Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry Advances

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

Chickpea as a promising ingredient substitute in gluten-free bread making:

An overview of technological and nutritional benefits
B R Vinod a, *, Ram Asrey a, *, Shalini Gaur Rudra a, Sumit B. Urhe a, b, Shatakashi Mishra a
a
Division of Food Science & Postharvest Technology, ICAR – Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India
b
ICAR – Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana 141004, India

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

Keywords: The growing awareness amongst consumers regarding health and wellness has changed the dynamics of the food
Loaf-specific volume industry. Owing to the burgeoning of lifestyle diseases the demand for gluten-free (GF) products has skyrocketed.
Crumb softness Traditionally, bread is made with gluten-rich flour, which gives it unique texture and flavour. However, a
Sensory profile
segment of the population with gluten intolerance seeks nutritious and tasty GF alternatives. While maize flour,
Glycemic response
Satiety rating
cassava flour, and rice flour have been explored, they pose technological challenges in the fabrication of gluten-
Dietary fibre free bread (GFB). This review focuses on Chickpea flour (CF) as a promising alternative for GFB, offering
improved technological, functional, nutritional, and sensory attributes. CF is rich in proteins, vitamins, and
dietary fibres, with potential preventive benefits against cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Incorporating CF in
GFB enhances dough stability, consistency, and loaf volume while reducing the glycemic response. It opens up
the possibility of nutritionally enriched, healthier, and more delicious GFB options for those with gluten intol­
erance, making it a highly promising ingredient for satisfying modern food demands.

Introduction
Gluten is a unique combination of hundreds of different but allied
proteins, the most notable of these are prolamins and glutelins (Cebolla
et al., 2018). In wheat, the prolamin is called gliadin and the glutelin is
called glutenin. Gliadins and glutenin are primarily responsible for the
viscoelastic properties of gluten. Gliadins are a specific type of prolamin
that contributes to increased viscosity and extensibility. While glutenin
is another major protein fraction, which contributes to the strength and
elastic properties of the dough (Biesiekierski, 2017; El Khoury et al.,
2018; Wieser, 2007). Together, they create the unique texture and
structure of gluten which give wheat dough its unique stretchiness and
ability to trap gas during fermentation, leading to the leavening of bread
(Gasparre & Rosell, 2023). Wheat flour contains 8–15% protein, with
albumin/globulin accounting for 10–15 % and gluten accounting for
85–90 % (Wieser, 2007). Secalin (rye), hordein (barley), and avenins
(oats) are all also prolamin proteins that are associated with gliadin (as
in wheat) and are collectively known as "gluten" (Capriles & Arêas,
2014). Gluten can act as a binding and extending agent as it is heat
stable and is necessary for knowing the rheological qualities of dough. It
is generally used as a major component in processed foods (such as
cakes, muffins, and/or bread) to improve texture, flavour, and moisture
retention (Biesiekierski, 2017). Gluten, however, is not the only crucial
component of wheat bread; starch also plays an important role as starch
granules are scattered throughout a continuous layer of gluten proteins,
which gelatinizes upon baking. As a result, starch plays a crucial role in
determining the structure setting and texture of bread (El Khoury et al.,
2018).
In simple terms, gluten is mainly limited to specific prolamins, such
as gliadin, due to their potential to trigger immune reactions in in­
dividuals with gluten sensitivity (Cebolla et al., 2018). Gliadin has
peptide sequences known as epitopes which are extremely resistant to
intestinal pancreatic and stomach proteolytic digestions, stopping it
from being broken down in the human digestive tract. This is due to the
high concentration of amino acids like proline and glutamine in gliadin,
in which many proteases are incapable of breakdown (Hausch et al.,
2002). These proline-rich compounds form compact structures that can
mediate the negative autoimmunological reactions as seen in coeliac
disease (CD). CD, also known as gluten enteropathy, is an
immune-mediated chronic condition characterized by a specific T-cell
response to gliadin (Biesiekierski, 2017). For genetically susceptible
individuals (who carry the human leucocyte antigen - DQ2/8 alleles),

* Corresponding author at: Division of FS & PHT, IARI, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, India.
E-mail addresses: vinodbr0026@gmail.com (B.R. Vinod), ramu_211@yahoo.com (R. Asrey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2023.100473
Received 25 June 2023; Received in revised form 24 September 2023; Accepted 3 October 2023
Available online 10 October 2023
2772-753X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
B.R. Vinod et al.
consuming gluten triggers an immune response that leads to inflam­
mation and lesion in the small intestine’s villous tissue and the over­
growth of crypts. This condition causes impaired digestion and
malabsorption of nutrients (Tye-Din et al., 2010; Fasano & Catassi,
2012). Gluten also triggers immunotoxicity causing allergic (wheat al­
lergy), autoimmune (gluten ataxia and dermatitis herpetiformis) and
immune-mediated (non-coeliac gluten-sensitivity) reactions (Biesie­
kierski, 2017; Cebolla et al., 2018). amongst these, CD has evolved into a
well-known public health issue all across the world. According to Singh
et al. (2018), the global prevalence of CD is 1.4 % based on serologic test
reports and 0.7 % based on biopsy data. Individuals with CD might
experience a variety of multisystem symptoms (chronic diarrhoea, fail­
ure to thrive, fatigue, malabsorption and anaemia), and if left untreated,
it can lead to serious problems, including death (Singh et al., 2018).
To date, the main course of action for CD appears to be a lifetime
strict avoidance of gluten and the use of only gluten-free (GF) foods
(Biesiekierski, 2017). These include foods produced entirely of in­
gredients that are free of any prolamins from wheat, barley, oats, rye, or
any species of Triticum, including Spelt (Triticum spelta L.), Kamut (Tri­
ticum polonicum L.), or their crossbreed with a gluten level less than 20
mg/kg, based on ready to eat foods (Codex Alimentarius Commission,
2008). The term "gluten-free food" is defined as the permissible amount
of gluten detectable at 20 ppm in food, according to various regulatory
bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the International
Standard, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India (FSSAI sub-regulation 2.14 of food safety &
standards regulation, 2011). A GF diet allows the consumption of fruits
and vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds, as well as naturally GF cereals
and pseudocereals and GF alternative food products (Capriles et al.,
2021). At present there are various commercially available gluten-free
bread (GFB) in the market which is made of rice and maize flour/­
starch but, these products have their own disadvantage and problems,
this issue can be addressed by substituting with other alternative raw
materials like pseudocereals, fruit and nuts, legumes etc. which has been
detailed below. amongst many alternatives, chickpea seems to be more
technologically, functionally and nutritionally superior in making GFB
along with other advantages such as easily available, cheaper and
cost-effective alternative to wheat. So, in this review, we have briefly
explained the process of GFB making, problems associated with GFB,
alternatives available for substituting wheat in GFB making process,
importance of chickpeas as a substitute in GFB, its functional and
technological benefits and finally research outlines related to chickpea
as an ingredient substitute in GFB making.
Gluten-free breadmaking process
GFBs are often formulated using a fundamental "straight dough"
procedure that includes mixing wet and dry ingredients in planetary
mixers, proofing, baking in pans, cooling, packing and storage (Capriles
& Arêas, 2014). However, GFB typically has shorter mixing, proofing,
and baking durations compared to wheat-based bread (Cappelli et al.,
2020). Recently, GFB has been formulated using novel technologies,
particularly sourdough fermentation. Sourdough is an intermediate
product of GF flour and water mixture that has been fermented by a
mixture of lactic acid bacteria and yeast, which can enhance the overall
quality (mainly texture), nutritional value, sensory profile (especially
taste and flavour) and shelf life of GFB. The sourdough bread-making
procedure flows in the following sequence: sourdough starter making,
dough making, proofing, baking and finally cooling, packing and storage
(Foschia et al., 2016; Capriles et al., 2021). Recent studies show sour­
dough’s potential to address various issues in GFB making. Properly
used, it can enhance quality (particularly enhanced viscoelasticity),
cost-effectiveness, and environmental friendliness (Cappa et al., 2016).
During sourdough fermentation, yeasts produce CO2, while lactic and
acetic acids from lactic acid bacteria predominantly acidify the dough.
These by-products alter starch and arabinoxylans, and enhance protein
2
Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473
solubility, resulting in a softer breadcrumb. Dough acidification may
activate flour enzymes, like proteases and amylases, further softening
the crumb. Specific lactic acid bacteria strains create exopolysaccharides
that enhance batter rheology and bread texture, enhancing shelf life.
Additionally, the organic acids retard staling through starch retrogra­
dation inhibition, thereby extending the shelf life of bread (Bender &
Schönlechner, 2020). A modern high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) tech­
nology, which was used mainly to eliminate microbes in fruit juices, is
now being used to alter starch and protein functionality, impacting
GFB’s batter rheology. It enhances starch swelling, modifying micro­
structure without damaging granule’s integrity and inducing visco­
elastic shifts. Furthermore, novel non-conventional baking methods like
microwave, ohmic heating and hybrid microwave-infrared are
employed for GFB production. These techniques have unique pros and
cons, with untapped potential awaiting exploration (Chhanwal et al.,
2019). Generally, these novel techniques have the potential to induce
alterations in starch gelatinization characteristics and molecular struc­
ture. Furthermore, they can lead to enhanced water holding capacity
(WHC), a delay in retrogradation time and a reduction in the bread’s
hardness (Garske et al., 2023).
Hitches associated with gluten-free bread (GFB)
Wheat bread has been an important part of many cultures for cen­
turies and is a universal staple food. Gluten, a protein found in wheat, is
a crucial component of flour in the breadmaking process. Indeed,
combining with water enables the gluten to form a network, resulting in
a viscoelastic dough with gas retention ability, mixing tolerance, stretch
resilience, and flexibility (Foschia et al., 2016). Thus, gluten is critical to
the overall quality of wheat-based baked goods. Therefore, gluten
deficiency has a significant impact on dough characteristics, the
breadmaking process, and the ultimate quality of GFB (Gasparre &
Rosell, 2023; Matos & Rosell, 2015). Low specific volume, dry and
brittle crumb, pale colour, rapid firming tendency, lack of taste and
flavour, and mouth-feel are all frequently mentioned poor characteris­
tics of GFB (Melini et al., 2017). Accordingly, acquiring high-quality
GFB continues to be a significant issue for bakers and the scientific
community. To ensure crumb structure and texture, GFB formulations
often require more water which can range from 70 to 218% in flour fresh
weight basis (Capriles & Arêas, 2014). Thus, resulting in full gelatini­
zation of the starch in the final product. This dissimilarity in the gela­
tinization such as reduced viscoelasticity and gas-holding capability
may explain why GF recipes stale rapidly and have a collapsed texture
(Foschia et al., 2016). Since there is no gluten, GF dough lacks a
protein-starch structure and is less cohesive and elastic due to the
missing protein network, impacting gas retention and resulting in
smaller loaf volumes. As a result, GF doughs behave more like liquid
batter, being extremely smooth and inconvenient to handle. As a
consequence, GFBs are being characterised as products with an unap­
pealing appearance, poor flavour, and texture, low nutritious content,
and short shelf life, as well as restricted availability and a high price
when compared to wheat bread (Capriles et al., 2021). To address these
issues, several alternative raw materials, nutrient, and bioactive com­
pound sources, protein ingredients, hydrocolloids, emulsifiers, enzymes,
and new processing and storage techniques have been tested, to improve
quality parameters to levels comparable to gluten-containing bread
(Bender & Schönlechner, 2020; Gasparre & Rosell, 2023). Hydrocolloids
(e.g. guar gum, carboxymethylcellulose, pectin, locust bean gum, xan­
than gum, modified starches), proteins (e.g. soy protein, milk protein,
modified proteins), enzymes (e.g. transglutaminase, protease, CGTase)
and soluble dietary fibres (e.g. psyllium, glucan, arabinoxylans) have
been employed as structuring agents in recipes since they can provide
viscosity, water-holding capacity, dough stability, and gas-holding ca­
pacity, therefore improving the specific volume, structure, texture, and
appearance of GFB (Capriles & Arêas, 2014; Bender & Schönlechner,
2020).
B.R. Vinod et al. Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473

Alternatives to wheat flour for GFB making Chickpea: nutritional and medicinal properties

Rice (Oryza sativa) flour is unquestionably the best fundamental
component for GFB production. This is most likely owing to its neutral
taste, white colour, hypoallergenic qualities, high amount of easily
digestible carbs, and low sodium level (Burešová et al., 2017). Apart
from rice flour (RF), corn meal (Zea mays) is the second most common
basic ingredient in GF products. White maize cultivars, in particular, are
the flour/starch sources most commonly used in GF breadmaking
(Hager et al., 2012). Other ingredients include cassava starch/flour, teff
flour, amaranthus flour, buckwheat flour, legumes flour, etc. Refined RF
and corn, potato, and cassava starches are the most commonly used
ingredients in the production of commercially available GFB, which are
characterised as starchy foods with low protein, dietary fibre, and
micronutrients (Table 1) and, as a result, a high glycaemic profile
(Aguiar et al., 2023). Consumption of items with this nutritional profile
on a regular basis may raise the risk of health problems such as nutri­
tional deficiencies and chronic non-communicable diseases (Capriles &
Arêas, 2016). Besides, nongluten-containing cereal flours yield
low-quality GFB as they have rapid staling, poor textural properties, and
poor mouthfeel and flavour (Gallagher et al., 2004). The usage of these
flours presents a technological challenge in the fabrication of GFB and
improving the protein network formation of GF flours is a massive
obstacle for food scientists. To increase the baking performance of GF
flours, various additives and enzymes can be used or modify the
fermentation process, such as sourdough fermentation. Enzymatic
treatments of GF flours seek to affect the activity of nongluten proteins
and to form protein aggregates that imitate gluten functionality (Skendi
& Papageorgiou, 2021). According to literature, it is possible to develop
GFB with improved nutritional content and good physical and sensory
qualities by using several nutrient-dense alternative raw materials ob­
tained from non-gluten pseudocereals (amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa,
and/or teff flour), legumes (beans, peas, chickpea, lentils and/or soy­
bean, flours), millets (pearl millet, little millet, kodo millet and/or fox­
tail millet) nuts and seeds (flax seeds, chia flour, chestnut and/or tiger
nut flours) as well as fruit and vegetable-based ingredients (sweet po­
tato, pumpkin, raisin juice, kiwifruit puree, orange pomace, and or un­
ripe banana flour) (Capriles & Arêas, 2016; Roman et al., 2019).
Legumes are frequently employed not only to raise the nutritional value
of GFB but also to improve its functionality, sensory profile, general
acceptance, and lastly its shelf life. In addition to their nutritional value,
legume flours are used in bakery products to provide desired viscoelastic
dough qualities, which are essential for the production of GFB (Foschia
et al., 2017).
Strategies for the formulation of GFB with superior technological
properties, nutritional benefits and sensory acceptability have prompted
scientists to look for other ingredients, including legumes such as Pea,
bean, lentils and chickpea. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), often known as
Garbanzo bean and/or Bengal gram, is the world’s second most grown
pulse after dry beans. The majority of production (95 %) takes place in
developing countries with India being the top producer (68.52 %)
(FAOSTAT, 2022). Chickpeas are classified into three types viz., Desi,
Bambai and Kabuli. Desi is small, dark coloured variety with a rough
covering which is primarily grown in India, Mexico, Ethiopia, and Iran.
Bambai (or tabil) is a dark variety that is slightly larger than desi and is
mostly produced in India. Kabuli is a bigger, lighter-coloured variety
produced primarily in South America, Mediterranean, and Southeast
Asian countries (Herrera & Gonzalez de Mejia, 2021).
Chickpeas have relatively high amounts of proteins (21.13 %), lipids
(unsaturated fatty acids primarily linoleic and oleic acids), vitamins
(folic acid, tocopherol, and niacin), minerals (potassium, phosphorus,
magnesium, and calcium), bioactive compounds (phenolic acids, iso­
flavones, and saponins), dietary fibres and a higher percentage of non-
digestible carbohydrates (Table 1) than most other pulses (beans, len­
tils, and peas) and cereals (wheat, rice, and corn). Chickpea protein
quality is reported to be superior to that of other pulses and protein
digestibility is higher in chickpea (76–78 %) than in other pulses. It
contains 18 different types of amino acids, 8 of which are essential
(Jukanti et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2021). Its isolated consumption has
been linked to a lower risk of chronic diseases (Jukanti et al., 2012;
Rachwa-Rosiak et al., 2015) such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases,
osteoporosis and hyperlipidaemia (Gupta et al., 2017). In a study by
Taranova et al. (2021), substituting even 20 % of wheat flour with CF
enriched the essential amino acid content in bread to 5.55 g/100 g.
Consuming 300 g of this bread would meet 48.8 % of the daily essential
amino acid requirement. Similarly, Man et al. (2015) reported that
substituting 30 % of wheat flour with CF increased the crude protein and
fibre content of the batter mix to 16.9 % and 6.3 % respectively.
Chickpea has been reported to have significant antihypertensive and
hemagglutination activity, besides having antiallergic and anticonvul­
sant properties, gastroprotective and good hepatoprotective benefits, in
addition to key biological activities (Wang et al., 2021). In addition,
Chickpea intake is directly connected with lower postprandial glucose
levels, glycemic index and enhanced satiety due to its higher dietary
fibres, especially galactomannans (Zafar & Kabir, 2017).
Technological and functional properties of chickpea

Chickpeas are typically processed into flour. The flour is produced in

Table 1
Nutritional composition of chickpea flour in comparison with wheat, rice and corn flour.
Nutrients (per 100 g) Chickpea flour Wheat flour (bread, unenriched) Rice flour (white, unenriched) Corn flour (yellow, unenriched)

Total Fat (g) 6 0.69 1.66 1.42 3.86

Unsaturated fat (g) 4.5 0.87 0.82 2.73
Total Carbohydrate (g) 57.8 72.5 80.1 76.8
Protein (g) 22.4 12 5.95 6.93
Total dietary fibre (g) 17.4 2.4 2.4 7.3
Ash (g) 2.82 0.47 0.61 1.45
Total sugar (g) 10.8 0.31 0.12 0.64
Iron (mg) 4.86 0.9 0.35 2.38
Calcium (mg) 45 15 10 7
Phosphorous (mg) 318 97 98 272
Potassium (mg) 846 100 76 315
Magnesium (mg) 166 25 35 93
Folic acid (μg) 557 33 4 25
Niacin (mg) 1.76 1 2.59 1.9
Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.5 0.0037 0.436 0.37

Reference: Jukanti et al. (2012); USDA (2022).

3
B.R. Vinod et al.
a variety of ways, depending on whether thermal or chemical treatments
are used prior to milling. Soaking, boiling, blanching, and even extru­
sion is employed to improve chickpea properties, consumer acceptance,
functional qualities, and nutritional bioavailability (Jeong et al., 2019).
These approaches alter the food matrix, impacting starch and protein
digestion. Furthermore, antinutrients such as tannins, phytates, and
α-amylase inhibitors are generally reduced or eliminated during the
dehulling, soaking, and germination processes (Herrera & Gonzalez de
Mejia, 2021; Jamdar et al., 2017). In terms of technology and functional
property, chickpea flour (CF) has emulsifying, foaming, pasting, and
gelation capabilities and exhibits high water and oil absorption capacity
as well as viscosity (Du et al., 2014). Furthermore, it enhances dough
stability, higher bread volume and CO2 retention capacity, softer crumb,
reduced retrogradation tendency and slower staling rate (Cappelli et al.,
2020; Kahraman et al., 2018; Kotsiou et al., 2022). Hence, CF can effi­
caciously replace the stance of wheat flour in manufacturing GFB with
enhanced technological and nutritional quality.
The functional characteristics of the Kabuli and Desi biotypes were
investigated by Ghribi et al. (2015). They observed that the solubility of
chickpea protein powders was minimal at pH levels between 4 and 5,
ranging from 17 to 30 % for Desi and 14 to 20 % for Kabuli, respectively.
Protein solubility is an important characteristic in food applications
because it determines the level of usage in various food products.
Moreover, it is likely the most important property because it influences
other characteristics such as emulsification, foaming, and gelling abili­
ties (Sreerama et al., 2012a). The foaming capacity varied greatly,
ranging from 37 to 41 %. When the proportion of flours was raised, the
emulsifying activity was reduced. Contrarily, when the flour content
increased, the gelation qualities improved. Kabuli had the least gelation
concentration (around 8 %), which is used as a measure of gelation
ability concentration to make gels, while Desi had the highest. Gelation
is the formation of a three-dimensional network of proteins and starches
that is resistant to flow under pressure. It is affected by the protein,
starch and fibre concentration (Ettoumi & Chibane, 2015). Flour’s WHC
ranges from 73 to 107 g water/100 g and oil holding capacity ranges
(OHC) from 82 to 97 g oil/100 g. WHC and OHC of CF increase with an
increase in temperature and this is due to protein denaturation and
starch degradation. Water molecules form hydrogen bonds with the
exposed hydroxyl groups of amylose and amylopectin, resulting in a rise
in WHC. CF has more bulk density (1.09 g/mL) than pea and lentil flour.
This attribute is significant in texture and packing requirements because
it depends on the product’s structural characteristics, particle size and
distribution, and is linked to other physicochemical properties (Ettoumi
& Chibane, 2015).
Emulsifying properties
Aguilar et al. (2015) investigated the possibility of replacing emul­
sifiers entirely or partially in bread made with CF. CF was proven to
increase the specific volume of bread. Crumb firmness decreased when
only a fraction of the CF was replaced. Therefore, CF has the ability to
replace or eliminate the shortening and/or emulsifier in GFB making.
This property was further confirmed by Huang et al. (2018) that, when
tap water was replaced with chickpea soaking water (CSW), loaf-specific
volume of GFB increased significantly from 2.4 to 2.7 mL/g and the CSW
showed a significant emulsifying activity (46 %), which was likely
related to its protein content and high ratio of water-soluble carbohy­
drates to dry matter. As a result of this activity, the GFB has a softer and
less chewy texture. Bird et al. (2017) reported that CF acts as a promising
alternative for hydrocolloids in texture improvement of GFB. Further,
the emulsifying action of flavonoids, saponins, and insoluble fibre
resulted in a more homogenous crumb structure and gas retention in
GFB. Phenols, which are abundantly found in chickpeas (Sreerama et al.,
2012b), have been shown to have emulsifying action by stabilising oil
droplets in aqueous solutions (Bordenave et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2011).
In particular, flavonoids may interact with proteins, carbohydrates and
4
Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473
lipids; changing their structure and solubility, affecting polysaccharide
solubility, starch retrogradation, and stabilising oil in water emulsions
respectively (Bordenave et al., 2014).
Thickening and pasting properties
Lian et al. (2019) evaluated the thickening and pasting capabilities of
chickpea and soy okara (2% w/w). Thickening characteristics of
chickpea okara were higher than those of flour but lower than those of
soy (water absorption capacity; 6.01 vs. 8.29 g/g and oil absorption
capacity; 2.38 vs. 4.29 g/g). Both ingredients had equivalent thickening
capabilities in a GF dough, enhancing viscosity due to greater water
absorption (Table 2).
Hydration properties
The water-holding capacity of flour is significant in food preparation
since it determines other functional and sensory qualities. Chickpea is a
rich source of total dietary fibres (18–22 g/100 g dry weight basis)
which is higher amongst pulses (Jukanti et al., 2012). Due to the
high-water binding capacity of dietary fibres, increasing the amount of
water is frequently required in bread compositions. Increased water
content enables proper dough viscosity, starch gelatinization, and pro­
tein denaturation during baking (Capriles & Arêas, 2016). According to
farinograph tests of the CF-based composite dough, water absorption
capacity of dough increased as the amount of CF increased (Atudorei
et al., 2022; Hefnawy et al., 2012). Lian et al. (2019) observed that water
absorption capacity (WAC) of chickpea okara is higher than CF (6.01 g/g
v/s 2.74 g/g). Here pectin-rich dietary fibres could exhibit higher values
of hydration due to hydrophilicity of pectin substance. Kaur and Singh
(2005) studied the functional characteristics of CF and discovered that
the increased WAC could be due to the presence of abundant hydrophilic
elements such as protein, starch, and fibre. Ouazib et al. (2016) reported
that chickpea processing greatly boosted water absorption ability. The
cooked chickpea produced the greatest effect, with a considerable rise in
water absorption and WHC. The hydration of toasted and germinated CF
was also similar. The rise in water absorption has been linked to CF’s
high protein content and non-starch polysaccharides (Mohammed et al.,
2012). Santos et al. (2021b) revealed that CF-based GFB demands
greater hydration levels when compared to RF and other starchy prod­
ucts, and advancement in bread quality was noticed at 150% (on a flour
weight basis) water level, resulting in enhanced functional and sensory
quality. With higher hydrations levels like 170 and 180 % fwb resulted
in collapsed bread, reduced specific volume and impaired cell structure.
In a recent study, Garske et al. (2023) revealed that microwave-baked
CPF containing an initial water content of 40 % exhibited the highest
WHC value of 4.8 g/g. This result was attributed to increased granule
agglomeration and ramification, contributing to a soft texture during
bread storage.
Loaf-specific volume
Bird et al. (2017) reported that the addition of 2 % CF (w/w flour
basis) improved loaf-specific volume by 21 % and lowered crumb
hardness by 40 % due to improved gas retention and superior homo­
geneity of the starch-protein network. This result corresponded with the
greater breakdown value by around 20 % [32 vs. 27 Rapid Visco analyzer
Unit (RVU)]. The higher breakdown is a sign of a weaker starch-protein
network and could be the outcome of a lower density, which leads to a
higher volume. The foaming capability of CF (Du et al., 2014) may have
allowed for greater gas expansion upon proofing. This difference could
be due to the CSW breads’ higher specific loaf volume, which exhibited a
less cohesive structure that allowed for greater gas incorporation.
Ouazib et al. (2016) reported that toasted chickpea bread had a
considerably larger loaf-specific volume. Raw chickpea and germinated
chickpea loaves came in second and third, respectively, with cooked CF
B.R. Vinod et al. Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473

Table 2
Summarizing the effects of chickpea on the overall quality of gluten-free bread.
Reference Bread formulation Properties of bread

Physical Nutritional Sensory

Minarro Corn starch 1132, Sugar 70, baking powder High loaf specific volume (3.26 cm3/ CF is an alternative to soya protein. Chickpea bread exhibits high
et al. 30, shortening 60, baker’s yeast 60 g, salt g), Soft crumb (475 g) and less acceptable sensory qualities; hence
(2012) 30, xanthum gum 24, emulsifier 24, Water compact structure. it could be a better alternative to
1260, CF 94 (Ingredients in g/100 g flour soya protein.
weight)
Rostamian Flour (20 % corn + 80 % chickpea) 100, CF improved porosity, achieving a Darkening of chickpea bread due to
et al. sucrose 4, Baker’s yeast 3, HPMC gum 3, specific volume of 3.55 mL/g, and Maillard reaction
(2014) water 100 (% w/w flour basis) enhancing the crust-to-crumb ratio
to 0.187. It also resulted in decreased
firmness."
Aguilar Corn starch 83.6, CF 7.8, sugar 4.2, water The inclusion of CF in bread Addition of CF-rendered bread with
et al. 103, xanthan gum 2, salt 1.7, yeast 2 formulation leads to improved a darker crust
(2015) (Ingredients in g/100 g flour weight) baking properties, resulting in a
higher specific volume. This also
allows for a reduction in the usage of
emulsifiers.
Ouazib et al. Water 205, yeast 0.6 salt 1.63, sugar 4, Toasted CF demonstrated notable Raw CF exhibited the highest levels Raw CF bread received higher
(2016) vegetable oil 2, HPMC 2 (% of flour basis) water absorption capacity at 141 %, of ash (2.17 %), protein (11.16 %), ratings for appearance and overall
alongside enhanced specific volume and carbohydrates (33.70 %). acceptability. On the other hand,
(1.79 mL/g) and elevated moisture However, bread made from cooked the bread made from cooked
content (60.58 %). chickpea flour displayed the highest chickpea flour received the highest
in vitro protein digestibility. scores for taste, as well as
aftertaste.
Bird et al. GF flour mix (RF: corn starch 50:50) 200, Incorporating 2% w/w of CF into the Chickpea-based ingredients show
(2017) water 160, oil 8, salt 4, yeast 4 and CF 4 GF flour mixture leads to improved promise as viable alternatives to
(Ingredients in g) loaf-specific volume, texture, and hydrocolloids like xanthan gum for
structure. This enhancement is enhancing texture in food products.
attributed to the CF’s ability to
enhance gas retention and stability
in the bread.
Kahraman Ingredients (g/100 g of total flour) RF CF elevates dough viscosity and Raw CF displayed elevated protein
et al. 75.15. CF 24.85, HPMC 1.72, sugar 2, salt elasticity, resulting in enhanced (23.52 g/100 g) and ash content
(2018) 1.50, yeast 2.50, sunflower oil 5.27 water foaming capacity and stability. It (3.09 g/100 g). Conversely, roasted
99.47 serves as a nutritious addition in GF CF exhibited higher fat content
rice-based formulations. (7.57 g/100 g) compared to RF.
Santos et al. CF (75 g) was blended with potato or CF-based demonstrated increased A twofold increase in ash and No significant differences in
(2018) cassava starch 100, water 100, egg 25, milk specific volume and crumb firmness, protein contents and a threefold appearance acceptability between
powder 10.5, sugar 6, soy oil 6, salt 2, yeast along with reduced crumb moisture increase in total fibre content. the GFB and wheat bread samples,
0.8, xanthan gum 0.3, CMC 0.3 (g/100 g compared to the white GFB as indicated by scores ranging from
flour basis). formulation. 8.4 to 9.0.
Lian et al. RF 100, corn starch 100, dry yeast 4, sugar Okara flour contributes to increased chickpea okara contained more In comparison to the control group,
(2019) 4, water 160, oil 8, salt 4 and chickpea viscosity, water absorption capacity, starch than soy (35.3 vs. 3.41 g/100 chickpea bread exhibited lower
okara 8 (Ingredients in g). and moistness. However, it also g), less insoluble fibre (43.3 vs. 57.0 scores for appearance, taste, and
resulted in a 45 % increase in crumb g/100 g) and protein (9.51 vs. 18.1 overall acceptability.
hardness and a 42 % decrease in loaf g/100 g).
volume compared to the control
GFB.
Santos et al. 75 CF mixed + 5.5 psyllium flour, water Incorporating high levels of CF (75 The carotenoid pigments in CF
(2020) 125, eggs 25, sugar 6, oil 6, salt 2, dry yeast g/100 g) with low psyllium levels imparted a yellowish hue to the
0.8 and calcium propionate 0.1 (g/100 g (5.5 g/100 g) led to a desirable experimental CF-based GFB. The
flour basis). dough consistency, promoting 75 % CF-based bread displayed a
enhanced loaf volume and crumb well-rounded top and a more
softness. uniform crumb structure.
Santos et al. 75 % CF + 25 % cassava starch, 5.5 % CF increased the loaf volume, crumb CF nearly doubled the ash, lipids, CF improved the appearance,
(2021c) psyllium, 0.3 % of xanthan gum, 6 % sugar, texture and overall appearance as and proteins content, and raised the texture, and overall acceptability
0.8 % dry yeast, 0.1 calcium propionate, and compared to bread made of RF. levels of resistant starch and total scores without impacting the
105 % water. dietary fibre by 2.5 times. This led flavour and aroma scores.
to a 36 % reduction in available
carbohydrate content, resulting in a
lowered glycemic index.
Santos & CF 75, cassava starch 25, psyllium 5.5, sugar CF reduced the tendency for starch CF improved the acceptance of
Capriles 6, salt 2, dry yeast 0.8, egg 25, oil 6 water gelatinization, gel stability, GFB, described as soft and fresh
(2021) 125 (all expressed in g/100 g of flour) retrogradation, and the rate of during the 7-day storage period.
hardening.
Santos et al. 100 % CF, 25 % egg, 10.5 % milk powder, 6 Chickpea GFB required higher Cf resulted in increased water
(2021b) % sugar, 6 % oil, 2 % salt, 0.8 yeast, 0.3 % hydration levels (150 %), resulting in content by 150 % leading to higher
xanthum gum, 0.3 % increased loaf-specific volume, scores in flavour (7.9), texture,
carboxymethylcellulose and 100–180 % crumb softness, and porosity. aroma, and overall liking,
water. compared to the formulation with
100 % water content (which scored
6.9).
Santos et al. 75 CF + 25 casava starch, 5.5 psyllium, 125 Incorporating CF improved Breads containing CF and CF:PSY
(2021a) water, 25 egg, 6 sugar, 6 soy oil, 2 salt, 0.8 hydration characteristics, resulting received higher ratings for
(continued on next page)

5
B.R. Vinod et al. Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473

Table 2 (continued )
Reference Bread formulation Properties of bread

Physical Nutritional Sensory

dry yeast, and 0.1 calcium propionate (all in increased loaf specific volume, appearance, texture, and overall
expressed in% of flour). crumb softness, and porosity. liking over a 7-day storage period
Additionally, CF contributed to a (scores ranged from 6.2 to 8.2).
delay in staling. These breads were described as
’soft’ with ’uniform alveoli’ and a
’rounded slice top’.
Kahraman RF 75, CF 25, HPMC 1.7, Sugar 2, Salt 1.5, The bread made with roasted CF had The incorporation of CF into rice- Bread made with CF displayed a
et al. Instant yeast 2.5, Sunflower oil 5.3 and the highest specific volume, softest based bread led to elevated levels of darker crust, along with an alveolar
(2022) water 99.47 (ingredients in g/100 g of total crumb, and exhibited the slowest protein, ash, fat, total phenolic structure (porosity ranging from
flour) staling rate. content, and in vitro protein 41.5 % to 51.4 %) and a soft crumb
digestibility. (with hardness values between 5.5
and 14.1 N).
Mygdalia RF and FCE (1:1 w/w), 10 % sodium Adding FCE improved the bread’s Slower staling rate for breads with
et al. caseinate, 5 % whey protein, 7.5 % baking quality, including increased specific sourdough, compared to control
(2022) soda, 1 % baker’s yeast, 1 % salt, 1 % sugar volume, a finer crumb structure with formulations
and 2 % sunflower oil smaller pores, softer texture, and a
slower rate of reordering of
amylopectin chains during storage.

having the lowest specific volume. Because of the increase in protein
solubility, the bread baked with germinated flour had a higher specific
volume, resulting in better emulsifying capacity and foaming abilities
(Aguilar et al., 2015). Rostamian et al. (2014); Aguilar et al. (2015) and
Santos et al. (2018) used CF to substitute maize flour, maize starch, and
cassava starch respectively and found that CF increased the GFB specific
volume. The usage of CF raises the protein content of GFB. As a result,
this increase may have aided in the development of a protein network,
which enhances the gas retention capabilities of dough and, as a result,
bread volume.
Antistaling properties
Bread staling is a highly complex phenomenon that mostly involves
water migration from crumb to crust and starch retrogradation (Gray &
Bemiller, 2003). Chickpea has a weaker starch-protein network and a
higher tendency for starch retrogradation. This feature will allow the
fabrication of GFB with better mouthfeel, offsetting their typical dry,
crumbly texture, but with the threat of rapid staling (Lian et al., 2019).
Similarly, Kotsiou et al. (2022) reported that the staling kinetics of
composite breads at 20 % CF substitution level revealed greater crumb
hardening towards the end of storage period and its participation in the
staling process. However, roasted CF at 10 % substitution level showed
no significant effect on dough rheological properties, textural charac­
teristics, or bread staling properties. According to Bird et al. (2017),
chickpea soaking and cooking water lowered the setback by roughly 20
%, from 63 to 51 RVU. These findings suggest that both processing
waters may act as antistaling agents by lowering the rate of amylopectin
recrystallisation during storage. Phenolic compounds, insoluble fibre,
and saponin may act as stabilisers and surfactants, preventing staling by
delaying starch recrystallisation (Table 2). Similarly, Kahraman et al.
(2022) reported that the bread with dehulled CF and roasted CF had the
lowest staling rate compared to RF, which had the highest staling rate.
The greater (24–36 %) protein content of CF-containing GFB compared
to RF bread could explain their lower staling rate. Furthermore, the
lower starch and higher fibre content of CF (particularly dehulled CF and
roasted CF) in comparison to RF may influence the staling rate of breads.
According to consumer perceptions, CF and its interaction with psyllium
(PSY) were promising for minimising and delaying GFB staling, there­
fore retaining acceptability, softness, and freshness after seven days of
storage (Santos et al., 2021a).
Sensory property
Chickpea physicochemical and functional qualities are affected by
processing. These modifications may have an impact on the final attri­
butes and acceptability of the product (Ouazib et al., 2016). Miñarro
et al. (2012) and Aguilar et al. (2015) observed that CF-based bread had
a good appearance, and moderate sensory acceptance (ranged from 4.7
to 6.6 on a 9-point hedonic scale). Capriles et al. (2015) investigated the
sensory acceptability (on a 10-cm hybrid hedonic scale) of optimised
GFB formulated with nutrient-dense raw materials (unripe banana flour,
buckwheat flour, sorghum flour and CF) and compared them to white
GFB (50 % RF + 50 % potato starch) and wheat-containing equivalents
(100 % wheat flour). GFBs formulated from chickpea (75 % fwb) had
high appearance (8.7), colour (8.6), taste (8.1), texture (8.0) and overall
acceptance scores (8.2), similar to wheat-based equivalents. These
findings suggest that a substantial amount of nutrient-dense alternative
flour such as chickpea can be used to create well-accepted GFB while
also delivering a nutritionally superior product equivalent to traditional
ones. Ouazib et al. (2016) reported that the CF-derived bread had low
acceptability ratings (overall acceptability scores ranged from 4.3 to 5.6
on a scale of 9). Further, this could be owing to the unusual sort of bread,
as legume breads are not commonly found, as well as the bean flavour
aftertaste. The composite bread formulation containing CF (75 %) has
shown a greater overall acceptance score of more than 8, as well as good
physical and sensory qualities. Adding 25 % starch and dietary fibre to a
CF-based composition most certainly contributes to neutralising the
bean flavour and increasing acceptance (Santos et al., 2018, 2020,
2021b). Similarly, Atudorei et al. (2022) observed that germinated CF
supplementation up to 15 %, improved the physical (loaf volume,
porosity, elasticity, and firmness) and sensory properties. Kotsiou et al.
(2022) reported that at 10 % substitution level of roasted CF, there was
total masking of the "grass-like" off-flavour notes in breads, as well as
reduced "beany" and "earthy" off-flavour notes, indicating a product with
excellent overall acceptance.
An overview of chickpea as an ingredient substitute in GFB
The discourse on chickpea-infused composite GFB formulations has
yielded promising outcomes. Miñarro et al. (2012) and Aguilar et al.
(2015) observed that GFB produced with 7.8 g/100 g CF and maize
starch had good loaf-specific volume, softest crumb, a good appearance,
and moderate sensory acceptance (acceptability scores ranged from 4.7
to 6.6 on a 9-point hedonic scale). Rostamian et al. (2014) combined CF
(80 g/100 g), maize flour (20 g/100 g) and hydroxypropyl methylcel­
lulose (3% w/w) to formulate GFB and found that increasing the con­
centration of CF improved GFB quality measures such as increased loaf
specific volume, porosity, crust to crumb ratio and decreased crumb
firmness. Ouazib et al. (2016) published interesting results in which they

6
B.R. Vinod et al.
generated a single GFB formulation using CFs derived from raw,
germinated, toasted and cooked chickpeas. The thermally treated flours
had the greatest in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD), volume, and soft­
ness but the lowest qualitative features (crumb, shape, and slicing). The
highest IVPD (79.51 %) was found in bread made with cooked CF. The
increased digestibility could be attributed to protein denaturation, the
degradation of the trypsin inhibitor, or the decrease of tannins and
phytic acid in cooked CF. Further, raw flour provided the highest
nutritional value as well as a better appearance. However, the produced
bread had low acceptability ratings. These investigations demonstrated
the possible application of CF in GFB. These results are supported by
those of Kahraman et al. (2018), who investigated the effects of raw,
roasted, and dehulled CF on GF recipes based on RF (75 %) and CF (25
%). CF-based doughs had greater protein and fat content, reduced
retrogradation tendency, higher foaming capability, superior dough
consistency, and higher CO2 retention capacity (≥98 %). At the same
time, roasting chickpeas reduced foaming capability and stability
(Table 2).
According to Santos et al. (2018), CF alone resulted in GFB with
greater volume and crumb firmness and lower crumb moisture. How­
ever, interactions between CF (75 %) and potato starch or cassava starch
(25 %) increased bread volume while decreasing crumb firmness values.
The composite formulations achieved an overall acceptance score of 8.2,
as well as good physical and sensory qualities and improved nutritional
composition, such as high ash, protein, and fibre content. Furthermore,
Santos et al. (2020) used factorial design to demonstrate the potential of
CF and PSY for GFB making, citing that combining 75 % CF and 5.5 %
PSY on a fresh weight basis result in a highly favourable dough consis­
tency for greater loaf volume and crumb softness, as well as GFB with a
fine appearance and physical properties, achieving values equivalent to
commercially available counterparts. Nonetheless, this promising
method was developed only on the basis of dough and bread instru­
mental factors. In a subsequent study (Santos et al., 2021c), it was
unearthed that replacing RF with CF enhances sensorial and nutritional
quality (a double increase in protein, dietary fibre, and resistant starch
contents) and, when combined with PSY, positively influences all pa­
rameters assessed, including lower glycemic response (glycemic load
and glycemic index) and higher satiety ratings. Besides, replacing RF
with CF reduced the aptness for starch gelatinization, gel stability and
retrogradation in addition to the hardening rate in GFB, further
favouring acceptability was characterized as soft and fresh by customers
during the 7-day storage period (Santos & Capriles, 2021).
To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of CF, PSY, and their inter­
action in lowering GFB staling, Santos et al. (2021a) employed various
sensory methods to gain deeper insights into the impact of these in­
gredients on consumer perception. The results indicate that substituting
CF for RF reduced moisture loss and crumb hardening even after seven
days of storage. PSY (5.5 % flour weight basis) reduced crumb cohe­
siveness and springiness loss during storage. According to consumer
perceptions, CF and its interaction with PSY were promising for mini­
mising and delaying GFB staling, therefore retaining acceptability,
softness, and freshness after seven days of storage based on consumer
perceptions concerning both gluten-intolerant and gluten-tolerant. A
further extension of the existing investigation was undertaken by vary­
ing the hydration/water level to improve the physical characteristics
and acceptance of CF-based GFB by Santos et al. (2021b). The results
revealed that CF-based GFB demands greater hydration levels when
compared to RF and other starchy products, and advancement in bread
quality was noticed at 150% (on a flour weight basis) water level, which
resulted in the rise in loaf-specific volume, crumb softness and porosity,
along with improving texture, flavour, and overall acceptability (8 on
10-cm hybrid hedonic scale) resulting in a possible substitute for satis­
fying consumer demand for delicious, wholesome, and cutting-edge
GFB. Using raw, roasted, or dehulled CF, Kahraman et al. (2022)
formulate a nutritious rice-based GFB. All breads made with CF (25 %)
had a darker crust and were characterised by greater specific volume
7
Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473
(porosity; 41.5–51.4 % and soft crumb; 5.5–14.1 N). The bread with
roasted CF had the highest specific volume, softest crumb, slowest
staling rate and improved in vitro protein digestibility. The addition of
CF exhibited higher protein, ash, fat and total phenolic contents, but
reduced total available and rapidly digestible starch levels indicating a
lower glycemic response. In a recent study, Mygdalia et al. (2022)
developed a gluten-free sourdough (SD) recipe based on a fermented
chickpea extract (FCE) starter. The addition of FCE-SD and higher
quantities of water to GF batters enhanced loaf-specific volume and
yielded crumb macrostructure with fine pores. The inclusion of FCE
resulted in a softer bread crumb and a decreased rate of amylopectin
chain reordering during the storage period, due to the α-amylase activity
in the sourdough, which reduces the starch network through hydrolysis.
Further, FCE-SD lowered staling rate of the breadcrumb, contributing to
the improvement of quality features and the extension of shelf life
(Table 2).
Conclusion and future prospects
Due to the rising demand from people who are both gluten-intolerant
and gluten-tolerant who follow a GF diet, finding high-quality GFB
continues to be a crucial challenge. There is a growing desire for new
GFB variants that are both tasty and healthy. The inclusion of legumes
such as chickpea in GF breadmaking improves the product’s dietary
fibre supply and essential protein profile. Additionally, it brings up the
possibility of nutritionally enriched, healthier, and tastier GFB for peo­
ple with gluten-related disorders and those who want to practice a GF
diet. After all, chickpea-based GFB has received little attention, and
further investigation should be considered related to the novel baking
techniques, inclusion of fruit and nuts, reduced fat and sugar content,
sensory profile, storage stability, shelf life and potential industrial
application for widespread commercial availability. The future of GFB
production appears promising with advancing technology and growing
awareness of gluten-related disorders. As the landscape of gluten-free
bread evolves, chickpea-based alternatives hold considerable promise.
By addressing the challenges head-on and embracing innovation, CF-
based GFB has the potential to revolutionize GF baking and offers
delightful, healthier, and accessible options for a diverse range of con­
sumers in the years to come.
Financial support
This work is not financially supported by any organization
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI) Fellowship Programme.
References
Aguiar, E. V., Santos, F. G., Krupa-Kozak, U., & Capriles, V. D. (2023). Nutritional facts
regarding commercially available gluten-free bread worldwide: Recent advances and
future challenges. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 63(5), 693–705.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1952403
B.R. Vinod et al.
Aguilar, N., Albanell, E., Miñarro, B., & Capellas, M. (2015). Chickpea and tiger nut
flours as alternatives to emulsifier and shortening in gluten-free bread. LWT - Food
Science and Technology, 62(1), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
LWT.2014.12.045
Atudorei, D., Atudorei, O., & Codină, G. G. (2022). The Impact of Germinated Chickpea
Flour Addition on Dough Rheology and Bread Quality. Plants 2022, 11(9), 1225.
https://doi.org/10.3390/PLANTS11091225. Vol. 11, Page 1225.
Bender, D., & Schönlechner, R. (2020). Innovative approaches towards improved gluten-
free bread properties. Journal of Cereal Science, 91, Article 102904. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCS.2019.102904
Biesiekierski, J. R. (2017). What is gluten? Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 32
(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/JGH.13703. Suppl.
Bird, L. G., Pilkington, C. L., Saputra, A., & Serventi, L. (2017). Products of chickpea
processing as texture improvers in gluten-free bread. Food Science and Technology
International = Ciencia y Tecnologia de Los Alimentos Internacional, 23(8), 690–698.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013217717802
Bordenave, N., Hamaker, B. R., & Ferruzzi, M. G. (2014). Nature and consequences of
non-covalent interactions between flavonoids and macronutrients in foods. Food &
Function, 5(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3FO60263J
Burešová, I., Tokár, M., Mareček, J., Hřivna, L., Faměra, O., & Šottníková, V. (2017). The
comparison of the effect of added amaranth, buckwheat, chickpea, corn, millet and
quinoa flour on rice dough rheological characteristics, textural and sensory quality
of bread. Journal of Cereal Science, 75, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCS.2017.04.004
Cappa, C., Lucisano, M., Raineri, A., Fongaro, L., Foschino, R., & Mariotti, M. (2016).
Gluten-Free Bread: Influence of Sourdough and Compressed Yeast on Proofing and
Baking Properties. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 5(4), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods5040069
Cappelli, A., Oliva, N., Bonaccorsi, G., Lorini, C., & Cini, E. (2020). Assessment of the
rheological properties and bread characteristics obtained by innovative protein
sources (Cicer arietinum, Acheta domesticus, Tenebrio molitor): Novel food or
potential improvers for wheat flour? LWT, 118, Article 108867. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.LWT.2019.108867
Capriles, V. D., & Arêas, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-
4337.12091
Capriles, V. D., & Arêas, J. A. G. (2016). Approaches to reduce the glycemic response of
gluten-free products: In vivo and in vitro studies. Food & Function, 7(3), 1266–1272.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C5FO01264C
Capriles, V. D., Santos, F. G., & Aguiar, E.v. (2021). Innovative gluten-free breadmaking.
Trends in Wheat and Bread Making, 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
821048-2.00013-1
Capriles, V. D., Santos, F. G., Reis, E. M., & Pereira, C. F. (2015). Innovative approaches
to improve nutritional and bioactive compounds of grain-based gluten-free products.
Gluten-free diets: Food sources, role in celiac disease and health benefits (pp. 67–116).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2008). Standard for foods for special dietary use for
persons intolerant to gluten. CXS 118-1979. Retrieved June 26, 2022, from: www.
fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy.
Cebolla, Á., Moreno, M., Coto, L., & Sousa, C. (2018). Gluten Immunogenic Peptides as
Standard for the Evaluation of Potential Harmful Prolamin Content in Food and
Human Specimen. Nutrients, 10(12), 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121927
Chhanwal, N., Bhushette, P. R., & Anandharamakrishnan, C. (2019). Current
Perspectives on Non- conventional Heating Ovens for Baking Process—A Review.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-018-
2198-y
Du, S.kui, Jiang, H., Yu, X., & Jane, J.lin. (2014). Physicochemical and functional
properties of whole legume flour. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 55(1),
308–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2013.06.001
El Khoury, D., Balfour-Ducharme, S., & Joye, I. J. (2018). A Review on the Gluten-Free
Diet: Technological and Nutritional Challenges. Nutrients, 10(10), 1410. https://doi.
org/10.3390/NU10101410
Ettoumi, L., & Chibane, M. (2015). Some physicochemical and functional properties of
pea, chickpea and lentil whole flours. International Food Research Journal, 22(3),
987–996.
FAOSTAT. (2022). Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#h
ome.
Fasano, A., & Catassi, C. (2012). Clinical practice. Celiac disease. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 367(25), 2419–2426. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMCP1113994
Food safety and standards regulation (2011). Retrieved June 26, 2022, from: https:
//www.fssai.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/FSS_Gazete_Rules_2011.pdf.
Foschia, M., Horstmann, S., Arendt, E. K., & Zannini, E. (2016). Nutritional therapy –
Facing the gap between coeliac disease and gluten-free food. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 239, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJFOODMICRO.2016.06.014
Foschia, M., Horstmann, S. W., Arendt, E. K., & Zannini, E. (2017). Legumes as
Functional Ingredients in Gluten-Free Bakery and Pasta Products. Annual Review of
Food Science and Technology, 8, 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-FOOD-
030216-030045
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2003.09.012
Garske, R. P., Mercali, G. D., Thys, R. C. S., & Cladera-Olivera, F. (2023). Cassava starch
and chickpea flour pre-treated by microwave as a substitute for gluten-free bread
8
Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473
additives. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 60(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13197-022-05586-y
Gasparre, N., & Rosell, C. M. (2023). Wheat gluten: A functional protein still challenging
to replace in gluten-free cereal-based foods. Cereal Chemistry, 100(2), 243–255.
https://doi.org/10.1002/CCHE.10624
Ghribi, A. M., Maklouf, I., Blecker, C., Attia, H., & BESBES, S. (2015). Nutritional and
Compositional Study of Desi and Kabuli Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.) Flours from
Tunisian Cultivars. Advanced in Food Technology and Nutritional Sciences - Open
Journal, 1(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.17140/AFTNSOJ-1-107
Gray, J. A., & Bemiller, J. N. (2003). Bread Staling: Molecular Basis and Control.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.1111/J.1541- 4337.2003.TB00011.X
Gupta, R. K., Gupta, K., Sharma, A., Das, M., Ansari, I. A., & Dwivedi, P. D. (2017). Health
Risks and Benefits of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) Consumption. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 65(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.
JAFC.6B02629
Hager, A. S., Wolter, A., Czerny, M., Bez, J., Zannini, E., Arendt, E. K., et al. (2012).
Investigation of product quality, sensory profile and ultrastructure of breads made
from a range of commercial gluten-free flours compared to their wheat counterparts.
European Food Research and Technology, 235(2), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S00217-012-1763-2/FIGURES/5
Hausch, F., Shan, L., Santiago, N. A., Gray, G. M., & Khosla, C. (2002). Intestinal digestive
resistance of immunodominant gliadin peptides. American Journal of Physiology-
Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, 283(4), G996–G1003. https://doi.org/10.1152/
ajpgi.00136.2002
Hefnawy, T. M. H., El-Shourbagy, G. A., & Ramadan, M. F. (2012). Impact of adding
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flour to wheat flour on the rheological properties of
toast bread. International Food Research Journal, 19(2), 521–525. http://agris.upm.
edu.my:8080/dspace/handle/0/12803.
Herrera, A., C., & Gonzalez de Mejia, E. (2021). Feasibility of commercial breadmaking
using chickpea as an ingredient: Functional properties and potential health benefits.
Journal of Food Science, 86(6), 2208–2224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-
3841.15759
Huang, S., Liu, Y., Zhang, W., Dale, K. J., Liu, S., Zhu, J., et al. (2018). Composition of
legume soaking water and emulsifying properties in gluten-free bread. Food Science
and Technology International = Ciencia y Tecnologia de Los Alimentos Internacional, 24
(3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013217744903
Jamdar, S. N., Deshpande, R., & Marathe, S. A. (2017). Effect of processing conditions
and in vitro protein digestion on bioactive potentials of commonly consumed
legumes. Food Bioscience, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FBIO.2017.07.007
Jeong, D., Han, J. A., Liu, Q., & Chung, H. J. (2019). Effect of processing, storage, and
modification on in vitro starch digestion characteristics of food legumes: A review.
Food Hydrocolloids, 90, 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODHYD.2018.12.039
Jukanti, A. K., Gaur, P. M., Gowda, C. L. L., & Chibbar, R. N. (2012). Nutritional quality
and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of
Nutrition, 108(S1), S11–S26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512000797
Kahraman, G., Harsa, S., Casiraghi, M. C., Lucisano, M., & Cappa, C. (2022). Impact of
Raw, Roasted and Dehulled Chickpea Flours on Technological and Nutritional
Characteristics of Gluten-Free Bread. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 11(2), 199. https://
doi.org/10.3390/FOODS11020199
Kahraman, G., Harsa, S., Lucisano, M., & Cappa, C. (2018). Physicochemical and
rheological properties of rice-based gluten-free blends containing differently treated
chickpea flours. Lebensmittel- Wissenschaft + [i.e. Und] Technologie. Food Science +
Technology. Science + Technologie Alimentaire, 98, 276–282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.LWT.2018.08.040
Kaur, M., & Singh, N. (2005). Studies on functional, thermal and pasting properties of
flours from different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Food Chemistry, 91(3),
403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODCHEM.2004.06.015
Kotsiou, K., Sacharidis, D. D., Matsakidou, A., Biliaderis, C. G., & Lazaridou, A. (2022).
Physicochemical and functional aspects of composite wheat-roasted chickpea flours
in relation to dough rheology, bread quality and staling phenomena. Food
Hydrocolloids, 124, Article 107322. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODHYD.2021.107322
Lian, H., Luo, K., Gong, Y., Zhang, S., & Serventi, L. (2019). Okara flours from chickpea
and soy are thickeners: Increased dough viscosity and moisture content in gluten-
free bread. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 55(2), 805–812.
https://doi.org/10.1111/IJFS.14332
Luo, Z., Murray, B. S., Yusoff, A., Morgan, M. R. A., Povey, M. J. W., & Day, A. J. (2011).
Particle- stabilizing effects of flavonoids at the oil-water interface. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59(6), 2636–2645. https://doi.org/10.1021/
JF1041855
Man, S., Păucean, A., Muste, S., & Pop, A. (2015). Effect of the Chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) Flour Addition on Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bread. Bulletin of
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Food Science
and Technology, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-fst:11023
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSFA.6732
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12279
Miñarro, B., Albanell, E., Aguilar, N., Guamis, B., & Capellas, M. (2012). Effect of legume
flours on baking characteristics of gluten-free bread. Journal of Cereal Science, 56(2),
476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCS.2012.04.012
B.R. Vinod et al.
Mohammed, I., Ahmed, A. R., & Senge, B. (2012). Dough rheology and bread quality of
wheat–chickpea flour blends. Industrial Crops and Products, 36(1), 196–202. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.INDCROP.2011.09.006
Mygdalia, A. S., Nouska, C., Hatzikamari, M., Biliaderis, C. G., & Lazaridou, A. (2022).
A sourdough process based on fermented chickpea extract as leavening and anti-
staling agent for improving the quality of gluten-free breads. Food Research
International, 159, Article 111593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111593
Ouazib, M., Garzon, R., Zaidi, F., & Rosell, C. M. (2016). Germinated, toasted and cooked
chickpea as ingredients for breadmaking. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 53
(6), 2664–2672. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13197-016-2238-4/TABLES/5
Rachwa-Rosiak, D., Nebesny, E., & Budryn, G. (2015). Chickpeas—Composition,
nutritional value, health benefits, application to bread and snacks: A review. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55(8), 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10408398.2012.687418
Roman, L., Belorio, M., & Gomez, M. (2019). Gluten-Free Breads: The Gap Between
Research and Commercial Reality. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, 18(3), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12437
Rostamian, M., Milani, J. M., & Maleki, G. (2014). Physical properties of gluten-free
bread made of corn and chickpea flour. International Journal of Food Engineering, 10
(3), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1515/IJFE-2013-0004/
MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS
Santos, F. G., & Capriles, V. D. (2021). Relationships between dough thermomechanical
parameters and physical and sensory properties of gluten-free bread texture during
storage. LWT, 139, Article 110577. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2020.110577
Santos, F. G., Aguiar, E.v., Braga, A. R. C., Alencar, N. M. M., Rosell, C. M., &
Capriles, V. D. (2021a). An integrated instrumental and sensory approach to describe
the effects of chickpea flour, psyllium, and their combination at reducing gluten-free
bread staling. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 28, Article 100659. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fpsl.2021.100659
Santos, F. G., Fratelli, C., Muniz, D. G., & Capriles, V. D. (2021b). The impact of dough
hydration level on gluten-free bread quality: A case study with chickpea flour.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 26, Article 100434. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100434
Santos, F. G., Aguiar, E. V., Rosell, C. M., & Capriles, V. D. (2021c). Potential of chickpea
and psyllium in gluten-free breadmaking: Assessing bread’s quality, sensory
acceptability, and glycemic and satiety indexes. Food Hydrocolloids, 113, Article
106487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106487
Santos, F. G., Aguiar, E.v., Centeno, A. C. L. S., Rosell, C. M., & Capriles, V. D. (2020).
Effect of added psyllium and food enzymes on quality attributes and shelf life of
chickpea-based gluten-free bread. LWT, 134, Article 110025. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110025
Food Chemistry Advances 3 (2023) 100473
Santos, F. G., Fratelli, C., Muniz, D. G., & Capriles, V. D. (2018). Mixture Design Applied
to the Development of Chickpea-Based Gluten-Free Bread with Attractive
Technological, Sensory, and Nutritional Quality. Journal of Food Science, 83(1),
188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750- 3841.14009
Singh, P., Arora, A., Strand, T. A., Leffler, D. A., Catassi, C., Green, P. H., et al. (2018).
Global Prevalence of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review and Meta- analysis. Clinical
Gastroenterology and Hepatology : The Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American
Gastroenterological Association, 16(6), 823–836.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CGH.2017.06.037
Skendi, A., & Papageorgiou, M. (2021). Introduction in wheat and breadmaking. Trends
in Wheat and Bread Making, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821048-
2.00001-5
Sreerama, Y. N., Sashikala, V. B., Pratape, V. M., & Singh, V. (2012a). Nutrients and
antinutrients in cowpea and horse gram flours in comparison to chickpea flour:
Evaluation of their flour functionality. Food Chemistry, 131(2), 462–468. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.FOODCHEM.2011.09.008
Sreerama, Y. N., Sashikala, V. B., & Pratape, V. M. (2012b). Phenolic compounds in
cowpea and horse gram flours in comparison to chickpea flour: Evaluation of their
antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory properties associated with hyperglycemia and
hypertension. Food Chemistry, 133(1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODCHEM.2012.01.011
Taranova, E. S., Zenina, E. A., Mel’nikov, A. G., Kryuchkova, T. E., Skorokhodov, E. A., &
Ileneva, S. V. (2021). Use of chickpea flour in food production. IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 845(1), Article 012120. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/845/1/012120
Tye-Din, J. A., Stewart, J. A., Dromey, J. A., Beissbarth, T., van Heel, D. A., Tatham, A.,
et al. (2010). Comprehensive, Quantitative Mapping of T Cell Epitopes in Gluten in
Celiac Disease. Science Translational Medicine, 2(41). https://doi.org/10.1126/
scitranslmed.3001012
USDA. (2022). Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.
html#/food-details/174288/nutrients.
Wang, J., Li, Y., Li, A., Liu, R. H., Gao, X., Li, D., et al. (2021). Nutritional constituent and
health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. Food Research
International, 150, Article 110790. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODRES.2021.110790
Wieser, H. (2007). Chemistry of gluten proteins. Food Microbiology, 24(2), 115–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FM.2006.07.004
Zafar, T. A., & Kabir, Y. (2017). Chickpeas suppress postprandial blood glucose
concentration, and appetite and reduce energy intake at the next meal. Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 54(4), 987–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13197-016-
2422-6/FIGURES/5