Chickpea as a promising ingredient substitute in gluten-free bread making: An overview of technological and nutritional benefits
Abstract
The growing awareness amongst consumers regarding health and wellness has changed the dynamics of the food industry. Owing to the burgeoning of lifestyle diseases the demand for gluten-free (GF) products has skyrocketed. Traditionally, bread is made with gluten-rich flour, which gives it unique texture and flavour. However, a segment of the population with gluten intolerance seeks nutritious and tasty GF alternatives. While maize flour, cassava flour, and rice flour have been explored, they pose technological challenges in the fabrication of gluten-free bread (GFB). This review focuses on Chickpea flour (CF) as a promising alternative for GFB, offering improved technological, functional, nutritional, and sensory attributes. CF is rich in proteins, vitamins, and dietary fibres, with potential preventive benefits against cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Incorporating CF in GFB enhances dough stability, consistency, and loaf volume while reducing the glycemic response. It opens up the possibility of nutritionally enriched, healthier, and more delicious GFB options for those with gluten intolerance, making it a highly promising ingredient for satisfying modern food demands.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chickpea flour has been increasingly incorporated into gluten-free and plant-based products due to its multifunctional properties.
“Chickpea flour has been increasingly incorporated into gluten-free and plant-based products, including bakery goods, extruded snacks, plant-based beverages, and even restructured meat analogues, due to its multifunctional properties”
From Ultrasonication-induced modifications in functional, thermal, and structural properties of chickpea flour under different time and temperature conditions (2027) · cites this paper as Vinod et al., 2023
Cites
Global Prevalence of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Singh, P., Arora, A., Strand, T. A., Leffler, D. A., Catassi, C., Green, P. H., Kelly, C. P., Ahuja, V., & Makharia, G. K. (2018) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037 · Cited by 1,743 · see citing works
Hager, A.-S., Wolter, A., Czerny, M., Bez, J., Zannini, E., Arendt, E. K., & Czerny, M. (2012) · European Food Research and Technology · doi:10.1007/s00217-012-1763-2 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Farrokhi, M., Brandão, T. R. S., Gonçalves, E. M., & Silva, C. L. M. (2027) · Food Hydrocolloids · doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2026.113096
- Authors
- Vinod, B. R., Asrey, R., Rudra, S. G., Urhe, S. B., & Mishra, S.
- Venue
- Food Chemistry Advances
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 100473
- ISSN
- 2772-753X
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Licence
- Funders
- Indian Council of Agricultural Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review