Acceptability of Milk and Soymilk Vanilla Beverages: Demographics Consumption Frequency and Sensory Aspects

Abstract

Acceptance of food is basically the result of the interaction between food and humans, and it depends not only on the product characteristics but also on those of each consumer. The main objective of this study is to analyze how the acceptability of milk and soymilk vanilla beverages is influenced by demographic characteristics, consumer habits and individual preferences, and the sensorial properties of both products. Six commercial samples, comprising three milk beverages and three soymilk beverages of different brands and characteristics, were sensorially evaluated. Overall acceptability was tested by 142 consumers using a 9-point hedonic scale, and 36 assessors ranked the samples from the least to the most intense according to their yellow color, brightness, vanilla flavor intensity, sweetness, and thickness. The milk samples were significantly (P<0.05) more acceptable than the soymilk ones and were perceived as being stronger yellow and less light in color, with a more intense sweetness, stronger vanilla flavor, and thicker consistency. The results obtained led us to the conclusion that the difference in acceptability between milk and soymilk beverages is more closely related to their sensorial attributes than to other characteristics (demographic, consumer habits, and individual preferences) of the consumer population surveyed.

Keywords

vanilla beverages soybean milk acceptability consumers survey consumer habits

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrios E.X. and Costell E. (2004). Use of methods of research into consumers' opinions and attitudes in food research. Food Science and Technology International 10: 359-371.

Carbonell L. , Izquierdo L. , Carbonell I. and Costell E. (2008). Segmentation of food consumers according to their correlations with sensory attributes projected on preference spaces. Food Quality and Preference 19: 71-78.

Chambers E. , Jenkins A. and McGuire B.H. (2006). Flavor properties of plain soymilk. Journal of Sensory Studies 21: 165-179.

Costell E. , Pastor M.V. , Izquierdo L. and Duran L. (2000). Relationships between acceptability and sensory attributes of peach nectars using internal preference mapping. European Food Research and Technology 211: 199-204.

Damasio M.H. , Costell E. and Duran L. (1999). Optimising acceptability of low-sugar strawberry gels segmenting consumers by internal preference mapping. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79: 626-632.

Deshpande R.P. , Chinnan M.S. and McWatters K.H. (2005). Nutritional, physical and sensory characteristics of various chocolate-flavored peanut-soy beverage formulations. Journal of Sensory Studies 20: 130-146.

Gacula M.C. (1993). Design and Analysis of Sensory Optimization, Connecticut: Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.

Gacula M.C. , Rutenbeck S. , Pollack L. , Resurrección A.V.A. and Moskowitz H.R. (2007). The just-about-right intensity scale: functional analyses and relation to hedonics. Journal of Sensory Studies 22: 194-211.

Greenhoff K. and MacFie H.J.H. (1994). Preference mapping in practice . In: MacFie H.J.H. and Thomson D.M.H. (eds), Measurement of Food Preferences, Glasgow: Blackie Academic and Professional (Chapman & Hall), pp. 137-166.

10.

Hasler C.M. (1998). Functional foods: their role in disease prevention and health promotion. Food Technology 52: 63-70.

11.

Hayta M. , Alpaslan M. and Cakmakli U. (2003). Physicochemical and sensory properties of soymilk-incorporated bulgur. Journal of Food Science 68: 2800-2803.

12.

ISO (1988). General Guidance for the Design of Test Room, Standard No. 8589, Geneva : Switzerland, International Organization for Standarization .

13.

ISO (1993). Sensory Analysis General Guidance for the Selection. Training and Monitoring of Assessors. Part 1: Selected Assessors, Standard No. 8586-1. Geneva , Switzerland: International Organization for Standarization .

14.

ISO (1999). General Guidance and Test Method for the Assessment of the Colour of Foods. Standard No. 11037, Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standarization.

15.

ISO (2006). Sensory Analysis. Methodology Ranking. Standard No. 8587. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standarization.

16.

Keast R.S.J. and Lau J.J. (2006). Culture-specific variation in the flavor profile of soymilks. Journal of Food Science 71: S567-S572. Lange C. , Rousseau F. and Issanchou S. (1999). Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Quality and Preference 10: 31-39.

17.

Luckow T. , Sheehan V. , Delahunty C. and Fitzgerald G. (2005). Determining the odor and flavor characteristics of probiotic, health-promoting ingredients and the effects of repeated exposure on consumer acceptance. Journal of Food Science 70: S53-S59.

18.

MacFie H.J. , Bratchell N. , Greenhoff K. and Vallis L.V. (1989). Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall test. Journal of Sensory Studies 4: 129-148.

19.

Meilgaard M. , Civille G.V. and Carr B.T. (1999). Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd edn, Boca Raton: CRC Press.

20.

Mepba H.D. , Achinewhul S.C. and Pillay M. (2006). Stabilised cocosoy beverage: physicochemical and sensory properties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86: 1839-1846.

21.

Moskowitz H.R. (1983). Product Testing and Sensory Evaluation of Foods, Marketing and R&D Approaches, Connecticut: Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.

22.

N'Kouka K.D. , Klein B.P. and Lee S.Y. (2004). Developing a lexicon for descriptive analysis of soymilks. Journal of Food Science 69: S259-S263.

23.

Pastor M.V. , Costell E. , Izquierdo L. and Durán L. (1996). Optimizing acceptability of a high fruit-low sugar peach nectar using aspartame and guar gum. Journal of Food Science 61: 852-855.

24.

Potter R.M. , Dougherty M.P. , Halteman W.A. and Camire M.E. (2007). Characteristics of wild blueberry-soy beverages . LWT-Food Science and Technology 40: 807-814.

25.

Reilly J.K. , Lanou A.J. , Barnard N.D. , Seidl K. and Green A.A. (2006). Acceptability of soymilk as a calcium-rich beverage in elementary school children. Journal of the American Medical Association 106: 590-593.

26.

Smith S.M. (1990). PC-MDS Multidimensional Statistic Package, Version 5.1. Provo, Utah: Institute of Business MGT, Brigham Young University.

27.

Stein L.J. , Nagai H. , Nakagawa M. and Beauchamp G.K. (2003). Effects of repeated exposure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter beverage. Appetite 40: 119-129.

28.

Torres-Peñaranda A.V. and Reitmeier C.A. (2001). Sensory descriptive analysis of soymilk. Journal of Food Science 66: 352-356.

29.

Wang B. , Xiong Y.L. and Wang C. (2001). Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of flavoured soymilk during refrigeration storage. Journal of Food Quality 24: 513-526.

30.

Wang W.Y. and de Mejía E.G. (2005). A new frontier in soy bioactive peptides that may prevent age-related chronic diseases. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 4: 63-78.

31.

Yuan S.H. and Chang S.K.C. (2007). Selected odor compounds in soymilk as affected by chemical composition and lipoxygenases in five soybean materials. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55: 426-431.