# Sensory Profile, Consumers' Perception and Liking of Wheat-Rye Bread Fortified with Dietary Fibre
## 3 Results
### Consumer Liking and Perception of DF Fortified Wheat-Rye bread
It was revealed that consumers' perception of the healthiness, naturalness, and attractiveness of DF-fortified bread increased in relation to DF concentrations in bread, following a similar pattern as in the case of consumers' liking (Table 5). The samples without DF and those fortified with 4% of DF were scored the lowest. They did not differ significantly in terms of all the attributes concerned, including willingness to buy and the maximum price consumers were willing to pay. The samples with 8-20% concentrations of DF did not differ in perceived attractiveness, but their healthiness and naturalness were significantly different. Samples with 16% and 20% of DF concentration did not differ in evaluation of all quality attributes except for healthiness. Consumers indicated that they would pay the highest price for bread fortified with 20% DF, but the differences between the samples with 12% and 16% of DF concentration were not significant. A similar relationship was observed in the case of willingness to buy DF-fortified bread. The highest scores for willingness to buy were recorded for breads fortified with 12%, 16%, and 20% of DF. There was no statisti \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attributes**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Bread Samples**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **0\% DF** & **4\% DF** & **8\% DF** & **12\% DF** & **16\% DF** & **20\% DF** \\ \hline Appearance & 4.48 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.57 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 5.10 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.28 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.51 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Odour & 4.51 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.57 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.97 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.19 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.36 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.58 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Taste/Flavour & 4.53 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.55 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.96 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.25 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.44 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.64 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Oral texture & 4.69 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.73 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.05 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Overall liking & 4.46 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.60 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 5.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.35 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.50 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The superscript letter indicates if significant differences exist between the mean values in rows (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Consumer liking of DF fortified bread. Figure 2: Sensory profile of the DF fortified wheat–rye breads. cal difference in terms of willingness to buy between samples with a 12-20% concentration of DF. Impact of Nutrition and Health Realted Information on Consmers' Percepton and Willigness to Buy Bread Fortified with DF  
The information included on the label did not significantly influence the perception of DF-fortified bread (Table 6). The sample without DF was scored the lowest in terms of all attributes, whereas the highest mean scores were obtained for the samples fortified with 12% DF that confirm the tendencies observed in the blind condition. Respondents also indicated the lowest willingness to buy bread without DF added, which was also reflected in the maximum price they wanted to pay for a standard package of 700 g. The samples labelled with information on ingredient \"source of dietary fibre\" were scored lower than samples labelled with information on the function of fibre, \"dietary fibre helps to maintain an appropriate body mass\", but the mean values did not differ regarding the type of information provided.