The diet of a healthy person cannot be imagined without bread. People in need of dietary nutrition also cannot do without bread. This product has a rare property for food – bread never gets boring, and this allows it to be included in the diet everywhere.
Currently, this ion-ozone cavitation technology is little used for accelerated dough preparation in the near and far abroad is absent. This dough preparation technology is simple, inexpensive and environmentally friendly. Thus, it was used in this work to accelerate the preparation of dough and bread from it.
To begin with, some physical and mechanical indicators of the quality of class 3 wheat were determined, which was later used as the main element in the research; the data are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Indicators of the quality of class 3 wheat grain
Indicator | Result | International research standard |
Nature | 76 kg/hl | ISO 7971-2 |
Protein | 12.5% on a dry basis | ISO 20483 |
Amount of gluten | 23–25% | ISO 21415 |
Humidity | 14% | ISO 712 |
Falling number (Hagberg–Perten method) | 200–250 s | ISO 3093 |
From the data in Table 1 it can be seen that all investigated indicators were in accordance with the requirements of international standards, indicating that the investigated grain meets the requirements. Grade 3 wheat grain was passed through a laboratory mill and sieves with different hole sizes and thus whole flour was obtained, which was used in further research.
Taking into account the presence in many equations of significant coefficients of pair interactions (i.e., non-linearity of the objective function and quality assessment criteria), the search for optimal processing modes was carried out using non-linear programming methods – Newton’s method included in the ‘Search for a solution’ procedure in the MS Office Excel package.
Eight flour samples were selected and prepared from class 3 wheat flour by ion-ozone cavitation treatment, which were subjected to three types of exposure: X0 – control sample, X1×104 – ion-ozone cavitation concentration, X2 – ion-ozone air cavitation pressure, X3 – processing time, t (min).
The physicochemical parameters of flour obtained from whole-ground class 3 wheat with ion-ozone cavitation treatment were investigated. The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Physical and chemical parameters of flour obtained from whole-ground class 3 wheat with ion-ozone cavitation treatment
No. | | Factors | Physical and chemical indicators |
Х0 | Х1×104, unit/mg | Х2, аtm | Х3, min | y1, % | y2, % | y3, % | y4, % | y5, % | y6, % | y7, CFU/g | y8, CFU/g | y9, % | y10, con. units |
Control sample | 6.15 | 1.51 | 59.57 | 1.92 | 10.75 | 43.2 | 12 | 13 | 25.0 | 86.0 |
1 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 10 | 6.0 | 1.52 | 60.99 | 1.66 | 10.46 | 40.6 | 21 | 15 | 27.0 | 85.0 |
2 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 10 | 6.13 | 1.52 | 59.27 | 1.71 | 10.39 | 40.9 | 38 | 20 | 25.4 | 84.5 |
3 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 10 | 6.02 | 1.5 | 57.34 | 1.61 | 10.11 | 42.1 | 23 | 31 | 26.0 | 81.3 |
4 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 10 | 6.11 | 1.5 | 59.18 | 1.63 | 10.22 | 41.3 | 23 | 22 | 27.2 | 86.0 |
5 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 5 | 6.34 | 1.53 | 56.38 | 1.62 | 10.22 | 40.9 | 36 | 7 | 26.7 | 84.1 |
6 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 5 | 6.31 | 1.58 | 58.02 | 1.58 | 9.56 | 45.0 | 2 | 3 | 28.0 | 88.0 |
7 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 5 | 6.11 | 1.50 | 62.67 | 1.51 | 9.35 | 42.2 | 24 | 15 | 27.4 | 83.4 |
8 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 5 | 6.43 | 1.54 | 55.02 | 1.61 | 9.1 | 41.5 | 19 | 23 | 26.8 | 87.5 |
y1 – protein, y2 – mass fraction of fat, y3 – carbohydrates, y4 – ash content, y5 – mass fraction of fibre, y6 – whiteness of flour, y7 – amount of yeast, y8 – amount of mould, y9 – amount of gluten, y10 – deformation of gluten (on the IDK device)
According to Table 2, changes in the indicators of physical and chemical properties can be noted depending on a change in the ion-ozone cavitation treatment mode. So, in comparison with the control sample, which has excellent results in terms of carbohydrate content, ash content, fibre and flour whiteness, options 5, 6 and 8 have the best indicators in terms of the mass fraction of fat and protein and options 1, 2 and 7 are distinguished by the best indicators in terms of carbohydrate content; number 1 also has a good fibre content. Numbers 6 and 7 also differ in that they differ from the rest of the options in the whiteness of flour. Numbers 2 and 5 have a lot of yeast, and number 3 is mouldy, which makes these options unattractive. Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are good in terms of the quantity and quality of gluten. Number 4 does not differ in any parameter. The most attractive among the rest of the options are numbers 6, 7 and 8.
After determining the indicators of the quality of grain flour, we proceeded to determine the quality of the dough, and subsequently the finished bread products. Table 3 shows the rheological properties of the dough made from whole-ground class 3 wheat flour with ion-ozone cavitation treatment. Physicochemical and rheological indicators of quality were investigated. In determining the rheological properties, alveograph, farinograph and Mixolab devices were used (Table 3).
In finished bread products made using innovative technologies, the following indicators were determined: organoleptic properties and the physicochemical properties of flour made from whole-ground class 3 wheat with ion-ozone cavitation treatment (mass fractions of protein and fat, carbohydrate content, ash content, fibre, whiteness, and gluten quantity and quality).
Microbiological indicators of flour (yeast and mould) were investigated. Dough quality indicators were also investigated: flour strength, elongation, elasticity-to-extensibility ratio, dough elasticity, water absorption capacity, dough stability, degree of dough softening, viscosity, etc. In finished bread products, the organoleptic, physico-chemical (mass fractions of protein and fat, carbohydrate content, ash content, acidity, moisture) and rheological (porosity, bread volume) properties were investigated.
Table 3
Rheological properties of dough made from whole-ground class 3 wheat flour with ion-ozone cavitation treatment
No. | | Factors | Alveograph | Farinograph | Mixolab |
Х0 | Х1×104, unit/mg | Х2, atm | Х3, min | y1, min | y2, min | y3, N/m2 | y4, N | y5, N/m | y6, % | y7, min | y8, min | y9, FE | y10, min | y11, mg/kg | y12 unit/l | y13, Pa·s | y14 |
Control sample | 9.4 | 61 | 7.44 | 123 | 134 | 66.1 | 13.8 | 13.6 | 10 | 8.55 | 16.92 | 23.28 | 29.82 | 44.98 |
1 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 10 | 24.4 | 86 | 1.11 | 81 | 134 | 66.4 | 18.0 | 13.2 | 14 | 8.38 | 16.78 | 22.75 | 30.83 | 45.00 |
2 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 10 | 18.2 | 67 | 1.63 | 83 | 109 | 66.2 | 16.5 | 12.6 | 15 | 8.43 | 16.83 | 22.98 | 31.08 | 45.00 |
3 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 10 | 19.2 | 75 | 1.3 | 127 | 100 | 66.7 | 20.0 | 12.6 | 9 | 8.57 | 16.83 | 23.18 | 30.70 | 45.02 |
4 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 10 | 19.6 | 78 | 1.35 | 147 | 105 | 66.3 | 16.7 | 13.6 | 12 | 8.45 | 16.95 | 23.45 | 30.42 | 45.02 |
5 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 5 | 18.4 | 69 | 1.22 | 94 | 84 | 66.3 | 11.2 | 13.9 | 17 | 8.23 | 16.73 | 23.10 | 30.82 | 45.02 |
6 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 5 | 18.2 | 67 | 1.3 | 93 | 87 | 65.7 | 11.0 | 13.6 | 18 | 8.43 | 16.58 | 22.77 | 31.03 | 45.02 |
7 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 5 | 12.9 | 34 | 4.5 | 190 | 153 | 66.5 | 16.9 | 14.0 | 13 | 7.72 | 16.92 | 23.28 | 30.43 | 45.00 |
8 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 5 | 20.8 | 88 | 1.14 | 86 | 100 | 66.6 | 10.7 | 9.0 | 4 | 6.80 | 16.68 | 22.78 | 31.22 | 45.00 |
y1 – dough formation time, y2 – dough tensile index, y3 – dough elasticity ratio, y4 – dough strength, y5 – dough elasticity indicator, y6 – water absorption capacity, y7 – dough formation time, y8 – dough stability, y9 – degree of dough softening, y10 – dough kneading time, y11 – gluten, y12 – amylase, y13 – viscosity, y14 – retrogradation
In the process of making white bread from wheat flour, preliminary kneading of the dough takes 9 min, then the dough is kneaded for 18–22 min; the next stage is the first proofing of the dough piece, which is 60–70 min in duration. The dough is kneaded for 20 min, then the second stage of proofing of the dough takes place (70 min), providing an airy and uniform bread structure. Bread baking takes 63–68 min; after baking, the bread is rested for 10–19 min.
From the data in Table 3, it can be seen that the seventh sample has better results compared to the others. Based on the results of the dough quality studies, one can immediately conclude that the optimal option in many respects is number 7. It compares favourably with the others in terms of dough formation time, elasticity-to-extensibility ratio, dough strength, dough elasticity indicator, dough stability, gluten content and dough viscosity. In terms of water absorption capacity and dough retrogradation, all dough variants have similar results. The options less favourably differing from the rest are numbers 2, 5, 6 and 8.
Further, the obtained bread products were baked and the quality indicators were determined. The breads were baked according to the method described above. In addition, their physicochemical, organoleptic and rheological indicators were investigated.
Figure 1 shows the types of bread products obtained, Figs. 2 and 3 show their organoleptic indicators on a five-point scale and Table 4 shows the results of these studies.
Organoleptic indicators were examined on a five-point scale. The assessment was carried out by independent experts aged 18 to 60 years. The average values of the obtained sensory data are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
From the data obtained from photographs and organoleptic assessment (Figs. 1–3), the following conclusions can be drawn: in comparison with the control sample, samples 6–8 differ favourably in almost all indicators. Samples 1–5 are less attractive compared to the control sample in terms of colour, crust surface, crumb, etc. and numbers 6–8 are even more attractive than the control. All investigated indicators were rated on a five-point scale, while the control sample was rated at four points for many indicators. The taste, aroma, baking, crumb and pore structure of the bread products were better than those of the control sample. Table 4 shows the physicochemical and rheological indicators of the finished bread.
Table 4
Wholegrain bread made from class 3 wheat
No. | | Factors | Physical and chemical indicators of bread |
Х0 | Х1×104, unit/mg | Х2, atm | Х3, min | y1, % | y2, % | y3, % | y4, % | y5, % | y6, % | y7, deg. | y8, % | y9, % | y10, deg. | y11, cm3 |
Control sample | 3.9 | 0.45 | 37.7 | 2.2 | 3.46 | 51.1 | 5.3 | 65.0 | 46.0 | 4.6 | 231.9 |
1 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 10 | 4.2 | 0.47 | 34.8 | 2.03 | 3.19 | 46.5 | 4.6 | 59.5 | 44.0 | 4.2 | 209.5 |
2 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 10 | 4.37 | 0.48 | 33.0 | 1.94 | 3.04 | 50.3 | 4.8 | 60.7 | 42.0 | 4.5 | 183.7 |
3 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 10 | 3.89 | 0.5 | 37.8 | 2.21 | 3.47 | 47.7 | 5.2 | 62.7 | 43.0 | 4.3 | 218.7 |
4 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 10 | 4.68 | 0.52 | 34.9 | 2.04 | 3.2 | 49.5 | 3.8 | 58.6 | 41.0 | 4.3 | 225.3 |
5 | + | 25 | 2.0 | 5 | 4.52 | 0.48 | 33.7 | 2.01 | 3.33 | 53.0 | 5.1 | 62.9 | 45.0 | 4.2 | 216.6 |
6 | + | 5 | 2.0 | 5 | 4.64 | 1.09 | 30.6 | 1.78 | 2.8 | 46.9 | 4.6 | 63.3 | 43.0 | 4.1 | 205.6 |
7 | + | 25 | 1.0 | 5 | 4.59 | 0.5 | 35.4 | 2.03 | 3.24 | 52.5 | 5.8 | 57.9 | 44.0 | 4.6 | 227.5 |
8 | + | 5 | 1.0 | 5 | 4.49 | 0.52 | 32.0 | 1.87 | 2.94 | 54.5 | 5.5 | 59.1 | 42.0 | 4.4 | 229.6 |
y1 – protein, y2 – fats, y3 – carbohydrates, y4 – ash content, y5 – fibre, y6 – dough moisture, y7 – dough acidity, y8 – porosity, y9 – bread moisture, y10 – bread acidity, degree, y11 – bread volume
From Table 4, it can be concluded that, in many respects, breads made with ion-ozone cavitation treatment have more attractive properties in terms of protein content, fat and bread volume. The most attractive were numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Numbers 4, 6 and 7 have the best protein content, number 6 the best fat content, and numbers 3 and 7 the best carbohydrate content. In terms of ash and fiber content, samples of bread products numbered 3, 4, 5, 7 showed high results. Porosity was best in numbers 5 and 6, and the best bread volume was found in numbers 3, 7 and 8. Sample 7 was found to be the most optimal treatment: it is better than many samples in terms of protein, carbohydrates, fibre, bread volume, etc.
Further, the microbiological indicators of finished bakery products were investigated; the results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Microbiological indicators of finished bakery products
No. | Number of mesophilic aerobic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms, CFU/g, no more than |
After 12 h | After 24 h | After 48 h | After 96 h | After 168 h | After 192 h |
Control sample | 3 × 102 | 4 × 102 | 7.5 × 102 | 13 × 102 | Solid growth |
1 | 3.5 × 102 | 4.9 × 102 | 8.0 × 102 | Solid growth |
2 | 3 × 102 | 4 × 102 | 7.5 × 102 | Solid growth |
3 | 2.5 × 102 | 3.7 × 102 | 7 × 102 | Solid growth |
4 | 2.3 × 102 | 3.5 × 102 | 6.7 × 102 | 10 × 102 | Solid growth |
5 | 2 × 102 | 3 × 102 | 6.5 × 102 | 9.3 × 102 | Solid growth |
6 | 1.5 × 102 | 2.5 × 102 | 6 × 102 | 9 × 102 | Solid growth |
7 | 1.5 × 102 | 2.5 × 102 | 6 × 102 | 8.5 × 102 | Solid growth |
8 | 1.8 × 102 | 2.7 × 102 | 7 × 102 | 9 × 102 | Solid growth |
From Table 5, it can be seen that the ion-ozone cavitation treatment of samples 4–8 made it possible to obtain more and more attractive bread samples from the point of view of microbiology. Number 8 represents the degradation assessment, because the growth of microorganisms began to increase. Thus, the most attractive in terms of microbiological indicators are numbers 6 and 7, as they have the lowest indicators. The number of mesophilic aerobic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms in each bread sample was observed up to 192 h. The best option is bread sample 7: after 48 h, there were 8.5 × 102 mesophilic aerobic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms on it; its shelf life is up to 4 days.