Functional and rheological properties of wheat 253

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL, FUNCTIONAL AND RHEOLOGICAL

PROPERTIES OF WHEAT VARIETIES
Zafar Iqbal*, Imran Pasha**, Muhammad Abrar***, Sharoon Masih****
and Muhammad Shakeel Hanif*****

ABSTRACT
Two commercially available wheat varieties (AS-2002 and Inqalab-91) were
evaluated for physico-chemical, functional properties and rheological behavior
following methods mentioned in AACC 2000 during 2009-10. Wheat variety AS-
2002 showed higher values for physical characters than Inqalab-91. Mean value
for grain length, width, thickness, 1000 kernel weight and test weight were 6.11,
3.09, 2.74 mm, 45.50 g, 78.50 kg/ha for AS-2002 and 5.93, 3.19, 2.57 mm, 38.94 g
and 78.00 kg/ha for wheat variety Inqalab-91. Mean values for chemical
constituents except fiber content, functional characteristics and rheological
behavior were higher in wheat variety Inqalab-91 as compared to AS-2002.
Values for chemical components like moisture, protein, ash, fat, fiber and NFE
contents recorded for Inqalab 91 were 10.23, 12.45, 1.55, 2.96, 1.25 and 71.56
respectively while for variety AS-2002, 9.52, 11.46, 1.50, 1.95, 1.40 and 74.17%
respectively. Wheat variety Inqalab 91 exhibited higher mean values for wet
gluten (30.32%) and dry gluten (10.31%), sodium dodecyl sulphate
sedimentation value (30.32ml), damaged starch and farinographic
characteristics like water absorption (56.00%), dough development time (3.00
min), dough stability mixing tolerance index and softening of dough (6.00 Bu)
than AS-2002.
KEYWORDS: Triticum aestivum; wheat cultivars; physico-chemical
characteristics; functional characteristics; rheological
characteristics; Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is one of the world’s most important cereal crops
th
produced and consumed around the world (56). Pakistan is 8 largest
producer of wheat contributing 3.17 percent of the total world wheat
production (58). It contributes 13.8 percent to the value addition in agriculture
(28) and 30 percent to the total GDP of Pakistan (45). Wheat is traded
across the globe on the basis of several physico-chemical characteristics,

*Oilseeds Research Institute, AARI, Faisalabad, **National Institute of Food Science and
Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, ***Wheat Research Institute, AARI,
Faisalabad, ****Food Technology Section, Post Harvest Research Center, AARI,
Faisalabad, *****Citrus Research Institute, Sargodha, Pakistan.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

254 Z. Iqbal et al.

grain hardness being the most important. Wheat quality is dependent upon
soil composition and environmental factors including temperature, rainfall,
humidity etc. (71). Variation in quality parameters like physico-chemical,
rheological and functional characteristics of wheat varieties suitable for
chapatti making is due to the differences in soil, environmental conditions
and agronomic practices (53). Winter stress can influence quality of wheat
(4). Wheat varieties should be classified and traded worldwide on the basis of
quality parameters and requirements specified by millers, bakers and end
users (44).

Physical appearance and morphology of wheat grain is influenced by grain

moisture content (63). Moisture content does not have any direct impact on
grain quality however it can indirectly influence quality and lessen storage
period in grains with moisture content higher than recommended (24).
Estimation of total protein content is the basic parameter in characterization
of wheat flour (10). Genetic makeup of wheat is primary factor responsible for
protein quality while nitrogenous fertilizers affect protein quantity (31, 32, 54,
57, 59) reported that environmental conditions prevailing at maturity
influenced both the quantity and quality of wheat protein. Wheat flour with
higher protein content is generally supposed to have higher contribution in
gluten formation (10). Full characterization of wheat flour requires
measurement of sedimentation value in addition to knowhow about the
protein and gluten content of wheat flour (10). The sedimentation value
(SDS) indicates correlation between gluten content, gluten quality, baking
quality and loaf volume. Protein composition is main determinant of SDS
value which is strongly associated with protein content (26).

Flour hydration during dough mixing results in the development of gluten

proteins into a continuous viscoelastic network (10). The concentration and
composition of gluten proteins are prime quality attributes of wheat flour (27).
The strength of wheat flour is based on the gluten quality and content (30).
Genetic makeup of wheat is the most important factor influencing qualitative
characteristics of gluten (11, 40, 59). Gluten content showed linear increase
with total protein content of the flour (48). Production of wet gluten per unit
protein is predicted from the ratio of wet gluten content to grain protein
content (WG/P). Croatian wheat varieties with WG/P ratios from 2.7 to 3.0
exhibited gluten with favorable baking quality (59) while cultivars with strong
gluten characteristics showed the WG/P ratio closer to 2.3 (27).

Dough rheological characterization is imperative for both the milling and

baking industry. It predicts flour dough characteristics during processing and

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 255

the quality of end products (30). Rheological studies are extensively utilized
and acknowledged by cereal technologists as useful techniques in evaluation
of flour quality (66). Viscosity and elasticity of the dough are important
rheological parameters of flour. These are crucial to bakery industry for
predicting end use of flour. Rheology also plays an important role in quality
control, in ingredient and preservative specifications to be used in elaborated
products (23). The rheological properties of a material are directly related to
its processing and consumer quality (51).

The quality of wheat flours can be defined for several parameters including
protein, moisture, gluten, sedimentation, enzyme activity and rheological
properties, none of which serves as adequate by itself (10). The physico-
chemical tests like gluten content, ash content, flour color and falling
numbers evaluate important characteristics for the pastry industry (43).
Physico-chemical and functional properties of wheat flour are influenced
either by genotype or by other non-genetic factors (3). The current study was
planned to investigate physico-chemical characteristics, functional properties
and rheological behavior of wheat varieties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Physical analysis of wheat: Two commercially available wheat varieties i.e.

Inqalab-91 and AS-2002 were purchased. Ten grains were drawn from wheat
sample at random of each variety and grain size like length, width and
thickness were recorded for each grain by using micrometer. The test weight
was measured using Schopper chondrometer (AACC (2000) method No. 84-
10) and expressed in pounds per bushel (lbs/bu) and converted to kg/hL by
relation (lb/bu x 1.292) + 1.419. A representative sample of hundred grams
was taken and thousand kernel weight was recorded by counting clean,
sound and unbroken kernels. The kernel weight was expressed as grams per
1000 kernels.

Wheat tempering and milling: The wheat grains free from dockage and
foreign matter were subjected to tempering at a moisture content of 15.5
percent in plastic containers at room temperature for 24 hours and amount of
water required for tempering was calculated by following the expression
given in AACC (2000). The tempered wheat was milled through Brabender
Quadrumate Senior Mill (C.W. Brabender Instruments, Inc.) (1) to get
different milling fractions viz break flour, reduction flour, bran and shorts.
Straight grade flour yield was determined by blending the break roll flour and
reduction roll flour fractions.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

256 Z. Iqbal et al.

Chemical analysis: The straight grade flour of each wheat variety was
evaluated for proximate composition i.e. moisture, crude protein, crude fat,
crude fiber, ash content, SDS test, wet and dry gluten according to their
respective methods as given by AACC (2000). The starch damage of the
flour was assessed according to the method 76-30A (1) with minor
modifications suggested by (12).

Rheological properties: The flour was assessed for rheological properties

by running through Brabender Farinograph (C.W. Braber Co. 50 F. Wesley
St. S. Hackensack) (ICC-Standard 115/1, 1992, AACC Method No. 54-21,
1995) equipped with a bowl of 50g capacity according to method No. 54-21
(1) following constant flour weight procedure. The mixing behavior and
resistance was recorded on a graph and the farinograms were interpreted for
physical dough characteristics such as dough development time, dough
stability, mixing tolerance index and softening of dough to determine the
strength of wheat flour (strong or weak) for products suitability.

Statistical analysis: The data obtained for each parameter was subjected to
statistical analysis to work out effect of different wheat and flour samples on
wheat quality by using completely randomized design and mean values
obtained for each parameter were compared according to DMR test (level of
significance α = 95, p < 0.05 as described by (62).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physical Characteristics
Grain size: The grain length and grain thickness were significantly affected
due to the differences in wheat varieties while grain width did not differ
significantly among the wheat varieties. The mean values regarding grain
size (Table 1) indicated that the grain length, width and thickness of wheat
variety AS-2002 are 6.11, 3.09 and 2.74 mm while Inqalab-91 had 5.93, 3.19
and 2.57 mm, respectively. The wheat variety AS-2002 possessed higher
grain length and thickness and lower grain width as compared to Inqalab-91.
Johnson et al. (32) developed mathematical equation for grain size of wheat
varieties and observed grain length to be ranged from 6.05 to 7.23 mm.
Mean values for grain width in the present study are in accordance with the
findings reported by Pasha (46) who reported the grain width of different
Pakistani wheat varieties ranges from 2.8 to 3.6 mm. The grain size is not
only associated with flour yield but it also well correlates with agronomic yield
of wheat varieties. The present study is also in conformity with the findings of
Mabile and Abecassis (38) who reported the range of grain thickness from
2.60 to 3.14 mm.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 257

Table 1. Physical characteristics of wheat varieties.

Physical characteristics
Wheat
varieties Grain length Grain width Grain 1000 kernel Test weight
(mm) (mm) thickness (mm) weight (g) (kg/hl)
AS-2002 6.11a 3.09 NS 2.74a 45.50a 78.50 NS
Inqalab-91 5.93b 3.19 NS 2.57b 38.94b 78.00 NS

Thousand kernel weight: Wheat varieties differed significantly for thousand

kernel weight. The wheat variety AS-2002 (Table 1) possessed greater
kernel weight (45.50 g) than Inqalab-91 (38.94 g). Anjum et al. (2002)
reported that Pakistani wheat varieties possessed higher kernel weight
exceeding 30 g/thousand kernels. It is a valuable technique for the estimation
of the possible flour yield (36). Thousand kernel weight and grain size are
under genetic control however environment may affect these parameters
(68). Wheat variety AS-2002 has more milling yield as compared to Inqalab-
91 due to higher kernel weight.

Test weight: Test weight is the weight of a predetermined volume of grain

and confers rough signal of size and shape of wheat grain. Flour yield is
higher for wheat varieties with high test weight (28). It is a rough indicator of
flour yield during roller milling (36) and important technique in all wheat
grading systems (50). Wheat varieties differed non-significantly for test
weight. Wheat variety AS-2002 possessed greater test weight (78.50kg/hl)
than Inqalab-91 (78.00 kg/hl) (Table 1). The results are in accordance with
the earlier workers of Butt et al., (15) and Anjum et al., (7) who reported that
different Pakistani wheat varieties showed test weight varying from 68.30 to
81.00 kg/hl. 130 hard red spring wheat varieties exhibited test weight in
-3
range of 66.20 to 80.20 kg m (41).

Chemical characteristics

Moisture content: Wheat varieties varied significantly for moisture content.

Wheat variety (Table 2) Inqalab-91 possessed greater moisture content
(10.23%) than AS-2002 (9.52%). The findings of the current studies are in
concordance with the results of different researchers (15, 39, 61) who
reported that genotypic variability, agronomic factors and climatic conditions
prevailing during growth period are main factors influencing moisture content.
Gulzar et al. (21) reported that moisture level ranged from 10.17-10.57% in
wheat grains of different varieties. High moisture content enhances
proteolytic and lipolytic activities leading to loss of nutrients (28). Moisture is
also an indicator of grain storability and can predict profit margins in milling

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

258 Z. Iqbal et al.

(64). Wheat or flour with low moisture content is more stable during storage.
Moisture content higher than 14.5% attracts insects, bacteria and molds (35).
Table 2. Chemical characteristics of wheat varieties.

Chemical characteristics (%)

Wheat
Moisture Crude protein Ash content Crude fat Crude fiber NFE
varieties
content content content content
AS-2002 9.52b 11.46b 1.50 NS 1.95b 1.40a 74.17a
NS
Inqalab-91 10.23a 12.45a 1.55 2.96a 1.25b 71.56b

Crude protein: Protein is the most vital constituent of wheat grains and has
immense impact on nutritional, functional and technological attributes of the
flour. The effect of wheat varieties was significant on crude protein content.
Wheat variety Inqalab-91 showed more crude protein content (12.45%) than
AS-2002 (11.46%) (Table 2). Anjum et al. (7) and Gulzar et al. (21) reported
that the protein content ranged from 9.68 to 13.45 % and 10.30-11.72%,
respectively among the wheat varieties which is in accordance with mean
values reported in current study. Our results are well supported by previous
studies (5, 53). Protein quantity is an imperative decisive factor for evaluating
wheat quality (36). Genetic makeup, climate and prevailing growth conditions
are main factors influencing protein content (34). Wheat protein provides a
major contribution to the rheological properties of wheat flour dough (21).

Ash content: Wheat variety and growing atmospheric conditions are

decisive factors controlling ash content (13, 19, 49, 50). It exhibits inverse
relationship with the quality mainly milling process. Low ash content is
preferred in wheat flour. Effect of wheat varieties was non-significant on ash
content of whole wheat flour of both wheat varieties. Ash content was found
to be higher (1.55%) in Inqalab-91 than AS-2002 (1.50 %) (Table 2). The
findings of current study are in conformity with the results of previous studies
(16, 21). Our mean values for ash content were comparable with already
reported values (1.3-1.95%) by Kamal (33). It provides an excellent prediction
of flour yield and indicates milling performance by indirectly revealing the
amount of bran contamination in flour. Wheat varieties with a lesser amount
of ash content contain higher endosperm and ultimately yield more flour (35).
It affects color and flour with high ash imparts a dark color to end products
Present study revealed that wheat variety AS-2002 low ash content and more
milling yield as compared to Inqalab-91.

Crude fat content: Presence of lipids is indispensable for proper gluten

development of flour. Fat is important due to the fact that wheat oil has less
shelf stability and quickly it becomes rancid. Crude fat content of whole

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 259

wheat flour was significantly influenced by differences among wheat varieties.

Wheat variety INqalab-91 (2.96%) showed more fat content as compared to
AS-2002 (1.95%) (Table 2). The results of present study showed higher
mean values than previous findings of Gulzar et al. (21) who found that fact
contents vary from 1.18-1.43% among different wheat varieties. Higher mean
values reported in this study may be due to prevailing climatic conditions at
growth, crop year and genetic variability of wheat varieties.

Crude fiber content: Effect of wheat varieties was non-significant for fiber
content of whole wheat flour of both wheat varieties. Wheat variety AS-2002
showed higher mean value (1.40%) for fiber content than Inqalab-91 (1.25%)
(Table 2). The results of present investigation showed higher mean values for
fiber content than Gulzar et al. (21) who reported crude fiber in range of
0.10-0.15% in different wheat varieties evaluated. Higher values may be due
to the variation in grinding conditions, extraction rate and type of flour i.e.
whole wheat flour, straight grade flour etc.

Nitrogen free extract: Wheat variety AS-2002 showed higher mean value
(74.17%) for NFE than Inqalab-91 (71.56%) (Table 2). Ahmad et al. (3)
reported similar results for carbohydrate (77.58%). Our results are in close
proximity with findings of Gulzar et al. (21).

Functional properties

Wet and dry gluten: Effect of wheat varieties on wet and dry gluten was
found to be highly significant. Wheat variety Inqalab-91 possessed higher wet
and dry gluten as compared to AS-2002. Results showed that Inqalab-91 had
30.32% wet gluten content and 10.31% dry gluten while AS-2002 had
27.02% wet gluten content and 9.29 percent dry gluten content (Table 3).
Values of present investigation are well supported by Gulzar et al. (21) curic
(17) and Lin et al. (37). The present study suggests that Inqalab-91 should
be preferred for the production of good quality yeast leavened products while
AS-2002 is suitable for soft dough products. Genotypes and the
environmental conditions like temperature and rainfall are main factors
influencing gluten content of wheat (36). Wheat flour quality is dependent
upon the gluten content which plays significant role in baking quality of bread
(34).

SDS Sedimentation Test: SDS sedimentation value was significantly

affected by wheat varieties (Table 3). Wheat variety Inqalab-91 got higher
mean value (30.32 ml) for SDS sedimentation test as compared to AS-2002
(27.33 ml). Pedersen et al. (47) and Randhawa et al. (55) reported the SDS

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

260 Z. Iqbal et al.

sedimentation value varied from 17 to 32 ml and 18.17 to 28.33 ml,

respectively. Wheat variety Inqalab-91 containing higher protein content and
strong gluten showed higher volume of the sediment in SDS test than AS-
2002 having low protein content and weak gluten.
Table 3. Functional characteristics of wheat varieties.

Functional characteristics
Wheat varieties
Wet gluten (%) Dry gluten (%) SDS sed. (ml) Damaged Starch (%)
AS-2002 27.02b 9.29b 27.33b 4.00b
Inqalab-91 30.32a 10.31a 30.32a 6.25a

Damaged starch: Wheat varieties significantly affect level of damaged

starch. Wheat variety Inqalab-91 showed higher mean value (6.25 %) for
damaged starch as compared to AS-2002 (4.00%) (Table 3). Wheat variety
Inqalab-91 contained higher amount of protein and hard kernel texture.
Starch granules are tightly held in this variety due to very strong interaction
between starch granules and surrounding protein matrix. Thus it offers more
resistance to milling and produces more damaged starch as compared to AS-
2002 having soft kernel texture. The mean values of the current study are in
close agreement with the results of Meintjés (42) who reported that level of
damaged starch varied from 4 to 10 percent during the milling process.

Wheat variety AS-2002 containing lower level of damaged starch is suitable

for the production of cookies because flour with low water absorption capacity
is preferred for cookie making while Inqalab-91 having higher water
absorption capacity due to higher level of damaged starch is good for bread
making. Higher content of starch damage exerts deleterious effect on quality
of cookies and is believed a negative attribute for soft wheat flours (25).
Stiffness of sugar snap cookie dough was augmented with increasing content
of damaged starch while cookie diameter decreased (20).

Rheological study of wheat varieties

Water absorption: Farinographic water absorption of flour of both wheat

varieties was significantly influenced by variation among wheat varieties.
Significantly higher water absorption (58.40%) was recorded in wheat variety
Inqulab 91 than AS-2002 (56.00%) (Table 4). The finding of the current
studies are in line with the results of Butt (14). Yamamoto et al. (70) reported
that wheat flour possessing higher protein content and starch damage has

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 261

more farinographic water absorption value than flour with lower protein
content and less damaged starch.

Table 4. Rheological characteristics of wheat varieties.

Rheological characteristics
Wheat varieties
Water abs. (%) DDT (min) DS (min) MTI (BU) SOD (BU)
NS
AS-2002 56.00b 3.00b 13.50a 30.00b 60.00
Inqalab-91 58.40a 4.00a 10.10b 40.00a 70.00NS

Dough development time: The wheat varieties showed significant impact

on dough development time. Wheat variety Inqalab-91 exhibited higher mean
values for dough development time (4 min) as compared to AS-2002 (3 min)
(Table 4). Dough development time ranged from 1.87 to 8.60 minutes in
different wheat varieties (15). The dough development time is influenced by
concentration and quantity of wheat protein.

Dough stability: Dough stability of flours of both wheat varieties was

significantly influenced due differences among wheat varieties. Wheat variety
AS-2002 got higher mean value for (3.5 min) dough stability than wheat
variety Inqalab-91 (Table 4). The findings of the current studies are in
concordance with those of Mahmood (39) who reported that wheat varieties
sown during two different crop years, 1996-97 and 1997-1998 showed mean
values varying from 2.500 to 16.00 minutes and 1.500 to 19.00 minutes,
respectively for dough stability. Farinographic studies by Anjum and Walker
(5) revealed that some Pakistani wheat varieties exhibit higher values for
dough stability than US wheat varieties.

Mixing tolerance index: The mixing tolerance index of flour of both wheat
varieties was significantly affected by the genotypic differences in wheat
varieties. Higher mean value for mixing tolerance index was observed in the
flour of wheat variety Inqalab-91 as compared to AS-2002 (Table 4). The
findings of the current studies are in line with the results of Mahmood (39).

Softening of dough: Wheat varieties showed non-significant impact on

softening of dough. Inqalab-91 got higher mean value (70BU) for softening of
dough than AS-2002 (Table 4). Our results are in concordance with
Mahmood (39) who found that degree of dough softening varied from 25 to
165 BU and 15 to 160 BU, respectively among wheat varieties harvested
during two different crop years 1996-97 and 1997-98.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

262 Z. Iqbal et al.

CONCLUSION

Wheat variety AS-2002 depicted higher mean values for physical

characteristics than Inqalab-91. Variety Inqalab-91 with higher protein
content, wet and dry gluten, SDS sedimentation value, damaged starch,
strong gluten and better rheological characteristics is better suited for
preparation of bread and its variants like chappati, ‘roti’ and ‘naan’ while AS-
2002 with less protein content, weak gluten as well as lower values for wet
and dry gluten, SDS sedimentation value, damaged starch and inferior
rheological characteristics is suitable for the manufacture of baked products
like cookies, cakes, pastries and crackers. Protein content has an
increasing effect on all three rheological properties and that kernel
weight has an increasing effect on water absorption percentage in the
dough.

REFERENCES

1. Anon. 2000. Approved Methods of American Association of Cereal

Chemists. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.
2. Ahmad, I., F. M. Anjum, A. Ali and M. S. Butt. 1994. Physico-chemical
and farinographic properties of some new Pakistani wheat varieties.
Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 31 (1):80-83.
3. Ahmad, I., I. Haq, M. Ashraf and M. K. Saeed. 2010. Texture profile
analysis (TPA) of cakes supplemented with soy flour. Pak. J. Sci. 62
(1):22-26.
4. Ahmad, M. and M. A. Arain. 1999. Effect of drought simulation on grain
weight, protein and lysine content of bread wheat. Pak. J. Bot.
31:109-114.
5. Anjum, F. M. and C. E. Walker. 1991. Review on the significance of
starch and protein to wheat kernel hardness. J. Sci. Food Agric.
56:1-13.
6. Anjum, F. M. and C. E. Walker. 2000. Grain, flour and bread making
properties of eight Pakistani hard white spring wheat culrivars grown at
three different locations for two years. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech.
35:407-416.
7. Anjum, F. M., A. Ali and N. M. Chaudhry. 1991. Fatty acid, mineral
composition and functional (bread and chapati) properties of high
protein and high lysine barley line. J. Sci. Food and Agric. 511-519.
8. Anjum, F. M., N. Ahmad, M. S. Butt and I. Ahmad. 2002. Phytate and
mineral contents in different milling fractions of some Pakistani spring
wheats. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 37:13-17.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 263

9. Anjum, FM., I Ahmad, M. S. Butt, M.A. Sheikh and I. Pasha. 2005.

Amino acid composition of spring wheats and losses of lysine during
chapati baking. J. Food Comp. Analysis. 18 (6): 523-532.
10. Başlar, M and M. F. Ertugay. 2011. Determination of protein and gluten
quality-related parameters of wheat flour using near-infrared reflectance
spectroscopy (NIRS). Turk J. Agric. 35:139-144.
11. Bilgin, O. and K. Z. Korkut. 2005. Determination of some bread quality
and grain yield characters in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Int. J.
Agri. Biol. 7(1):125-128.
12. Boyaci, I. H., P. C. Williams and H. Koksel. 2004. A rapid method for
the estimation of damaged starch in wheat flours. J. Cereal Sci. 39:139-
145.
13. Buriro, M., F. C. Oad, M. I. Keerio, A. W. Gandahi and G.M. Laghari.
2012. Impact of storage sources on physico-chemical properties of
various wheat varieties. Sarhad J. Agric. 28(2):185-190.
14. Butt, M. S. 1997. Physico-chemical and Protein Composition of Spring
Wheats in Relation to End Use Quality. Ph.D. Thesis, Deptt. Food
Tech., Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.
15. Butt, M. S., F. M. Anjum, A. Rehman and A. Ali. 1997. Physico-chemical
characteristics of spring wheat. J. Agric. Res. 35(6):413-422.
16. Butt, M. S., F. M. Anjum., J. V. Z. Dick and S. Mumtaz. 2001.
Development of predictive models of end-use quality of spring wheats
through canonical analysis. Int. J. Food Sci. and Tech. 36:433-440.
17. Curic, D. 2001. Gluten as a standard of wheat flour quality. Food
Technol. Biotechnol. 39(4):353-361.
18. El-Khayat, G. H., J. Samaan, F.A.Manthy, M. P. Fuller and C. S.
Brennan. 2006. Durum wheat quality I: Some physical and chemical
characteristics of Syrian durum wheat genotypes. Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 41:22-29.
19. Fares, C., A. Troccoli and N. D. Fonzo. 1996. Use of friction debranning
to evaluate ash distribution in Italian durum wheat cultivars. Cereal
Chem. 73: 232-234
20. Gaines, C. S., J. R.Donelson and P. L. Finney. 1988. Effects of
damaged starch, chlorine gas, flour particle size and dough holding
time and temperature on cookie dough handling properties and cookie
size. Cereal Chem. 65:384-389.
21. Gulzar, A., M. K. Saeed, M. A. Ali, I. Ahmad, M. Ashraf and I.U. Haq.
2010. Evaluation of physiochemical properties of different wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Pak. J. Food Sci. 20(1-4):47-51.
22. Gupta, R. B and K. W. Shepherd. 1993. Production of multiple wheat
rye 1RS translocation stocks and genetic analysis of LMW subunits of

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

264 Z. Iqbal et al.

glutenin and gliadins in wheat using these stocks. Theor. Appl. Genet.,
85: 719-728.
23. Gutkoski, L. C. and R. J. Neto. 2002. Procedimento para teste
laboratorial de panificação: pão tipo forma (Spanish). Ciência Rural.
32(5):873-879.
24. Hellevang, K. J. 1995. Grain moisture content, effects and
management. NDSU extension service, North Dakota State University,
Fargo. AE-905 (Revised). p.1-8.
25. Hoseney, R. C., P. Wadwand and J. W. Finley. 1988. Soft wheat
products. In: Wheat Chemistry and Technology. Pomeranz, Y. (eds.)
Vol. 2nd . American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, Inc. MN.
p. 407-456.
26. Hruskova, M. and O. Famera. 2003. Prediction of wheat and flour
Zeleny sedimentation value using NIR technique. Czech J. Food Sci.
21:91-96.
27. Ionescu, V. and G. Stoenescu. 2010. Comparative evaluation of wet
gluten quantity and quality through different methods. The Annals of the
University Dunarea de Jos of Galati. Fascicle VI-Food Technol.
34(2):44-48.
28. Jafri, S. 2010. Physico-chemical changes affecting the nutritional and
techonological value of wheat grains stored in different type of
containers. Ph.D. Thesis. Deptt. Biochem. Faculty Sci., Pir Mehr Ali
Shah, Arid Agric. Univ., Rawalpindi.
29. Jirsa, O. and M. Hruskova. 2005. Characteristics of fermented dough
predicted by using the NIR technique. Czech J. Food Sci. 23:184-189.
30. Jirsa, O., M.Hruskova and I. Švec. 2007. Bread features evaluation by
NIR analysis. Czech J. Food Sci. 25: 243-248.
31. Johansson, E. and G. Svensson. 1998. Variation in bread making
quality: Effect of weather parameters on protein concentration and
quality in some Swedish wheat cultivars grown during the period 1975-
1996. J. Sci. Food Agric. 78:109-118.
32. Johnson, J. A. M. Khan and C.R.Sanchez. 1972. Wheat cultivars,
environment and bread -making quality. Cereal Sci. Today. 17:323-326.
33. Kamal, A. M. A. 2003. Yield performance and grain quality of wheat
varieties growing under rain fed and irrigated conditions. Asian J. Plant
Sci. 2 (3):358-360.
th
34. Kent, N. L and A. D. Evers. 1994. Technology of cereals. 4 ed.
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
35. Keran, H., M. Salkic, A. Odobasic, M. Jasic, N. Ahmetovic and I.
Sestan. 2009. The importance of determination of some physical-

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 265

chemical properties of wheat and flour. Agriculturae Conspectus

Scientificus. 74(3): 197-200.
36. Khan, M. R., F. M. Anjum, T. Zahoor and H. Nawaz. 2009. Biochemical
and technological characterization of Pakistani spring wheats. Pak. J.
Agri. Sci. 46(4): 271-279.
37. Lin, P., S. H. Chiang and C. Y. Chang. 2003. Comparison of rheological
properties of dough prepared with different wheat flours. J. Food and
Drug Anal. 11(3):220-225.
38. Mabile, F. and J. Abecassis. 2003. Parametric modeling of wheat grain
morphology: a new perspective. J. Cereal Sci. 37:43-53.
39. Mahmood, A. 2004. Acid-PAGE Gliadin Composition and Cluster
Analysis for Quality Traits of different Wheat Varieties. Ph.D. Thesis,
Inst. Food Sci. and Tech., Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.
40. Mariani, B. M., M. G. DEgidio and P. Novaro. 1995. Durum wheat
quality evaluation: Influence of genotype and environment. Cereal
Chem. 72(2):194-197.
41. Martin, J. M., R. C. Frohberg, C. F. Morris, L. E. Talbert and M. J.
Giroux. 2001. Milling and bread baking traits associated with
puroindoline sequence type in hard red spring wheat. Crop Sci. 41:228-
234.
42. Meintjés, G. D. 2004. The Use of HPLC for Quality Prediction of South
African Wheat Cultivars. M.Sc. Thesis Department of Plant Sciences at
the University of the Free State.
43. Menegusso, F. J., A. A. Viecili, T. Pauly and D. T. L. Ferreira. 2010.
Evaluation of analysis results of wheat flour from different rheological
analysis laboratories. Available at: http: // www. projetotrigo. fag. edu.
Br / brasil/artigos/artigos_2010/curitiba/01.pdf.
44. Morris, C.F. 2002. Puroindolines: The molecular genetic basis of wheat
grain hardness. Plant Molecular Biol., 48: 633-647.
45. Noorka, I.R., S.Rehman, J.R.Haidry, I.Khaliq, S.Tabassum and G. M.
U. Din. 2009. Effect of water stress on physico-chemical properties of
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pak. J. Bot. 41(6): 2917-2924.
46. Pasha, I. 2006. Biochemical characterization of Pakistani wheats in
relation to grain hardness. Ph.D. Thesis, Inst. Food Sci. and Tech.,
Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.
47. Pedersen, L., K. Kaacka, M. N. Bergsoeb and J. Adler-Nissen. 2004.
Rheological properties of biscuit dough from different cultivars, and
relationship to baking characteristics. J. Cereal Sci. 39:37-46
48. Perten, H., K. Bondesson and A. Mjorndal. 1992. Gluten index variation
in commercial Swedish wheat sample. Cereal Foods World.
37:655-660.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

266 Z. Iqbal et al.

49. Peterson, C. J., V. A. Johnson and P. J. Mattern. 1986. Influence of

cultivar and environment on mineral and protein concentrations of
wheat flour, bran and grain. Cereal Chem. 63: 183-186.
50. Posner, E. S. and A. N. Hibbs. 1999. Wheat flour milling. American
Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc 10th ed. American Association of
Cereal Chemists, St.Paul, Inc. MN p.1-62.
51. Príhoda, J., P. Skrivan and M. Hruskova. 2003. Cerealni chemie a
technologie I. Cerealni chemie, mlynská technologie, technologie
vyroby testovin. Praha: Vysoka skola chemicko-technologicka v Praze.
2003. (Spanish) 80-530.
52. Rahman, S., A. Paterson and J. R. Piggott. 2007. Optimisation of flours
for chapatti preparation using a mixture design. J. Sci. Food Agric.
87:425-430.
53. Rahman, S., S. Abrahams, D. Abbott, Y. Mukai, M. Samueil, M. Morell
and R. Appels. 1997. A complex arrangement of genes at a starch
branching enzyme 1st locus in the D-genome donor of wheat. Genome.
40:465-474.
54. Randall, P.J. and H.J.Moss. 1990. Some effects of temperature regime
during grain filling on wheat quality. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 41:603-617.
55. Randhawa, M. A., F. M. Anjum and M. S. Butt. 2002. Physico-chemical
and milling properties of new spring wheats grown in Punjab and Sind
for the production of Pizza. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 4(4): 482-484.
56. Safdar, M. N., K. Naseem, M. Amjad, A. Mumtaz and S. Raza. 2009.
Physico-chemical quality assessment of wheat grown in different
regions of Punjab. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 22(1-2):18-23.
57. Samaan, J., G. H. El-Khayat, F. Manthey, M. Fuller and C.S. Brennan.
2006. Durum wheat quality II: The relationship of kernel physic-
chemical composition to semolina quality and end product utilisation.
Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 41:47-55.
58. Shuaib, M., A. Zeb, W. Ali, T. Ahmad and I. Khan. 2007.
Characterization of wheat varieties by seed storage protein
electrophoresis. Afr. J. Biotech. 6(5): 497-500.
59. Simic, G., D. Horvat, Z. Jurkovic, G. Drezner, D. Novoselovic and K.
Dvojkovic. 2006. The genotype effect on the ratio of wet gluten content
to total wheat grain protein. J. Central Euro. Agric. 7(1):13-18.
60. Sivaraman, E. 2001. Using single kernel characterization to estimate
rheological properties of wheat dough. Advanced Econometrics ”.AGEC
6213. April 2001. Pp. 2.
61. Slaughter, C. D., H. N. Carl and R. H. William, 1992. Quality and
classification of hard red wheat. Cereal Chem. 69:428-435.

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)

 Functional and rheological properties of wheat 267

62. Steel, R. G. D, J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and

procedures of statistics. A boimeterical approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York.
63. Tahir, A. R., S. Neethirajan, D. S. Jayas, M. A. Shahin, S. J. Symons
and N. D. G. White. 2007. Evaluation of the effect of moisture content
on cereal grains by digital image analysis. Food Res. Int.
40(9):1140-1145.
64. Trajkovic, J., J. Baras, M. Miric, and S. Siler. 1983. Analyses of Food
Products, Beograd.
65. Anon. 2013. Grain inspection handbook, book II, general information.
Grain inspection, packers and stockyards administration, Federal Grain
Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, USA. Pp.
17. Available at: http: // www. gipsa. usda. gov/ publications / fgis /
handbooks / grain-insp / grbook2 / general_info. pdf. Accessed on
March 10, 2014.
66. Vizitiu, D., M. Ognean and I. Danci. 2012. Rheological evaluation of
some laboratory mills. Bulletin UASVM Agric. 69(2):440-446.
67. Wieser, H. 2007 Chemistry of gluten proteins. Food Microbiol.
24:115-119.
68. Williams, P., F. J. EI. Haramein, H. Nakhoul and S. Rihawl, 1986. Crop
quality evaluation methods and guide-lines. Technical manual No.14.
International center for agricultural research in the dry areas, Alspoo,
Syria.
69. Wrigley, C. W., P. J. Robinson and W. T. Williams. 1982. Association
between individual gliadins proteins and quality. Agronomic and
morphological attributes of wheat cultivars. J. Agric. Res. 33:409-418.
70. Yamamoto, H., S. T. Worthington, G. Hou and P. K. W. Ng. 1996.
Rheological properties and baking qualities of selected soft wheats in
the United States. Cereal Chem. 73:215-221.
71. Zeb, A. Z. Ali, T. Ahmad and A. Abdumanon. 2006. Physiochemical
characteristics of wheat varieties growing in same and different regions
of Pakistan. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 9(9):1823-1828.

Received: October 9, 2013 Accepted: August 22, 2014

***

J. Agric. Res., 2015, 53(2)