## 3 Results
### Sensorial Parameters  
On the basis of the two-way ANOVA calculated for all the parameters evaluated during tasting sessions (Table 10), the differences highlighted for both quantitative and hedonic parameters were significant for most of them, with the panelists and percentage of flaxseed cake used for fortification as main effects. In particular, in Figure 3, the mean values assigned to the quantitative parameters that showed a level of reliability are reported. The sensory profile of the cooked breads in terms of quantitative parameters appeared deeply influenced by the degree of fortification with flaxseed cake, with the main effect shown for the rheological properties of crumb (i.e., dimension and homogeneity of alveolation; adhesiveness and resistance to chewing) as well as the smell intensity and complexity of both crumb and crust (Figure 3). Figure 2: Hierarchical cluster analysis based on volatile compounds of breads (whole or sliced) as a function of % of flaxseed flour used for fortification. When the percentage of flaxseed cake used for fortification did not exceed 7.5% (see Breads 2 and 3), the organoleptic expression of fortified breads appeared improved by fortification if they were compared with traditional sourdough bread (see Bread 1). On the contrary, the worst sensory profile was attributed to Bread 4: when 10% of flaxseed cake was used for fortification, all the quantitative parameters evaluated by panelists appeared significantly worsened, with particular attention given to the frankness of the crumb's smell. While the hedonic features of a product are generally evaluated during consumer testing [53], in order to describe the hedonic behavior of the obtained breads, as reported in previous papers [50; 57], the panelists were also asked to evaluate some hedonic parameters related to view, smell, and taste of both crumb and crust as well as to visual attractiveness of the whole bread and overall pleasantness (Table 10). The median values of the hedonic scores that showed statistically significant differences are reported in Figure 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter Evaluated by Panelists** & \(p\)**-Value 1** & \(f\) & **LSD (Least Significant Difference)** \\ \hline Bread structure regularity & ** & 4.93 & 1.98 \\ Alveoli dimension (Crumb) & *** & 197.18 & 0.65 \\ Homogeneity of alveolation (Crumb) & *** & 8.35 & 2.46 \\ Smell intensity (Crumb) & * & 4.12 & 2.01 \\ Wheat smell (Crumb) & *** & 15.23 & 1.95 \\ Yeast smell (Crumb) & * & 2.40 & 1.52 \\ Pungent smell (Crumb) & ns & 0.71 & 2.51 \\ Frankness (Crumb) & ** & 6.26 & 1.89 \\ Salted taste (Crumb) & * & 3.26 & 1.39 \\ Acid taste (Crumb) & * & 2.92 & 1.49 \\ Bitter taste (Crumb) & ** & 6.27 & 1.75 \\ Aftertaste (Crumb) & * & 3.59 & 1.00 \\ Springiness (Crumb) & ** & 4.76 & 1.86 \\ Humidity of surface (Crumb) & * & 3.31 & 1.32 \\ Crumb residual after detachment & ns & 2.80 & 1.02 \\ Resistance to chewing (Crumb) & *** & 22.08 & 1.49 \\ Juiciness (Crumb) & * & 3.16 & 1.05 \\ Adhesiveness (Crumb) & *** & 9.10 & 1.72 \\ Crispiness (Crust) & * & 3.23 & 2.03 \\ Hardness (Crust) & * & 4.14 & 1.64 \\ Smell intensity (Crust) & *** & 10.75 & 1.40 \\ Salted taste (Crust) & ns & 2.47 & 1.75 \\ Toasted taste (Crust) & ** & 4.93 & 1.98 \\ Bitter taste (Crust) & ** & 5.25 & 2.02 \\ Aftertaste (Crust) & * & 2.88 & 1.14 \\ Attractiveness of shape (Whole bread) & ns & 2.28 & 2.69 \\ Visual attractiveness (Crumb) & * & 3.37 & 1.77 \\ Smell pleasantness (Crumb) & ** & 6.12 & 1.62 \\ Taste pleasantness (Crumb) & *** & 22.24 & 1.34 \\ Smell pleasantness (Crust) & *** & 15.32 & 1.49 \\ Taste pleasantness (Crust) & *** & 18.44 & 1.41 \\ Overall pleasantness & *** & 34.06 & 1.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: 1 Significance level *** \(p<0.001\) (\(f=7.10\)), ** \(p<0.01\) (\(f=4.43\)), * \(p<0.05\) (\(f=2.87\)); ns: not significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 10: ANOVA calculated for all the parameters evaluated by panelists during tasting sessions. Figure 4: Hedonic profile of cooked breads.