Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Grain & Oil Science and Technology

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/grain-and-oil-
science-and-technology/

Improvement of whole wheat dough and bread properties by emulsifiers

Lauren Tebben a, Gengjun Chen a, Michael Tilley b, Yonghui Li a,
⁎
a
Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
b
Center for Grain and Animal Health Research, Agricultural Research Service of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Manhattan, KS 66502,
USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Whole wheat bread is widely available worldwide, but it is always associated with less desirable dough
Received 17 March 2022 processibility, small loaf volume, firm and gritty texture, and other distinctive attributes compared to
Received in revised form 29 April 2022 white bread. Emulsifiers are commonly used to improve dough handling and baking quality during
Accepted 16 May 2022 bread production. In present study, five emulsifiers (diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono- and di-
glycerides (DATEM), polysorbate 80, sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL), soy lecithin, and sucrose esters)
Keywords: were added during dough preparation of the whole wheat flour at 0.2%, 0.5%, and 1.0% (flour weight
Whole wheat flour basis). Dough rheological behavior and bread quality attributes, such as specific loaf volume and hard-
Dough rheology ness, were measured. The results showed that DATEM, sucrose esters, and SSL increased the resistance
Bread to extension of the dough, whereas soy lecithin and polysorbate 80 increased the extensibility. Soy lec-
Emulsifiers ithin and polysorbate 80 were the only emulsifiers that significantly increased loaf volume compared to
Staling the control. Adding higher levels (1.0%) of sucrose esters, polysorbate 80, and SSL increased the forma-
tion of amylose-lipid complex and mitigate the crumb staling during storage. The results suggested that
the emulsifiers could be applied to contribute to optimum functional quality of whole wheat bread.

1. Introduction with starch [3]. Some emulsifiers exhibit both of the afore-
mentioned properties. Examples of dough strengtheners are
Emulsifiers are a group of compounds with both hydro- diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides
philic and lipophilic moieties, also known as surface active (DATEM), polysorbate, sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL),
agents, or surfactants. In bread, emulsifiers contribute ben- and sucrose esters, while the crumb softeners include
eficial effects beyond their ability to stabilize systems that mono- and di-glycerides, lecithin, and SSL [3,4]. Soy leci-
are thermodynamically unstable by lowering the surface thin is considered a clean-label ingredient, and therefore it
tension at hydrophobic-hydrophilic interfaces [1,2]. Some will likely become a more common replacement for other
of these benefits include improving dough handling proper- emulsifiers due to increasing consumer demand for ingredi-
ties, increasing dough strength and stability, improving gas ent lists that are free from additives they do not recognize.
retention of dough, increasing loaf volume, improving the We have previously reviewed the effect of different im-
sensory characteristic of bread such as creating a finer provers and functional ingredients including enzymes,
crumb structure, decreasing crumb firmness, and delaying emulsifiers, hydrocolloids, and oxidants on whole wheat
staling [1,3]. Emulsifiers used in the baking industry can dough properties and bready quality [5]. The effect of indi-
broadly be divided into two categories: dough strength- vidual enzymes and hydrocolloids on whole wheat dough
eners, which interact primarily with gluten and improve and bread properties were also reported [6,7]. However,
loaf volume; and crumb softeners, which interact primarily the studies available on the effect of emulsifiers were
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yonghui@ksu.edu (Y. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaost.2022.05.001
2590-2598/© 2022 Henan University of Technology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

mostly conducted based on dough and bread from refined time (DDT; time for dough to reach peak consistency), sta-
flour or non-wheat flour. For example, Eduardo et al. [8] bility (time for the top curve to reach peak resistance and
evaluated dough and bread quality of composite flours con- to fall below peak resistance), and mixing tolerance index
taining cassava, maize, and wheat flours, and observed that (MTI; the difference in FU from the top of the curve at
the addition of DATEM and SSL resulted in composite bread peak mixing time to the top of the curve five minutes after
with acceptable qualities close to wheat bread. Moreover, the peak mixing time).
Gómez et al. [9] reported that polysorbate 80 improved
dough and bread properties (i.e., dough strengthening, 2.2.2. Mixograph analyses
loaf softening, and volume increase) with wheat flour par- Dough mixing properties were determined by a
tially substituted with resistant starch as a dietary fiber. mixograph (National Manufacturing, Lincoln, NE, USA).
Grausgruber et al. [10] studied the improvement of bread Flour (10 g, 14.0% moisture basis), water, and emulsifier,
with emulsifiers based on einkorn wheat flour, where addi- when tested, were mixed in a 10 g mixograph bowl at
tion of 0.4% (flour weight basis) DATEM significantly in- 22 °C. The water absorption and mixing time as determined
creased the loaf volume. by midline peak time were used to prepare all samples for
To our knowledge, there still lacks a systematic under- the remaining dough tests.
standing of the effect and function of emulsifiers in whole
wheat system. Therefore, the objectives of this study were 2.2.3. Chen-Hoseney stickiness test
to comparatively determine the effects of five most com- Dough stickiness was analyzed using a TA-XT Plus Tex-
mon emulsifiers (soy lecithin, DATEM, sucrose esters, poly- ture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, Surrey,
sorbate 80, and SSL) on whole wheat dough properties and UK) equipped with a 30 kg load cell. A SMS/Chen-
on the quality of fresh and aged whole wheat bread. Hoseney Dough Stickiness Rig and 25 mm Perspex cylinder
probe were used for the test as described by Huang and
2. Materials and methods Hoseney [12]. At least four replicates were performed for
each dough, and each dough was prepared in duplicate.
2.1. Materials The test was used to determine dough stickiness (in N),
work of adhesion (in N·s), and dough strength/cohesiveness
Whole wheat flour (11.8% moisture content, 15.8% pro- (in mm).
tein) was kindly supplied by Mennel Milling Company
(Fostoria, OH, USA). The emulsifiers polysorbate 80, soy 2.2.4. Kieffer rig uniaxial extensibility
lecithin, SSL, and sucrose esters were purchased from Mod- Uniaxial extensibility was measured using the Kieffer
ernist Pantry (Eliot, ME, USA), and DATEM was obtained dough and gluten extensibility rig on the TA-XT Plus Tex-
from Profood International (Naperville, IL, USA). Food ture Analyzer. Approximately 10 g of prepared dough was
grade calcium propionate was obtained from Niacet Corpo- pressed in a lubricated Teflon molder and allowed to rest
ration (Niagara Falls, NY, USA). Instant yeast, sucrose, so- at 22 °C for 30 min. A strip of dough was removed from
dium chloride, and shortening were obtained from a local the molder and clamped between the plates of the Kieffer
supermarket. rig before each test. A test speed of 3.3 mm/s and trigger
force of 0.049 N were used. Resistance to extension (Rmax,
2.2. Dough properties in N) and extensibility (ERmax, in mm) were recorded as
the peak force and the distance at the peak force, respec-
Each of the five emulsifiers was evaluated in whole tively. At least five strips per dough were tested, and each
wheat dough at three levels: 0.2%, 0.5%, and 1.0% (flour dough was prepared in duplicate.
weight basis, fwb). A control dough without emulsifiers
was also prepared for all analyses. 2.3. Bread baking quality

2.2.1. Farinograph test 2.3.1. Bread-making

Farinograph dough properties were measured with a Bread was baked following the AACC method 10–10.03
50 g doughLAB (Perten Instruments North America, Spring- for straight-dough bread-making [11], with the addition
field, IL, USA), following the 10 min AACCI Method of 0.3 g calcium propionate to prevent mold and without
54–70.01 [11] and extending the test duration as necessary any of the optional ingredients. Two grams of instant
to 12 min beyond the peak resistance or until the top of the yeast (Bellarise Red) was used instead of active dry yeast.
curve fell below 500 FU, whichever was later. The follow- Emulsifiers were added to the formulation according to
ing parameters were determined: water absorption (WA; the experimental design at low, medium, and high levels
percentage (fwb) of water required to reach a dough consis- corresponding to 0.2%, 0.5%, and 1.0% (fwb). Mixing
tency of 500 Farinograph Units (FU)), dough development time and amount of water were based on mixograph data,

60
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

except for mixing times for the SSL treatments, which were 2.4. Statistical analysis
reduced to 6, 7, and 8 min for the low, medium, and high
levels, respectively, based on preliminary baking tests. Im- Treatment means were analyzed via analysis of variance
mediately after baking, volume was determined by rape- (ANOVA) using Tukey's multiple comparisons test in SAS
seed displacement (AACC International 10‐–05.01) [11], Studio 3.7 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Significance was
and the weight was measured. Upon cooling, bread was defined at P < 0.05.
transferred to polyethylene bags and stored at room tem-
perature. The following day, bread was sliced into 15 mm 3. Results and discussions
thick slices for further analysis. Four replicates of each treat-
ment were prepared over four separate days of baking. 3.1. Dough properties

2.3.2. Evaluation of crumb structure 3.1.1. Farinograph and mixograph properties

The central slice of each loaf was photographed using a Emulsifiers did not noticeably affect farinograph WA, al-
C-Cell Bread Imaging System (Calibre Control International though the high levels of sucrose esters and polysorbate 80
Ltd., Appleton, Warrington, UK). Each image was analyzed did increase the WA somewhat, and SSL produced a slight
by the provided software to quantify the number of cells, decrease in WA (Table 1). DDT was also relatively unaf-
cell wall thickness, and cell diameter. fected by emulsifier addition, except for a small decrease
due to polysorbate 80 and an increase with the high level
2.3.3. Texture properties of SSL. SSL has been shown to increase DDT from weak
Crumb texture was analyzed by texture profile analysis flour, but not from strong flour [13]. In white dough, nei-
(TPA) using the TA-XT Plus Texture Analyzer equipped ther DATEM nor lecithin influenced DDT [4]. DATEM, su-
with a TA-11 probe. Single slices of bread (15 mm) were crose esters, and polysorbate 80 decreased stability and
compressed twice at 1.00 mm/s to 50% strain with a increased MTI, indicating a faster breakdown of the
0.049 N trigger force and 1 s pause between compressions. dough. This effect was most noticeable for polysorbate 80.
Parameters recorded were hardness, resilience, cohesion, Conversely, SSL exhibited a strengthening effect on the
springiness, and chewiness. Two of the central slices from dough by increasing stability and decreasing MTI, which
each loaf were analyzed. TPA was performed after storage is consistent with published results for white dough
for 1, 3, and 7 d under ambient conditions (22 °C) to deter- [13,14]. DATEM and polysorbate 80 were expected to in-
mine the effect of emulsifiers on the textural changes in crease stability, based on studies of white dough
whole wheat bread. [4,13–15]. Increasing stability is attributed to the interac-
tion of the ionic surfactants with protein, lipids, and starch
2.3.4. Moisture content in the flour [13]. The difference in mixing property of the
Following TPA, a sample of the crumb (~1 g) from each whole wheat dough and white flour dough may be due to
slice was dried at 105 °C for 3 h in a convection oven. Sam- the interactions between the emulsifier and wheat bran
ples were allowed to cool for 45 min in a desiccator before and germ components, which were absent in white flour.
weighing. Moisture content was determined for bread More research is needed to clarify this supposition and
after storage for 1, 3, and 7 d. determine the molecular interactions involved.
Soy lecithin and DATEM increased WA in the mixograph
2.3.5. Retrogradation tests, whereas the other emulsifiers did not affect WA
Thermal phase transitions of bread stored for 7 d were (Table 1). The emulsifiers tended to increase mixograph
conducted using a Q200 differential scanning calorimeter peak time (Fig. 1). The greatest increase in peak time was
(DSC) (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA). The instru- seen for SSL, which was consistent with the farinograph re-
ment was calibrated with indium as a standard. Approxi- sults for DDT. In white dough, SSL has been shown to in-
mately 20 mg of bread crumb was weighed into a crease midline peak time, while sucrose esters did not
stainless-steel pan and hermetically sealed. Samples were influence midline peak time [16]. DATEM, SSL, sucrose es-
heated from 0 to 150 °C at 10 °C/min under nitrogen atmo- ters, and polysorbate are generally recognized as dough
sphere with a gas flow rate of 50 mL/min. The onset tem- strengtheners [3], and would therefore be expected to in-
perature (To), peak temperature (Tp), and melting crease the mix time.
enthalpy (ΔH, J/g) were determined with TA Universal
Analysis software for the endothermic peaks around 60 °C 3.1.2. Stickiness
and 115–120 °C. These two peaks corresponded to the melt- The results of the Chen-Hoseney stickiness test were
ing of retrograded amylopectin and the amylose-lipid com- displayed in Table 2. Sucrose esters (1.0%), polysorbate
plex, respectively. Two replicates were performed per 80 (0.5%), and SSL (1.0%) significantly decreased dough
treatment. stickiness, work of adhesion, and cohesiveness compared

61
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

Table 1
Farinograph and mixograph properties for whole wheat dough with added emulsifiers.
Treatments Farinograph DDT Stability MTI Mixograph Mixograph
WA (%, fwb) (min) (min) (FU) WA (%, fwb) peak time (min)
Control 73.6 10.0 10.5 33.2 71 5.20
0.2% Soy lecithin 73.6 10.0 10.1 37.7 73 5.45
0.5% Soy lecithin 73.2 10.0 11.4 35.2 74 5.76
1.0% Soy lecithin 72.9 10.0 11.2 33.2 75 5.88
0.2% DATEM 73.5 10.0 9.6 39.3 71 5.65
0.5% DATEM 73.6 10.0 9.3 41.8 72 6.00
1.0% DATEM 73.7 9.8 9.2 42.3 74 6.38
0.2% Sucrose esters 73.2 9.7 9.4 41.8 70 5.59
0.5% Sucrose esters 73.2 10.0 9.3 46.4 70 6.08
1.0% Sucrose esters 75.0 8.8 7.7 46.4 70 5.71
0.2% Polysorbate 80 73.5 9.1 8.8 44.9 70 5.32
0.5% Polysorbate 80 73.3 8.5 7.3 45.4 70 5.82
1.0% Polysorbate 80 75.1 9.2 6.2 57.1 70 4.75
0.2% SSL 73.1 10.0 11.0 24.0 70 7.47
0.5% SSL 72.0 12.0 14.1 16.0 70 9.43
1.0% SSL 72.0 19.0 18.6 9.0 69 9.79

Notes: A: control, B: 0.2% soy lecithin, C: 0.5% soy lecithin, D: 1.0% soy lecithin, E: 0.2% DATEM, F: 0.5% DATEM, G: 1.0% DATEM, H: 0.2% sucrose
esters, I: 0.5% sucrose esters, J: 1.0% sucrose esters, K: 0.2% polysorbate 80, L: 0.5% polysorbate 80, M: 1.0% polysorbate 80, N: 0.2% SSL, O: 0.5% SSL,
P: 1.0% SSL.

Fig. 1. Mixographs of whole wheat dough with different types and levels of emulsifiers.

to the control. DATEM increased dough cohesiveness, con- [13]. Reports on the effect of emulsifiers on dough sticki-
sistent with the work by Armero et al. [17]. A previous re- ness are limited and show mixed results. In whole wheat
port on adhesiveness for white dough found that lecithin, dough, DATEM increased [18] or showed no effect on stick-
DATEM, polysorbate 60, and SSL all decreased adhesion iness [19]. In white dough, DATEM decreased stickiness

62
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

Table 2
Textural properties for whole wheat dough with added emulsifiers.
Treatments Stickiness* (N) Work of adhesion* (N·s) Dough cohesiveness* (mm) Rmax** (N) ERmax** (mm)
abc bcde bcd def
Control 0.359 ± 0.037 0.042 ± 0.012 2.51 ± 0.72 0.287 ± 0.039 27.25 ± 5.34defg
0.2% Soy lecithin 0.372 ± 0.062a 0.049 ± 0.019abc 2.84 ± 0.69abc 0.254 ± 0.027ef 32.30 ± 4.54abcd
0.5% Soy lecithin 0.357 ± 0.036abcd 0.044 ± 0.009abcd 2.43 ± 0.35bcd 0.274 ± 0.029ef 34.60 ± 5.77ab
1.0% Soy lecithin 0.368 ± 0.015ab 0.039 ± 0.005bcde 2.23 ± 0.38cde 0.258 ± 0.047ef 30.67 ± 5.69bcde
0.2% DATEM 0.343 ± 0.019abcde 0.052 ± 0.013ab 3.41 ± 0.88a 0.299 ± 0.034cde 28.87 ± 5.91bcdefg
0.5% DATEM 0.331 ± 0.028abcde 0.046 ± 0.011abc 2.90 ± 0.57abc 0.296 ± 0.030def 31.05 ± 6.66bcde
1.0% DATEM 0.352 ± 0.050abcd 0.057 ± 0.023a 3.22 ± 0.77ab 0.353 ± 0.040b 24.34 ± 1.45fg
0.2% Sucrose esters 0.341 ± 0.019abcde 0.035 ± 0.007cdef 2.43 ± 0.58bcd 0.334 ± 0.018bcd 28.05 ± 3.31cdefg
0.5% Sucrose esters 0.319 ± 0.021cdef 0.026 ± 0.005efg 1.89 ± 0.55def 0.350 ± 0.025b 25.06 ± 3.24efg
1.0% Sucrose esters 0.280 ± 0.016f 0.018 ± 0.003g 1.50 ± 0.35ef 0.368 ± 0.018b 23.92 ± 1.60g
0.2% Polysorbate 80 0.326 ± 0.024abcdef 0.029 ± 0.006defg 1.89 ± 0.26def 0.296 ± 0.030def 31.46 ± 4.23bcd
0.5% Polysorbate 80 0.312 ± 0.015def 0.028 ± 0.004defg 1.94 ± 0.37def 0.257 ± 0.018ef 38.03 ± 3.98a
1.0% Polysorbate 80 0.324 ± 0.022bcdef 0.020 ± 0.003fg 1.27 ± 0.22f 0.250 ± 0.013f 33.94 ± 4.21abc
0.2% SSL 0.364 ± 0.036abc 0.045 ± 0.006abc 2.79 ± 0.52abc 0.346 ± 0.049bc 30.57 ± 3.82bcdef
0.5% SSL 0.338 ± 0.021abcde 0.039 ± 0.010bcde 2.56 ± 0.57bcd 0.374 ± 0.038b 32.59 ± 3.73abcd
1.0% SSL 0.302 ± 0.015ef 0.020 ± 0.006fg 1.44 ± 0.46ef 0.536 ± 0.058a 28.02 ± 2.92cdefg
Notes: Different superscript letters within the same column indicate values are significantly different (P < 0.05). At least 8 replicates were analyzed per
treatment for stickiness test. At least 11 replicates were analyzed per treatment for the Kieffer test.
*
Stickiness, work of adhesion, and dough cohesiveness as measured by the SMS/Chen-Hoseney dough stickiness test.
**
Rmax (resistance to extension) and ERmax (extensibility) as measured by Kieffer dough and gluten extensibility test.

[19], but it had no effect on stickiness in sourdough [17]. primarily through hydrophobic interactions, whereas
SSL has shown either an increase in stickiness [18] or no ef- polysorbate 60 interacted mainly through hydrogen
fect [17]. In white dough, sucrose esters did not impact bonding and resulted in crosslinks among gluten proteins
stickiness [20], but the present study revealed that this [15]. However, previous data from IR spectroscopy sug-
emulsifier decreased dough stickiness. Some of the differ- gested that DATEM can also interact with starch and glu-
ences in textural properties of dough among the literature ten via hydrogen bonding [22]. Nonetheless, the
may be due to the composition of the flour used, beyond chemical makeup of emulsifiers and hence the differences
the white/whole wheat designation, as well as the exact in interactions with the gluten network affect the dough-
makeup of the emulsifiers, and the water absorption and strengthening properties. Dough strengtheners and
mixing procedures employed by different researchers. crumb softeners bind to different regions of the gluten
polymers, and the former bind more strongly than the lat-
3.1.3. Kieffer rig uniaxial extensibility ter [1]. It is believed that the lipophilic tails of emulsifiers
Based on the Kieffer rig test for uniaxial extensibility, attach to hydrophobic regions of gluten proteins [23].
DATEM (1.0%), sucrose esters (0.5% and 1.0%) and all The negatively charged regions of the emulsifiers then
levels of SSL increased the resistance to extension (Rmax) create more electrostatic interactions with gluten pro-
(Table 2). Soy lecithin (0.5%), and the upper levels of teins, increasing protein aggregation [1] and resulting
polysorbate 80 increased the extensibility of the dough, in the dough-strengthening effect [23]. Emulsifiers with
based on the distance at peak resistance, similar to results a high hydrophilic-lipophilic balance, such as DATEM
for white dough [4,15]. Results of the Kieffer test for and SSL, would produce more of these electrostatic inter-
white dough showed that DATEM and SSL increased re- actions and therefore are better strengtheners than emul-
sistance to extension, but the effect on extensibility has sifiers with a low hydrophilic-lipophilic balance, such as
been mixed [9,17]. An increase in Rmax is another indica- lecithin. However, it has also been suggested that
tor of the dough strengthening effect. The extensograph is DATEM and SSL increase DDT by shielding the electro-
another method for evaluating the uniaxial extensibility static charges of gluten [1]. Lecithin has a lesser effect
of dough. The strengthening effect of various emulsifiers on extensograph parameters than the other emulsifiers
including DATEM, polysorbate 60, and SSL has been [13]. A higher value for resistance to extension is consid-
well documented based on extensograph tests for white ered a beneficial attributor for bread making, and it has
dough [4,13–15,21]. Scanning electron microscopy of been positively correlated with loaf volume [21], al-
dough revealed that DATEM created a more continuous though this parameter alone cannot be used to predict
gluten network that enwrapped the starch granules loaf volume. Strain hardening and resistance to deforma-
[15]. Polysorbate 60 resulted in a tight, thick gluten tion are also important factors in determining the baking
film, which may be because DATEM interacts with gluten quality of a flour [24].

