ALVEOGRAPH ANALYSIS

Applications examples

Lena BOSC-BIERNE – Applications specialist

lboscbierne@chopin.fr – 00 33 1 41 47 50 28
SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
Initial remark
2 FLOURS WITH 2 FLOURS WITH
P/L = 1.35 W = 220

Always use several parameters

to describe an Alveograph curve !
SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
 Clasification Example
Pacific Northwest
Pacific Northwest California
California Southern Plains
Southern Plains
Low Very
Low Very High
High High
High Low
Low Medium High
Medium High
Wheat Grade
Wheat Grade Data
Data Classification based
Specific Weight
Specific Weight (kg/hl)
(kg/hl) 80.7
80.7 80.1
80.1 83.8
83.8 81.0
81.0 82.3
82.3 82.2
82.2
Damaged Kernels
Damaged Kernels (%)
(%) 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
on :
Foreign Material
Foreign Material (%)
(%) 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 - Physical properties
Total Defects
Total Defects (%)
(%) 1.6
1.6 1.9
1.9 0.5
0.5 0.8
0.8 0.7
0.7 1.3
1.3 - Chemical properties
Wheat Non-Grade
Wheat Non-Grade Data
Data
Moisture (%)
Moisture (%) 9.1
9.1 9.8
9.8 7.8
7.8 10.8
10.8 10.4
10.4 11.2
11.2
Protein (%
Protein (% -12%b)
-12%b) 12.0
12.0 14.1
14.1 13.2
13.2 12.0
12.0 12.9
12.9 13.7
13.7
Ash (%
Ash (% -14%b)
-14%b) 1.51
1.51 1.62
1.62 1.44
1.44 1.56
1.56 1.42
1.42 1.59
1.59
Dough Properties
Dough Properties
Farinograph ::
Farinograph What about
Peak Time
Peak Time (min)
(min) 7.4
7.4 7.8
7.8 5.8
5.8 2.7
2.7 7.0
7.0 5.8
5.8
Stability (min)
Stability (min) 22.5
22.5 16.2
16.2 9.0
9.0 8.7
8.7 13.7
13.7 11.4
11.4 rheological
Absorption (%) 55.5 61.1 60.3 54.2 57.7 58.8
Alveograph :
properties ?
P (mm) 75 81 73 52 68 61
L (mm) 154 202 198 154 164 203
P/L Ratio 0.49 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.41 0.30
W (10-4
W (10-4 joules)
joules) 358
358 432
432 337
337 222
222 307
307 329
329
Monitoring the crop
Exemple : Argentina
Evolution of the average W Evolution of the average protein content
A very diversified choice…

→ Choosing the right wheat for the right application!

Different types of wheat
1989 CROP
W 70 W 45
W 160

M. HUNTSMAN CLEMENT
FRENCH WHEAT

W 300 W 435
W 365

CWRS DNS
BAHIA
W 105

US SOFT WHEAT
…for different applications
MICHEL DUBOIS 1988 :
W

WEAK MEDIUM STRONG

100 W 170 W >250 W

P : 40 P : 50 P : 62 P : 70 P :80
P : 55
G : 21 G : 22,5 G : 22 G : 22,5 G : 24
G : 24

WAFERS COOKIES
FRENCH BREAD
CROISSANTS BUNS
CRACKERS

→ NOT SO TRUE ANYMORE…

SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
Storage conditions control
• During storage, it may happen that the conditions are not optimal
(particularly the temperature) .
• This can lead to thermal damage of proteins.
• These heated wheats will generally be less extensible (A)
• As the whole lot will not suffer the same damage, the curves will
be dispersed (B)

A B
WHEAT BUG DAMAGE
What is wheat bug damage ?
Degradation protocol
• The Alveograph test is performed as usual except:

BLOWING :
- 3 patties are inflated 28
minutes after the beginning of
mixing.
- 2 patties are inflated 120
minutes after the beginning of
mixing.
Degradation protocol
(Bug damage)

Reference 20 min
Reference 2 h
Low infestation
Strong infestation

Proteolytic W – W2h L – L2h

activity (%) = L modification (%) =
W x 100 L x 100
SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
BLENDING WHEAT OR FLOUR

W =96
A 50 %
G = 19.4 P = 46

+
W = 224
B 50 %
G = 17.5 P = 103

=
W = 160
C 100 %
G = 18.5 P = 74
DAMAGED STARCH
A : NATIVE STARCH
B : DAMAGED STARCH

A
A
C + 10 REDUCTIONS
B
C + 5 REDUCTIONS
B
FLOUR C
B B

B
B

A
ENZYMES ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Selection of the product
1
to test

Selection of the
2
standard flour

3 Incorporation dosage

Interpretation of the
4
results
PRODUCTS TO TEST
2 examples :

→ 1 very common improver : Vital Gluten

→ 1 enzyme : Protease
CONTROL FLOURS
• Usually we use flour without additives
• Usually we adapt flour according to the tested additive

Control flour used for vital gluten Control flour used for protease

→ Weak flour (low P, low W) → Strong flour (high P, high W)

DOSAGES TO TEST
We recommend to test different dosages:

Constant Multiple of recommended

increment dosage
Vital Gluten Protease
Control sample
0% 0 ppm
1% 25 ppm
2% 50 ppm
Increment
3% 100 ppm Recommended
dosage
INCORPORATION DOSAGES
Vital Gluten Protease

Test Hyd = 50% b15 Hyd = 50% b15

conditions H2O% 15% H2O% 14%

Flour = 250 g Flour = 250 g

H2O = 125 ml H2O = 129,41 ml

1 to 3 % 25 ppm to 100 ppm

Additive
(flour base)
2,5 to 7,5 g 0,625 to 2,5 g

Test Flour = 250 – Madditive g

conditions H2O = 26,61 ml
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS

VITAL GLUTEN - CURVES

3 % GLUTEN

2 % GLUTEN
1 % GLUTEN

INITIAL FLOUR
0 % GLUTEN
 INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
VITAL GLUTEN - PARAMETERS

• What type of effect is it

possible to observe :
• Linear ?
• Exponential ?
• Dose effect ?
• …
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
Protease - CURVES

INITIAL FLOUR
20 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
Proetase - PARAMETERS

Protease (ppm) Protease (ppm)

• What type of effect is it possible to observe :

→ Linear ?

→ Exponential ?

→ Dose effect ?

→…

Protease (ppm)
Example : ascorbic acid

• NB: Ascorbic acid causes results dispersion

 Exemple : Xylanase
120

100 0ppm

10ppm
P(mm) 80
20ppm
60 25ppm

40
30ppm WEAK FLOUR
40ppm
20

0
0 50 100 150 200
L（mm） 60
0ppm
50
3ppm
40 4ppm
STRONG FLOUR

P(mm)
5ppm
30
6ppm
20
8ppm
10

0
0 50 100 150
L(mm)
Additives effects on the alveographic
curve
SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
Producing adapted flours

Baguette Flour

Others ...

Noodles
Pizza

Loaf bread
Biscuits
Doughnuts
Production regularity
FLOUR UNIFORMITY
Monday Tuesday Wednesday

Constant

Inconstant
Formulation
Formulation – General Recommandations
• Same recommendations as
when analyzing additives:
• Select the basic flour according to
the ingredient to be tested
• Test the flour alone
• Test multiple doses of the
ingredient of interest
• Do not hesitate to increase doses
compared to use in industrial
processes
• Compare results with method
fidelity data
Salt Reduction
Sugar Reduction
Effect of different quantity of oil addition on
certain sugar content
120 100
90
5% Sugar
1% sugar
100 80 Oil
Oil
70 0%油 Oil
80 0%油 Oil
1%油

H（mm）
H（mm） 1%油 Oil 60 Oil
50 2%油
60 2%油 Oil Oil
3%油 40 3%油
Oil Oil
40 4%油 30 4%油
20
20
10
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10 20 30 40
L（mm） 50 60 70 L（mm）
70
80 13% Sugar
60
70 9% Sugar
0%油
Oil 50 Oil
60 0%油 1%油
Oil
1%油 Oil 40 2%油

H(mm)
50 Oil
2%油 Oil 3%油
H(mm)

40 3%油 Oil 30 Oil

4%油
30 4%油 Oil 20 Oil
20
10
10
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L（mm）
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
L（mm）
 Effects on P, L and W
120
160
100 0%油 Oil 140
1%油 Oil 120
80
2%油 Oil 0%油 Oil
P（mm）
100

L（mm）
60 3%油 Oil 1%油 Oil
80
4%油 Oil 2%油 Oil
40 60
3%油 Oil
40 4%油 Oil
20
20
0
0
1% 5% 9% 13% 17%
1% 5% 9% 13% 17%
Sugar
250 sugar

0%油 Oil
230 1%油 Oil
2%油 Oil
W（10-4J）

210 3%油 Oil

4%油 Oil
190

170

150
1% 5% 9% 13% 17%
Sugar
Influence of potato powder
adding to the flour
120

100

80

control
10% potato powder
60
20% potato powder
30% potato powder
40
40% potato powder

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Protocol Adaptation
AlveoLab give you more flexibility
CHOPIN
Minimum standard Maximum
Water temperature 18°C 20°C 22°C
Mixer temperature 18°C 24°C 35°C
Mixing speed 30 rpm 60rpm 100 rpm
Mixing time before cleaning 0.5 min 1 min 3 min
Cleaning time 0 min 1 min 3 min
Mixing time after cleaning 0 min 6 min 60 min
Resting time during mixing 0 min 0 min 60 min
Mixing time after resting 0 min 0 min 60 min
Pieces of dough number 1 5 6
Resting temperature 18 °C 25°C 35°C
En of the resting time 0 min 28 min 300 min
Test chamber temperature 18°C 20°C 30°C
Test chamber hygrometry 30% 65% 90%
Air flow 40 L/h 96 L/h 110 L/h
Insufflated air (Relaxation protocol) 4 s or 4 ml - 50 s or 33000 ml
Recording time (Consistograph test) 30 s - 3600 s
Impact of mixing time
• Material
• 5 different flours from weak to strong.
• Method :
• 4 protocols with different mixing time : 6, 8, 10 and 12 minutes
• All other parameters identical to the standard protocol
Impact of mixing time
Weak flour Strong flour

10min
12min 8min 6min
12min 10min 8min 6min

• Increasing mixing time:

• ↘ Extensibility L
• ↘ Tenacity
• Better tolerance to mixing for strong flour
Impact of mixing speed
• Material
• 5 different flours from weak to strong.
• Method :
• 4 protocols with different mixing speed : 40, 60, 80 and 100 rpm
• All other parameters identical to the standard protocol
Impact of mixing speed
Weak flour Strong flour

= 100rpm 80rpm 60rpm 40rpm

100rpm 80rpm 60rpm 40rpm

• Increasing mixing speed :

– ↗ Extensibility L
– ↘ Tenacity P for weak flour
• Better tolerance to mixing for strong flour
Durum wheat and Semolina
• Determine the quantity of water to be added using the following formula:
Volume = 187,52 – (H2O% x 4,375)

Mixing
1 min : mixing
1 min : manual scraping
2 min : mixing UNI 10453 standard (Italy)
18 min resting
4 min mixing
Durim wheat and Semolina
Type Granulometry
Fine +/- 200 µm
Medium +/- 300 µm
Coarse +/- 400 µm
Twin Peak 250-350 µm

100

80
Fine
60 Medium
Twin peak
40
Coarse
20

0
71,4
63,4
39,6
23,8

55,5
31,7

95,1
0

15,9

87,2
47,6
7,9

79,3
Practical example: Tritordeum
Tritordeum : New cereal with little amount of gluten. Standard protocol is not
satisfying.
Tritordeum
AlveoLab parameters
Protocol
Hydration (15% basis) 45%
Water temperature 20°C
Pressure recorded during mixing* Yes
Mixer temperature 24°C
Mixing speed 40 rpm
Mixing time before cleaning 1 min
Cleaning time 1 min
Mixing time after cleaning 6 min
Resting temperature 25°C
End of resting time from end of mixing 28 min
Alveo analysis chamber temperature 20°C
Alveo analysis chamber relative humidity 65%
Air flow 96 L/h
Vital Gluten
• The Alveograph may be used to evaluate
quality of different vital glutens
• Method:
− 175,2 g of wheat starch
− 48 g of gluten
− 20 ml of glycerin
− 162,5 ml of distilled water (with 4,5 g of NaCL)

• The same method can be used to

evaluate the quality of different starches
(keeping constant the quality of the
gluten used).
2 examples of what can be achieved by changing
the rules
Whole Wheat Analysis Mozzarella Cheese Analysis

August 6, 2019
SUMMARY
▪ WHEAT SELECTION
▪ STORAGE CONTROL
▪ Thermic damages
▪ Contaminated samples
▪ FIRST TRANSFORMATION
▪ Blending Law
▪ Damaged starch
▪ Additives
▪ SECOND TRANSFORMATION
▪ Flours qualification
▪ Formulation
▪ Protocol adaptation
▪ CONCLUSION
Conclusions
• The Alveograph is a very useful
device for setting up specifications.
• It makes it possible to check the
conformity of the delivered goods
with the required quality.
• It makes it possible to avoid accepting
non-compliant raw materials thus
avoiding heavy financial losses.
Conclusions
• It can also help to improve a “bad quality” lot
• Either by mixing it with a better quality batch (optimization of production costs)
• Either by using the right additive, at the right dose.
• The Alveograph can also adapt (protocol adaptation) to other types
of analysis and provide valuable help in NDP:
• Reduction of salt, sugar, clean label, etc.
• Other products:
• Durum wheat
• Spelt (in mixture)
• Chewing gum
• Mozzarella
• Condoms…
-