LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Influence of flour particle size on quality of gluten-free rice bread

Esther de la Hera 1, Mario Martinez 1, Manuel Gómez*
Food Technology Area, E.T.S. Ingenierías Agrarias, Valladolid University, 34004 Palencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years there has been growing interest in gluten-free bakery products. However, few studies
Received 5 January 2012 have analyzed the influence of flour properties on the quality of these products. This study analyzes the
Received in revised form influence of the type of rice, flour particle size and the water content of the dough used in gluten-free
16 April 2013
bread-making, and the microstructure of the doughs. Behaviour during proofing and the characteristics
Accepted 19 April 2013
of the final bread are also described. The finest flours lead to poorest retention of the gas produced
during fermentation and produce breads with a lower specific volume in both formulations, although
Keywords:
this effect was more pronounced in the bread with 80 g of water per 100 g of flour. Flours obtained from
Coeliac
Bakery quality
short-grain rice produced breads with higher specific volumes and lower firmness in breads with 80 g of
Microstructure water per 100 g of flour. In breads with 110 g of water per 100 g of flour, the type of rice used had a
Rice flour quality greater effect on the texture than on the specific volume of the breads. Analysis of dough microstructure
Water content showed a film formed of water, hydrocolloid and starch granules fragmented during milling and
kneading that covered the larger particles not broken during processing.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Wheat-gluten plays an essential role in bread-making, as it is

Coeliac disease (CD) is a digestive tract disease that damages the
small intestine and interferes with the absorption of nutrients from
food. The ingestion of proteins present in some cereals such as
wheat, barley and rye causes a loss of the intestinal villi, leading to
reduced nutrient absorption. CD has now become one of the most
common lifelong disorders, affecting 1% of the population world-
wide (Catassi & Yachha, 2009). The only effective treatment for
coeliac disease is to maintain a strict gluten-free diet, which leads
to recovery of the intestinal mucosa (Farrell & Kelly, 2002; Green &
Jabri, 2003). Some of the problems that persons with CD have to
face are a lack of gluten-free bakery products, the poor quality (poor
crust characteristics, rapid staling and poor mouth feeling and
flavour) of the ones that do exist (Gallagher, Gormley, & Arendt,
2004) and the high price of gluten-free products (Arendt,
Morrisey, Moore & Dal Bello, 2008). Furthermore, commercial
gluten-free breads are mainly starch-based, leading to a nutri-
tionally unbalanced diet due to a lack of fibre, vitamins and nutri-
ents in coeliac diets (Kinsey, Burden, & Bannerman, 2008).
Improvement in the quality of gluten-free products is therefore a
challenge for modern society.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 9 79 108359; fax: þ34 9 79 108302.
E-mail address: pallares@iaf.uva.es (M. Gómez).
1
Tel.: þ34 9 79 108495; fax: þ34 9 79 108302.
responsible for the formation of a cohesive, extensible and elastic
dough that is able to retain the gas produced during fermentation
(Gan, Ellis, & Schofield, 1995; Singh & MacRitchie, 2001). This fact
makes it difficult to achieve high-quality bread without the pres-
ence of gluten, and different approaches have therefore been
investigated in attempts to improve the quality of gluten-free
bread. First, it is essential to incorporate hydrocolloids as they act
as gluten-substitutes, leading some authors to try to improve bread
characteristics by comparing the effect of different hydrocolloids in
gluten-free bread formulations (Lazaridou, Duta, Papageorgiou,
Belc, & Biliaderis, 2007; Mezaize, Chevallier, Le Bail, & de
Lamballerie, 2009). Other studies have looked at the use of addi-
tives such as emulsifiers (Nunes, Moore, Ryan, & Arendt, 2009),
acidic food additives (Blanco, Ronda, Pérez, & Pando, 2011) and
prebiotics (Korus, Grzelak, Achremowicz, & Sabat, 2006), as well as
enzymes (Gujral, Guardiola, Carbonell, & Rosell, 2003; Gujral,
Haros, & Rosell, 2004; Moore, Schober, Dockery, & Arendt, 2004;
Renzetti & Arendt, 2009) and sourdough (Schober, Bean, & Boyle,
2007; Wolska, Ceglinska, & Dubicka, 2010). Overall, the objective
of those studies was to improve batter consistency in order to
achieve greater gas retention during proofing and baking.
A number of authors have looked at the influence of flour pro-
cessing on gluten-free bread-making. Brites, Trigo, Santos, Collar,
and Rosell (2010) studied the differences in bread quality accord-
ing to the variety of maize used and the milling process employed.
Kadan, Bryant, and Miller (2008) compared different milling

0023-6438/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.04.019
200 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206

processes, concluding that the excess of fine particles in rice flours Table 1
led to greater collapse of the breads, producing a lower volume. Flour characterization parameters.

Some authors developed formulae by mixing different proportions Grain Particle size Median Protein Starch Amylose Water
of gluten-free flours and starches in order to improve bread volume type interval (mm) particle (g/100 g) (g/100 g) (g/100 g) hydration
or texture properties. For example, Sanchez, Osella, and de la Torre size (mm) capacity
(mL/g)
(2002) determined the optimum percentages for composite bread
based on cornstarch, rice flour and cassava starch. Others, such as Short >180 126.43 d 8.56 c 72.3 a 21.41 a 134.7 a
Short 106e180 121.32 cd 7.46 b 76.4 bc 22.84 b 136.3 a
Minarro, Normahomed, Guamis, and Capellas (2010), compared the
Short 80e106 92.38 b 6.41 a 77.9 c 22.75 b 138.8 b
characteristics of flour-based and starch-based gluten-free Short <80 50.74 a 6.70 a 75.4 b 21.56 a 140.1 b
formulae after the addition of unicellular proteins, reporting better Long >106 110.97 c 7.59 b 75.5 b 23.71 c 133.9 a
results with the starch-based formulae. Long 80e106 92.66 b 6.89 a 75.7 b 25.51 d 134.7 a
Long <80 48.24 a 7.45 b 72.6 a 23.67 c 145.9 c
However, there has been little research into the influence of
other flour parameters, particularly particle size and grain type, on Values with different letters in the same parameter are significantly different
bread characteristics. Only Araki et al. (2009) studied the effect of (p < 0.05).
Values are the mean of two measures.
particle size on rice-bread, but their formula was supplemented
with wheat-gluten and their main objective was to study differ-
ences in the milling process. with screens of 80, 106 and 180 microns, we achieved four different
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of particle-size fractions for short-grain rice flour (<80, 80e106, 106e
different rice-grain types and flour-particle size on dough micro- 180, >180 mm), and three fractions for long-grain rice flour (<80,
structure, dough behaviour during fermentation and the final 80e106, >106 mm); an insufficient volume of the largest particle
quality of gluten-free bread (specific volume and texture). size long-grain rice flour was available for use in the study. Salt,
sugar and sunflower oil were purchased from the local market. Dry
yeast (Saf-instant, Lesaffre, Lille, France) and hydroxypropyl
2. Materials and methods methylcellulose (HPMC) (Methocel K4M, Dow Chemical, Midlesex,
UK) were used.
2.1. Materials
2.2. Methods
Two different types of rice flour were used, one from short-grain
and one from long-grain rice. The flours were supplied by Harinera 2.2.1. Flour measurements
Castellana S.A., (Medina del Campo, Valladolid, Spain). Sifting the Flours were analysed following AACC methods (AACC, 2010) for
two flours for 15 min in a Bühler MLI 300B mill (Uzwil, Switzerland) water hydration capacity (WHC) (AACC method 88-04) and protein

Fig. 1. Environmental scanning electron microscope photomicrographs of the flours: (a) short grain, 106e180 mm; (b) short grain, <80 mm; (c) long grain, 106e180 mm. Footnote:
Arrow 1: Disintegrated starch granules within the protein matrix. Circles 2: Whole compound starch granules. Arrow 3: Smooth and compact surface.
 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206 201

content (AACC method 46-30, performed with a Leco TruSpecÒN
nitrogen/protein analyser, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA). Flour particle
size was measured using a laser diffraction particle-size analyzer
(Heros & Rodos, Sympatec, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany). The
total starch and amylose content were measured by the polari-
metric method (AACC, 76-20).
2.2.2. Gluten-free bread making
A straight-dough process was employed, using a Kitchen-Aid
Professional mixer (KPM5, KitchenAid, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA)
with either a wire whip (K5AWWC) or dough hook (K45DH),
depending on water content. Two different formulae were tested.
The following ingredients (as g/100 g on flour basis) were used in
both formulae: sunflower oil (6 g/100 g), sugar (5 g/100 g), salt (2 g/
100 g), instant yeast (3 g/100 g) and HPMC (4 g/100 g). In one formula
the amount of water added was 80 g/100 g of flour whereas in the
other it was 110 g/100 g. In both cases, the instant yeast was first
rehydrated in half the amount of water. The kneading of the dough
with 80 g water/100 g flour was done with a dough hook and the
mixing of the batters with 110 g water/100 g was done with wire
whip, both for a period of 8 min at speed 2. Each dough was prepared
in duplicate. The doughs were moulded into aluminium pans of
232  108  43.5 mm: 350 g into each pan in the case of the dough
with 80 g water per 100 g flour, and 250 g in the case of the dough
with 110 g of water per 100 g of flour due to greater expansion during
proofing. Pans were placed into a proofing chamber at 30  C and 90%
relative humidity for 40 min. After proofing, the breads were baked
in an electric oven for 40 min at 190  C. After baking, breads were
demoulded, cooled for 50 min at room temperature and packed into
sealed polyethylene bags to prevent dehydration.
2.2.3. Rheofermentometer analysis
The effect of the different flours on dough proofing was deter-
mined using a rheofermentometer (Chopin, Villeneuve-la-Garenne,
France), obtaining information on dough development and gas
production during fermentation (Czuchajowska & Pomeranz, 1993).
In contrast to the traditional method, the weight of dough was
reduced to 200 g and the weights were removed from the piston
due to the weakness of this kind of dough compared to one pre-
pared with wheat flour. The dough used in the analysis was elab-
orated using the same method as described above. Proofing
temperature was set at 30  C, as in the bread making. The proofing
conditions were therefore as similar as possible to those used for
the doughs that were baked.
2.2.4. Evaluation of bread quality
The evaluation of bread quality was done 24 h after baking.
Bread volume was determined using a laser sensor with the BVM-L
370 volume analyser (TexVol Instruments, Viken, Sweden). The
bread specific volume was calculated as the ratio between the
volume of the bread and its weight. Weight loss was measured as
the difference between the weight of the dough moulded and the
weight of the bread after baking. Measurements were performed in
duplicate.
Crumb texture was determined using a TA-XT2 texture analyser
(Stable Microsystems, Surrey, UK) with the “Texture Expert” soft-
ware. A 25-mm diameter cylindrical aluminium probe was used in
a ‘Texture Profile Analysis’ (TPA) double compression test to
penetrate to ½ of the depth at a speed of 2 mm/s and with a 30-
s delay between the first and second compressions. Firmness (N),
cohesiveness, springiness and resilience were calculated from the

Fig. 2. Environmental scanning electron microscope photomicrographs of the doughs: (a) 80 g water/100 g flour, short grain, <80 mm; (b) 80 g water/100 g flour, short grain, 106e
180 mm; (c) 110 g water/100 g flour, short grain, 80e106 mm; (d) detail of the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and water network. Footnote: Arrow 1: Starch compound particles
disintegrated and mixed with HPMC, protein and water, covering larger particles which had not been disaggregated during kneading. Arrow 2: Large air spaces. Arrow 3: Water-
HPMC gel structure linking the different particles of the dough.
202 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206

3. Results and discussion

a)
80
3.1. Flour characteristics
Dough development (mm)

70
60 Rice-flour characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median particle
50 size revealed finer fractions than those estimated by sifting, as the
40 mesh screen indicates the maximum size. It is noticeable that there
was a much greater difference between the finest fraction and the
30
following fraction (80e106 mm) than between each of the other
20
fractions. There were significant differences in the protein content
10 between the finest fractions of the flours from the two types of rice,
0 being higher in short-grain rice flour. The fraction over 180 mm had
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 the highest protein content, which could be due to residues of bran
Time (hh:mm:ss) and the aleurone layer, as protein concentration is highest in the
b) 120 superficial layers of the rice kernel and decreases towards the centre
(Champagne, Wood, Juliano, & Bechtel, 2006). When the starch
Dough development (mm)

100 content of the rice flours was analysed, the trend was reversed; this
is because starch granules and protein content constitute approxi-
80 mately 97 g/100 g of milled rice grain (Fitzgerald, 2006; Shih, 2006).
Short-grain rice flour had a higher starch content than the long-
60
grain variety, and the intermediate fractions were those that pre-
40 sented the highest values. Regarding amylose content, the highest
values were detected in the long-grain flours, as previously indi-
20 cated by Moldenhauer, Gibbons, and McKenzie (2006). Rice variety
was not found to have any clear effect on water holding capacity
0
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00
(WHC). Fractions below 80 mm showed higher ability to hydrate than
those over 106 mm, and a significant correlation was observed be-
Time (hh:mm)
tween median particle size and WHC (p < 0.01; r ¼ 0.6), possibly
Fig. 3. Dough development curves from the rheofermentometer analysis of short- due to the greater surface area of the smaller flour particles.
grain breads. (a) 80 g water/100 g flour (b) 110 g water/100 g flour. Legend: ( ) Differences in flour microstructure may be seen in Fig. 1. Pho-
Short grain, <80 mm; ( ) Short grain, 80e106 mm; ( ) Short grain, 106e180 mm; tographs 1a and 1b show two different fractions of short-grain rice.
( ) Short grain, >180 mm.
In photograph “a”, the 106e180 mm fraction, the particles appear
much larger and there are whole starch granules. In photograph
“b”, showing the <80 mm fraction, a large number of small, dis-
TPA graph. Measurements were made on two central slices (20 mm
integrated starch granules can be seen within the protein matrix,
thickness) from two breads from each dough.
together with a number of spherical compound granules. Fig. 1c
shows a photograph of long-grain rice flour with a particle size of
2.2.5. Electron microscope photomicrographs
106e180 mm. The particles look smoother and more compact than
Flour and dough photomicrographs were taken with a Quanta
with the short-grain flour, which indicates that greater mechanical
200FEG (Hillsboro, Oregon, USA) environmental scanning electron
work will be necessary for disaggregation. In contrast, in Fig. 1a,
microscope (ESEM), fitted with a backscattered electron detector
short-grain particles show a rougher surface with loose starch
(BSED).
granules that will separate more easily needing less mechanical
work and so on suffering less damage. Moreover, this easily
2.2.6. Statistical analysis
disaggregation could imply better water hydration and interaction
Differences between the parameters were studied for the flours
when the rest of ingredients while bread-making.
and the breads by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Fisher’s least sig-
nificant difference (LSD) was used to describe means with 95%
confidence intervals. The statistical analysis was performed with 3.2. Dough properties
the Statgraphics Plus V5.1 software (Statpoint Technologies, Inc.,
Warrenton, USA). Correlations were obtained using the same Fig. 2 shows the dough microstructures in photomicrographs
program. taken with the ESEM. Fig. 2a and b show doughs elaborated with

Table 2
Physical properties of rice breads elaborated with 80 g of water per 100 g of flour.

Grain type Particle size interval (mm) Specific volume (cm3/g) Weight loss (g/100 g) Firmness (N) Cohesiveness Springiness Resilience

Short >180 3.11 d 13.87 a 4.33 a 0.37 a 0.54 a 0.16 a

Short 106e180 3.47 e 13.75 a 3.36 a 0.39 a 0.56 a 0.18 a
Short 80e106 2.40 c 13.90 a 12.37 b 0.44 a 0.76 b 0.23 a
Short <80 1.71 a 15.46 b 35.94 c 0.43 a 0.70 ab 0.25 a
Long >106 2.13 b 14.40 ab 34.49 c 0.35 a 0.61 ab 0.12 a
Long 80e106 2.08 b 13.48 a 38.09 c 0.29 a 0.67 ab 0.15 a
Long <80 1.63 a 14.72 ab 50.89 d 0.29 a 0.54 a 0.18 a

Values with different letters in the same parameter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Measurements of specific volume and weight loss were performed in duplicate.
Measurements of textural properties were made on two central slices from two breads of each dough.
 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206 203

Table 3
Physical properties of rice breads elaborated with 110 g of water per 100 g of flour.

Grain type Particle size interval (mm) Specific volume (cm3/g) Weight loss (g/100 g) Firmness (N) Cohesiveness Springiness Resilience

Short >180 3.93 b 21.87 a 1.40 a 0.47 b 0.57 a 0.22 b

Short 106e180 4.09 c 21.13 a 1.62 a 0.47 b 0.62 b 0.20 b
Short 80e106 5.10 e 21.20 a 0.99 a 0.60 d 0.91 d 0.35 d
Short <80 4.13 c 21.06 a 2.29 a 0.53 c 0.93 d 0.30 c
Long >106 4.75 d 20.70 a 1.13 a 0.29 a 0.86 c 0.11 a
Long 80e106 4.65 d 21.53 a 2.60 a 0.31 a 0.85 c 0.10 a
Long <80 3.04 a 21.72 a 15.61 b 0.31 a 0.86 c 0.12 a

Values with different letters in the same parameter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Measurements of specific volume and weight loss were performed in duplicate.
Measurements of textural properties were made on two central slices from two breads of each dough.

80 g water/100 g flour. It may be observed that during kneading
some of the starch compound particles had disintegrated and
mixed with the HPMC, some protein particles and water, covering
larger particles which had not been disaggregated during kneading.
In Fig. 2b (coarse fraction), particles that had not disintegrated look
coarser than those in doughs elaborated with finer fractions
(Fig. 2a). In the case of long-grain rice (harder than the short-grain
variety), there was less disintegration of the grains during kneading
than in doughs elaborated with short-grain flours, and this will
affect the final dough (Figure not shown). Fig. 2c, showing the
dough elaborated with 110 g of water per 100 g of flour, reveals a
similar structure to the doughs with 80 g of water per 100 g of flour.
This structure is formed by simple starch granules mixed with
HPMC, some protein particles and water, covering the larger flour
particles. However, the larger amount of water made the structure
smoother, and large air spaces may be seen in these types of dough.
These spaces do not disappear during proofing or baking, and they
will be present in breads as large holes in the crumb. This fact has
already been explained by McCarthy, Gallagher, Gormley, Schober,
and Arendt (2005), who stated that as water and HPMC content
increase, the gas cells coalescence to form larger cells. The water-
HPMC gel structure linking the different particles of the dough
may be observed in Fig. 2d.
The graph in Fig. 3a shows the dough-development curves of
doughs with 80 g of water per 100 g of flour during fermentation in
the rheofermentometer. Only the curves of short-grain rice flour
are presented as similar trends were observed with long-grain
flour. As particle size increases, the dough-development curves

Fig. 4. Crumb detail of finished bread elaborated with 80 g water/100 g flour and 40 min proofing. Legend: Short grain, <80 mm; Short grain, 80e106 mm; Short grain, 106e180 mm;
Short grain, >180 mm.
204 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206
rise higher. This would suggest that the breads will have a greater
volume. With both types of flour, the coarsest fraction showed
significant differences with respect to the other fractions. It may be
clearly seen that the <80-mm fraction did not increase in volume,
indicating that the gas produced was not retained. Fig. 3b shows the
behaviour of short-grain rice-flour dough with 110 g of water per
100 g of flour. In this case, the <80-mm fraction did show devel-
opment, but the structure broke up after approximately 90 min of
fermentation, allowing the retained gas to escape and causing the
curve to fall. There were no significant differences between the
other fractions until after 2 h of fermentation, which is not typically
reached in gluten-free bread-making. Development was greater in
the case of breads with 110 g water/100 g flour and the dough had a
better tolerance to excess proofing as, after 2 h, the curves continue
to rise whereas, with the other formulation, they start to fall. The
finer the flour particle size, the higher their surface area within the
dough, meaning that a larger amount of water and HPMC will be
necessary to link the dough; this probably explains why dough with
larger amounts of water behave better. Although the mixture of
water, HPMC and starch particles will weaken as water content
increases, the 4% of HPMC used in this study was sufficient to
maintain dough properties even with the higher water content.
3.3. Bread properties
The properties of bread elaborated with 80 g water/100 g flour
are listed in Table 2. The lowest specific volume of these breads was
found with the finest fractions. When fractions over 80 mm were
used, the short-grain rice flours were found to achieve higher
Fig. 5. Crumb detail of finished bread elaborated with 80 g water/100 g flour and 40 min proofing. Legend: Long grain, <80 mm; Long grain, 80e106 mm; Long grain, >106 mm.
specific volumes than long-grain flours, and the highest specific
volume was reached with short-grain flour with a 106e180 mm
particle size. Lower specific volumes were found with doughs that
expanded less during proofing (Fig. 3a). The differences between
the specific volumes of the breads elaborated with the finest frac-
tions and those elaborated with other fractions are therefore
mainly due to differences in gas retention during fermentation. In
the case of the >180-mm short-grain fraction (with the largest
median particle size), the specific volume of the bread was lower
than that of the bread elaborated with the fraction with a particle
size between 106 and 180 mm, contrasting with the findings on the
rheofermentometer curves. This would suggest that, in this
particular case, the differences in specific volume were due to
changes during baking. The physical properties of breads elabo-
rated with 110 g water/100 g flour are shown in Table 3. The specific
volumes in all these cases were higher than those of less hydrated
breads, due to greater development of the doughs during proofing.
As occurred with less hydrated breads, the fraction with a particle
size <80 mm produced breads with a lower specific volume due to
poorer development of the dough during proofing. Differences in
the rheofermentometer curves between this fraction and coarser
fractions were observed after 70 min. However, proofing times in
this study, determined on the basis of previous studies (Kadan,
Robinson, Thibodeux, & Pepperman, 2001; Pruska-Kedzior et al.,
2008), were of less than 70 min and the rheofermentometer
curves cannot therefore be compared directly with the specific
volume values as dough development continued during the initial
stages of baking. Based on these results, some fractions would have
tolerated longer proofing times and would thus have achieved
 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206
better volume results. Another aspect to be taken into account is
that gluten-containing breads are considered to have a longer shelf-
life when longer proofing times are used (Gomez, Oliete, Pando,
Ronda, & Caballero, 2008). Higher volumes are achieved with
long-grain rice-flour fractions >80 mm and with the 80e106-mm
fraction of the short-grain flour. These fractions had a median
particle size between approximately 90 and 120 mm (Table 1).
Short-grain rice-flour fractions >106 mm were associated with
lower specific volumes, as was observed with the largest particle
size in breads with 80 g water/100 g flour. However, the negative
effect of the coarsest fraction was more pronounced in the more
hydrated breads. As no differences were observed during proofing,
finding could have been due to changes in bread structure during
baking. In addition, in both formulations, the finest particles did not
behave well, probably due to a lack of gas retention during proofing.
The specific volumes were lowest in the breads elaborated with
these fractions, in agreement with the findings reported by Kadan
et al. (2008) when studying the effect of different milling processes
on flour properties. Choosing the wrong characteristics of the flours
(type of flour and particle size) may lead to a loss of up to 40% in the
specific volume in the case of breads elaborated with 110 g water/
100 g flour, and of more than 50% in the case of the formulation
with 80 g water/100 g flour.
Analysis of weight loss showed no clear trends between the two
types of rice or between flour-particle sizes. Formulations with
110 g water/100 g flour showed greater weight loss, probably due to
the larger amount of water and also to the higher specific volume,
which produces a greater surface area for evaporation.
Regarding textural characteristics, breads with the 110 g water/
100 g flour had lower firmness values due to their higher specific
volumes and less compact structure. The only significant difference
in firmness between the more hydrated breads was found with the
finest fraction of the long-grain rice flour (highest firmness), and
this bread also had the lowest specific volume. In the case of less
hydrated breads, it was the amylose content rather than specific
volume that had the greatest influence on firmness. Long-grain rice
flour gave rise to higher firmness values than the short-grain flours.
This effect may occur because long-grain flour has a higher amylose
content, which produces more retrogradation phenomena (Singh,
Kaur, Sandhu, Kaur, & Nishinari, 2006) and, therefore, firmer tex-
tures. The cohesiveness, springiness and resilience values depen-
ded on the formulations. There was hardly any difference in
springiness between the formulations with 80 g water/100 g flour,
and no differences in cohesiveness or resilience. The differences in
springiness may be attributable to particle size, but no trend was
observed. On the other hand, grain type and particle size were
found to be important in the formulations with 110 g water/100 g
flour. Breads of long-grain rice flour were not affected by particle
size whereas those of short-grain flour showed significant differ-
ences between the different fractions. The highest values of cohe-
siveness, springiness and resilience were detected with the finer
fractions, as was true for the only case which differences were
detected in the less hydrated breads. Final crumb characteristics are
determined by the combined amylose and amylopectin content.
While amylose is required for crumb setting, due to its rapid
retrogradation, amylopectin may counteract this effect, causing
fresh bread to be softer (Schober, 2009).
In Figs. 4 and 5 are shown the crumb detail of finished breads
elaborated with 80 g of water per 100 g of flour for both short and
long grain. Those breads elaborated with 110 g of water per 100 g of
flour, although achieved greater specific volumes, were too weak
and lost its consistency while slicing. This is the reason why pho-
tographs were not the spitting images of reality and so on are not
shown. Overall, long grain bread slices seem lower than those from
short grain. In addition, finest fraction, in both short and long grain
205
type, show the closest pore structure, more compact and harder as
showed firmness texture parameter.
4. Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the characteristics of the rice flour
used in gluten-free bread-making have a marked influence on the
processing and quality of the products obtained. This influence is
attributed mainly to their effects on dough microstructure. It will
therefore be necessary, both in industry and in research, to clearly
define the characteristics of the flour, using parameters such as
particle size or the amylose/amylopectin ratio, in order to achieve
consistent results. Effects vary depending on the formulation and,
in particular, on the water content. Although proofing times in
studies of gluten-free bread are typically less than 60 min, the
rheofermentometer analysis has shown that, depending on the
characteristics of the flour and the dough, an increase in fermen-
tation times could lead to an improvement in bread volume, shelf-
life and sensorial characteristics. These aspects of the final bread
should be evaluated in future studies.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry
of Science and Innovation (Grant: AGL2011-23802)
The authors are grateful to Harinera Castellana (Medina del
Campo, Valladolid, Spain) for supplying the raw materials, and to
Agro-Technical Institute- ITACYL (Castile and Leon, Spain) and to
Esteve Santiago S.A. (Cabezón de Pisuerga, Valladolid, Spain) for
protein and particle size measurements.
References
AACC. (2010). In Approved methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists,
methods 44-15.02 (moisture), 46-30.01 (protein), 61-02.01 (pasting properties),
10-91.01 (cake symmetry and volume index) (11th ed.) St. Paul, Minnesota, USA:
American Association of Cereal Chemists.
Araki, E., Ikeda, T., Ashida, K., Takata, K., Yanaka, M., & Iida, S. (2009). Effects of rice
flour properties on specific loaf volume of one-loaf bread made from rice flour
with wheat vital gluten. Food Science and Technological Research, 15, 439e448.
Arendt, E. K., Morrissey, A., Moore, M. M., & Dal Bello, F. (2008). Gluten-free breads.
In E. K. Arendt, & F. Dal Bello (Eds.), Gluten-free cereal products and beverages
(pp. 289e311). Minnesota, USA.: Academic Press.
Blanco, C. A., Ronda, F., Pérez, B., & Pando, V. (2011). Improving gluten-free bread
quality by enrichment with acidic food additives. Food Chemistry, 127, 1204e1209.
Brites, C., Trigo, M. J., Santos, C., Collar, C., & Rosell, C. M. (2010). Maize-based gluten-
free bread: influence of processing parameters on sensory and instrumental
quality. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 3, 707e715.
Catassi, C., & Yachha, S. K. (2009). The epidemiology of celiac disease. In E. K. Arendt,
& F. Dal Bello (Eds.), The science of gluten-free foods and beverages (pp. 1e13).
Minnesota, USA.: Academic Press.
Champagne, E. T., Wood, D. F., Juliano, B. O., & Bechtel, D. B. (2006). The rice grain
and its gross composition. In E. T. Champagne (Ed.), Rice chemistry and tech-
nology (3rd ed.) (pp. 77e108) St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Association of
Cereal Chemists.
Czuchajowska, Z., & Pomeranz, Y. (1993). Gas-formation and gas retention. 1. The
system and methodology. Cereal Foods World, 38, 499e503.
Farrell, R. J., & Kelly, C. P. (2002). Celiac sprue. New England Journal of Medicine, 346,
180e188.
Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Starch. In E. T. Champagne (Ed.), Rice chemistry and technology
(3rd ed.) (pp. 109e142) St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Association of
Cereal Chemists.
Gallagher, E., Gormley, T. R., & Arendt, E. K. (2004). Recent advances in the
formulation of gluten-free cereal based products. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 15, 143e152.
Gan, Z., Ellis, P. R., & Schofield, J. D. (1995). Gas cell stabilization and gas retention in
wheat bread dough. Journal of Cereal Science, 21, 215e230.
Gomez, M., Oliete, B., Pando, V., Ronda, F., & Caballero, P. A. (2008). Effect of
fermentation conditions on bread staling kinetics. European Food Research and
Technology, 226, 1379e1387.
Green, P. H. R., & Jabri, B. (2003). Coeliac disease. The Lancet, 362, 383e391.
Gujral, H. S., Guardiola, I., Carbonell, J. V., & Rosell, C. M. (2003). Effect of cyclo-
dextrinase on dough rheology and bread quality from rice flour. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 3814e3818.
206 E.de la Hera et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 54 (2013) 199e206
Gujral, H. S., Haros, M., & Rosell, C. M. (2004). Improving the texture and delaying
staling in rice flour chapati with hydrocolloids and alpha-amylase. Journal of
Food Engineering, 65, 89e94.
Kadan, R. S., Bryant, R. J., & Miller, J. A. (2008). Effects of milling on functional
properties of rice flour. Journal of Food Science, 3, 151e154.
Kadan, R. S., Robinson, M. G., Thibodeux, D. P., & Pepperman, A. (2001). Texture and
other physicochemical properties of whole rice bread. Journal of Food Science,
66, 940e944.
Kinsey, L., Burden, S. T., & Bannerman, E. (2008). A dietary survey to determine if
patients with coeliac disease are meeting current healthy eating guidelines and
how their diet compares to that of the British general population. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62, 1333e1342.
Korus, J., Grzelak, K., Achremowicz, K., & Sabat, R. (2006). Influence of prebiotic
additions on the quality of gluten-free bread and on the content of inulin
and fructooligosaccharides. Food Science and Technology International, 12,
489e495.
Lazaridou, A., Duta, D., Papageorgiou, M., Belc, N., & Biliaderis, C. G. (2007). Effects of
hydrocolloids on dough rheology and bread quality parameters in gluten-free
formulations. Journal of Food Engineering, 79, 1033e1047.
McCarthy, D. F., Gallagher, E., Gormley, T. R., Schober, T. J., & Arendt, E. K. (2005).
Application of response surface methodology in the development of gluten-free
bread. Cereal Chemistry, 82, 609e615.
Mezaize, S., Chevallier, S., Le Bail, A., & de Lamballerie, M. (2009). Optimization of
gluten-free formulations for French-style breads. Journal of Food Science, 74,
140e146.
Minarro, B., Normahomed, I., Guamis, B., & Capellas, M. (2010). Influence of uni-
cellular protein on gluten-free bread characteristics. European Food Research
and Technology, 231, 171e179.
Moldenhauer, K. A. K., Gibbons, J. H., & McKenzie, K. S. (2006). Rice varieties. In
E. T. Champagne (Ed.), Rice chemistry and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 49e76) St.
Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Association of Cereal Chemists.
Moore, M. M., Schober, T. J., Dockery, P., & Arendt, E. K. (2004). Textural comparisons
of gluten-free and wheat-based doughs, batters, and breads. Cereal Chemistry,
81, 567e575.
Nunes, M. H. B., Moore, M. M., Ryan, L. A. M., & Arendt, E. K. (2009). Impact of
emulsifiers on the quality and rheological properties of gluten-free breads and
batters. European Food Research and Technology, 228, 633e642.
Pruska-Kedzior, A., Kedzior, Z., Goracy, M., Pietrowska, K., Przybylska, A., & Spychalska, K.
(2008). Comparison of rheological, fermentative and baking properties of gluten-
free dough formulations. European Food Research and Technology, 227, 1523e1536.
Renzetti, S., & Arendt, E. K. (2009). Effects of oxidase and protease treatments on the
breadmaking functionality of a range of gluten-free flours. European Food
Research and Technology, 229, 307e317.
Sanchez, H. D., Osella, C. A., & de la Torre, M. A. (2002). Optimization of gluten-free
bread prepared from cornstarch, rice flour, and cassava starch. Journal of Food
Science, 67, 416e419.
Schober, T. J. (2009). Manufacture of gluten-free specialty breads and confectionery
products. In E. Gallagher (Ed.), Gluten-free food science and technology (pp. 130e
180). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schober, T. J., Bean, S. R., & Boyle, D. L. (2007). Gluten-free sorghum bread improved
by sourdough fermentation: biochemical, rheological, and microstructural
background. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55, 5137e5146.
Shih, F. F. (2006). Rice proteins. In E. T. Champagne (Ed.), Rice chemistry and tech-
nology (3rd ed.) (pp. 143e162) St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Association
of Cereal Chemists.
Singh, N., Kaur, L., Sandhu, K. S., Kaur, J., & Nishinari, K. (2006). Relationships be-
tween physicochemical, morphological, thermal, rheological properties of rice
starches. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 532e542.
Singh, H., & MacRitchie, F. (2001). Application of polymer science to properties of
gluten Source. Journal of Cereal Science, 33, 231e243.
Wolska, P., Ceglinska, A., & Dubicka, A. (2010). Production of bread using sour-
doughs from gluten-free cereals. Zywnosc-Nauka Technologia Jakosc, 17, 104e111.