The fatty acid composition of the lipids extracted from the bread prepared following the experimental design did not differ from the Control, whose fat source was the added fat and lipids of the wheat flour used, presenting the following fatty acid composition (in average), per 100 g lipids extracted: 2.25 g lauric acid

(C12:0), 1.35 g myristic acid (C14:0), 20.83 g palmitic Adriamycin acid (C16:0), 0.42 g palmitoleic acid (C16:1), 7.78 g stearic acid (C18:0), 33.46 g oleic acid and isomers (C18:1), 31.70 g linoleic acid and isomers (C18:2), 1.56 g linolenic acid and isomers (C18:3), 0.38 g arachidic acid (C20:0) and 0.27 g behenic acid (C22:0). There were no EPA and DHA fatty acids in the samples analyzed, indicating the integrity of the microcapsules after baking, as can be seen in Fig. 1. Table 2 presents the results obtained in the sensory acceptance test (appearance, aroma, flavor, texture and overall acceptance)

and in the purchase intention test of the white pan bread samples, conducted with 54 untrained panelists. All samples, when evaluated with respect to appearance, had sensory scores exceeding 6, classified between “liked slightly” and “liked selleckchem very much”. According to Serna-Saldivar et al. (2006), white pan bread enriched with microencapsulated DHA presented average values for the color parameter in the sensory analysis between “liked slightly” and “liked very much” in the course of 13 days of evaluation. The Samples 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 (in general, with higher concentrations of MO, ≥2.5 g/100 g) presented statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) from the Control, showing the effect on the appearance caused by the addition of microcapsules in high concentrations ( Table 2). There is a correlation with the data obtained in the instrumental analysis of color ( Table 1), indicating that the lower the lightness (L∗) and the higher the color saturation (C∗), the lower was the appearance acceptance. The mathematical model (R2 = 0.98; Fcalc/Ftab = 15.43) for the dependent variable Niclosamide appearance acceptance is shown in Equation (7). equation(7)

Appearance=6.67−0.11RE−0.29MO+02.21MO+0.13RE.MOAppearance=6.67−0.11RE−0.29MO+0.21MO2+0.13RE.MO It is possible to observe that increasing the concentrations of both MO and RE caused a decrease in the scores of appearance acceptance, within the ranges studied, with MO having a more pronounced effect. Of the 54 panelists, 5 included comments about the appearance of the samples, mentioning the presence of white spots and dark spots scattered on the slices, probably due to the microcapsules that resisted the processing of the bread and to the rosemary extract added in powdered form. Regarding aroma acceptance of bread, all the averages ranged from “liked slightly” to “liked very much”, with 4 panelists mentioning the existence of unusual smell or no smell of rosemary. Samples 1, 2, 5, 7, 10 and 11 (in general, with lower concentrations of MO, ≤2.