4.6 Article

Effect of β-Glucan-Rich Barley Flour Fraction on Rheology and Quality of Frozen Yeasted Dough

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 79, 期 12, 页码 E2470-E2479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.12702

关键词

Frozen dough; Rheology; Freezable and bound water; Viscoelastic properties; Barley

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that prolonged frozen storage of bread dough reduces the quality of the end product. In this study, the effect of air-classified barley flour fraction rich in -glucan (approximately 25%) on rheology and quality of frozen yeasted bread dough was investigated. Wheat flour (W) was replaced by air-classified barley flour fraction (B) at 10% without or with 1.4% vital gluten to produce -glucan enriched barley dough (WB) or barley dough plus gluten (WB + G). Dough products were stored at -18 oC for 8 wk and their rheological properties were investigated weekly. During frozen storage dough extensibility increased, while elastic and viscous moduli decreased. Differential scanning calorimeter and nuclear magnetic resonance data indicated that WB and WB + G dough products contained approximately 10% less freezable water and 9% more bound water compared to the control dough (W). -Glucan enriched dough also exhibited less changes in gluten network as shown by SEM photographs. The addition of air-classified barley flour fraction at 10% in frozen dough reduced deterioration effects caused by frozen storage via minimizing water redistribution and maintaining rheological properties of frozen dough. Practical Application Incorporation of air-classified barley flour fraction rich in -glucan in bread frozen dough is able to preserve its rheological properties during storage at -18 oC via restricting water mobility. Due to the rapid increase in frozen dough market and the health benefits associated with -glucan, adding barley fraction rich in -glucan to frozen dough recipe can find its way into the market.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据