Crust and Crumb Characteristics of Gluten Free Breads

Crust and crumb characteristics of gluten free breads

E. Gallagher a,*, T.R. Gormley a, E.K. Arendt b

a Teagasc, The National Food Centre, Dunsinea Castleknock, Dublin 15, Irelandb Department of Food Science Technology and Nutrition, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland

Received 21 October 2001

Abstract

Gluten free breads often have poor crust and crumb characteristics and the current study was conducted to help alleviate this

problem. A commercial wheat starch (Codex Alimentarius) gluten free flour was supplemented with seven dairy powders (0%, 3%,

6%, 9% inclusion rates based on flour weight). Initially a fixed water level was used (trial 1) and the resulting batters were proofed

and baked. The breads were tested 24 h after baking. Powder addition reduced loaf volume by circa 6% (P < 0:001). Increasing theinclusion levels of the powders decreased loaf volume (P < 0:001) with a decrease of 8% for the highest level. Powder addition

generally decreased the crumb L�=b� (white/yellow) ratio. Crust L� values were significantly reduced. All of the powders increased

crumb hardness (P < 0:001) with the exception of demineralised whey powder. Ten and 20% additional water (trial 2) was added tothe formulation and the resulting breads had higher volume, and a much softer crust and crumb texture. Sensory analysis revealed a

preference for breads containing skim milk replacer, sodium caseinate and milk protein isolate.

� 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gluten free; Bread; Dairy powder

1. Introduction

Coeliac disease affects the small intestine and is due to

a sensitivity to gluten (Anonymous, 1982). An accept-

able treatment is strict adherence to a 100% gluten-freediet for life. This can prevent almost all complications

caused by the disease.

Gluten is the main structure-forming protein in flour,

responsible for the elastic and extensible properties nee-

ded to produce good quality bread. To ensure the ac-

ceptability of gluten free bread, the loaves must have

quality characteristics similar to those of wheat flour

bread. (Paulus, 1986; Ylimaki, Hawrysh, Hardin, &Thomson, 1991). Currently, many gluten free breads

available on the market are of a low quality, exhibiting a

dry crumbling crumb, resulting in poor mouthfeel and a

poor flavour (Gallagher & Gormley, 2002). Conse-

quently, trial 1 in the current study was conducted to

alleviate this problem. However, the removal of gluten

from bakery products negates bread quality and so the

use of polymeric substances that mimic the viscoelas-

tic properties of gluten is often required, (Christianson &

Gardner, 1974; Kent & Evers, 1994; Toufeili et al., 1994).

The incorporation of dairy ingredients has long beenestablished in the baking industry (Stahel, 1983; Zadow

& Hardham, 1981). Dairy proteins are highly functional

ingredients and due to their versatility can be readily

incorporated into many food products. They may be

used in bread for both nutritional and functional bene-

fits including flavour and texture enhancement, and stor-

age improvement (Cocup & Sanderson, 1987; Kenny,

Wehrle, Auty, & Arendt, 2001; Mannie & Asp, 1989).Dairy products may be used in gluten free bread for-

mulas to increase water absorption and, therefore, en-

hance the handling properties of the batter.

In a second trial, the effects of adding different levels

of water on the volume, crumb and crust characteristics

of the breads was investigated. In their studies, Platt and

Powers (1940) found a strong correlation between the

staling rate of bread and moisture content. Also Bechteland Meisner (1954) concluded that bread with a higher

moisture content was significantly fresher than bread

with a lower content.

Journal of Food Engineering 56 (2003) 153–161

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-1-805-9500; fax: +353-1-805-

9550.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Gallagher).

0260-8774/02/$ - see front matter � 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0260-8774 (02 )00244-3

mail to: [email protected]

The aim of the current study was to incorporate arange of dairy powders into a gluten free bread formu-

lation; to investigate their effects on the baking charac-

teristics, crumb properties and protein and dietary fibre

contents of the breads; and also to study the effects of

increasing the moisture content on the crust and crumb

characteristics of the gluten free breads. Little work has

been published in the area of gluten free breads (�AAcs,Kovacs, & Matuz, 1996) and for this reason the datafrom the current study are often compared with results

from studies involving wheat breads.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

The control gluten free formulation contained com-

mercial wheat starch (Codex Alimentarius) gluten free

flour (Odlum Group, Dublin, Ireland), fresh yeast

(Yeast Products, Dublin, Ireland), vegetable oil (CrestFoods Ltd., Dublin, Ireland) and DATEM (Quest in-

gredients, Holland). In the trials this was supplemented

with dairy powders obtained from Kerry Ingredients

(Listowel, Co. Kerry, Ireland). The names (the abbre-

viated names are used in the following text) and protein

content of the powders are given in Table 1.

