Next Article in Journal
Metabolomics-Driven Elucidation of Interactions between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus panis from Chinese Baijiu Fermentation Microbiome
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential of a Techno-Functional Sourdough and Its Application in Sugar-Reduced Soft Buns
Previous Article in Journal
New Malolactic Bacteria Strains Isolated from Wine Microbiota: Characterization and Technological Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Incubation Temperature, Substrate and Initial pH Value on Plantaricin Activity and the Relative Transcription of pln Genes of Six Sourdough Derived Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 8
Issue 1
10.3390/fermentation8010032
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improvement of Texture, Nutritional Qualities, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Sorghum-Based Sourdough Bread Made with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa Strains

by
Ayoyinka O. Olojede
1,2,3,4,*,
Abiodun I. Sanni
5,
Kolawole Banwo
5 and
Towobola Michael
1,2,3,6
1
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), Landmark University, Km 4 Ipetu, Omu Aran Road, PMB 1001, Omu-Aran 251103, Nigeria
2
SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), Landmark University, Km 4 Ipetu, Omu Aran Road, PMB 1001, Omu-Aran 251103, Nigeria
3
Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran 251103, Nigeria
4
CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, Flour Milling, Baking and Confectionery Technology Department (FMBCT), Mysuru 570020, India
5
Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 212102, Nigeria
6
Department of Biological Sciences, Federal Polytechnic, Bida 912211, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2022, 8(1), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010032
Submission received: 8 November 2021 / Revised: 6 December 2021 / Accepted: 6 December 2021 / Published: 14 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations in Sourdough Bread Making)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enriched gluten-free products are in high demand owing to increasing celiac disease worldwide. Sourdough fermentation can improve the quality of gluten-free cereals, rendering the resulting product beneficial as a functional food. This study produced sorghum bread (SB) using sourdough technology and evaluated the texture, nutrition profile, bioactive components, and sensory attributes of the product. The base formula was composed of sorghum flour and corn starch. Sourdough made with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 (PL7), P. pentosaceus SA8 (PS8), or Weissella confusa SD8 (WS8) was added at a 20% substitution level for bread production, while bread without sourdough addition was used as the control sample. The texture profiles of the SB were significantly (p ˂ 0.05) softer than that of the control. The sourdough breads possessed higher crude protein, ash, and dietary fibre contents than the control bread. Tannin and total phenol contents were significantly (p ˂ 0.05) higher in the sourdough breads compared to the control sample. The specific volume of the sample made with PS8 sourdough was the highest at 2.50 cm3/g compared to the other samples (2.17–2.46 cm3/g). The sourdough samples had higher scores for taste, texture, aroma, and overall acceptability than the control, with PL7 SB exhibiting the best overall acceptability (6.56). This study established promising use of sourdough with starters as an ingredient for baked products with improved technological and nutritional attributes as well as consumer acceptability.

1. Introduction

In the last few decades, diseases related to diet have been on the rise worldwide. In response to this, consumers are increasingly paying considerable attention to the components of foods to make healthy choices [1]. The most frequent immunological disorders relate to gluten intake in the diet are celiac disease (CD) and non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), and the global prevalence of CD is 1–1.5% [2]. The storage protein gluten is made up of several ethanol-soluble proteins, which are gliadin and glutenin (in wheat), secalin and secalinin (in rye), and hordein and hordenine (in barley) [3]. The autoimmune disease CD causes an absolute intolerance to these proteins, especially wheat gliadin, inflaming the micro-villi of the intestinal mucosa and damaging it to the extent of inhibiting nutrient absorption; thus, malnutrition, loose bowel movements, and some nutrient deficiency-related symptoms ensue [4]. The NCGS is a non-allergic and non-autoimmune disorder in which the consumption of gluten produces CD-like symptoms [4,5]. Consequently, there is a rising demand for cereals such as sorghum that are void of gluten because an absolute avoidance of gluten remains the only proven treatment for CD and NCGS. The fundamental role of gluten in bread production makes gluten-free (GF) cereals problematic in terms of achieving similar quality and acceptability to conventional breads. This has led scientists to channel more efforts towards developing GF breads by exploiting various techniques, such as the use of additives for gluten replacement. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) is an example of a hydrocolloid, which is commonly included in dough formulations in low quantities (0.5–2.0%) to promote its rheology [6]. Sourdough techniques are also being embraced as one of the ways to improve the nutritional and acceptability qualities of GF breads.
Sorghum is the fifth most abundant cereal in the world, yet it is underutilised. The grain grows well in semi-arid conditions where other crops have difficulty thriving. Sorghum has more human food use in African and Asian continents than in other parts of the world, providing up to 70% of the daily caloric intake of Africans [7,8]. Sorghum is a good source of cystine, methionine, and lysine (which are amino acids), iron, and dietary fibre compared to some major cereals [9]. The health benefits of sorghum include immunomodulatory and anticancer properties and antioxidant and radical scavenging functions, all of which are attributed to its high quantity of polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids. However, sorghum has often been viewed negatively because all types contain polyphenols, sometimes erroneously equated with tannins. Although sorghum tannin decreases protein digestibility and bioavailability, tannin is generally regarded as a bioactive compound with many disease-control attributes. Therefore, its use in GF products could be nutritionally beneficial. Furthermore, it is relatively cheap compared to other cereals and is an attractive GF flour source [10,11,12].
As biotechnology, sourdough has a long history of use and is one of the most recently embraced in fermented steamed or baked products, particularly bread [12,13,14]. It is used as a leavening and flavouring agent. Sourdough also confers several benefits to the product, which include increased volume, enhanced shelf-life and texture, and a distinct aroma, among others [15]. Moreover, improvement in intestinal health through the modulation of complex dietary fibres has been linked to sourdough fermentation [16]. Sourdough consists of flour and water, which are fermented by the metabolism of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeasts, which mostly come from the flour or its environment [17]. The activities of the various LAB and yeasts involved in the spontaneous fermentation of sourdoughs or those added as starter cultures are mainly responsible for the beneficial sourdough attributes because of the metabolites they generate. These metabolites are of vital importance because of their potential to prevent spoilage and act as biopreservatives. Nevertheless, the application of sourdough technology in bread production requires giving attention to the process parameters, particularly the starter cultures, to obtain products with consistent, desirable attributes [10,18]. Moreover, some strains of LAB can be utilised in the production of functional foods because a selection of microbial strains is specific to the desired metabolic processes of products [17].
Although sourdough technology could be suitable for enhancing the technological, nutritional, and biopreservative properties of indigenous cereals, research studies on sourdough use in the development of functional baked foods are still limited in sub-Saharan Africa [10,11]. Therefore, there is a need to carry out more research studies in this regard. The main aim of this study was to confirm the suitability of sourdough with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa starter cultures in the presence of HPMC for developing enhanced gluten-free sourdough bread. In the present study, we produced sorghum sourdoughs using selected LAB and studied the impacts on the texture and bioactive properties of gluten-free bread. In addition, the sensory, proximate, and shelf-life attributes in the starter-fermented breads were compared with those without sourdough to broaden the understanding of their effect on sourdough breads.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The white variety of Sorghum bicolor (L. Moench) grains, sugar, and salt used in this study were purchased from a local market in Mysore, India. Corn starch was purchased from Manibhadra Food Products (India), and baker’s yeast in a compressed form was bought from SAF Yeast Co. (Bombay, India). Media and chemicals were supplied by Himedia (Mumbai, India) unless otherwise stated.

2.2. Starter Cultures, Media, and Growth Conditions

The LAB isolates used in this work are listed in Table 1. The strains were chosen because they exhibited some properties that are desirable in sourdoughs, such as high proteolytic activities, acidification properties, and exopolysaccharide production (EPS) ability [10]. The strains were isolated from a single colony and cultured in a liquid medium, De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) broth, and MRS agar at 37 °C for 24 h according to Olojede et al. [19].

2.3. Sourdough and Bread Preparation

The LAB starters (P. pentosaceus LD7, P. pentosaceus SA8 and Weissella confusa SD8) were used individually. To prepare the sourdough starters, LAB was cultivated in MRS broth as previously described, the cells were washed with sterile saline water (0.85%) twice and prepared to obtain a 108 cfu cells per gram of sourdough. The germinated sorghum flour was mixed with sterile water containing the prepared starters in an equal ratio and incubated for 24 h to obtain the sourdough that was used in the preparation of the bread dough as described by Olojede et al. [19]. The SBs formulation is shown in Table 2. The compressed yeast used in this study was reactivated in lukewarm water for about 5 min. All dry ingredients were mixed in a bowl with other ingredients using a Spar mixer (SP-800, Taiwan) for 5 min at high speed and 150 g of the dough was measured into the greased stainless-steel baking pans and covered with lids. Fermentation cabinet (National Manufacturing Co., Lincoln, NE, USA) was used for the dough proofing for 90 min at 30 °C with manual spraying of water to control the humidity.

2.4. Bread Baking and Qualities

After proofing, the doughs were baked in an electric oven (APV-ROTEL, Inc., Australia) at 180 °C for 40 min, de-panned, allowed to cool at room temperature (27 ± 2 °C) for 1 h, and packaged in polythene bags before analysis. The sourdough bread production was carried out in duplicates.
Sourdough bread weights were determined using a laboratory weighing balance (TP-6101, Denver Instrument Co., Göttingen, Germany). Volume was measured by a modified rapeseed displacement method [20], replacing rapeseeds with mustard seeds. The loaf specific volume was determined by dividing the loaf volume (cm3) by the weight (g). Each determination was performed in duplicate. The baking yield was calculated using Equation (1) as described by Kiskini et al. [21]:
B a k i n g   y i e l d   %   =   b r e a d   w e i g h t b a t t e r   w e i g h t × 100

2.5. Proximate Compositions

Moisture, crude protein, total fat, and ash were determined as described in AACC [20]. The modified method of Asp Nils et al. [22] was used to determine the dietary fibre. The carbohydrate was calculated by the difference (100 − (moisture + protein + fat + total dietary fiber + ash)).

2.6. Colour Characteristics of the Sourdough Bread Samples

The crust and crumb colorimetric properties were determined with a Chroma Meter (CM-5, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan) with an optical sensor. The colorimetric settings were illuminant D65, with measurement area = 8 mm, standard observers = 10°. The standardization was performed with a white calibration plate with values: L* = 97.22, a* = −0.19, b* = −0.16. International Commission on Illumination (CIE) L*a*b* system values were taken in triplicates for each sample [23].

2.7. Textural Properties of the Sourdough Bread Samples

The breadcrumbs were subjected to texture profile analysis (TPA) employing a texture analyzer (LR 5K, Lloyd Instruments Ltd., Bognor Regis, UK) with an 80 mm diameter probe using 50 mm/s test speed as described by Olojede et al. [19]. Two events of sequential compression were performed up to 50% strain with 1 KN load cell at the center of the crumb of slice thickness, 24 mm. The TPA profiles (hardness 1 and 2, springiness, stiffness, gumminess, adhesiveness, and cohesiveness) were calculated using software (Nexygen, Lloyd material testing, West Sussex, UK). The experiment was performed in duplicates.

2.8. Scanning Electron Microscopy of the Bread Samples

The bread samples were freeze-dried and mounted on the scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Leo, Model-435 VP, Cambridge, UK) specimen holder using a double-sided scotch tape. This was then coated with a gold layer of about 300 nm thickness using a Poloron SEM coating system E-5000. The microscopic observation of the samples was performed at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV. A Ricoh Camera (35 mm; LEO 435 VP Operator Manual Version V2.04) was used to capture the micrographs [24].

2.9. Determination of Bioactive Compounds and Radical Scavenging Activities of the Sorghum Sourdough Bread

Tannin and total flavonoid contents were determined by vanillin–HCl protocol as described by Afify et al. [25]. The total phenolic compounds were quantified by Folin–Ciocaltaeu method as described by Olojede et al. [26]. The 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activities was carried out according to the method of Olojede et al. [26] for the antioxidant activities.
DPPH   Radical   scavenging   activity   %   =   1 − Af Ai   ×   100
where Ai is the initial absorbance and Af signifies the final absorbance.

2.10. Sensory Evaluation

A semi-trained panel of 10 judges was recruited from the Community of CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, India (ages 20–40), who evaluated the attributes of the bread in terms of appearance, flavour, texture, aroma, crumb, and overall acceptability using a hedonic scale of 1–9 (where, 1 = like extremely, while 9 = dislike extremely) (Table S1). All the assessors gave informed consent to participate and could pull out from the panel without giving any reason and with no consequence anytime they desired.

2.11. Shelf-Life Determination of the Bread Samples

The bread loaves were wrapped in plastic bags and stored at 27 ± 2 °C on a shelf, resembling a commercial storage method, to determine their shelf life (in days) through visual mould growth [27].

2.12. Statistical Analysis

A minimum of two replicates of all the measurements were taken for each of the independent experiments, and statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software (Version 15.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data were evaluated for their significant differences at p ˂ 0.05 with Tukey’s tests. Two independent batches were carried out in this study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. External Appearance of the Bread Samples

There were visual differences among the gluten-free bread (GFSB) samples, as shown by the digital images. This was observed by the visual inspection of the bread samples (Figure 1). The GFSBs had larger open cells while the control had a more compact structure. Open grain structures are associated with spongier crumbs, which, although a desirable attribute in breads, are usually deficient in gluten-free breads [6]. Cracks were observed in the crust of PS8SB, which is due to its low gas holding capacity during the baking process as the starter culture Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 in comparison to others is a non-exopolysaccharide producer. In terms of the loaf appearance, PL7SB had more rounded edges and top, resembling the expected shape for conventional wheat bread. The sample also possesses a better crumb cell structure. This could be due to the functionality of the starter P. pentosaceus PL7 in exopolysaccharide production, which enhanced the dough consistency and aided the gas-holding capacity and bread expansion. Gluten-free breads are generally known for quality defects such as a compact structure, lack of cellular structure, cracked crust, and a hard and textured crumb [28]. Thus, applying the sourdough made with the EPS-producing P. pentosaceus could be a solution to these defects.

3.2. Physicochemical Parameters of the Bread Samples

The sourdough breads differ in their proximate compositions when compared with the control (Table 3). The starter-fermented sourdough breads were characterised by a higher level of moisture, crude protein, ash, and total dietary fibre than the control. The total lipid and carbohydrate contents were not affected by the addition of sourdough. Increased moisture contents due to sourdough addition have been reported [12,29]. Some sourdough products, for example, EPS, can enhance water retention, which is made possible by the LAB starters. Functional foods are characterised by factors such as the enrichment of protein and dietary fibres [30]. Therefore, the sourdough breads can be classified as functional foods. Edema and Sanni [31] earlier reported a similar observation in sour maize bread. The change was attributed to the ability of the starter cultures to biosynthesize protein. Moreover, bearing in mind the growing concern over the nutritional inadequacy of the gluten-free dietary pattern, which is frequently characterised by a reduced dietary fibre consumption as compared with high fat intake [32], the sourdough enhanced the total dietary fibre of the breads. All the sourdough breads were comparatively higher in dietary fibre compared with the control. This agrees with the observations of Mihhalevski et al. [33], who reported that dietary fibre was increased in sourdough bread made with rye flour, which was attributed to the biochemical and microbiological processes that occur during the sourdough bread making. The resistant starch formed and buildup insoluble dietary fibre as insoluble dietary fibre is converted to soluble fibre. This ultimately enhances the total dietary fibre content. Moreover, as sourdough ferments, certain enzymatic activities are increased, which is indicated in the solubilization of arabinoxylans [34]. Consuming foods rich in fibre have been well established to provide health benefits such as minimizing the risk of gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, cardiovascular diseases and promotes colonic health by stimulating the proliferation of beneficial gut microflora [16]. Technologically, the addition of fibre contributes to the enhancement of the textural and sensorial characteristics of foods as well as increased storage time due to their water-binding capacity, gel-forming ability, and thickening properties [35].
The starters differ significantly (p ˂ 0.05) in their properties on the specific volume of the sourdough breads. It is worth noting that the sourdough bread with Weissella confusa SD8 (WS8SB) had the significantly highest specific volume (2.50 g/cm3) among the bread samples, while Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 sourdough had the lowest (2.16 g/cm3). In previous studies, the strain W. confusa SD8 had the highest exopolysaccharide (EPS) production coupled with being a heterofermentative microorganism [10]. The positive effect of the sourdough addition disagrees with previous reports [19,36], whereby the specific volume of gluten-free breads remained unaffected by the addition of sourdough containing EPS-producing Weissella species, although there was no addition of HMPC in their formulations. In comparison to the study of Maidana et al. [37], who produced sorghum-based sourdough breads with Weissella and lactobacilli starters, in our study, we observed better specific volumes than theirs (1.61–2.12 g/cm3). Although a high level of gas production during fermentation is essential for sufficient bread leavening, the loaf volume might still be low if the CO2 produced cannot be retained within the dough matrix during the production process [38]. Coupled with the gas production ability of W. confusa SD8, the EPS increased the retention capacity of the CO2 produced by both the added yeast and the LAB. This ultimately enhanced the bread’s specific volume.
As an enhanced economic attribute and attraction to customers, the physical quality and the specific volumes of bread are the most dependable assessment measures [37]. The physical properties of the sourdough samples and the control are shown in Table 3. The bake yield is the measure of bread produced from a specific weight of flour, which is an economically important factor to bakers. Sourdough addition decreased the weight and yield of bread when compared to the control; however, the differences were not significant (p ˂ 0.05). Nevertheless, the control bread had the highest weight and baking yield. This may be related to the water-binding ability since increased the baking yield is associated with a higher water-binding capacity during dough preparation [39]. On the contrary, liquid sourdough addition led to an increase in the baking yield of Iranian Lavash bread [40]. It has been reported that the dough quantity produced from a specific amount of flour increases with an increase in absorption, but this may or may not lead to an increased bread yield. During baking, water loss is affected by several factors, which include dough water absorption, baking temperature, time, and bread surface area [41].

3.3. Colour and Textural Properties

The application of LAB starter sourdoughs in bread preparation had an impact on the bread colour (L*, a* and b*) parameters (Table 4). The L* value characterises the lightness, a* displays the equilibrium between green and red, while b* balances between yellow and blue. One of the drawbacks of gluten-free breads is the possession of a lighter colour than wheat bread, especially in the crust of the bread [23]. Additionally, the crust of sorghum breads tends to be lighter than the crumbs because of the gelatinization temperature of sorghum, which can be inadequate while baking, resulting in unwanted white patches and streaks on the crust [42,43]. However, in our study, sourdough addition decreased the lightness and yellowness in the crumb, while it produced an increase in a*. The PL7SB had the lightest crust colour, though not statistically different. The crust redness and yellowness were more intense in the sourdough samples than in the control. The bread crumb colour is majorly dependent on the raw materials used. Sourdough fermentation increased the phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of the breads, while the phenolic compounds influenced the colour of the breads [37,44]. Consumer acceptability of sourdough breads is firstly inspired by the appearance, with much emphasis placed on the golden crust or white crumbs [45]. While baking, a high temperature in the crumb may not be attained, so the dough ingredients are accountable for the colour of the crumb. In addition, other dough factors such as water, sugars, pH, and amino acids may influence the colour of the bread [46].
The texture profiles, such as hardness 1 and 2, stiffness, gumminess, springiness, adhesiveness, and cohesiveness, were affected (p ˂ 0.05) by the sourdough containing starter cultures (Figure 2A,B). Hardness is the force needed to compress foods between the teeth. Stiffness is related to the force required to produce a specific deformation of the material under test [47]. Springiness is related to the bread freshness and elasticity, while cohesiveness describes the point to which a material can be deformed before rupture and shows the internal cohesion of the substance. As a result, the higher the cohesiveness of the bread, the more it is resistant to disintegration during mastication. The control bread, NFCB, required a significantly higher force to break (81.92 N and 66.81 N) on the first and second compression, stiffer (14.70 N/mm) and less cohesive (0.29) than the other SBs. However, the sourdough had no significant effect on the gumminess and adhesiveness. The bread containing the Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 strain had the lowest hardness (60.58 N and 53.91 N) and highest cohesiveness (0.36), while Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 had the highest springiness (10.72 mm) and lowest stiffness (9.14 N/mm). A low value is preferred for hardness and stiffness, while the high values are desired for springiness and cohesiveness [6,48]. In this study, the starter-produced sourdoughs possessed breads with improved textures in comparison to the control while the Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 and Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 strains exhibited the best attributes compared to the others. As confirmed by previous reports, sourdough could positively influence the textural attributes of the final baked products [49,50]. In another study, Lactobacillus plantarum strain employed in the production of sourdough resulted in a product with a reduced crumb hardness and firmness [51].

3.4. Microstructure of the Bread Samples

The effect of sourdough addition was not readily evident in the scanning electron micrographs; however, a more disrupted structure where starch granules were held together by the proteins with low porosity was observed in NFCB (Figure 3). With sourdough addition, texture cohesiveness with a more uniform distribution of the starch granules was observed. This observation coincided with the digital images. Hence, a previous study showed increased interactions of starch granules and protein matrix caused by starter-prepared sourdough addition, which is an indication of improved dough properties [19].

3.5. Bioactive Composition of the Sourdough Breads

In this study, tannin and total phenols showed a significant increase in the breads prepared with the starter-containing sourdoughs compared to the control (Figure 4). The highest tannin and total phenols were found in samples fermented with the Weissella confusa SD8 and Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 strains, respectively. Although there were no significant differences (p ˂ 0.05) in the GFSB’s total flavonoids and radical scavenging DPPH contents, it is important to note that the highest radical scavenging property was observed in sourdough bread with the Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 strain. In agreement with our findings, Bartkiene et al. [52] observed that Pediococcus acidilactici strains used for barley sourdough production increased both the contents of the phenolic compounds and the activity of the free-radical scavenging potentials. It has been reported that tannin metabolism occurs during the sourdough fermentation, and this possesses a strong antioxidant capacity [53]. Natural antioxidants can inhibit cellular oxidative damage. Moreover, phenolic compounds can activate diverse inherent antioxidant and detoxifying enzymes, as well as an anti-inflammatory potential. Fermentation employing sourdough technology enhances the bioactive composition and the antioxidant potentials of bakery products [16]. Functional LAB possesses the ability to produce molecules of interest due to specific anabolic pathways, besides the grain endogenous enzymes, thereby impacting the fermented sourdough and, ultimately, the bread with new bioaccessible nutritionally active molecules [37,53]. Thus, fermentation of sorghum bread with the specific LAB strains improved its beneficial health potentials.

3.6. Sensory Attributes and Shelf–Life of the Sourdough Bread

Based on the sensory properties, the panel scored the sourdough breads produced in this study, as shown in Figure 5. All the sourdough breads had higher scores for all the sensory parameters than the control, with an exception to WS8SB, in terms of appearance. Samples made with Pediococcus pentosaceus strains, PL7SB and PS8SB, had similar and the highest scores (6.4 out of 9 points) in appearance. Regarding aroma, taste, crumb, and texture, the starter fermented samples had higher scores than the control. The lowest overall perception, 21%, was recorded for the control, while PL7SB had the highest. From previous reports, sourdough fermentation is a potential tool not just for improving the technological attributes of food but also its sensory parameters [12,54,55]. It has been shown that the bread prepared with P. pentosaceus and Kluyveromyces aestuarii had the highest scores for taste and overall acceptability by panelists [56]. On the contrary, differences between the aroma and taste of the control and sourdough breads produced with chestnut flour were not detected by the sensory panelists [57]. The LAB produced vital metabolites, which include aroma compounds, organic acids, alcohols, enzymes, and exopolysaccharides, which enhanced the sensory qualities of the fermented products. Based on the reported sensory enhancements, the use of sourdough on a commercial scale to produce gluten-free products has been recommended [58].
The shelf-life studies indicated that the sourdough bread produced employing Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 lasted for four days while the others including the control lasted for 5 days (Table 3). Although each starter possessed special attributes, the PL7SB demonstrated the best qualities for aroma, texture, taste, crumb, and overall acceptability. This indicates that LAB may improve the stability of food products due to the metabolites produced, such as lactic acid, diacetyl, and hydrogen peroxide during fermentation, which reduces the pH thereby inhibiting the proliferation of spoilage microorganisms, increasing aroma and its biopreservative potential [12,16].

4. Conclusions

In the present study, sourdough breads were produced from sorghum flour fermented with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7, Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8, and Weissella confusa SD8 strains. The results were exhibited in terms of the texture, digital appearance, protein contents, aroma, taste, crumb, and overall consumer perception; the sourdough bread produced with the Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7 strain could be considered as the best. Considering the specific volume and tannin contents, the Weissella confusa SD8 strain bread had the best. For total dietary fibre, total phenols, and DPPH radical scavenging activities, the Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8 strain could be regarded as the best. The specific starter cultures in sourdough as ingredients for gluten-free bread production contributed to the enhanced technological, nutritional, and sensorial attributes of the product. The selected starters in sourdough bread production demonstrated promising use for products with improved safety as well as consumer acceptability. These findings suggest further investigation on the use of the LAB strains in co-culture and combination to observe the performance in the production of baked products with improved biopreservative potentials.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fermentation8010032/s1, Table S1: Sensory Evaluation Form.

Author Contributions

A.O.O.: investigation, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, visualization. A.I.S.: supervision, writing—review and editing. K.B.: visualization, writing—review and editing. T.M.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thankfully appreciate The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), Italy and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, for the award of TWAS-CSIR Postgraduate Sandwich Fellowship to author OAO. We also thank the CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute (CSIR-CFTRI), Mysore, India, where the research was conducted. Our Acknowledgments goes to P. Prabhasankar, S.G. Walde and V. Vanajakshi at FMBCT, CSIR-CFTRI for their time and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Demartini, E.; De Marchi, E.; Cavaliere, A.; Mattavelli, S.; Gaviglio, A.; Banterle, A.; Richetin, J.; Perugini, M. Changing attitudes towards healthy food via self-association or nutritional information: What works best? Appetite 2019, 132, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Caio, G.; De Giorgio, R.; Volta, U. Coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. Lancet 2018, 392, 916–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Navarro, V.; Fernández-Gil, M.D.P.; Simón, E.; Bustamante, M.Á. Gluten: General Aspects and International Regulations for Products for Celiac People. In Nutritional and Analytical Approaches of Gluten-Free Diet in Celiac Disease; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sharma, N.; Bhatia, S.; Chunduri, V.; Kaur, S.; Sharma, S.; Kapoor, P.; Kumari, A.; Garg, M. Pathogenesis of Celiac Disease and Other Gluten Related Disorders in Wheat and Strategies for Mitigating Them. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Igbinedion, S.O.; Ansari, J.; Vasikaran, A.; Gavins, F.N.; Jordan, P.; Boktor, M.; Alexander, J.S. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: All wheat attack is not celiac. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 7201–7210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Encina-Zelada, C.R.; Cadavez, V.; Monteiro, F.; Teixeira, J.A.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Combined effect of xanthan gum and water content on physicochemical and textural properties of gluten-free batter and bread. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 544–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. USDA-FAS. Grain: World Markets and Trade. 2018. Available online: https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/ (accessed on 5 December 2021).
  8. Palavecino, P.M.; Ribotta, P.D.; E León, A.; Bustos, M.C. Gluten-free sorghum pasta: Starch digestibility and antioxidant capacity compared with commercial products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1351–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Galassi, E.; Taddei, F.; Ciccoritti, R.; Nocente, F.; Gazza, L. Biochemical and technological characterization of two C4 gluten-free cereals: Sorghum bicolorand Eragrostis tef. Cereal Chem. J. 2020, 97, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ogunsakin, A.; Vanajakshi, V.; Anu-Appaiah, K.; Vijayendra, S.; Walde, S.; Banwo, K.; Sanni, A.; Prabhasankar, P. Evaluation of functionally important lactic acid bacteria and yeasts from Nigerian sorghum as starter cultures for gluten-free sourdough preparation. LWT 2017, 82, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Banwo, K.; Asogwa, F.C.; Ogunremi, O.R.; Adesulu-Dahunsi, A.; Sanni, A. Nutritional profile and antioxidant capacities of fermented millet and sorghum gruels using lactic acid bacteria and yeasts. Food Biotechnol. 2021, 35, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Banwo, K.; Fasuyi, T.O.; Olojede, A.O. Potentials of Lactobacillus plantarum and Pichia kudriavzevii in co-fermentation of sourdough from millet. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 857–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sanni, A.; Onilude, A.; Fatungase, M. Production of sour maize bread using starter-cultures. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1997, 14, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hanis-Syazwani, M.; Boarinwa, I.; Lasekan, O.; Muhammad, K. Influence of starter culture on the physicochemical properties of rice bran sourdough and physical quality of sourdough bread. Food Res. 2018, 2, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rogalski, E.; Vogel, R.F.; Ehrmann, M.A. Monitoring of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis strains during wheat and rye sourdough fermentations by CRISPR locus length polymorphism PCR. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 316, 108475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fernández-Peláez, J.; Paesani, C.; Gómez, M. Sourdough Technology as a Tool for the Development of Healthier Grain-Based Products: An Update. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Denkova, R.; Ilieva, S.; Denkova, Z.; Georgieva, L.; Yordanova, M.; Nikolova, D.; Evstatieva, Y. Production of wheat bread without preservatives using sourdough starters. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2014, 28, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Suo, B.; Nie, W.; Wang, Y.; Ma, J.; Xing, X.; Huang, Z.; Xu, C.; Li, Z.; Ai, Z. Microbial diversity of fermented dough and volatile compounds in steamed bread prepared with traditional Chinese starters. LWT 2020, 126, 109350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Olojede, A.; Sanni, A.; Banwo, K. Rheological, textural and nutritional properties of gluten-free sourdough made with functionally important lactic acid bacteria and yeast from Nigerian sorghum. LWT 2019, 120, 108875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. American Association of Cereal Chemistry (AACC). International Method 10-05.01. Guidelines for Measurement of Volume by Rapeseed Displacement. Approved Methods of Analysis of the American Association of Cereal Chemistry, 11th ed.; AACC: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kiskini, A.; Kapsokefalou, M.; Yanniotis, S.; Mandala, I. Effect of Iron Fortification on Physical and Sensory Quality of Gluten-Free Bread. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 5, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Asp, N.G.; Johansson, C.G.; Hallmer, H.; Siljestroem, M. Rapid enzymic assay of insoluble and soluble dietary fiber. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1983, 31, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Matos, M.E.; Rosell, C.M. Relationship between instrumental parameters and sensory characteristics in gluten-free breads. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2012, 235, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Radha, C.; Prakash, V. Structural and Functional Properties of Heat-processed Soybean Flour: Effect of Proteolytic Modification. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2009, 15, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Afify, A.E.-M.M.R.; El-Beltagi, H.S.; El-Salam, S.M.A.; Omran, A.A. Protein Solubility, Digestibility and Fractionation after Germination of Sorghum Varieties. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Olojede, A.; Sanni, A.; Banwo, K. Effect of legume addition on the physiochemical and sensorial attributes of sorghum-based sourdough bread. LWT 2019, 118, 108769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Axel, C.; Röcker, B.; Brosnan, B.; Zannini, E.; Furey, A.; Coffey, A.; Arendt, E.K. Application of Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM19280 in gluten-free sourdough bread to improve the microbial shelf life. Food Microbiol. 2015, 47, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Santos, F.G.; Aguiar, E.V.; Rosell, C.M.; Capriles, V.D. Potential of chickpea and psyllium in gluten-free breadmaking: Assessing bread’s quality, sensory acceptability, and glycemic and satiety indexes. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 113, 106487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rinaldi, M.; Paciulli, M.; Caligiani, A.; Scazzina, F.; Chiavaro, E. Sourdough fermentation and chestnut flour in gluten-free bread: A shelf-life evaluation. Food Chem. 2017, 224, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Verni, M.; Rizzello, C.G.; Coda, R. Fermentation Biotechnology Applied to Cereal Industry By-Products: Nutritional and Functional Insights. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Edema, M.O.; Sanni, A.I. Functional properties of selected starter cultures for sour maize bread. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Matos, M.E.; Rosell, C.M. Understanding gluten-free dough for reaching breads with physical quality and nutritional balance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mihhalevski, A.; Nisamedtinov, I.; Hälvin, K.; Ošeka, A.; Paalme, T. Stability of B-complex vitamins and dietary fiber during rye sourdough bread production. J. Cereal Sci. 2013, 57, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gänzle, M.G. Enzymatic and bacterial conversions during sourdough fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2014, 37, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sabanis, D.; Lebesi, D.; Tzia, C. Effect of dietary fibre enrichment on selected properties of gluten-free bread. LWT 2009, 42, 1380–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wolter, A.; Hager, A.-S.; Zannini, E.; Czerny, M.; Arendt, E.K. Influence of dextran-producing Weissella cibaria on baking properties and sensory profile of gluten-free and wheat breads. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 172, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Maidana, S.D.; Finch, S.; Garro, M.; Savoy, G.; Gänzle, M.; Vignolo, G. Development of gluten-free breads started with chia and flaxseed sourdoughs fermented by selected lactic acid bacteria. LWT 2020, 125, 109189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Verheyen, C.; Albrecht, A.; Elgeti, D.; Jekle, M.; Becker, T. Impact of gas formation kinetics on dough development and bread quality. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Litwinek, D.; Gambuś, H.; Zięć, G.; Sabat, R.; Wywrocka-Gurgul, A.; Berski, W. The comparison of quality and chemical composition of breads baked with residual and commercial oat flours and wheat flour. J. Microbiol. Bio-Technol. Food Sci. 2021, 2, 1734–1743. [Google Scholar]
  40. Movahed, S.; Rooshenas, G.; Ahmadichenarbon, H. Evaluation of the effect of liquid sourdough method on dough yield, bread yield and organoleptic properties Iranian Lavash bread. World Appl. Sci. J. 2011, 15, 1054–1058. [Google Scholar]
  41. Miller, R.A.; Hoseney, R.C. Role of salt in baking. Cereal Foods World 2008, 53, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schober, T.J. Manufacture of gluten-free specialty breads and confectionery products. In Gluten-Free Food Science and Technology; Gallagher, E., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 130–180. [Google Scholar]
  43. Phattanakulkaewmorie, N.; Paseephol, T.; Moongngarm, A. Chemical compositions and physico-chemical properties of malted sorghum flour and characteristics of gluten free bread. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2011, 81, 454–460. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sandri, L.T.B.; Santos, F.G.; Fratelli, C.; Capriles, V.D. Development of gluten-free bread formulations containing whole chia flour with acceptable sensory properties. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5, 1021–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Hayta, M.; Ertop, M.H. Physicochemical, textural and microbiological properties of optimised wheat bread formulations as affected by differently fermented sourdough. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2019, 11, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cantatore, V.; Filannino, P.; Gambacorta, G.; De Pasquale, I.; Pan, S.; Gobbetti, M.; Di Cagno, R. Lactic Acid Fermentation to Re-cycle Apple By-Products for Wheat Bread Fortification. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Komlenić, D.K.; Ugarčić-Hardi, Ž.; Jukić, M.; Planinić, M.; Bucić-Kojić, A.; Strelec, I. Wheat dough rheology and bread quality effected by Lactobacillus brevis preferment, dry sourdough and lactic acid addition. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 1417–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Azizi, S.; Azizi, M.H.; Moogouei, R.; Rajaei, P. The effect of Quinoa flour and enzymes on the quality of gluten-free bread. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2373–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Rizzello, C.G.; Lorusso, A.; Montemurro, M.; Gobbetti, M. Use of sourdough made with quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) flour and autochthonous selected lactic acid bacteria for enhancing the nutritional, textural and sensory features of white bread. Food Microbiol. 2016, 56, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chiş, M.S.; Păucean, A.; Man, S.M.; Mureşan, V.; Socaci, S.A.; Pop, A.; Stan, L.; Rusu, B.; Muste, S. Textural and Sensory Features Changes of Gluten Free Muffins Based on Rice Sourdough Fermented with Lactobacillus spicheri DSM 15429. Foods 2020, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. 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, 2133–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bartkiene, E.; Mozuriene, E.; Lele, V.; Zokaityte, E.; Gruzauskas, R.; Jakobsone, I.; Juodeikiene, G.; Ruibys, R.; Bartkevics, V. Changes of bioactive compounds in barley industry by-products during submerged and solid state fermentation with antimicrobial Pediococcus acidilactici strain LUHS29. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 8, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Antognoni, F.; Mandrioli, R.; Potente, G.; Saa, D.L.T.; Gianotti, A. Changes in carotenoids, phenolic acids and antioxidant capacity in bread wheat doughs fermented with different lactic acid bacteria strains. Food Chem. 2019, 292, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Banwo, K.; Osagbemi, O.; Ajao, O.; Sanni, A. Sourdough Bread from the Blend of Cassava, Sweet Potato, and Soybean Flours Using Lactobacillus Plantarum and Pichia Kudriavzevii. Acta Aliment. 2020, 49, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Calvert, M.D.; Madden, A.A.; Nichols, L.M.; Haddad, N.M.; Lahne, J.; Dunn, R.R.; McKenney, E.A. A review of sourdough starters: Ecology, practices, and sensory quality with applications for baking and recommendations for future research. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fekri, A.; Torbati, M.; Khosrowshahi, A.Y.; Shamloo, H.B.; Azadmard-Damirchi, S. Functional effects of phytate-degrading, probiotic lactic acid bacteria and yeast strains isolated from Iranian traditional sourdough on the technological and nutritional properties of whole wheat bread. Food Chem. 2020, 306, 125620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Aguilar, N.; Albanell, E.; Miñarro, B.; Capellas, M. Chestnut flour sourdough for gluten-free bread making. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2016, 242, 1795–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nionelli, L.; Rizzello, C.G. Sourdough-Based Biotechnologies for the Production of Gluten-Free Foods. Foods 2016, 5, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fermentation 08 00032 g001 550
Figure 1. Photographs of sourdough breads (SB) and crumbs obtained with different LAB strains and control bread: PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Figure 1. Photographs of sourdough breads (SB) and crumbs obtained with different LAB strains and control bread: PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Fermentation 08 00032 g001
Fermentation 08 00032 g002 550
Figure 2. Texture Parameters of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. (A) Hardness 1, Hardness 2, Stiffness and Gumminess; (B) Springiness, Adhesiveness and Cohesiveness. Results indicate mean values; error bars indicate standard errors. Different letters (a, b) represent significant differences (p value ˂ 0.05) by Tukey’s test. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Figure 2. Texture Parameters of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. (A) Hardness 1, Hardness 2, Stiffness and Gumminess; (B) Springiness, Adhesiveness and Cohesiveness. Results indicate mean values; error bars indicate standard errors. Different letters (a, b) represent significant differences (p value ˂ 0.05) by Tukey’s test. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Fermentation 08 00032 g002
Fermentation 08 00032 g003 550
Figure 3. Scanning electron micrographs of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Figure 3. Scanning electron micrographs of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Fermentation 08 00032 g003
Fermentation 08 00032 g004 550
Figure 4. Antioxidants of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. Results indicate mean values; error bars indicate standard errors. Different letters (a, b, c) represent significant differences (p value ˂ 0.05) by Tukey’s test. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Figure 4. Antioxidants of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. Results indicate mean values; error bars indicate standard errors. Different letters (a, b, c) represent significant differences (p value ˂ 0.05) by Tukey’s test. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Fermentation 08 00032 g004
Fermentation 08 00032 g005 550
Figure 5. Sensory qualities of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Figure 5. Sensory qualities of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains and control bread. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Fermentation 08 00032 g005
Table
Table 1. Lactic acid bacteria used as starter cultures for sourdough production.
Table 1. Lactic acid bacteria used as starter cultures for sourdough production.
OrganismStrainAccession NumberSourceReference
Pediococcus pentosaceusLD7KX017195Sorghum sourdough, Nigeria[10]
P. pentosaceusSA8KX017196Sorghum sourdough, Nigeria[10]
Weissella confusaSD8KX017197Sorghum sourdough, Nigeria[10]
Table
Table 2. Formulas for bread production.
Table 2. Formulas for bread production.
Ingredients (%)PL7SBPS8SBWS8SBNFCB
Sorghum flour60606070
Tap water85858595
Corn starch30303030
Compressed Baker’s yeast2222
HPMC2222
Salt2222
Sugar4444
Baking fat1111
Sourdough2020200
PL7SB, sourdough bread with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7; PS8SB, sourdough bread with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8; WS8SB, sourdough bread with Weissella confusa SD8; NFCB, control bread without sourdough.
Table
Table 3. Physicochemical parameters of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains.
Table 3. Physicochemical parameters of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains.
Physical and Chemical ParametersSample
PL7SBPS8SBWS8SBNFCB
Moisture [%]44.74 ± 1.07 a42.46 ± 0.18 a40.36 ± 8.52 a39.41 ± 0.42 a
Crude Protein [%]5.31 ± 0.17 a4.91 ± 0. 52 a5.05 ± 0.00 a4.55 ± 0.35 a
Ash [%]2.44 ± 0.03 c2.37 ± 0.01 b2.43 ± 0.01 c2.12 ± 0.00 a
Total Lipid [%]3.74 ± 0.49 a3.23 ± 0.20 a4.14 ± 0.24 a3.91 ± 0.57 a
Soluble Dietary Fibre [%]0.46 ± 0.63 a1.73 ± 1.36 a0.00 ± 0.00 a2.70 ± 0.47 a
Insoluble Dietary Fibre [%]15.51 ± 0.28 a13.57 ± 2.69 a14.43 ± 1.10 a10.55 ± 0.71 a
Total Dietary Fibre [%]14.43 ± 1.10 a15.95 ± 0.90 a15.30 ± 4.04 a13.25 ± 0.24 a
Total Carbohydrate31.08 ± 3.41 a32.72 ± 12.32 a29.35 ± 0.67 a36.77 ± 1.10 a
Weight (g)131.45 ± 2.05 a133.00 ± 0.42 a132.70 ± 0.57 a133.55 ± 0.21 a
Specific Volume (g/cm3)2.42 ± 0.11 a,b2.16 ± 0.09 a2.50 ± 0.07 b2.46 ± 0.21 a,b
Baking Yield87.63 ± 1.37 a88.67 ± 0.28 a88.47 ± 0.38 a89.03 ± 0.14 a
Shelf Life (days)4555
Results indicate mean values ± SD. Data within a row followed by the same letter in superscript are not significantly different (p value ˂ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test. PL7SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus LD7); PS8SB (SB with Pediococcus pentosaceus SA8); WS8SB (SB with Weissella confusa SD8), NFCB (control bread without sourdough).
Table
Table 4. Colour of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains.
Table 4. Colour of sourdough breads (SB) obtained with different LAB strains.
SamplesCrumb ColourCrust Colour
L*a*b*L*a*b*
PL7SB35.22 ± 2.79 a6.81 ± 0.55 a13.04 ± 0.48 a,b44.50 ± 6.91 a8.72 ± 0.56 a16.41 ± 1.67 a
PS8SB34.16 ± 1.42 a6.54 ± 0.48 a12.35 ± 0.45 a44.03 ± 2.01 a8.54 ± 0.30 b16.95 ± 1.15 a
WS8SB34.14 ± 0.75 a6.13 ± 0.49 a12.37 ± 0.26 a37.72 ± 1.71 a7.73 ± 0.55 b15.39 ± 1.69 a
NFCB35.98 ± 1.37 a5.89 ± 0.52 a13.41 ± 0.28 b40.76 ± 1.96 a7.47 ± 0.64 a,b15.04 ± 0.57 a
Results indicate mean values ± SD. Data within a row followed by the same letter in superscript are not significantly different (p value ˂ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olojede, A.O.; Sanni, A.I.; Banwo, K.; Michael, T. Improvement of Texture, Nutritional Qualities, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Sorghum-Based Sourdough Bread Made with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa Strains. Fermentation 2022, 8, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010032

AMA Style

Olojede AO, Sanni AI, Banwo K, Michael T. Improvement of Texture, Nutritional Qualities, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Sorghum-Based Sourdough Bread Made with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa Strains. Fermentation. 2022; 8(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olojede, Ayoyinka O., Abiodun I. Sanni, Kolawole Banwo, and Towobola Michael. 2022. "Improvement of Texture, Nutritional Qualities, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Sorghum-Based Sourdough Bread Made with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa Strains" Fermentation 8, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010032

APA Style

Olojede, A. O., Sanni, A. I., Banwo, K., & Michael, T. (2022). Improvement of Texture, Nutritional Qualities, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Sorghum-Based Sourdough Bread Made with Pediococcus pentosaceus and Weissella confusa Strains. Fermentation, 8(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8010032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop