bread making of durum wheat with chickpea sourdough or compressed baker's yeast

jfq_267 644..668

BREAD MAKING OF DURUM WHEAT WITH CHICKPEASOURDOUGH OR COMPRESSED BAKER’S YEAST

PETROS KEFALAS1, SAVAS KOTZAMANIDIS2, DIMITRIOS SABANIS3,ANASTASIA YUPSANI3, LIDA-AIKATERINI KEFALA1,

ATHANASIOS KOKKALIS1 and TRAIANOS YUPSANIS3,4

1Department of Nutrition and DieteticsFaculty of Food Technology and Nutrition

Alexander Technological Educational Institute of ThessalonikiPO Box 141 GR, 57400 Sindos, Greece

2National Agricultural Research FoundationCereal Institute

PO Box 60411, 57001 Thermi, Greece

3Laboratory of BiochemistrySchool of Chemistry

Aristotelean University of Thessaloniki54006 Thessaloniki, Greece

Received for Publication October 8, 2007Accepted for Publication July 18, 2008

ABSTRACT

Two ways of improving durum wheat bread-making quality wereevaluated.

First, durum wheat (cultivar “Papadakis”) was blended with breadwheat flour of good (A-flour) or medium (B-flour) quality (70% durum and30% bread wheat flour). Durum wheat flour displayed the g-gliadin 45 elec-trophoretic band and acceptable bread-making quality. Breads from flourblends had better volume, particularly the durum and A-flour blend. Theaddition of ascorbic and citric acid and malt flour improved dough rheologicalproperties and thus bread volume, as well as staling rate and sensory char-acteristics. These were more pronounced in the blend of durum with B-flour.

Second, durum wheat flour alone was used to prepare chickpeasourdough-leavened bread, as flavor is important for consumer acceptance.With the addition only of salt, the chickpea sourdough-leavened durum wheatbread displayed acceptable loaf volume, distinguished flavor and longer shelflife compared with bread prepared with compressed baker’s yeast.

4 Corresponding author. TEL: +30-2310-997744; FAX: +30-2310-997689; EMAIL: [email protected]

Journal of Food Quality 32 (2009) 644–668.DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2009.00267.x644© 2009 The Author(s)Journal compilation © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

One of the practical applications of this study is the possibility of using acommon durum wheat cultivar instead of local varieties as is the case withtraditional breads. Results of this work may be useful for promoting greateracceptance of durum wheat breads as well as expansion of the use of atraditional Mediterranean chickpea sourdough-leavened durum wheat breadwith distinguished flavor and taste.

This work may serve as a guide for determining the quality of flourssuitable for production of “home made” or “village” bread (which has highmarket value as specialty bread) by blending durum and bread wheat flours.Best results are obtained with good-quality bread wheat flour, regardless of thegood quality of durum wheat cultivar used, together with the use of the doughimprovers implemented in this work.

INTRODUCTION

Durum or macaroni wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) has beenbroadly cultivated all over the Mediterranean area for more than 10,000 years(Bozzini 1988). The use of durum wheat for pasta-making is a long-establishedpractice, though this is not the only use of this cereal. Many types of bread aremade from durum flour in most of the countries of the Middle East and SouthernEurope (Quaglia 1988; Melidou-Kefala and Kefalas 1996). The yeast-leavenedbread produced from durum wheat flour has lower volume than bread madefrom bread wheat flour and it is also firmer, because durum wheat glutenproteins lack the elastic strength of wheat bread. This fact makes durum wheatinappropriate for large-scale bread making and it is attributed to the compositionof the storage proteins of durum wheat (Feillet 1988; Liu et al. 1996).

The genetic factor responsible for this difference is believed to be the lackof the D-genome in durum wheat and especially chromosome 1D. Goodbread-making quality in bread wheat is associated with subunit 1Dx5 formingpart of a “quality associated” pair of HMW subunits (1Dx5 + 1Dy10) (Shewryet al. 2000).

The ratio of protein energy to total energy is normally low in durumwheat, as generally in cereals, and the biological value of wheat proteins isalso low, especially in comparison with animal proteins. The poor nutritionalvalue of wheat is primarily due to low levels of lysine and, more generally, ofessential amino acids such as tryptophan, threonine, isoleucine and methion-ine, and to the high levels of some of them such as leucine and arginine(Blanco et al. 1988). Adding certain amounts of legumes such as chickpea,even though it may concern only sourdough preparation, helps improve thenutritional quality of bread (Tulbek et al. 2003).

645BREAD MAKING OF DURUM WHEAT

The use of sourdough in bread making contributes to the production offlavor compounds in bread. Additionally, it gives bread better keeping prop-erties (Gobbetti et al. 1995; Collar 1996; Martinez-Anaya 1996; Martinez-Anaya et al. 1998; Corsetti et al. 2000; Katina et al. 2004; Hansen andSchieberle 2005). Sourdoughs are becoming important as consumers moveaway from pan breads to specialty products. Also, sourdough may stabilize orincrease the levels of bioactive compounds and also may be useful in theproduction of breads with slow starch digestibility and hence low glycemicresponses (Katina et al. 2005). Sourdough prepared from chickpea and addedto durum wheat flour is a traditional way to prepare good-quality bread fromdurum wheat flour alone.

There have been several efforts to improve the quality of breads preparedfrom durum wheat and compressed baker’s yeast. For example, a selection ofdurum genotypes and fermentation procedures were studied by Sapirsteinet al. (2007). A usual way of improving the baking quality of durum wheat isby blending it with bread wheat (Boggini and Pogna 1990; Boyacioglu andD’Appolonia 1994). For example, villagers of durum wheat-producing regionsof the Mediterranean coastal area, traditionally blended durum with breadwheat flour or used traditionally prepared sourdough to achieve good-qualitydurum wheat bread.

The aim of this work is to study the quality parameters of durum andbread wheat flours and flour blends for the preparation of two traditionaldurum wheat breads of the Mediterranean area, i.e., “home made” or “village”bread and chickpea sourdough-leavened durum wheat bread. In particular:

(1) to determine the baking quality, enzymatic properties and dough rheologyof good-quality durum wheat flour alone as well as in blends with twodifferent qualities of commercial bread wheat flour, either with or withoutadditives;

(2) to use the above-mentioned durum wheat flour with chickpea sourdoughto prepare bread and compare this durum wheat bread with the sameproduct made with compressed baker’s yeast.

This study could support the expansion of the use of the above traditionaldurum wheat breads in the market.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Flours and Additives

For this study, we used the following flours:

646 P. KEFALAS ET AL.

(1) Durum wheat flour from the “Papadakis” cultivar: durum wheat“Papadakis” is a cultivar created at the Cereal Institute of Thessaloniki,Greece. It is distinguished for its quality as well as for its high yield.The pedigree of the cultivar is (ATHOS ¥ MEXICALI) ¥ MEXICALI.Durum wheat was milled for flour in a Brabender Senior laboratoryflour mill at an extraction rate of 70%. Care was taken to ensure anextraction rate as close as possible to that of the bread wheat flours wasused.

(2) Good-quality bread wheat commercial flour of 70% extraction rate(named “A-flour”) was supplied from a local mill.

(3) Medium-quality bread wheat commercial flour of 70% extraction rate(named “B-flour”) was supplied from a local mill. The definition of good-quality and medium-quality bread wheat flour by the local mill was basedon the values of the quality index (QI):

QI P S V= + +( ) ×30 20 10 1 3

where P = wheat protein content, S = Sedimentation value andV = valorimetric value.

For QI < 300, the quality is defined as low, for 300 < QI < 500, thequality is defined as medium, and for QI > 500 the quality is defined asgood (Pattakou et al. 1979). The QI values of the good-quality andmedium-quality bread wheat used by the local mill were 657 and 483,respectively.

(4) Flour blends were prepared from 70% durum and 30% bread wheat flourof either quality (A or B). The 70/30 ratio was selected as the most used inGreek home-made traditional bread.

(5) Additives including citric acid and ascorbic acid were obtained fromMerck, Darmstadt, Germany. Fungal alpha-amylase preparations (5,000Sandstedt-Kneen-Blish units) were obtained from Novo Nordisk A/S,Bagsvaerd, Denmark. Malt flour was a commercial product obtained fromEdme S.A., U.K. Their concentration in the flour and flour blends was400 ppm (citric acid), 100 ppm (ascorbic acid) and 100 ppm (alpha-amylase preparation or malt flour).

(6) Chickpea seeds were kindly provided by the Cereal Institute ofThessaloniki, Greece.

Chemicals

Chemicals were obtained from Merck, Darmstadt, Germany and fromSigma, St. Louis, MO.


Analyses

Moisture, wet gluten, starch damage and titratable acidity were deter-mined according to Approved Methods No 44-15A, 38-10, 76-30A and 02-31(AACC 2000), respectively. Protein content was determined according toApproved Method No 46-11A (AACC 2000) and it was calculated as N ¥ 5.7.

Farinograph, alveograph and extensigraph tests were performed accord-ing to Approved Methods No 54-21, 54-30 and 54-10 (AACC 2000), respec-tively. The farinograph rest period curve was obtained as described byKent-Jones and Amos (1967). The difference in the consistency on this curveafter 1 h was measured.

Amylolytic activity estimation tests including amylograph and fallingnumber tests were performed according to Approved Methods No 22-10 and56-81B (AACC 2000), respectively.

Electrophoresis

Gliadin electrophoretic studies including extraction and electrophoresisof gliadin proteins were performed according to Yupsanis and Moustakas(1988).

Preparation of the Chickpea Sourdough

Sixty grams of chickpea seeds were crushed in a pestle and mortar, andthe fine fragments were removed by sieving through a sieve with a 1.5 mm slotwidth. The coarse fragments were put together with 180 mL of hot water in awater bath at 35C. Fine fragments of chickpea should be avoided because theyare carried away with the bubbles and transferred into the dough. The mixturewas left overnight at a constant temperature of 35C and then small bubblesstarted making their appearance – possibly due to fermentation. The bubbleswere collected and mixed with flour and water at 35C. The collecting andmixing procedure was continued as long as bubbles were produced (about 2 h).The total amount of flour used was 60 g, while the water used was approxi-mately 50 mL, plus the liquid (about 10 mL), carried away with the bubbles.

The dough was preserved at a temperature of 30–34C until it doubled involume. This mixture was used as the chickpea sourdough and was adequateto ferment 240 g of durum wheat flour.

For the preparation of the sourdough extract, chickpea sourdough was puttogether with water (in a ratio of 40 g sourdough to 100 mL of water) in aSorvall Omni Mixer (Du Pont Instruments, Newtown, CT) and mixed for5 min at medium speed. The mixture was transferred to centrifuge tubes andcentrifuged at 4,500¥ g for 10 min. The supernatant was the chickpea sour-dough extract and it was used to replace part of the water in the falling number,


amylograph, farinograph, extensigraph and alveograph tests. In these tests,durum wheat flour was mixed with adequate chickpea sourdough extract sothat the acidity of the mixture would be 0.015 meq/g.

Baking Test

Baking test procedure comprised of 300 g of flour + yeast + 6 g NaClmixed under constant temperature of 30C in a farinograph bowl, after theaddition of the appropriate water so that the dough consistency was 500Brabender Units, for 8 min. The dough was then transferred in a fermentationcabinet for 1 h at a constant temperature of 30C and relative humidity of70–80%. Then, 400 g of dough was weighed and punched and transferred to apan. The pans were again placed in a fermentation chamber for 1 h until thedough was completely proofed. Finally, they were baked in an oven for 45 minat 220–230C. Where commercial yeast was used, the quantity was 5 g. Bakingtest procedure with chickpea sourdough used the whole quantity of sourdoughprepared as above, which contained 60 g of flour plus 240 g of flour that wasadded so as the total amount of flour was 300 g. The proofing and fermentationtimes were extended to 2.5 and 3.5 h, respectively. The proofing time wasbased on the change of volume (dough doubled) and the final fermentationtime was based on the maturation of the dough. This was fully maturated whenit had developed shortness to a sharp pull. Loaf volumes were measured byrapeseed displacement, 1 h after removal from the oven.

After baking, the breads were allowed to cool at ambient temperatures(22–23C) for 2 h (fresh breads). The fresh bread loaves were packed in sealedplastic bags and stored at 22C up to 7 days for sensory evaluation testing (seebelow). The sensory evaluation test was done on the first, third, fifth andseventh days.

The bread crumb firmness (in terms of force required for 25% compres-sion of a bread slice 25 mm thick) was measured with a Universal Testingmachine (model 1140, Instron Corp. Canton, MA) according to ApprovedMethod No 74-09 (AACC 2000). The crust was separated from the crumbusing a knife. A plunger of 36 mm diameter was used and the crosshead speedwas adjusted to 100 mm/s.

Sensory Evaluation Test

The sensory evaluation of bread samples was done by 20 students andstaff of the Food Technology and Nutrition Department of the AlexanderTechnological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki. A 3-cm-thick slice ofeach sample was given to each panelist at room temperature (22C). Slices weregiven randomly chosen numbers. The panelists were asked to evaluate thesamples of the fresh breads, 2 h after baking for appearance, color, flavor, tasteand overall acceptability.


