Effect of Lupine Flour on Baking Characteristics of Gluten Free Cookies

Abstract

Celiac Disease (CD) is an immune-mediated disease in genetically susceptible individuals caused by intolerance to gluten protein in some cereals, resulting in mucosal inflammation, which causes malabsorption. An effective treatment for CD is a gluten-free diet that excludes cereals containing gluten. One of the most desirable wheat products is the cookie, which is considered suitable for all ages due to its low manufacturing cost, convenience, long shelf life and good eating quality. Therefore, the production of local, high quality and affordable gluten-free cookies was the main objective of this study in which lupine flour was used as a main wheat flour alternative. Eight gluten-free cookie flour blends were prepared: 100% Lupine Flour (AF), 50% lupine flour and 50% corn starch (BF), 40% lupine flour and 60% corn starch (CF), 30% lupine flour and 70% corn starch (DF), 30% lupine flour, 40% rice flour and 30% corn starch (EF), 30% lupine flour, 40% corn flour and corn starch 30% (FF), 20% lupine flour, 30% corn flour, 20% rice flour and 30% corn starch (GF) and 20% lupine flour, 30% rice flour, 20% corn flour and 30% corn starch (HF), with equal amounts of hydrocolloids (1.5% xanthan and 1.5% carrageenan) which were used as a functional gluten alternative, as well as a control sample with Wheat flour (WC). The chemical composition, physical characteristics and sensory evaluation of all treated flour blends and cookies were determined. The results of the chemical analysis indicated that corn and wheat flour were significantly (p≤0.05) higher in moisture content, while lupine flour had significantly (p≤0.05) higher contents of lipid, protein, fiber and ash. Starch significantly (p≤0.05) showed the highest carbohydrate content. The moisture of blend BC was significantly (p≤0.05) higher than all blends and blend AC was significantly (p≤0.05) higher in ash, protein, lipid and fiber content. The carbohydrate content of blend DC was significantly (p≤0.05) higher than the other blends, in which blend AC significantly (p≤0.05) contained the lowest amount. Physical analysis revealed that the spread factor of blend GC was significantly (p≤0.05) higher than the other blends, while blend CC significantly (p≤0.05) had the lowest value. The results of color measurements (L*, a* and b*) using a Milolat colorimeter revealed that the L* parameter had the highest value in the control sample WC, while the a* parameter was highest in blend AC and b* was highest in blend EC. The results of the sensory evaluation, judged by panelists, indicated that blend BC received the highest score in overall impression, while the control sample WC received the overall highest score in flavor and crust color, blend GC in overall color and the control sample WC in overall texture, blend AC in crust color, crumb color, hardness and after taste. Finally, blends BC and GC had the best acceptability compared to the control sample.

Consumer acceptability of gluten‐free cookies containing raw cooked and germinated pinto bean flours

“…Spread ratio (Table ) was in the range of 6.1 to 6.6 and was not significantly different. Other studies incorporating raw pulses in gluten‐free cookies at 40% found a spread ratio ranging from 7.15 to 8.41 (Maghaydah et al., ; Okpala & Chinyelu, ; Yamsaengsung et al., ). Spread ratio is influenced by the water‐holding capacity of the flours used, which is affected by protein content.…”

“…As total protein increases, spread ratio decreases, due to increased water‐holding, and hence high viscosity resulting in restriction of lateral flow. Other factors at play that may also influence water‐holding and spread are sugar granulation, and type of sugar (Doescher & Hoseney, ; Fuhr, ; Maghaydah et al., ; Yamsaengsung et al., ). Cookie hardness was not significantly different among treatments, likely because protein content in pinto bean flours was very similar (Table ).…”

“…As total protein increases, spread ratio decreases, due to increased water-holding, and hence high viscosity resulting in restriction of lateral flow. Other factors at play that may also influence water-holding and spread are sugar granulation, and type of sugar (Doescher & Hoseney, 1985;Fuhr, 1962;Maghaydah et al, 2013;Yamsaengsung et al, 2012).…”

“…Pulse ingredients added to gluten-free cookies so far include germinated/extruded black bean cotyledon flour, extruded navy bean flour, extruded pinto bean flour, commercially available yellow pea flour, dehulled green lentil flour, raw navy bean flour, raw pinto bean flour, precooked and dehulled soybean flour, commercially available soybean flour, raw lupine flour, extruded black bean flour, dehulled pigeon pea flour, and chickpea flour (Bassinello et al, 2011;Maghaydah, Abdul-Hussain, Ajo, Tawalbeh, & Elsahoryi, 2013;Man, Paucean, & Muste, 2014;Okpala & Chinyelu, 2011;de la Rosa-Millán, Pérez-Carrillo, & Guajardo-Flores, 2017;Siddiq et al, 2013;Tharise, Julianti, & Nurminah, 2014;Yamsaengsung, Berghofer, & Schoenlechner, 2012;Zucco, Borsuk, & Arntfield, 2011). Only three of these studies measured consumer acceptability of gluten-free cookies made with raw pulse flours (Maghaydah et al, 2013;Okpala & Chinyelu, 2011;Yamsaengsung et al, 2012). Overall acceptability varied from 1.4 to 8.3 on a 9-point scale, depending on the flour type and concentration.…”

Nutritional aspects of gluten‐free products

“…Lupine bean ( Lupineus albus ) can be used as a base in GF cookies owing to its high levels of proteins (36–52 g per 100 g), fibre (30–40 g per 100 g) and vitamins such as thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, folate and vitamin E . Cookies prepared with 50% lupine flour and 50% corn starch had a high sensory score by panellists and contained higher fibre and proteins than a control containing gluten.…”