4.7 Review

Techniques and technologies for the breadmaking process with unrefined wheat flours

Journal

TRENDS IN FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 99, Issue -, Pages 152-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.034

Keywords

Bread; Wholewheat flour; Milling by-products; Wheat germ; Wheat bran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the production of wholegrain products owing to the positive effects shown on human health. Although refined flour still represents the standard reference in breadmaking technology, consumer demand for unrefined breads has grown greatly. The different chemical composition of unrefined wheat flours (UWFs), which includes specific fractions of milling by-products (i.e., wheat bran and wheat germ), favours the nutritional value, but it has a negative effect on technological performance. Therefore, it is useful to develop new strategies specifically designed to improve the quality of UWF breads. Scope and approach: The present review aims to set out the techniques and technologies that have been reported in the literature for the breadmaking process with UWFs, that is, from raw material processing to bread formulation and breadmaking methods. Key findings and conclusion: The evaluation of UWF quality is still based on the tests developed for refined flour, which cannot properly estimate UWF technological properties. The greatest efforts to improve the breadmaking performance of UWF have been focused on modifying the bread formula, mainly with the addition of improvers. Conversely, very little investigation has been carried out on adapting the breadmaking process to the different characteristics of the raw material. Overall, the use of UWF in breadmaking may require further investigations into processing strategies to improve the quality of the end product, hence increasing the consumption of healthy foods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available