Texture profile analysis and sensory evaluation of commercially available gluten-free bread samples

Abstract

The need for better quality gluten-free (GF) bread is constantly growing. This can be ascribed to the rising incidence of celiac disease or other gluten-associated allergies and the widespread incorrect public belief, that GF diet is healthier. Although there is a remarkable scientific interest shown to this topic, among the numerous studies only a few deals with commercially available products. The gap between research and commercial reality is already identified and communicated from a nutritional point of view, but up to date texture studies of commercial GF breads are underrepresented. In this study, 9 commercially available GF bread were compared to their wheat-based counterparts from texture and sensory viewpoints. Results showed that among GF loaves products, some performed significantly better at hardness and springiness attributes during the 4-day-long storage test compared to the wheat-based products. Two of GF cob breads performed significantly better or on the same level as the wheat-based cob regarding to hardness and cohesiveness during 3 days. Among sensorial properties mouth-feel, softness and smell were evaluated as significantly better or similarly for some GF versus wheat-based products. Two GF bread had more salty taste which reduced the flavor experience. Both the texture and sensory data of the storage test indicate that the quality of some GF bread products has significantly improved in the recent years; they stayed comparable with their wheat-based counterparts even for a 4-day-long storage period.

Artichoke Industrial Waste in Durum Wheat Bread: Effects of Two Different Preparation and Drying Methods of Flours and Evaluation of Quality Parameters during Short Storage

“…Springiness is a parameter used to define the freshness of the product and results in a more or less brittle crumb [ 64 , 65 ]. It is a measure of elasticity [ 66 ] and it is defined as the rate at which a deformed sample returns to its original size and shape [ 67 ].…”

“…Cohesiveness represents the extent to which the sample could be deformed before breaking [ 69 ], indicating the strength of the internal bonds in the sample [ 67 ]. It is related to the moisture content and the strength of the network surrounding the crumb cells [ 70 ], and in fact, low values of cohesiveness result in a bread with a crumb that crumbles easily [ 64 , 71 ]. From Table 5 , it can be noted that at T 0 , cohesiveness in the samples with bract flour increased as the percentage of integration increased, while in the samples with stems and mixes, the values significantly decreased ( p ≤ 0.001) from 5 to 10% integration.…”

Development of a yeast‐free bread using legume and nut flours in a gluten‐free flour: Techno‐functional characteristics and sensory evaluation

“…Finally, assessors highlighted its ‘homemade’ appearance. The aim of comparing commercial products already available on the market with novel food formulations is to ensure that they really have distinctive sensory characteristics (Tóth et al ., 2022). Overall, the results of the sensory analysis showed that the novel bread formulations containing nuts and legumes differed from the standard gluten‐free (STD) formulation as well as from a commercial product.…”

Physicochemical properties of barley starch and effect of substitution of wheat flour with barley starch on texture and sensory properties of bread

“…Judges were trained by discussing the definition of quality attributes selected for sensory evaluation such as leavening, taste, texture, appearance, aroma and general acceptability, explaining, and method of scoring. They were advised to rinse their mouth with water between tasting the consecutive samples (Tóth et al, 2022).…”