Discover Food

Review

Processing strategies to improve the breadmaking potential

of whole‑grain wheat and non‑wheat flours
Tamara Dapčević‑Hadnađev1 · Jelena Tomić1 · Dubravka Škrobot1 · Bojana Šarić1 · Miroslav Hadnađev1

Received: 28 November 2021 / Accepted: 10 February 2022

© The Author(s) 2022  OPEN

Abstract
Strategies to increase the bio-functionality of staple food, such as bread, by incorporating whole-grain wheat flour or
flour from other, non-wheat grains instead of refined wheat flour are often constrained with the lack of their techno-
functionality, despite the associated beneficial effect on consumers’ health and well-being. Most of the available studies
investigating the possibilities to improve technological and sensory quality of bread prepared using whole-grain wheat
and non-wheat flours still rely on formulation approaches in which different additives and novel ingredients are used as
structuring agents. Less attention has been given to technological approaches which could be applied to induce struc-
tural changes on biopolymer level and thus increase the breadmaking potential of whole grains such as: modification
of grain and biopolymers structure by germination, flour particle size reduction, dry-heat or hydrothermal treatment,
atmospheric cold plasma, high-pressure processing or ultrasound treatment. Strategies to modify processing variables
during breadmaking like dough kneading and hydration modification, sourdough fermentation or non-conventional
baking techniques application are also poorly exploited for bread preparation from non-wheat grains. In this paper,
the challenges and opportunities of abovementioned processing strategies for the development of bread with whole-
wheat flours and non-wheat flours from underutilised gluten-containing or gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals will
be reviewed throughout the whole breadmaking chain: from grain to bread and from milling to baking. Feasibility of
different strategies to increase the technological performance and sensory quality of bread based on whole-grain wheat
flours or flours from other, non-wheat grains will be addressed considering both the environmental, safety and nutritive
advantages.

Keywords Breadmaking · Whole-grains · Non-wheat cereals · Novel technologies · Cereal processing

1 Introduction

Bread, regardless of the type, production process and geographical origin, is traditionally produced from refined com-
mon wheat (Triticum aestivum) flour. However, in recent years, there has been renewed interest in fortifying or replacing
refined wheat flour with whole-grain wheat flour, or flour from gluten-free cereals (rice, maize, sorghum, millet), pseu-
docereals (amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa) and ancient cereals [1, 2]. This trend is governed with different reasons: from
health-conscious and eco-friendly to economically driven.
Unlike refined wheat flour, whole-grain cereals and pseudocereals possess dense nutritional composition and a range
of bioactive compounds. Therefore, their consumption contributes to increased intake of micronutrients, dietary fibres,

* Tamara Dapčević‑Hadnađev, tamara.dapcevic@fins.uns.ac.rs | 1University of Novi Sad, Institute of Food Technology, Bulevar cara Lazara
1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia.

Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

phenolics, etc. Several studies have shown that regular consumption of whole-grain cereals is associated with health
benefits such as a lower risk of chronic-degenerative diseases and improved body weight regulation [3]. Additionally,
gluten-free cereals are finding an increased demand since coeliac disease or other gluten-associated allergies incidence
rates are raising over time [4]. On the other hand, in developing countries, utilization of indigenous grain crops (the case
of millet in Africa) is promoted. This contributes to economic development of local agriculture sector through reducing
reliance on wheat importation and ensuring food security. Utilization of ’zero km’ ingredients and relevance of short
food supply chains in increasing the access to healthy and sustainable food has particularly growing attention in crisis
situation such as COVID-19 pandemic [5, 6].
Despite their contribution to consumers’ well-being, sustainability of cereal cultivation and biodiversity protection,
whole-grain alternative cereals exploitation in breadmaking is still being diminished due to the lower technological
quality compared to refined wheat. The major challenges encountered in whole-grain or non-wheat cereals incorpora-
tion in breadmaking are poor gas retention, low loaf volume, hard and/or crumbling crumb texture, altered colour, short
shelf-life of bread. This could be related to dilution or absence of gluten complex responsible for viscoelastic properties
of dough and/or water competition effect between fibres and gluten [1, 7]. The abovementioned quality deficiencies
are often coupled with the lower consumers’ acceptance of the product sensory properties. The most common sensory
attributes of whole-grain and non-wheat cereal-based products are nutty odour, pungent flavour, bitter/astringent/sour
taste; associated with the presence of phenolic compounds and in particular the condensed tannins which are located in
the outermost bran layers [6]. In addition, lipid-rich cereals, such as oat, are susceptible to lipid oxidation which leads to
development of the undesired sensory attributes evaluated as musty and earthy odour and bitter and rancid flavour [8].
Generally, altered technological quality (product volume, texture, structure, etc.) and sensory attributes of whole-grain
and non-wheat cereal based products represent a limitation in their widespread acceptance.
Different strategies are thus proposed to produce bread from whole-grain and non-wheat cereals with technological
and sensory profile comparable to refined wheat bread, while preserving their nutritional value. The most commonly
applied strategies are the once involving bread formulation optimization through inclusion of various improvers, such
as vital gluten or texturing agents (e.g. hydrocolloids, emulsifiers, enzymes and different food additives) that could act as
structure forming agents instead of diluted or absent gluten [9, 10]. In order to contribute to ’clean label’ products design
as well as its cost-effectiveness, some researches have modified abovementioned compositional approach by replacing
food additives with fibre rich raw materials or food processing by-products to overcome the gluten deficiency [11, 12].
However, relatively little research has been conducted on technological approaches for improving breadmaking
potential of whole-grain and non-wheat cereals. As noted by Parenti et al. [1] instead of modifying process variables
to prepare unrefined wheat flour bread, most of the studies are adopting the same methods as for their counterparts
prepared with refined flour.
Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a critical opinion on current and future-looking sustainable technologi-
cal innovations and strategies utilized to increase the technological performance and sensory quality of bread based
on whole-grain and non-wheat cereals. Improvement strategies discussed in this paper encompassed the whole bread
production chain (Fig. 1): from raw material (cereal, flour, etc.) to process (milling, kneading, leavening, baking, etc.)
modification, considering both the environmental, safety and nutritive advantages related to the use of conventional
and emerging technologies and approaches.

