# Nutritional and Functional Properties of Gluten-Free Flours
## 3 Results
### Gelatinization and Retrogradation Properties
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Flours**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Gelatinization of starch**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Retrogradation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**DR, \%**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mathbf{T_{\text{p}}}\)\({}^{\circ}\)C & \(\mathbf{A}\mathbf{H}\), \(\mathbf{J}\mathbf{g}\) d.m. & \(\mathbf{T_{\text{p}}}\)\({}^{\circ}\)C & \(\mathbf{A}\mathbf{H}\), \(\mathbf{J}\mathbf{g}\) d.m. & \\ \hline Rice & 80.86 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.44 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 58.05 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 50.21 \(\pm\) 1.98 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ Brown rice & 75.35 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 11.69 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 49.00 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 1.05 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ Maize & 74.54 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 10.29 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 58.66 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.85 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 37.41 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Oat & 64.75 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{k}}\) & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 55.55 \(\pm\) 0.68 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 5.04 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 7.89 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ [PERSON] & 78.04 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 10.43 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 58.54 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 42.03 \(\pm\) 1.40 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ [PERSON] & 71.62 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 10.11 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 58.44 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ Amaranth & 79.10 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 8.88 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 49.02 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{i}}\) & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ Buckwheat & 72.27 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 10.80 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 55.76 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 1.48 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{i}}\) & 13.67 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ Quinoa & 66.83 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{j}}\) & 8.68 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 58.69 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{i}}\) & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ Chickpea & 75.63 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 7.36 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 58.59 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 42.88 \(\pm\) 1.63 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ Gram & 73.33 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 7.73 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 58.40 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.73 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 48.27 \(\pm\) 1.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Tiger nut & 81.87 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.85 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 58.44 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ Plantain & 72.38 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 13.79 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 59.22 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 7.20 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 52.21 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 3). Means that do not share a letter in a column are significantly different (_p_ < 0.05). T\({}_{\text{p}}\): peak temperature; AH: enthalpy; DR: degree of retrogradation starch.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Gelatinization and retrogradation thermal properties of GF flows. The peak corresponding to the retrograded starch presented similar values for most of the samples, except for brown rice, amaranth, oat, and buckwheat flours with significantly lower values (\(p<0.05\)). Plantain, rice, millet, maize, gram, chickpea, and buckwheat presented a greater tendency to retrograde (higher value for the retrogradation enthalpy).