Several types of equipment have been used to predict dough behaviour during breadmaking. The complexity of requirements means that no device is able to predict all the properties, and therefore, new tests are released continuously. The Chopin Mixolab mixes the dough at different temperatures, allowing the study of dough mixing properties, weakening, gelatinization, gel stability and retrogradation in one test. The objective of this work was to study the suitability of the Mixolab to predict rheological properties and breadmaking quality of local wheats. Flour was obtained from 29 wheat samples from different genotypes and environments. The correlation of results from traditional analyses (test weight, protein content, sedimentation volume, wet gluten, Falling Number, Alveograph and Farinograph) with Mixolab parameters was studied. The properties of two different bread types were compared with all these parameters. Stability and water absorption values from the Farinograph were highly correlated with the respective Mixolab parameters. It was concluded that wheat samples could be sorted by mixing properties in similar order independently of which method was used. Beyond that, gluten strength estimators obtained from these three rheological methods and the sedimentation volume test were highly correlated. Whilst the correlation of Mixolab parameters with pan loaf volume was not as high as traditional ones, Mixolab developing time, stability and C5 were the best correlated with the most important hearth bread characteristics. Studies performed by other researchers, using wheats from diverse origins, found different results. The need for empirical rheology evaluation with local wheat samples was proved.
Aacc. American association of cereal chemists. Approved Methods of the AACC. The Association; 2000.
2.
Békés F. New aspects in quality related wheat research: ii. new methodologies for better quality wheat. Cereal Research Communications. 2012. p. 307–33.
3.
Bloksma A. Rheology of the breadmaking process. Cereal Foods World. 1990. p. 228–36.
4.
Caffe-Treml M, Glover K, Krishnan P, Hareland G. Variability and relationships among mixolab, mixograph, and baking parameters based on multienvironment spring wheat trials. Cereal Chemistry. 2010. p. 574–80.
5.
Caffe-Treml M, Glover K, Krishnan P, Hareland G, Bondalapati K, Stein J. Effect of wheat genotype and environment on relationships between dough extensibility and breadmaking quality. Cereal Chemistry. 2011. p. 201–8.
6.
Carson G, Edwards N, Khan K, Shewry P. Criteria of wheat and flour quality. Wheat: chemistry and technology. 2009. p. 97–118.
7.
Castro M, Loza W, Castro B, Cardozo V, Pereyra S, Germán S, et al. Resultados experimentales de la Evaluación Nacional de cultivares de trigo, cebada, colza, triticale y trigo doble propósito de los últimos tres años. 2014.
8.
Dobraszczyk B, Roberts C. Strain hardening and dough gas cell-wall failure in biaxial extension. Journal of Cereal Science. 1994. p. 265–74.
9.
Dubat A. A new AACC international approved method to measure rheological properties of a dough sample. Cereal Foods World (CFW). 2010. p. 150–3.
10.
Faergestad E, Molteberg E, Magnus E. Interrelationships of protein composition, protein level, baking process and the characteristics of hearth bread and pan bread. Journal of Cereal Science. 2000. p. 309–20.
11.
Hadnadev M, Hadnadev T, Simurina O, Filipcev B. Empirical and fundamental rheological properties of wheat flour dough as affected by different climatic con-IJFS April. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2013. p. 1381–91.
12.
Koksel H, Kahraman K, Sanal T, Ozay D, Dubat A. Potential utilization of mixolab for quality evaluation of bread wheat genotypes. Cereal Chemistry. 2009. p. 522–6.
13.
Macarthur L, Dappolonia B, Banasik O. The falling number test -what is it and how does it work. North Dakota Farm Research. 1981. p. 15–22.
14.
Ohm JB, Simsek S, Mergoum M. Modeling of dough mixing profile under thermal and nonthermal constraint for evaluation of breadmaking quality of hard spring wheat flour. Cereal Chemistry. 2012. p. 135–41.
15.
Paulley G, Vazquez D, Lysenko E, Preston K. Development of a laboratory baking test for uruguayan french style hearth bread using canadian wheat flour. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2004. p. 949–54.
16.
Peña R, Amaya A, Rajaram S, Mujeebkazi A. Variation in quality characteristics associated with some spring 1b/1r translocation wheats. Journal of Cereal Science. 1990. p. 105–12.
17.
Rao V, Mulvaney S, Dexter J. Rheological characterisation of long-and short-mixing flours based on stress-relaxation. Journal of Cereal Science. 2000. p. 159–71.
18.
Rosell C, Altamirano-Fortoul R, Don C, Dubat A. Thermomechanically induced protein aggregation and starch structural changes in wheat flour dough. Cereal Chemistry. 2013. p. 89–100.
19.
Rosell C, Collar C, Haros M. Assessment of hydrocolloid effects on the thermo-mechanical properties of wheat using the mixolab. Food Hydrocolloids. 2007. p. 452–62.
20.
Rosell C, Santos E, Collar C. Physical characterization of fiber-enriched bread doughs by dual mixing and temper-ature constraint using the mixolab. 2010.
21.
European Food Research and Technology. p. 535–44.
22.
Sliwinski E, Kolster P, Van Vliet T. On the relationship between large-deformation properties of wheat flour dough and baking quality. Journal of Cereal Science. 2004. p. 231–45.
23.
Stojceska V, Butler F. Investigation of reported correlation coefficients between rheological properties of the wheat bread doughs and baking performance of the corresponding wheat flours. Trends In Food Science & Technology. 2012. p. 13–8.
24.
Vázquez D, Watts B. Gluten extensibility: a key factor in Uruguayan wheat quality. The Royal Society of Chemists; 2004. p. 279–84.
25.
Vázquez D, Watts B, Lukow O, Williams P, Arntfield S. American Association of Cereal Chemists International Annual Meeting. 2005.
26.
Vázquez D, Berger A, Cuniberti M, Bainotti C, De Miranda M, Scheeren P, et al. Influence of cultivar and environment on quality of latin american wheats. Journal of Cereal Science. 2012. p. 196–203.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
