Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-019-00411-z

FULL-LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE

Physico-Mechanical and Nutritional Evaluation of Taro

(Colocasia esculenta) Flour-based Gluten-free Cookies
Namrata Ankush Giri1 • M. S. Sajeev1

Received: 20 August 2018 / Accepted: 27 April 2019 / Published online: 9 May 2019
Ó NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences) 2019

Abstract Taro (Colocasia esculenta L.) flour-based gluten-free cookies suitable for coeliac patient were developed using
taro flour (40–60%), rice flour (20–25%), sorghum flour (15–20%) and cassava flour (5–15%). Cookies were developed
using creamery method and evaluated for physical properties, textural analysis, proximate composition and sensory
characteristics. Spread ratio of taro flour-based gluten-free cookies varied between 3.95 and 5.49, and it was decreased with
increasing level of taro flour. Breaking hardness and toughness of different cookies was decreased with increasing level of
taro flour in flour blends. Minerals content in taro flour-based gluten-free cookies was higher than maida-based cookie.
Gluten-free cookies prepared with taro flour showed the maximum crude fiber content as compared to maida-based cookie.
Results indicated that taro flour-based gluten-free cookies for coeliac patient with overall sensory acceptable can be
prepared using taro flour 50% with rice flour 25%, sorghum flour 15% and cassava flour 10%.

Keywords Cookies
Gluten free
Nutrition
Sensory evaluation
Taro flour

Introduction only known treatment for celiac disease, as even trace

Coeliac disease (CD) is a chronic autoimmune disorder,
estimated to affect approximately 1–2% of the world
population, and results from the dietary intolerance to
gluten [13, 38]. Ingestion of gluten by celiac patients
causes villous atrophy of the small intestine and leads to
cramping, bloating, diarrhea, weight loss, vitamin and
mineral deficiencies etc. [14]. The disease has reached
alarming proportions in Europe and the USA and in India;
it has been diagnosed in 26–49% of children, presenting
with diarrhea in tertiary care hospitals [5, 46]. Consump-
tion of gluten-free diet as a strict life-long strategy is the
& Namrata Ankush Giri
namrata_cft@yahoo.in
M. S. Sajeev
ms_sajeev@rediffmail.com
1 flour, buckwheat flour, cassava flour, quinoa flour.
Division of Crop Utilization, ICAR-Central Tuber Crops
Research Institute, Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala 695017, India
amounts of gluten could trigger immune response in the
patients [12, 39, 42]. Gluten-forming proteins are necessary
for proper dough development and texture of most of the
baked food products [11]. Gluten present in the proteins of
wheat, rye and barley comprises two functions such as
glutenins and gliadins [16]. Glutenin has a rough rubbery
texture on hydration while gliadin on hydration yields a
fluid mass [12]. These researchers found that during dough
development, glutenin crosslinks with itself and then
associates with gliadins to form gluten strands. Imparting
the necessary dough consistency is a major challenge in the
development of gluten-free foods.
Cookie-type biscuits are widely consumed due to their
long shelf life and crisp texture [10, 27]. Cookies are made
traditionally from wheat flour using a number of ingredi-
ents such as sugar, chocolate chips, peanut butter. Func-
tional cookies have been attempted by various researchers
using several types of alternative non-wheat flours such as
[19, 20, 29]. Gluten-free cookies have been developed from
rice, corn, buckwheat and potato flours [4, 29, 40]. India is

123
126
one of the largest biscuit producers of the world, and the
bakery industry has been projected to grow annually at the
rate of 15–17% [22]. Being one of the most accept-
able snack foods by both children and adults, cookies/bis-
cuits could be considered as the best vehicle for nutritional
supplements.
Taro (Colocasia esculenta L.) is an extensively culti-
vated root crop of the tropical areas such as South East
Asia, the Pacific Islands, Africa, the USA and the
Mediterranean [30]. It is also widely cultivated and utilized
in the northeast states of India. Taro corms are low in fat
(0.5–1.2%), protein (2.9–4.6%) but very good source of
carbohydrates (90.8–95.5%) and minerals (1.6–5.5%)
especially magnesium (32.9–382 mg/100 g), calcium
(25.4–192 mg/100 g) and potassium (3.5–59.7 mg/100 g)
[2, 23, 33]. Besides its nutritional importance, it also
contains high level of gum, which helps to reduce blood
pressure, in hypercholesterolemia and in the management
of diabetes [33]. Although taro constitutes up to 16% of the
total calorie intake in Polynesia, its value addition is
meager [30]. Taro is reported to be rich in mucilage, which
has hypocholesterolemic and hypoglycemic effects [33].
Njintang et al. [32] studied the potential of taro flour for
bread and biscuits making and found that up to 10% level,
it did not alter the wheat dough alveography. Himeda et al.
[17] studied the use of wheat-taro composite mixes in
biscuits making and reported that up to 10–15% substitu-
tion level was acceptable. Nip et al. [31] developed snap-
type cookie formulations with taro flour as one of the main
ingredients. Nevertheless, gluten-free cookie has not been
hither to develop using taro flour. Considering the health
value of taro tubers (rich in minerals such as potassium,
magnesium and iron) and likely mineral deficiency in
celiac patients due to malabsorption, coupled with the need
to expand the utilization potential of taro through the
development of value added products, the present study
aimed at the development of gluten-free cookies from taro
flour.
Materials and Methods
Taro and cassava tubers harvested, at 6 and 10 months
maturities were obtained from the farm of ICAR-Central
Tuber Crops Research Institute. The tubers were washed
free of dirt and manually peeled and sliced to round disks
of approximately 5 mm thickness. The slices were sundried
for 36 h till the moisture content was brought down to \
10% and powdered in a hammer mill into fine flour and
pass through 85 mesh sieve of BSS standard (particle size
0.177 mm). The dry flour was packed in air tight containers
and stored at room temperature (30 ± 1 °C) for further
use.
123
Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131
Raw rice flour (fine powder from white rice), sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor) flour of particle size 0.177 mm, sugar,
fat and baking powder were procured from the local mar-
ket. Edible guar gum (supplied by M/S Lucis Colloids.,
Mumbai) was also added in preparation to enhance the
binding properties of the flour.
Preparation of Cookies
Three gluten-free flours blends were prepared by using
taro, cassava, rice and sorghum flours. The formulations for
the preparation of gluten-free cookies comprised flours
from taro (TF), rice (RF), sorghum (SF) and cassava (CF),
respectively, in the following proportions such as T1
(40:25:20:15), T2 (50:25:15:10) and T3 (60:20:15:05),
while the control cookies were made from 100% refined
wheat flour (maida). Cookies were prepared by creaming
methods for making cookies dough. The ingredients
(g) used in preparation of taro flour-based gluten-free
cookies were gluten-free flour blends—100 g, powdered
sugar—32 g, fat—40 g, baking powder—1 g and guar
gum—0.5 g.
Cookies dough was prepared in a spiral dough mixer and
sheeted to a thickness of about 5 mm approximately, cut
into round shape of 30 mm diameter and then transferred to
baking tray and baked at 165 °C for 20 min. Cookies, after
attaining room temperature, were packed in airtight plastic
containers and evaluated for different physico-chemical
parameters.
Physical Properties
Gluten-free cookies were evaluated for physical charac-
teristics including diameter (mm), thickness (mm) and
spread ratio. Diameter and thickness were measured with
the help of digital vernier caliper, whereas spread ratio of
cookies was calculated by dividing values of diameter
(D) by the thickness (T) value [1]. Ten cookies samples
were considered for determination of physical properties of
cookies.
Textural Properties
The textural properties of gluten-free cookies were deter-
mined using food texture analyzer [(TA-HDi); Stable Mi-
cro System (UK)]. Breaking test was used to determine
hardness and toughness of cookies. The individual cookie
was placed over two points of the blade. The blade was
attached to the crosshead of the instrument. The size of
probe used was 5 mm. The peak force from the resulting
curves was considered as breaking hardness of the cookie,
and the area under the peak force was considered as
breaking toughness. Settings were kept for the texture
Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131
analysis as: pretest speed—10 mm/s, test speed—1 mm/s,
posttest speed—1 mm/s, distance at—50% and strain—
50%.
Proximate Composition
Moisture, protein, fat, ash, crude fiber and minerals (P, K,
Ca, Mg and Cu) content of different samples of cookies
were determined as per standard methods [3]. Minerals
content of cookies was determined by using atomic
absorption spectrophotometer. Total carbohydrates value
was calculated by subtracting the total of moisture, protein,
fat, crude fiber and ash content from 100. Total calories
were calculated by multiplying protein, carbohydrates and
fat content by the factors 4, 4 and 9, respectively.
Sensory Characteristics
Sensory evaluation of cookies was done by group of 15
panel members selected from diverse category of staff at
ICAR-CTCRI. Samples were served with three digit code
numbers. Panelists were instructed about the evaluation
procedure. Sensory attributes like appearance, color,
aroma, taste, texture and overall acceptability for all
cookies samples were evaluated using nine-point hedonic
scales. The grades for hedonic scale were:
like extremely—9, like very much—8, like moder-
ately—7, like slightly—6, neither like nor dislike—5,
dislike slightly—4, dislike moderately—3, dislike very
much—2, dislike extremely—1 [6].
Statistical Analysis
Results were expressed as mean of triplicate analyses. A
one-way analysis of variance and Duncan’s test were used
to establish the significance of differences among the mean
values at the 0.05 significance level. The statistical analy-
ses were performed using SAS 9.3 software [41].
Results and Discussion
Physical Pproperties of Taro Flour-based Gluten-
free Cookies
The physical properties of gluten-free cookies such as
diameter, thickness and spread ratio indicated that the
diameter and spread ratio decreased proportionately with
increase in the level of fortification with taro flour
(Table 1). On the contrary, thickness of cookies increased
significantly with increase in taro flour addition. This
indicated that replacement of wheat flour with taro flour
resulted in reduction in lateral expansion of cookies, while
127
it led to increased vertical expansion. Increase in thickness
of taro flour cookies led to a reduction in the spread ratio
(D/T), and when compared to a spread ratio of 8.26 for
maida-based control cookies, very low spread ratio of 3.95
was observed in cookies made from 60% taro flour-based
blend. Decrease in spread ratio of biscuits has been
reported in biscuits made from wheat flour fortified with
functional additives such as defatted soy flour, cassava-
soybean mix, chick pea, bran etc. [18, 21, 35, 37, 44].
Singh et al. [43] found that high protein biscuits made from
wheat–legume blends had low spread ratio. The poor
spread ratio of biscuits made from composite flour might
be associated with the altered elastic behavior of the dough.
Mcwatters [28] attributed the spread ratio depression in
biscuits made from composite flours to an increase in the
relative quantity of hydrophilic additives, which compete
for water in the dough. It is well established that root crop
flours have a high affinity for water and their water holding
capacity is also high. Himeda et al. [17] reported that the
water absorption capacity (WAC) of taro flour was much
higher than wheat flour and this might have led to the low
spread ratio of taro flour-based cookies in the present study.
Kaushal et al. [25] also found that taro flour had the lowest
foaming capacity and highest WAC as compared to rice or
pigeon pea flour.
Breaking hardness of taro flour-based gluten-free
cookies varied between 16.21 ± 0.01 N and
40.63 ± 0.53 N. As the level of taro flour was increased,
breaking hardness significantly decreased and this may be
due to the absence of gluten in taro flour cookies or higher
water holding capacity of taro flour as compare to wheat
flour [17]. Taro flour is reported to be rich in fiber [24] and
this along with other fiber-rich flours such as cassava and
sorghum might have also contributed to the low hardness
of taro flour-based cookies. Toughness was also signifi-
cantly lower than the control cookies (Table 1). Singh et al.
[44] obtained hardness value of 26.97 N for biscuits made
from refined wheat flour and found that defatted soy flour
fortification enhanced the hardness. Jisha et al. [21]
reported lower hardness in cassava flour-based biscuits
than control, similar to the gluten-free cookies in the pre-
sent study. Although brittleness is liked to some extent by
the consumers, too brittle products could result in pack-
aging problems. However, subsequent sensory evaluation
studies reported in the present study showed that 50% taro
flour-based cookies (T2) had high acceptability.
Nutritional Composition of Taro Flour-based
Gluten-free Cookies
Nutritional composition of taro flour-based gluten-free
cookies is presented in Table 2. Moisture content of
cookies varied in between 3.29 ± 0.19% and
123
128 Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131

