applied

sciences
Article
Assessment of the Fermentative Performance of Traditional
Fresh Moroccan Sourdoughs and Their Freeze-Dried Forms
Using Online Monitoring Device: Panigraph
Anas Raffak 1, *, Youssef Chafai 2 , Allal Hamouda 3 , Amina Ouazzani Touhami 4 and Majid Mounir 1

1 Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine,
Rabat 10101, Morocco
2 Department of Process Engineering and Food Technology, Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary
Medicine, Rabat 10101, Morocco
3 Department of Statistics and Informatics, Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine,
Rabat 10101, Morocco
4 Laboratory of Plant, Animal Production and Food Industry, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science,
Université Ibn Tofaïl Kenitra, Kenitra 14000, Morocco
* Correspondence: a.raffak@iav.ac.ma; Tel.: +212-670-056-049

Abstract: The fermentative activity of sourdoughs and their stabilities are some of the main concerns
of professionals in food science. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fermenting capacity
of three traditional fresh sourdoughs and their freeze-dried forms with different compositions
prepared by housewives in three different regions of Morocco. A device equipped with several
sensors was developed to monitor several parameters simultaneously and in real time (the pH,
dough rise, loss of mass, CO2 and ethanol release). The results showed that the duration of dough
fermentation was long, ranging from 594 to 1210 min, with the specific volume ranging from 0.9 to
3.35 cm3 /g−1 . A strong and positive correlation between dough rise and CO2 release was observed,
while ethanol release did not contribute directly to dough rise. The fresh sourdough FS1 showed
better fermentative performance than the others, while the freeze-dried sourdough FDS3 was also
Citation: Raffak, A.; Chafai, Y.;
of interest for bread making. The system used to generate the graphical fingerprints enabled us to
Hamouda, A.; Ouazzani Touhami, A.;
read the main fermentation parameters directly in the same graph, as well as to compare several
Mounir, M. Assessment of the
sourdoughs at once and choose the one best suited to our needs.
Fermentative Performance of
Traditional Fresh Moroccan
Keywords: bread making; sourdough; fermentation; yeast; lactic acid bacteria
Sourdoughs and Their Freeze-Dried
Forms Using Online Monitoring
Device: Panigraph. Appl. Sci. 2023,
13, 12453. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app132212453 1. Introduction

Academic Editor: Vardan Galstyan

Sourdough bread making is an ancient technique, and over the last three decades
or so, there has been a flurry of research activity aimed at rediscovering the potential of
Received: 16 October 2023 sourdough fermentation and transferring this technology [1]. Sourdough is described as a
Revised: 5 November 2023 mixture of flour and water, spontaneously fermented by a diverse microbial population
Accepted: 8 November 2023 composed mainly of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts [2,3].
Published: 17 November 2023
Household microbiota, flour type, additional ingredients and tap water are the main
microbial sources for establishing the potential of natural sourdough [4,5]. The microbial
species diversity of sourdoughs is influenced by the producer’s domestic microbiota,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
geographical origin and propagation conditions [6]. The microbial consortia in sourdough
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. first evolve in the fermentation stage and then in the refreshment stage, both resulting in
This article is an open access article successions of microbial populations until the microbiota become stable [7]. Some domestic
distributed under the terms and sourdoughs are characterized by the presence of uncommon species [8].
conditions of the Creative Commons Sourdough bread making involves the development and maintenance of a diversified
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and complex sourdough culture, hence the need for refreshment [9]. The production of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ fresh type I sourdough is costly, unstable and time-consuming [2] and requires periodic
4.0/). refreshing. Therefore freeze drying could be used to stabilize these sourdoughs to ensure

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212453 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 2 of 16

a longer shelf life and store them for later use [10,11]. It is also an interesting method
for preserving the viability of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [12]. Producing sourdough bread
with a consistently high quality, improved flavor and taste, extended shelf life and better
resistance to spoilage requires the optimization and control of the bread-making processes
determined by endogenous and exogenous factors [13]. A few studies have been carried
out on traditional sourdoughs in Morocco with only three scientific articles cited by Arora
in the last thirty years [1].
With this in mind, our study commences with a biochemical characterization of three
traditional type I fresh sourdoughs, which are meticulously prepared by housewives in
various regions of Morocco and primarily used for artisan bread production. Subsequently,
we will assess and compare their fermentative capabilities in real time. To achieve this,
we will initially compare the key biochemical parameters of these sourdoughs, including
their pH, TTA (total titratable acidity), moisture content, and dough yield. This comparison
is integral to elucidating the disparities that will emerge during the assessment of their
fermenting capacity, which encompasses dough rise, gas release and reduction in pH.
Following this initial analysis, we will proceed to freeze dry these sourdough starters in our
laboratory. This freeze-drying process aims to evaluate their ability to endure the stress of
dehydration. The ultimate goal of our research is to monitor the kinetics of various physical
and biochemical parameters throughout the bread-making process in real time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials
Three samples of traditional, fresh sourdoughs, each over one year old, were collected
from three regions in Morocco: Rabat, Guelmim and Tangier. These sourdoughs were
prepared by housewives at home in a traditional manner with daily refreshments.
Table 1 displays the composition of the sourdoughs provided by the housewives. A
1 kg quantity of sourdough was collected from households before each analysis, and the
samples were transported to the laboratory in a cooled container (4 ◦ C) within 12 h.

Table 1. Composition (%) of traditional fresh sourdoughs collected from households.

Durum Wheat
Fresh Sourdough Housewives’ Soft Wheat Fermented
Water Dried Grapes Flour
Code Regions Flour Milk (Lben)
Complete
FS1 Rabat 55.00 43.50 1.50 - -
FS2 Guelmim 26.00 - 1.00 47.00 26.00
FS3 Tanger 50.00 49.00 0.93 - -

2.2. Lyophilization
Fresh sourdough samples FS1, FS2, and FS3 were initially frozen at −18 ◦ C and
subsequently dehydrated using a SCIENTZ-12N freeze dryer at a temperature of −50 ◦ C
under a vacuum pressure of 10 Pa. No cryoprotective agents were employed. The resulting
freeze-dried sourdough samples are designated as FDS1, FDS2 and FDS3, respectively.

2.3. Fermentation Monitoring System

An oven equipped with multiple sensors was developed for online monitoring of
fermentation parameters, including dough rise (cm), CO2 and ethanol release (ppmv), pH
and mass loss (g). The data collected were stored in a database using software developed
and installed on a computer connected to the oven [14]. Figure 1 shows the device used in
this study.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. 2023,13,
2023,
Sci. 13,12453
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 3 of 16

1.Dough
Figure 1.
Figure Doughfermentation
fermentationmonitoring
monitoringdevice (panigraph).
device (panigraph).

2.4. CO
2.4. CO22and
andEthanol
EthanolRelease
Release
Thequantity
The quantityofof gases
gases (CO
(CO 2 and
2 and ethanol)
ethanol) released
released during
during the bread-making
the bread-making processprocess
is
is measured in real time by sensors installed inside the panigraph. Based on
measured in real time by sensors installed inside the panigraph. Based on the volume the volume
concentration values measured,
concentration values measured,their
theirrespective
respective outputs
outputs were
were calculated
calculated using
using the
the following
following formula [15]:
formula [15]:
Gas
Gas volume
volume (mL) = Gas concentration (ppmv) × Volume (m )
(mL) = Gas concentration (ppmv) × Volume (m3 )
3 (1) (1)

2.5. Total
2.5. Total Titratable
TitratableAcidity
Acidity(TTA)
(TTA)
Thedoughs
The doughstested
tested(10
(10
g)g) were
were thoroughly
thoroughly mixed
mixed withwith
90 mL90 of
mLdistilled
of distilled
water,water,
and and
2–3 drops of phenolphthalein solution were added to the mixture. Total titratable
2–3 drops of phenolphthalein solution were added to the mixture. Total titratable acidity acidity
was estimated as the amount of 0.1 N NaOH in milliliters (mL) required to
(TTA) was estimated as the amount of 0.1 N NaOH in milliliters (mL) required to neutralize
neutralize
the mixturethe[16].
mixture [16].

2.6. Preparation
2.6. PreparationofofBread
BreadDough
Dough
The
Thecomposition
composition ofof
thethe
doughs
doughsis provided in Table
is provided 2; each
in Table 2; dough weighed
each dough 220 g. A220 g.
weighed
baker’s
A yeast
baker’s (Saccharomyces
yeast (Saccharomyces powder
cerevisiae)
cerevisiae) content
powder of <0.2%
content ofwas used
<0.2% to preserve
was the
used to preserve
sourdough designation,
the sourdough in accordance
designation, in accordancewith with
French legislation,
French especially
legislation, articlearticle
especially 4 of 4 of
Decree
Decreeno.
no.93-1074,
93-1074,dated
datedSeptember 13, 1993.
13 September AnAn
1993. unleavened
unleaveneddough is used
dough as a control.
is used as a control.
The leavening
The leaveningagent
agentused
usedforfor
dough
doughfermentation
fermentationis fresh sourdough,
is fresh which
sourdough, contains
which both both
contains
yeast and endogenous bacteria.
yeast and endogenous bacteria.

2. The
Table 2.
Table Thecomposition
composition(in
(in%)%)ofof
the doughs
the used
doughs for for
used bread-making teststests
bread-making (220 (220
g each).
g each).
Dough Sourdough
CodeCode Sourdough Water
Code
Soft Wheat Flour Table Salt
Soft Wheat Baking Powder
Baking Sourdough
Dough Water Table Salt Sourdough
Code Flour Powder
DS1 FS1 34.40 55.50 1.00 0.10 9.00
DS1
DS2 FS2 FS1 34.40 34.40 55.50 55.50 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 9.00 9.00
DS3
DS2 FS3 FS2 34.40 34.40 55.50 55.50 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 9.00 9.00
DF1
DS3 FDS1FS3 34.40 34.40 55.50 55.50 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 9.00 9.00
DF2
DF1 FDS2FDS1 34.40 34.40 55.50 55.50 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 9.00 9.00
DF3 FDS3 34.40 55.50 1.00 0.10 9.00
DF2 FDS2 34.40 55.50 1.00 0.10 9.00
Control without 38.90 60.00 1.00 0.10 0.00
DF3 FDS3 34.40 55.50 1.00 0.10 9.00
Control without 38.90 60.00 1.00 0.10 0.00
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 4 of 16

2.7. Dough Rising (cm)

This parameter was measured directly by a device set up to calculate the dough’s
rising capacity (DRC), following the formula mentioned by [17]. A minor modification
was made, which involved substituting ‘volume’ with ‘dough height’. The glass vessel
containing the dough has a cylindrical shape with an internal diameter of 14 cm.

DRC (%) = (final height − initial height)/initial height(100) (2)

2.8. Dough Yield (DY)

The DY was calculated for each sourdough based on the composition provided by
households (Table 1), and this value was used to determine each dough’s consistency. It
represents the amount of water in the dough and is defined as follows [18]:

DY (%) = flour quantity + water quantity)(100)/(flour quantity) (3)

2.9. Dough Fermentation Temperature and Duration

The temperature inside the oven during dough fermentation was set to 30 ◦ C for all
tests [19], and the maximum duration of bread making was limited to 1440 min.

2.10. Dough Moisture

Moisture content was measured for the following samples: fresh and freeze-dried
sourdoughs as well as the doughs both before and after fermentation. A total of 10 g of
each sample was placed in an OHAUS MB45 moisture meter, with a reading accuracy of
0.001 g and a repeatability of 0.015%.

2.11. Statistical Analysis of Data

Results are expressed as means (±standard deviations), and differences between
theoretical means were tested using ANOVA 1 followed by Tukey’s test to identify any
homogeneous groups of means. All tests were performed at a significance level of 5%.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to determined correlations between bread-
making parameters. The various measurements were carried out with three repetitions,
and statistical analyses were performed using ExcelStat V2016.02 software.

3. Results
3.1. Sourdough Characterization
Our results in Table 3, which presents the mean values (±standard deviations) of the
parameters obtained by the fresh sourdoughs, demonstrate the significant influence of the
fresh sourdough composition on the studied parameters.

Table 3. Mean values (±standard deviations) of the key parameters that characterize fresh sourdough
samples.

Fresh Sourdough TTA Moisture DY

pH Consistency
Code (mL NaOH/10 g of Dough) (%) (%)
FS1 14.12 ± 5.03 a 3.44 ± 0.09 a 54.57 ± 1.00 a 226.87 ± 1.80 c Liquid
b b ab 155.31 ± 0.70 a
FS2 39.24 ± 2.91 3.79 ± 0.05 55.74 ± 1.29 Farm
14.28 ± 1.47 a 3.36 ± 0.07 a b b
FS3 57.12 ± 0.34 202.60 ± 1.11 Soft
Values in the same column with at least one letter (a–c) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
probability level.

The DY of the FS1, LF2 and LF3 sourdoughs ranged from 154.6 to 228.60%, with an
average of 226.87% for FS1, 155.31% for FS2 and 202.60% for FS3, allowing us to assess their
consistency. The moisture levels ranged from 53.41% to 57.51% for the fresh sourdoughs.
FS3 had a higher moisture content (57.12 ± 0.34%) than FS1 (54.57 ± 1.00%), despite the
 sourdoughs. FS3 had a higher moisture content (57.12 ± 0.34%) than FS1 (54.57 ± 1.00%),
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 despite the latter having a higher DY. The average TTA ranged from 10.86 to5 42.05. of 16 The
FS2 sourdough had the highest TTA value (39.24 ± 2.91), while FS1 and FS3 had similar
average TTA values (14.20 ± 3.32). The average pH ranged from 3.27 to 3.85 for the fresh
sourdoughs. Although
latter having FS2The
a higher DY. had a higher
average TTA TTA
rangedthan
fromFS1 and
10.86 FS2, The
to 42.05. its pH
FS2 was higher than
sourdough
those
hadofthethe latter.
highest Table
TTA value4 (39.24
shows the biochemical
± 2.91), while FS1 and characteristics
FS3 had similarofaverage
the freeze-dried
TTA
sourdoughs used
values (14.20 in theThe
± 3.32). laboratory bread-making
average pH ranged from tests.
3.27 toThe
3.85sourdough
for the freshcomposition
sourdoughs. has a
Althougheffect
significant FS2 had
onathe
higher
TTA,TTApHthan FS1
and and FS2, its pH was higher than those of the latter.
moisture.
Table 4 shows the biochemical characteristics of the freeze-dried sourdoughs used in the
laboratory bread-making tests. The sourdough composition has a significant effect on the
Table 4. Mean values (± standard deviations) of the key parameters characterizing freeze-dried
TTA, pH and moisture.
sourdough samples.

