J Food Sci Technol
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04923-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Correlation between physical and sensorial properties of gummy
confections with different formulations during storage
Suzan Tireki1,2 • Gulum Sumnu2 • Serpil Sahin2
Revised: 16 November 2020 / Accepted: 18 November 2020
Ó Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2021
Abstract Gummy confections are popular products for-
mulated with sucrose, glucose syrups, gelling agents, acids,
flavourings and colouring agents. They have various
commercial types in terms of formulation, texture, taste
and colour, however, there is inadequate investigation on
storage behavior of these products. The aim of this study is
to investigate the effects of glucose syrup:sucrose ratio (1.1
and 1.5), starch (0% and 1.5%) and gelatine concentration
(3% and 6%) on texture profile, colour and sensory prop-
erties of gummy confections during storage. It was also
aimed to correlate sensorial changes with physical prop-
erties measured by instrumental techniques during storage
at 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C. The highest increase in hard-
ness was observed for formulation with 1.1 glucose
syrup:sucrose ratio, no starch and 6% gelatine. Storage
temperature had no significant effect on cohesiveness. It
was seen that rate of colour change increased with storage
time and temperature. Formulation with glucose syrup:su-
crose ratio of 1.5, no starch and 6% gelatine had the highest
sensory scores. This formulation was found to be the most
stable formulation in terms of hardness and gumminess,
meaning that it would need a stable mastication during
storage. Sensorial changes of gummy confections were
found to be correlated with instrumental results of texture
and colour.
& Gulum Sumnu
gulum@metu.edu.tr
1
Food Engineering Department, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim
University, Istanbul, Turkey
2
Food Engineering Department, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara, Turkey
Keywords Gummy confection  Gelatine  Starch 
Texture  Colour  Sensory analysis
Introduction
Gummy confections are sugar confectionery products,
which have the industrial production steps of mixing,
cooking, cooling, moulding, conditioning, demoulding,
coating and packaging (Jackson 1990). Gummy formula-
tions are typically composed of sucrose, glucose syrup,
gelling agents, acids, flavourings, colouring agents and
other ingredients. Sugar confectionery products have a
wide texture range from soft to hard depending on the
gelling agent type and the grade of glucose syrup used in
the formulation (Hull 2010).
Gelatine is used for proper chewiness, texture and gel-
ling in confectionery formulations. In most of the studies,
gelatine was combined with other gelling agents such as
starch (Delgado and Banon 2015; Marfil et al. 2012), pectin
(DeMars and Ziegler 2001) and xanthan gum (Kim et al.
2014) in the production of gummy confections. Excluding
moulding purpose, the role of starch in gummies is to give
base to the gel and to contribute to the textural properties.
Thin boiling type of starches are generally used in gum-
mies (Belitz and Grosch 1999). In starch gels, the system
does not remain static after gelation. The structure of gel
starts to retrograde during storage at room temperature
(Ratnayake and Jackson 2008). Retrogradation of starch
was known to be inhibited by the presence of sugar (Ko-
hyama and Nishinari 1991), low water content and pres-
ence of other gelling agents (Sworn 2011). Siegwein
(2010) used acid thinned wheat starch up to 11% in starch
confectionery. Marfil et al. (2012) studied texture and
microstructure of gummies prepared with gelatine and acid
123

modified corn starch at changing levels between 0 and
10%. Delgado and Banon (2015) investigated the
mechanical properties of gummies containing 8.02% acid
thinned corn starch and 3.39% gelatine.
Sucrose contributes to the texture and sensory properties
of gummy confections. It is mainly used as sweetener in
combination with glucose syrups. Sucrose addition to the
gummy confections helps to reduce haziness, to enhance
thermal stability and to promote gel structure (Holm et al.
2009; Kasapis et al. 2003). Furthermore, sucrose provides
mouthfeel to the gummies and increases the mass of the
product. Glucose syrups can improve the solubility of
sucrose and retard the sucrose crystallization in confec-
tionery products; thus sucrose is used together with glucose
syrups in the formulations. In addition, glucose syrups
prevent microbial growth by reducing water activity of the
confectionery. Therefore, there is no need to add preser-
vatives to the formulations, which is a desirable charac-
teristic from the consumer side (Belitz and Grosch 1999;
Burey et al. 2009; Porayanee et al. 2015). Although sucrose
inversion reaction can occur due to heat and acid treatment
during manufacturing of sugar confectionery, sugar spec-
trum of glucose syrups involved in the formulations do not
vary during processing and storage. Hence, it is important
to track the quality impacts of sugars, such as changes in
mouth-feel of consumers due to mass gain and increase in
sweetness after inversion. Besides, the effects of sugar
inversion and crystallization on sensory quality should be
monitored during storage in order to control the texture and
shelf life.
Although gummy confections have many varieties in the
global food market with different formulations and manu-
facturing methods, the sensitive interactions between the
critical ingredients during processing and storage of these
products are not studied before. Possible negative quality
impacts due to these interactions can be prevented before
launching the product to the food market by tracking the
storage of gummy confections. Correlations between
physical properties measured using instrumental techniques
and sensory analysis were studied for many food products
such as bread (Sabanis et al. 2009), cheese (Drake et al.
1999), dark chocolate (Owunsu et al. 2013) and roasted
pistachio nut/kernel (Moghaddam 2016). However, there is
no study involving the correlation between physical and
sensorial properties of gummy confectionery. Thus, the
major aim of this study was to correlate sensorial changes
of gummy confections with the physical properties mea-
sured with using instrumental techniques during storage.
This correlation information will have the potential usage
in the sugar confectionery industry to reduce the cost of
consumer tests and to save time. The other aim of the study
was to understand the effects of ratio of glucose syrup to
sucrose, type and concentration of gelling agent on the
123
J Food Sci Technol
sensorial properties, texture and colour of gummy
confections.
Materials and methods
Sample preparation
Gummy confections of 1000 g batches were prepared with
different formulations. Slurry of the gummies was prepared
by modifying the procedure described in the study of
DeMars and Ziegler (2001) and moulding part was done by
simulating a standard industrial production in the labora-
tory conditions. The effects of gelatine concentration (3%
and 6%) (Halavet, Istanbul, Turkey), corn starch concen-
tration (0% and 1.5%) (Roquette, Valencia, Spain) and
glucose syrup (Cargill, Bursa, Turkey) to sucrose (Balk-
upu, Kocaeli, Turkey) ratio (1.1 and 1.5) on textural and
sensorial properties and colour of gummy confections were
studied. Samples were prepared by mixing gelatine and
starch and soaking it in water at 55 °C. The mixture was
stirred with a blender (Moulinex, DDF4 Optipro, Cedex,
France) for 30 s at the lowest speed and deaerated in
beakers in water bath (Nuve, BM 15/30, Ankara, Turkey)
at a temperature of 90 °C. Sucrose, glucose syrup and
water were cooked in an open saucepan with electric
heating (Kumtel KH/LX 7010/7011, Kayseri, Turkey) until
78% dry solids was obtained. The solution was left to cool
down to 90 °C. Gelling mixture was added to the cooked
solution and mixed further with Hobart Mixer N50 (Troy,
USA) for 2 min. Citric acid (Jungbunzlauer, Basel,
Switzerland), colouring agent (Black carrot anthocyanin,
Endemix, Kocaeli, Turkey) and strawberry flavouring
(Aromsa, Kocaeli, Turkey) were added. The final desired
mass was 1000 g. Starch trays were prepared by filling
with dried warm moulding starch (Cargill, Bergen op
Zoom, Holland) at 50 °C. Cubic shapes with dimensions of
approximately 15 mm915 mm915 mm were formed in
starch trays. The prepared slurry was deposited into the
starch moulds. Trays were held at 20 °C and gummies were
removed from starch after 83% dry solids were obtained.
To determine the effects of storage temperature, gummies
were stored at 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C using incubator for
12 weeks at 35±5% RH.
Texture profile measurement
A Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) test was conducted with
a texture analyzer instrument (CT3 Brookfield, Middle-
boro, USA) weekly in two replicates. Gummies were
compressed twice with a 3 mm diameter cylindrical probe.
The samples were deformed without penetration. Texture
settings for measurements were adjusted to two
J Food Sci Technol
consecutive cycles of 50% compression, cross head moved
at a speed of 30 mm/min and a trigger point of 0.05 N at
24 °C (Delgado and Banon 2015). Hardness (N), cohe-
siveness and gumminess (N) values were calculated from
TPA diagram.
Colour measurement
Colour of the gummy confections were evaluated by
measuring CIE L*, a*, b* parameters using Color Flex Ez
Spectrophotometer (HunterLab, Reston, USA). Two repli-
cates of colour data were recorded every week. Change in
hue was calculated by the formula (1) with the help of
formula (2).
h i1=2
DH  ðChange in hueÞ ¼ ðDEÞ2  ðDLÞ2  ðDCÞ2
ð1Þ
DE  ðTotal colour differenceÞ
h i1=2
¼ ðDLÞ2 þ ðDaÞ2 þ ðDbÞ2 ð2Þ
where DH* = Change in hue, DE* = Total colour differ-
ence, DL*= Change in whiteness/darkness value and
DC* = Change in chroma. Colour of gummies prepared
without the addition of colouring agent was used as a
reference.
Sensory analysis
Ten trained staff of sponsor company were the assessors in
sensory analysis of the study. Appearance, texture and taste
were scored with hedonic scale of 9 points for every 4
weeks. Scale was expressed as the following; 1- dislike
extremely, 2- dislike very much, 3- dislike moderately, 4-
dislike slightly, 5- neither like nor dislike, 6- like slightly,
7- like moderately, 8- like very much and 9- like extre-
mely. Overall acceptability score was determined by cal-
culating the average of appearance, taste and texture
scores.
Each batch was assessed twice and at least three samples
were put in cups with coding of three digit random num-
bers. Three samples one of which were reference (fresh)
were evaluated at each sensory session. At each session
score sheets, and sugar free biscuits and water for neu-
tralizing the mouth before tasting of each sample were
given to the panelists.
Data analysis
Experimental results were shown as mean ± standard
deviation. For statistical analysis, one-way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was conducted by using IBM SPSS
Statistics 25 software. Means of the treatments were
compared at a significance level of 0.05.
Multiple regressions were carried out to explain the
relationships between independent and dependent variables
by XLSTAT 2020.5.1.1039 with 3 interaction levels (glu-
cose syrup to sucrose ratio, starch and gelatine).
Sensory and instrumental data were correlated using
PLS modelling with Smart PLS 3 (http://www.smartpls.
com) software.
Results and discussion
Texture of gummy confections
Recommended storage conditions of most of the com-
mercial confectionery products vary between 15 and 25 °C.
If they are formulated with gelatine, they generally have a
melting temperature below 35 °C (Taylor 2010). Hence, in
order to eliminate the effect of gelatine melting, storage
conditions were selected as 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C in the
study. Hardness of different gummy formulations before
and after storage of 12 weeks at 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C
were presented in Table 1. It was seen that hardness values
of different formulations were similar when the samples
were fresh. The average increase in hardness value was
0.03N, 0.01N and 0.05N after 12 weeks storage at 10 °C,
20 °C and 30 °C, respectively (Table 1).
Hardness can be described as the strength of gel struc-
ture of a material under compression (Porayanee et al.
2015). Hardness of fresh sample being independent of
ingredient effects might be due to the overall neutralizing
resulting from individual effects of gelatine concentration,
starch concentration and glucose syrup to sucrose ratio.
From the point of gelling agents, hardness was expected to
increase as the concentration of gelatine and starch
increased in the formulation. As the concentration of
gelatine increases, gel strength will be higher since high
gelatine levels cause higher intermolecular contacts.
Porayanee et al. (2015) also observed that hardness of
gelatine gels increased as gelatine concentration increased.
Starch was also reported to have the similar effect on the
hardness due to the increase in interconnected network as
starch increased in the recipe (Prokopowich and Biliaderis
1995). Unlike gelatine and starch, when the concentration
of glucose syrup increased, hardness had a tendency to
decrease due to its plasticizing property. In brief, the
increasing effect of gelatine and starch on hardness might
have compensated the decreasing effect of glucose syrup to
sucrose ratio, so that hardness values did not change as the
formulation changed.
Hardness of gummy confections formulated with glu-
cose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1, no starch and 3%
123
 J Food Sci Technol

Table 1 Variation of hardness (N) of gummy confections with different formulations during storage at different temperatures for 12 weeks
G:S Starch Gelatine (%) Fresh Aged Aged Aged
Ratio (%) 10 °C 20 °C 30 °C

1.1 0 3 (0.81±0.028)a, B
(0.84±0.018)a, AB
(0.81±0.008)a, B
(0.88±0.052)ab, A

a, B ab, AB a, B a, A
1.1 0 6 (0.81±0.035) (0.84±0.012) (0.82±0.013) (0.90±0.062)
1.1 1.5 3 (0.81±0.014)a, A
(0.84±0.022)ab, A
(0.82±0.029)a, A
(0.86±0.048)ab, A

a, A ab, A a, A ab, A
1.1 1.5 6 (0.81±0.044) (0.84±0.028) (0.81±0.018) (0.85±0.056)
1.5 0 3 (0.79±0.007)a, B
(0.82±0.004)ab, AB
(0.80±0.022)a, AB
(0.82±0.018)ab, A

a, A b, A a, A b, A
1.5 0 6 (0.80±0.005) (0.81±0.002) (0.80±0.032) (0.81±0.009)
a, B ab, AB a, AB
1.5 1.5 3 (0.80±0.006) (0.83±0.006) (0.81±0.018) (0.84±0.025)ab, A

1.5 1.5 6 (0.80±0.009)a, A

(0.83±0.007)ab, A
(0.81±0.024)a, A
(0.84±0.038)ab, A

G means glucose syrup and S means sucrose. Samples with common letters are not significantly different (p[0.05). Lower case letters compare
different formulations and upper case letters compare different storage temperatures

gelatine, glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1, no starch and HardnessðfreshÞ ¼ 0:595 G:S þ 0:552 starch
6% gelatine, glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, no starch þ 0:170 gelatine
and 3% gelatine and glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5,
 0:412 G:S  starch
1.5% starch and 3% gelatine increased after storage of
12 weeks at 30 °C (Table 1). This was observed as a result  0:126 G:S  gelatine
of the simultaneous actions of gelatine and starch with  0:113 starch  gelatine
sucrose, glucose syrup, water and other minor ingredients þ 0:084 G:S  starch  gelatine
leading to a firm and chewy structure of gummy confec-
ð3Þ
tions (Burey et al. 2009). Similarly, Marfil et al. (2012)
  
observed that gelatine favoured elasticity, and addition of Hardness ð10 CÞ ¼ 0:627 G:S þ 0:566 starch
starch increased the hardness of gummies. þ 0:182 gelatine
When the stability of gummies in terms of hardness was  0:429 G:S  starch
analysed, it was seen that formulations with glucose syrup
 0:138 G:S  gelatine
to sucrose ratio of 1.1, 1.5% starch and 3% gelatine; glu-
cose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1, 1.5% starch and 6%  0:119 starch  gelatine
gelatine; glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, no starch þ 0:091 G:S  starch  gelatine
and 6% gelatine and glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, ð4Þ
1.5% starch and 6% gelatine had the stable hardness values
after 12 weeks storage at all conditions. The highest Hardness ð20 CÞ ¼ 0:607 G:S þ 0:601 starch
increase in hardness was seen for the formulation with 1.1 þ 0:174 gelatine
glucose syrup to sucrose ratio, no starch and 6% gelatine  0:444 G:S  starch
with an increase of 0.09 N after a storage of 12 weeks at  0:131 G:S  gelatine
30 °C. This might be due to the fact that glucose syrup to
 0:127 starch  gelatine
sucrose ratio might have had stronger effects on the hard-
ness as compared to the gelatine concentration. This result þ 0:095 G:S  starch  gelatine
was also in accordance with the study of Porayanee et al. ð5Þ
(2015), where concentration of sugars were shown to have
Hardness ð30 CÞ ¼ 0:638 G:S þ 0:618 starch
stronger impact on textural properties as compared to
gelatine concentration. þ 0:223 gelatine
Ingredient impacts and interactions on the hardness of  0:463 G:S  starch
the gummy confections were also investigated by multiple  0:168 G:S  gelatine
regressions with the data given in Table 1. Linear regres-  0:156 starch  gelatine
sion equations showing the effects of glucose to sucrose
þ 0:116 G:S  starch  gelatine
ratio, starch and gelatine and their interactions on the
hardness values (N) of samples, which are fresh, stored at ð6Þ
10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C are shown in equations (3), (4), (5)
and (6), respectively.

123
J Food Sci Technol

where G:S means glucose syrup to sucrose ratio, * means the formulations (Table 2), meaning that internal networks
term is significant at p B 0.05, ** means term is significant in these gummies remained relatively static. This finding
at p B 0.01 and *** means term is significant at p B 0.001. was in accordance with several studies found in literature
Coefficient of determination (R2) values of the models (Delgado and Banon 2015; Fisher 2011; Siegwein 2010).
were 0.998, 0.998, 0.998 and 0.997 for equations (3), (4), Regression equations demonstrating glucose to sucrose
(5) and (6), respectively. It was seen that hardness was ratio, starch and gelatine impacts and ingredient interac-
affected significantly by ingredients, namely glucose syrup tions on the cohesiveness of gummies, which are fresh,
to sucrose ratio (p B 0.001 for all samples), starch level stored at 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C are given in equations
(p B 0.01 for fresh samples, samples stored at 10 °C and (7), (8), (9) and (10), respectively.
20 °C and p B 0.05 for samples stored at 30 °C) and Cohesiveness ðfreshÞ ¼0:418 G:S þ 0:398 starch
gelatine level (p B 0.001 for all samples). Hardness þ 0:121 gelatine
parameter can be associated with gel force. In a study, gel  0:295 G:S  starch
strength was found to be dependent on gelatine level in
 0:091 G:S  gelatine
gellan and gelatine mixed gel (Lau et al. 2000), which were
in accordance with this study. Starch effect might be  0:086 starch  gelatine
explained by the interconnected network (Prokopowich and þ 0:063 G:S  starch  gelatine
Biliaderis 1995) as mentioned earlier. Gel strength was ð7Þ
reported to be changed with sugar in gelatine (Kasapis
et al. 2003) and corn starch gel systems (Holm et al. 2009). Cohesiveness ð10 CÞ ¼ 0:421 G:S
In addition, the interactions between all of the ingredients þ 0:395 starchNS þ 0:126 gelatine
studied were found to be significant on the hardness of  0:300 G:S  starchNS
gummy confections for all samples.
 0:095 G:S  gelatine
Cohesiveness values of gummy confections during
storage at different temperatures were shown in Table 2.  0:085 starch  gelatineNS
The average increase in cohesiveness value was 0.009, þ 0:065 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
0.004 and 0.010 after 12 weeks storage at 10 °C, 20 °C and
ð8Þ
30 °C, respectively (Table 2). It was seen that gummies
 
with glucose syrup to sugar ratio of 1.1, 1.5% starch and Cohesiveness ð20 CÞ ¼ 0:414 G:S
6% gelatine had the highest numerical increase of 0.002 þ 0:375 starch þ 0:115 gelatine
among all formulations after storage at 10 °C and 30 °C  0:275 G:S  starch
(Table 2).
 0:086 G:S  gelatine
Cohesiveness is the strength of internal bonds within a
product and shows how well the product resists a second  0:078 starch  gelatine
deformation relative to the first deformation (Besbes et al. þ 0:058 G:S  starch  gelatine
2009; Sandhu and Singh 2007). Cohesiveness of gummies ð9Þ
did not change during storage at all temperatures for all of

Table 2 Variation of cohesiveness values of gummy confections with different formulations during storage at different temperatures for
12 weeks
G:S Starch Gelatine (%) Fresh Aged Aged Aged
Ratio (%) 10 °C 20 °C 30 °C

1.1 0 3 (0.56±0.015)a, A
(0.57±0.032)a, A
(0.56±0.010)a, A
(0.57±0.068)a, A

1.1 0 6 (0.56±0.005)a, A
(0.57±0.079)a, A
(0.56±0.029)a, A
(0.57±0.058)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.1 1.5 3 (0.56±0.021) (0.57±0.064) (0.56±0.026) (0.57±0.049)
1.1 1.5 6 (0.55±0.032)a, A
(0.57±0.057)a, A
(0.56±0.020)a, A
(0.57±0.064)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.5 0 3 (0.55±0.003) (0.55±0.018) (0.55±0.023) (0.55±0.032)
1.5 0 6 (0.55±0.007)a, A
(0.55±0.022)a, A
(0.55±0.024)a, A
(0.55±0.028)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.5 1.5 3 (0.55±0.012) (0.56±0.016) (0.56±0.025) (0.56±0.042)
a, A a, A a, A
1.5 1.5 6 (0.55±0.003) (0.56±0.012) (0.56±0.015) (0.57±0.036)a, A

G means glucose syrup and S means sucrose. Samples with common letters are not significantly different (p[0.05). Lower case letters compare
different formulations and upper case letters compare different storage temperatures

123
 J Food Sci Technol

Cohesiveness ð30 CÞ ¼ 0:420 G:S
þ 0:421 starch NS
þ 0:125 gelatine
0:319 G:S  starchNS
 0:094 G:S  gelatine
 0:090 starch  gelatineNS
þ 0:069 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð10Þ
where G:S shows glucose syrup to sucrose ratio, * shows
term is significant at p B 0.05, ** shows term is significant
at p B 0.01,*** shows term is significant at p B 0.001 and
NS shows term is not significant.
R2 of the models were determined as 0.998, 0.995, 0.998
and 0.994 for equations (7), (8), (9) and (10), respectively.
Cohesiveness was influenced by glucose syrup to sucrose
ratio (p B 0.001 for all samples) and gelatine amount (p B
0.001 for all samples). Similarly, Porayanee et al. (2015)
observed differences in cohesiveness when the amount of
sugar changed. Starch level also affected the cohesiveness
of fresh gummies (p B 0.01) and that of the gummies
stored at 20 °C (p B 0.05). On the other hand, starch
concentration did not impact cohesiveness of the samples
stored at both 10 °C and 30 °C. Furthermore, interactions
between all of the studied parameters were significant on
cohesiveness for fresh samples and for the samples stored
at 20 °C. On the other hand, no significant interactions of
starch with glucose to sucrose ratio and gelatine were
determined at 10 °C and 30 °C.
In the light of the findings of this study, it can be con-
cluded that gelling agents like starch and gelatine can have
significant effects on hardness of gummy confections
during storage while having less effects on the cohesive-
ness of the products. Cohesiveness is a measure of attrac-
tive forces between similar molecules and hence structural
integrity (Siegwein 2010). It should be a parameter that
 should be considered and measured freshly just after pro-
duction since when cohesiveness is low (about 0.25), the
product could be more prone to be moistened on the sur-
face during storage (Masmoudi et al. 2010).
Gumminess results were obtained by multiplying hard-
ness and cohesiveness of samples. Gumminess of samples
having different formulations during storage can be seen in
Table 3. It was noticed that gumminess values of fresh and
aged samples were not significantly different. The only
exception was observed in the confections with glucose
syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, 1.5% starch and 6% gelatine.
The gumminess value of this sample increased after storage
at 10 °C and 30 °C (Table 3).
There is limited information regarding the gumminess of
sugar confectionery during long storage in the literature.
Siegwein (2010) compared the gumminess of the formu-
lation with 11% wheat starch with the one with 5.5% wheat
starch and 5.5% soy protein isolate during storage of 20
days. It was mentioned that gumminess of sample with
11% wheat starch increased significantly and peaked at day
10, whereas, gumminess of the formulation with 5.5%
wheat starch and 5.5% soy protein isolate did not increase
significantly until day 20. Similarly, Fisher (2011) reported
that confectioneries formulated with 10.1% corn starch at
14th day were significantly gummier than the ones at the
1st day. Under the light of mentioned studies and the
findings of our study, changes in gumminess value might
be more favoured when the gelling agent was starch and
the concentration was high.
Regression analysis were also conducted with the
gumminess values given in Table 3. Equations (11), (12),
(13) and (14) depict the effects of ingredients and their
interactions on the gumminess (N) of confections, which
are fresh, stored at 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C, respectively.

Table 3 Variation of gumminess (N) values of gummy confections with different formulations during storage at different temperatures for
12 weeks
G:S Starch Gelatine (%) Fresh Aged Aged Aged
Ratio (%) 10 °C 20 °C 30 °C

1.1 0 3 (0.46±0.013)a, A
(0.48±0.021)a, A
(0.45±0.006)a, A
(0.50±0.115)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.1 0 6 (0.45±0.006) (0.48±0.083) (0.46±0.016) (0.52±0.058)
1.1 1.5 3 (0.45±0.014)a, A
(0.47±0.054)a, A
(0.46±0.017)a, A
(0.49±0.045)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.1 1.5 6 (0.44±0.057) (0.48±0.073) (0.45±0.003) (0.49±0.016)
a, A a, A a, A
1.5 0 3 (0.43±0.006) (0.45±0.015) (0.44±0.040) (0.45±0.038)a, A

a, A a, A a, A a, A
1.5 0 6 (0.44±0.006) (0.44±0.016) (0.44±0.045) (0.44±0.023)
1.5 1.5 3 (0.44±0.012)a, A
(0.46±0.011)a, A
(0.46±0.023)a, A
(0.47±0.023)a, A

a, C a, AB a, BC a, A
1.5 1.5 6 (0.44±0.004) (0.47±0.005) (0.45±0.001) (0.48±0.022)
G means glucose syrup and S means sucrose. Samples with common letters are not significantly different (p[0.05). Lower case letters compare
different formulations and upper case letters compare different storage temperatures

123
J Food Sci Technol
Gumminess ðfreshÞ ¼ 0:331 G:S
þ 0:328 starch 
þ 0:102 gelatine
 0:242 G:S  starch
 0:076 G:S  gelatine
 0:072 starch  gelatine
þ 0:053 G:S  starch  gelatine
ð11Þ
Gumminess ð10 CÞ ¼ 0:352 G:S
þ 0:330 starchNS þ 0:114 gelatine
 0:253 G:S  starchNS
 0:087 G:S  gelatine
 0:074 starch  gelatineNS
þ 0:058 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð12Þ
Gumminess ð20 CÞ ¼ 0:334 G:S
þ 0:336 starch þ 0:100 gelatine
 0:243 G:S  starch
 0:075 G:S  gelatine
 0:074 starch  gelatine
þ 0:054 G:S  starch  gelatine
ð13Þ
Gumminess ð30 CÞ ¼ 0:357 G:S
þ 0:391 starchNS þ 0:137 gelatine
 0:295 G:S  starchNS
 0:103 G:S  gelatine
 0:102 starch  gelatine
þ 0:077 G:S  starch  gelatine
ð14Þ
where G:S is glucose syrup to sucrose ratio, * expresses
term is significant at p B 0.05, ** expresses term is sig-
nificant at p B 0.01,*** expresses term is significant at p B
0.001 and NS expresses term is not significant. R2 values
were 0.997, 0.994, 0.997 and 0.991 for equations (11), (12),
(13) and (14), respectively.
Glucose syrup to sucrose ratio (p B 0.001 for all sam-
ples) and gelatine amount (p B 0.001 for all samples)
affected gumminess significantly. Gumminess values of
samples stored at 20 °C (p B 0.05) and fresh samples (p B
0.01) were affected by starch concentration, but this texture
parameter was not affected at the other temperatures. These
findings were similar to the cohesiveness regression results,
which might be expected as gumminess was calculated by
multiplying hardness and cohesiveness. When interactions
were analysed, it was seen that ingredient interactions were
more significant on gumminess for all samples except the
ones stored at lowest temperature, at which there was only
 glucose to sucrose ratio and gelatine interaction. The case
for 10 °C storage might be due to the starch effect, which
was insignificant as a single ingredient at that temperature.
When the stability in terms of gumminess was con-
cerned, it was seen that most of the gummies were
stable during storage at all of the temperatures, and the
formulation with 1.5 glucose syrup to sucrose, no starch
and 6% gelatine was the most stable formulation with no
change in gumminess value after 12 weeks regardless of
storage temperatures (Table 3). This was in accordance
with the results of hardness because gumminess was the
multiplication of hardness and cohesiveness. In addition,
the most stable gummy confection will need a stable mas-
tication to dissolve during storage (Siegwein 2010).
Colour of gummy confections
Colour results are based on the changes of gummies over a
period of storage up to 12 weeks at 10 °C, 20 °C and
30 °C. Colour changes increased linearly during storage for
all formulations and predictive equations were shown in
Table 4. It was seen that relative rate of colour change
increased with increase in storage temperature (Table 4).
Storage stability are known to decrease as deterioration
in the sample increases (Hemanth et al. 2019). Colour
change could be used as a storage parameter for the shelf
life studies of gummy confections since it was observed
that colour change of samples increased with storage time
and storage temperature (Table 4). This might be due to the
effect of gelatine, which is known to change in colour
when held at high temperatures, by developing browning
(Farahnaky et al. 2003) and increasing DH* values in a fast
manner. In addition, in accordance to our results, Dabas
and Kean (2014) mentioned that hard candy samples
coloured with anthocyanin and prepared without stabilizers
showed less storage stability in terms of colour with
increased heat processing.
When predictive equations for change in hue with
respect to time were analysed, it was seen that the slopes of
the first order kinetic equation for the samples with glucose
syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5 were lower than the ones with
glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1. This showed that
gummies with 1.5 glucose syrup to sucrose ratio were more
stable in terms of colour. Hull (2010) stated that the usage
of glucose syrups could improve the appearance of con-
fectionery products because they could overcome sucrose
crystallization, which leads to opaque and dull appearance.
Sensory analysis of gummy confections
Table 5 depicts the overall acceptability scores of gummy
confections, which were stored at different temperatures. It
123
 J Food Sci Technol

Table 4 Predictive equations

G:S Starch (%) Gelatine (%) Storage Predictive equation R2
obtained for change in hue
Ratio temperature
(DH*) of gummy confections
(°C)
with different formulations with
respect to time (t) at different 1.1 0 3 10 DH  ¼ 0:1007ðt)-0.0187 0.995
storage conditions
20 DH  ¼ 0:1527ðt)-0.0319 0.995
30 DH  ¼ 1:1784ðt)-0.7341 0.996
1.1 0 6 10 DH  ¼ 0:1294ðt)-0.0229 0.995
20 DH  ¼ 0:2117ðt)-0.0500 0.995

30 DH ¼ 1:6752ðt)-1.1522 0.994
1.1 1.5 3 10 DH  ¼ 0:2484ðt)-0.0440 0.995
20 DH  ¼ 0:3934ðt)-0.1476 0.989
30 DH  ¼ 3:0865ðt)-1.8831 0.996
1.1 1.5 6 10 DH  ¼ 0:2743ðt)-0.0486 0.995
20 DH  ¼ 0:4380ðt)-0.1123 0.995
30 DH  ¼ 3:0898ðt)-1.3380 0.996
1.5 0 3 10 DH  ¼ 0:0788ðt)-0.0224 0.994
20 DH  ¼ 0:1065ðt)-0.0497 0.991

30 DH ¼ 0:8445ðt)-0.5189 0.996

1.5 0 6 10 DH ¼ 0:1275ðt)-0.0384 0.994
20 DH  ¼ 0:1637ðt)-0.0770 0.992
30 DH  ¼ 1:3165ðt)-0.9446 0.995
1.5 1.5 3 10 DH  ¼ 0:2387ðt)-0.0706 0.994
20 DH  ¼ 0:3219ðt)-0.1400 0.993
30 DH  ¼ 2:4275ðt)-1.4307 0.995
1.5 1.5 6 10 DH  ¼ 0:3120ðt)-0.1072 0.995
20 DH  ¼ 0:4212ðt)-0.1800 0.995
30 DH  ¼ 2:8811ðt)-0.8868 0.993
G means glucose syrup and S means sucrose

Table 5 Overall acceptability scores of gummy confections stored at different storage temperatures for 12 weeks
Formulation Overall acceptability
G:S ratio Starch Gelatine Fresh Aged Aged Aged
(%) (%) 10 °C 20 °C 30 °C

1.1 0 3 (4.1 ± 0.26)c, A

(3.9 ± 0.36)c, A
(3.5 ± 0.30)b, A
(1.8 ± 0.30)bc, B

ab, A a, A a, A ab, B
1.1 0 6 (7.2 ± 0.34) (7.0 ± 0.84) (6.0 ± 0.32) (3.2 ± 0.22)
1.1 1.5 3 (5.2 ± 0.41)c, A
(5.0 ± 0.22)bc, A
(4.5 ± 0.74)ab, AB
(2.5 ± 0.54)abc, B

a, A a, A a, AB a, B
1.1 1.5 6 (8.6 ± 0.90) (8.4 ± 0.76) (6.6 ± 0.40) (4.1 ± 0.67)
1.5 0 3 (4.2 ± 0.25)c, A
(4.0 ± 0.48)c, A
(3.5 ± 0.90)b, A
(1.2 ± 0.25)c, B

ab, A a, A a, A a, B
1.5 0 6 (8.5 ± 0.27) (8.3 ± 0.56) (6.5 ± 0.92) (4.1 ± 0.18)
c, A c, A b, A
1.5 1.5 3 (4.0 ± 0.40) (3.9 ± 0.55) (3.6 ± 0.63) (1.2 ± 0.71)c, B

b, A ab, A a, A a, B
1.5 1.5 6 (6.9 ± 0.60) (6.7 ± 0.35) (5.9 ± 0.37) (3.4 ± 0.44)
G means glucose syrup and S means sucrose. Samples with common letters are not significantly different (p[0.05). Lower case letters compare
different formulations and upper case letters compare different storages

was seen that gummies with the highest gelatine level of
6%, had scores higher than 6.5 points out of 9 points. This
meant that the mentioned gummies were liked moderately
by the panelists and hence these products were determined
as acceptable.
Sensory evaluations were performed at 10 °C, 20 °C
and 30 °C for 12 weeks. Samples with 6% gelatine had
scores higher than 6.5 points after 12-week storage at
10 °C (Table 5). This was similar to the results of fresh
gummy confections. When the samples were stored at

123
J Food Sci Technol
20 °C for 12 weeks, it was seen that formulation with
glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1, 1.5% starch and 6%
gelatine and formulation with glucose syrup to sucrose
ratio of 1.5, no starch and 6% gelatine had accept-
able scores, which were more than 6.5 points. On the other
hand, when the gummies were stored at 30 °C for
12 weeks, none of the samples scored more than 6.5 points.
By using the data from Table 5, regression equations
(15), (16), (17) and (18) were constructed to study the
ingredient effects and their interactions on the acceptability
of gummies, which are fresh, stored at 10 °C, 20 °C and
30 °C, respectively.
Acceptability ðfreshÞ ¼ 0:275 G:SNS þ 2:483 starchNS
þ 0:738 gelatine
 1:350 G:S  starchNS
þ 0:395 G:S  gelatineNS
þ 0:569 starch  gelatineNS
 0:541 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð15Þ
 NS NS
Acceptability ð10 CÞ ¼ 0:124 G:S þ 1:983 starch
þ 0:698 gelatineNS
 0:916 G:S  starchNS
þ 0:425 G:S  gelatineNS
þ 0:657 starch  gelatineNS
 0:617 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð16Þ
 NS NS
Acceptability ð20 CÞ ¼ 0:535 G:S þ 3:617 starch
þ 0:850 gelatineNS
 2:190 G:S  starchNS
þ 0:060 G:S  gelatineNS
 0:222 starch  gelatineNS
þ 0:071 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð17Þ

Acceptability ð30 CÞ ¼ 0:610 G:S NS
þ 4:083 starchNS þ 0:327 gelatineNS
2:760 G:S  starchNS
þ 0:322 G:S  gelatineNS
 0:229 starch  gelatineNS
þ 0:119 G:S  starch  gelatineNS
ð18Þ
where G:S is glucose syrup to sucrose ratio, * shows term
is significant at p B 0.05 and NS means term is not
significant. R2 values for the equations (15), (16), (17) and
(18) were found as 0.994, 0.992, 0.974 and 0.971.
It was seen that only gelatine level (p B 0.05) affected
acceptability of fresh gummy confections. Moreover, there
were no interactions among ingredients seen when sensory
regression results were analysed.
It was found that gummy confections with glucose syrup
to sucrose ratio of 1.1, 1.5% starch and 6% gelatine and
glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, no starch and 6%
gelatine had the highest overall acceptability scores among
all formulations before and after storage at all tempera-
tures. According to Table 3, formulation with glucose
syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.5, no starch and 6% gelatine had
no increase in gumminess, which meant that the formula-
tion had a stable mastication to be dissolved in the mouth.
This might be one of the reasons why mentioned formu-
lation was scored as one of the most acceptable formula-
tions by the panelists (Table 5).
Finding a correlation between sensory and textural
properties is crucial for the food researchers and producers
since comprehensive sensory tests are expensive and time
consuming (Moghaddam et al. 2016). Thus, the effects of
gelling agents on texture liking of gummies were analyzed
at 10 °C and 30 °C at glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1
(Fig. 1a). It was seen that gelatine concentration had more
impact than starch concentration on texture liking at both
10 °C and 30 °C. When gelatine concentration increased,
texture liking of panelists increased at both storage tem-
peratures. This result was somewhat in accordance with the
regression equation (15), where acceptability of gummies
was affected only by gelatine concentration. Siegwein
(2010) also mentioned significant improvements in texture
liking scores of starch confections when some of the starch
in the formulation was replaced with soy protein. However,
instrumental results for hardness of gummies, stored at
10 °C and 30 °C for 12 weeks, were similar when gelatine
level increased at glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1
(Table 1).
In addition, storage temperature of 10 °C affected the
sensory texture liking scores during storage in a positive
manner, however, storage temperature of 30 °C affected
these scores adversely (Fig. 1a). This result was in accor-
dance with the hardness values of gummies formulated
with no starch at glucose syrup to sucrose ratio of 1.1.
Hardness of the samples stored at 10 °C for 12 weeks were
similar to the ones of the fresh samples; on the other hand,
a significant increase in hardness was observed at the end
of storage at 30 °C (Table 1). Hence, 10 °C and 30 °C
storage temperatures were found to be suitable tempera-
tures to be used as accelerated shelf life test temperatures
in terms of hardness showing different possible storage
climates for gummy confections formulated with gelatine
and starch.
123

Fig. 1 Correlation of sensory a texture liking and hardness for
gummy confections formulated with glucose syrup: sucrose ratio=1.1
at different storage temperatures, b appearance liking and colour for
gummy confections formulated with different glucose syrup: sucrose
Figure 1b demonstrates the effect of gelling agents on
appearance liking of the gummies when stored at 30 °C
with different glucose syrup to sucrose ratios. It was seen
that starch level was effective on appearance liking, how-
ever, gelatine level was not. Appearance liking of gummies
decreased as the amount of starch increased.
According to Fig. 1b, starch level was effective on
appearance liking, on the other hand, gelatine level was
not. Appearance liking of gummies decreased as the
amount of starch was elevated. This might be due to the
opaque appearance of starch confectionery changing the
confectionery from translucent to opaque (Hartel and
Hartel 2014).
Colour sensory measurements showed clear changes
with storage time at 30 °C as can be seen in Fig. 1b. This
was in accordance with instrumental colour results as it
was observed that the relative rate of colour change of
123
J Food Sci Technol
ratios at 30 °C storage. First letter: Starch (0, 1.5), Second letter:
Gelatine (Low: 3%, High: 6%), Last digit: storage time in weeks (0th,
4th, 8th, 12th)
gummies increased with increase in storage temperature
and the fastest increase was seen at 30 °C for all of the
formulations (Table 4). This might be due to the effect of
gelatine in the formulation of gummies leading to brown-
ing at high temperatures (Farahnaky et al. 2003) and
increasing DH* values promptly. Hence, 30 °C was found
to be a useful test temperature for storage studies of
gummies containing gelatine and starch.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that gelling agents and sweeteners can
have significant effects on the texture of sugar confec-
tionery products during storage. It was seen that relative
rate of colour change increased with increase in tempera-
ture. Hence, hardness, gumminess, cohesiveness and colour
J Food Sci Technol
can be used as the end of shelf life parameters for shelf-life
determination in gummy confections.
Sensorial changes were correlated with the instrumental
results. It was found that starch concentration was more
effective on appearance while gelatine concentration was
more effective on the texture of gummies, which might be
an important result for the prediction of sensory quality
(acceptability for consumers) of sugar confectionery
products from texture and colour measurements. This
information can be used in shelf-life determination of soft
candy.
Gummies with no starch, 6% gelatine and glucose syrup
to sucrose ratio of 1.5 had the most stable formulation in
terms of critical quality parameters of confections, which
were texture, colour and sensory properties.
Storage temperature of 20 °C can be used as the stan-
dard storage condition for accelerated shelf life testing
(ASLT) of gummy confections containing gelatine and
starch as the storage conditions of most of the commercial
confectionery products are stored at 20±5 °C. Tempera-
tures of 10 °C and 30 °C are appropriate to be selected as
the test temperatures in ASLT of these type of products
which are commercialized in both hot and cold climate
markets since the failure in quality can be accomplished at
these temperatures.
Acknowledgements The authors kindly thank to Kervan Gida San.
ve Tic. A. S. (Istanbul, Turkey) for their supports to this study.
References
Belitz HD, Grosch W (1999) Food chemistry. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Besbes S, Drira L, Blecker C, Deroanne C, Attia H (2009) Adding
value to hard date (Phoenix dactylifera L.): compositional,
functional and sensory characteristics of date jam. Food Chem
112:406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.05.093
Burey P, Bhandari BR, Rutgers RP, Halley PJ, Torley PJ (2009)
Confectionary gels, a review of formulation, rheological, and
structural aspects. Int J Food Prop 12:176–210. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10942910802223404
Dabas D, Kean G (2014) Red natural colors for high pH applications.
Adv Food Technol Nutr Sci 1(1):10–16. https://doi.org/10.
17140/AFTNSOJ-1-103
Delgado P, Banon S (2015) Determining the minimum drying time of
gummy confections based on their mechanical properties.
CyTA- J Food 13(3):329–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1947633
7.2014.974676
DeMars LL, Ziegler GR (2001) Texture and structure of gelatin/
pectin based gummi confections. Food Hydrocoll
15(4–6):643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(01)0004
4-3
Drake MA, Gerard PD, Truong VD, Daubert CR (1999) Relationship
between instrumental and sensory measurements of cheese
texture. J Text Stud 30:451–476
Farahnaky A, Gray D, Mitchell J, Hill S (2003) Ascorbic acid and
hydrogen peroxide (Fenton’s reagent) induced changes in gelatin
systems. Food Hydrocoll 17(3):321–326. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0268-005X(02)00093-0
Fisher EL (2011) Physicochemical characterization of a novel
strawberry confection for delivery of fruit bioactives to human
oral mucosa. Thesis, Food Science and Technology, The Ohio
State University, M.Sc
Hartel RW, Hartel AK (2014) Candy bites the science of sweets.
Springer, London
Hemanth KJ, Hema MS, Sinija VR, Hema V (2019) Accelerated shelf
life study on protein enriched carbonated fruit drink. J Food
Process Eng 43(3):e13311. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13311
Holm K, Wendin K, Hermansson A (2009) Sweetness and texture
perceptions in structured gelatine gels with embedded sugar rich
domain. Food Hydrocoll 23:2388–2393. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodhyd.2009.06.016
Hull P (2010) Glucose syrups, technology and applications. Wiley
Blackwell, Chichester
Jackson EB (1990) Sugar confectionery manufacture. Blackie Aca-
demic, London
Kasapis S, Al-Marhoobi IM, Mitchell JR, Deszczynki M, Abeysekera
R (2003) Gelatin versus polysaccharide in mixture with sugar.
Biomacromolecules 4(5):1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1021/
bm0201237
Kim I, Yang M, Cho K, Goo Y, Kim T, Park J, Cho J, Jo C, Lee M,
Kang S (2014) Effect of medicinal plant extracts on the
physicochemical properties and sensory characteristics of gelatin
jelly. J Food Process Pres 38:1527–1533. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jfpp.12112
Kohyama K, Nishinari K (1991) Effects of soluble sugars on
gelatinization and retrogradation of sweet potato starch. J Agr
Food Chem 39:1406–1410. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00008a010
Lau MH, Tang J, Paulson AT (2000) Texture profile and turbidity of
gellan/ gelatin mixed gels. Food Res Int 33:665–671. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0963-9969(00)00111-3
Marfil PHM, Anhee ACBM, Telis VRN (2012) Texture and
microstructure of gelatin/corn starch-based gummy confections.
Food Biophys 7:236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-012-9262-3
Masmoudi M, Besbes S, Blecker C, Attia H (2010) Preparation and
characterization of jellies with reduced sugar content from date
(Phoenix dactylifera L.) and lemon (Citruslimon L.) by products.
Fruits 65:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits/2009038
Moghaddam TM, Razavi SMA, Taghizadeh M (2016) Sensory and
texture assessment of roasted pistachio nut/kernel by partial least
square (PLS) regression analysis: effect of roasting conditions.
J Food Sci Tech Mys 53(1):370–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13197-015-2054-2
Owunsu M, Petersen MA, Heimdal H (2013) Relationship of sensory
and instrumental aroma measurements of dark chocolate as
influenced by fermentation method, roasting and conching
conditions. J Food Sci Tech Mys 50(5):909–917. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13197-011-0420-2
Porayanee M, Katemate P, Duangmal K (2015) Effect of gelatine
concentrations and glucose syrup to sucrose ratios on textural
and optical properties of gelatin gel. J Food Sci Agri Technol
1(1):26–30
Prokopowich D, Biliaderis CG (1995) A comparative study of the
effects of sugars on the thermal and mechanical properties of
concentrated waxy maize, wheat, potato and pea starch gels.
Food Chem 52(3):255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-
8146(95)92820-A
Ratnayake WS, Jackson DS (2008) Starch gelatinization. In: Taylor
SL (ed) Advances in food and nutrition research, vol 55.
Academic Press, San Diego, pp 221–268
Sabanis D, Soukoulis C, Tzia C (2009) Effect of raisin juice addition
on bread produced from different wheat cultivars. Food Sci
Technol Int 15(4):325–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/10820132
09346581
123

Sandhu KS, Singh N (2007) Some properties of corn starches II:
physicochemical, gelatinization, retrogradation, pasting and gel
textural properties. Food Chem 101(4):1499–1507. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.01.060
Siegwein AM (2010) The effects of soy protein isolate addition on the
physicochemical properties of gummi confections. M.Sc. Thesis,
Graduate Program in Food Science and Nutrition, The Ohio
State University
123
J Food Sci Technol
Sworn G (2011) Xantham gum, functionality and application. In:
Norton IT, Spyropoulos F, Cox P (eds) Practical food rheology
an interpretive approach. Wiley, Chichester, pp 85–112
Taylor S (2010) Advances in food and nutrition research, vol 60.
Academic Press, USA
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.