This study aimed to incorporation of raw and germinated quinoa seed flour for wheat flour (72% extraction) by different levels (5, 10 and 15%) to take advantage of its many nutritional benefits. Incorporation of quinoa seed flour of raw and germinated obviously (P≥0.05) in composite flours blend increased in protein, fat, crude fiber and ash with increasing replacement ratio. Results of chemical analyses indicated that incorporation of raw and germinated quinoa into bread formula obviously (P≥0.05) increased each of protein, fat and crude fiber and indispensable essential amino acid (EAA) contents with increasing supplementing levels. The amino acids com position revealed that supplemented bread with flours of raw and germinated quinoa contained the most of EAA and will cover a highly percentages of reference protein pattern of FAO/ WHO (1973). The mineral contents of composite flours bread from raw and germinated quinoa almost were higher than the control sample bread. Germination process of quinoa seed flour caused a decrease in the most of minerals compared with the raw quinoa bread (un -treatment). The sensory evaluation results of supplemented bread showed that a maximum of 10% germinated quinoa flour can be incorporated to make acceptable quality bread. While bread containing raw quinoa flour was less acceptable to the panelists as compared with the control bread.

Preparation of gluten-free products is a big challenge to the manufacturers with the main challenge of finding suitable alter-natives for gluten. Gluten-free products commercially available are poor sources of protein, fiber, minerals, and calories in the diet and poor sensory properties. Also, that GF products are not widely available and are both poor in quality and more expensive than gluten-containing products. The objective of this work was to investigate the chemical composition, functional properties, antioxidant activity, and total phenolic compound of some flours types as GF ingredients and compared to wheat flour containing gluten as a control. Among the GF ingredients used pseudocereals (quinoa and buckwheat), millet, rice, chickpea flours. The chemical composition of GF flours ranged between 10.34 – 11.71% moisture, 7.28 – 22.52% crude protein, 2.03 – 6.09% crude fat, 0.45 –2.37% ash, 0.34 – 5.56% crude fiber, 61.89 – 88.91% starch, 66.82 – 89.90% Carbohydrates and 385.13 – 406.99 Kcal /100g on dry weight basis. While, wheat flour (extraction 72%) contained 11.30% moisture, 12.26% crude protein, 2.46% crude fat, 0.59% ash, 0.61% crude fiber, 82.57% starch, 84.08% carbohydrates and 407.50 Kcal /100g on dry weight basis. The total phenolic compound content and antioxidant activity were (279.89, 517.92, 163.99, 50.67 and 232.19 mg/100g on dry weight basis) and (16.92, 43.83, 4.27, 2.75 and 8.20%) for quinoa, buckwheat, millet, rice, chickpea flours, respectively. Whereas, the total phenolic compound content and antioxidant activity for wheat flour was (147.56 mg/100g) and (4.26 %) on dry weight basis, respectively. On other hand, the results of water and oil holding capacity indicated that quinoa, buckwheat flours gave higher values than that observed for wheat flour. Also, it was found that quinoa, buckwheat, millet, rice, chickpea flours were higher soluble protein than the wheat flour. In addition, buckwheat, millet, rice, chickpea flours showed markedly higher foaming stability than of wheat flour.

Gluten-free (GF) products are made using commercial flours formulas and are poor in protein, fiber, minerals and have weak physical properties that affect the quality of the final products. These factors are responsible for hampering adherence to the GF diet and for general dissatisfaction. The aim of this work was to evaluate the physio-chemical, functional and antioxidant evaluation of some combinations of GF flours formulas that have been prepared compared with available GF commercial flour formula in the local market. The moisture content of Gluten-free flour (GFF) formula sold in the local market used in the research was 12.60%. On the other hand, the prepared formulas' moisture content ranged from 12.23% (F2) to 12.90% (F3). The highest protein content was recorded with F2 and F4 formulas with no significant difference (p<0.05). Gluten-free flour formula had the lowest protein content (5.07% on a dry weight basis (DWB). In comparison to control (GFF), the amount of ash and crude fiber recorded in F2 doubled. The ash and crude fiber contents of the various formulas differed significantly. The GFF had the lowest ash and crude fiber content (0.51 and 0.31%, respectively on DWB). The highest values of total phenolic compound and antioxidant activity was observed in the F2 formula (313.15 mg/100g and 7.95%, respectively), followed by the F4 formula (226.56 mg/100g and 7.22%, respectively), then the F1 formula (223.57 mg/100g and 6.62%, respectively) on DWB. While, the lowest value was in the commercial flour formula sold in the local market (GFF) (75.10 mg/100g and 3.23%, respectively) on DWB. Gluten-free flours formulas exhibited high values for the water holding capacity in samples F2 (164.98%) and F1 (134.17%). While, GFF commercial flour formula showed lower water binding capacity in comparison to other GF flours formulas. Significant differences in the oil holding capacity of GF flours formulas were also observed. The mean values showed higher oil holding capacity for F2 (145.92%), followed by F4 (138.51%), F1 (130.11%) and F3 (126.64%), whereas, the lowest 75.43% was for GFF. The GF composite flour samples have close values and non-significant variations at p≤0.05 in the protein solubility. The increase in the values of emulsion stability and foam stability determined for GF flours formulas were significant at p≤0.05 as compared with those determined for the GFF commercial flour formula sample.