See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351686978

Formulation of Gluten-Free Cookies with Enhanced Quality and Nutritional

Value

Article  in  Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca Food Science and Technology · May 2021
DOI: 10.15835/buasvmcn-fst:2020.0046

CITATIONS READS

0 1,156

4 authors, including:

Iulia Elena Susman Alina Culetu

National Institute of Research&Development for Food Bioresources 53 PUBLICATIONS   515 CITATIONS   
9 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Mona Elena Popa

University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest
274 PUBLICATIONS   1,332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovative Mild Processing Tailored to Ensure Sustainable and High Quality Organic Fruit Products- Acronim MILDSUSFRUIT-ERA NET project View project

CONSUMECO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mona Elena Popa on 19 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE
Open Access

Formulation of Gluten-Free Cookies with Enhanced Quality

and Nutritional Value
Iulia–Elena SUSMAN1,2,*, Marina SCHIMBATOR2, Alina CULEȚU2, Mona Elena POPA1

1 Universityof Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Marasti Blvd, District 1, Bucharest,
Romania
2 National Institute of Research and Development for Food Bioresources – IBA Bucharest, 6 Dinu Vintila Street,

021102 Bucharest, Romania

* Corresponding author: Iulia–Elena SUSMAN e-mail: iulia.susman@bioresurse.ro

Abstract
Gluten-free (GF) products are indispensable for people with celiac disease because till date the only treatment is
to follow a GF diet. Besides this, nowadays, people are more interested in following a healthy diet, so they are
looking for nutritious food. Nine gluten-free formulations were developed: control (C1-100% rice flour and C2-
100% quinoa flour) and samples with quinoa flour (87%) and with the addition of pea protein powder, pumpkin
seed protein powder, coconut flour, aronia powder, carrot powder, tomatoes powder and ginger powder with a
concentration of 13%, respectively, to show that quinoa flour is nutritionally richer than rice flour. Quinoa flour
had a higher content of protein (12.23%), fiber (6.80%), ash (1.66%) compared to rice flour, which had 7.20%
protein, 2.20% fiber and 0.60% ash. All supplemented cookies had higher levels of protein, fat and ash. The
sensorial analysis showed that the best acceptance besides C1 was for S3_coconut, S4_aronia and S6_tomatoes
cookies. Aronia cookie was the darkest and hardest sample. Besides C1 and C2, the softest sample was
S6_tomatoes, while S3_coconut was the lightest.

Keywords: cookies formulation, celiac disease, gluten-free products.

INTRODUCTION
Celiac disase (CD) also called gluten enteropathy (GE) affects
approximately 1% of the general population (Vici et al., 2016). CD is an
inflammatory condition of the small intestine induced by an
environmental precipitant, gluten, to people who are genetically
susceptible (Grace-Farfaglia, 2015). GE can manifest at any age and it is
characterized by the presence of typical autoantibodies to human tissue
transglutaminase (TTG) and histologic alterations of the small bowel
mucosa (Ivanova et al., 2017). In Romania, the incidence of celiac disease
among patients with diabetes is 3.9% based on data from a recent study,
published by World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO, 2016). CD may
have many symptoms like diarrhea, abdominal pain, steatorrhea, bloating,
weight loss, flatulence (typical gastrointestinal symptoms) and abnormal
liver function tests, bone disease, iron deficiency anemia, skin disorders
etc. (non-gastrointestinal abnormalities) (Rubio-Tapia et al., 2013).
According to a study that collected data from 48 people regarding their
daily nutrient intake, only one consumed a sufficient amount of dietary
fibre. The participants also consumed significantly lower amounts
(p<0.05) of calcium (760.7 mg/day) and iodine (96.2 mg/day), meanwhile the amount of iron (10.2 mg/ day) was
at the lower limit of the recommended intake, whereas the amounts of zinc (8.6 mg/day) and potassium (2716.6
mg/day) were beyond the recommended intake (Mijatov et al., 2016). Gluten is the main protein which forms the
structure of wheat bread and confers the dough its unique viscoelasticity and baking quality. This fact has a negative
impact to the way of dough handling (Bender, and Schonlechnera, 2019). Developing gluten-free products (GFP)
requires an extension, because the celiac patient nutritional needs are not fully covered by existing products
(Mandala, and Kapsokefalou, 2011). Cookies represent one of the most significant bakery products. These are an
important food product consumed by children and adults as a snack. Due to the lower water content and also the
lack of microbial spoilage, cookies have a long shelf life and makes large scale production and distribution possible
(Dhankhar, 2013).
A gluten-free diet means an unbalance input of the main nutrients, therefore, researchers always try different
formulations and ingredients to supply the lack of these compounds. The following ingredients were used in
different gluten-free formulations: pseudo-cereals (buckwheat, quinoa, amaranth), minor cereals (teff, millet), and
legumes (soybean, pea, chickpea, lentil), some type of seeds (flax seeds, chia seeds, pumpkin seeds), nuts (almonds,
hazelnuts, chestnuts, walnut, cashew nut), and tubers (arrowroot, tapioca, jicama, taro, potato) (Jnawali et al., 2016;
Bashir et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020). Nowadays, legumes and pseudocereals are increasingly used in various food
products for protein intake. Besides these, some fruits (such as blueberries, rosehips, chokeberry) are also used to
improve antioxidant properties of GFP.
Nowadays, development of food and functional food become a trend and it is constantly growing among food
industry (Bashir et al., 2020). The demand for gluten-free products for both celiac disease patients and consumers
who are interested in these products has increased recently, this leads to emerging need to develop gluten-free
baked foods to enhance food sector. It has been reported that during the year 2013 to 2015 gluten-free food
category attained a growth of 136% and reached a value of $11 billion (Foschia et al., 2016). The development of
new gluten-free products presents a real challenge, as they are difficult to produce due to the various technical
obstacles encountered in this process. Taking into account the current scenario of celiac disease and increased
consumer awareness in this regard, an increase in gluten-free products on the market is absolutely necessary.
Therefore, the aim of this research work was to establish different formulations that meet all the requirements
of a new gluten-free product, namely gluten-free cookies with enhanced quality and nutritional value. To achieve
this, several ingredients with a valuable nutritional value were used such as pea protein powder, pumpkin seed
protein powder, coconut flour, aronia powder, carrot powder, tomatoes powder, ginger powder.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials
Rice flour, carrot and tomatoes powders were obtained from the National Institute of Research and Development
for Food Bioresources – IBA Bucharest. Quinoa flour, pea protein powder, pumpkin seed protein powder and
coconut flour were purchased from Paradisul Verde (Romania). Aronia powder was provided by Natural
Ingredients R&D (Romania), while ginger powder was bought from Vegis (Romania). Eggs, sugar, vanilla, baking
powder, milk, butter, margarine, salt and sodium bicarbonate were bought from a local market.

Cookies formulations
Rice flour (100%) and quinoa flour (100%) were used to develop control (C1) and control (C2) cookies. The
purpose was to completely replace the rice flour (which is commonly used in developing gluten-free products) with
quinoa flour and to compare nutritionally the two types of flour. In addition, 7 cookie formulations were prepared
based on quinoa flour (87%) with the addition of pea protein powder (S1_pea), pumpkin seed protein powder
(S2_pumpkin), coconut flour (S3_coconut), aronia powder (S4_aronia), carrot powder (S5_carrot), tomatoes
powder (S6_tomatoes) and ginger powder (S7_ginger), respectively, with a concentration of 13% (Tab. 1).
The production of cookies consisted in: firstly, mixing the raw material (quinoa flour, 87%) with each of the
powders (pea protein powder, pumpkin seed protein powder, coconut flour, aronia powder, carrot powder,
tomatoes powder and ginger powder, respectively, 13%) and sodium bicarbonate (0.5 g); secondly, other
ingredients such as: eggs (50 g), sugar (20 g), brown sugar (30 g), bourbon sugar vanilla (8 g), baking powder (2 g),
milk (20g), butter (50 g), margarine (50 g) and salt (1 g) were added to the mixture. The ingredients were mixed
using DOMOCLIP DOP150R stand mixer. The composition is placed in trays covered with baking paper using a
dough pouring instrument. The final step consisted in baking the cookies in a preheated oven at 180 °C for 15
minutes.
The baked cookies were cooled in the workspace conditions, packed in sealed plastic bags and kept at room
temperature. Chemical analysis was performed one day after baking. The sensory analysis was performed on fresh
cookies on the day of baking.
 Table 1. The main ingredients of cookies formulations
Mixture
Sample
Quantity (g) Quantity (g)
No. Flour Addition

