A Comprehensive Comparison of Gluten-Free Brewing Techniques: Differences in Gluten Reduction Ability, Analytical Attributes, and Hedonic Perception

IF 3 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Beverages Pub Date : 2023-02-14 DOI:10.3390/beverages9010018
Nazarena Cela, Nicola Condelli, G. Perretti, M. Di Cairano, J. De Clippeleer, F. Galgano, G. De Rouck
{"title":"A Comprehensive Comparison of Gluten-Free Brewing Techniques: Differences in Gluten Reduction Ability, Analytical Attributes, and Hedonic Perception","authors":"Nazarena Cela, Nicola Condelli, G. Perretti, M. Di Cairano, J. De Clippeleer, F. Galgano, G. De Rouck","doi":"10.3390/beverages9010018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study provides a comprehensive comparison among the most common gluten-free (GF) brewing practices, with a focus on the impact of each treatment on physicochemical parameters and consumer acceptability of the final beer. In addition, the influence of a longer cold maturation on the natural reduction of the gluten content was investigated. Prolyl endopeptidase addition was found to be the most effective treatment in reducing gluten levels (−75.93%), followed by silica gel (−53.09%), longer cold maturation (−4.32%), and tannins (−1.85%). Nonetheless, none of the treated beer samples was gluten-free (gluten content > 20 ppm) due to the high nitrogen content of the original wort. The silica gel application treatment affected the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the final beer the least. According to the difference from control test results, no significant difference in terms of overall liking, appearance, odor/aroma, or taste was observed between the silica gel-treated sample and control beer (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the application of enzymes and tannins significantly affected the appearance and the beer odor/aroma. Nevertheless, all beer samples received positive sensory acceptance scores.","PeriodicalId":8773,"journal":{"name":"Beverages","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beverages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages9010018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive comparison among the most common gluten-free (GF) brewing practices, with a focus on the impact of each treatment on physicochemical parameters and consumer acceptability of the final beer. In addition, the influence of a longer cold maturation on the natural reduction of the gluten content was investigated. Prolyl endopeptidase addition was found to be the most effective treatment in reducing gluten levels (−75.93%), followed by silica gel (−53.09%), longer cold maturation (−4.32%), and tannins (−1.85%). Nonetheless, none of the treated beer samples was gluten-free (gluten content > 20 ppm) due to the high nitrogen content of the original wort. The silica gel application treatment affected the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the final beer the least. According to the difference from control test results, no significant difference in terms of overall liking, appearance, odor/aroma, or taste was observed between the silica gel-treated sample and control beer (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the application of enzymes and tannins significantly affected the appearance and the beer odor/aroma. Nevertheless, all beer samples received positive sensory acceptance scores.
无谷蛋白酿造技术的综合比较:谷蛋白还原能力、分析属性和享乐感知的差异
本研究对最常见的无谷蛋白(GF)酿造方法进行了全面比较,重点研究了每种处理方法对最终啤酒的理化参数和消费者接受度的影响。此外,还研究了长时间冷熟对面筋含量自然还原的影响。添加脯氨酸内肽酶对降低面筋水平最有效(- 75.93%),其次是硅胶(- 53.09%)、延长冷熟时间(- 4.32%)和单宁(- 1.85%)。尽管如此,由于原始麦芽汁的高氮含量,处理过的啤酒样品都不含麸质(麸质含量约为20 ppm)。硅胶施放处理对成品啤酒理化和感官特性的影响最小。从与对照测试结果的差异来看,硅胶处理后的样品与对照啤酒在总体喜欢度、外观、气味/香气或口感方面均无显著差异(p < 0.05)。另一方面,酶和单宁的应用显著影响了啤酒的外观和气味/香气。然而,所有的啤酒样品都获得了积极的感官接受分数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Beverages
Beverages FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
68
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信