4.4 Article

Craft beer vs industrial beer: chemical and sensory differences

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 123, 期 12, 页码 4332-4346

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2021-0074

关键词

Quality; Sensory analysis; Craft beer; Antioxidants; Electronic nose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the chemical and sensory differences between craft and industrial/commercial beers, finding that craft beers had higher values of color, bitterness and antioxidant activity. Results from an electronic nose showed its effectiveness in discriminating beer types. This research provides valuable insights for marketing strategies and quality monitoring in the craft beer industry.
Purpose The aim of this paper is to determine chemical and sensory differences of between craft and industrial/or commercial beers. Beer market is nowadays booming and consumers are in the search of new and healthier products. Design/smethodology/approach Here, commercial and craft beers were chemically analyzed and sensory evaluated. Chemical analysis included pH, bitterness, color, total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity. Likewise, 40 sensory descriptors were evaluated by trained panelists, including visual, olfactory and gustatory attributes. In addition, an electronic nose (e-nose) was tested to determine its suitability to discriminate beer type and/or style according to their volatiles profile. Findings Craft beers presented higher values of color, bitterness and antioxidant activity when compared to commercial beers. Sensory descriptors showed craft beers to be associated with the highest scores in visual, olfactory and gustatory descriptors. Data from e-nose explained 97% of the total variability of the volatile compounds in the analyzed beers, indicating the suitability of this device to discriminate beer types. Originality/value Results are of interest for design of marketing and selling techniques for craft brewery managers. In addition, cheap and easy-managing device as e-nose resulted in a valuable tool to monitoring beer quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据