Assessing the rice flour-starch-protein mixtures to produce gluten free sugar-snap cookies

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