4.7 Article

Sensory test vs. electronic nose and/or image analysis of whole bread produced with old and modern wheat varieties adjuvanted by means of the mycorrhizal factor

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 1400-1408

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.09.045

Keywords

Sensory analysis; Bread; Wheat old varieties; Electronic nose; Image analysis; Mycorrhizal factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to promote local organic farming and healthy local products, the germplasm of common wheat (Triticum aestivum spp.) retrieved from old-varieties (G - Gentil Rosso, I - Inallettabile, S - Sieve) has been compared with that of the modern Blasco Triticum, treated with (Bm - Blasco mycorrhizal) or without (B - Blasco) Micosat F(R) mycorrhizal consortium, and with that of an ordinary reference flour (C - Control). A sensory test (18 attributes, 10 panelists) was compared with rapid analyses: electronic nose (e-nose, 10 sensors, 8 replicates) and/or image analysis (9 parameters, 3 replicates). The planned contrasts were able to establish the significance of the epoch and of the mycorrhizal factors. Chemometrics of the e-nose, image and concatenated scores was used to cluster the average groups. The reference groups (B and C) were clearly distinguished. The mycorrhizal factor has emerged as being a botanical modifier of the sensory properties of the bread: a modem wheat treated with the Micosat F(R) microbial consortium after breading was established as non-differentiable from the old Sieve variety and to be similar to the old Gentil Rosso and Inallettabile varieties. The rapid analyses forecast several traits: the raw average cross-validated r-square, calculated across the 18 attributes, was 0.69 for the e-nose and 0.56 for the imaging features. However the concatenated sets rose to 0.83 and only 4 traits were below a 2.0 threshold of the ratio-performance prediction (RPD) while 10 scores exceeded 2.5 RPD. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available