Relative Sweetness of Sucralose in Beverage Systems and Sensory Properties of Low Calorie Beverages Containing Sucralose

음료 system에서 수크랄로스의 상대당도 및 수크랄로스를 함유한 저열량 음료의 관능적 특성

  • Published : 2005.06.30

Abstract

Relative sweetness of sucralose, an intensive sweetener, to sucrose or fructose in binary model solution and beverage systems was examined. Sensory properties of sucralose solution, orange flavored beverage and sports drink containing sucralose were evaluated at the equi-sweetness to sucrose or fructose. Consumer acceptability tests were performed on orange flavored beverage. Relative sweetness of sucralose to sucrose was 350 and 500 in binary model solution and orange flavored beverage, respectively, while that of sucralose to fructose in sports drink was 550. All the sensory properties, except astringency, of sucralose solution examined were similar to those of sucrose solution. The sensory properties of orange flavored beverage, in which 50% sucrose was replaced with sucralose, were very close, and showed comparable or higher overall acceptability to that containing sucrose only. When fructose was replaced with sucralose in sports drink sour, salty and bitter tastes, metallic flavor, and astringency slightly increased.

Keywords

sucralose;relative sweetness;beverage;sensory properties;consumer acceptability

References

  1. Park SM, Lee SR. Estimation of the total dietary intake of saccharin by Korean population. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 24: 563-567(1992)
  2. Nelson AL. Properties of high intensity sweeteners pp. 17-29. In: Sweeteners Alternative. Eagan Press, St. Paul, MN, USA (2000)
  3. Jenner MR. Sucralose: unveiling its properties application, pp. 121-142. In: Progress in Sweeteners. Grenby TH (ed). Elsevier Applied Science, NY, USA (1989)
  4. Frank RA, Byram J. Taste-smell interactions are tastant and odor-ant dependent. Chem. Senses 13: 445-455 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/13.3.445
  5. Cardello HMAB, Dasilva MAPA, Damasio MH. Measurement of the relative sweetness of stevia extract, aspartame and cyclamate/ saccharin blend as compared to sucrose at different concentrations. Plant Foods Human Nutri. 54: 119-130 (1990)
  6. Prescott J, Johnstone V, Francis J. Odor-taste interactions: effects of attentional strategies during exposure. Chem. Senses 29: 331-340(2004) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjh036
  7. Nam SJ, Kim KO. Characteristics of sikhye (Korean traditional drink) made with different amount of cooked rice and malt and with different sweeteners. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 21: 197-202(1989)
  8. Burdach KJ, Kroeze JHA, Koster EP. Nasal, retronasal, and gustatory perception: an experimental comparison. Percep. Psychophys. 36:205-208(1984) https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206360
  9. Nelson AL. Special topices pp. 91-95. In: Sweetners: Alternative. Eagan Press, St. Paul, MN, USA (2000)
  10. Pong L, Johnson JM, Barbeau WE, Stewart DL. Evaluation of alternative fat and sweetener systems in cupcakes. Cereal Chem. 68:552-555(1991)
  11. Hess DA, Setser CS. Alternative systems for sweetening layer cakes using aspartame with and without fructose. Cereal Chem. 60:337-400(1983)
  12. Klaauw NJ, Frank RA. Scaling component intensities of complex stimuli: The influence of response alternatives. Environ. Intl. 22: 21-31 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(95)00100-X
  13. Nabors OL, Gelardi RC. Introduction, pp. 1-14. In: Alternative Sweeeners. Nabors OL, Gelardi RC (ed). Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY, USA (1985)
  14. Kim YH, Ann JH, Baek SC, Yu JH. Studies on the characteristics of non fat plain liquid yoghurt with low calorie sweeteners. Korean J. Dairy Sci. 16: 376-384 (1994)
  15. Wells AG. The use of intense sweeteners in soft drinks, pp. 169-214. In: Progress in Sweeteners. Grenby TH (ed). Elsevier Applied Science, NY, USA (1989)
  16. Powers NL, Pangborn RM. Descriptive analysis of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins contains containing sucrose of synthetic sweeteners. J. Food Sci. 43: 47-51 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1978.tb09733.x
  17. Hanger LY, Lotz A, Lepeniotis S. Descriptive profiles of selected high intensity sweeteners (HIS), HIS blends, and sucrose. J. Food Sci. 61: 456-464 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1996.tb14216.x
  18. Homier BE. Properties and stability of aspartame. Food Technol. 38: 50-55 (1984)
  19. Redlinger PA, Setser CS. Sensory qualoty of selected sweeteners: Aqueous and lipid model systems. J. Food Sci. 52: 451-454 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06637.x
  20. Kim KO, O'Mahony MA. New approach to category scales of intensity I: traditional versus rank-rating. J. Sensory Studies 13: 241-249(1998) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00086.x
  21. Ellis JW. Overview of sweeteners. J. Food Sci. 72: 671-675 (1995)
  22. Prescott J. Flavours as a psychological construct: implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Qual. Pref. 10: 349-356 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00048-2
  23. Kim SY, Oh DK, Kim SS, Kim CJ. New sweeteners used in sucrose-free cookies: Sugar alcohols and new sugar sweeteners. Food Sci.Ind. 29: 53-61 (1996)
  24. Walter GJ, Mitchell ML. Saccharin, pp. 15-41. In: Alternative Sweeteners. Nabors LO, Gelardi RC (ed). Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY, USA (1985)
  25. Hood LL, Campbell A. Developing reduced calorie bakery products with sucralose. Cereal Foods World 35: 1171-1182 (1990)
  26. Dalton P, Doolittle N, Nagata H, Breslin PAS. The merging of the senses: integration of subthreshold taste and smell. Nature Neurosci. 3:431-432(2000) https://doi.org/10.1038/74797
  27. Richard LB, Graham J. Stability of sucralose in baked goods. Food Technol. 44: 62-66 (1990)