REVIEW
Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) Testing of Wheat Flour:
Principles and Value in Predicting Flour Functionality in Different
Wheat-Based Food Processes and in Wheat Breeding—A Review
Meera Kweon,1,2 Louise Slade,3 and Harry Levine3,4
ABSTRACT
Solvent retention capacity (SRC) technology, its history, principles,
and applications are reviewed. Originally, SRC testing was created and
developed for evaluating soft wheat flour functionality, but it has also
been shown to be applicable to evaluating flour functionality for hard
wheat products. SRC is a solvation test for flours that is based on the
exaggerated swelling behavior of component polymer networks in se-
lected individual diagnostic solvents. SRC provides a measure of solvent
compatibility for the three functional polymeric components of flour—
gluten, damaged starch, and pentosans—which in turn enables prediction
of the functional contribution of each of these flour components to overall
flour functionality and resulting finished-product quality. The pattern of
flour SRC values for the four diagnostic SRC solvents (water, dilute
Wheat flour is a major ingredient of baked goods, and flour
quality contributes predominantly to final product quality. Flour
quality can be considered as a combination of performance and
conformance (also known as consistency), which is impacted by
the four major factors of genetics, agronomics, milling, and bak-
ing (Kweon et al in press) Evaluating flour quality is an essential
task for breeders, millers, and bakers in selecting good-quality
wheat cultivars with optimized performance with respect to culti-
vation, milling, and baking.
For analyzing the relationship between flour quality and baked
product quality, dough rheology methods (e.g., farinography,
mixography, extensography, and alveography) and baking tests
(bread, cookies, and cakes) have widely and traditionally been
used. Empirical rheological measurements are commonly used for
evaluating the gluten quality and overall baking functionality of a
given flour. Farinography and mixography are used most often for
hard wheat bread flours, whereas alveography is the method of
choice for soft wheat biscuit flours (Faridi and Rasper 1987;
Levine and Slade 2004). Among dough rheology methods, farino-
graphy and mixography are typically used to obtain information
on a flour’s water-absorption behavior and on the mixing time of
a dough, as related to gluten development (Finney and Shogren
1972; Shuey 1984; Shogren 1990). In these two methods, differ-
ent levels of water are added to achieve constant dough consis-
tency. In contrast, in extensography and conventional alveogra-
phy, a constant amount of water is added, regardless of the actual
water absorption of a given flour, to obtain information on the
flour’s dough-forming properties and gluten strength (Rasper et al
1985; Faridi and Rasper 1987; Bloksma and Bushuk 1988).
Bread-baking tests are typically used to assess hard wheat flour
1 U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Soft Wheat Qual-
ity Laboratory, Wooster, OH 44691.
2 Current address: Campbell Soup Company/Pepperidge Farm, Camden, NJ 08103.
3 Food Polymer Science Consultancy, Morris Plains, NJ 07950.
4 Corresponding author. E-mail: LevineHarry@optonline.net
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094 / CCHEM-07-11-0092
This article is in the public domain and not copyrightable. It may be freely re-
printed with customary crediting of the source. AACC International, Inc., 2011.
Cereal Chem. 88(6):537–552
aqueous lactic acid, dilute aqueous sodium carbonate, and concentrated
aqueous sucrose solutions), rather than any single individual SRC value,
has been shown to be critical to various successful end-use applications.
Moreover, a new predictive SRC parameter, the gluten performance index
(GPI), defined as GPI = lactic acid/(sodium carbonate + sucrose) SRC
values, has been found to be an even better predictor of the overall per-
formance of flour glutenin in the environment of other modulating
networks of flour polymers. SRC technology is a unique diagnostic tool
for predicting flour functionality, and its applications in soft wheat breed-
ing, milling, and baking are increasing markedly as a consequence of
many successful, recently published demonstrations of its extraordinary
power and scope.
quality, whereas cookie- and cake-baking tests, as well as a new
benchtop cracker-baking method (Kweon et al 2011a, 2011b), are
used to assess soft wheat flour quality.
Plasticization of flour polymers is critical to dough mixing and
baking for biscuit products (Levine and Slade 1990). Slade and
Levine (1994) examined the kinetics of dough development for
soft wheat flour doughs through mixography with various concen-
trations of aqueous sucrose (Suc) solutions to explore the behav-
ior of concentrated aqueous sugar solutions, which mimic the
liquid environment in the doughs of most cookies and high-sugar
crackers (Kweon et al in press), as plasticizers of flour polymers
compared with water alone. The observed increase in dough devel-
opment time with increasing sugar solution concentration, com-
pared with that for water alone, reflected the decreased mobility
of the dough system rather than a decreased amount of water
available to hydrate the flour. In fact, solvation of gluten by aque-
ous sugar solutions is thermodynamically more favorable than
hydration of gluten by water alone, but the kinetics of gluten de-
velopment are retarded by increasing concentrations of a single
sugar or different types of sugars at the same concentration.
Mixograph kinetics as a function of sugar type and concentration
relate to polymer-network formation and functionality near room
temperature. Slade and Levine (1994) reported that it is necessary
to distinguish the contributions of network formation and swelling
by flour polymers near room temperature during dough mixing
and lay (resting) time, on the one hand, and at elevated tempera-
tures during baking, on the other hand, to interpret the mechanism
of baking performance for soft wheat flour products. One should
not confuse such rheological kinetic behavior, as observed in
mixography, Rapid Visco analysis (RVA), and farinography, or the
kinetic behavior observed in differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC) with limited solvent and elevated temperature, with an
energetic effect, as in the excess-solvent situation for the solvent
retention capacity (SRC) method (with no shear and no heat)
(Kweon et al in press).
Even though empirical rheological and baking tests are so
widely used, they all measure, in one way or another, only the
combined, cumulative contributions of the major flour functional
components, which include damaged starch, gluten proteins, and
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 537
arabinoxylans (also known as pentosans), rather than the individ-
ual functional contribution of each of those components sepa-
rately. Preferred flour functionality for baked products varies,
depending on desired product attributes. For example, required
flour functionality for bread is very different from that for cookies
or crackers or cakes. Flour for bread production generally requires
high water absorption, good gluten strength, and relatively high
damaged starch and arabinoxylans, whereas flour for cookie pro-
duction generally requires low water absorption, minimal gluten
strength, and low damaged starch and arabinoxylans. The biscuit-
baking industry (producers of cookies and crackers) in the United
States generally prefers soft wheat flours with high gluten
strength but low water-holding capacity (WHC), especially for
use in commercial cracker production. Damaged starch generated
during flour milling and arabinoxylans originating from the aleu-
rone and bran layers of the wheat kernel significantly increase the
WHC of flour, which is an undesirable characteristic for good-
quality cookie and cracker flours (Slade and Levine 1994). For
flours with high WHC, cookie and cracker dough formation and
development during mixing require the addition of excessive water,
which may necessitate concomitant increases in baking time and
temperature, resulting in increased energy costs, to bake out the
extra water to enable simultaneous attainment of finished-product
target specifications for moisture content and color (Kweon et al
in press).
The ability to analyze the individual functional contribution of
each functional component of flour would enable end-users to
better predict overall flour functionality and obtain optimized
product quality through a deeper understanding of mechanisms
for dough mixing and baking. As a valuable tool for measuring
flour functionality for soft wheat applications, the SRC method
was conceived and developed by Louise Slade at Nabisco in the
late 1980s (Slade and Levine 1994; Haynes et al 2009) and then
implemented as an AACC International Approved Method (Gaines
2000; method 56-11.02, 2010). The SRC test is a solvation assay
for flours that is based on the enhanced swelling behavior of indi-
vidual polymer networks in selected single diagnostic solvents—
water, 5% w/w lactic acid (LA) in water (for glutenin), 5% w/w
sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in water (for damaged starch), and
50% w/w Suc in water (for pentosans)—which are used to predict
the functional contribution of each individual flour component.
The SRC method is increasingly used by wheat breeders, millers,
and bakers, as well as by cereal and other research scientists
(Pareyt et al 2008; Linlaud et al 2009; Kongraksawech et al 2010;
Pareyt 2010; Duyvejonck et al 2011a, 2011b; Jazaeri et al 2011;
Moses and Dogan 2011), and the relationships between flour SRC
profiles and finished-product quality (e.g., for cookies, crackers,
cakes, noodles, and breads) have recently been widely reported
and discussed (Slade and Levine 1994; Fritz 1999; Guttieri et al
2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2011; Bettge et al 2002; Guttieri and
Souza 2003; Gaines 2004; Ram and Singh 2004; Ram et al 2005;
Roccia et al 2006; Xiao et al 2006; Barrera et al 2007; Fustier et
al 2007; Zhang et al 2007, 2008; Colombo et al 2008; Souza et al
2008; Tanhehco and Ng 2008; Walker et al 2008; Kweon et al
2009a, 2009b, 2009d, 2011a, 2011b; Nishio et al 2009, 2011;
Pasha et al 2009; Ross and Bettge 2009; Nakamura et al 2010;
Oliete et al 2010; Zimeri 2010; Haas 2011).
HISTORY BEHIND SRC
Controlling moisture content and relative vapor pressure (%
relative humidity/100) of baked products is critical for achieving
good-quality products (in terms of product geometry, pH, color,
flavor, texture, etc.) with extended shelf life (Slade and Levine
1991, 1994). Flour functionality for each product type requires
different extents of functional contributions from each major flour
component. The gluten, damaged starch, and arabinoxylan func-
tional components in flour each contribute to overall flour water
538 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
absorption, which is pertinent to the preparation of doughs and
batters for baked goods, but each of these functional components
has a different WHC (Kweon et al in press). Water-soluble pento-
sans (also known as water-extractable arabinoxylans) are widely
considered to have a much greater WHC than do damaged starch
or gluten. Generally, soft wheat products such as cookies and
crackers require flours with low water absorption (Slade and
Levine 1994). In contrast, hard wheat products such as bread re-
quire flours with high water absorption. These factors suggest that
arabinoxylans play a detrimental role in the production of cookies
and crackers (Levine and Slade 2004) but a beneficial role in the
production of breads.
Finney and Yamazaki (1946) reported that an acid-water reten-
tion capacity test for hard wheat flours correlated highly with
baked loaf volume for bread. Later, Finney and Yamazaki (1953)
introduced alkaline viscosity and reported its high correlation
with cookie diameter. Yamazaki (1953) also introduced alkaline
water retention capacity (AWRC) and reported its high correlation
with cookie diameter. Since then, an AWRC method, AACC
International Approved Method 56-10.02 (2010), has been widely
used to measure the water-absorption capacity of flours, which
results from the cumulative contributions of all three functional
flour components. In the AWRC method, 0.1N sodium bicarbon-
ate solution (pH ≈8.0) is used to aid in pH adjustment for water of
different pHs close to neutral. But water-absorption capacity
alone is not sufficient for predicting the different flour functional-
ities required for different types of baked products. As already
mentioned, for that purpose—to analyze the functional contribu-
tions of each major flour component individually—a more reveal-
ing SRC method was created and developed by Slade (Slade and
Levine 1994; Haynes et al 2009). In 1999, the Soft Wheat Flour
Technical Committee of AACC International conducted a collabo-
rative study to evaluate this SRC method, and the Methods Com-
mittee subsequently approved it as an official method, 56-11.02
(Gaines 2000).
PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING SRC
Small molecules dissolve in excess amounts of solvent, but lar-
ger molecules can solvate and then easily entangle rather than
dissolve. Cross-linked polymeric material will swell to varying
degrees, and the extent of swelling of a solvated polymeric mass
can be measured by changes in length, weight, or volume. For
estimating numerically the degree of interaction between materi-
als, the Hildebrand solubility parameter (δ) was proposed, and
swelling values are utilized to measure the solubility parameter of
polymers (Grulke 1989). The extent of swelling for polymers is
thermodynamically analogous to the extent of solubility for small
molecules. The SRC test was developed on the basis of this the-
ory, as a new way to explore and estimate solubility parameter
values for polymeric flour components (Slade and Levine 1994).
SRC technology is based on energetics (related to thermodynamic
polymer-solvent compatibility), not kinetics (related to mobility
constraints for poor plasticizers). Dough rheological tests, in con-
trast, are based on kinetics of dough development involving flour
polymers plasticized by water or sugar-water solutions, use lim-
ited amounts of solvent, and give information on rates of network
development. SRC is a solvation test for flours that uses a large
excess of solvent and is based on the swelling behavior of poly-
mer networks in diagnostic solvents. SRC results yield informa-
tion on the extents of network development and solvent compati-
bility (Sears and Darby 1982), information that is used to predict
the functional contributions of each polymeric flour component
(Kweon et al in press).
As alluded to previously, the SRC method is based on a classi-
cal thermodynamic determination of the solubility parameter of
network-forming polymers. The SRC method deliberately avoids
kinetic effects, which would be incorrectly introduced by a rheo-
logical method such as RVA. Unless uniaxial shear is desired to
align high molecular weight (MW) glutenins or glutenin macro-
polymer, the deliberate use of shear would violate the principle of
the SRC method, in which manual shaking can only be replaced
by gentle mechanical shaking. Thus, the SRC method cannot be
conducted by RVA, despite a recent suggestion to the contrary by
the RVA instrument supplier (Dang and Bason 2006).
Individual diagnostic solvents are used to identify which func-
tional flour component is responsible for a given variation in
flour-swelling behavior. As mentioned previously, the four stan-
dard solvents of the SRC method are water, 5% w/w LA in water,
5% w/w Na2CO3 in water, and 50% w/w Suc in water. In the SRC
method, these four solvents are each used at a fivefold excess to
flour (25.0 g of solvent to 5.0 g of flour) to avoid kinetic effects
on flour solvation and swelling. Consequently, SRC results cannot
be compared with results from rheological methods (which are
routinely applied to concentrated flour-water systems), and one
should not attempt to do so (Kweon et al in press), no matter how
tempting it might be to try.
Water is the reference SRC solvent, because it can hydrate and
swell all three of the functional polymeric flour components to
varying extents. The water SRC value is related to the overall
WHC contributed by the flour functional components, including
gluten, damaged starch, and pentosans. The WHC of flour (typi-
cally expressed as grams of water/gram of dry component and
approximately equivalent to a flour’s water SRC value [Slade and
Levine 1994]) is an important functional characteristic related
to the processing and finished-product quality of baked goods.
According to accepted literature values for WHC (as discussed
in Kweon et al in press), wheat gluten can hold 2.8 g of H2O
per gram of dry gluten, but nongluten proteins hold negligible
amounts of water. Native wheat starch can hold only 0.3–0.45 g
of H2O per gram of dry starch, whereas damaged starch (pro-
duced by milling) can hold 1.5–2 g of H2O per gram of dry starch,
and gelatinized or pasted starch (as produced by baking) can hold
up to ≈10 g of H2O per gram of dry starch. Wheat pentosans,
especially the so-called solvent-accessible (e.g., water-extract-
able) arabinoxylans, are generally regarded as the greatest water-
holding component of soft wheat biscuit flours, with a WHC of
≈10 g of H2O per gram of dry arabinoxylan. As will be discussed
further later, when a pentosanase (endoarabinoxylanase) enzyme
is added to a flour-water slurry, the water SRC value for the flour
is significantly reduced, thus confirming the detrimentally high
water-holding behavior of such pentosans (Levine and Slade
2004). A water SRC value of ≤51% was shown by an Ohio soft
red winter (SRW) wheat-based biscuit flour (a “gold standard” or
ideal cookie and cracker flour) with excellently low WHC (Slade
and Levine 1994).
Each of the other three diagnostic SRC solvents is a better,
more compatible solvent (in the sense of the solubility parameter
[Slade and Levine 1988, 1991, 1994]) for its specific individual
flour polymer—dilute aqueous LA solution for glutenins, dilute
aqueous Na2CO3 solution for the solvent-accessible amylopectin
in damaged starch, and concentrated aqueous Suc solution for
solvent-accessible pentosans—than is water alone. Thus, each
flour polymer is more soluble in its respective SRC solvent than it
is in water alone, so each of the three other SRC solutions exag-
gerates the swelling of its more-compatible flour polymer (as
related to the extent of polymer network development) more than
does water alone. Thus, the 5% LA solution exaggerates the
swelling of a glutenin network, and the LA SRC value represents
a measure of gluten quality and functionality.
Water is not the best solvent for any functional flour polymer.
The purpose of the other three solvents is to exaggerate the contri-
bution of one functional flour component, compared with its
contribution to swelling in water. But a critical point to note is
that all four of the SRC solvents contain at least 50% water, so
when the level of any flour polymer increases, the swelling obvi-
ously will increase in all of these water-based solvents. Still, the
greatest increase will occur in the solvent that is most compatible
with the flour polymer whose level is increased. Consequently,
compared with a gold standard water SRC value of ≤51% (i.e.,
based on the 5.0 g weight of flour of known moisture content, the
swollen water-wet flour pellet would weigh 7.55 g), all three
other SRC values for a gold standard soft wheat biscuit flour are
much greater than 51% (i.e., LA SRC ≥ 87%, Na2CO3 SRC ≤
64%, and Suc SRC ≤ 89%) (Kweon et al in press).
It is worth mentioning that the pH of LA SRC solution (5%
w/w) is around 2.0, so this acidic environment mimics the usual
condition (pH < 4.0) generated by LA bacteria and its effect on
the functionality of glutenins during the fermentation process for
production of sponge-and-dough type saltine crackers. The Na2CO3
SRC solution (5% w/w) has a pH ≈12.0. This highly alkaline pH
is above the pK of starch hydroxyl groups. Under this condition,
damaged starch can be easily solvated by Na2CO3 solution and
shows exaggerated swelling (Slade et al, unpublished data). This
swelling allows the diagnostic distinction of damaged or pregela-
tinized starches from undamaged, raw, native starch (AACC
International Approved Method 56-11.02). The Suc SRC solution
has a neutral pH and exaggerates the swelling of an arabinoxylan
network, because a 50% Suc solution exhibits good solvent com-
patibility with the xylan backbone of wheat flour arabinoxylans
(Slade et al, unpublished data).
Other examples of actual SRC values for some diverse real-
world flours include Na2CO3 SRC = 64% for Ohio SRW but
123% for Canadian patent durum, which is much harder textured;
Suc SRC = 86% for Ontario soft white wheat (SWW) but 126%
for Canadian patent durum and Canadian hard red spring (HRS)
wheat; and LA SRC = 67% for weakly chlorinated Ohio SRW and
rye-gene-translocated Ohio SRW but 177% for much stronger
Canadian HRS (Kweon et al in press). Such SRC values, and
especially the corresponding patterns of the four SRC values
appropriate for specific end-use applications, reflect predictive
information about potential flour performance capability, whereas
the lot-to-lot variation in SRC values reflects information about
flour conformance. Intuitively, flour conformance (to SRC and
alveograph functional specifications [Kweon et al in press]) must
relate (most commonly as cause and effect) to bakery production
conformance (to finished-product quality specifications), so the
latter will be improved if flour SRC values vary little from day to
day and lot to lot (Slade and Levine 1994).
SRC PROCEDURE
The SRC test is a relatively simple and user-friendly method
(AACC International Approved Method 56-11.02, 2010). Flour
(5.0 g) is weighed into a 50 mL conical-bottom centrifuge tube,
and 25.0 g of a selected solvent is added to the flour. This flour-
solvent mixture is tapped on the bench and then mixed well with
hand shaking to disperse the flour without lumps. After 20 min
for hydration/solvation, the flour suspension is centrifuged at
1,000 × g for 15 min. Then the supernatant is discarded, and the
tube is allowed to drain for 10 min. The weight of the swollen
pellet is then measured, and the SRC value is calculated, based on
14% flour moisture content and expressed as %. Recently, the
Soft Wheat Flour Technical Committee of AACC International
proposed a revised calculation for SRC as well as for AWRC (Ap-
proved Method 56-10.02, 2010), adjusted for correct flour mois-
ture content. Haynes et al (2009) pointed out the problem with the
current equations regarding this moisture correction, which af-
fects numbers larger than that representing the weight of solvent
retained by a flour, and explained the details behind the revised
SRC calculation. In fact, accurate flour moisture content is impor-
tant to any reliable measurement of flour functionality, because
the SRC test is a solvent-compatibility method and the solvated
flour needs to be mobile, above its glass transition temperature, at
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 539
room temperature (Slade and Levine 1994). For bread and pasta
products, a flour moisture content of 14.0 ± 0.5% is widely be-
lieved to be required for optimum functionality, whereas for cook-
ies and crackers, a flour moisture content of 13.0 ± 0.5% is
widely considered to be optimum for desired functionality.
To get reliable SRC results, correct preparation of the solvents
is essential. In particular, the LA and Suc solutions require extra
attention. When preparing the 5% w/w LA solution, the actual
assay value on the LA reagent bottle should be used for calculat-
ing the appropriate amount of LA to be diluted for the solution.
Use of freshly prepared LA solution is required and recommended
for the SRC test. If the LA solution is stored for longer than
about a week at room temperature, the anhydride and lactide can
hydrolyze to form LA, which results in increased strength of the
LA solution and thus decreased pH over time (Thurmond and
Edgar 1924). LA solution kept at room temperature increased in
normality from 1.000 to 1.185 and continued to increase for at
least a month (Reiman 1934). A stronger LA solution would fur-
ther exaggerate the swelling of a glutenin network, which would
result in an increased LA SRC value and thus an overestimation
of gluten strength. Reiman (1934) reported that the viscosity of a
flour-in-water suspension increased with increasing storage pe-
riod of an LA solution because of the increased strength of the
LA. For preparing the 50% w/w Suc solution, complete dissolu-
tion of the Suc is required, and the Suc concentration should be
on a weight, not volume, basis (i.e., 50.0 g of Suc + 50.0 g of
water). It is recommended that the Suc solution be prepared the
day before SRC testing to allow enough time for the Suc to dis-
solve completely. Although it is acceptable for the Suc solution to
be stored for a week at room temperature, mold can grow in it at
high temperatures (say, in summertime) over a longer storage
period, so there is a need to check for mold before using the solu-
tion. Generally, the 5% w/w Na2CO3 solution can be stored for
longer times; it does not have a storage-time limit. Deionized or
distilled water should always be used for preparing all SRC sol-
vents; use of tap water is not recommended.
Thorough suspension of flour in each SRC solvent is also
important. The standard method for suspending flour is shaking
by hand. However, for many wheat-breeding laboratories or
industrial milling or baking laboratories, which routinely evaluate
large numbers of flour samples, hand shaking could turn into a
tiring job for SRC operators. Use of a mechanical shaker is a
possible solution, but the choice of the right shaker, with the
correct shaking action and shaking-speed setting, should be care-
fully considered. An orbital shaker has been used for continuous
shaking at ≈100 rpm for 20–25 min (Guttieri et al 2001, 2002,
2004; Guttieri and Souza 2003), and a vortex mixer has been used
to replace intermittent hand shaking (Ram and Singh 2004; Ram
et al 2005; Xiao et al 2006; Guttieri et al 2008). Additionally,
numerous publications have reported other minor modifications,
such as a reduction in flour sample size, to the SRC official
method. For example, 0.2 g or 1.0 g of flour (or whole wheat
meal) has been used for SRC testing, mainly for breeding pro-
grams (Bettge et al 2002; Ram and Singh 2004; Ram et al 2005;
Guttieri et al 2008).
SRC RESULTS, THEIR INTERPRETATION,
AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
Because of the simplicity of the SRC method, the variations in
flour SRC values between laboratories and between operators in a
laboratory are generally much smaller than those for other flour-
quality tests, such as rheological and baking tests (Gaines 2000).
The reproducibility, in terms of repeatability, of SRC measure-
ments has been demonstrated through collaborative studies. When
a well-trained operator in a laboratory performed an SRC analysis
10 times on the same flour sample, the repeatability of those 10
measurements was determined to be as follows: water SRC, ±0.5%;
540 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Na2CO3 SRC, ±0.5%; LA SRC, ±1.0%; and Suc SRC, ±1.0%
(Kweon et al in press). Thus, SRC values should not be reported
to more than one decimal place because of the limits of experi-
mental error.
SRC Results Go Beyond Those from Alveography
To help the reader better appreciate the power and scope of
SRC testing, it will be worthwhile to first compare and contrast
SRC results with results from conventional alveography. The
traditional alveograph method (Faridi and Rasper 1987) involves
the blowing of a bubble from a dough made from flour and water
(actually, a dilute salt solution). The less the resistance of the
dough to expansion (which is a positive attribute for a biscuit
dough), the easier it is to start forming and then expanding the
bubble. This property is reflected in the alveograph P (pressure)
value, which represents the maximum peak height of the al-
veograph curve (alveogram). As an approximation, the lower the
P value, the better the quality of a biscuit flour. The other al-
veograph parameters, L (length of the curve along the x-axis) and
W (work, measured as the area under the curve), represent the
duration of the bubble before it bursts (as related, in part, to
dough extensibility) and the strength of the dough, respectively.
As explained further later, alveograph P and W values constitute
valuable functional specifications for biscuit flours (Kweon et al
in press).
Commonly, the soft wheat flour specifications provided by
many ingredient suppliers include only moisture, protein, and ash
contents, which are compositional rather than functional specifi-
cations. Here, we choose to emphasize the point of view that such
compositional specifications are relatively uninformative and not
useful, whereas functional specifications are vital to successful
biscuit making. Elsewhere (Slade and Levine 1994; Kweon et al
in press), the key question has been asked: “How can one link the
three functional flour components—gluten, pentosans, and dam-
aged starch—to flour specifications?” It was answered as follows:
Gluten links to protein content, acid viscosity (another common
flour specification not revealing of flour functionality in biscuit
baking), and the traditional alveograph parameters P, L, and W, of
which P and W have been recognized for decades (Faridi and
Rasper 1987) as important functional flour specifications that can
provide useful information about flour functionality to end users.
Protein content is an especially uninformative flour specification,
because it includes both (functional) gluten and (nonfunctional)
nongluten proteins. Even with regard to gluten, its constituent
proteins, gliadins and glutenins, manifest quite different function-
alities (Slade et al 1989): gliadins are lower-MW, viscous, exten-
sible, two-dimensional film formers, not network formers, whereas
glutenins are higher-MW, elastic, three-dimensional network for-
mers. Pentosans link indirectly (but not equivalently) to ash con-
tent and directly to the alveograph functional specifications. Of
the various types of starch, native starch in raw flour is essentially
inert and nonfunctional, whereas damaged starch is functional and,
like gluten and pentosans, links directly to the alveograph func-
tional specifications.
Figure 1 (Kweon et al in press) shows an idealized alveograph
profile for a gold standard U.S. biscuit flour commercially milled
from Ohio SRW wheat, which, consistent with our own industrial
experience, is widely regarded as the world’s best-quality soft
wheat for traditional biscuit flours (Slade and Levine 1994). What
made this actual flour gold standard were its alveograph func-
tional specification values of P = 35 ± 5, L = 100 ± 10, and W =
90 ± 15, wherein these P, L, and W values evidenced its high
absolute quality and the ± ranges signified its excellent lot-to-lot
consistency. As an ideal-quality flour for making both cookies
and crackers, a soft wheat flour should manifest the optimum
combination of P and W values: P must not be too low (<<30,
indicating flour too soft, producing cookies that could spread too
much) or too high (>>40, indicating flour that is too hard, corre-
lated with excessive levels of damaged starch and pentosans, re-
sulting in cookies that could not spread enough). And W must not
be too low (<<75, indicating flour too weak from insufficient
gluten strength, resulting in flat crackers that could not suffi-
ciently maintain spring and thickness against collapse during bak-
ing) or too high (>>105, indicating flour that is too strong, with
excessive gluten strength, again resulting in crackers that are too
flat, from dough being too elastic and too resistant to spring dur-
ing baking) (Slade and Levine 1994). In real-world practice, the
best quality cookie and cracker flour would be one on the soft or
low side of the P specification range and on the strong or high
side of the W specification range. In contrast, a poor-quality bis-
cuit flour is usually too hard (P too high) and tends to show L
consistently too low (<<90, signifying bubble rupture too early),
Fig. 1. An idealized flour alveograph profile (Kweon et al in press). P =
pressure; W = work; L = length; SRC = solvent retention capacity; and
WRC = water retention capacity.
Fig. 2. The alveograph profile from Figure 1, annotated with much additional underlying information available from such an alveogram (Kweon et al in
press). P = pressure; W = work; L = length; F= force; SA = surface area; and SRC = solvent retention capacity.
the latter in part because the dough is not sufficiently extensible,
possibly caused by gliadins of inferior functionality or glutenins
of too high elasticity (Slade and Levine 1994). The ideal cookie
and cracker flour in Figure 1 also had a desirably low WHC, evi-
denced by its water SRC value of ≤51%. At this point, it is always
worth pointing out that the best flour is obviously one with both
the best quality and the best consistency, simultaneously. In our
experience observing biscuit manufacturing around the world, if a
commercial biscuit producer could not have this best of both
worlds, could have only one or the other, and had to choose be-
tween best quality and best consistency, the manufacturer would
almost certainly always pick the flour with the best consistency.
As explained elsewhere (Kweon et al in press), a knowledgeable
baker can use a flour of less-than-ideal quality (e.g., P too high or
L too short) to produce consistent products of acceptable quality
by making skillful modifications to process and/or other formula
variables, as long as the quality of the available flour is consistent,
day in and day out. But at the mercy of a flour of inconsistent
quality, which varies from day to day and lot to lot, the baker is
helpless to know ahead of time what changes to the formula
and/or process might be required to enable production of consis-
tent, quality products.
To better understand the rationale behind Figure 1 and the fol-
lowing Figure 2 (Kweon et al in press), it helps to visualize the
triangles superimposed on the actual alveogram curve in Figure 1.
Those triangles demonstrate that the greater the Pmax, the greater
the L at Pmax, so we are really looking in Figure 2 for effects be-
yond that simple result of the geometry of the alveogram shape.
Figure 2 reveals what one can look for in the alveogram from
Figure 1. This alveogram can be used to locate the cumulative
(but not individual) contributions by the three functional compo-
nents of flour (gluten, damaged starch, and water-soluble pento-
sans) to Pmax during alveograph bubble initiation and early expan-
sion. In turn, such alveogram results can be related to a flour’s
corresponding SRC values—soluble pentosans to Suc SRC, dam-
aged starch to Na2CO3 SRC, and gluten, in particular glutenins, to
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 541
LA SRC—through the four-solvent method (AACC International
Approved Method 56-11.02). (Note that in alveography, the time
of bubble expansion yields a measure of bubble volume [V],
where 1 sec = 5.5 mm of L and 1 mm of L = 5.0505 cm3 of air.)
On the downside of the curve just past Pmax, the slope of the curve
is controlled by the flour glutenins: a slope that is less negative
than that resulting only from the increase in bubble surface area
(SA) signifies stronger, more orientable, more elastic glutenins.
(As noted in Figure 2, P is proportional to force/SA, with the
crossover point between bubble SA and V occurring at L ≈22.4
mm and V ≈113 cm3.) Further along the downside of the al-
veogram, the curvature and the associated duration of the bubble
before rupturing (if not randomly caused by bubble-wall imper-
fections) can be influenced by the flour’s extensible, film-forming
gliadins (Slade et al, unpublished data). Finally, it is important
to note that Pmax, as a parameter, has no functional meaning. It
just represents the coincidence of two independent, simultaneous
processes: 1) the yield-stress resistance to initial bubble expansion
and 2) because the bubble is expanding at a constant V rate, SA in-
creases as shown in the hand-drawn graph at the right in Figure 2.
To overcome several major negative effects (described in detail
in Levine and Slade 2004) of water-soluble pentosans in biscuit
flours, Nabisco successfully commercialized a patented (i.e., an
estate of five U.S. patents: Craig et al 1992; Slade et al 1993a,
1994; Zimmerman et al 1996a, 1996b) pentosanase enzyme tech-
nology for cookie and cracker production. The beneficial effect of
added pentosanase (also known as endoxylanase or hemicellu-
lase) in significantly improving the functionality of an already
high-quality Ohio SRW-based biscuit flour is illustrated by the
Fig. 3. Alveograph profiles illustrating the role of pentosanase enzyme in
flour functionality (Levine and Slade 2004). P = pressure; W = work; and
L = length.
TABLE I
Hypothetical Flour Specification Data Illustrating How Traditional Alveography Alone Can Cause Confusion
for Running a Flour-Milling Process and for Satisfying Customersa
% of Pioneer Water Lactic Acid P from
25R26 in Flourb Pmax SRC SRC Gluten
10 36 53 80 9 70
15 36 53 85 12
20 36 53 90 15
25 36 53 95 18
a Adapted from Kweon et al (in press). The P provided by gluten gives the dough strength, whereas the P provided by the damaged starch and water-soluble
pentosans contributes to resistance of the dough to expansion. SRC = solvent retention capacity.
b The remainder of the flour is a generic Ohio soft red winter wheat.
542 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
sets of alveograms shown in Figure 3 (Levine and Slade 2004).
This control flour had a good, low P value of 28. As mentioned
previously, this P value represents the sum of contributions (ordi-
narily, quantitatively undefined) from all three of the functional
components (gluten, damaged starch, and water-soluble pento-
sans, all of which also contribute to L and W) in a given biscuit
flour. When pentosanase enzyme (PEN III liquid concentrate, a
purified endoarabinoxylanase ingredient with no significant amy-
lase or protease side activities, supplied by Quest International,
ICI, USA) was added (at a standardized level of 0.4 oz/100 lb of
flour) during mixing of the flour-water dough, the resulting al-
veograms showed a much reduced P of only 10. Therefore, 18 of
the original 28 points of P were “bad P”—contributing to resis-
tance of the dough to expansion—evidently resulting from water-
soluble pentosans in the flour. When the alveograph analysis
was carried out using 15% less than the standard amount of
water (which resulted in a much firmer dough) but no PEN en-
zyme, the resulting set of alveograms showed much increased P
and W values, making the flour appear to be much harder and
stronger (worse qualities, unsuitable for a biscuit flour) than it
really was. Finally, when the two experimental treatments (PEN
addition and water reduction) were combined, the resulting set
of alveograms (bottom of Fig. 3) showed P, L, and W values that
in essence reproduced those of the control alveogram. Thus,
when pentosanase enzyme was used (to hydrolyze only the flour’s
water-soluble pentosans and thereby destroy their detrimental
ability to form an entangled, highly water-holding, viscosity-
increasing, spread- and expansion-resisting, gel-like network in
the dough), a dough with viscosity (also known as dough con-
sistency or firmness), machinability, and expansion capability
essentially equal to that of the control dough could be produced
with 15% less water than usual. Evidently, such a pentosanase
enzyme-treated biscuit dough could, in theory (and actually in
practice), be baked in about 15% less time than usual (Levine
and Slade 2004).
Applications of SRC Results to Flour Milling
In Table I (Kweon et al in press), hypothetical flour specifica-
tion data are shown to address the question: “How can traditional
alveography alone cause confusion for running a flour-milling
process and for satisfying customers?” For the purposes of proc-
ess-operating control and customer satisfaction resulting from
consistency of flour quality, some commercial milling processes
are run on the basis of alveography, by targeting production of
flour with constant Pmax. The important underlying message illus-
trated in Table I is that biscuit flours of very different quality can
be milled from varying wheat blends, but such flours can have the
same Pmax and water SRC (or AWRC) values. Thus, the same
alveograph Pmax value can be measured for multiple flours (such
as the four listed in the table) with very different performance
capabilities for processability and product quality, breakage, and
shelf life. The four hypothetical flours described in Table I were
“thought-experimentally” created from varying blends of two soft
wheats: 1) generic Ohio SRW (soft-textured but not very strong)
Na2CO3 P from Sucrose P from Water-
SRC Damaged Starch SRC Soluble Pentosans
12 98 15
70 12 93 12
65 9 93 12
65 9 88 9
and 2) a specific SRW cultivar, Pioneer 25R26. This specific
cultivar had a remarkable (and unique, at the time of its commer-
cial introduction around 1999) combination of functional proper-
ties, including the softness of the best Ohio SRW and the gluten
strength of a quality bread wheat, such as hard red winter (HRW)
from Kansas. Pioneer 25R26 represented the best of both worlds
in a soft but strong wheat for cookie and cracker flour. It had the
softness (low damaged starch and pentosans) essential for making
any kind of traditional low-moisture, wide-diameter cookie, cou-
pled with the gluten strength necessary for making any kind of
traditional low-moisture, thick cracker (Slade and Levine 1994).
Use of wheat blends of Pioneer 25R26 and generic Ohio SRW, in
the proportions shown in Table I (from 10:90 to 25:75 Pioneer
25R26 to Ohio SRW), enabled the commercial production of both
cookies and crackers from a single optimized biscuit flour. This
optimization eliminated the major added expense incurred
through the often-necessary use of Kansas HRW bread wheat, for
blending (at a 5–50% level) with Ohio SRW to produce cracker
flours, to provide the greater gluten strength needed for many
cracker applications, but not ordinarily provided by generic Ohio
SRW alone.
In real-world commercial practice, flours milled from 100%
Pioneer 25R26 SRW or 100% generic Ohio SRW often showed
the same Pmax values, in the range of 35 ± 5, which validated the
choice of Pmax = 36 for illustrative purposes in Table I. Similarly,
such model flours commonly showed the same water SRC values,
in the range of 53 ± 2%, even though those equivalent values must
have been comprised of significantly different proportional contri-
butions from the three major water-holding components (gluten,
damaged starch, and pentosans) in the two flours. A key point in
the following discussion of Table I concerns the six flour func-
tional specification parameters: alveograph P and W and the four
SRC values for the solvents water, LA, Na2CO3, and Suc. For
flours produced from wheat blends, such as the blends of Pioneer
25R26 and Ohio SRW in Table I, each value of P, W, and the four
SRC parameters equates to the mathematical, linearly propor-
tional, weighted average of the corresponding P, W, and SRC
values for the 100% flours from each individual wheat in the
blend (Slade and Levine 1994; Haas 2011; Kweon et al 2011a).
For example, if hypothetical wheats X and Y, with flour Pmax val-
ues of 35 and 65, were blended to produce a 1:1 w/w X:Y flour,
that flour would have a Pmax value of 50. If wheats X and Y, with
flour W values of 90 and 150, respectively, were blended to pro-
duce a 3:1 w/w X:Y flour, that flour would have a W value of 105.
And if wheats X and Y, with LA SRC values of 90 and 130,
respectively, were blended to produce an 80:20 w/w X:Y flour,
that flour would have an LA SRC value of 98. For the illustrative
purpose of the thought experiment described in Table I, a 100%
flour from the atypically strong Pioneer 25R26 would have been
assigned an LA SRC value of about 145, whereas a 100% flour
from the soft but not strong Ohio SRW would have been assigned
an LA SRC value of about 75.
The concept of bad P, introduced in the context of Figure 3,
was applied in Table I to describe the (estimated) individual
contributions to Pmax from damaged starch and water-soluble
pentosans and was expanded to include the complementary con-
cept of “good P” contributed by gluten (as necessary strength for
cracker making). All four flours in Table I had the same overall
Pmax value of 36 (gold standard) and the same excellent water
SRC value of 53, but each Pmax of 36 was built from different
proportions of estimated good P and bad P, corresponding to the
different wheat-blend proportions of Pioneer 25R26 and Ohio
SRW. The higher the percentage of Pioneer 25R26 in the blend,
the higher the proportion of good P from gluten and the lower the
proportions of bad P from damaged starch and pentosans. For
example, at 25% Pioneer 25R26, 18 of 36 would be good P and
only 18 (9 + 9) would be bad P. In contrast, the lower the percent-
age of Pioneer 25R26 in the blend, the lower the proportion of
good P from gluten and the higher the proportions of bad P from
damaged starch and pentosans. Thus, at 10% Pioneer 25R26, only
9 of 36 would be good P and 27 (12 + 15) would be bad P. But
note that the sum of good P and bad P for each flour totaled 36.
So the alveograph Pmax alone could not distinguish among the
four flours or their different functionalities, which could only be
revealed completely by the SRC profile for each flour (Kweon et
al 2011a, 2011b). As discussed and explained further later, the
SRC profile for the 25% Pioneer 25R26 flour, with its LA SRC
value of 95, indicated that it would have the highest gluten
strength (which would be best for maximizing cracker thickening
during baking), making it the best flour of the four for dedicated
cracker making. In contrast, the SRC profile for the 10% Pioneer
25R26 flour, with its LA SRC value of only 80, indicated that it
would have relatively low gluten strength (which would be best
for minimizing inhibition of cookie spread during baking), mak-
ing it often the best flour of the four for dedicated cookie making.
The 15 and 20% Pioneer 25R26 flours, with their intermediate LA
SRC values of 85 and 90, respectively, would have been suitable
for making both cookies and crackers. Notice also that the other es-
timated SRC values listed in Table I (Suc = 88–98 and Na2CO3 =
65–70) were shown earlier to fall more or less within the SRC
specification ranges for gold-standard biscuit flours (Kweon et al
2011a, 2011b).
Another valuable, related use of SRC testing in flour milling
involves mill-stream analysis and selection, for enhanced flour
functionality at optimized cost. Full four-solvent SRC testing can
be done for individual flour mill streams, to identify streams to be
included or deliberately excluded from a final flour (e.g., 72%
extraction patent flour), on the basis of the magnitudes of their
positive (LA SRC value for gluten) and negative (Na2CO3 and
Suc SRC values for damaged starch and pentosans, respectively)
contributing component functionalities. For this purpose, a con-
venient SRC testing methodology involves comparing and con-
trasting SRC values for 5.0 g of a standard control flour (with a
previously established, desirable SRC pattern) to corresponding
SRC values for 4.5 g of the control flour + 0.5 g of each individ-
ual mill-stream sample, to determine how a 10% (by weight)
substitution of a given mill stream affects (positively and/or nega-
tively) the desirable SRC values for the control flour. Although it
is widely recognized by millers that earlier mill streams (at lower
extraction rates, containing more prime starchy endosperm, with
less damaged starch and pentosans) generally contribute to higher
final-flour quality, whereas later mill streams (at higher extraction
rates, containing more aleurone and bran fractions, with more
damaged starch and pentosans) are generally detrimental to final-
flour quality, it is also known that two flours with the same
extraction rate (e.g., 72%) can differ significantly in their biscuit-
baking functionality, depending on which particular mill streams
have been left in or out. SRC mill-stream testing is a unique way
to determine which specific individual later mill streams should
be left in and which should be excluded to produce the best-qual-
ity flour at the lowest practical cost.
SRC Results for Flour Blends or Flours from Blended Wheats
As mentioned earlier, for flours produced from blends of wheats
or flours, each SRC value equates to the mathematical, linearly
proportional, weighted average of the corresponding SRC values
for the 100% flours from each individual wheat in the blend. This
fact has enabled certain commercial wheat-milling operations to
use SRC testing as a basis for blending different wheat cultivars
to produce consistent, high-quality flours (note especially an out-
standing master’s thesis, Haas 2011; Kweon et al 2011a). Illustra-
tive SRC results are shown in Tables II–IV (Kweon et al 2011a).
Table II provides the SRC values for a diverse series of parent
flours milled from various individual (hard and soft) wheat culti-
vars. Table III indicates proportions for specific flour blends (of
two, four, or five components) created from those parent flours. In
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 543
Table IV, the actual measured SRC values for the flour blends in increases flour-slurry viscosity. In contrast, amylopectin is only
Table III are compared with corresponding SRC values calculated released from prime starch during cooking, typically above 80°C
from the data in Tables II and III. In Table IV, one can see that the (after second-stage swelling and starch pasting). The Na2CO3
agreement between measured and calculated SRC values is gener- SRC solvent only measures how much amylopectin is released
ally excellent. For measured water SRC values in the range 56.2– from damaged starch, and this quantity is directly related to the
83.0%, the average difference between measured and calculated key functional property of amylopectin, which is viscosity. Thus,
values is 1.5 units. For measured Na2CO3 SRC values in the range the Na2CO3 SRC solvent only measures the important contribu-
79.1–117.2%, the average difference between measured and cal- tion of amylopectin from damaged starch, which relates directly
culated values is 3.5 units. For measured LA SRC values in the to flour-slurry viscosity (Slade et al, unpublished data). Use of
range 76.7–149.3%, the average difference between measured and the SRC method enables one to learn about the separate func-
calculated values is 1.1 units. And for measured Suc SRC values in tional contributions from damaged starch (Na2CO3 solvent), pen-
the range 101.6–134.9%, the average difference between measured tosans (Suc solvent), and gluten (LA solvent) at the same time, so
and calculated values is 2.1 units. The average of those four average that one can know how best to react during flour milling, for
differences is just 2.1%. example, by modifying the wheat blend or the wheat-tempering
conditions or the mill-roll settings. Gentle milling of a wheat on a
SRC as a Method for Measuring the Effect laboratory test mill to ≈70% flour extraction will enable one to
of Damaged Starch on Flour Functionality measure the best flour SRC pattern for the four solvents that can
It cannot be overemphasized that one of the reasons why the be expected from a given wheat source. Any difference between
SRC method was originally created was because no traditional that pattern and what one would get from commercial-scale
method to estimate damaged starch tells what one needs to know milling would result from tempering conditions, and/or mill-roll
about the effect of damaged starch on flour functionality for bis- settings, and/or flour-extraction rate.
cuit baking. Similarly, the traditional methods based on alveogra-
phy and mixography do not tell what one needs to know about Application of SRC Results to Understand Flour Quality,
glutenin functionality in biscuit baking. As already mentioned, the with a Focus on Gluten Protein Quality and Functionality
problem with traditional alveography and mixography is that all Let us continue to illustrate how one can interpret and apply
three major functional components (damaged starch, pentosans, SRC results to better understand overall flour quality, which is the
and gluten) of a flour at room temperature contribute simultane- combination of flour performance and conformance capabilities.
ously and in a convoluted fashion to the flour’s rheological pro- The main point to emphasize here is that different SRC patterns
file. So, when two flours have different profiles, one does not correlate with flours optimally suited for different product appli-
know how to change the wheat feed to the mill, or the wheat-tem- cations, as illustrated in Table V (Kweon et al, previously unpub-
pering process, or the mill-roll settings, because one does not know lished experimental data). The following pattern of all four SRC
which flour components are causing the differences in rheological values was shown earlier for a gold-standard cookie flour: water
profiles. When starch is damaged during flour milling, amylo- SRC, ≤51%; LA SRC, ≥87%; Na2CO3 SRC, ≤64%; and Suc SRC,
pectin becomes functional at room temperature and dramatically ≤89%. In contrast, the following is the preferred pattern of SRC
values for a stronger cracker flour for sponge-and-dough product
systems (e.g., saltine crackers): water SRC, ≤57%; LA SRC,
TABLE II ≥100%; Na2CO3 SRC, ≤72%; and Suc SRC, ≤96% (Kweon et al
Solvent Retention Capacity Results for Parent Flours in Flour Blends in press). Table V also shows SRC patterns for various examples
Water Lactic Acid Na2CO3 Sucrose of other actual standard reference flours, including ones used to
Cultivar (%) (%) (%) (%) produce wafers, snack cakes, brownies, soft and moist cookies,
Blanca Grande 86.3 161.8 119.9 136.6 crunchy snacks, bread, shortbread, high-ratio cakes, and pancakes.
Briggs 77.4 136.2 107.2 127.7 Although emphasis has been placed here on the fact that
Eltan 61.0 100.9 85.9 114.6 individual solution SRC values provide functionality information,
Jagalene 72.6 123.8 95.3 116.0 not obtainable from any other method of flour quality analysis, on
McNeal 89.4 153.3 126.0 141.7 individual functional components in flour, it should also be noted
Mountral 59.7 76.1 69.1 76.6
Nopro 79.0 129.1 113.5 124.1
Patterson 52.2 71.2 73.5 97.2 TABLE IV
Reeder 78.9 145.0 111.7 131.0 Calculated and Measured Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) Values
Roane 59.4 91.7 87.8 108.7 for the Flour Blends in Table III
Stephens 62.0 84.0 86.6 113.1
Tam110 84.7 147.3 128.0 145.0 Flour Water (%) Lactic Acid (%) Na2CO3 (%) Sucrose (%)
Calculated SRC
TABLE III Blend 1 72.0 121.2 100.4 121.8
Formulas for Flour Blends Blend 2 81.9 137.9 116.4 133.4
Blend 3 84.2 149.1 118.9 136.4
Flour Blend Blend 4 70.5 106.6 100.0 118.6
Cultivar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Blend 5 72.0 119.5 107.9 126.9
Blend 6 69.3 113.5 93.5 110.4
Blanca Grande 25 Blend 7 57.1 77.6 80.0 105.1
Briggs 20 Blend 8 66.5 100.5 91.8 117.7
Eltan 20
Measured SRC
Jagalene 20
McNeal 20 75 50 25 Blend 1 70.1 120.7 97.4 121.9
Mountral 25 Blend 2 79.6 139.0 111.7 134.7
Nopro 50 Blend 3 83.0 149.3 117.2 134.9
Patterson 25 50 Blend 4 69.4 107.2 97.9 117.1
Reeder 50 25 Blend 5 70.1 116.5 102.5 125.7
Roane 20 25 50 Blend 6 66.5 113.1 86.4 105.5
Stephens 50 50 75 Blend 7 56.2 76.7 79.1 101.6
Tam110 50 Blend 8 66.7 102.2 94.5 120.3

544 CEREAL CHEMISTRY

that all the individual SRC values are convoluted with one an-
other, because all the SRC solutions are water-based solvents. To
deconvolute the contribution to flour strength by gluten from
functional contributions resulting from damaged starch and arabi-
noxylans, Slade conceived a new predictive SRC parameter, the
gluten performance index (GPI), defined as GPI = LA/(Na2CO3 +
Suc) SRC values, to describe the overall performance capability
of glutenin in the environment of other modulating networks. As
subsequently reported in Kweon et al (2009a, 2009d), as flour
extraction increased, this ratio increased for about a third of the
range in flour yield, then decreased sharply as LA SRC declined
and damaged starch, as measured by Na2CO3 SRC, increased.
With increasing extent of flour chlorination, the GPI decreased
significantly, and this effect on the GPI was greater when the
milling yield (defined as lb of flour/lb of wheat) decreased from
74 to 55%, as demonstrated by mixography results.
Long ago, Finney and Barmore (1948) demonstrated conclu-
sively that, when flour was milled from an unidentified blend of
wheat varieties, there was no relationship between protein content
and flour performance. Even for a single wheat, milled to differ-
ent extents of extraction, there was no relationship between pro-
tein content and flour performance. Finney and Barmore’s classic
study on bread baking showed that
the relationship between loaf volume and flour protein for each
variety [of HRW and HRS wheat] was linear within the limits
of protein encountered, approximately 8.5–18%. Regression
lines for loaf volume vs. protein content for any variety were
similar for four crop years, indicating that the bread-baking
quality of each variety was essentially the same in different
years. Again, the level and slope of the regression lines for loaf
volume on protein content for the varieties differed significant-
ly, indicating differences between varieties in protein quality.
In other words, at a given protein content, flour performance, in
terms of baked loaf volume for bread, could not be predicted from
wheat type, when comparing HRW and HRS wheat flours. Thus,
it was demonstrated for the first time, and remains so today, even
though it is frequently forgotten, overlooked, or ignored, that
flour protein quality does not equate to flour protein quantity, and
it is protein quality (i.e., gluten quality), not quantity, that deter-
mines flour functionality and performance in baking applications
such as crackers and bread (Slade et al 1989; Levine and Slade
1990; Slade and Levine 1994).
Continuing with the theme of gluten protein quality, mention is
warranted of the utility of SRC four-solvent testing as a new best
practice method for evaluating the variable baking functionality
of flour-supplementing vital wheat gluten (VWG) commercial
ingredients, many of which have been shown (Hay and Every
1990) to be prone to loss of baking quality, resulting from heat
damage suffered during commercial gluten isolation and drying
processes. But previous literature methods (e.g., Hay and Every
1990) for evaluating VWG functionality have been based on the
composition of residual undamaged gluten proteins, such as the
solubility of acid-soluble glutenins. However, the quality of VWG
depends on the detrimental presence of entrained arabinoxylans
and damaged starch, as well as on the state of the gluten proteins,
especially the low-MW glutenins. For commercial baking appli-
cations (e.g., bread making), one needs to test the functional ef-
fect of VWG sample supplementation to a standard known test
flour. Via SRC four-solvent testing, similar to that described ear-
lier for flour mill-stream analysis, the four SRC values for 5.0 g
of a standard bread flour (with a previously established, desirable
SRC pattern) can be compared and contrasted with the corre-
sponding SRC values for 4.5 g of the bread flour premixed to
uniformity with 0.5 g of each VWG ingredient. The VWG with
the best baking quality at the most cost-effective price would be
the ingredient that, at a 10% (by weight) substitution level, pro-
duces the greatest increasing effect on the GPI of the standard
bread flour.
Building on the critical conclusion about gluten quality stated
previously, Figure 4 (Kweon et al in press) shows the supplemen-
tal diagnostic solvents that have been identified and developed—
again based on enhanced component-polymer solubility and sol-
vent compatibility, resulting in exaggerated component-polymer
swelling—for an extended, more research-oriented SRC method
for flour glutens and gluten components. Going beyond the 5%
aqueous LA solution used to assess basic glutenin functionality in
the standard SRC method (AACC International Approved Method
56-11.02), the following four solvents have been used in our labo-
ratory (Slade et al, unpublished data) to assess the functionality of
gluten as a whole and that of individual gluten components: a
0.006% w/w aqueous solution of sodium metabisulfite (NaMBS)
for gluten (overall strength); a 0.75% w/w aqueous solution of
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) for glutenin macropolymer (GMP);
an aqueous solution of 0.75% w/w SDS and 0.006% NaMBS for
GMP without any disulfide network; and a 55% v/v aqueous solu-
tion of ethanol for gliadins, which are globular proteins at room
temperature and do not form three-dimensional networks. The
55% ethanol solvent requires some explaining, because although

TABLE V
Typical Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) Results for Some Standard Reference Flour Typesa
Flour Water (%) Lactic Acid (%) Na2CO3 (%) Sucrose (%) Overall Flour Quality
Gold Standard Targets
Cookie and cracker ≤51 ≥87 ≤64 ≤89
Sponge-and-dough products ≤57 ≥100 ≤72 ≤96
Reference Flour Examples
Ohio SRW:Kansas HRW (≥80:≤20) 51 87 64 89 Excellent eastern cookie and cracker
PNW SW and PNW HRW blend 55 83 77 108 Poor West Coast cookie and cracker
Ohio SRW:Kansas HRW (<80:>20) 57 100 72 96 Excellent eastern sponge and dough
Eastern SRW, pH 6.3 53 92 71 92 Wafers
Chlorinated SRW 51 67 70 100 Snack cakes, brownies, and soft and moist cookies
Ohio SRW with 1B/1R 54 68 70 93 Ohio SRW with rye-gene translocation
North Dakota patent durum 54 91 93 109 Crunchy snacks
Canada HRS 73 148 91 115 Blending flour for increased bread loaf volume
Ontario SWW 48 85 64 93 Problematic for shortbread production
Ontario SWW 48 81 62 86 Excellent for shortbread production
Ohio SRW:Kansas HRW (≥80:≤20) 52 79 68 94 Poor for cookies and crackers; milling extraction too high
Chlorinated SRW, pH 4.6b 53 73 65 86 Excellent for high-ratio cakes
Chlorinated SRW, pH 5.1c 55 76 73 109 Excellent for pancakes
a SRW = soft red winter; HRW = hard red winter; HRS = hard red spring; SW = soft white; SWW = soft white winter; and PNW = Pacific Northwest.
b Extensively chlorinated to decrease lactic acid SRC.
c Slightly chlorinated to increase sucrose SRC.

Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 545

aqueous ethanol is a gliadin solvent, it is not an SRC diagnostic
solvent. First, it should be noted that 55% v/v ethanol, not 70%
v/v ethanol, is the optimum solvent for gliadins. But, as described
earlier, SRC technology is based on a polymer science method for
swelling networks, not on extraction of solutes into a supernatant.
If a solute is too dilute, even network-forming polymers can be
extracted into a supernatant, but at the correct (5:1 w/w) sol-
vent:solute (i.e., flour) ratio of the SRC method, network-forming
polymers are solvent-accessible but not solvent-extractable and
create a swelled, solvent-holding network that supports itself
against the shrinking or collapsing force of 1,000 × g centrifuga-
tion. In contrast, for globular gliadins, which do not create net-
works and for which 5:1 solvent:flour is still a solvent-extractable
condition, aqueous ethanol is an extraction solvent, resulting in
measurable (by Kjeldahl analysis) loss of protein to the super-
natant in SRC testing. Moreover, aqueous ethanol is a deswelling
solvent for damaged starch (Mercier 1977; Swennen et al 2005)
and arabinoxylans (Graveland et al 1985; Swennen et al 2005),
which may be observed as a decreased SRC pellet weight. This
expanded, second-generation SRC method continues to be under
further development, for potential future implementation as an-
other AACC International Approved Method.
SRC Patterns Relate to Biscuit-Baking Performance
Figure 5 (Kweon et al in press) illustrates the fundamental and
predictive relationship between flour functionality (i.e., the pat-
tern of SRC values) and baking performance (i.e., the pattern of
formula, process, and finished product, including the product’s
properties of geometry, topography, color, pH, texture, and shelf
life). This figure emphasizes the fact that, although each of the
three individual diagnostic SRC solvents reflects the functional
contribution from its corresponding individual flour component,
only the pattern of all four SRC values reveals overall flour func-
tionality (Haynes et al 2009; Kweon et al 2011a, 2011b). Such
different SRC patterns, which are characteristic of different types
of soft wheat flours, are shown at the upper left and quantified
at the bottom left in Figure 5. These SRC patterns allowed the
four flours shown to be characterized as follows: a softest and
not very strong SRW-based biscuit flour, a not quite as soft but
even weaker pastry flour milled from 100% SRW, a harder and
stronger flour from a Pacific Northwest SWW cultivar named
Whitebird, and a bleached (to pH 4.6) pastry flour that had weak-
ened gluten and pasteable starch. The key finding confirmed by
Figure 5 is illustrated by the baking patterns shown by wire-
cut cookies, prepared following AACC International Approved
Fig. 4. Supplemental diagnostic solvents for an extended, research-
oriented solvent retention capacity method for flour glutens and gluten
components (Kweon et al in press). SDS = sodium dodecyl sulfate;
GMP = glutenin macropolymer; and MBS = metabisulfite.
546 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Method 10-53.01 (Kweon et al in press), made with each of the
aforementioned flours and quantified at the bottom right of the
figure. Those results demonstrated conclusively that the individ-
ual flour SRC patterns correctly predicted each flour’s cookie-
baking pattern: the biscuit flour (softest and not very strong)
produced cookies with the largest diameter, smallest stack
height, and lowest moisture content (determined as % weight
loss during baking). The pastry flour (not quite as soft but even
weaker) produced cookies with slightly smaller diameter,
slightly larger stack height, and slightly higher moisture content.
Whitebird flour (harder and stronger) produced cookies with
significantly smaller diameter, significantly larger stack height,
and significantly higher moisture content. Finally, the bleached
pastry flour (weakened gluten and pasteable starch) produced
cookies with the smallest diameter, largest stack height, and
highest moisture content, because the predominant feature of
this flour’s baking performance was starch pasting (i.e., second-
stage swelling [Slade and Levine 1987]), made possible by the
effect of the chlorination treatment on the wheat flour starch.
Cookie lengths and widths (measured as diameters, in the direc-
tion and perpendicular to the direction, respectively, of the roll-
ing of the dough) were negatively correlated with cookie height.
It could be inferred from those results that a flour’s LA SRC
value predicts cookie dough snap-back and height creation and
retention during baking, and that lateral creep of a cookie dough
during baking is related more to a flour’s Suc SRC and Na2CO3
SRC values (Slade et al 1993b; Kweon et al in press). Thus, not
only are flour SRC patterns uniquely predictive of cookie-bak-
ing performance, as related to the pattern of process and product
responses, but they can also be used to make recommendations
about formula and process modifications to satisfy system end-
use requirements.
Applications of SRC Testing
by Wheat Breeders, Millers, and Bakers
Evaluations of flour functionality, for the purposes of determin-
ing performance and conformance capabilities, aim to identify
flour components responsible for quality variations and lot-to-
lot and vendor-to-vendor variations, and to monitor critical varia-
bility and predict its impact on baking performance. As men-
tioned earlier, the SRC method has been increasingly used by
wheat breeders, millers, and bakers, as well as by cereal and
other research scientists (Pareyt et al 2008; Linlaud et al 2009;
Kongraksawech et al 2010; Pareyt 2010; Duyvejonck et al 2011a,
2011b; Jazaeri et al 2011; Moses and Dogan 2011), and the rela-
tionships between flour SRC profiles and finished-product quality
(e.g., for cookies, crackers, cakes, noodles, and breads) have re-
cently been widely reported and discussed (Slade and Levine
1994; Guttieri et al 2001, 2002, 2004; Bettge et al 2002; Guttieri
and Souza 2003; Gaines 2004; Ram and Singh 2004; Ram et al
2005; Roccia et al 2006; Xiao et al 2006; Barrera et al 2007; Fus-
tier et al 2007; Zhang et al 2007, 2008; Colombo et al 2008;
Tanhehco and Ng 2008; Walker et al 2008; Kweon et al 2009a,
2009b, 2009d, 2011a, 2011b, in press; Nishio et al 2009, 2011;
Pasha et al 2009; Nakamura et al 2010; Oliete et al 2010; Zimeri
2010; Haas 2011). Many of these researchers—and many of those
publications—have successfully applied SRC testing to (both soft
and hard) wheat-breeding programs and to milling- and baking-
quality evaluations for soft and hard wheat, triticale (wheat-rye
cross), and rye flours. Bettge et al (2002; Ross and Bettge 2009)
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser-
vice (USDA-ARS) Western Wheat Quality Lab in Pullman, Wash-
ington, Gaines (2004) at the USDA-ARS Soft Wheat Quality
Laboratory (SWQL) in Wooster, Ohio, and Guttieri et al (2001,
2002, 2004, 2008, 2011; Fritz 1999; Guttieri and Souza 2003;
Souza et al 2008) at the University of Idaho-Aberdeen and later
at the USDA-ARS SWQL were among the earliest adopters of
Slade’s SRC method.
SRC Results as a Guide in Breeding Development
Bettge et al (2002) modified the standard SRC method (5.0 g of
flour) to a small-scale SRC test using just 0.2 g of flour and re-
ported that wheat cultivars with SRC values at the extremes of the
distribution were in the same ranked order for both the small- and
large-scale SRC test results. They concluded that use of the small-
scale SRC technique made it possible to evaluate early-generation
wheat-breeding materials for advancing promising germplasm or
eliminating inferior germplasm. Guttieri et al (2001) reported that
SRC results for 26 flour samples, milled from soft white spring
(SWS) wheat genotypes grown in seven irrigated environments in
Idaho, effectively differentiated genotypes into different end-use
quality groups with very limited genotype-environment interac-
tion. For two SWS wheat cultivars grown in rain-fed and irrigated
conditions, genotype differences were more important than crop
irrigation and fertility management treatments, and genotype ×
environment interactions were negligible, as observed with SRC
(Guttieri et al 2002). Guttieri and Souza (2003) reported that the
standardized variance of genotypes in SRC values obtained for
three SWS wheat populations ranged from 0.67 to 0.97 of the
total variance, and thus importantly, that milling and baking qual-
ity could be improved through manipulation of flour components
using SRC selection in a breeding program. Ram et al (2005)
reported the application of SRC testing for predicting mixing
properties of wheat flours from 192 genotypes and showed a
strong positive correlation between flour SRC profile and farino-
graph water absorption (FWA), the latter governed mainly by dam-
aged starch and pentosan contents of a given flour. They concluded
that whole-meal SRC values, together with grain protein content,
could be used to screen early-generation lines for FWA and thus
that the “high correlations observed between SRCs and functional
properties including water absorption have obvious implications in
breeding programs for the improvement of wheat cultivars.”
Special mention is warranted here of ‘Louise’ wheat, a new
high-quality, biscuit-friendly Washington SWS wheat cultivar com-
Fig. 5. Illustration of the predictive relationship between flour functionality (= the pattern of solvent retention capacity [SRC] values) and baking per-
formance (= the pattern of formula, process, and product) (Kweon et al in press).
mercially released in 2005 (Kidwell et al 2006), whose breeding
development by Dr. Kim Kidwell at Washington State University
was guided by the new SRC flour-quality testing methodology
(Walker et al 2008) that Slade created at Nabisco in 1988.
Kidwell “named ‘Louise’ wheat in honor of Dr. Louise Slade,
Nabisco Research Fellow, for the extraordinary contributions she
has made to the advancement of cereal chemistry, which have
greatly expanded our understanding of and ability to improve the
baking quality of soft wheat.”
Predictive Relationships Between Flour SRC Profiles
and Quality of Cookies and Other Baked Products
Guttieri et al (2004) showed that a combination of Na2CO3
SRC and SDS sedimentation volume analyses of wheat meal
could be used for selecting toward target flour SRC profiles, in-
creased flour extraction, and larger sugar-snap cookie diameter in
soft wheats, and that increasing Na2CO3 SRC value was corre-
lated with decreasing cookie diameter. Gaines (2004) reported a
prediction equation for sugar-snap cookie diameter, with inde-
pendent variables for Suc SRC, wheat-milling softness, and flour
protein content, obtained from data for 507 wheat flour samples.
He showed that Suc SRC results could be used reliably to predict
sugar-snap cookie diameter; increasing Suc SRC correlated with
decreasing cookie diameter. Ram and Singh (2004) reported SRC
analyses linked to cookie-making quality data for 92 wheat geno-
types in India and found that a whole-meal SRC test could be
used in screening recombinant lines and in selecting desirable
genotypes for making crosses to enhance cookie-making quality.
Zhang et al (2007, 2008) evaluated numerous Chinese soft wheat
genotypes grown at three locations and reported that Suc SRC
values could be used as indirect wheat-selection criteria to predict
sugar-snap cookie diameter and quality. Pasha et al (2009) re-
ported that the SRC test “is useful to measure flour components
contributing to end-use functionality, especially where the sample
number is large and grain quantities are limited.” They found that
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 547
decreasing cookie diameter and spread ratio correlated with
increasing LA and Na2CO3 SRC values, whereas increasing
cookie thickness correlated with increasing LA and Suc SRC
values. From such results, they concluded that “the SRC test is a
promising method for the evaluation of soft wheat varieties on the
basis of their biochemical characteristics.” Fustier et al (2007)
used SRC testing to assess the semisweet biscuit-making potential
of soft wheat flours and selected mill streams and found correla-
tions between SRC values and biscuit quality characteristics.
Nishio et al (2009, 2011) reported, for eight types of near-iso-
genic soft wheat lines developed from cultivar Norin 61 and
grown in different environments, a high correlation of water SRC
values with amylose content, sugar-snap cookie diameter, and
Japanese sponge cake volume, such that “amylose content can be
accurately estimated from the water SRC within samples from the
same growing environment” (2011). In another study involving
prediction of Japanese sponge cake volume, Nakamura et al
(2010) evaluated 20 soft wheat flour samples by SRC and found
that “the variability in batter pasting viscosity, related to cake
batter expansion, was highly explained by Suc SRC.” Roccia et al
(2006) reported that SRC testing could be used for evaluating the
cookie-baking quality of triticale flours; SRC results for 25 triti-
cale flours showed generally higher water and Na2CO3, similar
Suc, and lower LA SRC values than previously published SRC
results for typical cookie flours from soft wheats. In a follow-up
study, Barrera et al (2007) used SRC testing to study the influence
of damaged starch on the cookie- and bread-making quality of
several wheat and triticale flours. And in another follow-up study,
Oliete et al (2010) used SRC as a predictive functional test for
selected soft wheat, rye, and triticale flours, and they showed that
all three flour types could be used to produce high-quality layer
cakes, albeit with differences in cake characteristics.
SRC Testing of Flours for Bread Making
As summarized previously, SRC testing has been used to date
mainly for evaluating soft wheat flour quality. Nevertheless, Xiao
et al (2006) were the first to publish an application of SRC testing
for the evaluation of hard winter wheat (HWW) quality for bread
making. They showed that LA SRC correlated with the quality of
gluten protein relating to baked loaf volume over a wide range of
flour protein contents. They also reported that their LA SRC re-
sults were significantly correlated with SDS-sedimentation vol-
ume data and that the SRC test was reliable in predicting the loaf
volume of breads for HWW flours with similar protein contents.
Colombo et al (2008) reported a study on the use of SRC testing
for quality prediction of different Argentinean wheat flours used
for bread or cookie production. Their results showed a negative
correlation between cookie-baking quality and Suc, Na2CO3, and
water SRC values and a positive correlation between bread loaf
volume and LA SRC. They concluded that “the SRC test allowed
straight[forward] assessment of the bread and cookie quality of
Argentinean wheat.” Duyvejonck et al (2011a, 2011b) recently
reported studies on the relative contributions of wheat flour con-
stituents to SRC profiles for 19 commercial European wheat
flours. Their “results indicate[d] that the SRC method holds
promise for the evaluation of flour functionality of European
wheat flours” for both bread- and cookie-making applications
(2011b) and that “SRC values are good, time-efficient, and simple
cookie and bread quality predictors for European commercial
wheat flours” (2011a). In our laboratories, SRC testing has also
been applied to evaluating the functionality of durum and HRW/
HRS flours for pasta and pizza production, respectively.
Applications of SRC Technology to Wheat Breeding in China
Another special mention is warranted here, this one of the
enthusiastic adoption of SRC technology by numerous Chinese
wheat-breeding researchers in recent years, as reported in various
Chinese-language journal articles and theses (Chen et al 2005;
548 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Qian et al 2005; Zhang et al 2005, 2009; Chen 2006; Gao et al
2006; Ni et al 2006; Luo et al 2007; Zhou et al 2007; Xia et al
2008a, 2008b; Zhao et al 2008; Yao et al 2010). In many of these
cited reports, SRC flour technology (AACC International Ap-
proved Method 56-11.02) was used to analyze hundreds of breed-
ing lines of Chinese soft and hard wheats. SRC results were
shown to be accurately and highly correlated with pentosans con-
tent, grain hardness (Zhao et al 2008), flour particle size, and
mixograph parameters, for both soft and hard wheats. “SRC is a
new method for evaluating wheat qualities, which can be directly
used for early generation selection in breeding programs” (Qian et
al 2005). Xia et al (2008a) showed that SRC results correlated
strongly for wheats from different Chinese geographic growing
regions. SRC results were shown to correlate with kernel hard-
ness, puroindoline type, wheat hardness type, and Chinese geo-
graphic growing region (“This study…provided useful informa-
tion for improving Chinese wheat hardness and in the application
of SRC at early generation selection in wheat breeding program”
[Chen et al 2005]). Chen (2006) showed that SRC values corre-
lated with kernel hardness and flour particle size. SRC values
were also highly correlated with cookie diameter and other qual-
ity parameters (Zhang et al 2005; Luo et al 2007; Yao et al 2010).
Ni et al (2006) reported a correlation between SRC values and
wheat flour starch quality properties. SRC results were highly
correlated with wheat protein quality, water absorption properties
(Zhao et al 2008), starch quality, and dough rheology characteris-
tics (Gao et al 2006). Zhou et al (2007) showed that SRC values
correlated with micro-SRC results for various soft wheat flours.
Xia et al (2008b) showed that SRC results correlated with wheat
genotype and environmental effects. Finally, Zhang et al (2009)
reported the relationship between SRC values and heritable grain
hardness, gluten strength, and water retention properties of soft
wheat flours.
Application of SRC Testing to Industrial Wheat Milling
With regard to the application of SRC testing to wheat milling,
the effect of tempering conditions on milling and flour quality has
been determined using SRC (Kweon et al 2009a). Kweon et al
suggested that millers seeking to elevate gluten strength while
minimizing overall water absorption could use tempering as a tool
to manipulate the proportions of functional flour components, on
the basis of SRC results. SRC data also demonstrated the effect
of extraction rate on flour quality, such that straight-grade flour
(74% milling yield) showed higher water, Na2CO3, and Suc SRC
values but a lower LA SRC value than for low-extraction flour
(55% milling yield) (Kweon et al 2009d). Souza et al (2008) and
Guttieri et al (2011) used SRC testing, coupled with wire-cut
cookie-baking results, to evaluate and compare different experi-
mental laboratory flour-milling methods.
In the context of flour conformance, which is a critical require-
ment for industrial milling and baking, SRC testing has been suc-
cessfully used as a unique tool to guarantee flour consistency
during the annual summertime changeover from old-crop to new-
crop flour. When a new-crop wheat blend is deliberately created,
such that all four SRC values for the resulting new-crop flour
match the current SRC pattern for the existing old-crop flour, the
in-bakery process and product changeover from old crop to new
crop becomes totally transparent and issue-free.
SRC Testing and Cookie Baking
With regard to the application of SRC testing to cookie baking
(Kweon et al in press), flour functionality for cookies requires
low water absorption (low water SRC), because a lower amount
of water necessary to make a machinable dough can be more eas-
ily removed during baking, resulting in a lower-moisture cookie
with extended shelf life. Lesser functional contributions from
damaged starch and glutenin (low Na2CO3 and LA SRC values)
result in prevention of network formation during dough mixing
and baking, which leads to facilitated collapse of cookie structure, cracker baking. Use of α-amylase and arabinoxylanase dem-
yielding cookies with larger diameter and thinner height (Slade et onstrated the improving effects of such enzymes on a flour’s
al 1993b). As discussed earlier, solvent-accessible arabinoxylans cracker-baking performance, resulting from decreased dough
are a critically detrimental functional component of cookie flour; crumbliness and leading to increased cracker stack height, espe-
they contribute, as reflected by Suc SRC, to undesirable water cially because of the significant decrease in water SRC resulting
retention in traditional low-moisture cookies (Levine and Slade from the arabinoxylanase treatment, which eliminated the cracker
2004). Thus, a flour with higher Suc SRC is inferior for cookie spring-inhibiting effect of the highly water-holding arabinoxy-
baking (Guttieri et al 2008), resulting in lower weight loss during lan network during baking (Levine and Slade 2004; Kweon et al
baking, higher finished-product moisture content, and reduced in press).
shelf life (Kweon et al in press). From our recent studies on sugar
functionality in cookie baking (Kweon et al 2009b, 2009c, 2009e, SRC Testing of Chlorinated Cake Flours
in press), we found that some sugars other than Suc (e.g., ribose Chlorination is an essential treatment of soft wheat flours to be
and xylose) exaggerated the swelling of solvent-accessible arabi- used for production of high-ratio cakes in the United States. A
noxylans (because of enhanced plasticization, as manifested by critical factor in high-ratio cake baking is batter viscosity (Huang
higher SRC values in ribose and xylose solutions [Table VI]) in a et al 1982). Kweon et al (2009d) explored the effects of extent of
representative SRW cookie flour even more than did Suc, thus chlorination, extraction rate, and particle-size reduction on flour
worsening the detrimental effect of arabinoxylans on cookie bak- functionality through SRC testing on a representative SRW wheat
ing. As a result, wire-cut cookies formulated with ribose or xylose cultivar, Croplan 594W. SRC results revealed not only the dra-
in place of Suc (in the AACC 10-53.01 formula) showed higher matic effects of milling-extraction rate and extent of chlorination
finished-product moisture contents, smaller diameters, and greater but also the less significant effect of additional milling to reduce
stack heights. Examination of all the data for the entire series of flour particle size. SRC analysis showed increases in water,
sugars in Table VI reveals that there is not a straightforward over- Na2CO3, and Suc SRC values but a decrease in LA SRC value
all correlation among increasing SRC value, decreasing weight with increasing extent of chlorination. Oxidative gelation of arabi-
loss during baking, decreasing cookie length and width, and in- noxylans in chlorinated flour samples was also explored, using
creasing cookie height. Evidently, other factors are also at work, Bostwick viscosity (related to cake-batter viscosity) and SRC
and more research in this area is needed, especially since Suc testing (Kweon et al 2009b). Suc SRC was shown to be a power-
replacement or reduction in cookies is a topical subject in the ful predictor of the functional effects resulting from extensive
field of health and nutrition (Kweon et al 2009c, 2009e; Pareyt et chlorination (to pH ≈4.6) of soft wheat cake flours, and especially
al 2011). from the predisposition for oxidative arabinoxylan gels during
heavy chlorination. LA SRC was also a revealing indicator of the
SRC Testing and Cracker Baking effect of the extent of chlorination for lightly chlorinated (to pH
With regard to the application of SRC testing to cracker baking >5.0) flours, by reflecting the diminished capacity to form glu-
(Kweon et al 2011a, 2011b), relatively high gluten strength is tenin networks. Moreover, these SRC responses provided a more
required in a high-quality cracker flour, because the lower total reliable predictor of the functional effects brought about by a
solvent level and sugar concentration (%S) (Slade et al 1993b) in given extent of chlorination than did the traditional measurement
a typical cracker-dough formula (Kweon et al in press) enable of flour pH, because the increase in Suc SRC and decrease in LA
gluten development during dough mixing and subsequent oven SRC with increasing extent of chlorination were not linearly
spring during cracker baking. Whereas LA SRC reflects a cracker correlated with decreasing flour pH; they also provided a func-
flour’s general gluten functionality, overall cracker-flour quality is tional alternative to the analytical measurement of chlorine up-
related to all three functional flour components. Thus, one’s focus take. SRC results provided a basis for explaining why flour pH
should be on a flour’s entire SRC pattern when considering end- <<5.0 is necessary for cake-baking functionality, independent of
use applications involving cracker making. In our recent work on starch-pasting functionality (Kweon et al 2009b, 2009d).
the development of a benchtop baking method for chemically
leavened crackers (Kweon et al 2011a, 2011b), various flour sam- Flour SRC Results for Pancakes and
ples covering a broad range of gluten strengths were tested, and Other Batter-Based Products
the GPI was found to be a better predictor of a flour’s cracker- Pancakes and wafers are soft wheat flour products baked from
baking performance than was gluten functionality (LA SRC) alone. fluid batters (Kweon et al 2010). Batter viscosity is directly re-
Moreover, flours with GPI < 0.52 produced blistering during lated to finished-product quality, and controlling batter viscosity
is key to producing consistent products and to ensuring smooth
and efficient processing. Among the flour functional components,
TABLE VI solvent-accessible arabinoxylans and glutenins contribute signifi-
Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) and Wire-Cut Cookie-Baking Data
for Croplan 594W Soft Red Winter Wheat Flour
cantly to batter viscosity. If a pancake batter is too thick, pancakes
of much smaller diameter and greater height would result, com-
Cookie Geometry pared with product of optimum geometry. In contrast, if a pan-
Sugar
a (1 piece, cm) cake batter is too thin, pancakes of much larger diameter and
SRC Weight Loss
Sugar (%) During Baking (%) Width Length Height smaller height would result, compared with product of optimum
Xylitolb 73 10.29 7.06 6.94 1.43 geometry. Consequently, as illustrated by the results for correla-
Lactitolb 74 13.72 7.82 7.93 0.92
Maltitolb 76 13.15 7.85 8.03 0.93
Sucrosec 83 12.94 7.95 7.95 1.01 TABLE VII
Glucosec 82 8.63 6.82 6.25 1.77 Correlations of Flour Solvent Retention Capacity with Pancake Results
Polydextroseb 83 13.51 7.64 7.90 0.91 (for Unchlorinated Flours from 15 Wheat Cultivars)a
Fructosec 85 10.76 7.14 7.09 1.53
Pancake Variable Water Lactic Acid Na2CO3 Sucrose
Tagatoseb 86 10.14 6.84 6.70 1.53
Xylosec 91 8.59 6.50 5.90 2.35 Flow distance –0.63* –0.74** –0.72** –0.72**
Riboseb 99 10.55 6.88 6.55 1.63 Diameter –0.63* –0.73** –0.76*** –0.77***
a Height 0.65** 0.78*** 0.80*** 0.80***
SRC for Croplan 594W flour in 50% w/w sugar solution.
b Used previously for cookie baking, as reported in Kweon et al (2009c). a *, **, and *** indicate correlations (r) significant at P < 0.05, 0.01, and
c Used previously for cookie baking, as reported in Kweon et al (2009e). 0.001, respectively.

Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 549

tions between flour SRC values and pancake attributes, shown in
Table VII (Kweon et al 2010), preferred flours for producing opti-
mal pancakes would be unchlorinated and would evidence a
significant presence of solvent-accessible arabinoxylans and glu-
tenins, resulting in pancakes with greater height and larger dia-
meter. It is important to point out that all pancake formulas are
batter-based, but not all batter-based products are pancakes. Thus,
it is not possible to have one universal method for all batter-based
products, because flour functionality changes when formula %S is
<30 vs. >30% w/w (Kweon et al in press). Specifically, as noted
previously, unchlorinated flour is preferred for %S < 30% formu-
las (e.g., pancakes) (Kweon et al 2010), whereas chlorinated flour
is preferred for %S > 30% formulas (e.g., many cakes) (Kweon et
al 2009b, 2009d). SRC results support baking-data evidence for
selection of flours for %S below or above 30% for batter-based
products such as pancakes and cakes.
CONCLUSION
SRC technology, its history, principles, and applications have
been reviewed. Originally, SRC testing was created and devel-
oped for evaluating soft wheat flour functionality, but it has also
been shown to be applicable to evaluating flour functionality for
hard wheat products. SRC provides a measure of solvent compati-
bility for the three functional polymeric components of flour—
gluten, damaged starch, and pentosans—which in turn enables
prediction of the functional contribution of each flour component
to overall flour functionality and resulting finished-product qual-
ity. The pattern of flour SRC values for the four diagnostic SRC
solvents, rather than any single individual SRC value, has been
shown to be critical to various successful end-use applications.
Moreover, a new predictive SRC parameter, GPI, defined as
GPI = LA/(Na2CO3 + Suc) SRC values, has been found to be an
even better predictor of the overall performance of flour glutenin
in the environment of other modulating networks of flour poly-
mers (e.g., in bread [Goesaert et al 2009]). SRC technology is a
unique diagnostic tool for predicting flour functionality, and its
applications in soft wheat breeding, milling, and baking are in-
creasing markedly as a consequence of many successful, recently
published demonstrations of its extraordinary power and scope.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Louise Slade and Harry Levine are happy to have this opportunity to
thank AACC International for honoring us in 2008 with its prestigious
Applied Research Award, “for [our] significant body of distinguished
contributions [including our work described in this review] to the appli-
cation of science in the cereals area.”
LITERATURE CITED
AACC International. 2010. Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th Ed.
Methods 10-53.01, 56-10.02, and 56-11.02. Available online only.
AACC International: St. Paul, MN.
Barrera, G. N., Perez, G. T., Ribotta, P. D., and Leon, A. E. 2007. Influ-
ence of damaged starch on cookie and bread-making quality. Eur. Food
Res. Technol. 225:1-7.
Bettge, A. D., Morris, C. F., DeMacon, V. L., and Kidwell, K. K. 2002.
Adaptation of AACC method 56-11, solvent retention capacity, for use
as an early generation selection tool for cultivar development. Cereal
Chem. 79:670-674.
Bloksma, A. H., and Bushuk, W. 1988. Rheology and chemistry of dough.
Pages 131-217 in: Wheat Chemistry and Technology. Y. Pomeranz, ed.
Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem.: St. Paul, MN.
Chen, F. 2006. Molecular characterization of puroindoline alleles in Chi-
nese and CIMMYT common wheats and their effect on processing
quality. Doctoral dissertation (no. D-68711). Chinese Academy of
Agricultural Sciences.
Chen, F., Qian, S., Zhang, Y., Xia, X., and He, Z. 2005. Distribution of
puroindoline alleles in Chinese winter wheats and its effects on solvent
550 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
retention capacity. Sci. Agric. Sin. 38:2173-2181.
Colombo, A., Pérez, G., Ribotta, P., and León, A. 2008. A comparative
study of physicochemical tests for quality prediction of Argentine
wheat flours used as corrector flours and for cookie production. J. Ce-
real Sci. 48:775-780.
Craig, S. A. S., Mathewson, P. R., Otterburn, M. S., Slade, L., Levine, H.,
Deihl, R. T., Beehler, L. R., Verduin, P., and Magliacano, A. M. 1992.
Production of crackers with reduced or no added fat. U.S. patent
5,108,764.
Dang, J. M. C., and Bason, M. L. 2006. Assessing solvent retention
capacities of flours using the Rapid Visco Analyser. Tech. J. Newport
Scientific 7, July.
Duyvejonck, A. E., Lagrain, B., Courtin, C. M., and Delcour, J. A. 2011a.
Suitability of solvent retention capacity test methodologies for Euro-
pean wheat flours. (Abstr.) Cereal Foods World 56(S4):A19.
Duyvejonck, A., Lagrain, B., Pareyt, B., Courtin, C., and Delcour, J. 2011b.
Relative contribution of wheat flour constituents to solvent retention
capacity profiles of European wheats. J. Cereal Sci. 53:312-318.
Faridi, H., and Rasper, V. F. 1987. The Alveograph Handbook. Am.
Assoc. Cereal Chem.: St. Paul, MN.
Finney, K. F., and Barmore, M. A. 1948. Loaf volume and protein content
of hard winter and spring wheats. Cereal Chem. 25:291-312.
Finney, K. F., and Shogren, M. D. 1972. A ten-gram mixograph for deter-
mining and predicting functional properties of wheat flours. Bakers
Dig. 46:32-35, 38-42, 77.
Finney, K. F., and Yamazaki, W. T. 1946. Water retention capacity as an
index of the loaf volume potentialities and protein quality of hard red
winter wheats. Cereal Chem. 23:416-427.
Finney, K. F., and Yamazaki, W. T. 1953. An alkaline viscosity test for
soft wheat flours. Cereal Chem. 30:153-159.
Fritz, M. 1999. U of I teams with Nabisco for improved irrigated soft
white wheats. Growers’ Guide 16(10):C6.
Fustier, P., Castaigne, F., Turgeon, S., and Biliaderis, C. 2007. Semi-sweet
biscuit making potential of soft wheat flour patent, middle-cut and
clear mill streams made with native and reconstituted flours. J. Cereal
Sci. 46:119-131.
Gaines, C. S. 2000. Collaborative study of methods for solvent retention
capacity profiles (AACC method 56-11). Cereal Foods World 45:303-
306.
Gaines, C. S. 2004. Prediction of sugar-snap cookie diameter using su-
crose solvent retention capacity, milling softness, and flour protein
content. Cereal Chem. 81:549-552.
Gao, M., Zhang, G., Ni, F., Luo, Q., Wei, Y., and Zhang, J. 2006. The
relationship between micro-SRC value and wheat quality. J. Northwest
Sci-Tech Univ. Agric. For. 34(12):87-91.
Goesaert, H., Slade, L., Levine, H., and Delcour, J. A. 2009. Amylases
and bread firming—An integrated view. J. Cereal Sci. 50:345-352.
Graveland, A., Bosveld, P., Lichtendonk, W., Marseille, J., Moonent, J.,
and Scheepstra, A. 1985. A model for the molecular structure of the
glutenins from wheat flour. J. Cereal Sci. 3:1-16.
Grulke, E. A. 1989. Solubility parameter values. Pages 519-533 in: Poly-
mer Handbook, 3rd Ed. G. Brandrup and E. H. Immergut, eds. Wiley:
New York.
Guttieri, M. J., and Souza, E. 2003. Sources of variation in the solvent
retention capacity test of wheat flour. Crop Sci. 43:1628-1633.
Guttieri, M. J., Bowen, D., Gannon, D., O’Brien, K., and Souza, E. 2001.
Solvent retention capacities of irrigated soft white spring wheat flours.
Crop Sci. 41:1054-1061.
Guttieri, M. J., McLean, R., Lanning, S. P., Talbert, L. E., and Souza, E. J.
2002. Assessing environmental influences on solvent retention capaci-
ties of two soft white spring wheat cultivars. Cereal Chem. 79:880-884.
Guttieri, M. J., Becker, C., and Souza, E. J. 2004. Application of wheat
meal solvent retention capacity tests within soft wheat breeding popu-
lations. Cereal Chem. 81:261-266.
Guttieri, M. J., Souza, E. J., and Sneller, C. 2008. Nonstarch polysaccha-
rides in wheat flour wire-cut cookie baking. J. Agric. Food Chem.
56:10927-10932.
Guttieri, M. J., Souza, E. J., and Sneller, C. 2011. Laboratory milling
method for whole grain soft wheat flour evaluation. Cereal Chem.
88:1-5.
Haas, N. C. 2011. Optimizing wheat blends for customer value creation:
A special case of solvent retention capacity. Master’s thesis. Kansas
State University: Manhattan, KS.
Hay, R. L., and Every, D. 1990. A simple glutenin turbidity test for the de-
termination of heat damage in gluten. J. Sci. Food Agric. 53:261-270.
Haynes, L. C., Bettge, A. D., and Slade, L. 2009. Soft wheat and flour
products methods review: Solvent retention capacity equation correc-
tion. Cereal Foods World 54:174-175.
Huang, G., Finn, J. W., and Varriano-Marston, E. 1982. Flour chlorina-
tion. II. Effects on water binding. Cereal Chem. 59:500-506.
Jazaeri, S., Kaur Chandi, G., Ragaee, S., and Seetharaman, K. 2011.
Difference in gluten aggregation kinetics in flours with similar protein
content. (Abstr.) Cereal Foods World 56(S4):A46.
Kidwell, K., Shelton, G., Demacon, V., Burns, J., Carter, B., Chen, X.,
Morris, C., and Bosque Perez, N. 2006. Registration of ‘Louise’ wheat.
Crop Sci. 46:1384-1386.
Kongraksawech, T., Ross, A. S., and Ong, Y.-L. 2010. Effect of carbonate
on co-extraction of arabinoxylans with glutenin macropolymer. Cereal
Chem. 87:86-88.
Kweon, M., Martin, R., and Souza, E. 2009a. Effect of tempering condi-
tions on milling performance and flour functionality. Cereal Chem.
86:12-17.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 2009b. Oxidative gelation of sol-
vent-accessible arabinoxylans is the predominant consequence of ex-
tensive chlorination of soft wheat flour. Cereal Chem. 86:421-424.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 2009c. Exploration of functionality
of low-glycemic-impact sugars and polyols, using SRC, DSC, RVA,
and cookie baking. Pages 513-528 in: Dietary Fibre: New Frontiers for
Food and Health. J. W. Van Der Kamp et al, eds. Wageningen Aca-
demic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., Levine, H., Martin, R., Andrews, L., and Souza, E.
2009d. Effects of extent of chlorination, extraction rate, and particle
size reduction on flour and gluten functionality explored by solvent re-
tention capacity (SRC) and mixograph. Cereal Chem. 86:221-224.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., Levine, H., Martin, R., and Souza, E. 2009e.
Exploration of sugar functionality in sugar-snap and wire-cut cookie
baking: Implications for potential sucrose replacement or reduction.
Cereal Chem. 86:425-433.
Kweon, M., Donelson, T., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 2010. Development
of a standardized, batter-based, pancake-making method. (Abstr.) Ce-
real Foods World 55(S4):A26.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 2011a. Development of a benchtop
baking method for chemically leavened crackers. I. Identification of a
diagnostic formula and procedure. Cereal Chem. 88:19-24.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 2011b. Development of a benchtop
baking method for chemically leavened crackers. II. Validation of the
method. Cereal Chem. 88:25-30.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., Levine, H., and Gannon, D. In press. Cookie vs.
cracker baking—What’s the difference? Flour functionality require-
ments explored by SRC and alveography. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.
Levine, H., and Slade, L. 1990. Influences of the glassy and rubbery
states on the thermal, mechanical, and structural properties of doughs
and baked products. Pages 157-330 in: Dough Rheology and Baked
Product Texture: Theory and Practice. H. Faridi and J. M. Faubion,
eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold/AVI: New York.
Levine, H., and Slade, L. 1993. The glassy state in applications for the
food industry, with an emphasis on cookie and cracker production.
Pages 333-373 in: The Glassy State in Foods. J. M. V. Blanshard and
P. J. Lillford, eds. Nottingham University Press: Loughborough, UK.
Levine, H., and Slade, L. 2004. Influence of hydrocolloids in low-mois-
ture foods—A food polymer science approach. Pages 425-436 in:
Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry 12. P. A. Williams and
G. O. Phillips, eds. Royal Soc. Chem.: Cambridge, UK.
Linlaud, N. E., Puppo, M. C., and Ferrero, C. 2009. Effect of hydrocol-
loids on water absorption of wheat flour and farinograph and textural
characteristics of dough. Cereal Chem. 86:376:382.
Luo, Q., Zhang, N., and Zhang, G. 2007. The relationship between sol-
vent retention capacity characteristic of the soft wheat and the quality
of cookie. Grain Processing 32(6):20-24.
Mercier, C. 1977. Effect of extrusion-cooking on potato starch using a
twin-screw French extruder. Starch/Stärke 29:48-52.
Moses, M., and Dogan, H. 2011. Mechanically and thermally treated
functional wheat flours. (Abstr.) Cereal Foods World 56(S4):A22.
Nakamura, K., Taniguchi, Y., Taira, M., and Ito, H. 2010. Prediction of
specific Japanese sponge cake volume using pasting properties of flour.
Cereal Chem. 87:505-510.
Ni, F., Zhang, G., Li, J., Wei, Y., and Zheng, J. 2006. Wheat starch quality
and affecting factors on the solvent retention capacity. J. Northwest
Sci-Tech Univ. Agric. For. 34(3):49-54.
Nishio, Z., Oikawa, H., Haneda, T., Seki, M., Ito, M., Tabiki, T.,
Yamauchi, H., and Miura, H. 2009. Influence of amylose content on
cookie and sponge cake quality and solvent retention capacities in
wheat flour. Cereal Chem. 86:313-318.
Nishio, Z., Miyazaki, Y., Seki, M., Ito, M., Tabiki, T., Nagasawa, K.,
Yamauchi, H., and Miura, H. 2011. Effect of growing environment of
soft wheat on amylose content and its relationship with cookie and
sponge cake quality and solvent retention capacity. (Abstr.) Cereal
Foods World 56(S4):A57.
Oliete, B., Perez, G., Gomez, M., Ribotta, P., Moiraghi, M., and Leon, A.
2010. Use of wheat, triticale and rye flours in layer cake production.
Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 45:697-706.
Pareyt, B. 2010. Factors governing the quality of sugar-snap cookies:
Functionality of wheat constituents, sugar and fat. Doctoral thesis.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Leuven, Belgium.
Pareyt, B., Wilderjans, E., Goesaert, H., Brijs, K., and Delcour, J. A.
2008. The role of gluten in a sugar-snap cookie system: A model ap-
proach based on gluten-starch blends. J. Cereal Sci. 48:863-869.
Pareyt, B., Goovaerts, M., Broekaert, W., and Delcour, J. 2011. Arabi-
noxylan oligosaccharides (AXOS) as a potential sucrose replacer in
sugar-snap cookies. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 44:725-728.
Pasha, I., Anjum, F., and Butt, M. 2009. Genotypic variation of spring
wheats for solvent retention capacities in relation to end-use quality.
LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 42:418-423.
Qian, S., He, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, D., Zhang, Q., and Yao, D. 2005. Varia-
tion of pentosans and solvent retention capacities in wheat genotypes
and their relationship with processing quality. Acta Agron. Sin. 31:
902-907.
Ram, S., and Singh, R. P. 2004. Solvent retention capacities of Indian
wheats and their relationship with cookie-making quality. Cereal
Chem. 81:128-133.
Ram, S., Dawar, V., Singh, R. P., and Shoran, J. 2005. Application of
solvent retention capacity tests for the prediction of mixing properties
of wheat flour. J. Cereal Sci. 42:261-266.
Rasper, V. F., Hardy, K. M., and Fulcher, G. R. 1985. Constant water
content vs. constant consistency techniques in alveography of soft
wheat flours. Pages 51-73 in: Rheology of Wheat Products. H. Faridi,
ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem.: St. Paul, MN.
Reiman, W. 1934. Methods for determining the viscosity of flour-in-water
suspensions. Cereal Chem. 11:299-312.
Roccia, P., Moiraghi, M., Ribotta, P. D., Pérez, G. T., Rubiolo, O. J., and
León, A. E. 2006. Use of solvent retention capacity profile to predict
the quality of triticale flours. Cereal Chem. 83:243-249.
Ross, A. S., and Bettge, A. D. 2009. Passing the test on wheat end-use
quality. Pages 455-494 in: Wheat: Science and Trade. B. F. Carver, ed.
Wiley: New York.
Sears, J. K., and Darby, J. R. 1982. Solubility parameter and cohesive
energy density. Page 105 in: The Technology of Plasticizers. J. K.
Sears and J. R. Darby, eds. Wiley: New York.
Shogren, M. D. 1990. A short history of the mixograph. Cereal Foods
World 35:480-482.
Shuey, W. C. 1984. Interpretation of the farinogram. Pages 31-33 in: The
Farinograph Handbook, 3rd Ed. B. L. D’Appolonia and W. H. Kunerth,
eds. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem.: St. Paul, MN.
Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1987. Recent advances in starch retrograda-
tion. Pages 387-430 in: Industrial Polysaccharides. S. S. Stivala, V.
Crescenzi, and I. C. M. Dea, eds. Gordon and Breach Science: New
York.
Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1988. Non-equilibrium behavior of small carbo-
hydrate systems. Pure Appl. Chem. 60:1841-1864.
Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1991. Beyond water activity: Recent advances
based on an alternative approach to the assessment of food quality and
safety. CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 30:115-360.
Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1994. Structure-function relationships of cookie
and cracker ingredients. Pages 23-141 in: The Science of Cookie and
Cracker Production. H. Faridi, ed. Chapman and Hall: New York.
Slade, L., Levine, H., and Finley, J. W. 1989. Protein-water interactions:
Water as a plasticizer of gluten and other protein polymers. Pages 9-
124 in: Protein Quality and the Effects of Processing. R. D. Phillips
and J. W. Finley, eds. Marcel Dekker: New York.
Slade, L., Levine, H., Craig, S., Arciszewski, H., and Saunders, S. 1993a.
Enzyme-treated low moisture content comestible products. U.S. patent
5,200,215.
Slade, L., Levine, H., Ievolella, J., and Wang, M. 1993b. The glassy state
phenomenon in applications for the food industry: Application of the
food polymer science approach to structure-function relationships of
Vol. 88, No. 6, 2011 551
 sucrose in cookie and cracker systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 63:133-176.
Slade, L., Levine, H., Craig, S., and Arciszewski, H. 1994. Reducing
checking in crackers with pentosanase. U.S. patent 5,362,502.
Souza, E. J., Griffey, C., Kweon, M., and Guttieri, M. 2008. Sources of
variation for long-flow experimental milling. Crop Sci. 48:1432-1440.
Swennen, K., Courtin, C. M., Van der Bruggen, B., Vandecasteele, C., and
Delcour, J. A. 2005. Ultrafiltration and ethanol precipitation for isola-
tion of arabino xylooligosaccharides with different structures. Carbo-
hydr. Polym. 62:283-292.
Tanhehco, E. J., and Ng, P. K. W. 2008. Soft wheat quality. Pages 1-30 in:
Food Engineering Aspects of Baking Sweet Goods. S. G. Sumnu and
S. Sahin, eds. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
Thurmond, G. I., and Edgar, G. 1924. Equilibrium of lactic acid, lactide
and anhydride. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 16:823-826.
Walker, C., Campbell, K., Carter, B., and Kidwell, K. 2008. Using the
solvent retention capacity test when breeding wheat for diverse produc-
tion environments. Crop Sci. 48:495-506.
Xia, Y., Ma, C., and Si, H. 2008a. Properties of solvent retention capacity
in micro-core collections from Chinese wheat varieties. J. Anhui Agric.
Univ. 35(3):336-339.
Xia, Y., Ma, C., Si, H., Qiao, Y., and He, X. 2008b. Effects of genotype,
environment and genotype × environment interaction on solvent reten-
tion capacity in common wheat. J. Triticeae Crops 28(3):448-451.
Xiao, Z. S., Park, S. H., Chung, O. K., Caley, M. S., and Seib, P. A. 2006.
Solvent retention capacity values in relation to hard winter wheat and
flour properties and straight-dough breadmaking quality. Cereal Chem.
83:465-471.
Yamazaki, W. T. 1953. An alkaline water retention capacity test for the
evaluation of cookie baking potentialities of soft winter wheat flours.
Cereal Chem. 30:242-246.
[Received July 25, 2011. Accepted September 13, 2011.]
552 CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Yao, J., Souza, E., Ma, H., Zhang, P., Yao, G., Yang, X., Ren, L., and
Zhang, P. 2010. Relationship between quality traits of soft red winter
wheat and cookie diameter. Acta Agron. Sin. 36:695-700.
Zhang, P., Yao, J., Ma, Q., and Ma, H. 2009. Inheritance of solvent reten-
tion capacity in wheat. J. Triticeae Crops 29(5):793-797.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., He, Z., and Pena, R. 2005. Relationship between
soft wheat quality traits and cookie quality parameters. Acta Agron.
Sin. 31:1125-1131.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., He, Z., and Pena, R. J. 2007. Effects of
solvent retention capacities, pentosan content, and dough rheological
properties on sugar snap cookie quality in Chinese soft wheat geno-
types. Crop Sci. 47:656-664.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Q., He, Z., Zhang, Y., and Ye, G. 2008. Solvent reten-
tion capacities as indirect selection criteria for sugar snap cookie qual-
ity in Chinese soft wheats. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 59:911-917.
Zhao, L., Wang, M., Wang, J., and Wei, W. 2008. Differences in solvent
retention capacities among wheat cultivars and their relationship to
quality traits. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 36:8981-8982.
Zhou, M., Wu, H., Yu, G., Zhang, X., and Ma, H. 2007. Microdetermina-
tion of solvent retention capacity in wheat. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci.
23:270-275.
Zimeri, J. 2010. Flour, soft wheat: Functionality. Pages 1:507-509 in:
Encyclopedia of Agricultural, Food, and Biological Engineering, 2nd
Ed. D. R. Heldman and C. I. Moraru, eds. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
Zimmerman, E., Carey, J., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1996a. Calcium-
enriched baked good production and method of making. U.S. patent
5,514,387.
Zimmerman, E., Carey, J., Slade, L., and Levine, H. 1996b. Tenderized
baked good production with reduced fat, low fat, or no added fat. U.S.
patent 5,514,404.