European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 227, Issue 5, pp 1549–1554 | Cite as

Predicting the cookie quality of flours by using Mixolab®

  • Serpil Ozturk
  • Kevser Kahraman
  • Bengihan Tiftik
  • Hamit Koksel
Original Paper


The objective of this study was to determine the possibility of using Mixolab® to predict the cookie baking quality of different wheat flours. Mixolab data was also compared with various flour quality characteristics. There were significant correlations (P < 0.001) between Mixolab stability and some of the flour quality characteristics (protein and wet gluten contents, Zeleny sedimentation value). Alveoconsistograph T value was negatively correlated with Mixolab C3, C4 and C5 values. The cookie diameter gave highly significant correlations with protein content, Zeleny sedimentation value and damaged starch content. Mixolab C3 and C4 values were highly correlated (P < 0.001) with both cookie diameter and spread ratio. A significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.556) was determined between the cookie diameter and C1–C2 value which is an indication of protein quality. The dependence of cookie diameter and spread ratio on Mixolab C3 value, damaged starch content and Zeleny sedimentation value were analyzed with multiple regression analysis and high multiple correlation coefficients were found between these parameters (r = 0.948 and 0.861, respectively).


Mixolab Flour quality Cookie quality Alveoconsistograph 



We would like to thank Chopin Technologies for lending us the Mixolab® instrument.


  1. 1.
    Bloksma AH, Bushuk W (1988) Rheology and chemistry of doughs. In: Pomeranz Y (ed) Wheat: chemistry and technology, 3rd edn, vol II. AACC, St Paul, pp 131–218Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sliwinski EL, Kolster P, van Vliet T (2004) J Cereal Sci 39:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous (2005) Mixolab® user’s manual. Tripette & Renaud Chopin, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manthey F, Tulbek MC, Sorenson B (2006) AACC annual meeting: World Grain Summit: foods and beverages, 17–20 Sep 2006, San Francisco, CA, p 336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahraman K, Sakiyan O, Ozturk S, Koksel H, Sumnu G, Dubat A (2008) European food research and technology. doi: 10.1007/s00217-007-0757-y
  6. 6.
    Rosell CM, Collar C, Haros M (2007) Food Hydrocolloid 21:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tulbek MC, Hall C (2006) AACC annual meeting: World Grain Summit: foods and beverages, 17–20 Sep 2006, San Francisco, CA, p 140Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonet A, Blaszczak W, Rosell CM (2006) Cereal Chem 83:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AACC (2000) Approved methods of the AACC. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoseney RC (1994) Principles of cereal science and technology. American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc, St Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finney KF, Yamazaki WT (1967) Quality of hard, soft and durum wheats. In: Quinsberry KS, Reitz LP (eds) Wheat and wheat improvement. American Society of Agronomy Inc., Madison, WI, pp 471–503Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serpil Ozturk
    • 1
  • Kevser Kahraman
    • 1
  • Bengihan Tiftik
    • 1
  • Hamit Koksel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Food EngineeringFaculty of Engineering, Hacettepe UniversityBeytepe, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations