Next Article in Journal
Versatility Evaluation of Landslide Risk with Window Sizes and Sampling Techniques Based on Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Implementation of the 3-30-300 Green City Concept: Warsaw Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Utilization of Vegetable Powders for Bread Enrichment—The Effect on the Content of Selected Minerals, Total Phenolic and Flavonoid Content, and the Coverage of Daily Requirements in the Human Diet
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/app142210570
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Possibility of Using Sugar Beet Pulp with Molasses as By-Product for Enriching Flour and Production of Bread with Pro-Health Properties

by
Agnieszka Salamon
1,*,
Anna Szafrańska
1,
Andrzej Baryga
2,
Anna Diowksz
3,
Krystyna Szymczyk
4 and
Hanna Kowalska
5,*
1
Department of Grain Processing and Bakery, Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology—State Research Institute, 36 Rakowiecka St., 02-532 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Sugar Industry and Food Safety Management, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Lodz University of Technology, 171/173 Wólczańska St., 90-530 Lodz, Poland
3
Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Institute of Fermentation Technology and Microbiology, Lodz University of Technology, 171/173 Wólczańska St., 90-530 Lodz, Poland
4
Department of Food Safety and Chemical Analysis, Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology—State Research Institute, 36 Rakowiecka St., 02-532 Warsaw, Poland
5
Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159c Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(22), 10570; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210570
Submission received: 13 October 2024 / Revised: 7 November 2024 / Accepted: 15 November 2024 / Published: 16 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Technology in Food Analysis and Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The decrease in bread consumption in the daily diet observed in recent years results from the growing awareness of consumers and the desire to promote a healthy lifestyle. The valorization of sugar by-products allows for the design of new food products intended for health-conscious consumers. The aim of this study was to assess the possibility of using sugar beet pulp (SBP), without and with molasses, in bakery recipes as part of a strategy promoting increased consumption of foods rich in bioactive compounds. The basic composition of SBP was examined, and wheat flour mixtures with their addition at 0, 1, 5, and 10% were prepared. The rheological properties of the dough with flour blend samples were determined using Mixolab®. The technological quality of the bread, its nutritional value, and its antioxidant potential were assessed. The research results indicate that fortifying bread up to 5% SBP allows for obtaining products of acceptable sensory and technological quality. The bread with 5% molasses SBP (mSBP) compared to the sample with SBP without molasses (umSBP) was characterized by greater bread volume and crumb moisture, a darker color of the crumb, a more appropriate color of the crust (golden-brown), more favorable, thin-walled pores, and a fluffier crumb. Moreover, the samples enriched with mSBP contained more total polyphenols (by approx. 40%) and showed higher antioxidant activity (by approx. 50%) than the bread with umSBP. Additionally, for bread samples with 5% or more SBP added, a nutritional claim could be made that they are a “source of fiber” (i.e., at least 3 g per 100 g of product).

1. Introduction

Focusing on the concern for the future of the European continent and people’s lives in the face of global warming, the European Union (EU) is implementing strategies to mitigate ongoing climate change. The “from farm to fork” strategy aims to build a sustainable system in the EU food sector to ensure food security and protect human health and the natural environment. The policy includes, among others, a closed-loop economy, waste management, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and food waste in processing, manufacturing, retail trade, and food services [1,2,3,4]. The observed growing interest of food producers in implementing environmentally friendly solutions results primarily from the goals formulated by the European Commission. According to the circular economy concept, special attention should be paid to alternative waste management methods, emphasizing food waste valorization. This could be achieved by incorporating inedible to humans by-products and wastes from the food industry into new value chains [4]. This information is connected to the needs of consumers who are interested in the food quality they eat in terms of increasing the content of nutrients and health-promoting properties [5,6].
The sugar industry generates considerable amounts of organic waste: sugar beet pulp remaining after sucrose extraction from cut beetroots and molasses resulting from the refining process. Pressed sugar beet pulp is susceptible to spoilage due to its high moisture content (approx. 80%). Therefore, wet biomass is often dried to contain approx. 10% water. Sugar beet pulp (SBP) is a valuable source of dietary fiber (67.6–70.0 g/100 g d.m.), which consists of polysaccharides (approx. 8.3 g/100 g d.m., including 49.8 g/100 g d.m. of water-soluble fraction), mainly pectin, cellulose, and hemicellulose. It also contains proteins (approx. 10.0 g/100 g d.m.), minor amounts of sucrose, fat (approx. 6.9 g/100 g d.m.), minerals (approx. 4.2 g/100 g d.m), and compounds with bioactive properties, such as polyphenols (approx. 380 mg CE/100 g d.m.), including hydroxycinnamic acids (e.g., ferulic acid) [7,8,9]. According to the research by Baryga et al. [7], sugar beet pulp is characterized by its high content of arabinans. This means that SBP is a valuable raw material used to obtain non-starch polysaccharides with potential bioactive properties, mainly due to the presence of phenolic acids in their structure. It has been shown that these polysaccharides can be used to increase the bioavailability and bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds or drugs. Thus far, the common practice is to use dried SBP as animal feed, also with the addition of molasses (in the amount of 5–15%, depending on the products) to increase its nutritional value and improve palatability (molasses SBP) [9,10,11,12,13]. However, before it can be used in various sectors of the economy, including the food or feed industry, beet pulp as an added (enrichment) ingredient often needs to be subjected to valorization, including chemical or physical processing. It could be much more beneficial to find an alternative use for this valuable biomaterial in an unprocessed or only thermally preserved form, retaining most of the natural bio-ingredients [10,14,15,16].
Meeting the trend of reimplementation of underutilized resources into the food chain, SBP can be considered a functional food additive that is rich in dietary fiber (DF) in new product development, including frequently consumed bread. This component has a positive effect on the entire digestive process, such as enhanced peristaltic movements, an increase in intestinal gut microbiota, and easier emptying. Currently, the importance of DF is most often emphasized in the context of reducing the occurrence of diet-related diseases, but also some cancers. From a public health perspective, providing foods with an elevated DF content is a good obesity prevention strategy due to the potential to limit calorie consumption and faster achievement of satiety [17,18,19].
Bread, a staple food in most countries, seems to be an excellent carrier for additives with nutritional and health-promoting properties, such as chia seeds, a brewer’s spent grains, or black chokeberry [20,21,22]. However, it should be considered that any reformulation with non-gluten-containing raw material may adversely affect the rheological properties of the dough and the quality of the resulting bread. No less important is the desired sensory quality of the product as precepted by consumers [23,24].
Research data on bread fortified with sugar beet fiber are rather scarce. Trials with pre-treatment of SBP before its application to the dough or the need to use additional ingredients in the dough recipe suggest difficulties in gaining consumer acceptance for such fortified products [25,26,27,28]. The results of a sensory evaluation of bread with added sugar beet pulp (SBP) [25,29] indicate that with the increase in the share of SBP in the products, the scores for such attributes as taste, smell, crust color, crumb color, and viscosity, as well as general acceptability, decreased. Khattab et al. [30] reported that it was possible to obtain sensory-acceptable flat bread enriched with SBP in amounts up to 6%. In the available literature, no studies were found regarding the possibility of using molassed SBP, a more fortifying ingredient than unmolassed SBP, especially in terms of increasing the total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity, as well as ash content.
The aim of this study was to examine the possibility of including sugar beet pulp with molasses into bakery recipes as part of a strategy to promote increased consumption of dietary fiber and bioactive compounds, as well as a sustainable solution for waste management, in new product development specifically targeted at health-conscious consumers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials

The study materials were commercial low-extract wheat flour (WF), obtained from an industrial medium-sized mill located in Poland, and sugar beet pulp (SBP), with and without molasses in the form of pellets, obtained from one of the sugar factories located in Poland belonging to the National Sugar Company JSC (Toruń, Poland). The sugar beet pulp samples, which were safe for microbiology, were used. No molds or yeast were detected in these samples (less than 10 cfu/g).
The sugar beet pulp (SBP) pellets were crushed using a laboratory mill type WŻ-1 (Sadkiewicz Instruments, Bydgoszcz, Poland) and passed through a 265–500 µm sieve before being sealed and stored at room temperature for use.

2.2. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Raw Materials

The basic chemical composition (the moisture, protein, fat, and ash contents) of the wheat flour (WF) and sugar beet pulp (SBP) powders were determined following the international standards applicable in the grain and milling industry [31,32,33,34]. The nitrogen content, determined on a Kjeltec 2200 System (FOSS, Hoganas, Sweden), was converted into protein content using conversion factors, i.e., 5.7 for WF and 6.25 for SBP. The dietary fiber content (TDFc), including its fractions, in the SBP samples was determined using a Total Dietary Fiber Kit (Megazyme, Bray, Co., Wicklow, Ireland) and a Fibertec E System (FOSS Tecator, Hoganas, Sweden) in conformity with standardized methods [35,36]. The carbohydrate content (Cc) in sugar beet pulp samples was calculated from Equation (1):
Cc = 100 − (Mc + Pc + Fc + Ac + TDFc)
where
  • Mc—is the moisture content of the sugar beet pulp sample, %;
  • Pc—is the protein content of the sugar beet pulp sample, %;
  • Fc—is the fat content of the sugar beet pulp sample, %;
  • Ac—is the ash content of the sugar beet pulp sample, %;
  • TDFc—is the total dietary fiber content of the sugar beet pulp sample, %.
The sugar contents (as the sum of glucose, fructose, and disaccharides) in samples of sugar beet pulp (SBP) with and without molasses were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography using a HPLC System (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) according to the methodology described by Kowalska et al. [37]. The external standard method was used to quantify the sugars. Sugar solution standards, i.e., sucrose, glucose, and fructose, were prepared at five concentration levels. The sugars were identified by retention time under specific analysis conditions. All test results were expressed in %.

2.3. Preparation of Flour Mixtures for Baking

Wheat flour (WF) and six flour mixtures were used for bread baking. Sugar beet pulp with molasses (mSBP) and without molasses (umSBP) samples were added to the wheat flour at 0, 1, 5 and 10%. All samples were mixed for 30 min using a 2 L mixer (KPM Analytics, Chopin Technologies, Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France).

2.4. Technological Characteristics of Wheat Flour and Flour Mixtures

Tested wheat flour (WF) with sugar beet pulp (SBP) mixtures were characterized both on the protein and starch complex of flour. The protein complex was determined by the gluten content (G) and the gluten index (GI) (Glutomatic 2200 System, Perten Instruments, Huddinge, Sweden) as per ISO 21415-2 [38]. The alpha-amylase activity was evaluated by determining the falling number (FN) (FN 1305, Perten Instruments, Huddinge, Sweden) in agreement with ISO 3093 [39]. The rheological properties of flour dough as a function of mixing and temperature increase were determined using a Mixolab® with “Chopin+” protocol (KPM Analytics, Chopin Technologies, Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France) in conformity with ISO 17718 [40]. Mixolab® analysis in one test allowed us to determine the water absorption of flour and the characterization of flour blends, reflecting both protein and starch behavior.

2.5. Laboratory Baking Trial

The evaluation of wheat flour (WF) and its mixtures with sugar beet pulp (SBP) based on a laboratory test baking was performed using the standard method for baking pan bread according to the methodology described by Szafrańska et al. [41]. The dough was made by a one-stage procedure of mixing flour (100%), water, yeast (3%), and salt (1.5%). The water addition was determined based on the water absorption capacity determined by Mixolab® (KPM Analytics, Chopin Technologies, Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France), which was increased by 3% to achieve a dough consistency corresponding to 350 Brabender Units (BU). The bread samples were baked in a Piccolo oven (Wachtel Winkler, Hilden, Germany). After cooling, the bread samples were packed in polyethylene bags and stored until the next day. The tests were performed 20 ± 1 h after baking.

2.6. Technological Characteristics of Bread Baked in Laboratory Conditions

The determinations, such as the bread-specific volume (BV), crumb moisture content (MC), and crumb hardness (BCH), were determined according to the methodology by Szafrańska et al. [41]. The bread crust and crumb color parameters, i.e., L*, a*, b*, and C*, were determined according to the methodology by Salamon et al. [42].
The acrylamide content (AA) in the dried bread samples with crust was determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for the products with low acrylamide concentration levels according to the methodology described by Roszko et al. [43]. The GC/MS analysis used native and deuterated (D3) AA standards (Sigma-Aldrich, Bellefonte, PA, USA) and certified the reference material of AA in rusk (BAM, Berlin, Germany). The bread samples were subjected to extraction, derivatization (bromination), and solid-phase extraction (SPE) on Florisil (normal phase) and then analyzed chromatographically. The samples were tested using an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph coupled to a 5977C single quadrupole mass spectrometer equipped with a CTC PAL auto-injector and splitless injector (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The separation was performed using the 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm HP-INNOWax GC capillary column (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.7. Chemical Composition and Energy Value of Bread

Preparation of the bread samples for determination of the chemical composition consisted of drying and grinding the breadcrumbs according to the methodology described by Salamon et al. [42].
To compare the chemical composition of the tested bread samples, similarly to Section 2.2, the basic components, i.e., the protein (N × 6.25), fat, ash, and total dietary fiber contents, were determined, and the carbohydrate content was calculated. The obtained results were expressed in % dry matter (d.m.). To estimate the energy value (EV) of the bread samples, after taking into account the moisture content of the fresh bread, the results were converted from % dry matter (d.m.) per g/100 g.
The energy value (EV) of the bread in kilocalories per 100 g (kcal/100 g) was calculated following EU Regulation [44] using the appropriate conversion factors for the energy value derived from protein and carbohydrates (4 kcal/g), fat (9 kcal/g) and total dietary fiber (2 kcal/g), according to Equation (2):
EV = (P + CC) × 4 + F × 9 + TDF × 2
where
  • P—is the protein content of the bread sample, g/100 g;
  • CC—is the carbohydrate content of the bread sample, g/100 g;
  • F—is the fat content of the bread sample, g/100 g;
  • TDF—is the total dietary fiber content of the bread sample, g/100 g.

2.8. Determination of Total Polyphenol Content and Antioxidant Activity

The total polyphenol content (TPC) with the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and the antioxidant activity (DPPH) by the DPPH radical quenching method were determined in the SBP and bread samples according to the methodology described by Ignaczak et al. [45].
The TPC results were expressed in mg of gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per 100 g dry matter (d.m.). In turn, the antioxidant capacity (DPPH) was expressed as µM Trolox/100 g dry matter (d.m.).

2.9. Statistical Analysis

The values of individual indices were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the influence of factors such as fortification (0, 1, 5, and 10%) and the type of added sugar beet pulp (with and without molasses). Tukey’s HSD test, using a significance level of p < 0.05, was used to determine the homogeneous groups. All parameter determinations were performed at least in two replicates. In addition, the results were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis. Data were analyzed using the STATISTICA version 13 PL program (StatSoft, Cracow, Poland).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Characteristics of Wheat Flour and Sugar Beet Pulp

Table 1 presents the quality results of the physico-chemical parameters and antioxidant potential of the sugar beet pulp (SBP) samples.
Commercial wheat flour (WF) that was intended for laboratory baking was characterized by the quality parameters appropriate for type 750 wheat flour (moisture, protein, ash, and fat contents with averages of 14.1, 14.1, 0.81, and 1.55% d.m., respectively).
The moisture contents of the evaluated SBP samples were consistent (on average, 7.2–7.5%) (Table 1). The higher moisture content in the molasses SBP (mSBP) sample compared to the SPB without molasses (umSBP) sample is due to the fact that molasses contains more than 20% water [11,26] and adding molasses to SBP increases the moisture content of the sample. The protein content in SBP without molasses was 8.6%, which was 1.0 percentage point lower than in the molassed SBP (mSBP) sample. Similar results were obtained by Sumińska and Sierakowska [46], who studied unmolassed and molasses SBP samples obtained from sugar factories in Poland in 2015–2018. Moreover, Tobin and Hoppe [11] reported that the protein content in the tested sugar beet molasses was 10% d.m.; hence, the addition of molasses to dried SBP also increased the protein content in the molasses product. The mSBP sample was found to have 1.4 percentage points higher ash content than the sample without molasses (on average, 3.6%). Beet molasses is a rich source of nonprotein-nitrogen sources, vitamins, and macronutrients, mainly calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium, as well as the amino acid betaine [11,47]. The total dietary fiber content (TDF) was lower in the molasses SBP sample than in the unmolasses sample (on average, 42.0 and 57.5%, respectively). Similar relationships were obtained by Fadel et al. [12], who used three different methods to dry SBP samples with and without molasses.
The insoluble dietary fiber fraction (IN-DF) constituted approx. 70% in both samples. Moreover, Simić et al. [29] reported that cereal fibers and gluten-free sugar beet fibers have a perfect ratio of 2/3 insoluble fiber. The research by Baryga et al. [7] shows that SBP contained insoluble fractions of dietary fiber in the amount of 49.7 g/100 g d.m., with the soluble fraction being 17.8 g/100 g d.m., and total dietary fiber at 67.6 g/100 g d.m. On the other hand, the sample of SBP with molasses (mSBP) was characterized by a higher content of carbohydrates, including sugar (on average, 43.2 and 26.0%, respectively), in comparison to the unmolasses sample (on average, 30.3 and 14.4%, respectively). According to the studies by Sumińska and Sierakowska [46], the samples of dried, unmolasses sugar beet pulp from sugar factories in Poland contained sucrose, ranging from 6.8 to 10.5%. In comparison, the molasses SBP samples ranged from 19.9 to 23.8%. In our research, in addition to the sucrose and reducing sugar (glucose and fructose) contents, other saccharides were present in the umSBP and mSBP samples, which constituted 11.2 and 17.2%, respectively. In the literature [7,10,12,48], it was found that this fraction consists mainly of polysaccharide residues (ribose, galactose, arabinose, mannose, xylose, and rhamnose). However, about two times higher TPC and antioxidant activity by DPPH assay were determined in the samples enriched with molasses (mSBP). Beet molasses is a source of carbohydrate (approx. 75%) and polyphenolic compounds, which mainly influence its antioxidant capacity [26,47,49].

3.2. Characteristics of Quality Parameters of Wheat Flour and Sugar Beet Pulp Mixtures

3.2.1. Parameters Characterized the Protein Complex of Wheat Flour and Sugar Beet Pulp Mixtures

The results of the quality characteristics of the protein complex of the flour samples are presented in Table 2.
Samples of wheat flour (WF) and sugar beet pulp (SBP) mixtures were characterized in the context of a protein complex by gluten characteristics and the Mixolab test. The statistical analysis showed that the quantity of the SBP additive and the type of fortification significantly influenced the protein characteristics of the flour mixtures (Table 2). SBP, as a source of dietary fiber incorporated into wheat flour dough, strongly interfered with protein association. An increase in the SBP additive significantly decreased the gluten content from 28.3 (0% SBP) to 25.8% (10% SBP) and slightly lowered the gluten quality determined by the gluten index (GI) from 96 to 93. However, the decrease in GI was not important in the technological aspects. The reduction in gluten content results from the increase in the SBP addition, which is gluten-free [29]. The SBP addition altered the rheological properties of the dough tested by Mixolab®. We observed that an increase in SBP addition caused a significant increase in water absorption (from 60.0% to 71.0%), which is a direct effect of the high fiber and ash contents in both types of SBP. These results were consistent with the work by Khattab et al. [30] and Majzoobi et al. [50].
The dietary fibers present in SBP have previously been described by authors [26,51,52] for their increased resistance and reduced dough extensibility. Dietary fibers in dough mixtures increase resistance due to the aggregation of fibers and interactions with wheat flour proteins. Their influence depends on the molecular weight, branching, and the amount of added fiber and may lead to changes in gluten and secondary gluten structures [53]. The addition of SBP also positively affected the dough’s strength and increased the development time T1 and stability (from 1.84 to 9.37 min and from 9.56 to 10.94 min, respectively). The typical wheat flour with an ash content of around 0.75% d.m. is characterized by time T1 in a range of 1.2–7.3 min and stability in a range of 8.6–11.7 min [54]. As a result, SBP, even in a small amount (5%), can improve the dough’s stability when prepared from weak flours, especially dedicated for bread production, which needs long mixing and fermentation times. A similar effect of adding SBP to wheat flour was found by Majzoobi et al. [50]. However, Rosell et al. [55] found that adding sugar beet fiber strongly decreased its heating stability when added singly.
The tested wheat control flour sample was characterized by the typical dough characteristics for flours produced in Poland concerning gluten protein weakening (C2 in the 0.43–0.57 N·m and C2-C1 in the range 0.50–0.66 N·m) [54]. The effect on the dough’s characteristics was shown in the rising value of the torque in points C2 and lowering the difference between the parameters C2 and C1, representing resistance to mixing. Based on all these parameters, it was shown that the dough with the addition of SBP is more stable for mechanical processing and should not cause problems in the baking lines of large baking plants. An opposite effect was obtained by Rosell et al. [55], where sugar beet fiber led to a decrease in the torque value C2. Rosell et al. [55] claimed that the effect of the fiber’s blend on the Mixolab® parameters and the increase in C2 is a consequence of some impediments in the protein unfolding.
Flour mixtures with molasses SBP were characterized by a lower gluten content, water absorption, and dough stability to mixing, measured by time T1 and stability compared to the unmolasses SBP. One of the reasons may be the lower total dietary fiber content in the molasses SBP than in the unmolasses SBP and a higher carbohydrate content. Although the differences were statistically significant (Table 2), from the technological point of view, only water absorption was of key importance for the quality of the dough from the tested baking mixtures.

3.2.2. Parameters Characterized the Starch Complex of Wheat Flour and Sugar Beet Pulp Mixtures

Table 3 presents the results describing the starch complex of wheat flour (WF) and its mixtures with sugar beet pulp (SBP) powders.
The alpha-amylase activity and starch properties of the tested flours were determined by the falling number (FN) test and selected parameters of the Mixolab® curve as follows: starch gelatinization (C3), stability of the hot phase stage (C4), and retrogradation (C5). The control wheat flour (0% SBP) was characterized by common starch properties that were determined by Mixolab® as C3, C4, and C5 (Table 3) for the wheat flour produced in Poland [56]. The trials carried out on the wheat flour mixtures were distinguished by low alpha-amylase activity (FN over 300 s). The lowest alpha-amylase activity was evaluated by trials with a 1% addition of SBP (FN—339 s; C3—2.039 N·m; C4—1.943 N·m; C5—2.932 N·m). The starch gelatinization, C3, indicates the dough’s viscosity upon heating and strongly depends on the type and quality of starch. The increase in the SBP additive increased the value of the mentioned parameter. High FN and Mixolab® C3 values may indicate the probability of the incorrect appearance of bread, with a round shape and low crumb porosity. With the addition of 10% SBP, the torque in point C4 decreased, which is the effect of the lower level of starch in SBP. In research by Rosell et al. [55], the addition of sugar beet fiber caused a reduction of 26% in torque C3 (and a simultaneous lower torque in C4 and C5 by 34%) due to the straight negative and quadratic beneficial results received for the mentioned parameters. Our investigation revealed that starch retrogradation (C5) decreased with the increased of the concentration of sugar beet pulp (SBP) addition to wheat flour, designating a reduced retrogradation during the cooling process with a higher fiber addition [57]. On the other hand, the higher addition of SBP caused a slightly higher dough initial starch gelatinization temperature of D2 and lowered the final gelatinization temperature of D3. SBP has not been a source of alpha-amylase activity. This is why the differences were not significant from the technological point of view.
The type of fortification significantly influenced the Mixolab® parameters. Starch gelatinization (C3-C2) was the most intensive for the control flour with a 1% addition of SBP, and the stepwise drop was 0.116 for 10% SBP. The opposite effect was found for the gel enzymatic hydrolysis, expressed by C3-C4, which, in the lowest amount of SBP, decreased, while the 10% addition was two times higher than for the wheat flour control. The highest value of C3-C4 was found for the 10% of SBP, which indicates the lowest hot gel stability. The influence of SBP addition was also reflected in starch retrogradation C5-C4, which was 1.8 times lower with a 10% addition of SBP than for the wheat flour control. The mSBP mixtures were characterized by slightly lower Mixolab® values of C3, C4, C3-C2, and C3-C4, while the C5, D3, and C5-C4 were slightly higher. Based on the results regarding starch retrogradation in the discussed recipe of flour mixtures (Table 3), it seems highly probable that the staling process of bread will be slower in the case of bread being fortified with SBP powder in larger doses, especially without molasses (umSBP).
Considering the results discussed above (Table 3), there is a need to reformulate the recipe composition of bread supplemented with SBP to optimize the amylolytic activity requirements of bread flour by adding, e.g., malt flour or microbiological enzyme preparations with alpha-amylase activity.

3.3. Baking Test Results

3.3.1. Characteristics of Technological Properties and Color Parameters of Bread

The results on bread’s physical characteristics are shown in Table 4.
The breadcrumb moisture content (MC) of the tested bread samples increased with the increase in the SBP addition in the recipe (Table 4) and ranged from 45.45 to 48.22% (for 0% and 10% SBP fortification, respectively). A significantly higher moisture content was characteristic of the bread samples fortified with molasses SBP. The higher moisture content in bread samples with SBP powders than the control bread (0% SBP) may be attributed to the high fiber content of the added ingredient (Table 1). These components had a higher capacity for absorbing and retaining water in the dough than starch and gluten (Table 2), which caused lower water loss during baking [22,27]. The results of the study by Schleißinger et al. [58] indicated that bread samples obtained with the addition of sugar beet fiber, inulin, and cellulose during three-day storage retained higher crumb moisture compared to the control bread. However, dehydration of the crumb during storage seems to be caused exclusively by water loss from starch but not from fibers.
Loaf volume is considered the most important bread quality attribute, especially from the consumers’ standpoint. The specific volume (BV) indicates the internal breadcrumb structure. The higher specific volume is related to a more porous crumb and softer texture [59]. The specific bread volume decreased with increasing SBP addition (Table 4). The wheat bread sample (0% SBP) did not differ significantly from those with 1% SBP addition. As Figure 1 and Figure 2 show, the BV of the samples declined significantly (p < 0.05) with increasing the supplementation of SBP without and with molasses. The presence of higher dietary fiber content, including its insoluble fraction in SBP and other types of fiber products—which dilutes the gluten content and disrupts the gluten–starch matrix—usually causes deterioration of the breadcrumb structure and a subsequent loss of gas during fermentation dough and baking [22,26,60]. However, the specific volume (BV) of bread samples with unmolasses SBP (umSBP) was significantly lower (on average, 279 cm3/100 g) than that of the samples with SBP with molasses (mSBP) (on average, 288 cm3/100 g). The tested bread samples met the requirements of Polish standard [61] regarding this parameter, i.e., a minimum of 200 cm3 per 100 g. It seems that the higher BV of the bread enriched with SBP molasses (mSBP) could be caused by the presence of free sugars in the flour recipe mixtures, which could have a beneficial effect on the dough-rising process and thus contribute to a more uniform gas cell size distribution in the bread. The study by Šoronja-Simović et al. [26] showed that a positive effect on bread volume was demonstrated for molasses in combination with sugar beet fiber and/or carob flour. However, Filipčev et al. [62] reported that the specific volume of wheat bread with 5 and 10% sugar beet molasses added differed significantly from the control sample, with the sample with 10% molasses added having a smaller specific volume.
In this study, increasing the level of SBP supplementation led to increased breadcrumb hardness (BCH) (Table 4). Similar observations were made by other authors [26,27]. The enrichment of bread with 1% SBP addition contributed to an increase in BCH by more than 2.5 times in comparison to the control sample (on average, 10.8 N) and with 10% level fortification, it was almost 5 times. In turn, the research results by Majzoobi et al. [50] showed that by increasing the sugar beet pulp powder to a Barbari bread dough formulation, the density of the bread and the crumb hardness decreased. Our research (Table 4) proved that the bread samples with unmolasses SBP (umSBP) show a significantly lower crumb hardness (on average, 29.9 N) compared to the molasses SBP samples (on average, 33.1 N). Šoronja-Simović et al. [26] reported that an increase in molasses content in the recipe composition had a positive effect on the pores’ fineness and elasticity of breadcrumbs. At the same time, the addition of sugar beet fibers caused different pore sizes, increased the density, and reduced the elasticity of the crumb. Generally, the interaction between the level and type of SBP fortification to bread affects the specific volume of bread and crumb hardness (Table 4). Analyzing the results of the crumb hardness of bread samples with SBP (Table 4) and the data for flour mixtures obtained from the Mixolab® test regarding the parameters characterizing the degree of starch retrogradation (Table 3), it should be assumed that bread supplemented with higher doses of SBP, especially unmolassed powder, will demonstrate longer freshness than the control sample and bread with a 1% addition of SBP. Changing the composition of baking mixes, e.g., by adding malt flour (up to 1%) or replacing part of the composite mix with malt flour (up to 10%) subjected to scalding at the dough mixing stage can contribute not only to delaying the staling process of bread but also to improving its technological quality [43].
Color is an important physical feature of food products that influences consumer perception. The evaluated bread samples supplemented with SBPs were subjected to analysis of their color parameters in the CIE L*a*b* system (Table 4). The L* parameter describing the lightness of the breadcrumb color showed the highest value of 71.2 for the control sample (0% SBP). Increasing SBP supplementation resulted in the darkening of the breadcrumb color from 67.06 (for samples with 1% SBP) to 60.03 (for samples with 10% SBP), wherein the samples with the addition of SBP with molasses (mSBP) also showed a significantly darker coloration. The presence of molasses contributes to the formation of a dark color because it, besides containing significant amounts of sugars available for Maillard reactions, already contains color products like melanoidins and caramel [62,63]. The values of the a* parameter of the breadcrumb of the tested samples fortified with SBPs were in the red color range, on average, from 1.40 to 1.69 (for the control and 10% SBP samples, respectively), while the b* parameter was in the yellow color range, on average, from 14.77 to 17.61 (for the 10% SBP and control samples, respectively). Moreover, lower values of the a* and b* color parameters were measured for the samples with the addition of SBP (on average, 1.38 and 15.74, respectively) than for the samples fortified with SBP with molasses (on average, 1.81 and 16.72, respectively). Also, the values of the C* color parameter, indicating the purity of the breadcrumb color, were the lowest for the samples with a 10% addition of SBPs and the bread samples supplemented with molasses-free SPB (Table 4). Considering the values of saturation and lightness of the breadcrumb color of the tested samples, they can be described as grayish to weak grayish. The color of the evaluated bread samples is due to the addition of dried SBPs, which range from light gray to greenish-gray [46]. The interaction between the two factors (A×B) significantly affects the color parameters of breadcrumbs, which cannot be stated in the case of the bread’s crust color parameters of the assessed samples enriched with SBP. However, it was noticeable that the bread crusts of supplemented SBP with molasses (mSBP) were characterized by a darker color, with a greater share of red, a smaller share of yellow, and a slightly lower saturation compared to the bread samples enriched with unmolasses SBP (umSBP) (Table 4).
During the baking of bread, reactions occur, such as caramelization and the Maillard reaction, which are responsible for the crust coloration and formation of the aroma of the bread. Dessev et al. [64] observed a strong correlation between crust color and acrylamide concentration. The acrylamide content in bread depends mainly on the baking time, vault temperature, and steaming, as well as the presence of acrylamide precursors in grain and flour. The acrylamide precursors include the presence of free asparagine and reducing sugars. Surdyk et al. [65] showed that in soft wheat bread, more than 99% of the acrylamide content was determined in the crust. In turn, Şenyuva and Gökmen [66] did not determine the acrylamide content in the crumb of evaluated Turkish bread samples.
Analysis of the data in Table 4 showed that the acrylamide content (AA) in the tested bread samples with the addition of SBPs ranged from 14.7 (for samples with 1% SBP) to 16.4 µg/kg d.m. (for samples with 10% SBP). In turn, significantly (p < 0.05) higher amounts of acrylamide content were determined in the samples of bread fortified with mSBP. It should be assumed that during the baking of fortified bread SBP with molasses, the simple sugars present in molasses, in reaction with amino acids, could contribute to acrylamide formation in the bread. On the other hand, acrylamide may originally be present in the composition of sugar beet molasses, which was mixed with the sugar beet pulp. However, the acrylamide content in the evaluated bread samples supplemented with SBPs was below 50 µg/kg, i.e., the threshold level set in EU regulations for wheat soft bread [67]. In the samples of wheat-based soft bread produced in Poland and tested by Roszko et al. [43], only 4 out of the 56 samples (approx. 7%) contained acrylamide above the above-mentioned limit value for this type of bread.
The bread sample obtained in the laboratory baking test was characterized by a proper appearance with the shape of a well-risen loaf, a relatively uniform porosity of the crumb, and the appropriate crust color. The most favorable, in terms of baking value and sensory acceptance, were the bread samples with the addition of up to 5% sugar beet pulp (SBP), both without and with molasses. The bread with 5% SBP addition was characterized by a proper smell and taste typical for this type of additive. The crumb was characterized by a cream-gray color and very good elasticity. The pores of the crumb were medium-thick, well-developed, and comparable to the 1% SBP addition. However, bread fortified with 10% SBP showed an unacceptable sensory aftertaste (earthy taste), typical of the raw materials used. Moreover, the pores of the crumb were thick, and the color was gray-earthy. The elasticity of the crumb was insufficient. Moreover, the bread samples with 10% SBP were characterized by a bitter taste. The bread with 5% mSBP was characterized by a more appropriate color of the crust (golden-brown), with more favorable thin-walled pores, and a fluffier crumb than the bread with 5% umSBP. For example, the addition of SBP powder to pasta as a source of fiber by Minarovičová et al. [68] resulted in the cooked product being unacceptable to the panel, even at a level of 5%, which was not the case for the pasta supplemented with celery root powder.

3.3.2. Assessment of Nutritional Value and Health-Promoting Properties of Bread

Table 5 presents the results of the basic chemical composition of the tested bread samples, the estimated energy value, and the results shaping the antioxidant properties.
Compared to the bread samples with the addition of SBP, the control bread (0% SBP) had a significantly lower ash content (about 1.01% d.m.) and total dietary fiber (TDF) (about 4.56% d.m.), while the protein, fat, and carbohydrate contents (14.23, 1.23, and 79.0% d.m., respectively) were higher (Table 5). The protein (P) content in the samples of bread-fortified sugar beet pulp (SBP) with and without molasses ranged, on average, from 13.62 to 14.09% d.m. (for the 10% and 1% SBP samples, respectively). The ash content (A) of the control wheat bread (0% SBP) was 1.01% d.m., which increased among the breads that were supplemented with SBP. The highest ash contents were recorded in the bread samples with a 10% supplementation level and those fortified with SBP with molasses (on average, 1.06% d.m.). The increase in the ash content may be related to the high content of minerals (mainly potassium, calcium, and sodium) in SBP with molasses, as reported by Fadel et al. [12]. The fat content (F) in the assessed bread differed significantly depending on the level of SBP addition (Table 5). The highest fat content was determined in the wheat bread (the control sample with 0% SBP) because the SBP powders that were added to the baking flour mixtures contained practically no fat (Table 1). In the case of dietary fiber (TDF), its content increased with an increasing SBP and ranged from 4.56 to 9.50% d.m. (Table 5). Even higher, statistically significant TDF contents were found in the bread samples enriched with SBP without molasses (umSBP). It should be emphasized that in the samples enriched with 5 and 10% SBP, the TDF content was >3 g per 100 g of bread. Hence, in light of EU legislation [69], these products are covered by the possibility of using a nutritional claim, i.e., “source of fiber”. The share of soluble fiber (S-DF) in bread samples accounted for about 30% of the TDF content. Statistical analyses showed that for most of the discussed indices, except for the calorific value and fat content, the interaction between the amount of SBP added in the range of 0–10% and its type (umSBP and mSBP) was significant (p < 0.05) (Table 5). According to Baryga et al. [7], the tested freeze-dried sugar beet pulp sample contained non-starch polysaccharides, such as arabinians belonging to the hemicellulases group, and pectins, including galacturonic acid and rhamnose. These compounds create soluble dietary fiber (S-DF), which is partially decomposed in the large intestine, as a result of which short-chain fatty acids (acetic, propionic, and butyric) are produced that lowers the pH, which has a beneficial effect on the development of the intestinal microbiome. In addition, due to its properties, soluble fiber contributes to lowering the concentration of cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood. Also, it reduces the rate of carbohydrate absorption, thanks to which it slows down the increase in postprandial glucose concentration in the blood. Nevertheless, the insoluble fiber fraction (IN-DF) causes the secretion of digestive juices, stimulates peristalsis and intestinal blood supply, increases the volume of food content, and makes the feeling of satiety last longer after a meal [18,19,23]. The highest carbohydrate content (CC) was found in the control bread (0% SBP; on average, 79.0% d.m.) and the lowest in the samples with 10% SBP added (on average, 74.8% d.m.). In contrast, the bread samples enriched with unmolassed SBP contained significantly lower carbohydrate contents than those fortified with SBP with molasses (on average, 77.0 and 77.7% d.m., respectively). In addition, a significantly higher sugar (S) content was determined in the bread samples with molassed SBP and samples supplemented with 5 and 10% SBP. The interaction of the quantity and type of SBP additive was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the carbohydrate and sugar content (Table 5).
The data on the energy value (EV) of the tested bread samples are presented in Table 5. The EV of the SBP-fortified bread samples ranged from an average of 196 kcal/100 g (for the 10% SBP samples) to 214 kcal/100 g (for the control sample; 0% SBP). It was found that the type of sugar beet pulp added to the bread did not significantly affect the energy value, but the supplementation level did (Table 5). The EV of all tested bread samples consisted of energy coming mainly from carbohydrates (approx. 80% of energy) and, to a lesser extent, protein (above 14%). Due to the fact that more than 12% of the EV came from protein, following the guidelines of the European Commission [69], a nutritional claim can be made that the obtained bread samples are a “source of protein”.
Based on the literature data [26,47,70], it has been shown that the antioxidant activity of bread is correlated with its total polyphenol content. Many indirect methods are currently used to measure antioxidant potential in food due to the incomplete understanding of the true antioxidant capacity of food samples’ processes after ingestion and digestion [37,62,71]. Furthermore, the results of both polyphenol content and oxidative activity of food depend mainly on the extraction conditions, especially regarding the type of solvent used for extraction [7,8,49]. In this study, the total polyphenol content (TPC) in bread samples significantly increased with increased SBP powders being added to the baking flour mixtures (Table 5). Moreover, significantly lower total polyphenol contents were determined in the bread samples fortified with SBP (umSBP) than in the samples with molassed SBP (on average, 8.88 and 12.25 mg GAE/100 g d.m., respectively). The breads that were made with various additional SBPs without and with molasses were tested for their antioxidant contents using DPPH—a stable radical—as the detection agent. The results obtained for antioxidant activity showed the same trends as in the case of the determined content of total polyphenols in the evaluated bread samples. The interaction of two factors, namely the level and type of supplementation of bread with SBP powders, was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the results determining the antioxidant properties (Table 5). It should be noted that similar relationships were observed by Šoronja-Simović et al. [26] when assessing the polyphenol contents and antioxidant activity of bread samples by adding carob flour, sugar beet fibers, and molasses.

3.4. Comprehensive Summary of Results

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to comprehensively evaluate the bread supplemented with sugar beet pulp (SBP) without and with molasses based on the technological parameters, nutritional value, and antioxidant properties (Figure 3).
The selection of the most appropriate number of components for the interpretation of variables was made based on Cattell’s scree plot, which shows the eigenvalues. Figure 3a shows that most of the information was captured by the first two principal components (the steep part of the curve), which explained 92.65% of the variability analysis. On the other hand, decreasing eigenvalues, arranged horizontally, indicate that the subsequent components extract only “random noise”. Therefore, the loss of information in the analysis of variables was 12.35%.
The PCA (Figure 3b) showed that the first component (PC1) explained 66.77% of the variability created by the indicators describing the baking quality of the bread, the lightness of the crumb color (L*), and shaping the nutritional value of the assessed samples. Visualization of the obtained results on the PCA load plot of the two principal components (Figure 3b) shows that bread samples with higher crumb moisture (MC), hardness (BCH), total dietary fiber, and fraction (TDF, IN-DF, S-DF) contents were characterized by a lower specific volume of bread (BV) and a darker color of the breadcrumb (L*). Moreover, PC1 was strongly negatively correlated with the protein (P), fat (F), and carbohydrate (CC) contents, determining the main caloric value (EV) of the bread. The second principal component (PC2) explained 25.94% of the variability. It was strongly negatively related to the parameters describing the antioxidant properties (TPC and DPPH), color parameter a* and acrylamide (AA), and ash (A) contents in the bread.
The PC1/PC2 graph (Figure 3c) shows the distribution of the evaluated bread samples. It was shown that in the negative part of PC1, at relatively close distances from each other, there were samples of bread supplemented with 1% sugar beet pulp (SBP) and control wheat bread (WB). However, in the case of PC2, the control sample (WB) and the sample bread with 1% unmolassed SBP (1umB) were located in the positive part of the graph, while the sample with molassed 1% SBP (1mB) was located in the negative part of it. This indicates minor differences between the bread samples evaluated and their similarity. The evaluated bread samples supplemented with 1% SBP, both without and with molasses, were characterized by a larger specific volume (BV) of bread, lower crumb hardness (BCH), content of crumb moisture (MC) and its lighter color (L*). To a large extent, the values of the above quality parameters of the tested bread samples resulted from the lower content of TDF, as well as higher contents of P, F, and CC, which translated into a higher EV of the final products. Only the bread sample enriched with 1% molassed sugar beet pulp (1mB) showed higher antioxidant potential compared to the control (WB) and 1% unmolasses sugar beet pulp (1umB) samples.
Figure 3c shows that the positive part of the PC1 contained bread samples fortified with SBP without molasses (umSBP)—an additive rich in total dietary fiber and its insoluble fraction. On the other hand, the negative part of the PC1 contained bread samples characterized by a higher antioxidant potential, which resulted from the addition of SBP with molasses (mSBP) in the recipe. Moreover, bread samples supplemented with 5% and 10% SBP, without and with molasses, were located in the positive part of PC2 at a considerable distance from each other. As shown in Figure 3c, the use of different levels of supplementation of wheat bread with sugar beet pulp (SBP), without and with molasses, allowed the division of the obtained data by separating the WB, 1umB, and 1mB samples, and the 5umB, and 5mB samples with similar properties and suitability, as well as the 10umB and 10mB samples with significantly different properties. The type and level of SBP addition to bread baking were found to be an important factor in the clustering of the data (Figure 3d).

4. Conclusions

The possibility of using powdered sugar beet pulp (SBP), up to 10%, for enriching flour and producing bread with health-promoting properties was assessed. The optimal share of SBP was at the level of 5%. The addition of SBP in the version with molasses represented an increased potential for enriching bread with natural ingredients.
The tested indicators of bread enriched with SBP in 1%, with molasses and without molasses, showed many similarities in the technological parameters to the control bread. The share of SBP in the amount of 5 and 10% significantly differentiated the bread samples. Based on the main components of PCA and cluster analysis, the bread without the addition of molasses was distinguished mainly by the increased dietary fiber content, and the one with molasses was characterized by a higher moisture content and bread volume, as well as a darker crumb color and lower fiber content, but with a significantly higher content of polyphenolic compounds and antioxidant activity.
The bread enriched with 5% molassed SBP, compared to the bread with 5% unmolassed SBP, was characterized by a higher bread-specific volume and moisture content, darker crumb color, more appropriate crust color (golden-brown), and more favorable, thin-walled pores and a fluffy crumb.
Due to the increased dietary fiber content in bread samples with 5 and 10% of SBP, marking such a product with the nutritional claim “source of fiber” is possible. Bread samples with molasses SBP added were characterized by an approx. 40% higher total polyphenol content and approx. 50% higher antioxidant activity (DPPH) than the samples with unmolassed SBP. Increasing the SBP share, regardless of the molasses share, decreased the calorific value of the bread.
SBP and sugar molasses as by-products have significant potential for enriching bread with polyphenolic compounds and dietary fiber. Their use in bread production can be included in sustainable food production and by-product reduction strategies. The obtained research results may constitute the basis for further research on the technology of producing bread enriched with fiber products and other natural ingredients with health-promoting properties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. (Anna Szafrańska), A.B. and A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon); methodology, A.S. (Anna Szafrańska), A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and K.S.; software, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon), H.K., K.S. and A.D.; validation, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and H.K.; formal analysis, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon), A.S. (Anna Szafrańska) and K.S.; investigation, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and A.S. (Anna Szafrańska); resources, A.S. (Anna Szafrańska), A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and A.B.; data curation, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and A.S. (Anna Szafrańska); writing—original draft preparation, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon) and A.D.; writing—review and editing, A.S. (Agnieszka Salamon), H.K. and A.S. (Anna Szafrańska); visualization, A.S. (Anna Szafrańska) and H.K.; supervision, A.S. (Anna Szafrańska), A.D. and A.B.; funding acquisition, H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Teresa Sumińska for her help in analyzing the sugar beet pulp samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. McKenzie, F.C.; Williams, J. Sustainable food production: Constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wróbel-Jędrzejewska, M.; Włodarczyk, E.; Przybysz, Ł. Carbon Footprint of Flour Production in Poland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Smiglak-Krajewska, M. Consumer Education and Food Waste: An Example of the Bakery Market—The Case of Young Consumer. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2020, 23, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. European Commission (EC). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Ensuring Resilient and Sustainable Use of EU’s Natural Resources. 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0410 (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  5. Mańkowski, D.R.; Fraś, A.; Gołębiewska, K.; Gołębiewski, D. Consumer Acceptance of Polish Bread Products. Plant Breed. Seed Sci. 2018, 75, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kušar, A.; Pravst, I.; Kuprovič, U.P.; Grunert, K.G.; Kreft, I.; Hristov, H. Consumers’ Preferences towards Bread Characteristics Based on Food-Related Lifestyles: Insights from Slovenia. Foods 2023, 12, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baryga, A.; Ziobro, R.; Gumul, D.; Rosicka-Kaczmarek, J.; Miśkiewicz, K. Physicochemical Properties and Evaluation of Antioxidant Potential of Sugar Beet Pulp—Preliminary Analysis for Further Use (Future Prospects). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aarabi, A.; Honarvar, M.; Mizani, M.; Faghihian, H. Determination of Total Phenolic Compounds, Antioxidant Activity and Ferulic Acid in Extracts of Sugar Beet Pulp. Hacet. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 43, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Teimouri Yansari, A. Physical Characteristics and Physically Effectiveness of Beet Pulp for Ruminant. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2016, 6, 317–326. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dygas, D.; Kręgiel, D.; Bełkowska, J. Sugar Beet Pulp as a Biorefinery Substrate for Designing Feed. Molecules 2023, 28, 2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tobin, C.; Hoppe, K. Feeding Sugar Beet by Products to Cattle. North Dakota State University (NDSU) 2023, AS1365. Available online: https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/extension/publications/feeding-sugarbeet-byproducts-cattle (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  12. Fadel, J.G.; De Peters, E.J.; Arosemena, A. Composition and digestibility of beet pulp with and without molasses and dried using three methods. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000, 85, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kowalski, Z. Dried Sugar Beet Pulp, Molassed. Available online: https://plantatorzy.polski-cukier.pl/438,produkty-uboczne?tresc=2871 (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  14. Sarafidou, M.; Vittou, O.; Psaki, O.; Filippi, K.; Tsouko, E.; Vardaxi, A.; Pispas, S.; Koutinas, A.; Stylianou, E. Evaluation of alternative sugar beet pulp refining strategies for efficient pectin extraction and poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production. Biochem. Eng. J. 2024, 208, 109368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Usmani, Z.; Sharma, M.; Diwan, D.; Tripathi, M.; Whale, E.; Jayakody, L.N.; Moreau, B.; Thakur, V.K.; Tuohy, M.; Gupta, V.K. Valorization of sugar beet pulp to value-added products: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ogrodowczyk, D.; Olejnik, T.P.; Kaźmierczak, M.; Brzeziński, S.; Baryga, A. Economic Analysis for Biogas Plant Working at Sugar Factory. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2016, 80, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Montenegro-Landívar, M.F.; Tapia-Quirós, P.; Vecino, X.; Reig, M.; Valderrama, C.; Granados, M.; Cortina, J.L.; Saurina, J. Polyphenols and their potential role to fight viral diseases: An overview. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 801, 149719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barber, T.M.; Kabisch, S.; Pfeiffer, A.F.H.; Weickert, M.O. The Health Benefits of Dietary Fibre. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. van der Kamp, J.W.; Jones, J.M.; McCleary, B.V.; Topping, D.L. Dietary Fibre: New Frontiers for Food and Health; Wageningen Academic Publisher: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010; p. 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Pustkowiak, H. Sensory Assessment and Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bread Supplemented with Chia Seeds. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2020, 70, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Czubaszek, A.; Wojciechowicz-Budzisz, A.; Spychaj, R.; Kawa-Rygielska, J. Effect and added brewer’s spent grain on the baking value of flour and the quality of wheat bread. Molecules 2022, 27, 1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Dziki, D.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Parol-Nadłonek, N.; Kalisz, S.; Krajewska, A.; Stępniewska, S. Wheat Bread Enriched with Black Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.) Pomace: Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Evaluation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kaim, U.; Goluch, Z.S. Health Benefits of Bread Fortification: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials according to the PRISMA Statement. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Janssen, A.M.; van Vliet, T.; Vereijken, J.M. Rheological behaviour of wheat glutens at small and large deformations. Comparison of two glutens differing in bread making potential. J. Cereal Sci. 1996, 23, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ahrari, A.; Bolourian, S.; Goli-Movahhed, Q. Investigating the application of sugar beet pulp and sourdough on the quantity and quality of baguette bread. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 19, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Šoronja-Simović, D.; Zahorec, J.; Šereš, Z.; Griz, A.; Sterniša, M.; Smole-Možina, S. The food industry by-products in bread making: Single and combined effect of carob pod flour, sugar beet fibers and molasses on dough rheology, quality and food safety. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 59, 1429–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Filipović, N.; Djuric, M.; Gyura, J. The effect of the type and quantity of sugar-beet fibers on bread characteristics. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 1047–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Šereš, Z.; Gyura, J.; Filipović, N.; Šoronja-Simović, D. Application of decolorization on sugar beet pulp in bread production. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2005, 221, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Simić, S.; Petrović, J.; Rakić, D.; Pajin, B.; Lončarević, I.; Jozinović, A.; Fišteš, A.; Nikolić, S.; Blažić, M.; Miličević, B. The Influence of Extruded Sugar Beet Pulp on Cookies’ Nutritional, Physical and Sensory Characteristics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khattab, A.E.; El-khamissi, H.A.Z.; Allam, S.M.; Yousef, K.Y.M. Utilization of Sugar Beet Pulp to Improve Quality of Flat Bread. J. Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2021, 12, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. ISO 712; Cereals and Cereal Products—Determination of Moisture Content—Reference Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  32. ISO 20483; Cereals and Pulses—Determination of the Nitrogen Content and Calculation of the Crude Protein Content—Kjeldahl method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  33. ISO 11085; Cereals, Cereals-Based Products and Animal Feeding Stuff—Determination of Crude Fat and Total Fat Content by the Randall Extraction Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  34. ISO 2171; Cereals, Pulses and by-Products—Determination of Ash Yield by Incineration. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  35. AACC 32-07.01; Soluble, Insoluble, and Total Dietary Fiber in Foods and Food Products. AACC Approved Methods of Analysis. 11th ed. Cereals & Grains Association: St. Paul, MN, USA. Available online: https://www.cerealsgrains.org/resources/Methods/Pages/32Fiber.aspx (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  36. AOAC 991.43; Total, Soluble, and Insoluble Dietary Fibre in Foods (Official Method). AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA. Available online: https://acnfp.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mnt/drupal_data/sources/files/multimedia/pdfs/annexg.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  37. Kowalska, H.; Kowalska, J.; Ignaczak, A.; Masiarz, E.; Domian, E.; Galus, S.; Ciurzyńska, A.; Salamon, A.; Zając, A.; Marzec, A. Development of a High-Fibre Multigrain Bar Technology with the Addition of Curly Kale. Molecules 2021, 26, 3939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. ISO 21415-2; Wheat and Wheat Flour—Gluten Content—Part 2: Determination of Wet Gluten and Gluten Index by Mechanical Means. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  39. ISO 3093; Wheat, Rye and Their Flours, Durum Wheat and Durum Wheat Semolina—Determination of the Falling Number according to Hagberg-Perten. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  40. ISO 17718; Wholemeal and Flour from Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)—Determination of Rheological Behavior as a Function of Mixing and Temperature Increase. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  41. Szafrańska, A.; Podolska, G.; Świder, O.; Kotyrba, D.; Aleksandrowicz, E.; Podolska-Charlery, A.; Roszko, M. Factors Influencing the Accumulation of Free Asparagine in Wheat Grain and the Acrylamide Formation in Bread. Agriculture 2024, 14, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salamon, A.; Kowalska, H.; Stępniewska, S.; Szafrańska, A. Evaluation of the Possibilities of Using Oat Malt in Wheat Breadmaking. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Roszko, M.Ł.; Szczepańska, M.; Szymczyk, K.; Rzepkowska, M. Dietary risk evaluation of acrylamide intake with bread in Poland, determined by two comparable cleanup procedures. Food Addit. Contam. Part B Surveill. 2020, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. European Commission (EC). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers, Amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, L304, 18–63. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  45. Ignaczak, A.; Salamon, A.; Kowalska, J.; Marzec, A.; Kowalska, H. Influence of Pre-Treatment and Drying Methods on the Quality of Dried Carrot Properties as Snacks. Molecules 2023, 28, 6407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sumińska, T.; Sierakowska, M. Beet pulp as a valuable animal feed. Adv. Sci. Technol. Agric. Food Ind. 2019, 74, 48–59. [Google Scholar]
  47. Filipčev, B.; Mišan, A.; Šarić, B.; Šimurina, O. Sugar beet molasses as an ingredient to enhance the nutritional and functional properties of gluten-free cookies. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 67, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wilkowska, A.; Berlowska, J.; Nowak, A.; Motyl, I.; Antczak-Chrobot, A.; Wojtczak, M.; Kunicka-Styczyńska, A.; Binczarski, M.; Dziugan, P. Combined Yeast Cultivation and Pectin Hydrolysis as an Effective Method of Producing Prebiotic Animal Feed from Sugar Beet Pulp. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mohdaly, A.A.A.; Sarhan, M.A.; Smetanska, I.; Mahmoud, A. Antioxidant properties of various solvent extracts of potato peel, sugar beet pulp and sesame cake. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Majzoobi, M.; Mesbahi, G.H.; Seriri, F.; Farahnaki, A.; Jamalian, J. The effect of sugar beet pulp on the quality of Barbary bread. Iran. Food Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2010, 6, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, J.; Rosell, C.M.; de Barber, C.B. Effect of the addition of different fibres on wheat dough performance and bread quality. Food Chem. 2002, 79, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Šoronja-Simović, D.M.; Smole-Možina, S.; Raspor, P.; Maravić, N.R.; Zahorec, J.J.; Luskar, L.; Šereš, Z.I. Corab Flour and Sugar Beet Fiber as Functional Additives in Bread. Acta Period. Technol. 2016, 47, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, Q.; Liu, R.; Wu, T.; Zhang, M. Interactions between soluble dietary fibers and wheat gluten in dough studied by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Food Res. Int. 2017, 95, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Szafrańska, A. Predicting the farinograph and alveograph properties of flour based on the results of mixolab parameters. Acta Agrophysica 2015, 22, 457–469. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosell, C.M.; Santos, E.; Collar, C. Physical characterization of fiber-enriched bread doughs by dual mixing and temperature constraint using the Mixolab®. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2010, 231, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Szafrańska, A. Comparison of alpha-amylase activity of wheat flour estimated by traditional and modern techniques. Acta Agrophysica 2014, 21, 493–505. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bartalné-Berceli, M.; Izsó, E.; Gergely, S.; Salgó, A. Effects of special additives in wheat dough system measured by Mixolab technique. Czech J. Food Sci. 2021, 39, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schleißinger, M.; Meyer, A.L.; Afsar, N.; György Nagy, Á.; Dieker, V.; Schmitt, J.J. Impact of Dietary Fibers on Moisture and Crumb Firmness of Brown Bread. Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 5, 1281–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Majzoobi, M.; Raiss Jalali, A.; Farahnaky, A. Impact of Whole Oat Flour on Dough Properties and Quality of Fresh and Stored Part-Baked Bread. J. Food Qual. 2016, 6, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rubel, I.A.; Perez, E.E.; Manrique, G.D.; Genovese, D.B. Fiber enrichment of wheat bread with Jerusalem artichoke inulin: Effect of dough rheology and bread quality. Food Struct. 2015, 3, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. PN-A-74105; Wheat Baked Goods. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1992.
  62. Filipčev, B.; Lević, L.; Bodroža-Solarov, M.; Mišljenović, N.; Koprivica, G. Quality Characteristics and Antioxidant Properties of Breads Supplemented with Sugar Beet Molasses-Based Ingredients. Int. J. Food Prop. 2010, 13, 1035–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, J.S.; Ramalingam, S.; Jo, I.G.; Kwon, Y.S.; Bahuguna, A.; Oh, Y.S.; Kwon, O.J.; Kim, M. Comparative study of the physicochemical, nutritional and antioxidant properties of some commercial rafined and non-centrifugal sugars. Food Res. Int. 2019, 10, 614–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dessev, T.; Lalanne, V.; Keramat, J.; Jury, V.; Prost, C.; Le-Bail, A. Influence of Baking Conditions on Bread Characteristics and Acrylamide Concentration. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Res. 2020, 3, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Surdyk, N.; Rosén, J.; Andersson, R.; Åman, P. Effects of asparagine, fructose, and baking conditions on acrylamide content in yeast-leavened wheat bread. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 2047–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Şenyuva, H.Z.; Gökmen, V. Survey of acrylamide in Turkish foods by an in-house validated LC-MS method. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. European Commission (EC). Commission Regulation No 2017/2158 of 20 November 2017 establishing mitigation measures and benchmark levels for the reduction of the presence of acrylamide in food. Off. J. Eur. Union 2017, L304, 24–44. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2158/oj (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  68. Minarovičová, L.; Lauková, M.; Kohajdová, Z.; Karovičová, J.; Dobrovická, D.; Kuchtová, V. Qualitative Properties of Pasta Enriched with Celery Root and Sugar Beet By-Products. Czech J. Food Sci. 2018, 36, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. European Commission (EC). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, L404, 9–25. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/oj (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  70. Chlopicka, J.; Pasko, P.; Gorinstein, S.; Jedryas, A.; Zagrodzki, P. Total phenolic and total flavonoid content, antioxidant activity and sensory evaluation of pseudocereal breads. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bueno, C.; Thys, R.; Tischer, B. Potential Effects of the Different Matrices to Enhance the Polyphenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity in Gluten-Free Bread. Foods 2023, 12, 4415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 10570 g001
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of bread: (a) control wheat bread (0%); bread with the addition of unmolasses sugar beet pulp in the amount of 1% (b), 5% (c), and 10% (d).
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of bread: (a) control wheat bread (0%); bread with the addition of unmolasses sugar beet pulp in the amount of 1% (b), 5% (c), and 10% (d).
Applsci 14 10570 g001
Applsci 14 10570 g002
Figure 2. Cross-sectional view of bread: (a) control wheat bread (0%); bread with the addition of sugar beet pulp with molasses in the amount of 1% (b), 5% (c), and 10% (d).
Figure 2. Cross-sectional view of bread: (a) control wheat bread (0%); bread with the addition of sugar beet pulp with molasses in the amount of 1% (b), 5% (c), and 10% (d).
Applsci 14 10570 g002
Applsci 14 10570 g003
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) graphs considering similarities and differences of quality indices of bread samples: (a) PCA plot of the scree slope; (b) PCA loading plot of the principal components PC1 and PC2; (c) similarities between bread samples; (d) cluster analysis. Explanations: MC—crumb moisture content; BV—specific volume of bread; BCH—breadcrumb hardness; L*—lightness of crumb; a*—color parameter a* of crumb; b*—color parameter b* of crumb; C*—chroma of crumb; AA—acrylamide content of bread; P—protein content; A—ash content; F—fat content; TDF—total dietary fiber content; IN-DF—insoluble dietary fiber content; S-DF—soluble dietary fiber content; CC—carbohydrate content; EV—energy value; TPC—total polyphenol content; DPPH—antioxidant activity of bread; WB—wheat bread (control sample); 1umB, 5umB, 10umB—bread samples with the addition of unmolasses SBP, respectively, in the amount of 1, 5 and 10%; 1mB, 5mB, 10mB—bread samples with the addition of molasses SBP, respectively, in the amount of 1, 5 and 10%.
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) graphs considering similarities and differences of quality indices of bread samples: (a) PCA plot of the scree slope; (b) PCA loading plot of the principal components PC1 and PC2; (c) similarities between bread samples; (d) cluster analysis. Explanations: MC—crumb moisture content; BV—specific volume of bread; BCH—breadcrumb hardness; L*—lightness of crumb; a*—color parameter a* of crumb; b*—color parameter b* of crumb; C*—chroma of crumb; AA—acrylamide content of bread; P—protein content; A—ash content; F—fat content; TDF—total dietary fiber content; IN-DF—insoluble dietary fiber content; S-DF—soluble dietary fiber content; CC—carbohydrate content; EV—energy value; TPC—total polyphenol content; DPPH—antioxidant activity of bread; WB—wheat bread (control sample); 1umB, 5umB, 10umB—bread samples with the addition of unmolasses SBP, respectively, in the amount of 1, 5 and 10%; 1mB, 5mB, 10mB—bread samples with the addition of molasses SBP, respectively, in the amount of 1, 5 and 10%.
Applsci 14 10570 g003
Table 1. Chemical characteristics and antioxidant properties of sugar beet pulp.
Table 1. Chemical characteristics and antioxidant properties of sugar beet pulp.
Quality Characteristics of SBPumSBPmSBP
Moisture content (%)7.27.5
Protein content (%)8.69.6
Ash content (%)3.65.0
Fat content (%)0.240.26
Total dietary fiber content (%)57.542.0
Including insoluble dietary fiber content (%)39.229.4
soluble dietary fiber content (%)18.312.6
Carbohydrate content (%)30.243.2
Including sugar content (%)14.426.0
Total polyphenol content (mg GAE/100 g d.m.)17.339.1
Antioxidant activity (DPPH) (µM Trolox/100 g d.m.)8.0714.29
Explanations: SBP—sugar beet pulp; umSBP—unmolasses sugar beet pulp; mSBP—molasses sugar beet pulp.
Table 2. Factors affecting protein complex of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Table 2. Factors affecting protein complex of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Quality Characteristics of SBP MixturesQuantity of the SBP Additive
(Factor A)		Type of Fortification
(Factor B)		Interaction
(A × B)
0%1%5%10%umSBPmSBPp-Value
Gluten content (%)28.3 b28.3 b27.8 b25.8 a27.8 B27.3 A0.1000
Gluten Index96 b93 a92 a93 a93 A94 B0.0306 *
Water absorption (%)60.0 a60.6 a64.6 b71.0 c64.8 B63.4 A0.0000 *
Time of dough development, T1 (min)1.84 a1.88 a9.38 b9.37 b5.92 B5.32 A0.0000 *
Stability (min)9.56 a10.32 b11.96 d11.58 c10.94 B10.78 A0.0021 *
Gluten proteins weakening, C2 (N·m)0.508 a0.532 a0.618 b0.630 b0.594 B0.550 A0.0340 *
Protein weakening, C1-C2 (N·m)0.590 d0.569 c0.498 b0.475 a0.522 A0.544 B0.0273 *
Explanations: SBP, umSBP, and mSBP, as in Table 1; letters a–d, A–B—designation of statistically homogeneous groups; *—statistically significant differences at p = 0.05.
Table 3. Factors affecting starch complex of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Table 3. Factors affecting starch complex of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Quality Characteristics of SBP MixturesQuantity of the SBP Additive
(Factor A)		Type of Fortification
(Factor B)		Interaction
(A × B)
0%1%5%10%umSBPmSBPp-Value
Falling number, (s)328 a,b339 b335 b319 a331 A330 A0.0095 *
Starch gelatinization, C3 (N·m)1.986 a2.049 b2.011 a1.992 a2.054 B1.965 A0.0000 *
Amylase activity, C4 (N·m)1.836 b1.943 d1.868 c1.672 a1.839 B1.820 A0.0001 *
Starch retrogradation, C5 (N·m)2.862 c2.932 d2.629 b2.248 a2.6642.6720.0000 *
Initial starch gelatinization temperature, D2 (N·m)54.2 a54.4 a,b54.7 c54.6 b,c54.4 A54.5 A0.0000 *
Final starch gelatinization temperature, D3 (N·m)78.0 b78.4 c78.0 b73.9 a76.8 A77.3 B0.0000 *
Starch gelatinization speed, C3-C2 (N·m)1.478 c1.517 d1.393 b1.362 a1.460 B1.415 A0.0000 *
Amylase degradation speed, C3-C4 (N·m)0.150 c0.106 a0.144 b0.319 d0.215 B0.145 A0.0000 *
Starch retrogradation rate, C5-C4 (N·m)1.027 d0.990 c0.761 b0.576 a0.825 A0.852 B0.0000 *
Explanations: SBP, umSBP, and mSBP, as in Table 1; letters a–d, A–B—designation of statistically homogeneous groups; *—statistically significant differences at p = 0.05.
Table 4. Baking test results of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Table 4. Baking test results of wheat flour with sugar beet pulp mixtures.
Quality Characteristics of BreadQuantity of the SBP Additive
(Factor A)		Type of Fortification
(Factor B)		Interaction
(A × B)
0%1%5%10%umSBPmSBPp-Value
Crumb moisture content, MC (%)45.45 a46.12 a47.39 b48.22 c46.50 A47.10 B0.2529
Specific volume, BV (cm3/100 g of bread)317 c312 c282 b222 a279 A288 B0.0002 *
Breadcrumb hardness, BCH (N)10.8 a28.4 b34.0 c52.8 d29.9 A33.1 B0.0001 *
Color parameters
of crumb		Lightness, L*71.20 d67.06 c65.32 b60.03 a66.67 B65.14 A0.0000 *
Redness, a*1.40 a1.60 b1.67 c1.69 c1.38 A1.81 B0.0000 *
Yellowness, b*17.61 d16.63 c15.94 b14.77 a15.74 A16.74 B0.0000 *
Chroma, C*17.67 d16.70 c16.03 b14.87 a15.80 A16.84 B0.0000 *
Color parameters
of crust		Lightness, Lc*42.41 a,b45.44 b45.54 b40.58 a44.42 A42.57 A0.5449
Redness, ac*15.15 c13.54 b13.05 b11.60 a13.13 A13.54 B0.1242
Yellowness, bc*23.79 b23.76 b24.08 b18.94 a23.00 A22.29 A0.7828
Chroma, Cc*28.26 b27.38 b27.41 b22.23 a26.53 A26.11 A0.7374
Acrylamide content, AA (µg/kg d.m.)15.7 a,b14.7 a15.6 a,b16.4 b13.9 A17.3 B0.0000 *
Explanations: SBP, umSBP, and mSBP, as in Table 1; letters a–d, A–B—designation of statistically homogeneous groups; *—statistically significant differences at p = 0.05.
Table 5. Results of the chemical composition of bread, energy value, and antioxidant capacity.
Table 5. Results of the chemical composition of bread, energy value, and antioxidant capacity.
Quality Characteristics of BreadQuantity of the SBP Additive
(Factor A)		Type of Fortification
(Factor B)		Interaction
(A × B)
0%1%5%10%umSBPmSBPp-Value
Protein content, P (% d.m.)14.23 d14.09 c13.98 b13.62 a14.01 B13.95 A0.0000 *
Ash content, A (% d.m.)1.01 a1.04 a,b1.04 a,b1.06 b1.02 A1.06 B0.0010 *
Fat content, F (% d.m.)1.23 c1.19 c1.09 b0.98 a1.12 A1.13 A0.2742
Total dietary fiber content, TDF (%)2.48 a2.74 b3.71 c4.92 d3.69 B3.26 A0.0000 *
TDF (% d.m.)4.56 a5.08 b7.05 c9.50 d6.89 B6.20 A0.0000 *
of which insoluble dietary fiber content, IN-DF (% d.m.)2.92 a3.68 b4.46 c5.75 d4.39 B4.01 A0.0000 *
Soluble dietary fiber content, S-DF (% d.m.)1.64 b1.40 a2.58 c3.75 d2.50 B2.18 A0.0000 *
Carbohydrate content, CC (% d.m.)79.0 d78.6 c76.8 b74.8 a77.0 A77.7 B0.0000 *
of which sugars content, S (% d.m.)6.3 a6.3 a6.7 b7.0 c6.4 A6.8 B0.0065 *
Energy value, EV (kcal/100 g)214 d211 c204 b198 a207 A206 A0.5338
Total polyphenol content, TPC
(mg GAE/100 g d.m.)		9.52 a9.81 a,b10.91 b,c12.02 c8.88 A12.25 B0.0012 *
Antioxidant activity, DPPH
(µM Trolox/100 g d.m.)		4.76 a9.59 b11.86 c12.71 c7.66 A11.80 B0.0004 *
Explanations: SBP, umSBP, and mSBP, as in Table 1; letters a–d, A–B—designation of statistically homogeneous groups; *—statistically significant differences at p = 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salamon, A.; Szafrańska, A.; Baryga, A.; Diowksz, A.; Szymczyk, K.; Kowalska, H. Assessment of the Possibility of Using Sugar Beet Pulp with Molasses as By-Product for Enriching Flour and Production of Bread with Pro-Health Properties. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 10570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210570

AMA Style

Salamon A, Szafrańska A, Baryga A, Diowksz A, Szymczyk K, Kowalska H. Assessment of the Possibility of Using Sugar Beet Pulp with Molasses as By-Product for Enriching Flour and Production of Bread with Pro-Health Properties. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(22):10570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salamon, Agnieszka, Anna Szafrańska, Andrzej Baryga, Anna Diowksz, Krystyna Szymczyk, and Hanna Kowalska. 2024. "Assessment of the Possibility of Using Sugar Beet Pulp with Molasses as By-Product for Enriching Flour and Production of Bread with Pro-Health Properties" Applied Sciences 14, no. 22: 10570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210570

APA Style

Salamon, A., Szafrańska, A., Baryga, A., Diowksz, A., Szymczyk, K., & Kowalska, H. (2024). Assessment of the Possibility of Using Sugar Beet Pulp with Molasses as By-Product for Enriching Flour and Production of Bread with Pro-Health Properties. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10570. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210570

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop