Department of Food Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
J Food Sci. 2012 Nov;77(11):S399-406. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02952.x.
The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the capability of electronic (E) nose technology to discriminate refined and whole wheat bread made with white or red wheat bran according to their headspace volatiles. Whole wheat flour was formulated with a common refined flour from hard red spring wheat, blended at the 15% replacement level with bran milled from representative samples of one hard red and 2 hard white wheats. A commercial formula was used for breadmaking. Results varied according to the nature of the sample, that is, crust, crumb, or whole slices. Bread crust and crumb were completely discriminated. Crumb of whole wheat bread made with red bran was distinct from other bread types. When misclassified, whole wheat bread crumb with white bran was almost invariably identified as refined flour bread crumb. Using crust as the basis for comparisons, the largest difference in volatiles was between refined flour bread and whole wheat bread as a group. When refined flour bread crust was misclassified, samples tended to be confused with whole white wheat crust. Samples prepared from whole bread slices were poorly discriminated in general. E-nose results indicated that whole wheat bread formulated with white bran was more similar in volatile makeup to refined flour bread compared to whole wheat bread made with red bran. The E-nose appears to be very capable to accommodate differentiation of bread volatiles whose composition varies due to differences in flour or bran type.
Consumer preference of bread made using refined flour in contrast to whole wheat flour is partly due to the different aroma of whole wheat bread. This study used an electronic nose to analyze bread volatiles, and showed that whole wheat bread incorporating white bran was different from counterpart bread made using red bran, and was closer in volatile makeup to "white" bread made without bran. Commercial millers and bakers can take advantage of these results to formulate whole wheat flour with brans of preferred type in order to foster increased consumption of whole wheat products which confer many favorable health benefits.
本研究的主要目的是评估电子鼻技术区分根据其顶空挥发物用白或红麦麸制成的精制和全麦面包的能力。全麦面粉是用来自硬红春小麦的普通精制面粉配制的,用来自一个硬红小麦和 2 个硬白小麦的代表性样品制成的麸皮以 15%的替代水平混合。使用商业配方进行面包制作。结果因样品的性质而异,即外皮、面包屑或整个切片。面包外皮和面包屑完全区分开来。用红麦麸制成的全麦面包的面包屑与其他面包类型明显不同。当分类错误时,用白麦麸制成的全麦面包的面包屑几乎总是被识别为精制面粉面包屑。使用外皮作为比较的基础,在挥发性方面最大的差异是在精制面粉面包和整个小麦面包之间。当精制面粉面包外皮被错误分类时,样品往往与整个白小麦外皮混淆。一般来说,从整个面包切片制备的样品难以区分。电子鼻结果表明,与用红麦麸制成的全麦面包相比,用白麦麸制成的全麦面包在挥发性组成上与精制面粉面包更相似。电子鼻似乎非常有能力适应由于面粉或麸皮类型的差异而导致的面包挥发性成分的差异。
消费者对用精制面粉制成的面包的偏好与用全麦面粉制成的面包不同,部分原因是全麦面包的香气不同。本研究使用电子鼻分析面包挥发性物质,结果表明,加入白麦麸的全麦面包与用红麦麸制成的相应面包不同,在挥发性组成上与不含麸皮的“白”面包更接近。商业磨坊主和面包师可以利用这些结果,用首选类型的麸皮配制全麦面粉,以促进全麦产品的消费增加,全麦产品具有许多有益健康的好处。