Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

DOI 10.1007/s11947-011-0772-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Emulsifiers: Effects on Quality of Fibre-Enriched

Wheat Bread
Analía V. Gómez & Diana Buchner & Carmen C. Tadini & María C. Añón &
María C. Puppo

Received: 26 September 2011 / Accepted: 28 December 2011 / Published online: 21 January 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Resistant starch (RS) is a nutritional ingredient caused an increase of 5% in water absorption. Stability
commonly used in bread products as dietary fibre (DF). This decreases markedly (from 9.9 to 2.2 min) and the mixing
ingredient presents similar physiological functions than tolerance index increased (from 79 to 35 UF). The sodium
those imparted by DF, promoting beneficial effects such as stearoyl lactylate (SSL)–diacetyl tartaric acid esters of
the reduction of cholesterol and/or glucose levels on blood. monoglycerides (DATEM) mixture increased hardness and
Quality improvement of bread containing RS, with an opti- resistance to extension on dough, whilst dough containing
mized combination of emulsifiers, will be useful in the Polysorbate 80 (PS80) was softer; nevertheless, both types
development of new and healthy bakery products. The ob- of dough retained less CO2. An optimized concentration of
jective of this research was to analyse the effects of different the three emulsifiers (0.24% SSL, 0.18% PS80, 0.08%
emulsifiers on several quality parameters of dough and DATEM, w/w) was obtained by surface response methodol-
bread prepared with wheat flour partially substituted with ogy. The bread prepared with this combination of emulsi-
resistant starch as a dietary fibre. A blend of wheat flour/ fiers presented a considerable specific volume with a very
maize-resistant starch (MRS; 87.5:12.5) with sodium chlo- soft crumb.
ride, ascorbic acid, α-amylase, compressed yeast and water
was utilized. Emulsifiers were incorporated to formulations Keywords Resistant starch . Wheat flour . Emulsifiers .
in different levels according to a simplex centroid design. Bread making quality
The viscoelastic, textural and extensional properties of
dough were analysed. Bread quality was evaluated through-
out the gelatinization and retrogradation of starch, specific
Introduction
volume of loaves, and texture and firmness of bread crumb.
The incorporation of 12.5% (w/w) of MRS to wheat flour
A number of studies have demonstrated that resistant starch
has physiological functions similar to those of dietary fibre
A. V. Gómez : M. C. Añón : M. C. Puppo
(ASP 1992; Eerlingen and Delcour 1995; Nugent 2005;
CIDCA (CONICET–Facultad Ciencias Exactas–UNLP) 47 y 116, Goñi et al. 1997; Åkerberg et al. 1998; Rosin et al. 2002;
1900 La Plata, Argentina Queiroz-Monici et al. 2005; Yamada et al. 2005). Maize-
resistant starch (MRS) is a white powder which has advan-
A. V. Gómez : M. C. Puppo (*)
tages over other fibres due to its better appearance, taste and
Facultad Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales–UNLP, 60 y 119,
1900 La Plata, Argentina texture. The incorporation of MRS to pasta products re-
e-mail: [email protected] duced enzymatic digestibility without affecting the cooking
quality. In addition, the sensory properties of pasta are not
D. Buchner : C. C. Tadini
modified by MRS (Gelencsér et al. 2008). Several studies
Chemical Engineering Department, Escola Politécnica,
University of São Paulo, related to bread with high levels of MRS as a functional
P.O. Box 61548, 05424-970 São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil food have been performed (Morita et al. 2002; Hung and
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1229

Morita 2004; Hung et al. 2005). Technologically, the re- Materials and Methods
placement of wheat flour by MRS affects bread quality due
to gluten protein dilution (Michniewicz et al. 1991). A Materials
similar effect of decreasing the bread quality is produced
by legume flours (Ribotta et al. 2010). These authors found Commercial Triticum aestivum wheat flour with 14.0%
on wheat flour–soy flour systems (90:10) an improvement moisture, 9.1% protein, 0.73% ash, 25.8% wet gluten,
on dough and bread quality with SSL incorporation. There- 8.5% dry gluten and 360 s of falling number was provided
fore, whatever the type of fibre added to bread, it is neces- by Moinho Pacífico Indústria e Comércio Ltda. (Santos,
sary to adjust the dough parameters with the purpose of Brazil). All the composition values, except moisture con-
obtaining good quality products. Several studies have dem- tent, are expressed on dry matter basis. Resistant starch Hi-
onstrated that emulsifiers like sodium stearoyl lactylate Maize® 260 was provided by National Starch (São Paulo,
(SSL), diacetyl tartaric acid esters of monoglycerides Brazil). Dried active yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was
(DATEM) and polyethylene sorbitan mono-oleate (Polysor- obtained from Fleischmann (São Paulo, Brazil).
bate 80, PS80) have desirable effects in the bread making Three types of emulsifiers—SSL, DATEM and PS80—
process (Stampfli and Nersten 1995; Brandt 1996; Aamodt and also fungal α-amylase, were obtained from Danisco A/S
et al. 2003, 2005a,b; Gómez et al. 2004; Ribotta et al. 2004; (Copenhagen, Denmark). Ascorbic acid was provided by
Selomulyo and Zhou 2007; Koocheki et al. 2009). During Casa Americana (São Paulo, Brazil).
kneading, emulsifiers increase the strength and extensibility
of dough. In the fermentation process, these improve gas Dough Formulation and Preparation
retention and prevent dough collapse. In the baking process,
they enhance texture and reduce water loss, and also interact The dough base formulation used comprised a wheat flour–
with amylose and amylopectin molecules, retarding bread MRS blend (87.5:12.5%, w/w), 2.0% sodium chloride,
ageing (Lakshminarayan et al. 2006). 0.02% ascorbic acid, 0.00125% α-amylase and 62.7% of
The rheological behaviour of dough can be determined water (farinographic absorption). The percentages of each
by two distinct types of measurements, fundamental and compound were expressed on wheat flour–MRS blend ba-
empirical tests. The fundamental rheology of dough is sis. The levels of ascorbic acid and α-amylase were selected
assayed at small deformation by dynamic oscillatory meas- on the basis of manufacturer-recommended levels. Dough
urements, whilst empirical assays, like texture profile anal- without emulsifiers was prepared as a control sample. Emul-
ysis, usually use large deformations. In small deformation sifiers were added to the formulation according to a simplex
measurements, the three common types of interactions (pro- centroid design, augmented with axial blends with seven
tein–protein, starch–starch and starch–protein interactions) points: three vertices of the predefined region, three axial
cannot be resolved, and the results often do not correlate points and one central point. Three replicates were made at
well with baking quality (Tronsmo et al. 2003). The dynam- the central point of the design to allow the estimation of pure
ic oscillatory test is commonly used for testing the visco- error. The mixture components are the three emulsifiers
elastic properties of gluten and dough once formed. On the SSL, PS80 and DATEM. This model can successfully re-
other hand, the rheological properties of materials submitted produce the response values at the vertices and edges of a
to large deformations are generally associated with bread triangle, representing the concentrations of pure emulsifiers
making quality (Zaidel et al. 2010). and their mixtures, respectively. The central point represents
In addition, heating causes changes in gluten protein the equiproportional ternary mixture of the three emulsifiers
structure. These changes affect the functionality of wheat (Table 1).
proteins and starch and can be determined by differential Dough was prepared by mixing raw materials (875 g
scanning calorimetry (DSC; Arntfield et al. 1990). The wheat flour, 125 g MRS, 0.2 g ascorbic acid, 0.0125 g α-
evaluation of thermal behaviour by DSC is one of the most amylase, 20 g salt and emulsifiers) for 1 min at 840 rpm in a
widely used tests for studding starch gelatinization, retro- spiral mixer (SUPREMAX AL-25 IM, Brazil) at 25 °C
gradation and bread staling (Baik and Chinachoti 2000; (Matuda 2008; Matuda et al. 2008). The emulsifiers’ quan-
Karim et al. 2000; Hassan et al. 2006). tity was incorporated following the design shown in Table 1.
Little information about the influence of emulsifiers on Water was added according to the farinographic absorption
the rheological and thermal characteristics of wheat flour– of dough prepared with MRS and without emulsifiers
MRS dough is available. For this reason, the objective of (62.7%). Dough was kneaded for 12 min at 1,700 rpm at
this research was to analyse the effects of three emulsifiers 25 °C and rested for 15 min. In the uniaxial extension test, a
(SSL, PS80 and DATEM) on several quality parameters of piece of dough was gently rolled into a ball and then was
dough and bread prepared with wheat flour partially substi- pressed in a Teflon mould with a grooved base and rested
tuted with MRS as a dietary fibre. for 40 min at a controlled temperature of 30 °C in a
1230 Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

