4.7 Article

Iranian wheat flours from rural and industrial mills: Exploitation of the chemical and technology features, and selection of autochthonous sourdough starters for making breads

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 99-110

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.10.011

关键词

Lactic acid bacteria; Fermentation; Baked goods

资金

  1. Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed at describing the main chemical and technology features of eight Iranian wheat flours collected from industrial and artisanal mills. Their suitability for bread making was investigated using autochthonous sourdough starters. Chemical analyses showed high concentration of fibers and ash, and technology aptitude for making breads. As shown through 2-DE analyses, gliadin and glutenin subunits were abundant and varied among the flours. According to the back slopping procedure, type I sourdoughs were prepared from Iranian flours, and lactic acid bacteria were typed and identified. Strains of Pediococcus pentosaceus, Weissella cibaria, Weissella confusa, and Leuconostoc citreum were the most abundant. Based on the kinetics of growth and acidification, quotient of fermentation and concentration of total free amino acids, lactic acid bacteria were selected and used as sourdough mixed starters for bread making. Compared to spontaneous fermentation, sourdoughs fermented with selected and mixed starters favored the increase of the concentrations of organic acids and total free amino acids, the most suitable quotient of fermentation, and the most intense phytase and antioxidant activities. Although the high concentration of fibers, selected and mixed starters improved the textural features of the breads. This study might had contribute to the exploitation of the potential of Iranian wheat flours and to extend the use of sourdough, showing positive technology, nutritional and, probably, economic repercussions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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