Assessment of cyanide content and nutritional composition of odourless fufu flour produced using different processing techniques

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The quality of fufu flours has been identified to vary from one location to another and this may be as a result of the technique adopted for processing. This study was carried out to determine the effect of different processing methods on the cyanide content, nutritional composition, pasting and functional properties of odourless fufu flour samples-PMIMD (Processing method involves multi-crop drying procedure) and PMISF (Processing method involves stirred frying procedure) which were fermented before drying or frying and compared with the baseline sample, that was sundried. The results showed that the cyanide content ranged from 0.25 to 0.41 mg/100 g, with PMIMD having the lowest cyanide content of 0.254±0.02 mg/100 g, followed by PMISF 0.41±0.03 mg/100 g, which significantly reduced (P<0.05) when compared to the baseline flour. The moisture content ranged from 4.34 to 8.21%, with PMIMD having the lowest moisture content (4.34%), followed by PMISF (7.21%). PMIMD had the highest carbohydrate content. Crude fibre content was 3.12% (PMIMD), 3.34% (PMISF) and 3.38% (Baseline). PMISF had a better pasting temperature (78.15o C), while the final viscosity was highest in PMIMD (3797 cP). From the study, it can be concluded that the processed flours had a reduced cyanide content which therefore makes it safe for consumption, and its level of moisture content would greatly be beneficial for an increased shelf-life. Generally, the processed odourless fufu flours possessed good pasting and functional properties.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ogungbemi, K., Balogun, B., Ajisafe, S. S., Ayangbemi, B. T., Ilori, A. O., & Oyewole, O. S. (2022). Assessment of cyanide content and nutritional composition of odourless fufu flour produced using different processing techniques. Food Research, 6(2), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.6(2).294

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free