2 Strategies to modify raw material for breadmaking

2.1 Grain modification approaches

2.1.1 Germination

Modification of grain and biopolymers structure by germination is mostly performed to initiate nutrient composi-
tional changes which are associated to health benefits. During the germination process degradation of macromol-
ecules occurs due to increased enzyme activities: (i) starch is hydrolysed by amylolytic enzymes to maltose, glucose,
dextrins and oligosaccharides, resulting in its higher digestibility [13–15]; (ii) storage proteins are degraded by endo-
peptidases produced from the aleurone layer and scutellum thus releasing peptides and free amino acids [15–18];
(iii) the ratio of soluble to insoluble dietary fibre increases especially when long germination times are applied [17,
20]; (iv) a phytate (antinutrient present in cereals) content decreases as a result of increased phytase activity thus

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w Review

Fig. 1  Summary of technolog-

ical approaches for increased
breadmaking potential of
whole-grain wheat and non-
wheat flours along the whole
breadmaking chain

releasing chelated cations leading to increased bioavailability of phosphorus and minerals such as Z ­ n2+, ­Fe2+/3+,
2+ 2+ 2+ 2+
­Ca , ­Mg , ­M n and C ­ u [13]. Moreover, germination process results in the increase in free fraction of phenolic
acids due to decrease in the bound one contributing to increased antioxidant activity [13, 15, 18, 19]. Germination
is also a strategy to produce important metabolites such as γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) [14, 18], recommended to
prevent neurological disorders [21].
Although increase in enzymatic activity produced by germination has mostly a detrimental effect on the bread-
making potential of cereals, with proper adjustment of the germination parameters it can be a promising tool to
improve both the nutritional and technological properties of cereal-based food. In general, germination leads to
softer and more fragile grain as a consequence of enzyme action which results in lower damaged starch content upon
milling [22]. This, along with partial protein hydrolysis and decrease in insoluble fibre content, contribute to lower
water absorption of flour from germinated wheat [17]. The germination also affects dough rheological properties in
the following directions: (i) weakening of the gluten ability to form viscoelastic network due to decrease in the level
of high-molecular-weight glutenin macropolymers which reflects in reduction of the tenacity, an increase of the
extensibility of dough, and (ii) reduction of starch gelatinization and retrogradation ability as a result of hydrolysis
[14, 23, 24].
However, shorter germination times, low substitution levels or addition of some improvers (vital wheat gluten)
to germinated wheat flour could increase technological performance of whole-grain cereals [1, 17, 25]. Activation
of slight amount of α-amylase will increase starch transformation to fermentable sugars thus promoting yeast fer-
mentation, carbon dioxide production and increase in dough height during fermentation [26, 27], which, along
with increased dough extensibility, will contribute to gas cell expansion leading to bread loaves of higher specific
volumes as evident from the study of Baranzelli et al. [14], Johnston et al. [28], Cardone et al. [29] and Bhinder et al.
[18] (Table 1).
In addition, optimized α -amylase activity can improve the bread shelf-life and sensory attributes [17]. It was shown
that due to restricted starch retrogradation, germination improved crumb softness for 200% after 24 h of storage even
when whole-wheat flour was used [29]. Controlled germination can also yield a product of enhanced starch digestibility
[15] and reduced glycaemic index [18]. Moreover, germinated whole-wheat breads had improved sensory attributes in
comparison to their unsprouted counterparts thanks to their diminished bitterness and graininess, increased sweet-
ness and moistness [25, 28]. Breads with germinated wheat flour are also perceived as the ones with dark crust due to
the presence of higher contents of reducing sugars that, combined with free amino acids, favoured the occurrence of
a Maillard reaction [14].

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Review

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 1  Impact of germination on the quality of leavened bakery products prepared from whole-grain wheat flour or flour from non-wheat grains
Germination conditions Cereal used Effect in leavened bakery product Reference

t = 24, 48 and 72 h; 80% relative humidity, T = 15 and 20 °C, at intervals of 12 h 100% germinated white wheat flour Wet gluten content—increased for samples germi- [14]
at each temperature nated 24 and 48 h, decreased for sample 72 h
Dough extensibility—increased
Water absorption—decreased
Dough stability—decreased
Bread specific volume—increased up to 48 h, at 72 h
Discover Food

slight decrease
Crumb firmness—increased
Bread lightness ­(L*)—decreased at 24 and 48 h,
increased to control value at 72 h
t = 24 h, T = 21 °C, excess of water, Falling Number reduction from 350 to 200 s 100% germinated whole-wheat flour Dough mix time—decreased [28]
Loaf volume—increased
(2022) 2:11

Consumer preference of whole-grain bread—increased

t = 48 h, T = 20 °C, 90% relative humidity 100% germinated whole-wheat flour Dough extensibility—increased [29]
Water absorption—decreased
Dough development time—decreased
Dough stability—decreased
Bread specific volume—increased
Crumb softness—increased
t = 24, 48, 72 and 96 h, T = 24 °C, in the dark conditions, intermittently sprayed 20% and 40% germinated tartary Specific volume—increased for samples germinated 24 [18]
with water after 8 h buckwheat and non-germinated and 48 h; 72 and 96 h detrimental effect
rice flour Firmness—decreased for samples germinated 24 and
48 h
Bread lightness ­(L*)—decreased
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w
Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w Review

2.2 Flour modification approaches

2.2.1 Particle size reduction (micronization)

Flour particle size can significantly alter bread functionality and technological quality. If a micronization, such as jet
milling, is applied to produce fine wheat flour with extremely low particle size, flour with increased digestible starch
content is obtained [30]. When used in breadmaking, jet milled flour slightly decreased bread glycaemic index.
However, it seems that pulverization of flour is not promising technology concerning bread technological qual-
ity since whole-grain wheat jet milled breads (flour volume median diameter = 17–53 μm) were characterized with
reduced specific volume and moisture content and increased crumb hardness in comparison to breads with flour
having volume median diameter of 84 μm [30]. The same relationship between flour mean particle size and techno-
logical performance was obtained for gluten-free flours. The flours having coarser particle size are the most suitable
for making gluten-free maize bread. According to de la Hera et al. [31], the coarser maize flours (> 150 µm) resulted
in breads with higher specific volume and lower crumb firmness than the ones with finer flour (< 106 µm), due to the
higher availability of dough to retain the gas produced during fermentation. Concerning rice flour incorporation in
breadmaking, de la Hera et al. [32] concluded that the coarse fraction combined with a high dough hydration was
the most suitable combination for developing rice bread when considering the bread volume and crumb texture.

2.2.2 Heat treatment

Different flour heat treatments such as dry-heat treatment or hydrothermal treatments (below or above starch gelati-
nization temperature) are being increasingly applied to improve the functionality of alternative cereals flour. It was
shown that dry-heat treated sorghum flour produced breads with increased specific volume and more cells per slice
area. This was ascribed to increased viscosity of sorghum flour dough as a consequence of starch granule swelling
due to heat induced partial gelatinization as well as denaturation of both proteins and enzymes [33]. In addition,
protein denaturation and the partial gelatinization of starch granules, led to an increase in gas retention capacity
and dough expansion, which all contributed to improvements in structure, strength and volume of dry-heated
sorghum containing bread [34]. Since sorghum-based products are characterized with pungent off-notes, dry heat
treatment can also be employed to improve sorghum bread sensory properties [35]. Dry heating was also promising
in upgrading the quality of substandard flour for bread-making applications [36]. Mann et al. [37] have shown that
heat treatment of flour causes the formation of gluten and starch aggregates and modifies interactions between
gluten and starch. The effects were more pronounced in heat-treated flours with increased moisture content where
higher mobility of the molecules is enabled.
It was also revealed that gluten-free flours (maize or rice) blanching results in doughs with higher consistency,
adhesiveness, springiness and stickiness due to the partial gelatinisation of the starch, which further led to improved
bread quality [38, 39].
When flour/starch heating is carried out in the presence of water without fostering a complete starch gelatiniza-
tion, as it is the case with annealing (treatments in excess or at intermediate water contents below the gelatinisation
temperature) and heat-moisture treatment (exposure of starch to higher temperatures at very restricted moisture
content), increase in the starch gelatinization temperature, water binding capacity and granule susceptibility to
enzyme hydrolysis occurs [40, 41]. These structural changes improve the volume of breads and their quality, since
restricted hydrothermal treatments increase starch emulsifying ability and delay gelatinization which enhance air
incorporation in doughs and prolong the period of loaf expansion [40].
It was shown that application of hydrothermally treated rice and maize flour to manufacture rice and maize semo-
lina-based breads increased the specific volume and decreased the hardness and chewiness of the gluten-free breads,
due to higher initial viscosity imparted by treated flours enabling the entrapment of air bubbles in the dough [42].
When hydrothermal treatments are performed above gelatinization temperature starch granules are irreversibly
losing their integrity, a process known as pre-gelatinization [40]. Parenti et al. [43] reported an increase in the water
absorption capacity, improved alveograph parameters, as well as bread volume, crumb softness and shelf life when
pre-gelatinized brown flour (flour having approx. 85% extraction yield, maximum ash content of 0.95 g/100, heated at
1:4 flour to water ratio at 85 °C) was used. Jalali et al. [44] used microwave-induced pre-gelatinization of maize flour to

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

produce gluten-free pan bread. The authors observed structural expansion and more swelling of the pre-gelatinized
maize flour as compared to non-treated one, which consequently resulted in increased firmness of dough, decreased
firmness of bread, increased bread crumb moisture, porosity, loaf specific volume and the overall acceptability.
If pre-gelatinization is achieved with the aid of extrusion cooking (flour/starch exposure to high temperatures and mechan-
ical shearing with enough amount of water) besides amylose and amylopectin leaching from disrupter starch granule,
breakage of the amylose and amylopectin chains, denaturation of proteins, enzyme (in)activation and Maillard reactions
occurred [40]. Extrusion cooked flour behaves as thickening agent [45], which is considered as a more ’natural approach’ to
the use of hydrocolloids as improvers. Substitution of native rice flour by extruded rice flour improved bread volume and
crumb structure, decreased initial hardness and delayed bread staling in gluten-free bread [46].

2.2.3 Atmospheric cold plasma

Atmospheric cold plasma (ACP) is a non-thermal processing technology that so far was applied at different stages of the cereal
processing chain for a range of applications including improved germination, microbial decontamination, toxin degrada-
tion and biopolymer structural changes for improved functionality [47]. The mode of action results from plasma generated
reactive species (reactive oxygen and nitrogen species), radicals and UV light [48]. It was revealed that reactive oxygen spe-
cies generated during wheat flour cold plasma treatment influenced protein oxidation, promoted disulfide bond formation
between glutenin proteins, that improved dough strength; led to starch depolymerization and decrease in its crystallinity.
These biopolymer structural changes reflected in the increase in bread specific volume, enhancement of its appearance and
porosity structure, as well as increase in bread crumb whiteness [49–51].
However, most of the studies investigating plasma-induced changes in grain/flour/dough structure are based on bread-
making potential of refined wheat flour, biopolymer changes in whole grain wheat or the safety aspects of plasma application
for alternative grains decontamination. The studies concerning plasma application to enhance breadmaking performance
of whole-grain or non-wheat cereals are scarce. Since some preliminary studies have shown that ACP treatment is effective
just in increasing breadmaking potential of weak flours [52], some future studies should be conducted for better exploita-
tion of ACP in whole-grain of gluten-free cereals modification. Moreover, combination of different technologies such as
plasma-activated water and heat moisture treatment can also offer novel possibilities in alternative grains utilization in
breadmaking [53].

2.3 Dough modification approaches

2.3.1 High‑pressure processing

High-pressure processing (HPP) represents novel processing technology which is mainly used for non-thermal treatment
for fruit juices preservation [54]. Generally, in high-pressure processing, food is subjected to high pressures (usually above
200 MPa, without high temperature treatment) causing structural and textural changes besides microbial inactivation. These
changes are mainly influenced by starch gelatinization and polymerization of proteins [55]. Therefore, this technology can
be effectively employed for protein and starch functional properties modification [56]. Moreover, Kieffer et al. [57] revealed
that high pressure treatment promotes protein network formation. Most of the papers using HPP in cereal technology is
mainly focused on gluten-free raw material treatment due to poor technological properties of these materials i.e. the lack of
protein network formation, poor gas retention properties, poor volume, acceptability etc. Generally, it was determined that
HPP treatment resulted in starch gelatinization and protein polymerization induced by reaction of thiol-disulfide interchange.
Consequently, the dough became more viscoelastic, showed better workability, increased water absorption capacity and
had better gas retention properties which resulted in increased volume and improved texture of the final product [58, 59].
Moreover, the obtained bakery products had improved shelf life [60] and slower hardening kinetics in comparison to control
samples, due to starch gelatinization that occurred in this process. However, according to Vallons et al. [61] the increase in
the addition of pressure treated flour over 10% resulted in lower specific volume and poorer final product quality.

2.3.2 Ultrasound treatment

Ultrasound treatment, as a non-thermal processing tool, has been intensively utilized for microbial and enzyme inacti-
vation, bioactive component extraction and food components modification for increased functionality [62]. However,
application of ultrasound to alter flour functionality and thus improve its breadmaking potential is quite scarce.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w Review

While it was shown that ultrasound modulation of flour functionality depends on the treatment time [62, 63], there
are opposite conclusions concerning the effect of the flour dispersion concentration. According to Vela et al. [63], effect
of ultrasound treatment is independent on the concentration of the treated flour dispersion up to 30%, and in all the
treated dispersions (5–30%) particle size of the rice flour was reduced. On the contrary, ultrasound treatment of buck-
wheat grains caused particles agglomeration in concentrated dispersions (1:5 and 1:2.5 solid:liquid ratio), while higher
dilution (1:10) increased smaller particle size fractions [64].
In general, ultrasound treatment of whole-grain flour significantly increases water solubility, water absorption and
swelling power of quinoa, buckwheat and rice flour [62–64]. It also influences starch crystallinity as recorded in the
alterations of the flour thermal properties such as reduction of gelatinization enthalpy, increase in pasting temperature
and gel strength [63], as well as in an increase in the in vitro starch digestibility [62]. However, effects on the flour pasting
properties were found to be dependent on treatment time [62] and dispersion concentration [64], where lower treatment
times [62] and medium concentrations [64] led to increase in peak viscosity, breakdown, and setback values.
Jalali et al. [44] have shown that ultrasound treatment of dough decreased the firmness of maize flour dough and
bread, while increasing gluten-free bread specific volume, porosity, and the overall acceptability score. The observed
improvement in bread technological, visual, and sensory properties was increased when combination of pre-gelatini-
zation and ultrasound treatment of maize flour was applied [44].

3 Strategies to modify processing variables of the breadmaking phases

3.1 Dough kneading and hydration modification

Flour transformation to dough is performed by hydration and mixing operations, where different processing variables
can be modified in order to achieve optimum dough and bread quality. Appropriate water content and temperature
ensure optimal dough rheology and consistency, avoiding undesired softening or hardening. Proper choice of mixing
speed and temperature will avoid dough warming and excessive weakening, while kneading time management prevents
both over- and under-mixing and allows dough aeration and its capacity to retain gases [5].
Water content influences dough quality in the following manner: adding too much water during kneading generates
soft and sticky dough, while dough with water content below the optimal water absorption of the flour will be harder
to knead [5]. Increase in total water content in dough from ancient grain flours increases dough extensibility, while it
decreases dough tenacity and vice versa [65]. In the case of gluten-free ingredients, such as rice flour and hydroxypro-
pyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), low hydrated doughs had low ability to retain gas released during proofing, unlike high
hydrated doughs which endure longer fermentation time resulting in improved specific volume [66]. Therefore, dif-
ferent strategies are applied in order to increase water absorption and thus improve gluten-free bread quality. Due to
the absence of gluten in gluten-free ingredients, increased water absorption is achieved through fibres/hydrocolloids
addition or enzymatic or extrusion treatments to modify amount of water which will be untaken by starch in the early
phases of breadmaking [67, 68].
Gomez et al. [66] have also reported that low mixing speed and long mixing time led to gluten-free breads with higher
specific volumes and softer texture.

3.2 Sourdough fermentation

Although being an ancient biotechnology, sourdough fermentation has gained renewed interest as a tool for better
exploitation of non-wheat cereals in breadmaking [69]. Sourdough can be described as a mixture of flour and water
fermented by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) or LAB in combination with yeasts, either spontaneous or inoculated [70]. The
positive effects of sourdough application in breadmaking are associated with the metabolic activities of the LAB and
yeasts, such as acidification, production of exopolysaccharides, proteolytic, amylolytic and phytase activity, and produc-
tion of volatile and antimicrobial substances [71].
Beside the fact that sourdough fermentation contributes to enhanced nutritional properties of bread (higher free
amino acids concentrations, soluble fibre, γ-aminobutyric acid, total phenols and antioxidant activities) and phytic acid
reduction, leading to increased mineral, protein and free amino acids bioavailability; it has significant impact on bread
techno-functionality [6, 72].

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

Taking advantage of LAB ability to produce certain polymers and modify the main structure-building components
of flour such as starch, arabinoxylans and proteins, sourdough fermentation was used to improve dough and bread
technological properties such as loaf volume, water absorption of the dough, dough rheology and machinability [73].
Certain LAB strains produce exopolysaccharides that due to their water-binding ability act as hydrocolloids or gums,
and could be considered as gluten mimetics in gluten-free products [74] in order to improve product texture. In gluten
containing flours, organic acids produced by LAB enhance the solubility of the glutenin fraction and improve the swell-
ing power of the gluten, which increase gas retention during fermentation [73]. Gluten complex structural changes are
associated with dough acidification which may also activate some endogenous flour enzymes such as proteases that
can hydrolyse gluten under appropriate fermentation conditions and bacteria selection. Gobbetti et al. [75] suggested
that degradation of prolamins of wheat and rye during fermentation by selected sourdough lactic acid bacteria can
represent a possibility to use these cereals in the gluten-free diet.
On the contrary, reports on the fate of starch during sourdough fermentation are contradictory. In the case of the who-
legrain wheat flour, sourdough fermented bread exhibited higher resistant starch content and lower glycaemic response
than the corresponding products leavened with S. cerevisiae [76]. However, sourdough with a commercial starter added
to a gluten-free formulation decreased the glycaemic response in vivo less effective than in wheat sourdough bread.
This was explained with lower concentrations of organic acids in gluten-free than in wheat sourdough. In sourdough
wheat breads pH decrease upon formation of organic acids led to inhibition of α-amylase and consequently, a decrease
in starch hydrolysis. On the contrary, the pH in gluten-free sourdoughs might still be sufficient for α-amylase to proceed
with degradation of starch and increase in starch hydrolysis degree [77].
The effect of sourdough fermentation on techno-functionality of bread prepared with alternative cereals is summa-
rized in Table 2. As it can be seen from Table 2, the effect of sourdough addition on bread technological performance
largely depends on sourdough type, LAB strain and presence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Besides bread technological quality, organic acids together with other LAB metabolites (e.g. ­CO2, ethanol, diacetyl,
hydrogen peroxide, fatty acids, reuterin, fungicin, etc.) also contribute to bread preservation thus prolonging its shelf
life [54]. Sourdough was also successfully applied in a sugar reduced bakery product, owning to sourdough bacteria
ability to produce polyols [87]. Because of the synthesis of flavouring amino acids during fermentation, the sourdough
efficiently masks salt reduction in bakery products without affecting taste and other quality parameters [88].

3.3 Non‑conventional baking techniques

Another interesting approach to improve the breadmaking potential of alternative cereals is to apply a non-conventional
baking technique such as vacuum, microwave, infrared, jet-impingement, ohmic or a combination of them (hybrid
heating).
In comparison to conventional, partial-vacuum baking of gluten-free bread did not have significant impact on bread
volume and texture; however, it resulted in product which became stale more slowly than the control [89].
Microwave and infrared baking are considered as time- and cost-efficient processes. Although microwave and micro-
wave-assisted hot air baking increase gluten-free bread crumb hardness and result in pale bread crust compared with
the hot air baking, it was shown that these techniques can reduce the digestibility of starch and glycaemic index of the
bread and increase loaf volume [90].
Application of single infrared radiation (halogen lamp as NIR source) results mostly in products of inferior quality, due
to the high rate of heating which influence sudden and thick crust formation and the prevention of the product expan-
sion thus leading to lower specific volume and higher firmness values than conventional baking [91, 92]. However, in
the study of Shyu et al. [93] breads baked by IR had comparable quality in terms volume, water activity, staling rate, or
sensory scores with conventionally baked ones.
Another novel baking technique, jet impinging, based on forced convection heating, increases the heat transfer effi-
ciency during the baking process [94], but results in the formation of a thick crust as compared with infrared radiation
and heating in a conventional household oven [95].
Ohmic heating is an innovative technology in which an alternating electrical current is passed through a material,
generating heat by dissipation of the electrical energy due to material’s own electrical resistance, allowing rapid and
uniform heat distribution [54].
Bender et al. [96] have shown that gluten-free breads could benefit from the uniform rapid heating during processing,
as these breads exhibit higher loaf volume, finer pore structure, reduced starch digestibility and higher resistant starch

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
 Discover Food

Table 2  Effect of sourdough fermentation on the quality of bread prepared from whole-grain wheat flour or flour from non-wheat grains
Fermentation type/strain Cereal in breadmaking Effect in bread Reference
(2022) 2:11

Type-1 (spontaneous fermentation) Whole wheat flour bread Lower specific volume/higher hardness compared to control with dry [78]
Type-2 (Lactobacillus brevis ELB99, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ELB75, yeast
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae TGM55)
L. brevis Pearl millet-based breadSourdough breads retained their moisture better than conventional [79]
loaves; suppressed the development of mould for a longer period;
and were more palatable than conventional or chemically acidified
ones
Lactobacillus plantarum, Lb. brevis or Leuconostoc mesenteroides mixed Wholemeal wheat flour bread Lactobacillus plantarum sourdough addition most efficiently retarded [80]
with yeast Candida humili firming rate and improved specific volume in comparison with par-
tially baked frozen bread without sourdough
Inoculated with multi-strain starter culture (LAB and yeasts) and fer- Hull-less barley bread Lower specific volume, harder and denser crumb in comparison to [81]
mented with the back-slopping technique wheat bread, but comparable overall acceptability scores
Commercial starter cultures (Lesaffre, Wołczyn, Poland) Gluten-free amaranth bread Application of fresh and freeze-dried amaranth sourdough led to [82]
increased bread volume, decreased crumb hardness and larger pores
on the crumb (10% sourdough addition was sensory more preferred
than 20% addition)
Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM19280 and L. amylovorus ­DSM20531T and Gluten-free quinoa bread Softer crumb, higher specific loaf volume in comparison to non-acidi- [83]
yeast fied bread
Gluten-free inoculum from sourdough water Gluten-free teff bread The bread enriched with fermented teff had higher specific volume, [84]
softer bread crumb and a lower staling rate with respect to a bread
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

enriched with non-fermented teff flour

Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8, Weissella confusa SD8, P. pentosaceus LD7 Sorghum flour bread Sorghum sourdough breads exhibited increased crumb hardness and [85]
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae YC1 similar bread specific volume to control bread with YC1
Pediococcus pentosaceus (strain MB33), Weissella cibaria (strain CM32), Spelt flour bread Decrease in bread specific volume and crumb texture compared to [86]
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain bread leavened with S. cerevisiae only

Vol.:(0123456789)
13
Review
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

content compared to conventionally baked breads. Namely, rapid heating stabilizes the crumb structure at an early stage
of baking before ­CO2 is released during heating enabling bread expansion.
In order to increase the potential of non-conventional baking techniques while minimizing the disadvantages a com-
bination of them (hybrid heating) can be applied. Combination of infrared lamps and electric heating coils enables 28%
reduction in baking time, while resulting in breads comparable with breads baked in conventional electrical heating in
terms of crumb firmness, volume, moisture content and colour [97]. However, there are limited studies applying hybrid
heating to produce alternative cereals bread. Demirkesen et al. [98] compared the quality of the gluten-free breads
based on the blends of tigernut flour/rice flour baked in conventional ovens and infrared–microwave combination. They
observed higher loaf volume and crumb firmness and less gelatinized starch of IR- microwave baked breads. Moreover,
staling of gluten-free breads was not affected by both baking methods [99].
Impact of abovementioned processing strategies on breadmaking potential of whole-grain wheat and non-wheat
flours is summarized in Fig. 2.

4 Conclusions and future trends

This review has highlighted that different technological strategies can be used to increase techno-functionality of whole-
grain wheat and non-wheat flours and sensory properties of final product—bread. They are mostly performed with the
aim to alter biopolymer structure and thus increase its functionality and encompass the ones used to provoke starch
pre-gelatinization (high-pressure processing, flour heat treatment), reduce starch retrogradation (germination, extru-
sion cooking, non-conventional baking techniques), induce gluten strengthening through oxidation (atmospheric cold
plasma) or gluten hydrolysis (grain germination, sourdough fermentation). It was elucidated that despite the opportuni-
ties offered by different conventional and emerging technologies and approaches, the gaps between technological and
nutritional strategies for improving breadmaking potential of whole-grains still exist, especially when other, non-wheat
grains are used. Namely, effectiveness of reviewed technological approaches largely depends on initial flour composi-
tion and quality. Therefore, further investigations are needed, particularly with respect to the ones including combined
technologies (atmospheric pressure plasma/thermal treatment; pre-gelatinization/ultrasound; hybrid heating, etc.) to

Fig. 2  Impact of different technological approaches on breadmaking potential of whole-grain wheat and non-wheat flours

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w Review

further increase technological and sensory quality of bread from whole-grain non-wheat cereals while preserving health
beneficial properties.

Acknowledgements This research was financially supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, program PROMIS [Grant Number:
6062634], project acronym ReTRA and Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [Grant Num-
ber: 451-03-68/2022-14/200222].

Authors’ contributions Idea for the article: TD-H; literature search and data analysis: JT, DŠ, BŠ, MH; drafted the work: TD-H, MH; critically revised
the work: JT. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia [Grant Number: 6062634], Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of
the Republic of Serbia [Grant Number: 451-03-68/2022-14/200222].

Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Competing interests Tamara Dapčević-Hadnađev is Editorial Board Member.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://c​ reati​ vecom
​ mons.o
​ rg/l​ icens​ es/b
​ y/4.0
​ /.

References
1. Parenti O, Guerrini L, Zanoni B. Techniques and technologies for the breadmaking process with unrefined wheat flours. Trends Food Sci
Technol. 2020;99:152–66.
2. Alvarez-Jubete L, Auty M, Arendt EK, Gallagher E. Baking properties and microstructure of pseudocereal flours in gluten-free bread for-
mulations. Eur Food Res Technol. 2010;230(3):437–45.
3. Aune D, Keum N, Giovannucci E, Fadnes LT, Boffetta P, Greenwood DC, Tonstad S, Vatten LJ, Riboli E, Norat T. Whole grain consumption
and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
of prospective studies. BMJ. 2016;353: i2716.
4. King JA, Jeong J, Underwood FE, Quan J, Panaccione N, Windsor JW, Coward S, deBruyn J, Ronksley PE, Shaheen AA, Quan H. Incidence
of celiac disease is increasing over time: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroentero. 2020;115(4):507–25.
5. Cappelli A, Cini E. Challenges and opportunities in wheat flour, pasta, bread, and bakery product production chains: a systematic review
of innovations and improvement strategies to increase sustainability, productivity, and product quality. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2608.
6. Wang Y, Maina NH, Coda R, Katina K. Challenges and opportunities for wheat alternative grains in breadmaking: Ex-situ-versus in-situ-
produced dextran. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;113:232–44.
7. Naqash F, Gani A, Gani A, Masoodi FA. Gluten-free baking: combating the challenges—a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2017;66:98–107.
8. Heiniö RL, Lehtinen P, Oksman-Caldentey KM, Poutanen K. Differences between sensory profiles and development of rancidity during
long-term storage of native and processed oat. Cereal Chem. 2002;79(3):367–75.
9. Tebben L, Shen Y, Li Y. Improvers and functional ingredients in whole wheat bread: a review of their effects on dough properties and
bread quality. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018;81:10–24.
10. Pojić M, Hadnađev TD, Hadnađev M, Rakita S, Torbica A. Optimization of additive content and their combination to improve the quality
of pure barley bread. J Food Sci Technol. 2017;54(3):579–90.
11. Torbica A, Hadnađev M, Dapčević T. Rheological, textural and sensory properties of gluten-free bread formulations based on rice and
buckwheat flour. Food Hydrocoll. 2010;24(6–7):626–32.
12. Šarić B, Dapčević-Hadnađev T, Hadnađev M, Sakač M, Mandić A, Mišan A, Škrobot D. Fiber concentrates from raspberry and blueberry
pomace in gluten-free cookie formulation: effect on dough rheology and cookie baking properties. J Texture Stud. 2019;50(2):124–30.
13. Benincasa P, Falcinelli B, Lutts S, Stagnari F, Galieni A. Sprouted grains: a comprehensive review. Nutrients. 2019;11(2):421.
14. Baranzelli J, Kringel DH, Colussi R, Paiva FF, Aranha BC, de Miranda MZ, da Rosa ZE, Dias AR. Changes in enzymatic activity, technological
quality and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) content of wheat flour as affected by germination. LWT. 2018;90:483–90.
15. Yang Q, Luo Y, Wang H, Li J, Gao X, Gao J, Feng B. Effects of germination on the physicochemical, nutritional and in vitro digestion char-
acteristics of flours from waxy and nonwaxy proso millet, common buckwheat and pea. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2021;67: 102586.
16. Hajnal EJ, Tomić J, Torbica A, Rakita S, Pojić M, Živančev D, Hadnađev M, Hadnađev TD. Content of free amino groups during postharvest
wheat and flour maturation in relation to gluten quality. Food Chem. 2014;164:158–65.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

17. Lemmens E, Moroni AV, Pagand J, Heirbaut P, Ritala A, Karlen Y, Lê KA, Van den Broeck HC, Brouns FJ, De Brier N, Delcour JA. Impact of
cereal seed sprouting on its nutritional and technological properties: a critical review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019;18(1):305–28.
18. Bhinder S, Singh N, Kaur A. Impact of germination on nutraceutical, functional and gluten free muffin making properties of Tartary
buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). Food Hydrocoll. 2022;124: 107268.
19. Sturza A, Păucean A, Chiș MS, Mureșan V, Vodnar DC, Man SM, Urcan AC, Rusu IE, Fostoc G, Muste S. Influence of buckwheat and buckwheat
sprouts flours on the nutritional and textural parameters of wheat buns. Appl Sci. 2020;10(22):7969.
20. Koehler P, Hartmann G, Wieser H, Rychlik M. Changes of folates, dietary fiber, and proteins in wheat as affected by germination. J Agric
Food Chem. 2007;55(12):4678–83.
21. Gajcy K, Lochynski S, Librowski T. A role of GABA analogues in the treatment of neurological diseases. Curr Med Chem. 2010;17(22):2338–47.
22. Liu T, Hou GG, Cardin M, Marquart L, Dubat A. Quality attributes of whole-wheat flour tortillas with sprouted whole-wheat flour substitu-
tion. LWT. 2017;77:1–7.
23. Žilić S, Janković M, Barać M, Pešić M, Konić-Ristić A, Šukalović VH. Effects of enzyme activities during steeping and sprouting on the
solubility and composition of proteins, their bioactivity and relationship with the bread making quality of wheat flour. Food Funct.
2016;7(10):4323–31.
24. Rimsten L, Haraldsson AK, Andersson R, Alminger M, Sandberg AS, Åman P. Effects of malting on β-glucanase and phytase activity in
barley grain. J Sci Food Agric. 2002;82(8):904–12.
25. Richter K, Christiansen K, Guo G. Wheat sprouting enhances bread baking performance. Cereal Foods World. 2014;59(5):231–3.
26. Marti A, Cardone G, Nicolodi A, Quaglia L, Pagani MA. Sprouted wheat as an alternative to conventional flour improvers in bread-making.
LWT. 2017;80:230–6.
27. Marti A, Cardone G, Pagani MA, Casiraghi MC. Flour from sprouted wheat as a new ingredient in bread-making. LWT. 2018;89:237–43.
28. Johnston R, Martin JM, Vetch JM, Byker-Shanks C, Finnie S, Giroux MJ. Controlled sprouting in wheat increases quality and consumer
acceptability of whole-wheat bread. Cereal Chem. 2019;96(5):866–77.
29. Cardone G, D’Incecco P, Pagani MA, Marti A. Sprouting improves the bread-making performance of whole wheat flour (Triticum aestivum
L.). J Sci Food Agric. 2020;100(6):2453–9.
30. Protonotariou S, Mandala I, Rosell CM. Jet milling effect on functionality, quality and in vitro digestibility of whole wheat flour and bread.
Food Bioprocess Technol. 2015;8(6):1319–29.
31. de la Hera E, Talegón M, Caballero P, Gómez M. Influence of maize flour particle size on gluten-free breadmaking. J Sci Food Agric.
2013;93(4):924–32.
32. de la Hera E, Rosell CM, Gomez M. Effect of water content and flour particle size on gluten-free bread quality and digestibility. Food Chem.
2014;151:526–31.
33. Marston K, Khouryieh H, Aramouni F. Effect of heat treatment of sorghum flour on the functional properties of gluten-free bread and
cake. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2016;65:637–44.
34. Collar C. Gluten-free dough-based foods and technologies. In: Taylor JRN, Duodu KG, editors. Sorghum and millets. Cambridge: AACC
International Press; 2019. p. 331–54.
35. Cappelli A, Oliva N, Cini E. A systematic review of gluten-free dough and bread: dough rheology, bread characteristics, and improvement
strategies. Appl Sci. 2020;10(18):6559.
36. Gélinas P, McKinnon CM, Rodrigue N, Montpetit D. Heating conditions and bread-making potential of substandard flour. J Food Sci.
2001;66(4):627–32.
37. Mann J, Schiedt B, Baumann A, Conde-Petit B, Vilgis TA. Effect of heat treatment on wheat dough rheology and wheat protein solubility.
Food Sci Technol Int. 2014;20(5):341–51.
38. Marco C, Rosell CM. Functional and rheological properties of protein enriched gluten free composite flours. J Food Eng. 2008;88(1):94–103.
39. Brites C, Trigo MJ, Santos C, Collar C, Rosell CM. Maize-based gluten-free bread: influence of processing parameters on sensory and
instrumental quality. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2010;3(5):707–15.
40. Gómez M, Martínez MM. Changing flour functionality through physical treatments for the production of gluten-free baking goods. J
Cereal Sci. 2016;67:68–74.
41. Tester RF, Debon SJ. Annealing of starch—a review. Int J Biol Macromol. 2000;27(1):1–2.
42. Bourekoua H, Benatallah L, Zidoune MN, Rosell CM. Developing gluten free bakery improvers by hydrothermal treatment of rice and corn
flours. LWT. 2016;73:342–50.
43. Parenti O, Guerrini L, Canuti V, Angeloni G, Masella P, Zanoni B. The effect of the addition of gelatinized flour on dough rheology and
quality of bread made from brown wheat flour. LWT. 2019;106:240–6.
44. Jalali M, Sheikholeslami Z, Elhamirad AH, Khodaparast MH, Karimi M. The effect of the ultrasound process and pre-gelatinization of the
corn flour on the textural, visual, and sensory properties in gluten-free pan bread. J Food Sci Technol. 2020;57(3):993–1002.
45. Matos ME, Rosell CM. Understanding gluten-free dough for reaching breads with physical quality and nutritional balance. J Sci Food
Agric. 2015;95(4):653–61.
46. Martínez MM, Marcos P, Gómez M. Texture development in gluten-free breads: effect of different enzymes and extruded flour. J Texture
Stud. 2013;44(6):480–9.
47. Ojha S, Fröhling A, Durek J, Ehlbeck J, Tiwari BK, Schlüter OK, Bußler S. Principles and application of cold plasma in food processing. In:
Knoerzer K, Muthukumarappan K, editors. Innovative food processing technologies. A comprehensive review. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2021.
p. 519–40.
48. Feizollahi E, Iqdiam B, Vasanthan T, Thilakarathna MS, Roopesh MS. Effects of atmospheric-pressure cold plasma treatment on deoxyni-
valenol degradation, quality parameters, and germination of barley grains. Appl Sci. 2020;10(10):3530.
49. Chaple S, Sarangapani C, Jones J, Carey E, Causeret L, Genson A, Duffy B, Bourke P. Effect of atmospheric cold plasma on the functional
properties of whole wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain and wheat flour. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2020;66: 102529.
50. Menkovska M, Mangova M, Dimitrov K. Effect of cold plasma on wheat flour and bread making quality. Maced J Anim Sci. 2014;4(1):27–30.
51. Misra NN, Kaur S, Tiwari BK, Kaur A, Singh N, Cullen PJ. Atmospheric pressure cold plasma (ACP) treatment of wheat flour. Food Hydrocoll.
2015;44:115–21.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w Review

52. Vukić M. Effects of cold atmospheric plasma on the technological quality and safety of wheat flour. Faculty of Technology, University of
Novi Sad; 2020.
53. Shi M, Wang F, Ji X, Yan Y, Liu Y. Effects of plasma-activated water and heat moisture treatment on the properties of wheat flour and dough.
Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijfs.​15317.
54. Bender D, Schönlechner R. Innovative approaches towards improved gluten-free bread properties. J Cereal Sci. 2020;91: 102904.
55. Vallons KJ, Ryan LA, Arendt EK. Promoting structure formation by high pressure in gluten-free flours. LWT Food Sci Technol.
2011;44(7):1672–80.
56. Ahmed J, Ramaswamy HS, Ayad A, Alli I, Alvarez P. Effect of high-pressure treatment on rheological, thermal and structural changes in
Basmati rice flour slurry. J Cereal Sci. 2007;46(2):148–56.
57. Kieffer R, Schurer F, Köhler P, Wieser H. Effect of hydrostatic pressure and temperature on the chemical and functional properties of wheat
gluten: studies on gluten, gliadin and glutenin. J Cereal Sci. 2007;45(3):285–92.
58. Stolt M, Oinonen S, Autio K. Effect of high pressure on the physical properties of barley starch. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol.
2000;1(3):167–75.
59. Cappa C, Barbosa-Cánovas GV, Lucisano M, Mariotti M. Effect of high pressure processing on the baking aptitude of corn starch and rice
flour. LWT. 2016;73:20–7.
60. Hüttner EK, Dal Bello F, Poutanen K, Arendt EK. Fundamental evaluation of the impact of high hydrostatic pressure on oat batters. J Cereal
Sci. 2009;49(3):363–70.
61. Vallons KJ, Ryan LA, Koehler P, Arendt EK. High pressure–treated sorghum flour as a functional ingredient in the production of sorghum
bread. Eur Food Res Technol. 2010;231(5):711–7.
62. Zhu F, Li H. Modification of quinoa flour functionality using ultrasound. Ultrason Sonochem. 2019;52:305–10.
63. Vela AJ, Villanueva M, Solaesa ÁG, Ronda F. Impact of high-intensity ultrasound waves on structural, functional, thermal and rheological
properties of rice flour and its biopolymers structural features. Food Hydrocoll. 2021;113: 106480.
64. Harasym J, Satta E, Kaim U. Ultrasound treatment of buckwheat grains impacts important functional properties of resulting flour. Mol-
ecules. 2020;25(13):3012.
65. Cappelli A, Cini E, Guerrini L, Masella P, Angeloni G, Parenti A. Predictive models of the rheological properties and optimal water content
in doughs: an application to ancient grain flours with different degrees of refining. J Cereal Sci. 2018;83:229–35.
66. Gómez M, Talegón M, De La Hera E. Influence of mixing on quality of gluten-free bread. J Food Qual. 2013;36(2):139–45.
67. Föste M, Verheyen C, Jekle M, Becker T. Fibres of milling and fruit processing by-products in gluten-free bread making: a review of hydra-
tion properties, dough formation and quality-improving strategies. Food Chem. 2020;306: 125451.
68. Morreale F, Garzón R, Rosell CM. Understanding the role of hydrocolloids viscosity and hydration in developing gluten-free bread. A study
with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. Food hydrocoll. 2018;77:629–35.
69. Ramos L, Alonso-Hernando A, Martínez-Castro M, Morán-Pérez JA, Cabrero-Lobato P, Pascual-Maté A, Téllez-Jiménez E, Mujico JR. Sour-
dough biotechnology applied to gluten-free baked goods: rescuing the tradition. Foods. 2021;10(7):1498.
70. Hammes WP, Gänzle MG. Sourdough breads and related products. In: Wood BJB, editor. Microbiology of fermented foods. Boston: Springer;
1998. p. 199–216.
71. Moroni AV, Dal Bello F, Arendt EK. Sourdough in gluten-free bread-making: an ancient technology to solve a novel issue? Food Microbiol.
2009;26(7):676–84.
72. Gobbetti M, De Angelis M, Di Cagno R, Calasso M, Archetti G, Rizzello CG. Novel insights on the functional/nutritional features of the
sourdough fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol. 2019;302:103–13.
73. Chavan RS, Chavan SR. Sourdough technology—a traditional way for wholesome foods: a review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf.
2011;10(3):169–82.
74. Lynch KM, Coffey A, Arendt EK. Exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria: their techno-functional role and potential application
in gluten-free bread products. Food Res Int. 2018;110:52–61.
75. Gobbetti M, Rizzello CG, Di Cagno R, De Angelis M. How the sourdough may affect the functional features of leavened baked goods. Food
Microbiol. 2014;37:30–40.
76. Scazzina F, Del Rio D, Pellegrini N, Brighenti F. Sourdough bread: starch digestibility and postprandial glycemic response. J Cereal Sci.
2009;49(3):419–21.
77. Wolter A, Hager AS, Zannini E, Arendt EK. Influence of sourdough on in vitro starch digestibility and predicted glycemic indices of gluten-
free breads. Food Funct. 2014;5(3):564–72.
78. Demirkesen-Bicak H, Arici M, Yaman M, Karasu S, Sagdic O. Effect of different fermentation condition on estimated glycemic index, in vitro
starch digestibility, and textural and sensory properties of sourdough bread. Foods. 2021;10(3):514.
79. Nami Y, Gharekhani M, Aalami M, Hejazi MA. Lactobacillus-fermented sourdoughs improve the quality of gluten-free bread made from
pearl millet flour. J Food Sci Technol. 2019;56(9):4057–67.
80. Novotni D, Čukelj N, Smerdel B, Ćurić D. Quality attributes and firming kinetics of partially baked frozen wholewheat bread with sourdough.
Int J Food Sci Technol. 2013;48(10):2133–42.
81. Mariotti M, Garofalo C, Aquilanti L, Osimani A, Fongaro L, Tavoletti S, Hager AS, Clementi F. Barley flour exploitation in sourdough bread-
making: a technological, nutritional and sensory evaluation. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;59(2):973–80.
82. Różyło R, Rudy S, Krzykowski A, Dziki D. Novel application of freeze-dried amaranth sourdough in gluten-free bread production. J Food
Process Eng. 2015;38(2):135–43.
83. Axel C, Röcker B, Brosnan B, Zannini E, Furey A, Coffey A, Arendt EK. Application of Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM19280 in gluten-free
sourdough bread to improve the microbial shelf life. Food Microbiol. 2015;47:36–44.
84. Marti A, Marengo M, Bonomi F, Casiraghi MC, Franzetti L, Pagani MA, Iametti S. Molecular features of fermented teff flour relate to its
suitability for the production of enriched gluten-free bread. LWT. 2017;78:296–302.
85. Olojede AO, Sanni AI, Banwo K. Rheological, textural and nutritional properties of gluten-free sourdough made with functionally important
lactic acid bacteria and yeast from Nigerian sorghum. LWT. 2020;120: 108875.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Food (2022) 2:11 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00012-w

86. Korcari D, Secchiero R, Laureati M, Marti A, Cardone G, Rabitti NS, Ricci G, Fortina MG. Technological properties, shelf life and consumer
preference of spelt-based sourdough bread using novel, selected starter cultures. LWT. 2021;151: 112097.
87. Sahin AW, Zannini E, Coffey A, Arendt EK. Sugar reduction in bakery products: current strategies and sourdough technology as a potential
novel approach. Food Res Int. 2019;126: 108583.
88. Zhao CJ, Kinner M, Wismer W, Gänzle MG. Effect of glutamate accumulation during sourdough fermentation with Lactobacillus reuteri on
the taste of bread and sodium-reduced bread. Cereal Chem. 2015;92(2):224–30.
89. Şimşek ST. Evaluation of partial-vacuum baking for gluten-free bread: effects on quality attributes and storage properties. J Cereal Sci.
2020;91: 102891.
90. Therdthai N, Tanvarakom T, Ritthiruangdej P, Zhou W. Effect of microwave assisted baking on quality of rice flour bread. J Food Qual.
2016;39(4):245–54.
91. Keskin SO, Sumnu G, Sahin S. Bread baking in halogen lamp–microwave combination oven. Food Res Int. 2004;37(5):489–95.
92. De Pilli T, Alessandrino O. Effects of different cooking technologies on biopolymers modifications of cereal-based foods: Impact on
nutritional and quality characteristics review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(4):556–65.
93. Shyu YS, Sung WC, Chang MH, Hwang JY. Effect of far-infrared oven on the qualities of bakery products. J Culin Sci Technol.
2008;6(2–3):105–18.
94. Li XD, Alamir M, Witrant E, Della-Valle G, Rouaud O, Boillereaux L, Josset C. Further investigations on energy saving by jet impingement
in bread baking process. IFAC Proceed Vol. 2013;46(2):701–6.
95. Olsson EE, Trägårdh AC, Ahrné LM. Effect of near-infrared radiation and jet impingement heat transfer on crust formation of bread. J Food
Sci. 2005;70(8):e484–91.
96. Bender D, Gratz M, Vogt S, Fauster T, Wicki B, Pichler S, Kinner M, Jäger H, Schoenlechner R. Ohmic heating—a novel approach for gluten-
free bread baking. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019;12(9):1603–13.
97. Chhanwal N, Ezhilarasi PN, Indrani D, Anandharamakrishnan C. Influence of electrical and hybrid heating on bread quality during baking.
J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(7):4467–74.
98. Demirkesen I, Sumnu G, Sahin S. Quality of gluten-free bread formulations baked in different ovens. Food Bioprocess Technol.
2013;6(3):746–53.
99. Demirkesen I, Campanella OH, Sumnu G, Sahin S, Hamaker BR. A study on staling characteristics of gluten-free breads prepared with
chestnut and rice flours. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2014;7(3):806–20.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)