The batter recipe (based on flour weight) was 100%

gluten free flour, 87% water 35 �C, 2.7% fresh yeast, 1%oil and 0.5% DATEM. In trial 1, the dairy powders were

added at 3%, 6% and 9% of flour weight. In trial 2, 10%

and 20% additional moisture was added to breads con-

taining 6% inclusions of molkin (mlk), kerrylac (klc) and

milk protein isolate (mpi). Breads for both trials were

prepared by blending the liquid ingredients together.

These were then added to the dry ingredients and mixed

for a total of 3.5 min in a 3 speed mixer, (Model A120,Hobart, UK); 450 g of batter was scaled into 1lb tins

and placed in a proofer for 45 min (40 �C, 80% RH).

The batter was baked at 230 �C for 25 min in a reel oven

(Henry Simon, UK). The loaves were cooled to roomtemperature and placed in polyethylene bags until

tested.

2.2. Tests on the loaves

All loaves were measured 24 h after baking. For each

analysis, three loaves from each batch were used. Spe-

cific volume was measured using rapeseed displacement.

Crust and crumb colour was measured using a MinoltaChromameter (Minolta CR-100, Osaka, Japan). L�, a�,b� and L�=b�, were recorded, each value being the av-erage of six measurements. Crust (penetration, cylin-

drical probe; 6 mm diameter) and crumb (texture profile

analysis (TPA), cylindrical probe; 20 mm diameter)

characteristics were assessed using a texture analyser

(TAXT2i, Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK). Protein

content of the breads supplemented at the 6% level wasmeasured by the Leco method (AOAC 968.06) and di-

etary fibre content by the AOAC procedure (Fibertec

System E).

2.3. Image acquisition and analysis

Images of the sliced breads (at the 6% level of sup-

plementation) were captured using a flatbed scanner

(Sharp, JX-330, Japan). Images were scanned full scale

at 300 dots per inch and analysed in grey scale (0–255).Image analysis was performed using the UTHSCSA

ImageTool program (Version 2.0, University of Texas

Health Science Centre, San Antonio, Texas, available

by anonymous FTP from maxrad6.uthscsa.edu). A

threshold method was used for differentiating gas cells

and non-cells. The threshold was determined by the

method described by Crowley, Grau, and Arendt (2000).

Analysis was carried out on two subimages of 500� 500pixels selected from within the bread slice. Two slices

were analysed per treatment. Gas cell to total area ratio

was recorded.

2.4. Sensory analysis

Sensory analysis was conducted on trial 1 samples

only and the level of powder incorporation was 6%. As

there were eight products for testing, the sensory anal-ysis took place over two sittings. The first (20 tasters)

involved the control gluten free bread and four breads

containing dairy powders (demineralised whey powder

(dwp), skim milk replacer (smr), skim milk powder

(smp), mpi). The second (20 tasters) session embraced

the same control bread and three breads with dairy

powders (mlk, klc, sodium caseinate (nac)). Panellists

were asked to assess the breads for acceptability, and tomark a 5 cm line (0¼ unacceptable, 5¼ very acceptable)in accordance with their opinion. Results for the two

sessions were analysed separately.

Table 1

Name, type and protein content of the dairy powders

Name Type Protein content (%)

Molkin (mlk)a Sweet whey 6.5

Demineralised whey

powder (dwp)aDemineralised

whey

11.0

Kerrylac (klc)a Fresh milk solids 18.0

Skim milk replacer

(smr)aSpray dried milk

solids

26.0

Skim milk powder

(smp)aSpray dried skim

milk

35.0

Sodium caseinate (nac)a Casein 89.0

Milk protein isolate

(mpi)aProtein isolate 90.0

aAbbreviated names used in the text.

154 E. Gallagher et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 56 (2003) 153–161

2.5. Statistical analysis

Results were analysed using one way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) using SAS (Version 6.12, SAS In-

stitute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) as 7 powders� 4 inclusionlevels (0%, 3%, 6%, 9% powder addition)� 3 replicates(trial 1) and as 3 powders� 3 water levels� 3 replicates.The taste panel tests were analysed (ANOVA) as two

separate sets, i.e. 5 samples� 20 tasters, and 4 samples�20 tasters.

3. Results and discussion

Data for the effects of dairy powders and levels of

inclusion on gluten free bread quality are presented in

Figs. 1–11 together with probability (F-test) and stan-

dard error of the difference (s.e.d.) values. Many of the

effects were statistically significant as were interactionsbetween powder type and inclusion levels. The powders

are in the order lowest to highest protein content (and

vice versa for lactose) reading from left to right in each

figure.

3.1. Loaf volume

Inclusion of dairy powders had a variable effect on

loaf volume (Fig. 1) and there were differences (P <0:001) both between the powders and between the in-clusion levels. Overall, inclusions of dairy powders re-

duced loaf volume by about 6%. This is similar to thefindings of Erdogdu-Arnoczky, Czuchzjowska, and

Pomeranz (1996), Gelinas, Audet, Lachance, and Va-

chon (1995) and Kadharmestan, Baik, and Czucha-

jowska (1998). However, increasing inclusions gave a

recovery in loaf volume in the case of mlk, nac and mpi,

whereas the opposite was the case for dwp, klc and to a

lesser extent smp (Fig. 1). Sodium caseinate and mpi

have a high water holding capacity. With increasinglevels of addition of these powders, the resulting batters

became visibly more viscous, i.e. less like a batter and

more like a dough. These breads had an appealing

shape and were more similar in appearance to wheaten

breads.

3.2. Crust and crumb colour

The lightness of the gluten free bread crust varied

widely with L� values ranging from 62 (3% smp inclu-

sion) to 36 (9% nac inclusion) (P < 0:001). Breads con-taining the dairy powders were generally darker when

compared to their gluten free controls (Fig. 2). The

lower L� values were expected were due to Maillardbrowning and carmelisation which are influenced by the

distribution of water and the reaction of reducing sugars

and amino acids (Kent & Evers, 1994). L� values con-

tinued to decrease with increasing levels of powder in-

corporation but the effect was generally small except for

the high protein-containing powders smr, nac and mpi

where incorporation beyond 6% may be impractical.

Guy (1984) encountered similar darkening effects inwheaten breads. The darkening of the crust colour due

to the inclusion of dairy powders is desirable as gluten

free breads tend to have a lighter crust colour than white

wheaten breads (L� ¼ 38) (Gallagher & Gormley, 2002).Crumb colour ðL�=b�Þ (white/yellow ratio) was influ-

enced both by powder type (P < 0:001) and by level ofaddition (P < 0:001) (Fig. 3). Molkin, klc, smr (with theexception of the lowest inclusion level) and smp resultedin crumb darkening compared with the control gluten

free bread, while nac resulted in a whiter crumb; mpi

inclusion had no effect. These results are a reflection

of the L�=b� ratios for the control gluten free flourðL�=b� ¼ 13:3Þ and of the ‘neat’ dairy powders i.e. mlk(5.3), dwp (6.1), klc (4.9), smr (6.9), smp (7.6), nac (9.3)

and mpi (13.9).

Fig. 1. Influence of dairy powders and their level of inclusion, on the loaf volume of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 9.8);

inclusion level (L) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 7.4); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 19.5).

E. Gallagher et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 56 (2003) 153–161 155

3.3. Crust and crumb softness

The inclusion of mlk, dwp, klc and smr (i.e. the lower

protein-content powders) in gluten free breads resulted

in a much softer (P < 0:001) crust than the control

gluten free loaves (Fig. 4). This is due to moisture mi-

gration from the crumb. The moisture contents of the

gluten free breads with the dairy powders were fairly

similar and were in the range 39–42%. The inclusion of

smp increased crust hardness but the control gluten free

Fig. 2. Influence of dairy powders and their level of inclusion, on the crust colour of gluten free breads (low values indicate darker crust). F-test:

powders (P) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 1.2); inclusion level (L) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 0.9); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 2.4).