63
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

3.2. Bread properties

Moisture loss between
day 1 and 7 (%) 3.2.1. Loaf volume

10.35
10.55

10.56
10.86
11.00

10.39
9.16
7.76
8.23
7.58
9.13
8.32
7.79

9.87

9.56
9.25
The different emulsifiers had varying effects on loaf vol-
ume (Table 3), but the level of emulsifier used did not sub-
stantially affect volume. Of the five emulsifiers tested in this
study, only polysorbate 80 and soy lecithin had significantly
(P < 0.05) improved loaf volume compared to the control.
Holding all other variables constant, loaves made with poly-

39.55 ± 0.51def
content (% wb)
Day 7 moisture

41.38 ± 0.33ab
41.38 ± 0.24ab

41.43 ± 0.56ab

39.81 ± 0.49de
39.85 ± 0.37de
40.37 ± 0.55cd

40.31 ± 0.61cd
40.83 ± 0.48bc

39.40 ± 0.54ef
39.15 ± 0.49ef

39.39 ± 0.58ef
39.08 ± 0.54ef
39.12 ± 0.50ef
sorbate 80 were 77 cm3 larger (12% increase) on average
41.69 ± 0.27a

38.92 ± 0.56f
compared to the control, and loaves with lecithin were an
average of 46 cm3 larger (7% increase) than the control. Su-

Notes: Different superscript letters within the same column indicate values are significantly different (P < 0.05). Four loaves were prepared per treatment.
crose esters increased loaf volume by an average of 41 cm3,
although a wider standard deviation prevented significance
at the 0.05 level.
43.99 ± 0.50bcd
44.07 ± 0.39bcd
44.15 ± 0.40abc

43.56 ± 0.28cde
43.55 ± 0.27cde

43.67 ± 0.39cde
43.45 ± 0.58cde
43.41 ± 0.45cde
43.75 ± 0.22cde
43.68 ± 0.16cde
Improvement in loaf volume due to emulsifiers is gener-
content (% wb)
Day 3 moisture

44.54 ± 0.39ab
44.54 ± 0.84ab

44.65 ± 0.37ab

43.38 ± 0.60de
44.86 ± 0.41a

42.99 ± 0.14e
ally related to their dough-strengthening ability. Other
mechanisms by which emulsifiers increase loaf volume in-
clude increasing gas retention, which leads to improved
oven spring, and increasing the beneficial action of shorten-
ing by aiding in the dispersion of such [1]. Unexpectedly,
the emulsifiers that exhibited dough-strengthening proper-
44.53 ± 0.15bcd
44.44 ± 0.25cde
44.86 ± 0.33abc

43.89 ± 0.21fgh
44.36 ± 0.18def

44.04 ± 0.34efg

44.02 ± 0.15efg
content (% wb)
Day 1 moisture

43.77 ± 0.41gh

43.85 ± 0.58gh
44.92 ± 0.12ab
43.95 ± 0.20fg

43.95 ± 0.22fg

43.91 ± 0.19fg

ties in this study were not the ones that significantly im-
43.43 ± 0.15h
45.09 ± 0.21a
45.11 ± 0.24a

proved loaf volume. For example, DATEM, sucrose esters,

and SSL all increased resistance to extension (Table 2).
The levels of these emulsifiers may have produced too
Weight, volume, specific volume, and moisture content for whole wheat bread with added emulsifiers.

strong of a dough strengthening effect, hindering expansion

of the dough during proofing and the early stages of baking
when oven spring occurs. DATEM and SSL are two of the
4.34 ± 0.25abcd
4.55 ± 0.18abcd

4.36 ± 0.25abcd
4.57 ± 0.21abcd
4.54 ± 0.21abcd
Specific volume

4.29 ± 0.13bcd
4.26 ± 0.18bcd
4.21 ± 0.14bcd

4.22 ± 0.32bcd
4.69 ± 0.16abc
4.70 ± 0.14ab
4.18 ± 0.13cd

4.07 ± 0.07d

4.17 ± 0.25d
4.08 ± 0.27d
4.84 ± 0.18a

most common dough strengtheners in bread making, and

(cm3/g)

most research reports an increase in loaf volume with

these additives for both white and whole wheat bread
[25–30]. However, arabinoxylans in whole wheat flour in-
teract with gluten in a way that produces a higher resistance
to extension than white dough [31]. Therefore, an increase
671 ± 34abcde
686 ± 35abcd

686 ± 19abcd

701 ± 30abcd
705 ± 29abcd
664 ± 25bcde
660 ± 23bcde

in resistance to extension may not be desirable for whole

651 ± 16cde

719 ± 27abc

649 ± 11de

721 ± 19ab

724 ± 23ab
649 ± 44de
640 ± 35de
Volume

740 ± 23a

626 ± 37e
(cm3)

wheat dough if the goal is to improve loaf volume. Rather,

a decrease in resistance to extension has been shown to in-
crease loaf volume for whole wheat bread [30–32]. The
dough-strengthening emulsifiers may necessitate a greater
increase in baking water absorption than what was used
Moisture content is average of eight replicates.
155.84 ± 0.99
158.19 ± 1.28
157.93 ± 0.75
160.03 ± 0.82
155.90 ± 0.96
156.88 ± 0.83
159.51 ± 0.39
153.99 ± 1.25
153.50 ± 0.57
155.15 ± 0.91
153.50 ± 0.72
152.89 ± 1.04
154.29 ± 0.46
153.75 ± 1.20
153.48 ± 0.82
153.68 ± 1.14

in the present study. The water absorptions used for baking

Weight

were the same as the mixograph water absorptions

(g)

(Table 1). Models of dough properties and loaf volume as

a function of water absorption and SSL suggest that high
levels of both are required for good loaf volume of whole
wheat bread [29]. When comparing the results of emulsi-
fiers in the literature, it should be noted that variations in
0.2% Polysorbate 80
0.5% Polysorbate 80
1.0% Polysorbate 80
0.2% Sucrose esters
0.5% Sucrose esters
1.0% Sucrose esters
0.2% Soy lecithin
0.5% Soy lecithin
1.0% Soy lecithin
0.2% DATEM
0.5% DATEM
1.0% DATEM

the fatty acid residues of the phospholipids in the emulsi-

Treatment

0.2% SSL
0.5% SSL
1.0% SSL
Control

fiers [33,34], as well as the fermentation or proof time

[27] will contribute to the differences among studies. For
Table 3

example, DATEM containing unsaturated fatty acids (18:1,

18:2) resulted in an increase of the loaf volume [34].

64
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

The emulsifiers can have more positive effect on bread prepared with 70% water absorption (fwb) compared to
volume when in conjunction with longer proofing time 71% for the control. A similar trend was observed for the
(i.e., 150 min). moisture loss from the crumb from Day 1 to Day 7:
The two emulsifiers that significantly increased loaf vol- DATEM and soy lecithin appeared to help with moisture re-
ume, lecithin and polysorbate 80, also increased extensibil- tention during storage, while sucrose esters, polysorbate 80,
ity of the dough without significantly decreasing resistance and SSL had the opposite effect (Table 3). SSL, polysorbate
to extension (Table 2). The greater extensibility likely 60, and mono- and di-glycerides have been shown to
allowed for greater expansion during proofing and oven increase moisture migration from crumb to crust [37].
spring [35]. Other factors are also involved. Lecithin is com-
posed largely of polar lipids, mainly phospholipids and gly- 3.2.3. Crumb structure
colipids, plus smaller concentrations of nonpolar lipids and Emulsifiers did not significantly increase the number of
nonlipid material [36]. Phospholipids have a weakening ef- cells in the crumb of whole wheat bread compared to the
fect on dough during mixing, but exert their beneficial ef- control, although minor differences were observed between
fects during proofing and baking, stabilizing the gas treatments (Table 4). Sucrose esters, polysorbate 80, and
bubble interface and increasing gas holding capacity [33]. SSL increased the cell wall thickness compared to the con-
The minor phospholipids in lecithin, not phosphatidylcho- trol. Sucrose esters and polysorbate 80 also increased cell
line, have the greatest effect on baking performance, and re- diameter. Objective measurements of cell structure for
combinant mixtures of phospholipids can be more effective emulsifier-supplemented whole wheat bread are not well
than crude and defatted lecithins [33]. The composition reported, but subjective evaluations generally report small
and fatty acid residue of the phospholipids, rather than improvements in the sensory characteristics of the crumb
the total concentration of phospholipids, are the primary [28,30,38,39]. An improvement in crumb grain is related
determinants of the effect on loaf volume. Saturated fatty to the ability of emulsifiers to increase air incorporation
acids are believed to be more beneficial than unsaturated during mixing, or to increase the number of air cells without
fatty acids. Besides phospholipids, the glycolipids in leci- an increase in the total volume of air incorporated [1]. The
thin also influence functionality, reportedly by directly or creation and stabilization of smaller air cells is due to a de-
indirectly stabilizing the liquid film lamellae at the interface crease in surface tension or by preventing proteins or lipids
of the dough liquor and gas cells [36]. from disrupting the lamella lining the gas cells [1]. The lack
of significant change in cell number may be due to chemical
3.2.2. Moisture content or physical destabilizing or interacting effects of the bran
The emulsifiers that increased water absorption of the and germ in whole wheat flour. Polysorbate 60 has been
dough, DATEM and soy lecithin, increased moisture con- shown to form a tight, thick gluten network compared to
tent of bread on Day 1 and Day 7 compared to the control dough without emulsifier [15]. A similar result for polysor-
(Table 3). The other emulsifiers decreased moisture content bate 80, sucrose esters, and SSL may explain the thickening
of the bread, which was expected because the doughs were of cell walls observed in the present study.

Table 4
Crumb structure analysis of whole wheat bread with added emulsifiers.
Treatment Number of cells Cell wall thickness (mm) Cell diameter (mm)
abc c
Control 3873 ± 84 0.403 ± 0.002 1.64 ± 0.06c
0.2% Soy lecithin 3953 ± 232ab 0.410 ± 0.005bc 1.70 ± 0.06abc
0.5% Soy lecithin 3987 ± 196a 0.410 ± 0.006bc 1.74 ± 0.10abc
1.0% Soy lecithin 3932 ± 231ab 0.408 ± 0.008bc 1.67 ± 0.08bc
0.2% DATEM 3793 ± 114abc 0.409 ± 0.005bc 1.71 ± 0.07abc
0.5% DATEM 3731 ± 152abc 0.411 ± 0.005bc 1.70 ± 0.09abc
1.0% DATEM 3735 ± 40abc 0.410 ± 0.003bc 1.67 ± 0.03bc
0.2% Sucrose esters 3586 ± 199abc 0.418 ± 0.002ab 1.76 ± 0.04abc
0.5% Sucrose esters 3596 ± 138abc 0.421 ± 0.003ab 1.82 ± 0.06abc
1.0% Sucrose esters 3527 ± 119bc 0.428 ± 0.004a 1.88 ± 0.06a
0.2% Polysorbate 80 3863 ± 109abc 0.416 ± 0.004abc 1.79 ± 0.08abc
0.5% Polysorbate 80 3761 ± 100abc 0.419 ± 0.005ab 1.83 ± 0.07ab
1.0% Polysorbate 80 3683 ± 57abc 0.419 ± 0.004ab 1.85 ± 0.10ab
0.2% SSL 3682 ± 301abc 0.412 ± 0.005bc 1.75 ± 0.09abc
0.5% SSL 3467 ± 224c 0.417 ± 0.007ab 1.78 ± 0.05abc
1.0% SSL 3453 ± 295c 0.417 ± 0.010ab 1.71 ± 0.11abc
Notes: Different superscript letters within the same column indicate values are significantly different (P < 0.05). Four replicates were analyzed per
treatment.

65
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

3.2.4. Textural properties of bread

Slope rate of
firming
After 1 day of storage, only polysorbate 80 and the

0.83
0.73
0.69
0.74
0.85
0.78
0.75
0.80
0.71
0.55
0.75
0.68
0.57
0.84
0.66
0.67
highest level of sucrose esters led to a significant decrease
in crumb hardness compared to the control (Table 5). Soy
lecithin showed a trend for increasing resilience and spring-

7.52 ± 0.73abcde

7.53 ± 0.82abcde
iness. Other textural changes included a decrease in resil-
8.10 ± 0.77abcd
7.50 ± 0.63bcde

7.45 ± 1.38bcde

7.40 ± 1.15cdef
8.38 ± 0.85abc

8.55 ± 0.94abc
8.66 ± 0.59abc
8.33 ± 0.97abc

8.69 ± 1.22abc
hardness (N)

6.71 ± 0.56def
8.93 ± 0.73ab

6.24 ± 0.71ef
9.04 ± 0.75a

5.90 ± 0.55f
ience, springiness, and/or chewiness for at least one level
Day 7

of sucrose esters, polysorbate 80, and SSL. Very low spring-

iness values, when coupled with low values for crumb hard-
ness, indicate bread that falls apart quickly during chewing,
which is usually considered less desirable. The reductions

Notes: Different superscript letters within the same column indicate values are significantly different (P < 0.05). Eight replicates were analyzed per treatment.
4.40 ± 0.25bcd

4.40 ± 0.55bcd
4.78 ± 0.47abc

5.01 ± 0.75abc
4.21 ± 0.51cde

5.07 ± 0.77abc

4.32 ± 0.58cde
observed for these related texture parameters were not se-
5.23 ± 0.49ab

3.84 ± 0.47de

3.90 ± 0.46de
hardness (N)
5.65 ± 0.56a

5.42 ± 0.41a
5.36 ± 0.37a
5.49 ± 0.38a
5.57 ± 0.33a

3.48 ± 0.26e
vere and probably would not reduce eating quality of the
Day 3

bread.
A major cause of the initial reduction in crumb hardness is
most likely the increase in loaf volume, which creates a less
dense crumb that is more readily compressed. After 3 and 7
2.30 ± 0.29abcde

2.14 ± 0.24bcdef
2.07 ± 0.14cdefg
2.36 ± 0.27abcd

2.41 ± 0.21abcd
2.00 ± 0.31defg

1.98 ± 0.19defg
2.51 ± 0.26abc

1.83 ± 0.34efg

days of storage, all treatments had lower crumb hardness

2.57 ± 0.29ab
2.54 ± 0.33ab

1.79 ± 0.27fg
Chewiness

1.63 ± 0.16g
2.69 ± 0.30a

2.68 ± 0.25a

2.71 ± 0.37a

values than the control, although this effect was not signifi-
(N)

cant for all cases (Table 5). On day 7, the lowest hardness
value was obtained for 1.0% polysorbate 80, which had a
35% reduction compared to the control. This treatment as
well as 1.0% sucrose esters gave the most drastic reduction
94.86 ± 0.77abcd

94.50 ± 1.05abcd

94.38 ± 0.43abcd

94.61 ± 0.53abcd
94.72 ± 0.91abcd
93.79 ± 0.68bcde
95.13 ± 1.13abc

93.36 ± 1.94cde

in the rate of crumb firming, displaying substantial anti-

95.61 ± 1.10ab

93.16 ± 0.97de
92.00 ± 1.10ef

88.24 ± 1.62g
96.16 ± 1.03a
96.16 ± 0.84a
Springiness

90.99 ± 0.69f

90.16 ± 1.09f

staling effects (Table 5). Among all 15 treatments, only

(%)

1.0% addition of SSL reduced the extent of amylopectin ret-

rogradation (Table 6), so it seems unlikely that this is a major
cause of the reduction in crumb hardness and rate of firming.
In fact, some of the treatments had an increase in amylopec-
0.682 ± 0.018bcd

0.685 ± 0.012bcd
0.697 ± 0.013abc

0.670 ± 0.011cde
0.707 ± 0.016ab

0.707 ± 0.014ab
0.700 ± 0.015ab
0.700 ± 0.018ab

0.702 ± 0.014ab

0.708 ± 0.011ab
0.708 ± 0.018ab

0.658 ± 0.007de
0.687 ± 0.011bc
0.693 ± 0.028bc
0.724 ± 0.014a

0.648 ± 0.023e

tin retrogradation along with a decrease in crumb hardness

Cohesion

at Day 7. This was the case for 1.0% polysorbate 80, the
treatment with the greatest reduction in crumb firmness.
Texture profile analysis after 1 d storage at 22 °C and hardness on days 3 and 7.

A reduction in initial crumb hardness for whole wheat

bread has been reported for DATEM [28,38], lecithin
[28], polysorbates [28], and SSL [28,38], and decrease in
32.30 ± 1.69cdef
33.43 ± 1.45bcd

33.46 ± 1.74bcd
33.63 ± 1.91bcd

32.42 ± 1.37cde

31.04 ± 2.19def
29.76 ± 1.03efg

crumb staling has been reported for DATEM [30] and SSL
27.14 ± 1.15gh
35.17 ± 1.93ab

35.88 ± 1.39ab

32.43 ± 1.62cd

33.79 ± 1.09bc
29.73 ± 1.30fg

26.48 ± 0.84h
37.18 ± 1.29a

23.31 ± 1.63i
Resilience

[28]. Most of the studies on the anti-staling effects of emul-

(%)

sifiers are based on white bread, but they provide valuable

insight into the proposed mechanisms of these effects. Pri-
mary reasons for a reduction in fresh bread firmness are in-
creased loaf volume and a finer crumb structure [29].
3.48 ± 0.47abcde
3.32 ± 0.50bcdef

3.27 ± 0.64bcdef
3.73 ± 0.49abcd

3.89 ± 0.54abcd
3.83 ± 0.58abcd

3.59 ± 0.47abcd

3.75 ± 0.50abcd
3.62 ± 0.45abcd

Furthermore, emulsifiers interact with starch and hence

3.09 ± 0.24cdef
3.95 ± 0.45abc
Hardness (N)

3.02 ± 0.61def
4.07 ± 0.55ab

2.67 ± 0.42ef
4.22 ± 0.65a

2.55 ± 0.27f

delay water absorption and starch swelling, which produces

a softer initial texture [1]. Amylose complexed with emulsi-
fiers, such as monoglycerides, does not gel during baking
and hence cannot recrystallize, hence reducing the firmness
of fresh bread, since amylose recrystallization occurs within
0.2% Polysorbate 80
0.5% Polysorbate 80
1.0% Polysorbate 80

the first 24 h of storage [3].

0.2% Sucrose esters
0.5% Sucrose esters
1.0% Sucrose esters
0.2% Soy lecithin
0.5% Soy lecithin
1.0% Soy lecithin
0.2% DATEM
0.5% DATEM
1.0% DATEM

Several mechanisms may produce the decrease in crumb

Treatments

0.2% SSL
0.5% SSL
1.0% SSL
Control

firming over time obtained through emulsifier supplemen-

tation. The binding of emulsifiers with starch granules de-
Table 5

lays moisture migration from crumb to crust, presumably

by preventing its redistribution from gluten to starch as

66
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

Table 6
Retrogradation parameters stored at 22 °C for 7 days.
Treatments Tm1 onset (°C) Tm1 peak (°C) ΔH1 (J/g) Tm2 onset (°C) Tm2 peak (°C) ΔH2 (J/g)
a de bc a
Control 53.53 ± 0.37 65.50 ± 1.21 1.36 ± 0.03 101.63 ± 0.01 119.70 ± 0.28 1.52 ± 0.02def
0.2% Soy lecithin 52.77 ± 0.58ab 64.43 ± 0.80 1.64 ± 0.01cd 101.38 ± 0.81bc 116.38 ± 1.50abcd 1.19 ± 0.02efg
0.5% Soy lecithin 52.20 ± 0.32b 63.63 ± 0.42 1.74 ± 0.07bcd 98.93 ± 1.20c 114.44 ± 0.83d 0.93 ± 0.02g
1.0% Soy lecithin 52.73 ± 0.29ab 64.55 ± 0.55 1.59 ± 0.05cde 99.08 ± 2.20c 114.74 ± 2.44bcd 1.14 ± 0.07fg
0.2% DATEM 52.70 ± 0.38ab 65.23 ± 0.14 1.50 ± 0.10cde 103.03 ± 1.63bc 118.29 ± 0.62abcd 1.19 ± 0.08efg
0.5% DATEM 52.08 ± 0.36b 63.31 ± 0.02 1.82 ± 0.03bc 98.93 ± 0.57c 114.57 ± 0.06cd 1.01 ± 0.03g
1.0% DATEM 52.62 ± 0.19ab 65.14 ± 0.29 1.59 ± 0.14cde 99.81 ± 0.23c 114.60 ± 0.30bcd 1.15 ± 0.04efg
0.2% Sucrose esters 52.55 ± 0.33ab 65.01 ± 0.42 1.58 ± 0.03cde 102.94 ± 1.66bc 119.05 ± 0.34ab 1.44 ± 0.09def
0.5% Sucrose esters 52.76 ± 0.25ab 66.25 ± 1.92 2.12 ± 0.14ab 106.65 ± 2.88ab 119.75 ± 2.28a 1.67 ± 0.05cd
1.0% Sucrose esters 52.74 ± 0.15ab 66.56 ± 0.32 1.59 ± 0.03cde 106.32 ± 0.88ab 120.35 ± 0.30a 2.42 ± 0.19b
0.2% Polysorbate 80 52.44 ± 0.61ab 64.94 ± 3.05 1.73 ± 0.05bcd 101.71 ± 2.41bc 119.78 ± 2.09a 1.55 ± 0.10de
0.5% Polysorbate 80 52.40 ± 0.08ab 64.39 ± 0.69 1.69 ± 0.11cd 103.20 ± 0.45abc 119.53 ± 0.58a 1.63 ± 0.01d
1.0% Polysorbate 80 52.33 ± 0.28ab 64.62 ± 0.73 1.82 ± 0.01bc 101.96 ± 0.23bc 120.25 ± 0.33a 2.07 ± 0.11bc
0.2% SSL 51.99 ± 0.29b 65.54 ± 0.14 2.37 ± 0.04a 103.95 ± 0.52abc 118.94 ± 0.13abc 1.65 ± 0.02d
0.5% SSL 52.29 ± 0.02ab 64.39 ± 0.69 1.22 ± 0.06ef 106.54 ± 0.27ab 119.66 ± 0.15a 2.14 ± 0.02b
1.0% SSL 52.50 ± 0.20ab 66.34 ± 0.04 0.86 ± 0.06f 108.48 ± 0.73a 119.96 ± 0.34a 2.93 ± 0.04a
Notes: Different superscript letters within the same column indicate values are significantly different (P < 0.05). Tests were performed in duplicate.

the bread ages, which contributes to the anti-staling effect, amylopectin after 7 days of storage, as measured by the
as was demonstrated for SSL and mono- and di-glycerides first endothermic peak in the DSC thermogram (Table 6).
[37]. Sucrose esters can form complexes with proteins and One level each of DATEM, sucrose esters, polysorbate 80,
with starch, and these interactions may lead to the anti- and SSL actually increased amylopectin retrogradation.
staling effect [2]. Lecithin exerts an anti-staling effect by The emulsifiers did not change the peak melting tempera-
complexing with amylose, as well as preventing amylopec- ture of recrystallized amylopectin, although there were
tin retrogradation due to the lysophospholipids present in minor decreases in the onset temperature. Rao et al. [41]
lecithin [29]. In this study, the most effective crumb soft- found that 0.5% sucrose esters and SSL individually re-
eners actually led to loaves with a lower moisture content duced amylopectin retrogradation, whereas Xu et al. [42]
compared to the control. However, this finding does not reported that SSL inhibited amylopectin retrogradation
imply that a higher moisture content results in greater while DATEM and sucrose esters did not. The prevention
crumb firming. The distribution of water within the of retrogradation is related to the ability of an emulsifier
crumb, along with several other factors, are important to to interact with starch. SSL and monoglycerides are gener-
the textural quality [3,5]. ally considered the most effective anti-staling agents [1],
Despite a non-significant decrease in loaf volume, SSL and SSL has the greatest affinity for binding to starch
decreased crumb hardness on days 3 and 7 and reduced among SSL, polysorbate 60, and mono- and di-glycerides
the rate of crumb firming. The effectiveness of SSL to reduce [37].
the rate of staling is attributed to its ability to form com- Regarding the second peak, which is centered around
plexes with both amylose and amylopectin [3]. SSL supple- 114–120 °C and corresponds to the dissociation and melting
mentation decreases the amount of water soluble starch, a of the amylose-lipid complex [43], soy lecithin and DATEM
substance that creates a rigid matrix between gluten and decreased the peak temperature and melting enthalpy com-
starch granules within cell walls [40]. A decrease in soluble pared to the control. Conversely, the high levels of sucrose es-
starch therefore leads to a softer crumb. Additionally, SSL ters, polysorbate 80, and SSL increased the amount of
reduces the ability of starch to absorb water, either by amylose-lipid complex. In bread made with a blend of
chemically binding to starch or by physically shielding it. white flour and resistant maize starch, individual addition
Therefore, more water is available to hydrate the gluten of SSL, polysorbate 80, or DATEM did not alter the amount
network, allowing it to remain flexible [40]. Dough of amylose-lipid complex after 1 and 7 days of storage, al-
strengtheners including SSL may also result in crumb soft- though significant increasing effects were found for the com-
ening due to the denaturation or change in configuration bination of SSL and DATEM [9]. An increase in the amount of
of gluten protein [5,37]. amylose-lipids complex has been correlated with softer
crumb, although other authors have found no such relation-
3.2.5. Starch retrogradation ship [1,44]. The complex is also believed to decrease the ex-
Among all of the treatments, only the highest level of SSL tent of amylopectin retrogradation, because the complexed
significantly reduced the amount of retrograded amylose cannot co-crystallize with amylopectin [43].

67
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

4. Conclusions Mention of trade names or commercial products in this pub-

lication is solely for the purpose of providing specific infor-
Overall results of dough tests showed that DATEM, su- mation and does not imply recommendation or
crose esters, and SSL exhibited dough-strengthening activ- endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA
ity, though none of those emulsifiers significantly is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
increased loaf volume compared to the control. Rather,
soy lecithin and polysorbate 80 were the only emulsifiers References
that led to a significant improvement in loaf volume versus
[1] B. Pareyt, S.M. Finnie, J.A. Putseys, et al., Lipids in bread making: sources,
the control. It appears that an increase in dough strength, as interactions, and impact on bread quality, J. Cereal Sci. 54 (2001)
determined by resistance to extension, was not necessarily 266–279.
[2] Z. Kohajdová, J. Karovičová, Š. Schmidt, Significance of emulsifiers and
beneficial to the loaf volume of whole wheat bread. How- hydrocolloids in bakery industry, Acta Chim. Slov. 2 (2009) 46–61.
ever, the effects on dough and bread are expected to vary [3] L. Stampfli, B. Nersten, Emulsifiers in bread making, Food Chem. 52
(1995) 353–360.
with different types of emulsifiers. All of the emulsifiers re- [4] L. Stampfli, B. Nersten, E.L. Molteberg, Effects of emulsifiers on
duced the rate of staling as measured by crumb firming over farinograph and extensograph measurements, Food Chem. 57 (1996)
1 week, with the most effective treatments being 1.0% of ei- 523–530.
[5] L. Tebben, Y. Shen, Y. Li, Improvers and functional ingredients in whole
ther sucrose esters or polysorbate 80. Neither initial crumb wheat bread: a review of their effects on dough properties and bread qual-
hardness nor loaf volume seemed to be an indicator of hard- ity, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 81 (2018) 10–24.
[6] L. Tebben, G. Chen, M. Tilley, et al., Individual effects of enzymes and vital
ness on Day 7 or of the rate of firming. Additionally, no wheat gluten on whole wheat dough and bread properties, J. Food Sci. 85
clear relationship was found between amylopectin retrogra- (2020) 4201–4208.
[7] L. Tebben, G. Chen, M. Tilley, et al., Improvement of whole wheat dough
dation and crumb hardness or rate of firming. and bread qualities with hydrocolloids, Cereal Technol. 3 (2021) 116–128.
The mechanisms behind the anti-staling activities of [8] M. Eduardo, U. Svanberg, L. Ahrne, Effect of hydrocolloids and emulsifiers
on baking quality of composite cassava–maize–wheat breads, Int. J. Food
these emulsifiers in whole wheat bread has yet to be Sci. 2014 (2014) 479630.
completely understood. Future work may examine the pro- [9] A. Gómez, D. Buchner, C. Tadini, et al., Emulsifiers: effects on quality of
posed interactions with starch and gluten, and how those fibre-enriched wheat bread, Food Bioprocess Technol. 6 (2013)
1228–1239.
influence bread staling. Furthermore, the interactions be- [10] H. Grausgruber, S. Miesenberger, R. Schoenlechner, et al., Influence of
tween emulsifiers and the components of wheat bran and dough improvers on whole-grain bread quality of einkorn wheat, Acta
Aliment. 37 (2008) 379–390.
germ should be investigated, in order to explain the differ- [11] AACC International (Ed.), Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th ed, AACC
ences in effects on whole wheat dough and bread compared International, St. Paul, MN, 2002.
[12] W.N. Huang, R.C. Hoseney, Isolation and identification of a wheat flour
to reported results in dough and bread made from refined compound causing sticky dough, Cereal Chem. 76 (1999) 276–281.
flour. [13] D. Indrani, G.V. Rao, Influence of surfactants on rheological characteris-
tics of dough and quality of parotta, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 38
(2003) 47–54.
Author Contributions [14] R. Ravi, R.S. Manohar, P.H. Rao, Influence of additives on the rheological
characteristics and baking quality of wheat flours, Eur. Food Res. Technol.
210 (2000) 202–208.
Lauren Tebben: Methodology, validation, formal analy- [15] S. Ding, J. Yang, The influence of emulsifiers on the rheological properties
sis, investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review of wheat flour dough and quality of fried instant noodles, LWT - Food Sci.
& editing; Gengjun Chen: Writing – review & editing; Technol. 53 (2013) 61–69.
[16] C.E. Lang, E.K. Neises, C.E. Walker, Effects of additives on flour-water
Michael Tilley: Resources, writing – review & editing; dough mixograms, Cereal Chem. 69 (1999) 587–591.
Yonghui Li: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analy- [17] E. Armero, C. Collar, Texture properties of formulated wheat doughs: rela-
tionships with dough and bread technological quality, Eur. Food Res.
sis, investigation, resources, writing – review & editing, Technol. 204 (1997) 136–145.
supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. [18] S. Patil, S. Arya, Influence of additives on dough rheology and quality of
Thepla: an Indian unleavened flatbread, J. Food Meas. Charact. 10
(2016) 327–335.
[19] A.S. Colakoglu, H. Özkaya, Potential use of exogenous lipases for DATEM
Conflicts of Interest replacement to modify the rheological and thermal properties of wheat
flour dough, J. Cereal Sci. 55 (2012) 397–404.
[20] A. Sangnark, A. Noomhorm, Effect of dietary fiber from sugarcane bagasse
The authors declare that there is no known competing and sucrose ester on dough and bread properties, LWT - Food Sci Technol.
interest. 37 (2014) 697–704.
[21] S. Kenny, K. Wehrle, T. Dennehy, et al., Correlations between empirical
and fundamental rheology measurements and baking performance of fro-
Acknowledgements zen bread dough, Cereal Chem. 76 (1999) 421–425.
[22] W. Hähnel, I. Jussofie, F. Müller, Investigations into the properties of emul-
sifiers in yeast-leavened dough by means of infrared spectroscopy, Eur.
This is contribution 22-214-J from the Kansas Agricul- Food Res. Technol. 200 (1995) 244–246.
tural Experimental Station. This work was supported in part [23] E. Armero, C. Collar, Crumb firming kinetics of wheat breads with anti-
staling additives, J. Cereal Sci. 28 (1998) 165–174.
by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [24] J.J. Kokelaar, T. van Vliet, A. Prins, Strain hardening properties and exten-
Hatch project KS17HA1008 and USDA Agricultural Re- sibility of flour and gluten doughs in relation to breadmaking performance,
J. Cereal Sci. 24 (1996) 199–214.
search Service Cooperative Agreement 58-3020-9-017.

68
L. Tebben et al. Grain & Oil Science and Technology 5 (2022) 59–69

[25] A. Aamodt, E.M. Magnus, E.M. Færgestad, Effect of flour quality, ascorbic [35] W. Bae, S.H. Lee, S. Yoo, et al., Utilization of a maltotetraose-producing
acid, and DATEM on dough rheological parameters and hearth loaves char- amylase as a whole wheat bread improver: dough rheology and baking per-
acteristics, J. Food Sci. 68 (2003) 2201–2210. formance, J. Food Sci. 79 (2014) E1535–E1540.
[26] E. Armero, C. Collar, Antistaling additives, flour type and sourdough pro- [36] P.L. Selmair, P. Koehler, Molecular structure and baking performance of in-
cess effects on functionality of wheat doughs, J. Food Sci. 61 (1996) dividual glycolipid classes from lecithins, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009)
299–303. 5597–5609.
[27] M. Gómez, S. del Real, C. Rosell, et al., Functionality of different emulsi- [37] W. Pisesookbunterng, D.L., D’Appolonia, bread staling studies. 1. Effect of
fiers on the performance of breadmaking and wheat bread quality, Eur. surfactants on moisture migration from crumb to crust and firmness values
Food Res. Technol. 219 (2004) 145–150. of bread crumb, Cereal Chem. 60 (1983) 298–300.
[28] D. Indrani, G.V. Rao, Effect of improvers on the quality of whole wheat- [38] E. Armero, C. Collar, Antistaling additive effects on fresh wheat bread qual-
flour bread, J. Food Sci. Tech. Mys. 29 (1992) 357–359. ity, Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2 (1996) 323–333.
[29] C.S. Lai, A.B. Davis, R.C. Hoseney, Production of whole wheat bread with [39] D. Indrani, G.V. Rao, Effect of ingredients on the quality of whole wheat-
good loaf volume, Cereal Chem. 66 (1989) 224–227. flour bread, J. Food Sci. Tech. Mys. 29 (1992) 360–363.
[30] E. Mettler, W. Seibel, Effects of emulsifiers and hydrocolloids on whole [40] I.M. Shaikh, S.K. Ghodke, L. Ananthanarayan, Inhibition of staling in cha-
wheat bread quality—a response-surface methodology study, Cereal pati (Indian unleavened flat bread), J. Food Process. Preserv. 32 (2008)
Chem. 70 (1993) 373–377. 378–403.
[31] B. Altınel, S.S. Ünal, The effects of amyloglucosidase, glucose oxidase and [41] P.A. Rao, A. Nussinovitch, P. Chinachoti, Effects of selected surfactants on
hemicellulase utilization on the rheological behaviour of dough and quality amylopectin recrystallization and on recoverability of bread crumb during
characteristics of bread, Int. J. Food Eng. 13 (2017) 20160066. storage, Cereal Chem. 69 (1992) 613–618.
[32] B. Altinel, S.S. Ünal, The effects of certain enzymes on the rheology of [42] A. Xu, K. Chung, J.G. Ponte, Bread crumb amylograph studies. I. Effects of
dough and the quality characteristics of bread prepared from wheat storage time, shortening, flour lipids, and surfactants, Cereal Chem. 69
meal, J. Food Sci. Technol. 54 (2017) 1628–1637. (1992) 495–501.
[33] G. Helmerich, P. Koehler, Functional properties of individual classes of [43] S. Davidou, M. Le Meste, E. Debever, et al., A contribution to the study of
phospholipids in breadmaking, J. Cereal Sci. 42 (2005) 233–241. staling of white bread: effect of water and hydrocolloid, Food Hydrocoll.
[34] P. Köhler, W. Grosch, Study of the effect of DATEM. 1. Influence of fatty 10 (1996) 375–383.
acid chain length on rheology and baking, J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 [44] J.A. Gray, J.N. Bemiller, Bread staling: molecular basis and control, Compr.
(1999) 1863–1869. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2 (2003) 1–21.

69