Development of β-glucan enriched wheat bread using soluble oat fiber

This study aimed at elucidating the contribution of chemical interactions, water binding, and steric hindrance on the effect of wheat and oat brans and of their fractions, i.e., soluble and insoluble, on dough and bread properties. For such purpose, an inert filler, i.e., glass beads of comparable particle size and with no water binding capacity and moisture sorption properties, was also studied. The glass beads provided breads most similar to the control, indicating the limited role of steric hindrance. Brans and bran fractions showed distinct compositional and physical properties. The soluble fraction from oat bran, rich in β-glucan, was less hygroscopic than the wheat counterpart and could bind more water, resulting in larger detrimental effects on bread quality. The β-glucan content showed a prevalent role in affecting gluten development, the thermo-setting behaviour of the dough, and crumb texture, i.e., cohesiveness and resilience. Overall, the comparison between the two brans and their fractions indicated that the interplay between water binding, mainly provided by the insoluble fraction, and the plasticizing properties of the soluble bran fraction controlled the effects on bread volume and texture. From a compositional standpoint, β-glucan content was a determining factor that discriminated the effects of wheat and oat brans.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

A Systematic Comparison of the Intrinsic Properties of Wheat and Oat Bran Fractions and Their Effects on Dough and Bread Properties: Elucidation of Chemical Mechanisms, Water Binding, and Steric Hindrance

Renzetti

Theunissen

Horrevorts

2021

“…The influence of β-glucan on the hardness of bakery products is unclear. Many studies have indicated that β-glucan weakens the structure of the dough [23][24][25]. Therefore, it has a negative impact on hardness and, thus, the entire value of springiness.…”

Section: Effect Of Pomegranate and β-Glucan On Physical Properties Of Muffinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Gluten-Free Muffins with β-Glucan and Pomegranate Powder Using Response Surface Methodology

Kurek

Moczkowska-Wyrwisz

Wyrwisz

et al. 2021

More consumers are being diagnosed with celiac disease or diseases in which wheat products should be avoided. For this reason, it is important to increase the range of gluten-free products available. In this study, it was decided to optimize the technology for the creation of a muffin with β-glucan (BG) and pomegranate (PG), while establishing water share (WT), using the response surface methodology. It was shown that β-glucan and water had the most significant influence on specific volume and moisture (p ≤ 0.001). However, the increase of hardness, color, and total phenolic content (TPC) was mainly influenced by the increase of pomegranate content (p ≤ 0.01 for harness and color and p ≤ 0.001 for TPC). Consumers accepted products high in β-glucan more than high in pomegranate. Optimization ended with a composition that included 1.89% BG, 9.51% PG, and 77.87% WT. There were no significant differences between the model and the experimental sample, apart from higher consumer acceptability.

“…To search for the best GFB formulations based on specific volume, we included the studies in which GFB had a specific volume above 3.5 cm 3 /g, as a GFB quality parameter [ 52 , 53 ] ( Table 1 ). Studies show that commercial wheat bread’s specific volume varies between 3.5 and 5.5 cm 3 /g [ 48 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inclusion criteria were experimental studies that evaluated the technological, physical-chemical, and/or sensory properties of gluten-free bread (GFB) and presented specific volume above 3.5 cm 3 /g as a GFB quality parameter [ 52 , 53 ]. Studies show that commercial wheat bread’s specific volume varies between 3.5 and 5.5 cm 3 /g [ 48 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ]. Therefore, we used this minimum value for gluten-containing bread as a specific volume (3.5 cm 3 /g) as a cut-point to evaluate GFB since industries and researchers try to achieve GFB formulations similar to their gluten-containing counterpart.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on Gluten-Free Bread Formulations Using Specific Volume as a Quality Indicator

Monteiro

Farage

Zandonadi

et al. 2021

This study aimed to perform a systematic review on gluten-free bread formulations using specific volumes as a quality indicator. In this systematic review, we identified 259 studies that met inclusion criteria. From these studies, 43 met the requirements of having gluten-free bread with a specific volume greater than or equal to 3.5 cm3/g. Other parameters such as the texture profile, color (crumb and crust), and sensory analysis examined in these studies were presented. The formulations that best compensated the lack of the gluten-network were based on the combination of rice flour, rice flour with low amylose content, maize flour, rice starch, corn starch, potato starch, starch with proteins and added with transglutaminase (TGase), and hydrocolloids like hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC). Of the 43 studies, three did not present risk of bias, and the only parameter evaluated in common in the studies was the specific volume. However, it is necessary to jointly analyze other parameters that contribute to the quality, such as texture profile, external and internal characteristics, acceptability, and useful life of the bread, especially since it is a product obtained through raw materials and unconventional ingredients.