4.7 Article

Comparison of quality characteristics of six reconstituted whole wheat flour with different modified bran

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112543

关键词

Modified bran; Whole wheat flour; Quality characteristics; Protein secondary structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Six different bran modification treatments have various effects on the quality characteristics of reconstituted whole wheat flour. Microwaving increases viscosity, while enzymolysis strengthens the dough gluten network and compensates for protein deficiencies in flour.
The effects of six bran modification treatment (microwaving, steam, extrusion, enzymolysis, fermentation and superheated steam) on the quality characteristics of reconstituted whole wheat flour were compared. As shown by the results, the treatments modified the physicochemical and pasting property, dynamic rheology, mixing characteristics, intermolecular forces and secondary protein structure of the reconstituted flour. The peak viscosity and final viscosity after microwaving were the highest, at 2528.00 and 3154.33 cp, respectively. The tan delta values after fermentation, superheated steam and microwaving were higher than control, indicating improved flour processing quality. Enzymolysis resulted in the longest dough stability time and the shortest dough formation time, as well as the highest disulfide bridge content and ionic bond force in the dough gluten component, which would strengthen the dough gluten network. Microwaving resulted in the highest beta-sheet content and the weakest hydrophobic interactions in the gluten, which would also strengthen the dough gluten network. Overall, enzymolysis produced the greatest strengthening of gluten network and improvement in dough rheological properties. These findings advance the understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of the bran treatments and will aid future optimization of industrial bran modification.

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

4.7
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