Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cereal Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcs

Gluten-free breadmaking: Improving nutritional and bioactive

compounds
Vanessa D. Capriles a, *, Fernanda G. dos Santos a, Jose

Alfredo G. Are
^as b
a
Departamento de Bioci^ ~o Paulo, Rua Silva Jardim, 136, CEP 11015-020, Santos, SP, Brazil
encias, Campus Baixada Santista, Universidade Federal de Sa
b
Departamento de Nutriça~o, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de Sa
~o Paulo, Avenida Doutor Arnaldo, 715, CEP 01246-904, Sa~o Paulo, SP, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This review focuses on the contemporary approaches that are used to increase nutrient and bioactive
Received 6 June 2015 compound contents of gluten-free bread (GFB), and highlights the use of nutrient-dense alternative raw
Received in revised form materials, nutritional and functional ingredients, and their combinations. Few studies address micro-
12 August 2015
nutrient fortification in GFB, and only one study has addressed the performance of in vitro trials to
Accepted 19 August 2015
Available online 20 August 2015
examine bioaccessibility. Some studies have demonstrated the potential use of nutrient-dense raw
materials, dietary fiber enrichment and technological processes in decreasing the GFB glycemic response,
which is evaluated through in vivo trials or by using the in vitro-predicted glycemic response method. The
Keywords:
Gluten-free
reviewed studies have shown promising approaches to overcoming both the technological and nutri-
Nutrition tional challenges involved in GFB development. However, further studies on the improvement or
Glycemic response development of new nutrient-dense GFB and their evaluation using digestibility, bioaccessibility, and
Sensory acceptance bioavailability trials are required to understand or improve their efficacy as vehicles of micronutrients
and bioactive compounds. In addition, short- and long-term controlled clinical trials are needed to
evaluate their potential health benefits. Furthermore, efforts to apply some of this promising research to
commercial products should be made to make GFB with good technological, sensory and nutritional
properties available to consumers with gluten-related disorders.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction trouble finding GF products because of high prices, limited variety

The once small GF food market has experienced increased
growth in recent years and has become a trend in the food sector.
This growth has occurred primarily because of a GF craze that has
made consumers avoid gluten because they believe that GF prod-
ucts are a “healthier” option and that a GF diet is an effective way to
lose weight, although there is no scientific evidence to support
these beliefs (Brouns et al., 2013; Pszczola, 2012). For individuals
with CD, dermatitis herpetiformis, gluten ataxia, wheat allergies
and gluten sensitivity, the GF food market segment is important for
assisting in their adherence to a strict GF diet (Sapone et al., 2012).
Despite the growth of the GF market, individuals with CD still have
Abbreviations: CD, Celiac disease; DF, Dietary fiber; fwb, flour weight basis; GF,
Gluten-free; GFB, Gluten-free bread; GI, Glycemic index; GL, Glycemic load; GR,
Glycemic response; HI, Hydrolysis index; HPMC, Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose;
ITFs, Inulin-type fructans; RS, Resistant starch; RSM, Response surface
methodology.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vanessa.capriles@unifesp.br (V.D. Capriles).
and availability and poor sensory properties. These factors are
responsible for hampering adherence to the GF diet and for general
dissatisfaction (do Nascimento et al., 2014).
Despite the considerable advances made in understanding and
improving GF systems by evaluating different ingredients, addi-
tives, and technologies over the past two decades, the development
of GF products remains a technological challenge due to the role of
gluten in various grain-based products. The technological challenge
increases according to the dependency of products' properties on
gluten, which is considerable in bread and pasta making (Capriles
et al., 2015). Bread is the most studied among all GF products.
However, a GFB with a good sensory aspect remains the most
desired product by individuals with CD (do Nascimento et al., 2014).
A range of GFB formulations have been developed by using rice
and maize flours, which are often combined with maize, potato, or
cassava starches as base flours because they are widely available,
inexpensive ingredients that are bland in taste and flavor. However,
these flours and starches have minimal structure-building potential
and, thus, are frequently used along with proteins and hydrocolloid

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.08.005
0733-5210/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
84 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91
binding agents and with other additives to improve GFB physical
properties, acceptance and shelf-life (Capriles and Are ^as, 2014).
These GF flours and starches are not generally enriched or fortified,
and neither are the resulting GF products, in the same way as their
wheat-based counterparts. Therefore, GF products may lead to
nutritional deficiencies in micronutrients, protein and DF (do
Nascimento et al., 2013; Kinsey et al., 2008; Thompson, 2000).
Thus, enhancing the nutritional quality of GF products remains an
important task for research and development, which is a
concomitant challenge towards the improvement of technological
and sensory properties.
The development of GFB is still a challenge because no single
raw material, ingredient, or additive can currently replace gluten
fully. Nevertheless, great research advances have been made in this
field. Several recent studies have used food science tools to improve
the technological and sensory qualities of GFB, together with the
nutritional value (Capriles and Are^as, 2014). It is not the objective of
this review to list all of these advances.
The primary focus of this review is to discuss the current ap-
proaches used to improve the nutritional and bioactive compounds
of GFB. This review concentrates on contemporary GFB research (as
published since 2005), with particular focus on raw materials and
ingredients that improve the nutritional properties of GFB, espe-
cially the sensory-accepted ones.
2. Nutrient-dense alternative raw materials
Research has shown that some nutrient-dense alternative raw
materials that are derived from non-gluten cereals, pseudocereals,
legumes, nuts, seeds and fruit- and vegetable-based ingredients
can be used to develop GFB with good physical and sensory prop-
erties, along with enhanced nutritional composition (Capriles and
Are^as, 2014).
Despite their nutritional benefits, the use of whole grain flours
and other alternative raw materials presents certain technological
limitations because these flours can change the appearance, color,
texture, aroma, and taste of GFB, which can easily impair consumer
acceptability. Consequently, nutrient-dense alternative raw mate-
rials have frequently been used in combination with conventional
GF flours and starches (rice flour and starch, maize flour and starch,
and potato, cassava and wheat starches) in composite GFB formu-
lations. However, some good-quality single formulations have also
been developed.
Various approaches have been applied to develop and improve
the physical properties of GFB based on single formulations made
with whole grain maize, oat, and rice flours. The inclusion of oats in
GF products has been controversial for years because although this
ingredient can improve a product's quality and diversify the GF diet,
it may contain gluten. Therefore, the allowance of pure oat in GF
products is determined by each nation's labeling regulations.
Interesting results were obtained by Brites et al. (2010), who
developed a GF “broa” bread formulation based on whole yellow
maize flour, which presents no significant differences compared
with the sensory characteristics of maize- and wheat-based tradi-
tional broa in a paired preference test. Kim and Yokoyama (2011)
developed a formulation of all-oat breads with the addition of 5%
HPMC (fwb). Oat-based GF bread contains 1% b-glucan and has
received sensory scores ranging from 4.3 to 5.1 on a 7-point he-
donic scale, with no acceptability difference compared with that of
whole wheat bread. Interesting results were recently reported by
Cornejo et al. (2015), who investigated the effects of different
germination times (0, 12, 24 and 48 h) of brown rice flour on the
nutritional quality of brown rice flour-based GFB. The results show
that germination for 48 h enhances the nutritional quality of GFB by
increasing the protein, lipid and bioactive compound contents (c-
aminobutyric acid and polyphenols), increasing the antioxidant
activity and reducing the phytic acid content and in vitro enzymatic
hydrolysis of starch.
Studies of composite GFB formulations have shown promising
results regarding the physical properties of GF dough and bread
when using up to 70% sorghum flour in combination with corn,
potato, rice, or cassava starches (Onyango et al., 2011; Schober et al.,
2005).
Some researchers have investigated the feasibility of using
pseudocereals in GF breadmaking. Alvarez-Jubete et al. (2009a,
2009b, 2010a, 2010b) replaced potato starch with amaranth,
buckwheat, or quinoa flour in a control formulation with 50% rice
flour and 50% potato starch. These pseudocereals increased the
protein, fiber, calcium, iron, vitamin E, and polyphenol contents and
the in vitro antioxidant activity of GFB. The GFBs containing pseu-
docereals presented a softer crumb texture and darker crust and
crumb colors. However, no significant differences were observed
between the acceptability scores of the pseudocereal breads and
the control GFB, which resulted in medium acceptability (scores
ranging between approximately 2 and 3 on a 6-cm scale) (Alvarez-
Jubete et al., 2010c).
In the production of acceptable GFB, researchers have reported
good results with rice-based composite flour that was made of up
to 50% buckwheat (Alvarez-Jubete et al., 2010c; Torbica et al., 2010)
and with corn starch-based flour composed of up to 40% buckwheat
flour (Wronkowska et al., 2010). These levels increased the nutri-
tion and antioxidant compounds and the antioxidant capacity of
GFB.
Marciniak-Lukasiak and Skrzypacz (2008) reported good results
when adding 10% amaranth flour to the total GFB mass, which
increased the nutrient contents and resulted in approximately 50%
consumer acceptability. Lemos et al. (2012) also observed the best
results in a cheese bread with a mixture containing 10% amaranth
flour, which increased the DF and iron contents and maintained the
same level of acceptance as that of the control formulation (for a
score of 6.8 on a 9-point hedonic scale). Interesting results were
also found by de la Barca et al. (2010), who prepared 100% amaranth
GFB with different ratios of popped and raw amaranth flour. The
best formulation contained 60% popped amaranth flour and 40%
raw amaranth flour, which produced breads with a homogeneous
crumb and a higher volume.
Legume flours have also been investigated in GFB formulations,
and promising technological and sensory results have been ach-
ieved in composite formulations with soy, chickpea, carob germ,
and vinal (Minarro et al., 2012). Further research should evaluate
the acceptability and compositions of these breads. Tsatsaragkou
et al. (2012) observed that the addition of 15% carob germ to a
rice-based GFB formulation resulted in a product with good phys-
ical properties that was enriched with DF (6.1%) and protein (8.4%)
and was a source of some minerals. Interesting results were re-
ported by Shin et al. (2013), who developed a 100% soybean GFB.
Bread made with heat-treated soy flour (steaming or roasting) was
perceived to have a less beany aroma and taste than a GFB made
with non-heat-treated flour (germination).
Other alternative flours have been investigated, and promising
results have been achieved with seeds and nuts. Costantini et al.
(2014) replaced common and tartary buckwheat flour with 10%
whole chia flour and observed an improvement in the protein,
lipids, DF, ash, a-linolenic acid, and phenolic compound contents,
and the antioxidant capacity of the formulations. Steffolani et al.
(2014) observed that the replacement of rice flour with 15%
whole chia flour or 15% chia seeds diminished the GFB physical
properties but did not reduce the medium overall acceptability (for
scores of approximately 5, indicating neither like nor dislike, on a 9-
point hedonic scale). Demirkesen et al. (2010, 2013) studied the
 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91 85

potential use of chestnut and tigernut flours in GFB composite
formulations by mixing different ratios of these flours with rice
flour. Breads with good physical properties were produced with
mixes of rice flour with 10 and 20% tigernut flour, and rice flour
with 30% chestnut flour.
Interesting results have been achieved by incorporating fruit-
and vegetable-based ingredients, such as raisin juice (Sabanis et al.,
2008), extracts from green kiwifruit puree (Sun-Waterhouse et al.,
2009), and by-products, such as defatted strawberry and black
currant seeds (Korus et al., 2012), and orange pomace (O'Shea et al.,
2013) into GFB formulas, resulting in acceptable products with
improved nutritional compositions. Sarawong et al. (2014) added
30% unripe banana flour to a blend of rice flour and wheat starch to
improve the RS content of their GFB. These authors explained the
importance of the water content, baking temperature and baking
time to achieve GFB with satisfying physical properties and the
highest RS retention levels.
So far, much of this research has focused on developing single or
composite flour GFB formulas by testing different ratios and
assessing quality parameters for dough and bread. Little work has
been performed on defining and optimizing the alternative raw
material levels based on statistical approaches. This type of work
could help when designing GF formulas that yield GFBs with
improved nutritional quality and sensory profiles.
In our research group, we are using mixture design experiments
to optimize GFB formulations based on non-gluten cereals, pseu-
docereals, legumes and other raw materials. A simplex-centroid
design for mixtures of three ingredients was used to evaluate the
effects of rice flour, potato starch, and nutrient-dense alternative
flour, as well as their interactions, on GFB physical properties and
sensory acceptability. The maximum level (component
proportion ¼ 100%) of each of these ingredients was 100% of the
flour mixture, 35.8% of the dough and 41% of the baked loaf. Opti-
mized formulations were defined on the basis of the RSM to achieve
alternative flour levels that could be used in a GFB formulation with
high consumer acceptability.
Capriles and Are ^as (2010) were the first to use a mixture design
to optimize a GFB formulation. The optimized GFB (formulation 1:
33.3% rice flour, 33.3% potato starch, and 33.3% amaranth flour; and
formulation 2: 40% rice flour, 15% potato starch, and 45% amaranth
flour) presented high fiber contents (23.4 and 25% db, respectively)
and were sensory-accepted (overall acceptances of 7.4 and 6.6,
respectively, on a 9-point hedonic scale). Information regarding the
effects of amaranth levels on the predicted GR of GFB is provided in
the fourth section of this review.
The results of the recent mixture design experiments showed
that it is possible to produce a GFB with a single formulation based
on unripe banana flour, whole flours derived from buckwheat,
chickpea and sorghum (unpublished results). However, mixing
those alternative flours with rice flour and/or potato starch en-
hances the product's quality and acceptance. A GFB with good
physical properties and sensory acceptance (with appearance, co-
lor, aroma, texture, flavor and overall acceptability scores that are
higher than 7.0 on a 10-cm hybrid hedonic scale) could be prepared
with 15e65% unripe banana flour, 55e75% buckwheat flour, up to
96% sorghum flour, and up to 100% chickpea flour (fwb).
Table 1 presents the sensory acceptability scores of optimized
GFB formulations containing nutrient-dense alternative raw ma-
terials, and their comparison with white GF and wheat-containing
counterparts. White GFBs were prepared with 100% rice flour and
with a 50% rice flour and 50% potato starch blend (fwb). The GFB
formulations differ only in the flour mixture composition. Two
wheat flour bread formulations were prepared, a standard wheat
bread (AACC International, 2010) and an adapted formulation
prepared with the same ingredient proportions as the GFB, except
for the GF flours and hydrocolloids, which are replaced by wheat
flour and the appropriate addition of water.
These new GFB formulations present physical properties that
are slightly different from those of the two white GFBs. All GFBs
present a lower specific volume and higher crumb firmness and
moisture than their wheat-containing counterparts (unpublished
data). In Fig. 1, it is easy to observe the influence of alternative raw
materials on the GFB appearance. However, these new GFBs present
high consumer acceptability, with no difference in acceptability
scores compared with white GFBs and standard wheat bread,
except for GFB prepared with 64% buckwheat flour, which present
lower acceptability scores for color. The adapted wheat bread
formulation, which includes eggs and milk, had a higher texture
and global acceptance score than the standard formulation. No
differences in the aroma and taste scores were found between GF
and wheat breads. GFBs prepared with sorghum or chickpea pre-
sent high acceptability scores, similar to those of their wheat-based
counterparts.
These results show that it is possible to use a high proportion of
nutrient-dense alternative flour (64e75% fwb) to develop well-
accepted GFB that can also be expected to produce a nutritionally
superior product comparable to conventional ones. The proximate
composition and shelf life of these breads are under evaluation.
3. Nutritional and functional ingredients
Ingredients such as DFs, proteins and micronutrients have been
used in GFB to improve nutrition and bioactivity. Dietary fibers are
the most widely studied nutritional and functional ingredients in
GFB. In some formulas, DFs also improve the physical and sensory
qualities, shelf-life, and nutritional composition of bread. Notably,

Table 1
Sensory acceptability scores of optimized gluten-free bread formulations containing nutrient-dense alternative flours, and their comparison with white gluten-free and wheat-
containing counterparts.

Base flours used for bread production Acceptability scores

Appearance Color Aroma Texture Taste Overall

65% unripe banana flour þ 23% potato starch þ 12% rice flour 7.6b ± 1.9 7.6bc ± 2.0 8.0a ± 1.8 7.7ab ± 1.8 7.5a ± 2.2 7.6 b ± 2.0
64% whole buckwheat flour þ 36% potato starch 7.5 b ± 1.6 7.1c ± 1.8 7.8a ± 1.7 7.6 b ± 1.7 7.6a ± 1.9 7.6 b ± 1.7
67% whole sorghum flour þ 33% potato starch 8.3ab ± 1.5 8.2ab ± 1.5 8.7ab ± 1.4 8.3ab ± 1.6 8.4a ± 1.5 8.3ab ± 1.4
75% whole chickpea flour þ 25% potato starch 8.7a ± 1.4 8.6ab ± 1.4 8.1a ± 1.8 8.0ab ± 1.8 8.1a ± 1.7 8.2ab ± 1.4
50% rice flour þ 50% potato starch 8.5ab ± 1.9 8.2ab ± 2.0 8.2a ± 1.8 7.8ab ± 2.1 7.9a ± 2.0 7.9ab ± 1.8
100% rice flour 8.3ab ± 1.9 8.4ab ± 1.8 8.0a ± 1.8 7.6b ± 1.8 7.9a ± 1.7 7.9ab ± 1.7
100% wheat flour e standard 8.4ab ± 1.9 8.3a ± 1.8 8.0a ± 2.1 7.6b ± 2.1 8.1a ± 1.9 7.9b ± 1.8
100% wheat flour e adapted 9.0a ± 1.2 9.1a ± 1.2 8.5a ± 1.9 8.8a ± 1.5 8.6a ± 1.6 8.9a ± 1.3

Values are means ± standard deviations (n ¼ 52) of acceptability scores on a 10-cm hybrid hedonic scale.
Values followed by a different superscript in each row are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Source: Adapted from Capriles et al. (2015), with permission from Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
86 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91

Fig. 1. Appearances of central slices of optimized gluten-free bread formulations containing nutrient-dense alternative flours, and their comparison with white gluten-free and
wheat-containing counterparts.

increasing the amount of water is usually required in bakery for-
mulations that are enriched with DFs because of the high water-
binding capacity of fibers. Increasing the amount of water allows
for the adequate dough viscosity, starch gelatinization, and protein
denaturation that are required during baking (Capriles and Are ^as,
2014).
The addition of DFs from cereals in GFB formulations has been
studied. Sabanis et al. (2009a) developed a GFB containing 3%
maize fiber, which yielded scores for color, appearance, flavor,
texture, taste, and overall acceptability ranging from 7 to 8 on a 9-
point hedonic scale. In a subsequent study, Sabanis et al. (2009b)
applied RSM to optimize the maize fiber and water levels in the
formulation. The optimal formulation contained 6.5% maize fiber
and 102.5% water (fwb) and resulted in breads with enhanced
volume and crumb softness and 5.2% DF. Phimolsiripol et al. (2012)
added 10% different fractions of rice bran to rice-based GFB and
observed improvements in the physical properties and, conse-
quently, an increase in the sensory acceptance, which increased
from 4.4 (control formulation) to 5.9e7.7 on a 10-cm scale.
Soluble fiber and RS enrichment can decrease the GR of GFB,
which is highly desirable for individuals with concomitant CD and
insulin-dependent diabetes. The functional soluble fibers inulin,
oligofructose, oat b-glucan and psyllium have been applied to
improve the technological, sensory and nutritional qualities of GFB.
Table 2 presents a summary of studies that have investigated the
effects of bioactive polysaccharide on the sensory evaluation and/or
DF content of GFB formulations.
Because ITFs and b-glucan are partly degraded during the
baking process, the quantities and molecular weights of the
remaining compounds contribute to viscosity, which is an impor-
tant factor related to functional properties that must be evaluated
(Capriles and Are ^as, 2013; Hager et al., 2011; Ronda et al., 2015). A
portion of the GFB (50 g) developed by Hager et al. (2011) contains
0.75 g b-glucan, and the GFB studied by Ronda et al. (2015) contains
0.70 g b-glucan, which can cause health effects because 3 g of b-
glucan is the suggested daily intake for reducing postprandial

Table 2
Summary of studies that have investigated the effects of bioactive polysaccharide on the sensory evaluation and/or dietary fiber content of gluten-free bread formulations.

Bioactive polysaccharide Effects on some gluten-free bread properties References

(best level reported)
Sensory evaluation Dietary fiber content

Inulin (5% replacing starch)
Inulin-type fructans mixture
50% inulin þ 50% oligofructose (28% fwb)
Oat b-glucan (5.6% fwb)
Oat b-glucan (3.9% fwb)
Psyllium (3% fwb)
Corn resistant starch (20% replacing starch)
^as (2014), with permission from John Wiley and Sons.
Source: Adapted from Capriles and Are
Class I (the highest quality) 1.5% inulin (Korus et al., 2006)
Enhance sensory overall acceptability score from 5.4 8% ITFs, 11% total dietary fiber (Capriles and Are^as, 2013)
(control bread) to 7.0 on a 9-point hedonic scale
e 1.5% b-glucan (Hager et al., 2011)
e 1.4% b-glucan (Ronda et al., 2015)
Sensory overall acceptability score of 6.6 on a 7-point e (Zandonadi et al., 2009)
hedonic scale. 100% overall acceptability (scores 5)
by celiacs and non-celiacs.
e 6.3% dietary fiber (Korus et al., 2009)
 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91
serum glucose and cholesterol levels. A portion of the GFB (50 g)
developed by Capriles and Are ^as (2013) contains 4 g of ITFs, which
can provide health effects similar to those of prebiotics and can
enhance calcium absorption. A prebiotic effect has been observed
with an intake of 5e8 g of ITFs per day, whereas calcium absorption
enhancement was obtained by ingesting 8 g of an ITFs mixture per
day. Information regarding the effects of ITFs on GR of GFB is pro-
vided in the fourth section of this article. Notable results were
obtained by Zandonadi et al. (2009), who developed a fiber-
enriched GFB that was well-accepted by celiac and non-celiac
suffers (Table 2).
Proteins have been used to improve the physical, sensory and
nutritional properties of GFB. Proteins are primarily used to build
up a network that can mimic some of gluten's properties,
improving the rheological and baking properties of the dough and
the structural, sensory, and shelf-life characteristics of GFB. The
most common protein sources in use are dairy, eggs, legumes, and
cereals. Allergy or (lactose) intolerance issues must be considered
before developing, recommending, or consuming protein-enriched
GF products (Capriles and Are ^as, 2014).
Some studies have demonstrated the potential use of DF/RS in
combination with proteins to improve the GFB quality.
Tsatsaragkou et al. (2014) applied an RSM to optimize the RS,
protein, carob flour and water contents that were added to a rice
flour-based formulation. The optimum formulation for obtaining
GFB with low crumb firmness and improved porosity values was
achieved by combining 15% carob flour, 15% RS, 10% protein and
140% water (fwb). Kittisuban et al. (2014) used RSM to define the
optimum HPMC, yeast b-glucan, and whey protein isolate levels in
a rice-based GFB formulation, considering comparable physical
properties in wheat bread. The optimal formulation contained
4.35% HPMC, 1% b-glucan, and 0.37% whey protein (fwb). This
product had a well-accepted color (with a score of 7.1 on a 9-point
hedonic scale), with no observed differences compared with the
characteristics of wheat bread (score 6.8). However, this product
presented moderate acceptability scores for texture, taste and
overall acceptability (the scores ranged from 5.3 to 5.7), which are
lower than the scores for wheat bread (the scores ranged from 6.8
to 7.4).
People who are undergoing GF diet treatment could be at risk of
mineral and vitamin deficiencies because of the low micronutrient
contents in GF products. These products are frequently made by
using refined GF raw materials and are generally not fortified like
their wheat-based counterparts, which assume a central role in
many national fortification programs. Therefore, studying and
optimizing the conditions of GFB fortification are important for
defining the compounds that provide the best results while also
considering the sensory and technological quality, bioavailability
and economy feasibility.
Research has been performed to define an iron or calcium
compound that can be adequately absorbed and does not impair
the sensory quality of GFB. Kiskini et al. (2007) used different iron
compounds to fortify amaranth-based GFB. These authors observed
that the most acceptable products were those fortified with ferric
pyrophosphate (trained panelists gave an overall quality score of
6.3 on a 10-cm scale) and ferric pyrophosphate (overall quality
score of 5.7). These scores were higher than those of the control
bread (overall quality score of 5.1). Details of the in vitro-predicted
bioavailability assay are provided in the fourth section of this
article. In a subsequent study, Kiskini et al. (2012) compared the
effects of different iron compounds on the physical and sensory
characteristics of iron-fortified GFB (40 mg/kg solid compound).
These authors observed that the addition of ferric pyrophosphate
and NaFeEDTA caused undesirable changes in the bread, such as a
dark crust and crumb and a metallic taste. The addition of
87
electrolytic iron nearly causes no adverse changes in GFB. However,
this iron is usually poorly absorbed.
Krupa-Kozak et al. (2011) obtained significant calcium supple-
mentation in GFB with 2% calcium citrate and 1.3% calcium
citrate þ 0.7% calcium caseinate, which increased the calcium levels
from 2.2 mg/100 g in the control bread to 469 mg/100 g and
315.3 mg/100 g, respectively. Calcium-fortified GFB received a
higher overall preference score than the control bread (4.7
compared with 3.6, on a 10-scale unit). In a subsequent study,
Krupa-Kozak et al. (2012) developed a GFB formulation that was
enriched with 3.9% inulin, substituting for a similar starch level.
This formulation was fortified with different organic and nonor-
ganic calcium sources, providing an equal elementary calcium
content (0.6%). The best results were achieved with the addition of
calcium carbonate, which raised the overall acceptability of this
GFB from 5.7 to 7 (on a 9-point hedonic scale), and increased the
calcium content from 0.15 to 10.85 mg/g.
Further investigations remain required in GFB mineral fortifi-
cation. In addition, vitamins such as vitamin D and folate should
also be evaluated. So far, DFs are the only functional ingredients
studied in GFB. Other functional ingredients used in wheat-
containing products should also be incorporated into GFB formu-
lations, such as omega-3 fatty acids, probiotics, phytosterols, and
others (Capriles et al., 2015).
4. Studies of digestibility, bioaccessibility and bioavailability
This section discusses the importance of studies on digestibility,
bioaccessibility and bioavailability to understand or improve the
efficacy of GFB as a vehicle for micronutrients and bioactive com-
pounds. This topic could be important for research over the next
few years, along with short- and long-term controlled clinical trials
to investigate their potential health benefits.
Different in vitro and animal and human in vivo studies have
been developed and applied, allowing for a better understanding of
the effects of food component mechanisms on human health.
However, although in vivo feeding methods provide the most ac-
curate results, these methods are time-consuming, costly, and
related to important ethical constraints. Thus, in vitro digestion
models offer a rapid, low-cost method for studying the digestibility
and release of food components under simulated gastrointestinal
conditions and for screening samples for further in vivo studies
(Carbonell-Capella et al., 2014; Hur et al., 2011).
In vitro methods are used to assess bioaccessibility by evaluating
a food component releases from the food matrix, its transformation
during digestion conditions and/or assimilation through the
epithelium. In vivo methods are used to study bioavailability by
assessing gastrointestinal digestion, absorption, metabolism, tissue
distribution and bioactivity (Carbonell-Capella et al., 2014). Di-
gestibility refers to the fraction of food components that is trans-
formed by digestion into potentially accessible material through
physicochemical processes that occur in the lumen, which can be
assessed by in vivo or in vitro methods (Carbonell-Capella et al.,
2014).
Recognizing that none of the in vitro methods will absolutely
predict how much of a specific nutrient or bioactive compound will
be absorbed and used in the human body is important because
metabolic responses cannot be completely mimicked and can
determine significant differences with in vivo procedures. Notably,
some in vitro procedures have yet to be validated against human
absorption data. In addition, in vitro method protocols exhibit
considerable differences that result in difficult comparisons
(Carbonell-Capella et al., 2014; Hur et al., 2011). In recognizing
these limitations, in vitro studies could be an interesting tool for
scientific research, enabling a better understanding of the
88 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91
digestibility and bioavailability of GFB.
This section presents some examples of the studies that have
applied nutrient-dense alternative raw materials and/or nutritional
and functional ingredients in the formulation of GFB and have
evaluated the potential health benefits of these products through
in vivo trials or in vitro studies that have estimated the in vivo re-
sponses. To the best of our knowledge, the only health effect of GFB
evaluation with human volunteers has been the GR.
4.1. Approaches to reduce the glycemic response to gluten-free
bread
Because CD is associated with a high incidence of type I (insulin-
dependent) diabetes mellitus, the maintenance of a good glycemic
control with adherence to a strict GF diet is an important task for
individuals with concomitant CD and insulin-dependent diabetes.
Nevertheless, information about the GR of GF food is scarce.
The GI and the resulting GL have been used as tools to compare
and classify foods according to their postprandial GR. The GI is
defined as the indexing of the GR to a fixed amount of available
carbohydrates from a test food to the same amount of available
carbohydrates from a reference food (glucose or white bread) when
consumed by the same subject (Jenkins et al., 1981). The GL is
calculated as the product of the amount of available carbohydrates
in a specified serving size and the GI value (when considering
glucose as the reference food), and then divided by 100 (Atkinson
et al., 2008). In using glucose as a standard food, the GI of food
can be classified into low (55), medium (56e69), and high (70);
and the GL can be classified into low (10), medium (11e19), and
high (20) (Atkinson et al., 2008).
Table 3 summarizes the existing research about the effects of
nutrient-dense alternative raw materials, functional ingredients
and technological approaches on the GI and GL of GFB.
These results demonstrated that 8% ITFs enrichment decreased
the GR of GFB, resulting in a low-GI and low-GL product that
combined high acceptability and a physiologically significant sup-
ply of prebiotic soluble DF (Capriles and Are^as, 2013). In a subse-
quent study, Capriles and Are^as (2010) incorporated 33.3% and 45%
of whole amaranth flour into the previously developed 8% ITFs-
enriched GFB formulation, which reduced the available carbohy-
drate content and the GL. Amaranth flour levels were defined by the
mixture design, as explained in the second section. Novotni et al.
(2012) investigated the influence of sourdough addition on GI
and quality parameters of GFB that had been partially-baked and
frozen. Sourdough was fermented with a commercial Lactobacillus
fermentum starter. The addition of 15 and 22.5% sourdough to the
formulation significantly reduced the GI and also increased the
volume and crumb softness and delayed crumb firming. The re-
searchers concluded that the combined application of sourdough
Table 3
Approaches to reduce the glycemic response to gluten-free breads (data obtained from glycemic index trials with human volunteers).
Gluten-free bread
- Control bread (prepared with rice flour and potato starch blend)
- Bead enriched with 8% ITFs
- Bread enriched with 8% ITFs, containing 33.3% amaranth flour
- Bread enriched with 8% ITFs, containing 45% amaranth flour
- Control bread (enriched with inulin, partially-baked frozen bread) 97.1
- Bread prepared with 15% of sourdough
- Bread prepared with 22.5% of sourdough
a
The conversion factor 70/100 was used to convert from bread to the glucose scale, and 100/70 was used to convert from glucose to the bread scale according to Atkinson
et al. (2008).
Source: Capriles et al. (2015), with permission from Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
and par-baking and freezing technologies could decrease the GI and
improve the GFB quality and shelf-life.
Because of the cost and the labor-intensive and time-consuming
procedures associated with GI evaluation in humans, in vitro
methods have been developed for estimating the GR of foods. These
methods are based on the rate of available carbohydrate digestion,
which refers to the percentage of available carbohydrate that is
hydrolyzed after 90e180 min of incubation, depending on the
protocol in use. The HI was then derived from the ratio between the
area under the hydrolysis curve of the tested and the reference food
(wheat white bread) over the same period. A reference material
assay (reference food, analytical standard or in-house reference
material), together with the tested food, must be performed for
internal quality control (Capriles et al., 2015). This HI was found to
be a good predictor of the GR from food ingestion and was highly
correlated with the GI in vivo. The predicted GI (pGI) was estimated
by using the equation established by Gon ~ i et al. (1997) as follows:
pGI ¼ 39.71 þ 0.549HI, with a reported correlation coefficient of
r ¼ 0.89, P < 0.05. Researchers also use the equation described by
Granfeldt et al. (1992), which is pGI ¼ 8.198 þ 0.862HI.
Table 4 summarizes the research on the in vitro predicted GR of
GFB.
Segura and Rosell (2011) observed high pGI values in commer-
cial GFB. Capriles and Are^as (2013) observed a high pGI following
the ingestion of control GFB, and it was similar to that of wheat
white bread. These data suggest that 8% ITFs enrichment reduced
the pGI by 10% and the pGL by 14%. Nevertheless, the in vivo re-
ductions were approximately triple the expected reductions based
on in vitro analysis (Tables 3 and 4).
Wolter et al. (2013) evaluated the in vitro starch digestibility of
basic GFB formulations that were prepared with single flours, and
all products were categorized into high GI (70) and low GL (10).
These authors reported that smaller starch granules resulted in a
higher pGI because enzymatic hydrolysis is facilitated by smaller
starch granules. These authors also explained that the presence of
DF and hydrocolloids might influence the in vitro starch di-
gestibility in the commercial sample. In a subsequent study, Wolter
et al. (2014) investigated the potential of sourdough application to
reduce the pGI of the aforementioned GFB recipes. The predicted
GIs were reduced upon sourdough addition in wheat, sorghum and
teff breads compared with that of the control (no sourdough
added). By contrast, increased pGIs were found in quinoa and
buckwheat sourdough breads. In addressing sourdough-containing
GFB, these authors explained that the influence of the flour and the
type of lactic acid bacterium strain must be considered for further
development of low GI products.
de la Hera et al. (2014) assessed the effects of the rice flour
particle size (fine and coarse) and dough hydration level on the
physical properties and the pGI of GFB. The pGI values ranged from
Glycemic indexa Glycemic indexa Serve Available Glycemic References
(bread ¼ 100) (glucose ¼ 100) size (g) carbohydrates load per
(g/serving) serving
100.9 70.6 50 17.7 12.5 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2013)
68.5 47.9 50 16.9 8.1 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2013)
78.4 54.8 50 13.6 7.5 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2010)
81.7 57.2 50 10.3 5.9 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2010)
68 e e e (Novotni et al., 2012)
74.3 52 e e e (Novotni et al., 2012)
77.1 54 e e e (Novotni et al., 2012)
 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91 89

Table 4
Summary of the research on the in vitro predicted glycemic response of gluten-free bread.

Gluten-free bread (GFB) HIa pGIa,b pGIa,b pGLb per 50 g References

(bread ¼ 100) (bread ¼ 100) (glucose ¼ 100) serving

- 11 commercial GFB 87e102 83e96 58e67 e (Segura and Rosell, 2011)

- Reference sample (white wheat bread) 100 95 66 20 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2013)
- Control GFB (prepared with rice flour and potato starch blend) 97 93 65 12 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2013)
- GFB enriched with 8% ITFS 81 84 59 10 (Capriles and Are ^as, 2013)
- Reference sample (white wheat bread) e 100 70 13 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Basic GFB prepared with buckwheat flour 73 80 56 8 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Basic GFB prepared with oat flour 58 71 50 9 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Basic GFB prepared with quinoa flour 100 95 66 9 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Basic GFB prepared with sorghum flour 59 72 50 10 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Basic GFB prepared with teff flour 62 74 52 8 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Commercial GFB 54 69 48 7 (Wolter et al., 2013)
- Wheat bread þ sourdough with Weissella cibaria (Wc) 82 85 59 11 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Wheat bread þ sourdough with Lactobacillus plantarum (Lp) 65 76 53 10 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with buckwheat flour þ sourdough with Wc 90 89 62 11 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with buckwheat flour þ sourdough with Lp 84 86 60 10 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with quinoa flour þ sourdough with Wc 121 106 74 9 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with quinoa flour þ sourdough with Lp 116 103 72 9 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with sorghum flour þ sourdough with Wc 76 81 57 12 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with sorghum flour þ sourdough with Lp 54 69 48 10 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with teff flour þ sourdough with Wc 81 84 59 9 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- Basic GFB prepared with teff flour þ sourdough with Lp 51 68 48 8 (Wolter et al., 2014)
- GFB prepared with rice flour þ 70% water (fwb) 92 87 61 e (de la Hera et al., 2014)
- GFB prepared with rice flour þ 90% water (fwb) 97 92 64 e (de la Hera et al., 2014)
- GFB prepared with rice flour þ 100% water (fwb) 98 93 65 e (de la Hera et al., 2014)
- GFB prepared with raw brown rice 60 60 42 e (Cornejo et al., 2015)
- GFB prepared with pre-germinated brown rice 57 57 40 e (Cornejo et al., 2015)
- GFB prepared with 12 h germinated brown rice 47 49 34 e (Cornejo et al., 2015)
- GFB prepared with 24 h germinated brown rice 46 48 34 e (Cornejo et al., 2015)
- GFB prepared with 48 h germinated brown rice 34 38 27 e (Cornejo et al., 2015)
a
HI ¼ hydrolysis index; pGI ¼ predicted glycemic index; pGL ¼ predicted glycemic load. Values were compiled from the references.
b
The conversion factor 70/100 was used to convert from bread to the glucose scale, and 100/70 was used to convert from glucose to the bread scale (Atkinson et al., 2008).
Source: Adapted from Capriles et al. (2015), with permission from Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

61 to 65 (medium GI), and although the particle size did not affect
that index, the added water content did. The lowest dough hydra-
tion not only limited starch gelatinization and hindered in vitro
starch digestibility but also resulted in GFB with poor physical
properties.
Cornejo et al. (2015) investigated the effects of the different
germination times of brown rice flour on the nutritional quality of
brown rice flour-based GFB. In viewing the results of the in vitro
starch digestibility assay, soaking (pre-germination) and germina-
tion can be observed to reduce the HI and pGI of GFB. This effect
was more accentuated after 48 h of germination, leading to GFB
with low pGI (27). These authors explained that the reduction in
the predicted GR might be associated with internal structural
changes in the starch granules during germination, indicating that
germination could lead to less accessible or more RS granules.
Tables 3 and 4 present the promising results from different
approaches to produce a GFB with a low GR due to an increase in DF
and protein contents, which can alter the rate of starch digestion,
reducing the pGI and diluting the amount of available carbohy-
drate; both factors contributed to reduce the pGL.
4.2. Approaches to improve mineral bioavailability
The only study found in this field was that conducted by Kiskini
et al. (2007), who used different iron compounds to fortify
amaranth-based GFB. These authors use a ferrous iron dialyzability
method to provide information regarding the chemical behavior of
the iron fortificant compounds in GFB digested in vitro. This method
was found to be a good predictor of iron bioavailability, based on
correlation with iron uptake by cells and with iron absorption by
humans. These authors tested a series of iron compounds and
observed that GFB fortified with ferric pyrophosphate with
emulsifiers, NaFeEDTA, ferrous bis-glycinate, ferrous gluconate or
ferrous sulfate presented higher ferrous dialyzable iron than breads
fortified with electrolytic iron, ferrous lactate or ferric pyrophos-
phate. The best result, considering the highest sensory acceptability
score and predicted in vitro bioavailability, was achieved with the
fortification with ferric pyrophosphate.
Another promising approach was that of Krupa-Kozak et al.
(2012), who developed a sensory-accepted GFB enriched with
inulin (3.9 g/100 g) and fortified with calcium (108.5 mg/100 g)
because ITFs could improve calcium absorption.
5. Conclusions and future prospects
The promising results of the reviewed studies indicate the great
potential of GFB that is prepared with nutrient-dense alternative
raw materials, nutritional and functional ingredients, and their
combinations. Some of those products were acceptable and pre-
sented similar or better sensory attributes than control formula-
tions, and some were even comparable to their wheat-based
counterparts.
Efforts should be made to apply some of these promising ap-
proaches to commercial products to make GFB with good techno-
logical, sensory and nutritional properties available to consumers
with gluten-related disorders. These products are extremely
important for assisting with individual adherence to a strict GF diet
treatment, increasing social inclusion, and improving the quality of
life.
Furthermore, new studies should be performed to test and
optimize the nutrient-dense alternative raw materials and nutri-
tional and functional ingredient levels of GFB formulations by
considering their nutritional, sensory and technological properties
as well as shelf-life. Food scientists and technologists should assess
90 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91
the proximal composition and the nutrient and bioactive com-
pounds in enriched/fortified GFB formulations to evaluate whether
the target values were achieved and to define adequate dosage
levels. Studies regarding digestibility, bioaccessibility and
bioavailability could be performed on those specially designed
formulas, recognizing the limitations of in vitro studies discussed in
this review (Capriles et al., 2015). Another topic for further inves-
tigation is short- and long-term controlled clinical trials to inves-
tigate or improve the efficacy of these improved GFBs as vehicles of
micronutrients and bioactive compounds as well as their potential
health benefits (e.g., formulations enriched with functional in-
gredients, such as b-glucan or ITFs, as well as products enriched
with calcium and iron).
To date, little work has been performed on the mineral fortifi-
cation of GFB. No studies about vitamin fortification were retrieved.
Mineral and vitamin fortifications and the investigation of their
efficacies are important tasks in GF research. These approaches are
very important for assisting people with CD and other gluten-
related disorders so they can consume adequate daily amounts of
important nutrients (Capriles et al., 2015).
Another key aspect is the improvement of nutrient and bioactive
compound bioaccessibility. Certain processing techniques could be
considered to favor compounds from the food matrix and increase
the uptake of minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals, such as
sourdough fermentation (Gobbetti et al., 2014) and the germination
of GF grains (Cornejo et al., 2015).
GI evaluation in humans and in vitro predicted GI are new ap-
proaches in GF research. Further studies could evaluate alternative
GF flours, soluble fibers, RS, and exopolysaccharides that are pro-
duced by sourdough lactic acid bacteria, hydrocolloids, and other
factors that affect the GR of different types of GFB.
In short, the potential health benefits of GFB that have improved
with nutritional and bioactive compounds will only occur if the
products are tasty and accepted by consumers. Thus, considering
the sensory quality and consumer acceptance evaluation during
GFB research is essential. Because of inherent difficulties, few
studies have performed consumer tests with celiac patients or
other individuals with gluten-related disorders. However, this
approach is important for verifying whether the developed product
meets the requirements of these consumers (Capriles et al., 2015).
Studying and improving the GFB quality and shelf-life, most
likely by using additives and technological approaches, is also
important. Microbiological and sensory analyses should also be
performed together with physicochemical methods during shelf-
life studies, allowing for an evaluation of the feasibility of
improved GFB on the food market.
Despite the limited food data about the composition of GF
products, studies have shown that the reformulation of some
commercial GF products is required to reduce their levels of fat,
saturated and trans fatty acids, cholesterol and sodium (Miranda
et al., 2014), despite the need for improvements in micronutrient,
protein and DF contents. Increasing the variety of safe, better-
tasting and healthier GF products is important for helping those
individuals who must face the daily challenges imposed by a strict
GF diet treatment.
Author Contributions
^as designed the study. F. Santos collected
V. Capriles and J.A. Are
the test data and analyzed and interpreted them together with V.
Capriles, who wrote the paper under the supervision of J.A. Are ^as.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grant (2012/17838-4) from S~
ao
Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). Special thanks to Camilly F.
Pereira and Denise G. Muniz for help in baking and other laboratory
tasks. Authors also thank Nova Science Publishers, Inc for permis-
sion to reuse parts of the book chapter Capriles et al. (2015).
Innovative approaches to improve nutritional and bioactive com-
pounds of grain-based gluten-free products. In: Langdon, R. (Ed.),
Gluten-free diets: Food sources, role in celiac disease and health
benefits. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, Hauppauge, NY, pp. 67e116;
and John Wiley and Sons for permission to adapt Table 2.
References
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2009a. Nutritive value and chemical
composition of pseudocereals as gluten-free ingredients. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr.
60, 240e257.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Holse, M., Hansen, A., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2009b. Impact of
baking on vitamin E content of pseudocereals amaranth, quinoa, and buck-
wheat. Cereal Chem. 86, 511e515.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2010a. Nutritive value of pseudocereals
and their increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 21, 106e113.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Wijngaard, H., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2010b. Polyphenol
composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat
and wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chem. 119, 770e778.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Auty, M., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2010c. Baking properties and
microstructure of pseudocereal flours in gluten-free bread formulations. Eur.
Food Res. Technol. 230, 437e445.
American Association of Cereal Chemists, 2010. Approved Methods of AACC.
Method 10e10.03, 11th ed. AACCI, The Association, S. Paul, Minnesota.
Atkinson, F., Foster-Powell, K., Brand-Miller, J., 2008. International tables of glyce-
mic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care 31, 2281e2283.
Brites, C., Trigo, M., Santos, C., Collar, C., Rosell, C., 2010. Maize-based gluten-free
bread: influence of processing parameters on sensory and instrumental qual-
ity. Food Bioprocess Technol. 3, 707e715.
Brouns, F., van Buul, V., Shewry, P., 2013. Does wheat make us fat and sick? J. Cereal
Sci. 58, 209e215.
Capriles, V., Are ^as, J.A., 2013. Effects of prebiotic inulin-type fructans on structure,
quality, sensory acceptance and glycemic response of gluten-free breads. Food
Funct. 4, 104e110.
Capriles, V., Are ^as, J.A., 2010. Optimization of nutritional and sensory quality of
amaranth based gluten-free bread using response surface methodology. Cereal
Foods World 55, A40eA41.
Capriles, V., Are ^as, J.A., 2014. Novel approaches in gluten-free breadmaking: inter-
face between food science, nutrition and health. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.
13, 871e890.
Capriles, V., Santos, F., Reis, E., Pereira, C., 2015. Innovative approaches to improve
nutritional and bioactive compounds of grain-based gluten-free products. In:
Langdon, R. (Ed.), Gluten-free Diets: Food Sources, Role in Celiac Disease and
Health Benefits. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York, pp. 67e116.
Carbonell-Capella, J., Buniowska, M., Barba, F., Esteve, M., Frigola, A., 2014. Analytical
methods for determining bioavailability and bioaccessibility of bioactive com-
pounds from fruits and vegetables: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13,
155e171.
Cornejo, F., Caceres, P., Martinez-Villaluenga, C., Rosell, C., Frias, J., 2015. Effects of
germination on the nutritive value and bioactive compounds of brown rice
breads. Food Chem. 173, 298e304.
Costantini, L., Luksic, L., Molinari, R., Kreft, I., Bonafaccia, G., Manzi, L.,
Merendino, N., 2014. Development of gluten-free bread using tartary buck-
wheat and chia flour rich in flavonoids and omega-3 fatty acids as ingredients.
Food Chem. 165, 232e240.
de la Barca, A., Rojas-Martinez, M., Islas-Rubio, A., Cabrera-Chavez, F., 2010. Gluten-
free breads and cookies of raw and popped amaranth flours with attractive
technological and nutritional qualities. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 65, 241e246.
de la Hera, E., Rosell, C., Gomez, M., 2014. Effect of water content and flour particle
size on gluten-free bread quality and digestibility. Food Chem. 151, 526e531.
Demirkesen, I., Mert, B., Sumnu, G., Sahin, S., 2010. Utilization of chestnut flour in
gluten-free bread formulations. J. Food Eng. 101, 329e336.
Demirkesen, I., Sumnu, G., Sahin, S., 2013. Quality of gluten-free bread formulations
baked in different ovens. Food Bioprocess Technol. 6, 746e753.
do Nascimento, A., Fiates, G., dos Anjos, A., Teixeira, E., 2013. Analysis of ingredient
lists of commercially available gluten-free and gluten-containing food products
using the text mining technique. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 64, 217e222.
do Nascimento, A., Fiates, G.M.R., Anjos, A.D., Teixeira, E., 2014. Gluten-free is not
enough e perception and suggestions of celiac consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr.
65, 394e398.
Gobbetti, M., Rizzello, C., Di Cagno, R., De Angelis, M., 2014. How the sourdough may
affect the functional features of leavened baked goods. Food Microbiol. 37,
30e40.
Gon~ i, I., Garcia-Alonso, A., Saura-Calixto, F., 1997. A starch hydrolysis procedure to
estimate glycemic index. Nutr. Res. 17, 427e437.
Granfeldt, Y., Bjorck, I., Drews, A., Tovar, J., 1992. An in vitro procedure based on
 V.D. Capriles et al. / Journal of Cereal Science 67 (2016) 83e91
chewing to predict metabolic response to starch in cereal and legume products.
Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 46, 649e660.
Hager, A., Ryan, L., Schwab, C., Ganzle, M., O'Doherty, J., Arendt, E., 2011. Influence of
the soluble fibres inulin and oat beta-glucan on quality of dough and bread. Eur.
Food Res. Technol. 232, 405e413.
Hur, S., Lim, B., Decker, E., McClements, D., 2011. In vitro human digestion models
for food applications. Food Chem. 125, 1e12.
Jenkins, D., Wolever, T., Taylor, R., Baker, H., Fielden, H., Baldwin, J., Bowling, A.,
Newman, H., Jenkins, A., Goff, D., 1981. Glycemic index of foods: a physiological
basis for carbohydrates exchange. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34, 362e366.
Kim, Y., Yokoyama, W., 2011. Physical and sensory properties of all-barley and all-
oat breads with additional hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) beta-
glucan. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 741e746.
Kinsey, L., Burden, S., Bannerman, E., 2008. A dietary survey to determine if patients
with coeliac disease are meeting current healthy eating guidelines and how
their diet compares to that of the British general population. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.
62, 1333e1342.
Kiskini, A., Argiri, K., Kalogeropoulos, M., Komaitis, M., Kostaropoulos, A.,
Mandala, I., Kapsokefalou, M., 2007. Sensory characteristics and iron dialyz-
ability of gluten-free bread fortified with iron. Food Chem. 102, 309e316.
Kiskini, A., Kapsokefalou, M., Yanniotis, S., Mandala, I., 2012. Effect of iron fortifi-
cation on physical and sensory quality of gluten-free bread. Food Bioprocess
Technol. 5, 385e390.
Kittisuban, P., Ritthiruangdej, P., Suphantharika, M., 2014. Optimization of hydrox-
ypropylmethylcellulose, yeast (beta-glucan, and whey protein levels based on
physical properties of gluten-free rice bread using response surface method-
ology. Lwt Food Sci. Technol. 57, 738e748.
Korus, J., Grzelak, K., Achremowicz, K., Sabat, R., 2006. Influence of prebiotic addi-
tions on the quality of gluten-free bread and on the content of inulin and
fructooligosaccharides. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 12, 489e495.
Korus, J., Juszczak, L., Ziobro, R., Witczak, M., Grzelak, K., Sojka, M., 2012. Defatted
strawberry and blackcurrant seeds as functional ingredients of gluten-free
bread. J. Texture Stud. 43, 29e39.
Korus, J., Witczak, M., Ziobro, R., Juszczak, L., 2009. The impact of resistant starch on
characteristics of gluten-free dough and bread. Food Hydrocoll. 23, 988e995.
Krupa-Kozak, U., Altamirano-Fortoul, R., Wronkowska, M., Rosell, C., 2012. Bread-
making performance and technological characteristic of gluten-free bread with
inulin supplemented with calcium salts. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 235, 545e554.
Krupa-Kozak, U., Troszynska, A., Baczek, N., Soral-Smietana, M., 2011. Effect of
organic calcium supplements on the technological characteristic and sensory
properties of gluten-free bread. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 232, 497e508.
^as, J.A., 2012. Effect of incorporation of amaranth
Lemos, A., Capriles, V., Silva, M., Are
on the physical properties and nutritional value of cheese bread. Cie ^ncia Tecnol.
Aliment. 32, 427e431.
Marciniak-Lukasiak, K., Skrzypacz, M., 2008. Gluten-free bread concentrate with
addition of amaranthus flour. Zywnosc Nauka Technol. Jakosc 15, 131e140.
Minarro, B., Albanell, E., Aguilar, N., Guamis, B., Capellas, M., 2012. Effect of legume
flours on baking characteristics of gluten-free bread. J. Cereal Sci. 56, 476e481.
Miranda, J., Lasa, A., Bustamante, M., Churruca, I., Simon, E., 2014. Nutritional dif-
ferences between a gluten-free diet and a diet containing equivalent products
with gluten. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 69, 182e187.
Novotni, D., Cukelj, N., Smerdel, B., Bituh, M., Dujmic, F., Curic, D., 2012. Glycemic
index and firming kinetics of partially baked frozen gluten-free bread with
sourdough. J. Cereal Sci. 55, 120e125.
Onyango, C., Mutungi, C., Unbehend, G., Lindhauer, M., 2011. Modification of gluten-
free sorghum batter and bread using maize, potato, cassava or rice starch. Lwt
Food Sci. Technol. 44, 681e686.
O'Shea, N., Doran, L., Auty, M., Arendt, E., Gallagher, E., 2013. The rheology, micro-
structure and sensory characteristics of a gluten-free bread formulation
91
enhanced with orange pomace. Food Funct. 4, 1856e1863.
Phimolsiripol, Y., Mukprasirt, A., Schoenlechner, R., 2012. Quality improvement of
rice-based gluten-free bread using different dietary fibre fractions of rice bran.
J. Cereal Sci. 56, 389e395.
Pszczola, D., 2012. The rise of gluten-free. Food Technol. 66, 55e66.
Ronda, F., Perez-Quirce, S., Lazaridou, A., Biliaderis, C., 2015. Effect of barley and oat
beta-glucan concentrates on gluten-free rice-based doughs and bread charac-
teristics. Food Hydrocoll. 48, 197e207.
Sabanis, D., Lebesi, D., Tzia, C., 2009a. Effect of dietary fibre enrichment on selected
properties of gluten-free bread. Lwt Food Sci. Technol. 42, 1380e1389.
Sabanis, D., Lebesi, D., Tzia, C., 2009b. Development of fibre-enriched gluten-free
bread: a response surface methodology study. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 60, 174e190.
Sabanis, D., Tzia, C., Papadakis, S., 2008. Effect of different raisin juice preparations
on selected properties of gluten-free bread. Food Bioprocess Technol. 1,
374e383.
Sapone, A., Bai, J., Ciacci, C., Dolinsek, J., Green, P., Hadjivassiliou, M., Kaukinen, K.,
Rostami, K., Sanders, D., Schumann, M., Ullrich, R., Villalta, D., Volta, U.,
Catassi, C., Fasano, A., 2012. Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on
new nomenclature and classification. BMC Med. 10, 1e12. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1741-7015-10-13.
Sarawong, C., Gutierrez, Z., Berghofer, E., Schoenlechner, R., 2014. Effect of green
plantain flour addition to gluten-free bread on functional bread properties and
resistant starch content. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 49, 1825e1833.
Schober, T., Messerschmidt, M., Bean, S., Park, S., Arendt, E., 2005. Gluten-free bread
from sorghum: quality differences among hybrids. Cereal Chem. 82, 394e404.
Segura, M., Rosell, C., 2011. Chemical composition and starch digestibility of
different gluten-free breads. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 66, 224e230.
Shin, D., Kim, W., Kim, Y., 2013. Physicochemical and sensory properties of soy
bread made with germinated, steamed, and roasted soy flour. Food Chem. 141,
517e523.
Steffolani, E., de la Hera, E., Perez, G., Gomez, M., 2014. Effect of chia (Salvia His-
panica L) addition on the quality of gluten-free bread. J. Food Qual. 37, 309e317.
Sun-Waterhouse, D., Chen, J., Chuah, C., Wibisono, R., Melton, L., Laing, W.,
Ferguson, L., Skinner, M., 2009. Kiwifruit-based polyphenols and related anti-
oxidants for functional foods: kiwifruit extract-enhanced gluten-free bread. Int.
J. Food Sci. Nutr. 60, 251e264.
Thompson, T., 2000. Folate, iron, and dietary fiber contents of the gluten-free diet.
J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 100, 1389e1396.
Torbica, A., Hadnadev, M., Dapcevic, T., 2010. Rheological, textural and sensory
properties of gluten-free bread formulations based on rice and buckwheat flour.
Food Hydrocoll. 24, 626e632.
Tsatsaragkou, K., Gounaropoulos, G., Mandala, I., 2014. Development of gluten free
bread containing carob flour and resistant starch. Lwt Food Sci. Technol. 58,
124e129.
Tsatsaragkou, K., Yiannopoulos, S., Kontogiorgi, A., Poulli, E., Krokida, M.,
Mandala, I., 2012. Mathematical approach of structural and textural properties
of gluten free bread enriched with carob flour. J. Cereal Sci. 56, 603e609.
Wolter, A., Hager, A., Zannini, E., Arendt, E., 2013. In vitro starch digestibility and
predicted glycaemic indexes of buckwheat, oat, quinoa, sorghum, teff and
commercial gluten-free bread. J. Cereal Sci. 58, 431e436.
Wolter, A., Hager, A., Zannini, E., Arendt, E., 2014. Influence of sourdough on in vitro
starch digestibility and predicted glycemic indices of gluten-free breads. Food
Funct. 5, 564e572.
Wronkowska, M., Zielinska, D., Szawara-Nowak, D., Troszynska, A., Soral-
Smietana, M., 2010. Antioxidative and reducing capacity, macroelements con-
tent and sensorial properties of buckwheat-enhanced gluten-free bread. Int. J.
Food Sci. Technol. 45, 1993e2000.
Zandonadi, R., Botelho, R., Araujo, W., 2009. Psyllium as a substitute for gluten in
bread. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 109, 1781e1784.