Clemson University

TigerPrints
All Theses Theses

12-2016

Effect of Sourdough Fermentation Parameters on

Bread Properties
Grace W. Couch
Clemson University

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses

Recommended Citation
Couch, Grace W., "Effect of Sourdough Fermentation Parameters on Bread Properties" (2016). All Theses. 2581.
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2581

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized
administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].
EFFECT OF SOURDOUGH FERMENTATION PARAMETERS
ON BREAD PROPERTIES

A Thesis
Presented to
the Graduate School of
Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Food, Nutrition, & Packaging Sciences

by
Grace W. Couch
December 2016

Accepted by:
Paul Dawson
Michelle Parisi
Julie Northcutt
 ABSTRACT

Sourdough is the oldest form of leavening which many believe was invented by the

Egyptians. Bread leavened with a sourdough culture relies on the metabolism of naturally

occurring lactic acid bacteria and wild yeasts. Historically there were many ties between

beer brewing and bread baking. In the fourteen and fifteen hundreds, it was discovered

that brewers yeast could also be used to leaven bread. Up until the invention of

commercial yeast in the nineteenth century, sourdough cultures and brewers yeast where

the only bread leavening methods. By 1910, traditional sourdough was much less

common because bread made with commercial yeast was much faster and easier, and

produced a more consistent product.1 The positive qualities of sourdough bread were

unfortunately overlooked because of the convenience that commercial yeast offered.

Phytic acid makes up about 1% of wheat and rye flours, and reduces the bioavailability of

calcium, magnesium, and iron by forming complexes with the divalent cations. Phytic

acid also inhibits enzymes in the digestive system needed to breakdown starch and

protein.2 This explains why some people experience discomfort from eating whole grain

wheat products. Sourdough bacteria breakdown phytic acid and “predigest” the grain

during the proofing process which releases easy to digest micronutrients.3 Specific

sourdough lactic acid bacteria breaks down sucrose to form exopolysaccharides that

contributes to bread volume, texture, and dietary fiber content. This increase in fiber

slows the digestion of the sourdough bread and does not cause rapid blood sugar spikes

like a commercial white bread often does.3

ii
The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of how fermentation time

and temperature affect sourdough production and give insight to why it is sometimes

more acceptable than non-fermented breads to the human digestive system. Three

identical batches of sourdough bread, 9 samples per batch, were produced and analyzed.

Samples 26-2, 26-4, 26-8, and 26-12 were fermented at 26°C and samples 4-14, 4-26, 4-

38, and 4-50 were fermented at 4°C to observe the affect of temperature on fermentation.

Bread samples were analyzed for moisture, loaf height, and protein content, and parallel

dough samples where analyzed for volatiles. This experiment shows evidence of protein

hydrolysis with data indicating an increase in alcohol extractable protein as fermentation

time increases. It was observed that fermentation temperature, environment (presence or

lack of O2), and time/duration all effect the bread qualities.

REFERENCES

[1] Kimbell, V. (2015). The history of sourdough bread. Retrieved

from http://www.sourdough.co.uk/the-history-of-sourdough-bread/

[2] Vaintraub, I. A. & Bulmaga, V. P. (1991). Effect of phytate on the in vitro activity of
digestive proteinases. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 39 (5), 859-861 DOI:
10.1021/jf00005a008

[3] Gänzle, M. G. (2014). Enzymatic and bacterial conversions during sourdough

fermentation. Food Microbiology, 37(0), 2-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.clemson.edu/10.1016/j.fm.2013.04.007

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the aid of several individuals.

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Paul Dawson for his support, motivation, and

essential guidance. I would like to give my utmost gratitude to Dr. Inyee Han for her

endless encouragement and knowledge throughout my research project. I would also like

to thank my committee members, Dr. Julie Northcutt and Dr. Michelle Parisi for their

advice and extensive expertise.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ....................................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................ix

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................x

CHAPTER ONE: REVIEW OF SOURDOUGH AND

MICROBIAL METABOLISM............................................................................1

Introduction……..............................................................………………..…1

History of Sourdough.....................................................................................2

Sourdough Cultures & Bread Baking ............................................................2

Lactic Acid Bacteria & Wild Yeasts..............................................................5

Enzymatic Activity ........................................................................................6

Gluten & Celiac Disease................................................................................8

Wheat Protein Analysis..................................................................................9

Volatile Analysis..........................................................................................10

Conclusion ...................................................................................................11

REFERENCES ............................................................................................12

CHAPTER TWO: SOURDOUGH FERMENTATION

AND GLUTEN CONTENT ........................................................................14

Abstract ........................................................................................................14

v
Table of Contents (Continued) Page
1. Introduction.............................................................................................. 15

2. Materials and Bread Preparation.............................................................. 18

2.1. Sourdough Culture .......................................................................... 18

2.2. Preparation of Active Sourdough Culture....................................... 18

2.3. Preparation of Dough and Baking Procedure ................................. 19

2.4. Sample Preparation and Moisture Analysis.................................... 20

3. Analysis Methods.....................................................................................21

3.1. Loaf Height ..................................................................................... 21

3.2. Moisture Analysis ........................................................................... 21

3.3. Gluten-Tec® ELISA ....................................................................... 21

3.4. Bradford Assay Protein Detection .................................................. 26

3.5. Ethanol Protein Extraction.............................................................. 27

3.6. Headspace Gas Analysis ................................................................. 28

3.7. Statistical Analysis.......................................................................... 28

4. Results and Discussion ............................................................................ 29

4.1. Loaf Height ..................................................................................... 29

4.2. Moisture Analysis ........................................................................... 29

4.3. Gluten-Tec® ELISA Protein Quantification .................................. 30

4.4. Bradford Assay Protein Quantification........................................... 31

4.5. Ethanol Extraction Protein Quantification...................................... 31

4.6. Headspace Gas Quantification and Trends ..................................... 32

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 32

vi
Table of Contents (Continued) Page

5. Conclusion ...............................................................................................32

REFERENCES ............................................................................................35

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1. Sourdough culture activation schedule and dough sample preparation

procedure .....................................................................................................37

Table 2. Sourdough loaf sample fermentation schedule ............................................38

Table 3. Loaf height of room temperature fermented samples ..................................40

Table 4. Loaf height of refrigerator temperature fermented samples ........................40

Table 5. Percent Moisture in Sourdough Bread at minimum and maximum

fermentation times at both 70°F (Rm) and 40°F (Rf)..................................40

Table 6. Ethanol extracted protein in sourdough bread at minimum and maximum

fermentation times at both 70°F (Rm) and 40°F (Rf)..................................41

Table 7. Headspace gas volatiles for room temperature (70°F) samples...................42

Table 8. Headspace gas volatiles for refrigerated temperature (40°F) dough

samples.........................................................................................................42

Table 9. Headspace gas average volatile percentages for room temperature (70°F)
and refrigerated temperature (40°F) dough samples ...................................43

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Overview of proteolysis and amino acid metabolism in wheat

sourdough............................................................................................................. 7

2. Flow Chart of sourdough culture activation process .........................................37

3. Flow Chart of loaf and dough sample preparation.............................................39

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

REVIEW RELATING SOURDOUGH CULTURES AND GLUTEN DISORDERS

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the identification of individuals with celiac disease has been increasingly

more prevalent. Celiac disease is defined as an autoimmune disease of the small intestine

that is triggered by the ingestions of gluten proteins from wheat, barley, and rye. When

celiac patients ingest gluten proteins their immune cells, T and B, produce antibodies that

attack the villi in the small intestine and cause inflammation and damage. This causes

inability of the villi to absorb nutrients properly (Darewicz et al., 2008). Some of the

common symptoms of this disease include abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, headaches,

and irritability (Silvester et al., 2016). Today the only proven cure for this disease is to

simply avoid foods containing gluten. If celiac patients continue to consume gluten they

are at risk of serious health problems like anemia (iron deficiency), early onset

osteoporosis or osteopenia, infertility, lactose intolerance, vitamin and mineral

deficiencies, central and peripheral nervous system disorders, pancreatic insufficiency,

gall bladder malfunction, and neurological manifestations (celiac Disease Foundation).

