Title: Soft wheat and flour products methods review: solvent retention capacity equation correction Authors
|Haynes, L -|
|Slade, L -|
Submitted to: Cereal Foods World
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: July 1, 2009
Publication Date: July 23, 2009
Repository URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10113/33952
Citation: Haynes, L., Bettge, A.D., Slade, L. 2009. Soft wheat and flour products methods review: solvent retention capacity equation correction. Cereal Foods World July-August 2009, Vol. 54, No. 4, 174-175. Interpretive Summary: This article discusses the mathematical reasons for altering equations used to normalize results to a constant moisture basis of two AACCI Approved Methods. The methods’ calculations at the moment underestimate the results of tests in small, but significant amounts. Flour that is increasingly drier or wetter than 14% moisture show increasing deviation from the correct calculation. This article discusses the reasons and need to change the equations for AACCI Approved methods 56-10 and 56-11, the Alkaline Water Retention Capacity (AWRC) test and the Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) test resectively.
Technical Abstract: This article discusses the results of a significant change to calculations made within AACCI Approved methods 56-10 and 56-11, the Alkaline Water Retention Capacity (AWRC) test and the Solvent Retention Capacity (SRC) test. The AACCI Soft Wheat and Flour Products Technical Committee reviewed proposed changes to the equations used for calculation. Each method calculates solvent retention based upon the weight of flour tested, normalized to a 14% moisture basis. The proposed changes to the equation used for calculation of solvent retention will have a small but significant impact on the measured values for a given flour. In the case of flours that are used to make cookies and crackers, which require a flour moisture content of 13.0 ± 0.5% for optimum functionality, for typical swelling in the sucrose solvent as an example, a difference in calculated SRC values of 97.70% (current equation) compared to 98.85% (new, corrected equation). This manuscript reports the mathematical basis for corrections to the equations.