. A.“ ‘1'.)1...
(lu‘fll‘llf

v. v

‘3

Iain)”.

{'4

‘ ‘1‘}!!!

. v . - .
. z .9 muhnfi flfiWm KNII... (-

 

 

 

sill:
, :IDOA

t...‘,|!
3.

t];
1.5. twin-K 3|

 

 

Willi; illilll‘llm I‘J'Jillul‘il

3 1293 01565 0181

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RHEOLOGY 0F DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED WHEAT FLOUR
DOUGH.

presented by

Danilo T. Campos

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Agricultural Engineering

degree in

 

 

 

$1.3“, éé/Zé

Major professor

Date May 16, 1996

 

MS U Lt an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout horn your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

_l
|__:L_J:]

I IT
I l|_—ll I
II I l

   
  

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L_l::1

RHEOLOGY OF DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED WHEAT FLOUR
DOUGH

By

Danilo T. Campos

/ A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1 996

a]

COI
C0;
ML?
{Bea

L

alsa

ABSTRACT

RHEOLOGY OF DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED WHEAT FLOUR
DOUGH

By

Danilo T. Campos

A new method of making wheat dough is described. The procedure, which
involves the mixing of ice and flour particles under freezing condition, allows hydration
of flour without mechanical energy input, producing an "undeveloped dough. " The
approach is contrasted with traditional methods where energy input is essential in dough
formation. Results indicate that a homogeneous dough, very similar to dough produced in

a Farinograph, is achieved using this new method.

Shear-deformation behavior of undeveloped dough was investigated using
controlled-stress rhcometer, with 20mm diameter parallel plates and a 2 mm gap
configuration. Measurements were performed on Farinograph doughs to compare results
with undeveloped doughs. Samples were characterized using several rheological
measurement techniques: creep, dynamic oscillatory, and stress ramp measurements,
conducted at 25°C. The dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp tests (25 to 95°C) were

also conducted to simulate baking.

COT.

Undeveloped wheat dough was found to be a viscoelastic material exhibiting
linear behavior at low stress levels (up to 50 Pa), corresponding to low strain levels (up to
0.2%). Creep tests produce curves that can be accurately modeled using a 6-parameter
Burgers model. A fairly good fit, adequate in most cases, is also obtained using the
empirical Peleg model. Dynamic oscillatory tests showed that doughs exhibited a more
solid-like than liquid-like behavior, corresponding to greater G' than G". Rheological
behavior of undeveloped dough is strongly affected by the level of moisture content. In
general, hard wheat dough is more viscous, and may be described as having a stiffer (and
perhaps stronger) structure than the soft wheat dough. Undeveloped dough is
characterized as a fully hydrated system but with unorganized molecular components. In
contrast, Farinograph dough is described as fully hydrated system, with highly organized,
weblike or laminar gluten structure which is a characteristic of “developed” dough. For
undeveloped dough to attain a comparable state, an energy input must be applied to the
material. Heat-induced rheological changes of undeveloped dough are affected by
moisture content, flour type, and mode of preparing dough system. The undeveloped

dough concept offers new opportunities for product and process development in the

bakery industry.

Cepyright by
Danilo T. Campos
1996

DEDICATION

To my wife Annalie,
and our daughter Katrina

“‘...F or I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not
to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future...’”. Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV, Holy Bible)

Sc

90

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many individuals whom I am grateful for their invaluable support and

contribution in completing my studies at Michigan State University.

I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my major professor,
Prof. James F. Stefi‘e for his support, guidance, encouragement, and understanding
throughout the duration of my Ph. D. program. He has instilled in me the appreciation of
Food Rheology as an interesting science. I admire him both as an excellent mentor and a

good friend.

I appreciate the help, time, and direction extended to me by my committee
members: Dr. Perry K.W. Ng (Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition), Dr.
Ajit Srivastava (Department of Agricultural Engineering), Dr. Robert M. Worden

(Department of Chemical Engineering), and Dr. Juan A. Menjivar (NABISCO).

I acknowledge the use of the facilities at Michigan State University: Food
Rheology Laboratory, Department of Agricultural Engineering, and Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition. My deep appreciation to the members of the Cereal
Science group, especially Dr. Ng and Vince Rinaldi, for their help and assistance in
conducting the proximate analyses of the samples in their laboratory. 1 also want to thank

the King Milling Company for the wheat flour used in this research.

vi

”a“ I
KVnA 1
5

Cor:

aspa

My special thanks to all friends at Michigan State University: Rex and Vangie
Alocilja, Mike and Melinda Sheets, L. Occefia, J. Chick, J. Briggs, J .N. Kim, Dr. N.
Sinha, and especially to the “lab” guys: Chris Daubert, Luis Rayas, and Emily Schluentz.

Thanks for the camaraderie and friendship.

My sincere thanks to the Rotarians of East Lansing Rotary Club for their
generosity and support. Most especially, my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to Bob and
Connie Cullum for their warm affection and concern for my family, and for embracing us
as part of their family. Their congeniality and friendship is greatly appreciated.

I would like to thank my family in the Philippines for their love, prayers, and

letters of encouragement.

My sincere gratitude and very special thanks is reserved for my wife Annalie, and
our daughter Katrina for their love, affection, prayers, inspiration, patience, and
understanding.

Finally, I give thanks to the Lord God Almighty for all the blessings, good health,

and friends.

vii

LIST (
LIST (
NOJlE

Clitl”
NRC

ClitP'.
LITER

3.1.\'

I‘m)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiv
NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 5 _
2.1 .Viscoelastic Behavior of Wheat Flour Dough ........................................................... 6
2.2. Fundamental Studies ................................................................................................. 9
2.2.1. Dynamic Measurements ................................................................... - .................. 9
2.2.2. Creep ................................................................................................................ 18
2.2.3. Stress Relaxation .............................................................................................. 24
2.2.4. Steady Shear Flow Measurements ................................................................... 29
2.2.5. Extensional Flow ............................................................................................. 32
2.3. Factors Affecting Dough Rheology ........................................................................ 36
2.3.1. Water Content .................................................................................................. 36
2.3.2. Flour Components ............................................................................................ 38
2.3.3. Mixing Time .................................................................................................... 40
2.3.4. Flour Quality .................................................................................................... 4O

viii

2.3.5. Fermentation .................................................................................................... 41

2.3.6. Temperature ..................................................................................................... 42
2.4. Summary ................................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................................... 45
3.1. Materials ................................................................................................................. 45
3.2. Proximate Analyses of the Flour ............................................................................. 45
3.2.1. Protein Content ................................................................................................ 45
3.2.2. Moisture Content ............................................................................................. 46
3.2.3. F ailing Number Test ........................................................................................ 47
3.2.4. Ash Content ..................................................................................................... 48
3.2.5. F arinograph Test .............................................................................................. 49
3.3. Concept Origin of Making Undeveloped Dough .................................................... 49
3.4. Making of Undeveloped Dough .............................................................................. 52
3.4.1. Preparation of Powdered Ice ............................................................................ 52
3.4.2. Mixing Flour and Ice to Form Dough .............................................................. 52
3.4.3. Preparation of Undeveloped Dough for Rheological Testing .......................... 55
3.5. Rheological Measurements of Undeveloped Dough .............................................. 55
3.5.1. Linear Viscoelastic Region .............................................................................. 57
3.5.2. Slip ................................................................................................................... 59
3.5.3. Creep Measurement at 25°C ............................................................................ 60
3.5.4. Dynamic Oscillatory Measurement at 25°C .................................................... 60
3.5.5. Stress Ramp Measurement at 25°C .................................................................. 60

ix

cum
ll'. RI

4.1.?

4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6.D
4.6.
4.6.
4.6

4.6.

3.5.6. Oscillatory Temperature Ramp Measurement from 25° to 95°C .................... 61

3.6. Rheological Measurement of Dough Made in F arinograph .................................... 61
3.7. Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER IV

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................... 62
4.1. Proximate Analyses of Flours ................................................................................. 62
4.2. Farinograph Test ..................................................................................................... 64
4.3. Undeveloped Dough ............................................................................................... 68
4.4. The Dough Development Phenomenon .................................................................. 72
4.5. Shear Creep ............................................................................................................. 73
4.5.1. Effect of Flour type .......................................................................................... 80
4.5.2. Effect of Moisture Content .............................................................................. 83
4.5.3. Undeveloped Dough Versus Farinograph Dough ............................................ 85
4.6. Dynamic Oscillatory Test ....................................................................................... 87
4.6.1. Linear Viscoelastic Range ............................................................................... 88
4.6.2. Viscoelastic Behavior of Undeveloped Dough as Affected by Frequency ...... 88
4.6.3. Effect of Moisture Content .............................................................................. 89
4.6.4. Effect of Flour Type ......................................................................................... 91
4.6.5. Undeveloped Dough Versus Farinograph Dough ............................................ 95
4.6.6. Steady Shear Behavior from Dynamic Data .................................................... 95
4.7. Oscillatory Temperature Ramp ............................................................................. 102
4.7.1. Effect of Moisture Content ............................................................................ 106
4.7.2. Effect of Flour Type ....................................................................................... 108

4.8

4.9.
CTN
SIM}
REC C

APPE

LIST I

4.7.3. Undeveloped Dough Versus Farinograph Dough .......................................... 110

4.8. Stress Ramp .......................................................................................................... 110
4.9. Practical and Economic Implications of this Study .............................................. 117
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 121
CHAPTER VI
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................. 128
APPENDICES
Appendix A .......................................................................................................... 130
Appendix B .......................................................................................................... 147
Appendix C .......................................................................................................... 156
LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 165

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
4.1 Proximate analyses of the flours used in this study .................................................... 63
4.2 Values of Farinograph properties of the flours used ................................................... 66
4.3 Percent moisture content of the undeveloped dough .................................................. 70
4.4 Percent moisture content of the dough made using the Farinograph .......................... 71

4.5 Parameters of Burgers model of undeveloped and Farinograph dough at 25°C ......... 78

4.6 Parameters of the Peleg linearized semi-empirical creep model ................................ 79
A1 Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 71% moisture content (db) ........... 131
A2 Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db) ........... 133
A3 Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 81% moisture content (db) ........... 135
A4 Creep data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at 71% moisture content (db) ............ 137
A5 Creep data of undeveloped sofi wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db) ............ 139
A6 Creep data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at 81% moisture content (db) ............ 141
A7 Creep data of F arinograph soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db) ............. 143
A8 Creep data of Farinograph hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db) ........... 145

Bl Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at
71% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................ ‘ ...l48

B2 Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at
76% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 149

B3 Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at
81% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 150

xii

B4 Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at

BS

B6

B7

B8

C1

71% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 151

Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at
76% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 152

Dynamic oscillatory data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at
81% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 153

Dynamic oscillatory data of Farinograph sofi wheat dough at
76% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 154

Dynamic oscillatory data of Farinograph hard wheat dough at
76% moisture content and 25°C ............................................................................... 155

Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped
soft wheat dough at 71% moisture content ............................................................... 157

C2 Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped

soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ............................................................... 158

C3 Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped

soft wheat dough at 81% moisture content ............................................................... 159

C4 Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped

hard wheat dough at 71% moisture content .............................................................. 160

C5 Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped

C6

C7

C8

hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content .............................................................. 161

Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped
hard wheat dough at 81% moisture content .............................................................. 162

Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of Farinograph
soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ............................................................... 163

Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of Farinograph
hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content .............................................................. 164

xiii

4.3

4.4 c

4.5 c

4.6 C

4.7 C]

4.8 D:

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
2.1 Common mechanical analogs used to describe viscoelastic materials .......................... 8
3.1 A typical F arinogram showing some commonly measured indexes ........................... 50
3.2 Flow diagram of the powder method of making “undeveloped dough” ..................... 54
3.3 Storage modulus and shear strain as a function of applied stress obtained at an

angular frequency of 1 Hz (6.28 rad s") ...................................................................... 58
4.1 F arinograms of the hard and soft wheat flours used in the study ................................ 67
4.2 Creep behavior of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content .............. 76
4.3 Linearized creep curve of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 76%

moisture content .......................................................................................................... 77
4.4 Creep behavior of undeveloped soft and hard wheat dough at 76%

moisture content .......................................................................................................... 81
4.5 Creep behavior of Farinograph soft and hard wheat dough at 76%

moisture content .......................................................................................................... 82
4.6 Creep behavior of undeveloped soft wheat dough at three levels

of moisture content ...................................................................................................... 84
4.7 Creep behavior of F arinograph and undeveloped hard wheat dough

at 76% moisture content .............................................................................................. 86
4.8 Dynamic oscillatory behavior of undeveloped soft wheat dough

at 76% moisture content level ..................................................................................... 90
4.9 Dynamic oscillatory behavior of undeveloped sofi wheat dough

at three moisture content levels ................................................................................... 92
4.10 Phase angle values of the undeveloped soft wheat dough at

three moisture content levels ....................................................................................... 93

xiv

4.11 Dyna:
“heal

4.12 051121:

sofiu

4.13 131.156
wheat

4.14 Dying:
and h;

4.15 Dmitri
“tea:

4.16 Dmajz
Farinc

III I}pica
undcv
4.18 Oscili;
dOUéh
4.19 03:111.:
Sofi Vt"
‘30 Oscar;
hard u
4.31 A UPI!
Olund
42

Stress
at the

1s
4"" Swiss
dOUEh

424 SUESS
“heat

4.11 Dynamic oscillatory behavior of undeveloped soft and hard
wheat dough at 76% moisture content ........................................................................ 94

4.12 Dynamic oscillatory behavior of undeveloped and Farinograph
soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ................................................................. 96

4.13 Phase angle values of the undeveloped and Farinograph soft
wheat dough at 7 6% moisture content ........................................................................ 97

4.14 Dynamic and steady shear flow behavior of undeveloped soft
and hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content .......................................................... 99

4.15 Dynamic and steady shear flow behavior of undeveloped hard
wheat dough at three moisture content levels ........................................................... 100

4.16 Dynamic and steady shear flow behavior of undeveloped and
F arinograph soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ........................................... 101

4.17 Typical oscillatory temperature ramp measurement of an
undeveloped hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content ......................................... 104

4.18 Oscillatory temperature ramp of undeveloped hard wheat
dough at three moisture content levels ...................................................................... 107

4.19 Oscillatory temperature ramp of undeveloped hard and
soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ............................................................... 109

4.20 Oscillatory temperature ramp of Farinograph and undeveloped
hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content .............................................................. 111

4.21 A typical plot of a linear stress ramp (0.64 to 350 Pa) measurement
of undeveloped soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content ...................................... 113

4.22 Stress ramp response of undeveloped soft wheat dough
at three moisture content levels ................................................................................. 114

4.23 Stress ramp response of undeveloped soft and hard wheat
dough at 76% moisture content ................................................................................. 115

4.24 Stress ramp response of Farinograph and undeveloped hard
wheat dough at 76% moisture content ...................................................................... 116

XV

NOMENCLATURE

constant in Peleg’s normalized relation of stress relaxation test, dimensionless

parameter in Peleg’s normalized relation of stress relaxation test, s'1

G"

0*

force, N

force at start of relaxation, N
stress relaxation modulus, Pa
modulus of free spring, Pa
modulus of spring in Kelvin portion of Burgers model, Pa
shear storage modulus, Pa
shear loss modulus, Pa
complex modulus, Pa

height, m

initial height, m

instron crosshead speed, ms'l
creep compliance, Pa'I

creep compliance (1/Go), Pa'l
creep compliance (I/Gl), Pa'l

creep compliance (1/Gz), Pa'l

xvi

12

qt

err;

GO

[in
ter:
v01
“ti
nor
C00
me.
Na
5111‘
at
She.

C011

C017

dm

s<-1~

..<

70

Yo

empirical constant of Peleg’s creep linearized equation, Pa 3

empirical constant of Peleg’s creep linearized equation, Pa

radius, m

initial radius, rn
also, dimensionless
stress rate, t"

time, 3

temperature, °C

.3
volume, m

weight, g

normalized decay parameter of the force, dimensionless
coordination number of flow units, dimensionless
measure of strength of cooperativity, dimensionless

phase shift or phase angle, rad or deg

. -1
extensmnal rate, 5

radial extensional rate, 5'1

shear strain, dimensionless

constant shear strain, dimensionless
amplitude of strain function, dimensionless
apparent viscosity, Pa 5

complex viscosity, Pa 5

dynamic voscosity, Pa 5

xvii

mm
M
Km
km:
Ma

No

111

0‘0
c5'0

Go

out of phase component of 11*, Pa 5
biaxial extensional viscosity, Pa 3
relaxation time, s

retardation time, s

retardation time (pl/GI), s

retardation time (u2/G2), s

Newtonian viscosity, Pa 5

Newtonian viscosity of free dashpot, Pa 8
Newtonian viscosity of dashpot in Kelvin portion, Pa 3
shear stress, Pa

constant shear stress, Pa

amplitude of stress function, Pa

initial stress, Pa

relaxation time, 5

frequency, rad 3"

xviii

beta 10
can be c
16169.1 61?:
prom
required
Perfect \
fluids 1.
deform}
31mph ‘0

afood pr

“001165, .
“31‘7- Sal
Stick}~ ma
dF'l‘uimic 5

IIIOCegSim

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Rheology is the science of flow and deformation of matter. It describes the
behavior in which materials respond to applied stress and strain. Rheologically, materials
can be classified according to their flow behavior. The simplest materials are either an
ideal elastic solid or a perfect viscous liquid. For the ideal solids, the stress is directly
proportional to the strain (Hookean solids). They deform elastically; that is, the energy
required for the deformation is fully recovered when the stresses are removed. For the
perfect viscous liquids, the stress is directly proportional to the rate of strain (Newtonian
liquids). These materials deform irreversibly (they flow). The energy required for the
deformation is dissipated within the fluid .in the form of heat and cannot be recovered
simply by removing the stresses. Many materials do not follow these ideal behaviors and

a food product like wheat flour dough is a typical example.

Wheat flour dough is the basis for many food products such as breads, crackers,
cookies, cakes, biscuits, pastas, and pretzels. It is formed by the mixture of wheat flour,
water, salt and other ingredients (Bloksma and Hlynka, 1964) resulting in a paste or
sticky mass which behaves as a viscoelastic material. Wheat flour dough is a complex,
dynamic system in which rheological properties continuously change at various

processing stages (Szczesniak, 1988) creating great challenges in process control,

0.1111;

16 \111

11120.".

me:
“0141;

select

PIESen

2
equipment design and product development.

Rheological characterization of wheat flour dough is essential for a variety of
reasons. It gives valuable information concerning the quality of the raw materials and the
textural characteristics of the finished products. In the bakery industry, accurate
information on dough handling characteristics will help in the efficient design and
development of a new equipment. Information on flow characteristics will serve as a
useful tool in the quality control. The variation in the flour quality due to source and
variety could be taken care of by establishing a uniform consistency for the dough. This
would result in uniformity of the product and avoid delays in day to day operation. In
selecting new varieties, wheat breeders need an accurate assessment of the flour
components, especially of wheat proteins, by determining the physical characteristics of
the dough, in conjunction with results obtained fiom chemical laboratory techniques such

as gel electrophoresis.

Published literature on dough rheology is very extensive and summaries are
presented in recent books (F aridi, 1985; Faridi and F aubion, 1986; Faridi and Faubion,
1990) and book chapters (Bushuk, 1985; Bloksma and Bushuk, 1988; Castell-Perez and
Steffe, 1992). Many investigations on testing flour and dough characteristics were
conducted using traditional instruments (e. g. Farinograph, Mixograph, Alveograph)
which provided practical information and have become standards in the bakery industry.
These instruments however, fail to answer many rheological questions on the
fundamental nature of dough development. The qualitative information obtained by these

instruments cannot be used for fundamental computations. Besides, information and

chance:
meoiogi.
tssts I. R:
compost:
'nput 16C
fact tat 1

5mm 1x

summer:
5

.‘ '
dam-ed rt

dCVEIOpm

1n
hl’dnted f
is 111mm
““931“ of
Danes e1 ;
dough mat.
11111115 man
belief itSIg
EXIEmiOm ;

3
results pertain to dough as it is being mixed and do not provide any information on flow

characteristics of mixed dough. Many studies have also been conducted using basic
rheological procedures (steady shear, creep, stress relaxation, extension, and dynamic
tests). Results indicated that dough development is a function of many factors such as
composition, moisture content, type of applied deformation (shear or extension), energy
input, temperature, and flour quality. The studies cited in the literature are limited by the
fact that dough samples were prepared in a F arinograph, a Mixograph or a similar mixing
system before they were placed in a suitable instrument capable of measuring
fundamental rheological properties. Although, past work in dough rheology has
significantly expanded our knowledge in the area, these efforts have not provided the well
defined rheological parameters required to understand the actual process of dough

development.

In this research, a unique methodology of making “undeveloped dough” (i.e.,
hydrated flour where the energy input phase of dough development has not been initiated)
is introduced and its fundamental rheological properties are investigated. A similar
concept of making undeveloped dough was reported earlier (Olcott and Mecham, 1947;
Davies et al., 1969), however, the focus of their investigations was on lipid binding in the
dough matrix. .No studies have been conducted yet on basic rheology for doughs prepared
in this manner. The results that can be derived using this unique methodology could give
better insights and more knowledge on the role of the type of deformation (shear or
extension) and the influence of energy input on dough development. Information of this

type is essential in optimizing the engineering design and operation of dough processing

equipment

selections.

may offer

methodch
44."- '
rklsIUrLAI
mung tr:
nflactirag

ll 33‘ I.
II:

n. .
1103:1165 (

05161311165 1

3111

5.1515111 W35

4
equipment. It could also be valuable to wheat breeders in making early progeny

selections, as only very small samples are needed to perform the test. Results obtained
may offer improved selection information and criteria than traditional approaches which
give limited data and require large samples. This approach would also provide alternative
methodology for measuring the physical behavior of any type of dough aside from the

traditional empirical procedures which are well established for hard wheat dough used in

making bread.

U] . .
The overall objective of this research was to evaluate the fundamental rheological
properties of undeveloped dough subjected to pure shear deformation. The specific

objectives were as follows:

a) to determine whether a uniform distribution of water in the undeveloped dough

system was achieved;

b) to investigate the effects of moisture content, temperature, strain history,

energy input, and wheat flour type on the rheological behavior of undeveloped dough;

c) to compare rheological behavior between undeveloped and Farinograph

doughs.

8 1168335

Tillman:
final 1

PTO-pert

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The rheological characterization of wheat flour dough has long been recognized as
a necessary and powerful technique used in the baking industry. It provides a basis for
understanding the handling properties of the dough and is vital in explaining and
predictingthe quality of baked products. It has also provided a wide range of information
relevant to the needs of wheat breeders, processors and researchers. In particular, there is
a great interest in dough rheology as it provides a possibility for relating the rheological

properties to the structure of the dough.

Different aspects and techniques of dough rheology have been addressed and
extensively reported; and, depending on the principles involved, methods used to evaluate
the dough rheological properties are classified as empirical, imitative (descriptive) and
fundamental (Menjivar, 1990). Since the instruments used in imitative and empirical
methods are relatively inexpensive and easy to operate, their application has found more
acceptance and common usage. Although these methods provide usefirl information
based on qualitative evaluation of the dough, results cannot be described in terms of
fundamental rheological properties (i.e., stresses and strains), and hence, the results are
unique to the test instruments rather than to the material. With the recent trend of

mechanization and automation in the bakery industry, qualitative evaluations of the

dramas

ffect
11C} ‘id .1.
main
1. mass
Iniepe
hflVing
bfihayi

‘al‘Par

6
dough are insufficient to make engineering advances in such high-capacity and fast

processing operations. Therefore, a fimdarnental and quantitative understanding of the
rheological properties of wheat flour dough is essential. Some of these properties can be
determined using the standard rheological methods (Steffe, 1992). The intent in this
chapter is to elucidate our knowledge of fundamental dough rheology by summarizing

studies existing in this field.
2.1. Viscoelastic Behavior of Wheat Flour Dough

Rheologically, materials can be classified according to their flow behavior. The
simplest materials are the ideal elastic solid and the perfect viscous liquid. For the ideal
elastic solid, the stress is directly proportional to the strain (Hookean solid) and for the
perfect viscous liquid, the stress is directly proportional to the rate of strain (Newtonian
liquid). The mechanical properties of such materials are defined by the constant of
proportionality: elastic modulus (stress/strain) for the Hookean solid and viscosity
(stress/rate of strain) for the Newtonian liquid. Since the elastic modulus and viscosity are
independent of the magnitude of the applied stress, these materials are considered as
having linear rheological behavior. However, most materials do not follow this ideal
behavior. Some materials behave in a nonlinear fashion where the ratio of stress to strain
(apparent modulus) or the ratio of stress to strain rate (apparent viscosity) is a function of
stress. Others combine the properties of both solid and liquid and are called viscoelastic,

where the stress is a function of both the strain and the rate of strain.

The behavior of viscoelastic materials can be represented by massless mechanical

115C 06
the ab;

013x

7
analogs composed of an array of springs and dashpots representing elastic and viscous

behavior, respectively. The springs and dashpots can be arranged in a variety of ways and
the resulting models are helpfirl in visualizing the behavior of viscoelastic materials. For
a quantitative interpretation, numerical values must be assigned to the various elements.
Figure 2.1 shows the most common mechanical analogs which include Maxwell, Kelvin,
and Burgers models, and a combination of the elements of the Maxwell fluid in parallel

with a spring .

Partly due to unique protein characteristics, wheat flour dough behaves as a
viscoelastic material (Schofield and Scott Blair, 1932). When deformed, the dough has
the ability to spend the applied energy in both heat generation (viscous process - property

of a Newtonian fluid) and energy storage (elastic process - property of a Hookean solid).

There are several theories that govern the viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour
doughs. A commonly accepted concept is based on the idea of the formation of a cross-
linked three-dimensional network in the dough (Eliasson and Larsson, 1993). It is
postulated that the network is formed by the complex reactions between sulfhydryl (S-H)
and disulfide (S-S) bonds found in gluten. Another theory is based on the idea of
molecular entanglements (Ferry, 1980) which is a common phenomenon encountered
with synthetic polymers. When deformed, the protein molecules found in wheat flour
dough cannot orient themselves quickly because they are entangled in each other. The
result is that a three-dimensional network is formed, and the dough shows an elastic

response to deformation.

a1)?

'fl'

C) E

F 141m-

 

 

 

 

 

a) Maxwell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c) Burgers (1) Maxwell model in parallel with a spring

Figure 2.1. Conunon mechanical analogs used to describe viscoelastic materials.

Me
1055 mod‘JIi
“133311011 at
51155111560
listening '31
(Written 19
22. Tunda'r;

In 111'
semis and
dexelopmen'
investigator
and baking ;
both scientif

concerned \\
‘1 w
....I. Dyna

T1161

9
Wheat flour doughs have been theologically evaluated by considering storage and

loss moduli in dynamic oscillatory flow, stress overshoot at the start of shear flow, stress
relaxation at the cessation of the flow, creep, steady shear apparent viscosity, and normal
stress differences (Baird and Labropoulos, 1982). Apparent yield stress, unique strain
hardening effects and thixotropic behavior of wheat dough have also been reported

(Weipert, 1990; Sharma et al., 1993a).

2.2. Fundamental Studies

In the recent years, new, highly versatile and sensitive instruments as well as
methods and computer-supported techniques have been developed (Weipert, 1990). These
developments have inspired some cereal scientists and researchers to conduct rheological I ‘
investigations resulting in better awareness of the complexities of the dough development
and baking processes. They also led to a wider application of fundamental rheology for
both scientific and practical purposes. In this section, various fundamental studies

concerned with rheological properties of wheat flour doughs are considered in detail.
2.2. 1. Dynamic Measurements

The viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour dough can be determined by dynamic
measurements where a sample is subjected to small amplitude oscillatory motion using
cone and plate, parallel plate, or concentric cylinder apparatuses. In a typical experiment,
a sinusoidal strain (using a controlled-rate rheometer) or sinusoidal stress (using a
controlled-stress rheometer), which varies harmonically with time, is applied to the

sample causing some level of time dependent stress or strain to be transmitted through the

material. 11
\jscoelaSlIC
mmuemc
energy dis:
expressed ii
Itorlow. 1
assumption

‘ 4" ln‘ ;«
\Istoeidslit

Where 7,. 15
lag 01131133:
phaseshim

“Pressed a

ACICIIIIQm]
“311118 of [h
dynamic VI:

expregSed a

10
material. The magnitude and the time lag of signal transmission depend on the

viscoelastic nature of the dough. Data from these measurements are used to calculate G'
(storage modulus) and G" (loss modulus), which correspond to the energy stored and
energy dissipated, respectively. Both moduli are functions of frequency and can be
expressed in terms of amplitude ratio and the phase shift (Schrarnm, 1994; Steffe, 1992;
Whorlow, 1980). The following mathematical equations were developed with the
assumption that the dough samples subjected to dynamic testing stay in the linear

viscoelastic region of material behavior (usually at very small strain or stress amplitudes):

G'= (93-) cos 5 [2.1]
70

c": (91) sin a ' [2.2]
70

where yo is the amplitude of the strain, 00 is the amplitude of the stress, and 6 is the phase
lag or phase shift relative to the strain. The loss tangent (also called the tangent of the
phase shift) is a measure of the ratio of viscous and elastic response of the dough. It is

expressed as

G"
=_ 2.3
tan 5 G' I 1

Additional frequency dependent material functions used to characterize the viscoelastic
nature of the dough include the complex modulus (G*), complex viscosity (n‘), the

dynamic viscosity (n'), and the out of phase component of the complex viscosity (n") are

expressed as

1’1“th

ll

c*=-‘-’£=,Fc')2 +<G">2 [2.41
To

 

 

n“ = Em: = fin“)2 + (71")2 [2.5]

n'=-G: ' [2.61
a, .

n": g . [2.7]
(0

There seems to be no consensus on the level of strain (or stress) magnitude where
the linear viscoelastic region occurs for wheat flour doughs. This information is very
significant for the expressions of rheological parameters described above to be valid. It is
however, generally admitted that wheat flour doughs behave in the linear or near linear
range at very small strain amplitudes. Accordingly, strain amplitudes of up to 0.2% (Dus
and Kokini, 1990), 0.22% (Hibberd and Wallace, 1966), 0.25% (Weipert, 1990), 0.5%
(Amemiya and Menjivar, 1992), or 0.8% (Lindhal and Eliasson, 1992) have been

reported.

An early investigation by Shimizu and lchiba (1958) used a dynamic method to
study the fundamental rheological properties of wheat dough. They developed an
apparatus in which the dough sample was held in a fixed outer cup and was in contact
with a suspended oscillating bob. From the angle between the torque on the bob and its
motion, fundamental rheological properties were measured. They obtained values of
viscosity ranging from 0.2x104 to 2x104 Pa 5 and the modulus of elasticity ranging from

0.5x104 to 2x104 Pa.

93 .
I; A.

‘ I
F‘h
‘ul

“:13:

men 1

3111.3;
and G'

31“.

{as

12
Hibberd and Wallace (1966) developed an instrument in which the dough sample

was sinusoidally sheared in the axial direction in the annulus between a fixed outer
cylinder and an oscillating inner cylinder. They reported that the dough sample behaved
in the linear viscoelastic region at very low strain amplitudes (less than 0.22%). It was
shown that at higher strain amplitudes, both storage and loss moduli were highly strain
dependent. They also observed that dough was thixotropic. Effects of flour water
absorption and temperature (ranging from 5° to 30°C) on dynamic viscoelastic behavior
of dough were studied. It was found that both G' and G" decreased with increase in
temperature and water absorption. F ollow-up studies using the same instrument were
performed by Hibberd (1970a; 1970b). He used the linear viscoelastic range determined
in the previous study in conducting dynamic experiments over a frequency range of
0.032-32 Hz. Effects of the water content and the influence of starch granules were
considered. He reported that G' and G" decreased with increasing water content as
expected. Also, he demonstrated that gluten-starch doughs exhibit more linear behavior
than doughs created from intact flours. The linearity of modulus versus frequency plots
decreases as the starch content in the gluten-starch blend increases. He suggested that this
variation in frequency dependence indicates that starch in these doughs is not simply an

inert filler, but rather an active participant in determining the viscoelastic properties.

Smith et a1. (1970) developed an instrument similar to that used by Hibberd and
Wallace (1966) to study dynamic behavior of wheat flour doughs. They indicated that G'
and G" were found to depend on strain amplitude, smaller than that found by previous

studies. Their results also showed that G' and G" increased with protein and starch

content 2
samples.

the dma
concfud:

CXISLS 011

north of
me. but '

metered

In
five types
dilemma
content am
11331:“! pm:

11970;.

Fau‘
35% of n
We and
111053ng It
Mm‘slarc

Waging 511'

13
content and decreased with increasing water content. Thixotmpic behavior of the dough

samples was also observed. Subsequent work by Hibberd and Parker (1975 a) measured
the dynamic mechanical behavior of wheat flour doughs in the non-linear region. They
concluded that both 6' and G" decrease with increasing strain and that this non-linearity

exists over all strains.

Bohlin and Carlson (1980) studied the effects of mixing time on the dynamic
moduli of wheat flour dough. They found that G’ and G" were dependent upon mixing
time, but that the relationship was not constant. Generally, the storage and loss moduli

increased with mixing time. The relationship also varied between the flours tested.

In a related work, Navickis et al.(1982) measured the elastic and loss moduli of
five types of wheat flour doughs in an eccentric rotating disc rheometer. Both G' and G"
determined from linear portions of the response curve were very sensitive to water
content and decreased as the water content increased. Also, the moduli were higher with
higher protein levels. These results were in agreement with earlier findings of Smith et a1.

(1970)

Faubion et a1. (1985) reviewed dynamic rheological testing and discussed the
effects of frequency, strain amplitude, mixing time, water content and protein content on
storage and loss moduli. They reported that both storage and loss moduli increased with
increasing frequency. For gluten-starch doughs, frequency dependence increased as the
protein-starch ratio decreased. The magnitude of the two moduli decreased with

increasing amplitude. Increasing mix times resulted in an increase in both storage and

prone

nil-6.1

cries:

13:15 '
11111111!
10111:]
mini:

1112.121

“flea

14
loss moduli whereas increasing water content resulted in a decrease in both moduli. Also,

increasing protein contents in dough increased both the moduli and the effect was most

pronounced at higher protein levels.

Abdelrahman and Spies (1986) investigated dynamic rheological studies on
wheat-flour dough systems. They used small amplitude oscillatory tests to study the
effect of flour component levels, frequency, flour water absorption, mixing time and of
flour quality on the storage and loss moduli. Addition of both starch and gluten caused
both storage and loss moduli to increase. As flour water absorption increased, both 6' and
G" of the dough decreased, but not at the same rate as indicated by different values of
tan6. They reported that the storage and loss moduli of the dough samples, with a 30
minute rest, increased as mixing time was lengthened. The opposite relationship was
found, however, in the dough samples measured immediately (no resting time) after
mixing; contrary to the earlier results of Bohlin and Carlson (1980). They also reported
that at about a 5 minute mixing time, no significant difference was observed in the
moduli of the samples tested immediately or after a 30 minute rest period. They
suggested that when the dough was close to its optimum absorption, and at a point
slightly past its optimum mixing time, there were few changes in the rheological
parameters after a 30 minute rest. Significant rheological differences were reported
between two flours that exhibit different baking characteristics (the better baking quality

flour yielded lower moduli and tan 5).

Dreese et al. (1988a; 1988b) investigated the dynamic rheological properties of

wheat flour dough as affected by variations in processing, ingredients and temperature-

ma

“he

5

l 5
dependent changes during heating. They indicated that cysteine and mercaptoethanol

reduced the magnitude of G' and increased the tan 5 values. The addition of potassium
iodate to dough increased 6' but had no effect on tan 6. Cysteine, mercaptoethanol and
potassium iodate are known to affect dough properties (Bloksma, 1975). Increased dough
moisture and overmixing were reported to decrease the values of G' at all frequencies
tested. They also showed that irreversible rheological changes happened for doughs
heated to temperatures above 55°C. They speculated that these irreversible changes were
due to the gelatinization of starch present in the wheat flour dough, which occurred at
temperature above 55°C. It was indicated that 0' increased and tan6 decreased rapidly

between 55° and 75°C during heating of the dough.

Dus and Kokini (1990) used the five parameter Bird-Carreau (1968) constitutive
model to predict the viscoelastic rheological properties of wheat flour dough. They used a
50 mm parallel plate geometry and 1.2 mm gap to conduct small amplitude oscillatory
measurements of a hard wheat flour dough containing 40% total moisture. They reported
that the Bird-Carreau model, although semi-empirical, was able to successfully predict
the dynamic viscoelastic properties (n' and 11"lw) in the frequency range of 0.01 to 100

rad/s.

Amemiya and Menjivar (1992) conducted dynamic rheological measurement of
wheat flour doughslusing a controlled-rate rheometer with 25 mm serrated parallel plates
configuration and a 2 mm gap between the plates. They used two different types of flours
and different mixing times to alter the protein phase of the dough. Results showed that

biscuit flour dough has higher complex modulus (0*) than the bread dough. Tan 8 for

, 16
both doughs was similar and less than one, indicating that the doughs have more elastic

than viscous character. The relevance of the localized starch-starch and starch-protein
interactions in the small deformation behavior of wheat flour doughs was examined. The
unusually higher 6* for the biscuit dough was expected because this dough has a higher
starch concentration and lower moisture content than the bread dough. They suggested
that, within the frequency range used in their study (0.01 to 100 rad/s), the contribution of
starch is at least equally important as protein and it could mask the effect of differences in
the protein phase. It was also indicated that overmixing resulted in higher G“ and lower
tan 6 for both doughs. They showed that as the gluten phase is more evenly and finely
distributed in the dough (as a result of mixing), starch-protein interactions increase
making it possible that the contribution of the protein phase itself increased the elastic
behavior of the dough. They concluded that dynamic oscillatory measurements were
sensitive to starch-starch, starch-protein and protein-protein interactions; however, the

relative contributions of each of these interactions were difficult to resolve.

A comparison of dynamic rheological properties of durum and bread wheat
doughs was studied by Lindahl and Eliasson (1992). They used a controlled rate
rheometer with a cone and plate (30 mm diameter and cone angle of 54°) for soft (high
moisture) doughs, and a parallel plate (15 mm diameter, 1 mm gap) configuration for
stiffer (low moisture) doughs. The viscoelastic properties of doughs were evaluated in
relation to water content, flour particle size, and damaged starch. They reported that a
linear viscoelastic region for dough was observed for strain amplitudes of up to 0.8%.

They observed that 6' increased with % damaged starch and larger flour particle size, and

17
decreased with moisture content of the dough. They concluded that doughs of similar

rheological behavior could be obtained from flours differing considerably in protein
content by manipulating particle size distribution and damaged starch content at a certain

level of added moisture.

Recently, Berland and Launay (1995a; 1995b) conducted oscillatory
measurements of wheat flour dough in a controlled stress rheometer with a 40 mm
diameter cone and plate configuration to study its dynamic rheological properties as
affected by water content and some additives. They reported that as water content is
increased, G' and G" decreased exponentially indicating softening of the dough, similar to
results of earlier published studies (Hibberd, 1970a; Navickis et al., 1982; Dreese et al.,
1988a). However, tan 5 is independent of water content, since 6' and G" vary similarly. It
was also shown that glutathione and lecithin have softening effects on the dough as
indicated by decreasing values of G' and G". Ascorbic acid, on the other hand, increased
the values of G' and G" which indicate a strengthening effect. upon its addition to the
dough. They reported that only glutathione seems to significantly modify the structure
level of proteins in wheat flour doughs. They observed shear softening and thixotropic
behavior of doughs which occurred beyond the linear viscoelastic range. They also
conducted shear creep tests at several stress levels (40-190 Pa) for a duration of 4
minutes. A permanent flow regime was attained and the corresponding shear rates and
viscosities were calculated. They showed that the flow properties of dough obeyed the
power law model at very low shear rates varying between 10‘4 and 6 x 10'2 sec'l. They

demonstrated that the Cox-Merz rule did not apply to the collected data as the plots of log

111

111'

1 8
11(1? ) versus log? and log n((o)* versus log u) did not coincide with each other, however

their slopes were equal. By introducing a shift factor on the x-axis, the two straight lines
were superimposed indicating that an “extended” Cox-Merz rule can be applied. It was

indicated that the value of the shift factor decreased as the strain 7 decreased.

Similar study by Petrofsky and Hoseney (1995) on dough made with starch and
gluten from several cereal sources showed the existence of starch-gluten or starch-gluten-
water interactions in dough. They reported that starch had an active role in determining
dough rheological characteristics. Starches isolated from different wheat cultivars and
mixed into dough with a constant gluten gave large rheological differences. Results
showed that soft wheat and non wheat starch-gluten doughs had higher 6' and G" than
hard wheat -gluten dough. They suspected that this is a result of stronger or greater
starch-gluten interactions. However, based on their investigation, it is not possible to

determine the nature of the interactions.
2.2.2. Creep

Creep testing is a valuable method of measuring viscoelastic properties of a
material. In a typical creep experiment, the material is subjected to a sudden step change
in stress and the corresponding strain is measured as a function of time. An ideal elastic
material subjected to a constant stress will show a corresponding constant strain and the
material would return to its original shape when the stress is removed. An ideal viscous
material would show steady flow, producing a linear response to the stress. The material

would not be able to recover any of the imposed deformation. Viscoelastic materials,

.{J

19
such as wheat dough, would exhibit a nonlinear response to strain. Due to their ability to

recover structure by storing energy, they show a permanent deformation less than the

total deformation applied to the material.

Results of a creep test are usually presented in terms of the time-dependent creep

compliance function:

J(t) = g— [2.8]

where y is the measured shear strain, 00 is the constant shear stress and J (t) is the creep
compliance which defines sample compliance: the higher the compliance the easier the

sample can be deformed by a given stress.

In principle, creep tests are performed at conditions which keep the stress/strain
interactions in the linear viscoelastic region; that is, the applied stress leads to a
proportional strain response. The resulting compliance is independent of the applied
stress. Changing the test conditions by choosing very high stresses leading to non-
proportional strains (hence, nonlinear viscoelastic behavior) provides data that are greatly
influenced by the chosen set of parameters and the geometry of the sensor system. These
data may still be useful for the comparison of different samples, but they cannot be used

to calculate absolute rheological properties.

Creep behavior of a viscoelastic material can be represented by mechanical
models and analogs as presented in Figure 2.1. The full mathematical evaluation relating

to these analogs have long been established and are derived elsewhere (Whorlow, 1980;

 

 

20
Ferry, 1980; Steffe, 1992; Schramm, 1994). The Kelvin and Maxwell models are both 2-

parameter models which characterize viscoelastic solids and viscoelastic liquids,
respectively, but they are too simplified to fully represent real viscoelastic materials. A 4-
parameter Burgers model is considered to represent creep behavior of many biological

materials and is expressed as:

70)=i’iwn-‘i‘I-[I—«==xp<'G“)1+"—°t [2.9]
G0 G1 111 140

 

This model, which is a Kelvin and a Maxwell model (Fig. 2.1c) placed in series, is made
up of 2 springs with moduli GO and G, and two dashpots with viscosities [.10 and [I]. By
dividing Eq. [2.9] by do, it can also be expressed in terms of the creep compliance:

J(t) = J0 +J,[1-exp(}:—t)]+L [2.10]

net 0

where J0=1/Go and J [=1/Gl, are the spring compliance values of the two spring moduli,
[.10 is the Newtonian viscosity of the free dashpot, and Wm (=u1/G1) is the retardation time

of the Kelvin portion of the model.

The earliest investigations on creep of wheat-flour dough systems were those
performed by Schofield and Scott Blair (1932, 1933a, 1933b). They conducted an
experiment using a mercury bath extensiometer that subjected cylinders of dough to
controlled stretching (stress). After varying periods of stretching, the stress was released,
the dough was allowed to recover for various times, and recovery was measured. Using
this measuring technique, which is basically a creep and recovery test, they were able to

separate the resultant strain in two parts: unrecoverable (viscous flow) and recoverable

It

01

of

111:

C0

2 1
(elastic deformation). Since the defamation rate and stress were known, it was possible

to calculate a coefficient of viscosity of 0.55-15 x 106 poise. The applied force and elastic
deformation allowed calculation of a modulus of elasticity for the wheat dough of 1.6-5.5
x 104 dynes/cmz. However, their calculations were based on the assumption that the
dough was behaving as a Newtonian liquid and a Hookean solid, which was an
oversimplification. Their investigations though made a significant contribution in
elucidating the viscoelastic behavior of wheat dough system. In a similar study,
conducted by Glucklich and Shelef (1962) using the same setup, no region of linear

behavior was found for the doughs tested.

Another investigations on creep of dough systems by Bloksma (1962) utilized a
truncated cone and plate geometry. He was able to calculate an apparent modulus of
elasticity of the order of 104 dynes/cmz, similar to the value obtained by the earlier work
of Schofield and Scott Blair. Calculations on the shear compliance (shear strain/shear
stress) of his dough samples resulted in values that varied from 105 to 10'3 cmZ/dyne. He
interpreted some of his measurements at low stresses as indicating a yield value of about
150 dynes/cmz. Since there were large changes in compliance as stress increased, he

determined that the shear compliance was nonlinear.

Another investigation on the creep of wheat dough was performed by Muller et al.
(1961, 1962) using the Brabender Extensigraph. They determined the apparent elastic
modulLs and coefficient of viscosity for dough under constant rate of strain. Results
showed that the modulus values and coefficient of viscosity depended largely on

conditions under which the doughs were tested. The modulus of elasticity tended to

22
increase with decreasing water content at longer extensions. The coefficient of viscosity

was found to be much more sensitive to changes in experimental conditions than the
modulus. Viscosity decreased with increasing water content. Dough exhibited yield stress
at low water content but the yield stress approached zero as the water content of dough
increased. Using this method enabled them to calculate a coefficient of viscosity of 0.3-

3.6 x 104 poise and an apparent modulus of elasticity of 0.5-6.7x104 dynes/cmz.

Smith and Tschoegl (1970) developed a unique instrument for conducting tensile
creep experiments using dough systems. They suspended dough rings of known geometry
in a fluid of equal density, then subjected samples to extensional deformation. These
investigators found a region of steady state flow (a region where the rate of increase in
strain with time is constant). They also found that creep compliance was independent of

stress (i.e., the response was linear) up to a value of 328 Pa.

Hibberd and Parker (1978) used a parallel plate rheometer with a rectangular
cross-section to evaluate wheat dough. The rheometer was constructed with a linear air-
bearing which control the constant gap between the plates to ensure that the sample
deformation was simple shear. They found that dough exhibited linear behavior at
stresses of up to 40 Pa, much lower than those reported by Smith and Tschoegl (1970).
Doughs subjected to stresses above this level behaved as nonlinear viscoelastic materials.
Contrary to the findings by Bloksma (1962), their results did not show any evidence for
the existence of a yield value even though measurements were carried out at much lower

stresses (at least 1.5 Pa).

23
A follow-up study (Hibberd and Parker, 1979) using the same instrument

indicated nonlinear behavior of the dough throughout the stresses used in their
investigation. This is in contrast with the findings of their earlier investigation. They also
confirmed that doughs did not exhibit a yield value and showed that within the time of
creep measurement of up to 10,000 sec, steady state flow was not attained (i.e., flow

cannot be considered to become purely viscous).

Loh (1991) used a controlled stress rheometer with a 20 mm diameter parallel
plate fixture and 0.5 mm gap between the plates to study shear creep of bread doughs. He
adopted the Burgers model to fit the creep data and the four parameters were compared as
affected by the different ingredients used in the dough fonnulation: flour, shortening,
granular sucrose, salt, nonfat dry milk, dry yeast, malt, water, and yeast food. He reported
that sucrose weakens the gluten structure of the dough as evident by large increase in
compliance and decrease in viscosity. The same softening effect was observed in both
yeasted and unyeasted bread doughs. The addition of nonfat dry milk or shortening
resulted in a decrease in Newtonian and retarded viscosity of fermented doughs. For the
unyeasted doughs, the nonfat dry milk weakened the instantaneous elastic element.
Results also indicated a weakening effect due to the addition of shortening as depicted by
the increase in the instantaneous compliance. The effect of nonfat dry milk and
shortening on retarded compliance is not consistent and depends on whether the
shortening was added or subtracted suggesting possible interfacial interactions involving
nonfat dry milk, flour and shortening components. Subtraction of salt from the yeasted

dough made the dough less elastic and more viscous. In general however, the effect of

,
n4
is.

r211]

10 in.
51163:
mod:

time

Where

Reine

3131‘an

24
salt on creep parameters is relatively insignificant compared to the nonfat dry milk,

shortening and sucrose. He also showed that under or over mixed doughs resulted in a
weaker dough as depicted by the elastic compliance. It also resulted in a weaker crumb
and a denser loaf of bread when baked. He concluded that creep testing can be used to

characterize the rheological behavior and structure of food dough.
2.2.3. Stress Relaxation

In a stress relaxation experiment, a test sample is deformed to a constant strain
and the changing stress over time is measured. Ideal elastic materials would exhibit no
relaxation while ideal viscous materials would show an instantaneous relaxation.

’ Viscoelastic substances would relax gradually with the end point depending on the
molecular structure of the material being tested. Stress in viscoelastic solids would decay
to an equilibrium stress, but the residual stress in viscoelastic liquids would be zero. A
stress relaxation experiment can either be performed in the shear, tension or compression
mode. Data are commonly presented in terms of the stress relaxation modulus (G) versus

time (t) and is described by the function:

0'

G'(t) = [2.11]

 

CONS!
where 0' is the measured time-dependent shear stress and yams, is the constant shear strain.

Related functions can be found in the corresponding tension or compression modes.

Several models have been established to describe the stress relaxation behavior of

materials (Whorlow, 1980; Ferry, 1980), and similar to creep, it is also represented by

reE

C01

+

u 0.

“It

C0115

25
mechanical models and analogs. The most commonly used analog is the Maxwell model

(Fig. 2.1a), however it does not account for the stress relaxation behavior of real
materials. The behavior of a viscoelastic material is commonly described by constructing
an analog which has a single Maxwell element connected in parallel with a spring (Fig.
2.1d). The stress relaxation equation is given as

on) = o. + (co - comm-Xi) [2.121

rel

where 0', (equal to yams, G0) is the equilibrium stress accounted for by the free spring, 60
is the initial stress, t is the time, and An. (equal to Iii/Gr) is the relaxation time (also
known as the characteristic time) of the Maxwell portion of the model, [4. is the
Newtonian viscosity of the dashpot, and G0 and G, are the constants of free spring and
spring in the Maxwell portion of the model. A more generalized model to determine the
relaxation spectra of a viscoelastic material was described by Ferry (1980) which

consisted of several Maxwell elements in parallel with an independent spring.

Peleg (1980) developed a different model used to interpret stress relaxation data
from foods. He suggested that these data, represented as a normalized stress term, be

fitted to the linear equation given as:

cot
=k +k t 2.13
60 mm . 2 [ 1

where do is the initial stress, o(t) is the decreasing stress at time t, and k| and k2 are

constants. The reciprocal of k, depicts the initial decay rate and k2 is a hypothetical value

26
of the asymptotic normalized stress.

Stress relaxation measurements on dough systems have been the basis for a
number of investigations. A series of classical experiments conducted by Hlynka and
colleagues (Hlynka and Anderson, 1952; Cunningham et al., 1953; Cunningham and
Hlynka, 1954) used a specially designed instrument called a relaxometer, operating in
tension. This instrument stretched a ball of dough impaled on a split-pin holder, held the
sample at a constant deformation, and allowed a continuous recording of the relaxation
process of the stretched dough. They found that the behavior of the dough did not follow
the simple Maxwellian model, but could be described by an array of Maxwell bodies
coupled in parallel. They reported that the stress relaxation behavior was not highly
dependent on initial strain. Their results indicated that dough possessed a spectrum of

relaxation times, because tension did not decay as a simple exponential function.

Glucklich and Shelef (1962) and Shelef and Bousso (1964) used a mercury bath
extensometer to study the stress relaxation behavior of wheat flour dough. They reported
that the relaxation curves showed a rapid stress decay initially, and slowed down
considerably with time. It was indicated that a yield point was obtained, related to the
Newtonian element (dashpot) of the Maxwell model. This yield point rises with increased
constant deformation, hence with the initial stress. They supported the earlier findings of
Hlynka and colleagues. Stress decayed in a nonlinear manner and indicated the existence
of a spectrum of relaxation times. Their data also indicated that stress relaxation was

independent of initial stress.

27
In a later study, Bohlin and Carlson (1981) used the instrument developed by

Bohlin et al. (1980) to conduct shear stress relaxation measurements of wheat flour and
gluten doughs based on a cone and plate configuration. The range of shear strains used
was 0.1 to 1.0. It was found that the relaxation function can be separated into a function
of strain and a firnction of time for shear strains of up 0.4. They reported that the strain
function was nonlinear and a relaxation time of 1.5 seconds was observed. The observed
time-dependence of the relaxation function was analyzed in terms of the theory of flow as
a cooperative phenomenon, in which a model is proposed where flow is the consequence
of cooperative rearrangements of flow units. In this theory, the functional form of the
flow equation is determined mainly by the coordination number of flow units. The rate
equation describing the relaxation process before the stationary state is reached, is given

by
S = —-:—(S)(S — z)“ [2.14]

where S is the stress rate, S=o/oo, 00 is the initial stress, I is a relaxation time, a is the
coordination number of flow units, and z is a measure of the strength of the cooperativity.
Results indicated that the relaxation data consisted of two separate flow processes as

depicted by the plots of stress rate versus stress

Using this theory to analyze the data, they found that the first relaxation process,
occurr‘rrg at short time (1 to approximately 10 s) was strongly cooperative with a four-
fold coordination of flow units. The second relaxation process, occurring at longer times

(10 to approximately 10000 s), can be interpreted as a weakly cooperative flow process

28
with a two-fold coordination of flow units. Mita and Bohlin ( 1983) used the same

instrument to investigate shear stress relaxation behavior of gluten which was chemically
modified with glutaraldehyde, potassium bromate, cysteine and ascorbic acid. Their
results confirmed the earlier findings of Bohlin and Carlson (1981), that stress relaxation
of gluten doughs showed the existence of two cooperative flow units. They also reported
that the relative contribution of the two flow processes can be changed considerably by

chemical modifications of the gluten.

Cullen-Refai, et al. (1988) investigated stress relaxation of fermenting wheat flour
doughs using the lubricated uniaxial compression test. Data were normalized using the
relationship developed by Peleg (1979, 1980) and were interpreted using the following

equation:

_‘_=i+i [2.15]

Y(t) ab a

where Y(t) {equal to [FD-F(t)]lFo} is the normalized decay parameter of the force, F o is
the force at the start of relaxation, F (t) is the residual force after a relaxation time t, 0
describes the level to which stresses decay during relaxation and b describes the rate at
which stress decays. Their results showed that the overrnixed and underrnixed doughs
varied significantly in their a constants. Oxidation caused doughs to have larger 0
constants due to more solid like behavior. Incomplete fermentation caused the doughs to
behave more like a liquid shown by their lower a constants as compared to controlled

dough samples.

Launay (1990) analde shear stress relaxation properties of wheat dough based

29
on the equation derived from the Lethersich’s analogical model (i.e., a Kelvin body in

series with a dashpot). Experimental measurement was performed using a cone and plate
viscometer. Steady deformation at constant shear rate was stopped after an elapsed time
corresponding to a predetermined constant shear strain, and the relaxation curve was
recorded. Results indicated that the Lethersich model can be used to describe shear stress
relaxation in wheat dough, the nonlinear behavior being entirely attributed to viscous
properties. They showed that the elastic modulus G did not depend significantly on flour
strength, dough water content, temperature and mixing time. The addition of sodium
sulfite and urea also did not bring any change in the elastic modulus. At temperatures

beyond 50°C however, it was observed that G significantly increased.
2.2.4. Steady Shear Flow Measurements

Typically, steady shear flow experiments are conducted to describe the flow
properties of a material, giving either viscosity and/or normal stress measurements
depending on the capability of the instrument. They can be carried out on rheometers and
viscometers of different configurations. The most commonly used systems include the
cone and plate, parallel plate, concentric cylinder and tube viscometers. Measurement
techniques and derivation of material firnctions are already established and available in

many textbooks.

Because of its complex nature and consequent difficulty in measurement,
investigations on steady shear flow of wheat flour dough have been very few. Launay and

Bure (1973) indicated that measurements of rheological properties are difficult to perform

30
in rotating rheometers with dough that has lower moisture contents. This is due to the

problems such as residual stresses from sample loading, drying at the edge of the sample,
and edge fracture (Menjivar and Rha, 1980). An alternative instrument for measuring
rheological properties of wheat flour dough is the capillary rheometer. Some caution,
however, must be exercised in using these devices. Wheat doughs subjected to shear rates
greater than 1.0 8", may be very elastic and viscous, and fracture easily during shear
(Menjivar and Rha, 1980). Also, the effect of thermal history and dough compressibility
needs careful consideration. The basic objection, however to steady shear flow
measurements of wheat dough is that these methods are more applicable for liquid-like
materials. Results on viscoelastic measurements are difficult to interpret. It is for this
reason that the previous methods of characterizing rheological properties of wheat dough .

are more applicable and have been used with some success.

Launay and Bure (1973) adapted the classical viscometric method to study the
flow properties of wheat flour dough using a cone and plate viscometer. They
encountered difficulty in their measurement because some dough sample were expelled
from the gap when sheared. Nevertheless, they generated a series of shear stress-shear
rate data and interpreted their results in terms of the power law model. However, these
results are unreliable because, aside from the errors that may have been caused by the
samples being expelled from the gap during measurement of the data, steady state flow

was not attained.

Dus and Kokini (1990) adapted the Bird-Carreau model to predict the steady shear

viscosity and the first normal stress coefficient in the steady rheological measurements of

3 1
a hard wheat dough. They used a parallel plate geometry for measurements at the low

shear rate range of 10'4 to 10'1 5'1 while an instron capillary rheometer was used to gather
data in the shear rate range of 2 to 1800 s". For shear rates below 10'4 s", a constant
stress rheometer was utilized to obtain viscosities of the doughs. To perform normal
stress measurement, a slit rheometer was used over shear rates in the range of 9.0 to 60 s'
'. They reported that the Bird-Carreau model was able to accurately predict the

experimental data in both the normal stress coefficient and the steady shear viscosity of

the wheat flour doughs.

A capillary extrusion rheometer was developed (Sharma, 1990; Sharma and
Hanna, 1992; Sharma, et al., 1993a; Sharma, et al., 1993b) to perform a series of steady
shear flow experiments of wheat flour doughs. Flow behavior of doughs was investigated
as affected by capillary geometry, water content, mix time and rest time. They reported
that doughs exhibited a pseudoplastic behavior following the power law model. The
consistency coefficient decreased with increasing water content in the doughs, but it
increased with increasing protein content. Mix and rest times did not show a significant
effect on the consistency coefficient. The flow behavior index was not affected by water,
protein, mix time, and rest time. Also, flow curves were not affected by the capillary
dimensions used in the study. They concluded that adjustments can be made in dough

formulation to achieve a desired consistency and meet handling requirements.

A semi-empirical methodology of determining flow behavior of wheat flour
dough was reported by Menjivar (1990). This alternative approach consisted of the

rheological determination of the kinetics of stress development in a dough sample. A

32
rheometer with two parallel plates was used and the dough sample was loaded in between

the plates. Before starting any measurement, the dough was allowed to rest for a
sufficient time (15 min) to enable the normal stresses to relax. The lower plate was
rotated at a constant angular velocity, which in turn gave rise to a constant shear rate at
the edge of the plate. Torque, measured at the upper plate, was used to calculate the shear
stress. Since this test was a constant shear rate experiment, the total strain applied was
determined by multiplying the shear rate by the elapsed time. This enabled the generation
of a stress-strain diagram used to characterize flow behavior of the wheat flour dough.
Based on the diagram, the following rheological. parameters were identified: yield stress,
elastic modulus (or strain-hardening modulus), failure stress, and failure strain. Menjivar
indicated that these parameters could be correlated to the Extensigraph or Alveograph
data (e.g. in extensigram data, maximum resistance is similar to the failure stress, and the
extensibility is similar to the failure strain). Using this method, they reported that
increasing the gluten content in the flour has a much more pronounced effect on the
elastic modulus than on the apparent yield stress. A significant change was also observed
in the effect of the shear rate on the stress-strain response of the wheat flour dough

(increasing the shear rate shifted the stress-strain response vertically upward).
2.2.5. Extensional Flow

Most of the fundamental rheological studies on wheat flour doughs have been on
shear flows and the corresponding material functions. However, some events occurring in
processing (gas cell expansion, dough fermentation, oven rise, etc.) and baking of dough

systems involve extensional flows. Estimated ranges of extension rates of some of these

. 33
processes have been reported (Bloksma, 1988): from 10“ to 10'3 s" for bread dough

fermentation, rates on the order of 10'3 s'1 for oven rise, and rates between 10'1 to 1 s'1 for
both the Brabender Extensigraph and Chopin Alveograph. In order to predict the
performance of these processes, it is necessary that accurate extensional studies be
performed. Extensional flow investigations, however, dealing directly with wheat flour

dough systems are not numerous.

Bagley and Christianson (1986) used the technique developed by Chatraie et al.
(1981) to measure the biaxial elongational viscosity of commercial, chemically leavened
wheat flour doughs. The samples, placed between teflon-coated platens lubricated with
parrafm oil, were compressed using the instron machine with a constant load at constant
crosshead speed and data were measured in terms of biaxial. extensional viscosity nbe, and

radial extensional rate a ,. The biaxial extensional viscosity was calculated as

Fh
= _— 2.16
n... nRghoe, [ 1
and the radial extensional rate as
. 1'1
8 = — 2.17

where F is the total force applied on the sample, R0 and ho are the initial sample radius

and height respectively, h is the sample height at time t, and h (equal to dh/dt) is the
crosshead speed of the instron. Results of the log-log plots of me versus a , showed that

the limiting values reached were strongly affected by the speed of the compressing

. 34
platens. Thus, Bagley and Christianson (1986) concluded that elongational flow of

doughs are not functions of radial extension alone. However, the instrument used for
gathering data was operated at constant speed, so that the strain rate to which the dough
was subjected changed with time. This complicates the theoretical analysis and

interpretation of the data (Bagley et al., 1988).

Other investigations by the same author and colleagues (Bagley, et al., 1990;
Bagley, 1992) measured the apparent biaxial extensional viscosity of wheat flour doughs
considering the application of a model with two parameters, a relaxation time and a shear
viscosity, called the upper convected Maxwell model. They determined the model to be
adequate in explaining both the effect of crosshead speed and sample dimensions. The
model describes the general features of the stress-strain and stress-tirne response of the
dough in lubricated uniaxial compression experiments carried out with constant sensor

displacement speeds.

de Bruijne et al. (1990) performed uniaxial extension experiments of wheat flour
doughs. Results correlated well with loaf volume and protein contents of bread doughs.
Their work failed to obtain a steady state stress before dough rupture; hence, clearly

accurate uniaxial extensional viscosity data could not be obtained.

An investigation by Huang and Kokini (1993) measured biaxial extensional
properties of wheat dough using an apparatus based on the lubricated squeezing film
principle following the concept of Chatraei et al. (1981). Their experiment was canied

out at constant force in an oil bath at vanishing shear stresses providing a purely

35
extensional flow in the sample examined. Using disks of different heights and diameters

to generate nonnai stresses, the authors claimed that an extension rate of 0.011 s", which
remained approximately constant was obtained. Results on biaxial extensional viscosity
versus extensional rate showed a strain thinning behavior in dough. They found that
wheat doughs with different protein contents showed different biaxial extensional
viscosities. These increased with increasing protein content. At an extensional rate of 7.3
x10'5 8", the biaxial extensional viscosity approached 61]. They also determined that the

Trouton's ratio (ratio of 11E to 1]) increased with extension rate. Their investigation

employed strain rates within the estimated ranges found in bread dough fermentation and

oven rise given by Bloksma (1988).

Padmanabhan (1992) and Padmanabhan and Bhattacharya (1993) investigated the
planar extensional viscosity of corn meal dough during extrusion-cooking utilizing the
entrance pressure drop method. An approximate planar extensional flow was generated
by forcing the dough from a circular channel barrel into a slit die. Entrance pressure drops
along the contraction of the die were calculated. They applied Cogswell (1972) and
Binding (1988) analyses to estimate the apparent planar extensional viscosity from
entrance pressure drop. Results showed that Cogswell's analysis give much larger
magnitudes than those predicted by Binding's analysis. They also determined that
moderate to large entrance corrections were obtained, with lower values obtained for the
lower moisture contents and extrusion temperatures. In all cases, they found that the

entrance correction increased with increasing flow rate.

36
Wikstrom et al. (1994) conducted biaxial extensional experiment on wheat flour

doughs based on the lubricated squeezing flow technique using a Stevens Texture
Analyzer. Cylindrical dough samples were placed between two lubricated parallel plates,
with the upper plate having the same diameter as the sample. Measurement were
performed by subjecting the sample to a uniaxial compression at a constant speed of the
upper plate. Results indicated large variations of extensional viscosity with strain and
strain rate for the doughs investigated. In particular, an increase of Hencky strain gave an

increase in viscosity, while an increase of strain rate gave a decrease in viscosity.

Padmanabhan (1995) used a capillary rheometer to measure the extensional flow
behavior of two different wheat flour doughs. He adapted the entrance pressure drop
technique described in Padmanabhan and Bhattacharya (1993) to determine the
extensional viscosity of the test samples. An extension-thinning behavior (extensional
viscosity decreasing with increasing extension rates) of the doughs was observed over the

range of extension rates examined.
2.3. Factors Affecting Dough Rheology
2.3.1. Water Content

It has been shown empirically that the water content of wheat flour dough can
significantly affect its rheological properties as well as the quality of the finished baked
product (Abdelrahman and Spies, 1986). Dynamic experiments also indicate that as the
water content of dough increases, both the storage and loss moduli decreased (Hibberd,

1970b; Hibberd and Parker, 1975b; Navickis et al., 1982; Dreese et al., 1988a). Results of

37
the investigation by Dreese et al. (1988a) indicated that for optimally mixed doughs

tested immediately, and then again 30 minutes after mixing, an increase in water content
caused both the viscous and elastic responses of the dough to change but at different
rates. They found that the value of the change in storage modulus (G') after the 30 min
rest, as a function of water content of dough, reaches a minimum at a value close to the
optimal absorption level as determined by the mixograph. This observation suggests that
doughs at optimum absorption show the least change in their dynamic storage moduli
over time after mixing (F aubion and Hoseney, 1990). Stress relaxation experiments
indicated that relaxation moduli (G) decreased with increasing moisture content
(Eliasson, et al., 1991). Lindahl (1990) showed that the amount of damaged starch has a
strong influence on this relationship. The author noted, that for two flours with different
levels of damaged starch (9.3 and 20.9%, respectively), it was possible to make doughs
having the same value of the storage modulus (G') by adding water, but not possible to
achieve the same phase angle (6) by adjusting the water content. The flour with low level
of damaged starch had a G' value of 12.4 kPa, and 6 was 329°. The flour with the high
level of damaged starch with the same amount of water added (5.5 ml to 10 g flour), gave
G'=46.2 kPa and 6=2 1 .5°. When the amount of water was increased to 7.0 ml/ 10g flour,

G' decreased to 14.9 kPa, but 6 increased to only 25.3°.

The dependence of G' and G" on water content is related to the protein content of
the flour (Smith et al., 1970). When the protein content increases, 6' and G" both become
less sensitive to the water content. Increasing the water content of the dough does not

change the water content of the gluten gel (Willhoft, 1973).

38
2.3.2. Flour Components

Different studies have shown that gluten (wheat protein) has the predominant role
in defining or controlling the viscoelasticity of wheat flour dough. Aside from gluten,
other flour components such as starch and other water solubles may modify the

rheological properties of dough.

Investigations by Szczesniak et al. (1983) and Hibberd (1970b) have
demonstrated that dough made from gluten-starch blends exhibit more linear behavior
than doughs created from intact flour. The linearity of modulus versus frequency plots
decreases as the starch content in the gluten-starch blends increases. Hibberd (1970b)
suggested that the variation in frequency dependence indicates that starch plays a major
role in determining the elastic properties of dough. It is much more than just an inert
filler. A similar finding was reached by Matsumoto (1979) based on stress relaxation
experiment. The author concluded that the presence of starch granules were responsible

for large increases in nonlinear behavior.

Abdelrahman and Spies (1986) investigated the effect of starch content, water
solubles and gluten on the viscoelastic properties of wheat flour dough. They reported
that the loss (0") and storage (G') moduli also increased as the level of gluten increased.
A similar effect was observed when the starch level was increased although the
relationship was nonlinear. They concluded that starch granules were responsible for
large increases in nonlinear behavior. Dreese et al. (1988a) however, reported that at 60%

starch content, the effect of starch on the dynamic viscoelastic properties of dough was no

39
longer significant. Abdelrahman and Spies (1986) also observed that an increase in flour

water solubles (water-soluble pentosans, soluble proteins and glycoproteins) decreased

both the loss and storage moduli.

Cumming and Tung (1977) investigated the interaction of component parts of I
wheat gluten relative to rheological behavior. They indicated that the rheological
properties of gluten can be significantly altered by the manipulation of protein, starch,
lipid, and moisture levels. They observed that prior to dough development the endospenn
protein possesses elastic properties and found no effect of lipid levels. Conversely,
Bohlin and Carlson (1980) observed that aside from proteins, lipids made a significant

contribution to the viscoelasticity of gluten.

Another component of wheat flour that greatly influences the rheological
properties of dough are the pentosans. They are nonstarch polysaccharides which consist
of soluble and insoluble components of high molecular weights. These molecules have
been found to contribute to the water absorption of wheat flour (Jelaca and Hlynka, 1971;
Patil et al., 1975; Izydorczyk et al., 1991; Meuser and Suckow, 1986). They were also
observed to have a remarkable property to form gels upon oxidation (Ciacco and
D’Appolonia, 1982; Izydorczyk, et al., 1990; Moore, et al., 1990). The water holding
capacity of the polymerized pentosans influences the distribution of moisture among
dough constituents. It has been estimated that water holding capacity of oxidized water
soluble pentosans are in the range of 40-60% dry weight basis (Izydorczyk, et al., 1991).
It was also observed that when water insoluble pentosans were added to the wheat flour

dough, Farinograph water absorption increases (Michniewics, et al., 1990). Because of

40
their high molecular weights and the findings shown above, it is speculated that

pentosans affect the rheological behavior of dough.

2.3.3. Mixing Time

The formation of wheat flour dough requires an optimum mixing time. This
optimum mixing time has been related to the gross textural properties of a dough and the
quality of its final product. Bohlin and Carlson (1981) concluded that both loss and
storage moduli were dependent on mixing time. This dependence, however, differed
among flours produced from different wheat varieties. Dreese et al. (1988a) concluded
that mixing doughs past the optimum caused them to behave similarly to optimally mixed
doughs with increased water contents. Thus, increases in mixing time resulted in reduced
storage moduli at all frequencies tested. They also speculated that mixing past optimum
may reduce the water binding capacity of the gluten in the dough. Abdelrahman and
Spies (1986) compared the dynamic storage moduli of doughs mixed for different times
before and after a 30 min rest period. They reported that storage modulus of samples with
a 30 min rest increased as mixing time was lengthened. The opposite relationship was

found, however, in the samples measured immediately after mixing.

2.3.4. Flour Quality

A wide range of flour protein quality has created a significant challenge in
understanding how fundamental rheological properties of doughs relate to the quality of
the final product. An investigation by Abdelrahman and Spies (1986) subjected two

flours with similar chemical compositions and mixing properties, but different baking

41
qualities, to dynamic rheological tests. The results showed that the higher quality flour

had lower values of storage and loss moduli as well as loss tangent than did the poor
quality flour. They observed that differences in water absorption between two flours
could not account for the observed differences, since all three values were lower. The
additional water required to reduce the storage modulus would have resulted in increased
loss tangents. They concluded that the absolute levels of both the viscous and elastic
components of a dough and the ratio of those components are essential in controlling the

baking quality of a flour.
2.3.5. Fermentation

Yeast-leavened wheat doughs undergo fermentation which causes continuous
changes in rheological behavior. The changes that take place are usually large and have
significant effects on the handling properties of the dough and the final product quality.
This process has presented great challenges to scientists since it is exceedingly difficult to
assess these changes in fundamental terms. Several studies on fermenting wheat doughs
using transient testing methods have been performed. It has been demonstrated that
fermentation causes dough to become more elastic (Cullen-Refai et al., 1988; Shiiba et
al., 1990). Dreese et al. (1988a) tested fully formulated doughs during fermentation and
reported that large reductions in storage modulus and loss tangent occurred between
mixing and the first punch (113 minutes of fermentation). Changes in storage modulus
and the loss tangent with increased‘fermentation were observed to be small. At testing
frequencies of 0.1-1.0 Hz, the loss tangent was inversely related to the frequency. They

concluded, however, that dynamic tests were no better than transient empirical tests in

42
demonstrating the effects of oxidants and reductants on dough behavior and quality of

subsequent finished product.
2.3.6. Temperature

The dramatic changes in the rheological properties of wheat flour doughs at
temperatures between 50-100°C during baking are responsible in part (along with starch
gelatinization) for the transformation from a fully viscous dough to a predominantly
elastic baked crumb (Dreese et al., 1988b). Dreese et al. (1988a) observed irreversible
rheological changes due to heating dough to more than 55°C. The storage modulus
increased and the loss tangent decreased rapidly between 55 and 75°C. The magnitude of
the temperature-dependent rheological changes was proportional to the starch content of
the dough. They speculated that starch gelatinization was affecting dough rheology in a

way other than by simply absorbing water.

Since gluten is responsible for the elastic behavior of wheat dough, changes in the
rheology of gluten would appear to be responsible for the final setting of the bread loaf. It
was previously thought that gluten denaturation caused these changes; however, this was
ruled out since recent investigations to measure changes in gluten during heating revealed
no evidence of a denaturation process (Eliasson and Hegg, 1980). It was suggested that
other possible factors may have caused the changes including chemical modifications that
occur in gluten during heating, and interactions between gluten and various lipid fiactions
in the flour and dough (Schofield et al., 1983; 1984). The extent of the increase in the

elastic component of the dough was directly related to the amount of starch.

43
Changes in some of the parameters measured in the dynamic oscillation mode

during the heating and cooling (temperature sweep) stages of wheat flour doughs
simulating the baking test were reported by Weipert (1990). He suggested that these
changes were caused by various heat-induced reactions in the tested dough, such as starch
gelatinization and protein denaturation. Tangent 6 values of stiffer doughs were observed
to remain consistently lower than the values obtained for softer doughs. Results agreed
well with the subjective observations by bakers who have long known that flours with
elastic and less extensible doughs produced bread with a more elastic and resilient crumb
compared with the crumb of loaves baked from softer doughs. Results show that the
linear viscoelastic region varied with temperature with the longest linear part of the
modulus-strain curves occuring at 80°C, after the sample had passed the pasting stage. He
also observed that dough viscosity increased steadily reaching the highest value at the end
of the cooling period when the dough was believed to change into a bread crumb.
Addition of sugar increased the viscosity of the dough because it delayed on the onset of
starch gelatinization believed to be caused by the competition for water between sugar

and starch.
2.4. Summary

With its complex rheological behavior, handling and processing of wheat flour
dough poses a great challenge to food rheologists. Dough rheology- is an important link
between cereal processing and the final baked product. It is essential that the rheological

properties of dough receive careftrl consideration.

44
This chapter reviewed previous investigations on fundamental dough rheology.

With the recent emphasis on automation, mechanization, and the need to update
production processes in the bakery industry, it is imperative that fundamental scientific

principles be applied to better describe, predict and control dough rheological changes

during processing.

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Materials

Due to their distinct physical and chemical characteristics, different types of flours
are used in a variety of food products. Generally, soft wheat flours are used for making
cakes, cookies and crackers, hard wheat flours for breadmaking, and durum wheat flours

for the production of spaghetti and other related pasta products (Hoseney, 1994).

In this study, two different types of commercial wheat flours with distinct
physical characteristics were used: soft white winter and hard red winter flours (King
Milling Co., Lowell, Michigan, USA). Prior to experimental tests, proximate analyses
were conducted to characterize the flours for their protein content, moisture content, ash
content, falling number, and farinograph test following the standard AACC procedures

(AACC, 1983) .
3.2. Proximate Analyses of the Flour
3.2.1. Protein Content

The protein content of the flours was determined using the AACC approved
standard method 46-13 (AACC 1983). Between 0.32-0.36 g of flour sample were

weighed on a quarter piece of a wattrnan filter paper and carefully placed into the bottom

45

46
of the digesting tube so that no flour sample was spilled into the tube wall. One tablet of

catalyst and 5 mL of H2S04 were then added into the tube before digestion of the flour.
For each type of flour, 4 replications were performed. A Tecator 1008 Control Unit with
a Digestion System 40 1006 Heating Unit (Silver Spring, Maryland, USA) was used in
digesting the flours. The digested samples were distilled using the Buchi 323 Distilling
Unit (Brinkman Instruments, Inc., Westbury, New York, USA). This was followed by
titration using a 716 DMS Titrino titrating unit (Brinkman Instruments, Inc., Westbury,
New York, USA) programmed to determine the % protein content of the sample being

tested. The % crude protein was calculated as

(V, — Vb) x HClm xN(W) x 5.7 x 100%

% Protein = [3.1 ]
W

 

where: Vs = volume of hydrochloric acid (HCl) used in titration of sample, mL
Vb = volume of hydrochloric acid (HCI) used in titration of blank (no sample), mL
HClm) = normality of HCl used for titration
NM,vt )= number of equivalent weights of Nitrogen
Ws = weight of flour sample (g)
The constant 5.7 is used for calculating % crude protein content for wheat flours.
3.2.2. Moisture Content

The moisture content of the flours (% dry basis) was determined using the

approved AACC Method 44-15A (AACC, 1983). Two to three grams of carefully

47
weighed flour samples were placed in each of the six tared moisture dishes (which

constitute six replicates) for each type of flour. They were heated in an oven held at
130°C for 1 hour. The dishes were then removed from the oven, transferred into a
dessicator and were held until they cooled to room temperature. The moisture content (%

dry basis) was calculated as

W
% me. = T71}! x100% [3.2]
P

where: WM = weight of moisture loss, g
WF = final weight of flour samples, g
3.2.3. Falling number test

The falling number test is conducted to detect excess enzyme activity (or—
amylase) in wheat flours. Normally, the or—amylase activity in wheat grains is low, but it
increases upon germination. High or—amylase activity is thus an indication of sprouting in
wheat grains. The falling number, the result of the test, is defined as the total time in
seconds from the immersion of the viscometer tube into the water bath until the
viscometer stirrer has fallen the prescribed distance through the gelatinized suspension
(AACC, 1983). Falling number values bear an inverse relationship with the quantity of
a—amylase in the sample. Generally, a falling number above 300 indicates low or-
amylase activity, hence a sound wheat sample. A sprout damaged wheat (high (Jr—amylase

activity) usually has a falling number value below 150.

The falling number test of the flour samples was conducted using a falling number

48
apparatus type 1400 (Perten Instruments, Huddinge, Sweden). This apparatus consisted of

a water bath, a viscometer tube with stirrer, a stirring attachment assembly and a timer

control box.

The test procedure correspond to the approved AACC Method 56-8 1 B (AACC
1983). Approximately 7 g flour sample (this was adjusted depending on the flour
moisture content) was placed in the viscometer tube after which 25 mL distilled water
was added. The tube was shaken vigorously up to 15 times to obtain a uniform
suspension. Using the stirrer, flour particles adhering to the tube walls were scraped
down. The viscometer tube together with the stirrer was placed into the boiling water bath
and the motor started the stirring after 5 seconds. The stirrer was automatically released
after 60 s in its top position and was free to sink in the heated flour-water suspension.
When the stirrer has fallen the set distance, the falling number value was registered in the

display of the timer control box. Four replications for each type of flour were performed.

3.2.4. Ash Content

The ash content of flour was determined using the approved AACC method 08-01
(AACC, 1983). Flour samples of 3-5 g were placed in each of three ashing bowls and
heated in an oven held at 575°C for 24 hours. They were then transferred into a dessicator

and held until cooled to ambient temperature. The ash content (%) was calculated as

weight of ash (g)

% ash = ,
weight of flour (g)

 

x100% [3.3]

49
3.2.5. F arinograph Test

To evaluate the physical and flow characteristics of the dough, the approved
AACC Method 54-21 (AACC, 1983) was followed using a Brabender Farinograph (C.W.
Brabender Instruments Inc., South Hackensack, New Jersey, USA) with a measuring head

of type 850 and 50 g mixing bowl.

A 50 g flour sample was placed inside the mixing bowl and the instrument was
started. Water was added rapidly from a buret so that mixing of the flour and water
followed until a curve with a peak value of 500 Brabender units (BU) was obtained. The
amount of water used correspond to the water absorption of the flour (% weight basis). It
is then defined as the amount of water required to center the F arinograrn on the 500-BU
line for the flour water dough. The temperature, maintained at 25°C throughout the test,
was controlled by the water circulating through the hollow wall of the mixing bowl.
Mixing was continued for about 15 min and the resulting F arinograrn was used to
calculate the other characteristics of the flour such as dough development time (peak
time), arrival time, mixing tolerance index (MTI), departure time, and stability which are
discussed in detail elsewhere (AACC, 1983; Shuey, 1984). A typical Farinogram

showing some commonly measured indexes is shown in Figure 3.1.
3.3. Concept Origin of Making Undeveloped Dough

Traditionally, dough is made by combining water, flour and energy using a

Farinograph, a Mixograph or other mixing instrument. The mixing mechanism of the

50

 

 

 

 

 

de arture time I
‘ p %
peak time I ___________ I_ _ _
l ‘ mixing tolerance index
' (5 min after peak)
500 __ _ _______________
:3
C0 ;
>1“ 1
o .
=1 1 1
B .
é ‘ stability time .
o I
O
arrival time
Time, min

Figure 3.1. A typical Farinogram showing some commonly measured indexes.

5 1
instrument uniformly distributes the ingredients (flour and water), while simultaneously

adding energy to the whole system. The mixing action enables the proteins in the flour to
swell and become organized into a protein matrix that gives dough unique viscoelastic
properties. Customarily, dough development is associated with the energy input element

of mixing phenomenon (Kilbom and Tipples, 1972; 1975).

Traditional mixing methods (empirical testing) seem to have provided tremendous
help in evaluating flour qualities and functionalities (Menjivar, 1990). The problem
however, is that they combine the distribution and energy input functions in a manner that.
provides limited fundamental information on dough development. Dough is prepared in
an undefined flow field where it is not possible to distinguish shear from extensional
deformation or to know the relative contribution of each. Results are also very limited
since they cannot be described in terms of fundamental rheological properties of dough.
In this research, a new method of making dough (undeveloped dough) was introduced
wherein water (as powdered ice) and flour were distributed uniformly to achieve
hydration. This method is unique since energy input was not initiated in making dough, in
contrast with the traditional mixing procedures. Working with undevelopeddough is
favorable since the influence of the flow field (shear versus extensional), strain history,

and energy input levels on the finished dough (and final product) can be carefully studied.

Different ideas were conceived in making undeveloped dough. Several techniques
were conducted and tried including spraying a thin layer of flour with droplets of water
and allowing ice to melt between layers of wheat flours. The main objective was to make

a homogeneous, hydrated dough without energy input, which was not achieved using

5 2
these techniques. Another approach was tested by mixing powdered ice and flour,

subsequently used in this research and described in the following sections.
3.4. Making Undeveloped Dough
3.4.1. Preparation of Powdered Ice

The powdered ice was prepared in the presence of solid carbon dioxide (C02 or
dry ice) which was required to absorb the heat generated in breaking the ice into smaller
particles. Breaking or crushing the ice without using the C02 caused some of the ice
particles to melt and others to clump together making the material difficult to handle. The
powdered ice was prepared inside a walk-in cooler held at 4°C. A Waring blender was
used to achieve size reduction. Large pieces of C02 were first pulverized to generate a
cold temperature condition in the blender. Ice chunks were then added and broken into
smaller particles by the action of the rotating blades. Solid C02 and ice particles were
sieved and those with a particle size (150-250 um) similar to flour were collected for
firrther use. The powder mixture was then held inside a -8°C freezer, undisturbed,

allowing sublimation of the solid C02 while keeping the ice intact.
3.4.2. Mixing Flour and Ice to Form Dough

The blending of flour and ice particles was performed inside the -8°C walk-in
freezer. Materials were carefully weighed (to control the moisture content), placed into a
centrifirge tube, and distributed uniformly using a vortex mixer for two minutes. The
resulting flour and ice mixture was placed in a moisture resistant container and held for a

predetermined period of time at a set temperature of 25°C. For convenience, a holding

53
time of approximately 24 hours was used. This holding period allowed the ice particles to I

melt, and the water thus produced, to diffuse into the system resulting in the hydration of
flour. This blending and thawing procedure was the critical step of this new approach
making hydration, without the dough development associated with energy input, possible.

A summary of the methodology is presented in the flow diagram shown in Figure 3.2.

To determine if water was unifomrly distributed throughout the system, six
samples were prepared using the powder mixing procedure discussed above. Commercial
soft white wheat flour was used in this experiment. A sample batch consisted of 6 g of
flour and 3 g of ice particles, using a 2:1 flour to water ratio. Each batch of undeveloped
dough was subdivided into 4 small lots, carefirlly weighed, and placed in the convection
oven held at a temperature of 135°C for three hours. The moisture content (percent dry

basis) of each individual lot was calculated as:

_ (initial weight - final weight)

°/ m c
0 final weight

 

x 100% [3.4]

It is commonly accepted that mixing time of flour to achieve proper dough
development strongly depends on the type and quality of the flour. In general, hard wheat
flours require longer mixing times than soft wheat flours; hence, no standard mixing
times can be prescribed. In this study, results were compared with dough samples made
using the Farinograph and the standard dough preparation procedure (AACC, 1983).
Dough samples were prepared in the Farinograph mixer by combining 50 g of flour and a
known amount of water (25 g), then mixed for a predetermined mixing time of 2, 4 and 8

minutes. Eight subsamples of each batch were taken, and moisture content was

54

Break solid carbon dioxide(dry ice)
in Waring blender

1

Add ice to blender with
crushed C02

1

Pulverize ice

1

Sieve ice and C02 mixture collecting the

 

particles with size range of 150-25011m

1

Hold mixture in freezer allowing sublimation _,

of C02 and retention of ice particles

1

Combine known amounts of
flour and ice in a centrifuge tube

1

Distribute powder using
vortex mixer

1

 

Place mixture in moisture
resistant container

Hold at room temperature for a
certain period allowing ice to melt
and flour to hydrate

4°C Walk-in
Cooler

-8°C Walk-in
Freezer

Figure 3.2. Flow diagram of the powder method of making “undeveloped dough.”

deterrr.

1651101

10 each
considei
Comfim 1

contame

16251 3 h
ice paml

hi'dralio

'4 J
(J!
(D

{1160111611

COHUOI O

55
determined using the procedure described above.

Data on dough moisture content were statistically analyzed using the Bartlett’s
test to determine if homogeneous dough samples were obtained in the two methods of
dough preparation. To evaluate similarity in the moisture distribution between the

undeveloped and Farinograph doughs, an F -test was used to analyze the moisture content

data.
3.4.3. Preparation of Undeveloped Dough for Rheological Testing

For convenience, 6 g of flour was used for each sample. The amount of ice added
to each flour sample depended on the target dough moisture content (71, 76 and 81% db)
considered in this study. It was also adjusted to account for the initial flour moisture
content of the flour. The resulting flour and ice mixture was placed in a moisture resistant

container and held in the freezer until ready for experimental measurement.

Prior to any rheological measurement, the flour and ice mixture was held for at
least 3 h at room temperature condition. This holding period was sufficient to allow the
ice particles to melt. The water (melted ice) diffused into the system resulting in the

hydration of the flour forming an undeveloped dough.
3.5. Rheological Measurements of Undeveloped Dough

Rheological tests of dough samples were made using the Haake controlled-stress
rheometer, Model RS100 RheoStress (Haake, Paramus, New Jersey, USA) with a 5 N-cm
torque capability. The rheometer was interfaced with a computer, allowing an automatic

control of the conditions used in the experiment. All measurements were conducted using

56
a 20 mm diameter parallel plate configuration. Approximately 2 g dough samples were

required and loaded on to the testing fixture. After loading the rheometer, the gap
between the parallel plates was slowly brought to a preset distance of 2 mm. Excess
dough protruding at the edges of the plates was trimmed off carefirlly with a thin, sharp
blade. To prevent drying of the edges, a thin layer of petroleum jelly was applied to cover
the exposed dough surfaces. For the oscillatory temperature ramp tests, a high melting-
point food grade grease was used. Before starting any measurement, the dough was
allowed to rest for 5 minutes to allow the normal stresses induced during sample loading

to relax. All rheological measurements were performed in triplicates.

Only shear-deformation rheological measurements created by the rotational,
parallel plate rheometer were considered in this study. These included creep, oscillatory,
and stress ramp measurements. Data were collected and results generated using computer
software developed by Haake. Steady shear and normal stress measurements were not
included due to instrument limitations (normal stresses could not be measured with this
instrument) and characteristic material properties. Preliminary tests indicated difficulty in
obtaining reliable steady shear data. It was observed that the sample did not stay in the
gap during the entire test. Dough started to leave the gap after a quarter turn of the sensor
and then climbed upwards on the outer rim of the upper plate which appeared like rolling
away fiom the gap. It is suspected that this phenomenon is caused by the normal forces
which are the result of elastic response of the dough sample. This behavior is common for
a viscoelastic material. A similar problem was encountered by earlier investigations

(Muller, 1975; Amemiya and Menjivar, 1992).

57
In all measurements, three levels of dough moisture content of the resulting dough

(71 , 76 and 81% db) for each type of flour used were considered. The amount of water
(ice) added in preparing dough were adjusted accounting the moisture originally present
in the flour. For each flour type used, the resulting dough contain the same solid-to-water
ratio at a particular moisture content. Except for the oscillation temperature ramp, all

measurements were made at a temperature of 25°C.
3.5.1. Linear Viscoelastic Region

In principle, dynamic oscillatory experiments are to be conducted within the linear
viscoelastic range of a material. With a controlled stress rheometer, the sample is
subjected to a sinusoidal applied stress and the resulting sinusoidal strain output is
measured. In the linear viscoelastic region, the amplitude of shear strain has a
proportional response to the applied stress amplitude. The dynamic moduli (G' and G”)
are independent of the applied stress, and therefore, to the shear strain response as well.
Most viscoelastic materials including wheat flour dough behave linearly only at low
stress or strain levels. The level at which nonlinearity occurs can be quite variable and

dependent on material structure and composition.

To determine the linear viscoelastic region of the undeveloped dough, a dynamic
oscillatory experiment was performed in which the applied stress was increasingly
ramped from 2 to 100 Pa at an angular frequency of 1 Hz. Storage modulus and strain

response data were collected, and plotted, as a function of the applied stress. A typical

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100000. 0.0045
1 .Storagcmodulus ‘I
. °h
' Iran] 0 b
, °S . .0004
o h
o D
o b
0 .0.0035
0 1
0° ’
e..0e.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee '
... O D
l . ...OOOOO............“om3
(6 0° ' m
m
°'- 3 e
3 9 1000253
'§ 0° * E
10000. .
E . 00° .E
o . o 0002 '°
it” 1 0o » .g’
O
.. o .
w o _ :0
0° .00015
4 0° ’
o°° :
1 o .0001
o b
o° -
o .
o° ’
00° .0000:
o b
0
0°
lm v v v r V v V v ‘V v V I W v v v v I’ v o
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Shearstrcss,Pa

Figure 3.3. Storage modulus and shear strain as a function of applied shear stress obtained

at an angular frequency of 1 Hz (6.28 rad/s).

59
result is shown in Figure 3.3. The figure shows that the dynamic moduli decreased slowly

with increasing stress indicating that a clear linear region could not be established in the
dynamic responses of the dough. However, the strain response was fairly proportional to
the applied stress (stress-strain curve remained a straight line) until the stress of
approximately 50 Pa which correspond to a strain amplitude of less than 0.2%. Some
authors (Hibberd and Wallace, 1966) have claimed that wheat dough behave in the linear
viscoelastic range at strain amplitude of up to 0.22%. In this research, dynamic oscillatory
experiments were performed using 50 Pa as the applied stress. The same stress value was

also used to evaluate creep behavior of the undeveloped wheat doughs.
3.5.2 Slip

One of the major sources of error in rheological measurement of composite,
multiphase materials is wall slippage. This phenomenon was evaluated for undeveloped
wheat dough using the technique introduced by Navickis and Bagley (1983). Using a very
strong adhesive, tiny particles of sand were glued into the surfaces of the plates and the
apparatus was calibrated using a standard Newtonian fluid. Calibration results indicated
lower values than the actual viscosity of the standard fluid, an error of 34% was obtained.
The preset effective gap between the plates was controlled automatically by the
instrument assuming smooth plates were used. However, this distance was altered by the
glue and sand particles adhering into the plates, causing an erroneous calculation of the
results. It was also suspected that the weight of the adhesive and sand particles altered
the sensitivity of the instrument which may have further amplified the dynamic

measurement error. The method developed by Yoshimura and Prud’homme (1988) was

60
also tested. Experimental results for creep test of undeveloped wheat dough using 3 gaps

between the plates showed similar values. It was also observed that the dough samples
adhere to the surfaces of the plates throughout the measurement. This was evident even
after the measurement as dough samples clinged to the surfaces of the plates when they
were separated, an indication that slip is not present. Besides, the dough system used in
this research was composed mainly of wheat flour and water. Ingredients used in a typical
full formula dough system that may cause wall slippage include shortenings and fats.

None of these were used in this study.
3.5.3. Creep Measurement at 25°C

Creep measurement for each dough sample was conducted using a constant stress
of 50 Pa. Each measurement lasted for a period of 10 min. Creep data, in terms of creep

compliance versus time, were collected and analyzed.
3.5.4. Dynamic Oscillatory Measurement at 25°C

Dynamic oscillatory tests of dough samples were conducted using the fiequency
sweep mode. Measurements were carried out by applying a a constant shear stress of 50
Pa to the dough sample over an angular frequency range of 0.60 to 380 rad/s. Various
linear viscoelastic material firnctions were collected and generated into recognizable

frequency dependent results such as loss modulus, storage modulus, tan 6, etc.
3.5.5. Stress Ramp Measurement at 25°C

This measurement was conducted to determine the yield stress of dough. A

sample was subjected to increasing stress starting at 0.64 Pa and ramped up until the

61
dough started flow. Stress and deformation data were collected and analyzed.

3.5.6. Oscillatory Temperature Ramp Measurement from 25 to 95°C

Under this measurement scheme, a dough sample was subjected to a contant stress
and frequency with a superimposed temperature sweep. This test allowed simulation of
some of the chemical changes that takes place during baking (i.e. starch gelatinization,
protein denaturation). A heating rate of 1°C/min was used and programmed by the
rheometer. Data in terms of loss modulus, storage modulus, and tan 6 versus temperature

were collected and analyzed.
3.6. Rheological Measurement of Dough Made in F arinograph

For the purpose of comparison, the same rheological measurement noted above

were also conducted for dough made in the Farinograph.

3.7. Data Analysis

In this study, three replications were conducted for all rheological measurements.

Results were based on the simple average of the three replicates.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Proximate Analyses of F lours

The results of the proximate analyses of the flours used in this study are presented
in Table 4.1. The moisture content of the flours (14.24% for hard wheat and 14.84% of
soft wheat, dry basis) indicated that they were in the recommended level where minimum
oxidation and mold growth could occur. The moisture levels of the wheat dough used in

this research were adjusted based on the initial moisture already present in the flours.

Results for the protein content indicated higher levels for the hard wheat flour
(12.36%) than the soft wheat flour (10.73%). These values are typical. Hard wheat flours
usually have a higher protein content than their soft wheat counterpart. The protein
component in wheat flours has a tremendous influence on the physical and functional
properties of the flour. It is mostly responsible for the viscoelastic nature of the resulting

dough.

Ash (mineral) content is an indication for the presence of bran in flours.
Typically, a wheat grain has an ash content of about 1.5% (Hoseney, 1994), however, it is
not distributed evenly. The bran contains 6% while the endosperrn may only contain
0.3%. The ash content of the flours used did not vary significantly. The hard red flour

was slightly higher than the soft wheat flour and their levels were typical for commercial

62

63

Table 4.1. Proximate analyses of the flours used in this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flour Characteristics Hard Red Flour Soft White Flour
Moisture Content, % (dry basis) 14.24 14.84
Protein Content, % 12.36 10.73
Ash Content, % 0.52 0.45
Falling Number, seconds 478.0 259.5

 

 

 

 

64
flour. It should be noted that ash content does not affect flour properties (Hoseney,

1994).

Falling number is defined as a measure of the presence of or-amylase activity in
wheat flours. It indicates the degree of sprouting in wheat which can have a significant
effect on physical and chemical properties of flour and dough. Results showed that hard
red flour had a higher falling number than the soft wheat flour indicating no sprouting
problem (sound wheat). Falling number values below 150 generally indicates high or-
arnylase activity (AACC, 1983). The results for soft wheat flours showed that a very low
level of enzyme activity could be present, hence its influence on flour properties is

minimal.
4.2. F arinograph Test

One of the most widely used instrument to measure the rheological properties of
wheat flour dough is the Farinograph. It provides a curve that depicts the changes in
dough behavior during mixing and kneading. This instrument is easy to operate and the
measurement is empirical giving practical information on the characteristics of the wheat
flour being tested. The results obtained are very limited since they cannot be expressed in

terms of fundamental rheological properties.

F arinograph tests were conducted for the flours studied. Empirical data normally
obtained from the Farinogram include a value for water absorption, and the parameters
describing dough mixing properties indicated by the shape of the mixing curve, as

described in section 3.2.5 of Chapter III, (dough development time, arrival time, stability,

65
mixing tolerance index, and departure time). The results of the tests are presented in

Table 4.2, based on the F arinogram characteristics shown in Figure 4.1.

The results for water absorption were significantly different for flours used in this
study. Hard red flours have higher water absorption (59.8% weight basis) than soft white
flours (54.8%). This result was typical and consistent with the popular notion that flours
higher in protein content have greater water absorption (Merritt and Starnberg, 1941).
Aside from protein, other flour components such as damaged starch and pentosans were
also observed to affect water absorption (Sandstedt et al., 1954); however, it was reported
that the influence of these factors on absorption was very minimal since they are usually

present in small quantities for commercial flours.

It was observed from Figure 4.1 that the flours used in this study produced
Farinograms having different shapes. This indicated that there was a difference among
individual flour constituents of the flours tested. The shape of the curve and the values of
the parameters for the hard wheat flour indicated that it was a stronger flour compared to
the soft wheat. The peak time values showed that soft wheat flour (1.25 min) required
half the time to reach the maximum consistency as compared to the hard wheat flour (2.5
min). The stability for hard wheat flour (10 min) was more than three times that of the
soft wheat flour (2.75 min), which is an indication of a tolerance to mixing. The mixing
tolerance index (MTI) value for the soft wheat flour was 10 times greater than the hard
Wheat flour, which support the earlier finding that it was a weak flour. This was further
cOilfir'med by the arrival and departure time values since that of the hard wheat flour were

considerably higher than that of the soft wheat flour.

66
Table 4.2. Values of F arinograph pr0perties of the flours used.

 

 

 

Flour Farinograph properties Hard red wheat flour Soft white wheat flour
Water absorption (% wt. basis) 59.8 54,8
Arrival time (min) 1.25 0.75
Dough development time (min) 2.5 1.25
Stability time (min) 10.0 2.75
Mixing of tolerance index (BU) 40 140
Departure time (min) 11.5 3.5

 

 

 

 

Exam ofl 3 wow: gem “so? was was «8 23° mEaEBEam A .v 25me

as: an; «em

50E 30:3 who:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68
The above F arinograph test results and the earlier proximate analyses suggested

that differences in physical and chemical behavior existed in the flours tested. It is
therefore established that the flours used in this study have unique physical and chemical

properties. These differences were produced predominantly by the protein and starch

interaction of the flours (D’Appolonia, 1984).

4.3. Undeveloped Dough

Dough, in the most basic form, is made by combining water, flour, and energy. It
is customarily prepared using traditional instruments, such as the Farinograph and the
Mixograph, whose function is to uniformly distribute the total mass, and add energy by
rotating the mixing elements (Hoseney, 1985; Preston and Kilbom, 1984). Undeveloped
dough, the focus of this study, is defined as a homogeneous hydrated flour without the
addition of mechanical work. In preparing wheat dough for experimental analysis, the
homogeneous distribution of components in the dough system is essential; particularly,
the uniform distribution of water to hydrate the protein and other flour particles. The
hydration phenomenon (and subsequent dough development) is facilitated by the addition

of energy input (Kilbom and Tipples, 1972; 1975) through the mixing elements of the
Farinograph, the Mixograph or similar equipment. Literature relating the effect of water
content on the properties of the dough is very extensive. Although it is well established
that dough rheological properties are extremely sensitive to the moisture content (Smith
et al., 1970; Navickis et al., 1982; Abdelrahman and Spies, 1986; Dreese et al., 1988a;
Eliasson et al., 1991; Berland and Launay, 1995a), data on the homogeneous distribution

of water in the dough systems are not available. Published studies assume, implicitly, that

69
water is uniformly distributed in the dough after the mixing process.

In this research, this phenomenon was examined particularly for the new method
of making undeveloped dough. Results were also compared with the data obtained with

the moisture distribution accomplished in the Farinograph method.

Data on the moisture content analysis of the dough prepared following the powder
mixing method is presented in Table 4.3. All moisture contents are expressed on a dry
basis. From the six samples of undeveloped dough, 4 subsamples from each were taken.
Results yielded mean values of moisture content ranging from 70.26% to 70.89% and
standard deviations ranging from 0.42% to 0.94%. Predetermined moisture content was
calculated to be 70.15% using a 2:1 flour to water ratio (and the initial moisture content
of the flour which was 13.5%). Table 4.4 presents the results of the comparative
experiment where dough was prepared using the Farinograph method. Values were
similar to those found for the undeveloped dough (mean values ranging from 69.88% to

70.77%).

Although standard deviations (ranging from 0.35% to 0.63%) are slightly smaller
than that of the undeveloped dough, statistical analyses using the Bartlett’s test and F -test
showed that the difference is insignificant at the 5% level. These results indicate that the
dough samples produced by the powder method and Farinograph method are
homogeneously mixed (i.e., moisture is dispersed uniformly throughout each dough
sample). The initial concern in making the undeveloped dough (powder mixing) was that
a new variable, non-uniform mixing, would be introduced into the process. The results in

this experiment show that a homogeneous dough (similar to the level of the homogeneity

70
Table 4.3. Percent Moisture Content of the Undeveloped Dough“.

 

 

 

Sample number Flour to water ratio Mean Standard deviation
(gzg) (% m.c., db)" (% m.c., 0b.)"
1 6:3 70.89 0.81
2 6:3 70.63 0.42
3 6:3 70.50 0.94
4 6:3 70.73 0.71
5 6:3 70.61 0.63
6 6:3 70.26 0.54

 

 

 

 

a Mean and standard deviation are based on sample size of 4

b me. = moisture content; db. = dry basis

 

71

Table 4.4. Percent Moisture Content of the Dough Made Using the Farinograph”.

 

 

 

Mixing time Flour to water ratio Mean Standard deviation
(min) (gzg) (% m.c., d.b.)" (% m.c., 0b.)"
2 50:25 70.67 0.53
2 50:25 69.87 0.44
4 50:25 70.03 0.63
4 50:25 70.35 0.35
8 50:25 70.11 0.35
8 50:25 69.88 0.59

 

 

 

 

a Mean and standard deviation are based on sample size of 8

b

m.c.= moisture content; d.b.= dry basis

 

72
achieved with the Farinograph method) system can be made with the powder mixing

method. This novel method of preparing dough could open unique Opportunities in
studying wheat products by decoupling the hydration and energy input steps involved in

preparing finished dough.
4.4. The Dough Development Phenomenon

A key ingredient in preparing a wheat dough system is water. The correct amount
is essential in the hydration of flour components responsible for the characteristic
viscoelastic property of the resulting dough. Traditionally, water is mixed with wheat
flour (and other ingredients) and kneaded to form a sticky dough mass. With continuous
mixing of the dough, remarkable changes occur. The dough appears to become less wet
and sticky, and a system that is cohesive and partially elastic is formed. The dough at this

point is considered to be developed.

There have been arguments on what constitutes dough development. Hoseney .
(1994) described the occurrence of this phenomenon as the point when full hydration of
flour particles, along with the aid of an energy input through mixing, is reached. During
mixing, as the hydrated particles are rubbed against each other, the mixer bowl, or the
mixer blades, the hydrated layer is removed exposing a new layer of particles to the
excess water in the system. Repeated many times, the flour particles slowly become worn
away and hydrated. As more and more of the free water is used to hydrate the protein and
starch, resistance of the system to mixing is increased progressively. Thus, the height of

the mixing curve of a F arinograph, (Farinogram shown in Fig. 4.1) gradually increases to

73
a peak. This implies that when this peak is reached, all the flour particles are now

hydrated. If completely hydrated, then continued mixing would give more resistance and
shift the maximum point on a curve to a longer mixing time. Protein and starch, in
particular, that are not hydrated cannot interact in the dough in any beneficial way. The
peak also implies that this is the point to which a dough should be mixed for producing a

loaf of bread.

It can therefore be suggested that when complete hydration of flour particles
occurs, water is uniformly distributed thoughout the dough system. Using this argument,
doughs obtained using the powder method investigated in this research can be considered
a fully hydrated dough system. This assertion is supported by the result of the moisture
content investigation discussed in the previous section (Section 4.3). It must be pointed
out, however, that strength of the dough obtained using this method could be different
than that of dough made in F arinograph meaning that mixing may enhance bonding as
well as distribute water. F arrand (1972) and Preston and Kilbom (1984) have suggested
that dough development is related to changes occuring in the structure of protein fibrils
formed during flour hydration. Although the basic protein fibril units probably possess
viscoelastic properties, it can be speculated that collectively, they are incapable of
forming a strong weblike or laminar structures. When mixing energy is imparted to the
dough, the fibrils tend to align and interact to oppose the forces produced by mixing,

resulting in a highly organized laminar structure.

4.5. Shear Creep

74
Creep test is a valuable technique which can provide useful information on .

rheological prOperties of wheat flour dough. It is particularly suitable for studying the
stress-controlled effects such as spreading and rising of wheat dough during proofing and
baking. Unlike the “spread test” which offers empirical information, creep testing can
quantify fundamental rheological parameters that characterize the stress-strain-time
behavior of the dough. Consequently, it can also be a powerful tool capable of illustrating

rheological structure of dough.

In this research, creep tests (using an applied constant shear stress of 50 Pa) were
conducted to investigate the viscoelastic flow behavior of undeveloped wheat flour
dough. Creep curves were obtained for a testing time of up to 600 s (10 min). Data were
presented in terms of creep compliance (strain divided by stress) as a function of time. A
six-pararneter Burgers model (Kelvin element was added in series to the four-parameter
Burgers model described in section 2.1 of Chapter II) was used to characterize the

viscoelastic behavior of dough. This model is expressed as

 

 

J=f(t)=JO+J,[l—exp( ‘t )]+J,[1—exp( ‘t )]+L [4.1]
Areu Area 110
where:
P1
7L =— 4.2
.. G. 1 1
and,

112 4
A. ‘ .3
G [ 1

75
Using the equation parameters (Jo, J 1, J2, km], Lee, [10), the effects due to the flour type

and moisture content were evaluated. A four parameter Burgers model was also

considered but found to give a poor representation of experimental data.

Creep behavior of Farinograph dough was also evaluated for comparison purposes
with the undeveloped wheat dough. Resulting creep data were also characterized using a

simple linearized semi-empirical model (Peleg, 1980):
t
E=kl +k2t [4.4]

where k, and k2 are empirical constants.

A typical creep curve of an undeveloped wheat flour dough modelled using the
Burgers model is presented in Figure 4.2 (hard wheat dough at 76% me.) Creep data of
all dough samples (soft wheat and Farinograph doughs) are presented in Appendix A.
Analysis of the creep behavior of all doughs using the six-parameter Burgers model are
presented in Table 4.5. A typical result of creep data analysis using the linearized semi-
empirical model (Peleg, 1980) is shown in Figure 4.3, and the parameters (empirical

constants) for all dough samples are summarized in Table 4.6.

It must be pointed out that an excellent fitting of the curve was obtained for all
experimental creep data using the six-parameter Burgers model. The four-parameter
Burgers model was also considered but did not give a good fit (results not shown). The
drawback with the Burgers model is that it is a nonlinear function which becomes even

more complicated with the addition of element parameters. Fitting the experimental data

76

o8

.8088 0.5568 fees 3 sweet «3:3 can mono—2,028 .«o 8333 @020 .mé oSwE

 

m .08:
can 2:. can can 2: c
P h I h h P h n T I h b a

 

. flood

. Ncod

-.uewEimIaowSm .30ng IHI

Sec 0

 

 

. nmocd

tad/1 ‘aouetlduroo daerg

77

ooo

 

€8.80 2:208 $2. a Amoco “and? Ba: cone—3025 mo 03:0 @080 @3583 .mé 0.3me

oom

oov

m .05:

com

oom

.eao .o

I

 

ooooo_
ooooom
ooooom
ooooov
ooooom
oooooo
ooooon
ooooow

oooooo

8°82

S I3d ‘f/l

Table 4.5. Parameters of Burgers model of undeveloped and F arinograph dough at 25°C.

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample J0 #0 J1 Ami J2 41:12
(1/Pa) (Pa 8) (l/Pa) (s) (l/Pa) (s)
Undeveloped hard dough
71% me 7.1x10'5 2.17:1106 2.3i110'5 130 6.6x10’5 9.7
76% me 1.2x10“ 1.3511106 3.4x10“ 130 1.311104 12
81% me 1.8x10" 1.0on6 50110“ 130 2.2x10“ 11
Undeveloped soft dough
71% me 6.8x10'5 1.43:1106 3.51104 150 1.1x10“ 12
76% me 1.2x10“ 1.0x106 5.1x10“ 130 2.0x10“ 11
81% me 1.9x10'4 snsxro5 7.3i110'4 130 3.2x10“ 12
Farinograph hard wheat
dough at 76% me 1.15:110‘4 7.69x105 5.6x10‘4 140 1.1010“ 12
F arinograph soft wheat
dough at 76% me 1.5x10“ 8.33x105 6.8x10‘4 120 3.2x10“ 9.4

 

 

79

Table 4.6. Parameters of the Peleg linearized semi-empirical creep model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample k1 k2 r
(Pa 8) (Pa)
Undeveloped hard dough
71% me 182,624 1,344 0.97
76% me 106,743 845 0.97
81% me 67,189 596 0.98
Undeveloped soft dough
71% me 140,424 887 0.97
76% me 80,402 610 0.98
81% me 52,463 385 0.97
F arinograph hard dough
at 76% me 75,875 511 0.97
F arinograph soft dough
at 76% me 51,606 477 0.98

 

 

80
using the Peleg model obtained a fairly accurate fit of the data with r2 _>. 0.97 in all cases.

This model should be adequate in most cases for characterizing creep behavior of dough.
The Peleg model has a big advantage over the Burgers model since it is a simple,

linearized model compared to a nonlinear, complex frmction.

4.5. 1. Effect of Flour Type

Figure 4.4 show creep curves of the undeveloped wheat flour dough (soft versus
hard flour) at 76% dough moisture content level. Creep curves for the soft and hard
wheat doughs prepared in F arinograph are shown in Figure 4.5. The data indicated that in
general, hard wheat dough (undeveloped and F arinograph) is characterized by a firmer
(harder) structure than the soft wheat dough. This was evident by the higher shear
compliance values for soft wheat dough compared with the hard wheat dough at a similar
moisture content level. Usually, hard wheat flours possess stronger gluten that may be
responsible for producing a stiffer dough. This effect may be further enhanced since the

hard wheat flour has characteristically higher protein content than the soft wheat flour (as

depicted in Table 4.1).
This observation was confirmed by the values of parameters of the Burgers model
Shown in Table 4.5. The viscosity parameter ([0,), for undeveloped hard wheat dough at
the three moisture levels was higher than for the soft wheat dough counterpart denoting
more viscous behavior, hence a stiffer dough. Retardation compliance values (J, and .12)

for soft wheat doughs were higher than the hard wheat doughs, indicating a more

compliant characteristic behavior. However, the instantaneous compliance values (Jo) and

81

.2583 0352: $2. 3 gone—c «8:3 v.8: Ea d8 ooze—0.635% c3232. 905 .3. 25mm

 

 

m .085
8“ So e8 e8 2: o
p b p r n P c

i 88...
4 .85
.
. 285
. ~86

.38 so? one u .

5:8 323 e8 o

 

 

 

 

i muooo

Bd/I ‘oomrydmoo dearc)

82

45:80 03568 33 an swag Seas ES— EE «8 aoaumcgm no 8332— 380 .mé 0.5me

 

 

m .085
8c can So com con 2: o
p n b p b h L h o
a 386
.. Sod
.. 38¢
. Sod

 

 

fi§§§e8o

ewaeaseaeaa- .

 

 

 

i muooo

rid/1 ‘aormrlduroo daorf)

83
the retardation times (It, and IQ) between the hard and soft wheat doughs of

corresponding moisture content did not differ significantly.

Results of the analysis of creep data (Table 4.6) using the semi-empirical
linearized model proposed by Peleg (1980) showed that the greater the values of the
intercept (k,) and the slope (k2) of the linearized semi-empirical creep curves (t/J vs. t),
the smaller the creep compliance differential over time. Data indicated that hard wheat
dough parameters (k, and k2) were larger than soft wheat dough parameters, denoting a
stiffer and perhaps, a stronger characteristic. The inverse of k, was indicative of the
ability of the dough to exhibit a lower shear deformation over longer periods of time. The

value of the inverse of the slope (1/k2), on the other hand, represents a value of constant
creep.

4.5.2. Effect of Moisture Content

Figure 4.6 showed the creep behavior of undeveloped soft wheat doughs as
affected by the moisture content. Results indicated a softening effect due to the increase
in moisture content of the undeveloped wheat flour doughs. This can be attributed to the
plasticizing effect of the water in the dough: more water decreases the modulus of
elasticity (increase the creep compliance). This behavior is confirmed by the values of the
Parameters of the Burgers model (Table 4.5) and the linearized model (Table 4.6)

Proposed by Peleg (1980). For both doughs, JO, J ,, and J2 increased and #0 decreased as
the moisture content was increasing. The retardation times (Ann, Ana) however, did not

change significantly for both cases. Peleg parameters (k, and k2), decreased as moisture

84

ooo

.3880 05638 mo :03: 08:» «a :waoo 23:3 ace. 38:33:: me 816:2: @020 .06 35me

m .08:

oom oov oom ooN oo _ o

- - p u — u — - nI . — o

 

 

 

 

noooo
Sod
flood
. mood
.u.E es; I
.3: es: 4 4
.o.E $2. 0

 

 

 

r mnooo

rad/1 ‘couurjduroo daorg

85
content of the dough was increased. This observation indicated that increasing moisture

content caused a general softening of doughs.

4.5.3. Undeveloped Dough Versus Farinograph Dough

Figure 4.7 depicts a comparison of the creep behavior between the F arinograph
and undeveloped hard wheat dough. Results indicate that the undeveloped doughs were
stiffer, showing lower creep compliance values over time (similar results were obtained
for soft wheat dough, data not shown). Farinograph doughs were mixed to a point
corresponding to the dough development time based on their Farinograph curves. The
dough thus produced was believed to be fully developed. It can be presumed that the
undeveloped dough may not have reached the same level of development as the
Farinograph dough. To attain the same level of dough development, an energy input

(perhaps in the form of mixing) is needed for the undeveloped dough.

Preston and Kilbom (1984) suggested that a fully developed dough (Farinograph
dough mixed to optimum development) has a well organized, weblike (laminar) gluten
protein structure, stabilized by interactions between individual proteins and the formation
01‘ well established intermolecular bonds (hydrogen and disulfide bonds), suggesting a
Strong and perhaps a stiff dough structure. Contrary to this presumption, results of the
creep tests indicated that undeveloped doughs seem to portray a stiffer dough structure

Characteristic compared with the F arinograph doughs. On the other hand, it should be
Considered that in creep testing, the material is being sheared (or deformed) in one

direction( in this case, a deformation of up to approximately 10% strain was obtained).

86

.8880 0868:. each «a :woco 000:3 Ea: 38:05:08 28 :ofimcatam .8 830:0: @005 6.0 08mm":

0 6:5

coo com 8* oom ooN oo—

- b p h n n b p F b h

 

 

:mnev vac—0898 o

:woov :aflwoctam I ,

 

 

T 386

i :56

i 386

i wood

 

i muooo

Bd/I ‘eormgdrnoo daerg

87
One can speculate that the orderly alignment of laminar structure of protein network in

F arinograph dough allows more easy deformation during creep testing compared with the
undeveloped dough. The well-organized layers of protein in the Farinograph dough offer
less resistance to the stress resulting greater strain. The undeveloped dough is a fully
hydrated system, however, the flour particles and particularly, protein fibrils are
collectively unorganized and thus incapable of forming a weblike or laminar protein
network. During creep testing, these particles rub against each other resulting in more

resistance to the applied shear stress and, consequently, less creep.
4.6. Dynamic Oscillatory Test

Dynamic oscillatory testing is the most common fundamental rheological
technique used to evaluate the viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour dough. This is evident
by the relatively large number of investigations on wheat flour dough using this testing
method. It has become popular due to the availability of commercially made oscillatory

rheometers with computerized evaluation of measured data.

In this study, a controlled-stress rheometer was used, in which a sinusoidal shear
stress was applied to the wheat flour dough (in contrast with the controlled-rate rheometer
where a sinusoidal strain is applied). The measured responses of the material were the
maximum amplitude of the strain, and the phase difference (phase angle) between the
applied stress and the resulting strain wave. Assuming linear viscoelastic behavior, these
measured data were simultaneously converted into material parameters (G', G", 6, etc.)

used to characterize the viscoelastic properties.

88
Typically, dynarrric oscillatory tests can be performed in several modes: strain or

stress sweep (to determine the limits of linear viscoelastic behavior), and frequency
sweep (the most common because it shows how the viscous and elastic behavior of the
material changes with the rate of application of the input signal). With the newer models
of commercial rheometers, other modes of testing can also be performed. These include
isothermal time sweep, and a time sweep conducted in conjunction with a controlled

change in temperature (temperature ramp).
4.6.1. Linear Viscoelastic Range

The problem of linearity of the behavior of wheat flour dough has been discussed
by several investigators (Hibberd and Wallace, 1966; Smith et al., 1970; Navickis et al.,
1982; Dus and Kokini, 1990). There appears to be little agreement in the literature as to
the strain level at which linear behavior of dough ceases. Many studies have shown that
doughs behave as linear viscoelastic materials at the extremely low strains associated
with the oscillatory tests. This phenomenon was also investigated in this study. A stress
sweep was conducted by varying the amplitude of the stress input signal at a constant
frequency of 6.28 rad/s (1 Hz). It was established in Chapter III, that the undeveloped
dough exhibited a linear range of up to a shear stress of approximately 50 Pa, which
corresponded to the strain level of up to 0.2%. This value of shear stress was the basis for

the other oscillatory tests performed in this research.
4.6.2. Viscoelastic Behavior of Undeveloped Dough as Affected by Frequency

The effect of frequency on the viscoelastic behavior of undeveloped wheat dough

89
was investigated using the frequency sweep mode of the dynamic oscillatory test. A

maximum shear stress of 50 Pa was applied to the sample. Results for the undeveloped
soft wheat dough (Fig. 4.8) showed that a strong dependence of the viscoelastic dynamic
moduli to the frequency was observed (i.e., G' and G" increased as the frequency was
increased). The storage modulus G' (elastic property) was greater than the loss modulus
G" (viscous property) throughout the whole frequency range studied. This behavior is
expected for highly structured materials including wheat dough. This result indicated that,
at the applied shear stress (50 Pa), the undeveloped doughs behave more like a solid
rather than a liquid. This was also reflected by the values (less than 45°) of the phase
angle 6. For an ideal Hookean solid 6=0°, and for a Newtonian (viscous) liquid 6=90°. It
was shown that 6 was not highly affected by the frequency indicating that the rate of
change of G' and G" were approximately the same. Similar results were also obtained for
the dynamic oscillatory tests for undeveloped hard wheat dough and the F arinograph
doughs investigated in this research. Earlier studies (Hibberd and Wallace, 1966; Smith et
al., 1970; Cumming and Tung, 1977; Szczesniak et al., 1983; Faubion et al., 1985) on

traditionally prepared doughs reported that G' and G" were affected by frequency in a
Similar manner observed here.

4.6.3. Effect of Moisture Content
Water is the most critical ingredient in making a viscoelastic wheat dough.
Undeveloped doughs were prepared using three levels of moisture content: 71%, 76%
and 81% dry basis. Using the frequency sweep mode of the dynamic oscillatory test, the

effect of moisture content on the viscoelastic behavior of the doughs was investigated.

9O

Samson ‘9 9131“! mu

.35. 88:3 gamma: $2. an swag 32.3 «8 vane—gown: me 8332. ESa—momo gang .wé onE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"<2: ..monoscoum
83 8— c. g mo 86
_ Phi. b I Fri-PP h b b Elbhb I n D hh-hb - b I b ...nbh P lP h 8—
. m
108—
° I
o o .
. o o
0 O O ..
. o o o o n
I o o . I
. o o o n
o o o o o
O 0
o o .
o o
. o o o r
o n
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1882

. o
r
. 0338950 .
. ..oo H
H .o. m

2:. "8°82

ed ‘gnporn onnuufiq

91
Results (Fig. 4.9) showed that G' and G" decreased as the moisture content was increased.

Values of phase angle 8 increased with increasing moisture content (Fig. 4.10). This
behavior was expected because the dough becomes softer as moisture level was
increased. This confirmed the results of the creep test discussed earlier. Previous
investigations (Hibberd, 1970a; Hibberd and Parker, 1975a; Navickis et al., 1982; Smith
et al., 1970; Faubion et al., 1985) on traditionally mixed wheat flour doughs also reported

similar behavior observed in this study.

4 -6.4. Effect of Flour type

‘ Different types of flour differ in rheological and baking behavior. The effect of
flour type (hard red vs. soft white flour) on the viscoelastic behavior of undeveloped
dough was investigated using the frequency sweep mode of the dynamic oscillatory test.
The prepared hard and soft wheat doughs of the same moisture content (same solid to

water ratio) were tested and analyzed. Results (Fig. 4.11) indicated that hard wheat dough
has higher dynamic moduli response (G' and G") and lower phase angle (8) values,
indicating a stiffer characteristic and perhaps a stronger dough structure, than the sofi
wheat dough. This behavior could be caused mostly by the quantity and quality of protein
present in the flours. The hard wheat flour used in this research has higher protein content
(Table 4.1) than the soft wheat flour. Although the quality of flour proteins were not
determined, hard wheat flours are generally characterized to have better flour protein
Quality (breadbaking quality) than soft wheat flour. It must be noted that starch could also
contribute to the viscoelastic property of the dough. Amemiya and Menjivar (1990)

showed that the contribution of starch is at least equally important and it can mask the

92

coo—

.m_o>u_ 33.80 2:538 025 «a swag 32.3 «cm tome—gown: we 53.52. beau? own—ain— dé oSmE

 

 

 

 

 

 

"SSE Sonoswocm
oc— o~ g .fio _oAv
pun-h. » bun-pp P p p pphpp. P n r Phi: - p b pup-pr. - . oo—
r
".000—
o o o o m
o o 4 o a 4 .
o o 4 4 4 .
o 4 4 4
o 4 4 .
O .C O. 4. n. t
o 4 4 n. .
o 4 4 4 a n n I .
o I 4 4 4 D D a I I reocc—
o o a 4 n I
o N a 4 u n. I m
a m D I I u
o a m I

4 o I n I I

O _I .

c u n u .

. i
. . .U.E °\°~” A80 0 m

I I . . . .. cocoo—
oEe\eS .00
.98 £2.64 .
.2: x264 .
.3: .x.:....0o n
.3: .\.:..o- m

cocooo _

ed ‘rlnpour anaemia

93

20>». “8:80 0:568 025 «a awn—ow “3:3 as cox—3032: ofimo 32.3 035 32E .2 .4 25E

Cd-

8—

pbphp -

Od-

.QI

.4.

.4.

.4-

.4.

.4.

£2: Song—coca

.4.

.GI

OQI

.4.

.4.

“I

“I

 

 

6.5 °\¢—w I
6.5 .396 G
6.5 o\o—h I

 

 

36

 

[W V I j

C
on

saorfiap ‘9 313m: assqd

94

.2588 2:32: $2. «a swag 23:3 Ba: ES «8 vane—ogqumo .8323 bog—meme egg A ~ .4 onE

 

 

 

 

 

 

$62 $083on

2: 2 . _ 3 86
pun-p. - - pup-n. - b - nnhbnpb h - bb-Pp- b p - pup-n. - - gfi
H82

0 .

n.
a a a m

a n n I I .

n. m o .

m . .

u D o m o o .

u o I o u
n o I o .88.

a o o I o o
n a o I o
a o I o
a o o I o o
n o I o .
n o I I o
m o n o o 22.60 .
I .

n o o o 22.0. T

I o c8...0n .

o . .

§.O. n

880—

M ‘rrnporn oummfiq

95

differences in the protein phase.

4.6.5. Undeveloped Dough Versus F arinograph Dough

Dynamic oscillatory experiments were conducted on the traditionally prepared
wheat doughs (using a F arinograph) and the viscoelastic behavior was compared with that
of the undeveloped dough. Farinograph dough and undeveloped dough of the same
moisture content were prepared and tested using the frequency sweep mode. Results (Fig.
4. l 2) showed that Farinograph doughs have higher dynamic moduli (G' and G") than the
undeveloped doughs. However, the F arinograph dough has lower phase angle values than
the undeveloped dough (Fig. 4.13). These data suggest that, as the weblike structure of
gluten network is created through mixing in the Farinograph dough, inter-particle
interactions increase resulting in more bonding which contribute to the increased elastic
behavior of the dough. It appears that the undeveloped dough has not reached the same
level of development as the F arinograph dough and that an appreciable work input (in the

form of mixing and shearing) can be added to increase firmness.

4-6.6. Steady Shear Behavior from Dynamic Data
Aside from viscoelastic properties, the flow characterization by steady shear
experimentation of wheat flour doughs are also of great relevance for practical
applications. This has been studied by several authors (Shanna, 1990; Sharma et al.,
1 993a; 1993b; Launay and Bure, 1973). In some instances, the steady shear and
Viscoelastic properties may be connected using various empirical equations. One of the

simplest relations is the Cox-Merz rule which state that log 1] versus logy , and log 11*

96

.2688 age:— e\eob 3 i=3. 26:? d8 nay—moan Ea Baa—082.5% 832—3 beau—mama 28.55 .N— .4 08mm..—

 

 

 

méa .353on

2: 3 _ fie 86
nun-pup P-hbnup b - tub-bh pub-h-p - b Lphppprr p 8—
"82

o .

o o o o o

. v

o o m a e .

o a a u .

I D I ..

I I .

o I

o o u I H82:

I .

o o c a I
o n c
O O n. _u I I

o a . I I

n o o I I =§=EHED .

o u - 5.385%.0- .

I . .

I vane—govasewo n

3.9836. m

 

 

 

cocoa _

ed ‘gnporn anaemia

97

.8088 0852: $2. 3 swag 30:3 «8 figment—E 8a cone—9588 05.8 83.3 28“ 825 .m_ .v onE

 

 

 

 

 

 

mEauxoangm

8o— 8— 3 ~ fie 8.0
pp-ppp. p b Fthb-P P P pup-pp. - p pr-Lr-L b nun-uh» - p w
.o—

I
ouuquIIIIIIIIIIIIII .

oooooooooooooooma

sanguine—I.
nonflgovesofl

soorfiep ‘9 913m: aand

98
versus log to superimpose for)? =0). Dus and Kokini (1990) have claimed that this rule

was followed for wheat flour doughs. On the other hand, Berland and Launay (1995a;

1 995b) reported that the Cox-Merz rule did not apply for their study on wheat dough.

However, an extended Cox-Merz rule was introduced. They showed that, by using a shift

factor that decreases with shear amplitude, the Cox-Merz rule is applicable to wheat flour

doughs.

Utilizing the concept of Cox-Merz rule, the oscillatory dynamic data (11' versus (a)
can be used to characterize the steady flow behavior of the wheat dough studied here.
Due to insufficient data, this rule cannot be used to obtain absolute properties; however,
the behavioral trends obtained should be accurate. Results (Figs. 4.14 to 4.16) show that
the steady shear flow characteristics (11' versus co) of the wheat flour doughs followed a
shear-thinning behavior. At the same moisture content, hard wheat dough (Fig. 4.14) was
more viscous than the soft wheat dough throughout the range of shear rate considered.
The undeveloped wheat dough with low moisture (Fig. 4.15) was observed to be more
Viscous compared with the same flour type but with higher moisture content. With the
Same type of flour and moisture content, results (Fig. 4.16) indicate that the undeveloped

dough has less steady shear apparent viscosity than the Farinograph dough.

Figures 4.14 to 4.16 also show an alternative way of presenting the dynamic data
0f the wheat doughs. Results can be interpreted and compared with each other based on
the frequency ((0) corresponding to the intersection point of G'and n' curves. It is shown

that for stiffer and high apparent viscosity wheat doughs, the value of the frequency (co)

where G' and n' intersect is smaller than the softer and lower apparent viscosity wheat

99

.8088 08888 $2. 8 awsov 38>» v8: 88 a8 808232.88 8383 Boa 82?. 38on 83 288R— .3 .v Semi

3: 82 825 a 3:8: >808on

83 8— 2 _ _.o Ed

-..>u.. . - p....Fh piP Fuhrbhh p _ ~...--- . L _.»»... _ - o—

lIIIIII I

o2

llll'l I I

cog

I

[IIIII I I

252

I

 

IIIIIII I

oocco _

 

(5 ed) AirsoostA anaemia 10 (ed) snmpour 983.1015

22 888.5 +
ES. .389: I4I

«8 888$ ..ml
«8 .8838 lcl

I

    
     

 

[IIITI I I

252::

100

£96— 8088 988.8 025 «a :82. 82—3 88 cone—2,88 .8 8383 Bee 82v .886 88 88:39 .2 .4 088E

33 88 Beam 6 33.5 hofiavoum

 

 

 

 

82 8. S _ 3 8.8
pp» b - h|p Pbphp pup - pp L P °~
m 8.
/ / .
/ r
/ / m 82
r
m 88_
m 882
.2: $2. 5883+
.2: 8: 8385+ .
.2: $2 8883+ .
.2: $2 .2_€ee+ .
.2: .85 8883+ m
.2: $3 8888+ m 888_

 

 

 

(8 ed) AnsoostA onnuufiq 10 (ed) 8111an 9881013

101

.8688 0838. $2. «a :83. 88>» «8 888888 88 wane—25888 83an 26¢ 82.: .8:on 8.: 888mm .2 .v 28E

3: 88 88m a 88:2 .8828on

Ex: o2 3 — _.o 86

PbL-p-p - P pup-ppbrp puny-u» - - ---- P » -.-n_-h - p o—
'
"8—
I
n
wooe—
a - .
a - -
a t - H
-J’ l H t I
t a. - n
t - - .88—
l o
a
a t

m 888:

 

(s ad) Ansoosyt outrun/(q 10 (ed) snrnpour 9881015

cone—93:: $8883 |4|
38.3.5 .298... If .
8385: 8883+ .
88:8: .882: In:

 

 

 

m888_

 

102
doughs. Hard wheat dough has lower frequency of intersection than soft wheat dough of

the same moisture content. For the same flour type, the dough with lower moisture
content has lower intersection frequency than doughs with higher moisture content. It is
also shown that the Farinograph dough has lower intersection fi'equency compared with

the undeveloped wheat dough.
4.7. Oscillatory Temperature Ramp

This measurement was conducted to simulate the baking process and to
continuously monitor the changing rheological properties of the wheat flour dough. Using
a controlled-stress rheometer, an undeveloped dough sample was subjected to a constant
sinusoidal stress of 50 Pa at a frequency equal to 1 Hz. While the temperature was
increased at a constant rate of 1°C/min from 25 to 95°C, the dynamic viscoelastic
behavior was measured. When heating the dough sample during the experiment, it was

Observed that the volume of the sample changed due a well known phenomenon called
“oven-spring” (Hoseney, 1994), and perhaps, also due to chemical interactions, such as
Starch gelatinization and protein denaturation. Because of the volume changes, the
distance of the measuring gap could change (increased) affecting the reliability of the
measured data. However, the rheometer used in this study is equipped with a
microprocessor which automatically adjusts the plate to the original pre-set gap thus
avoiding problems caused by volume changes of the sample. Hence, it can be assumed
that this phenomenon is not a factor in obtaining a reliable recording of the rheological

properties of the dough.

103
Like most materials, the rheological properties of wheat flour dough are highly

sensitive to temperature (Launay and Bure, 1973; Hibberd and Wallace, 1966; Dreese et

al., 1988b). A typical result of the oscillatory temperature ramp testing for undeveloped
wheat flour dough is presented in Figure 4.17. The figure showed that during the initial
heating, the storage modulus (G') decreased slowly as the dough temperature increased
from 25 to 60°C, suggesting initial softening of the dough. At approximately 65°C, 0'
began to increase rapidly, reaching a peak at approximately 80°C. The figure also
indicates that the phase angle (6), decreased rapidly over the same temperature range
showing an increasing modulus. These changes are evidently caused by various heat-

induced reactions in the tested dough sample.

Wheat flour dough is predominantly composed of starch. Upon heating, starch
molecules take up water and swell substantially causing a change in rheological
properties. This phenomenon is called starch gelatinization and is an essential occurrence
in transforming dough into a bread. With continued heating, the starch granule becomes
distorted, and soluble starch is released into the system. The soluble starch and the
continued uptake of water by the remnants of the starch granules are responsible for the
Change (increase) in storage modulus. It is also probable that protein present in the dough
denatures at this stage. Presumably, the onset of starch gelatinization and/or protein

denaturation starts at the temperature corresponding to the rapid increase in G' and ends
upon reaching the peak value(65-82°C in Figure 4.17). The increase in the value of G'
could suggest an increased number of theologically effective cross-links in the dough

system. Dreese et al (1988b) found that heating doughs to 45°C caused no irreversible

104

.2538 0532: $3. “a ”3:3. 32.3 v.8.— voa£o>ov§ 5 mo “8805688 95: 05203.3 Eeoaaome 1033. .2 .v onE

seerfiap ‘alfiuu W
O

8.”

00 6550958

8 on 3. cm

cm

3

 

 

 

 

 

2&5 82a 0
«2:38 owflofi 0

 

 

1 253

nooccv

1.ocooo

x 88w

u 825—

.. accom—

r @083

.. 880—

a 882

 

raccoon

ad ‘snmpom 9831015

105
changes in either G' or the tan 5; however, when heating was increased to 55°C, 6' and

the tan 8, were irreversibly increased and reduced, respectively. In can be speculated that
these changes might be caused by starch gelatinization (Bloksma and Nieman, 1975).
LeGrys et a1 (1980) reported that this increase can also be attributed to the increased
gluten cross-linking that occurs when dough is heated.

During the baking process of a typical bread dough, many changes take place as a
result of heat transfer to the dough piece. In the first few minutes, the rise in temperature
accelerates enzymatic activity and yeast growth, and a perceptible increase in loaf volume
is observed. This increase in volume, commonly termed as “oven-spring”, is a
phenomenon caused by several factors: gases heat and expand, carbon dioxide becomes
less soluble as the temperature is raised, and yeast becomes quite active as the
temperature is raised (this stops at high temperatures). The starch granules in the dough
begin to swell at a temperature of about 40°C. The viscoelastic properties of dough are

largely supplanted by fluidity by the time the temperature attains the range of about 50-
65 °C (Pyler, 1988). This rheological change is caused primarily by enzymatic
degradation before swelling becomes significant. During swelling and gelatinization, the
Starch granules absorb the free water available. Over the same temperature range, most

erlZymes undergo thermal inactivation and the yeast and other bacteria present in the

dOugh are killed. At this point, all the carbon dioxide gas has also been released from the

SOlution and contributes to loaf volume.
It is also suggested that, as the temperature of the crumb reaches about 60-70°C,

the proteins begin to undergo thermal denaturation that reduces their water-binding

106
capacity. Baking causes the transfer of water from the proteins to the starch in the course

of gelatinization. In dough, the gluten films provide the main structural element that
sustains the loaf volume. When the dough temperature rises above 74°C, heat

denaturation transforms the gluten films sorrounding the individual gas vacuoles into

semi-rigid structures by interacting with the swollen starch. As the gas cells expand, the
hydrated starch granules within the cell wall are elongated, thereby enabling the gluten
film to become thinner and ultimately rupture. By this time however, starch swelling has

advanced sufficiently to prevent collapse of the dough structure.

4. 7.1. Effect of Moisture Content
To evaluate the effects of moisture contents on the heat-induced rheological

behavior, undeveloped doughs with three levels of moisture content were prepared and
tested. Results (Figure 4.18) showed that the dough with low moisture content (71%) was
stiffer than the high moisture content doughs throughout the range of temperature used in
this study (i.e., the drier dough has higher 6' values than the wet doughs). The stifl‘
Property of the dough with lower moisture was consistent with the earlier results of the
dynamic oscillatory test conducted at 25°C (that is, lower moisture content produce a
stiffer dough). Dreese et al (1988b) obtained a similar finding with their investigation on

dough made using a pin mixer. The figure also indicated no apparent influence of the

dough moisture content on the onset of gelatinization temperature (~60°C).

The increase in G' as dough is heated indicate an increase number of rheologically

effective cross-links in the dough system. Dreese at al (1988b) suggested that the starch

107

.396— «388 2332: 025 «a .333. “8:3 Ea: 3939,35. .«o ES: 0525988 beg—mommy .3 .v ogwmm

Do .33:ng

ca en 2. on on 3 on on 2 o

F r h p h p P b p p o

 

 

.o.E $2 o
000 .98 $2 a
.98 £9: 0 .

 

 

 

 

ad ‘snfnpom 988.1015

108
content in the dough has a substantial effect on starch gelatinization. Gelatinization may

provide the opportunity for increased hydrogen bonding between gluten polypeptides and

starch molecules.
4.7.2. Effect of Flour Type

Figure 4.19 depicts the result for the oscillatory temperature ramp response of the
two types of undeveloped wheat flour doughs tested. The figure showed that hard and
soft wheat flour doughs have different gelatinization temperature ranges. Soft wheat
dough has gelatinization temperature range at approximately 70-80°C while the hard
wheat dough has this range of temperature from approximately 63-82°C. It was observed
that although at the initial heating, the hard wheat dough exhibit stiffer structure it
became less stiff than the soft wheat dough when the gelatinization temperature was
reached. This suggest that at the initial stages of heating the dough, the effect of protein
predominates and has a strong influence on the heat-induced rheological changes of the
undeveloped wheat doughs. The hard wheat flour has higher protein content (Table 4.1)
and perhaps, a better quality of protein present in the dough. However, when
gelatinization temperature is reached, the effect of starch gelatinization in dough seem to
predominate, although at this temperature, it is pressumed that denaturation of protein
occurs. Wheat flours in general, have characteristically high concentration of starch. The
soft wheat dough used in this research contains higher starch content than the hard wheat
dough. When gelatinization temperature is reached during heating, more starch in soft
wheat dough was available for gelatinization, resulting in a dough becoming more elastic,

causing a greater response of 6' values. It can be speculated that even though the

109

cc—

éofieo 2332: $3 3 .353 32.3 :8 28. E:— 3333350 3:: 95:53.8 toga—memo .3 .v 933m

ca

 

Do .233ng

cm

2

 

 

55.85.83
58.93233...

. cocoa

.. 88¢

vccocw

2
3d ‘snmpom 938.1018

u eccen—

.. 88:

w cocoo—

1 8:8—

 

 

 

fi o88~

110
presence of protein has a strong influence on heat-induced rheological changes on dough,

its effect is masked by the changes caused by the relatively high concentration of

gelatinized starch molecules.
4.7.3. Undeveloped Dough Versus Farinograph Dough

The heat-induced rheological changes between undeveloped and F arinograph
doughs were also investigated. Using the same flour type and level of moisture content,
undeveloped dough and F arinograph dough mixed to optimum development were
prepared and tested. Results (Figure 4.20) showed that Farinograph dough was stiffer
than the undeveloped soft wheat dough during the entire heating process. The figure
indicates that they have the same onset of gelatinization temperature, however, the
Farinograph dough has a higher conclusion temperature and higher peak value of G’ than
the undeveloped dough. This makes the gelatinization temperature range of the
F arinograph dough appear to be wider than the undeveloped dough. This suggests that the
extent of dough development has an influence on the heat-induced rheological behavior

of the undeveloped wheat flour dough.
4.8. Stress Ramp

Another method used to evaluate the rheological behavior of undeveloped wheat
flour dough is the shear stress ramp. The controlled-stress rheometer used in this study is
capable of ramping the shear stress 0, and the resulting deformation 7, is measured. This
mode of measurement is sometimes used to determine the yield stress of a sample

(Schramm, 1994), a material phenomenon defined as a minimum shear stress required to

111

.8830 03888 $3 8 sweet «noes Ea.— eoaofitwues. Ea amahwegm me 988 238388 beau—:80 .86 onE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do 63839:;
2: ea ow on ow on c... on em o. o
p p h p F n p f P n p n p n u r b p o
. 1
u oooou
a a
m
D x 88v
0
n 1 Soon
a. a
. 88 m
.. . a
o n . 882 m
00 P
o o m.
D 00 w u 882 Va
an o
0 D 1 88:
D 00 O
a ‘00
u
D D T 880-
nuance
=88 egafia a m 88:
3:3 vane—33:: 0 fl.
cocoon

 

112
initiate flow. This is determined by the value of shear stress corresponding to the

transition point (where the deformation increases rapidly) in the 7 versus a curve.
Evaluating this value for dough however, can be a diffith task since no apparent
transition point is observed in the typical 7 versus 0 plot (Figure 4.21). It appears that the
logical way to interpret the resultsusing this measurement technique is to evaluate the

shear stress value at a given preset level of deformation.

Results for the undeveloped wheat flour dough of different moisture contents
(Figure 4.22) showed that the stress ramp response of the dough is affected by the level of
dough moisture. Dough with lower moisture content (71% me) dough gives a higher
shear stress compared with doughs of higher moisture content (76% and 81%), to impose
the same level of deformation. It is also indicated that for undeveloped wheat doughs of i
the same moisture content (Figure 4.23), the hard wheat dough was observed to have
higher shear stress than the soft wheat dough. The stress ramp response for the
undeveloped dough was also observed to (Figure 4.24) have higher shear stress than the

Farinograph dough of the same moisture content.

The preceding results suggest that stress ramp testing may also be used as an
alternative rheological technique in characterizing the viscoelastic properties of wheat
flour doughs. This technique may be a useful tool in evaluating the yield stress
phenomenon associated with the wheat flour dough. Determining this value however,
seems elusive since no apparent transition point is observed in the resulting 7 versus a

plot.

113

...waeu :8: 82—3 acne—gowns? Eon—2888 A: own... 8 v0.8 9:8 305 Son: a mo 8:— 325 < Aué 8:me

 

 

a £33 32$
82 8— 3 _
P n p p. p p p r p p P p P b b h - — - . - n - Lfib L n p p o
$000 0 o o o n
0 ..
$ .
\ . 3c
0% v
00 .. fio
. I
o. n s
. 2.: n
O _. .
O n m
o . no m.
o . m
n m.
o r mg m
. W
O 1 m6
fl
0 m
a mad
0

 

u «.6

114

coo—

Pupp-

.m_o>u_ «8:50 2:32: ooh: «a swag Soc? «8 Ego—ofivgme 8.8%»: 988 $25 .36 onE

am .326 .325

 

 

6.8 £36 0
6.8 o\o©h O
6.5 ..\o—& D

 

 

.—
0

mod

fie

n
c—
C

Vt
N.
c

md

nmd

 

[VIIIIIIVIIIVIIIIrVUrTIIIIIITtI'IIII’TIIIU
N
O
ssamotsuaunp‘urans

115

38.80 0532: $2. «a awn—ow 23:? EB. 23 c8 vane—033: Sm 028%»: .682 895m .mmé 2:me

am .888 32%
83 2: S _

PhD-PD b b b DPPIID bib D L P .DFfir- b b

~
O

 

 

O

on
O.
o

1—
O

W
'—
C

on
N.
o

"1
9

V1
"1
o

 

n 0 $3932.33:
5:830:35.

 

[11"[VIIIIUTVVIUUj'ITIUI[IIIIIIIUI1IYT‘I
N
O
ssafuotsuamtp‘utans

 

 

 

V.
o

116

.2638 0:538 $2. an swag 68:3 32— 3.5%ng Ea ans—mega 8m 85%2 ASE $35 .36 2:!"—

am .826 325

8
o
v-n
8
v-c
O
.—
—I
o

 

 

 

Ehhp b b P hppb- p n m _- ' —n——.L$b L phbb’. . p p o
x a
u no.0
s m h
N n...”— .. _.c
O .
o a .
o a .
a I
0. n u n;
o a .
D .
O .
O n— .- N6
0 a n
o n n
D I mNd
. I
D .
o I
D 1 M.C
. f
o a fl
fl nmd
o n @823??? ...
339—9850 .
r

 

 

 

“i
o

ssaluorsuamgp ‘urans

117
4.9. Practical and Economic Implications of this Study

The preparation of dough involves complex processes which must be understood
to make significant advances in the design and operation of baking equipment. In the
most basic form, dough is normally made by combining water, flour, and energy using
traditional mixing instruments such as the F arinograph and the Mixograph. Although
progress has been made using these instruments, results have provided limited
ftmdarnental information on dough development. Lack of basic knowledge in this area is
limiting technological progress in the baking industry. The new method of preparing
dough would provide unique opportunities with tremendous practical and economic

implications.

The critical aspect of making undeveloped dough is that, water (as ice) and flour
are distributed uniformly, and achieve hydration, before initiating energy input and
subsequent dough development. Traditional mixing systems prepare dough in an
undefined flow field where it is not possible to distinguish shear from extensional
deformation or to know the relative contribution of each. They also do not allow the
separate evaluation of the influence of energy input and the type of deformation, shear or
extensional, on dough development. Working with undeveloped dough provides the first
step in understanding the mechanical aspects of dough preparation. This information is
essential in Optimizing engineering design and operation of existing dough processing
equipment, and for developing new low temperature (frozen) powder processing

technology for dough products.

118
The powder method of preparing undeveloped dough is unique because the

hydration and energy input phenomena are decoupled. Traditional dough testing
instruments do not generate data that can be used to produce optimum engineering
designs of processing equipment. It is not possible to do fundamental design work on
dough equipment without understanding the influence of flow field (strain or stretch
history) on dough development. Uncoupling this problem can lead to significant
engineering improvements with the goal of developing the optimum dough mixing and
processing equipment for a particular product. The technique of making undeveloped

wheat dough could also be used to produce products from other cereals.

Traditional methods (F arinograph and Mixograph), as well as commercial
methods, of dough preparation are too complex to effectively study dough development
because they simultaneously combine numerous phenomena during the process. Hence,
they inhibit major technical advances in proces development and understanding the role
of raw ingredients in final product performance. To properly investigate mixing, the
following elements need to be decoupled: energy input, nature of flow field (shear versus
elongational deformation) in mixing, strain history of the mixing process, role of mixing
to achieve a uniform distribution of water and flour, role of mixing to aid development of
protein matrix, role of air in dough system, and moisture diffusion after the completion of
mixing. Producing and testing undeveloped dough is the first step in studying mixing and
subsequent improvements in the design of equipment and processes for the baking

industry.

There is strong commercial interest in technology involving powder processing

1 19
and the undeveloped dough concept. This concept opens up the valuable possibility of

making dough products using alternative concepts in process engineering. It may be
pOSsible, for example, to manufacture frozen bread or pizza dough using powder
technology (and associated equipment) instead of dealing with dough in its usual form as
a sticky-viscous mass. Powder processing ideas could potentially be applied to any flour
based product because, at low temperature, virtually any ingredients could be mixed in
powdered form. Another example where this concept has some commercial value could
be in the manufacture of low fat crackers and cookies. Fat serves as a plasticizer in
crackers and cookies and removing this ingredient can yield a product with an elevated
level of firmness. It may be possible to reduce firmness by minimizing the development
of the protein matrix associated with the making of the dough. Preparing dough in a
powdered form could minimize dough development that occurs with the mixing usually
associated with hydration. Also, after the flour is hydrated, subsequent processing could
be designed to stay within acceptable deformation rates (shear and/or extension), and

strain histories.

Traditional dough instruments were developed to measure the behavior of bread
dough. They have been used for soft wheat dough, operating under the dubious
assumption that a good soft wheat will show the opposite behavior to a good hard wheat
dough (soft wheat will produce a weak curve and hard wheat will produce a strong
curve). Working with undeveloped dough would eliminate this bias against sofi wheat

dough, or any type or variety of wheat for that matter.

Wheat breeders need an accurate overall assessment of the characteristics of a

120
certain wheat variety before selecting it for mass production. Aside from differences in

quality and quantity of proteins present in the flour, the physical characteristics warrants a
thorough investigation. The problem however, is that only very small samples of flour are
available from wheat varieties in early generations. The concept of using undeveloped
dough may provide a better alternative method of early progeny selection because only a
very small quantity of material is need. Furthermore, the test method used considers the
fundamental properties of the material during the entire process of dough development.
The traditional instruments (Farinograph and Mixograph) give a deformation which is a
combination of shear and extensional flow; hence, the contribution of each type of
deformation (which may have a very significant influence in molecular alignment during

processing) is not known.

The concept of using undeveloped dough may also have a big impact in
elucidating our knowledge of the dough molecular structure. Understanding this aspect
will provide a more accurate picture of the distribution of the dough components and the
role they play in the rheological behavior of the dough, and the subsequent finished baked

product.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A new method of making dough is described which involves mixing ingredients
in powdered form under freezing conditions. This method is unique since dough is
formed without mechanical of energy input. The resulting dough, called “undeveloped
dough,” is the focus of the rheological investigation. Two types of wheat flour (sofi white
and hard red) with distinctly different characteristics were used in the study. Using a
controlled stress rheometer, the rheological characterization of three levels of dough
moisture content for each flour type were investigated. Rheological measurement of
traditionally prepared (Farinograph) doughs were also conducted to compare with the

results obtained for the undeveloped dough.

The initial concern in making the undeveloped dough (powder mixing) was that a
new variable, non-uniform mixing, would be introduced into the process. Results showed
that a homogeneously mixed dough system (similar to the level of the homogeneity

achieved with the Farinograph method) can be made with the powder mixing method.

Shear creep experimental data showed that excellent curves can be modeled for
the undeveloped and Farinograph wheat doughs using the six-parameter Burgers
equation. A fairly good fit, with {20.97, was also obtained using the empirical Peleg

model. This model is adequate in most cases for characterizing creep behavior of wheat

121

1 22
doughs. The Peleg model is advantageous since it is a simple, linearized model compared

with the Burgers model which is a nonlinear, complex function. Results indicate that
creep behavior of undeveloped wheat dough is affected by the level of moisture content.
An increase in moisture content caused a general softening of the dough, indicated by
high creep compliance values. It was also observed that the sofi wheat dough had a less
stifi‘ dough structure compared with the hard wheat dough. Shear creep measurements of
F arinograph wheat dough indicated higher creep compliance values than undeveloped
dough. This behavior suggests that, due to the alignment and the formation of highly-
organized laminar gluten structure in the Farinograph dough, the application of a constant
shear stress causes a greater deformation of the dough compared with the undeveloped
dough. It can be presumed that the undeveloped dough is just a fully hydrated flour with
unorganized components. Application of a constant shear stress causes the unorganized
particles in this material to rub each other creating resistance, thus giving a lower creep

compliance response.

Results of dynamic oscillatory tests showed that wheat dough behaves as a linear
viscoelastic material at a deformation approximately up to 0.2 % strain (corresponding to
~50 Pa). A strong dependence of the dynamic moduli (G' and G") on the frequency was
observed (G' and G" increased as the frequency was increased). For all doughs tested, the
elastic property (G') was greater that the viscous property (G"), and the phase angles were
less that 45°. This indicates a more solid like behavior than a liquid, which is typical for
highly structured materials. Dynamic moduli decreased and the phase angle increased

with increasing dough moisture content, suggesting a softening effect on the dough. At

123
the same moisture content, hard wheat dough exhibited higher dynamic moduli and lower

phase angles, indicating a stiffer dough structure, than a sofi wheat dough. Dynamic
measurement of the F arinograph dough mixed to optimum mixing time for dough
development resulted in higher moduli values and lower phase angles compared with the
undeveloped dough. This behavior may be caused by the formation of a highly organized,
weblike protein structure which allows more interaction to occur in the F arinograph

dough resulting in a stiffer structure.

Using the Cox-Merz rule, the steady shear flow characterization of wheat doughs
was investigated. Results indicate wheat doughs exhibit shear-thinning flow behavior.
With the same type of flour, data indicate that low moisture content dough has higher
viscosity than doughs with higher moisture content. With the same moisture level and
type of flour, it was shown that the Farinograph dough was more viscous (has high
dynamic viscosity, 11') than the undeveloped dough. The soft wheat dough exhibited
lower consistency than the hard wheat dough at the same moisture level. An alternative
way of presenting dynamic oscillatory data was introduced by plotting a curve of
dynamic viscosity (n') and loss modulus (G') against the frequency (co). In this case, the
wheat flour doughs were characterized by the value of a) which correspond to the
intersection point of the G' and n' curves. Results showed that the intersection frequency
is influenced by the level of dough moisture content, the flour type, and the mode of

preparing dough (Farinograph versus undeveloped).

Temperature ramp oscillatory experiments were conducted to characterize the

heat-induced rheological changes (simulating a baking process) in wheat flour doughs.

1 24
Results indicated that dough exhibited a general softening behavior (6' decreased) with

initial heating that occurred prior to the starch gelatinization and/or protein denaturation
temperature range. Dough experienced a remarkable stiffening of structure (sudden
increase in 6') when a temperature, believed to be the onset of starch gelatinization and
protein denaturation, was reached..0ver the same temperature range, the phase angle (8)
values were observed to decrease dramatically. The hard wheat dough was observed to
have wider starch gelatinization (and protein denaturation) temperature range (~63-82°C),
compared with the soft wheat dough (~70-80°C). Using the same moisture, the effect of
protein content on dough behavior during the initial heating (before onset of
gelatinization), predominates, exhibited by higher G’ for the hard wheat dough compared
with the soft wheat dough. However, when the gelatinization temperature was attained,
the soft wheat dough exhibited higher 6' values than hard wheat. This may indicate that
starch gelatinization effect on dough behavior prevailed because soft wheat dough has
higher starch content and lower protein content than hard wheat dough. Results also
showed that the extent of dough development may have a strong influence on the heat-
induced rheological behavior of wheat dough. F arinograph dough gave higher 6' values
and conclusion temperature (temperature corresponding to peak 6') than the undeveloped
dough, throughout the temperature range considered. For the same type of flour, data
revealed that the starch gelatinization-protein denaturation temperature range was not
affected by the different levels of dough moisture content. However, dough with low
moisture exhibited a stiffer structure (higher 6' values) compared with dough of high

moisture content levels.

125
Wheat flour doughs were also characterized using a stress rarnp measurement

technique. To interpret the results, the shear stress value corresponding to a preset level of
deformation was evaluated, taken from the strain (y) versus shear stress (0) curve. Results
showed that the stress ramp response of dough was strongly influenced by the level of
dough moisture content: dough with low moisture content [give a larger shear stress than
high moisture content doughs. Hard wheat dough also showed a higher shear stress than
the soft wheat dough. Similarly, undeveloped dough exhibited a higher shear stress than
Farinograph dough of the same moisture content. This measurement technique may be

used to evaluate yield stress phenomenon in dough.

Based on the results obtained from this study, the following conclusions are

drawn:

1. A homogeneously mixed undeveloped dough system can be produced using the
powder mixing method.

2. The undeveloped wheat dough is a viscoelastic material which exhibits linear behavior
at low levels of stress (up to 50 Pa), corresponding to low strain levels (up to 0.2%).

3. Dynamic viscoelastic moduli (G' and G") of undeveloped wheat dough are highly
affected by frequency.

4. The creep behavior of undeveloped wheat dough can be modeled with good accuracy
using the six-parameter Burgers model. A fairly good fit can also be obtained using the

Peleg model, which is a simple, semi-empirical and linear model.

126
5. Wheat doughs exhibit a more solid-like than liquid-like behavior, which corresponds to

greater elastic response (G') than viscous response (G") in the dynamic oscillatory
measurements.

6. Rheological behavior of undeveloped wheat dough is highly affected by the level of
moisture content: dough with low moisture content is more viscous and stiffer than dough
with higher moisture content.

7. Undeveloped hard and soft wheat doughs exhibit difi'erent rheological behavior. In
general, hard wheat dough is more elastic, and can be described as having a stiff (and in
most cases, strong) dough structure than the soft wheat dough.

8. The heat-induced rheological response of the undeveloped dough is affected by the
level of moisture content, flour type, and the method of dough preparation (F arinograph
versus undeveloped dough).

9. Undeveloped and Farinograph wheat doughs have unique rheological behavior:

. ln dynamic oscillatory measurements, the Farinograph dough has greater moduli,
indicating a stiffer dough structure compared with the undeveloped dough.

. The steady flow characteristics examined with the Cox-Merz rule showed that the
Farinograph dough is more viscous (larger dynamic viscosity, 11') than the
undeveloped dough.

. Farinograph dough is a fully hydrated system characterized by the alignment and
formation of highly organized, laminar gluten structure (a characteristic of a
developed dough). Undeveloped dough is also a fully hydrated system; but, it is

characterized as having unorganized dough components. During creep tests, the

127
application of a constant shear stress causes the randomly distributed and

disorganized particles in the undeveloped dough to rub with each other creating
resistance, thus giving a lower creep compliance compared with the F arinograph
dough.

In dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp measurements, the F arinograph dough has
higher G' values, and higher conclusion temperature (temperature corresponding to
peak G') than the undeveloped dough.

In shear stress ramp measurements, the undeveloped dough requires a higher shear

stress than the F arinograph dough, to impose the same level of deformation.

CHAPTER VI

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

So far, no studies have been reported in the literature on the rheological
characterization of undeveloped wheat dough. This research is the first attempt to study
the subject. The following topics are recommended for further research to elucidate the

factors governing dough development, and explore potential industrial applications of the

undeveloped dough concept:

1. Characterization of the steady shear flow behavior of the undeveloped dough. This
research can also be used, together with the dynamic oscillatory data, to evaluate if

the Cox-Merz principle applies for the system.

2. Since dough is a highly extensible material, extensional viscosity measurements of the
undeveloped dough is warranted. This research would provide useful information

on the dough pr0perties related to extensional deformation.

3. A comparison of the baked-product properties of the products made from undeveloped

dough versus those made from traditional dough.

4. Investigation of the molecular orientation and micro-structure of undeveloped wheat

dough and compare it with the traditionally-made dough, using various techniques

in electron microscopy.

128

129
5. Determination of the normal stress behavior of the undeveloped dough. This may

provide additional useful information on dough viscoelastic properties. Depending
on the capability of the instrument, data can be determined simultaneously along

with the steady shear flow measurement.

6. Investigation of the effects protein content on dough rheological properties, using pure

starch reconstituted with different amounts of gluten proteins.

7. Exploring other methods of making powdered ice: atomizing water and spraying it into

a very cold temperature environment converting the atomized water droplets into

snow or ice particles.

8. Traditionally, doughs are prepared in mixing systems by imposing an undefined flow
field (shear and extensional) into the material. There is a need to determine to
extent of the contribution between the shear versus extensional deformation. This
information is necessary in optimizing the development of new dough products and

the design of processing equipment.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Creep Test Data of Dough Samples Subjected to a Constant Shear Stress (50 Pa) and at
25°C Temperature for a Period of 600 s (10 min), Using Controlled-Stress Rheometer
with a 20mm Parallel Plate and 2mm Gap Configuration.

130

Table A1. Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 71% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance

3 dimensionless (J), Pa "
7.00E-01 2.72E-03 5.43E-05
3.85E+00 4.70E-03 9.39E-05
6.96E+00 5.69E-03 l . l4E-04
9.96E+00 6.49E-03 1 .30E-04
1.31E+01 7.21E-03 1.44E-04
1.61E+01 7.76E-03 1.55E-04
1.91E+01 8.25E-03 1.65E-04
2.19E+01 8.66E-03 1.73E-04
2.48E+01 9.06E-03 1.8lE-04
2.80E+01 9.49E-03 1.90E-04
3.09E+01 9.87E-03 1.97E-04
3.40E+01 1.03E-02 2.05E-04
3 .69E+01 1.06E-02 2. 1 1E-04
3.99E+01 1.09E-02 2.17E-04
4.30E+01 1.12E-02 2.23E-04
4.59E+01 l . 15E-02 2.29E-04
4.90E+01 l . 1715-02 2.34E-04
5.20E+01 1205-02 2.39E-04
5.50E+01 1.22E-02 2.44E-04
5.79E+01 1.25E-02 2.49E-04
6.10E+01 1.28E-02 2.55E-04
6.39E+01 1.3 lE-02 2.61E-04
6.68E+01 1.33E-02 2.6SE-04
6.99E+01 1.35E-02 2.7OE-04
7.30E+01 1.38E-02 2.7513-04
7.59E+01 1.39E-02 2.78E-04
7.89E+01 l .41 E-02 2.8213-04
8.ZOE+01 1 .43 E-O2 2.86E-04
8.49E+01 l .45 E-OZ 2.9013-04
8.80E+01 l .47E-02 29413-04
9.09E+01 l .49E-02 2.97E-04
9.39E+01 1.515-02 3.01E-04
9.70E+01 1.53E-02 3.05E-04
1 .00E+02 l .54E-02 3 .08E-04
1.03E+02 1.56E-02 3. 1215-04
1.06E+02 l .58E-02 3. 165-04
1 .09E+02 1.60E-02 32013-04
l. 12E+02 l .62E-02 3.24E-04
1 . 1513+02 1 .64E-02 3 .28E-04
1.18E+02 1.65E-02 3 .30E-04
1.21E+02 1.67E-02 3.34E-04
124sz 1 .69E-02 3 .3 8E-04
127sz 1.7 1 E-02 3.41E-04
l 30sz 1 .72 E-02 3 .44E-04
1 .33E+02 1 .74E-02 3 4813-04
1.36E+02 1.75E-02 3.50E-04
1.39E+02 1.77E-02 3 .53E-04
1.42E+02 1.78E-02 3.56E-04

 

l .45E+02
l .48E+02
l .5 1E+02
l .54E+02
l .57E+02
l .60E+02
l .63 E+02
l .66E+02
l .69E+02
l .72E+02
l .75E+02
l .78E+02
l .8 1E+02
l .84E+02
l .87E+02
l .90E+02
l .93E+02
1 .96E+02
1 .99E+02
2 .03 E+02
2 .06E+02
2 .09E+02
2. 12E+02
2. 1 5E+02
2. l 8E+02
2.2 1E+02
2.24E+02
2.27E+02
2.30E+02
2.33E+02
2.36E+02
2.39E+02
2 .42E+02
2.45 E+02
2.48E+02
2 .5 1E+02
2.54E+02
2.57E+02
2.60E+02
2.63E+02
2.66E+02
2.69E+02
2.72E+02
2 .75E+02
2.78E+02
2 .8 1E+02
2.84E+02
2 .87E+02
2.90E+02
2 .93 E+02

1 .79E-02
l .8 l E-02
1 .82E-02
l .84E-02
l .86E-02
1 .87E-02
l .88E-02
1 .90E-02
l .9 l E-02
1 .92E-02
l .94E-02
l .96E-02
l .97E-02
1 3813-02
2.00E-02
2.01 E-02
2.03 E-02
2.04E-02
2.05E-02
2.06E—02
2.08E-02
2.09E-02
2. 10E-02
2.1 lE-02
2. 13E-02
2. l4E-02
2. l 5E-02
2. 16E-02
2. 1 7E-02
2. l9E-02
2.20E-02
2.2 1 E-02
2.22E-02
2.23 E-02
2.24E-02
2.25E-02
2.26E-02
2.27E-02
2.29E-02
2.30E-02
2.3 1E-02
2.32E-02
2.33E-02
2.34E-02
2.35E-02
2.36E-02
2.37E-02
2.38E-02
2.39E-02
2.40E-02

3.58E-04
3 .6 l E-04
3 6415-04
3 .67E-04
3 .71 E-04
3 .73 E-04
3 .76E-04
3 .79E-04
3 .82E-04
3 .84E-04
3 .88E—04
3 .9 l E-04
3 .94E-04
3 .96E-04
4.00E-04
4.02E-04
4.055—04
4.08E-04
4. 10E-04
4. 12E-04
4. 16E-04
4. l 7E-04
4.20E-04
4225-04
4.25E-04
4.27E-04
4.29E-04
4.3 lE-04
4.34E-04
4.37E-04
4.39E-04
4.41 E-04
4.44E-04
4.46E-04
4.48E-04
4.50E-04
4.52E—04
4.54E-04
4.57E-04
4.59E-04
4.61 E-04
4.63 E-04
4.66E-04
4.68E-04
4.70E-04
4.72E-04
4.74E-04
4.76E-04
4.78E-04
4.80E-04

Table A1. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.99E+02
3 .02E+02
3 .05E+02
3.08E+02
3.1 1E+02
3 .14E+02
3.17E+02
3 .20E+02
3 .23E+02
3 .26E+02
3.29E+02
3.32E+02
3.35E+02
3.38E+02
3 .41 E+02
3 .44E+02
3.47E+02
3 .SOE+02
3 .53E+02
3 .56E+02
3.59E+02
3.62E+02
3 .65E+02
3 .68E+02
3 .7 l E+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .80E+02
3.83E+02
3 .86E+02
3 .89E+02
3.92E+02
3 .95E+02
3 .98E+02
4.02E+02
4.05E+02
4.08E+02
4.1 1E+02
4. l4E+02
4. l 7E+02
4.20E+02
4.23E+02
4.26E+02
4.29E+02
4.32E+02
4.35E+02
4.38E+02
4.41E+02
4.44E+02
4.47E+02
4.50E+02
4.53E+02

2.4 lE-02
2.425-02
2.43 E-02
2.44E-02
2.44E-02
2.46E-02
2.47E-02
2.48E—02
2.48E-02
2.50E-02
2.5 l E-02
2.52E-02
2.53E-02
2.53E-02
2.54E-02
2.55E-02
2.56E-02
2.57E-02
2.58E-02
2.59E-02
2.59E-02
2.6 l E-02
2.62E-02
2.63 E-02
2.63E-02
2.64E-02
2 .65 E-02
2668-02
2 .67E-02
2.68E-02
2.69E-02
2 .69 E-02
2 . 70E-02
2 .7 l E-02
2 . 72E-02
2.73 E-02
2 . 74E-02
2 . 75E-02
2 . 75 E-02
2.76E-02
2 .77E-02
2.78E-02
2.79E-02
2.80E-02
2.80E-02
2.8 l E-02
2.82E-02
2.82 E-02
2.83 E-02
2 . 84E-02
2.85 E-02
2 . 8513-02
2.87E-02

4.82E-04
4.83 E-04
4.85E-04
4.87E-04
4.88E-04
4.9 l E-04
4.93E-04
4.95E-04
4.96E-04
4.99E-04
5.01E-04
5 .03E-04
5 .05E-04
5 .06E—04
5 0815-04
5.10E-04
5.12E-04
5. 1413-04
5.15E-04
5. 18E-04
5. l 8E-04
5.22E-04
5.23 E-04
5 .25E-04
5 .26E-04
5 .28E—04
5 .29E-04
5 .32E-04
5 .34E-04
5 .36E-04
5 .37E-04
5 .38E-04
5 .39E-04
5.4 l E-04
5 .43E-04
5 .45E-04
5 .47E-04
5 .49E-04
5 .50E-04
5.5 lE-04
5 .53 E-04
5 .55E-04
5 .57E-04
5 595-04
5 .60E-04
5.6 l BM
5 .63 E-04
5.64E-04
5 .66E-04
5.68E-04
5 .70E-04
5 .70E-04
5.73 E-04

132

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.62E+02
4.6SE+02
4.6813+02
4.71E+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.80E+02
4.83E+02
4.86E+02
4.89E+02
492sz
495sz
4.98E+02
5.01E+02
5.04E+02
S.07E+02
5. 10E+02
5. l3E+02
5.16E+02
5.19E+02
5.22E+02
5,258+02
5.28E+02
5.3 1E+02
5.34E+02
5.37E+02
5.4OE+02
5.43E+02
5.46E+02
5.49B+02
5.52E+02
5.55E+02
5.58E+02
5.61E+02
5.64E+02
5.67E+02
5.7OE+02
5.73E+02
5.76E.+02
5.79E+02
5.82E+02
5.85E+02
5.888+02
5.91E+02
5.94E+02
597sz
6.00sz

2.88E-02
2.88E-02
2.89E-02
2.90E-02
2.9 l E-02
2.9 l E-02
2.92E-02
2.93 E-02
2.94E-02
2.94E-02
2.95 E-02
2.95E-02
2.97E-02
2.97E-02
2.98E-02
2.98E-02
2.995-02
3 .00E-02
3 .01E-02
3 .02E-02
3 .02E-02
3 .02E-02
3 .04E-02
3 .04E-02
3 .05E-02
3 .06E-02
3 .06E-02
3 .07E-02
3 .07E-02
3 .08E-02
3 .09E-02
3 .09E-02
3.1 lE-02
3 .l 1E-02
3 . 12E-02
3 . 1 3 E-02
3 . l3 E—02
3 . l4E-02
3 . l 5 E-02
3 . l 6E-02
3 . 16E-02
3 . l 7E-02
3 . 1 8E-02
3. l 8E-02
3. l 9E—02
3 .20E-02
3 .2 l E-02
3 .2 l E-02
3 .22E-02

5.75E-04
5.76E-04
5.77E-04
5.79E-04
5 .81E-04
5.82E-04
5.84E-04
5.86E-04
5.88E-04
5.88E-04
5.90E-04
5 .90E-04
5 .93E-04
5.94E-04
5.96E-04
5.96E-04
5.98E-04
6.00E-04
6.01 E-04
6.03E-04
6.04E-04
6.04E-04
6.07E-04
6.08E-04
6. l0E-04
6.1 1133-04
6.12E-04
6. l4E-04
6. l4E-04
6.16E-04
6.18E-04
6.18E-04
6.21E-04
6.22E-04
6.23E-04
6.25E-04
6.26E-04
6.28E-04
6.29E-04
6.3 1E-04
6.3 1E-04
6.34E-04
6.35E-04
6.36E-04
6.38E-04
6.39E-04
6.42E-04
6.42E-04
6.43E—04

 

133

Table A2. Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db).

 

 

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance 1.45E+02 2.97E-02 5.94E-04

S dimensionless (J), Pal I .48E+02 2.99E-02 5.98E-04
7.03E-01 4.95E-03 9.91E—05 1.5 lE+02 3.01E-02 6.03E-04
4.02E+00 8.52E-03 1.7OE-04 l.54E+02 3 .03 E-02 6.07E-04
6.97E+00 l .02E-02 2.04E-04 l.57E+02 3 .06E-02 6. 12E-04
9.97E400 1.15E-02 2.30E-04 1.60E+02 3.08E-02 6.15E-04
1.31E+01 1.26E-02 2.51E-04 1.63E+02 3.10E-02 6.20E-04
1.6 l E+01 1.3 5E-02 2.69E-04 1.66E+02 3.12E-02 6.24E-04
1.9 l E+01 1.43 E-02 2. 86E-04 1.69E+02 3. 1415-02 6.28E-04
2.2 lE+01 l.50E-02 3.01E-04 1.72E+02 3.16E-02 6.32E-04
2.52E+01 l.57E-02 3.15E-04 l.75E+02 3.18E-02 6.37E-04
2.82E+01 1.63E-02 3.27E-04 1.78E+02 3.21E-02 6.41E-04
3.12E+01 1.69E-02 3.39E-04 1.81E+02 3.23E-02 6.45E-04
3 .42E+01 1.75E-02 3 .50E-04 l .84E+02 3 .25E-02 6.49E-04
3 .72E+01 1.80E-02 3 6013-04 1 .87E+02 3 .27E-02 6.53E-04
4.02E+01 1.85E-02 3.69E-04 1.90E+02 3.29E—02 6.57E-04
4.32E+01 1.89E-02 3.79E-04 , l.93E+02 3.31E-02 6.61E-04
4 .62E+01 l.94E-02 3 .88E-04 l .96E+02 3 .33E-02 6.65E-04
4.90E+01 l.98E—02 3 .96E-04 1.99E+02 3 .34E-02 6.69E-04
5.20E+01 2.02E-02 4.05E-04 2.03E+02 3.37E-02 6.74E-04
5.50E+01 2.07E-02 4.13E-04 2.06E+02 3.39E—02 6.79E-04
5 .80E+01 2.1 lE-02 4.22E-04 2 .09E+02 3 .4 l E-02 6.83E-04
6.1 lE+Ol 2.15E-02 4.30E-04 2.12E+02 3.43E—02 6.87E-04
6.41E+01 2.19E-02 4.38E-04 2.15E+02 3.45E-02 6.91E-04
6.71E+01 2.23E-02 4.455-04 2.18E+02 3.47E-02 6.94E-04
7.01E+01 2.26E-02 4.52E-04 2.21E+02 3.49E-02 6.98E-04
7.31E+01 2.30E-02 4.6OE-04 2.24E+02 3.51E—02 7.02E-04
7.61E+01 2.33E-02 4.66E-04 2.27E+02 3.53E-02 7.05E-04
7.90E+01 2.36E-02 4.73E-04 2.30E+02 3.54E-02 7.09E-04
8.20E+01 2.40E-02 4.79E-04 2.33E+02 3.56E-02 7.13E-04
8.50E+01 2.43E-02 4.85E-04 2.36E+02 3.58E-02 7.16E-04
8.79E+01 2.46E-02 4.9 l E-04 2 .39E+02 3 .60E-02 7.20E-04
9.12E+01 2.49E-02 4.98E-04 2.42E+02 3.61E-02 7.23E-04
9.42E+01 2.52E-02 5.04E-04 2.45E+02 3.63E-02 7.26E-04
9.70E+01 2.55E-02 5.10E-04 2.48E+02 3.65E—02 7.29E—04
1.00E+02 2.58E-02 5.16E-04 2.51E+02 3.66E-02 7.33E-04
1.03E+02 2.6 l E-02 5.22E-04 2.54E+02 3.68E-02 7.36E-04
l.06E+02 2.64E-02 5.27E-04 2.57E+02 3.70E-02 7.39E-04
1.09E+02 2.66E-02 5.33E-04 2.60E+02 3.71E-02 7.43E-04
1.12E+02 2.69E-02 5.38E-04 2.63E+02 3.73E-02 7.46E-04
l.lSE+02 2.72E-02 5.44E-04 2.66E+02 3.75E-02 7.50E-04
1.l8E+02 2.74E-02 5.49E-04 2.69E+02 3.76E-02 7.53E-04
1.21E+02 2.77E-02 5.54E-04 2.72E+02 3.78E-02 7.56E-04
l .24E+02 2 . 805-02 5 .60E-04 2 .75E+02 3 .80E-02 7.60E-04
l.27E+02 2.83E-02 5.65E-04 2.78E+02 3.81E-02 7.63E—04
1305-1-02 2.85E-02 5.70E-04 2.8lE+02 3.83E-02 7.66E-04
1.33E+02 2.88E-02 5.75E-04 2.84E+02 3.85E-02 7.69E-04
l.36E+02 2.90E-02 5.80E-04 2.87E+02 3.86E-02 7.73E-04
1.39E+02 2.92E—02 5.85E-04 2.90E+02 3.88E—02 7.76E-04
l .42E+02 2.95E-02 5 . 89E-04 2 .93 E+02 3 . 89E-02 7.79E-04

 

Table A2. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.99E+02
3.02E+02
3.05E+02
3.08E+02
3.1 lE+02
3. l4E+02
3. 17E+02
3.20E+02
3 .23E+02
3 .26E+02
3.29E+02
3.32E+02
3.35E+02
3.38E+02
3.41E+02
3.44E+02
3.47E+02
3.50E+02
3 53sz
3.56E+02
3 .59E+02
3.62E+02
3 .65E+02
3 .68E+02
3 .71E+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .80E+02
3 .83 E+02
3 .86E+02
3 .89E+02
3 .92E+02
3 .95 E+02
3.98E+02
4.02E+02
4.05E+02
4.08E+02
4. l l E+02
4. 14E+02
4. 17E+02
4.20E+02
4.23E+02
4.26E+02
4.29E+02
4.32E+02
4.35E+02
4.38E+02
4.41E+02
4.44E+02
4.47E+02
4.50E+02
4.53E+02

3.91E-02
3.93E-02
3 .94E-02
3 .96E-02
3 .97E-02
3 .99E-02
4.00E-02
4.02E-02
4.03E-02
4.05E-02
4.07E-02
4.08E-02
4.09E-02
4.1 lE-02
4. 12E-02
4.14E-02
4. 15E-02
4. 17E-02
4. 18E-02
4.20E-02
4.2 l E-02
4.22E-02
4.24E-02
4.25E—02
4.26E-02
4.27E-02
4.29E-02
4.30E-02
4.3 l E-02
4.33E-02
4.34E-02
4.35E-02
4.37E-02
4.38E-02
4.39E-02
4.4 l 502
4.42E-02
4.44E-02
4.45E-02
4.46E-02
4.485—02
4.49E-02
4.50E-02
4.5 l E-02
4.53E-02
4.54E-02
4.55E-02
4.56E-02
4.58E-02
4.59E-02
4.60E-02
4.61 E-02
4.63 E-02

7.82E-04
7.85E-04
7.89E-04
7.92E-04
7.95E-04
7.98E-04
8.01 E-04
8.04E-04
8.07E-04
8. 1013-04
8.13E-04
8. l6E-04
8. l9E-04
8.22E-04
8.25E-04
8.27E-04
8.3 1E-04
8.34E-04
8.37E-04
8.39E-04
8.42E-04
8.45E-04
8.47E-04
8.50E-04
8.52E-04
8.55E-04
8.58E-04
8.60E-04
8.63 E-04
8.65E-04
8.68E—04
8.70E-04
8.73E-04
8.76E-04
8.78E-04
8.82E-04
8.85E-04
8.88E-04
8.90E-04
8.93 E-04
8.96E-04
8.98E-04
9.005-04
9.02E-04
9.05E-04
9.08E-04
9. 10E-04
9. 13E-04
9. l 5E-04
9. l 8E-04
9.20E—04
9.23 E-04
9.26E-04

134

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.62E+02
4.65E+02
4.68E+02
4.71 E+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.80E+02
4.83E+02
4.86E+02
4.89E+02
4.92E+02
4.95E+02
4.98E+02
5.01E+02
5.04E+02
5.07E+02
5 .10E+02
5. 13E+02
5. 16E+02
5. 19E+02
5.225+02
5.25E+02
5.28E+02
5.3 lE+02
5.34E+02
5.37E+02
5.40E+02
5.43E+02
5.46E+02
5.49E+02
5.52E+02
5.55E+02
5.58E+02
5.6 l E+02
5.64E+02
5.67E+02
5.7OE+02
5.73E+02
5.76E+02
5.79E+02
5.82E+02
5.85E+02
5.88E+02
5.91 E+02
5.94E+02
5.97E+02
6.00E+02

4.64E-02
4.65E-02
4.66E-02
4.68E-02
4.69E-02
4.70E-02
4.72E-02
4.73 E-02
4.74E-02
4.755-02
4.77E-02
4.78E-02
4.79E-02
4.80E-02
4.8 l E-02
4.82E-02
4.83 E-02
4.84E-02
4.86E-02
4.87E-02
4.88E-02
4.89E-02
4.90E-02
4.9 1E-02
4.92E-02
4.93 E-02
4.94E-02
4.95E-02
4.97E—02
4.98E-02
4.99E-02
5 0013-02
5 .0 l E-02
5 .02E-02
5 .03 E-02
5 .04E-02
5 .05 E-02
5 .06E-02
5 0713-02
5 .09E-02
5. 10E-02
5. l lE-02
5 . 12E-02
5 . l 3E-02
5 . l4E-02
5. 1 5E-02
5. l 6E-02
5 . l 7E-02
5. l 8E-02

9.28E-04
9.3 lE-04
9.33E-04
9.36E-04
9.3 813-04
9.40E-04
9.43 E-04
9.46E-04
9.48E-04
9.50E-04
9.53 E-04
9.55E-04
9.58E-04
9.60E-04
9.62E-04
9.65 E-04
9.67E-04
9.69E-04
9.7 1 EM
9.73 E-04
9.7SE-04
9.78E-04
9.80E-04
9.82E-04
9.84E-04
9.86E-04
9.88E-04
9.9 1 E-04
9.93 E-04
9.95 E-04
9.98E-04
9.99E-04
l .00E-03
1 .00E-03
l .01 E-03
l .01 E-03
l .0 l E—03
l .0 1 E-03
l .02E-03
l .02E-03
l .02E-03
l .02E-03
1 .02E-03
l .03 E-03
1 .03 E-03
l .03 E-03
1 .03 E-03
l .03 E-03
l .04E-03

 

 

Tabl
Tune

369E
680E
985E
L28E
158E
188E
115E
246E
236E
306E
336E
366E
396E
426E
456E
487E
5J7E
i47E
S77E
607E
636E
666E
696E
726E
756E
786E
816E
846E
8765.
906E.
936E-
9665
9965.
103E.
1065.
1095.
1125.
1155.
118E.
121E.
124E.
130E.
1335+
l3613+
L395,
1425.

135

Table A3. Creep data of undeveloped hard wheat dough at 81% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (Y), Creep compliance 1.45E+02 4.445-02 8.88E-04
s dimensionless (J), Pa '1 1.48E+02 4.47E-02 8.94E-04
7.03E—01 7.63E-03 l.53E-04 ‘ l.SlE+02 4.50E-02 9.01E—04
3.69E+00 1.3 lE-02 2.62E-04 l 54sz 4.54E-02 9.08E-04
6.80E+00 1.60E-02 3 .20E-04 l .57E+02 4.57E-02 9. 1413-04
9.85E+00 l .80E-02 3.61E—04 l .60E+02 4.60E-02 92013-04
1.28E+01 1.97E-02 3.93E-04 1.63E+02 4.63E-02 9275-04
1 .58E+01 2. l 1E-02 4.22E-04 1 .66E+02 46613-02 9.33E-04
l .88E+01 22315-02 4.46E-04 l .69E+02 4.69E-02 9.39E-04
2.15E+01 2.33E-02 4.66E-04 1.72E+02 4.72E-02 9.44E-04
2.46E+01 2.44E-02 4.87E-04 1 .75E+02 4.75E-02 9.50E-04
2.76E+01 25213-02 5.05E-04 1.78E+02 4.78E—02 9.56E-04
3.06E+01 2.61 E-02 5.22E-04 1.81E+02 4.81E-02 9.61E-04
3.36E+01 2.69E-02 53913-04 1.84E+02 4.83E-02 9.67E-04
3 .66E+01 2.77E-02 5.54E-04 1.87E+02 4.86E-02 9.73E-04
3 .96E+01 2.85E-02 5.69E-04 1.90E+02 4.89E-02 9.78E-04
4.26E+01 2.9 l E-02 5.83E-04 1 .93E+02 4.92E-02 9.84E-04
4.56E+01 2.98E-02 5.96E-04 l .96E+02 4.95E-02 9.89E-04
4.87E+01 3.05E-02 6.09E-04 l 99sz 4.97E-02 9.94E-04
5.17E+01 3.1 1E-02 6.22E-04 2.03E+02 5.00E-02 l.00E-03
5.47E+01 3.17E-02 6.34E-04 2.06E+02 5.03E-02 1.015-03
5.77E+01 3.23E-02 6.46E-04 2.09E+02 5.06E-02 1.0113-03
6.07E+01 3 .29E-02 65815-04 2.12E+02 5.08E-02 1.02E-03
6.36E+01 3.34E-02 6.68E-04 2.15E+02 5.11E-02 1.02E-03
6.66E+01 3 .40E-02 6.79E-04 2.18E+02 5.13E-02 1.03 E-03
6.96E+01 3 .45E-02 6.89E-04 2.21E+02 5.16E-02 1.03E-03
7.26E+01 3 .50E-02 6.99E-04 2.24E+02 5.19E—02 1.04E-03
7.56E+01 3 .54E-02 70913-04 2.27E+02 5.21E-02 1.04E-03
7 .86E+01 3 5913-02 7.18E-04 2.30E+02 5 .24E-02 LOSE-03
8.16E+01 3 .64E-02 7.27E-04 2.33E+02 5.26E-02 LOSE-03
8.46E+01 3 .68E-02 7.36E-04 2.36E+02 5.29E-02 1.06E-03
8.76E+01 3 .73E-02 7 .45E-04 2.39E+02 5.31E-02 1.06E-03
9.06E+01 3 7713-02 7.54E-04 2.42E+02 5335-02 1075-03
9.36E+01 3.81 E-02 7 .62E-04 2.45E+02 5.36E-02 1.07E-03
9.66E+01 3.85E-02 7.70E-04 2.48E+02 5.38E-02 l .08E—03
9.96E+01 3.89E-02 7785-04 251sz S .40E-02 l.08E—03
103sz 3 .93E-02 7.86E-04 2.54E+02 5.43E-02 l.09E—03
l.06E+02 3 .97E-02 7.95E-04 2.57E+02 5.45E-02 1.09E-03
l 09sz 4.01E-02 8.025-04 2.60E+02 5 .47E-02 l .09E-03
1.12E+02 4.05E-02 8. 1013-04 2.62E+02 5.49E-02 1 . 1013-03
1 .15E+02 4.09E-02 8.17E-04 2.65E+02 5.52E—02 1.10E-03
1.18E+02 4.12E-02 8.25E-04 2.69E+02 5.54E-02 1.1 1E-03
1.21E+02 4.16E-02 8.32E-04 2.71E+02 5.56E—02 1.11E-03
1 .24E+02 4.19E-02 8.39E-04 2.7 5E+02 5.59E-02 1.12E-03
1.27E+02 4.23E-02 8.46E-04 2.78E+02 5.615-02 1.12E-03
1.30E+02 4.27E-02 8.53E-04 2.81E+02 5.63E-02 1.13E-03
1.33E+02 4.30E-02 8.60E—04 2.84E+02 5.66E-02 l .13E-03
1.36E+02 4.34E-02 8.685-04 2.87E+02 5.68E—02 1.14E-03
1.39E+02 4.37E-02 8.74E-04 2.90E+02 5.70E-02 l . 1413-03
1.42E+02 4.4OE-02 8.81E-04 2.93E+02 5.72E-02 1.14E-03

 

 

Table
2.961
2.991
3.021
3.051
3.08]
3.111
3.14}
3.17'.
3.20.

a 1*
3...).

u:
L)

La)
In.)

J
J

J; t 4.. ‘J’ b) L;
~._j -——- 00 LII ii.)

(”in
\0 ON DJ 0

(II In.)

‘45—‘00

O

b)

O\

DJDJUJL'JUJDJDJUJDJD)DJDJUJDJWU)UJDJUJL;

DJ

LOSOSObO-Oohoo'ooflldgbb‘c‘khifl
\

(4) D)

4.50;
4,53E

Table A3. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.99E+02
3.02E+02
3.05E+02
3 .08E+02
3. l lE+02
3. 141-E+02
3 .17E+02
320sz
3 .23E+02
3 .26E+02
3 .29E+02
3 .32E+02
3 .35E+02
3 .38E+02
3.41E+02
3 .44E+02
3 .47E+02
3 .50E+02
3 .53E+02
3 .56E+02
3 .59E+02
3 .62E+02
3 .65E+02
3 .6SE+02
3.71E+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .80E+02
3 .83 E+02
3 .86E+02
3 .89E+02
3 .92E+02
3 .95E+02
3 .98E+02
4.02E+02
4.05E+02
4.08E+02
4. l lE+02
4. 14E+02
4. l 7E+02
4.20E+02
4.22E+02
4.25E+02
4.28E+02
4.3 lE+02
4.34E+02
4.38E+02
4.41E+02
4.44E+02
4.47E+02
4.50E+02
4.53E+02

5.745-02
5.765-02
5.795-02
5.815-02
5.835-02
5855-02
5.875-02
5.905-02
5.915-02
5.935-02
5.955-02
5.975-02
5.995-02
6.015-02
6.035-02
6.055-02
6.075-02
6.095-02
6.1 15-02
6.135-02
6.15E-02
6.165-02
6.185-02
6.205-02
6.225-02
6.245-02
6.265-02
6.275-02
6.295-02
6.3 1502
6335-02
6.355-02
6.365-02
6.38E-02
6405-02
6425-02
6445-02
6465-02
6.48E-02
6505-02
6.5 1502
6535-02
6555-02
6565-02
6.585-02
6605-02
6615-02
6635-02
6655-02
6675-02
6.685-02
6708-02
6725-02

1 . 15E-03
1 . l 5E-03
1 . 16E-03
l . l6E-03
l . 17E-03
l . l 7E-03
l . 17E-03
1 . l 8E-03
l . l 8E-03
1 . l9E-03
l . l9E-03
l . l9E-03
1 .20E-03
l .20E-03
l .21E-03
1 .21E-03
l .21E-03
1 .22E-03
l .22E-03
1 2313-03
1 .23E-03
1 .23 E-03
l .24E-03
l .24E-03
1 .24E-03
l .25E-03
l .25E-03
l .25E-03
l .26E-03
1 2613-03
1 .27E-03
1 .27E-03
l .27E-03
1 .28E-03
1 .28E-03
l .28E-03
1 .29E-03
1 298-03
1 .30E-03
l .30E-03
1 .30E-03
l .3 l E-03
l .3 1 E-03
l .3 l E-03
1 3213-03
1 3213-03
1 .32E-03
l .33E-03
1 .33E-03
1 .33 E-03
1 345-03
1 .34E-03
l .34E-03

136

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.62E+02
4.65E+02
4.68E+02
4.71E+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.80E+02
4.83E+02
4.86E+02
4.89E+02
4.92E+02
4.95E+02
4.98E+02
5.01E+02
5.04E+02
5.07E+02
5. 10E+02
5. 13E+02
5. 16E+02
5. 19E+02
5.22E+02
5.25E+02
5.28E+02
5.3 lE+02
5.34E+02
5.37E+02
5.40E+02
5.43E+02
5.46E+02
5.48E+02
5.51E+02
5.55E+02
5.58E+02
5.60E+02
5 .64E+02
5.67E+02
5.70E+02
5.73 E+02
5 .76E+02
5.79E+02
5.82E+02
5.85E+02
5.88E+02
5.91 E+02
5 .94E+02
5.97E+02
6.00E+02

6.73 E-02
6.75E-02
6.77E-02
6.78E-02
6.80E-02
6.82E-02
6.83 E-02
6.85 E-02
6.86E-02
6.88E-02
6.90E-02
6.9 l E-02
6.93 E-02
6.95E-02
6.96E-02
6.98E-02
6.99E-02
7.0 l E-02
7.03 E-02
7.04E-02
7.06E-02
7.07E-02
7.09E-02
7. l l E-02
7. 12E-02
7. l4E-02
7. 1 5E-02
7. 1 715-02
7. l 8E-02
7.20E-02
7.2 l E-02
7.23 E-02
7.24E-02
7.25 E-02
7.27E-02
7.28E-02
7.30E-02
7.3 lE-02
7.33E-02
7.34E-02
7.3 5E-02
7.36E-02
7.38E-02
7.3 91-3-02
7 .4 l E-02
7.42E-02
7.43 E-02
7.45 E-02
7.46E-02

l .35E-03
l .3 5E-03
1 .3 5E-03
1 .3 6E-03
l .36E-03
l .36E-03
l .37E-03
1 .3 7E-03
1 .3 7E-03
1 .3 8E-03
1 .3 8E-03
l .38E-03
l .39E-03
1 .3 9E-03
l .3 9E-03
l .40E-03
l .40E-03
1 .40E-03
l .41 E-03
l .4 1 E-03
1 .41 E-03
l .42E—03
l .42E-03
l .42E-03
l .42E-03
l .43 E-03
l .43 E—03
l .43E-03
l .44E-03
l .44E-03
l .44E-03
l .45E-03
l .45 E-03
1 .45 E-03
1 .45 E-03
1 .46E-03
1 .46E-03
1 .46E-03
l .47E-03
l .47E-03
l .47E-03
l .47E-03
l .48E-03
l .48E-03
l .48E-03
l .48E-03
l .49E-03
1 .49E-03
l .49E-03

 

137

Table A4. Creep data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at 71% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance 1.455+02 2.525-02 5.045-04

s dimensionless (J), Pa" 1.48E+02 2.545-02 5.08E-04
7.005-01 3.111% 6225-05 1.515+02 2.565-02 5.125-04
3.85E+00 5.725-03 1.145-04 1545+02 2.585-02 5.16E-04
6.96E+00 7.1 15-03 1425-04 1575+02 2.60E-02 5215-04
9.96E+00 8.195-03 1.64E-04 1.605+02 2.635-02 5,255-04
1.315+01 9.1 15-03 1.825-04 1.63E+02 2.655-02 5,295-04
1.61E+01 9.915-03 l.98E-04 l.665+02 2.675-02 5345-04
1915+01 1.065-02 2125-04 1.695+02 2.69E-02 5.385-04
2.175+01 1.125-02 2.235-04 1.725+02 2715-02 5.425-04
2.455+01 1175-02 2355-04 1.755+02 2735-02 5.465-04
2755+01 1.235-02 2465-04 l.785+02 2.755-02 5505-04
3055+01 1.295-02 2575-04 1.815+02 2.775-02 5545-04
3.365+01 1.345-02 2.67E-04 1.845+02 2.795-02 5595-04
3.66E+01 1395-02 2.775-04 1.875+02 2.815-02 5.63E-04
3.96E+01 1.435-02 2.86E-04 1905+02 2.83E-02 5.67E-04
4.26E+01 1.485-02 2955-04 1935+02 2.8SE-02 5715-04
4555+01 1525-02 3.045-04 1.96E+02 2.87E-02 5.745-04
4.865+01 1.56E-02 3.125-04 1995+02 2.895-02 5.785-04
5.16E+01 1.60E-02 3215-04 2025+02 2925-02 5.84E-04
5.455+01 1.645-02 3.28E-04 2055+02 2945-02 5.88E-04
5.755+01 1.685-02 3,355-04 2085+02 2.965-02 5915-04
6.08E+01 1.725-02 3.445-04 2115+02 2975-02 5945-04
6.35E+01 1755-02 3505-04 2.145+02 2995-02 5.98E-04
6.65E+01 1.795-02 3575-04 2.18E+02 3015-02 6035-04
6.95E+01 1.825-02 3.64E-04 2.205+02 3035-02 6065-04
7.255+01 1.86E-02 3725-04 2.24E+02 3055-02 6095-04
7555+01 1.895-02 3.78E-04 2.275+02 3075-02 6135-04
7.85E+01 1925-02 3.8SE-04 2.305+02 3095-02 6175-04
8.16E+01 1.96E—02 3925-04 2.33E+02 3.115-02 6215-04
8.445+01 1.995-02 3975-04 2.36E+02 3.125-02 6255-04
8.76E+0| 2025-02 4045-04 2.395+02 3.145-02 6295-04
9.045+01 2055-02 4.105-04 2415+02 3.16E-02 6325-04
9345+01 2075-02 4155-04 2.445+02 3.18E-02 6365-04
9.66E+01 2.1 15-02 4215-04 2.475+02 3.205-02 6395-04
9945+01 2135-02 4.26E-04 2505+02 3215-02 6435-04
1035-02 2.16E-02 4325-04 2535+02 3235-02 6.46E-04
l.06E+02 2.195-02 4.38E-04 2565+02 3.255-02 6.505-04
1,095+02 2.225-02 4435-04 2595+02 3275-02 6.54E-04
1.125+02 2245-02 4495-04 2.62E+02 3.28E-02 6575-04
1.155+02 2275-02 4545-04 2655+02 3.305-02 6.60E-04
1,185+02 2305-02 4595-04 2.69E+02 3.325-02 6.64E-04
1215+02 2325-02 4.64E-04 2725+02 3.335-02 6675-04
1.245+02 2355-02 4.69E-04 2745+02 3355-02 6705-04
1275+02 2375-02 4745-04 2785+02 3.375-02 6735-04
1305+02 2405-02 4795-04 2815+02 3.38E-02 6765-04
1.335+02 2425-02 4.84E-04 2.84E+02 3.405-02 6795-04
1.36E+02 2445-02 4.89E-04 2.87E+02 3.415-02 6.82E-04
1,395+02 2475-02 4945-04 2905+02 3.435-02 6.86E-04
1.425+02 2495-02 4995-04 2.93E+02 3.445-02 6895-04

 

 

Table A4. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2998-1-02
3.02E+02
3.05E+02
3.08E+02
3.1 lE+02
3.14E+02
3.17E+02
3.20E+02
3.23E+02
3.25E+02
3.29E+02
3.32E+02
3.35E+02
3.38E+02
3.41E+02
3.43E+02
3.46E+02
3 .49E+02
3.52E+02
3 .55E+02
3 .58E+02
3 .62E+02
3 .65E+02
3 .68E+02
3 .71E+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .80E+02
3.83 E+02
3.86E+02
3.89E+02
3 .92E+02
3 .95E+02
3 .98E+02
4.02E+02
4.05E+02
4.08E+02
4. l lE+02
4.14E+02
4.1 7E+02
4.20E+02
4.22E+02
4.25E+02
4.28E+02
4.3 l E+02
4.3451 02
4.37E+02
4.41E+02
4.43E+02
4.47E+02
4.49E+02
4.53E+02

3 .46E-02
3 .48E-02
3 .49E-02
3 .5 l E-02
3 .52E-02
3 .54E—02
3 .55E-02
3 .57E-02
3 .58E-02
3 605-02
3 .61E-02
3 .63 E-02
3 .64E-02
3 .66E-02
3 .67E-02
3 .69E-02
3 .70E-02
3 .72E-02
3 .73E-02
3 .74E-02
3 .76E-02
3 .77E-02
3 .79E-02
3 .80E-02
3 .82E-02
3 . 8313-02
3 .84E-02
3 . 86E-02
3 . 87E-02
3 . 89E-02
3 .90E-02
3 .92 E-02
3.93 E-02
3 .94 E-02
3 .96E-02
3 .97 E-02
3 .98E-02
4.00E-02
4.0 l E-02
4.02 E-02
4.03 E-02
4.05 E-02
4.06E-02
4.07E-02
4.08E-02
4 .09 E-02
4. l l E-02
4. 1 2E-02
4. l 3 E-02
4. l 4E-02
4. l 6E-02
4. l 7E-02
4. 1 815-02

6.92E-04
6.95E-04
6.99E-04
7.02E-04
7.05E-04
7.08E-04
7.1 lE-04
7. l4E-04
7.17E-04
7.20E-04
7.22E-04
7.25E-04
7.29E-04
7.32E-04
7.34E-04
7.38E-04
7.40E-04
7.43E-04
7.46E-04
7.49E-04
7.51E-04
7.54E-04
7.58E-04
7.60E-04
7.63E-04
7.66E-04
7.69E-04
7.72E-04
7.74E-04
7.78E-04
7.80E-04
7.83E-04
7.86E—04
7.88E-04
7.9 1 EM
7.94E-04
7.97E-04
7.99E-04
8.02E-04
8.04E-04
8.07E-04
8.09E-04
8. l lE-04
8. l4E-04
8. l 7E-04
8. l9E-04
8.22E-04
8.24E-04
8.26E-04
8.29E-04
8.3 1 EM
8.34E-04
8.36E-04

138

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.6ZE+02
4.65E+02
4.68E+02
4.71E+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.80E+02
4.83E+02
4. 85E+02
4.89E+02
4.92E+02
4.95E+02
4.98E+02
5 .01 E+02
5 .0415+02
5 .07E+02
5. 10E+02
5 . 13E+02
5. 16E+02
5. l 9E+02
5 .22E+02
5 .25E+02
5 .28E+02
5 .3 l E+02
5 .34E+02
5 .3 7E+02
5 .40E+02
5 .42E+02
5 .45 E+02
5 .49E+02
5 .5 l E+02
5 .54E+02
5 .57E+02
5 .60E+02
5.63 E+02
5 .66E+02
5 .69E+02
5 .72E+02
5 .75E+02
5 .78E+02
5 .8 l E+02
5 . 85E+02
5 .87E+02
5 .9 l E+02
5 .94E+02
5 .97E+02
6.00E+02

4205-02
4 .2 l E-02
4.22E-02
4.23 E-02
4.24E-02
4.26E-02
4.27E-02
4.28E-02
4.29E-02
4.3 013-02
4.3 lE-02
4.33E-02
4.34E-02
4.3 5 E-02
4.36E-02
4.3 7E-02
4.38E—02
4.40E-02
4.4 l E-02
4.42E-02
4.44E-02
4.45E-02
4.46E-02
4.47E-02
4.48E-02
4.49E-02
4.50E-02
4.52E-02
4.53 E-02
4.54E-02
4.55E-02
4.56E-02
4.57E—02
4.58E-02
4.59E-02
4.60E-02
4.6 l E-02
4.62E-02
4.63 E-02
4.64E-02
4.65 E-02
4.67E-02
4.67E-02
4.69E—02
4.69E-02
4.7 l E-02
4.7 1 E-02
4.728-02
4.73 E-02

8.39E-04
8.42E-04
8.44E-04
8.46E-04
8.49E-04
8.51E-04
8.54E-04
8.56E-04
8.58E-04
8.60E-04
8.62E-04
8.65E-04
8.67E-04
8.70E-04
8.73E-04
8.75E-04
8.77E-04
8.79E-04
8.82E-04
8.85E-04
8.87E-04
8.89E-04
8.92E-04
8.94E-04
8.96E-04
8.98E-04
9.01E-04
9.03E-04
9.05E-04
9.07E-04
9.10E-04
9. 12E-04
9.14E-04
9. l6E-04
9. l9E-04
9.20E-04
9.22E-04
9.25E-04
9.27E-04
9.28E-04
9.3 lE-04
9.33E-04
9.35E-04
9.37E-04
9.39E-04
9.41E-04
9.43E-04
9.45E-04
9.47E-04

 

 

1.28

Table A5. Creep data of undeveloped soft wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance
5 dimensionless (.1), Pa "
7.00E-01 55913-03 1.125-04
3.69E+00 1.00E-02 2.01E-04
6.82E+00 1.255-02 2.50E-04
9.79E+00 1.43E-02 2.86E-04
1.28E+01 1.58E-02 3.15E-04
1.56E+01 1.70E-02 3.41E-04
1.87E+01 1.83E-02 3.65E-04
2.17E+01 1.93E-02 3.86E-04
2.47E+01 2.03E-02 4.05E-04
2.77E+01 2.11E-02 42213-04
3.07E+01 2.20E-02 43913-04
3.37E+01 2.27E-02 4.55E-04
3.67E+01 2.35E-02 4.70Eo04
3.96E+01 2.42E-02 4.84E-04
4.26E+01 2.50E-02 4.99E-04
4.57E+01 2.57E-02 5.13E-04
4.88E+01 2.63E-02 52615-04
5.18E+01 26915-02 5.38E—04
5.4813101 2.7SE-02 55013-04
5.79E+01 2.81E—02 56213-04
6.09E+01 2.87E-02 5.73E-04
6.37E+01 2.92E-02 5.84E—04
6.67E+01 2.97E-02 59413-04
6.97E+01 3.02E-02 6.05E—04
7.27E+01 30713-02 6.15E-04
7.57E+01 3.12E-02 6.25E-04
7.87E+01 3.1 715-02 6.34E-04
8.17E+01 3.22E-02 6.43E-04
8.47E+01 32613-02 6.52E-04
8.77E+01 3.308-02 6.61E-04
9.06E+01 3.34E-02 66913-04
9.36E+01 3.39E-02 6.77E-04
9.66E+01 3.43E-02 6.85E-04
9.96E+01 3.47E-02 69315-04
1 .03E+02 3518-02 7028-04
1.06E+02 3 .55E-02 7 . 1 013-04
1.09E+02 3.59E-02 7. l9E-04
1.12F.+02 3.63E—02 7265-04
1 . 15E+02 3 6713-02 7 3413-04
l.lSE+02 3.71E-02 7.41E-04
1.21E+02 3.75E-02 7 .4913-04
1 .24E+02 3 .78E-02 7 .56E-04
1.27E+02 3.8213-02 76413-04
1.3OE+02 3.85E-02 7.71E-04
1.33E+02 3.89E-02 7.78E-04
1.36E+02 3.93E-02 7.86E-04
1.39E+02 3965-02 7935-04
1 .42F.+02 4.00E-02 7.99E-04

 

l .45E+02
l .48E+02
l .5 lE+02
1 .54E+02
l .57E+02
1 .60E+02
1 .63E+02
l .66E+02
l .69E+02
l .72E+02
1 .75E+02
l .78E+02
l .8 l E+02
1 .84E+02
l .87E+02
l .90E+02
l .93E+02
l .96E+02
l .99E+02
2.03E+02
2.06E+02
2.09E+02
2. 12E+02
2. 1 5E+02
2. l 8E+02
2.2 lE+02
2.24E+02
2.27E+02
2.30E+02
2.33E+02
2.36E+02
2.39E+02
2.42E+02
2.45E+02
2.48E+02
2.5 lE+02
2.54E+02
2.57E+02
2.60E+02
2.63 E+02
2.66E+02
2.69E+02
2.7ZE+02
2.75E+02
2.78E+02
2.8 1 E+02
2.84E+02
2.87E+02
2.90E+02
2.93E+02

4.03 E-02
4.06E-02
4. 10E-02
4. l3E-02
4. 16E-02
4. l 9E-02
4.22E-02
4.25 E-02
4.28E-02
4.3 lE-02
4.34E-02
4.37E-02
4.40E-02
4.43 E-02
4.45 E-02
4.48E-02
4.5 1E-02
4.54E-02
4.57E-02
4.60E-02
4.63 E-02
4.66E—02
4.68E-02
4.71 E-02
4.73 E-02
4.76E-02
4.78E-02
4.8 l E-02
4.83E-02
4.86E-02
4.88E-02
4.91 E-02
4.93 E-02
4.96E-02
4.98E-02
5 .0 l E-02
5.03 E-02
5 .065-02
5 .08E—02
5 . l 1 E-02
5. l 3 E-02
5. 1 5E-02
5 . l 8E-02
5 .20E-02
5 .22E-02
5 .25E-02
5 .27E-02
5 .29E-02
5 .3 l E-02
5 .33E-02

8.06E-04
8.13E-04
8.19E-04
8.255-04
8.32E-04
8.38E-04
8.43E-04
8.50E-04
8.56E-04
8.62E-04
8.68E-04
8.74E-04
8.79E-04
8.85E-04
8.91 E-04
8.97E-04
9.02E-04
9.08E-04
9.13E-04
9.21 E-04
9.26E-04
9.32E-04
9.37E-04
9.42E-04
9.47E-04
9.52E-04
9.57E-04
9.62E-04
9.67E-04
9.71 E-04
9.77E-04
9.82E-04
9.87E-04
9.92E-04
9.97E-04
1 .00E-03
l .01 E-03
l .01 E-03
1 0215-03
1 .02E-03
l .03E-03
1 .03E-03
l .04E-03
l .04E-03
l .04E-03
l .05E~03
1 0513-03
1 .06E-03
l .06E-03
1 .07Eo03

 

\O O\ D)
m

W UJ U) U) U) D) (J) b) D) U) U) (.0) DJ ‘1
(.10 K A J.-

La '05 as as u. u.

LJ LJ

‘J 4‘4- -—‘ 00 L1! IL)

Table A5. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.99E+02
3.0ZE+02
3.05E+02
3.08E+02
3.1 lE+02
3. 141-E+02
3.17E+02
3.ZOE+02
3.2313+02
3.26E+02
3.29E+02
3.32E+02
3.35E+02
3.38E+02
3.41E+02
3.44E+02
3.47E+02
3.SOE+02
3.53E+02
3.56E+02
3.59E+02
3.62E+02
3.6SE+02
3.68E+02
3.7 1 E+02
3.74E+02
3.77E+02
3.80E+02
3.83E+02
3.86E+02
3.89E+02
3.92E+02
3.9SE+02
3.98E+02
4.0ZE+02
4.05E+02
4.0SE+02
4. l 1 E+02
4.14E+02
4. 17E+02
4.20E+02
4.23E+02
4.26E+02
4.29E+02
4.32E+02
4.35E+02
4.38E+02
4.4lE+02
4.44E+02
4.47E+02
4.50E+02
4.53E+02

5.36E-02
5.3 8E-02
5.40E-02
5.42E-02
5.44E-02
5.46E-02
5.48E-02
5.50E-02
5.52E-02
5.54E-02
5.57E-02
5.58E-02
5.60E-02
5.62E-02
5.64E-02
5.66E-02
5.68E-02
5.70E-02
5.72E-02
5.74E-02
5.76E-02
5.78E-02
5.80E-02
5.82E-02
5.84E-02
5.86E-02
5.88E-02
5.90E-02
5.92E-02
5.94E-02
5.96E-02
5.97E-02
5.99E-02
6.01 E-02
6.03 E-02
6.05E-02
6.07E-02
6.09E-02
6. 10E-02
6. 12E-02
6. l4E-02
6. 16E-02
6. l 8E-02
6. 19E-02
6.2 l E-02
6.23 E-02
6.24E-02
6.26E-02
6.28E-02
6.30E-02
6.32E-02
6.34E-02
6.35E-02

1 .07E-03
l .08E-03
1 .08E-03
l .08E-03
1 .095-03
1 .09E-03
1 . 10E-03
l . 1013-03
1 . 10E-03
1.1 lE-03
l .1 113-03
1 . 12E-03
l . 12E-03
1 . 12E-03
l . l 3E-03
l . 13E-03
l . l4E-03
l .14E-03
l . l4E-03
l .15E-03
l .15E-03
l . l6E-03
l . l6E-03
l . 16E-03
l . l7E-03
l . l 7E-03
l . l 8E-03
l . 18E-03
l . l 8E-03
l . l9E-03
1 . 19E-03
1 . l9E-03
l .20E-03
l .20E-03
l .2 l E-03
1 .2 l E-03
l .21E-03
l .22E-03
l .22E-03
1 .22E-03
l .23 E-03
1 .23E-03
l .24E-03
l .24E—03
1 .24E-03
l .25E-03
l .25E-03
1 2515-03
1 .26E-03
l .26E-03
l .26E-03
l .27E-03
l .27E-03

140

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.62E+02
4 .65E+02
4.68E+02
4.71E+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.80E+02
4.83E+02
4.86E+02
4 .89E+02
4.92E+02
4.95E+02
4.98E+02
5 .01E+02
5 .04E+02
5 .07E+02
5. 10E+02
5. l 3E+02
5. 16E+02
5. 19E+02
5 .22E+02
5 .25E+02
5 .2 8E+02
5.3 lE+02
5 .34E+02
5 .3 7E+02
5 .40E+02
5 .43E+02
5 .46E+02
5 .49E+02
5 .52E+02
5 .55E+02
5 .5 8E+02
5 .6 1 E+02
5 .64E+02
5 .67E+02
5 .70E+02
5.73 E+02
5 .76E+02
5 .79E+02
5 .82E+02
5 .85 E+02
5 .88E+02
5 .9 l E+02
5 .94E+02
5 .97E+02
6.00E+02

6.36E-02
6.3 8E-02
6.40E-02
6.42E-02
6.44E-02
6.45E-02
6.47E-02
6.49E-02
6.50E-02
6.52E-02
6.54E-02
6.55E-02
6.57E-02
6.58E-02
6.60E-02
6.61 E-02
6.63 E-02
6.65 E-02
6.66E-02
6.68E-02
6.69E-02
6.7 l E-02
6.72E-02
6.74E-02
6.75E—02
6.77E-02
6.78E-02
6.80E-02
6.8 l E-02
6.83 E-02
6.84E-02
6.86E-02
6.87E-02
6.89E-02
6.91 E-02
6.92E-02
6.93 E-02
6.95 E-02
6.96E-02
6.98E-02
6 .99E-02
7.0 1 E-02
7.02E-02
7.04E-02
7.05 E-02
7.07E-02
7.08E-02
7.09E-02
7. l 1 E-02

1275-03
128503
1285-03
1285-03
1.295-03
1.29503
1.29503
1.305-03
1.305-03
1305-03
1.31503
1.31503
1.31503
1.32503
1.32503
1.32503
1.335-03
1.335-03
1335-03
1345-03
1.345-03
1345-03
1.345-03
1.355-03
1355-03
1355-03
1.36503
1.36503
1.365-03
1.37503
1.37503
1.375-03
1.375-03
1.385-03
1.38E-03
1.385-03
1.395-03
1.395-03
1.395-03
1.405-03
1.405-03
1405-03
1.405-03
1415-03
1.415-03
1.415-03
1425-03
1.425-03
1.425-03

 

 

Table
Tune

“7651»?
3.8513
6.9612
9.9613
1.3113
1.61E
1.9113
2.21E
2.50E
2.81E
3.11E
3.41E
3.71E
4.01E
4.31E
4.61!
4.911
5.211
5.521
5.821
6.101
6.401
6.721
7.001
7.32!
7.621
7.92]
8.22
8.521
8.811
9.11]
9.41]
9.713
LOO]
1.03;
1.06!
1.09;
1.121
1.15]
1.18]
1.21]
1.241
1.27]
1.30]
1.331
1.36]
1.391
1-421

Table A6. Creep data of undeveloped sofi wheat dough at 81% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance
5 dimensionless (J), Pa "
7.008-01 8.228-03 ] .648-04
3.858+00 ].568-02 3.] 18-04
6.968+00 1 .978-02 3 .93 8-04
9.968+00 2.268-02 4.528-04
].3 ]8+0] 2.508-02 4.998-04
1.6]8+0] 2.698-02 5.398-04
].918+01 2.888-02 5.768-04
2.218+01 3.058-02 6.108-04
2.508+01 3.208-02 6.418-04
2.8]E+0] 3.358-02 6.698-04
3.1 18+01 3.488-02 6.968-04
3.4]8+0] 3.608-02 7 .208-04
3.7]8+0] 3.7]8-02 7.428-04
4.0]8+01 3.828-02 7.648-04
4.318+0] 3.938—02 7.858-04
4.618+0] 4.038-02 8.068-04
4.918+01 4.]38-02 8.268-04
5.2]8+0] 4.238-02 8.468-04
5.528+0] 4.338-02 8.658-04
5.828+0] 4.428-02 8.838-04
6.108+01 4.508-02 8.998-04
6.408+0] 4.588-02 9.158-04
6.728+0] 4.668-02 9.328-04
7.008+0] 4.748-02 9.478-04
7.328+0] 4.8]8-02 9.638-04
7.628+01 4.898-02 9.788-04
7,928+0] 4.968-02 9.928-04
8.228+0] 5.03 8—02 1 .018-03
8.528+0] 5.]08-02 1.028—03
8.8]8+0] 5.]78—02 ].038—03
9.] ]8+0] 5248-02 1058-03
9,418+01 5.308-02 ].068-03
9.7]8+01 5.368-02 l.078—03
].008+02 5 .438-02 1 .098-03
1 .03 E+02 5.498-02 l .108-03
l.06E+02 5558-02 1 .1 ]8—03
l.098+02 5 .6 1 8-02 ] .128-03
].128+02 5.688-02 ].148—03
] . 158+02 5.738-02 1.158-03
] . 188+02 5 .798-02 ] . 168-03
1 .218+02 5.858-02 ].178-03
1 .248+02 5.908-02 ] .188—03
1 .278+02 5.968-02 1 . ] 98-03
].308+02 6.028—02 ] .208—03
l.338+02 6.07 8-02 ] .218-03
1.36E+02 6. 128-02 - ].228-03
1.398+02 6. 188-02 ] .248-03
1.428+02 6.23 8-02 ] .258-03

 

l .45 E+02
1 .48E+02
1 .5 1 E+02
l .54E+02
l .5 7E+02
1 .6OE+02
1 .63 E+02
1 .66E+02
1 .69E+02
l .72E+02
l .75E+02
l .78E+02
l .8 l E+02
1 .848+02
l .87E+02
1 .9OE+02
l .93E+02
l .96E+02
1 .99E+02
2.03 E+02
2.06E+02
2.09E+02
2. 128+02
2. 1 SE+02
2. l 8E+02
2.2 l E+02
2.24E+02
2.27E+02
2.3084-02
2.33E+02
2.36E+02
2 .39E+02
2 4128-1-02
2 .458+02
2 .48E+02
2.5 l E+02
2.54E+02
2.57E+02
2 .6OE+02
2.63 E+02
2.66E+02
2.69E+02
2.728+02
2758-1-02
2.78E+02
2 . 8 l E+02
2.84E+02
2.87E+02
2.9OE+02
2.93E+02

6.28E-02
6338-02
6.3 8E-02
6.43 E-02
6.488-02
6.528-02
6578-02
6628-02
6.67E-02
6.728-02
6.76E-02
6.8 1 E02
6.858-02
6.9OE-02
6.94E-02
6.998—02
7.03 E—02
7.07E-02
7. 1213-02
7. 1 78-02
7228-02
7268-02
7.3 113-02
7.3 5E-02
7.3 913-02
7.438—02
7.47E-02
7.5 113-02
7.558—02
7598-02
7.63 E-02
7.67E-02
7.71 E-02
7.74B-02
7.78E-02
7828-02
7.86E-02
7.89E-02
7.93 E-02
7978-02
8.01 E-02
8.048-02
8088-02
8. l l E-02
8. 1 58-02
8. 1 91-3-02
8.22E-02
8 .268-02
8 298-02
8 .3 31-3-02

1 268-03
1 278-03
1 288-03
1 298-03
1 308-03
1 .308-03
1 .3 113-03
1 .328-03
1 338-03
1 .348-03
1 .3 58-03
1 368-03
1 .378-03
1 .3 813-03
1 .3 9E-03
1 .408-03
1 .41 8-03
l .41 E-03
1 .428-03
1 .43 E-03
1 .448-03
1 .458-03
1 .46E-03
1 .478-03
1 .488-03
1 .49E-O3
l .49E-03
1 508-03
1 .5 1 E-03
1 .528-03
1 .53E-03
l .53E-03
1 548-03
1 .558—03
1 568-03
1 .568-03
1 578-03
1 .5 8E-03
l .59E-03
1 598-03
1 .608-03
1 .6 l E-03
1 .628-03
1 .628-03
1 .63 E-O3
1 .648-03
1 .658-03
1 .658-03
1 .668-03
1 .678-03

Table A6. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.998+02
3 .028+02
3 .058+02
3 .08E+02
3.1 lE+02
3 . 14E+02
3 . 178+02
3 208+02
3 .2384-02
3 .268+02
3 .2984-02
3 .328+02
3 .3 58+02
3 .3 8E+02
3 .4 1 E+02
3 .448+02
3 .478+02
3 .508+02
3 .538+02
3 .56E+02
3 .59E+02
3 .62E+02
3 .658+02
3 .688+02
3.718+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .808+02
3 .838+02
3 .86E+02
3 .89E+02
3 .928+02
3 .9584-02
3 .988+02
4.028+02
4.058+02
4.08E+02
4. l 1 E+02
4. 14E+02
4. 1 7E+02
4.2 l E+02
4.23 E+02
4.268+02
4.29E+02
4.328+02
4.3 58+02
4.3 8E+02
4.4 1 E+02
4.448+02
4.47E+02
4.508+02
4.53 E+02

8.368-02
8.408-02
8.43 8-02
8.478-02
8.508-02
8.548-02
8.578-02
8.618-02
8.648-02
8.678-02
8.718-02
8.748-02
8.778-02
8.818-02
8.848-02
8.878-02
8.908-02
8.948-02
8.978-02
9.008-02
9.03 8-02
9.068-02
9.088-02
9. 128-02
9. 1 58-02
9. 1 88-02
9.2 1 8-02
9.25 8-02
9.278-02
9308-02
9.33 8-02
9.3 78-02
9.408-02
9.43 8-02
9.468-02
9.508-02
9.538-02
9568-02
9598-02
9.6 1 8-02
9.648-02
9.678-02
9.708-02
9.738-02
9.768-02
9.798-02
9.828-02
9.85 8-02
9.888-02
9.908-02
9.93 8-02
9.968-02
9.998-02

1 .678-03
1 .688-03
1 .698-03
1 .698-03
1 .708-03
1 .71 8-03
1 .7 1 8-03
1 .728-03
1 .738-03
1 .748-03
1 .748-03
1 .758-03
1 .758-03
1 .768-03
1 .778-03
1 .778-03
1 .788-03
1 .798-03
1 .798-03
1 .808—03
1 .8 18-03
1 .8 18-03
1 .828-03
1 .828-03
1 .83 8—03
1 .848-03
1 .848-03
1 .858-03
1 .858-03
1 .868-03
1 .878-03
1 .878-03
1 .888-03
1 .898-03
1 .898-03
1 .908-03
1 .9 1 8-03
1 .9 1 8-03
1 .92 8-03
1 .92 8-03
I .93 8—03
1 .94 8-03
1 .948-03
1 .95 8-03
1 .958-03
1 .968-03
1 .968-03
1 .978-03
1 .988-03
1 .988-03
1 .998-03
1 .998-03
2 .008-03

142

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.628+02
4.658+02
4.688+02
4.718+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.808+02
4.838-1-02
4.868+02
4.89E+02
4.9284-02
4.958+02
4.9884-02
5.018+02
5.048+02
5.07E+02
5.108102
5. 138+02
5.168+02
5.19E+02
5.22E+02
5.258402
5.288+02
5.3 lE+02
5.34E+02
5.37E+02
5.4OE+02
5.43E+02
5.46E+02
5.498402
5.528+02
5.558+02
5.588+02
5.618+02
5.648+02
5.678+02
5.708+02
5.73E+02
5.76E+02
5.79E+02
5.828+02
5.858+02
5. 8887-02
5.91 E+02
5.94E+02
5.978+02
6.008+02

1.008-01
1.008-01
1 .018—0 1
1.018-01
1.018-01
1.028-01
1.028-01
1.028-01
1.028-0]
1.038-01
1.038-01
1.038-01
1.038-01
1.048-01
1.048-01
1.048-01
1.048-01
1.058-01
1.058-01
1.058-01
1.058-01
1.068-01
1 .068-01
1.068-01
1.068-01
1 .078-01
1 .078-01
1 .078-01
1 .088-01
1 .088-01
1 .088-01
1.088-01
1 .098-0]
1 .098-01
1.098-01
1.098-01
1. 108-01
1. 108-01
1 . 108-0]
1. 108-0]
1.1 18-01
1 .1 18-01
1 . 1 18-01
1.1 18-01
1 .128-01
1.128-01
1 . 128-01
1 . 128-01
1.138-01

2.008-03
2.01 8-03
2.018-03
2.028-03
2.038-03
2.03 8-03
2.048-03
2.048-03
2.058-03
2.05 8-03
2.068-03
2.068-03
2.078-03
2.078-03
2.088-03
2.088-03
2.098-03
2.098-03
2. 108-03
2. 108-03
2. 1 1 8-03
2.1 18-03
2. 128-03
2. 128-03
2. 138-03
2. 148-03
2. 1 48-03
2. 1 58-03
2. 1 58-03
2. 168-03
2. 168-03
2. 1 78-03
2. 1 78-03
2.1 88-03
2. 1 88-03
2. 1 98-03
2. 198-03
2.208-03
2.208-03
2.2 1 8-03
2.2 1 8-03
2.228-03
2.228-03
2.238-03
2.23 8-03
2.248-03
2.248-03
2.258-03
2.258—03

 

 

Tabh:fi

—_______—-—

Tunetu.
s
TOOE-Ol
3JlE-O(
073E+0(
938E~O(
128E+OI
158E+01
L87E+01
217E~01
247E°01
ZJSE-OE
308E~01
337E-01
167E-02
197E-0?
42’E-0?
456E+01
488E-01
5175-02
547E-01
i77E-Oi
609E+0'
637E+0
667E-0
698E-0
728E-0
758E-0
747E-0
8J7E+0
847E+0
&78E+o
908E+o
938E-0
967E-0
997E-0
l.06E+0:
10913-0:
1.12510:
l~18E+03

Table A7. Creep data of F arinograph sofi wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance
s dimensionless (I), Pa "
7.008-01 7.618-03 1.528-04
3.718+00 ].458-02 2.908-04
6.738+00 1.838-02 3.658-04
9,788+00 2.1 18-02 4.228-04
1.288+01 2.348-02 4.698-04
].588+01 2.548-02 5.098-04
l.878+01 2.7]8-02 5.4]8-04
2.]78+01 2.868-02 5.728-04
2.478+01 3.008-02 6.008-04
2.788+01 3.148-02 6.278-04
3.088+Ol 3.268-02 6.528-04
3.37E+0] 3.378-02 6.738-04
3.678+01 3.488-02 6.958—04
3.97E+01 3.588-02 7.]68-04
4.278+01 3.688-02 7.358-04
4.568+01 3.778-02 7.538-04
4.888+0] 3.868-02 7.7]8-04
5.178+01 3.938-02 7.878-04
5.478+01 4.0]8-02 8.038-04
5.778+0] 4.098-02 8. 198-04
6.098+01 4.]78-02 8.348-04
6.378+01 4.248-02 8.488-04
6,678+0] 4.318-02 8.628-04
6.988+0] 4.388-02 8.778-04
7.288+01 4.458-02 8.908-04
7.588+0] 4.5 18-02 9.038-04
7.878+01 4.578-02 9. 158-04
8.]78+0] 4.648-02 9.288-04
8.478+01 4.708-02 9.398-04
8.78E+01 4.768—02 9.528-04
9.088+01 4.828—02 9.638-04
9.388+0] 4.878-02 9.748-04
9.678+0] 4.928-02 9.848-04
9.978+0] 4.978-02 9.958-04
] .038+02 5 .038-02 1 .018-03
1.068+02 5.088-02 ] .028-03
] .098+02 5. 138-02 ] .03 8-03
].128+02 5.188-02 ].048-03
1 .158+02 5.238-02 1.058-03
] . 188+02 5.278-02 1 .058—03
].2 ] E+02 5.328-02 ] .068-03
1 .24E+02 5.378-02 ] .078-03
1,278+02 5.4]8-02 ].088-03
] .308+02 5.468-02 1 .098-03
l.338+02 5.508-02 ].108—03
].36E+02 5.558-02 1.] ]8-03
1.398+02 5.588-02 ].128-03
1.428+02 5.638-02 1.138-03

 

1 .45 E+02
1 .4884-02
1 .5 lE+02
l .548+02
l .57E+02
1 .6084-02
1 .63 E+02
l .668+02
1 .69E+02
I .728+02
1 .758+02
l .788+02
l .8 1 E+02
1 .848+02
1 .87E+02
l .908+02
l .93E+02
l .96E+02
1 .9984-02
2.038+02
2.068+02
2.098+02
2. l28+02
2. 158+02
2. l 8E+02
2.2 1 E+02
2.24E+02
2.27E+02
2.308+02
2.33E+02
2.36E+02
2.39E+02
2.428402
2.458+02
2.48E+02
2.5 l E+02
2.548+02
2.57E+02
2 .608+02
2.63 E+02
2.66E+02
2.69E+02
2.72E+02
2.758+02
2.788+02
2.8 l E+02
2.848+02
2.87E+02
2.908+02
2.93 E+02

5 .678-02
5 .7 1 8-02
5 .75 8-02
5 .798-02
5 .838-02
5 .878-02
5 .9 1 8-02
5 .958-02
5 .998-02
6.028-02
6.068-02
6. 108-02
6. 1 38-02
6. 1 78-02
6208-02
6.23 8-02
6.278-02
6.308-02
6.338-02
6.3 88-02
6.4 18-02
6.448-02
6.488-02
6.5 18-02
6.548-02
6.578-02
6.608-02
6.648-02
6.678-02
6.708-02
6.73 8-02
6.768-02
6.798-02
6.828-02
6.848-02
6. 878-02
6.908-02
6.938-02
6.968-02
6.998-02
7.02 8-02
7.058-02
7.078-02
7. 1 08-02
7. 13 8-02
7. 1 58-02
7. 1 88-02
7 .2 1 8-02
7.23 8-02
7.268-02

l . 138-03
1 . 148-03
1 . 1 58-03
1 . 168-03
1 . 178-03
1 . 178-03
1 . 1 88-03
1 . 198-03
1 .208-03
1 .208-03
1 .2 18-03
1 .228-03
1 .23 8-03
1 .238—03
1 .248-03
1 .258-03
1 .258-03
1 .268—03
1 .278-03
1 .288-03
1 .288-03
1 .298-03
1 .308-03
1 .308-03
1 .3 18-03
1 .3 18-03
1 .328-03
1 .33 8-03
1 .33 8-03
1 .348-03
1 .3 58-03
1 .3 58-03
1 .368-03
1 .368-03
1 .378-03
1 .378-03
1 .3 88-03
1 .398-03
1 .398-03
1 .408-03
1 .408-03
1 .41 8-03
1 .4 18-03
1 .428-03
1 .438-03
1 .43 8-03
1 .448-03
1 .448-03
1 .458-03
1 .458-03

 

 

Table A
2.968‘4
3998*
3028*
3058*
3088*
3318*
3148*
3378*
3208*
3238*
3268*
3298*
3328*
3358*
3388*
3418*
3448*
3478*
3508*
3538*
3568*
3598*
3628*
3658*
3688+
3718*
3748+
3778*
3808*
3838+
3868+
3898+
3928+
3958+
3.98E+
4025+
4088+
4.1 18+
4.1481»
4478+
4208+
4238+
4268+
4298+
43280
4358+1
4.38E—H
441E+(
4.44E+(
447E+{
4SOE+C

Table A7. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.99E+02
3 .028+02
3 .058-4-02
3 .08E+02
3 .l lE+02
3 . 148+02
3 . 1784-02
3 .208+02
3 .238+02
3 .268+02
3 .298+02
3 328-+02
3 .3 584-02
3 .3 8E+02
3 .4 l E+02
3 .448+02
3 .47E+02
3 .508+02
3 .538+02
3 .56E+02
3 .59E+02
3 .628+02
3 .658+02
3 .688+02
3 .7 1 E+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .808+02
3.83 E+02
3 .86E+02
3 .89E+02
3 .928+02
3 .958+02
3 .98E+02
4.028+02
4.05 E+02
4.08E+02
4. 1 1 E+02
4. 14E+02
4. 1 7E+02
4.208+02
4.238+02
4.268+02
4.29E+02
4.328+02
4.3 584. 02
4.3 8E+02
4.4 1 E+02
4 .448+02
4.47E+02
4 .508+02
4.53E+02

7.298-02
7.3 18-02
7.348-02
7.368-02
7.398-02
7.4 18-02
7.448-02
7.468-02
7.488-02
7.508-02
7.538-02
7.568-02
7.5 88-02
7.608-02
7.63 8-02
7.658-02
7.688-02
7.708-02
7.728-02
7.758-02
7.778-02
7.798-02
7.828-02
7.848-02
7.868-02
7.888-02
7.91 8-02
7.93 8-02
7.958-02
7.97 8-02
7.998-02
8.0 1 8-02
8 .048-02
8.068-02
8.08 8-02
8 . 1 1 8-02
8. 1 3 8-02
8. 1 5 8-02
8. 1 78-02
8. 1 98-02
8.2 1 8-02
8.248-02
8.268—02
8.288-02
8.308-02
8.328-02
8.348-02
8 .368-02
8.3 88-02
8.408-02
8.428-02
8.448-02
8.468-02

1 .468-03
1 .468-03
1 .478-03
1 .478-03
1 .488-03
1 .488-03
1 .498-03
1 .498-03
1 .508-03
1 .508-03
1 .5 18-03
1 .5 18-03
1 .528-03
1 .528-03
1 .538-03
1 .538-03
1 .548-03
1 .548-03
1 .558-03
1 .558-03
1 .558-03
1 .568-03
1 .568-03
1 .578-03
1 .578-03
1 .588-03
1 .588-03
1 .598-03
1 .598-03
1 .598-03
1 .608-03
1 .608-03
1 .6 18-03
1 .61 8-03
1 .628-03
1 .628-03
1 .63 8-03
1 .638-03
1 .638-03
1 .648-03
1 .648-03
1 .658-03
1 .658—03
1 .668-03
1 .668-03
1 .668-03
1 .678-03
1 .678-03
1 .688—03
1 .688-03
1 .68 8-03
1 .698-03
1 .698-03

144

 

4.568+02
4.59E+02
4.62E+02
4.65 E+02
4.68E+02
4.718+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.808+02
4.83E+02
4.86E+02
4.89E+02
4.928102
4.95 E+02
4.98E+02
5 .01 E+02
5 .048+02
5 .07E+02
5 . 108-+02
5 . 1 38+02
5 . l68+02
5 . 1 9E+02
5 .228+02
5 .258+02
5 .288+02
5 .3 lE+02
5 .34E+02
5 .3 7E+02
5 .408+02
5 .43E+02
5 .46E+02
5 .49E+02
5 .528+02
5 .558+02
5 .58E+02
5 .618+02
5 .648+02
5 .67E+02
5 .708+02
5 .738+02
5 .76E+02
5 .798+02
5 .828+02
5 .858+02
5 .888+02
5 .9 1 E+02
5 .94E+02
5 .97E+02
6.008+02

8.488-02
8.508-02
8.528-02
8.548-02
8.568-02
8.578-02
8.598-02
8.61802
8.63 8-02
8.65 8-02
8.668-02
8.688—02
8.708-02
8.728-02
8.748-02
8.768-02
8.778-02
8.798-02
8.818-02
8.838-02
8.858-02
8.878-02
8.888-02
8.908-02
8.928-02
8.948-02
8.968-02
8978-02
8998-02
9.0 1 8-02
9.038-02
9.058-02
9.078-02
9.088-02
9. 108-02
9. 128-02
9. 1 48-02
9. 1 58-02
9. 1 78-02
9. 1 98-02
9.208-02
9.228-02
9248-02
9.25 8-02
9.278-02
9.288-02
9.308-02
9328-02
9.33 8-02

1 .708-03
1 .708-03
1 .708-03
1 .71 8-03

' 1.718-03

1 .718-03
1 .728-03
1.728-03
1 .738-03
1 .738-03
1.738-03
1 .748-03
1 .748-03
1 .748-03
1 .758-03
1 .758-03
1 .758-03
1 .768-03
1 .768-03
1 .778-03
1 .778-03
1 .778-03
1 .788-03
1 .788-03
1 .788-03
1 .798-03
1 .798-03
1 .808-03
1 .808-03
1 .808-03
1 .8 18-03
1 .8 18-03
1 .8 18-03
1 .828-03
1 .828-03
1 .828-03
1 .838-03
1 .838-03
1 .83 8-03
1 .848-03
1 .848-03
1 .848-03
1 .858-03
1 .858-03
1 .858-03
1 .868-03
1 .868-03
1 .868-03
1 .878-03

 

Table A8. Creep data of Farinograph hard wheat dough at 76% moisture content (db).

 

 

Time (t), Strain (y), Creep compliance
5 dimensionless (1), Pa '1
7.008-01 6.248-03 1.258-04
3.978+00 1.]38-02 2.278-04
6.858+00 1.388-02 2.778-04
9.86E+00 1.588-02 3.]58-04
1 .308+0] 1 .748-02 3 .498-04
l.608+01 1.888-02 3.778-04
] .908+01 2.018-02 4.028-04
2.208401 2.128-02 4.248-04
2.498+01 2.228-02 4.458-04
2.798+0] 2.328-02 4.648-04
3.098+01 2.428-02 4.838-04
3.408+01 2.5]8-02 5.028-04
3.69E+01 2.598-02 5.]98-04
3.988+01 2.678-02 5.358-04
4.308+0] 2.758-02 5.518—04
4.588+01 2.828-02 5.648-04
4.89E+01 2.898-02 5.788-04
5.]98+01 2.968-02 5.928-04
5.488+01 3.038-02 6.058-04
5.788+01 3.098-02 6.]88-04
6.1]E+01 3.]68-02 6.338—04
6.39E+01 3.228-02 6.448-04
6.698+01 3.288-02 6.568-04
6.998+01 3.348—02 6.688-04
7 .308+01 3.408-02 6.808-04
7.588+01 3.458-02 6.908-04
7.908+01 3 .5 1 8-02 7 .028-04
8.208+01 3 .568-02 7. 128-04
8.498+01 3.6]8—02 7.228-04
8.798+0] 3.678-02 7.338-04
9,108+01 3.728-02 7.448-04
9.398+0] 3.778-02 7.548-04
9.708+01 3.828-02 7.658-04
9.998+01 3.87 8-02 7 .748-04
1 .038+02 3.928-02 7.848-04
1.068+02 3.968-02 7.928-04
l.098+02 4.0]8-02 8.018-04
].128+02 4.058-02 8.1 18-04
l.lSE+02 4.]08-02 8.208-04
1.188+02 4. ]48-02 8.288-04
1.2 ] E+02 4.198-02 8.378-04
l.248+02 4.238-02 8.458-04
l.278+02 4.278-02 8.548-04
l .308+02 4.3 1 8-02 8.628-04
l.338+02 4.358-02 8.708-04
1.36E+02 4.398-02 8.788-04
1 .398+02 4.43 8-02 8.868-04
l .428+02 4.47 8-02 8.948-04

 

1 .458+02
1 .48E+02
l .5 lE+02
l .548+02
l .57E+02
1 .608+02
l .63E+02
l .668+02
1 .69E+02
1 .728+02
1 .758+02
1 .788+02
1 .8 1 E+02
1 .848+02
1 .87E+02
l .908+02
1 .93 E+02
1 .96E+02
1 .99E+02
2.03 E+02
2.068+02
2.09E+02
2. 128+02
2. 1 58+02
2. l 8E+02
2.218+02
2 .24E+02
2 .278+02
2 .308+02
2.33E+02
2.36E+02
2 .398+02
2 .42E+02
2.45 E+02
2.48E+02
2.5 1 E+02
2.548+02
2.57E+02
2.608+02
2.63 E+02
2.66E+02
2.69E+02
2.728+02
2.758+02
2.78E+02
2 .8 1 E+02
2.848+02
2.87E+02
2 .908+02
2.93 E+02

4.5 18-02
4.558-02
4.598-02
4.63 8-02
4.668-02
4.708-02
4.73 8-02
4.778-02
4.818-02
4.848-02
4.888-02
4.928-02
4.958-02
4.998-02
5 .038-02
5 .068-02
5. 108-02
5 . 1 38-02
5 . 168-02
5218-02
5 .248-02
5 .278-02
5 .3 18-02
5 .348-02
5 .378-02
5 .408-02
5 .438-02
5.468-02
5 .498-02
5.528-02
5.558-02
5.588-02
5.61 8-02
5.648-02
5 .688-02
5 .708-02
5.73 8—02
5.768-02
5 .798-02
5.828-02
5 .858-02
5.878-02
5.908-02
5 .93 8-02
5.968-02
5 .998-02
6.01 8-02
6.048-02
6.078-02
6.098-02

9.038-04
9. 108-04
9. 1 88-04
9268-04
9338-04
9.408-04
9.478-04
9.548-04
9.618-04
9.698-04
9.768-04
9.838-04
9.918-04
9.988-04
1 .018-03
1 .018-03
1 .028-03
1 .038-03
1 .03 8-03
1 .048-03
1 .058-03
1 .058-03
1 .068-03
1 .078-03
1 .078-03
1 .088-03
1 .098-03
1 .098-03
1 . 108-03
1 . 1 08-03
1.1 18-03
1 . 128-03
1 . 128-03
1 . 138-03
1 . 148-03
1 . 148-03
1 . 1 58-03
1 . 1 58-03
1 . 168-03
1 . 1 68-03
1 . 178-03
1 . 1 78-03
1 . 188-03
1 . 1 98-03
1 . 198-03
1 .208-03
1 .208-03
1 .2 1 8-03
1 .2 18-03
1 .228-03

 

 

Table A8. 11.
290902
1W802
3028+01
3058*02
3088*02
SJIE+02
3.14802
3.17802
3208*02
3238*02
3268*02
3298902
3328*02
3358*02
3388+02
3418+02
3448*02
3.47E+02
350E+02
3538*02
3568*03
359E+02
3628*02
3658*02
368Er02
3718*02
3348*02
3778-03
3%8W2
3338-0]
3868-0:
389E+03
3928+0;
3.9SE-03
3938-0
40213-0
405E-0
4.08E+0
4115-0
444E+0
417E+0
420E+0
42331.0
4261-30
429E+0
4.3254]
4.358%
4.388+(
4‘4 1E+(
44413-
44752
4.5053
4538+!

 

 

 

Table A8. (Cont’d.)

2.96E+02
2.998+02
3 .028+02
3 .058+02
3 .08E+02
3 .1 lE+02
3.148+02
3 . l78+02
3 .208+02
3 .238+02
3 .268+02
3 .298+02
3 .328+02
3 .3 58+02
3 .3 8E+02
3.418+02
3 .448+02
3 .478+02
3 .508+02
3 .538+02
3 .56E+02
3 .59E+02
3 .628+02
3 .658+02
3.68E+02
3 .718+02
3 .74E+02
3 .77E+02
3 .808+02
3 .838+02
3.868+02
3 .89E+02
3 .928+02
3 .958+02
3 .988+02
4.028+02
4.058+02
4.08E+02
4. 1 1 E+02
4. 14E+02
4. l78+02
4.208+02
4.23 E+02
4.268+02
4.29E+02
4.328+02
4,358+02
4.38E+02
4.418+02
4.44E+02
4.47E+02
4.508+02
4.538+02

6.128-02
6.158-02
6.188-02
6.218-02
6.248-02
6.268-02
6.298-02
6.3 18-02
6.348-02
6.378-02
6.408-02
6.428-02
6.448-02
6.478-02
6.508-02
6.528-02
6.558—02
6.578-02
6.598-02
6.628-02
6.648-02
6.678-02
6.698-02
6.728-02
6.748-02
6.768-02
6.798-02
6.8 1 8-02
6.838—02
6.868-02
6.888—02
6.908-02
6.92 8-02
6.95 8-02
6.978—02
7.008-02
7.028-02
7.05 8-02
7.078-02
7.098-02
7. 128-02
7. 148-02
7. 168-02
7. 1 88-02
7.2 1 8-02
7238-02
7.25 8-02
7.278-02
7.298-02
7.3 18-02
7.348-02
7.368—02
7.388-02

1.228-03
1.238—03
1.248-03
1.248-03
1.258-03
1.258-03
1.268-03
1 .268-03
1.278-03
1278-03
1.288-03
1.288-03
1298-03
1 .298-03
1 .308-03
1.308-03
1 .3 18-03
1 .3 18-03
1.328-03
1.328-03
1.338-03
1338-03
1 .348-03
1 .348-03
1.358-03
1 .358-03
1 .368-03
1.368—03
1.378-03
1 .3 78-03
1 .388-03
1 .3 88-03
1 .3 88-03
1 .398-03
1 .398-03
1 .408-03
1 .408-03
1 .418—03
1 .418-03
1 .428-03
1 .42 8-03
1 .43 8-03
1 .438-03
1 .448-03
1 .448-03
1 .458-03
1 .45 8-03
1 .458-03
1 .468-03
1 .468-03
1 .478-03
1 .478-03
1 .488-03

146

 

4.56E+02
4.59E+02
4.628+02
4.658+02
4.685+02
4,715+02
4.74E+02
4.77E+02
4.808+02
4.838+02
4.865+02
4.89E+02
4,925+02
4.955+02
4.988+02
5.015+02
5.015+02
5.07E+02
5.105+02
5.135+02
5.168+02
5,195+02
s225+02
5255+02
5285+02
5315+02
5.34E+02
5.37E+02
5.4OE+02
5.43E+02
5.468+02
5495+02
5.525+02
5.555+02
5.585+02
5.6]8+02
5.648+02
5.678+02
5.705+02
5.73E+02
5.76E+02
5.79E+02
5.828+02
5.858+02
5.888+02
5.915+02
5.94E+02
5.975+02
6.008+02

7.408-02
7.428-02
7.448-02
7.468-02
7.488-02
7.508-02
7.538-02
7.548-02
7.578-02
7.598-02
7.618-02
7.63 8-02
7.65 8-02
7.678-02
7.698-02
7.7 18—02
7.738-02
7.758-02
7.778-02
7.798-02
7.818-02
7.83 8-02
7.858-02
7.878-02
7.898-02
7.918-02
7.93 8-02
7.958-02
7.978-02
7.988-02
8.008-02
8.028-02
8.048-02
8.068-02
8.078-02
8.098-02
8. 1 1 8-02
8. 1 38-02
8. 1 58—02
8. 1 78-02
8. 1 98-02
8.208-02
8.228-02
8.248-02
8.268-02
8.288-02
8.308-02
8.328-02
8.338-02

1 .488-03
1 .488-03
1 .498-03
1 .498-03
1 .508-03
1 .508-03
1 .5 18-03
1 .5 1 8-03
1 .5 18-03
1 .528-03
1 .528-03
1 .538-03
1 .538-03
1 .538-03
1 .548-03
1 .548-03
1 .5 58-03
1 .5 58-03
1 .558-03
1 .568-03
1 .568-03
1 .578-03
1 .578-03
1 .578-03
1 .588—03
1 .588-03
1 .598-03
1 .598-03
1 .598-03
1 .608-03
1 .608-03
1 .608-03
1 .61 8-03
1 .618-03
1 .618-03
1 .628-03
1 .628-03
1 .63 8-03
1 .63 8-03
1 .638-03
1 .648-03
1 .648-03
1 .648-03
1 .658-03
1 .658-03
1 .668-03
1 .668-03
1 .668-03
1 .678-03

 

 

Dmamic Osci
Shear Stress (50

 

 

APPENDIX B
Dynamic Oscillatory Measurement Data of Dough Samples Subjected to a Constant
Shear Stress (50 Pa) and at 25°C Temperature Using Controlled-Stress Rheometer with a
20mm Parallel Plate and 2mm Gap Configuration.

147

 

148

 

8+m§ ._ 8+me .v 8+mmm€ 8+3 _ .N 8+m8d 3+8: .m 8+m8._ 8+mnv.u
8+m8._ 8+m86 8+mcfim 8+m3.~ 8+m8d 388,8 3+m8.a 8+m8._
3+mnmd 8+m3d 8+m8.» 88.886 8+m8d 3+mnu.m 384—35 8+mv~d
3.88.5. 8+m: ._ 8+m8._ 8+m8m.n 8+8?" 3+mnm.m 38.83. 88.886
3.898 8+8: 8+moma 8.7808 8+m8fl 3+m8.~ 3+m3.m 8+m8+
3+m£k 8+m8._ 8+3»; 8+m3.» 8+m8d 3+mwmd 3+8: .n 8+m8.~
3+mn_.n 8+m8d 8+mumd 8+9: A 8+m8.~ 3+m8~ 3.3.—8.4 8+m8._
3+8:~ 8+8nd 8+m8.m 8+an4 28+de 3+m8.~ 3+m8... 8+8:
3+m8.v 8+m8+ 8+m3.n 8+m8._ 8+m8d 3+m3._ 3+m3.m cox-38
3+m3.m 8+m2..n 8+8: .n 8+m8d 8+m8d 3+m8._ 3+mnn.m 8+m86
3+m3.n 8+an5 8+Mnfic nc+m8.m 8+m8d 3+m8; 2:88." 2:88.
3+m8.~ 8+m38 8+de 8+m8é 8+m8d 3+m 1m.— 3+m8m.u Rim—8."
3+Mwn.~ 3+8: 3+m£ ._ 8+m8.m 8+m2..~ 3+3: 3+m8md 2:88.—
3+m8d 3+3: 3+mnn.~ 8+mnws 8+m~fin 3+m8._ 3+m8.~ 8+8:
3+8.” 3+mmud 3+m8.~ 3+m3._ 8+mmfiu 8+m88 3+8”; 883.8
3+8»; 3+8N 3+m8.~ 3+8: 8+m3.~ 8+m~fim 3+m3._ 8.82.
3+m8._ 3+m8.m 3+m3.m 3+m3._ 8+m8d 8+m$s 3+m3; 83—86
3882 3+m2 .m 3+8“; 3+8n.~ 8+m8.~ 8+5 2. 3+5: 8.m8.~
3+8: 3+m86 3+m8.n 3+mmv.m 8+m8.m 8+m36 3+5: 8&8.—
3+m2 ._ 3+m8.» 33—35 3+8:q 8+m8~.n 8+mmm.0 3+m8._ 8-9mm.—
3+m3.— 8+mm: 3+m8¢ 3+mamd _o+m8.m 8+moa.m 8+m8.» 8-93.8
8+8?» 8+8: 8+m8._ 38.8mm.» 8+m8.m 83886 8+m8.o 8&86
a 59 :5 5.5 a an AS 3885 8.968 a 8 .55 8&8 E .99 E .68 ..3. .65
31608 53:80 .8883 55:80 me «cocoa—E8 858 .«o 80 :32: 08:25 A8 £98 398 .33—88 83 .3338 own—8m Aev 5:262..—

 

.Oomm ES 8880 0:388 o\6~ b an swag 30:3 c8 38.05358 82. beau—:08 ”om—dag Am 033.

 

 

‘ II [I

:9an “2.: 2.02.30 92.5.0:- e\eCh 8. Sufi—Cm. 30:3 tam fiOQC~o>ofi==kO .35» 86.5280 2222er .Nm 07:2.

 

149

 

3+momd ~c+chd ~o+m.mm.u Stan.— 8+m~ad 3+m_~.m 3+m~5n ~o+mnvd
3+m8.n uo+m~u.n No+m:.~ «Em—o.— 8+m8.m 3+Mmmd 3+m3é «fang
3+m2 .v No+mmn+ "Emma“ uo+mh~d 2:.de 3+9: .N 3+mNc.m 8+mv~d
21mm: 8+me6 no+m8.n ~o+mo¢d :1de 21mm”.— 3+m3 .m S+ma~6
egg—d No+mmvs no+mwmd 8+m2..n 8+m5.m 3+m~o._ 3+m§d _o+mwu.v
zines." ~c+m3xo «Emma.» 8+Mcaé S+m- .n 3+m21 Simon." S+m~®~
3+Mamd no+Mcn._ mc+m8._ «gm—mud S+m2 .n Sing.— 3+m3a _o+moa.~
3+mwod mo+mmn._ 8+8: 8+9»; .u S+Mofln 3+Mo: vein—2.4 S+mnm._
317mg; 8+Mmaa nc+m8._ mo+m3._ 8+mn~.m 8+Mond Sim—m.— 8+m§d
3+mXA 8+Mmtn 8+m8.~ mo+mNm._ Sin—mud mo+ma~d 3+Momg 84:33.
«AIMS.— mo+m_ _ .m mo+muod «$30.— 8+mom.m 8+5. .5 3+m2 ._ commas.
3+3 _ ._ 8+m3.n 8+mmm.m no+m2 .u S+Moflm mo+m-.e mo+m _ Em 21mg.”
3+m8._ mo+mmo.m 2:934. mo+m~fiu 8+Mc~d mc+m=vd 843mg.» 8+m3._
nc+m2mw no+mwvd mo+m$w 8+Mcm.m 8+mhud 81mg... 8179:. Rim—mm.—
no+mnos 8+Mw~d no+m36 mo+m§xv 8+5?” 8+9.— .v 8+m3e Sumvud
mo+mNfie 3.79:.— 8+de 81%—«fin S+m~fim mc+mmo.m 8+m8w 8&de
2:36.... «Aim—am.— 3+m2 ._ mo+Mcm s S+mm~ .m mo+m _ ~.m Sum—3..“ Sum—mud
nc+m3.n 3+m8._ «Aim—2 mo+mgd _o+..mom.n «Em—3d Sim—ed Sum—ma."
84:306. 3+Momd 3+m8._ coin—on.— 8+m3wm Sum—RN Sim—QM 8&3.—
8+m2 .v 3+mao.m Simon." vein—mu; _o+m _ fin mc+m3w~ 8463.6 Sum—mm.—
mo+m~ fin 3+m~o.v 3+mmu.m 3+Mmm.u 81%: .m mo+m2 .N no+m8.m 8.9.«6
8+m2 .m Eta—wad 3+m3.m 3+9 _.m S+m£d Sin—ma.— mo+mmvd 8-33.
a fig a an fl .5 m an 55 58% £38 a 8 .3 82mm“. 8 58 «a 59 ..m B.
«232: xvi—coo £38an 53800 .«0 80:09:00 83a mo :5 :59: can .va 2&5 89E 62.69: 8.5 .3169: own—2m A .3 3:262“—

 

.Uonm was 88.50 ego:— o\o2. «a swag 23:3 «8 vac—gown: .«o 3% ©3568 own—«E .Nm oSaH

 

.Ucmm 6:: 2.9259 92.7.3:— f. _ x E .3233 25:3 :69. tons—DRVEEKO 55v bogszomo 2.2.23.3 .Mm 022:.

 

150

 

Simone «gm—no.— ~o+m$._ «9&3; 8+Mofim 3+m8.~ Sigma uo+mmvd
Sim—ad 8+3..." ~o+m3.~ «Em—om.— 8+mwfim 3+m3.~ 3+m-d ~o+mmm._
coin—cod «gm—ad ~c+m©od «AIME.— 8+m~nm gimme.— 3+m3d Sim—cud
Sim—hm." «gage uo+m3fi «Aim—mm." S+m3.m gimme.— 3+m2 .N S+m-d
3+Mon.u No+m2 .n uo+mmné «9&me S+m$.n Rim—mu.— 3+m~w._ ~o+mmué
3+5»; «3933 8+9?“ «$9.9m 8+m$d 3+m8._ 3+5: S+mmod
3+m8._ «9&3.» ~o+Mwn6 «$966 8+8?” mo+mm _ .a coin—m.— .9193.—
3+mwm._ mc+m8._ nc+mm _ .m ~o+m3.n 8+mhnd mo+m36 3+m2 ._ Sign:
Etude—.— 8+Momg mc+m8._ «$9.05 S+m8.m no+mow.c Sin—had Rim—end
mo+m$d 8.79.2 8+5".— Nc+m=hd S+m$.m Sam—mud 2193.5 8+m-6
mo+m3d «3&3.— 8+m8._ no+m£ ._ Barman moth—mo .v 8+me .c oo+mw~.v
Signs no+Mom.n mc+m~cd mo+m$.~ S+m$.m 8+Mw~é Simona oc+mNaN
mohmgd 8+9; .m mo+Mon .N Stun».— 8+mo9m 83.80...” mo+moo.m 8+m3. _
mc+m3w «$966 8+mRa 8+Mwmd Sigma mo+m3 .m 8+3}. RIM—mm.—
mo+m2uv mo+m2 .n mo+m£ é Sim—9m Sign...” 8+me~ 8+m3d 8.9.2“
8+9; .v mc+m86 aimed Shanna S+men .m mo+m~v.~ mo+mam .m 8&36
mo+m$.m mc+mmnd mo+mamd 2:33. S+mmm .m mo+mm _ .N mo+moo.~ Sflwflv
”Mahmoud 3+m2 ._ 8+m8d 8+m$6 _o+mcm.m mfg».— mo+mmod 8-mNa.~
«gm—mu 21mg.— 3+m2 A Sin—av.» _o+mhm.m mo+m%._ mo+momd Snag.—
no+m8d Sim—mo; Kine: 3+9; ._ SEN?” mo+mvn ._ mo+m: _ .m 8-9%;
mo+mnnd 3+mvm.n 3+3?" 3+9: Shanna Shame.— mo+m$._ No-mwn.a
mo+m8d 3+Mou.m 3+m3d 3+mSN S+m34q 8&3.— 8+mmm._ Sflwud
an 5.9 a an 55 a an. 55 3883 £38 m £43 @868 an. 5.9 £ .99 ..a E
«2308 55800 $388? 53800 .«o 828988 893 mo SO :32: 028:5 .va 2&5. 8mg £2.62: 83 £23.08 own—Sm A3 3532..”

 

.003 98 33.80 05668 $5 “a swag 30:3 a8 vane—gown: ma 3% E3363 £8239 .mm 03.2.

 

 

 

«'1 I1\\ ni‘CQ-nghl

.UomN .23 E355 3320:. ...\c_.\l E :wzou 28:3 En: tone—ofivtcsko 55» 39.5.36 0.5::th .vm 03.:

 

151

 

8+8» A 8+mn»é 8583. mi 6.8» 8+5 n .N 2196.» 8+m»o._ gimme.»
3+mmad 8+Momd $9.8m 2.3.8" _o+m»n.n 3+mumé 3+m8.» 8+m»m._
coin—av.» 8+m- .o 838m» 33 .8» _o+m»n .n 3+3?» 3+3» .5 8+m§d
3+8»; 8+8: 3588— afl min 8+m»m.u 3+mmm.» Sign.» 8+m»~.o
«fumed 8+mnn._ 83.8: Suave _o+m»m.u 3+m»».u 3+8?» 8+m»m.e
3+m8.» 8+m8d «2 d8» $5.3» 8+QO.~ 219%.» Errand 8+mNmN
Irma.» 8+m$d 88.83 398— _ 8+m= n .N Sing» 21mg .v 8+m3._
3+m~fiv 8+8?» 03.3: 35.82 _o+an.N 3+m8.» 3+me~é 8+8».—
3+m-é 8+mhné than; 3083— 8+an.~ 3+3»; 3+m_».» 8+m§d
3.52.» 8+m8.o 3.34m Sadann S+mvfiu 3+m8._ Sim?» 8+m»~.c
3+8?» 8+m¢ms 535.: 8.58 S+mmmzm 3+9»?— 3+m8.» oo+m»~.v
«9&8.» 3+m8._ 3983 $8.83. S+mNn .N 3+8: 3+mos .N 8+m~oN
zines." 3+m»»._ 3.33; 8085» _o+m~n.~ 3+m§ ._ 3+5?» Simon.—
3+m3d 3+3»; 3.3.3. «8.33 8+mnn.~ 3+m8._ 21mg.» 23mm:
3+m8d Xingu 3.82" 8.88— 8+Mnmd 8+m»m.o 3+5?» 8-mvn.a
RIMS» 3+m3 .» 8483 m».n»»m_ Sign.» 8+m~fi» 3+m_»._ _o-m»~.o
3+9»; 3+m§é 2.38» n. _ 9v»— S+m:e.m 8+3?» 3+m8._ _o-m»~.v
SIMS.— vo+m8.m 3.38» 3.883 S+m$d 8+m~ms Sing.— 8&8»
3+m»v.~ 3+3»; 09—88 3.3%» _o+m:..~ 8+m26 3+3: Sum—3.—
3+m»: 3+m»».m 3.82.» an.» — no». _o+mo».m 8+m»~.o Sim». ._ 8-9».—
vo+m2 ._ 8+8».— fiqnnuz 3.688 8+m8» 8+m»» .m RINK: Noam—end
34%—8.— 8+m34 263»— 3.33» S+m2 .» 8+m8.» 8+m:.» 8.m»~.o
a 5.8 m «m 55 m E $333083 5358 m «A 55 momma 8 59 an .GV 7m 3.
3:608 “nu—@800 56083 53:60 .«o Egon—=8 32¢ .«o SO :32: owns—.5 .va 03:» 855 .33—8:. 83 £232: own—2m .28 5532"»

 

.003 was 88:8 0.5308 e\o~ b «a swag 32.3 E»: cone—ogug mo 3.6 bogs—mama owns—SQ .vm 03¢,»

 

.Uan 8:: 2.3.50 053.30.: o\o€h .a cud-.3? 25:3 «2:: 30~_D_o>ofi§.~o Sufi bogs—Tame o..:§=>.fi~ .hmu 2:35

 

152

 

3+m. 5s 8+9. .n 8+me .N 8+8»... .o+m8.u 3+8...” 3+m86 8+m3N
Sign... 8+m8... 8+5?“ 8+8”. 8+Mnfiu 3+moad 3+m8d 8+mwn.
3+mnm.n 8+m3d 8+m. . .m 8+.n... EN .o+m3.~ 3+m8m .N 213:. .o+mv~.o
3+m. 5. 8+m35 8+m86 8+m8 .m 8+8” .N 3+m.~.~ 3+8. .v .o+mmN .c
3+9 . .w 8+m. Ea 8+8...» «fume... .c+men.~ 3+m8. Rimmed .o+mwN.v
«$865 8+8”. 8+m. . .. 8+m3w .o+mca.~ 3+3: 3+m8.m .o+m8.u
3+mmu.n 8+m8. 8+9”... 8+m$s .c+m8.n 3+8: 3%.an 8+8...
3+mnu.~ 8+m. . .N 8+m3. 8+m.c.. .o+m5d 3+5: 3+mcm .N .o+mmm..
Xian." 8+8..." 8+8..." 8+m.m.. .o+m$.~ 3+m.~.. 3+mcmd 8+M¢Nd
3+m8.u 8+mun.m 8+m8.n 8+8: .388“ 3+m8. 3+m3. 8+Mm~d
31mg. 8+9“... 8+»..8... 8+m.~.u .c+m8.n 8+m38 3+3... 8+Mw~é
3+8: 8+m8.n 8+mv. .n 8+anN S+m8d 8+m8¢ 3+8: 8+m8.~
8+m..n.. 8+m85 8+m86 8+mwo.m 8+8...” 8+“..mms 3+m8. 8+8...
3+8: 8+mgd 8+9?” 8+8»... .c+moa.~ 8+8}. 3+3. .. 8+Mmm.
3+8. .. 3+8". 3+9”. .. 8+m8 .o .c+m.m.m 8+m2..m 3+m3. 8-9.8.
3+m8. Sign. 3+3... 8+mm. .m .o+m . ad 8+m~. .m 8+m. N d .o.Mm~.e
8+m~vd Simona 3+m8. 3+8... .o+m.a.n 8+an+ 8+m-¢ 8-33.
8+8...» Simmwd 3+m8 .N 3+m.v.. .o+m.8.m 8+m~. .v 8+m3... S-m8.~
8+m3... 3+m.w.m 3+m.n.m 3+5... .o+m8.~ 8+m~§m 8+m8... 8-88..

8+m2¢ 3+m8.n 21mg... 3+m. On .38.: 8+m3d 21mg: 8-8m.

8+m86 Sign... 3+m$.n 3+Mnm.m .o+m8.m 8+8. .m 8+m.~.n 8&3...

8+m..~.n 31mg.» 3+m8s 31mg... .o+mv~.m 8+m8.~ 8+8}. 8&de

$04va
an. ...9 a an. 5.5 u E ...5 503$ 5358 a an. ...5 .8. an. 59 an. .6. e... 92
3.388 5.980 5.883 5.9.80 .0 2.82.88 89... mo SO :32: 2:385 swam 39:. .833:— 80... .3335 amp—2m A3 3:262".

 

.UomN .Ea 83.80 2332: $2. «a Ami... 30:3 32. ..o..¢.o>o..§ ..o 8.6 Deanaomo 0.8259 .mm 03:...

 

 

 

 

 

 

.UonN 6:: «:0250 233.0:— c\...% .a :85? 23:3 “:5. tonio>ov==ko 55» bofiiomo 0.55% 6Q 03:5

 

153

 

3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 3+8... 3&3. 8+8...
3+8... 8+8... 8&3. 8+8... 8&8. 3+8... 3+8... 8+8...
3+8... 8&8. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 3+8... 3&8. 8+8...
3&3. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 3&8. 3+8... 8+8...
3+8.... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 3+8... 3+8... 8+8...
3&8. 8+8... 8&3. 8&8. 8&8. 3+8... 3+8... 8&8.
3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 3+8... 3+8... 8+8...
3&3. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 3+8... 3&8. 8+8...
3&3. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8&3.
3+8... 8&8. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&3. 3+8... 8+8...
3+8... 8&3. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 3+8... 8+8...
3+8... 8+8... 8&8. 8&8. 8+8... 8+8... 3+8... 8&8.
3+8... 8&8. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 3&8. 8+8...
3&3. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8...
8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8-.....
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8&8. 8-8...
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8+8... 8&8. 8&3. 8+8... 8-8...
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8&8. 8+8... 8&8. 8......
8+8... 3+8... 3&8. 3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8-8...
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8......
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 3+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8+8... 8-.....
8+8... 3+8... 3+8... 3+8... 88M... 8+8... 8+8... 8-8...
.00 0..
8 .70. a 8 ...5 . 8 ...5 8.883 8.888 m 8 ...5 .8. 8 58 8 ...o. ..m 8.

3.3.0.: 5.9—.00 5800.... 5.9.60 ..0 80:09:00 8...... ..0 ...O .38.: 0.2.2.5 0.»... 8...... £2.62: 80... .5562: 0305 A... 3:260...

.003 .5. 2.0300 058.0... .8.» 8 Ami... 82.3 E... 80.0.0325... 3.... 83.580 0.82.5 6m 03....

 

154

 

3+3...» 8&3...” no+mu. .m 8+8... .. .o+&cn.~ 3+9... 3+8...... 8+an.
3+8...... 8+3... «3&8... ~o+m»a.. 8&8. 3+m2 .m 3+&mm.o 3+3...
3+m3.n 3+9”... 8+3... «9&8. .o+&.u.~ 3%....” 3+m»~.m 83.3.3
3+&vu.n «3&3.» «3&8... 8+3»... 8+3... 3+8... 3+3... .o+m»~.o
3+mmo... no+&»o.. «fumed «3&3... 8+8...“ 3+8: .u 3+m~ . .v .o+&»~ .v
3+m8... 8&8... Sign. 8+3... .c+m§.~ 3+m»».. 3+8»... Sim"...
3+m.e.m 8+3». 8+9... Sign.» .c+&m..~ 3+3... 3+3?” 88.3..
3+8: .m 888%. 8+3...” 8+3 . .. .3+&c».~ 3+8... .. 3+m. ».~ .c+&mm..
3+5». «3&3... 8+3...” 8+8... .o+&m».u 3+m3. 3+m»¢.~ 8+9...
3+3... 21985 8+8... 8+3». .o+&v».u 3+m». .. 3+8. .N 8+3"...
3+8... 8+3. .n 8+5... min... 8+3». 3+mno. 3+m3. 8+&»N.v
3+m3. 8&5... 8+8». 8+9. .m 8+9». mo+m.~.o 3+3... 88mg.
3+3... 8+3?» «3&3... 8+5: .v 8+5». mo+m.~.» 3+3... 88.3..
3+8”: 3+mm... «$me3 8+9... .o+&o».~ 8+3... 3+m3. 8&8...
3+8: 3+9... 3+8... 8+5... 3+9». 8+8“... 3+3. .. 8-580
3+m.u.. 3+3... 3+&%.. mo+&.u.a .o+&»».~ 8+8»... 3+m3. 8&8...
3+m»o.. 3+mNn.a 3+m..~.~ 3+&N~.. 8+3... 8+8... 8+3}. 8&3...
mo+m.o.o 3+8?” 3+m.».~ 3+5... .o+mmo.n 8+8... 8+m»n.» 3&3.
8+Mon .» 3+m. m... 3+9“. .m 3+9: .N 8&3. 8&3... Sign... 8&9...

8+3“. 3+5... 3+3». 3+9». .o+&.o.m 3+5». 8+3... 8&8...

88.38 3+m»... 3+5... 3+Mm».m 8&3. 8+8... 8+5... Sam—3.3

8+2... 3+3...» 38.688 3+8.... 3+... . 9m 8&» . .m 8&5... 8-...»«8

82$...
8 8.0. . 8 8.5 m 8 .3888... 5.888 . 8 ...5 .8. 8 ...o. 8 .6. .8...
.2288 8.280 5.80.... 8.2.80 .8 80:82.8 8.2.. .8 80 :28... 2:885 0.»... 8a.... .322: .8... 62.82.. 08.8.» .3. 8.8.88...

 

.003 28 28.28 0.222.. 8.2. 8 2&2... 82.3 a... 28382.3... 8.... 822.8... 0.88% ...m 2......

 

155

 

3+m$d ~o+mmo.n mafia—end «fume.— 8+mnod 3+m3.m 3+mnas ~o+mmv.~
3+mnos «$934. Sinai 8+9: .N S+m$d 3+8?” 3+m56 8+3:
3+muvd ~o+mmad S+m-6 uo+mwc.m S+m3d 3+mmw.~ 3+m36 S+m36
3+mwe.n uo+m3d ~c+m2 .a ~o+m3d 8+9 ed 3+mon .N 3+9: .m _o+mw~.o
3+m8.n mc+m= ._ 8+m3._ ~o+m8.m Sin—EN 3+m: .N 3+moné Sinai
3+m3... mo+m9l 8+3: 8+8 n6 S+m8~ 3+moa._ 3+moa.m S+m~®~
3+m_w.n 21mg.— 8+m:._ «gnaw.» S+mfiuu 3+m§g 3+m31m 8+m3._
3+mwn.m 817mg.“ Sim: .N 8+m- ._ Simon." 3+5: 3+mawd Saran.—
3+m3d no+m8.m mc+m:.~ fling; S+m$d 3+mhmg 3+..mcn.~ coin—3d
3+mavd 2:de mo+m$d 21mg.— 8+mood 3+5"; 3+m2 .N 8+mmud
3+m: .N 2136 8+m3é no+m$d S+NSN 3+m3.~ 3+m3._ coin—wad
3+m8; mo+m36 «9&9? 8+Mwud 8+mgd 8+m$a 3+m§4 8+m~od
3+mk._ no+m3d mc+m2s «.9.de .97de Sign.» 3+mnm._ 8+mmo._
3+9: 3+mn: 3+m8._ 8+m2d 8+m3N mom—Es 3+mmm._ 8+mnm._
3+Mom._ 3+m_n._ 3+3: 8+5 2. 8+m8d mo+m§¢ 3+m~N._ 8-9.«5
3+m3 A 3+m3._ 3+m3._ mo+movd 8+moo.m mo+m3.m 3+m8._ 8-33.
317mg.— 3+Mon .N 3+mo~.~ 3+m°~._ 8+an .N mo+m2 .n 8463.6 8-33.
mo+m$d Kim—mud 3+m3d 3+m$._ 8+m8.m 83.62. mo+mom.u _o.m~a.n
8+3?» 3+m©~é 3+m2..m 3+9 _ .N S+m3d mines. mines. 3&3.—

mc+m~ss 3+m-w 3+m3§ 3+mmwd Shy—3N mo+m3.m 8+m$© 8&2.—

8+m86 3+mwms 3+man6 3+m2..n _o+mno.~ ”AIM—$8 mo+moo.o Noflvnd

8+Mc~6 3+mgd 3+9?” 3+m3€ 8+moad mom—~— .m mo+m$.m uoéwnd

"8W8
an 5.9 u E 5.5 m an. 55 gas: 5358 a an as 5 an. 59 a 59 ..m me
3:62: 53:80 5608:, 53:80 mo €82.88 893 .«o SO :39: 0:585 2&5 82m .3338 $3 .3338 owflofi .Aev 5:262"—

 

.Oomu v5 83:3 0532: $3 an swag 30:3 Ea: :auuwcntam mo 8.6 boa—=08 oases .wm 03:

 

APPENDIX C -
Dynamic Oscillatory Temperature Ramp (~25-95°C) Results of Dough Samples
Subjected to a Constant Shear Stress (50 Pa) Using Controlled-Stress Rheometer with a
20mm Parallel Plate and 2mm Gap Configuration

156

157

Table Cl. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped sofi wheat dough

 

 

at 71% moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.88E+01 8.64B-I-02 8.08E+02 4.33E+01

('1'), °C ((3'), Pa (G"), Pa (8), degrees 5.98901 7.56902 7.38902 _ 4.45901
2.51901 1.22904 6.74903 2.89E+01 6.08901 6.63902 6.77902 4.59901
2.63901 1.14904 6.14903 2.85901 6.18901 5.83902 6.30902 4.75901
2.74901 1.08904 5.86903 2.84901 6.27901 5.18902 5.92902 4.91901
2.84901 1.04904 5.62903 2.84E+01 6.37901 4.64902 5.64902 5.07901
2.94901 9.90903 5.39903 2.85901 6.47901 4.24902 5.48902 5.23901
3.04901 9.46903 5.17903 2.87901 6.57901 3.98902 5.48902 5.39901
3.14901 9.01903 4.96903 2.88901 6.66901 3.87902 5.64902 5.53901
3.24901 8.59903 4.76903 2.90901 6.77901 3.94902 6.00902 5.65901
3.33901 8.17903 4.56903 2.92901 6.86901 4.31902 6.77902 5.72901
3.43901 7.77903 4.36903 2.94901 6.96901 5.30902 8.34902 5.74901
3.53901 7.33903 4.15903 2.95901 7.06901 7.85902 1.17903 5.60901
3.63901 7.00903 3.98903 2.96901 7.16901 1.70903 2.07903 5.09901
3.72901 6.64903 3.81903 2.98901 7.26901 6.64903 5.27903 3.87901
3.82901 6.28903 3.63903 3.01901 7.36901 2.32904 1.20904 2.73901
3.92901 5.92903 3.45903 3.03901 7.46901 5.44904 2.20904 2.20901
4.02901 5.57903 3.28903 3.06901 7.55901 9.27904 3.19904 1.90901
4.12901 5.21903 3.1 1903 3.08901 7.65901 1.27905 3.89904 1.70901
4.21901 4.85903 2.93903 3.12901 7.75901 1.54905 4.20904 1.53901
4.31901 4.52903 2.77903 3.16901 7.85901 1.72905 4.31904 1.41901
4.41901 4.18903 2.60903 3.20901 7.95901 1.78905 4.34904 1.37901
4.51901 3.85903 2.45903 3.24901 8.05901 1.80905 4.06904 1.27901
4.61901 3.54903 2.29903 3.29901 8.14901 1.78905 3.89904 1.23901
4.71901 3.24903 2.14903 3.35901 8.24901 1.74905 3.69904 1.20901
4.80901 2.96903 1.99903 3.40901 8.34901 1.71905 3.46904 1.15901
4.90901 2.70903 1.86903 3.46901 8.44901 1.68905 3.25904 1.10901
5.00901 2.45903 1.73903 3.53901 8.54901 1.61905 3.17904 1.11901
5.10901 2.22903 1.60903 3.60901 8.63901 1.54905 2.85904 1.05901
5.20901 2.01903 1.49903 3.67901 8.73901 1.49905 2.65904 1.00901
5.29901 1.81903 1.37903 3.74901 8.83901 1.40905 2.50904 1.02901
5.39901 1.61903 1.26903 3.83901 8.93901 1.31905 2.32904 9.97900
5.49901 1.43903 1.15903 3.91901 9.02901 1.22905 2.12904 9.83900
5.59901 1.27903 1.06903 4.01901 9.12901 1.13905 1.97904 9.80900
5.69901 1.12903 9.67902 4.10901 9.22901 1.06905 1.83904 9.78E+OO
5.79901 9.87902 8.81902 4.21901 9.32901 9.56904 1.69904 9.97900

 

 

 

158

Table C2. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped soft wheat dough

 

 

at 76% moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.9OE+01 6.17E+02 6.27E+02 4.86E+01

(1), °C (G'). Pa (G"). Pa (8), degrees 6.00901 5.63902 5.93902 4.97901
2.52901 8.45903 4.58903 2.86901 6.09901 5.18902 5.65902 5.08901
2.63901 8.07903 4.25903 2.81901 6.19901 4.79902 5.45902 5.20901
2.75901 7.78903 4.08903 2.81901 6.29901 4.53902 5.35902 5.31901
2.85901 7.42903 3.92903 2.82901 6.39901 4.37902 5.37902 5.42901
2.94901 7.05903 3.74903 2.84901 6.49901 4.35902 5.54902 5.52901
3.04901 6.69903 3.58E+03 2.86901 6.59901 4.53902 5.95902 5.60901
3.15901 6.34903 3.41903 2.88901 6.68901 4.97902 6.70902 5.66901
3.25901 5.98903 3.26903 2.91901 6.78901 5.93902 8.04902 5.65901
3.34901 5.65903 3.11903 2.93901 6.88901 8.31902 1.09903 5.49901
3.44901 5.34903 2.97903 2.96901 6.98901 1.83903 2.01903 4.89901
3.54901 5.04903 2.84903 2.99901 7.08901 8.87903 5.53903 3.62901
3.64901 4.76903 2.71903 3.02901 7.17901 2.54904 1.12904 2.61901
3.73901 4.49903 2.58903 3.06901 7.27901 5.07904 1.87904 2.12901
3.83901 4.23903 2.46903 3.10901 7.37901 8.16904 2.70904 1.87901
3.93901 3.96903 2.33903 3.15901 7.47901 1.14905 3.37904 1.67901
4.03901 3.71903 2.21903 3.20901 7.57901 1.41905 3.84904 1.53901
4.13901 3.44903 2.09903 3.27901 7.67901 1.60905 3.99904 1.40901
4.22901 3.20903 1.97903 3.33901 7.77901 1.70905 4.02904 1.33901
4.32901 2.96903 1.86903 3.39901 7.87901 1.76905 3.92904 1.26901
4.42901 2.73903 1.74903 3.45901 7.96901 1.80905 3.79904 1.19901
4.52901 2.52903 1.64903 3.53901 8.06901 1.79905 3.65904 1.15901
4.62901 2.30903 1.53903 3.60901 8.16901 1.74905 3.43904 1.11901
4.72901 2.09903 1.43903 3.68901 8.26901 1.68905 3.15904 1.06901
4.82901 1.89903 1.33903 3.77901 8.36901 1.63905 3.08904 1.07901
4.91901 1.70903 1.24903 3.86901 8.45901 1.54905 2.80904 1.03901
5.01901 1.54903 1.16903 3.94901 8.56901 1.46905 2.60904 1.01901
5.11901 1.39903 1.08903 4.03901 8.65901 1.36905 2.41904 1.00901
5.21901 1.27903 1.01903 4.12901 8.75901 1.28905 2.16904 9.62900
5.31901 1.15903 9.51902 4.23901 8.85901 1.19905 1.93904 921900
5.40901 1.05903 8.87902 4.32901 8.95901 1.11905 1.82904 9.31900
5.50901 9.41902 8.23902 4.43901 9.04901 1.03905 1.69904 9.28900
5.60901 8.43902 7.66902 4.53901 9.14901 9.54904 1.56904 9.25900
5.70901 7.59902 7.13902 4.64901 9.24901 8.91904 1.42904 9.04900
5.80901 6.81902 6.64902 4.75901 9.33901 8.29904 1.34904 9.20900

 

 

 

159

Table C3. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped soft wheat dough

 

 

at 81% moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.89E+01 5.26E+02 5.57E+02 4.66EZ+01

(1), °C (G'): Pa (G”). Pa (8), degrees 5.99901 4.52902 5.10902 4.84901
2.51901 8.29903 4.46903 2.84901 6.09901 3.92902 4.71902 5.02901
2.64901 7.77903 4.11903 2.80901 6.18901 3.44902 4.41902 5.21901
2.74901 7.48903 3.94903 2.79901 6.28901 3.07902 4.22902 5.40901
2.84901 7.17903 3.79903 2.80901 6.38901 2.81902 4.11902 5.57901
2.94901 6.83903 3.63903 2.82901 6.48901 2.66902 4.12902 5.73901
3.04901 6.48903 3.48903 2.84901 6.58901 2.64902 4.30902 5.85901
3.13901 6.14903 3.34903 2.87901 6.67901 2.80902 4.72902 5.93901
3.23901 5.83903 3.20903 2.89901 6.77901 3.27902 5.57902 5.95901
3.33901 5.54903 3.07903 2.92901 6.87901 4.53902 7.42902 5.83901
3.43901 5.22903 2.93903 2.95901 6.97901 9.20902 1.27903 5.37901
3.53901 4.95903 2.81903 2.97901 7.07901 3.47903 3.10903 4.32901
3.62901 4.71903 2.70903 2.99901 7.17901 1.50904 7.92903 2.85901
3.72901 4.48903 2.59903 3.02901 7.26901 3.82904 1.49904 2.14901
3.82901 4.21903 2.47903 3.05901 7.36901 6.80904 2.31904 1.88901
3.92901 3.97903 2.36903 3.08901 7.46901 1.00905 3.00904 1.67901
4.02901 3.77903 2.25903 3.10901 7.56901 1.27905 3.45904 1.53901
4.12901 3.56903 2.15903 3.12901 7.66901 1.45905 3.63904 1.41901
4.22901 3.37903 2.06903 3.14901 7.76901 1.56905 3.68904 1.32901
4.32901 3.19903 1.97903 3.16901 7.85901 1.61905 3.46904 1.22901
4.42901 3.01903 1.88903 3.19901 7.95901 1.62905 3.43904 1.20901
4.51901 2.83903 1.78903 3.22901 8.05901 1.60905 3.25904 1.14901
4.61901 2.62903 1.69903 3.27901 8.15901 1.58905 3.11904 1.11901
4.71901 2.41903 1.59903 3.33901 8.25901 1.55905 2.87904 1.05901
4.81901 2.20903 1.48903 3.40901 8.35901 1.48905 2.67904 1.02901
4.91901 1.99903 1.39903 3.48901 8.44901 1.41905 2.50904 1.00901
5.00901 1.79903 1.29903 3.56901 8.55901 1.34905 2.32904 9.78900
5.10901 1.60903 1.19903 3.65901 8.64901 1.25905 2.12904 9.61900
5.20901 1.42903 1.09903 3.74901 8.74901 1.18905 1.93904 9.32900
5.30901 1.26903 1.01903 3.84901 8.84901 1.09905 1.80904 9.33900
5.40901 1.12903 9.20902 3.94901 8.93901 9.99904 1.68904 9.54900
5.50901 9.71902 8.38902 4.06901 9.03901 9.29904 1.53904 9.38900
5.59901 8.45902 7.62902 4.19901 9.13901 8.65904 1.46904 9.64900
5.69901 7.25902 6.86902 4.33901 9.23901 8.31904 1.39904 9.50900
5.79901 6.16902 6.17902 4.49901 9.32901 7.94904 1.32904 9.38900

 

 

Table C4. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped hard wheat dough

 

 

at 71 % moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.89E+Ol 1.4ZE+04 6.19E+03 2.38E+01

(1). cc (G'). Pa (G"). Pa (8), degrees 5.99901 1.41904 6.16903 2.38901
2.52901 3.59904 1.49904 2.25901 6.09901 1.41904 6.20903 2.38901
2.63901 3.48904 1.43904 2.23901 6.18901 1.44904 6.25903 2.37901
2.73901 3.38904 1.39904 2.23901 6.28901 1.46904 6.36903 2.37901
2.83901 3.29904 1.34904 222901 6.38901 1.51904 6.50903 2.36901
2.93901 3.21904 1.31904 2.22901 6.48901 1.58904 6.71903 2.33901
3.03901 3.11904 1.27904 2.22901 6.57901 1.66904 6.97903 2.31901
3.12901 3.03904 1.23904 2.22901 6.67901 1.76904 7.30903 2.29901
3.22901 2.94904 1.20904 2.22901 6.77901 1.91904 7.79903 2.27901
3.32901 2.87904 1.17904 2.22901 6.87901 2.16904 8.53903 2.20901
3.42901 2.80904 1.14904 2.22901 6.97901 2.50904 9.58903 2.14901
3.52901 2.74904 1.1 1904 2.21901 7.07901 2.98904 1.09904 2.05901
3.61901 2.67904 1.09904 2.21901 7.17901 3.58904 1.27904 1.99901
3.71901 2.60904 1.06904 2.21901 7.26901 4.49904 1.52904 1.90901
3.81901 2.54904 1.03904 2.21901 7.36901 5.78904 1.86904 1.80901
3.91901 2.47904 1.01904 2.21901 7.46901 7.51904 2.27904 1.69901
4.01901 2.40904 9.77903 2.22901 7.55901 9.21904 2.58904 1.57901
4.12901 2.33904 9.54903 2.22901 7.65901 1.08905 2.85904 1.49901
4.22901 2.27904 9.27903 2.22901 7.76901 1.25905 3.16904 1.44901
4.32901 2.20904 9.00903 2.23901 7.85901 1.41905 3.44904 1.38901
4.41901 2.13904 8.75903 2.23901 7.95901 1.56905 3.67904 1.34901
4.51901 2.07904 3.51903 2.23901 8.05901 1.70905 3.80904 1.26901
4.61901 2.00904 8.27903 2.24901 8.15901 1.80E+05 3.84904 1.21901
4.71901 1.95904 8.05903 2.24901 8.25901 1.85905 3.77904 1.16901
4.81901 1.89904 7.82903 2.25901 8.35901 1.87905 3.60904 1.09901
4.90901 1.83904 7.61903 2.26901 8.44901 1.85905 3.47904 1.06901
5.00901 1.78904 7.43903 2.26901 8.54901 1.81905 3.18904 9.98900
5.10901 1.73904 7.24903 2.27901 8.64901 1.78905 3.18904 1.01901
5.20901 1.68904 7.07903 2.28901 8.73901 1.71905 2.89904 9.60900
5.30901 1.63904 6.90903 2.30901 8.83901 1.66905 2.68904 9.17900
5.39901 1.58904 6.75903 2.32901 8.93901 1.58905 2.53904 9.05900
5.49901 1.53904 6.60903 2.33901 9.03901 1.50905 2.34904 8.87900
5.59901 1.49904 6.45903 2.35901 9.13901 1.42905 2.19904 8.76900
5.69901 1.46904 6.33903 2.37901 9.23901 1.35905 1.99904 8.40900
5.79901 1.43904 6.25903 2.37901 9.32901 1.28905 1.82904 8.10900

 

 

Table C5. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped hard wheat dough
. at 76% moisture content.

 

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod.

(T). °C
2.5 1E+01
2.64E+01
2.75E+01
2.85E+01
2.94E+01
3.04E+01
3.14E+01
3.24E+01
3.33E+01
3.43E+01
3.53E+01
3.63E+01
3.73E+01
3.83E+01
3.93E+01
4.03E+01
4.12E+01
4.22E+01
4325-9-01
4.42E+Ol
4.52E-Z+OI
4.6ZE+01
4.72E+Ol
4.8lE+Ol
4.91 E+Ol
5.01E+Ol
5.1 lE+Ol
5.21E+Ol
5.3 1E+01
5.4lE+Ol
5.50E+01
5.60E+01
5.70E+01
5.80E+01

(G'), Pa

1.46E+04
l .41E+04
1.35E+04
1.30E+04
1.ZSE+O4
1.20E+04
l.lSE+04
1.1 lE+O4
1.07E+04
1.03E+04
9.95E+03
9.67E+03
9.35E+03
9.0BE+03
8.7SE+03
8.45E+03
8.15E+03
7.88F.+03
7.60E+03
7.3213+03
7.0SE+03
6.785+03
6.53903
6.29E+03
6.07E+03
5.86E+03
5.68E+03
5.5 l E+O3
5.34E+03
S.ZOE+03
5.09E+03
5.01E+03
4.94E+03
4.89E+03

(G"), Pa

6.8913103
6.SOE+03
6.24E+03
6.00E+03
5.78B+O3
5.56E+O3
5.3813+03
5.1813+03
5.01E+03
4.85E+03
4.69E+03
4.5513+03
4.4lE+03
4.27E+03
4.14E+03
4.01E+03
3.88E+03
3.77E+03
3.65E+03
3.53E+03
3.43E+03
3.33E+03
3.23E+03
3.13E+03
3.04E+03
2.96E+03
2.89E+03
2.821903
2.76E+03
2.71 E+03
2.66E+03
2,645+03
2.60E+03
2.5813+03

Phase angle
(5), degrees

2.53E+01
2.49E+01
2.49E+01
2.49E+01
2.49E+Ol
2.49E+Ol
2.SOE+01
2.5 lE+Ol
2.52E+Ol
2.SZE+01
2.53E+Ol
2.54E+01
2.54EI+OI
2.54E+Ol
2.54E+01
2.SSE+01
2.55E+01
2.56E+01
2.57E+01
2.58E+01
2.60E+Ol
2.621'3+Ol
2.64E+01
2.65E+01
2.67E+01
2.69E+Ol
2.71E+Ol
2.72E+01
2.74E+01
2,765+Ol
2.77E+Ol
2.78E+01
2.79E+01
2.79E+Ol

 

5.90E+01
6.00E+01
6.09E+01
6.19E+01
6.29E+01
6.39E+01
6.49E+01
6.59E+01
6.68E+01
6.78E+01
6.88E+01
6.98E+01
7.08E+01
7.185401
7.28E+01
7.38E+01
7.48E+01
7.57E+01
7.67E+01
7.77E+01
7.87E+01
7.97E+01
8.07E+01
8.16E+01
8.26E+01
8.36E+01
8.46E+01
8.56E+Ol
8.66E+01
8.75E+01
8.85E+01
8.95E+01
9.0SE+Ol
9.15E+01
9.24E+01
9.34E+01

4.90E+03
4.96E+03
5 .07E+03
5 .28E+03
5 .59E+03
6.04E+03
6.74E+03
7.71E+03
9.08E+03
l .l 1E+O4
l .4 l E+O4
l .88E+04
2.56E+04
3 .63E+04
5 . 13E+04
7.06E+04
9. 16E+04
l . lZE+05
1 .28E+05
l .39E+05
l .46E+05
l .49E+05
l .50E+05
l .5 l E+05
l .48E+05
l .44E+05
1 .40E+05
l .3 3E+05
l .27E+05
l .2 1 E+05
1 . l 4E+05
l .09E+05
l .05 E+05
9.87E+04
9.3 l E+04
8.83 E+04

2.59E+03
2.6 l E+03
2.6SE+03
2.7313+03
2.85E+03
3.0ZE+03
3 .28E+03
3 .63E+03
4. l 1E+O3
4.80E+03
5 78134-03
7. l 9E+03
9.26E+03
l .22E+04
l .6 l E+04
2.09E+04
2.47E+04
2.78E+04
2.99E+04
3 .0 l B+04
3 .OOE+04
2.97E+04
2.84E+04
2.74E+04
2.57E+04
2.41E+04
2.29E+04
2. 13E+04
l .9ZE+04
l .75E+04
l .GSE+O4
l .53E+04
l .47E+04
l .34E+04
l .2 1E+O4
l . 16E+04

2.79E+01
2.78E+01
2.77E+01
2.74E+01
2.71 E+Ol
2.67E+01
2.6OE+01
252134-01
2.44540]
2.34E+01
2.23E+01
2.10E+01
1998-0-01
1.87E+Ol
l .75E+01
1.655401
1 .5 l E+01
1.4OE+01
l .32E+Ol
l .22E+Ol
l . l 7E+01
l .13E+Ol
1.07E+01
1.03E+01
9.9OE+00
9.53E+00
9.35E+00
9.06E+00
8.58E+00
8.21E+00
8.2 l E+00
7.98E+00
8.0 l B+00
7.7SE+00
7.42E+00
7.47E+00

 

Table C6. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of undeveloped hard wheat dough

 

 

at 81% moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.89901 4.34903 2.19903 2.68901

(1'), °c (G')» P9 (G"). Pa (8), degrees 5.99901 4.39903 2.22903 2.69901
2.52901 9.72903 4.61903 2.54901 6.09901 4.44903 2.26903 2.70901
2.63901 9.00903 4.22903 2.52901 6.19901 4.59903 2.32903 2.69901
2.74901 8.60903 4.01903 2.50901 6.29901 4.86903 2.44903 2.67901
2.84901 8.22903 3.83903 2.50901 6.38901 527903 2.60903 2.63901
2.94901 7.89903 3.67903 2.50901 6.48901 5.85903 2.84903 2.59901
3.04901 7.57903 3.53903 2.51901 6.58901 6.69903 3.15903 2.53901
3.14901 7.23903 3.40903 2.52901 6.67901 7.87903 3.59903 2.46901
3.24901 6.93903 3.28903 2.53901 6.77901 9.51903 4.16903 2.37901
3.33901 6.69903 3.17903 2.54901 6.87901 1.18904 4.92903 2.27901
3.43901 6.51903 3.09903 2.54901 6.97901 1.52904 5.97903 2.16901
3.53901 6.36903 3.03903 2.55901 7.07901 2.02904 7.46903 2.04901
3.63901 6.23903 2.95903 2.54901 7.17901 2.74904 9.45903 1.92901
3.73901 6.11903 2.89903 2.54901 7.27901 3.86904 1.25904 1.81901
3.83901 6.01903 2.84903 2.53901 7.37901 5.52904 1.67904 1.70901
3.92901 5.90903 2.78903 2.52901 7.47901 7.53904 2.1 1904 1.56901
4.02901 5.79903 2.72903 2.51901 7.57901 9.48904 2.44904 1.45901
4.12901 5.66903 2.65903 2.51901 7.66901 1.10905 2.58904 1.32901
4.22901 5.53903 2.58903 2.51901 7.75901 1.21905 2.63904 1.22901
4.32901 5.39903 2.52903 2.51901 7.85901 1.27905 2.57904 1.14901
4.42901 5.28903 2.47903 2.50901 7.95901 1.31905 2.59904 1.12901
4.52901 5.16903 2.41903 2.51901 8.05901 1.32905 2.49904 1.07901
4.62901 5.05903 2.36903 2.51901 8.15901 1.32905 2.45904 1.05901
4.72901 4.93903 2.32903 2.52901 8.25901 1.31905 2.22904 9.63900
4.81901 4.83903 2.28903 2.52901 8.35901 1.30905 2.17904 9.49900
4.91901 4.74903 2.24903 2.54901 8.44901 1.27905 2.04904 9.14900
5.01901 4.63903 2.21903 2.55901 8.54901 1.25905 1.98904 9.01900
5.11901 4.55903 2.18903 2.57901 8.64901 1.20905 1.91904 9.08900
5.21901 4.48903 2.16903 2.58901 8.74901 1.14905 1.73904 8.61900
5.31901 4.41903 2.14903 2.59901 8.83901 1.07905 1.60904 8.45900
5.40901 4.38903 2.13903 2.60901 8.93901 1.02905 1.49904 8.32900
5.50901 4.34903 2.13903 2.62901 9.03901 9.63904 1.39904 8.21900
5.60901 4.32903 2.14903 2.64901 9.13901 9.11904 1.24904 7.72900
5.70901 4.31903 2.15903 2.66901 9.23901 8.54904 1.18904 7.89900
5.79901 4.32903 2.17903 2.67901 9.32901 8.09904 1.06904 7.47900

 

 

Table C7. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of Farinograph soft wheat dough at

 

 

76% moisture content.

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle 5.88901 5.91902 7.39902 5.16901

(T), °c (G'), 1’8 (G"), 1’8 (8), degrees 5.98901 4.97902 6.64902 5.34901
2.51901 9.27903 4.92903 2.80901 6.08901 4.26902 6.03902 5.50901
2.64901 8.89903 4.59903 2.75901 6.18901 3.72902 5.55902 5.64901
2.75901 8.65903 4.43903 2.72901 6.28901 3.30902 5.15902 5.76901
2.85901 8.46903 4.30903 2.71901 6.38901 2.98902 4.83902 5.85901
2.94901 8.23903 4.19903 2.70901 6.47901 2.75902 4.61902 5.94901
3.04901 8.04903 4.08903 2.70901 6.57901 2.61902 4.49902 6.01901
3.14901 7.85903 3.99903 2.71901 6.67901 2.55902 4.47902 6.06901
3.24901 7.67903 3.90903 2.71901 6.77901 2.58902 4.58902 6.09901
3.33901 7.50903 3.82903 2.71901 6.87901 2.72902 4.82902 6.08E+01
3.43901 7.31903 3.73903 2.72901 6.96901 3.04902 5.29902 6.04901
3.53901 7.13903 3.65903 2.73901 7.07901 3.80902 6.24902 5.92901
3.63901 6.95903 3.56903 2.74901 7.16901 5.75902 8.29902 5.60901
3.73901 6.75903 3.47903 2.74901 7.26901 1.33903 1.45903 4.88901
3.82901 6.55903 3.39903 2.75901 7.36901 7.20903 4.73903 3.52901
3.92901 6.34903 3.30903 2.77901 7.46901 3.18904 1.38904 2.36901
4.02901 6.12903 3.20903 2.78901 7.56901 6.86904 2.43904 1.95901
4.12901 5.89903 3.11903 2.81901 7.65901 1.07905 3.33904 1.73901
4.22901 5.71903 3.04903 2.82901 7.75901 1.42905 4.02904 1.58901
4.31901 5.41903 2.92903 2.86901 7.85901 1.66905 4.25904 1.43901
4.41901 5.12903 2.81903 2.89901 7.95901 1.81905 4.31904 1.33901
4.51901 4.83903 2.70903 2.94901 8.05901 1.91905 4.27904 1.26901
4.61901 4.52903 2.58903 3.00901 8.15901 1.95905 4.18904 1.21901
4.71901 4.16903 2.45903 3.07901 8.24E+01 1.94905 3.87904 1.12901
4.81901 3.80903 2.32903 3.16901 8.34901 1.89905 3.68904 1.10901
4.90901 3.44903 2.18903 3.26901 8.44901 1.82905 3.48904 1.08901
5.00901 3.06903 2.04903 3.38901 8.54901 1.76905 3.09904 9.97900
5.10901 2.68903 1.88903 3.53901 8.64E+Ol 1.68905 2.92904 9.91900
5.20901 2.29903 1.71903 3.69901 8.73901 1.59905 2.62904 9.36900
5.30901 1.93903 1.53903 3.87901 8.83901 1.48905 2.42904 9.25900
5.40901 1.59903 1.36903 4.08901 8.93901 1.38905 2.25904 9.23900
5.49901 1.30903 1.21903 4.30901 9.03901 1.28905 2.07904 9.22900
5.59901 1.07903 1.07903 4.53901 9.12901 1.17905 1.86904 9.01900
5.69901 8.71902 9.40902 4.74901 9.22901 1.08905 1.73904 9.11900
5.79901 7.14902 8.31902 4.96901 9.32901 9.94904 1.61904 9.22900

 

 

164

Table C8. Dynamic oscillatory temperature ramp data of Farinograph hard wheat dough
at 76% moisture content.

 

 

Temp. Storage mod. Loss mod. Phase angle
(T), °C (G'), Pa (G"), Pa (5), degrees
2.53E+01 2.52E+04 1.1 lE+04 2.38E+0|
2.66E+01 2.25E+04 9.77E+03 2.35E+01
2.76E+01 2.12E+04 9.19E+03 2.34E+01
2.8GE+01 2.01E+04 8.69E+03 2.35E+01
2.96EJ+01 l .91E+O4 8.31E+03 2.35E+01
3.05E+01 l.83E+04 7 .97E+O3 2.36E+01
3.15E+01 I .76E+04 7.7OE+03 2.37E+01
3 .25E+01 1.70E+04 7.47E+03 2.38E+01
3.35E+01 l.65E—104 7.29E+03 2.38E+01
3.45E+01 l.6lE+04 7.11B+03 2.39E+01
3 .54E+01 1.56E+04 6.93E+03 2.40E+01
3.64E+01 1.52E+04 6.76E+03 2.40E+01
3.74E+01 1.48E+04 6.59E+03 2.41 E+Ol
3.848+01 1.44E+04 6.43E+03 2.41E+01
3 .94E+Ol 1.4OE+O4 6.25E+03 2.41E+01
4.045+Ol 1.36E+04 6.09E+03 2.42E+01
4.13E+01 I .3ZE+O4 5.92E+03 2.4ZE+01
4.23 E+01 1.29E+04 5.77E+03 2.42E+01
4.33E+01 l.25l3+04 5.62E+03 2.42E+01
4.43 E+01 1.22E+04 5.49E+03 2.43 E+Ol
4.53E+Ol l.l9E+04 5.365+03 2.43E+01
4.63 E+Ol 1.16E+04 5.23E+03 2.43E+01
4.72E+01 l.l3E+04 5.] lE+03 2.43E+01
4.82E+01 1.1 lE+O4 5.00E+03 2.43 E+O l
4.9ZE+01 l.09E+04 4.91E+03 2.44E+01
5.02E+01 l.06E+O4 4.8 1 E+03 2.445+Ol
5.12E+01 l.OSE+O4 4.73E+03 2.45E+01
5.225+Ol l.02E+04 4.66E+03 2.45 5+0 1
5.31E+01 l.OlE+O4 4.58E+03 2.46E+01
5.41E+01 9.89E+03 4.538+03 2.46E+Ol
5.5]E+01 9.72E+03 4.47E+03 2.47E+01
5.61E+01 9.61 E+03 4.43E+03 2.48E+01
5.71 E+01 9.49E+03 4.40E+03 2.49E+0l
5.80E+Ol 9.44£+03 4.38E+03 2.49E+01
5.9lE+Ol 9.42EZ+03 4.38E+03 2.50E+Ol
6.00E+01 9.43E+03 4.39E+03 2.49E+01
6.10E+01 9.49E+03 4.4IE+03 2.SOE+Ol

 

6.ZOE+01
6.30E+01
6.40E+01
6.49E+01
6.59E+01
6.69E+01
6.79E+Ol
6.89E+Ol
6.98E+Ol
7.08E+Ol
7. l SE+Ol
7.28E+01
7.38E+01
7.48E+01
7.58E+01
7.67E+01
7.77E+01
7.87E+Ol
7.97E+01
8.07E+01
8. 17E+01
8.26E+01
8.36B+01
8.4GE+Ol
8.56E+01
8.66E+01
8.76E+01
8.85E+Ol
8.95E+01
9.0SE+01
9.14E+Ol
9.24E+Ol
9.325+Ol

9.6BE+03
9.91E+03
l .03 E+04
l .09E+04
l. l6E+04
l.27E+04
1 .41E+04
l .63E+O4
l .94E+04
2.41E+04
3.12E+04
4. 18E+04
5.655+04
7.60E+04
9.88E+04
1 .2 l E+05
l .4 l E+05
1 .54E+05
1 .6484-05
1 .70E+05
l .73E+05
l .76E+05
l .78E+05
l .76E+05
l .74E+05
l .70E+05
l .645+05
l .58E+05
l .SZE+05
l .4SE+OS
l .3 7E+05
l .30E+05
l .24E+05

4.47E+03
4.58E+03
4.7ZE+03
4.93E+O3
5.19B+03
5.53E+03
6.00E+03
6.69E+03
7.67E+03
9.1 lE+03
1.13E+04
1.43134-04
1.83E+04
2.30E+04
2.78E+04
3.22E+04
3 .50E+04
3 .56E+04
3.5 l E+04
3.48E+04
3 .46E+04
3.4OB+04
3 .34E+04
3.21E+04
3 .O3E+04
2.76E+04
2.69E+04
2.45E+04
2.26E+04
2.13E+04
l .94E+04
l .79E+O4
l.64E+04

2.49E+01
2.48E+01
2.46E+01
2.445+01
2.40E+Ol
2.36E+Ol
2.31E+Ol
2.25E+Ol
2.16E+01
2.08E+01
l.99£+01
l.89E+Ol
l.80E+Ol
1.69E+01
1.58E+01
1.49E+01
1.4OE+01
1.3 15+01
1.21E+01
l.16E+Ol
l. 13E+01
1. lOE+01
1.07E+01
1.03901
9.87E+00
9.18E+00
9.33E+00
8.81E+00
8.47E+00
8.35E+00
8.04E+00
7.83E+00
75284—00

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abdelrahman, A.A. and Spies, RD. 1986. Dynamic rheological studies of dough

systems. In: W (Faridi, H. and Faubion, J.M.,
editors), American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 87-103.

Amemiya, J .I. and Menjivar, J .A. 1992. Comparison of small and large deformation
measurements to characterize the rheology of wheat flour doughs. J. Food Eng.
1 6: 91 -1 08.

AACC, 1983. Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists. 8th
edition AACC, St. Paul, MN.

Bagley, E.B., Christianson, DD. and Martindale, J .A. 1988. Uniaxial compression of a
hard wheat flour dough: data analysis using the upper convected maxwell model.
J. Texture Studies 19: 289-305.

Bagley, E.B., Christianson, DD. and Trebacz, D.L. 1990. The computation of viscosity
and relaxation time of doughs from biaxial extension data. J. Texture Studies 21:
339-354.

Bagley, EB. 1992. Constitutive models for doughs. Immmmmand
Ieehnglggy (Kokini, J .L., Ho, C. and Karwe, M.V., editors), Dekker, New York,

203-212.

Bagley, EB. and Christianson, DD. 1986. Response of commercial chemically leavened
doughs to uniaxial compression. In: wwwmafidi, H.

and F aubion, J .M., editors), American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul,
MN, 27-36.

Baird, DO. and Labropoulos, A.E. 1982. Invited review: Food dough rheology. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 15:1-25.

Berland, S. and Launay, B. 1995a. Rheological properties of wheat flour doughs in steady
and dynamic shear: Effect of water content and some additives. Cereal Chem. 72:
48-52.

Berland, S. and Launay, B. 1995b. Shear softening and thixotropic properties of wheat
flour doughs in dynamic testing at high shear strain. Rheol. Acta 34: 622-628.

165

166

Binding, D.M. 1988. An approximate analysis for contraction and converging flows. J.
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 27: 173-189.

Bird, RB. and Carreau, P.J. 1968. A nonlinear viscoelastic model for polymer solutions
and melts. I. Chem. Eng. Sci. 23: 427-434.

Bloksma, A.H. 1988. Rheology of the breadmaking process. Paper presented at 8th
International Cereal and Bread Congress, May 30-June 3, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Bloksma, A.H. 1975. Thiol and disulfide groups in dough rheology. Cereal Chem. 52:
170r-1 83r.

Bloksma, A.H. 1962. Slow creep and recovery of wheat flour doughs. Rheol. Acta 2:
217-220.

Bloksma, A. H. and Bushuk, W. 1988. Rheology and chemistry of dough. Chap. 4. In:

W Vol 2 (Pcmeranz, Y.. editor), American
Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 523- 584.

Bloksma, A. H. and Hlynka, I. 1964. Basic considerations of dough properties. Chap. 11.

In: W (Hlynkasl editor), American Association
of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 465- 526.

Bloksma, A.H. and Nieman, W. 1975. The effect of temperature on some rheological
properties of wheat flour doughs. J. Texture Studies 6: 343-361 .

Bushuk, W. 1985. Rheology: Theory and applications to wheat flour dough. In: Rheology
W, (Faridi, H., editor), American Association of Cereal Chemists,
St. Paul, MN, 1-26.

Bohlin, L. and Carlson, T.L.G. 1980. Dynamic viscoelastic properties of wheat flour
dough: dependence on mixing time. Cereal Chem. 57: 174-177.

Bohlin, L. and Carlson, T.L.G. 1981. Shear stress relaxation of wheat flour dough and
gluten. Colloid and Surfaces 2: 59-69.

Bohlin, L., Carlson, T.L.G. and Backstrom, G. 1980. Cone-plate instrument for stress
relaxation measurements. J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 73: 61-65.

Castell-Perez, M. E. and Steffe, J. F. 1992. Viscoelastic properties of dough. Chap. 3. In:

W, (Rao, M. A. and Steffe, J. F, editors), Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, Ltd. Barking, England.

Chatraei, Sh., Macosko, CW. and Winter, H.H. 1981. Lubricated squeezing flow: a new
biaxial extensional rheometer. J. Rheol. 25: 433-443.

167

Ciacco, CF. and D’Appolonia, BL. 1982. Characterization of pentosans from different
wheat flour classes and their gelling capacity. Cereal Chem. 59: 96-99.

Cogswell, F .N. 1972. Converging flow of polymer melts in extrusion dies. Polym. Eng.
Sci. 12: 64-73.

Cullen-Refai, A., Faubion, J .M. and Hoseney, RC. 1988. Lubricated uniaxial
compression of fermenting doughs. Cereal Chem. 65: 401-403.

Cumming, DB. and Tung, MA. 1977. Modification of the ultrastructure and rheology of
rehydrated commercial wheat dough. J. Can. Inst. Food Sci. 10:109-119.

Cunningham, J .R., Hlynka, I. and Anderson, J .A. 1953. An improved relaxometer for
viscoelastic substances applied to the study of wheat dough. Can. J. Technol. 31:

98-108.

Cunningham, J .R. and Hlynka, I. 1954. Relaxation time spectrum of dough and the
influence of temperature, rest and water content. J. Appl. Phys. 25: 1075-1081.

Danno, G. and Hoseney, RC. 1982. Effects of dough mixing and theologically active
compounds on relative viscosity of wheat proteins. Cereal Chem. 59: 196-198.

D’ Appolonia, B. L. 1984. Types of Farinograph curves and factors affecting them. Chap.

3. In: Madnogmphflandmok, 3rdEd. EditedbyB. L. D’AppoloniaandWHH
Kunerth. American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc. St. Paul, MN. USA.

Davies, R.J., Daniels, N.W.R., and Greenshields, RN. 1969. An improved method of
adjusting moisture in studies on lipid binding. J. of Food Technol. 4: 117-123.

de Bruijne, D. W. ,de Looff, J. and van Eulem, A. 1990. The rheological properties of
bread dough and their relation to baking. In: W

W (Carter R E, editor), Elsevier
New York. 269-283.

Dreese, P.C., Faubion, J .M. and Hoseney, R.C. 1988a. Dynamic rheological properties of
flour, gluten and gluten-starch doughs. II. Effect of various processing and
ingredient changes. Cereal Chem. 65: 354-359.

Dreese, P.C., F aubion, J.M. and Hoseney, R.C. 1988b. Dynamic rheological properties of
flour, gluten and gluten-starch doughs. I. Temperature-dependent changes during
heating. Cereal Chem. 65: 348-353.

Dus, SJ. and Kokini, J .L. 1990. Prediction of the nonlinear viscoelastic properties of a
hard wheat flour dough using the Bird-Carreau constitutive model. J. Rheol. 34:
1069-1084.

168

Eliasson, AC. and Hegg, PD. 1980. Thermal stability of wheat gluten. Cereal Chem. 57:
436-437.

Eliasson, AC. and Larsson, K. 1993. WWW
Animach. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New Year.

Eliasson, A.C., Silverio, J ., and Tjemeld, E. 1991. Surface properties of wheat flour
milling streams and rheological and thermal properties afier hydration. J. Cereal
Sci. 13: 27-39.

Faridi, H., ed. 1985. W. American Association of Cereal
Chemists, St. Paul, MN.

Farrand, EA. 1972. The influence of particle size and starch damage on the
characteristics of bread flours. Bakers Dig. 46: 22-26,55.

Faridi, H. and F aubion, J .M., eds. 1986. Wm. American
Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN.

Faridi. H. and Faubion. J .M., eds. 1990. NEW.
The AVI (van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc.), New York, New York.

Faubion, J .M., Dreese, RC. and Diehl KC. 1985. Dynamic rheological testing of wheat

flour doughs. In: W (F aridi, H., editor), American
Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 91-115.

F aubion, J .M. and F aridi, H. 1986. Dough rheology: Its benefits to cereal chemists. In:

Eundamentalsflllaughfiheclch (Faridi. H. and Faubion, J .M.. editorS).
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 1-9.

Faubion, J .M. and Hoseney, RC. 1990. The viscoelastic properties of wheat flour

doughs. In: W. (F afidi. H. and Faubion,
J .M., editors), The AVI (van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc.), New York, New York, 29-

66.
Ferry, J .D. 1980. WWW Third Edition, John Wiley and

Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Glucklich, J. and Shelef, L. 1962. An investigation into the rheological properties of flour
dough. Studies in shear and compression. Cereal Chem. 39: 242--255.

Hibberd, G.E. 1970a. Dynamic viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour doughs. II. Effects of
water content in the linear region. Rheol. Acta 9: 947-500.

Hibberd, G.E. 1970b. Dynamic viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour doughs. III. The
influence of starch granules. Rheol. Acta 9: 501-505.

169

Hibberd, GE. and Parker, N.S. 1975a Dynamic viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour
doughs. IV. Non-linear behavior. Rheol. Acta 14: 151-157.

Hibberd, GE. and Parker, N.S. 1975b. Measurement of the fiindamental rheological
properties of wheat flour doughs. Cereal Chem. 52: 1r-23r.

Hibberd, GE. and Wallace, W.J. 1966. Dynamic viscoelastic behavior of wheat flour
doughs. Part 1. Linear aspects. Rheol. Acta 5: 193-198.

Hibberd, GE. and Parker, NS. 1978. A parallel plate rheometer for measuring
viscoelastic properties. Cereal Chem. 55: 108-110.

Hibberd, GE. and Parker, NS. 1979. Nonlinear creep and creep recovery of wheat flour
doughs. Cereal Chem. 56: 232-236.

Hlynka, I. and Anderson, J .A. 1952. Relaxation of tension in stretched dough. Can. J.
Technol. 30: 198-210.

Hoseney, RC. 1994. BnnmnlesofEemaLSgenceandlechnolm, 2nd edition.
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN.

Huang, H. and Kokini, J .L. 1993. Measurement of biaxial extensional viscosity of wheat
flour doughs. J. Rheol. 37: 879-891.

Izydorczyk, M., Biliaderis, CG. and Bushuk, W. 1990. Oxidative gelation studies of
water-soluble pentosans from wheat. J. Cereal Science 11: 153-169.

Izydorczyk, M., Biliaderis, CG. and Bushuk, W. 1991. Physical properties of water-
soluble pentosans from different wheat varieties. Cereal Chem. 68: 145-150.

J elaca, S.L. and Hlynka, I. 1971. Water-binding capacity of wheat flour crude pentosans
and their relation to mixing characteristics of dough. Cereal Chem. 48: 211-222.

Kilbom, RH. and Tipples, K.H. 1972. Factors affecting mechanical dough development.
I. Effect of mixing intensity and dough development. Cereal Chem. 49: 34-47.

Kilbom, RH. and Tipples, K.H. 1975. Un-mixing”-The disorientation of developed bread
doughs by slow speed mixing. Cereal Chem. 52: 248-262.

Launay, B. 1990. A simplified nonlinear model for describing the viscoelastic properties
of wheat flour doughs at high shear strain. Cereal Chem. 67: 25-31.

Launay, B. and Bure, J. 1973. Application of a viscometric method to the study of wheat-
flour doughs. J. Texture Studies 4: 82-101.

170

LeGrys, G.A. , Booth, MR. and Al-Baghdadi, 1980. The physical properties of wheat

protein. In: W, (Pomeranz, Y. and Mnck. L., editors),
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, 243-264.

Lindahl L 1990 WWW
W5, Thesis. Lund University, Lund.

Lindahl L. and Eliasson, A.-C. 1992. A comparison of some rheological properties of
durum and wheat flour doughs. Cereal Chem. 69: 30-34.

Loh, J. 1991. Food dough constant stress rheometry. ACS Symposium series - American
Chemical Society. Washington, DC, pp. 229-242.

Matsumoto, S. 1979. Rheological properties of synthetic flour doughs. In: W
W, (Sherman, P., editor), Academic Press, London, 291 -301.

Menjivar, J .A. 1990. Fundamental aspects of dough rheology. Chap.l. In: Dough

W, (F aridi. H. and Faubion. J.M.. editors»), The
AVI (van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc.), New York, 1-28.

Menjivar, J .A. and Rha, CL. 1980. Viscoelastic effect in concentrated protein
dispertions. Rheol. Acta 19: 212-219.

Merritt, PP. and Stamberg, 0.13. 1941. Some studies in flour absorption. Cereal Chem.
1 8: 63 2-639.

Meuser, F. and Suckow, P. 1986. Non-starch polysaccharides. In: W519:
QLBakmg, (Blanshard, J .M.V., Frazier, P.J. and Galliard, T., editors), Royal
Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, London, 42-61.

Michniewics, J ., Biliaderis, CG. and Bushuk, W. 1990. Water-insoluble pentosans of
wheat: composition and some physical properties. Cereal Chem. 67: 434-439.

Mita, T. and Bohlin, L. 1983. Shear stress relaxation of chemically modified gluten.
Cereal Chem. 60: 93-97.

Moore, A.M., Martinez-Munoz, I. and Hoseney, RC. 1990. Factors affecting the
oxidative gelation of wheat water-solubles. Cereal Chem. 67: 81-84.

Muller, H.G. 1975. Rheology and the conventional bread and biscuits making process.
Cereal Chem. 52: 89r-91r.

Muller, H.G., Williams, M.V., Russell Eggitt, P.W. and Coppock, J.B.M. 1961.
Fundamental studies on dough with the Brabender extensigraph. 1. Determination
of stress-strain curves. J. Sci. Food Agric. 12: 513-523.

 

171

Muller, H.G., Williams, M.V., Russell Eggitt, P.W. and Coppock, J.B.M. 1962.
Fundamental studies on dough with the Brabender extensigraph. II. Determination
of the apparent elastic modulus and coefficient of viscosity of wheat flour dough.
J. Sci. Food Agric. 13: 572-577.

Navickis, L.L., Anderson, R.A., Bagley, EB. and Jasburg, B.K. 1982. Viscoelastic
properties of wheat flour doughs: Variation of dynamic moduli with water and
protein content. J. Texture Studies 13: 249-264.

Navickis, LL. and Bagley, EB. 1983. Yield stresses in concentrated dispersions of
closely packed, deformable gel particles. J. Rheol. 27: 519-536.

Olcott, HS. and Mecham, DE. 1947. Characterization of wheat gluten. I. Protein-lipid
complex formation during doughing of flours. Lipoprotein nature of the glutenin
fraction. Cereal Chem. 24: 407-414.

Padmanabhan M 1992 lnzlinemeasurememhfshearzclastiundsxtensimalrheological
WW Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural

Engineering, University of Minessota.

Padmanabhan, M. and Bhattacharya, M. 1993. Planar extensional viscosity of corn meal
dough. J. Food Eng. 18: 389-411.

Padmanabhan, M. 1995. Measurement of extensional viscosity of viscoelastic liquid
foods. J. Food Eng. 25: 311-327.

Patil, S.K., Tsen, CC. and Lineback, RR. 1975. Water-soluble pentosans of wheat flour.
1. Viscosity properties and molecular weight estimated by gel filtration. Cereal
Chem. 52: 44-59.

Peleg, M. 1979. Characterization of the stress relaxation curves of solid food. J. Food Sci.
44: 277-281.

Peleg, M. 1980. Linearization of relaxation and creep curves of biological materials. J.
Rheol. 25: 451-463.

Petrofsky, KB. and Hoseney, RC. 1995. Rheological properties of dough made with
starch and gluten from several cereal sources. Cereal Chem. 72: 53-58.

Preston, K. R. and Kilbom, R. H. 1984. Dough rheology and the Farinograph. Chap. 7. In:

W, 3rd edition, (D’ Appolonia, B. L. and Kunerth, W. H.,
editors), American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc. St. Paul, MN.

Pyler, El 1988. W 3rd edition, Vol. II, Sosland

Publishing Company, Merriam, Kansas.

Saws

Schn:

SchO'

Scho

Schc

Sch«

Sch

Sh:

Sh

Sl

172

Sandstedt, R.M., Schaumburg, Lorene, and Fleming, J. 1954. The microscopic structure
of bread dough. Cereal Chem. 31: 43-49.

Schramm, G. 1994.A_Practica1_Appmach_tc_RthngLand_Rhenmm- Gebrueder Haake
GmbH, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany.

Schofield, J .D., Bottomley, R.C., LeGrys, G.A., Tirnms, M.F. and Booth MR. 1983. The
effect of heat on wheat gluten and the involvement of sulphydryldisulfide
interchange reactions. J. Cereal Sci. 1: 241-253.

Schofield, J .D., Bottomley, R.C., LeGrys, G.A., Timms, M.F. and Booth MR. 1984.
Effects of heat on wheat gluten. In: W, (Graveland, A. and Moonen,
J .H.E., editors), TNO, Wageningen, Holland, 81-90.

Schofield, R.K. and Scott Blair, G.W. 1932. The relationship between viscosity, elasticity
and plastic strength of soft materials as illustrated by some mechanical properties
of flour doughs. 1. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London). A138: 707-718.

Schofield, R.K. and Scott Blair, G.W. 1933a. The relationship between viscosity,
elasticity and plastic strength of soft materials as illustrated by some mechanical
properties of flour doughs. II. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London). A139: 557-566.

Schofield, R.K. and Scott Blair, G.W. 1933b. The relationship between viscosity,
elasticity and plastic strength of soft materials as illustrated by some mechanical
properties of flour doughs. III. Proc. Roy. Soc. (London). A141: 72-85.

Sharma, N. 1990. Modeling flow behavior of flour-water doughs. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Sharma, N. and Hanna, M. 1992. Assessing handling properties from flow parameters as
influenced by dough water content. Cereal Foods World 37: 27-29.

Shanna, N., Hanna, MA. and Chen, Y.R. 1993a. Flow behavior of wheat flour-water
dough using a capillary rheometer. I. Effect of capillary geometry. Cereal Chem.
70: 59-63.

Sharma, N., Hanna, MA. and Marx, D.B. 1993b. Flow behavior of wheat flour-water
dough using a capillary rheometer. 11. Effects of water, protein, mix, and rest time.
Cereal Chem. 70: 63-67.

Shelef, L. and Bousso, D. 1964. A new instrument for measuring relaxation in flour
dough. Rheol. Acta 3: 168-172.

Shiiba, K., Negishi, Y., Okada, K. and Naga, S. 1990. Chemical changes during sponge-
dough fermentation. Cereal Chem. 67: 350-355.

 

173

Shimizu, T. and lchiba, A. 1958. Rheological studies of wheat flour dough. Part I.
Measurement of dynamic viscoelasticity. Bull. Agr. Chem. Soc. Jap. 22: 294-298.

Shuey, WC. 1984. Interpretation of the Farinogram. Chap. 5. In: Marinograph
Handlnok, 3rd edition, (D’Appolonia, BL. and Kunerth, W.H., editors),
American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc., St. Paul, MN.

Smith, J .R., Smith, TL. and Tschoegl, NW. 1970. Rheological properties of wheat flour
doughs. Rheol. Acta 9: 239-252.

Smith, T.L. And Tschoegl, NW. 1970. Rheological properties of wheat flour doughs. IV.
Creep and creep recovery in simple tension. Rheol. Acta 9: 339-347.

Steffe, JF- 1992. WWW Freeman Press, East
Lansing, MI.

Szczesniak, A.S., Loh, J. and Mannell, W.R. 1983. Effect of moisture transfer on the
dynamic viscoelastic properties of flour-water systems. J. Rheol. 27: 53 7-5 56.

Weipert, D. 1990. The benefits of basic rheometry in studying dough rheology. Cereal
Chem. 67: 311-317.

Whorlow, R.W. 1980. W. Ellis Horwood Limited, West Sussex,
England.

Wikstrom, K., Bohlin, L. and Eliasson, A.-C. 1994. Biaxial extensional flow of wheat
flour doughs. Rheology 94: 192-197.

Willhoft, E.M.A. 1973. Recent developments on the bread staling problem. Bakers' Dig.
47:14-20.

Yoshimura, AS. and Prud’homme, R.K. 1988. Wall slip corrections for couette and
parallel disk viscometers. J. Rheol. 32: 53-67.

HICHIGRN S 9

111111111111

1 Will

312