Elke K. Arendt

School of Food and Nutritional SciencesUniversity College Cork

Ireland

Replacing gluten as a functional constituent in baked goods

Marketing study

Gluten free bread

Gluten free Market

100 bread products from 15 countries

Nutritional InformationVolume

Texture Sensory evaluation

Price

Free-from market: 300% growth since 2000US market for GF products: 1,6 billion $ (2010) –predicted to be 2.6 billion $ (2012)Growth rate of 25% per yearOnly 1 out of 10 consumers buying GF-products are Coeliac patients

Marketing study UCC

Nutritional Composition of GF Breads

Gluten free white bread Wheat bread

Calories 196 kcal 311 kcal 219 kcal

Fat 1.7 % 15.6 % 1.4 %

Protein 1.1 % 6.6 % 8.7 %

Carbohydrates 35.0 % 62.7 % 43.0 %

Fibre 0.1 % 8.3 % 2.8 %

A Bite of GF BreadMarketing Study

• Dry, crumbly mouth feel and off-flavor

• Lack of Nutrients, high in fat

• Rapid staling (mostly starch based)

•Expensive

Evaluation of over 100 gluten free cereal products

from 15 different countries

Marketing study

Gluten free pasta

Market study

Nutritional InformationTexture Taste Price

36 pasta samples from 8 European countries

Result• Calorie content similar to wheat• Protein content lower than wheat• Carbohydrate level similar or higher than wheat• GF-pasta often higher in fat• Price 3 to 5 Euro per 500 g

Market study on gluten-free pasta

Gluten-free De Cecco

Calorie content [kcal] 338-384 346

Protein [g/100g] 3-11 13

Carbohydrates [g/100g] 70-86 70.2

Fat [g/100g] 0.3-3 1.5

Dietary fibre [g/100g] 1.1-4.6 2.9

What is gluten ?

Gluten

Gluten Gliadin Glutenin

Function� Water-binding - helps starch gelatinisation during baking� Visco-elastic properties – gas retention during fermentation� Gluten associated proteases – bread flavour

Endosperm

Gluten free cereals and their characterisation

Eragrostis tef Teff

Eleusin coracanaFinger millet

Gluten free cereals

OryzoidaeRice

Panicoideaezea maysMaize

Sorghum bicolorSorghum

Pennisetumglaucum

Proso Millet

Avena sativa L.

Oats

Fagopyrum esculentumBuckwheat

Amaranthus cruentusAmaranth

Chenopodium quinoaQuinoa

Pseudocereals

Gluten free flours -Evaluation

Potential nutritional deficiencies

On diagnosis On GF diet On long-term

GF dietProtein/calorie

Fibre

Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn

Vit D, Vit K

Ca, Mg

Folate, B12

Thiamin

Niacin

Pyridoxine

Riboflavin

Se, Carnitine

Fibre

Fe, Zn

Vit D

Ca, Mg

Folate, B12

Niacin

Riboflavin

Fibre

Folate, B12

Niacin

Pyridoxine

based on data provided by Kennedy et al.

Compositional analysis

2% 6%

14%

78%

0%

Maize

4%

10%

13%

72%

1%

Whole wheat

4%

12%

13%

69%

2%

Buckwheat

9%

14%

12%63%

2%

Quinoa3% 5%

11%

80%

1%

Sorghum

1%

7%

13%

78%

1%

Rice4%

13%

10%

71%

2%

Teff

7%7%

10%

75%

1%

Oat

2%

11%

13%

73%

1%

Wheat

Protein content g/100g

Mineral characterisationWheat Wholewheat Rice Oat Quinoa Buckwheat Sorghum Maize Teff

Ash§ 0.92 1.32 0.51 0.82 2.43 1.65 0.97 0.37 2.15

Calcium* 179.80 30.80 5.10 22.50 49.80 14.80 9.80 3.30 154.30

Iron* 1.34 2.69 0.60 1.64 5.35 2.85 0.27 0.91 8.53

Sodium* 3.80 2.00 1.50 1.70 3.70 1.10 0.50 0.50 6.00

Potassium* 152.00 399.80 97.40 174.40 553.80 402.30 258.10 148.70 382.80

Copper* 0.15 0.40 0.22 0.27 0.77 0.51 0.18 0.09 0.93

Manganese* 0.83 2.34 0.73 2.77 1.35 1.18 1.13 0.15 3.45

Zinc* 0.76 1.75 1.78 1.13 3.28 1.88 1.00 0.66 4.15

Chloride* 82.60 99.80 35.10 67.00 43.40 14.40 40.30 48.40 48.10

Phosphorus* 90.90 204.10 95.50 147.60 441.60 278.70 163.10 81.40 361.70

§ g/100g* mg/100g

Folate levels µg/100g

Dietary fibre contentTotal fibre* Insoluble fibre* Soluble fibre* Total starch*

Wheat 3.44 ± 0.01 2.10 ± 0.12 1.34 ± 0.11 68.06 ± 2.34

Wholewheat 11.42 ± 1.27 9.82 ± 0.88 1.60 ± 0.40 57.24 ± 0.26

Rice 0.43 ± 0.15 0.28 ± 0.10 0.14 ± 0.06 77.52 ± 0.42

Oat 4.05 ± 0.40 3.69 ± 0.41 0.36 ± 0.02 69.38 ± 1.66

Quinoa 7.14 ± 0.23 5.18 ± 0.26 1.77 ± 0.14 48.88 ± 2.07

Buckwheat 2.18 ± 0.11 1.70 ± 0.14 0.48 ± 0.17 61.35 ± 2.15

Sorghum 4.51 ± 0.01 3.79 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.04 73.20 ± 1.52

Maize 2.62 ± 0.45 3.79 ± 0.05 0.64 ± 0.14 71.52 ± 0.42

Teff 4.54 ± 0.57 1.98 ± 0.31 0.85 ± 0.17 57.77 ± 5.94

* g/100g

Resulting loaves

Wheat

Rice

Maize

Wholemeal Sorghum Teff

Buckwheat Oat Quinoa

Laser scanning microscopy

40 x magnification

SEM micrographs (1500/2000x) of wheat flour (a); dough (b), and bread (c).

a b c

SEM micrographs (1500/1000x) of maize flour (a), dough (b), and bread (c)

a b c

•c

SEM micrographs (2200/2300x) of quinoa flour (a), dough (b) and bread (c)

a b c

Gluten free pasta

Ingredients

Mixing

Extrusion

10 min

Pasta Production

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) investigates relationship between:

Response variables

Explanatory variables

Egg white powder

Emulsifier

Water level

Cooking lossElasticityFirmness

Recipe development

Ela

stic

ity

Fir

mne

ss

Firmness and Elasticity can be increased by incorporation of Egg white powder

Water level adjustment crucial for optimal pasta texture

Response Surface Plots

Structural properties

elasticity

stickiness

firmness

Pasta characterisation

Gluten free pasta

Ingredients [%] Oat Teff Wheat

Flour 100 100 100

Water 37.5 39.9 32.6

Egg white powder 14.9 17.5 10

Emulsifier 2 1.7 0.5

Product Firmness [N] Elasticity [g] Cooking loss [%]

Wheat pasta 6.28 75.43 2.08

Oat pasta 4.31 39.34 3.23

Teff pasta 4.52 43.18 4.06

Oat and teff fresh egg pasta developed by response surface methodology

Pasta quality evaluation

Cooked Wheat Spaghetti(DeCecco)

Ultra structureLaser scanning microscope

Gluten-free Oat Spaghetti

Ultra structure

Gluten free cereal products

Objective

To produce a gluten-free products, which is of comparable quality to

wheat products

To produce a GF-products which takes the safety and nutritional

requirements of Coeliac patients into account

wheat flour + water

mixing

proofing

baking

GF flour + water

mixing

proofing

baking

Bread-making

Wheat vs. Gluten-free

CLSM of bread crumbs

CLSM of dough/batter

Gluten-free flours

New Generation Gluten-free bread development

Functional ingredients

Novel processing approaches

EnzymesLactic acid bacteria

Hydrocolloids Dough improversCereals Pseudo-cereals

High fibreingredients

High pressure

Starches

Lactic acid bacteria and their role in Gluten free bakery

products

An answer from the past: sourdough

AromaOrganic Acids

Amino Acids (proteolysis)Flavor (precursor) Compounds

TextureSolubilization of Pentosans

Gluten Modification and HydrolysisExopolysaccharides (EPS)

Shelf lifeOrganic Acids

Antifungal compounds

Nutritional Properties

Phytate HydrolysisStarch BioavailabilityDietary Fiber (EPS)

Does this apply for GF bread?

Microbial Ecology of GF-Sourdough

Endogenous factors

Chemical and microbiological components of the dough

Exogenous factors

Temperature and atmosphere employed, amount and size of inoculum, fermentation time, number of propagation stepsComplex ecosystem mainly

comprising:

About 50 different species

≈ 109 LAB

Mainly Lactobacillus

≈ 107 yeasts+

More than 23 different species

Mainly Saccharomyces and Candida

Microbial ecology of sourdough

(PCR-DGGE)

L. amylovorusL. panisL. plantarumL. brevis L.paralimentariusL.fermentum

Buckwheat 35 °C, starter

SII

SIII

0d 1d 2d 3d 4d 7d 9d 9d 7d 3d 2d 1d 0d SIII

SII

5d

Teff 35 °C, starter

L. amylovorusL. panis L. pontisL. reuteri

Ecology depending on substrate and propagation temperatureLAB isolated from GF sourdough belong to different species normally found in SourdoughCommercial starter cultures are not competetive in a GF-systems

Lactic acid bacteria producing EPS and their application

ExopolysaccharidesEPS

EPS are extracellularly secreted microbial polysaccharidesTheir amount and chemical structure depend on microorganism and substrateCereal associated lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are known to

produce EPS in large quantities

Two classes of EPS: homo- and heteropolysaccharides

HeteropolysaccharideComposed of repeated subunitsRepeating units consists of three to eight monosaccharidesSynthesised intracellularly from sugar nucleotide precursorsLow yield: <2g/l

HomopolysaccharideComposed of one type of monosaccharides (Glucose or Fructose)Synthesised by extracellular glycansucrases using sucroseUp to 50g/l

Laser-scanning electron microscopy of EPS LAB producing EPS

LAB sources and EPS production

Species of Lactobacillus isolated from various sources

L. amylovorus L. arizonensis L. brevisL. casei L. coryniformis L. crispatusL. fermentum L. frumenti L. gallinarumL. gasseri L. graminis L. paralimentariusL. paracasei L plantarum L. pontisL. rhamnosus L. reuteri L. sakeiL. sanfrancisensis L. vaginalis Unknown lactobacillus speciesLeuc. argentinum Leuc. holzapfelii Pedio. acidilacticiPedio. pentosaceus W. cibaria W. kimchii

L. reuteri

L. arizonensis

L. casei

L. plantarum

25

90,9

34,83

54,5462,22

33,33

80

0102030405060708090

100

%

sources

% from each source exhibiting EPS production

High % of EPS producing LAB isolated from cheese and humans.

L. reuteri was the most most common species isolated.

Experimental design - EPS

Characterization of EPS

Monomer composition

Molecular weight

Cell growth, pH

EPS-formation

Oligosaccharide-formation

Organic acids

Sorghum and wheat sourdough fermentation

Screening of LAB for EPS production

and isolation of EPS

Rheology

Type of linkage

W.cibaria MG1 in wheat and sorghum

Addition of EPS producing LAB in wheat

Increases in volume Decreases Hardness

Control MG1 con MG1 + suc

Addition of EPS producing LAB in sorghum

No effect on volume Decreases Hardness

36 g/l EPS(MRS-Suc)

Use of sourdough in GF baking -Conclusions

The use of sourdough in GF baking addition can lead to:

Increased Quality

specific sourdoughs are required for the different GF breads, and technologies have to be adapted accordingly

… but keep in mind that …

Volume

Crumb texture

Softness

Reduced staling

Nutritional benefits

Lower costsHigher Safety

Mould-free shelf life

Gluten removalReduced

complexity of recipe

e.g. no need of hydrocolloids

Gluten Free Bread -The New Generation

Objective

To produce a gluten-free products, which is of comparable quality to

wheat products

To produce a GF-products which takes the safety and nutritional

requirements of Coeliac patients into account

New Generation of Gluten free bread

New Generation of Gluten free bread

NG-Gluten-free bread is softer and has a lower staling rate than wheat bread –

stays fresh for longer

Comparison of wheat and NG GF bread

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time [days]

Ha

rdn

ess

[N

]

Wheat

UCC

NG- Gluten free bread: specfic volume 3,5 ml/gcomparable to wheat and higher than most GF on

the market

Sensory evaluation

Comparison of new generation GF- bread with GF-Market leaders from different EU-countries (Panel 70

non celiacs and 35 celiacs)

65 % of both panels preferred UCC GF Bread

Comparison of Wheat bread and New Generation GF-bread (Panel of 70 non celiacs)

Panel could not distinguish between UCC GF and Wheat bread

Compositional analysis

Nutritional Information

Typical values per 100g of dry

product

Energy 219 kcal 296 kcal 204 kcal 196 – 311 Kcal

Protein 8.7g 8.4g 6.6 g 1.1 – 8.4 g

Carbohydrates

Of which sugar

43g

2.42g41.1g

3.0g

34.2 g 35.0 – 62.7

1.13 g

Fat

Of which saturates

1.4g

0.4g13.0g

0.9g

2.8 g 1,7 -15,6

Fibre 2.8g 9.7g 8.0 g 0,1 – 8.3

Sodium 0.45g 0.63g 0.62 g

Range based on market study

Summary

Lower in calories High in Fibre (highest in fibre, 9.5 %)Wheat free (no wheat starch used in the product)Lactose freeProtein of high biological value (6.6 %)Low in fat (<3%)Flavour and texture comparable to wheat breadPreferred over the GF-bread market leadersLong shelf-life (stays fresh for longer)Visually appealing (specific volume 3.5 g/ml)Range of products such as baguettes, roles etc.

New Generation Gluten -free bread

It is possible to produce a Gluten free bread comparable to wheat

bread

FundingIrish Government under the National Development Plan 2006-2010.

Enterprise Ireland

University College CorkDr Emanuele ZanniniDr Sandra GalleSophie Hager

University of Alberta CandaProf. Michael GanzleDr. Clarissa Schwab

NFC, IrelandDr Eimear Gallgher

School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Ireland

Thank you very much

for your attention!