. 2023 Apr 26;60(8):2193–2203. doi: 10.1007/s13197-023-05746-8

Table 1.

Textural features, in situ antifungal activity and overall acceptability of the supplemented wheat breads

Bread samples	Crumb hardness (N)	Crumb porosity (%)	Specific volume (cm³/g)	Fungal growth (mm)	Overall acceptability
SFQ	5.35 ± 0.86^b	13.45 ± 0.07^b	1.99 ± 0.08^c	44.73 ± 0.83^a	3.50 ± 0.43^bc
CFQ	2.82 ± 0.22^c	14.90 ± 0.71^a	2.80 ± 0.04^ab	6.15 ± 0.07^f	3.63 ± 0.40^b
NFQ	5.74 ± 0.79^b	12.40 ± 0.14^bc	2.55 ± 0.04^b	21.73 ± 0.18^c	3.08 ± 0.31^c
RL	7.58 ± 0.63^a	11.70 ± 0.71^cd	2.55 ± 0.02^b	17.14 ± 0.02^d	3.71 ± 0.20^b
NFQ + RL	8.88 ± 0.45^a	10.75 ± 0.49^d	2.65 ± 0.11^ab	19.44 ± 0.57^d	3.17 ± 0.48^c
CFQ + RL	5.20 ± 0.12^b	13.15 ± 0.35^b	2.88 ± 0.06^a	12.44 ± 0.16^e	4.13 ± 0.43^a
Control	2.64 ± 0.40^c	11.10 ± 0.42^cd	2.88 ± 0.02^a	25.32 ± 0.00^b	4.06 ± 0.20^a
CP	3.33 ± 0.38^c	14.20 ± 0.99^a	2.92 ± 0.04^a	23.55 ± 1.88^b	4.25 ± 0.24^a

The different letters in each column are significantly different at P < 0.05. SFQ: spontaneous fermented quinoa, CFQ: controlled fermented quinoa, NFQ: non-fermented quinoa, RL: red lentil and CP: calcium propionate added bread samples compared to wheat bread as control