Abstract

Background and Aims

is an

Full Title

Effect of Coffee Cherry Flour as a Fiber Enhancer on

the Physical, Textural, and Sensory Properties of
Fresh Gluten-free Pasta

There

increasing demand for healthier alternatives to classic foods. One example is gluten-free foods,
which have become more popular due to the prevalence of Celiac disease as well as due to
perceived health benefits
foods.

Short Title

from consumption of these

Coffee Cherry Flour as a Fiber Enhancer in Fresh

Gluten-free Pasta

The

objective of this study was to evaluate the physical, textural, and sensory acceptability of fresh
gluten-free pasta when substituted with coffee cherry flour as a fiber enhancer.
Methods
Author and Affiliation

--------------------------

Sarah Cordova

MS Nutrition Program at CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter

College

Original brown rice flour pasta was compared with variations containing coffee flour

Keywords: Coffee Cherry Flour, Gluten-free, Pasta, Fiber,

Sensory, Textural

substitutions at 7.5% and 15% using objective and textural analyses. Acceptability was measured
with a sensory panel of 47 untrained consumers using a 9-point Hedonic scale.
Results
The pasta variations were only significantly different on the basis of color. No
statistically significant differences were seen for % moisture, diameter, cooking weight, or
texture (hardness and fracturability). No differences were observed between the control and 7.5%
coffee flour variation in terms of appearance, odor, flavor, texture, or overall preference, while
significant differences were observed between the control and the 15% coffee flour variation in
terms of appearance, odor, flavor, texture, and overall preference, with scores favoring the
control.
Conclusion
Fresh gluten-free pasta made substituted with 7.5% coffee flour is a nutrient-dense
gluten- free food that is an excellent source of fiber, as well as contains micronutrients such as
calcium, iron, and potassium, and has a low glycemic index. Based on objective and sensory
evaluations, this variation is potentially acceptable to consumers, but further testing with a
trained sensory panel is required to reach a definitive conclusion.
Practical Uses
The recent surge in popularity of gluten-products has created a demand for delicious and
nutritious alternatives to classic foods. One of the issues with many gluten-free products is an
inadequate nutritional profile. Substitution of coffee flour in gluten-free pasta will provide a
nutrient-dense gluten-free option that is also innovative in its use of an ingredient that is typically

discarded during coffee processing. In addition, coffee flour is high in polyphenols, which are
known for their antioxidant capacity, and thus may have numerous health benefits. The
investigation of coffee flour in this pasta study may also pave the way for development of other
gluten-free food products using coffee flour.
Introduction and Background
In recent years, there has been a demand for alternative forms of familiar food products.
Reasons for this include diseases that require avoidance of certain foods such as Celiac disease1,
as well as additional health benefits. Gluten-free products therefore have become increasingly
popular. For those suffering from Celiac, avoidance of gluten-containing foods increases the risk
of becoming malnourished, as many gluten-containing products are fortified with vitamins and
minerals. Fiber is a major nutrient that is lacking in many gluten-free grains 2,3 and one study
found that Celiac females consumes less than half of the recommended daily value of fiber.4
Beyond those suffering from Celiac disease, fiber is lacking in the diets of all Americans, with
less than 3% meeting recommended daily intakes. It is recognized that increased consumption of
fiber may reduce risk for development of chronic diseases.5

In previous studies, attempts have been made to substitute high-fiber flours in gluten-free
pasta recipes in order to improve the fiber content. This has been successfully done with
amaranth6, teff,7 oat7, green plantain8, buckwheat9, quinoa9, chickpea9, and maize flour10.
Challenges to creating gluten-free pasta with satisfactory characteristics have been overcome in
many studies. For instance, one study found that substituting green plantain flour and egg
albumin in brown rice flour pasta improved stability, and cooling the pasta to increase resistant

starch content mimicked the toothsome quality of wheat pasta8. Another study found that oat
flour best replicated the qualities of wheat pasta due to its higher starch content7. To replace the
texture lost by lack of gluten, another study added egg white powder and emulsifier9. Finally,
another study found that a blend of gluten-free flours, rather than a single flour produced a pasta
with superior qualities.6
There has also been development and experimentation with flours made from byproducts of processed crops, such as coffee silverskin derived from the coffee berry,11,12 and
cassava bagasse.6 These by-products would ordinarily be discarded, so their repurposing for use
in food is economical and environmentally conscious. In addition, they are rich in fiber and
antioxidants, and so improve the nutritional quality of food. Coffee silverskin flour has been used
to increase the fiber content, physical and sensory characteristics of gluten-free bread11 and
biscuit12 recipes.
There is a new gluten-free flour has yet to be researched that is also derived from the
coffee berry, called coffee cherry flour, that is also rich in fiber and antioxidants. It is derived
from the fibrous shell of the coffee berry and is normally discarded during processing. Coffee
cherry flour contains 84% more fiber than whole grain wheat flour, and so could be used to
drastically increase the fiber content of gluten-free foods.13
In addition to its high fiber content, coffee flour also possesses high levels of
polyphenols, a class of antioxidant compounds that have generated a great deal of interest due to
their proposed health benefits. The coffee cherry, also known as the coffee pulp, naturally
contains hydroxycinnamic acids (HA), specifically chlorogenic acid (ChA), ferulic acid (FA),
and caffeic acid (CA). They are each composed of one aromatic ring and several hydroxyl

groups. These compounds have the ability to donate a hydrogen atom to an oxidized molecule, or
one that may become oxidized.14 According to one study that performed quantitative tests on
coffee cherry extracts, ChA was found to be the most abundant. This study also found that free
HAs seemed to have better antioxidant capacity than HA covalently linked to the cell wall. The
non-fermented coffee cherry in this study had 13% non bound HA. The results of this study
supported the use of coffee cherry as a source of antioxidants.14
In another study HPLC was used to quantify polyphenol content of fresh versus 3-dayold coffee cherry. Results showed that over 97% of the polyphenols in the coffee cherry were
flavon-3-ols and hydroxycinnamic acids. Further analysis of flavon-3-ols showed presence of
proanthocyanidins. Fresh coffee coffee cherry and 3 day old coffee cherry had similar
polyphenol compositions, but proanthocyanidins were partially inextricable in the 3 day old
coffee cherry, probably because they had oxidized.15 This suggests that the length of time
between when the coffee cherry is harvested and when it is consumed could affect the
polyphenol content.
Proanthocyanidins are of interest for several reasons. First, they are condensed tannins,
which are thought to reduce dietary protein and carbohydrate digestibility, and be toxic to some
mammals. For these reasons, coffee cherry by-products cannot be directly used as animal feed.16
Conversely, proanthocyanidins have also attracted interest because of their antioxidant
properties.15 One study demonstrated that proanthocyanidins are effective scavengers of oxygen
free radicals, in particular superoxide radical and hydroxyl radical.17 The ability of
proanthocyanidins to scavenge free radicals is of great interest from a health perspective because
free radicals play an important role in causing tissue damage. They have been shown to cause
oxidative degradation of proteins, unsaturated lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids.17
5

Hydroxycinnamic acids have also been studied for their free radical scavenging ability.18
One study found HA to be effective in inhibiting oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in
vitro. This is significant because a large body of evidence suggests that oxidative modification of
LDL is a critical factor in the development of atherosclerosis. Thus, ability of HA to inhibit LDL
oxidation suggests it can be an effective therapeutic strategy.19 Similarly, caffeic acid was found
to exert neuroprotective effects against ischemic and traumatic brain injury in mice through
antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and scavenging of reactive species.20 A recent study tested the
safety of a powdered product derived from the ground coffee cherry in an oral toxicity study on
rats. They based the dosage levels on the upper limits of intended levels of consumption, and
found no adverse effects.21
In a small randomized crossover study in humans, it was found that instant coffee
supplemented with chlorogenic acid resulted in significantly lower post-prandial glucose
absorption than a non-supplemented control coffee. This study also found significantly more
weight loss in an overweight group treated with ChA supplemented coffee over a 12 week
period. It is thought that the mechanism for this weight loss is that the ChA decreased the amount
of circulating glucose that could be used for energy or deposited as fat. As a result, fat stores
were mobilized and used for energy. The mechanism by which ChA reduces intestinal
absorption of glucose is by inhibition of glucose-6-phosphatase, which is involved in glucose
homeostasis. These results have major treatment implications for those suffering from Type 2
Diabetes or metabolic syndrome in terms of lowering blood sugar and promoting weight loss.22
Therefore, the use of coffee cherry flour as a functional ingredient in foods has the
potential to impart significant health benefits due to its high fiber content, safety for the gluten
intolerant, and high polyphenol content. According to the manufacturer of coffee cherry flour, it
6

can be used to substitute wheat flour in cookies, pasta, brownies, and granola.13 Given the
success of other gluten-free pastas fortified with high fiber flours as demonstrated in previous
research, the objective of this study was to substitute a portion of brown rice flour in a glutenfree pasta recipe with coffee cherry flour in a novel fresh pasta recipe.
The coffee cherry flour was substituted at levels of 7.5% and 15%, as recommended by
the manufacturer. Both substitutions enhance the fiber content of the pasta to a level where a
High in Fiber, Rich in Fiber, or Excellent Source of Fiber claim can be made. This study
explored the textural, physical, and sensory changes that occur when coffee cherry flour is used
in a pasta recipe. It was hypothesized that the replacement of brown rice flour with coffee cherry
flour would increase the nutritive value of fresh gluten-free pasta, particularly the fiber, without
compromising consumer acceptability.
Methods and Materials
Coffee cherry flour
Coffee cherry flour was provided by CF Global Holdings, Inc. (Seattle, WA). The coffee
flour is produced from the fibrous shell or pulp of the coffee berry that is normally discarded
during extraction and processing of coffee beans. The flour contains some carbohydrate,
potassium, soluble and insoluble fiber, and a small amount of sugar and protein. The flour is a
fine powder with a hazelnut color.
Recipe
The recipe for the fresh gluten free pasta was obtained from the cookbook entitled: How
Can It Be Gluten Free Cookbook: Revolutionary Techniques. Groundbreaking Recipes.23 . Three
pasta recipes were included: the control, the 7.5% variation, and the 15% variation. The control
was made according to the original cookbook recipe, the 7.5% variation was made by replacing
7

7.5% of the brown rice flour in the original recipe with coffee cherry flour, and the 15% variation
was made by replacing 15% of the brown rice flour in the original recipe with coffee cherry flour
(Table 1). A recipe for a red sauce to serve with the pasta was also included. This recipe was
obtained from the cookbook entitled: Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking.24 Table 2 displays the
ingredients for each recipe, including the amounts used. Among the 3 pasta recipes, the amount
of brown rice flour is the only ingredient that varied with the addition of coffee cherry flour. All
other ingredients remained unchanged.
Preparation of Gluten-free pasta
For each recipe variation, the pasta was made according to the same procedure. Several
modifications were made to the original instructions based on the availability of equipment. For
example, a food processor was not available, so instead a pasta machine was used. As a result,
the dry ingredients consisting of brown rice flour, tapioca starch, xanthan gum and salt were first
placed in a large bowl and mixed by hand, and the wet ingredients consisting of eggs and oil
were added in a separate bowl. For the variation recipes, the coffee cherry flour was added in the
bowl with the dry ingredients. Both dry and wet ingredients were then both added to Roma Tube
Pasta Machine model # 01-0701-W (Weston Products LLC, Strongsville, OH) fitted with the
dough mixing attachment, and mixed together manually using a hand crank on the pasta maker.
The number of turns to reach dough homogeneity was recorded. Since the dough mixing action
of the pasta machine essentially kneaded the dough, it was not necessary to knead the dough by
hand, as the recipe originally called for. Similarly, since the pasta machine also had a dough
extruder attachment, it was not necessary to form the dough into 4-inch squares with a rolling pin
and then feed it through a pasta machine to form thin sheets, nor was it necessary to use a cutter
to make fettuccine. Rather, once the dough was homogenous, it was fed through the pasta

machine fitted with the dough extruder attachment, and extruded as a penne shape. Once all the
dough was extruded, the long penne noodles were laid on wax paper dusted with brown rice
flour and were cut into 2-inch noodles. This step also deviated from the original instructions
since the noodles were not laid on a dishtowel and covered with plastic wrap. Once the noodles
had been cut into 2 inch pieces, they were submerged in 4 quarts of boiling water with a
tablespoon of salt for 2 minutes, stirred constantly, then drained according to the original
instructions.
Preliminary Elimination Trials
After completing several initial trials of the pasta recipe, it was determined that the yield
of the original recipe far exceeded the amount needed for sensory and objective testing, and this
quantity of dough was taking a considerable amount of time to mix and extrude. Therefore, for
later trials, only a half batch of the recipe was made for control and variations. In addition, the
9D bucatini shape of the noodles made in the first trial was found to be visually unappealing and
physically challenging to pick up with a fork. These noodles were cut into 4-inch pieces, which
may have added to these visual and physical problems. They also scored poorly in the sensory
testing. Therefore, in later trials, the 9D penne shape was used instead, and was cut into 2-inch
noodles, which gave more favorable results. Table 3 shows the results of the objective tests from
all trials, and Table 4 shows the results of the sensory analyses.
Objective Testing
For each recipe variation, the following objective tests were done to evaluate certain
characteristics of the pasta: moisture, color, diameter, cooking weight, and texture (hardness and
fracturability). Moisture was measured using an MB45 Moisture Analyzer (Ohaus Corporation,
Parsippany, NJ). This test measures the moisture content of a food by weighing a sample placed

in the instrument, then heats the sample to a specified temperature until it loses moisture and
loses weight. Once the sample no longer loses weight, all the moisture has been removed so it
records the final weight, and calculates the % moisture that was lost from the sample.
Color was measured using a Hunter Colorimeter (Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc,
Reston, VA). This instrument uses the L*a*b* color space which is an international standard to
measure the color of a food surface. L* is the luminance or lightness component, ranging from 0100, and a*, which measures from green to red, and b* which measures from blue to yellow, are
the chromatic components. They range from -120-120.
Diameter was measured using a Vernier Caliper. The Vernier caliper is an instrument
equipped with a sliding bar to measure depth and height, and jaws to measure inside and outside
diameters. The jaws are tightened around the object being measured, and then the Vernier scale is
read to see the length of the diameter.
Cooking weight was measured by percentage weight change from pre- to post cooking.
This was done by measuring 5 pre-cooked noodles on the scale prior to cooking, then weighing 5
noodles on the scale after cooking. The post cooking weight was subtracted from the pre-cooking
weight, divided by the pre-cooking weight, and multiplied by 100 to get the % change in weight.
Texture analysis involved measuring hardness and fracturability of the cooked pasta. The
TAXT 2 Texture Analyzer was used (Texture Technologies, Scarsdale, NY) This instrument is
equipped with a moving crosshead that compresses or extends the sample, a load cell that
measures force, various probes for different textures, and a computer. Hardness is the force
needed reach a given deformation, and is the final peak on the texture profile analysis (TPA)
curves. Fracturability is the force at which a material fractures. A material with high hardness
will have high fracturability. Statistical analyses for the objective test results were conducted
using one-way analysis of variance in SPSS software (IBM, New York, NY).
Subjective Testing

10

Sensory evaluations were carried out by a panel of untrained consumers recruited from
the Hunter College Silberman Campus (n=47) who assessed various attributes of the 3 pasta
recipes (Figure 1). Evaluations were completed using a 9-point hedonic scale, a valid method of
measuring food acceptability (Table 5). Panelists were given sensory scorecards that included
categories for appearance, odor, flavor, and texture. These categories were assessed due to their
impact on consumer food choices. Although texture is usually a characteristic best understood
only by trained sensory panelists, a study on semolina spaghetti used untrained panelists and
included texture in sensory evaluation.25
Panelists were asked to rate each pasta variation in each of these categories, on a scale
from dislike extremely to like extremely. Overall preference for each variation was indicated
using a ranking system of 1-3, where 3 was most liked, and 1 was least liked. Sensory panel
results were analyzed using Fizz software (Fizz Biosystemes, Couternon, France).
Nutrient Analysis
The nutrient analyses on the ingredients for the pasta variations were conducted using the
Self Nutrition Data website (Cond Nast, New York, NY.) Nutrients of particular interest were
dietary fiber, iron, and calcium, potassium, zinc, and copper.
Results
Objective Testing
Statistically significant differences among the recipes were seen only for color, whereas
tests of moisture, diameter, cooking weight, and texture (hardness and fracturability) analyses
revealed no significant differences. The results from the Hunter colorimeter revealed that the L*
and b* scores were significantly different (p<0.01) while the a* scores were not significantly
different. (Figure 3). In terms of lightness (L*), the control pasta was lightest, followed by the
7.5% coffee flour variation, and the 15% coffee flour variation was the darkest. (Figure 4). This

11

difference in lightness was also very apparent upon visual inspection of the 3 pastas with the
naked eye (Figure 5).
The difference in b* scores indicates that the control pasta was closest to the yellow end
of the range, while the 7.5% coffee flour variation was closer to the blue end of the range, and
the 15% coffee flour variation was closest to the blue end of the range. This result is also in
agreement with the visual appearance of the pasta: the control has a distinctly yellow appearance,
while the variations have more of a brownish-blue coloration.
The lack of significant differences along the a* axis shows that the 3 variations are the
same along the green to red spectrum. Fiorda et al tested color differences in gluten-free pasta
made with either amaranth flour or cassava starch. They also observed significant differences
between variations in the L* and b* axes, but not the a* axis, with cassava starch being the
lightest, less reddish and less yellowish.6 Thus different flours impart different color
characteristics in pasta.
There were no significant differences in the % moisture of the dough or cooked pasta
among the 3 recipes (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Moisture analysis of the dough showed that the
15% coffee flour variation had the highest moisture, followed by control pasta and 7.5% coffee
flour variation (Figure 8). The lower moisture in the 7.5% variation compared to the control
could be explained by the increased fiber content, since fiber has great capacity to bind free
water. Based on this reasoning, it does not make sense that the 15% variation would have higher
% moisture than the control or 7.5% variation, but the results were not significant and could be
due to chance. The % moisture of the cooked pasta was nearly the same for the control and 7.5%
coffee flour variation, with the 15% coffee flour variation having the lowest moisture, suggesting
that the substitution of coffee flour at this level still allowed it to behave similarly to the control

12

in terms of moisture (Figure 9). The fact that the 15% coffee flour variation had the lowest
moisture could be due to the water-binding capacity of the higher fiber content, but again these
results were insignificant and could be due to chance. Therefore, overall, the 3 pasta variations
essentially resulted in equivalent dough and cooked pasta % moisture. It is noteworthy that the
variations had a similar outcome in % moisture as the control, since moisture content has a major
impact on pasta quality. According to Schoenlechner et al, amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat
pasta with too much moisture has resulted in dough that was too sticky and had low firmness,
and pasta with too little moisture resulted in pasta that had surface cracks.9
The diameters of the 3 variations also had no significant differences in diameter. (Figure
10). This was expected since the use of a pasta machine ensured relative uniformity (Figure 11).
The slightly smaller diameter seen in the 15% coffee flour variation may have been due to
increased fiber binding of water that allowed less swelling of starch granules, but it may also
have been due to chance. Likewise, Flores-Silva et al saw no differences in gluten-free pasta
variations made with unripe plantain, chickpea and maize flours. This study utilized a pasta
machine as well.26
Cooking weight was not statistically different among the 3 variations, but it was
approaching significance at p=0.059 (Figure 12). The 15% coffee flour variation had the highest
cooking weight, followed by the 7.5% coffee flour variation, and then the control with the lowest
cooking weight (Figure 13). This result is in agreement with the increased capacity of fiber to
take up water, which could have contributed to the cooking weight. Sarawong et al also saw no
significant differences in gluten-free pasta made with certain substitution levels of green plantain
flour (GPF), which is also high in dietary fiber. At lower substitution levels of 15% and 30%,

13

increased substitution with GPF resulted in pasta with higher cooking weight in pasta with 36%
moisture.8
The texture analysis also failed to show any significant differences among the variations
(Figure 14 and Figure 15). In terms of hardness, the 15% coffee flour variation had the lowest
value, which would be expected due to the water-binding ability of the fiber in the coffee flour.
However, the hardness of the 7.5% coffee flour variation had a higher hardness value than the
control, which contradicts this reasoning (Figure 16). But again, since the results were
statistically insignificant, it may have been due to chance. In a study where yellow pepper flour
with high dietary fiber was compared with maize flour in a spaghetti recipe, the yellow pepper
flour variation resulted in pasta with lower hardness. The water-binding capacity of high-fiber
yellow pepper flour probably prevented full formation of the starch network to give the pasta
structure, resulting in pasta with lower hardness.27 In terms of fracturability, it would be expected
that variations with higher hardness would have high fracturability, however the 7.5% coffee
flour variation had the highest hardness and the lowest fracturability, and the 15% coffee flour
variation had the lowest hardness and the highest fracturability (Figure 17). However, these
results were not statistically significant and may have been due to chance. Overall the texture
results suggest that the substitution levels of coffee flour were low enough so as not to
significantly affect the textural properties of the pasta.
Subjective Testing
Results from the sensory analysis showed that scores across all categories were between
5 and 7, indicating that preferences ranged from neither like nor dislike and like moderately
(Table 4). There were significant differences among the variations in all four sensory attributes:
appearance, odor, flavor, and taste. For appearance, the control scored significantly better than

14

the 15% variation (p<0.05), and the 7.5% variation was not significantly different from the
control or the 15% variation. For odor and flavor, both the control and 7.5% variation scored
significantly better than the 15% variation. (p<0.05). Again for texture, both the control and
7.5% variation scored significantly better than the 15% variation (p<0.01). Scores for overall
preference were manually tallied up and revealed that the control and 7.5% variation were
equally preferred, with the 15% variation receiving a lower preference score. These results show
that the consumer panel preferred both the control pasta and the 7.5% variation equally in all
categories.
Nutrient Analysis
The nutrient analyses for the 3 recipes are shown in Table 5. There was a drastic increase
in fiber content in the coffee flour substituted variations. The control pasta contains 2.6 grams of
fiber, while the 7.5% variation contains 5 grams, and the 15% variation contains 7 grams. The
fiber increase for the 7.5% and 15% coffee flour variations were 92% and 170%, respectively.
The coffee flour substitution also resulted in changes in certain micronutrients. The
control recipe contained 2.1 mg of iron, while the 7.5% variation contained 2.7 mg and the 15%
variation contained 3.4%. Thus, there was an increase in iron content of 7.5% and 15% variations
of 29% and 62%, respectively.
Calcium also increased in the coffee flour variations. The control contains 32.9 mg, while
the 7.5% contain 48.5 mg and the 15% variation contains 64 mg. Thus, there was an increase in
calcium content of 7.5% and 15% variations of 47% and 95%, respectively.
Potassium also increased in the coffee flour variations. The control contains 222 mg,
while the 7.5% contain 359 mg and the 15% variation contains 496 mg. Thus, there was an
increase in potassium content of 7.5% and 15% variations of 62% and 123%, respectively.
Zinc also increased in the coffee flour variations. The control contains 1.9 mg, while the
7.5% contain 2.3 mg and the 15% variation contains 2.8 mg. Thus, there was an increase in zinc

15

content of 7.5% and 15% variations of 21% and 47%, respectively.

Copper also increased in the coffee flour variations. The control contains 0.2 mg, while
both the 7.5% g and the 15% variation contains 0.3 mg. Thus, there was an increase in copper
content of 7.5% and 15% variations of 50%.
Glycemic index (GI) of the coffee flour substituted recipes also improved. The GI of the
control was 40, while the GI of the 7.5% variation was 38, and the GI of the 15% variation was
36. Thus, there was a decrease in the GI of 7.5% and 15% variations of 5% and 10%,
respectively. Research has shown that low GI diets are helpful in the prevention of coronary
heart disease in diabetic and healthy individuals.28
Both the 7.5% and 15% coffee flour variations of the pasta recipe meet the standards set
forth by the Food and Drug Administration to make the claim that they are an excellent source
of fiber. In order to make this claim, the food product must contain 20% or more of the daily
value per RACC. The recommended daily value for fiber is 25 grams. Thus, the 7.5% variation is
20% of the daily value, and the 15% variation is 28% of the daily value. In addition, these
recipes are also sources of iron, calcium, potassium, zinc, and copper, contain no trans fat, are a
low glycemic index food, and a source of antioxidants.
Discussion
This study illustrated that gluten-free brown rice flour pasta substituted with 7.5% coffee
cherry flour was acceptable to consumers. The objective results showed that the coffee flour
variations differed from the control pasta only on the basis of color. The coffee flour variations
had a distinct brown color whereas the control had a more typical yellow color. The strong
performance of both the control pasta and the 7.5% coffee flour pasta in the sensory evaluation
indicate that the darker color of the 7.5% variation was not off-putting, and in fact may have

16

added to its appeal, since brown colored food tends to be thought of as healthy or exotic. In
terms of moisture, diameter, cooking weight, and texture, the control and both variations were
essentially equivalent, demonstrating that with the exception of color, substitution of the control
with coffee flour results in pasta that is physically and texturally comparable. Furthermore, the
7.5% coffee flour variation provides at least 20% of the daily value for fiber, allowing it to be
marketed as a high fiber food.
Marketing
The final product will be marketed as Caf Penne, gluten-free, rich in fiber. The name
of the product incorporates caf to make reference to the coffee flour it contains, and penne
refers to the shape the pasta. This name is fun and memorable since it rhymes, and the use of the
French word for coffee will give the product an exotic flair, which corresponds to the unique
brown color. This product will contain the 7.5% coffee flour substituted pasta recipe.
The penne noodles are approximately 2 inches long and will be sold in 12-ounce
cardboard packages. The dimensions of the box are 8 inches by 4 inches. The product name and
the gluten-free, rich in fiber line will be printed on the front of the package in a bold colorful
font. Beneath this will be the health claims: an excellent source of fiber, low glycemic index,
and zero trans-fat, and source of antioxidants. At the very bottom of the package will be the
net weight of approximately 12 ounces or 340 grams.
The nutrition label will be located on the back of the package (Figure 18). A section of
the back will be devoted to more detailed information about coffee flour, detailing its polyphenol
content, and the health benefits associated with these polyphenols according to recent research.
This section will also include a disclaimer that the product has not been tested for the presence of
these specific compounds. Each package of pasta will cost $3.00. The price will be displayed in
the upper left corner of the package.

17

With the increasing popularity of gluten-free products, more consumers are searching for
alternative forms of classic product. Therefore, Caf Penne will be distributed in large chain
supermarkets such as Stop and Shop and Shop Rite, as well as health food stores like Whole
Foods in order to reach a large number of consumers. The product will be sold in the refrigerated
section of the store, near the fresh pasta section. The target populations of this product are of
course the Celiac population, since they require gluten-free products, and are in need of
appealing alternatives to gluten-containing foods, as well as health conscious men and women in
their early thirties and older. This demographic can usually afford to spend a more on specialty
products, and is generally very interested in seeking out trendy healthy foods. This product will
be promoted through special tokens that will be included in each package. When customers
collect 10 tokens, they will receive a free package of Caf Penne. This token system will
encourage customers to keep coming back. In addition, posters advertising the product will be on
display in the windows of each store. The product will also be showcased at the annual GlutenFree and Allergen Free Expo in order to increase its exposure to consumers and professionals.
Acknowledgements
The original research was developed by Sarah Cordova, MS Nutrition candidate at Hunter
College. The research study was conducted by Nicole Alves, Genevieve Caidor, and Ashley Kim,
MS Nutrition candidates at Hunter College, along with Dr. Ronita Ghatak. Credit for naming this
pasta as Caf Penne goes to Sarah Cordova.
References
1. Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T, Not T, Colletti RB, Drago S, et al. 2003. Prevalence of celiac
disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the united states: A large multicenter study. Archives
of Internal Medicine. 163, 286-292.

18

2.Thompson T. 1999. Thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin contents of the gluten-free diet: Is there
cause for concern? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 99, 858-862.
3.Thompson T. 2000. Folate, iron, and dietary fiber contents of the gluten-free diet. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association. 100, 1389-1396.
4.Thompson T, Dennis M, Higgins L, Lee A, Sharrett M. 2005. Glutenfree diet survey: Are
americans with coeliac disease consuming recommended amounts of fibre, iron, calcium and
grain foods? Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 18, 163-169.
5. Clemens R, Kranz S, Mobley AR, Nicklas TA, Raimondi MP, Rodriguez JC, Slavin JL,
Warshaw H. 2012. Filling America's fiber intake gap: summary of a roundtable to probe realistic
solutions with a focus on grain-based foods. The Journal of Nutrition. 142, 1390S-401S.
6.Fiorda FA, Soares MS, da Silva FA, Grosmann MV, Souto LR. 2013. Microestructure, texture
and colour of gluten-free pasta made with amaranth flour, cassava starch and cassava bagasse.
LWT-Food Science and Technology. 54, 132-138.
7.Hager A, Czerny M, Bez J, Zannini E, Arendt EK. 2013. Starch properties, in vitro digestibility
and sensory evaluation of fresh egg pasta produced from oat, teff and wheat flour. Journal of
Cereal Science. 58, 156-163.
8.Sarawong C, Rodrguez Gutirrez ZC, Berghofer E, Schoenlechner R. 2014. Glutenfree pasta:
Effect of green plantain flour addition and influence of starch modification on the functional
properties and resistant starch content. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 49,
2650-2658.
9.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, 339-349.
10. FloresSilva PC, Berrios JDJ, Pan J, OsorioDaz P, BelloPrez LA. 2014. Glutenfree
spaghetti made with chickpea, unripe plantain and maize flours: Functional and chemical
properties and starch digestibility. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 49,
1985-1991.
11. Pourfarzad A, Mahdavian-Mehr H, Sedaghat N. 2013. Coffee silverskin as a source of
dietary fiber in bread-making: Optimization of chemical treatment using response surface
methodology. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 50, 599-606.
12. Garcia-Serna E, Martinez-Saez N, Mesias M, Morales FJ, Castillo M. 2014. Use of coffee
silverskin and stevia to improve the formulation of biscuits. Polish Journal of Food and
Nutrition Sciences. 64, 243-251.

19

13. Coffee Flour. CF Global Holdings, Inc. Available at: http://www.coffeeflour.com/. Accessed
January 28, 2015.
14. Arellano-Gonzalez MA, Ramirez-Coronel A, Torres-Mancera T, Perez-Morales GG,
Saucedo-Castaneda G. 2011. Antioxidant activity of fermented and nonfermented
coffee (Coffea arabica) pulp extracts. Food Technology & Biotechnology. 49,
374-378.
15. Ramirez-Coronel MA, Marnet N, Kolli VS, Roussos S, Guyot S, Augur C. 2004.
Characterization and estimation of proanthocyanidins and other phenolics in coffee pulp (Coffea
arabica) by thiolysis-high-performance liquid chromatography. J Agric Food Chem. 52, 13441349.
16. Esquivel P, Jimenez VM. 2012. Functional properties of coffee and coffee by-products.
Functional foods and nutraceuticals, 46, 488-495.
17. Ricardo Da Silva JM, Darmon N, Fernandez Y, Mitjavila S. 1991 Oxygen free radical
scavenger capacity in aqueous models of different procyanidins from grape seeds. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 39, 1549-1552.
18. Pino E, Camps AM, Lopez-Alarcon E, Aspee A, Lissi E. 2006. Free radical scavenging
capacity of hydroxycinnamic acids and related compounds. Journal of
Physical Organic Chemistry, 19, 759-764.
19. Cheng J, Fang D, Zhou B, Yang L, Liu Z. 2007. Antioxidant activity of
hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives in human low density lipoprotein:
Mechanism and structureactivity relationship. Food Chemistry, 104, 132139.
20. Zhang L, Zhang WP, Chen KD, Qian XD, Fang SH, Wei EQ. 2007. Caffeic
acid attenuates neuronal damage, astrogliosis and glial scar formation in
mouse brain with cryoinjury. Life Sciences, 80, 530-537.
21. Heimbach JT, Marone PA, Hunter JM, Nemzer BV, Stanley SM, Kennepohl E. Safety studies
on products from whole coffee fruit. 2010. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48, 251722. Thom E. The effect of chlorogenic acid enriched coffee on glucose absorption in healthy
volunteers and its effect on body mass when used long-term in overweight and obese people.
2007. Journal of International Medical Research, 35, 900-908.
23. Americas Test Kitchen (Firm). The How Can It Be Gluten Free Cookbook. Revolutionary
Techniques. Groundbreaking Recipes. Brookline, MA: Amer Test Kitchen, 2014.
24. Hazan M. Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday
Publishing Group, 1992.

20

25. Almanza-Benitez S, Osorio-Diaz P, Montez-Montealvo G, Islas-Hernandez JJ, Bello-Perez

LA. 2015. Addition of acid-treated unripe plantain flour modified the starch digestibility,
indigestible carbohydrate content and antioxidant capacity of semolina spaghetti. LWT Food
Science and Technology, 62, 1127-1133.
26. Flores-Silva PC, Berrios JDJ, Pan J, Agama-Acevedo E, Monsalve Gonzalez A, Bello-Perez
LA. 2015. Gluten-free spaghetti with unripe plantain, chickpea and maize: physicochemical,
texture and sensory properties. CyTA - Journal of Food. 13, 159-166.
27. Padalino L, Mastromatteo M, Lecce L, Cozzolino F, Del Nobile MA. 2013. Manufacture
and characterization of gluten-free spaghetti enriched with vegetable flour.
Journal of Cereal Science, 57, 333-342.
28. Rizkalla SW, Bellisle F, Slama G. 2002. Health benefits of low glycaemic index foods, such
as pulses, in diabetic patients and healthy individuals. British Journal of Nutrition, 88, S255S262.

Appendix

21

Table 1. Original fresh gluten-free pasta recipe. Serving size of the recipe
(124 g). Recipe makes 4 servings. Source: How Can It Be Gluten Free Cookbook:
Revolutionary Techniques. Groundbreaking Recipes.23
Ingredients

Weight (g)

Formula (%)

Bakers (%)

Brown Rice Flour

213

38.38

100

Tapioca Starch

71

12.79

33.33

Xanthan gum

14

2.52

6.57

Salt

0.36

0.94

Eggs (4 large)

240

43.24

112.68

Olive Oil

15

2.70

7.04

Total

555

100

260.56

Instructions:
1. In a food processor, pulse brown rice flour, tapioca starch, xanthan gum and salt. Add eggs and
oil and process for about 10 seconds.
2. Transfer dough to counter and knead (~30 seconds) until dough holds together. Shape dough
into 6-inch-long cylinder. Cut cylinder into 6 equal pieces and cover with plastic wrap.
3. Working with one piece of dough at a time (keeping remaining dough covered), shape into 4inch square using rolling pin and hands. Using pasta machine, run flattened dough through
widest setting twice. Fold ends of dough toward middle to re-form 4-inch square, press to seal,
and feed open side of dough once more through widest setting. Repeat the process 2 or 3 times
until the edges of dough are even.
4. Narrow the setting of the pasta machine and run dough through each setting twice, until dough
is translucent and thin enough you can clearly see the outline of your hand through the dough.
5. Cut the sheet in half. Run each piece through cutter for fettuccine, lay pasta on a dish towel in
baking sheet, and cover with plastic wrap.
6. Repeat steps 3 through 5 with the remaining dough.
7. Boil 4 quarts of water in a large pot. Add pasta and 1 tablespoon of salt and cook, stirring
often, until tender but still al dente (~2 min). Reserve 1 cup of cooking water. Drain pasta and
return it to the pot, toss with sauce and the reserved cooking water as needed, and serve
immediately.
Recipe for the sauce to be served with the pasta:
Source: Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking 15
28 ounces (800 grams) whole peeled tomatoes from a can
22

5 tablespoons (70 grams) unsalted butter

1 medium-sized yellow onion, peeled and halved
Salt to taste
Instructions:
1. Put the tomatoes, onion and butter in a heavy saucepan (~ 3-quarts) over medium heat.
2. Bring the sauce to a simmer then lower the heat to keep the sauce at a slow, steady simmer for
about 45 minutes, or until droplets of fat float free of the tomatoes.
3. Stir occasionally, crushing the tomatoes against the side of the pot with a wooden spoon.
4. Remove from heat, discard the onion, add salt to taste and keep warm while you prepare your
pasta.
Table 2. Ingredients and amounts used for each variation are shown for 4
servings of gluten-free pasta. The amount of brown rice flour in the recipes is
the only ingredient that varied with the addition of coffee flour. All other
ingredients remained the same across all recipes, including the amounts
used.
Variation 1

Variation 2

Ingredient

Control

7.5% Variation

15% Variation

Brown Rice Flour

213g

197.03g

181.05g

Tapioca Starch

71g

71g

71g

Xanthan gum

14g

14g

14g

Salt

2g

2g

2g

Eggs (4 large)

240g

240g

240g

Olive Oil

15g

15g

15g

Coffee Cherry Flour

15.98g

31.95g

Table 3. Results of the objective tests of % moisture, cooking weight, color, diameter, hardness,
and fracturability.
Variatio
n

%
Moisture
(pre)

PreCooking
Wt (g)

%
Moistur
e (post)

L*

a*

b*

2.57
1.05
0.41

19.1
4
1.33
0.07

Diamete
r (cm)

PostCooking
Wt (g)

Cooking
Wt %

Hardnes
s (g)

Fracturability (mm)

34.36
5.12
0.15

103.72
67.99
0.66

78.37
0.66
0.01

Control
Avg
Std
CV

34.23
7.46
0.22

32.56
8.43
0.26

54.05
1.12
0.02

70.02
2.43
0.03

5.28
43.82
0.51
11.82
0.10
0.27
7.5% coffee flour

23

Avg
Std
CV

32.57
1.36
0.04

30.37
9.49
0.31

54.10
1.90
0.04

49.24
1.54
0.03

3.92
0.38
0.10

Avg
Std
CV

35.43
2.13
0.06

30.71
6.23
0.20

49.76
5.59
0.11

42.46
4.58
0.11

3.77
0.38
0.10

7.95
1.20
0.15

5.33
43.18
0.46
12.43
0.09
0.29
15 % coffee flour
6.21
5.25
44.65
0.71
0.30
7.93
0.11
0.06
0.18

42.83
3.87
0.09

143.29
76.13
0.53

77.89
0.16
0.00

45.84
5.13
0.11

75.54
38.35
0.51

79.14
1.36
0.02

Table 4. Sensory analysis results on the control, 7.5% coffee flour variation,
and 15% coffee flour variation using a 9-point Hedonic scale with untrained
consumer panelists.

Analysis

Control

Appearance
Odor
Flavor
Texture

6.89 A
6.51 A
7.19 A
7.06 A

7.5%
Coffee
flour
6.53 AB
6.57 A
7.26 A
7.19 A

15%
Coffee
flour
5.94 B
5.81 B
6.21 B
6.36 B

Comp. F

Probability

F Judge

4.11
4.40
8.52
4.09

0.0185
0.0141
0.0003
0.0189

*
*
***
*

Figure 1. Sensory analysis results on the control, 7.5% coffee flour

variation, and 15% coffee flour variation using a 9-point Hedonic scale with
untrained consumer panelists.

24

Figure 2. Sample sensory scorecard of the 9-point Hedonic scale completed

by the panel of untrained panelists. Each sensory category ranges from
dislike extremely to like extremely. Panelists also ranked each variation
for overall preference.

Appearance
r
r
r
r
Dislike Dislike Dislike
Dislik
extreme Very moderate
e
ly
much
ly
slightl
y

r
Neithe
r like
nor
dislike

r
r
r
Like
Like
Like
slightl moderate very
y
ly
much

r
Like
extreme
ly

r
Neithe
r like
nor
dislike

r
r
r
Like
Like
Like
slightl moderate very
y
ly
much

r
Like
extreme
ly

r
Neithe
r like
nor
dislike

r
r
r
Like
Like
Like
slightl moderate very
y
ly
much

r
Like
extreme
ly

Odor
r
r
r
r
Dislike Dislike Dislike
Dislik
extreme Very moderate
e
ly
much
ly
slightl
y
Flavor
r
r
r
r
Dislike Dislike Dislike
Dislik
extreme Very moderate
e
ly
much
ly
slightl
y

25

Texture
r
r
r
r
Dislike Dislike Dislike
Dislik
extreme Very moderate
e
ly
much
ly
slightl
y

r
Neithe
r like
nor
dislike

r
r
r
Like
Like
Like
slightl moderate very
y
ly
much

r
Like
extreme
ly

Preference (1=Least liked, 3=Most liked)

Figure 3. Analysis of variance on pasta color. Significant differences were

seen in L* and b* axes, but not in the a* axis.
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
Color_L Between
Groups

Mean
Square

df

1237.559

618.780

58.555

9.759

1296.114

3.265

1.633

Within Groups

2.769

.461

Total

6.034

295.366

147.683

7.420

1.237

302.785

Within Groups
Total
Color_a Between
Groups

Color_b Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total

26

Sig.

63.405

.000

3.538

.097

119.425

.000

Figure 4. Bar graph comparison of average color characteristics in the

control, 7.5% coffee flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

Average Color Measurments

80
70
60
50
40
Color Score
30
20
10
0

Control
7.5% CF sub
15% CF sub

L*

a*

b*

Color Components

Figure 5. Image of the 3 recipes. The difference in color can be readily seen.

27

Figure 6. Analysis
moisture. No
were seen among

of variance on dough %
significant differences
recipes..

ANOVA
Dough_Moisture_Percent
Sum of
Squares
Between
Groups

Mean
Square

df

12.381

6.191

Within Groups

122.519

20.420

Total

134.900

F
.303

Sig.
.749

Figure 7. Analysis of variance on dough % moisture. No significant differences

were seen among recipes.
ANOVA
Pasta_Moisture_Percent

28

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

df

Between
Groups

37.184

18.592

Within Groups

72.306

12.051

109.490

Total

F
1.543

Sig.
.288

Figure 8. Bar graph comparison of the dough % moisture of control, 7.5%

coffee flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

Average % Moisture of Pasta Dough

% Moisture (dough)

Control

36.00
35.50
35.00
34.50
34.00
33.50
33.00
32.50
32.00
31.50
31.00
7.5% CF sub

15% CF sub

Figure 9. Bar graph comparison of the pasta % moisture of control, 7.5%

coffee flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

29

Average % Moisture of Cooked Pasta

55.00
54.00
53.00
Control

7.5%
CF sub
52.00

15% CF sub

% Moisture (pasta) 51.00

50.00
49.00
48.00
47.00

Figure 10. Analysis of variance on diameter. No significant differences were

seen among recipes.

ANOVA
Diameter_cm
Sum of
Squares
Between
Groups

Mean
Square

df

.003

.001

Within Groups

1.127

.188

Total

1.130

30

F
.008

Sig.
.993

Figure 11. Bar graph comparison of the pasta diameter of control, 7.5%
coffee flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

Average Pasta Diameter

5.34
5.32
5.30
Diameter (cm)

5.28
5.26
5.24
5.22
5.20

Control

7.5% CF sub

15% CF sub

Figure 12. Analysis of variance on cooking weight. No significant

differences were seen among recipes.

ANOVA
Cooking_Weight_Percent
Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

df

Between
Groups

212.531

106.266

Within Groups

134.919

22.487

Total

347.450

F
4.726

Sig.
.059

Figure 13. Bar graph comparison of the cooking weight of control, 7.5%
coffee flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

31

Average Cooking Weight

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
Cooking Weight % 25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Control

7.5% CF sub

15% CF sub

Figure 14. Analysis of variance on hardness. No significant differences were

seen among recipes.
ANOVA
Hardness_g
Sum of
Squares
Between
Groups

df

Mean
Square

F
.877

6949.396

3474.698

Within Groups

23777.803

3962.967

Total

30727.200

Sig.
.463

Figure 15. Analysis of variance on fracturability. No significant differences

were seen among recipes.
ANOVA
Fracturability_mm

32

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

df

Between
Groups

2.390

1.195

Within Groups

4.595

.766

Total

6.985

F
1.560

Sig.
.285

Figure 16. Bar graph comparison of hardness of control, 7.5% coffee flour
variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

Texture Analysis: Average Hardness

160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Hardness (g)

80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00

Control

7.5% CF sub

15% CF sub

Figure 17. Bar graph comparison of fracturability of control, 7.5% coffee

flour variation, and 15% coffee flour variation.

33

Texture Analysis: Average Fracturability

79.50
79.00
78.50
Fracturability (mm)
78.00
77.50
77.00
Control

7.5% CF sub

15% CF sub

Table 5. Nutrient analyses of the control, 7.5% coffee flour variation, and
15% coffee flour variation.
Serving Size: of recipe (124 g)
Nutrition Facts

Control

Variation 1:
7.5% Replacement

Variation 2:
15% Replacement

Glycemic Index

40

38

36

Iron (mg)

2.1

2.7

3.4

Calcium (mg)

32.9

48.5

64

Potassium (mg)

222

359

496

Zinc (mg)

1.9

2.3

2.8

34

Copper (mg)

0.2

0.3

0.3

Dietary Fiber (g)

2.6

5.0*

7.0*

Figure 18. Caf Penne fresh gluten-free high fiber pasta food label.

35