Textural Characteristics of World Foods Katsuyoshi Nishinari Full Chapter

Textural Characteristics of World Foods
Katsuyoshi Nishinari
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/textural-characteristics-of-world-foods-katsuyoshi-nis
hinari/
Edited by
Professor, Hubei University of Technology
Wuchang, Wuhan
China, 430068
Emeritus Professor at Osaka City University

Japan
This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available
at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Katsuyoshi Nishinari to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has
been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office(s)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products
visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no
representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and
specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written
sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product
is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that
the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may
provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not
engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable
for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware
that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written
and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other
commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Nishinari, Katsuyoshi, editor.
Title: Textural characteristics of world foods / [edited by] Prof. Katsuyoshi Nishinari,
Wuchang, Wuhan, CH.
Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2019. |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2019009266 (print) | LCCN 2019013982 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119430933
(Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119430797 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119430698 (hardback)
Subjects: LCSH: Food texture.
Classification: LCC TX546 (ebook) | LCC TX546.T49 2019 (print) | DDC 641.3–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019009266
Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Images: © LIUDMILA ERMOLENKO/Shutterstock, © Rtstudio/Shutterstock,
© 9091086/Shutterstock, © Valeria Aksakova/Shutterstock
Set in 10/12pt Warnock by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Dedicated to all the friends
who love the conviviality
that conquers the hate leading to the war.
vii
Contents
List of Contributors xix

Preface xxiii
Foreword xxv
Introduction
I.1 Why/How/What Do we Eat? xxvii
I.2 Terms for Texture/Taste/Aroma Related to Diverse Foods/Recipes xxviii
I.3 Universality and Diversity xxix
I.4 Wonderful Diversity of World Foods xxx
I.5 Some Pitfalls in Texture Studies xxxii
I.6 About This Book xxxiii
References xxxiv
1 Food Texture – Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Measurement 1

Kaoru Kohyama
1.1 Introduction: History of Food Texture Studies 1
1.2 Three Methods of Texture Evaluation 3
1.3 Methodologies in Sensory Evaluation of Texture 4
1.4 Instrumental Measurements of Food Texture 6
1.5 Sound Effects 8
1.6 Visual Cues and Flavor Release 9
1.7 Concluding Remarks 9
References 10
Part I North America 15
2 Food Textures in the United States of America 17

Alina Surmacka Szczesniak
2.1 Introduction 17
2.2 Texture and the American Consumer 17
2.3 Role of Texture in Food Quality and Acceptance 18
2.4 Factors Shaping Attitudes to and Acceptance of Texture 18
2.5 Liked and Disliked Textural Characteristics 20
viii Contents
2.6 Textural Contrast 23

2.7 Contemporary Trends 23
References 25
3 Texture Characteristics of US Foods: Pioneers, Protocols,

and Attributes ‐ Tribute to Alina 27
Gail Vance Civille, Amy Trail, Annlyse Retiveau Krogmann,
and Ellen Thomas
3.1 The Protocols for Developing a Texture Lexicon 27
3.2 Texture Profiles and Evaluation Protocols for Selected US Foods 30
3.3 Potato Chip Texture Example 31
3.3.1 Serving Protocol 31
3.3.2 Tasting Protocol 31
3.3.3 Potato Chip Texture Summary 31
3.4 Bacon Texture Example 32
3.4.3 Bacon Texture Summary 33
3.5 Peanut Butter Texture Example 34
3.5.3 Peanut Butter Texture Summary 34
References 35
4 Textural Characteristics of Canadian Foods: Influences and Properties

of Poutine Cheese and Maple Products 37
Laurie‐Eve Rioux, Véronique Perreault, and Sylvie L. Turgeon
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Some Historical Perspectives 37
4.3 Canadian Eating Habits 38
4.4 Poutine 39
4.4.1 History of Canadian Cheese Making 40
4.4.2 Manufacture of Cheddar Cheese 41
4.4.3 Cheddar Cheese Composition and Textural Properties 42
4.5 Maple Products 43
4.5.1 History of Making Canadian Maple Products 43
4.5.2 Manufacture of Maple Products 44
4.5.2.1 Transforming Sap into Syrup 44
4.5.2.2 Transforming Syrup into Delights of Various Textures 45
4.5.3 Maple Products Composition and Textural Properties 47
4.5.3.1 Maple Syrup 47
4.5.3.2 Maple Taffy 47
4.5.3.3 Maple Butter 47
4.5.3.4 Maple Sugar Products 48
4.5.3.5 Other Maple Products 49
4.6 Conclusion 49
References 49
Contents ix
Part II Middle and South America 53
5 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Mexican Foods 55

Alberto Tecante
5.1 Introduction 55
5.2 Tortillas 55
5.2.1 Corn Tortillas 56
5.2.2 Wheat Tortillas 56
5.2.3 Mechanical Tests 57
5.2.3.1 Rollability 57
5.2.3.2 Bending 59
5.2.3.3 Stress Relaxation in Uniaxial Tension 60
5.2.3.4 Tensile Strength 60
5.2.3.5 Penetration or Puncture 61
5.2.3.6 Kramer Cell 61
5.3 Alegría (Amaranth Seed Sweet) 62
5.4 Ate (Fruit Paste) 62
5.5 Pan de Muerto (Bread of the Dead) 64
5.6 Queso Cotija (Cotija Cheese) 64
5.7 Conclusions 66
References 66
6 Textural Characteristics of Brazilian Foods 69

Angelita da Silveira Moreira and Patrícia Diaz de Oliveira
6.1 Formation of Food Habits in Brazil 69
6.1.1 Indigenous Influence 70
6.1.2 Portuguese Influence 70
6.1.3 African Influence 70
6.2 Main Raw Materials and Derived Foods 71
6.2.1 Cassava 71
6.2.1.1 Cassava Flours, Puba Mass, Manipueira, and Tucupi (ABIAP 2018) 72
6.2.2 Amylaceous Derivatives – Sweet Cassava Starch, Tapioca,
Tapioca Flour, and Artificial Sago 75
6.2.3 Rice 76
6.2.4 Beans 78
6.3 Trends in Dietary Restrictions 82
References 83
7 Textural Characteristics and Viscoelastic Behavior

of Traditional Argentinian Foods 89
Gabriel Lorenzo, Natalia Ranalli, Silvina Andrés, Noemí Zaritzky,
and Alicia Califano
7.1 Introduction 89
7.2 Empanadas 90
7.2.1 Viscoelastic Behavior of Commercial Wheat Dough for Empanadas 91
7.2.2 Gluten Replacement in Empanadas: A Complex
Task to Cover a Larger Population 93
x Contents
7.2.3 Final Remarks on Empanadas Dough 97

7.3 Dulce de Leche 98
7.3.1 Commercial Varieties of Dulce de Leche 99
7.3.2 Dulce de Leche Texture 99
7.3.3 Dulce de Leche‐like Product Enriched with Emulsified Pecan Oil 101
References 103
Part III Asia 107
8 Textural Characteristics of Japanese Foods 109

Katsuyoshi Nishinari and Tooru Ooizumi
8.1 Rice 111
8.2 Tofu 113
8.3 Gomatofu (Sesame Tofu) 114
8.4 Some Foods with Mucilaginous Texture 115
8.5 Food for Persons with Mastication Difficulty 115
8.6 Seafood in Japan 115
8.6.1 Sashimi and Marinated Products 117
8.6.2 Surimi Seafood Products 118
8.6.3 Dried Products 121
References 121
9 Textural Characteristics of Chinese Foods 125

Long Huang
9.1
Regional Cuisine/Foods in China 125
9.1.1
Shandong Cuisine (Lu Cuisine) 125
9.1.2
Canton/Guangdong Cuisine (Yue Cuisine) 125
9.1.3
Szechwan/Sichuan Cuisine (Chuan Cuisine) 126
9.1.4
Hunan Cuisine (Xiang Cuisine) 126
Jiangsu Cuisine (Su Cuisine) 127
9.1.5
9.1.6
Zhejiang Cuisine (Zhe Cuisine) 127
9.1.7
Fujian Cuisine (Min Cuisine) 127
9.1.8
Anhui Cuisine (Hui Cuisine) 127
9.1.9
Cuisines in Autonomous Regions of Tibet and Xinjiang‐Uyghur 127
9.2
Texture Descriptive Terms in Chinese 128
9.3
Textural Characteristics of Typical Chinese Foods 128
9.3.1
Crust of Mooncake (Yue Bing, Geppei) 128
9.3.2
Chinese Dumpling (Jiaozi, Gyoza, Shao‐Mai, Shumai) 130
9.3.3
Texture Modification to Flour‐Based Chinese Foods, Especially
Noodle and Glutinous Dumpling 133
References 136
10 Textural Characteristics of Indonesian Foods 137

Oni Yuliarti
10.1 Geographical 137
Contents xi
10.2 Characteristic of Indonesian Diets 138

10.3 Textural Properties of Indonesian Foods 139
10.3.1 Gel‐Like Foods – Green Jelly Leaves 139
10.3.1.1 Botanical 139
10.3.1.2 Rheological Properties of the Gel 140
10.3.1.3 The Production of the Gel 143
10.3.2 Gel‐Like Foods – Seaweeds 143
10.3.2.1 Botanical 143
10.3.2.2 Gelation and Rheology of Pudding Rumput Laut 144
10.3.2.3 Production of Pudding Rumput Laut 146
10.3.3 Soy‐Based Foods – Tempeh (Fermented Soybeans) 146
10.3.3.1 Texture Properties of Tempeh 148
References 149
11 Textural Characteristics of Thai Foods 151

Rungnaphar Pongsawatmanit
11.1 Introduction 151
11.2 Historical and Geographical Background of Thai Food 152
11.3 Selected Food Samples with Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental
Measurement 156
11.4 Health Benefit of Thai Food 160
References 163
12 Textural Characteristics of Malaysian Foods: Quality

and Stability of Malaysian Laksa Noodles 167
Lai Hoong Cheng, Yan Kitt Low, A’firah Mohd Sakri, Jia Shin Tai, and Abd Karim Alias
12.2 Chemical Composition 168
12.3 Organoleptic Quality 168
12.4 Textural Quality 169
12.5 Factors Affecting Textural Quality of Laksa Noodles 170
12.5.1 Rice Grain 175
12.5.2 Aged Rice 175
12.5.3 Milling Method 175
12.5.4 Particle Size of Rice Flour 175
12.5.5 Steaming Process 176
12.5.6 Blending of Other Starch/Starches 176
12.5.7 Extrusion and Boiling 176
12.5.8 Washing 176
12.6 Storage Stability 176
12.7 Nutritional Quality 178
12.7.1 Gluten Free 178
12.7.2 Low‐Fat Carbohydrate Choice 178
12.8 Conclusion 178
Acknowledgments 178
References 179
xii Contents
Part IV Oceania 181
13 Textural Characteristics of Australian Foods 183

Andrew Halmos, Lita Katopo, and Stefan Kasapis
13.2 Importance of Mouthfeel and Its Recognition 184
13.3 Developments in Mouthfeel and Texture Terms 184
13.4 Typical Meals with Descriptors for the Australian Palate 185
13.5 Breakfast 186
13.5.1 Toasted Bread 186
13.5.2 Cereals with Milk 186
13.5.3 Coffee 187
13.5.4 Fried Tomatoes 188
13.5.5 Steak, Sausages, or Chops 188
13.5.6 Eggs 188
13.5.7 Bacon 188
13.5.8 Spreads 188
13.6 Lunch or Mid‐Day Meal 189
13.6.1 Sandwiches with Fillings 189
13.6.2 Pie, Sausage Roll, or Pastry 189
13.6.3 Potato Products 189
13.6.4 Boiled or Steamed Vegetables 189
13.6.5 Vegetables with Roux 189
13.6.6 Salads and Dressings 190
13.6.7 Meat 190
13.7 Dinner 190
13.7.1 Soup 190
13.7.2 Meat in the Form of Chops or Steak 190
13.7.3 Seafood 190
13.7.4 Fish 191
13.7.5 Rice 191
13.7.6 Vegetables 191
13.7.7 Chinese‐Style Food 191
13.7.8 Cheeses 192
13.7.9 Sweets 192
13.7.10 Ice Cream 193
13.7.11 Snacks 193
13.8 Conclusions 193
References 193
Part V Central Asia Middle East 197
14 Textural Characteristics of Indian Foods: A Comparative Analysis 199

Amardeep Singh Virdi and Narpinder Singh
14.2 Chapati 201
Contents xiii
14.3
Gluten‐Free Chapatis 205
14.4
Biscuits and Cookies 205
14.5
Gluten‐Free Cookies and Biscuits 207
14.6
Noodles 208
14.7
Gluten‐Free Noodles 210
14.8
Bread 211
14.9
Gluten‐Free Bread 212
14.10
Muffins and Cakes 213
14.11
Gluten‐Free Muffins and Cakes 214
14.12
Conclusion 215
Acknowledgments 216
References 216
15 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Turkish Foods 223

Mahmut Doğan, Duygu Aslan, and Fatima Tahseen Miano
15.2 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Turkish
Meat‐Based Food Products 224
15.2.1 Sucuk (Turkish‐Type Fermented Sausage) 224
15.2.2 Pastırma (A Traditional Dry‐Cured Meat Product) 225
15.3 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Turkish Cheeses 227
15.4 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Turkish Desserts 231
15.4.1 Turkish Delight (Lokum) 231
15.4.2 Helva 232
References 234
16 Textural Characteristics of Iranian Foods: Cuisine Signifies

Old Historical Identities 237
Bahareh Emadzadeh and Behrouz Ghorani
16.1 Iran Geography at a Glance 237
16.2 The Impact of Geography and History 237
16.3 Distinctive Features of Persian Cuisine 239
16.4 Bread 239
16.4.1 Sangak 240
16.4.2 Barbari 240
16.4.3 Taftoon 241
16.4.4 Lavash 241
16.5 Rice 242
16.5.1 Rice‐Based Foods 242
16.5.2 Rice Cooking 242
16.5.2.1 Stewing of Rice by Steam 243
16.5.3 Rice‐Based Sweets and Desserts 243
16.6 Kebabs 243
16.7 Lighvan Cheese 244
16.8 Gaz: A Well‐Known Confectionary 245
16.9 Doogh: A Fermented Dairy‐Based Drink 246
16.10 Conclusion 246
References 247
xiv Contents
Part VI Russia 251
17 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Russian Foods 253

Nataliia Ptichkina and Nataliia Nepovinnykh
17.1
Introduction 253
17.2
Formation History of Russian Cuisine 253
17.3
Textural Characteristics of Some Traditional Products 255
17.4
Bread from Rye Flour 255
17.5
Jellies from Meat and from Fish (Kholodets) 257
Soup‐Purée Based on Pumpkin Powder 258
17.6
17.7
Sauces 259
17.8
Curd Cheese Dishes 261
17.9
Kissels and Jellied Desserts 262
17.10
Aerated Desserts 263
Acknowledgments 265
References 265
Part VII Europe 269
18 Textural Characteristics of Italian Foods 271

Rossella Di Monaco, Nicoletta Antonella Miele, Sharon Puleo,
Paolo Masi, and Silvana Cavella
18.2 Cheese 271
18.2.1 Pasta Filata Cheese 274
18.2.2 Cooked Curd Cheeses 275
18.2.3 Other Italian Cheeses 277
18.3 Salumi 277
18.3.1 Italian Dry‐Cured Ham 278
18.3.2 Salami 281
18.3.3 Mortadella 282
18.4 Bread 282
References 286
19 Textural Characteristics of Greek Foods 293

Stefan Kasapis
19.1 Background 293
19.1.1 Olive Oil 293
19.2 Traditional Greek Cheeses 296
19.2.1 Feta 297
19.3 Health Conscious Feta Manufacturing 298
19.3.1 Texture Profile Analysis of Feta 298
19.3.2 Full and Low Fat Greek Yogurts 299
19.4 Popular Emulsion‐Type Meat Products 300
Contents xv

References 301
20 Textural Characteristics of British Foods 305

Andrew J. Rosenthal and Tim J. Foster
20.1 Introduction – What Are British Foods? 305
20.2 Roast Beef and Yorkshire Pudding 306
20.2.1 Culinary Background to the Dish 306
20.2.2 Nature of the Raw Materials 306
20.2.3 Textural Considerations 307
20.3 Fish and Chips 307
20.3.1 Culinary Background to the Dish 307
20.3.2 Nature of the Raw Materials 308
20.3.3 Textural Considerations 309
References 311
21 Textural Characteristics of Traditional French Foods 313

Bernard Launay
21.2 Change in Texture Awareness: What and Why? 314
21.2.1 The “New Cuisine” Style 314
21.2.2 Restaurants of Foreign Cuisine 314
21.2.3 Fast‐Food Restaurants 314
21.2.4 Changes Attributable to the Development
of Industrial Food Products 315
21.2.5 Texture Measurement in Industry and Research Labs 315
Acknowledgment 318
References 318
22 Textural Characteristics of Spanish Foods: Dry‐Cured Ham 319

Susana Fiszman and Amparo Tarrega
22.2 Production of Dry‐Cured Ham 320
22.2.1 Salting/Post‐Salting 320
22.2.2 Ripening 321
22.3 Sensory Quality of Dry‐Cured Ham 321
22.4 Sensory Assessment of Dry‐Cured Ham 322
22.4.1 Texture Attributes 323
22.4.2 Appearance Attributes 324
22.4.2.1 Color 324
22.4.2.2 Odor and Flavor Attributes 325
22.4.3 Other Sensory Techniques 325
22.4.4 Factors Affecting the Sensory Features of Dry‐Cured Ham 325
22.5 Instrumental Texture Techniques for Dry‐Cured Ham 326
22.5.1 Instrumental TPA 326
xvi Contents
22.5.2
Warner‐Bratzler Test 327
22.5.3
Other Instrumental Methods for Measuring Texture Features 327
22.6 Instrumental Methods for Determining Sensory Features
Other than Texture 328
22.7 Health‐Related Aspects of Dry‐Cured Ham 328
22.8 Final Remarks 330
Acknowledgments 330
References 330
23 Textural Characteristics of German Foods: The German Würstchen 335

Norbert Raak, Klaus Dürrschmid, and Harald Rohm
23.2 Basic Technologies of Sausage Manufacture 336
23.2.1 Rohwurst 336
23.2.2 Brühwurst 337
23.2.3 Kochwurst 337
23.3 Sausage‐Related Culture, Stories, and Recent Trends 337
23.4 Evaluation of Texture and Rheological Properties of Sausages 342
23.5 Typical Sausage Side Dishes and Condiments 346
References 348
24 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Finnish Foods 353

Liisa Lähteenmäki and Karin Autio
24.2 Rye Bread 354
24.2.1 Sensory Attributes 354
24.2.2 Textural Measurements 354
24.2.3 The Effect of Ingredients and Processing Conditions
on Structural Properties 356
24.3 Oat β‐Glucan 356
24.3.1 Sensory Attributes 356
24.3.2 Rheological Properties 357
References 358
Part VIII Africa 361
25 Textural Characteristics of Nigerian Foods 363

Matthew Olusola Oluwamukomi and Olaide Samuel Lawal
25.2 Classification of Foods Based on Their Rheological/Textural
Characteristics 364
25.3 Foods That Flow and Do Not Require Any Chewing During
Oral Processing (Newtonian and Non‐Newtonian Fluids) 364
25.3.1 Newtonian Fluids 364
25.3.1.1 Palm Wine 365
25.3.1.2 Pito 365
Contents xvii
25.3.1.3 Kunun from Cereal 365

25.3.1.4 Nunu from Milk 365
25.3.1.5 Otika 366
25.3.1.6 Burukutu 366
25.3.2 Non‐Newtonian Fluids 366
25.3.2.1 Ketchup 366
25.3.2.2 Draw Soups: (Ogbono, okra, ewedu) 366
25.4 Semisolid Foods That Are Processed in the Mouth by Squeezing
the Tongue and Palate 367
25.4.1 Pasting Properties of Starch Pastes (Ogi, Tuwo,
Amala, Lafun, or Pupuru) 367
25.4.1.1 Ogi/Akamu Porridge/Agidi from Maize 369
25.4.1.2 Tuwo from Maize 370
25.4.1.3 Gari / Eba from Cassava 370
25.4.1.4 Pounded Yam (iyan) or Yam Fufu from Yam 372
25.4.1.5 Amala (Amala isu) from Yam 372
25.5 Soft‐Solid Foods That Require Chewing but Do Not Have “Crispy”
Attributes 373
25.5.1 Akara from Cowpeas 373
25.5.2 Warankasi from Milk 375
25.6 Hard‐Solid Foods Are Crispy and Associated with a Crunchiness 375
25.6.1 Ipekere Agbado (Maize Fritters) 376
25.6.2 Maize Kokoro 376
25.7 Conclusion 377
References 377
Index 385
xix
List of Contributors
Abd Karim Alias Lai Hoong Cheng

Food Technology Division, School of Food Technology Division, School of
Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Silvina Andrés Gail Vance Civille

Center for Research and Development in Sensory Spectrum, Inc., New Providence,
Food Criotechnology (CIDCA), Faculty New Jersey, USA
of Cs. Exactas, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rossella Di Monaco
National University of La Plata (UNLP), Center of Food Innovation and
CICPBA, CONICET, La Plata, Argentina Development in the Food Industry
(CAISIAL), and Department of
Duygu Aslan Agricultural Sciences, University of
Engineering Faculty, Department of Food Naples‐Federico II, Portici, Naples,
Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Italy
Turkey
Patrícia Diaz de Oliveira
Karin Autio Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio
VTT Technical Research Center, Grande do Sul, Brazil
Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland
Mahmut Doğan
Alicia Califano Engineering Faculty, Department of Food
Center for Research and Development in Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri,
Food Criotechnology (CIDCA), Faculty Turkey
of Cs. Exactas, Department of Chemical TAGEM Food Analysis Center Co.,
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Erciyes University Technopark, Kayseri,
National University of La Plata (UNLP), Turkey
CICPBA, CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
Klaus Dürrschmid
Silvana Cavella Institute of Food Science, Universität für
Center of Food Innovation and Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna, Austria
Development in the Food Industry
(CAISIAL), and Department of Bahareh Emadzadeh
Agricultural Sciences, University of Research Institute of Food Science and
Naples‐Federico II, Portici, Naples, Italy Technology, Mashhad, Iran
xx List of Contributors
Susana Fiszman Bernard Launay

Spanish National Research Council, Department of Science and
Madrid, Spain Engineering for Food and Bioproducts,
AgroParisTech, Centre de Massy, France
Tim J. Foster
School of Biosciences, Nottingham Olaide Samuel Lawal
University, Sutton Bonington Department of Chemistry, The Federal
Campus, Loughborough, United University Oye Ekiti, Ekiti, Nigeria
Kingdom
Peter Lillford
Behrouz Ghorani University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Research Institute of Food Science and Birmingham, United Kingdom
Technology, Mashhad, Iran
Gabriel Lorenzo
Andrew Halmos Center for Research and Development in
School of Science, RMIT University, Food Criotechnology (CIDCA), Faculty
Bundoora West Campus, Melbourne, of Cs. Exactas, Department of Chemical
Victoria, Australia Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
National University of La Plata (UNLP),
Long Huang CICPBA, CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
Guangxi Neober Food Sci-Tech Co Ltd,
Hezhou, Guangxi, China Yan Kitt Low
Changzhou Neober Biotech Co Ltd, Food Technology Division, School of
Changzhou, Jiangsu, China Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Stefan Kasapis
School of Science, RMIT University, Paolo Masi
Bundoora West Campus, Melbourne, Center of Food Innovation and
Victoria, Australia Development in the Food Industry
(CAISIAL), and Department of
Lita Katopo Agricultural Sciences, University of
School of Science, RMIT University, Naples‐Federico II, Portici, Naples,
Bundoora West Campus, Melbourne, Italy
Victoria, Australia
Fatima Tahseen Miano
Kaoru Kohyama Engineering Faculty, Department of Food
Food Research Institute, National Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri,
Agriculture and Food Research Turkey
Organization, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan Institute of Food Science and Technology,
Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam,
Annlyse Retiveau Krogmann Sindh, Pakistan
Sensory Spectrum, Inc., New Providence,
New Jersey, USA Nicoletta Antonella Miele
Center of Food Innovation
Liisa Lähteenmäki and Development in the Food
Department of Management, MAPP, Industry (CAISIAL), and
Research on Value Creation in the Department of Agricultural Sciences,
Food Sector, Aarhus University, Aarhus, University of Naples‐Federico II, Portici,
Denmark Naples, Italy
List of Contributors xxi
Nataliia Nepovinnykh of Cs. Exactas, Department of Chemical

Saratov State Agrarian University, Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Saratov, Russia National University of La Plata (UNLP),
CICPBA, CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan, Laurie‐Eve Rioux
China Institute of Nutrition and Functional
Foods (INAF), Laval University, Quebec
Matthew Olusola Oluwamukomi City, Quebec, Canada
Department of Food Science and GastronomiQc Lab Joint Research Unit, a
Technology, Federal University of joint initiative of Université Laval and ITHQ
Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
Harald Rohm
Tooru Ooizumi Chair of Food Engineering, Institute
Department of Marine Science and of Natural Materials Technology,
Technology, Fukui Prefectural University, Technische Universität Dresden,
Obama, Fukui, Japan Dresden, Germany
Véronique Perreault Andrew J. Rosenthal

Quebec Institute of Tourism and Hotel School of Biosciences, Nottingham
Management (ITHQ), Montreal, Quebec, University, Sutton Bonington Campus,
Canada Loughborough, United Kingdom
GastronomiQc Lab Joint Research Unit,
a joint initiative of Université Laval and
A’firah Mohd Sakri
ITHQ
Food Technology Division, School of
Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains
Rungnaphar Pongsawatmanit
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
Nataliia Ptichkina Angelita da Silveira Moreira

Saratov State Agrarian University, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio
Saratov, Russia Grande do Sul, Brazil
Sharon Puleo Narpinder Singh

Center of Food Innovation and Department of Food Science and
Development in the Food Industry Technology, Guru Nanak Dev University,
(CAISIAL), Department of Agricultural Amritsar, Punjab, India
Sciences, University of Naples‐Federico
II, Portici, Naples, Italy Alina Surmacka Szczesniak
Mount Vernon, New York, USA
Norbert Raak
Chair of Food Engineering, Institute Jia Shin Tai
of Natural Materials Technology, Food Technology Division, School of
Technische Universität Dresden, Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains
Dresden, Germany Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Natalia Ranalli Amparo Tarrega

Center for Research and Development in Spanish National Research Council,
Food Criotechnology (CIDCA), Faculty Madrid, Spain
xxii List of Contributors
Alberto Tecante Amardeep Singh Virdi

Facultad de Química, Departamento de Department of Food Science and
Alimentos y Biotecnología, Universidad Technology, Guru Nanak Dev University,
Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Amritsar, Punjab, India
Universitaria, Mexico City, Mexico
Oni Yuliarti
Ellen Thomas School of Chemical and Life Sciences,
Sensory Spectrum, Inc., New Providence, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore,
New Jersey, USA Singapore
Amy Trail Noemí Zaritzky

Sensory Spectrum, Inc., New Providence, Center for Research and Development
New Jersey, USA in Food Criotechnology (CIDCA),
Faculty of Cs. Exactas, Department
Sylvie L. Turgeon of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of
Institute of Nutrition and Functional Engineering, National University of La
Foods (INAF), Laval University, Quebec Plata (UNLP), CICPBA, CONICET,
City, Quebec, Canada La Plata, Argentina
GastronomiQc Lab Joint Research Unit,
a joint initiative of Université Laval and
ITHQ
xxiii
Preface
We all know that the food texture is one of the dominating factors that influence
consumers’ preference of a food product and willingness of next purchase. The texture
of a food is closely associated with its structure at both the macro‐ and micro‐level, and
it therefore has very important implications to other sensory properties, in particular
the taste and aroma, because the release of small molecules depends on the pattern of
food structure breakdown. I understand why consumers often prefer to say a food
“tastes good,” but I believe that understanding a food to be “mouth‐feels good” could be
fundamentally more important in relation to consumers’ acceptance and preference of
a food product.
Even though food texture has been commonly used as a single term and in some cases
used as an alternative to mouth‐feel, it is as a matter of fact a collective term consisting
of a wide range of textural properties. The physical stimulus (or stimuli) to each textural
feature could originate from the structural and geometrical contributions (and some
other contributions, e.g. moisture or oil content), or their combination. No complete
list of textural properties is yet available, but in the Japanese language, more than 400
textural terms/properties have been identified, covering features perceived by touching,
seeing, and even hearing. Therefore, the description, definition, and — more impor-
tantly — the instrumental characterization of textural properties are not easy tasks and
remain as a major challenge to food texture research.
Human beings are very fortunate that a great variety of food is available at different
seasons and in different regions. While such a diversity of food sources is welcomed by
consumers, a big complexity arises due to the diverse texture terms being used by con-
sumers across the globe because of different culture and different languages. Research
has already shown evidence of various texture preferences by consumers of different
cultural backgrounds. Research also shows that the same texture term could have
delicate differences between consumers speaking different languages.
While texture diversity should be celebrated for making our lives much more inter-
esting and pleasurable, it brings a big challenge to the food industry now that its
markets reach across the globe. This book is the first of such kind to give detailed
insights into the texture diversity of foods across at all major regions of the world.
Cultural, linguistic, as well as technical explanations of food texture are brilliantly
integrated in this book.
xxiv Preface
I thank Professor Nishinari for his great effort in getting this book organized and
published. His expert knowledge of food texture demonstrated in this book is hugely
valuable to texture researchers in both industry and research institutes throughout
the world.
Jianshe Chen
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou, China
xxv
Foreword
We know that eating is one of the great unifying pleasures of life. Everywhere and in
every culture, we celebrate by eating, and despite the warnings of an emerging obesity
crisis, nutritionists find it very difficult to persuade people that too much of it can be
bad for them. Furthermore, we are warned that our obvious pleasure in eating good
food, when coupled with the growing population and its affluence, is leading to a global
crisis as demand outstrips supply. This can only be managed if we understand much
more about what we eat and why we like it.
We know that essential nutrients can be provided via liquid diets, and flavor and
aroma can be managed much more easily in liquid systems, but there is something
about chewing and breaking down food to swallow it that we enjoy – perhaps just
because it prolongs or provides complexity to our senses?
So, texture is one of foods’ most important qualities and is a sensation perceived by us
all. But how do we perceive it, and what do we prefer? Why is there such diversity in the
food products eaten around the world? This book will not answer all these questions,
but it provides a wonderful insight into the range of textures we eat and some sugges-
tions as to why.
For the scientist and industrial technologist, the complexity of the questions are fas-
cinating research topics requiring continuous investigation. This book begins with
tributes to the founders of this inquiry, its current state of development, and the oppor-
tunities that modern techniques of mechanics and human physiology can bring to
the table.
Others readers may regard texture as “gestalt,” implying that no amount of reduction-
ist measurement science will (or should) codify the design rules for texture creation and
its pleasurable impact. Whatever philosophy the reader prefers, this book provides a
fascinating survey of what has been created by thousands of skilled empirical develop-
ments, converting agricultural produce to an almost limitless array of eating pleasures.
Peter Lillford
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK
xxvii
Introduction
I.1 Why/How/What Do We Eat?
What do we expect from food? Food supplies energy and nutrition. We eat food when we
feel hungry. This has been known to be controlled by the feeding center and satiety center
in the hypothalamus in the brain. Since the discovery of leptin, a hormone regulating food
intake, the understanding of the mechanism of food intake has greatly advanced. Now, the
mechanism of food intake is being studied further, and it is thought that the central nerv-
ous system in addition to hypothalamus is governing the food intake.
Food has such a physiological function, but also has psychological or cultural aspects
that have not been understood completely by physiology. The mechanism that explains
why people lose their appetite in dejection caused by events such as the death of beloved
persons, a broken heart, or being scolded has not been identified.
Food has a special function to unite people by conviviality. This function plays impor-
tant roles to strengthen family ties in daily life, but was also used by feudal kings and
aristocrats to tame or govern subordinates. People like to eat special foods on the occa-
sion or the turning point in their lives such as birthday, marriage, and funeral. Selection
of foods depend on the preference, which is influenced by culture and economic status.
Food processing/cookery has assured the safety by sterilization and removal of harm-
ful ingredients, storage, and transportation, as well as improving the palatability. Texture
has been known to be the most important attribute determining the palatability, and
has recently attracted more and more attention in relation to the safe delivery of food
into digestive organs without causing choking or aspiration (i.e. the wrong transport of
masticated foods or liquids bolus into the airway instead of to the esophagus then stom-
ach). In addition to these urgent problems, the interaction between the food and oral
organs governed by brain function has attracted much attention, although these are not
yet well understood. Thin liquids are known to be swallowed faster than thick liquids.
Firm foods are masticated more strongly and the number of chews is greater than for
soft foods. Are firmer foods chewed slower or faster than soft foods? Or is the chewing
speed independent of firmness? It may depend not only on the firmness but also on
aroma and taste (Nishinari and Fang 2018).
Society for Mastication Science and Health Promotion was founded by Kinziro Kubota
in Japan in 1990. The collaboration among dentists, food scientists, and related disciplines
is thought to be important. People tend to prefer softer processed foods that do not need
xxviii Introductio
mastication. As a result, the jaw is degenerated and the space for teeth to grow is becom-
ing insufficient, and thus the problem of snaggleteeth/irregular teeth can become serious.
The growth of the dental industry in developed countries indicates that people do not
want to be deprived of the gratifying sensations that arise from eating their food. From
the nutritional standpoint, it is possible to have a completely adequate diet in the form
of fluid foods that require no mastication. However, few people are content to live on
such a diet. It clearly shows that people want to continue to enjoy the textural sensations
that arise from masticating their food (Bourne 2002). Bourne raises the following rea-
sons for masticating food: gratification, comminution, mix with saliva, temperature
adjustment, released flavor, and increased surface area. The link between reduced mas-
tication ability and hippocampal neuron loss has been suggested, which might indicate
that chewing plays a role in fending off dementia.
Saito examined the number of chewing using restored menus in each era in Japanese
history. According to his examination, the restored menu for Himiko, queen of Yamatai
in the third century, was found to need 3990 chews taking 51 minutes, 1366 chews and
31 minutes for Murasaki Shikibu (the author of Tale of Genji in the tenth to eleventh
century), 2654 chews and 29 minutes for Minamoto Yoritomo (the first warrior
Shogunate) in the end of twelfth century, 1465 chews and 22 minutes for Tokugawa
Ieyasu (who established Edo Bakufu Shogunate in 1603) while only 620 chews and
11 minutes for a common menu in the present.
The decreasing tendency of the number of chews is a reflection of the decrease in the
intake of tough/firm/hard foods. Many reports have been published that eating slowly
with much mastication reduces the likelihood of obesity. Will this gradual change of
food texture from firm to soft continue? Although the invention of softening of firm
foods by enzymatic action that retains food appearance is good news for persons with
difficulty in mastication, the decrease in chewing cycles sometimes results in fast eat-
ing, overeating, and obesity for normal persons. Bolhuis et al. (2014) and Forde et al.
(2016) reported that smaller bite (amount of food ingested in the mouth) sizes and more
chewing increased oro‐sensory exposure time and slowed the eating rate, thus provid-
ing a stronger satiety response per energy consumed.
While many studies have reported that the expected satiation increased with increas-
ing thickness/hardness for liquid/solid foods, and texture is more important determi-
nant for expected satiation and thus for the selected portion size of food, other factors
such as the means of consumption (e.g. using straw or spoon), affecting the eating rate,
could not be neglected. It is also expected that a creamy flavor will cause a higher satia-
tion than fruity flavor, but this remains inconclusive (Hogenkamp et al. 2011). Texture
and flavor are the two most important determinants of food consumption in addition to
the cost, and their respective roles and interaction should be studied further.
I.2 Terms for Texture/Taste/Aroma Related

to Diverse Foods/Recipes
Is there a relationship between the two representing systems of written language, alpha-
bets (phonetics) and ideograms, and the universality/diversity problem?
Ancient Egyptians used hieroglyphics representing shapes of all the things around
them, and ancient Chinese used also hieroglyphic characters engraved on bones and
Introductio xxix
tortoise shells. Origins of letters seem to be not so different. It can be imagined that
ancient people devised these tools for communication by representing the shape faith-
fully and then simplified these shapes. However they came to their language, people of
world now speak more than 7000 languages (although not all of these have a written
equivalent, and many of these are spoken only by a small number of people). In an
attempt to improve communication, Polish doctor L. L. Zamenhof invented what he
hoped could be a universal language, Esperanto, although it has not gained many users/
speakers.
While most languages have evolved into alphabets that represent only sounds (i.e.
phonetics, without specific meaning), Chinese‐based languages have kept the enor-
mous number of hieroglyphic characters. However, the characters were simplified in
the twentieth century in mainland China and Singapore; Japan and Taiwan retain the
traditional Chinese characters.
The number of Chinese characters was thought to be about 50 000, but the publica-
tion of the largest Chinese character dictionary Zhonghua Zihai (simplified Chinese:
中华字海) compiled in 1994 listed 85 568 different characters. It is thus difficult to
determine the exact number of Chinese characters. I had a lucky experience to be nour-
ished by a Chinese family during my stay in the United Kingdom and was given different
dish every day for more than six months. I enjoyed different dish every day for 180 days!
This family knew so many recipes! Is this diversity of dishes related to the enormous
number of Chinese characters?
Japan is known to have the largest number of texture terms – about 500. In his visits
to Japan, Bourne was impressed by the textural diversity of Japanese foods (Bourne
2002). The great number of texture terms represents the deep attachment to texture
difference of foods. The high ratio of the Japanese texture terms is onomatopoetic
(Nishinari et al. 2008; Hayakawa 2015). Onomatopoetic representation of the texture is
similar to the hieroglyphic representation of things. Only a slight difference of the
appearance, shape, size, color, sound, etc. requires a different term in onomatopoeia,
just as in the enormous number of characters in Egyptian or Chinese hieroglyphic rep-
resentation. There has been no systematic published study on the relation between the
actual sound one hears during mastication and the onomatopoeic word chosen to rep-
resent the sound. Is it determined by anatomic structural difference of organs in the oral
cavity or in the cultural difference originated in one’s personal environmental back-
ground, historical, geographical, or education? It is well known that the onomatopoeic
words for birds and other animals are different in English, French, and other languages,
and therefore, these cultural differences partly account for differences in the onomato-
poeia. Whether physiological difference or cultural differences are more important has
not been studied, as far as the author is aware.
I.3 Universality and Diversity

For most physicists, it is valuable to understand a phenomenon by a simple equation
symbolized by a Newton’s law of motion. Although all the events in the universe seem
to be very complicated, we can understand the essence of the event by extracting the
most important core of the event. Thus, physics made a great progress, and humans
succeeded in understanding many events/phenomena. While the physicists have won a
xxx Introductio
great success, the biologists still face a great deal of mystery, although the field has
also seen many great achievements. Physicists like the universality, while botanists/
zoologists/microbiologists are interested in discovering the distinctions that identify
new species or in the phenomenon where many factors intersect, making the simpli-
fication – extraction of the essence – difficult. They pay more attention to the diversity,
although they also try to find some universal law that can explain biological phenomena
(Nishinari et al. 2016).
Goethe’s Faust reflects the thought of the biblical book Ecclesiastes that there is noth-
ing new under the sun. Goethe is known to have discovered the incisive bone, and
therefore he should have known that before and after the discovery, human knowledge
is changed. He also disagreed with Newton’s analytical understanding of the nature. He
wrote that nature should be grasped totally and should not be shredded into separated
parts (Thuillier 1980). Thus, his thought “nothing new under the sun” should mean that
human nature, mind, and feeling are essentially the same and not changed from the
ancient times to his age. Therefore, the phrase “under the sun” represents “in the human
mind.” However, our way of thinking and feeling is strongly influenced by the environ-
ment, which has been modified by science and technology. In the sixteenth century, a
French monk Francois Rabelais wrote Gargantua and Pantagruel, giving advice on a
wide range of best practices. Imagine what he would say if he could have used a washlet
to clean himself after defecation instead of the downy feathers of a goose’s neck.
Japanese Food Guide Spinning Top, proposed in Japan in 2005, uses easily understood
illustrations to show desirable combinations of food groups and their approximate
quantities. It was formulated by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)
and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). In this representation, not
only the intake of the combination of diverse foods but also the importance of exercise
is emphasized, because if the top stops spinning, it falls over. It is well‐known that exer-
cise improves the appetite for diverse foods, although instead of healthy exercise, some
immoral ancient Romans were reported to vomit to empty their stomach to create room
for another favorite food. In the extreme, if one eats only one cup of noodles as a meal,
this is surely against the recommendation of the Food Guide. Even if one is busy, one
should not forget that continuing to eat such a simple meal will lead to health problems.
Thus, enjoying a well‐balanced meal is not only an enjoyable but also a necessary duty
for humans to be free from illness and to reduce the burden on a nation’s resources.
I.4 Wonderful Diversity of World Foods

As we can see in this book, different foods are eaten in each country. Each nation has its
own food materials and enjoy different taste, aroma, and texture. Their raw materials
are different, and way of cooking and processing are different. Texture, taste, and aroma
interact, and the texture is the most important attributes to determine the palatability
of foods, especially in staple food such as rice, bread, noodle, and potatoes, which
mostly have no strong taste and aroma (Szczesniak 1963; Bourne 2002; Nishinari and
Fang 2018).
Most humans enjoy the meals, and feel happy when they eat palatable foods with
beloved persons, families, and friends. This pleasure to share the enjoyment with others
is specific for humans, although animals give food to their children during nursing.
Introductio xxxi
Humans have learned to share the pleasure with others in the course of building com-
munity. Since many nations wish to live peacefully with other nations, this shared pleas-
ure should prevail all over the world. Readers will find that many different palatable
foods are enjoyed in different countries, and will be interested in traveling to different
countries to experience different foods/culture. Foods can unite all the humans peacefully.
This book is a collection of more than 20 chapters, each describing the textural char-
acteristic of traditional and special foods in each country. We can learn from the tradi-
tional and special foods that are liked by people in each country. People are generally
conservative in the preference of foods, but if they recognize the merit of new foods that
might add to enjoyment and might also help people recovering from illnesses or sur-
gery, these new foods attract much attention and prompt the industry explore more
new products. Readers may find it interesting to compare the different preferences of
the texture for cooked rice in Japan, Europe, and India. Readers may learn new ideas to
improve food processing and distribution. Chapters address not only texture but the
flavor release, as well as the relation between the texture and taste/aroma.
Recently, palatability has been shown not only to add enjoyment but also contribute
to health by improving appetite and saliva secretion, and other physiological functions
such as immunity and stress; the interleukin was found to increase in rats that were fed
with sweet feeds while corticosterone was found to increase in rats fed with bitter feeds.
As Brillat‐Savarin says:
The pleasure of the table belongs to all ages, to all conditions, to all countries, and
to all areas; it mingles with all other pleasures, and remains at last to console
them for their departure. … The discovery of a new dish confers more happiness
on humanity than the discovery of a new star.
A so‐called China’s Brillat‐Savarin, Yuan Mei also talked about the pleasure of the
table. Food companies are required to make products with many kinds of characteris-
tics in response to consumer demand.
Diversity is not only reflected in foods and in culture; science and the arts also reveal
the value of diversity. Misuzu Kaneko, a wonderful Japanese poet who unfortunately
committed suicide, is loved by many Japanese including myself still today. The poet
chanted, “Minna chigatte minna ii,” which I like so much and which has been translated
by perhaps more than hundred Japanese persons, as exemplified in the internet:
Everyone is different. That is what makes them wonderful. Everyone has his/her own
wonderful personality. Everyone is different from others, and has value of existing, etc.
A poet could be and should be and tries to create a new original expression that has
sometimes never been used, and thus uses a special word that might not be understood
immediately or move readers immediately. Sometimes the art will be understood only
by a small group of people. Likewise, it is good to be able to enjoy different foods in the
travel – to savor the diversity and find enjoyment in the experience. However, food has
additional requirements. It must be not only palatable but also be safe. It must not be
too expensive, and it must be sustainable, which is a task for food science and technology.
I would like to unify the universality and diversity, and wish readers to enjoy each
chapter and become friendly with many countries. I thank all the contributors of the
book. It is my hope that readers will gain a greater appreciation for the important role
of texture as they read this book. I am happy to see that my friends Amos Nussinovitch
xxxii Introductio
and Madoka Hirashima published a book “More Cooking Innovations – Novel

Hydrocolloids for Special Dishes” complementing their previous book “Cooking
Innovations – Using Hydrocolloids for Thickening, Gelling and Emulsification”, both
published from CRC Press.
I.5 Some Pitfalls in Texture Studies

After affirming and admiring the diversity of world foods, I must note that we should
better to understand each other by using the common words to avoid the calamity of
the biblical Tower of Babel, in which languages were so confused that people were
unable to communicate meaningfully.
Foods that are masticated are broken down into small fragments by the teeth and
mixed with saliva, thus being sufficiently lubricated to be swallowed (Hutchings and
Lillford 1988). This mouth process model has been taken into account by many texture
research groups as the starting point for understanding the oral processing (Chen and
Engelen 2012). Although the mouth process model of Hutchings and Lillford is very
versatile and schematizes concisely the dynamic nature, it does not specify the force or
the distance quantitatively and never mentions the effect of smell and taste, which influ-
ences the mastication behavior. The interaction among different sensations texture,
taste, and odor is still a matter of debate.
The texture profile analysis (TPA) has been widely used to quantify the textural char-
acteristics of solid foods. This is a simple experiment to compress by a plunger a sample
food placed on a flat base of the uniaxial compression machine, and then record the
force. Usually, the compression speed is chosen so that it is closer to the mastication
speed, but unfortunately, some commercially available machines do not allow the
experimenter to use such a compression rate. In addition, in normal mastication the
lower teeth in the mandible are raised to contact with the upper teeth so that foods can
be broken down effectively, but in the TPA measurement the distance between the
plunger and the base, called the clearance, cannot be set to zero to protect the force
sensor. When the hardness is defined by the peak force, it is necessary to write the
cross‐sectional area of the sample because the force is almost doubled when the area is
doubled. It is also a pity that so many published papers lack the information of the
compression rate,which seriously affects the value of hardness (Bourne 2002; Nishinari
and Fang 2018).
The adhesiveness is defined by the negative peak force or the area enclosed by the
force curve and the base line (usually time), and is usually interpreted as the degree of
stickiness of foods to the oral organ, teeth, tongue, and palate. However, no‐rubber‐like
sample is broken down after the first compression, and the surface area of the sample
could not be defined uniquely. Therefore, to determine the adhesiveness, it is better to
choose a larger clearance so that the area of the sample can be easily defined (Brenner
and Nishinari 2014).
The ratio of the area of the force enclosed by the first compression to that of the sec-
ond compression is called cohesiveness, and it is interpreted as the internal forces that
maintain the structure of foods. Therefore, very brittle foods such as biscuits don’t
recover the height after they are broken down by the first compression; the second
compression does not detect any force, leading to a 0 cohesiveness value. It is
Introductio xxxiii
understandable that more deformable elastic foods such as surimi or dessert jelly may
recover the initial height after the first compression, and therefore these foods many
show comparatively higher value of cohesiveness. However, if this method is applied to
liquids such as water, it is evident that the cohesiveness is equal to 1 because the level of
water in a container will fully recover the initial height before the second compression
begins. Is the cohesiveness of water is so high? Researchers working in dysphagia treat-
ment say that yogurt‐like texture is ideal to prevent the aspiration because it is cohesive,
meaning that the broken down fragment stick each other, which is called cohesive. But
this “cohesiveness” is much different from the highest cohesiveness value of 1 shown by
water, and is thought to be most dangerous for dysphagic patients because it is least
cohesive! Thus, it is dangerous to apply TPA directly to liquid foods in the container
(Nishinari et al. 2013, 2019a, b).
The plots of breaking stress σb against breaking strain εb are frequently used to classify
the texture of foods, e.g. the ratio of σb/εb is called gel rigidity and used in the surimi
community in Japan. It is evident, however, that this schematic presentation does not
distinguish the strain hardening and strain softening because this ratio is obtained from
only two points, the origin and the breaking point, and does not take into account
whether the curve is convex (strain softening) or concave (strain hardening).
Small‐amplitude oscillational shear measurements have been introduced to under-
stand the texture correlating with structure, but unfortunately sometimes, the artifacts
were reported because of the slippage between the sample and the geometry of the
apparatus. This is mostly caused by the syneresis. It is recommended to use waterproof
sandpaper because serrated geometry commercially available is not sufficient to pre-
vent the slippage, and/or to use the uniaxial deformation, which is free from slippage
(Nishinari and Fang, 2018).
I.6 About This Book

The editing of the book started from the obituary for Alina Szczesniak, a pioneer of
texture studies, who contributed a chapter “Food Textures in the United States of
America” in a book New Encyclopedia of Mouthfeel (Eds. K. Nishinari, F. Nakazawa,
K. Katsuta, J. Toda), which was published in 1999 only in Japanese by the Japanese
publisher Science Forum (Tokyo). The Part of the book contains six chapters contrib-
uted by Long Huang (on China), Bernnard Launay (on France), Stefan Kasapis and
Dimitrios Boskou (on Greece), Karin Autio and Liisa Lähteenmäki (on Finland), Andrew
Halmos (on Australia), Alina Szczesniak (on USA).
As I was writing her obituary, I felt obliged to publish her chapter, together with
other contributions, in English. One of the editors, Jun Toda, fortunately kept copies
of her manuscripts, and the director of the publisher Science Forum Motoyama
generously allowed us to use these manuscripts. Szczesniak’s chapter has not
lost its value but contains a lot of important descriptions. Her faithful coworker
Gail Vance Civille and her team contributed additional information to complement
Szczesniak’s chapter.
It was not an easy task for each author to write textural characteristics of foods in his/
her country. I feel happy and grateful to all the contributors for their great effort. I
would like to thank all the editing team of Wiley, Cheryl, Bobby, Saleem, Atthira, Menon
xxxiv Introductio
and other persons all who participated for publishing this book. I hope that this book is
enjoyable and wish the readers happy reading. Bon appétit! (Enjoy your meals!)
References
Bolhuis, D.P., Forde, C.G., Chen, Y. et al. (2014). Slow food: sustained impact of harder
foods on the reduction in energy intake over the course of the day. PLoS One 9: e93370.
Bourne, M.C. (2002). Food Texture and Viscosity, 2e. New York: Academic Press.
Brenner, T. and Nishinari, K. (2014). A note on instrumental measures of adhesiveness and
their correlation with sensory perception. J. Texture Stud. 45: 74–79.
Chen, J. and Engelen, L. (eds.) (2012). Food Oral Processing: Fundamentals of Eating and
Sensory Perception. Chichester, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell.
Forde, C.G., Leong, C., Chia‐Ming, E. et al. (2016). Fast or slow‐foods? Describing natural
variations in oral processing characteristics across a wide range of Asian foods. Food
Funct. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FO01286H.
Hayakawa, F. (2015). Vocabularies and terminologies of food texture description and
characterization. In: Modifying Food Texture Vol. 2: Sensory Analysis, Consumer
Requirements and Preferences (eds. J. Chen and A. Rosenthal), 3–18. Amsterdam:
Woodhead, Elsevier.
Hogenkamp, P.S., Stafleu, A., Mars, M. et al. (2011). Texture, not flavor, determines
expected satiation of dairy products. Appetite 57 (3): 635–641.
Hutchings, J.B. and Lillford, P.L. (1988). The perception of food texture – the philosophy of
the breakdown path. J. Texture Stud. 9: 103–115.
Nishinari, K. and Fang, Y. (2018). Perception and measurement of food texture – solid
foods. J. Texture Stud. 49: 160–201.
Nishinari, K., Fang, Y., Mleko, S. et al. (2016). Food Science and Technology from a Japanese
Perspective. Poland: University of Life Sciences in Lublin. ISBN: ISBN 978‐83‐63657‐64‐2
www.perfekta.info.pl tel.81 46 10 229.
Nishinari, K., Fang, Y., and Rosenthal, A. (2019a). Human oral processing and texture
profile analysis parameters – bridging the gap between the sensory evaluation and the
instrumental measurements. J. Texture Stud. 50: 1–12.
Nishinari, K., Turcanu, M., Nakauma, M., and Fang, Y. (2019b). Role of fluid cohesiveness
in safe swallowing. NPJ Science of Food 3: 5.
Nishinari, K., Hayakawa, F., Xia, C. et al. (2008). Comparative study of texture terms:
English, French, Japanese, and Chinese. J. Texture Stud. 39: 530–568.
Nishinari, K., Kohyama, K., Kumagai, H. et al. (2013). Parameters of texture profile
analysis. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 19: 519–521.
Nishinari, K., Nakazawa, F., Katsuta, K. et al. (1999). New Encyclopedia of Mouthfeel.
Tokyo: Science Forum.
Szczesniak, A. (1963). Classification of textural characteristics. J. Food Sci. 28: 385–389.
Thuillier, P. (1980). Le petit savant illustré. Paris: Seuil. Translated from French into
Japanese by Koide, S., Nishinari, K and Terada, M. (1984) Han=Kagakushi, Shin‐
Hyoron, Tokyo.
1
Food Texture – Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Measurement

Kaoru Kohyama
Food Research Institute, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
1.1 Introduction: History of Food Texture Studies

Various types of foods are consumed across the worlds. Humans have experienced dif-
ferent food textures and carried on the tradition during the sharing of their foods over
many generations, but it is not known when texture studies of foods first began. The
great scientist Robert Hooke, after from Hookean solids are named, explained the prin-
ciple of elastic deformation of solids, and Isaac Newton, who founded the law governing
the flow of simple liquids (Newtonian fluids), may be included in the founding of tex-
ture studies. A great number of works were published more than 100 years ago (Bourne
2002, pp. 26–27), but food texture as a main study subject appears to have originated in
the late 1950s (Szczesniak 2002). As texture is defined as “all the mechanical, geometri-
cal and surface attributes of a product perceptible by means of mechanical, tactile and,
where appropriate, visual and auditory receptors” (ISO 11036 1994), food texture is
perceived as the physical characteristics of food experienced by humans; therefore, only
humans can perceive and describe texture (Szczesniak 2002). Texture analyses that
combine a sensory evaluation and an instrumental measurement have been widely per-
formed since the 1960s. Alina S. Szczesniak and Malcolm C. Bourne, who both passed
away in 2016 (Nishinari and Fang 2018), were great pioneers of food texture studies
from the viewpoints of sensory evaluation and physics, respectively. Many sensory and
instrumental measurements of food texture have been published in a myriad of publica-
tions such as the Journal of Texture Studies (1970–) and others (Kohyama 2018). Later,
a variety of methods are introduced.
In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the
2030 Agenda (United Nations 2015). Foods are produced and processed in a globally
sustainable system as shown in Figure 1.1 (Kohyama 2015). The physical properties of
food materials are dramatically changed during each step in the process, and the mag-
nitude of this change is generally significant. The physical properties and structures in
Textural Characteristics of World Foods, First Edition. Edited by Katsuyoshi Nishinari.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2 1 Food Texture – Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Measurement
Food Industry Distribution

Cooking
Food Processing
(“Pre-oral Processing”)
Eating
Bolus Bite size

Swallow
Agriculture Oral
Processing
Digestion
Absorption
Figure 1.1 Food processing system accompanied by changes in texture. Source: Edited from Kohyama
(2015, p. 139).
the early stages of food processing, where raw materials are not eaten, and those in the
digestive stages after swallowing are less important for texture. Most textural informa-
tion of foods is sensed manually just before eating and orally during oral processing in
the food system.
When we eat, a bite‐size food is processed using the tongue and teeth, and then subse-
quently swallowed. The time required for oral processing is very short, approximately
1 second for a liquid such as water, 10 seconds for thick liquids and semisolids, and
100 seconds for hard solid foods (Kohyama 2015). Physical properties of food never reach
an equilibrium state during this short period: The food structure is broken down, mixed
with saliva, and a bolus is prepared for swallowing (Hutchings and Lillford 1988; Chen
2009; Koç et al. 2013; Kohyama 2015; Lillford 2018; Nishinari and Fang 2018). The oral
stage has been more extensively studied (Chen 2009), and a series of international confer-
ences named “Food Oral Processing” has been organized every two years since 2010.
Recently, Jeltema et al. (2015) suggested that food texture is determined by the pre-
ferred manner of oral processing or mouth behaviors of each person. There are four
distinct patterns (chewer, cruncher, smoother, and sucker) of mouth behaviors, with
subjects belonging to different groups perceiving food textures of the same food dif-
ferently. The mouth behaviors of consumers must be considered in designing the
texture of a food. Aging decreases oral adaptation to food textures in healthy indi-
viduals, and oral impairments such as tooth loss can also change eating behaviors
(Peyron et al. 2017).
Oral processing can be skipped if well‐homogenized diets are served, which is the
case for infant foods and diets for those with dysphagia (Cichero 2017). However,
oral processing is required for the perception of food texture and flavor, and for
enjoyment of food as an essential part of life (Kohyama 2015). The perception of
food texture for each individual is determined according to one’s capabilities, physi-
cal activities, hunger/thirst, and other physiological states such as the time of the day
and environmental conditions. The relationships between objective measurements,
subjective sensory perceptions, and consumer preferences must be clearly addressed
(Tunick 2011).
1.2 Three Methods of Texture Evaluation 3
Feature Method Observed object Discipline
Sensory Perceived texture Psychophysics

Subjective
evaluation
After starting
oral processing
Perception Modulation
Human
Oral processing Oral physiology
measurement
During Oral
Before
eating receptors oral processing
Instrumental Food properties

Objective Physics/Chemistry
analysis structure
Figure 1.2 Methods for the evaluation of food texture. Source: Edited from Kohyama (2015, p. 139).
1.2 Three Methods of Texture Evaluation

Figure 1.2 shows the evaluation methods of food texture (Wilkinson et al. 2000;
Kohyama 2015). Texture is assessed by subjective sensory evaluations based on psycho-
physics and by objective instrumental measurements based on physics and/or chemis-
try. Texture and related physical properties can be evaluated by instruments that
measure rheology, fracture, and acoustics as well as by microscope and spectrometers,
which are able to characterize the structure of materials.
These instrumental and sensory results are often inconsistent. In addition to the non-
equilibrium nature of food texture mentioned above, other reasons for this inconsist-
ency could be the time during which the instruments are used (before oral processing),
while differ from the time of the sensory evaluations, which are typically performed
after the initiation of oral processing. In addition, there is a nonlinear relationship
between the magnitude of what can be perceived by the human senses and the intensity
of the physical stimuli from food. Conditions such as temperature, moisture due to
saliva, chewing movements, and food deformation rates during oral processing are not
well mimicked by conventional instruments and can influence instrumental results
(Bourne 2002, pp. 33–57, 347–368).
As Szczesniak and Bourne (1969) previously reported, panelists change the methods
for manually determining firmness. The viscosity principle is used for soft foods such as
puddings; deformation by gentle squeezing is used for firmer foods such as bread and
tomatoes; puncture forces using a finger are utilized for pears and apples; and the flex-
ing principle is used for raw carrots. Shama and Sherman (1973) reported that the orally
perceived viscosities of a wide range of liquids and semi‐solid foods can be perceived at
different shear stresses and strains. Shear stress, which is caused by the tongue squeez-
ing at a low shear rate around 10 s−1, can be used to assess the viscosity of highly viscous
foods such as chocolate spread, lemon curd, and peanut butter, whereas different shear
rates and a similar low shear stress can be used for liquids with low viscosity. Moreover,
humans are able to modify how they process food according to the texture perceived
(Figure 1.2).
To eliminate the data gap between the objective and subjective methods, it is neces-
sary to examine the physical changes that foods undergo during oral processing
(Nishinari and Fang 2018). Human physiological measurements can relate the physico-
chemical properties measured by instruments and the perceived textures evaluated by
sensory panelists (Wilkinson et al. 2000; Bourne 2002, pp. 293–319; Koç et al. 2013;
Kohyama 2015). Instead of instruments, sensors that detect load, displacement, vibra-
tion, strain, etc. are often housed in the instruments are attached to human subjects
who eat the food in the physiological methods. The output values from the sensors are
objective, similarly to those of instrumental analyses, and the mode of oral processing is
the same as for the sensory evaluations. The force or pressure, kinematics, and muscle
activities are objectively measured during oral processing, and these values correspond
to load, deformation, and energy measurements obtained by instrumental evaluations
of food texture (Kohyama 2015).
Bourne (1975) stated that instrumental measurements based on rheology, the study
of the deformation and flow, are only able to describe a fraction of the physical proper-
ties sensed by the mouth: changes in size (comminution), moisture (hydration due to
saliva), temperature, and surface roughness during oral processing.
Tribological measurements are related to mouthfeel during oral processing (Chen
2009; Chen and Stokes 2012; Stokes et al. 2013). When the thickness of the food placed
on the surface of the oral organ is large (> 100 μm), combined with a normal first bite
and during an early stage of oral processing, the bulk properties relating to thickness,
firmness, crispness, melting, and breakdown predominate. Rheology is most useful as
an instrumental method in cases of large deformation rheology and fracture testing in
solid foods. When the thickness of the food is 0.1–100 μm after some oral processing
the mixing of the food particles with saliva or liquids from the food causes the creami-
ness, smoothness, and slipperiness that can be analyzed by tribology (Chen and Stokes
2012; Stokes et al. 2013). When the thickness is in the nm–μm range, the food surface
properties related to astringency, roughness, and homogeneity predominate. During
the late stage of oral processing, a bolus is formed and swallowed, and some residual
attributes can then be sensed. These qualities can also be studied by rheology and tri-
bology (Stokes et al. 2013).
1.3 Methodologies in Sensory Evaluation of Texture

Texture is a complicated attribute that is derived from a number of words used to
describe an attribute (Szczesniak 2002). Based on an examination of consumers’ aware-
ness of texture, Szczesniak and colleagues at the General Foods Corporation Technical
Center proposed a definition and classification for texture characteristics (Szczesniak
1963). They developed standard rating scales for hardness, brittleness, chewiness, gum-
miness, viscosity, and adhesiveness for quantitative evaluation of food texture
(Szczesniak et al. 1963), and proposed the texture profile method (Brandt et al. 1963).
These approaches are the basis of the international standards of sensory analysis and
have been modified over time. The texture profile method has been widely used as the
standard method (ISO 11036).
Developing a texture lexicon and classifying texture terms have reported globally, and
international comparative studies of texture terms have been conducted (Jowitt 1974;
1.3 Methodologies in Sensory Evaluation of Texture 5
Drake 1989; Nishinari et al. 2008; Antmann et al. 2011; Hayakawa 2015; Arboleda and
Arce‐Lopera 2017). The most frequently used texture term in Japan is “hard–soft,”
although “crisp” is more frequently used in the United States and Austria (Bourne 2002,
p. 5). The Japanese use several different ideograms expressed as different Chinese char-
acters (kanji) to describe the terms, such as hard, firm, stiff, tough, and rigid, which are
pronounced as ka‐ta‐i in Japanese (Hayakawa et al. 2013; Nishinari and Fang 2018).
Drake (1989) provided a list of 54 texture and rheology terms translated from English
into 22 different languages (Bahasa, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French,
German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian,
Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog, and Welsh). A word in one language
was sometimes used to describe multiple texture attributes that were described by
distinguishable terms in another language. Drake pointed out that misunderstandings,
confusion, and inconsistencies might occur during such translations. Currently, stand-
ard texture lexicons are available for download on the websites of the International
Organization for Standardization (https://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue.htm) and
the ASTM International: (www.astm.org) (Hayakawa 2015).
Texture terms often include onomatopoeias (Yoshikawa et al. 1970; Hayakawa et al.
2005, 2013; Antmann et al. 2011; Hayakawa 2015). As listed by Yoshikawa et al. (1970)
and Hayakawa et al. (2005), there are more than 400 Japanese terms for texture, a much
greater number than in other languages (Bourne 2002; p. 5). There are also many ono-
matopoetic and mimetic Japanese terms for texture (Hayakawa et al. 2013).
The sensory texture profiling procedure was developed by Szczesniak et al. in the
early 1960s (Brandt et al. 1963; Szczesniak 2002; Bourne 2002, pp. 257–286). Some
modifications to the basic texture profile analysis (TPA) procedure have been made.
Sensory texture measurements are made primarily by touch, although appearance and
sound sometimes provide important information for the texture profile of a food prod-
uct. The major steps in the sensory texture profile are (i) panel selection, (ii) panel train-
ing, (iii) establishment of standard rating scales using standard products, (iv)
establishment of a basic score sheet for the TPA, and (iv) development of a comparative
TPA score sheet for each commodity. Texture is typically analyzed using selected terms
and the extent to when and how a panelist touches and treats or manipulates a product.
Sensory evaluation includes several steps that occur both outside and inside the
mouth. Examples of the latter steps are the first bite, the early and late stages of mastica-
tion, swallowing, and the residual feel of the food in the mouth and throat (Brandt et al.
1963; Szczesniak 2002). Some mechanical properties such as firmness, fracturability,
and viscosity are perceived during the first bite, whereas gumminess, chewiness, and
adhesiveness are evaluated during the masticatory stage, and mouth‐coating is per-
ceived late or as residual attribute after swallowing.
Quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) is a technique for characterizing the per-
ceived sensory attributes in quantitative terms (Stone et al. 1974). Descriptive analysis
has been the main tool in sensory science for the acquisition of detailed, reliable, and
reproducible data to describe sensory profiles. Check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) is a simple
and fast sensory profiling tool that is often used in consumer studies (Lazo et al. 2016).
Panelists check all sensory attributes from the list; however, the magnitudes of the
selected attributes are not analyzed.
The above‐mentioned methods are used to describe sensory attributes at a defined
moment. Sensory texture evaluation during oral processing has evolved to include
dynamic sensory evaluations, which are used to analyze temporal changes in textural
attributes. Time intensity (TI) is a method during which a panelist sequentially describes
the intensity of a selected attribute (Lee III and Pangborn 1986; Cliff and Heymann
1993; Jack et al. 1994; Sprunt et al. 2002; Le Révérend et al. 2008). In the method of
temporal dominance of sensations (TDS), a panelist continuously chooses the strongest
attribute at each moment from a list of attributes (Labbe et al. 2009; Pineau et al. 2009;
Cheong et al. 2014; Fiszman and Tarrega 2018). For time check‐all‐that‐apply (TCATA),
a panelist checks all perceived attributes at successive moments (Ares et al. 2015;
Castura et al. 2016). Panelists do not quantify the magnitudes in the latter two methods,
but the ratio of panelists who check an attribute provides information on the intensity
of the attribute at each moment.
Sherman (1969) proposed an amended texture profile shortly after that described by
Szczesniak et al. The only criterion in Sherman’s classification was whether the charac-
teristic is a fundamental property or is derived from a combination of two or more
attributes. The primary characteristics are analytical composition, particle size and
shape; the secondary characteristics are elasticity, viscosity, and adhesion; and the ter-
tiary characteristics are mechanical properties such as hard, brittle, plastic, crisp,
creamy, soggy, and sticky, so on.
Sensory attributes are evaluated at different stages of the oral processing (Chen 2009;
Koç et al. 2012; Nishinari and Fang 2018). The initial properties of a food such as firm-
ness, deformability, and springiness are manually perceived. Oral processing accompa-
nies a sequential perception of texture: compression between the tongue and palate, the
first bite, repeated chewing or mastication, bolus formation, swallowing, and residual
mouthfeel.
1.4 Instrumental Measurements of Food Texture

Objective evaluation methods using instruments for texture measurements have been
categorized into three types: fundamental, empirical, and imitative (Scott‐Blair 1958;
Rosenthal 1999; Bourne 2002, pp. 107–112). Fundamental methods are based on mate-
rials science, such as rheology, and provide well‐defined physical properties. Typical
examples are Young’s modulus, dynamic shear modulus and viscosity coefficients, but
they often fail to explain the textural characteristics perceived by humans. When
humans touch a material, their perceptions are not in accordance with the idealized
hypothesis of a fundamental measurement. The ratio of deformation of soft food mate-
rials extends over the linear region of force and deformation, and humans evaluate
texture prior to the point where a food sample reaches an equilibrium state.
Better correlations to sensory scores have often been obtained using empirical meth-
ods rather than fundamental methods. Values measured by empirical tests are more
poorly defined than those measured by fundamental tests, but they can be related to
texture from practical experiences. Many instruments are developed to provide numer-
ical values, but these measured values cannot be compared if they are obtained from
different instruments. Some examples of empirical tests are using the Magness‐Taylor
puncture tester for fruit hardness, the Bloom Gelometer for gelatin jelly strength, the
Kramer Shear Press for hardness of processed fruits, vegetables and legumes, and the
Warner‐Bratzler Shear machine for meat tenderness (Bourne 2002, pp. 189–233). Many
1.4 Instrumental Measurements of Food Texture 7
of these tests can be performed using universal testing instruments, as these attachable
probes are commercially available, but users must be reminded that the measured val-
ues depend on the test conditions.
Imitative methods attempt to simulate the conditions to which the food is subjected
to human action. As the instrument mimics human movements, obtained empirical
parameters help explain the texture perceived by humans. Instrumental TPA has been
widely used since it was proposed in the 1960s.
Originally, TPA was conducted with a Texturometer (Figure 1.3a) (Friedman et al.
1963), in which a probe mimics a molar tooth. The movement of the probe resembles
chewing, and two‐sequential bites are performed, even though the location of the
food and the lower molar is upside‐down. Texture parameters such as hardness,
adhesiveness, and cohesiveness can be objectively obtained from the resulting

force–time curve (Figure 1.3b). Szczesniak (1968) found that the parameters obtained
from the TPA measurements were well correlated to the sensory scores generated by
a trained panel.
After several years, Bourne proposed a modified two‐bite TPA using an Instron uni-
versal testing machine (Bourne 2002, p. 185). As the test is performed by uniaxial move-
ments at a constant speed, the resultant force–time curve is easily converted into a
force–distance curve (Figure 1.4). The area under the curve is defined as the work or
energy used in physics, and the work used for compression and decompression can be
analyzed separately, as A4 and A5 in Figure 1.4. The area under the curve for the first or
second compression (A1 and A2 in Figure 1.4) represents the compressive work, and
the negative force area during the first decompression (A3) is adhesiveness that is also
defined as work. Other parameters such as hardness and springiness also have dimen-
sions (Sherman 1969; Bourne 2002, p. 186). At present, most two‐bite TPAs have been
conducted using a similar type of instrument.
The TPA method has been applied to food boli gathered from the mouths of humans,
and changes in texture during oral processing were objectively analyzed (Shiozawa et al.
1999). According to the Consumers Affairs Agency of the Japanese government, semi‐
solid and thickened liquids prepared for dysphagic individuals are currently evaluated
using this method (Nishinari et al. 2013). As these samples flow away, they are placed in
(a) (b) A2
Cohesiveness =
A1
Hardness
Force
A1 A2
B
A3
Adhesiveness = A3
Time
Figure 1.3 Texture profile analysis (TPA) using a Texturometer. (a) Main part of a Texturometer and (b)
example of a TPA curve with typical parameters. Source: Edited frοm Szczesniak (2002, p. 219).
Hardness
Fracturability H1
Hardness
H2
Force
Total Area
A1
A2
A4 A5
A3
Adhesive force Time
Figure 1.4 Texture profile analysis using a universal testing machine. Source: Edited from Bourne
(1978, p. 63).
a vessel. The hardness, adhesiveness, and cohesiveness are then determined using the
TPA method. The misuse of the cohesiveness values that decrease as viscosity increases
must be avoided during the interpretation of data.
1.5 Sound Effects
Crisp foods such as crackers, potato chips, fresh fruits, and vegetables make sounds
when they are broken, though some foods do not produce sounds. The sounds are due
to the rupture of the cell walls. Crackers and snacks are dry crisp foods that contain only
air in the cells; whereas fruits and vegetables are wet crisp foods that contain fluid in
their cells (Tunick 2011). The work performed by external forces is stored as elastic
potential energy, which is liberated as acoustic energy when the foods are ruptured.
Sounds have been measured to evaluate the texture of these foods.
Drake has pioneered studies of food‐crushing sounds (Drake 1963), and Vickers con-
ducted combined studies of perceived crispness and sound measurements in foods
(Vickers and Bourne 1976, Vickers 1984). Vickers (1984) suggested that crispness and
crunchiness are related to pitch and loudness of crushing sounds, and Dacremont
(1995) analyzed the spectral components of chewing sounds. Recently, eating sounds
were studied using onomatopoeic expressions across different languages (Arboleda and
Arce‐Lopera 2017).
The fracturability of a food relates to the sounds made while the food is bitten and
chewed. More recently, crisp food sounds have been measured using an acoustic enve-
lope detector coupled with a texture analyzer for the simultaneous measurements of
1.7 Concluding Remarks 9
force displacement and sound pressure generated by the fracture of crisp food samples
(Chen et al. 2005; Taniwaki and Kohyama 2012; Demattè et al. 2014). Sounds during
oral processing were found to influence the perceived texture of potato chips and
carbonated drinks in recent psychological trials (Zampini and Spence 2004, 2005) that
Ig‐Novel Nutrition Prize was awarded in 2008.
1.6 Visual Cues and Flavor Release

Humans can perceive the viscoelastic properties of a food using visual information
alone without touching the material. Viscosity can be estimated by flow rate, and
rigidity can be evaluated by the degree of deformation. Geometric characteristics and
surface properties can also be judged visually. Structural information observed using
microscopy and spectroscopy is widely used in materials science. The range of the
spatial scale for properties that are visually perceptible is similar to that of the tactile
special threshold: approximately 1–2 mm for passive touch determined by two‐point
discrimination and more than 10 times lower (0.02–0.1 mm) for active touch with free
movement of the tongue and other organs (Kohyama 2015). The time scale that is
perceptible by humans must be also considered. It would be approximately 0.1–
100 seconds, which is the same as the time for oral processing (Kohyama 2015). Visual
and structural information that falls outside of these ranges is excluded from texture
analyses according to the definition of texture (ISO 11036) perceived by human
receptors.
Visual sensations are not assessed during oral processing because the food inside the
mouth cannot be seen (Kohyama 2015). Instead, taste and retronasal aroma play more
important roles, as they are released from food matrix in the mouth. These properties
can be perceived during oral processing and undergo dynamic changes. These chemical
stimuli sensed by taste and olfactory receptors affect the texture perceived using tactile,
kinesthetic, temperature, and auditory receptors. Although these receptors detect each
stimulus, multi‐modal sensory integration occurs through the cross‐modal interactions
of these receptors during the perception of food characteristics (Verhagen and Engelen
2006; Bult et al. 2007).
1.7 Concluding Remarks
To inform food texture for consumers who have not experienced a particular food prod-
uct, which is very common in other cultures/languages/countries, the use of appropri-
ate texture terms is difficult. Currently, texture expressions using audiovisual information
are common in presentations and advertisements on television and social network
services such as Cookpad.
Tactile displays have been studied using virtual reality and augmented reality in this
century (Peruzzini et al. 2012; Ung et al. 2018). As virtual tactile displays need neither
real food materials nor translation of texture terms, its actual application to food sci-
ence is expected to provide a better understanding of the textural characteristics of
foods in the future.
References
Antmann, G., Ares, G., Varela, P. et al. (2011). Consumers’ texture vocabulary: results from
a free listing study in three Spanish‐speaking countries. Food Quality and Preference 22:
165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.09.007.
Arboleda, A.M. and Arce‐Lopera, C. (2017). The French, German, and Spanish sound of
eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Research International 102: 171–175. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.045.
Ares, G., Jaeger, S.R., Antúnez, L. et al. (2015). Comparison of TCATA and TDS for
dynamic sensory characterization of food products. Food Research International 78:
148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.10.023.
Bourne, M.C. (1975). Is rheology enough for food texture measurement? Journal of Texture
Studies 6: 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1975.tb01253.x.
Bourne, M.C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology 32 (7): 62–66, 72.
Bourne, M.C. (2002). Food Texture and Viscosity, Concept and Measurement, 2nd edition.
New York: Academic Press. https://www.elsevier.com/books/food‐texture‐and‐viscosity/
bourne/978‐0‐12‐119062‐0.
Brandt, M.A., Skinner, L.Z., and Colcman, J.A. (1963). Texture profile method. Journal of
Food Science 28: 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2621.1963.tb00218.x.
Bult, J.H.F., de Wijk, R.A., and Hummel, T. (2007). Investigations on multimodal sensory
integration: texture, taste, and ortho‐ and retronasal olfactory stimuli in concert.
Neuroscience Letters 411: 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.09.036.
Castura, J.C., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A. et al. (2016). Temporal check‐all‐that‐apply
(TCATA): a novel dynamic method for characterizing products. Food Quality and
Preference 47: 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.017.
Chen, J. (2009). Food oral processing – a review. Food Hydrocolloids 23: 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.11.013.
Chen, J., Karlsson, C., and Povey, M. (2005). Acoustic envelope detector for crispness
assessment of biscuits. Journal of Texture Studies 36: 139–156. http://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745‐4603.2005.00008.x.
Chen, J. and Stokes, J.R. (2012). Rheology and tribology: two distinctive regimes of food
texture sensation. Trends in Food Science & Technology 25: 4–12. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.11.006.
Cheong, J.N., Foster, K.D., Morgenstein, M.P. et al. (2014). The application of temporal
dominance of sensations (TDS) for oral processing studies: an initial investigation.
Journal of Texture Studies 45: 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12091.
Cichero, J.A.Y. (2017). Unlocking opportunities in food design for infants, children, and
the elderly: understanding milestones in chewing and swallowing across the lifespan for
new innovations. Journal of Texture Studies 48: 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jtxs.12236.
Cliff, M. and Heymann, H. (1993). Development and use of time‐intensity methodology for
sensory evaluation: a review. Food Research International 26: 375–385. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/096399699390081S/pdf?md5=853505eecd3d7ab94
ed528c342c666ee&pid=1‐s2.0‐096399699390081S‐main.pdf.
Dacremont, M. (1995). Spectral composition of eating sounds generated by crispy, crunchy
and crackly foods. Journal of Texture Studies 26: 27–43. https://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1745‐4603.1995.tb00782.x.
References 11
Demattè, M.L., Pojer, N., Endrizzi, I. et al. (2014). Effect of the sound of the bite on apple
perceived crispness and hardness. Food Quality and Preference 38: 58–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.009.
Drake, B.K. (1963). Food crushing sounds: comparison of objective and subjective data.
Journal of Food Science 28: 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2621.1963.
tb00190.x.
Drake, B. (1989). Sensory textural/rheological properties—a polyglot list. Journal of
Texture Studies 20: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1989.tb00417.x.
Fiszman, S. and Tarrega, A. (2018). The dynamics of texture perception of hard solid food:
a review of the contribution of the temporal dominance of sensations technique. Journal
of Texture Studies 49:202–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12273.
Friedman, H.H., Whitney, J.E., and Szczesniak, A.S. (1963). The Texturometer—a new
instrument for objective texture measurement. Journal of Food Science 28: 390–396.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2621.1963.tb00216.x.
Hayakawa, F. (2015). Vocabularies and terminologies of food texture description and
characterization. In: Modifying Food Texture, vol. 2, 3–18. Elsevier. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781782423348000018.
Hayakawa, F., Ioku, K., Akuzawa, S. et al. (2005). Collection of Japanese texture terms
(studies on Japanese texture terms part 1). Journal of the Japanese Society for Food
Science and Technology (Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi) (in Japanese) 52:
337–346. https://doi.org/10.3136/nskkk.52.337.
Hayakawa, F., Kazami, Y., Nishinari, K. et al. (2013). Classification of Japanese texture
terms. Journal of Texture Studies 44: 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12006.
Hutchings, J.B. and Lillford, P.J. (1988). The perception of food texture—the philosophy of
the breakdown path. Journal of Texture Studies 19: 103–115. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1988.tb00928.x.
ISO 11036 (1994). Sensory Analysis – Methodology – Texture Profile. Genève: International
Organization for Standardization.
Jack, F.R., Piggott, J.R., and Paterson, A. (1994). Analysis of textural changes in hard cheese
during mastication by progressive profiling. Journal of Food Science 59: 539–543. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2621.1994.tb05557.x.
Jeltema, M., Beckley, J., and Vahalik, J. (2015). Model for understanding consumer textural
food choice. Food Science & Nutrition 3: 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.205.
Jowitt, R. (1974). The terminology of food texture. Journal of Texture Studies 5: 351–358.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1974.tb01441.x.
Koç, H., Vinyard, C.J., Essick, G.K. et al. (2013). Food oral processing: conversion of food
structure to textural perception. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 4:
237–266. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐food‐030212‐182637.
Kohyama, K. (2015). Oral sensing of food properties. Journal of Texture Studies 46:
138–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12099.
Kohyama, K. (2018). Supporting young researchers in food texture studies. Journal of
Texture Studies 49:150–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12322.
Labbe, D., Schlich, P., Pineau, N. et al. (2009). Temporal dominance of sensations and
sensory profiling: a comparative study. Food Quality and Preference 20: 216–221. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.10.001.
Lazo, O., Claret, A., and Guerrero, L. (2016). A comparison of two methods for generating
descriptive attributes with trained assessors: check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) vs. free choice
profiling (FCP). Journal of Sensory Studies 31: 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/

joss.12202.
Le Révérend, F.M., Hidrio, C., Fernandes, A. et al. (2008). Comparison between temporal
dominance of sensations and time intensity results. Food Quality and Preference
19: 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.012.
Lee, W.E. III and Pangborn, R.M. (1986). Time‐intensity: the temporal aspects of sensory
perception. Food Technology 40 (1): 71–78.
Lillford, P. (2018). Texture and breakdown in the mouth: an industrial research approach.
Journal of Texture Studies 49:213–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12279.
Nishinari, K. and Fang, Y. (2018). Perception and measurement of food texture—solid
foods. Journal of Texture Studies 49:160–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12327.
Nishinari, K., Hayakawa, F., Xia, C. et al. (2008). Comparative study of texture terms:
English, French, Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Texture Studies 39: 530–568. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.2008.00157.x.
Nishinari, K., Kohyama, K., Kumagai, H. et al. (2013). Parameters of texture profile analysis.
Food Science and Technology Research 19: 519–521. https://doi.org/10.3136/fstr.19.519.
Peruzzini, M., Mengoni, M., and Germani, M. (2012). Virtual tactile simulation: a novel
display and the effects on users’ texture perception. ASME/ISCIE 2012 International
Symposium on Flexible Automation, ISFA 2012, 671–678. St. Louis, MO, USA (18–20
June 2012). New York, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/ISFA2012‐7191.
Peyron, M.A., Woda, A., Bourdiol, P. et al. (2017). Age‐related changes in mastication.
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 44: 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12478.
Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S. et al. (2009). Temporal dominance of sensations:
construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time‐intensity. Food Quality and
Preference 20: 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.04.005.
Rosenthal, A.J. (1999). Relation between instrumental and sensory measures of food
texture. In: Food Texture: Measurement and Perception, 1–17. Aspen http://www.
springer.com/us/book/9780834212381.
Scott‐Blair, G.W. (1958). Rheology in food research. Advances in Food Research 8: 1–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2628(08)60017‐8.
Shama, F. and Sherman, P. (1973). Identification of stimuli controlling the sensory
evaluation of viscosity. II. Oral methods. Journal of Texture Studies 4: 111–118. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1973.tb00657.x.
Sherman, P. (1969). Texture profile of foodstuffs based upon well‐defined rheological
properties. Journal of Food Science 34: 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐
2621.1969.tb12804.x.
Shiozawa, K., Kohyama, K., and Yanagisawa, K. (1999). Food bolus texture and tongue
activity just before swallowing in human mastication. Japanese Journal of Oral Biology
41: 297–302. https://doi.org/10.2330/joralbiosci1965.41.297.
Sprunt, J.C., Raithatha, C.E., and Smith, A.C. (2002). Swallow indicator methodology as an
enhancement to combined time‐intensity measurement of flavour release and
electromyography for monitoring mastication. Food Quality and Preference 13: 47–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950‐3293(01)00056–8.
Stokes, J.R., Boehm, M.W., and Baier, S.K. (2013). Oral processing, texture and mouthfeel:
from rheology to tribology and beyond. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science
18: 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2013.04.010.
References 13
Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S. et al. (1974). Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive
analysis. Food Technology 28 (11): 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34.
Szczesniak, A.S. (1968). Correlations between objective and sensory texture
measurements. Food Technology 22: 981–985.
Szczesniak, A.S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference 13:
215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950‐3293(01)00039‐8.
Szczesniak, A.S. and Bourne, M.C. (1969). Sensory evaluation of food firmness. Journal of
Texture Studies 1: 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1969.tb00956.x.
Taniwaki, M. and Kohyama, K. (2012). Mechanical and acoustic evaluation of potato chip
crispness using a versatile texture analyzer. Journal of Food Engineering 112: 268–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodeng.2012.05.015.
Tunick, M.H. (2011). Food texture analysis in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry 59: 1477–1480. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf1021994.
Ung, C.‐Y., Menozzi, M., Hartmann, C. et al. (2018). Innovations in consumer research: the
virtual food buffet. Food Quality and Preference 63: 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2017.07.007.
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development. General Assembly. A/70/L.1. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/70/L.1.
Verhagen, J.V. and Engelen, L. (2006). The neurocognitive bases of human multimodal food
perception: sensory integration. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30: 613–650.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.11.003.
Vickers, Z.M. (1984). Crispness and crunchiness—a difference in pitch. Journal of Texture
Studies 15: 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1984.tb00375.x.
Vickers, Z.M. and Bourne, M.C. (1976). Crispness in foods – a review. Journal of Food
Science 41: 1153–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2621.1976.tb14406.x.
Wilkinson, C., Dijksterhuis, G.B., and Minekus, M. (2000). From food structure to texture.
Trends Food Science & Technology 11: 442–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924‐2244(01)
00033‐4.
Yoshikawa, S., Nishimaru, S., Tashiro, T. et al. (1970). Collection and classification of words
for description of food texture. I: collection of words. Journal of Texture Studies 1:
437–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐4603.1970.tb00742.x.
Zampini, M. and Spence, C. (2004). The role of auditory cues in modulating the perceived
crispness and staleness of potato chips. Journal of Sensory Studies 19: 347–363. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐459x.2004.080403.x.
Zampini, M. and Spence, C. (2005). Modifying the multisensory perception of a
carbonated beverage using auditory cues. Food Quality and Preference 16: 632–641.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.11.004.
15
Part I
North America
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
„Jawel, Raffles!” herhaalde Marholm en keerde zich tot Baxter.
„Hij heeft u hier binnengebracht en u ook weer uit uw weinig

benijdenswaardige positie bevrijd. Zijn bedoeling was het, dat gij door
eigen aanschouwing de misdaden van dr. Braddon zoudt leeren
kennen.”
„En dat was, bij God, meer dan tijd,” sprak de inspecteur van politie
Baxter. „Deze mensch daar”—hij wees op den verpletterden
geneesheer-directeur—„is erger dan de gevreesde Jack the Ripper.”
Hij trad op den in zijn stoel sidderenden dr. Braddon toe, liet zijn hand
zwaar op diens schouder vallen, en sprak:
„In naam van de Engelsche wet neem ik u gevangen, dr. Braddon! en

beschuldig u van moord en zeer veel andere misdaden, waarmede ik het
gerecht in kennis zal stellen.”
Allereerst werd dr. Braddon zwaar geboeid uit de inrichting geleid,

daarop volgde de hoofdverpleger en eindelijk het geheele personeel.
De gevangenwagens boden niet voldoende plaats voor alle

gevangenen.
Spoedig daarop traden doktoren uit de ziekenhuizen het

krankzinnigengesticht binnen, om de verpleging der patiënten over te
nemen.
Afschuwelijke vertrekken werden gevonden, waarin zich de

ongelukkigen jarenlang moesten ophouden.
„Deze misdaden zijn zwaarder en verdienen grootere [31]straf,” sprak de

inspecteur van politie Baxter tot Marholm, „dan die van dieven en
moordenaars.”
Het Londensche publiek geraakte in koortsachtige opgewondenheid,

toen de couranten de eerste berichten brachten over den inval der
detectives in het krankzinnigengesticht en de gevangenneming van den
gekkendokter.
Duizenden vloeken werden uitgebraakt tegen dr. Braddon, maar ook

werd er hartelijk gelachen, toen het publiek uit de nieuwsbladen vernam,
hoe het nieuwste meesterstuk van John Raffles ook nu weer schitterend
was gelukt.
Lord Guildhall was gevlucht en had zijn onrechtmatig verkregen

vermogen, overeenkomstig den wensch van Raffles, aan de stad
Londen vermaakt.
Bijna iedere dag van onderzoek bracht nieuwe misdaden uit het
krankzinnigengesticht aan het licht en steeds weer was het die eene
naam, waarvan de geheele pers met lof gewaagde—de naam van den
genialen meesterdief John Raffles!
[Inhoud]
Het volgende deel (No. 27) zal bevatten:
LETTER R. 100. [32]
[Inhoud]
Verrassend! Boeiend!
In den Roman-Boekhandel voorheen A.
EICHLER te Amsterdam verschijnt in 14-
daagsche afleveringen:
BUFFALO BILL,
Amerika’s grootste Meester-verkenner.
Elke aflevering bevat een afgerond verhaal.
Buffalo Bill vertelt daarin op eenvoudige, doch pakkende,

aandoenlijke wijze van zijn avonturen met struikroovers,
roodhuiden, bandieten, enz.
SPANNENDE LECTUUR, VOL

SENSATIE-WEKKENDE TOONEELTJES.
ELKE AFLEVERING KOST SLECHTS 10

CENT [33]
[Inhoud]
Belooning: 1000 pond sterling.
Wie kent Wie heeft

hem? hem
gezien?
Dat vraagt
men in Dat vraagt
Scotland heel Londen!
Yard!
Lord Lister genaamd John C. Raffles, de

geniaalste aller dieven
brengt alle gemoederen in beweging, is de schrik van woekeraars en

geldschieters; ontrooft hun door zijn listen hunne bezittingen, waarmede
hij belaagde onschuld beschermt en behoeftigen ondersteunt.
Man van eer in alle opzichten
spant hij wet en gerecht menigen strik en heeft steeds de voorvechters

van edele levensbeschouwing op zijn hand, nl. allen, die ervan overtuigd
zijn, dat:
Ongestraft veel misstanden, door de wet beschermd,

blijven voortwoekeren.
Men leze, hoe alles in het werk wordt gesteld, Lord Lister, genaamd
John C. Raffles, den geniaalsten aller dieven, te vatten!
[Inhoud]
Vertaling:
WARRANT OF
ARREST. Bevel tot aanhouding.
Be it known unto all men by these Wij verzoeken de aanhouding van

presents that we hereby charge and den man, wiens beschrijving hier
warrant the apprehension of the man volgt:
described as under:
DESCRIPTION: Beschrijving:
Name: Lord Edward Naam: Lord Edward

Lister, alias John Lister, genaamd
C. Raffles. John C. Raffles.
Age: 32 to 35 years. Leeftĳd: 32–35 jaar.
Height: 5 feet nine inches. Lengte: ongeveer 1,76
Weight: 176 pounds. meter.
Figure: Tall. Gewicht: 80 kilo.
C o m p l e x i o n : Dark. Gestalte: slank.
Hair: Black. G e l a a t s k l e u r : donker.
Beard: A slight Haar: zwart.
moustache. Baardgroei: kleine snor.
Eyes: Black. Oogen: zwart.
Language: English, French, Spreekt Engelsch,
German, Russian, Fransch,
etc. Duitsch,
Russisch enz.
enz.
S p e c i a l n o t e s : The man poses Bĳzondere kenteekenen:

as a gentleman of great distinction. Het optreden van den man kenmerkt
Adopts a new role every other day. zich door bijzonder goede manieren.
Wears an eyeglass. Always Telkens een ander uiterlijk. Draagt
een monocle. Is in gezelschap van
accompanied by a young man— een jongeman, wiens naam
name unknown. onbekend.
Charged with robbery. Moet worden aangehouden als dief.

Voor zijn aanhouding betalen wij een
A reward of 1000 pounds sterling will prijs van 1000 pond sterling.
be paid for the arrest of this man.
Headquarters—Scotland Yard. Het Hoofdbureau van Politie

Scotland Yard.
L o n d o n , 1st October 1908.
L o n d e n , 1. Oktober 1908.
Police Inspector,
H o r n y. Inspecteur van Politie
(get.) H o r n y .
[Inhoud]
Roman-Boekhandel voorheen A. Eichler
Singel 236—Amsterdam.
Inhoudsopgave
I. HET KRIJGSPLAN VAN RAFFLES. 1

II. RAFFLES BIJ DEN KONING DER GEKKEN. 5
III. TWEE HEEREN DIENEN. 8
IV. IN HET KRANKZINNIGENGESTICHT. 11
V. RAFFLES IN HET GESTICHT. 16
VI. DE INVAL IN HET KRANKZINNIGENGESTICHT. 27
Colofon
Beschikbaarheid
Dit eBoek is voor kosteloos gebruik door iedereen overal, met vrijwel
geen beperkingen van welke soort dan ook. U mag het kopiëren,
weggeven of hergebruiken onder de voorwaarden van de Project
Gutenberg Licentie in dit eBoek of on-line op www.gutenberg.org ↗️.
Dit eBoek is geproduceerd door het on-line gedistribueerd correctieteam

op www.pgdp.net ↗️.
De oorspronkelijke Duitse titel is: Polizeiinspektor Baxter im Irrenhause.
Metadata
Titel: Lord Lister No. 26: Inspecteur Baxter in het

krankzinnigengesticht
Auteur: Theo von Blankensee [Pseudoniem van Info ↗️
Mathias Blank (1881–1928)]
Auteur: Kurt Matull (1872–1930?) Info ↗️
Aanmaakdatum 2023-12-23 13:46:12 UTC
bestand:
Taal: Nederlands (Spelling De Vries-Te Winkel)
Oorspronkelijke [1911]
uitgiftedatum:
Trefwoorden: Detective and mystery stories -- Periodicals
Dime novels -- Periodicals
Codering
Dit boek is weergegeven in oorspronkelijke schrijfwijze. Afgebroken

woorden aan het einde van de regel zijn stilzwijgend hersteld. Kennelijke
zetfouten in het origineel zijn verbeterd. Deze verbeteringen zijn
aangegeven in de colofon aan het einde van dit boek.
Documentgeschiedenis
2023-12-18 Begonnen.
Verbeteringen
De volgende verbeteringen zijn aangebracht in de tekst:
Bladzijde Bron Verbetering Bewerkingsafstand

1, 33 [Niet in bron] . 1
2 , [Verwijderd] 1
2 teruggesturd teruggestuurd 1
2 onder langs onderlangs 1
Passim. [Niet in bron] „ 1
3, 3 millionair millionnair 1
3 milioenen millioenen 1
7 Zij Zijn 1
7, 14 adsistent assistent 1
7, 14, 14,
22 [Niet in bron] ” 1
9 sousterrain souterrain 1
11 KRANKZINNIGEN
GESTICHT KRANKZINNIGENGESTICHT 1
13, 18 ’ ” 1
14, 14 [Niet in bron] „„ 2
16 afschuwd afschuw 1
17 verlpegers verplegers 2
18 Bailay Bailey 1
18 ? . 1
19 toegeeigend toegeëigend 1/0
22 hijde hijgde 1
23 nu nu nu 3
24 overschillige onverschillige 1
24 ” [Verwijderd] 1
27, 27,
27 telephoon telefoon 2
27 telephoneerde telefoneerde 2
28 patient patiënt 1/0
28 telephoonhoorn telefoonhoorn 2
29 [Niet in bron] , 1
30 Jacq Jack 1
33 Sinclair Raffles 7
33 Scotland-Yard Scotland Yard 1
33 Inspekteur Inspecteur 1
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LORD LISTER
NO. 0026: INSPECTEUR BAXTER IN HET
KRANKZINNIGENGESTICHT ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the

United States and most other parts of the world at no
cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may
copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or
online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form

Textural Characteristics of World Foods Katsuyoshi Nishinari Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textural Characteristics of World Foods Katsuyoshi Nishinari Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textural Characteristics of World Foods

Emeritus Professor at Osaka City University

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Cover Design: Wiley

Set in 10/12pt Warnock by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

List of Contributors xix

1 Food Texture – Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Measurement 1

Part I North America 15

2 Food Textures in the United States of America 17

2.6 Textural Contrast 23

3 Texture Characteristics of US Foods: Pioneers, Protocols,

4 Textural Characteristics of Canadian Foods: Influences and Properties

Part II Middle and South America 53

5 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Mexican Foods 55

6 Textural Characteristics of Brazilian Foods 69

7 Textural Characteristics and Viscoelastic Behavior

7.2.3 Final Remarks on Empanadas Dough 97

Part III Asia 107

8 Textural Characteristics of Japanese Foods 109

9 Textural Characteristics of Chinese Foods 125

10 Textural Characteristics of Indonesian Foods 137

10.2 Characteristic of Indonesian Diets 138

11 Textural Characteristics of Thai Foods 151

12 Textural Characteristics of Malaysian Foods: Quality

Part IV Oceania 181

13 Textural Characteristics of Australian Foods 183

Part V Central Asia Middle East 197

14 Textural Characteristics of Indian Foods: A Comparative Analysis 199

15 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Turkish Foods 223

16 Textural Characteristics of Iranian Foods: Cuisine Signifies

Part VI Russia 251

17 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Russian Foods 253

Part VII Europe 269

18 Textural Characteristics of Italian Foods 271

19 Textural Characteristics of Greek Foods 293

19.5 Conclusions 301

20 Textural Characteristics of British Foods 305

21 Textural Characteristics of Traditional French Foods 313

22 Textural Characteristics of Spanish Foods: Dry‐Cured Ham 319

23 Textural Characteristics of German Foods: The German Würstchen 335

24 Textural Characteristics of Traditional Finnish Foods 353

Part VIII Africa 361

25 Textural Characteristics of Nigerian Foods 363

25.3.1.3 Kunun from Cereal 365

Abd Karim Alias Lai Hoong Cheng

Silvina Andrés Gail Vance Civille

Susana Fiszman Bernard Launay

Nataliia Nepovinnykh of Cs. Exactas, Department of Chemical

Véronique Perreault Andrew J. Rosenthal

Nataliia Ptichkina Angelita da Silveira Moreira

Sharon Puleo Narpinder Singh

Natalia Ranalli Amparo Tarrega

Alberto Tecante Amardeep Singh Virdi

Amy Trail Noemí Zaritzky

I.2 ­Terms for Texture/Taste/Aroma Related

I.3 ­Universality and Diversity

I.4 ­Wonderful Diversity of World Foods

and Madoka Hirashima published a book “More Cooking Innovations – Novel

I.5 ­Some Pitfalls in Texture Studies

I.6 ­About This Book

Food Texture – Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Measurement

1.1 ­Introduction: History of Food Texture Studies

I.2 Terms for Texture/Taste/Aroma Related

I.3 Universality and Diversity

I.4 Wonderful Diversity of World Foods

I.5 Some Pitfalls in Texture Studies

I.6 About This Book

1.1 Introduction: History of Food Texture Studies

1.2 Three Methods of Texture Evaluation

1.3 Methodologies in Sensory Evaluation of Texture

1.4 Instrumental Measurements of Food Texture

1.6 Visual Cues and Flavor Release