4.5 Article

Performance comparison between different hydrocolloids to improve quality of pasta made from common wheat

Journal

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 245, Issue 2, Pages 263-271

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-018-3158-5

Keywords

Common wheat; Pasta; Cooking quality; Improvers; Hydrocolloids; Rheology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Durum wheat is the raw material of choice for the manufacture of superior quality pasta products. However, in some parts of the world many pasta producers have to use common wheat to make pasta, which shows a deficiency with respect to quality attributes. In this respect, the functionality of different hydrocolloids in a weak common wheat flour was investigated as a comparative study with the objective to improve pasta-making potential under industrial processing conditions. Six commercial hydrocolloids, sodium alginate (AL), propylene glycol alginate (PGA), xanthan gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum or guar gum were added to wheat flour at 0.5% and 1% substitution. A rheological investigation, based on dynamic small strain tests and large deformation tests (farinograph and amylograph analyses) was performed to evaluate differences in dough structure due to interactions between flour components and hydrocolloids, and related to cooking properties of pasta. All hydrocolloids promoted an increase in elastic interactions in the dough. The strongest doughs were obtained by addition of alginates. Only cooked pasta supplemented with AL, PGA and XG showed an increase in firmness compared with the reference (PGA>AL>XG). The product enriched with 0.5% PGA or 1% AL gave the highest overall acceptability and sensory scores. On the contrary, xanthan gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum or guar gum performed relatively poorly in flour. On the basis of these results alginates were the most effective improvers of pasta quality among different hydrocolloids.

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