C1 Rice 150 - -
C2 Quinoa 150 - -
S1 Quinoa 130 Pea Protein Powder 20
S2 Quinoa 130 Pumpkin Seed Protein 20
Powder
S3 Quinoa 130 Coconut Flour 20
S4 Quinoa 130 Aronia Powder 20
S5 Quinoa 130 Carrot Powder 20
S6 Quinoa 130 Tomatoes Powder 20
S7 Quinoa 130 Ginger Powder 20

Chemical composition of flours and cookies

Chemical composition of flours and cookies was determined according to the Association Official of Analytical
Chemists (AOAC, 2005) methods for ash (furnace Nabertherm, Lilienthal, Germany), fat (fat extraction system
SOXTEC 2055, FOSS, Hillerød, Denmark), protein (Kjeldahl block digestion unit, Behr, Düsseldorf, Germany) and
total dietary fibre (Fibertec system, FOSS, Hillerød, Denmark) content. Carbohydrate values were calculated
according to Regulation (EU) no. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011
using the following equation: 100 − (moisture + ash + proteins + lipids + fibres). The energy value was calculated
using the following conversion factors: 9 for fat, 4 for carbohydrates, 4 for protein and 2 for fibre.

Moisture content
Moisture content was determined using Moisture analyzer METTLER TOLEDO, model HE73 at 130 °C, sprinkling
5 grams of sample on the entire surface of the tray without pressing.

Colour measurement
Colour was performed using CM-5 Konica Minolta colorimeter on flours, powders and cookies. Three parameters
were determined: parameter L*- measures the brightness of the sample on a scale from 0 to 100, where value 0
represents black and value 100 represents white; parameter a* - represents the color of the sample on the scale
from pure green to pure red, where the negative values are green, the positive values are red and 0 is neutral and
parameter b* - represents the position of the sample on a scale from pure blue to pure yellow, where the negative
values are blue, the positive values are yellow and 0 is neutral. Each value was an average of 10 measurements made
on different points of the sample.

Texture measurement
Textural analysis of the cookies was carried out using Instron Texture Analyzer (type 5944, Illinois Tool Works
Inc., USA). The test was performed at room temperature. The probe was calibrated and then a test was runned by
placing the cookie sample on the platform of the texture analyzer. Four repetitions were made for each type of
cookie. The method of analysis included a cycle of compressions in the middle of each cookie up to a distance of
50% from the height of the cookie. The test parameters were: compression speed: 3 mm/min; load cell: 50 N. The
texture parameter firmness (or hardness), defined as the maximum force (expressed in N) which a cookie can bear
before breaking, was calculated using the Bluehill 3.13 program.