Table 1 Quantities of emulsi-

fiers used in dough formulation Mixture Coded variable levels Decoded variable levels

SSL PS80 DATEM SSL PS80 DATEM

X1 X2 X3 C1a (g/100 g) C2a (g/100 g) C3a (g/100 g)

M0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
M1 1 0 0 0.5 0 0
M2 0 1 0 0 0.5 0
M3 0 0 1 0 0 0.5
M wheat flour–MRS–emulsifier
M4 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.25 0
mixtures (numbers after M are
the coded values of each sample M5 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.25
according to the simplex cen- M6 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.25 0.25
troid design) M7a 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.167 0.167 0.167
a
Based on wheat flour–MRS M7b 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.167 0.167 0.167
blend
b
M7c 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.167 0.167 0.167
Control sample

fermentation cabinet. For texture profile analysis (TPA), viscoelastic range. The storage (G′) and loss (G″) moduli
dough was laminated (gap between rods, 10 mm) four times remain constant within this linear viscoelastic range, but
to improve gluten development, turned 90° at each one there is a critical value of stress (σ limit) above which both
passage using the rods, cut into pieces with a cylindrical moduli decrease, suggesting disruption of food structure.
puncher (diameter, 40 mm) and covered with a plastic film According to the stress sweep curves, the critical stress
until analysis. Cylindrical pieces (diameter, 2.5 cm; height, value was 10 Pa (data not shown); therefore, the middle
0.5 cm) of the different dough samples were cut and sub- stress value of 5 Pa was selected. In the linear viscoelasticity
mitted to dynamic rheological measurements. range, storage (G′) and loss (G″) moduli were recorded as a
For rheofermentation and baking assays, 2.8% of com- function of oscillation frequency (0.005–100 Hz).
pressed yeast was incorporated to the blends.
Texture Profile Analysis
Rheological Properties of Dough
The TPA of dough was performed using a texture analyzer
Farinographic Assays
(TA.XT2i, Stable Micro Systems, UK) with a 25-kg load
cell. The discs of dough (diameter, 40 mm; thickness,
Farinographic assays were conducted on wheat flour and
10 mm) were placed in a cylindrical cell on the base of the
wheat flour–MRS blend, without salt incorporation (AACC
texture analyzer and subjected to a double compression
54-21.01). Measurements were performed using a Farino-
cycle (40% deformation) at a crosshead speed of
graph equipment (Brabender, Germany), and the water ab-
0.5 mm s−1. At least 15 dough discs of each formulation
sorption, development time, stability and mixing tolerance
were measured. Hardness, consistency, adhesiveness, cohe-
index were the parameters evaluated.
siveness and springiness were calculated from curves sup-
plied by the software of the texture analyser (Texture Expert
Viscoelastic Properties
1.22, SMS).
Rheological measurements were performed on a controlled
stress rheometer (Haake RS600 rheometer, Germany) fitted Uniaxial Extension
with 35-mm serrated parallel plates. A 1.5-mm gap was
used. Excess dough protruding from the edge of the plate Measurements were performed with a TA.XT2i texture an-
was carefully trimmed. Low-viscosity silicone was added alyzer (Stable Micro Systems) using the SMS/Kieffer rig for
around the plate edges to prevent dough dehydration. Before dough extensibility measurements (SMS 1995). The strips
starting the oscillatory measurement, the dough was allowed were placed on the platform, trimmed and extended until
to rest for 15 min to allow relaxation of residual stresses. their elasticity was exceeded and the dough was broken.
Temperature was kept constantly at 25 °C. The equipment Resistance to extension (Rmax), maximum extensibility (L)
was driven through the Haake software (RheoWin Pro Data and work needed for dough extension (A) were obtained
Manager version 2.94). Stress sweep runs (0.5–200 Pa) from load extension curves and calculated using the soft-
were conducted at 1 Hz frequency to determine the linear ware Texture Expert 1.22 (Stable Micro Systems). A
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1231

