INTRODUCTION
Functional foods that are consumed as part of a
regular diet have the potential to improve health or
reduce disease risk. For example, gluten-free foods are
particularly useful for celiac patients [1]. Preventive
medicine has made significant progress in the previous
decade and proved the critical importance of nutrition in
avoiding diseases, particularly those related to diet [2].
Celiac disease is a chronic inflammatory
autoimmune disease of the small intestine mucosa
triggered by the consumption of gluten proteins [3].
It is characterized by a lifelong intolerance to gluten,
specifically the prolamin portion of wheat (gliadin), rye
(secalin), and barley (hordein) [4].
Today, 1% of the world’s population has celiac
disease [5]. A life-long rigorous gluten-free diet is
currently the only treatment available for celiac
patients. It improves the quality of life, prevents
refractory celiac disease, and alleviates symptoms [6].
In the long run, this diet also benefits patients with
previously unexplained persistent watery diarrhea or
dominating bloating symptoms who satisfy the criteria
for functional bowel disorders [7]. Thus, gluten-free
food production must be prioritized to meet the needs of
people with celiac disease [8].
Gluten-free pasta is one of the options for people
with celiac disease caused by their inability to digest
gluten adequately [9]. Gluten-intolerant people, who
are becoming more common in society, will prefer this
product to gluten-containing pasta [10].
Pasta is generally regarded as a classic food
product that is frequently consumed due to its sensory
qualities, as well as convenience and ease of transportation,
cooking, handling, and storage. In addition, pasta
330
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
has grown popular due to its nutritional qualities that
are linked to a low glycemic index. In short-term human
intervention studies, low-glycemic-index foods reduced
appetite and increased fullness [11]. However, people
with celiac disease prefer gluten-free pasta for health
reasons [12].
Rice flour has been included in gluten-free product
formulations to give the batter structure and nutritional
value [13]. It is a primary ingredient in pasta production
[14]. Furthermore, the use of rice flour is
appealing because of its low salt content and high
digestibility [15].
Hydrocolloids are commonly used as thickening
agents that increase dough viscosity and bind water to
improve texture, volume, and final quality. In addition
to their advantages for the technological properties of
gluten-free products, hydrocolloids may impact the
final product’s glycemic index [16]. Particularly, fiber
increases satiety after eating and reduces the glycemic
index of food [17]. As a result, hydrocolloids such as
psyllium husk are particularly crucial materials for
gluten-free flour [18].
In addition, using psyllium in cooking may help
celiacs live longer by allowing them to eat fiber with
regular meals rather than separately as a supplement,
which may not be as tasty [19]. On the other hand, the
consumption of soybean food or fortified foods has
recently increased due to its benefits for human nutrition
and health [20].
Gluten-free pasta is more expensive and it is often
brittle and pale compared to wheat flour pasta [21].
Therefore, we aimed to produce high-quality gluten-free
pasta from various formulas fortified with soy protein
isolate and two types of hydrocolloids (psyllium husk
or carboxymethyl cellulose), as well as to evaluate the
physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the final
product.
STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODS
Our study involved the production and evaluation
of gluten-free pasta made from white corn flour, rice
flour, soy protein isolate, psyllium husk, and
carboxymethyl cellulose.
Materials. Wheat flour with 72% extraction
(11.31% protein, 0.95% protein, 0.57% ash, 0.66%
fiber, and 86.51% nitrogen-free extract) was obtained
from Amoun Milling Company (Giza, Egypt). Rice
flour (7.16% protein, 1.50% protein, 0.57% ash, 1.21%
fiber, and 89.56% nitrogen-free extract) and white corn
flour (9.76% protein, 4.24% protein, 1.27% ash, 2.94%
fiber, and 81.79% nitrogen-free extract) were obtained
from the local market (Giza, Egypt). Soy protein isolate
(87.74% protein, 0.43% protein, 2.87% ash, 0.29% fiber,
and 8.67% nitrogen-free extract) was obtained from
American Food Chemicals. Potato starch (0.16% protein,
0.17% protein, 0.03% ash, 0.01% fiber, and 99.63%
nitrogen-free extract) was obtained from Emsland
Group, Germany. Carboxymethyl cellulose was obtained
from Sigma Company. Psyllium husk powder (Plantago
psyllium) was obtained from Now Foods, USA. All the
chemicals used in the estimation and analysis were of
analytical grade.
Methods. Technological methods. Preparation
of composite flour. Wheat flour (72% ext.) pasta was
used as a control sample. The experimental samples, in
addition to gluten-free flours, contained soy protein
isolate and psyllium husk or carboxymethyl cellulose,
with varying levels of white corn flour, rice flour, and
potato starch (Table 1). Individual flour combinations
were homogenized, sealed in polyethylene bags, and
stored at –18°C until needed.
Pasta dough preparation. Pasta was produced
according to Collins and Pangloli with some
modifications [22]. All dry ingredients were sieved
through a 100-mesh sieve, combined, and mixed to
produce a homogenized mixture. Then, the mixture
was placed in a mixing bowl and mixed until the dough
formed (31 ± 1% of tap water). The dough was shaped
into a ball, covered with a plastic wrap, and allowed to
rest for 30 min. Then, it was hand-kneaded for 1 min,
divided into 100-g portions, and shaped in a cylindrical
Table 1 Pasta formulas
Samples Raw materials, g
Wheat
flour
White
corn flour
Rice
flour
Potato starch Soy protein isolate Psyllium husk Carboxymethyl cellulose
Control 100.00 – – – – – –
A – 45.0 45.0 – 10 2.5 –
B – 37.5 37.5 15.0 10 2.5 –
C – 30.0 30.0 30.0 10 2.5 –
D – 22.5 22.5 45.0 10 2.5 –
E – 15.0 15.0 60.0 10 2.5 –
F – 45.0 45.0 – 10 – 2.5
G – 37.5 37.5 15.0 10 – 2.5
H – 30.0 30.0 30.0 10 – 2.5
I – 22.5 22.5 45.0 10 – 2.5
J – 15.0 15.0 60.0 10 – 2.5
331
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
form by using a pasta machine without vacuum
(Philips Pasta Maker HR 2357/05, Italy).
Pasta drying process. In line with Kishk et al., the
pasta samples were air-dried at 23–25°C for 4 h in a
room equipped with a fan [23]. After drying in the open
air, the samples were placed in a cabinet dehydrator and
dried at 70°C to a moisture level of about 12%. After
cooling to room temperature (25 ± 2°C), the samples
were placed in plastic bags, sealed, and stored at
12–14°C until analysis.
Analytical methods. Color determination. The color
of the samples was measured according to Humter by
using a Hunter Lab colorimeter [24]. L*, a*, and b*
parameters were measured by a spectro-colorimeter
(Tristimulus Color Machine) with a CIELAB color
scale (Hunter Lab Scan XE-Reston VA, USA) and the
reflection mode. The instrument was standardized with
white tiles (Hunter Lab Color Standard (LX No.16379),
X = 72.26, Y = 81.94, and Z = 88.14 (L* = 92.46,
a* = –0.86; b* = –0.16)). The instrument (65°/0° geometry;
D25 optical sensor; 10° observer) was calibrated by
using black and white reference tiles. The color values
were expressed as lightness to darkness for L*, redness
to greenness for a*, and yellowness to blueness for b*.
Physical properties of pasta. Pasta cooking quality
was determined according to the method approved
by the American Association of Cereal Chemists [25].
Optimum cooking time was the time required for the
opaque core of the pasta to disappear when squeezed
gently between two glass plates after cooking. Pasta
pieces of 25 g were cooked for optimum time in a beaker
with 300 mL of tap water, rinsed in cold water, drained
for 15 min, and weighed. The percentage of increased
weight was calculated as a cooking yield.
The content of solids in the cooking water was
determined by drying at 105°C overnight. The cooking
loss was expressed as a percentage between the solid
weight and the initial dry matter. To calculate the
swelling index, we divided the difference between the
weight of cooked and uncooked pasta by the weight
of uncooked pasta. The nitrogen loss was determined
according to the Kjeldahl method approved by the
American Association of Cereal Chemists by using
conversion factor of 5.7 [25].
Texture profile analysis of pasta. The texture of the
pasta samples (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness,
chewiness, gumminess, and resilience) was determined
by Texture Profiles Analysis (TPA) using a CT3™
Texture Analyzer (Brookfield) according to Boume [26].
The Test Works software was installed and an
appropriate test was selected for the TPA analysis:
a 2.50 mm/s test speed, a 10 000 g load cell, two cycles
for cooked pasta, one cycle for uncooked pasta, and a
10 mm depth. The parameters, such as length, diameter,
speed, compression percentage, and the number of
cycles, were entered as input data before starting the
compression. Then the load cell started to slowly move
downwards, compressing the sample, with a 5-s wait
between the first and the second compression cycles.
After two cycles, the compression stopped automatically.
Sensory evaluation of pasta. The sensory attributes
of the gluten-free pasta were evaluated by ten panelists
from the Department of Food Technology, National
Research Centre, according to the method reported
by Inglett et al. [27]. Color, texture, flavor, and overall
acceptability were evaluated on the 9-point hedonic
scale. The scale was verbally anchored with nine
categories, namely: like extremely, like very much,
like moderately, like slightly, neither like nor dislike,
dislike slightly, dislike moderately, dislike very much,
and dislike extremely. The quality attributes of the
experimental samples were compared with those of the
control sample (100% wheat flour).
Statistical analysis. The results were analyzed
statistically by performing analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test in the
SPSS statistical package (Version 9.05). The least significant
difference was chosen to determine significant
differences among various formulations. Differences
were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We studied effects of psyllium husk (2.5%) and
carboxymethyl cellulose (2.5%) on gluten-free pasta
with different proportions of white corn flour, rice flour,
potato starch, and a fixed amount of soy protein isolate
(10%).
Color parameters of gluten-free uncooked pasta.
The color parameters (L*, a*, b*, and color intensity) of
the uncooked pasta samples are presented in Table 2. As
we can see, the samples containing potato starch (60%)
and carboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk (samples J
and E, respectively) recorded the highest values of
L* color (more lightness) with significant differences
between them or in comparison with the other samples
(P ≤ 0.05).
We also found that lightness was affected by the
amount of potato starch in the samples: the more potato
starch, the lighter the samples. The control sample had
the lowest value of lightness. The highest values of
redness (a* value) were observed in the control sample
(3.22) and the sample with carboxymethyl cellulose and
without potato starch (2.52). However, there were no
significant differences in redness among the rest of the
samples.
As for yellowness (b* values), the lowest value
(13.20) was recorded in the control sample, while the
highest values (16.70 and 15.93) were observed in the
samples without potato statrch (samples A and F). There
were no significant differences in yellowness among the
gluten-free samples with soy protein isolate. However,
the highest value of color intensity was found in the
sample containing 60% potato starch + carboxymethyl
cellulose, in contrast to the control sample with the
lowest value. These results were consistent with those
of Bolarinwa and Oyesiji who reported that gluten-free
332
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
pasta with rice and corn flour had higher lightness and
lower redness compared to wheat flour pasta [28].
The hardness of gluten-free uncooked pasta.
Hardness (N) is related to the strength of structure
under compression during the first compression cycle.
It is a force required to attain a given deformation. The
hardness of uncooked pasta was determined by the
texture profile analyzer (Fig. 1).
As can be seen, the control pasta showed the highest
value of hardness (65.13) compared to the gluten-free
samples, which reflected the strength of structure
provided by the gluten network.
However, there was a clear difference in hardness
between the samples with psyllium husk and those
with carboxymethyl cellulose. Particularly, the highest
hardness (44.97) was recorded in the psyllium husk
sample without potato starch (sample A) compared to
the carboxymethyl cellulose samples without starch
(sample F) (23.30).
In general, the psyllium husk pasta had hardness
values in the range of 44.97 to 15.16, whereas the carboxymethyl
cellulose samples had this parameter ranging
from 23.30 to 4.26. Thus, potato starch played an
important role in the hardness of uncooked pasta: higher
contents of potato starch led to lower hardness. These
results were confirmed by Kang et al. who found that
the hardness of gluten-free pasta containing potato
starch was lower than that of wheat flour pasta [29].
Color parameters of gluten-free cooked pasta.
The color parameters of the cooked pasta samples
Table 2 Color parameters of uncooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk or carboxymethyl cellulose
Samples Color parameters
L* a* b* Color intensity
Control 61.73i 3.22a 13.20d 1.510d
Gluten-free pasta with
psyllium husk:
A 68.86h 1.77c 15.93ab 1.530c
B 70.36g 1.67cd 15.30bc 1.530c
C 71.90f 1.57cd 14.73bc 1.540b
D 73.96d 1.49cd 14.33c 1.540b
E 75.70b 1.46cd 14.26c 1.540b
Gluten-free pasta with
carboxymethyl cellulose:
F 69.50h 2.52b 16.70a 1.530c
G 70.86g 1.71cd 15.60ab 1.536b
H 72.80e 1.68cd 15.23bc 1.540b
I 74.86c 1.36cd 15.16bc 1.540b
J 77.50a 1.29d 15.06bc 1.550a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)
A, F – no potato starch; B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch; D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
Figure 1 Texture profile analysis of uncooked pasta: Control – 100 % wheat flour pasta; A, F – no potato starch;
B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch; D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
Hardness of uncooked pasta, N
GFP containing 2.5% PsH GFP containing 2.5% CMC
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
70
333
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 2. As we can
see, the samples containing 60% potato starch and
carboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk (samples J
and E) recorded the highest values of L* (more lightness),
with no significant difference between them. However,
they showed significant differences when compared to
the other samples (P ≤ 0.05). Consequently, lightness
was affected by the content of potato starch in the
samples, with higher contents leading to lighter color.
The control sample had the lowest value of lightness.
The highest redness (a*) values were recorded
in the samples containing 45% white corn flour,
45% rice flour, 10% soy protein isolate, and 2.5%
carboxymethyl cellulose or 2.5% psyllium husk, with
no significant differences. The lowest redness was
observed in the samples containing 60% potato starch
with 2.5% carboxymethyl cellulose or 2.5% psyllium
husk. However, the lowest value of color intensity was
significantly recorded in the control sample, with no
significant differences between the gluten-free samples.
