Eur Food Res Technol (2003) 218:4448 DOI 10.

1007/s00217-003-0818-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

E. Gallagher A. Kunkel T. R. Gormley E. K. Arendt

The effect of dairy and rice powder addition on loaf and crumb characteristics, and on shelf life (intermediate and long-term) of gluten-free breads stored in a modified atmosphere
Received: 29 July 2003 / Published online: 25 October 2003  Springer-Verlag 2003

Abstract Many commercially available gluten-free breads are inferior in quality to their gluten-containing counterparts. They also have a relatively short shelf life. The current study investigated the effects of 3% milk protein isolate and 3% novel rice starch addition to a gluten-free bread formulation, and on the intermediate (8 days) and long-term (43 days) staling profile of both gluten-free bread formulations, packed in an 80% CO2\20% N2 atmosphere. Dairy protein and rice starch addition increased loaf volume and the loaves were preferred to a control sample by an untrained panel. The most notable changes in crumb hardness occurred in the early days of the testing periods for the control gluten-free bread in both the intermediate and long-term studies. Keywords Gluten-free bread Loaf volume Image analysis Staling Modified atmosphere

Introduction
Coeliac disease, or in the U.S., celiac disease, is a condition where the sufferers body reacts to the protein fraction gluten [1]. The avoidance of wheat, rye, barley and oats and all products made from these grains is the only treatment for coeliac disease [2]. Treatment with a gluten-free diet results in significant improvement of the intestinal mucosa and its absorptive function. Gluten is
E. Gallagher ()) T. R. Gormley Teagasc, The National Food Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland e-mail: egallagher@nfc.teagasc.ie Tel.: +353-1-8059500 Fax: +353-1-8059550 A. Kunkel University of Applied Sciences, Nutrition, Food Business and Home Economics, Fulda, Germany E. K. Arendt Department of Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland

the main structure-forming protein in flour, responsible for the elastic and extensible properties needed to produce good quality bread. Currently, many gluten-free breads available on the market are of a low quality, exhibiting a dry crumbling crumb, resulting in poor mouthfeel and flavour [3]. The incorporation of dairy ingredients is long established in the baking industry [4, 5]. Dairy proteins are highly functional ingredients, and can be readily incorporated into many food products. They may be used in bread for both nutritional and functional benefits including flavour and texture enhancement, and storage improvement [6, 7, 8]. Dairy powders used in gluten-free bread formulations resulted in improved volume, appearance and sensory aspects of the loaves [3]. The shelf life of bread is mainly influenced by loss of moisture, staling and microbial deterioration [9]. Of these, staling is the main shelf life-limiting factor. The breadmaking process, including dough recipe, method of mixing and proofing, temperature of the dough during baking, and the final packaging, affect staling of bread loaves. The actual staling mechanism is complex; crumb firmness increases, the crust becomes softer, and the bread loses its fragrance, assuming a stale flavour [10]. The retrogradation of starch is significantly involved in the staling process, whereby changes in the amylopectin within the starch granule occur over time. However, it has been widely documented that bread firming is not synonymous with starch recrystallisation; it has been suggested that bread firming may be due to starch gluten interactions, where gluten is crosslinked by gelatinised starch [11, 12]. It has been cited that changes in the firming rate of bread are due to hydrogen bonding between gluten and starch granules. In one study, breads baked from lower (10.4%) protein flours staled at a faster rate than those from higher (13.1%) protein flours, and it was concluded that the flour component primarily responsible for the shelf life of bakery products was, in fact, gluten [13]. Many authors have reported the staling characteristics of white wheat bread stored under modified atmosphere

