4.2 Article

Relationship between protein characteristics and instant noodle making quality of wheat flour

期刊

CEREAL CHEMISTRY
卷 81, 期 2, 页码 159-164

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1094/CCHEM.2004.81.2.159

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the relationship between the protein content and quality of wheat flours and characteristics of noodle dough and instant noodles using 14 hard and soft wheat flours with various protein contents and three commercial flours for making noodles. Protein content of wheat flours exhibited negative relationships with the optimum water absorption of noodle dough and lightness (L*) of the instant noodle dough sheet. Protein quality, as determined by SDS sedimentation volume and proportion of alcohol- and salt-soluble protein of flour, also influenced optimum water absorption and yellow-blueness (b*) of the noodle dough sheet. Wheat flours with high protein content (> 13.6%) produced instant noodles with lower fat absorption, higher L*, lower b*, and firmer and more elastic texture than wheat flours with low protein content (< 12.2%). L* and free lipid content of instant noodles were >76.8 and <20.8% in hard wheat flours of high SDS sedimentation volume (>36 mL) and low proportion of salt-soluble protein (<12.5%), and <75.7 and >21.5% in soft wheat flours with low SDS sedimentation volume (<35 mL) and a high proportion of salt-soluble protein (>15.0%). L* of instant noodles positively correlated with SDS sedimentation volume and negatively correlated with proportion of alcohol- and salt-soluble protein of flour. These protein quality parameters also exhibited a significant relationship with b* of instant noodles. SDS sedimentation volume and proportion of salt-soluble protein of flours also exhibited a significant relationship with free lipid content of instant noodles (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Protein quality parameters of wheat flour, as well as protein content, showed significant relationship with texture properties of cooked instant noodles.

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

4.2
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