INTRODUCTIONFunctional foods that are consumed as part of aregular diet have the potential to improve health orreduce disease risk. For example, gluten-free foods areparticularly useful for celiac patients [1]. Preventivemedicine has made significant progress in the previousdecade and proved the critical importance of nutrition inavoiding diseases, particularly those related to diet [2].Celiac disease is a chronic inflammatoryautoimmune disease of the small intestine mucosatriggered 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 celiacdisease [5]. A life-long rigorous gluten-free diet iscurrently the only treatment available for celiacpatients. It improves the quality of life, preventsrefractory celiac disease, and alleviates symptoms [6].In the long run, this diet also benefits patients withpreviously unexplained persistent watery diarrhea ordominating bloating symptoms who satisfy the criteriafor functional bowel disorders [7]. Thus, gluten-freefood production must be prioritized to meet the needs ofpeople with celiac disease [8].Gluten-free pasta is one of the options for peoplewith celiac disease caused by their inability to digestgluten adequately [9]. Gluten-intolerant people, whoare becoming more common in society, will prefer thisproduct to gluten-containing pasta [10].Pasta is generally regarded as a classic foodproduct that is frequently consumed due to its sensoryqualities, as well as convenience and ease of transportation,cooking, handling, and storage. In addition, pasta330Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339has grown popular due to its nutritional qualities thatare linked to a low glycemic index. In short-term humanintervention studies, low-glycemic-index foods reducedappetite and increased fullness [11]. However, peoplewith celiac disease prefer gluten-free pasta for healthreasons [12].Rice flour has been included in gluten-free productformulations to give the batter structure and nutritionalvalue [13]. It is a primary ingredient in pasta production[14]. Furthermore, the use of rice flour isappealing because of its low salt content and highdigestibility [15].Hydrocolloids are commonly used as thickeningagents that increase dough viscosity and bind water toimprove texture, volume, and final quality. In additionto their advantages for the technological properties ofgluten-free products, hydrocolloids may impact thefinal product’s glycemic index [16]. Particularly, fiberincreases satiety after eating and reduces the glycemicindex of food [17]. As a result, hydrocolloids such aspsyllium husk are particularly crucial materials forgluten-free flour [18].In addition, using psyllium in cooking may helpceliacs live longer by allowing them to eat fiber withregular meals rather than separately as a supplement,which may not be as tasty [19]. On the other hand, theconsumption of soybean food or fortified foods hasrecently increased due to its benefits for human nutritionand health [20].Gluten-free pasta is more expensive and it is oftenbrittle and pale compared to wheat flour pasta [21].Therefore, we aimed to produce high-quality gluten-freepasta from various formulas fortified with soy proteinisolate and two types of hydrocolloids (psyllium huskor carboxymethyl cellulose), as well as to evaluate thephysicochemical and sensory characteristics of the finalproduct.STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODSOur study involved the production and evaluationof gluten-free pasta made from white corn flour, riceflour, soy protein isolate, psyllium husk, andcarboxymethyl 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 obtainedfrom Amoun Milling Company (Giza, Egypt). Riceflour (7.16% protein, 1.50% protein, 0.57% ash, 1.21%fiber, and 89.56% nitrogen-free extract) and white cornflour (9.76% protein, 4.24% protein, 1.27% ash, 2.94%fiber, and 81.79% nitrogen-free extract) were obtainedfrom 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 fromAmerican 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 EmslandGroup, Germany. Carboxymethyl cellulose was obtainedfrom Sigma Company. Psyllium husk powder (Plantagopsyllium) was obtained from Now Foods, USA. All thechemicals used in the estimation and analysis were ofanalytical grade.Methods. Technological methods. Preparationof composite flour. Wheat flour (72% ext.) pasta wasused as a control sample. The experimental samples, inaddition to gluten-free flours, contained soy proteinisolate and psyllium husk or carboxymethyl cellulose,with varying levels of white corn flour, rice flour, andpotato starch (Table 1). Individual flour combinationswere homogenized, sealed in polyethylene bags, andstored at –18°C until needed.Pasta dough preparation. Pasta was producedaccording to Collins and Pangloli with somemodifications [22]. All dry ingredients were sievedthrough a 100-mesh sieve, combined, and mixed toproduce a homogenized mixture. Then, the mixturewas placed in a mixing bowl and mixed until the doughformed (31 ± 1% of tap water). The dough was shapedinto a ball, covered with a plastic wrap, and allowed torest for 30 min. Then, it was hand-kneaded for 1 min,divided into 100-g portions, and shaped in a cylindricalTable 1 Pasta formulasSamples Raw materials, gWheatflourWhitecorn flourRiceflourPotato starch Soy protein isolate Psyllium husk Carboxymethyl celluloseControl 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 – 2.5G – 37.5 37.5 15.0 10 – 2.5H – 30.0 30.0 30.0 10 – 2.5I – 22.5 22.5 45.0 10 – 2.5J – 15.0 15.0 60.0 10 – 2.5331Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339form by using a pasta machine without vacuum(Philips Pasta Maker HR 2357/05, Italy).Pasta drying process. In line with Kishk et al., thepasta samples were air-dried at 23–25°C for 4 h in aroom equipped with a fan [23]. After drying in the openair, the samples were placed in a cabinet dehydrator anddried at 70°C to a moisture level of about 12%. Aftercooling to room temperature (25 ± 2°C), the sampleswere placed in plastic bags, sealed, and stored at12–14°C until analysis.Analytical methods. Color determination. The colorof the samples was measured according to Humter byusing a Hunter Lab colorimeter [24]. L*, a*, and b*parameters were measured by a spectro-colorimeter(Tristimulus Color Machine) with a CIELAB colorscale (Hunter Lab Scan XE-Reston VA, USA) and thereflection mode. The instrument was standardized withwhite 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 byusing black and white reference tiles. The color valueswere expressed as lightness to darkness for L*, rednessto greenness for a*, and yellowness to blueness for b*.Physical properties of pasta. Pasta cooking qualitywas determined according to the method approvedby the American Association of Cereal Chemists [25].Optimum cooking time was the time required for theopaque core of the pasta to disappear when squeezedgently between two glass plates after cooking. Pastapieces of 25 g were cooked for optimum time in a beakerwith 300 mL of tap water, rinsed in cold water, drainedfor 15 min, and weighed. The percentage of increasedweight was calculated as a cooking yield.The content of solids in the cooking water wasdetermined by drying at 105°C overnight. The cookingloss was expressed as a percentage between the solidweight and the initial dry matter. To calculate theswelling index, we divided the difference between theweight of cooked and uncooked pasta by the weightof uncooked pasta. The nitrogen loss was determinedaccording to the Kjeldahl method approved by theAmerican Association of Cereal Chemists by usingconversion factor of 5.7 [25].Texture profile analysis of pasta. The texture of thepasta samples (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness,chewiness, gumminess, and resilience) was determinedby Texture Profiles Analysis (TPA) using a CT3™Texture Analyzer (Brookfield) according to Boume [26].The Test Works software was installed and anappropriate test was selected for the TPA analysis:a 2.50 mm/s test speed, a 10 000 g load cell, two cyclesfor cooked pasta, one cycle for uncooked pasta, and a10 mm depth. The parameters, such as length, diameter,speed, compression percentage, and the number ofcycles, were entered as input data before starting thecompression. Then the load cell started to slowly movedownwards, compressing the sample, with a 5-s waitbetween the first and the second compression cycles.After two cycles, the compression stopped automatically.Sensory evaluation of pasta. The sensory attributesof the gluten-free pasta were evaluated by ten panelistsfrom the Department of Food Technology, NationalResearch Centre, according to the method reportedby Inglett et al. [27]. Color, texture, flavor, and overallacceptability were evaluated on the 9-point hedonicscale. The scale was verbally anchored with ninecategories, 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 theexperimental samples were compared with those of thecontrol sample (100% wheat flour).Statistical analysis. The results were analyzedstatistically by performing analysis of variance(ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test in theSPSS statistical package (Version 9.05). The least significantdifference was chosen to determine significantdifferences among various formulations. Differenceswere considered significant at P ≤ 0.05.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWe studied effects of psyllium husk (2.5%) andcarboxymethyl cellulose (2.5%) on gluten-free pastawith 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) ofthe uncooked pasta samples are presented in Table 2. Aswe can see, the samples containing potato starch (60%)and carboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk (samples Jand E, respectively) recorded the highest values ofL* color (more lightness) with significant differencesbetween them or in comparison with the other samples(P ≤ 0.05).We also found that lightness was affected by theamount of potato starch in the samples: the more potatostarch, the lighter the samples. The control sample hadthe lowest value of lightness. The highest values ofredness (a* value) were observed in the control sample(3.22) and the sample with carboxymethyl cellulose andwithout potato starch (2.52). However, there were nosignificant differences in redness among the rest of thesamples.As for yellowness (b* values), the lowest value(13.20) was recorded in the control sample, while thehighest values (16.70 and 15.93) were observed in thesamples without potato statrch (samples A and F). Therewere no significant differences in yellowness among thegluten-free samples with soy protein isolate. However,the highest value of color intensity was found in thesample containing 60% potato starch + carboxymethylcellulose, in contrast to the control sample with thelowest value. These results were consistent with thoseof Bolarinwa and Oyesiji who reported that gluten-free332Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339pasta with rice and corn flour had higher lightness andlower redness compared to wheat flour pasta [28].The hardness of gluten-free uncooked pasta.Hardness (N) is related to the strength of structureunder compression during the first compression cycle.It is a force required to attain a given deformation. Thehardness of uncooked pasta was determined by thetexture profile analyzer (Fig. 1).As can be seen, the control pasta showed the highestvalue of hardness (65.13) compared to the gluten-freesamples, which reflected the strength of structureprovided by the gluten network.However, there was a clear difference in hardnessbetween the samples with psyllium husk and thosewith carboxymethyl cellulose. Particularly, the highesthardness (44.97) was recorded in the psyllium husksample without potato starch (sample A) compared tothe carboxymethyl cellulose samples without starch(sample F) (23.30).In general, the psyllium husk pasta had hardnessvalues in the range of 44.97 to 15.16, whereas the carboxymethylcellulose samples had this parameter rangingfrom 23.30 to 4.26. Thus, potato starch played animportant role in the hardness of uncooked pasta: highercontents of potato starch led to lower hardness. Theseresults were confirmed by Kang et al. who found thatthe hardness of gluten-free pasta containing potatostarch was lower than that of wheat flour pasta [29].Color parameters of gluten-free cooked pasta.The color parameters of the cooked pasta samplesTable 2 Color parameters of uncooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk or carboxymethyl celluloseSamples Color parametersL* a* b* Color intensityControl 61.73i 3.22a 13.20d 1.510dGluten-free pasta withpsyllium husk:A 68.86h 1.77c 15.93ab 1.530cB 70.36g 1.67cd 15.30bc 1.530cC 71.90f 1.57cd 14.73bc 1.540bD 73.96d 1.49cd 14.33c 1.540bE 75.70b 1.46cd 14.26c 1.540bGluten-free pasta withcarboxymethyl cellulose:F 69.50h 2.52b 16.70a 1.530cG 70.86g 1.71cd 15.60ab 1.536bH 72.80e 1.68cd 15.23bc 1.540bI 74.86c 1.36cd 15.16bc 1.540bJ 77.50a 1.29d 15.06bc 1.550aMeans 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 starchFigure 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 starchHardness of uncooked pasta, NGFP containing 2.5% PsH GFP containing 2.5% CMC060504030201070333Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 2. As we cansee, the samples containing 60% potato starch andcarboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk (samples Jand E) recorded the highest values of L* (more lightness),with no significant difference between them. However,they showed significant differences when compared tothe other samples (P ≤ 0.05). Consequently, lightnesswas affected by the content of potato starch in thesamples, with higher contents leading to lighter color.The control sample had the lowest value of lightness.The highest redness (a*) values were recordedin the samples containing 45% white corn flour,45% rice flour, 10% soy protein isolate, and 2.5%carboxymethyl cellulose or 2.5% psyllium husk, withno significant differences. The lowest redness wasobserved in the samples containing 60% potato starchwith 2.5% carboxymethyl cellulose or 2.5% psylliumhusk. However, the lowest value of color intensity wassignificantly recorded in the control sample, with nosignificant differences between the gluten-free samples.Our results were in agreement with those of Yaseenand Shouk [30]. The authors found that pasta with cornstarch had higher lightness and lower redness valuescompared to the control (100% wheat flour). Similarly,Mohammadi et al. reported that increased amounts ofrice flour in gluten-free products led to higher lightnessof the final product [31].The quality of gluten-free cooked pasta. Thecooking time and quality parameters of the pastasamples prepared with hydrocolloids (carboxymethylcellulose and psyllium husk) are presented inTable 4. As can be seen, the optimum cooking time washighest (13.16 min) for the control sample (P ≤ 0.05)compared to the other samples except for the sampleswithout potato starch (A and F). However, the optimumcooking time gradually decreased with higher contentsof potato starch. Also, potato starch had a positive effecton the cooking yield, whether the samples containedcarboxymethyl cellulose or psyllium husk as bindingagents.The swelling index of pasta is an indicator of howmuch water is absorbed by starch and proteins duringcooking. It is utilized for the gelatinization of starchand hydration of proteins [32]. According to Table4, the swelling index was the lowest (142.82) for thecontrol sample and highest (190.60) for the psylliumhusk sample with 60% of potato starch (sample E), withsignificant difference. The swelling index was also high(186.66) for the carboxymethyl cellulose with 60% ofstarch (sample J).Cooking loss is defined as the quantity of solidsgoing into water during cooking. It determines thequality of pasta, with compact-textured pasta havinga lower cooking loss [33]. According to our results(Table 4), the control sample significantly recorded thelowest value of cooking loss (6.16%). We also found thatpotato starch had a negative effect on the quality of thegluten-free pasta, i.e., higher contents of potato starchgradually increased cooking loss. However, this negativeeffect was reduced by adding psyllium husk.The results also showed a significantly high valueof nitrogen loss in the gluten-free samples withcarboxymethyl cellulose, compared to the control andthe samples with psyllium husk. Moreover, potatostarch significantly increased nitrogen loss in thecarboxymethyl cellulose samples. In general, nitrogenloss ranged from 12.10 to 40.55% in the samples withcarboxymethyl cellulose and from 6.50 to 10.20% in thesamples with psyllium husk.Table 3 Color parameters of cooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk or carboxymethyl celluloseSamples Color parametersL* a* b* Color intensityControl 52.70c 2.80ab 19.20b 1.50bGluten-free pasta withpsyllium husk:A 57.84b 3.03a 21.23a 1.51aB 57.94b 2.90ab 20.40ab 1.51aC 58.57b 2.83ab 20.20ab 1.51aD 58.80b 2.73b 19.46b 1.51aE 60.70a 2.33c 16.40c 1.51aGluten-free pasta withcarboxymethyl cellulose:F 57.90b 3.03a 21.23a 1.51aG 58.50b 2.90ab 20.33ab 1.51aH 58.80b 2.76b 19.53b 1.51aI 58.90b 2.73b 19.40b 1.51aJ 61.66a 2.10d 14.76d 1.51aMeans 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 starch334Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339In the study by De Arcangelis et al., such hydrothermaltreatments inhibited granule swelling, retardedgelatinization, and increased starch paste stability,having thus enhanced the texture properties and cookingbehavior of rice noodles [32]. Further, Khosla et al.reported that higher contents of rice flour in gluten-freepasta might increase the optimum cooking time [34].The texture profile of gluten-free cooked pasta.The textural properties of cooked pasta are an importantparameter that determines the overall acceptability byconsumers [35]. The results of texture profile analysis ofour 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 tothe samples during a compression cycle, correspondingto the peak force [36]. According to Table 5, the controlpasta recorded the highest value of cycle 1 hardness(3.96 N) compared to the gluten-free samples. Thisresult was in agreement with Larrosa et al. who statedthat wheat control pasta showed higher hardness valuesthan all gluten-free tagliatelles, demonstrating theimpact of the gluten matrix on tagliatelle texture [37].In our study, the gluten-free samples with psylliumhusk had higher hardness values than those withcarboxymethyl cellulose, ranging from 3.31 to 1.76 Nand from 1.73 to 0.69 N, respectively. We also foundthat higher contents of potato starch decreased thehardness values in all gluten-free samples. Similarly,Detchewa et al. reported an increase in the hardnessof gluten-free spaghetti when hydrocolloids wereincorporated [38].Table 4 Cooking time and quality parameters of cooked wheat flour pasta and gluten-free pasta with psyllium husk orcarboxymethyl celluloseSamples Optimum cookingtimeCooking yield Swelling index Cooking loss Nitrogen lossControl 13.16a 136.93g 142.83h 6.16j 4.00hGluten-free pasta withpsyllium husk:A 12.83ab 144.80f 159.43f 6.83i 6.50ghB 12.50b 152.60e 171.46e 7.36h 6.80gC 12.00c 160.40d 178.43d 8.30g 7.30gD 11.33d 175.40b 182.80c 8.90f 9.00fgE 10.16e 183.80a 190.60a 9.80e 10.20efGluten-free pasta withcarboxymethyl cellulose:F 13.00a 120.80h 150.00g 9.70e 12.10eG 12.00c 132.80g 157.53f 11.43d 17.30dH 11.33d 142.40f 169.33e 13.30c 21.60cI 10.33e 154.40e 182.93c 15.40b 34.50bJ 10.00e 166.40c 186.66bc 18.76a 40.55aMeans 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 starchControl A B C D EF G H I JFigure 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 – carboxymethylcellulose + 30% of potato starch; I – carboxymethyl cellulose + 45% of potato starch; J – carboxymethyl cellulose + 60% of potato starch335Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339Adhesiveness measures the extent to which theproduct gets attached to teeth and is considered themost undesirable characteristic of pasta [39]. Accordingto Table 5, the control pasta recorded the lowestvalue of adhesiveness (0.1 mJ). As for the glutenfreepasta, the samples with psyllium husk had lowervalues of adhesiveness (0.2–0.3 mJ) than those withcarboxymethyl cellulose (0.3–0.7 mJ).These results reflect the good quality of the controlwheat pasta compared to the gluten-free pasta. Theyalso show that psyllium husk improved the qualityof gluten-free pasta compared to the samples withcarboxymethyl cellulose. Piwinska et al. reported suchspecial qualities of durum wheat pasta as high hardness,low adhesiveness, low cooking loss, and tolerance toovercooking [40].During the second bite, we obtained hardness,cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess, and chewinessvalues (Table 5). As we can see, the control had a lowervalue of hardness (3.74 N) compared to the same samplein cycle 1 (3.96 N), with a decreasing rate of 5.55%. Inthe gluten-free pasta, the decreasing rate of hardnessfrom cycle 1 to cycle 2 ranged from 4.53 to 52.27% inthe samples with psyllium husk and from 5.20 to 47.54%in those with carboxymethyl cellulose. The maximumdecrease was recorded in the carboxymethyl cellulosesample with 45% potato starch.Cohesiveness quantifies the internal resistance offood structure and can be briefly defined as an ability ofa material to stick to itself [41]. According to our results,the highest value of cohesiveness (0.90) was recorded inthe control sample. Also, quite high (0.75) cohesivenesswas in the psyllium husk sample without potato starch(sample A). We also found that cohesiveness valuesgradually decreased with the increasing contents ofpotato starch.Springiness measures elasticity by determiningthe extent of recovery between the first and the secondcompression. According to our results, the controlsample recorded the highest value of springiness (4.95mm). In the gluten-free samples with psyllium husk,springiness ranged from 4.58 to 3.34 mm, whilst inthose with carboxymethyl cellulose, from 4.30 to 1.80mm. Also, the control sample recorded the highestvalues of gumminess and chewiness.Among the gluten-free samples, those with psylliumhusk had higher values of gumminess and chewinessthan those with carboxymethyl cellulose. We foundthat higher contents of potato starch in the gluten-freesamples decreased their gumminess and chewiness.These results showed a more positive effect of psylliumhusk than carboxymethyl cellulose.As reported by Udachan and Sahoo, the primaryparameters of pasta quality are hardness, springiness,and cohesiveness (they should be higher), whereas thesecondary parameters are chewiness and resilience [9].Generally, our results were in agreement with Anisa et al.who stated that gluten-free pasta was characterized bylower 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 humansenses to determine organoleptic characteristics of afood product and the consumer’s attitude to it. Therefore,it is a reliable comprehensive test of the final product’squality. Additionally, sensory evaluation providesimportant reference information to be compared withthe results of instrumental or chemical methods [43].In our study, the cooked gluten-free pasta sampleswere evaluated on a hedonic scale, with a wheat sample(72% ext.) used as a control (Table 6). We found nosignificant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in color between theTable 5 Texture profile analysis of cooked pasta under studySamples First bite Second biteHardnesscycle 1, NAdhesiveness,mJResilience Hardnesscycle 2, NCohesiveness Springiness,mmGumminess Chewiness,mJControl 3.96 0.1 0.61 3.74 0.90 4.95 3.56 17.64Gluten-free pasta withpsyllium husk:A 3.31 0.2 0.57 3.16 0.75 4.58 2.48 11.37B 3.11 0.2 0.53 2.94 0.66 4.33 2.05 8.89C 2.33 0.2 0.45 1.93 0.45 4.24 1.05 4.45D 1.84 0.3 0.36 1.26 0.42 3.67 0.77 2.84E 1.76 0.3 0.32 0.84 0.38 3.34 0.67 2.23Gluten-free pasta withcarboxymethyl cellulose:F 1.73 0.3 0.55 1.64 0.83 4.30 1.09 4.69G 1.46 0.4 0.36 0.87 0.43 4.04 0.63 2.54H 1.44 0.5 0.14 0.72 0.32 3.79 0.46 1.75I 1.22 0.6 0.12 0.64 0.05 2.19 0.06 0.13J 0.69 0.7 0.10 0.56 0.04 1.80 0.03 0.05A, 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 starch336Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339control sample and those containing 15, 30, 45, and60% of potato starch and 2.5% psyllium husk or 30, 45,and 60% of carboxymethyl cellulose. There were nosignificant differences in texture between the controlsample and sample B containing 15% potato starch and2.5% psyllium husk. Sample B had the most optimalcontent of potato starch among those containingpsyllium husk as a binding agent, since increased levelsof potato starch (30, 45, and 60%) significantly loweredthe scores for texture. Also, psyllium husk had a morepositive 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 differencesbetween the control and the gluten-free samples exceptfor two carboxymethyl cellulose samples with 45 and60% potato starch, respectively. Taste received thehighest score (5.0) for the control sample (P ≤ 0.05)followed by sample B (4.0) containing 15% potatostarch and psyllium husk. While the best score for tasteamong the carboxymethyl cellulose samples was 3.7 forthe sample with 15% potato starch, it was significantlydifferent from the control sample but not from sample B.The best scores for appearance were obtained by thecontrol sample and the gluten-free sample containingpsyllium husk and 15% of potato starch and (sample B),with significant differences. However, there were nosignificant differences between the sample containingpsyllium husk and 30% of potato starch (sample C), andthe one with carboxymethyl cellulose and 15% of potatostarch and (sample G).Overall acceptability showed no significantdifferences between the control and the gluten-freesample containing 15% potato starch and psylliumhusk. In general, 15% was the most optimal content ofpotato starch in the samples with both psyllium andcarboxymethyl cellulose. On the other hand, the sampleswith psyllium husk had a better effect on overallacceptability 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 Bolarinwaand Oyesiji, where the acceptability of gluten-free ricesoypasta was highly ranked for sensory attributes [28].Additionally, Ribeiro et al. stated that incorporatinglegume flour in rice pasta resulted in acceptablescores for color, taste, flavor, and appearance [44].Also, Peressini et al. reported that psyllium husk had apositive effect on sensory evaluation, improving overallacceptability [45].CONCLUSIONBased on the overall results, we can conclude thathydrocolloids have an important effect on the physicaland sensory characteristics of gluten-free pasta. Theexperimental samples with psyllium husk used as abinding agent had better texture properties due to anincreased hardness of uncooked pasta, compared tothe samples with carboxymethyl cellulose. Therefore,the cooked samples with psyllium husk showed betterquality parameters such as swelling index, cooking loss,cooking yield, and nitrogen loss, compared to those withcarboxymethyl cellulose.CONTRIBUTIONS.M.M. Faheid was involved in the conceptualization,methodology, investigation, and visualization.I.R.S. Rizk was responsible for visualization, draftingof the manuscript, and supervision. G.H. Ragabtook part in the investigation and drafting of themanuscript. Y.F.M. Kishk contributed to the conceptu-Table 6 Sensory characteristics of cooked wheat flour and gluten-free pastaSamples Color Texture Flavor Taste Appearance OAAControl 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0a 5.0aGluten-free pasta withpsyllium husk:A 4.1bc 3.4bc 4.9ab 3.0d 3.8c 4.0bB 4.5ab 4.6a 4.9ab 4.0b 4.5b 4.8aC 5.1a 3.9b 4.8ab 3.8bc 4.0c 3.7bcD 5.0a 3.3cd 4.7ab 3.3cd 3.3d 3.2cE 5.0a 3.0d 4.7ab 2.4e 2.6ef 1.9eGluten-free pasta withcarboxymethyl cellulose:F 3.7c 3.7bc 4.8ab 3.3cd 3.3d 3.5bcG 4.3bc 3.9b 4.7ab 3.7bc 3.9c 3.6bcH 5.0a 3.0d 4.7ab 2.9de 2.7e 2.4dI 5.0a 2.4e 4.5b 2.4e 2.2f 1.3fJ 5.0a 1.4f 4.0c 1.3f 1.2g 1.0fMeans 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 starch337Faheid S.M.M. et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):329–339alization and data analysis. S.M. Mostafa was involvedin the conceptualization, methodology, and writing themanuscript.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors declare no conflict of interest.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors are grateful to the Food TechnologyDepartment, Food Industries and Nutrition Institute,National Research Centre, Egypt for their assistancewith the research and for providing the equipmentrequired for measurements.