Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

LWT 40 (2007) 807814

Characteristics of wild blueberrysoy beverages

R.M. Potter
, M.P. Dougherty
, W.A. Halteman
, M.E. Camire
B. Potter Wine Chocolates, LLC, P.O. Box 36, Yarmouth, ME 04096, USA
Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition, 5735 Hitchner Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5735, USA
Department of Mathematics & Statistics, 5752 Neville Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5752, USA
Received 21 December 2005; received in revised form 17 April 2006; accepted 18 April 2006
Wild or lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) and soybeans (Glycine max L.) contain a variety of health-protective
phytochemicals. The avor of blueberries could mask beany avors in soy beverages and thus broaden the appeal of soy. Four
formulations were tested in a 2 2 design. Two sources of soy protein (isolate and soymilk powder) and two sweeteners (brown rice
syrup and a blend of apple and white grape juice concentrates) were evaluated. All formulations contained 12 g wild blueberry juice
concentrate per 100 g total. Total anthocyanins and phenolics were measured spectrophotometrically; antioxidant activity was assessed
with the DPPH method. Color, soluble solids, titratable acidity (TA), viscosity, and pH were also measured. A ten-person descriptive
panel evaluated avor, aroma, and textural attributes. Sixty-ve consumers rated color, avor, texture, and overall acceptability.
Pasteurized beverages averaged 35 mg of anthocyanins per 100 g. TA and Brix/acid ratio were highest in the soy isolate-juice blend
product. Viscosity was lowest in the soy isolate and rice syrup formulation. The descriptive panel rated the isolate-juice sample as having
more sweetness and blueberry avor; soymilk samples had higher painty, nutty, and chalky ratings. Only the isolate-juice blend received
mean hedonic scores above like slightly.
r 2006 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Blueberry; Soy; Beverage; Descriptive analysis; Hedonic
1. Introduction
Lowbush or wild blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium
Ait.) are native to northeastern Maine and Canada. While
highbush or cultivated blueberries (V. corymbosum L.)
dominate the fresh market, most lowbush blueberries are
frozen upon harvest and then used primarily as an
ingredient in processed foods such as baked goods, dairy
products and juice beverages. Wild (or lowbush) blue-
berries and soy have received much media attention for
their purported health benets. Both foods contain
numerous antioxidants and other phytochemicals.
Soy beverages blended with fruit juices are a new
generation of soy products and are a convenient way to
include soy protein in the regular diet. Soy beverage sales in
the United States have more than doubled since 2000, and
soy-fruit beverages have become an important market
category with annual sales of over $100 million (Beverage
Marketing Corporation of New York, 2005). However,
despite increased consumer acceptance and consumption of
soy beverages, the industry is still faced with challenges in
product development. Wansink (2003) observed that
consumers rated a bar labeled as containing 10 g of soy
protein lower in acceptability than bars made with the
same nonsoy ingredients, but labeled as containing 10 g of
protein. He concluded that the power of suggestion may
play a role in consumer acceptance of soy food since the
bars in his study contained no soy. The United Soybean
Board (2005) reported that taste is the primary reason why
18% of 1000 surveyed consumers exclude soy products
from their regular diet. A negative attitude towards soy
avor was found to be the primary factor for soy rejection
by women (Rah, Hasler, Painer, & Chapman-Novakofski,
2004). Soymilks and other soy beverages are often
characterized as having unbalanced beany avors and
chalky mouthfeel. Therefore, formulation changes that
enhance the overall avor and textural characteristics of
0023-6438/$30.00 r 2006 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 207 581 1627; fax: +1 207 581 1636.
