Evaluation of some Different Paprameters of Mixolab Device of Some Approved Syrian Soft Wheat Varieties
تقييم بعض المقاييس المختلفة لجهاز المكسولاب لبعض أصناف القمح السوري الطري
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61856/qg508e87Keywords:
Soft Syrian wheat varieties, falling number, Rheological properties, Mixolab device,GelatinizationAbstract
This research aims to study some of different parameters of some Syrian soft wheat varieties recently approved for cultivation, using Mixolab device according to the ICC.No.173 method; The required samples of durum wheat varieties: Sham8, Buhouth8, and Doma2 were obtained from the Research Station of the Scientific Agricultural Research Center, at a rate of three replicates for each sample (variety). All analyzes were also conducted in the Grain Technology Laboratory at the College of Engineering. Agricultural, Al-Furat University. The results of estimating percentage of protein showed that there were significant differences between the studied varieties, reaching 9.8%, 13.2%, and 13.3% for bohouth8, Sham8, and Doma2, respectively. It was also shown that there was a significant difference in the average percentage of absorbed water among the varieties, and the average time of dough formation for the varieties also differed. The average time required for starch gelatinization differed significantly between the studied varieties, The results also showed that the average torque for the starch gel stabilization phase ranged between 1.61 N,m for the Doma 2 variety and 1.54 N,m for the Buhouth8 variety and 1.47 N,m for the Sham 8 variety, while the average fall number was characterized by a high rate for the studied varieties, which reached 356, 361, and 380 seconds for the Buhouth8, Sham 8, and Doma 2 varieties, respectively.
References
References
1. Alhommada, W. A., delly Ibrahim, T., Gergi, R. S., & El-Masry, M. (2020). Study of some Rheological Properties and Determine the Optimal Use of Mixtures of Wheat Flour and some Types of Legumes Flour. Journal of Agricultural Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, 4(1), 54-67. Doi: 10.26389/AJSRP.W110919
2. Agricultural Statistical Collection, (2018). Statistics Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Syria.
3. Alfien F.(2004). Grain Milling Technology (Theoretical). Al-Baath University Publications. 237 pp.
4. Al-Masry Suleiman; Al-Khayat Ghassan, 1991. Cereal Chemistry and Processing. Damascus University Publications.
5. AlSaleh A.(1996). Grain Technology (Theoretical). Aleppo University Publications. 210 pp.
6. Banu, I.; Stoenescu, G.; Ionescus, V. and Aprodu, I., (2011). Estimation of the Baking Quality of Wheat Flours Based on Rheological Parameters of the Mixolab Curve. Czech Journal of Food Science, (29) 1, 35–44.
7. Campbell, G.M.; Webb, C. and Mckee, S. L., (1996). Cereals Novel Uses and Processes, Plenum Press, New York, ISBN 0-306-45583-8, p298.
8. Catteral, P., (1995). Flour Milling. IN. Edited by CAUVAIN, S., and YOUNG, L. S., 2007. Technology of Breadmaking (Second Edition), Aspen Publishers, Inc., Gaithersburg, 296-329
9. Chopin Mixolab User’s Manual: Tripette & Renaud Chopin, France. (2005).
10. Collar, C.; Bollain, C. and Rosell, C.M., (2007). Rheological behavior of formulated bread doughs during mixing and heating. Food Science and Technology International, (13), 99-107.
11. Dapčević, T.; Hadnađev, M. and POJIĆ, M.,( 2009). Evaluation of the Possibility to Replace Conventional Rheological Wheat Flour Quality Control Instruments with the New Measurement Tool – Mixolab, University of Novi Sad, Institute for Food Technology, Serbia, Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, (74)3, 169-174.
12. Dewettinck, K.; Van Bockstaele, F.; Kuhne, B.; Van, DE.; Walle, D.; Courtens, T. M. and Gellynck, X.(2008). Nutritional value of bread: Influence of processing, food interaction and consumer perception. 48, 243-257.
13. F. A. O. 2010: Bulletin of statistics. Vol. 1. Rome.1.
14. Feillet, P., (2000). Amidon, pentosanes et lipides in Le grain de blé. Eds, INRA edition 147rue de l'université75338 Paris Cedex 07, 57-90. IN. Dubat, A., 2004. The Importance And Impact Of Starch Damage and Evolution Of Measuring Methods. Chopin SAS.
15. GIBSON, L. and BENSON, G., 2002- Origin, History, and Uses of Oat (Avena sativa) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum). Iowa State University, Department of Agronomy,USA.
16. Hadnađeva, T. D.; TORBICA, A. and HADNAĐEV, M., (2011). Rheological properties of wheat flour substitutes/alternative crops assessed by Mixolab. International Congress on ngineering and Food (ICEF11), (11), 328 – 334.
17. Hancock, J. F.(2004). Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. Second Edition, CABI Publishing, Cambridge, 313 Pp.
18. Haros, M.;ferrer, A. and rosell, C. M., 2006. Rheological behavior of whole wheat flour. IUFoST 13th World Congress of Food Sciences Technology, Nantes, France, p1139-1148.
19. Huang, W.; Li, L.; Wang, F.; Wan, J.; Tilley, M.; Ren, C. and Wu, S., (2010). Effects of Transglutaminase on the Rheological and Mixolab Thermomechanical Characteristics of Oat Dough. Food Chemistry, (121)4, ISSN 0308-8146, p934-939.
20. Kahraman, K.; Sakiyan, O.; Ozturk, S.; Koksel, H.; sumnu, G. AND Dubat, R., (2008). Utilization of Mixolab to predict the suitability of flours in terms of cake quality. European Food Resarch technology, (227) 2, p565-570.
21. Koksel, H.; Kahraman, K.; Sanal, T.; Ozay, D. S. and Dubat, A.,( 2009). Potential Utilization of Mixolab for Quality Evaluation of Bread Wheat Genotypes. Journal Cereal Chemistry, (86)5, 522-526.
22. Lazaridou, A.; Duta, D.; Papageorgiou, M.; Belc, N. and Biliaderis, C. G. ( 2007). Effects of Hydrocolloids on Dough Rheology and Bread Quality Parameters in Gluten-free Formulations. Journal of Food Engeneering, 79, 1033-1047.
23. Mixolab applications handbook, (2006). Rheological and Enzymatic Analysis. Chopin Applications Laboratory. France.
24. Ozturk. S.; Kahraman, K.; Titik, B. and Koksel, H.,(2008). Predicting the cookie quality of flours by using Mixolab. Eurbian Food Resarch Technology, (227), p1549–1554
25. Rasper, V. F. and Walker, C. E., (2000). Quality Evaluation of Cereals and Cereal Products. IN. Edited by Kulp, K., and Ponte, J. G., 2000. Handbook of Cereal Science and Technology, (Second Edition) Revised and Expanded, Marcel Dekker, New York, 505-538.
26. Rosell, C. M.; Collar, C. and Haros, M., (2007). Assessment of hydrocolloid effects on the thermo-mechanical properties ofwheat using the Mixolab. Food Hydrocoll, (21), 452–462.
27. Stoenescu, G.; Ionescu, V. and Vasilean, I., (2010). Prediction the Quality of Industrial Flour Using the Mixolab Device. Bulletin UASVM Agriculture, 67(2), p429-434.
28. Ţăin, A.E.; Zincă, G. and Banu, I., (2008). Studies about Obtaining Safe and Healthy Bakery Products Using the Beneficial Properties of Enzymes. Chemical Bulletin of "POLITEHNICA” University of Timisoara, (53,67)1-2, p110-114.
29. Thomas, D. J. and Atwell, W. A., (1999). Starches, Eagan Press Handbook series, ISBN1891127012, St. Paul, MN, USA
30. Watson, M.A., (1983). Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World. the diffusion of crops and farming techniques, Cambridge University Press, 260 Pp.
31. Wishart, D.J.( 2004). Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, 56 Pp.
32. Yan, Z.; Yan-FEI, W.;Xin-MIN, C.; DE-SEN, W.;Humieres, G. D. ; Feng JIAN-JUN And HU, H.,( 2009). Relationships of Mixolab Parameters with Farinograph, Extensograph Parameters, and Bread-Making Quality. Actaagronomicasinica, (35)9, pp. 1738-1743.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Gateway Journal for Modern Studies and Research (GJMSR)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
