Printer Friendly

The effect of brown rice flour and monoglyceride and diglyceride emulsifiers on organoleptic and staling rate of traditional Sangak bread.

INTRODUCTION

Grain consumption provides the body with high amounts of calories, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. And wheat is particularly important compared with other grains because of its specific nutritional and technological characteristics. Bread is one of the most highly consumed wheat products. Wheat flour has unique visco-elastic characteristics due to its gluten content that enables the dough to hold gas. However wheat flour is poor in terms of contents of essential amino acids and lysine [11]. After wheat, rice is the next most highly consumed grain, it has lower industrial value than wheat but its edible consumption is by far more important [8]. Endosperm, as the innermost part of rice grain, is surrounded by an aleron layer. From a phytological point of view, the said layer is regarded as a part of the endosperm that constitutes bran along with two other layers namely the pericarp and the testa. These constituents account for 3% of the total weight of brown rice grain. In fact, when producing brown rice, just the outer layer of the grain (glumel) is removed and the other layers and membranes are allowed to remain with the grain. Therefore, in terms of its nutritional quality, brown rice has higher nutrient content especially of vitamins (tyamin, riboflavin and niacin), minerals (manganese, Celenium and Mg), protein, fat and fiber than does rice lacking aleron and cortex [16]. One of Iran's most commonly consumed traditional breads is Sangak (bread baked on heated pebbles in a furnace) and its name is derived from the Persian word Sangak meaning tiny stone. This bread is flat and triangular in shape and has a base area of 7 0-80cm in length, 40-50cm width and 3-5mm diameter. The lower surface of Sangak bread contains gall-like inequalities formed from contact with heated pebbles used in baking, and its upper surface contains many tiny galls. This type of bread is composed of whole wheat flour with a derivation degree of 94-95%, water, sourdough (yeast) and salt. Sangak bread is made by mixing the aforementioned ingredients. The obtained mixture is allowed to rest for two hours for fermentation to take place and some portions of dough are placed over a special wide shovel followed by baking on hot pebbles inside the oven. The temperature of the pebbles in the oven varies from 350-500[degrees]C and baking takes between 2min-4min [9]. Sangak bread has a short shelf-life as it is only composed of four constituents flour, water, salt and ripening agent. Although it can be stored frozen to reduce wastage, a major part of this product is often wasted. This problem has been addressed in recent years by incorporating emulsifiers into bread formulations [9]. Emulsifiers are additives of useful characteristics and are often used in the banking industry. Monoglycerides and diglycerides are synthetized directly from glycerols and fatty acids under alkaline conditions. These substances function as thickeners, softeners, stabilizers, surfactants, textures and dough reinforces [13]. Noomhorm et al., investigated the possibility of replacing wheat flour with rice flour at concentrations of 5, 10, 15 and 20% combined with malt and amylase and showed that there was a significant difference in bread yield, specific volume and evaluations of acceptability [14]. Singh et al., investigated leavening time and stability of dough prepared from wheat flour and rice bran. Results showed that additions of 20% fatted rice bran or 10% d-fatted rice bran to bread formulation hastened leavening and enhanced the stability of dough samples [15]. Gallagher et al., concluded that rice starch incorporated into formulations of gluten-free toast bread led to better inner texture and appearance [6]. Lopez et al., reported on tests that replaced wheat flour with rice flour, cornstarch and cassava starch for the preparation of gluten-free white bread. Bread samples prepared from rice flour showed a more tender texture with higher evaluations for firmness and more homogeneous cell distribution [12]. It should be noted that the most desirable gluten-free bread was obtained from the combination of rice flour (45%), cornstarch (35%), and cassava starch (20%), brown rice flour and Xanthan emulsifier (0.5%), which led to a homogenous texture and desirable aroma, flavor and appearance. Cato et al., reported that additions of 0.3% brown rice flour and the emulsifiers' monoglyceride and diglyceride to formulation of flour based gluten free bread can improve its quality [3]. In a study the effect of brown rice flour and the monoglyceride and diglyceride emulsifiers on rheological properties of gluten-free toast dough and bread. Results showed that additions of brown rice flour and the emulsifiers Xanthan, carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) and lecithin improved rheological properties [11]. investigated the effect of addition of rice-conditioned bran on physical, chemical and rheological properties of Sangak bread and results showed improved dough quality. Furthermore conditioning rice bran, led to hydrolysis of phytates present thus improving the nutritional value of the produced breads [9]. The aim of this study was to incorporate brown rice flour and the emulsifiers' monoglyceride and diglyceride into the Sangak bread formulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The baking ingredients were as follows; whole wheat flour (Shams Azar Co.), brown rice flour (Aryana Co.), the emulsifiers monoglyceride and diglyceride (Distld), baking yeast (Iran Molass Co.), salt (Hedyeh Co.) and polyethylene bags. Treatments tested in this research included samples containing 5, 10 and 15% brown rice flour (weight-according to that of wheat flour) combined with concentrations of emulsifier at 0.5 and 1%. In all assays, the control sample was represented by the code C, samples containing 5, 10 and 15% brown rice flour combined with 0.5% emulsifier were represented with the codes [B.sub.1], [B.sub.2] and [B.sub.3], respectively and samples containing the same concentrations of rice brown flour combined with 1% emulsifier were coded by [B.sub.4], [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6], respectively. Chemical assays included moisture percentage (AACC, No. 16-44), ash content (AACC, No. 01-08), protein percentage (AACC, No. 12-46), fiber percentage (AACC, No. 10-32) and fat content (AACC, No. 10-30). These assays were carried out in triplicate on whole wheat flour, brown rice flour and Sangak bread samples. Organoleptic characteristics of bread samples were evaluated by sensory analysis, determined by five senses. The criterion for organoleptic characteristics was the personal tendency of trained assessors to the sample products. Accordingly, bread samples were cooled, coded and tested by ten trained assessors. Moreover, in order to assess texture and staling rate of bread samples the Instron system was used according to AACC, No. 09-74. This assay was performed at time intervals of 24, 48 and 72 hours after baking [1].