Table 1 Physical and textural properties of taro flour-based gluten-free cookies

Sample Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Spread ratio Breaking hardness (N) Breaking toughness (NS)

Control 41.85 ± 0.7a 5.06 ± 0.04d 8.26 ± 0.07a 40.63 ± 0.53a 71.13 ± 0.90a
b c b b
T1 33.23 ± 0.58 6.05 ± 0.14 5.49 ± 0.04 31.97 ± 0.02 63.84 ± 0.05b
c b c c
T2 31.87 ± 0.51 6.95 ± 0.16 4.58 ± 0.05 21.47 ± 0.07 22.74 ± 0.005c
T3 30.93 ± 0.23c 7.83 ± 0.24a 3.95 ± 0.15d 16.21 ± 0.01d 20.67 ± 0.023d
T1: 40% taro flour, T2: 50% taro flour, T3: 60% taro flour. The values are mean ± SD from three replicates. Mean values followed by different
superscripts in each column are significantly different at P B 0.05

Table 2 Nutritional composition of taro flour-based gluten-free cookies

Sample Moisture (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Ash (%) Crude fiber (%) Carbohydrates (%) Calories (kcal/100 g)

Control 3.29 ± 0.19c 6.73 ± 0.40a 25.03 ± 0.08a 1.17 ± 0.03c 0.25 ± 0.01c 63.57 ± 0.38a 506.48 ± 1.10a
b c a b a a
T1 3.88 ± 0.10 3.46 ± 0.05 24.0 ± 2.18 2.34 ± 0.09 3.63 ± 0.02 62.67 ± 2.33 480.57 ± 10.11b
b bc a a ab a
T2 4.15 ± 0.11 3.76 ± 0.05 24.42 ± 1.56 2.94 ± 0.04 3.52 ± 0.18 61.17 ± 1.63 479.62 ± 7.49b
T3 4.49 ± 0.22a 3.93 ± 0.05b 24.52 ± 0.80a 2.99 ± 0.01a 3.36 ± 0.12b 60.69 ± 0.74a 479.18 ± 4.41b
T1: 40% taro flour, T2: 50% taro flour, T3: 60% taro flour. The values are mean ± SD from three replicates. Mean values followed by different
superscripts in each column are significantly different at P B 0.05

4.49 ± 0.22%. Cookie made with taro flour 60% blend had
the highest moisture content and was significantly different
from rest of the cookies.
Crude protein content in the taro flour-based cookies
was significantly lower than the control cookies, mainly
because taro is reported to contain approximately 4–6%
protein only (dry basis) compared to 10–12% in refined
wheat flour [34]. On the contrary, the ash content in taro-
based cookies was significantly higher than the control
cookies (Table 2). Taro has been reported as a rich source
of minerals [7, 26, 45], which might have led to the high
ash content in the cookies. Control cookies had only very
low crude fiber content (0.25%) as compared to
3.36–3.63% in the taro-based cookies. Taro corm has been
reported to contain 0.6–1.18% crude fiber (fresh weight
basis) which is relatively higher than many cereal flours
[34]. Despite being rich in carbohydrate, the high fiber
content in taro flour might have led to the low energy
density in the gluten-free biscuits (Table 2). Hager et al.
[15] observed that the intake of refined sugar is generally
high in coeliac patients, which might lead to hyper-
glycemia. The low calorie content of the taro-based gluten-
free cookies might be advantages for coeliac patients.
Himeda et al. [17] also obtained calorie content
(470–485 kcal/100 g) in wheat-taro composite flour-based
biscuits similar to the gluten-free cookies in the present
study.
It was found that except for calcium, other minerals such
as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and cooper were
significantly higher in the taro-based cookies (Table 3).
Bradbury and Holloway [7] reported that taro was one of
the richest sources of potassium containing approximately
323–530 mg/100 g (fresh basis), while Lambert [26]
reported K content of 514 mg/100 g (fresh basis). Pro-
portionate increase in K content was observed in the glu-
ten-free cookies with the increase in taro flour addition. As
potassium is beneficial to hypertensive patients, this may
be considered beneficial for such people. Magnesium
content ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 mg/100 g in the gluten-free
cookies, when compared to only 0.008 mg in the control
cookies. Wills et al. [45] reported very high magnesium
contents of 19–37 mg/100 g (fresh weight) in taro corms.
Copper content ranged from 0.35 to 0.74 mg/100 g in the
taro-based biscuits. Minerals such as magnesium and
copper have been associated with several vital enzyme
activities and biological functions in the body [8, 36].
Although the calcium content in the taro-based cookies was
lower than the control cookies, they still had high calcium
(9.6–15 mg/100 g). Taro corms have been reported to
contain 11–45 mg/100 g (fresh weight) [26, 45]. The rich
complement of minerals in the gluten-free cookies shall be
considered beneficial for coeliac patients, as the villous
atrophy in these patients leads to malabsorption of minerals
[14].
Sensory Evaluation of Taro Flour-based Gluten-free
Cookies
Mean sensory scores for different sensory characteristics of
taro flour-based gluten-free cookies are presented in

123
Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131 129

Table 3 Mineral content of taro flour-based gluten-free cookies

Sample P (mg/100 g) K (mg/100 g) Ca (mg/100 g) Mg (mg/100 g) Cu (mg/100 g)

Control 84 ± 0.004d 168 ± 0.02d 21.13 ± 32.50a 0.008 ± 0.005d 0.26 ± 0.450d
c c c c
T1 125 ± 0.005 643 ± 0.005 9.56 ± 0.11 1.44 ± 0.057 0.35 ± 0.01c
b b b b
T2 167 ± 0.005 723 ± 0.005 13.87 ± 0.02 1.59 ± 0.011 0.56 ± 0.005b
T3 180 ± 0.002a 796 ± 0.005a 15.12 ± 1.32b 1.68 ± 0.255a 0.74 ± 0.106a
T1: 40% taro flour, T2: 50% taro flour, T3: 60% taro flour. The values are mean ± SD from three replicates. Mean values followed by different
superscripts in each column are significantly different at P B 0.05

Table 4 Sensory evaluation of taro flour-based gluten-free cookies

Sample Appearance Color Aroma Taste Texture Overall acceptability

Control 8.00 ± 0.67a 7.78 ± 0.97a 7.64 ± 1.00a 7.92 ± 0.82a 7.92 ± 1.07a 7.85 ± 0.71a
b c ab b c
T1 6.57 ± 1.01 6.21 ± 0.97 7.07 ± 0.73 6.28 ± 1.13 6.28 ± 1.06 6.48 ± 0.69b
b b b b b
T2 6.85 ± 0.86 6.92 ± 0.91 6.85 ± 0.77 7 ± 1.17 7.14 ± 1.02 7.95 ± 0.60a
T3 6.85 ± 0.94b 6.57 ± 0.64bc 6.78 ± 0.69b 6.42 ± 0.85b 6.28 ± 0.72c 6.58 ± 0.34b
T1: 40% taro flour, T2: 50% taro flour, T3: 60% taro flour. The values are mean ± SD from fifteen replicates. Mean values followed by different
superscripts in each column are significantly different at P B 0.05

Table 4. The mean sensory score for all the sensory char-
acteristics and for all the cookies samples was more than
minimum acceptable score of 6 (Table 4). It was observed
that cookies prepared using different level of taro flour
were accepted by the panelists.
Overall sensory acceptability for cookies prepared using
50% taro flour was more than cookies with 40% and 60%
taro flour. It was concluded that gluten-free cookie contains
50% taro flour, scored higher for sensory characteristics
than other gluten-free cookies.
The maximum mean score for different sensory char-
acteristics of gluten-free cookies developed using 50% taro
flour with 25% rice flour, 15% sorghum flour and 10%
cassava flour indicated the commercial scope for manu-
facturing of good quality taro flour-based gluten-free
cookies which can be consumed by people with gluten
allergy.
Eneche [9] found that gluten played only a limited role
in the processability and end product quality of cookies and
hence very high substitution of non-wheat flours was pos-
sible. Himeda et al. [17] studied the sensory characteristics
of wheat-taro composite flour-based biscuits and found that
these biscuits had high scores for parameters such as color,
texture, taste, aroma and overall acceptability. Significantly
higher scores were obtained for color and texture for T2
(50% taro flour incorporated blend) in the present study,
while other parameters were similar for the three test for-
mulae (Table 4).
Conclusions
On the basis of present investigation, it may be concluded
that nutritional and physico-mechanical evaluation of glu-
ten-free cookies showed that taro flour could be success-
fully utilized along with other flours such as rice, sorghum
and cassava for the development of cookies which could be
safely consumed by coeliac patients. The low calorie
density in the cookies coupled with the high content of
minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and
copper could be added advantage for taro flour-based
gluten-free cookies. Based on the high scores for all the
sensory parameters, it could be concluded that taro flour-
based blend containing 50% taro flour, 25% rice flour, 15%
sorghum flour and 10% cassava flour was the best combi-
nation for making gluten-free cookies.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support and
facilities provided by the Director, ICAR-CTCRI for the study. The
help extended by Dr. G. Padmaja, Emeritus scientist, is gratefully
acknowledged.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest Authors declare that there is no conflict of
interest.
References
1. AACC (2000) Approved methods of the American Association of
Cereal Chemists, 10th ed, USA

123
130
2. Aboubakar Njintang YN, Scher J, Mbofung CMF (2008)
Physicochemical, thermal properties and microstructure of six
varieties of taro (Colocasia esculenta L. Schott) flours and star-
ches. J Food Eng 86:294–305
3. AOAC (2000) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 17th
ed, Washington
4. Arendt KK, O’briend CM, Schober TJ, Gormely TR, Gallagher E
(2002) Development of gluten-free cereal products. Farm Food
12:21–27
5. Bhatnagar S, Gupta SD, Mathur M, Phillips AD, Kumar R,
Knutton S, Unsworth DJ, Lock RJ, Natchu UC, Mukhopadhyaya
S, Saini S, Bhan MK (2005) Celiac disease with mild to moderate
histologic changes is a common cause of chronic diarrhea in
Indian Children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 41:204–209
6. BIS (1971) Bureau of Indian Standards. Part I and part II. Guide
for sensory evaluation of foods. Indian Standard Institution,
Manak Bhawan, New Delhi
7. Bradbury JH, Holbway WD (1988) Chemistry of tropical root
crops: significance for nutrition and agriculture in the Pacific.
Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Can-
berra, p 201
8. Cowan JA (2002) Structural and catalytic chemistry of magne-
sium-dependent enzymes. Biometals 15:225–235
9. Eneche EH (1999) Biscuit making potential of millet/pigeon pea
flour blends. Plant Foods Hum Nutri 54:21–27
10. Fasolin LH, Almeida GC, Castanho PS, Netto-Oliveira ER (2007)
Cookies produced with banana meat: chemical, physical and
sensory evaluation. Food Sci Tech 27:524–529
11. Feillet P (1988) Protein and enzyme composition of durum
wheat. In: Fabriani G, Lintas C (eds) Durum wheat; chemistry
and technology. AACC Inc., St. Paul, pp 93–119
12. Gallagher E, Germley T, Arendt E (2004) Recent advances in the
formulation of gluten free cereal-based products. Trends Food Sci
Tech 15:143–145
13. Green PHR, Jabri IB (2003) Coeliac disease. Lancet 362:383–391
14. Green PHR, Cellier C (2007) Coeliac disease. New Engl J Med
357:1731–1743
15. Hager AS, Axel C, Arendt EK (2011) Status of carbohydrates and
dietary fiber in gluten-free diets. Cereal Food World 56:109–114
16. Hill ID, Dirks MH, Liptak GS, Colletti RB, Fasano A, Guandalini
S (2005) Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of celiac
disease in children: recommendations of the North American
Society for pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition.
J Pediatric Gastroenterol Nutr 40:1–19
17. Himeda M, Nicolas YN, Fombang E, Facho B, Kitissou P,
Mbofung CMF, Scher J (2014) Chemical composition, functional
and sensory characteristics of wheat-taro composite flours and
biscuits. J Food Sci Tech 51(9):1893–1901
18. Hooda J, Jood S (2005) Organoleptic and nutritional evaluation
of wheat biscuits supplemented with untreated and treated fenu-
greek flour. Food Chem 90:427–435
19. Isabelle LB, Souza EL, Felexs SS, Madruga MS, Yamashita F,
Magnani M (2015) Nutritional and sensory characteristics of
gluten free quinoa (chenopodium quinoa wild) based cookies
development using an experimental mixture design. J Food Sci
Technol 52(9):5866–5873
20. Jisha S, Padmaja G (2009) Whey protein concentrate fortified
baked goods from cassava-based composite flours. Nutritional
and functional properties. Food Bioprocess Tech.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S/1947-008-0175-6
21. Jisha S, Padmaja G, Sajeev MS (2010) Nutritional and textural
studies on dietary fiber-enriched muffins and biscuits from cas-
sava based composite flours. J Food Quality 33:79–99
22. Kar S, Roy P, Ghosh M, Bhattacharya DK (2012) Utilization of
seed protein concentrates in making protein rich biscuits. Indian J
Inf Sci Appli 2(1):7–14
123
Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131
23. Kaur M, Kaushal P, Sandhu KS (2011) Studies on physico-
chemical and pasting properties of taro (Colocasia esculenta L.)
flour in comparison with a cereal, tuber and legume flour. J Food
Sci Tech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0227-6
24. Kaushal P, Kumar V, Sharma HK (2013) Utilization of taro
(Colocasia esculenta): a review. J Food Sci Tech.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-013-0933-y
25. Kaushal P, Kumar V, Sharma HK (2012) Comparative study of
physicochemical, functional, antinutritional and pasting proper-
ties of taro (Colocasia esculenta), rice (Oryza sativa) flour,
pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) flour and their blends. Lebensm-
Wissu-Technol 48:59–68
26. Lambert M (1982) Taro cultivation in the South Pacific. South
Pacific Commission, Noumea
27. Mareti MC, Grossmann MVE, Benassi MT (2010) Physical and
sensorial characteristics of cookies containing defatted soy flour
and oat bran. Food Sci Tech 4:878–883
28. Mcwatters KII (1978) Cookie baking properties of defatted pea-
nut, soybean and field pea flours in baking powder biscuits.
Cereal Chem 55:853–863
29. Mishra A, Devi M, Jha P (2015) Development of gluten free
biscuits utilizing fruits and starchy vegetable powders. J Food Sci
Technol 52(7):4423–4431
30. Nip WK (1997) Taro. In: Smith DS, Nip WK, Hui VH (eds)
Processing vegetables science and technology, 1st edn. Tech-
nomic Publishing, Lancaster, pp 355–388
31. Nip WK, Whitaker CS, Vargo D (1994) Application of taro flour
in cookie formulation. Int J Food Sci Tech 29(4):463–468
32. Njintang NY, Parker ML, Moates GK, Faulds CB, Smith AC,
Waldron KW, Mbofung CMF, Scher J (2008) Microstructure and
creep recovery characteristics of achu (a taro based paste) made
from freeze dried taro chips as affected by moisture content and
variety. J Food Eng 87:172–180
33. Njintang YN, Boudjeko T, Tatsadjieu NL, Nguema-One E, Scher
J, Mbofung CMF (2011) Compositional, spectroscopic and rhe-
ological analyses of mucilage isolated from taro (Colocasia
esculenta L. Schott) corms. J Food Sci Tech.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0580-0
34. Onweluzo JC, Iwezu EN (1998) Composition and characteristics
of cassava–soybean and wheat–soybean biscuits. J Food Sci Tech
35(2):128–131
35. Onwueme IC (1994) Tropical root and tuber crops production,
perspectives and future prospects. FAO plant production and
protection paper 126. FAO, Rome, p 228
36. Osredkar J, Sustar N (2011) Copper and Zinc, Biological role and
significance of copper/zinc imbalance. J Clin Toxi S3(001):3–18.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0495.S3-001
37. Patel MM, Rao GV (1996) Effect of untreated, roasted and
sprouted black gram (Phaseolus mungo) flours on the physic-
chemical and biscuits (cookie) making characteristics of soft
wheat flour. J Cereal Sci 22:285–291
38. Reilly NR, Green PHR (2012) Epidemiology and clinical pre-
sentations of celiac disease. Semin Immunopathol 1:6
39. Rubio-Tapia A, Murray JA (2010) Coeliac disease. Curr Opin
Gastroenterol 26:116–122
40. Sarabhai S, Indrani D, Vijaykrishnaraj M, Milind Arunkumar V,
Prabhasankar P (2015) Effect of protein concentrates, emulcifiers
on textural and sensory characteristics of gluten free cookies and
its immunochemical validation. J Food Sci Tech
52(6):3763–3772
41. SAS (2010) SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, p 2010
42. Sciarini SL, Ribotta DP, Leon EA, Perez TG (2008) Influence of
gluten free flours and their mixtures on batter properties and
bread quality. Food Bioprocess Tech 10:12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-008-0098-2
Agric Res (March 2020) 9(1):125–131 131

43. Singh B, Balaji M, Kaur A, Sharma S, Sindhu S (1993) Studies 46. Yaccha SK, Misra S, Malik AK, Nagi B, Mehta S (1993) Spec-
on the development of high protein biscuits from composite trum of mal absorption syndrome in North Indian Children.
flours. Plants Foods Hum Nutr 43:181–189 Indian J Gastroenterol 12:120–125
44. Singh R, Singh G, Chauhan GS (1996) Effects of incorporation of
defatted soy flour on the quality of biscuits. J Food Sci Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
33:355–357 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
45. Wills RBH, Lim JSK, Greenfield H, Bayliss Smith T (1983)
Nutrient composition of taro (Colocasia esculenta) cultivars from
Papua New Guinea Highlands. J Sci Food Agric 34:1137–1142

123