Sensory and Textural Evaluation of Gluten-Free Bread Substituted With Amaranth and Montina™ Flour


  •  Karen Breshears    
  •  Kristi Crowe    

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a nutrient-dense gluten-free bread (GFB) using either amaranth or Montina™ flour in a standardized gluten-free lean breadrecipe for the purpose of comparing the nutritional, sensory, and objective qualities of the developed breads to a commercially-marketed GFB. Participants (n=222)included individuals who typically eat a gluten-free diet and those who eat a non-restricted diet. The non-restricted diet group was used to assess product acceptability in the general population and to determine product marketability among those without gluten restrictions. Nutritionally, both developed breads provided at least 26% more iron than the commercial GFB and > 40% more fiber while the amaranth bread provided twice as much folate. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in sensory attributes (appearance, texture, flavor, tenderness, and overall acceptability) of both amaranth- and Montina™-based breads were not reported between the groups. Based on sensory scores using a 9-point Hedonic scale, the commercial GFB was preferred over either developed bread and the Montina™-based bread was preferred over the amaranth-based bread. Significant differences in bread hardness were not detected among the tested GFB, yet commercial GFB slices exhibited the largest and most consistent cell size throughout. Results suggest that amaranth and Montina™ flours assist in improving the nutritional quality of GFB, yet additional testing is needed to assist in formulation modifications of this standardized lean bread recipe in order to produce a product similar in sensory qualities to commercially-marketed GFB.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1927-0887
  • Issn(Onlne): 1927-0895
  • Started: 2012
  • Frequency: bimonthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2018): 9.22

h-index (August 2018): 20

i10-index (August 2018): 73

h5-index (August 2018): 15  

h5-median(August 2018): 20 

( The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations. Click Here to Learn More. )

Contact