LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Effect of flour properties on the quality characteristics of gluten free

sugar-snap cookies
Camino M. Mancebo*, Javier Pico

n, Manuel Go

mez
Food Technology Area, College of Agricultural Engineering, University of Valladolid, 34004 Palencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The three main ingredients of cookies are wheat flour, fat and sugar. In gluten-free cookies the wheat
Received 23 February 2015 flour must be replaced by other ingredients. The objective of the present study was to determine the
Received in revised form effects of the flour properties of different gluten-free flours on cookie quality. A variety of different
26 May 2015
gluten-free flours, including yellow maize, precooked yellow maize, buckwheat, teff and short-grain and
Accepted 28 May 2015
long-grain rice flour, were employed. The flour characteristics (protein, damaged starch content, particle
Available online 6 June 2015
size, flour hydration properties and oil absorption), dough properties (texture) and cookie parameters
(final diameter, spread factor, texture, colour and acceptability) were evaluated. Coarse-grained rice
Keywords:
Sugar-snap cookie
flours produced cookies with a larger diameter and spread factor, darker colour and lower hardness. The
Gluten-free rest of the gluten-free cookies had a lower spread ratio and greater hardness than wheat cookies,
Particle size regardless of flour particle size. We have thus established that it is possible to obtain gluten-free cookies
Damage starch with organoleptic acceptability similar to that of cookies made from wheat flour. Nevertheless, cookie
Flour acceptability was hardly influenced by the cereal origin and their taste.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and fat; other ingredients which can be included in the cookie
dough formula are chemical leavening agents, syrups, salt and
Three pathological conditions, which appear to be increasing in emulsifiers, though these ingredients are usually only used at low
frequency, are related to gluten ingestion: i) food allergy, which levels (Pareyt & Delcour, 2008). The differences between the
affects 0.2%e0.5% of the population but has major clinical impli- distinct types of cookie depend on cookie composition and cookie
cations; ii) coeliac disease, which is an autoimmune disorder dough making and baking parameters. A particular type of cookie
caused by the ingestion of gluten (between 0.1% and >1.6%); and iii) is the sugar-snap cookie. Due to the high levels of fat and sugar
gluten sensitivity, a recently rediscovered condition due to gluten and the low water levels in these cookies, there is only limited
intolerance. Gluten sensitivity does not include coeliac disease and development of the gluten network (HadnaCev, Torbica, &
wheat allergy (Rosell, Barro, Sousa, & Mena, 2014). As a result, the HadnaCev, 2013; Pareyt & Delcour, 2008). Flour is the main
market for gluten-free products is increasing. However, improving ingredient in cookie dough formulae and consists mainly of starch,
the quality of gluten-free products continues to be a major chal- water and protein. The most important components of the flour
lenge for food scientists. seem to be those that bind water, such as starch, protein and
Cookies are a baked product characterized by a low final water arabinoxylan, and thereby limit spreading of the cookie (Pareyt &
content. Their three major ingredients are typically flour, sugar Delcour, 2008). Donelson and Gaines (1998) studied the starch-
water relationship in wheat sugar-snap cookie dough systems
and concluded that higher levels of damaged starch lead to smaller
Abbreviations: FSR, fine-grained short-grain rice flour; CSR, coarse-grained final cookie diameters. Those observations had already been re-
short-grain rice flour; FLR, fine-grained long-grain rice flour; CLR, coarse-grained ported by numerous investigators (Gaines, Donelson, & Finney,
long-grain rice flour; FM, fine-grained maize flour; CM, coarse-grained maize flour;
FPM, fine-grained precooked maize flour; CPM, coarse-grained precooked maize
1988; Hoseney, 1994; Hoseney & Rogers, 1994; Miller & Hoseney,
flour; WBC, Water Binding Capacity; WHC, Water Holding Capacity; SV, Swelling 1997) and confirmed by Barrera, Pe
rez, Ribotta, and Leo
n (2007).
Volume; OAC, Oil Absorption Capacity; DPF, dough peak force; DEM, dough elastic Flour particle size is also an important factor in wheat cookie
moduli. properties (Gaines, 1985) and its effects vary in different types of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 979 108495; fax: þ34 979 108302.
dough (Manley, 2011).
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Mancebo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.05.057
0023-6438/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.M. Mancebo et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269 265

Most studies that have investigated gluten-free cookies have 2012) using a Leco TruSpecN analyser (St. Joseph, Michigan, USA).
used amaranth (De la Barca, Rojas-Martínez, Islas-Rubio, & Cabrera- Particle size distribution was determined using a Mastersizer 3000
Cha
vez, 2010; Gambus et al., 2009; Hozova, Buchtova
, Dodok, & particle size analyser (Malvern Instruments, Malvern, United
Zemanovi c, 1997; Schoenlechner, Linsberger, Kaczyc, & Berghofer, Kingdom). Measurements were carried out in duplicate.
2006; Tosi, Ciappini, & Masciarelli, 1996), buckwheat (Gambus et al.,
2009; HadnaCev et al., 2013; Kaur, Sandhu, Arora, & Sharma, 2015; 2.2.1.2. Damaged starch content. The damaged starch content of
Schoenlechner et al., 2006) and/or rice flour (Chung, Cho, & Lim, the flour samples was determined in accordance with AACC
2014; Torbica, HadnaCev, & HadnaCev, 2012) as gluten-free sub- method 76-31.01 (AACC, 2012), using the Megazyme starch damage
stitutes for wheat flour. Other research have studied the use of teff test kit (Megazyme International Ireland Ltd., Co. Wicklow, Ireland).
flour (Coleman, Abaye, Barbeau, & Thomason, 2013), oat flour (Duta Starch damage was determined as a percentage of flour weight on
& Culetu, 2015) or starches (Arendt, O'Brien, Schober, Gormley, & dry basis. Three replicates were performed for each sample.
Gallagher, 2002; Demiate, Dupuy, Huvenne, Cereda, & Wosiacki,
2000) in gluten-free cookie making. Meanwhile, other studies 2.2.1.3. Flour hydration properties and oil absorption. Swelling vol-
have focussed on the combination of gluten-free flours with buck- ume (SV) was evaluated by adding 100 mL of distilled water to 5 g
wheat, corn and rice flour (Altındag , Certel, Erem, & Konak, 2015), (±0.1 g) of flour sample in a test tube and allowing it to hydrate for
with rice, maize, sorghum and pearl millet flours (Rai, Kaur, & Singh, 24 h. Water holding capacity (WHC) was determined on the same
2014) or a mixture of gluten-free flours (brown rice flour, soya flour, suspension used to evaluate swelling; the hydrated solid was
buckwheat flour and millet flakes) and starches (corn starch, potato weighed after removing the excess of water and values were
starch) (Schober, O’Brien, McCarthy, Darnedde, & Arendt, 2003). expressed as grams of water per gram of solid. Water binding ca-
However none of those studies analysed the effect of gluten-free pacity (WBC) was measured as described in AACC method 56-30.01
precooked flours or flours with different particle size. The aim of (AACC, 2012). Hydration properties were analysed in duplicate.
the present study was to compare the suitability of different gluten- Flour (100.0 ± 0.2 mg) was mixed with 1.0 ml of refined sun-
free flours with a wide range of properties including precooked flower oil (Langosta, Ciudad Real, Spain) in order to determine oil
flours or flours with different particle size for the manufacture of absorption capacity (OAC). The mixture was stirred for 1 min with a
sugar-snap cookies and to establish relationships between the wire rod to disperse the sample in the oil. After a period of 30 min
different flour properties and the final cookie quality. in the vortex mixer, tubes were centrifuged at 3000  g and 4  C for
10 min. The supernatant was carefully removed with a pipette and
2. Materials and methods tubes were inverted for 25 min to drain the oil and the residue was
weighed. The oil absorption capacity was expressed as grams of oil
2.1. Materials bound per gram of sample on dry basis. Three replicates were
performed for each sample. OAC was calculated by Eq. (1):
The gluten-free flours used in this study are commonly used in
commercial gluten-free products and cover a wide range of different OACðg=gÞ ¼ Wr =Wi (1)
characteristics and origins. Wheat and yellow maize flours were
supplied by Molendum Ingredients S.L. (Zamora, Spain), the pre- where Wr is the residue weight and Wi is the sample weight (g, db).
cooked yellow maize flour by PAN (Empresas Polar Caracas,
Venezuela), buckwheat flour by El Granero Integral (BIOGRAN S.L., 2.2.2. Cookie preparation
Sesen~ a, Toledo, Spain) and wholegrain white teff flour by Salutef All formulations were prepared using the same quantities of
(Palencia, Spain). Rice flours were obtained from two rice grain types, ingredients except for water, which was added to adjust dough
short (japonica) and long (indica) (Hacendado, Arrocerías Pons S.A., moisture content to 15.0% and the flour type. The following in-
Massanassa, Valencia, Spain), ground in a hammer mill (LM 3100) gredients (as g/100 g on dough basis) were used: flour (43.3 g/
(Perten Instruments, Huddinge, Sweden). Other ingredients were 100 g), sugar (31.2 g/100 g), margarine (19.4 g/100 g), water (5.2 g/
white sugar (AB Azucarera Iberia, Valladolid, Spain), margarine 100% 100 g) and sodium bicarbonate (0.9 g/100 g). Eleven different
vegetable (Argenta crema, Puratos, Barcelona, Spain), sodium bi- cookie elaborations were made according to Pareyt and Delcour
carbonate (Manuel Riesgo S.A., Madrid, Spain) and local tap water. (2008). Cookie dough was cut with a circular cookie cutter (inter-
The gluten-free flours were sifted for 10 min in a Bühler MLI nal diameter, 40 mm). Each different cookie elaborations were
300B sieve (Milan, Italy) with a 106-micron screen, achieving two performed twice.
different particle-size fractions. It was not possible to obtain two
different particle size fractions for teff flour because of the notice- 2.2.3. Dough and cookie characteristics
able differences in composition between the two fractions, and for The texture of the dough and the cookies was measured using a
buckwheat flour because the fraction <106 was very small and it TA-XT2 texture analyser (Stable Microsystems, Surrey, UK) fitted
would have been extremely difficult to obtain a sufficient quantity with the “Texture Expert” software. Dough texture was measured
of this fraction. Thus, 11 flours were studied: wheat flour as control, using a modification of the method described by Laguna, Salvador,
fine-grained short-grain rice flour (FSR), coarse-grained short-grain Sanz, and Fiszman (2011). A 25-mm diameter cylindrical
rice flour (CSR), fine-grained long-grain rice flour (FLR), coarse- aluminium probe (P/0.25S) was employed in a “Texture Profile
grained long-grain rice flour (CLR), fine-grained maize flour (FM), Analysis” (TPA) compression test to penetrate to 50% of the dough
coarse-grained maize flour (CM), fine-grained precooked maize sample depth at a test speed of 1 mm/s, with a 30 s delay between
flour (FPM), coarse-grained precooked maize flour (CPM), buck- the two compressions. The maximum force (N) and the adhesive-
wheat flour and teff flour. ness were measured. Dough texture analyses were performed on
four 40-mm diameter dough discs from each elaboration.
2.2. Methods Cookie texture was measured 60 min after baking, using pa-
rameters from a modification of the puncture test described by
2.2.1. Flour characterisation Laguna et al. (2011), in which cookies were penetrated to a depth of
2.2.1.1. Particle size and protein content. Flours were analysed in 3 mm with a 0.25 mm diameter spherical probe (P/0.25S). The
accordance with AACC method 46-30.01 for protein content (AACC, maximum force at penetration (N) and the elastic moduli (N/mm)
266 C.M. Mancebo et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269

attained during penetration were measured on six cookies from flour. Fine-grained flours had a lower protein content than coarse-
each elaboration. grained flours of the same type, except for precooked maize flour.
Sixty minutes after baking, four cookies were weighed and their Our results coincide with those of De la Hera, Go
mez, and Rosell
widths (diameter) and thicknesses were measured to calculate the (2013) who studied rice flours. Protein content showed negative
spread factor. The diameter of each cookie was measured twice, correlations with WHC (r ¼ 0.4400; 95%) and WBC (r ¼ 0.5121;
perpendicularly, in order to calculate an average diameter. The 95%) hydration properties. Similar results were reported by De la
spread factor of the cookies was calculated by dividing the average Hera, Martínez, Oliete, and Go
mez (2013), De la Hera, Martínez,
width (W) by the thickness (T) of the cookies. and Go
mez (2013), who also observed a negative correlation be-
Measurements at the centre of the upper surface (crust) colour tween protein content and WBC in rice flours. Water-holding and
of four sugar-snap cookies from each elaboration were carried out water-binding properties are more dependent on starch content
with a Minolta CN-508i spectrophotometer (Minolta, Co. LTD, and this finding may therefore be due to a lower starch content of
Tokyo, Japan) using the D65 illuminant with the 2 standard flours with high protein content. Particle size of wheat and buck-
observer. Results are expressed in the CIE L*, a*, b* colour space. wheat flours was larger but similar to fine-grained flours, with the
exception of FPM. On the other hand, teff flour showed a particle
2.2.4. Consumer testing size intermediate to coarse-grained maize flour and coarse-grained
Hedonic sensory evaluation of the cookies was conducted with rice flours. Coarse-grained flours had the largest particle size.
63 volunteers who were habitual cookie consumers. Samples were With regard to damaged starch content, the precooked flours, as
analysed one day after baking. For sensory evaluation, samples expected, had a significantly higher damaged starch content than
were presented as whole pieces on white plastic dishes coded with the other flours, because precooking pregelatinizes starch
four-digit random numbers and served in random order. The ~ o, Rosell, & Go
(Martínez, Calvin
mez, 2014; Martínez, Oliete, Roma
n,
cookies were evaluated on the basis of acceptability of their & Go
mez, 2014; Mason, 2009). Maize flours and the fine fractions of
appearance, odour, texture, taste and overall appreciation on a rice flours showed more damaged starch than wheat flour. Buck-
nine-point hedonic scale. The scale of values ranged from “like wheat flour showed the lowest damage starch content, followed by
extremely” to “dislike extremely”, corresponding to the highest and teff and both coarse-grained rice flours. Torbica et al. (2012) also
lowest scores of “9” and “1” respectively. obtained the lowest amount of damaged starch with buckwheat
flour on comparison with rice and wheat flour. The higher content
2.2.5. Statistical analysis of damaged starch observed in rice, maize and wheat flours
Differences between the parameters of the different formula- compared with buckwheat and teff flours may have been due to the
tions were studied by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Fisher's least highly compact nature of the rice, maize and wheat kernels, which
significant difference (LSD) was used to describe means with 95% could have produced greater starch damage content during the
confidence intervals. The statistical analysis was performed with milling process (Torbica et al., 2012). Fine-grained rice-flour frac-
the Statgraphics Centurion XVI software (StatPoint Technologies tions showed a higher content of damaged starch than coarse-
Inc, Warrenton, USA). grained fractions of the same flour. These results agree with those
reported by Hasjim, Li, and Dhital (2012).
3. Results and discussion It was observed that the two precooked maize flours had the
highest hydration capacity. This may have occurred because pre-
3.1. Flour characteristics cooking creates pregelatinized starch and affects these properties
(Martínez, Calvin~ o, et al., 2014; Martínez, Oliete, et al., 2014). In
Particle size, water content, protein content, damaged starch general, fine-grained flours showed higher WBC values than
content, hydration properties and oil absorption of flours are coarse-grained flours, except for maize flour. The highest WHC
shown in Table 1. The lowest protein content was detected in the values were for CPM and FM following by FPM, teff and FSR. The
two maize flours (native and precooked), whereas teff flour had the other flours had lower WHC values, with no differences between
highest protein content, followed by buckwheat and wheat flour. the different flours. We also observed that the two precooked
 et al. (2015) also observed a lower protein content in
Altındag maize flours had the highest SV and no clear trend was observed in
maize flour and higher content in buckwheat flour when they SV among the remaining flours. Correlation analysis indicated
studied gluten-free cookies made with rice, buckwheat and maize positive correlations between damaged starch and hydration

Table 1
Flour properties.

Flour Damaged Protein (%) Average particle WBC WHC SV OAC

starch (%) size (mm)

W 6.07d 8.92i 81.3d 83.44a 7.35a 150.00ab 1.82def

FSR 10.25f 7.46e 65.2a 130.75e 10.41b 165.28abcd 1.63ab
CSR 4.01bc 8.71h 228.0j 115.14d 8.06a 230.00e 1.79de
FLR 10.62f 7.74f 72.6c 131.55e 8.20a 150.00ab 1.65abc
CLR 4.41c 8.47g 250.0k 99.00b 7.17a 183.34bcd 1.69abcd
FM 7.95e 5.63a 68.0b 157.04f 20.38e 190.91cd 1.94f
CM 8.75e 6.19b 150.0g 168.89g 8.57a 138.89a 1.78cde
FPM 13.86g 7.28d 97.4f 282.11i 18.52d 266.67f 1.83ef
CPM 13.52g 6.99c 172.0h 264.10h 20.83e 371.43g 1.65abc
B 1.24a 9.96j 83.6e 106.96c 8.70a 160.72abc 1.57a
T 3.53b 10.475k 174.0i 126.69e 14.09c 200.00de 1.73bcde

Values followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Flours: W: wheat; FSR: fine-grained short-grain rice; CSR: coarse-grained short-grain rice; FLR: fine-grained long-grain rice; CLR: coarse-grained long-grain rice; FM: fine-
grained maize; CM: coarse-grained maize; FPM: fine-grained precooked maize; CPM: coarse-grained precooked maize; B: buckwheat; T: teff; WBC: Water Binding Capac-
ity; WHC: Water Holding Capacity; SV: Swelling volume; OAC: Oil absorption capacity.
 C.M. Mancebo et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269 267

properties, including WHC (r ¼ 0.5501; 99%) and WBC (r ¼ 0.8014; showed smaller diameters than cookies made from coarse-grained
99%) and SV (r ¼ 0.4881; 95%). Many authors have also reported an flours, which agrees with the observations reported by Gaines
increased hydration capacity with increasing damaged starch (1985) and Gaines et al. (1988). However, this difference was
content (Martínez, Calvin ~ o, et al., 2014; Martínez, Oliete, et al., much more pronounced with rice than with maize. In addition,
2014). there were no significant differences in spread factor between the
Unlike hydration properties, the OAC of precooked maize flours maize flours; this may be due to the lower flour particle size of the
did not differ significantly from that of other flours and particle size coarse maize flours compared with the coarse rice flours used in
had no clear effect on the OAC. Only buckwheat, CPM and both fine this study. Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between
fractions of rice flours had lower OAC values than wheat. The other particle size and spread factor (r ¼ 0.75; 99%), although this cor-
flours showed no differences with wheat. In general, no clear ten- relation was strongly influenced by the different results with the
dency in OAC results and nor correlations with other flour pa- coarse and fine rice flours. Altındag  et al. (2015) also observed an
rameters or cookie quality parameters were found. increase in the spread factor when maize and rice flours were
incorporated into gluten-free cookie formulae instead of buck-
3.2. Dough and cookie properties wheat; the rice and maize flours used by those authors had a larger
particle size than the buckwheat. In addition, cookie diameter was
Table 2 shows the results of dough and cookie texture and of affected by damaged starch content and WHC showing negative
cookie shape and colour. In general, flour particle size did not affect correlations of r ¼ 0.62 and r ¼ 0.55, respectively and a confi-
dough peak force (DPF), but it did influence stickiness and dough dence of 99%. There were also significant negative correlations
elastic moduli (DEM), with higher absolute values being observed between spread factor and damaged starch and WHC (r ¼ 0.47
in both parameters with fine-grain flours. The average particle size and r ¼ 0.44, respectively) with a confidence of 95%. This rela-
of flours showed a positive correlation with stickiness (r ¼ 0.74) and tionship between the spread factor and damaged starch, which
a negative correlation with DEM (r ¼ 0.55) with a confidence of increased WHC, coincided with the findings of other studies based
99%, which could have been due to the greater surface area of flours on cookies made from wheat or triticale flours (Barak, Mudgil, &
with a smaller particle size. Flour particle size could also affect the Khatkar, 2014; Barrera et al., 2007; Donelson & Gaines, 1998;
internal dough structure, which would be more compact with fine Gaines et al., 1988; Hoseney, 1994; Hoseney & Rogers, 1994;
flour fractions. Native maize flours showed the highest DPF values Miller & Hoseney, 1997). In general, cookie spread factor appears
but otherwise we detected no clear tendency in DPF. to be dependent on dough viscosity (Hoseney, Wade, & Finley,
The coarse-grained rice flours (CLR and CSR) produced the 1988; Hoseney & Rogers, 1994; Miller & Hoseney, 1997;
greatest spread and were the widest cookies. Chung et al. (2014) Yamazaki, 1959). Flour components that absorb large quantities of
also observed an increase in spread factor when wheat flour was water reduce the amount of water that is available to dissolve the
substituted by white rice flour, though they did not analyse flour sugar in the formula; this will make the initial dough viscosity
particle size. In contrast, there were no significant differences in higher and the cookie will thus spread less during baking (Hoseney
spread factor between the other gluten-free cookies though all had & Rogers, 1994; Yamazaki, 1955). Flours with low hydration prop-
a lower spread and diameter than wheat cookies. This would agree erties will therefore produce cookies with greater spread
with the findings published by Kaur et al. (2015), who observed a (Yamazaki, 1962).
reduced spread ratio of gluten-free biscuits made from wheat flour Regarding the colour of the cookies, this is related not only to the
with substituted buckwheat flour. Among the gluten-free cookies colour of the flour used but also to Maillard and caramelisation
with no significant differences in spread, cookies made from reactions, which take place during baking (Ameur, Mathieu,
buckwheat and teff flours, with a higher proportion of protein in Lalanne, Trystram, & Birlouez-Aragon, 2007). Cookies made from
their composition, were among the widest in this group. However, maize flours (more yellowish due their higher carotenoid content)
there are studies on the use of wheat flour to make cookies that thus presented the highest b* values. Altındag  et al. (2015) also
found reasonable negative correlations between wheat flour pro- observed the highest b* values with maize flour. Cookies made from
tein content and cookie diameter (Gaines, 1985; Gaines et al., 1988; coarse-grained rice flours showed lower brightness (darker) and b*
Kaldy, Kereliuk, & Kozub, 1993; Miller & Hoseney, 1997). It might be values and higher a* values (more brown) than cookies made from
considered that this is due to gluten content, as Chung et al. (2014) fine-grained rice flours. This effect could have been caused by the
reported that the spread factor of cookies increased as non-wheat greater spread of these cookies and the oil released during the
protein content increased. Cookies made from fine-grain flours baking processes, which could produce a higher concentration of

Table 2
Dough and cookie properties (n ¼ 2).

Flour Dough peak Stickiness (N) Dough elastic moduli Cookie width Spread L* a* b* Cookie peak Cookie elastic
force (N) (N/mm) (mm) factor force (N) moduli (N/mm)

W 13.37abc 2.832a 8.56cde 54.47g 8.17b 72.36bcd 3.94b 24.55d 40.21ab 83.26a
FSR 12.40abc 1.965bc 8.46bcde 46.77f 5.86a 75.64cde 0.62a 22.51cd 50.26bc 109.39cd
CSR 7.73a 0.985d 3.88a 63.07h 14.83c 52.40a 8.54e 17.49ab 29.46a 87.97ab
FLR 17.58cd 2.144abc 12.47e 43.49cd 5.47a 76.99de 1.07a 22.14bcd 62.02cd 113.32d
CLR 12.77abc 1.067d 5.50abc 62.78h 14.88c 49.86a 9.645ef 15.31a 30.30a 89.01abc
FM 27.57e 2.944a 19.00f 41.39ab 5.06a 80.08e 4.195bc 35.42e 95.07f 116.55d
CM 23.34de 1.799bcd 12.13e 44.26cde 5.00a 76.23cde 5.495cd 35.72e 74.77e 102.95abcd
FPM 16.48bcd 2.600ab 10.33de 39.96a 5.47a 70.31bc 9.51ef 39.50e 66.00de 112.88d
CPM 7.38a 1.307cd 4.19ab 42.94bc 5.53a 68.24b 10.26f 37.69e 43.71b 101.62abcd
B 8.70ab 1.935bc 5.14abc 45.68ef 5.48a 67.02b 5.96d 18.37abc 87.63f 111.61d
T 16.21bcd 2.185ab 7.26abcd 45.09def 5.93a 55.27a 8.59e 22.63cd 71.90de 107.01bcd

Values followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Flours: W: wheat; FSR: fine-grained short-grain rice; CSR: coarse-grained short-grain rice; FLR: fine-grained long-grain rice; CLR: coarse-grained long-grain rice; FM: fine-
grained maize; CM: coarse-grained maize; FPM: fine-grained precooked maize; CPM: coarse-grained precooked maize; B: buckwheat; T: teff.
268 C.M. Mancebo et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269

Table 3 increased with protein content when studying the mechanical

Consumer test results. parameters of cookies made from wheat flour. Conversely,
Sugar-snap Appearance Odour Taste Texture Overall HadnaCev et al. (2013) observed that the replacement of rice with
cookie acceptability buckwheat flour led to a decrease in cookie hardness. This may be
W 5.9b 6.2b 5.7b 5.9c 5.9bc because HadnaCev et al. (2013) used rice flour that was finer than
FSR 5.9b 5.6a 5.5b 5.1b 5.7b buckwheat flour (they did not specify particle size). The elastic
FPM 6.8c 6.3b 6.4c 5.0b 6.3c moduli of gluten-free cookies was lowest in those made with
B 5.4a 5.4a 4.5a 4.3a 4.8a
coarse-grained rice flours; this may have been due to their greater
Values followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different spread. There were no major differences between the other flours.
(p < 0.05).
However, cookies made from wheat flour had similar hardness
Flours: W: wheat; FSR: fine-grained short-grain rice; FPM: fine-grained precooked
maize; B: buckwheat.
values to those made from coarse-grained rice flour, despite their
greater spread factor values; this would suggest a certain func-
tionality of wheat proteins, compared with other proteins, which
sugars, leading to a more intense caramelization phenomenon, would affect the texture of the cookies.
with the production of brown polymers, which contribute to the
surface colouration of the cookies (Manley, 2011; Wade, 1988). 3.3. Consumer test
When coarse-grained rice flours were excluded, cookies made from
buckwheat and teff were the darkest (lowest L*). This effect may be The cookies made from wheat flour were selected as the control
due to their higher protein content, which would enhance the cookies for the consumer test, the cookies made from buckwheat as
Maillard reactions between reducing sugars and amino acids. an example of flour with a high protein content, and the cookies
Textural properties are one of the major factors contributing to made from FSR and FPM (rice and maize flours), as examples which
the eating quality of cookies. Hardness, which is one of the most produced cookies with similar instrumental characteristics to the
important textural characteristics for cookies, is measured as the control cookie. The results of the cookie sensory evaluation are
peak force to snap the cookie. In our study, hardness was signifi- shown in Table 3. Consumers rated cookies prepared from FPM
cantly affected by flour particle size: cookies made from fine- with the highest quality. These cookies had the best sensorial scores
grained flour required a significantly higher peak force than for appearance, taste and overall acceptability, although there were
cookies made with course-grained flour of the same flour type. This no significant differences in the last parameter between FPM
may be related to a more compact structure of cookies made with cookies and the cookies made from wheat. The scores obtained
fine-grained flours. The statistical analysis revealed that the highest would appear to indicate that consumers found the slightly more
hardness values were obtained with cookies prepared using buck- yellowish colour (Fig. 1) of those cookies appealing. Cookies made
wheat, teff and maize flours (with the exception of CPM). The high from FSR did not show significant differences with the control
hardness of teff and buckwheat cookies could be due to the high cookies in appearance, taste and overall acceptability, but they
protein content of these flours since Maache-Rezzoug, Bouvier, achieved a slightly lower score in odour and texture. Conversely,
Allaf, and Patras (1998) observed how the effective force cookies made from buckwheat had the lowest sensorial scores,

Fig. 1. Appearance of sugar-snap cookies containing different flours: A, wheat; B, buckwheat; C, teff; D, fine-grained short-grain rice; E, coarse-grained short-grain rice; F, fine-
grained long-grain rice; G, coarse-grained long-grain rice; H, fine-grained maize; I, coarse-grained maize; J, fine-grained precooked maize; K, coarse-grained precooked maize.
 C.M. Mancebo et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 64 (2015) 264e269 269

except for the odour parameter, which can be strongly influenced Donelson, J. R., & Gaines, C. S. (1998). Starch-water relationships in the sugar-snap
cookie dough system. Cereal Chemistry, 75, 660e664.
by their particular herbaceous taste and greater hardness. Similarly,
Duta, D. E., & Culetu, A. (2015). Evaluation of rheological, physicochemical, thermal,
Baljeet, Ritika, and Roshan (2010) observed that an increase in the mechanical and sensory properties of oat-based gluten free cookies. Journal of
level of buckwheat flour in wheat-flour based cookies produced a Food Engineering, 162, 1e8.
fall in sensory scores. Cookies made from wheat alone achieved Gaines, C. S. (1985). Associations among soft wheat flour particle size, protein
content, chroline response, kernel hardness, milling quality, white layer cake
higher scores than the other cookies in texture because consumers volume, and sugar-snap cookie spread. Cereal Chemistry, 62, 290e292.
perceived them to be less hard and more brittle, which agreed with Gaines, C. S., Donelson, J. R., & Finney, P. L. (1988). Effect of damaged starch, chlorine
the cookie elastic moduli and peak force. gas, flour particle size, and dough holding time and temperature on cookie
dough handling properties and cookie size. Cereal Chemistry, 65, 384e389.
Gambus, H., Gambus, F., Pastuszka, D., Wrona, P., Ziobro, R., Sabat, R., et al. (2009).
4. Conclusion Quality of gluten-free supplemented cakes and biscuits. International Journal of
Food Sciences and Nutrition, 60, 31e50.
HadnaCev, T. R. D., Torbica, A. M., & HadnaCev, M. S. (2013). Influence of buckwheat
The results of the study indicate that it is possible to obtain flour and carboxymethyl cellulose on rheological behaviour and baking per-
gluten-free cookies with a similar quality to cookies made with formance of gluten-free cookie dough. Food Bioprocess Technology, 6,
1770e1781.
wheat flour, without any additives. Nevertheless, flour parameters Hasjim, J., Li, E., & Dhital, S. (2012). Milling of rice grains: the roles of starch structures
such as particle size, damaged starch or protein content had a in the solubility and swelling properties of rice flour. Starch, 64, 631e645.
significant influence on cookie spread and texture. In general, Hoseney, R. C. (1994). Principles of cereal science and technology (2nd ed.). St-Paul,
Minnesota: AACC.
gluten-free flours produced cookies with lower spread and greater
Hoseney, R. C., & Rogers, D. E. (1994). Mechanism of sugar functionality in cookies.
hardness than wheat cookies, but flours with a very large particle In H. Faridi (Ed.), The science of cookie and cracker production (pp. 203e225).
size showed the opposite tendency. The origin of the gluten-free New York: Chapman & Hall.
Hoseney, R. C., Wade, P., & Finley, J. W. (1988). Soft wheat products. In Y. Pomeranz
flour, and its consequent effect on cookie taste, significantly
(Ed.), Wheat chemistry and technology (3rd ed.), (Vol. II, pp. 407e456). St. Paul,
affected the overall acceptability of the cookies. Minnesota: AACC.
Hozova, B., Buchtova
, V., Dodok, L., & Zemanovi c, J. (1997). Microbiological, nutri-
tional and sensory aspects of stored amaranth biscuits and amaranth crackers.
Acknowledgements Food/Nahrung, 41(3), 155e158.
Kaldy, M. S., Kereliuk, G. R., & Kozub, G. C. (1993). Influence of gluten components
This study was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry and flour lipids on soft white wheat quality. Cereal Chemistry, 70, 77e80.
Kaur, M., Sandhu, K. S., Arora, A., & Sharma, A. (2015). Gluten free biscuits prepared
of Science and Innovation (Grant: AGL2011-23802). from buckwheat flour by incorporation of various gums: physicochemical and
sensory properties. LWTeFood Science and Technology, 62, 628e632.
Laguna, L., Salvador, A., Sanz, T., & Fiszman, S. M. (2011). Performance of a resistant
References starch rich ingredient in the baking and eating quality of short-dough biscuits.
LWTeFood Science and Technology, 44, 737e746.
AACC International. (2012). Approved methods of the American Association of Cereal Maache-Rezzoug, Z., Bouvier, J.-M., Allaf, K., & Patras, C. (1998). Effect of principal
Chemists International. Methods: 44e15.02 (moisture), 46-30.01 (protein), 76- ingredients on rheological behaviour of biscuit dough and on quality of biscuits.
31.01 (damaged starch), 56-30.01 (WBC), 61.02.01 (RVA) (11th ed.). St Paul, MN: Journal of Food Engineering, 35, 23e42.
American Association of Cereal Chemists. Manley, D. (2011). Manley's technology of biscuits, crackers and cookies (4th ed.).
Altındag, G., Certel, M., Erem, F., & Konak, Ü.I. _ (2015). Quality characteristics of Cambridge England: Woodhead Publishing.
gluten-free cookies made of buckwheat, corn, and rice flour with/without Martínez, M., Calvin ~ o, A., Rosell, C. M., & Go
mez, M. (2014). Effect of different
transglutaminase. Food Science and Technology International, 21, 213e220. extrusion treatments and particle size distribution on the physicochemical
Ameur, L. A., Mathieu, O., Lalanne, V., Trystram, G., & Birlouez-Aragon, I. (2007). properties of rice flour. Food Bioprocess Technology, 7, 2657e2665.
Comparison of the effects of sucrose and hexose on furfural formation and Martínez, M., Oliete, B., Roma
n, L., & Go

mez, M. (2014). Influence of the addition of
browning in cookies baked at different temperatures. Food Chemistry, 101, extruded flours on rice bread quality. Journal of Food Quality, 37, 83e94.
1407e1416. Mason, R. W. (2009). Starch use in foods. In J. BeMiller, & R. Whistler (Eds.), Starch.
Arendt, E. K., O'Brien, C. M., Schober, T., Gormley, T. R., & Gallagher, E. (2002). Chemistry and technology (pp. 629e656). New York: Academic Press.
Development of gluten-free cereal products. Farm and Food, 12, 21e27. Miller, R. A., & Hoseney, R. C. (1997). Factors in hard wheat flour responsible for
Baljeet, S. Y., Ritika, B. Y., & Roshan, L. Y. (2010). Studies on functional properties and reduced cookie spread. Cereal Chemistry, 74, 330e336.
incorporation of buckwheat flour for biscuit making. International Food Research Pareyt, B., & Delcour, J. A. (2008). The role of wheat flour constituents, sugar, and fat
Journal, 17, 1067e1076. in low moisture cereal based products: a review on sugar-snap cookies. Critical
Barak, S., Mudgil, D., & Khatkar, B. S. (2014). Effect of flour particle size and damaged Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 48, 824e839.
starch on the quality of cookies. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 5, Rai, S., Kaur, A., & Singh, B. (2014). Quality characteristics of gluten free cookies
1342e1348. prepared from different flour combinations. Journal of Food Science and Tech-
Barrera, G. N., Pe
rez, G. T., Ribotta, P. D., & Leo
n, A. E. (2007). Influence of damaged nology, 51, 785e789.
starch on cookie and bread-making quality. European Food Research and Tech- Rosell, C. M., Barro, F., Sousa, C., & Mena, M. C. (2014). Cereals for developing gluten-
nology, 225, 1e7. free products and analytical tools for gluten detection. Journal of Cereal Science,
Chung, H.-J., Cho, A., & Lim, S.-T. (2014). Utilization of germinated and heat- 59, 354e364.
moisture treated brown rices in sugar-snap cookies. LWTeFood Science and Schober, T. J., O'Brien, C. M., McCarthy, D., Darnedde, A., & Arendt, E. K. (2003).
Technology, 57, 260e266. Influence of gluten-free flour mixes and fat powders on the quality of gluten-
Coleman, J., Abaye, A. O., Barbeau, W., & Thomason, W. (2013). The suitability of teff free biscuits. European Food Research and Technology, 216, 369e376.
flour in bread, layer cakes, cookies and biscuits. International Journal of Food Schoenlechner, R., Linsberger, G., Kaczyc, L., & Berghofer, E. (2006). Production of
Sciences and Nutrition, 64, 877e881. short dough biscuits from the pseudocereals amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat
De la Barca, A. M. C., Rojas-Martínez, M. E., Islas-Rubio, A. R., & Cabrera-Ch
avez, F. with common bean. Ernahrung, 30, 101e107.
(2010). Gluten-free breads and cookies of raw and popped amaranth flours with Torbica, A., HadnaCev, M., & HadnaCev, T. D. (2012). Rice and buckwheat flour
attractive technological and nutritional qualities. Plant Foods for Human Nutri- characterisation and its relation to cookie quality. Food Research International,
tion, 65, 241e246. 48, 277e283.
De la Hera, E., Go
mez, M., & Rosell, C. M. (2013). Particle size distribution of rice Tosi, E. A., Ciappini, M. C., & Masciarelli, R. (1996). Utilisation of whole amaranthus
flour affecting the starch enzymatic hydrolysis and hydration properties. Car- (Amaranthus cruentus) flour in the manufacture of biscuits for coeliacs. Ali-
bohydrate Polymers, 98, 421e427. mentaria, 34, 49e51.
De la Hera, E., Martínez, M., & Go
mez, M. (2013). Influence of flour particle size on Wade, P. (1988). Biscuits, cookies and crackers, the principles of the craft (Vol. 1).
quality of gluten-free rice bread. LWTeFood Science and Technology, 54, Elsevier Applied Science.
199e206. Yamazaki, W. T. (1955). The concentration of a factor in soft wheat flours affecting
De la Hera, E., Martínez, M., Oliete, B., & Go
mez, M. (2013). Influence of flour particle cookie quality. Cereal Chemistry, 32, 26e37.
size on quality of gluten-free rice cakes. Food Bioprocess Technology, 6, Yamazaki, W. T. (1959). The application of heat in the testing of flours for cookie
2280e2288. quality. Cereal Chemistry, 36, 59e69.
Demiate, I. M., Dupuy, N., Huvenne, J. P., Cereda, M. P., & Wosiacki, G. (2000). Yamazaki, W. T. (1962). Laboratory testing of flours and cookie quality research.
Relationship between baking behaviour of modified cassava starches and starch Cereal Science Today, 98, 104e125.
chemical structure by FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohydrate Polymers, 42, 149e158.