Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Shelf life estimation of brown pan bread: A consumer approach

a,*
Ana Giménez Paula Varela b, Ana Salvador b, Gastón Ares a,
,
Susana Fiszman b, Lorena Garitta c
a
Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Cátedra de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a de Alimentos, Facultad de Quı́mica, Av. General Flores 2124,
Montevideo C.P. 11800, Uruguay
b
Instituto de Agroquı́mica y Tecnologı́a de Alimentos (CSIC), Apartado de Correo 73, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
c
Instituto Superior Experimental de Tecnologı́a Alimentaria, H. Irigoyen 931, 6500 Nueve de Julio, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Received 25 April 2005; received in revised form 17 August 2005; accepted 28 September 2005
Available online 9 November 2005

Abstract

In this study three different approaches—acceptability limit, failure cut-off point methodology, and survival analysis—to estimate the
sensory shelf life of brown pan bread elaborated with different enzymes using consumer data were compared. The study was carried out
in Spain and Uruguay independently, where four batches of bread were produced, with the same base formulation, one without enzyme,
the others with the addition of maltogenic amylase, xylanase, and a mixture of both. The results showed that for Uruguayan consumers
the mixture of enzymes provided better results in extending shelf life than the addition of amylase alone. For the Spanish consumers only
the addition of amylase provided the desired results, and for consumers of both countries the use of xylanase did not extend the shelf life
of bread. Among the methodologies used for the estimation, survival analysis provided the most adequate predictions considering con-
sumer rejection of the product. Hedonic scales do not always reflect consumer behaviour when deciding whether to accept or reject a
certain product for its consumption.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Brown pan bread; Enzymes; Shelf life; Survival analysis; Cut-off point methodology; Acceptability

1. Introduction approach to staling rate reduction has been the use of

Bread staling is responsible for important economical
losses to both the baking industry and the consumer.
Although it has been extensively studied, it remains
unsolved. Staling is a general term that describes the
time-dependent loss in quality of flavour and texture of
bread. Bread staling is a complex phenomenon in which
multiple mechanisms operate (Gray & Bemiller, 2003).
The use of enzymes in the baking industry is mainly con-
cerned with retarding this phenomenon and extending
bread sensory quality throughout its shelf life, by acting
on major functional flour components (Armero & Collar,
1998; Collar & Armero, 1996). The most useful enzymatic
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 2924 5735; fax: +598 2924 1906.
E-mail address: agimenez@fq.edu.uy (A. Giménez).
alpha-amylases, which catalyse a small amount of hydroly-
sis of starch keeping bread freshness for a longer period of
time. Non-amylolytic enzymes may also be active in the
enzyme supplements although it is unclear whether
enzymes that degrade non-starch polysaccharides in bread
have any effect on bread staling (Van Eijk & Hille, 1996).
Xylanases hydrolyze pentosans present in wheat flour,
accelerating the baking of bread by helping to break down
polysaccharides in dough (Courtin & Delcour, 2002; Kulp,
1993). While Harada (2000) states that the use of these
enzymes extends shelf life of bread by retarding starch ret-
rogradation, Bollaı́n, Agioloni, and Collar (2005) reported
that xylanase promotes an increase in bread firmness with
storage time. Some synergistic effects of enzymes for dough
conditioning and in extension of shelf life have been stud-
ied for specific breadmaking processes (Collar, Andreu, &

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.017
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204
Martı́nez-Anaya, 1998; Collar, Martı́nez, Andreu, &
Armero, 2000; Haarasilta, Pullinen, Vaiasanen, & Tam-
mersaloKarsten, 1989; Qi Si, 1997; Sato, Sato, & Naga-
shima, 1991). Bollaı́n et al. (2005) have also reported that
the joint addition of xylanase and amylase improves bread
quality.
Food products do not have sensory shelf lives of their
own; rather they will depend on the interaction of the food
with the consumer. For this reason consumers are the most
appropriate tool for determining food product sensory
shelf life (Hough, Langohr, Gómez, & Curia, 2003).
Different methodologies could be used to determine the
shelf life of a food product, using consumer data. In the
failure cut-off point methodology, shelf life is determined
as the time when the first significant change in overall
acceptability is detected. At this time, consumers detect a
change in the sensory characteristics of the product with
respect to the fresh product. However, this does not mean
that consumers would refuse to consume the product.
Sensory shelf life could also be determined as the time
required for the overall acceptability scores of the product
to fall below a certain predetermined value, for example a
value of 6.0 in a 9-point structured hedonic scale (Muñoz,
Civille, & Carr, 1992). However, this methodology pro-
vides little information as to what consumers would nor-
mally do when facing the product.
In order to estimate sensory shelf life based on consumer
rejection of a food product, survival analysis could be
applied. This methodology focuses the shelf life risk on
the consumers rejection of the product. Survival analysis
has been used to estimate shelf life of some baked products
(Gámbaro, Fiszman, Giménez, Varela, & Salvador, 2004;
Gámbaro, Giménez, Varela, Garitta, & Hough, 2005), esti-
mating the product shelf life as the time necessary to reach
a fixed percentage of consumer rejection.
Comparison of failure criteria among consumers from
different countries would help to determine shelf life with
a more appropriate perspective (Hough et al., 2002).
The objectives of the present work were:
(a) To compare shelf life of brown pan bread manufac-
tured with amylase, xylanase and a mixture of both
in two different countries, using consumer data.
(b) To compare the suitability of different methodologies
currently used to estimate sensory shelf life of this
type of product: acceptability limit, failure cut-off
point methodology, and survival analysis.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Enzymes
Maltogenic amylase from Bacillus stearothermophilus of
intermediate thermo stability in granulate form (Novamyl
10000 BG, 10000 MANU/g) and xylanase from Ther-
momyces lanuginosus in granulate form (Pentopan Mono
197
BG, 2500 FXU/g), both from Novo Nordisk A/S,
Denmark.
2.2. Samples
The study was carried out independently in Spain and
Uruguay. Four batches of bread were manufactured in
each country, all having the same formulation but differ-
ing on the type of enzyme used. One batch was manufac-
tured without the addition of enzymes (control); one with
the addition of amylase, one with xylanase, and a fourth
one with a 1:1 mixture of amylase/xylanase. The amounts
of enzymes used in each country were selected according
to the flour employed in their manufacture. The quanti-
ties were: 30 mg/100 g of flour of xylanase in both coun-
tries, 30 mg/100 g of flour of maltogenic amylase in
Uruguay and 7.5 mg/100 g of flour of amylase in Spain.
The addition of maltogenic amylase was based on the
measure of native amylolitic activity of flour for each
country.
The ingredients used for the manufacture of bread were
those currently used in each country (mentioned in order of
quantity; Spain: water, wheat flour, wheat bran, sugar, veg-
etal hydrogenated oil, yeast, acetic acid, salt, dried whey,
calcium propionate. Uruguay: water, wheat flour, whole
wheat flour, wheat bran, corn syrup, gluten, yeast, salt,
powdered skimmed milk, vegetable hydrogenated oil,
honey, diacetyltartaric acid esters of mono and diglycerides
of fatty acids, and calcium propionate).
In Uruguay breads were industrially manufactured
(Walter M. Doldan y Cia. SA, Montevideo, Uruguay)
especially for the experiments; in Spain they were manufac-
tured in a pilot plant at the Instituto de Agroquı́mica y
Tecnologı́a de Alimentos, Valencia.
In both countries (Spain/Uruguay), the manufacturing
process consisted of making a sponge with half the flour,
half the water, and yeast, followed by mixing (10 min/
5 min), intermediate fermenting (2 h at 28 °C, 20 h at
5 °C and 1.5 h at 28 °C/3 h at 26 °C) before being added
to the dough. All the ingredients were then mixed
(60 rpm, 14 min/60 rpm, 12 min) until optimum dough
consistency was reached. The fermented doughs were
obtained by bulk fermentation (30 min/1 h), division
(600 g/500 g), rounding, resting (10 min/5 min), panning
and 1 h fermentation to maximum volume (1 h, 28 °C,
85%RH/1 h, 35 °C, 85%RH). Fermented dough was baked
at 180 °C for 20 min (tray oven/continuous industrial
oven), breads were then cooled for 2 h, sliced (12 mm
slices/20 mm slices), and packaged in polyethylene bags.
Breads were stored in a temperature-controlled storage
room at 20 °C (in Spain for 0, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 20 days,
and in Uruguay for 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 17 days). After
reaching the desired storage times, breads were frozen at
20 °C and stored at 18 °C, providing samples with dif-
ferent storage times from one batch for each formulation
(Gacula & Kubala, 1975). The samples were defrosted at
20 °C for 6 h, for its evaluation.
198 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204
When samples reached each of the desired storage times,
microbiological analysis (aerobic mesophiles, coliforms,
yeasts and molds) were performed in both countries prior
to freezing. These analyses showed that samples stored
for the longest times in each country were fit for human
consumption.
2.3. Consumer study
People who consumed brown pan bread at least once a
week were recruited for each country from the cities of
Montevideo, Uruguay and Valencia, Spain. In each coun-
try, 50 consumers, ages ranging between 18 and 50, evalu-
ated bread samples. The testing was carried out in four
sessions. In each session the consumers received the seven
samples corresponding to the seven storage times of each
of the four batches, using a balanced complete block
design.
For each sample they had to score overall acceptability
of the product using a 9-box scale labelled on the left with
‘‘dislike very much’’, in the middle with ‘‘indifferent’’ and
on the right with ‘‘like very much’’. They also answered
the question ‘‘Would you normally consume this product?’’
with a yes or a no (evaluation sheet shown in Fig. 1). It was
explained that this meant that if they bought the product or
it was served to them, whether they would consume it or
not.
The testing was carried out in both countries in sensory
laboratories that were designed in accordance with ISO
8589:1988.
2.4. Statistical analysis
A two factor (storage time and type of enzyme) analysis
of variance for all samples was performed on the overall
acceptability data obtained. Mean rating and Fishers
Least Significant Difference for each term were calculated.
EVALUATION SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS:
♦ You will evaluate 5 samples of BROWN PAN BREAD.
♦ Please try the first sample.
♦ Score the OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY of the sample using the scale and answer
the question.
♦ Continue with the other samples.
SAMPLE No___
Dislike very Indifferent
much
Would you normally consume this product? Yes
Fig. 1. Evaluation sheet.
A regression was carried out considering ‘‘% of accep-
tance’’ (calculated as the proportion of consumers who
accepted the sample, that answered ‘‘yes’’ to the question
‘‘would you normally consume this product?’’) as depen-
dent variable, and consumers ‘‘overall acceptability’’
(averaged over consumers) as explanatory variable. The
following equations were tested using linear and non-linear
regression:
Linear : % of acceptance ¼ a þ b  A
Exponential: % of acceptance ¼ a þ b  cA
 
b
Logistic: % of acceptance ¼ a þ
1 þ ecðAdÞ
where A is overall consumer acceptability, and a, b, c, d are
the regression constants.
All these analysis were performed using Genstat 5
Release 3.2 (Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted).
2.4.1. Failure cut-off point methodology
In this methodology shelf life is estimated considering as
failure point the first significant difference in overall accept-
ability. This point could be calculated using the following
equation (Hough et al., 2002):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  MSE
S ¼ F  Za ð1Þ
n
where S = minimum tolerable acceptability of stored sam-
ple; F = acceptability of fresh sample; Za = one-tailed
coordinate of the normal curve for a significance level;
MSE = mean square of the error derived from the analysis
of variance of the consumer data; n = number of
consumers.
2.4.2. Survival analysis
Survival analysis methodology was used to estimate the
shelf life of the four formulations of brown bread of the
two countries using the results obtained from consumers
Like very
much
No
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204
when asked if they would normally consume the samples
(Hough et al., 2003). The key concept of this methodology
is to focus the shelf life hazard on the consumer rejecting
the product.
Defining a random variable T as the storage time at
which the consumer rejects the sample, the survival func-
tion S(t) can be defined as the probability of a consumer
accepting a product beyond time t, that is S(t) = P(T > t).
Alternatively, the cumulative distribution function F(t) can
be defined as the probability of a consumer rejecting a
product before time t, that is F(t) = P(T 6 t).
Because of the discrete nature of the storage times, T
will never be observed exactly, hence the censored nature
of the data (Hough et al., 2003). Suppose that consumers
are presented with samples stored at times a, b and c. If a
consumer rejects the sample at the first storage time
observed, then T 6 a and the data is left-censored. If a con-
sumer accepts the sample stored at time a, but rejects the
sample stored at time b, then a < T 6 b and the data is
interval-censored. Finally, if a consumer accepts all sam-
ples, then T > c and the data is right-censored.
The likelihood function, which is used to estimate the
survival function, is the joint probability of the given obser-
vations of the n consumers (Klein & Moeschberger, 1997)
Y Y Y amylase/xylanase; Z4 = 0 otherwise; r is the shape param-
L¼ Sðri Þ  ð1  Sðli ÞÞ  ðSðli Þ  Sðri ÞÞ ð2Þ
i2R i2L i2I
where R is the set of right-censored observations, L is the
set of left-censored observations and I is the set of inter-
val-censored observations.
A parametric model can be used to estimate the survival
function and other quantities of interest. Choosing a log-
normal distribution for T (Klein & Moeschberger, 1997;
Lindsay, 1998), the rejection function is given by
 
lnðtÞ  l
SðtÞ ¼ 1  U ð3Þ
r
where U( Æ ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution
function, and l (location parameter) and r (shape param-
eter) are the models parameters.
The parameters of the model are obtained by maximiz-
ing the likelihood function (Eq. (2)). The likelihood func-
tion is a mathematical expression that describes the joint
probability of obtaining the data actually observed on
the subjects in the study as a function of the unknown
parameters of the model being considered. To estimate l
and r for the log-normal distribution, the likelihood func-
tion is maximized by replacing S(t) in Eq. (2) with the
expression given in Eq. (3).
Once the likelihood function has been established for a
given model, specialized software can be used to estimate
the parameters (l and r) that maximize the likelihood func-
tion for the given experimental data.
To estimate shelf life, the probability of a consumer
rejecting a product (that is, F(t)) must be chosen. Gacula
and Singh (1984) mentioned a nominal shelf life value con-
sidering 50% rejection, and Cardelli and Labuza (2001)
199
used this criterion in calculating shelf life of coffee. Gám-
baro et al. (2004), and Gámbaro et al. (2005) used 25%
rejection to estimate the shelf life of baked products. In
the present study, in order to be conservative and assure
product quality, shelf life was calculated for F(t) = 25%.
This means that if a consumer tries the product at the
end of its shelf life, there is a 25% probability that he will
reject it. Considering that few consumers will taste the
product near the end of its shelf life, and that of the few
that do 75% will still find the product acceptable, this value
of F(t) = 25% is considered reasonable from a practical
point of view.
For the Uruguayan and Spanish breads, in order to
establish if the enzyme addition influenced rejection times,
the following log linear regression model with inclusion of
indicator variables was applied (Klein & Moeschberger,
1997)
lnðT Þ ¼ l þ r  W ¼ b0 þ b1 Z 1 þ r  W ð4Þ
where T is the storage time at which a consumer rejects a
sample; b0, b1 are the regression coefficients; Zi is the indi-
cator variable indicating the type of enzyme: Z1 = 1 for
control, Z1 = 0 otherwise; Z2 = 1 for amylase, Z2 = 0
otherwise, Z3 = 1 for xylanase, Z3 = 0 otherwise, Z4 = 1
eter, which does not depend on the indicator variable; W is
the error distribution.
Calculations were performed using procedures from
S-PLUS statistical software (Insightful Corp., Seattle,
Washington, USA). A 5% significance level was considered.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Consumer acceptability
Consumers were asked to score bread samples with dif-
ferent storage times on overall acceptability hedonic scales.
Figs. 2 and 3 show average scores for Spanish and Uru-
guayan bread samples, respectively.
ANOVA results showed that for both countries, accept-
ability significantly decreased with storage time (p < 0.001),
as expected. For Spanish consumers, control bread overall
acceptability decreased during the first week, but then
remained constant until the end of the study. For Uru-
guayan consumers, overall acceptability also decreased
during the first week, remained constant till day 13 and
then decreased till the end of the tested time for control
bread.
Furthermore, enzyme addition significantly (p < 0.001)
affected consumer acceptability. A significant (p < 0.001)
interaction between the two factors (storage time and type
of enzyme) was found for both countries. For Spanish con-
sumers, the addition of amylase significantly (p < 0.05)
increased overall acceptability from day 13 of storage,
amylase/xylanase significantly (p < 0.05) increased accept-
ability between days 10 and 13 of storage, when compared
to control bread, whereas xylanase significantly (p < 0.05)
200 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204

9.0
Control
8.0 Amylase
Xylanase
7.0 Amylase:Xylanase

6.0
Acceptability

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Time (days)

Fig. 2. Consumer overall acceptability versus storage time for Spanish breads (mean ± standard deviation).

9.0
Control
8.0 Amylase
Xylanase
Amylase:Xylanase
7.0

6.0
Acceptability

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Time (days)

Fig. 3. Consumer overall acceptability versus storage time for Uruguayan breads (mean ± standard deviation).

decreased it from day 10 of storage. For Uruguayans,
bread formulated with amylase/xylanase significantly
(p < 0.05) increased overall acceptability from day 7, when
compared to control bread. The addition of amylase signif-
icantly (p < 0.05) increased acceptability from day 10 of
storage. However, xylanase did not significantly affect
acceptability with respect to control bread. Bread staling,
usually associated to an increase in crumb firmness, is
responsible for the decrease of consumer acceptance with
storage time. These results are in agreement with the
reports that suggest that the use of amylase or amylase/
xylanase decreased the staling rate (Bollaı́n et al., 2005;
Durán, Barber, & Benedito de Barber, 1995; Martin &
Hoseney, 1991). However, Spanish consumers appeared
to score low values also for breads supplemented with
xylanase alone as previously reported.
Acceptability scores could be related to percent con-
sumer rejection. A regression analysis was carried out con-
sidering the proportion of consumers who accepted the
sample as dependent variable, and consumer overall
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204
acceptability as explanatory variable. In both countries the
logistic regression gave the best fit (r2 = 0.77 and r2 = 0.84
for Uruguayan and Spanish data, respectively).
The equations for each country are
Uruguay: % of acceptance
 
0:716
¼ 0:352 þ
1 þ e1:531ðA5:761Þ
 
1:6
Spain: % of acceptance ¼ 1:088 
1 þ e0:73ðA3:3Þ
where A = overall acceptability.
Consumer rejection percent could then be calculated
from these equations as (100% of acceptance).
3.2. Shelf life estimation: comparison of different
failure criteria
3.2.1. Acceptability limit
Muñoz et al. (1992) considered an acceptability score of
6.0 in a 9-point hedonic scale as commercial or quality
limit. By using this acceptability score as failure criterion
to estimate shelf life with Eq. (5), consumer rejection per-
cent for this score would be 23% for Uruguayan consum-
ers. Performing a linear regression on acceptability scores
versus storage time (Gacula, 1975), shelf life could be esti-
mated as the storage time when acceptability reaches a
value of 6.0. Table 1 shows estimated shelf life with its con-
fidence intervals for each bread formulation. The use of
amylase/xylanase significantly increased shelf life of Uru-
guayan bread, whereas shelf lives of all other formulations
did not show significant differences with respect to the shelf
life of the control bread formulation.
This acceptability limit was too strict a criterion for
Spanish consumers of this product. Consumer rejection
percent for a score of 6 calculated applying Eq. (6) would
be 11% for Spanish consumers; since this value is too
low, this criterion could only be applied to Uruguayan
breads. Therefore, consumers in both countries behaved
differently. Spanish consumers showed a tendency to
decrease their overall acceptability scores while deciding
to accept the product. This suggests that shelf life decisions
based on an arbitrary acceptability limit might be taken
with caution as they do not always reflect consumers deci-
sion to accept or reject the product.
Table 1
Shelf life for Uruguayan bread estimated using consumer acceptability
score limit of 6.0
Formulation Shelf life (days) ± 95%
confidence intervals
Control 9±3
Amylase 11 ± 4
Xylanase 8±4
Amylase/xylanase 17 ± 4
201
3.2.2. Failure cut-off point methodology
The sensory failure cut-off point methodology (Hough
et al., 2002; Ramı́rez, Hough, & Contarini, 2001) provided
high values for the minimum tolerable acceptability, rang-
ing from 6.4 to 6.9 for all samples in both countries. Thus,
shelf life of samples would range from 1 to 5 days. As sta-
ted earlier, since this methodology reflects the time when
ð5Þ
consumers noticed the first significant difference in the sen-
sory characteristics of the product with respect to the fresh
ð6Þ one, estimated shelf lives were too short. It would be too
conservative a criterion to be used by the product manufac-
turer. Therefore, it is obvious that for the products consid-
ered in the present study, this methodology does not apply.
3.2.3. Survival analysis
Visual assessment of how parametric models adjust to
the non-parametric estimation was used to choose the most
adequate model (Hough et al., 2003). For the present data,
the following standard distributions were compared: small-
est extreme value, normal, logistic, Weibull, log-normal
and log-logistic. The log-normal distribution adjusted best
for all bread formulations. Therefore, it was chosen to
model rejection times for the present data.
The maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters of
the log-normal distribution for each bread formulation,
that is applying Eq. (3) with no indicator variables, is
shown in Table 2. The influence of indicator variables is
analyzed separately.
These parameters can be used to graph percent of con-
sumer rejection versus storage time of each bread formula-
tion as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. These graphs can be used to
estimate the shelf lives values (x-axis) with their confidence
intervals by entering with a 25% consumer rejection
(y-axis), as shown in Table 3.
For a 25% of consumer rejection, shelf lives estimated
ranged from 5 to 11 days for the different formulations
of Spanish bread, and from 8 to 16 days for Uruguayan
ones. It is worth pointing out that manufacturers give this
type of product a shelf life of 13 days in both countries,
regardless of their formulation or manufacturing practices.
Consumer rejection percent for control bread at day 13 was
50.3% for Spanish consumers and 42.0% for Uruguayan
consumers. Therefore, setting the shelf life of bread to 13
Table 2
Values of log-normal distribution parameters l (location parameter) and r
(shape parameter) and their confidence intervals for the failure function
for breads of both countries
Country Sample l ± standard error r ± standard error
Spain Control 2.55 ± 0.12 0.69 ± 0.12
Amylase 3.00 ± 0.18 0.86 ± 0.18
Xylanase 2.19 ± 0.16 0.92 ± 0.16
Amylase/xylanase 2.76 ± 0.11 0.55 ± 0.11
Uruguay Control 2.68 ± 0.10 0.59 ± 0.11
Amylase 2.76 ± 0.07 0.41 ± 0.08
Xylanase 2.79 ± 0.21 1.12 ± 0.24
Amylase/xylanase 3.04 ± 0.11 0.36 ± 0.13
202 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204

90
Control
Amylase
80 Xylanase
Amylase:Xylanase
70

60
Consumer rejection (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)

Fig. 4. Estimation of consumer rejection percent versus storage time for Spanish breads by survival analysis.

70
Control
Amylase
60
Xylanase
Amylase:Xylanase
50
Consumer rejection (%)

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (days)

Fig. 5. Estimation of consumer rejection percent versus storage time for Uruguayan breads by survival analysis.

days, without considering their formulation would proba-
bly lead to the manufacturer receiving more complaints
than expected.
As shown in Table 3, shelf life of Uruguayan bread man-
ufactured with amylase/xylanase was significantly longer
than control bread. These shelf life estimations are in
agreement with those estimated by using as failure criterion
an acceptability score of 6.0; however, confidence bands
are narrower.
Shelf lives estimated using survival analysis seemed
more reasonable for manufacturers than the ones estimated
using the failure cut-off point methodology for this type of
product. Survival analysis estimates shelf lives based on
consumer rejection, which could be related to the number
of complaints manufacturers might receive when the prod-
uct reaches the end of its shelf life. Therefore, shelf lives
decisions based on survival analysis might be more appro-
priate to manufacturers.
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204 203

3.2.3.1. Influence of indicator variables. To study the influ- acceptability scores when rejecting the product than
ence of ‘‘the type of enzyme’’ in consumer rejection time Uruguayan consumers; therefore, caution should be taken
distribution for each country, distributions for each formu- when making decisions regarding shelf life based on
lation were compared to the other three. Results are shown hedonic scores.
in Table 4.
For Uruguayan breads, significant differences were 4. Conclusions
found between the rejection time distributions of bread
manufactured with the mixture of enzymes when compared Evaluation of the shelf life of brown pan bread manu-
to the other three formulations. For Spanish breads, signif- factured with different enzymes systems from a consumer
icant differences were found for rejection time distribution standpoint was studied, providing information useful
of bread manufactured with amylase versus xylanase, amy- to the manufacturers regarding formulation of this type
lase versus control, and xylanase versus amylase/xylanase. of product. For Uruguayan consumers the mixture of
Uruguayan bread formulation with amylase/xylanase enzymes provided better results to bread than the addition
had lower rejection rates than the other three formulations. of amylase alone, extending the shelf life of the product.
Likewise, Spanish bread formulation with amylase had a For Spanish consumers bread formulated with only the
lower rejection rate than control bread. addition of amylase provided good results in extending
Using Eqs. (5) and (6), acceptability can be estimated for shelf life, and in both countries the use of xylanase did
the corresponding percentage of rejection commonly used not give the expected results.
in survival analysis, which is 25%. For Uruguay the corre- Of all the methodologies used to estimate the shelf life of
sponding acceptability value is 5.9, whereas for Spain the bread, survival analysis provided the most adequate predic-
corresponding acceptability value is 5.1. Consumers in each tions considering consumer rejection of the product. Even
country behave differently. Spanish consumers assign lower though hedonic scales could be used to estimate product
shelf life, they do not always reflect consumer behaviour
when deciding whether to accept or reject a certain product
Table 3 for its consumption. Spanish consumers showed a tendency
Shelf life values estimated for a 25% consumer rejection for breads of both to decrease their overall acceptability scores while accept-
countries ing the product to its consumption.
Country Formulation Shelf life (days) ± 95% In this work shelf lives estimated using the failure cut-off
confidence interval methodology were too conservative as to be used by
Spain Control 8±2 manufacturers.
Amylase 11 ± 3
Xylanase 5±2 Acknowledgements
Amylase/xylanase 11 ± 2
Uruguay Control 10 ± 2 The authors are indebted to CYTED (Proyecto XI.16.
Amylase 12 ± 2
Subprograma XI: Tratamiento y Conservación de Alimen-
Xylanase 8±3
Amylase/xylanase 16 ± 2 tos) and to the Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y
Tecnologı́a for financial support (Project AGL 2003-
09208-C03-02).

Table 4
References
Comparison between different bread formulations by rejection time
distribution
Armero, E., & Collar, C. (1998). Crumb firming kinetics of wheat breads
Country Formulation Rejection time with anti-staling additives. Journal of Cereal Science, 28, 165–174.
distribution Bollaı́n, C., Agioloni, A., & Collar, C. (2005). Bread staling assessment of
* enzyme-supplemented pan breads by dynamic and static deformation
Spain Amylase–control
** measurements. European Food Research and Technology, 220, 83–89.
Amylase–xylanase
Amylase–amylase/xylanase NS Cardelli, C., & Labuza, T. P. (2001). Application of Weibull hazard
Control–xylanase NS analysis to the determination of the shelf life of roasted and ground
Control–amylase/xylanase NS coffee. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie, 34, 273–278.
** Collar, C., Andreu, P., & Martı́nez-Anaya, M. A. (1998). Interactive
Amylase/xylanase–xylanase
effects of flour, starter and enzyme on bread dough machinability.
Uruguay Amylase–control NS Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel Untersuchung und Forschung, 207, 133–
Amylase–xylanase NS 139.
**
Amylase–amylase/xylanase Collar, C., & Armero, E. (1996). Physico-chemical mechanisms of bread
Control–xylanase NS staling during storage: Formulated doughs as a technological issue for
**
Control–amylase/xylanase improvement of bread functionality and keeping quality. Recent
**
Amylase/xylanase–xylanase Research Development in Nutrition, 1, 115–143.
NS: no significant difference. Collar, C., Martı́nez, J. C., Andreu, P., & Armero, E. (2000). Effects of
*
Significant difference (p < 0.05). enzyme associations on bread dough performance. A response surface
**
Significant difference (p < 0.01). analysis. Food Science and Technology International, 6(3), 217–226.
204 A. Giménez et al. / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 196–204
Courtin, C. W., & Delcour, J. A. (2002). Arabinoxylans and endoxylan-
ases in wheat flour bread-making. Journal of Cereal Science, 35,
225–243.
Durán, E., Barber, B., & Benedito de Barber, C. (1995). Low molecular
weight dextrins content in bread crumb as related to bread staling.
Proceedings of EuroFood Chem, 2, 324–328.
Gacula, M. C. Jr., (1975). The design of experiments for shelf life study.
Journal of Food Science, 40, 399–403.
Gacula, M. C., Jr., & Kubala, J. J. (1975). Statistical models for shelf-life
failures. Journal of Food Science, 40(2), 404–409.
Gacula, M. C., Jr., & Singh, J. (1984). Statistical methods in food and
consumers research. New York: Academic Press, 505pp.
Gámbaro, A., Fiszman, S., Giménez, A., Varela, P., & Salvador, A.
(2004). Consumer acceptability compared with sensory and instru-
mental measures of white pan bread: sensory shelf-life estimation by
survival análisis. Journal of Food Science, 69(9), 401–405.
Gámbaro, A., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Garitta, L., & Hough, G. (2005).
Sensory shelf-life estimation of alfajor by survival analysis. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 19, 500–509.
Gray, J. A., & Bemiller, J. N. (2003). Bread Staling: Molecular basis and
control. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2,
1–21.
Haarasilta, S., Pullinen, T., Vaiasanen, S., & TammersaloKarsten, I.
(1989). Enzyme product and method of improving the properties of
dough and the quality of bread. United States Patent 4,990,343.
Harada, O. (2000). Effects of commercial hydrolytic enzyme additives on
Canadian short process bread properties and processing characteris-
tics. Cereal Chemistry, 77(1), 70–76.
Hough, G., Langohr, K., Gómez, G., & Curia, A. (2003). Survival analysis
applied to sensory shelf life of foods. Journal of Food Science, 68,
359–362.
Hough, G., Sánchez, R. H., Garbarini de Pablo, G., Sánchez, R. G.,
Calderón Villaplana, S., Giménez, A. M., et al. (2002). Consumer
acceptability versus trained sensory panel scores of powdered milk
shelf-life defects. Journal of Dairy Science, 85(9), 1–6.
ISO (1988). Sensory analysis. General guidance for the design of test
rooms. ISO 8589:1988, Geneva, Switzerland.
Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (1997). Survival analysis, a self
learning text. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kulp, K. (1993). Enzymes as dough improver. In B. S. Kamel & C. E.
Stauffer (Eds.), Advances in baking technology (pp. 153–178). London,
UK: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Lindsay, J. K. (1998). A study of interval censoring in parametric
regression models. Lifetime Data Analysis, 4, 329–354.
Martin, M. L., & Hoseney, R. C. (1991). A mechanism of bread firming.
II. Role of starch hydrolysing enzymes. Cereal Chemistry, 68, 503–
507.
Muñoz, A. M., Civille, V. G., & Carr, B. T. (1992). Sensory evaluation in
quality control. Reinhold USA: Van Mostrand.
Qi Si, J. (1997). Synergistic effect of enzymes for breadmaking. Cereal
Foods World, 42, 802–807.
Ramı́rez, G., Hough, G., & Contarini, A. (2001). Influence of temperature
and light exposure on sensory shelf life of a commercial sunflower oil.
Journal of Food Quality, 24, 195–204.
Sato, N., Sato, M., & Nagashima, A. (1991). Effect of an enzyme
preparation containing pentosanasas on the breadmaking quality of
flours in relation to changes in pentosan properties. Journal of Cereal
Science, 19, 259–272.
Van Eijk, J. H., & Hille, J. D. R. (1996). Nonamylolitic enzymes. In R. E.
Hebeda & H. Zobel (Eds.), Beked Goods Freshness (pp. 131–150). New
York: Marcel Dekker.