Abstract
Flours from various wheat varieties varied in gluten strength were blended in varying proportions and evaluated for pasting and dough rheological properties. The different blends of strong: very weak/weak/medium flour (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100) (w/w) were prepared. Two strong and three weak wheat varieties were selected for this study on the basis of Farinograph dough stability (DS). Strong wheat (HUW468 and HP1761), medium weak (HUW234), weak (HD2894) and very weak (WH1021) wheat variety had DS of 11.4–13.5 min, 9.9 min, 6.2 min, and 2.8 min, respectively. Protein content of the flour decreased with increase in proportion of weak wheat flours in the blends. The lowest values of protein content, paste viscosities and mixographic parameters were observed for blend of strong and very weak wheat flour (25:75). The blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased the protein content and mixographic properties. The regression equations for blending of weak wheat with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient for paste viscosities (Peak, final, breakdown and setback) and pasting temperature indicated that the greatest change in these properties with increase in blending level of weak wheat. The blending of weak wheat with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient indicating the greatest change in MPT as the blending level was increased. The blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flour with strong wheat flour showed significant effect on G′ and G″. The flours with variable dough rheological properties suitable for different products can be produced by blending strong and weak wheat flour.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1007/s13197-019-03759-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Keywords: Wheat flour blends, Pasting, Mixograph, Rheology
Introduction
Wheat is classified into different types on the basis of planting season, grain color and hardness. Wheat is generally divided into hard and soft wheat varieties depending on the way of breakage of endosperm. The endosperm of hard wheat adhere tightly while the endosperm of soft wheat break down very easily during milling and helps in determining the suitability of flour for different products. Hard wheat with protein content of 10–14% used for bread making whereas soft wheat with protein content of 8–10% is preferred for muffins, cookies and cake making (Delcour et al. 2012). Haddad et al. (1999) reported that increase in virtuousness of endosperm resulted into higher yield of hard wheat flour. The functionality of flours is affected by various factors such as kind of wheat varieties, variation in grain hardness variability due to the variation in season and growing conditions (Gaines et al. 1996). The dough rheological properties were largely affected by absorption of water, salt, elasticity of gluten and damaged starch (Ren et al. 2008). Blending of wheat flour varied either in their gluten strength, protein content and dough stability required to meet the miller’s requirements to deliver flour to customers in terms of both functional attributes and composition. Blending of wheat flour is done to complete the consumer preferences which are a crucial part of production process that enables millers to provide consistent flour to their customer in terms of both composition and functional quality. Posner and Hibbs (2005) reported that the different wheat flours were blend before or after milling to yield dough with good handling properties during processing and help in achieving good product quality. The industrial approach of blending flours had been done to improve the protein content and other properties of flour. Gwirtz et al. (2006) reported that the products such as crackers and doughnuts were usually prepared with the blends of hard and soft wheat flours in North America. Morris (1992) demonstrated the effect of blending of hard and soft white winter wheat grown in the northwest region of US. Gwirtz et al. (2006) reported that cake doughnuts required 50:50 blend ratio of flour produced from hard and soft wheat while yeasted doughnuts required 30:70 blend ratio of flour produced from hard and soft wheat. Hard and soft wheat quality had diverse array of products require various flour quality targets as well as a lack of understanding of the genetic basis and control of those quality parameters (Bock and Seetharaman 2012). The objective of current study was to see the effect of blending strong wheat flour with highly weak, weak and medium wheat flour on composition, pasting and dough empirical rheological properties that might help in improving functional properties, product quality and processing performance of flours.
Materials and methods
Materials
Wheat varieties (HUW468 and HP1761) with dough stability (DS) ranged from 11.4 to 13.5 min considered as strong wheat were blended with wheat varieties with very weak (WH1021, DS = 2.8 min), weak (HD2894, DS = 6.2 min) and medium (HUW234, DS = 9.9 min) wheat varieties (Singh et al. 2016). These classes of wheat flour were classified in terms of gluten strength. Blends were prepared by mixing strong wheat flour with very weak, weak and medium wheat flours on a dry weight basis to ensure uniform dry matter contributions. Five different levels of blending were obtained with the ratios of strong flour: very weak/weak/medium flour (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100) (w/w).
Methods
Protein content
The protein content of various composite flours was done determined using AOAC methods (1990).
Pasting properties
The pasting properties of various composite flours were evaluated as described earlier by Singh et al. (2016).
Mixographic characteristics
The dough mixing properties of various composite flours were analyzed as described earlier by Singh et al. (2016).
Dynamic rheology of dough
Dynamic rheology of dough was performed using a RheoStress 6000 controlled stress rheometer (Haake, Karlsruhe, Germany) equipped with a Phoenix II P1-C25P refrigeration circulation bath as described earlier (Kaur et al. 2013).
Statistical analysis
The data obtained were subjected to two-way ANOVA to find out significant difference in different properties amongst various varieties. The relationship between different properties was established by Pearson correlation (r) analysis. The statistical analysis was carried out by using Minitab Release 14 Statistical Software (Soft College, PA, USA).
Results and discussions
Protein content
The protein content of flour milled from various wheat varieties ranged from 11.46 to 12.3% (Table 1). Figure 1 illustrates the protein content of composite flours prepared using flours of wheat varieties varied in flour gluten strength. Regression equation for protein content as a function of blending levels of flours from strong and weak wheat gluten is shown in supplementary Table 1a. The quadratic and exponential equations for the relationship of protein content with blending levels of flours from wheat with gluten strength showed R2 values of more than 0.99 (supplementary Table 1a). Figure 1 illustrated the effect of blending level of different flours on protein content of composite flours. The blending of very weak, weak and medium-weak wheat flour with strong wheat flour showed significant effect on protein content. The regression equations for blending of weak wheat with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient of protein content. This indicated that the protein content changed to the greatest extent as blending level of weak flour in strong wheat flour was increased. The difference in protein content among the varieties may be due to genetic difference between strong and weak wheat flour. Strong wheat (HP1761) flour showed the highest protein content while very weak flour showed the lowest. Kaur et al. (2014) and Singh et al. (2011) reported similar values of protein content for various Indian wheat varieties. The protein content of highly weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat (HUW468) flour ranged from 11.06 to 11.37%. Issarny et al. (2017) reported similar range of protein content when Canadian hard red wheat flour was blended with soft red wheat flour (7.2–12.1%). They reported the lowest values of protein content for hard and soft wheat flour blend (25:75). The presence of soft wheat flour in the blend was negatively correlated with protein content (Issarny et al. 2017). Greenblatt et al. (1995) indicated that the bound polar lipids found mainly on the surface of starch particles in soft wheat classes has close relationship with friabilin, but they were absent on the surface of starch of hard wheat cultivars. The statistical analysis showed a significant effect of varieties and blending level on protein content; however varieties showed more pronounced effect as compared to blending level. The statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of weak gluten varieties and blending level on protein content (Table 3). The composite flours from strong wheat (HUW468) and very weak wheat flour in the ratio of 25:75 and 0:100 showed lower protein content. The results reflected that the protein content of the composite flour progressively decreased with decrease in proportion of strong wheat flour. Morris (1992) studied the effect of blending on baking and milling quality and linear relationship was observed for protein content and water absorption in blends of hard winter and soft spring wheat grown in the northwest region of US.
Table 1.
Effect of blending of flours from very-weak, weak and medium wheat varieties with flours from strong common wheat varieties on protein content and pasting properties
| Varieties | Blend proportion | Protein content (%) | PV (cP) | FV (cP) | BDV (cP) | SBV (cP) | PT (°C) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
HUW468:WH1021 (Strong wheat: very weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 11.46 ± 0.04 | 2840 ± 116 | 2773 ± 119 | 1459 ± 49 | 1392 ± 52 | 61.57 ± 0.2 |
| 75 | 25 | 11.33 ± 0.03 | 2868 ± 120 | 2777 ± 120 | 1478 ± 50 | 1387 ± 50 | 60.17 ± 0.1 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.20 ± 0.02 | 2559 ± 90 | 2672 ± 104 | 1221 ± 24 | 1334 ± 38 | 62.63 ± 0.03 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.06 ± 0.04 | 2288 ± 80 | 2580 ± 79 | 1013 ± 39 | 1305 ± 38 | 60.10 ± 0.1 | |
| 0 | 100 | 10.93 ± 0.03 | 2155 ± 85 | 2526 ± 81 | 911 ± 42 | 1282 ± 38 | 60.23 ± 0.1 | |
|
HUW468:HD2894 (Strong wheat: weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 11.46 ± 0.03 | 2878 ± 116 | 2779 ± 119 | 1497 ± 49 | 1398 ± 52 | 61.16 ± 0.2 |
| 75 | 25 | 11.37 ± 0.01 | 2877 ± 124 | 2759 ± 116 | 1502 ± 61 | 1384 ± 53 | 64.53 ± 0.3 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.27 ± 0.03 | 2886 ± 118 | 2723 ± 109 | 1516 ± 50 | 1353 ± 41 | 64.48 ± 0.02 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.18 ± 0.02 | 2922 ± 133 | 2648 ± 100 | 1588 ± 66 | 1314 ± 33 | 61.59 ± 0.01 | |
| 0 | 100 | 11.08 ± 0.02 | 2847 ± 126 | 2531 ± 76 | 1535 ± 72 | 1219 ± 22 | 62.07 ± 0.05 | |
|
HUW468:HUW234 (Strong wheat: medium wheat) |
100 | 0 | 11.46 ± 0.04 | 2878 ± 116 | 2779 ± 119 | 1497 ± 49 | 1398 ± 52 | 61.16 ± 0.31 |
| 75 | 25 | 11.35 ± 0.05 | 2858 ± 138 | 2771 ± 117 | 1478 ± 68 | 1391 ± 47 | 61.07 ± 0.03 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.23 ± 0.02 | 2763 ± 115 | 2775 ± 120 | 1413 ± 51 | 1425 ± 56 | 61.09 ± 0.01 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.12 ± 0.02 | 2598 ± 91 | 2698 ± 112 | 1289 ± 22 | 1389 ± 43 | 61.07 ± 0.02 | |
| 0 | 100 | 11.00 ± 0.02 | 2540 ± 101 | 2675 ± 107 | 1237 ± 44 | 1372 ± 50 | 60.55 ± 0.05 | |
|
HP1761:WH1021 (Strong wheat: very weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 12.30 ± 0.3 | 2652 ± 109 | 2709 ± 113 | 1316 ± 43 | 1373 ± 47 | 61.63 ± 0.03 |
| 75 | 25 | 11.96 ± 0.02 | 2636 ± 101 | 2694 ± 106 | 1294 ± 40 | 1352 ± 45 | 61.12 ± 0.1 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.62 ± 0.02 | 2456 ± 95 | 2665 ± 99 | 1140 ± 40 | 1349 ± 44 | 61.57 ± 0.04 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.27 ± 0.03 | 2290 ± 88 | 2604 ± 89 | 1004 ± 38 | 1318 ± 39 | 61.08 ± 0.02 | |
| 0 | 100 | 10.93 ± 0.03 | 2155 ± 85 | 2526 ± 81 | 911 ± 42 | 1282 ± 38 | 60.23 ± 0.1 | |
|
HP1761:HD2894 (Strong wheat: weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 12.30 ± 0.03 | 2652 ± 109 | 2709 ± 113 | 1316 ± 43 | 1373 ± 47 | 61.63 ± 0.03 |
| 75 | 25 | 12.00 ± 0.02 | 2684 ± 105 | 2696 ± 97 | 1352 ± 45 | 1364 ± 37 | 60.11 ± 0.05 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.69 ± 0.02 | 2791 ± 112 | 2652 ± 101 | 1463 ± 57 | 1324 ± 46 | 64.47 ± 0.2 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.39 ± 0.01 | 2808 ± 120 | 2581 ± 83 | 1504 ± 69 | 1277 ± 32 | 61.05 ± 0.05 | |
| 0 | 100 | 11.08 ± 0.02 | 2847 ± 126 | 2531 ± 76 | 1535 ± 72 | 1219 ± 22 | 62.07 ± 0.05 | |
|
HP1761:HUW234 (Strong wheat: weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 12.30 ± 0.3 | 2652 ± 109 | 2709 ± 113 | 1316 ± 43 | 1373 ± 47 | 61.63 ± 0.03 |
| 75 | 25 | 11.98 ± 0.02 | 2653 ± 109 | 2726 ± 110 | 1294 ± 51 | 1367 ± 52 | 60.11 ± 0.1 | |
| 50 | 50 | 11.65 ± 0.05 | 2470 ± 98 | 2694 ± 106 | 1118 ± 38 | 1342 ± 46 | 62.06 ± 0.04 | |
| 25 | 75 | 11.33 ± 0.03 | 2313 ± 89 | 2733 ± 115 | 963 ± 28 | 1383 ± 54 | 62.06 ± 0.05 | |
| 0 | 100 | 11.00 ± 0.02 | 2540 ± 101 | 2675 ± 107 | 1237 ± 44 | 1372 ± 50 | 60.55 ± 0.05 | |
Data represented as mean value ± SD. Strong wheat (HUW468 and HP1761), very weak (WH1021), weak (HD2894) and medium (HUW234)
BDV breakdown viscosity, FV final viscosity, PT pasting temperature, PV peak viscosity, SBV setback viscosity
Fig. 1.
Regression analysis of blending of flours from very-weak, weak and medium wheat varieties with flours from strong (HUW468) common wheat varieties
Table 3.
F values from two-way ANOVA analysis of the (strong gluten wheat varieties versus level of blends and weak gluten wheat varieties versus level of blends) reported in Tables 1 and 2
| Parameters | Strong gluten wheat varieties × level of blends | Weak gluten wheat varieties × level of blends | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong gluten wheat varieties | Level of blends | Interaction | Weak gluten wheat varieties | Level of blends | Interaction | |
| Protein content (%) | 445.08** | 242.77** | 55.63** | 0.50 | 24.84** | 0.06 |
| PV (cP) | 10.20** | 5.50** | 0.75 | 43.61** | 13.33** | 7.97** |
| FV (cP) | 3.07* | 8.56** | 0.49 | 4.68* | 9.15** | 0.82 |
| BDV (cP) | 10.28** | 3.94** | 0.67 | 74.68** | 13.88** | 12.90** |
| SBV (cP) | 2.57 | 8.56** | 0.26 | 15.07** | 13.58** | 3.44** |
| PT (°C) | 0.67 | 8.62** | 2.45* | 29.70** | 17.09** | 5.62** |
| MPT | 1.97 | 6.81** | 3.00* | 130.54** | 33.75** | 16.22** |
| MPV | 2.28 | 205.20** | 13.96** | 1.24 | 130.21** | 1.27 |
| MPW | 5.22** | 51.82** | 15.99** | 3.02* | 33.23** | 1.83* |
| LPV | 3.43* | 9.20** | 0.64 | 35.87** | 50.00** | 40.07** |
| LPW | 1.96 | 10.92** | 6.61** | 1.39 | 11.99** | 5.16** |
| RPV | 1.32 | 195.26** | 9.87** | 0.53 | 147.01** | 1.86* |
| RPW | 21.28** | 143.58** | 45.09** | 3.16* | 44.49** | 0.75 |
| G′ | 29.27** | 249.23** | 20.18** | 9.76** | 156.86** | 3.14** |
| G″ | 23.43** | 137.10** | 17.93** | 6.88** | 90.34** | 3.33** |
| Tanδ | 0.13 | 19.54** | 0.98 | 71.79** | 76.83 | 13.98** |
BDV breakdown viscosity, FV final viscosity, G′ elastic modulus, G″ viscous modulus, LPV left peak value, LPW left peak width, MPT mixograph peak time, MPV mixograph peak value, MPW mixograph peak width, PT pasting temperature, PV peak viscosity, RPV right peak value, RPW right peak width, SBV setback viscosity
* = significant (p ≤ 0.05); ** = highly significant (p ≤ 0.005)
Pasting properties
Pasting properties of composite flours made by blending strong wheat varieties flours with very weak, weak and medium-weak wheat flours in different ratio (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100, w/w) are shown in Table 1. ANOVA showed a significant effect of varieties and blending level on pasting properties. The statistical analysis showed a significant effect of weak gluten varieties and blending level on pasting parameters (Table 3). Figure 1 illustrates the effect of blending of strong gluten wheat varieties with very weak, weak and medium wheat varieties on pasting properties. Supplementary Table 1a showed the regression coefficients and coefficients of determination for all pasting parameters on blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flour with strong wheat flour. The results indicated that with increase in proportion of very weak wheat flour in both strong wheat flours (HUW468 and HP1761) progressively decreased pasting parameters. The blending of weak wheat with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient (slope) indicating the greatest change in PV, FV, BDV, SBV and PT was observed with increase in blending level of weak wheat. The results indicated that with increase in proportion of weak wheat flour in both strong wheat flours PV and BDV progressively increased. The results indicated that with increase in proportion of weak wheat flour in both the strong wheat flours, FV and SBV progressively decreased. Flour from strong wheat (HUW468) showed the highest whereas flour from very weak wheat variety showed the lowest PV, FV and BDV. The difference in pasting properties with the blending of very weak, weak and medium flours may be because of difference in protein content and composition in these flours. Strong wheat flour (HUW468) had the lowest proportion of UnEx-MP and the highest proportion of UnEx-PP, therefore the protein content decreased on blending of strong wheat flour with very weak, weak and medium wheat flour (Katyal et al. 2016). PV, FV and BV were observed to be related to the protein content. Flours with higher protein content showed higher PV, FV and BV and vice versa. Therefore on blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased the protein content and consequently PV and BV. FV and SBV positively correlated with protein content. PV, FV, BDV, SBV and PT of different wheat varieties ranged from 2155 to 2878 cP, 2526 to 2779 cP, 911 to 1497 cP, 1219 to 1398 cP and 60.23 to 62.07 °C. PV, FV, BDV, SBV and PT of very weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat (HUW468) flours ranged from 2288 to 2922 cP, 2580 to 2777 cP, 1013 to 1588 cP, 1305 to 1425 cP and 60.1 to 64.53 °C. The results indicated that addition of medium wheat flour in strong wheat flour up to 75:25 ratios did not change FV and further increase of medium wheat flour in strong wheat (HUW468) flour led to decrease FV. The results indicated that an increase in proportion of weak wheat flour in strong wheat flours caused a progressive decrease in PV and BDV. Lu and Seetharaman (2014) reported that FV decreased while BDV increased on blending of Ontario hard and soft red winter wheat at ratio of 0:100. Very weak wheat (75%) flour had the lowest values for all pasting parameters which showed that the addition of 75% very weak wheat flour in strong wheat (HUW468) flour decreased all the pasting properties. The lowest values of paste viscosities were observed for strong wheat (HUW468) and very weak wheat flour blend in the ratio of 25:75. The highest PV was observed for strong wheat (HUW468) and medium wheat flour blend in the ratio of 25:75. PV, FV, BDV, SBV and PT of very weak flour blend with strong wheat (HUW468) flour ranged from 2288 to 2868 cP, 2580 to 2777 cP, 1013 to 1478 cP, 1305 to 1387 cP and 60.10 to 60.17 °C, while PV, FV, BDV, SBV and PT of very weak flour blended with strong wheat (HP1761) flour ranged from 2290 to 2288 cP, 2604 to 2733 cP, 1004 to 1504 cP, 1318 to 1383 cP and 60.11 to 62.06 °C. The lowest values for paste viscosities were observed for strong wheat (HP1761) and very weak wheat flours blended in the ratio of 25:75. The highest value of PV was observed for strong wheat (HP1761) and weak wheat flour blended in the ratio of 25:75. The pasting properties of blended flour decreased with increase in the addition of very weak and medium wheat varieties but PV and BDV increase with increase in the addition of weak wheat in strong wheat flour. Hatcher et al. (2009) reported the change in pasting properties on blending of durum and hard white wheat flour. There was a decrease in PV and FV with an increase in ratio of durum wheat flour in the blend. Lu and Seetharaman (2014) also reported that HWF demonstrated more favorable pasting properties except for lower PV or noodle making than standard noodle flour. Choy et al. (2013) reported the effect of incorporation of buckwheat flour (0–40%) with Australian Soft (AS) and Baker’s flours on noodle making quality. Pasting profile of blending of very-weak, weak and medium-strong with strong common wheat varieties is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Pasting profile of blending of flours from very-weak, weak and medium wheat varieties with flours from strong common wheat varieties
Mixographic characteristics
The relationship between mixographic properties and blending levels for various wheat varieties were plotted on graph (Fig. 1). The R2 values for different varieties for relationship between MPT and blending levels of various flours varying in strength ranged between 0.922 and 0.997 (supplementary Table 1b). Figure 1 illustrated the effect of blending level of different flours on protein content of composite flours. The blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flour with strong wheat flour showed significant effect on MPT. The blending of weak wheat with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient (slope) indicating the greatest change in MPT as the blending level was increased (supplementary Table 1b). The difference in mixographic properties with the blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flours might be due to variation in protein content and composition in these flours. MPT, MPV and LPV were observed to be related to the protein content. Flours with higher protein content showed higher MPT, MPV and LPV and vice versa. Therefore on blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased the protein content that consequently changed mixographic properties. MPT and MPW of dough made from meal obtained from various durum wheat accessions ranged from 1.14 to 6.59 min and 15.34 to 60.58%, respectively (Katyal et al. 2018). The increase in proportion of very weak wheat flour in both strong wheat flours led to progressive decrease in MPT and LPV. The results reflected that addition of very weak wheat flour in strong wheat flours up to 75:25 ratio decreased MPW, RPV and RPW and further addition led to increase in these. The increase in proportion of very weak wheat flour in strong wheat flour (HUW468) decreased LPW. Mixographic properties of strong wheat (HUW468 and HP1761) and very weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended in ratio of 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100 (w/w) resulted was significantly varied between varieties and blending levels (Table 2). MPT, MPV, LPV, RPV, MPW, LPW and RPW of different varieties varied from 2.49 to 4.65 min, 58.52 to 64.51%, 19.84 to 41.42%, 27.91 to 60.55%, 24.39 to 41.42%, 57.46 to 60.54%, and 15.46 to 39.04%. Very weak variety flour had the lowest whereas strong wheat (HUW468) flour had the highest MPT. LPV was the highest for medium wheat flour and the lowest for very weak flour. LPW was the highest for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and the lowest for very weak flour. The lowest values of mixographic parameters were observed for strong wheat flour blended with highly weak wheat flour in the ratio of 25:75. The highest value of mixograph peak time was observed for strong wheat flour blended with medium wheat flour in the ratio of 75:25. MPT and MPV for different hard, medium hard and extraordinarily soft wheat varieties ranged from 2.6 to 6.40 min, 32.75 to 48.03%, respectively (Katyal et al. 2017). Oak et al. (2006) reported that the dough with more MPT and wider MPW resulted into stable and strong dough. The addition of weak wheat flour in both strong wheat flours up to 75:25 ratio decreased MPV, LPV and RPV and further addition caused some improvement in these values. MPT and LPV had positive correlation with PV. MPT and MPW had positive correlation with FV (r = 0.729 and 0.342 respectively, p ≤ 0.005). This clearly indicated that varieties or blends with higher FV and PV took longer time to develop the dough with optimum consistency. MPT and MPW showed positive correlation with SBV. The blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flour with strong wheat flour showed significant effect on MPV. The blending of very weak flour with strong wheat flour had the highest regression coefficient (slope) indicating the greatest change in MPV as the blending level was increased. ANOVA revealed significant effect of varieties and blending level on all mixographic parameters. The statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of weak and strong wheat flours and blending level on mixographic properties (Table 3). The addition of medium wheat flour in strong wheat flour up to 75:25 ratio decreased MPV, LPV and RPV and further addition led to an increase. The mixographic parameters of very weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat flour ranged from 2.6 to 4.35 min, 38.84 to 48.35%, 15.85 to 31.96%, 36.09 to 46.84%, 18.10 to 38.91%, 35.84 to 46.55% and 9.16 to 22.49%. Very weak flour (75%) showed the lowest values for all mixographic parameters which showed that the addition of 75% very weak flour in strong wheat (HUW468) flour decreased all the pasting properties. The lowest values of all mixographic parameters were observed for strong wheat flour (HUW468) and very weak flour when blended in the ratio of 75:25. The highest MPT was observed for HUW468 and HD2894 blended in the ratio of 75:25. The highest MPV, LPV and RPV were observed for strong wheat flour (HUW468) and very weak wheat flour when blended in the ratio of 75:25. The mixographic parameters of very weak flour blended with strong wheat flour ranged from 2290 to 2288 cP, 2604 to 2733 cP, 1004 to 1504 cP, 1318 to 1383 cP and 60.11 to 62.06 °C. The mixographic parameters of highly weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat flour (HP1761) ranged from 2.86 to 4.41 min, 37.38 to 45.32%, 16.02 to 26.75%, 35.89 to 42.47%, 17.99 to 32.79%, 36.70 to 43.73 and 8.91 to 17.42%. The highest MPT was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and medium wheat flour blended in the ratio of 75:25. The lowest value of MPV, MPW, LPW and RPV was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and medium wheat flour blended in the ratio of 75:25. Mixograms of blending of very-weak, weak and medium-strong with strong common wheat flours is shown in Fig. 3.
Table 2.
Effect of blending of flours from very-weak, weak and medium wheat varieties with strong common wheat varieties on mixographic and rheological properties
| Varieties | Blend proportion | MPT (min) | MPV (%) | MPW (%) | LPV (%) | LPW (%) | RPV (%) | RPW (%) | G′ (Pa) | G″ (Pa) | Tanδ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
HUW468:WH1021 (Strong wheat: very weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 4.65 ± 0.05 | 58.52 ± 3.2 | 27.99 ± 2.60 | 56.65 ± 3.60 | 30.30 ± 2.6 | 57.46 ± 3.9 | 22.37 ± 2.19 | 97,620 ± 1005 | 26,391 ± 499 | 0.270 ± 0.27 |
| 75 | 25 | 3.49 ± 0.01 | 48.35 ± 2.9 | 20.04 ± 2.05 | 46.84 ± 2.46 | 29.15 ± 2.3 | 46.55 ± 3.1 | 13.82 ± 1.6 | 23,970 ± 590 | 9311 ± 166 | 0.388 ± 0.39 | |
| 50 | 50 | 2.96 ± 0.02 | 47.77 ± 3.00 | 19.46 ± 1.99 | 45.72 ± 2.43 | 38.79 ± 2.9 | 44.81 ± 2.88 | 12.03 ± 1.19 | 23,130 ± 560 | 9411 ± 159 | 0.407 ± 0.41 | |
| 25 | 75 | 2.6 ± 0.03 | 38.84 ± 2.6 | 15.85 ± 1.40 | 36.09 ± 2.29 | 18.10 ± 1.5 | 35.84 ± 2.49 | 9.16 ± 0.87 | 15,330 ± 290 | 6597 ± 110 | 0.430 ± 0.43 | |
| 0 | 100 | 2.49 ± 0.06 | 64.51 ± 4.5 | 24.39 ± 2.45 | 27.91 ± 2.42 | 24.39 ± 2.05 | 60.54 ± 3.94 | 15.72 ± 1.19 | 3489 ± 101 | 1388 ± 79 | 0.398 ± 0.39 | |
|
HUW468:HD2894 (Strong wheat: weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 4.65 ± 0.05 | 58.52 ± 3.2 | 27.99 ± 2.60 | 56.65 ± 3.60 | 30.30 ± 2.6 | 57.46 ± 3.9 | 22.37 ± 2.19 | 97,620 ± 1005 | 26,391 ± 499 | 0.270 ± 0.27 |
| 75 | 25 | 4.35 ± 0.05 | 43.58 ± 3.12 | 24.69 ± 2.36 | 42.55 ± 2.26 | 31.06 ± 2.66 | 42.04 ± 2.86 | 19.16 ± 1.29 | 32,260 ± 650 | 11,836 ± 319 | 0.367 ± 0.36 | |
| 50 | 50 | 4.35 ± 0.01 | 42.85 ± 3.19 | 22.73 ± 2.34 | 41.57 ± 2.19 | 26.25 ± 2.09 | 40.99 ± 2.69 | 20.55 ± 1.31 | 32,640 ± 590 | 11,769 ± 226 | 0.361 ± 0.36 | |
| 25 | 75 | 3.65 ± 0.02 | 44.43 ± 3.22 | 24.45 ± 2.52 | 43.63 ± 2.39 | 33.83 ± 2.75 | 42.91 ± 2.81 | 14.22 ± 0.99 | 30,330 ± 560 | 11,299 ± 204 | 0.373 ± 0.37 | |
| 0 | 100 | 3.41 ± 0.01 | 63.51 ± 4.11 | 19.84 ± 1.86 | 59.7 ± 3.76 | 27.00 ± 1.99 | 60.37 ± 3.74 | 17.27 ± 1.14 | 32,104 ± 575 | 10,162 ± 186 | 0.317 ± 0.32 | |
|
HUW468:HUW234 (Strong wheat: medium wheat) |
100 | 0 | 4.65 ± 0.03 | 58.52 ± 3.20 | 27.99 ± 2.60 | 56.65 ± 3.60 | 30.30 ± 2.6 | 57.46 ± 3.9 | 22.37 ± 2.19 | 97,620 ± 1005 | 26,391 ± 499 | 0.270 ± 0.27 |
| 75 | 25 | 4.00 ± 0.05 | 45.29 ± 2.72 | 31.96 ± 2.78 | 41.13 ± 2.39 | 25.82 ± 2.05 | 44.62 ± 2.44 | 22.49 ± 2.02 | 38,560 ± 755 | 12,577 ± 211 | 0.326 ± 0.33 | |
| 50 | 50 | 4.17 ± 0.02 | 44.64 ± 2.66 | 23.55 ± 2.39 | 43.27 ± 2.59 | 29.78 ± 2.19 | 43.00 ± 2.46 | 14.83 ± 1.19 | 24,420 ± 555 | 8436 ± 142 | 0.345 ± 0.35 | |
| 25 | 75 | 3.90 ± 0.1 | 44.04 ± 2.77 | 17.40 ± 1.65 | 41.83 ± 2.19 | 29.57 ± 2.39 | 41.57 ± 2.29 | 13.50 ± 1.24 | 25,710 ± 575 | 8883 ± 151 | 0.346 ± 0.37 | |
| 0 | 100 | 4.36 ± 0.03 | 64.97 ± 4.26 | 25.89 ± 2.32 | 60.55 ± 3.89 | 31.87 ± 2.59 | 59.37 ± 3.69 | 15.46 ± 1.20 | 7546 ± 129 | 2804 ± 51 | 0.372 ± 0.37 | |
|
HP1761:WH1021 (Strong wheat: very weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 3.70 ± 0.02 | 69.89 ± 4.55 | 41.42 ± 2.92 | 48.99 ± 2.99 | 41.42 ± 2.89 | 66.40 ± 4.01 | 39.04 ± 2.36 | 63,547 ± 890 | 16,435 ± 166 | 0.259 ± 0.26 |
| 75 | 25 | 3.47 ± 0.02 | 45.32 ± 2.26 | 26.50 ± 2.49 | 42.47 ± 2.52 | 31.81 ± 2.15 | 43.73 ± 2.88 | 14.66 ± 1.09 | 23,550 ± 545 | 8454 ± 143 | 0.359 ± 0.36 | |
| 50 | 50 | 3.12 ± 0.02 | 43.41 ± 3.2 | 19.51 ± 1.45 | 41.45 ± 2.42 | 27.51 ± 1.88 | 41.19 ± 2.45 | 14.10 ± 1.01 | 17,840 ± 319 | 9985 ± 163 | 0.560 ± 0.56 | |
| 25 | 75 | 2.86 ± 0.04 | 41.19 ± 2.4 | 17.51 ± 1.37 | 35.89 ± 2.01 | 23.72 ± 1.59 | 38.29 ± 2.14 | 8.91 ± 0.59 | 28,090 ± 594 | 13,458 ± 223 | 0.479 ± 0.48 | |
| 0 | 100 | 2.49 ± 0.01 | 64.51 ± 4.01 | 24.39 ± 2.59 | 27.91 ± 1.78 | 24.39 ± 1.52 | 60.54 ± 3.76 | 15.72 ± 1.29 | 3489 ± 106 | 1388 ± 46 | 0.398 ± 0.39 | |
|
HP1761:HD2894 (Strong wheat: weak wheat) |
100 | 0 | 3.70 ± 0.2 | 69.89 ± 4.55 | 41.42 ± 2.92 | 48.99 ± 2.99 | 41.42 ± 2.89 | 66.40 ± 4.01 | 39.04 ± 2.36 | 63,547 ± 890 | 16,435 ± 166 | 0.259 ± 0.26 |
| 75 | 25 | 4.41 ± 0.01 | 37.38 ± 1.98 | 16.02 ± 1.34 | 35.68 ± 1.69 | 17.99 ± 1.09 | 36.70 ± 2.19 | 14.03 ± 1.17 | 27,730 ± 587 | 9731 ± 171 | 0.351 ± 0.35 | |
| 50 | 50 | 4.28 ± 0.02 | 40.85 ± 2.05 | 22.31 ± 2.29 | 39.26 ± 2.05 | 28.01 ± 1.79 | 40.05 ± 2.46 | 13.25 ± 1.08 | 25,870 ± 562 | 9020 ± 146 | 0.349 ± 0.35 | |
| 25 | 75 | 3.59 ± 0.02 | 43.13 ± 2.14 | 16.83 ± 1.26 | 40.13 ± 2.14 | 32.79 ± 2.58 | 41.12 ± 2.19 | 12.75 ± 1.03 | 26,570 ± 572 | 9430 ± 159 | 0.355 ± 0.36 | |
| 0 | 100 | 3.41 ± 0.01 | 63.51 ± 3.98 | 19.84 ± 1.38 | 59.70 ± 2.79 | 27.00 ± 2.29 | 60.37 ± 3.81 | 17.27 ± 1.29 | 32,104 ± 584 | 10,162 ± 214 | 0.317 ± 0.32 | |
|
HP1761:HUW234 (Strong wheat: medium wheat) |
100 | 0 | 3.70 ± 0.1 | 69.89 ± 4.55 | 41.42 ± 2.92 | 48.99 ± 2.99 | 41.42 ± 2.89 | 66.40 ± 4.01 | 39.04 ± 2.36 | 63,547 ± 890 | 16,435 ± 166 | 0.259 ± 0.26 |
| 75 | 25 | 4.17 ± 0.03 | 44.02 ± 2.65 | 22.80 ± 2.09 | 41.43 ± 2.09 | 30.87 ± 2.38 | 42.39 ± 2.36 | 17.42 ± 1.33 | 26,740 ± 579 | 9093 ± 176 | 0.340 ± 0.34 | |
| 50 | 50 | 4.02 ± 0.02 | 43.33 ± 2.35 | 26.75 ± 2.16 | 41.43 ± 2.08 | 31.12 ± 2.54 | 42.26 ± 2.41 | 16.33 ± 1.26 | 27,680 ± 529 | 9240 ± 173 | 0.334 ± 0.33 | |
| 25 | 75 | 3.99 ± 0.01 | 43.20 ± 2.19 | 17.63 ± 1.43 | 42.07 ± 2.11 | 25.57 ± 1.74 | 41.54 ± 2.29 | 15.36 ± 1.35 | 24,280 ± 492 | 7415 ± 134 | 0.305 ± 0.31 | |
| 0 | 100 | 4.36 ± 0.02 | 64.97 ± 4.15 | 25.89 ± 2.33 | 60.55 ± 2.86 | 31.87 ± 2.39 | 59.37 ± 3.49 | 15.46 ± 1.30 | 7546 ± 129 | 2804 ± 81 | 0.372 ± 0.37 | |
Data represented as mean value ± SD. Strong wheat (HUW468 and HP1761), very weak (WH1021), weak (HD2894) and medium (HUW234)
LPV left peak value, LPW left peak width, MPT mixograph peak time, MPV mixograph peak value, MPW mixograph peak width, RPV right peak value, RPW right peak width, G′ elastic modulus, G″ viscous modulus
Fig. 3.
Mixograms of blending of flours from very-weak, weak and medium wheat varieties with flours from strong common wheat varieties
Dynamic rheology of dough
The various dynamic rheological parameters (G′, G″ and tanδ) of dough from various wheat varieties were evaluated. G′ and G″ ranged from 3489 to 97620 Pa and 1388 to 26,391 Pa, respectively for dough from different wheat varieties (Table 2). The strong wheat flour (HUW468) showed the highest G′ and G″ whereas very weak wheat flour showed the lowest value for both. Tanδ ranged from 0.26 to 0.40, the highest value for very weak wheat flour while strong wheat flour (HP1761) showed the lowest tanδ value. The R2 values for different varieties for relationship between G′ and blending levels of various flours varying in gluten strength ranged between 0.83and 0.92 (supplementary Table 1c). The blending of very weak, weak and medium wheat flour with strong wheat flour showed significant effect on G′ and G″. The blending of weak wheat flour with strong wheat had the highest regression coefficient (slope) indicating the greatest change in G′ and G″ as the blending level was increased (supplementary Table 1c). G′ showed positive correlation with BDV and SBV. G″ showed positive correlation with PV and FV. The difference in rheological behavior of strong wheat flour with the blending of very weak, weak and medium flours may be due to difference in protein content in these flours. The increase in proportion of very weak wheat flour in strong wheat flour progressively decreased G′ and G″ of both strong wheat flours (HUW468 and HP1761). The increase in proportion of weak wheat flour in strong wheat flour progressively decreased G′ and G″ of strong wheat flour (HUW468). Whereas the increase in proportion of medium wheat flour in both strong wheat flours led to progressive decrease in G′ and G″. Both G′ and G″ showed positive correlation with protein content (supplementary Table 1d). Flours with higher protein content showed better rheological properties and vice versa. Therefore on blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased the protein content as well as composition that consequently changed the rheological properties. G′ showed positive correlation with PV and FV. G″ showed positive correlation with BDV and SBV. The results depicted that dough rheological parameters were related to paste properties and protein content. Zaidul et al. (2004) also reported the relationship of protein content with the pasting properties and dough rheological properties of wheat flour. Ktenioudaki et al. 2010) reported that the rheological properties of wheat played a crucial role in estimating the baking quality, dough strength, specific volume and several textural attributes. G′ showed positive correlation with LPV and LPW. G′ showed positive correlation with RPV and RPW. The rheological properties of dough were related to mixographic parameters. G′ and G″ of very weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat flour ranged from 15,330 to 38,560 cP and 6597 to 12,577 cP among the different blend ratios. The highest value for G′ and G″ was observed for strong wheat flour (HUW468) and medium wheat flour in the ratio of 75:25 and lowest value was observed for strong wheat flour (HUW468) and very weak flour in the ratio of 25:75. G′ and G″ of very weak, weak and medium wheat flours blended with strong wheat flour (HP1761) ranged from 17,840 to 28,090 cP and 6597 to 12,577 cP among the different blend ratios. The highest value for G′ was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and very weak flour blended in the ratio of 25:75 and lowest value was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and very weak flour in the ratio of 50:50. The highest value for G″ was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and very weak flour in the ratio of 25:75 and lowest value was observed for strong wheat flour (HP1761) and medium wheat flour blended in the ratio of 25:75.
Conclusion
The flour milled from common wheat varieties varied in gluten strength were blended in different proportion to see the effect of blending on pasting and dough rheological properties of composite flours. Flours with higher protein content showed better rheological properties. The blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased the protein content and composition that consequently changed the rheological properties. The protein content of the composite flour progressively decreased with decrease in proportion of strong wheat flour. Strong wheat (HUW468) flour had the lowest proportion of UnEx-MP and the highest proportion of UnEx-PP. The blending of strong wheat flour with weaker wheat flour decreased protein content and changed protein composition that consequently changed mixographic properties. The difference in rheological behavior of strong wheat flour with the blending of very weak, weak and medium flours may be due to variation in protein content and composition in these flours.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
NS acknowledge CSIR for providing funds in the form of a research project.
Abbreviations
- BDV
Breakdown viscosity
- FV
Final viscosity
- G′
Elastic modulus
- G″
Viscous modulus
- LPV
Left peak value
- LPW
Left peak width
- MPT
Mixograph peak time
- MPV
Mixograph peak value
- MPW
Mixograph peak width
- PT
Pasting temperature
- PV
Peak viscosity
- RPV
Right peak value
- RPW
Right peak width
- SBV
Setback viscosity
- WS
Weakening slope
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- AOAC . Official methods of analysis. 15. Washington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Bock J, Seetharaman K. Unfolding gluten: an overview of research on gluten. Cereal Food World. 2012;57:209–214. doi: 10.1094/CFW-57-5-0209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Choy AL, Morrison PD, Hughes JG, Marriott PJ, Small DM. Quality and antioxidant properties of instant noodles enhanced with common buckwheat flour. J Cereal Sci. 2013;57:281–287. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2012.11.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Delcour JA, Joye IJ, Pareyt B, Wilderjans E, Brijs K, Lagrain B. Wheat gluten functionality as a quality determinant in cereal-based food products. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2012;3:469–492. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-022811-101303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gaines CS, Finney PF, Fleege LM, Andrews LC. Predicting a hardness measurement using the single-kernel characterization system. Cereal Chem. 1996;73:278–283. [Google Scholar]
- Greenblatt GA, Bettge AD, Morris CF. Relationship between endosperm texture and the occurrence of friabilin and bound polar lipids on wheat starch. Cereal Chem. 1995;72:172–176. [Google Scholar]
- Gwirtz JA, Willyard MR, McFall KL. Wheat flour products in North America. In: Popper L, Schäfer W, Freund W, editors. Future of flour. Berlin: Verlag Agrimedia; 2006. pp. 295–308. [Google Scholar]
- Haddad Y, Mabille F, Mermet A, Abecassis J, Benet JC. Rheological properties of wheat endosperm with a view on grinding behavior. Powder Technol. 1999;105:89–94. doi: 10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00122-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hatcher DW, Dexter JE, Anderson MJ, Bellido GG, Fu BX. Effect of blending durum wheat flour with hard white wheat flour on the quality of yellow alkaline noodles. Food Chem. 2009;113:980–988. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.08.049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Issarny C, Cao W, Falk D, Seetharaman K, Bock JE. Exploring functionality of hard and soft wheat flour blends for improved end-use quality prediction. Cereal Chem. 2017;94:723–732. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM-09-16-0248-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Katyal M, Virdi AS, Kaur A, Singh N, Kaur S, Ahlawat AK, Singh AM. Diversity in quality traits amongst Indian wheat cultivars I: flour and protein characteristics. Food Chem. 2016;194:337–344. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.07.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Katyal M, Singh N, Virdi AS, Kaur A, Chopra N, Ahlawat AK, Singh AM. Extraordinarily soft, medium-hard and hard Indian wheat varieties: composition, protein profile, dough and baking properties. Food Res Int. 2017;100:306–317. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.08.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Katyal M, Virdi AS, Singh N, Kaur A, Rana JC, Kumari J. Diversity in protein profiling, pasting, empirical and dynamic dough rheological properties of flour from different Indian durum wheat accessions. J Food Sci Technol. 2018;55:1256–1269. doi: 10.1007/s13197-018-3036-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaur A, Singh N, Ahlawat AK, Kaur S, Singh AM, Chauhan H, Singh GP. Diversity in grain, flour, dough and gluten properties amongst Indian wheat cultivars varying in high molecular weight subunits (HMW-GS) Food Res Int. 2013;53:63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.03.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kaur A, Singh N, Kaur S, Ahlawat AK, Singh AM. Relationships of flour retention capacity, secondary structure and rheological properties with the cookie making characterstics of wheat cultivars. Food Chem. 2014;158:48–55. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.02.096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ktenioudaki A, Butler F, Gallagher E. Rheological properties and baking quality of wheat varieties from various geographical regions. J Cereal Sci. 2010;51:402–408. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2010.02.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lu ZH, Seetharaman K. Suitability of Ontario-grown hard and soft wheat flour blends for noodle making. Cereal Chem. 2014;91:482–488. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM-10-13-0218-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Morris CF. Impact of blending hard and soft white wheats on milling and baking quality. Cereal Food World. 1992;37:643–648. [Google Scholar]
- Oak MD, Sissons M, Egan N, Tamhankar SA, Rao VS, Bhosale SB. Relationship between gluten strength and pasta firmness in Indian durum wheats. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2006;41:538–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.01103.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Posner ES, Hibbs AN. Wheat flour milling. 2. St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc; 2005. pp. 299–328. [Google Scholar]
- Ren D, Walker CE, Faubion JM. Correlating dough elastic recovery during sheeting with flour analyses and rheological properties. J Sci Food Agric. 2008;88:2581–2588. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3378. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Singh S, Singh N, MacRitchie F. Relationship of polymeric proteins with pasting, gel dynamic- and dough empirical-rheology in different Indian wheat varieties. Food Hydrocoll. 2011;25:19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Singh N, Kaur A, Katyal M, Singh AM, Ahlawat AK, Bhinder S. Diversity in quality traits amongst Indian wheat varieties II: paste, dough and muffin making properties. Food Chem. 2016;197:316–324. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zaidul ISM, Karim AA, Manan DMA, Ariffin A, Norulaini NAN, Omar AKM. A farinograph study on the viscoelastic properties of sago/wheat flour dough. J Sci Food Agric. 2004;84:616–622. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1713. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.