EVALUATION OF SODIUM ACID SULFATE

Similar documents
EVALUATION OF SODIUM HYDROGEN SULPHATE IN FLAVOURED WATERS. A Report Prepared for Jones-Hamilton Co.

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2004/ A1

Rapid Analysis of Soft Drinks Using the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System with the Waters Beverage Analysis Kit

SWEETABULARY sweetness language: Bridging the gap between consumer and food scientists

Uses of Sweeteners in Food and Beverages

ph and Color Change - Activity Sheet

Confectionery Acidulants

You know what you like, but what about everyone else? A Case study on Incomplete Block Segmentation of white-bread consumers.

Mid-calorie drinks products.

Laboratory Research Proposal Streusel Coffee Cake with Pureed Cannellini Beans

SUGAR COOKIE APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN SUGAR COOKIE FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

Role of Flavorings in Determining Food Quality

Evaluation of Immediate Release Film Coatings with Flavor Modulating Technology Richard Edsall, Bradley Brown, Larry Engel, Michael Crowley

BROWN CANE SUGARS.

APPLE EXTRACT FLAVOUR - SWEETENER

Drink Well & Evidence Base

HEALTH. for the NATION

MAKING WINE WITH HIGH AND LOW PH JUICE. Ethan Brown New Mexico State University 11/11/2017

Technical Application. Information. The fruit texture principle full enjoyment for beverages with no added sugar

SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION SWEETENERS FOR USE IN FOODSTUFFS REGULATIONS

BLUEBERRY MUFFIN APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN BLUEBERRY MUFFIN FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

l?\ DEVELOPMENT OF CARBONATED HERBAL NELLI DRINK 1~~9647 Kushan Chanaka Amarasinghe p.,101)..'\


TotallyNaturalSolutions

Use of Lecithin in Sweet Goods: Cookies

The Purpose of Certificates of Analysis

SECTION 1 (BJCP/ETHICS/JUDGING PROCESS)

5. Supporting documents to be provided by the applicant IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

EXCELLENCE IN YEAST THE SOLUTION FOR VEGETARIAN & VEGAN APPLICATIONS. Mask. Taste. Colour. Veaty

III InTIfir IIII A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BLACK TEA AND INSTANT TEA TO DEVELOP AN INSTANT TEA TABLE~ WITH RETAINED HEALTH PROMOTING PROPERTIES

In the eye of the beer holder: thoughts on color, bubbles and the meaning of life. Charlie Bamforth

Tips for Reducing Sugar in Frozen Dairy & Novelty Desserts

Report to Pennsylvania Vegetable Marketing and Research Program and Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers Association

INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS SEASONINGS ON BEEF FLAVOR: US, SPANISH, AND ARGENTINEAN CUSTOMS

NO TO ARTIFICIAL, YES TO FLAVOR: A LOOK AT CLEAN BALANCERS

The Use of Sugar Alcohols in Banana Bread

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE PRESENCE OF SOME FOOD ADDITIVES IN NON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA FROM THE PERIOD

ENARTIS NEWS UTILIZING TANNINS AND POLYSACCHARIDES TO POLISH AND FINISH WINES BEFORE BOTTLING

Tips for Writing the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Expert s Opinion. Fish Oil from Alaska Pollock as Healthy Nutrition Ingredient for Crabsticks. Dr. Jae Park Professor OSU Surimi School

Enhanced Maturity Trial Wine Evaluation Isosceles Vineyard, Te Mata Estates Maraekakaho Rd, SH50, Hastings

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET: CALCIUM CHLORIDE FLAKE - LIQUOR TREATMENT

Cut the cost of coffee in an instant

Delivering Great Cocktails Through Full Serve Testing. Jean A. McEwan and Janet McLean Diageo Innovation

AWRI Refrigeration Demand Calculator

Oregon Wine Advisory Board Research Progress Report

Development of Value Added Products From Home-Grown Lychee

INVERTS AND TREACLE SYRUPS.

Brewing Water Derek Colby

The Importance of Dose Rate and Contact Time in the Use of Oak Alternatives

SPONGE CAKE APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN SPONGE CAKE FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

Wine-Tasting by Numbers: Using Binary Logistic Regression to Reveal the Preferences of Experts

Make Biscuits By Hand

CHEESECAKE APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN CHEESECAKE FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

TSKgel TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET No. 131

Development and evaluation of a mobile application as an e-learning tool for technical wine assessment

Plan for Change. Confidence through Development. A Useful Guide to Report Writing Example Report. Barchester Manufacturing Limited

Certificates of Analysis and Wine Authenticity

Option 2 All Types of Flour

Supplementation of Beverages, Salad Dressing and Yogurt with Pulse Ingredients. Summary of Report

Introduction. Methods

Science & Technology of Jams and Jellies. Dr. Malcolm Bourne

QWIK-FLO SUGARS.

Our Gelato Ingredients Made in Thailand Our Bases

Re: LCBO Lightweight Glass Wine Standard Implementation Date

COLOUR PACKING SIZE MAIN INGREDIENTS CHARACTERISTICS / BENEFITS

Timing of Treatment O 2 Dosage Typical Duration During Fermentation mg/l Total Daily. Between AF - MLF 1 3 mg/l/day 4 10 Days

Sensory Evaluations of Advanced Specialty Potato Selections

Sales of Food and Food Ingredients, Candy, Dietary Supplements, and Soft Drinks Sold by a Grocery Store

A CASE STUDY: HOW CONSUMER INSIGHTS DROVE THE SUCCESSFUL LAUNCH OF A NEW RED WINE

The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread

Evaluation of desiccants to facilitate straight combining canola. Brian Jenks North Dakota State University

Sticking and mold control. TIA Tech 2017 Los Angeles, California Steve Bright

Global Sugar Substitute Market: An Analysis

QUICK SERVE RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT SERIES EVENT PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS

Mashing! How? Why? To what extent?!

Process standardization of low-calories and low-sugar kalam

Method 3 (carbon dioxide)

Exploring Attenuation. Greg Doss Wyeast Laboratories Inc. NHC 2012

The Best Stevia Product/Extract of the Year is organized during Stevia Tasteful Convention.

Do the French have superior palates but no better sense of value? An experimental study

ICC September 2009 Original: English. International Coffee Council 103 rd Session September 2009 London, England

CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE APPLICATION RESEARCH

Sensory Characteristics and Consumer Acceptance of Mechanically Harvested California Black Ripe Olives

SWEET DOUGH APPLICATION RESEARCH COMPARING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF EGGS TO EGG REPLACERS IN SWEET DOUGH FORMULATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY

CRYO HOPS : DRY HOPPING WITH LUPULIN HOP POWDER. Joe Mohrfeld Director of Brewing Pinthouse Pizza Brewpubs Austin, TX

EXCELLENCE IN YEAST SPECIAL TASTE EFFECTS WITH BREWERS YEAST EXTRACTS

Vegan minced meat alternatives with healthy dietary fibre concentrates

Lessons from the Leaf Food Innovate March 2018

July 18, 2013 Lunch. Nutrition and Ingredient Information

Waitrose Ltd, Bracknell, RG12 8YA

EXPANDED CHOICES FOR EXTENDED FRESHNESS SOLUTIONS

Food Service Opportunity at Toronto City Hall. Government Management Committee. P:\2016\Internal Services\RE\Gm16012re (AFS #22969)

United States Electric Skillets Industry 2016 Market Research Report

Flavor Enhancement Texturizing, Bulking, and Blending Mouth Feel Humectancy and Preservative Action Fermentation...

Gluten-Free Sugar Cookies

Varietal Specific Barrel Profiles

Increasing Toast Character in French Oak Profiles

FOOD FOR THOUGHT Topical Insights from our Subject Matter Experts LEVERAGING AGITATING RETORT PROCESSING TO OPTIMIZE PRODUCT QUALITY

Plant root activity is limited to the soil bulbs Does not require technical expertise to. wetted by the water bottle emitter implement

Transcription:

EVALUATION OF SODIUM ACID SULFATE IN A MODEL CARBONATED BEVERAGE A Report Prepared for Jones-Hamilton Co. August 2002

INTRODUCTION Jones-Hamilton Co. wishes to explore the benefits of their acidulant, Sodium Acid Sulfate (SAS), in soft drink formulations. Eureka has undertaken to conduct an initial evaluation of the overall performance of this acid in a model carbonated beverage compared to citric acid, the most commonly employed acidulants in beverages, and report the findings accordingly. A range finding exercise was conducted to establish the concentration of SAS required to produce a carbonated lemon flavored beverage @ a ph of 3.2 as a standard ph used by beverage manufacturers to ensure microbiological and keeping qualities in the final drink. A standard citric acidified formulation was used as the reference for this exercise. Once an equivalent acid level was arrived at a range of equi-sweet drinks were produced sweetened with a number of sweetener systems. As this study was directed at the European market a number of sweetener combinations in common use in different territories within the European community were selected. The following sweetener systems were compared at 9% sweetness equivalence: Sucrose Aspartame Aspartame: Acesulfame K Aspartame: Saccharin The flavor profiles of citric acid and SAS acidified beverages were then compared. This report contains the details of the findings from this experimental program.

RESULTS ph range finding The following range of acid levels was evaluated. Levels expressed ready to drink. Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 Citric 0.1400 - - - - - - SAS - 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200 0.1400 0.1600 Citrate 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 3.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 The level of 0.0800%w/v SAS gave a comparable ph to the citric acid reference and this was selected for further work. Sensory assessment of beverages Sets of beverages acidified with citric acid and SAS were prepared with a number of different sweetener systems. A trained panel of Food Technologists then compared each of these sets of drinks. The tasters are skilled at generating descriptive terms to characterize the sensory properties of products. The formulations used for this exercise are given in the appendix. A summary of the sweetener levels is given here with the acid levels. All intense sweetener formulations are formulated to be equi-sweet to the 9%w/v sucrose beverage. Sweetener systems Sucrose 9 0.14%w/v citric compared to 08%w/v SAS The 2 beverages compared very favorably and were considered equally acceptable but with distinctly different flavor characters. Both drinks had a good lemon flavor with a clean aftertaste. The SAS beverage had a slightly more acidic aftertaste and lemon sherbet style of flavor; the citric acid beverage had a zesty lemon flavor.

Aspartame 540ppm 0.14%w/v citric compared to 08%w/v SAS The citric acidified reference had a bright lemon flavor profile with a zesty lemon character. It had what is considered to be a characteristic aspartame flavor with the initial impact being slightly delayed and the aftertaste lingering and very sweet. The SAS acidified beverage had a softer overall character and was again described as having a lemon sherbet style flavor. It had a more syrupy mouthfeel and the aftertaste had a less lingering sweetness and left a clean freshness on the palate. This SAS acidified beverage was considered much preferred to the citric reference for mouthfeel and aftertaste. Aspartame: Acesulfame K Aspartame 135ppm with Acesulfame K 135ppm 0.14%w/v citric compared to 08%w/v SHS Both the drinks with this sweetener blend had a flatter flavor than the aspartame only sweetened beverage, as was expected. There was a slightly metallic, bitterness to the aftertaste and some lingering sweetness in the reference drink with citric acid and a zesty lemon flavor. The SAS sweetened beverage had a softer lemon sherbet style flavor profile with a fuller mouthfeel and an improved aftertaste with the bitter/astringent notes masked. This SAS acidified beverage was considered much preferred to the citric reference for mouthfeel and aftertaste. Aspartame: Saccharin Aspartame 160ppm with Saccharin 80ppm (as imide) 0.14%w/v citric compared to 08%w/v SHS The drinks with this sweetener blend had a slightly flatter flavor than the aspartame only sweetened beverage as was expected. The flavor of the citric acid reference had a zesty character. Its aftertaste had an aspirin note along with a bitterness and lingering sweetness. The SAS sweetened beverage had a less zesty flavor profile and a fuller mouthfeel and a much-improved aftertaste. The aftertaste was described as fresh and clean with the aspirin/bitter/ sweet flavors being masked. This SAS acidified beverage was considered much preferred to the citric reference for mouthfeel and aftertaste.

CONCLUSIONS SAS is considerably more effective than citric acid at reducing the ph of this type of beverage. The work conducted in this program suggests that 0.14 citric acid can be replaced by 0.08 SAS and produce the same ph in the final beverage. This indicates that there can be substantial cost savings by substituting SAS for citric acid. SHS has also been shown to have a completely different acid flavor release and this generates a different sweetness and flavor profile in the final beverage. The flavor profile of the SAS beverages was consistently described as softer and more sherbet lemon style compared to the zesty lemon flavor of the citric acidified beverage. The citric acid acidified beverage produced a flavor profile more in keeping with that expected of a lemon-flavored beverage. The difference in the acid release profile appeared to affect the sweetness profiles when with intense sweetener systems. These all tend to have associated lingering aftertastes. Aspartame has a characteristic sweet lingering aftertaste, Acesulfame K a bitter metallic aftertaste and saccharin has an astringent, bitter, aspirin like aftertaste. The acid flavor release of SAS is more delayed compared to that of citric acid and this has a masking affect on the lingering notes of the intense sweeteners. This is of particular value to diet and sugar free beverage manufacturers. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that this information can be used to demonstrate the overall performance characteristics of SAS to beverage manufacturers. The focus of presentations should be: Cost in use Difference in flavor profile Benefits to sweetness profile with intense sweeteners It is clear from this evaluation that if a zesty fresh lemon flavor is the target then this is not achieved with SAS. It is, therefore, recommended that SAS be evaluated with other flavor types to establish those that are most compatible with its acid release characteristics. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this report, Eureka cannot be held responsible or liable in respect of the use to which the information, contained in this report, is put. This report may only be reproduced in its entirety unless permission to do otherwise has been obtained from Eureka.

APPENDIX FORMULATION DATA SHEETS

Citric acid/ Sucrose Sweetened 1. Sucrose 58.500 2. Anhydrous Citric Acid 0.910 3. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 4. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 5. Washed lemon oil 0.650 6. Water To volume 3. Add sucrose, citric acid, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 2. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.14%w/v Sucrose 9%w/v 2 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618617 3 & 4 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 5 Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Sodium Acid Sulfate/Sucrose Sweetened 1. Sucrose 58.500 2. Sodium Acid Sulfate 0.520 3. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 4. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 5. Washed lemon oil 0.650 6. Water To volume 3. Add sucrose, sodium acid sulfate, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 2. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.08 %w/v Sucrose 9%w/v 2 Jones Hamilton Co (419) 666 9838 3 & 4 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 5 Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Citric acid/ Aspartame Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.351 2. Anhydrous Citric Acid 0.910 3. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 4. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 5. Washed lemon oil 0.650 6. Water To volume 3. Add aspartame, citric acid, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 3. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.14%w/v Aspartame 540ppm 1& 2 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618617 3 & 4 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 5 Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Sodium Acid Sulfate/Aspartame Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.351 2. Sodium Acid Sulfate 0.520 3. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 4. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 5. Washed lemon oil 0.650 6. Water To volume 3. Add sucrose, sodium acid sulfate, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 2. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.08 %w/v Aspartame 540ppm 1 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618617 2 Jones Hamilton Co (419) 666 9838 3&4 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 5 Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Citric acid/ Aspartame: Acesulfame K Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.088 2. Acesulfame K 0.088 3. Anhydrous Citric Acid 0.910 4. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 5. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 6. Washed lemon oil 0.650 7. Water To volume 3. Add aspartame, citric acid, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 4. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.14%w/v Aspartame 135ppm with Acesulfame K 135ppm 1& 3 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618612 2 Nutrinova +44(0) 870608820 4&5 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 6 Synergy Flavours +44(0) 1189321489

Sodium Acid Sulfate/ Aspartame: Acesulfame K Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.088 2. Acesulfame K 0.088 3. Sodium Acid Sulfate 0.520 4. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 5. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 6. Washed lemon oil 0.650 7. Water To volume 3. Add sucrose, sodium acid sulfate, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 2. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.08 %w/v Aspartame 135ppm with Acesulfame K 135ppm 1. Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618612 2. Nutrinova +44(0) 870608820 3. Jones Hamilton Co (419) 666 9838 4&5. Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 6. Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Citric acid/ Aspartame: Saccharin Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.104 2. Saccharin 0.068 3. Anhydrous Citric Acid 0.910 4. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 5. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 6. Washed lemon oil 0.650 7. Water To volume 3. Add aspartame, citric acid, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 5. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.14%w/v Aspartame 160ppm with Saccharin 80ppm (as imide) 1,2 & 3 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618612 4&5 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 6 Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489

Sodium Acid Sulfate/ Aspartame: Saccharin Sweetened 1. Aspartame 0.104 2. Saccharin 0.068 3. Sodium Acid Sulfate 0.520 4. Sodium Benzoate - 20% Solution 0.488 5. Tri-sodium Citrate 0.260 6. Washed lemon oil 0.650 7. Water To volume 3. Add sucrose, sodium acid sulfate, tri-sodium citrate and flavor. 2. Cap and invert. Acid concentration 0.08 %w/v Aspartame 160ppm with Saccharin 80ppm (as imide) 1 & 2 Direct Food Ingredients +44(0) 1625618612 3. Jones Hamilton Co (419) 666 9838 4&5 Fiske Food Ingredients +44(0) 1908362200 6. Synergy Flavours 2SX 73875 +44(0) 1189321489