. 2022 Aug 10;11(16):2399. doi: 10.3390/foods11162399

Table 3.

Bread textural and sensory characteristics.

Protein Source	Type	Percentage of Addition (%) vs. Specific Volume	Texture Characteristics	Best Conditions	Color L* Crust	Color L* Crumb	Sensory Results	Reference
Lupine	Debittered Flour (DF)	10↑, 15↓, 20↓	↑ HA in DF and FF at 15–20% vs. control. ↓ CH in all treatments except in DF at 20%. ↓ SP, ↓ CO and ↓ RE in DF and FF.	FF at 20% but acidity should be masked.	↓ L* in DF and FF vs. control. Lighter DF vs. FF.	↓ L* in DF and FF vs. control. Lighter DF vs. FF.	↓ Acceptance of FF due to their acidic taste and flavor. DF was similar vs. control.	[15]
Lupine	Fermented Flour (FF)	10↑, 15↓, 20↓		FF at 20% but acidity should be masked.	↓ L* in DF and FF vs. control. Lighter DF vs. FF.	↓ L* in DF and FF vs. control. Lighter DF vs. FF.		[15]
Chickpea	Flour (CF)	15↓	Similar HA, CO and RE in all treatments vs. control.			↓ L* in SGF vs. all treatments.	Similar texture, color, odor, aroma, and overall acceptance in all treatments vs. control.	[55]
	Germinated Flour (GF)	15↓
	Selenium-fortified germinated flour (SGF)	15↓
Soy	Protein concentrate (SC)	5, 10, 15	↑ HA, ↑ CH and ↓CO in PC at all levels vs. control. Similar HA, CH and CO in SC vs. control. Similar SP in all treatments vs. control.	SP at 5–15%.		↓L* in al treatments vs. control. Lighter SC vs. PC.	↓ overall acceptability in all treatments. Darker crust and crumb color. Similar bitter and astringent flavors,↑ HA, ↑ adherence, ↑ GUM and ↑ CH in all treatments vs. control.	[11]
Pea	Protein concentrate (PC)	5, 10, 15		SP at 5–15%.		↓L* in al treatments vs. control. Lighter SC vs. PC.		[11]
Pea	Flour	30↓	↑ HA in all treatments vs. control. ↓ SP, ↓ CO and ↓ RE in all treatments vs. control.	TF at 30%.	↓ L* vs. control, were GRF was the darker.	↑ L* vs. control.		[14]
	Germinated Flour (GRF)	30↓
	Toasted flour (TF)	30↓
Faba bean	Sourdough/Flour (SRD)	30 ↓	↑ HA, ↓ CO, ↓ SP, ↓ CH and ↓ RE in FBF and SRD vs. control, where SRD was the hardest.	FBF at 30%.				[56]
Faba bean	Flour (FBF)	30 ↓		FBF at 30%.				[56]
Lupine	Flour (LF)	3↓, 6↓	↑ HA, ↑ CH in LF at 3 and 6% vs. control. ↓ HA in FLF at 3 and 6% and ↓ CH in FLF at 3%. Similar SP and RE in LF, and ↓ SP and ↓ RE in FLF vs. control.	FLF at 3%.			↑ color, flavor, and acidity in all treatments vs. control. ↓ taste in LF vs. control, but ↑ taste in FLF.	[44]
Lupine	Fermented Flour (FLF)	3↑, 6↑		FLF at 3%.				[44]
Soy	Protein hydrolysate (SH)	20↓	Similar HA vs. control.	SH at 20%.		↓ L* vs. control		[49]
Soy protein	Protein concentrate (CP)	2↓, 3↓, 4↓	↑ HA and ↑ CH in CP and 7S at 4% vs. control. Similar CO in AL except in 11S and 7S at 4% were it was lower.	<4% of 11S soy protein fraction.			↑ Exterior appearance and structure in 11S 2% and 3% vs. control, and similar at 4%. All treatments had similar taste and flavor. 11S at 3% was the best scored.	[45]
	Protein fraction (7S)	2↑, 3↑, 4↑
	Protein fraction (11S)	2↑, 3↑, 4↑
Amaranth	Flour (AF)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA and ↑ CH at 5, 10 and 15% vs. control. =SP and = CO in AL vs. control.	AF at 10%.	= L* vs. control.	= L* vs. control.	The best in overall acceptability was the control, then 5%, and the lower acceptability was 15% substitution.	[16]
Amaranth: A. spinosus	Flour (ASF)	25↓, 50↓	↑ HA, ↑ GUM and ↑ CH in all treatments vs. control. Similar CO in all treatments vs. control. ↑ SP in ASF and AHF at 25% vs. control.	AHF at 25%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control	All treatments indicate lower scores vs. control, were AHF present better acceptability vs. ASF.	[17]
Amaranth: A. hypochondriacus	Flour (AHF)	25↓, 50↓		AHF at 25%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control		[17]
Quinoa	Flour (QF)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA at all levels vs. control. ↓ SP, ↓ CO and ↓ RE at all levels vs. control.	QF at 10%.				[9]
Maize germ protein	Protein hydrolysate (MGPH)	1↑, 2↑, 4↑	Similar HA, CO and CO at 1% vs. control. ↓ HA, ↑ CO, ↓CH at 2 and 4% vs. control. Similar SP at all levels.	MGPH at 4%.	↓ L* vs. control.	= L* vs. control.	Similar color, taste, chewability, texture vs. control. ↓ Aroma score vs. control.	[8]
Gluten	Protein isolate (GI)	15↑	↓ HA in GI and CF vs. control. ↑ HA in the other treatments vs. control.	PI and GI at 15%.	↓ L* in all treatments, except ZI vs. control.			[12]
Zein	Protein isolate (ZI)	15↑
Potato	Protein isolate (PI)	15↑
Carob germ	Flour (CF)	15↑
Pea	Protein isolate (PI)	15↓
Lupine	Protein isolate (LI)	15↓
Faba bean	Flour (FBF)	15↓
Barley	Sourdough/Raw Flour (BRS)	20↑	↑ HA in all treatments, were quinoa present the hardest treatment. ↓ RE in all treatments vs. controls were chickpea present the lower value.	Barley and lentil treatments.			↑ Global index of the palatability, was higher in controls, BRS, BSS, and LSS, and lower in CRS, CSS, and QSS. In particular, the most appreciated bread was the control sourdough, while the lowest score corresponded to CSS.	[51]
Barley	Sourdough/Sprouted Flour (BSS)	20↓
Chickpea	Sourdough/Raw Flour (CRS)	20↓
Chickpea	Sourdough/Sprouted Flour (CSS)	20↓
Lentil	Sourdough/Raw Flour (LRS)	20↑
Lentil	Sourdough/Sprouted Flour (LSS)	20↓
Quinoa	Sourdough/Raw Flour (QRS)	20↓
Quinoa	Sourdough/Sprouted Flour (QSS)	20↓
Walnut	Flour (WF)	20↓, 30↓, 40↓, 50↓		WF at 30%.			↑ Overall acceptability 10% and 20% vs. control. ↓ crumb color score as addition increased. ↑ Crumb texture, taste and flavor in 10% and 20%, ↓ in 30% and 40%.	[46]
Apricot kernel	Flour (APF)	4↓, 8↓, 12↓, 24↓	↑ HA as addition increased vs. control, except at 5% substitution. Similar SP and CO in 4, 8, and 12%, and ↓ SP and CO at 24% vs. control.	APF at 8%.	↓ L* vs. control.	↓ L* vs. control.	Similar appearance, smell, crust color, taste, texture, and overall acceptability of bread at 4 an 8% vs. control.	[10]
Hemp	Sourdough/Flour (HSS)	5↑, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA all treatments vs. sourdough control. Similar RE in all treatments vs. sourdough control.	HSS at 10%.			Good sensory and texture properties still remain. Overall taste increased according to the amount HSS used.	[18]
Chia seed	Flour (CHF)	2, 4, 6	↓ HA in CHC at 4 and 6% and CHF at 4% vs. control. ↑ HA in CHF at 2 and 4%, and CHC at 2% vs. control.	CHF at 6%.		↓ L* vs. control. ↑ L* CHC vs. CHF.	All samples present better values vs. control. 2% chia powder was the best.	[57]
Chia seed	Cakes (CHC)	2, 4, 6		CHF at 6%.		↓ L* vs. control. ↑ L* CHC vs. CHF.		[57]
Grasshopper	Powder (GP)	10↓, 20↓	↓ HA and ↓ SP in all treatments vs. control. = CO in GP (AL) and GDP (AL) vs. control.	GP at 10%.			↓ Overall preference in GP at 20% and GDP at 20% vs. control. Similar in GP at 10% to control.	[21]
Grasshopper	Defatted Powder (GDP)	20↓		GP at 10%.				[21]
Mealworm	Powder (MP)	5, 10	↓ HA in all treatments vs. control.	MP at 5%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control	↓ Overall linking in all treatments vs. control.	[20]
Mealworm	Sourdough/Powder (MS)	5, 10	↓ HA in all treatments vs. control.	MP at 5%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control	↓ Overall linking in all treatments vs. control.	[20]
Cricket	Powder (CP)	10, 30		CP at 10%.			↓ Global linking score in all treatments vs. control. CS and CP at 30% present the lowest scores.	[19]
Cricket	Sourdough/Powder (CS)	10, 30		CP at 10%.				[19]
Cinereous cockroach	Powder (CIP)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA as addition increased vs. control.	CIP at 10%.	↓ L* vs. control.	↓ L* vs. control.	↓ Total score from external and internal characteristics, aroma, and taste in CIP at all levels vs. control.	[22]
Yoghurt	Crude (YG)	10↓, 20↓, 30↓, 50↓, 70↓	↓ HA in YG 10 -50% vs. control, but ↑ HA at 70 vs. control. ↑ HA in CC at all levels.	YG at 50%.			↑ Overall acceptability, color, flavor, taste, texture, and appearance in YG 50% and CC 30% addition vs. control.	[25]
Curd cheese	Crude (CC)	10↓, 20↓, 30↓, 50↓, 70↓		YG at 50%.				[25]
Whey protein	Protein concentrate (WC)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓, 20↑, 25↑, 30↑	↑ HA and ↑ CH in WC(AL) and SC at 15–30%, but ↓ HA and ↓ CH in SC at 5 and 10% vs. control. ↑ CO and ↑ GUM in WP at 15–30%. ↓ CO and ↑ GUM at SC at 25 and 30%. ↑ RE in WC at 15–30% and SC at 5–20%. And ↓ RE in WC at 5–10% and SC at SC at 25–30%. Similar SP in all treatments, except in SC at 20–30%.	WC and SC at 15%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control		[42]
Soy	Protein concentrate (SC)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓, 20↓, 25↓, 30↓		WC and SC at 15%.	↓ L* vs. control	↓ L* vs. control		[42]
Whey protein	Protein concentrate (WPC)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA in all treatments vs. control.	5% level incorporation of both milk treatments.	Darker vs. control.	Darker vs. control.	↓ Overall acceptability, crust and crumb color, texture, and flavor in all treatments vs. control.	[31]
Whey protein	Protein hydrolyzed (WPH)	5↑, 10↑, 15↑
Casein	Protein concentrate (CAC)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓
Casein	Protein hydrolyzed (CAH)	5↑, 10↑, 15↑
Strip loin beef	Powder (SLBP)	3, 5, 7, 10		SLBP at 3%.		↓ L* vs. control.	↓ Overall acceptability at all levels vs. control.	[47]
Labeobarbus fish	Powder (LP)	5, 10, 15, 20		LP at 10%			Similar overall acceptability at 5 and 10% vs. control. Similar color, texture, and taste in 5 and 10% vs. control. ↑ flavor score in 5 and 10% vs. control.	[58]
Anchovy	Protein hydrolyzed (AH)	1.46↑, 2.93↑, 5.85↑, 11.7↓	↑ HA and ↓ adhesiveness as substitution increased vs. control.	AH at 1.46%.			Higher AH concentrations indicated ↑ saltiness and sourness, but lower sweetness, crust color, crumb color, and moisture.	[52]
Salmon: Oncorhynchus tschawytscha	Powder (SFP)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA in all levels vs. control. ↓ CO, ↓ RE and ↓ SP all llevels vs. control. ↑ GUM and ↑ CH in 5 and 10% substitution, but ↓ GUM and ↓ CH 15% substitution vs. control.	SFP at 15%.	↓ L* vs. control.	↑ L* vs. control.		[23]
Tilapia-waste	Powder (TP)	2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20		TP at 5–10%.			↓ Overall linking in all levels vs. control. TP at >20% caused changes in sensory characteristics including appearance, aroma, flavor/taste, texture, and mouthfeel.	[24]
White button mushroom	Powder (WBP)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓	↑ HA in WBP(AL) and SMP at 10 and 15% vs. control. ↓ HA in PMP(AL) and SMF at 5%. ↓ SP in all treatments vs. control. ↓ GUM in WBP at 5 and 10%, SMP at 5% and PMP(AL) vs. control.	PMP at 10%.				[41]
Shiitake mushroom	Powder (SMP)	5↓, 10↓, 15↓
Porcini mushroom	Powder (PMP)	5↑, 10↑, 15↓
Algae: T. chuii	Powder (AP)	4↓, 8↓, 12↓, 16	↑ HA in all treatments vs. control. ↑ HA in AP vs. AE.	AP and AE at 12%				[48]
Algae: T. chuii	Extracted (AE)	4↓, 8↓, 12↓, 16↓	↑ HA in all treatments vs. control. ↑ HA in AP vs. AE.	AP and AE at 12%				[48]
Defatted soy (DSF) + Whey protein (WPC)	Mixed flour and powder	DSF:8.2 + WPC:3	↑ HA, ↑ CH and ↓ CO vs. control. Similar SP vs. control.	Mix of 88.8% wheat flour, 8.2% of DSF and 3% of WPC.			90% of participants had positive responses.	[28]
Lentin (L) + Pea (P) + Faba bean (FB)	Protein hydrolysate	L: 10 + P: 10 + FB: 10↓	Similar HA, RE and fracturability in 30% addition vs. controls.	Mix legume hydrolysate addition at 30%.	↓ L* vs. controls.		Sensory analysis demonstrated that the legume flours hydrolysate did not modify the scores vs. control.	[59]

↑, ↓ or = represent differences between treatments vs. control. Percentage of addition (%) vs. Specific Volume column present differences between treatments vs. control. TPA: Texture Profile Analysis. HA: Hardness and firmness, CH: Chewiness, CO: Cohesiveness, SP: Springiness, RE: Resilience, GUM: Gumminess, L*: Lightness. AL: All levels.