45

conditions. Knorr and Tomlins (1985) [14] and Avital et al. (1990) [15] found that white wheat bread stored in a CO2 atmosphere over 1014 days had a softer crumb than bread stored either in N2 or in atmospheric air. Rasmussen and Hansen (2001) [16] found that packaging in atmospheres with increased levels of CO2 did not affect the staling rate of white bread and used their results as a basis for extending the microbial shelf life of bread without affecting the staling rate. Little published work is available on the staling profile of gluten-free breads, stored either in air or in a modified atmosphere. It is only in recent years that the prevalence of coeliac disease, and the need for research and development on the quality of gluten-free products has been identified [17]. It has also been stated that gluten present in wheat bread slows down the movement of water by forming an extensible protein network, thus keeping the crumb structure together [18]. Therefore, the absence of gluten should increase the movement of water from the bread crumb to crust, resulting in a firmer crumb and a softer crust. The objective of the present study was twofold: (1) to study the effects of addition of 3% milk protein isolate and 3% rice starch to a wheat-starch-based gluten-free bread formulation, and (2) to examine the intermediate (8-day) and long-term (43-day) staling profile of both gluten-free bread formulations, packed in an 80% CO2\20% N2 atmosphere.

Systems, Surrey, UK). Loaf moisture was measured by the AOAC two-stage drying method. Images of the sliced breads were captured using a flatbed scanner (Sharp, JX-330, Japan). The images were scanned full scale at 300 dots per inch and analysed in grey scale. A 6060-mm square field of view (FOV) was evaluated for each image. This FOV captured the majority of the crumb area of each slice. Twelve digital images were processed and analysed for each batch, giving a total of 60 images. Image analysis was performed by the method described by Crowley et al. (2000) [19]. Two paired comparison assessments (sessions 1 and 2) were conducted by taste panels on the control and CRD breads. One loaf from each batch was kept whole while the second loaf was cut into slices. This allowed the panellists to assess the volume, colour and appearance of the crust and the crumb (session 1), and then to eat the breads and rate them for overall preference (session 2). The panellists were untrained and 13 males and 17 females took part in each session. The samples were uniform in size, were served at room temperature, and were randomly presented with three-digit coding. (a) Intermediate-term analysis Testing took place on days 0 (day of baking), 2, 4 and 8. The trials were replicated three times [2 breads (control and control+rice starch+dairy powder [CRD])x4 testing daysx3 replications]. (b) Long-term analysis Testing took place on days 0, 9, 23 and 43. The trials were replicated three times [2 breadsx4 testing daysx3 replications]. Results were analysed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS (Version 6.12, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) as 2 treatmentsx4 testing days (for both intermediate and long-term trials)x3 replicates. The visual assessment and taste panel responses were analysed according to British Standard Methods for sensory analysis of food (1982) [20].

Materials and methods

The control gluten-free formulation contained commercial wheat starch (Codex Alimentarius) gluten-free flour (Odlum Group, Dublin, Ireland), fresh yeast (Yeast Products, Dublin, Ireland), vegetable oil (Crest Foods Ltd., Dublin, Ireland) and DATEM (Quest Ingredients, Holland). In the trials this was supplemented with a dairy powder (3%) (milk protein isolate) obtained from Kerry Ingredients (Listowel, Co. Kerry, Ireland), and 3% of a novel rice starch obtained from Leckpatrick Dairies (Strabane, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland). The batter recipe (based on flour weight) was 100% gluten-free flour, 87% water at 35 C, 2.7% fresh yeast, 1% oil and 0.5% DATEM. The blended liquid ingredients were added to the dry ingredients and mixed for a total of 3.5 min in a three-speed mixer, (Model A120, Hobart, UK); 450 g of batter was scaled into 1-lb tins and placed in a proofer for 45 min (40 C, 80% RH). The batter was baked at 230 C for 25 min in a reel oven (Henry Simon, UK). The loaves were cooled to room temperature and placed in polyethylene bags. They were then packed in an atmosphere of 80% CO2\20% N2 using an A300 CVP packaging machine (CVP Systems Ltd., UK) and left at room temperature until tested. The test breads are referred to as CRD breads [i.e. control formula (C) supplemented with rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D)] for convenience in this paper. Tests on the loaves For each analysis, three loaves from each batch were used. Specific volume was measured using rapeseed displacement. Crust and crumb colour was measured using a Minolta Chromameter (Minolta CR-100, Osaka, Japan). L*, a*, b* and L*/b*, were recorded, each value being the average of six measurements. Crust (penetration, cylindrical probe; 6 mm diameter) and crumb (texture profile analysis, cylindrical probe; 20 mm diameter) characteristics were assessed using a texture analyser (TAXT2i, Stable Micro

