Investigation of the effect of buckwheat substitute on the quality of nutritious and healthy biscuit production

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5239736/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Investigation of the effect of buckwheat substitute on the quality of nutritious and healthy biscuit production

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5239736/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Buckwheat, a nutritious pseudocereal, offers numerous health benefits including reducing celiac disease, high blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar regulation, and cancer risk reduction. Hence, the objective of this research was to create biscuits with enhanced proximate composition, physicochemical, nutritional, and sensory characteristics of biscuits using composite flours prepared with refined soft wheat flour (RWF) -based 0% (A), 30% (B), 50% (C), 70% (D) and 100% (E) buckwheat flour (BWF). Increase in BWF substitute resulted a significant (P ≤ 0.05) increase in moisture, ash, fat, and protein content, and a decrease in carbohydrate contents of both flours and biscuits. Increasing levels of BWF led to a decrease in L* and b* color values, and an increase in a* color value and pH of both flours and biscuits. Addition of BWF to RWF decreased the thickness, diameter and hardness values of the biscuits, while increased bulk density, weight, spread ratio and textural fracturability. All biscuits with different substitution levels of BWF had resulted with acceptable sensory characteristics. All sensory evaluations were found to be high scores for control sample and decreased with BWF supplementation. The use of BWF in biscuits not only enhances their nutritional, physicochemical, and functional properties but also promotes the production of healthier biscuits.

Buckwheat

gluten-free biscuit

nutrition

quality

healthy

Biscuit is a globally popular cereal food product, enjoyed by both rural and urban populations. The product's popularity is attributed to its affordability, diverse taste, high quality, accessibility, and extended shelf life [1]. The latest trend in the bakery industry is the development of supplemented cookies or composite flour bakery products, which significantly enhance the quality of biscuits. Recent studies have explored the potential of altering biscuit ingredients and proportions to enhance their nutritional value and healthiness [2]. In recent years, the shift toward healthier diets is essential for individual well-being and global sustainability. As consumers continue to prioritize health, the food industry must adapt to meet these demands while considering environmental impact and accessibility. Incorporating these ancient grains (pseudocereals) into our diets not only diversifies our food choices but also provides a wealth of nutrients. Whether you’re looking for plant-based protein, fiber, or unique flavors, amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat are excellent options. Incorporating pseudo-cereals into our diets diversifies our nutrient intake and provides valuable health benefits. Their high-quality proteins, starch content, vitamins, and minerals make them excellent choices for those seeking nutritious alternatives to traditional grains.

Buckwheat grains are rich in complex carbohydrates, proteins, fibers, vitamins, minerals, and nutraceutical compounds, which offer health benefits like lowering blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, and cancer risk [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Studies have investigated the addition of BWF to cereal flour mixtures for baked goods and cultural foods such as pizzoccheri, noodles, pies, kasha, cakes, spaghetti, gluten-free bread, ready-to-eat snacks, vermicelli, pasta, biscuits, and crackers [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Limited research has been conducted on the quality characteristics of biscuits made with fully buckwheat flour, refined soft wheat flour, and blends. This study aimed to explore the impact of varying levels of buckwheat flour on biscuits' physio-chemical, physical, functional, textural, nutritional, and sensory characteristics, and evaluate their quality and acceptability.

Raw materials and chemicals

Soft wheat and buckwheat flour were supplied by Dayıoğlu flour factory (Gaziantep-Türkiye) and Smart Kimya company (Izmir-Türkiye), while other raw materials like powdered sugar, salt, fat, and sunflower oil were obtained from a local market. Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) supplied buffer solutions, catechin hydrate, chloroform, potassium chloride, sodium acetate, Dextrose monohydrate, sodium hydroxide, boric acid, hexane, and Kjeldahl tablets. The chemical mixture, including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, methanol, Folin & Ciocalteau's phenol reagent, potassium peroxydisulfate, tris-HCl buffer solution, Trolox, ABTS, gallic acid, Na₂CO3 and NaHCO₃, was obtained from Sigma/Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).

Biscuits preparation

Five biscuit formulations were prepared by adding BWF at the levels of 0 (A, control), 30 (B), 50 (C), 70 (D), and 100% (E). For all biscuit formulations, 100 g flour, 40 g sugar, 31 g fat, 21 g water, 1 g salt, 1.1 g dextrose monohydrate, and 1 g NaHCO₃ have been used. The dough has been prepared in a laboratory dough mixer (Artisan, Kitchenaid, USA). Firstly, powder sugar, fat and dextrose were mixed at 1 speed for 3 min, and then water with NaHCO₃ and salt added to the first mixture, evenly mixed at speed 1 speed for 2 minutes. The flour mixture was added and mixed uniformly for 5 minutes to create the dough. The dough is rolled to the desired thickness (3 mm) and cut into circular shapes of 6 cm diameter using a traditional biscuit mold (Fig. 1). The biscuit dough was baked at 190°C for 12 minutes, then cooled to 20°C and stored in an airtight container until analysis.

Determination of proximate composition and nutritional evaluation

The AACCI method was used to determine moisture (44-15.02), crude ash (08-01.01), crude fat (30-25.01), and crude protein (46-10.01, Nx5.7) content of flour and biscuit samples [26]. The total carbohydrate content was analyzed by differences. All results were expressed on a % dry solid basis. The energy value was determined using the specific coefficients of Atwater [27] (1903).

Determination of color of flours and biscuits

The color of flour and biscuit samples was determined using a Hunter Lab ColorFlex (Model No. 45/0, Mini Scan XE Plus, and Reston, Virginia, USA). CIE L*, a* and b* values of samples were measured (illuminate D65/10 as reference).

Determination of functional properties of flour samples

The bulk density (BD) of samples was determined using Falade & Christopher's [28] method. The amount of 50 g of flour was quantified and placed in a 100 ml cylinder. Then, the powdered samples were tapped thirty times. The sample volume was read. and the BD was calculated by using Eq. (1).

$$\:Bulk\:density\left(\frac{g}{ml}\right)=\frac{Weight\:of\:sample\:\left(g\right)\:}{\begin{array}{c}Volume\:of\:sample\:after\:tapping\:\left(ml\right)\\\:\:\end{array}}\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(1\right)$$

Water absorption (WAI) and solubility indices (WSI were quantified using procedure by Kadan et al. [29]. One g of flour sample was added to 10 mL of water (distilled) and placed on using vortex to be mixed for about 1 min. The slurry was warmed in a water bath and gently mixed for 30 min at 30°C. Later, the slurry at 3000 rpm centrifuged (Model, Nuve NF 1200R, Türkiye) for about 10 min. The supernatant dried in an oven at temperature of 130°C for 1 h. The sediment was separated, weighed, and WSI and WAI were determined by using Eqs. (2 and 3).

$$\:WAI\:\left(\text{g}/\text{g}\right)=\frac{weight\:af\:wet\:sediment\:\left(\text{g}\right)}{Dry\:weight\:of\:sample\:\left(\text{g}\right)}\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(2\right)$$

$$\:WSI\left(\%\right)=\frac{weight\:afdried\:supernant\:\left(g\right)\:}{Dry\:weight\:of\:sample\:\left(g\right)}*100\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(3\right)$$

Oil absorption index (OAI) of flour samples were estimated using the procedure formulated previously [30]. One g sample was added to 10 ml of sunflower oil, mixed well and centrifuged at 4100 rpm (Centrifuge Model: Nuve NF 1200r, Türkiye) for about 20 min. The extra oil was later decanted, and the remaining (absorbed oil weight) were measured and OAI was calculated by the following Eq. (4).

$$\:OAI\left(\frac{g}{g}\right)=\frac{dry\:afoil\:absorbed\:\left(\text{g}\right)\:\:\:\:}{\:weight\:of\:sample}\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(4\right)$$

The water (WAC) and oil absorption capacity (OAC) were evaluated according to Chandra et al. [31]. 25 ml of distilled water and vegetable oil was used for WAC and OAC, respectively and mixed with 2.5 g of powdered sample in tubes. The contents were centrifuged for 15 min at 4100 rpm. Later, the mixtures were kept at ambient temperature for 30 min. Then, the residue after centrifuging the sample was quantified for calculating WAC and OAC utilizing the following formula (5):

$$\:WAC\:and\:OAC=\frac{Millilitres\:of\:water\:or\:oil\:absorbed\:\left(ml\right)}{Weight\:of\:dry\:sample\:\left(\text{g}\right)}\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(5\right)$$

The foaming capacity (FC) was assessed using the method conducted by Chandra et al. [31]. One g sample was added to graduated cylinder containing 50 ml water (distilled). The mixture was then shaken for 5 min to produce foam. FC was measured after 30 second after whipping using the below Eq. (6):

$$\:FC\left(\%\right)=\frac{volume\:after\:whiping-volumeafter\:whiping}{Origional\:volume\:of\:sample}*100\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(6\right)$$

For least gelation capacity (LGC) determination, a suspension was made through mixing flour sample with water (2–20% (g flour/g water)). Ten ml of suspension was poured into a tube and boiled in water bath at 90°C for 1 h. Then, the sample was stored in the refrigerator to cool down for 2 h at 10 ℃. The LGC was determined by measuring the least concentration at which declining the tube and samples would not fall [31].

For determination of emulsion stability (ES) and emulsifying activity (EA) of flour samples 10 ml of sunflower oil and distilled water mixed with 1 ml of flour samples. The emulsion was centrifuged for 5 min at 4100 rpm. After centrifugation, the whole mixture’s total height was calculated as % EA by the Eq. (7). The centrifuge tube contained emulsion was heated at 80 ºC for 30 min in a water bath. Then, it was cooled with tap water for about 50 min [31]. The % of ES was determined by the Eq. (8).

$$\:EA\left(\%\right)=\frac{\text{V}\text{o}\text{l}\text{u}\text{m}\text{e}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{l}\text{a}\text{y}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{e}\text{m}\text{u}\text{l}\text{s}\text{i}\text{f}\text{i}\text{c}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\left(\text{m}\text{L}\right)}{\text{V}\text{o}\text{l}\text{u}\text{m}\text{e}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{w}\text{h}\text{o}\text{l}\text{e}\:\text{l}\text{a}\text{y}\text{e}\text{r}\:\left(\text{m}\text{L}\right)}*100\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(7\right)$$

$$\:ES\left(\%\right)=\frac{\text{R}\text{e}\text{m}\text{a}\text{i}\text{n}\text{i}\text{n}\text{g}\:\text{e}\text{m}\text{u}\text{l}\text{s}\text{i}\text{f}\text{i}\text{e}\text{d}\:\text{l}\text{a}\text{y}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{v}\text{o}\text{l}\text{u}\text{m}\text{e}\left(\text{m}\text{L}\right)}{\text{V}\text{o}\text{l}\text{u}\text{m}\text{e}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{o}\text{r}\text{i}\text{g}\text{i}\text{n}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{e}\text{m}\text{u}\text{l}\text{s}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\left(\text{m}\text{L}\right)}*100\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\left(8\right)$$

Determination of physical properties of biscuits

The AACC International method of analysis [26] was utilized to measure the diameter and thickness of baked biscuits randomly picked using a digital caliper (Mutitoyo No. 505–633, Japan). By a digital scale, biscuit weight and weight loss were estimated using an average of 6 biscuits. The spread ratio was determined by dividing the biscuits' average diameter by their average thickness. The volume of biscuits was determined by analyzing the displacement of rapeseeds AACCI Method no 10-05.01 [26]. From the weight and volume, the bulk density (BD) of biscuit samples was calculated as g/ml.

The AACCI method of 75-007.01 [26] was applied to evaluate the texture properties of biscuit samples by using a texture analyzer (TA-XT2i, Stable Micro Systems, Haslemere, UK). The fracture strength was assessed using a 3-point Bending Rig (HDP/M3PB) probe and a 5 kg load cell. Pre-test, test, post-test speed of instrument was adjusted to 1.0, 3.0 and 10.0 mm/s, respectively. The force needed to split the biscuit (the hardness of the biscuit, g) and the fracturability (mm) were determined.

Total phenolic content analyzing of biscuits

The FolineCiocalteau procedure was used to assess the total phenolic content, using gallic acid as a standard[32, 33]. The gallic acid standard (1–10 mg/L) and samples (1 mg/mL) were diluted with 1.0 mL distilled water to different concentrations. FolineCiocalteu reagent (1 mL) was added, vortexed, mixed, and kept at room temperature for 4 minutes, followed by adding 1.0 mL of 10% aqueous Na₂CO₃. The absorbance was measured at 760 nm using a spectrophotometer (Libra, Biochrom, UK) after 120 min of incubation at 20°C against a blank. The total phenolic compounds concentration was determined using a standard graph, calculated as mg of GAE per gram.

Determination of antioxidant capacity of biscuits

The antioxidant capacity was assessed using the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) method, following the procedures of Çam et al. [33]. The ABTS assay was prepared by dissolving 30 mg ABTS in K₂O₈S₂, diluted with 100 mM phosphate buffer, and then dried for 16 hours, resulting in 0.700 ± 0.005 absorbance at 734 nm.

The samples were diluted (1:20, v:v) with buffer, following which 50 µl of the diluted samples were combined with 1950 µl of ABTS. The absorbance at 734 nm was then determined after a 6-minute incubation period. The findings were quantified as mg TEAC/g.

Microstructure analysis of samples

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis of flour and biscuit samples were made by a Scanning electron microscope (Hitachi SU3500). Samples were placed on SEM holders and coated with gold under vacuum conditions before analysis. Sample images were made at 3500x magnification level with an accelerating voltage of 10 kV.

Sensory analysis of biscuits

Five differently coded samples i.e. A, B, C, D, and E were given to the 10 semi-trained panelists drawn within the Harran University, Department of Food Engineering. The biscuits were identified according to their color, visual appeal, texture, taste, flavor, aroma, and general approval. The judges evaluated based on various criteria, assigning a top score of 9 for strong approval and a low score of 1 for strong disapproval [34].

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package SPSS software (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical evaluation of the data. Duncan multiple comparison test with ANOVA was used for comparisons at P ≤ 0.05. All experiments in the study were carried out in three replicates.

Functional and physicochemical characteristics of flour samples

Functional properties of flours are important characteristics during processing and storage, and for consumer acceptability of bakery products. The results of various functional properties of flour samples are given in Table 1. Water absorption capacity (WAC) is dependent on a polysaccharide or protein matrix's capacity to absorb, hold, physically entrap water against gravity and influences flour thickness, freshness retention, handling, and viscosity of food products [35].

Water absorption capacity (WAC) of A, B, C, D, and E flour samples were found to be between 67.49% (A, 100%RWF) and 116.13% (E, 100%RWF). WAC increased with the addition of BWF. There was a significant (P ≤ 0.05) difference between WAC of all composite flours (Table 1). The highest WAC of BWF could be attributed to the presence of a higher amount of fiber and hydrophilic groups in this flour than in RWF due to dietary fiber content [36]. High WAC is crucial for food ingredients requiring hydration for textural and handling properties, as it is a vital quality in food production. Similar results were reported by Mahmood et al. [17], Liu et al. [36] and Raihan & Saini [37].

Table 1

Average functional and physicochemical properties of composite flours
			Sample (*)
Property	A	B	C	D	E
WAC (%)	67.49^d ± 1.17	70.43^cd ± 0.77	76.93^c ± 0.75	90.15^b ± 1.21	116.13^a ± 0.88
OAC (%)	241.92^b ± 0.77	241.36^b ± 0.47	228.56^c ± 1.14	219.43^d ± 1.47	257.85^a ± 1.66
WAI (%)	402.13^a ± 1.42	375.37^b ± 1.71	360.06^c ± 1.30	328.35^d ± 1.12	325.29^e ± 1.83
WSI (%)	6.73^e ± 0.15	6.93^d ± 0.12	7.10^c ± 0.21	7.25^b ± 0.04	7.32^a ± 0.17
OAI (%)	112.62^c ± 1.99	118.49^bc ± 1.65	122.25^b ± 0.64	123.86^b ± 0.75	136.66^a ± 1.59
FC (%)	8.00^ab ± 2.00	12.00^a ± 0.00	6.67^bc ± 2.06	6.00^cb ± 2.00	2.00^c ± 0.00
EA (%)	3.63^e ± 0.06	17.35^d ± 0.90	41.33^c ± 0.42	55.71^b ± 0.15	54.76^a ± 0.10
ES (%)	9.59^e ± 0.66	19.67^d ± 2.08	58.81^c ± 0.67	64.32^b ± 1.07	71.45^a ± 0.46
BD (g/ml)	0.75^b ± 0.01	0.76^b ± 0.02	0.77^b ± 0.01	0.78^ab ± 0.02	0.80^a ± 0.01
L*	92.48^a ± 0.33	89.59^b ± 1.14	87.68^bc ± 1.21	88.08^bc ± 0.69	86.26^c ± 0.39
a*	0.54^e ± 0.03	0.91^d ± 0.01	1.07^c ± 0.06	1.33^b ± 0.04	1.52^a ± 0.05
b*	8.80^a ± 0.35	8.50^ab ± 0.12	7.71^b ± 0.73	8.21^ab ± 0.17	8.09^ab ± 0.26
% (w/v)	Least Gelation Concentration ()**
2	N	N	N	N	N
4	N	N	N	N	N
6	N	N	N	N	N
8	N	N	N	S	S
10	S	S	S	S	S
12	S	S	S	S	S
14	S	S	S	S	S
16	S	S	S	S	S
18	S	S	F	F	F
20	F	F	F	F	F

Means followed by the different letters within the row are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Results expressed as mean value ± SD. *RWF: Refined wheat flour, BWF: buckwheat flour, A: 100% RWF, B: 70%RWF + 30%BWF, C: 50%RWF + 50%BWF, D: 30%RWF + 70%BWF, E: 100% BWF. **S: gelled slightly, F: fully gelled, N: Not gelled.

Oil absorption capacity (OAC) denotes a product's ability to associate with oil in the presence of oil scarcity [38]. The OAC of BWF (257.85%) was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher than that of RWF (241.92%), increased with increase BWF addition (Table 1). Higher OAC of BWF indicates presence of polar amino acids in BWF [18]. The current study's OAC results align with the work of of Bhavsar et al. [14],Jan et al. [12] and Kaur et al. [18].

The water absorption index (WAI) of sample A (RWF) was the highest (402.13%), while the lowest value (325.29%) was found for sample E (BWF). The WAI of flour samples decreased with the addition of BWF (Table 1). The WSI values flour samples were found in the range of 6.73–7.32%. There were significant differences between flour samples both in terms of WAI and WSI (P ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Similar results of WAI and WSI were found in the study of Bhavsar et al. [14], Baljeet et al. [39] and Singh et al. [40].

OAI of flour samples ranged from 112.62 to 136.66%, with the highest value in BWF indicating the starch granules' capacity to maintain oil. The OAI between all types of flour samples was non-significant (P > 0.05) statistically (Table 1). High OAI promotes improved mouthfeel, flavor retention, and palatability in food products.

Foam is a two-phase system consisting of air cells separated by a continuous liquid layer called the lamellar phase[41] that foaming capacity (FC) is dependent on the configuration of protein molecules. It improves the visual appeal and the texture of foods which require high FC (breads, icing and whipped creams, cakes, and sponges) [42] while foods which require low FC are crackers, biscuits, and cookies. There was a significant (P ≤ 0.05) difference between flour samples in terms of FC. The FC of flour samples decreased with BWF addition (Table 1). The results of FC of present study resembles with the study of Baljeet et al. [39],Jan et al. [12] and Nisar et al. [43].

The EA and ES are dependent on proteins content to quickly adsorb at the oil-water interface and build a strong, viscoelastic film around the oil droplets. These are affected by improving the texture of products and the formation of stable gels. The EA and ES of flour samples increased from 3.63 to 54.76% and 9.59 to 71.45%, respectively, and addition of BWF significantly increased both EA and ES values (P ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). These results are compatible with the results of Kaur et al. [18], Baljeet et al. [39], Adebowale et al. [44] and Tang & Ma [45].

Bulk density (BD) is a measure of the heaviness of a flour sample that varied between 0.75 and 0.80 g/ml, and increased with the incorporation of BWF, as shown in Table 1. Flour's high BD implies that it is suitable for use in culinary preparations whereas low BD would be advantageous in the formulation of supplementary meals [46]. Other searches reported the same results as Baljeet et al. [39], who found the same results of BD of BWF with 0.80 g/ml and RWF 0.73g/ml. Bhavsar et al. [14] found that the BD of BWF was 0.86 g/ml, significantly higher than that of RWF (0.74 g/ml).

Gelling is an important desired property of some foods such as puddings, jellies, and desserts. The formation of a gel is influenced by factors such as protein concentration, ionic strength, pH, and interaction with other components [31]. Table 1 shows LGC of flour samples relation to concentration that the slightly gelling concentration of A, B and C flour samples was found to be 10% while that of D and E flour was 8%. The A, B and C flour samples were fully gelled at a concentration of 20% while D and E flour types were fully gelled at a concentration of 18%. The addition of BWF to RWF decreased the LGC of samples due to higher protein content, ionic strength of BWF. LGC values were compared favorably with those reported for different flours and composite flours (6–20%) [31, 47]. The reasons of variation in LGC is due to various levels of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins content of flours [48, 49].

The L*, a* and b* color results of the flour samples were shown in Table 1 that a significant effect of BWF was observed. L* values of flour samples changed from 92.43 (100%RWF) to 86.25 (100%BWF) that decreased as the amount of BWF increased due to the higher polyphenolic substances of BWF that affected flour color to be darker than RWF. This change in color from light to dark was also confirmed with an increase in a* (redness) (0.54 to 1.52) with BWF addition.

Proximate composition and energy values of flour samples

It is clear to notice that the moisture, ash, fat and protein contents of BWF were found to be higher than those of RWF, while the carbohydrate of RWF was higher than that of BWF. (Table 2). The moisture, ash, fat, protein, and total carbohydrate contents of A (100% RWF) were found to be 12.54, 0.59, 1.43, 11.62, and 86.38%, respectively. On the other hand, those of sample E (100% BWF) were found to be 13.18%, 2.13, 2.47, 12.95 and 82.44% (d.b), respectively. These outcomes agreed with the study of Kaur et al. [18], Mohajan et al. [25], Baljeet et al. [39], Khan et al. [50], Krkoskova & Mrazova [51] and Guo et al. [52]. The ash content of BWF in present study was found to be higher (2.13%) than that of RWF (0.59%) which are comparable with those of (1.68% BWF and 0.52% RWF) reported byMohajan et al. [25]. The proximate composition of composite flours increased with increasing BWF addition except total carbohydrate content [18, 25]. There is no significant difference between flour samples in terms of energy values (kcal/100g) (P > 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2

Average proximate composition and energy values of flours and biscuits
			Flours
Sample*	Moisture (%)	Ash (%, d.b.)	Fat (%, d.b.)	Protein (%, d.b.)	Carbohydrate (%, d.b.)	Energy (kcal/100g)
A	12.54^b ± 0.22	0.59^e ± 0.08	1.43^d ± 0.12	11.62^c ± 0.53	86.36^a ± 0.76	404.79^a ± 0.62
B	12.56^b ± 0.30	1.10^d ± 0.01	1.74^cd ± 0.06	12.02^bc ± 0.41	85.14^b ± 0.41	404.30^a ± 0.48
C	12.75^a ± 0.22	1.40^c ± 0.01	1.94^bc ± 0.08	12.29^abc ± 0.32	84.37^bc ± 0.26	404.10^a ± 0.37
D	12.82^ab ± 0.14	1.67^b ± 0.00	2.15^b ± 0.14	12.56^ab ± 0.24	83.62^c ± 0.07	404.07^a ± 0.55
E	13.18^a ± 0.22	2.13^a ± 0.01	2.47^a ± 0.23	12.95^a ± 0.07	82.45^d ± 0.19	403.83^a ± 0.29
			Biscuits
A	3.55^a ± 0.04	0.77^e ± 0.01	15.71^a ± 1.01	6.19^e ± 0.03	77.33^c ± 1.01	475.47^a ± 0.19
B	3.25^ab ± 0.06	1.03^d ± 0.02	16.08^a ± 0.88	6.61^d ± 0.03	76.28^ab ± 0.85	476.30^a ± 0.33
C	3.16^b ± 0.05	1.24^c ± 0.03	16.70^a ± 0.73	6.89^c ± 0.06	75.17^bc ± 0.65	478.53^ab ± 0.75
D	3.03^bc ± 0.02	1.33^b ± 0.01	16.55^a ± 0.59	7.17^b ± 0.09	74.95^bc ± 0.51	477.43^a ± 0.89
E	2.76^c ± 0.04	1.58^a ± 0.04	16.93^a ± 0.50	7.59^a ± 0.14	73.90^a ± 0.44	478.35^a ± 0.32

Means followed by the different letters within the column are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Results expressed as mean value ± SD. *RWF: Refined wheat flour, BWF: buckwheat flour, A: 100% RWF, B: 70%RWF + 30%BWF, C: 50%RWF + 50%BWF, D: 30%RWF + 70%BWF, E: 100% BWF.

Proximate composition and energy values of biscuits

The proximate composition and energy results of the biscuit samples with the addition of BWF at different levels are given in Table 2. The addition of BWF resulted in a decrease in the moisture content of the biscuits. The addition of BWF to RWF in biscuit formulation significantly (P ≤ 0.05) improved the moisture content. It ranged between 2.76% (E, 100%BWF) and 3.55% (A, 100%RWF). It was found that samples containing BWF had lower moisture content due to the higher water holding capacity of BWF [53].

The addition of BWF significantly impacted on the ash content of the biscuits (P ≤ 0.05). It was obtained that the ash content of biscuits increased with BWF addition. The ash content of the biscuit samples ranged from 0.77% (d.b.) (100% RWF) to 1.58% (d.b.) (100%BWF) (Table 2). The rise in ash content in biscuits containing BWF may be attributed to the high ash content of BWF. Similar results of ash content were reported by Raihan & Saini [37]. The fat content of biscuits varied from 15.71 (A, 100%RWF) to 16.93% (d.b.) (E, 100% BWF) (Table 2). It increased with the addition amount of BWF in the biscuit sample. The same increase in fat content was observed by other researchers such as Jan et al. [12] and Bhavsar et al. [14]. The protein content of biscuits A, B, C, D and E was found as 6.19, 6.61, 6.89, 7.17 and 7.59% (d.b.), respectively (Table 2). There was a significant (P ≤ 0.05) difference between all samples in terms of protein contents. The protein content of BWF-supplemented biscuits increased with BWF addition. The protein results of present study agree with those of others reported by Mahmood et al. [17], Bilgiçli [54] and Wronkowska et al. [55]. The highest ash, protein, and fat contents were achieved with 100% BWF addition due to its richer chemical composition compared to RWF. The carbohydrate content of biscuits decreased with the addition of BWF, ranging from 77.33 (A) to 73.901 (%, d.b.) (E). (Table 2) indicated that carbohydrate content decreased with the addition of BWF. The carbohydrate results are well compatible with those reported by Mohajan et al. [25] that the carbohydrate content decreased with the increase of BWF addition. By assessing the energy value of biscuits fortified with BWF, manufacturers can accurately label their products and provide consumers with important information about the nutritional content of the product. This can help consumers make informed decisions about their food choices and ensure that they are meeting their dietary needs. The energy value of the biscuits was estimated to change from 475.48 A (100% RWF) to 478.35 kcal/100g E (100% BWF) that increased with BWF addition. BWF has a higher protein and fat content than RWF, which may account for the increased energy value of cookies [14]. The proximate composition and energy of biscuits are similar to the results obtained by Makpoul & Ibrahem [15] and Raihan & Saini [37].

Physical characteristics of biscuits

The physical properties (surface color (L*, a*, b*), texture (hardness and fracturability), thickness, diameter, spread ratio, weight and bulk density) of biscuits with different levels of substitution of buckwheat flour are presented in Table 3. The thickness values of biscuits decreased with the increasing amount of BWF which ranged from 11.35 to to 9.14 mm. The thickness of biscuit is an important physical attribute that can influence its texture and overall quality that expected result due to becoming harder biscuit as the thickness increases. Similar results were reported by Mahmood et al. [17] and Makpoul & Ibrahem [15]. The thickness of biscuits was found to be between 60.74 and 60.30 mm (Table 3). It was observed that the diameter of the composite biscuits decreased with BWF addition due to higher WAC of BWF. Similar trend was reported in the study of Baljeet et al. [39] and Makpoul & Ibrahem [15].

Spread ratio is a property depending on the value of the product's diameter and thickness. The spread ratio of biscuits is shown in Table 3 that ranged between 5.35 and 6.60 mm and increased with BWF addition due to the lower level of thickness. The hardness increased with increasing the spreading ratio of biscuits. In general, it is preferable to have biscuits with a higher spread ratio. Flour that possesses low hydration properties offers a greater spread ratio to the biscuit or cookie Mancebo et al. [23]. Nevertheless, the increased protein content in the flour results in a decreased spread ratio of the biscuit due to its enhanced water binding capacity. Conversely, the dispersion rate rises when using a non-wheat protein flour because of the higher levels of lipids and fibers present. Coarse grain flours have been noticed to contribute to higher spread ratio in biscuits or cookies, as reported by Manley [56] and Gujral et al. [57]. Some researchers have supported that the addition of fine buckwheat flour in sugar-snap biscuits decreased biscuit spread ratio [39, 58].

Table 3

Average physical, chemical and sensory properties of biscuit samples
			Sample*
Property	A	B	C	D	E
L*	61.44^b ± 0.69	61.74^b ± 0.47	56.47^bc ± 0.28	58.34^ab ± 2.79	59.28^ab ± 0.25
a*	12.04^a ± 0.54	11.88^a ± 0.12	13.49^b ± 0.18	12.75^ab ± 0.94	12.27^ab ± 0.23
b*	33.22^d ± 0.55	30.00^c ± 0.47	29.18^bc ± 0.31	28.21^b ± 0.28	26.24^a ± 0.38
Hardness (g)	5222.69^a ± 55.84	4713.61^b ± 67.50	4441.64^c ± 63.77	4385.97^d ± 36.75	2796.14^e ± 88.18
Fracturability (mm)	41.77^bc ± 0.43	41.69^c ± 0.29	41.18^c ± 0.26	42.44^b ± 0.36	43.36^a ± 0.56
Thickness (mm)	11.35^a ± 0.22	10.20^b ± 0.13	9.32^b ± 0.89	9.25^b ± 0.20	9.14^b ± 0.09
Diameter (mm)	60.74^a ± 0.34	60.45^a ± 0.25	61.36^a ± 0.71	60.95^a ± 0.84	60.30^a ± 0.10
Spread ratio	5.35^b ± 0.13	5.93^ab ± 0.06	6.62^a ± 0.59	6.59^a ± 0.23	6.60^a ± 0.05
Weight (g)	16.18^ab ± 0.68	15.75^b ± 0.37	16.66^ab ± 0.31	16.43^ab ± 0.63	17.26^a ± 0.36
Bulk density (g/ml)	0.49^c ± 0.03	0.50^c ± 0.01	0.53^bc ± 0.03	0.57^b ± 0.01	0.66^a ± 0.01
AOC (µmol TEAC/g)**	1.95 ± 0.03^e	4.50 ± 0.04^d	6.43 ± 0.02^c	8.64 ± 0.01^b	10.16 ± 0.01^a
TPC (mgGAE/100g)**	3.52 ± 0.01^e	6.23 ± 0.04^d	7.06 ± 0.01^c	7.28 ± 0.02^b	7.61 ± 0.01^a
Sensory property
Appearance	8.18^a ± 1.25	7.45^a ± 1.69	7.25^a ± 1.21	7.17^a ± 1.19	7.09^a ± 1.22
Color	8.00^a ± 1.10	7.45^a ± 1.70	7.35^a ± 0.93	7.00^a ± 1.55	6.91^a ± 1.38
Texture	7.91^a ± 1.14	6.82^a ± 1.94	6.62^a ± 1.40	6.45^a ± 1.03	6.36^a ± 0.81
Flavor	8.09^a ± 0.83	7.64^a ± 1.12	6.91^a ± 0.83	6.77^a ± 1.27	6.57^a ± 1.30
Taste	7.73^a ± 1.10	7.36^a ± 1.12	7.22^a ± 0.87	6.86^a ± 1.29	6.75^a ± 1.40
Smell	7.91^a ± 0.94	7.27^a ± 1.19	6.91^a ± 1.14	6.70^a ± 1.18	6.59^a ± 1.10
Overall Acceptability	8.00^a ± 1.10	7.25^a ± 2.25	6.65^a ± 1.21	6.32^a ± 1.94	6.25^a ± 0.91

Means followed by the different letters within the row are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Results expressed as mean value ± SD. *RWF: Refined wheat flour, BWF: buckwheat flour, A: 100% RWF, B: 70%RWF + 30%BWF, C: 50%RWF + 50%BWF, D: 30%RWF + 70%BWF, E: 100% BWF. **TPC: Total phenolic content, AOC: Antioxidant capacity.

The weight of biscuits ranged between 16.18 and 17.26 g (Table 3). Biscuits prepared with 100% BWF showed a higher weight (17.26 g), compared to biscuits with 100% RWF (16.18 g). The weight of biscuits increased with addition of BWF due to higher fiber content of BWF, likely due to the ability of BWF to retain more oil during the baking [14, 18, 39]. The bulk density of the biscuits increased with the additional level of BWF (Table 3). Similarly, Jozinovic et al. [59] investigated that the bulk density of the extrudates increased with the addition of BWF and chestnut flour due to the addition of high-fiber and high-protein materials.

Color plays a significant role in determining the appeal of cookies and biscuits, influencing an individual's desire for them. Brown pigments that appear as a result of browning and caramelization reactions play a significant role in process control during baking and roasting [60]. The incorporation of BWF resulted in a reduction of the surface color (L*, a*, and b*) values of the biscuits, leading to a transformation from creamy yellow to a deep brown shade (Table 3 and Fig. 2). The superior redness and yellowness of samples were indicated by the positive values of a* and b* values. The transformation of biscuit color from yellow to dark brown could be attributed to factors like BWF composition, oven air velocity, Maillard reaction-induced red pigment formation, nonenzymatic browning reactions on the surface, as well as baking temperature and duration. The color values obtained in this study were consistent with the results reported by previous researchers [60].

Textural quality, including hardness and fracturability, is a crucial and desirable quality attribute for biscuits. Hardness is an important characteristic for biscuits due to its contribution to product quality because there is an important relationship between the consumer's perception of freshness and the textural properties [61]. The hardness of the biscuits was decreased with BWF addition that ranged between 5222.69 (A) and 2796.14 g (E) (P ≤ 0.05). The decrease in hardness of biscuits with addition BWF may be attributed to the biscuits retaining more moisture than when produced with RWF alone, or it may be related to the decreasing gluten content in the BWF. Similarly, Chauhan et al. [60] found that the hardness of cookies decreased with amaranth flour addition (14794.83 and 7397.92 g). Baljeet et al. [39] reported that the hardness of biscuits decreased with the incorporation of BWF. The fracturability of biscuit A and E was found to be 41.77 mm and 43.36 mm, respectively (Table 3). The fracturability of biscuits with 100% BWF were the highest, whereas the values for biscuits with 100% RWF or a combination of RWF and BWF at different rates were the lowest. Filipcev et al. [62] found comparable findings for a ginger nut biscuit in which RWF was partially substituted with BWF and rye flour.

Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of biscuits

Phenolic compounds are the primary phytochemicals found in buckwheat [63] that high polyphenol intake is linked to a lower risk of chronic diseases like certain cancers, neurodegeneration, and cardiovascular diseases [64]. BWF, with significantly higher total phenolic content than other crops, may be an excellent dietary source of phenolics [65]. The total phenolic content of RWF and BWF biscuits differed greatly ranging from 3.52 mg GAE/100g in 100%RWF biscuits and 7.61 mg GAE/100g in 100% BWF biscuits (Table 3). The biscuits made with BWF possessed higher total phenolic content than biscuits made with RWF. The study found that supplemented BWF biscuits had higher total polyphenol contents than RWF biscuits, which increased with higher BWF addition. It was confirmed with the studies reported by Inglett et al. [6], Sedej et al. [66], Filipcev et al. [62], Mikulajova et al. [67],Sedej et al. [68],Kiprovski et al. [69] and Jambrec et al. [70].

Table 3 reveals that the addition of BWF to biscuits significantly enhances their antioxidant activity. While the highest value (10.16 µmol TEAC/g) was obtained in biscuits containing 100% BWF, the lowest value (1.95) was detected in the 100% RWF containing sample. Similar results were reported by Holasova et al. [71], Lin et al. [72] and Hemery et al. [73]. The findings indicate that the antioxidant properties of biscuits are primarily attributed to the phenolic compounds present in them. The thermal processing of cereals, including baking, enhances overall antioxidant activity by forming substances with antioxidant properties, such as Maillard reaction products. Alvarez-Jubete et al. [74] and Torbica et al. [75] reported on the use of pseudo-cereals for fortifying gluten-free products. Blended biscuits exhibited a greater level of antioxidant activity in comparison to RWF biscuits, primarily attributed to the higher concentration of phenolic compounds in BWF. Consequently, the incorporation of BWF in biscuits resulted in an enhanced antioxidant activity.

Sensory characteristics of biscuits

Sensorial evaluation can be used to assess the consumer acceptability of biscuits. The biscuits made with RWF and BWF were assessed for color, appearance, texture, flavor, taste, and overall acceptability using a 9-point hedonic scale (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Panelists rated biscuits made from 100% Reconstituted Wheat Flour (RWF) as the best quality, while those made from incorporated BWF had the lowest sensorial scores. BWF addition affected all the sensorial properties of biscuits. Similar results for biscuits supplemented with BWF to wheat flour were found in the study of Farzana et al. [76]. Appearance is one of the most important sensory parameters that make a first impression on the consumer's mind about the product. The lowest score in terms of appearance (7.09) of 100% BWF biscuits and the highest score (8.18) of 100% RWF biscuits was due to cracks that developed because of the inclusion of gluten-free BWF. Kaur et al. [18] and Baljeet et al. [39] discovered similar results that as BWF addition increased, appearance scores of gluten-free biscuits decreased. BWF supplementation had a substantial influence on the quality score in terms of the color of the biscuits, giving the biscuit samples a darker color. Due to BWF's higher yellowness and redness, as well as lower lightness of BWF, while the maximum color score (8.00) was obtained in 100 % RWF (A). Our findings are likewise consistent with hose of Kaur et al. [18], Hussain et al. [77] and Mahmood et al. [17] who discovered low color scores for biscuits with BWF.

The texture of biscuits is a crucial sensory attribute that indicates their softness or hardness. The mean texture scores of A, B, C, D, and E biscuit samples were found as 7.91, 6.82, 6.62, 6.45, 6.36, respectively (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Similar results of texture were reported byMohajan et al. [25] and Bhavsar et al. [14]. At greater levels of BWF supplementation, the flavor and taste scores dropped considerably from 8.09 to 6.57 and 7.73 to 6.75, respectively (Table 3 and Fig. 2). The taste and flavor characteristics of all biscuit samples decreased with BWF addition resembles with the studies reported byBhavsar et al. [14],Mahmood et al. [17],Kaur et al. [18],Bilgiçli [54], Lin et al. [72] and Hussain et al. [77]. The low taste score of BWF biscuits may be attributed to various phenolic compounds which are source of bitterness in BWF [66].

The score of overall acceptability for all biscuits was shown in Table 3. The level of BWF affects the quality score in terms of overall acceptability of the biscuits. It has been determined that biscuits with 100% RWF and 100% BWF were acceptable according to the panelists, with a mean score of 7.91 and 6.59, respectively. Biscuits with up to 30%, 50%, and 70% level of substitution of BWF with RWF had the lowest overall acceptable score. Since all the parameters of sensory scores was high, it could be recommended that 100% BWF be used in the production of cookies or biscuits. This result also confirms with the previous study by Baljeet et al. [39], Chopra et al. [78] and Chauhan et al. [60]. According to Dossa et al. [79] up to 20% BWF, the texture, flavor, and overall acceptability of the biscuits were significantly improved.

Microstructure of flour and biscuit samples

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was applied to samples that buckwheat starch granules were polygonal in shape, while wheat granules showed an oval shape. The size and shape of starch granules in various flour mixtures show significant differences. SEM micrographs in this study observed that the granules of RWF starch particles ranged from 6.23–7.45 µm in diameter (Fig. 3), and showed oval shapes Hager et al., [80]. Buckwheat starch particles ranged from 8.66 to 9.02 µm in diameter which is compatible with previously reported results of BWF (3–9 µm) in the study of Qian & Kuhn [81]. The starch granules of BWF have smooth surface and are most polygonal and less spherical [81]. SEM analysis of biscuit microstructure is unfavorable as it cannot distinguish gelatinized starch and proteins, resulting in no structural differences between BWF and wheat-based biscuits [79]. Figure 4 illustrates the micrograph of biscuits showing starch granules that have undergone gelatinization, resulting in a loss of shape, and are now embedded within the gluten matrix fibrils. The presence of a substantial amount of dietary fiber in BWF biscuits is also noticeable as it adheres to starch granules and protein fibrils, as depicted in Fig. 4. The micrograph of high-fiber BWF biscuits reveals that certain starch granules have undergone gelatinization, causing them to lose their original shape. The quantities and types of sugars used in biscuits affected starch gelatinization. During cooking of cookies or biscuits, gelatinization of starch of samples took place, and starch granules lost their regular shapes. The gluten-free biscuit is made up of starch granules encased in a protein film that does not form gluten, along with melted fat that solidifies again. The slight variations observed in the micrographs are likely a result of the distinct morphological characteristics of starches at various gelatinization stages present in the biscuits, giving them a sticky texture [82].

Results showed that the moisture, ash, fat, and protein contents of buckwheat flour were higher than refined wheat flour, while carbohydrate contents were lower. Buckwheat flour exhibited higher WAC and BD than refined wheat flour, but lower foaming capacity compared to refined wheat flour. Buckwheat flour exhibited the lowest LGC (18%) when compared to refined wheat flour (20%). The lower values of L* of BWF than RWF showed that less bright, while the high a* value indicate that they have a darker color than RWF, but there was no significant change in the b* values. The incorporation of BWF also had a positive effect on the proximate composition, physicochemical, textural and sensory properties of biscuits. The moisture, ash, fat, protein, and total energy content of the biscuits increased, and the carbohydrate content decreased with increase in the BWF substitution. The addition of BWF to RWF affected the proximate composition and energy values of biscuits. The thickness and diameter of BWF supplemented biscuits decreased, spread ratios and bulk density of the BWF substitute biscuits were higher than to the control sample. The results showed that BWF addition had a significant effect on the textural properties (hardness and fracturability) of biscuits. The hardness of biscuits decreased with BWF addition while the fracturability values increased. Based on sensory analysis, all biscuits were found to be at acceptable levels. It was concluded that formulating gluten-free biscuits with up to 100% BWF substitution could be a used alternative for consumers who have gluten sensitivity and also reduced glycemic index due to less carbohydrate content than wheat flour. As a result, it has been determined that the use of BWF in the production of gluten-free biscuits in order to increase the nutritional value of biscuits gives positive results.

Compliance with Ethics requirements

This article does not involve any research conducted on human or animal subjects.

Conflicts of interest:
Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contribution

Ali Yıldırım: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; project administration; resources; supervision; Investigation; formal analysis; validation; writing – review and editing. Amanj Nasih Smail: Conceptualization; data curation; methodology; visualization; writing – original draft; formal analysis.

Acknowledgement

This study was financially supported by Harran University Scientific Research Projects (HUBAP) Unit (Project#: 20043).This study was produced from Amanj Nasih Ismail's Master Thesis

Data availability:

The data supporting the findings of this study will be available upon a reasonable request.

Sudha ML, Vetrimani R, Leelavathi K (2007) Influence of fibre from different cereals on the rheological characteristics of wheat flour dough and on biscuit quality. Food Chem 100(4):1365–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.12.013
Hooda S, Jood S (2005) Organoleptic and nutritional evaluation of wheat biscuits supplemented with untreated and treated fenugreek flour. Food Chem 90(3):427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.05.006
Wu NN, Tian XH, Liu YX, Li HH, Liang RP, Zhang M, Liu M, Wang LP, Zhai XT, Tan B (2017) Cooking quality, texture and antioxidant properties of dried noodles enhanced with tartary buckwheat flour. Food Sci Technol Res 23(6):783–792. https://doi.org/10.3136/fstr.23.783
Hussain A, Kaul R, Bhat A (2018) Development of healthy multigrain biscuits from buckwheat-barley composite flours. Asian J Dairy Food Res 37(2):120–125. https://doi.org/10.18805/dr-1328
Verardo V, Arraez-Román D, Segura-Carretero A, Marconi E, Fernández-Gutiérrez A, Caboni MF (2010) Identification of buckwheat phenolic compounds by reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization-time of flight-mass spectrometry (RP-HPLC–ESI-TOF-MS). J Cereal Sci 52(2):170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2010.04.009
Inglett GE, Chen D, Berhow M, Lee S (2011) Antioxidant activity of commercial buckwheat flours and their free and bound phenolic compositions. Food Chem 125(3):923–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.09.076
Verardo V, Glicerina V, Cocci E, Frenich AG, Romani S, Caboni MF (2018) Determination of free and bound phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in buckwheat bread loaf, crust and crumb. LWT 87:217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.08.063
Yilmaz HÖ, Ayhan NY, Meriç ÇS (2020) Buckwheat: A Useful Food and Its Effects on Human Health. Curr Nutr Food Sci 16(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573401314666180910140021
Mota C, Santos M, Mauro R, Samman N, Matos AS, Torres D, Castanheira I (2016) Protein content and amino acids profile of pseudocereals. Food Chem 193:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.043
Farzana T, Fatema J, Hossain FB, Afrin S, Rahman SS (2021) Quality improvement of cakes with buckwheat flour, and its comparison with local branded cakes. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci 9(2):570–577. https://doi.org/10.12944/CRNFSJ.9.2.20
Bilgiçli N (2013) Some chemical and sensory properties of gluten-free noodle prepared with different legume, pseudocereal and cereal flour blends. J Food Nutr Res 52(4):251–255. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20143026104
Jan U, Gani A, Ahmad M, Shah U, Baba WN, Masoodi FA, Maqsood S, Gani A, Wani IA, Wani SM (2015) Characterization of cookies made from wheat flour blended with buckwheat flour and effect on antioxidant properties. J Food Sci Technol 52:6334–6344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1773-8
Wojtowicz A, Kolasa A, Moscicki L (2013) Influence of Buckwheat Addition on Physical Properties, Texture and Sensory Characteristics of Extruded Corn Snacks. Pol J Food Nutr Sci 63(4):239–244. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10222-012-0076-2
Bhavsar GJ, Sawate AR, Kshirsagar RB, Chappalwar VM (2013) Studies on physico-chemical characteristics of buckwheat and its exploration in bread as functional food. Int J Eng Res Technol 2(1):3971–3980. https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV2IS110163
Makpoul KR, Ibrahem AA (2015) Improving biscuit nutritional value using quinoa flour. J Food Dairy Sci 6(12):771–780. https://doi.org/10.21608/jfds.2015.50109
El-Sohaimy SA, Shehata MG, Mehany T, Zeitoun MA (2019) Nutritional, Physicochemical, and Sensorial Evaluation of Flat Bread Supplemented with Quinoa Flour. Int J Food Sci 2019(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4686727
Mahmood S, Pasha I, Iqbal MW, Riaz T, Adnan M, Chitrakar B, Azam M (2019) Rheological and Sensory Attributes of Wheat, Quinoa and Buckwheat Composite Flour and their Use in Bakery Products. J Food Sci Technol Nepal 11:25–31. https://doi.org/10.3126/jfstn.v11i0.29706
Kaur M, Sandhu KS, Arora AP, Sharma A (2015) Gluten free biscuits prepared from buckwheat flour by incorporation of various gums: Physicochemical and sensory properties. LWT 62(1):628–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.02.039
Molinari R, Costantini L, Timperio AM, Lelli V, Bonafaccia F, Bonafaccia G, Merendino N (2018) Tartary buckwheat malt as ingredient of gluten-free cookies. J Cereal Sci 80:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2017.11.011
Cayres CA, Ascheri JLR, Couto MAPG, Almeida EL, Melo L (2020) Consumers’ acceptance of optimized gluten-free sorghum-based cakes and their drivers of liking and disliking. J Cereal Sci 93:102938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2020.102938
Adebiyi JA, Obadina AO, Adebo OA, Kayitesi E (2017) Comparison of nutritional quality and sensory acceptability of biscuits obtained from native, fermented, and malted pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) flour. Food Chem 232:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.04.020
Devisetti R, Ravi R, Bhattacharya S (2015) Effect of hydrocolloids on quality of proso millet cookie. Food Bioproc Tech 8:2298–2308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-015-1579-8
Mancebo CM, Picon J, Gomez M (2015) Effect of flour properties on the quality characteristics of gluten free sugar-snap cookies. LWT 64(1):264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.05.057
Sparvoli F, Laureati M, Pilu R, Pagliarini E, Toschi I, Giuberti G, Fortunati P, Daminati MG, Cominelli E, Bollini R (2016) Exploitation of common bean flours with low antinutrient content for making nutritionally enhanced biscuits. Front Plant Sci 7:928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00928
Mohajan S, Munna MM, Orchy TN, Hoque MM, Farzana T (2019) Buckwheat flour fortified bread. Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res 54(4):347–356. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjsir.v54i4.44569m
AACCI (2010) AACC International Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th Ed. AACC International, St Paul, MN, U.S.A.
Atwater WO (1903) Experiments on the metabolism of matter and energy in the human body. US Dept Agric Off Exper Stations Bull 136:190
Falade KO, Christopher AS (2015) Physical, functional, pasting and thermal properties of flours and starches of six Nigerian rice cultivars. Food Hydrocoll 44:478–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.10.005
Kadan RS, Bryant RJ, Miller JA (2008) Effects of milling on functional properties of rice flour. J Food Sci 73(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00720.x. E151-E154
Olu M, Ogunmoyela OAB, Adekoyeni OO, Jimoh O, Oluwajoba SO, Sobanwa MO (2012) Rheological and functional properties of soy-poundo yam flour. Int J Food Sci Nutr Eng 2(6):101–107. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.food.20120206.01
Chandra S, Singh S, Kumari D (2015) Evaluation of functional properties of composite flours and sensorial attributes of composite flour biscuits. J Food Sci Tech 52:3681–3688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1427-2
Singleton VL, Orthofer R, Lamuela-Raventós RM (1999) Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent. In Methods in Enzymology vol 299: 152–178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0076687999990171
Çam M, Hişil Y, Durmaz G (2009) Classification of eight pomegranate juices based on antioxidant capacity measured by four methods. Food Chem 112(3):721–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.06.009
Galla NR, Pamidighantam PR, Karakala B, Gurusiddaiah MR, Akula S (2017) Nutritional, textural and sensory quality of biscuits supplemented with spinach (Spinacia oleracea L). Int J Gastron Food S 7:20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2016.12.003
Traynham TL, Myers DJ, Carriquiry AL, Johnson LA (2007) Evaluation of Water-Holding Capacity for Wheat–Soy Flour Blends. J Am Oil Chem' Soc 84(2):151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-006-1018-0
Liu W, Brennan M, Serventi L, Brennan C (2017) Buckwheat flour inclusion in Chinese steamed bread: potential reduction in glycemic response and effects on dough quality. Eur Food Res Technol 243:727–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-016-2786-x
Raihan M, Saini CS (2017) Evaluation of various properties of composite flour from oats, sorghum, amaranth and wheat flour and production of cookies thereof. Int Food Res J 24(6):2278–2284. http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/24%20(06)%202017/(1).pdf
Singh U (2001) Functional properties of grain legume flours. J Food Sci Tech Mys 38(3):191–199. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279573127_Functional_properties_of_grain_legume_flours
Baljeet SY, Ritika BY, Roshan LY (2010) Studies on functional properties and incorporation of buckwheat flour for biscuit making. Int Food Res J 17(4):1067–1076. http://ifrj.upm.edu.my/17%20(04 )%202010/(27)_IFRJ-2010-027_Baljeet_India[1].pdf
Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh B, Singh N, Singh B (2019) Physicochemical evaluation of corn extrudates containing varying buckwheat flour levels prepared at various extrusion temperatures. J Food Sci Technol 56:2205–2212. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13197-019-03703-Y
Damodaran S, Parkin KL, Fennema OR (eds) (2007) Fennema’s food chemistry. CRC
Atuonwu AC, Akobundu ENT (2010) Functional and pasting properties of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) seed products. J Agric Vet Sci 2:36–49. https://www.cenresinjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Page-36-49531.pdf
Nisar N, Mustafa F, Tahir A, Qadri R, Yang Y, Khan MI, Wang F (2020) Proximate composition, functional properties and quantitative analysis of benzoyl peroxide and benzoic acid in wheat flour samples: effect on wheat flour quality. Peer J 8:e8788. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8788
Adebowale YA, Adeyemi IA, Oshodi AA (2005) Functional and physicochemical properties of flours of six Mucuna species. Afr J Biotechnol 4(12):1461–1468. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB
Tang CH, Ma CY (2009) Heat-induced modifications in the functional and structural properties of vicilin-rich protein isolate from kidney (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) bean. Food Chem 15(3):859–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.12.104
Akpata MI, Akubor PI (1999) Chemical composition and selected functional properties of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) seed flour. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 54:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008153228280
Akubor PI, Adamolekun O, Oba CA, Obari H, Abudu IO (2003) Chemical composition and functional properties of cowpea and plantain flour blends for cookie production. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 58:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAL.0000041160.25384.f6
Maninder K, Sandhu KS, Singh N (2007) Comparative study of the functional, thermal and pasting properties of flours from different field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) cultivars. Food Chem 104(1):259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.11.037
Yeom HJ, Lee EH, Ha MS, Ha SD, Bae DH (2010) Production and physicochemical properties of rice bran protein isolates prepared with autoclaving and enzymatic hydrolysis. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 53:62–70. https://doi.org/10.3839/jksabc.2010.011
Khan F, Arif M, Khan TU, Khan MI, Bangash JA (2013) Nutritional evaluation of common buckwheat of four different villages of Gilgit-Baltistan. J Agric Biol Sci 8(3):264–266. https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=tr &as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Nutritional+evaluation+of+common+buckwheat+of+four+different+villages+of+Gilgit-Baltistan&btnG=
Krkoskova B, Mrazova Z (2005) Prophylactic components of buckwheat. Food Res Int 38(5):561–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.11.009
Guo YZ, Chen QF, Yang LY, Huang YH (2007) Analyses of the seed protein contents on the cultivated and wild buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum resources. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54:1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-006-9135-z
Lin SY, Chen HH, Lu S, Wang PC (2012) Effects of blending of wheat flour with barley flour on dough and steamed bread properties. J Texture Stud 43(6):438–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2012.00352.x
Bilgiçli N (2009) Effect of buckwheat flour on cooking quality and some chemical, antinutritional and sensory properties of erişte, Turkish noodle. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(sup4):70–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637480802446639
Wronkowska K, Troszynska A, Soral-Smietana M, Wolejszo A (2008) Effects of buckwheat flour [Fagopyrum esculentum Moench] on the quality of gluten-free bread. Pol J Food Nutr Sci 58(2):. https://journal.pan.olsztyn.pl/EFFECT-OF-BUCKWHEAT-FLOUR-FAGOPYRUM-ESCULENTUM-MOENCH-ON-THE-QUALITY-OF-GLUTEN-FREE,98125,0,2.html
Manohar RS, Rao PH (1997) Effect of sugars on the rheological characteristics of biscuit dough and quality of biscuits. J Sci Food Agric 75(3):383–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199711)75:3<383::AID-JSFA891>3.0.CO;2-H
Manley D (2011) Manley’s technology of biscuits, crackers and cookies. Elsevier
Gujral HS, Mehta S, Samra IS, Goyal P (2003) Effect of Wheat Bran, Coarse Wheat Flour, and Rice Flour on the Instrumental Texture of Cookies. Int J Food Prop 6(2):329–340. https://doi.org/10.1081/JFP-120017816
Maeda T, Miyake K, Tahara M, Morita N (2004) Substitution of buckwheat for wheat flours on processing pasta and cookie. Fagopyrum. 21: 99–103. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1f2396d502a892422b5f329fe2ec3cf828e03471
Jozinovic A, Subaric D, Ackar D, Babic J, Planinic M, Pavokovic M, Blazic M (2012) Effect of screw configuration, moisture content and particle size of corn grits on properties of extrudates. Croat J Food Sci Technol 4(2):95–101. https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/146657
Pereira D, Correia PMR, Guine RPF (2013) Analysis of the physical-chemical and sensorial properties of Maria type cookies. Acta Chim Slov 6(2):269–280. https://doi.org/10.2478/acs-2013-0040
Ahlborn GJ, Pike OA, Hendrix SB, Hess WM, Huber CS (2005) Sensory, Mechanical, and Microscopic Evaluation of Staling in Low-Protein and Gluten-Free Breads. Cereal Chem 82(3):328–335. https://doi.org/10.1094/CC-82-0328
Chauhan A, Saxena DC, Singh S (2016) Physical, textural, and sensory characteristics of wheat and amaranth flour blend cookies. Cogent Food Agric 2(1):1125773. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1125773
Filipcev B, Simurina O, Sakac M, Sedej I, Jovanov P, Pestoric M, Bodroza-Solarov M (2011) Feasibility of use of buckwheat flour as an ingredient in ginger nut biscuit formulation. Food Chem 125(1):164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.055
Ahmed A, Khalid N, Ahmad A, Abbasi NA, Latif MSZ, Randhawa MA (2014) Phytochemicals and biofunctional properties of buckwheat: a review. Agric Sci 152(3):349–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859613000166
Del Rio D, Rodriguez-Mateos A, Spencer JPE, Tognolini M, Borges G, Crozier A (2013) Dietary (Poly)phenolics in Human Health: Structures, Bioavailability, and Evidence of Protective Effects Against Chronic Diseases. Antioxid Redox Signal 18(14):1818–1892. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2012.4581
Zhu F (2016) Chemical composition and health effects of Tartary buckwheat. Food Chem 203:231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.050
Sedej I, Sakac M, Mandic A, Misan A, Pestoric M, Simurina O, Canadanovic-Brunet J (2011) Quality assessment of gluten-free crackers based on buckwheat flour. LWT 44(3):694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.11.010
Mikulajova A, Sediva D, Hybenova E, Mosovska S (2016) Buckwheat cultivars - phenolic compounds profiles and antioxidant properties. Acta Chim Slov 9(2):124–129. https://doi.org/10.1515/acs-2016-0021
Sedej I, Sakac M, Mandic A, Misan A, Tumbas V, Canadanovic-Brunet J (2012) Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) Grain and Fractions: Antioxidant Compounds and Activities. J Food Sci 77(9):C954–C959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02867.x
Kiprovski B, Mikulic-Petkovsek M, Slatnar A, Veberic R, Stampar F, Malencic D, Latkovic D (2015) Comparison of phenolic profiles and antioxidant properties of European Fagopyrum esculentum cultivars. Food Chem 185:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.137
Jambrec D, Sakac M, Misan A, Mandic A, Pestoric M (2015) Effect of autoclaving and cooking on phenolic compounds in buckwheat-enriched whole wheat tagliatelle. J Cereal Sci 66:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.09.004
Holasova M, Fiedlerova V, Smrcinova H, Orsak M, Lachman J, Vavreinova S (2002) Buckwheat—the source of antioxidant activity in functional foods. Food Res Int 35(2–3):207–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00185-5
Lin LY, Hsieh YJ, Liu HM, Lee CC, Mau JL (2009) Flavor components in buckwheat bread. J Food Process Preserv 33(6):814–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2008.00313.x
Hemery YM, Anson NM, Havenaar R, Haenen GRMM, Noort MWJ, Rouau X (2010) Dry-fractionation of wheat bran increases the bioaccessibility of phenolic acids in breads made from processed bran fractions. Food Res Int 43(5):1429–1438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.04.013
Alvarez-Jubete L, Arendt EK, Gallagher E (2010) Nutritive value of pseudocereals and their increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends Food Sci Technol 21(2):106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.10.014
Torbica A, Hadnadev M, Hadnadev TD (2012) Rice and buckwheat flour characterisation and its relation to cookie quality. Food Res Int 48(1):277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.05.001
Farzana T, Hossain FB, Abedin MJ, Afrin S, Rahman SS (2022) Nutritional and sensory attributes of biscuits enriched with buckwheat. J Agric Food Res 10:100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100394
Hussain N, Ali M, Hussain S, Nasir S, Mehmood K (2017) Development of buckwheat cookies supplemented with wheat flour. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(1):27–35. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20173206184
Chopra N, Dhillon B, Puri S (2014) Formulation of buckwheat cookies and their nutritional, physical, sensory and microbiological analysis. Int J Adv Biotechnol Res 5(3):381–387. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264943169_Formulation_of_Buckwheat_Cookies_and_their_Nutritional_ Physical_Sensory_and_Microbiological_Analysis
Dossa S, Dragomir C, Plustea L, Dinulescu C, Cocan I, Negrea M, Berbecea A, Alexa E, Rivis A (2023) Gluten-Free Cookies Enriched with Baobab Flour (Adansonia digitata L.) and Buckwheat Flour (Fagopyrum esculentum). Appl Sci 13(23):12908. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312908
Hager AS, Wolter A, Czerny M, Bez J, Zannini E, Arendt EK, Czerny M (2012) Investigation of product quality, sensory profile and ultrastructure of breads made from a range of commercial gluten-free flours compared to their wheat counterparts. Eur Food Res Technol 235:333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00217-012-1763-2
Qian JY, Kuhn M (1999) Physical Properties of Buckwheat Starches from Various Origins. Starch/Staerke 2(6):101–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-379X(199903)51:2<81::AID-STAR81>3.0.CO;2-I
Liu H, Guo X, Li W, Wang X, Peng O, Wang M (2015) Changes in physicochemical properties and in vitro digestibility of common buckwheat starch by heat-moisture treatment and annealing. Carbohydr Polym 132:237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.071
Sarabhai S, Prabhasankar P (2015) Influence of whey protein concentrate and potato starch on rheological properties and baking performance of Indian water chestnut flour based gluten free cookie dough. LWT 63(2):1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.111

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Investigation of the effect of buckwheat substitute on the quality of nutritious and healthy biscuit production

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material and methods

Raw materials and chemicals

Biscuits preparation

Determination of proximate composition and nutritional evaluation

Determination of color of flours and biscuits

Determination of functional properties of flour samples

Determination of physical properties of biscuits

Total phenolic content analyzing of biscuits

Determination of antioxidant capacity of biscuits

Microstructure analysis of samples

Sensory analysis of biscuits

Statistical analysis

Results and discussion

Functional and physicochemical characteristics of flour samples

Proximate composition and energy values of flour samples

Proximate composition and energy values of biscuits

Physical characteristics of biscuits

Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of biscuits

Sensory characteristics of biscuits

Microstructure of flour and biscuit samples

Conclusions

Declarations

Compliance with Ethics requirements

Conflicts of interest:
Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data availability:

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1

Investigation of the effect of buckwheat substitute on the quality of nutritious and healthy biscuit production

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material and methods

Raw materials and chemicals

Biscuits preparation

Determination of proximate composition and nutritional evaluation

Determination of color of flours and biscuits

Determination of functional properties of flour samples

Determination of physical properties of biscuits

Total phenolic content analyzing of biscuits

Determination of antioxidant capacity of biscuits

Microstructure analysis of samples

Sensory analysis of biscuits

Statistical analysis

Results and discussion

Functional and physicochemical characteristics of flour samples

Proximate composition and energy values of flour samples

Proximate composition and energy values of biscuits

Physical characteristics of biscuits

Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of biscuits

Sensory characteristics of biscuits

Microstructure of flour and biscuit samples

Conclusions

Declarations

Compliance with Ethics requirements

Conflicts of interest: Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data availability:

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1

Conflicts of interest:
Authors declare no conflict of interest.