Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35795013›Full record

ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2022

Impacts of Pretreatment Techniques on the Quality of Tuber Flours.

Abebe Desalegn Melese, Ebisa Olika Keyata

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abebe Desalegn MeleseDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Shambu Campus, Wollega University, Shambu Town, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0460-4103
Ebisa Olika KeyataDepartment of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Shambu Campus, Wollega University, Shambu Town, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1881-1162
Wollega University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Besides dietary sources of energy, roots and tuber crops can also serve as functional foods and nutraceutical ingredients to be explored in disease risk reduction and wellness. However, they are easily spoiled because of their high moisture contents and enzymatic reactions. Therefore, this review aimed at gathering information on the effects of various pretreatment methods on the quality of tuber crops before converting them into flour. Studies reported by different scholars showed that there were significant differences in physicochemical and functional properties between untreated tuber and the treated tuber samples. The review also highlighted that the chemical treatment methods, particularly sulfite treatment, could increase the lightness value of the flour. In addition, blanching could induce a decrease in protein, ash, and fat. Despite this, blanching pretreatment techniques increased moisture and carbohydrate content. Chemical treatment increases the ash content, which might be responsible for chemical diffusion into the sample. The reviewed results showed that the application of different pretreatments on tuber crops significantly improves many quality characteristics such as color, fiber content, carbohydrate, and the functional properties used for value addition during food product development in the industry. Therefore, application of pretreatment methods particularly chemical treatments could enhance nutritional value, and functional and physical properties of tuber flours.

Indexed as

FlourPlant TubersCarbohydratesCrops, AgriculturalNutritive ValueCarbohydrates

Identifiers

PMID35795013
PMCPMC9252694
OpenAlexW4285740897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.