4.7 Article

Effect of Carob Flour Addition on the Rheological Properties of Gluten-Free Breads

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 868-876

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-013-1104-x

关键词

Gluten-free; Carob flour; Creep recovery; Rheology; Mathematical model

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund
  2. Republic of Cyprus through the Research Promotion Foundation [YGammaEIA/TPOPhiH/0609(BIE)/08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the rheological properties of gluten-free doughs from rice flour containing different amounts of carob flour were investigated. Water added changed in response to the carob amount. Dynamic oscillatory and creep tests were performed in order to gain knowledge on the rheological behaviour of doughs, which is essential for the control of the bread-making procedure and the production of high-quality bread. Simple power law mathematical models were developed in order to evaluate the effect of carob and water added in dough rheological behaviour. Creep data evaluation demonstrates that an increase in water content decreased the resistance of dough to deformation and, therefore, dough strength, whereas carob flour increased the elastic character and structure strength of the dough. This was also found in dynamic oscillatory tests. Increased amounts of carob flour led to an increase in bread dough elastic character since fibre addition elastifies and strengthens the dough structure. Moreover, doughs exhibited a solid-like viscoelastic character, with the storage modulus (G') predominant over the loss modulus (GaEuro(3)). Dough rheological properties have an important effect on baking characteristics. Rheological experiments and applied mathematical models can provide us with good knowledge of rheological behaviour and dough viscoelasticity prediction. Therefore, dough samples containing carob-to-water ratios of 10:110 and 15:130 can be considered to possess a balance between the viscous and elastic properties compared to the other samples.

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