Sensory analysis
Sensory analysis of all nine type of cookies was performed by 30 people (23 females and 7 males, 23-65 years
old) from National Institute of Research and Development for Food Bioresources – IBA Bucharest using a 9-point
hedonic scale. Marks were given based on the scale from 1 “I dislike it extremely” to 9 “I like it extremely”. Drinking
water was provided to people for mouth cleaning after testing of each sample.
 Statistical analysis
Values are given as the mean ± standard deviation. Data analysis was performed using Minitab®19 (Minitab
Ltd., UK). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s test was used to show significant differences (p <
0.05) among samples.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Chemical composition of flours and cookies
For the experiments, 2 raw materials were used to make two basic cookies formulations (control): rice and
quinoa, respectively. Mixtures with quinoa and various ingredients were made to improve the nutritional properties
of the cookies.
Quinoa flour (C2) is superior in terms of nutritional content to rice flour. Quinoa flour had significantly higher
(p < 0.05) content of proteins, lipids and fibers compared to rice flour (Tab. 2). Also, the ash content was higher (p
< 0.05), which shows that quinoa is richer in minerals than rice. Thus, quinoa flour is more valuable than rice flour.
According to the chemical composition of the chosen powders for supplementation, these ingredients will improve
the nutritional value of the cookies. Thus, pea powder was added due to its excellent source of protein (77.66%).
Beside this, pea powder is a good source of carbohydrates, minerals and vitamins (Tulbek et al., 2017). Pumpkin
seed powder was used because pumpkin seeds are an important source of protein (25.2-37%) and fat (37.8-45.4%)
(Lazos, 1986). They also have a valuable content of amino acids and minerals (Apostol, 2018). Coconut dishes are
rich in fats, proteins and some vitamins, they counterbalance some of the deficiencies (Palaniappan, and
Subramaniam, 2010). Coconut flour also has a high fiber content. Aronia products are very healthy, they are
beneficial in various comorbidities such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, glucose metabolism disorders, pro-
inflammatory conditions and risk of thrombosis (Sidor, 2019). It also had a higher fiber content (Tab. 2). Carrot
powder was added because it is a significant source of nutraceuticals, including phenols, carotenoids and dietary
fiber (Zhang, and Hamauzu, 2004). It has been shown that the consumption of tomatoes and tomato products
decreases the risk of developing cancers such as cancer of the digestive tract and prostate due to lycopene and other
antioxidant components (Galvão et al., 2018). Ginger was added both for its aroma as a spice and for its properties
- it is used as a botanical food supplement especially for chronic inflammatory diseases (Zhao, 2009). The addition
of ginger powder in formulation has positive effects - this enriched antioxidant properties, improves physico-
chemical and sensorial properties (Balestra, 2011).

Table 2. Chemical composition (%) of raw material

Total dietary
Raw material Moisture Ash Protein Fat
fiber
Rice Flour 10.96 ± 0.03a 0.60 ± 0.02g 7.17 ±0.06g 0.60 ± 0.01g 2.20 ± 0.05g

Quinoa Flour 11.04 ± 0.05a 1.66 ± 0.02f 12.23 ± 0.04e 3.51 ± 0.01d 6.80 ± 0.10f
Pea Protein
7.14 ± 0.04g 4.31 ± 0.01e 77.66 ± 0.14a 0.11 ± 0.01h 0.10 ± 0h
Powder
Pumpkin Seed
Protein 7.78 ± 0.03f 8.25 ± 0.05a 61.93 ± 0.17b 5.90 ± 0.10c 8.76 ± 0.16e
Powder
Coconut Flour 5.61 ± 0.01h 4.53 ± 0.04c 18.41 ± 0.09c 15.75 ± 0.15a 31.66 ± 0.14c

Aronia Powder 8.75 ± 0.05e 1.60 ± 0f 6.90 ± 0.10gh 2.20 ± 0.10e 31.40 ± 0.10c

Carrot Powder 9.52 ± 0.02d 7.28 ± 0.03b 6.89 ± 0.11h 1.46 ± 0.04f 48.24 ± 0.16b
Tomatoes
10.76 ± 0.04b 4.39 ± 0.01d 17.98 ± 0.02d 10.85 ± 0.05b 54.55 ± 0.11a
Powder
Ginger Powder 10.07 ± 0.03c 1.60 ± 0f 7.56 ± 0.04f 6.07 ± 0.07c 18.00 ± 0.10d

The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters in the same
column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
The nutritional composition of gluten-free cookies is presented in (Tab. 3). All supplemented cookies had
significantly higher levels of protein, fat and ash (p < 0.05).
 Table 3. Chemical composition of gluten-free cookies

Protein Fat Ash Carbohydrates Sugar Salt Energy

Sample name
% dry matter kcal/100g kj/100g

C1 5.89 ± 0.07g 22.17 ± 0.02e 0.80 ± 0.01h 71.13 ± 0.08a 22.93 ± 0.07f 0.63 ± 0.01e 458.38 ± 0.03b 1923.09 ± 0.15b

C2 8.51 ± 0.01f 23.38 ± 0.08d 1.43 ± 0.02f 66.68 ± 0.10b 25.50 ± 0.21b 0.70 ± 0.02ab 445.52 ± 0.28f 1867.98 ± 1.09f

S1_pea 13.52 ± 0.06a 23.35 ± 0.05d 1.65 ± 0.03d 61.48 ± 0.14f 23.82 ± 0.08de 0.73 ± 0.01a 438.88 ± 0.11h 1840.15 ± 0.42h

S2_pumpkin 12.68 ± 0.04b 23.87 ± 0.13c 1.96 ± 0.02a 61.48 ± 0.18f 25.59 ± 0.10b 0.66 ± 0.02de 439.93 ± 0.51g 1844.05 ± 2.02g

S3_coconut 8.47 ± 0.03f 23.81 ± 0.09c 1.57 ± 0.03e 66.14 ± 0.14c 27.44 ± 0.06a 0.65 ± 0de 456.28 ± 0.27c 1912.70 ± 1.06c

S4_aronia 8.47 ± 0.03f 24.28 ± 0.10ab 1.32 ± 0.03g 65.92 ± 0.05c 24.07 ± 0.08cd 0.65 ± 0.01de 471.97 ± 0.55a 1978.11 ± 2.22a

S5_carrot 9.08 ± 0.03d 24.40 ± 0.05a 1.51 ± 0e 65.01 ± 0.03e 25.67 ± 0.04b 0.72 ± 0.01ab 446.77 ± 0.22e 1872.36 ± 0.87e

S6_tomatoes 9.30 ± 0.05c 23.41 ± 0.10d 1.74 ± 0.02c 65.55 ± 0.07d 24.28 ± 0.04c 0.66 ± 0.02cde 439.70 ± 0.36gh 1843.49 ± 1.43gh

S7_ginger 8.64 ± 0.04e 24.12 ± 0.07b 1.83 ± 0.03b 65.41 ± 0.13d 23.70 ± 0.06e 0.69 ± 0.01bce 448.60 ± 0.20d 1880.21 ± 0.76d

The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
 Moisture content
The raw materials moisture content varies from 5.61 to 11.04. The lowest value was recorded for coconut flour
and the highest for quinoa flour (Tab. 2). The values of the moisture content for the cookies were: 9.7% (C1), 12.8%
(C2), 14% (S1_pea), 14% (S2_pumpkin), 13.8% (S3_coconut), 8.5% (S4_aronia), 11% (S5_carrot), 13.4%
(S6_tomatoes) and 12.6% (S7_ginger).

Colour measurement
Since all flours were subjected to the same treatment, it can be concluded that cookie colour depends mostly on the
colour of flour and the mixture addition used for its production. Thus, a positive correlation was found between L*
of the raw materials and L* of the cookies (r = 0.89). Due to the addition of aronia powder which has the darkest
colour, cookie S4 was the darkest (the lowest L* value) (p < 0.05). It can be observed that C1 – rice is lighter than
C2 – quinoa (p < 0.05). Also, the addition of coconut flour to quinoa flour yielded lighter cookie (p < 0.05). The
addition of the other types of powders to quinoa flour, produced darker cookies. The sample which has the most
pronounced yellow tone (significanly higher b* values, p < 0.05) as well as red tone (significanly higher a* value, p
< 0.05) is the one with addition of tomatoes powder (Tab. 4). Figure 1 shows the images of the gluten-free cookies.

Figure 1. Images of the developed gluten-free cookies

Table 4. Colour of raw materials and developed gluten-free cookies.

Sample Colour of raw materials Colour of cookies
name L* a* b* L* a* b*
C1 92.11 ± 0a -0.29 ± 0.01h 6.15 ± 0.01i 68.68 ± 0.02a 6.91 ± 0.01f 24.82 ± 0.02c
C2 87.36 ± 0.59 ± 0f 12.14 ± 0.01g 63.78 ± 0.02c 7.73 ± 0.02c 22.86 ± 0.02g
S1_pea 0.01b
81.95 ± 3.92 ± 0.01e 20.61 ± 0.02e 63.22 ± 0.03d 7.79 ± 0.01b 23.09 ± 0.02f
S2_pumpkin 0.01e ±
65.32 -5.17 ± 0.03 i 30.08 ± 0.02b 60.08 ± 0.03g 2.97 ± 0.02h 25.89 ± 0.02b
S3_coconut 0.01g
87.17 ± 0.47 ± 0.01 g 14.18 ± 0.01f 64.54 ± 0.04b 7.12 ± 0.02e 23.56 ± 0.02e
S4_aronia 0.01 ±
c
32.47 12.54 ± 0.04 b 6.53 ± 0.03h 42.90 ± 0.04i 5.46 ± 0.02g 7.82 ± 0.03i
S5_carrot 0.01 ±
h
82.34 3.85 ± 0.03d 24.28 ± 0.02d 59.65 ± 0.02 h 7.75 ± 0.03 c 22.57 ± 0.03h
S6_tomatoes 0.04d ±
55.08 17.05 ± 0.02a 41.79 ± 0.05a 60.94 ± 0.01e 10.30 ± 28.16 ± 0.02a
S7_ginger 0.02i ±
67.31 4.59 ± 0.01c 28.99 ± 0.02c 60.54 ± 0.02f 7.570.01 a
± 0.01 d 24.52 ± 0.01d
0.02f
The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 10). Values followed by different letters in the same column are significantly
different (p < 0.05).
 Texture measurement
Texture is an important factor for consumers acceptance of the product. The texture is influenced by the increase
in the level of gliadin-glutein fractions of gluten on the cookie quality (Barak et al., 2013). The lack of gluten
influences the cookie texture and spread (Uthayakumaran et al., 2001).
The textural analyzes (Tab. 5) showed that the hardest sample is the one with aronia powder (S4) followed by
the cookies with carrot powder (S3) (p < 0.05). The softest cookies were the control made from rice flour (C1) and
there were no statistical differences between C1, C2, S2_pumpkin and S6_tomatoes (p > 0.05). The other cookie
formulations with pea, coconut and ginger, respectively, were harder than C1 (p < 0.05). Brito et al. (2014) showed
that the hardness of the cookie with higher amounts of quinoa flour in the mixture (quinoa flakes, quinoa flour and
corn starch) increased and the addition of a higher percentage of corn starch showed the lowest hardness values.
Moreover, the presence of the quinoa flakes presented positive effects on the cookies hardness.
As a general trend, the hardness increased with the addition of different ingredients to the quinoa flour, except
for the addition of tomatoes powder (S6) which showed similar hardness as C2 (Tab. 6) (Tab. 5). Hardness depends
on the gluten-free flour for example gluten-free cookies with coconut powder was softer or less hard than control
(wheat cookies). This extra softness was due to high fat content of the cookies (Dhankhar, 2013) . Srivastava et al.
(2010) also observed a decreasing trend of hardness with the addition of coconut. Other study showed that cookie
hardenss is increased with the addition of soluble fibre (Mudgil et al., 2012).

Table 5. Hardness of developed gluten-free cookies

Sample Hardness (N)

C1 2.22 ± 0.33f
C2 3.09 ± 0.19ef
S1_pea 3.77 ± 0.41de
S2_pumpkin 3.38 ± 0.23cef
S3_coconut 4.13 ± 0.33de
S4_aronia 12.87 ± 1.17a
S5_carrot 7.08 ± 0.89b
S6_tomatoes 3.15 ± 0.20ef
S7_ginger 4.65 ± 0.19cd
The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 4). Values followed by different
letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Consumer acceptance
A small scale consumer acceptance test was conducted using thirty untrained panellists by age category. Apart
from the rice control cookie, and according to the age categories, the most popular cookies were S4_aronia, S1_pea,
S3_coconut and S6_tomatoes (20-35 years old); S3_coconut, S6_tomatoes and S4_aronia (36-45 years old),
S4_aronia and S3_coconut (46-55 years old), S3_coconut, S2_pumpkin, S6_tomatoes, C2, S1_pea, S4_aronia and
S5_carrot (56-65 years old). Overall, the cookies which recorded the highest score were rice control, followed by
coconut and aronia cookies and the less appreciated was S7_ginger (Tab. 6). However, looking on the average values,
cookies S3_coconut, S4_aronia, S6_tomatoes and S1_pea were considered acceptable because the scores were higher
than 5 (Lazaridou et al., 2007) and these samples did not significantly differ (p > 0.05) from the control C1.

