Advertisement

Food and Bioprocess Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 966–978 | Cite as

Impact of Heat Moisture Treatment and Hydration Level of Flours on the Functional and Nutritional Value-Added Wheat-Barley Blended Breads

  • Concha Collar
  • Enrique Armero
Original Paper
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

The impact of heat moisture treatment (HMT) of flours on the techno-functional and nutritional patterns of binary flour bread matrices (wheat/barley, WT/CB, 60:40, w/w) was investigated in untreated (−) and HMT (+) samples made at 160 and 170 dough yield (DY) levels. Assessment was performed by determining viscoelastic (stress relaxation test) and mechanical (double compression test) behaviours, volume (seed displacement), colour (Photoshop system), crumb grain (digital image analysis), starch digestibility (enzyme hydrolysis) and staling kinetics (Avrami equation), bioaccessible polyphenol content (digestive enzymatic mild extraction) and anti-radical activity (DPPH●). A superior functional profile was provided by HMT of CB flour in the blend WT−CB+ when hydrated at DY 170 compared to the untreated control WT−CB−. The sample exhibited a similar specific volume, more cohesive, springier, more resilient crumb, with similar rate and extent of crumb firming on ageing, and similar colour pattern but finer and more uniformly sized cell structure, and deserved similar sensory ratings as the control WT−CB− concerning cell uniformity, smoothness and typical smell and taste. Digestible starch kinetic curves of blended breads pointed out samples WT−CB+ and WT+CB+ as matrices expliciting a lower degree and slower rate of starch hydrolysis when mixed at low and high DY, respectively. A similar anti-radical activity for composite bread matrices was evidenced regardless of either HMT or DY.

Keywords

Heat moisture treatment Dough yield Blended breads Functionality Nutritional value 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the institutions Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) and Federación Europea de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) for funding the Project AGL2015-63849-C2-1-R.

