Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Empirical and fundamental rheological measurements were made on fresh and frozen dough to study the
Received 22 October 2009 effects of freezing and frozen storage conditions. Frozen dough was stored at two different temperatures,
Received in revised form 17 March 2010 18 °C and 30 °C, and for 1, 7 and 28 days. Four dough formulations were tested: a standard wheat
Accepted 20 March 2010
dough, a fibre-enriched wheat dough, a standard gluten-free dough and a gluten-free dough containing
Available online 27 March 2010
amaranth flour. No yeast was used in any formulation. The wheat dough is more affected by freezing and
by the first days of storage whereas the gluten-free dough is more affected by a longer storage time. A
Keywords:
storage temperature of 30 °C alters dough rheological properties more than a storage temperature of
Wheat dough
Gluten-free dough
18 °C. The addition of dietary fibres to the wheat dough increases its resistance to freezing and frozen
Dietary fibres storage. The addition of amaranth flour to gluten-free dough also increases its resistance to freezing but
Amaranth decreases its resistance to storage conditions.
Freezing Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rheological properties
0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.029
G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 70–76 71
fatty acids, particularly in linoleic acid (Berghofer and Schoenlech- The improved gluten-free dough was obtained by including two
ner, 2002). These nutritional improvements modify the dough for- new ingredients to the reference gluten-free formulation: 16 g of
mulations and, consequently, their rheological properties (Mariotti locust bean gum and 90 g of amaranth flour. The quantities of
et al., 2009; Peressini and Sensidoni, 2009) and bread quality char- dry ingredients were adjusted to maintain the dry matter and
acteristics (Wang et al., 2002). the fibre content constant.
The aim of this work is to study the rheological properties of The salt was dissolved in a small amount of water. All the ingre-
wheat dough and gluten-free dough after a frozen period consider- dients were mixed in the mixer SP10-076 MEL (VMI, Montaigu,
ing both the formulation and the storage conditions (time and France) for 2 min at slow speed (100 rpm) and 8 min at fast speed
temperature). (200 rpm). Dough was divided into 70 g pieces that were placed in
muffin-like pans.
nou and Tzia, 2007) and that the fundamental rheological param-
ab
ab
eters remain constant for a longer storage time (Kenny et al.,
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0.36 ± 0.00
0.36 ± 0.01
0.30 ± 0.00
0.30 ± 0.00
0.30 ± 0.00
0.32 ± 0.01
0.31 ± 0.02
0.35 ± 0.03
0.33 ± 0.01
0.33 ± 0.03
0.34 ± 0.01
0.34 ± 0.02
0.29 ± 0.01
0.29 ± 0.01
0.28 ± 0.01
0.30 ± 0.01
1999). These storage time effects could also be attributed to ice
Tan (d)
b
b
ab
a
bc
124 ± 29 a
117 ± 21 a
99 ± 10 a
redistribution of water provoked by a modification in the water-
b
b
a
a
116 ± 9 a
c
c
85 ± 12
50 ± 20
76 ± 14
74 ± 22
G00 (kPa)
30 ± 2
34 ± 5
27 ± 3
17 ± 3
25 ± 4
19 ± 3
34 ± 6
24 ± 3
binding capacity of dough constituents (Selomulyo and Zhou,
2007). For example, during storage, there is water transport from
the hydrated gluten to the ice phase (Bot and de Bruijne, 2003).
92 ± 12 b
b
b
b
83 ± 10 b
90 ± 16 b
a
102 ± 8 bc
a
a
a
a
114 ± 16 c
115 ± 16 c
On the other hand, the storage temperature has little impact on
66 ± 9 a
53 ± 9 a
282 ± 58
148 ± 74
232 ± 49
230 ± 86
325 ± 26
279 ± 28
362 ± 91
350 ± 75
G0 (kPa)
the rheological properties of wheat dough, and affects only its fun-
damental rheological parameters (Table 2). Samples stored at
b 18 °C show significantly higher G0 and G00 values and lower tan
b
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0.015 ± 0.005
0.065 ± 0.009
0.065 ± 0.009
0.069 ± 0.005
0.016 ± 0.004
0.018 ± 0.003
0.016 ± 0.003
0.056 ± 0.008
0.067 ± 0.009
0.065 ± 0.010
0.064 ± 0.004
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0.71 ± 0.17
0.53 ± 0.04
0.56 ± 0.10
0.58 ± 0.08
0.85 ± 0.15
0.83 ± 0.11
1.09 ± 0.02
1.03 ± 0.06
1.09 ± 0.03
1.10 ± 0.10
0.83 ± 0.07
0.79 ± 0.05
1.04 ± 0.07
1.00 ± 0.10
1.02 ± 0.09
1.12 ± 0.09
This depends on the water content and the dough formulation, for
example Matuda et al. (2008) found a Tg between 27 and 29 °C
ab
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Adha (N s)
8.68 ± 0.27
9.12 ± 0.48
8.43 ± 0.36
8.35 ± 0.58
1.27 ± 0.07
2.01 ± 0.31
2.09 ± 0.48
1.99 ± 0.80
1.89 ± 0.57
6.40 ± 0.44
6.71 ± 0.37
1.51 ± 0.27
1.31 ± 0.33
1.29 ± 0.54
6.05 ± 0.82
6.08 ± 0.52
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Impact of freezing process and frozen storage time on moisture content and rheological properties of four dough formulations.
0.25 ± 0.04
0.22 ± 0.04
0.23 ± 0.05
0.36 ± 0.14
0.53 ± 0.04
0.59 ± 0.03
0.56 ± 0.02
0.52 ± 0.08
0.59 ± 0.02
0.52 ± 0.09
0.57 ± 0.07
0.57 ± 0.06
0.60 ± 0.04
0.59 ± 0.05
0.60 ± 0.04
0.58 ± 0.03
Firm = firmness, Gum = gumminess, Coh = cohesiveness, Adh = adhesiveness, Sprin = springiness, Res = resilience.
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
of the water is frozen around the Tg). So, at 30 °C, the concen-
Empirical rheological datab
0.17 ± 0.01
0.20 ± 0.03
0.20 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.07
1.29 ± 0.17
1.34 ± 0.21
0.66 ± 0.12
2.32 ± 0.34
0.70 ± 0.21
0.60 ± 0.14
2.73 ± 0.44
2.69 ± 0.46
2.97 ± 0.53
1.40 ± 0.03
1.45 ± 0.10
0.55 ± 0.03
Guma (N)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0.91 ± 0.18
0.68 ± 0.04
0.95 ± 0.17
0.92 ± 0.26
2.51 ± 0.11
2.47 ± 0.18
2.58 ± 0.13
1.25 ± 0.34
1.07 ± 0.33
1.27 ± 0.29
3.91 ± 0.38
4.53 ± 0.52
4.57 ± 0.66
5.08 ± 0.78
2.49 ± 0.09
0.91 ± 0.02
ward the ice crystals, which in turn would amplify the cryoconcen-
d
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
a
a
c
c
46.25 ± 0.06
46.06 ± 0.17
46.08 ± 0.14
45.63 ± 0.34
43.12 ± 0.06
45.49 ± 0.11
44.34 ± 0.17
44.96 ± 0.55
44.58 ± 0.32
45.61 ± 0.13
42.92 ± 0.22
42.57 ± 0.32
42.90 ± 0.23
45.76 ± 0.09
45.56 ± 0.23
45.60 ± 0.30
contentb (%)
28
28
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
0
0
that, for gluten-free dough, unlike wheat dough, the effect of freez-
ing storage is noticeable only after the first week. On the other
Reference gluten-free dough
Fibre-enriched wheat dough
that of fresh gluten-free dough than dough stored at 30 °C. So, as
for wheat dough, storage at 30 °C seems to alter the structure and
Table 1
c
b
18 °C.
74 G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 70–76
0.34 ± 0.03 b
0.32 ± 0.02 a
0.31 ± 0.01 a
0.30 ± 0.01 a
0.35 ± 0.02 a
0.35 ± 0.01 a
0.29 ± 0.01 a
0.29 ± 0.01 a
affect gluten-free dough more than wheat dough (Tables 1 and
2). Overall, among the two frozen storage conditions (time and
Tan (d)
temperature), the frozen storage time has the greatest impact on
dough rheological properties. Yi and Kerr (2009) also found that
Fundamental rheological datac
29 ± 8 b
29 ± 6 a
26 ± 7 a
25 ± 7 a
G00 (kPa)
the freezing process and the first week of storage while frozen glu-
ten-free dough is more altered by the long storage time.
