Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

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

Advanced properties of gluten-free cookies, cakes, and crackers: A review

Jingwen Xu a, Yiqin Zhang b, Weiqun Wang a, Yonghui Li b, *
a
Department of Food Nutrition Dietetics & Health, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA
b
Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: There is a growing demand for gluten-free bakery products from groups with celiac disease, gluten
Gluten-free sensitivity, and/or health consciousness. Besides bread products, chemically leavened gluten-free products such
Bakery products as cookies, biscuits, cakes, muffins, and crackers are receiving increasing interests due to their convenience and
Batter
unique taste and texture. Many research papers have been published in recent years; however, no comprehensive
Dough
Biscuit
review has yet been available in this area.
Cookie Scope and approach: This review examines various gluten-free non-bread bakery goods with respect to formu­
Cake lation, preparation, and properties of dough and batter and the resultant products. Other functional ingredients
Muffin such as proteins, fibers, hydrocolloids, and emulsifiers used to improve product properties are discussed. Chal­
Cracker lenges of developing the gluten-free bakery products, such as technological limitation, nutritional quality, and
sensory properties are addressed. Knowledge and information gaps in this research area are identified, and future
research needs are recommended.
Key findings and conclusions: Rice flour is the mostly used gluten-free flour for these purposes, and it is often
formulated with flours, starches, and proteins from cereals, pulses, pseudocereals, and other plant materials to
achieve optimal batter or dough properties and bakery product quality. Although the composition of gluten-free
composite flours and formulation dominate product texture and sensory traits, other factors such as grain milling
methods, flour particle size, and flour treatment could also have some impact. The current gluten-free cookies,
biscuits, cakes, muffins, and crackers are still less desirable than wheat-based products. Further research is
warranted in developing and evaluating more palatable and nutritious gluten-free products.

1. Introduction
Celiac disease is well-known as an autoimmune system disorder and
inflammatory disease triggered by gluten in the upper small intestine
(Green & Cellier, 2007; Shan et al., 2002). Symptoms of individuals
suffered with celiac disease include malnutrition, diarrhea, growth
retardation, anemia, and fatigue (Green & Jabri, 2003). Prevalence of
celiac disease has been reported to be approximately 1% worldwide and
is still increasing over time partially attributed to more clinical tests and
improved diagnosis capability, primarily in Australia, Europe, and North
America (Lebwohl, Ludvigsson, & Green, 2015; Mahadov & Green,
2011; Rubio–Tapia et al., 2009). Common cereals containing gluten
include mainly wheat, rye, and barley. Thus, there products shall not be
contained in diets for celiac disease patients. Products with oat have also
be a concern for some people with intolerance to gluten, because
contamination of oats with wheat, rye or barley can occur during grain
harvesting, transport, storage and processing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gluten-free food as
the food that is either completely gluten-free or does not contain any of
these ingredients: 1) gluten-containing grain (e.g., wheat); 2) derived
from gluten-containing grain that has not been processed to remove
gluten (e.g., wheat flour); and 3) derived from a gluten containing grain
that has been processed to remove gluten (e.g., wheat starch), if any use
of these ingredients contains the presence of 20 ppm or more gluten in
food. In other words, gluten-free foods should not contain gluten, or the
presence of gluten should be lower than 20 ppm. The Commission
Regulation of European Union (EC No 41/2009) requires that foodstuffs
for people intolerant to gluten shall not contain a level of gluten
exceeding 100 mg/kg (100 ppm) in the food as sold to the final con­
sumer, and it further regulates that gluten content not exceeding 100
mg/kg can be labelled as “very low gluten” and gluten content not
exceeding 20 mg/kg as “gluten-free”, partially because gluten intoler­
ance varies among individuals (McCabe, 2010).
Cereal-based foods have been consumed as a staple food worldwide

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yonghui@ksu.edu (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.07.017
Received 22 April 2020; Received in revised form 5 July 2020; Accepted 17 July 2020
Available online 25 July 2020
0924-2244/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Xu et al.
for energy and nutrients in various forms, such as bakery products,
noodles and pasta, snack foods, breakfast cereals, and others (Tebben,
Shen, & Li, 2018; Xu, Wang, & Li, 2019). Diverse availability of
gluten-free bakery goods increases the food choice for individuals on a
gluten-free diet. It is estimated that the market of gluten-free products
(bakery goods, snacks & ready-to-eat products, pizza and pasta, condi­
ments and dressing) will increase from USD 4.18 billion in 2017 to USD
6.47 billion in 2023 (Markets and Markets Research, Gluten-free prod­
ucts Market Global Forecast to 2023). Among these, bread and cookies
are considered as the most globally consumed cereal-based gluten-free
foods (Jnawali, Kumar, & Tanwar, 2016).
Previously, research has been extensively focused on gluten-free
bread made from various gluten-free flours such as cereals (e.g.,
maize, rice, sorghum) (Ozturk & Mert, 2018; Wu et al., 2018; Monthe
et al., 2018), pseudocereals (e.g., amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa) (Hager
& Arendt, 2013; Burešová et al., 2017), pulses (e.g., chickpea) (Burešová
et al., 2017), and potato flour (Liu et al., 2017). Gluten is responsible for
the unique viscoelasticity and consistency of wheat dough and texture of
resultant bread and pasta. Improving the rheological properties, specific
volume, and texture of gluten-free bread has attracted more attention.
Hydrocolloids are commonly included in gluten-free bread formulations
due to the function of mimicking some rheological properties of gluten
for improving the baking quality of gluten-free flour, as well as
imparting product texture, appearance, and stability (Capriles & Areas,
2014). Various hydrocolloids were investigated for gluten-free bread,
such as xanthan gum (Hager & Arendt, 2013), hydrox­
ypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) (Mancebo, Miguel, Martinez, & Gomez,
2015), and apple pectin and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (Liu et al.,
2017). Hydrocolloids functionalize as bread-making improvers by
increasing dough and batter properties and retard starch retrogradation
(Nammakuna, Barringer, & Ratanatriwong, 2015). In addition to bread,
gluten-free noodles and pastas are also well studied in terms of pro­
cessing technology such as flour treatment (Zavareze, Storck, de Catro,
Schirmer, & Dias, 2010) and types of gluten-free flour (sorghum, maize
starch, rice) (Marti, Seetharaman, & Pagani, 2010; Suhendro, Kunetz,
McDonough, Rooney, & Waniska, 2000; Tam, Corke, Tan, Li, & Collado,
2004). Application of buckwheat in gluten-free bakery products such as
bread, pasta, noodle, and cookie was reviewed by Giménez-Bastida,
Piskuła, and Zieliński (2015). Current technological limitations and
sensory acceptability of gluten-free bread and pasta have also been
reviewed (Padalino, Conte, & Del Nobile, 2016). In addition, potential
strategies to improving the quality of gluten-free bread, noodles, and
pasta have been discussed and previously reviewed (Collar, 2019; Elgeti,
Jekle, & Becker, 2015; Naqash, Gani, Gani, & Masoodi, 2017).
In addition to bread, noodles, and pasta, chemically leavened gluten-
free products, particularly cookies, biscuits, cakes, muffins, and crackers
account for a large portion of bakery goods. Valitutti et al. (2017)
indicated that there is a higher consumption of gluten-free crackers and
biscuits among celiac disease subjects rather than gluten-free bread.
Gluten-free cookies, biscuits, cakes, muffins, and crackers are mostly
prepared using gluten-free flours such as rice, maize, sorghum, buck­
wheat, quinoa, lupin, chickpea, and others (Di Cairano, Galgano, Tolve,
Caruso, & Condelli, 2018; Levent & Bilgicli, 2011; Marston, Khouryieh,
& Aramouni, 2016; Öksüz & Karakaş, 2016). To our knowledge, there is
no comprehensive review available on gluten-free non-bread bakery
goods with respect to main gluten-free ingredient, processing technol­
ogy, and properties of resultant dough and batter and bakery goods
including rheological property, structure, texture, sensory property,
shelf life, and others, which are the focus of this paper. Other functional
ingredients such as proteins, fibers, hydrocolloids, and emulsifiers used
to improve the baking quality of gluten-free cookie, biscuit, cake, and
cracker are also discussed. Challenges of developing the gluten-free
bakery products, such as technological limitation, nutritional quality,
and sensory properties are addressed. We conclude this review by
identifying the research and knowledge gap in this area and suggesting
the future research needs.
201
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
2. Gluten-free cookies and biscuits
Cookies are characterized by a formula high in sugar and shortening
(i.e., solid fat at room temperature) and generally refer to a group of
baked products made from soft wheat flour with low final water content
(Delcour & Hoseney, 2010). They are usually served as treats. Cookies
are made with flour, sugar, fat, water, and shaped into small, sweet, and
crispy pastry. A well-known cookie is sugar-snap cookie, which is
characterized by high sugar, high fat, and low moisture content. The
global market for cookies was valued at USD 30.6 billion in 2018 and is
expected to grow by 5.3% each year (Grand View Research, Cookies
Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report, 2019–2025). However,
the definition of biscuit is different depending on the regions. For
example, American biscuit refers to small quick leavened bread that is
either cakey and dense, or flaky and lightly baked. However, in the
United Kingdom and Asia, biscuits are termed interchangeably with
cookies (Cauvain & Young, 2008). In this paper, biscuit denotes the
American biscuit, which refers to the quick bread. Biscuit dough is
generally short and undeveloped and lacks extensibility. Biscuits are
often served in breakfast and brunch.
2.1. Gluten-free cookies
2.1.1. Gluten-free flours for cookies
Previous studies of gluten-free cookie have used flours from cereals
(rice, maize, sorghum, millet), legumes, pseudocereals, and their blends.
Rice flour has been one of the most commonly used gluten-free flours,
and it is often combined with other flours, such as maize starch and pea
protein (Mancebo, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2016), waxy rice starch (Giu­
berti, Marti, Fortunati, & Gallo, 2017), and maize starch/flour and po­
tato starch/flour (Šarić et al., 2019). In addition, cookies are also
developed using oat (Duta & Culetu, 2015), buckwheat flour, millet
flour, and chia seed (Brites et al., 2019), pinto bean flour (Simons & Hall,
2018), buckwheat flour (Šarić et al., 2019), and alfalfa seed flour
(Giuberti et al., 2018). Besides, nuts like chestnut flour (Paciulli et al.,
2018) and plants such as coconut flour (Paucean, Man, Muste, & Pop,
2016) and konjac flour (Akesowan, 2016) have also been investigated to
innovate cookies. Resultant cookies are commonly evaluated in terms of
spread factor, crack pattern, breaking strength, and sensory analysis as
the most important quality attributes.
2.1.2. Properties of gluten-free cookies
Development of gluten network in cookie is relatively limited and
primarily dependent on the type of desired final product. Hard texture of
sweet and semi-sweet cookie requires some gluten network develop­
ment (Di Cairano et al., 2018), while cookies from short dough with high
proportion of fat and sugar primarily relies on the starch gelatinization
rather than gluten network development (DapčevićHadnađev, Torbica,
& Hadnađev, 2013). For example, sugar-snap cookie requires very
limited gluten network development. Soft wheat flour is the major flour
used for regular sugar-snap cookies due to its low gluten content and
weak gluten strength (Souza, Kruk, & Sunderman, 1994). Higher
amount of gluten protein in the short dough reduces cookie spread
(HadiNezhad & Butler, 2009; Pareyt, Wilderjans, Goesaert, Brijs, &
Delcour, 2008). Thus, using gluten-free flours warrants the possibility of
producing gluten-free cookies with desired texture and spread. Signifi­
cant studies related to dough and product properties of gluten-free
cookies are summarized in Table 1.
Rice, in combination with various other ingredients, has been widely
utilized to prepare gluten-free cookies (Mancebo, Picón, & Gómez,
2015; Mancebo et al., 2016; Sarabhai, Indrani, Vijaykrishnaraj, Kumar,
& Prabhasankar, 2015). Giuberti et al. (2017) partially substituted rice
flour with native and modified waxy rice starches (debranched,
annealed (i.e., heating the slurry at 45 ◦ C for 24 h), and
acid-heat-moisture treated) to produce healthier gluten-free cookies.
The RVA peak viscosity of the composite flour decreased with the
J. Xu et al.
Table 1
Properties of gluten-free cookie dough and cookies.
Gluten-free flour
Rice flour
Buckwheat (B), buckwheat/maize
(BC) (50/50), buckwheat/rice (BR)
(50/50), buckwheat/maize/rice
(BCR) (50/25/25).
Rice flour/buckwheat flour (100/0,
90/10, 80/20, 70/30)
Oat flour, substituted by oat bran (0,
30, 50, 70, and 100%)
Rice/buckwheat (80/20)
Alfalfa seed flour, substituted by rice
flour (0, 15, 30, and 45%)
Chemically modified (acetylation,
carboxymethylation, methylation,
oxidation, and phosphation)
plantain flours
Flour (20% lupin flour/30% rice flour/
20% maize flour/30% maize starch)
Composite of rice flour, maize starch,
and pea protein: 100/0/0, 90/0/10,
80/0/20, 70/30/0, 65/25/10, 60/
20/20, 40/60/0, 35/55/10, 30/50/
20
Commercial gluten-free mixture:
maize flour, pre-gelatinized rice
flour, tapioca starch, incorporated
with chestnut flour (0, 50, 80, and
100%)
Rice flour with soy protein isolate
(SPI)/whey protein concentrate
(WPC): 100/0, 95/5, 92.5/7.5, 90/
10.
Chestnut flour/whey protein
concentrate (100/0, 95/5, 92.5/7.5,
90/10)
Gluten free flour mixture: rice flour,
maize starch/flour, potato starch/
flour, substituted by raspberry/
blueberry (0/30, 15/15, 30/0)
Rice flour/sweet potato flour (89.5/
10), unfermented and fermented
Agaricus bisporus polysaccharide
flours (ABP) (3, 6, and 9%)
Other additives Dough properties
Konjac flour (0, 0.25, and Increasing konjac flour increased the
0.4%) viscosity, pasting temperature, peak
viscosity, breakdown, and hot paste
viscosity of rice flour.
N/A N/A
Carboxymethyl cellulose All treatments showed elastic-like
(CMC) (0.69%) characteristics; increasing buckwheat
reduced the elastic modulus, but
increased tan σ. CMC addition
increased dough tenacity and
resistance to deformation.
N/A Increased oat bran increased water
absorption index.
Canola protein isolates or Canola protein concentrates/isolates
concentrates (3, 6, and reduced hardness and increased
9% substitution of rice springiness.
flour)
N/A N/A
N/A Except for phosphation, all other
modifications increased starch
gelatinization temperature.
Methylation and phosphation
increased maximum viscosity and
breakdown of the flours. Except for
oxidation, all other modifications
increased consistency.
Inulin (3, 3.5, 4, and N/A
4.5%)
N/A Pea protein increased hydration,
elastic modulus, viscous modulus,
reduced tan σ. Maize starch reduced
hydration.
N/A Increasing chestnut flour reduced
water binding capacity, increased
water absorption index, reduced
viscous and elastic modulus, reduced
hardness and gumminess, increased
springiness, cohesiveness, and
adhesiveness.
0.5% glycerol N/A
monostearate (GMS),
sodium stearoyl-2-
lactylate (SSL), lecithin
(LEC).
potato starch (5%) Increasing whey increased elastic
modulus, zero shear viscosity, but
decreased tan σ and maximum creep
compliance. Potato starch further
increased dough tenacity and
resistance to deformation.
N/A All cookie dough showed desirable
elastic behavior.
Xanthan gum (0.5%) Unfermented and fermented ABP both
increased elastic modulus and viscous
modulus and reduced tan σ.
202
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
Cookie properties Reference
Increasing konjac flour reduced the Akesowan (2016)
diameter and lightness and
greenness, increased spread ratio,
specific volume, and hardness.
Width of BR was less than B, BC, BR; Altındağ et al. (2015)
Thickness of B was greater vs. other
formulation; Spread ratio: BC > BR >
BCR > B. Hardness of BC and BCR
was less than B and BR. Fracturability
of B was greater than BC, BR, and
BCR.
Buckwheat flour addition reduced DapčevićHadnađev et al.,
cookie hardness and fracturability, 2013
but increased eccentricity and overall
acceptability.
Increased oat bran reduced the Duta and Culetu (2015)
lightness and greenness and
hardness.
Canola protein concentrates/isolates Gerzhova et al. (2016)
did not significantly influence the
lightness, reduced the greenness, and
increased the yellowness.
Rice flour reduced lightness and Giuberti et al. (2018)
increased the hardness of cookie.
Increased rice flour reduced the
overall acceptability.
N/A Gutiérrez (2018)
Addition of inulin did not influence Maghaydah,
cookie thickness, width, spread Abdul-Hussain, Ajo,
factor, color, and sensory properties. Obeidat, and Tawalbeh
(2013)
Pea protein reduced hardness. Maize Mancebo et al. (2016)
starch increased thickness and width.
Higher pea protein addition led to
better acceptability than high starch
addition or control.
Increasing chestnut flour reduced the Paciulli et al. (2018)
lightness but increased the greenness
and yellowness.
SPI and WPC reduced spread ratio Sarabhai et al. (2015)
and breaking force; SPI improved
texture; WPC reduced texture. GMS,
SSL, and LEC all improved the spread
ratio of rice-7.5% SPI cookies. GMS
improved the 7.5% SPI rice cookie.
Increased whey increased cookie Sarabhai and
hardness, fracturability, spread ratio, Prabhasankar (2015)
and overall acceptability.
Raspberry or blueberry addition Šarić et al. (2019)
reduced thickness, and baking weight
loss, but did not affect spread ratio,
whereas increased the hardness.
Unfermented ABP increased Sulieman et al. (2018)
thickness, fermented ABP increased
diameter and spread ratio. Cookies of
both unfermented and fermented
ABP with 3% addition were the most
acceptable.
J. Xu et al.
addition of debranched, annealed, and acid-heat-moisture treated
starch, which was caused by the disrupted starch granules and particle
solubilization due to the annealing processing (Giuberti et al., 2017).
Partial replacement of waxy rice starch with the modified starches also
increased cookie spread ratio and decreased in vitro glycemic index
values, implying better cookie products (Giuberti et al., 2017). Mancebo
et al. (2016) prepared sugar-snap cookie using rice flour with addition of
maize starch or pea protein. They found that protein incorporation
increased the hydration of dough and dough consistency and resulted in
reduced baking time for the cookie, lower hardness, and darker color of
the cookies, in contrast to 100% rice flour cookie (Mancebo et al., 2016).
The addition of maize starch decreased the hydration of dough and
increased the thickness and width of resultant cookies, but did not affect
the texture and color of the cookies (Mancebo et al., 2016). Mancebo
et al. (2016) further demonstrated that the dough rheological properties
of all cookies showed a greater elastic modulus than viscous modulus,
indicating a solid elastic-like behavior. Simons and Hall (2018) studied
the effect of cooking and germinating of pinto bean on the qualities of
gluten-free cookies based on a composite flour (i.e., pinto bean, oat, rice,
tapioca, and quinoa). Sensory acceptability of up to 40% inclusion of
raw pinto bean flours in the cookie is similar to that made of cooked and
germinated pinto bean flours.
Buckwheat is a nutritious pseudocereal containing protein with
favorable amino acid profile, vitamins, starch, dietary fiber, and essen­
tial minerals (Filipčev et al., 2011). It was incorporated into rice flour
(DapčevićHadnađev et al., 2013) and blended with maize flour
(Altındağ, Certel, Erem, & İlknur Konak, 2015) for cookie preparation.
Dapčević et al. (2013) replaced rice flour with buckwheat flour
(10–30%), and results showed that the cookie doughs had solid
elastic-like characteristics. In addition, increased buckwheat addition
reduced cookie hardness and fracturability and increased eccentricity
and overall acceptability (DapčevićHadnađev et al., 2013). Altındağ
et al. (2015) prepared cookies with flours of buckwheat, buck­
wheat/maize (50/50), buckwheat/rice (50/50), and buck­
wheat/maize/rice (50/25/25) and found that rice or maize flour
changed the qualities of buckwheat cookies; however, there was no
consistent overall trend of the alterations. Gerzhova, Mondor, Benali,
and Aider (2016) incorporated canola protein isolate and concentrate to
a mixture of 80% rice and 20% buckwheat flours for cookie preparation.
They demonstrated that adding canola protein resulted in reduction of
cookie hardness and spread ratio and increased thickness (Gerzhova
et al., 2016).
The effect of different proteins on rice-based gluten-free cookies has
been studied. Sarabhai et al. (2015) investigated gluten-free cookies
based on rice flour with addition of soy protein isolate (SPI) or whey
protein concentrate (WPC) (5, 7.5, and 10%). Results showed that SPI
addition reduced the spread ratio and breaking strength of gluten-free
cookies but improved the texture, while WPC reduced the spread
ratio, breaking strength, and texture of the cookies. Furthermore, 0.5%
emulsifier (glycerol monostearate (GMS), sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate
(SSL), or lecithin (LEC)) was added in the rice cookie containing 7.5%
SPI or WPC, respectively. Adding LEC resulted in the highest spread ratio
for 7.5% SPI rice cookie, followed by GMS and SSL. Meanwhile, only
GMS improved the texture, while SSL and LEC reduced the texture of
7.5% SPI rice cookie (Sarabhai et al., 2015). Sarabhai et al. (2015) also
demonstrated that the rice cookies with 7.5% SPI or WPC addition were
safe for celiac disease people based on ELISA test.
Oat is a gluten-free cereal, but it could be sometimes contaminated
with gluten cereals during field production, transport, storage, and
processing, causing a threat to celiac patients. Oat contains high amount
of dietary fiber, particularly β-glucan. Thus, some researchers focused on
developing cookies using oat flour. Duta and Culetu (2015) developed
cookies with blends of oat flour and oat bran (0/100, 70/30, 50/50,
0/100) and found that oat bran weakened the protein and decreased the
stability of gelatinized starch. In addition, incorporation of oat bran
resulted in darker and more brittle cookies.
203
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
Blends of alfalfa seed flour with substitution of rice flour (0, 15, 30,
and 45% w/w) have been used to process cookies (Giuberti et al., 2018).
Increased rice flour resulted in reduced total starch and increased pro­
tein, lipid, and total dietary fiber (Giuberti et al., 2018). In addition,
Giuberti et al. (2018) also reported that increased rice flour in the
formulation did not significantly affect the diameter, thickness, and
spread ratio of cookie in contrast to 100% alfalfa seed flour cookie, but
affected the color and hardness evidently. Plant flour, such as coconut
flour, has also been applied in developing gluten-free cookies. For
example, Paucean et al. (2016) prepared cookies with blends of coconut
and rice flours (100/0, 50/50, 30/70). They found that more than 50%
coconut flour negatively influenced cookie texture due to the required
higher moisture addition (Paucean et al., 2016). Akesowan (2016) found
that increasing the addition of konjac flour (0, 0.25, and 0.4%) in rice
flour increased the viscosity, pasting temperature, peak viscosity,
breakdown, and hot paste viscosity of the rice flour. In addition, adding
konjac flour reduced cookie diameter and lightness and greenness but
increased the hardness (Akesowan, 2016).
Whey protein and potato starch were incorporated into cookie
formulation made of chestnut flour (Sarabhai & Prabhasankar, 2015).
Adding whey protein concentrate enhanced elastic-like characteristics
of the dough and changed the cookie qualities (Sarabhai & Prabha­
sankar, 2015). Gutiérrez (2018) modified plantain flour through acet­
ylation, carboxymethylation, methylation, oxidation, and phosphation
to improve its performance in gluten-free cookies. Results showed that
chemical modifications altered the color and increased the water ac­
tivity of plantain flour, while phosphated plantain flour showed the
greatest potential for gluten-free cookie development with enhanced
functional properties and nutritional value (Gutiérrez, 2018). Regarding
the pasting properties of plantain flour, various chemical modifications
changed the gelatinization temperature, maximum viscosity, break­
down, setback, and consistency at different degrees (Gutiérrez, 2018).
Chestnut flour (0, 500, 800, 1000 g/kg) was added in cookies based on
gluten-free multi-purpose mixture containing maize flour,
pre-gelatinized rice flour, and tapioca starch, and the addition of
chestnut flour increased flour water binding capacity, decreased dough
viscous and elastic modulus, and reduced hardness of the cookies
(Paciulli et al., 2018).
Sugar is responsible for cookie structure and texture development
due to sugar recrystallization and amorphous glass formation when
cookies are cooled down after baking. However, sugar generates high
calorie of 3.87 calories/g in contrast to fructose maize syrup of 2.81
calories/g and honey of 3.04 calories/g. Artificial sweeteners are po­
tential alternatives for calorie reduction options for cookie products,
such as allulose, stevia, advantame, aspartame-acesulfame salt, cycla­
mate, neotame, neohesperidin, and others. Studies were carried out
using low calorie sweetening agents as replacement to traditional su­
crose in order to reduce calories, maintain sucrose functionalities in
cookies, and provide additional nutritional values such as dietary fiber,
bioactive compounds, and minerals (Góngora Salazar, Vázquez Enca­
lada, Corona Cruz, & Segura Campos, 2018; Lin, Lee, Mau, Lin, & Chiou,
2010; Pareyt, Goovaerts, Broekaert, & Delcour, 2010). Erythritol is a
well-known sugar replacement with zero calorie and 60–80% of sucrose
sweetness. Erythritol was used to replace 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% su­
crose in Danish cookies, respectively, and there was no difference in the
moisture, protein, fat, ash and hardness of cookies with erythritol
compared to cookies prepared with sucrose (Lin et al., 2010). The effect
of arabinoxylan oligosaccharides on replacing sucrose in sugar-snap
cookies was studied, and results showed that arabinoxylan oligosac­
charides could substitute up to 30% sucrose without affecting cookie
diameter and height, but the color was slightly darker in contrast to the
control cookie (Pareyt et al., 2010). In addition, arabinoxylan oligo­
saccharides addition increased the fiber content in the cookies. Góngora
Salazar et al. (2018) replaced sucrose with stevia (25, 50, 75, and 100%)
in oatmeal cookies for reducing calorie and increasing bioactive com­
pounds such as flavonoids and phenols. Although most artificial
J. Xu et al.
sweeteners are non-caloric and are at least hundreds of time sweeter
than the regular sugar, some consumers are still concerned with regards
to the appetite, weight, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. So far,
research is still relatively limited and there is no conclusive summary
about the negative effect of artificial sweeteners on human health.
Gums possess good rheological properties and are commonly used as
thickener and stabilizer in bakery goods, especially in some gluten-free
bakery goods. Gums including xanthan gum, guar gum, agarose,
β-glucan, and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are incorporated into
bakery goods since they can improve rheological properties of dough
and facilitate hydration of dry ingredients and help control the moisture
of final product (Lazaridou, Duta, Papageorgiou, Belc, & Biliaderis,
2007; Tebben et al., 2018). A study compared the effect of guar gum,
gum acacia, xanthan, and gum tragacanth on buckwheat cookies and
reported that the qualities of buckwheat cookies with xanthan gum were
comparable to those made of wheat flour (Kaur, Sandhu, Arora, &
Sharma, 2015).
Gluten-free cookies have also been fortified with nutritional in­
gredients. For example, blends of rice flour, sweet potato flour, and
xanthan gum (89.5/10/0.5) were fortified with fermented and unfer­
mented Agaricus bisporus polysaccharide flours (ABP) (3, 6, and 9%) in
cookie baking to improve the nutritional values (e.g., minerals, vita­
mins, and β-glucan levels) (Sulieman et al., 2018). Sulieman et al. (2018)
demonstrated that the addition of both unfermented and fermented ABP
improved the elastic and viscous modulus of cookie dough, indicating
improved dough viscoelasticity with both unfermented and fermented
ABP flours. Unfermented ABP increased the thickness of cookies,
whereas fermented ABP increased the diameter and spread ratio of the
cookies (Sulieman et al., 2018), which is more preferable to consumers.
Overall, rice flour is still the most popular flour for gluten-free
cookies, and it is commonly blended with other flour, starch, and/or
protein for better functionality and product quality. The incorporation
of protein isolates or concentrates in gluten-free cookie formulation
increased the water hydration of cookie dough and reduced cookie
hardness and spread ratio. With the usage of various gluten-free flours
and starches, the hydration behavior, rheology, and gelatinization of
cookie dough were altered, and the quality of resultant cookies greatly
varied. Sugar is an important ingredient in cookie formulation but with
the concern of high calorie, thus alternative sugars such as artificial
sweeteners, molasses, and maize syrup should be further explored to
reduce the calorie but maintain the texture. The addition of gums
complemented some gluten function and could improve the rheological
properties of cookie dough. So far, most gluten-free cookies are still
inferior to wheat-based cookies in terms of texture and sensory accep­
tance; thus, further research in the field is still necessary.
2.2. Gluten-free biscuits
Major ingredients to make biscuits include flour, water, sugar, fat,
and salt. The structure of wheat-based biscuit only partially relies on
gluten development. A gluten-free biscuit is mostly processed based on
the starchy flour such as rice and maize which contain mostly carbo­
hydrate and some protein. Physical, chemical, rheological, sensorial,
and textural profiles of biscuit dough and biscuit itself are dependent on
the gluten-free flours and formulations.
Schober, O’Brien, McCarthy, Darnedde, and Arendt (2003) studied
various blends of gluten-free flours including rice flour/maize starch/­
potato starch/soy flour (70/10/10/10), rice flour/potato starch/buck­
wheat/millet flake (50/30/10/10), and rice flour/maize starch/potato
starch/millet flakes (25/25/25/25) and compared the properties of
resultant biscuits. The biscuit prepared from blend of rice flour, maize
starch, potato starch, and soy flour resulted in the most similar prop­
erties as wheat biscuits in terms of texture, diameter, thickness, and
color (Schober et al., 2003). Singh and Kumar (2018) optimized biscuit
formulation made of foxtail millet flour, copra meal flour, and amaranth
flour, skim milk powder, and fat, and found that relatively higher
204
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
amount of amaranth (40%) and fat (42%) resulted in more desired
biscuit spread ratio and breaking strength and improved the overall
sensory. Gambuś et al. (2009) studied the effect of amaranth and/or
buckwheat on rice flour/potato starch biscuits, and they found that the
addition of amaranth and/or buckwheat increased the nutritional
qualities of biscuits, such as protein content and dietary fiber content.
Korus, Gumul, Krystyjan, Juszczak, and Korus (2017) developed biscuits
based on blends of maize-acorn flour (80/20, 40/60, and 60/40) and
maize-hemp flour (80/20, 40/60, and 60/40). The addition of either
acorn flour or hemp flour reduced biscuit volume and increased the
hardness of biscuit (Korus et al., 2017). The incorporation of acorn flour
or hemp flour increased protein content and total polyphenol content in
the biscuits (Korus et al., 2017). In addition, color of biscuit tended to be
darker as increase in either acorn flour or hemp flour (Korus et al.,
2017).
Sugar plays an important role in dough development, structure, and
texture of biscuits because sugar works as a softening ingredient and
increases the crispiness of the biscuit, and partially dissolved sugar can
contribute to the liquid phase such as dough viscosity during baking
(Manley, 2000). Beet molasses, as a reduced-calorie sweetener including
both dry and liquid forms have been incorporated into biscuit formu­
lation and their effects on dough properties and biscuit properties were
studied. Adding relatively smaller amount of dry molasses (up to 20%)
or liquid beet molasses (up to 30%) reduced the dough elasticity, which
is more desirable due to lower shape deformability during baking (Fil­
ipčev et al., 2015). In contrast to liquid molasses, dry molasses were
dispersed better into the biscuit, thus it could facilitate dough structure
at low concentration as well as the large-scale processing at lower
concentrations (10–20%) (Filipčev et al., 2015).
So far, very limited studies are available on gluten-free biscuits
(Table 2). Little information is known about the effect of various in­
gredients and gluten-free flours, proteins, and starches on the physical,
chemical, rheological properties of biscuit dough, and quality attributes
of resultant biscuits. Hence, further research should be conducted.
3. Gluten-free cakes and muffins
3.1. Gluten-free cakes
Cakes are relatively dense with tender crumb and sweet taste. The
global cake market is expected to grow by an annual rate of 3.3% and
reach USD 75 billion by 2023 (Research and Markets. Global Cake
Market - Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 2018–2023). Final moisture of
cake typically ranges from 18 to 28%, which is lower than bread but
higher than cookies (Wilderjans, Luyts, Goesaert, Brijs, & Delcour,
2010). Cakes can be classified into several categories based on the
composition and/or production method, such as high-ratio cake (i.e.,
sugar to flour ratio exceeds one) and low-ratio cake (sugar to flour ratio
is smaller than or equal to one), or shortened cake (moist, tender and
velvety bakery goods with fat and leavening agents such as baking
powder or soda) and unshortened cake (well-known as angel or sponge
cake without fat and leavened by air trapped in beaten eggs and steam)
(Wilderjans, Luyts, Brijs, & Delcour, 2013). Layer cake typically belongs
to the group of shortened and high-ratio cake made of emulsion-based
batter, while white layer cake utilizes only egg white, and yellow
layer cake utilizes whole egg. Both angel cake and sponge cake are
mostly unshortened cake made of foam-based batter, while angel cake
utilizes only egg white and belongs to the high-ratio cake, but sponge
cake uses whole egg and can be either low-ratio or high-ratio cake
(Godefroidt, Ooms, Pareyt, Brijs, & Delcour, 2019). Viscous cake batter
is necessary to trap gas bubbles during mixing and retain the shape
during baking (Wilderjans, Pareyt, Goesaert, Brijs, & Delcour, 2008).
Cake quality can be evaluated from different aspects such as through
physical analysis (weight, symmetry, volume, height of cake, crust and
crumb color, crumb structure and texture) and sensory analysis.
Cakes are largely consumed as breakfast or afternoon snacks,
J. Xu et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

Table 2 These factors affect starch swelling property and gelatinization

Properties of gluten-free biscuit dough and biscuits. behavior, thus influencing cake quality. Wu et al. (2018) compared the
Gluten-free Other Dough Biscuit References effect of different milling methods, including wet-milling, cyclo­
flour additives properties properties ne-milling, and ultrafine-milling on rice quality, and found that
Rice/ Xanthan Increasing Increasing Benkadri, wet-milling resulted in higher starch integrity, lower content of
chickpea gum (0.5, xanthan gum xanthan gum Salvador, damaged starch, higher starch gelatinization temperature, and higher
flours (78/ 1, 1.5% of increased increased Zidoune, values of absorption enthalpy and gel strength of the flour in contrast to
22) flour) hardness and thickness and and Sanz cyclone-milling and ultrafine-milling, as a result, leading to better
elasticity, and specific (2018)
reduced the volume,
gluten-free cakes.
springiness, reduced Flour particle size also affects batter properties and cake quality. The
cohesiveness, acceptability. influence of rice flour with different particle sizes (>180, 106–180,
and 80–106, and <80 μm) and varieties (short and long rice kernels) on cake
adhesiveness.
properties was studied by de la Hera et al. (2012). de la Hera et al.
Maize starch/ Dry or Increasing Increasing Filipčev
rice/guar liquid beet molasses molasses et al. (2012) demonstrated that the finest flour of short rice cultivar led to
gum flour molasses resulted in reduced the (2015) reduced specific volume and viscosity of sponge batters in contrast to
(60/35/5) (10, 20, softer, less biscuit spread coarse flour, while for layer batters, the finest flour also led to reduced
30, 40, elastic, and ratio and specific volume, but did not affect the viscosity. For the long rice
50% of more adhesive lightness.
flour) dough. Increased dry
cultivar, the finest flour showed reduced specific volume of sponge
molasses batters but increased viscosity (de la Hera et al., 2012). In addition, the
increased the finest flour of the short rice cultivar reduced the firmness of sponge
biscuit cakes and layer cakes (de la Hera et al., 2012). The batter and cake
hardness, but
properties were also affected by rice variety, but in a lesser degree (de la
liquid molasses
reduced the Hera et al., 2012). Dhen et al. (2016) replaced 15 and 30% maize starch
biscuit with soy flour of different particle sizes (<132, 132–156, and >156 μm)
hardness. in both layer and sponge cakes, respectively. Soy flour particle size
Rice flour (R), N/A Dough Biscuit Schober affected cake batter density and viscosity, as well as the specific volume
maize hardness: thickness: et al.
and hardness for both layer and sponge cake. Ronda et al. (2011) re­
starch (C), wheat > RCPM > (2003)
potato commercial commercial ported that rice starch with 20% soy protein isolate in cake batter
starch (P), gluten flour > gluten > RPBM showed similar viscoelastic properties to wheat-based cake batter.
soya flour RCPS, > RPBM > wheat > Levent and Bilgicli (2011) replaced maize starch and rice flour
(S), > RCPM. RCPS.
mixture (50/50) with lupin flour and whole buckwheat flour in order to
buckwheat Firmness:
(B), millet wheat > RCPS improve the nutritional and sensory qualities of cakes. Results showed
(M), RCPS > RPBM > that incorporating lupin and buckwheat flour improved mineral con­
(70/10/ RCPM > tents in cake, and the cake with 10% buckwheat flour and 30% lupin
10/10), commercial flour replacement received higher overall acceptability rating from
RPBM (50/ gluten free
sensory study, respectively (Levent & Bilgicli, 2011). Protein in the flour
30/10/10), flour.
RCPM (25/ influences batter properties, especially the viscosity, and cake quality.
25/25/25) For example, rice flour was substituted with 15, 30, and 45% protein of
plant sources (pea and rice protein) and animal sources (egg white and
why protein), respectively, in layer cake by Sahagún, Bravo-Núñez,
attracted by their sweet taste and soft texture (Tsatsaragkou, Papanto­ Báscones, and Gómez (2018). Sahagún et al. (2018) demonstrated that
niou, & Mandala, 2015). Ronda, Oliete, Gómez, Caballero, and Pando the viscosity of cake batter increased in general with the incorporation
(2011) demonstrated that cake batter could be considered as an of protein. As for the texture profile of cakes, plant protein and animal
oil-in-water emulsion with a continuous aqueous phase containing dis­ protein led to completely opposite effects. Adding egg white and whey
solved or suspended dry ingredients. The efficacy of air retention in cake protein resulted in increased hardness, cohesiveness and springiness for
batter has a proportional relationship with batter viscosity (Sahi & the cakes, while adding pea and rice protein reduced the hardness and
Alava, 2003). Cake production is primarily relied on the aeration and cohesiveness of the cakes (Sahagún et al., 2018). Plant protein reduced
gas bubble stability during baking but prior to the formation of cake the density of cake batter and increased the bubble size due to the
structure (Sahi & Alava, 2003). In addition, the quality of cake is coalescence phenomena, whereas animal protein reduced the bubble
dependent on the volume and crumb texture, which is related to the gas size due to its intrinsic foaming properties (Sahagún et al., 2018). In
bubbles incorporated into the batter during mixing. Cake volume is addition, this could also be attributed to the higher water binding ca­
greatly dependent on the starch gelatinization temperature. Higher pacity of proteins, which reduced the relative amount of available free
gelatinization temperature led to better batter expansion (Gularte, de la water, thus increasing batter viscosity (Majzoobi, Ghiasi, Habibi,
Hera, Gómez, & Rosell, 2012). The quantity of gluten-free cake is Hedayati, & Farahnaky, 2014). However, all protein-enriched cakes
influenced by many factors, such as milling method of grain (Gómez, presented significantly lower sensory acceptability relative to the con­
Ruiz-París, & Oliete, 2010a; Wu et al., 2018), type of flour, flour particle trol cake, and this effect was even more pronounced when rice protein or
size (Gómez, Ruiz-París, & Oliete, 2010b), and other constituents and egg white were added due to their taste, odor and texture (Sahagún
additives in cake batter (e.g., fiber, gum, emulsifier) (Gularte, de la et al., 2018). The properties of various gluten-free cake batters and cakes
Hera, Gómez, & Rosell, 2012; Sahi & Alava, 2003). Similar to gluten-free are summarized in Table 3.
biscuits and cookies, gluten-free cakes are made with gluten-free cereal Fiber-enriched cake is attracting more interest due to its nutritional
flours such as rice flour and sorghum flour (de la Hera, Martinez, Oliete, benefits. Gularte, de la Hera, Gómez, and Rosell (2012) replaced rice
& Gómez, 2012), legume flour (Gularte, Gómez, & Rosell, 2012), and
flour with 15% oat fiber and 5% guar gum, 15% oat fiber and 5% inulin,
pseudocereals such as buckwheat flours (Levent & Bilgicli, 2011). 20% oat fiber, and 20% inulin, respectively, and studied the effect of
Milling is an important step to remove bran from grain flour and has
different fibers on cake properties. Batter viscosity of the layer cake
significant influence on flour qualities, such as flour particle size, con­ increased with the addition of fiber, except for inulin incorporation
tent of damaged starch, and state of starch granule (Wu et al., 2018).
(Gularte, de la Hera, et al., 2012). The increased batter viscosity was due

205
J. Xu et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Properties of gluten-free cake batter and cakes. Gluten free flour Other Batter Cake properties References
Gluten free flour Other Batter Cake properties References additives properties
additives properties
protein reduced
Soy flour (<132, N/A For layer Soy flour Dhen et al. the hardness
132–156, and cake, addition did not (2016). and
>156 μm) increased affect the cohesiveness of
replacing 15% particle size specific volume cake. Lightness
and 30% increased of layer cake, of cake was
maize starch batter but reduced reduced with
in layer cake viscosity, hardness. protein
and sponge decreased Increased addition.
cake batter particle size of Protein reduced
formulation density. For soy flour the overall
sponge reduced specific acceptability
cake, volume of vs. control
increased sponge cake. (100% rice)
particle size cake.
increased Mixture of rice N/A Increased Increased RS Tsatsaragkou
batter flour and RS reduced increased cake et al. (2015).
density. tapioca starch elasticity specific
20% rice flour in N/A Oat-guar Oat-inulin Gularte et al. (80:20) and volume.
layer cake gum, oat- increased (2012) replaced with viscosity of Increased RS
replaced by inulin, and specific cake resistant cake batter. softened the
15% oat fiber oat volume, while starch (RS) (5, cake crumb
and 5% guar increased oat-guar gum, 10, and 20%) during storage.
gum, 15% oat batter oat, and inulin 20% RS
fiber and 5% viscosity, reduced. All received
inulin, 20% while inulin fiber addition highest score of
oat fiber, and reduced. increased acceptance.
20% inulin. hardness,
reduced
resilience. Oat to higher water retention capacity of fibers relative to rice flour.
and inulin Oat-guar gum addition reduced the cake specific volume, while
reduced
oat-inulin increased the volume; however, oat and inulin alone did not
springiness.
Oat-guar gum, affect the cake specific volume.
oat-inulin, and Gums are commonly used in bakery goods as viscosity enhancers or
inulin increased gelling agents to improve texture and sensory attributes. Xanthan gum
cohesiveness. has been reported to improve the rheological properties and specific
Lupin flour (LF) N/A N/A LF addition Levent and
(10, 20, 30, increased Bilgicli
volume of bakery goods (Preichardt, Vendruscolo, Gularte, & da Mor­
and 40%), and protein, (2011) eira, 2011). Preichardt et al. (2011) added different levels of xanthan
whole calcium, iron, gum (0.2, 0.3, and 0.4%) in cake formulation made with rice and maize
buckwheat manganese, flours (50/50), and they reported that the incorporation of xanthan gum
flour (BF) (5, phosphorus,
resulted in more uniform cake cell distributions and desirable sensory
10, 15, and and zinc
20%) were contents of attributes as traditional cakes formulated with wheat flour. In addition,
partially cakes; BF xanthan gum addition improved the cake specific volume and texture, in
replaced with increased terms of decreased firmness and delayed staling (Preichardt et al.,
maize starch potassium and 2011).
and rice flour magnesium
mixture (1:1 contents of
Emulsifiers can provide necessary aeration and gas bubble stability
w/w), cakes. during cake development, prior to the setting of cake structure (Sahi &
respectively. Alava, 2003). Sahi and Alava (2003) incorporated glyceryl mono­
Rice and maize Xanthan N/A Xanthan gum Preichardt stearate (0.25, 0.75, and 1.5% batter weight) and polyglycerol ester
flour (50/50) gum (0.2, addition et al. (2011)
(0.25, 0.75, and 1.5% batter weight) into sponge cake batter made of
0.3, increased
0.4%) specific high-ratio cake flour, and they found that both types of emulsifier
volume, improved batter water binding, decreased fluidity of the batter, and
reduced reduced air/aqueous phase interface tension. Increasing the amount of
firmness, and emulsifier affected texture profile of the cake, for example, hardness,
delayed staling.
0.3 and 0.4%
springiness, and resilience (Sahi & Alava, 2003). Similarly, the specific
xanthan gum volume of cake was also affected by emulsifiers; however, their effect on
addition texture profile of cake and cake volume did not show a clear trend.
achieved higher Gluten-free flour generally results in low volume and poor texture for
sensory
cakes compared with wheat flour. Modification of rice flour such as
acceptance.
Rice flour N/A Protein Egg white and Sahagún et al. through heat treatment (Marston et al., 2016) and extrusion (Das &
replaced with addition whey protein (2018) Bhattacharya, 2019) showed promising potential to improve batter and
15, 30, and increased increased cake qualities. Russo and Doe (1970) demonstrated that heat treatment
45% protein batter hardness, denatured the protein and enzyme in the flour, which increased cake
(pea, rice, egg viscosity. cohesiveness,
white, and and springiness
batter expansion, although the study was based on wheat flour. Marston
whey protein) of cake, while et al. (2016) pre-heated sorghum flour at two temperatures (95 and 125
pea and rice ◦
C) and three drying times (15, 30, and 45 min), and results showed that
sorghum flour heated at 125 ◦ C for 30 min led to the highest volume and

206
J. Xu et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

most cells per slice area. In addition, the overall acceptability of cake Table 4
made with pre-heated sorghum flour achieved higher score compared to Properties of gluten-free muffins.
the control cake. Overall, heat treatment positively improved the quality Gluten free Other Batter Muffin References
of gluten-free sorghum cake, in terms of volume, cell numbers, and flour additives properties properties
sensory attributes. The underlying mechanisms of improving cake Blends of rice N/A Muffins made Muffins made Bhaduri
qualities through heat treatment were not fully understood; however, it flour and of 100% rice, of 100% rice, (2013)
might be attributed to the increased batter viscosity of sorghum flour quinoa 75% rice and 75% rice and
due to starch granules swelling and gelatinization during heat treat­ flour (100/ 25% quinoa 25% quinoa
0, 75/25, resulted in resulted in
ment, thus improving the volume of the cake (Marston et al., 2016). Das 50/50, 25/ lower viscosity lower
and Bhattacharya (2019) modified red rice flour using a twin-screw 75, 0/100). of batter. hardness,
extruder. They reported that the batters from extruded red rice flour gumminess
showed higher elastic modulus than the corresponding viscous modulus and
chewiness.
during frequency sweep (Das & Bhattacharya, 2019). In addition, the
Chickpea Whey protein 0.5% and 1% Using Herranz
extruded rice flour also influenced the textural profile and phytochem­ flour replacement xanthan gum, chickpea flour et al.
ical content of the cake (Das & Bhattacharya, 2019). (5%, 10%, 10% whey decreased the (2016)
Many factors influence the qualities and sensory properties of gluten- and/15%); protein and springiness,
free cakes, including types and composition of gluten-free flour, added xanthan gum 0.5% xanthan cohesiveness,
replacement gum, 0.5% chewiness,
functional ingredients, and processing techniques and parameters or (0.25%, xanthan gum resilience and
modification of flours. Qualities of gluten-free cakes can be improved by 0.5%, and and 10% inulin specific
adding functional ingredients such as gums, proteins, and emulsifiers. 1%); inulin improved volume of
However, such improvement is in high variability and highly dependent replacement batter muffin.
(5%, 10%, viscoelasticity. Addition of
on the specific gluten-free cereal flours and added ingredients.
and 15%); xanthan gum
replacement improved
3.2. Gluten-free muffins of blends of sensory
10% whey sponginess,
protein and moisture and
Muffins are traditionally made of wheat flour, oil, egg, sugar, and
0.5% appearance of
milk. They are chemically leavened bakery products with moist crumb, xanthan gum, muffin.
chewy texture, flat tops, and high volume (Baixauli, Sanz, Salvador, & 10% whey
Fiszman, 2008). To consumers, ideal muffins are soft, spongy, and ten­ protein and
der in crumb. Quality of muffins is highly dependent on uniform air 10% inulin,
and 0.5%
incorporation, retention, bubble stability, and the generation of con­
xanthan gum
vection currents during mixing (Bhaduri, 2013). Air incorporation into and 10%
muffin batter can be determined by batter specific gravity which inulin.
calculated by dividing the weight of the batter by the weight of an equal Blend of rice N/A N/A Green banana Kaur et al.
volume of water (Jyotsna, Prabhasankar, Indrani, & Rao, 2004). The flour and flour (100%) (2017)
green muffin had
purpose of batter mixing is to incorporate air bubbles within the product banana favored
and to form a porous structure upon baking. Increased air bubbles in the flour (50/ volume,
batter results in reduced density (Shaabani, Yarmand, Kiani, & 50), green texture, taste,
Emam-Djomeh, 2017). Change of muffin batter density further alters banana flavor and
flour overall
muffin volume and crumb texture (Yildiz & Dogan, 2014). So far, a
(100%) acceptability.
variety of gluten-free flours has been applied in producing gluten-free Blends of rice N/A N/A Muffins made Man et al.
muffins, for example, rice (Matos, Sanz, & Rosell, 2014; Singh, Kaur, flour (RF), of 80% RF and (2014)
& Singh, 2016), millet (Shaabani et al., 2017), chickpea (Alvarez, Her­ soy flour 20% SF had
ranz, Jiménez, & Canet, 2017; Herranz, Canet, Jiménez, Fuentes, & (SF) and the highest
maize protein
Alvarez, 2016), and buckwheat (Ciesarová et al., 2016) (Table 4). starch (MS): content and
Blends of gluten-free flours are commonly used for developing 80/20/0, are preferred
muffins, such as blend of rice and quinoa flours (Bhaduri, 2013; Miranda 80/10/10 by consumers.
Villa et al., 2019), combination of rice flour, soybean flour and maize and 80/0/
20.
starch (Man, Păucean, Muste, & Pop, 2014), blend of rice four and
Rice flour Soy protein SPI, PPI and C C and EWP Matos
buckwheat flour (Iovan, Stoin, Traşcă, & Rădoi, 2015), blend of rice isolate (SPI), increased the increased the et al.
flour and green banana flour (50/50) (Kaur, Singh, & Singh, 2017), and pea protein elastic specific (2014)
combination of buckwheat flour and maize starch (Zieliński et al. isolate (PPI), modulus of volume of
(2017). Bhaduri (2013) studied gluten-free muffins based on the blends egg white muffin batter. muffins. SPI
protein has no effect
of rice flour and quinoa flour (100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 75/25, and 0/100), (EWP), on hardness,
and results showed that adding rice flour reduced viscosity of the batter, casein (C) springiness,
leading to decreased hardness, gumminess and chewiness. They also cohesiveness,
demonstrated that muffins containing higher amount of rice were better chewiness and
resilience of
accepted by consumers, and higher quinoa content in muffin led to
muffins. PPI
lower score of flavor due to the natural bitterness of quinoa. Miranda softened
Villa et al. (2019) also developed gluten-free muffins based on rice flour muffins.
and blend of rice flour and quinoa flour (70/30), using either whole Combination N/A N/A The addition Miranda
flour or malted flour. Addition of quinoa in the form of either whole of rice of quinoa Villa et al.
flour/whole either whole (2019)
flour or malted flour decreased the specific volume of muffins and quinoa flour or
increased the density (Miranda Villa et al., 2019). Germination can flour (100/ malted flour
activate α-amylase in the grain, thus reducing starch content, which (continued on next page)
further decreased viscosity of the muffin batter and reduced the specific

207
J. Xu et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

Table 4 (continued ) texture profile of muffins; however, pea protein isolate resulted in softer
Gluten free Other Batter Muffin References and springier muffins (Matos et al., 2014). Shaabani et al. (2017)
flour additives properties properties investigated the effect of chickpea protein isolate (0, 7, and 14%),
0, 70/30), decreased the
transglutaminase (0, 0.75, and 1.5%), and xanthan gum (0, 0.3, and
rice flour/ specific 0.6%) on millet flour-based muffins. Increased addition of xanthan gum
malted volume of enhanced specific volume and porosity of the muffin and reduced the
quinoa muffins, but hardness (Shaabani et al., 2017). The effect of chickpea protein isolate
flour (70/ increased the
and transglutaminase on muffin batters and muffin qualities did not
30) density
firmness, show a clear trend. However, Shaabani et al. (2017) demonstrated that
chewiness, chickpea protein isolate and transglutaminase together may form
and elasticity cross-linked networks within muffins, thus favoring muffin structure.
of muffins. Herranz et al. (2016) investigated the effect of whey protein, xanthan
Quinoa flour
affected the
gum and inulin on chickpea-based muffins. Results showed that the
sensory addition of xanthan gum (0.5 and 1%) significantly increased the batter
properties of viscoelasticity, and so do the muffins further blended either whey pro­
muffins. tein or inulin (Herranz et al., 2016). Besides, gluten-free muffins based
Maize starch Protein All protein All protein Shevkani
on maize starch blended with protein isolate from kidney bean, field
isolate from isolates isolates and Singh
kidney bean increased enhanced (2014) pea, and amaranth were studied (Shevkani & Singh, 2014). All protein
(KB), field batter specific isolates improved muffin batter viscoelasticity with increased storage
pea (FP) and viscoelasticity volume, modulus and loss modulus and decreased tan δ (Shevkani & Singh,
amaranth including springiness 2014). Specific volume, springiness and cohesiveness of the muffins
(AM). Protein increased and
isolate was elastic and cohesiveness
were also improved due to the incorporation of the protein isolates.
10% of total viscous of muffins. Overall, further research is still necessary in developing more
amount. modulus, and Muffins with palatable and nutritious gluten-free muffins. Previous studies have only
decreased δ KB addition investigated a few gluten-free flours such as rice, millet, chickpea,
were the
buckwheat, and starch such as maize starch. Several protein isolates and
firmest.
gums were incorporated into the muffins for improving the batter
properties and final product quality. However, relatively little is known
volume of the muffin. The incorporation of quinoa as either whole flour about the physicochemical, nutritional, and sensorial properties of the
or malted flour increased firmness, chewiness, and elasticity of the resultant muffins, or specific functionalities of each ingredient and po­
muffins and reduced the overall rating of the product (Miranda Villa tential interactions within the ingredients that could benefit product
et al., 2019). Muffins made of blends of rice flour, soy flour and maize quality.
starch (80/20/0, 80/10/10, and 80/0/20) were investigated by Man
et al. (2014). Results showed that the muffins made of 80% rice flour and 4. Gluten-free crackers
20% soy flour had the highest protein content and received higher
overall rating from consumer sensory evaluation. Besides, maize starch Crackers are thin and crisp products baked from unsweetened and
was used to replace 25, 50, and 75% of chickpea flour, respectively, for unleavened dough. Based on the ingredients and production methods,
making muffins, and addition of the starch improved the texture profile crackers can be divided into three main categories, namely soda cracker
of muffins crumb, although this reduced protein content of the muffins (saltines or cream cracker), snack cracker (sprayed cracker), and
(Alvarez et al., 2017). flavored or savory cracker (Shukla, 1994). Puffiness, defined as the ratio
Iovan et al. (2015) conducted a sensory study on muffins based on of the difference of baked cracker before and after baking to the thick­
the combination of rice flour and buckwheat flour (90/10, 80/20, and ness of cracker dough, is an important indicator of cracker quality. The
70/30). They found that the muffins made of 80% rice flour and 20% global cracker market was estimated to reach USD $30.4 billion in 2021
buckwheat flour were more accepted by consumers. Kaur et al. (2017) (Technavio, Global Crackers Market 2017–2021). Traditionally,
compared gluten-free muffins based on the blends of rice flour and green crackers are primarily made from soft wheat flour. Nikolaidis and Lab­
banana flour (50/50) and 100% green banana flour with control muffin uza (1996) reported that water in the cracker functionalized as the
made of wheat flour. The incorporation of green banana flour increased plasticizer, and increased water content resulted in decreased glass
the volume, texture, flavor, taste, and overall acceptability, as well as transition temperature. In addition, gluten in a wheat cracker is the main
the mineral content of muffins, indicating that adding green banana component responsible for the texture changes such as mechanical
flour favors muffin quality (Kaur et al., 2017). Zieliński et al. (2017) changes and crispness, and increased water content reduces the crisp­
investigated gluten-free muffins made of maize flour in combination ness of crackers (Nikolaidis & Labuza, 1996). So far, a few gluten-free
with either unfermented or fermented buckwheat flour and further flours have been used to produce crackers, such as pulse flour
addressed the nutritional quality. The incorporation of both buckwheat (chickpea, green lentil, red lentil, yellow pea, pinto, navy bean flours,
flours increased the content of lysine, furosine, total phenolic com­ pea protein, starch, and fiber isolates) (Han, Janz, & Gerlat, 2010),
pounds, and antioxidant capacity of the muffins in contrast to 100% buckwheat (Sedej et al., 2011), soy, pea, and whey protein isolates
maize flour based muffins (Zieliński et al., 2017). In addition, fermen­ (Nammakuna, Barringer, & Ratantriwong, 2015) (Table 5).
tation of buckwheat flour further enhanced lysine content and antioxi­ Sedej et al. (2011) prepared gluten-free crackers with buckwheat in
dant capacity of the muffins (Zieliński et al., 2017). either refined (8.34% protein) or wholegrain (10.5% protein) forms and
Various functional improvers, such as proteins, enzymes, and gums compared the antioxidant properties with wheat cracker. Crackers made
were employed to improve the performances of gluten-free muffins. from buckwheat exhibited higher total phenolic and total tocopherols
Matos et al. (2014) studied the effect of a variety of proteins (soy protein contents and DPPH radical scavenging activity in contrast to the wheat
isolate, pea protein isolate, egg white protein, and casein) on rice-based cracker (Sedej et al., 2011). In addition, there was no significant dif­
muffins. They found that soy protein isolate, pea protein isolate and ference from sensory evaluation between the wholegrain buckwheat
casein significantly increased the elastic modulus of the batter (Matos crackers and whole wheat crackers (Sedej et al., 2011).
et al., 2014). Casein and egg white protein increased specific volume of Plant flour, seed, and fiber have also been investigated for gluten-
the muffins (Matos et al., 2014). Soy protein isolate did not influence the free crackers. Functional ingredients such as hemp flour (0, 15, 30,

208
J. Xu et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213

Table 5 Table 5 (continued )

Properties of gluten-free crackers. Gluten-free flour Other additives Cracker References
Gluten-free flour Other additives Cracker References properties
properties
and essential fatty
Chickpea, green N/A Crackers from red Han et al. acids) vs. brown
lentil, red lentil, lentil flour and (2010) rice flour cracker.
yellow pea, pinto bean flours Green tea leaves
pinto, navy bean were the darkest. addition
flours, pea Physical and increased total
protein, starch nutritional phenolics and
and fiber properties of antioxidant
isolates pulses crackers activities of
were similar to crackers.
commercial Buckwheat N/A Buckwheat Sedej et al.,
crackers. (refined or crackers contain 2011
Brown rice flour Apple pomace flour Apple pomace Mir et al. (2017) whole) more phenolics
(0, 3, 6, and 9%) addition and tocopherols
increased pasting vs. wheat
temperature of crackers.
rice flour, Comparable
decreased peak sensory quality of
viscosity, wholegrain
breakdown buckwheat
viscosity, set-back cracker to whole
viscosity, and wheat cracker.
holding viscosity.
Apple pomace
addition 45, and 60 g) and decaffeinated green tea leaves (0–8 g) were added to
increased brown rice flour for cracker preparation, and results showed that hemp
antioxidant
flour increased the nutritional qualities such as content of protein, fiber,
properties, total
dietary fiber, and minerals and essential fatty acids compared with the control, and
minerals of addition of decaffeinated green tea leaves increased cracker antioxidant
cracker. properties (Radočaj, Dimić, & Tsao, 2014). In addition, carob
Blends of flour Carboxymethyl Xanthan gum and Nammakuna, by-products such as germ and seed peel were formulated into gluten-free
(low-amylose cellulose (CMC) HPMC increased Barringer, &
rice flour, waxy (1.0, 1.5, 2.0% on water activity and Ratantriwong
cracker, and surface response models showed that 4–14% germ and less
rice flour, and flour blend basis), moisture content (2015) than 9% seed peel could yield optimal formulations with increased
pregelatinized HPMC (1.0, 1.5, of crackers vs. protein, fiber, and antioxidant activities for the cracker (Martin-Diana
tapioca starch) 2.0% on flour blend control. Except for et al., 2017). Mir, Bosco, Shah, Santhalakshmy, and Mir (2017) incor­
basis), xanthan 1% HPMC, all
porated apple pomace (0, 3, 6, and 9%) into brown rice cracker and
gum (0.25, 0.5, gum addition
0.75% on rice flour increased cracker found that an increase in apple pomace reduced the pasting viscosity but
basis). Protein puffiness. increased pasting temperature of cracker dough. Increased amounts of
isolates: soy, pea, Hardness and apple pomace also decreased the lightness of the cracker. Cooking water
and whey (2.5, 5.0, fracture forces of of soybean is rich in minerals, carbohydrates, proteins, and saponins,
and 10% on rice crackers: wheat
flour basis) flour control <
thus associated with functionalities such as foaming, emulsifying, and
crackers with thickening agents (Serventi, Wang, Zhu, Liu, & Fei, 2018). Serventi et al.
hydrocolloids (2018) incorporated cooking water of soybean into gluten-free crackers
addition < rice made of rice flour. Results showed that the water slightly increased the
flour control and
peak viscosity of cracker dough. In addition, cooked soybean water
flour blend
control. Protein addition had minor effect on the hardness of processed cracker at 0 h,
isolates increased but this reduced the hardness of cracker after two days storage (Serventi
moisture content et al., 2018).
of crackers. Protein isolates and hydrocolloids are also incorporated to cracker
Protein isolates
increased
formulation to improve the quality of gluten-free crackers. For example,
puffiness of Nammakuna et al. (2015) prepared gluten-free crackers based on blends
crackers vs. rice of low-amylose rice flour, waxy rice flour, and tapioca pregelatinized
flour control. starch either with addition of protein isolates (soy protein isolate, pea
Fracture force of
protein isolate, whey protein isolate) or hydrocolloids (carbox­
crackers with
protein isolates ylmethylcellulose, hydroxylpropylmethylcellulose, xanthan gum). They
addition was found that the addition of hydrocolloids, except for 1% HPMC, increased
comparable to puffiness and hardness of the cracker, but reduced cohesiveness and
flour blend and springiness, and affected the cohesiveness at different extent depending
wheat flour
control.
on the specific gum addition (Nammakuna, Barringer, & Ratantriwong,
Brown rice flour Green tea leaves (0, Hemp flour Radočaj et al. 2015). Hydrocolloids in the dough system increase gas retention ca­
replaced by 2, 4, 6, and 8 g) addition (2014) pacity and lead to higher volume by improving interfacial stability
hemp flour (0, increased during proofing and conferring additional strength to the gas cells
10, 20, 30, and nutritional
through baking (Nammakuna, Barringer, & Ratantriwong, 2015).
40%) qualities (e.g.,
protein, crude Addition of different levels of protein isolates in the flour blends had
fiber, minerals, minor effect on the puffiness, cohesiveness, and springiness of crackers;
however, cracker hardness was significantly influenced at different

209
J. Xu et al.
extent depending on the specific protein addition (Nammakuna, Bar­
ringer, & Ratantriwong, 2015).
To our knowledge, gluten-free crackers have not been well studied.
Only a few gluten-free flours were utilized to produce gluten-free
crackers, and so far, only a few studies have been focused on the
improvement of nutritional values, sensory properties, and texture
profile of resultant crackers. Moreover, little is known about the in­
teractions between the substituted ingredients and flour basis, as well as
the inner interactions between starch, protein, water, and others.
5. Challenges of developing gluten-free bakery products
Up to now, most gluten-free bakery products are made of gluten-free
cereals (e.g., rice, maize, sorghum, and millet), legumes and pulses (e.g.,
soybean, chickpea, lupin, lentils, and pea), and pseudocereals (e.g.,
buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa). In addition to gluten-free flours,
starches especially maize and rice starches are also commonly used to
develop gluten-free bakery goods. In wheat based products, mainly
gluten is responsible for the structure formation during dough devel­
opment and dough setting, as it forms viscoelastic network when mixed
with water and traps carbon dioxide during yeast fermentation and/or
chemical leavening. Gallagher, Gormley, and Arendt (2004) demon­
strated that absence of wheat gluten would impair the structure and
further result in a liquid batter. Therefore, one of the main issues asso­
ciated with gluten-free bakery products is the lack of functional gluten in
the system that results in inferior rheological properties of the dough or
batter and less desirable texture and quality of the resultant products.
Besides, gluten-free bakery products are typically high in carbohydrate
and calorie value, which may generate some concerns for
health-conscious consumers. Apart from these issues, overall nutritional
quality and sensory acceptability of current gluten-free bakery products
should be further improved to better meet consumers’ needs. Thus, this
section will discuss these issues related to gluten-free bakery products.
5.1. Technological limitation
Gluten is critical to the unique rheological properties of wheat-based
dough and batter and structure building in the product. Gluten-free
dough or batter are less cohesive, non-elastic, barely rising upon leav­
ening, and difficult to handle (Matos & Rosell, 2015). A big challenge
facing gluten-free bakery products is to substitute wheat gluten with
other ingredients which can deliver a similar function as wheat gluten.
Various approaches have been used to improve the texture and quality of
gluten-free bakery products, such as adding hydrocolloids, protein iso­
lates, enzymes, and modification of the flours. Hydrocolloids are often
applied as binders and improvers in gluten-free bakery goods. So far, the
most commonly used hydrocolloids are xanthan gum, guar gum,
carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, gum acacia,
and apple pectin. For example, xanthan gum has been shown to improve
the texture and quality of cakes made of rice and maize flours (50/50)
(Preichardt et al., 2011), buckwheat cookies (Kaur et al., 2015), and
millet muffins (Shaabani et al., 2017). Apart from hydrocolloids, pro­
teins such as soy protein isolate, whey protein, egg white, pea protein
isolate and others have also been utilized to improve the quality of
gluten-free bakery products. Soy protein isolate has been shown to
improve the texture of rice starch cakes (Ronda et al., 2011) and rice
flour cookies (Sarabhai et al., 2015). Combination of chickpea protein
isolate and transglutaminase improved the structure of millet muffins
(Shaabani et al., 2017). Modification of rice flour such as through heat
treatment (Marston et al., 2016) and extrusion (Das & Bhattacharya,
2019) improves cake batter and qualities, partially attributed to the
pre-gelatinization of starch through heat treatment and extrusion.
5.2. Nutritional quality
Gluten-free bakery products are safe to celiac patients, but the
210
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
nutritional quality of gluten-free bakery goods can be deficient due to
the utilization of highly refined flours and starches which are high in
starch carbohydrate but low in protein quantity and quality, as well as
low in fibers (Alvarez-Jubete, Arendt, & Gallagher, 2010; Fry, Madden,
& Fallaize, 2018). Legumes, pulses and pseudocereals are relatively
more nutritive than gluten-free cereal flours and starches (e.g., rice,
maize, sorghum), and their protein content is comparable to or higher
than that of wheat flour (Di Cairano et al., 2018). Pulses are rich in fi­
bers, proteins, minerals, and antioxidant bioactive compounds, which
add additional nutritional values to the gluten-free bakery products
(Melini, Melini, Luziatelli, & Ruzzi, 2017). Blends of gluten-free cereal
and pulse flours possess complementary amino acid profiles and provide
proteins of higher quality for bakery applications. Some pseudocereal
flours contain higher amount of nutrients such as proteins, dietary fi­
bers, micronutrients, and polyphenols than gluten-free cereal flours (Di
Cairano et al., 2018). Gluten-free products made of buckwheat, millet,
chickpea, oat, amaranth and quinoa contain more minerals than prod­
ucts made of rice, maize, and potato starch (Di Cairano et al., 2018).
Other strategies such as sprouting and malting of grains have been found
effective in improving the nutritional values, nutritional bioavailability
and palatability of gluten-free bakery goods, because soaking and
germination could activate enzymes to break down starch, lipids and
proteins in the flours and help release some micronutrients (Eskin &
Shahidi, 2013; Miranda Villa et al., 2019). Taken together, pulses and
pseudocereals are highly suggested to be incorporated into gluten-free
bakery products rather than only using gluten-free cereals and
starches (e.g., rice, maize, sorghum) when taken the nutritional values
into consideration.
5.3. Sensory properties
Achieving desirable sensory acceptability has been another big
challenge when developing gluten-free bakery products. Gluten-free
bakery products usually possess distinct appearance, color, texture,
aroma, and taste in contrast to the products made of wheat flour. Color
of gluten-free bakery products tends to be darker due to a complex
formulation. Specific volume of gluten-free bakery products such as
cakes and muffins are generally smaller with harder texture compared
with the products made of wheat. Taste of glute-free bakery products is
in high variability, depending on the gluten-free flours and formula­
tions. For example, addition of quinoa reduced the acceptability of
products due to its intrinsic bitterness (Bhaduri, 2013), while adding
some proteins have showed potential to improve the acceptability of
gluten-free bakery products in terms of texture. For example, the
incorporation of soy protein isolate in gluten-free muffins showed an
increasing trend of acceptable texture to consumers (Matos et al., 2014).
In addition, Shaabani et al. (2017) demonstrated that the combination of
chickpea protein isolate and transglutaminase improved the accept­
ability of millet muffins in terms of improved texture. Further studies
should focus on the effect of hydrocolloids, proteins, enzymes, and other
ingredients on the sensory acceptability of gluten-free bakery products.
6. Conclusions and future research
This review discusses advanced properties of gluten-free cookies,
biscuits, cakes, muffins, and crackers, in terms of formulations, pro­
cessing effects, dough properties, and quality attributes of the baked
goods. Various gluten-free flours from cereals (e.g., rice, maize, and
sorghum), legumes and pulses (soybean, chickpea, lupin, lentils, and
pea), pseudocereals (e.g., buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa), other
plant materials, and composite flours have been used. Common func­
tional food additives such as gums, emulsifiers, and fibers were also
investigated in gluten-free bakery systems and showed some improve­
ment on the properties of dough and bakery goods, especially with
respect to water hydration and rheological properties of dough or batter.
Current technological limitations, nutritional qualities, and sensory
J. Xu et al.
properties of gluten-free bakery products are also discussed. To date,
much research has been focused on gluten-free cookies and cakes, but
few works were done on gluten-free biscuits, muffins, and crackers. In
addition, there are few studies reporting the sensory results especially
the acceptability of gluten-free cookies, biscuits, cakes, muffins, and
crackers collected based on celiac disease patients. Both wheat starch
and protein play important roles in regular cookie, biscuit, cake, muffin,
and cracker products, but fundamental knowledge is still lacking on how
the gluten-free flours can better mimic the functions of wheat flours to
achieve more desirable and attractive products. Other ingredients be­
sides wheat flour, such as water, fat, sugar, milk, egg, and other dough/
batter improvers have been well optimized and extensively investigated
in wheat products, but information is still very limited regarding their
functions in gluten-free alternatives. Gluten-free products made from
composite flours especially combining cereals and pulses are expected to
have better amino acid profiles; however, more research is warranted in
developing and evaluating the nutritional values of these products.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Acknowledgements
This is contribution no. 20-266-J from the Kansas Agricultural
Experimental Station. This work was in part supported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Hatch project KS17HA1008.
References
Akesowan, A. (2016). Influence of konjac flour on foaming properties of milk protein
concentrate and quality characteristics of gluten-free cookie. International Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 51(7), 1560–1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13125.
Altındağ, G., Certel, M., Erem, F., & İlknur Konak, Ü. (2015). Quality characteristics of
gluten-free cookies made of buckwheat, corn, and rice flour with/without
transglutaminase. Food Science and Technology International, 21(3), 213–220. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1082013214525428.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Arendt, E. K., & Gallagher, E. (2010). Nutritive value of pseudocereals
and their increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends in Food Science
& Technology, 21(2), 106–113.
Alvarez, M. D., Herranz, B., Jiménez, M. J., & Canet, W. (2017). End-product quality
characteristics and consumer response of chickpea flour-based gluten-free muffins
containing corn starch and egg white. Journal of Texture Studies, 48(6), 550–561.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12263.
Baixauli, R., Sanz, T., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. M. (2008). Muffins with resistant
starch: Baking performance in relation to the rheological properties of the batter.
Journal of Cereal Science, 47(3), 502e509.
Benkadri, S., Salvador, A., Zidoune, M. N., & Sanz, T. (2018). Gluten-free biscuits based
on composite rice–chickpea flour and xanthan gum. Food Science and Technology
International, 24(7), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013218779323.
Bhaduri, S. (2013). A comprehensive study on physical properties of two gluten-free
flour fortified muffins. Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 4(7), Article 100251.
Brites, L. T. G. F., Ortolan, F., da Silva, D. W., Bueno, F. R., de Rocha, T. S., Chang, Y. K.,
et al. (2019). Gluten-free cookies elaborated with buckwheat flour, millet flour and
chia seeds. Food Science and Technology, 39(2), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1590/
fst.30416.
Burešová, I., Tokár, M., Mareček, J., Hřivna, L., Faměra, O., & Šottníková, V. (2017). The
comparison of the effect of added amaranth, buckwheat, chickpea, maize, millet and
quinoa flour on rice dough rheological characteristics, textural and sensory quality
of bread. Journal of Cereal Science, 75, 158–164.
Capriles, V. D., & Areas, J. A. G. (2014). Novel approaches in gluten free breadmaking:
Interface between food science, nutrition, and health. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 13(5), 871–890.
Cauvain, S. P., & Young, L. S. (2008). The nature of baked product structure. In Baked
products: Science, technology and practice (pp. 99–118). Oxford, UK: Blackwell
publishing.
Ciesarová, Z., Basil, E., Kukurová, K., Marková, L., Zieliński, H., & Wronkowska, M.
(2016). Gluten-free muffins based on fermented and unfermented buckwheat
flour–content of selected elements. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 55(2),
108–113.
Collar, C. (2019). Gluten-free dough-based foods and technologies. In J. R. N. Taylor, &
K. G. Duodu (Eds.), Sorghum and millets: Chemistry, technology and nutritional
attributes (pp. 331–354). Published by Elsevier Inc. in cooperation with AACC
International.
Dapčević Hadnađev, T. R., Torbica, A. M., & Hadnađev, M. S. (2013). Influence of
buckwheat flour and carboxymethyl cellulose on rheological behaviour and baking
211
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
performance of gluten-free cookie dough. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(7),
1770–1781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-0841-6.
Das, A. B., & Bhattacharya, S. (2019). Characterization of the batter and gluten-free cake
from extruded red rice flour. LWT, 102, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lwt.2018.12.026.
Delcour, J. A., & Hoseney, R. C. (2010). Principles of cereal science and technology (3rd ed.).
St. Paul, MN, USA: AACC International.
Dhen, N., Román, L., Ben Rejeb, I., Martínez, M. M., Garogouri, M., & Gómez, M. (2016).
Particle size distribution of soy flour affecting the quality of enriched gluten-free
cakes. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 66,
179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.10.032.
Di Cairano, M., Galgano, F., Tolve, R., Caruso, M. C., & Condelli, N. (2018). Focus on
gluten free biscuits: Ingredients and issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 81,
203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.09.006.
Duta, D. E., & Culetu, A. (2015). Evaluation of rheological, physicochemical, thermal,
mechanical and sensory properties of oat-based gluten free cookies. Journal of Food
Engineering, 162, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.04.002.
Elgeti, D., Jekle, M., & Becker, T. (2015). Strategies for the aeration of gluten-free breads
- a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 46, 75–84.
Eskin, M., & Shahidi, E. (2013). Biochemistry of foods. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 88
(2), 142.
Filipčev, B., Šimurina, O., Dapčević Hadnađev, T., Jevtić-Mučibabić, R., Filipović, V., &
Lončar, B. (2015). Effect of liquid (native) and dry molasses originating from sugar
beet on physical and textural properties of gluten-free biscuit and biscuit dough:
Gluten-free biscuits enriched with beet molasses. Journal of Texture Studies, 46(5),
353–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12135.
Filipčev, B., Šimurina, O., Sakač, M., Sedej, I., Jovanov, P., Pestorić, M., et al. (2011).
Feasibility of use of buckwheat flour as an ingredient in ginger nut biscuit
formulation. Food Chemistry, 125(1), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2010.08.055.
Fry, L., Madden, A. M., & Fallaize, R. (2018). An investigation into the nutritional
composition and cost of gluten-free versus regular food products in the UK. Journal
of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 31(1), 108–120.
Gallagher, E., Gormley, T. R., & Arendt, E. K. (2004). Recent advances in the formulation
of gluten-free cereal-based products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(3–4),
143–152.
Gambuś, H., Gambuś, F., Pastuszka, D., Wrona, P., Ziobro, R., Sabat, R., et al. (2009).
Quality of gluten-free supplemented cakes and biscuits. International Journal of Food
Sciences & Nutrition, 60(sup4), 31–50.
Gerzhova, A., Mondor, M., Benali, M., & Aider, M. (2016). Incorporation of canola
proteins extracted by electroactivated solutions in gluten-free biscuit formulation of
rice-buckwheat flour blend: Assessment of quality characteristics and textural
properties of the product. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 51(3),
814–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13034.
Giménez-Bastida, J. A., Piskuła, M., & Zieliński, H. (2015). Recent advances in
development of gluten-free buckwheat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
44, 58–65.
Giuberti, G., Marti, A., Fortunati, P., & Gallo, A. (2017). Gluten free rice cookies with
resistant starch ingredients from modified waxy rice starches: Nutritional aspects
and textural characteristics. Journal of Cereal Science, 76, 157–164. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcs.2017.06.008.
Giuberti, G., Rocchetti, G., Sigolo, S., Fortunati, P., Lucini, L., & Gallo, A. (2018).
Exploitation of alfalfa seed (Medicago sativa L.) flour into gluten-free rice cookies:
Nutritional, antioxidant and quality characteristics. Food Chemistry, 239, 679–687.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.07.004.
Godefroidt, T., Ooms, N., Pareyt, B., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. (2019). Ingredient
functionality during foam-type cake making: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 18(5), 1550–1562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-
4337.12488.
Gómez, M., Moraleja, A., Oliete, B., Ruiz, E., & Caballero, P. A. (2010b). Effect of fiber
size on the quality of fibre-enriched layer cakes. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 43(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lwt.2009.06.026.
Gómez, M., Ruiz-París, E., & Oliete, B. (2010a). Influence of flour mill streams on cake
quality. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 45(9), 1794–1800.
Góngora Salazar, V. A., Vázquez Encalada, S., Corona Cruz, A., & Segura Campos, M. R.
(2018). Stevia rebaudiana : A sweetener and potential bioactive ingredient in the
development of functional cookies. Journal of Functional Foods, 44, 183–190. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2018.03.007.
Green, H. R. P., & Cellier, C. (2007). Coeliac disease. New England Journal of Medicine,
357, 1731–1743. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra071600.
Green, H. R. P., & Jabri, B. (2003). Coeliac disease. The Lancet, 362, 383–391.
Gularte, M. A., de la Hera, E., Gómez, M., & Rosell, C. M. (2012). Effect of different fibers
on batter and gluten-free layer cake properties. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 48(2), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lwt.2012.03.015.
Gularte, M. A., Gómez, M., & Rosell, C. M. (2012). Impact of legume flours on quality and
in vitro digestibility of starch and protein from gluten-free cakes. Food and Bioprocess
Technology, 5(8), 3142–3150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-011-0642-3.
Gutiérrez, T. J. (2018). Plantain flours as potential raw materials for the development of
gluten-free functional foods. Carbohydrate Polymers, 202, 265–279. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.08.121.
HadiNezhad, M., & Butler, F. (2009). Effect of flour type and dough rheological
properties on cookie spread measured dynamically during baking. Journal of Cereal
Science, 49(2), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2008.09.004.
J. Xu et al.
Hager, A. S., & Arendt, E. K. (2013). Influence of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC),
xanthan gum and their combination on loaf specific volume, crumb hardness and
crumb grain characteristics of gluten free breads based on rice, maize, teff and
buckwheat. Food Hydrocolloids, 32, 195–203.
Han, J., Janz, J. A. M., & Gerlat, M. (2010). Development of gluten-free cracker snacks
using pulse flours and fractions. Food Research International, 43(2), 627–633. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.015.
de la Hera, E., Martinez, M., Oliete, B., & Gómez, M. (2012). Influence of flour particle
size on quality of gluten-free rice cakes. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(9),
2280–2288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-0922-6.
Herranz, B., Canet, W., Jiménez, M. J., Fuentes, R., & Alvarez, M. D. (2016).
Characterization of chickpea flour-based gluten-free batters and muffins with added
biopolymers: Rheological, physical and sensory properties. International Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 51(5), 1087–1098.
Iovan, M., Stoin, D., Traşcă, T., & Rădoi, B. (2015). Studies regarding the obtaining and
sensory analysis of gluten-free muffins with buckwheat flour addition. Journal of
Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 21(3), 222–226.
Jnawali, P., Kumar, V., & Tanwar, B. (2016). Celiac disease: Overview and considerations
for development of gluten-free foods. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(4),
169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.09.003.
Jyotsna, R., Prabhasankar, P., Indrani, D., & Rao, G. V. (2004). Improvement of
rheological and baking properties of cake batters with emulsifier gels. Journal of
Food Science, 69(1). SNQ16-SNQ19 https://doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb17880.
x.
Kaur, M., Sandhu, K. S., Arora, A. P., & Sharma, A. (2015). Gluten free biscuits prepared
from buckwheat flour by incorporation of various gums: Physicochemical and
sensory properties. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 62(1), 628–632.
Kaur, K., Singh, G., & Singh, N. (2017). Development and evaluation of gluten free
muffins utilizing green banana flour. Bioved, 28(2), 359–365.
Korus, A., Gumul, D., Krystyjan, M., Juszczak, L., & Korus, J. (2017). Evaluation of the
quality, nutritional value and antioxidant activity of gluten-free biscuits made from
corn-acorn flour or corn-hemp flour composites. European Food Research and
Technology, 243(8), 1429–1438.
Lazaridou, A., Duta, D., Papageorgiou, M., Belc, N., & Biliaderis, C. G. (2007). Effects of
hydrocolloids on dough rheology and bread quality parameters in gluten-free
formulations. Journal of Food Engineering, 79(3), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.03.032.
Lebwohl, B., Ludvigsson, J. F., & Green, P. H. (2015). Celiac disease and non-celiac
gluten sensitivity. theBmj, 351, h4347.
Levent, H., & Bilgicli, N. (2011). Enrichment of gluten free cakes with lupin (Lupinus
albus L.) or buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum M.) flours. International Journal of
Food Sciences & Nutrition, 62(7), 725–728.
Lin, S.-D., Lee, C.-C., Mau, J.-L., Lin, L.-Y., & Chiou, S.-Y. (2010). Effect of erythritol on
quality characteristics of reduced calorie Danish cookies. Journal of Food Quality, 33,
14–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2010.00307.x.
Liu, X., Mu, T., Sun, H., Zhang, M., Chen, J., & Fauconnier, M. L. (2017). Influence of
different hydrocolloids on dough thermos-mechanical properties and in vitro starch
digestibility of gluten free steamed bread based on potato flour. Food Chemistry, 239,
1064–1074.
Maghaydah, S., Abdul-Hussain, S., Ajo, R., Obeidat, B., & Tawalbeh, Y. (2013).
Enhancing the nutritional value of gluten-free cookies with inulin. Advance Journal
of Food Science and Technology, 5(7), 866–870.
Mahadov, S., & Green, P. H. R. (2011). Celiac disease: A challenge for all physicians.
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)., 7(8), 554–556.
Majzoobi, M., Ghiasi, F., Habibi, M., Hedayati, S., & Farahnaky, A. (2014). Influence of
soy protein isolate on the quality of batter and sponge cake. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation, 38(3), 1164–1170.
Mancebo, C. M., Miguel, M. A. S., Martinez, M. M., & Gomez, M. (2015). Optimization of
rheological properties of gluten free doughs with HPMC, psyllium and different
levels of water. Journal of Cereal Science, 61, 8–15.
Mancebo, C. M., Picón, J., & Gómez, M. (2015). Effect of flour properties on the quality
characteristics of gluten free sugar-snap cookies. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 64(1), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lwt.2015.05.057.
Mancebo, C. M., Rodriguez, P., & Gómez, M. (2016). Assessing rice flour-starch-protein
mixtures to produce gluten free sugar-snap cookies. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 67, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lwt.2015.11.045.
Manley, D. (2000). Technology of biscuits, crackers and cookies (3rd ed.). Cambridge,
England: CRC Press Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
Man, S., Păucean, A., Muste, S., & Pop, A. (2014). Studies on the formulation and quality
characteristics of gluten free muffins. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and
Technologies, 20(2), 122–127.
Marston, K., Khouryieh, H., & Aramouni, F. (2016). Effect of heat treatment of sorghum
flour on the functional properties of gluten free bread and cake. LWT-Food Science
and Technology, 65, 637–644.
Martin-Diana, A. B., Izquierdo, N., Albertos, I., Sanchez, M. S., Herrero, A., Sanz, M. A.,
et al. (2017). Valorization of carob’s germ and seed peel as natural antioxidant
ingredients in gluten-free crackers: Carob antioxidant by-products in gluten-free
snack. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 41(2), Article e12770. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jfpp.12770.
Marti, A., Seetharaman, K., & Pagani, M. A. (2010). Rice-based pasta: A comparison
between conventional pasta-making and extrusion-cooking. Journal of Cereal Science,
52, 404–409.
212
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
Matos, M. E., & Rosell, C. M. (2015). Understanding gluten-free dough for reaching
breads with physical quality and nutritional balance. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 95(4), 653–661.
Matos, M. E., Sanz, T., & Rosell, C. M. (2014). Establishing the function of proteins on the
rheological and quality properties of rice based gluten free muffins. Food
Hydrocolloids, 35, 150–158.
McCabe, M. S. (2010). Balancing consumer protection and scientific integrity in the face
of uncertainty: The example of gluten-free foods. Food and Drug Law Journal, 65(2),
367–390.
Melini, F., Melini, V., Luziatelli, F., & Ruzzi, M. (2017). Current and forward-looking
approaches to technological and nutritional improvements of gluten-free bread with
legume flours: A critical review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, 16(5), 1101–1122.
Miranda Villa, P. P., Mufari, J. R., Bergesse, A. E., & Calandri, E. L. (2019). Effects of
whole and malted quinoa flour addition on gluten-free muffins quality. Journal of
Food Science, 84(1), 147–153.
Mir, S. A., Bosco, S. J. D., Shah, M. A., Santhalakshmy, S., & Mir, M. M. (2017). Effect of
apple pomace on quality characteristics of brown rice based cracker. Journal of the
Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 16(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jssas.2015.01.001.
Monthe, O. C., Grosmaire, L., Nguimbou, R. M., Dahdouh, L., Ricci, J., Tran, T., et al.
(2018). Rheological and textural properties of gluten free doughs and breads based
on fermented cassava, sweet potato and sorghum mixed flours. LWT-Food Science and
Technology, 101, 575–582.
Nammakuna, N., Barringer, B. A., & Ratanatriwong, P. (2015). The effects of protein
isolates and hydrocolloids complexes on dough rheology, physicochemical
properties and qualities of gluten-free crackers. Food Sciences and Nutrition, 4(2),
143–155.
Naqash, F., Gani, A., Gani, A., & Massodi, F. A. (2017). Gluten-free baking: Combating
the challenges - a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 66, 98–107.
Nikolaidis, A., & Labuza, T. P. (1996). Glass transition state diagram of a baked cracker
and its relationship to gluten. Journal of Food Science, 61(4), 803.
Öksüz, T., & Karakaş, B. (2016). Sensory and textural evaluation of gluten-free biscuits
containing buckwheat flour. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 1178693.
Ozturk, O. K., & Mert, B. (2018). The effects of microfluidization on rheological and
textural properties of gluten free corn breads. Food Research International, 105,
782–792.
Paciulli, M., Rinaldi, M., Cavazza, A., Ganino, T., Rodolfi, M., Chiancone, B., et al.
(2018). Effect of chestnut flour supplementation on physico-chemical properties and
oxidative stability of gluten-free biscuits during storage. LWT, 98, 451–457. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.09.002.
Padalino, L., Conte, A., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2016). Overview on the general approaches
to improve gluten-free pasta and bread. Foods, 5(4), 87.
Pareyt, B., Goovaerts, M., Broekaert, W. F., & Delcour, J. A. (2010). Arabinoxylan
oligosaccharides (AXOS) as a potential sucrose replacer in sugar-snap cookies.
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 44(3),
725–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.11.008.
Pareyt, B., Wilderjans, E., Goesaert, H., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. A. (2008). The role of
gluten in a sugar-snap cookie system: A model approach based on gluten–starch
blends. Journal of Cereal Science, 48(3), 863–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcs.2008.06.011.
Paucean, A., Man, S., Muste, S., & Pop, A. (2016). Development of gluten free cookies
from rice and coconut flour blends. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences
and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Food Science and Technology, 73(2), 163.
https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-fst:12311.
Preichardt, L. D., Vendruscolo, C. T., Gularte, M. A., & da Moreira, A. S. (2011). The role
of xanthan gum in the quality of gluten free cakes: Improved bakery products for
coeliac patients: The role of xanthan gum in the quality of gluten free cakes.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46(12), 2591–2597. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02788.x.
Radočaj, O., Dimić, E., & Tsao, R. (2014). Effects of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) seed oil
press-cake and decaffeinated green tea leaves (Camellia sinensis) on functional
characteristics of gluten-free crackers. Journal of Food Science, 79(3), C318–C325.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12370.
Ronda, F., Oliete, B., Gómez, M., Caballero, P. A., & Pando, V. (2011). Rheological study
of layer cake batters made with soybean protein isolate and different starch sources.
Journal of Food Engineering, 102(3), 272–277.
Rubio Tapia, A., Kyle, R. A., Kaplan, E. L., Johnson, D. R., Page, W., Erdtmann, F., et al.
(2009). Increased prevalence and mortality in undiagnosed celiac disease.
Gastroenterology, 137(1), 88–93.
Russo, J. V., & Doe, C. A. (1970). Heat treatment of flour as an alternative to
chlorination. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 5(4), 363–374.
Sahagún, M., Bravo-Núñez, Á., Báscones, G., & Gómez, M. (2018). Influence of protein
source on the characteristics of gluten-free layer cakes. LWT- Food Science and
Technology, 94, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.04.014.
Sahi, S. S., & Alava, J. M. (2003). Functionality of emulsifiers in sponge cake production.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 83(14), 1419–1429. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jsfa.1557.
Sarabhai, S., Indrani, D., Vijaykrishnaraj, M., Kumar, V. A., & Prabhasankar, P. (2015).
Effect of protein concentrates, emulsifiers on textural and sensory characteristics of
gluten free cookies and its immunochemical validation. Journal of Food Science &
Technology, 52(6), 3763–3772.
Sarabhai, S., & Prabhasankar, P. (2015). Influence of whey protein concentrate and
potato starch on rheological properties and baking performance of Indian water
chestnut flour based gluten free cookie dough. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
J. Xu et al.
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 63(2), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.111.
Šarić, B., Dapčević-Hadnađev, T., Hadnađev, M., Sakač, M., Mandić, A., Mišan, A., et al.
(2019). Fiber concentrates from raspberry and blueberry pomace in gluten-free
cookie formulation: Effect on dough rheology and cookie baking properties. Journal
of Texture Studies, 50(2), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12374.
Schober, T. J., O’Brien, C. M., McCarthy, D., Darnedde, A., & Arendt, E. K. (2003).
Influence of gluten-free flour mixes and fat powders on the quality of gluten-free
biscuits. European Food Research and Technology, 216(5), 369–376. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00217-003-0694-3.
Sedej, I., Sakač, M., Mandić, A., Mišan, A., Pestorić, M., Šimurina, O., et al. (2011).
Quality assessment of gluten-free crackers based on buckwheat flour. LWT-Food
science and technology, 44(3), 694–699.
Serventi, L., Wang, S., Zhu, J., Liu, S., & Fei, F. (2018). Cooking water of yellow soybeans
as emulsifier in gluten-free crackers. European Food Research and Technology, 244
(12), 2141–2148.
Shaabani, S., Yarmand, M. S., Kiani, H., & Emam-Djomeh, Z. (2017). The effect of
chickpea protein isolate in combination with transglutaminase and xanthan on the
physical and rheological characteristics of gluten free muffins and batter based on
millet flour. LWT, 90, 362–372.
Shan, L., Molberg, O., Parrot, I., Hausch, F., Filiz, F., Gray, G., et al. (2002). Structural
basis for gluten intolerance in celiac sprue. Science, 297(5590), 2275–2279. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1074129.
Shevkani, K., & Singh, N. (2014). Influence of kidney bean, field pea and amaranth
protein isolates on the characteristics of starch-based gluten-free muffins.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49(10), 2237–2244. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijfs.12537.
Shukla, T. (1994). Future snacks and snack food technology. Cereal Foods World, 39,
704–715.
Simons, C. W., & Hall, C. (2018). Consumer acceptability of gluten-free cookies
containing raw cooked and germinated pinto bean flours. Food Sciences and Nutrition,
6(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.531.
Singh, J. P., Kaur, A., & Singh, N. (2016). Development of eggless gluten-free rice muffins
utilizing black carrot dietary fibre concentrate and xanthan gum. Journal of Food
Science & Technology, 53(2), 1269–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-
2103-x.
Singh, A., & Kumar, P. (2018). Optimization of gluten free biscuit from foxtail, copra
meal and amaranth. Food Science and Technology, 39(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/
10.1590/fst.22917.
Souza, E., Kruk, M., & Sunderman, D. W. (1994). Association of sugar-snap cookie quality
with high molecular weight glutenin alleles in soft white spring wheats. Cereal
Chemistry, 70, 601–605.
Suhendro, E. L., Kunetz, C. F., McDonough, C. M., Rooney, L. W., & Waniska, R. D.
(2000). Cooking characteristics and quality of noodles from food sorghum. Cereal
Chemistry, 77, 96–100.
213
Trends in Food Science & Technology 103 (2020) 200–213
Sulieman, A. A., Zhu, K.-X., Peng, W., Hassan, H. A., Obadi, M., Siddeeg, A., et al. (2018).
Rheological and quality characteristics of composite gluten-free dough and biscuits
supplemented with fermented and unfermented Agaricus bisporus polysaccharide
flour. Food Chemistry, 271, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2018.07.189.
Tam, L. M., Corke, H., Tan, W. T., Li, J., & Collado, L. S. (2004). Production of Bihon-type
noodles from maize starch differing in amylose content. Cereal Chemistry, 81,
475–480.
Tebben, L., Shen, Y., & Li, Y. (2018). Improvers and functional ingredients in whole
wheat bread: A review of their effects on dough properties and bread quality. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 81, 10–24.
Tsatsaragkou, K., Papantoniou, M., & Mandala, I. (2015). Rheological, physical, and
sensory attributes of gluten-free rice cakes containing resistant starch. Journal of
Food Science, 80(2), E341–E348. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12766.
Valitutti, F., Iorfida, D., Anania, C., Trovato, C., Montuori, M., Cucchiara, S., et al.
(2017). Cereal consumption among subjects with celiac disease: A snapshot for
nutritional considerations. Nutrients, 9(4), 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/
nu9040396.
Wilderjans, E., Luyts, A., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. A. (2013). Ingredient functionality in
batter type cake making. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(1), 6–15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.001.
Wilderjans, E., Luyts, A., Goesaert, H., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. A. (2010). A model
approach to starch and protein functionality in a pound cake system. Food Chemistry,
120(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.09.067.
Wilderjans, E., Pareyt, B., Goesaert, H., Brijs, K., & Delcour, J. A. (2008). The role of
gluten in a pound cake system: A model approach based on gluten-starch blends.
Food Chemistry, 110(4), 909–915.
Wu, T., Yan, L., Li, Y., Qian, H., Liu, L., Tong, L., et al. (2018). Effect of milling methods
on the properties of rice flour and gluten free rice bread. LWT-Food Science and
Technology, 108, 137–144.
Xu, J., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2019). Dough properties, bread quality, and associated
interactions with added phenolic compounds: A review. Journal of Functional Foods,
52, 629–639.
Yildiz, Ö., & Dogan, I. S. (2014). Optimization of gluten-free cake prepared from chestnut
flour and transglutaminase: Response surface methodology approach. International
Journal of Food Engineering, 10(4), 737–746.
Zavareze, E. da R., Storck, C. R., de Castro, L. A. S., Schirmer, M. A., & Dias, A. R. (2010).
Effect of heat-moisture treatment on rice starch of varying amylose content. Food
Chemistry, 121, 358–365.
Zieliński, H., Ciesarová, Z., Kukurová, K., Zielinska, D., Szawara-Nowak, D.,
Starowicz, M., et al. (2017). Effect of fermented and unfermented buckwheat flour
on functional properties of gluten-free muffins. Journal of Food Science & Technology,
54(6), 1425–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2561-4.