Impact of protein on sensory attributes and liking of plant-based Milk alternatives

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Bharti Sharma , Russell Keast , Djin Gie Liem , Yada Nolvachai , Andrew Costanzo
{"title":"Impact of protein on sensory attributes and liking of plant-based Milk alternatives","authors":"Bharti Sharma ,&nbsp;Russell Keast ,&nbsp;Djin Gie Liem ,&nbsp;Yada Nolvachai ,&nbsp;Andrew Costanzo","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMAs) have a limited nutrient profile compared to dairy milk, primarily due to their lower protein content. Although fortification with protein can enhance their nutritional value, this addition changes the product's texture and introduces undesirable off-flavours, such as beaniness or chalkiness, which can hinder consumer acceptance. The primary aim of the study was to examine the impact of protein concentration (1 and 4 %) and source (soy, oat, pea) on the perception of sensory attributes and overall liking of PBMAs. Ninety-four consumers evaluated 6 lab-prepared PBMAs for liking using a 9-point hedonic scale. Optimal perception of attributes was assessed using just-about-right scales, and attribute analysis using check-all-that-apply. Penalty analysis was applied to evaluate liking drops, and logistic regression examined the relationship between protein source/concentration and sensory attribute perception. Low protein samples had higher overall liking than high protein (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) with 50.7 % of the variance attributed to textural factors such as thickness and grittiness. Furthermore, on comparison with soy-based samples, beaniness was selected 2.34 times more in pea-based samples and chalkiness was selected 4.92 more times in oat-based samples. Protein concentration impacted perception of thickness, with high-protein samples being selected as thick 22.9 times more often than low protein samples. Overall, adding protein to PBMAs improves their nutrient profile, matching its protein content with dairy milk, but it also introduces textural challenges that reduces consumer acceptance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 105617"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329325001922","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMAs) have a limited nutrient profile compared to dairy milk, primarily due to their lower protein content. Although fortification with protein can enhance their nutritional value, this addition changes the product's texture and introduces undesirable off-flavours, such as beaniness or chalkiness, which can hinder consumer acceptance. The primary aim of the study was to examine the impact of protein concentration (1 and 4 %) and source (soy, oat, pea) on the perception of sensory attributes and overall liking of PBMAs. Ninety-four consumers evaluated 6 lab-prepared PBMAs for liking using a 9-point hedonic scale. Optimal perception of attributes was assessed using just-about-right scales, and attribute analysis using check-all-that-apply. Penalty analysis was applied to evaluate liking drops, and logistic regression examined the relationship between protein source/concentration and sensory attribute perception. Low protein samples had higher overall liking than high protein (p < 0.001) with 50.7 % of the variance attributed to textural factors such as thickness and grittiness. Furthermore, on comparison with soy-based samples, beaniness was selected 2.34 times more in pea-based samples and chalkiness was selected 4.92 more times in oat-based samples. Protein concentration impacted perception of thickness, with high-protein samples being selected as thick 22.9 times more often than low protein samples. Overall, adding protein to PBMAs improves their nutrient profile, matching its protein content with dairy milk, but it also introduces textural challenges that reduces consumer acceptance.
蛋白质对植物性牛奶替代品的感官属性和喜爱的影响
与乳制品相比,植物性牛奶替代品(pbma)的营养成分有限,主要是因为它们的蛋白质含量较低。虽然添加蛋白质可以提高它们的营养价值,但这种添加会改变产品的质地,并引入不受欢迎的异味,如豆味或白垩味,这可能会阻碍消费者的接受。该研究的主要目的是检查蛋白质浓度(1%和4%)和来源(大豆,燕麦,豌豆)对pbma感官属性和整体喜好的感知的影响。94名消费者使用9分制的快乐量表评估6种实验室制备的pbma的喜欢程度。使用刚刚合适的量表评估属性的最佳感知,并使用check-all-that-apply进行属性分析。采用惩罚分析评价喜欢度下降,logistic回归检验蛋白质来源/浓度与感觉属性知觉的关系。低蛋白样品的总体好感度高于高蛋白样品(p <;0.001),其中50.7%的方差归因于厚度和砂砾等质地因素。此外,与大豆为基础的样品相比,豌豆为基础的样品的豆色选择多了2.34倍,燕麦为基础的样品的白垩度选择多了4.92倍。蛋白质浓度影响厚度感知,高蛋白样品被选择为厚的频率是低蛋白样品的22.9倍。总的来说,在pbma中添加蛋白质可以改善其营养成分,使其蛋白质含量与牛奶相匹配,但也会带来质地上的挑战,从而降低消费者的接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Quality and Preference
Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
15.10%
发文量
263
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信