See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229174308

Effects of freezing and frozen storage

conditions on the rheological properties of
different formulations of non-yeasted wheat
and gluten-free bread dough
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 2010
Impact Factor: 2.77 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.029

CITATIONS

READS

24

103

5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Gunaelle DILER

Bonastre Oliete

cole Nationale Vtrinaire, Agroalimentair

University of Burgundy

6 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

40 PUBLICATIONS 666 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Sylvie Chevallier
cole Nationale Vtrinaire, Agroalimentair
41 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Gunaelle DILER

Retrieved on: 15 March 2016

Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Effects of freezing and frozen storage conditions on the rheological properties

of different formulations of non-yeasted wheat and gluten-free bread dough
Gunaelle Leray, Bonastre Oliete, Sandra Mezaize, Sylvie Chevallier, Marie de Lamballerie *
GEPEA (UMR CNRS 6144), ONIRIS, BP 82225, 44322 Nantes Cedex 3, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 22 October 2009
Received in revised form 17 March 2010
Accepted 20 March 2010
Available online 27 March 2010
Keywords:
Wheat dough
Gluten-free dough
Dietary bres
Amaranth
Freezing
Rheological properties

a b s t r a c t
Empirical and fundamental rheological measurements were made on fresh and frozen dough to study the
effects of freezing and frozen storage conditions. Frozen dough was stored at two different temperatures,
18 C and 30 C, and for 1, 7 and 28 days. Four dough formulations were tested: a standard wheat
dough, a bre-enriched wheat dough, a standard gluten-free dough and a gluten-free dough containing
amaranth our. No yeast was used in any formulation. The wheat dough is more affected by freezing and
by the rst days of storage whereas the gluten-free dough is more affected by a longer storage time. A
storage temperature of 30 C alters dough rheological properties more than a storage temperature of
18 C. The addition of dietary bres to the wheat dough increases its resistance to freezing and frozen
storage. The addition of amaranth our to gluten-free dough also increases its resistance to freezing but
decreases its resistance to storage conditions.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bread is one of the most widely consumed food products in the
world. For people suffering from celiac disease or other intolerances to gluten consumption, gluten-free breads are now available
on the market. These products have a short shelf-life, and the loss
of freshness has a negative inuence on product quality and consumer acceptance. One of the approaches to solve this problem is
to improve the availability of fresh bread by freezing the dough.
Although no information has been found about frozen gluten-free
dough, several problems in the production of bread from frozen
wheat dough have been presented. These are mostly related to
damage of the protein network (Varriano-Marston et al., 1980),
yeast deterioration, a reduction in the water content of the surface
layer of the dough (due to sublimation) and water redistribution in
the system during freezing (Bhattacharya et al., 2003; Carr and
Tadini, 2003; Giannou and Tzia, 2007; Le Bail et al., 1999). If the
process is optimized, bread from frozen dough can have sensory
and textural properties close to those of conventional bread (Barcenas et al., 2004). In that sense, it is important to take into account
that frozen dough quality is inuenced by both the formulation
and the process parameters during dough making, freezing, storage, and thawing.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 251 785 465; fax: +33 251 785 467.
E-mail address: marie.de-lamballerie@oniris-nantes.fr (M. de Lamballerie).
0260-8774/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.029

In order to study dough quality, rheological tests are considered

a very useful tool since they can provide much information about
dough formulation, structure and processing. Many studies have
considered the rheological properties of gluten dough after storage
in sub-zero conditions, but most only analysed individual effects
such as the storage time (Angioloni et al., 2008; Bhattacharya
et al., 2003; Giannou and Tzia, 2007), the storage temperature
(Jiang et al., 2008) or the freezing conditions (Havet et al., 2000).
Consequently, the overall changes that dough undergoes are still
unknown. In gluten-free dough, rheological studies are even more
scarce, and have focused on the effect of different ingredients
(Nunes et al., 2009; Pruska-Kedzior et al., 2008). No information
has been found about the effect of freezing or storage at subzero temperatures on the rheological properties of gluten-free
dough.
Another present concern, for bread as well as for other foods, is
nutritional improvement. For conventional bread, one of the approaches to improve bread nutritional quality is the addition of
dietary bres. Indeed, these have very important potential benets
for human health, such as the prevention of cardiovascular diseases or a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer. For gluten-free
bread, the addition of amaranth our is a way of enhancing its
nutritional benets. The advantage of amaranth is its relatively
high protein content, with an acceptable level of essential amino
acids such as lysine, tryptophan and methionine (Berghofer and
Schoenlechner, 2002). The lipid content of amaranth is also interesting since it is characterized by a high amount of unsaturated

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

71

fatty acids, particularly in linoleic acid (Berghofer and Schoenlechner, 2002). These nutritional improvements modify the dough formulations and, consequently, their rheological properties (Mariotti
et al., 2009; Peressini and Sensidoni, 2009) and bread quality characteristics (Wang et al., 2002).
The aim of this work is to study the rheological properties of
wheat dough and gluten-free dough after a frozen period considering both the formulation and the storage conditions (time and
temperature).

The improved gluten-free dough was obtained by including two

new ingredients to the reference gluten-free formulation: 16 g of
locust bean gum and 90 g of amaranth our. The quantities of
dry ingredients were adjusted to maintain the dry matter and
the bre content constant.
The salt was dissolved in a small amount of water. All the ingredients were mixed in the mixer SP10-076 MEL (VMI, Montaigu,
France) for 2 min at slow speed (100 rpm) and 8 min at fast speed
(200 rpm). Dough was divided into 70 g pieces that were placed in
mufn-like pans.

2. Materials and methods

2.2.3. Freezing and storage conditions

Samples in the pans were frozen in an air blast freezer (Servathin, Poissy, France) at 30 C with an air speed of 3 m/s, until
the in core temperature reached 18 C (about 30 min). Then, they
were removed from the pans and individually wrapped in coded
hermetic zipped plastic bags (18  22 cm). Samples were stored
at 18 C or 30 C for 1, 7 or 28 days. Fresh samples were also
analysed as a control. For every storage temperature and time,
three samples were used. Once the storage time was reached, samples were thawed, in their plastic bag, at room temperature, for
90 min before analysis.

2.1. Raw material

2.1.1. Wheat doughs
Weak wheat our was used (moisture content 13.72%, ash content 0.53%, protein 10.58%, Moulins Soufet Pantin, Nogent Sur
Seine, France). The improver supplied by Puratos (Groot Bijgaarden, Belgium) contained di-acetyl tartaric ester of monoglycerides
(DATEM), ascorbic acid, amylase and xylanase. The blend of dietary
bres (inulin and oat bres) was also provided by Puratos (Groot
Bijgaarden, Belgium). The salt was provided at the local market.

2.3. Sample analysis

2.1.2. Gluten-free doughs
The origin of the different ingredients used for gluten-free
dough-making are listed below:
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

corn starch Roquette, Lestrem, France,

potato starch superior, PPZ Bronislaw, Sp. z o.o., Poland,
corn meal Boly ZRT, Boly, Hungary,
hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) Dow Europe GmbH,
Stade, Germany,
highly methylated pectin (apple) ZPOW Pektowin Sp. z o. o.,
Jaslo, Poland,
guar gum Lotus Gums and Chemicals, Jodhpur, India,
gluconic acid lactone (E575) A.H.A. International Co. Ltd.,
Hefei, China,
locust bean gum C.E. Roeper GmbH, Hamburg, Germany,
amaranth our Werz, Heidenheim, Germany.

Full cream milk powder, salt, sugar and rapeseed oil were purchased at the local market.
2.2. Sample preparation
2.2.1. Wheat dough formulations and preparation
The wheat dough, which is taken as the reference, was prepared
from the following ingredients: 1200 g of our, 696 g of water,
21.6 g of salt and 12 g of improver. No yeast was used.
The bre-enriched dough was obtained by adding 120 g of a
blend of inulin and oat bres to the reference wheat dough formulation. The quantity of water was adjusted to 724 g.
The ingredients were mixed in a mixer SP10-076 MEL (VMI,
Montaigu, France) for 2 min at slow speed (100 rpm) and 7 min
at fast speed (200 rpm). Dough was divided into 70 g pieces that
were shaped by hand and placed in mufn-like pans.
2.2.2. Gluten-free dough formulations and preparation
The gluten-free dough, which is taken as the reference, was
composed of: 160 g of corn our, 800 g of starch (corn and potato),
48 g of hydrocolloids (HPMC, guar gum, highly methylated pectin),
5 g of gluconic acid lactone, 50 g of full cream milk powder, 50 g of
sugar, 20 g of salt, 30 g of rapeseed oil and 780 g of water. No yeast
was used.

2.3.1. Moisture content

The moisture content of samples was determined by following
the approved methods of AOAC (1996). Samples were dried in an
oven (Memmert, Schwabach, Germany). The moisture content
measurements were done in triplicate using three different samples from the same batch.
2.3.2. Empirical rheological measurements
Dough machinability of samples was assessed by a Texture Prole Analysis (TPA) method (Bourne, 1978). An LFRA Texture Analyzer (Brookeld, Maryland, USA) equipped with a cylindrical
plastic probe, 1.27 cm in diameter, was used. A 3.6 cm diameter  2.4 cm tall glass recipient was lled with the sample. The surface was perfectly attened with a spatula.
The double compression cycle was performed at a rate of 2 mm/s,
with a distance of 40% of compression, a resting period of 30 s and
a trigger force of 44.1 mN. Firmness, gumminess, cohesiveness,
springiness and resilience were measured in the absence of dough
adhesiveness by using a plastic lm on the dough surface to avoid
the distortion induced by the negative peak of adhesiveness
(Armero and Collar, 1997; Collar et al., 1999). Dough adhesiveness
was measured separately by running a second TPA without the
plastic lm and disregarding the other parameters. These measurements were performed in triplicate using three different samples
from the same batch.
2.3.3. Fundamental rheological measurements
Fundamental rheological measurements were performed with
an AR 1000 Rheometer (TA Instruments, Guyancourt, France)
equipped with parallel-plate geometry (40 mm diameter serrated
plate) at 20 C. The sample of dough was placed on the lower plate
then the upper plate was lowered until it reached a gap of 1 mm.
The excess dough was trimmed off.
Two different experiments were conducted. First, a strain sweep
test was used to identify the linear viscoelastic region. This test
was performed at a constant frequency of 1 Hz and a relative strain
range of 0.01100% after 2 min equilibration. On the basis of the
results obtained, a frequency sweep test was performed on each
sample. In this second test, the strain amplitude was maintained
at 0.1% while the frequency ranged from 0.1 Hz to 100 Hz (10
points per decade). The data obtained were the elastic or storage

72

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

40
30C

temperature (C)

30
20C

20
10

2C/min

1,2C/min

-10
15min

-20

-20C

-30

2C/min

-40
-50

10min
-45C

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time (min)
Fig. 1. Freezable water temperature programme (DSC).

modulus (G0 ), the viscous or loss modulus (G00 ) and tan d (G00 /G0 ), at a
frequency of 1 Hz. Measurements were performed in triplicate for
each sample.
2.3.4. Freezable water
In order to study the freezable water content of dough, a DSC
test using a micro calorimeter lDSC VII (Setaram Instrumentation,
Caluire, France) was performed on fresh dough. For each sample,
freezable water measurements were carried out in duplicate. The
DSC temperature programme used is presented in Fig. 1. The ice
melting enthalpy was obtained by integrating the ice melting peak
located at about 0 C on the thermogram. The quantity of freezable
water, in g/g of dough, was calculated by dividing the ice melting
enthalpy (in J/g of product) by the latent heat of ice fusion
(Lf = 333 J/g). This freezable water quantity was next calculated
as a % of total water by dividing the result by the percentage of total water in the dough and multiplying by 100.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Each formulation was analysed separately with the Statgraphics
Plus software 5.1 version (Statistical Graphics Corp, Princeton, New
Jersey, USA). The effect of freezing and frozen storage conditions on
dough rheological parameters was determined by a factorial ANOVA (two factors: time and temperature). The LSD procedure (Fisher
test) at a signicance level of 0.05 was used in order to compare
samples.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Reference formulations of wheat and gluten-free doughs
3.1.1. Impact of freezing process
The freezing of wheat dough modies its rheological properties
since ve of its parameters are signicantly different (p < 0.05) between 0 and 1 day of storage (Table 1). Compared to fresh dough,
frozenthawed wheat dough shows signicantly higher values of
adhesiveness, as reported by Yi and Kerr (2009). The rmness,
the gumminess, the cohesiveness, the springiness and the resilience of wheat dough are not, however, affected by freezing.
Regarding the fundamental rheological parameters, both the storage (G0 ) and the loss (G00 ) moduli decrease with freezing, but tan
d increases. These results, in accordance with those of Kenny
et al. (1999) and Ribotta et al. (2004), indicate a greater reduction
of the elastic modulus (G0 ) than the viscous part (G00 ) since tan
d = G00 /G0 , which could be interpreted as either a reduction in elasticity or an increase in viscosity of the wheat dough caused by

freezing. Frozen samples also have a higher moisture content. So,

this study shows that wheat dough quality is altered by the freezing process which reduces its elasticity, as reported by Kenny et al.
(1999) and Ribotta et al. (2004). These modications of the
rheological properties of frozenthawed wheat dough could be explained by ice crystal formation during freezing. Water crystallization has many consequences and, in particular, causes mechanical
damage to the gluten matrix (Baier-Schenk et al., 2005; Ribotta
et al., 2004; Selomulyo and Zhou, 2007; Varriano-Marston et al.,
1980) and gluten depolymerisation (Ribotta et al., 2001) which
leads to a reduction in gluten cross-linking. This hypothesis is in
accordance with the increased adhesiveness and decreased elasticity caused by freezing.
In gluten-free dough, four parameters are signicantly different
(p < 0.05) between 0 and 1 day of storage. The freezing process has
very little effect on empirical rheological properties. Indeed, the
rmness of frozenthawed gluten-free dough is higher than that
of fresh dough, but no signicant differences are observed among
the other TPA parameters. Concerning the fundamental rheological
parameters, both the storage and the loss moduli decrease in frozen dough, like in frozen wheat dough, but no signicant differences are observed in tan d, which indicates that G0 and G00
exhibit a similar decrease. The moisture content of gluten-free
dough is also signicantly reduced by the freezing process, as for
wheat dough.
So the freezing process has consequences on these two dough
formulations, mostly by modifying the fundamental rheological
properties. In fresh as in frozen samples, elastic behaviour (measured by G0 ) always prevails over viscous behaviour (measured
by G00 ), in accordance with the results of other authors (Angioloni
et al., 2008; Asghar et al., 2009; Demirkesen et al., 2010; Lorenzo
et al., 2009; Pruska-Kedzior et al., 2008; Ribotta et al., 2004), and
corresponding to a gel-type behaviour of dough. The empirical rheological parameters (TPA) are only slightly affected since only rmness and adhesiveness among the six TPA parameters are
signicantly increased by freezing. Overall, the most important effects of the freezing process on the rheological properties of dough
are the decrease in elastic (G0 ) and viscous (G00 ) moduli. This indicates that freezing alters both the quality of the frozen dough
and the bread made with it. Indeed, according to Kenny et al.
(1999), the frozen dough that performed best in baking had a high
complex modulus and a low phase angle and, in this study, frozen
dough has a lower G0 and G00 and a higher tan d than fresh dough.
Moreover, this loss of dough strength also causes a decrease in
the retention capacity of CO2 and thus an increase in fermentation
time (Selomulyo and Zhou, 2007). These results also show that the
freezing step affects both wheat dough and gluten-free dough, so
damage of the gluten matrix is not the only consequence. Indeed,
other authors have shown other effects of freezing such as
mechanical damage of starch (Berglund et al., 1991), modication
of starch properties (Ribotta et al., 2003, 2004) and changes in proteins (Gelinas et al., 1995) that could also affect the rheological
properties of frozen gluten-free dough.
3.1.2. Impact of frozen storage conditions
With regard to wheat dough, the effect of frozen storage conditions appears to be less important than the effect of freezing. The
empirical rheological parameters are constant regardless of storage
time or temperature. Most of the parameters remain constant during storage, except the moisture content, G0 and G00 (Table 1). This
decreases during the rst week and then increases for longer storage times. The elastic and viscous moduli increase signicantly
during the rst week, approaching the fresh dough values, and
then remain constant up to 28 days. This is in agreement with
other results reporting that the effect of freezing is particularly
important in the rst days of storage (Angioloni et al., 2008; Gian-

a
a
a
b
0.30 0.00
0.30 0.00
0.30 0.00
0.32 0.01
bc
c
b
a
30 2
34 5
27 3
17 3
102 8 bc
114 16 c
92 12 b
53 9 a
b
b
b
a
0.021 0.001
0.022 0.002
0.021 0.002
0.018 0.002
a
a
a
a
1.09 0.02
1.03 0.06
1.09 0.03
1.10 0.10
ab
b
a
a
8.68 0.27
9.12 0.48
8.43 0.36
8.35 0.58
0
1
7
28
Gluten-free dough with amaranth

In bold: parameters signicantly affected at a signicance level of 5% (p-value < 0.05).

For each formulation, values with the same following letter do not differ signicantly from each other (p-value < 0.05).
a
Firm = rmness, Gum = gumminess, Coh = cohesiveness, Adh = adhesiveness, Sprin = springiness, Res = resilience.
b
Values represent mean of three measurements standard deviation.
c
Values represent mean of three measurements standard deviation at a frequency of 1 Hz.

a
a
a
a
0.56 0.02
0.52 0.08
0.59 0.02
0.52 0.09
a
a
a
a
1.40 0.03
1.29 0.17
1.45 0.10
1.34 0.21
a
a
a
a
2.51 0.11
2.49 0.09
2.47 0.18
2.58 0.13
c
b
bc
a

0
1
7
28
Reference gluten-free dough

46.25 0.06
46.06 0.17
46.08 0.14
45.63 0.34

a
a
a
a
0.30 0.01
0.29 0.01
0.28 0.01
0.29 0.01
c
ab
b
a
34 6
24 3
25 4
19 3
115 16 c
83 10 b
90 16 b
66 9 a
a
a
a
a
0.016 0.004
0.018 0.003
0.016 0.003
0.015 0.005
a
a
a
b
0.53 0.04
0.56 0.10
0.58 0.08
0.71 0.17
a
a
a
a
1.51 0.27
1.31 0.33
1.29 0.54
1.89 0.57
a
a
a
b
0.25 0.04
0.22 0.04
0.23 0.05
0.36 0.14
a
a
a
b
0.17 0.01
0.20 0.03
0.20 0.03
0.31 0.07
a
b
b
b
0.68 0.04
0.95 0.17
0.92 0.26
0.91 0.18
b
a
a
a

0
1
7
28
Fibre-enriched wheat dough

45.76 0.09
45.56 0.23
45.60 0.30
45.49 0.11

b
b
a
a
0.36 0.00
0.36 0.01
0.34 0.01
0.34 0.02
116 9 a
99 10 a
124 29 a
117 21 a
a
a
a
a
325 26
279 28
362 91
350 75
a
a
a
a
0.056 0.008
0.067 0.009
0.065 0.010
0.064 0.004
a
a
a
a
1.04 0.07
1.00 0.10
1.02 0.09
1.12 0.09
a
a
a
a
6.40 0.44
6.71 0.37
6.05 0.82
6.08 0.52
a
a
a
a
0.59 0.03
0.60 0.04
0.59 0.05
0.58 0.03
a
a
a
a
2.32 0.34
2.73 0.44
2.69 0.46
2.97 0.53
a
a
a
a
3.91 0.38
4.53 0.52
4.57 0.66
5.08 0.78
b
b
a
b

85 12
50 20
76 14
74 22

G00 (kPa)

b
a
b
b
282 58
148 74
232 49
230 86
a
a
a
a
0.065 0.009
0.076 0.012
0.065 0.009
0.069 0.005

Resa

a
a
a
a
Sprina

0.83 0.07
0.85 0.15
0.83 0.11
0.79 0.05
a
b
b
b
1.27 0.07
2.01 0.31
2.09 0.48
1.99 0.80

Adha (N  s)

a
a
a
a
0.60 0.04
0.57 0.07
0.57 0.06
0.53 0.04

Coha

a
a
a
a
0.55 0.03
0.70 0.21
0.60 0.14
0.66 0.12

Guma (N)

a
a
a
a
0.91 0.02
1.25 0.34
1.07 0.33
1.27 0.29
a
c
b
d
44.34 0.17
44.96 0.55
44.58 0.32
45.61 0.13
0
1
7
28
Reference wheat dough

Moisture
contentb (%)
Frozen
storage time (days)
Formulation

Table 1
Impact of freezing process and frozen storage time on moisture content and rheological properties of four dough formulations.

43.12 0.06
42.92 0.22
42.57 0.32
42.90 0.23

Tan (d)
G0 (kPa)
Firma (N)

b
a
b
b

Fundamental rheological datac

Empirical rheological datab

0.31 0.02
0.35 0.03
0.33 0.01
0.33 0.03

a
b
ab
ab

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

73

nou and Tzia, 2007) and that the fundamental rheological parameters remain constant for a longer storage time (Kenny et al.,
1999). These storage time effects could also be attributed to ice
crystals growing during storage (Baier-Schenk et al., 2005; Zounis
et al., 2002) and then accentuating the damage to the gluten matrix
and other constituents. Moreover, this ice crystal growth causes a
redistribution of water provoked by a modication in the waterbinding capacity of dough constituents (Selomulyo and Zhou,
2007). For example, during storage, there is water transport from
the hydrated gluten to the ice phase (Bot and de Bruijne, 2003).
On the other hand, the storage temperature has little impact on
the rheological properties of wheat dough, and affects only its fundamental rheological parameters (Table 2). Samples stored at
18 C show signicantly higher G0 and G00 values and lower tan
d values than samples stored at 30 C. In addition, G0 , G00 and
tan d values of dough stored at 18 C are closer to those of fresh
wheat dough (0 day) than dough stored at 30 C. So it appears
that a storage temperature of 30 C causes more modications
to the dough structure, and thus to the rheological properties, than
a temperature of 18 C. This result could be explained by the glass
transition temperature (Tg). According to Rsnen et al. (1998), the
glass transition for dough occurs at a temperature around 30 C.
This depends on the water content and the dough formulation, for
example Matuda et al. (2008) found a Tg between 27 and 29 C
for wheat bread dough. At this temperature, which corresponds
more to a temperature range (e.g. 5 C wide), the dough changes
from a soft, rubbery state to a glassy one where it is more stable
(reduced mobility of water). Therefore, it is usually recommended to store dough below Tg for maximal stability (Bot,
2003). However, this glassy state is not thermodynamically stable
and a small intake of energy can destabilize it. In addition, prolonged storage at a temperature close to the glassy state may expose the dough to a maximum effect of the cryoconcentration
phenomenon (maximum dehydration of the matrix because most
of the water is frozen around the Tg). So, at 30 C, the concentrated phase of the dough will be at its maximum. Small uctuations in temperature can also take place during frozen storage
resulting in a destabilization of the dough and possibly water
recrystallization (Genin and Ren, 1995). Finally, it is assumed that
in our conditions, storage at 30 C is very close or covers the temperature range of the glass transition resulting in a maximum effect of the cryoconcentration of the dough. During storage,
temperature variation may have favoured the diffusion of water toward the ice crystals, which in turn would amplify the cryoconcentration effect. This could explain why the dough stored at a
temperature of 30 C had higher values of G0 and G00 than that
stored at 18 C. At 18 C, the biopolymers contained in the
dough were still in the presence of a small fraction of non-frozen
water and were less exposed to dehydration (via cryoconcentration) than the samples stored at 30 C.
Concerning the reference gluten-free dough, more parameters
are affected by frozen storage time and present the same changes
over time. They all remain relatively constant in the rst 7 days of
storage and change afterwards: gumminess, cohesiveness and
springiness increase, while G0 and G00 decrease. Therefore, it seems
that, for gluten-free dough, unlike wheat dough, the effect of freezing storage is noticeable only after the rst week. On the other
hand, the storage temperature does not affect any rheological
properties of the reference gluten-free dough (neither empirical
nor fundamental parameters). Only the moisture content is significantly different between samples stored at 18 C and 30 C. The
former have the higher moisture content, but this value is closer to
that of fresh gluten-free dough than dough stored at 30 C. So, as
for wheat dough, storage at 30 C seems to alter the structure and
properties of gluten-free frozen dough more than storage at
18 C.

0.019 0.002 a
0.021 0.001 b

29 8 b
29 6 a

0.31 0.01 a
0.30 0.01 a

In conclusion, the storage conditions, especially storage time,

affect gluten-free dough more than wheat dough (Tables 1 and
2). Overall, among the two frozen storage conditions (time and
temperature), the frozen storage time has the greatest impact on
dough rheological properties. Yi and Kerr (2009) also found that
storage time had a greater inuence than temperature on dough
extensibility. Frozen wheat dough seems to be more affected by
the freezing process and the rst week of storage while frozen gluten-free dough is more altered by the long storage time.
3.2. Nutritionally improved formulations of wheat and gluten-free
doughs
3.2.1. Dietary bre-enriched wheat dough
3.2.1.1. Impact of dietary bre enrichment on the freezing resistance of
wheat dough. The dietary bres modify the rheological properties
of the dough which becomes rmer, gummier, springier, and more
adhesive. However, Table 1 shows that the bre-enriched wheat
dough also becomes more resistant to freezing than the reference
wheat dough. Indeed, none of the ve parameters signicantly affected by freezing in the reference wheat dough is signicantly altered in bre-enriched dough. The frozenthawed bre-enriched
dough has the same properties as the fresh one.

In bold: parameters signicantly affected at a signicance level of 5% (p-value < 0.05).

For each formulation, values with the same following letter do not differ signicantly from each other (p-value < 0.05).
a
Firm = rmness, Gum = gumminess, Coh = cohesiveness, Adh = adhesiveness, Sprin = springiness, Res = resilience. Mean SD.
b
Values represent mean of three measurements standard deviation.
c
Values represent mean of three measurements standard deviation at a frequency of 1 Hz.

18
30
Gluten-free dough with amaranth

45.92 0.37 a
46.09 0.20 b

2.58 0.11 b
2.45 0.12 a

1.40 0.15 a
1.34 0.15 a

0.54 0.06 a
0.55 0.07 a

8.85 0.37 b
8.43 0.55 a

1.09 0.06 a
1.07 0.07 a

95 29 a
86 23 a

0.29 0.01 a
0.29 0.01 a
26 7 a
25 7 a
0.016 0.003 a
0.016 0.004 a
18
30
Reference gluten-free dough

45.71 0.18 b
45.49 0.19 a

0.82 0.16 a
0.91 0.23 a

0.21 0.05 a
0.24 0.08 a

0.25 0.06 a
0.28 0.12 a

1.39 0.49 a
1.60 0.47 a

0.59 0.09 a
0.61 0.16 a

89 24 a
88 20 a

0.35 0.02 a
0.35 0.01 a
113 22 a
115 18 a
0.063 0.008 a
0.063 0.009 a
18
30
Fibre-enriched wheat dough

42.84 0.37 a
42.92 0.19 a

4.49 0.64 a
4.56 0.79 a

2.66 0.43 a
2.69 0.54 a

0.59 0.03 a
0.59 0.04 a

6.12 0.67 a
6.51 0.45 a

1.04 0.08 a
1.05 0.11 a

330 79 a
327 54 a

0.32 0.02 a
0.34 0.03 b
79 18 b
64 22 a

G00 (kPa)

0.068 0.012 a
0.070 0.007 a

G0 (kPa)
Resa
Sprina

0.82 0.10 a
0.83 0.10 a

Adha (N  s)

1.93 0.62 a
1.75 0.53 a
0.55 0.06 a
0.58 0.05 a

Coha
Guma (N)

0.64 0.14 a
0.61 0.16 a
1.19 0.34 a
1.06 0.25 a

Firma (N)

44.92 0.63 a
44.83 0.56 a
18
30
Reference wheat dough

Empirical rheological datab

Moisture
contentb (%)
Storage
temperature (C)
Formulation

Table 2
Impact of storage temperature on moisture content and rheological properties of four dough formulations.

253 72 b
193 80 a

Tan (d)

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

Fundamental rheological datac

74

3.2.1.2. Impact of dietary bre enrichment on the storage resistance of

frozen wheat dough. Tables 1 and 2 show that the storage conditions have no more impact on the rheological properties of breenriched dough than does the freezing process. Indeed, the storage
temperature has no impact on bre-enriched dough properties
while storage time affects only two parameters. The moisture content decreases during the rst week of storage, and then returns to
its initial value at the long storage time. Tan d decreases signicantly in the rst week of storage, and then remains constant.
These results are consistent with those for the reference wheat
dough and agree with the importance of freezing during the rst
15 days of storage (Angioloni et al., 2008; Giannou and Tzia,
2007). Like for the reference wheat dough, the frozen storage conditions do not affect the empirical rheological properties of breenriched wheat dough.
This decrease in sensitivity to freezing and frozen storage induced by the addition of dietary bres could be explained by two
phenomena. Firstly, the interactions between bres and wheat
proteins, and particularly with gluten (Chen et al., 1988), can
strengthen the gluten network and thus improve its resistance to
the freezing process and frozen storage. Moreover, the great number of hydroxyl groups in the bre structure enables more water
interactions through hydrogen bonding (Rosell et al., 2001). Secondly, the freezable water content of the bre-enriched wheat
dough is lower than that of the reference wheat dough leading to
less ice crystal formation during freezing and less damage. This
hypothesis is in accordance with the result of the freezable water
measurement in fresh dough that went down from 64.2% to
59.8% of total water content after addition of dietary bres (Table
3). Clearly, dietary bre addition has a positive effect on maintaining the rheological properties of wheat dough during the freezing
process.
3.2.2. Amaranth our-enriched gluten-free dough
3.2.2.1. Impact of amaranth our enrichment on the freezing resistance of gluten-free dough. The addition of amaranth our to the
gluten-free dough decreases the freezing impact (Table 1). The rheological properties (empirical and fundamental) are not affected at
all since no signicant differences are observed between the values
of 0 and 1 day of storage. The freezing process only decreases the
moisture content. This freezing resistance is not due to a decrease
in ice crystal formation since the addition of amaranth our to glu-

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

Table 3
Results of DSC measurements on four formulations of fresh dough.

Formulation

DH of ice
meltinga
(J/g)

Freezable water
proportiona
(% of total water)

Reference wheat dough

Fibre-enriched wheat dough
Reference gluten-free dough
Gluten-free dough with amaranth

94.77 0.69
86.21 0.13
99.20 0.33
99.78 0.19

64.19 0.47
59.83 0.09
64.64 0.21
64.78 0.12

Values represent mean of two measurements standard deviation.

ten-free dough does not modify the freezable water content, which
varies from 64.6% to 64.8% of total water (Table 3). However, the
protein content of amaranth is so high (Berghofer and Schoenlechner, 2002) that it seems to act as a ller of the dough matrix (Mariotti et al., 2009), which therefore becomes more resistant to the
freezing process. So freezing has less impact on the rheological
properties of gluten-free dough improved by amaranth our than
on the reference gluten-free dough.
3.2.2.2. Impact of amaranth our enrichment on the storage resistance
of frozen gluten-free dough. Unlike its effect on freezing, the addition of amaranth our to gluten-free dough increases its sensitivity
to storage conditions. Indeed, storage time and temperature both
affect many dough properties (Tables 1 and 2). Amaranth addition
accelerates the decrease in G0 and G00 throughout the storage time
while tan d increases with storage time. Regarding the empirical
rheological parameters, gumminess, cohesiveness and springiness
do not change but adhesiveness and resilience signicantly decrease with storage time in amaranth-enriched gluten-free dough
while they are not affected in the reference gluten-free dough.
Adhesiveness decreases during the rst week of storage and then
remains constant until the end of the rst month. On the contrary,
resilience remains constant in the rst week and then decreases.
The moisture content also decreases after the rst week of storage.
The storage temperature, which has little impact on the frozen
reference gluten-free dough, has important consequences on the
frozen improved dough, since it signicantly affects ve parameters. The dough stored at 18 C is the rmest and the most adhesive, but it has the lowest resilience. For the fundamental
rheological parameters, the loss modulus (G00 ) is higher for gluten-free improved dough stored at 18 C than for that stored at
30 C. The moisture content is also signicantly changed by the
storage temperature. The sample stored at 18 C has a lower
moisture content.
4. Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from this work. Firstly, concerning the methodology, the fundamental rather than the empirical rheological measurements (TPA) are more relevant since they
demonstrate more differences. The empirical rheological parameters, particularly resilience, springiness, cohesiveness and gumminess, are less affected. Concerning freezing and frozen storage, they
alter the quality of the dough and of the bread made with it since
frozen doughs have lower G0 and G00 and higher tan d than fresh
doughs. In addition, the freezing process and the rst days of storage have more effect on wheat dough while the gluten-free dough
is more altered by the longer storage time. With regard to the storage conditions, storage time seems to have more impact than storage temperature. Moreover, the formulation of dough plays an
important part in its properties and behaviour after freezing. The
protein-enriched gluten-free dough (improved by amaranth our
addition) is less affected by the freezing process but it becomes
more sensitive to the storage conditions. On the other hand, the bre-enriched wheat dough is much more resistant to both the

75

freezing process and the storage conditions. Therefore, the addition

of dietary bres to wheat dough seems to have a double advantage: nutritional improvement and an increased resistance to
freezing.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out with the nancial support of the
Commission of the European Community, FP6, Thematic Area
Food quality and safety, FOOD-2006-36302 EU-FRESH BAKE.
The authors would like to emphasize that this article does not necessarily reect the views of the Commission and does not anticipate the Commissions future policy in this area.
References
Angioloni, A., Balestra, F., Pinnavaia, G.G., Dalla Rosa, M., 2008. Small and large
deformation test for the evaluation of frozen dough viscoelastic behaviour.
Journal of Food Engineering 87, 527531.
AOAC, 1996. In: Cunniff, P. (Ed.), Ofcial Methods of Analysis of AOAC International.
AOAC International, Maryland, p. 1.
Armero, E., Collar, C., 1997. Texture properties of formulated wheat dough.
Relationships with dough and bread technological quality. Zeitschrift fr
Lebensmittel Untersuchung Forschung 204, 136145.
Asghar, A., Anjum, F.M., Allen, J.C., Daubert, C.R., Rasool, G., 2009. Effect of modied
whey protein concentrates on empirical and fundamental dynamic mechanical
properties of frozen dough. Food Hydrocolloids 23, 16871692.
Baier-Schenk, A., Handschin, S., von Schnau, M., Bittermann, A.G., Bchi, T., Condepetit, B., 2005. In situ observation of the freezing process in wheat dough by
confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM): formation of ice and changes in the
gluten network. Journal of Cereal Science 42, 255260.
Barcenas, M., Benedito, C., Rosell, C.M., 2004. Use of hydrocolloids as bread
improvers in interrupted baking process with frozen storage. Food
Hydrocolloids 18, 769774.
Berghofer, E., Schoenlechner, R., 2002. Grain amaranth. In: Belton, P., Taylor, J. (Eds.),
Pseudocereals and Less Common Cereals: Grain Properties and Utilization
Potential. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 219260.
Berglund, P., Shelton, D., Freeman, T., 1991. Frozen bread dough ultra structure as
affected by duration of frozen storage and freeze-thaw cycles. Cereal Chemistry
68, 105107.
Bhattacharya, M., Langstaff, T.M., Berzonsky, W.A., 2003. Effect of frozen storage and
freeze-thaw cycles on the rheological and baking properties of frozen dough.
Food Research International 36, 365372.
Bot, A., 2003. Differential scanning calorimetric study on the effects of frozen
storage on gluten and dough. Cereal Chemistry 80, 366370.
Bot, A., de Bruijne, D.W., 2003. Osmotic properties of gluten. Cereal Chemistry 80,
366370.
Bourne, M.C., 1978. Texture prole analysis. Food Technology 32 (7), 6266.
Carr, L.G., Tadini, C.C., 2003. Inuence of yeast and vegetable shortening on physical
and textural parameters of frozen part baked French bread. Lebensmittel
Wissenchaft und Technologie 36, 609614.
Chen, H., Rubenthaler, G.L., Schanus, E.G., 1988. Effect of apple bre and cellulose on
the physical properties of wheat our. Journal of Food Science 53, 304305.
Collar, C., Andreu, P., Martinez, J.C., Armero, E., 1999. Optimisation of hydrocolloid
addition to improve wheat bread dough functionality: a response surface
methodology study. Food Hydrocolloids 13, 467475.
Demirkesen, I., Mert, B., Sumnu, G., Sahin, S., 2010. Rheological properties of glutenfree bread formulations. Journal of Food Engineering 96, 295303.
Gelinas, P., Deaudelin, I., Grenier, M., 1995. Frozen dough: effects of dough shape,
water content, and sheetingmolding conditions. Cereal Foods World 40, 124
126.
Genin, N., Ren, F., 1995. Analyse du rle de la transition vitreuse dans les procds
de conservation agro-alimentaires. Journal of Food Engineering 26, 391408.
Giannou, V., Tzia, C., 2007. Frozen dough bread: quality and textural behaviour
during prolonged storageprediction of nal product characteristics. Journal of
Food Engineering 79 (3), 929934.
Havet, M., Mankai, M., Le Bail, A., 2000. Inuence of the freezing condition on the
baking performances on French frozen dough. Journal of Food Engineering 45,
139145.
Jiang, B., Kontogiorgos, V., Kasapis, S., Goff, H.D., 2008. Rheological investigation and
molecular architecture of highly hydrated gluten networks at subzero
temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering 89, 4248.
Kenny, S., Wehrle, K., Dennehy, T., Arendt, E.K., 1999. Correlation between empirical
and fundamental rheology measurements and baking performance of frozen
bread dough. Cereal Chemistry 76 (3), 421425.
Le Bail, A., Grinand, C., Le Cleach, S., Martinez, S., Quilin, E., 1999. Inuence of
storage conditions on frozen French bread dough. Journal of Food Engineering
39, 289291.
Lorenzo, G., Zaritzky, N.E., Califano, A.N., 2009. Rheological characterization of
refrigerated and frozen non-fermented gluten-free dough: effect of
hydrocolloids and lipid phase. Journal of Cereal Science 50, 255261.

76

G. Leray et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 100 (2010) 7076

Mariotti, M., Lucisano, M., Ambrogina Pagani, M., Ng, P.K.W., 2009. The role of corn
starch, amaranth our, pea isolate and Psyllium our on the rheological
properties and the ultrastructure of gluten-free dough. Food Research
International 42, 963975.
Matuda, T.G., Chevallier, S., de-Alcntara-Pessa-Filho, P., LeBail, A., Tadini, C., 2008.
Impact of guar and xanthan gums on proong and calorimetric parameters of
frozen bread dough. Journal of Cereal Science 48 (3), 741746.
Nunes, M.H.B., Moore, M.M., Ryan, L.A.M., Arendt, E.K., 2009. Impact of emulsiers
on the quality and rheological properties of gluten-free breads and batters.
European Food Research and Technology 228, 633642.
Peressini, D., Sensidoni, A., 2009. Effect of soluble dietary bre addition on
rheological and bread making properties of wheat dough. Journal of Cereal
Science 49, 190201.
Pruska-Kedzior, A., Kedzior, Z., Goracy, M., Pietrowska, K., Przybylska, A.,
Spychalska, K., 2008. Comparison of rheological, fermentative and baking
properties of gluten-free dough formulations. European Food Research and
Technology 227, 15231536.
Rsnen, J., Blanshard, J.M.V., Mitchell, J.R., Derbyshire, W., Autio, K., 1998.
Properties of frozen wheat dough at subzero temperatures. Journal of Cereal
Science 28, 114.
Ribotta, P.D., Len, A.E., An, M.C., 2001. Effects of freezing and frozen storage of
dough on bread quality. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49, 913
919.

Ribotta, P.D., Len, A.E., An, M.C., 2003. Effect of freezing and frozen storage on
the gelatinization and retrogradation of amylopectin in dough baked
in a differential scanning calorimeter. Food Research International 36, 357
363.
Ribotta, P.D., Prez, G.T., Len, A.E., An, M.C., 2004. Effect of emulsier and guar
gum on micro structural, rheological and baking performance of frozen bread
dough. Food Hydrocolloids 18, 305313.
Rosell, C.M., Rojas, J.A., Benedito de Barber, C., 2001. Inuence of hydrocolloids on
dough rheology and bread quality. Food Hydrocolloids 15, 7581.
Selomulyo, V.O., Zhou, W., 2007. Frozen bread dough: effects of freezing storage and
dough improvers. Journal of Cereal Science 45, 117.
Varriano-Marston, E.K., Hsu, J., Mahdi, J., 1980. Rheological and structural changes
in frozen dough. Bakers Digest 54, 3234.
Wang, J., Rosell, C.M., Benedito de Barber, C., 2002. Effect of the addition of different
bres on wheat dough performance and bread quality. Food Chemistry 79, 221
226.
Yi, J., Kerr, W.L., 2009. Combined effects of freezing rate, storage temperature and
time on bread dough and baking properties. LWT Food Science and
Technology 42, 14741483.
Zounis, S., Quail, K.J., Wooton, M., Dickson, M.R., 2002. Effect of nal dough
temperature on the microstructure of frozen bread dough. Journal of Cereal
Science 36, 135146.