Physico-Chemical and Sensory Evaluation of Gluten-Free Cakes Made with Teff (Eragrostis tef)

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this work was to elaborate cakes with different percentages of teff, to determine chemical, physical and sensory characteristics to evaluate teff flour potential in cakes. Methods Cakes formulations were compared: T1 – 100% teff flour, T2 – 75% teff flour, 12,5% rice flour, 12,5% cassava starch, T3 – 50% teff flour, 25% rice flour, 25% cassava starch and T4 – 25% teff flour, 37,5% rice flour, 37,5% cassava starch. Proximate composition was evaluated. All treatments had their height and weight analyzed before and after baking. Weight loss was calculated by weight difference before and after baking and yield was measured after baking and divided by the weight of the raw dough before baking. Cakes crust and crumb colors were determined using a colorimeter and expressed by luminosity (L), chromaticity (a* and b*) and firmness was evaluated using the Stable Micro Systems texturometer. All the analyses were performed in triplicate. 60 non-celiac judges of both genders were randomly and voluntarily recruited from the University and evaluated acceptability and purchase intention, according to the hedonic scale. The results were evaluated by variance analysis and the means compared by Tukey test (P ≤ 0.05). For sensory analysis this study was approved by ethics Committee and received protocol n° 63,481,317.0.0000.5347. Results The results showed that higher percentages of teff increased total levels of ash and did not alter the protein content. In the physical analyses, the highest concentrations of teff did not alter after-baking height, before and after baking weight, yield, and also, color and luminosity of cakes crumb. About sensory analysis the attributes appearance, color and odor did not show significantly difference among the treatments. Treatment T1 was the one that received the lowest mean (5.03), which according to the hedonic scale would be “I did not like it nor did I dislike it”. Regarding the purchase intention, the different treatments of processed cakes, did not show significantly difference between treatments T3 and T2 (3.25 and 3.08 - “I doubt if I would buy”). The treatments T2, T3 and T4 obtained acceptance rates higher than 70%. Conclusions The use of teff flour in cakes could be a promising alternative for celiac people and those cannot consume gluten. Funding Sources To Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul for financial support.

Sensory characterisation of gluten‐free orange‐flavoured cake with rice, sorghum, teff and yacon flours: flash profile and ComDim as study methods

“…As Oliveira et al . (2020) that sensory and physicochemical evaluation of without gluten boluses made with teff flour. And how Haas et al .…”

Impact of replacing sugar withStevia rebaudianaBertoni leaves on the physical–chemical and sensory characteristics of gluten‐free and lactose‐free cake

“…Cakes are widely accepted foods, and the choice of ingredients for the products developed was based on their being part of three subgroups of foods for particular purposes: foods for nutrient‐restricted diets (including carbohydrates, fats, proteins and sodium); foods for controlled intake of nutrients; and food for specific population groups (Anvisa, 1998). In addition to the already‐known benefits of gluten‐free and lactose‐free foods (Gorgônio et al ., 2011; Hager et al ., 2012; Valcárcel‐Yamani & Lannes, 2012; Dizlek & Ozer, 2016; Parzanese et al ., 2017; Singh et al ., 2018; Zhu, 2018; Barone et al ., 2020; Nespeca et al ., 2020; Oliveira et al ., 2020; Alvarez et al ., 2021; Goubgou et al ., 2021; Lebwohl & Rubio‐Tapia, 2021; Pelinson Tridapalli et al ., 2023), the use of stevia leaves has shown many benefits for human health, such as anti‐diabetic (Kujur et al ., 2010; Misra et al ., 2011; Singh & Dwivedi, 2014; Ruiz‐Ruiz et al ., 2015; Ahmad et al ., 2018; He et al ., 2019; Abdel‐Aal et al ., 2021); anti‐hypertension (Melis, 1995; Park & Cha, 2010; Orellana‐Paucar, 2023); renal function (Melis, 1995; Rizwan et al ., 2018); anti‐oxidant (Shukla et al ., 2012; Ruiz‐Ruiz et al ., 2015; Lahijanian et al ., 2023); and anti‐cancer (Chen et al ., 2018; Adilah Abd Rahman et al ., 2020; Martínez‐Rojo et al ., 2020; Iatridis et al ., 2022), among other studies.…”