Statistical Analysis:

Data analysis was done according to a fully randomized design in triplicate followed by Duncan's multiple-range test by MSTATC software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1 shows the chemical characteristics of whole wheat flour and brown rice flour. Table 2 presents results for volume trait of Sangak bread samples. Results for chemical and organoleptic assays are presented in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Table 5 indicates results related to staling evaluation by the sensory method and Table 6 presents the same by the mechanical method.

Results Obtained from Volume Assay of Sangak Bread:

Table 2 shows that an increase in the amount of brown rice flour and emulsifier resulted in an increase in volume of Sangak bread samples. The control and treatments [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] had the highest evaluations for volume and treatment [B.sub.1] showed the lowest (P<0.05). The increase in volume of bread samples can be attributed to the presence of gluten and its significant effect on gas-holding capacity of the Sangak bread [9]. Also, the reason for relative enhancement in volume of bread samples containing emulsifiers' monoglyceride and diglyceride is that emulsifiers contain hydrophilic and lipophilic particles that serve to enhance the hydrophilic characteristic, which increases volume as a result of emulsifier consumption. Bushuk et al., (1994) showed that additions of some fats and emulsifiers increase the volume of bread samples prepared from rice flour [2].

Results of Chemical Analysis of Sangak Bread:

Table 3 shows that the highest evaluations for percentages for moisture were related to the control, and treatments [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.5], respectively and that treatment [B.sub.1] had the lowest evaluation on this index (P<0.05). The reason for enhanced moisture content in the control treatment can be attributed to higher amounts of gluten. In general, by adding flour to water, emulsifier is combined with proteins, fats and starch. This stage has an important role in reactions that combine polarized fats us well as emulsifiers with proteins. Emulsifiers improve continuous mixing of the dough and facilitate water absorption [2].

The Effect of Adding Different Concentrations of Brown Rice Flour on Ash Content of Sangak Bread:

Table 3 shows that additions of higher concentrations of brown rice flour and emulsifiers led to enhancement of ash content so that treatments [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.3] showed the highest evaluations for ash content, while the control had the lowest evaluation on this index (P<0.05). This increase in ash content is attributed to high amounts of minerals present in bran. Studies have shown that high ash content of bread prepared from brown rice flour and emulsifier can contribute to higher amounts of minerals [7].

The Effect of Adding Different Concentrations of Brown Rice Flour and Mono and Diglyceride Emulsifiers on Protein Percentage of Sangak Bread:

Table 3 shows that an increase of brown rice flour and emulsifier decreased protein percentage so that higher amounts of protein were recorded in the control and treatment [B.sub.4] (no significant difference) and the lowest were recorded in treatments [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.3] (P<0.05). High amounts of protein in the control treatment can be attributed to the presence of gluten. The lower evaluation for protein percentage of brown rice flour compared to wheat flour determines the reduction in protein percentage due to increased in concentrations of brown rice flour in other treatments. Researchers have demonstrated that the use of rice grain bran in bread formulation led to a decreased protein percentage [5].

The Effect of Adding Different Concentrations of Brown Rice Flour and Emulsifiers on Ash Percentage of Sangak Bread:

Fiber content of bread samples prepared from brown rice flour and emulsifier was enhanced compared with the control sample so that treatment [B.sub.6] showed the highest fiber content followed by treatments [B.sub.3] and [B.sub.5], and the control had the lowest (P<0.05). The enhanced fiber content of bread samples prepared from brown rice flour can be attributed to its constituents namely endosperm (93%), germ (4%) and bran (3%) as most of the fat, minerals and fiber constituents of rice grain are concentrated in its bran. Therefore, the fiber percentage of bread samples was increased when wheat flour was replaced with brown rice flour.

The Effect of Adding Different Concentrations of Brown Rice Flour and Emulsifier on Fat Percentage of Sangak Bread:

Table 3 demonstrates that additions of brown rice flour and emulsifier led to an increase of fat percentage in bread samples so that treatment [B.sub.6] had the highest and the control had the lowest fat content (P<0.05). The reason for this increase is the nature of brown rice flour as most of the fat, minerals and fiber content of rice grain is concentrated in its bran. In addition, the fat content of brown rice flour is higher than that of wheat flour. On the other hand, monoglyceride and diglyceride emulsifiers have an important role in fat content of Sangak bread samples due to the effect on its structure.

Analysis of Organoleptic Characteristics of Traditional Sangak Bread: Assessments of Form and Shape of Sangak Bread:

Table 4 shows that additions of brown rice flour and emulsifier improved the form and shape of Sangyak bread produced so that treatments [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] (no significant difference with each other) recorded the highest and the control had the lowest scores in terms of form and shape (P<0.05). This improvement can be attributed to the presence of both emulsifier and brown rice flour in bread in formulation. Studies have shown that additions of emulsifiers such as mono and diglycerides and glycerol mono stearate improved the form and shape of toast bread [10].

Organoleptic Analysis of Characteristics of Lower Surface of Sangak Bread:

Additions of brown rice flour and emulsifier improved characteristics of the lower surface of the produced Sangak bread (Table 4) so that treatments [B.sub.3] and [B.sub.6] had higher evaluations and the control had the lowest evaluation (P<0.05). In accordance with this finding Demirkesen et al., showed that emulsifier addition led to partial improvement to all surfaces of bread [4].

Analysis of Organoleptic Characteristics of the Crust and Upper Surface of Sangak Bread:

Table 4 shows that characteristic of crust and the upper surface of bread samples improved with additions of brown rice flour and emulsifier, so that treatments [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.3] had higher evaluations and the control had a lower evaluation. Other research by Demirkesen et al., reported that additions of some emulsifiers can improve crust traits of bakery products [4].

Assessment of Chewiness of Sangak Bread:

Table 4 shows that additions of brown rice flour and emulsifier decreased evaluations of chewiness of bread samples so that the control and treatment [B.sub.1] had higher evaluations for chewiness and treatment [B.sub.6] had a lower value (P <0.05). Improved chewiness of the control and treatment [B.sub.1] was due to the presence of higher amounts of gluten that led to enhancement of water absorption into the said samples.

Assessment of Aroma, Taste and Flavor of Sangak Bread:

Table 4 shows that additions of brown rice flour and monoglyceride and diglyceride emulsifiers to Sangak bread formulation resulted in decreased evaluations for aroma, taste and flavor so that treatments [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] had the lower evaluations and the control and treatment [B.sub.1] had a higher (P<0.05). It seems that an increase in concentration of brown rice flour induced a bitter taste. Based on studies on bread samples prepared from pure wheat flour, the gases produced during fermentation lead to the creation of desirable porosity in bread texture and maintenance of higher volatiles in bread, thus producing desirable aroma and flavor [13].

Assessment of Total Score of Characteristics of Sangak Bread:

Table 4 shows treatments containing brown rice flour and the emulsifier monoglyceride and diglyceride had higher total scores than did the control treatment. In general, treatment [B.sub.3] had the higher total evaluations and the control had the lowest (P<0.05). It is attributed to incorporation of the said ingredients in to the bread formulation, which had a positive influence on most of sensory characteristics of the bread produced.

Assessment of Staling Rate by the Sensory Method:

Based on results shown in Table 5, after 24 hours of baking, all Sangak bread samples had a fresh quality so that no significant difference was observed between experimental treatments (containing brown rice flour and emulsifier) as well as between experimental and control treatments (P<0.05). However in terms of quantity score, treatments [B.sub.4], [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] were ranked lower and treatments [B.sub.2], [B.sub.1] and C were ranked higher. These results can be attributed to the presence and chemical structure of brown rice flour and emulsifiers. 48 hours after baking, the quality of Sangak bread samples was slightly decreased so that the control treatment showed the highest staling rate. No significant difference was observed between experimental treatments (P<0.05).

However treatments [B.sub.4], [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] had lower evaluations and treatments [B.sub.1], [B.sub.2] and [B.sub.3] had higher evaluations for staling rate. In other words, the use of brown rice flour and the tested emulsifiers caused a decrease in staling rate of the produced bread. In addition, 72 hours after baking, the control and treatments [B.sub.1] and [B.sub.2] showed higher evaluations for staling rate and treatments [B.sub.3], [B.sub.4], [B.sub.5] and [B.sub.6] had lower evaluations on this index (P<0.05). It can be concluded that by increasing brown rice flour concentration and consequent fat and fiber content of bread samples, the rate of staling was decreased. Furthermore, addition of emulsifiers had a positive role in improvements of tenderness and freshness of crumb; i.e. these compounds had an influence on certain flour constituents especially on starch, thus reducing crumb hardness. Researchers have shown that adding brown rice flour to formulations of bread results in a decrease in staling rate due to enhancement of fat and fiber (pentosan) contents (Wang, 2003). Furthermore, adding emulsifiers to toast bread formulation may reduce staling rate of the bread produced.

Assessment of Staling Rate of Sangak Bread Samples by Mechanical Method:

Table 6 shows that additions of brown rice flour and emulsifiers reduced staling rate at three time intervals (24, 48 and 72 hours after baking). At 24 hours after baking, the highest staling rate was evaluated in the control and lower evaluations were recorded for treatments [B.sub.3] and [B.sub.6] respectively (P<0.05). At 48 hours after baking, the control showed the highest staling rate and treatment [B.sub.6] had the lowest staling rate followed by treatments [B.sub.3] and [B.sub.2]? However, at 72 hours after baking, treatment [B.sub.6] had the lowest and the control had the highest staling rate (P<0.05). This decrease in staling rate at each of the three time intervals is related to compounds present in brown rice flour and the addition of emulsifiers. Fat, fiber and emulsifiers contribute to freshness of bread samples due to an efficient relationship with the amylose component of starch.

Conclusion:

The highest volume of bread was related to the control and the lowest was related to treatment [B.sub.1]. Results of chemical assays showed that the highest and the lowest moisture contents were related to the control and treatment [B.sub.1] respectively. Regarding protein content, the control and treatment [B.sub.4] showed higher evaluations and treatments [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.3] showed lower evaluations on this index. Based on organoleptic analysis, experimental treatments were better than the control in terms of all sensory properties measured except those of chewiness, aroma, taste and flavor with treatment [B.sub.3] being the best treatment. Results of staling assay by the sensory method showed that at 24 hours after baking there was no significant difference between tested treatments and the control. At 48 hours and 72 hours after baking, higher evaluations for freshness were related to treatments [B.sub.6], [B.sub.5], [B.sub.4] and [B.sub.3] and the lowest was related to the control. Based on results obtained from staling assays by the mechanical method, at 24, 48 and 72 hours after baking, results showed that the control and treatment [B.sub.3] had the highest and lowest evaluations for staling rate, respectively.

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 23 December 2013

Received in revised form 25

February 2014

Accepted 23 March 2014

Available online 2 April 2014

REFERENCES

[1] Anonymous, 2003. AACC Approved methods of analysis of the American Association of Cereal Chemist (10thed). American Association of Cereal Chemistry, Inc. St Paul.

[2] Bushuk, W., 1994. Wheat production, properties and Quality. Blakie Academic and professionals, pp: 285.

[3] Cato, L., J.J. Gan, L.G.B. Rafael and D.M. Small, 2004.Gluten free breads using rice flour and hydrocolloid gums. Food Aust., 56: 75-78.

[4] Demirkesen, I., B. Mert, G. Sumnu and S. Sahin, 2010. Rheological properties of gluten-free bread formulation. J Food Eng., 96: 295-303.

[5] Dendy, D.A.V. and B.J. Dobraszczyk, 2001. Cereal and cereal products chemistry and technology. Aspen Publishers, Inc. Maryland, USA, pp: 428.

[6] Gallagher, E., O. polenghi and T.R. Gormley, 2002. Improving the quality of gluten free breads. Farm and Food, 12: 13-18.

[7] Hallen, E., S. Ibanoglu and P. Ainsworth, 2004. Effect of fermented/ germinated cowpea flour addition on the theological and baking properties of wheat flour. J Food Eng., 63: 177-184.

[8] Jahn, G., S. Pheng, B. Kheiv and C. Pol, 2000. Ecological characterization of biotic constraints to rice in Cambodia. Food Eng., 25:(3) 23-24.

[9] Kadivar, M., 2009. Effect of hydrothermal bran on physicochemical, rheological and micros rural characteristics of Sangak bread. J Cereal Sci., 2: 25-44.

[10] Kohajdova, Z. and J. Karovicova, 2009. Significance of Emulsifiers and Hydrocolloids in Bakery Industry. Acta. Chimi. Slov., 24: 46-61.

[11] Lazaridou, A., D. Duta, M. Papageorgiou, N. Belc and C.G. Biliaderis, 2007. Effects of hydrocolloids on dough rheology and bread quality parameters in gluten-free formulations. J Food Eng., 79: 1033-1047.

[12] Lopez, A.C.B., A.J.G. Pereira and R.G. Junqueira, 2004. Flour mixture of rice flour, corn and cassava starch in the production of gluten-free white bread. Food Sci. Tech., 47(1): 1516-8913.

[13] Moayedallaie, S., M. Mirzaei and j. Paterson, 2010. Bread improvers: Comparison of a range of lipases with a traditional emulsifier. Food Chem., 122: 495-499.

[14] Noomhorm, A., D.C. Bandola and N. Kongseree, 1994. Effect of rice variety, rice flour concentration and enzyme levels on composite bread quality. J Food Sci. Agri., 64(4): 433-440.

[15] Singh, B.K., S. Sekhon and N. Singh, 1995. Suitability of full fat and defatted rice bran obtained from Indian rice for use in food products. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition., 47(3): 191-200.

[16] Wang, M., 2003. Effect of Pentosans on Gluten formation and properties. Department of Agro technology and food sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands., 190: 78-106.

(1) Fatemeh Hydari, (1) Sara Movahed, (2) Hossein Ahmadi Chenarbon

(1) Department of Food Science, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran.

(2) Department of Agronomy, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran.

Corresponding Author: Sara Movahed, Department of Food Science, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran. E-mail: movahhed@iauvaramin.ac.ir; Tel: +989123502181
Table 1: Chemical properties of wheat flour and brown
rice flour

Flour         Protein   Ash    Moisture   Fiber   Fat
              (%)       (%)    (%)        (%)     (%)

Wheat flour   12.55     0.99   10.11      1.31    2.47
Brown rice    12.17     1.57   8.78       1.47    3.26
  flour

Table 2: Mean comparison of volume evaluation in
Sangak bread ([cm.sup.3])

Treatment   C                     [B.sub.6]

Volume      1375 [+ or -] 4 (a)   1327 [+ or -] 4.17 (b)

Treatment   [B.sub.5]                [B.sub.4]

Volume      1314 [+ or -] 5.25 (c)   1298 [+ or -] 6.1 (d)

Treatment   [B.sub.3]                [B.sub.2]

Volume      1285 [+ or -] 3.75 (e)   1282 [+ or -] 4.2 (f)

Treatment   [B.sub.1]

Volume      1272 [+ or -] 7.1 (g)

Means with the same letter in each row have not
statistically significant difference ([alpha] = 5%)

Table 3: Mean comparison of chemical properties in
Sangak bread

Treatment   Fat (%)                  Fiber (%)

[B.sub.1]   2.97 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)   1.23 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)
[B.sub.2]   3.18 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)   1.4 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
[B.sub.3]   3.25 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)   1.48 [+ or -] 0.03 (a)
[B.sub.4]   3 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)      1.28 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)
[B.sub.5]   3.22 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)   1.42 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
[B.sub.6]   3.3 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)    1.5 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
C           2.4 [+ or -] 0.02 (c)    1.09 [+ or -] 0.01 (c)

Treatment   Protein (%)               Ash (%)

[B.sub.1]   12.66 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)   1.87 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)
[B.sub.2]   12.57 [+ or -] 1.02 (c)   1.94 [+ or -] 0.02 (a, b)
[B.sub.3]   12.52 [+ or -] 0.11 (d)   1.96 [+ or -] 0.02 (a, b)
[B.sub.4]   12.73 [+ or -] 1.02 (a)   1.89 [+ or -] 0.01 (a, b)
[B.sub.5]   12.59 [+ or -] 1.11 (c)   1.95 [+ or -] 0.01 (a, b)
[B.sub.6]   12.54 [+ or -] 0.01 (d)   1.99 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
C           12.8 [+ or -] 1.07 (a)    1.66 [+ or -] 0.02 (c)

Treatment   Moisture (%)

[B.sub.1]   25.84 [+ or -] 0.2 (f)
[B.sub.2]   27.01 [+ or -] 0.2 (e)
[B.sub.3]   28.96 [+ or -] 0.2 (d)
[B.sub.4]   29.84 [+ or -] 0.1 (d)
[B.sub.5]   31.01 [+ or -] 0.2 (c)
[B.sub.6]   32.21 [+ or -] 5.6 (b)
C           34.7 [+ or -] 0.26 (a)

Means with the same letter in each column have not
statistically significant difference ([alpha] = 5%)

Table 4: Mean comparison of organoleptic characteristics
in Sangak bread

Treatment   Shape                    Lower surface
                                     characteristics

[B.sub.1]   1.31 [+ or -] 0.24 (a)   2.2 [+ or -] 0.71 (c)
[B.sub.2]   1.68 [+ or -] 0.11 (b)   2.4 [+ or -] 0.78 (b)
[B.sub.3]   1.95 [+ or -] 0.15 (a)   2.6 [+ or -] 0.64 (a)
[B.sub.4]   1.68 [+ or -] 0.11 (b)   2.2 [+ or -] 0.67 (c)
[B.sub.5]   1.68 [+ or -] 0.11 (b)   2.4 [+ or -] 0.31 (b)
[B.sub.6]   1.95 [+ or -] 0.23 (a)   2.6 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)
C           1.01 [+ or -] 0.14 (d)   1.5 [+ or -] 0.17 (d)

Treatment   Crust and upper surface   Chewiness
            characteristics

[B.sub.1]   3 [+ or -] 0.79 (c)       4.78 [+ or -] 1.01 (a)
[B.sub.2]   3.5 [+ or -] 0.46 (b)     4.4 [+ or -] 1.11 (b)
[B.sub.3]   3.9 [+ or -] 0.87 (a)     4 [+ or -] 0.97 (c)
[B.sub.4]   3 [+ or -] 0.64 (c)       4.4 [+ or -] 0.68 (b)
[B.sub.5]   3.5 [+ or -] 0.25 (b)     4 [+ or -] 0.97 (c)
[B.sub.6]   3.9 [+ or -] 0.57 (a)     4 [+ or -] 0.97 (c)
C           2 [+ or -] 0.43 (d)       4.7 [+ or -] 1.01 (a)

