RESEARCH ARTICLE

Rice Noodles www.starch-journal.com

The Influence of Hydrocolloids on the Properties

Organic Red Jasmine Rice Noodles, Namely on
Antioxidant Activity, Cooking, Texture, and Sensory
Properties
Supaluck Kraithong, Suyong Lee, and Saroat Rawdkuen*
chemical fertilizers and pesticides.[3] It has
In this study, organic red Jasmine rice flour (RJF) is mixed with guar gum been reported that consuming colored rice
(GG), with carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and with xanthan gum (XG) at can reduce the prevalence of some diseases
0.0% (control), 0.2%, and 0.4%, respectively. They are all subjected to noodle including Alzheimers, cardiovascular dis-
ease, diabetes, and colon cancer.[4] This is
formation. The results showed that XG increased the peak and breakdown
due to it is abundance of bioactive com-
viscosities of RJF (p < 0.05), while GG and CMC improved the setback pounds (e.g., total phenolic and proantho-
viscosity (p < 0.05). Final viscosity is induced by the use of hydrocolloids cyanidin contents), which can retard free
(p < 0.05). The conclusion temperature and gelatinization enthalpy of RJF radical reactions and reduce oxidative
increased remarkably by using GG and CMC (p < 0.05). The use of GG stress in the human body.[5] Although
colored rice flour is considered to be
(0.2%) give the highest values with respect to the textural properties of the
healthier, the lower amylose content
rice noodles, including the tensile strength (47.25 g) and extensibility (<20%) in the flour may produce undesir-
(16.02 mm). In contrast, it notably decreased cooking loss (p < 0.05). These able qualities (texture, cooking, and sen-
parameters are determined to have the highest acceptability (5.70) in the sory properties) in rice noodle,[6] which
noodle (p < 0.05). The total phenolic content and anitioxidant activities of the leads to lower consumer acceptability in
rice noodle are not affected by using hydrocolloids (p > 0.05). spite of the apparent health benefits.
Hydrocolloids are hydrophilic polymers
that are used for food product quality
improvements. They affect the food rheol-
ogy through interactions among their
1. Introduction polymer chains.[7] Hydrocolloids, including
guar gum (GG), locus bean gum, alginate,
Rice noodle is a traditional food commonly consumed in carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and xan-
Southeast Asia. It is typically produced from a white rice flour than gum (XG), have all been introduced for developing texture,
with high amylose (>25%), which is highly suitable for forming viscosity, mouth-feel, microstructure, and sensory properties in
noodle strands. This is because amylose offers a strong structure noodle products.[6,8,9] Sabbatini et al.[10] found that using 2% GG
by its dimensional network formation.[1] Currently, organic is recommended for making gluten free noodles prepared from
pigmented/colored rice flour, especially the red variety, is cassava and corn starches. The authors also found that GG
garnering interest for rice noodle production, particularly reduced solid loss during cooking. This provided stability for the
because of the potentially greater health benefits it has over noodle structure. The hydrocolloid (GG) is obtained from the
white rice varieties.[2] Moreover, organic matter has also been endosperm of Cyamopsis tetragonolobus. It is used extensively in
regarded as safer and healthier as it is understood to be free of food product manufacturing as it disperses and swells in both
cold and hot water conditions, giving high viscosity at low
S. Kraithong, Dr. S. Rawdkuen concentrations, and enduring the presence of electrolytes in food
Unit of Innovative Food Packaging and Biomaterials systems.[11]
School of Agro-Industry
Carboxymethyl cellulose is manufactured by alkalizing cellu-
Mae Fah Luang University
Muang, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand lose with chloroacetic acid. It is generally employed for developing
E-mail: saroat@mfu.ac.th food viscosity.[12] Suwannaporn and Wiwattanawanich[13] reported
Prof. S. Lee that (1.2–1.5%) CMC is required for preparing wheat-rice noodles
Carbohydrate Bioproduct Research Center because it develops the texture and sensory properties by reducing
Department of Food Science & Technology cooking loss in the noodles and declining peak viscosity in the
Sejong University
wheat-rice flours. Another hydrocolloid that is largely used in food
Seoul 143-747, South Korea
processing is XG as it maintains viscosity at high temperature and
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article over a broad pH range.[14] It is produced by Xanthomonas
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201800145.
campestris, and it is used for rheological property improvement
DOI: 10.1002/star.201800145 (viscosity and viscoelasticity) in food products such as noodles,

Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (1 of 9) © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
pasta, bakery products, and beverages.[15] Cai et al.[16] found that
XG (1–7%) increased the gel strength of glutinous rice flour, which
improves the tensile strength, hardness, and chewiness of noodles
prepared with the flour. Kaur et al.[8] reported that adding GG and
XG (0.25–0.35%) increased values of some texture properties
(firmness and cohesiveness) in noodles that were prepared by
using mung, corn, and potato starches. Srikaeo et al.[17] also
confirmed that the use of 0.05–0.1% hydrocolloids (CMC, GG, and
XG) could improve physical properties of fermented rice noodle via
increasing firmness and reducing cooking loss. However, some
reports revealed that hydrocolloids showed negative effects on
antioxidant activities in food products. Saberi et al.[18] described
that hydroxyl groups of hydroclloids could bind with phenolic
compounds in food phytochemicals via hydrogen bonding that
could be a cause for reducing TPC and antioxidant activity.
Additionally, there are some dissimilar qualities among final
products that are produced with the same materials. This is due
to the variations found in hydrocolloid types and levels.
Consequently, this work aimed to study the effects of hydro-
colloids (GG, CMC, and XG) at different levels (0.0%, 0.2%, and
0.4%) on the qualities of rice noodles produced from organic red
Jasmine rice.
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Raw Materials and Rice Flour Preparation
Organic red Jasmine rice grains were purchased from Siam
organic food products Co., Ltd. (Bangkok, Thailand). In this
study, food grade hydrocolloids were chosen according to our
preliminary results. At first, it was planned that five food
hydrocolloids would be used; however, some hydrocolloids
produced negative results in the final product such as a strong
rigid structure that cracked easily, and had high water loss at the
surface). Guar gum (with a viscosity of 3870 mPa s
1) and XG
(with a viscosity of 1722 mPa s
1 at 1% solution) were purchased
from Wendt-chemie GmbH (Hamburg, Germany). Carboxy-
methyl cellulose (FVH6-A; viscosity 2400–2600 mPa s
1 at 2%
solution) was purchased from Changshu Wealthy Science and
Technology Co., Ltd. (Changshu, China).
Red Jasmine rice flour (RJF) was prepared by grinding the rice
grains with a hammermill (CMC-20, Thailand) and then passing
it through a 60 mesh sieve (250 mm). Before rice noodle
production, the RJF was mixed with hydrocolloids at the levels
of 0.0% (control), 0.2%, and 0.4% (Table 1). It was then analyzed
for pasting and thermal properties.
2.2. Rice Flour Determinations
2.2.1. Pasting Properties
The pasting properties were measured by using a rapid visco
analyzer (RVA 4500, Perten Instruments, Sweden). The rice
flour samples (3 g) were placed in a canister and then added with
distilled water (25 mL, 14% moisture basis). They were held at a
temperature of 50  C for 1 min and then raised to 95  C over
3.8 min and then held for 2.5 min. After that, the samples were
Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (2 of 9)
www.starch-journal.com
Table 1. Red Jasmine rice flour (RJF) with different levels of
hydrocolloids.
Sample codes Description
C RJF; control
GG02 RJF þ 0.2% GG
GG04 RJF þ 0.4% GG
CMC02 RJF þ 0.2% CMC
CMC04 RJF þ 0.4% CMC
XG02 RJF þ 0.2% XG
XG04 RJF þ 0.4% XG
GG, guar gum; CMC, carboxymethyl cellulose; XG, xanthan gum.
cooled to 50  C within 3.8 min and held for 1.4 min. The pasting
properties were finally obtained, specifically the peak, trough,
breakdown, final, and setback viscosities.
2.2.2. Thermal Properties
Thermal properties were determined with a differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC8000, PerkinElmer, USA) according
to the method of Thumrongchote et al.[19] Rice flour (4 mg) and
distilled water (16 mg) were accurately weighed into stainless
steel pans and then hermetically sealed. They were allowed to
stand for 12 h at room temperature and scanned over the range
of 0–100  C with a heating rate of 10  C min
1 in a nitrogen
atmosphere (20 mL min
1). Thermal properties recorded in-
clude onset (To), peak (Tp), conclusion temperatures (Tc), and
gelatinization enthalpy (ΔHg).
2.3. Rice Noodle Preparation
The noodles were prepared according to the method of Wandee
et al.[20] Rice with different levels of hydrocolloids (Table 1) (40 g
dry weight basis; DW) were mixed with distilled water (60 g).
Then, they were spread on stainless trays at a thickness of 1 mm
and steamed for 3 min. Next, the rice noodle sheets were peeled
off and dried at 70  C for 10 min. They were then kept at room
temperature for 3 h (covered with cheesecloth) and hand cut
into strands 3 mm wide. The rice noodle strands were further
dried at 40  C for 4 h to decrease the moisture content to
12%.[21]
2.4. Rice Noodle Determinations
2.4.1. Total Phenolic Contents (TPC)
The rice noodles were subjected to extraction according to the
method described by Abdel-Aal et al.[22] The ground noodles
(1.0 g) were mixed with 85% methanol (10 mL) and stirred with a
magnetic stirrer at room temperature (25  C) for 30 min. The
mixtures were centrifuged (AVANTI j-30I, Beckman, Germany)
© 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
at 2500g for 10 min. Supernatants were collected and kept in
the dark at 4  C.
The contents were determined according to the method of
Chan et al.[23] The extracted solutions (0.1 mL) were mixed with
0.5 mL of 10% (v/v) Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (Merck, Germany)
and 0.4 mL of 7.5% (w/v) sodium bicarbonate solution. The
mixtures were incubated in the dark for 1 h. The reaction
mixtures (200 μL) were placed into a 96-well plate. The
absorbance of the solutions was measured at 765 nm with a
microplate reader (Multiskan Go, Thermo Scientific, Finland).
Gallic acid (Sigma–Aldrich, Germany) was used as a standard.
Total phenolic content was expressed in milligrams gallic acid
equivalents (mg GAE/100 g DW sample).
2.4.2. Determination of 2,2-Diphenyl-1-Picrylhydrazyl (DPPH)
Radical-Scavenging Activity
DPPH radical-scavenging activity was assessed according to the
method of Chan et al.[23] The extracted solutions (50 μL) were
added with 1950 μL of DPPH methanolic solution (0.1 mM), and
then allowed to stand in the dark for 1 h. The absorbance of the
mixtures was measured at 540 nm with a microplate reader.
Trolox (Sigma–Aldrich) was used as a standard. The results were
expressed as μmol Trolox equivalent/100 g DW sample.
2.4.3. Determination of 2,20 -Azino-Bis (3-Ethylbenzothiazoline-
6-Sulphonic Acid) or ABTS Radical Scavenging Activity
ABTS radical scavenging activity was determined by following
the method of Chatatikun and Chiabchalard.[24] The extracted
solutions (50 μL) were mixed with ABTS working solution
(950 μL) and allowed to stand in the dark for 6 min. The
absorbance of the solutions was measured at 734 nm by a
microplate reader. The percentage of ABTS radical scavenging
activity was estimated by comparing with a calibration curve that
is prepared by Trolox. The results were expressed as μmol Trolox
equivalent/100 g DW sample:
 
Abssample
Scavenging activity ð%Þ ¼ 100  Abscontrol

Abscontrol
2.4.4. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP)
FRAP was measured as described by Corral-Aguayo et al.[25] The
extracted solutions (20 μL) were mixed with a FRAP reagent
(180 μL) and incubated for 30 min in the dark. The absorbance of
the solution was measured at 630 nm with a microplate reader.
The results were expressed as as ferrous sulfate equivalent in
μmol/100 g DW sample.
2.4.5. Optimal Cooking Time
Cooking time was evaluated according to the method described
in Wu et al.[26] Noodle strands (5 g) were cut 6 cm in length and
Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (3 of 9)
www.starch-journal.com
then cooked with 200 mL of boiling distilled water. The optimal
cooking time was set when the noodle core was no longer
noticeable. For noodle core observation, one strand was
squeezed between two glass plates every 30 s.
2.4.6. Cooking Loss and Percent Rehydration
Cooking loss and rehydration were determined under the same
conditions as the cooking time described above. Cooked rice
noodles were rinsed with distilled water (50 mL). The cooking
and rinsing waters were collected and dried at 105  C until
constant weights were achieved. The cooking loss was calculated
by using the following equation:
Weight of dry matter in cooking water ðgÞ
Cooking loss ð%Þ ¼
Weight of dry noodles ðgÞ
 100
ð2Þ
The cooked noodles were taken out and the excess water was
removed from their surfaces by using a paper towel.[27] The
percentage of rehydration was estimated by using the following
equation:
Weight of cooked noodles ðgÞ
weight of uncooked noodles ðgÞ
Rehydration ð%Þ ¼  100
Weight of uncooked noodles ðgÞ
ð3Þ
2.4.7. Textural Properties
Textural properties were measured with a texture analyzer
(model TA. XT. Plus, Stable MicroSystems Ltd., England)
according to the method described in Ye and Sui.[28] The rice
noodles were cooked for the optimal cooking duration and then
compressed with a hemispherical probe (P/0.5HS) at a test speed
of 2.0 mm s
1 with 30% strain. After that, hardness (g),
adhesiveness (g s
1), cohesiveness, gumminess (g), springiness,
and chewiness (g mm
1) were all obtained. Tensile strength (g)
and extensibility (mm) were examined with a pair of spaghetti/
ð1Þ
noodle tensile grips at a cross head velocity of 3.0 mm s
1.
2.4.8. Sensory Evaluation
Sensory evaluation was conducted according to the method
explained by Purwandari et al.[29] Rice noodles were cooked at the
optimal cooking times and then served with chicken soup
(1:2 g g
1) to 30 untrained panelists. The evaluation of sensory
properties in terms of color, flavor, taste, softness, stickiness,
elasticity, and overall acceptability were carried out by using a 9-
point hedonic scale (9 ¼ extremely like and 1 ¼ extremely dislike).
2.5. Statistical Analysis
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed. The mean
comparison was carried out by Duncan’s Multiple Range Tests
© 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
(DMRT). The significance of difference was defined at p < 0.05.
The analysis was performed by using an SPSS package (SPSS
17.0 for window, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Pasting Properties of Rice Flour
The results for rice flour pasting properties are shown in
Figure 1. The highly branched polysaccharide that is XG
significantly increased the peak and breakdown viscosities of
RJF by nearly 20% (p < 0.05). This is due to the lower critical
concentration (C ). Jung et al.[30] explained that the greater
negative charges and the hydroxyl groups of XG contribute to it is
lower C . This produces a higher capability of starch molecules
to bind with water molecules, making the starch molecules
collapse when holding high amounts of water.[6]
The final viscosity of RJF was raised up by about 6%, 4%, and
3% by GG, CMC, and XG (p < 0.05), respectively. Rising viscosity
brings about greater stability in the rice flour gel.[31] A higher
final viscosity indicates a better ability for forming a viscous
paste in the rice flour,[32] improving the constancy and flexibility
of the rice noodle structure.[9] Guar gum (0.2%) presented the
highest value of final viscosity (p < 0.05). This is due to its
uncharged branches (D-galactopyranosyl). Jones and
McClements[33] reported that a polysaccharide charge leads to
an unstable food matrix as a result of repulsive electrostatic
interactions. Thus, having the anionic side chains of CMC
(carboxymethyl groups) and XG (D-glucuronic acid)[12] contrib-
ute to a lower final viscosity (p < 0.05).
The two hydrocolloids (GG and CMC) considerably boosted
the setback of RJF by around 32% and 35% (p < 0.05),
respectively. The highest setback viscosity (847.5 cP) (Table 2)
was observed when using 0.4% CMC (p < 0.05), owing to its
linear structure in which the form speeds up the occurrence of
starch granule re-arrangment during cooling, not unlike what
occurs with amylose.[31] In contrast, the high branch chains of
Figure 1. RVA profile of RJF with different levels of hydrocolloids.
Description: C ¼ RJF; GG02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%GG; GG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%GG;
CMC02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%CMC; CMC04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%CMC; XG02 ¼ RJF
þ 0.2%XG; XG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%XG.
Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (4 of 9)
www.starch-journal.com
XG tend to interrupt this phenomenon.[15] The small numbers of
the hydrocolloids had no effect on trough viscosity (p > 0.05).
3.2. Thermal Properties of Rice Flour
The results show that the values of onset temperature (To) and
peak temperature (Tp) among the rice flour samples were not
significantly different when hydrocolloids were added (p > 0.05)
as shown in Figure 2. However, conclusion temperature (Tc) and
gelatinization enthalpy (ΔHg) were remarkably enhanced by
using GG and CMC (p < 0.05) because of breakdown viscosity
reduction (p < 0.05). An increase in Tc and ΔHg refers to the
solidity and heat tolerance developments in starch molecules.[15]
Conversely, XG produced the lowest values of Tc (82.09  C;
XG04) and ΔHg (1.45 J g
1; XG02) (Table 2) in RJF (p < 0.05).
This could be sustained by the larger peak and breakdown
viscosities (p < 0.05), which is indicative of the weak starch
granules.[33]
3.3. Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activities of
Rice Noodle
The values of TPC and antioxidant activities, including DPPH,
ABTS, and FRAP, among the rice noodle samples (as shown in
Table 3) were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Even though
some reports have revealed that hydroclloid hydroxyl groups are
able to interact with phenolic compounds by hydrogen bonding,
which may be a result of TPC and antioxidant activity
reductions,[18] the results of the present study show that small
amounts of gums (0.2% and 0.4%) used had no effect on these
properties (p > 0.05). Soultani et al.[34] found that an addition of
pectin (0.5% and 1%) had no effect on the antioxidant capacity
(FRAP) and phenolic content of black, green, mountain tea, and
Pelargonium purpureum. Yi et al.[35] also confirmed that
antioxidant capacity (DDPH) and total phenolic contents of
grape juice were not affected by the use of hydrocolloids (1%
locust bean gum and 0.5% konjacglucomannan).
3.4. Cooking Properties of Rice Noodle
An increase of cooking time was observed when using GG and
CMC (p < 0.05) due to a decrease in breakdown and an
improvement of thermal properties (Tc and ΔHg) of RJF
(p < 0.05). In contrast, the opposite phenomenon was driven
when using XG because its high branch chains increased peak
and breakdown viscosities (p < 0.05). This leads to accelerated
gelatinization and breakage of starch granules,[36] resulting in
the lower Tc and ΔHg (p < 0.05). Accordingly, the shortest
cooking time (3.05 min) (Table 3) was found in noodle sample
XG02 (p < 0.05), which is an essectial property for rice
noodles.[20]
All hydrocolloids used in this study (GG, CMC, and XG)
showed to decline cooking loss (p < 0.05), owing to the
interactions of hydrocolloids and starch molecules by hydrogen
bonding and hydrophilic interactions.[6] A lower cooking loss
© 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.starch-journal.com

Table 2. Pasting and thermal properties of Red Jasmine rice flour.

Jasmine rice flour with different levels of hydrocolloids

C GG02 GG04 CMC02 CMC04 XG02 XG04

Pasting properties
Peak viscosity (cP) 2408.0  52.33b) 2315.0  70.71b) 2373.0  39.60b) 2369.5  68.59b) 2338.5  24.75b) 3049.5  54.45a) 2987.0  42.43a)
Trough viscosity (cP) 1799.0  7.07 a)
1782.5  23.33 a)
1779.5  43.13 a)
1814.5  6.36 a)
1791.5  13.44 a)
1830.0  12.73 a)
1791.5  74.25a)
Breakdown viscosity (cP) 970.5  27.58c) 712.5  47.38d) 844.0  19.80d) 700.5  2.12d) 597.0  32.53e) 1244.0  7.07a) 1145.5  67.18b)
Final viscosity (cP) 3110.5  19.09 d)
3398.5  60.10 a)
3342.5  72.83 a)
3266.0  77.78 b)
3199.5  54.45 c)
3288.0  32.53 b)
3233.0  24.04b)
Setback viscosity (cP) 544.5  48.79 b)
803.5  38.89 a)
760.0  15.56 a)
802.5  3.5 a)
847.5  88.39 a)
482.0  7.07 b)
516.0  4.24b)
Thermal properties
Onset temperature ( C) 69.54  0.73 69.39  0.07 69.62  0.31 69.75  0.05 69.12  0.09 69.47  0.31 68.17  0.15

Peak temperature ( C) 74.81  0.19 ab)
75.46  0.35 a)
75.34  0.11 a)
75.38  0.08 a)
75.50  0.31 a)
74.33  0.07 a)
74.37  0.05ab)

Conclusion temperature ( C) 83.41  0.11 b)
84.78  0.03 a)
84.03  0.33 a)
84.67  0.31 a)
84.39  0.27 a)
81.57  0.19 c)
82.09  0.13c)

1
Gelatinization enthalpy (J g ) 1.67  0.35 b)
1.85  0.03a)
1.84  0.01 a)
1.74  0.01 a)
1.77  0.01 a)
1.45  0.01c)
1.49  0.06c)

All values are means of triplicates  standard deviation. Description: RJF (C); RJF þ 0.2% GG (GG02); RJF þ 0.4% GG (GG04); RJF þ 0.2% CMC (CMC02); RJF þ 0.4%
CMC (CMC04); RJF þ 0.2% XG (XG02); and RJF þ 0.4% XG (XG04).
a–e)
Means with the same superscript letters within a row are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

Figure 2. DSC thermogram of RJF with different levels of hydrocolloids. Description: C ¼ RJF; GG02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%GG; GG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%GG;
CMC02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%CMC; CMC04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%CMC; XG02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%XG; XG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%XG.

Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (5 of 9) © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.starch-journal.com

Table 3. Chemical and cooking properties of rice noodles.

Rice noodles
C GG02 GG04 CMC02 CMC04 XG02 XG04

Total phenolic contents and antioxidant activities

Total phenolic contents (mg GAE/100 g 540.96  1.77a) 538.47  1.85a) 529.19  0.21ab) 531.53  1.33a) 543.70  2.97a) 538.22  1.71a) 535.45  0.99a)
DW sample)
DPPH (μmol Trolox/100 g DW sample) 176.27  0.13a) 172.81  0.41a) 175.81  0.41a) 178.44  1.23a) 171.17  0.91ab) 176.92  0.37a) 173.40  1.71a)
FRAP (μmol Ferrous sulfate/100 g DW 2.91  0.01a)
2.92  0.03a)
2.90  0.19a)
2.93  0.11a)
2.95  0.15a)
2.88  0.03ab)
3.01  0.01a)
sample)
ABTS (μmol Trolox/100 g DW sample) 120.25  0.67a) 119.64  0.97ab) 117.36  0.31ab) 126.76  0.91a) 121.81  0.53a) 123.89  0.11a) 118.10  0.77ab)
Cooking properties
Cooking time (min) 3.15  0.07b) 3.35  0.07a) 3.25  0.07a) 3.25  0.07a) 3.20  0.14bab) 3.05  0.07c) 3.10  0.14c)
Cooking loss (%) 3.99  0.59a) 2.22  0.51c) 2.22  0.30c) 3.07  0.48b) 2.96  0.21b) 2.52  0.28bc) 2.67  0.55bc)
Rehydration (%) 128.83  3.93 d)
188.80  3.58 b)
174.48  0.88 c)
176.82  2.82 c)
175.39  3.76 c)
195.75  1.37 a)
194.42  2.59a)

All values are means of triplicates  standard deviation. Description: RJF (C); RJF þ 0.2% GG (GG02); RJF þ 0.4% GG (GG04); RJF þ 0.2% CMC (CMC02); RJF þ 0.4%
CMC (CMC04); RJF þ 0.2% XG (XG02); and RJF þ 0.4% XG (XG04).
a–d)
Means with the same superscript letters within a row are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

demonstrates lower amounts of solid contents leaching out from
the noodle structure during cooking. This represents the good
overall strength of the noodle structure,[37] which is a desirable
quality.[38] The noodle sample GG02 showed the lowest cooking
loss (2.22%) (shown in Table 3) thanks to an improvement of
cooking and heat telorance, which is indicated by the highest
final viscosity and thermal properties (Tc and ΔHg) in the rice
flour (p < 0.05). Moreover, this could be due to solubility index
reduction in RJF by the use of hydrocolloids (data are not shown)
(p < 0.05).
3.5. Rehydration
Rehydration of rice noodle was boosted by about 25%, 26%, and
33% by using GG, CMC, and XG (p < 0.05), respectively. This
could be because the hydrophilic groups in hydrocolloids
enhance the water absorption ability of the rice noodle.[11] A
higher percentage of rehydration is indication of larger amounts
of water needed during cooking and higher stickiness of the
noodle texture.[20] The highest value of rehydration (195.75%)
(shown in Table 3) was found in noodle sample XG02 (p < 0.05).
This could be reinforced by highly branched chains and also
higher molecular weight of the hydrocolloid,[12] specified by the
greater peak viscosity (indicating a higher water absorbtion
capacity) and swelling power (data not shown) in the rice flour
(p < 0.05).
3.6. Textural Properties
Using GG, CMC, and XG (0.2% and 0.4%) improved all noodle
textural properties including tensile strength, extensibility,
hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess, springiness,
and chewiness (p < 0.05). This is likely due to the strong network
development of the rice noodle structure through interactions of
hydrocolloid polymer chains via hydrogen bonding.[37]
Improvements of those textural properties also tend to improve
cooking tolerance of the rice noodle.[39]
The tensile strength of the developed noodle increased by
using hydrocolloids. Ultimately, use of 0.2% GG drastically
enhanced tensile strength value by almost 30% in the rice
noodle (p < 0.05). Tensile strength regularly indicates the
capability of noodle strands to endure a force applied
longitudinally without tearing apart.[28] A high value of this
property in rice noodle commonly refers to a better cooking
tolerance, requiring greater force, and energy for breaking the
noodle structure.[32]
Extensibility is understood as the distance a noodle strand can
be stretched before it breaks. Undoubtedly, all hydrocolloids
could improve this property due to their polymer chain
interactions. This study found that 0.2% GG delivered the
highest value of extensibility (16.08 mm) (Table 4) to the rice
noodle (p < 0.05). This could be supported by the highest value of
tensile strength in the noodle (p < 0.05). Moreover, the higher
value in final viscosity that was a result of 0.2% GG (p < 0.05) also
contributed to the higher values of tensile strength and
extensibility in the rice noodle owing to the development of
rice flour gel consistency.[31]
Hardness refers to a stiff texture of rice noodle. Frequently,
higher setback value in rice flour could encourage a greater
hardness of rice noodle.[15] Although, a lower cooking loss also
could raise up this value,[9] which would indicate a greater
integrity in the structure. Consequently, the highest hardness
value was found (1196.04 g) (shown in Table 4) in rice noodle
sample GG02 (p < 0.05).
The adhesiveness or stickiness of rice noodle texture could
also be increased by the hydrocolloids. They are able to increase
the rehydration value, giving them a strong capability to retain
water molecules.[11] Nevertheless, the use of XG gave the higher
rehydration value to rice noodle due to its highly branched
chains (p < 0.05). Hence, the gum could give higher adhesive-
ness value to the rice noodle when compared to the other two
hydrocolloids.

Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (6 of 9) © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.starch-journal.com

Table 4. Textural properties of rice noodles.

Rice noodles
Texture properties C GG02 GG04 CMC02 CMC04 XG02 XG04

Tensile strength (g) 33.25  1.50 c)

47.25  0.82 a)
46.16  0.99 ab)
46.90  1.74 ab)
47.03  1.48 a)
45.73  2.34 b)
45.78  1.10b)
Extensibility (mm) 8.32  0.99 c)
16.08  0.60 a)
15.49  2.15 ab)
16.00  0.66 a)
15.45  1.08 ab)
13.21  0.20 b)
13.81  0.57b)
Hardness (g) 1034.93  78.63 b)
1196.04  60.62 a)
1186.41  42.80 a)
1176.25  70.27 a)
1155.38  84.09 a)
1109.05  67.04 a)
1119.19  70.24a)
Adhesiveness (g s
1)
2.31  1.16c)
3.00  0.18ab)
3.19  0.12ab)
2.78  1.01b)
2.54  0.25b)
3.49  0.39a)
3.99  0.19a)
Cohesiveness 0.52  0.03 c)
0.83  0.10
a)
0.72  0.04 b)
0.79  0.10 ab)
0.72  0.02 b)
0.80  0.08
a)
0.81  0.10a)
Gumminess (g) 703.35  72.30 b)
842.18  76.23 a)
826.51  36.75 a)
812.61  94.63 a)
838.44  66.52 a)
799.64  97.69 ab)
817.89  54.32a)
Springiness 0.91  0.09 b)
1.03  0.06
a)
1.00  0.01ab)
1.00  0.00 ab)
1.04  0.06 a)
1.03  0.06
a)
1.02  0.04a)
Chewiness (g mm
1) 634.79  38.85c) 872.17  60.40a) 819.38  40.57a) 852.71  94.71a) 870.20  67.76a) 731.22  79.64b) 797.20  43.97b)

All values are means of six repeating  standard deviation. Description: RJF (C); RJF þ 0.2% GG (GG02); RJF þ 0.4% GG (GG04); RJF þ 0.2% CMC (CMC02); RJF þ 0.4%
CMC (CMC04); RJF þ 0.2% XG (XG02); and RJF þ 0.4% XG (XG04).
a–c)
Means with the same superscript letters within a row are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

Cohesiveness value frequently specifies strength of the
internal bond in the rice noodle structure. The interactions
among polymer chains of all hydrocolloids (GG, CMC, and XG)
via H-bonding showed to boost up the value of cohesiveness in
the rice noodle (p < 0.05). The use of 0.2% GG provided the
highest cohesiveness (0.83) (Table 4) to the rice noodle (p < 0.05).
This could be due to a strong interaction between rice starch
molecules and GG polymer chains that were reinforced by H-
bonding.[32] This is indicated by the highest final viscosity in RJF
(p < 0.05).
An increase of gumminess, or energy needed to disintegrate a
semisolid food until it is swollen, was also found when GG,
CMC, and XG were used (p < 0.05). Frequently, the development
of a stiff texture or hardness in rice noodle could enhance
gumminess value because more energy is needed for breaking
down the noodle structure.[28] Thus, the highest value of
gumminess (842.18 g) (Table 4) was found in noodle sample
GG02 (p < 0.05).
Additionally, an increase of hardness also tends to enhance
chewiness value in rice noodle because more energy is required
for chewing before swallowing.[9] Consequently, the highest
value of chewiness (872.17 g mm
1) (shown in Table 4) was
found in noodle sample GG02 (p < 0.05).
Springiness indicates ability of the rice noodle to return to its
original shape after deformation. This could also be improved by
using hydrocolloids because the interactions among their
polymer chains (hydrophobic interactions, hydrophilic inter-
actions, as well as H-bonding) could provide elasticity or
flexibility in the rice noodle.[31]
3.7. Sensory Properties
Significant differences for sensory scores (shown in Table 5) in
terms of color and flavor were not found when using GG, CMC,
and XG (p > 0.05). In addition, the sensory scores of the
developed rice noodle with different hydrocolloids was neither in
the range of like or dislike. This means that the level of
hydrocollids used in the product could not be noticed or
explained by the panelists when interpreting the sensory
characteristics of the product. Shukri et al.[40] also confirmed
that GG, CMC, and XG (0.3%) had no effect on scores of color
and flavor in ice cream with fermented glutinous rice (Tapai
pulut).
Nonetheless, this study found that using GG, CMC, and XG
tended to increase sensory scores including taste, softness, and
elasticity (p < 0.05). Those sensory properties in rice noodle
could be developed by hydrocolloids because they are able to
improve the mouth-feel of rice noodle products.[7] Specifically,
textural property developments such as tensile strength,
extensibility, cohesiveness, as well as springiness (p < 0.05)
are perceived to be improved. These results are consistent with
Zhou et al.,[7] who found that sensory scores of wheat noodle, in
terms of firmness, elasticity, and overall acceptability, could be
improved by the use of hydrocolloids (2–4% konjac gluco-
mannan) because of developments in textural properties such as
adhesiveness as well as springiness. Santiago et al.[41] also
described that higher values of cohesiveness and elasticity in
noodle texture resulted in higher sensory scores in terms of taste,
elasticity, and softness.
The sensory score for stickiness was also increased by the
hydrocolloids (p < 0.05). This could be because hydrocolloids
have high ability to trap water molecules within their molecules,
resulting in more stickiness in rice noodle texture.[11]
Overall acceptability of the rice noodle was not improved in
the level of like nor dislike by GG, CMC, and XG, even though the
hydrocolloids improved textural properties, cooking tolerance
(decreasing cooking loss), and some other sensory properties
such as softness and elasticity (p < 0.05). Ultimately, the use of
0.2% GG presented the highest overall acceptability score (5.70)
(shown in Table 5). This could be due to the highest values of
some textural properties (e.g., tensile strength and extensibility)
and the lowest cooking loss in the noodle sample GG02
(p < 0.05). Niu et al.[42] also reported that higher sensory scores
for rice noodles were encouraged by the integrity of noodle
structures, indicated by higher values of tensile strength,
extensibility, and lower values of cooking loss. Even though
hydrocolloids were able to improve the rice noodle acceptability,
the overall scores for all of the rice noodle samples were still
considered to be in very low ranges on the 9-point hedonic scale.

Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (7 of 9) © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.starch-journal.com

Table 5. Sensory properties of rice noodles.

Rice noodles
Sensory properties C GG02 GG04 CMC02 CMC04 XG02 XG04

Color 5.67  1.65a) 5.80  1.58a) 5.87  1.63a) 5.63  1.59a) 5.53  1.55a) 5.73  1.44a) 5.50  1.46a)
Flavor 5.50  1.74a) 5.53  1.78a) 5.37  1.85a) 5.3  1.60a) 5.47  1.50a) 5.37  1.92a) 5.00  1.60a)
Taste 4.40  1.95b) 5.33  1.94a) 5.80  1.49a) 5.40  1.83a) 5.01  1.90ab) 5.53  1.68a) 5.00  1.69ab)
Softness 4.45  1.90b) 5.53  1.69a) 5.33  1.65a) 5.20  1.75a) 5.23  1.76a) 5.13  1.89a) 4.87  1.86ab)
Stickiness 3.53  2.02b) 5.10  2.26a) 4.97  1.96a) 4.80  1.90a) 4.63  2.06a) 4.73  2.29a) 4.70  a1.83a)
Elasticity 3.40  2.07b) 4.53  1.89a) 4.53  1.87a) 4.50  1.96a) 4.57  1.99a) 4.53  2.11a) 4.13  1.69a)
Overall 4.45  1.69b) 5.70  1.74a) 5.57  1.59a) 5.53  1.43a) 5.53  1.55a) 5.47  1.87a) 5.05  1.38a)

Sensory evaluation was carried out by a 9-point hedonic scale (9 ¼ extremely like and 1 ¼ extremely dislike) with thirty untrained panelists. Description: C ¼ RJF;
GG02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%GG; GG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%GG; CMC02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%CMC; CMC04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%CMC; XG02 ¼ RJF þ 0.2%XG; XG04 ¼ RJF þ 0.4%XG.
a,b)
Means with the same superscript letters within a row are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

4. Conclusions Jubilee Ph.D. Program (RGJ) (Grant NO. PHD/0087/2558). This

Each hydrocolloid showed different effects on Jasmine rice flour
properties. Pasting properties, values of peak, and breakdown of
Jasmine rice flour were boosted up by the use of 0.2% and 0.4%
XG (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the use of GG and CMC (0.2%
and 0.4%) tended to increase values of final and setback
viscosities in Jasmine rice flour (p < 0.05). The hydrocolloids
(0.2% and 0.4%) had no effect on the values of onset temperature
(To) and peak temperature (Tp) of RJF (p > 0.05). However, some
thermal properties such as conclusion temperature (Tc) and
gelatinization enthalpy (ΔHg) were increased remarkably by use
of GG and CMC (p < 0.05). In contrast, XG tended to decrease
values for these two parameters (p < 0.05).
All of the changes in Jasmine rice flour properties by using
GG, CMC, and XG (0.2% and 0.4%) contributed to the
improvements of the noodle properties such as cooking and
texture, but they did not show significantly different sensory
properties (p < 0.05). Among all rice noodle formulas, the noodle
prepared by Jasmine rice flour with 0.2% GG was the best recipe
because the formula presented the highest score (5.70 but still
less than 6) due to the more desirable textural properties (higher
values in tensile strength, extensibility, and cohesiveness) and
cooking properties (the lowest value of cooking loss) (p < 0.05).
Nonetheless, overall acceptability scores of all noodle samples
were not in the acceptable values for the 9-point hedonic scale
(lower than 6). These could potentially be strengthened by
greater values of final viscosity and some thermal properties (Tc
and ΔHg) in the rice flour (p < 0.05).
With respect to commercial application, the rice noodle
industry produces noodles by using both conventional and
extrusion techniques. In this study, the properties of rice noodles
that were prepared by conventional methods were the sole focus.
Hence, quality attributes of rice noodles prepared by extrusion
techniques with the same recipe may need further study.
Moreover, a scaled-up investigation is needed before considering
for commercial production and use.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful for the financial support from Mae Fah Luang
University and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under the Royal Golden
manuscript was edited for grammatical accuracy by Matthew Robert
Ferguson of Mahidol University International College, Bangkok, Thailand.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Keywords
hydrocolloids, noodle qualities, orgainic rice, pasting properties, red
Jasmine
Received: May 13, 2018
Revised: May 13, 2018
Published online:
[1] P. Klinmalai, T. Hagiwara, T. Sakiyama, S. Ratanasumawong, J. Food
Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 117.
[2] D. Sumczynski, E. Kotásková, H. Druzbíková, J. Mlcek, Food Chem.
2016, 211, 339.
[3] D. Dziki, G. Cacak-Pietrzak, A. Mis, K. Jo nczyk, U. Gawlik-Dziki, J.
Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 2648.
[4] S. Mohanty, P. Chengappa, M. Hedge, J. K. Ladha, S. Baruah,
E. Kannan, A. V. Manjunatha (Eds.), The Future Rice Strategy for
India, Academic Press, Massachusetts 2017.
[5] R. Sompong, S. Siebenhandl-Ehn, G. Linsberger-Martin,
E. Berghofer, Food Chem. 2011, 124, 132.
[6] H. L. Jang, I. Y. Bae, H. G. Lee, J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 122.
[7] Y. Zhou, H. Cao, M. Hou, S. Nirasawa, E. Tatsumi, T. J. Foster,
Y. Cheng, Food Res. Int. 2013, 51, 879.
[8] A. Kaur, K. Shevkani, N. Singh, P. Sharma, S. Kaur, J. Food Sci.
Technol. 2015, 52, 8113.
[9] Z. L. Pan, Z. L. Ai, T. Wang, Y. H. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Food Sci. Technol.
2016, 53, 2414.
[10] S. B. Sabbatini, H. D. Sanchez, M. A. Torre, C. A. Osella, Int. J. Food
Sci. Nutr. 2014, 3, 488.
[11] M. A. Loubes, S. K. Flores, M. P. Tolaba, J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 69,
280.
[12] S. W. Cui (Ed.), Food Carbohydrates: Chemistry, Physical properties,
and Applications, CRC Press, Florida 2005.
[13] P. Suwannaporn, K. Wiwattanawanich, Starch/Stärke 2011, 63, 493.

Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (8 of 9) © 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[14] D. Saha, S. Bhattacharya, J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 587.
[15] Y. H. Hui (Ed.), Handbook of Food Products Manufacturing: Principles,
Bakery, Beverages, Cereals, Cheese, Confectionary, Fats, Fruits, and
Functional Foods, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey 2007.
[16] J. Cai, J. H. Chiang, M. Y. P. Tan, L. K. Saw, Y. Xu, M. N. Ngan-Loong,
J. Food Eng. 2016, 186, 1.
[17] K. Srikaeo, P. Laothongsan, C. Lerdluksamee, Int. J. Biol. Macromol.
2018, 109, 517.
[18] B. Saberi, Q. V. V. Chockchaisawasdee, J. B. Golding, C. J. Scarlett,
C. E. Stathopoulos, Food Bioprocess Technol. 2017, 10, 2240.
[19] D. Thumrongchote, T. Suzuki, K. Laohasongkram, S. Chaiwanichsiri,
Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2012, 3, 150.
[20] Y. Wandee, D. Uttapap, S. Puncha-arnon, C. Puttanlek,
V. Rungsardthong, N. Wetprasit, Food Chem. 2015, 179, 85.
[21] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
The State of Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome 1989.
[22] E. S. M. Abdel-Aal, J. C. Young, I. Rabalski, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006,
54, 4696.
[23] K. W. Chan, N. M. H. Khong, S. Iqbal, M. Ismail, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012,
13, 7496.
[24] M. Chatatikun, A. Chiabchalard, J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2013, 5, 97.
[25] R. D. Corral-Aguayo, M. Yahia, A. Carrilo-Lopez, G. Gonzalez-
Aguilars, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 10498.
[26] F. Wu, Y. Meng, N. Yang, H. Tao, X. Xu, Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63,
1199.
[27] H. W. Von Loesecke (Ed.), Drying and Dehydration of Foods,
Reinhold, New York 1945.
Starch - Stärke 2018, 1800145 1800145 (9 of 9)
www.starch-journal.com
[28] X. Ye, Z. Sui, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 84, 428.
[29] U. Purwandari, D. Hidayati, B. Tamam, S. Arifin, Int. Food Res. J.
2014, 21, 1615.
[30] D. S. Jung, I. Y. Bae, I. K. Oh, S. I. Han, S. J. Lee, H. G. Lee, Int. J. Biol.
Macromol. 2017, 104, 442.
[31] G. G. Hou (Ed.), Asian Noodles: Science, Technology, and Processing,
John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey 2011.
[32] Y. Kim, J. I. Kee, S. Lee, S. H. Yoo, Food Chem. 2014, 145, 409.
[33] O. G. Jones, D. J. McClements, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010,
9, 374.
[34] G. Soultani, V. Evageliou, A. E. Koutelidakis, M. Maria Kapsokefalou,
M. Komaitis, Food Hydrocoll. 2014, 35, 727.
[35] Y. Yi, H. J. Jeon, S. Yoon, S. M. Lee, Prev. Nutr. Food Sci. 2015, 20, 276.
[36] E. Rodriguez-Sandoval, M. Cortes-Rodriguez, K. Manjarres-Pinzon,
J. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 1672.
[37] J. A. Han, T. R. Seo, S. T. Lim, D. J. Park, Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 20,
1173.
[38] M. S. Varela, A. S. Navarro, D. K. Yamul, Starch/Stärke 2016, 68, 1.
[39] N. Linlaud, E. Ferrer, M. C. Puppo, C. Ferrero, J. Agric. Food Chem.
2011, 59, 713.
[40] W. H. Z. Shukri, E. N. H. Hamzah, N. R. A. Halim, M. I. N. Isa,
N. M. Sarbon, Int. Food Res. J. 2014, 21, 1777.
[41] D. M. Santiago, Y. Kawashima, K. Matsushita, T. Noda, S. Pelpolage,
K. Tsuboi, S. Kawakami, H. Koaze, H. Yamauchi, Food Sci. Technol.
Res. 2016, 22, 307.
[42] M. Niu, G. G. Hou, J. Kindelspire, P. Krishnan, S. Zhao, Food Chem.
2017, 223, 16.
© 2018 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim