lable at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222

Contents lists avai

LWT - Food Science and Technology

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

Effect of semolina replacement with a raw:popped amaranth flourblend on cooking quality and texture of pasta

Alma Rosa Islas-Rubio a,*, Ana María Calderón de la Barca b, Francisco Cabrera-Chávez c,Alma Guadalupe Cota-Gastélumd, Trust Beta e

aDepartamento de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Vegetal, Centro de Investigación en, Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C., Carretera a la Victoria Km 0.6,Hermosillo, Sonora 83000, MexicobDepartamento de Nutrición, Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C., Carretera a la Victoria Km 0.6, Hermosillo, Sonora 83000, MexicocCiencias de la Nutrición y Gastronomía, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Av. Cedros y Calle Sauces, Culiacán, Sinaloa 80019, MexicodDepartamento de Investigación y Posgrado en Alimentos, Universidad de Sonora, Rosales 40, Hermosillo, Sonora 83000, MexicoeDepartment of Food Science, University of Manitoba, 250 Ellis Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 June 2013Received in revised form23 December 2013Accepted 10 January 2014

Keywords:PastaSemolinaAmaranthCooking qualityTexture

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ52 662 2892400; faE-mail address: aislas@ciad.mx (A.R. Islas-Rubio).

0023-6438/$ e see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.01.014

a b s t r a c t

The replacement of semolina (SEM) with raw:popped (90:10) amaranth flour blend (AFB) in pastamaking at 25, 50, 75, and 100 g/100 g levels (flour basis, 14 g of water/100 g) was carried out to evaluatethe effects on cooking quality and texture of the supplemented pasta samples. Significant differences oncooking quality characteristics and texture of the pasta samples were observed. The pasta solid lossincreased, weight gain and firmness decreased as the AFB level increased. The semolina pasta showedthe lowest solid loss (7 g/100 g) and the highest weight gain (188.3 g/100 g) and firmness (1.49 N),whereas the amaranth blend pasta was the softer (around half of the firmness of semolina pasta) and lostthe higher amount of solids (11.5 g/100 g). The raw and popped AFB was suitable for increasing thenutritional quality through dietary fiber and high quality protein and even to obtain gluten-free pastawith acceptable cooking quality (solid loss of 3.5 g/100 g higher than that considered as acceptable forsemolina pasta). The amaranth blend used in this study enables the partial or total replacement of wheatsemolina in pastas with acceptable cooking quality and texture.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Pasta products are made from wheat semolina, although morerecently other grains have been used to partially replace it (Chillo,Laverse, Falcone, & Del Nobile, 2008; Manthey, Yalla, Dick, &Badruddin, 2004; Petitot, Bayer, Minier, & Micard, 2010). Suchnew recipes have been developed following one of the ten toptrends reshaping the food industry to obtain products with spe-cialty nutritional ingredients (Sloan, 2013). In addition, compositeflours have been used to prepare gluten-free (GF) or low glycemicindex pastas for special nutrition (Alamprese, Casiraghi, & Pagani,2007; Caperuto, Amaya-Farfan, & Camargo, 2001; Mariotti,Iametti, Cappa, Rasmussen, & Lucisano, 2011).

The amaranth grain is excellent for new recipes because of itshigh quality protein, minerals and dietary fiber contents. Blends ofraw and popped amaranth flours were used to make GF breads andcookies for celiac disease patients, with good technological

x: þ52 662 2800422.

All rights reserved.

characteristics without any additive added (Calderón de la Barca,Rojas-Martínez, Islas-Rubio, & Cabrera-Chávez, 2010).

Durumwheat proteins are characterized by a typical viscoelasticbehavior that allows good networking of the matrix and optimaldough formation during the mixing and extrusion phases (Mariottiet al., 2011). The predominant characteristics that define the pastaquality are related to appearance and textural factors such astranslucency, bright amber color, absence of a sticky surface, and ‘aldente’ eating properties (Antognelli, 1980; Hoseney, 1986;Pomeranz, 1987).

The incorporation of alternative ingredients to wheat for pastaproduction requires processing adjustments and additives(Mariotti, Lucisano, Pagani, & Ng, 2009; Schoenlechner, Drausinger,Ottenschlaeger, Jurackova, & Berghofer, 2010). Additionally,different heat treatments have been reported to improve thequality of non-wheat pasta (Grugni, Manzini, Viazzo, & Viazzo,2009; Marti, Seetharaman, & Pagani, 2010; Mastromatteo et al.,2012).

Heat treatments under specific moisture conditions, followed bycooling are useful to give rigidity to cooked pasta, and to reduceboth stickiness of the surface and the loss of soluble materials

A.R. Islas-Rubio et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222218

during cooking (Mariotti et al., 2011; Mestres, Collonna, & Buleon,1988). High levels of substitution of semolina lead to pasta withlower cooking properties. In the case of composite pasta made ofsemolina (70e95 g/100 g) and amaranth flour (5e30 g/100 g),cooking losses ranged from 6.9 to 9.3 g/100 g (Rayas-Duarte, Mock,& Satterlee, 1996). As far as our knowledge, the highest substitutionlevel of semolina with amaranth flour for good quality pasta pro-duction is 25 g/100 g (Rayas-Duarte et al., 1996), perhaps ourformer amaranth flour blends, AFB (Calderón de la Barca et al.,2010) could be suitable for replacing semolina in pasta produc-tion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of an AFB(90:10 raw to popped) to replace semolina in pasta making and todetermine the highest proportion of the AFB that provides therequired functionality to make an acceptable composite pasta.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

The raw and popped amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus L.)grains were obtained from a local producer (Productores de Tuye-hualco, Tuyehualco, Mexico) and manually cleaned, milled sepa-rately into flour using a Philips blender model HR 2875 (PhilipsMexicana, S.A. de C.V., Mexico, D.F.). The semolina (SEM)was kindlydonated by Molinera de México, S.A. de C.V. Distilled mono-glycerides and egg white powder were obtained from a localdistributor (Serco Santa Lucía, S.A., Hermosillo, Mexico).

2.2. Particle size distribution, water absorption capacity andpasting properties

Particle size distribution of semolina and amaranth flour blendwas determined by sieving 50 g of each sample by triplicates for5 min over 8 inch sieves #40, #60, #80, and #100 with aperture of425, 250, 180, and 150 mm, respectively, using an Advantech Tapsieve shaker DT168 model (Advantech Manufacturing, New Berlin,WI, U.S.A.). The weight of sample retained over each sieve wasrecorded and expressed as g/100 g. Two grams of semolina,amaranth flour blend, or semolinaeamaranthmixweremixedwith20 mL of deionized water. The mixture was periodically stirred,centrifuged (8000 � g, 15 min) and decanted, and the difference inweight was reported as water absorption capacity (Ayo, 2001). Thepasting properties of SEM, AFB, and their mixes were studied byusing Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA Super-4 model, Newport ScientificPvt. Ltd, Australia). The viscosity profiles were recorded usingsample suspensions consisting of 3.5 g (14 g of water/100 g) ofsample milled with a Cyclotec mill model 1093 (Foss Tecator,Häganäs, Sweden) and 25mL of water. The samplewas heated from50 to 95 �C at 6 �C per min after equilibrium time of 1 min at 50 �Cand holding time of 2.5 min at 95 �C. The cooling was carried outfrom 95 to 50 �C at 6 �C per min with a holding for 2 min at 50 �C.Each test was completed in 13 min.

2.3. Physical dough properties

The mixing characteristics of SEM, AFB, and their mixes wereevaluated with the National Mixograph (National ManufacturingCo., Lincoln, NE) using a 10 g sample (14 g of water/100 g) main-taining the water addition in 5.8 g/10 g. The proportion of raw topopped amaranth flour in the AFB to replace semolina in the pastamaking was chosen according to preliminary tests. The 90:10proportion AFB showed good dough consistency and more closelyresembled that of semolina dough, therefore, this was used toreplace semolina for the assays. The percentages of AFB in themixes were 25, 50, and 75 g/100 g. Mixograms were determined by

duplicate using the method 54-40A (AACC 2000) and they areshown in Fig. 1AeE. The moisture and protein content of the SEMand the AFB were 9.2 g/100 g and 12.1 g/100 g, and 8.8 g/100 g and14.2 g/100 g, respectively. Other quality characteristics of SEMwere0.62 g of ash/100 g and gluten index of 11 g/100 g.

2.4. Pasta manufacture

Pastas were made in a pasta machine (Columbian Home Prod-ucts, Terre Haute, IN, Item # 330-54) with AFB to SEM ratios of25:75, 50:50, and 75:25. Semolina pasta was also prepared forcomparison. Two batches of these blends (280 g each, 14 g of water/100 g) were mixed at room temperature with 1.2 g distilledmonoglycerides/100 g and 9 g egg white powder/100 g in a KitchenAid Mixer model MK 45 GPWH (Kitchen Aid, St. Joseph, MI) at lowspeed (set 1) for 1 min, and 50 g of warm distilled water (42e44 �C)/100 g was slowly added and mixed for ten more minutes.Afterward, the dough was allowed to rest for 30 min in a proofingchamber model C (National Mfg. Co., Lincoln, NE) at 30 �C and 95%rh. Firstly, the proofed dough was laminated in the pasta machineat setting 1, and finally at setting 3. The pasta was hand cut intostrips approximately 20 cm long (fresh pasta) using a scissor anddried at 95 �C and 91% rh for 45 min (dried pasta) in an Enviro-Pakoven model Micro-Pak Series MP500 (Enviro-Pak, Clackamas, OR).These drying conditions were set in preliminary tests. The use oflower drying temperatures did not favor the stability of the prod-uct. The five pasta samples were allowed to cool, placed in indi-vidual sealed containers to avoid moisture exchange, and stored atroom temperature until analyzed.

2.5. Pasta analysis

Physical (thickness and color), proximate composition, glutencontent, cooking quality, and texture analyses of the pasta werecarried out according to official methods (AACC, 2000; AOAC,2000), Abecassis, Faure, and Feillet (1989), and Marti et al. (2010).A brief description of these methods is given in subsequentsubsections.

2.5.1. Physical characteristicsThe raw pasta samples (dried pasta) were characterized ac-

cording to thickness and color. Thickness measurements of tenstrips of each pasta were takenwith a digital caliper model 14-648-17 (Fisher Scientific de Mexico, S.A de C.V., Monterrey, Mexico) andthe average was reported. Also, color measurements on fresh(before drying) and cooked pasta samples were carried out ac-cording to Mariotti et al. (2011) using a Minolta colorimeter modelCR-400 (KonicaMinolta Sensing Americas, Inc., Ramsey, NJ). Resultswere expressed in the CIELAB space as L* (lightness; 0 ¼ black,100 ¼ white), a* (þa ¼ redness, �a ¼ greenness) and b*(þb ¼ yellowness, �b ¼ blueness) values. The colorimeter cali-bration parameters L*, a*, and b* were 97.11, �4.83, and 7.02,respectively.

2.5.2. Proximate analysis of the raw pastaMoisture (method 934.01), ash (method 942.05), total protein

by themicro-Kjeldahl method (%N� 6.25), and fat content (method920.39) were quantified according to AOAC (2000), and carbohy-drates content were determined by difference.

2.5.3. Gluten contentGluten content of the final products was quantified by the

Ridascreen� gliadin kit (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany) whichuses anti-R5 antibodies as recommended (Codex AlimentariusComission 2008).

A.R. Islas-Rubio et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222 219

2.5.4. Cooking qualityCooked pasta firmness and cooking loss were evaluated ac-

cording to AACC method 16-50 (AACC, 2000), Abecassis et al.(1989), Marti et al. (2010), and Tudorica, Kuri, and Brennan(2002). The cooking tests were performed for various cookingtimes for each pasta sample in order to determine the optimumcooking time (OCT) (D’Egidio, Mariani, Nardi, Novaro, & Cubbada,1990). Twenty five grams of pasta were heated in a beaker(500 mL capacity) containing 300 mL of boiling distilled water,replacing the evaporated water during heating in a hot plate(Corning PC-420D model) at 350 �C and 60 rpm. Once the OCT ofeach pasta sample was evaluated, the pasta sample was optimallycooked and the weight gain and solid loss during cooking weredetermined by duplicate. The cooking loss was determined gravi-metrically by weighing the residues after evaporating the cookingwater.

2.5.5. TextureCooked pasta texture was measured, after 10-min rest in a

sealed container to avoid dehydration, using a Texture Analyzer(Stable Micro System Ltd., Godalming, UK), calibrated for a load cellof 5 kg, test speed 0.1 mm/s, distance 1.6 mm, force’s threshold0.01 N. At least four measurements per replicate were taken. Theexperiment was repeated twice. Themaximum force obtained fromthe force vs distance curve described by the texture analyzer wasrecorded as a measure of cooked pasta firmness.

2.6. Statistical analyses

A completely randomized block design was used in the experi-ment and one-way analysis of variance was carried out. Meanvalues were compared by Tukey’s test using the SAS software (SASInstitute, Inc., Cary, NC).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Particle size distribution, water absorption capacity and pastingproperties

The AFB material (g/100 g � standard deviation) retained oneach sieve was as follows: 54.1 g/100 g � 1.1, 35.1 g/100 g � 1.2,10.1 g/100 g � 1.5, and 0.6 g/100 g � 0.03 on sieves #40, #60, #80,and #100 respectively. Only 0.32 g/100 g passed through mesh#100. SEM particles (91.9 g/100 g) were mainly retained on sieves#60 and #80, whereas most AFB particles (89.2 g/100 g) were heldon sieves #40 and #60. In general, the AFB was coarser than SEM.Differences in particle size distribution between the samples couldaffect hydration. A narrow particle size range is desirable for ho-mogeneous hydration (Feillet & Dexter, 1998). Thewater absorptioncapacity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in SEM than in the AFB.Semolina absorbed 1.89 g of water per each gram, whereas the AFBabsorbed 1.56 g of water. As expected, the capacity of water ab-sorption decreased as the level of AFB increased in the composite

Fig. 1. Physical dough test of semolina (A), amaranth flour blend (E

flours. The 50:50 semolina and AFB mix showed an intermediatevalue (1.79 g) and it was not different (p > 0.05) than the rest of thecomposite mixes (1.85 and 1.75 g, corresponding to Pastas B and D).Differences in water absorption might be related to differences inchemical and protein composition, degree of starch damage andgelatinization (Markowski, Ratajski, Konopko, Zapotoczny, &Majewska, 2006), as well as particle size distribution among thesamples (Irvine, 1978; Portesi, 1957). Starch and protein have agreat affinity for water which they absorb rapidly. The AFB absorbswater more rapidly than SEM as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. This couldbe due to the smaller starch granule and protein molecular size ofamaranth (Lorenz, 1981).

The replacement of SEM with the AFB caused dough weakening(Fig. 1). Dough strength has been related to the protein molecularweight distribution of flours (Gupta, Batey, & MacRitchie, 1992). Apositive relationship between dough strength and unextractablepolymeric protein was reported. Undoubtedly, the proportion ofmacromolecules (polymeric proteins) is higher in semolina than inamaranth. Although amaranth proteins are able to form aggregatesunder certain conditions (Cabrera-Chávez et al., 2012), its nativeproteins are mainly albumins and globulins (Lorenz, 1981), whichare classified as monomeric proteins. This could explain the dilu-tion effect of gluten shown in Fig. 1AeE.

The results from the RVA of the SEM, AFB, and their mixes areshown in Fig. 2. The lowest pasting temperature (PT) was observedfor SEM (68.6 �C). A small peak often occurs before themain pastingpeak of wheat flours and it is probably due to damaged starch(Batey, 2007). Damaged starch granules allow faster penetration bywater, and these granules absorb more water and start to swellsignificantly before undamaged granules. PT provides an indicationof the minimum temperature required to cook the sample. Theinclusion of AFB increased the PT around 6 �C, indicating thepresence of starch that is more resistant to swelling and rupturing(Kaushal, Kumar, & Sharma, 2012). The highest swelling ability wasobserved for the 25:75 mix (Fig. 2), followed by the 50:50 mix. Thebonding forces within the granules in the mixes could affect theswelling behavior and could explain the rapid increase in viscosityshown by these mixes. As the percentage of AFB increased, thesetback and peak viscosity (PV) decreased. This could be due tohigher amount of protein and lower amount of starch, since theamount of carbohydrates was reduced.

The trough viscosity or holding viscosity (HV) is the minimumviscosity after the peak. Similarly to the PV trend, the HV decreasedas the amount of AFB in the mix increased. The HV values rankedbetween 463 and 1376 Pa.s. The breakdown viscosity (BV) is thedifference between PV and HV and indicates how stable the pasteis. Differences in BV were observed among the samples. The lowerchanges in paste viscosity (at 95 �C, including the holding period)occurred with the AFB sample. The amaranth starch tends to havestable paste (Corke, 2007), which could be an advantage in somefood applications. SEM showed the highest BV (448 Pa.s) and thecomposite mixes had intermediate BV. Final viscosity (FV) is theviscosity at the end of the test and indicates the ability of the

), and their mixes at 75:25 (B), 50:50 (C), and 25:75 (D) ratios.

Fig. 2. Pasting properties of semolina (A), amaranth flour blend (E), and their mixes at 75:25 (B), 50:50 (C), and 25:75 (D) ratios.

A.R. Islas-Rubio et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222220

material to form a viscous paste. Setback viscosity (SV) is the re-covery of the viscosity during cooling of cooked starch pastes. SV isdefined as FV minus HV. It was observed that with the increase inthe percentage of AFB in the mixes, SV and FV decreased. The FV islargely determined by the retrogradation of soluble amylose uponcooling. The differences in FV values could be due to the lowamylose content of the amaranth starch (Lorenz, 1981) whichprovides less soluble amylose upon cooling; therefore less amyloseretrogradation takes place, as indicated by the lower FV values.

3.2. Pasta thickness and proximate analysis

Thickness of the dried pastas was between 1.60 and 1.68 mm.The proximate analysis of uncooked pastas is shown in Table 1. Theamaranth pasta (Pasta E) which is a GF product, showed signifi-cantly higher protein, fat and ash than the semolina pasta (Pasta A).This is a nutritional advantage not only for providing more proteinbut also for its high content of essential amino acids, especiallylysine and sulfur amino acids, all of which are limited in cerealgrains (Capriles et al., 2008). The crude fat and ash contentincreased with AFB addition because amaranth contains about 6times more fat, with an excellent fatty acid profile, than durumsemolina (Lorenz, 1981; Rayas-Duarte et al., 1996). The higher ashcontent of the amaranth-containing pastas is due to the pericarpwhich remains with the grain after milling.

3.3. Color

In semolina pastas the L* and b* values are considered moreimportant as color attributes and at higher levels, the more desir-able the pasta is (Rayas-Duarte et al., 1996). Heat treatment en-hances Maillard reactions which cause the darker color observed in

Table 1Proximate composition of semolina pasta, and pastas made from amaranth flourblend, and semolinaeamaranth flour blend.a

Sample (semolina:amaranth)

Moisture(g/100 g)

Protein(g/100 g)

Fat(g/100 g)

Ash(g/100 g)

Carbohydratesb

(g/100 g)

Pasta A (100:0) 7.0a 15.2b 0.4c 1.3e 75.9a

Pasta B (75:25) 6.8b 16.4a 1.1c 1.6d 74.0b

Pasta C (50:50) 6.8b 16.5a 2.3b 1.9c 72.4c

Pasta D (25:75) 6.9b 16.8a 2.5b 2.2b 71.8c

Pasta E (0:100) 6.4cd 17.1a 4.7a 2.6a 69.1d

a Different letter in the same column indicates statistical difference (p < 0.05).b By difference.

the dried pastas (Acquistucci, 2000). In this study, a* and b* valuesincreased as the level of amaranth addition increased (Table 2). TheAFB contributed to the yellowness of the pasta, this can be due tothe amount of carotenoid pigment and to enzymatic reactions(Acquistucci, 2000). The raw amaranth grain appears more yellowthan the popped grain. It is possible that the raw amaranthcontributed the most to the carotenoid pigment, since it is presentin higher amount (90 g/100 g) in the AFB.

The gluten-free pasta (Pasta E) showed a significant decrease inyellowness after drying. The increase in the red index (a* value) asthe level of AFB addition increased could be related to the devel-opment of the Maillard reactions that takes place during drying,especially when moisture ranges between 15 and 18 g/100 g ofpasta (Acquistucci, 2000). Color of dry pasta is an important qualityfactor for consumers. Most of the color parameters of the pastasamples of this study were between the ranges of variation re-ported for eighteen Italian industrially produced durum wheatpasta (Acquistucci, 1996). The main concern on the amaranthcontaining pasta of this study is the darker color in comparisonwith semolina pasta. An increase in pasta brown color was asso-ciated with an increase in the antioxidant potential of pasta (Anese,Nicoli, Massini, & Lerici, 1999) and antioxidant activity can be as-cribable to brown-colored melanoidins (Anese, Manzocco, Nicoli, &Lerici, 1999). Some consumers may accept dark pastas if they are ofa better nutritional value.

3.4. Gluten content

The semolina pasta (A) contained 67,000 ppm gluten aftercooking, while the amaranth pasta (E) contained <5 ppm gluten;therefore, it is gluten-free as expected and could be healthy forceliac disease patients.

Table 2Cooking quality characteristics and texture of semolina pasta, and pastas made fromamaranth flour blend, and semolinaeamaranth flour blend.a

Sample (semolina:amaranth)

OCTb

(min)Cooking loss(g/100 g)

Weight gain(g/100 g)

Firmness (N)

Pasta A (100:0) 5.5a 8.0b 188.3a 1.49a

Pasta B (75:25) 4.5b 9.2ab 166.9b 1.17ab

Pasta C (50:50) 4.5b 9.7ab 146.7c 1.11ab

Pasta D (25:75) 4.5b 11.0a 143.0cd 1.08ab

Pasta E (0:100) 4.0c 11.5a 128.7d 0.84b

a Different letter in the same column indicates statistical difference (p < 0.05).b Optimum cooking time.

Table 3Color changes of semolina pasta, and pastas made from amaranth, and semolinaeamaranth flour blend at different processing stage.a

Sample (semolina:amaranth)

Stage of processing L* a* b*

Pasta A (100:0) Fresh 74.5aA �3.7bD 30.4aB

Dried 65.6bA �2.2aD 29.6aB

Cooked 69.9bA �3.6bD 29.6aB

Pasta B (75:25) Fresh 68.6aB �1.5bC 31.3aB

Dried 64.2aAB �0.9abC 31.9aA

Cooked 59.5bB �0.3aC 32.6aA

Pasta C (50:50) Fresh 63.6aC 0.1bB 31.3aB

Dried 60.3aBC 0.6aB 32.0aA

Cooked 54.3bBC 1.0aB 32.3aA

Pasta D (25:75) Fresh 59.2aD 1.7bA 32.1aAB

Dried 56.2aCD 1.7bA 32.8aA

Cooked 52.1bC 2.3aA 33.4aA

Pasta E (0:100) Fresh 60.7aD 1.7aA 33.4aA

Dried 54.9bD 1.9aA 32.2abB

Cooked 53.1bBC 2.1aA 32.9abA

a Values with different small letter in the same column and sample are statisti-cally different (p < 0.05). Values with different capital letter and same processingstage are significantly different (p < 0.05).

A.R. Islas-Rubio et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222 221

3.5. Cooking quality

OCT, solid loss and weight gain during cooking are shown inTable 3. The OCT differed significantly among the pasta samples.The semolina pasta showed the highest OCT, whereas the gluten-free pasta (Pasta E) had the lowest. There were no differences(p > 0.05) in the OCT of the composite pasta samples. Cooking lossis one of the most important parameters that affect consumeracceptance in pasta products (Fu, 2008; Sissons, Egan, & Gianibelli,2005). It was necessary to include 1.2 g distilled monoglycerides/100 g and 9 g egg white powder/100 g in order to avoid pastadisintegration during cooking. These additional ingredientsapparently improved cohesiveness and contributed to pastafirmness of the cooked product. The replacement of increasingamounts of semolina with AFB caused an increase in cooking lossand a reduction in weight gain. The pasta made of only semolina(Pasta A) lost significantly (p < 0.05) less solids during cookingthan the pasta containing 75 or 100 g AFB/100 g and required tobe optimally cooked a significant longer time (p < 0.05). As ex-pected, the semolina pasta showed the highest weight gain duringcooking, whereas the only amaranth pasta (Pasta E) had thelowest. Differences in cooking loss could be due to the extentduring processing that the proteins form a network capable ofentrapping the various other constituents of semolina. The slightincrease in cooking loss of the pasta samples as the amount of AFBincreased can be related to weakening of network formation asshown in Fig. 1 and reported by Rayas-Duarte et al. (1996).Another possibility is that during drying of the pasta samples andthe cooling stage resistant starch could form, inhibiting theleaching of solids to cooking water (Sozer, Dagic, & Kaya, 2007).Higher cooking losses (up to 24.4 g/100 g for pasta made in alaboratory press and 34.7 g/100 g for pasta made in a pilot press),has been reported for semolinaemaize (33:66) pasta (Mestres,Matensio, & Faure, 1990).

In the case of the 25 g/100 g substitution level of semolina foramaranth flour, a cooking loss of 8.6 g/100 g was reported (Rayas-Duarte et al., 1996). Expected cooking loss values for durum wheatpasta are lower than 8 g/100 g (Dick & Young, 1988) and even a10 g/100 g level is considered satisfactory (Mestres et al., 1990). Inthe present study, the pasta with the lowest cooking qualitygained 128.7 g/100 g of its weight during cooking and onlyexceeded the satisfactory level of solid loss in 1.5 g/100 g.

3.6. Pasta texture

Therewere no differences (p> 0.05) in firmness of the amaranthcontaining pasta samples, Table 2. The GF pasta (Pasta E) presenteda firmness value of 0.84 N. This value is higher than the firmnessvalue reported by Schoenlechner et al. (2010) for the 100%amaranth pasta. These authors pointed out that texture of thispasta had to be improved. The presence of increasing amounts ofnon-gluten proteins dilutes the gluten strength and interruptedand weakened the overall structure of the pasta (Rayas-Duarteet al., 1996) resulting in a reduction on pasta firmness. A firmnessreduction of 45 N/100 Nwas also observed in composite-pastawith25 g/100 g substitution level of semolina for amaranth flour withrespect to semolina pasta (Rayas-Duarte et al., 1996). At this sub-stitution level, these authors reported that negative changes intexture or flavor attribute were evident. Comparing the firmness ofthe only amaranth pasta reported so far (0.31 N and 0.84 N), it isevident the firmness improvement of the amaranth pasta reachedin the present study. This improvement could be attributed to therecipe and the heat treatment used in our study. The processingconditions (dough moisture content, drying temperature and time,etc.) used in this study to make the pasta samples might define theproteinestarch matrix, which determined the pasta firmness andthe loss of solids during cooking. Sensory analysis of the pastasamples of this study needs to be done in order to determine theconsumer acceptance of the products.

4. Conclusions

The inclusion of 1.2 g of distilled monoglycerides/100 g, 9 g ofegg white powder/100 g, and 50 g of warm distilled water (42e44 �C)/100 g in the recipe allowed the formation of appropriatedough for pasta making. The drying conditions used in this study(95 �C for 45 min) enable the production of good cooking qualitypasta and contributed to extend the shelf life of the product. TheAFB of 90:10 raw to popped amaranth grain flour was suitable tomake gluten-free and composite pasta with acceptable cookingquality and texture. These products could be included in the list ofthe new food products with inherent nutrition quality which arebeginning to shift interest away from traditional fortified foods.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the technical assistance of MC Granados-Nevárez, JR Valenzuela Miranda, AV Bolaños Villar and F Vásquez-Lara, and the financial support provided by the local wheat millingindustry, as well as grant CB-2008-01/106227 from the MexicanCouncil for Science and Technology (Conacyt).

References

AACC International. (2000). Approved methods of the American Association of CerealChemists (10th ed.). St. Paul, MN: The Association.

Abecassis, J., Faure, J., & Feillet, P. (1989). Improvement of cooking quality of maizepasta products by heat treatment. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,47, 475e485.

Acquistucci, R. (1996). The Maillard reactions in pasta: preliminary classification bymultivariate techniques. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 29, 626e631.

Acquistucci, R. (2000). Influence of Maillard reactions on protein modification andcolor development in pasta: comparison of different drying conditions. Leb-ensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 33, 48e52.

Alamprese, C., Casiraghi, E., & Pagani, M. A. (2007). Development of gluten free freshegg pasta analogues containing buckwheat. European Food Research and Tech-nology, 225, 205e213.

Anese, M., Manzocco, L., Nicoli, M. C., & Lerici, C. R. (1999). Antioxidant properties oftomato juice as affected by heating. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,79, 750e754.

Anese, M., Nicoli, M. C., Massini, R., & Lerici, C. R. (1999). Effects of drying processingon the Maillard reaction in pasta. Food Research International, 32, 193e199.

A.R. Islas-Rubio et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 57 (2014) 217e222222

Antognelli, C. (1980). The manufacture and applications of pasta as a food and as afood ingredient: a review. Journal of Food Technology, 15, 9e29.

AOAC. (2000). Official methods of analysis (18th ed.). Washington, DC: Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists.

Ayo, J. A. (2001). The effect of amaranth grain flour on the quality of bread. Inter-national Journal of Food Properties, 4, 341e351.

Batey, I. L. (2007). Interpretation of RVA curves. In G. B. Crosbie, & A. S. Ross (Eds.),The RVA handbook (pp. 19e30). St. Paul, MN: AACC International.

Cabrera-Chávez, F., Calderón de la Barca, A. M., Islas-Rubio, A. R., Marti, A.,Marengo, M., Pagani, M. A., et al. (2012). Molecular rearrangements in extrusionprocesses for the production of amaranth-enriched, gluten-free rice pasta. LWTe Food Science and Technology, 47, 421e426.

Calderón de la Barca, A. M., Rojas-Martínez, M. E., Islas-Rubio, A. R., & Cabrera-Chávez, F. (2010). Gluten-free breads and cookies of raw and popped amaranthflours with attractive technological and nutritional qualities. Plant Foods forHuman Nutrition, 65, 241e246.

Caperuto, L., Amaya-Farfan, J., & Camargo, C. R. O. (2001). Performance of quinoa(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) flour in the manufacture of gluten-free spaghetti.Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81, 95e101.

Capriles, V. D., López-Almeida, E., Ferreira, R. E., Gomes-Areas, J. A., Steel, C. J., &Chang, Y. K. (2008). Physical and sensory properties of regular and reduced-fatpound cakes with added amaranth flour. Cereal Chemistry, 85, 614e618.

Chillo, S., Laverse, J., Falcone, P. M., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2008). Quality of spaghetti inbase Amaranthus wholemeal flour added with quinoa, broad bean and chickpea. Journal of Food Engineering, 84, 101e107.

Codex Alimentarius. (2008). Draft revised standard for gluten-free foods. Viewed15.05.13 http://www.codexalimentarius.net.

Corke, H. (2007). Specialty cereal and noncereal starches. In G. B. Crosbie, &A. S. Ross (Eds.), The RVA handbook (pp. 49e62). St. Paul, MN: AACCInternational.

Dick, J. W., & Young, V. L. (1988). Evaluation of durumwheat, semolina, and pasta inthe United States. In G. Fabriani, & C. Lintas (Eds.), Durum chemistry and tech-nology (pp. 237e248). St. Paul MN: American Association of Cereal Chemists.

D’Egidio, M. G., Mariani, B. M., Nardi, S., Novaro, P., & Cubbada, R. (1990). Chemicaland technological variables and their relationships: a predicting equation forpasta cooking quality. Cereal Chemistry, 67, 275e281.

Feillet, P., & Dexter, J. E. (1998). Semolina requirements of durum wheat forsemolina milling and pasta production. In J. E. Kruger, R. B. Matsuo, & J. W. Dick(Eds.), Pasta and noodle technology (pp. 95e131). St. Paul MN: American Asso-ciation of Cereal Chemists.

Fu, B. X. (2008). Asian noodles: history, classification, raw materials, and processing.Food Research International, 41, 888e902.

Grugni, G., Manzini, F., Viazzo, G., & Viazzo, N. (2009). Process for the production ofrice pasta and product obtained thereby. EP 2110026 (A1).

Gupta, R. B., Batey, I. L., & MacRitchie, F. (1992). Relationships between proteincomposition and functional properties of wheat flours. Cereal Chemistry, 69,125e131.

Hoseney, R. C. (1986). Principles of cereal science and technology (pp. 277e291). StPaul, MN: AACC, Inc.

Irvine, G. N. (1978). Durum wheat and pasta products. In Y. Pomeranz (Ed.), Wheat:Chemistry and technology (pp. 777e796). St. Paul, MN: AACC.

Kaushal, P., Kumar, V., & Sharma, H. K. (2012). Comparative study of physico-chemical, functional, antinutritional and pasting properties of taro (Colocasia

esculenta), rice (Oryza sativa) flour, pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) flour and theirblends. LWT e Food Science and Technology, 48, 59e68.

Lorenz, K. (1981). Amaranthus hypochondriacus e characteristics of the starch andbaking potential of the flour. Starch/Stärke, 33 S, 149e153.

Manthey, F. A., Yalla, S. R., Dick, T. J., & Badruddin, M. (2004). Extrusion propertiesand cooking quality of spaghetti containing buckwheat bran flour. CerealChemistry, 81, 232e236.

Mariotti, M., Iametti, S., Cappa, C., Rasmussen, P., & Lucisano, M. (2011). Charac-terization of gluten-free pasta through conventional and innovative methods.Evaluation of uncooked products. Journal of Cereal Science, 53, 319e327.

Mariotti, M., Lucisano, M., Pagani, M. A., & Ng, P. K. W. (2009). The role of cornstarch, amaranth flour, pea isolate, and psyllium flour on the rheologicalproperties and the ultrastructure of gluten-free doughs. Food Research Inter-national, 42, 963e975.

Markowski, M., Ratajski, A., Konopko, H., Zapotoczny, P., & Majewska, K. (2006).Rheological behavior of hot-air-puffed amaranth seeds. International Journal ofFood Properties, 9, 195e203.

Marti, A., Seetharaman, K., & Pagani, M. A. (2010). Rice-based pasta: a comparisonbetween conventional pasta-making and extrusion-cooking. Journal of CerealScience, 52, 404e409.

Mastromatteo, M., Chillo, S., Iannetti, M., Civica, V., Sepielli, G., & Del Nobile, M. A.(2012). Influence of heat treatment on the quality of functional gluten-freespaghetti. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 3, 433e440.

Mestres, C., Collonna, P., & Buleon, A. (1988). Characteristics of starch networkswithin rice flour noodles and mungbean starch vermicelli. Journal of Food Sci-ence, 53, 1809e1812.

Mestres, C., Matensio, F., & Faure, J. (1990). Optimising process for making pastafrom maize in admixture with durum wheat. Journal of the Science of Food andAgriculture, 51, 355e368.

Petitot, M., Bayer, L., Minier, C., & Micard, V. (2010). Fortification of pasta with splitpea and faba bean flours: pasta processing and quality evaluation. Food ResearchInternational, 43, 634e641.

Pomeranz, Y. (1987). Modern cereal science and technology. New York, NY: VCHPublishers.

Portesi, G. (1957). L’industria della pasta alimentare (p. 412). Editrice Molini d’Italia.Rayas-Duarte, P., Mock, C. M., & Satterlee, L. D. (1996). Quality of spaghetti con-

taining buckwheat, amaranth, and lupin flours. Cereal Chemistry, 73, 81e387.Schoenlechner, R., Drausinger, J., Ottenschlaeger, V., Jurackova, K., & Berghofer, E.

(2010). Functional properties of gluten-free pasta produced from amaranth,quinoa and buckwheat. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 65, 339e349.

Sissons, M. J., Egan, N. E., & Gianibelli, M. C. (2005). New insights into the role ofgluten on durum pasta quality using reconstituted method. Cereal Chemistry, 82,601e608.

Sloan, A. E. (2013). Top 10 food trends for 2013. Food Technology, 67(4). Viewed17.06.13 http://www.ift.org/newsroom/news-releases/2013/april/16/top-ten-food-trends-for-2013.aspx.

Sozer, N., Dagic, A. C., & Kaya, A. (2007). Thermal, textural and cooking prop-erties of spaghetti enriched with resistant starch. Journal of Food Engineering,81, 476e484.

Tudorica, C. M., Kuri, V., & Brennan, C. S. (2002). Nutritional and physicochemicalcharacteristics of dietary fibre-enriched pasta. Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry, 50, 347e356.