Fig. 3. Influence of dairy powders and their level of inclusion, on the crumb colour of gluten free breads (higher values indicate the whiter crumb).

F-test: powders (P) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 0.05); inclusion level (L) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 0.04); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 0.09).

Fig. 4. Influence of dairy powders and their level of inclusion, on the crust hardness (penetration value) of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P)

(P < 0:001; s.e.d. 46.8); inclusion level (L) (P < 0:005; s.e.d. 35.4); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 93.7).


bread from this set had a much softer crust than the

controls for the other sets (Fig. 4) and so this result may

be atypical. Both nac and mpi had a minimal effect on

crust hardness, due, presumably to their high protein

content which is strongly water-binding, and thus

minimised moisture migration to the crust.

Fig. 5. Influence of dairy powders and their level of inclusion, on the crumb TPA of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 31.0);

inclusion level (L) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 23.5); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 62.1).

Fig. 6. Influence of dairy powders (6% inclusion level) on taste panel acceptability score (0 ¼ unacceptable; 5¼ very acceptable) of gluten free breads.F-test: Session 1; (P < 0:05, s.e.d. 0.33). Session 2; (P¼NS, s.e.d. 0.32).

Fig. 7. Influence of dairy powders plus additional water (10% or 20%) on the loaf moisture content of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P)



Fig. 8. Influence of dairy powders plus additional water (10% or 20%) on the loaf volume of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P) (P < 0:005; s.e.d.

6.5); inclusion level (L) (P < 0:005; s.e.d. 4.2); interaction P � L (P < 0:005; s.e.d. 16.5).

Fig. 9. Influence of dairy powders plus additional water (10% or 20%) on the crust hardness (penetration value) of gluten free breads. F-test: powders

(P) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 48.4); inclusion level (L) (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 36.8); interaction P � L (P < 0:001; s.e.d. 96.8).

Fig. 10. Influence of dairy powders plus additional water (10% or 20%) on the crumb TPA (firmness) of gluten free breads. F-test: powders (P)



In contrast, all the powders reduced crumb softness

(P < 0:001) of the gluten free breads as indicated byhigher crumb hardness values (Fig. 5). The extent of theeffect varied with the level of inclusions, and from

powder to powder. However, breads with the higher

protein-content powder tended to have the firmest (least

soft) crumb compared to the control (0% inclusion).

Molkin was an exception in that it is a low protein-high

lactose powder but still gave a firm crumb (Fig. 5).

Dairy proteins contain strong water absorptive

properties, which may, in turn, lead to finer, densercrumb structures in the baked product Stahel (1983).

This was particularly evident for the breads containing

smp and mpi (P < 0:001). A strong positive correlationwas obtained in the current study between crumb

hardness and loaf volume (r ¼ 0:86, P < 0:001). Kadh-armestan et al. (1998) found similar increased crumb

hardness properties in studies involving whey protein

concentrate in wheat bread. Such firming may be at-tributed to the retrogradation of the wheat starch frac-

tion as described by Schoch and French (1947). Also, it

must be noted that gluten present in wheat-containing

bread slows the movement of water (Roach & Hoseney,

1995) by forming an extensible protein network, thus

keeping the crumb structure softer. Therefore, the ab-

sence of gluten will increase the movement of the water

from bread crumb to crust, thereby resulting in a firmercrumb and a softer crust. However, although the crumb

was firmer for those breads containing the dairy pow-

ders in the current study, it was more similar both

physically and texture-wise to that of ordinary wheat-

containing bread than to the cake-like appearance of

gluten some free breads.

3.4. Image analysis

There was considerable variation in the gas cell to

total area ratio depending on the additive (P < 0:001).The overall mean (38%) was comparable to previouslyreported values (33%, Crowley et al., 2000; 46%, Sa-

pirstein, Roller, & Bushuk, 1994). There was a pro-

gression in the data with the low protein-containing

powders giving the largest gas cells (Table 2). The dwp

was the exception to this trend as it has a low protein

content but gave a smaller number of gas cells. The

addition of mlk was the only treatment that resulted in a

larger gas cell to total area ratio compared to the control

(P < 0:001). There was an inverse rank correlation co-efficient of �0.56 between gas cell size and loaf volume;ie greater numbers of small gas cells gave a higher loaf

volume.

3.5. Sensory analysis

In the first session, three out of the four gluten freebreads were given a higher acceptability score than the

gluten free control (Fig. 6). Bread containing smp was

judged to be significantly more acceptable than the other

samples (P < 0:05). In the second session, a similartrend was observed, i.e. all breads containing the dairy

received higher acceptability scores than the control but

the effect was not statistically significant (Fig. 6).

3.6. Effect of additional water

The moisture content of the breads in trial 2 proved

to be a major factor regulating the loaf volume and

crumb and crust texture (Fig. 7). Increasing water ad-

dition in the batter by 10% and 20% resulted in loaf

volumes being increased in the breads containing allthree powder types with volumes peaking at the 10%

extra level of inclusion (Fig. 8). Both crust (Fig. 9) and

crumb (Fig. 10) hardness were reduced (P < 0:001) withincreasing water addition. However, the level of water

Table 2

Gas cell to total area ratio (%) for the gluten-free breads

Control mlk dwp klc smr smp nac mpi

43 64 31 53 33 20 28 33

Fig. 11. Protein content of gluten free breads supplemented (6% inclusion) with dairy powders.


reduction was excessive and resulted in loaves thatwere too soft for ‘easy’ slicing. Starch retrogradation

is strongly influenced by the moisture content of the

product (Maleki, Hoseney, & Mattern, 1980; Morad &

Wakeil, 1976) and the texture results in trial 2 may be

attributed to a reduction in starch retrogradation due to

the presence of extra water, resulting in a softer crumb

overall. These results agree with previous work by

Rogers, Zeleznak, Lai, and Hoseney (1988).

3.7. Nutritional aspects

Gluten free breads supplemented at the 6% level with

the high protein-content powders had double the pro-tein content of the control, i.e. 4.9% (nac) and 5.0%

(mpi) vs 2.4% (control) (Fig. 11). Inclusion of the dairy

powders had no effect on the dietary fibre content of the

gluten free breads and the mean value of 1.4% was much

lower than that (�3.7%) found in white wheat breads(Ranhorta & Gelroth, 1988).

Supplementation of the gluten free breads with the

high lactose-content powders is not suitable for coeliacswho have significant damage to their intestinal villi as

they may be intolerant of lactose due to the absence

of the lactase enzyme which is generated by the villi

(Ortolani & Pastorello, 1997).

4. Conclusions

The seven dairy powders tested had variable effects

on the quality parameters of the gluten free breads. Ingeneral, powders with a high protein (smp, nac, mpi)

content gave breads with a lower loaf volume but with

an increased crumb and crust hardness. However, these

breads had an appealing dark crust and white crumb

appearance, and received good acceptability scores in

sensory tests. When additional water was added to the

gluten free formulation supplemented with mlk, klc and

mpi (6% inclusion), the resulting breads exhibited in-creased volume and a much softer crust and crumb

texture than the controls. Supplementing the gluten free

formulation with high protein-content dairy powders

doubled the protein content of the breads. The dietary

fibre content of the loaves was low but this issue will be

addressed in future trials where the gluten free formu-

lation will be supplemented with inulin.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aidan Morrissey and Francis

Butler for their assistance in this study. This study is

funded by the FIRM Programme as part of the Irish

National Development Plan.

References

�AAcs, E., Kovacs, Zs., & Matuz, J. (1996). Bread from corn starch for

dietetic purposes. I. Structure formation. Cereal Research Commu-

nications, 24(4), 441–449.

Anonymous (1982). The bread that helps save lives. Baker’s Review

(May), pp. 12–14.

Bechtel, W. G., & Meisner, D. F. (1954). Staling studies of bread made

with flour fractions. III. Effect of crumb moisture and starch.

Cereal Chemistry, 31, 176.

Christianson, D. D., & Gardner, H. W. (1974). Xanthan gum in

protein fortified starch bread. Food Technology, 6, 23–29.

Cocup, R. O., & Sanderson, W. B. (1987). Functionality of dairy

ingredients in bakery products. Food Technology, 41(10), 102–

104.

Crowley, P., Grau, H., & Arendt, E. K. (2000). Influence of additives

and mixing time on crumb grain characteristics of wheat bread.

Cereal Chemistry, 77(3), 370–375.

Erdogdu-Arnoczky, N., Czuchzjowska, Z., & Pomeranz, Y. (1996).

Functionality of whey and casein in breadmaking by fixed and

optimized procedures. Cereal Chemistry, 73(3), 309–316.

Gallagher, E., & Gormley, T.R. (2002). The quality of gluten free

breads produced at retail outlets. Research Report, Teagasc, The

National Food Centre, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland, in press.

Gelinas, P., Audet, J., Lachance, O., & Vachon, M. (1995). Fermented

dairy ingredients for bread: effects on dough rheology and bread

characteristics. Cereal Chemistry, 72(2), 151–154.

Guy, E. J. (1984). Evaluation of the bread-baking quality and storage

stability of 12% soy fortified wheat flour containing sweet cheese

whey solids. Cereal Chemistry, 61(2), 83–88.

Kadharmestan, C., Baik, B. K., & Czuchajowska, Z. (1998). Whey

protein concentrated with high heat or hydrostatic pressure in

wheat-based products. Cereal Chemistry, 75(5), 762–766.

Kenny, S., Wehrle, K., Auty, M., & Arendt, E. K. (2001). Influence

of sodium caseinate and whey protein on baking properties

and rheology of frozen dough. Cereal Chemistry, 78(4), 458–

463.

Kent, N. L., & Evers, A. D. (1994). Bread made with gluten

substitutes. Technology of cereals (pp. 215). Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

Maleki, M., Hoseney, R. C., & Mattern, P. J. (1980). Effects of loaf

volume, moisture content, and protein quality on the softness and

staling rate of bread. Cereal Chemistry, 57(2), 138–140.

Mannie, E., & Asp, E. H. (1989). Dairy ingredients in baking. Cereal

Foods World, 44(3), 143–146.

Morad, M. M., & Wakeil, F. A. (1976). Effect of wheat starch, protein

and moisture content on staling of bread. Getreide, Mehl und Brot,

30(4), 106–107.

Ortolani, C., & Pastorello, E. A. (1997). Symptoms of food allergy and

food intolerance. Study of nutritional factors in food allergies and

food intolerance. Luxembourg: CEC, pp. 26–45.

Paulus, K. (1986). Quality of dietetic food––significance for hu-

man nutrition. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 19(2),

147.

Platt, W., & Powers, R. (1940). Compressibility of bread crumb. Cereal

Chemistry, 17, 601.

Ranhorta, G., & Gelroth, J. (1988). Soluble and dietary fibre in white

bread. Cereal Chemistry, 65(2), 155–156.

Roach, R. R., & Hoseney, R. C. (1995). Effects of certain surfactants

on the starch in bread. Cereal Chemistry, 72(6), 578–582.

Rogers, D. E., Zeleznak, K. J., Lai, C. S., & Hoseney, R. C. (1988).

Effect of native lipids, shortening, and bread moisture on bread

firming. Cereal Chemistry, 65(5), 398.

Sapirstein, H. D., Roller, R., & Bushuk, W. (1994). Instrumental

measurement of bread crumb grain by digital image-analysis.

Cereal Chemistry, 71(4), 383–391.


Schoch, T. J., & French, D. (1947). Studies on bread staling. I. The role

of starch. Cereal Chemistry, 24, 231–249.

Stahel, N. (1983). Dairy proteins for the cereal food industry:

Functions, selection and usage.Cereal FoodsWorld, 28(8), 453–454.

Toufeili, I., Dagher, S., Sadarevian, S., Noureddine, A., Sarakbi, M.,

& Farran, M. T. (1994). Formulation of gluten-free pocket-type

flat breads: Optimization of methylcellulose, gum arabic and egg

albumen levels by response surface methodology. Cereal Chemis-

try, 71(6), 594–601.

Ylimaki, G., Hawrysh, Z. J., Hardin, R. T., & Thomson, A. B. R.

(1991). Journal of Food Science, 56(3), 751–759.

Zadow, J. G., & Hardham, J. F. (1981). Studies on the use of whey

protein concentrates in bread. Australian Journal of Dairy Tech-

nology, 36, 60–63.


Crust and Crumb Characteristics of Gluten Free Breads

Documents

Transcript of Crust and Crumb Characteristics of Gluten Free Breads