Functionality of different emulsifiers on the performance of breadmaking and wheat bread

Abstract

Emulsifiers are widely used in bakeries as dough strengtheners and crumb softeners, but there is a great diversity of compounds with emulsifier action. The objective of this study was to analyze the influence of emulsifiers with different functionalities on the rheological characteristics of wheat dough, as well as their effect in the final bread parameters, including behavior during aging. All the emulsifiers tested increased dough stability, although the extent of this effect was concentration-dependent. The presence of emulsifier retarded dough proofing; in consequence, longer proofing times would be required when emulsifiers are used. In fact, the positive effects of emulsifiers on bread volume were only observed with long proofing times, and that also became evident when crumb hardness was analyzed. Sodium stearoyl lactylate, sucrose ester, lecithin and enriched lecithin were the emulsifiers with the greatst crumb softening effects at extended proofing times. However, when the objective is a hardening delay during storage, the emulsifiers of choice are monoglyceride and lecithin enriched in lysophospholipids. This study reveals the importance of the proofing period to the functionality of the emulsifiers when used for breadmaking performance.

Full text

Eur Food Res Technol (2004) 219:145–150
DOI 10.1007/s00217-004-0937-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Manuel Gmez · Silvia del Real · Cristina M. Rosell ·
Felicidad Ronda · Carlos A. Blanco ·
Pedro A. Caballero.
Functionality of different emulsifiers on the performance
of breadmaking and wheat bread quality
Received: 1 March 2004 / Revised: 7 April 2004 / Published online: 18 May 2004
 Springer-Verlag 2004
Abstract Emulsifiers are widely used in bakeries as
dough strengtheners and crumb softeners, but there is a
great diversity of compounds with emulsifier action. The
objective of this study was to analyze the influence of
emulsifiers with different functionalities on the rheolog-
ical characteristics of wheat dough, as well as their effect
in the final bread parameters, including behavior during
aging. All the emulsifiers tested increased dough stability,
although the extent of this effect was concentration-de-
pendent. The presence of emulsifier retarded dough proof-
ing; in consequence, longer proofing times would be re-
quired when emulsifiers are used. In fact, the positive
effects of emulsifiers on bread volume were only ob-
served with long proofing times, and that also became
evident when crumb hardness was analyzed. Sodium
stearoyl lactylate, sucrose ester, lecithin and enriched
lecithin were the emulsifiers with the greatst crumb soft-
ening effects at extended proofing times. However, when
the objective is a hardening delay during storage, the
emulsifiers of choice are monoglyceride and lecithin en-
riched in lysophospholipids. This study reveals the im-
portance of the proofing period to the functionality of the
emulsifiers when used for breadmaking performance.
Keywords Emulsifier · Wheat dough · Proofing ·
Breadmaking · Bread quality
Introduction
The breadmaking industry has undergone important
changes in the last decades as a consequence of mech-
anization for increasing production, and consumer de-
mands. The mechanization of the breadmaking process
involves dough rheology changes and the frozen tech-
nologies also require recipe modification for reducing
the freezing damage [1]. Consumers demand products of
better quality and long shelf-life. The search for solu-
tions to meet those requirements has been parallel to
the development of different additives and technological
aids that modify dough rheology and improve bread
quality.
Additives and technological aids are extensively used
in the baking industry for improving dough machinability
in the case of emulsifiers and enzymes [2], bread char-
acteristics by using enzymes, hydrocolloids, emulsifiers
[3, 4] and to extend the shelf life of the resulting products
[5, 6].
Emulsifiers are active surfactant compounds that are
used in breadmaking with different objectives. The emul-
sifiers have a chemical structure containing both hydro-
philic and hydrophobic moieties. This particular chem-ical
structure enables emulsifiers to concentrate at the oil/water
interphase and thus contribute to the increased stability of
a thermodynamically unstable system. The effect of the
emulsifying agents exceeds their emulsifying capacity,
as their amphiphilic character provides the possibility of
forming complexes with starch and proteins [7]. However,
emulsifiers include compounds with a completely differ-
ent chemical structure, and therefore with diverse mech-
anisms of action, and in turn different effects in dough
and bread [8, 9]. Some of them have been previously
used in breadmaking, like diacetyl tartaric acid ester of
monoglycerides (DATEM) and sodium stearoyl lactylate
(SSL) and polysorbate [10, 11, 12], which act as dough
strengtheners exerting their effects during proofing, me-
chanical handling and transport. The final product ex-
hibits greater volume and marked improvement in crumb
structure.
M. Gmez ()) · S. del Real · F. Ronda · C. A. Blanco
Departamento de Ingeniera Agrcola y Forestal,
Tecnologa de los Alimentos, E.T.S.Ingenieras Agrarias,
Universidad de Valladolid,
34004 Palencia, Spain
e-mail: pallares@iaf.uva.es
Tel.: +34-9-79-108359
Fax: +34-9-79-108302
C. M. Rosell
Instituto de Agroqumica y Tecnologa
de Alimentos (IATA-CSIC),
P.O. Box 73, Burjasot-46100 Valencia, Spain

The great variation in the effects promoted by the
different emulsifiers necessitates a systematic study about
the influence of a range of emulsifiers with different
structures and in consequence diverse functionalities in
their performance in wheat bread. The aim of the present
study was to examine the effect of several commercial
emulsifiers, varying in chemical structure, on dough rhe-
ology, fresh bread quality, and bread characteristics during
storage. The effect of the proofing period on the emulsifier
functionality will be established. Additionally, two dif-
ferent concentrations of emulsifiers have been tested.
Materials and methods
Materials. A commercial blend of wheat flours for breadmaking
was used in this study. Protein , moisture and ash contents of the
flour were 14.0%, 14.6% and 0.68%, respectively. Emulsifiers in-
cluded diacetyl tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides (DATEM),
sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL) and distilled monoglyceride (MG),
provided by Danisco Cultor (Barcelona, Spain), and sucrose
palmitate (sucrose ester), citrate ester of monoglyceride (citrate
MG), polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate (polysorbate), defat-
ted soybean lecithin (lecithin) and defatted soybean lecithin en-
riched with lysophospholipids (enriched lecithin), gifted by De-
gussa (Barcelona, Spain).
Effect of emulsifiers on the functional properties of wheat dough.
The behavior of the wheat flour during mixing was determined
using a Consistograph NG (Chopin, Tripette et Renaud, France)
following the AACC method [13]. The following consistograph
parameters were automatically recorded by a computer software
program: water absorption (WA), the water required to yield dough
consistency equivalent to 1,700 mb of pressure in a constant hu-
midity measurement), dough development time (DDT), the time to
reach maximum consistency in an adapted humidity determination
with a maximum pressure of 2,200 mb), and tolerance, the time
elapsed from the dough consistency reaching its maximum until it
decreases down to 20%, which is related to dough mixing stability.
The viscoelastic properties of the wheat dough were assessed
using an Alveograph MA 82 (Chopin) following the AACC method
[14]. The following parameters were automatically recorded: te-
nacity or resistance to extension (P), dough extensibility (L), curve
configuration ratio (P/L) and the deformation energy (W).
The effect of the different emulsifiers on dough proofing was
determined by a rheofermentometer (Chopin), obtaining informa-
tion about the dough development and gas production during fer-
mentation [15].
Baking procedure. A straight dough process was performed using
the following ingredients (percentages on a flour basis): water
(60%), defatted dry milk (5%), yeast (4%), salt (2%), sucrose
(2.5%), and emulsifier (0.3%). After mixing all the ingredients for
15 min, the bread dough was divided (325 g portions), rounded,
rested (15 min), sheeted and molded into pans. Proofing was carried
out at 30 C and 75% RH, and for different durations (90, 120 and
150 min); loaves were then baked for 25 min at 210 C in an
electrical oven. Baking trials were performed in duplicate; each
replicate consisted of ten loaves. The bread quality attributes
(volume and hardness) were evaluated after cooling for 2 h at room
temperature. For storage studies loaves were packed in co-extruded
polypropylene bags. The aging of bread was assessed by deter-
mining the crumb firmness after 8 days of storage at 25 C.
Bread volume was determined by seed displacement, and crumb
hardness was measured using a TA-XT2 texture analyzer (Stable
Microsystems, Surrey, UK). Hardness was determined in a 25 mm
thickness slice using a 25 mm diameter cylindrical probe at 2 mm/s
compression speed to 50% crumb thickness compression. Results
are the average of ten determinations.
Statistical analysis. In order to assess significant differences among
samples, a multiple comparison analysis of samples was performed,
using the program Statgraphics Plus 5.0. Fisher’s least significant
differences (LSD) test was used to describe means with 95%
confidence.
Results and discussion
Effect of different emulsifiers on the mixing behavior
of wheat dough
The water absorption was little affected by the addition of
emulsifiers (Table 1); an evident decrease was only ob-
served with the addition of polysorbate and SSL, and the
effect was greater with increasing emulsifier concentra-
tions. This result agrees with previous findings showing
that emulsifiers such as DATEM and MGs do not have
any effect on the water absorption [11, 12, 16].
The time needed to dough development was prolonged
by DATEM, SSL and polysorbate, and the effect was
more pronounced with increasing emulsifier concentra-
tion. The presence of sucrose ester also increased the
mixing time but only at the lowest concentration tested.
An increase in the mixing time was previously observed
with the addition of SSL and sucrose ester [17]. In the
case of ionic surfactants (DATEM and SSL), this effect
could be attributed to their ability to form complexes with
proteins through their charge interaction [8, 18], inducing
protein-protein aggregation that could retard the dough
development. It has been also reported that sucrose esters
can form networks with flour proteins [19].
The tolerance value, an indication of the flour strength,
was affected to different extents by the emulsifiers tested.
The most remarkable effect was obtained with the addi-
tions of SSL, DATEM and sucrose ester, which, as was
Table 1 Effect of different emulsifiers on dough mixing properties
determined in a consistograph. Values are the means of duplicates.
DATEM Diacetyl tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides, SSL sodium
stearoyl lactylate, MG monoglyceride, WA water absorption, DDT
dough development time
Emulsifier
(%) WA (%) DDT (s) Tolerance (s)
Control 0 56.5 8,040 12,480
DATEM 0.3 54.7 8,760 15,120
0.7 55.9 10,860 15,960
MG 0.3 57.0 8,640 12,960
0.7 55.8 6,720 13,560
SSL 0.3 55.5 9,540 15,600
0.7 55.0 10,800 18,480
Sucrose es-
ter 0.3 57.2 11,040 14,880
0.7 55.6 8,040 15,600
Citrate MG 0.3 56.4 8,040 10,920
0.7 57.1 7,440 13,620
Lecithin 0.3 56.2 7,680 13,200
0.7 56.0 6,900 12,960
Enriched
lecithin 0.3 56.6 8,280 14,760
0.7 55.2 8,820 13,920
Polysorbate 0.3 55.3 9,360 12,960
0.7 54.5 11,100 15,960
146

already established, have the ability to form complexes
with the proteins, promoting a strengthening effect [20].
SSL and DATEM have been very effective increasing the
dough stability to support excessive kneading [11, 12]. In
the case of polysorbate, the same effect was observed but
only at the highest concentration tested. The MGs did not
affect the dough tolerance, or even produced a weakening
effect as was observed with the citrate MG. Lecithins
slightly affected the dough stability, only when enriched
with lysophospholipids, and at high concentration pro-
duced a strengthening effect that could be explained by
displacement of flour lipids [21].
Effect of different emulsifiers
on the viscoelastic properties of wheat dough
The viscoelastic properties of the wheat dough were de-
termined using the alveograph. The presence of emulsi-
fiers modified the alveograph parameters to different
extents, depending on the emulsifier structure (Table 2).
The tenacity was slightly modified by the emulsifiers;
only DATEM and the sucrose ester (at the maximum
level tested) significantly increased tenacity, while poly-
sorbate and lecithin significantly decreased this parame-
ter. This result confirms the strengthening effect of the
DATEM and sucrose ester, and the weakening effect
described for the lecithins [12, 21]. Regarding dough
extensibility, a significant (P<0.05) reduction was ob-
served with DATEM (at the maximum level tested).
Forssell et al. [7] described the greater strengthening ef-
fect of DATEM compared to SSL, MGs and soybean
lecithin by using an extensograph. A significant (P<0.05)
increase in the extensibility was produced by sucrose
ester, enriched lecithin and polysorbate.
The work needed to deform the dough was only sig-
nificantly increased by sucrose ester (at the maximum
level tested) and decreased by MG at the two levels tested
and DATEM and lecithin at the maximum level tested.
Likely the minor effect promoted by the emulsifiers on
the viscoelastic properties of wheat dough could be at-
tributed to the high protein content of the flour used, since
weak flours have a greater response to the additive [12].
Effect of different emulsifiers on the proofing behavior
of wheat dough
The proofing behavior of the wheat dough was markedly
affected by the presence of emulsifiers, and the extent of
this modification was dependent on the emulsifier prop-
erties. The maximum dough height reached during proof-
ing greatly increased in the presence of all the emulsifiers
tested (Table 3). The highest values were obtained with
polysorbate, sucrose ester, DATEM and SSL, and no
differences were observed with increasing the emulsifier
levels. The dough height is related to the strength of the
gluten network, and the results are consistent with that,
since the greatest values were obtained with the emulsi-
fiers that have strengthening action owing to their ability
to form complexes with protein and protein-protein ag-
gregation [8, 18, 19]. MG and lecithin derivatives also
produced an increase in the dough height, but it was less
intense than the one promoted by strengthening emulsi-
fiers.
The emulsifiers also slowed down the proofing pro-
cess: the doughs required a longer time to reach the
maximum development, and the extent of that effect was
similar in all the emulsifiers tested. No significant effect
was observed by increasing the emulsifier level. Mettler
and Seibel [22] obtained an increase in the proofing time
Table 2 Effects of different emulsifiers on the viscoelastic prop-
erties of wheat dough. DATEM Diacetyl tartaric acid ester of
monoglycerides, SSL sodium stearoyl lactylate, MG monoglyceride
Ptenacity, Ldough extensibility, Wdeformation energy
Emulsifier (%) P(mm) L(mm) W(J10
4
)
Control 0 106
de
96
cd
390
defg
DATEM 0.3 112
fg
91
bc
388
def
0.7 116
g
78
a
357
a
MG 0.3 106
de
87
b
360
ab
0.7 104
cde
90
bc
367
abc
SSL 0.3 103
bcd
100
de
386
def
0.7 106
de
104
efg
403
efgh
Sucrose
ester 0.3 99
ab
113
h
410
gh
0.7 114
g
103
ef
434
i
Citrate MG 0.3 108
ef
100
de
411
gh
0.7 102
bcd
100
de
383
cde
Lecithin 0.3 100
bc
101
e
382
cd
0.7 95
a
100
de
356
a
Enriched
lecithin 0.3 102
bcd
102
e
388
def
0.7 100
bc
110
gh
403
fgh
Polysorbate 0.3 99
ab
113
h
406
fgh
0.7 95
a
108
fgh
381
bcd
a–i
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the P<0.05 level
Table 3 Effect of different emulsifiers on the proofing behavior of
wheat dough determined by the rheofermentometer. DATEM Di-
acetyl tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides, SSL sodium stearoyl
lactylate, MG monoglyceride, H
m
maximum dough volume, T
1
time needed to reach the maximum dough volume
Emulsifier
(%) H
m
(mm) T
1
(min) CO
2
production
(mL)
Control 0 48.9 115 1,347
DATEM 0.3 78.4 171 1,529
0.7 82.4 183 1,393
MG 0.3 57.9 186 1,565
0.7 60.3 186 1,473
SSL 0.3 74.1 163 1,526
0.7 82.0 186 1,518
Sucrose
ester 0.3 82.4 183 1,484
0.7 82.5 163 1,562
Citrate MG 0.3 51.5 184 1,447
0.7 53.7 181 1,441
Lecithin 0.3 68.5 180 1,561
0.7 67.6 186 1,502
Enriched
lecithin 0.3 67.9 186 1,568
0.7 71.6 183 1,512
Polysor-
bate 0.3 83.0 186 1,520
0.7 82.4 183 1,628
147

when analyzing the effect of DATEM by using the
maturograph. However, in the present study the proofing
retardation was observed in all the emulsifiers, indepen-
dent of their structure; this might be attributed either to an
inhibitory effect of some emulsifiers on the yeast activity
or to the strengthening of gluten by emulsifiers, so that
more carbon dioxide pressure would be needed to extend
the gluten.
The presence of emulsifiers led to an increase in the
total production of carbon dioxide, although no addi-
tional enhancement was observed when using increasing
amounts of emulsifiers, with the exception of sucrose
ester and polysorbate. Likely, this increase could be ex-
plained by the ability of emulsifiers to form a laminar
structure in the protein-starch interface, which improves
the capacity of the proteins to form the network necessary
for holding the other compounds [16].
Effect of emulsifier addition on fresh bread characteristics
To test the functionality of the emulsifiers on the bread-
making process concerning its strengthening effect, it
was considered that the use of different proofing periods
would be a better way to make a comparison among the
different emulsifiers. Therefore bread loaves were baked
after different proofing periods (1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 h). The
emulsifier effect on bread volume can be observed in
Fig. 1. When short proofing times were used emulsifiers
did not have any positive effect on the bread volume;
even lower volumes than the control were obtained with
the addition of the emulsifiers, excepting sucrose ester,
enriched lecithin and polysorbate. However, this result
could be explained by the previously described proofing
retardation observed in the presence of emulsifiers, so that
longer proofing periods than the one obtained for the
control were required with the addition of emulsifiers.
With an intermediate proofing time (2.0 h), even the
control showed an increase in the bread volume, and a
parallel trend was observed in the presence of the emul-
sifiers. However, with longer periods of proofing, the
gluten networks lost stability in the normal bread, yield-
ing loaves of lower volume. In the presence of emulsi-
fiers, better loaf volumes were obtained, which might be
attributed to the enhancement of the stability of the pro-
tein network conferred by the emulsifiers, allowing an
extra-proofing; the emulsifiers also substantially increase
the so-called oven spring [16]. Only in the case of MG
and polysorbate loaves was the volume optimum at in-
termediate proofing time and decreased with extended
proofing. It should be stressed that emulsifiers can have a
negative effect when used in breadmaking in conjunction
with short proofing times. It has been previously reported
that improved bread volume was obtained in the presence
of DATEM, SSL, lecithin and MGs; however, contra-
dictory results were found when comparison studies were
undertaken [7, 20, 23]. Those differences might be owing
to the different proofing times used in those studies, since
the results obtained in this study reveal that the function
of the emulsifiers becomes evident when long proofing
times are required.
After establishing the importance of the proofing time
in the functionality of the emulsifiers, the crumb hardness
was determined, again considering three different proof-
ing times (Fig. 2). Longer proofing times led to softer
crumbs, and this was especially noticeable in the presence
of emulsifiers. With short proofing periods (1.5 h), emul-
sifiers yielded hard crumbs, significantly harder crumbs
(P<0.05) than those of the control in the case of lecithin
and polysorbate. SSL, sucrose ester, lecithin and enriched
lecithin were the emulsifiers with greatest crumb-soften-
Fig. 1 Effect of emulsifiers (0.3%, w/w, flour basis) on the volume
of bread baked after different proofing times. DATEM Diacetyl
tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides, SSL sodium stearoyl lactylate,
MG monoglyceride
Fig. 2 Crumb firmness of fresh bread baked after different proof-
ing times in the presence of several emulsifiers. The level of
emulsifiers used was 0.3% (w/w, flour basis). DATEM Diacetyl
tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides, SSL sodium stearoyl lacty-
late, MG monoglyceride
148

ing effects at extended proofing times. The softening ef-
fect imparted by the emulsifiers has been explained by the
volume effect and by the occlusion of more air during
mixing, so that in consequence smaller gas cells are
formed, and in turn finer crumb grain is obtained in the
fresh product [24, 25].
Anti-staling effect of different emulsifiers
An additional contribution of the emulsifiers is their anti-
staling effect during bread storage. Bread staling was
followed by measuring the hardness increase of the crumb
after a storage period of 8 days (Fig. 3). During the bread
aging, an increase in the crumb hardness was observed,
but the extent of the increase was significantly dependent
on the duration of the proofing before baking, which is
probably related to the equilibration time needed for the
interaction between emulsifier and dough constituents.
Regarding short proofing times, DATEM, citrate MG
and lecithin promoted faster hardening, obtaining signif-
icantly (P<<0.05) higher hardness increases than the one
observed with the control. Only loaves containing SSL
significantly retarded hardening at the shortest proofing
time tested, which agrees with previous findings of Kamel
and Hoover [20]. Loaves from longer proofing times led
to lower hardness increases, in the presence and absence
of emulsifiers. However, lecithin and enriched lecithin
showed a significant anti-staling effect in loaves of 2 h
proofing time, and the pattern slightly changed regarding
2.5 h of proofing, which obtained the best softening effect
with enriched lecithin and MG. The anti-staling effect of
the MGs has been explained by their interference action
on the swelling starch; the micro crystals of MGs adhere
to the starch granules avoiding the diffusion of water
through the crystals [26], and also due to their capacity to
form complexes with amylose [16], despite the retrogra-
dation of amylose only affecting the bread properties
during the first hour after baking. Concerning lecithins,
Forssell et al. [7] studied the effects of soya lecithin and
oats in the crystallization of wheat starch and in bread
structure, and determined that soya lecithin hydrolysate
complexed effectively with starch amylose and retard-
ed wheat starch crystallization due to its content of
lysophospholipids. In addition, they indicated that le-
cithins slowed down the amylopectin crystallization be-
cause of their high content in lysophospholipids. This
may explain why the effect brought about by enriched
lecithins in lysophospholipids presented a better anti-
staling capacity.
In conclusion, the rheological properties of wheat
dough were markedly influenced by the presence of
emulsifiers and the extent of the effect was dependent on
the emulsifier properties. The anionic emulsifiers together
with the non-ionic (sucrose ester of fatty acids and poly-
sorbate) conferred strength to wheat dough due to the
complex formation with gluten proteins. The positive
effect of the emulsifiers on the fresh bread characteristics,
including volume and crumb texture, can be ensured with
long proofing times. The addition of emulsifier is only
advisable for long proofing times.
References
1. Barcenas ME, Haros M, Benedito C, Rosell CM (2003) Food
Res Int 36:863–869
2. Haros M, Rosell CM, Benedito C (2002) J Agric Food Chem
50:4126–4130
3. Rosell CM, Rojas JA, Benedito de Barber C (2001) Food
Hydrocolloids 5:75–81
4. Collar C, Martinez JC, Rosell CM (2001) Food Sci Technol Int
7:501–510
5. Haros M, Rosell CM, Benedito C (2002) Eur Food Res Technol
215:425–430
6. Guarda A, Rosell CM, Benedito C, Galotto MJ (2004) Food
Hydrocolloids 18:241–247
7. Forssell P, Shamek S, Hrknen H, Poutanen K (1998) J Sci
Food Agric 76:31–38
8. Stauffer CE (1990) Functional additives for bakery foods.
Chapman, London, pp 69–124
9. Stauffer CE (1999). Emulsifiers. Eagan, St. Paul, MN
10. Tamstorf S, Jonsson T, Krog N (1985) The role of fats and
emulsifiers in baked products. In: Blanshard JMV, Frazier PJ,
Galliard T (eds) Chemistry and physics of baking. The Royal
Society of Chemistry, London, pp 75–88
11. Armero E, Collar C (1996) J Food Sci 61:399–303
12. Ravi R, Manohar R, Rao P (2000) Eur Food Res Technol
210:202–208
13. AACC (2000) Approved methods of the American Association
of Cereal Chemists, 10th edn. American Association of Cereal
Chemists, St. Paul, MN, method 54–50
14. AACC (2000) Approved methods of the American Association
of Cereal Chemists, 10th edn. American Association of Cereal
Chemists, St. Paul, MN, method 54–30A
15. Czuchajowska Z, Pomeranz Y (1993) Cereal Foods World
38:499–503
16. Stampfli L, Nersten B (1995) Food Chem 52:352–363
17. Lang CE, Neises EK, Walker CE (1992) Cereal Chem 69:587–
591
18. Keller RCA, Orsek R, Hamer RJ (1997) J Cereal Sci 25:175–
183
Fig. 3 Hardness increase of bread crumb after 8 days of storage at
25 C. Hardness increase is the difference of crumb hardness be-
tween fresh and stored bread. Breads were baked after different
proofing times. The level of emulsifiers used was 0.3% (w/w, flour
basis). DATEM Diacetyl tartaric acid ester of monoglycerides, SSL
sodium stearoyl lactylate, MG monoglyceride
149

19. Mueeller F, Jussofie I, Jurczyk MF (1996) Investigations into
the interaction of sucrose esters of fatty acids with bread in-
gredients using infrared spectroscopy. In: Institute of Food
Technologists Annual Meeting, pp 124
20. Kamel BS, Hoover R (1992) Food Res Int 25:285–288
21. Stampfli L, Nersten B, Molteberg EL (1996) Food Chem
57:523–530
22. Mettler E, Seibel W (1993) Cereal Chem 70:373–377
23. Indrani D, Rao GV (1992) J Food Sci 29:357–359
24. Junge RC, Hoseney RC, Varriano-Marston E (1981) Cereal
Chem 58:338–342
25. Crowley P, Grau H, Arendt EK (2000) Cereal Chem 77:370–
375
26. Valjakka TT, Ponte JG, Kulp K (1994) Cereal Chem 71:139–
144
150