Interrelationships of Flour, Dough, and Bread Properties Under Reduced Salt Level Conditions

Abstract

Cereal Chem. 94(4):760-769The interrelationships between flour quality and the variability in the dough physical properties and bread loaf characteristics were investigated under reduced salt conditions using partial least squares (PLS) regression analysis. Seventy-two percent of the variability in dough physical properties was explained by the flour quality using a three-factor PLS model. Damaged starch content (DS), protein content, and farinograph dough development time (DDT) explained the variability of dough creep-recovery behavior along PLS-1. Farinograph absorption (FAB), located along PLS-2, was strongly related to dough adhesiveness, in which adhesiveness was highly correlated to dough stickiness (r = 0.91).Eighty-nine percent of the variability in bread loaf characteristics was explained by the flour quality using a four-factor PLS model; the first two PLS factors explained 66% of the variability. The loaf volume was related to a high number of loaf cells, whose expansion resulted in a greater loaf height. The relation between loaf volume and loaf height was expressed more in PLS-3 than PLS-1 and PLS-2. Mean cell wall thickness and mean cell diameter were closely related negatively along PLS-1, for which DS and farinograph dough stability explained much of the variability in these loaf characteristics. Along the third PLS factor, FAB explained the variability in loaf weight. † Corresponding

Effects of water, salt, and mixing on the rheological properties of bread dough at large and small deformations: A review

“…Furthermore, farinograph and mixograph parameters of wheat flour dough were found to be correlated with dough's creep and recovery strain measured in a creep-recovery test (Wang & Sun, 2002), indicating a direct relationship between empirical and fundamental rheological studies. Compared to conducting empirical and fundamental rheological methods separately, a combined approach has a better capacity to define dough rheological properties (Yovchev et al, 2017b).…”

“…The compliance, J(t), is a measure of the strain undergone by a dough as a function of time, t, when the dough is subjected to a constant stress, and this has also been measured to characterize dough's viscoelastic behavior (Edwards et al, 2001;Yovchev et al, 2017aYovchev et al, , 2017b. In creep-recovery tests, when low shear stresses were applied (σ = 1, 6, 8, 16, and 20 Pa), J(t) was monitored for a long time (i.e., t = 12 and 46 h) to demonstrate the linear viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour dough (Lefebvre, 2009).…”

“…), shown as the peak torque, is produced (Oliver & Allen, 1992). FAB, referred to as the optimal water absorption of a given wheat flour, has been determined as the water content that produces a dough with the optimal consistency for producing breads (Oliver & Allen, 1992;Yovchev et al, 2017b;Zounis & Quail, 1997). At the optimal water absorption (FAB) of a given flour sample, dough consistency reaches 500 B.U.…”

“…where J c 2 is the retarded elastic compliance (Pa −1 ) and λ c 2 is the retardation time (s) for the second element in the modeling of J t ( ) c ; J r 2 and λ r 2 are the recovery counterparts for modeling of J t ( ) r . The various parameters from the Burgers model have been shown to characterize the nonlinear viscoelastic properties of doughs well over a range of formulations, that is, wheat cultivar (Edwards et al, 2001;Yovchev et al, 2017a), water content (Meerts et al, 2017;Yovchev et al, 2017b), and salt content (Beck et al, 2012). Doughs made from wheat flours with stronger gluten strength had higher η 0 and lower creep compliances, that is, J c 0 , J c 1 , and J c 2 (Edwards et al, 2001) as well as lower maximum creep compliance (Yovchev et al, 2017a), indicating that doughs with stronger gluten strength are defined by larger values for their viscosity and elasticity.…”

“…An optimally developed dough requires a certain amount of water that is largely dependent on the gluten strength, starch damage, and the moisture content of the wheat flour (Yovchev, Briggs, Stone, Scanlon, et al, 2017). This finding agrees with the observation that the amount of water added into a dough varies according to the quantity and quality of proteins in the wheat flour (Bushuk & Hlynka, 1964).…”