Treatment   Aroma                   Total score

[B.sub.1]   6 [+ or -] 1 (a)        17.29 [+ or -] 2.31 (ab)
[B.sub.2]   5.4 [+ or -] 1.45 (c)   17.38 [+ or -] 1.45 (ab)
[B.sub.3]   5 [+ or -] 1.22 (d)     17.45 [+ or -] 2.11 (a)
[B.sub.4]   5.8 [+ or -] 1.31 (b)   17.08 [+ or -] 2.12 (c)
[B.sub.5]   4.7 [+ or -] 1.11 (e)   16.28 [+ or -] 1.54 (d)
[B.sub.6]   4.7 [+ or -] 1.11 (e)   17.15 [+ or -] 2.54 (b)
C           5.9 [+ or -] 1 (a)      15.11 [+ or -] 1.45 (e)

Means with the same letter in each column have not
statistically significant difference ([alpha] = 5%)

Table 5: Mean comparison of staling test in Sangak
bread (Sensory method)

Time(h)   [B.sub.1]                [B.sub.2]

24        5.66 [+ or -] 0.48 (a)   5.66 [+ or -] 0.48 (a)
48        5 [+ or -] 0.65 (a)      5 [+ or -] 0.65 (a)
72        4 [+ or -] 0.35 (b)      4 [+ or -] 0.35 (b)

Time(h)   [B.sub.3]                [B.sub.4]

24        6 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)      6 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)
48        5.33 [+ or -] 0.73 (a)   5.66 [+ or -] 0.87 (a)
72        5 [+ or -] 0.87 (a)      5 [+ or -] 0.87 (a)

Time(h)   [B.sub.5]                [B.sub.6]

24        6 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)      6 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)
48        5.66 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)   5.66 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)
72        5 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)      5 [+ or -] 0.58 (a)

Time(h)   C

24        5.66 [+ or -] 0.48 (a)
48        4.11 [+ or -] 0.41 (b)
72        4 [+ or -] 0.35 (b)

Means with the same letter in each row have not
statistically significant difference ([alpha] = 5%)

Table 6: Mean comparison of staling test in Sangak
bread by Instron (N)

Time(h)   [B.sub.1]        [B.sub.2]        [B.sub.3]

24        6.92 [+ or -]    6.23 [+ or -]    3.59 [+ or -]
            1.01 (c)         0.95 (c)         0.58 (a)
48        8.33 [+ or -]    6.93 [+ or -]    6. 5 [+ or -]
            1.2 (c)          1.3 (ab)         2.4 (ab)
72        12.53 [+ or -]   12.06 [+ or -]   7.71 [+ or -]
            1.2 (c)          2.3 (c)          2.01 (b)

Time(h)   [B.sub.4]       [B.sub.5]

24        6.9 [+ or -]    6.23 [+ or -]
            1.01 (c)        0.95 (c)
48        7.4 [+ or -]    7.12 [+ or -]
            1.1 (b)         1.2 (b)
72        12.3 [+ or -]   7.6 [+ or -]
            1.4 (c)         1.5 (b)

Time(h)   [B.sub.6]       C

24        4.12 [+ or -]   7.22 [+ or -]
            0.58 (b)        1.1 (d)
48        5.3 [+ or -]    10.2 [+ or -]
            0.58 (a)        1.1 (d)
72        6.13 [+ or -]   13.4 [+ or -]
            1.3 (a)         1.1 (d)

Means with the same letter in each row have not
statistically significant difference ([alpha] = 5%)
COPYRIGHT 2014 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hydari, Fatemeh; Movahed, Sara; Chenarbon, Hossein Ahmadi
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Feb 1, 2014
Words:4859
Previous Article:Study of ratio and speed germination of twelve medicinal plants under several treatments of salinity.
Next Article:Identification of bio-active constituents from Derris elliptica liquid crude extract using liquid chromatographic method coupled with high vacuum...
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters