Preparation and Quality Evaluation of Gluten-Free
Biscuits
Simona MAN, Adriana PĂUCEAN*, Sevastiţa MUSTE
Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5
Mănăştur street, 3400, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
ISSN-L 2344-2344; Print ISSN 2344-2344; Electronic ISSN 2344-5300
Abstract
The aglutenics biscuits are intended to those persons who are suffering due to gluten intolerance,
also named celiac disease. The fabrication technologies of the aglutenics products can be developed in
on two ways: by separating the gluten from the grain or by replacing the grain flour with other types
of gluten less flour, in case of bakery and pastry products. In this experiment, the gluten-free biscuits
were obtained from the following flours mixture: maize flour (MF), rice flour (RF) and soybeans flour
(SF). Other raw materials were used, such as: palmtree oil, honey, maize starch, eggs, sugar powdered,
vanilla essence and sodium bicarbonate. Four experimental variants (gluten-free biscuits) were
obtained by varying the proportion of flours ; these variants were coded as follows T1, T2 T3 and T4. The
optimization of the aglutenics biscuits manufacture recipe was realized through sensory analyze, using
the hedonic test (9 point scale). Samples of biscuits was subjected to the following physico-chemical
analysis: moisture content, alkalinity, total carbohydrate content, total fat and protein content. Also the
physical properties (length, width, thickness, weight and spread ratio) were determined in order to
asses the blending influence on the biscuits quality. The blend with flour levels 30:30:40 (MF:RF:SF) led
to the highest acceptability.
Keywords: gluten-free biscuits, manufacturing technology, sensory evaluation.
INTRODUCTION
Biscuits represent a fast growing segment
of food because of consumer demands for con­
venient and nutritious food products. The
consumers demand has increased for the quality
food products with taste, safety, convenience and
nutrition (Lubna Masoodi et al., 2012 ).
Biscuits are a popular foodstuff consumed by a
wide range of population due to their varied taste,
long shelf life and relatively low cost. Because of
competition in the market and increased demand
for healthy, natural and functional products,
attempts are being made to improve the nutritive
value of biscuits and functionality by modifying
their nutritive composition. Such effects are
very often achieved by increasing the ratio raw
materials other than wheat or different types of
dietary fibers in basic recipes with the attempt to
increase biscuit’s protein and mineral content for
quality and availability (Tyagi et al., 2006, Lubna
Masoodi et al., 2012) or increase dietary fiber
content and improve prebiotic characteristics of
the final product (Gallagher et al.,2003, Lubna
Masoodi et al., 2012 ).
Celiac disease or gluten sensitive enteropathy
is a chronic disorder of the small intestine caused
by exposure to gluten in the genetically predisposed
individuals (Laurin et al., 2002; Hamer, 2005,
Ahmed M.S. Hussein et al.,2012). It is characterized
by a strong immune response to certain amino
acid sequences found in the prolamin fractions
of wheat, barley and rye (Hill et al., 2005, Ahmed
M.S. Hussein et al.,2012). When people with celiac
disease eat foods or use products containing gluten,
39
Preparation and Quality Evaluation of Gluten-Free Biscuits
their immune system responds by damaging
or destroying the intestinal villi leading to the
malabsorption of nutrients, thus adversely affecting
all systems of the body (Feighery, 1999, Ahmed
M.S. Hussein et al.,2012). Intestinal symptoms can
include diarrhea, abdominal cramping, pain and
distention and untreated celiac disease may lead to
vitamin and mineral deficiencies, osteoporosis and
other extra intestinal problems. The gluten-free
diet remains until now the only treatment for celiac
disease. Gluten free diet has benefits such as the
recovery of the villi of the small intestine and risk
reduction of malignant complications (Seraphin &
Mobarhan, 2002, Ahmed M.S. Hussein et al.,2012).
As per rule the “Gluten free” is a voluntary term
and defined as food containing less than 20 ppm of
gluten. The gluten is a protein complex found in the
triticeae tribe of wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare)
and rye (Secale cereale), which provides desirable
organoleptic properties (texture and taste) to
many bakery and other food products. Gluten is
known as “heart and soul” of bakery for providing
the processing qualities familiar to both the home
baker as well as the commercial food manufacturer.
Since gluten plays a limited role in defining the
Table 1. Experimental Plan
S. No
Parameter
1.
1
2.
Ingredients
10
4.
Analysis
3
5.
6.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Procurement of raw materials
In order to prepare the biscuits, the following
materials has been purchased from local market:
maize flour (MF), rice flour (RF), soybean flour (SF),
palmtree oil, honey, maize starch, eggs, powdered
sugar, vanilla essence, sodium bicarbonate.
Experimental plan
The experimental plan used for the present
research is given in Table 1 and Figure 1 shows
the flow chart for the biscuits preparation. Table
2 shows the different combination of maize flour,
rice flour and soybean flour, while the ingredients
used in the preparation of biscuits (in g) are
presented in Table 3.
Level
Product
3.
processability and end product quality of biscuits,
it can be complemented through some alternate
flours in various combinations (Sweta Rai et al.,
2011).
The aim of the present work was to test rice
flour (RF), maize flour (MF) and soybean flour
(SF) for the development of gluten-free biscuits
targeting a good sensory acceptance and good
nutritional value.
Samples
4
Packaging material
Storage condition
1
1
Description
Biscuit
Maize flour, rice flour, soybeans flour, palm
tree oil, honey, maize starch, eggs, sugar
powdered, vanilla essence and sodium
bicarbonate
T1, T2 T3 and T4
Physico- chemical analysis (5), sensory­ analysis (5), physical analysis (4)
HDPE
Ambient temp
Table 2. Treatments descriptions. Different combination of maize flour, rice flour and soybeans flour for biscuits
manufacturing
Treatment
Maize flour (MF), %
Rice flour (RF), %
Soybean flour (SF), %
T1
33.33
33.33
33.33
T4
26
37
37
T2
T3
32
30
42
30
26
40
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
40
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Maize starch
Eggs
Honey
Sugar powdered
Palm tree oil
Vanilla essence
Sodium bicarbonate
5
40
27
17
20
9
8
5
40
27
17
20
9
8
5
40
27
17
20
9
8
5
40
27
17
20
9
8
Preparation of composite flour (maize flour, rice flour, soybean flour)
(T1 – 33.33:33.33:33.33 ; T2 – 32 :42 :26 ; T3 – 30 :30 :40 ; T4 – 26 :37 :37)
MAN et al
Premixing cream (Palmtree oil, honey and sugar powdered)
Mixing (flour, maize starch, sodium bicarbonate, cream, vanilla essence and eggs)
Resting (at 3 – 4°C, 30 min)
Molding
Baking (at 200°C, 15 min)
Cooling (30-35°C)
Packaging (HDPE)
Storage (at ambient temperature)
1 Flow
chartfor gluten-free
for gluten-free biscuits
Fig.Fig.
1. Flow
chart
biscuitspreparation
preparation
Physical
evaluation
of gluten-free
biscuits
Table 3. Ingredients used
in the
preparation
of biscuits
(in g)
S. No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Width and length: Six biscuits were placed edge to edge and their total width was
Ingredients
T1 mm accuracy). The
T2 average width was
T3determined by
measured
with a vernier caliper (0.01
taking the
Siddiqui et al., 2003).
MFmean value (Nouma R.
33.33
32 Similarly the biscuits
30 length was
determined
by
placing
the
butt
of
six
biscuits
and
taking
the
mean
value.
RF
33.33
42
30
Thickness was measured by stacking six biscuits on top of each other and taking
SF
33.33
26
40
average thickness (cm).
Maize starch
5
5
5
Eggs
40
40
40
Honey
27
27
27
Sugar powdered
17
17
17
Palm tree oil
20
20
20
Vanilla essence
9
9
9
Sodium bicarbonate
8
8
8
Physical evaluation of gluten-free biscuits
Width and length: Six biscuits were placed
edge to edge and their total width was measured
with a vernier caliper (0.01 mm accuracy). The
average width was determined by taking the mean
value (Nouma R. Siddiqui et al., 2003). Similarly
the biscuits length was determined by placing the
butt of six biscuits and taking the mean value.
Thickness was measured by stacking six
biscuits on top of each other and taking average
thickness (cm).
Weight of biscuits was measured as average
of values of four individual biscuits with the help
of digital weighing balance.
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
T4
26
37
37
5
40
27
17
20
9
8
Spread ratio was calculated by dividing the
average value of width by average value of thick­
ness of biscuits by the method of Akubor P.I. et al.,
2003, using the following formula:
SF = W/T
W – width biscuits (cm)
T – thickness biscuits (cm)
Volume of biscuits was calculated using
length (L), width (W) and thickness (T) using the
following formula:
with the help of digital weighing balance.
Spread ratio was calculated by dividing the average value of width by average
value of thickness of biscuits by the method of Akubor P.I. et al., 2003, using the following
formula:
Preparation and Quality Evaluation of Gluten-Free Biscuits
41
SF = W/T
volumeW
(cm– 3width
) = L ×biscuits
W × T (cm)
T – thickness biscuits (cm)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physical analysis of gluten-free biscuits
The results of the physical analysis for aglu­
L = average length of biscuits (cm)
tenic
biscuits
produced
from
maize, (T)
rice and
Volume
of of
biscuits
calculated using length
(L), width
(W) and
thickness
W = average
width
biscuitswas
(cm)
soybean
flour
blends
is
shown
in
Table
4. The
using
the following
formula:
T = average
thickness
of biscuits (cm)
length, width, thickness, weight and spread ratio
3did not differ significantly (p>0.05).These results
(cm ) = L × W × T
Density: After calculating volume, volume
density
are supported also by the experimental baking
was obtained from the ratio between weight and studies (data not shown) which indicated that
volu­me (Sneha
et al.of
2012).
L = Srivastava
average length
biscuits (cm)
different levels of SF, RF and MF did not adversely
W = average width of biscuits (cm)
affect the handling properties of the doughs.
T = average thickness of biscuits (cm)
The weight ranged between 8.4 g and 8.2 g for
Weight (g )
 g 
biscuits made from the MF, RF and SF in different
density 3  =
Density:
calculating
volume, density
was
thedecreases
ratio between
level.
Theobtained
width offrom
biscuit
from 1.95 to
volume
cm 3
 cm  After
weight and volume (Sneha Srivastava et al. 2012). 1.85 cm with increasing in the level of rice flour. The
result shows that treatment T2 has the maximum
Chemical characteristics
g
Weight
g ) followed by T4 (1.90) and T3 (1.88)
width
1.95(cm,


The moisture, alkalinity, fat and total
carbohy­
density
 3  =while minimum
3
 cm  volume cm width was observed in T1 (1.85).
drates content were determined according to STAS
The
biscuits
thickness increases from 0.68 to
1227-3/1990. Protein content was determined by
using Kjeldhal
Method
and the conversion factor 0.72 cm with increasing level of soy flour in the blend
Chemical
characteristics
4). The results
showwere
that determined
T3 has maximum
5.7.
The moisture, alkalinity, fat and total(Tab.
carbohydrates
content
thickness 0.72 cm followed by T4 (0.70.cm) and
according to STAS 1227-3/1990. Protein content was determined by using Kjeldhal Method
T1 (0.68 cm) while minimum width was observed
Sensory evaluation
and
the conversion factor 5.7.
Biscuits were evaluated for overall acceptability in T2 (0.65 cm). The spread factor of biscuits
(texture, colour, taste, odor and aroma) and the decreases from 3.00 to 2,61 cm with increasing the
Sensory evaluation
sensory evaluation was carried out as per 9 point level of soy flour. We consider that the spread ratio
Biscuits were evaluated for overall acceptability (texture, colour, taste, odor and
Hedonic scale; the panell was formed by ten semi value is influenced by the competition of flours,
aroma) and the sensory evaluation was carried out as per 9 point Hedonic scale; the panell
trained judges. In Figure 2, the four samples of the especially SF and RF, for the available water. In this
was formed by ten semi trained judges. In figure 2, the four samples of the gluten-free biscuits
situation the dough viscosity is increased and the
gluten-free biscuits are presented.
( )
( )
are presented.
T1
T2
T4
T3
2 Photos
offrom
biscuits
made flours
from obtained
composite
bySFmixing
MF, proportions
RF
Fig. 2. Photos Fig.
of biscuits
made
composite
by flours
mixingobtained
MF, RF and
in different
and SF in different proportions
Table 4. Physical properties of biscuits
Biscuits
Samples
T1
T2
T3
T4
Length
(cm)
9.8
9.7
10.0
9.8
Width
(cm)
1.85
1.95
1.88
1.90
*Data represents means of three determinations
Thickness
(cm)
0.68
0.65
0.72
0.70
Spread ratio
2.72
3.00
2.61
2.71
Weight
(g)
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.2
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
1
T2
T3
T4
1
T2
T3
T4
9.7 9.7
10.0 10.0
9.8 9.8
1.95 1.95
1.88 1.88
1.90 1.90
0.65 0.65
0.72 0.72
0.70 0.70
3.00 3.00
2.61 2.61
2.71 2.71
*Data *Data
represents
represents
means means
of three
ofdeterminations
three determinations
42
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.4
8.3
8.2
MAN et al
The results
The results
of theofphysical
the physical
analysis
analysis
for aglutenic
for aglutenic
biscuits
biscuits
produced
produced
from from
maize,maize,
rice rice
and soybean
and soybean
flour flour
blendsblends
is shown
is shown
in Table
in Table
4. The4.length,
The length,
width,width,
thickness,
thickness,
weight
weight
and spread
and spread
spread
ratio
isnot
higher.
SF significantly
and RF had
a higher
water results
alkalinity.
The
moisture
content
of
sample
ratio
did
rationot
diddiffer
differ
significantly
(p>0.05).These
(p>0.05).These
results
are supported
are supported
also by
also
thebyexperimental
thethe
experimental
absorption capacity than MF.
biscuits ranged between 10.15% and 10.85%,
baking
baking
studies
studies
(data (data
not shown)
not shown)
whichwhich
indicated
indicated
that different
that different
levelslevels
of SF,ofRF
SF,and
RFMF
anddid
MF did
Claughton and Pearce, 1989, reported a while the alkalinity, expressed as degree, ranged
notreduction
adversely
not adversely
affect
affect
the
handling
the
handling
properties
properties
of
the
of
doughs.
the
doughs.
in spread ratio of cookies by increasing between 11.6 and 12.2. The total carbohydrates
The weight
The weight
ranged
between
between
8.4 g 8.4
andg8.2
andgcontent
8.2
for gbiscuits
forranged
biscuits
made
made
from from
the MF,
the
MF,
and
RFSF
and
the enrichment
levelsranged
of
sunflower
protein
between13.6%
toRF
14.5%.
The SF
in isolates,
different
in different
level.level.
The
width
The
width
of biscuit
ofI.A.,
biscuit
decreases
from
1.95
to
1.95
1.85
to cm
1.85with
cm increasing
with
increasing
thein the
Akubor
P.I. and
Onimawo
2012,decreases
by from
protein
content
ranged
from
18.03%
to in
21.00%,
level
level
of
rice
of
flour.
rice
flour.
The
result
The
result
shows
shows
that
treatment
that
treatment
T2
has
T2
the
has
maximum
the
maximum
width
width
1.95
1.95
cm,
increasing the enrichment levels with soybean while the fat content varied from 13.56% tocm,
flour
and
Mishra
and T3
Ramesh
2012 minimum
20.35%; theseobserved
values
are
the(1.85).
acceptable
followed
followed
byNeha
T4by
(1.90)
T4 (1.90)
and
and
(1.88)
T3Chandra,
(1.88)
whilewhile
minimum
widthwidth
was
was
observed
in within
T1in
(1.85).
T1
reported
a
reduction
in
spread
ratio
of
biscuits
by
limits
for
biscuits
given
by
the
The biscuits
The biscuits
thickness
thickness
increases
increases
from from
0.68 0.68
to 0.72
to 0.72
cm with
cm with
increasing
increasing
level Romanian
level
of soyof soy
increasing
the
enrichment
levels
with soy
flour
settlement
STAS
1227-3/90.
(Fig.
5
8).
Significant
flour flour
in theinblend
the blend
(Table(Table
4). The
4). results
The results
show show
that T3
thathas
T3 maximum
has maximum
thickness
thickness
0.72 0.72
cm cm
changes
in width
the biscuits
protein
and
fatin
values
andfollowed
riceby
bran.
. (0.70.cm)
followed
T4by
T4 (0.70.cm)
and T1
and(0.68
T1 (0.68
cm) while
cm) while
minimum
minimum
width
was observed
was
observed
in T2
(0.65
T2 (0.65
Figure 3 - 4 show the effect of treatments on were recorded related to the increment of the soy
cm). The
cm).
spread
The spread
factorfactor
of biscuits
of biscuits
decreases
decreases
from from
3.00 to
3.00
2,61
to cm
2,61with
cm increasing
with increasing
the level
the level
of of
volume and density of gluten free biscuits. The flour content in the recipe. Soybean flour has a
soyvolume
flour.
soy flour.
We consider
We consider
that the
thatspread
the spread
ratio ratio
valuevalue
is influenced
is influenced
by thebycompetition
the competition
of flours,
of flours,
of gluten free biscuits increased linearly moisture content close to the rice flour and corn
especially
especially
SF
and
SF
RF,
and
for
RF,
the
for
available
the
available
water.
water.
In
this
In
situation
this
situation
the
dough
the
dough
viscosity
viscosity
is
increased
is
increased
with increasing addition of soy flour whereas, flour, but high fat and protein content. Therefore,
anddensity
the
andspread
the
spread
ratioinis
ratio
higher.
is higher.
SFmanner.
and
SFRF
and
had
RF
ahad
higher
higher
waterwater
absorption
absorption
capacity
capacity
thanbetween
MF.
than MF.
aa significant
difference
was observed
the
decreased
the
similar
This
may
Theinprotein
and
fat content
biscuits
Claughton
Claughton
and Pearce,
and
Pearce,
1989,
reported
reported
a samples.
reduction
a reduction
spread
in spread
ratio
ratio
of cookies
ofofcookies
by by
be due
to higher
protein
content
in
the 1989,
soy
flour.
increased
linearly
with
increase
in soybean
increasing
increasing
the enrichment
the enrichment
levelslevels
of sunflower
of sunflower
protein
protein
isolates,
isolates,
Akubor
Akubor
P.I.the
and
P.I.
Onimawo
and Onimawo
I.A., I.A.,
Chemical
gluten-free
biscuit
flour
addition.
These
are
consistent
with 2012,2012,
by
increasing
by analysis
increasing
theof enrichment
the enrichment
levelslevels
with soybean
with
soybean
flour flour
and
Neha
andresults
Neha
Mishra
Mishra
and
Ramesh
and Ramesh
During
present
noinsignificant
those reported
Noah
Mishra
and
Ramesh
Chandra,
Chandra,
2012the
2012
reported
reported
aresearch
reduction
a reduction
spread
in spread
ratio
ratio
of biscuits
of biscuits
by by
increasing
by
increasing
the enrichment
the enrichment
difference was found in the moisture content and Chandra, 2012, and Akbar P.I. et al., 2003.
levelslevels
with with
soy flour
soy flour
and rice
andbran..
rice bran..
M e a n v a lu e s o f d e n s ity (g /c m 3 )
1 3 .6
M e a n v a lu e s o f d e n s ity (g /c m 3 )
M e a n v a lu e s o f v o lu m e (c m 3 )
30
VA L U E S (% )
25
20
to ta l c a rb o h y d ra te s
15
m o is tu re
10
5
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T R E AT ME N T S
Effect ofonflours
blending
on carbohydrates
moisture andcontent
total of gluten-free
Fig. 5 Effect of Fig.
flours5.blending
moisture
and total
biscuits
carbohydrates content
of gluten-free biscuits
14 / 2014
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1)
13
U E S (d e g re e s )
M e a n v a lu e s o f v o lu m e (c m 3 )
Figure 3 and 4 shows the effect of treatments on volume and density of gluten free
0 .7
0 with
.7
biscuits. The volume of gluten free biscuits increased linearly
increasing addition of soy
1 3 .4
1 3 .4
flour whereas, density decreased in the similar manner.
0 .6 8 This
0 .6 8may be due to higher protein
1 3 .2
1 3 .2
content in the soy flour.
0 .6 6
0 .6 6
13
13
Chemical analysis of gluten-free biscuit
1 2 .8
1 2 .8
0 .6 4
0 .6 4
During the presentVoresearch
difference was found in the moisture D e n s ity (g /cDme n3s) ity (g /c m 3 )
1 2 .6
lu m e (c m
Vo3 lu
) mno
e (c msignificant
3)
1 2 .6
0
.6
2
0 .6 2
content and alkalinity. The moisture content of the sample biscuits
ranged between 10.15%
1 2 .4
1 2 .4
and 10.85%, while the alkalinity, expressed as degree,
1 2 .2
1 2 .2
0 .6 ranged
0 .6 between 11.6 and 12.2. The
12
12
total carbohydrates content ranged between13.6% to 14.5%. The protein content ranged from
0 .5 8
0 .5 8
1 1 .8
1 1 .8
18.03% to 21.00%, while the fat content varied from 13.56% to 20.35%; these values are
1 1 .6
1 1 .6
0
.5
6
0 .5 6 settlement STAS 1227-3/90.
within the acceptable limits for biscuits given by the Romanian
T1
T 1T 2
T 2T 3
T 3T 4
T4
1
T 1T 2
3
T 3T 4
T4
(fig.5,6, 7, 8). Significant changes in the biscuits protein and Tfat
values
wereT 2Trecorded
related
T r e a tm e Tn ts
r e a tm e n ts
T
r
e
a
tm
e
T
n
ts
r
e
a
tm
e
n
ts
to the increment of the soy flour content in the recipe. Soybean flour has a moisture content
close to the rice flour and corn flour, but high fat and protein content. Therefore, a significant
was
between
the samples. The protein
and
fatofcontent
of biscuits
Fig.
3.difference
Effect
ofon
treatments
volume
4.treatments
Effect
treatments
ongluten
density
Fig. 3 Fig.
Effect
3 of
Effect
treatments
of treatments
on volume
volume
ofobserved
gluten
ofon
gluten
free
biscuits
freeobiscuits
Fig. 4 Effect
Fig.Fig.
4 of
Effect
of treatments
on density
on density
of
of gluten
free biscuits
free biscuits
increased
linearly
with
the
increase
in
soybean
flour
addition.
These
results
are
consistent
f gluten free biscuits of gluten free biscuits
with those reported by Noah Mishra and Ramesh Chandra, 2012, and Akbar P.I. et al., 2003
1 3 .6
12
11
10
9
Alk a lin ity
VA L U E S (% )
25
20
to ta l c a rb o h y d ra te s
15
m o is tu re
43
Preparation and Quality Evaluation of Gluten-Free Biscuits
10
5
Sensory evaluation for gluten-free biscuit
0
The
evaluation
T1Sensory
T2
T3
T4 was carried out as
T R E AT ME N Tscale
S
per 9 point Hedonic
Table 4. The sensory
attributes that were taken into consideration
include: texture, colour, taste, odor and aroma.
The values are the means of ten readings. Among
the four samples, the third sample (30:30:40)
recorded the highest acceptability.
Fig. 5 Effect of flours blending on moisture and total carbohydrates content of gluten-free
biscuits
14
25
20
12
10
Alk a lin ity
25
9
8
VA L U E S (% )
11
15
F a t c o n te n t
10
20
5
7
6
T1
T2
T3
T R E AT ME N T S
VA L U E S (% )
VA L U E S (d e g re e s )
13
15
0
T4
T1
10
F a tT2c o n te n t
T3
T4
T R E AT ME N T S
5
6. Effect
of on
flours
blending
on
Fig. 6 Effect ofFig.
flours
blending
alkalinity
of gluten-free
biscuits
alkalinity of gluten-free0 biscuits
T1
T2
T3
T R E AT ME N T S
Fig.7 Effect
of flours
blending
on fat content
of gluten-free
Fig.
7. Effect
of flours
blending
on fat biscuits
22
content of gluten-free biscuits
T4
20
18
VA L U E S (% )
Fig.7 Effect of flours blending on fat content of gluten-free biscuits
22
VA L U E S (% )
20
16
P ro te in c o n te n t
14
12
10
18
8
16
T1
14
12
10
P ro te inT2c o n te n t T3
T R E AT ME N T S
T4
Fig. 8 Effect of flours blending on protein content of gluten-free biscuits
8
T1
T2
T3
T4
Sensory evaluation for gluten-free biscuit
Sensory evaluation was carried out as per 9 point Hedonic scale table 4. The
sensory attributes that were taken into consideration include: texture, colour, taste, odor and
aroma. The values are the means of ten readings. Among the four samples, the third sample
8. Effect
flours
blending
on protein
content
Fig. Fig.
8 Effect
of floursof
blending
on
protein content
of gluten-free
biscuits
(30:30:40) recorded the highest acceptability.
T R E AT ME N T SThe
of gluten-free biscuits
Sensory evaluation for gluten-free biscuit
The Sensory evaluation was carried out as per 9 point Hedonic scale table 4. The
Tab. 5
sensory attributes that were taken into consideration
include: texture, colour, taste, odor and
Sensory scores of prepared gluten-free biscuits using different blends (MF:RF:SF)
aroma. The values are the means of ten readings. Among the four samples, the third sample
(30:30:40) recorded the highest acceptability.
Treatments
Colour
Texture
Taste
Odor
Aroma
T1 using different
8.3
Table 5. Sensory scores of prepared gluten-free biscuits
blends8.6
(MF:RF:SF)
Treatments
8.4
T2
8.3
8.7
8.0
Tab.
T3
8.3
8.8
8.7 5
Sensory scores of prepared gluten-free
biscuits using
different blends
(MF:RF:SF) 7,6
T
8.0
7.8
4
Colour
Texture
Taste
Odor
T2
T3
Treatments
T1 8.3
T2
T3 8.3
T4
T4
8.0
T1
Colour
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.0
8.3
*Data represents
Texture
8.6 8.6
8.7
8.7 8.8
7.8
*Data represents means of three determinations
means of8.8
three determinations
7.8
*Data represents means of three determinations
Taste
8.48.4
8.0
8.78.0
7,6
8.7
7,6
Odor
8.5
.8.1
8.7
7.6
8.5
.8.1
8.7
7.6
Aroma
8.5
Aroma
8.3
7.8
.8.1 8.5
7.4
8.3
8.7
8.5
7.6
7.4
7.8
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
8.3
7.8
8.5
7.4
44
CONCLUSION
It is evident from the experiment that gluten-free
biscuits can be made by mixing different non-wheat
flours such as: rice flour, maize flour and soy flours.
This type of biscuits are useful in the gluten-free diets
therefore require good nutritional and sensory quality.
The blend consisting of MF30: RF30: SF40% was
successfully used for gluten-free biscuits preparation
without adversely affecting the physical and the
sensory characteristic of biscuit. Addition of soy flour
up to 40% leads to biscuits with good nutritional and
sensorial properties.
REFERENCES
1. Ahmed, M.S. et al. (2012). Production and Evaluation of
Gluten-Free Cakes, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 6(12): 482-491.
2. Akubor, P.I. and Ukwuru, M.U. (2003). Functional
properties and biscuit making potential ofsoybean and
cassava flour blends, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
58:1–12.
3. Baljeet, S.Y. et al. (2010). Studies on functional properties
and incorporation of buckwheatflour for biscuit making,
International Food Research Journal 17:1067- 1076.
4. Claughton, S.M. and Pearce, R.J. (1989). Protein
enrichment of sugar-snop cookies with sunflower protein
Isolate, J Food Sci 54:354–356.
5. Schamne, C. et al. (2010). Obtention and characterization
of gluten-free baked products, Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment.,
Campinas, 30(3): 741-750.
6. Awasthi, I. et al. (2012). Development of soy fertified high
protein and high calorie supplementary biscuits, Indian
J.Sci.Re4s.3 (1):51-58.
Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(1) / 2014
MAN et al
7. Naseem, K. et al. (2013). Development, Characterization
And Evaluation Of High Energy Biscuits For Combating
Malnourishment Amongchildren In Pakistan, Pakistan J.
Agric. Res. 26(3):230-236.
8. Masoodi, L. and Bashir, V. A. K. (2012). Fortification of
Biscuit with Flaxseed: Biscuit Production and Quality
Evaluation, Journal Of Environmental Science, Toxicology
And Food Technology, 1: 6-9.
9. Neha, M. and Ramesh, C. (2012). Development of
functional biscuit from soy flour &rice bran, International
Journal of Agricultural and Food Science 2(1): 14-20.
10.Aziah, N. A.A. and Komathi, C.A. (2009). Acceptability
attributes of crackers made from different types of
composite flour, International Food Research Journal
16:479-482.
11.Nouma, R. S. et al. (2003). Sensory amd physical evaluation
of biscuits suplplemented with soy flour, Pak J. Food, 13
(1-2): 45-48 .
12.Srivastava, S. et al. (2012). Preparation and Quality
Evaluation of Flour and Biscuit from Sweet Potato, J Food
Process Technol p. 1-5, http:// dx.doi.org/10.4172/21577110.1000192.
13.Kumar, S. R. and Lalan, K. S. (2010). Evaluation of quality
characteristics of soy based millet biscuits, Advances in
Applied Science Research, 1 (3):187-196.
14.Srivastava, S. et al. (2012). Preparation and Quality
Evaluation of Flour and Biscuit from Sweet Potato,
J Food Process Technol 3:192. doi:10.4172/21577110.1000192.
15.Rai, S. et al. (2011). Quality characteristics of gluten free
cookies prepared from different flour combinations, J
Food Sci Technol DOI 10.1007/s13197-011-0547-1.
16.Seevaratnam, V. et al. (2012). Studies on the Preparation
of Biscuits Incorporated with Potato Flour, World Journal
of Dairy & Food Sciences 7 (1):79.