Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10
Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual Sensory perception of fat in milk Michael

Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual Sensory perception of fat in milk Michael

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Sensory perception of fat in milk

Michael Bom Frøst *, Garmt Dijksterhuis, Magni Martens

Sensory Science Group, Department of Dairy and Food Science, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 305, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark

Received 15 September 2000; received in revised form 4 December 2000; accepted 22 December 2000

Abstract

The sensory properties of fat in milk were examined by sensory descriptive analysis. To date, no single food additive has been completely successful in mimicking the sensory properties of fat in milk. This experiment investigated the effects of various factors and combinations thereof on sensory properties and perceived fattiness of milk, and compared them to the actual fat content (0.1; 1.3 and 3.5% fat milk was used). The other factors studied were the addition of thickener, whitener, cream aroma and homo- genisation. Multivariate data analytical methods (Partial Least Squares Regression) were applied for analysis of the data. The three former additional factors contributed significantly to perceived fattiness of the milk, and homogenisation had a small but not sig- nificant effect. It was shown that a combination of thickener, whitener and cream aroma in 0.1% fat milk was approximately suc- cessful in mimicking sensory properties of 1.3% fat milk. # 2001Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Milk; Fats; Lipids; Sensory analysis; Multivariate data analysis; Partial least square regression (PLSR); Fattiness perception; Fat sub- stitutes; Thickening agent; Whitening agent; Cream aroma; Homogenisation

1. Introduction

The sensory properties of milk are influenced by the fat content in milk (Phillips, McGiff, Barbano, & Law- less, 1995a; Tuorila, 1986). In order to produce milk and milk-based drinks with salient sensory properties, it is necessary to understand how the different sensory modalities are affected by the fat content. This also will lead to a better understanding of what the perceived fattiness in milk is comprised of. Previous research has shown that much of the sensory differences between non-fat and other types of milk are mainly in found appearance, texture and mouthfeel (Phillips et al., 1995a; Tuorila, 1986). Various food additives have been examined as a substitute of fat in milk. Phillips, McGiff, Barbano, and Lawless (1995b) observed some effect of protein content on the sensory properties. The addition of 2% non-fat dry milk to skimmed milk gave a similar effect on the relative physical viscosity (measured by capillary viscometer) as addition of 2% fat. Still, the perceived texture (Thickness, Mouthcoating and Residual

* Corresponding author. Fax: +45-35-28-31-90. E-mail address: mbf@kvl.dk (M.B. Frøst).

mouthfeel) did not change as much as with an increase in the actual fat content. Also, there was a significant increase in cooked flavour and both the perceived and physically measured (by MacBeth Colour-Eye spectro- photometer) colour of the milk with added non-fat dry milk were not the same as that of milk with 2% fat. This result suggests that a fat substitute in milk, to be suc- cessful, should change the appearance characteristics of the milk more than the texture properties. Other food additives have been examined as well. Phillips and Barbano (1997) tested a series of food additives by sensory descriptive analysis with trained panellists. They found that a combination of sodium caseinate and titanium dioxide in skimmed milk was best at mimicking the colour of 2% fat milk. However, the combination did not fully succeed in improving the perceived texture. Some of the other visual attributes, like the one descriptor ‘‘visual hang up’’, a measure of how much milk is clinging to the inner surface after swirling of the glass, was still much lower than 2% fat milk. Other experiments substituted the addition of non-fat dry milk with a protein standardisation by ultrafiltra- tion (Quinones, Barbano, & Phillips, 1997, 1998). By mixing retentate and permeate from ultrafiltration they

0950-3293/01/$ - see front matter # 2001Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0950-3293(01)00018-0

328

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

produced milks with a true protein content in the range of 0.9–4.8%. The normal range for American milk is 3.13–3.38% (Quinones et al., 1998). In the experiments, the milks varied in fat content from 0.13 to 3.3%. Their results showed that the sensory texture and appearance descriptors were affected by the protein standardisation (as well as by the fat content), where increase in protein content gave a whiter appearance and texture properties like Thickness, Mouthcoating and Residual mouth- coating increased with a higher protein content. Larger differences in sensory properties between low and high protein content were observed in samples with low fat content. The main objective of those two studies was to see the effect of a decrease in protein content. The eco- nomical value of milk protein as a separate food addi- tive has increased substantially over recent decades (Quinones et al., 1998), thus, there would be an increase in outcome if part of the protein in milk could be separated and sold for other purposes. Tepper and Kuang (1996) examined the effect of fla- vour addition in milk model systems by multi- dimensional scaling. They showed that products with high levels of added aroma compounds were perceived similar to products with a higher fat content, which then indicates an effect of flavour on perception of fattiness. However, in their experiment they operated with a rather large concentration range of aroma compounds (0, 0.5 and 1% w/v powdered cream flavour) and a large span of fat content (0, 5 and 10% w/v added bland vegetable oil). Still, the authors claim that their pilot studies confirm that the chosen concentrations provided small but distinguishable differences between samples. Richardson, Booth, and Stanley (1993) have theorised that the fat particle size distribution makes an essential contribution to perceived creaminess in milk, but only in the presence of adequate viscosity. They suggested that in order for a fluid dairy product to be perceived like dairy cream, it should provide a smooth but viscous fluid layer between the tongue and the palate. Homo- genisation of the milk only had an effect on perceived creaminess when the milk was also thickened to the viscosity of double cream (47.5% fat). They used a non- fat thickener (1part 3% w/v of sodium carboxy- methylcellulose solution to nine parts of milk). All of the mentioned experiments show an effect of different factors on the sensory properties of milk. However, none of these experiments examined more than two factors simultaneously in relation to perceived fattiness of milk. Also, some of the experiments used stimuli that are extreme compared to the range of milk normally consumed in western countries. Thus, the objectives of the present experiment was to examine the effect of numerous factors related to perception of fat- tiness in milk within a realistic product range. In this study a meta-descriptor ‘Total fattiness’ was introduced to the sensory panel, to evaluate the perceived fattiness

in milk. By doing so it was possible to see how the other sensory descriptors correlated with perceived fattiness.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Milks

Standard Danish milk with three different levels of fat were used (0.1, 1.3 and 3.5%). Organically produced milk was chosen, since this is commercially available as non-homogenised milk in Denmark, and it thus allowed for testing of homogenisation without interference with the production method (conventionally produced milk is only sold homogenised in Denmark). On the basis of previous literature in the field, it was decided to test four factors in a reduced design. The factors varied in the experiment are listed in Table 1. In pilot studies, a series of four thickeners were tested in selected concentrations within the range recom- mended by the producer. Some other thickeners were considered for the experiment, but for these, pasteur- isation was necessary before it was fully dissolved. Those were avoided since the additional heat treatment might have an unwanted effect on the sensory properties (Nursten, 1997). Three different cream flavours were tested in several concentrations, and the one agreed upon by the experimenters as most similar to real cream aroma (13% fat cream) was selected. Finally, titanium dioxide was tested in a range of concentrations and the concentration in Table 1was selected. The authors’ philosophy of the addition of food additives was that it should have a perceivable effect, but not too much of an effect i.e. keeping it within a realistic product range. In order to suspend the whitener in the milk, it was neces- sary to homogenise the samples. Likewise it was neces- sary to homogenise samples with thickener in order to avoid lumps of thickener in the milk. This resulted in some restrictions on the design, so that whitener and thickener could not be tested independently of homo- genisation. So, the full design of 48 samples was reduced to 30 possible combinations. From these, 16 were selec- ted for descriptive analysis (listed in Table 3, together with results from the descriptive analysis). The selection criteria for the samples for sensory evaluation were based on three basic considerations: (1) achieving a large sensory space (from 0.1% fat without any addi- tives to 3.5% fat with all additives); (2) obtaining a representation of all combinations of additions; (3) combinations of additions that were expected to have large effects on sensory properties.

2.2. Descriptive analysis

Sensory descriptive analysis was performed under normal light with milk, (approximaley 100 ml) in clear

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

329

glasses, in the sensory laboratory at the University. A panel consisting of seven external paid panellists was used for the evaluation. All panellists had much experi- ence with sensory evaluation. In five training sessions panellists were trained on the products, and descriptors were chosen after suggestions from the panel leader on the basis of consensus among the panellists. Each train- ing session had a duration of approximately 11/2 h. (In the fifth training session panellists evaluated a subset of the samples for sensory evaluation in the sensory eva- luation booths, this session took only approximately 50 min). A total of 15 descriptors were used for the descriptive analysis. Those are listed in Table 2, together with their definitions and original Danish words. A

reference sample (1.3% fat, +thickener, +whitener, +aroma, +homogenisation), was chosen and the intensity of this reference sample was scored by the panellists in the training sessions. The reference sample was presented to the panellists and tasted prior to each evaluation, alongside with a score card marked with the average scores for the panel for this sample. References for descriptors ‘‘creamy smell’’ and ‘‘boiled milk smell’’ were also presented and smelled by the panellists prior to evaluation. For reference materials were used 13% fat cream and boiled skimmed milk respectively. For the latter reference material, skimmed milk was brought to boiling point and cooled down again prior to sessions. All samples and references were kept at 12 C for 1h

Table 1 Factors varied in the experiment; levels and origin of material used

Experimental factor

Value of levels

Origin of material or processequipment

Fat content

0.1% (w/w)

Organically produced non-homogenised milk (MD-Foods, Slagelse, Denmark)

1.3% (w/w)

3.5% (w/w)

 

˚

Thickener

0

Alginate FD 155 (Danisco Cultor, A rhus, Denmark)

1g/l

Whitener

0

Titanium(IV)dioxide reagent grade (Lancaster, Eastgate, UK)

1g/l

 

˚

Aroma

0

Cream Flavouring U33162 (Danisco Cultor, A rhus, Denmark)

0.75 g/l

Homogenisation

0

Pilot Scale homogeniser (Rannie, Denmark)

150 bar

Table 2 Sensory descriptors, their definitions and original words in Danish

Descriptors

Definition (reference material)

Original words in Danish

Aroma Creamy aroma Boiled milk aroma

Intensity of raw cream aroma (13% fat cream) Intensity of boiled milk aroma (boiled skim milk)

Lugt Flødeagtig lugt Kogt mælk lugt

Appearance/colour

Udseende

Whiteness

Degree of intensity of the colour white in the centre of the glass Degree of intensity of the colour yellow in the centre of the glass Degree of intensity of the colour blue in the centre of the glass Degree of transparency of the sample at the edge of the glass tilted approximately 30 Amount of milk clinging to the inner surface of the serving glass after swirling the sample Degree of thickness measured during swirling of glass

Hvidhed

Yellowness

Gullighed

Blueness

Bla˚lighed

Transparency

Gennemsigtighed

Glass coating

Glasvedhæftning

Thickness visual

Tykhed/viskositet

Flavour/Taste a Creamy flavour Boiled milk flavour Sweet taste

Intensity of cream flavour Intensity of boiled milk flavour Intensity of sweet taste

Smag Flødeagtig smag Kogt mælk smag Sød smag

Texture/Mouthfeel Thickness oral Creaminess oral Residual mouth fill

Konsistens

Perceived thickness of the sample evaluated in the mouth Perceived creaminess of the sample evaluated in the mouth Degree of residual mouth coating after expectoration of the sample

Tykhed/viskositet

Cremethed

Eftermundfylde

Meta descriptor

Total fattiness

Overall perception of fat content in the sample

Samlet fedhed

330

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

before sessions. Only one sample at a time was served to panellists and were taken out 1–2 min before serving. For all evaluation sessions a computerised score collec- tion software (FIZZ, Biosystemes, France) was used. A horizontal 15-cm unstructured line scale anchored at the left end with ‘‘a little’’ or ‘‘none’’ (in Danish: ‘‘lidt’’ or ‘‘ingen’’) and at the right end with ‘‘a lot’’ or ‘‘very intense’’ (Danish: ‘‘meget’’ or ‘‘meget intens’’) was used. Sensory analysis of the 16 products was carried out in triplicate, and in randomised order within each repli- cate. In each session, only eight products were eval- uated, so a total of six sessions were necessary to complete the experiment.

2.3. Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using descriptive uni- variate analyses (mean and ANOVA for each descrip- tor). ANOVAs for the individual descriptors were per- formed using panellists as a random factor. Multivariate data analysis (Partial Least Squares Regression [PLSR]) was applied to investigate relation- ships between sensory data and the experimental design. Initially, data were analysed to correct for irrelevant differences between panellists by PLSR, and level cor- rected data were used for analysis of effects of different treatments (cf. Martens, Wedøe, Bredie, & Martens, 1999). After level correction, data was averaged over panellists, and those data were used for analysis. For all the multivariate analyses, cross validation was per- formed, leaving each replicate out at a time (Martens & Naes, 1989). The analyses were performed in standard statistical software packages (SPSS 9.0.0, SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA, for univariate statistics and Unscrambler 7.51a, Camo ASA, Trondheim, Norway, for multivariate data analysis).

3. Results and discussion

The results from ANOVA showed significant differ- ences among the samples with regard to all sensory descriptors. Mean values and least significant differ- ences at 5% level for all samples over all panellists and replicates are presented in Table 3. It shows that the experimental design used produced differences in all sensory modalities (aroma, appearance, flavour/taste and texture/mouthfeel).

3.1. Sensory descriptors and effect of experimental

factors

After pre-processing of the data (level correction to account for panellists’ different use of scale), ANOVA- PLSR (APLSR) was performed (design as X-variables and sensory data as Y-variable). Figs. 1a and 2a show

correlation loading plots from four significant dimen- sions (explaining in average 60, 15, 4.2 and 4.1% of the variation in sensory data, respectively). The observed effects become much more apparent when looking at score plots for the four dimensions, when the different factors are labelled separately and products are grouped by factors or combinations thereof. These are shown in Figs. 1b,c and 2b,c, and are referred to along with the explanations in the text. All other combinations of dimensions were explored during data analysis, but the combinations shown, 1–2 and 3–4, proved sufficient for interpretation of the data. In dimension 1, two major clusters of descriptors are seen. One group consisting of Boiled milk smell and flavour, Transparency and Blueness relates to 0.1% fat milk. At the opposite end of the first dimension is a group of descriptors all relating to 3.5% fat milk, con- sisting of Sweet taste, Creamy smell and flavour, Thickness visual and oral, Glass coating, Creaminess, Residual mouth fill, Total fattiness and Yellowness. This indicates a clear fat-level-direction in the results (Fig. 1b). The distances between groups with different fat levels show that there is a much larger difference in fattiness between 0.1fat and 1.3% fat than there is between 1.3 and 3.5%. This indicates that perceived fattiness is not a linear function of actual fat content in the range spanned by the milk in our experiment, which is the range of milk fat content normally sold in Denmark. The combined effects of thickener, whitener and homogenisation result in a direction orthogonal to that of fat level (Fig. 1c). This direction is mainly a difference in perceived whiteness. Samples with the addition of those three factors mainly score higher in whiteness, whereas those without, score lower. In Fig. 1c the fac- tors are grouped, so the effect of the individual factors can be seen. From this, it is evident that whitener and thickener contribute to fattiness. There seems to be a small effect of homogenisation as well. Significant dif- ferences in a few sensory descriptors were observed. Homogenisation gives an increase in Creamy flavour and a decrease in Blueness, both of these differences were only observed in 1.3% fat milk (Table 3). The effect of whitener and thickener is an increased per- ceived whiteness of the milk, as well as some increase in the group of high fat related descriptors. In this direc- tion, no separation of thickener and whitener is seen, this subject will be returned to in dimension 4 below. The third dimension spans the variation between samples with and without added aroma compounds, so this is a flavour dimension (Fig. 2b). Samples with added aroma compounds have a higher intensity of Creamy smell and flavour. Notice also that sweet taste correlates with the creamy descriptors (Fig. 2a). How- ever, the absolute differences in sweetness are smaller than the differences in creamy smell and flavour (cf.

Table 3 Mean values (over panellists and replicates), Least Significant Differences (LSD) values (P<0.05) for all products and descriptors, product specifications and product codes a

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

Product names

Product description

 

Sensory descriptors

 

Aroma

Appearance

 

Fat level (%)

Thickener

Whitener

Aroma

Homogenisation

 

Creamy smell

Boiled milk smell

Whiteness

Yellowness

Blueness

Transparency

Glass

Thickness

 

coating

visual

LSD (5%)

1.12

0.97

0.78

0.85

0.76

0.74

0.95

0.90

0twah

0.13.56

6.20

6.02

4.27

6.45

10.40

2.53

3.31

1twah

1.3

5.24

5.79

6.39

5.84

4.18

7.99

6.55

6.56

3twah

3.5

6.11

4.43

6.27

8.05

2.69

5.24

9.65

8.79

0twAh

0.1+

 

5.58

5.88

6.02

4.79

6.04

10.08

3.06

3.90

0tWaH

0.1+

 

+

4.19

6.05

8.26

4.16

4.09

7.93

4.08

5.47

0TwaH

0.1+

 

+

3.76

6.38

5.75

4.18

6.96

10.48

2.41

3.65

0tWAH

0.1+

+

+

6.53

5.34

7.64

5.12

3.86

8.14

4.76

5.41

0TWAH

0.1+

+

+

+

6.42

5.50

7.73

4.89

4.14

7.95

5.04

6.49

1twaH

1.3

+

6.16

4.86

6.36

6.17

3.37

7.36

6.77

7.14

1twAh

1.3

+

7.89

4.42

6.34

6.56

3.65

7.91

7.10

6.67

1tWAH

1.3

+

+

+

8.44

3.86

7.43

6.41

2.96

6.44

8.41

8.19

1TwAH

1.3

+

+

+

8.36

4.35

6.71

6.68

3.09

7.21

7.83

7.45

1TWaH

1.3

+

+

+

6.36

3.91

8.13

5.72

2.68

5.81

8.62

8.31

3twaH

3.5

+

7.214.14

6.38

7.67

3.04

5.85

9.46

8.45

3TwaH

3.5

+

+

7.04

4.47

6.89

7.47

2.54

5.07

10.46

9.51

3TWAH

3.5

+

+

+

+

9.07

3.59

7.63

6.64

2.47

3.99

10.41

9.84

Product description

 

Sensory descriptors

 

Flavour/Taste

Texture/Mouthfeel

 

Fat level (%)

Thickener

Whitener

Aroma

Homogenisation

Creamy flavour

Boiled milk flavour

Sweet taste

Thickness oral

Creaminess oral

Residual mouth fill

Total fattiness

LSD (5%)

1.08

1.01

0.72

0.88

0.99

1.00

1.03

0twah

0.13.46

7.06

5.04

3.23

3.14

3.34

3.26

1twah

1.3

5.21

6.08

5.91

6.43

6.14

5.99

5.94

3twah

3.5

8.05

5.07

6.47

8.818.85

8.24

8.97

0twAh

0.1+

 

5.73

6.58

6.85

4.09

4.89

4.88

4.73

0tWaH

0.1+

 

+

4.58

6.49

5.53

5.04

4.50

4.13

4.44

0TwaH

0.1+

 

+

3.36

7.05

4.97

3.41

3.18

3.05

2.89

0tWAH

0.1+

+

+

6.12

6.09

6.38

5.04

4.90

5.00

5.24

0TWAH

0.1+

+

+

+

6.616.25

6.31

5.90

6.51

5.97

6.76

1twaH

1.3

+

6.86

5.34

6.41

6.57

6.77

6.09

6.87

1twAh

1.3

+

8.14

4.67

7.39

6.56

7.30

6.95

7.49

1tWAH

1.3

+

+

+

8.60

4.80

7.14

8.08

8.47

8.26

8.59

1TwAH

1.3

+

+

+

8.86

4.58

7.46

7.87

8.81

8.01

8.96

1TwaH

1.3

+

+

+

7.56

4.74

6.39

8.27

8.11

7.67

7.94

3twaH

3.5

+

8.20

4.53

6.89

8.59

8.66

8.29

8.76

3TwaH

3.5

+

+

8.93

4.19

7.22

9.62

9.76

9.11

9.64

3TWAH

3.5

+

+

+

+

10.05

3.57

8.07

9.56

10.39

9.69

10.69

332

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

Table 3). Still, there is some transference of scoring the attribute creamy to the scoring of sweetness. This can be concluded since the latter did not change with the dif- ferent factors in the experiment. Samples with added aroma score higher in Total Fattiness, indicating that an aroma component contributes to perceived fattiness in the milks. Finally the fourth dimension shows the sensory dif- ferences between samples with added whitener versus those with added thickener (Fig. 2c). At the 0.1% fat level, the sample with only added whitener scores higher in Whiteness, Glass coating, Thickness visual and oral,

Creaminess, Residual mouth fill and Total fattiness (Table 3). At the same fat level the sample with only added thickener has a higher blueness and transparency. At the 1.3% fat level, the sample with only added thickener still scores significantly higher in transpar- ency, compared to the sample with only added whitener (Table 3). The significant differences in sensory descrip- tors indicate that the addition of whitener has a higher impact on sensory properties than addition of thickener has. However, the chosen levels of additions for the two factors influence this conclusion. The grouping of the descriptors in Fig. 2a indicates that Glass coating and

the descriptors in Fig. 2a indicates that Glass coating and Fig. 1. (a) APLSR correlation loadings

Fig. 1. (a) APLSR correlation loadings for the two first dimensions showing differences among the 16 products. ~ Sensory Descriptors, & Factors and * Products. For clarity of this figure product names are not shown. The inner and outer circles represent 50 and 100% explained variance, respectively. (b) Score plot from APLSR. Dimension I and 2. Indicating differences in fat levels (0=0.1%, 1=1.3% and 3=3.5%), and showing fat level direction based on the loadings. (c) Score plot from APLSR. Dimension I and 2. Indicating differences in addition of thickener (t/T), whitener (w/W) and homogenisation (h/H). Capital letters indicate addition of the factor. Showing whitener and thickener level direction and homogenisation level direction based on the loadings.

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

333

Thickness visual/oral may relate more to the colour of the milk, than to the actual thickness (Fig. 2a). Samples with only added whitener have higher intensities in these descriptors, compared to samples with only added thickener.

3.2. Total fattiness

To evaluate the perception of fat in the products, the panel used the meta-descriptor ‘‘Total fattiness’’. It can be seen conceptually as a projection of all sensory descriptors onto a ‘‘fattiness’’ percept. However, to rate

this meta-descriptor may be a task of high cognitive character, and can be influenced by the panellists’ interpretations of how the individual descriptors con- tribute to perceived fattiness. So, what is then really investigated is how the different sensory attributes con- tribute to believed perceived fattiness as a result from the previous scoring of all other attributes. From the correlation loadings plot for first and second dimension (Fig. 1a) it can be seen that there is a whole group of descriptors that are highly positively correlated with Total fattiness, (Creaminess oral, Creamy smell and flavour, Sweet taste, Thickness visual and oral, Glass

and flavour, Sweet taste, Thickness visual and oral, Glass Fig. 2. (a) APLSR correlation loadings for

Fig. 2. (a) APLSR correlation loadings for components 3 and 4 showing differences among the 16 products. ~ Sensory Descriptors, & Factors and * Products. For clarity of this figure product names are not shown, and only relevant descriptor names are shown. The inner and outer circles represent 50% and 100% explained variance, respectively. (b) Score plot from APLSR. Dimension 3 and 4. Indicating addition of aroma com- pounds (a/A). Capital letters indicate addition of the factor, and showing aroma level direction based on the loadings. (c) Score plot from APLSR. Dimension 3 and 4. Indicating differences in addition of thickener (t/T) and whitener (w/W). Capital letters indicate addition of the factor.

334

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

coating and Residual mouth fill). Yellowness is also correlated to Total fattiness, but not as highly as the rest of this group. Further Fig. 1a shows that Whiteness is not correlated to Total fattiness, and that the group of descriptors in the opposite end of the first dimension is negatively correlated to Total fattiness. Closer exam- ination of the grouping of the fattiness related descrip- tors in the subsequent dimensions show that in dimension 3 and 4 (Fig. 2a) Total fattiness is still closely grouped with Residual mouth fill and Creaminess, indi- cating that these two descriptors are most fully reflect- ing perceived fattiness in milk. However, there is not much Total fattiness left to explain in these two dimen- sions, since it lies relatively close to the origin in Fig. 2a. The conclusion that Creaminess and Residual mouth fill most fully reflect perceived fattiness in milk was con- firmed by a PLSR-analysis with Total fattiness as the Y- variable and all other sensory descriptors as the X-vari- ables. Variation in Creaminess and Residual mouth fill contributed the most to explained variance in Total fattiness (both of them higher than 96%).

3.3. Differences between products

Cobweb-plots can be used to focus on the differences between a few products. Fig. 3 shows the sensory prop- erties of the three different fat levels. The figure shows

the same differences that were apparent from the corre- lation loading plots (Fig. 1a) and the score plot with labels for fat content (Fig. 1b). A rather large group of descriptors is positively correlated with fattiness (Resi- dual mouth fill, Creaminess, Thickness visual/oral, Creamy smell and flavour, Glass coating and Yellow- ness). Another group of descriptors is inversely corre- lated with a high fat content (Boiled milk smell and flavour, Blueness and Transparency). All of these descriptors vary significantly (P<0.05) across the three products. Whiteness is not affected significantly by the changes in fat content. It is also, as shown in APLSR, evident that the sensory differences between 0.1and 1.3% fat are larger than between 1.3 and 3.5% fat. This is confirmed by the significant differences between pro- ducts observed by ANOVA. Fig. 4 shows the sensory profile of 0.1% fat with all added additives and 1.3% fat, homogenised. There are only significant differences in two descriptors. The 0.1% fat milk with additions have a higher Whiteness, but a lower Glass coating. The Total fattiness is the same, so the sensory properties of 1.3% fat have been mimicked quite successfully by the addition of all the food additives used in the experiment. This was not the case with only one food additive added (Fig. 5). Addition of whitener and aroma were not suf- ficient either to mimic the increase in true fat content from 0.1to 1.3%, since there is a significant difference

from 0.1to 1.3%, since there is a significant difference Fig. 3. Cobweb plot of sensory profiles

Fig. 3. Cobweb plot of sensory profiles from the three different fat levels.

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

335

et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336 335 Fig. 4. Cobweb plot of

Fig. 4. Cobweb plot of sensory profiles from 1.3% fat, homogenised and 0.1% fat added all additives.

from 1.3% fat, homogenised and 0.1% fat added all additives. Fig. 5. Cobweb plot of sensory

Fig. 5. Cobweb plot of sensory profiles from 1.3% fat, homogenised and 0.1% fat added only one of the food ingredients.

336

M.B. Frøst et al. / Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 327–336

in Total fattiness. Nor were combinations of two food additives in 1.3% fat milk completely capable of mimicking the increase from 1.3% fat to 3.5% fat. But there were no significant differences in Total fattiness (Table 3). The conclusions from this experiment might not have a high relevance with regard to milk for con- sumption, since there (in the European Union) is a very restrictive legislation about food additives. However, for other milk-based beverages, where there is more room for improvements by adding food additives, the conclusions about how to imitate fattiness are valuable.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the FØTEK programme sup- ported by the Danish Dairy Research Foundation (Danish Dairy Board) and the Danish Government. Nina Ahn, Judith Henning and Anne Marie Laustsen are thanked for technical assistance. Ditte Marie Folk- enberg is acknowledged for inspiring the first author to using the meta-descriptor ‘‘Total fattiness’’. The dona- tion of food additives from Danisco Cultor is highly appreciated.

4. Conclusions

The results from the experiment show that the sensory properties of fat in milk are comprised of texture/ mouthfeel, appearance and flavour attributes. Analysis of the contribution of the individual sensory descriptors to perceived fattiness in milk shows that Creaminess and Residual mouth fill most accurately reflect fattiness of milk in this fat range. It is unknown to what extent the results about perceived fattiness from a sensory panel can be extended to the general population. How- ever, the assessment of fattiness obtained from a trained sensory panel gives a very detailed picture of human sensory perception of fattiness. The sensory differences between 0.1% fat milk with added thickener, whitener and aroma are very small as compared to those in homogenised 1.3% fat milk. They only differ sig- nificantly in two descriptors: Whiteness and Glass coat- ing. It was not the case when only using one food additive, or combinations of two. This clearly shows that the sensory properties of fat in milk are not easily substituted with food additives seeking to imitate the sensory properties of fat. The experiment showed that there are larger sensory differences between milk with 0.1% and 1.3% fat, than there are between 1.3% and 3.5% fat. This shows that the fat does not affect the sensory properties of milk in a linear fashion. It is very likely that sensory properties of 0.1% fat milk can be changed drastically by adding only a little extra fat to the milk.

References

Martens, H., & Naes, T. (1989). Multivariate calibration. Chichester:

John Wiley. Martens, H., Wedøe, S., Bredie, W. L. P., & Martens, M. (1999). Manual for sensory data analysis. Copenhagen: Department of Dairy and Food Science, KVL. Nursten, H. E. (1997). The flavour of milk and dairy products. I. Milk of different kinds, milk powder, butter and cream. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 50(2), 48–56. Phillips, L. G., & Barbano, D. M. (1997). The influence of fat sub- stitutes based on protein and titanium dioxide on the sensory prop- erties of lowfat milks. Journal of Dairy Science, 80(11), 2726–2731. Phillips, L. G., McGiff, M. L., Barbano, D. M., & Lawless, H. T. (1995a). The influence of fat on the sensory properties, viscosity, and color of lowfat milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 78(6), 1258–

1266.

Phillips, L. G., McGiff, M. L., Barbano, D. M., & Lawless, H. T. (1995b). The influence of nonfat dry milk on the sensory properties, viscosity, and color of Iowfat milks. Journal of Dairy Science, 78(10), 2113–2118. Quinones, H. J., Barbano, D. M., & Phillips, L. G. (1997). Influence of protein standardization by ultrafiltration on the viscosity, color, and sensory properties of skim and 1% milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 80(12), 3142–3151. Quinones, H. J., Barbano, D. M., & Phillips, L. G. (1998). Influence of protein standardization by ultrafiltration on the viscosity, color, and sensory properties of 2 and 3.3% milks. Journal of Dairy Science, 81(4), 884–894. Richardson, N. J., Booth, D. A., & Stanley, N. L. (1993). Effect of homogenization and fat content on oral perception of low and high viscosity model creams. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8(2), 133–143. Tepper, B. J., & Kuang, T. (1996). Perception of fat in a milk model system using multidimensional scaling. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11(3), 175–190. Tuorila, H. (1986). Sensory profiles of milks with varying fat contents. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 19(4), 344–345.