Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running Head: FINAL REPORT 1
FINAL REPORT:
Effect of the Use of GlutenFree Flours on the Consumer Acceptance, and Color of Sugar Cookies
Alyssa Snow Callahan Christina Fasulo
Cory Ruth Charles Hu Stull
Leanna Tu
NTRS 410 – Experimental Foods California State University, Los Angeles
April 21, 2015 Spring Quarter 2015
FINAL REPORT 2
Abstract
The purchase of glutenfree products is on the rise as consumers with Celiac
disease or gluten intolerance search for quality substitutions for baked goods. Cookies,
a favorite snack option, can be made using a variety of glutenfree flours. However,
when compared to conventional wheat flour cookies, glutenfree cookies may have
differing nutrient, flavor, and textural qualities and thus may be more or less accepted
by consumers. The objective of this experiment was to assess the color and sensory
characteristics of glutenfree sugar cookies made with different flour blends. The
independent variable was the type of flour blend. The control cookies were made with
allpurpose flour, one variation was made with a blend of 75% rice flour and 25%
almond flour, and a second variation was made with a blend of 50% rice flour and 50%
almond flour. The dependent variables, color and consumer acceptance, were
assessed with a colorimeter and ninepoint hedonic scale, respectively. The null
hypothesis for this experiment was that there was no significant difference in color and
consumer acceptance between the variations and the control cookies. The alternative
hypothesis was that there was a significant difference in color and consumer
acceptance between the variants and the control cookies. Statistical analyses showed
significant differences in consumer acceptance (n=14) between the wheatbased
cookies and each of the two glutenfree cookies when the variants were considered
separately in paired ttests; however, ANOVA tests showed no significant differences in
the means of all the variants when considered together. There were no significant
differences in any of the color values between the three cookie variants. Thus, we
FINAL REPORT 3
accept the null hypothesis in regards to the color of the cookie variants, and additional
work needs to be done to determine consumer acceptability of these cookie variants.
Overall, sugar cookies made with almond and white rice flour blends may be a
promising glutenfree cookie option.
Keywords: glutenfree, flour, cookies, sugar cookies, almond flour, rice flour
FINAL REPORT 4
Introduction
Due to the growing prevalence of people suffering from celiac disease and gluten
intolerance, the demand for glutenfree baked products is also increasing.
Unfortunately, glutenfree baking poses immense challenges for both technologists and
nutritionists, as gluten plays a key role in the structure and quality of the baked
products.
Literature Review
An experiment conducted by Kaur, Sandhu, Arora, and Sharma (2015) compared
buckwheat flour (BWF) biscuits made with and without various gums to white flour (WF)
biscuits. Panelists compared the quality and acceptability of BWF and WF biscuits using
a 9point hedonic scale, where the score of 1 denoted “extremely disliking” and a score
of 9 denoted “extremely liking.” The results showed that WF biscuits were the most
acceptable when judged on sensory characteristics, whereas BWF biscuits without
gums were the least acceptable. However, biscuits made with BWF and added gums
showed significant improvement in color, appearance, and flavor, making the overall
acceptance of the biscuits made with modified BWF higher than those made with solely
BWF. The scientists attributed the low acceptance of BWF biscuits to the phenolic
compounds in the flour, including rutin, quercetin, and protocatechuic acid, which can
influence taste and color. In addition, the BWF biscuits exhibited different physical
characteristics than WF biscuits, such as lower moisture, decreased thickness, and
FINAL REPORT 5
increased fracture strength, which may have also influenced the texture and
acceptability.
Torbica, Hadnadev, and Hadnadev (2012) looked at the effect of using BWF in
cookies. In this experiment, combinations of BWF and rice flour (RF) at three ratios
(90:10, 80:20, and 70:30) were used in glutenfree cookies and then compared to 100%
WF cookies. The results showed that cookies made from BWF had a positive a* value,
indicating a more red color, whereas cookies made from wheat flour had a negative a*
value, indicating a more green color. In addition, BWFformulated cookies had the
lowest l* value, meaning the darkest overall color, and WFformulated cookies had the
highest b* value, meaning the most yellow in color. The flavor of glutenfree cookies
made with 10% and 20% BWF scored the highest in acceptability as evaluated by 10
trained panelists using a 9point hedonic scale, even when compared to WF cookies.
The researchers predict this may have been caused by aromatic polyphenols in BWF,
which may have masked the neutral/bland flavor of the rice flour.
A study from Liu and others (2015) also experimented with substituting white rice
and brown rice flours for wheat flour. Two of the factors that were evaluated included
color, which is an important factor in determining the acceptability of cookies, and
textural properties, which contribute to the eating quality of cookies. The color of the
cookies was measured by using a colorimeter (CR10, Konica Minolta Sensing Inc.,
Osaka, Japan). Hardness, a textural property, of the baked cookies was measured by
using a texture analyzer (TAXT2, Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK). The color of the
white rice and brown rice cookies appeared similar to that of the wheat cookies, but
FINAL REPORT 6
hardness decreased substantially from 2,240 grams in the control wheat cookies to 463
grams with 100% white rice flour and 774 grams with 100% brown rice flour. The
researchers concurred that this softening was primarily due to the reduction of gluten,
as lower amounts of gluten inhibit the formation of the gluten matrices that provide the
hardness and structure of cookies (Liu 2015).
Research from Apotiola and Fashakinly (2013) also evaluated the effects of
using flour blends including wheat, soybean, and yam flour in baking cookies. The
physical tests showed that as the wheat content of the flour used decreased, the protein
content of the cookies increased and the carbohydrate content decreased. In addition,
when the cookies were evaluated on crispiness, color, taste, texture, and overall
acceptability based on a 9point hedonic scale, the cookies made from a higher content
of wheat flour were most acceptable. The control cookies made entirely from wheat flour
scored the highest for color and overall acceptability, while the cookies made from
mostly wheat flour (80% wheat with only 10% yam flour and 10% soybean flour) scored
the highest for crispiness, taste, and texture. However, in other cookie formulations with
lower wheat flour content and more yam and soybean flour, all of the measures of
acceptability gradually decreased.
Another glutenfree flour substitute, coconut powder, is rich in fiber, vitamins, and
minerals, making it a viable and nutritional substitute. In a study by Dhankar (2013) that
substituted coconut powder for wheat flour in cookies, panelists evaluated the cookies
on a 9point hedonic scale. Based on ANOVA testing, coconut cookies received an
overall acceptability score of 7.33 ± 0.70, compared to the control wheat cookies that
FINAL REPORT 7
received a score of 6.85 ± 0.64 (Dhankar 2013). However, there were many variables
involved in the formulation of the coconut cookies, as Dhankar omitted shortening
because of the high fat content of coconut powder, added egg as a tenderizing agent,
and added gums for binding. These additional modifications to the cookie recipe may
have affected the final product, leading to higher acceptability, and may not be
attainable in an experiment only modifying a single variable.
Millet, a staple grain in Africa, has a high nutritional value and many potential
health benefits. To examine the effects of millet flour on the characteristics of cookies,
Rai and others (2014) compared cookies made with wheat flour with six 50:50 ratio flour
blends of rice/maize, rice/sorghum, rice/pearl millet, maize/sorghum, maize/pearl millet,
and pearl millet/sorghum. Each cookie was then weighed and measured to obtain its
width, thickness, spread ratio, and peak force. In addition, panelists used a 9point
hedonic scale to assess the cookies’ acceptability. The data was then analyzed with
ANOVA using randomized design. Overall, the glutenfree cookies had a higher
nutritional value than the control cookies, with the pearl millet/sorghum flour blend
cookies having the highest amount of protein and the cookies made with maize flour
having the highest levels of fiber. The panelists found the pearl millet/sorghum flour
blend cookies to have the best texture and flavor, as well as the highest overall
acceptability. In addition, the cookies made from sorghum flour scored high levels of
acceptability, but had a more fragile texture than the wheat cookies and a lower spread
ratio than the rice/maize flour blend cookies. Altogether, the glutenfree cookies were all
FINAL REPORT 8
deemed acceptable by the panelists, and the pearl millet/sorghum flour blend cookies
were rated even higher than the wheatbased cookies.
A study by Emmanuel and Sakey (2013) evaluated the effects of millet flour on
sponge cake. They created 11 samples, varying the ratio of wheat and millet flour, to
incrementally decrease the amount of wheat flour and increase the amount of millet
flour. The study used an untrained panel to conduct sensory assessments and use a
9point hedonic scale to evaluate visual puffiness, appearance and color, smell and
aroma, taste, overall texture, moistness, and overall liking. The panel gave the highest
ranking of appearance and color to the cake made solely from wheat flour, while the
cake made from a blend of 20% wheat and 80% millet flour scored the lowest. There
was no observable pattern in the color rankings, assessed visually by the researchers.
Overall acceptability of the cakes increased as the ratio of wheat flour to that of millet
flour decreased up to the flour made from 60% wheat and 40% millet flour. However,
when more than 40% of the flour was millet flour, the acceptability was lower. The most
preferred product was the sponge cake made from 60% wheat flour and 40% millet
flour, which underscored the fact that the optimum formulation of flours in baked goods
may be a ratio between several types of flours.
Another flour combination of interest arises from a study from Bhaduri (2013), in
which muffins made from combinations of rice and quinoa flour were examined and
compared to muffins made solely with wheat flour. The muffins were tested on physical
properties including hardness, springiness, gumminess, chewiness, and viscosity, as
well as subjective measures, like flavor, appearance, texture, sweetness, and overall
FINAL REPORT 9
acceptability, using a 9point hedonic scale. The study found that muffins made with
100% rice flour and a mixture of 75% rice flour and 25% quinoa flour were most
acceptable due to the low viscosity, light color, and weak flavor of rice flour, which
contributed to an airy texture, pleasing color, and sweet flavor. As the content of quinoa
flour increased to replace rice flour, the resulting muffins became less acceptable, as
quinoa flour exhibited a darker color, bitter taste, and hard, gummy texture.
A study by Man and others (2014) examined also flour combinations that
included rice flour to develop acceptable glutenfree pastries. This study examined the
effects of combinations of maize flour, rice flour, and cornstarch on properties of
pastries, as compared to a control made of wheat flour. The results demonstrated that
the pastry made from a combination of 20% maize flour, 16% rice flour, and 64%
cornstarch had the highest level of acceptability based on a 9point hedonic scale and
exhibited comparable physicochemical properties, such as thickness, moisture, and
specific gravity, to the control pastry.
Other glutenfree flour combinations of note were tested by Breshears and others
(2013) in a study to assess the acceptability of glutenfree breads made with either
amaranth or Montina™ flour, a dietary staple of Native Americans, compared to a
commercial glutenfree bread. Amaranth or Montina™ flour was substituted at 20% of
the total flour weight in a standardized glutenfree bread recipe that also utilized white
rice flour, potato starch, tapioca starch, soy flour, and guar gum. A 9point hedonic scale
was used to evaluate appearance, texture, flavor, tenderness, and overall acceptability
among 222 untrained participants, some of whom typically eat a glutenfree diet and
FINAL REPORT 10
some of whom have an unrestricted diet. The results showed no significant differences
in acceptability of the amaranth flour glutenfree bread and Montina™ flour glutenfree
bread between both usual glutenfree and unrestricted participants. However, there
were significant differences between the two developed breads (amaranth and
Montina™ flours) compared to the commercial glutenfree bread. The commercial
glutenfree bread was preferred over either developed bread, and the Montina™ flour
bread was preferred over the amaranth flour bread. Researchers also visually evaluated
the color of the breads. The amaranth bread was slightly more yellow compared to the
commercial glutenfree bread, and resembled white bread. The Montina™ bread had
black particles dispersed throughout, making it look like multigrain bread. While the
nutrient density of the breads made from amaranth and Montina™ flours were higher,
the low overall acceptability of these breads indicate that it may be advantageous to
conduct further research to develop acceptable nutrientdense glutenfree baked goods.
Objectives
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the sensory and color
characteristics of glutenfree sugar cookies. The above review examined some of the
positives and negatives of using various flours to make glutenfree baked products.
Because of the information found above, as well as additional informal research via the
Internet and personal experiences with baking glutenfree products, we chose to test
blends of rice flour and almond flour. The control cookies were made with allpurpose
flour, while the variants were made with a 75%25% blend of rice flour and almond flour
FINAL REPORT 11
and a 50%50% blend of rice flour and almond flour. The color and overall liking was
assessed in a group of 15 untrained individuals.
Hypothesis
The null hypothesis of the experiment stated that there would be no significant
differences in color or consumer acceptance among all variants, including the control.
The alternative hypothesis stated that there would be significant differences in color or
consumer acceptance for all the variants, including the control.
Materials and Methods
All recipe ingredients for the three variants were procured from local grocery
stores. These ingredients are listed in Table 1 of the “Cookie Preparation” section of this
paper. The equipment for both objective evaluation (color) and sensory evaluation were
available in the laboratory, and were used during this experiment. This equipment is
listed in the color and sensory evaluation sections of the Methods, respectively. The
experiment was conducted on May 5, 2015; the entire experiment, with all appropriate
controls and variants, was replicated on May 12, 2015 to obtain a larger pool of data.
A. Cookie Preparation
Refer to Attachment 2 in the Appendix for the adapted recipe with original
measurements and Attachment 4 for Nutrition Label information. All of the
ingredients listed below were converted to grams using ESHA Food Processor
(Version 10.11 ESHA, Salem, OR, USA) from the standard recipe in the
Appendix as Attachment 2. The first step of cookie preparation was to weigh out
FINAL REPORT 12
each ingredient for all three variants according to Table 1 (below). The oven was
preheated to 375°F with rack in third position from the top. The dry ingredients,
including the flour or flour mix, baking soda, and baking powder were combined.
In a separate bowl, the butter and sugar were created together. Then, egg and
vanilla were added to the batter and beaten together. The dry ingredients were
added gradually while continuing to mix the batter until they were fully
incorporated. Teaspoons of dough were rolled into balls and put on ungreased
cookie sheets. The cookies then baked in the oven for 8 to 10 minutes, or until
golden. The cookies sat on cookie sheet for two minutes before they were
removed to cool completely on wire racks until they reach room temperature.
Once the cookies were cooled, sensory and objective evaluation tests were
performed.
Table 1: Sugar Cookie Formula
Ingredients (g) AllPurpose White Flour
75/25 Flour Blend (75% Rice Flour,
25% Almond Flour)
50/50 Flour Blend (50% Rice Flour, 50%
Almond Flour)
Control Variant 1 Variant 2
AllPurpose White Flour 220.67 0 0
Rice Flour 0 196.75 135.48
Almond Flour 0 46.49 96.03
Baking Soda 2.95 2.78 2.87
Baking Powder 1.60 1.51 1.56
FINAL REPORT 13
Unsalted Butter 145.85 137.17 141.68
White Granulated
Sugar 194.13 182.58 188.58
Large Egg 32.10 30.19 31.18
Pure Vanilla Extract 2.70 2.54 2.62
TOTAL 600.00 600.00 600.00
Objective Evaluation
Color: CIELab color was measured using a Minolta Chroma Meter (Model
CR410, Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc., Ramsey, NJ, USA), which was
calibrated using a Minolta white calibration plate No. 17333240 for
CR200/CR300/CR400 with 2° OBSERVER to measure lightness (L*), red/green (a*),
and yellow/blue (b*) color values. Readings were collected from the center of each
sample. A total of two (2) samples of the cookies were randomly chosen per variant (3).
Sensory Evaluation
Acceptability: Fourteen untrained panelists assessed and recorded the
acceptability of the cookies by selecting a category on a 9point hedonic scale that
ranged from ‘extreme like’ to ‘extreme dislike’ (Refer to Attachment 1 in the Appendix).
The data helped to evaluate the overall acceptability of the cookie variants.
Statistical Analysis
FINAL REPORT 14
An analysis of variance (ANOVA), descriptive statistics, and ttests were
performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Excel 2011, Version 14.0.2, Redmond, WA
USA) and StatPlus (StatPlus:mac, AnalystSoft, Walnut, CA USA). Data from both
experimental replicants was combined for the analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the consumer acceptance tests and color evaluations are shown
as follows in Table 2.
Table 2: Means ± Standard Deviations (SD) of Sugar Cookie Results for Consumer Acceptance and Color
Variation Hedonic Score1
Color (L*)2 Color (a*)2 Color (b*)2
Control:
AllPurpose Flour
7.33 + 1.75a
74.60 + 1.89a
0.87 + 0.24a
21.25 + 2.42a
Variant 1 (V1):
75/25 Blend (75% Rice Flour and 25% Almond
Flour)
6.19 + 2.08b
73.76 + 6.47a
1.42 + 1.46a
19.85 + 2.40a
Variant 2 (V2):
50/50 Blend (50% Rice Flour and 50% Almond
Flour)
6.56 + 1.76b
73.91 + 5.49a
1.61 + 0.87a
20.71 + 2.63a
1 Means±SD of 2 replicants; 14 judges per variant within replicant one and 13 judges per variant within replicant two. 2 Means±SD of 2 replicants; 2 readings per variant within each replicant. ab Means within the same column with the same letter are not significantly different (p>0.05).
FINAL REPORT 15
Sensory Evaluation
A 9point hedonic scale was used to assess overall acceptability of each type of
cookie. The data collected from the hedonic scale ballots on 05/05/15 and 05/12/15 was
combined in Table 2, which displays the means + SD for each cookie variety. From
these descriptive statistics, we can see that mean acceptability was highest for the
control cookies (7.33 + 1.75) and decreased with the 50/50 blend (6.56 + 1.76) and the
75/25 blend (6.19 + 2.08). Table 2 also indicates whether means between the variants
were significantly different or not—this information was taken from p values from the
paired twosample ttests.
ANOVA is used to see whether there are statistical differences between the
means of three or more groups. Based on this analysis (p = 0.08), there was no
significant difference in consumer acceptability when all three sugar cookie varieties
were analyzed together. If this was the only statistical test conducted, we would accept
the null hypothesis (that there are no significant differences between the control and two
variants) for consumer acceptability.
However, further analysis was conducted. Paired twosample ttests were
conducted in which the means between only two types of cookies were compared at a
time. The ttest comparing the means of the control cookies and the 75/25 blend as well
as the ttest comparing the means of the control cookies and the 50/50 blend resulted in
p values less than 0.05. This indicated that there was a significant difference in
consumer acceptability between the control and each variant when the variants were
considered separately. However, the ttest comparing the means of the 75/25 blend and
FINAL REPORT 16
the 50/50 blend resulted in p>0.05, meaning there was no significant difference in
acceptability between the two variants. The ttest results show that the panel gave
significantly lower scores for both of the variants when compared to just the control
cookies, but the acceptability was not significantly different between the two variants.
Based on the ttests for consumer acceptability alone, we would reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis—there were significant differences
between the control and the 75/25 blend as well as between the control and 50/50
blend.
The results from ANOVA, paired ttests, and previous studies indicate a need for
future testing to determine whether there is truly a difference in consumer acceptability
when substituting various proportions of white rice flour and almond flour for allpurpose
white flour in sugar cookies.
The literature reviewed reveals mixed results for the acceptability of glutenfree
baked products made with rice flour. Results similar to our experiment were found in a
study by Apotiola and Fashakinly (2013), which found that the control cookies made
entirely from wheat flour scored the highest for overall acceptability compared to
glutenfree blends. However, Torbica, Hadnadev, and Hadnadev (2012) found opposite
results. They found that glutenfree cookies made with a 90:10 and 80:20 blend of
buckwheat flour to rice flour scored the highest in acceptability as evaluated by 10
trained panelists using a 9point hedonic scale, even when compared to WF cookies.
Man and others (2014) also examined flour combinations that included rice flour to
develop acceptable glutenfree pastries. They demonstrated that the pastry made from
FINAL REPORT 17
a combination of 20% maize flour, 16% rice flour, and 64% cornstarch had the highest
level of acceptability. Their glutenfree blend that included rice flour ranked higher on
the hedonic scale than white flour recipes.
Thus, the existing literature has mixed conclusions on the acceptability of
glutenfree baked goods made with rice flour—some studies showed that the blends
containing rice flour had higher acceptability compared to nonglutenfree controls, but
other studies demonstrated the opposite. None of the reviewed studies examined the
effects of almond flour on overall acceptability of glutenfree baked goods. However,
these two flours are commonly sold at healthfood supermarkets and thus it is
imperative to evaluate their usage in glutenfree baking. Our study, then, sheds light on
the acceptability of these products, although further testing is necessary for conclusive
results.
Measurement of Color
Color measurements were obtained from two randomly chosen sample sugar
cookies of the control cookie and the two variants (V1, the 75/25 flour blend and V2, the
50/50 flour blend). Measurements were taken by placing the Minolta colorimeter over
the top of the middle of the cookie. According to the CIELab Color system, the L* values
measure lightness on a scale from 0100, with 0 indicating a dark, black color and 100
indicating a light, white color. The control, Variant 1, and Variant 2 had relatively high
average L* values (74.60, 73.75, and 73.91, respectively), which indicates that all
cookies tested exhibit a light color. There were no significant differences (P>0.05) in the
FINAL REPORT 18
L* values between any two variants, so we accepted our null hypothesis in terms of
lightness of color.
This finding mirrors the findings from a study by Torbica, Hadnadev, and
Hadnadev (2012), which found that L* values did not differ significantly when measuring
the upper surface of cookies made of wheat flour as compared to cookies made of
varying mixtures of rice and buckwheat flours. Similarly, in research from Bhaduri
(2013), the L* values of muffin crusts did not differ significantly between muffins made
with 100% wheat flour, 100% rice flour, a mixture of 75% rice flour and 25% quinoa
flour, and a mixture of 50% rice flour and 50% quinoa flour. However, research from
Chung et al. (2014) found that L* values of cookies differed significantly when white rice
flour was either fully or partially substituted for wheat flour. In these cookies, the L*
values were larger in the cookies made with white rice flour, indicating that the cookies
were lighter in color than the wheatbased cookies.
When measuring red and green hues, a negative a* value indicates a green
color, while a positive a* value indicates a red color. The mean a* values of the control,
Variant 1, and Variant 2 were all negative (0.87, 1.41, and 1.61, respectively),
therefore indicating a slightly green color. There were no significant differences (P>0.05)
in the a* values between any two variants, so we accepted our null hypothesis in terms
of the green/red hue.
This data on a* values aligns with the findings from Bhaduri (2013) on muffin
crusts, as the a* values did not differ significantly in muffins made of 100% wheat flour
and 100% rice flour muffins, although this was not true in some of the muffins made with
FINAL REPORT 19
combinations of rice and quinoa flour. The study from Chung et al. did find significant
variations in the a* values between cookies made of 100% wheat flour and 100% white
rice flour. However, some of the cookies made of a combination of white rice and wheat
flour did not have a significantly different a* value compared to the 100% wheat cookies.
In both of the aforementioned studies, any significant differences showed that the baked
goods made with wheat flour had lower a* values than the glutenfree versions,
indicating that the wheat products were more green in color. Research from Torbica,
Hadnadev, and Hadnadev (2012) also found significant differences in a* values when
looking at the upper surface of cookies made with combinations of rice and buckwheat
flour as compared to wheat flour. Yet, the cookies made with buckwheat and rice flour
had smaller a* values than the wheat cookies, indicating that the glutenfree cookies
were more green in this case.
When measuring blue and yellow hues, a negative b* value indicates a blue
color, while a positive b* value indicates a yellow color. The mean b* values of the
control, Variant 1, and Variant 2 were all positive (21.25, 19.84, and 20.71, respectively)
thus indicating that all cookies are yellow in color. There were no significant differences
(P>0.05) in the b* values between any two variants, so we accepted our null hypothesis
in terms of the blue/yellow hue. In summary, the control and two variations of sugar
cookies were light in tonal quality, while mildly green and very yellow in terms of hue.
Research findings show much more significant differences in b* values than was
found in our study. The study by Bhaduri (2013) showed that the b* values of muffin
crusts did not vary significantly between muffins made of wheat flour, 100% quinoa
FINAL REPORT 20
flour, and 50% quinoa flour and 50% rice flour. The muffins made with 100% rice flour
had a significantly larger b* value, indicating that these muffins appeared more yellow in
color. In contrast, the research from Chung et al. found that cookies made with 100%
wheat flour had higher b* values than cookies made with 100% white rice flour.
However, if the rice flour was mixed with wheat flour at all (even 30% wheat flour and
70% white rice flour), there were no significant variations in the b* values between
cookies made of 100% wheat flour and cookies made with mixtures of wheat and white
rice flour. The study from Torbica, Hadnadev, and Hadnadev (2012) also showed
significant differences in b* values when looking at the upper surface of glutenfree and
wheatbased cookies, as all cookies made from combinations of rice and buckwheat
flour had significantly smaller b* values than the wheat cookies, indicating that the
wheat cookies were more yellow.
Nutrition Information
Table 3: Nutrition Facts for the Variations of Sugar Cookies
The ESHA analysis (Table 3) listed above demonstrates the nutritional
information for the control sugar cookie and the two variants. It shows that the control
FINAL REPORT 21
shares more similarities with Variant 1 than Variant 2 in terms of calorie amount, total
fat, total carbohydrate, fiber, sugar, and protein content. There is a difference of only 10
calories and 1 gram of fat between the control and Variant 1. Additionally, the control
has an additional 1 gram of sugar compared to Variant 1. Variant 2, on the other hand,
has the same caloric content as Variant 1, but with a 2 gram disparity in both total fat
and total carbohydrate content, as well as a 1 gram difference in fiber. Variant 2 also
had 1 more gram of protein than the control cookie. This clearly demonstrates that when
creating a glutenfree sugar cookie, the product is extremely similar in nutritional value
to that of a regular wheatflour sugar cookie. However, when examining small
differences, the flour ratio of 75% rice flour and 25% almond flour is slightly nutritionally
superior to a cookie made with 50% almond flour and 50% rice flour.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The growing prevalence of people suffering from celiac disease and gluten
intolerance along with novel research showing the detrimental effects of gluten proteins
on various body systems will ensure that glutenfree products will remain a popular food
movement despite a decrease in the number of people who associate glutenfree with
health. This is why continued research into glutenfree products should continue despite
the many challenges gluten free baking poses for technologists and nutritionists.
In addition to an allpurpose flour control sugar cookie, two glutenfree sugar
cookie products were developed through the course of this experiment: one made with
75% rice flour and 25% almond flour and the other made with 50% rice flour and 50%
almond flour. A 9point hedonic scale was utilized to assess consumer acceptability,
FINAL REPORT 22
and analysis demonstrated that while no significant difference was seen when all three
cookie types were considered together, when considered in paired ttest there were
significant differences between the control and 75/25 cookies as well as the control and
50/50 cookies. According to the paired ttest analysis, we reject the null and accept the
alternate hypothesis—there was a significant difference in consumer acceptance
between the control and each variant when considered separately (the consumers liked
the control more than either variant). A Minolta colorimeter was used to assess color;
the cookies were light in tone, mildly green, and markedly yellow. Statistical analyses
showed that there were no significant differences in any of the color values, so the null
hypothesis was accepted in terms of color data.
Our glutenfree sugar cookie formulations using various ratios of rice flour and
almond flour produced products that, although similar in color to the control cookies,
were slightly less liked by the consumer panel compared to the control cookies. The
nutritional content of all three variants are comparable. Thus, improving the acceptability
of these glutenfree alternatives is the primary aim of further work. This study only
manipulated the type of flour blend used and all other variables and ingredients were
left constant. There are limitations to this approach which are discussed below.
Our preliminary study in developing a novel gluten free sugar cookie using
blends of rice and almond flour had several flaws which would need to be addressed in
order to improve validity and accuracy of results. Various testing protocols conducted
did not comply with food industry standards for sensory evaluation. Among these was
the application of the 9pointhedonic scale for customer acceptance of our cookie
FINAL REPORT 23
variants. Our testing protocol utilized subjects repeatedly over several trials which in
turn “trained” the panelists not only in the testing protocol but also allowed them to
associate physical cues such as thickness, color, brittleness and size with the different
cookie variants. This may have influenced the sensory evaluation and consumer
preference values. Future work should utilize a large population of untrained panelists.
Another issue which needs to be addressed is variations in cookie size. Due to
the physical properties of gluten in the physical shape of cookies, gluten free alternates
often have a greater spread. Left uncontrolled, tested variants of cookies may have
different shapes and sizes which may also influence sensory evaluation. In the future,
cookie size should be a controlled variable.
Future studies should also utilize a testing environment that complies with The
American Society for Testing and Materials: Sensory Evaluation testing protocols.
These include enforcing an environment whereby panelists may not interact or
communicate with one another. In addition, samples to be evaluated should be
prepared away from the testing area to avoid possible aroma or visual cues from
influencing the participants.
Finally, additional recipe modification maybe necessary to accommodate for the
lack of gluten proteins in GF baked products. Other publications have noted increased
consumer acceptance when gums and starches were added to the GF flour products as
these carbohydrates aid in the structural lattice of the baked product, providing a texture
and mouthfeel more similar to products containing gluten. Future modifications should
include the incorporation gums and starches into glutenfree sugar cookies.
FINAL REPORT 24
References
AllRecipes.com. Easy Sugar Cookies. Available from:
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/easysugarcookies/. Accessed April 15, 2015.
Apotiola ZO, Fashakinly JF. 2013. Evaluation of Cookies from (Wheat, Yam, and
Soybean) Blend. Food Sci Qual Management 14: 1116. Available from:
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/FSQM/article/view/5159. Accessed 2015
April 17. *Alyssa Snow Callahan
Bhaduri S. 2013. A Comprehensive Study on Physical Properties of Two GlutenFree
FlourFortified Muffins. J Food Process Technol 7(4):251. doi:
10.4172/21577110.1000251. *Alyssa Snow Callahan
Breshears KL, Crowe KM. 2013. Sensory and Textural Evaluation of GlutenFree Bread
Substituted With Amaranth and Montina™ Flour. Journal of Food Research 2(4):
19270895. doi: 10.5539/jfr.v2n4pl. *Leanna Tu
Chung, H. J., Cho, A. Lim, S. 2014. Utilization of germinated and heatmoisture treated
brown rices in sugarsnap cookies. LWT Food Science and Technology 57
(2014) 260e266. http://dx.doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2014.01.018. *Christina Fasulo
Dhankhar, P., 2013. A Study on Development of Coconut Based Gluten Free Cookies.
International Journal of Engineering Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 –
6734, 2 (12),1019. Available from:
http://www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol%202%2812%29/Version1/B021201010019.pdf.
Accessed 2015 April 16. *Christina Fasulo
FINAL REPORT 25
Emmanuel K, Sakey AS. 2013. Nutritional and Sensory Analysis of Millet Based Sponge
Cake. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 2(6): 287293. doi:
10.11648/j.ijnfs.20130206.14. *Leanna Tu
Kaur, M., Sandhu, K., Arora, A., & Sharma, A. 2011. Gluten free biscuits prepared from
buckwheat flour by incorporation of various gums: Physicochemical and sensory
properties. LWT Food Science and Technology, 62, 628632.
doi:10.1016/j.Jwt.2014.02.039. *Charles Stull
Man S, Paucean A, Muste S, and Pop A. 2014. Studies on the Preparation of Aglutenic
Foam Type of Pastry Product Using Different Flour Combinations. Bulletin
UASVM Food Science and Technology 71(2): 217218. doi:
10.15835/buasvmcnfst:10798. *Cory Ruth
Rai S, Kaur A, Singh B. 2014. Quality Characteristics of Gluten Free Cookies Prepared
from Different Flour Combinations. J Food Sci 51(4): 785789. doi:
10.1007/s1319701105471. *Cory Ruth
Sloan, E.A. 2015. The Top Ten Food Trends. Food Technology 69(4): 2440.
Torbica, A., Hadnadev, M., & Hadnadev, T. 2012. Rice and Buckwheat flour
characterization and it's relation to cookie quality. Food Research International,
48, 277283. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2012.05.01. *Charles Stull
Appendix Attachment 1: Scorecard
ACCEPTABILITY TEST FOR GLUTENFREE SUGAR COOKIES
FINAL REPORT 26
You may rinse your mouth with water at any time during the test if you need to. Please taste the samples according to the 3digit random code provided on the samples and the ballot. You may not go back and retaste the samples. No talking during sensory testing. Check the box that best describes your overall opinion of each sample
3Digit Sample Numbers
________
________
________
(9) LIKE EXTREMELY
(8) LIKE VERY MUCH
(7) LIKE MODERATELY
(6) LIKE SLIGHTLY
(5) NEITHER LIKE NOR DISLIKE
(4) DISLIKE SLIGHTLY
(3) DISLIKE MODERATELY
(2) DISLIKE VERY MUCH
(1) DISLIKE EXTREMELY
FINAL REPORT 27
Appendix Attachment 2: Original Recipe Ingredients: 2 3/4 cups allpurpose flour 1 teaspoon baking soda 1/2 teaspoon baking powder 1 cup unsalted butter, softened 1 1/2 cups white granulated sugar 1 egg 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract Directions:
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C). In a small bowl, stir together
flour, baking soda, and baking powder. Set aside.
In a large bowl, cream together the butter and sugar until smooth. Beat in egg
and vanilla. Gradually blend in the dry ingredients. Roll rounded teaspoonfuls of dough
into balls, and place onto ungreased cookie sheets.
Bake 8 to 10 minutes in the preheated oven, or until golden. Let stand on cookie
sheet two minutes before removing to cool on wire racks.
Makes 4 dozen.
This recipe was adapted from “Easy Sugar Cookies” which can be accessed at
AllRecipes.com. Easy Sugar Cookies. Available from:
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/easysugarcookies/. Accessed April 15, 2015.
FINAL REPORT 28
Appendix Attachment 3: Budgetary Estimate
The budget is summarized below in Table II.
Table II: Estimating Totals for Cookie Budget and Amounts for Market Order
Ingredients Total Amounts Needed Amount (g)
Cost per ingredient per team ($)
AllPurpose White Flour
220.67 0.72
Rice Flour 332.23 3.18
Almond Flour 142.52 5.87
Baking Soda 8.60 0.02
Baking Powder 4.67 0.12
Unsalted Butter 424.70 7.17
White Granulated Sugar
565.29 1.83
Large Egg 93.47 1.43
Pure Vanilla Extract
7.86 0.31
Total 20.34
FINAL REPORT 29
Appendix Attachment 4: Nutrition Labels
Control
FINAL REPORT 30
75/25 Flour Blend
FINAL REPORT 31
50/50 Flour Blend