minimum of ten dough strips of each formulation were Bread making

measured.
The optimum mixture of emulsifiers, i.e. the blend that
generated the dough with the highest Hm value, was selected
Rheofermentation Assays
for bread making. Dough (600 g) was separated into two
pieces (300 g each one). The pieces were passed through a
The fermentation process was monitored using a rheofer-
bread shaping machine (SUPREMAX MC-50, Brazil) and
mentometer (F3, Chopin, France). A piece of dough (250 g)
placed in loaf pans (dimensions, 30.0 × 10.5 × 10.0 cm)
was placed in the rheofermentometer basket and a piston
which were previously sprayed with vegetable oil. Pans
with 2-kg resistance weight was placed on top. The temper-
were placed into the fermenting chamber (Degânia, Italy)
ature was maintained at 28.5 °C and the test was conducted
at 32 °C for 90 min. Loaves were baked in a Four Turbo
for 3 h.
Model oven (Degânia) at 180 °C for 25 min with the
Two curves were obtained from this test. The dough
moisture trap closed and then 5 min with the moisture trap
development curve provides information about the maxi-
opened. Breads were allowed to cool for 1 h at room
mum height reached by the piston (Hm) and the time taken
temperature prior to the tests.
to reach maximum height (t1). The gaseous release curve
presents the maximum height (H′m), a measure of the pres-
Specific Volume
sure developed by fermentation, the time taken to reach that
height (t′1) and the time when porosity appears (tx, related to
Loaf volume was measured by the rapeseed displacement
CO2 loss).
method (Chopin) and the specific volume (in cubic centi-
metres per gram) of bread was calculated for loaf volume
Bread Quality and weight, obtained by direct measure.

Starch Gelatinization and Retrogradation Crumb Moisture

Starch gelatinization and retrogradation were analysed using Moisture of crumb was determined by oven drying (Estigia,
DSC. This assay was carried out to simulate the baking Argentina) for 2 h at 135 °C (AACC Approved Method 44-
process (León et al. 1997). Analyses were performed in a 19).
TA Instrument Mod. Q100 Calorimeter (TA Instrument,
USA) fitted with a liquid nitrogen-controlled cooling acces- Crumb Firmness
sory. The transition temperatures and enthalpies were
obtained by the TA Instruments Universal Analysis 2000 Bread crumb firmness was determined according to AACC
software (version 4.2E). The equipment was calibrated with (2000) Approved Method 74-09 using a TA.XT2i Texture
indium, lauric acid and stearic acid. Coated aluminium Analyser (Stable Micro Systems) fitted with a 36-mm di-
hermetic pans were used. An empty double pan was used ameter aluminium probe. Slices of bread of 25-mm thick-
as the reference. ness were cut. Samples were covered with a plastic film
Dough samples, those corresponding to the simplex cen- until analysis to avoid dehydration. Crumb firmness was
troid design (Table 1), and dough belonging to the optimal measured immediately. The compression rate was set at
mixture (Mop), were prepared without yeast incorporation. 100 mm/min. At least six slices per loaf were measured.
Dough, once prepared, were freeze-dried, milled and stored at Firmness was the force required to compress the slices by
4 °C until analysis. The samples were reconstituted with 62.7% 40% strain.
of water (farinographic absorption of control sample) and
heated from 5 to 130 °C at a heating rate of 10 and 5 °C/min Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses
for the gelatinization and retrogradation assays, respectively.
Starch gelatinization and retrogradation processes and the am- The experimental rheological parameters of dough were
ylose–lipid complex dissociation of dough (5–10 mg) were analysed using a special cubic mathematical model. This
analysed through measurements of the endotherm area (in model can successfully reproduce the response values at the
joules per gram). To evaluate starch retrogradation, the gelati- vertices and edges of a triangle. The vertices represent the
nized dough in DSC pans were allowed to cool and stored at concentrations of pure emulsifiers (1,0,0; 0,1,0; 0,0,1) and
20±2 °C for 7 days. The samples were evaluated at 0, 1 and the edges correspond to the binary mixtures (1/2,1/2,0; 1/
7 days of storage. The samples were heated again in the 2,0,1/2; 0,1/2,1/2). The central point represents the ternary
calorimeter and the temperature and enthalpy of the process mixture of the three emulsifiers (1/3,1/3,1/3). This last point
were determined. differentiates the special cubic model from the quadratic
1232 Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

model. Only three replicates of the central point sample carried out at a constant stress of 5 Pa. In all cases, the
were performed. These replicates of the central point sample storage modulus (G′) was higher than the loss modulus (G″)
allow the estimation of the pure error of the model. throughout all the frequency ranges assayed, resulting in
The data obtained from dough texture, uniaxial exten- parallel upwards curves, indicating a predominant elastic
sion and the rheofermentation parameters were analysed behaviour of the system.
using response surface methodology (RSM) using the Stat- When the storage modulus (G′) was evaluated at a frequen-
graphics plus 5.1 software (StatPoint Technologies, Inc., cy of 1 Hz, only mixture M3 showed higher values than the
USA). control sample (M0), with a value of 23.8×103 Pa. Moreover,
Parameters were subjected to ANOVA according to M1 and M6 mixtures presented the lowest values of G′ (13.2×
the general linear model procedure with least-square 103 and 11.0×103 Pa, respectively; Fig. 1a). Since mixture M3
mean effects. Significantly different means were deter- had 0.5% of DATEM and sample M5 had 0.25% of this
mined according to Fisher’s least significant differences emulsifier plus 0.25% of SSL, the results obtained showed
(LSD, p < 0.05). The third-order polynomial model of that there was a tendency to increase the G′ value with the
Scheffé (normally used in the modelling of mixtures) incorporation of DATEM to the formulation. In the case of M6
proposed for each parameter was: sample (0.25% PS80+0.25% DATEM), lower values of G′
were obtained, suggesting that PS80 governs the viscoelastic
Yi ¼ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ b 3 x3 þ b 12 x1 x2 þ b 23 x2 x3 þ b 13 x1 x3 dough behaviour. For all samples, the same tendency for the
þ b 123 x1 x2 x3 loss modulus (G″) was observed (Fig. 1b).
On the other hand, values of loss tangent (tanδ0G″/G′) of
where Yi is the response variable of the evaluated param- M4 and M6 mixtures were significantly higher (0.318±0.017
eter i; x1 , x2 and x3 are the coded variables which and 0.313±0.009, respectively) than the control dough (0.284±
represent the three emulsifiers (SSL, PS80 and DATEM); 0.007), suggesting that these dough presented a more viscous
and β1, β2, β3, β12, β23, β13 and β123 are the estimated behaviour than M0.
coefficients (Myers and Montgomery 1995). According to the viscoelastic properties results, the in-
corporation of PS80 in combination with SSL or DATEM to
wheat dough formulations would produce dough with a
Results and Discussion more viscous behaviour.

Rheological Properties of Dough

Texture Profile Analysis
The incorporation of 12.5% of MRS to wheat flour caused
an increase of 5% of water absorption (from 59.7% to A significant increase for all mixtures (except M2) of dough
62.7%). Matsuda (2007) obtained similar results, with an hardness was obtained with respect to M0. Mixtures M1,
increase in water absorption with the increment of MRS in 27 a a)
the blend. The higher level of substitution (30%) showed a 24 ab
G’(Pa x 10 3)

difference of 2% in water absorption. In spite of the quantity 21

bc
cd
of MRS incorporated to the formulations in the present 18 d d
de de
research being lower than that utilized by Matsuda (2007), 15 ef
f
a higher water absorption value was detected. Probably, the 12
quantity of the damaged starch of flour would also contrib- 9
M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c

ute to this phenomenon.

Farinographic stability decreased markedly from 9.9 to
2.2 min, suggesting a low tolerance of flour to kneading. 8 b)
a
The mixing tolerance index of control sample (79 UF) 7
G”(Pa x 10 3)

ab
showed a value higher than that observed for flour without 6
bc bcd
cde cd cd
MRS (35 UF). These results indicate that resistant starch 5 de
ef
conduces to a greater degree of dough softening during f
4
kneading.
3
M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c

Viscoelastic Properties
Fig. 1 a Storage modulus (G′). b Loss modulus (G″). M wheat flour–
All tested samples showed a linear viscoelastic zone be- MRS–emulsifier mixtures. Numbers after M are the coded values of
tween 0.5 and 10 Pa. Therefore, frequency sweeps were each sample according to the simplex centroid design
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1233

M3 and M5 were the strongest ones (Fig. 2a). These results control (Table 2). However, no significant differences be-
suggest that emulsifiers like SSL and DATEM are more tween the samples with emulsifiers were found. The incor-
effective than PS80 on gluten structuring, even in the pres- poration of SSL and DATEM to wheat dough formulations
ence of resistant starch. The results obtained for consistency produced less extensible dough with more resistance to
showed the same trend as hardness (data not shown). extension, whilst dough with PS80 needed less work for
All samples tested showed a higher adhesiveness in com- extension. These results are in agreement with data found in
parison to the control dough. Mixtures containing SSL were TPA assays. Differences in the behaviour of the emulsifiers
the most adhesive ones (M1, M4 and M5; Fig. 2b). could be attributed to the different chemical nature of PS80
The springiness and cohesiveness of dough presented a compared with SSL or DATEM.
similar behaviour (Fig. 2c, d), indicating that the addition of SSL and DATEM, despite having different hydrophilic–
emulsifiers increased these textural parameters with respect lipophilic balance, have a similar structure with a fatty acid
to the control dough, mainly in mixtures containing PS80. molecule C18:0 in one of the extreme positions of glycerol.
The addition of 0.5% of PS80 promoted the formation of On the other hand, PS80 has a higher molecular weight than
softer dough, similar to dough without emulsifiers. In addi- SSL and DATEM, with a C18:1 and several hydroxyl
tion, these dough are a little more adhesive and cohesive. groups in its chemical formula. These characteristics pro-
Bread prepared with 0.5% of PS80 would be softer and less mote the formation of hydrogen bonds with water and
easily threshed. Dough prepared with 0.5% of SSL and would cause higher water absorption, leading to dough with
DATEM were stronger and less cohesive, so they would less resistance to extension.
be expected to give bread with a harder but more crumbly Some authors studied the uniaxial extension of wheat
crumb. flour dough. Ravi et al. (2000) evaluated the effect of SSL,
DATEM and glycerol monostearate (0.25–1.0%, w/w) on
Uniaxial Extension the uniaxial extension of dough. These authors found that
these emulsifiers, at all concentrations tested, caused an
Only mixtures M1 (0.5% SSL), M3 (0.5% DATEM) and M5 increased of Rmax and a decrease of L in relation to control
(0.25% SSL+0.25% DATEM) showed a significant increase dough.
on maximum resistance to extension (Rmax) with respect to On the other hand, Aamodt et al. (2005b) observed,
the control dough (M000.325 N), showing average values comparing to a control sample, that the Rmax was higher in
of 0.46, 0.38 and 0.43 N, respectively (Table 2). All dough dough (without MRS) prepared with DATEM (0.45 and
(except M1 and M5) showed a significant decrease of work 0.90%, w/w), whilst the extensibility (L) was lower. Maxi-
needed for dough extension (A) with respect to M0. The mum resistance to extension and extensibility increased and
largest decrease of this parameter was obtained with M2 and decreased with increasing level of emulsifier, respectively.
M4, which contain PS80 (1.75 and 1.65 mm2, respectively). Romeu et al. (2006) found in dough prepared without MRS
The presence of the tested emulsifiers decreased significant- and with 0.25% of PS80 and 0.25% of DATEM a higher
ly the extensibility (L) of the dough in comparison to the Rmax than the control sample, whilst the dough extensibility
Fig. 2 Textural properties of a) b)
dough mixtures. Hardness (a), 3.5 a 11
ab abc
Adhesivness (N.s)

adhesiveness (b), cohesiveness abc bcd a

cde 10 ab ab b ab
Hardness (N)

(c) and springiness (d). M e de bc

3 cd cd
wheat flour–MRS–emulsifier 9 d
mixtures. Numbers after M are f
f 8 e
the coded values of each sample 2.5
according to the simplex 7
centroid design 2 6
M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c

M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c

c) d)
0.76
0.8
Cohesiveness (-)

a
Springiness (-)

0.75 ab a abc a
ab ab
cd cd bcd bc bc bc
0.74 0.78 c c
d d c
0.73
e 0.76 d
0.72

0.71 0.74
M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c

M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M 7a
M 7b
M 7c
1234 Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

Table 2 Maximum resistance to extension (Rmax), work to extension Table 3 Parameters of dough development and CO2 released from
(A) and extensibility (L) obtained from the uniaxial extension of dough dough

Mixture Rmax (N) A (mm2) L (mm) Mixture Dough development CO2 release

M0a 0.325±0.012 d, e 2.188±0.099 a 18.1±0.5 a Hm (mm) t1 (min) H′m (mm) t′1 (min) tx (min)
M1 0.464±0.011 a 2.159±0.086 a 15.5±0.4 b, c
M0a 42.2 180.0 63.1 126.0 94.5
M2 0.329±0.011 d, e 1.751±0.086 d, e 15.3±0.4 b, c
M1 45.0 160.5 62.4 126.0 93.0
M3 0.377±0.012 c 1.926±0.099 b, c, d 15.2±0.5 b, c
M2 34.5 180.0 62.7 114.0 75.0
M4 0.316±0.011 e 1.648±0.086 e 15.5±0.4 b, c
M3 40.2 178.5 60.2 127.5 90.0
M5 0.432±0.011 b 2.113±0.086 a, b 15.3±0.4 b, c
M4 43.7 171.0 61.3 141.0 103.5
M6 0.352±0.011 c, d 1.971±0.086 b, c 16.3±0.4 b
M5 34.4 175.5 58.3 121.5 73.5
M7a 0.306±0.006 e 1.659±0.050 e 15.4±0.3 b, c
M6 37.8 180.0 64.5 126.0 85.5
M7b 0.325±0.006 d, e 1.435±0.050 f 15.0±0.3 c
M7a 45.1 156.0 66.1 130.5 96.0
M7c 0.346±0.006 c, d, e 1.892±0.050 c, d 15.3±0.3 b, c
M7b 44.5 160.0 65.9 133.5 90.0
LSDb 0.026 0.199 1.007
M7c 44.1 153.5 69.5 128.0 89.0
Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences LSDb 2.499 16.291 10.052 13.682 18.811
(p≤0.05)
M wheat flour–MRS–emulsifier mixtures (the numbers after M are the M wheat flour–MRS–emulsifier mixtures (numbers after M are the
coded values of each sample according to the simplex centroid design) coded values of each sample according to the simplex centroid design)
a
Control sample Hm maximum height of dough development (in millimetres), t1 devel-
b opment time corresponding to Hm (in minutes), H’m maximum height
Least significant difference at the 5% level of significance. Difference
corresponding to the maximum pressure (in millimetres), t’1 time
between two means exceeding this value was significant
corresponding to H′m (in minutes), tx time where dough begins to lose
CO2 (in minutes)
a
(L) decreased with 0.5% of SSL, 0.5% of PS80 and with the Control sample
equiproportional mixture of these three emulsifiers. b
Least significant difference at the 5% level of significance. Difference
between two means exceeding this value was significant

Rheofermentation Assays presented the lowest value of H′m (Table 3). This mixture
also showed a low value of tx (time when dough begins to
Table 3 shows the values of parameters obtained from lose CO2), which suggests that it not only had little gas
dough development and gaseous release curves of mixtures retention but also that the dough began to lose CO2 in less
subjected to the rheofermentation test. High values of max- time (73.5 min). However, the triple-point mixture (7a, b
imum height reached (Hm) indicate an optimum dough and c) showed the highest value of H′m (67.2±2.0 mm),
development; with a greater value of this parameter, greater indicating a positive interaction between the three emulsi-
bread volume would be obtained. These results are expected fiers, as suggested by high the Hm and H′m values (Table 3).
since the loaf volume is mainly achieved during the fermen- These results showed that the incorporation of SSL,
tation process and progresses during baking. Long develop- DATEM and PS80 to the dough formulation would develop
ment (t1) and CO2 retention (t′1) times are undesirable in bread with enhanced rheological properties.
industrial processes due to a high energy consumption. High
H′m values indicate that dough is able to retain a great
amount of CO2. Breads obtained in this condition would Rheological Properties of the Optimized Dough
present high volume and a soft crumb.
M2 (0.5% PS80) and M5 (0.25% SSL+0.25% DATEM) The rheological parameter values obtained from TPA, uni-
mixtures presented a low dough development with low axial extension and the rheofermentation tests were analysed
values of Hm (Table 3). Therefore, bread obtained with these by ANOVA to evaluate the effect of emulsifiers on these
samples would have a small volume. Having taken into parameters. Mathematical analysis of experimental data was
account the Hm results obtained for M1 (0.5% SSL) and based on the regression of a special cubic model. This model
M3 (0.5% DATEM) mixtures, DATEM might cause a neg- was developed to establish the relationship between the
ative effect on M5. M1 the and triple-point mixture (M7a, b rheological parameter evaluated (Y) and the coded values
and c) reached the maximum values of Hm in the shortest of independent variables X1, X2 and X3 (emulsifiers) as well
time (t1). as their interactions. In order to simplify the model, it was
As observed in dough development, the results obtained reformulated by eliminating those terms that did not have a
from the CO 2 release curves showed that M5 dough significant effect (p>0.05). The model obtained for each
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1235

parameter and the respective coefficients of determination emulsifier concentrations. Figure 3 shows the surface re-
are shown in Table 4. sponse obtained for the Hm parameter for the proposed
Only for consistency (TPA analysis), extensibility L (uni- mixture of the three emulsifiers (SSL, PS80 and DATEM).
axial extension) and maximum height reached by dough Hm Coded values in the optimum point (Hm 045.5 mm) for
(rheofermentation assay) did the predictive models have SSL, PS80 and DATEM were 0.488, 0.361 and 0.151,
significance (p≤0.05), with a coefficient of determination respectively. Therefore, decoding these values, the optimum
(r2) higher than 90% (Table 4). This last value must be at concentrations of each emulsifier obtained were 0.24% of
least 80% for considering that the model has a good degree SSL, 0.18% of PS80 and 0.08% of DATEM.
of adjustment (Guan and Yao 2008). In order to validate the optimum mixture, dough with the
Consistency is an important parameter due to its relation- quantities of the emulsifiers defined by the model was
ship with the final bread characteristics. Dough with an prepared and rheological tests—TPA, uniaxial extension
excessive hardness and consistency would develop bread and rheofermentation analyses—were conducted. Table 5
with low volume and hard crumb. In such conditions, dough shows the measured parameters and the comparison of those
is not able to expand enough during fermentation and will calculated by the models. The parameters that showed lower
generate bread with low volume. On the other hand, dough percentage relative error were those for the TPA assays.
with a very low hardness and consistency would generate Regarding the Hm, the experimental value was higher than
bread with low volume due to its weak structure; dough will the value calculated mathematically.
not be able to retain CO2 during fermentation and will Dough prepared with the optimal combination of emul-
collapse, generating bread with a low volume. sifiers had a higher development height (Hm) than all the
The maximum height of dough development (Hm) is one mixtures evaluated (Tables 3 and 5), so the bread prepared
of the most important parameters to evaluate dough behav- with this optimized formulation would have the best phys-
iour during the fermentation process. Thus, high Hm values ical and textural properties.
suggest the development of great dough volume reached
during fermentation, and consequently, high bread volume Starch Gelatinisation and Retrogradation During Storage
can be achieved. For this reason, and according to the results
of the predictive model (r2 099.60%), an optimization of the Figure 4 shows a typical gelatinization thermogram
model considering the Hm parameter was carried out. obtained for the control dough (M0). In general, all samples
The response surface is one of the best ways to visualize tested presented the same thermogram. The gelatinization
the effect of independent variables on the dependent varia- process showed two endotherms due to water restriction: G
bles. RSM allowed analysing the proposed regression model peak associated with the starch gelatinization and F peak
in order to maximize the Hm variable influenced by different corresponding to the fusion of the most stable crystallites

Table 4 Predictive models of textural properties (TPA and uniaxial extension assays) adjusted from experimental data from dough prepared with
emulsifiers (without yeast) and from the rheofermentation assay (with yeast) according to the simplex centroid design

Assay Parameter Predictive equation p r2

TPA Hardness H03.2278×SSL+2.6582×PS80+3.227×DATEM 0.118 50.95

Consistency C015.611×SSL+12.4635×PS80+16.2545×DATEM - 5.237×SSL×PS80 0.003 99.11
- 3.811×SSL×DATEM+46.2605×SSL×PS80×DATEM
Adhesiveness A09.88443×SSL+8.75883×PS80+9.13443×DATEM 0.355 29.21
Cohesiveness Cohes00.734089×SSL+0.745289×PS80+0.733289×DATEM 0.261 36.05
Elasticity E00.768822*SSL+0.779222*PS80+0.775622*DATEM 0.408 25.81
Uniaxial Extension Maximum resistance Rmax 00.446189×SSL+0.352689×PS80+0.344689×DATEM 0.649 13.43
Extensibility L015.5059×SSL+15.2612×PS80+15.2596×DATEM+4.29029×PS80×DATEM 0.020 91.61
- 15.5049×SSL×PS80×DATEM
Work A02.10207×SSL+1.85847×PS80+1.81247×DATEM 0.751 9.10
Rheofermentation Hm Hm 045.0×SSL+34.65×PS80+40.35×DATEM+15.5×SSL×PS80 - 33.1×SSL 0.001 99.60
×DATEM+176.102×SSL×PS80×DATEM
t1 t1 0163.041×SSL+180.656×PS80 – 140.15×DATEM 0.137 63.89
H′m H′m 061.5035×SSL+62.5162×PS80+59.3162×DATEM+37. 873×PS80×DATEM 0.055 75.55
t′1 t′1 0133.0×SSL+118.0×PS80+121.0×DATEM 0.561 17.50
tx tx086.6367×SSL+77.0367×PS80+85.6258×DATEM+85.8904×SSL×PS80 0.167 60.66

*p≤0.05
1236 Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

Fig. 3 Response surface of the Hm ranges

Hm parameter for the special
cubic model of the three- 34.0-35.0
emulsifier (SSL, PS80, 46 35.0-36.0
DATEM) mixture experiment 44 36.0-37.0
42

Hm (mm)
37.0-38.0
40 38.0-39.0
38 39.0-40.0
36 40.0-41.0
34 41.0-42.0

DATEM=1.0 PS80=1.0 42.0-43.0

43.0-44.0
44.0-45.0
SSL=1.0
45.0-46.0

(Biliaderis 1980; León et al. 1997; Ribotta et al. 2004). In (Table 6). This reduction in gelatinization enthalpy
this study, there was also a third endothermic peak could be related to the interaction between the hydro-
corresponding to the dissociation of the amylose–lipid phobic tail of emulsifiers and the amylose helix of
(AL) complex, widely studied by Jovanovich et al. (1992, starch to form the amylose–emulsifier complex. It could
1999). be related as well to the binding of the hydrophilic head
The gelatinization temperatures of the control dough of these additives to the amylopectin by hydrogen
were 70.2± 0.4 °C for the G peak and 85.8 ±2.0 °C for bridges bonds. Because of this, less water could be
the F peak. The gelatinization temperature range was absorbed by the starch granules, with a consequent
between 62.9 ± 0.5 and 96.8 ± 0.4 °C. The emulsifiers decrease in their gelatinization. Therefore, there would
did not change the G and F peak temperatures. In be less gelatinized starch that could be retrograded
general, starch retrogradation during storage caused a during storage.
decrease in the gelatinization temperature between 2 After 1 day of storage, the optimized mixture (Mop)
and 4 °C, except for the M1 sample (SSL 00.5%) showed the lowest value of retrogradation enthalpy, fol-
which increased 10 °C; in the case of F, there was an lowed by the triple sample (M7a, b, c) with an average value
increase of 7–10 °C (data not shown). of 1.72±0.10 J/g dry dough. The same trend was observed
During gelatinization, all samples containing emulsi- after 7 days of storage. At this time of storage, M7 and Mop
fiers showed a decrease in enthalpy values (ΔH) with samples showed the lowest percentages of retrogradation
respect to the control dough (M0). The optimized dough (59% and 63%, respectively). Therefore, the emulsifier’s
(Mop) was the sample which showed the lowest value combination in equal (M7) or optimum (Mop) proportions

Table 5 Calculated values of

TPA, uniaxial extension and Assay Parameters Calculated value Experimental value Relative error (%)
rheofermentation parameters of
dough and experimental values TPA Hardness (N) 3.11 3.24±0.26 4.0
of the optimized mixture Consistency (N s) 32.1 33.5±3.1 3.3
Adhesiveness (N s) 9.43 9.41±0.66 −0.2
Cohesiveness 0.74 0.73±0.01 −1.3
Elasticity 0.77 0.76±0.01 −1.3
Uniaxial extension Rmax (N) 0.37 0.34±0.08 −8.8
Extensibility (mm) 15.2 14.7±1.4 −3.4
A (N mm) 1.81 1.66±0.30 −9.0
Rheofermentation Hm (mm) 45.5 48.2±0.1 5.6
t1 (min) 164.6 173.3±5.3 5.0
H′m (mm) 63.5 65.8±1.6 3.5
t′1 (min) 133.7 111.7±5.3 −19.7
tx (min) 97.8 85.5±4.2 −14.4
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1237

0.05
measurements. An increase in bread volume due to
0.04 the incorporation of SSL, PS80 and DATEM was ob-
Heat flow (J/g)

0.03 served. Specific volume of the bread prepared with the

optimized mixture (6.14 cm3 g−1) was 68.7% greater
0.02 F AL
G than the volume obtained for the control bread
0.01 (3.64 cm3 g−1), although both bread crumbs presented
0
the same moisture content, 46.1% for the optimized
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 (Bop) and 46.4% for the control bread (B0). Crumb
Temperature (oC) firmness of Bop was 72.8% lower (0.72 N) than that
Fig. 4 DSC thermogram of control dough (M0). Endotherms: G starch
obtained for B0 (2.65 N). This decrease could be at-
gelatinization, F fusion of the most stable crystallites, AL amylose– tributed to the emulsifier improvement effect on bread
lipid complex dissociation crumb structure that generated a soft crumb texture.
According to the results obtained in this last section, the
optimum combination of emulsifiers found by an optimized
inhibited starch retrogradation more effectively than pure analysis resulted in bread with enhanced quality.
emulsifiers or their binary mixtures did.
All emulsifiers (except M3 sample) caused an in-
crease in the dissociation of amylose–lipid complex Conclusions
enthalpies (Table 6). This increment would be related
to the formation of the amylose–emulsifier complex. Resistant starch is a nutritional ingredient commonly used as
The optimized mixture (Mop) presented the highest the dietary fibre in bread making. The partial substitution of
value (1.85 J/g dry dough), showing that this combina- wheat flour by maize-resistant starch (MRS) affects the
tion of emulsifiers would improve the formation of the bread quality due to gluten protein dilution and produce
amylose–emulsifier complex. changes in water absorption. The results obtained in this
During 1 day storage, in all samples, a decrease in work highlight the need of incorporating emulsifiers for
dissociation enthalpy of the amylose–lipid complex was improving dough and bread quality. Therefore, in order to
observed (Table 6). After 7 days, the enthalpy increased. obtain a high-quality product, dough formulation was ad-
This behaviour could be attributed to the manner in justed by adding three different types of emulsifiers (SSL,
which amylose associates with emulsifiers. In the starch DATEM and PS80). The SSL–DATEM mixture increased
gelatinization process (day 0), the amylose dissociates hardness and resistance to extension on dough, whilst dough
from the lipid during complex melting. After the first containing PS80 was softer, an unfavourable condition for
day of storage, some of these amylose molecules be- bread making; nevertheless, both kinds of dough retained
come available to rejoin the complex. Longer storage less CO2.
time (7 days) favours the formation of high amounts of Only a specific combination of emulsifiers gave proper
complex (Table 6). results, the one that achieved a balance between gluten
reinforcement (moderate hardness and consistence, high
Bread Quality Properties Rmax) produced by SSL and/or DATEM and dough soften-
ing (low dough hardness) induced by PS80. This optimum
Quality evaluation of bread was assessed through bread combination (0.24% SSL, 0.18% PS80, 0.08% DATEM)
specific volume and crumb moisture and firmness not only improved the rheological properties of dough and

Table 6 Gelatinization, retrogradation and amylose–lipid complex dissociation enthalpies

ΔH (J/g dry dough) M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7a M7b M7c Mop LSDa

Gelatinization Day 0 5.71 4.88 4.94 4.90 4.89 4.85 4.71 4.86 4.65 4.81 4.08 0.54
Day 1 2.38 2.17 1.81 2.00 2.29 2.24 1.77 1.62 1.76 1.80 1.59 0.47
Day 7 4.38 3.81 3.47 4.27 3.63 3.73 3.73 2.84 2.82 2.77 2.57 0.16
Amylose–lipid complex Day 0 1.20 1.58 1.31 1.19 1.25 1.61 1.43 1.50 1.49 1.62 1.85 0.35
Day 1 0.25 0.66 0.27 0.40 0.42 0.78 0.44 0.36 0.51 0.52 0.47 0.44
Day 7 0.62 0.69 0.65 0.56 0.46 0.99 0.64 0.52 0.66 0.61 0.60 0.35

M wheat flour–MRS–emulsifier mixtures (numbers after M are the coded values of each sample according to the simplex centroid design)
a
Least significant difference at the 5% level of significance. Difference between two means exceeding this value was significant
1238 Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239

crumb firmness but also increased bread volume and con- Hung, P. V., & Morita, N. (2004). Dough properties and bread quality
of flour supplemented with cross-linked cornstarches. Food Re-
tributed to extend the shelf-life of product pieces.
search International, 37, 461–467.
Hung, P. V., Yamamori, M., & Morita, N. (2005). Formation of
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge CONI- enzyme-resistant starch in bread as affected by high-amylose
CET and CYTED (project 106PI0301) for the financial support and wheat flour substitutions. Cereal Chemistry, 82(6), 690–694.
Moinho Pacífico Indústria e Comércio Ltda. Mill of Brazil for techni- Jovanovich, G., Zamponi, R. A., Lupano, C. E., & Añón, M. C. (1992).
cal assistance. Effect of water content on the formation and dissociation of the
amylose–lipid complex in wheat flour. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 40, 1789–1793.
References Jovanovich, G., & Añón, M. C. (1999). Amylose–lipid complex dis-
sociation. A study of the kinetic parameters. Biopolymers, 49(1),
81–89.
Aamodt, A., Magnus, E. M., & Færgestad, E. M. (2003). Effect of flour Karim, A. A., Norziah, M. H., & Seow, C. C. (2000). Methods for the
quality, ascorbic acid and DATEM on dough rheological param- study of starch retrogradation. Food Chemistry, 71, 9–36.
eters and hearth loaves characteristics. Journal of Food Science, Koocheki, A., Mortazavi, S. A., Mahalati, M. N., & Karimi, M. (2009).
68, 2201–2210. Effect of emulsifiers and fungal-amylase on rheological character-
Aamodt, A., Magnus, E. M., & Færgestad, E. M. (2005). Hearth bread istics of wheat dough and quality of flat bread. Journal of Food
characteristic: Effect of protein quality, protein content, whole Process Engineering, 32(2), 187–205.
meal flour, DATEM, proving time, and their interactions. Cereal Lakshminarayan, S. M., Rathinam, V., & KrishnaRau, L. (2006).
Chemistry, 82(3), 290–301. Effect of maltodextrin and emulsifiers on the viscosity of cake
Aamodt, A., Magnus, E. M., Hollung, K., Uhlen, A. K., & Færgestad, batter and on the quality of cakes. Journal of the Science of Food
E. M. (2005). Dough and hearth bread characteristics influenced and Agricultural, 86(5), 706–712.
by protein composition, protein content, DATEM, and their inter- León, A. E., Duran, E., & Benedito de Barber, C. (1997). A new
actions. Journal of Food Science, 70, 214–221. approach to study starch changes occurring in the dough-baking
Åkerberg, A., Liljeberg, H., & Björck, I. (1998). Effect of amylose/ process and during bread storage. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-
amylopectin ratio and baking conditions on resistant starch for- Untersuchung und-Forschung A, 204, 316–320.
mation and glycaemic indices. Journal of Cereal Science, 28, 71– Matsuda, L.Y. (2007). Concentração de amido resistente em pão fran-
80. cês pré-assado congelado: Aspectos tecnológicos. MS thesis,
AACC. (2000). Approved methods of the AACC, 10th ed. Methods Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo (SP, Brasil), 111
44-19, 54-21, 74-09. American Association of Cereal Chemists: pp.
St. Paul, MN. Matuda, T.G. (2008). Estudo do congelamento da massa de pão:
Arntfield, S., Ismond, M., & Murray, E. (1990). Thermal analysis of Determinação experimental das propriedades termofísicas e
food. In V. R. Harwalkar & C. Y. Ma (Eds.), Thermal analysis of desempenho de panificação. PhD thesis, Food Engineering Lab-
food proteins in relation to processing effects (pp. 51–91). New oratory, Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo, São Paulo,
York: Elsevier Science. Brazil.
ASP, N. G. (1992). Preface: Resistant starch. European Journal of Matuda, T. G., Chevallier, S., de Alcântara Pessoa, P., LeBail, A., &
Clinical Nutrition, 46, 51. Tadini, C. C. (2008). Impact of guar and xanthan gums on proof-
Baik, M. Y., & Chinachoti, P. (2000). Moisture redistribution and ing and calorimetric parameters of frozen bread dough. Journal of
phase transition during bread staling. Cereal Chemistry, 77, Cereal Science, 48, 741–746.
484–488. Michniewicz, J., Biliaderis, C. G., & Bushuk, W. (1991). Effect of
Biliaderis, C., Maurice, T., & Vose, J. (1980). Starch gelatinization added pentosans on some properties of wheat bread. Food Chem-
phenomena studied by differential scanning calorimetry. Journal istry, 43, 251–257.
of Food Science, 45, 1669–1674. Morita, N., Maeda, T., Miyazaki, M., Yamamori, M., Miura, H., &
Brandt, L. (1996). Emulsifiers in baked goods—Applications. Re- Ohtsuka, I. (2002). Dough and baking properties of high-amylose
trieved from http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/1996/ and waxy wheat flours. Cereal Chemistry, 79(4), 491–495.
0296AP.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2011. Myers, R. H. & Montgomery, D.C. (1995). Experiments with mixtures.
Eerlingen, R. C., & Delcour, J. A. (1995). Formation, analysis, struc- In: Response surface methodology, process and product optimi-
ture and properties of type III enzyme resistant starch. Journal of zation using designed experiments (pp. 535–623). New York:
Cereal Science, 22, 129–138. Wiley Interscience.
Gelencsér, T., Gál, V., Hódsági, M., & Salgó, A. (2008). Evaluation of Nugent, A. P. (2005). Health properties of resistant starch. British
quality and digestibility characteristics of resistant starch-enriched Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Bulletin, 30, 27–54.
pasta. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 1, 171–179. Queiroz-Monici, K. S., Costa, G. E. A., Silva, N., Reis, S. M. P. M., &
Gómez, M., Del Real, S., Rossell, C. M., Ronda, F., Blanco, C. A., & Oliveira, A. C. (2005). Bifidogenic effect of dietary fiber and
Caballero, C. A. (2004). Functionality of different emulsifiers on resistant starch from leguminous on the intestinal microbiota of
the performance of breadmaking and wheat bread quality. Euro- rats. Nutrition, 21, 602–608.
pean Food Research and Technology, 219(2), 145–150. Ravi, R., Sai Manohar, R., & Haridas, R. (2000). Influence of additives
Goñi, I., García-Alonso, A., & Saura-Calixto, F. (1997). A starch on the rheological characteristics and baking quality of wheat
hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutrition Re- flours. European Food Research and Technology, 210, 202–
search, 17, 427–437. 208.
Guan, X., & Yao, H. (2008). Optimization of viscozyme L-assisted Ribotta, P., Pérez, G. T., León, A., & Añón, M. C. (2004). Effect of
extraction of oat bran protein using response surface methodolo- emulsifier and guar gum on micro structural, rheological and
gy. Food Chemistry, 106, 345–351. baking performance of frozen bread dough. Food Hydrocolloids,
Hassan, A. G., Azizi, M. H., Barzegar, M., & Ameri, M. A. (2006). 18, 305–313.
Effect of selected hydrocolloids on bread staling as evaluated by Ribotta, P. D., Pérez, G. T., Añón, M. C., & León, A. E. (2010).
DSC and XRD. Journal of Food Technology, 4(3), 185–188. Optimization of additive combination for improved soy–
Food Bioprocess Technol (2013) 6:1228–1239 1239

wheat bread quality. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 3, Stampfli, L., & Nersten, B. (1995). Emulsifiers in breadmaking. Food
395–405. Chemistry, 52(4), 353–360.
Romeu, C. C., Tadini, C. C., & Matuda, T. G. (2006). Influência do Tronsmo, K. M., Magnus, E. M., Baardseth, P., Schofield, J. D.,
congelamento na estrutura da massa do pão francês. PIC-EPUSP, Aamodt, A., & Færgestad, E. M. (2003). Comparison of a small
3, 1816–1845. and large deformation rheological properties of wheat dough and
Rosin, P. M., Lajolo, F. M., & Menezes, E. W. (2002). Measurement gluten. Cereal Chemistry, 80(5), 587–595.
and characterization of dietary starches. Journal of Food Compo- Yamada, Y., Hosoya, S., Nishimura, S., Tanaka, T., Kajimoto, Y.,
sition and Analysis, 15, 367–377. Nishimura, A., & Kajimoto, O. (2005). Effect of bread resis-
Selomulyo, V. O., & Zhou, W. (2007). Frozen bread dough: Effect of tant starch on postpandrial blood glucose levels in humans.
freezing storage and dough improvers. Journal of Cereal Science, Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 69(3), 559–
45(1), 1–17. 566.
SMS (Stable Micro Systems). (1995). TA-XT2i application study, Zaidel, D. N. A., Chin, N. L., & Yusof, Y. A. (2010). A review on
extensibility of dough and measure of gluten quality. Texture rheological properties and measurements of dough and gluten.
expert guide contents. Journal of Applied Science, 10(20), 2478–2490.