Accep ed Manusc ip
Assessing ice lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u es o p oduce glu en ee suga -snap
cookies
Camino M. Mancebo, Pa icia Rod iguez, Manuel Gómez
PII: S0023-6438(15)30336-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.lw .2015.11.045
Re e ence: YFSTL 5113
To appea in: LWT - Food Science and Technology
Recei ed Da e: 1 Sep embe 2015
Re ised Da e: 13 No embe 2015
Accep ed Da e: 22 No embe 2015
Please ci e his a icle as: Mancebo, C.M., Rod iguez, P., Gómez, M., Assessing ice lou -s a ch-p o ein
mix u es o p oduce glu en ee suga -snap cookies, LWT - Food Science and Technology (2015), doi:
10.1016/j.lw .2015.11.045.
This is a PDF ile o an unedi ed manusc ip ha has been accep ed o publica ion. As a se ice o
ou cus ome s we a e p o iding his ea ly e sion o he manusc ip . The manusc ip will unde go
copyedi ing, ypese ing, and e iew o he esul ing p oo be o e i is published in i s inal o m. Please
no e ha du ing he p oduc ion p ocess e o s may be disco e ed which could a ec he con en , and all
legal disclaime s ha apply o he jou nal pe ain.
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Assessing ice lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u es o p oduce
1
glu en ee suga -snap cookies
2
3
Camino M. Mancebo, Pa icia Rod iguez, Manuel Gómez
*
4
5
6
Food Technology A ea, 7
College o Ag icul u al Enginee ing, Uni e si y o Valladolid, 34004 Palencia, Spain 8
Tel.: +34 979 108495; Fax: +34 979 108302 9
*
Co esponding au ho e-mail: palla es@ia .u a.es 10
11
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
Abs ac 12
The mix u e o ice lou s, s a ches and p o eins is common in glu en- ee bake y 13
p oduc s such as b ead o cake. The aim o his s udy was o de e mine he e ec s o 14
s a ch and/o p o ein addi ion in ice lou glu en- ee cookie quali y. Fo his pu pose, 15
he hyd a ion and oil abso p ion p ope ies o lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u es, dough 16
heology and quali y cookie pa ame e s ( hickness, inal diame e , sp ead ac o , ex u e, 17
colou and accep abili y) we e analysed. Gene ally, p o ein inco po a ion inc eased 18
hyd a ion p ope ies o he mix u e and dough consis ency, p oducing cookies wi h 19
limi ed sp eading in he baking ime, lowe ha dness alues and da ke colou . In 20
pa icula , p o ein addi ion educed he wid h up o 8.4% and he ha dness up o 10.60 21
% (con ol e sus 20% o p o ein inclusion). Howe e , maize s a ch addi ion educed 22
hyd a ion p ope ies and ga e ise o cookies wi h highe hickness and wid h, bu he 23
ex u e and colou we e no a ec ed by he s a ch. Cookies wi h highe p o ein con en 24
showed highe accep abili y han cookies wi h highe s a ch con en and no p o ein 25
addi ion. The e o e, p o ein and s a ch can be used in o de o adjus he desi ed cookie 26
cha ac e is ics depending on he cookie o mula ion and he needs o manu ac u e s. 27
28
29
Keywo ds: maize s a ch; pea p o ein; dough heology; cookie ex u e; senso y analysis. 30
31
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
1. In oduc ion 32
Cookies a e a baked p oduc ha ypically has h ee majo ing edien s; lou , suga and 33
a . The e a e dis inc ypes o cookies depending on cookie composi ion, he making o 34
cookie dough and baking pa ame e s. Suga -snap cookie is a pa icula ype o cookie 35
wi h high le els o a and suga and low wa e le els cha ac e ised by a limi ed 36
de elopmen o he glu en ne wo k (Hadnade , To bica, & Hadnade , 2013; Pa ey & 37
Delcou , 2008). In addi ion, because o he insu icien wa e con en o he cookie 38
dough, mos o he s a ch g anules do no gela inize du ing he cookie baking p ocess 39
(Pa ey & Delcou , 2008). Due o he minimal glu en de elopmen o suga -snap 40
cookies, he e is he possibili y o p oduce glu en- ee cookies made om glu en- ee 41
lou s wi hou any glu en subs i u e (Donelson, 1988). Howe e , glu en- ee lou s 42
p oduce cookies wi h di e en physico-chemical cha ac e is ics in compa ison wi h 43
cookies made om whea lou , depending on he ce eal o igin and he milling p ocess 44
(Mancebo, Picón, & Gómez, 2015). 45
Mos s udies ha ha e in es iga ed glu en- ee cookies ha e used di e en glu en- ee 46
lou s such as ama an h (de la Ba ca, Rojas-Ma ínez, Islas-Rubio, & Cab e a-Chá ez, 47
2010; Gambus e al., 2009; Hozo a, Buch o á, Dodok, & Zemano ič, 1997; Tosi, 48
Ciappini, & Mascia elli, 1996; Schoenlechne , Linsbe ge , Kaczyc, & Be gho e , 2006), 49
buckwhea (Gambus e al., 2009; Hadnađe e al., 2013; Kau , Sandhu, A o a, & 50
Sha ma, 2015: Schoenlechne , Linsbe ge , Kaczyc, & Be gho e , 2006) and/o ice 51
lou (Chung, Cho, & Lim, 2014; To bica, Hadnadez, & Hadnade , 2012) o a mix u e 52
o hese lou s wi h o he ce eal lou s (maize, so ghum o mille ) o legume lou s 53
(Al ındağ, Ce el, E em, & Konak, 2014; Rai, Kau , & Singh, 2014). Howe e , many 54
comme cial bake y p oduc s a e mainly made om maize s a ch mixed, g ea e o lesse 55
ex en , wi h glu en ee lou s, s a ches om ube s and / o p o eins. I has been p o en 56
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
ha he p o ein and s a ch p opo ion in cookies made om whea lou play an 57
impo an ole in cookie quali y, because o hei wa e abso p ion capaci y, hei e ec 58
in dough heology and hei sp ead in he baking p ocess (Pa ey & Delcou , 2008). In 59
gene al, so whea lou , which is cha ac e ised by a low p o ein con en and weak 60
glu en s eng h, is p e e ed in suga -snap cookie elabo a ion (Souza, K uk, & 61
Sunde man, 1994) since hey gi e ise o cookies wi h highe sp ead and cookie se ime 62
in he baking p ocess (Kaldy, Ke eliuk, & Kozuk, 1993; Mille & Hoseney, 1997). 63
The eby, s a ch and p o ein addi ion could adjus he expansion in he baking p ocess 64
and glu en- ee cookie diame e . I has also been shown ha p o ein con en a ec ed 65
dough heology and ex u e o cookies, a leas in he case o whea cookies (Gaines, 66
1990). The e a e ew s udies abou s a ch and p o ein addi ion in glu en- ee cookies. 67
Schobe e al. (2003) added s a ches in glu en- ee cookies o mula ions bu hey we e 68
mixed wi h h ee glu en- ee lou s and only h ee mix u es we e analysed, he e o e he 69
e ec o s a ches could no be clea ly compa ed. Sa abhai e al. (2015) s udied he e ec 70
o p o ein concen a e (soya and whey p o ein), howe e hey we e added wi h 71
emulsi ie s. 72
The aim o his s udy was o de e mine he e ec o he addi ion o s a ch and/o p o ein 73
o ice lou on dough heology and glu en- ee suga -snap cookies quali y. 74
75
2. Ma e ials and me hods 76
2.1 Ma e ials 77
The ollowing ing edien s we e employed in his s udy: ice lou (8.01 g/100 g o 78
p o ein and 74.35 g/100 g s a ch) p o ided by Ha ine a Cas ellana S.L. (Medina del 79
Campo, Valladolid, Spain), maize s a ch (DAESANG, Ko ea), Nu alys F85M pea 80
p o ein (80 % p o ein con en ) (Roque e, Leu em, F ance), whi e suga (AB Azuca e a 81

MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
Ibe ia, Valladolid, Spain), ma ga ine 100 % ege able (A gen a c ema, Pu a os, 82
Ba celona, Spain), sodium bica bona e (Manuel Riesgo S.A., Mad id, Spain) and local 83
ap wa e . 84
85
2.2 Me hods 86
2.2.1. Mix u e hyd a ion and oil abso p ion p ope ies 87
The di e en lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u es we e cha ac e ised by hei hyd a ion and oil 88
abso p ion p ope ies. 89
Swelling olume (SV), o he olume occupied by a known weigh sample, was 90
e alua ed by adding 100 mL o dis illed wa e o 5 g (±0.1 g) o lou sample in a es 91
ube and allowing i o hyd a e o 24 h. Wa e holding capaci y (WHC), de ined as he 92
amoun o wa e e ained by he sample wi hou being subjec ed o any s ess, was 93
de e mined on he same suspension used o e alua e swelling; he hyd a ed solid was 94
weighed a e emo ing he excess wa e and alues we e exp essed as g ams o wa e 95
pe g am o solid (AACC me hod 88-04, 2012). Wa e binding capaci y (WBC), o he 96
amoun o wa e e ained by he sample a e i has been cen i uged, was measu ed as 97
desc ibed in AACC me hod 56-30.01 (AACC, 2012). Hyd a ion p ope ies we e 98
analysed in duplica e. 99
The me hod desc ibed by Lin, Humbe , & Sosulski (1974) was used o de e mine oil 100
abso p ion capaci y (OAC). Flou (100.0 ± 0.2 mg) was mixed wi h 1.0 mL o ege able 101
oil. The mix u e was s i ed o 1 min wi h a wi e od o dispe se he sample in he oil. 102
A e a pe iod o 30 min in he o ex mixe , ubes we e cen i uged a 3000 × g and 103
4◦C o 10 min. The supe na an was ca e ully emo ed wi h a pipe e and he ubes 104
we e in e ed o 25 min o d ain he oil and he esidue was hen weighed. The oil 105
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
abso p ion capaci y was exp essed as g ams o oil bound pe g am o sample on d y 106
basis. Th ee eplica es we e pe o med o each sample. OAC was calcula ed by Eq. (1): 107
OAC (g/g) = W / Wi (1) 108
Whe e W is he esidue weigh and Wi is he sample weigh (g, db) 109
110
2.2.2. Cookie p epa a ion 111
All o mula ions we e p epa ed using he same quan i ies o ing edien s excep o 112
wa e , which was added o adjus dough mois u e con en o 15.0 %, and he p opo ions 113
o lou , s a ch and p o ein added (Table 1). The lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u e mois u e 114
was de e mined by he AACC 44-15.02 me hod (AACC, 2012). The ollowing 115
ing edien s (as g/100 g on dough basis) we e used: lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u e (43.3 g), 116
suga (31.2 g), ma ga ine (19.4 g), wa e (5.2 g) and sodium bica bona e (0.9 g). The 117
ma ga ine and suga we e hen c eamed a speed 4 o 180 s in a Ki chen Aid 5KPM50 118
mixe (Ki chen Aid, Ben on Ha bo , Michigan, USA) wi h a la bea e , sc aping down 119
e e y 60 s. The wa e was hen added and mixing was con inued a speed 4 o 120 s 120
wi h in e media e sc aping. A e mixing, he c eam was sc aped down. Finally, lou 121
and sodium bica bona e we e added, ollowed by mixing a speed 2 o 120 s, whils 122
sc aping down e e y 30 s. A e mixing, he dough was allowed o s and o a 123
p ede ined pe iod o 30 minu es. The dough pieces we e hen lamina ed wi h a sal a L-124
500-J shee e (Sal a, Lezo, Spain) (gap wid h 6.00 mm). Cookie dough was cu wi h a 125
ci cula cookie cu e (in e nal diame e , 40 mm) and weighed. Ba ches o a leas 15 126
dough pieces we e baked in an elec ic modula o en o 14 minu es a 185ºC. All he 127
cookie elabo a ions we e pe o med wice. 128
129 2.2.3. Dough heology p ope ies 130
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
The heological beha iou o doughs was s udied using a The mo Scien i ic 131
HaakeRheoS ess 1 con olled s ain heome e (The mo Fishe Scien i ic, Schwe e, 132
Ge many) and a Phoenix II P1-C25P wa e ba h ha con olled analysis empe a u e 133
(se a 25ºC). The heome e was equipped wi h pa allel-pla e geome y (60-mm 134
diame e i anium se a ed pla e-PP60 Ti) wi h a 3-mm gap. A e adjus ing he 3-mm 135
gap, aseline oil (Pan eac, Pan eac Química SA, Cas ella del Vallés, Spain) was 136
applied o he exposed su aces o he samples o p e en hem d ying du ing es ing. In 137
oscilla o y es s, dough was es ed o 800 s be o e measu ing. Fi s , a s ain sweep es 138
was pe o med a 25ºC wi h a s ess ange o 0.1–100 Pa a a cons an equency o 1 Hz 139
o iden i y he linea iscoelas ic egion. On he basis o he esul s ob ained, a s ess 140
alue included in he linea iscoelas ic egion was used in a equency sweep es a 141
25ºC wi h a equency ange o 10–0.1 Hz. Values o elas ic modulus (G’ [Pa]), iscous 142
modulus (G’’ [Pa]), complex modulus and angen δ (G’’/G’) we e ob ained o 143
di e en equency alues (ω [Hz]). Samples we e analysed in duplica e. 144
2.2.4. Cookie p ope ies 145
The ex u e o he cookies was measu ed six y minu es a e baking on eigh cookies 146
om each elabo a ion, using a TA-XT2 ex u e analyse (S able Mic osys ems, Su ey, 147
UK) i ed wi h he “Tex u e Expe ” so wa e. The cookies we e b oken using he h ee 148
poin bending ig p obe (HDP/3PB). The expe imen al condi ions we e: suppo s 30 149
mm apa , a 20 mm p obe a el dis ance, a igge o ce o 5 g and a es speed o 2.0 150
mm/s.The maximum o ce (N) and he displacemen a up u e (mm) we e measu ed. 151
Fou cookies we e weighed and hei wid hs (diame e ) and hicknesses we e measu ed 152
wi h calipe o calcula e he sp ead ac o . The diame e o each cookie was measu ed 153
wice, pe pendicula ly, in o de o calcula e an a e age diame e . The sp ead ac o o 154
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
he cookies was calcula ed by di iding he a e age wid h by he hickness o he 155
cookies. 156
Measu emen s a he cen e o he uppe su ace (c us ) colou o six suga -snap cookies 157
om each elabo a ion we e ca ied ou wi h a Minol a CN-508i spec opho ome e 158
(Minol a, Co. LTD, Tokyo, Japan) using he D65 illuminan wi h he 2º s anda d 159
obse e . Resul s a e exp essed in he CIE L*a*b* colou space. 160
2.2.5. Consume es 161
Hedonic senso y e alua ion o he cookies was conduc ed wi h 66 olun ee s, s a and 162
s uden s om he Ag icul u al Enginee ing College in Palencia (Spain), be ween he 163
ages o 18–66 and o a ious socioeconomic backg ounds, who we e habi ual cookie 164
consume s. Samples we e analysed one day a e baking. Fo senso y e alua ion, 165
samples we e p esen ed as whole pieces on whi e plas ic dishes coded wi h ou -digi 166
andom numbe s and se ed in andom o de . The cookies we e e alua ed on he basis 167
o accep abili y o hei appea ance, odou , ex u e, as e and o e all app ecia ion on a 168
nine-poin hedonic scale. The scale o alues anged om “like ex emely” o “dislike 169
ex emely”, co esponding o he highes and lowes sco es o “9” and “1” espec i ely. 170
2.2.6. S a is ical analysis 171
Di e ences be ween he pa ame e s o he di e en o mula ions we e s udied by 172
analysis o a iance (ANOVA). Fishe ’s leas signi ican di e ence (LSD) was used o 173
desc ibe means wi h 95 % con idence in e als. The s a is ical analysis was pe o med 174
wi h he S a g aphics Cen u ion XVI so wa e (S a Poin Technologies Inc, Wa en on, 175
USA). 176
177
3. Resul s and Discussion 178
3.1 Mix u e cha ac e is ics 179
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
Gambus, H., Gambus, F., Pas uszka, D., W ona, P., Ziob o, R., Saba , R., & Siko a, M. 326
(2009). Quali y o glu en- ee supplemen ed cakes and biscui s. In e na ional Jou nal o 327
Food Sciences and Nu i ion, 60, 31-50. 328
Guj al, H. S., Meh a, S., Sam a, I.S., & Goyal, P (2003). E ec o whea b an, coa se 329
whea lou and ice lou on he ins umen al ex u e o cookies. In e na ional Jou nal 330
o Food p ope ies 6, 329-340. 331
Hadnađe , T. R. D., To bica, A.M., & Hadnađe , M.S. (2013). In luence o buckwhea 332
lou and ca boxyme hyl cellulose on heological beha iou and baking pe o mance o 333
glu en- ee cookie dough. Food Biop ocess Technology, 6, 1770-1781 334
Hoseney, R. C., & Roge s, D. E. (1994). Mechanism o suga unc ionali y in cookies. 335
In: Fa idi H (Eds.), The Science o Cookie and C acke P oduc ion (pp 203-225). New 336
Yo k: Chapman & Hall. 337
Hozo a, B., Buch o á, V., Dodok, L., & Zemano ič, J. 1997. Mic obiological, 338
nu i ional and senso y aspec s o s o ed ama an h biscui s and ama an h c acke s. 339
Food/Nah ung, 41, 3, 155-158 340
Ingle , G. E., Shen, D., & Liu, S. X., (2015). Physical p ope ies o glu en- ee suga 341
cookies made om ama an h–oa composi es. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 63, 342
214-220. 343
Kaldy, M. S., Ke eliuk, G. R., & Kozub, G. C. (1993). In luence o glu en componen s 344
and lou lipids on so whi e whea quali y. Ce eal Chemis y, 70, 77–80. 345
Kau , M., Sandhu, K.S., A o a, A., & Sha ma, A. (2015). Glu en ee biscui s p epa ed 346
om buckwhea lou by inco po a ion o a ious gums: Physicochemical and senso y 347
p ope ies. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 62, 628-632 348
Lin, M. J. Y., Humbe , E. S., & Sosulski, F. W., (1974). Ce ain unc ional p ope ies 349
o sun lowe meal p oduc s. Jou nal o Food Science, 39, 368–370. 350

MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
Mancebo, C. M., Picón, J., & Gómez, M. (2015). E ec o lou p ope ies on he 351
quali y cha ac e is ics o glu en ee suga -snap cookies. LWT - Food Science and 352
Technology, 64, 264-269. 353
Manley, D. (2011). Manley’s echnology o biscui s, c acke s and cookies. (4 h ed.). 354
Camb idge England: Woodhead Publishing. 355
Mille , R. A. & Hoseney, R. C. (1997). Fac o s in ha d whea lou esponsible o 356
educed cookie sp ead. Ce eal Chemis y, 74, 330–336. 357
Pa ey , B., & Delcou , J. A. (2008). The ole o whea lou cons i uen s, suga , and a 358
in low mois u e ce eal based p oduc s: a e iew on suga -snap cookies. C i ical e iews 359
in ood science and nu i ion, 48, 824-839. 360
Rababah, T. M., Al-Mhasneh, M. A., & E ei ej, K. I., (2006). E ec o chickpea, b oad 361
bean and isola ed soya p o ein addi ion on he physiochemical and senso y p ope ies o 362
biscui s. Jou nal o Food Science, 71, 438- 442. 363
Rai, S., Kau , A., & Singh, B. (2014). Quali y cha ac e is ics o glu en ee cookies 364
p epa ed om di e en lou combina ions. Jou nal o Food Science and Technology 365
51, 785-789. 366
Sa abhai, S., Ind ani, D., Vijayk ishna aj, M., Milind, Kuma , V. A., & P abhasanka , 367
P. (2015). E ec o p o ein concen a es, emulsi ie s on ex u al and senso y 368
cha ac e is ics o glu en ee cookies and i s immunochemical alida ion. Jou nal o 369
Food Science and Technology-Myso e, 52, 3763-3772. 370
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
Schobe , T. J., O’B ien, C. M., McCa hy, D., Da nedde, A., & A end E. K. (2003). 371
In luence o glu en- ee lou mixes and a powde s on he quali y o glu en- ee 372
biscui s. Eu opean Food Resea ch and Technology, 216, 369-376. 373
Schoenlechne , R., Linsbe ge , G., Kaczyc, L., & Be gho e , E., (2006). P oduc ion o 374
sho dough biscui s om he pseudoce eals ama an h, quinoa and buckwhea wi h 375
common bean. E nah ung, 30, 101-107. 376
Singh M., & Mohamed A. (2007). In luence o glu en–soy p o ein blends on he quali y 377
o educed ca bohyd a es cookies. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 40, 353–360. 378
Souza, E., K uk, M., & Sunde man, D. W. (1994). Associa ion o suga -snap cookie 379
quali y wi h high molecula weigh glu enin alleles in so whi e sp ing whea s. Ce eal 380
Chemis y, 70, 601–605. 381
To bica, A., Hadnađe , M., & Dapče ić Hadnađe , T. (2012). Rice and buckwhea 382
lou cha ac e isa ion and i s ela ion o cookie quali y. Food Resea ch In e na ional, 383
48, 277-283. 384
Tosi, E. A., Ciappini, M. C., & Mascia elli, R. (1996). U ilisa ion o whole ama an hus 385
(Ama an hus c uen us) lou in he manu ac u e o biscui s o coeliacs. Alimen a ia, 386
34, 49-51. 387
T aynham, T. L., Mye s, D. J, Ca iqui y, A. L., & Johnson, L. A. (2007). E alua ion o 388
wa e -holding capaci y o whea -soy lou blends. Jou nal o he Ame ican Oil 389
Chemis s Socie y, 84, 151-155. 390
391
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figu e cap ions
Figu e 1.- Images o glu en- ee cookies made om ice lou (F) subs i u ed by maize
s a ch (S) and pea p o ein (P) wi h di e en subs i u ion le els (g/100 g o lou ): a) 100
g lou , 0 g s a ch and 0 g p o ein (100F-0S-0P); b) 90F-0S-10P; c) 80F-0S-20P; d)
70F-30S-0P; e) 65F-25S-10P; ) 60F-20S-20P; g) 40F-60S-0P; h) 35F-55S-10P; i) 30F-
50S-20P.
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1.- Expe imen al design o lou -s a ch-p o ein mix u es o p epa a ion o glu en-
ee cookies
T ials Mix (F-S-P) Rice lou * Maize s a ch* Pea p o ein*
1 100-0-0 100 0 0
2 90-0-10 90 0 10
3 80-0-20 80 0 20
4 70-30-0 70 30 0
5 65-25-10 65 25 10
6 60-20-20 60 20 20
7 40-60-0 40 60 0
8 35-55-10 35 55 10
9 30-50-20 30 50 20
Mix (F-S-P): Mix u e o ice lou , maize s a ch and pea p o ein (g/100 g o lou )
* g/100 g o lou .
Each mix u e was pe o med in duplica e (n=2)
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Table 2.- Flou hyd a ion p ope ies and oil abso p ion capaci y 1 2
Mix (F-S-P) WBC
(g wa e /g solid) WHC
(g wa e /g solid) SV
(ml/g) OAC
(g oil/g solid)
100-0-0 1.380d 8.8a 1.255b 1.89ab
90-0-10 1.735g 13.4cd 1.815d 1.87ab
80-0-20 2.014i 17.4 2.315 1.89ab
70-30-0 1.145b 9.1a 1.235b 1.82a
65-25-10 1.465e 12.0bc 1.670cd 1.84ab
60-20-20 1.790h 14.9e 2.070e 1.91ab
40-60-0 0.930a 8.9a 1.000a 1.92ab
35-55-10 1.300c 11.0b 1.250b 1.88ab
30-50-20 1.700 14.4de 1.630c 1.96b
S anda d e o 0.007 0.5 0.058 0.05
Mix (F-S-P): Mix u e o ice lou . maize s a ch and pea p o ein
3
WBC: Wa e binding capaci y (n=2); WHC: Wa e Holding Capaci y (n=2); SV: Swelling olume (n=2); OAC: Oil Abso p ion
4
Capaci y (n=3)
5
Mean alues ollowed by he same le e in he same column a e no signi ican ly di e en (p < 0.05).
6

MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3.- Dynamic oscilla o y es esul s o he dough o glu en- ee cookies p epa ed
om mix u es o ice lou , maize s a ch and pea p o ein
Mix (F-S-P) G’ (Pa) G’’(Pa) G* an δ
100-0-0 148750a 36810ab 153250a 0.25e
90-0-10 278450b 57540cd 284400b 0.21d
80-0-20 672500e 94035e 679350e 0.14a
70-30-0 105465a 28960a 109750a 0.28
65-25-10 218400b 47730bc 223750b 0.22d
60-20-20 509400d 84410e 516500d 0.17b
40-60-0 107450a 28010a 111150a 0.26e
35-55-10 355500c 66595d 362250c 0.19c
30-50-20 712200e 101195 720000e 0.14a
S anda d e o
19974 3701 20192 0.01
Mix (F-S-P): Mix u e o ice lou . maize s a ch and pea p o ein (g/100g o lou )
G’: elas ic moduli; G”: iscous moduli; G*: complex moduli; an δ: angen del a.
Mean alues (n = 4) ollowed by he same le e in he same column a e no signi ican ly di e en (p < 0.05).
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 4.- Quali y pa ame e s o cookies based on ice lou , maize s a ch and pea p o ein
Mix (F-S-P): Mix u e o ice lou . maize s a ch and pea p o ein (g/100 g o lou )
Sp ead (wid h/ hickness). F max (N): The maximum o ce (N); Dis ance: displacemen a up u e (mm)
Mean alues (n=2) ollowed by he same le e in he same column a e no signi ican ly di e en (p < 0.05).
Mix (F-S-P) Mois u e
(%) Thickness
(mm) Wid h
(mm) Sp ead F max
(N) Dis ance
(mm) L* a* b*
100-0-0 2.76ab 8.87c 44.27c 4.99a 28.30d 0.34a 78.63e 0.67a 22.73bc
90-0-10 3.29bc 8.01b 42.57b 5.32a 27.26cd 0.37a 76.63cd 4.55b 23.17c
80-0-20 2.77abc 7.32a 40.52a 5.53a 25.30bc 0.34a 73.94b 6.77d 26.68d
70-30-0 2.93abc 9.59d 48.56d 5.06a 28.25d 0.41a 77.95de 0.22a 20.21ab
65-25-10 2.47ab 8.72c 44.29c 5.08a 22.82a 0.34a 77.10cde 3.89b 23.49c
60-20-20 3.88c 8.05b 42.11b 5.23a 25.43bc 0.37a 75.18bc 5.61c 26.23d
40-60-0 2.51ab 7.16a 57.98e 8.15b 24.03ab 0.57b 70.95a 0.82a 19.61a
35-55-10 1.86a 9.76d 47.86d 4.90a 27.01cd 0.36a 76.70cd 3.97b 22.92c
30-50-20 3.12bc 8.57bc 44.44c 5.19a 22.37a 0.35a 77.01cde 5.69c 23.40c
S anda d e o 0.35 0.20 0.49 0.25 1.52 0.04 0.60 0.22 0.81
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Table 5.- Consume es esul s o cookies based on ice lou , maize s a ch and pea 1 p o ein 2 3
Mix (F-S-P) Appea ance Odou Tex u e Tas e O e all
accep abili y
100-0-0 6.06b 5.68a 5.26ab 5.68a 5.73ab
80-0-20 5.91b 6.22b 5.77bc 5.80a 5.98b
70-30-0 5.29a 5.42a 4.86a 5.32a 5.23a
30-50-20 6.44b 5.59a 5.97c 5.68a 5.92b
S anda d e o 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.19
Mix (F-S-P): Mix u e o ice lou . maize s a ch and pea p o ein (g/100 g o lou )
4
Mean alues ( n=66) ollowed by he same le e in he same column a e no signi ican ly di e en (p < 0.05).
5
6
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT