proportional increase
blends of fenugreek flour and wheat flour type 1250 are between these parameters and the percentage of FF in-
shown in Table 1. corporated. The coefficients of correlation of r � 0.976 in-
High nutrient potential of fenugreek flour in large part dicate a perfect positive linear relationship between these
is due to the high content of protein and fiber. As mentioned two parameters. Fat content of wheat bread significantly
on several sources, the total protein content is between 20 increased on the substitution of fenugreek flour. This is in
and 30.1% [23], while the total fiber content of fenugreek agreement with Sharma and Chauhan [26] and Chaubey
flour is between 40 and 45%, in most part insoluble fiber is et al. [8]. Total carbohydrate decreased as the FF increased,
20.1–25.3% [6, 8]. In the current work, it was noticed that due to the high content in protein, fat, crude fiber, lipid,
protein, ash, fat, and fiber percent of the flour blends in- and moisture of FF, resulting in a final product enriched in
creased as the supplementation level of fenugreek flour all these bioactive compounds. The highest total phenolic
increased in the blend with the highest values at 8% FF content (TPC) was found in B_WF8% followed by
addition. These results are in agreement with those obtained B_WF5% and B_WF2%. The antioxidant activity (DPPH)
by Kasaye and Jha [13]. This increment, in the crude value for bread prepared from wheat flour was found to be
fiber, ash, and lipid contents, is beneficial for health since lower than fenugreek-supplemented bread, registering a
FF can provide important amounts of potassium, magne- linear increase. The coefficients of correlation of r � 0.998
sium, calcium, iron, and zinc [5] as well as unsaturated and r � 0.999 indicate a positive linear relationship between
4 Journal of Food Quality

Table 1: Chemical composition (%) of wheat and wheat-fenugreek flour blends.

Parameters W0 WF2% WF5% WF8%
Moisture (%) 13.80 ± 0.01a 13.70 ± 0.03a 13.07 ± 0.06b 12.79 ± 0.04c
Protein (%) 10.90 ± 0.07d 11.79 ± 0.03c 13.02 ± 0.03b 14.07 ± 0.07a
Ash (%) 1.24 ± 0.01c 1.29 ± 0.04bc 1.38 ± 0.03ab 1.44 ± 0.04a
Fat (%) 1.09 ± 0.02d 1.31 ± 0.02c 1.47 ± 0.02b 1.69 ± 0.02a
Crude fiber (%) 0.75 ± 0.21c 1.75 ± 0.04b 2.07 ± 0.03ab 2.43 ± 0.06a
Water absorption capacity (%) 65 ± 4.24a 67 ± 2.82a 68.5 ± 4.95a 70 ± 4.24a
TPC (mgGAE/100 g) 136 ± 4.24d 207 ± 7.07c 317 ± 4.24b 379 ± 5.66a
DPPH (%) 33 ± 5.66b 47 ± 2.83ab 51 ± 4.24a 54 ± 4.24a
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. W0  wheat flour; WF2%  2% fenugreek flour-supplemented wheat flour; WF5%  5% fenugreek flour-
supplemented wheat flour; WF8%  8% fenugreek flour-supplemented wheat flour. TPC: total phenolic content; GAE: gallic acid equivalents (Folin–
Ciocalteu method); CE: catechin equivalents; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant powder. Identical superscript letters
within rows indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05).

Table 2: Chemical characteristics of bread supplemented with fenugreek flour.

Bread samples
Characteristics
B_W0 B_WF2% B_WF5% B_WF8%
Specific loaf volume (cm3/100 g) 263.2 ± 0.62a 251.8 ± 0.55b 242.08 ± 0.28c 231.55 ± 0.4d
Moisture (%) 43.27 ± 0.30a 43.57 ± 0.48a 43.92 ± 0.47a 44.17 ± 0.37a
Protein (%) 9.88 ± 0.08c 10.66 ± 0.32 c
11.96 ± 0.5b 13.18 ± 0.08a
Ash (%) 1.36 ± 0.03c 1.41 ± 0.06 bc
1.49 ± 0.03ab 1.52 ± 0.04a
Fat (%) 1.52 ± 0.03d 1.75 ± 0.08c 1.91 ± 0.05b 2.12 ± 0.06a
Crude fiber (%) 1.72 ± 0.04d 2.08 ± 0.07 c
2.78 ± 0.12b 3.47 ± 0.14a
Total carbohydrate (%) 41.95 ± 1.06a 40.23 ± 0.19b 37.64 ± 0.55c 35.14 ± 0.27d
TPC (mgGAE/100 g) 105 ± 4.24d 157 ± 5.66c 243 ± 2.83b 349 ± 4.24a
DPPH (%) 29 ± 1.7c 35 ± 1.41c 44 ± 1.4b 55 ± 1.41a
∗
B_W0  100% wheat flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2%  98% wheat flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5%  95% wheat flour + 5% fenugreek flour;
B_WF8%  92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour. All analyses were made in triplicate, and mean values were recorded (±standard deviations). Identical
superscript letters within rows indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05).

B_WO B_WF2% B_WF5% B_WF8%

Figure 1: Sections of the obtained wheat-fenugreek bread samples as compared to a control dark wheat bread. B_WO  100% wheat
flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2%  98% wheat flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5%  95% wheat flour + 5% fenugreek flour;
B_WF8%  92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour.

the TPC and DPPH and protein content and the crude 3.3. Texture Profile Analyses. Figure 1 presents the sections
fiber. Similar results have been obtained by Afzal et al. [6]. of the obtained wheat-fenugreek bread samples, in com-
Good results in supplementation of wheat-based products parison with wheat control bread.
with FF were reported by Hooda and Jood [27], which A good baking behavior was observed for all samples.
concluded that the supplementation can be made up to 20% Texture profile analysis was considered the most relevant
in products like bread, biscuits, noodles, and macaroni, test in order to objectively compare the bread samples, the
without affecting the product quality. Same authors, Hooda main textural parameters being presented in Table 3.
and Jood [23], concluded that FF can be used in bread up to Breads made with the three levels (2%, 5%, and 8%) of FF
a level of 15%, the best results being obtained on germi- had similar scores for crumb hardness compared with the
nated fenugreek flour-supplemented bread, which showed control (p > 0.05). This may be due to the emulation
satisfactory organoleptic and baking characteristics and properties of fenugreek protein content and its role in
contained important amounts of total protein, lysine, di- improving bread keeping quality; similar results were re-
etary fibers, and minerals. ported previously [24].
Journal of Food Quality 5

Table 3: Texture profile analyses for bread samples supplemented with fenugreek flour.
Bread samples
Parameters
B_W0 B_WF2% B_WF5% B_WF8%
Sample length (mm) 26.95 ± 0.96a 26.28 ± 1.04ab 24.00 ± 0.86b 25.66 ± 0.96ab
Hardness cycle 1 (g) 544 ± 84a 561 ± 164a 602 ± 128a 580 ± 92a
Total work cycle 1 (mJ) 41.1 ± 5.4a 38.4 ± 17.4a 33.6 ± 6.2a 33.4 ± 7.1a
Hardness cycle 2 (g) 509 ± 81a 530 ± 143a 578 ± 123a 555 ± 86a
Total work cycle 2 (mJ) 30.9 ± 3.9a 30.2 ± 11.9a 27.8 ± 5.0a 27.3 ± 5.5a
Cohesiveness (n.a.) 0.70 ± 0.02b 0.76 ± 0.05ab 0.79 ± 0.01a 0.77 ± 0.01ab
Springiness index (n.a.) 0.89 ± 0.02a 0.90 ± 0.03a 0.91 ± 0.02a 0.9 ± 0.01a
Gumminess (g) 382 ± 58a 418 ± 94a 474 ± 98a 448 ± 68a
Chewiness index (g) 342 ± 58a 379 ± 95a 433 ± 89a 403 ± 58a
∗
B_W0 � 100% wheat flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2% � 98% wheat flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5% � 95% wheat flour + 5% fenugreek flour;
B_WF8% � 92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour. All analyses were made in triplicate, and mean values were recorded (±standard deviations). Identical
superscript letters within rows indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05).

Table 4: Sensory evaluation of different bread samples.

Bread samples Colour Aroma Taste Texture Overall acceptability
B_W0 8.40 ± 0.50a 7.68 ± 1.145a 7.72 ± 1.14a 8.52 ± 0.65a 8.16 ± 0.55a
B_WF2% 8.36 ± 0.49a 7.72 ± 1.1a 7.68 ± 1.15a 8.48 ± 0.65a 8.00 ± 0.71a
B_WF5% 8.32 ± 0.56a 7.80 ± 1.00a 7.64 ± 1.11a 8.40 ± 0.71a 7.96 ± 0.73a
B_WF8% 8.28 ± 0.61a 7.28 ± 0.98a 7.00 ± 1.16a 8.32 ± 0.69a 7.40 ± 0.87b
∗
B_W0 � 100% wheat flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2% � 98% wheat flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5% � 95% wheat flour + 5% fenugreek flour;
B_WF8% � 92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour. All analyses were made in triplicate, and mean values were recorded (±standard deviations). Identical
superscript letters within columns indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05).

The apparent increase in the hardness (Cycle 1) of and taste (from 7.68 to 7.28 for aroma and from 7.72 to 7 for
fenugreek bread samples (mean values of 544 to 602 g) taste), probably due to FF; however, the statistical analysis
could be related to the reduction of gluten amount, as a revealed no significant difference in between these values, as
result of increase in FF level; however, the statistical can be seen in Table 4. The specific aroma of fenugreek seeds
analysis revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05), came from polysaccharides (galactomannan), volatile oils,
emphasizing the future possible uses of fenugreek in and alkaloids, such as choline and trigonelline [28]. The
bread-making process. Gluten is the main protein that has mean scores decreased as the proportion of FF increased in
a significant role in bread texture and volume. Therefore, the blends. The highest value was recorded for bread made
when the amount of gluten in the dough is reduced, it may with 2% FF while the lowest value was for 8% FF with wheat
result in a harder bread texture [28]. Textural properties flour, which showed a significantly different overall ac-
could be improved by sourdough utilization [29]. Like- ceptability score (p > 0.05; Table 4); the results are confirmed
wise, the gumminess and chewiness, which is proportional by principal component analysis which revealed a different
to the hardness, showed similar trends. Gumminess is pattern only for B_WF8% (Figure 2(a)). There were no
proportional to hardness and cohesiveness while significant difference (p > 0.05) among control sample and
chewiness is proportional to hardness, cohesiveness, and bread containing 2% and, respectively, 5% FF, with respect
springiness. FF had high water-holding capacity due to the to sensory characteristics. Overall, a similar clustering was
hydrophilic character of the molecules, thereby preserving noticed when performing the PCA analysis (Figure 2(b))
the appropriate moisture and maintaining the texture while including all physicochemical, textural, and sensory
profiles up to a 5% FF addition [24], as can be seen by parameters as mentioned on Tables 2–4. These results
cohesiveness values. strengthen the hypotheses that bread supplementation up to
5% fenugreek flour is optimal in terms of sensory and texture
parameters while improving the antioxidant content of the
3.4. Sensory Analysis. When fenugreek was added in wheat samples.
flour, it modified the sensory attributes like taste and
mouth feel of the product (Table 4). There was a de-
creasing trend for aroma and taste, probably due to 3.5. Microbiological Analysis. The antimicrobial activity of
fenugreek flavor [27]. the fenugreek, as was reported by Al-Habori and Raman [30]
The mean scores of sensory attributes ranged between and Mercan et al. [31], could be noticed by results of mi-
7.40 and 8.16 for the tested samples. Bread prepared with crobial analysis (Table 5), since fenugreek-based breads had
100% of wheat flour scored maximum than the rest of the lower microbial counts than control samples. Results are
samples. There was an apparent decreasing trend for aroma according to the EU Regulation nr. 1441/2007 [22]. In a
6 Journal of Food Quality

1
Aroma B_WF5%
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Taste B_WF2%

PC–2 (3%)

0
B_WF8%
–0.2
Colour
–0.4 Texture
Overall acceptability
–0.6

–0.8
B_W0
–1
–1 –0.9 –0.8 –0.7 –0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PC–1 (96%)
(a)
1
B_WF5% Gumminess
Chewiness
0.8 Hardness c
Hardness c

0.6

0.4

0.2 B_WF2%
PC–2 (10%)

Total
Taste
Aroma
Overall carb
Texture
Ash.
Cohesivene
Colourac l
Springines
Fat.
Moisture.
Crude
Totalfibe
Protein.
work
Specific
Total
Sample work
len
0 DPPH (%)

–0.2
B_W0
–0.4

–0.6
B_WF8%
–0.8 TPC (mgGAE)

–1
–1 –0.9 –0.8 –0.7 –0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
PC–1 (90%)

(b)

Figure 2: Principal component analysis biplots for wheat-fenugreek bread samples as compared to a control dark wheat bread: (a) sensory
characteristics; (b) all physicochemical, textural, and sensory parameters (Tables 2–4). Figure 2(b) is shown in the Supplementary Materials
section without overlapping as Figures S2b and S2c (center zoom). B_WO  100% wheat flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2%  98% wheat
flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5%  95% wheat flour + 5% fenugreek flour; B_WF8%  92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour. Figure 2(b)
is showed at Supplementary Material section without overlapping as Figures S2b and S2c (center zoom).

Table 5: Microbiological analysis of bread supplemented with fenugreek flour.

Microbial load of samples (cfu/g)
Microbial counts
B_W0 B_WF2% B_WF5% B_WF8%
TPC 1.2 × 103 1 × 103 1.3 × 102 0.9 × 102
Yeast and mold count 10 ND ND ND
Coliform count ND ND ND ND
E. coli count ND ND ND ND
TPC: total plate count; B_W0: 100% wheat flour + 0% fenugreek flour; B_WF2%: 98% wheat flour + 2% fenugreek flour; B_WF5%: 95% wheat flour + 5%
fenugreek flour; B_WF8%: 92% wheat flour + 8% fenugreek flour; ND: not detected.
Journal of Food Quality 7

study, honey samples with highest antibacterial activity reference to antioxidant profiling,” Pakistan Journal of Ag-
against Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and ricultural Sciences, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 217–223, 2016.
Escherichia coli show maximum pollens from fenugreek than [7] M. Joglekar, M. Mandal, M. P. Somaiah, and S. Murthy,
other plants [31]. “Comparative analysis of antioxidant and antibacterial
properties of Aegle marmelos, Coriandrum sativum and
Trigonella foenum graecum,” Acta Biologica Indica, vol. 1,
4. Conclusions no. 1, pp. 105–108, 2012.
[8] P. S. Chaubey, G. Somani, D. Kanchan, S. Sathaye,
Fenugreek flour could be incorporated up to 8% level in the S. Varakumar, and R. S. Singhal, “Evaluation of debittered and
formulation of bread without affecting its overall quality. germinated fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum L.) seed
The sensory evaluation indicated that the sample fortified flour on the chemical characteristics, biological activities, and
with 2% and 5% FF had the highest acceptability score. sensory profile of fortified bread,” Journal of Food Processing
However, taking into account the health benefits of fenu- and Preservation, vol. 42, no. 1, article e13395, 2018.
greek bioactive compounds and the results of quality [9] K. Srinivasan, “Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum): a
characteristics, one can conclude that bread supplementa- review of health beneficial physiological effects,” Food Reviews
tion up to 5% fenugreek flour is optimal. International, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 203–224, 2006.
[10] A. M. S. Hussein, A. S. Abd, A. M. El-Azeem, and A. A. Hegazy,
“Physiochemical, sensory and nutritional properties of corn-
Data Availability fenugreek flour composite biscuits,” Australian Journal of Basic
Applied Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 84–95, 2011.
The data used to support the findings of this study are in-
[11] S. A. Wani and P. Kumar, “Fenugreek: a review on its
cluded within the article and also in the supplementary nutraceutical properties and utilization in various food
information file. products,” Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 97–106, 2018.
Conflicts of Interest [12] AACC, Approved Methods of the American Association of
Cereal Chemists, American Association of Cereal Chemists,
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest St. Paul, MN, USA, 11th edition, 2000.
regarding the publication of this paper. [13] A. T. Kasaye and Y. K. Jha, “Evaluation of composite blends of
fermented fenugreek and wheat flour to assess its suitability
for bread and biscuit,” International Journal of Nutrition and
Acknowledgments Food Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29–35, 2015.
The authors acknowledge the technical support of Eng. [14] F. Sosulski, M. D. Garratt, and A. E. Slimkard, “Functional
properties of ten legume flours,” Canadian Institute of Food
Maria Anca Deoancă (Paşca).
Science and Technology Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 66–69,
1976.
Supplementary Materials [15] S. Chandra, S. Singh, and D. Kumari, “Evaluation of func-
tional properties of composite flours and sensorial attributes
Table S1: Pearson correlations between physicochemical, of composite flour biscuits,” Journal of Food Science and
textural, and sensory parameters. This section also contains Technology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 3681–3688, 2014.
Figures S2b and S2c (center zoom of Figure S2b). (Sup- [16] A. Bunea, O. D. Rugina, A. M. Pintea, Z. Sconţa, C. I. Bunea,
plementary Materials) and C. Socaciu, “Comparative polyphenolic content and
antioxidant activities of some wild and cultivated blueberries
References from Romania,” Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-
Napoca, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 70–76, 2011.
[1] E. Basch, C. Ulbricht, G. Kuo, P. Szapary, and M. Smith, [17] M. S. Chiş, A. Păucean, L. Stan et al., “Lactobacillus plantarum
“Therapeutic applications of fenugreek,” Alternative Medicine ATCC 8014 in quinoa sourdough adaptability and antioxidant
Review, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2003. potential,” Romanian Biotechnological Letters, vol. 23, no. 3,
[2] A. Djeridane, M. Yousfi, B. Nadjemi, D. Boutassouna, pp. 13581–13591, 2018.
P. Stocker, and N. Vidal, “Antioxidant activity of some [18] V. L. Singleton and A. R. Joseph, “Colorimetry of total
algerian medicinal plants extracts containing phenolic com- phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid re-
pounds,” Food Chemistry, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 654–660, 2006. agents,” American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, vol. 16,
[3] N. Moradi Kor and K. Moradi, “Physiological and pharma- no. 3, pp. 144–148, 1965.
ceutical effects of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) as [19] T. M. Dordević, S. S. Šiler-Marinković, and S. I. Dimitrijević-
a multipurpose and valuable medicinal plant,” Global Journal Branković, “Effect of fermentation on antioxidant properties
of Medicinal Plants Research, vol. 1, pp. 199–206, 2013. of some cereals and pseudocereals,” Food Chemistry, vol. 119,
[4] J. N. Losso, D. L. Holliday, J. W. Finley et al., “Fenugreek no. 3, pp. 957–963, 2010.
bread: a treatment for diabetes mellitus,” Journal of Medicinal [20] N. Nenadis and M. Tsimidou, “Observations on the estima-
Food, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1046–1049, 2009. tion of scavenging activity of phenolic compounds using rapid
[5] A. Ahmad, S. S. Alghamdi, K. Mahmood, and M. Afzal, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) tests,” Journal of the
“Fenugreek a multipurpose crop: potentialities and im- American Oil Chemists’ Society, vol. 79, no. 12, pp. 1191–1195,
provements,” Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 23, 2002.
no. 2, pp. 300–310, 2016. [21] A. Păucean, O. P. Moldovan, V. Mureşan et al., “Folic acid,
[6] B. Afzal, I. Pasha, T. Zahoor, and H. Nawaz, “Nutritional minerals, aminoacids, fatty acids and volatile compounds of
potential of fenugreek supplemented bread with special green and red lentils: folic acid content optimization in wheat-
8 Journal of Food Quality

lentils composite flours,” Chemistry Central Journal, vol. 12,

no. 1, p. 88, 2018.
[22] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1441/2007 of 5 December
2007 amending Regulation.
[23] S. Hooda and S. Jood, “Effect of fenugreek flour blending on
physical, organoleptic and chemical characteristics of wheat
bread,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 229–242,
2005.
[24] N. A. E. Nasri and A. H. Tinay, “Functional properties of
fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum) protein concentrate,”
Food Chemistry, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 582–589, 2007.
[25] C. Collar, E. Santos, and C. M. Rosell, “Assessment of the
rheological profile of fibre-enriched bread doughs by response
surface methodology,” Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 78,
no. 3, pp. 820–826, 2007.
[26] H. R. Sharma and G. S. Chauhan, “Physical, sensory and
chemical characteristics of wheat breads supplemented with
fenugreek,” Journal Food Science, vol. 37, pp. 91–94, 2000.
[27] S. Hooda and S. Jood, “Physicochemical, rheological, and
organoleptic characteristics of wheat-fenugreek supple-
mented blends,” Nahrung/Food, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 265–268,
2003.
[28] A. A. Rasool, D. A. Abdulkhaleq, and D. A. Sabir, “Effects of
using different percentages of fenugreek flour to improve the
sensory, rheological properties and keeping quality in maize
dough to produce gluten-free breads,” Journal of Agriculture,
Science and Technology, vol. 3, pp. 380–384, 2013.
[29] A. Păucean, D. C. Vodnar, V. Mureşan et al., “Monitoring
lactic acid concentrations by infrared spectroscopy: a new
developed method for lactobacillus fermenting media with
potential food applications,” Acta Alimentaria, vol. 46, no. 4,
pp. 420–427, 2017.
[30] M. Al-Habori and A. Raman, “Pharmacological properties,”
in Fenugreek: the Genus Trigonella, G. A. Petropoul, Ed.,
pp. 163–182, Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 2002.
[31] N. Mercan, A. Guvensen, A. Celik, and H. Katircioglu,
“Antimicrobial activity and pollen composition of honey
samples collected from different provinces in Turkey,” Nat-
ural Product Research, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 187–195, 2007.
 International Journal of Journal of

Peptides Nucleic Acids

The Scientific International Journal of International Journal of

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Cell Biology
Hindawi Hindawi
Microbiology
Hindawi Hindawi
http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Anatomy Biochemistry
Research International Research International
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Advances in Genetics
Bioinformatics
Hindawi
Research International
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Advances in

Virolog y Zoology Stem Cells

International Journal of
International Journal of BioMed
Genomics
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
International
Hindawi
Research International
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Neuroscience
Journal

Enzyme Journal of Journal of

Research
Hindawi
Parasitology Research
Hindawi Hindawi
Marine Biology
Hindawi
Archaea
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018