TOZATTI-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR USING CHEMICAL OXIDIZING AND REDUCING AGENTS IN FLOURS AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING GLUTEN STRENGTH PRIOR TO DEVELOPING DOUGH A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Food and Bioproduct Sciences University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada By Patricia Tozatti Copyright Patricia Tozatti, March 2020. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Dean College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies University of Saskatchewan 116 Thorvaldson Building, 110 Science Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5C9 Canada Head of the Department of Food and Bioproduct Sciences University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A8 Canada i ABSTRACT The overall goal of this research was to understand the dough handling parameters and baking performance effects of different commercial enzymes in relation to commonly used chemical oxidizers to enhance flour quality in the baking industry. Thus, evaluate the enzymes viability to create ‘cleaner-labeled’ wheat flour and bread, as they are considered processing aids. For that, the inter-relationships between wheat grain and flour quality parameters, dough rheology, and baking of different commercially grown Western Canadian wheat cultivars was examine. In addition, the research also allowed to better understand the Canadian Western wheat modernization class in relation to the baking industry. In Chapter 3, a range of commercially grown Canadian spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars (n = 25) within different wheat market classes were investigated to understand the inter-relationships between wheat quality, grain and flour composition, and dough rheology. The cultivars varied in proximate composition which in turn directly impacted their dough handling parameters. Micro-doughLAB absorption was positively correlated with protein content, grain hardness, wet gluten and dry gluten content, and was negatively correlated with the gluten performance index. Significant correlations (p<0.01) between shear rheology parameters were also found with gluten properties. Protein and gluten properties in particular, significantly impacted dough strength measurements, therefore, cultivars displaying stronger gluten strengths might result in dough with better dough handling properties. From this set, five cultivars were selected based on their overall performance and market class representatively to have weak, intermediate, and strong dough strength. In Chapter 4, the quality parameters (i.e., proximate composition, flour yield, gluten properties) and dough strength (i.e., empirical and fundamental rheology) of different wheat cultivars ranging in gluten strengths from weak (Harvest), intermediate (Lillian, CDC Plentiful and Stettler) to strong (Glenn) were analyzed with the addition of chemical oxidizers (i.e., ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide) or commercial enzymes (i.e., glucose oxidase and fungal xylanase). The use of enzymes is attractive to the baking industry as an alternative to chemical oxidizers as dough strengtheners, resulting in cleaner label products (i.e., fewer ingredients). Glenn presented better overall quality attributes compared to the other cultivars, and responded well to additives, especially glucose oxidase, which significantly improved dough strength. Glucose oxidase also improved the dough handling of weaker cultivars. Thus, the addition of enzymes gave dough similar rheological properties to dough prepared with chemical oxidizers. To further analyze the enzymes performance over chemical oxidizers through the set of five ii cultivars, a baking trial was crucial to understand the performance of enzymes in actual baking in regards to dough and bread crumb structure. In Chapter 5, the effect of chemical oxidizers and enzymatic treatments on the baking quality of breads formulated with five Canadian spring wheat cultivars were investigated. Dough and bread properties (mixing time, oven rise, loaf volume, crumb firmness and C-cell parameters) were analyzed as a function of wheat cultivar (Glenn, Harvest, Lillian, CDC Plentiful, and Stettler), additive-type (ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, glucose oxidase, and fungal xylanase) and concentration. Overall, the cultivar Glenn had improved baking performance relative to the other cultivars, regardless of the additive and additive concentration. On the other hand, Stettler showed poorer baking quality and performance even with the addition of oxidizers and enzymes in relation to the control. The concentration of additive was found to have little or no effect on improving baking properties within each cultivar. Enzymes had similar or better performance than oxidizers in most cases. In Chapter 6, the effect of the concentration of a reducing agent (L-cysteine), commonly used in the baking industry, on the rheology and baking performance of doughs prepared using five western Canadian spring wheat cultivars was studied. The relationship between the production time and quality of bread is crucial in the bakery industry. Therefore, reducing agents can be used in stronger wheat cultivars as means to improve efficiency of production (i.e., lower mixing time) and result in equal or higher quality bread loaf (i.e., loaf volume). The addition of L-cys resulted in a significant (p<0.05) decrease in dough strength and handling properties, where stronger gluten strength wheats were less effected by addition and had improved dough handling properties, loaf volume, and softer crumb structure. The addition of L-cys to wheat flours reduced mixing time up to 47%, increased loaf volume (up to 9%), and elasticity of the products, those characteristics are desired to increase the efficiency of the automated processes for bread products. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Michael Nickerson for providing me this great opportunity. I am very thankful for his full support, guidance and professional assistance during the course of this research project and in the preparation of not only my thesis, but also guiding me through this time apart from home. Dr. Nickerson has provided me with superior mentorship, and an invaluable experience in which I am very thankful and fortunate for. Furthermore, to all my teachers and professors during my journey, they were essential to contribute in not only my professional formation, but also, greatly to the person I became: strong to overcome challenges and respect others by heart. In addition, my appreciation extends to all members of my graduate committee members (Drs. Darren Korber, Pierre Hucl, Robert Tyler, and Tanaka Takuji) and external examiner Dr. Bin Fu from the Canadian Grain Commission for their assistance, advice, and time contributed to my performance during my Ph.D., such as helping me prepare for my qualifying and comprehensive exam, in addition to all support needed to succeed in my research. I would also like to acknowledge Connie Briggs for her technical assistance and support throughout most part of my experiments. Her help, patience, and knowledge were fundamental during the whole process, from milling to baking trials. Furthermore, I’m thankful for the faculty members, technical staff and office staff of the Department of Food and Bioproduct Science Graduate program for their support and assistance. To my amazing friends during this long journey my sincere thank you for all the support, laughs, tears, and beers. You were my second family and home away from home. I could not imagine today happening without having you by my side. Thank you for making transcend the best of me. Thank you to all my colleagues and people that somehow showed me that there was a lot more to believe than just a Ph.D. degree. A very special thank you (if not the most important) to my parents, Rudy and Rosicler, as well as my siblings, Gabriela and Rafael and their family for their support, encouragement, and mentorship, which has helped me immensely in all aspects of my life. Thank you for believing and dreaming this dream with me: “we made it!”. Without them, I would not have gotten to where I am today. Financial support for my work was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) scholarship program (200273/2015-9), and the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund (#2015-0280). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xii LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvi 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Overview 1 1.2. Objectives 2 1.3. Hypotheses 3 2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW 4 2.1. Wheat and wheat quality 4 2.1.1. Wheat grain composition 4 2.1.2. Canadian Western wheat classification 8 2.1.3. Wheat Flour 11 2.1.4. Wheat grain and flour quality 12 2.2. Bread making 14 2.2.1. Essential ingredients in dough 14 2.2.2. Non-essential ingredients in dough 15 2.2.3. Bread making process 16 2.2.4. Bread quality 18 2.3. Flour additives for dough conditioning 20 2.3.1. Chemical oxidizers 20 2.3.2. Chemical reductants 22 2.3.3.