Some celiac disease individuals have discovered they have no negative reactions after

consuming traditional wheat sourdough bread (Cagno et al., 2008) but very few studies

have looked into the reason behind this tolerance. Initially, the assumptions focused on

the gluten protein reduction occurring in the culture by microbial and enzymatic

reactions, but preliminary studies suggest that active probiotics may also be assisting in

1
the ease of digestion (Cagno et al., 2008)(Caputo et al., 2010). This chapter will review

the effects of sourdough production on bread quality and gluten sensitivities.

HISTORY OF SOURDOUGH

Sourdough cultures are the oldest form of leavening, aging back to more than 5,000 years

ago. Initially, sourdough batters were a simple mixture of flour and water that were

fermented, and were then used as leavening to make bread rise. It was observed that this

process could be expedited by keeping the starter culture alive by continuously “feeding

it,” adding flour and water, and only taking a portion of it when it was time to make

bread. The starter, also known as a levain, is a mixture of flour, water, and naturally

occurring bacteria and yeast. The starter may be kept indefinitely if it is properly stored

and fed. Only a small portion of the starter is used to make bread by mixing with a large

portion of flour and a little bit of water. Before the mechanism was understood, the

unknown gas producers were called “seeds”. In the mid-1800’s Louis Pasteur discovered

the process was a result of living microorganisms feeding off the slurry. This discovery

led to the invention of baker’s yeast (Darewicz et al., 2008).

SOURDOUGH CULTURES & BREAD BAKING

Sourdough culture production requires only two ingredients: flour and water. Cultures are

not limited to wheat flour, as other types of flours used include rice, rye, spelt, barley,

and amaranth (Cagno et al., 2008). Part of the culture includes a third component of wild

yeasts and lactic acid bacteria (LAB). These microorganisms are included in the culture

2
from the environment and different species of yeast and bacteria are introduced in the

culture depending on what region of the world it is produced and what types of flours it

contains. Every region contains its own unique cocktail of bacteria so no two sourdough

cultures are the same. This results in regional flavor profiles (Gadsby, 2003). Traditional

San Francisco Sourdough is famous for its unique bacterial and flavor profile. Specific

Lactobacillus species, like Lb. sanfranciscensis, are characteristic of a San Francisco

sourdough. These species use co-fermentation to metabolize fructose and maltose or

glucose, or citrate and maltose or glucose. Lb. sanfranciscensis prefer to metabolize

maltose which is to their advantage because of the lack of competition with yeast for

glucose (Salim-ur-Rehman et al., 2006). A sensory study done by the Swiss Society of

Food Science and Technology found that sourdough bread made with heterofermentative

Lb. sanfranciscensis had a pleasant, mild, sour taste and odor, whereas homofermentative

Lb. plantarum fermented bread had an unpleasant metallic sour taste (Katina et al., 2006).

Flavor volatiles that have been correlated to with pleasant flavors of wheat bread crumb

include 2-methylpropanoic acid, 3-methyl-butanoic acid, 2/3-methyl-1-butanol,

acetaldehyde, 2-nonenal, 2-phenylethanol, benzylethanol, 2,3-butandione, dimethyl

sulphide, and 2-furfural (Salim-ur-Rehman et al., 2006).

In the artisanal baking world, sourdough cultures are kept alive for decades and passed

down through generations like a family memento. One of the oldest sourdough cultures

on record is 126 years old, owned by Lucille Clarke Dumbrill of Newcastle, Wyoming.

She got the starter from her mother, who got it from one of her husband’s students at the

3
University of Wyoming. The culture was traced back to a sheepherder’s wagon near

Kaycee, Wyoming in1889 (Matray, 2011). Like many owners of sourdough culture,

Lucille stores her culture in the refrigerator where is remains in a dormant state. To make

a batch of sourdough bread, a portion of the culture is removed from the fridge and

continually fed at room temperature until it is fully active.

Food for the bacteria and yeasts consists of an even mixture, by weight, of flour and

water that is incorporated into the culture. To keep a sourdough culture active at room

temperature, the microorganisms must be fed regularly every 12 or 24 hours depending

on the flour type and maturity of the culture. When making a new wheat culture for

example, it is suggested that you feed the culture every 12 hours for at least the first three

days. When activating a dormant culture, the process could take anywhere from 1 to 3

days. Often a portion of the fed culture is discarded after every couple feedings because

otherwise there would be an excessive amount of culture. Often cultures are produced in

large mason jars covered lightly with a mesh-like fabric or cheesecloth when it is being

activated at room temperature. This unsealed environment allows the microorganisms to

respire.

Once the culture is active and mature, at least two weeks old, it is ready to produce

sourdough bread. This requires about three parts flour, two parts sourdough culture, and

one part water by volume. After mixing and kneading, the dough is allowed to proof

anywhere from four to twenty-four hours. A double proofing is sometimes done by

4
punching down after four to twelve hours and then the dough is allowed to proof a second

time. The dough is then baked at around 400°F until the internal temperature reaches

190°F to 210°F (Cultures for Health, 2014).

LACTIC ACID BACTERIA & WILD YEASTS

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are the primary bacteria utilized to produce sourdough bread.

Other types of bacteria may be present in the bread but are not critical to the process.

Wild yeast works synergistically with LAB because yeast do not metabolize maltose and

compete with the bacteria like baker’s yeast would. Many untraditional sourdough breads

on the market today utilize baker’s yeast to expedite the proofing process. When the

artificial yeast is added they compete with the LAB for nutrients and some nutritional

benefits of a traditional sourdough are diminished (Lhomme et al., 2014). Lactic acid

bacteria found in sourdough cultures include Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis,

Lactobacillus rossiae, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus

pentosus, and Pediococcus pentosaceus. These species of bacteria are responsible for the

production of acid and therefore are classified as obligately heterofermentative,

facultatively heterofermentative, or obligately homofermentative (Settanni et al., 2013).

Homofermentative LAB primarily produce lactic acid as a by-product of glucose

fermentation, while heterofermentative LAB produce lactic acid, carbon dioxide, and

ethanol/acetic acid from the fermentation of glucose. Facultatively heterofermentative

bacteria use the glycolitic pathway to produce lactic acid, but are able to use the

heterolactic fermentation process when there is limited glucose (Dairy Foods Science

5
Notes, Cornell University). Common wild yeast often captured in the culture include

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kazachstania exigua, and/or Candida humilis (Cagno et al.,

2008). A study done by the Department of Agricultural and Forest Science at the

Università degli Studi di Palermo in Italy looked at the affects of individual lactic acid

bacteria on the bread quality and characteristics. When produced with non-sterile flour,

bread made with Lb. sanfranciscensis showed the greatest loaf height. In the experiment

with sterile flour, Ln. citreum and W. cibaria consistently produced bread with higher

loaf height (Settanni et al., 2013).

ENZYMATIC & MICROBIAL ACTIVITY

The fermentation process in sourdough leads to the activation of naturally occurring grain

enzymes. Studies have shown this activity increases nutrient bioavailability that may also

facilitate the ease of digestion of the bread. Starch degradation is the main source of

fermentable carbohydrates and reducing sugars. Hydrolysis by amylases liberates

maltodextrins, maltose, and glucose during fermentation. Maltose accumulation happens

in the early stages of fermentation. Once the pH is reduced to 4.5 or below, the

maltogenic amylases are inhibited, but glucose from starch and maltodextrins are still

released by glucoamylase activity. A specific sourdough lactic acid bacteria breaks down

sucrose to form exopolysaccharides that contribute to bread volume, texture, and dietary

fiber content (Gänzle, 2014).

6
Proteolysis is the breakdown of proteins to peptides. In sourdough, this process is

dependent on metabolic activity of bacteria that lowers the pH, which leads to the

activation of endogenous proteases, the primary source of protein metabolism. The acidic

pH of the culture activates proteinases, which are responsible for depolymerisation of

proteins and enzymatic degradation of gluten. When the pH of the culture drops due to

fermentation there is an accumulation of low molecular weight thiols, which increase the

solubility of gluten proteins by decomposing their intermolecular disulfide bonds, making

them more prone to breakdown. Lactic acid bacteria help to increase the amount of free

amino acids by activating the strain-specific intracellular peptidases (Figure 1)(Gänzle,

2014).

Figure 1. Overview of proteolysis and amino acid metabolism in wheat soughdough

*red arrows indicate conversion by microbial enzymes
*blue arrows indicate conversion by cereal enzymes (Gänzle, 2014)

Lipid oxidation begins when active endogenous lipoxygenase consume oxygen during

mixing of the dough. This enzyme oxidizes linoleic acid to form hydroxyperoxy acid.

7
Flavor active aldehydes are produced by both enzymatic and non-enzymatic degradation

of fatty acid hydroperoxydes (Gänzle, 2014)(Hansen and Schieberle, 2005).

Soaking and sprouting grains has been an increasingly popular preparation method

because of the nutritional advantages. Much of the increased nutrient value is associated

with the enzymatic degradation of phytate. Phytate makes up 1% of the wheat grain and it

forms complexes with divalent cations of calcium, magnesium, and iron. The complexes

with these nutrients make them unavailable to human digestion. Through enzymatic

hydrolysis by phytases, phytate is reduced and nutrient bioavailability is increased

(Gänzle, 2014). Vinegar is often added to the soaking liquid to lower the pH and

expedite the activation of phytases. Sourdough cultures have the same effect when the

fermentation creates an acidic environment resulting in phytase activation (Gänzle,

2014).

GLUTEN & CELIAC DISEASE

Gluten is 75% protein based on dry weight, with the remainder being mostly starch and

lipid. The protein portion is responsible for the autoimmune response by celiac disease

patients. Majority of the proteins are prolamins, classified by their solubility in alcohol

and characterized by their high glutamine and proline content. Gliadins are monomeric

prolamins, and glutenins are polymeric prolamins (Shewry et al., 2002). Previously,

gliadins were believed to cause the autoimmune response in celiac patients, but more

recent research has concluded that glutenins also contribute to the autoimmune response.

8
The fermentation by bacteria and yeasts cause acidification and production of alcohols

including thiols. Cereal grain enzymes that participate in gluten degradation depend on

both the presence of thiols and the decreased oxidation-reduction potential caused by

fermentation. Sourdough is unique because of this interdependent relationship between

the culture microbes and cereal grain enzymes. Thiols increase efficiency of enzymatic

degradation of the alcohol soluble gluten proteins. LAB is responsible for the conversion

of peptides to amino acids and amino acids to metabolites while the cereal grain enzymes

are important to convert gliadins to peptides. In sourdough cultures the rate of gliadin

hydrolysis is greater than glutenin hydrolysis mainly due to a more complex glutenin

structure (Gänzle, 2014)(Hansen and Schieberle, 2005).

WHEAT PROTEIN ANALYSIS

A study supported by The Research Association of the German Food Industry (FEI)

analyzed the individual protein fractions and their extent of degradation during

sourdough fermentation. The samples were extracted stepwise by first removing

albumins and globulins with NaCl and HKNaPO4, then extracting the gliadin subunits

with 60% (v/v) ethanol, and finally the glutenin fractions with a mixture of 1-propanol

containing urea, DTT, and Tris-HCl. Data indicated that sourdough fermentation caused

the greater decrease in glutenin fractions compared to other breadmaking methods. This

leads to an increase in alcohol soluble oligomeric proteins, which reside in the gliadin

fraction. This research also discovered that different (homo- or hetero-) fermentative

microbial strains caused various degrees of proteolysis (Wieser et al., 2008).

9
VOLATILE ANALYSIS

Sourdough can be characterized by its unique aroma and flavor profile produced during

fermentation. These aromas are dependant on volatile compounds produced from the

interaction between the flour and microorganisms present in the culture. These aroma

compounds can be identified and quantified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

(GC-MS). This analysis has given deeper insight into the microbial and enzymatic

processes that occur in sourdough fermentation. A study published by the American

Association of Cereal Chemists analyzed the proteolysis and liberation of amino acids by

cereal and microbial enzymes in sourdough fermentation. This study proved that specific

bacteria species cause an accumulation of certain free amino acids that convert to

recognizable volitiles (Thiele et al., 2002). Therefore, specific bacteria and yeasts can

often be identified knowing that certain volatiles are specific byproducts of that species

metabolic process. A study published in the Journal of Cereal Science analyzed the

relationship between bacteria species in sourdough and volatiles produced and reported

that L. sanfranciscensis fermented dough yielded less (E)-2-nonenal, that corresponded to

an increase in (E)-2-nonenol (Vermeulen et al., 2007). Sourdough bread flavor is greatly

influenced by the lactic and acetic acid content. Homofermentative lactic acid bacteria

(LAB) convert over 85% of hexoses into lactic acid, but heterofermentative LAB use

hexoses to produce lactic acid, acetic acid/ethanol, and CO2. Lactic and acetic acid ratios

have also been shown to be affected by environmental temperature which would in turn

affect flavor (Vaintraub and Bulmaga, 1991).

10
CONCLUSION

One objective of this research was to analyze the extent of protein hydrolysis within the

different sourdough fermentation time periods. Gluten protein breakdown in sourdough

cultures is of great interest because of the potential positive impact for celiac and gluten

sensitive patients. Some bacteria have shown to break down gluten content more

efficiently than others (Caputo et al., 2010)(Hansen and Schieberle, 2005).

With the increasing prevalence and recognition of gluten related disorders, research on

reducing this autoimmune response is of great interest. This research will provide an

additional understanding of the rate at which sourdough cultures degrade protein. The

hope is that these findings will contribute to future discovery of the digestion mechanism

and tolerance of celiac patients for sourdough breads.

11
 REFERENCES

Cagno, R.D., Rizzello, C.G., Angelis, M., Cassone, A., Giuliani, G., Benedusi, A., et al.
(2008). Use of selected sourdough strains of lactobacillus for removing gluten and
enhancing the nutritional properties of gluten-free bread. Journal of Food Protection,
71(7), 1491.

Caputo, I., Lepretti, M., Martucciello, S., & Esposito, C. (2010). Enzymatic strategies to
detoxify gluten: Implications for celiac disease. Enzyme Research, , 1-9.
doi:10.4061/2010/174354

Celiac Disease Foundation. “What is celiac disease?” doi:https://celiac.org/celiac-

disease/what-is-celiac-disease/

Cultures for Health [Internet]; [cited 2014 09/03]. Available

from: http://www.culturesforhealth.com/.

Dairy Foods Science Notes, Milk Quality Improvement Program, Department of Food
Science, Cornell University.
doi:https://foodsafety.foodscience.cornell.edu/sites/foodsafety.foodscience.cornell.edu/fil
es/shared/documents/CU-DFScience-Notes-Dairy-Cultures-HomoHeteroferm-10-08.pdf

Darewicz, M., Dziuba, J., & Minkiewicz, P. (2008). Celiac Disease—Background,

molecular, bioinformatics and analytical aspects. Food Reviews International, 24(3), 311-
329. doi:10.1080/87559120802089258

Gadsby, P. (2003). San fran's mighty microbes. Discover, 24(9), 26. Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.clemson.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=
10511584

Gänzle, M.G. (2014). Enzymatic and bacterial conversions during sourdough

fermentation. Food Microbiology, 37(0), 2-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.clemson.edu/10.1016/j.fm.2013.04.007

Hansen, A., Schieberle, P. (2005). Generation of aroma compounds during sourdough

fermentation: Applied and fundamental aspects. Trends Food Sci Technol, 0;16(1–3):85-
94.

Katina, K., Heiniö, R.L., Autio, K., Poutanen, K. (2006). Optimization of sourdough
process for improved sensory profiles and texture of wheat bread. LWT-Food Science
and Technology, 39, 1189–1202.

12
Lhomme, E., Mezaize, S., Ducasse, M. B., Chiron, H., Champomier-Vergès, M. C.,
Chaillou, S., et al. (2014). A polyphasic approach to study the dynamics of microbial
population of an organic wheat sourdough during its conversion to gluten-free sourdough.
International Microbiology, 17, 1.

Matray, M. (2011). Newcastle woman maintains 122-year-old sourdough starter. Casper

Star Tribune.

Salim-ur-Rehman, Paterson, A., & Piggott, J. R. (2006). Flavour in sourdough breads: A

review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17(10), 557-566.
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2006.03.006

Settanni, L., Ventimiglia, G., Alfonzo, A., Corona, O., Miceli, A., Moschetti, G. (2013).
An integrated technological approach to the selection of lactic acid bacteria of flour
origin for sourdough production. Food Res Int, 12;54(2):1569-78.

Shewry, P., Halford, N., Belton, P., & Tatham, A. (2002). The structure and properties of
gluten: An elastic protein from wheat grain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 357,
133-142.

Silvester, J.A., Graff, L.A., Rigaux, L., Walker, J.R., & Duerksen, D.R. (2016).
Symptomatic suspected gluten exposure is common among patients with coeliac disease
on a gluten-free diet.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 44(6), 612-619.
doi:10.1111/apt.13725

Thiele, C., Gänzle, M.G., Vogel, R.F. (2002). Contribution of sourdough lactobacilli,
yeast, and cereal enzymes to the generation of amino acids in dough relevant for bread
flavor. Cereal Chemistry Journal, 79:1:45.

Vaintraub, I.A. & Bulmaga, V.P. (1991). Effect of phytate on the in vitro activity of
digestive proteinases. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 39 (5), 859-861 DOI:
10.1021/jf00005a008

Vermeulen, N., Czerny, M., Gänzle, M.G., Schieberle, P., Vogel, R.F. (2007). Reduction
of (E)-2-nonenal and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal during sourdough fermentation. J Cereal Sci,
1;45(1):78-87.

Wieser, H., Vermeulen, N., Gaertner, F., Vogel, R. (2008). Effects of different
lactobacillus and enterococcus strains and chemical acidification regarding degradation
of gluten proteins during sourdough fermentation. European Food Research &
Technology, 04/29;226(6):1495-502.

13
 CHAPTER TWO

SOURDOUGH FERMENTATION EFFECTS ON BREAD QUALITY

ABSTRACT

The effects of fermentation duration at two different temperatures on the quality and

gluten content of sourdough bread were analyzed. A sourdough culture was used to

produce 3 separate batches of bread, of which there was 1 Control (0) and 8 fermentation

treatments. The Control was baked at time 0:00, not allowed fermentation time. Samples

26-2, 26-4, 26-8, and 26-12 were fermented at 26°C for 2, 4, 8, & 12 hours, respectively

and samples 4-14, 4-26, 4-38, and 4-50 were fermented at 4°C for 12, 24, 36, & 48 hours,

respectively. Loaf volume, bread moisture, protein content, and volatiles were analyzed

for each sample. Bread moisture increased as fermentation time increased for both the 26-

and 4- samples. A significant change (p<0.05) in moisture was observed between

samples 4-14 and 4-50. Ethanol extractable protein consistently increased with

fermentation time when comparing the Control (0) with sample 26-12 or 4-14 with 4-50

within batches. This increase was at a significant (p<0.05) level when comparing the

mean of the Control and 26-12. Analysis on dough samples with a gas chromatograph

mass selective system (GC-MS) showed evidence of fermentation progression with an

increase in alcohol. An increase in 1-hexanol was observed from the Control-d to samples

26-4d and 26-12d. Control-d, 26-4d, and 26-12d also showed a decrease in hexanal as

fermentation time progressed. In the refrigerated temperature (4°C) treated dough

samples, 1-hexanol increased but not as significantly as the room temperature samples.

14
1. Introduction

Sourdough is the oldest and most traditional form of leavened bread (Kiple and Ornelas,

2000). Before the invention of Bakers Yeast, sourdough was the only option to create

leavened bread. Because sourdough is a natural process that relies on the metabolism of

microorganisms, it requires numerous days of preparation and proofing time. Commercial

bakers yeast became available in the United States in the 1860s then quickly became the

primary leavening method due to its convenience and consistency (Smith, 2004). It

appears that the health benefits and higher bread quality associated with sourdough

cultures has just begun to be recognized within the past 30 years.

Although sourdough is more time-consuming than other bread-making methods, there are

a number of beneficial reactions that occur during the process. The lactic acid bacteria

and yeasts along with the endogenous enzymes are responsible for the microbial

metabolism and enzymatic hydrolysis of carbohydrates, phenolic compounds, lipids, and

proteins. The metabolism of carbohydrates contributes to the texture, water binding

ability, shelf life, nutritional factors, and overall taste of the bread. The production of

oligosaccharides, indigestible carbohydrates, is particularly advantageous due to their

dietary fiber and prebiotic affects (Gänzle, 2014). In the small intestine the

oligosaccharides cannot be broken down therefore acting as a dietary fiber, but in the

large intestine these carbohydrates are metabolized by bacteria, acting as prebiotics

(Mudgil and Barak, 2013). Exopolysaccharides are carbohydrate polymers produced by

15
heterofermentative lactobacilli. These bacteria produce exopolysaccharides to form

biofilms for protection against environmental factor, but in bread these polymers are

beneficial for there water binding capacity which helps prevent bread staling (Gänzle,

2014). The bacteria break down these carbohydrates into short chain fatty acids (SCFA)

that can then be absorbed as nutrients in the colon (Gibson et al., 1996). The

transformation of phenolic compounds adds both a nutritional and flavor benefit to the

bread. Without being broken down, phenolic compounds are considered an antinutrient,

they interfere with the absorption of starch and protein, and they also impart a bitter taste.

Once the phenols are metabolized by lactic acid bacteria and cereal enzymes the nutrient

bioavailability, ratio of absorbed nutrients, is increased and the bitter taste is eliminated.

Wheat flour contains about 1% phytate, a saturated cyclic acid that reduces the

bioavailability of calcium, magnesium, and iron by forming a complex with divalent

cations. Phytate hydrolysis, by phytases, is dependent on a low pH, between 3.5-5, which

is achieved in sourdough bread fermentation. The complex with divalent cations is

soluble in an acidic pH, 5 or below (Leenhardt et al., 2005). The complexes between

phytate and vitamins or minerals are weakened as sourdough ferments, making the

nutrients available for digestion. Soaking and sprouting grains is a process in which

similar enzymatic reactions occur. The purpose is often to increase availability of

nutrients and aid in digestion of the grain by activating cereal enzymes. The metabolism

of lipids contributes antioxidant activity, antifungal properties, and some flavor

compounds. Lipid oxidation begins in sourdough bread making during the mixing

process when oxygen is consumed by endogenous lipoxygenase activity where linoleic

16
acid is oxidized to hydroxyperoxy acids. Hydroperoxydes are degraded into flavor active

aldehydes by enzymatic or non-enzymatic reactions. Coriolic acid, a hydroxy-fatty acid

derived from peroxides, has potent anti-fungal property and can increase shelf life over

twofold (Czerny and Schieberle, 2002).

Proteolysis in sourdough is caused by the acidification and accumulation of low

molecular weight thiols. Here, the pH shifts to the optimum level for aspartic proteases,

the main proteinase in the wheat grain. These factors increase both the solubility of

gluten proteins and the susceptibility to enzymatic break down (Gänzle et al., 2008). This

degradation leads to an accumulation of peptides and amino acid metabolites which in

recent years have been recognized for there antioxidant, anti-cancer, or antihypertensive

activities (Gänzle, 2014). The protein transformations that occur in sourdough have

gained a great deal of attention over the past few decades due to reduced toxicity to some

patients with gluten related disorders. It is estimated that about 1% of the worlds

population has celiacs disease. In the United State only about 5% of the population

affected by celiacs disease have been diagnosed (Celiac Disease Center). It is important

to gain a deeper understanding of the disease and the tolerance of sourdough bread so that

these individuals have fewer restrictions in there diet.

The objective of this research was to contribute insight on the protein transformations and

quality changes that occur resulting from sourdough fermentation, specifically, due to

fermentation time and temperature.

17
2. Materials and Bread Preparation

2.1. Sourdough Culture

Unbleached wheat bread flour (King Author Flour, Norwich, Vermont) was used to make

the sourdough samples because it is the most common flour used in sourdough bread.

The sourdough culture was donated from Chef Cicely Austin, Executive Pastry Chef, of

Aramark Food Service at Clemson University. The culture was stored in a covered

container in a refrigerator at 4°C (40°F). For the duration of the experiment, 25 weeks,

the culture was feed once a week with 100 mL of spring water (Poland Spring, Poland,

Maine) and 100 g of bread flour and then mixed.

In addition, a traditional San Francisco Sourdough Culture was acquired from

Sourdoughs International, Inc (Cascade, Idaho). This culture arrived in a lyophilized form

and was fully activated by numerous feedings and close temperature monitoring.

2.2. Preparation of Active Sourdough Culture

The entire sourdough sample preparation process, parts 2.2 and 2.3, was done 3 separate

times for the production of 3 sourdough batches (Figure 2 & Figure 3).

Thirty-six hours prior to using the culture to make dough, the culture was fully activated

by removing 40 g of the culture from the refrigerator and mixing with 40 mL of spring

water (Poland Spring, Poland, Maine) and 40 g of bread flour. During this 36-hour

18
activation process the mixture was covered loosely and kept at room temperature, 21°C

(70°F), between each feeding. After 12 hours the mixture was fed for a second time with

120 mL of spring water and 120 g of bread flour. The third feeding was 8 hours later with

360 ml of water and 360 g of bread flour, and the fourth feeding was 8 hours after the

third and required 1080 mL of water and 1080 g of bread flour. At this point the culture

was active and doubled in size in less than 8 hours (Table 1 & Figure 2).

2.3. Preparation of Dough and Baking Procedure

The bread dough was prepared 8 hours after the forth feeding with 3000 g of the active

starter mixed with 2400 g of bread flour, 670 mL of spring water and 40 g of fine sea salt.

Ingredients were mixed by hand and then kneaded in a planetary mixer (Model PM10,

Berkel Company, South Bend, Indiana) with a Spiral Dough Hook attachment for 10

minutes. The dough was then portioned into 205 g loaves that were formed into oblong

balls and placed into loaf pan (5.75” L x 3.25” W x 2.25” H). Each pan was prepared

with nonstick cooking spray (Pam Original, ConAgra Foods, Omaha, Nebraska) and 4 g

of cornmeal (Quaker, Chicago, Illinois). Nine dough samples, 25 g each, were made in

parallel with the 9 bread samples following all the steps except for the baking process.

The dough samples (d) were each stored in 2-oz plastic portion cups with lids. Instead of

being baked at the time of the loaf sample, this dough sample was frozen in order to

terminate further fermentation. These frozen dough samples were used for volatile

analysis to observe the progression of fermentation. Loaf 0 (control) was baked

immediately (time 0:00) in an Electrolux Icon Dual-Fuel Range (Model#: E36DF76GPS,

19
Charlotte, North Carolina). Samples 26-2, 26-4, 26-8, and 26-12 were held in a proofing

system, rolling rack covered with a large plastic bag, at 26°C and each taken out to be

baked at their designated times (2, 4, 8, & 12 hours, respectively). Temperatures of the

loaf samples were monitored with probe thermometers. Samples 4-14, 4-26, 4-38, and 4-

50 were wrapped in plastic film to hold in moisture and refrigerated at 4°C (40°F) for

their allotted time (12, 24, 36, & 48 hours, respectively). Before baking the 4- samples,

they were placed in the proofing system, at 26°C for 2 hours prior to baking (Table 2 &

Figure 3). A probe thermometer indicated that the 4- samples had an internal temperature

of 4°C when they were removed from the refrigerator and an internal temperature of

26°C after their 2 hours in the proofing system. All samples were baked at 204°C (400°F)

until the internal temperature reached 93°C (200°F). After each sample was baked, it was

taken out of the loaf pan and placed on a drying rack for 2 hours before being tightly

wrapped in plastic film, labeled, and stored in the freezer at -18 to -15°C (0-4°F).

2.4. Sample Preparation and Moisture Analysis

Bread samples were removed from the freezer. The outer crust was removed and only the

inner portions were used for analysis. The samples were thinly sliced and broken into

small pieces not greater than ½ inch. Each sample was weighed (approximately 20 g) and

placed in a labeled tin tray. The samples were then placed in a Mechanical Convection

Oven (Blue M Electric Company, Blue Island, Illinois) for 24 hours at 100°C. Once

removed from the oven, the samples were weighed again for moisture analysis (Table 1).

20
Samples were then individually pulverized in a blender (Oster Osterizer with 8 oz jar,

John Oster MFG. CO, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and stored in 50 mL centrifuge tubes at

21°C (70°F) until further use.

3. Analysis Methods

3.1. Loaf Height

The maximum height, highest point, of each bread loaf sample was measured in

centimeters to the nearest tenth with a standard ruler. Measurements were recorded for

further analysis to determine possible correlations between loaf height and extent of

fermentation.

3.2. Moisture Analysis

The weight of each sample was taken before and after being dried in the Mechanical

Convection Oven (Blue M Electric Company, Blue Island, Illinois) for 24 hours at

100°C. The difference in the original and dried weight was divided by the original weight

and multiplied by 100 to get the percent moisture.

3.3. Gluten-Tec® ELISA

Guten-Tec ELISA (EuroProxima, Arnhem, The Netherlands) is an competitive enzyme

immunoassay kit that quantitatively detects gliadin and gliadin fragments and was used

for gliadin detection for this research. The gliadin antibody used is 100% specific for a T

cell stimulatory peptide on the gliadin molecule of wheat, hordein in barley, and secalin

21
in rye. These epitopes are known to play a major role in eliciting symptoms of celiac

disease. The Gluten-Tec ELISA kit is sensitive enough to detect levels a low as 10 parts

per million (ppm) (Gluten-Tec® ELISA, 2011).

The Gluten-Tec kit is an indirect ELISA method, meaning that the more gliadin detected

will result in less color. This test uses a substrate/chromogen solution that contains

horseradish peroxidase (HRP), an enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of the substrate

when hydrogen peroxide is present (Thermofisher Scientific, 2016) and

TetraMethylBenzidine (TMB), which makes the HRP visual with color. The HRP binds

to the unoccupied sights (where gliadin binds when present) so more color will seen

when there are more open binding sites for HRP or less gliadin (Gluten-Tec® ELISA,

2011).

3.3.1. Preparation of Buffers & Samples

Buffer A was made by adding 154 mg of DL-Dithiothreitol (Sigma D0632) and 303 mg

of Trisma base (Sigma T1503, SIGMA-ALDRICH Co., St. Louis, Missouri) to a 50 ml

tube and dissolved with 10 ml of distilled water. Thirty milliliters of 60% ethanol

solution was then added and the mixture was carefully blended. The pH of the solution

was adjusted to 8.0 with 1 M HCl using a pH meter (Orion model 420A and Orion

9157BN Triode Refillable pH, Orion Research Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). This

solution was then placed in a volumetric flask and filled to 50 ml with distilled water.

22
Buffer B was made by dissolving 1017 mg of iodoacetamide (Sigma ref. 16125-259,

SIGMA-ALDRICH Co., St. Louis, Missouri) and 303 mg Trisma base (Sigma T1503) in

40 ml of distilled water. The pH of this solution was then adjusted to 8.0 with 1 M HCl.

This mixture was then placed in a volumetric flask and filled to 50 ml with distilled

water.

Each pulverized bread sample was weighed out, 0.25 g, into a 15 ml screw cap Greiner.

Four point seven five mL of Buffer A was added to each and vortexed for 1 minute and

then incubated in a water bath for 30 minutes at 60°C. Samples were then vortexed for

another minute before being centrifuged for 10 minutes at 10,000 x g at room

temperature (70°F). Two hundred and fifty µl of the clear supernatant was transferred to

a tube and neutralized with 250 µl of Buffer B and vortexed for 1 minute. The neutralized

samples were then incubated at room temperature in the dark for 30 minutes before being

diluted 1:500 with the Sample Dilution Buffer (ready-to-use from kit) (Gluten-Tec®

ELISA, 2011).

3.3.2. Preparation of Reagents

Reagents were prepared and used within the same day. Prior to use, reagents were

brought to room temperature (1 hr). Microtiter and plate strips were also brought to room

temperature before each use. The unneeded strips were kept in refrigerator in the

resealable bag until further use. The Gluten-Tec kit Rinsing Buffer was diluted by a

factor of 20 by mixing 2 ml of the concentrated rinsing buffer and 38 ml of distilled

23
water. The dilution buffers, both the conjugate and antibody dilution buffers, were

supplied in a bottle ready-to-use in the kit (Gluten-Tec® ELISA, 2011). To prepare the

conjugate solution the vial of conjugate was spun down in the centrifuge for 1 minute at

1000 × g (RPM) before 20 µl was mixed with 2 ml of conjugate dilution buffer. The

antibody, biotinylated anti-alpha-20, vial was spun down with a short centrifuge step for

1 minute at 1000 × g, then 10 µl of the antibody is added to 1 ml of the antibody dilution

buffer. The substrate solution was delivered ready-to-use. It was mixed well and brought

to room temperature before each use. The ethanol solution, 60%, was prepared by mixing

300 ml of ethanol and 200 ml of distilled water (Gluten-Tec® ELISA, 2011).

3.3.3. Assay Procedure

3.3.3.1. Standard Curve and Samples

One hundred µl of the zero standard was pipetted in duplicate in wells A1 and A2

(blanks). Fifty µl of the zero standard were pipetted into wells B1 and B2 (maximal

signal). Each remaining standard solution, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 ng/ml, were pipetted in

duplicate, 50 µl each, in wells C1, 2 to H1, 2 respectively. Fifty µl of each sample was

pipetted in duplicate in the microtiter plate. Then 50 µl of antibody was added to each

standard and sample well except the blank wells, A1 and A2. The plate was then sealed

and gently mixed for 30 seconds on a microtiter plate shaker before being incubated in

the dark for 1 hour at 4°C. Then the solution in the microtiter plate was discarded and

washed 3 times with the rinsing buffer. The conjugate was then pipetted into the wells,

24
100 µl in each, except for wells A1 and A2. The plate was sealed once again, shaken on

the plate shaker, and incubated for another hour in the dark at 4°C. After the incubation,

the solution was discarded once again and washed 3 times with rinsing buffer. Then 100

µl of the substrate solution was added into each well including the blank wells, A1 and

A2. At this point the plate was incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature (20°C -

25°C) before adding 100 µl of stop solution into each well. The absorbance values were

then read immediately by an Epoch BioTek plate reader (BioTek Instruments, Inc.,

Highland Park, Winooski, Vermont) at 450 nm and recorded for further calculation

(Gluten-Tec® ELISA, 2011).

3.3.3.2. Calibration Curve

The optical density (O.D.) of the wells containing the standards and the samples were

obtained by subtracting the mean O.D. of the blank wells, A1 and A2. The mean O.D.

values for each of the duplicates were divided by the mean O.D. value of the zero

standard (wells B1 and B2) and then multiplies by 100. This makes the zero standard

equal 100% or maximum absorbance while the other O.D. values are a percentage out of

the maximal absorbance.

O.D. standard or O.D. sample × 100% = % maximal absorbance

O.D. zero standard

25
The calculated values were then plotted on the Y-axis versus the alpha-20-peptide

concentration (ng/ml) on the logarithmic X-axis.

In order to calculate the α20 peptide concentrations of the samples, the α20 peptide read

from the curve was multiplied by 1000. The conversion factor for peptide to gliadin is

100. This is based off the correlation of peptide content to gliadin found in wheat

(Gluten-Tec® ELISA, 2011).

3.4. Bradford Assay Protein Detection

3.4.1. Sample Preparation and BSA Standard

Dried, pulverized bread samples (prepared in section 2.4) were used for determining

protein content. Buffer A was used to extract the protein from the samples and the

supernatant was taken after centrifugation for analysis. The Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-

250 binds to the polypeptide backbone electrostatically and with hydrophobic interactions

(Nielsen, 2010).

Bovine serum albumin (BSA) solutions were used as the reference standard. The standard

curve consisted of protein concentrations of 0.0 (blank), 0.125, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25,

and 1.50 mg/mL.

3.4.2. Microplate Procedure

26
Ten µL of each standard or sample was pipetted in duplicate into the appropriate wells of

a microplate. Then 300µL of Coomassie Plus Reagent was added to each well and mixed

on a plate shaker for 30 seconds. The plate was then incubated for 10 minutes at room

temperature before measuring the absorbance at 595nm in an Epoch BioTek plate reader

(Nielsen, 2010).

3.4.3. Calculations

The average for the Blank read was subtracted from all standard and sample reads. The

standard curve was drawn by plotting the Blank-corrected measurements for each BSA

standard vs. its concentration in µg/mL. The linear fitted calibration curve was then used

to determine the protein concentrations of each unknown sample (Nielsen, 2010).

3.5. Ethanol Extraction

Prolamins (mostly gliadin and some glutenins) from the samples were extracted by

mixing 0.125 g of the pulverized bread with 5 mL 60% (v/v) ethanol in a rotary shaker

for 1 hour at room temperature (21°C, 70°F). The samples were then centrifuged at

10,000 x g for 10 minutes and the supernatant was separated. The precipitate was then

extracted for a second time by adding 2.5 mL of 60% (v/v) ethanol, mixed in the rotary

shaker for another hour at room temperature (21°C, 70°F), and then separated by

centrifuge at 5000 rpm for 10 minutes before removing the supernatant for further

27
analysis (De Angelis et al., 2006). The first and second extractions were measured for

protein content using the Bradford method.

3.6. Headspace Gas Analysis

Gas chromatography was used to analyze the volatiles associated with the various

sourdough samples, which help determine the extent of fermentation. In order to prevent

further fermentation prior to the analysis, dough samples were taken out of the freezer no

more than 30 minutes before running the test. This allowed the sample to thaw such that

8 g could be separated and placed into the glass vial.

Samples were analyzed with a gas chromatograph mass selective detector system

(Hewlett Packard HP 6890 Series gas chromatograph and Hewlett Packard 5973 mass

selective detector) fitted with a headspace sampler capillary column (Agilent

Technologies 7697A, 30.0 m × 250 µm × 0.25 µm). Prior to analysis, the sealed vials

containing the dough samples were heated to 80°C for 20 minutes in the HP 7694. For

each sample run the GC oven started at 35°C for 5 minutes, then increased 7°C per

minute until it reached 100°C, followed by an increase of 10°C per minute until 230°C

was reached. The total runtime was 32.29 minutes (Paucean et al., 2013). The plotted

chromatograms where used to calculate gas percentages from peak areas.

3.7. Statistical Analysis

28
The experiment was replicated 3 times using 3 different batches of sourdough. A general

linear model was used to compare all holding time treatments of room temperature (0, 4

and 12 hours) and refrigerated temperature (14, 26 and 50 hours). For parameters that

were found to be significantly affected by the treatments (P≤0.05) the means were

separated using the least significant difference command of SAS (SAS, 2016).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Loaf Height

Measuring the height of each bread loaf can indicate peak fermentation time, a reflection

of maximum gas retention in the bread. Over fermentation can be identified by a loss of

volume and reduced gas production due to inactivity of microbes, often caused by a lack

of adequate nutrients but can also be affected by hold temperature. In Batch #1 the peak

fermentation time for 26°C samples was 8 hours, in Batch #2 the peak was closer to 4

hours, and in Batch #3 the peak was around 2 hours. In the samples held at 4°C, the peak

was at 48 hours for Batch #1, 36 hours for Batch #2, and 48 hours for Batch #3. One

factor that may have affected these observations is the scoring before baking. The loaves

must be scored to allow steam to escape during baking in order to prevent large air

pockets. Although all samples were scored in the same manner, some lost more volume

than others. The greatest decrease in volume caused by scoring was seen in the samples

that had been fermented the longest.

4.2. Moisture Analysis

29
In general, as the fermentation time increased, the bread moisture increased regardless of

hold temperature (Table 5). At 26°C fermentation the difference in bread moisture for the

0 and 12-hour treatments was not significant (p>0.05), although there was an average

increase of 0.94%. A significant change (p≤0.05) was observed at 4°C fermentation

where the moisture increased by an average of 1.87% from 12 to 48 hours. This increase

in moisture could be caused by metabolic activity of microbial and endogenous enzymes

that result in water as a byproduct. Fermentation also increases water binding compounds

that contribute to dough hydration and prevent staling (Gänzle, 2014). This may prevent

the dough from losing water via evaporation during the baking process.

4.3. Gluten-Tec® ELISA Protein Quantification

There was no consistent data indicating the reduction of wheat proteins throughout the

fermentation process. The large variation within batches indicated the assay was not well

suited for sourdough bread as three dilutions were needed to reduce the protein content

into the testing range. This process may have greatly reduced the accuracy and precision

of the test.

This analysis technique quantifies the gliadin and gliadin fragments of a sample through a

correlation factor to the amount of peptide that is detected. The protocol multiplies the

alpha-2-peptide concentration by 100 to estimate gliadin content. Confounding this

conversion factor, research has found an accumulation of peptides and amino acid

metabolites in sourdough fermentation due to proteolysis (Gänzle, 2014) possibly

resulting in an inaccurate estimation of gliadin content.

30
4.4. Bradford Assay Protein Quantification

No statistically significant results were found from the protein quantification using the

Bradford method. The Bradford method quantifies the presence of three basic amino acid

residues, arginine, lysine and histidine. Under acidic conditions the Coomassie dye binds

the protein residues and forms a complex (He, 2011). The disadvantage of the Bradford

method is that it is only testing for 3 of the 20 amino acids. Depending on the samples

being analyzed, the results could be very misleading because different protein sources

have different concentrations and combinations of these amino acids. That being said, the

Bradford method indicated there was no evidence of significant change in the

concentration of these three amino acid residues, arginine, lysine and histidine,

throughout the sourdough fermentation process.

4.5. Ethanol Extraction Protein Quantification

When comparing samples, with the same treatment temperature but different

fermentation periods, there was a common trend throughout the data set. Within each

batch and treatment temperature, the protein extracted with ethanol increased with

fermentation. The difference in ethanol extractible protein between the Control and 26-12

were significantly different (p≤0.05) based on the sample means from the 3 batches

(Table 4). Although the trend was consistent throughout the 3 batches for samples 4-14

and 4-50, the difference was not significant (p>0.05).

31
Research supported by the FEI (Forschungskreis der Ernährungsindustrie e. V., Bonn) of

Germany has shown that sourdough fermentation degrades gluten proteins. A decrease in

the glutenin fractions will generate an increase in alcohol soluble oligomeric proteins, or

gliadins (Wieser et al., 2008). When extracting with ethanol, the supermatant will contain

alcohol-soluble polypeptides (De Angelis et al., 2006).

4.6. Headspace Gas Quantification

Gas chromatographic analysis showed a consistent set of 5 compounds with significant

trends and these were chosen based on their presence in all of the dough samples

analyzed. 3-methyl-1-butanol and 1-hexanol increased with fermentation time in both the

room temperature and refrigerator fermented samples (Tables 7, 8, & 9). The increase in

these alcohol volatiles is consistent with fermentation yielding alcohol (Liu et al., 2014).

5. Conclusion

Sourdough cultures are a traditional leavening method that in recent years have been

rediscovered due to its nutritional significance and digestability.

Sourdough samples were allowed to ferment for various time durations. The height of

each loaf was measured and recorded. As a preparation method and for analysis purposes

the samples were dried in a Mechanical Convection Oven. A Gluten-Tec® ELISA kit was

used to quantify gliadin and gliadin fragments in the bread samples. This did not show any

significant (p>0.05) variation between samples fermented for different times or at

32
different temperatures. In order for the samples to be in the gliadin detection range of the

kit, many dilutions of 1:1000 had to be made. Each dilution step can contribute to

inaccuracy of the results. Bradford assay was used to determine protein content although

no significant (p>0.05) difference was detected. This method is quantifying arginine,

lysine, and histidine. These particular residues are not found in any of the four confirmed

toxic motifs of amino acid sequences (Pro-Ser-Gln-Gln, Gln-Gln-Gln-Pro, Gln-Gln-Pro-

Tyr, and Gln-Pro-Tyr-Pro) so we cannot conclude that toxicity was not reduced with this

test result (Darewicz et al., 2008). Lastly, ethanol (60%) extraction was used to quantify

prolamins (mostly gliadin and some glutenins). Analysis showed that as fermentation time

increased, ethanol extractable prolamins increased. This data was significant (p<0.05)

when comparing the Control and 26-12. A study supported by the European Food

Research & Technology program found similar results by discovering a decrease in the

glutenin fraction that lead to an increase in the alcohol soluble gliadin fractions (Weiser et

al., 2008). Flavor volatiles were collected on the dough samples to analyze sourdough

quality and treads. An increase in 1-hexanol was observed as fermentation time increased

within the Control, samples held at 26°C and samples held at 4°C. This change was

significant (p<0.05) when comparing the Control, 0, and the 26°C treated samples, 26-4

and 26-12. Research done in The Netherlands on white bread volatiles and enzyme active

soya flour has suggested that an increase in 1-hexanol is a byproduct of lipid oxidation

caused by the addition of enzymes (Luning et al., 1991). For these same samples, hexanal

decreased as fermentation time increased. This change was significant (p<0.05) when

comparing the control and 26-12. A study done by the Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie in

33
Italy analyzed the volatile profiles of white wheat sourdough bread and discovered that

hexanal was negatively correlated to the content of ethanol (Ripari et al., 2016). An

increase in ethanol would suggest there is progression in the fermentation as time

increases.

Further research needs to be done to be able to fully understand the extent of protein

hydrolysis, as well as the safety of sourdough bread for people sensitive to certain wheat

proteins. It would also be beneficial to pin point the sourdough bacteria with the highest

protein hydrolysis ability. In addition, there is a need to better understand certain

probiotics and their mechanism of assisting in digestive processes.

34
 REFERENCES

Celiac Disease Center, The University of Chicago Medicine. “Celiac Disease Facts and
Figures” doi:http://www.cureceliacdisease.org/wp-
content/uploads/341_CDCFactSheets8_FactsFigures.pdf

Czerny, M., Schieberle, P. (2002) Important aroma compounds in freshly ground

wholemeal and white wheat flour – identification and quantitative changes during
sourdough fermentation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50, 6835–6840.

Darewicz, M., Dziuba, J., & Minkiewicz, P. (2008). Celiac Disease—Background,

molecular, bioinformatics and analytical aspects. Food Reviews International, 24(3), 311-
329. doi:10.1080/87559120802089258

De Angelis M, Coda R, Silano M, Minervini F, Rizzello CG, Di Cagno R, Vicentini O,

De Vincenzi M, Gobbetti M. (2006). Fermentation by selected sourdough lactic acid
bacteria to decrease coeliac intolerance to rye flour. J Cereal Sci, 5;43(3):301-14.

Gänzle, M. G. (2014). Enzymatic and bacterial conversions during sourdough

fermentation. Food Microbiology, 37(0), 2-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.clemson.edu/10.1016/j.fm.2013.04.007

Gänzle, M.G., Loponen, J., Gobbetti, M. (2008). Proteolysis in sourdough fermentations:

mechanisms and potential for improved bread quality. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 19, 513–521.

Gibson, G.R., Willems, A., Reading, S., Collins, M.D. (1996). Fermentation of non-
digestible oligosaccharides by human colonic bacteria. Proc Nutr Soc 55:899–912.

Gluten-Tec® ELISA Competitive enzyme immuno assay for the quantitative

determination of gliadin fragments in food, code 5171GT. (2011) EuroProxima B.V. The
Netherlands.

He, F. (2011). Bradford Protein Assay. Bio101:e45. http://www.bioprotocol.org/e45

Kiple, K.F., Ornelas, K.C. (2000). Cambridge World History of Food. Cambridge
University Press Cambridge, 1, 619-620.

Leenhardt, F., Levrat-Verny, M.A., Chanliaud, E., Rémésy, C. (2005) Moderate decrease
of pH by sourdough fermentation is sufficient to reduce phytate content of whole wheat
flour through endogenous phytase activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
53, 98–102.

35
Liu, K., Atiyeh, H.K., Stevenson, B.S., Tanner, R.S., Wilkins, M.R., Huhnke, R.L.
(2014). Continuous syngas fermentation for the production of ethanol, n-propanol and n-
butanol. Bioresour Technol, 01;151:69-77.

Luning P.A., Roozen J.P., Moëst R.A.F.J., Posthumus M.A. (1991). Volatile composition
of white bread using enzyme active soya flour as improver. Food Chemistry, 41, 81–91.

Mudgil, D., Barak, S. (2013). Composition, properties and health benefits of indigestible
carbohydrate polymers as dietary fiber: A review. International Journal of Biological
Macromolecules,61, 1-6.

Nielsen, S.S. (2010) Food Analysis. Fourth Edition. Springer Science+Business Media,
LLC, New York, New York.

Paucean, A., Vodnar, D., Socaci, S., Socaciu, C. (2013). Carbohydrate metabolic
conversions to lactic acid and volatile derivatives, as influenced by lactobacillus
plantarum ATCC 8014 and lactobacillus casei ATCC 393 efficiency during in vitro and
sourdough fermentation. European Food Research & Technology, 11;237(5):679-89.

Ripari, V., Cecchi, T., & Berardi, E. (2016). Microbiological characterisation and
volatiles profile of model, ex-novo, and traditional italian white wheat sourdoughs. Food
Chemistry, 205, 297-307.

SAS, 2016. SAS OnDemand for Academics. SAS Institute.

https://odamid.oda.sas.com/SASODAControlCenter/

Smith, A. F. (2004). Oxford encylopedia of food and drink in america. Oxford University
Press New York, 2, 652.

ThermoFisher Scientific, IHC Immunodetection (2016).

doi:https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-
biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/ihc-
immunodetection.html

Wieser, H., Vermeulen, N., Gaertner, F., Vogel, R. (2008). Effects of different
lactobacillus and enterococcus strains and chemical acidification regarding degradation
of gluten proteins during sourdough fermentation. European Food Research &
Technology, 04/29;226(6):1495-502.

36
Table 1. Sourdough culture activation schedule and dough sample preparation
procedure

ferment time
Feeding # culture (g) flour (g) water (g) sea salt (g)
(hr)
1 40 40 40 0 12

2 120 120 120 0 8

3 360 360 360 0 8

4 1080 1080 1080 0 8

dough samples 3000 2400 670 40 (see table 2)

Figure 2.
Flow chart of sourdough culture activation process

37
Table 2.
Sourdough loaf sample fermentation schedule

38
Figure 3.
Flow chart of loaf and dough sample preparation

39
Table 3. Table 4.
Loaf height of samples fermented Loaf height of samples fermented
at 26°C, n=3 at 4°C, n=3

Table 5.
Percent Moisture in Sourdough Bread at minimum and maximum fermentation
times at both 26°C and 4°C

40
Table 6.
Ethanol extracted protein in sourdough bread at minimum and maximum
fermentation times at both 26°C and 4°C

41
Table 7.
Headspace gas volatiles for dough samples held at 26°C

Table 8.
Headspace gas volatiles for dough samples held at 4°C

42
Table 9.
Headspace gas average volatile percentages for dough samples held at 26°C and
dough samples held at 4°C

43