1
EFFECT OF BATTER METHOD AND PROOFING TIME
ON PHYSICAL AND SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS OF GLUTEN-FREE BREAD
Imro’ah Ikarini1*, Aji Sutrisno2, Sudarminto Setyo Yuwono2
1National Research and Innovation Agency-B.J. Habibie Building 15th-24th floor Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 8 Jakarta, Indonesia
2Department of Food Science and Biotechnology – Faculty of Agricultural Technology –Universitas Brawijaya Jalan Veteran – Malang 65145
Corresponding Author, email: imroahikarini@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Indonesia's dependence on wheat imports can be reduced by looking for alternatives to local flour-based preparations. Bread products currently depend on raw materials in the form of wheat flour. In addition to availability problems, the gluten content in wheat flour also causes allergies in people with celiac disease. Celiac sufferers should consume gluten-free bread. As alternatives, flour derived from cereals and tubers, such as rice, corn, potato, and cassava, can be used in bread processing. The absence of gluten from the bread composition results in pale, less fluffy bread and firm crumbs; therefore, it is necessary to modify the batter to improve gluten-free bread quality. This study aims to analyze the effect of straight batter and no time batter methods, also the proofing time of 45 and 60 minutes on the bread-specific volume, firmness, crumb and crust colour, and panelist response. This study used a Completely Randomized Design with two factors. The result of the study shows that the batter method and proofing time significantly affected the bread-specific volume, firmness, and sensory acceptance but had no significant effect on crust colour and crumb. The overall sensory analysis found that the bread made using the straight batter method with 45 minutes of proofing time was the most preferred among the panelists
Keywords: Batter Method; Gluten-Free Bread; Proofing Time; White Bread
INTRODUCTION
Gluten is a protein in wheat that plays an essential role in bread making. The absence of gluten causes bread to have a low volume, grainy texture, and large pores (Gómez et al., 2013). Gluten plays a role in forming the elastic properties of bread dough (Schober et al., 2005). Gluten plays roles in determining batter elasticity, increasing batter capacity to retain CO2 and improving texture and taste. Pérez-Herrera et al. (2020) suggested that gluten-free bread batter has low gas retention capacity, resulting in low bread volume and firm texture with large dissimilar cells (spongy).
Gluten contained in wheat flour triggers allergies in people with celiac disease.
Protein in wheat (glutenin and gliadin)
causes abnormal immune responses in people with celiac disease. Celiac disease affects 1 in 200 people worldwide (Cranney et al., 2007). Therefore, an alternative is necessary to make bread without gluten to consume people with the disease.
The quality of gluten-free bread can be enhanced by modifying batter methods and adding a hydrocolloid (Schober et al., 2007).
Hydrocolloid in gluten-free bread formula imitates the viscoelasticity of gluten; the elastic batter has a soft crumb texture with smooth, thin, and similar cells ( Gallagher et al., 2003; Gallagher et al., 2004). No-time batter and Straight batter methods can improve gluten-free bread quality (Schober et al., 2005; Sciarini et al., 2012). Research on wheat bread modified with seaweed flour using the straight dough method produces
2 soft bread porosity, regular fiber content, standard water content, and panelists preferred sensory properties (Kartiwan et al., 2008).
Proofing time and condition also determine the quality of gluten-free bread.
Low proofing temperature resulted in a slow process of fermentation and was demonstrated by the low gas production that makes the bread cannot puff up. The increasing temperature will decrease relative humidity, which causes a firmer texture of the bread surface (crust) (Castro-Aguirre et al., 2016).
Several studies on the effect of the batter method on white bread have been conducted. However, there needs to be a study discussing the impact of the batter method and proofing time on the characteristics of gluten-free bread. This study was conducted to analyze the effect of the straight batter and no-time batter method as well as proofing time of 45 and 60 minutes on the bread characteristics of specific volume, firmness, crust colour and crumb, and sensory acceptance of gluten-free bread.
METHOD
The materials used in this study were:
(1) Rice flour (11.14% water content, 1.15%
ash content, 0.53% fat content, 6.7% protein content, 80.28 carbohydrate content); (2) Potato flour (7.33% water content, 0.67% ash content, 0.35% fat content, 5.81% protein content, 82.43 carbohydrate content); (3) Corn starch (10.43% water content, 0.7% ash content, 0.25% fat content, 4.67% protein content, 84.74 carbohydrate content); and (4) Cassava starch (8.12% water content, 0.83%
ash content, 0.28% fat content, 5.26% protein content, 84.74 carbohydrate content). The other materials are sugar, butter, salt, and full-cream milk, supplied by Primarasa store Malang. Xanthan gum and glucomannan were supplied by the Kridatama store Malang.
Straight Batter Method
The first step in the straight batter method is mixing the flour rice, tapioca starch, corn starch, and potato starch in one bowl. Then added, the dry matter in the form of hydrocolloid, sugar, salt, yeast, and
milk. After the ingredients are dry mixed, the wet ingredients in the form of water, butter, and eggs are mixed with a mixer speed of 3 for 30 seconds. Then dry and wet ingredients blended using a mixer at speed 3 for 3 minutes. Then the dough is fermented for 5 minutes and covered with plastic wrap.
The batter is then put in a 17 x 6 x 5.5 cm tin.
The batter on a baking sheet is heated further for 10 minutes. After that, the dough removes the air by stirring it back with a spatula. The next stage is proofing for 45 minutes and 60 minutes. When finished, the batter is baked in the oven at 180 °C for 2 minutes (Cauvain, 2015).
No-time Batter Method
All dry ingredients were mixed with butter and eggs using the mixer for 30 seconds. After the water was added, the mixing was continued for 4 minutes. Next, the bread batter was poured into a 17 x 6 x 5.5 cm baking pan and covered with plastic wrap. The batter was then proofed for 45 minutes or 60 minutes and baked in an oven baking at 180 °C for 20 minutes (Gómez et al., 2013).
Batter Consistency Testing
It was determined using a Texture Analyzer. The sample was poured into the extrusion vessel, and the air pockets were removed with a spoon. The extrusion force was measured at a test speed of 1.0 mm/sec to a distance of 25 mm.
Specific Volume Analysis
Specific volume analysis was calculated by using the ratio between bread volume and bread weight. Bread volume calculation was performed by rapeseed displacement test, modified using sesame seed as a rapeseed substitute. Specific volume was calculated as the ratio between the bread volume (mL) and its weight (Gómez et al., 2013).
Firmness Analysis
Firmness analysis was performed using Texture Profile Analyzer TAXT2. Five pieces of samples were prepared for each analysis repetition. The sample was cylindrical, 5 cm in diameter, and 3 cm in height. The aluminum cylinder probe used
3 in this study was 75 mm in diameter with 50% pressure, the test speed was 2 mm/s, and the test was paused for 30 seconds between the first and second pressure (Onyango et al., 2011).
Cell Similarity Analysis
Crumb bread was cut to 5 x 5 cm and then scanned using an HP Deskjet D1050 scanner in 50 dpi resolution. The scan results were then opened with the Image J application to count the number and size of the bread cells (Onyango et al., 2011).
Sensory Analysis
The sensory analysis uses hedonic systems involving 60 panelists. Analysis of the hedonic system involves colour, flavor, taste, texture, and overall attributes. The hedonic scale ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = very dislike, 2 = dislike, 3 = fairly like, 4 = like, 5 = very like).
Statistical Analysis
All experiments were performed in triplicates, and the results were analyzed by two-factor ANOVA. The data were analyzed using MINITAB 17 program and followed by the Tukey test (Honestly Significance Difference) if there was a significant difference. All data were displayed from the average score and standard deviation (SD).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION Specific Volume
Specific volume is the ratio between bread volume (cm3) and bread weight (g) after baking. The average value of the specific volume of gluten-free bread is displayed in Table 1. In the time batter method, the specific volume decreased the proofing time increased. On the other hand, the longer proofing time caused the specific volume to increase when using the Straight batter method. Analysis of variance showed a significant interaction between the batter method and proofing time (α = 0.05).
The researcher assumed that the decrease of specific volume in the No time batter method was due to 60 minutes of proofing that led to over-proofing, and thus the formation of yeast was maximum.
Excessive proofing time causes the batter stretches less, so the batter becomes weak and fragile, resulting in a low-volume batter (Lucas, 2014). Gómez et al. (2013) suggest that gluten-free bread made using the No time batter method has a low gas retention capacity.
If the batter has a weak capability to maintain gas, the bread will not optimally expand when it is baked. White bread using the straight batter method has a higher specific volume than the no-time batter method (Djukić et al., 2014).
Characteristics of Crumb Texture
The texture of gluten-free bread is determined by its firmness and cohesiveness.
The firmness value illustrates the amount of load (gram) required to mash up the ingredients for the analysis. The firmer the material, the more load is needed, so the firmness is also higher (Onyango et al., 2011).
Cohesive value illustrates the bread's strength when it is loaded. The average value of firmness texture and cohesion of gluten-free bread is displayed in Table 1.
The average firmness value of gluten- free bread ranged from 222.425 g to 478.725 g. In the No time batter method, the longer proofing time caused a decrease in the firmness value. On the other hand, the longer proofing time caused an increase in the firmness value when using the Straight method. Analysis of variance results showed a significant interaction between the batter method and proofing time (α = 0.05).
Bread made using the straight batter method has a structure with more elastic dough. Stirring treatment before the proofing process aims to soften the dough so that the batter is ready to receive new gas during the final proofing process (Figoni, 2011). The proofing process must be carried out and controlled to produce the best quality final product. The no-time batter method is a fast method, where the total time required from the initial fermentation process to the maximum before roasting is only 65 minutes. While in the straight method batter total time required from initial fermentation to before baking for 75 minutes. The longer the dough sits, cause the yeast continues to ferment when fermentation occurs, and excess causes the
4 pores to form rough and not uniform. This matter causes the hardness value of bread to increase (Gujral and Rosell, 2004).
Analysis of variance results showed that the batter method and proofing time significantly affected the bread cohesiveness (α = 0.05). Increasing proofing time will result in a softer batter since more CO2 is distributed into the bread cells (Wüstenberg, 2015). The straight batter method produces a
lower cohesive value than the no-time batter method. The cohesive value is in line with the firmness value. Increasing proofing time causes a decrease in cohesive value.
Increasing the proofing time causes the dough to become softer because more CO2
gas is distributed into the cell (Lucas, 2014).
Batter soft ones have a low level of cohesiveness, so their cohesive value is down (Moore et al., 2004).
Table 1. Effect of batter method and proofing time on specific volume and firmness
Method Time
(Minutes) Specific Volume
(cm3/g) Firmness (g) Cohesiveness No time batter 45 2.670 ± 0.067c 478.7 ± 29.494a 0.888 ± 0.022a No time batter 60 2.425 ± 0.045 d 259.1 ± 18.022c 0.887 ± 0.012a Straight batter 45 2.895 ± 0.200 b 222.4 ± 16.957d 0.862 ± 0.042b Straight batter 60 3.157 ± 0.060 a 411.9 ± 13.653b 0.863 ± 0.014b
A B A B
Bread made of No time Batter and 45 minutes of proofing
Bread made of No time Batter and 60 minutes of proofing
A B A B
Bread made of Straight Batter and 45 minutes of proofing
Bread made of Straight Batter and 60 minutes of proofing
Figure. 1 Cell Similarity of Gluten-Free Bread in Each Formulation, Scan Result (A), Image J result (B)
Cell Similarity
The process condition influences the spongy structure formed on the bread crumb before and during baking. Figure 1 shows that the formation of thin and similar cells belongs to the bread made by the no time batter method with 60 minutes of proofing.
Bread with a smaller cell size will produce a softer bread crumb.
The material characteristic and processing method might influence cell size and their similarity. Small, thin cells are formed by the gas dispersed and trapped inside the batter in bubbles (Wüstenberg, 2015). The analysis of
5 variance result showed a significant interaction between the batter method and proofing time (α = 0.05). The average cell size and numbers due to the interaction between the batter method and proofing time are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the bread made by the No time batter method with 60 minutes of proofing has small, numerous cells. Using the Image J application, it was found that the average cell size was 13.420 mm2 and the cells counted were 27.280 cm2. In comparison, the bread made by the Straight
batter method with 60 minutes of proofing has prominent few cells. It was found that the cell size average was 23.880 mm2, and the cells counted were 19.090 mm2.
It is assumed that there was no gas (CO2) removal in the No time batter method.
In contrast, the Straight batter method performed a gas removal after fermentation, resulting in a more elastic batter. It was ready to receive new gas during the final proofing process. A strong and elastic batter has a high CO2 retention capacity (Coda et al., 2010).
Table 2. Effect of batter method and proofing time on cell similarity of gluten-free bread Method Time (Minutes) Cell Size (mm2) Cell Numbers (cm2)
No time batter 45 21.210 ± 1.618a 14.530 ± 0.332c
No time batter 60 13.420 ± 0.577 b 27.280 ± 0.613a
Straight batter 45 23.300 ± 1.070 a 19.540 ± 0.301b
Straight batter 60 23.880 ± 1.975 a 19.090 ± 0.350b
Information: the number followed by the same letter shows that the average observation result is not significantly different at the significance level α = 0.05
Table 3. effect of batter method and proofing time on preference sensory of gluten-free bread
Method Time
(Minutes) Colour Aroma Texture Overall
No time batter 45 3.350±0.825 3.500±0.948 3.133±1.081 b 3.350±1.005 b No time batter 60 3.450±0.918 3.550±0.946 3.500±1.127ab 3.750±1.159ab Straight batter 45 3.650±1.017 3.417±1.154 3.733±0.756 a 4.033±0.920 a Straight batter 60 3.467±1.013 3.483±1.142 3.150±1.041 b 3.433±1.079 b Information:
1. Hedonic scale used ranged from 1 to 5, (5 = very like, 4 = like, 3 = fairly like, 2 = dislike, 1 = very dislike) 2. All values are mean ± SD
3. The number followed by the same letter shows that the average observation result is not significantly different at the significance level α = 0.05
During baking, heat, and mass transfer cause changes to the dough. The closed gas structure at the start, separated by the dough's walls, turns into a porous structure with an arrangement of interconnected pores. The roasting process also causes bread dough turns into a light and airy product. Good quality bread can be seen from the uniformity of its pores.
Getting smaller pore sizes with the large number, it is stated that the bread has uniform pores (Lucas, 2014).
Hedonic Sensory (Preference)
The organoleptic test has an essential role in quality application. An organoleptic test was done by the hedonic method. The parameters of the hedonic method (preference test) include flavor, aroma, colour, texture, and overall. This test was performed on 60 inexpert panelists.
Table 3 shows that the value of each parameter (flavor, aroma, colour, texture) tested on four samples ranged from 3 to 4.
It means that all panelists liked the gluten- free bread. The scores given by the panelists in each parameter are displayed in Table 3. The difference in batter method
6 and proofing time did not affect the panelist’s preference for colour and aroma parameters (α = 0.05). There was no interaction between the two treatments (Cauvain, 2015; Khairuddin and Lasekan, 2021).
Table 3 shows that the No time batter method with longer proofing time increases the panelist’s preference for texture parameters. In contrast, the Straight batter method with a longer proofing time decreases the panelist’s preference for texture parameters. The result of the panelist’s preference test is the result of the firmness test using the Texture Profile Analyzer (Table 1). Analysis of variance result shows a significant interaction due to the batter method and proofing time (α = 0.05).
Table 3 also shows that the average panelist’s preference for the overall parameters is 3.350 (fairly like) to 4.033 (like). Analysis of variance result indicates that there was a significant interaction due to the batter method and proofing time.
Gluten-free bread made by the Straight batter method with 45 minutes of proofing has the highest level of preference on texture parameters. According to Hüttner and Arendt (2010), modifying processes and methods based on the type of materials and product objectives is necessary to improve bread quality. Faridah (2015) states that the bread made in the Straight batter method has a low level of firmness and thus becomes the most preferred among the panelists.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this study, batter from the straight method with 45 minutes of proofing time produced bread with the highest specific volume, lowest hardness, and low cohesiveness. The colour of the crumb is bright white with a brown crust and most sensory acceptable. The suitable dough method will produce bread with the best breadmaking characteristics.
REFERENCE
Castro-Aguirre, -E., Iñiguez-Franco, -F., Samsudin, -H., Fang, -X., Auras, - R. 2016. Poly(lactic acid)—Mass production, processing, industrial applications, and end of life. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 107, 333–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2 016.03.010
Cauvain, SP. 2015. Technology of Breadmaking.
Springer Cham, Switzerland.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 14687-4
Coda, -R., Rizzello, C, -G., Gobbetti, -M.
2010. Use of sourdough fermentation and pseudo-cereals and leguminous flours for the making of a functional bread enriched of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA). International Journal of Food Microbiology. 137, 236–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfood micro.2009.12.010
Cranney, -A., Zarkadas, -M., Graham, I, - D., Butzner, J, -D., Rashid, -M., Warren, -R., Molloy, -M., Case, - S., Burrows, -V., Switzer, -C.
2007. The Canadian Celiac Health Survey. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 52, 1087–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620 Djukić, D, -A., Radoví, M, -M., Mandić, L, -
G., Moraečanin, S, M, -V. 2014.
Effect of bread dough mixing method on rye bread quality. Acta Periodica Technologica. 45, 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.2298/APT1445 011D
Faridah, HM. 2015. Pengaruh Jumlah Air dan Jenis Hidrokoloid terhadap Formula Roti Tawar Mini Bebas Gluten Berbasis Tepung Beras, Pati Jagung, dan Pati Singkong.
Skripsi. IPB. Bogor
Figoni, -P. 2011. How Baking Works:
Exploring the Fundamentals of Baking Science, 3rd ed. John Wiley
& Sons, New Jersey, USA
Gallagher, -E., Gormley, T, -R., Arendt, E, - K. 2004. Recent advances in the formulation of gluten-free cereal- based products. Trends in Food
7 Science & Technology. 15, 143–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.20 03.09.012
Gallagher, -E., Kunkel, -A., Gormley, T, - R., Arendt, E, -K. 2003. The effect of dairy and rice powder addition on loaf and crumb characteristics, and on shelf life (intermediate and long-term) of gluten-free breads stored in a modified atmosphere. European Food Research and Technology. 218, 44–48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217- 003-0818-9
Gómez, -M., Talegón, -M., de la Hera, -E.
2013. Influence of mixing on quality of gluten-Free bread. Journal of Food
Quality. 36, 139–145.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfq.12014 Gujral, H, -S., Rosell, C, -M. 2004.
Functionality of rice flour modified with a microbial transglutaminase.
Journal of Cereal Science. 39, 225–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2003.
10.004
Hüttner, E, -K., Arendt, E, -K. 2010. Recent advances in gluten-free baking and the current status of oats.
Trends in Food Science &
Technology. 21, 303–312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.201 0.03.005
Kartiwan, -K., Hidayah, -Z., Badewi, -B.
2008. Metoda pembuatan adonan untuk meningkatkan mutu roti manis berbasis tepung komposit yang difortifikasi rumput laut.
Partner. 15, 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.35726/jp.v15i 1.109
Khairuddin, M, A, -N., Lasekan, -O. 2021.
Gluten-free cereal products and beverages: A review of their health benefits in the last five years. Foods. 10, 2523.
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10 112523
Lucas, T. 2014. Baking, in: Zhou, W., Hui, YH., Leyn, I. De, Pagani, MA., Rosell, CM., Selman, JD., Therdthai, N. (Eds.), Bakery Products Science and Technology.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New
Jersey, USA.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118 792001
Moore, M, -M., Schober, T, -J., Dockery, -P., Arendt, E, -K. 2004. Textural comparisons of gluten-free and wheat-based doughs, batters, and breads. Cereal Chemistry. 81, 567–575.
https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM.2 004.81.5.567
Onyango, -C., Mutungi, -C., Unbehend, -G., Lindhauer, M, -G. 2011.
Modification of gluten-free sorghum batter and bread using maise, potato, cassava or rice starch. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 44, 681–686.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.201 0.09.006
Pérez-Herrera, -A., Martínez-Gutiérrez, G, -A., León-Martínez, F, -M., Sánchez-Medina, M, -A. 2020.
The effect of the presence of seeds on the nutraceutical, sensory and rheological properties of Physalis spp. Fruits jam: A comparative analysis.
Food Chemistry. 302, 125141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodc hem.2019.125141
Schober, T, -J., Bean, S, -R., Boyle, D, -L. 2007.
Gluten-free sorghum bread improved by sourdough fermentation: Biochemical, rheological, and microstructural background. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 55, 5137–5146.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0704155 Schober, T, -J., Messerschmidt, -M., Bean, S, -
R., Park, S, -H., Arendt, E, -K. 2005.
Gluten-free bread from sorghum:
Quality differences among hybrids.
Cereal Chemistry. 82, 394–404.
https://doi.org/10.1094/CC-82- 0394
Sciarini, L, -S., Pérez, G, -T., de Lamballerie, -M., León, A, -E., Ribotta, P, -D. 2012. Partial- baking process on gluten-free bread: Impact of hydrocolloid addition. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 5, 1724–1732.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947- 011-0529-3
8 Wüstenberg, T. 2015. Cellulose and Cellulose
Derivatives in the Food Industry.
Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
KGaA, Weinheim