References

  1. AACC (Ed.). (2005). Approved methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists (10th ed.). AACC St. Paul, MN: The Association.Google Scholar
  2. Angioloni, A. & and Collar, C. (2011b). Physicochemical and nutritional properties of reduced-caloric density high-fibre breads. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44, 747–758, 3, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.09.008.
  3. Angioloni, A., & Collar, C. (2011a). Polyphenol composition and “in vitro” antiradical activity of single and multigrain breads. Journal of Cereal Science, 53(1), 90–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2010.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angioloni, A., & Collar, C. (2009). Bread crumb quality assessment: a plural physical approach. European Food Research and Technology, 229(1), 21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1022-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. AOAC. (1991). Total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fiber in foods. Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
  6. AOAC. (2000). Official Methods of Analysis 17th Ed., AOAC International.Google Scholar
  7. Armero, E., & Collar, C. (1998). Crumb firming kinetics of wheat breads with antistaling additives. Journal of Cereal Science, 28(2), 165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.1998.0190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer, L. L., Murphy, M. R., Wolf, B. W., & Fahey, G. C. (2003). Estimates of starch digestion in the rat small intestine differ from those obtained using in vitro time-sensitive starch fractionation assays. Journal of Nutrition, 133(7), 2256–2261.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.7.2256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cetiner, B., Acar, O., Kahraman, K., Sanal, T., & Koksel, H. (2017). An investigation on the effect of heat-moisture treatment on baking quality of wheat by using response surface methodology. Journal of Cereal Science, 74(2017), 103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, X., He, X., Fu, X., & Huang, Q. (2015). In vitro digestion and physicochemical properties of wheat starch/flour modified by heat-moisture treatment. Journal of Cereal Science, 63, 109–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung, H. J., Liu, Q., Pauls, P. K., Fan, M. Z., & Yada, R. (2008). In vitro starch digestibility, expected glycaemic index and some physicochemical properties of starch and flour from common bean. (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties grown in Canada. Food Research International, 41(9), 869–875.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2008.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collar, C. (2017). Significance of heat moisture treatment conditions on the pasting and gelling behaviour of various starch-rich cereal and pseudocereal flours. Food Science and Technology International, 23(7), 623–636.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013217714671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collar, C., & Angioloni, A. (2014). Nutritional and functional performance of barley flours in breadmaking: mixed breads vs wheat breads. European Food Research and Technology, 238(3), 459–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-013-2128-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collar, C., & Armero, E. (2017). Impact of heat moisture treatment and hydration level on physico-chemical and viscoelastic properties of doughs from wheat-barley composite flours. European Food Research and Technology, 244(2), 355–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-017-2961-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collar, C., Bollaín, C., & Angioloni, A. (2005). Significance of microbial transglutaminase on the sensory, mechanical and crumb grain pattern of enzyme supplemented fresh pan breads. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(4), 479–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.10.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collar, C., Jiménez, T., Conte, P., & Fadda, C. (2014). Impact of ancient cereals, pseudocereals and legumes on starch hydrolysis and antiradical activity of technologically viable blended breads. Carbohydrate Polymers, 113, 149–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dupuis, J. H., Liu, Q., & Yada, R. Y. (2014). Methodologies for increasing the resistant starch content of food starches: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(6), 1219–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO/WHO. (2003). Food energy-methods of analysis and conversion factors (p. 77). Rome: FAO Food and Nutrition Paper.Google Scholar
  19. Flander, L., Suortti, T., Katina, K., & Poutanen, K. (2011). Effects of wheat sourdough process on the quality of mixed oat-wheat bread. LWT Food Science and Technology, 44(3), 656–664.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster-Powell, K., Holt, S. H., & Brand-Miller, J. C. (2002). International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76(1), 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao, L., Wang, S., Oomah, B. D., & Mazza, G. (2002). Wheat quality: antioxidant activity of wheat millstreams. In P. Ng & C. W. Wrigley (Eds.), Wheat quality elucidation (pp. 219–233). St. Paul, MN: AACC International.Google Scholar
  22. Gélinas, P., McKinnon, C. M., Rodrigue, N., & Montpetit, D. (2001). Heating conditions and bread-making potential of substandard flour. Journal of Food Science, 66(4), 627–632.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb04612.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glahn, R. P., Lee, O. A., Yeung, A., Goldman, M. I., & Miller, D. D. (1998). Caco-2 cell ferritin formation predicts nonradiolabeled food iron availability in an in vitro digestion/Caco-2 cell culture model. The Journal of Nutrition, 128(9), 1555–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Granfeldt, Y., Björck, I., Drews, A., & Tovar, J. (1992). An in vitro procedure based on chewing to predict metabolic responses to starch in cereal and legume products. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46, 649–660.Google Scholar
  25. Gunaratne, A., & Hoover, R. (2002). Effect of heat-moisture on the structure and physicochemical properties of tuber and root starches. Carbohydrate Polymers, 49(4), 425–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8617(01)00354-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartzfeld, P. W., Forkner, R., Hunter, M. D., Sd, M., & Hagerman, A. E. (2002). Determination of hydrolyzable tannins (gallotannins and ellagitannins) after reaction with potassium iodate. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(7), 1785–1790.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0111155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ICC. (2014). ICC Standard Methods of the International Association for Cereal Science and Technology 104/1, 105/2, 110/1, 115/1, 136, 162, 166. Vienna: The Association.Google Scholar
  28. Jenkins, D. J. A., Kendall, C. W. C., Augustin, L. S. A., Franceschi, S., Hamidi, M., Marchie, A., et al. (2002). Glycemic index: overview of implications in health and disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76(1), 266S–273S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehmann, U., & Robin, F. (2007). Slowly digestible starch—its structure and health implications: a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 18(7), 346–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2007.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mann, J., Schiedt, B., Baumann, A., Conde-Petit, B., & Vilgis, T. A. (2013). Effect of heat treatment on wheat dough rheology and wheat protein solubility. Food Science and Technology International, 20, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marston, K., Khouryieh, H., & Aramouni, F. (2016). Effect of heat treatment of sorghum flour on the functional properties of gluten-free bread and cake. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 65, 637–644.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niba, L. L. (2003). Processing effects on susceptibility of starch to digestion in some dietary starch sources. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 54(1), 97–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0963748031000042038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ovando-Martínez, M., Whitney, K., Reuhs, B. L., Doehlert, D. C., & Simsek, S. (2013). Effect of hydrothermal treatment on physicochemical and digestibility properties of oat starch. Food Research International, 52(1), 17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.02.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sánchez-Moreno, C., Larrauri, J. A., & Saura-Calixto, F. (1998). A procedure to mea-sure the antiradical efficiency of polyphenols. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 76, 270–276.Google Scholar
  35. Saura-Calixto, F., García-Alonso, A., Goñii, I., & Bravo, L. (2000). In vitro determination of the indigestible fraction in foods: An alternative to dietary fiber analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 3342–3347.Google Scholar
  36. Setser, C. S. (1996). Sensory methods. In R. E. Hebeda & H. F. Zobel (Eds.), Baked goods freshness (pp. 171–187). New York: Marcel Decker Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Singh, J., Dartois, A., Kaur, L. (2010). Starch digestibility in food matrix: a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21, 168–180.Google Scholar
  38. Sullivan, P., Arendt, E., & Gallagher, E. (2013). The increasing use of barley and barley by-products in the production of healthier baked goods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 29(2), 124–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verdú, S., Vásquez, F., Ivorra, E., Sánchez, A. J., Barat, J. M., & Grau, R. (2017). Hyperspectral image control of the heat-treatment process of oat flour to model composite bread properties. Journal of Food Engineering, 192, 45–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.07.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cereals and Cereal-based Products, Food Science DepartmentInstituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC)PaternaSpain

Personalised recommendations