Table 2 Sugar substitutes and their potential effect on biscuit quality
Sugar substitute | Nature | Sugar rate (%) | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Maltitol and FOS-Sucralose | Â | 100 | Â | Aggarwal et al. 2016 |
Raftilose | Oligofructose | 20 | Reduce sugar content | Gallagher et al. 2003 |
Stevia | S. rebaudiana leaves | 0.06–0.08-0.1-0.14, 25, 50, 75, and 100 | High fiber content, angiotensin-converting enzyme and α-amylase inhibitory activity, and antioxidant effect | Vatankhah et al. 2015; Pourmohammadi et al. 2017; Góngora Salazar et al. 2018 |
Erythritol | Sweetener | 25, 50, 75, and 100 | Partial replacement of sucrose with up to 50% erythritol had sensory and physical quality characteristics comparable with cookies prepared with 100% sucrose | Lin et al. 2010 |
Arabinoxylan oligosaccharides | Complex carbohydrates | 30 | Reduction of sucrose and increase of fiber levels | Pareyt et al. 2011 |
Isomalt | Polyol | 3, 6, 9, and 12 | Reduction of sucrose | Pourmohammadi et al. 2017 |
Maltodextrin | Starch | 2.5–5–7.5-10 | Reduction of sucrose | Pourmohammadi et al. 2017 |
Isomalt, maltodextrin, stevia | – | 6–2.5-0.06 | Biscuits were more comparable to one elaborate with sucrose, and with the highest acceptance level in sensory evaluations | Pourmohammadi et al. 2017 |