flour and breads and their fortification in health and disease prevention || gluten-free bread

CHAPTER 15

Gluten-Free Bread:Sensory, Physicochemical,and Nutritional Aspects
Ioanna Mandala1, Maria Kapsokefalou21 Laboratory of Engineering, Processing and Preservation of Foods, Department of FoodScience and Technology, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece2Unit of Human Nutrition, Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Department of FoodScience and Technology, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Fl

C

CHAPTER OUTLINE

161

List of Abbreviations 161Introduction 161An Emerging Need for NewGluten-Free Products 162Ingredients for the Formulation ofGluten-Free Breads:Physiochemical and SensoryAspects 162

our and Breads and their Fortification in Health and Disease Prevention. DOI: 10.101

opyright � 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Frozen Gluten-Free Breads 165Iron-Fortified Gluten-FreeBakery Products 165Technological Issues 168Summary Points 168References 168

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSHPMC Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose

NaFeEDTA Sodium iron (III) ethylenediaminetetraacetate

INTRODUCTIONCeliac disease (gluten-sensitive enteropathy or gluten intolerance) is a genetically based

autoimmune enteropathy caused by a permanent sensitivity to gluten (Rubio-Tapia andMurray, 2010). In susceptible individuals, the ingestion of gluten induces an immunologically

toxic reaction that results in damage to the mucosal surface of the small intestinedspecificallysmall bowel mucosal villous atrophy with crypt hyperplasia (Catassi and Fasano, 2008).

Celiac disease affects approximately 1% of most populations but remains largely unrecognized

(Rubio-Tapia and Murray, 2010), despite advances in diagnosis. Upon diagnosis, the celiacdisease patient is directed to a gluten-free diet for life. The gluten-free diet excludes the intake

of storage proteins found in wheat, rye, barley, and hybrids of these grains, such as kamut and

triticale. This diet prevents morbidity and reduces the incidence of the associated gastro-intestinal malignancy, but it is difficult to adhere to (Kupper, 2005), particularly because it

6/B978-0-12-380886-8.10015-7

162

SECTION 1Flour and Breads

excludes many products that contain gluten. It is therefore to the benefit of celiac diseasepatients to develop new gluten-free products suitable to their needs that will increase their

dietary choices and improve quality of life in general.

AN EMERGING NEED FOR NEW GLUTEN-FREE PRODUCTSThe unequivocal need for the development of new gluten-free products is emerging for several

reasons. First, the daily dietary requirements for essential nutrients of celiac disease patients arenot fully covered by existing products. Products of the gluten-free group, compared with their

gluten-containing counterparts, are lower in protein, vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber

(Anton and Artfield, 2007; Thompson, 2000). Moreover, gluten intolerance is frequentlyassociated with low absorption of nutrients. Consequently, celiac patients face several nutri-

tion-related problems, such as weight loss, iron deficiency anemia, osteoporosis, fatigue

syndrome, and diabetes. In addition to nutrient content, gluten-free products based on starchare less tasty than the gluten-containing counterparts. In the case of bread, there is also a high

staling tendency due to the absence of gluten (Gallagher et al., 2003).

Second, the target group of gluten-free products is currently expanding to include, in addition

to celiac patients, people looking for nonallergenic ingredients and generally people who are

more careful about their diet not just for health reasons. This constitutes a new market thatneeds a variety of products. According to research, 15e25% of parents in the United States seek

gluten-free products for their children as part of a balanced diet.

Third, gluten-free products can function as prototypes for the development of other productstargeted to specific groups with specific nutritional needs (e.g., diabetics).

Gluten-free products constitute a growing sector in the food business. Between January 2008and June 2009, Mintel’s Global New Products Database found gluten-free to be the 10th most

popular claim for new product launches throughout Europe.

INGREDIENTS FOR THE FORMULATION OF GLUTEN-FREE BREADS:PHYSIOCHEMICAL AND SENSORY ASPECTSMaize and rice are the main ingredients used for preparing gluten-free bakery products. Maizeand rice products are similar in taste, thus offering the consumer limited choice. Rice flour is

one of the most suitable cereal flours for preparing gluten-free products because it is natural,

hypoallergenic, and has a bland taste. It provides a high amount of digested carbohydrates buta low amount of proteins (prolamins), thus indicating the need for other components to

reinforce the batter matrix and the nutritional content of the final product.

There has been increasing interest in new gluten-free breads, whose formulations mainly involve

the incorporation of starches of different origin, other non-gluten proteins such as dairy proteins,

gums, and their combinations (Mariotti et al., 2009). These ingredients canmimic the viscoelasticproperties of gluten and result in improved structure, mouthfeel, acceptability, and shelf life of

these products (Gallagher et al., 2004). The successful production of gluten-free products is

a challenge, considering that gluten plays a major role in food structure and is involved in theformation of the three-dimensional network, which influences the textural and sensorial prop-

erties of the final product (Crowley et al., 2000). Furthermore, the development of new gluten-

free products is planned in order to reflect changing consumer lifestyles and needs.

Pseudocereals such as quinoa and amaranth can be used to enhance nutritional content,

particularly the protein content of the final product. Moreover, proteins from different sourcessuch as soybean, pea, egg albumen, and whey can be added to increase the nutritional value of

gluten-free products. By adding proteins, improvement in the quality of gluten-free bread due

to the formation of a continuous protein phase is also reported (Moore et al., 2004). It followsthat the selection of the proteins used in a gluten-free formulation is a critical issue.

CHAPTER 15Gluten-Free Bread

163

An example of the use of pseudocereals in gluten-free breads is the use of amaranth flour(Figure 15.1). Amaranth flour has high protein content, ranging from 14.5 to 17.8%. The

protein from amaranth flour is of high quality due to the high amounts of lysine- and sulfur-

containing amino acids (Gorinstein et al., 2002). In gluten-free products, amaranth flour canbe an alternative component for successful development of these complex mixtures. Tosi et al.

(1996) described the use of amaranth flour in gluten-free biscuits, whereas Schoenlechner et al.(2006) described a substitution of gluten-free flour by amaranth flour up to 100% for the

development of such products. Amaranth has been successfully used in gluten-free pasta

production (Chillo et al., 2007). Finally, gluten-free bread with enhanced nutritional value canbe produced using amaranth flour. In small amounts, amaranth flour can also improve dough

workability and volume of bread crumb. Furthermore, antifungal activity of amaranth has

been shown (Rizzello et al., 2009).

In a study on the sensory properties of gluten-free breads containing amaranth flour

(Schoenlechner et al., 2010), the addition of fat and albumen resulted in samples with higher

scores on mouthfeel, texture, and volume in comparison with samples without the addition offat or albumen. Samples were given to a trained panel (8 people at the University of Natural

Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria) and to an untrained panel

(52 people at the Agricultural University of Athens, Greece) to evaluate the sensory charac-teristics of the samples. According to both sensory evaluation protocols, the combined effect of

fat and albumen resulted in more desirable properties of the final products rather than the

effect of each ingredient separately. A 23 factorial screening experimental design was applied toinvestigate the influence of several variables on the quality of gluten-free bread that contained

amaranth. The variables were the amount of water (60, 70, and 80%), albumen (0, 2.5, and

5%), and fat (0, 2, and 4%). The effect of water and albumen content on response attributessuch as crumb firmness, crumb porosity, loaf circumference, and crumb relative elasticity are

shown in response surface plots (Figure 15.2). It was shown that water is a critical variable that

significantly influences the physical properties of the produced gluten-free breads. Increasedwater addition significantly decreased crumb firmness (Figure 15.2A) and slightly increased

relative elasticity (Figure 15.2B), which was accompanied by a significant increase in bread

circumference (Figure 15.2D). Moreover, it sharply increased the average pore size(Figure 15.2C). An increase in average pore size was accompanied by a decrease in pore

number. Variations in albumen concentration resulted in minor changes in the previouslymentioned response variables; average pore size and bread circumference were slightly

decreased. To a greater extent, albumen significantly influenced only crumb viscoelastic

character; relative elasticity was increased by the increased addition of albumen.

An alternative protein source for the development of gluten-free breads is carob seed. Carob

seed germ, in particular, has not been valorized as a functional protein source and has been

FIGURE 15.1Gluten-free breads containing amaranth. Freshly baked (left) and frozen bread stored for 10 days (right). Gluten-free breads have larger air cells than those of

wheat bread, but this structure is maintained during storage; thus, freezing can prolong their shelf life.

water

albumen

Cru

mb

re

la

tiv

e e

la

stic

ity

60 64 68 72 76 80 0 1 2 3 4 537

39

41

43

45

Estimated Response Surfacefat=2.0



60 64 68 72 76 80water

0 1 2 3 4 5

albumen

0306090

120150180

Cru

mb

firm

ne

ss


water

albumenAve

ra

ge

p

ore

s

ize

60 64 68 72 76 80 0 1 2 3 4 51.21.6

22.42.83.2

water

albumen

Circ

um

fe

re

nc

e

60 64 68 72 76 80 0 1 2 3 4 512

13

14

15

16

A

C D

B

FIGURE 15.2The effect of water and albumen content in

amaranth-based gluten-free breads on the

response attributes crumb firmness (A), crumb

relative elasticity (B), crumb porosity (C), and

loaf circumference (D), shown in response

surface plots. The physical characteristics of

gluten-free breads were mainly influenced by

the initial dough water content. Specifically,

higher water addition decreased crumb

firmness and increased sharply the average air

cells size. Source: Reprinted with permission

from Schoenlechner, R., Mandala, I., Kiskini,

A., Kostaropoulos, A., and Berghofer, E.

(2010). Effect of water, albumen and fat on the

quality of gluten-free bread containing

amaranth. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 45,

661e669.


164

neglected for many years by the food industry. However, the high protein content of the germ,

almost 50%, and its high content of lysine and arginine make carob germ fairly attractive forspecial dietary needs (i.e., clinical nutrition and gluten-free products) (Dakia et al., 2007).

Caroubin, the protein of carob germ, also has similar viscoelastic properties as gluten. Thus, its

potential as a food ingredient is high, and it could be considered a low-cost competitor toother food proteins such as dairy or soy proteins (Bengoechea et al., 2008).

Various sources of fiber are in use in gluten-free breads or being investigated for the devel-

opment of new gluten-free breads. For example, psyllium fiber was added to gluten-free breads(Mariotti et al., 2009), resulting in an increased fiber content of the bread (190e450% higher

than that of the control breads) and a softer crumb during a 4-day storage period. Furthermore,

it enhanced the physical properties of the produced dough due to the filmlike structure that itis able to form.

In one study, gluten-free bread enriched with resistant starch (20% substitution of the cornstarch used) raised the total dietary fiber content up to 89% compared to the control sample

(Korus et al., 2009). Furthermore, gluten-free breads contained more water than the control

and restricted bread staling. Compared to common sources of insoluble fibers, resistant starchmay have advantageous features that are both functional and nutritional. It is a natural white

source of dietary fiber, has a bland flavor, and gives a better appearance and texture and masks

flavor less than sources of insoluble fibers (Sajilata et al., 2006). Concerning its nutritionalcharacteristics, an interesting attribute of resistance starch is its pattern of fermentation in the

colon, principally the profile of short-chain fatty acids (Baixauli et al., 2008).

Few studies have investigated the effect of fibers that may have a prebiotic effect when added togluten-free products. Korus et al. (2009) added a range of different prebiotics to gluten-free

breads. Among them, inulin resulted in breads with high sensory scores and also reduced

staling. Inulin (8% inclusion level) increased fiber content from 1.4% (control) to 7.5%(control þ inulin) and crust color was enhanced (Gallagher et al., 2003). As inulin increases

the dietary fiber content of gluten-free bread, the nutritional value of the resulting product isincreased (Gallanger et al., 2004).

Gums are important ingredients in gluten-free bread formulations that may improve the

texture and the appearance of the final products. The addition of gums provides high doughconsistency, improves gas-retaining capacity, and results in products with a longer shelf life.


165

Different gums and different combinations may be applied in gluten-free product develop-ment. Among them, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), locust bean gum, guar gum,

carragenan, and xanthan gum provide the best results in the final products (Gallagher et al.,

2004; Lazaridou et al., 2007). Gum combinations such as xanthanelocust bean gum areeffective in improving dough structure (Demirkesen et al., 2010).

Complex formulations that appear promising in terms of technological improvement andnutritional quality can be developed. Clearly, new products differ in their degree of innovation

and, consequently, the effort invested in their development. Gluten-free products can be clas-

sified into the following categories: (1) reformulations (e.g., high-fiber gluten-free versions oftraditional antecedents), (2) new forms of existing products (e.g., frozen and par-baked), (3)

repackaging of existing products, and (4) innovative products (e.g., use of novel cereals) that are

technologically challenging and require good marketing (Kelly et al., 2008). Furthermore,ingredients for a new food product can be based on different criteria, such as function in the

product, cost, or availability. In the case of gluten-free products, labeling concerns are a key

issue; for example, a product that is labeled as causing an allergic reaction in consumers withceliac disease is to be avoided. The staling process is important in gluten-free products because

they contain a large amount of starch and its retrogradation influences the quality of the final

product. Hence, a reduced staling rate in gluten-free products is quite desirable. Water migrationand transformation in the starch fraction are important factors that can control staling.

FROZEN GLUTEN-FREE BREADSFrozen storage can be used for the production of gluten-free products with extended shelf life.

Par-baking bread production has great market potential in gluten-free cereal processingbecause a fresh product can be produced with a simple bake-off stage (Kelly et al., 2008). Most

of the gluten-free bread and rolls available on the market are par-baked, but there are no

publications in this area (Keller et al., 2008). Figure 15.1 shows gluten-free bread frozen stored.As expected, the structure of such products is different from that of a wheat bread. Pore size

and number differ; usually, the produced sample has larger pores and a lower volume than

wheat bread. Frozen storage can be successfully used for the production of gluten-free breads.The sensory characteristics of wheat breads containing gluten and gluten-free breads preserved

by using either microwave treatment or frozen storage are presented in Figure 15.3 (Liassi and

Mandala, 2007). According to the sensory characteristics presented, wheat breads seemed to befirmer, with lower deformability, and less crispy than gluten-free breads. On the other hand,

gluten-free breads were more adhesive and had greater chewiness. Frozen stored breads (wheat

breads and gluten-free breads) had the best appearance, aroma, taste, and textural character-istics. In addition, sensory attributes in ambient conditions and after microwave treatment had

only slight differences.

IRON-FORTIFIED GLUTEN-FREE BAKERY PRODUCTSThe immunologically toxic reaction that is induced by gluten in susceptible individuals results

in damage to the mucosal surface of the small intestine (Rubio-Tapia and Murray, 2010). Thisinterferes with the absorption of nutrients, including iron. Thus, the importance of celiac

disease as a possible cause of iron deficiency anemia is increasingly being recognized. It is

estimated that celiac disease may account for 3e5% of the prevalence of iron deficiencyanemia (Grisolano et al., 2004). Moreover, the gluten-free products are often low in micro-

nutrients, increasing the risk of deficiencies (Thompson, 2000). Fortified or enriched gluten-

free products are rare, but it has been suggested that the development of such products wouldimprove the quality of the diet (Kupper, 2005). Fortification is an effective approach to

increase dietary iron intake, provided that certain conditions apply (Hurrell et al., 2004).

Successful fortification requires an iron compound that is adequately absorbed and does not

affect the sensory properties of the products. Iron has been known to affect the sensory

0

2

4

6

8

Crumb color

Crust color

Intensity

Muddy

Yeasty

SweetSalty

Hardness

Fracturability

Adhesiveness

Chewiness

AC 1

MW 1

MW 3

F

0

2

4

6

8

Pore size

Crumb color

Crust color

Soily

Bitterness

SourHardness

Fracturability

Adhesiveness

Chewiness

Crispiness

AC 1MW 1MW 3 F

A

B

FIGURE 15.3Sensory characteristics regarding the

appearance, aroma, taste, and texture of

(A) control gluten-containing breads and

(B) gluten-free breads stored in ambient

conditions (AC), after microwave

treatment (first and third day of storage;

MW1 and MW3, respectively), and after

frozen storage (F). The sensory

characteristics of the breads presented

(wheat or gluten-free) were negatively

influenced by microwave treatment or by

storage in ambient conditions. On the

contrary, frozen stored breads had good

appearance, aroma, taste, and texture.


166

properties of a fortified food, particularly color and taste (Hurrell et al., 2004). Ferrous sulfateis the most popular source of iron for the fortification of various foods; however, other iron

forms may exhibit higher bioavailability than ferrous sulfate and may present alternative

choices (Lynch and Stoltzfus, 2003). Other iron compounds, such as iron gluconate or sodiumiron (III) ethylenediaminetetraacetate (NaFeEDTA) (Hurrell et al., 2004), have been studied

as well.

The fortification of gluten-free breads, however, presents further challenges. In general, the

taste of gluten-free bread is inferior to that of white wheat bread; therefore, the moderate scores

obtained were typical for gluten-free bread and were considered acceptable for such products.In one study (Kiskini et al., 2007), we produced gluten-free bread, fortified with iron, using

selected iron compounds (iron pyrophosphate, iron pyrophosphate with emulsifiers,

NaFeEDTA, electrolytic iron, ferrous gluconate, ferrous lactate and ferrous sulfate). Further-more, we tested the sensory characteristics of the iron-fortified product (mouthfeel texture,

crumb color, aroma, and taste) and compared iron dialyzability of various iron compounds.

We found that the most acceptable products were those fortified with ferrous pyrophosphatewith emulsifiers and ferrous pyrophosphate. Ferrous dialyzable iron (ferrous iron with

a molecular weight less than 8000, an index for prediction of iron bioavailability) was

measured under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Ferrous dialyzable iron in gluten-freebread fortified with iron pyrophosphate with emulsifiers, NaFeEDTA, ferrous bis-glycinate,


167

ferrous gluconate, or ferrous sulfate was higher than that in gluten-free bread fortified withelectrolytic iron, ferrous lactate, or iron pyrophosphate. When comparing iron-fortified wheat

or gluten-free breads (Kiskini et al., 2010), we observed that the effect of iron on the quality

characteristics of the breads investigated depended on iron type but not on iron solubility.Color, crust firmness, specific volume, cell number and uniformity, as well as aroma, were the

attributes that were mainly affected in iron-enriched wheat bread (Figure 15.4). According toprincipal component (PC) analysis, the total variation in all data was explained up to 96.18%

by PC1 (50.06%) and PC2 (46.12%). Component 1 was defined by the L/b value and the crust

firmness. Component 2 was defined by the specific volume, the firmness, the viscoelasticity,and the moisture content of the crumb (see Figure 15.4).

In gluten-free breads, differences between unfortified and fortified samples included color,

crust firmness, cell number, moisture odor, metallic taste, and stickiness. In some cases, thesensory scores were better for fortified samples. In general, we observed that differences in the

sensory characteristics of breads due to iron fortification were less pronounced in gluten-free

compared to wheat breads (Kiskini et al., 2010).

A frozen iron-fortified gluten-free bread was developed to meet the market request for frozen

breads. In these frozen formulations, the iron compound remained in the aqueous environmentof the dough for a longer storage time than it would have in a fresh white wheat bread product,

thus interacting with the remaining ingredients and creating a challenge for maintaining its

sensory characteristics. In this experiment (Kiskini et al., 2007), the fortified products in the formof dough remained at �18�C for 10 days before they were baked and tested. Differences in

reactivity of the iron compounds in the physicochemical environment of the dough or of the

baked bread may explain the observed differences in scores assigned to the different formula-tions. However, it was difficult to explain why some iron-fortified samples were assigned better

scores than gluten-free breads. In the case of iron pyrophosphate with emulsifiers, the scores

were significantly higher than those of gluten-free breads in most attributes tested. This suggests

FIGURE 15.4Physical attributes and sample categorization in a biplot of two principal components. Numbers in bread samples correspond to

iron-type fortificants: CB1/GFB1, unfortified; CB2/GFB2, ferric pyrophosphate; CB3/GFB3, ferric pyrophosphate with

emulsifiers; CB4/GFB4, sodium iron EDTA; CB5/GFB5, ferrous sulfate; CB6/GFB6, elemental iron. Differences in the physical

characteristics of breads due to iron fortification were less pronounced in gluten-free compared to wheat breads. The unfortified

wheat bread was significantly different from all other samples. The ferric pyrophosphate-fortified bread (CB2/GFB2)

declined the most from the standard unfortified sample. Source: Reprinted with permission from Kiskini, A., Kapsokefalou, M.,

Yanniotis, S., and Mandala, I. (2010). Effect of different iron compounds on wheat and gluten-free breads. J. Sci. Food Agric.

90, 1136e1145.


168

that iron fortification by this compound improves some sensory characteristics of gluten-freebreads. A plausible explanation may be that the emulsifier used in this formula led to a good

moisture distribution in the crumb and a desirable aerated structure. It was observed that the

crumb of this product had medium-sized air pores of good uniformity. Furthermore, its graincharacteristics (pore size and distribution) had the greatest similarities to those of the unfortified

sample. These observations suggest that further investigation of the physicochemical charac-teristics of the iron-fortified gluten-free breads is needed because it may reveal important effects

of iron compounds on the properties of the baked products. Furthermore, it may explain

differences noted by the trained panelists. Nevertheless, these results are promising for thedevelopment of iron-fortified gluten-free baked products. Identification of the appropriate iron

compound that will not cause adverse quality changes is still a challenge.

TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUESInnovative products that are technologically challenging require the development of complex

formulations that provide consumers superior quality products. Ingredients for the develop-ment of a new gluten-free bread type should be carefully chosen, and their selection should be

based on their high added value. Furthermore, they should meet the criteria of allergy

concerns, and any suspicious allergic substance is strictly inappropriate for celiacs and shouldbe avoided.

New products differ in their degree of innovation and consequently the effort invested in their

development, but high-quality products with good market prospects should be based ona great degree of innovation. Thus, innovative gluten-free products should be carefully

designed and further developed in order to fulfill consumers’ needs.

SUMMARY POINTSl Celiac disease is caused by a permanent sensitivity to gluten.

l The celiac disease patient is directed, for life, to a gluten-free diet.l The gluten-free diet excludes the intake of storage proteins found in wheat, rye, barley, and

hybrids of these grains, such as kamut and triticale.

l New gluten-free products will increase the dietary choices of celiac patients or othernutritionally conscious consumers and improve their quality of life.

l Gluten-free ingredients employed in the formulation of gluten-free breads include maize;

rice; amaranth; quinoa; starches of different origin; non-gluten proteins such as dairyproteins, gums, hydrocolloids, and their combinations; inulin; psullium; and gums

(HPMC, locust bean gum, guar gum, carragenan, and xanthan gum).l Fortified gluten-free breads, particularly those fortified with iron, meet the increased

nutrient needs of celiac patients.

l Achieving desirable physicochemical and sensory characteristics for the gluten-free breadsremains a challenge that drives continuous research in the field.

ReferencesAnton, A. A., & Artfield, S. D. (2007). Hydrocolloids in gluten-free breads: A review. International Journal of Food

Science and Nutrition, 59, 11e23.

Baixauli, R., Sanz, T., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. M. (2008). Muffins with resistant starch: Baking performance in

relation to the rheological properties of the batter. Journal of Cereal Science, 47, 502e509.

Bengoechea, C., Puppo, M. C., Romero, A., Cordobes, F., & Guerrero, A. (2008). Linear and non-linear viscoelas-

ticity of emulsions containing emulsions containing carob protein as emulsifier. Journal of Food Engineering, 87,

124e135.

Catassi, C., & Fasano, A. (2008). Celiac disease. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 24, 687e691.

Chillo, S., Laverse, J., Falcone, P. M., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2007). Effect of carboxymethylcellulose and pregelatinized

corn starch on the quality of amaranthus spaghetti. Journal of Food Engineering, 83, 429e500.


169

Crowley, P., Grau, H., & Arendt, E. K. (2000). Influence of additives and mixing time on crumb grain characteristicsof wheat bread. Journal of Cereal Science, 77, 370e375.

Dakia, P. A., Wathelet, B., & Paquot, M. (2007). Isolation and chemical evaluation of carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) seed

germ. Food Chemistry, 102, 1368e1374.

Dermirkesen, I., Mert, B., Summu, G., & Sahin, S. (2010). Rheological properties of gluten-free bread formulations.

Journal of Food Engineering, 96, 295e303.

Gallagher, E., Gormley, T. R., & Arendt, E. K. (2003). Crust and crumb characteristics of gluten free breads. Journal of

Food Engineering, 56, 153e161.

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, 143e152.

Gorinstein, S., Pawelzik, E., Delgado-Licon, E., Haruenkit, R., Weisz, M., & Trakhtenberg, S. (2002). Characterisationof pseudocereal and cereal proteins by protein and amino acid analyses. Journal of the Science of Food and

Agriculture, 82, 886e891.

Grisolano, S. W., Oxentenko, A. S., Murray, J. A., Burgart, L. J., Dierkhising, R. A., & Alexander, J. A. (2004). Theusefulness of routine small bowel biopsies in evaluation of iron deficiency anemia. Journal of Clinical Gastro-

enterology, 38, 756e760.

Hurrell, R. F., Lynch, S., Bothwell, T., Cori, H., Glahn, R., Hertrampf, E., et al. (2004). Enhancing the absorption of

fortification iron. A SUSTAIN Task Force report. International Journal for Vitamin andNutrition Research, 74, 387e401.

Kelly, A. L., Moore, M. M., Elke, K., & Arendt, E. K. (2008). New product development: The case of gluten-free foodproducts. In E. K. Arendt, & F. Dal Bello (Eds.), Gluten-Free Cereal Products and Beverages (pp. 413e431).

New York: Academic Press.

Kiskini, A., Argiri, K., Kalogeropoulos, M., Komaitis, M., Kostaropoulos, A., Mandala, I., et al. (2007). Sensorycharacteristics and iron dialyzability of gluten-free bread fortified with iron. Food Chemistry, 102, 309e316.

Kiskini, A., Kapsokefalou, M., Yanniotis, S., & Mandala, I. (2010). Effect of different iron compounds on wheat andgluten-free breads. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90, 1136e1145.

Korus, J., Witczak, M., Ziobro, R., & Uszczak, L. (2009). The impact of resistant starch on characteristics of gluten-

free dough and bread. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 988e995.

Kupper, C. (2005). Dietary guidelines and implementation for celiac disease. Gastroenterology, 128, 121e127.

Lazaridou, A., Duta, D., Papageorgiou, M., Belc, N., & Biliaderis, C. G. (2007). Effects of hydrocolloids on doughrheology and bread quality parameters in gluten-free formulations. Journal of Food Engineering, 79, 1033e1047.

Liassi, M., & Mandala, I. (2007). In E. S. Lazos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Food Technology:Consumer Protection through Food Process Improvement and Innovation in the Real World, Thessaloniki 9e11 March.

Effect of freezing and microwave heating on gluten-free bread and bread containing gluten storage stability, Vol. 2 (pp.

102e110). Thessaloniki, Greece: Hellenic Association of Food Technologists.

Lynch, S. R., & Stoltzfus, R. J. (2003). Iron and ascorbic acid: Proposed fortification levels and recommended iron

compounds. The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 2978Se2984S.

Mariotti, M., Lucisano, M., Pagani, M. A., & Ng, P. K. W. (2009). The role of corn starch, amaranth flour, pea isolate,and Psyllium flour on the rheological properties and the ultrastructure of gluten-free doughs. Food Research

International, 42, 963e975.

Moore, M. M., Schober, T. J., Dockery, P., & Arendt, E. K. (2004). Textural comparisons of gluten-free and wheat-

based doughs, batters, and breads. Journal of Cereal Science, 81, 567e575.

Rizzello, C. G., Coda, R., De Angelis, M., Di Cagno, R., Carnevali, P., & Gobbetti, M. (2009). Long-term fungalinhibitory activity of water-soluble extract from Amaranthus spp. seeds during storage of gluten-free and wheat

flour breads. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 131, 189e196.

Rubio-Tapia, A., & Murray, J. A. (2010). Classification and management of refractory coeliac disease. Gut, 59,547e557.

Sajilata, M. G., Singhai, R. S., & Kulkarni, P. R. (2006). Resistant starchdA review. Comprehensive Reviews in FoodSafety and Food Science, 5, 1e17.

Schoenlechner, R., Linsberger, G., Kaczyk, L., & Berghofer, E. (2006). Production of short dough biscuits from the

pseudocereals amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat with common bean. Ernahrung, 30, 101e107.

Schoenlechner, R., Mandala, I., Kiskini, A., Kostaropoulos, A., & Berghofer, E. (2010). Effect of water, albumen and

fat on the quality of gluten-free bread containing amaranth. International Journal of Food Science and Technology,

45, 661e669.

Thompson, T. (2000). Folate, iron and dietary fiber contents of the gluten-free diet. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 100, 1389e1396.

Tosi, E. A., Ciappini, M. C., & Masciarelli, R. (1996). Utilization of whole amaranthus (Amaranthus cruentus) flour in

the manufacture of biscuits. Zywnosc, 9, 99e112.

flour and breads and their fortification in health and disease prevention || gluten-free bread

Documents