Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Study
1. Introduction
Celiac disease (CD), an immune-mediated enteropathy caused by the ingestion of gluten in
genetically susceptible individuals, is one of the most common lifelong disorders. At present,
the only available treatment for CD is a strict gluten free diet. The estimated prevalence of
this disease is about 1% of the general population, and it affects persons of any age, race, and
ethnic group (Fasano &Catassi, 2012). Recently, the market of gluten-free foods grew not
only for the increment of CD incidence; consumers consider glutenfree foods appealing
because they perceive these products as healthy, although no scientific evidences are still
published about (Capriles &Ar^eas, 2014). Among gluten-free foods, bread is the most
important. The development and/or improvement of glutenfree bread appear as a big
challenge of food technology in view of the unique role of gluten in yeast-leavened baked
goods and in bread-making process. The absence of gluten is well known to show a great
influence on dough rheology also leading to bread with crumbling texture, poor colour, not
satisfying taste and low specific volume (Houben H€ochst€otter, &Becker, 2012). Bread is
alsoperishable; its integrity begins to deteriorate immediately after baking due to the chemical
and physical changes that occur during the well-known staling process (Gray &Bemiller,
2003). Glutenfree breads are reported to show a short shelf-life, probably as a consequence of
the lack of the viscoelastic network formed by gluten that is responsible for slowing down the
movement of water (Houben, H€ochst€otter, &Becker, 2012). In the last years, different
challenges (e.g. different gluten-free flours and starches, new additives, novel technologies)
have been developed to overcome these problems, as reported in two interesting reviews
recently published (Segura &Rosell, 2015 and references therein cited; Capriles &Ar^eas,
2014 and references therein cited). In this context, the point currently most debated in
literature is the improvement of the nutritional value of gluten-free breads by adding
ingredients with a high nutritional value, as the gluten-free dietary pattern is often
characterised by an excessive consumption of fats and reduced intake of complex
carbohydrates, dietary fibre, vitamins and minerals (Pellegrini &Agostoni, 2015; Segura
&Rosell, 2011).
The nutritional quality of gluten-free breads could be improved by incorporating nutrient-
dense alternative flours and/or ingredientswith the nutritional purpose of increasing fibres'
content above all but also nutrients and phytochemicals such as g fruit- and vegetable-based
ingredients (Capriles &Ar^eas, 2014). Fitting in with this outlook, in the last years chestnut
flour received more and more attention due to its nutritional and health benefits both onwheat
and gluten-free bread. Chestnut flour contains high qualityproteins with essential amino acids
(4e7 g/100 g), dietary fibre (4e10 g/100 g), low amount of fat (2e4 g/100 g) and also vitamin
E, vitamin B group, potassium, phosphorous, and magnesium (Sacchetti, Pinnavaia,
Guidolin, &Dalla Rosa, 2004). Dall’Asta et al. (2013) reported that wheat breads enriched
with the addition of chestnut flour presented an increased quality from both organoleptic
(more complex flavour, darker colour and more heterogeneous crumb) and nutritional (higher
antioxidant capacity and fibre content) points of view. In addition, chestnut flour added
breads showed a delay in the staling process, confirming the feasibility of producing bread
with improved nutritional and qualitative characteristics, not only just after baking but also
during shelf-life (Rinaldi, Paciulli, Dall'Asta, Cirlini, &Chiavaro, 2015). Regarding GF
breads, Demirkesen, Mert, Sumnu, and Sahin (2010) studied the effects of different levels of
addition on a rice-based gluten-free formulation reporting that elevated amounts of chestnut
flour led to some deterioration in quality parameters. The same authors published several
papers on chestnut flour addition in GF breads prepared on lab scale and mainly about the
effects of cooking technique (Demirkesen, Sumnu, &Sahin, 2013a and 2013b). The use of
commercial GF bread formulation was not considered. However, outcomes of these studies
suggested that the replacement of rice flour with chestnut flour represents a promising way to
enhance nutritional values of GF breads and, very interesting, to potentially retard staling of
these kinds of bread (Demirkesen, Campanella, Sumnu, Sahin, &Hamaker, 2014). Thus, the
aim of the present work was to evaluate the effects of chestnut flour addition on technological
and nutritional properties of two common commercial GF bread formulations with complex
recipes and already optimized from food industry for bread-making performances.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples
Two common commercial (Biaglut, Latina, Italy) gluten free bread mixtures were used and
ingredients, as reported on labels, were as follows: corn starch (43.5 g/100 g), potato starch
(40.0 g/ 100 g), skimmed milk (6.5 g/100 g), destrose (4.5 g/100 g), cellulose (2.0 g/100 g),
guar gum (1.8 g/100 g), hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (1.7 g/100 g) for the first mixture
(named F1gf) and corn starch (43.5 g/100 g), rice flour (40.0 g/100 g), lupine proteins (6.5
g/100 g), destrose (4.5 g/100 g), hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (2.0 g/100 g), vegetable fiber
(2.0 g/100 g), salt (1.5 g/100 g) for the second (named F2gf), The proximate composition
(g/100 g d.m.) of the two mixtures were: F1gf: carbohydrate 85.2., fibers 6.0, protein 4.4, fat
0.2; F2gf: carbohydrates 84.3, fibers 7.1, protein 4.4, fat 0.8. A chestnut flour (C) was
obtained as previously reported (Dall’Asta et al., 2013) from four cultivars (Ampollana,
Perticaccia, Leccardina and Gursona) from the Ceno Valley (Parma, Italy) and so used for the
enrichment It showedavailable carbohydrates, protein, fat and dietary fiber contents of77.4
g/100 g d.m., 6.0 g/100 g d.m., 4.6 g/100 g d.m., and 12.0 g/ 100 g d.m., respectively. The
commercial mixtures were used to prepare two control breads, coded as M1 from F1gf, and
M2 from F2gf, respectively. Further two breads were prepared with a ratio of 200 g/kg
C/F1gf (sample named as M1C) and of 100 g/kg C/F2gf(sample named as M2C),
respectively. These chestnut flour ratioswere selected based on previous results (Rinaldi et
al., 2015) and preliminary experimentations.
2.2. Bread-making and storage
Breads were prepared with the following formulation on flour basis: M1 and M1C: flour (1
kg), water (880 g), sunflower oil (50 g), yeast (50 g) and salt (20 g); M2 and M2C: flour (1
kg), water (900 g), sunflower oil (50 g), yeast (50 g) and salt (20 g). A domestic bread maker
machine (Moulinex, Groupe Seb Italia S.p.A., Milano, Italy) was used for breadmaking, with
the rapid program: stirring þ kneading, þ rising, 40 min; baking, 45 min at 210 _C. The
breads were then cooled at room temperature. The loaves were packaged in alcohol-sprayed
sealed air-tight plastic bags and stored in a 25 _C temperature-controlled chamber in the dark
(ISCO 9000, Milan, Italy). Samples were analysed at 0, 1, and 3days post-production. Three
loaves were used for the characterization of breads at each storage time for a total of 9 loaves
for eachbread type. 2.3. Chemical composition Protein content was determined by the
Kjeldhal method using 1 g of ground sample and a correction factor of 5.7, as previously
reported (Dall’Asta et al., 2013). Fat content was determined utilizing a Soxhlet extractor
(Velp Scientifica, Monza-Brianza, Italy) on 5 g of ground sample and diethyl ether as
solvent. The moisture content (%) within the bread loaves was evaluated following the
AACC standard method, 44-15.02 (AACC, 2000). The crust, undercrust layer, and central
crumb were examined at each shelf-life time for each bread type. All bread samples were also
analysed for starch (AOAC method 996.11) and total, insoluble, soluble dietary fiber (AOAC
method 2009.01 and 2011.25). Three loaves of each bread type were analysed at day 0 of
storage.
2.4. Crumb grain characteristic and specific bulk volume
Crumb grain was evaluated by means of a digital image analysis system, as reported
previously (Dall’Asta et al., 2013). The number of pores (expressed as percentage of the total
number) was obtained according to pre-selected dimensional classes based on their area:
class-1: 0.01e0.049 mm2; class-2: 0.05e0.99 mm2; class-3: 1e4.99 mm2; class-4: >5 mm2 .
Crust thickness (mm) was measured by means of the size function of the same image analysis
software. Specific bulk volume of breadswas determined according to the AACC Approved
Method 10-05.01 (AACC, 2000) andexpressed as the volume/weight ratio of cooked bread
(cm3/g).
2.5. Physical analysis
Texture analysis was performed on crust and crumb using aTA.XT2 Texture Analyzer
equipped with a 25 kg load cell (StableMicro Systems, Godalming, UK). Crust hardness was
measured on five preselected points by means of a puncture test using a 3 mm diameter
stainless steel probe and a test speed of 2 mm/s. Maximum peak force (N) from the
penetration curve was taken as crust hardness. Crumb evaluation was carried out on ten cube
of 20 _ 20 _ 20 mm extracted from two central slices. A TPA test wasperformed with a 35
mm diameter cylindrical aluminium probe by means of a double compression with a speed of
1 mm/s up to the 50% of the original sample height. The textural parameters considered were
hardness (maximum peak force of the first compression cycle, N), cohesiveness (ratio of
positive force area during the second compression to that during the first compression area,
dimensionless), resilience (area during the withdrawal of the penetration, divided by the area
of the first penetration, dimensionless), and chewiness (product of hardness x cohesiveness x
springiness, N) (Bourne, 1978). Colour was determined on ten preselected locations of the
crust and crumb of each bread loaf by means of a Minolta Colorimeter (CM 2600d, Minolta
Co., Osaka, Japan) equipped with a standard illuminant D65 and a 10_ position of the
standard observer. L* (lightness), a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) were quantified on each
sample using the Spectramagic software (Ver. 3.6). The individual colour differences of each
breadat 1 and 3 days of shelf-life were evaluated with respect to thecolour at time 0 using DE
calculation.
2.6. Nutritional parameters
The antioxidant capacitywas determined by means of DPPH test on flours and breads
(Dall’Asta et al., 2013). The radical scavenging activity was calculated as follows: I% ¼
[(Abs0 e Abs1)/Abs0] x100, where Abs0 was the absorbance of the blank and Abs1 was
theabsorbance of the sample. The antioxidant capacity value (mmol/L Trolox/g) of samples
was obtained from the calibration curve calculated measuring the absorbance at 517 nm of
Trolox methanolic solutions at different concentrations. Breads were tested in vitro to
determine the rate of starch hydrolysis; in vitro digestions were performed following the
method described by Zaupa et al. (2014). The in vitro gastrointestinal model was set up as
follows: about 8 g of sample was suspended in phosphate buffer (20 mmol/L) and incubated
at 37 _C stepwise with human saliva, for 2 min at pH 6.9, and porcine pepsin (2500 U), for 2
h at pH 2.0e2.5.
Each sample was then transferred into 20 cm dialysis tubing strips (12 000 Da molecular
weight cut off) with 100 mg of pancreatin from porcine pancreas (3xUSP), sealed with plastic
clamps, and incubated for 5 h at pH 6.9 into 1000 mL sealed containers containing 500 mL of
phosphate buffer. Two aliquots (0.5 mL) from the dialyzed solution were removed for
analysis at time 0, every 15 min during the first hour and every 30 min until 5 h digestion.
The aliquots were used to determine the number of glucose monomers of the permeated
fragments. To this purpose, each aliquot sample was hydrolyzed using 20 ml of 0.5 g/100 g
amyloglucosidase solution(200 U) at pH 5.6 and the glucose concentration was
determinedwith a glucose analyzer (2900 Biochemisty Analyzer, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs,
USA). All analyses were performed in triplicate. 2.7. Statistical analysis SPSS (Version 22.0,
SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) statistical software was used to identify differences during shelf-
life through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference (LSD)
test at a 95% confidence level (p <0.05). Comparisons between breads made with the same
gluten-free mixture, with or without chestnut flour at each storage time were performed by
means of a Student t-test at a 95% and 99% confidence level (p <0.05 and p <0.01).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Specific bulk volume and crumb grain characteristics
Bulk volumes of control gluten-free breads were 3.6 ± 0.2 and 5.1 ± 0.3 cm3 l_1 for M1 and
M2, respectively. The presence of lupine proteins in M2 probably contributed to a
significantly higher volume compared to M1, as previously reported by Ziobro, Witczak,
Juszczak, and Korus (2013). M2 recipe presented also little higher amount of water but no
significant differences were observed between breads moisture content at time 0 (below
discussed). Thus, the difference in the recipe could affect the volume but cooking process
removed the difference. M1C and M2C exhibited significant lower volume values (3.1 and
2.6 cm3 g_1, respectively) due to the addition of chestnut flour, as previously observed by
Demirkesenet al. (2010). These authors attributed the low volumes in gluten free breads
prepared with chestnut flour to the rigid and compact structure of the fibrous chestnut flour
dough. Collar, Santos, and Rosell (2007) affirmed that the fiber content could reduce the
expansion of the gas cells also in gluten free products. In addition, the relatively high sugar
content of the chestnut flour was found to hinder or reduce the starch gelatinization during
baking leading to low specific volume (Demirkesen et al., 2010). Bulk volumes did not
significantly change during shelf-life for all breads. Crust thickness was not significant
different between M1 and M1C (1.5 ± 0.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.1 mm) breads. On the other hand, M2C
crust resulted significantly thicker than M2 showing an almost twofold thickness (2.0 ± 0.1 vs
1.1 ± 0.1 mm). Crumb grain characteristic of all samples are reported in Fig. 1A (M1 and
M1C) and 1B (M2 and M2C). At time 0, significant differences were observed for M1 and
M1C breads: the addition of chestnut flour (M1C) caused a significant increase of the pores
of the greatest dimensions (class 3 and 4) in comparison with M1 breads that showed a
significantly higher number of little holes (class 1 and 2). In addition, the presence of a higher
amount of cells of large sizes in M1C than M1 could explain the observed significantly
lower development of the final bread, due to the collapse of the internal structure after
baking. Similarly Mariotti, Pagani, and Lucisano (2013) found a significantly higher
alveolate area to total area ratio on two gluten-free mixtures enriched with buckwheat in
association to the lower development of the finalbread (loaf collapse) and the lower softness
of the crumb. It ispossible that during the early stage of baking, the crumb pores undergo a
rapid expansion, as a result of both increased CO2 production and steam formation: a failure
in the matrix increases the tendency for pores to coalesce and possibly collapse. Also
Dall’Asta et al. (2013) found a higher number of pores belonging to the major dimensional
classes in soft wheat breads enriched with the same level of chestnut flour. On the other hand
this finding is in disagree with data presented by Demirkesen et al. (2013) who reported a
decrease of the gas retention capacity of dough and a decrease in expansion of the gas cells
due to chestnut fibres. The low percentage of chestnut flour added (20 g/100 g), compared to
the 30 g/100 g suggested by Demirkesen et al. (2010), may have probably limited the effect
of the fibre on gas expansion. During storage, both M1 and M1C presented similar changes.
Pores belonging to class 2 significantly increased while pores of class 1 significantly
decreased and no variations were observed for the remaining classes, in agreement with
Rinaldi et al. (2015). Thus, the addition of chestnut flour to M1 mix did not affect crumb
grain characteristic changes during shelf-life. M2 and M2C breads (Fig. 1B) significant
differed at time 0 days, too, but in this case the addition of chestnut flour caused a significant
increase only of the pores of class 3 (1.0e5.0 mm2). During the three days of storage, M2C
samples exhibited a similar behaviour to that observed for M1 and M1C, while M2 did not
showany significant difference for class 1 and 2 and a decrease in class 3. Probably the
highest percentage oflupine proteins of M2 than M2C, which acted as stabilizer, emulsifier,
water and lipid binder, was enough to prevent or retard the water migration and cell walls
width reduction, as consequence, inaccordance with Kohajdov_a, Karovicova, and Schmidt
(2011).
3.2. Moisture content
Moisture content profiles of all breads are reported in Fig. 2AeD. At day 0, no significant
differences were observed between the samples not enriched and the chestnut enriched breads
in all the portion of the loaves. The only exception was the crust of M2C that resulted
significantly wetter than the control. During the shelf life, all breads showed no significant
differences in crumb moisture content with the exception of M1 sample, which presented a
significant decrease at day 3. Regarding near-crust data, M1 showed a decrease (p <0.05)
from day 0e1 and a subsequent increase at the end of storage. This significant decrease was
probably due to the water migration to the crust that increased its moisture content, while the
increase at day 3 was due to the water absorbed from the crumb (Fig. 2A) even if no
differences were observed in this value during storage probably because of the height of the
slices that masked the slow water migration. The trend of M1C near-crust did not present this
behaviour; only a significant increase (p <0.05) was observed at day 1 and no further changes
until day 3. On the contrary, M2 and M2C maintained constant near-crust moisturecontents
during shelf life (Fig. 2C and D). Crust of all samplesshowed an increase in moisture content,
as expected. M1C showed a faster migration from crumb to near-crust and crust (Fig. 2B)
compared to M1 probably due to the coarser crumb grain and to the presence of a higher
amount of cells of large sizes that allowed water migrating easier. M2 crust instead didn't
show significant changes at day 1 with an increase (p <0.05) at day 3, while M2C
continuously increased moisture content at each day of analysis. Finally, the addition of
chestnut flour did not significantly change moisture migration of gluten-free breads during
storage probably because of the low amount of addition, which scarcely affected the effect of
fibres on water dynamics.
4. Conclusions
This study revealed that the addition of chestnut flour to two common gluten free mixtures
influenced some of the characteristics of breads just after baking and during storage. The
different ingredients of the gluten free mixtures led from the beginning to dissimilar loaves:
M1 showed lower volume, harder and lighter crumb, softer and darker crust than M2. The
addition of chestnut flour led to volume reduction, different crumb grain characteristic with
larger alveoli and hardened the crumb texture just after baking and during the shelf life for all
the breads, particularly forM2 breads. The crust hardness appeared to be not significantly
influenced by the chestnut addition in both breads. However, breads obtained with the two
mixtures showed different moisture dynamics, independently from the chestnut flour
enrichment. Improved colour was observed after the addition of the chestnut flour, resulting
darker and more stable along the shelf-life. The improved antioxidant activity measured in
both the chestnutenriched breads was retained during the entire shelf-life, particularlyfor
M1C. In addition, the enrichment with 20 g/100 g of chestnut flour (M1C) caused a
significant increase in soluble, insoluble and total fibre content; on the contrary, 10 g/100 g of
chestnut flour (M2C) didn't lead to significant differences. No differences in starch
digestibility were observed in all the samples. In conclusion, the addition of chestnut flour to
commercial glutenfree mixtures appeared to be promising for commercial mixture F1gf
representing an interesting starting point for further studies for improving the with the aim to
reduce the defects in the final products.