Final Report

Effect of Brown Rice Flour and Almond Flour on the Acceptance and Color of Gluten Free
Sugar Cookies

NTRS 410-Experimental Foods Lab

California State University, Los Angeles
6/02/14
Spring 2014

Abstract
Demand for gluten-free (GF) products has recently increased due to both the removal of
gluten from the diet as a personal choice and an increased ability to diagnose gluten
intolerance. Thus, its necessary to develop foods similar in quality and appearance to glutencontaining foods. Its difficult to replicate the role of gluten, especially in baked goods.
Different flours are often experimented with to find suitable alternatives. The objective of this
experiment was to assess the color and sensory characteristics of GF cookies. The independent
variable was the type of flour. The control cookies were made with all-purpose flour, one
variation was made with brown rice flour and another variation was made with almond flour.
The dependent variables, color and consumer acceptance, were assessed with a colorimeter
and nine-point hedonic scale, respectively. The null hypothesis stated that there would be no
significant difference in color or consumer acceptance between the variants and the control
cookies. The alternative hypothesis stated that there would be a significant difference in color
and consumer acceptance between the variants and the control cookies. Sensory evaluation
revealed a significant difference between the control and the brown rice variation, with the
control scoring higher, causing the null hypothesis to be rejected. A significant difference was
also found between the almond flour and brown rice flour variations, with the almond flour
cookies scoring higher, causing the null hypothesis to again be rejected. However, the null
hypothesis was accepted due to no significant difference found for the control and the almond
flour variation. When testing color, the null hypothesis was accepted for all values accept the
a* value between the brown rice flour and control cookies. These values were significantly
different, with the control cookies being greener in hue; the null hypothesis was rejected.
Keywords: gluten, cookies, almond flour, brown rice flour
2

Introduction/Literature Review/Objectives
Gluten-free diets have become quite pervasive in recent times for a variety of reasons
with specific regards to individuals who are gluten-sensitive or who have celiac disease
(Anderson 2014; Demirkesen and others 2010). Although both gluten-sensitivity and celiac
disease are reactions to the protein gluten, a disconnect exists between the two in that glutensensitivity occurs when gluten ingestion is directly influenced by the digestive tract launching
an attack on gluten and leading to inflammation, as opposed to celiac disease which involves
gluten ingestion indirectly causing the body to initiate the deterioration of body tissues
(Anderson 2014; Demirkesen and others 2010). Gluten-sensitivity affects 7% of the U.S.
population (20 million people) whereas 1 in 133 people in the U.S. have celiac disease and with
these aforementioned statistics in mind, its clear to see why a market for GF items exists
(Anderson 2014).
Consumer demand has risen dramatically for GF products. In 2012, a reported 5 percent
of U.S. households had GF products and that number had risen to 13 percent by 2013 and is
expected to grow even more in the future (Anderson 2014). In addition, 2013 saw sales of GF
products totaling 10.5 billion dollars with a projected 15 billion dollars in sales set to occur in
2016 (Anderson 2014).
Developing GF products can be challenging due to glutens structural properties
(Demirkesen and others 2010). Conducting a pure substitution for all purpose flour with a
gluten- free flour may result in the product becoming dense, crumbly and greasy because
these flours are not able to absorb fat or liquid very well. Sugar cookies in particular rely
heavily on butter in their recipes and thus GF cookies arent able to absorb the butter very well

and the cookies end up being quite spread out and greasy. With the aforementioned
difficulties and higher prevalence of GF product purchasing and people following GF diets, it
would be beneficial to continue research on what the optimal methods are in creating GF
products.
Mastromatteo and others (2011) looked at the effects of using quinoa,maize and soy
flours on the formulation of GF spaghetti. Specifically, the authors examined the effects of the
aforementioned flours on sensorial quality and rheology of the GF pasta. A capillary rheometer
was utilized in determining elongation and a 9 point hedonic scale was employed in assessing
sensory analysis. It was found that GF spaghetti made with maize flour exhibited the highest
amount of elongation and viscosity. In addition, spaghetti made with maize flour also had the
highest level of acceptability and quinoa flour had the lowest amount of acceptability.
The physical and sensory properties of GF donuts were investigated by Melito and
Farkas (2012). They compared donuts using wheat flour to donuts made with eight (8) different
combinations of varying ratios of commercial GF flour, rice flour, and pregelatinized rice flour.
Color of the donuts was not affected by the different ratio of flours based on the L*, a*, and b*
values. The donuts were evaluated using a 9-point hedonic scale judging overall acceptability,
aroma, flavor and mouthfeel/texture and there was no significant difference among all GF
donuts. However, the GF donuts were liked less than the wheat donuts. Panelists noted that
the GF donuts were dry and had a heavy texture. The researchers concluded that donuts made
with a 3:1 ratio of commercial GF flour to rice flour had properties more similar to wheat flour
but further research was still needed to produce donuts with similar sensory characteristics to
wheat flour donuts.

GF breads are one of the leading types of GF products that are purchased and thus a
great deal of research has been conducted to investigate their sensory characteristics and
acceptability (Demirkesen and others, 2010). For example, Alverenga and others (2011)
assessed the physical and sensory characteristics of GF bread prepared with a combination of
maize, rice and tapioca flours with a 1:1:1 ratio. The researchers found that the crust color of
the GF bread was significantly lighter (P<.05) than the gluten containing bread indicated by a
10.66% higher L* parameter. There was no significant difference amongst the a* and b*
parameters in the gluten- containing and GF breads. In regards to crumb color, there was a
significant difference (P< .05) in all the categories of L*, a*, and b*. Overall, the GF bread
contained a darker browner crumb color than the gluten containing bread shown by its lower
L* value (indicating lightness), a* value (indicating redness) that was close to zero, and higher
b* (indicating yellowness). Sensory results were also obtained using a 9-point hedonic scale
on parameters such as crust color, crumb color, aroma, taste, crust firmness, and global
evaluation of gluten and GF breads. Despite the fact that the GF bread appeared satisfactory
with a hedonic score above 5 in each category, gluten bread scored higher in each category
except for crust firmness. Therefore, in comparing gluten breads to GF breads made from a
mixture of maize, rice, and tapioca flours it is evident that both the color and overall consumer
acceptance varied slightly. Further combinations of varying ratios of the three flours should be
tested in the future to see if it could reduce the deficit in brightness and increase favorable
sensory characteristics for consumers.
In addition, Demirkesen and others (2010) used a 5-point hedonic scale to study the
effect of different ratios of chestnut and rice flours on sensory characteristics of GF bread and

found that a 70% rice and 30% chestnut flour mix received the highest scores when compared
to a 100% rice flour and a 100% chestnut flour. The 70% rice and 30% chestnut flour mix
produced a very dull brown color.
Another study done by Gamonpilas and others (2013) also compared the physical
properties of gluten-containing and GF breads by substituting wheat flour with jasmine rice
flour. There were color differences between the wheat control and jasmine rice flour variation.
For example, the crust color of the GF rice flour bread was significantly different (P< .05) than
the wheat flour control as it had a higher L* value signifying that the jasmine rice flour bread
was lighter in color than the wheat control. In regards to the crumb color, all values of L*, a*,
and b* were significantly lower (P<.05) in the jasmine rice flour variation demonstrating an
overall darker color in the jasmine rice bread than the wheat control bread. By comparing how
color is portrayed in the GF breads containing jasmine rice flour to those of the control it is
evident that jasmine rice flour causes the breads crust color to turn lighter while darkening the
breads crumb color.
Additionally, the development of GF cracker snacks with pulse flours were studied (Han
and others 2010). The authors used 6 pulse flours (desi chickpea, green lentil, red lentil, pinto
bean, navy bean, and yellow bean) and three yellow pea fractions (protein, fiber, and starch
isolates) to make a total of 9 different GF cracker snacks. The researchers first made the
prototype crackers and then picked a flour for further product development based on
acceptability data, observations during processing, and input from an industry partner. The
prototype crackers were tested for color attributes and then for consumer acceptability using a
9-point hedonic scale to judge color, crispiness, flavor, and overall acceptability. The study

found that the whitest cracker based was the one from pea starch isolate fraction and the
darkest was pinto bean flour. The most red cracker (a* value) was unsurprisingly the cracker
made with red lentil flour and it also scored highest for the b* value. According to the untrained
panel used in the study, the color difference acceptability among the prototype crackers was
not significant. The color range of the different crackers was not likely to affect the acceptability
of the crackers. The flavor acceptability scores based on the hedonic scales resulted in the
cracker with pea fiber having the highest mean score while the pinto bean flour had the lowest
mean score. The flavor scores greatly affected the overall acceptability of the cracker. The
lowest mean score for acceptability was again the pinto bean flour and the highest mean score
was pea protein isolate. The prototype cracker that received the highest hedonic sensory score
was the cracker made with pea fiber fraction. The chickpea flour prototype, however, was
ultimately selected for commercial scale processing due to the aforementioned factors. The
color profile did not change significantly from the prototype crackers.
Chickpea flour is often at the center of GF research. Yamsaengsung and others (2012)
compared the color properties of cookies made from a variety of flour combinations. Cookie
recipes were developed which used either white wheat flour, whole wheat flour, amaranth
flour (GF), or buckwheat flour (GF). Each of these recipes served as a control. For each control,
five variations were designed where chickpea flour replaced 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100%
of the original flour. At 40% and above, the chickpea flour significantly (P < 0.05) decreased the
lightness while increasing the red and yellowness of the white wheat cookie as based on the L*,
a*, and b* values. In contrast, the addition of the chickpea flour (at all percentages) increased
the lightness of the whole wheat and amaranth flour cookies while not significantly affecting

the lightness of the buckwheat flour cookies. The redness increased significantly for the
buckwheat cookies but not for the whole wheat or amaranth cookies. The researchers stated
that the addition of chickpea flour improved the color of white and wheat flour cookies when
comprising 20-40% of the total flour and improved the color of the GF buckwheat and
amaranth cookies when comprising 40-60% of the total flour used.
Furthermore, de Simas and others (2009) also looked at GF cookies and measured the
effects of adding king palm flour to the color of the products. The original GF recipe used a
flour blend of 70% rice flour and 30% corn starch. This recipe was used as the control. Three
variations were designed where king palm flour substituted 10%, 20%, or 30% of the original
rice flour-corn starch blend. There was no statistically significant difference in the L*, a*, or b*
values for any of the variations. The researchers concluded that color was not affected by king
palm flour.
Additional research by Rai and others (2014) examined the effects of alternative flours
mixtures involving ratios of wheat, rice, and maize in comparison to pure wheat flour in bread.
Sensory evaluation was conducted using a panel of 9 judges and a 9-point hedonic scale.
Overall acceptability scores of different GF flour mixtures used to produce bread samples were
higher for the 25/75 flour combination of wheat flour and rice flour compared to the control of
100% wheat flour as well as 50/50, 75/25, and 0/100 ratios of wheat flour mixed with maize or
rice. The control wheat flour bread received the second highest overall acceptability score and
the flour mixture containing 100% maize received the lowest overall acceptability score.
Torbica and others (2012) explored differences in quality of GF cookies made from three
different ratios, 90/10, 80/20, and 70/30, of rice and buckwheat flour, respectively. Color and

sensory attributes of the GF cookies were compared to cookies prepared using wheat flour. L*,
a*, and b* color measurements were taken on the raw flour samples as well as the cookie
surfaces using a Minolta Chroma Meter CR-400 colorimeter. A sensory assessment of the
cookies was performed and panelists evaluated each cookie using a 5-point hedonic scale. All
flour ratios of the GF cookie samples displayed lower redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) values in
comparison to the wheat flour cookies. The 80/20 (rice flour/ buckwheat flour) combination
had the most acceptable sensory quality among all GF cookies tested.
The objective of this experiment will be to evaluate the sensory and color characteristics
of GF cookies. The control cookies will be made with all-purpose flour while the variants will be
made with brown rice flour and almond flour.
Hypotheses
The null hypothesis of the experiment states that there are no significant differences in
color or consumer acceptance among all variants, including the control. The alternative
hypothesis states that there will be significant differences in color or consumer acceptance for
all the variants, including the control.
Materials and Methods
All recipe ingredients for the three variants were procured from local grocery stores.
These ingredients are listed in Table 1 of the Sugar Cookie Preparation section of the Methods.
The equipment for both objective evaluation (color) and sensory evaluation are available in the
laboratory, and will be used during this experiment. This equipment is listed in the color and
sensory evaluation sections of the Methods, respectively.

Sugar Cookie Preparation

Refer to Attachment 2 in the Appendix for the adapted recipe with original
measurements and Attachment 3 for Nutrition Label information.
Table 1: Sugar Cookie Formula

Ingredients (g)

All purpose
flour
Control/Variant 1

Brown rice flour

Almond flour
Variant 2

Variant 3

All-purpose
flour

303.49

Brown rice flour

303.49

Almond flour

303.49

Baking soda

4.06

4.06

4.06

Baking powder

2.03

2.03

2.03

Butter

200.59

200.59

200.59

White sugar

266.98

266.98

266.98

Egg

44.14

44.14

44.14

Vanilla extract

3.71

3.71

3.71

TOTAL

825.00

825.00

825.00

All of the ingredients listed above were converted to grams using ESHA Food Processor
(Version 10.11 ESHA, Salem, OR, USA) from the standard recipe in the Appendix as Attachment
2. Weights of all ingredients were then modified proportionally for a total recipe weight of 825
grams. The first step of sugar cookie preparation was to weigh out each ingredient for all three
variants according to Table 1 (above). Next, the convection oven was preheated to 162C. In a
10

small bowl, flour, baking soda, and baking powder were mixed together. The butter and sugar
were creamed together in a Kitchen Aid mixer for 40 seconds on level 1, then level 2 for 40
seconds until smooth. Then the egg and vanilla were beat in the mixture on level 1 for 10
seconds and level 2 for 20 seconds for a total of 30 seconds. Gradually the dry ingredients were
added cup at a time. After each addition, the dough was mixed for 10 seconds on level 1. As
necessary, the sides of the bowl were scraped with a spatula in order to mix all the ingredients
thoroughly. Dough balls that weighed 10g +/-1 were formed and placed onto ungreased cookie
sheets. Two cookies sheets with 15 cookie dough balls for each product were prepared for a
total of 6 cookie sheets. The full cookie sheets were then placed inside the convection oven for
5 minutes. The placing of the cookie sheets was set in order that same product cookie sheets
were not on the same level oven rack or on the same side of the oven. After baking, the cookies
were left to stand on the baking sheet for 2 minutes and then transferred to wire racks. They
were then cooled completely (<30C) before undergoing sensory and objective evaluation
tests.
Sensory Evaluation
Fifteen untrained panelists assessed and recorded the extent of liking of the sugar
cookie by selecting a category on a 9-point hedonic scale that ranges from extreme like to
extreme dislike (Refer to Attachment 1 in the Appendix). The data helped evaluate the overall
acceptability of the sugar cookie variants.
Color
CIELab color was measured using a Minolta Chroma Meter (Model CR-410, Konica
Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc., Ramsey, NJ, USA), which was calibrated using a Minolta white

11

calibration plate No. 17333240 for CR-200/CR-300/CR400 with 2 OBSERVER to measure

lightness (L*), red/green (a*), and yellow/blue (b*) color values. Readings were collected from
the center of each sample. A total of two (2) samples of the sugar cookies were randomly
chosen per variant (3).
Statistical Analysis
Two formal replicants were performed and raw data was collected and combined for
analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis, t-tests for the significance of the difference between
the means, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using Excel 2007. Alpha level
was set at P= 0.05.
Results and Discussion
The results of the sensory and color evaluations are presented below in Table 2.
Table 2: Means Standard Deviations (SD) of Sugar Cookie Results for Consumer Acceptance
and Color
Treatment
Control
All-Purpose
Flour

Hedonic Score
7.071.49a

Color (L*)
71.591.49ab

Color (a*)
-1.010.20a

Color (b*)
20.700.32a

Variant 1 (V1)
6.471.36a
69.982.33a
0.090.80ab
25.754.35a
Almond Flour
Variant 2 (V2)
4.601.92b
73.122.17b
-0.380.15b
19.751.39a
Brown Rice
Flour
MeansSD of 2 replicates; 15 judges per variant within replicate one and 15 judges per
variant within replicate two.
MeansSD of 2 replicants; 2 readings per variant within each replicant.
ab
Means within the same column with the same letter are not significantly different
(p>0.05).
Sensory Evaluation

12

Sensory evaluations using a 9 point hedonic scale were performed to test for consumer
acceptance. The means with the highest score on the hedonic tests was the control at 7.07
closely followed by the almond flour variation at 6.47 and finally the brown rice flour at 4.60.
At (P<0.05) the results of the sensory evaluation found that there was a significant difference
between the control and V2 or the brown rice flour. We rejected the null hypothesis and
therefore concluded that consumers found a significant difference between the control
variation and the brown rice variation. In conducting the sensory evaluation we also found that
there was a significant difference between V1 and V2 at (P<0.05). With these results, we
rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that consumers found a significant difference
between the almond flour variation and the brown rice flour variation. Lastly, through the
sensory evaluation we found no significant difference between the control and V1 (P>0.05).
Hence, we retained the null hypothesis and and concluded that the consumers found no
significant difference between the control and almond flour variation for sugar cookies. Overall,
panelists had no preference between the control and almond flour sugar cookies but showed a
strong dislike of the brown rice variation when compared to the control and almond flour
variation.
Han and others (2010), reported mean overall acceptability scores for GF
crackers of 4.3 and 5.9 when pinto bean and pea protein isolate were used, respectively.
Alveranga and others (2011) reported scores of 6.9 for a 1-1-1 ratio by weight of maize, rice
and tapioca flour based bread and 7.4 for the gluten-containing control.
Melito and Farkas (2012), studying GF donuts, reported that the GF products had
acceptance scores of 4.54 and 4.33, significantly lower than the 6.37 average score of the

13

control. Melito and Farkas (2012) found no significant differences between the scores of the GF
donuts. Rai and others (2014) tested different flour combinations for bread. The control wheat
flour bread had an acceptability score of 8.0, higher than the GF acceptability scores of 6.3 and
6.2 for the 100% rice and 100% maize flour breads, respectively.
Overall, the pinto beans produced too beany a flavor and were not a viable substitute.
Brown rice seemed to be acceptable in breads from previous studies but was not acceptable in
the cookies. The reason for this could be that previous studies may have used a finer crumb.
The cookies made with the brown rice were mostly unpleasant due to too grainy and crumbly a
texture. A finer crumb may have produced a more acceptable product. Previous studies have
also incorporated other ingredients besides GF flours to assist with textural issues, which this
study did not investigate.
Measurement of Color
Color measurements were measured by placing the colorimeter over the middle region
of the top of the sugar cookies. Two cookies per variant were randomly chosen for color
measurement with each replicant. Lightness is measured by the L* values and is measured
from a scale of 0 to 100 from dark to light. All variants had high L* values with (71.59, 69.98,
and 73.12) indicating the bright tonal quality of each cookie variation. The L* values among
control and brown rice flour and control and almond flour showed no significant difference
(P>0.05) in regards to lightness, therefore we retained our null hypothesis. However, the L*
value between almond flour and brown rice flour showed a statistical difference (p<0.05) and
therefore we rejected the null hypothesis. In measuring the a* values, which identify hues with
red to green tones, there was no significant difference between the control and almond flour

14

variant and between the almond flour variant and brown rice variant (P>0.05). The null
hypothesis was accepted for these measurements. However, a significant difference for the a*
value was found between the control and brown rice flour (P<0.05). The null hypothesis was
rejected for this measurement. The mean values of the control: -1.01, V1 (almond): 0.09, and
V2 (brown rice): -0.38 indicate that the all-purpose flour and brown rice flour had mildly green
hues while the almond flour variant had mildly red hues. For the b* value, which measures the
hue on a continuum from yellow to blue, no significant differences were found between the
control, V1, and V2 (means = control: 20.70, V1: 25.75, and V2: 19.75) with (P>0.05). The null
hypothesis was retained for all three measurements. In looking at the mean values, the
positive means indicate that all the cookies contained yellower hues rather than bluer hues,
with the almond flour variant having the most yellow color.
De Simas and others (2009) found no significant difference for L*, a*, or b* values in any
of their cookies using a combination of rice flour, cornstarch, and varying levels of king palm
flour. Han and others (2010),reported a large range of a* and b* values due to the usage of pea
starch, and red and green lentil flour. As expected, the red-green profile, a* value, ranged from
0.08 for pea starch to 20.47 for red lentil flour. The yellow-blue profile, b* value, differed from
2.40 for pea starch to 35.43 for green lentil flour. Alvarenga and others (2011) found high L*
values of 70.49 with their GF bread made from maize, rice, and tapioca flours versus 63.70 for
the gluten containing bread. They found a* and b* values of 1.06 and 33.13 for the GF bread
and 4.61 and 28.81 for the gluten containing bread, respectively. The GF bread was lighter, less
red, and more yellow. These results are most likely due to the yellowish tint found in maize
flour. The findings of the L* and a* values for GF donuts by Melito and Farkas (2012) were not

15

significantly different. The b* values of GF donuts were lower than the wheat control meaning
a less yellow hue (24.9 and 24.0 versus 35).

The study carried out by Torbica and others

(2012), also found no significant difference in the L* value of the top surface of the cookies.
However, the GF cookies displayed lower a* and b* (9.51-12.15 and 35.01-39.75) values in
comparison to the control wheat flour cookies (15.91 and 46.16). Yamsaengsung and others
(2012) found that the substitution of chickpea flour (GF) for white flour in cookies increased the
a*, and b* values (7.14 from 2.94 and 45.45 from 29.15, respectively) while decreasing the L*
value (71.81 from 77.28). The chickpea flour increased the L* value of the whole wheat flour
cookies (72.72 from 66.25) without affecting the a* or b* values. Gamonpilas and others
(2014) reported a much higher L* value (80.14 versus 51.27) in the GF bread made from 100%
jasmine rice flour than in the wheat control. The a* and b* values for the jasmine rice flour
bread were both lower than the wheat control (-0.15 versus 16.16 and 19.93 versus 31.36,
respectively).
The only consistent finding among these previous studies is that L*, a*, and b* values
vary greatly depending upon which GF alternative flour is used. In general, researchers should
be aiming for positive a* and b* values (red and yellow hues versus green and blue) and
moderate L* values that are not too light or too dark.

16

Nutrition Information
Table 3: Nutrition Facts for the Sugar Cookie Control and Variants
Product
(g/serving)

Calories
(kcal)

Total Fat
(g)

Total Carb.
(g)

Fiber (g)

Sugars (g)

Protein (g)

Control Allpurpose Flour

(30g)

130

18

10

Variant 1
Almond Flour
(30 g)

160

12

12

10

Variant 2
Brown Rice
Flour (30g)

130

18

10

The results of the ESHA analysis are listed in Table 3, Nutrition Facts for the Sugar cookie
control and variants, above. It showed that the control shared more similarities to V2 (brown
rice flour) than to V1 (almond flour) with the same amount of calories, fat, carbs, sugar, and
protein in grams per serving and only a single gram difference in fiber. V1 was different from
both the control and V2 with higher calorie, fat, and protein content and lower carbohydrate
content. V1 had the same single gram amount of fiber as V2. Both the Cookie Control and
Variants contained 10 grams of sugar per 30 gram serving. This indicates that brown rice flour
would be a good substitute for all-purpose flour when preparing GF sugar cookie alternatives
that are similar to the regular control recipe. Almond flour may be an adequate GF flour for
sugar cookies when there is a need for energy-dense or high-protein/low-carbohydrate
alternatives to all-purpose flour.

17

Additional Observations
The control cookies had the smallest spread, palest color, uneven coloring, were golden
brown on of the cookie and light on the rest of the cookie, and had a slightly cracked top.
Almond flour cookies had dark golden brown edges, were slightly lighter in the middle, were
the most spread, had a bumpy structure on top, and overall uneven color. The brown rice
cookies had a depressed middle, dark brown edges with the rest being pale, were more spread
than middle but had less spread than almond flour cookies.
Conclusion and Future Work
No significant differences were seen in overall consumer acceptability of the almond
flour variant compared to the control. However, significant differences were seen between the
control and brown rice flour and between the two variants. In terms of color, no significant
differences were seen among the control, V1, and V2 with regards to yellowness (b*). However,
a significant difference for redness (a*) was found between the control and brown rice flour
and for lightness (L*) between brown rice flour and almond flour. Sensory and color
measurements suggest that almond flour is an adequate replacement for all-purpose flour in
cookies but brown rice flour is not an adequate replacement.
A number of changes could be made for future studies. An increased number of
untrained panelists and participants from different occupational backgrounds (as opposed to
purely nutrition students as is the case in the present study) could be implemented to more
reliably represent the population and strengthen the results. Future studies may also
investigate the effects of other GF flours such as sorghum flour and quinoa flour in creating

18

alternate cookie variants. Demand for GF products is increasing and further research will
benefit manufacturers in developing appealing products.

References
Allrecipes.com. Easy Sugar Cookies. Available from: recipes.com/recipe/easy-sugar-c ookies/.
Accessed April 13, 2014.
Alverenga NB, Lidon FC, Belga E, Motrena P, Guerreiro S, Carvalho MJ, Canada J. 2011.
Characterization of Gluten Free Bread Prepared from Maize, Rice, and Tapioca Flours using the
Hydrocolloid Seaweed Agar-Agar. Recent Research in Science and Technology. 3(8):64-68
Anderson J. 2014. Gluten-Sensitivity vs. Celiac Disease. New York City, NY: About. Available
from:http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenintolerance/a/Gluten-Sensitivity-Vs-CeliacDisease.htm. Accessed April 24, 2014.
Demirkesen I, Mert B, Sumnu G, Sahin S. 2010. Utilization of chestnut flour in
gluten free bread formulas. Journal of Food Engineering 101: 329-36.
de Simas K N, Vieira L N, Podest R, Mller CO, Vieira MA, Beber RC, Amboni RC. 2009. Effect of
king palm (Archontophoenix alexandrae) flour incorporation on physicochemical and textural
characteristics of gluten free cookies. International Journal Of Food Science & Technology,
44(3), 531-538. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01840.x
Gamonpilas C, Fuongfuchat A, Seetapan N, Methacanon P, Pongjaruvat W. 2013. Influence of
pregelatinised tapioca starch and transglutaminase on dough rheology and quality of gluten
free jasmine rice breads. Food Hydrocolloids. 36: 143-150. doi: 10.1016.2013.09.004.
Han J, Janz JAM, Gerlat M. 2010. Development of gluten-free cracker snacks using pulse flours
and fractions. Food Research International 43:627-633. doi:10.1016
Mastromatteo M, Chillo S, Iannetti M, Civica V, Del Nobile M. 2011. Formulation optimisation of
glutenfree functional spaghetti based on quinoa, maize and soy flours. International Journal of
Food Science & Technology,46(6), 1201-1208.
Melito H, Farkas BE. 2012. Physical properties of gluten free donuts. Journal of Food Quality
36:32-40. doi:10.1111

19

Rai SW, Kaur AM, Singh BA. 2014. Quality characteristics of gluten free cookies prepared from
different flour combinations. Journal of Food Science and Technology 51(4):785-9. doi:
10.1007/s13197=0110547-1
Torbica AL, Hadnadev MI, Hadnadev TA. 2012. Rice and buckwheat flour characterisation and
its relation to cookie quality. Food Research International 48(1):277-283.
Yamsaengsung R, Berghofer E, Schoenlechner R. 2012. Physical properties and sensory
acceptability of cookies made from chickpea addition to white wheat or whole wheat flour
compared to GF amaranth or buckwheat flour. International Journal Of Food Science &
Technology,47(10), 2221-2227.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03092

20

Appendix Attachment 1
ACCEPTABILITY TEST FOR GLUTEN FREE COOKIES
You may rinse your mouth with water at any time during the test if you need to. Please taste
the samples according to the 3-digit random code provided on the samples and the ballot. You
may not go back and re-taste the samples. No talking during sensory testing.
Check the box that best describes your overall opinion of each sample
3-Digit Sample Numbers

(9) LIKE EXTREMELY

(8) LIKE VERY MUCH

(7) LIKE MODERATELY

(6) LIKE SLIGHTLY

(5) NEITHER LIKE NOR

(4) DISLIKE SLIGHTLY

(3)DISLIKE

(2) DISLIKE VERY MUCH

(1) DISLIKE EXTREMELY

DISLIKE

MODERATELY

21

Appendix Attachment 2
Easy Sugar Cookie Recipe
Ingredients:
2 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1 cup butter, softened
1 1/2 cups white sugar
1 egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Directions:
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C). In a small bowl, stir together flour, baking soda,
and baking powder. Set aside.
In a large bowl, cream together the butter and sugar until smooth. Beat in egg and vanilla.
Gradually blend in the dry ingredients. Roll rounded teaspoonfuls of dough into balls, and place
onto ungreased cookie sheets.
Bake 8-10 minutes in the preheated oven, or until golden. Let stand on cookie sheet two
minutes before removing to cool on wire racks.
This recipe was adapted from Easy Sugar Cookies which can be accessed at
Easy Sugar Cookies. Available from: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/easy-sugar-cookies/. Accessed
April 13, 2014.

22