Impact of Formulation and Saliva on Acid Milk Gel

Friction Behavior
Helen S. Joyner (Melito), Chris W. Pernell, and Christopher R. Daubert

Abstract: Rheological analysis is commonly used to evaluate mechanical properties in studies of food behavior.
However, rheological analysis is often insufficient to describe food texture as evaluated by descriptive sensory analysis.
Additionally, traditional rheometry does not account for changes in food behavior as a function of saliva incorporation
into the food during mastication. The objectives of this study were to evaluate friction behavior of acid milk gels with
and without the addition of saliva, and to determine relationships between frictional behaviors and mechanical and
sensory behaviors. Acid milk gels were prepared with 12.5% total solids comprising nonfat dry milk, whey protein isolate,
waxy maize starch, and gelatin in different ratios. The addition of starch was found to have significant impact on acid
milk gel frictional behavior. Addition of saliva resulted in a change in frictional behavior over the entire sliding speed

E: Food Engineering &

Physical Properties
range measured. Correlations were found between rheological, tribological, and sensory behavior, suggesting that an
underlying mechanism may impact both viscosity and friction behavior. Additional study is needed to further explore
the links between food structure, rheology, tribology, and sensory texture.

Keywords: ingredients, rheology, sensory analysis, tribology

Practical Application: Application of tribology in food science allows measurement of friction behavior of foods.
Matching both rheological and tribological behavior is important to creating reduced-fat or reduced-sugar products with
similar mouthfeel to the original product.

Introduction 2012). To date, studies on food tribology have measured friction

Yogurt is produced by fermenting milk using Lactobacillus bul-
garicus and Streptococcus thermophilus (Tamime and Robinson 2007).
Additives such as starches, hydrocolloids, and milk proteins may
be added to modify texture or replace fat. Unfortunately, addition
of these ingredients may result in undesirable textural changes,
for example, chalkiness or grittiness (Lucey 2004; Lee and Lucey
2010) and reduce mouthfeel liking (Frst and Janhj 2007). Low-
fat and nonfat yogurts generally have textures dissimilar to that
of full-fat yogurt. Typical studies on yogurts involve evaluation of
rheological properties and sensory texture. However, rheological
analysis is often insufficient to describe yogurt sensory texture.
Additional information on the physical aspects of yogurt is needed
to fully describe sensory texture via mechanical testing.
Interest in using tribology, the study of friction between slid-
ing surfaces, to examine food behavior has recently increased.
Understanding food tribological behavior may yield increased un-
derstanding of food behavior during mastication, particularly in
the later stages of mastication. Additionally, while oral behavior of
food during the initial stage of oral processing is dominated by bulk
rheological behavior, tribological (thin-film) behavior dominates
during the later stages of mastication (Chen and Stokes 2012).
It has been suggested that measuring food friction behavior may
yield information not provided by traditional rheometry (de Wijk
and Prinz 2005; Dresselhuis and others 2008; Terpstra and oth-
ers 2009; Chen and Stokes 2012; Chojnicka-Paszun and others
MS 20131661 Submitted 11/12/2013, Accepted 2/15/2014. Author Joyner
(Melito) is with School of Food Science, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID, U.S.A. Authors
Pernell and Daubert are with Dept. of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Joyner
(Melito) (E-mail: hjoyner@uidaho.edu).
behavior of oil-in-water emulsions (Dresselhuis and others 2007;
Chojnicka and others 2008; Dresselhuis and others 2008; Bellamy
and others 2009), dairy products (deWijk and Prinz 2005; de Wijk
and others 2006; Chojnicka-Paszun and others 2012; Selway and
Stokes 2013), chocolate (Luengo and others 1997; Carvalho-da-
Silva and others 2013), and mayonnaise (de Wijk and Prinz 2005;
Terpstra and others 2009). Several studies have also linked food
texture and friction behavior (de Wijk and Prinz 2005; de Wijk
and others 2006; Dresselhuis and others 2008; Bellamy and others
2009; Chojnicka-Paszun and others 2012).
Friction behavior may be viewed via construction of a Stribeck
curve. A general Stribeck curve, constructed by plotting friction
coefficient compared with sliding speed, is shown in Figure 1.
This curve has 3 distinctive regimes: boundary, mixed, and hydro-
dynamic (Dresselhuis and others 2007; Chen and Stokes 2012).
Boundary regime (a) behavior occurs at low sliding speeds and
is characterized by relatively high, constant friction. The height
of surface asperities is greater than the lubricant thickness, and
the surfaces are in direct contact. As sliding speed increases, fric-
tion behavior shifts to the mixed regime (b). While there is still
contact between asperities, the lubricant layer thickens as sliding
speed increases, separating the surfaces and decreasing the friction
coefficient to a minimum. Friction behavior shifts to the hydro-
dynamic regime (c) after this minimum friction. Hydrodynamic
behavior (c) is characterized by a steady increase in friction at high
sliding speeds. The sliding surfaces are completely separated, and
all hydrodynamic load is carried by the lubricating fluid.
The Stribeck curve is based on assumptions of Newtonian lu-
bricants and hard tribological surfaces (for example, steel). Foods
are generally non-Newtonian and tribological measurements of
foods are usually performed on elastomeric (soft) surfaces. Both

C 2014 Institute of Food Technologists

 R

doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12439 Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E867
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .
non-Newtonian behavior and change in contact area from sur-
face deformation can alter the Stribeck curve shape. Viscosity
differences can be accounted for by multiplying sliding speed by
apparent viscosity (de Vicente and others 2005a; Chojnicka and
others 2009) and changes in contact area can be estimated for fric-
tion coefficient correction (de Vicente and others 2005a, 2006a;
Bongaerts and others 2007). However, these corrections require
knowledge of viscosity and contact area at each sliding speed tested,
which is not always possible to determine.
Oral evaluation of foods involves sensation of mechanical and
friction behavior, as well as composition and physical properties
such as particle size, pH, and moisture and fat content (Chen
and Stokes 2012). This evaluation begins before the food enters
the mouth and continues through the mastication process (Chen
2009). Mixing food with saliva can yield a substance with signifi-
E: Food Engineering &
cantly different mechanical and friction behavior than the original
Physical Properties
food. While frictional properties of certain foods, as well as fric-
tional properties of saliva have been investigated (Bongaerts and
others 2007; Vardhanabhuti and others 2011; Harvey and others
2012), there has been little study on frictional properties of foods
mixed with saliva and comparison of those properties to sensory
behavior. Studies that have examined the impact of saliva on tri-
bological behavior have suggested that saliva plays a critical role
in lubrication processes, and that interaction of saliva with indi-
vidual ingredients may impact friction (Selway and Stokes 2013).
Additionally, most studies on tribological food behavior focus on
the effects of fat or hydrocolloids on friction behavior (>10% fat
content). Ingredient contributions to friction in systems without
fat have received little attention; however, fat replacers must not
only replace bulk, but also produce a mouthfeel similar to that of
a full-fat product. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to
evaluate friction behavior of nonfat stirred acid milk gels with and
without the addition of saliva and determine relationships among
frictional, mechanical, and sensory behaviors.
Materials and Methods
Materials
Polypropylene (PP) balls (density of 1107 kg/m3 ; Youngs mod-
ulus of 2.0 109 Pa) were purchased from McMaster-Carr
(Atlanta, Ga., U.S.A.). Whey protein isolate (WPI) (94.79% pro-
tein) used for tribological plates was provided by Davisco Foods
Intl. (LeSueur, Minn., U.S.A.). WPI used for acid milk gel prepa-
ration was donated by Glanbia Nutritionals (Provon 192, 93.49%
protein; Fitchburg, Wis., U.S.A.). Sodium caseinate (NaCs) was
donated by Erie Foods Intl., Inc. (ECCO 2300, 94% protein; Erie,
Ill., U.S.A.). Starch was donated by Ingredion (Thermflo waxy
maize starch; Bridgewater, N.J., U.S.A.). Gelatin (Kraft Foods
Fric on coecient ()
a c
b
Sliding speed (m/s)
Figure 1Stribeck curve comprising (A) boundary, (B) mixed, and (C) hy- ferred to a water bath and held at 40 C for 4 h. The gels were
drodynamic lubrication regimes.
E868 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014
Global, Inc., Northfield, Ill.) and nonfat dry milk (NFDM) pow-
der (34.8% protein; Food Lion LLC; Salisbury, N.C., U.S.A.) were
purchased from a local retailer. Laboratory chemicals were pur-
chased from Fisher Scientific (Fair Lawn, N.J., U.S.A.).
Tribological apparatus
Figure 2 shows the tribological apparatus used in this study. The
apparatus comprised a spindle attached by a pivot to two 12.7-
mm diameter balls. The pivot point allowed vertical adjustment
of the balls to compensate for any unevenness of the surface of
the tribological plate. The distance from the center of each ball
to the pivot point was 15 mm. The spindle was attached to a
rheometer (Physica, MCR 302; Anton Paar; Gratz, Austria), al-
lowing continuous control of normal force and rotational speed.
Normal force correction rate was set at 50% (Joyner (Melito) and
others submitted) using the dynamic normal force control setting.
Set values for dynamic normal force control, or the rate at which
the instantaneous normal force is adjusted to remain at the set
value, may be varied from 0% to 100%, where larger values corre-
sponded to more rapid motor movement but less accurate control.
Dynamic normal force control was set. Tribological plate tem-
perature was adjusted via the rheometers temperature-controlled
base. The rheometer base comprised a plate affixed to a moveable
stage, which allowed the plate to adjust for equal normal force dis-
tribution regardless of tribological tool position (Heyer and Lauger
2008).
Tribological plate preparation
WPI gels were selected for tribological measurements, as they
are hydrophilic and can be prepared with a similar modulus as that
of oral tissue. They also have been shown to exhibit mainly elastic
behavior under strain and did not wear significantly during testing
(that is, separate runs of a given sample on the same plate were
repeatable). Preliminary analysis showed that the WPI gel plates
did not absorb the substances used for testing or cleaning during
the duration of the testing period. WPI gels were prepared using
the method of C akir and Foegeding (2011), except that the solu-
tion was gelled in a pan rather than tubes. After preparation, gels
were stored at 4 C until used for testing. Gels were equilibrated
to room temperature (22 2 C) before testing. The Youngs
modulus of the WPI gels determined via compressive testing was
7.4 105 Pa.
Stirred acid milk gel preparation
Stock solutions for the acid milk gels were prepared by mixing
12.5% w/v NFDM in deionized water for 1 h at 300 RPM and
room temperature (22 2 C), and then stored at 4 C overnight
to ensure complete dispersal. The solution was allowed to equi-
librate at room temperature (22 2 C) for 1 h under constant
stirring at 300 RPM. Starch, NaCs, WPI, and gelatin were then
added to the NFDM solution according to the experimental de-
sign shown in Table 1. Total solids of the NFDM solution were
adjusted using deionized water to keep total solids of the final
solution constant at 12.5%. The resulting solutions were allowed
to disperse at room temperature (22 2 C) for 1 h under con-
stant stirring at 300 RPM. The solutions were pasteurized in a
water bath at 80 C for 30 min, and then cooled to 40 C un-
der constant stirring at 300 RPM and room temperature (22
2 C). Glucono-delta-lactone was added while stirring to acidify
the emulsion to a final pH of approximately 4.5 0.05 (Table 1).
When solution temperature reached 40 C, solutions were trans-
Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Table 1Experimental design for acid milk gels.

NFDM WPI NaCs Starch Gelatin Total Glucono-

concentration concentration concentration concentration concentration solids delta-lactone
Sample (w/v) (w/v) (w/v) (w/v) (w/v) (w/v) (w/v)
1 11 0 0 1 0.5 12.5 1.25
2 10.5 1 1 0 0 12.5 1.40
3 9.5 1 1 1 0 12.5 1.25
4 10.5 0 1 1 0 12.5 1.30
5 11 0 1 0 0.5 12.5 1.35
6 12.5 0 0 0 0 12.5 1.37
7 11.5 0 1 0 0 12.5 1.37
8 10 0 1 1 0.5 12.5 1.24
9 9 1 1 1 0.5 12.5 1.26
10 10.5 1 0 1 0 12.5 1.30
11 11.5 0 0 1 0 12.5 1.22
12 12 0 0 0 0.5 12.5 1.30
13 10 1 1 0 0.5 12.5 1.37

E: Food Engineering &

14 11 1 0 0 0.5 12.5 1.41

Physical Properties
15 11.5 1 0 0 0 12.5 1.48
16 10 1 0 1 0.5 12.5 1.30

Rheological measurements
cooled in a refrigerator at 4 C for 30 min, and then stirred with a
metal rod for approximately 60 s to break the gel. Gels were stored Rheological measurements were performed on a Physcia MCR
at 4 C until used for testing. 302 rheometer (Anton Paar) using a 25 mm parallel plate apparatus
Gels were equilibrated at room temperature (22 2 C) before with a 1.0 mm gap height. A Peltier hood and plate were used
testing. Just before testing, gels were blended using a laboratory ho-
for temperature control. To mitigate sample drying during testing,
mogenizer (Omni-Mixer; Sorval, Inc.; Newton, Conn., U.S.A.) laboratory wipes saturated with deionized water were placed in a
at a set speed for 5 s to remove lumps and create a system similarring around the inside edge of the Peltier hood. Before the start of
to stirred yogurt. The final pH of the gels was measured 24 h after
each test, the sample was equilibrated at 25 C for 60 s, and then
testing; measurements were performed after samples had reached presheared at 10 s1 for 20 s to give samples an equivalent shear
room temperature (22 2 C). history and allowed to equilibrate at zero shear for 20 s. High-shear
viscosity testing was conducted using the same premeasurement
and measurement parameters, except the gap height was set to
50 m (Davies and Stokes 2008). To ensure accurate viscosity
Proximate analysis measurements, the upper plate was zeroed by lowering it until a
Moisture contents were determined in triplicate by drying in a normal force of 5 N was reached (Davies and Stokes 2008). All
forced-air oven, according to the method of the AOAC (1995). testing was conducted in triplicate at 25 C.
Fat contents were determined in duplicate using the Mojonnier
method for fluid milk samples (Wehr and Frank 2004). Ash con-
tents were determined in triplicate using a standard method for Saliva collection and sample preparation
dairy products (Wehr and Frank 2004). Protein contents were esti- Saliva was collected using the method of Bongaerts and others
mated from the protein content of the individual ingredients used (2007) with approval from the North Carolina State Univ. Internal
to prepare each acid milk gel. Carbohydrate contents of samples Review Board for Human Subjects. Briefly, 2 adult volunteers (1
were determined by difference. male, 1 female, ages 25 to 50) with normal saliva composition and

Figure 2Schematic (A) and photo (B) of

double ball tribological system.

Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E869

 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Table 2Descriptive analysis terms and definitions.

Attribute Description Reference used

Hand terms Spoon viscosity Thickness evaluated upon moving a spoon back and forth Water = 1
through the sample after stirring the sample 10 times Half & half = 2
Jell-O chocolate refrigerated
pudding = 10.5
Spoon drip Amount of material that flows from the spoon after spoon is Jell-O chocolate refrigerated pudding
dipped into the stirred sample, and then raised above it =1
Half & half = 14.5
Lumpiness Appearance of lumps in the sample after sample is stirred Jell-O chocolate refrigerated pudding
=0
Mouth terms Smoothness Lack of roughness or individual particles felt in the mouth N/A
during sample manipulation with the tongue (disregarding
chalkiness)
Mouth viscosity Force needed to move the tongue through the sample in 1 Water = 1
movement Half & half = 1.5
Heavy cream = 3
E: Food Engineering &

Jell-O chocolate refrigerated

Physical Properties

pudding = 12
Chalkiness Degree to which fine, chalk-like particles are detected in the N/A
mouth during manipulation with the tongue
Breakdown Time needed for the sample to dissolve in the mouth during Jell-O chocolate refrigerated pudding
mastication = 4.5
Philly whipped cream cheese = 8.5
Skippy peanut butter = 12.5
Residual after swallowing Astringent mouthfeel Feeling of dry, mouth-puckering sensation after N/A
expectorating
Degree of mouthcoating Amount of residue left on oral surfaces after expectorating Whole milk = 4
Half & half = 6
Jell-O chocolate refrigerated
pudding = 9
Gritty mouthcoating Feeling of grainy or gritty particles left in mouth after N/A
expectorating
Fatty mouthcoating Feeling of oily or fatty coating on oral surfaces after Whole milk = 3
expectorating Half & half = 6

Table 3Acid milk gel composition.

Moisture Fat Protein Ash Carbohydrates Final

(%) (% dry basis) (% dry basis) (% dry basis) (% dry basis) pH
12.5% NFDM 88.0 (0.06) 0.35 (0.041) 4.09 0.78 (0.044) 6.76 4.47
1% WPI 88.0 (0.13) 0.02 (0.014) 4.60 0.79 (0.017) 6.61 4.52
1% NaCs 88.2 (0.07) 0.04 (0.063) 4.61 0.76 (0.03) 6.37 4.47
1% starch 88.3 (0.07) 0.00 (0.007) 3.74 0.79 (0.01) 7.17 4.55
0.5% gelatin 88.1 (0.08) 0.14 (0.021) 3.92 0.83 (0.01) 7.00 4.53
1% WPI and NaCs 88.4 (0.34) 0.19 (0.133) 5.11 0.73 (0.022) 5.59 4.55
1% WPI and starch 88.0 (0.06) 0.04 (0.056) 4.24 0.71 (0.026) 6.97 4.47
1% WPI, 0.5% gelatin 88.0 (0.06) 0.00 (0.000) 4.43 0.72 (0.048) 6.86 4.47
1% NaCs and starch 88.2 (0.16) 0.16 (0.068) 4.25 0.73 (0.019) 6.62 4.46
1% NaCs, 0.5% gelatin 88.3 (0.05) 0.01 (0.021) 4.44 0.78 (0.01) 6.50 4.52
1% starch, 0.5% gelatin 88.2 (0.07) 0.13 (0.107) 3.57 0.72 (0.012) 7.36 4.51
1% WPI, NaCs, and starch 88.2 (0.07) 0.10 (0.134) 4.75 0.71 (0.029) 6.22 4.54
1% WPI and NaCs, 0.5% gelatin 87.9 (0.20) 0.00 (0.000) 4.93 0.71 (0.002) 6.43 4.53
1% WPI and starch, 0.5% gelatin 88.1 (0.07) 0.07 (0.106) 4.07 0.69 (0.005) 7.04 4.46
1% NaCs and starch, 0.5% gelatin 88.3 (0.02) 0.18 (0.155) 4.08 0.66 (0.017) 6.81 4.50
1% WPI, NaCs, and starch, 0.5% gelatin 88.3 (0.10) 0.00 (0.014) 4.58 0.65 (0.018) 6.43 4.45
Numbers in parentheses indicate standard deviations.

flow rate were instructed to refrain from eating or drinking any-
thing but water 2 h prior to collection. Volunteers were instructed
to rinse their mouths twice with deionized water and expectorate
into a waste container. Volunteers were then given a disposable
plastic pipette and instructed to chew the bulb end of the pipette
20 times, and then expectorate the saliva generated. The first 2
expectorations of saliva were discarded. Saliva was pooled, mixed
thoroughly, and used immediately.
To prepare mixed saliva/acid milk gel samples, 3.0 g of acid milk
gel were weighed into a laboratory beaker. A total of 500 L of
fresh, pooled saliva were added to each sample. The amounts of
saliva and sample used were determined based on reported stim-
ulated saliva flow rates and bolus sizes (de Wijk and others 2006;
van Aken and others 2007; Terpstra and others 2009). Samples
were allowed to incubate for 5 min with occasional stirring be-
fore testing. Preliminary testing showed that 5 min was sufficient
incubation time to ensure that samples did not undergo chemi-
cal changes during tribological testing (data not shown). Samples
mixed with 500 L of deionized water were also prepared in the
same manner to examine dilution effects.

E870 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014

Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Tribological measurements
Tribology measurements were performed on a Physcia MCR
302 rheometer using the double-ball-on plate apparatus previously
described. PP balls and WPI gel plates were used for testing; the PP
balls were used to mimic dental surfaces, while the WPI gel plates
were used to mimic oral tissues. The plates were cut to a height
of 4 mm using a cutting template and affixed to the rheometer
base using cyanoacrylate glue (Henkel Corp., West Lake, Ohio,
U.S.A.). To allow easier removal of the WPI gel plates from the
rheometer lower plate, a square of laboratory tape was placed on
the rheometer base, and the glue applied to the tape rather than
directly to the rheometer base. Preliminary experiments deter-
mined that this method provided good adherence between the
tribological plate and rheometer base during testing.
Both the balls and plate were cleaned with isopropyl alcohol
and dried with laboratory wipes before each test. A thin layer of
sample was spread evenly over the clean plate; preliminary ex-
periments determined that a combination of sample viscosity and

A 1000

100
Viscosity (Pa s)

E: Food Engineering &

10

Physical Properties
1
Base formula
0.1
Base + 1% WPI
Base + 1% NaCs
0.01
Base + 1% starch
Base + 0.5% gela n
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (1/s)
B 1000

100
Viscosity (Pa s)

10
Base formula
1
Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs
Base + 1% WPI, 1% starch
0.1
Base + 1% WPI, 0.5% gela n
Base + 1% NaCs, 1% starch
0.01
Base + 1% NaCs, 0.5% gela n
Base + 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (1/s)

C 1000

100
Viscosity (Pa s)

10

1 Base formula
Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch
0.1 Base + 1% WPI, NaCs, 0.5% gela n
Base + 1% WPI, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
0.01
Base + 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
Base+ 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Shear Rate (1/s)

Figure 3Shear rate sweep results for acid milk gels with partial replacement of nonfat dry milk with (A) 1 ingredient, (B) 2 ingredients, and (C) 3 or 4
ingredients.

Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E871

 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

surface tension were sufficient to prevent sample drainage from the
plate. A normal force of 2.1 N was used for all measurements. (de
Vicente and others 2005a, 2005b, 2006b). The rotational speed
was increased in a stepwise manner from 0.01 to 100 RPM. Mea-
surement times and number of points per speed are given in the
supporting information (Table S1). Four runs for each of 3 WPI
gel plates were performed for each sample for a total of 12 repli-
cates per sample. Testing was conducted at 25 C. Tested samples
included acid milk gels alone, and acid milk gels mixed with either
saliva or water.
Tribological data screening procedure
Tribological data were screened according to the procedure de-
tailed by Joyner (Melito) and others (accepted): data points taken

A Spoon Viscosity
Base formula on
15
Fa y MCT Spoon Drip Base + 1% WPI

10 Base + 1% NaCs
Base + 1% starch
Gri y MCT Lumpy
E: Food Engineering &

5 Base + 0.5% gela n

Physical Properties

0
Degree of MCT Smoothness

Astringent MF Mouth Viscosity

Breakdown Chalky

B Spoon Viscosity
Base formula
15
Fa y MCT Spoon Drip Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs
10 Base + 1% WPI, 1% starch
Gri y MCT Lumpy Base + 1% WPI, 0.5% gela n
5
Base + 1% NaCs, 1% starch
0 Base + 1% NaCs, 0.5% gela n
Degree of MCT Smoothness
Base + 1% starch, 0.5% gela n

Astringent MF Mouth Viscosity

Breakdown Chalky

C Spoon Viscosity Base formula

15 Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch
Fa y MCT Spoon Drip

10 Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 0.5% gela n

Base + 1% WPI, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
Gri y MCT Lumpy
5 Base + 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gela n
0
Degree of MCT Smoothness

Astringent MF Mouth Viscosity

Breakdown Chalky

Figure 4Descriptive sensory analysis results for acid milk gels with partial replacement of nonfat dry milk with (A) 1 ingredient, (B) 2 ingredients, and
(C) 3 or 4 ingredients.

E872 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014

Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

while the normal force was greater than the set value 1.05 or
less than the set value 0.95 were removed before analysis. Tribo-
logical testing using the double-ball system with WPI gel plates
resulted in significant normal force variance, especially at higher
sliding speeds; a detailed analysis of the factors affecting normal
force variation is given in Joyner (Melito) and others (accepted).
This screening procedure was developed to minimize the effect of
fluctuating normal force on friction coefficient.
Descriptive analysis
Descriptive sensory analysis was conducted with approval from
the North Carolina State Univ. Internal Review Board for Hu-
man Subjects. A trained panel of 7 adult volunteers was used to
evaluate acid milk gel textural properties. Equal amounts of each
sample were placed into 4 oz souffle cups labeled with randomly
selected 3-digit codes, covered with lids, and equilibrated at room
temperature (22 2 C) for at least 1 h. Samples were tested

A
1.0E+00
Fric on Factor

E: Food Engineering &

Physical Properties
12.5% NFDM
1% WPI
1% NaCs
1% starch
0.5% gela n
1.0E-01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Sliding Speed (m/s)
B
1.0E+00
Fric on Factor

12.5% NFDM
1% WPI and NaCs
1% WPI and starch
1% WPI, 0.5% gela n
1% NaCs and starch
1% NaCs, 0.5% gela n
1% starch, 0.5% gela n
1.0E-01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Sliding Speed (m/s)
C
1.0E+00
Fric on Factor

12.5% NFDM
1% WPI, NaCs, and starch
1% WPI and NaCs, 0.5% gela n
1% WPI and starch, 0.5% gela n
1% NaCs and starch, 0.5% gela n
1% WPI, NaCs, and starch, 0.5% gela n
1.0E-01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Sliding Speed (m/s)

Figure 5Tribological results for acid milk gels with partial replacement of nonfat dry milk with (A) 1 ingredient, (B) 2 ingredients, and (C) 3 or 4
ingredients.

Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E873

 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

at room temperature so that sensory data could be compared to (rad/s), is the friction coefficient (unitless), M is the torque (N
rheological and tribological data without confounding effects from m), and FN is the normal force (N).
temperature. Samples were served to panelists with unsalted crack- Analysis of variance, Tukeys test, and correlations were per-
ers and deionized water for palate cleaning. Reference samples for formed using SAS 9.2 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.).
different textural aspects were presented along with the samples
for comparison. Panelists evaluated samples for predefined textural
attributes (Table 2) using a quantitative scale. Scores were recorded
on ballots. Results and Discussion
Acid milk gel composition
Data analysis
All acid milk gels had similar moisture and ash content (Table 3).
Torque and spindle turning speed were converted to friction
Protein and carbohydrate contents differed depending on formu-
coefficient and sliding speed, respectively, using the following for-
lation (Table 3). Protein and carbohydrate ranged from 3.57%
mulas:
to 5.11% dry weight and 5.59% to 7.36% dry weight, respec-
tively. All acid milk gels had fat content >0.4%, with most gels
= R (1) having fat content >0.2% (Table 3). Thus, fat content was not
E: Food Engineering &
Physical Properties

expected to significantly contribute to acid milk gel behavior. All

M acid milk gels had a final pH of 4.5 0.05 (Table 3). Keeping total
= (2)
RF N solids constant at 12.5% w/w and end pH constant allowed for
determination of individual ingredient contribution to acid milk
where is the sliding speed (m/s), R is the distance between the gel behavior, without confounding from differences in pH or
pivot point and ball (in meters), is the spindle turning speed solids.

A
1.0E+00
Fricon Factor

Base formula +saliva

Base + 1% WPI + saliva
Base + 1% NaCs + saliva
Base + 1% starch + saliva
Base + 0.5% gelan + saliva
Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gelan + saliva
Saliva
1.0E-01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Sliding Speed (m/s)

B
1.0E+00
Fricon Factor

Base formula + water

Base + 1% WPI + water
Base + 1% NaCs + water
Base + 1% starch + water
Base + 0.5% gelan + water
Base + 1% WPI, 1% NaCs, 1% starch, 0.5% gelan + water
DI water
1.0E-01
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Sliding Speed (m/s)

Figure 6Tribological results for acid milk gels with (A) saliva added and (B) deionized water added.

E874 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014

Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .
Acid milk gel rheological behavior
The stirred acid milk gels used in this study were used as a
model system for stirred yogurt. Thus, they were a viscoelastic
system dominated by fluid-like behavior with a small yield stress
(data not shown). All acid milk gels displayed pseudoplastic behav-
ior (Figure 3). In general, as the degree of NFDM replacement
increased, viscosity increased, although viscosity profiles main-
tained similar shape. Individual ingredients had different effects
on viscosity. Gelatin decreased viscosity, while WPI, starch, and
NaCs increased viscosity. WPI increased viscosity to a greater ex-
tent than either starch or NaCs. These results held when WPI
or gelatin was used in conjunction with other ingredients. These
results are in agreement with literature data (Remeuf and others
2003; Decourcelle and others 2004; Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer
2006; Oh and others 2007; Aziznia and others 2008), except for
the decrease in viscosity in acid milk gels prepared with gelatin.
However, lower temperatures were used for viscosity determina-
tion in studies examining acid milk gels prepared with gelatin;
the difference in testing temperature is the likely cause of the
discrepancy, as gelatin networks soften as temperature increases
(Ferry 1948).
Acid milk gel textural attributes
Acid milk gel texture was dependent on composition (Table 1,
Figure 4). Spoon viscosity significantly increased with increased
replacement of NFDM. Addition of WPI yielded the greatest
increase in spoon viscosity; addition of NaCs also significantly in-
creased spoon viscosity. Spoon drip showed similar trends to spoon
viscosity, as expected. Addition of WPI and NaCs in combina-
tion with any other ingredient yielded the greatest decrease in
spoon drip; however, contribution from individual ingredients is
less straightforward. Ingredient interactions may have contributed
to the amount of spoon drip. WPI and NaCs in combination
Smoothness
16
14
12
Fa y MCT 10
8
6
4
2
0 Base + 1% WPI, 1%
Gri y MCT
Degree of MCT
Figure 7Descriptive sensory analysis results for acid milk gels, friction-dominated terms only.
increased yogurt gel network strength, increasing viscosity and
water-holding capability (Remeuf and others 2003); these changes
could have contributed to decreased spoon drip. Conversely, us-
ing caseinate and starch together has been shown to yield a weaker
yogurt gel network (Sandoval-Castilla and others 2004), which
would increase spoon drip. There were few significant differences
in lumpiness scores. Lumpy appearance generally increased with
casein or gelatin addition, although the differences were not always
significant. Low lumpy appearance scores were expected, since the
gels were blended with a homogenizer before analysis.
Few significant differences were found in smoothness scores.
Acid milk gels were expected to be relatively smooth due to
blending during sample preparation. Samples with lower smooth-
ness generally had increased lumpy appearance, although this trend
was not strong. A stronger trend was found between spoon and
E: Food Engineering &
mouth viscosities, with increased spoon viscosity corresponding to
Physical Properties
increased mouth viscosity. As with spoon viscosity, WPI or NaCs
addition increased mouth viscosity. WPI also increased chalkiness,
although the increase was not always significant. Gelatin in com-
bination with another ingredient generally decreased chalkiness,
as did starch addition. However, this effect was negated with WPI
addition.
NFDM replacement with any ingredient resulted in decreased
breakdown, which was expected based on rheological results.
NaCs addition yielded the greatest decrease in breakdown; WPI
also decreased breakdown, although the effect was decreased upon
addition of gelatin or starch. Addition of starch and gelatin yielded
a slight but significant decrease in breakdown. Both WPI and
NaCs form strong networks that would be resistant to breakdown
by mechanical forces applied in the oral cavity, resulting in slower
sample disintegration. While gelatin also forms a network, the
network melts at body temperature (Karim and Bhat 2008), so
breakdown time would not be as long as with gels prepared with
WPI or NaCs. The waxy maize starch used in these gels does not
Base formula
Base + 1% WPI
Chalky Base + 1% caseinate
Base + 1% starch
Base + 0.5% gela n
caseinate, 1% starch,
0.5% gela n
Breakdown
Astringent MF
Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E875
 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Table 4Correlations between sensory behavior and rheological behavior.

Viscosity Critical strain G G G G

(26000 s-1 ) (%) (0.01 Hz) (0.1 Hz) (1 Hz) (10 Hz) (0.01 Hz) (0.1 Hz)
Spoon viscosity 0.814 0.852 0.906 0.979 0.987 0.989 0.902
Spoon drip 0.821 0.889 0.890 0.907 0.923
Lumpy appearance 0.941 0.989 0.946 0.953 0.946 0.879 0.851
Smoothness 0.852 0.961 0.836 0.888 0.873 0.918
Mouth viscosity 0.910 0.928 0.956 0.982 0.986 0.959 0.866
Chalkiness 0.886 0.859
Breakdown 0.862 0.832 0.868 0.892
Gritty mouthcoat 0.861

P 0.05; P 0.01; P 0.001.

Table 5Correlations between sensory behavior and friction factor.

Friction Friction Friction Friction Friction Friction Friction Friction

E: Food Engineering &

factor factor factor factor factor factor factor factor

Physical Properties

(0.016 mm/s) (0.05 mm/s) (0.1 mm/s) (0.16 mm/s) (50 mm/s) (100 mm/s) (160 mm/s) (100 mm/s)
Spoon viscosity 0.873
Lumpy appearance 0.820 0.922 0.840
Smoothness 0.905
Mouth viscosity 0.862
Chalkiness 0.849 0.840 0.850 0.842
Astringent mouthfeel 0.852 0.874
Gritty mouthcoat 0.849

P 0.05; P 0.01; P 0.001; saliva added to sample.

Table 6Correlations between sensory behavior and difference in friction factor without saliva.

Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in Change in

friction factor friction factor friction factor friction factor friction factor friction factor friction factor
(0.016 mm/s) (0.05 mm/s) (0.16 mm/s) (16 mm/s) (50 mm/s) (100 mm/s) (160 mm/s)
Lumpy appearance 0.816 0.844
Smoothness 0.831
Chalkiness 0.844 0.832 0.827 0.813
Breakdown 0.817
Astringent mouthfeel 0.916
Change in friction factor at each sliding speed was calculated by subtracting friction factor of the sample mixed with saliva from the friction factor of the sample alone.

P 0.05; P 0.01; P 0.001.

form a network, so the increased breakdown time would be due
to increased viscosity.
Astringency sensation is generally the result of interactions of
food molecules with salivary compounds, resulting in removal of
the lubricating layer of saliva from the oral surfaces and a sub-
sequent increase in sensation of roughness (van Aken and others
2007; Bajec and Pickering 2008; Gibbins and Carpenter 2013).
Astringent mouthfeel after sample expectoration was increased
by replacement of NFDM with any ingredient, although the in-
crease was not always significant. Since all acid milk gels were
at a similar pH (4.5 0.05), differences in pH should not have
contributed significantly to astringency. NaCs addition resulted in
the greatest increase in astringent mouthfeel, followed by addi-
tion of WPI. Addition of milk or whey proteins has been shown
to increase astringent perception in dairy products (Lemieux and
Simard 1994; Isleten and Karagul-Yuceer 2006). Addition of starch
decreased the astringency provided by other ingredients, although
the decrease was not always significant. Astringency is a complex
sensation that is not completely understood (Bajec and Picker-
ing 2008), although salivary protein complexation by astringent
compounds, interaction of astringent compounds with the sali-
vary pellicle, and interaction between oral receptors and astrin-
gent compounds have been shown to impact astringency sensa-
tion (Gibbins and Carpenter 2013). Therefore, it is possible that
ingredient interactions impacted astringent mouthfeel via different
mechanisms.
Degree of mouthcoat after expectoration increased with in-
creased NFDM replacement, in agreement with rheological re-
sults and spoon and mouth viscosity scores. NaCs addition re-
sulted in the greatest increase in mouthcoat. Starch addition also
increased mouthcoat. Increased viscosity has been shown to in-
crease mouthcoating (Martin and others 1999; Singh and others
2000). No significant differences in gritty mouthcoat were found
between samples prepared with only NFDM and the other sam-
ples. Gritty scores were generally low, as expected based on sample
preparation. All ingredients were allowed to completely disperse
before gels were prepared, so large particles should not have been
present. Fatty mouthcoat scores were also low and generally sim-
ilar to samples prepared using only NFDM. Again, these results
were expected: all samples had fat content <0.5%. Addition of
either starch or NaCs increased fatty mouthcoat, although the
increase was not always significant. Addition of gelatin in com-
bination with other ingredients also increased fatty mouthcoat,
although the differences were not always significant. WPI addi-
tion had little effect on fatty mouthcoat. Increased fatty mouthcoat
scores corresponded to increased mouthcoat scores. Interestingly,
increased fatty mouthcoat also corresponded with increased as-
tringent mouthfeel. However, fatty mouthcoat scores were low

E876 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014

Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Table 7Correlations between sensory behavior and viscosity multiplied by friction coefficient.

Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity

friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient
(0.016 mm/s) (0.05 mm/s) (0.1 mm/s) (0.16 mm/s) (0.5 mm/s) (1 mm/s)
Spoon viscosity 0.852
Lumpy appearance 0.951 0.862 0.870 0.822 0.895 0.944
Smoothness 0.986 0.941 0.944 0.908 0.943 0.969
Mouth viscosity 0.896 0.825 0.871
Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity
friction friction friction friction friction friction friction
coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient
(1.6 mm/s) (5 mm/s) (10 mm/s) (16 mm/s) (50 mm/s) (100 mm/s) (160 mm/s)
Spoon viscosity 0.822 0.820 0.842 0.834 0.862 0.841
Spoon drip 0.842 0.855 0.825 0.812
Lumpy appearance 0.962 0.981 0.957 0.962 0.965 0.979 0.974
Smoothness 0.972 0.936 0.865 0.870 0.875 0.907 0.901

E: Food Engineering &

Mouth viscosity 0.884 0.920 0.927 0.939 0.927 0.937 0.921

Physical Properties
Chalkiness 0.815 0.844 0.838 0.849
Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity
friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient friction coefficient
(0.016 mm/s) (0.05 mm/s) (0.1 mm/s) (0.16 mm/s) (0.5 mm/s) (1 mm/s)
Spoon drip 0.814
Lumpy appearance 0.921 0.917 0.918 0.936 0.930 0.928
Smoothness 0.825 0.819 0.813 0.837 0.831 0.849
Mouth viscosity 0.889 0.878 0.885 0.899 0.890 0.879
Chalkiness 0.905 0.909 0.899 0.885 0.891 0.866
Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity
friction friction friction friction friction friction friction
coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient
(1.6 mm/s) (5 mm/s) (10 mm/s) (16 mm/s) (50 mm/s) (100 mm/s) (160 mm/s)
Spoon viscosity 0.852
Spoon drip 0.836 0.848 0.859
Lumpy appearance 0.907 0.917 0.919 0.925 0.930 0.916 0.963
Smoothness 0.821 0.839 0.830 0.834 0.837 0.821 0.884
Mouth viscosity 0.856 0.861 0.876 0.890 0.909 0.907 0.945
Chalkiness 0.863 0.846 0.869 0.869 0.876 0.874 0.814
Viscosity measured at 26000 s-1 , P 0.05; P 0.01; P 0.001; saliva added to sample.

(1.1) and generally not significantly different, so this relation- ior. This effect has been observed with protein (Vardhanabhuti and
ship was probably coincidental. others 2011) and hydrocolloid (Mills and others 2013) solutions.
Shifts in friction behavior upon addition of a single ingredi-
ent to the acid milk gels were ingredient-dependent. Gelatin and
Acid milk gel tribological behavior NaCs generally increased friction, with gelatin having larger im-
Tribological data are presented in Figure 5. Friction coefficient pact at lower sliding speeds and NaCs having a higher impact at
values for all acid milk gels at all sliding speeds were between 0.1 higher sliding speeds. WPI increased friction coefficient at low
and 1.0, which agrees with the results of other tribological studies sliding speeds and decreased it at higher sliding speeds. However,
on low-fat yogurts (Selway and Stokes 2013). The initial increase addition of WPI, NaCs, or gelatin had little effect on overall curve
in friction coefficient value at the lowest sliding speeds was as- shape. Conversely, starch addition resulted in a friction curve that
sumed to be due to deformation effects of the WPI gel plate; was distinctly different from acid milk gels prepared with 12.5%
Selway and Stokes (2013) noted similar behavior in low-fat yo- NFDM (Figure 5A). Friction coefficient at lower sliding speeds
gurt systems. Friction behavior observed was generally boundary- was much lower for the acid milk gel prepared with starch than
to-mixed regime. However, acid milk gels prepared with starch for the other acid milk gels (Figure 5). These results hold for acid
showed hydrodynamic behavior, based on the shape of their fric- milk gels with combinations of added ingredients, and imply that
tion curves. This result was not expected, as previous studies of starch had the greatest impact on acid milk gel frictional proper-
friction behavior of foods and model foods showed boundary- ties. Surface and physical properties of the different ingredients are
to-mixed behavior (Dresselhuis and others 2007; deVicente and a likely cause of the differences in friction coefficient, since acid
others 2006b; Chojnicka and others 2008; Zinoviadou and others milk gel viscosities were similar (Selway and Stokes 2013).
2008; Chojnicka-Paszun and others 2012). Differences in surface
properties could have resulted in the different friction behavior of
acid milk gels containing starch: preferential wetting, adsorption, Impact of saliva on acid milk gel tribological behavior
or adhesion to tribological surfaces can affect friction coefficient Rheological and tribological methodology does not usually in-
(Stokes and others 2011; Selway and Stokes 2013). Increased en- corporate saliva. Although food composition in the mouth is sim-
trainment of starch particles between tribological surfaces com- ilar to its original composition at the onset of mastication, the
pared to the amount of particles entrained in other samples could bolus directly before swallowing, having been sheared and mixed
have resulted in a widening of the gap and hydrodynamic behav- with saliva, may have significantly different physical properties and

Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E877

 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .
sensory behavior (Chen and Stokes 2012). Therefore, several acid
milk gels were selected for tribological evaluation using saliva.
Samples were also tested with an equivalent amount of deionized
water to account for dilution effects. Samples tested with saliva
were incubated for 5 min before testing to ensure complete starch
digestion. While this time is significantly longer than food would
remain in the mouth, complete digestion was desired so that sam-
ples would not be undergoing digestion during testing, adding a
confounding factor to the results.
Friction coefficient data for acid milk gels tested after adding
saliva or water are presented in Figure 6. Addition of saliva had the
greatest impact on acid milk gels prepared with starch. Acid milk
gels containing starch and incubated with saliva displayed friction
behavior similar to acid milk gels prepared without starch and
incubated with saliva. However, acid milk gels containing starch
E: Food Engineering &
and incubated with deionized water displayed friction curves sim-
Physical Properties
ilar to those of acid milk gels prepared with starch and tested
as-is. Saliva contains amylase, which rapidly breaks down starch
(Humphrey and Williamson 2001). Thus, these results add sup-
port to the hypothesis that starch has a strong influence on tri-
bological behavior: breaking down starch via amylase resulted
in frictional behavior similar to acid milk gels prepared without
starch.
Addition of saliva had comparatively little effect on acid milk gels
that were prepared without starch (Figure 6). In general, addition
of saliva to acid milk gels prepared with WPI, gelatin, or only
NFDM powder resulted in a slight decrease in friction coefficient
in comparison to those gels with addition of water. Addition of
saliva to acid milk gels prepared with NaCs, however, resulted
in a slight increase in friction coefficient compared addition of
deionized water to these gels. It is possible that NaCs interacted
with saliva to form aggregates, resulting in an increase in friction
coefficient. Emulsions prepared with NaCs as an emulsifier have
been shown to flocculate in the presence of saliva (van Aken and
others 2005; Vingerhoeds and others 2005), indicating that NaCs
interacts with saliva in some manner.
Tribological data among acid milk gels tested alone, with deion-
ized water, and with saliva were compared to determine if changes
in friction coefficient due to addition of saliva were due to di-
lution or to other factors. Addition of deionized water generally
decreased friction coefficient at lower sliding speeds, but increased
it at higher sliding speeds. However, addition of deionized water
did not significantly alter the general friction curve shape for any
sample. Addition of saliva, however, did significantly alter friction
curve shape, especially the friction curves of the acid milk gels
prepared with starch. While friction coefficient magnitudes dif-
fered, friction curves of the different acid milk gels with added
saliva showed the same general shape, regardless of acid milk gel
composition (Figure 6A). Therefore, saliva was considered to act as
an equalizer for friction coefficient, at least for the samples tested.
Tribological data for acid milk gels with added saliva were also
in alignment with data for friction-dominated sensory terms. Plot-
ting only friction-dominated sensory terms for acid milk gels se-
lected for tribological testing with saliva yielded similar plot shapes
among the samples (Figure 7). These results suggested that the
shape of the entire friction curve is important when evaluating
friction behavior in terms of sensory behavior. In addition, these
results emphasize the importance of measuring friction coefficient
or over a range of sliding speeds, rather than a few points. Although
oral sliding speed has been estimated at 30 mm/s (de Wijk and
Prinz 2006), this is an approximation. In reality, multiple sliding
speeds occur simultaneously, as oral surfaces are not flat and sliding
E878 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014
speed varies based on the topography of the area in which sliding
occurs. Thus, measuring friction over a range of sliding speeds
captures more of the friction behavior occurring in the mouth.
Relationships between rheological behavior, tribological
behavior, and textural aspects
As previously mentioned, both mechanical and friction behav-
iors play a role in oral evaluation of foods. To explore the extent
to which mechanical and friction behaviors impact food texture,
rheological, tribological, and sensory data were correlated to de-
termine relationships between these behaviors.
Acid milk gels with higher viscosity had higher spoon and
mouth viscosity and decreased spoon drip (Table 4). Increased
viscosity also correlated with increased lumpy appearance, and
decreased smoothness and chalkiness. Correlations between vis-
cosity and spoon viscosity, spoon drip, and mouth viscosity were
expected, as these sensory terms are related to viscosity. Viscosity
relationship to chalkiness or smoothness, however, is less appar-
ent. Smoothness has been shown to relate to friction (Kokini
1987). Chalkiness, or feeling of particles in the mouth, should
also relate to friction, since particles felt in the mouth would be
expected to affect friction coefficient. The mechanism responsible
for viscosity in these systems may have also impacted smoothness
and chalkiness. Additional study is needed to determine structural
contributions to viscosity and textural attributes.
Increased friction coefficient correlated with increased spoon
and mouth viscosity, lumpy appearance, and chalkiness, and de-
creased smoothness and gritty mouthcoat (Table 5). In general,
more correlations were found between sensory terms and viscos-
ity than between sensory terms and friction coefficient. Similar
results were observed by Terpstra and others (2009) for mayon-
naises. This result suggests that the viscosity of the acid milk gels
had greater impact on sensory texture than friction behavior. Since
the viscosity-dominated terms showed greater score variation than
friction-dominated terms (Table S2), the viscosity of the acid milk
gels would be a good indicator of their sensory texture, especially
because there were not large differences in the friction-dominated
terms of smoothness, chalkiness, astringency, or gritty mouthcoat.
More significant (P 0.05) correlations between friction and
sensory terms were found for samples tested without saliva than for
samples tested with saliva. This finding was contrary to expecta-
tions, as it was hypothesized that addition of saliva would result in
better approximation of samples in the mouth. These results were
also contrary to previously discussed tribological data, in which
addition of saliva resulted in shifting of friction curves to yield
curves similar in shape. It is apparent that friction coefficient taken
at only 1 sliding speed is insufficient to describe sensory behav-
ior, and the entire tribological curve shape should be considered
when examining tribologysensory relationships. Analyzing tri-
bological curves via curve-fitting techniques is possible; however,
curve-fitting is usually performed in a piecewise fashion (for ex-
ample, one curve for the boundary regime and another for the
mixed regime), so care must be taken when comparing tribologi-
cal curve fits to sensory data.
Correlations were also performed using the change in fric-
tion coefficient at each sliding speed, calculated by subtracting
friction coefficient measured for samples with added saliva from
friction coefficient measured for samples without saliva. This cor-
relation set was used to determine how saliva-induced changes
in friction coefficient affected texture. Increased change in fric-
tion coefficient correlated with increased chalkiness at lower slid-
ing speeds, and decreased astringent mouthfeel and smoothness at
Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .
higher sliding speeds (Table 6). Lumpy appearance also correlated
with change in friction coefficient; this correlation was considered
to be chance since these 2 factors should not be related. An under-
lying factor could have caused both change in friction coefficient
upon addition of saliva and lumpy appearance. Additional study is
recommended to examine acid milk gel structural changes upon
addition of saliva.
Correlations were performed using friction coefficient mul-
tiplied by viscosity (Table 7). Viscosities used in friction
coefficient viscosity correlations were viscosities of acid milk gels
measured at 26000 s1 (determined using the method of Davies
and Stokes 2008), data not shown). Tribological measurements are
performed under high shear, so viscosities measured at the high-
est shear rate possible were used to obtain shear behavior similar
to that in tribological evaluation. Increased viscosity friction co-
efficient with or without saliva added to the samples correlated
with increased spoon viscosity, lumpy appearance, and mouth
viscosity, and decreased smoothness, spoon drip, and chalkiness
(Table 7). Similarities between terms correlated for samples with
and without saliva added implied that viscosity was the stronger
factor contributing to the correlations. However, correlations
performed using viscosity friction coefficient were stronger than
those performed using viscosity alone. These results suggest that
both friction and viscosity contribute to sensory texture. Sensory
measurements involve a variety of mechanisms, which are often
challenging to decouple (Selway and Stokes 2013). Considering
that viscosity is a resistance to flow and friction is a resistance
to sliding, it is possible that physical or structural components
can impact both viscosity and friction. Therefore, it is important
to consider underlying mechanisms to sensory texture when de-
termining relationships between instrumental measurements and
sensory data.
Correlation coefficients were slightly higher for correlations
using friction coefficient data for samples without saliva added
(Table 5 and 7). Based on these correlation results alone, it appears
that it is not necessary to perform tribological testing with added
saliva. However, this conclusion neglects the fact that correlations
were made on a point-by-point basis on the friction curves and
did not account for the entire curve shape. As previously discussed,
friction coefficient curve shapes for samples tested with saliva were
similar (Figure 6A), as were sensory plot shapes (Figure 7). Friction
coefficient curves for samples tested without saliva added were not
necessarily similar (Figure 5). Again, it is important to consider the
entire friction curve, as well as effects of saliva on friction when
comparing friction and sensory data.
Conclusions
The impact of acid milk gel formulation and the addition of
saliva on acid milk gel tribological behavior were evaluated. For-
mulation impacted both rheological and tribological behavior;
starch had the greatest impact on tribological behavior. Saliva
acted as an equalizer for tribological behavior, resulting in sim-
ilarly shaped friction curves for all samples, regardless of friction
behavior without saliva. Correlations were found between rhe-
ological, tribological, and sensory behavior. Correlation results
implied that there may be an underlying mechanism that impacts
both viscosity and friction behavior. It is recommended that the
structures of these acid milk gels be examined to better under-
stand the mechanisms behind their rheological and tribological
behavior. In addition, tribological measurements performed with
the intent of finding relationships between friction and sensory
aspects should be performed with saliva, and the entire friction
curve considered to gain better understanding of relationships be-
tween friction and texture. Friction measurements in food science
research are relatively novel; further study is necessary to fully un-
derstand the relationships between rheology, tribology, and sensory
texture.
Acknowledgment
Funding for this study was provided by the Dairy Research Inst.
References
AOAC. 1995. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Washington, DC: AOAC.
Aziznia S, Khosrowshahi A, Madadlou A, Rahimi J. 2008. Whey protein concentrate and gum
tragacanth as fat replacers in nonfat yogurt: chemical, physical, and microstructural properties.
J Dairy Sci 91(7):254552.
Bajec MR, Pickering GJ. 2008. Astringency: mechanisms and perception. Crit Rev Food Sci
Nutr 48(9):85875.
E: Food Engineering &
Bellamy M, Godinot N, Mischler S, Martin N, Hartmann C. 2009. Influence of emulsion com-
Physical Properties
position on lubrication capacity and texture perception. Intl J Food Sci Technol 44(10):1939
49.
Bongaerts J, Rossetti D, Stokes J. 2007. The lubricating properties of human whole saliva. Tribol
Lett 27(3):27787.
Carvalho-da-Silva AM, Van Damme I, Taylor W, Hort J, Wolf B. 2013. Oral processing of two
milk chocolate samples. Food Funct 4:4619.
Chen J. 2009. Food oral processinga review. Food Hydrocolloids 23(1):125.
Chen J, Stokes JR. 2012. Rheology and tribology: two distinctive regimes of food texture
sensation. Trends Food Sci Technol 25(1):412.
Chojnicka A, de Jong S, de Kruif CG, Visschers RW. 2008. Lubrication properties of protein
aggregate dispersions in a soft contact. J Agric Food Chem 56(4):127482.
Chojnicka A, Sala G, de Kruif CG, van de Velde F. 2009. The interactions between oil droplets
and gel matrix affect the lubrication properties of sheared emulsion-filled gels. Food Hydro-
colloids 23(3):103846.
Chojnicka-Paszun A, de Jongh HHJ, de Kruif CG. 2012. Sensory perception and lubrication
properties of milk: influence of fat content. Intl Dairy J 26(1):1522.
C akr E, Foegeding EA. 2011. Combining protein micro-phase separation and protein
polysaccharide segregative phase separation to produce gel structures. Food Hydrocolloids
25(6):153846.
Davies GA, Stokes JR. 2008. Thin film and high shear rheology of multiphase complex fluids. J
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 148(13):7387.
de Vicente J, Stokes JR, Spikes HA. 2005a. Lubrication properties of non-adsorbing polymer
solutions in soft elastohydrodynamic (EHD) contacts. Tribol Intl 38(5):51526.
de Vicente J, Stokes JR, Spikes HA. 2005b. The frictional properties of Newtonian fluids in
rollingsliding soft-EHL contact. Tribol Lett 20(34):27386.
de Vicente J, Stokes JR, Spikes HA. 2006a. Rolling and sliding friction in compliant, lubricated
contact. J Eng Tribol 220(2):5563.
de Vicente J, Stokes JR, Spikes HA. 2006b. Soft lubrication of model hydrocolloids. Food
Hydrocolloids 20(4):48391.
de Wijk RA, Prinz JF. 2005. The role of friction in perceived oral texture. Food Qual Pref
16(2):1219.
de Wijk RA, Prinz JF. 2006. Mechanisms underlying the role of friction in oral texture. J Texture
Stud 37(4):41327.
de Wijk RA, Prinz JF, Janssen AM. 2006. Explaining perceived oral texture of starch-based
custard desserts from standard and novel instrumental tests. Food Hydrocolloids 20(1):2434.
Decourcelle N, Lubbers S, Vallet N, Rondeau P, Guichard E. 2004. Effect of thickeners and
sweeteners on the release of blended aroma compounds in fat-free stirred yoghurt during
shear conditions. Intl Dairy J 14(9):7839.
Dresselhuis D, Klok H, Stuart M, de Vries R, van Aken G, de Hoog E. 2007. Tribology of o/w
emulsions under mouth-like conditions: determinants of friction. Food Biophys 2(4):15871.
Dresselhuis DM, de Hoog EHA, Cohen Stuart MA, van Aken GA. 2008. Application of oral
tissue in tribological measurements in an emulsion perception context. Food Hydrocolloids
22(2):32335.
Ferry J. 1948. Mechanical properties of substances of high molecular weight. IV. Rigidities of
gelatin gels; dependence on concentration, temperature and molecular weight. J Am Chem
Soc 70(6):22449.
Frst MB, Janhj T. 2007. Understanding creaminess. Rheol Struct Fermented Milk
17(11):1298311.
Gibbins HL, Carpenter GH. 2013. Alternative mechanisms of astringency what is the role of
saliva? J Texture Stud 44(5):36475.
Harvey NM, Yakubov GE, Stokes JR, Klein J. 2012. Lubrication and load-bearing properties
of human salivary pellicles adsorbed ex vivo on molecularly smooth substrata. Biofouling
28(8):84356.
Heyer P, Lauger J. 2008. A flexible platform for tribological measurements on a rheometer.
Proceedings of the XV International Congress on Rheology: The Society of Theology 80th
Annual Meeting, Monterey Calif., p 116870.
Humphrey SP, Williamson RT. 2001. A review of saliva: normal composition, flow, and function.
J Prosth Dent 85(2):1629.
Isleten M, Karagul-Yuceer Y. 2006. Effects of dried dairy ingredients on physical and sensory
properties of nonfat yogurt. J Dairy Sci 89(8):286572.
Joyner (Melito) HS, Pernell CR, Daubert CR. Impact of parameter settings on normal force
and gap height during tribological measurements. J Food Eng. (accepted).
Karim A, Bhat R. 2008. Gelatin alternatives for the food industry: recent developments, chal-
lenges and prospects. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(12):64456.
Kokini JL. 1987. The physical basis of liquid food texture and texture-taste interactions. J Food
Eng 6(1):5181.
Lee WJ, Lucey JA. 2010. Formation and physical properties of yogurt. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci
23(9):112736.
Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014 r Journal of Food Science E879
 Impact of formulation/saliva on acid milk gels . . .

Lemieux L, Simard R. 1994. Astringency, a textural defect in dairy products. Le Lait 74(3):217 Vardhanabhuti B, Cox PW, Norton IT, Foegeding EA. 2011. Lubricating properties of
40. human whole saliva as affected by -lactoglobulin. Food Hydrocolloids 25(6):1499
Lucey JA. 2004. Cultured dairy products: an overview of their gelation and texture properties. 506.
Intl J Dairy Technol 57(23):7784. Vingerhoeds MH, Blijdenstein TBJ, Zoet FD, van Aken GA. 2005. Emulsion flocculation
Luengo G, Tsuchiya M, Heuberger M, Israelachvili J. 1997. Thin film rheology and tribology induced by saliva and mucin. Food Hydrocolloids 19(5):91522.
of chocolate. J Food Sci 62(4):767812. Wehr HM, Frank JF. 2004. Standard methods for the examination of dairy products. Washington,
Martin N, Skokanova J, Latrille E, Beal C, Corrieu G. 1999. Influence of fermentation and DC: American Public Health Association.
storage conditions on the sensory properties of plain low fat stirred yogurts. J Sens Stud Zinoviadou KG, Janssen AM, De Jongh HHJ. 2008. Tribological properties of neu-
14(2):13960. tral polysaccharide solutions under simulated oral conditions. J Food Sci 73(2):E88
Mills T, Norton IT, Bakalis S. 2013. Development of tribology equipment to study dynamic E94.
processes. J Food Eng 114(3):38490.
Oh HE, Anema SG, Wong M, Pinder DN, Hemar Y. 2007. Effect of potato starch addition on
the acid gelation of milk. Intl Dairy J 17(7):80815.
Remeuf F, Mohammed S, Sodini I, Tissier JP. 2003. Preliminary observations on the effects of
milk fortification and heating on microstructure and physical properties of stirred yogurt. Intl
Dairy J 13(9):77382.
Sandoval-Castilla O, Lobato-Calleros C, Aguirre-Mandujano E, Vernon-Carter EJ. 2004. Mi-
crostructure and texture of yogurt as influenced by fat replacers. Intl Dairy J 14(2):1519.
Supporting Information
Selway N, Stokes JR. 2013. Insights into the dynamics of oral lubrication and mouthfeel using Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
soft tribology: differentiating semi-fluid foods with similar rheology. Food Res Intl 54(1):
42331.
version of this article at the publishers website:
Singh S, Castell-Perez M, Moreira R. 2000. Viscosity and textural attributes of reduced-fat
E: Food Engineering &

peanut pastes. J Food Sci 65(5):84953. Table S1 Data collection parameters for tribological testing
Physical Properties

Stokes JR, Macakova L, Chojnicka-Paszun A, de Kruif CG, de Jongh HHJ. 2011. Lubrication,
adsorption, and rheology of aqueous polysaccharide solutions. Langmuir 27(7):347484. Table S2 Acid milk gel descriptive analysis results
Tamime AY, Robinson RK. 2007. Traditional and recent developments in yoghurt production
and related products. In: Tamime AY, Robinson RK, editors. Tamime and Robinsons yoghurt Figure S1 Strain sweep results for acid milk gels with partial
science and technology. Cambridge, U.K.: Woodhead Publishing Limited. p 834.
Terpstra MEJ, Jellema RH, Janssen AM, de Wijk RA, Prinz JF, van der Linden E. 2009. replacement of nonfat dry milk with (A) 1 ingredient, (B) 2 in-
Prediction of texture perception of mayonnaises from rheological and novel instrumental gredients, and (C) 3 or 4 ingredients.
measurements. J Texture Stud 40(1):82108.
van Aken GA, Vingerhoeds MH, de Hoog EHA. 2005. Colloidal behavior of food emulsions
under oral conditions. In: Dickinson E, editor. Food colloids: interactions, microstructure,
Figure S2 Frequency sweep results for acid milk gels with partial
and processing. Cambridge, U.K.: Royal Society of Chemistry. p 497. replacement of nonfat dry milk with (A) 1 ingredient, (B) 2 in-
van Aken GA, Vingerhoeds MH, de Hoog EHA. 2007. Food colloids under oral conditions.
Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 12(45):25162.
gredients, and (C) 3 or 4 ingredients. Complex moduli lines have
symbols, and phase angle lines do not.

E880 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 79, Nr. 5, 2014