4.2 Article

CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMERCIAL RYE BREAD BASED ON SENSORY PROPERTIES, FLUIDITY INDEX AND CHEMICAL ACIDITY

Journal

JOURNAL OF SENSORY STUDIES
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 283-295

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12211

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Kronprinsessan Margarets Minnesfond foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council Formas
  3. Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (Vinnova)
  4. Fazer AB
  5. [2011-242]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rye bread is often considered healthy, especially regarding its potential beneficial effect on blood glucose and insulin regulation, but the characteristics of Swedish rye bread have not previously been described. The aim was to characterize commercial rye bread (n=24) using sensory descriptive analysis (11 panelists, 15 attributes, 2 replicates), fluidity index (FI; an in vitro measurement to predict glycemic properties), chemical acidity and selected package information. The associations between sensory and chemical measurements were explored to identify the opportunities and challenges of increased consumption of rye bread with potential health benefits. Six categories of rye bread were identified on the basis of their sensory profiles. The FI indicated that bread from three of the categories possessed beneficial glycemic properties (FI 50-75). These categories contained 31-100% rye, displaying pH 4.3-4.8. Sensory attributes, foremost textural (e.g., chewiness), but also flavor (e.g., sourness), were highly correlated with FI values, thereby revealing their potential to aid consumers, in that they can serve as quality indicators of the glycemic properties of commercial rye bread. However, this also highlights potential sensory barriers to consumption. Front-of-package rye and sourdough labels on some samples could potentially mislead consumers given the low content of rye/sourdough, despite the labels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available