Results and discussion

Effects of rice starch and diary powder addition on the baking characteristics of gluten-free breads Loaf volume Addition of rice starch and dairy powder resulted in an increase in loaf volume. However, the effect was not significant when compared to the control (975 versus 1,101 cm3). Similar increases due to dairy ingredient addition in a wheat bread formulation have also been found [6, 21, 22]. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the gluten-free breads with the additional ingredients (CRD) in the current study had a better external appearance, and resembled wheat-bread loaves more closely than the gluten-free control. Conflicting opinions have been cited as to the relevance of loaf volume on the rate of staling of bread loaves. Axford et al. (1968) [22] concluded that a lower specific volume increased the staling rate. However, Pronte et al. (1962) [23] found no significant correlation between bread staling rate and bread volume. Loaves baked in larger loaf tins were initially softer and remained softer during storage than loaves baked in smaller tins, but the staling rates were essentially the same [13].

46

Fig. 1 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition on the crust colour (L*) of gluten-free breads

Fig. 3 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crust hardness of gluten-free breads stored over an 8-day period

Crust and crumb colour The CIE L* values gives a darkness to lightness indicator for products (0=black, 100=white). The CRD loaves had lower crust L* values than the control (Fig. 1, P<0.01). This is to be expected as the dairy powder contained a small amount of lactose, which was involved in Maillard browning and caramelisation reactions; these reactions are influenced by the distribution of water and the reaction of reducing sugars and amino acids [24], thus resulting in a darker crust colour. Crumb colour (L*, L*/ b*) was not significantly influenced by either dairy powder or rice starch addition. Image analysis/visual assessment/sensory analysis Examples of images from each bread type (control; CRD) are shown in Fig. 2. The total number of cells decreased (P<0.05) with addition of the powders to the gluten-free formula. (1583-control versus 1229-CRD). Thus the number of cells/cm2 was 44.0 (control) and 34.1 (CRD). The results for the CRD loaf were similar to those found by Crowley et al. (2000) [19] in studies with wheat bread loaves, in that the number of small cells in the range 0.05 4 mm2 decreased by approximately 25% after addition of the dairy and rice powders (1358 versus 1006, P<0.05). The CRD loaves had a more open structure, compared to the typical cake-like tight structure/appearance of some gluten-free breads. In the visual assessment, the overall preference was for the CRD loaves (P<0.01). Panellists commented that this bread looked more like real bread, that the crumb was more even and more airy than the control, and that the loaves had better volume and crust colour, like wheat bread. Of the 30 assessors in the tasting trial, 16 showed a preference for the CRD, and 14 for the control, i.e. no significant difference was found. Effects of rice starch and diary powder addition, and MAP (80% CO2, 20% N2) on the intermediate and long-term shelf life of gluten-free breads Crust and crumb texture Movement of water from crumb to crust over the testing periods was apparent (i.e. crust hardness decreased, while crumb texture became harder). The CRD loaves had a softer crust on day 0 than the control (P<0.05), and thereafter throughout the 8-day staling trial (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2 Sample images of 6060-mm field of view of gluten-free breads. A Control and B control with rice starch and dairy powder added (CRD)

47

Fig. 4 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crust hardness of gluten-free breads stored over a 43-day period

Fig. 7 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crumb spring of glutenfree breads stored over an 8-day period

Fig. 5 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crumb hardness of gluten-free breads stored over an 8-day period

Fig. 8 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crumb spring of glutenfree breads stored over a 43-day period

Fig. 6 Influence of rice starch (R) and dairy powder (D) addition, plus modified atmosphere packaging on the crumb hardness of gluten-free breads stored over a 43-day period

However, the rate of decrease of crust hardness was largely unaffected by the addition of the rice starch and dairy powder, i.e. these loaves remained softer than the control, but staled at a similar rate. An overall significant decrease in crust hardness (P<0.01) was found for the intermediate and long-term trials for these breads. Within the modified atmosphere package, it appeared that crust hardness reached a minimum after 2 days, and further testing beyond this revealed no significant changes to the crusts of either the control or the CRD loaves (Fig. 4). The most notable changes in crumb characteristics, i.e. hardness (P<0.001) and springiness (P<0.005) occurred during the first 23 days of the testing period for both gluten-free bread formulations in the intermediate and

long-term staling studies (Figs. 5 and 6). The hardness values were lower for the CRD loaves (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found for the rate of staling between the two formulations. Between days 0 and 9, crumb hardness increased linearly with time (P<0.001) reaching a maximum value after 23 days, and no significant increase occurred between testing days 23 and 43 (Fig. 6). These findings agree with those of Rasmussen and Hansen (2001) [16], where maximum crumb firmness of MAP wheat bread was attained at 35 days. No significant differences were found for crumb spring from the two formulations, and the trends were similar over the intermediate and long-term testing periods (Figs. 7 and 8). Crumb spring decreased (P<0.001) between days 0 and 9, but no further changes in crumb spring occurred thereafter. (It should be noted that no mould was present at the end of the 43-day testing period.) A negative correlation was found between loaf volume and crumb hardness (R2=0.76). This signifies that smaller loaves (as in the case of the control) were more dense and had a tightly packed crumb structure, resulting in higher crumb hardness readings. Similar findings were obtained by Axford et al. (1968) [21] in wheat breads.

48

Conclusions
The addition of milk protein isolate and a novel rice starch to a gluten-free bread formulation resulted in loaves with an increased volume and better appearance and acceptability than the control. These loaves also had softer crust and better crumb characteristics but ultimately, loaves from both formulations staled at a similar rate. The most notable changes to crust characteristics occurred within the first 9 days. Peak crumb hardness values were attained between days 23 to 43; however, no statistically significant change was found between the day 23 and day 43 values.

References
1. Cooke WT, Asquith P (1974) Clinics in gastroenterology. WB Saunders, London, pp 39 2. Taylor SL (1999) Prospects for the future: Conference on International Food Trade Beyond 2000: Science-Based Decisions, Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual Recognition, Melbourne, Australia, pp 1115 3. Gallagher E, Gormley TR, Arendt, EK (2003) J Food Eng 56:153161 4. Stahel N (1983) Cereal Foods World 28:453454 5. Zadow JG, Hardham JF (1981) Aust J Dairy Technol 36:6063

6. Kenny S, Wehrle K, Auty M, Arendt EK (2001) Cereal Chem 78:458463 7. Mannie E, Asp EH (1989) Cereal Foods World 44:143146 8. Cocup RO, Sanderson WB (1987) Food Technol 41:102104 9. Willhoft EMA (1971) J Sci Food Agric 22:176180 10. Schiraldi A, Fessas D (2001) In: Chihachoti P, Vodovotz Y (eds) Bread staling. CRC Press, New York, pp 117 11. Martin ML, Zelenak KJ, Hoseney RC (1991) Cereal Chem 68:498502 12. Martin ML, Zelenak KJ, Hoseney RC (1991) Cereal Chem 68:503507 13. Maleki M, Hoseney RC, Mattern PJ (1980) Cereal Chem 57:138140 14. Knorr D, Tomlins RI (1985) J Food Sci 50:11721173 15. Avital Y, Mannheim CH, Miltz J (1990) J Food Sci 55:413416 16. Rasmussen PH, Hansen A (2001) Lebens Wiss Techol 34:487 491 17. Fasano A, Catassi C (2001) Gastroenterol 120:636651 18. Roach RR, Hoseney RC (1995) Cereal Chem 72:578582 19. Crowley P, Grau H, Arendt EK (2000) Cereal Chem 77:370 375 20. Erdogdu-Arnoczky N, Czuchzjowska Z, Pomeranz Y (1996) Cereal Chem 73:309316 21. Kadnahrmestan C, Baik BK, Czuchajowska Z (1998) Cereal Chem 75:762766 22. Axford DWE, Colwell KH, Cofor JJ, Elton JAH (1968) J Sci Food Agric 19:95 23. Pronte JG, Titcomb ST, Cotton RH (1962) Cereal Chem 39:437 24. Kent NL, Evers AD (1994) Technology of cereals. Pergamon, Oxford, p 215