4.7 Article

The sensory quality of fresh bread: Descriptive attributes and consumer perceptions

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 989-997

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2008.08.002

关键词

Bread freshness; Consumer perception; Descriptive analysis; Partial least squares regression (PLSR)

资金

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FORST)
  2. New Zealand Baking Industry Research Trust (BIRT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To improve the understanding of what constitutes bread freshness, relationships between consumers' perceptions of freshness and sensory character were determined for different bread types. Descriptive sensory analysis was carried out on 20 bread types, using a panel of twelve trained assessors and a defined vocabulary of 28 terms. Representative consumers (n = 115) rated the perceived freshness of ten different bread types using a labelled scale that was labeled with not at all fresh to greatest freshness imaginable. Principal component analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical cluster analysis identified three consumer segments that were homogeneous in their freshness perceptions. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was used to investigate the relationships between Consumers' freshness perceptions for each segment and descriptive sensory data. Cluster analysis greatly enhanced the understanding of the consumer test results by indicating that expectations of bread freshness varied among consumers. Positive drivers of bread freshness for consumers in cluster one were porous appearance, and floury odour, while positive drivers for Cluster two consumers were malty odour, and sweet. buttery. oily flavour. Cluster three consumers were positively driven by porous appearance, floury, toasted odour and sweet aftertaste. Using PLSR models, consumer freshness perceptions for the ten remaining breads not evaluated by Consumers, but assessed by descriptive sensory analysis, were predicted for each consumer segment. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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