Table 6. Hedonic scale by age categories (average)

Age categories Average
Sample
(20-35) (36-45) (46-55) (56-65)
C1 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.5 ± 0.3a
C2 3.8 4.6 4.8 6.5 4.9 ± 1.1b
S1_pea 5.7 4.2 4.6 6.4 5.2 ±
S2_pumpkin 4.6 3.6 4.6 7.0 4.91.0 ab b
± 1.4
S3_coconut 5.5 6.0 5.0 7.1 5.9 ±
S4_aronia 6.3 5.0 5.6 6.0 0.9ab
5.7 ±
S5_carrot 4.3 3.4 4.2 5.9 4.50.5 ab b
± 1.0
S6_tomatoes 5.1 5.4 4.8 6.8 5.5 ±
S7_ginger 2.8 4.4 3.0 4.6 3.70.9 ab b
± 0.9
The average values from the last column followed by different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Both interest and the need to enrich the nutritional value of gluten-free products require the use of different
ingredients to create functional and valuable gluten-free products.
The replacement of rice flour with quinoa flour is a way to improve the cookies with both protein and fiber content.
The aronia (S4_aronia) cookies had the darkest color, the biggest hardness and these were some of the most
accepted by the panellists. The sample with the best score on the hedonic scale was S3_coconut. Beside these, S1_pea
was the richest protein sample.
Although these formulations show an improvement to nutritional values, quinoa flour is a little bit bitter and
requires a decrease in the percentage.

Author Contributions: I.E.S. Conceptualization methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing original draft.
M. S. Formal analysis and investigation. A.C. writing-review and editing; funding acquisition. M.E.P. supervision.

Funding Source: This study was achieved through Core Program, with the support of the Ministry of Research and
Innovation (MCI), contract 22N/2019, project PN 19 02 02 02 and USAMVB PhD fellowship programme.

Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
1. AOAC (2005). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
2. Apostol L, Berca L, Mosoiu C, Badea M, Bungau S, Oprea O B, Cioca G (2018). Partially Defatted Pumpkin
(Cucurbita maxima) Seeds -a Rich Source of Nutrients for Use in Food Products. Revista de Chimie, 69: 1398–
1402.
3. Balestra F, Cocci E, Pinnavaia G, Romani S (2011). Evaluation of antioxidant, rheological and sensorial
properties of wheat flour dough and bread containing ginger powder Food Science and Technology, 44: 700–
705.
4. Barak S, Mudgil D, Singh Khatkar B (2013). Effect of composition of gluten proteins and dough rheological
properties on the cookie‐making quality. British Food Journal, 115(4): 564–574.
5. Bashir S, Yaseen M, Sharma V, Purohit SR, Barak S, Mudgil D (2020). Rheological and textural properties of
gluten free cookies based on pearl millet and flaxseed. Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry Journal, 10
(5): 6565–6576.
6. Bender D, Schonlechnera R (2019). Innovative approaches towards improved gluten-free bread properties.
Journal of Cereal Science, 91: 102–904.
7. Brito IL, de Souza EL, Felex SSS, Madruga MS, Yamashita F, Magnani M (2015). Nutritional and sensory
characteristics of gluten-free quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) - based cookies development using an
experimental mixture design. Journal of Food Science & Technology, 52(9): 5866–5873.
8. Dhankhar P (2013). A Study on Development of Coconut Based Gluten Free Cookies. International Journal of
Engineering Science Invention, 2: 10–19.
9. Foschia M, Horstmann S, Arendt EK, Zannini E (2016). Nutritional therapy–facing the gap between coeliac
disease and gluten-free food. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 239: 113–124.
10. Galvão AMMT, Araújoa AWO, Carneiroa SV, Zambellia RA, Bastosb MSR (2018). Coating development with
modified starch and tomato powder for application in frozen dough. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 16: 194–
203.
11. Grace-Farfaglia P (2015). Bones of contention: bone mineral density recovery inceliac disease–a Systematic
review. Nutrients, 7: 3347–3369.
 12. Ivanova, I. I., Dukova, D. Y., Boikova, P.G., Grudeva, L.S. Shalev, I. B., Kotzev, I. A., (2017). Chronic Hepatitis Due
to Gluten Enteropathy – a Case Report Folia Medica.
13. Jnawali P, Kumar V, Tanwar B, (2016). Celiac disease: Overview and considerations for development of gluten-
free foods. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5: 169–176.
14. Lazos E (1986). Nutritional, fatty acid and oil characheristics of pumpkin and melon seeds. Journal of Food
Science, 51: 1382–1383.
15. Hopman EGD, Le Cessie S, von Blomberg BME, Mearin M (2006). Nutritional management of the gluten free diet
in young people with coeliac disease in the Netherlands. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition,
43: 102–108.
16. Mandala I, Kapsokefalou M (2011). Gluten-free bread: sensory, physicochemical, and nutritional aspects. In V.R.
Preedy, R.R. Watson, V.B. Patel (Eds.), Flour and Breads and Their Fortification in Health and Disease Prevention
(pp. 161–169). Academic Press-Elsevier Inc.
17. Mijatov MAK, Mičetić-Turk D (2016). Dietary Intake In Adult Female Coeliac Disease Patients. Slovenian Journal
of Public Health, 55(2): 96–103.
18. Mudgil D, Barak S, Khatkar BS (2012). Soluble fibre and cookie quality. Agro Food Industry Hi Tech, 23(3): 15–
17.
19. Ozkan M, Trandafir L, Mîndru E, Moraru E, (2012). Variability of nutritional status and of the parameters of
lipid metabolism in gluten-free diet. Revista medico-chirurgicală a Societății de Medici și Naturaliști din Iasi,
116(1): 103–107.
20. Palaniappan G, Subramaniam S (2010), The coconut revival. market survey, lecturers in commerce at Anbu Arts
and Science College, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District, Tamilnadu.
21. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Kelly CP, Calderwood AH, Murray JA (2013). ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and
management of celiac disease. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 108: 656–676.
22. Seraphin P, Mobarhan S (2002). Mortality in patients with celiac disease. Nutrition Reviews, 60: 116–118.
23. Sidor A, Drożdżyńska A, Gramza-Michałowska A (2019). Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) and its
products as potential healthpromoting factors - An overview. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 89: 45–60.
24. Simpson S, Thompson T (2012). Nutrition assessment in coeliac disease. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of
North America- Journal, 22(4): 797–809.
25. Srivastava Y, Semwal AD, Sharma GK, Bawa AS (2010). Effect of Virgin Coconut Meal (VCM) on the Textural,
Thermal and Physico Chemical Properties of Biscuits Scientific Research, 2: 38–44.
26. Tulbek MC, Lam RSH, Wang YC, Asavajaru P, Lam A (2017). Pea: A Sustainable Vegetable Protein Crop. In R.N.
Sudarshan, J.P.D. Wanasundara, & L. Scanlin (Eds.), Sustainable Protein Sources (pp. 145–164). Canada: AGT
Foods, Saskatoon, SK.
27. Uthayakumaran S, Tomoskozi S, Tatham, AS, Savage AWJ, Gianibelli MC, Stoddard FL and Bekes F (2001),
“Effects of gliadin fractions on functional properties of wheat dough depending on molecular size and
hydrophobicity”. Cereal Chemistry, Vol. 78: 138-41.
28. Vici G, Belli L, Biondi M, Polzonetti V (2016). Gluten free diet and nutrient deficiencies: A review. Clinical
Nutrition, 35: 1236–1241.
29. World Gastroenterology Organisation, WGO. (2016). Global Guidelines Celiac Disease. http://www.spg.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/2016-Celiac-Disease-1.pdf/ Accessed 15.07.2020.
30. Xu J, Zhang Y, Wang W, Li Y (2020). Advanced properties of gluten-free cookies, cakes, and crackers: A review.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 103: 200–213.
31. Zhang D, Hamauzu Y (2004). Phenolics and their antioxidant properties in different tissues of carrots (Daucus
carota L.). Food, Agriculture & Environment, 2(1): 95–100.
32. Zhao X, Yang Z, Gai G, Yang Y (2009). Effect of superfine grinding on properties of ginger powder. Journal of
Food Engineering, 91(2): 217–222.

View publication stats