Received: 23 June 2016 | Revised: 8 December 2016 | Accepted: 8 December 2016

DOI 10.1111/joss.12244

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The development of a lexicon for cashew nuts

L. E. Griffin1 | L. L. Dean2 | M. A. Drake1

1
Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and
Nutrition Science, North Carolina State Abstract
University, Raleigh, North Carolina A lexicon of flavor and texture terms was developed to describe the sensory characteristics of
2
Market Quality and Handling Research cashew nuts. A highly trained and experienced descriptive analysis panel (n 5 10, ages 22–58 each
Unit, United States Department of with at least 60 hr of descriptive work in nuts) was used to create the lexicon for cashews. After
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
initial identification and discussion of terms, 22 flavor terms, 4 texture terms, and 3 feeling factors
Raleigh, North Carolina
to describe the sensory attributes of cashews were identified. The lexicon was validated by dem-
Correspondence
Lisa Dean, Market Quality and Handling onstrating that the panel could detect differences among 18 different cashew samples, including
Research Unit, United States Department raw, oil-roasted, dry-roasted, skin-on, store-brand, national-brand, and rancid types when using
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
the identified lexicon. The differences in products were analyzed using analysis of variance and
Service, Raleigh, NC 27695.
principal component analysis. Differences in flavor and texture were observed across all product
Email: Lisa.Dean@usda.ars.gov
categories and the lexicon was validated.

Practical applications
The lexicon is intended for use in cashew research and by the cashew industry as a way for com-
municating differences in cashew flavor and texture in a common language.

1 | INTRODUCTION ous applications, a lexicon for cashews was developed to serve as a

The cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) tree originated in Brazil, was
spread to other tropical areas around the world, (Akinhanmi, Atasie, &
Akintokun, 2008) and today cashew nuts are viewed as a nutritional
food source worldwide (Trox et al., 2011). Cashews are currently
grown and processed predominately in tropical regions of Africa and
Asia (Akinhanmi et al., 2008). It is worth noting that cashew trees are a
resilient species that is allowed to self-propagate. As such, varying
environmental growing conditions, as well as storage and processing
conditions, can lead to high variability within cashew nuts (Akinhanmi
et al., 2008; Azam-Ali & Judge, 2001). India is currently the world
leader in cashew production, while the United States, the Netherlands,
Germany, and the United Kingdom are the largest importers of cash-
ews (Hebbar & Ramesh, 2005). Cashew nuts are ranked third in the
international trade of tree nuts after hazelnuts and almonds (Chandra-
sekara & Shahidi, 2011). In the United States specifically, cashews
make up approximately 50% of the volume of imported tree nuts each
year, followed by pecans at 15%, and Brazil nuts at only 6% (Perez,
2014). Cashews are used in snack, confectionary, and culinary applica-
tions (Azam-Ali & Judge, 2001; Lim, 2012) such as cakes, candies, choc-
olates, biscuits, and ice cream. Cashews may be ground into a flour or
butter and are used in dishes or sauces local to certain regions of the
world (Lim, 2012). Due to their popularity, high variability, and numer-
broad communication tool for the cashew industry.
Lexicons consist of a set of words and are useful tools to fully and
objectively describe the wide array of sensory attributes in a product
(Drake & Civille, 2003). A descriptive panel develops a lexicon by evalu-
ating samples that, as much as possible, cover the sensory space of the
product. A list of terms was identified from these samples and the
panel discusses all terms to remove redundant terms and reach consen-
sus on the list of appropriate terms. The developed lexicon is compre-
hensive but not redundant and each term has an associated reference
so that it is interpreted in the same manner by all present and future
panelists. Once complete, the lexicon can be used for applications such
as quality control, competitive product testing, and shelf-life studies
where precise intensity measurements of the sensory attributes of a
product are required (Drake & Civille, 2003; Lawless & Civille, 2013).
To date, several nut lexicons have been developed. The peanut
lexicon (Johnsen, Civille, Vercellotti, Sanders, & Dus, 1988), black wal-
nut lexicon (Miller & Chambers, 2013), and the almond lexicon (Civille,
Lapsley, Huang, Yada, & Seltsam, 2010) have been created and even
improved since original publications as is the case for the peanut lexi-
con (Sanders, Vercellotti, Blankenship, Crippen, & Civille, 1989). The
peanut lexicon contains flavor terms such as raw beany, dark roast,
woody/hulls/skins, and sweet aromatic. It also contains off-flavors such
as cardboardy, painty, and earthy, musty (Johnsen et al., 1988). The

J Sens Stud. 2017;32:e12244. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joss V

C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12244
2 of 10 | GRIFFIN ET AL.

black walnut lexicon consists of 21 flavor terms nutty-woody, nutty-
buttery, caramelized, and piney (Miller & Chambers, 2013). The almond
lexicon includes an exhaustive list of 62 descriptive terms that include
appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, and residual attributes. Terms
include dark roast and benzaldehyde for aroma, raw almond nut meat
and sweet aromatics for flavor, and hardness and cohesiveness for tex-
ture (Civille et al., 2010). More recently, a lexicon for raw and roasted
pecans was published listing 20 attributes including overall nutty, nutty-
buttery, woody, roasted, rancid, and oxidized (Magnuson, Kelly, Koppel,
& Reid, 2016). There is some overlap among the terms for each of
these nut lexicons, however, there are still many nuts that have not
been characterized. A lexicon does not yet exist for nuts such as pine
nuts, cashews, Brazil nuts, or pistachios. This indicates that there is a
specifically in the area of tree nuts and related foods especially peanuts
and edamame (edible green soybean) using the SpectrumTM method
(Meilgaard et al., 1999). The panelists, aged from 22 to 58 years were
faculty, staff, or students at North Carolina State University. All panel-
ists were experienced so that they could consistently identify and scale
basic tastes and aromatics using the universal 15-point scaling tech-
nique associated with the SpectrumTM method. All panelists were pres-
ent for all sessions of lexicon development, training, and sample
evaluation.
2.2 | Commercial cashew samples
Commercial cashews were purchased from local grocery stores and

large gap in the sensory space for tree nuts. used for the initial product screen to generate a list of possible terms

The purpose of this study was to develop a lexicon and standard to be used to describe cashew flavors and texture (Table 1). Name-

references for flavor, texture, and feeling factor descriptors for cashew brand, store brand, and other products with varied roasting techniques

nuts. Lexicon validation was confirmed by principal component analysis and salt levels were used to fully capture the sensory space of cashews

(PCA) and pairwise comparisons between attributes for 14 different for lexicon development. It was noted that the majority of cashew

cashew products. product available at the retail level were oil roasted and salted. Only
one skin on product and two raw unsalted products were available for
this study. In the initial product screening, brand information was not
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS withheld; however, in lexicon validation and reference scoring, six
cashew product samples were distributed to each panelist in individual
2.1 | Participants
closed containers marked with a three-digit code. All samples were
Sensory panelists consisted of three males and seven females, all with held at 48C in their original packaging and then equilibrated to room
extensive experience in descriptive sensory analysis (at least 60 hr), temperature before each panel session. In the case of the products

TA BL E 1 Cashew samples used for initial product screening and lexicon validation

Shelf life
Roasting Screening/ specifications
Samples specifications Salting validation (validation) Branding
a
1 Oil Roast Salted Both Tasted within shelf-life National Brand A

2 Oil Roast Salted Both Tasted within shelf-life National Brand B

3 Oil Roast Salted Both Tasted within shelf-life Store Brand A

4 Oil Roast Salted Both Tasted within shelf-life National Brand C

5 Raw Unsalted Screening NA Store Brand B

6 Oil Roast Salted Screening NA Store Brand C

7 Dry Roast Salted Screening NA Store Brand D

8 Raw Unsalted Both Tasted within, beyond Novel Brand A

shelf-life

9 Dry Roast Salted Both Tasted within, beyond Novel Brand A

shelf-life

10 Dry Roast with Skins Salted Both Tasted within, Novel Brand A
beyond shelf-life

11 Dry roasted in-house Unsalted Screening NA NA

12 Oil Roast Salted Validation Tasted beyond shelf-life Store Brand E

13 Oil Roast Salted Validation Tasted beyond shelf-life Store Brand B

14 Oil Roast Salted Validation Tasted beyond shelf-life Store Brand F

15 Oil Roast Salted Validation Tasted beyond shelf-life Store Brand G

a
Reference sample.
GRIFFIN ET AL. | 3 of 10

TA BL E 2 Preliminary cashew descriptor list during the initial stages of the cashew lexicon development. Other off-
flavors descriptors were added to the lexicon based on prior prelimi-
Nut flavors Infrequently present flavors Other flavors
nary work with cashew nuts before the actual lexicon development
Roasted cashew Cardboardy Fruity
commenced. The texture terms were selected as those the study panel
Toasted Fishy Fatty were familiar with and were used by other nut lexicons. The cashew
Nutty Oxidized Hay lexicon (Table 3) was complete when the entire panel could agree upon

Beany Wet earthy Paper

and generally identify all flavors, textures, and feeling factors included
in the working list of descriptors when tasting and scoring the refer-
Dark roast Metallic Hexanal
ence sample.
Sweet aromatic Ashy Brothy In the final stages of lexicon development, the reference sample
Smooth Greenwood bitter Rich was evaluated as a coded sample in six different four-sample panel ses-

Dairy cream Phenolic Baked Potato sions and the mean of panel intensities for descriptors in the samples
were used to define the reference intensities (Table 4). The reference
Buttery Unripe Caramel
sample was presented as a warm up at each subsequent panel. The ref-
Basic Tastes Basic Textures erence sample was tasted and attribute intensities discussed by the
Sweet Crispy panel before evaluating any other samples to ensure that inconsisten-
Sour Crunchy cies in the reference itself were not detected that could possibly affect
panel performance.
Salty Hardness
Before the panel could begin scoring commercial samples for lexi-
Bitter Breakdown
con validation, the panel required calibration. Four coded oil-roasted
Umami commercial brand cashews including the reference were tasted by the
panel on four separate occasions. The goal of the exercise was to have
meant to be tasted when rancid, container seals were opened and sam- the panel match intensities of the blind reference sample with the pre-
ples were left at room temperature (20–228C) in their original contain- established reference values. When the panelists were able to score
ers to age beyond the shelf-life. the blind reference sample within 0.5 of the reference intensity score,
the panel was considered calibrated and ready to taste and score other

2.3 | Initial product screening commercial samples for lexicon validation.

In the initial screening of cashews, the sensory panel met for 1 hr on 3

occasions to taste, evaluate, and discuss possible terms to describe
cashew flavor and texture. All products evaluated at this time were
purchased within 1 week of the panel and freshly opened. Table dis-
cussion followed the tasting of each sample. An exhaustive list of
cashew flavor and texture descriptor terms was compiled for lexicon
2.5 | Evaluation protocol
All cashew products were evaluated after being equilibrated to room
temperature (20–228C). Panelists were assembled at a shared table for
each evaluation. The room was lit with standard fluorescent lighting.
Before evaluating samples, all panelists calibrated their palates with the

development (Table 2). It was also decided during the initial product reference sample by tasting the sample, rating it against the predeter-

screening that the leading national brand of oil roasted cashews would mined standard values and discussing the attribute values. After cali-

be used as a reference sample for the panel. The reference sample was bration, panelists proceeded to taste and evaluate samples one at a

evaluated at the beginning of each session. No deviations were noted time in a random order using the SpectrumTM method 15-point univer-

in the reference over the course of the study.
2.4 | Lexicon development
From the list of descriptors generated in the initial product screening
(Table 2), panel consolidated like terms and eliminated redundant ones.
The list of descriptors continued to evolve during 4 subsequent 1 hr
panel meetings as other unique cashew products and other tree nuts
were tasted. Definitions for the flavor and texture terms were also dis-
cussed. The peanut lexicon (Johnsen et al., 1988) and the almond lexi-
con (Civille et al., 2010) definitions and references were used as
models, as very little work on cashew flavor profiling has been reported
with the exception of one study characterizing the volatile compounds
present (Agila & Barriger, 2011). The published lexicons for other nuts
was most useful in defining off-flavors not present in the fresh samples
sal intensity scale. No more than six samples, not including the refer-
ence sample were evaluated in one session. Samples were presented
to panelists in six whole-nut aliquots in lidded containers marked with
three-digit codes. Panelists were instructed to chew at least four indi-
vidual nuts separately to score texture attributes as these were defined
on a whole nut basis. Tasting multiple nuts allowed for a reduction in
nut-to-nut variation in scores. After the texture scoring was complete,
panelists were instructed to sample the remaining nuts to score the fla-
vor attributes. The panelists were instructed to report scores for any
off-flavors were only when those attributes were detected at levels
above 1.0. Scoring of all other attributes, including the feeling factor,
astringency was mandatory. Between samples, panelists cleansed their
palates with crackers (Nabisco Premium Unsalted Tops, East Hanover,
NJ) and in-house deionized water (Purologix, Durham, NC). A two-
minute break was required between samples to reduce fatigue and
4 of 10 | GRIFFIN ET AL.

TA BL E 3 Cashew lexicon with definitions and references* TA BL E 3 (continued)

Descriptor Definition Descriptor Definition

d
Flavors Earthy, musty Aromatics associated with wet dirt, mulch
a,b Reference: Wet soil or a musty basement (aroma)
Roast cashew The aromatic associated cashew nuts that
have been gently oil or dry roasted
Phenolic, bandage Aromatics associated with chewing a plastic
*Reference: Planters Deluxe Cashews bandage in the mouth
a Reference: Chewing on a plastic bandage
Other nut meat Aromatics associated with nuts other than
cashew
Basic tastes
Reference: Mixture of pistachios, hazelnuts, and
c
almonds Sweet The taste on the tongue associated with sugars
b
Reference: 5.0% sucrose in distilled water
Beany, raw The aromatic associated with lightly roasted
cashews that have an unripe characteristic Sour c
The taste on the tongue associated with acid
Reference: Raw cashew nuts/legumes Reference: 0.08% citric acid in distilled water
b
Dark roast The aromatic associated with dark-roasted Salty c
The taste on the tongue associated with
cashews that have a toasted or burnt sodium chloride
characteristic
Reference: 0.3% sodium chloride in distilled water
Reference: Cashews roasted for too long
c
b
Bitter The taste on the tongue associated with
Sweet aromatic Aromatics associated with cooked, sweet caffeine, alkaloids, quinine
materials
Reference: 0.1% solution caffeine
Reference: molasses, caramel, and cooked sugar
c
f
Umami The taste on the tongue associated with
Creamy, buttery Aromatic associated with dairy cream or melted monosodium glutamate, ribonucluotides
butter
Reference: 1% monosodium glutamate in distilled
Reference: half and half, heavy cream water
f
Cooked, fried The aromatic associated with deep-fried foods Feeling factors
Reference: Fried foods like chicken or shrimp
c
Astringent Feeling factor associated with dryness and
Woody, skins d
The aromatic associated with base cashew puckering of the mouth
character (absence of fragrant top notes) and Reference: 1% alum in distilled water
dry cashew hulls and skins
e
Reference: Peanuts in the shell Tongue, throat burn Chemical feeling factor associated with heat, or
capsaicin
a
Baked potato The aromatic associated with baked potatoes Reference: Spanish smoked hot paprika
that have a starchy characteristic
a,f
Reference: A fresh baked potato, room tempera- Fatty Feeling of mouth coating associated with
ture eating vegetable oil or butter
Reference: A stick of butter
a,c
Fruity Aromatics associated with fruit
Reference: Brewed floral/fruity tea at room Textures
temperature d
Crispy Amplitude of high-pitched sound associated
Greenwood bitter Aromatics associated with uncooked vegeta- with biting with incisors
bles, twigs, grass, and cis-3-hexenal Reference: Corn chips (Frito-Lay)
Reference: Uncooked cruciferous vegetables d
Crunchy Amplitude of low-pitched sound associated
Cardboardy d
Aromatics associated with partially oxidized oil with mastication of sample with molars
and characteristics of a cardboard box, stale- Reference: Corn chips (Frito-Lay)
ness
d
Reference: Cashews exposed to moisture, old Hardness Amount of force required to break through the
cashews, cashew pasted with skins?? sample with molars
Reference: Corn chips (Frito-Lay)
Fishy d
Aromatics associated with old fish, cod liver oil,
a
or trimethylamine Breakdown Ease at which the sample breaks as it is
Reference: Cooked tilapia or salmon filet chewed with molars
Reference: Corn chips (Frito-Lay)
c
Metallic Chemical feeling factor associated with metal
a
or coins in the mouth Civille et al. (2010); bJohnsen et al. (1988); cKrinsky et al. (2006); dLee
Reference: coins in the mouth and Resurreccion (2006); eYoung, Sanders, Drake, Osborne, and Civille
(2005); fAgila and Barringer (2011).
Painty d
The aromatic associated with oil-based paint or *The references presented here are for general flavor, not intensity
linseed oil scaling.
Reference: Cashew paste with added rancid oil
(continues)
T A BL E 4 Intensities of attributes in cashews

On-flavors
GRIFFIN

Samples Roast cashew Other nut meat Beany, raw Dark roast Sweet aromatic Creamy, buttery Cooked, fried Woody, skins Baked potato Fruity
ET AL.

a
1 (OR, S, F) 4.1a 1 0.5 1.6c 1 0.7 2.3d 1 0.6 1.9ab 1 0.5 3.8a 1 0.6 3.8a 1 0.4 2.0ac 1 0.7 1.2e 1 0.6 1.4b 1 0.7 1.9b 1 0.9

2 (OR, S, F) 3.5a 1 0.5 1.8bc 1 0.6 2.6bd 1 0.6 1.6ab 1 0.5 3.3a 1 0.8 3.8a 1 0.7 1.7acde 1 0.6 1.6de 1 0.5 1.6bc 1 0.5 1.9ab 1 0.5

3 (OR, S, F) 4.3a 1 0.7 1.8bc 1 0.6 1.9c 1 0.6 2.0ab 1 0.8 3.8a 1 0.7 4.1a 1 0.5 2.6ad 1 0.6 1.4de 1 0.4 1.8abc 1 0.6 1.8ab 1 0.8

4 (OR, S, F) 3.9a 1 0.6 1.7c 1 0.5 2.2d 1 0.7 1.9ab 1 0.6 3.4a 1 0.5 3.9a 1 0.4 2.4ad 1 0.9 1.4de 1 0.6 1.8abc 1 0.6 1.9b 1 0.5

8 (R, US, F) ND 3.0a 1 0.6 3.5a 1 0.5 ND 1.2b 1 1.1 3.5b 1 0.5 ND 1.6de 1 0.5 1.9abc 1 0.6 2.5a 1 0.5

8a (R, US, A) ND 2.9a 1 0.3 3.3a 1 0.4 ND 2.3ab 1 0.4 3.6b 1 0.6 ND 1.6de 1 0.8 2.0abc 1 0.7 2.6ab 1 0.8

9 (DR, S, F) 3.5a 1 0.5 2.0bc 1 0.4 2.3bd 1 0.5 1.5b 1 0.5 3.2a 1 0.5 3.9a 1 0.4 1.0cdef 1 0.8 1.5de 1 0.4 2.0ac 1 0.5 2.1ab 1 0.6

9a (DR, S, A) 1.2c 1 0.8 2.4b 1 0.7 2.9bd 1 0.4 ND 2.0a 1 0.8 3.4a 1 0.6 ND 2.3c 1 0.7 1.8abc 1 0.5 2.0b 1 0.6

10 (DR w/ Skin, S, F) 2.6d 1 0.8 2.7ab 1 0.7 1.7c 1 0.6 2.1a 1 0.7 2.5a 1 0.7 3.2b 1 0.8 ND 3.6b 1 0.8 2.3a 1 1.2 2.2ab 1 0.9

10a (DR w/ Skin, S, A) 2.3bd 1 0.6 2.3bc 1 0.5 2.4bd 1 0.5 1.7ab 1 0.5 2.3ab 1 0.6 3.3b 1 0.7 1.4cde 1 0.6 3.9a 1 0.8 2.1ac1 0.7 1.9b 1 0.5

12 (OR, S, A) 2.8bd 1 0.8 2.2bc 1 0.4 2.6bd 1 0.3 1.5b 1 0.5 3.4a 1 0.6 3.7ab 1 0.4 1.8ac 1 0.4 1.3de 1 0.3 1.8abc 1 0.4 2.0ab 1 0.4

13 (OR, S, A) 2.8bd 1 0.6 2.2bc 1 0.3 2.1cd 1 0.5 1.6ab 1 0.5 3.4a 1 0.8 3.7b 1 0.4 2.0ac 1 0.4 1.4de 1 0.3 2.0ac 1 0.5 2.3ab 1 0.5

14 (OR, S, A) 2.8abd 1 0.7 2.2bc 1 0.3 2.1cd 1 0.5 1.6ab 1 0.5 3.4a 1 0.8 3.7b 1 0.4 2.0ac 1 0.4 1.4d 1 0.3 2.1d 1 0.5 2.3ab 1 0.5

15 (OR, S, A) 3.4bc 1 0.4 2.1bc 1 0.4 2.0bc 1 0.5 2.0ab 1 0.5 3.5a 1 0.8 3.8a 1 0.5 2.5eg 1 0.6 1.6d 1 0.5 2.1ac 1 0.4 2.2ab 1 0.5
Off-flavors
Greenwood bitter Cardboardy Fishy Metallic Painty Earthy, musty Phenolic, Plastic bandage

1a (OR, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2 (OR, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

3 (OR, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4 (OR, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

8 (R, US, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

8a (R, US, A) ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.0a 1 1.0

9 (DR, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

9a (DR, S, A) ND 2.5a 1 1.3 ND ND 2.8a 1 1.4 ND 1.0a 1 1.0

10 (DR w/ Skin, S, F) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

10a (DR w/ Skin, S, A) ND 2.1ab 1 1.4 ND ND 2.2a 1 1.5 ND 1.1a 1 1.1

12 (OR, S, A) ND 1.4b 1 1.2 ND ND 1.0b 1 0.9 ND ND

|

(continues)
5 of 10
T A B LE 4 (continued)
6 of 10

Off-flavors
|

Greenwood bitter Cardboardy Fishy Metallic Painty Earthy, musty Phenolic, Plastic bandage

13 (OR, S, A) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

14 (OR, S, A) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

15 (OR, S, A) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Basic tastes
Sweet Salty Sour Bitter Umami
a
1 (OR, S, F) 3.8b 1 0.5 3.0bce 1 0.7 ND 1.2d 1 0.3 1.9ab 1 0.6

2 (OR, S, F) 3.9b 1 0.6 2.7abcd 1 1.1 ND 1.2d 1 0.5 1.8ab 1 0.5

3 (OR, S, F) 4.1b 1 0.5 3.6cd 1 0.8 ND 1.1d 1 0.4 2.2a 1 0.5

4 (OR, S, F) 4.0a 1 0.5 4.5abd 1 0.9 ND 1.0d 1 0.5 2.1a 1 0.6

8 (R, US, F) 4.0b 1 0.7 ND ND 1.0d 1 0.5 1.6b 1 0.6

8a (R, US, A) 3.9ab 1 0.6 ND ND 1.1d 1 0.2 1.8ab 1 0.5

9 (DR, S, F) 4.0b 1 0.6 1.3f 1 0.8 ND 1.3d 1 0.8 1.0ab 1 0.3

9a (DR, S, A) 2.8c 1 0.5 ND ND 1.9b 1 0.7 1.8ab 1 0.5

10 (DR w/ Skin, S, F) 3.2bc 1 0.6 2.3c 1 1.0 ND 1.6c 1 0.8 2.1a 1 0.5

10a (DR w/ Skin, S, A) 2.8c 1 0.6 3.1bcde 1 0.8 ND 2.6a 1 0.7 2.2a 1 0.5
12 (OR, S, A) 3.6ab 1 0.5 ND 1.1d 1 0.3 2.1a 1 0.3

13 (OR, S, A) 3.8ab 1 0.6 1.4f 1 0.7 ND 1.1d 1 0.3 2.3a 1 0.4

14 (OR, S, A) 3.8ab 1 0.6 1.4ce 1 0.7 ND 1.1d 1 0.3 2.3a 1 0.4

15 (OR, S, A) 3.6ab 1 0.5 2.4ce 1 0.6 ND 1.2d 1 0.5 2.2a 1 0.5

Feeling factors Textures
Astringent Tongue & Throat Burn Fatty Crispy Crunchy Hardness Breakdown
a
1 (OR, S, F) 1.0b 1 0.5 ND 4.5ab 1 0.7 1.7cd 1 0.5 4.0a 1 0.6 4.3ab 1 0.8 7.5a 1 1.1

2 (OR, S, F) 1.0b 1 0.4 ND 4.1abc 1 0.7 1.5cd 1 0.5 3.5ab 1 0.9 4.3ab 1 1.1 6.9ab 1 1.1

3 (OR, S, F) ND ND 4.8a 1 0.8 2.0cd 1 0.8 4.2a 1 0.8 4.5ab 1 0.7 6.8ab 1 0.7

4 (OR, S, F) 1.0ab 1 0.5 ND 4.6ab 1 0.8 1.8cd 1 0.5 3.8ab 1 0.8 4.3b 1 0.6 7.0ab 1 0.8

8 (R, US, F) 1.0ab 1 0.4 ND 4.0bc 1 0.5 2.2c 1 0.6 3.6ab 1 1.0 4.7ab 1 0.7 6.4b 1 1.2

8a (R, US, A) 1.2a 1 0.6 ND 4.2abc 1 0.4 2.0cd 1 0.6 3.6ab 1 1.0 4.0b 1 1.0 6.9ab 1 0.9

9 (DR, S, F) 1.0ab 1 0.4 ND 4.5ab 1 0.6 2.1d 1 0.6 4.0a 1 0.6 4.5ab 1 0.6 7.0ab 11.5
GRIFFIN

(continues)
ET AL.
GRIFFIN ET AL. | 7 of 10

variability. Data was collected on paper ballots with listings of all the

7.7ab 1 n1.2
Breakdown

6.8ab 1 1.1

7.3ab 1 0.8

7.2ab 1 0.6

7.2ab 1 0.6
6.8a 1 1.1

7.5a 1 0.8
attributes and separate columns for each sample.

2.6 | Lexicon validation

All samples were selected for the validation study based on their avail-
ability in the retail marketplace. As such, oil-roasted and salted samples
were the most abundant in the study as they dominate the roasted
4.7ab 1 0.7

4.5ab 1 0.7
3.0b 1 1.0

4.0b 1 1.0

3.7b 1 1.2
4.1a 1 0.6

4.1a 1 0.6
Hardness

cashew marketplace. Only one sample of dry-roasted and salted sam-

ple was available to include in the study. The skin-on sample was a
new, novel product included for completeness of the study.
Validation was completed by using the cashew lexicon to score
attributes for 14 different samples of cashew products including raw,

ND 5 not detected, panel mean below threshold; OR 5 oil-roasted; DR 5 dry roasted; R 5 raw; S 5 salted; U 5 unsalted; F 5 fresh; A 5 aged beyond shelf-life.
dry-roasted, oil-roasted, national brand, store brand, skin-on, and rancid
4.1ab 1 0.8

3.8ab 1 0.8

3.8ab 1 0.8

3.5bc 1 1.1
4.3aa 1 0.8
2.7c 1 1.0

3.3c 1 1.0
Crunchy

types (Table 1). As indicated in Table 1, some products were evaluated

only within the recommended shelf life while others were evaluated
with and 12 months beyond the recommended shelf life. In the case of
the rancid samples, panelists tasted them periodically throughout the
shelf life period and samples were deemed rancid once off-flavors
were detected and fresh flavors were diminished. Once the samples
1.7cd 1 0.5

1.9cd 1 0.7

1.9cd 1 0.7

1.9cd 1 0.8
3.3b 1 0.7

3.9a 1 1.1
1.4c 1 0.4
Textures

were deemed rancid, they were evaluated and scored by the panel.
Crispy

These scores were used for further lexicon validation.

For validation, each panelist evaluated these cashews on three sepa-
rate occasions and mean intensity scores for the descriptor terms were
calculated. The ability of the panel to detect differences among the prod-
ucts, demonstrated through PCA and pairwise comparisons, indicated
4.1abc 1 0.5

4.4abc 1 0.4

4.5ab 1 0.3

4.5ab 1 0.3

4.5ab 1 0.6
4.0bc 1 1.0

3.8c 1 0.5

that the lexicon accurately described cashew flavor and texture and was
Fatty

validated (Hawyakawa, Ukai, Nishida, Kazami, & Kohyama, 2010).

2.7 | Statistical methods

Statistical analysis of the cashew descriptive analysis data was per-
Tongue & Throat Burn

formed using SAS (version 9.2, Cary, NC). The proc mixed procedure
Means in a row not followed by a common letter are statistically different, p < .05.

was utilized to perform analysis of variance (ANOVA) with least square

means for means separation. The samples were fixed effects, the panel-
ists were random effects, and the replications were random effects.
1.1a 1 1.1

1.4a 1 1.0

Attributes were scored using a 0 to 15-point universal intensity scale.

Given the large number of pairwise comparisons to be made within

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

each attribute, it was deemed unfavorable to perform post-hoc tests

on the data given that such a test as Bonferroni’s highly significant dif-
Off-flavors only reported when detected at levels >1.0.

ference would require p < .000001 to determine significance with such

Feeling factors

a large sample size. For this data set, pairwise comparison with adjust-
ment was chosen with significance determined at p < .01.
1.3ab 1 0.4

1.0ab 1 0.1

1.0ab 1 0.0
Astringent

1.7a 1 0.7

2.2a 1 0.6

1.0a 1 0.0

1.1a 1 0.2

In addition to ANOVA and pairwise comparisons analysis, PCA

Samples are represented as averages 6 SD.

was performed using JMP (Pro 12 version, Cary, NC) and a variance-
covariance matrix.
Designates reference sample.

3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

10a (DR w/ Skin, S, A)
(continued)

10 (DR w/ Skin, S, F)

3.1 | Cashew lexicon

12 (OR, S, A)

13 (OR, S, A)

14 (OR, S, A)

15 (OR, S, A)
9a (DR, S, A)

The list of descriptors, with corresponding definitions and references,

can be found in Table 3. A total of 17 flavor terms, 5 basic taste terms,
T A B LE 4

4 texture terms, and 3 feeling factors were identified by the panel. The
flavor terms were further divided into 10 on-flavor aromatics, and 7
a
8 of 10 | GRIFFIN
off-flavor aromatics. As discussed above, off-flavors were not required
to be scored by the panel unless present at levels higher than 1.0, the
defined threshold of detection for the SpectrumTM method. Table 4
shows the average intensity scores produced by the panel for all 14
cashew samples scored as part of the cashew lexicon validation proce-
dure. The values were the averages of the panel scores from three sep-
arate days. Among flavor attributes for the product, all attributes were
scored lower than 5, proving cashews to be mild in flavor (Civille et al.,
2010). Texture intensities scored as high as 7 in some samples. In some
of the aged samples, the off-flavors cardboardy, painty, phenolic/Plastic
bandage, and tongue and throat burn (TTB) were detected above detec-
tion level. These values were included in Table 4. Although some other
off-flavors were detected in some samples, when averaged across pan-
elists, the intensities were not above the detection limit. The values
were therefore not included in Table 4, but they could be present
above the detection limit in other future cashew samples.
3.2 | Pairwise comparisons and PCA
Analysis of variance was performed on the data presented in Table 4
for the differentiation of cashew brands and validation that the lexicon
was able to properly discriminate brands based on the attributes
included in the lexicon. Several key differentiation attributes were
identified.
Roast cashew, the aromatic associated with nuts that have been oil
or dry roasted, was different among the product types. Oil-roasted
nuts were highest in this attribute, and raw samples were lowest. Sam-
ple 3 nuts, a store brand, were actually the highest in roast cashew fla-
vor, higher than even the leading national brand. This suggests that
roast cashew flavor may not be the only driver of consumer liking of
cashew nuts, however, future work addressing the role of extrinsic and
intrinsic properties on consumer drivers of liking for cashews would be
required to confirm this. It was also noted that the skin-on nuts (sample
10) were significantly lower in terms of roast cashew flavor compared
to the nuts high in roast cashew flavor, which suggested the panelists
found the flavors in the skins were overpowering roast cashew flavor.
Similarly, the stored nuts were lower in roast cashew flavor compared
to the fresh oil-roasted and dry-roasted nuts, indicating that roast
cashew flavor decreased due to aging or was overtaken by the increase
in the notes associated with lipid rancidity. This trend of decreasing
roasted flavor during shelf life has been observed extensively in peanut
flavor (Riveros et al., 2010). These observations suggest there is a bal-
ance between roast cashew notes and these other flavors.
The fresh and aged raw nuts (sample 8 and 8a) were high in other
nut meat flavor, the base aromatic note associated with tree nuts such
almonds (Civille et al., 2010). Additionally, the aged oil-roasted nuts
(samples 12–15) had increased other nut meat flavor compared with
their fresh counterparts. These observations suggest that to the panel-
ists, other nut meat was prominent in raw samples, that is before roast-
ing, decreased as the roast cashew flavor developed with roasting, then
became prominent once more as the nuts aged and roast cashew flavor
diminished. The raw samples (8, 8a) were also highest in beany, raw fla-
vor compared with all other samples, as they had not been subjected
ET AL.
to heat treatment to alter or destroy the compounds responsible for
beany, raw flavor. In contrast, the skin-on nuts (sample 10) had lower
beany, raw scores, and higher dark roast scores, whereas the other
cashew samples, regardless of aging or roasting type, had higher beany,
raw flavor than dark roast flavor, indicating that the cashew skins were
overpowering beany, raw flavor.
Woody, skins flavor was observed predominantly in the fresh and
rancid skin-on nuts (samples 10, 10a), which was attributed to the nut-
skin material. The rancid skin-on samples had significantly more woody,
skins flavor than the fresh samples, suggesting that woodiness could
increase during aging. This trend was also seen in the dry-roasted nuts,
which had more woody, skins flavor than the oil-roasted nuts and
exhibited increased woody, skins flavor after aging. All other cashew
samples had a woody, skins flavor score greater than 1.0, implying that
despite the removal of the skins, either some residual flavor remained
in the samples, and/or the samples themselves contain some flavor
compounds that elicit woody, skins flavor. No chemical analysis was
performed to determine flavor compounds in any of the cashew sam-
ples in this study to make attributions as to flavor sources. There is no
recent study of cashew flavor compounds to consult to attribute fla-
vors described in this study. An older study reported compounds that
have been found in other roasted foods, such as pyrazines (Jaya-
lekshmy & Narayanan, 1989). Regardless, of the source, the intensity
of woody, skins flavor was increased due to the presence of the cashew
skins. This concept has been observed in peanuts as well. Peanuts
devoid of skins also have some residual woody, skins flavor (Johnsen
et al., 1988).
Fruity flavor was highest in the raw samples (8, 8a), followed by
samples 13 and 14, which suggested that fruity flavor compounds were
reduced by roasting and increased again after aging. The skin-on nuts
(sample 10) also had a high level of fruity flavor, which suggested that
the skins may also have some fruity flavor compounds themselves,
however this would need to be verified by chemical analysis. Fruity fla-
vor is a term that is also part of the almond lexicon, suggesting that
fruity flavor is a descriptive characteristic of tree nuts (Civille et al.,
2010). By establishing the lexicon for cashews, a platform for relating
attributes to consumer liking or to specific chemical compounds is
established (Drake & Civille, 2003). Future studies should relate flavor
active compounds in cashews to those lexicon terms established in this
study.
Saltiness was the most variable of the basic tastes, which was due
to differences in the amount of added sodium to the different prod-
ucts. The unsalted product scores for saltiness were below the detec-
tion limit, while sample 4, an oil-roasted national brand product had the
highest saltiness intensity. The lack of saltiness in the un-salted products
indicated that cashews contained no detectable saltiness on their own
without added sodium. Raw almonds also do not contain any natural
salty taste (Civille et al., 2010).
The skin-on cashews were the most bitter of all the samples, sug-
gesting the skins were imparting increased bitter taste and astringency
than the nuts alone. This was due to the presence of phenols in the
nut skins (Trox et al., 2011). The aged dry-roasted nuts (sample 9a) also
GRIFFIN ET AL. | 9 of 10

TA BL E 5 Factor loadings of attributes

Attribute Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Roast cashew 0.88 0.39 20.15 0.09

Other nut meat 20.83 20.26 0.41 0.15

Raw, beany 20.57 20.66 20.05 20.38

Dark roast 0.66 0.66 20.05 0.30

Sweet aromatic 0.69 0.24 20.55 20.02

Creamy, buttery 0.88 20.28 20.11 20.18

Cooked, fried 0.82 0.38 20.23 0.11

Woody, skins 20.61 0.70 0.22 0.07

Baked potato 20.39 0.36 0.43 0.56

Fruity 20.44 20.50 0.34 0.51

Cardboardy 20.62 0.48 20.52 20.18

F I G U R E 1 Principal component analysis of cashews [Color figure
Painty 20.60 0.42 20.54 20.39
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Phenolic, band aid 20.59 0.35 20.20 0.23

Sweet 0.65 20.66 0.30 0.00 rancid oil-roasted nuts (samples 12–15) did not develop off-flavors
above the limit of detection after the aging process, the on-flavors
Salty 0.68 0.57 20.01 20.03
such as roast cashew were scored lower.
Bitter 20.54 0.78 20.18 20.08
The panelists were only able to distinguish major differences in the
Umami 0.40 0.71 0.05 0.42 cashew texture using the crispy attribute. The wrapped nuts had signifi-
Astringent 20.72 0.64 0.12 0.12 cantly higher crispy intensity than all other nuts, likely due to the pres-

TTB 20.09 0.63 0.19 20.66

ence of the dried skins. Additionally, sample 9 had significantly more
crispiness than the aged counterpart (sample 9a).
Fatty 0.89 20.09 20.14 0.04
Based on the ability of the lexicon to differentiate the products
Crispy 0.01 0.66 0.69 20.25 outlined in Table 5, the lexicon was considered validated. It will be use-
Crunchy 0.44 0.37 0.73 20.21 ful for the further descriptive analysis of cashew nuts.
Hardness 0.48 0.21 0.63 20.18

Breakdown 20.19 20.02 20.59 0.70 3.3 | Principal component analysis

% Explained variability 37.9 25.4 14.1 9.7 PCA was performed on the data to determine similarities between

Numbers in bold are believed to be of primary importance for principal
components 1–3 for a factor loading > |0.5|.
Numbers in bold for principal component 4 had a loading > |0.5| and
were not selected for principals 1–3 but may be of importance.
Off-flavors that were not detected above threshold value for any sam-
ples (earthy, musty, fishy, greenwood bitter, metallic, and sour) were not
included in the PCA.
attributes and brands (Figure 1). Scree plot examination indicated that
four principal components explained 87.4% of the variation (37.9% fac-
tor 1, 25.4% factor 2, 14.1% factor 3, and 9.7% factor 4). The factor
loading matrix can be found in Table 5. The major on-notes, roast
cashew, sweet aromatic, creamy, buttery, cooked, fried, sweet, salty, and
fatty were all positively correlated with principle component one. The
primary off-notes, cardboardy, painty, and phenolic, bandage, were nega-

exhibited high bitter scores, indicating that the dry roasting process
allowed for the development of bitter flavor during aging more so than
the oil-roasting process.
When evaluating the off-flavors among the stored samples, those
the panelists scored the highest in the off-flavors of painty, cardboardy,
phenolic/plastic bandage, and TTB were the aged dry-roasted and
wrapped nuts (9a, 10a). These observations indicated that lipid oxida-
tion occurred sooner in the dry-roasted samples than the oil-roasted
samples. As moisture is a contributing factor to lipid oxidation and the
moisture was removed from the oil-roasted samples, it is possible that
off-flavors related to lipid oxidation would develop more quickly (Ver-
cellotti, Angelo, & Spanier, 1992). As mentioned above, although the
tively correlated with principal component one. Dark roast, woody, skins,
bitter, umami, and crispy were positively correlated with principal com-
ponent two, while beany, raw, fruity, and astringent were negatively cor-
related with principal component two. Several other attributes, most
notably sweet, and dark roast did not completely fit with either principal
component one or two. This inability to group such attributes suggests
that there is no close relationship among the attributes as has been
reported in other flavor studies, such as for soymilk flavor (Chambers,
Jenkins, & Mcguire, 2006).
It was visible from the PCA plot that the commercial cashew prod-
ucts were well separated into several clusters and associated attributes
aligned with the results of ANOVA and pairwise comparisons. The raw
10 of 10 | GRIFFIN
and rancid raw products were clustered with the base flavors of cash-
ews including other nut meat, fruity, and raw, beany. The wrapped, ran-
cid dry-roasted, and rancid wrapped nuts were associated with bitter,
astringency, cardboardy, and painty flavors. The on-flavor vectors were
all positively correlated with principle component 1 and the fresh oil-
roasted products (samples 1, 3, and 4). Of these products, the national
brands were more closely associated with the flavor vectors of fatty
and creamy, buttery, suggesting that those attributes are linked to con-
sumer drivers of liking, but more extensive consumer studies would be
required to verify this. The other oil-roasted rancid products (samples
12–15) were associated with these on-flavor attributes to a lesser
extent, as indicated by the results of ANOVA.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
A well-defined and referenced lexicon for cashews was developed and
validated by a highly trained descriptive sensory analysis panel. The lex-
icon was comprehensive, nonredundant, and could be useful in quality
control, shelf-life, and product development applications. Unlike some
tree nuts such as almonds and similar commodities such as peanuts,
cashew cultivation has not reached the point of organized plant breed-
ing to make specific cultivars available in the commercial marketplace.
The need for a dedicated lexicon is even greater to allow for the study
of effects such as genotype and environment. With the lexicon
described in this work, major differences were observed based on the
presence of the skins, type of roasting, and rancidity.
RE FE RE NCE S
Agila, A., & Barringer, S.A. (2011). Volatile profile of cashews (Anacar-
dium occidentale L.) from different geographical origins during roast-
ing. Journal of Food Science, 76, C768–C774.
Akinhanmi, T., Atasie, V., & Akintokun, P. (2008). Chemical composition
and physiochemical properties of cashew nut (Anacardium occiden-
tale) oil and cashew nut shell liquid. Journal of Agriculture and Food
Environment, 2, 1–10.
Azam-Ali, S., & Judge, E. (2001). Small-scale cashew nut processing (Chap.
3, pp. 17–22). Colombo, Sri Lanka: FAO.
Chambers, E. I. V., Jenkins, A., & Mcguire, B. H. (2006). Flavor properties
of plain soymilk. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 165–179.
Chandrasekara, N., & Shahidi, F. (2011). Effect of roasting on phenolic
content and antioxidant activity of whole cashew nuts, kernels, and
testa. Journal of Agricuture and Food Chemistry, 59, 5006–5014.
Civille, G. V., Lapsley, K., Huang, G., Yada, S., & Seltsam, J. (2010). Devel-
opment of an almond lexicon to assess the sensory properties of
almond varieties. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 146–162.
Drake, M. A., & Civille, G. (2003). Flavor lexicons. Comprehensive Reviews
in Food Science and Food Safety, 2, 33–40.
Hawyakawa, F., Ukai, N., Nishida, J., Kazami, Y., & Kohyama, K. (2010).
Lexicon for the sensory description of French bread in Japan. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 25, 76–93.
ET AL.
Hebbar, U. M., & Ramesh, M. N. (2005). Optimization of processing con-
ditions for infrared drying of cashew kernels with testa. Journal of
Scientific and Food Agriculture, 85, 865–871.
Jayalekshmy, A., & Narayanan, C. S. (1989). Flavor constituents of
roasted cashew nuts. Chap. 33. In T. H. Parliament, R. J. McGorrin, &
C.-T. Ho (Eds.), Thermal generation of odors (pp. 355–364, Vol. 409).
ACS Symposium Series. Washington, DC: American Chemical
Society.
Johnsen, P. B., Civille, G. V., Vercellotti, J. R., Sanders, T. H., & Dus, C. A.
(1988). Development of a lexicon for the description of peanut fla-
vor. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 9–17.
Krinsky, B. F., Drake, M. A., Civille, G. V., Dean, L. L., Hendrix, K. W., &
Sanders, T. H. (2006). The development of a lexicon for frozen vege-
table soybeans (edamame). Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 644–653.
Lawless, L. J. R., & Civille, G. V. (2013). Developing lexicons: A review.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 270–281.
Lee, C. M., & Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2006). Descriptive profiles of
roasted peanuts stored at varying temperatures and humidity condi-
tions. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 433–456.
Lim, T. (2012). Edible medicinal and non-medicinal plants (Chap. 5, pp. 45–
68, Vol. 1). New York: Springer.
Magnuson, S. M., Kelly, B., Koppel, K., & Reid, W. (2016). A comparison
of flavor differences between pecan cultivars in raw and roasted
forms. Journal of Food Science, 81, S1243–S1253.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation tech-
niques (3rd ed., Chap. 9, pp. 133–159, Chap. 11, pp. 173–229). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Miller, A. E., & Chambers, D. H. (2013). Descriptive analysis of flavor
characteristics for black walnut cultivars. Journal of Food Science, 78,
S887–S893.
Perez, A. (2014). “Trade.” Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/crops/fruit-tree-nuts/trade.aspx#Tree Nuts. U.S. imports
Riveros, C. G., Mestrallet, M. G., Gayol, M. F., Quiroga, P. R., Nepote, V.,
& Grosso, N. R. (2010). Effect of storage on chemical and sensory
profiles of peanut pastes prepared with high-oleic and normal pea-
nuts. Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 90, 2694–2699.
Sanders, T. H., Vercellotti, J. R., Blankenship, P. D., Crippen, K. L., & Civ-
ille, G. V. (1989). Interaction of maturity and curing temperature on
descriptive flavor of peanuts. Journal of Food Science, 54, 1066–
1069.
Trox, J., Vadivel, V., Vetter, W., Stuetz, W., Kammerer, D. R., Carle, R.,
. . . Biesalski, H. K. (2011). Catechin and epicatechin in testa and their
association with bioactive compounds in kernels of cashew nut (Ana-
cardium occidentale L.). Food Chemistry, 128, 1094–1099.
Vercellotti, J. R. S. T., Angelo, A. J., & Spanier, A. M. (1992). Lipid oxida-
tion in foods: An overview. In St. Angelo (Ed.), Lipid oxidation in foods
(pp. 1–14). New York: American Chemical Society.
Young, N. D., Sanders, T. H., Drake, M. A., Osborne, J., & Civille, G. V.
(2005). Descriptive analysis and US consumer acceptability of pea-
nuts from different origins. Food Quality Preference, 16, 37–43.
How to cite this article: Griffin LE, Dean LL, Drake MA. The
development of a lexicon for cashew nuts. J Sens Stud. 2017;32:
e12244. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12244.
Copyright of Journal of Sensory Studies is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.