Brar Japneet, Kumar Rajesh, Talavera Martin J
Sensory and Consumer Research Center, Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics, and Health, Kansas State University, Olathe, KS 66061, USA.
Foods. 2025 Aug 26;14(17):2972. doi: 10.3390/foods14172972.
Despite the continued growth of the gluten-free food market, there is a dearth of sensory and consumer knowledge on commercial products. The existing research is mostly limited to hedonic measurements and ingredient effects instead of analytical methods for a better understanding of product characteristics of gluten-free crackers specifically. In this work, a semi-trained consumer panel used projective mapping to choose objectively different plain/original crackers from a pool of sixteen commercial gluten-free cracker varieties. The cracker samples represented a widespread sensory space originating from different key ingredients such as brown rice, white rice, flaxseed, cassava flour, nut flour blend, millet blend, and tapioca/potato starch blend. Based on projective mapping results, the crackers that mostly represented the sensory space were selected for characterization by a modified flash profiling method. The consumer panel developed 74 descriptors: 30 aromas, 28 flavors, 15 texture terms, and a mouthfeel attribute. The samples were monadically rated for intensity on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 = high). Rice, toasted, salt, grain, burnt, flaxseed, bitter, earthy, nutty, seeds, and grass were the prevalent aromas and flavors. Others were specific to cracker type. Some of these attributes can be traced back to the ingredients list. Results suggest that ingredients used in small portions are defining the flavor properties over the major grains/flour blends. All samples had some degree of crunchiness, crispness, and pasty mouthfeel; rice crackers were particularly firm, hard, and chewy; brown rice crackers were gritty; crackers with tuber starches/flours were more airy, soft, smooth, and flaky. Overall, the samples shared more aroma and flavor notes than texture attributes. In comparison to trained panel results, consumers generated a greater number of terms and were successful in finding subtle differences primarily in texture but had many overlapped flavors. The developed consumer terminology will facilitate the gluten-free industry to tailor communication that better resonates with consumer experiences, needs, and product values.
尽管无麸质食品市场持续增长,但关于商业产品的感官和消费者认知却很匮乏。现有研究大多局限于享乐测量和成分影响,而非用于更好地了解无麸质饼干产品特性的分析方法。在这项研究中,一个经过半培训的消费者小组使用投射映射从16种市售无麸质饼干品种中客观地挑选出不同的原味/原始饼干。饼干样品代表了一个广泛的感官空间,其源自不同的关键成分,如糙米、白米、亚麻籽、木薯粉、混合坚果粉、混合小米粉以及木薯/马铃薯淀粉混合物。基于投射映射结果,选择最能代表该感官空间的饼干,通过改良的快速剖析法进行特性描述。消费者小组制定了74个描述词:30种香气、28种风味、15种质地术语以及一种口感属性。样品在4分制量表上进行单项强度评分(0 = 无,1 = 低,2 = 中,3 = 高)。米饭味、烤香、盐味、谷物味、焦糊味、亚麻籽味、苦味、土腥味、坚果味、籽味和草味是常见的香气和风味。其他的则特定于饼干类型。其中一些属性可以追溯到成分列表。结果表明,少量使用的成分决定了风味特性,而非主要的谷物/面粉混合物。所有样品都有一定程度的脆度、酥脆度和糊状口感;米饼特别紧实、坚硬且有嚼劲;糙米饼干有颗粒感;含有块茎淀粉/面粉的饼干更蓬松、柔软、光滑且酥脆。总体而言,样品之间共享的香气和风味特征比质地属性更多。与经过培训的小组结果相比,消费者生成了更多的术语,并且成功地发现了主要在质地上的细微差异,但有许多重叠的风味。所开发的消费者术语将有助于无麸质食品行业调整沟通方式,使其更好地与消费者的体验、需求和产品价值相呼应。