| Literature DB >> 35053941 |
Alessio Cappelli1, Andrea Bini1, Enrico Cini1.
Abstract
Many types of baked goods are firmly rooted in the food habits of many people in different countries. Although there have been great strides in improving milling, kneading, and baking, given the lack of essential studies, further steps forward need to be taken to understand the effects of storage time and environmental storage conditions, thus motivating this work. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of storage time, using one-way ANOVA, and environmental storage conditions (environmental temperature and humidity), using MOLS analysis, on flour composition, dough rheology, and biscuit characteristics. Seven levels of storage time were tested: T0 (control), T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6. The results showed that flour storage time significantly increased dough tenacity (P) and curve configuration ratio (P/L), and decreased the biscuit volume (best at T0). However, 2-3 weeks of storage highlighted a significant increase in deformation energy (W), an essential alveograph parameter that is closely correlated to the technological success of leavened products. This optimum found for W might be considered as a great stride in understanding the effects of storage time, confirming that wheat flour can reach its optimal performance after two-three weeks of storage, in particular for W. Moreover, this information could be useful, not only for biscuits production, but also for bread and bakery products (and, thus, the entire bakery industry). MOLS analysis highlighted that dough rheology and biscuit characteristics are mainly affected by flour composition (primarily from starch content) rather than environmental storage parameters. In conclusion, to optimize the biscuit characteristics, it is necessary to use flours with a low content of damaged starch by selecting the most suitable milling technique and carefully managing the operative parameters.Entities:
Keywords: alveograph parameters; flour moisture; gluten; protein; starch; warehouse moisture; warehouse temperature
Year: 2022 PMID: 35053941 PMCID: PMC8775110 DOI: 10.3390/foods11020209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Graphical representation of the experiment.
Results of flours characterization and analyses (based on dry weight). Results are expressed as the mean of the three replicates ± SD.
| Sample | Moisture (g/100 g) | Starch (g/100 g) | Protein (g/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flour T0 (control) | 14.60 ± 0.19 | 65.33 ± 1.18 | 13.20 ± 0.25 |
| Flour T1 (1 week of storage) | 15.40 ± 0.21 | 68.26 ± 1.01 | 10.90 ± 0.49 |
| Flour T2 (2 weeks of storage) | 15.10 ± 0.16 | 68.97 ± 1.34 | 11.60 ± 0.36 |
| Flour T3 (3 weeks of storage) | 15.10 ± 0.19 | 69.70 ± 1.51 | 11.50 ± 0.41 |
| Flour T4 (4 weeks of storage) | 15.00 ± 0.11 | 68.60 ± 1.04 | 11.10 ± 0.53 |
| Flour T5 (5 weeks of storage) | 14.80 ± 0.16 | 69.10 ± 1.58 | 12.10 ± 0.46 |
| Flour T6 (6 weeks of storage) | 14.60 ± 0.22 | 70.90 ± 2.16 | 12.30 ± 0.38 |
Weekly mean temperature and humidity in the company warehouse. Results are expressed as the mean of the three replicates ± SD.
| Week | Mean Temperature (°C) | Mean Humidity (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Week 0 (control) | 19.73 ± 0.29 | 64.33 ± 1.15 |
| Week 1 | 19.88 ± 0.38 | 57.11 ± 3.01 |
| Week 2 | 20.82 ± 0.59 | 58.00 ± 1.33 |
| Week 3 | 20.47 ± 0.39 | 56.56 ± 3.15 |
| Week 4 | 21.53 ± 0.43 | 55.44 ± 3.53 |
| Week 5 | 23.04 ± 0.81 | 50.00 ± 1.45 |
| Week 6 | 24.67 ± 0.29 | 54.33 ± 3.67 |
Results of alveograph tests (mean of five measurements (diskettes) for each proof) expressed as the mean of the three replicates ± SD.
| P (Dough Tenacity) | L (Dough Extensibility) | G (Index of Swelling) | W (Deformation Energy) | P/L (Curve Configuration Ratio) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flour T0 (control) | 80.73 ± 1.62 | 74.73 ± 11.30 | 19.35 ± 1.37 | 237.87 ± 18.13 | 1.09 ± 0.16 |
| Flour T1 (1 week of storage) | 103.53 ± 1.97 | 63.07 ± 5.66 | 17.66 ± 0.80 | 269.53 ± 15.70 | 1.67 ± 0.17 |
| Flour T2 (2 weeks of storage) | 98.17 ± 3.88 | 72.12 ± 6.18 | 18.85 ± 0.80 | 282.37 ± 7.50 | 1.40 ± 0.16 |
| Flour T3 (3 weeks of storage) | 97.98 ± 5.55 | 69.07 ± 11.23 | 18.04 ± 2.16 | 295.63 ± 24.09 | 1.46 ± 0.18 |
| Flour T4 (4 weeks of storage) | 98.53 ± 3.26 | 58.60 ± 2.03 | 16.82 ± 0.42 | 242.05 ± 12.60 | 1.69 ± 0.02 |
| Flour T5 (5 weeks of storage) | 97.67 ± 1.22 | 60.93 ± 3.38 | 17.26 ± 0.55 | 248.47 ± 11.87 | 1.63 ± 0.13 |
| Flour T6 (6 weeks of storage) | 93.27 ± 2.16 | 59.87 ± 5.68 | 17.16 ± 0.78 | 237.47 ± 19.16 | 1.59 ± 0.15 |
Results of biscuit characterization expressed as the mean of the three replicates ± SD.
| Sample | Volume (L) | Height (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Biscuit T0 (control) | 0.0446 ± 0.003 | 17.47 ± 2.09 |
| Biscuit T1 (1 week of flour storage) | 0.0150 ± 0.006 | 15.37 ± 2.08 |
| Biscuit T2 (2 weeks of flour storage) | 0.0189 ± 0.004 | 16.07 ± 0.73 |
| Biscuit T3 (3 weeks of flour storage) | 0.0166 ± 0.003 | 17.58 ± 0.85 |
| Biscuit T4 (4 weeks of flour storage) | 0.0191 ± 0.001 | 18.38 ± 0.98 |
| Biscuit T5 (5 weeks of flour storage) | 0.0170 ± 0.002 | 17.58 ± 2.09 |
| Biscuit T6 (6 weeks of flour storage) | 0.0272 ± 0.002 | 16.88 ± 0.90 |
Figure 2Biscuits (biscotto di Prato) obtained with the tested flours.