Development of gluten-free flat bread using hydrocolloids: Xanthan and CMC

1

2

3

4 Q1

5

67

8910

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Q2

G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

Development of gluten-free flat bread using hydrocolloids:Xanthan and CMC

Mehrdad Mohammadi a, Nasim Sadeghnia a, Mohammad-Hossain Azizi b,Tirang-Reza Neyestani c,*, Amir Mohammad Mortazavian a

a Department of Food Technology Research, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology,

Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iranb Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iranc Department of Nutrition Research, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology,

Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 29 April 2013

Accepted 28 August 2013

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Gluten-free

Flat bread

Bread characteristics

Xanthan

CMC

Gluten replacer

A B S T R A C T

The effects of xanthan gum (XG) and (carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (5–20 g kg�1) on the quality

parameters of gluten-free flat bread, based on rice flour were investigated. Increase in CMC

concentration yielded bigger gas cells, leading to better crumb porosity. Formula 3 (F3), containing

15 g kg�1 XG and formula 10 (F10), containing 10 g kg�1 CMC and 10 g kg�1 XG resulted in the highest

dough yield (P < 0.05) and bread yield, respectively, and F10 showed the lowest bread weight loss

(P < 0.05). F10, followed by, F3 were the best and most acceptable (P < 0.05) formulae, compared to all

the others.

� 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering

Chemistry.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

jou r n al h o mep ag e: w ww .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate / j iec

2829303132333435363738394041424344

1. Introduction

Flat breads are the oldest and most well-known bread typesworldwide, with estimates showing that over 1.8 billion people usethis type of bread in regions of Central America, South Europe,Scandinavia, South Africa, the Middle East and part of China [1].Gluten protein functionality is important for bread quality anddifferences in the characteristics of the many varieties of breaddepend on their gluten protein content [2,3].

On the other hand, this protein can cause serious healthproblems in predisposed people [4]. Coeliac disease an autoim-mune immune enteropathy, caused by the ingestion of gluten ingenetically susceptible people [2], is a chronic intestinal inflam-mation caused by the consumption of glutamine and prolineprotein, which results in flattened mucosa villi [5]. The onlytreatment for this disease is to follow a lifelong gluten-free diet,facilitating mucosal recovery [4].

45464748495051

* Corresponding author at: Department of Nutrition Research, National Nutrition

and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food

Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, 1981619573,

P.O. Box: 19395-4741, Tehran, Iran.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.-R. Neyestani).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Mohammadi, et al., J. Ind. Eng

1226-086X/$ – see front matter � 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Ko

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.08.035

Producing bread from gluten-free flour is considered techno-logically critical. The absence of gluten has an impact on cellformation, crumb and crust characteristics, volume, porosity,quality parameters [6], mouth feeling and flavor [7]. Gluten-freebreads are mostly known for their lower quality compared towheat breads. Their dough has a batter form and the viscosity issimilar to that of cake batter. These breads need stabilizers, gumsand pre-gelatinization starches to trap and maintain gas [7].

Some types of flour and starch (rice, corn, cassava, soybean,millet, potato and peanut) and some materials such as hydro-colloids, enzymes (transglutaminase and lipoxygenas), soybeans,egg and dairy proteins have been used to imitate the viscoelasticproperties of gluten [8–12]. Rotsch indicated that bread doughswithout gluten can only keep gas if the gluten is replaced byanother gel [13]. Gums enhance the cohesion of the starch granulesand produce bread which can compete with wheat bread [14], butwithout the detrimental effects of gluten.

CMC is used for maintaining moisture, and improving themouth-feel and structural consistency of bakery products; it is alsoused in combination with other stabilizers and gums because of itshigh water-absorbing capacity [15].

The pseudoplastic property of xanthan gum is important duringdough preparation, i.e. pumping, kneading and rolling. Interactionsbetween xanthan and other polysaccharides can have synergistic

. Chem. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.08.035

rean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1226086X


52 ef53 ga54 do55 La56 ag57 va58 en59 pr60 of61

62 st63 hy64 m65 de66 HP67 by68

69 be70 of71 a c72 pr73 an74

75 hy76 pr77 fre78 gl79 am80 qu81 co82 im83 qu84

85 no86 gl87 m88 ai89 ric90 of91 qu

92 2.

93

94 ob95 m96 w97 flo98 So99 fro100 m101 Go102 Co103 Ka104 re105 Ye106 M107 La108 Pr109 ce110 al

111 2.

112

113 ric

114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130

131

132133134135136137138139140

Table 1Quantities of ingredients (g) used in the formulation of breads batters.

Ingredients g

Corn starch 1750

Rice flour 750

De-fatted soy flour 500

Pre-gelatinized corn starch 100

Vegetable oil 100

Egg white 50

Salt 47

Sugar 47

Yeast 40

Sodium stearoyl lactylate 12.5

Xanthan Variable (see Table 2)

CMC Variable (see Table 2)

Gluten-free flat breads were prepared according to control manner and materials

but with the addition of hydrocolloids (xanthan and CMC).

Table 2Xantan and CMC contents (g kg�1) used in the formulation of gluten-free breads.

Formula Xanthan (g kg�1) CMC (g kg�1)

ControlA – –

F1B 5 –

F2B 10 –

F3B 15 –

F4C – 5

F5C – 10

F6C – 15

F7D 5 5

F8D 5 10

F9D 10 5

F10D 10 10

A Control (flat bread without hydrocolloids: xanthan and CMC).B Xanthan-containing formulae: F1, F2 and F3.C CMC-containing formulae: F4, F5 and F6.D Xanthan and CMC-containing formulae: F7, F8, F9 and F10.

The hydrocolloids were added as g kg�1 total flour basis (including: corn starch, rice

flour, soy flour and pre-gelatinized starch).

M. Mohammadi et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2013) xxx–xxx2

G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

fects, such as enhanced viscosity or gelation effects e.g. withlactomannans and glucomannans [16,17]. Xanthan increasesugh stability, water absorption and gas maintenance [18].zaridou et al. [19] indicated that, compared to CMC, pectin,arose and b-glucan, xanthan had the lowest creep compliancelues and the highest zero shear viscosity; it also had the mosthanced elastic properties, probably due to its weak geloperties and high viscosity values at low shear rates because

its stiffness and its arranged chain construction [19].Mezaize et al. [20] optimized gluten-free formulae for French-

yle breads, based on rice and corn flour and potato starch usingdrocolloids such as guar (1.9%), CMC (1%), hydroxypropylethylcellulose (HPMC) (2.3%) and XG (0.6%) and obtained acrease in hardness and an increase in specific volumes withMC and guar respectively. Cell size and porosity of gas increased

adding guar gum and CMC [20].Gluten-free bread with enhanced organoleptic properties can

made by incorporating binding materials that mimic the effects wheat gluten operation in dough; these binding materials makeell network, the stability of which facilitates the retention of gasoduced in baking, stimulates the attraction of starch granulesd, consequently, improves dough cohesiveness [21].In literature a large number of flours and starches and various

drocolloids have been investigated to imitate the viscoelasticoperties of gluten in wheat doughs. The characteristics of gluten-e bread depend on the amount and type of hydrocolloids used as

uten replacers. The common point between the studies was thatong hydrocolloids, xanthan and CMC showed the appropriate

ality in bread manufacturing. Xanthan gum and CMC ismpatible with many food components, such as starch andproves rheology of the dough, baking properties, texture, eatingality and appearance of manufactured breads.However a literature review and other library searches reveal

studies documented on the effect of hydrocolloids on theuten-free flat breads. The reason could be that flat breads are theain type of breads in the Middle East, including Iran. Thus, them of this study was to formulate gluten-free flat bread based one flour, corn starch and soy flour using different concentrations

XG and CMC and to determine the effect of these gums on breadality.

Materials and methods

Corn starch (125 g kg�1 moisture, 30 g kg�1 protein) wastained from Farayand Co. (Karaj, Iran); rice flour (98 g kg�1

oisture, 84 g kg�1 protein), with the commercial name ‘Tarom’as purchased from Iran’s local market (Rasht, Iran); defatted soyur (80 g kg�1 moisture, 45 g kg�1 protein) was obtained fromya Sun Co. (Hashtgerd, Iran); pre gelatinized starch was gottenm Alborz Starch Co. (Ghazvin, Iran); egg white (70 g kg�1

oisture, 780 g kg�1 protein) was purchased from Golpoodrlestan Co. (Gorgan, Iran); vegetable oil from Behshahr Industrial. (Tehran, Iran); salt and sugar were obtained from Pars Namakveh Co. (Tehran, Iran) the Shazand Sugar Co. (Arak, Iran)spectively; dried instant yeast was purchased from Khuzestanast Co. (Khuzestan, Iran). DATEM (Diacetyl Tartaric Acid Ester ofono- and Diglycerides of fatty acids) and SSL (Sodium Stearoylctylate) from Beldem Co. (Bijgaarden, Belgium), xanthan fromovisco Co. (Hauptwil, Switzerland) and CMC (Carboxymethyl-llulose) from Nippon Paper Chemicals Co. (Tokyo, Japan) wereso used.

1. Bread preparation

In this work we prepared flat breads based on corn starch ande flour, similar to an Iranian flat bread ‘‘Barbari’’, which has a

Please cite this article in press as: M. Mohammadi, et al., J. Ind. En

3 cm thickness. Using the ingredients given above, eleven types ofbread were prepared, ten based on formulas 1–10 and one usingthe control formula; six breads with either XG (F1–F3) or CMC (F4–F6), one without either XG or CMC (control), and four with additionof both XG and CMC (F7–F10) (Tables 1 and 2).

Dry ingredients were premixed for 1 min at speed 1 by SpiralMixer M 80-Premium manufactured by Escher Mixers Co.(Schio,Italy); then, oil and water were added and mixed one moreminute at speed 1 and 1 min at speed 2 to enhance mixing. After5 min resting, the dough was divided by hand into 500 g pieces andflattened in trays into sheets of 130 � 330 and 5 mm thickness. Thepieces were proofed at 35 8C for 40 min and, subsequently, bakedat 260 8C for 14 min. The loaves were measured after the bread wascooled down to room temperature. Since aging affects somequality parameters, breads were packed in sealed polypropylenebags and stored at room temperature. The formulae investigated inthis study and their characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

2.2. Evaluating bread quality

Moisture was measured based on AACC, 44–15 A, and thestaling effects were assessed after 4 and 24, 48 and 72 h of storage[22].

Textural analyses was determined by a Testometric 088-MTCLTexture Analyzer manufactured by Testometric Co. (Rochdale, UK)using a 40 mm diameter aluminum cylinder probe at speed60 mm/min. Crumb firmness was determined on a 10 mm thickpiece from the center of the loaf, compressed up to 50% height.Crumb firmness (%) was evaluated after 4 and 24, 48 and 72 h of

g. Chem. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.08.035


141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216

217

218219220221222223

Table 3Moisture (g kg�1) of gluten-free breads formulated with varying levels of CMC and

xanthan during storage at 17–20 8C.

FormulaA Moisture (g kg�1)

Hour 4 Hour 24 Hour 48 Hour 72

Control 326.2 � 1.8e 280.1 � 0.1h 280.6 � 0.8e 261.5 � 0.1b

F1 403.8 � 0.2b 379.1 � 1.3b 374.8 � 0.7c 361.1 � 0.5c

F2 418.7 � 0.8c 409.2 � 0.7d 397.4 � 0.7f 381.8 � 1.2d

F3 448.4 � 0.4d 439.3 � 0.6c 433.5 � 0.3d 416.7 � 0.5e

F4 379.2 � 2.3a 362.1 � 0.6i 354.9 � 0.4b 341.7 � 0.6f

F5 381.3 � 1.2a 364.6 � 1.24a 351.5 � 0.5a 345.1 � 0.4a

F6 400.9 � 3.5b 371.4 � 0.9e 352.9 � 2.2a 345.3 � 0.8a

F7 401.9 � 0.3b 383.1 � 0.6b 374.7 � 0.4c 364.5 � 0.1g

F8 417.4 � 0.7c 397.1 � 0.4f 393.5 � 1.1g 384.2 � 1.1h

F9 446.1 � 0.9d 425.9 � 0.9g 419.6 � 1.2h 413.5 � 0.2i

F10 454.5 � 0.5f 437.9 � 0.9c 435.9 � 2.1k 427.4 � 0.5j

A For formula descriptions see Table 2.

Values are mean � standard deviation of duplicates for each treatment (six repetitions

for each formula).

Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly (P < 0.05)

different.

Table 4Firmness (%) of gluten-free breads formulated with varying levels of CMC and


FormulaA Firmness (%)


Control 26.25 � 1.04i 27.42 � 0.43h 27.84 � 0.3e 29.92 � 0.69g

F1 10.27 � 0.27h 18.77 � 1.25i 21.42 � 1.27f 23.18 � 1.19h

F2 9.59 � 0.44ah 12.97 � 1.03af 14.79 � 0.75a 17.54 � 2.83af

F3 5.15 � 0.95b 7.88 � 1.35h 9.37 � 0.54g 9.56 � 0.36i

F4 6.81 � 0.84cg 11.84 � 1.42bf 12.36 � 1.2b 13.75 � 0.54b

F5 6.33 � 0.26ge 12.71 � 0.46af 13.69 � 0.39ac 14.78 � 0.52b

F6 6.07 � 0.54eg 13.44 � 0.7ad 14.7 � 1.25a 15.4 � 2.38be

F7 8.91 � 0.42af 16.16 � 0.29e 19.09 � 0.66h 21.22 � 0.68j

F8 8.5 � 0.2f 16.14 � 0.63e 16.81 � 1.1d 18.84 � 0.52f

F9 7.17 � 0.51c 13.1 � 0.53ad 16.95 � 0.5d 16.27 � 1.53ae

F10 5.74 � 0.39be 11.02 � 1.05b 13.18 � 0.73bc 13.31 � 0.12b



for each formula).


different.

M. Mohammadi et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

storage. While testing, the room temperature was 25 8C and therelative humidity 60% [23].

In order to determine bread crumb elasticity (%), a piece ofcrumb was cut as previously described and pressed to the half of itsheight for 1 min. Then, the pressure was removed and after 1 min,the height regained by the compressed piece of crumb wasmeasured. The elasticity values were obtained as the ratio (given aspercentage) of height after compression and recovery to the initialheight [19].

Crumb and crust colors of the fresh bread were measured usinga HunterLab ColorFlex spectrophotometer manufactured byHunterLab Co. (Virginia, USA). Color reading was expressed byhunter values for L, a and b [19].

To evaluate the effect of hydrocolloids on texture and porosityappearance, a piece of bread crumb from the central part of breadwas pressed on a pad and then on a paper; the impressionsobtained represented the original dimensions of the gas cells [24].

Sensory analysis of fresh breads was carried out individually by5 trained assessors in separate booths under white and yellowfluorescent lights (similar to daylight). The characteristics evalu-ated (under crust, crust, form, porosity, softness, chewiness, flavor,overall acceptability) were the most important and crucial sensoryattributes for detecting the quality of flat breads. For eachcharacteristic an evaluation sheet was provided for each assessor.Assessors scored each quality parameter on a scale of 1 (dislikeextremely) to 5 (like extremely). Then, an index was definedconsidering the importance of each property. Each quality wasmultiplied by the defined index and the total sum of these valueswas considered as the final score. In order to evaluate the overallacceptability, a 100 point hedonic scale was used and datacollection was performed in order such that a value of 1 wasassigned to lowest overall acceptability and value of 100 to highestoverall acceptability. Before testing, the samples corresponding toeach treatment were placed randomly on disposable plates with nocolor or odor. The plates were labeled with three-digit codes. Theorder of presentation of the plates to each assessor was different ina random sequence. Bottled water at room temperature was alsoprovided to clean the palate between assessments of each of thesamples.

Dough and bread yield (%): dough mass and bread are expressedin g, prepared from 100 g raw materials [20]; the differencebetween dough mold and the resulting bread prepared from 100 gdough, indicates the weight loss (%).

2.3. Statistical analyses

This research was done in triplicate and all determinations werecarried out in duplicate. The data were analyzed by one-wayAnalysis of Variance (ANOVA), using SPSS 17 statistical package(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The least significant difference (LSD)test was used to determine statistically significant differencesbetween the means. Data from sensory evaluation were subjectedto the Kruskal–Wallis test. The Mann–Whitney U test was used todetermine statistical significance between means. P values < 0.05were considered statistically significant for all comparisons.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Moisture

Table 3 presents the moisture content of bread formulae. Thegums (XG-CMC) significantly increased bread moisture (P < 0.05),which was also higher in all formulae after 3 days of storagecompared to the control (P < 0.05). F10 had the highest (signifi-cant) moisture content among all the formulae in fresh bread andalso during storage in comparison with the control (P < 0.05). The


increase in the moisture content of the crumb was considered to bedue to the constant dough consistency and the water bindingcapacity of the hydrocolloids, which decreased the degree of crumbdegradation during storage [18].

Hydrocolloids are used in bakery products to control waterabsorption and, consequently, improve dough rheology and shelflife [15]. The xanthan-containing formulae (F1, F2, and F3) had asignificantly higher water content in comparison with the CMC one(at similar concentrations) in fresh and stored bread (P < 0.05).Hence, among the formulae containing either XG (F1–F3) or CMC(F4–F6) per se, F3 had the highest moisture. Adding XG to the CMC-containing formulae significantly increased the moisture level ofthe bread during storage compared to the CMC per se (P < 0.05).Increase in the water content of bread crumb using hydrocolloidshas been reported by Rosell et al. [25] and by Guarda et al. [18].

3.2. Texture evaluation

3.2.1. Firmness

The baked bread formulae were evaluated for firmness; asshown in Table 4, XG and CMC significantly decreased the firmnessof both fresh and stored breads (P < 0.05). Compared to the control,F3 and F10, formulae, resulted in lowest, almost similar values forfirmness of bread (P < 0.05). F3 showed lowest crumb firmness



224 af225 lo226 co227 fir228 st229 na230

231 pr232 in233 gr234 se235 pr236 is

237 ov238 ef239 us240

241 am242 Co243 tio244 co245 us246 m247 ab248 an249 De250 in251

252 ha253 th254 pr255 pr256 m257 w258 hy259 w260 im261 [2262 Fr263

264 lim265 in266 th267

268 F2269 ha270 CM271 di272 ha273 an274 ra275 w276 cr277 am278 th279 fo280 w281 fir

282 3.

283

284 co285 co286 w287 CM288 co

289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310

311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332

Table 5Elasticity (%) of gluten-free breads formulated with varying levels of CMC and


FormulaA Elasticity (%)


Control 62.5 � 1.00g 59.05 � 0.82d 57.75 � 0.5f 57 � 0.00f

F1 72.10 � 1.02a 65.75 � 0.96e 64.5 � 0.58a 61.2 � 0.96a

F2 73.25 � 0.96ab 67.6 � 0.55a 65.5 � 1.00ab 63.00 � 0.13e

F3 77.00 � 0.00c 72.37 � 0.85b 70.00 � 0.82g 69.60 � 0.55g

F4 70.40 � 1.14h 62.5 � 0.58c 61.00 � 0.00c 60.40 � 0.55a

F5 72.50 � 1.91ab 62.60 � 0.55c 60.74 � 0.37c 60.60 � 0.55a

F6 73.80 � 1.30b 64.25 � 0.96f 63.25 � 0.96j 61.02 � 0.59a

F7 76.40 � 0.71c 69.00 � 1.41gd 66.00 � 0.82bh 63.00 � 1.15e

F8 78.00 � 1.41cf 68.50 � 0.58ad 66.75 � 0.87h 63.50 � 0.58e

F9 79.40 � 1.14f 70.75 � 1.50h 68.80 � 1.47i 67.00 � 1.00d

F10 82.00 � 1.41i 74.75 � 1.50b 70.70 � 0.45g 69.70 � 1.20g



for each formula).


different.


G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

ter 3 days (P < 0.05). The reason for softness, while maintainingnger shelf life, is that water retention causes higher moisturentent and, consequently, retro gradation of starch and breadming is retarded. Hydrocolloids have a weakening effect on thearch structure, leading to better water distribution and mainte-nce and also a decrease in the crumb stiffness [15,18].The effects of hydrocolloids on starch construction and

operties are a result of two opposite phenomena; first, ancrease in rigidity as a result of decrease in the swelling of starchanules and reduced amylose leaching from the granules and thecond, a weakening effect on the starch network due toohibition of the interparticle junction in the amylase chain. Itperhaps a combination of these two factors that determines theerall effect on the mechanical properties of bread structure, an

fect that depends on the features of each specific hydrocolloided for fortification [2,18,19].As shown in Table 4, F3 had significantly the lowest firmnessong all formulae containing either XG or CMC (P < 0.05).

nsidering the effect of gum addition, increase in the concentra-n of gums, especially xanthan, followed by the rise of moisturentent, resulted in lower crumb firmness. Hence of the formulaeed, F10 had the lowest crumb firmness (P < 0.05). Water is theost important plasticizer in food, and increase of watersorption in bakeries has been reported to augment softnessd decrease bread firmness [2], similar to findings documented bymirkesen et al. reporting that XG incorporation has a softening

fluence on gluten-free breads [26].Lazaridou et al. [19], found that xanthan increased the crumb

rdness, contrary to the results of our study, which demonstratee softening effect of xanthan; these contradictory results canobably be explained by differences in the methods of breadoduction; we considered the amount of water needed toaintain consistency, while Lazaridou et al. [19] used formulaeith water levels equal to the concentration level of eachdrocolloid; F3 was found to have the highest water absorption,

hich resulted in the lowest bread firmness. The effect XG had onproving crumb hardness was also reported by Mezaize et al.

0], who investigated the optimization of gluten-free formulae forench-style bread.

Hydrocolloids affect the retro gradation level in bread byiting both the diffusion and loss of water from bread crumb,

dicating that the control of water content and its mobility may bee key factors, which control crumb firmness in bread [2].As shown in Table 4, in the xanthan-containing formulae (F1,

, and F3), while increasing the level of xanthan, decreased therdness and staling during storage (P < 0.05) whereas none of theC-containing formulae (F4, F5, and F6) showed any significant

fference after 3 days of storage. It has been indicated thatrdening should take place during storage due to moisture lossd the starch retro gradation phenomena [19]. The amount andte of starch retro gradation is controlled by the moisture content,hich, as it increases, causes a decrease in the hardness of theumb [2]; these two (amount and rate) can also slow down

ylose or amylopectin polymer associations during storage,ereby reducing occurrence of retro gradation [27]. Of allrmulae, F10 followed by F3, both of which had the highestater content and lower moisture loss, resulted in the minimummness and staling (P < 0.05).

2.2. Elasticity

According to the results shown in Table 5, all the formulaentaining the gums had the higher elasticity compared to thentrol one, both in fresh and stored breads. Among fresh bread, F3,hich included one gum (XG) and, of all the formulae, F10 (XG and

C) had the most significantly highest crumb elasticity, inmparison to the control (P < 0.05). Among the stored breads,


those prepared using formulae F3 and F10 kept the maximumelasticity during storage (P < 0.05). Lazaridou et al. [19], alsoobserved that the elasticity increased simultaneously withincrease in softness along with the increase in concentration ofhydrocolloids (CMC); however contrary to their results, oursdemonstrated that XG increased the crumb elasticity, disagree-ment in findings which could be due to the differences inproduction methods used, as mentioned earlier.

Increased extensibility by gum incorporation as reported byGujral et al. [28], for chapatti bread prepared using rice wasprobably due to the capability of hyrocolloids to maintain water,and the interactions with water which affect the plasticity of thecrumb and consequently the moisture relocation from the crumbto the crust or because of protein–gum interactions [29].Incorporation of both CMC and XG synergistically increased theelasticity of crumb, compared to using either of them per se(P < 0.05). In the formulae containing both XG and CMC (F7, 8, 9,and 10), by increasing the level of xanthan, loss of elasticitydecreased during storage, being lowest in the bread using F10, withthe highest XG concentration (10 g kg�1) (P < 0.05); howeverformulae with increasing CMC concentrations (F7–F10) were notas efficient.

3.2.3. Crumb and crust color

Crust and crumb color of the gluten-free bread were alsoevaluated using a Hunterlab colorimeter. The L scale ranges from 0(black) to 100 (white); the a scale extends from a negative value(green hue) to a positive value (red hue), while the b scale rangesfrom negative (blue) to positive (yellow). As shown in Table 6, useof CMC and XG resulted in significantly lighter color for crumb andcrust in all formulae, compared to the control (P < 0.05). F10 and F3showed the lightest color for crust and L value of crumb was higherfor F3 compared with the control (P < 0.05). Except for F4, allformulae had significantly lower crust color than the control(P < 0.05). No considerable differences in crust yellowness (b)were found between the xanthan containing formulae and thecontrol. CMC had a little effect on the b value of crust comparedwith the control (P < 0.05). The influence of gums on the a and bscales of crumb was not observed in comparison with the control;formula F3 was found to have the least values (P < 0.05).

The lightening impact of hydrocolloid can be attributed tothe effect of its addition to the water distribution, which impactedMaillard browning and caramelization [20]. It should be consid-ered that in higher water contents and during dilutionof interactive materials, the browning reaction decreases [30].



333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385

386

387388

Table 6Crust and crumb colors values of fresh gluten-free breads formulated with varying levels of CMC and xanthan.

FormulaA Crust color Crumb color

L a b L a b

Control 54.51 � 1.03a 18.52 � 0.68a 39.32 � 0.78b 69.92 � 1.50a 2.03 � 0.17de 21.62 � 0.51c

F1 61.64 � 1.39de 14.26 � 0.92b 39.36 � 0.37b 71.22 � 0.75b 2.35 � 0.07g 22.72 � 0.13e

F2 63.24 � 0.92f 12.07 � 1.06c 38.34 � 0.90a 73.48 � 1.20de 1.55 � 0.14ab 21.63 � 0.22c

F3 65.17 � 1.40g 12.57 � 0.62cd 39.19 � 0.57b 75.29 � 0.90f 1.40 � 0.07a 20.65 � 0.19a

F4 58.24 � 1.99b 17.83 � 1.14ae 40.49 � 0.64de 73.13 � 0.75cd 1.71 � 0.27c 22.23 � 0.41d

F5 59.36 � 1.78bc 16.37 � 0.90fi 40.99 � 0.36e 72.48 � 1.02c 2.05 � 0.18ef 21.83 � 0.52c

F6 58.93 � 1.06b 17.39 � 0.97ge 40.84 � 1.00de 73.17 � 0.76cd 1.67 � 0.09bc 21.76 � 0.12c

F7 62.97 � 0.97ef 15.21 � 0.68bh 41.04 � 0.29e 73.09 � 0.26cd 1.57 � .012bc 21.98 � 0.26cd

F8 60.56 � 1.65cd 16.56 � 0.96gf 40.44 � 0.24d 72.61 � 0.73c 2.17 � 0.09f 22.78 � 0.35e

F9 63.42 � 0.84f 12.91 � 1.03cd 38.51 � 0.71a 73.76 � 0.50de 2.00 � 0.08de 21.68 � 0.35c

F10 64.72 � 0.53g 15.51 � 0.88hi 39.89 � 0.36c 74.04 � 0.42e 1.89 � 0.02d 21.27 � 0.24b


Values are mean � standard deviation of duplicates for each treatment (six repetitions for each formula).

Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly (P < 0.05) different.


G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

The lightening effect of gums on crumb and crust observed in ourbread agree with the findings of previous studies [19,20].

Comparing the effects of these two gums at similar concentra-tions, xanthan seemed to have greater influence on crust lighteningand it significantly enhanced the L value for crust, compared withthe CMC-containing formulae (P < 0.05), results similar to those ofLazaridou et al. [19] who obtained greater impression on L valuefor crumb and a significant increase in crumb lightness byincluding xanthan (P < 0.05). However increasing the CMCconcentration caused no significantly lighter crumb; in the 2007studies by Lazaridou et al. [19], scores of the above-mentionedfeatures decreased compared with the control; this dissimilaritymay have been caused by of some factors like formulation,production method or even the kind of bread, a score reductionmore evident by xanthan addition. CMC-containing formulae had ahigher score for crust than the XG-containing formulae at the sameconcentration, with scores increasing with increases in concentra-tions (P < 0.05). Similar to findings of the study by Lazaridou et al.[19], in our study, b value for crust in CMC-containing formulaewas significantly higher than the control and XG-containingformulae (P < 0.05).

3.3. Sensory evaluation

Results in Table 7 show that all gluten-free formulae containinghydrocolloids received significantly higher scores, compared to thecontrol (P < 0.05). Among all formulae (those with without or withboth gums), F3 and F10 gained highest scores, respectively, withthe latter obtaining the highest acceptability among them(P < 0.05).

Table 7Sensory characterization of fresh gluten-free breads formulated with varying levels of

FormulaA Under crust Crust Form Porosity

Control 3.11 � 0.40c 4.13 � 0.70a 2.61 � 0.20a 3.33 � 1.03

F1 4.16 � 0.28a 8.27 � 0.33b 3.83 � 0.28b 6.67 � 1.37

F2 4.87 � 0.18b 8.84 � 0.30b 4.80 � 0.30cd 7.90 � 0.74

F3 4.87 � 0.18b 9.76 � 0.22cde 5.00 � 0.00d 7.27 � 0.43

F4 4.60 � 0.55ab 8.32 � 0.33b 4.27 � 0.37bc 8.00 � 0.00

F5 4.73 � 0.28b 8.96 � 0.22cd 4.51 � 0.21c 9.00 � 0.00

F6 4.87 � 0.18b 9.44 � 0.22cd 4.73 � 0.28cd 8.60 � 0.55

F7 4.67 � 0.33b 8.88 � 0.71bc 4.80 � 0.30cd 8.00 � 0.00

F8 5.00 � 0.00b 8.72 � 0.22bd 4.40 � 0.37bc 9.40 � 0.55

F9 5.00 � 0.00b 9.84 � 0.00e 5.00 � 0.00d 8.40 � 0.55

F10 5.00 � 0.00b 10.00 � 0.00e 5.00 � 0.00d 10.00 � 0.00


Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly (P < 0.05) differe

A higher value indicates higher overall acceptability.


It has been documented that gums usually improve thecohesion of starch granules, producing the required breadstructure, mouth feeling and loaf volume, which are comparablein quality to those of the commonly accepted breads [14].Lazaridou et al. used CMC, pectin, xanthan, agarose and b-glucanto make gluten-free breads, all of which increased the acceptabilityof bread, compared with the control, with CMC and XGdemonstrating better effects [19]. Toufeili et al. [31] also evaluatedeffects of Microcrystallin Cellulose (MC), gum arabic and eggalbumen on the sensory properties of gluten-free flat breadsformulations. MC and egg albumen were identified as the majordeterminants of the sensory quality [31].

Furthermore, Demirkesen et al. [26] reported higher consumerpreference, by adding xanthan, guar, locust bean, HPMC, pectin,xanthan-guar and xanthan-locust bean compared with the control,with xanthan producing the better values [26]. Our results showedthat the highest score in the formulae (F1–6) containing each gumper se, was for F3. Xanthan improved the structure of gluten-freebreads and made them comparable in attributes with mostcommercial breads [14]. In the formulae containing both XG andCMC (F7–10), increase in concentration of gums, especiallyxanthan, strongly increased the total score, with F10 being scoredhighly by the assessors (P < 0.05), findings which confirmed theresults obtained by Gambus et al. [10], Ozboy [14] and byDemirkesen et al. [26].

3.4. Porosity appearance

Slices of the breads’ crumbs, from the center of bread, are shownin Fig. 1. It can be observed that gas cells in the breads containing

CMC and xanthan.

Softness Chewiness Flavor Overall score

a 5.41 � 1.17a 3.22 � 1.15h 28.48 � 1.33g 50.31 � 1.13d

b 9.50 � 0.91b 6.00 � 0.84a 35.73 � 2.42a 74.16 � 1.06e

bc 11.60 � 0.41cd 7.69 � 0.33b 37.85 � 0.69b 83.50 � 1.05a

b 14.05 � 0.33fg 9.09 � 0.28c 44.08 � 0.84c 94.00 � 0.64b

bc 11.73 � 0.44d 5.73 � 0.37a 36.90 � 1.33ab 79.55 � 0.98f

d 13.20 � 0.85ef 7.07 � 0.37b 41.41 � 0.84d 88.90 � 1.51c

cd 13.15 � 0.38e 7.74 � 0.36b 43.47 � 0.00c 92.00 � 0.8 g

bc 10.80 � 0.41bc 7.07 � 0.37b 38.70 � 1.24b 82.91 � 0.67a

de 11.85 � 0.63d 7.74 � 0.36b 41.42 � 0.84d 88.53 � 1.12 c

cd 12.45 � 1.00de 9.60 � 0.36c 44.08 � 0.84c 94.38 � 1.24b

e 14.25 � 0.00g 9.60 � 0.36c 44.39 � 0.84c 98.24 � 0.48h

nt.



389 CM390 ha391 po392 Ta393 po394 co395 et396 m397 an398

399 hy400 pr401 du402 m403 re404 su405 ha406 st

407 3.

408

409 Co410 do411 tio412 co

413414415416417418419

Fig. 1. Effect of hydrocolloids on porosity appearance of gluten-free breads.

Table 8Technological characteristics (%) of gluten-free breads formulated with varying

levels of CMC and xanthan.

FormulaA Dough yield (%) Weight loss (%) Bread yield (%)

Control 155.5 � 0.73d 16.71 � 0.53j 133.9 � 00.86f

F1 165.60 � 0.00ae 13.78 � 1.56a 147.9 � 02.68ac

F2 172.1 � 00.39b 12.67 � 1.03ab 155.60 � 1.84g

F3 177.20 � 0.07i 11.60 � 0.55bc 162.1 � 01.00b

F4 163.40 � 0.37f 13.25 � 1.83a 146.80 � 3.10cd

F5 164.10 � 0.62g 13.14 � 1.07ae 147.60 � 1.82acd

F6 165.00 � 0.13e 12.86 � 1.07abef 148.90 � 1.83ad

F7 166.30 � 0.39ac 11.75 � 1.28bcfg 151.90 � 2.21e

F8 166.90 � 0.45c 11.75 � 1.67bcfgh 152.5 � 2.88e

F9 172.50 � 0.13b 11.11 � 1.05cghi 158.70 � 1.88h

F10 173.40 � 0.00h 9.89 � 1.45i 161.70 � 2.61b



for each formula).


different.


G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

C are bigger than those in breads containing xanthan, whichd compacted crumbs. In the breads including both gums,rosity improved by increasing the CMC level. As observed inble 7, in sensorial assessment, higher scores were obtained forrosity using CMC, compared to the XG ones (at similarncentrations). The highest value was obtained for F10. Lazaridou

al. [19] and Mezaize et al. [20] reported that CMC resulted inore porosity, improving dough development and gas retentiond larger cell size.Cellulose-derivatives such as CMC, HPMC and MC contain

drophilic and hydrophobic groups, which provoke otheroperties, including interfacial activity inside the dough structurering proofing and construction of gel networks during the bread

aking procedure. Such complex structures increase viscosity andinforce the boundaries of the gas cells growing in the dough andbsequently increase the gas retention throughout baking [19]. Its been suggested that XG addition makes the dough too rigid and

iff for gases to slip in and produce voluminous breads [19,20].

5. Dough and bread yield and weight loss

Xanthan and CMC resulted in increased dough yield (Table 8).mpared to other formulae, F3 showed significantly greaterugh yield (P < 0.05). Xanthan, because of better water absorp-n, increased dough yield, in comparison with CMC; thembination of both XG and CMC led to higher dough yield,


compared to using each per se (P < 0.05). All the formulaeexhibited significantly lower weight loss, compared with thecontrol, with F10 having the lowest (P < 0.05). Moisture measure-ment (Table 3) shows stronger impression of gums, especiallyxanthan on water retention, which led to better weight retention,findings similar to those of Gambus et al. [10], who reported thatxanthan accretion caused reduction in weight loss. F3 and F10 did



420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492


G Model

JIEC 1528 1–7

not differ significantly and showed the highest bread yield(P < 0.05), which could be a result of increased water absorptionand less weight loss, due to xanthan addition, results in agreementwith those of Gambus et al. [10].

4. Conclusions

The effects of XG and CMC on bread quality parameters wereevaluated in order to formulate suitable gluten-free bread and ourresults showed that xanthan had more impact on increasingmoisture and that F3 (15 g kg�1 XG) and F10 (10 g kg�1

CMC + 10 g kg�1 XG) had the lowest hardness. In the formulaecontaining both XG and CMC (F7–10), increase in XG concentrationwas more effective in decreasing hardness and increasingelasticity, in both fresh and stored breads. Xanthan had moreinfluence on increasing L value for crumb and crust. In sensorialassessment, F10 and F3 gained the highest acceptability score. CMCcaused bigger gas cells and increasing its concentration led tobetter crumb porosity appearance. F3 and F10 had the highestdough yield and lowest loss weight, respectively, and both showedthe maximum bread yield. Xanthan seems to be the besthydrocolloid that improved gluten-free breads, demonstratingthat F10, and F3 can be used to produce good quality gluten-freeflat bread, bread that is acceptable, especially for the consumer,predisposed to the side effects of gluten.

Acknowledgements

The data were obtained from the results of an approvedresearch project (P/25/47/7137) of the National Nutrition and FoodTechnology Research Institute, Iran. The authors would like tothank the Cereal Research Center of Ministry of Industry, Mineand Trade of Iran for provision of the equipment required formeasurement.


References

[1] J. Garooni, in: M.A. Azizi, M. Hojati (Eds.), Flat Bread Technology, AndishmandPublication, Tehran, 2004, pp. 65, 75.

[2] K.A. Elke, F. Dal Bello, The Gluten Free Cereal Products and Beverages, Elsevier Inc.,2008.

[3] H. Goesaert, K. Brijs, W.S. Veraverbeke, C. Courtin, K. Gebruers, J.A. Delcour, TrendsFood Sci. Technol. 16 (2005) 12.

[4] A.A. Anton, S.D. Artfield, Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 59 (2007) 11.[5] A. Sabatino, G.R. Corazza, Lancet 373 (2009) 1480.[6] H.P. Sivaramakrishnan, B. Senge, P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. Food Eng. 62 (2004) 37.[7] R. Hamaker Bruce, Technology of Functional Cereal Products, Woodhead

Publishing Limited, 2008.[8] A. Basman, H. Koksel, P.K.W. Ng, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 215 (2002) 419.[9] P.D. Ribotta, S.F. Ausar, M.H. Morcillo, G.T. Perez, D.M. Beltramo, A.E. Leon, J. Sci.

Food Agric. 84 (2004) 1969.[10] H. Gambus, M. Sikora, R. Ziobro, Acta Sci. Pol. 6 (2007) 61.[11] D. Curic, D. Gabric, I. Bauman, D. Tusak, D. Novotni, Agric. Conspec. Sci. 72 (2007)

227.[12] A. Houben, A. Hochstotter, T. Becker, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 235 (2012) 195.[13] E. Gallagher, T.R. Gormley, E.K. Arendt, J. Food Eng. 56 (2003) 153.[14] O. Ozboy, Nahrung/Food 46 (2002) 87.[15] Z. Kohajdova, J. Karovicova, Chem. Pap. 63 (2009) 26.[16] C. Collar, P. Andreu, J.C. Martinez, E. Armero, Food Hydrocolloids 13 (1999) 467.[17] G. Lorenzo, N. Zaritzky, A. Califano, J. Cereal Sci. 48 (2008) 224.[18] A. Guarda, C.M. Rosell, C. Benedito, M.J. Galotto, Food Hydrocolloids 18 (2004)

241.[19] A. Lazaridou, D. Duta, M. Papageorgiou, N. Belc, C.G. Biliaderis, J. Food Eng. 79

(2007) 1033.[20] S. Mezaize, S. Chevallier, A. Le Bail, M. De Lamballerie, J. Food Sci. 74 (2009) 140.[21] C. Onyango, G. Unbehend, M.G. Lindhauer, Food Res. Int. 42 (2009) 949.[22] AACC International, Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal

Chemists, 10th ed., The Association, St. Paul, MN, 2000.[23] A. Sadeghi, F. Shahidi, A. Mortazavi, A. Koocheki, M. Mohebbi, World Appl. Sci. J. 2

(2007) 490.[24] A.C.B. Lopez, A.J.G. Pereira, R.G. Junqueira, Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. J. 47 (2004) 63.[25] C.M. Rosell, J.A. Rojas, C. Benedito de Barber, Food Hydrocolloids 15 (2001) 75.[26] I. Demirkesen, B. Mert, G. Sumnu, S. Sahin, J. Food Eng. 96 (2010) 295.[27] I.G. Mandala, K. Sotirakoglou, Food Hydrocolloids 19 (2005) 709.[28] H.S. Gujral, M. Haros, C.M. Rosell, J. Food Eng. 65 (2004) 89.[29] A. Mandala, D. Karabela, A. Kostaropoulos, Food Hydrocolloids 21 (2007) 1397.[30] H. Fatemi, Food Chemistry, Enteshar Sahami Co., Tehran, 2010.[31] I. Toufeili, S. Dagher, S. Shadarevian, A. Noureddine, M. Sarakbi, M.T. Farran, Cereal

Chem. 71 (1994) 594.



Development of gluten-free flat bread using hydrocolloids: Xanthan and CMC

Documents

Transcript of Development of gluten-free flat bread using hydrocolloids: Xanthan and CMC