Samples of bread were evaluated during the course of storage (on thethird, fifth and seventh days) for taste, flavor and overall acceptability. Eachattribute was scored using the following 9-point hedonic scale: 9 = likeextremely, 8 = like very much, 7 = like moderately, 6 = like slightly,5 = neither like or dislike, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike moderately,2 = dislike very much and 1 = dislike extremely (Meilgaard et al. 1999).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance procedure of theStatistical Analysis System (SAS 1990). Duncan’s test (a = 0.05) was per-formed to determine significant differences. The experimental design wasperformed as a complete randomized block design and the main factors weredurum wheat flour and bread wheat flours. The main treatment was durumwheat flours with sourdough or additives.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chemical Analysis: Content of Protein and Gluten, Starch DamageRate, Ash and Acidity

Good-quality wheat bread flour (A-flour) had the highest protein and wetgluten values, followed by durum wheat flour, while medium-quality breadwheat flour (B-flour) had the lowest protein content. Flour blends displayedprotein, wet gluten, ash and starch damage values intermediate between thoseof their constituents (Table 1). Protein content and wet gluten influence thebaking quality of the flour, but it has been reported that the type of proteincomposition is more important (Wang et al. 2007).

Ash content of bread wheat flours was typical of domestic commercialflours of 70% extraction rate, while that of durum wheat flour was higher.Blends gave intermediate results compared with their constituents (Table 1).The titratable acidity values of the flours were almost similar (about0.005 meq/g).

The starch damage percentage of the durum wheat flour was higher thanthat of the A-flour as well as that of the B-flour (Table 1). It is well known thatdurum wheat is harder than bread wheat and this is related to the absence ofsoftness (Ha) locus on chromosome 5D (Abecassis et al. 1997; Shewry et al.2000). Starch damage affects physical dough properties and bread quality.Some starch damage is beneficial because the water absorption and the gassingpower of the dough are increased (Dexter et al. 1994).


Electrophoresis of Gliadins

As Autran et al. (1986) have reported, biochemical methods such asprotein electrophoresis have been recommended for quality assessment andquality prediction of durum wheat at the breeding stage. Figure 1 displays thegliadin electrophoregrams of the durum wheat sample (cultivar Papadakis,lane 1), A-flour (lane 3), B-flour (lane 4) and of bread wheat cultivar Marquis(lane 2) as reference, as the electrophoretic pattern of Marquis gliadins is usedto determine the presence of the g-gliadin band 45 in durum wheat cultivars.The g-gliadin band 45 corresponds to the cultivar Marquis band 9. The pres-ence of this band is independent of the growing environment and is an indexof good-quality durum wheat for pasta production (Yupsanis and Moustakas1988 and references therein). The g-gliadin band 45 does not confirm suitabil-ity for bread making; it is merely a predictor of it. Of the 11 g-gliadin 45 durumgenotypes that were examined by Sapirstein et al. (2007), most were suitablefor bread making. The good baking quality of bread wheat is not associatedwith the presence of the g-gliadin band 45, but with the presence of the genomeD (especially the 1D chromosome; Shewry et al. 2000). Genome D is absentin durum wheat. The gliadin electrophoregrams of durum wheat and breadwheat flours are different (Fig. 1). The presence of g-gliadin band 45 inPapadakis durum wheat cultivar predicts its suitability for bread making and isan index of pasta good cooking quality.

Amylograph and Falling Number Tests

Durum wheat flour had the lowest level of alpha-amylase activityaccording to the results of the amylograph and falling number tests (Table 2).

TABLE 1.CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample Protein(N ¥ 5.7) (%)

Wetgluten (%)

Ash(%)

Starchdamage (%)

Durum wheat flour (D) 11.5b 31.3c 0.81a 12.1a

Good-quality bread flour:A-flour (A)

11.8a 36.5a 0.49c 10.2b

Medium-quality bread flour:B-flour (B)

8.6d 23.5e 0.50c 6.8c

(D + A)† 11.6b 33b 0.70b 11.7ab

(D + B)† 10.5c 30d 0.70b 10.4b

† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).a–e Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.The values were based on a 14% moisture basis level.All results are mean values of three replicates.


The very high peak viscosity and the high falling number value of durum maybe partly due to the nature of the starch, though they represent the lowalpha-amylase potential of the flour (Kruger and Reed 1988). Amylase activitydepends slightly on genotype and is highly influenced by the environment(Boggini et al. 1999). High values for amylograph and falling number tests indurum wheat have been previously reported and they are considered typical forwheat grown in hot and dry climates like those in Mediterranean countries(Quaglia 1988; Boyacioglu and D’Appolonia 1994).

Amylograph and falling number values of bread wheat flours were muchlower than that of durum but they were in the range of normal alpha-amylaseactivity, and the difference between them was probably not very important(although they were statistically different). The flour blends had amylographand falling number values intermediate between those of their constituents.

FIG. 1. NATIVE GEL ELECTROPHORESIS OF PROTEINS OF DURUM AND BREADWHEAT FLOURS

Lanes: (1) Durum wheat flour: cultivar “Papadakis”; (2) Bread wheat flour: cultivar “Marquis”(control); (3) Good-quality bread wheat flour (A-flour); (4) Medium-quality bread wheat flour

(B-flour).


Amylograph and falling number values of durum wheat flour and flourblends were reduced by the addition of malt preparations as expected(D’Appolonia et al. 1982). The addition of ascorbic and citric acid as improv-ers did not inhibit the alpha-amylase activity of malt flour (results not shown)because of the small concentrations of acids that were used (Drapon andGodon 1987). Fungal alpha-amylase preparations had no significant effect onthe results of the above-mentioned tests (results not shown) as it is well known(Ranum et al. 1978). Chickpea sourdough water extract, added instead of purewater in the corresponding measurements, had no significant effect on eitheramylograph or falling number values (Table 2). It is probable that the amylaseactivity of the amount of chickpea extract used was insufficient to change theabove values. This is consistent with Martinez-Anaya and Rouzaud’s (1997)findings that at the concentrations of lactobacilli used in sourdough processes,flour is the main contributor to final alpha-amylase activity.

Farinograph Data

Stability and mixing tolerance index values of durum wheat flour wereintermediate between those of the A and B flours. Water absorption of thedurum wheat flour was high as was expected (Quaglia 1988). The difference inthe consistency of the rest period curve values of B- and durum wheat flours

TABLE 2.AMYLOLYTIC PROPERTIES OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND

THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample and additions Amylograph peakviscosity values (BU)‡

Fallingnumber (s)

Durum wheat flour (D) 1570a 585a

Good-quality bread flour: A-flour (A) 300g 363f

Medium-quality bread flour: B-flour (B) 320g 383e

D + asc + citr + ma 790d 478b

D + sourdough extract 1540a 577a

(D + A)† 880c 460c

(D + A)† + asc + citr + ma 400f 440d

(D + B)† 1000b 489b

(D + B)† + asc + citr + ma 450e 460c

All results are mean values of two replicates.Sourdough extract was added so that the acidity of the mixture would be 0.015 meq/g.a–g Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).‡ BU, Brabender Unit.asc, ascorbic acid 100 ppm; citr, citric acid 400 ppm; ma, malt flour 100 ppm.


had no significant difference. The peak time value of durum wheat flour waslonger than both A- and B-flours (Table 3). This longer peak time is connectedto the higher water absorbance, protein and damaged starch content of durumwheat flour in comparison to A- and B-flours (Tables 1 and 3; Shuey 1984;Boyacioglu and D’Appolonia 1994 and references therein).

Good-quality wheat bread flour (A-flour) had better farinograph datacompared with the other flours (Table 3). It showed high water absorptionvalue which is connected to high protein content and protein quality though thewater uptake is to an extent influenced positively by the damaged starchcontent and the particle size distribution of the flour (D’Appolonia 1984;Bloksma and Bushuk 1988) and B-starch (starch granule average diameter of3–5 mm) content (Soh et al. 2006). A-flour also had good dough developmenttime (peak time) and the longest stability, which reflects the strength of thedough produced (D’Appolonia 1984). It also displayed the lowest values ofmixing tolerance index and rest period curve consistency difference (Table 3),which indicate the weakening of the dough in a given time due to the mechani-cal abuse to which the dough is subjected by the mixing blades of the farino-graph (Kent-Jones and Amos 1967; Shuey 1984). By contrast, B-flour showedlower peak time, lower stability, higher tolerance index values as well ashigher consistency difference values of the rest period curve (Table 3). The

TABLE 3.FARINOGRAPH DATA OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample and additions Waterabsorption(%)

Peaktime(min)

Stability(min)

Toleranceindex(BU)‡

Rest period curve:consistencydifference (BU)‡

Durum wheat flour (D) 66.8a 4.0ab 6.5c 45bcd 115ab

Good-quality Bread flour:A-flour (A)

59.0c 2.5c 10.5a 25e 60f


54.0d 1.3d 2.0f 85a 100cd

D + asc + citr 67.0a 4.2a 6.8c 45bcd 110bc

D + sourdough extract 66.7a 4.0ab 6.5c 45bcd 125a

(D + A)† 64.3b 3.7b 7.0bc 40cd 90d

(D + A)†+ asc + citr 64.5b 4.0ab 7.5b 35de 75e

(D + B)† 63.0b 3.7b 4.5e 55b 110bc

(D + B)† + asc + citr 63.2b 3.7b 5.3d 50bc 90d

All results are mean values of two replicates.Sourdough extract was added so that dough acidity would be 0.015 meq/g.a–f Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).‡ BU, Brabender Unit.asc, ascorbic acid 100 ppm; citr, citric acid 400 ppm.


stability, the mixing tolerance index and the peak time correlate significantlywith baking performance (Conforti and Johnson 1992). Because durum wheatand soft wheat were milled at the same extraction rate, the dough properties ofthe flours could be compared. It is well known that extraction rate influencesdough strength (Ambalamaatil et al. 2006).

Blending durum wheat flour with A or B flour had little effect on thefarinograph data of the durum wheat flour. The addition of a mixture ofascorbic and citric acids had no significant improving effect on the farinogramvalues of the individual flours (results not shown). It seems to have a slightimproving effect on the blend of the durum wheat flour with the weak flour(B-flour) in regard to stability and the consistency difference of the rest periodcurve (Table 3). Dahle and Marthy (1970) did not observe any comparableeffect of the ascorbic acid on the farinograph curve. Farinograms of durumwheat dough, with the addition of citric acid (results not shown) or chickpeasourdough extract, did not show any significant difference compared with thecontrol.

Extensigraph Data

Most (five out of nine) of the extensigraph data of the medium-qualitybread flour showed no significant differences from those of durum wheat flour.The extensigraph data of the good-quality bread wheat flour (A-flour) differedsignificantly from those of the other two flours (Table 4).

A-flour displayed the highest values of the area under the extensigraphiccurve. This area is proportional to the energy required to bring about ruptureof the test piece of dough and its value characterizes flour strength (Bloksmaand Bushuk 1988). Durum wheat flour extensigram area decreased over time,while those of A or B flour remained almost unchanged.

Resistance to extension of both B-flour and durum wheat dough washigher than that of A-flour, but the extensibility of A-flour dough was greater.There are positive relationships between extensigram area and/or resistance toextension and bread volume (Preston and Hoseney 1991).

Blending durum wheat flour with A or B flour did not improve theextensigraph values of the durum wheat flour. In blends, the addition of citricand ascorbic acid improved the extensigraphic data. The dough-improvingproperties of ascorbic acid are well known. It acts mainly after its oxidationto dehydroascorbic acid, and it is generally accepted that dehydroascorbicacid oxidizes sulphydryl groups of cysteine residues in protein moleculesforming inter- and intramolecular disulfide bonds (Preston and Hoseney 1991;Nakamura and Kurata 1997).

On the other hand, the dough-improving properties of citric acid in thepresence of salt have also been reported (Preston and Hoseney 1991; Wehrle


TAB

LE

4.E

XT

EN

SIG

RA

PHD

ATA

OF

DU

RU

MA

ND

BR

EA

DW

HE

AT

FLO

UR

SA

ND

TH

EIR

BL

EN

DS

Flou

rsa

mpl

ean

dad

ditio

nsA

rea,

A(c

m2 )

Res

ista

nce,

B(B

U)‡

Ext

ensi

bilit

y,C

(mm

)

45m

in90

min

135

min

45m

in90

min

135

min

45m

in90

min

135

min

Dur

umw

heat

flour

(D)

76d

67f

55d

380d

340d

270d

137c

140d

145c

Goo

d-qu

ality

brea

dflo

ur:A

-flou

r(A

)85

c86

d83

c23

0f21

0ef19

5e19

0a20

3a21

0a

Med

ium

-qua

lity

brea

dflo

ur:

B-fl

our

(B)

71d

75e

61d

300e

360d

310d

143c

130e

125d

D+

asc

+ci

tr1

99b

97c

98b

610a

805b

880b

115e

90g

85f

D+

citr

293

bc99

c10

2b54

0bc57

0c59

5c11

7de11

5f12

0d

D+

sour

doug

hex

trac

t90

c93

c96

b49

0c53

0c56

5c12

6d12

4e12

2d

(D+

A)†

60e

48g

38e

290e

230e

195e

145c

155c

145c

(D+

A)†

+as

c+

citr

190

c11

0b10

8ab61

5a96

0a98

0a10

5f95

g95

e

(D+

B)†

58e

42g

28e

230f

175f

130f

165b

173b

162b

(D+

B)†

+as

c+

citr

110

7a12

4a11

6a58

5ab84

5b87

5b12

0de11

0f10

0e

All

resu

ltsar

em

ean

valu

esof

two

repl

icat

es.

Sour

doug

hex

trac

tw

asad

ded

soth

atdo

ugh

acid

ityw

ould

be0.

