Categorization and Sensory Profiling of Functional Beverages

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy.
Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing

in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
UMI
CATEGORIZATION AND SENSORY PROFILING OF FUNCTIONAL BEVERAGES
BY
LAUREN CHIEMI TAMAMOTO
B.S., University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2003
M.S., University of Queensland, 2004
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Food Science and Human Nutrition
in the Graduate College
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009
Urbana, Illinois
Doctoral Committee:
Professor Keith R, Cadwallader, Chair
Associate Professor Soo-Yeun Lee, Co-Director of Research
Professor Shelly J. Schmidt, Co-Director of Research
Associate Professor Elvira de Mejia
UMI Number: 3395512
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
JLIMT^
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3395512
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
2009 Lauren Chiemi Tamamoto
ABSTRACT
The significant influx of a wide variety of commercially-available functional
beverages has resulted in a beverage segment that is not clearly defined or understood.
The rapid increase in functional beverages has also resulted in the lack of understanding
of the sensory, chemical, and physical effects of functional ingredients in these products.
Therefore, the central hypothesis of this research was that there are distinct functional
beverage categories and that functional ingredients incorporated into beverage
formulations affect the sensory properties of beverages. The objectives were to: 1)
categorize commercially-available functional beverages using three different methods
(ingredient inventory, flow behavior comparison, and a two-step sensory sorting), 2)
develop and validate the two-step sensory sorting method to categorize large number of
samples, 3) determine and describe the effects of functional ingredients (caffeine,
ginseng, and taurine) on the sensory characteristics of model energy drink solutions, and
4) identify effective treatments and levels of bitterness minimizers to reduce the
bitterness of ginseng in water base and model energy drink base solutions. Of the three
categorization methods, the two-step sensory sorting produced the most distinctive and
defined categories. The seven functional beverage categories generated were: Enhanced
Waters, Energy Drinks, Fruit Smoothies, Nutritional Drinks, Sports Drinks, Teas, and
Yogurt Smoothies. The research suggests that the two-step sorting is a valid and
reproducible method to categorize a large number (~50) of functional beverages. Since
Energy Drinks was one of the most distinct categories generated in the categorization
research, it was the main focus in the functional ingredients study. To determine the key
sensory attributes of model energy drink solutions containing 27 combinations (3x3x3
factorial design) of the three functional ingredients at three concentrations (low, medium,
ii
high), a descriptive analysis (DA) was conducted. The results from the DA research
suggest that ginseng predominantly contributes to the bitter attributes. Bitterness
minimizers were investigated, and it was found that cyclodextrins are effective in
reducing the bitter taste of ginseng in solution. Taste is a key component in the
acceptability of food products and the more known about the inclusion of ingredients into
a food matrix, the belter we can develop successful products.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to all who have been instrumental in my journey towards my doctoral
degree. I feel fortunate to have many friends, mentors, and supporters who believed in
me, and who were my cheering squad. I would not be in this position today had it not
been for all the support and encouragement that I received.
I would like to thank my thesis committee-Dr.Keith Cadwallader-Chairperson,
Dr. Elviria DeMejia, and Dr. Youngsoo Lee for all their time and helpful suggestions.
Special thanks to my two advisors Dr. Soo-Yeun Lee and Dr. Shelly Schmidt, who
provided valuable guidance and spent countless hours discussing my research and editing
my papers. Thank you for not only being my advisors, but also my friends who I could
always talk to.
Thank you to my labmates, friends, and family for all their support throughout the
years. All your words of encouragement and friendship helped me to pursue and conquer
one of my most ambitious goals in life. Thank you to my parents for instilling the
importance of education and for providing me with a strong foundation of values. Thank
you to my sister Reagan who is one of my best friends and has been a great older sister
who is always looking after me. Lastly, thank you to my husband Michael (who has read
and heard about my research so much, that he understands it just as much as I do), for
your unconditional love and support, and for just being there for me through it all,
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
Chapter 1 -Introduction
1.1 Motivation
1.2 Objectives
1.3 References
1
1
3
4
Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1 Functional Beverages
2.1.1 Functional Beverage Categories
2.2 Energy Drinks
2.2.1 Functional Ingredients
2.2.2 Descriptive Analysis of Energy Drinks
2.3 Bitter Taste
2.3.1 Bitterness Minimizers
2.3.2 Masking Agents
2.3.3 Molecular Interaction
2.3.4 Bitter Taste Receptor Blockers
2.3.5 Cyclodextrins
2.4 Sorting and Categorization Methods
2.5 Concluding Remarks
'.
2.6 References
2.7 Tables
5
5
6
9
10
12
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
23
24
32
Chapter 3 - Categorization of Commercially-Available Functional Beverages by

Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Commonalities
3.1 Abstract
.'
,...-,3.2 Introduction
3.3 Materials and Methods
3.4 Results and Discussion
3.5 Conclusions
3.6 References
3.7 Tables and Figures
33
33
34
36
42
48
49
52
Chapter 4 - Validation and Reproducibility Study of a Two-Step Sensory Sorting

Method to Categorize Functional Beverages
4.1 Abstract
4.2 Introduction
:
4.5 Conclusions
4.6 References
Chapter 5 - Sensory Profile of a Model Energy Drink with Varying Levels of
Functional Ingredients-Caffeine, Ginseng, and Taurine
5.1 Abstract
5.2 Introduction
5.5 Conclusions
5.6 References
64
64
65
67
75
81
82
85
104
104
105
108
113
118
118
121
Chapter 6 - Sensory Properties of Ginseng Solutions Modified by Masking Agents ....129

6.1 Abstract
129
6.2 Introduction
130
132
139
6.5 Conclusions
145
6.6 References
146
149
Chapter 7 - Summary
158
Chapters -References
162
Appendix A: Functional Beverage Ingredient Inventory Comparison Chart
173
Appendix B: Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method-Free Sorting Task Sample

Scorecard
174
Appendix C: Template of Functional Beverage Names and Number Codes Stickers

used in the Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method
175
Appendix D: Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method Sample Sorting Scorecard

Appendix E: Descriptive Analysis Recruitment Prescreening Questionnaire
176
177
vi
Appendix F: Descriptive Analysis Recruitment Prescreening Taste Identification

Test
179
Appendix G: Infonned Consent Form for Sensory Evaluation Studies
180
Author's Biography
181
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Amount of Functional Ingredients in Commercially-available Energy
Drinks purchased in September 2006
32
Table 3.1: Fifty commercially-available functional beverages and corresponding

numerical codes
52
Table 3.2: Functional beverage category names generated through visual

observation of the beverage ingredient commonalities in the ingredient
inventory spreadsheet
53
Table 3.3: Viscosities of Newtonian Functional Beverages measured at 20C
54
Table 3.4: Viscosities of non-Newtonian Functional Beverages at a shear rate

of 50 s"1
55

numerical codes
85
Table 4.2: Adjusted Rand Index values of the comparison of clusters generated
through free and fixed sorting tasks by Panels 1 to 4
86
Table 4.3: Compilation of Panel 2 and 3's validation study results of commercially
available functional beverages sorted into categories by visual and
visual-oral fixed sorts compared to Panel l's results
87
Table 4.4: Compilation of Panel 1 and 4's reproducibility study results comparing
commercially-available functional beverages sorted into categories by
visual and visual-oral free and fixed sorting task results
89
Table 5.1: Amount of functional ingredients listed on Nutritional Facts labels of a

sampling of popular commercially-available energy drinks
121
Table 5.2: Amount of functional ingredients (caffeine, ginseng, and taurine) in

100 mL model energy drink solutions
122
Table 5.3: Terms, definitions, references, and ratings for scale anchors of the
descriptive attributes for the model energy drink solutions
123
Table 5.4: Analysis of Variance on 13 descriptive attributes rated for model

energy drink solutions
124
Table 5.5: Mean intensity scores of sensory attributes of varying levels of

functional ingredients
125
viii
Table 5.6: Correlation analysis on significant sensory attributes for 27

combinations of functional ingredients in model energy drink solutions
126
Table 6.1: Solution treatment codes and corresponding levels of y-, p-CDs, and
their combinations in both 100 mL water base and 100 mL model
energy drink base solutions
149
Table 6.2: Bitterness intensity rankings (l=least bitter to 6=most bitter) of the
bitterness minimizing treatments incorporated in a
0.0529 g ginseng/100 mL water solution
150
Table 6.3: Mean bitterness intensity rating scores (0 to 9) of bitterness

minimizing treatment levels incorporated in a 0.0529 g ginseng/100 mL
water solution
151
Table 6.4: Analysis of Variance on descriptive attributes rated for ginseng

solutions containing varying levels of y- and P-CDs
152
Table 6.5: Mean quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity
scores (0 to 15) across all 21 solution treatments combining water base
and model energy drink base solutions and with and without nose clips
usage data
152
Table 6.6: Mean" quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity
scores (0 to 15) across all 7 y-CD solution treatments in water base or
model energy drink base, without nose clips and with nose clips usage
data
153
Table 6.7: Mean" quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity
scores (0 to 15) across all 7 P-CD solution treatments in water base or
model energy drink base, without nose clips and with nose clips usage
data
154
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Chemical Structure of Caffeine
10
Figure 2.2: Chemical Structure of Ginsenoside
11
Figure 2.3: Chemical Structure of Taurine
12
Figure 3.1: Multidimensional Scaling of the results of the ingredient inventory

categorization with stress = 0.227
56
Figure 3.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 50 functional beverages

(including decarbonated beverages) by viscosity measurement using .the
ARES RFS III
57
Figure 3.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 33 Newtonian functional

beverages by viscosity measurement using the ARES RFS III
58
Figure 3.4: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 17 non-Newtonian functional

beverages by viscosity measurement at 50 sec"1 shear rate using the
ARES RFS III
59
Figure 3.5: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional

beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.265 and functional
beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting method
60
Figure 3.6: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 50

functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.290 and
functional beverage categories generated through the free visual-oral
sorting method
61
Figure 3.7: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 50 functional

beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.289 and
corresponding beverage categories
62
Figure 3.8: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of 45

corresponding beverage categories
63
Figure 4.1: Flow chart of studies and panels, categories, types of sorting task, and
results of the conducted two-step sensory sorting method
91
Figure 4.2: Multidimensional Scaling Panel l's visual free sort (Part 1) of 50
functional beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting
method
Figure 4.3: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 50
sorting method
93
Figure 4.4: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 50
corresponding functional beverage categories
94
Figure 4.5: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of
45 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.283
And corresponding functional beverage categories
95
Figure 4.6: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 2's visual fixed sort of 50 functional
beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.301 and
corresponding fixed functional beverage categories a) Multidimensional
Scaling of Panel 4's visual free sort data of 50
96
Figure 4.7: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 2's visual-oral fixed sort of 46

corresponding fixed functional beverage categories
97
Figure 4.8: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 3's visual fixed sort of 50 functional
beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.241 and corresponding
fixed functional beverage categories
98
Figure 4.9: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 3's visual-oral fixed sort of 46

Figure 4.10: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual free sort (Part 1) of 46
functional beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting
method
100
Figure 4.11: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of
46 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.232 and
sorting method
101
Figure 4.12: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 46
102
99
xi
Figure 4.13: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2)
of 46 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with stress = 0.262
and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories
103
Figure 5.1: Principal component analysis biplot of covariance matrix of mean

sensory attributes of 27 combinations of functional ingredients in model
energy drink solutions with varimax rotation
127
Figure 5.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of attribute ratings for

27 combinations of functional ingredients in model energy drink solutions
on the dissimilarity scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by
Ward's method
,
128
Figure 6.1: Effect of y-CD levels on (a) quinine bitter and (b) caffeine bitter
aftertaste intensity ratings of ginseng solution treatments with and
without nose clips and in water base or model energy drink base
solutions
155
Figure 6.2: Effect of p-CD levels on (a) quinine bitter and (b) caffeine bitter
aftertaste intensity ratings of ginseng solution treatments with and
without nose clips and in water base or model energy drink base
solutions
156
Figure 6.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of quinine bitter and

caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute mean intensity ratings for 21 ginseng
solution treatments containing varying levels of y-CD and p-CD on the
dissimilarity scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration
157
xii
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
Functional beverages are a booming market, with hundreds of new beverages
introduced each year (Packaged Facts 2009). The popularity of functional beverages
stems from the fact that they are a healthy alternative to soft drinks because they provide
additional health benefits. The origins of functional beverages began with the
introduction of beverages geared to replace fluids and electrolytes after exercise (Leveen
2007). Energy drinks were then developed for consumers who desired an extra boost of
energy in a beverage. The functional beverage market is rapidly expanding, and it is
necessary to understand the characteristics associated with specific types of functional
beverages, to meet consumers' expectations. Therefore, the final central hypothesis of
this thesis is that there are distinct functional beverage categories, and that the functional
ingredients incorporated into beverage formulations affect the sensory properties of
beverages.
One of the initial working hypotheses of this research was that there are particular
mouthfeel and sensory expectations that correspond to different types of functional
beverages. The questions we wanted to answer included: is there a particular mouthfeel
associated with an isotonic drink that is unique in comparison to an energy drink? Or
could a highly viscous solution be considered a tea? To answer these questions, a
literature review was conducted, and it was found that there was no set of standard
definitions of functional beverage categories. The rapid introduction of new functional
beverages into the market raised the need to define the specific categories of these
beverages. The expansion of the functional beverage market resulted in the creation of
numerous hybrid-type beverages, which combine multiple concepts. Therefore, the

initial research focus was then expanded to answer the question, "What are the different
categories of functional beverages and what makes each beverage category distinct?"
The first hypothesis of this research was that functional beverage can be classified into
well-defined categories through categorization methods.
In the categorization research, energy drinks were found to be one of the most
distinctive and popular categories of the beverage market. The ingredients of thirteen
commercial carbonated energy drink products were inspected, and it was found that
caffeine, ginseng, and taurine were some of the most common functional ingredients
contained in energy drinks. In 2007, ginseng, caffeine, and taurine were all considered
one of the top 15 functional ingredients consumers seek in functional beverages (Lai
2007). Yet, limited research had been conducted to determine the sensory effects
associated with the addition of these functional ingredients in food products. Consumers
want products that provide health benefits and have a pleasant taste (Drewnowski and
Gomez-Carneros 2000), and the inclusion of ingredients to a beverage solely based on
functional properties may result in a product rich in bioactives, but with an unacceptable
taste.
Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the resulting effects from the
incorporation of functional ingredients into a beverage matrix. This is important because
understanding the interaction between the base solution and ingredients will help in
creating pleasant tasting products (Granato 2002). The next hypothesis in this study was
that the functional ingredients in a model energy drink solution will have synergistic
effects on the sensory properties of the drink. Understanding the effects of the addition
of specific functional ingredients into a food matrix will aid in the development of new
food products by providing potential solutions to flavor issues such as reducing negative
flavor attributes with the addition of a masking agent. It could also help in selecting
concentrations of functional ingredients that are acceptable to consumers.
The results from the sensory study on the synergistic effects of caffeine, ginseng,
and taurine into a model energy drink solution suggested that ginseng was the most
dominant functional ingredient in the solution and that it imparts a bitter taste. The
bitterness in functional foods often reduces the liking of a product (Tuorila and Cardello
2002), and identifying effective methods of minimizing the bitterness in functional
beverages will allow formulators to produce products that have health benefits as well as
acceptable sensory qualities. Thus, the last part of this research focuses on minimizing
bitterness of ginseng in a model energy drink solution. The hypothesis was that the use
of cyclodextrins will aid in minimizing bitterness of ginseng in model energy drink
solutions while still maintaining ginseng's health benefits. This research can be utilized
in the development of acceptable energy drinks, and also to predict changes in sensory
characteristics when reformulating functional ingredients in energy drinks.
1.2 Objectives
The two main hypotheses of this research were that 1) functional beverages can
be classified into defined categories through relatively quick and easy methods, and 2)
the inclusion of functional ingredients has an effect on the sensory properties of energy
drinks. The first objective of this research was to categorize commercially-available
functional beverages using three different methods: 1) ingredient inventory, 2) flow
behavior comparison, and 3) two-step sensory sorting. The second objective was to
develop and validate the two-step sensory sorting method to categorize a large number of
samples. The third objective was to determine and describe the effects of functional
ingredients (caffeine, taurine, and ginseng) on the sensory characteristics of model energy
drink solutions. The fourth and final objective was to identify effective treatments and
levels of bitterness minimizers to reduce the bitterness of ginseng in water base and
model energy drink base solutions. The findings from this research will be beneficial to
the development of acceptable functional beverage formulations.
1.3 References
Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. 2000. Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer:
a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72(6): 1424-35.
Granato H. 2002. Manipulating Flavor Perception in Functional Products. Natural
Products Insider [serial online]. Available from Posted 8 April 2002 2002.
Lai GG. 2007. Getting Specific with Functional Beverages. Food Technology [serial
online]. 61 (12):Available from Posted 2007.
Leveen T. 2007. Functional Beverages: Market Evolution. Natural Products Marketplace
[serial online]. Available from Posted 2007.
Packaged Facts. 2009. Functional Foods and Beverages in the U.S. 1-210.
Tuorila I-I, Cardello AV. 2002. Consumer responses to an off-flavor in juice in the
presence of specific health claims. Food Qual Pref 13(7-8):561-9.
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Functional Beverages
In the US, concerns about disease and health have increased the popularity of
functional food products (Schmidl and Labuza 2000, Urala and LMhteenmaki 2003).
Functional foods are consumed because they are thought to provide more benefits than
ordinary foods. It is also more convenient to consume a beverage providing health
benefits rather than swallow vitamins or pills for the same health benefits (Leveen 2007).
These "total health" and weight management concerns have prompted growth in the
number of functional food and beverages available on the market (Lai 2007) and
consumers are now seeking products which provide an added health benefit to ordinary
food products. In 2007, there were over $10.1 billion in functional beverage sales in the
US, and by 2010 functional beverage sales are projected to increase to over $12 billion
(Mintel 2008).
There is currently no legal definition of a "functional beverage" or universally
accepted categories of functional beverages in the United States. The Institute of Food
Technologists (2005), however, has defined functional beverages as beverages that
provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition. Therefore, functional beverage categories
may encompass beverages containing probiotics, stimulants, or additional vitamins and
minerals. The inclusion of ingredients based on functional needs is a greater driving
force in product development than category boundaries (Humphries 2007), and has
resulted in numerous new products introduced each year. The significant increase in
functional beverage popularity has led to an influx of new products and the introduction
of numerous "hybrid-type" beverages to the market. These hybrid-type beverages fall
under the "functional beverage" definition because they provide unique health benefits,
and at the same time incorporate multiple beverages concepts. For example, there are
now diet energy drink teas and dairy-based diet beverages on the market.
Some benefits of functional ingredients include: replenishing electrolytes in the
body, providing an extra boost of energy, or aiding with digestion. A few popular
functional ingredients included in beverage formulations are: antioxidants, stimulants,
botanicals, vitamins, and minerals (Lai 2007). Some beverages on the market incorporate
ingredients naturally containing functional benefits, while other beverages include
synthetic ingredients which provide the same benefits. These functional ingredients
affect the sensory experience, and may sometimes result in unpleasant sensory
characteristics, such as bitterness or chalkiness. Studies, however, have shown that

consumers are more tolerant of unpleasant flavors if the beverages deliver additional
health benefits (LeClair 2000).
The functional beverage boom has led to an increase in new products as
companies are attempting to capitalize on this market (Wright 2008). Consumers desire
functional beverages that encompass multiple concepts and provide specific health
benefits. The functional beverage market is driven by consumers, thus there has been a
shift to create more hybrid-type products. Therefore, there is a need to understand the
influence of functional ingredients on the sensory properties to create belter tasting
functional beverages.
2.1.1 Functional Beverage Categories
The constant introduction of functional beverages to the market makes it difficult
to pinpoint the major functional beverage categories and corresponding definitions.
Initially, energy drinks and sports drinks were considered functional beverages, but now
the inclusion of botanicals and probiotics are considered part of the functional beverage
market (Alldrick 2006). Functional beverages with claims of managing appetite or aiding
in younger-looking skin are currently part of the influx of new functional beverages
introduced to the market (Leveen 2007). Publications often refer to loosely defined
categories, but the categories that are considered part of the functional beverages segment
are never consistent. The lack of functional beverage categories leads to an absence .of
requirements and standards of identity. The general beverages market, which has been
established for many years, has guidelines and regulations concerning ingredient amounts
and package labeling. The absence of functional beverage categories also may hinder the
purchase intent of consumers and could lead to improper positioning of a product (Lord
2000).
Mintel Reports (2008) segmented the functional beverage market into six
categories: juices and juice drinks; smoothies and yogurt drinks; teas; soy-based drinks;
energy drinks and enhanced water; and sports drinks. Rehydrating sports drinks and meal
or diet drinks were not considered functional beverage categories in the Mintel Reports
(2008). Mintel reports, however, are not available to the general public, therefore, these
functional beverage categories are not common knowledge. In the Packaged Facts Functional Foods and Beverages in the US report (2009), the eight functional beverage .
categories included in the report were: shelf-stable bottled juice drinks, blends and
smoothies; refrigerated soymilk, kefir, and milk substitutes; fresh milk; bottled water;
loose/bagged tea; refrigerated juice; drink concentrates; and ready-to-drink tea and coffee
(Packaged Facts 2009). Beverages containing "no" or "low" calories or carbohydrates
were not considered part of the functional beverage segment unless they also
incorporated specific health claims. Packaged Facts is also a publication that is not
accessible to the general public, and these functional beverage categories are not common
knowledge.
A trade magazine segmented the functional beverage market into six categories
which includes: sports and performance drinks; energy drinks; ready to drink (RTD) teas;
enhanced fruit drinks; soy beverages; and enhanced water (Anonymous 2008). In the
Japan's beverage market, the segmentation of nutritional and health beverages are
separated into six categories which include: nutritional drinks; functional drinks;
nutritionally-balanced drinks; sports drinks; near water; and soy milk beverages (Ohki
and others 2004). An article published that the characterizing differences between sports
hydrating drinks and energy drinks were the type of carbohydrates incorporated in the
formulation and pH levels (Berry 2009); although hybrid products combining properties
of both energy drinks and sports drinks have also been introduced on the market, While
the Canadian government still does hot know whether energy drinks or sports drinks are
considered a food or a drug (Farrell and others 2009), Not only is it important to
categorize functional beverage for proper marketing and consumer expectations, but for
legal regulations and guidelines of products.
Beverage categories are loosely referred to in industry periodicals, but there are
no standard categories and definitions of functional beverages. To the researchers'
knowledge, there have been no research-based attempts to determine and define the
functional beverage categories on the market. There also have been no sensory studies
attempting to categorize functional beverages currently available on the market.
2.2 Energy Drinks

Mintel (2009) defines energy drinks as beverages that "specifically claim to
provide an energy or stimulation boost." Energy drinks are one of the fastest growing
segments of the functional beverage market. In 2008, energy drink sales were over $4.7
billion and has been estimated to grow to over $7 billion by 2014 (Mintel 2009).
Between 2004 and 2008, over 1,000 new energy drinks were introduced into the market
(Packaged Facts 2009). The origins of energy drinks began in Southeast Asia when truck
drivers consumed the drinks to stay awake. The popularity of the drinks expanded to
Europe as a means to stay awake for late night clubbing, and then consumed as an
alternative to coffee for students (Burg 1998). Energy drinks have gained popularity due
to the boost of energy provided by the large concentration of stimulants. They are also an
alternative to coffee as a source of caffeine, while also containing functional ingredients
such as antioxidants, taurine, ginseng, and B vitamins. Many energy drinks generally
include active ingredients such as glucose, caffeine and taurine, as well as other healthoriented ingredients such as ginseng and various vitamins and minerals.-
An increase in the concern about health and sugar intake resulted in a slight
decline in the energy drink segment, and now, reduced sugar lines and energy shots are
being introduced into the market. Energy shots, which are a concentrated form of energy
drinks, are gaining popularity because of the claimed energy boost without all the
excessive calories from sugar (Mintel 2008). Energy shots, however, were recently
labeled as a dietary supplement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), rather than
as a beverage. The large amounts of functional ingredients in a concentrated energy shot
have the same problem of unpleasant taste as energy drinks, therefore solutions must be
developed.
Flavor, however, is the consumer's most important attribute in energy drinks.
Therefore, the industry has put more effort into improving the taste of functional
beverages (LeClair 2000), For example, functional ingredients are typically masked with
sweeteners, but incorporating pleasant flavors is necessary in creating a successful
product.
2.2.1 Functional Ingredients
Three of the most common functional ingredients in energy drinks are caffeine,
ginseng, and taurine. Caffeine is a methylxanthine
with the chemical formula of CSH10N4O2 (Figure
2.1). It is a white, odorless powder, with a low
solubility and is usually combined with other
chemicals such as purines and pyrimidines to
Figure 2.1: Chemical Structure of Cnrfcinc
increase its solubility (Spiller 1998). Caffeine is

commonly found in cola products and in recent years has been incorporated into snack
foods such as cereal bars and sunflower seeds (Cosgrove 2008). No research was found
on caffeine's effect on texture or on the mouthfeel of beverages. Caffeine is on the US
Food and Drug Administration's GRAS list and is limited to no more than 0.02% by
volume in cola-type products (Food and Drug Administration 2003). Currently there are
no regulations regarding the maximum amount of caffeine allowed in energy drinks. The
typical amount of caffeine in energy drinks ranges from 0.20 to 1.13% by volume (Table
2.1).
10
Caffeine is known to impart a bitter taste in foods, and is more apparent in simpler
flavors (Mobini and others 2005). In a research study on teas, it was found that panelists
could tell the difference between the absence and presence of 100 mg of caffeine in the
tea solutions (Yeomans and others 2007). A review of caffeine taste studies concluded
that caffeine contributes to the flavor of some beverages (Allison and Chambers 2000).
Ginseng is from the Araliaceae family and contains ginsenosides (Figure 2.2),
which are active steroid-like compounds (Spiller 1998). These active compounds ofCH,OH
ginseng are triterpenoid saponin glycosides,

which also are responsible for the bitter
H/\O-^
CH
. '
.,
.'CHN:HI-CH<C-CH'
0H, u
flavors
~ ^"^^
'
of ginseng (Court 2000a). Ginseng extract is

HO'
known to have'antioxidant properties (Jung and
'
'I
CHjOHj
others 2002), and may aid in alleviating

cognitive function (Coon and Ernst 2002) and
j\J5H u)|
Figllrc2
c|)cmica] S t r u c t u r e o r o i n s c n o s i d c
some health conditions such as diabetes (Vuksan and Sievenpiper 2005). Some research
has been conducted on ginseng consumption for increased energy, help with indigestion,
and overall improvement of health (Court 2000b). Yet, there has been limited research
validating these medicinal properties of ginseng (Vogler and others 1999, Kilts and Hu
2000). There are known toxicity levels of ginseng consumption, although Kitts (2000),
suggests that intake of less than 15 g of ginseng per day may be a good limit because
greater amounts may run the risk of confusion or depression.
Limited research has been conducted in the US on the characteristic flavors of
ginseng. According to research conducted in Korea, key flavors of ginseng has been
described as earthy, astringent, and bitter (Kim 1985). Ginseng is growing in popularity
11
and in 2008, 38% of consumers sought functional beverages containing ginseng (Mintel
2008).
Taurine is a derivative of the amino acid cysteine with the chemical formula of
C2H7NO3S (Figure 2.3), and is present in the tissues of
o
II
HO
humans and animals. It contains sulfur and was first
NV
NH2
isolated from the bile of ox. It aids with bile acid
Figure 2.3: Chemical Structure of murine
conjugation, retinal development, and central
nervous system function (Lourenco and Camilo 2002). Taurine has also been found to
aid in immunity and may have antioxidant properties (Yu and Kim 2009). Taurine is
commonly incorporated in energy drinks and in muscle-building supplements because it
has been shown to reduce muscle fatigue in mice (Warskulat and others 2004). The
typical amount of taurine available in energy drinks is 1000 mg/100 mL which is enough
to stimulate the growth of muscles (Table 2.1). Taurine was described to add a broth-like
flavor to a chicken meat (Minor and others 1966). Other than the chicken flavor study,
there has been no sensory studies conducted on the tastes and flavors associated with the
incorporation of taurine into a food or beverage matrix.
2.2.2 Descriptive Analysis of Energy Drinks
Sensory Evaluation is a method used to evoke, measure, analyze, and interpret
reactions perceived by the senses (Anonymous 1975). Descriptive Analysis (DA) is one
type of sensory methodology used to quantitatively profile a product (Stone and Sidel
2004). This method has been used to identify off-flavors in products, for shelf-life and
quality control testing, and in competitor comparison. In DA, a group of panelists serve
as human analytical instruments and are trained to hone in on the key attributes of
12
products. Panelists are trained to describe and evaluate the samples, and to collectively
determine the key product descriptors. There are two main recognized types of
descriptive analysis methods, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) and the Spectrum
Method (Meilgaard and others 2006). The QDA method allows panelists to generate and
determine the references used for describing the samples. The Spectrum method includes
a longer panel training time and has a standard set of references to evaluate the products
against.
Studies have been conducted on the acceptability of new functional beverages, but
limited research has been done on the effects of functional ingredients on the sensory
properties of model functional beverage solutions. A challenge in the creation of
..
functional foods is to minimize the off-flavors of the food (Tuorila and Cardello 2002).
The effects of the incorporation of specific functional ingredients must be researched
prior to the addition into a formulation. In a study conducted by Luckow and Delahunty
(2004), the addition of probiotics and prebiotics in orange juice and found that
differences could be detected. A study on the addition of varying concentrations of
caffeine and vitamins to fruit juices was conducted to determine the preference between
juices (Smit and Rogers 2002). Another sensory test was conducted on the acceptable
levels of caffeine incorporated in fruit juice and it was found that up to 350 mg/L was the
maximum acceptable level of caffeine in a mixture of tropical fruit juices (de Sousa and
others 2007). While Camire (2000) determined that there was no significant difference
between orange juice with and without 600 mg of ginseng (20% ginsenosides) per liter.
Camire also determined that ginseng concentrations of 1000 mg/L of orange juice
resulted in a medicinal taste. One study varied the amounts of glucose, fructose, citric
13
acid, and lactic acid in a beverage and found that there was an increase in flavor
perception based on the type of sugar incorporated into the formulation (Stevens 1997).
Research related to the addition of ingredients has suggested that there is a
synergistic effect of including multiple ingredients into a formulation. Previous studies
suggest that mixtures of tastants result in an increase in overall intensity ratings of the
compound mixture (Delwiche 2004). Mutual suppression of both sweetness and
bitterness resulted in the mixture of sucrose and quinine solutions (Frank 2003). Flavors
can be suppressed when mixed with bitter tastes (Allison and Chambers 2000).
Therefore, the more functional ingredients added in a beverage formulation, the more
likely the tastes will be noticed. Stevens'(1997) research found that in complex solutions
containing multiple tastants, a lower concentration of compounds can be tasted rather
than one compound in just a water solution. A concentration of 0.133mM/L caffeine was
necessary for caffeine detection in water, while in a twelve product mixture, only 0.0125
mM/L caffeine was necessary for detection.
2.3 Bitter Taste

Bitterness is one of the basic tastes sensed by humans and is often described as an
unpleasant, sharp taste. Common bitter compounds include caffeine, vitamins, minerals,
soy products, and polyphenols. Some commonly consumed foods that contain bitter
compounds include coffee, chocolate, beer, and citrus fruits. Bitterness of products often
depends on the amount of hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups on the terminal ends of a
compound. In general, compounds with hydrophobic terminal amino acids were more
bitter than compounds containing hydrophilic terminal amino acids (Asao and others
14
1987, Ramos de Armas and others 2004). Some bitter molecules include alkaloids,
terpenoids, glycosides, and flavanoids; these compounds are present in many functional
ingredients. The functional portion of botanicals usually contain the alkaloids and
glycosides, which impart a bitter taste that is difficult to mask (Granato 2002). The
mechanism of bitter taste perception is that bitter molecules bind to taste receptor cells
(TRC) which are coupled with G-proteins. The coupled bitter molecule and G-protein
releases calcium ions into the cell and sends a message to the brain that taste of a food is
bitter. More exposure to bitter produce could result in the tolerance of bitter tastes, and
may enhance the palatability of a product (Lesschacve and Noble 2005).
2.3.1 Bitterness Minimizers
There are various methods used to reduce or minimize the bitter taste in food and
beverage products. These can range from the incorporation of masking agents, the
addition of bitterness minimizers, or the use of compounds which block bitter taste
receptors on the tongue (Reineccius 2004). Other methods include diluting the beverage
so the bitter compound is below the detection threshold (Rouseff 1990), however, this
will lower the amount of active ingredient available in the formulation. There has been
quite a lot research conducted on treatments to reduce the bitterness in food products, but
the effectiveness of each treatment is dependent on the specific food or beverage matrix
and the amount of treatment is determined by the base formulation (Brandt 2001).
Therefore, often times, bitterness masking molecules are determined though a trial and
error process (Ley 2008).
15
2.3.2 Masking Agents

Masking agents impart additional flavor to food products and are often used to
minimize unpleasant tastes or flavors. The most commonly used masking agent that
masks the bitter taste in functional beverages is sweeteners (Roy and Roy 1997,
Schiffman and others 2003). Some artificial sweeteners also impart a bitter taste along
with sweetness; therefore, bitterness masking treatments must be explored to reduce the
additional bitterness. In herbal beverages, the amount of sweeteners are increased to '
increase sweetness perception and to aid in masking bitterness receptors (Katan and Roos
2004).
The incorporation of complimentary flavors is used to minimize the off-flavors of
the base formulation. Studies have been conducted using flavors such as vanilla to mask
off-flavors in soymilk (Gnadt 2007) and cocoa syrup to mask the bitterness of quinine
hydrochloride (Reid and others 1956). Ley conducted difference tests between caffeine
solutions and potential bitterness-masking compounds (Ley and others 2006).
Homoeriodictyol sodium salt reduced the bitterness of a 100 mg/L caffeine solution and
hydroxybenzac acid vanillylamides reduced the bitterness of a 500 mg/L caffeine
solution (Ley and others 2006). Ley also conducted research on comparing solutions
against caffeine references to determine the bitter equivalents (Ley and others 2005).
2.3.3 Molecular Interaction
Research has been conducted on the incorporation of fat or the addition of sodium
gluconate to reduce bitter perception (Keast 2008). The inclusion of fatty acids has been
found to decrease the threshold levels of basic tastes such as bitterness (Mattes 2007).
Amino acids have been studied and found to decrease bitterness of caffeine. The use of
16
taurine and other amino acids have been found to decrease the bitterness of KCl (Tamura
and others 1990). Tasteless peptides, such as taurine, have hydrophobic regions that
might.be useful in minimizing bitterness (Roy and Roy 1997). The use of zinc sulfate
reduced the bitterness of quinine-HCl solutions (Keast and Breslin 2003), although the
addition of zinc sulfate into formulations tends to increase the astringency of solutions.
Another study conducted by Keast (2008) showed that zinc lactate inhibited the bitterness
of caffeine solutions, but also decrease the sweetness intensity.
2.3.4 Bitter Taste Receptor Blockers
Other methods involve blocking bitter receptors on the tongue and adding
chemicals to ingredients that interact with the bitter compounds to reduce the bitter taste
(Ley 2008). Research on bitter taste receptor blocking relies on the understanding of the
bitter taste mechanism. Compounds that fit into the taste receptors or that are too large to
fit in the taste receptors also minimize.
The focus on bitterness minimizers arises from the increase of ingredients and
products which have characteristic bitter tastes. Minimizers that can reduce the bitter
taste without added flavors or side effects are more useful than others. Cyclodextrins
(CDs) have been used to reduce the bitterness in products such as fish flavor, soybean
aromas, and medications (Cravotto and others 2006). It was suggested by Soldo and
Hofmann (2005) that when evaluating the effectiveness of bitterness minimizers, the
change in threshold perception for the detection of bitterness is a better method than
absolute bitterness ratings.
17
2.3.5 Cyclodextrins
Cyclodextrins (CDs) are large ring-shaped molecules created through the
enzymatic conversion of starch. They are an odorless, white powder that are soluble in
water. Common types of CDs are a, [3-, and y-CDs, which consist of 6, 7, and 8
glucosidic units, respectively. This ring-shaped structure allows CDs to trap smaller
molecules, thus forming inclusion compounds. This unique structure gives CDs many
useful food-related applications.
Cyclodextrins can be used as an emulsifier, a stabilizer for fragile compounds
such as flavors, colors, amino acids, and vitamins (Dodziuk 2006), a solubilizer for
pharmaceuticals (Loftsson and Brewster 1996), and a stabilizer in foods such as cookies
and chewing gums (Dodziuk 2006). CDs have also been used to create lower cholesterol
products by forming inclusions of cholesterol in CDs and then taking the CD
complexalions out of the product; this method has been used to lower cholesterol egg
products (Smith and others 1995). According to the FDA, all a, P-, and y-cyclodextrins
(CDs) are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use as a stabilizer, emulsifier, carrier,
and formulation in foods at levels between 1 to 5%.
Cyclodextrins have been used to minimize the bitterness of compounds. P-CDs at
a 0.4% concentration was able to reduce the bitterness of a 0.05% caffeine solution by
90% (Binello and others 2004). p-CDs have been shown to reduce the bitterness of
ginseng tea (Takeuchi and Naae 1992). The success of P-CDs as a bitterness minimize!was more than the use of a- and y-CDs, possibly because high amounts of p-CDs impart a
sweet taste (Binello and others 2004). It was also found that CDs remove the bitter taste
of sweeteners such as stevioside (Astray and others 2009). A study on y-CDs found that
18
there was no difference between consuming yogurt containing 8 g y-CDs/100 g versus no

cyclodextrins present in yogurt (Koutsou and others 1999).
2.4 Sorting and Categorization Mclhods

Sorting methods have been used in many fields to understand the relationship
between products or concepts (Rugg and McGeorge 1997, Viswanathan and Childers
1999). These methods allow researchers to gather information about panelists'
perceptions of a large group of products (Viswanathan and Childers 1999) and provides
structured information about the relationship among products (Mervis and Rosch 1981).
Sorting tasks have also been commonly used as marketing tools as a way to obtain
consumer insight on product perception and for comparison to competitor's products.
Sorting tasks can range from having panelists sort products into predefined categories, to
allowing panelists to freely sort the products. Different types of sorting procedures range
from sorting cards containing descriptor words to having panelists evaluate and sort food
products.
Sorting methods can be used as a quick and simple method to gather descriptors
and relationship information about products and are much less time-consuming compared
to other methods of sensory evaluation. These methods require minimal panelist training
and can often be conducted in one session. Sorting methods are useful when gathering
information on large groups of products (Cartier and others 2006), while other methods
such as quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) produce more detailed information on a
smaller group of products.
19
Prior to their applications to food, these sorting methods have been applied to
nonfood materials such as car fabrics (Giboreau and others 2007), colored plastic chips
(Faye and others 2004), and oral health care products (Bertino and Lawless 1993).
Sorting methods were first introduced to sensory work in 1995 when Lawless and others
conducted work on different cheeses (Lawless and others 1995). This method lias been
successful in sorting other food items such as types of water (Falahee and MacRae 1997),
snack bars (King and others 1998), red wine (Gawel and others 2000), novel food
products (Woolf and others 2002), and yogurts (Saint-Eve and others 2004).
Free sorting is a sorting method which is simple and only requires objects to be
sorted, criteria for objects to be sorted, a record sheet, and instructions (Coxon 1999).
This method has few restrictions which include that more than one category must be
created and that all objects must be sorted into mutually-exclusive categories (Lim and
Lawless 2005). Free sorting incorporates panelists' normal thought processes into the
categorization of products and results in candid opinions. Another type of sorting method
is fixed sorting, which involves a sorting products based on predefined criteria (Coxon
1999). Panelists are confined in their sorting by either set categories or definitions.
Another sorting method is the projective mapping, which involves placing
products on a blank sheet of paper by similarities and differences in attributes in two
dimensions (Perrin and others 2008). The more similar the products are, the closer they
are placed on the sheet of paper. The paper is later divided and marked into uniform
squares to determine the distance of the products from one another. This method has
been used to sort ewe's milk cheeses (Barcenas and others 2004), wines (Pages 2005) and
orange juice (Nestrud and Lawless 2008). Flash profiling is another sensory method in
20
which panelists evaluate the products and come up with their own descriptive terms to
describe the products and cluster similar products together (Delarue and Sieffermann
2004, Tarea and others 2007).
When analyzing sorting data, results are based on consensus of the panel and do
not account for individual differences. Sorting data is analyzed through patterns seen in
the data and the relationships between the products sorted. A multidimensional scaling
(MDS) plot is used to understand the relationship between objects when underlying
dimensions are unknown (Schiffman and others 1981). MDS plots are used as an
analysis tool, as well as to visually understand the relationships among products and are
based on comparing data in a similarity or dissimilarity matrix. This similarity matrix is
based on the frequency in which products are sorted and placed together. Stress values
and correlations are used to determine the reliability of a sorting method. In a MDS plot,
the stress value indicates the goodness of the fit of all the data into the two-dimensional
plot. The more objects to be compared and plotted will result in larger stress values
(Borg and Groenen 2003).
There is currently no universal standard method to compare the generated clusters
from MDS plots or sorting methods. The RV coefficient (Risvik and others 1994, Szejtli
and Szente 2005, Abdi 2007) has been used to calculate the agreement in categories
generated by two different methods. The RV coefficient is calculated by comparing
configurations of the categories on a plot; therefore, the data must be transformed prior to
analysis such that each object has an X and Y coordinate point. The RV coefficient
ranges from 0 to 1, and a value close to 1 means that the two configurations have
excellent agreement. This method has been used as a means to validate categories
21
generated in various sorting research (Faye and others 2004, Carder and others 2006,
Lelicvre and others 2008). Tang and Heymann (2002) also calculated an RV coefficient
to compare the similarity between multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling and a free
choice profiling of grape jellies.
Another method to assess the agreement of the clusters generated between
methods is the Rand Index (RI) or Rand'Measure (Rand 1971) which has been used to
compare clustered data to determine the level of agreement in categories. The Rl (Rand
1971) examined the similarities between the agreements and disagreements through the
comparison of the results from the two sorts. The RI compares the generated categories
from two different sorting methods or generated category sorting results to established
categories. Unlike the RV coefficient, the data being compared does not have to be
transformed into a plot. A RI value ranging from 0 to 1 was calculated based on the
number of agreements and disagreements were seen through the comparison of the results
from the two sorts. An ARI value ranges from 0 to 1 and explains the correspondence
between the categories of the two compared sorts, with a value of 1 signifying that the
two sorts were exactly the same. An Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) (Hubert and Arabie
1985) was then developed to adjust for chance agreement between the two sorts. In
Steinly's research (2004), the same clustering method was compared and the RI was a
higher value than the ARI.
Therefore, the ARI is a more sensitive scale than RI for determining the degree of
correspondence between two sorts. The validity of the quality of the cluster recovery of
the ARI value is: >0.86 is in the 95th percentile, 0.77 is in the 90lh percentile, and 0.67 is
in the 85th percentile (Steinley 2004). An ARI less than 0.65 is considered poor recovery
22
of data, a value greater than 0.80 is considered good recovery, while a value greater than
0.90 is considered excellent recovery (Steinley 2004). The ARI is more commonly used
as an analysis tool in other fields of study than Food Science and Sensory Science
(Soufflet and others 2004), although there are a few food-related studies that used the RI
to compare groupings of products (Cartier and others 2006).
Categories provide insight on the attributes most representative of a group of
similar products (Mervis and Rosch 1981). If there are no specific criteria, panelists
generate their own context to compare the similarities of products to identify underlying
similarities to tie the products together. Research conducted on sorting and
categorization methods have been studied to validate Icnown categories (Viswanathan and
Childers 1999).
2.5 Concluding Remarks

Based on the works mentioned, it appears that there are many unanswered
questions regarding the ever-changing functional beverage market. There is no apparent
set of standard functional beverage categories in the US that is easily accessible to the
general public. The development of functional beverage categories is vital to
understanding and regulating the functional beverage market to lessen the confusion in
product marketing, consumer expectations, and legal guidelines. Defined functional
beverage categories would be useful during the development of products because it will
aid in targeting specific characteristics that match the category.
Few studies have been conducted on the individual effects of the incorporation of
functional ingredients into food or beverage matrices. It is important to investigate the
23
sensory effects of the inclusion of functional ingredients to create successful products.

This research seeks to investigate the creation of functional beverage categories. It also
aims to help create better tasting functional beverages through the research of the effects
of incorporating functional ingredients into the matrix and investigating a solution to
minimize the bitter taste of ginseng.
2.6 References
Anonymous 2008. U.S. Functional Beverages Market: A Young Market with Growing
Popularity. Food Industry News [serial online]. Available from Posted 28 May 2008
2008.
Anonymous 1975. Minutes of Division Business Meeting. Institute of Food
Technologists-Sensory Evaluation Division, IFT.
Abdi H. 2007. The RV coefficient and the congruence coefficient. Encyclopedia of
measurement and statistics.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage
Alldrick AJ. 2006. Functional beverages: satisfying consumers' needs. Agro Food
Industry Hi Tech 17(4):41.
Allison ANNMA, Chambers E. 2000. The Importance Of Caffeine As A Flavor
Component in Beverages. J Sens Stud 15(4):449-57.
Asao M, Iwamura I-I, Akamatsu M, Fujita T. 1987. Quantitative structure-activity
relationships of the bitter thresholds of amino acids, peptides, and their derivatives. J Med
Chem 30(10): 1873-9.
Astray G, Gonzalez-Barreiro C, Mejuto JC, Rial-Otero R, Simal-Gandara J. 2009. A
review on the use of cyclodextrins in foods. Food Hydrocoll 23(7): 1631-40.
Barcenas P, Elortondo FJP, Albisu M. 2004. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of
ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Res Inl
37(7):723-9.
Berry D. 2009. Powerful Beverage Performers. Food Product Design [serial online]. 3250. Available from Posted 2009.
Bertino M, Lawless HT. 1993. Understanding mouthfeel attributes: a multidimensional
scaling approach. J Sens Stud 8(2): 101-14.
24
Binello A, Cravotto G, Nano GM, Spagliardi P. 2004. Synthesis of chitosan-cyclodextrin

adducts and evaluation of their bitter-masking properties. Flavour Fragrance J 19(5):394400.
Borg I, Groenen P. 2003. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications.
Journal of Educational Measurement 40(3):277-80.
Brandt LA. 2001. Flavor Masking: Strategies for Success. Prepared Foods [serial online].
(July 2001):Available from Posted 2001.
Burg JC. 1998. High-Energy Beverages. Food Product Design
Camire ME. 2000. Dietary Supplements. In: M. K. Schmidl, T. P. Labuza, editors.
Essentials of Functional Foods. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, Inc. pi 65-180.
Cartier R, Rytz A, Lecomte A, Poblete F, Krystlik J, Belin E, Martin N. 2006. Sorting
procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory
map. Food Qual Pref 17(7-8):562-71/
Coon .IT, Ernst E. 2002. Panax ginseng: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug
interactions. Drug Saf 25(5):323-44.
Cosgrove J. 2008. Caffeinated Snacks. Nutraceuticals World [serial online], July/August
2008Available from Posted July 2008.
Court WE. 2000a. Ginseng: The Genus Panax. Singapore: CRC Press. 266 p.
Court WE. 2000b. The Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Ginseng. In: Anonymous
Ginseng: The Genus Panax. Singapore: Harwood Academic Publishers, pi 17-197.
Coxon APM. 1999. Sorting Data: Collection and Analysis. Sage Publications Inc.
Cravotto G, Binello A, Baranelli E, Carraro P, Trotta F. 2006. Cyclodextrins as Food
Additives and in Food Processing. Current Nutrition & Food Science 2(4):343-50.
de Sousa PHM, Maia GA, de Azeredo HMC, de Souza Filho MSM, Garruti DS, de
Freilas CAS. 2007. Mixed tropical fruit nectars with added energy components, hit J
Food Sci Tech 42(11): 1290-1296.
Delarue J, Sieffermann JM. 2004. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with
a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy
products. Food Qual Pref 15(4):383-92.
Delwiche J. 2004. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food Qual
Pref 15(2): 137-46.
25
Dodziuk I-I. 2006. Cyclodextrins and their complexes: chemistry, analytical methods,
applications. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. 489 p.
Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. 2000. Bitter taste, phylonutrienls, and the consumer:"
a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72(6): 1424-35.
Falahee M, MacRae AW. 1997. Perceptual variation among drinking waters: the
reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling. Food Qual Pref
8(5):389-94.
Farrell J, Ries NM, Kachan N, Boon H. 2009. Foods and natural health products: Gaps
and ambiguities in the Canadian regulatory regime. Food Policy
Faye P, Bremaud D, Durand Daubin M, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, Nicod H. 2004,
Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to
descriptive mappings. Food Qual Pref 15(7-8):781-91.
Food and Drug Administration. 2003. Code of Federal Regulations Title 2 Sec. 182.1180.
Frank RA. 2003. Response context affects judgments of flavor components in foods and
beverages. Food Quality and Preference 14(2): 139-45.
Gawel R, Oberholster A, Francis IL. 2000. A 'mouth-feel wheel': terminology for
communicating the mouth-feel characteristics of red wine. Australian journal of grape
and wine research.6(3):203-07.
Giboreau A, Dacremont C, Egoroff C, Guerrand S, Urdapilleta I, Candel D, Dubois D.
2007. Defining sensory descriptors: Towards writing guidelines based on terminology.
Food Qual Pref 18(2):265-74.
Gnadt T. 2007. Effect of Masking Agents and Lactones on the Aroma and Flavor of
Soymilk. [dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Granato H. 2002, Manipulating Flavor Perception in Functional Products. Natural
Hubert L, Arabie P. 1985. Comparing partitions. Journal of classification 2(1):193-218.
Humphries G. 2007. Nutraceutical Soft Drinks: Innovation in sports, energy, dairy, and
Institute of Food Technologists. 2005. Functional Foods: Opportunities and Challenges.
Jung MY, Jeon BS, Bock JY. 2002. Free, esterified, and insoluble-bound phenolic acids
in while and red Korean ginsengs (Panax ginseng CA Meyer). Food Chem 79(1): 105-11.
26
Katan MB, Roos NM. 2004. Promises and Problems of Functional Foods. Crit Rev Food
SciNutr44(5):369-77.
Keast RSJ. 2008. Modification of the bitterness of caffeine. Food Qual Pref 19(5):465-72.
Keast RSJ, Breslin PAS. 2003. An overview of binary taste-taste interactions. Food Qual
Pref 14(2):111-24.
Kim . 1985. Effects of temperature and sugar addition on the flavor of ginseng lea.
Korean Journal of Food Science and Technology. 17(4):304.
King MC, Cliff MA, Hall JW. 1998. Comparison of Projective Mapping and Sorting
Data Collection and Multivariate Methodologies for Identification of Similarity-Of-Use
Snack Bars. J Sens Stud 13(3):347-58.
Kitts D, Hu C. 2000. Efficacy and safety of ginseng. Public Health Nutr 3(4A):473-85.
Koutsou GA, Storey DM, Bar A. 1999. Gastrointestinal tolerance of y-cyclodextrin in
humans. Food Additives & Contaminants 16(7):313-7.
online], 61(12):Available from Posted 2007.
Lawless HT, ShengN, Knoops SSCP. 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data
applied to cheese perception. Food Qual Pref 6(2):91-8.
LeClair K. 2000. Breaking the Sensory Barrier for Functional Foods. Food Product
Design [serial online], 6 November 2006. Available from
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/462/462 0297DE.html. Posted 1 September
2000.
Lelicvre M, Chollet S, Abdi H, Valentin D. 2008. What is the validity of the sorting task
for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Qual Pref
Lesschaeve I, Noble AC. 2005. Polyphenols: factors influencing their sensory properties
and their effects on food and beverage preferences. Am J Clin Nutr 81(1 Suppl):330S-5S.
Ley JP, Blings M, Paetz S, Krammer GE, Bertram HJ. 2006. New bitter-masking
compounds: hydroxylated benzoic acid amides of aromatic amines as structural
analogues of homoeriodictyol. J Agric Food Chem 54(22):8574-9.
Ley JP. 2008. Masking Bitter Taste by Molecules. Chemosensory Perception l(l):58-77.
Ley JP, Krammer G, Reinders G, Gatfield IL, Bertram HJ. 2005. Evaluation of bitter
masking flavanones from Herba Santa (Eriodictyon californicum (H. & A.) Ton-.,
Hydrophyllaceae). J Agric Food Chem 53(15):6061-6.
Lim J, Lawless HT. 2005. Qualitative differences of divalent salts: multidimensional
scaling and cluster analysis. Chem Senses 30(9):719-26.
Loftsson T, Brewster ME. 1996. Pharmaceutical applications of cyclodextrins. 1. Drug
solubilization and stabilization. J Pharm Sci 85(10):
Lord JB. 2000. New Product Failure and Success. In: A. L. Brody, J. B. Lord, editors.
Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace. Lancaster: Technomic
Publishing Co, Inc. p55-86.
Lourenco R, Camilo ME. 2002. Taurine: a conditionally essential amino acid in humans?
An overview in health and disease. Nutr Hosp 17(6):262-70.
Mattes RD. 2007. Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds
and intensity ratings of adults. AJP-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 292(5):G1243.
Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT, 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. CRC Press.
Mervis CB, Rosch E. 1981. Categorization of Natural Objects. Annual Reviews in
Psychology 32(1):89-115.
Minor LJ, Pearson AM, Stine CM. 1966. Chicken Flavor Studies. J Agric Food Chem
14(4):416-9.
Mintel. 2009. Energy Drinks and Energy Shots-US.
Mintel. 2008. Functional Beverages-US August 2008. Mintel Reports.
Mobini S, Elliman TD, Yeomans MR. 2005. Changes in the pleasantness of caffeineassociated flavours consumed at home. Food Qual Pref 16(8):659-66.
Nestrud MA, Lawless HT. 2008. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective
mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Qual Pref
19(4):431-38.
Ohki K, Nakamura Y, Takano T. 2004. The Japanese Nutritional Health Beverage
Market. In: Anonymous Beverages in Nutrition and Health. Totowa: Humana Press.
p377-387.
28
Pages J. 2005. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple
factor analysis: application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food
Qual Pref 16(7):642-9.
Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maitre I, Asselin C, Jourjon F, Pages J. 2008. Comparison of
three sensory methods for use with the Napping procedure: Case often wines from
Loire valley. Food Qual Pref 19(1): 1-11.
Ramos de Armas R, Gonzalez Diaz H, Molina R, Perez Gonzalez M, Uriarle E. 2004.
Stochastic-based descriptors studying peptides biological properties: modeling the bitter
lasting threshold of dipeptides. Bioorg Med Chem 12(18):4815-22.
Rand WM. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of
the American Statistical Association 846-50.
Reid AW, Becker CH, REID AW. 1956. The use of cocoa syrups for masking the taste of
quinine hydrochloride. J Am Pharm Assoc Am P.harm Assoc 45(3): 151-2.
Reineccius GA. 2004. Flavoring Systems for Functional Foods, In: T. Wilson, N. J.
Temple, editors. Beverages in Nutrition and Health. Totowa: Humana Press. p89-97.
Risvik E, Mcewan JA, Colwill JS, Rogers R, Lyon DM. 1994. Projective mapping: a tool
for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual Pref 5(4):263-9.
Rouseff RL. 1990. Bitterness in Food Products and Beverages. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 356
PRoy G, Roy GM. 1997. Modifying Bitterness: Mechanism, Ingredients, and Applications.
CRC Press.
Rugg G, McGeorge P. 1997. The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts,
picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Syst 14(2):80-93.
Saint-Eve A, Paci Kora E, Martin N. 2004. Impact of the olfactory quality and chemical
complexity of the flavouring agent on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by
three different sensory methodologies. Food Qual Pref 15(7-8):655-68.
Schiffman SS, Reynolds ML, Young FW. 1981. Introduction to Multidimensional
Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Academic Press. 413 p.
Schiffman SS, Sattely-Miller EA, Graham BG, Zervakis J, Butchko HH, Stargel WW.
2003. Effect of repeated presentation on sweetness intensity of binary and ternary
mixtures of sweeteners. Chem Senses 28(3):219-29.
Schmidl MK, LabuzaTP. 2000. Essentials of Functional Foods. Gaithersburg: Aspen
Pub. 395 p.
Smit HJ, Rogers PJ. 2002, Effects of'energy' drinks on mood and mental performance:
critical methodology. Food Qual Pref 13(5):317-26.
Smith DM, Awad AC, Bennink MR, Gill JL. 1995. Cholesterol reduction in liquid egg
yolk using p-cyclodextrin. J Food Sci 60(4):691-4.
Soldo T, Hofmann T. 2005. Application of Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid
Chromatography/Comparative Taste Dilution Analysis for Identification of a Bitter
Inhibitor by a Combinatorial Approach Based on Maillard Reaction Chemistry, J Agric
Food Chem 53(23):9165-71.
Soufflet I, Calonnier M, Dacremont C. 2004. A comparison between industrial experts'
and novices' haptic perceptual organization: a tool to identify descriptors of the handle of
fabrics. Food Quality and Preference 15(7-8):689-99.
Spiller MA. 1998. Caffeine. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 363 p.
Steinley D. 2004. Properties of the Hubert-Arabie adjusted Rand index. Psychol Methods
9(3):386-96.
Stevens JC. 1997. Detection of very complex taste mixtures: generous integration across
constituent compounds. Physiol Behav 62(5): 1137-43.
Stone H, Sidel JL. 2004. Sensoiy Evaluation Practices. Academic Press.
Szejtli J, Szente L. 2005. Elimination of bitter, disgusting tastes of drugs and foods by
cyclodextrins. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 61 (3): 115-25.
Takeuchi T, Naae N. 1992. Stationary phase effect on enantioselectivity of dansyl
phenylalanine in microcolumn liquid chromatography with y-cyclodextrin as mobile
phase additive. J Chromatogr 595(1-2): 121-4.
Tamura M, Mori N, Miyoshi T, Koyana S, Kohri H, Okai H. 1990. Practical Debittering
Using Model Peptides and Related Compounds. Agric Biol Chem 54(1):41-51.
Tang C, Heymann I-I. 2002. Multidimensional Sorting, Similarity Scaling and FreeChoice Profiling of Grape Jellies. J Sens Stud 17(6):493-509.
Tarea S, Cuvelier G, Sieffermann JM. 2007. Sensory Evaluation of the Texture of 49
Commercial Apple and Pear Purees. J Food Qual 30(6): 1121-31.
Tuorila I-I, Cardello AV. 2002. Consumer responses to an off-flavor in juice in the
Urala N, Lahteenmaki L. 2003. Reasons behind consumers functional food choices. Nutr
Food Sci 33(4):148-58.
30
Viswanathan M, Childers TL. 1999. Understanding How Product Attributes Influence

Product Categorization: Development and Validation of Fuzzy Set-Based Measures of
Gradedness in Product Categories. J Market Res 36(l):75-94.
V.ogler BK, Pittler MH, Ernst E. 1999. The efficacy of ginseng. A systematic review of
randomised clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55(8):567-75.
Vuksan V, Sievenpiper JL. 2005. Herbal remedies in the management of diabetes:
Lessons learned from the study of ginseng. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular
Diseases 15(3): 149-60.
Warskulat U, Flogel U, Jacoby C, Hartwig HG, Thewissen M, Merx MW, Molojavyi A,
Heller Stilb B, Schrader J, Haussinger D. 2004. Taurine transporter knockout depletes
muscle taurine levels and results in severe skeletal muscle impairment but leaves cardiac
function uncompromised. FASEB Journal 18(3):577.
Woolf A, Wright R, Amarasiriwardena C, Bellinger D. 2002. A child with chronic
manganese exposure from drinking water. Environ Health Perspect 110(6):613-6.
Wright R. 2008. Nutraceuticals Coast in the Beverage Market. Nutraceuticals World
[serial online]. Available from Posted July 2008.
Yeomans MR, Mobini S, Chambers L. 2007. Additive effects of flavour-caffeine and
flavour-flavour pairings on liking for the smell and flavour of a novel drink. Physiol
Behav92(5):831-9.
Yu J, Kim AK. 2009. Effect of Taurine on Antioxidant Enzyme System in B16F10
Melanoma Cells. In: Anonymous Taurine 7. New York: Springer. p491.
31
2.7 Tables
Table 2.1: Amount of Functional Ingredients in Commercially-available Energy
Drinks purchased in Sept ember 2006
Panax
Serving
Ginseng Ginseng
BI2 Extract Extract
B6
Size Caffeine Taurine B2 B3 B5
Product Name
(mL)
(nig)
(mg) (nig) (nig) ("iR) (MR)
(nig)
(nifi)
(i"R)
248
2?0
750
0.0
0
0
6
36.0
0
0
Cocaine
72
605
0.0
6
0
0
Full Throttle
237
0.6
90
0
il
0.0
0
0
MDX
237
47
0
0.0
0
U
2
0,0
No Fear
87
1000
0
0
6.0
50
237
0
0.0
NOS
125
1000
0
0
2
6,0
0
50
237
Red Bull
245
80
1000
0.0 28
7
7.2
0
7
0
82
0.0
0
Red Jak
237
947
0
5
4.8
0
100
237
80
1000
5.8 20
10
2
Rockstnr
6.0
0
25
Sobe Adrenaline Rush 245
0.0
79
1000
0
0
5
6.0
0
25
Tab Eiicray
310
785
6
95
0.0
0
1
1.2
116
0
// denotes that ingredients were listed on the Nutritional Facts labels, but ingredient amounts were
unavailable.
CHAPTER 3 - CATEGORIZATION OF COMMERCIALLY-AVAILABLE

FUNCTIONAL BEVERAGES BY CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND SENSORY
COMMONALITIES
3.1 Abstract
beverages has resulted in a beverage segment that is not clearly defined or understood.
Companies are now producing hybrid-type products that combine multiple concepts into
a single beverage. The lack of categories and definitions of these product types in the
functional beverage segment may result in consumer confusion and purchase avoidance
due to the uncertainty of product characteristics.
The objectives of this research were to determine the main categories of
functional beverages through classification by chemical, physical, and sensory
commonalities of the beverages and to evaluate the effectiveness of these categorization
methods. Three categorization methods: 1) ingredient inventory, 2) flow behavior
comparison, and 3) two-step sensory sorting were used to categorize fifty commerciallyavailable functional beverages. Of the three categorization methods, the two-step sorting
method produced the most distinctive and defined categories. The seven functional
beverage categories generated were: Enhanced Waters, Energy Drinks, Fruit Smoothies,
Nutritional Drinks, Sports Drinks, Teas, and Yogurt Smoothies. The ingredient inventory
and flow behavior comparison methods have the potential to be useful sorting methods,
but did not generate as distinct functional beverage categories as compared to the twostep sensory sorting method.
The discrepancies between consumer expectations and the chemical, physical, and
sensory properties of beverages can be elucidated by detailed definitions and descriptions
33
of the generated categories, which will also aid in successful marketing and formulation
of new products.
Key Words: categorization, functional beverages, sorting, sensory evaluation
3.2 Introduction
Functional Beverages
In the US, concerns about health and disease have increased the popularity of
functional food products (Schmidl and Labuza 2000, Urala and Lahteenmaki 2003).
These "total health" and weight management concerns have prompted growth in the
number of functional food and beverage products available in the market (Lai 2007). In
2006, there were over $7.6 billion in functional beverage sales in the US, and by 2010
functional beverage sales are projected to increase to over $9.9 billion (Humphries 2007).
The functional beverage boom has led to a rapid increase in new products, as
companies attempt to capitalize on this emerging market (Wright 2008). In the US,
however, there is currently no standard definition of a "functional beverage" or defined
categories for functional beverages. Beverage categories are referred to in market
research reports (Mintel 2008, Packaged Facts 2009), but there are no standard categories
and definitions of functional beverages. To the researchers' knowledge, there have been
no science research-based attempts to determine and define functional beverage
categories on the market. Based on products currently on the market and trade magazines,
functional beverages encompass beverages containing probiotics, stimulants, or vitamins
and minerals. The significant increase in functional beverage popularity has also led to
the introduction of new "hybrid-type" beverages. These hybrid-type beverages
incorporate multiple concepts and are considered "functional beverages" because they
34
provide unique health benefits. For example, there are now diet energy drink juices and
thick, dairy-based diet functional beverages on the market.
For maximum consumer satisfaction, it is vital that product taste, texture, and
flavor match consumers' expectations (Orth and de Marchi 2005). Functional beverages
in the market must meet consumers' sensory expectations of the labeling and image of
the product. Therefore, determining and defining functional beverage categories will aid
in proper product positioning that match consumers' expectations.
Sorting and Categorization Methods
Sorting methods have been used in many.fields of study to understand the
relationship between products or concepts (Rugg and McGeorge 1997, Viswanathan and
Childers 1999). These sorting tasks are also commonly used as marketing tools as a way
to obtain consumer insight on product perception and comparison to competing products.
Sorting tasks can range from panelists sorting products into predefined categories, to
panelists freely sorting products. Different types of sorting procedures range from
sorting cards containing descriptor words to having panelists evaluate and sort food
products (Lawless and Glatter 1990, Lawless and others 1995, Rugg and McGeorge
1997, Tang and Heymann 2002,). Categorizing products and determining where products
"fit" in the market can be obtained through sorting tasks. Category membership aids in
understanding consumer expectations of a product (Yamauchi and Markman 2000) and
provides a clear concept in consumers' minds, which is important in purchase intent of
specific products (Lord 2000).
Distinguishing characteristics of functional beverage categories may be attributed
to the ingredients incorporated in a formulation, Amendola and others (2004)
35
categorized the difference between energy drinks and sports drinks based on the chemical
differences between the products. While a study conducted by Kappes and others (2007)
showed that commercial cola and lemon-lime flavored carbonated beverages could be
clustered into groups based on physical property measurements such as pH, viscosity,
titratable and Brix levels.
Categorizing functional beverages based on ingredient similarities and physical
properties may provide insight in determining beverage categories. The selection of
functional or base ingredients for beverage formulation may play a role in defining a
beverage category. The objectives of this research were to determine the main categories
of functional beverages through classification by chemical, physical, and sensory
commonalities of the beverages and to evaluate the effectiveness of these categorization
methods.

Fifty ready-to-drink'functional beverages (Table 3.1) were purchased from three
local supermarkets (County Market, Meijer, and Schnucks) in Champaign-Urbana,
Illinois in September 2006. Brand-name products were purchased, while generic or store
brand products were not included in the study, to minimize any bias associated with the
lack of marketing of these products. If multiple flavors of a product were available, the
original flavor or a derivative of a berry flavor was purchased to minimize dissimilarities
due to flavorings or colorants.
36
Ingredient Inventory Categorization

Ingredients listed on the Nutrition Facts labels on each beverage package were
entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation). Over 200 different
ingredients were compiled; however, the specific quantities of ingredients in each
beverage were not included in the analysis. A dissimilarity co-occurrence matrix was
created using XLStat, 2008.4.02 (Addinsoft) to compare the number of identical
ingredients that were contained in each functional beverage pair. The co-occurrence
matrix was followed by a two-dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot with
Kruskal's stress-1 (Kruskal 1964) to determine the relationships among products due to
ingredient commonalities. The two dimensions plotted had a random initial
configuration, and multiple iterations were run to create a MDS plot with the lowest
stress level.
Flow Behavior Comparison Categorization
The flow behavior properties of the fifty functional beverages were measured
using the Advanced Rheometric Expansion System Rheometric Fluid Spectrometer
Model III (ARES RFS III), the SR5 Peltier Circulator (TA Instruments), and the TA
Orchestrator Software Version 8.03 (TA instruments). Data were analyzed using XLStat
2008.4.02 (Addinsoft).
The calibration and flow behavior methods of Kappes and others (2006) were
used to measure beverage flow behavior. Beverage samples in the amount of 1.11 mL
were placed between two parallel plates (50 mm diameter) with a 5 mm gap, and flow
behavior was measured using a rate sweep test in log mode program beginning at 0.6 s"1
until 200 s"1. Three replications of each beverage were measured at 20C. Instrument
37
calibration was confirmed by measuring two oil standards (N2 [2.188 mPa s], N.8
[0.641 mPa s], Cannon Instrument Co.) at 20C and deionized distilled water at 20C.
The measured value of the deionized distilled water was 1.0030.015 mPa-s.
Functional beverages that were not homogenous were shaken prior to each sample
measurement, Carbonated beverages were decarbonated prior to each measurement to
eliminate the interference of carbon dioxide bubbles with viscosity measurements
(Kappes and others 2006). The decarbonation method described in Kappes (2006), which
consists of microwaving and stirring, was used to decarbonate the beverages.
Flow behavior for each sample was determined based on the slope of shear stress
over shear rate. Functional beverages were classified as Newtonian if the relationship
between shear stress and shear rate was linear and non-Newtonian if the relationship was
non-linear. The viscosities of the Newtonian functional beverages were calculated using
the ratio of shear stress (dyne cm" ) over shear rate (s ). The apparent viscosities of
each non-Newtonian beverages were calculated by the ratio of shear stress (dyne cm"2)
over shear rate (s'1) at a shear rate of 50 s"1, which is a representative shear rate value that
food and beverages experience in the mouth (Hollowood and others 2002, Cook and
others 2003).
Beverages were categorized by their average viscosity values using an
agglomerative hierarchical cluster (AHC) analysis. The AHC used Euclidean distance
and Ward's method (1963) of agglomeration criterion with an automatic truncation at the
largest relative increase of dissimilarity between groups using XLStat, 2008.4.02
(Addinsoft). Two additional AHC analyses were conducted on the thirty-three
Newtonian beverages and the seventeen non-Newtonian beverages.
38
Two-Step Sensory Sorting Categorization

Part 1-Free Sort
The free sort consisted of a fourteen-member untrained panel (3 males, 11
females; 18 to 50 years old) categorizing the fifty functional beverages by both visual and
visual-oral assessments. All beverages were placed around a table and panelists were not
restricted to the order they evaluated the beverages. A set of blank worksheets and a
sheet of sticker labels with functional beverage product names were given to each
panelist. Panelists were instructed to group the beverages into self-defined, mutually
exclusive categories and describe each category with common, key characteristics.
Panelists independently completed the sorting tasks and created category names and key
descriptors for each generated category and wrote them down on the worksheets. The
use of the sticker labels regulated the sorting process by eliminating panelists' ability to
place a beverage into multiple categories and to make sure that all beverages were placed
into at least one category.
For the visual assessment, panelists sorted beverages based on common visual
characteristics. These visually observable characteristics could include any visual cues,
such as packaging information, perceived opaqueness, color, or thickness of the
beverage. In addition, previous exposure to the product, such as advertising influence,
was allowed in the visual sort and the visual-oral sort. This method has few restrictions
which include that more than one category must be created and that all objects must be
sorted into mutually-exclusive categories (Lim and Lawless 2005). After the visual sort
was completed the same sorting process was applied for the visual-oral evaluation of the
same products. Again panelists were provided with a set of blank worksheets and a sheet
39
of sticker labels to aid in the sorting process. This sort was labeled a visual-oral sort
because panelists were allowed to view and taste the functional beverages during the
sorting process. Panelists were instructed to sort the beverages primarily focusing on oral
evaluations. Characteristics generated from the visual-oral evaluation included
mouthfeel, level of sweetness, level of bitterness, and prior experience with the product.
Category names and characteristics were determined based on descriptor words and
category names most commonly generated by the fourteen panelists. If more than half of
the panelists used the same or similar descriptors, these characteristics were used to
describe the categories.
The qualitative data generated from the visual and visual-oral sorts were then
transformed into quantitative data through a series of statistical analyses. First, to
compare the frequency in which functional beverages were grouped together, a similarity
co-occurrence matrix was created using XLStat 2008.4.02 (Addinsoft). The cooccurrence matrix was followed by a two-dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS)
with Kruskal's stress-1 for a visual representation of the plot.
Functional beverages were clustered together on the MDS plot based on the
number of times each beverage was paired with another beverage. The more often two
beverages were placed in the same category by panelists during the sorts, the closer the
two beverages appeared on the MDS plot. Category names and definitions were
determined based on the most commonly used descriptors and category names generated
by the fourteen panelists.
K-means clustering was conducted on the beverage coordinate points on the MDS
plot to determine which beverages belonged in each generated category. The theory
40
behind the K-means clustering method is that neighboring objects are clustered into
tentative groups based on the nearest mean until convergence is reached (Fraley and
Raftery 1998, MacQueen 1966). Groups are clustered into "classes" based on the
proximity of the relationship between points (X and Y coordinates of each beverage) on
the MDS plot. In K-means analysis, the term "classes" is equivalent to the term
"groups". The number of groups tells the analysis program how many clusters to
separate the products into. Data were analyzed using XLStat 2008.4.02 (Addinsoft).
Part 2-Fixed Sort
The second part of the two-step sensory sorting method was a fixed sorting task of
the same fifty functional beverages using the seven defined categories generated from the
combined results from the visual and visual-oral free sorting tasks (Part 1). A subset of
eight of the initial panelists (2 males, 6 females; 18 to 50 years old) participated in both
visual and visual-oral fixed sorts. Five beverages (Elements Energy(9), Powerade ^M
Advance (32), Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41), Yoplait Nouriche Smoothie (50))
had become unavailable on the market between conducting the free and fixed sorts, and
thus, could not be included in the fixed sort. Panelists were given a set of worksheets
containing the list of the fixed functional beverage categories emd definitions, and sticker
labels with the functional beverage product names. The only restrictions were that all
beverages had to be placed into a category and could not be placed into more than one
category. Data from the fixed sorts were analyzed using the same methods as previously
described in the free sort (Part 1).
41

Ingredient Inventory Categorization
The two-dimensional MDS plot (Figure 3.1) resulted in one large cluster
containing forty-five functional beverages. The large cluster could be attributed to the
fact that most beverages contain the same base ingredients, and these similarities resulted
in beverages being grouped together on the MDS plot. Five beverages (Boost (3),
Glucerna(20), Pediasure(30), Slim-fast (36), and Yoplait Nouriche Smoothie (50)),
however, were not plotted near the large cluster of beverages. The segregation of these
five beverages on the plot could be the result of the large number of additional vitamins
and minerals these products contained. These beverages are often consumed as
nutritional supplements and have five times as many ingredients as some of the other
functional beverages evaluated in this study.
An acceptable stress value for a MDS plot is <0.10, which correlates to good
correspondence between the actual data and the representation of data relationships on
the MDS plot (Krzanowski and Marriott 1995). The ingredient inventory comparison
MDS plot had a stress value of 0.23 and this was due to the large number of beverages
being compared.
Statistical analysis was also conducted on the ingredient commonalities of the
large cluster of forty-five functional beverages, in an attempt to separate out beverage
categories. The MDS plot, however, still resulted in a large clustering of beverages
instead of separate functional beverage clusters. Since water is a base ingredient found in
all the functional beverages, it was removed from the ingredient inventory, and another
analysis was conducted. This also resulted in an MDS plot that did not separate the
functional beverages into groups.
There were distinct ingredient commonalities among beverages, but the

relationship could not be separated out through statistical analysis of a co-occurrence
matrix, followed by a two-dimensional MDS plot. Although categories were not
apparent in the large scale MDS plot, ingredient commonalities of beverages were
observed in the ingredient inventory spreadsheet. Beverage categories were generated
based on common ingredients that were apparent on the ingredient inventory spreadsheet..
Visual examination of the ingredient inventory for all fifty functional beverages resulted
in the formation of seven functional beverage categories and a miscellaneous group
(Table 3.2). Category names were generated based on common descriptors found on the
beverage product labels.
The ingredient inventory method may be a useful categorization method, but more
research will have to be conducted to determine a way to generate categories statistically
or through objective analysis. It is possible that the ingredient inventory categorization
could categorize the beverages by comparing only select types of ingredients (i.e.
stimulants, vitamins, minerals) contained in functional beverages, instead of the complete
list of ingredients. This could result in the separation of beverages into categories based
on the differing functional ingredients.
Flow Behavior Comparison Categorization
Three beverage categories were generated through the agglomerative hierarchical
clustering (AHC) of the viscosity measurements of all fifty functional beverages. These
categories were defined by the centroid viscosity value of the beverage viscosities: low
(2.21 mPa -s), medium (37.36 mPa -s), and high (74.13 mPa s). The low viscosity
category consisted of forty beverages that were mostly still, clear beverages including
isotonics and tea-based beverages (Figure 3.2). The medium and high viscosity
43
categories contained the viscous beverages, such as yogurt-based or fruit-based

beverages.
Flow behavior of the beverages were measured and classified as being Newtonian
(shear stress/strain curve is linear) or non-Newtonian (shear stress/strain curve is nonlinear). Data were also analyzed and categories were generated by two separate
agglomerative hierarchical cluster (AHC) analyses: 1) Newtonian products (Table 3.3
and Figure 3.3) and 2) Non-Newtonian products (Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4). Eight
categories were generated through the combination of both AHC analyses, although
there were no obvious similarities that could be used to characterize the generated
beverage clusters. The AHC of the Newtonian beverages show that most of the
decarbonated energy drinks were clustered together along with a few other beverages,
while diet and low calorie beverages were clustered together.
It is possible that the apparent viscosity at a shear rate of 50 s"1 was not the best
representative shear rate to categorize the non-Newtonian pseudoplastic functional
beverages. Pseudoplastic fluids have varying viscosities at different shear rates;
therefore, calculating the apparent viscosity at a lower set shear rate may result in a more
accurate representation of the apparent viscosity of the non-Newtonian functional
beverages than at a shear rate of 50 s'1.
The combination of other physical property measurements, such as pH level, Brix,
and titratable acidity, may provide additional criteria for the beverages to be categorized
in a more meaningful way. Diet and full calorie cola and lemon-lime flavored
commercial carbonated beverages were separately clustered through an AHC based on
44
these physical properties (Kappes 2007), which provided a more meaningful

interpretation of the clusters.
Two-Step Sensory Sorting Categorization
The visual free sort generated six beverage categories (Figure 3.5), while the
visual-oral free sorting method generated seven beverage categories (Figure 3.6). Six of
the beverage groups were the same and included: Enhanced Waters, Energy Drinks, Fruit
Smoothies, Nutritional Drinks, Sports Drinks, and Teas. The visual-oral sort included an
additional category termed, "Yogurt Smoothies". The resulting categories and definitions
remained consistent between the two sorting procedures, which suggest that visual and
visual-oral sorts could be combined into one task to reduce sorting time.
Panelists commented that it was difficult to place beverages encompassing
multiple concepts into a single category. Beverages such as Fuze Slenderize (14),
Sobe Tsunami (40), and Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) were a few of the hybridtype beverages that panelists had difficulty sorting. The results from the MDS plot
mirror the panelists' uncertainty because these "hybrid-type" beverages were not
consistently placed in the same category by the panelists, thus these beverages were not
grouped on the MDS plot. From this data, it can be concluded that there are functional
beverages on the market that lack a clear concept and are difficult for consumers to
define and characterize.
The fixed sort MDS plots (Part 2), resulted in fewer ungrouped beverages
(Figures 3.7 and 3.8) than the free sort MDS plots (Part 1). These results were expected
since the categories were fixed and panelists were forced to sort each beverage into a predefined category despite, perhaps, a non-ideal fit. The fixed sort, however, helped to
45
categorize some beverages such as Capri Sun Sport
(4), Sobe Power (39), Sobe
Tsunami (40), and Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) (Figure 3.3) possibly because the
characteristics of these beverages matched the definitions of the fixed functional
beverage categories (Figures 3.7 and 3.8). Capri Sun Sport
IM
(4) was placed in the
Sports Drinks category, while Sobe Power (39), Sobe Tsunami (40), and Sobe Lean
Energy Diet Citrus (41) were placed in the Energy Drinks category. The three previously
mentioned beverages did not completely match the characteristics defining the categories,
but the results suggest that the panelists thought that these functional beverages best
belonged in those categories. The results from the fixed sort also suggest that panelists
were still uncertain about which categories to sort the hybrid-type beverages. Panelists
also commented that they had difficulty placing beverages incorporating multiple
concepts into a single category. Beverages such as Fuze Refresh (13), Fuze Slenderize
(14), Propel'Propel Fitness Water (33),and Fitness Water (34), were a few of the
hybrid-type beverages that panelists had difficulty sorting. Some of these beverages may
not have been categorized because the key characteristics of fixed functional beverage
categories may have limited inclusion into a categoiy.
The two-step sensory sorting method aids in developing categories based on
similarities among products. The fixed sort confirms the initial beverage categories
created during the free sort, through the general comprehension of the categories by the
panelists. Overall, the two-step sensory sorting method provides insight on the similarity
and dissimilarity relationships between products and aids in category development based
on the grouping of beverages with similar characteristics.
Comparison of Categorization Methods

Generated beverage categories were not consistent across the three methods. The
methods each resulted in the clustering of beverages; however the two-step sensory
sorting method generated distinct categories with distinguishing characteristics that are
meaningful compared to the ingredient inventory and flow behavior comparison
categorization methods. Categorization using the ingredient inventory and flow behavior
comparison methods was based on only one aspect of the beverages, while the two-step
sensory sorting method allowed panelists to categorize beverages using multiple senses
and a variety of information. Therefore, the two-step sensory sorting method was the
only method which included consumer insight in the categorization and definitions of
beverage categories.
Although the ingredient inventory and flow behavior comparison categorizations
were not as successful in categorizing functional beverages as the two-step sensory
sorting method, the information obtained about each beverage could possibly be used to
aid in describing the categories generated by the two-step sensory sorting categorization.
Comparing the ingredient and flow behavior data of individual beverages grouped
together into a category through the two-step sensory sort may result in additional
common characteristics distinctive of a category. For example, the beverages categorized
in the Sports Drinks category all contained multiple sugars and had Newtonian
viscosities; which could be the major chemical and physical characteristics of the Sports
Drinks category. This could possibly result in further defined functional beverage
categories.
47
One limitation of this study's design, regarding all three categorization methods,
is that too few beverages were selected from each of the potential categories. For
example, there was only one low-calorie carbonated energy drink and only two fruitbased smoothies. If there had been more of those beverage types included in this study, it
is possible that other categories would have been generated. The beverages selected for
this categorization method, however, represented the assortment and quantities of
functional beverages available in the market reflecting the current market trend.
After comparing the results of all three methods, in general there are some basic
major categories that were apparent regardless of the categorization method applied:
Energy Drinks,, Nutritional Drinks,, Sports Drinks, Teas, and Yogurt Smoothies. There
are still some beverages which were difficult to categorize such as Fuze "Refresh" and
Fuze "Slenderize". Reasons for the difficulty could be attributed to consumers'
uncertainty or unfamiliarity of the key characteristics of these beverages. In addition, as
more hybrid-type products are introduced into the functional beverage market, a new
beverage category may be generated.
3.5 Conclusions
Strategically marketing a product to meet consumer expectations requires
knowledge of a product's categorical membership. The inclusion of a beverage into a
category provides a quick snapshot of the expected attributes of a particular beverage. It
is also important to determine and define functional beverage categories to aid in the
regulation of the beverages. Regulations would protect and inform consumers about
ingredient compositions specific to functional beverage categories. Therefore, it is
necessary to determine and define categories for the expanding functional beverage
market, which currently lacks distinct categories.
Categorizing functional beverages by ingredient inventory did not result in

categories, possibly due to the expansive list of ingredients compared. The flow behavior
comparison also did not result in distinct functional beverage categories with
distinguishing characteristics. This suggests that flow behavior and measured viscosity at
a shear rate of 50 s"1 may not be the best means of categorizing functional beverages.
The two-step sensory sorting method has potential as a method to categorize functional
beverages because the incorporation of sensory evaluation aids in generating distinct
functional beverage categories. Future research includes investigating the validity and
reproducibility of the two-step sorting method as a rapid method to categorize large
groups of products. Additional research may include an investigation of a free sort
focusing only on an oral sensory evaluation sort of the blinded products, to determine if
the functional beverages could be categorized by only oral sensations and tastes without
the influence of packaging or product identification. The level of sweetness, mouthfeel,
or other oral sensations may play a significant role in generating different functional
3.6 References
Amendola C, lannilli I, Restuccia D, Santini I, Vinci G. 2004. Multivariate statistical
analysis comparing sport and energy drinks. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies 5(2):263-7.
Cook DJ, Hollowood TA, Linforth RST, Taylor A J. 2003. Oral shear stress predicts
flavour perception in viscous solutions. Chem Senses 28(1):11-23.
Fraley C, Raftery AE. 1998. How Many Clusters? Which Clustering Method? Answers
Via Model-Based Cluster Analysis. The Computer Journal 41(8):578-88.
Hollowood TA, Linforth RST, Taylor AJ. 2002. The Effect of Viscosity on the
Perception of Flavour. Chem Senses 27583-91.
Kappes SK, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2006. Mouthfeel Detection Threshold and Instrumental
Viscosity of Sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Solutions. J Food Sci 71(9):S597602.
Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2007. Relationship between Physical Properties and
Sensory Attributes of Carbonated Beverages. J Food Sci 72(1):S001-11.
Kruskal JB. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method.
Psychometrika 29(2): 115-29.
Krzanowski W.T, Marriott FHC. 1995. Multivariate analysis. New York: Halsted Press.
280 p.
online]. 61(12):Available from Posted 2007.
Lawless HT, Glatter S. 1990. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived
from odor sorting. J.Sensory Studies 5(2):217-30.
Lawless HT, Sheng N, Knoops SSCP. 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data
Lord JB. 2000. New Product Failure and Success. In: A. L. Brody, J. B. Lord, editors.
MacQueen JB. 1966. Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate
Observations. Proc. Fifth Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist, and Prob.281-297.
Orth UR, de Marchi R. 2005. Advertising's influence on product experience and purchase
intention. Fruit Processing 6:372-76.
50
Schmidl MK, Labuza TP. 2000. Essentials of Functional Foods. Gaithersburg: Aspen
Pub. 395 p.
Tang C, Heymann H. 2002. Multidimensional Sorting, Similarity Scaling and FreeChoice Profiling of Grape Jellies. J Sens Stud 17(6):493-509.
Urala N, Lahteenmaki L. 2003. Reasons behind consumers functional food choices. Nutr
Food Sci 33(4): 148-58.
Ward JH. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize a quantitative function. J Am Stat
Assoc 58(301):236-44.
Yamauchi T, Markman AB. 2000. Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition 26(3):776-95.
51

Tabic 3.1: Fifty commercially-available functional beverages and corresponding
numerical codes.
No.
Code
Commercially-Available
No.
Code
1 Arizona Pomegranate Green Tea
26
Metromint
Bolthouse Farms Fruit Smoothie
27
Minute Maid Fruit Falls
Boost
28 Naked Fruit Smoothie
4 Capri Sun Sport
29 NOS
Dannon - Danimals
30
Pediasure
Dannon - Light 'n Fit Smoothie
31
Powerade
Dannon - Frusion
32
PoweraderM - Advance
Dasani Flavored Water
33
Powerade Option
Elements Energy
34
Propel Fitness Water
10
Ensure Shake
35
Rockstar
11
Fruit20
36
Slimfast Optima
12
Full Throttle
37
Snapple White Tea
38
Sobe - NoFear
39
Sobe - Power
40
Sobe - Tsunami
Gatorade Endurance
41
Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus
17 Gatorade Lemonade
42
Sobe Life Water
18 Gatorade Original
43
Stonyfield Farm Organic Smoothie
19 Gatorade Rain
44
Sweet Leaf Tea
13 Fuze "Refresh"
14
Fuze "Slenderize"
15 Fuze Green Tea

16
20
Glucerna
45 TAB Energy
21
Gold Peak Iced Tea
46
Tazo Iced Tea
22
Honest Tea
47
Trinity Water
23
Lifeway Lowfat Kefir
48
Whitney's Yo on the Go
24
Liplon Original White Tea
49
Yoplait Go-GURT Smoothie
25
MDX
50
Yoplait Nouriche SiiperSmoothie
52
Tabic 3.2: Functional beverage category names generated through visual

observation of the beverage ingredient commonalities in the ingredient
inventory spreadsheet.
Beverages
per
Category
Ingredient Commonalities
Category Names
B vitamins
Carbonated Energy Drinks
6
Carbonated Water
Natural Extracts (Ginseng)
Stimulants (Caffeine, Taurine, or Dribose)
MFCS
Energy Drinks
4
Natural Extracts
Stimulants (Caffeine, Taurine, or Dribosc)
Gums
Nutritional Drinks
5
Protein
Vitamins and Minerals
Sports Drinks
8
Electrolytes (Na, K)
Natural Sugars
Teas
8
Natural Extracts
Tea or water infused with tea
Waters
Yogurt Smoothies
Miscellaneous Drinks '
B Vitamins
Natural Flavors
Modified Starches
Yogurt
None
53
Tabic 3.3: Viscosities of Newtonian Functional Beverages measured at 20 C.

Code
Beverages
Viscosity
(mPa-s)
11
Fruit20
0.983 0.006
27
Minute Maid Fruit FallsTM
0.983 0.040
1.027 + 0.015
45
TAB Energy
1.033 0.032
26
Metromint
1.0370.012
33
PoweradeTM Option
1.050 + 0.056
34
1.1000.100
42
Sobe Life Water
1.1900.017
41
1.200 0.026
16 Gatorade Endurance
1.203 + 0.021
47
Trinity Water
1.203 0.021
14 Fuze "Slenderize"
1.227 0.049
1.233 0.038
19 Gatorade Rain
1.243 + 0.012
32
PoweradeTM - Advance
1.250 0.010
37
Snapple White Tea
1.257 0.031
15 Fuze Green Tea
1.2100.036
1.257 0.029
Capri Sun Sport TM
1.267 0.031
44
Sweet LeafTM Tea
1.357 0.070
21
Gold PeakTM Iced Tea
1.363 0.055
31
PoweradeTM
1.363 0.045
24
Lipton Original White Tea
1.367 0.078
9 Elements Energy
1.4170.031
1.423 0.112
46 Tazo Iced Tea
1.490 0.030
35 Rockstar
1.533 0.040
25 MDX
1.5870.035
1.5870.055
12 Full Throttle
29 NOS
1.640 0.030
38 Sobe - NoFear
1.933 0.086
1.973 0.015
39 Sobe - Power
13 Fuze "Refresh"
2.430 0.079
R2 values ranged from 0.989 to 1.000 witli an average and standard deviation of 0.9990,002
Table 3.4: Viscosities of non-Newtonian Functional Beverages at a

shear rate of 50 s .
Code
Commercially-Available Functional
Beverages
Viscosity
(mPa*s)
22
Honest Tea
1.287 0.01
40
Sobe - Tsunami
3.340 + 0.06
30
Pediasure
4.757 + 0.24
Boost
9.8100.12
Glucerna
11.70 0.77
10 Ensure Shake
15.75 0.15
3
20
Slimfast Optima
32.81 2,60
42.03 1.62
Stonyfield Farm Organic Smoothie
47.13 0.81
DannonTM - Danimals
49.12 5.61
DannonTM - Frusion
50.77 1.01
36
2
43
52.45 1.50
DannonTM - Light 'n Fit Smoothie
54.40 7.10
48
Whitney's Yo on the GoTM
57.93 3.78
49
77.84 2.27
23
Lifeway Lovvfat Kefir
100.6 5.0
50
121.4 28.3
55
50
40
so
20
30
3
20 '
42
30
12
L-
-10
Ji 48 44'
40
20
41 monf^mm
25
-20
30
48
33
15
0u
47
' 3 1 ,34
35
10
13
7 1<T # " g 5 3
38
30
# 10'
271^.5
7
-30
40
-50
-50
-40
30
-20
10
10
20
'30
40
50
Dim1
Figure 3.1: Multidimensional Scaling of the results of the ingredient

inventory categorization with stress = 0.227. Refer to Table 3.1 for product
names and corresponding number codes.
35000
**.
^#
8000
6000
4000 -
2000
o 1
1 i
a.
n 2
c: _ P
to
'
to w=
3
w CD Q
I XJ Q-
Q>
I
o
)Z
,
=-
a 5<
cu -S g>tSS^li*
a-s c E S ' O
S S3 CM _
a) t : 3 co
, Or:
m o c
a =
Q.
ca - a
t= S
Ji
w . S <D S
co u_
cu
E
2
='g
H- ra to y
co
CU .5? Q
(2, 2= Ol -Si
ill
:S2
5 c co '
Q
LU
CO o . N
Q. 3
TO
C3-
TO
CO
* ^ h -
o <a: g 1 =
5 -<
ro
2 p Q_
ra
S liCO
CO
rn
a> to
_!- a
CO - j -
J-!
ca
ca c:
o
t-
u>
_i
ct
1_1 LLI
XJ CU X J
cz CO
JU 111
CU
CD S O
3
o
<
CL
CD
J
Z3 13
cz
,
03
cu o -g
1I.C3
en en n)
j= o
co o
.52
E o
cu - = O
o
o
= 0 >
EW
y
c
gto
- g i t
go 5
o) 2
. 2. H
>:s
^ >
?Z5
=>
CO
C3 5
co
U.
fflO
s
cu
co
<o
"S3
c co . 9
S S
w E
"co
>-
o
>
Figure 3.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 50 functional beverages by viscosity measurement using the ARES RFS
III on the dissimilarity scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by Ward's Method. Viscosities of non-Newtonian
beverages were calculated at a 50 sec"1 shear rate. The dotted line was computed using the software and truncates groups
based on the largest relative increase in dissimilarity.
-4
Figure 3.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 33 Newtonian functional

beverages by viscosity measurement using the ARES RFS III on the dissimilarity
scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by Ward's Method. The dotted line
was computed using the software and truncates groups based on'the largest relative
increase in dissimilarity.
58
12000
10000 -i
CD
CD
03
"o
o
.h
if)
CD
iC
CD
'co
exes
>-
Yoplait Nouriche
Lifeway
CD
c
3
CO
CD
< co
ID
CD
E
to
4,
J3
O
CO
(a)
CD
ca
CO.
CO
-a
CD
co
1
CO
UJ
co
o
o
CO
ca
E
CD
CJ
=1
CD
'
CD
CD
CO
a.
O"to
.2
Eco
CD
CD
.rr
c
o
>-
CO
>>
CD
&
O
o
E
CO
'5
a
CD
ca
2
E
CO
o
o
CO
a '1
U-
-J
rC
o
c:
c
to
O
ca
U-
%
CO
o
"o
CD
4i
o
o
E
CO
o
'c
CO
CO
CO
E
'tz
CO
c
o
'to
E
1
(c:o
to
o
a
-a
u.
CO
CZ
e: .
ta
CD
*.
c:
o
co
Figure 3.4: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 17 non-Newtonian functional

beverages by. viscosity measurement at 50 sec'1 shear rate using the ARES RFS III
on the dissimilarity scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by Ward's
Method. The dotted line was computed using the software and truncates groups
based on the largest relative increase in dissimilarity.
Group Category
1 . Energy Drinks
2
3
.
-12
0.
Characteristics
Contains stimulants such as caffeine
arid taurine; provides extra energy
Enhanced Waters Contains minimal Calories, lightly

flavored, clear liquid
Nutritional Drinks Contains many nutrients could serve'
as a meal-replacement beverage
Smoothies
Sports Drinks
Teas
Contains fermented dairy products;

opaque '
Mineral or vitamin enhanced; does
not contain caffeine. Labeling
targets athletes
Contains Tea or Tea Extracts
12
Dim1
Figure 3.5: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with
stress = 0.265 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting method. Functional beverages ..
were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 3.1 for product
names and corresponding number codes..
-
12
Group Category
Group 6 ^ "
Energy Drinks

Fruit Smoothies
Contains 100% Fruit,; non-clear liquid;
all natural
Group 1
Group 4
CM
=
a
Group
/43
^s23
QD
Group 5

and taurine; provides extra energy
Nutritional Drinks Contains many nutrients could serve

Sports Drinks
Mineral or vitamin enhanced; does not

contain caffeine. Labeling targets
Teas
-4
Group 3
Characteristics
7 Yogurt Smoothies, Contains fermented dairy products;
-12
-12
12
Dim1
Figure 3.6:.Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions
with stress = 0.290 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual-oral sorting method. Functional
beverages were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 3.1 for.
product names and corresponding number codes.
12
Group Category 1
Energy Drinks

flavored, clear liquid '
Fruit Smoothies
all natural"
Group 6
Group 2
Group 1
Group 4
-12
Characteristics

and taurine;provides extra energy '

Sports Drinks

Teas
Yogurt Smoothies Contains fermented dairy products;
o
Dim1
Figure 3.7: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 50 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with
stress = 0.289 and corresponding functional beverage categories. .Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means
clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 3.1 for product names and corresponding number
codes.
to
Group Category
1 Energy Drinks
Group 6 -j.
Group 2
Group 4
Group 1
4
5
Group 3
-12
-8
Contains'stimulants such as caffeine


Fruit Smoothies- Contains 100% Fruit,; non-clear liquid;
all natural
Sports Drinks
6. Teas
7
Characteristics

12
Dim1
Figure 3.8: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of 45 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions
with stress = 0.283 and corresponding functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means
clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 3.1 for product names and corresponding number ;
codes.
CHAPTER 4 - VALIDATION AND REPRODUCIBILITY STUDY OF A TWOSTEP SENSORY SORTING METHOD TO CATEGORIZE FUNCTIONAL
BEVERAGES
4.1 Abstract
Sorting and categorizing are quick and useful methods, which aid in identifying
product traits and highlighting important attributes. The aim of this study was to
determine the validity and reproducibility of a two-step sensory sorting method used to
categorize functional beverages based on qualitative judgments.
A validation study involved two groups of naive panelists sorting forty-six
functional beverages into the fixed categories pre-generated from the initial two-step
sensory sorting method. This was done to confirm that the fixed categories were
understandable and that the beverages could be similarly sorted. To determine if the twostep sorting task was reproducible, the method was replicated with another group of nai've
panelists.
Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) values greater than 0,90 showed that there was
excellent correspondence between the fixed sorts conducted in the validation study.
Beverages that were difficult to sort in the initial two-step sensory sorting task, however,
were still not consistently categorized by the other two panels. Six functional beverage
categories were generated in the reproducibility study, with the major difference between
the initial sort and the replicated sort being that the Yogurt Smoothie and Fruit Smoothie
categories were combined into one category encompassing both types of beverages in the
replicate. The high ARI values from the validation study (ARI >0.88) and the similar
functional beverage categories generated through the reproducibility study (ARI >0.77)
64
suggest that the two-step sensory sorting method can be used to consistently create
similar functional beverage categories.
Keywords: sensory sorting, categorization, functional beverages, sensory evaluation
4.2 Introduction
Functional Beverage Categories
Consumers' desire for beverages that provide health benefits has led to the
development of many new functional beverages each year. In 2007, functional beverage
sales were over $10 billion (Wright 2008), and in this constantly expanding functional
beverage market, the introduction of these beverages has outpaced the" development of
categories and definitions of beverages in this segment. To have defined categories is
important for proper marketing of products (Murphy and Ross 1994). Categories help to
direct consumers with their purchase intent or acceptance based on the assumed features
of that particular category (Moreau and others 2001). For ultimate consumer Scitisfaction,
consumer expectations for the specific category need to be met. Therefore, it is necessary
to understand the underlying characteristics which are unique in defining functional
Sorting and Characterization Methods
Sorting methods can be used as a quick and simple means to gather information
about products and are much less time-consuming compared to other methods of sensory
evaluation, such as descriptive analysis. Sorting methods allow researchers to relatively
quickly gather information about panelists' perceptions of a large group of products
65
(Rugg and McGeorge 1997, Viswanathan and Childers 1999), require minimal panelist
training, and can often be conducted in one session.
Prior to their applications to food, sorting methods have been applied to nonfood
materials, such as car fabrics (Giboreau and others 2007), colored plastic chips (Faye and
others 2004), and oral health care products (Bertino and Lawless 1993). Sorting methods
were first introduced to food sensory research when Lawless and others (1995) conducted
a study on the perception and conceptual mapping of the relationship of different cheeses.
Following this research, other food items have been sorted such as water (Falahee and
MacRae 1997), snack bars (King and others 1998), red wine (Gawel and others 2000),
novel food products (Woolf and others 2002), and yogurts (Saint-Eve and others 2004) to
obtain information on product relationships based on attributes.
The free sorting method has few restrictions which include that more than one
category must be created and that all objects must be sorted into mutually-exclusive
categories (Lim and Lawless 2005). Another sorting method is the projective mapping,
which involves clustering products on a blank sheet of paper, which is later divided and
marked into uniform squares to determine the distance of the products from one another
(Perrin and others 2008). This method has been used to sort wines (Pages 2005) and
orange juice (Neslrud and Lawless 2008). Flash profiling, in which panelists observe and
evaluate all the products at once and create their own descriptive terms to describe
products and cluster similar products together, is another method used in sensory sorting
and descriptive work (Delarue and Sieffermann 2004, Tarea and others 2007). All
sorting methods result in providing information on the relationship among products and
descriptors of products. Previous research has only encompassed the sorting of less than
66
30 products (Faye and others 2004). In this research, a large group of products (45 to 50)
was used to determine if they can be sorted in a relatively short amount of time. Thus,
the purpose of the research was to assess the validity and reproducibility of a two-step
sensory sorting method used to categorize functional beverages based on qualitative
judgments.

Products
Fifty ready-to-drink functional beverages were purchased from three local
supermarkets (County Market, Meijer, and Schnucks) in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois in
September 2006. Brand-name products were purchased, while generic or store brand
products were not included in the study, to minimize any bias associated with the lack of
marketing of these products. If multiple flavors of products were available, the original
flavor or a derivative of a berry flavor was purchased to minimize dissimilarities due to
flavorings or colors.
Products were stored in a refrigerator at ~5C and taken out 5 minutes prior to the
sorting tasks. In addition to their standard packaging, all products were labeled with their
name and respective number code (Table 4.1). Supplies available for panelists to use
during the visual-oral sorting task included: cold water (Absopure, Plymouth, MI) to
rinse between samples, 29.6 mL plastic cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL) to
dispense the beverages, and spit cups to expectorate samples.
67
Panels
Four panels (Figure 4.1) participated in the validity and reproducibility tests of the
two-step sensory sorting method. Each panel consisted of 10 to 14 untrained panelists.
Panel 1 was the initial panel that participated in visual and visual-oral free and fixed
sorting tasks. The combination of both the free and fixed sorting tasks resulted in the
generation of functional beverage categories. Panels 2 and 3 tested for validity of Panel
l's functional beverage categories by sorting the same set of fifty functional beverages
into the fixed categories pre-generated from the initial two-step sensory sorting method.
Panel 4 participated in a reproducibility study in which the same two-step sensory sorting
method (visual and visual-oral free sorting and'fixed sorting tasks) as Panel 1 was
repealed.
Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method
Part 1-Free Sort
The free sort consisted of categorizing fifty functional beverages by both a visual
and visual-oral sorting task. All beverages were placed around a table and panelists were
not restricted to the order they evaluated the beverages. Panel 1, a fourteen-member
untrained panel (3 males, 11 females, 18 to 50 years old), was instructed to group similar
functional beverages into self-defined, mutually-exclusive categories and describe each
category with common, key characteristics, A set of blank worksheets and a sheet of
sticker labels with functional beverage product names were given to each panelist.
Panelists independently completed the sorting tasks and created category names and key
descriptors for each generated category and wrote them down on the worksheets. The
use of the sticker labels regulated the sorting process by eliminating the possibility of
68
panelists placing a beverage into multiple categories and to make sure that all beverages
were placed into at least one category. Panelists were not restricted in sorting time, and
the average time to complete both free sorting tasks was approximately one hour.
In the visual free sort, panelists focused on grouping beverages based on common
visual characteristics. These visually observable characteristics could include any visual
cues, such as packaging information, perceived opaqueness, color, or thickness of the
beverage. In addition, previous exposure to the product, such as advertising, was allowed
to influence the panelists during the visual sort. The only restriction in the visual free
sort was that at least two beverage categories had to be created. After the visual sort was
completed the same sorting process was applied to the visual-oral evaluation of the same
products. This sort was labeled a visual-oral sort because panelists were able to view and
taste the functional beverages during the sorting process. Panelists were instructed to sort
the beverages primarily focusing on their oral evaluations. Again panelists were
provided with a set of blank worksheets and a sheet of sticker labels to aid in the sorting
process.
Free Sort Category Generation
The sorting data were analyzed to determine the overall functional beverage
categories generated through the free sort. The qualitative data generated from the free
sort were transformed into quantitative data through a series of statistical analyses. First,
a similarity co-occurrence matrix (products x products) was created using XLStat
2008.4.02 (Addinsoft) to compare the frequency in which panelists placed functional
beverages in the same category. The more often beverages were paired together, the
greater the corresponding value comparing the relationship between two products, The
69
greatest value on the co-occurrence matrix between two products was 14 because there
were fourteen panelists participating in the initial sort (Panel 1).
The co-occurrence matrix was followed by a two-dimensional multidimensional
scaling (MDS) plot with Kruskal's stress-1 (Kruskal 1964) using XLStat 2008.4.02
(Addinsoft). Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a mathematical technique which is used
to display the similarities and dissimilarities between objects on a two-dimensional plot.
For the purpose of rotational consistency on the MDS axes, the relationship distance
between the plot of two beverages (Gluccrna (20) and Gold Peak Iced Tea (21)) was
selected as the initial configuration. These two beverages were very different from each
other in both ingredient formulation and panelist sorting results and were never paired
together in a category by any panelists. The relationship between the two products was
chosen because they were centrally located in two separate, defined clusters of beverages
on the MDS plot. This allowed for a clearer visual comparison between the clusters on
the MDS plots. Choosing the relationship between the two beverages as the initial
configuration allowed the statistical program to rotate the clusters around the axes based
on the relationship between the two beverages.
The MDS plots were plotted in absolute configuration, which calculates the
relationship between objects as closely as possible to the observed distances in the initial
co-occurrence matrix. The quality of fit of the data on the MDS plot was measured by
the stress value, which explained the true recovery of the data on the two-dimensional
plot. The stress value ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 corresponding to no stress and a stress
level less than 0.10 considered an acceptable stress value (Krzanowski and Marriott
1995). The MDS plot program used to analyze the data ran multiple iterations of the data
to create a MDS plot containing the maximum amount of data displayed in two
dimensions with the lowest stress value.
The MDS plots displayed functional beverages clustered together based on the
number of times each beverage was paired with another beverage. The more often two
beverages were grouped together by panelists, the closer the two beverages were plotted
on the MDS plot. The number of categories was selected by visually observing the MDS
plots and grouping beverages that were in close proximity to each other. K-means
clustering (MacQueen 1966) was conducted on beverage coordinate points on the MDS
plot to determine which beverages belonged together in each category. K-means
clustering groups neighboring objects into' tentative groups based on the nearest cluster's
mean value (MacQueen 1966, Fraley and Raftery 1998, Fraley and Raftery 1998).
Groups were clustered into "classes" based on the proximity of the relationship between
points on the MDS plot. In K-means clustering analysis, the term "classes" has the same
definition as the term "groups" of objects. The number of classes tells the analysis
program how many groups to separate the products into. Eight classes were chosen
based on visual observation of the free sort results. Data were analyzed using XLStat
2008.4.02 (Addinsoft) and the K-means clustering groups were created by analyzing the
beverages (X and Y coordinates) on the MDS plot.
Category names and definitions were determined based on the descriptors and
category names most commonly generated by the fourteen panelists. If more than half of
the panelists used similar terminology, the descriptors were included in the category
names and descriptors. Examples of similar terminology include, "healthy drinks" and
"healthy living" or "pre/post workout" and "sports performance."
71
Comparison of Free Sort Generated Categories

An Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) (Hubert and Arabie 1985) was conducted to
determine the similarity between the results of the K-means generated clusters from both
the visual and visual-oral free sorts. The original Rand Index (RI) (Rand 1971) examined
the similarities between the agreements and disagreements obtained through the
comparison of the results from the two sorts. The RI can compare the generated
categories from two different sorting methods or generated category sorting results to
established categories. An ARI value ranges from 0 to 1 and explains the correspondence
between the categories of the two compared sorts, with a value of 1 signifying that the
two sorts were exactly the same. The ARI differs from the original RI in that it adjusts
for chance agreement between the two sorts. In Steinley's research (2004), the same
clustering method was compared and the RI was a higher value than the ARI. Therefore,
the ARI is a more sensitive scale than the RI for determining the degree of
correspondence between the two sorts. The validity of the quality of the cluster recovery
is determined by the ARI value. An ARI value of greater than 0.86 is in the 95lh
percentile, 0.77 is in the 9011' percentile, 0.67 is in the 85th percentile, and 0.60 is in the
80th percentile (Steinley 2004). An ARI value less than 0.65 is considered poor recovery
of data, a value greater than 0.65 is considered moderate recovery, a value greater than
0.80 is considered good recovery, and a value greater than 0.90 is considered excellent
recovery (Steinley 2004).
Part 2-Fixed Sort
The second part of the two-step sensory sorting method included a fixed sorting
task of the same fifty functional beverages using the seven defined categories generated
72
from the combined results of the visual and visual-oral free sorting tasks. A subset
composed of eight panelists (2 males, 6 females, 18 to 50 years old) who were available
from Panel 1 participated in both visual and visual-oral fixed sorts. Four beverages
(Elements Energy(9), Powerade Advance (32), Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41),
and Trinity Water (47)) had become unavailable on the market between conducting the
free and fixed sorting tasks and thus were not included in the visual-oral fixed sort.
Panelists were forced to sort the forty-six available beverages into the seven defined
categories generated from the combined results of the visual and visual-oral free sorting
tasks. Panelists were given a set of worksheets containing the list of the fixed functional
beverage categories and definitions, and sticker labels with the functional beverage
product names, Data from the fixed sorting tasks were analyzed using the same methods
as previously described in the free sort. Eight classes (seven categories plus an extra
class) were selected as the K-means value. The extra class was added to account for the
beverages that were not observed to be in a cluster on the MDS plot. The fixed sorting
task data were compared to the functional beverage categories generated through the free
sorting task, by calculating the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI).
Validation Study
A validation study was conducted on the categories generated through the twostep sensory sorting method. The forty-six functional beverages were sorted into seven
previously generated functional beverage categories by two panels of naive panelists
(Panel 2 and Panel 3). The seven previously-generated functional beverage categories
were based on the combined results of both the visual and visual-oral free sorting tasks.
The panelists were not exposed to the free sorting task of the initial panel (Panel 1) and
were forced to sort beverages into the fixed categories generated by Panel 1. Panel 2
73
consisted often untrained panelists (5 males, 5 females, 18 to 50 years old) and Panel 3
consisted of thirteen untrained panelists (4 males, 9 females, 18 to 50 years old). The
panels followed the same instructions and guidelines as the fixed sort from the two-step
sensory sorting method of Panel 1. The same four functional beverages were not
(available for evaluation by Panel 2, while Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) became
available again, but Yoplait Nouriche Smoothie (50) became unavailable in the market
for evaluation by Panel 3.
The fixed sort data from the validation study (Panels 2 and 3) were analyzed using
the same methods previously described in the free sort. An ARI was conducted to
compare Panel 2 and Panel 3's sorting data to the functional beverage categories
generated through the initial two-step sensory sorting method. Since four of the
beverages were not available during the validation fixed sorts, only functional beverages
present in both sorts were used in the analyses. Therefore, forty-six beverages were
compared in this validation study.
Reproducibility Study
Panel 4 consisted of thirteen untrained panelists (4 males, 9 females, 18 to 50
years old), who replicated the two-step sensory sort (free sorting task followed by fixed
sorting task) on forty-six functional beverages. Four beverages (Elements Energy (9),
Powerade Advance (32), Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41), and Trinity Water
(47)) had become unavailable on the market between conducting the Panel 1 's free and
fixed sorts. Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) had become available while Yoplait
NouricheSuperSmoothie (50) had become unavailable between conducting the initial
two-step sensory sort and the reproducibility study. In total, there were five beverages
that were not sorted during compared fixed sorting tasks. Therefore, forty-five functional
74
beverages were compared in the reproducibility study. The data were analyzed using the
same statistical analyses as the initial two-step sensory sorting method (Panel 1). The
reproducibility of the method was analyzed using the ARI by comparing the categories
generated from Panel 1 and Panel 4's two-step sensory sorts.

Initial Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method (Panel 1)
Panel l's visual free sort resulted in six functional beverage categories which
included: Energy Drinks, Enhanced Waters, Fruit Smoothies, Nutritional Drinks, Sports
Drinks, and Teas (Figure 4.6). The visual-oral free sort resulted in seven categories, six
that were the same categories and an additional category named, "Yogurt Smoothies"
(Figure 4.7). The ARI between both free sorts (Table 4.2) was 0.80, which is good
recovery between the sorts. The categories and definitions remained consistent between
the two free sorts, which suggest that visual and visual-oral sorts could be combined into
one task to reduce sorting time. The visual-oral sort incorporates both visual and oral
evaluations of the products which provides a complete sensory experience, thus is the
recommended task to choose to reduce the sorting time of the two-step sensory sorting
method.
The stress value of the MDS plot for visual free sort was 0.265 and 0.290 for the
visual-oral free sort, which are above the acceptable stress level of less than 0.10
(Krzanowski and Marriott 1995). The stress values were high and suggest that the
configuration on the dimensions may not be acceptable. However, the larger the number
of objects compared, the greater the stress value (Kruskal and Wish 1978). In previous
research, stress values have been lower because fewer objects were being compared
75
(Lawless and others 1995, Faye and others 2006). Plotting a large number of products
increases the number of comparisons and makes it difficult to display all the product
relationships in only two dimensions. When analyzing data using an MDS plot, it is
expected that all the relationships between objects will appear on one plot. The
relationships between products on a plot that are further apart are much more accurate
than the relationships between products that are plotted closer together on a MDS plot.
To reduce the high stress value, three dimensions could be plotted on a three-dimensional
MDS plot.
Panelists commented that it was difficult to place beverages incorporating
multiple concepts into a single category. Beverages such as Fuze Slenderize (14),
Sobe Tsunami (40), and Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) were a few of the hybridtype beverages that panelists had difficulty sorting. The results from the MDS plot
mirror the panelists' uncertainty because these hybrid-type beverages were not
consistently placed in the same category, thus they were not clustered into a particular
group of beverages (Figures 4.2 and 4,3). It can be concluded that there are functional
beverages on the market that lack clear concepts and are difficult for consumers to
categorize.
Both the visual and visual-oral fixed sort MDS plots, resulted in fewer ungrouped
beverages (Figures 4.4 and 4.5) compared to the free sorts. These results were expected
since the categories were fixed and panelists were forced to sort each beverage into predefined categories. The results from the fixed sort also suggest that panelists still had
difficulty sorting hybrid-type beverages such as products Fuze "Refresh" (13), Fuze
"Slenderize"(14), Powerade Option (33), and Propel Fitness Water (34) into the fixed
categories because of the disagreement in the placement of beverages. Some beverages

may not have been categorized because the defined fixed functional beverage categories
may have been too restrictive, which excluded beverages from categories. The fixed sort,
however, helped to categorize some beverages such as Capri Sun Sport1 M (4), Sobe
Power (39), Sobe Tsunami (40), and Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41) (Figure 4.4
and 4.5), possibly because the characteristics of these beverages matched the definitions
of the fixed functional beverage categories.
The two-step sensory sorting method aids in developing categories based on
panelists' judgments of the similarities among products. Categories were generated
through the free sort, while the fixed sort was instrumental in verifying the generated
categories through the similar placement of beverages into pre-generated categories.
Descriptive analysis studies and free sorts often result in similar product descriptor results
(Faye and others 2004), which suggests that the two-step sensory sorting method may be
a faster method to obtain product descriptors.
The two-step sensory sorting method has the potential to be used as a rapid
sorting method to categorize a large quantity of products. The two-step sensory sorting
method consisted of two approximately one-hour sessions, which makes it a relatively
quick method to gather information about product relationships. There was no group
consensus in the generation of categories; therefore, the development of categories relied
heavily on a series of statistical analyses. Overall, the two-step sensory sorting method
provides insight on the similarity and dissimilarity among products and aids in category
development based on the grouping of beverages with similar characteristics.
77
Validation Study
In general, Panels 2 and 3 sorted the functional beverages into the same categories
as Panel 1 (Table 4.5). Panel 1 and 2 had an ARI of 0.91 for the comparison of the fixed
visual sort and an ARI of 0.93 comparing the fixed visual-oral sorts (Table 4.4). Panels 1
and 3 had an ARI of 0.88 for the fixed visual sort and 0.93 for the fixed visual-oral sort
(Table 4.2). Across all panels, fixed visual and visual-oral sorts, Fuze "Refresh"(13)
and Fuze "Slenderize"(14) were not sorted into the same categories by the panelists;
therefore, they did not fall into a specific functional beverage category. In the visual sort,
however, these two functional beverages were placed in the "Enhanced Water" category.
A reason for the placement of beverages into different categories could be due to the
varying judgments of the panelists.
Propel Fitness Water (34) and Powerade - Option (33) were not categorized
by Panel 1; however, Propel Fitness Water (34) was placed in the "Enhanced Water"
category in Panel 2's visual-oral fixed sort and in Panel 3's visual and visual-oral fixed
sort. A reason the beverages may not have been sorted into a category is that they were
clear in color, unlike other sports drink types, which made panelists uncertain about
which category these beverages belonged. Powerade - Option (33) was placed in the
"Sports Drinks" category in both Panel 2 and 3's visual-oral fixed sort, but was not sorted
into a specific category by visual sorting tasks. A possible reason for these results may
be attributed to panelists evaluating that Powerade - Option (33) was similar in taste
and mouthfeel but dissimilar in visual cues to other sports drink-type beverages.
Overall, the functional beverage categories generated from the two-step sensory
sorting method were understandable to naive panelists who had not participated in
78
creating the categories. In Tang and Heymann's (2002) research, naive subjects have
comparable product positioning as an expert panel. Therefore, untrained panelists have
similar ability as trained panelists in describing and categorizing functional beverages.,
The results suggest that the Teas, Yogurt Smoothies, Fruit Smoothies, and Nutritional
Drinks were understandable, well-defined categories. The functional beverages chosen in
this study were placed in consistent categories for these four categories by all three panels
(Table 4.3).
Categories in which there were a few discrepancies in beverage placement
included Energy Drinks and Enhanced Waters. The validation study results suggest that
the functional beverage categories generated by panelists in the two-step sensory sorting
method can be understood and used by a naive group of panelists who did not participate
in the free sort.
Reproducibility Study
The purpose of the reproducibility study was to determine if the same functional
beverage categories could be reproduced by a different panel. The categories generated
and replicated may aid in the creation of functional beverage categories that are
universally-understood by the general population. Panel 4's two-step sensory sorting
method resulted in six functional beverage categories (Figure 4.10). The categories
generated by Panel 4 were consistent with Panel l's categories except that a "Smoothies"
group was created and defined to encompass both dairy and fruit-based smoothies and a
"Carbonated Energy Drink" category replaced Panel l's "Energy Drink" category.
Similar functional beverage categories were expected and observed through the
reproducibility study. The ARI values were all above 0.80 (Table 4.2) which means that
79
there was a good recovery of the compared data. The ARI comparing the visual-oral
fixed sorts between Panel 1 and 4 was 0.77. Possible reasons for the lower value could
be primarily attributed to the different number of fixed functional beverage categories,
and that functional beverages (Powerade Option (33), Propel Fitness Water (34),
Sobe No Fear (38), Sobe Power (39), and Sobe Tsunami (40)) were not sorted into a
category by either panel (Table 4.4). The similar functional beverage categories and high
ARI values suggest that the two-step sensory sorting method is reproducible when
attempting to categorize a set of 45 to 50 functional beverages.
In both the visual and visual-oral free sorts, Panel 4 had difficulty categorizing
Fuze MRefrcsh"(13), Fuze MSlenderize"(14), Sobe Power (39), Sobe Tsunami (40),
and Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus (41), which were the same functional beverages not
sorted into categories by Panel 1 (Figures 4.10 and 4.11). The fixed sort resulted in
Sobe Power (39) and Sobe Tsunami (40) not being placed into a category because the
definition of the newly created "Carbonated Energy Drinks" category excluded the two
beverages. Compared to Panel 1 's data, Panel 4 could not sort Powerade Option (33),
and Propel Fitness Water (34) into a category, but these beverages were placed in the
"Fitness and Sports Drinks" and "Flavored Waters", respectively (Table 4.4, Figures 4.12
and 4.13).
The results from the reproducibility study suggest that there may be functional
beverage categories commonly used and understood. Two sets of panelists were able to
generate a set of similar functional beverage categories with good correspondence. Since
the results from the reproducibility study showed similar generated categories and
80
placement of beverages into categories, a minimum of only thirteen panelists may be

necessary to complete the two-step sensory sorting method,
4.5 Conclusions
We have described a two-step sensory sorting method based on panelists' sorting
of 45 to 50 commercially-available functional beverages. This approach combines
sensory observation of products and the use of multivariate statistics in the development
of functional beverage categories. The two-step sensory sorting method is still in its
initial stages and needs more research to be considered a valid categorization method.
Future studies include combining the results of the sorting research with a
consumer test on the same functional beverages. An external preference map could-be
generated based on the functional beverage categories and the beverages preferred by
consumers. This could aid in the prediction of potential opportunities in the market for
new product development based on the relationship between functional beverage
categories and consumers' preferred beverage characteristics.
Other possible studies include testing the two-step sensory sorting method on
other products such as cereals, candies, and food bars. One study would be to have a
panel sort a set of products that fall into well-known, defined categories to determine if
the method accurately categorizes the products into predetermined well-defined
categories. Another study could be conducted by sorting based on only oral perceptions
using coded samples, to determine if the functional beverages could be categorized by
only oral sensations and tastes without the influence of packaging or product
identification. The level of sweetness, mouthfeel, and other oral sensations may play a
role in different functional beverage categories. Lastly, it would be interesting to conduct
the two-step sensory sorting method on a group of functional beverages including newly
81
introduced products to determine if new functional beverage categories would be created

or if the categories generated in this study would suffice.
4.6 References
Bertino M, Lawless HT. 1993. Understanding mouthfeel attributes: a multidimensional
Delarue J, Sieffermann JM. 2004. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with
8(5):389-94.
Faye P, Bremaud D, Durand Daubin M, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, Nicod H. 2004.
Faye P, Bremaud D, Teillet E, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, Nicod I-I. 2006. An alternative to
external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Qual Pref
17(7-8):604-14.
Gawel R, Oberholster A, Francis IL. 2000. A 'mouth-feel wheel1: terminology for
and wine research,6(3):203-07.
Giboreau A, Dacremont C, Egoroff C, Guerrand S, Urdapilleta I, Candel D, Dubois D.
Hubert L, Arabic P. 1985. Comparing partitions. Journal of classification 2(1):193-218.
Data Collection and Multivariate Methodologies for Identification of Similarity-Of-Use
Kruskal JB. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method.
82
Kruskal JB, Wish M. 1978. Multidimensional scaling Quantitative applications in the

Social Sciences. Sage Publications Newbury Park. 93p.
Krzanowski WJ, Marriott FHC. 1995. Multivariate analysis. New York: Halsted Press.
280 p.
Lawless HT, Sheng N, Knoops SSCP. 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data
applied to cheese perception, Food Qual Pref 6(2):91-8.
Observations. Proc. Fifth Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist, and Prob.281-297,
Moreau CP, Markman AB, Lehmann DR. 2001. "What is it?" Categorization flexibility
and consumers' responses to really new products.-Journal of Consumer Research
27(4):489-98.
Murphy GL, Ross BH. 1994. Predictions from uncertain categorizations. Cogn Psychol
27(2): 148-93.
19(4):431-38.
Qual Pref 16(7):642-9,
Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maitre I, Asselin C, Jourjon'F, Pagfis J. 2008. Comparison of
Loire valley. Food Qual Pref 19(1): 1-11.
Rand WM. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of
Steinley D. 2004. Properties of the Hubert-Arable adjusted Rand index. Psychol Methods
9(3):386-96.
83
manganese exposure from drinking water. Environ Health Perspect 110(6):613-6.

numerical codes.
No.
Code
No.
Code
26
Metromint
27
Boost
Capri Sun Sport
29
NOS
Dannon - Danimals
30
Pcdiasure
31
Powerade
Dannon - Frusion
32
Powerade - Advance
33
Powerade Option
Elements Enerpy
34
10
Ensure Shake
35
Rockstar
11
Fruit20
36
Slimfast Optima
12
Full Throttle
37
Snapple White Tea
13
Fuze "Refresh"
38
Sobe - NoFcnr
39
Sobe - Power
15 Fuze Green Tea
40
Sobe - Tsunami
41
Gatorade Lemonade
42
43
Sobe Life Water

Stonyfield Farm Organic
Smoothie
19 Gatorade Rain
44
Sweet Leaf Tea
20
Glucerna
45
TAB Energy
21
Gold Peak Iced Tea
46
Tazo Iced Tea
22
Honest Tea
47
Trinity Water
23
48
24
Lipton Original White Tea
49
25
MDX
50
17
85
Table 4.2: Adjusted Rand Index values of the comparison of clusters generated
through free and fixed sorting tasks by Panels 1 to 4.
Adjusted
Comparison
Rand Index
Visual vs. Visual-Oral Sorts
Panel 1 Free Visual-Oral
Panel 1 Free Visual
0.80
Panel 1 Fixed Visual-Oral
Panel 1 Fixed Visual
0.94
0.84
0.97
Panel 4 Free Visual
0.87
Validation Sorts
Panel
Panel
Panel
Panel
2 Fixed
2 Fixed
3 Fixed
3 Fixed
Visual
Visual-Oral
Visual
Visual-Oral
0.91
0.93
0.88
0.93
Reproducibility Sorts
Panel 1 Free Visual
Panel
Panel
Panel
Panel
4 Free Visual
4 Free Visual-Oral
4 Fixed Visual
4 Fixed Visual-Oral
0.84
0.85
0.82
0.77
Table 4.3: Compilation of Panel 2 and 3's validation study results of commerciallyavailable functional beverages sorted into categories by visual and visual-oral fixed
sorts compared to Panel l's results. The categories were determined based on Kmeans clustering. ED=Energy Drinks, EW=Enhanced Waters, FRU=Fruit
Smoothies, M=MisceIIancous, NUT=Nutritional Drinks, SP=Sports Drinks,
T=Tcas, and YOG=Yogurt Smoothies. # denotes beverages that were not available
for purchase during the time of the sorting tasks.
87
Table 4.3 (cont.)

No,
Code
Commorclally-Avallablo
Beverages
12
25
29
35
38
45
39
40
41
9
32
8
11
26
27
42
47
13
14
2
28
34
33
3
10
20
30
36
4
16
17
18
19
31
Full Throttle'1'
MDX
NOS
Rockstar
Sobe-NoFear
TAB Energy
Sobe - Power
Sobe-Tsunami
Elements Energy
Powerade - Advance
Fruit20
Metromint
Sobe Life Water
Trinity Water
Fuze "Refresh"
Fuze "Slenderize"
Naked Fruit Smoothie
Powerade Option
Boost
Ensure Shake
Glucerna
Pediasure
Slimfast Optima
Capri Sun Sport
Gatorade Endurance
Gatorade Lemonade
1
15
21
22
24
37
44
46
5
6
7
23
43
48
49
50
Arizona Pomegranate Green Tea

Fuze Green Tea
Gold Peak Iced Tea
Honest Tea
Llpton Original White Tea
Snapple White Tea
Sweet Leaf Tea
Tazo Iced Tea
Dannon- Danlmals
Dannon - Frusion
Gatorade Original
Gatorade Rain
Powerade
Stonyfield Farm Organic Smoothio

Yoplait Nouriche SuperSmoolhle
FIxod
Visual
Panol 1
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
FRU
FRU
FIxod
VisualOral Panol
1
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
#
#
#
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
#
''"-- ; 'M.-"
,:.-i&M- <
FRU
FRU
^.'M ' *'' M '..'''.

:
& '.Ms
;M .
iViWpr&y ^ f l U T ^ i
^Nu.r&;; ${$NOTi$$
WNUTtsft #ISNUIJS&
S&fmtSS w#Mi&i
fWrAS ^KNUTî^;
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
". YOG : ' .YOG''
YOG
,- YOG- .
YOG
'?YOGV. .
H'J'YOG ,' v . y p p ' .
.'.-YOG-. ' . YOG
:V.;;YOG; . YOG.
':..,.Y.OG',;
'"'YOG
YOG
YOG
FIxod
Fixod
Visual Visual-Oral
Panol 2
Panol 2
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
'' r M "
' M .
ED
ED
M
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
FIxod
Visual-Oral
Panol 3
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
#
#
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
#
#
#
''.M
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
w '-M .' "*''? M' '%

. ' ' ' M - ' " ' - :.M "'
FRU
FRU
FRU
FRU
EW
YI.M '
SP
' , M
.
!,'NUI.$; JkMyxtfjsi
ii&'NUTfly 'SijijKlDTî:
^ ' N U T ^ i t'fKNUffeNus-fls:^HWX#
1:.l'NUT.f WMTrWIfo
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
FIxod
Visual
Panol 3
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
.' YOG
. YOG.
YOG
YOG
";.. YOG' '. ,'YOG'
i,yyoG .. .. ...YOG.. ..
''rY.OG' .. .'; YOG
YOG
* YOG
:'-5'"YOG ' ..-'.YOG' '
YOG
YOG
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
:.'.r-M"i5. ! .
''''.' M ; - M-':.
FRU
FRU
FRU
FRU
EW
EW
SP
'... M
* "
> ' M " ' ''"""
>$MnM
;V;NUTK<
WINUTSSF AH'NUTrAft
ijj'ftNUisfeSt &i'.'NUTtff
SiiW.K >'4NM'Ti
iMi$UT;i& '"'rjNUT^f
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
YOG
" YOGv':
YOG
YOG'-'
.- YOG":: . . L . Y O G ' ' .
. . . Y O G . v . '...:YOG :
... YOG:. ' \ ' YOG
.'YOG' ' YOG
. ..YOG'
YOG ..
YOG
#
88
Tabic 4.4: Compilation of Panel 1 and 4's reproducibility study results comparing
commercially-available functional beverages sorted into categories by visual and
visual-oral free and fixed sorting task results. The categories were determined
based on K-mcans clustering. ED=Energy Drinks, EW=Enhanccd Waters,
FRU=Fruit Smoothies, M=Misccllaneous, NUT=Nutritional Drinks, SP=Sports
Drinks, T=Tcas, and YOG=Yogurt Smoothies. # denotes beverages that were not
available for purchase during the time of the sorting tasks.
Tab
c 4.4 (cont.)
Boveraqes
No.
Code
Froo
Visual
Freo VisualPanot 1 Oral Panel 1
FIxod
FIxod
Visual Visual-Oral
Panol 1
Panol 1
Froo
Visual
Panol 4
Free
VisualOral
Panol 4
FIxod
Visual
Panel 4
Fixed
VisualOral
Panol 4
12 Full Throttle
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
25 MDX
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
29 NOS
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
35 Rockstar
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
38 S o b e * - NoFear
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
45 T A B " Energy
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
it
ED
it
ED
it
ED
it
SP
it
'." ' M '
ED
'' M
' M
ED
'.
ED
'M
ED
9 Elements Energy*
ED
39 Sobe - Power
''";f
ED
ED
.
V'M ''
40 S o b e - T s u n a m i
"..> M '
' .M
ED
ED
. JM..
ED
it
32 P o w e r a d e - A d v a n c e
41 Sobe Lean Energy Diet Citrus
M"
".
''"M
..VM
".' M
'
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
11 Frult20
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
26 Metromint
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
27 Minute Maid Fruit Falls
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
42 Sobe Lite Water
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
EW
47 Trinity W a l e r
EW
EW
EW
it
EW
if
EW
it
EW
'. M >
' M
' M .
' 'M
8 Dasani Flavored W a l e r
13 Fuze " R e f r e s h "
''
EW
YOG
FRU
FRU
FRU
.'YOG
. YOG
FRU
FRU
FRU
.; YOG
34 Propel Fitness W a t e r
EW
SP
^ M : . < .::MM*&'
SP
SP
'$>.'M';3:.'
2 Bolthouse Farms Fruit Smoothie
33 P o w e r a d e Option
3 Boost
10 Ensure Shake
20 Glucerna
30 Pediasuro
36 Slimfast Optima
4 Capri Sun Sport
'
V'"M
'
M'
M-- ' '
" M
YOG
YOG '
YOG
"YOG;.;
. YOG .
-YOG
EW
r.^M-'-:.
SP
SP
?^MiiS : :s
WWr! i.J&iNMTi'-ti-i; &NUTV? ISiiNUT * SkNfthJK
&RUT& ;!!#NUT&$
ittNUTft >'JSM(JT;i ^'NUjrii':' ? # N U T v &
ft'N'UM'f
v?'Ninv*s ^ f i N U T ^ j SflltJTvff S'f.ROt;;^','
^'NUfRl :WNLIT)#; :
'MU& v.&iftU.T-Htt H.WT&: ^ N U T * ! : v
$ f t i U T $ foiSNlntfvSv #N.Ut& ^ N U t l ^ ! piNUT,N .."NUTi?1'
SP
SP
SP
"M '
M
M
mm
EW
' >MSP
SP
SNUtiS
'>'!Nmxi< .^tipf/Vi
y ^ u r a v?,N.UT./.:;
ÎKUTA!
tf.NU-tf;
^NUJ;*?
SNUT*:
*$Wff-\
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
19 Gatorade Rain
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
31 P o w e r a d e
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
15 Fuze Green T e a
21 Gold P e a k Iced T e a
. T
't'T
:';' T
22 Honest Tea
24 Lipton Original W h i t e T e a
37 Snapple White Tea
'
'
'X
-T
'
.-. X
44 Sweet Leaf T e a
46 Tazo Iced T e a
YOG.
YOG
YOG
5 D a n n o n - Danlmals
."YOG.
6 D a n n o n - Light 'n Fit Smoothie
i YOG
7 D a n n o n - Frusion
'..YOG
23 Lifeway Lowfat Kefir
i.-YOG.
'".'lYOG''
.
.
YOG
YOG
' Y O G . ' ' '..'.YOG
43 Stonyfield Farm Organic Smoothie V . Y O G
-.YOG
'.'YOG.
';YOG
'
llYOG
.i'YOG ,
;'' :r .,YOG/.
"YOG
.'.YOG...
''.'.YOG
YOG
YOG
: YOG
:.. Y O G
.yoG.
.YOG
YOG.
'
'::'.!YOG
. YOG
'5YOG
..YOG
..YOG
'.-YOG--...-
48 Whitney's Yo o n the G o
;YOG
-..YOG
l u Y O G . ; . ' ; Y O G . ' ',
J'YO'G'': vYOG
49 Yoplait* Go-GURT Smoothie
;'.'YOG
"YOG.
;; ; ,YOG'
YOG
YOG
kTtae , :..'YOG v".

:;.y.o'G .'AYOG'. '
50 Yoplait Nouriche SuperSmoolhle
"YOG'
tOG
it
'' iYOG
.YOG,..
YOG'
YOG
YOG.
Y O G ' . - /YOG
.-YOG .
YOG
YOG
it
PI Fixed
Categories
Validation Study
Panel 2 (P2)
10 panelists (5 M6 F)
PI Fixed
Categories
Validation Studv .
Panel3 (P3)
13 panelists (3 MTOF)
Reproducibilrtv Studv
Panel (P4)
13 panelists (3 MT OF)
PI Filed
Categories
2*0^^
P4 Fixed
V Y V V V V
Two-step Sensory Sorting

Method
Panel 1 (PI)
13 panelists (3 MT OF)
Msual
MsualOral
PI Free Sort
Generated Fixed
Categories
P4 Free Sort
Generated Fixed
Categories
Msual
MsualOral
Msual
MsualOral
Visual
MstnlOral
Visual
MsualOral
Msual
MsualOral
Figure 4.1: Flow chart of studies and panels, categ ies, types of sorting task, and results of the conducted two-step sensor}'
sorting method. M=MaIes and F=FemaIes
12
Group Cêgory
1
Energy Drinks
Group6
Characteristics
Group 1,
2
Q
Group 5,
-4
'5
-12
-12
-8

Smoothies
Sports Drinks
Teas
Contains fermented dairy products;

opaque
Mineral or vitamin enhanced; does
not contain caffeine. Labeling
targets athletes
12
Dim1
Figure 4.2: Multidimensional Scaling Panel l's visual free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions
with stress = 0.265 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting method. Functional
beverages were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to Table 4.1 for
product names and corresponding number codes.
12
Group Category
1
Energy Drinks

Fruit Smoothies
all natural

Sports Drinks

Teas
-8
-12
-12

4
-4
Group 5
Characteristics
12
Dim1
Figure 4.3: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional beverages plotted in
two dimensions with stress = 0.290 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual-oral sorting
method. Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS
plot. . Refer to Table 4.1 for product names and corresponding number codes.
Group Category
1
Group 2

2 . Enhanced Waters Contains minimal Calories, lightly

3 Fruit Smoothies
all natural
Group 1
Group4
Energy Drinks
Characteristics

Sports Drinks

Teas
12
Dim1
Figure 4.4: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 50 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.289 and corresponding functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped
based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to Table 4.1 for product names
and corresponding number codes.
12
Group Category
1 Energy Drinks
2
3
4
-4
-12
-12
Characteristics

Fruit Smoothies Contains 100% Fruit,; non-clear liquid;
all natural
Sports Drinks
Teas
12
Dim1
Figure 4.5: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel l's visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of 45 functional beverages plotted in
two dimensions with stress = 0.283 and corresponding functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were
grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 4.1 for product
12
Group Category
1 Energy Drinks
Group 4
Group 5
2
3
4
j-JSroup 7
Group 3
-12
-12
Characteristics

all natural
Sports Drinks
Teas
o
Diml
Figure 4.6: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 2's visual fixed sort of 50 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.301 and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were
grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 4.1 for product
Group Category
1
Energy Drinks
Characteristics
2 . Enhanced Waters Contains minimal Calories, lightly

3 Fruit Smoothies
all natural
4

Sports Drinks

Teas
Contains Tea or. Tea Extracts
-12
-12
12
Diml
Figure 4.7: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 2's visual-oral fixed sort of 46 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.271 and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were
grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to Table 4.1 for product
Group Category
Characteristics
Energy Drinks

Fruit Smoothies
all natural
3
a


Sports Drinks

Teas
-12
12
-12
Diml
Figure 4.8: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 3's visualfixedsort of 50 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions with
stress = 0.241 and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means
clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 4.1 for product names and corresponding number
codes.
o
00
Group Category
1 Energy Drinks
2
3
4
Characteristics

all natural
Sports Drinks

Teas
Figure 4.9: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 3's visual-oral fixed sort of 46 functional beverages plotted in two dimensions
with stress = 0.284 and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped based on Kmeans clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to Table 4.1 for product names and corresponding
number codes.
12
-12
12
-12
Diml
Characteristics
Group Category
1 Carbonated Energy Drinks Drinks containing caffeine or other
stimulants and is bubbly; provides a sense of
restoring energy
2 Flavored Waters
Water drinks with addedflavorsor vitamins;
tastes like sweetened flavored water; no
stimulants added
3 Nutritional Healthy Drink Meal replacements which are related to
health; contains a lot of added nutrients; has
a milk-like texture and is thick
4 Smoothies
Beverages made with yogurt and/or fruit;
thick and creamy and has fruit flavors
5 Sports and Fitness Drinks Marketed to refuel body, contains
electrolytes; not too sweet; thirst-quenching,
and very light
6 Teas
Tea-based drinks, and is labeled with "tea"
or "iced tea"; the main flavor is tea
Figure 4.10: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual free sort (Part 1) of 46 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.260 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual sorting method.
Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to
Table 4.1 for product names and corresponding number codes.
12
-12
-12
Characteristics
Group Category
restoring energy
2 Flavored Waters
Water drinks with added flavors or vitamins;
stimulants added
3 Nutritional Healthy Drink Meal replacements which are related to
4 Smoothies
and very light
6 Teas
Diml
Figure 4.11: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 46 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.232 and functional beverage categories generated through the free visual-oral sorting method.
Functional beverages were grouped based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to
Table 4.1 for product names and corresponding number codes.
Characteristics
Group Category
restoring energy
2 Flavored Waters
stimulants added
Nutritional Healthy Drink Meal replacements which are related to
4 Smoothies
and very light
6 Teas
Figure 4.12: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 46 functional beverages plotted in tvvo
dimensions with stress = 0.261 and corresponding fixed functional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped
based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot Refer to Table 4.1 for product names and
corresponding number codes.
Characteristics
Group Category
restoring energy
2 Flavored Waters
stimulants added
Nutritional
Healthy
Drink
Meal replacements which are related to
3
4 Smoothies
and very light
6 Teas
Figure 4.13: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 4's visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of 46 functional beverages plotted in two
dimensions with stress = 0.262 and correspondingfixedfunctional beverage categories. Functional beverages were grouped
based on K-means clustering of beverage coordinate points on the MDS plot. Refer to Table 4.1 for product names and
corresponding number codes.
CHAPTER 5 - SENSORY PROFILE OF A MODEL ENERGY DRINK WITH

VARYING LEVELS OF FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS-CAFFEINE, GINSENG,
AND TAURINE
5.1 Abstract
Energy drinks have increased in popularity in recent years due to the claimed
energy boost provided by functional ingredients. A multitude of functional ingredients
have been utilized; however, there is limited research on their sensory effects in energy
drink formulations. Descriptive analysis was conducted to investigate the effects on the
sensory properties of three common functional ingredients - caffeine, ginseng, and
taurine - in a non-carbonated model energy drink solution. Combinations of these
functional ingredients at three levels (low, medium, high) were added to create a total of
27 different solutions (3x3x3 factorial design). Analysis of variance was performed to
evaluate the sensory effects of the varying concentrations of functional ingredients in
solution. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to summarize the
relationship among the attributes and solutions. In general, high levels of caffeine in
solution resulted in low ratings of fruity attributes and high ratings of bitter attributes.
The high level of ginseng in solution was characterized by high ratings of bitter
attributes. A horns effect was observed as the sweet, artificial lemon-lime, pear, mango,
and pineapple attributes were rated lower in intensity with increased ginseng levels.
Taurine levels of up to 416 mg/100 mL had no significant effect on the sensory attribute
ratings of the model energy drink solutions. These findings can be utilized to predict the
changes in sensory characteristics when formulating energy drinks containing these
popular functional ingredients.
104
Key Words: Descriptive Analysis, Energy Drinks, Functional Ingredients, Caffeine,

Ginseng
5.2 Introduction
Energy Drinks
Energy drinks are one of the fastest growing segments of the functional beverage
market, with over 200 drinks introduced into the market between 2006 and 2007 (Reissig
and others 2009). They have gained popularity for the extra energy they provide via a
large concentration of stimulants. Energy drinks are an alternative to coffee as a source
of caffeine, and also contain other functional ingredients such as antioxidants, ginseng,
taurine, and B vitamins. In 2007, there were over $10.1 billion in functional beverage
sales in the US, and by 2010 functional beverage sales are projected to increase to over
$12 billion (Mintel 2008),
Functional Ingredients
Three of the most common functional ingredients in energy drinks are caffeine,
ginseng, and taurine. Caffeine is a methylxanthine with the chemical formula
C8H10N4O2. It is a white odorless powder with low solubility and is usually combined
with other chemicals, such as purines and pyrimidines, to increase its solubility (Spiller
1998). Caffeine is commonly found in cola products and has been incorporated into
snack foods, such as cereal bars and sunflower seeds (Cosgrove 2008). Caffeine is on the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list
and is limited to no more than 0.02% by volume in cola-type products (Food and Drug
Administration 2003). Currently, there are no regulations regarding the maximum
105
amount of caffeine allowed in energy drinks. The typical amount of caffeine in energy
drinks ranges from 21 to 112 mg/100 mL (wt/vol) (Table 5.1).
Ginseng is from the Araliaceae family and contains ginsenosides, which are active
steroid-like compounds (Spiller 1998). These active compounds of ginseng are
triterpenoid saponin glycosides, which also are responsible for the bitter taste of ginseng
(Court 2000a). Ginseng is known to have antioxidant properties (Jung and others 2002)
and may aid in alleviating some health conditions, such as diabetes and cognitive
function (Coon and Ernst 2002). Some research has been conducted on the efficacy of
consuming ginseng for increased energy, help with indigestion, and overall improvement
of health (Court 2000b). However, there has been limited research validating these
medicinal benefits attributed to ginseng (Kitts and Hu 2000, Vogler and others 1999).
Taurine is a derivative of the amino acid cysteine with the chemical formula of
C2M7NO3S, and is present in the tissues of humans and animals. It aids with bile acid
conjugation, retinal development, and central nervous system function (Lourenco and
Camilo 2002). Taurine has also been found to aid in immunity and may have antioxidant
properties (Yu and Kim 2009). Taurine is commonly incorporated in energy drinks and
in muscle-building supplements because of its suggested benefits such as improved
athletic performance and increased energy. Research suggests that higher levels of
taurine in muscle tissues may improve optimal exercise performance in rats (Yatabe and
others 2009). Taurine supplementation in humans, however, has not been shown to
improve exercise performance (Galloway and others 2008).
106
Sensory Analysis of Energy Drinks

Studies have been conducted on the acceptability of new functional beverages, but
limited research has been done on the effects of functional ingredients on the sensory
properties of model functional beverage solutions. Luckow and Delahunty (2004)
conducted research on the addition of probiotics and prebiotics in orange juice, while
Smit and Rogers (2002) added different levels of caffeine and vitamins to an energy drink
to determine the difference in preference with the addition of stimulants. They found that
the energy drinks containing higher concentrations of caffeine, vitamins, and stimulants
were not liked as much as the energy drinks containing lower concentrations of
functional ingredients. Panelists also preferred pure water over both energy drinks.
Another sensory test found that the concentration of 100 mg/L caffeine in a mixed
tropical fruit juice nectar had acceptable ratings (de Sousa and others 2007). While
Qimire (2000) determined that there was no significant difference between orange juice
with and without 600 mg of ginseng (20% ginsenosides) per liter, and ginseng
concentrations of 1000 mg/L of orange juice resulted in a medicinal taste.
Research related to the sensory effects of the addition of ingredients has suggested
that there is a synergistic effect of including multiple ingredients into a formulation.
Previous studies suggest that mixtures of tastants result in an increase in overall intensity
ratings of the compound mixture (Delwiche 2004). Therefore, the more functional
ingredients added to a beverage formulation, the more likely the tastes will be noticed.
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects on the sensory properties of
three common functional ingredients - caffeine, ginseng, and taurine - in a noncarbonated model energy drink solution.
107

Model Energy Drink Formulation
The base model energy drink solution was composed of 1106.45 g spring water
(Absopure, Plymouth, MI), 285.00 g high fructose corn syrup (Isosweel 5500, Tate &
Lyle, Decatur, IL), 4.04 g sodium citrate (Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL), 3.80 g citric acid
(Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL), and 0.70 g potassium citrate (Tale & Lyle, Decatur, IL). The
model energy drink base solution was developed to have a Brix of 12.20B and pH of
3.0, which fall in the range of commercially-available energy drink values. Noncarbonated "still" solutions were used in this study to eliminate interference between the
carbonation and the actual changes due to the different levels of functional ingredients
tested in the model energy drink solutions.
Sample Preparation
Functional ingredients tested included caffeine (Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ,
07410), 80% ginsenosides panax ginseng (Amax NutraSource, Inc, Eugene, OR), and
taurine (Nutrabio.com, Inc. Middlesex, NJ). Combinations of three levels of the three
functional ingredients (caffeine, ginseng, taurine) were added to the,base solution to
create a total of 27 different solutions (3x3x3 factorial design) as shown in Table 5.2.
The concentrations of functional ingredients added to the model solution were
determined based on the range of the amounts available in a sampling of commerciallyavailable energy drinks (Table 1). For each solution, functional ingredients were
weighed and brought up to a 200 mL volume with spring water (Absopure, Plymouth,
MI). The solutions were then mixed for five minutes with a magnetic stir bar on a stir
plate. The functional ingredient mixture solution was added to 447 mL of the model
108
energy drink solution and mixed for another five minutes with a magnetic stir bar on a
stir plate.
The solutions were stored overnight in sealed wide-mouth glass mason jars .
(14400-67000 Ball, Alltrista, Munice, IN) at ~5C in a commercial grade refrigerator.
On the same day as evaluation, approximately 35 mL samples were poured into 73.9 mL
plastic souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL) labeled with random 3-digit codes.
The samples were stored in the refrigerator until 10 minutes prior to evaluation.
Panelists Selection and Screening
The panelist recruitment and selection process included a questionnaire, a test for
6-n-propyl-2-thiouracil (PROP) status, and a basic tastes test (sour, sweet, bitter, salty).
The questionnaire asked volunteers about basic demographic information, allergies,
smoker status, frequency of functional beverage consumption, and schedule availability.
PROP taster status was determined by presenting volunteers pieces of filter paper
impregnated with PROP following Zhao and others (2003) paper disc method. If the
volunteers could not taste anything on the paper they were considered a non-taster. If the
volunteers could taste a bitter taste, they were labeled a taster.
The basic taste test consisted of presenting volunteers with 20 mL of basic taste
solutions in 59.2 mL plastic souffle" cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL), Basic taste
solutions labeled A through F (sweet, sour, bitter, waler, salty, and sour, respectively)
were presented to volunteers. The basic taste solutions tested included: 0.70% sucrose
(C&H Sugar Company, Inc. Crockett, CA) solution for the sweet solution, a 0.05% citric
acid (Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL) solution for the sour solution, a 0.02% caffeine (Fisher
Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ) solution for the bitter solution, and a 0.10%o sodium chloride
(Morton , Chicago, IL) solution for the salty solution. All solutions were prepared with
spring water (Absopure, Plymouth, MI). Two sour solutions were presented to minimize
the chance of blind guessing by the volunteers.
Thirteen panelists (4 males, 9 females, 18 to 50 years old) were selected based on
non-smoker and positive PROP taster status, and coirectly identifying two or more of the
basic taste solutions. Four panelists correctly identified all the solutions, three panelists
identified four of the six solutions, five panelists identified three of the six solutions, and
one panelist identified two of the six solutions. Panelists' frequency of energy drink
usage ranged from rarely to daily consumption.
Panelist Training
Panel training consisted of sixteen 1-hour sessions, which included evaluating
three complete replications of the 27 solution set (Table 5.2), Initial training sessions
were conducted at a round table setting under incandescent lighting. The first two days.
included an introduction to the descriptive analysis method to be used in the study and
familiarization with sample solutions. During the next two days, panelists generated
descriptor terms and term definitions for nine samples. For each term and definition
generated, panelists selected and refined a reference. References were chosen to reflect
the sensory attributes of the solutions.
Once the panel generated the terms, developed definitions, and selected
references, the terms were narrowed to the thirteen terms that best represented the
sensory attributes of the solutions. The thirteen terms included: artificial lemon-lime
flavor, citrus, mango, pineapple, pear, sweet, tart, bitter tea, fruit bitter, astringent, bitter
tea afterfeel, fruit bitter afterfeel, and moutheoating (Tabic 5.3). Panelists had a difficult
110
time pinpointing the bitter attributes perceived in the samples. To determine the specific
bitter taste perceived in the samples, bitter references presented to the panelists included a
0.25% caffeine solution, lemon seeds, brewed black tea solution (100 mL brewed tea and
200 mL water), a 0,16% PROP solution, a 0.44% naringin solution, and quinine solutions
(0.013%, 0.067%, 0.05%, 0.097%). Panelists agreed upon the brewed black lea solution
and the 0.44% naringin solution as the references that best matched the bitter tastes
detected in the solutions.
The references for each term were then rated on a 16-point categorical scale (0 to
15) to generate anchors for each attribute. Panelists rated the solutions for each attribute
against group-determined reference anchors. The rinse protocol determined by the
panelists was a warm water (~40C) rinse followed by a cold water (~20C) rinse.
Panelists were instructed to follow the rinsing protocol prior to evaluating the first sample
and between samples.
The sampling protocol consisted of sipping one-third of the sample (~12 mL) and
moving it to contact all sides of the tongue and mouth for about 5 seconds before rating
the attributes. The first third of the sample was used to evaluate aroma-by-mouth
attributes, the second third to evaluate taste, and the last third to evaluate mouthfeel and
afterfeel.
Three practice sessions and six data collection sessions were conducted in
individual sensory booths under red light to mask the slight color difference among
solutions. The color difference was due to the different levels of ginseng in each
solution. Each session consisted of monadically presenting nine samples; five samples
then a two-minute break, followed by the four remaining samples.
Ill
References were made 20 to 24 hours in advance and stored in lidded 73.9 mL

plastic souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL, 61802) at ~5C in a commercial
grade refrigerator. Panelists familiarized themselves with the references and reference
intensity scores prior to each session. Panelists then entered the individualized booths to
evaluate the samples. The data were collected by the Compusense//ve version 4.2
(Compusense, Inc. Guelph, Ontario, Canada) program. A modified Williams design
(1950) was used to randomize samples among the panelists to balance out first order
carry over effects (Macfie and others 2007).
Flow Behavior and Viscosity Measurements
The flow behavior and viscosities of the solutions were measured using the ARES
RFS III Rheometer (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE) following the method outlined by
Kappes and others (2006), 1,11 mL of solution was placed between two parallel plates
and a shear rate sweep program was run to measure the flow behavior of the solutions.
The shear rate sweep program was run in log mode in a clockwise direction from a rate of
0.6 to 200 s'1. Solutions were measured at 5C in triplicate and measured on the same
day panelists evaluated them. All solutions exhibited Newtonian behavior, and viscosity
was calculated by the slope of the linear plot of shear rate (s"1) by shear stress (dyn/cm"2).
Data Analyses
Descriptive analysis and viscosity measurement data were analyzed using the
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) tested for significant difference of mean scores of the solutions,
panelists, and interactions for each attribute. ANOVA was also clone to determine the
effects of the three levels of the different functional ingredients. Fisher's Least
112
Significant Difference (LSD) was conducted to determine the difference among sample
means and by levels of functional ingredients. Principal component analysis (PCA) on
the covariance data matrix with varimax rotation was done using XLStat 2008,4,2
(Addinsoft, New York, NY). Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) by Ward's
method (1963) was done on the sensory data to observe groupings among the solutions
using XLStat 7.5.3 (Addinsoft, New York, NY).

The ANOVA results of the model energy drink solutions (Table 5.4) show that for
all attributes, except citrus and moutheoating, the panelist and sample factors were highly
significant (pO.001). There was a significant difference in panelist ratings, which
indicate that panelists used different parts of the scale when rating samples, which is
typically found in descriptive analysis panels. For all attributes, except moutheoating, the
interaction of panelists by sample was also highly significant. Therefore, an adjusted Fvalue was calculated to account for the variability of the interaction between panelists
and samples as a source of error. Eleven of the thirteen attributes were still significantly
different across samples after the adjusted F-tesl.
An explanation for the lack of difference in moutheoating rating among the
samples is that each solution contained the same amount of high fructose corn syrup
(MFCS) with a concentration of 20% (wt/vol), which was the dominant ingredient
contributing to the moutheoating of the solutions. Results from Kappes and others (2006)
suggested that the possible mouthfeel detection threshold of MFCS in water falls in the
range of 2.81% to 20.15% (wt/vol). The consistent moutheoating ratings of all the model
113
energy drink solutions suggest that panelists could not detect a moutheoating difference
by the varying levels of functional ingredients.
The mean measured viscosity of the solutions was 2.350.06 mPa*s with a range
of 2.24 to 2.51 mPa*s, which was not significantly correlated to any attributes. This
suggests that viscosity measurements were not affected by the levels of functional
ingredients added to the model energy drink, although significant sensory attribute
differences were perceived.
The comparison of mean intensity ratings of the three taurine levels used in our
study did not exhibit a significant difference in ratings of any of the attributes (Table 5.5),
with levels of up to 416 mg/100 mL taurine in solution having no significant effects on
sensory properties. The comparison of mean intensity ratings showed that solutions
containing high levels of caffeine had low ratings for fruity attributes and high ratings for
bitter attributes (Table 5.5). High ginseng and high caffeine levels both increased the
intensity ratings of bitter attributes. It is known that caffeine and ginseng arc two
functional ingredients which have negative sensory characteristics that are difficult to
mask (Backas 2009), which is supported by our findings.
An interesting observation was the horns effect that ginseng and caffeine levels
had on the sweet and fruity attributes (pear, artificial lemon-lime, mango, and pineapple).
The greater the level of ginseng and caffeine in solution, the lower the ratings for the fruit
attributes. Caffeine and ginseng levels may have had a horns effect on the sweet and
fruity attributes due to the bitterness it imparted on the solutions. Results from other
studies have shown that increasing amounts of caffeine reduced the sweetness intensity of
solutions (Pangborn 1960, Calvino and others 1990). Ginseng levels were seen to have a
114
more prominent effect than caffeine levels on the intensity ratings of bitter attributes
(Figures 5.1 and 5.2). A possible explanation for the horns effect is that ginseng is not a
familiar taste for the western consumer, therefore the unfamiliar taste of ginseng may
have played a role in decreasing the perception of the fruit flavors. When unfamiliar
lastes are added to a product, it increases the intensity rating of the taste (Kang and others
2007, Labbe and others 2006). The inclusion of ginseng into the formulation was not
expected with the fruity flavors and may have contributed to the decrease in fruit and
sweet attribute intensity ratings.
The bitter attributes were highly correlated (Table 6.1). The highest correlation
was seen between the fruit bitter and fruit bitter afterfeel attributes (r=0.97, p<0.05) and
the tea bitter and tea bitter afterfeel attributes (r=0.98, p<0.05). The highest negative
correlation was between the sweet and tea bitter and fruit bitter (r=-0.91, p<0.05). The
bitter taste and afterfeel attributes were all highly positively correlated (r=0.95, p<0.05).
This suggests that the bitter attributes might have been measuring the same bitter
perception in the solutions, although in panelist training and term generation, the
panelists determined that there were four distinct bitter attributes identified in the model
energy drink solutions.
Bitter tea has a complex flavor containing both astringent and bitter sensations. In
Drobna's (2004) research, the descriptors for bitter tea included alum for bitterness and
tannic acid for astringency. The main compounds which contribute to the taste and
bitterness in tea are catechins, caffeine, and saponins (Rouseff 1990). Caffeine and
ginseng saponins were present in the energy drink solution and could be the reason
panelists selected the tea reference. During the term generation and reference refinement
115
sessions, a 0.25% caffeine solution was tested as a possible bitter reference. The panel as
a whole did not feel that the bitterness of the caffeine solution could be detected, but
instead the bitterness of brewed black tea was detected in the solutions.
Although there were no fruit flavorings added to the model energy drink
solutions, panelists detected fruity notes in the model energy drink solutions. Fruits are
generally sweet and associated with sweet flavors, which could explain why the pear,
pineapple, and mango attributes were selected. King and others (2007) found that pear
attribute was perceived to be higher in an apple-flavored beverage with a Brix level of
12B versus an apple-flavored beverage with a Brix level 8B. The Brix level in the base
model energy drink solution was 12.20B, which could have contributed to the panelists'
perception of the presence of fruity attributes in the energy drink solutions. Lemon flavor
was found to increase in a beverage solution when the acidity of the solution was
increased (King and others 2007). The citric acid in the base model energy drink
formulation could explain the artificial lemon-lime attributes identified in the solutions.
The low, medium, and high levels of caffeine, ginseng, and taurine provide a
representation of the range of these ingredients in commercially-available energy drinks.
To the researchers' knowledge, there are currently no products on the market which
contain the lowest levels of all of the ingredients or the highest levels of all of the
ingredients. If a product contained high amounts of ginseng (i.e. Red Jak), there was a
moderate level of caffeine in the beverage. Therefore, current commercially-available
beverages may not be as bitter as the model solutions that were studied in this
experiment.
116
Principal component analysis (PCA) on the covariance matrix with varimax

rotation described 65.6% of the variance on Factor 1 and 12.4% on Factor 2 (Figure 5.1).
Factor 1 was defined by the astringent, bitter, and fruity attributes. The astringent, bitter,
and bitter afterfeel attributes were all highly positively correlated, while all negatively
correlated to the artificial lemon-lime, pear, pineapple, and sweet attributes (Table 5.6
and Figure 5.1). Sweet and bitter attributes have been found to be negatively correlated
in Calvino's (1990) research on solutions. Also in Keast's (2008) work, an increased
amount of caffeine in solution decreased the sweetness ratings. The mango and tart
attributes defined Factor 2, which accounted for 12.4% of the variation of data. Factor 2,
however, does show that solutions with lower levels of caffeine and ginseng are located
in the opposite area of the tart attribute, suggesting that there was a higher perception of
tart at higher caffeine and ginseng levels.
Cluster analysis was conducted based on the significant attributes of the 27
solutions, which were clustered into four groups, The clusters were generally
characterized by the different levels of ginseng in solution (Figure 5.2). This suggests
that the high bitter attribute ratings and the low fruit attribute ratings had the most
prominent effect in clustering of solutions, which was mainly caused by the ginseng
level. These findings can be utilized to predict the changes in sensory characteristics
when formulating energy drinks containing these specific functional ingredients.
117
5.5 Conclusions
The more caffeine and ginseng were added to solution, the higher the bitter
attribute ratings of the model energy drink solutions. Determining ways of minimizing
the bitterness in functional beverages will allow manufacturers to produce products that
have more health benefits as well as lower level of objectionable sensory properties.
There was no significant difference in sensory attribute ratings across the taurine levels
(208 to 416 mg/100 mL) added to the model energy drink solutions. The findings from
this study can be used when selecting palatable amounts of caffeine, ginseng, and taurine
to incorporate in an energy drink formulation. The findings can also be utilized to predict
the changes in sensory characteristics when reformulating functional ingredients in
energy drinks.
Future studies may include: 1) determining methods to effectively minimize
ginseng bitterness in energy drinks and 2) identifying acceptable bitterness levels of
energy drinks via a consumer test, which will aid in determining optimal functional
ingredient levels and bitterness masking agents to incorporate into energy drink
formulations.
5.6 References
Backas N. 2009. Brimming Opportunities for Nutraceutical Beverages, Food Product
Design [serial online], 19(2):50-68. Available from Posted January 21,2009.
Calvino AM, Garcia-Medina MR, Comelto-Muniz JE. 1990. Interactions in caffeinesucrose and coffee-sucrose mixtures: evidence of taste and flavor suppression. Chem
Senses 15(5):505-19.
Coon JT, Ernst E. 2002. Panax ginseng: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug
118
Cosgrove J. 2008. Caffeinated Snacks. Nutraceuticals World [serial online], July/August

de Sousa PI-IM, Maia GA, de Azeredo HMC, de Souza Filho MSM, Gamiti DS, de
Freitas CAS. 2007. Mixed tropical fruit nectars with added energy components. Int J
Food Sci Tech 42(11): 1290-1296.
Pref 15(2): 137-46.
Drobna Z, Wismer WV, Goonewardene LA. 2004. Selection of an Astringcncy
Reference Standard for the Sensory Evaluation of Black Tea. J Sens Stud 19(2): 119-32.
Galloway DR, Talanian JL, Shoveller AK, Heigenhauser GJF, Sprict LL, 2008. Seven
days of oral taurine supplementation does not increase muscle taurine or alter substrate
metabolism during prolonged exercise in humans. J Appl Physiol 105(2):643-51.
Jung MY, Jeon BS, Bock JY, 2002. Free, esterified, and insoluble-bound phenolic acids
in white and red Korean ginsengs (Panax ginseng CA Meyer). Food Chem 79(1): 105-11.
Kang MW, Chung SJ, Lee I-IS, Kim Y, Kim KO. 2007. The sensory interactions of
organic acids and various flavors in ramen soup systems. J Food Sci 72(9):S639-47.
Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2006, Color halo/horns and halo-attribute clumping
effects within descriptive analysis of carbonated beverages. J Food Sci 71(8):S590-5.
Keast RSJ. 2008. Modification of the bitterness of caffeine. Food Qual Pref 19(5):465-72.
King BM, Duineveld CAA, Arents P, Meyners M, Schroff SI, Soekhai ST. 2007.
Retronasal odor dependence on tastants in profiling studies of beverages, Food Qual Pref
18(2):286-95.
Kitts D, I-Iu C. 2000. Efficacy and safety of ginseng. Public Health Nutr 3(4A):473-85.
Labbe D, Damevin L, Vaccher C, Morgenegg C, Martin N. 2006. Modulation of
perceived taste by olfaction in familiar and unfamiliar beverages. Food Qual Pref 17(78):582-9.
119
An overview in health and disease. Nutr Hosp 17(6):262-70.
Luckow T, Delahunty C. 2004. Consumer acceptance of orange juice containing
functional ingredients. Food Res Int 37(8):805-14.
Macfie HJ, Bratchell N, Greenhoff K, Vallis LV. 2007. Designs to Balance the Effect of
Order of Presentation and First-Order Carryover Effects in Hall Tests. J Sens Stud
4(2):129-148.
Pangborn RM. 1960. Taste Interrelationships. J Food Sci 25(2):245-56,
Reissig CJ, Strain EC, Griffiths RR. 2009. Caffeinated energy drinksA growing
problem. Drug Alcohol Depend 9(1): 1-10.
PSmit HJ, Rogers PJ. 2002, Effects of'energy' drinks on mood and mental performance:
critical methodology. Food Qual Pref 13(5);317-26.
Vogler BK, Pittler MH, Ernst E. 1999. The efficacy of ginseng. A systematic review of
randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55(8):567-75,
Assoc 58(301):236-44.
Williams EJ. 1950, Experimental designs balanced for pairs of residual effects.
Australian Journal of Scientific Research 3(3):351-363.
Yatabe Y, Miyakawa S, Ohmori H, Mishima H, Adachi T. 2009. Effects of Taurine
Administration on Exercise. In: Anonymous Advances in Experimental Medicine and
Biology: Taurine 7. New York: Springer New York. p245-252,
Zhao L, Kirkmeyer SV, Tepper BJ. 2003. A paper screening test to assess genetic taste
sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Physiol Behav 78(4-5):625-33.
120

Tabic 5.1: Amount of functional ingredients listed on Nutritional Facts labels of a
sampling of popular commereia ly-avai able ener gy drinks.
Serving
156
Size Caffeine Taurine B2 B3 B5
Product Name
(mL)
(nig)
(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
(niR)
Cocaine
0
6
280
750
0.0
0
248
0.0
6
0
Full Throttle
237
72
605
0
0
it
0
0
IMDX
237
47
0.0
1000
0.0
0
2
No Fear
87
0
237
0
0
2
NOS
1000
0.0
237
125
Red Bull
0,0 28
245
80
1000
7
7
0
Red Jak
82
0.0
0
5
237
947
2
Rockstnr
80
1000
5.8 20
10
237
Sobe Adrcnnliiic Rush 245
1000
0
0
5
79
0.0
Tab Energy
6
95
785
0.0
0
1
310
// denotes that ingredient s were 1isted on he Nutritional Facts labels, but the
I'annx
Ginseng Ginseng
B12 Extract Kxtract
(mg)
(I'K) (mg)
0
36.0
0
0,6
90
0
0.0
U
0
6,0
50
0
6.0
0
50
7.2
0
0
4.8
100
0
6.0
0
25
6.0
0
25
1.2
116
0
specific amounts were n<
121
Table 5.2: Amount of functional ingredients (caffeine, ginseng, and taurine) in 100
mL model energy drink so utions, L=low, M= medium, and II=hig i levels.
Solution
Taurine (T)
Caffeine (C)
Ginseng (G)
Name
(mg/100 mL)
(iiiR/100mL)
(me/100 mL)
LT 208.4
LCLGLT
LC 21.0
LG 10.5
MT 311.8
LG 10.5
LCLGMT
LC 21.0
HT 416.8
LCLGHT
LC 21.0
LG 10.5
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
LC 21.0
LC 21.0
LC 21.0
HG 52.5
HG 52.5
HG 52.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
MCLGLT
MCLGMT
MCLGHT
MC '63.0
MC 63.0
MC- 63.0
LG 10.5
LG 10.5
LG 10.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
MCMGLT
MCMGMT
MCMGHT
MC 63.0
MC 63.0
MC 63.0
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
MCMGLT
MCMGMT
MCMGHT
MC 63.0
MC 63.0
MC 63.0
HG 52.5
HG 52.5
HG 52.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
HCLGLT
MCLGMT
MCLGHT
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
LG 10.5
LG 10.5
LG 10.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
MCMGLT
MCMGMT
MCMGHT
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
MG 31.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
HCI-IGLT
MCMGMT
MCMGHT
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
HC 103.4
MG 52.5
HG 52.5
HG 52.5
LT 208.4
MT 311.8
HT 416.8
LCMGLT
LCMGMT
LCMGHT
LC 21.0
LC 21.0
LC 21.0
LCHGLT
LCMGMT
LCHGHT
122
Table 5.3: Terms, definitions, references, and ratings for scale anchors of the descriptive attributes for the model energy
drink solutions.
Term
Aroma-by-Mouth
Artificial LemonLime
Citrus
Mango
Pineapple
Pear
Rating
(0-15)
Definition
Reference
Reference Preparation
The aroma of artificial lemon-lime soda while

in the mouth
The aroma of diluted Gatorade lemon-lime
drink while in the mouth
The aroma of diluted mango juice while in the
mouth
The aroma of diluted pineapple juice while in
the mouth.
The aroma of diluted 100% canned pear juice.
Decarbonated Sierra Mist

lemon-lime soda
Diluted Lemon-lime Gatorade
Decarbonated Sierra Mist
Canned Mango Nectar

Diluted Dole Canned 100%
Pineapple Juice
Diluted 100% Pear Juice from
Canned Pear
125 mL juice+125 mL water
Taste of 7% Fructose Solution
Fructose Solution
21 g fructose + 300 mL water
The tart and sourness of passion fruit juice.
Passion Fruit Juice
10
Bitter Tea is the taste of unsweetened Black

Tea while in the mouth
Lipton Black Tea
Fruit Bitter is the taste of Naringin Solution

while in the mouth
Naringin Solution
1 Lipton tea bag+100 mL hot water;

steeped 5 min. then add 200 mL cold
water
0.11 g Naringin + 250 mL water
Bitter Tea is the taste of unsweetened Black

Tea after it is expectorated.
Black Tea
Fruit Bitter Afterfeel is the taste of Naringin

Solution after it is expectorated.
The moutheoating of sensation perceived on
the teeth, tongue, and sides of the mouth after
expectorating the samples
Astringent is a mouthdrying sensation felt on
the tongue and sides of the mouth
Naringin Solution
1 Lipton tea bag+100 mL hot water;

steeped 5 min. then add 200mL cold
water
0.1 lg Naringin + 250 mL water
HFCS and water solution
30 g Isosweet 55 +300 mL water
Diluted Pomegranate Juice
100 mL juice +150 mL water
125 mL lemon-lime Gatorade + 125 mL

water
150 mLjuice+100 mL water
8
10
8
10
10
Taste
Sweet
Tart
Bitter Tea
Fruit Bitter
Mouthfeel / Afterfeel
Bitter Tea Afterfeel
Fruit Bitter Afterfeel

Moutheoating
Astringent
9
10
9
10
Table 5.4: Analysis of Variance on 13 descriptive attributes rated for model energy drink solutions.
judge x sample interaction as the error term.
Samples
Attribute
Replication Panelist (Solutions)
RxP
RxS
PxS
Aroma-by-Mouth
Artificial Lemon4.27
6.92
Lime
33.87'"
0.65
1.36
1.38"
43.83'"
1.42
2.26
1.76
1.40"
Citrus
0.91
17.56"'
77.56"'
5.04*"
6.8*"
1.53*
1.47"*
Mango
17.70*"
57.48*"
3.45"'
5.28"'
1.57"*
Pineapple
1.37
35.35'"
100.49*" 5.21"*
5.40*" 1.66'
1.28*
Pear
Taste
67.60"'
2.2
1.56*"
Sweet
11.99"*
1.89
1.12
75.87"*
3.42"*
1.41"
37.02'"
5.57*" 1.33
Tart
51.90"*
1.35
16.46***
5.48"* 2.04
2.49*"
Bitter Tea
40.31"*
2.87*" 2.47'"
21.68*"
1.95"*
Fruit Bitter
1.31
Mouthfeel / Afterfeel
71.16"*
2.84*" 2.10"
1.73
22.83"*
2.16"*
63.83"'
28.73"*
3.33*" 3.01*"
1.80*"
1.86
1.08
91.97"*
1.08
2.83"* 1.3
0.94
Moutheoating
87.13"*
Astringent
25.58"*
4.60*"
6.43"* 1.79*
1.25*
Adjusted F-values with

Adjusted
F
5.01***
1.01
3.43*"
2.2***
4.07***
7.69***
2.43"*
6.61"*
11.12*"
10.57"*
15.96*"
3.68*"
Statistical significance at p<0.05, p<0.01 and p<0.001 are denoted by , , and , respectively.RxP= Replication by panelists interaction;
RxS=Replication by Sample Interaction; P*S=Panelist by Sample Interaction.
Table 5.5: Mean intensity scores of sensory attributes of varying levels of functional ingredients.
Attribute
Tart
Bitter
Tea
Bitter
Tea
Afterfeel
Fruit
Bitter
Fruit
Bitter
Afterfeel
Mouthcoating
Astringent
3.8a
5.2a
5.0a
5.0a
4.4a
4.6a
6.9a
4.4a
3.8b
4.1 c
4.0b
4.3C
5.1ab
4.9b
4.3b
3.9C
4.2b
3.9b.
3.5b
3.0C
3.6b
3.3C
7.0a
7.0a
4.2b
4.2b
3.1a
3.6a
3.7a
5.4a
5.3a
5.6a
4.6a
5.3a
6.9a
4.7a
5.2a
3.3b
3.8b
4.1 b
5.1b
4.5b
4.5b
3.6b
3.8b
6.9ab
4.3b
6.1"
5.3a
3.7C
4.1 e
4.4C
4.7C
3.4C
3.0C
2.6C
2.4
7.1b
3.7C
5.9a
5.9a
5.8a
5.0a
5.2a
5.3a
3.4a
3.4s
3.3a
3.8a
3.9a
3.9a
5.0a
5.0a
5.2b
4.4a
4.3 a
4.5a
4.3a
4.4a
4.4a
3.5a
3.7a
3.7a
3.7a
3.9a
3.9a
6.9a
6.9a
7.0a
4.2'
4.2!
4.4=
Sweet
Artificial
lemonlime
Citrus
Mango
Pineapple
Pear
6.2a
5.3a
5.1a
3.0a
3.6a
7.0b
7.6C
5.8b
6.4C
5.1a
5.3b
3.4b
3.7C
6.3a
5.6*
5.r
6.9b
5.8a
l.T
7.0a
6.9a
7.0*
CAFFEINE
LEVEL
High
Medium
Low
GINSENG
LEVEL
High
Medium
Low
TAURINE
LEVEL
High
Medium
Low
4.2
4.1ab
Means within a column per treatment (caffeine, ginseng, and taurine levels) with the same superscript are not significantly different (p<0.05, Fisher's Least
Significant Difference Test).
Table 5.6: Correlation analysis on significant sensory attributes for 27 combinations of functional ingredients in model energy
drink solutions. Bolded values are significant at p<0.05.
<D
3
.3
,
O
,o
V-
.5
"o
<
Sweet
Artificial LemonLime
Citrus
Mango
Pineapple
Pear
Tart
Tea Bitter
Fruit Bitter
Moutheoating
Astringent
Viscosity
-o
o
a
a.
a
o
i
5
cu
_
U
rO
E-
oo
o
CO
3
O
-4~"
E-
*n:
<
.
"co
O
O
to
>
1.00
0.91
0.47
0.10
0.86
0.83
-0.28
-0.91
-0.90
-0.91
-0.88
0.39
-0.77
-0.11
1.00
0.50
0.30
0.81
0.79
-0.23
-0.77
-0.74
-0.79
-0.74
0.44
-0.60
-0.05
1.00
0.13
0.56
0.50
-0.02
-0.40
-0.40
-0.40
-0.33
0.27
-0.19
-0.08
1.00
0.30
0.18
0.22
0.04
0.09
-0.03
0.05
0.17
0.17
-0.20
1.00
0.90
-0.07
-0.81
-0.81
-0.84
-0.82
0.35
-0.69
0.01
1.00
-0.28
-0.80
-0.82
-0.83
-0.81
0.22
-0.20
-0.68
0.04
0.31
0.15
1.00
0.28
0.30
0.25
0.24
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.96
-0.42
0.90
0.00
1.00
0.97
0.97
-0.38
0.93
-0.01
1.00
0.98
-0.36
1.00
-0.35
0.88
0.09
0.92
0.02
1.00
-0.28
-0.06
1.00
-0.08
1.00
--Factor 1 (65.6%)-->
Figure 5.1: Principal component analysis biplot of covariancc matrix of mean
scnsorj' attributes of 27 combinations of functional ingredients in model cnergj'
drink solntions with varimax rotation. Factor 1 represents 65.6% of the variation
and Factor 2 represents 12.4% of the variation. L=Low, M=Medium, II=High,
C=Caffcinc, G=Ginscng, and T=Taurinc.
127
1/4
145-
116"
87"
58
29"
nJ
5 55
CD
CD CD
I
O
CD
"^ _J
i?=-,
IT
g CD C5
_i - 1 ^ I
T T
$ $
X 2
~ J U
CD
^
O
I
CD
I-J-I
I
O
_i
CD
I
I-J-I
-^ J
-i
"^ 2
^
_
T T
X
X
1 , - 1 .
t=
IT
2? Io o o o o , O O
t> Ii o CDcj %i2 Xi
-
\_J
2;
'
r-Ji
r-
H E- b
Q o g g
I
', CD CD
-J 2
Figure 5.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of attribute ratings for 27 combinations of functional ingredients in
model energj' drink solutions on the dissimilarity scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by Ward's method. The
dotted line was computed using the software and truncates the groups based on the largest relative increase in dissimilarity.
L=Low, M=Medium, H=High, C=Caffeine, G=Ginseng, and T=Taurine
to
co
CHAPTER 6: SENSORY PROPERTIES OF GINSENG SOLUTIONS MODIFIED

BY MASKING AGENTS
6.1 Abstract
Ginseng is one of the most popular functional ingredients found in energy drink
formulations. Although ginseng is Icnown for its health benefits, ginseng is also
notorious for imparting a bitter taste. Incorporating ginseng into beverages without the
bitterness, while still maintaining its health benefits, is necessary for developing an
acceptable product. Thus, the objectives of this study were to: 1) identify effective
treatments for minimizing the bitterness of ginseng in water base and model energy drink
base solutions and 2) determine the sensory effects of incorporating different treatment
levels to minimize the bitterness of ginseng.
Based on the results of a series of pilot studies, which investigated bitterness
reducing treatments including congruent flavor addition, bitterness blocking agent
incorporation, enzymatic modification, ingredient interaction, and complexation, ycyclodextrins (y-CDs) and |3-cyclodexlrins (P-CDs) complexing agents were identified as
having the most potential. Descriptive analysis was conducted on the effects of the
inclusion of y-CDs, P-CDs and combinations of y-CDs and P-CDs in solutions containing
0,052 g 80% ginsenosides panax ginseng in 100 mL water and in 100 mL model energy
drink base solutions. Twelve trained panelists evaluated 42 solution treatments (3
treatments x 7 levels x 2 bases) for bitter attributes with and without nose clips. The
most effective treatments were 0.09 g y-CDs in 100 mL of solution and 1.00 g p-CDs in
100 mL solution, which both reduced the bitterness intensity of the solutions by half.
Incorporation of these levels of CDs in water and model energy drink base solutions
containing ginseng will aid in the development of pleasant-tasting funclional beverages.
129
Key Words: Ginseng, Bitterness, Cyclodextrins, Descriptive Analysis
6.2 Introduction
Ginseng and Functional Beverages
Ginseng is one of the most popular functional ingredients consumers seek in
functional beverages (LeClair 2000), and is, thus, being incorporated into numerous
beverage formulations. Ginseng is known for its health benefits, such as aiding in overall
improvement of health (Court 2000b), cognitive function (Coon and Ernst 2002), and
alleviating health conditions, such as diabetes (Vuksan and Sievenpiper 2005). The
active compounds in ginseng are triterpenoid saponin glycosides, which unfortunately are
also responsible for the bitter taste of ginseng (Court 2000a, Reineccius 2004).
A previous energy drink descriptive analysis study showed that panelists rated
bitter attribute intensity high when 0.011 g of ginseng was present in 100 mL of a model
energy drink base solution (Tamamoto and Others 2009 In Submission). Minimizing the
bitterness in food products can enhance palatability and result in a more favorable
product (Reineccius 2004, Lesschaeve and Noble 2005). Attempts have been made to
minimize the bitterness of a ginseng drink using cyclodextrins (Yu 1993), but currently
there is no published research on reducing the bitterness of ginseng in functional
beverages. Determining a treatment regime to minimize the bitterness of ginseng in
solution is beneficial for the creation of acceptable functional beverages.
Bittern ess Min im izers
The addition of congruent or related flavors has been used to reduce unpleasant
tastes. Bitter tastes can be made more acceptable by incorporating favorable flavors such
as coffee, dark chocolate, tea (Reineccius 2004), or citrus (Granato 2002). Bitter tastes
130
have also been reduced by blocking bitter taste receptors on the tongue through the use of
chemicals or flavorings (Katan and Roos 2004). An ingredient interaction in which
amino acids and.peptides, such as taurine reduced the bitter taste in KCl bitter solutions
was reported by Tamura and others (1990). The bitterness of ginseng is associated with a
triterpenoid peptide (Court 2000a), which may be broken down into a sapogenin and
sugar molecules (Huang 1999). Rapidase, an enzyme, breaks down peptide bonds of
bitter compounds during the wine-making process, and has the possibility of breaking
peptide bonds in ginseng.
Another potential bitterness minimizing treatment is the complexation of bitter
molecules using cyclodextrins (CDs), which have been shown to reduce'bitterness in
foods, such as citrus fruits (Konno and others 1982), soy, and coffee (Hamilton and
Heady 1970) and drugs (Szejtli and Szente 2005). Cyclodextrins form inclusion
complexes with the bitter compounds (i.e. naringin, limonin, Ibuprofen), resulting in
reduced bitterness (Szejtli and Szente 2005, Szente and Szejtli 2004). The inclusions are
formed through hydrogen bonding and Van der Waals forces between the bitter
compound and the CDs (Szejtli 1988). The bitter taste is reduced because of the inability
of the complcxed molecules to attach to the taste receptors on the tongue (Szejtli and
Szente 2005). Yu (1993) reported that 5-12% CDs (type not specified in patent)
decreased the bitterness of a ginseng drink. It was also reported in a patent by Lee and
others (2008) that the bitterness of 100 g of ginseng extract in solution could be removed
with the addition of approximately lg of y-CDs. Lee and others (2008) also focused on
increasing the solubility and stability of ginseng extract in solution with the incorporation
ofy-CDs.
131
The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify effective treatments for
minimizing the bitterness of ginseng in water base and model energy drink base solutions
and 2) determine the sensory effects of incorporating different treatment levels to
minimize the bitterness of ginseng.

Preliminary Studies
Pilot Studv 1
A pilot test was conducted to investigate possible treatments to minimize the
bitterness of ginseng in water base and model energy drink base solutions. A solution of
0.052 g 80% ginsenosides panax ginseng (Amax NutraSource, Inc, Eugene, OR) in 100
mL spring waler (Absopure, Plymouth, MI) was the water base solution used for all the
treatments. This level reflects the highest level of ginseng found in a sampling of
commercially-available energy drinks (Tamamoto and others 2009, In Submission).
Solution treatments were all made approximately 24 hours prior to testing and stored in
lidded wide-mouth glass mason jars (14400-67000 Ball, Alltrista, Munice, IN) in a
commercial grade refrigerator at ~5C. Samples were poured one hour prior to serving
into 29.6 mL plastic souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL), labeled with random
3-digit codes. Samples were evaluated by panelists at room temperature (~22C).
The following five treatments were applied to 100 mL of the water base solution.
A congruent flavor treatment included the addition of 0.001 g of a 80% decanal flavoring
(MCI-Miritz Citrus Ingredients, Warwick, NY), which is a citrus flavor. A bitterness
blocking agent treatment using 0.08 g of a water-soluble natural flavoring called
Resolver (Wild Flavors, Erlanger, KY), which attaches to bitter taste receptors on the
132
tongue and blocks bitter tastes. The ingredient interaction treatment incorporated 15.16 g
taurine (Nutrabio.com, Inc. Middlesex, NJ) into solution. The enzymatic modification
treatment incorporated 0.2 g of Rapidase AR-2000 (DSM Food Specialties, Delft,
Netherlands) into solution. This solution was made 48 hours prior to serving, and stored
in the refrigerator to allow the enzymes to interact with the ginseng. The complexalion
treatment incorporated the use of 0.090 g food grade y-cyclodextrins, chemical purity
98% (Wacker Fine Chemicals, Adrian, MI).
Eleven untrained panelists participated in the pilot study, Panelists were
presented five treatments in the water base solution and a control of an untreated water
base solution in a randomized order. Panelists were instructed to swish the sample in
their mouth for 10 seconds and then rinse with warm water between samples. Panelists
were then asked to rank the five treatments and the control from least bitter to most bitter
(1 to 6). Data were analyzed using Friedman's Rank Sum Test, followed by a Least
Significant Ranked Difference (LSRD) test to determine the difference among sample
ranks,
Pilot Studv 2
The two treatments with the lowest bitterness ratings from pilot study 1 were
further investigated to determine treatment levels to test in the descriptive analysis study.
Seven 0.03 g incremental levels of y-CDs ranging from 0 to 0.180 g in 100 mL water
base solution and seven 0.200 g incremental levels of Resolver (bitterness blocking
agent) ranging from 0 to 1.200 g in 100 mL in ginseng solutions were tested. Solutions
were made, stored, and presented using the same methods as in pilot study 1. Fourteen
untrained panelists tasted all fourteen solutions and rated the bitterness intensity of each
133
sample on a 10-point categorical scale (0 to 9). Data were analyzed using Statistical
Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) tested for significant difference of mean scores of the solutions; this
was followed by Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) to determine the difference
among sample means.
Pilot Studv 3
For pilot study 3, another bitterness minimizing treatment that initially had not
been included in pilot study 1 was tested. P-cyclodextrins (P-CDs), chemical purity
100%, (Wacker Fine Chemicals, Adrian, MI) have been used to mask flavors in foods,
such as fishy and grassy notes (Cravotto and others 2006). p-CD is a smaller ring-shaped
molecule than y-CD and is less expensive ($16.50/kg for p-CDs; $91.007kg for y-CDs).
The addition of p-CDs at seven 0.03 g incremental treatment levels from 0 to 0.180 g PCDs in 100 mL water base solution was tested to determine if the use of P-CDs is
effective as a ginseng bitterness minimizer. Solutions were made, stored, and presented
using the same methods as in pilot studies 1 and 2. Ten untrained panelists rated the
bitterness intensity of each sample on a 10-point categorical scale (0 to 9). Data were
analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
NC). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested for significant difference of mean scores of
the solutions; this was followed by Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) to
determine the difference among sample means.
134
Main Studv
Sample Preparation
Base Solutions
Two base solutions were investigated in this study to determine the sensory
effects of the interaction of CDs with only ginseng and then with all the ingredients in a
model energy drink solution. A water base solution composed of 0.052 g of 80%
ginsenosides panax ginseng (Amax NutraSource, Inc, Eugene, OR) in 100 mL spring
water (Absopure, Plymouth, MI). The model energy drink base solution was composed
of 553.23 g spring water (Absopure, Plymouth, MI), 142.50 g high fructose corn syrup
(Isosweet 5500, Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL), 2.02 g sodium citrate (Tate & Lyle, Decatur,
IL), 1.90 g citric acid (Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL), and 0.35 g potassium citrate (Tate &
Lyle, Decatur, IL), and 0,052 g 80% ginsenosides panax ginseng (Amax NutraSource,
Inc, Eugene, OR), Non-carbonated "still" solutions were used in this study to simplify
the sensory profile of the base solutions.
Sample Solutions
Twenty-one (3 treatments x 7 levels) solution treatments of y-CDs, P-CDs, and
combinations of varying levels of the two types of CDs (Table 6.1) were added to cither a
water base solution or model energy drink base solution for a total of 42 solution
treatments. The seven combination treatments consisted of combinations of the lowest
non-zero, medium, and high y- and P-CD levels selected from the individual y-CD and pCD treatments. For each solution treatment, the levels of CDs used were weighed and
brought up to a volume of 225 mL with the base solution. The solution was mixed for
five minutes with a magnetic stir bar on a stir plate. Approximately 15 mL samples were
135
poured into 29.6 mL plastic souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL) labeled with
random 3-digit codes, and stored overnight at ~5C in a commercial grade refrigerator.
Samples were taken out of the refrigerator 30 minutes prior to evaluation, which was
carried out at room temperature (~22C).
Panel Selection and Screening
The panelist recruitment and selection process consisted of a questionnaire, which
included items concerning demographic information, allergies, smoker status, frequency
of consumption of products containing ginseng, and schedule availability. This was
followed by a test for 6-n-propyl-2-thiouracil (PROP) status, which was determined by
presenting volunteers with pieces of filter paper impregnated with PROP following Zhao
and others (2003) paper disc method. If volunteers could not taste anything on the paper
they were considered a non-taster. If the volunteer could taste a bitter taste, they were
labeled a taster.
A basic tastes test (sour, sweet, bitter, salty) was also used to screen panelists.
The basic taste test consisted of presenting volunteers with 20 mL of basic taste solutions
in 29.6 mL plastic souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL). Six solutions labeled
A through F (sweet, sour, bitter, water, sally, and sour, respectively) were presented to
volunteers. A 0.70% sucrose (C&H Sugar Company, Inc. Crockett, CA) solution for the
sweet solution, a 0.05% citric acid (Tate & Lyle, Decatur, IL) solution for the sour
solution, a 0.02% caffeine (Fischer Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ) solution for the bitter
solution, and a 0,10% sodium chloride (Morton, Chicago, IL) solution for the salty
solution were all prepared with spring water (Absopure, Plymouth, MI). Two sour
solutions were presented to panelists to minimize the chance of blind guessing by the
volunteers.
Initially, thirteen panelists (3 males, 10 females, 18 to 50 years old) were selected

based on non-smoker and positive PROP taster status, and correctly identifying four or
more of the basic taste solutions. Three panelists correctly identified all basic tastes, four
panelists had an 83% accuracy rate, and six of the panelists had a 66% accuracy rate.
Eight panelists responded that they consume products containing ginseng, such as teas,
drinks, and energy drinks. Data were analyzed based on the responses of twelve panelists
(2 males, 10 females, 18 to 50 years of age), since during the panelist training period, one
panelist broke his nose, thus his scores were omitted.
Panelist Training
Panel training consisted of twelve 1-hour sessions, which included evaluating
three complete replications of the 42 solution set (Table 6.1). Initial training sessions
were conducted at a round table setting under incandescent lighting. The first day
included an introduction to descriptive analysis methods and the tasting and rinsing
protocols. During the next two days, panelists tasted the sample solutions, generated
bitter descriptor terms, and defined terms. For each descriptor term generated, panelists
selected a reference that represented the term and definition. The terms and references
determined by the panelists were: quinine bitter, a 0.04% quinine solution, which was
defined as "The taste of a 0.04% quinine solution while in the mouth", and caffeine
bitter aftertaste, a 0.10% caffeine solution, which was defined as "The aftertaste of a
0.10% caffeine solution 5 seconds after it is expectorated". The quinine (Sigma
Chemical Company, St. Louis, MO) had a chemical purity greater or equal to 90%, and
the caffeine (Fischer Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ) had a chemical purity of 100%.
References were made 20 to 24 hours in advance and stored in lidded 59.2 mL plastic
137
souffle cups (Solo Cup Company, Urbana, IL, 61802) at ~5C in a commercial grade
refrigerator. Once panelists were familiar with the tasting and rinsing protocols,
panelists were introduced and trained to rate samples with nose clips (Speedo, USA) to
eliminate olfactory stimuli.
Sampling Protocol
The sampling protocol consisted of tasting the entire sample (~15 mL) and
moving it to contact all sides of the tongue and mouth for 10 seconds before rating the
attributes. The caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute was rated 5 seconds after the sample
was expectorated.
Panelists familiarized themselves with the references and reference rating scores
prior to each session, The references for each term were then rated on a 16-point
categorical scale (0 to 15) to generate anchors for each attribute scale. Panelists rated the
solutions for each attribute with group-determined reference anchors. The rinse protocol
determined by the panelists was a vigorous warm water (~52C) rinse, expectoration,
followed by a second vigorous warm water rinse and then swallowing the water.
Panelists were instructed to follow the rinsing protocol prior to evaluating the first sample
and between samples.
Three practice sessions and six data collection sessions were conducted in
individual sensory booths under incandescent light. Each session consisted of three
rounds of samples; the first round consisted of presenting the two references to the
panelists, followed by a set of seven samples then a two-minute break. Each set of
samples included all seven levels of each treatment. For example, the first set included
seven levels of y-CD in a water base solution. Each set of seven samples was presented
simultaneously in a randomized order to panelists. The panelists were then presented a
138
second set of the same references, then a second set of seven samples, followed by a twominute break. This process continued for a total of three rounds per session, with a total
of 21 solutions and 3 sets of references being presented to panelists during each booth
session. All 42 treatments were evaluated in duplicate without nose clips and then with
nose clips. Data were collected by the Compusense five program (version 5.0,
Compusense, Inc. Guelph, Ontario, Canada).
Data Analysis
The descriptive analysis data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis
Software (SAS) version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) tested for significant difference of mean scores of the solutions, panelists and
interactions for each attribute. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) by Ward's
method (1963) was carried out on the sensory data to observe groupings among the
solutions using XLStat 7.5.3 (Addinsoft, New York, NY). Clusters were created by
automatic truncation based on the largest relative increase in dissimilarity among
solutions.

Preliminary Studies
Pilot Studv 1
Results showed that there was a significant difference across the bitterness
minimizing treatments at p<0.05 (Table 6.2). y-CDs in the amount of 0.090 g in 100 mL
was ranked as the most effective treatment for reducing bitterness. The Resolver
treatment was ranked as the second lowest for bitterness with average ranking of 3.09;
however, the Friedman test showed that there was no significant difference between the
139
rankings of this treatment to that of the rapidase and taurine treatments. The control,
rapidase, taurine, and Resolver treatments all ranked similarly with no statistical
difference shown, while the addition of a citrusflavoringwas ranked as being the most
bitter. The results from the pilot study suggested that y-CDs and Resolver have the most
potential to minimize the bitterness of ginseng in solution.
Pilot Study 2
There was a significant difference at p<0.05 among the levels of y-CDs
treatment, which showed a decrease in bitterness intensity ratings with an increase in yCD levels (Table 6.3). Therefore, the range of 0 to 0.180 g y-CDs was selected as the
concentration range to test in the descriptive analysis study. There was no significant
difference across the levels of Resolver at p<0,05, and no apparent trends with
increasing levels of Resolver. Thus, it was concluded that Resolver was not an
effective bitterness minimizing agent for ginseng solutions.
The use of Resolver did not result in the reduction of bitterness in ginseng
solutions; therefore, another pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of P-CD levels was
conducted, as previous research has shown that P-CDs in the concentration of 1%
reduced bitterness in hot drinks, such as coffee and tea (Szente and Szejtli 2004).
Pilot Study 3
There was a significant difference across P-CD levels at p<0.05, with a decrease
in bitterness intensity ratings with an increase in P-CD levels (Table 6,3). The decrease
in bitterness intensity ratings was not as pronounced as the y-CD results from pilot study
2. In addition, the increase in P-CDs concentration showed a general trend of decreasing
bitterness intensity ratings, which suggested that higher p-CD levels would further lower
140
bitterness intensity ratings. Based on these results, higher levels of P-CD (0 to 1,50 g)
were tested, which resulted in the selection of a p-CDs concentration range from 0 to
1.50 g/100 mL solution. After conducting the three pilot studies, the bitterness
minimizing treatments finalized for the main study were y-CDs from 0 to 0.180 g/100
mL solution, and p-CDs from 0 to 1.50 g/100 mL solution,
Main Study
Effectiveness of bitterness minimizing treatments of y-CDs and fi-CDs and their levels
There was a significant difference in panelist ratings, which indicates that
panelists used different parts of the scale when rating samples, which is typically found in
descriptive analysis panels (Table 6.4). There was also a significant difference in the
panelists by samples interaction; therefore, an adjusted F value was calculated to account
for the variability as a source of error. There was a significant difference (pO.OOl)
across sample ratings for both the quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attributes.
The quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attributes were highly correlated (r=0.91,
p<0.001), which suggests that panelists may have evaluated the same bitter taste in the
solutions although they determined that the two attributes were distinct during the
training sessions.
Samples were rated significantly lower (p<0.0001) in both quinine bitter and
caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensities with nose clips compared to without nose
clips. This suggests that the ginseng solutions may contain aromatic compounds that
increase bitterness perception, which demonstrates a halo effect (Lethuaut and others
2005, Muether and Lee 2005, Kappes and others 2006, Wansink and others 2007). In
141
addition, Mojet and others (2005) reported that the use of nose clips resulted in lower
intensity ratings of basic tastants than without the use of nose clips.
In general, the water base solutions had higher bitterness ratings than the
treatments in the model energy drink base solutions. The caffeine bitter aftertaste
attribute rating of ginseng solutions in a water base were rated significantly higher
(pO.OOOl) than the model energy drink base solutions. This was expected because the
model energy drink base solution contained high fructose corn syrup which is sweet and
can help mask bitter compounds (Roy and Roy 1997). Incorporation of sweeteners is one
of the most commonly used methods to mask bitterness in food products (Breslin 1996).
The quinine bitter attribute ratings, however, were not significantly different between the
two base solutions at p<0.05. The results suggest that sweeteners may aid in reducing
bitterness aftertaste rather than the bitter taste while the solution is in the mouth.
Quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste mean attribute ratings for treatments with yCD levels decreased when more y-CDs were incorporated into the solutions (Figure 6.1
and Tables 6.5 to 6.7). The data suggest that a level of 0.090 g y-CDs in 100 mL is an
effective amount of y-CDs necessary to reduce the quinine bitter taste and caffeine bitter
aftertaste in ginseng solutions (Figure 6.1 and Tables 6.6 and 6.7). Levels greater than or
equal to 1.00 g P-CDs in 100 mL solution were needed to significantly reduce the quinine
bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste intensities of the ginseng in solution (Figure 6.2 and
Tables 6.5 to 6.7). Binello and others (2004) showed that P-CD concentrations greater
than 1.2% impart a sweet taste in solutions. The higher P-CD concentrations could be
responsible for the reduced quinine bitter and caffeine bitter intensity ratings. The results
of the combination treatments showed that there were no synergistic effects of the
142
combined CDs. The results had the same trend as the y- and p-CD treatments, in which
the higher the concentration of CDs, the lower the attribute intensity ratings of the
solutions (Table 6.5).
The effectiveness of CDs as bitterness minimizers in ginseng solutions may be
based on the size of both the CDs and the bitter molecules in ginseng. y-CDs have a
molecular weight of 1296 g/mol and a cavity volume of 427 A, while P-CDs have a
molecular weight of 1134 g/mol and a cavity volume of 262 A (Dodziuk 2006). The
complexation of the bitter compounds by the CDs in ginseng depends on the physical
characteristics such as size, polarity, configuration, and structure of the bitter molecule.
Ginseng is composed of organic acids, sugars, oils, saponins, and other compounds. The
saponins in ginseng include over thirty different ginsenosides (Watson 2003), yet the
exact compounds responsible for the bitter taste have not been identified. Some main
ginsenosides have been identified as the active compounds in ginseng, and may
contribute to the bitter taste in ginseng. These include ginsenosides; RBi, molecular
weight 801.02, Rbi, molecular weight 1109.31, and Rc, molecular weight 947.16 (GiicliiUstundag and Mazza 2007). Although the ginsenosides-have smaller molecular weights
than both y- and P-CDs, the different configuration of the ginsenosides could be the
reason why some may have been less effective in forming a complex with the P-CDs, yet
could complex and fit in the cavity of the larger y-CD molecule.
The chemical interactions between CDs and the compounds in solution, and the
sensory effects of these interactions must also be considered when formulating beverages.
For example, research should be conducted investigating whether the added CDs
complex with only the bitter compounds and not the flavor compounds. Flavorings are
143
often the most expensive ingredient included in a functional beverage formulation.

Understanding the chemistry of the interactions between compounds and CDs will aid in
the selection of the most effective type and amounts of CDs to incorporate into
formulations.
Cluster A nalysis
Cluster analysis was conducted based on the two rated attributes, quinine bitter
and caffeine bitter aftertaste, of the 21 solutions, which were truncated into three groups.
Clusters were generally characterized by levels of both y- and P-CDs (Figure 6.3).
Solutions containing none or the lowest tested level of y-CDs (0.030 g/100 mL) and P~
CDs (0.250 g/100 mL) were clustered together and were rated high in quinine bitter
intensity. A second cluster grouped ginseng solutions incorporating y-CD levels ranging
from 0.030 to 0.060 g and p-CD levels ranging from 0.250 to 0.500 g. All other solution
treatments were clustered together; possibly due to the higher levels of P-CD and y-CD
present in these treatments. This suggests that ginseng solutions containing more than
0.750 g p-CDs/100 mL had similar quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste intensity
ratings as treatments containing more than 0.090 g y-CDs/100 mL of solution. The
clustering results also suggest that the Combo 7 solution treatment (0.030 y-CDs g/100
mL and 0.875 P-CDs g/100 mL) had similar quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste
intensity ratings as both the 0.75 g p-CDs treatment and the 0.090 g y-CDs treatment.
These findings may be utilized to formulate ginseng-containing energy drinks with
minimal bitterness.
144
Cost Analysis
Although p-CDs cost five-fold less than y-CDs by weight, less y-CDs are required
to comparably reduce the bitterness of ginseng in solution. y-CDs in the amount of 0.090
g in 100 mL of solution is the most cost effective level of y-CDs treatment at $0.08/L of
solution. The most cost effective level of p-CDs was 1.00 g, which would cost $0.17/L
of solution. This is the level needed to minimize the quinine bitterness to the same
intensity as using 0.090 g y-CDs. It also costs $0.17/L of solution to utilize Combo 7
solution treatment (0.030 y-CDs g/100 mL and 0.875 P-CDs g/100 mL) to reduce the
quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity levels comparable to the
intensity as the 0.090 g y-CDs treatment. Knowing the acceptable level of bitterness in a
functional beverage would aid in optimizing the amount of cyclodextrins necessary to
produce a less bitter tasting and more appealing product. This can be done by conducting
a consumer acceptability test on a set of model energy drink solutions containing varying
levels of CDs.
6.5 Conclusions
Energy drinks have many functional ingredients incorporated in the formulation
to provide energy and other benefits. These drinks often have medicinal tastes, due to
functional ingredients, such as the bitter perceptions of ginseng, Treatments to minimize
the bitterness of ginseng in solution are important in the creation of more palatable and
acceptable products. The challenge of incorporating ginseng into food products is
retaining the healthful properties of ginseng, while minimizing the bitter tastes.
145
The results of this study suggest that 0.090 g y-CDs significantly reduces the
bitter taste and aftertaste of ginseng in 0.052 g ginseng/100 mL solution. Consumers,
however, may accept higher levels of bitterness intensity in energy drinks through
familiarity of the taste associated with these drinks, and therefore, less bitterness
minimizers may be necessary in formulations. Future research should include conducting
a consumer acceptance test on a ginseng model energy drink base solution incorporating
the different types and levels of CDs to determine the bitterness level that is acceptable to
consumers. This research will be useful in selecting the minimum amount of CDs
necessary to produce an acceptable energy drink.Other future studies include investigating the chemistry behind the complexations
occurring between the bitter compounds in ginseng and CDs. The study could be
directed at studying the size and other physical properties of the bitter compounds.
Research focusing on the chemical interactions between CDs and bitter compounds can
then be compared and correlated to sensory studies on bitterness perception.
6.6 References
adducls and evaluation of their bitter-masking properties. Flavour Fragrance J 19(5):394400.
Breslin PAS. 1996, Interactions among salty, sour and bitter compounds. Trends Food
SciTechnol7(12):390-9.
interactions. Drug Saf 25(5);323-44.
146

Additives and in Food Processing. Current Nutrition & Food Science 2(4):343-50.
applications. Wcinheim: Wiley-VCH. 489 p.
Granato I-I. 2002. Masking Agents Maximize Functional Foods' Potential. Natural
Products Insider [serial online]. Available from Posted 14 January 2002 2002.
Giiclu-Usliindag 6, Mazza G. 2007. Saponins: Properties, Applications and Processing.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 47(3):231-58.
Hamilton RM, Heady RE, inventors; 1970. Eliminating Undesirable Taste From Coffee
And Tea Extracts And Products. U.S. patent United States Patent 3528819.
Huang KC. 1999. The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 512 p.
Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2006. Color halo/horns and halo-attribute dumping
Sci Nutr 44(5):369-77.
Konno A, Misaki M, Toda J, Wada T, Yasumatsu K. 1982. Bitterness Reduction of
Naringin and Limonin by P-Cyclodextrin. Agric Biol Chem 46(9):2203-8.
LeClair K. 2000. Breaking the Sensory Barrier for Functional Foods. Food Product
Design [serial online]. 6 November 2006. Available from
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/462/462 0297DE.html. Posted 1 September
2000.
Lee SK, Yu HJ, Cho NS, Park JI-I, Kim TH, Abdi H, Kim KM, Lee SK, inventors;
October 2008. A Method for Preparing the Inclusion Complex of Ginseng Extract with
Gamma-Cyclodextrin, and the Composition Comprising the Same. U.S. patent
WO/2008/127063.
Lelhuaut L, Brossard C, Meynier A, Rousseau F, Llamas G, Bousseau B, Genot C. 2005.
Sweetness and aroma perceptions in dairy desserts varying in sucrose and aroma levels
and in lextural agent. Int Dairy J 15(5):485-93.
Mojet J, Koster EP, Prinz JF. 2005. Do tastants have a smell? Chem Senses 30(1):9-21.
Muether AT, Lee SY. 2005. Halo effect on bitterness and astringency by flavor attributes
in soy protein isolate (SPI) model solutions [dissertation]. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Reineccius GA. 2004. Flavoring Systems for Functional Foods, In: T. Wilson, N. J,
Temple, editors. Beverages in Nutrition and Health. Totowa: Humana Press. p89-97.
Roy G, Roy GM. 1997. Modifying Bitterness: Mechanism, Ingredients, and Applications.
CRC Press.
Szejtli J. 1988. Cyclodextrin Technology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 450 p.
cyclodextrins. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 61(3): 115-25.
Szente L, Szejtli J. 2004. Cyclodextrins as food ingredients. Trends Food Sci Technol
15(3-4): 137-42.
Tamamoto,L.C, Schmidt.S.J., Lee S. 2009. Sensory Profile of a Model Energy Drink
with Varying Levels of Functional Ingredients-Caffeine, Ginseng, and Taurine. J Food
Sci In Submission.
Tamura M, Mori N, Miyoshi T, Koyana S, Kohri I-I, Okai I-I. 1990. Practical Debittering
Diseases 15(3): 149-60.
Wansink B, Payne CR, North J. 2007. Fine as North Dakota wine: Sensory expectations
and the intake of companion foods. Physiol Behav 90(5):712-716.
Assoc 58(301):236-44.
Watson DM. 2003. Performance Functional Foods. Woodhead Publishing, Ltd. 300 p.
Yu KK, inventor; 1993. Method for removing bitter taste of Ginseng. Korea Patent
930,005,196 B.
sensitivity to 6-n-propyllhiouracil. Physiol Behav 78(4-5):625-33.
148

Table 6.1: Solution treatment codes and corresponding levels of y-, [1-CDs, and their
combinations in both 100 mL water base and 100 mL model cnergj' drink base
solutions
Cone yy-CDs
Cone p|l-CDs
Sample
CDs
Molarity
CDs
Molarity
Code
(g/100 mL)
(mol/L) (g/100 mL) )(moI/L)
~
~
0
yCDl
0
~
~
yCD2
0.030
2.31xl0- 5
~
~
yCD3
0.060
4.63 xlO"5
-5
~
~
0.090
yCD4
6.94x10
~
~
yCD5
0.120
9.25xl0 -5
~
~
0.150
yCD6
1.16x10-"
~
~
0.180
1.39X10"1
yCD7
PCD1
PCD2
~
~
~
~
0
0.250
0
2.20x10-"
PCD3
PCD4
PCD5
PCD6
PCD7
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
4,41x10-"
6.61x10-"
8.81x10-"
LlOxlO'3
1.32X10'3
Combo* 1
Combo 2
Combo 3
Combo 4
Combo 5
Combo 6
Combo 7
0.030
2.31 xlO-5
S.lOxlO'5
0.250
0.875
1.500
1.500
0.250
0.250
0.875
2.20x10-"
7.71 xlO-4
1.32xl0'3
1.32xl0-J
2.20x10-"
2.20x10-"
7.71X10'4
0.105
0.180
0.030
0.180
0.105
0.030
1.39xl0-5
2.31x10
1.39xl0-5
S.lOxlO-5
2.31xl0"5
Combo indicates combination of y- and P-CDs.
149
Tabic 6.2: Bitterness intensity rankings (l=least bitter to 6=most bitter) of the
bitterness minimizing treatments incorporated in a 0.0529 g ginscng/100 mL water
solution.
Concentration
Mean
Treatment
Ranking"
(g/100 mL)
y-Cyclodextrins
0.090
1.00a
Resolver
Rapidase
Taurine
Control
Citrus Flavoring
0.800
0.200
3.09 b
3.45 bc
15.160
0.000
0.001
4.09 bc
4.64 bc
4.73
Mean rating scores with a superscript letter are not significantly different (p<0,05, Least Significant
Ranked Difference Test).
150
Table 6.3: Mean bitterness intensity rating scores (0 to 9) of bitterness minimizing

treatment levels incorporate!: in a 0
Treatment
Mean Intensity
(g/lOOmL)
Rating"
y-Cyclodextrins
0
7.2 r
1.72
0.03
5.79b
1.76
0.06
1.31
0.09
1.59
0.93
0.12
1.64c
1.08
0.15
0.93
1.41
' 6.18a
2.11
0.18
3.04
1.59
2.68'
Resolver
0
0.2
5.46
2.37
0.4
5.79a
2.36
0.6
1.94
0.8
5.79
1.81
5.68a
2.28
1.2
P-Cyclodextins
6.21
1.72
6.90a
1.60
0.03
6.20ab
1.40
4.61
nbc
0.06
5.00
0.09
4.60bc
1.58
0.12
b0
1.78
bc
2.17
5.50
0.15
4.50
0.18
5.20
2.16
2.10
Mean rating scores within each treatment with a superscript letter are not significantly
different (p<0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
151
Table 6.4: Analysis of Variance on descriptive attributes rated for ginseng solutions containing varying levels of y- and P-CDs.
A d j u s t e d F-values a w i t h j u d g e x s a m p l e interaction as t h e e r r o r t e r m .
Samples
Attribute
Replication
Panelist
0.10
46.44***
Quinine Bitter
Adjusted
(Solutions)
106.63***
RxP
RxS
0.96
1.14
PxS
I 44***
F
74.05***
Caffeine Bitter Aftertaste

0.14
59.76***
111.15***
0.87
1.46* 1.61***
69.04***
Statistical significance at p<0.05, p<0.01 and p<0.001 are denoted by *, ", and "*, respectively.
Rxp= Replication by panelists interaction; R*S=Replication by Sample Interaction; PxS=Panelist by Sample Interaction.
Table 6.5: Mean" quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity scores (0 to 15) across all 21 solution
treatments combining water base and model energy drink base solutions and with and without nose clips usage data.
CDs=CycIodextrins.
Treatment
(y-CDs
g/100 mL)
Quinine
Bitter
y-l(0)
12.91 a
12.80a
P-1(0)
y-2 (0.03)
11.18 b
10.53b
7-3 (0.06)
6.63c
6.13 c
y-4 (0.09)
3.99
y-5 (0.12)
Caffeine
Bitter
Aftertaste
Treatment
(p-CDs
g/100 mL)
Quinine
Bitter
Caffeine
Bitter
Aftertaste
Treatment
(7- and P-CDs
g/100 mL)
Quinine
Bitter
Caffeine
Bitter
Aftertaste
12.59a
12.35a
Combo 1
8.54a
7.65 a
P-2 (0.25)
9.58b
9.13 b
Combo 2
3.40bc
3.28bcd
p-3 (0.50)
7.14c
6.89c
Combo 3
3.18 c
3.24^
0-4 (0.75)
4.95
Combo 4
3.69
3.69 t e
3.35 e
3.44d
P-5 (1.00)
3.83 e
4.09 e
Combo 5
2.97 c
2.84 d
y-6 (0.15)
3.55 de
3.48 d
p-6 (1.25)
3.55 e
3.59 c
Combo 6
3.68 b
3.27bcd
7-7(0.18)
2.79 f
2.72 e
P-7(1.5)
3.55 e
3.61"
Combo 7
3.81 b
3.71 b
3.91
4.73
"Means within a column per treatment with the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p<0.05, Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test).
* Combo indicates combination of 7- and P-CDs. For 7- and p-CD amounts in the Combination treatments, refer to Table 1.
Table 6.6: Mean quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity scores (0 to 15) across all 7 y-CD solution
treatments in water base or model energy drink base, without nose clips and with nose clips usage data. The data are plotted in
Figure 6.1. CDs=CycIodextrins.
Treatment
(y-CDs
g/100 mL)
Water Base,
without nose
clips
Water Base,
with nose clips
Model Energy
Drink Base,
without nose clips
12.54a
2.65
12.50a
3.06
Model Energy
Drink Base,
with nose clips
Quinine Bitterness
7-1(0)
7-2 (0.03)
7-3 (0.06)
7-4 (0.09)
13.54a
b
11.38
1.64
2.30
1121"
7.42 3.09
4.33
2.39
6.92
3.75
y-5 (0.12)
3.42d
7-6 (0.15)
3.29
1.78
2.50^
7-7 (0.18)
3.08d
2.32
1.91
2.54cd
4.05
2.59
1.79
11.00
6.46
2.64
13.04a
1.52
2.75
2.03
2.63
2.38
3.46
11.13
5.71
3.31
3.88
3.01
3.50de
4.00
3.96
1.93
4.58
2.00d
1.53
2.15
3.09
3.83
2.46
3.46d
3.09
2.63e
2.08

7-1(0)
13.67a
1.31
13.29a
2.01
11.83a
2.93
12.42*
1.67
y-2 (0.03)
11.25b 1.92
10.71b
2.68
9.88b
3.04
10.29b
1.76
3.62
3.64
2.48
dc
2.43
de
2.13
cd
2.77
7-3 (0.06)
7.08c
y-4 (0.09)
7-5 (0.12)
7-6 (0.15)
4.79
3.83
dc
3.33e
e
2.57
6.67c
2.28
1.93
1.88
3.25
de
2.42
2.17
2.19
1.61
1.66
6.17
4.17
4.50
4.46
3.13
3.08
3.08
4.58
3.42
3.00
3.96
ef
2.72
2.50
1.92
3.42
2.02
1.88
3.08 1.25
7-7 (0.18)
Means within a column per treatment with the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p<0.05, Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test).
Table 6.7: Mean" quinine bitter and caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute intensity scores (0 to 15) across all 7 P-CD solution
treatments in -water base or model energy drink base, without nose clips and with nose clips usage data. The data are plotted in
Figure 6.2. CDs=Cyclodextrins.
Treatment
(p-CDs
g/100 mL)
Water Base,
without nose clips
Water Base,
with nose clips
Model Energy
Drink Base,
with nose clips
Model Energy
Drink Base,
without nose clips
Quinine Bitterness
P-1 (0)
P-2 (0.25)
13.17a
10.58b
1.81
12.38*
2.65
10.54b
C
2.43
12.63a
3.28
8.29
1.96
2.85
8.92
2.32
2.46
2.38
3.53
6.88
2.78
4.58 d
8.00
3.39
7.3 8
3.23
6.29
P-4 (0.75)
6.21 d
2.73 .
5.00d
2.98
4.00 d
p-5 (1.00)
4.58
2.43
3.42
2.81
3.75
P-6 (1.25)
3.79 e
2.11
3.13 e
2.40
3.54d
p-7 (1.50)
2.20
2.06
3.96
3.17
12.21a
p-3 (0.50)
3.96
^ 1.84
2.69
3.58
de
2.26
2.89
3.42d=
2.89
2.54
1.80
11.33a
2.18
2.98
7.54b
2.84
3.60
5.63
2.37
4.00
2.62
3.22
3.75d
2.54
2.74
2.68
2.84
3.13

P-1 (0)
13.38a
1.64
12.46a
2.23
12.25a
p-2 (0.25)
10.25b
2.31
10.7 l b
2.77
8.00b
2.78
6.2 l
c
d
p-3 (0.50)
8.3 8C
p-4 (0.75)
6.29
P-5 (1.00)
5.04de
p-6 (1.25)
4.63 e
e
2.62
7.33 c
2.49
4.75
2.54
3.88
2.22
3.33 e
2.75
4.25 d
2.09
2.14
3.00 e
e
3.71
J.
j .
-L
2.98
3.04
3.00
4.13
2.27
2.17
3.00
2.06
2.75
4.58
P-7 (1.50)
"Means within a column per treatment with the same superscript letter are not significantly different (p<0.05, Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test).
(a)
14
12 '
en
c 10 ii
*-
CO
tr. 8 i
w 6 :
ca>
;
*^
r. 4 ..!
i
2 -<
ot
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
g r a m s y-CDs in 100 ml of s o l u t i o n
0,18
(b)
r
14 !
12 H
en
!
.S 10 "
*->
CO
6-
0)
0 -I
r
0.00
Figure 6.1: Effect of y-CD levels on (a) quinine bitter and (b) caffeine bitter
aftertaste intensity ratings of ginseng solution treatments with and without nose
clips and in water base or model energy drink base solutions. () without nose
clips in water base, () with nose clips in water base, (A) without nose clips in
model energy drink base, and (x) with nose clips in model cnergj' drink base.
The data arc presented in Table 6.6.
155
(a)
14 12 i
en
c 10 <
*-
co
.
(
8 1
&
i
in
6
c
n>
c
4
-
2
0 -
0.50
0.75
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
grams p-CDs in 100 ml of solution
1.00
1.25
1.50
(b)
14 -:
12
D)
C
10
* J
CO
cc
&
w
0)
c
J
c
8
6
4
1.50
Figure 6.2: Effect of P-CD levels on (a) quinine bitter and (b) caffeine bitter
aftertaste intensity ratings of ginseng solution treatments with and without nose
clips and in water base or model cnergj' drink base solutions. () without nose
clips in water base, () with nose clips in water base, (A) without nose clips in
model cnergj' drink base, and (x) with nose clips in model energy drink base.
The data arc presented in Table 6.7.
156
350
100
en
to
b
50
I')
CD7
ombo
LT,
> - <->
*=r un u
Q o
o sQ
st-
ex o
o
*t
o o
ujtDNcNr-'-mmrN
1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q CJ-2
E E
o o o o o o o o o o E
>- on
<->
i i i
>- 02.CO.
i
>-
i
i
i
i
> - CO. D J - Q 3 . C O .
o
o
Figure 6.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of quinine bitter and

caffeine bitter aftertaste attribute mean intensity ratings for 21 ginseng solution
treatments containing varying levels of y-CD and p-CD on the dissimilarity
scale by Euclidean distance and agglomeration by Ward's method. The dotted
line was computed using the XLStat 7.5.3 software and truncates the clusters
based on the largest relative increase in dissimilarity. Refer to Tabic 6.1 for the
corresponding amounts of y- and p-CDs in each solution treatment.
157
CHAPTER 7 - SUMMARY
beverages into the market has resulted in a beverage category that is not clearly defined
or understood. The rapid increase in functional beverages has also resulted in the lack of
understanding of the sensory, chemical, and physical effects of functional ingredients in
these products.
Three categorization methods: 1) ingredient inventory, 2) flow behavior
comparison, and 3) two-step sensory sorting were used to categorize fifty commerciallyavailable functional beverages. The categorization is important in formulating a
successful product based on consumer perception and expectation. Of the three methods,
the two-step sorting method produced the most well-defined categories.
Validation and reproducibility studies were then conducted on the two-step
sensory sorting method. Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) values greater than 0.90 showed
that there was excellent correspondence between the fixed sorts conducted in the
validation study. Six functional beverage categories were generated in the reproducibility
study, with the major difference between the initial sort and the replicated sort being that
the Yogurt Smoothies and Fruit Smoothies categories were combined into one category
encompassing both types of beverages in the replicate. The high ARI values from the
validation study (ARI >0.88) and the similar functional beverage categories generated
through the reproducibility study (ARI >0.77) suggest that the two-step sensory sorting
method can be used to consistently create similar functional beverage categories. This
research suggests that the two-step sorting method is a valid and reproducible method to
relatively quickly categorize a large number (~50) of functional beverages and is useful
158
to the beverage industry for the formulation of acceptable functional beverages. Taste is
a key component in the acceptability of food products and the more information known
about the effects of the inclusion of ingredients into aTood matrix, the belter we can
develop successful products.
The two-step sensory sorting method has the potential as a quick categorization
method that could be useful in product development and marketing. Future research
includes investigating the validity and reproducibility of the two-step sensory sorting
method as a rapid process to categorize large groups of products. One such study would
involve sorting a set of products that fall into well-known, defined categories to
determine if the method accurately categorizes products, It would be interesting to
investigate the effectiveness of the two-step sensory sorting method by using it to
categorize other products such as cereals, candies, and food bars. Another study should
focus only on an oral sensory evaluation sort to determine if the functional beverages
could be categorized by only oral sensations and tastes without the influence of
packaging and prior advertising. The level of sweetness, mouthfeel, or other oralsensations may play a significant role in defining and generating functional beverage
categories. Lastly, it would be interesting to conduct the two-step sensory sorting method
on a group of functional beverages including newly introduced products to determine if
new functional beverage categories would be generated. If the two-step sensory sorting
method has the ability to effectively categorize other products, it may be a valuable and
inexpensive tool that aids in the development of product descriptors and understanding
product relationships.
159
To determine the effects of functional ingredients on the sensory properties, we

focused on the "energy drink" category, because it is one of the largest sectors in the
functional beverages market and it was one of the most clearly defined categories
generated from the categorization study. The most common functional ingredients found
in energy drinks are caffeine, ginseng, and taurine. The combinations of the three
functional ingredients were added to a model energy drink solution, and descriptive
analysis (DA) was conducted on 27 combinations (3x3x3 factorial design) of the three
functional ingredients at three concentrations (low, medium, high) to determine the
synergistic effects on the sensory properties of the solutions.
A horns effect was observed as the sweet, artificial lemon-lime, pear, mango, and
pineapple attributes were rated lower in intensity with increased ginseng levels. Taurine
levels of up to 416 mg/100 mL had no significant effect on the sensory attribute ratings of
the model energy drink solutions. The results from the DA research on the effects of
functional ingredients suggested that ginseng contributes predominantly to the bitter
attributes. Therefore, a DA was conducted on 21 ginseng solutions with the use of
masking agents (3 masking agent treatments x 7 levels x 2 bases) to reduce the bitter
attributes contributed by 0.052 g ginseng in 100 mL water base and model energy drink
base solutions. It was found that y- and P-cyclodextrins (CDs) showed the most promise
in reducing the bitterness of ginseng in these solutions. Results showed that 0.09 g y-CD
in 100 mL solution and 1 g P-CD in 100 mL solution both reduced the bitterness intensity
of the solutions by half.
In regards to developing energy drinks containing functional ingredients,
specifically ginseng, future research should include running a consumer acceptance test
160
on a ginseng model energy drink base solution incorporating the different types and
levels of CDs to determine the bitterness level that is acceptable to consumers. Also,
conducting a study on the effect of a specific amount of CDs in solutions containing
varying concentrations of ginseng could be done to determine the degree of effectiveness
CDs have on reducing bitterness in regards to ginseng levels. This research will be useful
in selecting the minimum amount of CDs necessary to produce an acceptable energy
drink.
161
CHAPTER 8 - REFERENCES
Anonymous 2008. U.S. Functional Beverages Market: A Young Market with Growing
Popularity. Food Industry News [serial online]. Available from Posted 28 May 2008
2008.
Amendola C, Iannilli I, Restuccia D, Santini I, Vinci G. 2004. Multivariate statistical
analysis comparing sport and energy drinks. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies 5(2):263-7.
Anonymous 1975. Minutes of Division Business Meeting. Institute of Food
Technologists-Sensory Evaluation Division, IFT.
Abdi I-I, 2007. The RV coefficient and the congruence coefficient. Encyclopedia of
measurement and statistics.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage
Alldrick AJ. 2006. Functional beverages: satisfying consumers' needs. Agro Food
Industry Hi Tech 17(4):41.
Allison ANNMA, Chambers E. 2000. The Importance Of Caffeine As A Flavor
Component in Beverages. J Sens Stud 15(4):449-57.
Asao M, Iwamura I-I, Akamalsu M, Fujita T. 1987. Quantitative structure-activity
relationships of the bitter thresholds of amino acids, peptides, and their derivatives. J Med
Chem 30(10): 1873-9.
Astray G, Gonzalez-Barreiro C, Mejuto JC, Rial-Otero R, Simal-Gandara J. 2009. A
review on the use of cyclodextrins in foods. Food Hydrocoll 23(7): 1631-40.
Backas N, 2009. Brimming Opportunities for Nutraceutical Beverages. Food Product
Design [serial online], 19(2):50-68. Available from Posted January 21, 2009.
Barcenas P, Elortondo FJP, Albisu M. 2004. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of
ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Res Int
37(7):723-9.
Berry D. 2009. Powerful Beverage Performers, Food Product Design [serial online], 3250. Available from Posted 2009.
Berlino M, Lawless HT. 1993. Understanding mouthfeel attributes: a multidimensional
adducts and evaluation of their bitter-masking properties, Flavour Fragrance J 19(5):394400.
162
Borg I, Groenen P. 2003. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications.

Journal of Educational Measurement 40(3):277-80.
Brandt LA. 2001. Flavor Masking: Strategies for Success. Prepared Foods [serial online],
(July 2001):Available from Posted 2001. Breslin PAS. 1996. Interactions among sally, sour and bitter compounds. Trends Food
SciTechnol7(12):390-9.
Burg JC. 1998. High-Energy Beverages. Food Product Design
Calvino AM, Garcia-Medina MR, Cometlo-Muniz JE. 1990. Interactions in caffeinesucrose and coffee-sucrose mixtures: evidence of taste and flavor suppression. Chem
Senses 15(5):505-19.
Cartier R, Rytz A, Lecomte A, Poblete F, Krystlik J, Belin E, Martin N. 2006. Sorting
procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory
map. Food Qual Pref 17(7-8):562-71.
Cook DJ, Hollowood TA, Linforth RST, Taylor AJ. 2003. Oral shear stress predicts
flavour perception in viscous solutions. Chem Senses 28(1):11-23.
Cosgrove J. 2008. Caffeinated Snacks. Nutraceuticals World [serial online]. July/August
Ginseng: The Genus Panax. Singapore: Harwood Academic Publishers, pi 17-197,
Coxon APM. 1999. Sorting Data: Collection and Analysis. Sage Publications Inc.
Additives and in Food Processing. Current Nutrition & Food Science 2(4):343-50,
de Sousa PHM, Maia GA, de Azeredo HMC, de Souza Filho MSM, Garruti DS, de
Freitas CAS. 2007. Mixed tropical fruit nectars with added energy components. Int J
Food Sci Tech 42(11):1290-1296.
163
Delarue J, Sieffermann JM, 2004. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with
Pref 15(2): 137-46.
applications. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. 489 p.
Drobna Z, Wismer WV, Goonewardene LA. 2004. Selection of an Aslringency
Reference Standard for the Sensory Evaluation of Black Tea, J Sens Stud 19(2): 119-32,
8(5):389-94.
Farrell J, RiesNM, Kachan N, Boon H. 2009. Foods and natural health products: Gaps
and ambiguities in the Canadian regulatory regime. Food Policy
Faye P, Bremaud D, Durand Daubin M, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, Nicod H. 2004.
Faye P, Bremaud D, Teillet E, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, Nicod H. 2006. An alternative to
external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Qual Pref
17(7-8):604-14.
Frank RA. 2003. Response context affects judgments of flavor components in foods and
beverages. Food Quality and Preference 14(2): 139-45.
Galloway DR, Talanian JL, Shoveller AK, Heigenhauser GJF, Spriet LL. 2008. Seven
days of oral taurine supplementation does not increase muscle taurine or alter substrate
metabolism during prolonged exercise in humans. J Appl Physiol 105(2):643-51.
Gawel R, Oberholster A, Francis IL. 2000. A 'mouth-feel wheel': terminology for
and wine research. 6(3):203-07.
164
Giboreau A, Dacremont C, Egoroff C, Guerrand S, Urdapillela I, Candel D, Dubois D.

Gnadt T. 2007. Effect of Masking Agents and Lactones on the Aroma and Flavor of
Soymilk. [dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Granato H. 2002. Manipulating Flavor Perception in Functional Products. Natural
Giiclii-Ustundag O, Mazza G, 2007. Saponins: Properties, Applications and Processing.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 47(3):231-58.
Hamilton RM, Heady RE, inventors; 1970. Eliminating Undesirable Taste From Coffee
And Tea Extracts And Products. U.S. patent United States Patent 3528819.
Hollowood TA, Linforth RST, Taylor AJ. 2002. The Effect of Viscosity on the
Perception of Flavour. Chem Senses 27583-91.
Huang KC. 1999. The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 512 p.
Hubert L, Arabie P. 1985. Comparing partitions. Journal of classification -2(1): 193-218.
Institute of Food Technologists. 2005. Functional Foods: Opportunities and Challenges.
Jung MY, Jeon BS, Bock JY. 2002. Free, esterified, and insoluble-bound phenolic acids
in white and red Korean ginsengs (Panax ginseng CA Meyer). Food Chem 79(1): 105-11,
Kang MW, Chung SJ, Lee MS, Kim Y, Kim KO. 2007. The sensory interactions of
organic acids and various flavors in ramen soup systems. J Food Sci 72(9):S639-47.
Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2006. Color halo/horns and halo-attribute dumping
Kappes SK, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY, 2006, Mouthfeel Detection Threshold and Instrumental
Viscosity of Sucrose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Solutions. J Food Sci 71(9):S597602.
Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY. 2007. Relationship between Physical Properties and
Sensory Attributes of Carbonated Beverages. J Food Sci 72(1):S001-11.
Sci Nutr 44(5):369-77.
165
Keast RSJ. 2008. Modification of the bitterness of caffeine. Food Qual Pref 19(5);465-72.
Keast RSJ, Breslin PAS. 2003. An overview of binary taste-taste interactions. Food Qual
Pref 14(2): II1-24.
Kim . 1985. Effects of temperature and sugar addition on the flavor of ginseng tea.
Korean Journal of Food Science and Technology. 17(4):304.
Data Collection and Multivariate Methodologies for Identification of Similarily-Of-Use
King BM, Duineveld CAA, Arents P, Meyners M, Schroff SI, Soekhai ST. 2007.
Retronasal odor dependence on tastants in profiling studies of beverages. Food Qual Pref
18(2):286-95.
Kitts D, Hu C. 2000. Efficacy and safety of ginseng, Public Health Nutr 3(4A):473-85.
Konno A, Misaki M, Toda J, Wada T, Yasumatsu K. 1982. Bitterness Reduction of
Naringin and Limonin by fi-Cyclodextrin. Agric Biol Chem 46(9):2203-8.
Koutsou GA, Storey DM, Bar A. 1999. Gastrointestinal tolerance of y-cyclodextrin in
humans. Food Additives & Contaminants 16(7):313-7.
t .
Kruskal JB, 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method.

Kruskal JB, Wish M. 1978. Multidimensional scaling Quantitative applications in the
Social Sciences. Sage Publications Newbury Park. 93p.
Krzanowski WJ, Marriott FHC, 1995. Multivariate analysis. New York: Halsted Press.
280 p.
Labbe D, Damevin L, Vaccher C, Morgenegg C, Martin N. 2006. Modulation of
perceived taste by olfaction in familiar and unfamiliar beverages. Food Qual Pref 17(78):582-9.
online], 61(12):Available from Posted 2007.
Lawless HT, Glatter S. 1990, Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived
from odor sorting. J.Sensory Studies 5(2):217-30.
Lawless HT, Sheng N, Knoops SSCP, 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data
166
LeClair K. 2000, Breaking the Sensory Barrier for Functional Foods. Food Product
Design [serial online], 6 November 2006. Available from
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/462/462 0297DE.html, Posted 1 September
2000.
Lee SK, Yu HJ, Clio NS, Park JH, Kim TH, Abdi H, Kim KH, Lee SK, inventors;
October 2008. A Method for Preparing the Inclusion Complex of Ginseng Extract with
Gamma-Cyclodextrin, and the Composition Comprising the Same. U.S. patent
WO/2008/127063.
Lelicvre M, Chollet S, Abdi I-I, Valentin D. 2008. What is the validity of the sorting task
for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Qual Pref
Lelhuaut L, Brossard C, Meynier A, Rousseau F, Llamas G, Bousseau B, Genot C. 2005.
Sweetness and aroma perceptions in dairy desserts varying in sucrose and aroma levels
and in textural agent. Int Dairy J 15(5)^485-93.
Ley JP, Blings M, Paetz S, Krammer GE, Bertram HJ, 2006. New bitter-masking
compounds: hydroxylated benzoic acid amides of aromatic amines as structural
analogues of homoeriodictyol. J Agric Food Chem 54(22):8574-9.
Ley JP. 2008. Masking Bitter Taste by Molecules. Chemosensory Perception l(l):58-77.
Ley JP, Krammer G, Reinders G, Gatfield IL, Bertram HJ. 2005. Evaluation of bitter
masking flavanones from Herba Santa (Eriodictyon californicum (H. & A.) Torr.,
Hydrophyllaceae). J Agric Food Chem 53(15):6061-6.
Loftsson T, Brewster ME. 1996. Pharmaceutical applications of cyclodextrins. 1. Drug
solubilization and stabilization. J Pharm Sci 85(10):
Lord JB, 2000, New Product Failure and Success. In: A. L. Brody, J. B. Lord, editors.
An overview in health and disease, Nutr Hosp 17(6):262-70.
167
Luckow T, Delahunty C. 2004. Consumer acceptance of orange juice containing

functional ingredients. Food Res Int 37(8):805-14,
Macfie HJ, Bratchell N, Greenhoff K, Vallis LV. 2007. Designs to Balance the Effect of
Order of Presentation and First-Order Carryover Effects in Hall Tests. J Sens Stud
4(2): 129-148.
Observations. Proc. Fifth Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist, and Prob.281-297.
Mattes RD. 2007. Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds
and intensity ratings of adults. AJP-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 292(5):G1243.
Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. CRC Press.
Mervis CB, Rosch E. 1981. Categorization of Natural Objects. Annual Reviews in
Psychology 32(1 ):89-l 15.
Minor LJ, Pearson AM, Stine CM. 1966. Chicken Flavor Studies. J Agric Food Chem
14(4):416-9.
Mintel. 2009. Energy Drinks and Energy Shots-US.
Mobini S, Elliman TD, Yeomans MR. 2005, Changes in the pleasantness of caffeineassociated flavours consumed at home. Food Qual Pref 16(8):659-66.
Mojet J, Koster EP, Prinz JF. 2005. Do tastants have a smell? Chem Senses 30(1):9-21.
Moreau CP, Markman AB, Lehmann DR. 2001. "What is it?" Categorization flexibility
and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research
27(4):489-98.
Murphy GL, Ross BH. 1994. Predictions from uncertain categorizations. Cogn Psychol
27(2): 148-93.
Muether AT, Lee SY. 2005. Halo effect on bitterness and astringency by flavor attributes
in soy protein isolate (SPI) model solutions [dissertation]. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
19(4):431-38.
168
Orth UR, de Marchi R. 2005. Advertising's influence on product experience and purchase
intention. Fruit Processing 6:372-76.
Ohki K, Nakamura Y, Takano T. 2004. The Japanese Nutritional Health Beverage
Market. In: Anonymous Beverages in Nutrition and Health. Totowa: Humana Press,
p377-387.
Packaged Facts, 2009. Functional Foods and Beverages in the U.S. 1-210.
Qual Pref 16(7):642-9.
Pangborn RM. 1960. Taste Interrelationships. J Food Sci 25(2);245-56.
Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maitre I, Asselin C, Jourjon F, Pages J. 2008. Comparison of
Loire valley. Food Qual Pref 19(1):1-11.
Ramos de Armas R, Gonzalez Diaz I-I, Molina R, Perez Gonzalez M, Uriarte E. 2004.
Stochastic-based descriptors studying peptides biological properties: modeling the bitter
tasting threshold of dipeptides. Bioorg Med Chem 12(18):4815-22,
Rand WM. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation1 of clustering methods. Journal of
Reid AW, Becker CH, REID AW. 1956. The use of cocoa syrups for masking the taste of
quinine hydrochloride. J Am Pharm Assoc Am Pharm Assoc 45(3):151-2.
Reineccius GA. 2004. Flavoring Systems for Functional Foods. In: T. Wilson, N. J.
Temple, editors, Beverages in Nutrition and Health. Totowa: Humana Press. p89-97.
Reissig CJ, Strain EC, Griffiths RR. 2009. Caffeinated energy drinksA growing
problem. Drug Alcohol Depend 9(1):1-10.
Risvik E, Mcewan JA, Colwill .IS, Rogers R, Lyon DH. 1994. Projective mapping: a tool
for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual Pref 5(4):263-9.
PRoy G, Roy GM. 1997. Modifying Bitterness: Mechanism, Ingredients, and Applications.
CRC Press.
169
Schiffman SS, Reynolds ML, Young FW. 1981. Introduction to Multidimensional
Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Academic Press. 413 p.
Schiffman SS, Sattely-Miller EA, Graham BG, Zervakis J, Butchko HH, Stargel WW.
2003. Effect of repeated presentation on sweetness intensity of binary and ternary
mixtures of sweeteners. Chem Senses 28(3):219-29.
Schmidl MK, Labuza TP. 2000. Essentials of Functional Foods. Gaithersburg: Aspen
Pub.
Smit HJ, Rogers PJ. 2002. Effects of'energy' drinks on mood and mental performance:
critical methodology. Food Qual Pref 13(5):317-26.
Smith DM, Awad AC, Bennink MR, Gill JL. 1995. Cholesterol reduction in liquid egg
yolk using P-cyqlodextrin. J Food Sci 60(4):691-4.
Soldo T, Hofmann T. 2005. Application of Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid
Chromatography/Comparative Taste Dilution Analysis for Identification of a Bitter
Inhibitor by a Combinatorial Approach Based on Maillard Reaction Chemistry. J Agric
Food Chem 53(23):9165-71.
Soufflet I, Calonnier M, Dacremont C. 2004. A comparison between industrial experts'
and novices' haptic perceptual organization: a tool to identify descriptors of the handle of
fabrics. Food Quality and Preference 15(7-8):689-99.
Steinley D. 2004. Properties of the Hubert-Arabie adjusted Rand index. Psychol Methods
9(3):386-96.
Stevens JC. 1997. Detection of very complex taste mixtures: generous integration across
constituent compounds. Physiol Behav 62(5): 1137-43.
Stone I-I, Sidel JL, 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press,
Szejtli J. 1988. Cyclodextrin Technology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 450 p.
cyclodextrins. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 61 (3): 115-25.
Szente L, Szejtli J. 2004. Cyclodextrins as food ingredients. Trends Food Sci Technol
15(3-4): 137-42.
170
Takeuchi T, Naae N, 1992. Stationary phase effect on enantioselectivity of dansyl

phenylalanine in microcolumn liquid chromatography with y-cyclodextrin as mobile
phase additive. J Chromatogr 595(l-2):121-4.
Tamamoto,L.C, Schmidt,S.J., Lee S. 2009. Sensory Profile of a Model Energy Drink
with Varying Levels of Functional Ingredients-Caffeine, Ginseng, and Taurine. J Food
Sci In Submission
Tamura M, Mori N, Miyoshi T, Koyana S, Kohri I-I, Okai H. 1990. Practical Debittering
Tuorila H, Cardello AV. 2002. Consumer responses to an off-flavor in juice in the
Urala N, Lahteenmaki L. 2003, Reasons behind consumers functional food choices. Nutr
Food Sci 33(4):148-58.
Vogler BK, Pittler MH, Ernst E. 1999. The efficacy of ginseng. A systematic review of
randomised clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55(8):567-75.
Diseases 15(3): 149-60.
Wansink B, Payne CR, North J. 2007. Fine as North Dakota wine: Sensory expectations
and the intake of companion foods. Physiol Behav 90(5):712-716.
Assoc 58(301):236-44.
Warskulat U, Flogel U, Jacoby C, Hartwig MG, Thewissen M, Merx MW, Molojavyi A,
Heller Stilb B, Schrader J, Haussinger D. 2004. Taurine transporter knockout depletes
muscle taurine levels and results in severe skeletal muscle impairment but leaves cardiac
function uncompromised. FASEB Journal 18(3):577.
Watson DH, 2003. Performance Functional Foods. Woodhead Publishing, Ltd. 300 p.
171
Williams EJ. 1950, Experimental designs balanced for pairs of residual effects.
Australian Journal of Scientific Research 3(3):351-363.
manganese exposure from drinking water. Environ Health Perspecl 110(6):613-6.
Yamauchi T, Markman AB. 2000. Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition 26(3):776-95,
Yatabe Y, Miyakawa S, Ohmori H, Mishima H, Adachi T. 2009, Effects of Taurine
Administration on Exercise. In: Anonymous Advances in Experimental Medicine and
Biology: Taurine 7, New York: Springer New York. p245-252.
Yeomans MR, Mobini S, Chambers L. 2007, Additive effects of flavour-caffeine and
flavour-flavour pairings on liking for the smell and flavour of a novel drink. Physiol
Behav 92(5):831-9.
Yu KK, inventor; 1993 Method for removing bitter taste of Ginseng. Korea Patent
930,005,196 B.
sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Physiol Behav 78(4-5):625-33.
ui.
mm
UM
um
: l !
M
lllllllli
l l:f l l l l l l l l l l l:'i 1 1 '^

lllllllilll
I II
m um MfMrnTTiii
iiinffrnirr
i I I 1
l l l i i l II
ITTTTITI
rrnTmr
lili
\mM i i i i i i i
ilmilm
lllllilllili
mm
M M
HIW
MP"
M
iniiiiiiiini
fflffl
IIMIT
mb
iJlJIHTT
I lllllllli
HE ml
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiryiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
MDI
lff||W|||!ll|l|'lll|l||QM
Bill
I Hi i
lllllll
l l l i
IM
MM
ii
M W i l liiimiiriiiiMn
HI I
UJ
Mil HIIIM i lit IIII i
i l l
I II :.lll|i|i| I lljlll I'M Will lllllllilll
fflmrnTi
JIM
MMTl
UL
II
raTiliiIII11ii ii
lllllllllllllllll|llllll|fl|
1IHH
ma
i mnv*-.
wrrrrrmt
OTI
ffifc
mm
MM WW\
HIIIIHT
DP HIHIIIIIIIIB
WB
II limn in
iniiiiiiiiiii
mIfflMi
Mimr
HTMI
IE
hllHIIllllllillllllillllll
M K
liHIH .wimmiMUft
iWilM
in
im in 11 iiiln iiiiii|i ui 11
aiJHtk
i;-g|tti;<ig
I llli j liljl llli II I lllllll

1 1 1 lljlll!
I IIIlM lllllll 11
MLUlll
iilniiiiniiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiliiiii
MR
WW&tfBi
iiTntnt
iMM
Willi II
rffui
m
arawmms
TgwPw
SB
Mil
UK
M
"IPS
WWHK
II IB I B
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
WW
lllll;lll|l|l|'ai
IlllllllllilllilllllllllblWIIll
MM.
lllllll
niiiii
fflT
lili
IMll
mm
m
IIIIIMHIIII
WflW
' ' i ; - , i - i | : i
ri!lllllii|l|l,ill|IIIBllll|ll|lil|i|ii||ll|l|
l|iini||HliMTI'liTIHli|illHli|||ill
i l l hi
TIM
nil
I IJM
I
lllllll
|IIHI|
,,,np, JTfllllii
I HI I
mm
\m
lllllllllllllllll
TrnjitrnTrrrT
ni|iH'iiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiin|iiiiiiiiiiiii:iii|ii|iiii|iw
IHTHiJI
ram
i, WWP
Nlll|il|ii||l||h
OUT
iiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniw
llllllillllllil
.MM
l| IB M i l
Ifflifflfl
nwsn
MI
\m
|l||H||||llllll|||||
HIM
iiniiiiH
ii
l l l i lllllllilll
lilHIMllllililiilii
|iii|i||i|||iii|iii
wmw
tesmnnmnw
WMHWt
iptwr-iK
iiiiiiiii
VW1WI)
mm in i
lllllillllllil
MM
Mm
mm
M
i nil
IIJPjjl
Ml
HI
III|I'1IIII||I1IIIIHI!II
iiinTHiHinn
i iiii I
ijili
WLffl
I'lllllllWllllllllllllllllDI
ill
HUH
Mil
11 wM<jjU|iiim!
nui
Ml
IBM HI I
lllllllllllllllllHIl
illlillllllilillilillllwlllllliHllillilQii
hi
lillllllllllllllllil
TOT irnm
II>H>
III
M
M
MDI
MM
M II
SHI
Ml
MDI
ma
lll ,|l ll illlllll!in in
nn
JW:
MD
ml
um
KSW
IUIIIIB
HIr
DM DTI lEQliOWTOB
mum
SMWIB
in
m in
msm
mm
llillllllFillltll'llll'lll^MF
LhH 111 ixLLi j Hi j
jgisi;
WWW!
mum
~Bm
JUffi
i flflTP
H HHI1 I I
H I' rTTTTTTBIIHTHil
lirnTnTT
lll|i|ilHlllllilHllliliillllllHlii[|||lili|||||llilli|
anaaMaawa
pi|]i)iTii']M3tii!|ii]|]|||!]|}'fJ!i!j|!i:fiij:ytfiif
APPENDIX B: TWO-STEP SENSORY SORTING METHOD-FREE SORTING

TASK SAMPLE SCORECARD
VISUAL SORT
Name of Group:
Group Cliaractcristics/Similaritics:
Comments:
Beverages in this Group
Name of Group:
Group Characteristics/Similarities:
Comments:
Beverages in this Group
APPENDIX C: TEMPLATE OF FUNCTIONAL BEVERAGE NAMES AND

NUMBER CODES STICKERS USED IN THE TWO-STEP SENSORY SORTING
METHOD
1 Arizona Pomegranate
41 Sobe Lean Energy
21 GoldPeak Iced Tea
Green Tea
Diet Citrus
2 Bolthouse Farms Fruit
22 Honest Tea
42 Sobe Life Water
Smoothie
43 Stonyfield Farm
23 Lifeway Lowfat Kefir
3 Boost
Organic Smoothie
24 Lipton Original White
4 Capri Sun Sport
44 Sweet Leaf Tea
Tea
5 Dannon - Danimals
25MDX
45 TAB Energy
6 Dannon - Light 'n Fit

Smoothie
26 Metromint
46 Tazo Iced Tea
7 Dannon - Frusion
47 Trinity Water
8 Dasani Flavored Water
27 Minute Maid Fruit

Falls
9 Elements Energy
29NOS
10 Ensure Shake
30 Pediasure
11 Fruit20
31 Powerade
12 Full Throttle
32 Powerade - Advance
13 Fuze "Refresh"
33 Powerade Option
34 Propel Fitness Water
15 Fuze Green Tea
35 Rockstar
36 Slimfast Optima
37 Snapple White Tea
38Sobe-NoFear
19 Gatorade Rain
39 Sobe - Power
20 Glucerna
40 Sobe - Tsunami
48 Whitney's Yo on the
i
Go
49 Yoplait Go-GURT
Smoothie
50 Yoplait Nouriche
SiiperSmoothie
175
APPENDIX D: TWO-STEP SENSORY SORTING METHOD SAMPLE SORTING

SCORECARD
Functional Beverage Categories
Directions:
Please read the categories and the characteristics of the categories. Then VISUALLY
evaluate the beverages and place each beverage into a category (stickers are provided for
this task). You may sample the beverages in any order and may go back and sample the
beverages as many times as you would like to,
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO PLACE EACH BEVERAGE INTO A CATEGORY!!!!
Energj' Drinks
Characteristics: Contains stimulants such as caffeine and taurine; provides extra energy
Enhanced Waters
Characteristics: Contains minimal calories, lightly flavored, clear liquid
Nutritional Drinks
Characteristics: Contains many nutrients could serve as a meal-replacement beverage
Smoothies
Characteristics: Contains fermented dairy products; opaque
Sports Drinks
Characteristics: Mineral or vitamin enhanced; does not contain caffeine; labeling targets
athletes
Teas
Characteristics: Contains tea or lea extracts
176
APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS RECRUITMENT PRESCREENING

QUESTIONNAIRE
Contact Information
Name:
Email:
Work Address:
Work Phone/Home Phone:
Are you willing to continue with this study?
Yes/No
Are able to participate on all the scheduled dates?
Yes/No
Questionnaire:
1. Gender (check one):
a
Male
"
Female
2. Age Group (check one):

a Under 21
a 21-30
a 31-40
a 41-50
a
a
a
a
51-60
61-70
71-80
over 80
3. Ethnicity (check one):

a White
a Black
a Hispanic
a
a
a
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other (please describe)
4. Are you currently on a restricted diet? If yes, please explain.
5. Do you have any of the following?

Dentures
a Diabetes
a Food Allergies
a
a
Yes/No
Oral or Gum Disease

Hypoglycemia
Hypertension
6. If you have allergies please list:
177
APPENDIX E (cont.)
7. Are there any foods or beverages that you hate?
8. Do you consume products containing ginseng?
Yes / No
If yes, what products do you consume?

9. Do you smoke?
Yes / No
178
APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS RECRUITMENT PRESCREENING

TASTE IDENTIFICATION TEST
Name:
Date:
SOLUTION TESTS
Your task is to recognize the basic taste of each sample solution (sweet, salty, sour or
bitter). Write in the blank which taste you perceive. When the sample tastes like water
mark with a "0". If your recognition is questionable, write a question mark "?". Retasting is allowed.
For each sample, take the sample into the mouth in sips and move it around in such a way
that it touches all parts of the tongue, Do not swallow the sample; use spit cups. Rinse
between samples with spring water.
Sample Codes
Basic Taste
347
734
562
523
923
279
485
,
.
PAPER TEST
Place the piece of filter paper on your tongue, close your mouth, and wet the paper with
saliva for 10 seconds.
Do you perceive a taste?
If so, what do you taste?
On a scale of 1-10 (ten being the strongest possible taste), circle the number that
represents how strong the taste you perceive is (if you didn't perceive anything,
leave this blank).
1 Very weak
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Very Strong
179
APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR SENSORY EVALUATION

STUDIES
INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR SENSORY EVALUATION PANELISTS
"EFFECTIVE MASKING AGENT TASTE TESTING"
You are invited to participate in a study involving sensory evaluation of ginseng

solutions. The goal of this research is to establish the perceived bitter levels of ginseng
solutions containing bitterness modifiers. These solutions will be evaluated using a
hybrid descriptive analysis method. You will be asked to taste each sample and rank the
samples by bitterness intensity. You will also be asked to taste each sample and rate the
bitterness intensity of each sample. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time
for any reason.
The study will be conducted at Bevier Hall Room # 376 (Sensory lab). We anticipate
that there will be two evaluations over a span of two weeks. Each evaluation session
will last about 10 minutes. Participation in the study will be voluntary.
Your performance in this study is confidential. Responses are coded to be anonymous
and any publications or presentations of the results of the research will only include
information about group performance.
You will be able to withdraw at any time during the course of the study. The
experimenter(s) also reserve the rights to terminate the study of an individual subject at
any time during the course of the whole study.
You are encouraged to ask any questions that you might have about this study whether
before, during, or after your participation. However, specific questions about the samples
that could influence the outcome of the study will be deferred to the end of the
experiment. Questions can be addressed to Dr. Soo-Yeun Lee (217-244-9435,
soolee@illinois.edu) or Lauren C. Tamamoto (217-333-9795, lhong3@illinois.edu). You
may also contact the IRB Office (217-333-2670, irb@illinois.edu) for any question about
the rights of research subjects. If you live outside the local calling area, you may also
call collect.
I understand the above information and voluntarily consent to participate in the study
described above. I have been offered a copy of this consent form.
D I am 18 years of age or older.
Signature
Date
Print Name
180
AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY
Lauren Chiemi Tamamoto was born and raised in the sunny and winterless
Honolulu, Hawaii. She completed her Bachelors of Science degree in Food Science and
Human Nutrition at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2003. As a Rotary
Ambassadorial Scholar, Lauren attended the University of Queensland in Brisbane,
Australia and obtained her Master of Science degree in Food Studies specializing in
Public Health Nutrition in 2004, Lauren returned to Hawaii to dapple in the kitchen and
earned Certificates of Completion in Culinary Arts and Patisserie at the Culinary Institute
of the Pacific at Kapiolani Community College in 2005. She then ventured off to the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to pursue her Ph.D in Food Science
specializing in Sensory Science. During her career as a "professional student" Lauren
has been a teaching assistant for Introduction to Food Science and Human Nutrition and
Sensory Evaluation of Foods. She has also competed and been a finalist in the Institute
of Food Technologists Product Development competition and the Almond Board's
Innovation Contest. After graduation, Lauren will continue her career working as a
Research Scientist at Frito-Lay in Piano, Texas.
181

Categorization and Sensory Profiling of Functional Beverages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Categorization and Sensory Profiling of Functional Beverages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing

ProQuest Information and Learning

CATEGORIZATION AND SENSORY PROFILING OF FUNCTIONAL BEVERAGES

UMI Number: 3395512

All rights reserved

2009 Lauren Chiemi Tamamoto

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

Chapter 3 - Categorization of Commercially-Available Functional Beverages by

Chapter 4 - Validation and Reproducibility Study of a Two-Step Sensory Sorting

Chapter 6 - Sensory Properties of Ginseng Solutions Modified by Masking Agents ....129

Appendix A: Functional Beverage Ingredient Inventory Comparison Chart

Appendix B: Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method-Free Sorting Task Sample

Appendix C: Template of Functional Beverage Names and Number Codes Stickers

Appendix D: Two-Step Sensory Sorting Method Sample Sorting Scorecard

Appendix F: Descriptive Analysis Recruitment Prescreening Taste Identification

Appendix G: Infonned Consent Form for Sensory Evaluation Studies

Table 3.1: Fifty commercially-available functional beverages and corresponding

Table 3.2: Functional beverage category names generated through visual

Table 3.3: Viscosities of Newtonian Functional Beverages measured at 20C

Table 3.4: Viscosities of non-Newtonian Functional Beverages at a shear rate

Table 4.1: Fifty commercially-available functional beverages and corresponding

Table 5.1: Amount of functional ingredients listed on Nutritional Facts labels of a

Table 5.2: Amount of functional ingredients (caffeine, ginseng, and taurine) in

Table 5.4: Analysis of Variance on 13 descriptive attributes rated for model

Table 5.5: Mean intensity scores of sensory attributes of varying levels of

Table 5.6: Correlation analysis on significant sensory attributes for 27

Table 6.3: Mean bitterness intensity rating scores (0 to 9) of bitterness

Table 6.4: Analysis of Variance on descriptive attributes rated for ginseng

Figure 2.2: Chemical Structure of Ginsenoside

Figure 2.3: Chemical Structure of Taurine

Figure 3.1: Multidimensional Scaling of the results of the ingredient inventory

Figure 3.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 50 functional beverages

Figure 3.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 33 Newtonian functional

Figure 3.4: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering of 17 non-Newtonian functional

Figure 3.5: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual free sort (Part 1) of 50 functional

Figure 3.6: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral free sort (Part 1) of 50

Figure 3.7: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual fixed sort (Part 2) of 50 functional

Figure 3.8: Multidimensional Scaling of a visual-oral fixed sort (Part 2) of 45

Figure 4.7: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 2's visual-oral fixed sort of 46

Figure 4.9: Multidimensional Scaling of Panel 3's visual-oral fixed sort of 46

Figure 5.1: Principal component analysis biplot of covariance matrix of mean

Figure 5.2: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of attribute ratings for

Figure 6.3: Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) of quinine bitter and

numerous hybrid-type beverages, which combine multiple concepts. Therefore, the

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

characteristics, such as bitterness or chalkiness. Studies, however, have shown that

2.2 Energy Drinks

increase its solubility (Spiller 1998). Caffeine is

ginseng are triterpenoid saponin glycosides,

of ginseng (Court 2000a). Ginseng extract is

known to have'antioxidant properties (Jung and

others 2002), and may aid in alleviating

humans and animals. It contains sulfur and was first

isolated from the bile of ox. It aids with bile acid

Figure 2.3: Chemical Structure of murine

conjugation, retinal development, and central

2.3 Bitter Taste

2.3.2 Masking Agents

there was no difference between consuming yogurt containing 8 g y-CDs/100 g versus no

2.4 Sorting and Categorization Mclhods

2.5 Concluding Remarks