| Title |
Utilization of lentil, pea, and faba bean hulls in Turkish noodle production
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-018-3086-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esra Kaya, Neşe Yılmaz Tuncel, Necati Barış Tuncel |
| Abstract |
Turkish noodles (erişte) were substituted with green lentil (Lens culinaris), red lentil (L. culinaris), faba bean (Vicia faba), and pea (Pisum sativum) hulls at the level of 2.5, 5, and 10% and the effects of the substitution on proximate composition, mineral composition, colour, cooking properties, thiamine and riboflavin contents, texture and sensory properties of the noodles were investigated. Crude ash, dietary fibre, Ca and Mg contents of the noodles significantly increased with pulse hull substitution regardless of the hull type compared to control. Lightness or brightness (L*) values of the noodles showed a general decreasing trend with increasing pulse hull substitution excluding pea hull. L* value of the pea hull substituted noodles was higher than that of the control. Water absorption and swelling volume of the noodles remarkably increased with pea hull substitution. Thiamine and riboflavin contents of the control noodles and the noodles substituted with the noted hull types up to 10% were very close to each other. Noodles substituted with faba bean hull at the level of 10% showed the highest hardness, gumminess, and chewiness values. Pea hull substitution up to 10% did not significantly affected the sensory (appearance, texture and overall acceptability) scores of the panellists. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 42% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#639
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,893
of 331,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#39
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.