015

meq

/g.

a–g

Mea

nsw

ithdi

ffer

ent

supe

rscr

ipts

inco

lum

nin

dica

tesi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ceat

P<

0.05

acco

rdin

gto

the

Dun

can

test

.†

Ble

nds

wer

em

ade

of70

%du

rum

whe

atflo

uran

d30

%br

ead

whe

atflo

ur(A

orB

).‡

BU

,Bra

bend

erU

nit.

asc,

asco

rbic

acid

100

ppm

;ci

tr1 ,c

itric

acid

400

ppm

;ci

tr2 ,c

itric

acid

1,50

0pp

m.


et al. 1997). The addition of chickpea sourdough extract also improved thedurum wheat dough extensigraph values due to the effect of its organic acids,as reported by Barber et al. (1991). Organic acid dough improvement is alsoreported by Singh et al. (2002). The total acidity of the durum wheat dough,was adjusted to be 0.015 meq/g. Similar extensigraphic values were obtainedwith the addition of 1,500 ppm (on flour basis) citric acid (equivalent to doughacidity of 0.015 meq/g).

The dough-improving effect of ascorbic and citric acid was greater in theblends of durum wheat flour with bread wheat flours (A or B) than in durumor bread wheat flours. Similar observations were reported by Boyacioglu andD’Appolonia (1994).

Alveograph Data

Good-quality wheat bread flour displayed the highest values formaximum overpressure (P), abscissa at rupture (L) and deformation energy(W) (Table 5 and Fig. 2). Maximum overpressure is an indicator of doughresistance to deformation, and abscissa at rupture is commonly used as ameasure of dough extensibility (Faridi and Rasper 1987). Durum wheat flourshowed alveographic values between A- and B-flours, except P/L values. The

TABLE 5.ALVEOGRAPH DATA OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample and additions Overpressure,P (mm)

Abscissa atrupture, L (mm)

P/L Deformationenergy, W (10-4 J)

Durum wheat flour (D) 70d 67c 1.05d 155d


78c 112a 0.70e 275a


53f 54ef 0.98d 105f

D + asc + citr1 102a 39g 2.61a 190b

D + citr2 99a 51ef 1.94b 180bc

D + sourdough extract 94b 55e 1.71bc 170c

(D + A)† 65e 76b 0.86de 175c

(D + A)†+ asc + citr1 81c 52ef 1.56c 190b

(D + B)† 66de 61d 1.08d 130e

D + B† + asc + citr1 78c 49f 1.59c 150d

All results are mean values of four replicates.Sourdough extract was added so that dough acidity would be 0.015 meq/g.a–g Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).asc, ascorbic acid 100 ppm; citr1, citric acid 400 ppm; citr2, citric acid 1,500 ppm.


deformation energy of durum wheat flour was improved when it was blendedwith 30% A-flour, while it was lower in blends with B-flour.

Remarkable improvement was again observed on the alveograms after theaddition of ascorbic and citric acid for the reasons mentioned previously.Despite the fact that the abscissa at rupture (L) of flours and flour blends wasreduced, the maximum overpressure (P) and deformation energy (W) wereremarkably increased. This is consistent with the fact that with the standardalveograph procedure, it is possible to detect the effects of oxidizing agents inthe dough (Faridi and Rasper 1987).

FIG. 2. ALVEOGRAMS OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND FLOUR BLENDSD: durum wheat flour; D + asc + citr: durum wheat flour with 100 ppm ascorbic acid and 400 ppm

citric acid; D + sourdough: sourdough extract equivalent to dough acidity of 0.015 meq/g;A: good-quality bread wheat flour (A-flour); D + A: 70% durum wheat flour and 30% A-flour;

B: Medium-quality bread wheat flour (B-flour); D + B: 70% durum wheat flour and 30% B-flour.


Addition of sourdough extract up to an acidity of 0.015 meq/g doughimproved the deformation energy and the maximum overpressure of the durumwheat flour and reduced the abscissa at rupture, probably due to its acidcontent. This is concluded from the similar alveographic results obtained withthe addition of citric acid to the durum wheat flour (1,500 ppm citric acid onflour basis, i.e., equivalent to the dough acidity of 0.015 meq/g).

Baking Test

As expected from the results already discussed, A-flour producedbreads with the largest volume, while durum wheat flour gave breads withlower volume in comparison to bread wheat flours (Table 6 and Fig. 3). Thebreads made of flour blends had better volumes than those made with durumwheat flour. Malt flour or fungal alpha-amylase preparations with the addi-tion of citric and ascorbic acid improved the volumes of breads made ofdurum wheat flour. The addition of citric and ascorbic acid improved also

TABLE 6.BAKING TEST AND FIRMNESS VALUES OF DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS AND

THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample and additions Loafvolume (mL)

Firmness values (N)‡

One-daystorage

Two-daystorage

Durum wheat flour (D) 645g 3.8b 7.8b

Good-quality bread flour: A-flour (A) 920a 2.6g 4.7h

Medium-quality bread flour: B-flour (B) 735d 3.2cdef 6.2ef

D + asc + citr1 680f 3.5bcd 7.1cd

D + asc + citr1 + fa 710e 3.0defg 5.7fg

D + asc + citr1 + ma 715e 3.1cdefg 6.0ef

D + citr2 665f 3.7b 7.5bc

D + sourdough 610h 6.1a 10.6a

(D + A)† 800b 3.1cdefg 6.0ef

(D + A)† + asc + citr1 815b 2.9efg 5.4g

(D + A)† + asc + citr1 + ma 815b 2.7fg 4.8h

(D + B)† 710e 3.6bc 6.9d

(D + B)† + asc + citr1 750d 3.4bcde 6.3e

(D + B)† + asc + citr1 + ma 770c 3.0defg 5.3g

All results are mean values of two replicates.a–h Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).‡ N, Newtons measured by Instron 1140.asc, ascorbic acid 100 ppm; citr1, citric acid 400 ppm; citr2, citric acid 1,500 ppm; fa, fungal a-amylase100 ppm; ma, malt flour 100 ppm.


the volumes of breads made of flour blends. The addition of amylase prepa-rations in the flour blends had no significant effect on the bread volume(results not shown) due to the inherent amylase activity already present inthe soft wheat flours.

The breads prepared from A-flour had the highest scores for externalappearance and those from durum wheat flour and chickpea sourdough had thelowest (Table 7). Crust color was darker in breads from bread wheat (A or B)than durum wheat (Fig. 3), probably due to the higher amylolytic activity (seeTable 2). The grain and texture of durum wheat breads were coarse, dense andrough (Fig. 3). In addition, the crumb color of durum wheat breads appearedyellow (results not shown). Breads from A-flour also had the highest scores foroverall acceptability, although those from durum wheat flour without additionshad the lowest. Blending durum with bread wheat flour did not influence crustand crumb scores but improved appearance and acceptability scores. Additivesfurther improved these scores. The use of sourdough (instead of compressedbaker’s yeast) improved flavor, taste and acceptability of durum wheat bread(Table 7).

FIG. 3. LOAVES (UPPER) AND SLICES (LOWER) OF BREADS PREPARED FROM DURUMAND BREAD WHEAT FLOURS

(1) Good-quality bread wheat flour (A-flour); (2) medium-quality bread wheat flour (B-flour);(3) durum wheat flour with compressed yeast plus the addition of 100 ppm ascorbic acid,

400 ppm citric acid and 100 ppm fungal a-amylase 5,000 Sandstedt-Kneen-Blish; (4) durumwheat flour with compressed baker’s yeast without additions (control); (5) durum wheat flour

with chickpea sourdough.


There are several methods for the evaluation of bread staling, and com-parisons between them are also known (Mahmoud and Abou-Arab 1989;Sidhu et al. 1997). Bread firmness is one of them. As storage time increased,firmness values also increased inevitably. The mechanism of bread firming hasnot been explained completely. The theory that amylopectin recrystallizationwithin starch granules is mainly responsible for bread firming is now extendedto the role of other factors such as dextrins, lipids, protein content, proteinquality and glutenin subunits (Martin et al. 1991a,b; Primo-Martin et al.2004).

Our results showed that durum wheat flour breads had higher startingfirmness values and also higher firming rate than those made of A- or B-flouror flour blends. A-flour breads had the lowest firmness values both at thebeginning and during storage. Blending durum wheat flour with either A- orB-flour reduced firming rate. In the case of durum and A-flour blends, thestarting softness was also improved, compared with breads made of durumwheat flour alone or durum wheat and B-flour blends. The addition of amylasepreparations (malt flour or fungal alpha-amylase) reduced the firmness valuesand the staling rate of breads made of durum wheat flour or of flour blends(Table 6; Lineback and Rasper 1988; Pomeranz 1988). Breads prepared withdurum wheat flour and chickpea sourdough had lower volume and higher

TABLE 7.SENSORY EVALUATION OF FRESH BREADS FROM DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT

FLOURS AND THEIR BLENDS

Flour sample and additions CrustColor

Crumbcolor

Flavor Taste Overallacceptability

Externalappearance

Durum wheat flour (D) 7.40cd 7.30c 7.80b 7.65b 6.65e 6.30e


8.65a 8.75a 7.65b 7.75b 8.90a 8.80a


8.10ab 8.70a 7.50b 7.30b 7.90bc 7.50cd

D + asc + citr + fa 7.15d 7.45bc 7.75b 7.60b 7.75bc 7.30d

D + sourdough 7.00d 7.30c 8.80a 8.65a 7.80bc 6.15e

(D + A)† 7.50bcd 7.90bc 7.70b 7.55b 7.65cd 7.45cd

(D + A)† + asc + citr + ma 7.90bc 8.00bc 7.65b 7.40b 8.35ab 8.25ab

D + B† 7.05d 7.55bc 7.30b 7.25b 7.10d 7.00d

(D + B)† + asc + citr + ma 7.85bc 7.90bc 7.50b 7.35b 8.00bc 8.10bc

All results are mean values of twenty panelists.a–e Means with different superscripts in column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 according

to the Duncan test.† Blends were made of 70% durum wheat flour and 30% bread wheat flour (A or B).asc, ascorbic acid 100 ppm; citr, citric acid 400 ppm; fa, fungal a-amylase 100 ppm; ma, malt flour100 ppm.


starting firmness than those with compressed yeast. Crumb firmness has anegative correlation to bread volume, as reported by Armero and Collar(1996). Sourdough-leavened breads develop less staling firmness, becausebiological (and not chemical) acidification delays starch retrogradation(Corsetti et al. 2000). Chickpea sourdough-leavened durum wheat breadsdeveloped a distinguished flavor and taste and remained in good condition forconsumption even after 7 days storage at room temperature, as confirmed by asensory evaluation test. On the third and fifth days of storage, these breads hadthe highest acceptability scores, while those of the bread wheats (A or B) hadthe lowest (Table 8). After the fifth day, mold appeared on all breads exceptthose prepared with chickpea sourdough (results not shown). The long shelflife of chickpea-leavened bread is also reported by Tulbek et al. (2003).

It is generally accepted that sourdough breads develop both flavor andresistance to mold. Flavor depends on the type of flour and type of starter(Martinez-Anaya 1994; Collar 1996; Martinez-Anaya et al. 1998; Hansen andSchieberle 2005). Flavor also depends on the temperature of fermentation,dough yield and time of leavening (Gobbetti et al. 1995). These findings forsourdough-leavened bread from bread wheat flour seem to be applicable alsoto durum wheat bread, because the chickpea sourdough-leavened durum wheatbread has its own distinctive flavor.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from producing new cultivars of durum wheat which would bemore appropriate for bread making than those already existing, there is anotherway to use durum wheat flour and consequently increase its market value. Thisis by blending it with good-quality bread wheat flour. The technique of blend-ing flours at a ratio of 70% durum to 30% bread wheat flour is traditionallyused in Greek villages where durum wheat is the predominant wheat speciescultivated. The bread made in this way is called “home made” or “village”bread and is the type of bread preferred by the villagers.

The addition of ascorbic and citric acid and malt flour improved thevolume, staling and sensory characteristics of bread. These were more pro-nounced in bread prepared with a blend of durum wheat flour and medium-quality bread wheat flour.

On the other hand, durum wheat flour alone can be used for specialtybread by replacing compressed baker’s yeast with chickpea sourdough. Thisbread has a distinguished flavor, better taste and longer shelf life.

Very good results were obtained with good-quality durum wheat aspredicted by the presence of the electrophoretic g-gliadin band 45.


TAB

LE

8.SE

NSO

RY

EV

AL

UA

TIO

NO

FB

RE

AD

SFR

OM

DU

RU

MA

ND

BR

EA

DW

HE

AT

FLO

UR

SA

ND

TH

EIR

BL

EN

DS

DU

RIN

GST

OR

AG

E

Flou

rsa

mpl

ean

dad

ditio

nsT

hird

day

Fift

hda

ySe

vent

hda

y‡

Flav

orTa

ste

Ove

rall

acce

ptab

ility

Flav

orTa

ste

Ove

rall

acce

ptab

ility

Flav

orTa

ste

Ove

rall

acce

ptab

ility

Dur

umw

heat

flour

(D)

6.40

b7.

00b

5.60

d5.

00bc

4.90

b4.

30c

––

–G

ood-

qual

ityB

read

flour

:A

-flou

r(A

)4.

95c

5.10

c4.

65e

2.80

d2.

50d

2.35

d–

––

Med

ium

-qua

lity

brea

dflo

ur:

B-fl

our

(B)

5.00

c4.

80c

4.50

e2.

55d

2.35

d2.

20d

––

–

D+

asc

+ci

tr+

fa6.

50b

6.90

b6.

45bc

5.40

b5.

00b

5.35

b–

––

D+

sour

doug

h8.

00a

8.35

a7.

90a

7.35

a7.

05a

6.75

a6

6.45

5.60

(D+

A)†

6.05

b6.

30b

5.85

cd4.

50c

4.35

bc4.

20c

––

–(D

+A

)†+

asc

+ci

tr+

ma

6.20

b6.

50b

6.80

b4.

90bc

4.75

bc5.

30b

––

–(D

+B

)†6.

00b

6.15

b5.

45d

4.35

c4.

20c

3.85

c–

––

(D+

B)†

+as

c+

citr

+m

a6.

30b

6.35

b6.

60b

5.10

bc4.

80bc

5.00

b–

––

All

resu

ltsar

em

ean

valu

esof

twen

typa

nelis

ts.

a–e

Mea

nsw

ithdi

ffer

ent

supe

rscr

ipts

inco

lum

nin

dica

tesi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ceat

P<

0.05

acco

rdin

gto

the

Dun

can

test

.†

Ble

nds

wer

em

ade

of70

%du

rum

whe

atflo

uran

d30

%br

ead

whe

atflo

ur(A

orB

).‡

Seve

nth

day,

scor

esha

veno

tbe

enev

alua

ted

sinc

em

old

appe

ared

inal

lbr

eads

exce

ptD

+so

urdo

ugh.

asc,

asco

rbic

acid

100

ppm

;ci

tr,c

itric

acid

400

ppm

;fa

,fun

gal

a-am

ylas

e10

0pp

m;

ma,

mal

tflo

ur10

0pp

m.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project is co-funded by the European Social Fund and NationalResources – EPEAEK II – ARCHIMIDIS.

We thank Mr. Sophoklis Anastasiadis for his information on Greek tra-ditional sourdough-leavened breads.

REFERENCES

AACC. 2000. Approved Methods of the American Association of CerealChemists, 10th Ed., American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., StPaul, MN.

ABECASSIS, J., CHAURAND, M. and AUTRAN, J.C. 1997. Structural basison wheat hardness and technological consequences. Int. Agrophysics 11,273–281.

AMBALAMAATIL, S., LUKOW, O.M. and MALCOLMSON, L.J. 2006.Quality attributes of Canadian hard white spring wheat. J. Food Qual. 29,151–170.

ARMERO, E. and COLLAR, C. 1996. Antistaling additive effects on freshwheat bread quality. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2, 323–333.

AUTRAN, J.C., ABECASSIS, J. and FEILLET, P. 1986. Statistical evaluationof different technological and biochemical tests for quality assessment indurum wheats. Cereal Chem. 63, 390–394.

BARBER, S., BAGUENA, R., BENEDITO DE BARBER, C. andMARTINEZ–ANAYA, M.A. 1991. Evolution of biochemical and rheo-logical characteristics and breadmaking quality during a multistage wheatsour dough process. Z. Lebensm.-Unters.-Forsch. 192, 46–52.

BLANCO, A., DE PACE, A., PORCEDDU, E. and MUGNOZZASCARASCIA, T. 1988. Genetics and breeding of durum wheat inEurope. In Durum Wheat: Chemistry and Technology (G. Fabriani and C.Lintas, eds) pp. 17–45, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc.,St. Paul, MN.

BLOKSMA, A.H. and BUSHUK, W. 1988. Rheology and chemistry of dough.In Wheat, Chemistry And Technology, Vol II (Y. Pomeranz, ed.) pp.131–217, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St Paul, MN.

BOGGINI, G. and POGNA, N.E. 1990. Use of durum wheat to improvethe breadmaking quality of soft wheat. Tec. Molitoria 41, 1025–1030.(in Italian).

BOGGINI, G., D’EGIDIO, M.G., DE NONI, I., PELLEGRINO, L.,RACINELLI, F. and PAGANI, M.A. 1999. Effect of durum wheat geno-type and environment on heat damage of dried pasta. J. Genet. Breed.53, 337–347.


BOYACIOGLU, M.H. and D’APPOLONIA, B.L. 1994. Characterization andutilization of durum wheat for breadmaking. I. Comparison of chemical,rheological and baking properties between bread wheat flours and durumwheat flours. Cereal Chem. 71(1), 21–28.

BOZZINI, A. 1988. Origin, distribution, and production of durum wheat in theworld. In Durum Wheat: Chemistry and Technology (G. Fabriani andC. Lintas, eds) pp. 1–16, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc.,St Paul, MN.

COLLAR, C. 1996. Review: Biochemical and technological assessment of themetabolism of pure and mixed cultures of yeast and lactic acid bacteria inbreadmaking applications. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2, 349–367.

CONFORTI, F.D. and JOHNSON, J.M. 1992. Use of the Farinograph inpredicting baking quality of unchlorinated and chlorinated flours. J. FoodQual. 15, 333–347.

CORSETTI, A., GOBBETTI, M., DE MARTKO, B., BALESTRIERI, F.,PAOLETTI, F., RUSSI, L. and ROSSI, J. 2000. Combined effect ofsourdough lactic acid bacteria and additives on bread firmness andstaling. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 3044–3051.

D’APPOLONIA, B.L. 1984. Types of farinograph curves and factors affectingthem. In The Farinograph Handbook, 3rd Eds., (B.L. D’Appoloniaand W.H. Kunerth, eds.) pp. 13–23, American Association of CerealChemists, Inc., St Paul, MN.

D’APPOLONIA, B.L., MACARTHUR, L.A., PISESOOKBUNTERNG, W.and CIACCO, C.F. 1982. Comparison of grain amylase analyser withthe amylograph and Falling Number methods. Cereal Chem. 59, 254–257.

DAHLE, L.K. and MARTHY, P.R. 1970. Some effects of antioxidants indough systems. Cereal Chem. 47, 296–303.

DEXTER, J.E., PRESTON, K.R., MARTIN, D.G. and GANDER, E.J. 1994.The effects of protein content and starch damage on the physical doughproperties and bread-making quality of Canadian durum wheat. J. CerealSci. 20, 139–151.

DRAPON, R. and GODON, B. 1987. Role of enzymes in baking. In Enzymesand Their Role in Cereal Technology (J.E. Kruger, D. Lineback and E.Stauffer, eds.) pp. 281–324, American Association of Cereal Chemists,Inc., St Paul, MN.

FARIDI, H. and RASPER, V.F. 1987. The Alveograph Handbook, pp. 28–45,American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St Paul, MN.

FEILLET, P. 1988. Protein and enzyme composition of durum wheat. InDurum Wheat Chemistry and Technology (G. Fabriani and C. Lintas,eds.) pp. 93–119, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St.Paul, MN.


GOBBETTI, M., SIMONETTI, M.S., CORSETTI, A., SANTINELLI, F.,ROSSI, J. and DAMIANI, P. 1995. Volatile compound and organic acidproductions by mixed wheat sour dough starters: Influence of fermenta-tion parameters and dynamics during baking. Food Microbiol. 12, 497–507.

HANSEN, A. and SCHIEBERLE, P. 2005. Generation of aroma compoundsduring sourdough fermentation: Applied and fundamental aspects. TrendsFood Sci. Technol. 16, 85–94.

KATINA, K., POUTANEN, K. and AUTIO, K. 2004. Influence and interac-tions of processing conditions and starter culture on formation of acids,volatile compounds and amino acids in wheat sourdoughs. Cereal Chem.81(5), 598–610.

KATINA, K., ARENDT, E., LIUKKONEN, K.-H., AUTIO, K., FLANDER,L. and POUTANEN, K. 2005. Potential of sourdough for healthier cerealproducts. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 16, 104–112.

KENT-JONES, D.W. and AMOS, A.J. 1967. Modern Cereal Chemistry, 6thEd., pp. 340–349, Food Trade Press, London.

KRUGER, J.E. and REED, G. 1988. Enzymes and color. In Wheat Chemistryand Technology, Vol 1, 3rd Ed. (Y. Pomeranz, ed.) pp. 447–500,American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul, MN.

LINEBACK, D.R. and RASPER, V.F. 1988. Wheat carbohydrates. InWheat Chemistry and Technology, Vol 1, 3rd Ed. (Y. Pomeranz, ed.)pp. 277–372, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul,MN.

LIU, C.-Y., SHEPHERD, K.W. and RATHJEN, A.J. 1996. Improvement ofdurum wheat pastamaking and breadmaking qualities. Cereal Chem. 73,155–166.

MAHMOUD, R.M. and ABOU-ARAB, A.A. 1989. Comparison of methodsto determine the extent of staling in Egyptian-Type breads. Food Chem.33, 281–289.

MARTIN, M.L., ZELEZNAK, K.J. and HOSENEY, R.C. 1991a. A mecha-nism of bread firming. I. Role of starch swelling. Cereal Chem. 68,498–503.

MARTIN, M.L., ZELEZNAK, K.J. and HOSENEY, R.C. 1991b. A mecha-nism of bread firming. II. Role of starch hydrolyzing enzymes. CerealChem. 68, 503–507.

MARTINEZ-ANAYA, M.A. 1994. Review: Factors influencing the quality ofwheat sourdough processes and the use of chemometrics in qualityassessment. Rev. Esp. Cien. Tec. Ali. 34, 469–495.

MARTINEZ-ANAYA, M.A. 1996. Carbohydrate and nitrogen related compo-nents in wheat sourdough processes: A review. Adv. Food Sci. 18(5/6),185–200.


MARTINEZ-ANAYA, M.A. and ROUZAUD, O. 1997. Influence of wheatflour and Lactobacillus strains on the dynamics of by-products fromamylolytic activities. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 3, 123–136.

MARTINEZ-ANAYA, M.A., DEVESA, A., ANDREU, P., ESCRIVA, C. andCOLLAR, C. 1998. Effects of the combination of starters and enzymes inregulating bread quality and shelf life. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 4(6),425–435.

MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evalua-tion Techniques, 3rd Ed., pp. 231–259, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

MELIDOU-KEFALA, N. and KEFALAS, P.S. 1996. A Greek traditionalbread. ICC: 10th International Cereal and Bread Congress, p. 41, PortoCarras (Chalkidiki), Cereal Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece. Book ofAbstracts.

NAKAMURA, M. and KURATA, T. 1997. Effect of L-ascorbic acid onrheological properties of wheat flour-water dough. Cereal Chem. 74,647–650.

PATTAKOU, V., PAPASTEFANOU, S. and GIOUPSANIS, T. 1979. Qualitédu blé des rècoltes 1976 et 1977. Bulletin No 64, p. 12. Institut desCéréales, Thessaloniki, Greece (in Greek with French summary).

POMERANZ, Y. 1988. Composition and functionality of wheat flour compo-nents. In Wheat Chemistry and Technology, Vol 2, 3rd Ed., (Y. Pomeranz,ed.) pp. 219–370, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St.Paul, MN.

PRESTON, K.R. and HOSENEY, R.C. 1991. Applications of the extensi-graph. In The Extensigraph Handbook (V.F. Rasper and K.R. Preston,eds.) pp. 13–19, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St Paul,MN.

PRIMO-MARTIN, C., MARTINEZ-ANAYA, M.A. and COLLAR, C. 2004.Composition of the gluten macropolymer: Effects of flour quality andnonamylolytic enzyme addition. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 218, 428–436.

QUAGLIA, G.B. 1988. Other durum wheat products. In Durum Wheat Chem-istry and Technology (G. Fabriani and C. Lintas, eds.) pp. 263–282,American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St. Paul, MN.

RANUM, P.M., KULP, K. and AGASIE, F.R. 1978. Modified amylograph testfor determining diastatic activity in flour supplemented with fungala-amylase. Cereal Chem. 55, 321–331.

SAPIRSTEIN, H.D., DAVID, P., PRESTON, K.R. and DEXTER, J.E. 2007.Durum wheat breadmaking quality: Effects of gluten strength, proteincomposition, semolina particle size and fermentation time. J. Cereal Sci.45, 150–161.

SAS. 1990. SAS User’s Guide, Version 6, 4th Ed., Statistical Analysis SystemsInstitute, Inc., Cary, NC.


SHEWRY, P.R., TOSI, P., HE, G.Y., LAMACCHIA, C., DI FONZO, N.,D’OVIDIO, R., JONES, H., BELL, P., BARCELO, P., NAPIER, J.A.et al. 2000. Improvement of durum wheat quality by genetic engineering.In Durum Wheat, Semolina and Pasta Quality (J. Abecassis, J.-C. Autranand P. Feillet, eds.) pp. 9–15, INRA Editions, Paris, France.

SHUEY, W.C. 1984. Interpretation of the Farinogram. In The FarinographHandbook, 3rd Ed., (B.L. D’Appolonia and W.H. Kunerth, ed.)pp. 31–32, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St Paul, MN.

SIDHU, J.S., AL-SAQER, J. and Al-ZENKI, S. 1997. Comparison of methodsfor the assessment of the extent of staling in bread. Food Chem. 58(1–2),161–167.

SINGH, N., SINGH GUJRAL, H. and SINGH, J. 2002. Effect of bakingingredients and mixing duration on dough development, gas release andbread making properties. J. Food Qual. 25, 305–315.

SOH, H.N., SISSONS, M.J. and TURNER, M.A. 2006. Effect of starchgranule size distribution and elevated amylase content on durum doughrheology and spaghetti cooking quality. Cereal Chem. 83(5), 513–519.

TULBEK, M.C., HALL, C.A. and SCHWARZ, J.G. 2003. IFT Annualmeeting – Chicago, Session 14B, paper 14B-14.

WANG, Y.G., KHAN, K., HARELAND, G. and NYGARD, G. 2007. Distri-bution of protein composition in bread wheat flour mill streams andrelationship to breadmaking quality. Cereal Chem. 84(3), 271–275.

WEHRLE, K., GRAU, H. and ARENDT, E.K. 1997. Effects of lactic acid,acetic acid and table salt on fundamental rheological properties of wheatdough. Cereal Chem. 74, 739–744.

YUPSANIS, T. and MOUSTAKAS, M. 1988. Relationship between qualitycolor of glume and gliadin electrophoregrams in durum wheat. PlantBreed. 101, 30–35.


bread making of durum wheat with chickpea sourdough or compressed baker's yeast

Documents