Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science and Biotechnology logoLink to Food Science and Biotechnology
. 2019 Aug 12;29(2):243–249. doi: 10.1007/s10068-019-00658-w

Chapatti sensory and textural quality in relation to whole meal flour and dough characteristics

Salman Khurshid 1,✉, Saqib Arif 1, Hafiza Mehwish Iqbal 1, Qurrat Ul Ain Akbar 1, Shahid Yousaf 1
PMCID: PMC6992807  PMID: 32064133

Abstract

Current study was designed to evaluate sensory and textural quality characteristics of chapatti, a commonly consumed flat bread in South-Asia in relation to flour quality parameters. Whole meals of cultivars and commercial wheat samples were analysed for physicochemical, pasting, dough and baking properties. Flours contained medium protein contents (12.4–13.7%) and possessed medium to high gluten strength (51–88). Pasting and dough properties were also suitable for chapatti making. Chapatti sensory attributes were strongly related to gluten content (r = −0.915) and strength (r = 0.851). Moderate relationships were also observed with protein (r = −0.665), falling number (r = −0.750), water absorption (r = −0.623) and maximum viscosity (r = −0.745) of whole meal flours. Tearing force for chapatti was largely related to gluten content (r = −0.893) and dough development time (r = 0.847) but also showed reasonable relationships with gluten index (r = 0.643), ash (r = 0.640), falling number (r = −0.681), maximum (r = −0.743) and breakdown (r = −0.650) viscosities. The information would be useful for household and commercial semi-mechanical chapatti-making process.

Keywords: Wheat, Cultivar, Sensory, Chapatti, Dough

Introduction

Chapatti is a common flat bread being used in South-Asia, Middle East and North Africa. It is commonly prepared from whole-meal flours obtained by grinding wheat in a disk mill. From last few years, flours are increasingly being produced at various levels of refinement by roller milling. About 90% of the wheat produced by Pakistan consumed in as chapatti (Safdar et al., 2009) and is usually freshly consumed (Mehfooz et al., 2018). It is normally soft in texture with a duller appearance due to the presence of bran. Also a good source of dietary fibres that helps in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, cancers etc. (Jacobs et al., 1998; Slavin et al., 2000; Thompson, 1994).

The physicochemical characteristics including moisture, protein, falling number, gluten content and quality play a moderate to important role in processing and end-use quality of wheat-based products (Huebner et al., 1995; Peterson et al., 1992; Schofield, 1994). The importance of evaluating dough behaviour becoming large when mechanical system being involved in preparation of products. The gluten matrix, which encloses the starch granules and fiber fragments, is the major determinant of dough rheology (Mikhaylenko et al., 2000). The dough system becomes more complex when it is produced from brown flours. Obviously, it is due to the active constituents of bran and germ that interact with gluten proteins to prevent the development of anticipated rheological properties. The tests to determine the rheology of dough prepared from whole-meal flour are needed to perform when ultimate finished product is made of this flour.

There has been considerable research relating to test baking, evaluation and scoring systems for flat breads (Faridi et al., 1981). Little corresponding work is done related to determine quality parameters contributing towards the chapatti sensory and textural quality. The objective of the present study was therefore to evaluate the relationship of whole meal flour properties including pasting and dough properties with the chapatti sensory and textural characteristics.

Materials and methods

Six white spring wheat cultivars (viz. Imdad, Moomal, Abadgar, Mehran, SKD-1 and TJ-83) and a commercial whole meal flour (CMWF) sample were analysed for their physicochemical, rheological and baking properties. Each of the wheat sample was mixed thoroughly and cleaned from foreign matter. Moisture contents of grain samples were determined by air oven method (AACC methods 44-15A) and were found in a narrow range (9.4–10.4%). About 300 g of grains of each sample was milled through Perten laboratory mill 3100 (Perten instruments, Hägersten, Sweden) installed with 0.8 mm sieve. Average yield of whole-meal flour obtained from milling was 97 g/100 g wheat grains. The flour obtained from this mill was then used for further analysis.

Determination of physicochemical properties of whole meal flour

Approved methods of the ‘American Association of Cereal Chemists’ were followed for the evaluation of physicochemical properties of whole-meal flour. Moisture content, wet gluten content and index, ash content and falling number were determined by following AACC methods 44-15A, 38-12, 08-01 and 56-81B, respectively (AACC, 2000). However, protein content and hardness score were determined by using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy—Inframatic 8620A (Perten instruments, Hägersten, Sweden). The color estimation of whole meal flours were carried out by Minolta Chroma Meter CR-300 (Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan). Color of all samples were measured as the Minolta “L”, a* and b* values. The L value, ranges from 0 to 100 scale, expressed the whiteness and brightness of flour samples. The values of “a” and “b”, expressing the red & green and yellow & blue, respectively, ranged from − 60 to 60.

Determination of dough properties of whole meal flour

Farinograph (Brabender, Duisburg, Germany) equipped with 50 g mixing bowl was used for the evaluation of water absorption, dough development time, dough stability and degree of softening by following AACC method 54-24 (AACC, 2000). These parameters were determined directly by using Brabender® Farinograph software (Version: 3.2.6).

Determination of pasting properties of whole meal flour

Pasting properties of whole meal flours were studied using Micro-Viscoamylograph (Brabender, Duisburg, Germany) following AACC method 22-10 (AACC, 2000). Pasting temperature and the viscosities including peak, breakdown, cold paste and setback were recorded.

Preparation of chapatti

Prior to the mixing of water, salt and canola cooking oil (1% and 5% respectively) was added to the flour of each cultivar. The amount of water added to the flour for the dough formation was according to the farinograph absorption value. Dough was kneaded by using Braun mixer (Model K650, Kronberg, Germany). The dough was rested for 15 min covered by polyethylene film and thereafter cut in equal sections. About 40 g of the dough was rounded and placed in the centre of an especially designed wooden platform. The dough was rolled with a wooden roller. The dough sheets were baked at 270 °C on a hot iron griddle which is heated by a gas flame. The chapatti was cooked from both sides and was subsequently cooled at room temperature for 15 min. After cooling, the chapatti was placed in a resealable plastic bag and stored at ambient temperature prior to further analysis.

Sensory and textural evaluation of chapattis

The sensory evaluation of chapattis prepared from different cultivars was conducted (Dhaliwal et al., 1996). Accordingly, each sample was presented to the 12 judges in random order. On the basis of total organoleptic score, the chapattis were classified as “excellent” (score ≥ 70), “good” (score between 60 and 69), “fair” (score between 50 and 59) and “poor” (score ≤ 50).

Textural properties of chapatti were analysed by using Universal Testing Machine (Zwick/Roell, GmbH, Germany) by following the prescribed procedure (Mehfooz et al., 2018).

Statistical analysis

All the tests were performed in triplicate and results were reported as mean values with standard deviations. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between chapatti quality parameters and whole meal flour properties were evaluated for determining the influential quality parameter of wheat on chapatti quality. Duncan’s test was applied to assess the differences among mean values. All the statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS software (SPSS version 17, Inc., USA).

Results and discussion

Physicochemical, pasting and dough characteristics of whole meal flour

Table 1 shows the physicochemical, pasting and dough properties of whole meal flours of wheat cultivars. Wheat samples were sound as indicated by low moisture contents (≤ 10.1%) and high falling number values of their flours (≥ 399 s). Protein contents were narrow ranged between 12.4 and 13.7%. Protein contents of hard spring wheat depends on the genotype, environment and their interaction (Zhu and Khan, 2001). The studied cultivars were grown at same location (Wheat Research Institute, Sakrand, Pakistan) and possessed the same crop management system and showed less varietal impacts. Wet gluten contents were ranged between 23.9 and 34.0% with the mean value of 29.3%. Wheat cultivars had medium to high gluten strength with the average gluten index of 71. Since all the wheat samples belonged to a same class (i.e. hard white spring wheat), therefore the color values were found in a narrow range (Table 1).

Table 1.

Physicochemical, pasting and dough properties of whole meal flours

Quality Parameters Commercial whole meal flour Wheat Cultivars
Imdad Moomal Abadgar Mehran SKD-1 T.J-83
Physicochemical properties
Moisture Content (%) 9.2a ± 0.17 9.6bc ± 0.10 9.4ab ± 0.17 10.0d ± 0.10 9.8 cd ± 0.10 9.3ab ± 0.20 10.1d ± 0.20
Protein Content (%) 13.2b ± 0.12 12.6a ± 0.17 13.6c ± 0.20 13.0b ± 0.20 12.4a ± 0.05 13.7c ± 0.07 13.0b ± 0.08
Wet Gluten (%) 30.0e ± 0.26 23.9a ± 0.25 28.0b ± 0.60 31.0c ± 0.35 25.0d ± 0.55 34.0f ± 0.50 33.0 g ± 0.52
Gluten Index 67.0e ± 2.64 86.0a ± 2.08 80.0b ± 2.64 55.0c ± 1.73 88.0d ± 2.00 51.0f ± 2.64 73.0 g ± 2.00
Hardness Score 62.0a ± 2.08 62.0a ± 0.57 61.0b ± 1.52 63.0c ± 1.00 58.0d ± 1.52 60.0e ± 1.00 57.0f ± 1.52
Ash Content (%) 1.2a ± 0.03 1.7 cd ± 0.02 1.9d ± 0.01 1.8d ± 0.07 1.8d ± 0.02 1.4ab ± 0.04 1.7 cd ± 0.05
Falling Number 467 ± 5.68 425 ± 5.56 488 ± 6.50 521 ± 7.76 399 ± 7.54 512 ± 5.56 600 ± 4.58
Color
L 83.5 ± 1.11 83.7 ± 1.05 84.6 ± 0.98 84.1 ± 0.85 83.8 ± 0.78 83.6 ± 0.81 84 ± 0.99
a* 1 ± 0.31 1.0 ± 0.12 1.2 ± 0.11 1.1 ± 0.13 1.1 ± 0.29 0.96 ± 0.16 1.1 ± 0.25
b* 10.5 ± 0.41 10.7 ± 0.40 11.3 ± 0.35 11 ± 0.37 10.9 ± 0.36 10.6 ± 0.39 10.8 ± 0.40
Pasting properties
Gelatinization temperature (oC) 59.0e ± 0.25 59.9a ± 0.20 61.7b ± 0.20 62.2c ± 0.25 63.9d ± 0.30 63.8d ± 0.15 63.9d ± 0.30
Maximum viscosity (BU) 770e ± 4.58 616a ± 1.52 797b ± 2.51 600c ± 6.24 362d ± 4.35 956f ± 5.03 975f ± 10.44
Break down viscosity (BU) 195a ± 6.55 200a ± 12.12 257b ± 7.21 319c ± 435 260b ± 5.56 477d ± 915 408e ± 4.00
Cold paste viscosity (BU) 14e ± 0.66 − 87a ± 13.74 − 75b ± 7.18 21c ± 2.67 3d ± 0.07 − 151f ± 7.50 − 94a ± 7.54
Set back viscosity (BU) 283d ± 6.55 462a ± 2.08 300b ± 2.64 292b ± 3.60 110c ± 1.52 302b ± 3.60 336e ± 4.04
Dough properties
Water absorption (%) 71.4d ± 0.41 70.4ab ± 0.26 70.0a ± 0.80 71.0b ± 0.36 69.4c ± 0.47 72.6e ± 0.17 69.6a ± 0.26
Dough development time (min) 4.0b ± 0.20 4.9a ± 0.10 4.0b ± 0.25 3.6ab ± 0.05 4.5d ± 0.15 3.0a ± 0.20 2.5c ± 0.15
Dough stability (min) 12.0e ± 0.20 7.5a ± 0.15 5.0b ± 0.20 4.0c ± 0.11 8.0d ± 0.23 3.0f ± 0.23 3.5fc ± 0.10
Degree of softening (BU) 15e ± 1.52 60a ± 2.51 50b ± 3.51 80c ± 1.15 70d ± 2.08 67d ± 1.00 80c ± 3.51
Open in a new tab

Values are the mean of replications (n = 3). Different superscript letters within each row are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05

Pasting temperatures and peak viscosities of flour samples were found to range between 59 and 63.9 °C and 362–975 BU. The cultivars T.J-83 and Mehran showed maximum and minimum viscosities, respectively. CMWF showed the lowest breakdown viscosity among the cultivars.

Abadgar, Mehran and the CMWF showed higher stabilities while the others showed a decrease in their cold paste viscosities during the first holding period.

Flours of cultivars Mehran and T.J-83 showed the minimum and maximum setback viscosities.

Since lower setback viscosity indicates the better keeping quality of chapattis, bread prepared from Mehran could have delayed staling as compared to T.J-83.

Generally, whole wheat flour has higher water absorption capacity as compare to refined flour. The whole-meal flours of all cultivars had water absorption greater than 68% which is usually desirable for good chapatti making (Rehman et al., 2007). Compared to other cultivars, Imdad required longer mixing time while the T.J-83 took the lowest time. Previous study also suggested that the dough development time (DDT) varied among hard wheat cultivars (Zhu and Khan, 2001). The dough of CMWF was significantly (p < 0.05) more stable to mixing as compared to other wheat cultivars. The genotype, environment and crop year imparts significant influence on dough stability of wheat cultivars (Chun et al., 2007).

Sensory and textural evaluations of chapattis

Chapatti of good overall quality should possess an appealing color with light brown spots spread evenly over the surface, a smooth, soft and pliable hand feel, the desired soft chewing quality and sweetish taste. It should be optimally baked and puffed so as to impart a pleasant wheaty aroma. The textural and sensory properties of chapattis produced from whole-meal flours of wheat cultivars are given in Table 2. All the chapattis had scores of good or excellent based on sensory evaluations. Among the cultivars, Imdad and Mehran had the excellent scores of 72.4 and 74.2, respectively. Specifically, they got higher scores in tearing and chew ability.

Table 2.

Texture and sensory analysis of chapatti prepared from whole meal flours

Chapatti quality Commercial Whole meal flour Wheat cultivars
Imdad Moomal Abadgar Mehran SKD-1 T.J-83
Sensory properties
Color (20) 14.2a ± 1.72 16.0a ± 1.17 15.0a ± 1.41 15.0a ± 1.67 16.0a ± 0.89 15.0a ± 1.41 14.5a ± 1.47
Aroma (20) 9.0a ± 0.89 10.0a ± 1.41 10.0a ± 1.26 9.8a ± 1.72 10.0a ± 1.41 9.5a ± 1.87 9.5a ± 1.37
Tearing (15) 8.0a ± 1.41 11.5bc ± 1.37 10.2b ± 1.16 7.8a ± 0.75 12.5c ± 1.04 8.0a ± 1.41 8.0a ± 0.63
Chew ability (15) 10.0b ± 1.26 11.4bc ± 1.50 11.8c ± 1.16 10.0b ± 1.41 12.4c ± 1.29 8.0a ± 0.55 10.2b ± 1.16
Stickiness (05) 3.5b ± 0.29 3.5b ± 0.39 3.4ab ± 0.19 3.0a ± 0.56 3.8bc ± 0.18 4.0c ± 0.26 3.0a ± 0.52
Taste (25) 18.2a ± 0.74 20.0b ± 1.41 18.0a ± 0.89 18.0a ± 0.66 19.5b ± 1.09 18.0a ± 1.41 18.0a ± 1.54
Total score (100) 61.9c 72.4a 68.4b 63.6c 74.2a 62.3c 63.2c
Overall rating Good Excellent Good Good Excellent Good Good
Textural properties
Tearing force (g)
 0 day 5.64c ± 0.34 6.05c ± 0.27 5.94c ± 0.42 5.60c ± 0.14 5.48bc ± 0.41 4.99ab ± 0.35 4.87a ± 0.26
 2 day 4.65ab ± 0.58 3.73a ± 0.48 4.39ab ± 0.62 4.88ab ± 0.77 3.74a ± 0.50 5.01b ± 0.71 5.41b ± 0.51
Extensibility (mm)
 0 day 10.12a ± 0.47 15.99b ± 3.70 13.01ab ± 2.16 13.94b ± 0.16 10.25a ± 1.15 10.03a ± 0.33 10.19a ± 0.64
 2 day 2.64c ± 0.32 1.32a ± 0.15 2.03b ± 0.34 1.94b ± 0.22 1.97b ± 0.21 2.15bc ± 0.42 2.65c ± 0.41
Open in a new tab

Values are the mean of replications (n = 3). Different superscript letters within row are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05

Tear force and extensibility of chapattis were recorded on freshly prepared chapattis and also after two days storage. As expected, the extensibility of chapattis were decreased after two days. Freshly prepared chapattis had extensibilities ranging between 10.03 and 15.99 mm with the requited tear force from 4.87 and 6.05 g.

Influence of flour physicochemical properties on chapatti quality

Chapatti sensory quality was influenced by protein content, gluten content, gluten index, ash content and falling number (Table 3). Chapatti quality of Indian wheat cultivars was reported to relate with their ash contents and SDS sedimentation volumes (Panghal et al., 2017). Taste, color and aroma characteristics of chapatti negatively relates to the ash contents and falling number (Navnidhi et al., 2009). In this study, chew ability of Chapatti was mainly dependent on wet gluten content, gluten index and water absorption capacity of flour. No significant relationship of stickiness to physicochemical and dough attributes were evident in current study.

Table 3.

Correlation coefficient (r) between sensory and textural attributes of chapatti and the quality parameters of whole meal flours

Whole meal flour properties Chapatti sensory and textural attributes
Colour Aroma Tearing Chew ability Stickiness Taste Total score Fmax-0 day Fmax-2 day €–Fmax-0 day €–Fmax-2 day
Moisture content 0.173 0.358 0.022 0.230 − 0.652 0.064 0.134 0.121 0.191 0.134 − 0.033
Protein content − 0.614 − 0.363 − 0.620 − 0.614 0.122 − 0.788* − 0.665 − 0.539 0.582 − 0.241 0.374
Wet gluten − 0.765* − 0.611 − 0.910** − 0.850* − 0.176 − 0.868* − 0.915** − 0.893** 0.962** − 0.531 0.687
Gluten index 0.566 0.522 0.862* 0.911** 0.040 0.715 0.851* 0.643 − 0.732 0.247 − 0.352
Hard score − 0.043 − 0.031 − 0.178 − 0.123 − 0.114 − 0.016 − 0.145 0.347 − 0.182 0.630 − 0.396
Ash content 0.523 0.891** 0.488 0.641 − 0.368 0.204 0.580 0.640 − 0.282 0.478 0.477
Falling number − 0.697 − 0.365 − 0.794* − 0.555 − 0.586 − 0.771* − 0.750 − 0.681 0.945** − 0.253 0.586
Color
L − 0.110 0.071 − 0.245 0.054 − 0.560 − 0.272 − 0.160 − 0.005 0.257 − 0.035 0.169
a* − 0.183 − 0.148 − 0.129 0.232 − 0.516 − 0.106 − 0.084 − 0.015 0.094 − 0.161 0.321
b* − 0.180 − 0.061 − 0.238 0.072 − 0.450 − 0.281 − 0.182 − 0.024 0.179 − 0.118 0.242
Water absorption − 0.336 − 0.517 − 0.586 − 0.860* 0.398 − 0.373 − 0.623 − 0.458 0.349 − 0.132 0.087
Dough development time 0.672 0.457 0.778* 0.678 0.287 0.788* 0.770* 0.847* − 0.956** 0.545 − 0.692
Dough stability − 0.011 − 0.348 0.290 0.354 0.206 0.405 0.216 0.174 − 0.510 − 0.068 0.076
Degree of softening 0.384 0.550 0.060 − 0.025 − 0.244 0.042 0.161 0.107 0.185 0.141 − 0.269
Geletization temperature 0.147 0.273 − 0.003 − 0.133 0.104 − 0.212 0.016 − 0.278 0.322 − 0.450 0.163
Maximum viscosity − 0.709 − 0.531 − 0.717 − 0.683 − 0.129 − 0.681 − 0.745 − 0.743 0.793* − 0.308 0.539
Breakdown viscosity − 0.255 − 0.151 − 0.520 − 0.698 0.075 − 0.534 − 0.508 − 0.650 0.718 − 0.445 0.325
Cold paste viscosity − 0.041 − 0.078 0.086 0.403 − 0.314 0.084 0.105 0.253 − 0.251 0.030 0.097
Set back viscosity − 0.072 − 0.021 − 0.218 − 0.239 − 0.305 0.082 − 0.168 0.102 0.123 0.623 − 0.316
Open in a new tab

Fmax = tearing force, €–Fmax = extensibility

*, **Significant at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively

Universal Testing Machine (UTM) provides good idea about the chapatti quality (Sharma et al., 2004). In this study, it had been utilized to assess the force required to tear chapatti. Tearing, as corresponded through UTM and manually, was largely influenced by gluten content and quality. Gluten content was inversely whereas gluten strength was positively related to the tear force. Other influential factors were ash, falling number and protein. Hardness of wheat had moderate influence on extensibility of fresh chapattis.

Influence of dough and pasting properties on chapatti quality

Dough development time (DDT) had significant (p < 0.05) positive correlations with taste, tearing and extensibility of Chapatti (Table 3). Kundu et al. (2017) suggested that whole meal flours with lower dough development time resulted into better chapattis. Water absorption of flours significantly (p < 0.05) related to the chew ability of chapatti. Peak and breakdown viscosities of flour influenced the overall sensory quality of chapatti. Flour with low peak and breakdown viscosities got higher scores of chapatti. Tear force required for chapatti was also influenced by peak and breakdown viscosities of flours. Whereas, the extensibility was influenced by setback viscosity of flour.

This study showed that medium-hard wheat cultivars were sound as reflected from lower moisture contents (≤ 10.1%) and higher falling number values (≥ 399 s). They contained medium protein contents (12.4–13.6%) and medium to high gluten strength (51–88). Doughs behaviour showed suitability for making flat breads that had further been confirmed by the sensory and textural evaluations of end-product. Sensory quality of chapatti (based on total score) was strongly related to gluten content, gluten quality and fairly related to protein, falling number, water absorption, and maximum viscosity of whole meal flours. Force required to tear chapatti was largely related to gluten content and dough development but also showed moderate relation to gluten index, ash, falling number, maximum and breakdown viscosities.

This study suggested that the sensory and textural characteristics of chapatti relates to the whole meal flour quality. However, the level of influence of quality parameter varied from negligible to significant. The most influential parameters on chapatti acceptance quality were found to be gluten content and quality. The mechanically determined tearing force for chapatti was largely related to gluten content and dough development time. The information generated would be useful for the wheat breeding programs aiming to develop flat bread cultivars and also for the semi-mechanical commercial units for chapatti processing.

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude is extended to Mr. Amin and Shakeel, Scientific Assistant at FQSRI for their technical assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Salman Khurshid, Email: salmankhurshid67@gmail.com.

Saqib Arif, Email: saqiawan@yahoo.com.

Hafiza Mehwish Iqbal, Email: mehwishiqbal56@yahoo.com.

Qurrat Ul Ain Akbar, Email: qu_afzal@yahoo.com.

Shahid Yousaf, Email: shahidyousaf160@yahoo.com.

References

  1. AACC. Approved methods of AACC.10th ed. Method 44-15A, 38-12, 08-01, 56-81B, 54-24, and 22-10. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, USA (2000)
  2. Dhaliwal YS, Hatcher DW, Sekhon KS, Kruger JE. Methodology for preparation and testing of chapattis produced from different classes of Canadian wheat. Food Res. Int. 1996;29:163–168. doi: 10.1016/0963-9969(96)00004-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Faridi HA, Finney PL, Rubenthalar GL. Micro baking evaluation of some US wheat classes for suitability in Iranian bread. Cereal Chem. 1981;58:428–432. [Google Scholar]
  4. Huebner FR, Nelsen TC, Bietz JA. Differences among gliadins from spring and winter wheat cultivars. Cereal Chem. 1995;72:341–343. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jacobs DR, Jr, Meyer KA, Kushi LH, Folsom AR. Whole-grain intake may reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease death in postmenopausal women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;68:248–257. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/68.2.248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chun TJ, Bo HR, Ying DZ, Xun WY. The variation and stability analysis of wheat dough stability time. Agric. Sci. China. 2007;62:143–149. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(07)60028-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kundu M, Khatkar BS, Gulia N. Assessment of chapatti quality of wheat varieties based on physicochemical, rheological and sensory traits. Food Chem. 2017;226:95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.12.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mehfooz T, Ali TM, Arif S, Hasnain A. Effect of barley husk addition on rheological, textural, thermal and sensory characteristics of traditional flat bread (chapatti) J. Cereal Sci. 2018;79:376–382. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2017.11.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mikhaylenko GG, Czuchajowska Z, Baik BK, Kidwell KK. Environmental influences on flour composition, dough rheology, and baking quality of spring wheat. Cereal Chem. 2000;77:507–511. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM.2000.77.4.507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Navnidhi, Panghal A, Singh N, Khatkar BS. Quality assessment of Indian wheat varieties for steam leavened flat bread (chapatti). Ann. Agri-Bio Res. 14: 195-200 (2009)
  11. Panghal A, Chhikara N, Khatkar BS. Characterisation of Indian wheat varieties for chapatti (flat bread) quality. Sci: J. Saudi Soc. Agric; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Peterson CJ, Graybosch RA, Baenziger PS, Grombacher AW. Genotype and environment effects on quality characteristics of hard red winter wheat. Crop Sci. 1992;32:98–103. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200010022x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rehman S, Paterson A, Piggott JR. Chapatti quality from British wheat cultivar flours. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2007;40:775–784. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2006.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Safdar MN, Naseem K, Siddiqui N, Amjad M, Hameed T, Khalil S. Quality evaluation of different wheat varieties for the production of unleavened flat bread (Chapatti) Pak. J. Nutr. 2009;8:1773–1778. doi: 10.3923/pjn.2009.1773.1778. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schofield JD. Wheat protein: Structure and functionality in milling and breadmaking. pp. 73-106. In: Wheat. Bushuk W and Rasper VF (eds). Springer, Bostan, MA (1994)
  16. Sharma A, Rao VS, Bhagwat SG, Bapat MM. Elongation curve for evaluating chapati making quality of whole wheat flour and its relation with other quality parameters. J. Food Sci. Tech. Mys. 2004;41:160–164. [Google Scholar]
  17. Slavin J, Marquart L, Jacobs D., Jr Consumption of whole-grain foods and decreased risk of cancer: proposed mechanisms. Cereal Foods World. 2000;45:54–58. [Google Scholar]
  18. Thompson LU. Antioxidants and hormone-mediated health benefits of whole grains. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1994;34:473–497. doi: 10.1080/10408399409527676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhu J, Khan K. Effects of genotype and environment on glutenin polymers and breadmaking quality. Cereal Chem. 2001;78:125–130. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM.2001.78.2.125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science and Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES