Consumer-based sensory characterization of steviol glycosides (Rebaudioside A, D, and M)

Foods

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2020, Pages

  Tao, Ran ^a   Cho, Sungeun ^b  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aftertaste; CATA; PROP; Reb A; Reb D; Reb M; Rebaudiosides; Stevia; Steviol glycosides

Indexed keywords

EID: 85091941052     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23048158     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/foods9081026     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Chattopadhyay, S.; Raychaudhuri, U.; Chakraborty, R. Artificial sweeteners-A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 611-621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Ott, D.B.; Edwards, C.L.; Palmer, S.J. Perceived taste intensity and duration of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners in water using time-intensity (T-I) evaluations. J. Food Sci. 1991, 56, 535-542. [CrossRef]
3. Mintel. Sugar and Alternative Sweeteners-US-December 2018-Market Research Report. Available online: https://reports-mintel-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/display/860879/ (accessed on 25 June 2020).
4. Brandle, J.E.; Starratt, A.N.; Gijzen, M. Stevia rebaudiana: Its agricultural, biological, and chemical properties. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 1998, 78, 527-536. [CrossRef]
5. Geuns, J.M.C. Stevioside. Phytochemistry 2003, 64, 913-921. [CrossRef]
6. Kinghorn, A.D. Stevia: The Genus Stevia; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2002; ISBN 978-0-203-16594-2.
7. Mintel Global New Products Database (GNPD). Available online: https://www.mintel.com/global-newproducts-database (accessed on 25 June 2020).
8. Gwak, M.-J.; Chung, S.-J.; Kim, Y.J.; Lim, C.S. Relative sweetness and sensory characteristics of bulk and intense sweeteners. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 21, 889-894. [CrossRef]
9. Jenner, M.R.; Grenby, T.H. Progress in Sweeteners; Elsevier: London, UK, 1989; ISBN 978-1-85166-364-4.
10. Kim, M.-J.; Yoo, S.-H.; Jung, S.; Park, M.-K.; Hong, J.-H. Relative sweetness, sweetness quality, and temporal profile of xylooligosaccharides and luo han guo (Siraitia grosvenorii) extract. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 965-973. [CrossRef]
11. Li, X.E.; Lopetcharat, K.; Drake, M.A. Parents' and children's acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, S1083-S1092. [CrossRef]
12. Medeiros, A.C.; Filho, E.R.T.; Bolini, H.M.A. Impact of natural and artificial sweeteners compounds in the sensory profile and preference drivers applied to traditional, lactose-free, and vegan frozen desserts of chocolate flavor. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 2973-2982. [CrossRef]
13. Prakash, I.; DuBois, G.E.; Clos, J.F.; Wilkens, K.L.; Fosdick, L.E. Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, S75-S82. [CrossRef]
14. Gray, N. Evolva and Cargill Publish Patent Application for “Next Generation” Fermented Sweeteners. Available online: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2014/08/18/Evolva-and-Cargill-publish-patentapplication-for-next-generation-fermented-sweeteners (accessed on 25 June 2020).
15. Hellfritsch, C.; Brockhoff, A.; Stähler, F.; Meyerhof, W.; Hofmann, T. Human psychometric and taste receptor responses to steviol glycosides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 6782-6793. [CrossRef]
16. Prakash, I.; Markosyan, A.; Bunders, C. Development of next generation stevia sweetener: Rebaudioside, M. Foods 2014, 3, 162-175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. PureCircle. Stevia Use in Food and Beverages Accelerated Significantly in 2018. Available online: https://purecircle.com/news/stevia-use-in-food-and-beverages-accelerated-significantly-in-2018/ (accessed on 25 June 2020).
18. Watson, E. GLG: We'll be Able to Breed Stevia Plants with More. Available online: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/09/16/GLG-We-ll-be-able-to-breed-stevia-plants-with-more-Reb-D-Reb-M (accessed on 25 June 2020).
19. Watson, E. Amyris Bids for 30% Slice of Stevia Sweetener Market by 2022. Available online: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/12/03/Amyris-bids-for-30-slice-of-stevia-sweetener-marketby-2022-with-Reb-M (accessed on 25 June 2020).
20. Goff, H.D. Ice cream and frozen desserts. In Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; American Cancer Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015; pp. 1-15; ISBN 978-3-527-30673-2.
21. Varela, P.; Ares, G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 893-908. [CrossRef]
22. Moskowitz, H.R. Experts versus consumers: A comparison. J. Sens. Stud. 1996, 11, 19-37. [CrossRef]
23. Husson, F.; Le Dien, S.; Pagès, J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 291-296. [CrossRef]
24. Worch, T.; Lê, S.; Punter, P. How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 309-318. [CrossRef]
25. Ares, G.; Bruzzone, F.; Giménez, A. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. J. Sens. Stud. 2011, 26, 363-370. [CrossRef]
26. Moskowitz, H.R. Base size in product testing: A psychophysical viewpoint and analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 1997, 8, 247-255. [CrossRef]
27. Ares, G.; Tárrega, A.; Izquierdo, L.; Jaeger, S.R. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 135-141. [CrossRef]
28. Dooley, L.; Lee, Y.; Meullenet, J.-F. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 394-401. [CrossRef]
29. Adams, J.; Williams, A.; Lancaster, B.; Foley, M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. Sens. Sci. Symp. 2007, 16.
30. Ares, G.; Barreiro, C.; Deliza, R.; Giménez, A.; Gámbaro, A. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. J. Sens. Stud. 2010, 25, 67-86. [CrossRef]
31. Ares, G.; Varela, P.; Rado, G.; Giménez, A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 1600-1608. [CrossRef]
32. Plaehn, D. CATA penalty/reward. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 24, 141-152. [CrossRef]
33. Bartoshuk, L.M.; Duffy, V.B.; Miller, I.J. PTC/PROP tasting: Anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol. Behav. 1994, 56, 1165-1171. [CrossRef]
34. Simons, C.T.; Adam, C.; LeCourt, G.; Crawford, C.; Ward, C.; Meyerhof, W.; Slack, J.P. The “bitter-sweet” truth of artificial sweeteners. In Sweetness and Sweeteners; Weerasinghe, D.K., DuBois, G.E., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 335-354, ISBN 978-0-8412-7432-7.
35. Bartoshuk, L.M. Bitter taste of saccharin related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-Propylthiouracil. Science 1979, 205, 934-935. [CrossRef]
36. Drewnowski, A.; Henderson, S.A.; Shore, A.B. Genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic responses to bitter and sweet tastes. Chem. Senses 1997, 22, 27-37. [CrossRef]
37. Zhao, L.; Tepper, B.J. Perception and acceptance of selected high-intensity sweeteners and blends in model soft drinks by propylthiouracil (PROP) non-tasters and super-tasters. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 531-540. [CrossRef]
38. Horne, J.; Lawless, H.T.; Speirs, W.; Sposato, D. Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame-K. Chem. Senses 2002, 27, 31-38. [CrossRef]
39. Rankin, K.M.; Godinot, N.; Tepper, B.J.; Kirkmeyer, S.V.; Christensen, C.M. Assessment of different methods for PROP status classification. In Genetic Variation in Taste Sensitivity; Prescott, J., Tepper, B.J., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 63-88, ISBN 0-8247-4087-4.
40. Risso, D.; Morini, G.; Pagani, L.; Quagliariello, A.; Giuliani, C.; De Fanti, S.; Sazzini, M.; Luiselli, D.; Tofanelli, S. Genetic signature of differential sensitivity to stevioside in the Italian population. Genes Nutr. 2014, 9, 401. [CrossRef]
41. Zhao, L.; Kirkmeyer, S.V.; Tepper, B.J. A paper screening test to assess genetic taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Physiol. Behav. 2003, 78, 625-633. [CrossRef]
42. Green, B.G.; Dalton, P.; Cowart, B.; Shaffer, G.; Rankin, K.; Higgins, J. Evaluating the 'labeled magnitude scale' for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem. Senses 1996, 21, 323-334. [CrossRef]
43. Bartoshuk, L.M. Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: Recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chem. Senses 2000, 25, 447-460. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Low, J.Y.Q.; McBride, R.L.; Lacy, K.E.; Keast, R.S.J. Psychophysical evaluation of sweetness functions across multiple sweeteners. Chem. Senses 2017, 42, 111-120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Wee, M.; Tan, V.; Forde, C. A comparison of psychophysical dose-response behaviour across 16 sweeteners. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1632. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Kinghorn, A.D.; Kim, N.C.; Kim, D.H.L. Terpenoid glycoside sweeteners. In Naturally Occurring Glycosides; Ikan, R., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 399-429; ISBN 978-0-471-98602-7.
47. Ko, W.-W.; Kim, S.-B.; Chung, S.-J. Effect of concentration range on the accuracy of measuring sweetness potencies of sweeteners. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103753. [CrossRef]
48. Fujimaru, T.; Park, J.-H.; Lim, J. Sensory characteristics and relative sweetness of tagatose and other sweeteners. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, S323-S328. [CrossRef]
49. Waldrop, M.E.; Ross, C.F. Sweetener blend optimization by using mixture design methodology and the electronic tongue. J. Food Sci. 2014, 79, S1782-S1794. [CrossRef]
50. Reyes, M.M.; Castura, J.C.; Hayes, J.E. Characterizing dynamic sensory properties of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners with temporal check-all-that-apply. J. Sens. Stud. 2017, 32, e12270. [CrossRef]
51. Lavin, J.G.; Lawless, H.T. Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness among children and adults. Food Qual. Prefer. 1998, 9, 283-289. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, G.; Hayes, J.E.; Ziegler, G.R.; Roberts, R.F.; Hopfer, H. Dose-response relationships for vanilla flavor and sucrose in skim milk: Evidence of synergy. Beverages 2018, 4, 73. [CrossRef]
53. Chandrashekar, J.; Mueller, K.L.; Hoon, M.A.; Adler, E.; Feng, L.; Guo, W.; Zuker, C.S.; Ryba, N.J.P. T2Rs function as bitter taste receptors. Cell 2000, 100, 703-711. [CrossRef]
54. Meyerhof, W.; Batram, C.; Kuhn, C.; Brockhoff, A.; Chudoba, E.; Bufe, B.; Appendino, G.; Behrens, M. The molecular receptive ranges of human TAS2R bitter taste receptors. Chem. Senses 2010, 35, 157-170. [CrossRef]
55. Duffy, V.B.; Davidson, A.C.; Kidd, J.R.; Kidd, K.K.; Speed, W.C.; Pakstis, A.J.; Reed, D.R.; Snyder, D.J.; Bartoshuk, L.M. Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6-n-Propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2004, 28, 1629-1637. [CrossRef]
56. Kim, U.; Jorgenson, E.; Coon, H.; Leppert, M.; Risch, N.; Drayna, D. Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science 2003, 299, 1221-1225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Hayes, J.E.; Bartoshuk, L.M.; Kidd, J.R.; Duffy, V.B. Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chem. Senses 2008, 33, 255-265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Tepper, B.J. Nutritional implications of genetic taste variation: The role of PROP sensitivity and other taste phenotypes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2008, 28, 367-388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Allen, A.L.; McGeary, J.E.; Knopik, V.S.; Hayes, J.E. Bitterness of the non-nutritive sweetener acesulfame potassium varies with polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31. Chem. Senses 2013, 38, 379-389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Hwang, L.-D.; Breslin, P.A.S.; Reed, D.R.; Zhu, G.; Martin, N.G.; Wright, M.J. Is the Association Between Sweet and Bitter Perception due to Genetic Variation? Chem. Senses 2016, 41, 737-744. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Nolden, A.A.; McGeary, J.E.; Hayes, J.E. Predominant Qualities Evoked by Quinine, Sucrose, and Capsaicin Associate with PROP Bitterness, but not TAS2R38 Genotype. Chem. Senses 2020, 45, 383-390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Drewnowski, A.; Henderson, S.A.; Shore, A.B.; Barratt-Fornell, A. Nontasters, tasters, and supertasters of 6-n-Propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic response to sweet. Physiol. Behav. 1997, 62, 649-655. [CrossRef]
63. Ly, A.; Drewnowski, A. PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) Tasting and sensory responses to caffeine, sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Chem. Senses 2001, 26, 41-47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Lim, J.; Urban, L.; Green, B.G. Measures of individual differences in taste and creaminess perception. Chem. Senses 2008, 33, 493-501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Keast, R.S.J.; Breslin, P.A.S. An overview of binary taste-taste interactions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 111-124. [CrossRef]
66. Kikut-Ligaj, D.; Trzcielinska-Lorych, ´ J. How taste works: Cells, receptors and gustatory perception. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett. 2015, 20, 699-716. [CrossRef]