4.5 Article

Influence of additives on the rheological characteristics and baking duality of wheat flours

Journal

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 210, Issue 3, Pages 202-208

Publisher

SPRINGER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/PL00005512

Keywords

additives; dough rheological characteristics; bread; sodium stearoyl lactylate; glycerol monostearate; diacetyl tartaric esters of monoglycerides

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The response of Indian commercially milled flour to different additives was studied. The incorporation of reducing agents, such as L-cysteine hydrochloride (L-cysteine HCl), reduced the water absorption capacity (WAC) and stability of medium-strong wheat flour as well as weak wheat flour. This effect was also shown by other reducing agents or enzymes however, the extent of change was found to be greater in medium-strong wheat flour. Surfactants/emulsifiers, such as glycerol monostearate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, and diacetyl tartaric esters of monoglycerides (DATEM), did not alter the WAC significantly, but marginally improved the stability of the dough. The change observed in the extensograph was greater with reducing agents and enzymes. In general, use of L-cysteine HCl or alpha-amylase or protease reduced the resistance to extension and increased the extensibility, depending on the level of addition. L-cysteine HCl, however, gave a greater reduction in the resistance to extension in medium-strong than in weak flour. On the other hand, use of surfactants/emulsifiers increased the resistance to extension and decreased the extensibility, and the effect was greater with DATEM. The bread volume improved considerably on incorporation of L-cysteine HCl, while DATEM also increased the loaf volume considerably at a 1% level in weak flour. Maximum improvement in loaf volume was found for DATEM in the case of weak flour, indicating that the responses of flour to different additives were different.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available