Freeze-Dried Sourdough TTAvalues (±standard deviations) of the key parameters characterizing freeze-dried
Table 4. Mean
sourdough samples. pH Moisture (%)
Code (mL NaOH/10 g of Dough)
FDS1 Freeze-Dried Sourdough 37.71 ± TTA
0.76 a 2.98 ± 0.02 a 8.05 ± 0.82 b
pH Moisture (%)
FDS2 Code (mL74.20 ± 0.85 b
NaOH/10 g of Dough) 3.57 ± 0.20 b 7.21 ± 0.32 b
a a
FDS3 FDS1 37.71 ±
37.24 ± 0.73 a
0.76 2.98 ±
3.03 ± 0.06 a
0.02 ± 0.82± b0.64 a
8.05 3.10
FDS2 Values in the74.20 0.85 b with at least one3.57
same±column letter
± 0.20 b
(a, b, c…) in common are not
7.21 0.32 b
± significantly different
FDS3 at the 5% probability level.
37.24 ± 0.73 a 3.03 ± 0.06 a 3.10 ± 0.64 a

Values in the same column with at least one letter (a, b) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
The average
probability level. TTA of the freeze-dried sourdoughs ranged from 36.66 to 75.13, with
FDS2 (74.20 ± 0.85) showing
The average TTA of thea freeze-dried
higher acidity following
sourdoughs its high
ranged frominitial
36.66 acidity
to 75.13,when
with fresh.
TheFDS2
average pH of the freeze-dried sourdoughs ranged from 2.96 to 3.8. Their moisture
(74.20 ± 0.85) showing a higher acidity following its high initial acidity when fresh.
content rangedpH
The average fromof 2.61 to 8.99%, with
the freeze-dried FDS1 and
sourdoughs FDS2
ranged having
from a higher
2.96 to average
3.8. Their moisture
moisture
content (7.63 ± 0.60%) compared to FDS3 (3.10%).
content ranged from 2.61 to 8.99%, with FDS1 and FDS2 having a higher average moisture
content (7.63 ± 0.60%) compared to FDS3 (3.10%).
3.2. 3.2.
Assessment of Fermentation Capability
Assessment of Fermentation Capability
TheThe
fermentative
fermentativeperformance
performance of ofthe
thesourdoughs
sourdoughs waswas assessed
assessed by ability
by their their ability
to to
leaven thethe
leaven dough,
dough,release CO2 2and
release CO andethanol,
ethanol, raise
raise TTATTAlevelslevels and reduce
and reduce the final the final
pH of the pH of
the dough
dough[20].
[20].Figure
Figure 2 shows
2 shows the online
the online monitoring
monitoring of the bread-making
of the bread-making process. process.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Monitoring
Figure 2. Monitoringof doughfermentation
of dough fermentation
withwith panigraph:
panigraph: (a): beginning
(a): beginning of fermentation;
of fermentation; (b): end (b):
end of
offermentation.
fermentation.

A panigraph can
A panigraph can monitor
monitorthethe
dough rise, mass
dough rise, loss,
mass COloss,
2 and CO
ethanol
2 andrelease, reduc-
ethanol release,
tions in pH and conductivity of dough, enabling us to assess the fermentative capacity
reductions in pH and conductivity of dough, enabling us to assess the fermentative
of the sourdoughs studied. Figure 3a,b show an example of breads obtained by baking
capacity of the sourdoughs studied. Figure 3a,b show an example of breads obtained by
doughs fermented with fresh or freeze-dried sourdough, respectively.
baking doughs fermented with fresh or freeze-dried sourdough, respectively.
Appl. Sci.Appl.
2023,Sci.13, x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
13, 12453 6 of 17
66ofof1617
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. An example of bread produced from doughs fermented with the studied sourdoughs: (a):
fresh
Figure sourdough;
3.
Figure An
3. An (b): of
example
examplefreeze-dried
bread
of bread sourdough.
produced
producedfrom
from doughs fermentedwith
doughs fermented withthe
thestudied
studied sourdoughs: (a):
sourdoughs:
fresh(a):sourdough; (b): freeze-dried
fresh sourdough; sourdough.
(b): freeze-dried sourdough.
3.2.1. Dough Rise during Bread Making
3.2.1. Dough Rise during Bread Making
3.2.1. Dough Rise in
The results during
FigureBread Making the dough leavening during the bread-making
4, illustrating
process, Thedemonstrate
results in Figure
that 4, illustrating
the leavening the dough through
progresses leavening during
four the induction
phases: bread-making
phase
The results in Figure 4, illustrating the dough leavening during the bread-making
I, rapid swelling phase II, stabilization phase III and a slight decrease in volume phase
process, demonstrate that the leavening progresses through four phases: induction during
process,
I, rapiddemonstrate thatII,the leavening progresses
III and athrough four phases: induction
during phase
phase IV swelling phase
for certain doughs. stabilization phase slight decrease in volume
I, rapid swelling phase
phase IV for certain doughs.II, stabilization phase III and a slight decrease in volume during
phase IV for certain doughs.

Evolutionof
Figure4.4.Evolution
Figure ofdough
dough rise
rise during
during bread
bread making
makingas
asaafunction
functionofoftime.
time.

Figure 4 depicts the values of the primary physical parameters of the doughs at the
Figure 4 depicts the values of the primary physical parameters of the doughs at the
end of the bread-making process (as presented in Table 5), corresponding to the beginning
end of the bread-making process (as presented in Table 5), corresponding to the beginning
4. Evolution
of the
Figure flattening of of these
dough rise during
curves bread
(the onset of making as a function of time.
phase III).
of the The
flattening of these
sourdough typecurves
had a (the onset of
significant phase
effect onIII).
the dough rise (Table 5), with means
ranging
Figure from 1.25 tothe
4 depicts 3.44values
cm. Theofcontrol dough exhibited
the primary physical the best rise (3.44 ± 0.66 cm), at the
Table 5. Mean values (± standard deviations) of the key physicalparameters
characteristicsofofthe doughs
doughs at the
followed by FDS3 (2.55 ± 0.5 cm) and FDS, which had an average rise of (2.54 ± 0.4 cm).
end
end ofofthe
thebread-making process (as presented in Table 5), corresponding to the beginning
bread-making process.
DS1 and DS3 showed a similar average dough rise of around (2.42 cm), while DS2 and its
of the flattening
freeze-dried of these
form, FDS2, curves (the onset of phase
(1.89III).
Dough Rise End ofshowed the lowest
Bread Making rises
Specific and 1.25 cm, respectively).
Volume Loss Mass
Dough Code
(cm) (min) (cm .g )
3 −1 (%)
Table 5. Mean values (± standard deviations) of the key physical characteristics of doughs at the
Control 3.44 of
end ± 0.66 a
the bread-making process. 655.67 ± 55.61 d 2.78 ± 0.50 a 2.2 ± 0.01 a
DS1 2.42 ± 0.42 abc 738.67 ± 21.13 d 2.26 ± 0.24 ab 2.9 ± 0.01 a
DS2 Dough Rise
1.89 ± 0.47 bc End of Bread
1020.67 ± 47.38 Making
abc Specific
1.65 ± 0.38Volume
bc 2.8 ±Loss
0.01 aMass
Dough Code
DS3 2.42
(cm)± 0.27 abc 914.67 ± 7.51 c
(min) 2.18 (cm
± 0.27
3.gab
−1)
2.8 ± 0.01(%)
a

Control 3.44 ± 0.66 a 655.67 ± 55.61 d 2.78 ± 0.50 a 2.2 ± 0.01 a

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 7 of 16

Table 5. Mean values (±standard deviations) of the key physical characteristics of doughs at the end
of the bread-making process.

