↓ Skip to main content

Production of functional pita bread using date seed powder

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Food Science and Technology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Production of functional pita bread using date seed powder
Published in
Journal of Food Science and Technology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13197-015-1728-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carine Platat, Hosam M. Habib, Isameldin Bashir Hashim, Hina Kamal, Fatima AlMaqbali, Usama Souka, Wissam H. Ibrahim

Abstract

Functional foods represent a novel approach to prevent diet-related diseases. Due to its excellent nutritional and antioxidant properties, date seed was used to develop functional pita bread. Flour was replaced by 5, 10, 15 and 20 % date seed powder. Regular and whole wheat pita breads were the references. Results clearly showed that date seed powder containing bread contained comparable dietary fibers levels as in whole wheat bread and higher levels of flavonoids and phenolics. Date seed powder containing breads were particularly rich in flavan-3-ols whereas reference breads did not contain any of them and only a limited amount of other phenolic compounds. They also exhibited a much higher antioxidant capacity. Additionally, compared to regular bread, acrylamide level was significantly lower in 5 % date seed powder containing bread, and lower in all date seed powder containing breads compared to whole wheat bread. Date seed powder supplemented bread appears as a promising functional ingredient to prevent chronic diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 41%
Chemistry 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%

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 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#9,975,612
of 12,461,407 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#422
of 765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,312
of 246,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#23
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,461,407 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 765 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 246,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.