Design of a Beverage from Whey Permeate

JFS
S: Sensory and Nutritive Qualities of Food
Design of a Beverage from Whey Permeate
J ANINE BEUCLER, MARYA NNE DRAKE, AND E. ALLEN FOEGEDING
Introduction
T
he non-solid, or yellow-green, liquid that separates from the
curd during natural cheese production is whey (Anonymous
2001; Smithers and others 1996; Chandan and others 1982). During the production of 1 pound of cheese, approximately 9 pounds
of whey are produced (Anonymous 2001). Liquid whey is approximately 93% water and 0.6% protein (Huffman 1996), and contains
almost 50% of all solids present in whole milk (Chandan and others
1982), of which lactose is the main constituent (Huffman 1996).
Until the latter part of the 1900s, milkfat was the most important
economic component of milk. Now, protein is the most highly valued component (Hardham 1998).
The emergence of whey protein as a functional ingredient and
good source of essential and branched chain amino acids has thrust
whey protein into the market spotlight. To concentrate whey protein,
liquid whey is subjected to ultrafiltration and microfiltration processes (Huffman 1996). Whey protein concentrate (WPC) contains protein in concentrations less than 90% while whey protein isolates
(WPI) contain a minimum of 90% protein. What is left over after ultrafiltration and microfiltration of liquid whey in whey protein processing is called whey permeate (WP). Liquid WP is comprised primarily
of lactose (5%), water (93%), and minerals (0.53%) with minimal fat
(0.36%) and protein (0.85%) (Chandan and others 1982; USDA
2004). In its spray-dried form, these contents are concentrated to the
following amounts: lactose 65% to 85%, minerals 8% to 20%, fat 1.5%
maximum, and protein 3% to 8% (USDEC 2000). WP is primarily
viewed as a byproduct in the food industry. Today, some WP is used
as an ingredient in animal feed, primarily the lactose component
(Frank 2001), and some WP is spread onto land. Increasing demand
and production of WPC and WPI have produced a lucrative alternative to liquid whey disposal. However, WP still poses a problem.
WP has been used in recent years for the production of lactic acid
MS 20040628. Submitted 9/17/04, Revised 11/17/04, Accepted 1/6/05. Authors
Beucler, Drake, and Foegeding are with Dept. of Food Science, North Carolina State Univ., Box 7624, Raleigh, N.C. 27695. Direct inquiries to author
Drake (E-mail: [email protected]).
© 2005 Institute of Food Technologists
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
using fermentation with lactic acid bacteria (Talabardon and others
2000; Fitzpatrick and O’Keeffe 2001; Fitzpatrick and others 2001;
Macedo and others 2002). Limited research has been conducted regarding the use of WP in the food industry. Rustom and others (1998)
used the lactose component of WP to produce oligosaccharides for use
as a functional ingredient in food products. ß-Galactosidase was used
for hydrolysis of the lactose. A 2nd study utilized hydrolyzed WP for
the production of permeate syrups to replace up to 50% of sucrose
syrup in canned peaches and pears without a reduction in quality
(Tweedie and MacBean 1978). In a similar study, Chandan and others
(1982) reported that either hydrolyzed or unhydrolyzed WP could be
used in the formation of a brine replacer in canned beans. Milk permeate (MP) is a lactose-rich byproduct of the ultrafiltration of liquid milk
during the production of specialty milk products (Talabardon and
others 2000). Its composition is similar to WP, and similar to WP, it is
primarily a waste-stream product. Al-Eid and others (1999) evaluated
replacing sucrose in white pan bread with fermented and unfermented MP. Geilman and others (1992) utilized hydrolyzed MP to produce
an electrolyte beverage. They found using limited sensory analysis
that beverages made with 100% MP were salty and that further testing would be required to produce a consumer-friendly formulation.
The beverage market represents a large and growing industry within which there are several categories (Williams 2001). Electrolyte or
sports beverages are designed to deliver rehydration, and they fall
into the functional beverage category. Functional beverages offer some
type of health benefit, and this category is a rapidly growing sector of
the beverage market. The still drink market, which includes functional
beverages, grows at an annual rate of 7%, double that of carbonated
counterparts and encompasses a wide array of beverages (Williams
2001). Thirst quenching is a consumer term that may potentially be
applied to any beverage (McEwan and Colwill 1996). The objectives of
this study were 1st, to characterize via descriptive analysis, the sensory
properties of commercial thirst-quenching beverages. For the 2nd
objective, a beverage was designed from WP to fit into the concept of
thirst-quenching beverages. Third, consumer acceptance and perception of commercial beverages and beverages made with WP was
probed. Previous research with MP with limited sensory analysis (GeiVol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S277
Published on Web 4/28/2005
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
ABSTRA
CT
meate ((WP)
WP) is a b
ypr
oduct of whey pr
otein ingr
edient pr
oduction, and pr
imar
ily contains water
ABSTRACT
CT:: Whey per
permeate
bypr
yproduct
protein
ingredient
production,
primar
imarily
water,,
ity of the WP pr
oduced in the U
nited S
tates is disposed
lactose
als
otein. The major
produced
United
States
lactose,, and miner
minerals
als,, with minimal fat and pr
protein.
majority
er
age
of via land-spr
eading or is used as a component in animal feed. H
owev
er
ed in the gr
owing bev
land-spreading
Ho
ever
er,, WP could be utiliz
utilized
gro
bever
erage
industr
y. The objectiv
es of this study w
er
e to conduct descr
iptiv
e sensor
y analysis of a wide selection of commer
cial
industry
objectives
wer
ere
descriptiv
iptive
sensory
commercial
bev
er
ages and to design a bev
er
age utilizing WP
iptiv
e sensor
y pr
ties (visual, flav
or
e/mouthbever
erages
bever
erage
WP.. The descr
descriptiv
iptive
sensory
proper
operties
flavor
or,, and textur
texture/mouthoper
er
ages w
er
e deter
mined using a tr
ained descr
iptiv
e panel ((n
n = 11). WP with and without
feel) of fifteen commer
cial bev
trained
descriptiv
iptive
commercial
bever
erages
wer
ere
determined
hydrolysis of lactose was subsequently incorporated into a basic beverage formula, substituted for 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%,
or 100% of water
onsumers ((n
n=1
00) ev
aluated bev
er
ages with WP and commer
cial bev
er
ages for o
ver
all acceptabilwater.. C
Consumers
10
evaluated
bever
erages
commercial
bever
erages
ov
erall
ity
or liking, and thirst-quenching ability
wer lev
els (25% and 50%) of either hy
dr
olyz
ed or
ity,, flav
flavor
ability.. D
Drrinks made with lo
low
levels
hydr
drolyz
olyzed
ties than bev
er
ages
unhy
dr
olyz
ed WP w
er
e mor
e similar to the commer
cial bev
er
ages in visual and flav
or pr
oper
bever
erages
unhydr
drolyz
olyzed
wer
ere
more
commercial
bever
erages
flavor
proper
operties
containing higher per
centages (75% and 100%) of WP
inks made with WP w
er
e higher in electr
olyte (N
a, K, Zn,
percentages
WP.. All dr
drinks
wer
ere
electrolyte
(Na,
Mg, P) content compared with a commercial sports beverage ((P
P < 0.05). Beverage incorporation represents a valueadded utilization for lo
w lev
els of WP
low
levels
WP..
Keywords: whey permeate, beverages, thirst-quenching, sensory analysis, consumer acceptance
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
lman and others 1992) suggested that WP might be suitable in sports
beverages, however our goal was to initially explore a wider range of
possible beverage applications for WP so we focused on the very wide
category of thirst-quenching beverages.
Materials and Methods
Descriptive sensory analysis
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Descriptive analysis was approved by the Univ. Institutional Review Board. Eleven panelists were selected based on interest, time
availability, and sensitivity to basic tastes. Each panelist (3 male, 8
female) had at least 40 h of previous descriptive sensory analysis
training using basic tastes and the Spectrum technique (Meilgaard
and others 1999). Thirteen additional training sessions, lasting 45
min each, were conducted to instruct the panelists on identification
and scale attributes. During 2 initial training sessions that included
tasting and discussion of an array of commercial beverages, panelists identified 12 descriptive attributes: fruit flavor intensity, fruit
aroma intensity, color intensity, opacity, brightness, sweet, sour, salty,
bitter, astringency, viscosity, and carbonation (Table 2). Two additional terms, brothy and dairy sour, were added subsequently when
the panel evaluated beverages with WP. During training, panelists
evaluated and discussed sensory properties of commercial beverages to minimize within and between panelist variability. Statistical
analysis of panel and panelist performance was applied prior to experimentation to confirm that the panel was trained and calibrated.
Samples (30 mL) of each refrigerated beverage were placed into
60 mL soufflé cups with lids and three-digit random codes (Sweetheart Cup Co., Owings Mills, Md., U.S.A.). One hour prior to tasting,
samples were removed from the refrigerator and allowed to temper
to 12°C. Panelists evaluated each sample while seated in partitioned
sensory booths under white lights. Samples for determination of visual attributes were placed in clear 150 mL cups (Sweetheart Cup Co.,
Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.) containing 30 mL of each sample and were
placed on a white background. Visual analysis was conducted separately. Sample order for both the flavor and the visual analyses were
randomized separately and balanced. Samples were presented
monadically with ambient temperature spring water and crackers
provided to each panelist to cleanse the palate. Each of the drinks was
evaluated in quadruplicate by each panelist.
Fifteen commercial beverages (C1-C15) were selected for descriptive analysis. Beverages spanned a wide range of beverage types and
included carbonated sodas (C1, C4, blue raspberry and raspberry
flavors), seltzer water (C10, raspberry flavor), sports-type beverages (C5, blue raspberry flavor, C15, generic berry flavor, no color),
fruit-flavored drink (C8, generic berry flavor, no natural juice, blue
color), fruit juice (C9, purple grape juice), fruit-flavored mineral and
vitamin waters (with and without added sweeteners, no color) (C2,
C6, C11, C14, raspberry flavor), fruit juice/tea beverages (C12, C13,
raspberry and blackberry flavors), a milk/juice beverage (C3, generic
berry flavor), and bottled water (C7). All beverages were shelf-stable.
Beverages were purchased at local grocery and convenience stores.
Following preliminary assessment of common flavoring themes
among commercially available beverages, berry flavor (primarily
raspberry and blue raspberry) was chosen for this study, as this was
a common and prevalent flavor across all beverage types. Data from
commercial beverages were analyzed and used in preliminary sensory tests of WP beverages to fine-tune WP beverage formulation.
WP acquisition
Frozen liquid mozzarella WP (151.4 L) was received by overnight
carrier from a large commercial cheese and whey protein manufacturing facility (Tulare, Calif., U.S.A.). WP was frozen to facilitate
S278
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005
expedient cross-country shipment. WP was kept frozen at –20°C
until use (within 2 mo) and thawed at 5°C before use.
Proximate analysis
Proximate analysis of WP was conducted using standard methods
(Bradley and others 1992). Total solids were measured using a Mojonnier Tester (Mojonnier Bros. Co., Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.) (Atherton
and Newlander 1977). The Babcock method was used for fat analysis
in addition to utilization of the CEM Smart Trac Rapid Fat Analysis
System (CEM Corp., Matthews, N.C., U.S.A.) (CEM Smart Trac Rapid
Fat Analyzer Instruction Manual). Total nitrogen was analyzed via the
Kjeldahl method and protein was calculated by the conversion factor
of total nitrogen (mg/L × 6.38/1000 = g/L protein). pH was measured
using an Orion Model 250A Plus pH Meter with a Corning G-P Combo
RJ probe (Fischer Scientific, Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S.A.). Percent titratable
acidity was calculated from the amount of 0.1 N NaOH titrated into
an 18-g sample until a final pH of 8.3 was reached. Mineral analysis
of sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc, and phosphorous was determined via inductively coupled plasma analysis. Microbial counts
(total aerobic plate count and coliforms) were determined by appropriate dilutions in 0.1% peptone water and followed by pour-plating
with tryptic soy agar or violet red bile agar (Acumedia Manufacturers
Inc., Baltimore, Md., U.S.A.) and incubation at 35°C for 24 h. All analyses were conducted in duplicate.
Hydr
olysis of WP
drolysis
Hydrolysis of WP was conducted enzymatically using lactase (Maxilact® enzyme 1000 U/mL) (DSM Food Specialties Inc., Menomonee,
Wis., U.S.A.). Methods used by Chandan et al. (1982) were utilized.
Prior to hydrolysis, WP was pasteurized by heating to 72°C for 30 s in
a stainless steel container followed by cooling on ice to 35°C. Hydrolysis was conducted at 35°C for 3 h. WP was subsequently heated to
63°C for 30 min for enzyme inactivation per manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were then immediately cooled on ice.
The glucose concentration of hydrolyzed and (control) unhydrolyzed WP was determined colorimetrically using a glucose oxidase
kit (Randox Laboratories Ltd., San Diego, Calif., U.S.A.). At time
points 0, 1.5, and 3 h of enzyme hydrolysis, 1 mL WP was removed,
and the lactase enzyme was heat inactivated as described previously. The sample was centrifuged to separate out the solids and a
1:10 dilution was made. Glucose concentration was then determined according to manufacturer’s directions. In addition, hydrolyzed and unhydrolyzed WP was evaluated by trained sensory panelists (n = 7) to determine if sweet taste increased after hydrolysis.
WP beverage formulation
Based on preliminary assessment of WP flavor and examination
of the commercial beverage results, a still (noncarbonated) beverage similar to a flavored sports beverage appeared to be the best
platform for WP incorporation. Four berry-flavored beverage formulations were initially screened. Beverage formulations varied in
sweetener amount and flavoring. Based on comparable flavor and
sweet taste intensities to commercial beverages, a beverage formulation for a fruit-flavored water was chosen for WP incorporation
(Century Foods Intl., Sparta, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) (Table 1).
Beverages with and without WP or hydrolyzed WP were subsequently made from various percentages of deionized water and
WP (0%, 25%/75%, 50%/50%, 75%/25%, 100%). Additional ingredients were added and mixed, followed by pasteurization (heating to
72°C in a stainless steel container), and subsequent cooling on ice
prior to refrigeration at 5°C. WP beverages evaluated included a
control (100% water), 4 beverages containing hydrolyzed WP in
concentrations of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (H25, H50, H75,
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
Ingredient
Water/permeate
(986 mL = 100%)
Fructose
Blue raspberry flavora
Blue raspberry flavora
Citric Acid
Trisodium phosphate
Sodium benzoate
Vitamin Ca
Pantothenic acida
Vitamin B6 a
Niacina
Amount
Source
0%, 25%, 50%, Tulare, Calif., U.S.A.
75%, 100%
70 g
A.E. Staley
Manufacturing Co.
(Decatur, Ill., U.S.A.)
0.5 mL
Mother Murphy’s
Laboratories, Inc.
(Greensboro, N.C., U.S.A.)
0.5 mL
Flachsmann (Brampton,
Ontario, Canada)
3g
Cargill Foods, Inc.
(Eddyville, Iowa, U.S.A.)
0.5 g
Astaris (Webster
Groves, Mo., U.S.A.)
0.7 g
Cargill Foods, Inc.
(Eddyville, Iowa, U.S.A.)
80 mg
Roche Vitamins Inc.
(Belvidere, N.J., U.S.A.)
5 mg
Roche Vitamins Inc.
(Belvidere, N.J., U.S.A.)
0.3 mg
Roche Vitamins Inc.
(Belvidere, N.J., U.S.A.)
15 mg
Roche Vitamins Inc.
(Belvidere, N.J., U.S.A.)
a These items were added after pasteurization and cooling.
H100), and 4 beverages containing unhydrolyzed WP (U25, U50,
U75, U100) in the same percentages.
WP beverages were evaluated in quadruplicate by the trained descriptive panel as described previously. Prior to analysis of WP beverages,
panelists received 16 h of refresher training on sensory analysis of beverages. Refresher training included review and discussion of the previously evaluated commercial beverages as well as sensory analysis and
discussion of WP and beverages containing WP. WP descriptive results
were analyzed individually and together with the previously gathered
descriptive data on commercial beverages to determine how WP beverages were characterized relative to commercial beverages and to select
representative beverages for consumer testing.
Consumer testing
Consumer testing was approved by the Univ. Institutional Review
Board. An informed consent form listing ingredients and potential
ingredients in the commercial and WP beverages was signed by each
participant prior to tasting. Faculty, staff, and students participated
in the study. Based on descriptive sensory analysis results, including
examination of individual attribute means and principal component
analysis, thirteen representative beverages (7 commercial, 6 WP
beverages) were selected for consumer testing. Commercial beverages were purchased within a week of the study, and WP beverages
were made within 2 d of the study and stored at 5°C until the test
day. Consumer evaluations (n = 100) were conducted across 4 different days. A constant control (bottled water) was presented each day
with 3 other beverages. The constant control sample was used to
reduce sample testing bias that could be associated with testing
across 4 d (Young and others 2004; Thompson and others 2004).
Prior to tasting, consumers were asked to fill out a questionnaire
regarding age, gender, shopping habits, beverage consumption habits, feelings about the “thirst-quenching” ability of particular drinks or
types of drinks, and attitudes toward different sugars. A definition of
the term “thirst-quenching” was provided on the ballot: “a beverage
you perceive to be refreshing” or “a beverage that you consume when
you are thirsty.” Panelists were also asked, prior to tasting, to rate the
3 most thirst-quenching drinks, 1 being the most thirst quenching and
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Table 2—Sensory language for descriptive sensory analysis of beverages
Attribute
Fruit aroma
Fruit flavor
Brothy
Dairy sour
Sweet a
Soura
Saltya
Bittera
Astringency a
Viscosity
Carbonation
Opacity
Definition
Aromatics associated
with different fruits
evaluated orthonasally
Aromatics associated
with different fruits
evaluated retronasally
Aromatics associated
with boiled meat or
vegetable soup stock
Aromatics associated
with fermented yogurt
Taste sensation
associated with sugar
Taste sensation
associated with citric acid
Taste sensation
associated with NaCl
Taste sensation
associated with caffeine
Shrinking, drawing, or
puckering of the oral
epithelium as a result of
exposure to substances
such as alum or tannins
Force required to move
a spoon back and forth
in product
Presence of carbon
dioxide bubbles in a
beverage
The degree to which a
liquid is opaque
Reference
Grape juice = 7
Green Gatorade = 4.5
Grape juice = 7.5
Green Gatorade = 4
Canned potatoes
Wylers low sodium
beef broth cubes
Plain yogurt
10% and 5%
sucrose in water
0.05% and 0.08%
citric acid in water
0.3% and 0.5%
NaCl in water
0.05% and 0.08%
caffeine in water
Grape juice = 7
Tea solution (6 tea
bags soaked in 1
quart hot water for 1h)
Water = 1
Cream = 3
Soda water,
seltzer water
Whole milk = 15
Grape juice = 12
Green Gatorade = 3
Color intensity The intensity or strength
Grape Juice = 13
of a color from light to dark Juice tea = 6.5
Green Gatorade = 4
Brightness
The chroma or purity of
Juice tea = 6
the color, ranging from dull/ Grape juice = 4
muddied to pure/bright color Green Gatorade = 12
a Definitions and references taken from Meilgaard and others (1999).
3 the least, out of a list of 16 various commercial beverages. Consumers were asked which flavors (fruit punch, grape, berry, citrus, no flavor/water) they felt were the most thirst quenching.
Samples (30 mL) were placed in clear 150 mL cups (Sweetheart
Cup Co., Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.) without lids as panelists arrived and
served at 10°C (beverages were kept on ice until poured). Samples
were presented to consumers in balanced random order and cups
were labeled with random three-digit codes. Samples were presented monadically and ambient temperature water and crackers were
given to each consumer to cleanse the palate. Consumers were asked
to evaluate each sample for overall liking, appearance liking, overall
mouthfeel liking, fruit flavor and sweetness liking, and overall thirstquenching liking on a 9-point hedonic scale that was anchored on the
left by “dislike extremely” and on the right by “like extremely.” Fruit
flavor and sweetness intensity as well as thirst-quenching ability were
also measured on a numerical 9-point intensity scale anchored on the
left by “low” and on the right by “high.”
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted by univariate and multivariate analysis of variance. Analysis of variance with means separation was conducted to determine differences between treatments.
Linear relationships among descriptive and consumer attributes
were determined using correlation analysis. For correlations, statisVol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
S279
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Table 1—Beverage formulation (based on 1 L)
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
Table 3—Sensory attributes of WP with and without hydrolysis
Without hydrolysis average
With hydrolysis average
Brothy
Cooked/Milky
Cardboard
1.00a
1.04a
1.66a
2.00a
0.58a
0.89a
Sweet
Sour
Salty
1.00b
2.58a
0.25a
0.58a
1.00a
1.39a
Astringency
1.25b
2.15a
Means in a column followed by different letters are significantly different P < 0.05.
tical significance was adjusted using Bonferoni’s correction. Principle component analysis was conducted on descriptive and consumer data separately to assess how all treatments were grouped.
Consumer perceptions/feelings about different sugars were evaluated in pairwise comparisons by frequency distribution using
Bowker’s test of symmetry (a nonparametric chi square type test for
multiple analyses with the same population). Statistical analysis
was conducted using SAS, version 8.2 (Cary, N.C., U.S.A.).
Results and Discussion
Physical measur
ements of WP
measurements
WP, as received, contained 2.15 ± 0.23 log colony-forming units/
mL on tryptic soy agar pour plates and 1.19 ± 0.02 log colony-forming units/mL on violet red bile agar pour plates. Pasteurized WP
contained less than 10 colony-forming units/mL on both tryptic
soy agar and violet red bile agar plates. Fat content of WP was less
than 0.1% (Babcock method) and 0.018% ± 0.01% fat (CEM Smart
Trac Rapid Fat Analyzer). WP contained 260 ± 100.4 mg/L calcium,
1340 ± 509.5 mg/L potassium, 59.8 ± 23 mg/L magnesium, 450 ±
195.7 mg/L sodium, 335 ± 133.3 mg/L total phosphates, and 0.175
± 0.095 mg/L zinc. Average total N of WP was 424.8 ± 126.0 mg N/L.
Average total protein for WP was 2.48 ± 1.09 g/L and average total
solids were 4.2% ± 1.6%. Average pH of unhydrolyzed and hydrolyzed WP was 6.45 ± 0.08. Initial glucose content of WP was 0.8 ±
1.0g/L of glucose. Glucose levels in WP increased up through 3 h of
enzyme hydrolysis (data not shown). Thereafter, glucose levels
remained constant (P > 0.05). After 3 h of hydrolysis, average glucose content was 23.4 ± 5.1 g/L. Descriptive sensory analysis of the
WP with and without hydrolysis revealed that WP was characterized by mild flavors previously documented in liquid whey and
whey ingredients (Drake and others 2003) and that sweet taste
increased following lactose hydrolysis (Table 3).
Beverage pH
Beverages were designed to be similar in all aspects to commercial beverages; therefore pH was measured across all beverages,
commercial and WP. The average pH of the commercial beverages
was 3.69 ± 1.27. The pH of commercial beverages ranged from 2.78
± 0.01 to 6.69 ± 0.00. Most commercial beverages (14/15) were between 2.78 ± 0.01 to 4.15 ± 0.02. The pH of the WP beverages increased
as more permeate was added to each beverage. The control formulations made with 0% WP had an average pH of 3.03 ± 0.08 whereas
the beverage formulations containing 100% permeate had an average pH of 4.37 ± 0.015. Hydrolysis had no effect on pH.
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Descriptive sensory analysis of
commer
cial and WP bev
er
ages
commercial
bever
erages
Wide variability in aroma, flavor, mouthfeel, and appearance
was observed among the commercial beverages. Significant differences were also observed among commercially purchased beverages and WP beverages for flavor and visual characteristics (Table 4).
All sensory attributes discriminated the beverages. Correlation
analysis (Table 5) revealed that fruit flavor and fruit aroma were
highly correlated with one another. Fruit flavor was also correlated
S280
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005
with color intensity and opacity, while opacity and color intensity
were also correlated. Brothy and dairy sour were highly correlated.
Finally, sour taste and astringency were correlated.
Principal component analysis described a total of 80.9% of the
variability on 4 principal components. PC1 described 31.7% of the
variability and was characterized by the following attributes based
on Eigenvector loadings: fruit flavor, fruit aroma, color intensity,
and opacity; while PC2 described 28.6% of the variability and was
characterized by dairy sour, brothy, bitter taste, sweet taste, and
salty taste (Figure 1). Principal components 3 and 4 described the
remaining 20.6% of the variability (Figure 2). PC3 (11.8%) was characterized by astringency and carbonation, while PC4 (8.8%) was
characterized by viscosity, sour taste, and brightness.
All 7 WP drinks were characterized by dairy sour and brothy
notes. These flavors increased with added WP, and hydrolysis had
no effect ( Table 4, Figure 1). These attributes (dairy sour and
brothy) differentiated the WP beverages from the commercial beverages. WP beverages also had salty taste, but this attribute was
not unique to them. Commercial beverage C5 had higher salty taste
than WP beverages (Table 4).
Consumer acceptance
Demographic Data. The percentage ratio of male to female participants was 41%/59%. Thirty-nine percent of the participants fell into
the 19 to 25 y age demographic, 55% were between the ages of 26 and
54 y. The remaining 6% were 55 to 65 y. Eighty-four percent were the
major shopper for their household. Approximately 45% of consumers
reported consuming thirst-quenching beverages at least once a week.
The remaining 55% consumed these types of beverages sporadically.
Sixty-four percent of the consumers responded that water was the
most thirst-quenching beverage. GatoradeTM was a distant second
with 18% scoring it as the most thirst quenching beverage. Other responses on the ballot included soda/pop (4%), milk (3%), Powerade
(3%), and fruit juice (3%). A write-in category was also provided, but no
responses were obtained. Consumers were also polled regarding what
beverage flavor was the most thirst quenching. One hundred percent
of polled consumers replied that no flavor/water was the most thirst
quenching, while 96% to 99% also responded that the other flavors
listed (citrus, berry, fruit punch, grape) were also thirst quenching.
When asked to report when consumers drink thirst-quenching beverages, the most popular answers were “whenever I am thirsty” (46%)
and “after exercise” (34%). “During exercise” and “before exercise” accounted for only 11% of the responses, while “with meals” and “with a
snack” accounted for the remaining 9%. Consumers reported that they
consumed thirst-quenching beverages primarily because they alleviate thirst (99%), have good flavor (98%), help to rehydrate the individual
(99%), and are generally healthy (100%). Improved performance was
slightly less of a motive for consumption (93.5%). Finally, all factors, price,
flavor, health (99%), availability, and color (100%) influenced consumers’ choice of thirst-quenching beverages. Consumers perceptions/
feelings about different sugars were probed by responding to the statement “lactose is a healthy sugar,” followed by similar statements for glucose, sucrose and fructose. Results were similar for lactose, glucose, and
fructose, with 44% to 50% agreeing with the statement, 36% to 38% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and 5% to 7.5% disagreeing (Table 6) (P
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
> 0.05). Consumer attitudes were more neutral for sucrose (P < 0.0001).
Only 29% of consumers agreed that sucrose was a healthy sugar, while
45% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 19% disagreed with the statement that sucrose is a healthy sugar.
Consumer Acceptance. There were no differences in liking attributes for the water across the 4 d of consumer testing (P > 0.05).
Because consumer results across all attributes were consistent across
the 4 d of testing (P > 0.05), consumer data across the 4 d were pooled.
Water was by far the most liked beverage (Table 7). Water was followed
by C9 (grape juice), C5 (sports beverage), C3 (shelf-stable milk/juice
beverage), and C6 (fruit-flavored water) as the next most preferred
beverages (average acceptance scores 6.63-6.35). The commercial
beverage C12 (juice/tea blend) along with the control experimental
formulation, U25, U50, and H50 were scored in the “like slightly” or
“neither like nor dislike” categories (range 5.92 to 5.08). The remaining
beverages H75, U100, and C10 (raspberry seltzer water), all scored
values corresponding to “dislike” (range 3.67 to 3.26).
Consumers noted differences among the commercial beverages in
fruit flavor intensity, sweet taste intensity, and thirst-quenching ability. Commercial beverages also varied in appearance, mouthfeel, fruit
flavor, sweet taste, overall liking, and thirst-quenching liking. In particular, C3, which was an opaque beverage, scored the lowest appearance
liking scores. Beverage C10 was the only carbonated beverage, and it
scored the lowest scores for thirst-quenching ability. WP beverages were
scored by consumers as high in sweet taste intensity, but these drinks
were rated low in sweetness liking. These results indicated that the
Table 4—Mean values of descriptive attributes of commercial and WP beverages
Drink
Fruit aroma
Fruit flavor
Brothy
Dairy sour
Salty
Bitter
Sour
Viscosity
Astringency
Carbonation
Opacity
Color intensity
Brightness
C1
4.80
3.49
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
2.27
1.18
1.54
9.99
2.87
4.29
11.71
C2
3.71
3.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
6.43
1.10
3.40
0.00
4.13
3.40
8.48
C3
6.84
6.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.43
1.58
1.53
0.00
11.66
5.56
3.99
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
4.12
4.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.25
1.32
2.47
6.97
3.54
5.11
7.25
4.55
3.19
0.00
0.00
2.04
0.15
5.48
1.10
2.76
0.00
3.34
4.98
12.0
5.47
3.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.68
1.00
2.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
4.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.80
1.11
2.04
0.00
3.25
4.30
11.82
4.65
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.94
1.33
6.58
0.00
12.07
13.03
3.98
3.07
1.26
0.00
0.00
0.57
1.22
3.02
1.04
2.01
9.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.13
3.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.06
1.06
1.84
0.00
3.43
4.11
8.73
3.38
3.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
4.67
1.15
4.14
0.00
9.10
9.76
5.07
Drink
C13
C14
C15
Control
H25
H50
H75
H100
U25
U50
U75
U100
LSD
Fruit aroma
Fruit flavor
Brothy
Dairy sour
Sweet
Salty
Bitter
Sour
Viscosity
Astringency
Carbonation
Opacity
Color intensity
Brightness
3.43
3.77
0.00
0.00
6.37
0.00
0.57
4.98
1.14
4.04
0.00
5.96
6.56
6.00
3.87
3.93
0.00
0.00
6.42
0.00
0.66
4.71
1.13
4.17
0.00
6.50
6.81
5.35
2.98
3.55
0.00
0.00
6.07
0.00
1.02
4.41
1.02
2.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
3.66
0.00
0.33
6.90
0.00
0.00
4.77
1.00
2.90
0.00
2.55
3.08
9.23
3.70
3.38
0.00
1.00
7.40
0.50
0.00
4.20
1.18
2.46
0.00
2.70
2.90
8.40
3.14
2.80
0.90
1.86
7.80
1.15
0.00
4.00
1.30
2.30
0.00
2.80
2.40
8.30
2.77
2.50
1.48
2.50
7.90
1.55
0.00
3.90
1.45
2.40
0.00
3.50
2.30
7.00
2.65
2.36
1.36
2.40
7.60
1.30
0.00
3.75
1.46
2.40
0.00
4.20
2.50
6.20
4.34
3.45
0.00
0.83
7.56
0.00
0.00
4.40
1.13
2.50
0.00
2.80
2.80
8.48
3.20
2.90
0.75
1.74
7.30
0.90
0.00
3.99
1.30
2.28
0.00
2.80
2.60
8.37
2.90
2.58
1.00
1.80
7.60
1.08
0.00
3.65
1.28
2.18
0.00
2.90
2.50
7.90
3.40
3.26
0.00
1.13
7.45
0.58
0.00
3.88
1.23
2.46
0.00
4.05
2.68
6.46
0.82
0.67
0.18
0.22
0.78
0.30
0.31
0.80
0.16
0.62
0.43
0.48
0.56
0.74
Attributes were scored on a 15-point numerical scale where 0 = absence of attribute and 15 = very high intensity of the attribute. LSD = least significant
difference P < 0.05. C1 to C15 are berry-flavored commercial beverages: C1 and C4 are carbonated sodas, C10 is seltzer water, C5 and C15 are sports-type
beverages, C8 is a fruit drink, C9 is fruit juice, C2, C6, C11, C14 are fruit-flavored mineral and/or vitamin waters (with and without added sweeteners), C12
and C13 are fruit juice/tea beverages, C3 is a shelf-stable milk/juice beverage, and C7 is bottled water. Control = experimental beverages formulation made
with 100% water. H25 to H100 = beverages made with hydrolyzed whey permeate substituted for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of water, respectively. U25 to U100
= beverages made with unhydrolyzed whey permeate substituted for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of water, respectively.
Table 5—Correlations between descriptive sensory attributes used to profile beverages
Fruit aroma
Fruit flavor
Dairy sour
Brothy
Sweet
Sour
Salty
Bitter
Astringency
Viscosity
Carbonation
Opacity
Color intensity
0.74a –0.35 –0.36
–0.33 –0.33
0.98a
0.44 0.26 –0.17 –0.06 0.19
0.50 0.37 –0.32 –0.07 0.53
0.34 –0.02 0.65 –0.59 –0.12
0.32 –0.03 0.68 –0.53 –0.12
–0.01 0.07 –0.58 0.00
0.16 0.09 0.79a
–0.34 –0.05
0.28
0.25
0.30
0.19
0.22
0.54
–0.42
0.05
–0.26
–0.14
0.05
–0.15
–0.24
–0.19
–0.15
–0.22
–0.09
0.46
–0.19
–0.10
0.45
0.69a
–0.18
–0.16
0.42
–0.04
–0.22
0.02
0.38
0.71a
–0.22
Color
intensity Brightness
0.34
0.71a
–0.29
–0.26
0.22
0.37
–0.17
0.18
0.75a
0.17
–0.10
0.74a
0.22
0.13
0.21
0.18
0.54
0.16
0.36
–0.47
0.00
0.05
–0.01
0.04
0.22
a Significant correlations (P < 0.0001).
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
S281
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Fruit Fruit Dairy
AstrinCarbonaroma flavor sour Brothy Sweet Sour Salty Bitter gency Viscosity ation Opacity
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
drinks were too sweet, an observation that was supported by written
comments from consumers, 19% of whom wrote “too sweet.”
Correlation analysis ( Table 8) revealed that overall liking was
positively correlated to mouthfeel liking, sweetness liking, fruit flavor liking and to thirst-quenching ability and liking. Sweetness intensity was highly correlated only to fruit flavor intensity. Sweetness
liking was correlated with overall liking, mouthfeel liking, fruit flavor
liking, and thirst-quenching liking and ability. Fruit flavor intensity
was highly correlated with sweetness intensity and fruit flavor liking.
These results suggest that although consumers liked high intensities
of fruit flavor, they did not perceive these drinks as thirst-quenching.
Most importantly, thirst-quenching ability and liking were highly
correlated to overall liking, mouthfeel liking, and sweetness liking. In
general, consumers felt that the most thirst-quenching beverages
were less sweet and had lower fruit flavor intensities.
Principal component analysis was conducted to determine relationships between products and attributes. Results confirmed those observed by univariate analysis (Figure 3, Table 7). Seventy-five percent
of the variability was explained on the 1st 2 components. PC1 explained 51.9% of the variability and was characterized by overall liking, appearance liking, mouthfeel liking, sweet liking, fruit-flavor liking,
thirst-quenching ability, and thirst-quenching liking, while PC2 described 22.7% of the variability and was characterized by the following
attributes: sweet intensity and fruit-flavor intensity. Beverage C10 was
negatively associated with all attributes. Water was highly associated
with thirst-quenching ability and liking, appearance liking, mouthfeel
liking, and overall liking. Commercial beverages C6, C5, and C9 were
all associated with fruit flavor intensity, fruit flavor liking, sweet liking,
and, to a lesser extent, overall liking and mouthfeel liking. All WP drinks
were characterized by sweet intensity, while U25, U50, and H25 were
also characterized by fruit flavor intensity. These drinks were negatively associated with appearance liking and thirst-quenching ability and
liking. There was an obvious gap between WP beverages containing
Table 6—Consumer perception of the healthfulness of
sugars (n = 100)
Lactose is a healthy sugara
Glucose is a healthy sugara
Fructose is a healthy sugara
Sucrose is a healthy sugarb
8% Strongly agree
50% Agree
37% Neither agree nor disagree
5% Disagree
0% Strongly disagree
10.6% Strongly agree
44% Agree
36% Neither agree nor disagree
7.5% Disagree
1.5% Strongly disagree
7.5% Strongly agree
48% Agree
38% Neither agree nor disagree
5% Disagree
0% Strongly disagree
5% Strongly agree
29% Agree
45% Neither agree nor disagree
19% Disagree
1% Strongly disagree
a,b Differences in the distribution of consumer attitudes between the sugars
(P < 0.0001).
50% or less WP and those containing 75% or more WP (Figure 3). Those
beverages containing lower amounts (25% and 50%) of WP exhibited
higher overall liking scores and were ranked closer to commercial beverages than those WP beverages containing 75% or more WP.
Discussion
Proximate analysis results for protein, fat, lactose, calcium, and
potassium content of WP were within ranges published by the United States Dairy Export Council (2002). However, values for phosphorous, sodium, and magnesium were above the published ranges.
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Figure 1—Principal component biplot of descriptive analysis of beverages. C1 to C15 are berry-flavored commercial
beverages: C1 and C4 are carbonated sodas, C10 is seltzer water, C5 and C15 are sports-type beverages, C8 is a fruit
drink, C9 is fruit juice, C2, C6, C11, C14 are fruit-flavored mineral and/or vitamin waters (with and without added
sweeteners), C12 and C13 are fruit juice/tea beverages, C3 is a shelf-stable milk/juice beverage, and C7 is bottled
water. U is unhydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of WP added, for example, U25. H is
hydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of WP added, for example H25. PC is principal
component. Percentage following PC in parenthesis explains amount of variability depicted by each principal component on each axis. Underlined samples were chosen for consumer testing.
S282
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
Table 7—Mean values of consumer liking attributes of commercial and WP beverages
Overall liking
Appearance liking
Mouthfeel liking
Fruit flavor intensity
Fruit flavor liking
Sweet intensity
Sweet liking
Thirst quenching ability
Thirst quenching liking
C3
C5
C6
C9
C10
C12 Control U25
U50
H50
H75
U100
Water
LSD
6.39
3.92
6.47
6.73
6.50
6.95
6.47
5.70
5.71
6.44
6.75
6.96
6.35
6.30
6.42
6.51
6.44
6.44
6.35
7.40
7.06
5.84
6.23
6.20
6.12
6.31
6.22
6.63
7.04
6.66
8.15
7.46
6.34
6.64
5.55
5.50
3.26
6.53
4.37
2.60
2.71
2.33
3.16
3.82
3.43
5.72
7.06
6.49
6.96
6.21
5.63
6.02
5.59
5.52
5.25
5.61
5.84
6.44
5.55
7.43
5.42
5.47
5.29
5.08
6.19
6.13
6.18
5.29
7.23
5.25
5.35
4.98
3.67
5.40
4.86
5.68
4.00
6.94
4.21
4.06
3.79
3.67
6.25
5.44
5.81
4.50
7.14
4.48
4.74
4.29
7.48
7.71
7.57
1.29
5.22
1.51
5.90
8.04
7.93
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.48
0.47
0.62
0.62
0.59
0.60
5.92
7.10
6.80
6.08
5.75
6.61
6.19
6.18
6.01
5.71
7.02
6.35
6.54
5.35
7.17
5.87
5.70
5.52
Attributes were scored on a 9-point hedonic scale where 0 = absence of attribute or dislike extremely and 9 = very high intensity of the attribute or like
extremely. LSD = least significant difference P < 0.05. C1 to C15 are berry-flavored commercial beverages: C1 and C4 are carbonated sodas, C10 is seltzer
water, C5 and C15 are sports-type beverages, C8 is a fruit drink, C9 is fruit juice, C2, C6, C11, C14 are fruit-flavored mineral and/or vitamin waters (with and
without added sweeteners), C12 and C13 are fruit juice/tea beverages, C3 is a shelf-stable milk/juice beverage, and C7 is bottled water. Control is experimental beverage made with no WP. U25, U50, U100 are beverages made with 25%, 50%, or 100% unhydrolyzed WP and H50 and H75 are beverages made with
50% or 75% hydrolyzed WP, respectively.
a leading commercial sports beverage included in the study (C5)
(Table 4), which suggests that salty taste intensity was not objectionable. Alternatively, the use of other flavorings or masking agents
could cover unwanted brothy or dairy sour flavors present in WP
beverages.
Plain hydrolyzed WP was sweeter than unhydrolyzed WP via descriptive analysis. However, when incorporated into the beverage formulation with added fructose, there were no statistical differences in sweet
taste via descriptive analysis between WP beverages containing hydrolyzed or unhydrolyzed lactose. Lactose hydrolysis did not affect acceptability of WP beverages, and consumer perceptions of various sugars
also indicated that lactose was not perceived in a negative fashion compared with other sugars such as glucose, sucrose, and fructose. Because
lactose hydrolysis is expensive and time-consuming, results suggest
that hydrolysis of WP is not necessary for beverage incorporation.
Johnson and others (1983) evaluated the relationship between
Figure 2—Principal component biplot of descriptive analysis of beverages (PC3&4). C1 to C15 are berry-flavored commercial beverages: C1 and C4 are carbonated sodas, C10 is seltzer water, C5 and C15 are sports-type beverages, C8
is a fruit drink, C9 is fruit juice, C2, C6, C11, C14 are fruit-flavored mineral and/or vitamin waters (with and without
added sweeteners), C12 and C13 are fruit juice/tea beverages, C3 is a shelf-stable milk/juice beverage, and C7 is
bottled water. U is unhydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of WP added, for example,
U25. H is hydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of WP added, for example H25. PC is
principal component. Percentage following PC in parenthesis explains amount of variability depicted by each principal component on each axis. Underlined samples were chosen for consumer testing.
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
S283
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
These differences may be due to differences in milk source or cheese
type. All values for mineral content of WP were above levels present
in typical electrolyte beverages such as GatoradeTM. The high level
of sodium may account for the salty taste encountered in both plain
WP and WP beverages. WP beverages exhibited salty tastes and low
but distinct intensities of brothy and dairy/sour flavors. Geilman and
others (1992) also reported high salty taste in formulated milk permeate (MP) beverages, however they did not investigate dilution of permeate prior to incorporation into a beverage. Although minimal sensory analysis was conducted by Geilman and others (1992), the focus
in their study, which utilized no formal descriptive analysis and limited consumer analysis (n = 45), was on heat-stable and heat-developed flavors following ultra high temperature (UHT) heat treatments. Removal or reduction of sodium or potassium in WP via anion
exchange or nanofiltration would reduce salty taste in WP beverages.
However, salty taste intensity of WP beverages was less than that of
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
perceived sweetness intensity, flavor intensity, and color intensity
in strawberry-flavored drinks. They reported that colored solutions
were perceived by a consumer-like taste panel to have more intense
flavors than their colorless counterparts. Also, darker-colored beverages were perceived to have stronger flavors than lighter-colored
beverages. These findings were supported by studies conducted by
Bayarri and others (2001) who determined that color enhanced the
perception of sweet taste in orange-flavored drinks and enhanced
the perceived intensity of flavors in peach-, kiwi-, orange-, and berry-flavored drinks. However, the intensity of this effect was dependent upon the product type and consumer expectations (Bayarri
and others 2001). In our results, as the amount of WP added to beverages increased, the color intensity scores decreased on average.
The fruit flavor intensity scores also dropped as more WP was added
(Table 4). The same relationship between color and fruit flavor intensity was found in our study for WP beverages, although this effect could also have been due to flavors contributed by WP diminishing fruit flavor perception rather than color effects.
Zellner and Durlach (2002) used a six-part questionnaire to probe
consumer attitudes of thirst-quenching beverages. Their study determined that temperature, sweetness, and color were major factors influencing thirst-quenching ability or refreshingness of a beverage.
Temperature was by far the most important factor. Cold temperature
drinks were viewed as thirst quenching by 92% of those polled. The
2nd most common response was sweet taste (unspecified sweetness
level), which influenced 50% of the consumers. Color was important to
24% of the consumers polled. Consumers felt that thirst-quenching
beverages were typically clear, red, orange, yellow, or white. Unlikely
refreshing colors included black, brown, green, gray, and purple (Zellner and Durlach 2002). Twelve percent of consumers in our study
wrote that the blue color of the WP beverages was an odd color for a
drink and that they would not choose this color for a beverage. However, there are multiple brands of blue-colored electrolyte (sports) and
still-flavored beverages currently in the market. Zellner and Durlach
(2002) reported that citrus and vanilla flavors were the most refreshing. Orange, strawberry, and lemon flavors correspond to the refreshing colors of orange, red, and yellow. Strawberry, the 2nd most thirstquenching flavor (Zellner and Durlach 2002), is a member of the berry
flavor family. The choice to use berry-flavored drinks was therefore a
wise decision, because most consumers are familiar with berry flavors
and also feel that they are highly refreshing.
Sweetness is a determinant of thirst-quenching liking and amount
of beverage consumption. The presence of flavor and sweetness in a
thirst-quenching beverage increased consumption in exercising individuals (Passe and others 2000). The addition of flavor and sweet taste
to water was preferred over plain water in these same individuals (Passe and others 2000). The perceived intensity of sweet taste increases
during an exercise bout and may therefore result in a decreased consumption of a beverage if the perceived sweet taste intensity is too
high. A study by Cohen (1988) found a statistical difference in hedonic
liking scores of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks containing 6% and 8%
carbohydrate. The 8% carbohydrate-electrolyte drink scored 6.2 ± 2.2,
while the 6% carbohydrate-electrolyte scored 7.1 ± 1.4 on a 9-point
hedonic scale for overall beverage liking, indicating that higher sweetness intensity was undesirable for thirst-quenching beverages (Cohen
1988; Passe and others 2000). Our results did not reveal a correlation
between consumer perception of thirst-quenching and sweet taste
intensity (Table 8). However, consumer perception of sweet taste intensity and sweet taste liking were not related, nor was sweet taste
intensity and overall liking (Table 8).
McEwan and Colwill (1996) reported that there were 7 attributes
that consumers reported as being the most important in influencing
the thirst-quenching characteristics of beverages: acid, astringent,
carbonation, fruity, strength of flavor, sweetness, and thickness. Acid
was most associated with thirst-quenching, while sweetness and thickness were least associated (McEwan and Colwill 1996) In our study,
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
Figure 3—Internal preference map of consumer perception of selected commercial and WP beverages (PC1&2). C1 to
C15 are berry-flavored commercial beverages: C1 and C4 are carbonated sodas, C10 is seltzer water, C5 and C15 are
sports-type beverages, C8 is a fruit drink, C9 is fruit juice, C2, C6, C11, C14 are fruit-flavored mineral and/or vitamin
waters (with and without added sweeteners), C12 and C13 are fruit juice/tea beverages, C3 is a shelf-stable milk/
juice beverage, and C7 is bottled water. U is unhydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of
WP added, for example, U25. H is hydrolyzed WP beverage, followed by value that is the percentage of WP added, for
example H25. PC is principal component. Percentage following PC in parenthesis explains amount of variability depicted by each principal component on each axis.
S284
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Beverage from whey permeate . . .
Table 8—Correlations between consumer liking attributes of beverages
Appearance
liking
Overall liking
0.32
Appearance liking
Mouthfeel liking
Sweet intensity
Sweet liking
Fruit flavor intensity
Fruit flavor liking
Thirst quenching ability
Mouthfeel
liking
0.96a
0.40
Sweet
intensity
–0.09
–0.42
–0.03
Sweet
liking
Fruit flavor
intensity
Fruit flavor
liking
0.91a
0.16
0.89a
0.27
0.10
–0.26
0.10
0.87a
0.48
0.80a
0.08
0.77a
0.38
0.95a
0.64a
Thirst quenching Thirst quenching
ability
liking
0.91a
0.45
0.94a
–0.25
0.73a
–0.19
0.56
0.94a
0.44
0.95a
–0.23
0.78a
–0.14
0.61
0.99a
a Significant correlations (P < 0.002).
Conclusions
D
escriptive analysis revealed differences among all commercial
and WP beverages. Only WP beverages exhibited brothy and
dairy-sour flavors, and the intensity of these attributes was directly related to the percentage of WP added. WP beverages were also characterized by salty taste, but salty taste intensities were comparable or
lower than commercial sports beverages. Consumer acceptability
scores for WP beverages containing 25% and 50% WP were higher than
those containing 75% and 100% WP, and these acceptance scores were
comparable to several commercial beverages. WP in lower concentrations (25% to 50% substitution) may be successfully incorporated into
a beverage application. Other applications should be investigated
such as incorporation into a drinkable yogurt, where WP flavors may be
successfully merged at higher concentrations.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by the North Carolina Dairy Foundation. The use of trade names does not imply endorsement nor
criticisms of ones not mentioned. Paper FSR05-13 of the Food Science Dept., North Carolina State Univ.
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
References
Al-Eid SM, Al-Neshawy AA, Al-Shaikh Ahmad SS. 1999. Influence of substituting
water with ultrafiltered milk permeate on dough properties and baking quality of white pan bread. J Cereal Sci 30:79–82.
Anonymous. 2001. Whey. Do it with dairy. Available from Dairy Management
Inc., Rosemont, Ill. www.doitwithdairy.com/infolib/ingspecsheet/factwhey.htm.
Accessed June 15, 2004.
Atherton HV, Newlander JA. 1977. Chemistry and testing of dairy products. Westport, Conn.: AVI Publ. Co. p 71–116.
Bayarri S, Calvo C, Costello E, Duran L. 2001. Influence of color on perception of
sweetness and fruit flavor of fruit drinks. Food Sci Tech Int 7(5):399–404.
Bradley RL, Arnold E, Barbano DM, Semerad RG, Smith DE, Vines BK. 1992. Chapter
15 title. In: Marshall RT, editor. Standard methods for the examination of dairy
products. 16th edition. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Assn. p 433–516.
Chandan RC, Uebersax MA, Saylock MJ. 1982. Utilization of cheese whey permeate in canned beans and plums. J Food Sci 47:1649–53.
Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Drake MA, Karagul-Yuceer Y, Cadwallader KR, Civille GV, Tong PS. 2003. Determination of the sensory attributes of dried milk powders and dairy ingredients. J Sensory Stud 18:199–216.
Fitzpatrick JJ, Ahrens M, Smith S. 2001. Effect of manganese on Lactobacillus casei fermentation to produce lactic acid from whey permeate. Proc Biochem 36(7):671–5.
Fitzpatrick JJ, O’Keeffe U. 2001. Influence of whey protein hydrolysate addition to whey
permeate batch fermentations for producing lactic acid. Proc Biochem 37(2):183–6.
Frank P. 2001. Finding the whey: Food processing. Meadow Fresh Marketing, Salt
Lake City, Utah. Available from: www.legacy-meadowfresh.com/
Finding_The_Whey.html. Accessed June 15, 2004.
Geilman WG, Schmidt D, Herfurth-Kennedy C, Path J, Cullor J. 1992. Production
of an electrolyte beverage from milk permeate. J Dairy Sci 75:2364–9.
Hardham JF. 1998. Effect of protein standardization of milk by addition of UF
milk permeate on the composition and storage stability of UHT processed
milk. Aust J Dairy Tech 53:22–7.
Huffman LM. 1996. Processing whey protein for use as a food ingredient. Food
Tech 50:49–52.
Johnson LJ, Dzendolet E, Clydesdale FM. 1983. Psychophysical relationship between
sweetness and redness in strawberry-flavored drinks. J Food Prot 46:21–5.
Macedo MG, Lacroix C, Champagne CP. 2002. Combined effects of temperature and
medium composition on exopolysaccharide production by Lactobacillus rhamnosus RW-9595M in a whey permeate based medium. Biotech Prog 18(2):167–73.
Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. 1999. Descriptive analysis techniques. In:
Meilegaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT, editors. Sensory evaluation techniques.
3rd ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. p 173–83.
McEwan JA, Colwill JS. 1996. The sensory assessment of the thirst-quenching
characteristics of drinks. Food Qual Pref 7(2):101–11.
Passe DH, Horn M, Murray R. 2000. Impact of beverage acceptability on fluid
intake during exercise. Appetite 35:219–29.
Rustom IYS, Foda MI, Lopez-Leiva MH. 1998. Formation of oligosaccharides from whey
UF-permeate by enzymatic hydrolysis—analysis of factors. Food Chem 62(2):141–7.
Smithers GW, Ballard FJ, Copeland AD, De Silva KJ, Dionysius DA, Francis GL, Godard C, Griece PA, McIntosh GH, Mitchell IR, Pearce RJ, Regester GO. 1996. New
opportunities from the isolation and utilization of whey proteins. Symposium:
advances in dairy foods processing and engineering. J Dairy Sci 79:1454–9.
Talabardon M, Schwitzguebel J, Peringer P. 2000. Anaerobic thermophilic fermentation for acetic acid production from milk permeate. J Biotech 76:83–92.
Thompson JL, Drake MA, Lopetcharat K, Yates MD. 2004. Preference mapping of
commercial chocolate milks. J Food Sci 69(11):S406-S413.
Tweedie LS, MacBean RD. 1978. The effect of partial replacement of sucrose by
hydrolyzed whey lactose on the quality of canned peaches and pears. Food
Tech Aust 12(4):128-131.
[USDA] United States Dept. of Agriculture. 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture. Available from: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/
list_nut_edit.pl. Accessed June 15, 2004.
[USDEC] United States Dairy Export Council. 2000. Reference manual for U.S.
whey and lactose products. Arlington, Va.: U.S. Dairy Export Council.
Williams LA. 2001. Trend setting drinks: The new developments and trends that will
be shaping their industry in the years to come. World Food Ingred 11:45–48,50,52.
Young N, Drake MA, Lopetcharat K, McDaniel M. 2004. Preference mapping of
Cheddar cheeses. J Dairy Sci 87:11–9.
Zellner DA, Durlach P. 2002. What is refreshing? An investigation of the color and
other sensory attributes of refreshing foods and beverages. Appetite 39:185–6.
Vol. 70, Nr. 4, 2005—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
S285
S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food
sweet liking was correlated with overall liking and to thirst-quenching
liking, however sweet intensity was not, confirming observations from
these previous studies. In contrast, in our study a carbonated beverage
(C10) was not considered thirst-quenching and scored the lowest
scores for thirst-quenching ability and liking. Future studies with WP
should investigate whether a substitute sweetener could be utilized
or simply a lower amount of sweetener could be incorporated into the
WP beverages to increase acceptance scores.
Our results from commercial and WP beverages revealed 2 important issues. First, the control formulation was an accurate formulation
given its centralized location among commercial beverages on the
descriptive principle component plot (Figures 1, 2). Second, the addition of WP to the control formulation resulted in drinks more unlike
commercial beverages. This conclusion is strengthened by the finding that the greater the amount of WP added to the formulation, the
farther the WP beverages plotted from the commercial beverages on
both descriptive analysis and consumer acceptability principal component analysis plots (Figures 1 to 3). Therefore, the greater the percentage of WP added to the beverage, the less like commercial beverages it became. WP beverages plotted in a grouping distinct from
commercial beverages, while the control formulation plotted closely
to the commercial beverages. These results suggest that while low
levels (25% to 50%) of WP incorporation may be achievable in a viable commercial beverage, this platform may not be the most ideal
application for the infiltration of WP into the food market. The more
WP added, the less preferred and accepted beverages were by consumers. Some other food application such as a fruit smoothie or
drinkable yogurt might be more feasible for WP incorporation, and
future studies will address this option.