Antioxidant Compounds in Gluten-Free Bread’s Technological Quality: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Marijana Djordjević.

The crucial trigger for the purchase and consumption of many food products as well as gluten-free bread (GFB) relies on an appealing visual impression. Considering technological quality attributes such as pale crust and crumb color, reduced volume, undeveloped crumb structure, and crumbly texture, it is evident that GFB lags compared to wheat counterparts as a consequence of the used ingredients . Alongside the enhanced nutritional profile, plant-based antioxidants’ inclusion in GFB induces changes in the appearance, color, texture, aroma, and taste of such GFB products, which can negatively affect consumer acceptability. Hence, it is essential to determine the maximal tolerable addition values of plant-based antioxidants depending on their origin. Commonly assessed indicators of antioxidant compound-enriched GFB’s technological quality are crust and crumb color, volume and specific volume, crust and crumb texture parameters, primarily hardness, and, to a smaller extent, bake loss, crumb structure, and water activity, as minutely discussed in the following sections. Additionally, changes in the crust and crumb color and hardness were monitored during storage (up to 3 or 7 days).

  • gluten-free bakery products
  • bioactive compounds
  • polyphenols
  • antioxidant activity

1. Effect of Antioxidant Compounds Source and Addition on Crust and Crumb Color of Gluten-Free Bread

An appealing color perception is of the utmost importance in product-purchase decision-making. The addition of antioxidant compounds is recognized as an effective path toward the enhancement of the conventional pale crust and crumb color of GFB originating from its refined ingredients. Depending on the antioxidant compound’s origin, besides the natural pigments’ presence which is commonly related to crumb color, GFB formulations with these compounds included can contribute to the promotion of Maillard and caramelization reactions occurring during baking [65[1][2],72], primarily reflecting on changes in the crust color. The crust and crumb color were usually reported through parameters of the CIE Lab color space, including L* (lightness), a* (redness-greenness), and b* (yellowness-blueness), and sporadically accompanied by parameters such as total color difference (∆E*), whiteness index (WI) of the crumb, and the browning index (BI) of the crust obtained by calculations [34,49,50][3][4][5]. Other color parameters of enriched GFB such as the hue (h) and chroma of the color (C*) were reported only in the most recent studies [38,52][6][7]. Nevertheless, L* is regarded as the foremost parameter for GFB’s crust and crumb color description [159][8].
The color of GFB was evaluated by different colorimeter types (CR-400, CM-600d, or CM-3500d Chroma Meter, Konica Minolta; 4Wave CR30-16, Planeta; Chromameter HP-2132) [38,75,77][6][9][10] and a spectrophotometer (ColorFlex, HunterLab; ColorEye XTH) [34,35,50][3][5][11]. The color measurements were performed in several replicates, namely 6, 9, or 15 on crust [48,61,79][12][13][14] and 3, 6, 9, or 15 on crumbs [38,48,75,79][6][9][12][14] by placing the instrument in the middle point on the top of the loaf crust and the middle point of the central bread slice (thickness 2 cm) [48][12]. The exact conditions during measurement such as the illuminant and observation angle were sporadically listed [61,75,79][9][13][14].
Regardless of the antioxidant compounds’ origins (cereals and pseudocereals, fruit and fruit by-products, vegetables and vegetable by-products, herbs, tree fruits and leaves, microalgae and algae, or residues) (Figure 3), their incorporation in GFB resulted in a decrease in its lightness (L*) in both crust and crumb [35,38,48,50,57,61,70,75][5][6][9][11][12][13][15][16]. The corresponding decrease represents a consequence of naturally occurring pigments such as anthocyanins, tannins, chlorophylls, carotenoids, and other phenolic compounds in the added plant-based antioxidants; this is a simple strategy to attain the desired appealing product color. The addition of wholegrain red sorghum flour contributed to lower crumb L* values, indicating a darker appearance as confirmed by the reported BI increase. GFB made from 100% light and wholegrain buckwheat flour induced a reduction in the crumb L* parameter for approximately 8 and 39%, respectively, while, when coupled with chia flour, reduction reached from 19 to 40% compared to the control flour mixture [61][13]. Similarly, for GFB from whole common buckwheat and whole Tartary buckwheat, a 33–36% decrease in crumb lightness was reported compared to the wheat counterpart [37][17]. Furthermore, the lightness of the crust was also reduced in the corresponding GFB, except in the case of light buckwheat flour, where a slight increase was noted [37,61][13][17]. Regarding fruit and vegetables as antioxidant compound sources, acerola, rosehip, extruded sour cherry pomace, onion, and onion peel additions resulted primarily in crumb darkening [35,52,65[1][7][11][18],68], while the crust evinced a decreasing as well as an increasing trend [52,65][1][7]. The same tendency for crumb lightness was observed upon microalgae biomass [75,76][9][19] and brown algae [77][10] inclusion, as well as the inclusion of Hemp inflorescence [38][6], acorn flour [72][2], and residues such as broccoli leaf powder [48][12] and green coffee parchment [79][14]. It should be emphasized that, in addition to the L*, significant changes were noted in the parameters a* and b* when adding fruit, microalgae, and residues such as broccoli leaves into GFB due to their original coloration [48,52,76][7][12][19]. Moreover, the corresponding changes are further amplified by increases in the incorporated antioxidant compound amounts [65,75][1][9].

2. Effect of Antioxidant Compounds Source and Addition on the Specific Volume of Gluten-Free Bread

As another paramount visual characteristic that is crucial for customers purchasing the final product, the GFB loaf volume represents a result of the combined action of several factors, such as the content of amylose, the surface active compound presence (polar lipids and proteins), the dietary fiber presence, and the batter rheological properties [50,55,160,161][5][20][21][22].
A widespread method for the determination of loaf volume, therefore, also antioxidant-enriched GFB loaf volume, is rapeseed displacement, as listed by the approved AACC method 10-05.01 [37,75,79][9][14][17]. Millet seed was also used instead of rapeseed [48,50,60][5][12][23]. Nevertheless, fewer studies also applied specific devices for GFB volume evaluation, namely a Volscan Profiler (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, UK) [45,57,68][15][18][24] and Volumetric Analyzer (Perten Instruments) [32][25]. Additionally, the GFB specific volume obtained as a ratio of the bread volume (cm3) to the bread weight (g) was reported in the majority of studies, enabling actual comparison of the baking performance results across studies [33,43,61][13][26][27] (Table 41). The determined antioxidant-enriched GFB specific volumes ranged from 0.6 to 4.78 cm3/g for breads based on various cereals [32,36,55][20][25][28] and from 1.34 to 3.63 cm3/g for pseudocereal inclusion [37,43,45][17][24][27] (Table 41). Regarding fruit and fruit by-product additions, the display of the results as volume is more common [65,67][1][29] (Table 41). The addition of flours from tree leaves (Moringa oleifera) and fruits (acorn, chestnut) yielded GFB-specific volumes in the range of 1.85–3.27 cm3/g [33,49,73][4][26][30] while, with microalgae incorporation, the obtained values were in the range of 1.95–2.96 cm3/g [76][19]. Fewer studies reported a specific volume of GFB supplemented with residues, and the range was 2.39–3.65 cm3/g [34,48,79][3][12][14] (Table 41).
Table 41.
Specific volume and crumb hardness values reported for gluten-free breads enriched with plant-based antioxidant compounds.
Antioxidant Source Addition Level (g/100 g%) Volume (cm3) Specific Volume (cm3/g) Crumb Hardness (N) Reference
Gluten-free cereals, pseudocereals and and legumes
Pregelatinized rice 100 / 0.6 ± 0.1 * / [32][25]
Wholegrain rice flour 100 / 1.81 13.74 ± 0.23 [55][20]
Maize flour 10 548.6 ± 10.5 ** 2.87 ± 0.02 ~0.5 [57][15]
Broccoli leaf powder 5 / 3.08 ± 0.16 13.80 ± 0.07 [48][12]
Millet 100 / 1.3 ± 0.0 * / [32][25]
Brown millet flour 100 / 1.64 25.70 ± 0.15 [55][20]
Wholegrain millet and wholegrain millet extruded flour 100, 50 0.59–0.93 / 623.6–3957 [60][23]
Wholegrain sorghum flour 100 / 1.52 21.47 ± 0.32 [55][20]
Wholegrain red sorghum flour 10, 20, 30, 40 / 2.41–3.21 6.90–13.92 [50][5]
White sorghum flour 85 / 4.68–4.78 14.87–25.87 [36][28]
Quinoa flour 100 / 1.92 10.81 ± 0.14 [55][20]
Buckwheat 100 / 2.0 ± 0.1 * / [32][25]
Buckwheat hulls 3,6 396–470 ** 2.5–2.8 2.2–3.2 [45][24]
Wholegrain buckwheat flour 30, 45 / 2.88–2.93 30.34–33.87 [43][27]
Buckwheat flour 10 35.5 ± 6.1 ** 3.12 ± 0.01 ~0.3 [57][15]
Amaranth flour 10 563.3 ± 3.7 ** 2.78 ± 0.03 ~0.2 [57][15]
Chia flour 9.8, 10 / 1.73–2.04 8.54–12.65 [61][13]
10 397–428 1.34–1.49 / [37][17]
Chia and chia seed waste 5 ~115–130 / ~37–41 [62][31]
Fruit and fruit by-products          
Acerola fruit powder 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 502–571.6 / 9.9–11.5 [65][1]
Defatted blackcurrant seeds 5, 10, 15 485–527 / ~1.9–3.7 [67][29]
Defatted strawberry seeds 5, 10, 15 575–608 / ~1.7–2.1 [67][29]
Extruded sour cherry pomace and rice flour 10 521–562 ** / ~0.6–0.9 [68][18]
Pomegranate seed powder 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 / ~2.65–2.85 20.03–24.40 [70][16]
Rosehip powder, rosehip encapsulate 7 / / 0.42–1.85 [52][7]
Herbs          
Hemp inflorescence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5   ~0.98–1.08 13.11–15.76 [38][6]
Tree fruits and leaves          
Acorn flour 23, 35 / / 4.24–5.07 [40][32]
965.56–1255 / 22.74–28.90 [72][2]
Acorn and chickpea flour mixtures 30 / 1.85–3.27 1.80–7.10 [33][26]
Chestnut flour 10, 20 / 2.6–3.1 1.42–4.04 [73][30]
Carob fiber (commercial) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ~157–165 / ~25–28.5 [47][33]
Moringa oleifera leaves powder 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 / ~2.37–2.48 22.40–26.04 [49][4]
Microalgae and algae          
Microalgae Tetraselmis chuii 1, 2, 4 612–642 / 3.74–6.28 [75][9]
Microalgae biomass and ethanol-treated microalgae biomass 4 / 1.95–2.96 1.68–4.85 [76][19]
Brown algae powder 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 ~136–140.5 / ~32–46 [77][10]
Food industry by-products          
Ground green coffee parchment 2 / ~3.65 1.79 ± 0.35 [79][14]
Flaxseed oil cake extract 25, 50, 75, 100 / 2.39–3.06 / [34][3]
* measured by Volumetric Analyzer (Perten Instruments); ** measured by Volscan Profiler (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, UK); ~values taken from graphical representations of the reported results.
Compared to wheat counterparts, a specific volume-depressing effect was observed when GFB was made from pregelatinized rice, millet, and buckwheat [32][25] or supplemented with 10% chia flour [37][17] or 30% acorn and chickpea flour mixtures with a higher share of acorn [33][26]. Furthermore, the addition of 10% amaranth, maize, or chestnut flour [57[15][30],73], 10% Moringa oleifera leaves powder [49][4], and 4% microalgae biomass and ethanol-treated microalgae biomass [76][19] yielded antioxidant-enriched GFB with a reduced specific volume compared to control GFB. Nevertheless, primarily with fruit and fruit by-product inclusions, namely acerola fruit powder, pomegranate seed powder, and extruded sour cherry pomace [65,68[1][16][18],70], the volume or specific volume of the enriched GFB was raised, and the same trend was noted with the addition of Hemp inflorescence [38][6], acorn flour [72][2], carob fiber [47][33], brown algae powder [77][10], and by-products such as broccoli leaf powder [48][12] and flaxseed oil cake extract [34][3]. Moreover, an 85% addition of white sorghum flour resulted in GFB with the largest specific volume among the added antioxidant compounds summarized in Table 41 [36][28]. Overall, besides the antioxidant compounds’ source, the enriched GFB volume and consequently the specific volume were also affected by the extent of the antioxidant compounds’ addition level [50[1][5][29],65,67], as well as that of other used ingredients in the formulation [36][28], which can be associated with observed discrepancies in the reported results. Another very important factor to highlight is the purity of the antioxidant compounds included so far in GFB formulations. Extract or isolate of the particular antioxidant compound was rarely included conversely for antioxidant compounds with other accompanying compounds that were predominantly applied. The accompanying components are most often dietary fibers, which can evince both positive and negative effects on the GFB volume depending on their type, as described in more detail by Djordjević et al. [161][22]. In conclusion, the increase or decrease in the volume of antioxidant-enriched GFB is not solely related to the antioxidant compound itself, but represents a joint effect of the antioxidant compound and accompanying compounds such as dietary fibers, the level of its inclusion, and other ingredients used in the formulation.

3. Effect of Antioxidant Compounds Source and Addition on the Crumb and Crust Texture of Gluten-Free Bread

The widely accepted method for evaluation of GFB textural properties is the texture profile analysis (TPA), which can be conducted on several texture analyzer devices with associated software (TA.XTplus or TA.HDplus Texture Analyser, Stable Micro Systems Products Ltd., Godalming, UK; ZWICK Z020/TN2S, ZwickRoell, Ulm, Germany; INSTRON 3342 universal texture analyzer, Norwood, MA, USA; TVT 6700 Texture Analyzer, Perten Instruments, Waltham, MA, USA; MLFTA apparatus, Guss, Strand, South Africa) [32,36,48,50,55,70][5][12][16][20][25][28]. The TPA test envelopes the double compression of a bread slice or pieces of a bread slice in a reciprocating motion which emulates the action of the jaw and delivers a two-bite texture profile curve [48][12] corresponding to the crumbs. From the obtained curves, parameters reflecting the textural properties of GFB such as hardness (firmness), springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness, and resilience are further calculated [38,48,50,52,61,79][5][6][7][12][13][14]. In addition, a puncture test corresponding to crust hardness was also sporadically performed [52,73,79][7][14][30]. The used texture analyzers for the crumb texture assessment of antioxidant-enriched GFB were equipped with 5, 25, 30, and 50 kg load cells [43,50,52,75][5][7][9][27] while, in a significant portion of studies, this information was neglected. The accessories involved were aluminum or acrylic cylinder probes [75,79][9][14] in diameters of 10 mm [60[9][23],75], over 20 mm [57[15][18][29],67,68], 30 mm [70[10][16],77], and from 35 mm [48,73,79][12][14][30] up to 75 mm [61][13], which performed a compression of 20, 40, or 50% [32[12][18][25],48,68], and with a relaxation time between compressions ranging from 2 s to 15 s [32[15][25],57], most frequently 5 s [48,52,67][7][12][29]. Although an official method recommended for white and light wholegrain bread was issued by AACC (method 74–10.02 measurement of bread firmness-compression test), it was prone to variations due to the versatility of bread samples, which consequently hampers the results’ comparison. Similarly, the discrepancies in conditions applied during TPA of GFB samples are reflected in the results and impede real representation of the effects caused by the addition of antioxidants and accompanying compounds.
Among the textural parameters, hardness is considered the paramount GFB textural characteristic associated with consumers’ perception, referring to the bread freshness. GF cereals’ usage as an antioxidant source in GFB formulations resulted in a wide range of hardness values, 0.5–3957 N [57[15][23],60], while, for pseudocereals, the enveloped range was 0.2–41 N [57,62][15][31] (Table 41). The observed hardness for fruit and fruit by-products’ inclusion was in the range of 0.42–24.40 N [52,70][7][16] and, for tree fruits and leaves, ranged from 1.42 to 28.9 N [72,73][2][30] (Table 41). Regarding microalgae and algae inclusion, the reported hardness values were from 1.68 to 46 N [47,76][19][33] while, for by-products’ incorporation, the obtained hardness was 1.79 and 13.8 N [48,79][12][14] (Table 41). Generally, the hardness of GFB was reduced with the addition of GF cereals, namely wholegrain sorghum and millet [50,60][5][23], acerola fruit powder [65][1], strawberry seeds powder [67][29], extruded sour cherry pomace [68][18], pomegranate seed powder [70][16], and rosehip powder [52][7] from the group of fruit and fruit by-products, as well as Hemp inflorescence [38][6] and ground green coffee parchment [79][14]. Conversely, pseudocereals’ inclusion in GFB formulations, namely wholegrain buckwheat, buckwheat and chia flour blends, and buckwheat hulls, predominantly resulted in an increased hardness [43[13][24][27],45,61], and the same trend was noted with the addition of acorn flour [40[2][32],72], acorn and chickpea flour mixtures [33][26], and chestnut flour [73][30], as well as microalgae [75,76][9][19]. Furthermore, a negative correlation was constituted between the hardness and specific volume of the antioxidant-enriched GFB, regardless of the antioxidant compounds’ source, where increased crumb hardness resulted in a reduced GFB volume and vice versa [38,43,45,47,61,65,68,73,75][1][6][9][13][18][24][27][30][33]. The above-reported positive and negative influences upon antioxidant compounds’ addition on GFB crumb hardness is not yet clearly elucidated since they enter the formulation accompanied by dietary fibers, proteins, and other compounds which, given synergistic effects with water, usually contribute to a greater extent to the hardness perception. Here as well, the inclusion level of the antioxidant and accompanying compounds, as well as their type (such as soluble or insoluble dietary fibers), plays an important role in terms of crumb hardness [38,49,50,67][4][5][6][29]. The underlying action of different dietary fiber types in this respect is explained elsewhere [161][22].
Springiness, associated with the restoring ability upon deforming force retrieval after defined recovery time, decreased in GFB with wholegrain millet and wholegrain millet extruded flour [60][23] as well as chia flour and chia seed by-products [61[13][31],62], and remained unchanged with wholegrain red sorghum flour [50][5] and buckwheat hull [45][24] incorporation. Considering fruit and fruit by-products, the addition of acerola, pomegranate seed, and rosehip powder increased springiness values [52[1][7][16],65,70], while no changes were denoted with the inclusion of defatted blackcurrant and strawberry seeds [67][29], likewise for extruded sour cherry pomace [68][18]. Moreover, a rise in springiness was observed in GFB with acorn flour [40][32] and carob fiber [47][33], as well as that with broccoli leaf powder [48][12] and ground green coffee parchment [79][14].
The GFB cohesiveness was found to increase [60][23] but also remain unchanged [50,57][5][15] depending on the cereal used while, for pseudocereals and tree fruits, only a decrease in value was observed [40,45,57,61,73][13][15][24][30][32]. Chewiness represents a parameter that is tightly related to crumb hardness perception and, in most cases, exhibited the same tendencies in antioxidant-enriched GFB [40,45,50,73,77][5][10][24][30][32]. Resilience, accounted for as the instant crumb recovery upon compression, remained constant upon the addition of wholegrain red sorghum flour [50][5], buckwheat hulls [45][24], defatted blackcurrant and strawberry seeds [67][29], broccoli leaf powder [48][12], and ground green coffee parchment [79][14], but decreased with the inclusion of wholegrain millet and wholegrain millet extruded flour [60][23], chia flour [61][13], and acorn flour [40][32].

4. Effect of Antioxidant Compounds Source and Addition on Gluten-Free Bread Storage and Shelf-Life

Due to gluten absence and the application of a high percentage of starch in GFB formulations, the final GFB is prone to accelerated staling [162][34]. Alterations in the antioxidant content and activity in the enriched GFB potentially occurring during the storage have not been studied so far. Nevertheless, this should be examined in more detail in future research. Changes occurring during the storage of formulated GFB were primarily monitored through TPA in a time span from 1 to 7 days [43,45][24][27], but most frequently from 1 to 3 days [48,62,68,70,73,79][12][14][16][18][30][31].
Commonly, texture properties were negatively affected by storage and, with a prolonged storage time, the changes were more pronounced [45,48][12][24]. Crumb hardness was found to increase upon storage with the addition of wholegrain buckwheat flour [43][27] and coarse and fine buckwheat hulls for 7 days [45][24], as well as for chestnut flour [73][30], broccoli leaf powder [48][12], and ground green coffee parchment [79][14] after 3 days of storage compared to control GFB. Conversely, the addition of extruded sour cherry pomace resulted in hardness values lower than the prepared control GFB, which was attributed to the accompanied dietary fibers and their ability to bind several-times-higher water amounts compared to their mass [68][18]. Following the trend of hardness increase, the chewiness also increased with the storage of GFB with coarse and fine buckwheat hulls [45][24] and chestnut flour [73][30], but decreased with extruded sour cherry pomace incorporation [68][18]. The cohesiveness of the antioxidant compound-enriched GFB after storage in most cases decreased [45[12][14][24][30],48,73,79], as well as the resilience [48[12][14][30],73,79], while, regarding springiness, diverse influence was noted [48,68,70,79][12][14][16][18].
Considering that GFB requires more fat in its formulation compared to wheat counterparts accompanied by lower product humidity, lipid oxidation is regarded as one of the limiting factors for the product’s shelf-life. As a result of lipid oxidation, the acceptability and nutritional quality of the GFB are compromised due to off-odor and off-flavor compound formation as well as essential fatty acids’ content reduction [163][35]. The presence of antioxidant compounds in GFB aims to suppress the corresponding oxidation occurrence. The evaluation of oxidative stability is nowadays performed through product subjection to accelerated oxidative stress induced by increasing oxidative factors such as oxygen pressure and temperature under controlled conditions. Such analysis, so far, was performed in only one study with antioxidant-enriched GFB by using the instrument Oxitest (Velp Scientifica, Usmate Velate (MB), Italy), where 30 g of a minced bread sample was exposed to 90 °C and an oxygen pressure of 6 bar [79][14]. The exerted influence of the antioxidant compounds from ground green coffee parchment included in GFB was evident, as nearly 50%-higher oxidative stability was detected compared to control GFB, confirming the corresponding compounds’ ability to preserve the product during storage [79][14]. In the future, there is certainly a need for this kind of analysis, especially in products enriched with antioxidant compounds, where their actual effect on product quality and shelf-life can be assessed.

References

  1. Bourekoua, H.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Różyło, R.; Zidoune, M.N.; Dziki, D. Acerola fruit as a natural antioxidant ingredient for gluten-free bread: An approach to improve bread quality. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2021, 27, 13–21.
  2. Beltrão Martins, R.; Gouvinhas, I.; Nunes, M.C.; Alcides Peres, J.; Raymundo, A.; Barros, A.I.R.N.A. Acorn Flour as a Source of Bioactive Compounds in Gluten-Free Bread. Molecules 2020, 25, 3568.
  3. Krupa-Kozak, U.; Bączek, N.; Capriles, V.D.; Łopusiewicz, Ł. Novel Gluten-Free Bread with an Extract from Flaxseed By-Product: The Relationship between Water Replacement Level and Nutritional Value, Antioxidant Properties, and Sensory Quality. Molecules 2022, 27, 2690.
  4. Bourekoua, H.; Różyło, R.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Benatallah, L.; Zidoune, M.N.; Dziki, D. Evaluation of physical, sensorial, and antioxidant properties of gluten-free bread enriched with Moringa oleifera leaf powder. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 189–195.
  5. Hryhorenko, N.; Krupa-Kozak, U.; Bączek, N.; Rudnicka, B.; Wróblewska, B. Gluten-free bread enriched with whole-grain red sorghum flour gains favourable technological and functional properties and consumers acceptance. J. Cereal Sci. 2023, 110, 103646.
  6. Pecyna, A.; Buczaj, A.; Różyło, R.; Kobus, Z. Physical and Antioxidant Properties of Innovative Gluten-Free Bread with the Addition of Hemp Inflorescence. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4889.
  7. Matas, A.; Igual, M.; García-Segovia, P.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Application of 3D Printing in the Design of Functional Gluten-Free Dough. Foods 2022, 11, 1555.
  8. Kittisuban, P.; Ritthiruangdej, P.; Suphantharik, M. Optimization of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, yeast b-glucan, and whey protein levels based on physical properties of gluten-free rice bread using response surface methodology. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 57, 738–748.
  9. Nunes, M.C.; Fernandes, I.; Vasco, I.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A. Tetraselmis chuii as a Sustainable and Healthy Ingredient to Produce Gluten-Free Bread: Impact on Structure, Colour and Bioactivity. Foods 2020, 9, 579.
  10. Różyło, R.; Hameed Hassoon, W.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Siastała, M.; Dziki, D. Study on the physical and antioxidant properties of gluten-free bread with brown algae. CyTA J. Food 2017, 15, 196–203.
  11. Bedrníček, J.; Jirotková, D.; Kadlec, J.; Laknerová, I.; Vrchotová, N.; Tříska, J.; Samková, E.; Smetana, P. Thermal stability and bioavailability of bioactive compounds after baking of bread enriched with different onion by-products. Food Chem. 2020, 319, 126562.
  12. Krupa-Kozak, U.; Drabińska, N.; Bączek, N.; Šimková, K.; Starowicz, M.; Jeliński, T. Application of Broccoli Leaf Powder in Gluten-Free Bread: An Innovative Approach to Improve Its Bioactive Potential and Technological Quality. Foods 2021, 10, 819.
  13. Coronel, E.B.; Guiotto, E.N.; Aspiroz, M.C.; Tomás, M.C.; Nolasco, S.M.; Capitani, M.I. Development of gluten-free premixes with buckwheat and chia flours: Application in a bread product. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 141, 110916.
  14. Littardi, P.; Rinaldi, M.; Grimaldi, M.; Cavazza, A.; Chiavaro, E. Effect of Addition of Green Coffee Parchment on Structural, Qualitative and Chemical Properties of Gluten-Free Bread. Foods 2020, 10, 5.
  15. Ziobro, R.; Gumul, D.; Korus, J.; Korus, A. Starch bread with a share of non-wheat flours as a source of bioactive compounds in gluten-free diet. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 55, 11–21.
  16. Bourekoua, H.; Różyło, R.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Benatallah, L.; Zidoune, M.N.; Dziki, D. Pomegranate seed powder as a functional component of gluten-free bread (Physical, sensorial and antioxidant evaluation). Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 53, 1906–1913.
  17. Costantini, L.; Lukšič, L.; Molinari, R.; Kreft, I.; Bonafaccia, G.; Manzi, L.; Merendino, N. Development of gluten-free bread using tartary buckwheat and chia flour rich in flavonoids and omega-3 fatty acids as ingredients. Food Chem. 2014, 165, 232–240.
  18. Gumul, D.; Korus, A.; Ziobro, R. Extruded Preparations with Sour Cherry Pomace Influence Quality and Increase the Level of Bioactive Components in Gluten-Free Breads. Int. J. Food Sci. 2020, 2020, 8024398.
  19. Qazi, M.W.; De Sousa, I.G.; Nunes, M.C.; Raymundo, A. Improving the Nutritional, Structural, and Sensory Properties of Gluten-Free Bread with Different Species of Microalgae. Foods 2022, 11, 397.
  20. Banu, I.; Aprodu, I. Assessing the Performance of Different Grains in Gluten-Free Bread Applications. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8772.
  21. Aoki, N.; Kataoka, T.; Nishiba, Y. Crucial role of amylose in the rising of gluten- and additive-free rice bread. J. Cereal Sci. 2020, 92, 102905.
  22. Djordjević, M.; Djordjević, M.; Šoronja-Simović, D.; Nikolić, I.; Šereš, Z. Delving into the Role of Dietary Fiber in Gluten-Free Bread Formulations: Integrating Fundamental Rheological, Technological, Sensory and Nutritional Aspects. Polysaccharides 2022, 3, 59–82.
  23. Pessanha, K.L.F.; Menezes, J.P.D.; Silva, A.D.A.; Ferreira, M.V.D.S.; Takeiti, C.Y.; Carvalho, C.W.P. Impact of whole millet extruded flour on the physicochemical properties and antihyperglycemic activity of gluten free bread. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 147, 111495.
  24. Gutiérrez, Á.L.; Villanueva, M.; Rico, D.; Harasym, J.; Ronda, F.; Martín-Diana, A.B.; Caballero, P.A. Valorisation of Buckwheat By-Product as a Health-Promoting Ingredient Rich in Fibre for the Formulation of Gluten-Free Bread. Foods 2023, 12, 2781.
  25. Arora, K.; Tlais, A.Z.A.; Augustin, G.; Grano, D.; Filannino, P.; Gobbetti, M.; Di Cagno, R. Physicochemical, nutritional, and functional characterization of gluten-free ingredients and their impact on the bread texture. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 177, 114566.
  26. Gkountenoudi-Eskitzi, I.; Kotsiou, K.; Irakli, M.N.; Lazaridis, A.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Lazaridou, A. In vitro and in vivo glycemic responses and antioxidant potency of acorn and chickpea fortified gluten-free breads. Food Res. Int. 2023, 166, 112579.
  27. Brites, L.T.G.F.; Rebellato, A.P.; Meinhart, A.D.; Godoy, H.T.; Steel, C.J. Antioxidant-enriched gluten-free bread made with buckwheat flour: Evaluation of technological and nutritional quality. Cereal Chem. 2022, 99, 995–1006.
  28. Curti, M.I.; Palavecino, P.M.; Savio, M.; Baroni, M.V.; Ribotta, P.D. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Gluten-freeb: The effect of milling conditions on the technological properties and in vitro bioaccessibility of Polyphenols and Minerals. Foods 2023, 12, 3030.
  29. Korus, J.; Juszczak, L.; Ziobro, R.; Witczak, M.; Grzelak, K.; Sójka, M. Defatted strawberry and blackcurrant seeds as functional ingredients of gluten-free bread: Defatted strawberry and blackcurrant seeds in gluten free bread. J. Texture Stud. 2012, 43, 29–39.
  30. Paciulli, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Cirlini, M.; Scazzina, F.; Chiavaro, E. Chestnut flour addition in commercial gluten-free bread: A shelf-life study. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 70, 88–95.
  31. Zdybel, B.; Różyło, R.; Sagan, A. Use of a waste product from the pressing of chia seed oil in wheat and gluten-free bread processing. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14002.
  32. Beltrão Martins, R.; Garzón, R.; Peres, J.A.; Barros, A.I.R.N.A.; Raymundo, A.; Rosell, C.M. Acorn flour and sourdough: An innovative combination to improve gluten free bread characteristics. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2022, 248, 1691–1702.
  33. Różyło, R.; Dziki, D.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Biernacka, B.; Wójcik, M.; Ziemichód, A. Physical and antioxidant properties of gluten-free bread enriched with carob fibre. Int. Agrophys. 2017, 31, 411–418.
  34. Ahlborn, G.J.; Pike, O.A.; Hendrix, S.B.; Hess, W.M.; Huber, C.S. Sensory, mechanical, and microscopic evaluation of staling in low-protein and gluten- free breads. Cereal Chem. 2005, 82, 328–335.
  35. Caruso, M.C.; Galgano, F.; Colangelo, M.A.; Condelli, N.; Scarpa, T.; Tolve, R.; Favati, F. Evaluation of the oxidative stability of bakery products by OXITEST method and sensory analysis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2017, 243, 1183–1191.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback