Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250

A PROCEDURE FOR SENSORY EVALUATION OF BREAD:

PROTOCOL DEVELOPED BY A TRAINED PANEL
joss_342

269..277

MONICA ELA1
Innopan, Spanish Centre of Baking Technology. Parc de Gardeny, Edifici H3, 1a pl. 25003 Lleida, Spain

1
Corresponding author. TEL: 0034 691267649;
FAX: 0034 973283849; EMAIL:
monica@innopan.com

Accepted for Publication May 18, 2011

doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00342.x

ABSTRACT
Sensory evaluation is a powerful tool with a wide range of applications in the bakery
industry. However, it is necessary to establish a complete methodology for the evaluation. In this study, Innopan has proposed a methodology for the sensory analysis of
bread, defining a set of descriptors by setting the appropriate vocabulary for a complete description of bread and closely related products. The protocol outlined
included 46 attributes sorted by sensory groups (17 for visual, nine for odor, 12 for
flavor and eight for texture), evaluating crumb and crust separately. A trained panel
with 10 people has been formed. Once the protocol was established, the validation of
the panel was performed after 1 year of training. Significant differences were found
between different products.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This work becomes a guide for the sensory analysis of bread. It provides a complete
set of attributes for the description of bread and closely related products and the
optimum procedure for the evaluation. A standard sensory methodology is an interesting tool for the industry in the development of bakery products to achieve not
only the best technological quality but also to consistently meet consumers expectations. Moreover, the use of a standard sensory methodology facilitates communication among research and producer groups.

INTRODUCTION
Bread is a basic food worldwide. It is part of the Mediterranean diet, which has recently been awarded World Heritage
status as a model for healthy eating (UNESCO, United
Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
2010). In Spain alone, there are over 300 different types of
breads, and there is an increasing interest among bakers to
recover and protect this heritage. Sensory evaluation would
not only constitute an important part for the whole quality
assessment of such diverse breads but also identify factors that
could lead to the development of new products. However,
previous reports on parameters to describe a bread are scattered and use different terms, definitions and methodologies
(Lotong et al. 2000; Gmbaro et al. 2002; Battochio et al.
2006; Heino 2006; Heenan et al. 2008; Jensen et al. 2010).
More recently, Hayakawa et al. (2010) have developed a broad
number of parameters concluding with a study of a selected
set of 23 for differentiating the sensory qualities of French
Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

bread samples. There is still, however, a lack of convergence in

both sample preparation methods and the attributes evaluated on them.
A standard method of sensory evaluation offers many
advantages, as can be seen in other products where it is well
established, e.g., cheese (Talavera-Bianchi and Chambers
2008), wine (Etaio et al. 2010; Maitre et al. 2010) and dairy
products (Coggins et al. 2008). When applied to olive oil
through regulation from the International Olive Oil Council,
the quality of the product increased (IOOC 2004), and today,
evaluating the sensory characteristics of olive oil is crucial in
its final commercial classification, favoring the differentiation
in quality, reducing fraud and adding value to end products.
Furthermore, European consumers are increasingly
demanding in terms of quality, freshness, nutritional and
sensory properties of bread (Heenan et al. 2008; Lambert
et al. 2009). In fact, sensory perception plays an important
role in consumer preference and purchase of bread. This
importance is enhanced in organic products or specialties,
269

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

such as certified products like Geographical Indications and

Traditional Specialties (Kihlberg et al. 2004; Torjusen et al.
2004; Prez-Elortondo et al. 2006). The application of
sensory analyses techniques is an important tool for the
bakery industry given that it offers a quality-assured product
that is confirmed and defined in understandable terms for the
consumer. A precise sensory characterization would identify
the important factors for local markets and thus facilitate the
formulation of new products.
Innopan, the Spanish Center of Baking Technology, has
been working for 2 years to develop a standard methodology
for the sensory analysis of bread. In the current study, a set of
descriptors has been defined through establishing the appropriate terms and parameters for a complete description of
bread. The descriptors have then been used in the training of
an expert panel to assess different breads with special emphasis on the establishment of a standard procedure. Such a procedure would not only enable comparability with future
bread evaluations by this panel but also with any other worldwide evaluations that would adopt it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Formation and Training of the Panel
An initial group of 16 members were recruited for panel formation. Two were professionals from the Expert Catalan
Olive Oil Panel (D473/2004, DOGC n2396), and the rest
were involved with the Spanish baking industry, resulting in a
group that was highly motivated and involved. The training
was carried out in sessions of 1 1/2 h divided into two parts:
(1) training in general aspects of sensory techniques and
analyses and (2) training in more specific aspects of bread and
closely related products.
The sensory aptitude of the panelists was determined
during the selection stages. Standardized procedures were
conducted including tests to identify basic tastes, olfactory
substance recognition, and taste ranking, and for describing
texture (ISO [International Organization for Standardization] 8586-1 1993) as well as 6-n-Propylthiouracil taster
status recognition (Tepper et al. 2001). The aim during the
basic training was to develop each members sensory memory
and their use of vocabulary and scales in describing bread.
Sessions were structured into two parts, where the first part
included a theoretical lecture in sensory analyses and the
second part included tests focused on detecting and recognizing smells and tastes. Finally, for specific training, the panel
worked with an assortment of commercial breads with
marked differences between them (ISO [International Organization for Standardization] 8586-2 1993). Regular training
sessions were held with standard tests to monitor the ability of
each panelist.
270

M. ELA

Development of Protocol
The development of the protocol was conducted in 1 1/2-h
sessions in a two-step process: (I) generation of descriptors
and their definitions, for establishing a general protocol for
wide range of breads and (II) design of a standard method of
evaluation.
Generation of Descriptors and Their Definitions.
During each session, each of the panelists evaluated separately a set of at least three commercial breads. Afterwards, the
group discussed their findings openly with the intervention of
the panel leader as a moderator. Panelists were asked to
mention the attributes they considered important for
descriptive evaluation of bread and their definitions through
open discussion. After each session, the panel leader discussed
with the panelists other attributes and methodologies previously reported in studies of bread, and the group finally
decided whether or not to include them.
Design of a Standard Method of Evaluation. Three
samples were evaluated in each 1 1/2-h session by each panelist. Samples were always coded with a three-digit random
numbers in a randomized and balanced order and assessed at
room temperature (ISO [International Organization for
Standardization] 8589 1998). Sessions were carried out in a
library.
Breads were specifically processed with a distinguishing
feature according to the group of attributes to evaluate in a
session. For instance, bread samples were prepared with different levels of added yogurt for the evaluation of lactic fat
aroma. Panelists were then asked to evaluate the intensity of
this character on a 10-point continuous linear scale of the
descriptors generated under (I) earlier.
Samples were presented to each panelist with crumb, upper
crust and lower crust separately in different flasks, with different sample sizes to achieve the best presentation for the
sample. Different parts of the breads were sampled. Also, different time intervals since baking were tested in order to
choose the best for sensory evaluation.

Validation of the Panel

After 1 year of training, a study to identify the discriminating
capacity, repeatability and reproducibility for each panelist as
well as the work of the group as a whole was conducted. The
assay was carried out in four sessions during the same week.
For each session, each panelist evaluated four loaves of
breads, with samples presented in random order. Bread
doughs were prepared to a standard formulation with wheat
flour, yeast, salt and water. Samples differed mainly in the
amount of added salt and time of baking (Table 1). It was difJournal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. ELA

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

TABLE 1. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF LOAVES USED IN THE

VALIDATION TEST
Sample

Wheat flour (g)

Water (mL)
Salt (g)
Yeast (g)
Butter (g)
Ascorbic acid (ppm)
Alfa-amylase (ppm)
Baking time at 190C (min)

1,000
580
18
20
0
60
100
50

1,000
580
9
20
0
60
100
40

1,000
580
18
20
5
60
100
35

1,000
580
0
20
0
60
100
25

ficult to produce consistent samples for each loaf over all four
sessions so visual attributes were also assessed upon the same
set of samples for all the panelists. A limited number of
attributes were chosen for the validation test in order to avoid
panelists fatigue. Four attributes were assessed on the whole
loaf (brightness, score width, score depth and score color),
two attributes on a cut piece (convexity and crumb regularity)
and three attributes of flavor/taste (acetic acid, lactic fat, salty)
on a consumed piece.
Statistical analysis was conducted using Fizz 2.5B software
(Couternon, France) (Biosystmes 2010). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if the attributes used to
differentiate the samples differed between panelists. Fishers
least significant difference test was used to detect any statistically significant differences between samples and panelists.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After 43 consecutive sessions, 10 panelists (five women and
five men) were selected as members of the evaluation panel
on the basis of their ability to correctly identify characteristics
they had given in the tests as well as their ability to perceive
intensity. Two of the original set of 16 panelists were eliminated because of their irregular attendance at sessions. The
other four panelists were not selected because they failed in
the recognition of aromas.
The set of descriptive parameters was reduced from an
initial 55 to a final set of 46 by agreement among panelists;
those eliminated were detected only in a few samples and by a
few panelists. Finally, a set of 46 attributes was sorted into
sensory groups: 17 for visual, nine for odor, 12 for flavor and
eight for texture (Table 2). The panelists always had the
option to include relevant observations under an others
parameter; e.g., licorice, cardboard, dried fruits, nut, caramel
and barnyard were considered very specific items that could
be included in this category as they only were detected in a few
samples and therefore did not warrant being included in the
final set, which was arrived at by consensus. The chosen
attributes were consistent with a one-dimensional concept,
removing ambiguity and thus ensuring that all the panelists
Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

refer to the same sensory concept (ISO [International Organization for Standardization] 1087 1990; ISO 5492 1992;
Giboreau et al. 2007). For some visual attributes, it was necessary to add a graphic on the sensory sheet to improve understanding of the descriptor (Figs. 1 and 2).
Some terms included in the present set of descriptors are
common to recent studies with other bakery products, which
confirm their importance in bread sensory evaluation and
facilitate comparison (Gmbaro et al. 2002; Heino et al.
2003; Shogren et al. 2003; Kihlberg et al. 2004, 2006; Collar
et al. 2005; Carr et al. 2006; Annett et al. 2007). However,
others differ; e.g., the termyeastutilized in the current study
refers to an attribute very similar to other terms such asbeer
or stout used in other reports (Lotong et al. 2000; Hayakawa
et al. 2010; Jensen et al. 2010). These differences enhance the
importance of a standard protocol for bread evaluation.
Intensity in the 10-point linear continuous scales was verbally anchored at the beginning of each session. In the following sessions, as the attributes were repeatedly worked, the
scales were anchored with bread references for those
attributes difficult to consensus, when possible (Table 2). The
inclusion of such references on the scales is very valuable,
especially among the texture attributes (Romero del Castillo
et al. 2008). However, this cannot be done in the short term
and should only be done with products well known to the
panel.
Finally, the procedure for the evaluation was agreed by the
entire panel. The panel defined the optimum moment of
evaluation as 810 h after baking, at room temperature. The
evaluation was conducted on samples from the crumb, upper
crust and lower crust separately as it has been reported that
they have different flavor properties (Kirchoff and Schieberle
2001; Heino 2006; Hayakawa et al. 2010). The adequate
sample vessel was a standard olive oil flask covered by a watch
glass (ISO [International Organization for Standardization]
16657 2007). The best presentation of the samples for proper
perception of sensory properties was defined as four pieces
(2 2 cm) taken from the central part of the product, sliced
(15-mm-thick slices) and cut with scissors. General features
of the developed methodology are summarized in Table 3.
The first step in the sensory evaluation was defined as the
testing of aroma properties. Panelists must handle the glass
with both hands to warm it in order to facilitate the perception of aromatics wherever room temperature was. The time
was not limited. After assessing aromatic attributes, the same
samples were assessed for the taste and flavor attributes. The
panelists placed the samples one by one into the mouth and
an additional sample was available upon request. For this
attribute group, all the panelists must chew the sample until it
becomes a homogeneous paste in the mouth in order to arrive
at the same evaluation point, independent of the speed and
strength of each panelist. A 15-min break was then held
before assessing the texture attribute group. For this group,
271

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

M. ELA

TABLE 2. LEXICON (TERMS AND DEFINITIONS) FOR SENSORY ANALYSES OF BREAD PRODUCTS DEVELOPED IN THIS STUDY
Sensory group
Appearance
Entire product

Descriptor

Definition

Reference*

Color
Shininess
Cracked

Intensity of color
Reflection of light on the piece
Presence of cracks on the surface of the sample

Flour

Quantity of flour on the surface of the sample

Number
Gap

Number of cuts on the surface of the sample

Width of the score of the surface

Inferior (bottom) crust

Color
Color
Flour

Intensity of color
Intensity of color
Presence of flour on the low surface of the sample

Crust

Volume

Distance from the horizontal axis which divides

superior crust from inferior crust to the top,
measured on a cross-section of bread. (Fig. 1).
Distance from the horizontal axis which divides
superior crust from inferior crust to the bottom,
measured on a cross-section of bread, when there
is concavity (Fig. 2).
Distance from the surface where the bread lies to the
horizontal axis which divides superior crust from
inferior crust to the bottom, measured on a cross
section of bread, when there is convexity (Fig. 2).
Depth of the score from the surface to the bottom
Width of the crust

From white (0) to black (10)

Null (0) to pure bright (10)
Computed in terms of percentage.
Value 5 = 50% of surface with
presence of cracks
Computed in terms of percentage.
Value 5 = 50% of surface with
presence of flour
Report the number of scores
Compute in terms of percentage.
Value 5 = 50% of the width of
the piece.
From white (0) to black (10)
From white (0) to black (10)
Computed in terms of percentage.
Value 5 = 50% of low surface
with presence of flour
From flat (0) to cylinder (10)

Superior (top) crust

Score

Cut product

Concavity

Convexity

Depth
Thickness
Crumb

Aroma

Taste
and flavor

Crust

Crumb
Crust

Color
Pore size
Pore regularity
Acetic acid
Butyric acid
Lactic acid
Butter
Lactic fat
Wood
Caramel
Smoke
Mouldy

Intensity of color
Size of the holes in the crumb
Homogeneity of the pores in the crumb
The sour aroma associated with vinegar
The aroma associated with regurgitated milk
The aroma associated with soured milk
The aroma associated with butter
The aroma associated with milk fat
The aroma associated with dry wood
The aroma associated with toasted sugar
The aroma associated with dust and fire
The aromatics associated with damp closed air
spaces
Pig fat
The aroma associated with animal fat
Those described for crust
Sweet
Sweet basic taste
Salty

Salty basic taste

Sour
Bitter
Pungent

Sour basic taste

Bitter basic taste
An itchy trigeminal sensation on the tip of the
tongue
A general taste associated with fields of ripe cereals
The aromatic associated with toasted notes

Straw
Toasted

272

Value = 0, flat bread

Value = 0, flat bread

Null (0) to Pa de Llonguet (10)

Intensity = 10 for PGI Pa de Pags
Catal
From white (0) to black (10)
Value = 10 Pan de Cristal
Value = 10 Pan Candeal

Value = 5 Pan de Vienna**

Value = 10 for PGI Pa de Rony

Value = 5 for PGI Pa de Pags

Catal
Value = 5 for 2% NaCl in 1,000 g
flour

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. ELA

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Sensory group

Texture

Crust

Descriptor

Definition

Yeasty
Oily
Aftertaste
Global intensity

A fermented yeast-like flavor

The overall flavor of oil

Crumb
Those described for crust
Crustiness
Hardness
Elasticity
Friability
Graininess

Doughy
Chewiness
Mouth residue
Crumb

Reference*

The general impression of the whole flavor of the

sample

Noise made in the first bite of the sample between

the molars (auditory assessment)
Force required to first bite through the sample with
the molars
Sample recovery after the first bite
Ease with which the sample is broken into smaller
particles during chewing (crumbly)
Size of the particles once the sample has been
masticated until disintegrated and then formed a
homogenous bolus.
Pasty feeling (flour and water) which is perceived in
the mouth during chewing
Toughness of the sample perceived during
mastication
Amount of residual particles attached to the mouth
after chewing

Those described for crust

* References settled by the panel after the first validation test.

Small traditional Catalan bread.
Popular Catalan bread (actually under PGI application).
High hydrated registered bread.
Traditional Spanish bread with very compact crumb.
** Soft bread made with butter.
Traditional Catalan bread made in wood oven (actually under PGI application).
PGI, Protected Geographical Indication.

FIG. 1. DISTANCE TO CONSIDER IN TESTING THE ATTRIBUTE VOLUME

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

evaluation of the crust was included, if at all possible. Again,

for this evaluation, all the panelists must chew the sample
until it becomes a homogeneous paste in the mouth. Once
more, panelists should have a 15-min break after assessing
this group. The visual attributes were the last group to be
evaluated. The samples, both entire and cut, were assessed
within this group. The loaves were cut in their central parts,
always perpendicular as it is known that there are changes in
the appearance of the crumb depending on the direction of
the cut. In each session, the maximum number of breads to
test for a proper assessment was defined as 3.
Results from the ANOVA of the validation test showed that
significant differences were found between products, which
meant that not only were the panelists able to distinguish different bread types but also that the nine attributes assessed
were discriminatory (Fig. 3). As expected, the main differences were detected on salty and lactic fat aromatics and color
because of differences in ingredients and processing. Also,
there were noticeable differences in score attributes. Indeed, it
is well-known that differences in the amount of salt highly
273

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

M. ELA

FIG. 2. DISTANCES TO CONSIDER IN TESTING THE ATTRIBUTES OF CONCAVITY (a) AND CONVEXITY (b) ATTRIBUTES AND AN EXAMPLE OF A FLAT
BREAD (c)

influence the developing of the breads during proving

(Fig. 4). The reproducibility of each panelist was consistent
through the sessions, although there were significant differences between panelists (Table 4). However, the samples were
ranked in the same order in the overall classification of the
products. Further training for the whole group would help
reduce differences between individual panel members. Nevertheless, these results confirm that the present protocol could
be reproduced in further sessions with the panel as well as
being adopted by other research groups, which would help to
reach a global consensus among researchers and producers
for the benefit of the bakery industry.
All the attributes reported are important in the overall
profile of bread and closely related products. However, each
type of product has its own characteristic sensory profile with

particular attributes so that before assessing specific products, the attributes to evaluate should be established by consensus with the panel.

CONCLUSION
This study has proposed a methodology and a complete protocol for sensory analysis of bread and closely related products. The work conducted with the trained panel enabled an
objective understanding of bread and its characteristics. As a
consequence, a wide range of applications related to quality
evaluation and technological approaches can be conducted.
Such a standard protocol provides a better understanding of
the product, leads to management of its ingredients and the
process variables and brings the producer closer to the con-

TABLE 3. KEY FEATURES OF DEVELOPED METHODOLOGY FOR THE SENSORY EVALUATION OF BREAD
Attributes

Sample

General practices

Aroma, taste and flavor

4 samples (2 cm 2 cm)

Evaluation of the crumb, upper crust and lower crust separately;

First, evaluation of aroma attributes;
Second, evaluation of taste and flavor attributes;
Standardized olive oil flasks covered by a watch glass;
Samples taken from the central part of the bread piece;
Evaluation after 8 h after baking at room temperature;

15-min break
Texture

4 samples (2 cm 2 cm)

Evaluation of the crumb, upper crust and lower crust separately;

Prepare a homogeneous paste into the mouth for the evaluation;
Standardized olive oil flasks covered by a watch glass;
Samples taken from the central part of the bread taking part
of the score, when possible;
Evaluation after 8 h after baking at room temperature;

15-min break
Appearance

Entire bread piece

Evaluation of the same bread by all members of the panel;

First, evaluation of the score;
Second, evaluation of the general appearance of the bread;
Evaluation after 8 h after baking at room temperature;
Evaluation of the same half bread by all members of the panel;
Cut the pieces for the score, when possible;
Evaluation after 8 h after baking at room temperature;

Half bread piece

Maximum 3 types of bread per session

274

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. ELA

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Brightness

Score width

Score depth

Score color

Convexity

Crumb regularity Acetic acid

Lactic fat

Salty

A B C D

FIG. 3. PLOT OF MEANS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES EVALUATED ON FOUR BREAD SAMPLES BY THE PANEL
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 (Fishers least significant difference test). A (1.8% salt), B (0.9% salt), C
(1.8% salt, 5% butter), D (0% salt).

Brightness
Score width

Salty

Score depth

Lactic fat

Score color

Acetic acid

Crumb regularity

Convexity

FIG. 4. RADAR PLOT OF MEAN VALUES FOR ATTRIBUTES THAT

STATISTICALLY DIFFER AMONG FOUR BREADS
A (1.8% salt), B (0.9% salt), C (1.8% salt, 5% butter), D (0% salt).

sumer. Indeed, a consensus methodology for sensory evaluation of bread brings the possibility of improving quality
assessment, leading to the development of innovative products and combining all the information with consumers
data. Further training must be carried to optimize the panel.
However, this work could become an interesting innovation
tool for the bakery industry leading to standardized bread
sensory evaluation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the financial support of Generalitat de
Catalunya from Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) for the
training and formation of the panel. Also, they thank Dr. L.
Guerrero and M.D. Gurdia from Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimntaries for their technical assessment. Likewise, we thank the group of judges for their dedication and
collaboration for the success of this panel.

TABLE 4. SUM OF SQUARES OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NINE ATTRIBUTES EVALUATED ON FOUR BREAD SAMPLES BY THE PANEL
Source of variation

DF

Brightness

Score width

Score depth

Score color

Convexity

Crumb regularity

Acetic acid

Lactic fat

Salty

Product
Judge
Product judge
Residuals
Total

3
8
24
108
143

20.9*
163.1***
50.2
193.0
427.1

669.1***
42.3***
15.8
100.7
827.8

303.3***
134.9***
32.8
96.2
567.1

59.9***
83.8***
14.1
58.6
216.3

96.6***
107.0***
39.3
251.7
494.6

32.2***
40.1**
55.1
168.0
295.5

22.8**
224.5***
63.5
196.0
506.8

194.2***
105.6***
44.6
193.1
537.4

175.4***
70.9***
50.2
176.1
472.5

* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

275

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

REFERENCES
ANNETT, L.E., SPANER, D. and WLSMER, W.V. 2007. Sensory
profiles of bread made from paired samples of organic and
conventionally grown wheat grain. J. Food Sci. 72(4), 254260.
BATTOCHIO, J.R., CARDOSO, J.M.P., KIKUCHI, M.,
MACCHIONE, M., MODOLO, J.S., PAIXAO, A.L.,
PINCHELLI, A.M., SILVA, A.R., SOUSA, V.C., WADA, J.K.A.
ET AL. 2006. Sensorial profile of whole wheat bread. Ciencia Y
Tecnologia Alimetaria 26(2), 428433.
BIOSYSTMES. 2010. FIZZ Sensory Software, 245B, Copyright
1994, 2010 Biosystmes. http://www.biosystemes.com
(accessed February 2011).
CARR, L., RODAS, A.B., DELLA TORRE, J. and TADINI, C.C.
2006. Physical, textural and sensory characteristics of 7-day
frozen part-baked French bread. LWT 39, 540547.
COGGINS, P.C., SCHILLING, M.W., KUMARI, S. and
GERRARD, P.D. 2008. Development of a sensory lexicon for
conventional milk yogurt in the United States. J. Sensory
Studies 23, 671687.
COLLAR, C., BOLLAN, C. and ANGIOLONI, A. 2005.
Significance of microbial transglutaminase on the sensory,
mechanical and crumb grain pattern of enzyme supplemented
fresh pan breads. J. Food Eng. 70, 479488.
ETAIO, I., ALBISU, M., OJEDA, M., GIL, P.F., SALMERN, J. and
PREZ ELORTONDO, F.J. 2010. Sensory quality control for
food certification: A case study on wine. Method development.
Food Control. 21(4), 533541.
GMBARO, A., VRELA, P. and GIMNEZ, A. 2002. Textural
quality of white pan bread by sensory and instrumental
measurements. J. Texture Studies 33, 401413.
GIBOREAU, A., DACREMONT, C., EGOROFF, C., GUERRAND,
S., URDAPILLETA, I., CANDEL, D. and DUBOIS, D. 2007.
Defining sensory descriptors: Towards writing guidelines based
on terminology. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 265274.
HAYAKAWA, F., UKAI, N., NISHIDA, J., KAZAMI, Y. and
KOHYAMA, K. 2010. Lexicon for the sensory description of
French bread in Japan. J. Sensory Studies 25, 7693.
HEENAN, S.P., DUFOUR, J-P., HAMID, N., HARVEY, W. and
DELAHUNTY, C.M. 2008. The sensory quality of fresh bread:
Descriptive attributes and consumer perceptions. Food Res.
Int. 41, 989997.
HEINO, R.L. 2006. Sensory attributes of bakery products. In
Bakery Products: Science &Technology Chapter 16 (Y.H. Hui,
ed.) pp. 285298, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, ISBN:
9780813801872.
HEINO, R., LIUKKONEN, K.H., ATINA, K., MYLLYMKI, O.
and POUTANEN, K. 2003. Milling fractionation of rye
produces different sensory profiles of both flour and bread.
Lebensm. Wiss. U. Technol. 36, 577583.
IOOC. 2004. DECRETO 473/2004, de 28 de diciembre, por el que
se regula el Panel de Cata Oficial de Aceites Vrgenes de Oliva de
Catalua (DOGC de 30 de diciembre de 2004).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 1087:1990.
Sensory analysis. Terminology.

276

M. ELA

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 5492:1992.

Sensory analysis. Vocabulary.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
8586-1:1993. Sensory analyses. General guidance for the
selection, training and monitoring of assessors. Part 1: Selected
assessors.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
8586-2:1993. Sensory analysis. General guidance for the
selection, training and monitoring of assessors. Part 2: Experts.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 8589:1998.
Sensory analyses. General guidance for the design of test
rooms.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
16657:2007. Sensory analysis. Utensils. Tasting cup olive oil.
JENSEN, S., OESTDAL, H. and THYBO, A. 2010. Sensory
profiling of changes in wheat and whole wheat bread during a
prolonged period of storage. J. Sensory Studies 25, 231245.
KIHLBERG, I., JOHANSON, L., LANGSRUD, O. and RISVIK, E.
2004. Effects of information on liking bread. Food Qual. Prefer.
16, 2535.
KIHLBERG, L., JOHANSON, L., KOHLER, A. and RISVIK, E.
2006. Sensory qualities of whole wheat pan bread-influence of
farming system, milling and baking technique. J. Cereal Sci. 39,
6784.
KIRCHOFF, E. and SCHIEBERLE, P. 2001. Determination of key
aroma compounds in the crumb of a three-stage sourdough rye
bread by stable isotope dilution assays and sensory studies. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 49, 43044311.
LAMBERT, J.L., LE-BAIL, A., ZUNIGA, R.,
VAN-HAESENDONCK, I., VNZEVEREN, E., PETIT, C.,
ROSELL, M.C., COLLAR, C., CURIC, D., COLIC-BARIC, I.
ET AL. 2009. The attitudes of European consumers toward
innovation in bread; interest of the consumers toward selected
quality attributes. J. Sensory Studies 24, 204219.
LOTONG, V., CHAMBERS, E. and CHAMBERS, D.H. 2000.
Determination of the sensory attributes of wheat sourdough
bread. J. Sensory Studies 15, 309326.
MAITRE, I., SYMONEAUX, R., JOURJON, F. and MEHINAGIC,
E. 2010. Sensory typicality of wines: How scientists have
recently dealt with this subject? Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 726731.
PREZ-ELORTONDO, F.J., OJEDA, M., ALBISU, M.,
SALMERN, J., ETAYO, I. and MOLINA, M. 2006. Food
quality certification: An approach for the development of
accredited sensory evaluation methods. Food Qual. Prefer. 18,
425439.
ROMERO DEL CASTILLO, R., VALERO, J., CASAAS, F. and
COSTELL, E. 2008. Training, validation and maintenance of a
panel to evaluate the texture of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.). J. Sensory Studies 23, 303319.
SHOGREN, R.L., MOHAMED, A.A. and CARRIERE, C.J. 2003.
Sensory analysis of whole wheat/soy flour breads. J. Food Sci.
68(6), 21412145.
TALAVERA-BIANCHI, M. and CHAMBERS, D.H. 2008.
Simplified lexicon to describe flavor characteristics of western
European cheeses. J. Sensory Studies 23, 468484.

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. ELA

TEPPER, B.J., CHRISTENSEN, C.M. and CAO, J. 2001.

Development of brief methods to classify individuals by PROP
taster status. Physiol. Behav. 73, 571577.
TORJUSEN, H., SANGSTAD, L., ODOHERTY, K. and
KJRNES, U. 2004. European consumers conceptions of

Journal of Sensory Studies 26 (2011) 269277 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BREAD SENSORY ANALYSES

organic food. A Review of Available Research. Professional

Report n.4. National Institute for Consumer Research.
UNESCO, United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization 2010. Intangible heritage list. Mediterranean
Diet.

277