253 ± 72 b
193 ± 80 a
95 ± 29 a
86 ± 23 a
330 ± 79 a
327 ± 54 a
89 ± 24 a
88 ± 20 a 3.2. Nutritionally improved formulations of wheat and gluten-free
G0 (kPa)
doughs
0.063 ± 0.008 a
0.063 ± 0.009 a
0.016 ± 0.003 a
0.016 ± 0.004 a
0.070 ± 0.007 a
0.61 ± 0.16 a
1.09 ± 0.06 a
1.07 ± 0.07 a
1.04 ± 0.08 a
0.59 ± 0.09 a
0.82 ± 0.10 a
0.83 ± 0.10 a
frozen wheat dough. Tables 1 and 2 show that the storage condi-
tions have no more impact on the rheological properties of fibre-
enriched dough than does the freezing process. Indeed, the storage
temperature has no impact on fibre-enriched dough properties
Firm = firmness, Gum = gumminess, Coh = cohesiveness, Adh = adhesiveness, Sprin = springiness, Res = resilience. Mean ± SD.
while storage time affects only two parameters. The moisture con-
0.28 ± 0.12 a
0.59 ± 0.04 a
0.54 ± 0.06 a
0.55 ± 0.07 a
0.59 ± 0.03 a
0.25 ± 0.06 a
0.55 ± 0.06 a
0.58 ± 0.05 a
tent decreases during the first week of storage, and then returns to
For each formulation, values with the same following letter do not differ significantly from each other (p-value < 0.05).
its initial value at the long storage time. Tan d decreases signifi-
Coha
0.21 ± 0.05 a
0.24 ± 0.08 a
Empirical rheological datab
Guma (N)
2007). Like for the reference wheat dough, the frozen storage con-
ditions do not affect the empirical rheological properties of fibre-
Values represent mean of three measurements ± standard deviation at a frequency of 1 Hz.
46.09 ± 0.20 b
45.49 ± 0.19 a
45.92 ± 0.37 a
42.84 ± 0.37 a
42.92 ± 0.19 a
44.92 ± 0.63 a
44.83 ± 0.56 a
the freezing process and frozen storage. Moreover, the great num-
contentb (%)
less ice crystal formation during freezing and less damage. This
hypothesis is in accordance with the result of the freezable water
measurement in fresh dough that went down from 64.2% to
Storage
18
18
18
30
30
30
30
process.
Reference gluten-free dough
Fibre-enriched wheat dough
Table 3 freezing process and the storage conditions. Therefore, the addition
Results of DSC measurements on four formulations of fresh dough. of dietary fibres to wheat dough seems to have a double advan-
Formulation DH of ice Freezable water tage: nutritional improvement and an increased resistance to
meltinga proportiona freezing.
(J/g) (% of total water)
Reference wheat dough 94.77 ± 0.69 64.19 ± 0.47
Acknowledgements
Fibre-enriched wheat dough 86.21 ± 0.13 59.83 ± 0.09
Reference gluten-free dough 99.20 ± 0.33 64.64 ± 0.21
Gluten-free dough with amaranth 99.78 ± 0.19 64.78 ± 0.12 This study was carried out with the financial support of the
a
Commission of the European Community, FP6, Thematic Area
Values represent mean of two measurements ± standard deviation.
‘‘Food quality and safety”, FOOD-2006-36302 EU-FRESH BAKE.
ten-free dough does not modify the freezable water content, which The authors would like to emphasize that this article does not nec-
varies from 64.6% to 64.8% of total water (Table 3). However, the essarily reflect the views of the Commission and does not antici-
protein content of amaranth is so high (Berghofer and Schoenlech- pate the Commission’s future policy in this area.
ner, 2002) that it seems to act as a filler of the dough matrix (Mar-
iotti et al., 2009), which therefore becomes more resistant to the References
freezing process. So freezing has less impact on the rheological
properties of gluten-free dough improved by amaranth flour than Angioloni, A., Balestra, F., Pinnavaia, G.G., Dalla Rosa, M., 2008. Small and large
deformation test for the evaluation of frozen dough viscoelastic behaviour.
on the reference gluten-free dough. Journal of Food Engineering 87, 527–531.
AOAC, 1996. In: Cunniff, P. (Ed.), Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International.
AOAC International, Maryland, p. 1.
3.2.2.2. Impact of amaranth flour enrichment on the storage resistance
Armero, E., Collar, C., 1997. Texture properties of formulated wheat dough.
of frozen gluten-free dough. Unlike its effect on freezing, the addi- Relationships with dough and bread technological quality. Zeitschrift für
tion of amaranth flour to gluten-free dough increases its sensitivity Lebensmittel Untersuchung Forschung 204, 136–145.
to storage conditions. Indeed, storage time and temperature both Asghar, A., Anjum, F.M., Allen, J.C., Daubert, C.R., Rasool, G., 2009. Effect of modified
whey protein concentrates on empirical and fundamental dynamic mechanical
affect many dough properties (Tables 1 and 2). Amaranth addition properties of frozen dough. Food Hydrocolloids 23, 1687–1692.
accelerates the decrease in G0 and G00 throughout the storage time Baier-Schenk, A., Handschin, S., von Schönau, M., Bittermann, A.G., Bächi, T., Conde-
while tan d increases with storage time. Regarding the empirical petit, B., 2005. In situ observation of the freezing process in wheat dough by
confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM): formation of ice and changes in the
rheological parameters, gumminess, cohesiveness and springiness gluten network. Journal of Cereal Science 42, 255–260.
do not change but adhesiveness and resilience significantly de- Barcenas, M., Benedito, C., Rosell, C.M., 2004. Use of hydrocolloids as bread
crease with storage time in amaranth-enriched gluten-free dough improvers in interrupted baking process with frozen storage. Food
Hydrocolloids 18, 769–774.
while they are not affected in the reference gluten-free dough. Berghofer, E., Schoenlechner, R., 2002. Grain amaranth. In: Belton, P., Taylor, J. (Eds.),
Adhesiveness decreases during the first week of storage and then Pseudocereals and Less Common Cereals: Grain Properties and Utilization
remains constant until the end of the first month. On the contrary, Potential. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 219–260.
Berglund, P., Shelton, D., Freeman, T., 1991. Frozen bread dough ultra structure as
resilience remains constant in the first week and then decreases.
affected by duration of frozen storage and freeze-thaw cycles. Cereal Chemistry
The moisture content also decreases after the first week of storage. 68, 105–107.
The storage temperature, which has little impact on the frozen Bhattacharya, M., Langstaff, T.M., Berzonsky, W.A., 2003. Effect of frozen storage and
freeze-thaw cycles on the rheological and baking properties of frozen dough.
reference gluten-free dough, has important consequences on the
Food Research International 36, 365–372.
frozen improved dough, since it significantly affects five parame- Bot, A., 2003. Differential scanning calorimetric study on the effects of frozen
ters. The dough stored at 18 °C is the firmest and the most adhe- storage on gluten and dough. Cereal Chemistry 80, 366–370.
sive, but it has the lowest resilience. For the fundamental Bot, A., de Bruijne, D.W., 2003. Osmotic properties of gluten. Cereal Chemistry 80,
366–370.
rheological parameters, the loss modulus (G00 ) is higher for glu- Bourne, M.C., 1978. Texture profile analysis. Food Technology 32 (7), 62–66.
ten-free improved dough stored at 18 °C than for that stored at Carr, L.G., Tadini, C.C., 2003. Influence of yeast and vegetable shortening on physical
30 °C. The moisture content is also significantly changed by the and textural parameters of frozen part baked French bread. Lebensmittel
Wissenchaft und Technologie 36, 609–614.
storage temperature. The sample stored at 18 °C has a lower Chen, H., Rubenthaler, G.L., Schanus, E.G., 1988. Effect of apple fibre and cellulose on
moisture content. the physical properties of wheat flour. Journal of Food Science 53, 304–305.
Collar, C., Andreu, P., Martinez, J.C., Armero, E., 1999. Optimisation of hydrocolloid
addition to improve wheat bread dough functionality: a response surface
4. Conclusion methodology study. Food Hydrocolloids 13, 467–475.
Demirkesen, I., Mert, B., Sumnu, G., Sahin, S., 2010. Rheological properties of gluten-
free bread formulations. Journal of Food Engineering 96, 295–303.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this work. Firstly, con- Gelinas, P., Deaudelin, I., Grenier, M., 1995. Frozen dough: effects of dough shape,
cerning the methodology, the fundamental rather than the empir- water content, and sheeting–molding conditions. Cereal Foods World 40, 124–
ical rheological measurements (TPA) are more relevant since they 126.
Genin, N., René, F., 1995. Analyse du rôle de la transition vitreuse dans les procédés
demonstrate more differences. The empirical rheological parame- de conservation agro-alimentaires. Journal of Food Engineering 26, 391–408.
ters, particularly resilience, springiness, cohesiveness and gummi- Giannou, V., Tzia, C., 2007. Frozen dough bread: quality and textural behaviour
ness, are less affected. Concerning freezing and frozen storage, they during prolonged storage–prediction of final product characteristics. Journal of
Food Engineering 79 (3), 929–934.
alter the quality of the dough and of the bread made with it since Havet, M., Mankai, M., Le Bail, A., 2000. Influence of the freezing condition on the
frozen doughs have lower G0 and G00 and higher tan d than fresh baking performances on French frozen dough. Journal of Food Engineering 45,
doughs. In addition, the freezing process and the first days of stor- 139–145.
Jiang, B., Kontogiorgos, V., Kasapis, S., Goff, H.D., 2008. Rheological investigation and
age have more effect on wheat dough while the gluten-free dough
molecular architecture of highly hydrated gluten networks at subzero
is more altered by the longer storage time. With regard to the stor- temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering 89, 42–48.
age conditions, storage time seems to have more impact than stor- Kenny, S., Wehrle, K., Dennehy, T., Arendt, E.K., 1999. Correlation between empirical
and fundamental rheology measurements and baking performance of frozen
age temperature. Moreover, the formulation of dough plays an
bread dough. Cereal Chemistry 76 (3), 421–425.
important part in its properties and behaviour after freezing. The Le Bail, A., Grinand, C., Le Cleach, S., Martinez, S., Quilin, E., 1999. Influence of
protein-enriched gluten-free dough (improved by amaranth flour storage conditions on frozen French bread dough. Journal of Food Engineering
addition) is less affected by the freezing process but it becomes 39, 289–291.
Lorenzo, G., Zaritzky, N.E., Califano, A.N., 2009. Rheological characterization of
more sensitive to the storage conditions. On the other hand, the fi- refrigerated and frozen non-fermented gluten-free dough: effect of
bre-enriched wheat dough is much more resistant to both the hydrocolloids and lipid phase. Journal of Cereal Science 50, 255–261.
76 G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 70–76
Mariotti, M., Lucisano, M., Ambrogina Pagani, M., Ng, P.K.W., 2009. The role of corn Ribotta, P.D., León, A.E., Añón, M.C., 2003. Effect of freezing and frozen storage on
starch, amaranth flour, pea isolate and Psyllium flour on the rheological the gelatinization and retrogradation of amylopectin in dough baked
properties and the ultrastructure of gluten-free dough. Food Research in a differential scanning calorimeter. Food Research International 36, 357–
International 42, 963–975. 363.
Matuda, T.G., Chevallier, S., de-Alcântara-Pessôa-Filho, P., LeBail, A., Tadini, C., 2008. Ribotta, P.D., Pérez, G.T., León, A.E., Añón, M.C., 2004. Effect of emulsifier and guar
Impact of guar and xanthan gums on proofing and calorimetric parameters of gum on micro structural, rheological and baking performance of frozen bread
frozen bread dough. Journal of Cereal Science 48 (3), 741–746. dough. Food Hydrocolloids 18, 305–313.
Nunes, M.H.B., Moore, M.M., Ryan, L.A.M., Arendt, E.K., 2009. Impact of emulsifiers Rosell, C.M., Rojas, J.A., Benedito de Barber, C., 2001. Influence of hydrocolloids on
on the quality and rheological properties of gluten-free breads and batters. dough rheology and bread quality. Food Hydrocolloids 15, 75–81.
European Food Research and Technology 228, 633–642. Selomulyo, V.O., Zhou, W., 2007. Frozen bread dough: effects of freezing storage and
Peressini, D., Sensidoni, A., 2009. Effect of soluble dietary fibre addition on dough improvers. Journal of Cereal Science 45, 1–17.
rheological and bread making properties of wheat dough. Journal of Cereal Varriano-Marston, E.K., Hsu, J., Mahdi, J., 1980. Rheological and structural changes
Science 49, 190–201. in frozen dough. Baker’s Digest 54, 32–34.
Pruska-Kedzior, A., Kedzior, Z., Goracy, M., Pietrowska, K., Przybylska, A., Wang, J., Rosell, C.M., Benedito de Barber, C., 2002. Effect of the addition of different
Spychalska, K., 2008. Comparison of rheological, fermentative and baking fibres on wheat dough performance and bread quality. Food Chemistry 79, 221–
properties of gluten-free dough formulations. European Food Research and 226.
Technology 227, 1523–1536. Yi, J., Kerr, W.L., 2009. Combined effects of freezing rate, storage temperature and
Räsänen, J., Blanshard, J.M.V., Mitchell, J.R., Derbyshire, W., Autio, K., 1998. time on bread dough and baking properties. LWT – Food Science and
Properties of frozen wheat dough at subzero temperatures. Journal of Cereal Technology 42, 1474–1483.
Science 28, 1–14. Zounis, S., Quail, K.J., Wooton, M., Dickson, M.R., 2002. Effect of final dough
Ribotta, P.D., León, A.E., Añón, M.C., 2001. Effects of freezing and frozen storage of temperature on the microstructure of frozen bread dough. Journal of Cereal
dough on bread quality. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49, 913– Science 36, 135–146.
919.