Our results were in agreement with those of Yaseen
and Shouk [30]. The authors found that pasta with corn
starch had higher lightness and lower redness values
compared to the control (100% wheat flour). Similarly,
Mohammadi et al. reported that increased amounts of
rice flour in gluten-free products led to higher lightness
of the final product [31].
The quality of gluten-free cooked pasta. The
cooking time and quality parameters of the pasta
samples prepared with hydrocolloids (carboxymethyl
cellulose and psyllium husk) are presented in
Table 4. As can be seen, the optimum cooking time was
highest (13.16 min) for the control sample (P ≤ 0.05)
compared to the other samples except for the samples
without potato starch (A and F). However, the optimum
cooking time gradually decreased with higher contents
of potato starch. Also, potato starch had a positive effect
on the cooking yield, whether the samples contained
carboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk as binding
agents.
The swelling index of pasta is an indicator of how
much water is absorbed by starch and proteins during
cooking. It is utilized for the gelatinization of starch
and hydration of proteins [32]. According to Table
4, the swelling index was the lowest (142.82) for the
control sample and highest (190.60) for the psyllium
husk sample with 60% of potato starch (sample E), with
significant difference. The swelling index was also high
(186.66) for the carboxymethyl cellulose with 60% of
starch (sample J).
Cooking loss is defined as the quantity of solids
going into water during cooking. It determines the
quality of pasta, with compact-textured pasta having
a lower cooking loss [33]. According to our results
(Table 4), the control sample significantly recorded the
lowest value of cooking loss (6.16%). We also found that
potato starch had a negative effect on the quality of the
gluten-free pasta, i.e., higher contents of potato starch
gradually increased cooking loss. However, this negative
effect was reduced by adding psyllium husk.
The results also showed a significantly high value
of nitrogen loss in the gluten-free samples with
carboxymethyl cellulose, compared to the control and
the samples with psyllium husk. Moreover, potato
starch significantly increased nitrogen loss in the
carboxymethyl cellulose samples. In general, nitrogen
loss ranged from 12.10 to 40.55% in the samples with
carboxymethyl cellulose and from 6.50 to 10.20% in the
samples with psyllium husk.
Table 3 Color parameters of cooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk or carboxymethyl cellulose
Samples Color parameters
L* a* b* Color intensity
Control 52.70c 2.80ab 19.20b 1.50b
Gluten-free pasta with
psyllium husk:
A 57.84b 3.03a 21.23a 1.51a
B 57.94b 2.90ab 20.40ab 1.51a
C 58.57b 2.83ab 20.20ab 1.51a
D 58.80b 2.73b 19.46b 1.51a
E 60.70a 2.33c 16.40c 1.51a
Gluten-free pasta with
carboxymethyl cellulose:
F 57.90b 3.03a 21.23a 1.51a
G 58.50b 2.90ab 20.33ab 1.51a
H 58.80b 2.76b 19.53b 1.51a
I 58.90b 2.73b 19.40b 1.51a
J 61.66a 2.10d 14.76d 1.51a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)
L* = Lightens, a* = Redness, b* = Yellowness; A, F – no potato starch; B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch;
D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
334
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
In the study by De Arcangelis et al., such hydrothermal
treatments inhibited granule swelling, retarded
gelatinization, and increased starch paste stability,
having thus enhanced the texture properties and cooking
behavior of rice noodles [32]. Further, Khosla et al.
reported that higher contents of rice flour in gluten-free
pasta might increase the optimum cooking time [34].
The texture profile of gluten-free cooked pasta.
The textural properties of cooked pasta are an important
parameter that determines the overall acceptability by
consumers [35]. The results of texture profile analysis of
our gluten-free cooked pasta against the control (100%
wheat flour) are shown in Table 5.
During the first bite, we obtained hardness,
adhesiveness, and resilience values.
Hardness is defined as the maximum load applied to
the samples during a compression cycle, corresponding
to the peak force [36]. According to Table 5, the control
pasta recorded the highest value of cycle 1 hardness
(3.96 N) compared to the gluten-free samples. This
result was in agreement with Larrosa et al. who stated
that wheat control pasta showed higher hardness values
than all gluten-free tagliatelles, demonstrating the
impact of the gluten matrix on tagliatelle texture [37].
In our study, the gluten-free samples with psyllium
husk had higher hardness values than those with
carboxymethyl cellulose, ranging from 3.31 to 1.76 N
and from 1.73 to 0.69 N, respectively. We also found
that higher contents of potato starch decreased the
hardness values in all gluten-free samples. Similarly,
Detchewa et al. reported an increase in the hardness
of gluten-free spaghetti when hydrocolloids were
incorporated [38].
Table 4 Cooking time and quality parameters of cooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk or
carboxymethyl cellulose
Samples Optimum cooking
time
Cooking yield Swelling index Cooking loss Nitrogen loss
Control 13.16a 136.93g 142.83h 6.16j 4.00h
Gluten-free pasta with
psyllium husk:
A 12.83ab 144.80f 159.43f 6.83i 6.50gh
B 12.50b 152.60e 171.46e 7.36h 6.80g
C 12.00c 160.40d 178.43d 8.30g 7.30g
D 11.33d 175.40b 182.80c 8.90f 9.00fg
E 10.16e 183.80a 190.60a 9.80e 10.20ef
Gluten-free pasta with
carboxymethyl cellulose:
F 13.00a 120.80h 150.00g 9.70e 12.10e
G 12.00c 132.80g 157.53f 11.43d 17.30d
H 11.33d 142.40f 169.33e 13.30c 21.60c
I 10.33e 154.40e 182.93c 15.40b 34.50b
J 10.00e 166.40c 186.66bc 18.76a 40.55a
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)
A, F – no potato starch; B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch; D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
Control A B C D E
F G H I J
Figure 2 Gluten-free pasta samples: Comtrol – 100% wheat glour; WF = wheat flour (100%); A – psyllium husk without potato starch ; B –
psyllium husk + 15% of potato starch; C – psyllium husk + 30% of potato starch; D – psyllium husk + 45% of potato starch; E – psyllium husk +
60% of potato starch; F – carboxymethyl cellulose without potato starch; G – carboxymethyl cellulose + 15% of potato starch; H – carboxymethyl
cellulose + 30% of potato starch; I – carboxymethyl cellulose + 45% of potato starch; J – carboxymethyl cellulose + 60% of potato starch
335
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
Adhesiveness measures the extent to which the
product gets attached to teeth and is considered the
most undesirable characteristic of pasta [39]. According
to Table 5, the control pasta recorded the lowest
value of adhesiveness (0.1 mJ). As for the glutenfree
pasta, the samples with psyllium husk had lower
values of adhesiveness (0.2–0.3 mJ) than those with
carboxymethyl cellulose (0.3–0.7 mJ).
These results reflect the good quality of the control
wheat pasta compared to the gluten-free pasta. They
also show that psyllium husk improved the quality
of gluten-free pasta compared to the samples with
carboxymethyl cellulose. Piwinska et al. reported such
special qualities of durum wheat pasta as high hardness,
low adhesiveness, low cooking loss, and tolerance to
overcooking [40].
During the second bite, we obtained hardness,
cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess, and chewiness
values (Table 5). As we can see, the control had a lower
value of hardness (3.74 N) compared to the same sample
in cycle 1 (3.96 N), with a decreasing rate of 5.55%. In
the gluten-free pasta, the decreasing rate of hardness
from cycle 1 to cycle 2 ranged from 4.53 to 52.27% in
the samples with psyllium husk and from 5.20 to 47.54%
in those with carboxymethyl cellulose. The maximum
decrease was recorded in the carboxymethyl cellulose
sample with 45% potato starch.
Cohesiveness quantifies the internal resistance of
food structure and can be briefly defined as an ability of
a material to stick to itself [41]. According to our results,
the highest value of cohesiveness (0.90) was recorded in
the control sample. Also, quite high (0.75) cohesiveness
was in the psyllium husk sample without potato starch
(sample A). We also found that cohesiveness values
gradually decreased with the increasing contents of
potato starch.
Springiness measures elasticity by determining
the extent of recovery between the first and the second
compression. According to our results, the control
sample recorded the highest value of springiness (4.95
mm). In the gluten-free samples with psyllium husk,
springiness ranged from 4.58 to 3.34 mm, whilst in
those with carboxymethyl cellulose, from 4.30 to 1.80
mm. Also, the control sample recorded the highest
values of gumminess and chewiness.
Among the gluten-free samples, those with psyllium
husk had higher values of gumminess and chewiness
than those with carboxymethyl cellulose. We found
that higher contents of potato starch in the gluten-free
samples decreased their gumminess and chewiness.
These results showed a more positive effect of psyllium
husk than carboxymethyl cellulose.
As reported by Udachan and Sahoo, the primary
parameters of pasta quality are hardness, springiness,
and cohesiveness (they should be higher), whereas the
secondary parameters are chewiness and resilience [9].
Generally, our results were in agreement with Anisa et al.
who stated that gluten-free pasta was characterized by
lower hardness, gumminess, chewiness, and springiness,
and it had higher adhesiveness than wheat pasta [42].
Sensory evaluation of gluten-free cooked pasta.
Sensory evaluation is a unique tool that uses human
senses to determine organoleptic characteristics of a
food product and the consumer’s attitude to it. Therefore,
it is a reliable comprehensive test of the final product’s
quality. Additionally, sensory evaluation provides
important reference information to be compared with
the results of instrumental or chemical methods [43].
In our study, the cooked gluten-free pasta samples
were evaluated on a hedonic scale, with a wheat sample
(72% ext.) used as a control (Table 6). We found no
significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in color between the
Table 5 Texture profile analysis of cooked pasta under study
Samples First bite Second bite
Hardness
cycle 1, N
Adhesiveness,
mJ
Resilience Hardness
cycle 2, N
Cohesiveness Springiness,
mm
Gumminess Chewiness,
mJ
Control 3.96 0.1 0.61 3.74 0.90 4.95 3.56 17.64
Gluten-free pasta with
psyllium husk:
A 3.31 0.2 0.57 3.16 0.75 4.58 2.48 11.37
B 3.11 0.2 0.53 2.94 0.66 4.33 2.05 8.89
C 2.33 0.2 0.45 1.93 0.45 4.24 1.05 4.45
D 1.84 0.3 0.36 1.26 0.42 3.67 0.77 2.84
E 1.76 0.3 0.32 0.84 0.38 3.34 0.67 2.23
Gluten-free pasta with
carboxymethyl cellulose:
F 1.73 0.3 0.55 1.64 0.83 4.30 1.09 4.69
G 1.46 0.4 0.36 0.87 0.43 4.04 0.63 2.54
H 1.44 0.5 0.14 0.72 0.32 3.79 0.46 1.75
I 1.22 0.6 0.12 0.64 0.05 2.19 0.06 0.13
J 0.69 0.7 0.10 0.56 0.04 1.80 0.03 0.05
A, F – no potato starch; B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch; D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
336
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
control sample and those containing 15, 30, 45, and
60% of potato starch and 2.5% psyllium husk or 30, 45,
and 60% of carboxymethyl cellulose. There were no
significant differences in texture between the control
sample and sample B containing 15% potato starch and
2.5% psyllium husk. Sample B had the most optimal
content of potato starch among those containing
psyllium husk as a binding agent, since increased levels
of potato starch (30, 45, and 60%) significantly lowered
the scores for texture. Also, psyllium husk had a more
positive effect on texture than carboxymethyl cellulose,
with the texture scores of 3.00–4.60 and 1.40–3.70,
respectively.
As for flavor, there were no significant differences
between the control and the gluten-free samples except
for two carboxymethyl cellulose samples with 45 and
60% potato starch, respectively. Taste received the
highest score (5.0) for the control sample (P ≤ 0.05)
followed by sample B (4.0) containing 15% potato
starch and psyllium husk. While the best score for taste
among the carboxymethyl cellulose samples was 3.7 for
the sample with 15% potato starch, it was significantly
different from the control sample but not from sample B.
The best scores for appearance were obtained by the
control sample and the gluten-free sample containing
psyllium husk and 15% of potato starch and (sample B),
with significant differences. However, there were no
significant differences between the sample containing
psyllium husk and 30% of potato starch (sample C), and
the one with carboxymethyl cellulose and 15% of potato
starch and (sample G).
Overall acceptability showed no significant
differences between the control and the gluten-free
sample containing 15% potato starch and psyllium
husk. In general, 15% was the most optimal content of
potato starch in the samples with both psyllium and
carboxymethyl cellulose. On the other hand, the samples
with psyllium husk had a better effect on overall
acceptability than those with carboxymethyl cellulose,
with the scores of 1.90–4.80 and 1.0–3.50, respectively.
Our results were consistent with a study by Bolarinwa
and Oyesiji, where the acceptability of gluten-free ricesoy
pasta was highly ranked for sensory attributes [28].
Additionally, Ribeiro et al. stated that incorporating
legume flour in rice pasta resulted in acceptable
scores for color, taste, flavor, and appearance [44].
Also, Peressini et al. reported that psyllium husk had a
positive effect on sensory evaluation, improving overall
acceptability [45].
CONCLUSION
Based on the overall results, we can conclude that
hydrocolloids have an important effect on the physical
and sensory characteristics of gluten-free pasta. The
experimental samples with psyllium husk used as a
binding agent had better texture properties due to an
increased hardness of uncooked pasta, compared to
the samples with carboxymethyl cellulose. Therefore,
the cooked samples with psyllium husk showed better
quality parameters such as swelling index, cooking loss,
cooking yield, and nitrogen loss, compared to those with
carboxymethyl cellulose.
CONTRIBUTION
S.M.M. Faheid was involved in the conceptualization,
methodology, investigation, and visualization.
I.R.S. Rizk was responsible for visualization, drafting
of the manuscript, and supervision. G.H. Ragab
took part in the investigation and drafting of the
manuscript. Y.F.M. Kishk contributed to the conceptu-
Table 6 Sensory characteristics of cooked wheat flour and gluten-free pasta
Samples Color Texture Flavor Taste Appearance OAA
Control 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a
Gluten-free pasta with
psyllium husk:
A 4.1bc 3.4bc 4.9ab 3.0d 3.8c 4.0b
B 4.5ab 4.6a 4.9ab 4.0b 4.5b 4.8a
C 5.1a 3.9b 4.8ab 3.8bc 4.0c 3.7bc
D 5.0a 3.3cd 4.7ab 3.3cd 3.3d 3.2c
E 5.0a 3.0d 4.7ab 2.4e 2.6ef 1.9e
Gluten-free pasta with
carboxymethyl cellulose:
F 3.7c 3.7bc 4.8ab 3.3cd 3.3d 3.5bc
G 4.3bc 3.9b 4.7ab 3.7bc 3.9c 3.6bc
H 5.0a 3.0d 4.7ab 2.9de 2.7e 2.4d
I 5.0a 2.4e 4.5b 2.4e 2.2f 1.3f
J 5.0a 1.4f 4.0c 1.3f 1.2g 1.0f
Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)
A, F – no potato starch; B, G – 15% of potato starch; C, H – 30% of potato starch; D, I – 45% of potato starch; E, J – 60% of potato starch
337
Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339
alization and data analysis. S.M. Mostafa was involved
in the conceptualization, methodology, and writing the
manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Food Technology
Department, Food Industries and Nutrition Institute,
National Research Centre, Egypt for their assistance
with the research and for providing the equipment
required for measurements.

1. Butnariu M, Sarac I. Functional food. International Journal of Nutrition. 2019;3(3):7-16. ‏ https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2379-7835.ijn-19-2615

2. Moghadam FH, Khalghani J, Moharramipour S, Gharali B, Mohasses MM. Investigation of the induced antibiosis resistance by zinc element in different cultivars of sugar beet to long snout weevil, Lixus incanescens (Col: Curculionidae). Banat's Journal of Biotechnology. 2018;9(17):5-12. ‏ https://doi.org/10.7904/2068-4738-IX(17)-5

3. Lebwohl B, Sanders DS, Green, PHR. Coeliac disease. The Lancet. 2018;391(10115):70-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31796-8

4. Lexhaller B, Colgrave ML, Scherf KA. Characterization and relative quantitation of wheat, rye, and barley gluten protein types by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01530

5. Weisbrod VM, Silvester JA, Raber C, McMahon J, Coburn SS, Kerzner B. Preparation of gluten-free foods alongside gluten-containing food may not always be as risky for celiac patients as diet guides suggest. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(1):273-275. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.007

6. Caio G, Volta U, Sapone A, Leffler DA, De Giorgio R, Catassi, C, et al. Celiac disease: a comprehensive current review. BMC Medicine. 2019;17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1380-z

7. Fernández-Bañares F, Arau B, Raga A, Aceituno M, Tristán E, Carrasco A, et al. Long-term effect of a gluten-free diet on diarrhea or bloating-predominant functional bowel disease: Role of the “low-grade coeliac score” and the “coeliac lymphogram” in the response rate to the diet. Nutrients. 2021;13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061812

8. Remes-Troche JM, Uscanga-Domínguez LF, Aceves-Tavares RG, Calderón de la Barca AM, Carmona-Sánchez RI, Cerda-Contreras E, et al. Clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease in Mexico. Revista de Gastroenterología de México. 2018;83(4):434-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2018.05.005

9. Udachan IS, Sahoo AK. Effect of hydrocolloids in the development of gluten free brown rice pasta. International Journal of ChemTech Research. 2017;10(6):407-415.

10. Sissons M. Development of novel pasta products with evidence based impacts on health - A review. Foods. 2022;11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11010123

11. Atkinson FS, Brand-Miller JC, Foster-Powell K, Buyken AE, Goletzke J. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values 2021: a systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2021;114(5):1625-1632. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab233

12. Levinta A, Mukovozov I, Tsoutsoulas C. Use of a gluten-free diet in schizophrenia: A systematic review. Advances in Nutrition. 2018;9(6):824-832. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy056

13. Bouasla A, Wojtowicz A, Zidoune MN. Gluten-free precooked rice pasta enriched with legumes flours: Physical properties, texture, sensory attributes and microstructure. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2017;75:569-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.10.005

14. Bouasla A, Wojtowicz A. Rice-buckwheat gluten-free pasta: Effect of processing parameters on quality characteristics and optimization of extrusion-cooking process. Foods. 2019;8(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8100496

15. Phongthai S, D’Amico S, Schoenlechner R, Homthawornchoo W, Rawdkuen S. Fractionation and antioxidant properties of rice bran protein hydrolysates stimulated by in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. Food Chemistry. 2018;240:156-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.07.080

16. Culetu A, Duta DE, Papageorgiou M, Varzakas T. The role of hydrocolloids in gluten-free bread and pasta; Rheology, characteristics, staling and glycemic index. Foods. 2021;10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123121

17. Zhu R, Larsen TM, Fogelholm M, Poppitt SD, Vestentoft PS, Silvestre MP, et al. Dose-dependent associations of dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and fiber with 3-year weight loss maintenance and glycemic status in a high-risk population: a secondary analysis of the diabetes prevention study. PREVIEW. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(7):1672-1681. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-3092

18. Herawati H. Hydrocolloids to the effects of gluten free bakery products. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1295(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1295/1/012052

19. Fradinho P, Soares R, Niccolai A, Sousa I, Raymundo A. Psyllium husk gel to reinforce structure of gluten-free pasta? LWT. 2020;131.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109787

20. Mishra P, Bhatt DK. Development of quality characteristics of dried pasta enriched with soya protein isolate powder. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology. 2017;11(10):1-6.

21. Scarton M, Ribeiro T, Godoy HT, Behrens JH, Campelo PH, Clerici MTPS. Gluten free pasta with natural ingredient of color and carotene source. Research, Society and Development. 2021;10(4). https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13959

22. Collins JL, Pangloli P. Chemical, physical and sensory attributes of noodles with added sweetpotato and soy flour. Journal of Food Science. 19976;62(3):622-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1997.tb04446.x

23. Kishk YF, Elsheshetawy HE, Mahmoud EAM. Influence of isolated flaxseed mucilage as a non-starch polysaccharide on noodle quality. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2011;46(3):661-668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02547.x

24. Hunter RS. Photoelectric color difference meter. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1958;48(12):985-995. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.48.000985

25. Approved method of the American Association of Cereal Chemists. 10th ed. Minnesota: AACC; 2000.

26. Boume M. Food texture and viscosity. Concept and measurement. 2nd. ed. London: Academic press; 2002. pp. 257-290.

27. Inglett GE, Peterson SC, Carriere CJ, Maneepun S. Rheological, textural, and sensory properties of Asian noodles containing an oat cereal hydrocolloid. Food Chemistry. 2005;90(1-2):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.08.023

28. Bolarinwa IF, Oyesiji OO. Gluten free rice-soy pasta: proximate composition properties and sensory attributes. Heliyon. 2021;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06052

29. Kang J, Lee J, Choi M, Jin Y, Chang D, Chang YH, et al. Physicochemical and textural properties of noodles prepared from different potato varieties. Preventive Nutrition and Food Science. 2017;22(3):246-250. https://doi.org/10.3746/pnf.2017.22.3.246

30. Yaseen A, Shouk AE. Low phenylalanine pasta. International Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2011;3(10):128-135.

31. Mohammadi M, Khorshidian N, Yousefi M, Khaneghah AM. Physicochemical, rheological, and sensory properties of gluten-free cookie produced by flour of chestnut, date seed, and modified starch. Journal of Food Quality. 2022;2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5159084

32. De Arcangelis E, Cuomo F, Trivisonno MC, Marconi E, Messia MC. Gelatinization and pasta making conditions for buckwheat gluten-free pasta. Journal of Cereal Science. 2020;95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2020.103073

33. Espinosa-Solis V, Zamudio-Flores PB, Tirado-Gallegos JM, Ramírez-Mancinas S, Olivas-Orozco GI, Espino-Díaz M, et al. Evaluation of cooking quality, nutritional and texture characteristics of pasta added with oat bran and apple flour. Foods. 2019;8(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080299

34. Khosla R, Rathi N, Gururani P, Upadhyay S, Singh M. Development and physichochemical analysis of gluten free pasta using rice, corn and flaxseeds. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research. 2019;10(05):32300-32305.

35. Ainsa A, Roldan S, Marquina PL, Roncalés P, Beltrán JA, Calanche Morales JB. Quality parameters and technological properties of pasta enriched with a fish by-product: A healthy novel food. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2022;46(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16261

36. Peleg M. The instrumental texture profile analysis revisited. Journal of Texture Studies. 2019;50(5):362-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12392

37. Larrosa V, Lorenzo G, Zaritzky N, Califano, A. Improvement of the texture and quality of cooked gluten-free pasta. LWT. 2016;70:96-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.039

38. Detchewa P, Prasajak P, Phungamngoen C, Sriwichai W, Naivikul O, Moongngarm A. Substitution of rice flour with rice protein improved quality of gluten-free rice spaghetti processed using single screw extrusion. LWT. 2021;153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112512

39. Chauhan A, Saxena DC, Singh S. Effect of hydrocolloids on microstructure, texture and quality characteristics of gluten-free pasta. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 2017;11(3):1188-1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-017-9495-4

40. Piwinska M, Wyrwisz J, Kurek MA, Wierzbicka A. Effect of drying methods on the physical properties of durum wheat pasta. CYTA - Journal of Food 2016;14(4):523-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2016.1149226

41. Hosseini Ghaboos SH, Seyedain Ardabili SM, Kashaninejad M. Physico-chemical, textural and sensory evaluation of sponge cake supplemented with pumpkin flour. International Food Research Journal. 2018;25(2):854-860.

42. Ainsa A, Vega A, Honrado A, Marquina P, Roncales P, Gracia JAB, et al. Gluten-free pasta enriched with fish by-product for special dietary uses: Technological quality and sensory properties. Foods. 2021;10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123049

43. Tóth M, Kaszab T, Meretei A. Texture profile analysis and sensory evaluation of commercially available gluten free bread samples. European Food Research and Technology. 2022;248(6):1447-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-03944-2

44. Ribeiro THS, Bolanho BC, Montanuci FD, Ruiz SP. Physicochemical and sensory characterization of gluten-free fresh pasta with addition of passion fruit peel flour. Ciência Rural. 2018;48(12). https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180508

45. Peressini D, Cavarape A, Brennan MA, Gao J, Brennan CS. Viscoelastic properties of durum wheat doughs enriched with soluble dietary fibres in relation to pasta-making performance and glycaemic response of spaghetti. Food Hydrocolloids. 2020;102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105613