Suitability of solvent retention capacity tests to assess the cookie and bread

making quality of European wheat ours

Annelies E. Duyvejonck
*
, Bert Lagrain, Emmie Dornez, Jan A. Delcour, Christophe M. Courtin
Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Biochemistry and Leuven Food Science and Nutrition Research Centre (LFoRCe), KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 20, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 July 2011
Received in revised form
6 December 2011
Accepted 3 January 2012
Keywords:
Flour quality
Farinograph
Mixograph
Alveograph
Zeleny sedimentation test
a b s t r a c t
A solvent retention capacity (SRC) prole of our consists of its water RC (WRC), sodium carbonate
SRC (SCSRC), sucrose SRC (SuSRC) and lactic acid SRC (LASRC) values. SRC tests have been designed to
assess our quality of North American soft wheats, but the value of these tests for European
our which is generally from harder wheats is rather unclear. We here studied the ability of the SRC
values to assess the cookie and bread quality of nineteen European commercial ours and compared
their predictive value with that of some conventional our quality parameters. WRC value was
a better parameter to assess the cookie diameter than Farinograph or Mixograph water absorption
capacities and Alveograph dough tenacity values. In contrast, Zeleny sedimentation values and some
rheological data were better to assess bread volume than LASRC values. When LASRC values were
corrected for the contribution of non-glutenin polymers, they could assess bread volume to
a comparable extent as the Zeleny sedimentation readings. In conclusion, the SRC tests are good
alternative tests to assess the cookie and bread quality of European wheat ours. Furthermore, it is
not always necessary to determine the entire SRC prole to sufciently assess our quality for
a specic end-product.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Wheat our is a major ingredient in a range of foods such as
bread, pastry and breakfast cereals. The wide range of end-products
results from different ingredient formulas and/or varying process-
ing conditions. Not every our type is equally suitable for the
production of a specic end-product. Therefore, determination of
our quality is of great importance as it relates to the desired end-
product and its manufacturing process.
Three groups of methods are available for evaluating wheat
our quality. The rst group determines the level of our constit-
uents or properties thereof and are relatively straight-forward to
interpret. Examples are protein determination [AACCI Approved
Method (AM) 39-25 and 39-11] (AACCI, 2000) and the Zeleny
sedimentation method (Zeleny, 1947). The second group of
methods are the rheological tests, such as the Brabender Farino-
graph (AACCI AM 54-21), Mixograph (AACCI AM 54-40A) and
Chopin Alveograph (AACCI AM 54-30) analyses (AACCI, 2000),
which are indicative for dough properties and, thus, our quality.
The last group of methods are baking tests such as the straight-
dough bread making (AACCI AM 10-10) and sugar-snap cookie
making tests (AACCI AM 10-52) (AACCI, 2000). Those standardized
baking tests reect a typical bread and cookie making process.
Indeed, the ideal test for our quality determination in any given
application is to examine the our suitability in that specic
process.
All the aforementioned methods can be used for assessing our
quality to a certain degree. However, they do not always take into
account the contribution or functionality of specic our constit-
uents in a given process. In practice, important differences in pro-
cessing and/or end-product quality can arise, even if the our
specications for a specic method are met.
Abbreviations: AM, approved method; AX, arabinoxylan; FDDT, Farinograph
dough development time; FDS, Farinograph dough stability; FS, our sample; FWA,
Farinograph water absorption; Ie, dough elasticity index; L, dough extensibility;
LASRC, lactic acid solvent retention capacity; MDDT, Mixograph dough develop-
ment time; MDS, Mixograph dough strength; MWA, Mixograph water absorption;
P, dough tenacity; PC, principal component; PCA, principal component analysis;
PLS, partial least squares; SCSRC, sodium carbonate solvent retention capacity; SRC,
solvent retention capacity; SuSRC, sucrose solvent retention capacity; W, dough
deformation energy; WRC, water retention capacity.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 32 16321634; fax: 32 16321997.
E-mail addresses: annelies.duyvejonck@biw.kuleuven.be (A.E. Duyvejonck),
bert.lagrain@biw.kuleuven.be (B. Lagrain), emmie.dornez@biw.kuleuven.be
(E. Dornez), jan.delcour@biw.kuleuven.be (J.A. Delcour), christophe.courtin@
biw.kuleuven.be (C.M. Courtin).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
LWT - Food Science and Technology
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ l wt
0023-6438/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2012.01.002
LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63
Another relatively recent method, which can be classied in the
rst group of methods, for assessing the functionality of different
our constituents is that making use of the solvent retention
capacity (SRC) tests (AACCI AM 56-11) (AACCI, 2000). The SRC
methodology is based on quantifying the swelling behavior of our
polymer networks and, hence, their ability to retain a given solvent
[water, 5.0 g/100 g sodium carbonate in water, 50.0 g/100 g sucrose
in water and 5.0 g/100 g lactic acid in water]. By doing so, it relates
our quality to specic our constituents (Duyvejonck, Lagrain,
Pareyt, Courtin, & Delcour, 2011; Gaines, 2000; Kweon, Martin, &
Souza, 2009; Slade & Levine, 1994). SRC tests are accessible and
non-labor-intensive.
Water retention capacity (WRC) has been associated with the
overall water holding capacity of the different our constituents,
the sodium carbonate SRC (SCSRC) is related to the damaged
starch levels of the our, the sucrose SRC (SuSRC) is indicative for
the arabinoxylan (AX) characteristics of the our and the lactic
acid SRC (LASRC) is associated with glutenin network formation
and gluten strength (Kweon, Slade, & Levine, 2011; Slade &
Levine, 1994).
Different authors have described linear relations between the
SRC parameters and conventional our and dough specications.
For a set of Argentinian wheat cultivars, Colombo, Prez, Ribotta,
and Len (2008) described a positive correlation between the
LASRC of our and the Zeleny sedimentation values. Also, rela-
tionships between SRC parameters and Farinograph (Ram, Dawar,
Singh, & Shoran, 2005), Mixograph (Gaines, 2000; Gaines, Reid,
Vander Kant, & Morris, 2006; Ram et al., 2005) and Alveograph
(Gaines et al., 2006; Guttieri, Bowen, Gannon, OBrien, & Souza,
2001) values have been described.
The evaluation of the ability of the SRC test methodologies for
their ability to assess the cookie making quality of North American
wheat our from soft wheat cultivars has been subject of much
research (Gaines, 2000; Guttieri et al., 2001; Guttieri &Souza, 2003;
Guttieri, Souza, & Sneller, 2008). However, to the best of our
knowledge, not much is known about their suitability to assess the
cookie making quality of Europeanwheat our. Such our generally
originates from wheats that are harder than the typical North
American soft wheats for which the SRC tests were initially
developed, but which, at the same time are less hard than typical
North American hard wheats (Delcour & Hoseney, 2010). Earlier,
Duyvejonck et al. (2011) compared the SRC values of some Euro-
pean commercial wheat ours with those of some typical North
American wheat ours. They found the SRC values of the European
our sample set to be in the range of those of North American hard
winter wheat ours such as reported by Xiao, Park, Chung, Caley,
and Seib (2006). WRC and SCSRC values exceed those of most
North American soft wheat ours described by Bettge, Morris,
DeMacon, and Kidwell (2002), Gaines (2000) and Guttieri et al.
(2001, 2008). One of the implications of the above is that Euro-
pean cookie our generally contains higher damaged starch levels
and stronger gluten than typical North American cookie our
(Duyvejonck et al., 2011). These quality aspects are undesired for
cookie our (Pareyt & Delcour, 2008; Tanilli, 1976). Because of this,
European cookie recipes typically contain relatively more sugar
than standard North American cookie recipes in order obtain
proper spread during baking (AACCI, 2000; Pareyt, Wilderjans,
Goesaert, Brijs, & Delcour, 2008).
Much less has been published on the value of SRC testing in
the context of bread making than in that of cookie making.
According to Pike and MacRitchie (2004), in the case of our from
hard North American wheats, a LASRC value exceeding 100%
indicates good bread making quality. Also, Xiao et al. (2006) and
Colombo et al. (2008) concluded that the LASRC value is predic-
tive for the loaf volume of bread from North American hard and
Argentinian wheat ours, respectively. However, to the best of
our knowledge, no studies have appeared that investigated the
ability of the SRC tests to assess the bread making quality of
European wheat our.
Against this background, we here set out to study the predictive
value of the SRC tests for the cookie and bread making quality of
nineteen European commercial wheat ours. We also compared
the analytical data with more conventional our and dough
parameters. We thus determined the chemical composition, the
Zeleny sedimentation value, the SRC values and the Farinograph,
Mixograph and Alveograph characteristics of these wheat ours.
Furthermore, to assess the cookie and bread making quality of the
our samples, sugar-snap cookies and straight-dough breads were
baked. Finally, we investigated whether the SRC tests are a good
alternative for the evaluation of the our quality of European
commercial wheat ours. The latter was done by using multivariate
statistical analysis.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Nineteen European commercial our samples (FS) were ob-
tained from different suppliers as described previously
(Duyvejonck et al., 2011). They were coded FSx with x varying from
1 to 19. Sugar and margarine were from Iscal Sugar (Moerbeke-
Waas, Belgium) and Vandemoortele (Izegem, Belgium), respec-
tively. Sodium bicarbonate (BICAR) was from Solvay Chemicals
International (Brussels, Belgium). Compressed yeast was from
Bruggeman (Brugge, Belgium). All chemicals, solvents and reagents
were purchased from SigmaeAldrich (Bornem, Belgium) and of
analytical grade unless specied otherwise.
2.2. Methods
Moisture, protein and damaged starch levels of the our
samples were determined as described previously (Duyvejonck
et al., 2011). The coefcients of variation on the results were less
than 1.5%. Polysaccharide levels and compositions of our samples
were estimated using gas chromatographic analysis of alditol
acetates obtained after acid hydrolysis of the samples and reduc-
tion and acetylation of the resulting monosaccharides as described
previously (Duyvejonck et al., 2011). Starch level was calculated as
0.90 times the glucose content and AX levels were calculated as
described previously (Duyvejonck et al., 2011). The coefcients of
variation on the results were less than 2.0%.
2.2.1. SRC tests
The SRC tests were conducted according to AACCI AM 56-11
(AACCI, 2000) with some minor modications as described by
Duyvejonck et al. (2011). Flour samples (5.000 g) were weighed in
50 mL centrifuge tubes (height, 115 mm; internal diameter, 27 mm)
with a conical bottom. Then, 25.0 mL of the respective media
[deionized water, 5.0 g/100 g sodium carbonate in water, 50.0 g/
100 g sucrose in water or 5.0 g/100 g lactic acid in water] were
added and the mixtures were shaken vigorously for 5 s to suspend
the our. Samples were then horizontally shaken for 20 min (room
temperature, 150 strokes per min) to allow the samples to solvate
and swell. Samples were centrifuged (15 min, 1000g, room
temperature, Beckman TJ-25, Fullerton, CA, USA). Supernatant was
decanted from the tubes, the pellet drained for 15 min and
weighed. The SRC values were calculated as follows (Haynes,
Bettge, & Slade, 2009):
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 57
SRC g=100 g

wet pellet g
flour g
1

86
100 flour moisture g=100 g

100
All SRC analyses were performed in triplicate and the coef-
cients of variation on the SRC values were less than 2.0%.
2.2.2. Zeleny sedimentation method
Flour Zeleny sedimentation values were determined at least in
duplicate according to ICC standard 116 (ICC, 1980). The coefcients
of variation were less than 2.5%.
2.2.3. Rheological dough methods
Farinograph parameters were determined according to the
AACCI AM 54-21 (AACCI, 2000) with a Farinograph (Brabender
E330, Duisburg, Germany) tted with a 50 g stainless steel mixing
bowl using the constant our weight procedure (50.00 g our with
14.0 g/100 g moisture). Optimal water absorption for the Farino-
graph analyses was determined iteratively with different amounts
of water. The following Farinograph parameters were recorded:
water absorption (FWA), dough development time (FDDT) and
dough stability (FDS). In the method, typical coefcients of varia-
tion for the FWA, FDDTand FDS of a measurement in triplicate were
less than 0.5%, 10.0% and 10.0%, respectively.
Mixograph parameters were assessed according to the AACCI
AM 54-40A (AACCI, 2000) using a 10 g Mixograph (National
Manufacturing, Lincoln, NE, USA). The constant our weight
procedure (10.00 g our at 14.0 g/100 g moisture) was used.
Optimal water absorption for the Mixograph analyses was deter-
mined iteratively with different amounts of water. The following
Mixograph parameters were determined: water absorption (MWA),
dough development time (MDDT) and dough strength (MDS,
height of curve 3 min after MDDT). In the method, typical coef-
cients of variation for the MWA, MDDT and MDS of a single
measurement were less than 2.0%, 10.0% and 5.0%, respectively.
Chopin Alveograph parameters were determined according to
AACCI AM 54-30 (AACCI, 2000) using an Alveograph (Chopin,
Villeneuve-La-Garenne, France). All our samples were analyzed at
a constant hydration of 50.0 g/100 g (15.0 g/100 g moisture basis).
We assessed dough tenacity (P), extensibility (L), deformation
energy (W) and elasticity index (Ie P200/P multiplied by hundred
where P200 is the pressure 40 mm fromthe start of the curve). Five
dough pieces were formed from each our sample and the coef-
cients of variation for the P, L, W and Ie measurements were less
than 5.0%, 10.0%, 10.0% and 3.0%, respectively.
2.2.4. Cookie making
Cookies were prepared according to Pareyt et al. (2008). The
ingredients were our (200.0 g, 14.0 g/100 g moisture basis), sugar
(144.0 g), margarine (90.0 g), deionized water (24.0 g) and sodium
bicarbonate (4.0 g). Dough preparation consisted of a cream-up and
then a dough-up phase. The nal cookie dough contained 15.0 g/
100 g moisture. Dough pieces were baked for 14 min at 185

C in
a rotary oven (National Manufacturing). Baked cookies were
removed from the oven and cooled for 30 min. Their height and
diameter was measured with a caliper. At least twelve cookies were
baked from each our sample. The coefcients of variation of the
height and diameter of cookies baked from the same our sample
were less than 4.0% and 1.0%, respectively.
2.2.5. Bread making
Breads were prepared according to the straight-dough bread
making procedure of Finney (1984) for 100 g our. Flour (100.0 g
with 14.0 g/100 g moisture), sugar (6.0 g), salt (1.5 g), compressed
yeast (5.3 g) and water (optimum water absorption) were mixed at
25

C with a 100 g pin-mixer (National Manufacturing). The
optimum water absorption and mixing time (MDDT 1.25) were
based on the Mixograph analyses. Dough was fermented at a temper-
ature of 30

C and a relative humidity of 90%. During fermentation, the

dough was punched after 52, 77 and 90 min. The fermented dough
was molded and proofed for 36 min in a baking pan [internal
dimension (widthlengthheight), 8.0 cm14.5 cm5.5 cm] at
30

C and 90% relative humidity and baked for 24 min at 215

C in an
electrically heated rotary oven (National Manufacturing). Baked
breads were removed from the oven and cooled for 2 h. Their height
and volume were determined, the latter with a Volscan Proler
(Stable Micro Systems Ltd., Surrey, UK). Six breads were baked from
each our sample. The coefcients of variation of the height and
volume of the breads baked from the same our sample were less
than 2.0%.
2.2.6. Statistical analysis
Pearsons correlation coefcients were calculated with the
Statistical Analysis Systemsoftware 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Partial Least Squares (PLS)
multivariateanalyses wereconductedwiththeUnscrambler software
9.1.2 (CAMO Technologies, Woodbridge, NJ, USA). In PCA, the high
number of original variables is reduced to a smaller number of new
variables called principal components (PCs) which are linear combi-
nations of the original variables. These PCs are independent variables
and describe in decreasing order the variability of the data. PLS is
a linear regressiontechniquethat determines thegreatest variationin
the data correlated with the response (Y) that is investigated. In
contrast towhat is doneinPCAanalysis, the responsevariables (Y) are
alsotakeninaccount ina PLS analysis. All variables were centeredand
scaled to unit variance prior to the multivariate analyses.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Conventional our and dough properties
The our sample set showed large variation in protein, damaged
starch, total AX, water-extractable AX and water-unextractable AX
levels (Table 1) (Duyvejonck et al., 2011). Based on the protein and
damaged starch levels, the our samples seemed to be more suit-
able for bread than for cookie making. Also, all our samples had
a Zeleny sedimentation value above 20 mL and thus a moderate to
good bread making quality (Zeleny, 1947). FS6 even seemed to have
superior bread making quality, as its Zeleny sedimentation value
exceeded 55 mL (Zeleny, 1947).
The European our samples also showed a large variation in
rheological parameters (Table 1). The Alveograph values were in
the range of those of some typical North American hard and soft
wheat ours as described by Bettge, Rubenthaler, and Pomeranz
(1989) with mean values of P, L and W for the current set of
European our samples corresponding to those of North American
hard wheat ours. According to a criterion postulated by Garca-
lvarez, Salazar, and Rosell (2011), the current our sample set
contained ours that are mainly suitable for bread making because
they all had an Alveograph W value above 100.
In general, the conventional analytical data of the samples show
that the current our samples are comparable to typical North
American hard wheat ours.
3.2. SRC properties
Table 1 lists the mean values and ranges of the SRC values of the
19 European wheat our samples. As far as SRC values goes, the
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 58
largest variation was in LASRC (106.4e147.1 g/100 g) and the lowest
in SuSRC (90.2e102.1 g/100 g). In a previous paper (Duyvejonck
et al., 2011), these SRC values were compared with those of some
typical North American wheat ours. The SRC values of the Euro-
pean our sample set were in the range of those of North American
hard winter wheat ours (Xiao et al., 2006). Also, WRC and SCSRC
values exceeded those of most North American soft wheat ours
(Bettge et al., 2002; Gaines, 2000; Guttieri et al., 2001, 2008).
According to Gaines (2000) our with a WRC 51 g/100 g,
a SCSRC 64 g/100 g, a SuSRC 89 g/100 g and a LASRC 87 g/
100 g performs well in cookie making and our with a WRC 57 g/
100 g, a SCSRC 72 g/100 g, a SuSRC 96 g/100 g and
a LASRC 100 g/100 g is suitable for sponge and dough systems.
Based on this statement, the current our samples are expected to
perform well neither as cookie our, nor in sponge and dough
systems. However, according a criterion postulated by Pike and
MacRitchie (2004), all our samples appeared of good straight-
dough bread making quality because they all had a LASRC above
100 g/100 g.
3.3. Correlations between SRC parameters and conventional
parameters
To obtain an integrated view of the relationship between the
SRC and more conventional our and dough parameters (variables),
PCA was executed (Fig. 1) and Pearsons correlation coefcients
between the different parameters were calculated.
In a PCA loading plot, variables close to each other are positively
correlated, whereas variables found on the opposite sides of
a diagonal are negatively correlated. Variables found in orthogonal
direction are independent of each other.
The loading plot of the rst two PCs explained 71% of the total
variance in the our properties measured on nineteen European
commercial ours (Fig. 1). The rst PC, PC1, accounted for 43% of the
explained variance. PC1 was strongly positively determined by the
water-unextractable AX, the starch and the total AX levels of the
ours and was strongly negatively determined by the protein level,
W, FDS, MDS, FDDT and Ie. In addition, our protein level was
strongly positively correlated with FDDT, FDS, MDS, W and Ie
(r >0.80, p <0.0001).
Hence, in this PCA loading plot, PC1 was strongly determined by
the variance in protein and (water-unextractable) AX levels in the
our sample set. For the our samples, a strong negative linear
relation was observed between our protein level and our water-
unextractable AX (r 0.81, p <0.0001), starch (r 0.74,
p <0.001) and total AX (r 0.66, p <0.01) levels. The negative
linear relation between our starch and protein levels is logical,
because wheat our mainly consists of starch and proteins.
Furthermore, total AX level in our was positively related with the
level of water-unextractable AX (r 0.80, p <0.0001).
The second PC, PC2, accounted for 28% of the explained variance
and was strongly positively determined by the SCSRC value, the
WRC value, the damaged starch level, the P value and the SuSRC
value. WRC, SCSRC, SuSRC and P values were positively correlated
with the damaged starch level (r >0.60, p <0.01) because they are
all inuenced by the water holding capacity of the our. As the
Alveograph analyses were conducted at constant hydration, the
higher the our damaged starch level, the more water the our can
bind, the stiffer the dough and the higher the resistance to defor-
mation (P) (Dexter, Preston, Martin, & Gander, 1994; Khattak,
DAppolonia, & Banasik, 1974). Hence, in this PCA loading plot,
PC2 was strongly determined by the variance in damaged starch
level in the our sample set.
In general, for the current our sample set, most SRC and
conventional variables can be divided into two groups (Fig. 1), i.e.
variables more sensitive for our protein level (FDDT, FDS, MDS, W
and Ie) and variables more sensitive for damaged starch level (P,
WRC, SCSRC and SuSRC).
WRC, SCSRC and SuSRC were proximate to each other (Fig. 1),
indicating a positive correlation between those three SRC variables.
These results are in line with those of earlier studies (Colombo et al.,
2008; Gaines, 2000), that also observedstrong correlations between
those three SRC values. Furthermore, our FWA is positively corre-
lated with WRC (r 0.72, p <0.001) and MWA (r 0.72, p <0.001).
The underlying reason most probably being that all these variables
give an indication for the our water holding capacity.
LASRC was orthogonal to the other SRC values (Fig. 1), showing
that there is no strong correlation. The LASRC values were positively
correlated with the W values (r 0.70, p <0.001). Guttieri et al.
(2001) earlier observed a linear relation between the LASRC
values and the Wvalues ina set of NorthAmericansoft wheat ours.
In addition, the PCA loading plot (Fig. 1) shows that, although
the LASRC and the Zeleny sedimentation tests are based on the
swelling capacity of especially glutenins in a lactic acid environ-
ment (Gaines, 2000; Zeleny, 1947), the LASRC variable does not
Table 1
Means and ranges of physico-chemical, rheological, solvent retention capacity (SRC)
and baking data of nineteen European commercial wheat ours.
Mean Range
Physico-chemical parameters
Starch (g/100 g)
a,e
81.9 78.2e84.9
Damaged starch (g/100 g)
a,d,e
6.4 5.2e8.0
Protein (g/100 g)
a,d,e
12.5 10.7e16.1
Zeleny sedimentation [Zsed] value (mL)
f
45.2 39.0e56.0
Arabinoxylan [AX] (g/100 g)
a,d
2.19 1.98e2.32
Water-extractable AX [WE-AX] (g/100 g)
a,d
0.47 0.41e0.67
Water-unextractable AX [WU-AX] (g/100 g)
a,c,d
1.72 1.52e1.84
Rheological parameters
Farinograph
g
Water absorption [FWA] (g/100 g)
b
58.0 54.3e61.4
Dough development time [FDDT] (min) 4.0 1.5e8.4
Dough stability [FDS] (min) 6.4 2.0e11.4
Mixograph
g
Water absorption [MWA] (g/100 g)
b
58.3 54.0e62.0
Dough development time [MDDT] (min) 3.1 2.4e3.6
Dough strength [MDS] (cm) 5.3 4.4e6.6
Alveograph
Dough tenacity [P] (mm)
h
77 58e99
Extensibility [L] (mm)
h
109 57e135
Dough deformation energy [W] (10
4
J)
h
243 151e349
Elasticity index [Ie] (%)
h
50 43e60
SRC parameters
Water retention capacity [WRC] (g/100 g)
b,d
61.5 56.3e66.3
Sodium carbonate SRC [SCSRC] (g/100 g)
b,d
79.7 74.2e88.1
Sucrose SRC [SuSRC] (g/100 g)
b,d
93.7 90.2e102.1
Lactic acid SRC [LASRC] (g/100 g)
b,d
124.0 106.4e147.1
Baking parameters
Cookie height (mm)
i
8.0 7.5e8.8
Cookie diameter (mm)
i
85.4 83.6e88.6
Bread height (cm)
j
8.8 8.3e10.0
Bread volume (cm
3
)
j
624 579e722
a
Expressed on dry matter basis.
b
Expressed on 14.0 g/100 g moisture basis.
c
[WU-AX] [AX] [WE-AX].
d
Duyvejonck et al. (2011).
e
Data are means of triplicate measurements.
f
Data are means of duplicate measurements.
g
Data were determined iteratively with different amounts of water.
h
Data are means of measurements on ve dough pieces.
i
Data are means of measurements on at least 12 cookies.
j
Data are means of triplicate measurements on six breads.
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 59
strongly correlate with the Zeleny sedimentation variable. Also no
signicant linear relation was observed between the LASRC values
and the Zeleny sedimentation values (p >0.01). It has previously
been documented that the LASRC value is also inuenced by other
our polymers such as AX and damaged starch (Barrera, Prez,
Ribotta, & Len, 2007; Duyvejonck et al., 2011). When we divided
the LASRC value by the sum of the SCSRC and SuSRC values (further
referred as corrected LASRC value) to correct the LASRC value for
the contribution of non-gluten polymers as described by Kweon,
Slade, et al. (2009), a positive linear relation was observed
between the corrected LASRC values and the Zeleny sedimentation
values (r 0.69, p <0.01). Fig. 1 shows the positive correlation
between those two variables.
3.4. Suitable parameters to assess cookie and bread making quality
of our
3.4.1. Suitable parameters to assess cookie making quality of our
In general, there are three important cookie quality parameters:
size of the cookie, cookie top grain and cookie bite (Pareyt &
Delcour, 2008). According to Finney and Andrews (1986), sugar-
snap cookie diameter is an excellent indicator of soft wheat
baking quality. The smaller the cookie diameter, the less the our is
suited for cookie making. According to Gaines and Finney (1989),
cookie top grain is related with the cookie diameter, but there is no
clear consensus about what makes up a good cookie bite. The
present set of our samples led to variation in cookie diameter
(83.6e88.6 mm) and height (7.5e8.8 mm) (Table 1). As expected,
the cookie diameter was negatively correlated with the
cookie height (r 0.88, p <0.0001). In what follows, the cookie
diameter is taken as an indicator for the our quality for cookie
making.
PLS regression analysis visualizes the predictive value of the SRC
and conventional variables for cookie diameter. The physico-
chemical, rheological and SRC readings were used as X-variables
and the cookie diameter as response variable (Y-variable) (Fig. 2).
PC1 accounted for 31% of the overall explained variance and PC2 for
37%. More specically, PC1 explained 68% of the cookie diameter
variance and was strongly negatively determined by WRC, P, SCSRC,
FWA, SuSRC and damaged starch levels (in decreasing order). The
cookie diameter was negatively correlated with these variables, but
especially with the WRC values (r 0.82, p <0.0001) (Table 2).
PC2 only accounted for 6% of the cookie diameter variance and
was strongly positively determined by FDS, corrected LASRC, MDS,
FDDT, protein level and L. All these variables are more orthogonal to
the cookie diameter variable (Fig. 2) and unsuitable as parameters
to assess cookie diameter. For the current sample set, it seems that
especially our damaged starch level determined the observed
variability in cookie diameter (Fig. 2). Additionally, our protein
and AX levels also appeared to contribute to the variability in
cookie diameter. Flour WRC, indicative for the overall water holding
capacity of our polymers, correlated even better with cookie
diameter (r 0.82, p <0.0001) than our damaged starch level
(r 0.70, p <0.0001). Earlier studies already indicated the nega-
tive impact of high protein and AX levels on cookie diameter
(Manley, 2000; Pareyt et al., 2008).
In general, the PLS loading plot (Fig. 2) shows that WRC, P, SCSRC,
SuSRC and damaged starch level can well assess cookie diameter.
Flour damaged starch level, FWA, MWA and P were negatively
correlated with the cookie diameter (Table 2). Thus, the higher the
damaged starch level, the FWA and/or the MWA of the our, the
lesser water is available to dissolve the sugar during the cookie
doughpreparation. This leads tohigher doughviscosityanda slower
doughspreadduringthe bakingphaseandnallyresults ina smaller
Fig. 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) of measured variables: AX, arabinoxylan; corLASRC, corrected lactic acid solvent retention capacity; DS, damaged starch; FDDT, Far-
inograph dough development time; FDS, Farinograph dough stability; FWA, Farinograph water absorption; Ie, dough elasticity index; L, dough extensibility; LASRC, lactic acid
solvent retention capacity; MDDT, mixograph dough development time; MDS, Mixograph dough strength; MWA, Mixograph water absorption; P, dough tenacity; PC, principle
component; SCSRC, sodium carbonate solvent retention capacity; SuSRC, sucrose solvent retention capacity; W, dough deformation energy; WE-AX, water-extractable arabinoxylan;
WRC, water retention capacity; WU-AX, water-unextractable arabinoxylan; Zsed value, Zeleny sedimentation value. Two groups of variables can be distinguished: variables
sensitive for our protein level (d) and variables that are more sensitive for our damaged starch level (----).
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 60
cookie diameter (Gaines, Donelson, & Finney, 1988; Hoseney &
Rogers, 1994). As the Alveograph analyses were conducted at
a constant hydration, the higher the our water holdingcapacity, the
more water the our can bind, the stiffer the dough and the higher
the dough resistance to deformation (P) (Dexter et al., 1994).
Furthermore, cookie diameters were negatively correlated with
the WRC, as well as with the SCSRC and the SuSRC values, but no
signicant linear relation was observed with the LASRC values
(Table 2). Earlier, Gaines (2000) and Zhang, Zhang, Zhang, He, and
Pe na (2007) also observed a negative relation between sugar-
snap cookie diameters and WRC, SCSRC and SuSRC values of
North American and Chinese wheat ours, respectively. In addition,
Colombo et al. (2008) described a negative relation between the
ratio of cookie diameter to cookie height and the WRC, SCSRC and
SuSRC values of a set of Argentinian wheat ours. Although SRC
tests were initially developed for assessing the quality of our from
North American soft wheats, which has lower water absorption,
ner granulation and less starch damage than our from hard
wheats, the present and earlier studies (Colombo et al., 2008) show
the suitability of three out of four SRC readings for assessing the
quality of cookies from our from hard(er) wheats.
The WRC value was the best parameter to assess the cookie
diameter (Table 2). For this particular set of samples, ours with
higher WRC values resulted in cookies with smaller diameter. In
general, all analytical results indicative for our water holding
capacity were suitable to assess the cookie diameter.
3.4.2. Suitable parameters to assess bread making quality of our
Bread height and volume varied between 8.3 and 10.0 cm and
579 and 722 cm
3
, respectively (Table 1). As bread height was
strongly correlated with bread volume (r 0.97, p <0.0001), in the
following discussion, bread volume is taken as indicator for our
quality for bread making.
PLS regression analysis was used to visualize the predictive
value of SRC and conventional parameters (variables) for bread
volume (Fig. 3). PC1 accounted for 43% of the explained overall
variance and PC2 for 19%. PC1 explained 77% of the bread volume
variance and was strongly positively determined by FDS, protein
level, MDS, W, FDDT, Ie, corrected LASRC, Zeleny sedimentation
value and LASRC in decreasing order of importance. Hence, PC1 was
mostly determined by all variables reecting our protein level and
Table 2
Pearsons correlation coefcients between our and dough parameters [physico-
chemical, rheological and solvent retention capacity (SRC) readings] and end-
product parameters (cookie diameter and bread volume).
Cookie diameter
(mm)
Bread volume
(cm
3
)
Physico-chemical parameters
Damaged starch (g/100 g) 0.70*** ns
Protein (g/100 g) ns 0.73**
Zeleny sedimentation [Zsed] value (mL) ns 0.77**
Rheological parameters
Farinograph
Water absorption [FWA] (g/100 g) 0.69* ns
Dough development time [FDDT] (min) ns 0.69*
Dough stability [FDS] (min) ns 0.76**
Mixograph
Water absorption [MWA] (g/100 g) 0.60* ns
Dough development time [MDDT] (min) ns ns
Dough strength [MDS] (cm) ns 0.74**
Alveograph
Dough tenacity [P] (mm) 0.72** ns
Extensibility [L] (mm) ns 0.49
Dough deformation energy [W] (10
4
J) ns 0.72**
Elasticity index [Ie] (%) ns 0.80***
SRC parameters
Water retention capacity [WRC] (g/100 g) 0.82*** ns
Sodium carbonate SRC [SCRC] (g/100 g) 0.74** ns
Sucrose SRC [SuSRC] (g/100 g) 0.71** ns
Lactic acid SRC [LASRC] (g/100 g) ns 0.69*
Corrected LASRC [corLASRC] ns 0.75**
ns Not signicant (p >0.05).
*p <0.01, **p <0.001 and ***p <0.0001.
Fig. 2. Partial least square (PLS) regression analysis of all measured variables with cookie diameter as response variable (full circle). Abbreviations as in Fig. 1.
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 61
quality. Furthermore, PC1 was negatively determined by water-
unextractable and total AX levels, as well as by starch levels.
PC2 only accounted for 9% of the bread volume variance and was
strongly negatively determined by WRC, SCSRC and FWA. These
three variables do not assess bread volume.
Based on this loading plot (Fig. 3), protein level, Zeleny sedi-
mentation value, Farinograph, Mixograph, Alveograph and SRC
measurements can assess bread volume. A pronounced linear
relation was observed between bread volumes and protein levels
(Table 2). The higher the protein level, the better the ours
potential for bread making (Finney & Barmore, 1948). However,
other our characteristics also have an impact on our quality for
bread making. This is illustrated for example by FS9 and FS16.
While they had similar protein levels (12.3 g/100 g on dry matter
basis), results showa signicantly different bread volume (618 cm
3
and 651 cm
3
, respectively). Furthermore, PC1 was also strongly
negatively correlated with our water-unextractable AX level
(Fig. 3). This points to a negative contribution of the our water-
unextractable AX level to bread volume. Water-unextractable AX
can destabilize the dough structure, because they form physical
barriers for optimal dough development and gas cell stabilization
during bread making (Courtin & Delcour, 2002).
In general, for the present our sample set with a large variation
in protein levels (Table 1), all parameters related to our protein
level and/or quality were predictive for the bread volume. Farino-
graph, Mixograph, Alveograph, and Zeleny sedimentation, as well
as LASRC readings were suitable parameters to assess bread
volume. When the LASRC values were corrected for the contribu-
tion of non-gluten polymers (Kweon, Slade, et al., 2009), they
correlated even better with bread volumes (Table 2). Earlier, Xiao
et al. (2006) and Colombo et al. (2008) also observed a positive
correlation between the LASRC values and the loaf volumes in a set
of North American hard wheat ours and in a set of Argentinian
wheat ours, respectively. The latter studies also demonstrate the
suitability of the SRC tests, more specic the LASRC test, as asses-
sors for bread making quality of our from hard(er) wheats.
In addition, it is often desired to have a our with high FWA or
MWA and a workable dough with an acceptable dough stability.
The former is important, because bread is typically sold on weight
basis. Furthermore, bread volume increases when the percentage of
water, necessary to yield dough of a desired consistency after
mixing, increases (Roels, Cleemput, Vandewalle, Nys, & Delcour,
1993). As such, our WRC also has its value in assessing the
bread making quality of our, because WRC is indicative for the
overall water holding capacity of the our polymers and correlates
positively with FWA (r 0.72, p <0.0001) and to a lesser extent
with MWA (r 0.54, p <0.05). Dough stability is indicative for
capacity of dough to keep up with mixing and machining opera-
tions in commercial baking. Fig. 1 shows that FDS, a measure for
dough stability, is strongly positively related with all parameters
indicative for our protein level and/or quality, but negatively
related with our water-unextractable AX level.
4. Conclusions
The present work shows that it is impossible to assess the
quality of our for cookie or bread making with just one analytical
procedure. However, a good selection of analyses is, in most cases,
sufcient to adequately assess our quality.
SRC tests are suitable for assessing cookie quality of European
wheat ours, and are valuable alternative tests for commonly
applied methods such as the Farinograph, Mixograph and Alveo-
graph methods. The WRC and, to a lesser extent, also the SCSRC and
the SuSRC tests values are good tests to assess the diameter of
cookies from European wheat our.
WRC values even correlated better with the cookie diameter
than commonly applied analytical readings such as FWA, MWA or
Alveograph dough tenacity values. Methods that measure water
holding capacity based on the development of visco-elastic dough
(Farinograph, Mixograph and Alveograph) were less predictive for
the cookie diameter than the WRC results. Instead of determining
the entire SRC prole, our WRC seemed to be sufcient for
Fig. 3. Partial least square (PLS) regression analysis of all measured variables with bread volume as response variable (full circle). Abbreviations as in Fig. 1.
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 62
assessing cookie making quality of the our in the present study. In
addition, SCSRC and SuSRC values are useful indicators for the our
polymers responsible for the WRC of our and, hence, cookie
diameter. To a lesser extent, the SRC tests can be useful for assessing
straight-dough bread making quality of European wheat ours. The
LASRC test can assess the volume of bread, especially when the
obtained LASRC value is corrected for the contribution of non-
glutenin polymers by dividing the LASRC value by the sum of the
SCSRC and SuSRC values. Furthermore, WRC value can also have
predictive value for the bread making quality, because bread
volume typically increases when the percentage of water necessary
to yield dough of desired consistency after mixing, increases.
A general advantage of the SRC tests is that they are very
accessible and not very time consuming. Furthermore, they do not
require skilled labor to reveal information about the contribution of
different our constituents to the our quality. In addition, our
study shows that is not always necessary to determine the entire
SRC prole to evaluate our quality for a certain end-product.
Acknowledgments
Part of this work was carried out in the framework of a Flanders
FOOD (Brussels, Belgium) project. It is also part of the Methusalem
programme Food for the future (2007e2014) at the KU Leuven
(Leuven, Belgium). B. LagrainandE. Dornez wishtoacknowledge the
Research Foundation e Flanders (FWO, Brussels, Belgium) for their
position as postdoctoral researcher. The authors thank H.X. Zhu for
her helpwithconducting the cookie makingexperiments andMr. M.
Soubry (Soubry, Roeselare, Belgium) for making an Alveograph
available. Dr. J. Lammertyn (Division of Mechatronics, Biostatistics
and Sensors, this University) is thanked for advice on multivariate
analyses. The authors acknowledge valuable comments by Dr. R.C.
Hoseney (R&R Research Services, Manhattan, KS, USA), Drs. L. Slade
and H. Levine (Food Polymer Science Consultancy, Morris Plains, NJ,
USA) and Dr. Ir. B. Pareyt (Laboratory of Food Chemistry and
Biochemistry and LFoRCe, this University).
References
AACCI. (2000). Approved methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists. St.
Paul, MN, USA: AACC International.
Barrera, G. N., Prez, G. T., Ribotta, P. D., & Len, A. E. (2007). Inuence of damaged
starch on cookie and bread-making quality. European Food Research and Tech-
nology, 225, 1e7.
Bettge, A., Rubenthaler, G. L., & Pomeranz, Y. (1989). Alveograph algorithms to
predict functional-properties of wheat in bread and cookie baking. Cereal
Chemistry, 66, 81e86.
Bettge, A. D., Morris, C. F., DeMacon, V. L., & Kidwell, K. K. (2002). Adaptation of
AACC method 56-11, solvent retention capacity, for use as an early generation
selection tool for cultivar development. Cereal Chemistry, 79, 670e674.
Colombo, A., Prez, G. T., Ribotta, P. D., & Len, A. E. (2008). A comparative study of
physicochemical tests for quality prediction of Argentine wheat ours used as
corrector ours and for cookie production. Journal of Cereal Science, 48, 775e780.
Courtin, C. M., & Delcour, J. A. (2002). Arabinoxylans and endoxylanases in wheat
our bread-making. Journal of Cereal Science, 35, 225e243.
Delcour, J. A., & Hoseney, R. C. (2010). Principles of cereal science and technology. St.
Paul, MN, USA: AACC International.
Dexter, J. E., Preston, K. R., Martin, D. G., & Gander, E. J. (1994). The effects of protein
content and starch damage on the physical dough properties and bread-making
quality of Canadian durum-wheat. Journal of Cereal Science, 20, 139e151.
Duyvejonck, E. A., Lagrain, B., Pareyt, B., Courtin, C. M., & Delcour, J. A. (2011).
Relative contribution of wheat our constituents to solvent retention capacity
proles of European wheats. Journal of Cereal Science, 53, 312e318.
Finney, K. F. (1984). An optimized, straight-dough, bread-making method after 44
years. Cereal Chemistry, 61, 20e27.
Finney, K. F., & Barmore, M. A. (1948). Loaf volume and protein content of hard
winter and spring wheats. Cereal Chemistry, 25, 291e312.
Finney, P. L., & Andrews, L. C. (1986). Revised microtesting for soft wheat quality
evaluation. Cereal Chemistry, 63, 177e182.
Gaines, C. S. (2000). Collaborative study of methods for solvent retention capacity
proles (AACC method 56-11). Cereal Foods World, 45, 303e306.
Gaines, C. S., Donelson, J. R., & Finney, P. L. (1988). Effects of damaged starch,
chlorine gas, our particle-size, and dough holding time and temperature on
cookie dough handling properties and cookie size. Cereal Chemistry, 65,
384e389.
Gaines, C. S., & Finney, P. L. (1989). Effects of selected commercial enzymes on
cookie spread an cookie dough consistency. Cereal Chemistry, 66, 73e78.
Gaines, C. S., Reid, J. F., Vander Kant, C., & Morris, C. F. (2006). Comparison of
methods for gluten strength assessment. Cereal Chemistry, 83, 284e286.
Garca-lvarez, J., Salazar, J., & Rosell, C. M. (2011). Ultrasonic study of wheat our
properties. Ultrasonics, 51, 223e228.
Guttieri, M. J., Bowen, D., Gannon, D., OBrien, K., & Souza, E. (2001). Solvent
retention capacities of irrigated soft white spring wheat ours. Crop Science, 41,
1054e1061.
Guttieri, M. J., & Souza, E. (2003). Sources of variation in the solvent retention
capacity test of wheat our. Crop Science, 43, 1628e1633.
Guttieri, M. J., Souza, E. J., & Sneller, C. (2008). Nonstarch polysaccharides in wheat
our wire-cut cookie making. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56,
10927e10933.
Haynes, L. C., Bettge, A. D., & Slade, L. (2009). Soft wheat and our products
methods review: solvent retention capacity equation correction. AACC Inter-
national Report, 54, 174e175.
Hoseney, R. C., & Rogers, D. E. (1994). Mechanism of sugar functionality in cookies.
In H. Faridi (Ed.), The science of cookie and cracker production (pp. 203e225). St.
Paul, MN, USA: AACC International.
ICC. (1980). Standard methods. Vienna, Austria.
Khattak, S., DAppolonia, B. L., & Banasik, O. J. (1974). Use of alveograph for quality
evaluation of hard red spring wheat. Cereal Chemistry, 51, 355e363.
Kweon, M., Martin, R., & Souza, E. (2009). Effect of tempering conditions on milling
performance and our functionality. Cereal Chemistry, 86, 12e17.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., & Levine, H. (2011). Solvent retention capacity (SRC) testing of
wheat our: principles and value in predicting our functionality in different
wheat-based food processes and in wheat breeding e a review. Cereal Chem-
istry, 88, 537e552.
Kweon, M., Slade, L., Levine, H., Martin, R., Andrews, L., & Souza, E. (2009). Effects of
extent of chlorination, extraction rate, and particle size reduction on our and
gluten functionality explored by solvent retention capacity (SRC) and mixo-
graph. Cereal Chemistry, 86, 221e224.
Manley, D. (2000). Technology of biscuits, crackers and cookies. Cambridge, UK:
Woodhead Publishing.
Pareyt, B., & Delcour, J. A. (2008). The role of wheat our constituents, sugar and fat
in low moisture cereal based products: a review on sugar-snap cookies. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 48, 1e16.
Pareyt, B., Wilderjans, E., Goesaert, H., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. A. (2008). The role of
gluten in a sugar-snap cookie system: a model approach based on gluten-starch
blends. Journal of Cereal Science, 48, 863e869.
Pike, P. R., & MacRitchie, F. (2004). Protein composition and quality of some new
hard white winter wheats. Crop Science, 44, 173e176.
Ram, S., Dawar, V., Singh, R. P., & Shoran, J. (2005). Application of solvent retention
capacity tests for the prediction of mixing properties of wheat our. Journal of
Cereal Science, 42, 261e266.
Roels, S. P., Cleemput, G., Vandewalle, X., Nys, M., & Delcour, J. A. (1993). Bread
volume potential of variable-quality ours with constant protein level as
determined by factors governing mixing time and baking absorption levels.
Cereal Chemistry, 70, 318e323.
Slade, L., & Levine, H. (1994). Structureefunction relationships of cookie and
cracker ingredients. In H. Faridi (Ed.), The science of cookie and cracker
production (pp. 23e141). New York, NY, USA: Chapman & Hall.
Tanilli, V. H. (1976). Characteristics of wheat and our for cookie and cracker
production. Cereal Foods World, 21, 624e644.
Xiao, Z. S., Park, S. H., Chung, O. K., Caley, M. S., & Seib, P. A. (2006). Solvent retention
capacity values in relation to hard winter wheat and our properties and
straight-dough breadmaking quality. Cereal Chemistry, 83, 465e471.
Zeleny, L. (1947). A simple sedimentation test for estimating the bread-baking and
gluten qualities of wheat our. Cereal Chemistry, 24, 465e475.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., He, Z., & Pe na, R. J. (2007). Effects of solvent
retention capacities, pentosan content, and dough rheological properties on
sugar snap cookie quality in Chinese soft wheat genotypes. Crop Science, 47,
656e664.
A.E. Duyvejonck et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2012) 56e63 63