E-mail address: (M.E. Camire).
soy beverages may be necessary to further increase soy
Although research publications demonstrating health
benets of wild blueberries are emerging (Camire, 2000),
there is currently no approved health claim for wild
blueberries. In 1999, the US Food and Drug Administra-
tion approved a health claim for soy protein and reduced
risk for cardiovascular disease that can be displayed on the
packaging of various products that are low in total fat,
saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium (Federal Register,
1999). At least 6.25 g of soy protein must be provided by
one serving of the product in order to bear the claim. The
labels of foods that display the soy health claim must also
specify the contribution a serving of the product makes to
the current recommendation of 25 g or more of soy protein
per day. The scientic evidence for the current daily
recommendation and the health claim is based on an
analysis of numerous soy protein studies (Anderson,
Johnstone, & Cook-Newell, 1995). The FDA claim
pertains to those individuals with hypercholesterolemia
(45.7 mmol/l), since the current recommended soy protein
intake has been associated with a reduction in risk factors
for cardiovascular disease such as: elevated cholesterol,
triglycerides, and LDL-cholesterol levels. Messina and
Messina (2003) reviewed the literature since the soy health
claims approval, and recommended that adults who have
normal cholesterol levels consume approximately 15 g of
soy protein and 50 mg isoavones per day. A recent meta-
analysis concluded that consumption of soy protein isolate
also protects against several types of cancer by a variety of
mechanisms (Badger, Ronis, Simmen, & Simmen, 2005).
Although wild blueberry production has increased in
general over the past 10 years, the total value of production
has declined recently due to increased competition from
cultivated blueberry production in other US states and
abroad (Economic Research Service, 2003). A large crop of
wild berries in Canada also depressed fruit prices. The
Maine wild blueberry industry received a grant from the
Maine Technology Institute to explore opportunities to
increase the use of wild blueberries with soy products. The
rst objective of this project was to develop formulations
containing wild blueberry ingredients with sufcient soy
protein (6.25 g per serving) to qualify for the health claim
for soy protein and reduced risks for cardiovascular
disease. The second objective of the study was to
characterize chemical, physical and sensory properties of
the beverages, and the nal objective was creation of a
beverage with high consumer acceptability.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material
Blueberry juice concentrate (681 Brix) was provided by
Maine Wild Blueberry Co., Machias, ME. Soymilk powder
was provided by Devansoy Inc. (Carroll, IL) and soy
protein isolate (PRO-FAM 825) was provided by ADM
(Decatur, IL). Pectin stabilizer (Unipectine AYD 550) was
supplied by Degussa Food Ingredients Business Line
Texturants (Atlanta, GA). Tree Top (Prosser, WA)
donated the apple juice concentrate (701 Brix) and Welch
Foods Inc. (Concord, MA) donated the white grape juice
concentrate (571 Brix). Brown rice syrup (BRSMC35, 781
Brix) was supplied by California Natural Products
(Lathrop, CA).
2.2. Beverage preparation
Four formulations (Table 1) were processed in duplicate
according to processing procedures recommended by the
two soy ingredient suppliers. Soy protein ingredients used
were soy protein isolate (2.8 g/100 g total formula) or
soymilk powder (5.4 g/100 g). During initial formulation
work, it was determined that the avor of the brown rice
syrup would mask the avor of the blueberry juice
concentrate if used at a concentration of 10 g/100 g. The
mixture of apple and white grape juice concentrates did not
mask blueberry avor at a concentration of 15 g/100 g.
Thus, the decision was made to use each sweetener at the
maximum level at which blueberry avor was detectable
during benchtop evaluations.
Beverage preparation, pasteurization, and packaging
were conducted in the University of Maine Food Proces-
sing Pilot Plant. All ingredients were mixed with a large
whisk in a 70 l stainless steel kettle at room temperature.
Mixing began with hydration of soy protein with tepid tap
Table 1
Formulations of wild blueberry soy beverages (g/100 g)
Ingredients Soy protein isolate Soymilk powder
Juice concentrate Brown rice syrup Juice concentrate Brown rice syrup
Soy isolate 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0
Soy powder 0.0 0.0 5.4 5.4
Blueberry juice concentrate 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Pectin 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Brown rice syrup 0.0 8.4 0.0 8.1
Apple juice concentrate 8.5 0.0 8.3 0.0
White grape juice concentrate 7.9 0.0 7.7 0.0
Tap water 68.7 76.4 66.8 74.3
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 808
water followed by additions of stabilizer, sweetener, and
blueberry juice concentrate. Total processing batch volume
was 60.6 l. Formulations were not homogenized. A sample
of raw product for each batch was collected and packaged
in a sanitized plastic 1.89 l container separately from the
nished product to permit evaluation of the effects of
pasteurization on phytochemicals. The soy protein isolate
beverage formulations underwent HTST pasteurization
using an MFP-144 Skid Mount Pasteurizer (Goodnature
Products, Inc., Buffalo, NY) at 8788 1C for approximately
30 s. The soymilk powder formulations were HTST
pasteurized with the same equipment at 77 1C for
approximately 15 s. The different processing parameters
were based on guidelines provided by the two soy
ingredient suppliers. The pasteurized beverages were
pumped directly into a chlorine-sanitized 55 l fermentor
(Fermenator, Blichmann Engineering LLC, Lafayette, IN)
and were then dispensed into sanitized food-grade plastic
1.89 l containers with screw and snap lids (Quality
Container of New England Inc., Yarmouth, ME). The
fermentor and containers were sanitized with a 10%
chlorine bleach solution prior to processing. The containers
were not rinsed after sanitization. All raw and pasteurized
beverages were then refrigerated at 3 1C until analysis or
sensory evaluation.
2.3. Chemical analyses
An Atago PR-101 digital refractometer measured
degrees Brix at 24 1C. A Corning 240 pH meter was used
to measure pH of samples. Beverages were diluted 1:10
with distilled water and titrated to a phenolphthalein
endpoint of 8.1 with 0.1 mol/l NaOH. Titratable acidity
(TA) was calculated as g citric acid per 100 ml (AOAC,
On the same day that pasteurization occurred, antho-
cyanins were extracted from each raw and pasteurized
beverage in triplicate (Francis, Harborne, & Barker ,1966).
Approximately 1.0 g beverage was extracted with 10 ml of
80% aqueous methanol (MeOH) containing 1 g/100 g HCl
for 1 h at room temperature with continuous mixing on a
stir bar plate. The beverage samples were then centrifuged
at 2200g Relative Centrifugal Force for approximately
15 min using a Beckman TJ-6 centrifuge (Beckman Instru-
ments, Inc. Fullerton, CA). The supernatant was decanted,
the pellet re-extracted under the same conditions, and the
two supernatants were combined. All supernatant samples
were stored in capped 20 ml glass vials at 3 1C.
On the day after extraction, total anthocyanin content of
the beverage supernatants was measured using the pH
differential method (Wrolstad, 1976). Beverages were
diluted 1:1 with HCl buffer solution so that the absorbance
reading at 510 nm, which is the wavelength of maximum
absorption for anthocyanins, was less than 1.0 absorption
units. All absorbances were measured with a Beckman
DU-64 spectrophotometer. The absorbances of the bev-
erages were measured at both pH 1.0 and 4.5 using HCl
buffer solutions and a Corning M240 pH meter (Corning
Science Products, Corning, NY). Haze or sediment in the
diluted beverage samples was corrected for by measuring
the absorbance at 700 nm and subtracting that absorbance
from the absorbance reading at 510 nm. Although delphi-
nidin glycosides are the predominant anthocyanins in
lowbush blueberries, malvidin-3-glucose was used as a
reference compound with a molar absorbance of 28,000
and molecular weight of the pigment (493.5 g) to calculate
the concentration of monomeric anthocyanin pigments
(mg/l) in the beverages, as recommended by Wrolstad
Extracts from anthocyanin analysis were reacted with
Folin & Ciocalteaus reagent and read at 725 nm to
estimate total phenolics as described by Velioglu, Mazza,
Gao, and Oomah (1998). Ferulic acid standards were used
to generate a standard curve.
The 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical (DPPH)
assay (Miller, Rigelhof, Marquart, Prakash, & Kanter,
2000) was used to evaluate total antioxidant capacity in the
beverages, with Trolox as a reference antioxidant. Absor-
bances were read at 517 nm.
Color and chemical analyses for anthocyanins, total
phenolics, antioxidant activity, and pH were conducted at
approximately 30 days post-pasteurization.
2.3.1. Color
The color of the beverages was evaluated using a
HunterLab Labscan XE 0/45 spectrophotometer (Hunter
Associated Lab, Inc., Reston, VA). CIE L, a, and b
values were obtained in triplicate for each beverage. Each
sample was placed in 6 cm-diameter cup tted with a 1-mm
black rubber ring. The sample cup was lled up to the level
of the ring at room temperature. A black cover was placed
over the cup prior to measurement, and following three 901
rotations, an average of 3 readings was taken.
2.4. Viscosity
The viscosity of the beverages was measured in triplicate
using a CannonFenske # 200 routine viscometer (Cannon
Instrument Co., State College, PA) at room temperature.
The kinematic viscosity (mm
/s(cSt)) was calculated by
multiplying the efux time by the viscometer constant
(ASTM method D 445, IP 71 and ISO 3104).
2.5. Descriptive sensory analysis
Sensory evaluation procedures were approved by the
UM College of Natural Sciences, Forestry & Agriculture
Human Subjects Protection Committee. Data were col-
lected directly from computers equipped with SIMS200
software (version 3.3, Sensory Computer Systems, Morris-
town, NJ). Potential panelists were screened for sensory
acuity and availability. Using the Spectrum method
(Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr, 1999), 10 panelists (4 males,
6 females) were trained in nine 1-h sessions to evaluate
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 809
basic taste, texture, and avor characteristics of soy
beverages. A list of characteristics and references developed
during training (Table 2); some food products were used as
references for more than one attribute. After completion of
this study, NKouka, Klein, and Lee (2004) published a
lexicon for descriptive analysis of soymilks that comple-
ments the scale used. The 10 panelists evaluated four soy
beverage samples in duplicate approximately 1 week after
processing. During the sessions, four different 120 ml
samples each labeled with a 3-digit random code were
presented in random order to each panelist. All samples
were served at 13 1C in separate 177 ml glasses. A second
descriptive analysis of the beverages was conducted with
seven of ten panel members approximately 1 month after
refrigerated storage (3 1C).
2.6. Consumer evaluation
Sixty-eight members of the University and local com-
munities participated in a hedonic evaluation of the
beverages. Peryam and Pilgrims (1957) 9-point hedonic
scale was used for color, avor, mouthfeel and overall
acceptability. Four 120-ml samples each labeled with a 3-
digit random code were presented in random order to each
consumer using SIMS 2000 software. All samples were
served at 13 1C in separate 177 ml glass cups. Spring water
was used to cleanse palates between samples. Consumers
were also asked several demographic questions related to
their consumption of soy beverages.
2.7. Statistical analyses
Physical, chemical and sensory measurements were
analysed using the general linear model (GLM) of
SYSTAT software version 11.0 (SYSTAT, Evanston IL).
Tukeys HSD test was used to make multiple mean
comparisons among the different beverage formulations
after pasteurization and over time (Po0:05). A multi-
variate analysis of the descriptive and consumer sensory
data means was conducted using a principal components
analysis (PCA) factor analysis with the Unscrambler
version 7.6 (Camo Inc., Woodbridge, NJ). Factor loadings
of all sensory attributes and individual formulation scores
were combined into one bi-plot of PCA 1 and 2.
Table 2
Descriptive analysis terms and reference materials
Reference material Characteristic Intensity score
Boiled linseed oil (Sterling Clark Lurton Corp., Malden, MA) Painty aroma 14.5
Hexanal 98% (Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., Milwaukee, WI) Green grassy aroma 12.5
Wymans blueberry juice (Jasper Wyman & Son, Milbridge, ME) Blueberry avor 8
Wymans blueberry juice Sweet taste 8
Blueberry pie lling (Knouse Foods Inc., Peach Glen, PA) Bitter taste 2
100% Cranberry juice (Knudsen & Sons Inc., Chico, CA) Bitter taste 14
Cranberry juice Sour taste 4
White grapefruit juice (Hannaford Bros. Inc., Scarborough, ME) Sour taste 12
Blueberry yogurt (Hannaford Bros. Inc., Scarborough, ME) Blueberry avor 4
Planters dry roast peanuts unsalted (Kraft Foods North America Inc., East Hanover, NJ) Nutty avor 13
Plain soymilk (Hannaford Bros. Inc., Scarborough, ME) Nutty avor 4.5
Plain soymilk Thickness 5
Plain soymilk Sweet taste 2
Plain soymilk Creamy avor 5
Plain soymilk Chalkiness 4
Sweetened condensed milk (Hannaford Bros. Inc., Scarborough, ME) Thickness 14
Tap water (Orono, ME) Thickness 1
Intensity score is the average of the scores given by the ten panelists using the 015 numerical category scale (0 not present to 15 extremely present)
for descriptive analysis.
Table 3
Soluble solids and acidity of blueberrysoy beverages
Formulation Soluble solids (1 Brix) PH Titratable acidity (g/100 g) Brix/acid ratio
Isolate juice conc. 20.471.0b 3.6470.02a 0.8670.10b 24.0972.35a
Isolate rice syrup 15.072.6a 3.8070.01ab 0.5770.04a 26.5975.50ab
Soymilk juice conc. 20.770.3b 3.7970.04ab 0.6870.05ab 30.4572.41bc
Soymilk rice syrup 17.470.7a 3.9770.11b 0.5470.05a 32.5571.80c
Means7standard deviation (n 6). Values that are followed by different letters within each column are signicantly different (Pp0:05).
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 810
3. Results and discussion
Soluble solids were lower in the beverages containing rice
syrup (Table 3) which was not unexpected since those
formulations contained less sweetener (Table 1). Skrede,
Wrolstad and Durst (2000) found that pasteurized blue-
berry juice had a Brix level of 15.0. All pH levels were
below 4; the soymilk-rice syrup beverage had the highest
pH. During storage pH did not change signicantly. TA
was higher in the isolate-juice blend. The greater TA of the
formulations that contained juice concentrate as a sweet-
ener was likely due to the fact that this ingredient contains
both sugar and acid. Brix/acid ratios ranged 2432.
Anthocyanin content was not affected by pasteurization
or storage (Fig. 1). Although no differences in total
phenolic compounds were found prior to and immediately
after pasteurization, after 1 month, the total phenolic
content of the isolate juice concentrate beverage was
signicantly higher than either of the beverages that
contained soymilk powder (Fig. 2). Microbial fermenta-
tion, residual enzymatic activity or thermal processing may
have freed bound phenolics during storage. Coghe, Benoot,
Delvaux, Vanderhaegen, and Delvaux (2004) observed
steady increases in soluble ferulic acid during the beer
production, with subsequent conversion of those com-
pounds by yeast during fermentation. Antioxidant activity
of the pasteurized beverages ranged from 2489 to 3323 mol
tocopherol equivalents (TE)/100 g (Fig. 3).
All beverages were dark violet in color. The pasteurized
soymilk juice concentrate formulation had a signicantly
lower L value, and higher CIE a and b values, than the
other beverages (Pp0:05) (Table 4). This may be due to the
higher level of acid in this formulation. The isolate rice
syrup formulation had a signicantly lower mean viscosity
than did the other formulations.
Spectrum sensory analysis of the beverages character-
istics varied with formulation and over time (Tables 5 and
6). Formulations containing soymilk powder were rated
higher in painty aroma and nutty avor, and low in
blueberry avor. The isolate juice concentrate beverage had
more blueberry avor than did the other beverages. The
beverages containing juice concentrates as a sweetener were
rated sweeter than the beverages that contained brown rice
syrup. Those formulations containing brown rice syrup
were given a higher rating for bitter avor than the
beverages containing juice concentrates. For the chalkiness
characteristic, the powder rice syrup formulation was given
the highest mean rating, while the powder juice concentrate
was given the lowest. None of the beverages had signicant
intensity ratings for green grassy aroma, sour avor, or
creamy avor. Fewer differences were found after 1 month,
in part due to higher standard deviations, presumably due
to panelist error. Storage time had a signicant effect only
on thickness ratings for the isolate-juice concentrate
formulation. Although the degree of settling was not mea-
sured in this study, precipitation of solids during storage
likely contributed to the lower ratings for thickness.
The descriptive panel data indicates that brown rice
syrup may not be an effective sweetener for acidic soy
beverages. The panelists also detected signicantly less
blueberry avor in the rice syrup beverages. The panelists
rated the formulations containing rice syrup as having
more bitterness and less sweetness. This is likely due to the
lower Brix values obtained for these formulations. There is
also a possibility that additional acids from the juice
concentrates in the other formulations may have helped
mask any bitter notes caused by the soy protein. Chien and

a ab
Fig. 1. Total anthocyanin content in beverages after pasteurization
(striped bars) and after 1 month of storage at 3 1C (white bars).

Fig. 2. Total soluble phenolic compounds in beverages after pasteuriza-
tion (striped bars) and after 1 month of storage at 3 1C (white bars).


Fig. 3. Antioxidant activity (tocopherol equivalents) in beverages after
pasteurization (striped bars) and after 1 month of storage at 3 1C (white
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 811
Snyder (1983) found that soymilk tasted less astringent
when citric acid was added (Tables 7 and 8).
Formulations containing soymilk powder were rated
higher in painty aroma and nutty avor, which are both
undesirable characteristics often associated with soy
products (Kwok & Niranjan, 1995; MacLeod & Ames,
1988; Torres-Penaranda, Reitmeier, Wilson, Fehr, &
Narvel, 1998). Both of these formulations lacked blueberry
Table 4
Color and viscosity of blueberry soy beverages
Formulation CIE color Viscosity (mm
L a b
Isolate juice concentrate 17.8170.57b 21.4970.37c 4.7670.22b 10.3370.75b
Isolate rice syrup 19.8570.60b 18.3070.72b 5.8470.39c 4.2570.31a
Soymilk juice concentrate 15.6570.17a 18.3870.15b 7.1670.48a 10.3370.39b
Soymilk rice syrup 17.9771.40b 16.7870.53a 7.3870.12a 10.1570.41b
Mean7standard deviation (n 6). Values that are followed by different letters within each column are signicantly different (Pp0:05).
CIE L: 0 black, 100 white.
CIE a: a green, +a red.
CIE b: b blue, +b yellow.
Table 5
Odor and avor attributes of blueberry soy beverages at 0 and 4 weeks after processing
Formulation Painty aroma Green grassy aroma Blueberry Sweet Bitter Sour Nutty
0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks
Isolate juice concentrate 3.8a 4.0 3.3 3.9 7.5b 6.6 7.8b 7.9 2.9a 1.6 4.4 3.2 1.3a 1.7
Isolate rice syrup 4.5a 4.2 4.2 3.2 2.9a 2.2 3.3a 3.1 5.2b 4.6 3.5 4.7 2.4ab 1.7
Soymilk juice concentrate 8.1b 7.3 3.0 4.8 4.6a 3.9 7.1b 9.1 2.4a 1.9 4.7 2.1 3.8b 3.6
Soymilk rice syrup 6.9ab 6.2 2.8 3.8 2.3a 2.0 3.4a 4.2 2.8ab 3.4 3.7 4.8 3.9ab 2.2
Mean (n 10 for week 0; n 7 for week 4). Values that are followed by different letters within each column are signicantly different (Pp0:05).
Table 6
Texture attributes of blueberry soy beverages at 0 and 4 weeks after processing
Formulation Thickness Creaminess Chalkiness
0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks 0 week 4 weeks
Isolate juice concentrate 5.1a 2.9a 2.0a 1.4a 5.6ab 3.8a
Isolate rice syrup 4.4a 3.9b 1.9a 1.3a 5.5ab 5.0a
Soymilk juice concentrate 4.4a 3.1b 2.1a 2.2a 3.2a 4.3a
Soymilk rice syrup 5.1a 4.4b 2.8a 1.6a 7.7b 6.6a
Means7standard deviation (n 10, week 0; n 7, week 4). Values that are followed by different letters within each column are signicantly different
(Pp0:05). All scales were 0 (not present) to 15 (intense).
Table 7
Consumer attitudes about soy beverages (n 68)
How often do you consume
beverages containing soy?
29% Never
28% Rarely (oonce/month)
18% Occasionally (14 X/
25% Frequently (44 X/month)
On what occasions do you
think you might enjoy
drinking this type of
78% Between meal snack
22% Meal replacement
23% With meals
3% Never
Table 8
Mean acceptability scores of blueberrysoy beverages
Formulation Color Flavor Mouthfeel Overall
Isolate juice concentrate 6.9c 6.3c 6.0c 6.3c
Isolate rice syrup 6.2ab 3.6a 4.5b 3.8a
Soymilk juice concentrate 6.6bc 4.7b 4.5b 4.6b
Soymilk rice syrup 6.0a 3.8a 3.7a 3.8a
Mean (N 68). Values that are followed by different letters within each
column are signicantly different (Po0:05).
1 dislike extremely, 5 neither like nor dislike, 9 like extremely.
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 812
avor, which suggests that the avor intensity of this type
of soy protein is stronger and therefore interferes with the
blueberry juice concentrate.
Only 43% of the 68 consumers in the acceptability study
were regular consumers of soy products (14+times/
month). Most of the consumers commented that they
would drink soy beverages as a between-meal snack, but 13
people reported they would use this type of product as a
meal replacement; 16 said they would consume it with
meals. Consumers found the dark violet color of the
beverages acceptable, with all four formulations receiving a
mean score of at least a 6 (like slightly) on the hedonic
scale. Beverages containing juice concentrate received
signicantly higher mean scores for color than did the
beverages that contained brown rice syrup. The isolate
juice concentrate beverage received the highest mean score
for avor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability. For this
formulation, mean scores for all attributes ranged from 6
(like slightly) to 7 (like moderately). This is likely due
to the fact that the descriptive panel identied this
formulation as having signicantly more blueberry and
sweet avors. With the exception of color, the mean
acceptability scores for the other formulations ranged from
4 (dislike slightly) to 5 (neither like nor dislike).
Overall acceptability of the beverages was most strongly
correlated with avor (r 0:91). There was also a
correlation (r 0:77) between mouthfeel and overall
acceptability. The distribution of scores for both the avor
and overall acceptability attributes also suggest that
consumers preferred the isolate juice concentrate beverage.
Half of the consumers gave that formulation a avor
acceptability score of 7 (like moderately) to 9 (like
extremely). Over half (52.9%) of the consumers gave the
isolate juice concentrate formulation overall acceptability
scores between 7 and 9 on the hedonic scale.
In order to determine which characteristics of the
beverages were related to consumer acceptability, a PCA
was conducted using the means of both the descriptive and
consumer data sets (Fig. 4). Principal components (PC) 1
and 2 together represented 89% of the total variance with
each PC accounting for 62% and 27% of the variance,
respectively. The PCA biplot of the 4 formulations and 14
variables show that overall acceptability was most strongly
related to avor, which is consistent with Pearsons
correlation coefcient values for acceptability attributes.
There was also a strong relationship between overall and
mouthfeel acceptability, and therefore also between
mouthfeel and avor acceptability.
The PCA biplot shows that sweet, sour, and blueberry
avor characteristics are strongly related to consumer
acceptability. The descriptive panel determined that these
three characteristics were more intense in the isolate juice
concentrate beverage, which is the same formulation
consumers found to be most acceptable. There was a
negative relationship between consumer acceptability and
the characteristics of painty aroma, green grassy aroma,
chalkiness, nutty, bitter, and creamy avors. Since the
majority of these undesirable characteristics were rated
more intense in the beverages that contained brown rice
syrup, it is not surprising that these formulations were not
acceptable to consumers. Acceptability of the soymilk juice
concentrate formulation was also limited, which is prob-
ably mostly due to the painty aroma and nutty avor notes
detected by the descriptive panel.
4. Conclusions
Four formulations containing soy and wild blueberry
juice concentrate were evaluated. All beverages contained
enough soy protein to qualify to the health claim
associating soy consumption with reduced risks for
cardiovascular disease. Processing retained most phyto-
chemicals measured. However, the objective to produce a
highly acceptable beverage was not met. Most sensory
attributes were rated below like moderately, thus avor,
aroma and mouthfeel of the beverages should be optimized
in future product development. Opportunities exist for
development and marketing of products incorporating the
health benets of wild blueberries and soybeans.
Funding for this project was provided by the Maine
Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station (MAFES),
and by a grant to the Wild Blueberry Commission of
Maine from the Maine Technology Institute. MAFES
external publication #2866.
Anderson, J. W., Johnstone, B. M., & Cook-Newell, M. E. (1995). Meta-
analysis of the effects of soy protein intake on serum lipids. New
England Journal of Medicine, 333(5), 276282.
1.0 0.5 0
-0.5 -1.0
Fig. 4. Principal component analysis bi-plot of mean descriptive panel
characteristic ratings, four consumer acceptability attributes and four
beverage formulations. IJC soy protein isolatejuice concentrate
formulation; IRS soy protein isolaterice syrup formulation;
SJC soymilk powderjuice concentrate formulation; SRS soymilk
powderrice syrup formulation. Principal component 1 (PC1) accounted
for 67% of variance; principal component 2 (PC2) accounted for 27% of
variance among samples.
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 813
AOAC International. (2000). Ofcial methods of analysis (17th ed.). MD,
ASTM. (2001). ASTM international, D 44501 (p. 187). West Consho-
hocken, PA: ASTM International.
Badger, T. M., Ronis, M. J., Simmen, R. C., & Simmen, F. A. (2005). Soy
protein isolate and protection against cancer. Journal of the American
College of Nutrition, 24(2), 146S149S.
Beverage Marketing Corporation of New York. (2005). The future of soy
beverages in the US. New York, NY: Beverage Marketing Corporation
of New York.
Camire, M. E. (2000). Bilberries and blueberries as functional foods and
nutraceuticals. In G. Mazza, & D. B. Oomah (Eds.), Herbs, Botanicals
and teas as functional foods and nutraceuticals (pp. 289319). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Chien, J. T., & Snyder, H. E. (1983). Detection and control of soymilk
astringency. Journal of Food Science, 48(2), 438440.
Coghe, S., Benoot, K., Delvaux, F., Vanderhaegen, B., & Delvaux, F. R.
(2004). Ferulic acid release and 4-vinylguaiacol formation during
brewing and fermentation: Indications for feruloyl esterase activity in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
52(3), 602608.
Economic Research Service. (2003). Fruit and tree nuts outlook. USDA
(pp. 1216). July 30.
Federal Register. (1999). Food Labeling; Health Claims: Soy protein and
Risk of Coronary Heart Disease. (
Francis, F. J., Harborne, J. B., & Barker, W. G. (1966). Anthocyanins in
the lowbush blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium. Journal of Food
Science, 31, 583587.
Kwok, K., & Niranjan, K. (1995). Review: Effect of thermal processing on
soymilk. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 30(3),
MacLeod, G., & Ames, J. (1988). Soy avor and its improvement. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 27(4), 219400.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation
techniques (3rd ed). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Messina, M., & Messina, V. (2003). Provisional recommended soy protein
and isoavone intakes for healthy adults. Nutrition Today, 38(3),
Miller, H. E., Rigelhof, F., Marquart, L., Prakash, A., & Kanter, M.
(2000). Antioxidant content of whole grain breakfast cereals, fruits and
vegetables. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(Suppl. 3),
NKouka, K., Klein, B. P., & Lee, S. Y. (2004). Developing a lexicon for
descriptive analysis of soymilks. Journal of Food Science, 69(7),
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of
measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11(9), 914.
Rah, J. H., Hasler, C. M., Painer, J. E., & Chapman-Novakofski, K. M.
(2004). Applying the theory of planned behavior to womens
behavioral attitudes on and consumption of soy products. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 36(5), 238244.
Skrede, G., Wrolstad, R. E., & Durst, R. W. (2000). Changes in
anthocyanins and polyphenolics during juice processing of highbush
blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.). Journal of Food Science, 65(2),
Torres-Penaranda, A. V., Reitmeier, C. A., Wilson, L. A., Fehr, W. R., &
Narvel, J. M. (1998). Sensory characteristics of soymilk and tofu made
from lipoxgenase-free and normal soybeans. Journal of Food Science,
63(6), 10841087.
United Soybean Board. (2005). Consumer attitudes about nutrition (8pp.).
Chestereld, MO: USB.
Velioglu, Y. S., Mazza, G., Gao, L., & Oomah, B. D. (1998). Antioxidant
activity and total phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables, and grain
products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46(2),
Wansink, B. (2003). Overcoming the taste stigma of soy. Journal of Food
Science, 68(8), 26042606.
Wrolstad, R. E. (1976). Color and pigment analysis in fruit products.
Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin,
624(2), 117.
R.M. Potter et al. / LWT 40 (2007) 807814 814