Dough Rise End of Bread Making Specific Volume Loss Mass

Dough Code
(cm) (min) (cm3 /g−1 ) (%)
Control 3.44 ± 0.66 a 655.67 ± 55.61 d 2.78 ± 0.50 a 2.2 ± 0.01 a
DS1 2.42 ± 0.42 abc 738.67 ± 21.13 d 2.26 ± 0.24 ab 2.9 ± 0.01 a
DS2 1.89 ± 0.47 bc 1020.67 ± 47.38 abc 1.65 ± 0.38 bc 2.8 ± 0.01 a
DS3 2.42 ± 0.27 abc 914.67 ± 7.51 c 2.18 ± 0.27 ab 2.8 ± 0.01 a
DF1 2.54 ± 0.40 ab 1076.33 ± 94.79 ab 2.17 ± 0.33 ab 3.1± 0.01 a
DF2 1.25 ± 0.19 c 1151.67 ± 51.07 a 1.01 ± 0.13 c 2.1 ± 0.01 a
DF3 2.55 ± 0.50 ab 927.33 ± 60.05 bc 2.14 ± 0.42 ab 2.7 ± 0.01 a
Values in the same column with at least one letter (a–d) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
probability level.

3.2.2. Bread-Making Duration

The type of sourdough significantly affects the duration of bread making, with an
average duration ranging from 655.67 to 1151.67 min, which was considered to be a
long fermentation period. The times obtained for the freeze-dried sourdoughs (867.82
to 1274.74 min) were higher than those for their fresh forms (717.54 to 1087.05 min). The
control doughs and DS1 doughs required similar bread-making times, from 600 to 760 min,
while the others required longer bread-making times (907 to 1203 min). DS2 and its freeze-
dried form (FDS2) required longer average bread-making times (1020.67 and 1151.67 min,
respectively). It should be noted that the LF2 sourdough did not perform as well in terms
of its bread-making time than its freeze-dried forms (FDS1 and FDS3). DS1 required
less bread-making time than DS3, despite having the same composition except for the
hydration rate (Table 2), while FDS3 required less bread-making time (927.33 min) than
FDS1 (1076.33 min).

3.2.3. Specific Volume

The effect of the sourdough type and composition on the doughs’ specific volume
was significant, with mean values ranging from 1.01 to 2.78 cm3 /g−1 . The control had the
highest specific volume (2.78 ± 0.51 cm3 /g−1 ). The FDS1 and FDS3 sourdoughs and their
freeze-dried forms had the same specific volume, ranging from 1.77 to 2.5 cm3 /g−1 , while
the FS2 fresh sourdough and its freeze-dried form presented the lowest specific volume
(0.88 to 2.03 cm3 /g−1 ).

3.2.4. Loss of Mass

The different sourdough types showed no significant differences in their dough mass
losses at the end of the bread-making process, with an average mass loss rate of 2.66%.

3.3. Biochemical Characterization of Dough

3.3.1. CO2 Release during Bread Making
The results in Figure 5, which illustrates the CO2 release as a function of time during
the bread-making process, reveals a difference in the shape of the CO2 release curves. This
figure shows the average values of CO2 released at the end of the bread-making process, as
well as its average speed (Table 6).
The type of sourdough had a significant effect on the amount of CO2 released at
the end of the bread-making process, with average amounts produced ranging from 0.18
to 0.78 L/kg−1 of dough and the average speed varying from 0.94 to 6.18 mL/100 g/h.
Although the DS1 dough was able to produce the greatest amount of CO2 (0.66 L/kg−1
of dough) compared to the control (0.62 L/kg−1 of dough), its sourdough was unable to
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 8 of 16

leaven it in the same way as the latter. The FDS2 dough produced the lowest amount of
CO2 (0.19 L/kg−1 of dough), which explains its low specific volume (1.01 cm3 /g−1 ) and
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
long bread-making time (1151.67 min). Figure 6 shows the dough rise as a function of the
CO2 release during the bread-making process.

Figure 5. Evolution of CO2 release as a function of bread-making time.

Figure 5. Evolution of CO2 release as a function of bread-making time.

Table 6. Mean values (±standard deviations) of CO released at the end of bread-making process.
Table 6. Mean values (±standard deviations) of CO2 released
2 at the end of bread-making process.

CO2 Released CO2 Released Speed Release

Speed
of CORelease
2 of CO2
Dough Code Dough Code
(L.kg−1 of Dough) (L/kg−1 of Dough) mL.(100 g.h)−1mL/(100 g/h)−1
Control Control 0.62 ± 0.10 ab 0.62 ± 0.10 ab 5.55 ± 0.42 a 5.55 ± 0.42 a
DS1 0.66 ± 0.20 a 5.19 ± 1.51 ab
DS1 0.66 ± 0.20 a 5.19 ± 1.51 ab
DS2 0.48 ± 0.08 ab 2.77 ± 0.51 bc
DS3 DS2 0.52 ± 0.26 ab 0.48 ± 0.08 ab 3.32 ± 1.67 abc 2.77 ± 0.51
bc

DF1 DS3 0.44 ± 0.15 ab 0.52 ± 0.26 ab 2.37 ± 0.81 c 3.32 ± 1.67 abc
DF2 0.19 ± 0.01 b 1.01 ± 0.07 c
DF1 0.44 ± 0.15 ab 2.37 ± 0.81 c
DF3 0.59 ± 0.14 ab 3.70 ± 0.89 abc
Values (a, b, ±
DF2 in the same column with at least one letter 0.19 0.01
c…)
b ± 0.07 c
1.01different
in common are not significantly
at DF3
the 5% probability level. 0.59 ± 0.14 ab 3.70 ± 0.89 abc
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Values in the same column with at least one letter (a–c) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
The type
probability of sourdough had a significant effect on the amount of CO2 released at the
level.
end of the bread-making process, with average amounts produced ranging from 0.18 to
0.78 L.kg−1 of dough and the average speed varying from 0.94 to 6.18 mL/100 g/h.
Although the DS1 dough was able to produce the greatest amount of CO2 (0.66 L.kg−1 of
dough) compared to the control (0.62 L.kg−1 of dough), its sourdough was unable to leaven
it in the same way as the latter. The FDS2 dough produced the lowest amount of CO2 (0.19
L.kg−1 of dough), which explains its low specific volume (1.01 cm3.g−1) and long bread-
making time (1151.67 min). Figure 6 shows the dough rise as a function of the CO2 release
during the bread-making process.

Figure 6. Variation in dough rise as a function of CO2 release.

Figure 6. Variation in dough rise as a function of CO2 release.

The results in Figure 6 illustrate the close relationship between the dough leavening
and the CO2 released during the bread-making process. However, for the same amount of
CO2 released, leavening does not hold the same significance for various doughs, especially
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 9 of 16

Figure 6. Variation in dough rise as a function of CO2 release.

Theresults
The results in
in Figure
Figure 66 illustrate
illustratethe
theclose
closerelationship between
relationship thethe
between dough leavening
dough leavening
and the CO 2 released during the bread-making process. However, for the
and the CO2 released during the bread-making process. However, for the same amount same amount of of
CO 2 released, leavening does not hold the same significance for various doughs, especially
CO2 released, leavening does not hold the same significance for various doughs, especially
duringthe
during theswelling
swelling (phase
(phase II)
II) and
andstability
stability(phase
(phaseIII) phases.
III) phases.

3.3.2.Ethanol
3.3.2. Ethanol Release
Release during
duringBread
BreadMaking
Making
Theresults
The results in
in Figure
Figure 77 illustrate
illustratethe
thekinetics
kineticsof of
thethe
ethanol release
ethanol during
release the bread-
during the bread-
making process.
making process.

Evolution of
Figure7.7.Evolution
Figure of the
the quantity
quantityof
ofethanol
ethanolreleased
releasedasas
a function of bread-making
a function time.
of bread-making time.

Figure77 presents
Figure presents both
both the
theaverage
averagevalues
values ofof
ethanol released
ethanol at the
released endend
at the of the
of bread-
the bread-
makingprocess
making process and
and its
its average
averagerate
rateofofrelease,
release,asassummarized
summarized in in
Table
Table7. 7.

Mean values
Table7.7.Mean
Table values ((±
±standard
standarddeviations)
deviations)ofofethanol released
ethanol at the
released endend
at the of the bread-making
of the bread-making
process.
process.

Ethanol Released Speed Release of Ethanol

Dough Code
(L/kg−1 of Dough) mL/(100 g/h)−1
Control 5.58 ± 0.89 bc 49.76 ± 3.77 a
DS1 3.92 ± 0.33 ab 30.88 ± 1.82 bcd
DS2 5.90 ± 0.78 a 33.86 ± 5.89 b
DS3 5.27 ± 0.92 bc 33.60 ± 5.93 bc
DF1 3.32 ± 1.90 a 18.05 ± 10.03 cd
DF2 3.27 ± 0.62 a 16.54 ± 3.30 d
DF3 3.75 ± 0.76 ab 23.59 ± 4.60 bcd
Values in the same column with at least one letter (a–d) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
probability level.

The type of sourdough had a significant effect on the quantity and rate of ethanol
released, with quantities ranging from 1.28 to 6.66 L/kg−1 of dough and rates from 6.68 to
52.89 mL/(100 g/h)−1 . The release of ethanol continued after the end of the bread-making
process (Figure 7), but it had no effect on the dough volume (Figure 4). Figure 7 also
demonstrates an increase in the ethanol amount of the control after the end of the bread-
making process, probably due to the bursting of the dough network. This is confirmed by
the slight decrease in dough volume following deflation (Figure 4).
 The type of sourdough had a significant effect on the quantity and rate of ethanol
released, with quantities ranging from 1.28 to 6.66 L.kg−1 of dough and rates from 6.68 to
52.89 mL. (100 g.h)−1. The release of ethanol continued after the end of the bread-making
process (Figure 7), but it had no effect on the dough volume (Figure 4). Figure 7 also
demonstrates an increase in the ethanol amount of the control after the end of the bread-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 10 of 16
making process, probably due to the bursting of the dough network. This is confirmed by
the slight decrease in dough volume following deflation (Figure 4).

3.3.3. Variation
VariationininpH
pHand
andTTA
TTAofofFermented
FermentedDoughs
Doughs
The
Thesourdough
sourdoughtypetypehadhada significant
a significant effect on the
effect initial
on the dough
initial pH and
dough pHpH andvariation,
pH variation,
but no significant effect on the final pH. The initial pH ranged from 3.83 to 5.61,
but no significant effect on the final pH. The initial pH ranged from 3.83 to 5.61, while
while final
finalaveraged
pH pH averaged
3.69, 3.69,
with with an average
an average decrease
decrease of 0.63.
of 0.63. The The freeze-dried
freeze-dried sourdough
sourdough doughs
doughs
had had ainitial
a lower lower pH,
initial pH, ranging
ranging from from
3.84 to 3.84
4.1,towhich
4.1, which is due
is due to the
to the initially
initially high
high acidity
acidity
of of freeze-dried
freeze-dried sourdoughs,
sourdoughs, while while
the the fresh
fresh sourdough
sourdough doughshad
doughs hadaa similar
similar initial
initial pH,
pH, ranging
ranging fromfrom 4.15
4.15 to to 4.41.
4.41. The control
The control dough dough
had thehadhighest
the highest
initialinitial
pH, withpH, an
with an
average of
average
5.58. of 5.58. the
However, However,
controlthe controlaround
required required 400around
min to400 minthis
reach to reach
value.this
Thevalue. The was
pH drop
pH dropfor
greater was
thegreater
controlfor the control
(1.52), (1.52),
resulting in aresulting
final pHin ofa4.06.
finalFDS2,
pH of with
4.06. its
FDS2, with low
initially its pH,
initially low pH, had a lower specific volume than that of DS2. Figure
had a lower specific volume than that of DS2. Figure 8 shows the evolution of dough pH 8 shows the
evolution of dough pH during the bread-making process.
during the bread-making process.

Figure Evolutionofofdough
8. Evolution
Figure 8. dough pH
pH during
during thethe bread-making
bread-making process.
process.

Table 88 shows
Table showsthe
theaverage
averagepH
pH and
and ATT
ATT values
values measured
measured at start
at the the start and of
and end end of
fermentation.
fermentation.
Table 8. Mean values (±standard deviations) for pH and acidity of doughs at the end of bread-making
process.

pH TTA (mL NaOH 0.1 N (10 g)−1 )

Dough Code Initial Final Initial Final
Decrease Increase
(pH_i) (pH_f) (ATT_i) (ATT_f)
Control 5.58 ± 0.03 a 4.06 ± 0.59 a 1.52 ± 0.62 a 2.19 ± 0.21 d 4.05 ± 0.11 e 1.85 ± 0.28 d
DS1 4.37 ± 0.04 b 3.57 ± 0.01 a 0.80 ± 0.05 ab 3.37 ± 0.12 c 8.27 ± 0.03 c 4.90 ± 0.14 c
DS2 4.20 ± 0.05 b 3.51 ± 0.09 a 0.70 ± 0.10 b 5.52 ± 0.41 b 15.02 ± 0.91 a 9.50 ± 0.52 a
DS3 4.31 ± 0.06 b 3.44 ± 0.11 a 0.88 ± 0.16 ab 3.68 ± 0.11 c 9.96 ± 0.26 b 6.28 ± 0.20 b
DF1 3.94 ± 0.16 c 3.76 ± 0.43 a 0.18 ± 0.27 b 5.23 ± 0.41 b 6.58 ± 0.26 d 1.35 ± 0.58 de
DF2 3.86 ± 0.02 c 3.72 ± 0.07 a 0.14 ± 0.07 b 8.89 ± 0.50 a 9.57 ± 0.42 b 0.68 ± 0.29 e
DF3 3.94 ± 0.01 c 3.70 ± 0.10 a 0.23 ± 0.10 b 5.10 ± 0.39 b 6.56 ± 0.12 d 1.45 ± 0.34 de
Values in the same column with at least one letter (a–e) in common are not significantly different at the 5%
probability level.

The type of sourdough had a significant effect on initial and final TTA, as well as on
its increase. The initial TTA of the doughs varied from 1.96 to 9.43 (mL 0.1 N NaOH per
10 g of dough), while the final TTA varied from 3.92 to 15.69 with an increase ranging
from 0.39 to 9.96. FDS2 had the highest initial TTA value (8.89), while the control had the
lowest initial TTA value (2.19). The DS2 dough had the highest final TTA value (15.02),
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 11 of 16

while the control dough presented the lowest value (4.05) due to the high production of
biogenic acids, whereas their production was very low in the control. Despite FDS2 having
the highest initial TTA (8.89), its fresh form was able to acidify the dough more, with the
greatest TTA increase (9.50), while its freeze-dried form achieved the lowest TTA increase
(0.68). The FS2, FDS1 and FDS3 doughs had a similar average initial acidity of around
(5.52); however, FDS2 was able to significantly increase the final TTA of the dough (15.02),
while FDS1 and FDS3 only slightly increased it (6.58).

3.4. Correlations of Bread-Making Parameters

The results in Figure 9a,b show the projection of the ten bread-making parameters
(taking into account the initial and final values for the pH and TTA) and the six sourdoughs
(including the control) on the principal plane (80.05%) of a principal component analysis
(PCA). A strong positive correlation was observed between the bread-making time and
initial TTA. The highest values for this first group of parameters were obtained for the DF1,
DS2 and DF2 doughs. Similarly, positive correlations were recorded between the dough
rise, specific volume, initial pH and CO2 released. The highest values for this second group
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of parameters were obtained for the control, DS1, DF3 and DS3 doughs. The 12two
of 17
groups of
variables showed negative correlations. Interestingly, the amount of ethanol released did
not appear to correlate with the other bread-making parameters.

Figure 9. (a) Projection of 9.

Figure ten(a)
parameters
Projection of
of bread-making
ten parameters on the main plane
of bread-making onofthe
a PCA
main and (b)of a PCA and
plane
Projection of six doughs after breadmaking
(b) Projection on the
of six doughs after main plane
breadmaking onof
thea main
PCA.plane of a PCA.
3.5. Individual Panigram of FS1 and FDS3 Sourdoughs
3.5. Individual Panigram of FS1 and FDS3 Sourdoughs
Based on the analysis of the bread-making tests, it becomes evident that the FS1 fresh
Based on thesourdough
analysis ofand
theFDS3
bread-making
freeze-driedtests, it becomes
sourdough evident
outperform thethat the
other FS1 freshvariants.
sourdough
sourdough and FDS3
Figuresfreeze-dried sourdough
10 and 11 illustrate outperform
the kinetics the other
of the primary sourdoughparameters
bread-making variants. for the
Figures 10 and 11FS1
illustrate
and FDS3the kinetics
doughs, of the primary bread-making parameters for the
respectively.
FS1 and FDS3 doughs, respectively.
The individual panigrams (Figures 10 and 11) allow for the direct reading of the main
parameters on the same graph during the bread-making process, enabling the determination
of the end of the process. Furthermore, they facilitate the study of the doughs’ behavior
beyond the final stage of the bread-making process.
 Figure 9. (a) Projection of ten parameters of bread-making on the main plane of a PCA and (b)
Projection of six doughs after breadmaking on the main plane of a PCA.

3.5. Individual Panigram of FS1 and FDS3 Sourdoughs

Based on the analysis of the bread-making tests, it becomes evident that the FS1 fresh
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 sourdough and FDS3 freeze-dried sourdough outperform the other sourdough variants.12 of 16
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the kinetics of the primary bread-making parameters for the
FS1 and FDS3 doughs, respectively.

Figure
Figure 10. Individualgraph
10. Individual graphofofDS1
DS1 dough
dough fermented
fermented with
with FS1FS1 sourdough.
sourdough.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

The individual panigrams (Figures 10 and 11) allow for the direct reading of the main
parameters on the same graph during the bread-making process, enabling the
determination of the end of the process. Furthermore, they facilitate the study of the
doughs’ behavior beyond the final stage of the bread-making process.
11. Individual
Figure 11.
Figure Individualgraph
graphofofDF3
DF3dough
doughfermented with
fermented FDS3
with sourdough.
FDS3 sourdough.
3.6. Vertical Panigram of All Doughs
3.6. Vertical Panigram of All Doughs
A vertical chart is another way to compare the fermentative performance of several
A vertical
sourdoughs. chart 12
Figure is another
displaysway
the to compare
main the fermentative
bread-making performance
parameters of several
of the different
sourdoughs.
doughs. Figure 12 displays the main bread-making parameters of the different doughs.

12. Vertical
Figure 12.
Figure Vertical graph
graphof
ofthe
themain
mainbread-making
bread-makingparameters.
parameters.

This graph
This graphcan
canbebe used
used as easy
as an an easy toolmapping
tool for for mapping thebread-making
the main main bread-making
parameters,
parameters, both visually and
both visually and numerically. numerically.

4. Discussions
4.1. Sourdough Comparisons
The TTA, pH and humidity values of a sourdough depend on its composition. The
FS2 sourdough has a high TTA, which is explained by the presence of large quantities of
LAB bacteria due to the use of whole wheat whey and flour. Similar findings were
observed by [21]. The high acidity of the FS2 sourdough does not correlate with its pH.
This was explained by the buffering effect of the medium following the reduction of the
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 13 of 16

4. Discussions
4.1. Sourdough Comparisons
The TTA, pH and humidity values of a sourdough depend on its composition. The FS2
sourdough has a high TTA, which is explained by the presence of large quantities of LAB
bacteria due to the use of whole wheat whey and flour. Similar findings were observed
by [21]. The high acidity of the FS2 sourdough does not correlate with its pH. This was
explained by the buffering effect of the medium following the reduction of the H+ proton
by the constituents of the sourdough, notably gluten [22].
The freeze drying of the three fresh sourdough samples led to the concentration of
biogenic acids through the evaporation of water. Consequently, there was an increase in TTA
and a decrease in pH. According to [23], this could potentially reduce their fermentation
performance due the inhibition of existing microorganisms, particularly yeasts, which are
highly sensitive to dehydration and acidic pH levels. Therefore, it is essential to control the
initial acidity of the leaven and optimize the freeze-drying process by adding cryoprotective
agents or by revitalizing freeze-dried sourdoughs before using them for bread making.
Freeze drying resulted in an average reduction in moisture content ranging from 2.61 to
8.99%. According to [24], this level of moisture reduction ensures the stability and extended
storage of type III sourdoughs by preventing undesirable biochemical and microbiological
reactions. The variations in moisture content observed among the freeze-dried sourdoughs
can be attributed to differences in their textures, which affect water release during the
dehydration process.

4.2. Bread Fermentation Performance Tests

The tested sourdough samples exhibited a dough rising capacity (DRC) exceeding
100%, indicating their capability to produce bread dough. The higher specific volume
observed in the FS1 and FS3 doughs may be attributed to the increased CO2 , as suggested
by [25], resulting from adequate dough acidification, which enhances the gluten’s gas-
retaining ability. Conversely, the excessive acidity of the FS2 and FDS2 sourdoughs hindered
their fermentation performance, a phenomenon elucidated by [22], who explained it as
the inhibitory effect of acidity on the main yeasts responsible for CO2 production. The
authors of [26] also reported a similar trend, in which firm-consistency sourdoughs like the
FS2 fresh sourdough promoted the production of acetic acid, which had a strong negative
influence on the yeast activity.
The FDS2 dough exhibited a reduced specific volume in comparison to its fresh
FS2 counterpart. This phenomenon can be elucidated, according to [27], by the adverse
impact of the simultaneous presence of an acidic pH and a high ethanol concentration on
yeast growth.
The delay in proofing observed in phase I of the freeze-dried sourdoughs (approxi-
mately ±200 min) can be attributed to the presence of injured and stressed cells, which are
found in reduced numbers in freeze-dried sourdoughs, as explained by [28] in their study.
To address this issue, the authors of [24] suggest employing pretreatments such as rehydra-
tion or the refreshment of leavens to activate them effectively and ensure their fermentative
activity. Additionally, the use of cryoprotective agents during the freeze-drying process is
recommended. It is also worth noting that the acidity level of fresh sourdough appears to
have a significant impact on the fermentation capabilities of its freeze-dried counterpart.
For instance, FS2, with a TTA of 39.24, exhibited a shorter bread-making time compared to
FDS2, which has a TAA of 74.20.
The extended fermentation time observed in the doughs of the freeze-dried sour-
doughs can be elucidated through the findings of [29]. They proposed that this phe-
nomenon is attributed to the presence of organic acids generated by rapidly proliferating
bacteria, which inhibit the fermentation activity of less acid-tolerant species. Furthermore,
in [12], Caglar reported a high mortality rate among microorganisms due to the freeze-
drying process. Conversely, an extended fermentation period enables certain freeze-dried
sourdoughs to approach the level of dough rise achieved by specific fresh sourdoughs.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 14 of 16

The decline in dough volume observed in certain sourdough types during phase
IV can be attributed to the rupture of the network and the release of CO2 outward; this
phenomenon is indicative of the dough reaching its point of porosity.
The FS1 dough requires less bread-making time than FS3, confirming the significant
role of hydration in the microbial ecology and the metabolic function of the sourdough.
However, the FDS3 dough exhibited a shorter bread-making time than FDS1. This dis-
crepancy could be attributed to a higher mortality rate of the microorganisms in the FDS1
sourdough, resulting from its slightly elevated hydration level and the consequent cell
wall rupture of the microorganisms during freezing, which precedes the freeze-drying
process [30,31]. From these observations, it can be inferred that while the liquid form
of the fresh sourdough holds promise for bread making, its freeze-dried form may not
be necessary yield the same benefits. The kinetics of dough rise are analogous with the
release of CO2 , thus affirming its important role in dough expansion, which aligns with the
findings presented by [32] in their study. Nevertheless, when an equal amount of CO2 is lib-
erated, the extent of dough expansion varies notably among different dough compositions,
especially during phases II (swelling) and III (stability); this variation can be attributed to
the discrepancies in their gas retention capacities and elasticity stemming from leavening
agents. Consequently, the sole criterion of producing a substantial quantity of carbon
dioxide does not suffice to predict the extent of dough rise. The production of CO2 was,
on average, nine times lower than that of ethanol at the end of the bread-making process.
This suggests that ethanol has no significant effect on the dough rise, and CO2 remains
the primary gas responsible for its expansion [32]. This can be attributed to the gaseous
state of CO2 within the dough under the bread-making conditions, in which the saturation
vapor pressure (Pvs) of CO2 is 56.45 atm at 20 ◦ C. In contrast, ethanol exists in liquid form
within the dough because of its Pvs (0.05 atm at 20 ◦ C). Consequently, ethanol is present as
a volatile fraction quantified by the sensor and exists in phasic equilibrium (liquid–gas) on
the surface of the dough’s crust. Due to this difference in state, ethanol does not directly
contribute to the rise of the dough. Therefore, CO2 remains the primary gas responsible for
the swelling of the dough. However, ethanol does play a role in strengthening the overall
structure of the dough, resulting in a soft and airy texture in the crumbs of the sourdough
bread [33].
The average initial pH of doughs is typically below 4.6, which is generally considered
the optimal pH for phytic acid degradation [34]. As noted by Chron [35], a long-term
and acidifying fermentation process enables the significant degradation of phytic acid,
enhancing the bioavailability of minerals. Additionally, the final pH of the doughs obtained
(3.69) plays a vital role in reducing the staleness of the bread as discussed by Arendt [36].
The decrease in pH was more pronounced in the control, primarily attributed to the activity
of endogenous bacteria, which faced less competition from baker’s yeast (S.C) due to its
low incorporation rate of only 0.1%.
The FDS2 dough exhibited the highest initial TTA value (8.89). This can be attributed
to the initially high acidity of the FDS2 dough used as the seeding agent. Conversely, the
control sample displayed the lowest initial value of TTA (2.19), which can be attributed to
the low initial acidity of the flour, the sole source of acids in this case. The addition of FS1
enabled an increase in the final TTA of the dough (8.27) without acidifying it. This level of
acidity is considered very acceptable in terms of its organoleptic properties [37].
The vertical panigram represents an innovative approach for efficiently assessing
various parameters in sourdough bread making simultaneously. It generates a digital map
illustrating the fermentation performance of different sourdoughs in a visually comprehen-
sive manner. Consequently, this tool offers a rapid and effective means of making informed
decisions when selecting the most efficient and appropriate sourdough for achieving high-
quality bread products.
Individual panigrams derived from the panigraph enable the real-time monitor-
ing of fermentation kinetics and facilitate predictions regarding the completion of the
bread-making process. Furthermore, they allow for the establishment of a comprehensive
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 15 of 16

database for professionals and researchers to compare the performance and stability of
their respective sourdoughs.

5. Conclusions
In this study examining the fermentative capabilities of traditional fresh sourdoughs
produced by households in various regions and their freeze-dried counterparts, the FS1
fresh sourdough demonstrated notable advantages compared to the control. These ad-
vantages included a reduced bread preparation time, a high specific volume and a very
satisfactory final bread quality. The FDS3 sourdough exhibited a dough rise similar to that
of fresh sourdoughs but with a somewhat longer bread preparation time, which could be
enhanced through revitalization. Utilizing a panigraph for the real-time, simultaneous
monitoring of various bread-making parameters allowed for the creation of individual and
vertical panigrams for the different sourdough types. These panigrams, likened to unique
fingerprints, facilitated a straightforward visual comparison of the fermentative capabilities
of various sourdough varieties. Future research should explore the integration of sensory
and microbiological criteria within these panigrams.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R. and Y.C.; methodology, A.R.; validation, A.R. and
Y.C.; formal analysis, A.R.; investigation, A.R. and Y.C.; resources, A.R. and Y.C.; data curation, A.R.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.R. and Y.C.; writing—review and editing, A.R., M.M., Y.C. and
A.H.; visualization, A.R. and Y.C.; supervision, M.M., A.H. and A.O.T. 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 datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Arora, K.; Ameur, H.; Polo, A.; Di Cagno, R.; Rizzello, C.G.; Gobbetti, M. Thirty Years of Knowledge on Sourdough Fermentation:
A Systematic Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 108, 71–83. [CrossRef]
2. De Vuyst, L.; Van Kerrebroeck, S.; Harth, H.; Huys, G.; Daniel, H.-M.; Weckx, S. Microbial Ecology of Sourdough Fermentations:
Diverse or Uniform? Food Microbiol. 2014, 37, 11–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Minervini, F.; De Angelis, M.; Di Cagno, R.; Gobbetti, M. Ecological Parameters Influencing Microbial Diversity and Stability of
Traditional Sourdough. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 171, 136–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Coda, R.; Katina, K.; Rizzello, C.G. Bran Bioprocessing for Enhanced Functional Properties. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2015, 1, 50–55.
[CrossRef]
5. Van Kerrebroeck, S.; Maes, D.; De Vuyst, L. Sourdoughs as a Function of Their Species Diversity and Process Conditions, a
Meta-Analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 152–159. [CrossRef]
6. Comasio, A.; Verce, M.; Van Kerrebroeck, S.; De Vuyst, L. Diverse Microbial Composition of Sourdoughs From Different Origins.
Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Gobbetti, M.; Minervini, F.; Pontonio, E.; Di Cagno, R.; De Angelis, M. Drivers for the Establishment and Composition of the
Sourdough Lactic Acid Bacteria Biota. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 239, 3–18. [CrossRef]
8. Pontonio, E.; Nionelli, L.; Curiel, J.A.; Sadeghi, A.; Di Cagno, R.; Gobbetti, M.; Rizzello, C.G. Iranian Wheat Flours from Rural and
Industrial Mills: Exploitation of the Chemical and Technology Features, and Selection of Autochthonous Sourdough Starters for
Making Breads. Food Microbiol. 2015, 47, 99–110. [CrossRef]
9. 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. [CrossRef]
10. Tafti, A.G.; Peighambardoust, S.H.; Hesari, J.; Bahrami, A.; Bonab, E.S. Physico-Chemical and Functional Properties of Spray-Dried
Sourdough in Breadmaking. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2013, 19, 271–278. [CrossRef]
11. 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: Properties of Acidified Bread. Int. J. Food
Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 1417–1425. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12453 16 of 16

12. Caglar, N.; Ermis, E.; Durak, M.Z. Spray-Dried and Freeze-Dried Sourdough Powders: Properties and Evaluation of Their Use in
Breadmaking. J. Food Eng. 2021, 292, 110355. [CrossRef]
13. Novotni, D.; Gänzle, M.; Rocha, J.M. Composition and Activity of Microbiota in Sourdough and Their Effect on Bread Quality
and Safety. In Trends in Wheat and Bread Making; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 129–172.
14. Raffak, A.; Chafai, Y.; Hamouda, A.; Mounir, M. Suivi en temps réel de la fermentation panaire de quatre levains liquides à base
des farines du blé tendre, du blé dur complet, du baobab et du Millet. REMAV 2023, 11, 259–268. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, L.; Lucas, T.; Doursat, C.; Flick, D.; Wagner, M. Effects of Crust Constraints on Bread Expansion and CO2 Release. J. Food
Eng. 2007, 80, 1302–1311. [CrossRef]
16. Rizzello, C.G.; Coda, R.; Wang, Y.; Verni, M.; Kajala, I.; Katina, K.; Laitila, A. Characterization of Indigenous Pediococcus
Pentosaceus, Leuconostoc Kimchii, Weissella Cibaria and Weissella Confusa for Faba Bean Bioprocessing. Int. J. Food Microbiol.
2019, 302, 24–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Bhatt, S.M.; Gupta, R.K. Bread (Composite Flour) Formulation and Study of Its Nutritive, Phytochemical and Functional
Properties. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2015, 4, 254–268.
18. Chavan, R.S.; Chavan, S.R. Sourdough Technology—A Traditional Way for Wholesome Foods: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci.
Food Saf. 2011, 10, 169–182. [CrossRef]
19. Vrancken, G.; Rimaux, T.; Weckx, S.; Leroy, F.; De Vuyst, L. Influence of Temperature and Backslopping Time on the Microbiota of
a Type I Propagated Laboratory Wheat Sourdough Fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 2716–2726. [CrossRef]
20. Rizzello, C.G.; Nionelli, L.; Coda, R.; De Angelis, M.; Gobbetti, M. Effect of Sourdough Fermentation on Stabilisation, and
Chemical and Nutritional Characteristics of Wheat Germ. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 1079–1089. [CrossRef]
21. Waters, D.M.; Jacob, F.; Titze, J.; Arendt, E.K.; Zannini, E. Fibre, Protein and Mineral Fortification of Wheat Bread through Milled
and Fermented Brewer’s Spent Grain Enrichment. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2012, 235, 767–778. [CrossRef]
22. Roussel, P.; Onno, B.; Michel, E.; Sicard, D. La Panification Au Levain Naturel; Éditions Quae: Versailles, France, 2020.
23. Różyło, R.; Rudy, S.; Krzykowski, A.; Dziki, D.; Siastała, M.; Polak, R. Gluten-Free Bread Prepared with Fresh and Freeze-Dried
Rice Sourdough-Texture and Sensory Evaluation: GF Bread with Freeze-Dried Rice Sourdough. J. Texture Stud. 2016, 47, 443–453.
[CrossRef]
24. Reale, A.; Di Renzo, T.; Boscaino, F.; Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; Aponte, M. Lactic Acid Bacteria Biota and Aroma Profile of Italian
Traditional Sourdoughs From the Irpinian Area in Italy. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Gobbetti, M.; Corsetti, A.; Rossi, J. Interaction between Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeasts in Sour-Dough Using a Rheofermentometer.
World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1995, 11, 625–630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Schulz, A. Der EinflussorganiscerSauren Auf Die Vergarungverschiedener Z. Getr. Mehl. Brot. 1972, 26, 129–133.
27. Casal, M.; Cardoso, H.; Leão, C. Effects of Ethanol and Other Alkanols on Transport of Acetic Acid in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 665–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Meuser, F.; Busch, K.-G. Dough Preparation for Crispbread Production by Applying a High-Pressure Homogeniser. In Proceedings
of the Vtt Symposium (Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus), Espoo, Finland, 28 May–1 June 1995; Volume 161, pp. 169–187.
29. Narendranath, N.V.; Thomas, K.C.; Ingledew, W.M. Effects of Acetic Acid and Lactic Acid on the Growth of Saccharomyces
Cerevisiae in a Minimal Medium. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 26, 171–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Stefanello, R.F.; Machado, A.A.R.; Pasqualin Cavalheiro, C.; Bartholomei Santos, M.L.; Nabeshima, E.H.; Copetti, M.V.; Fries, L.L.M.
Trehalose as a Cryoprotectant in Freeze-Dried Wheat Sourdough Production. LWT 2018, 89, 510–517. [CrossRef]
31. Stephan, D.; Da Silva, A.-P.M.; Bisutti, I.L. Optimization of a Freeze-Drying Process for the Biocontrol Agent Pseudomonas Spp.
and Its Influence on Viability, Storability and Efficacy. Biol. Control 2016, 94, 74–81. [CrossRef]
32. Lund, B.; Hansen, A.; Lewis, M.J. The Influence of Dough Yield on Acidification and Production of Volatiles in Sourdoughs.
Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 1989, 22, 150–153.
33. Reed, G. Yeast Technology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
34. Castro-Alba, V.; Lazarte, C.E.; Perez-Rea, D.; Carlsson, N.; Almgren, A.; Bergenståhl, B.; Granfeldt, Y. Fermentation of Pseudocere-
als Quinoa, Canihua, and Amaranth to Improve Mineral Accessibility through Degradation of Phytate. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99,
5239–5248. [CrossRef]
35. Chiron, H.; Onno, B.; Dewalque, M. Radioscopie d’un Pain Au Levain. In Proceedings of the Journées Techniques de l’AEMIC
(60. Journées Techniques des Industries Céréalières), Reims, France, 13–15 October 2009.
36. Arendt, E.K.; Ryan, L.A.M.; Dal Bello, F. Impact of Sourdough on the Texture of Bread. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 165–174.
[CrossRef]
37. Schlemmer, U.; Frølich, W.; Prieto, R.M.; Grases, F. Phytate in Foods and Significance for Humans: Food Sources, Intake,
Processing, Bioavailability, Protective Role and Analysis. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2009, 53, S330–S375. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.