This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A COMPARISON OF ADDED SALIVA, α-AMYLASE AND WATER ON TEXTURE PERCEPTION IN SEMI-SOLIDS
L. Engelen, R.A. de Wijk, J.F. Prinz, A.M. Janssen, A. van der Bilt, H. Weenen and F. Bosman
Physiology and Behavior 2003, 78: 805-811
Mouth and after-feel sensations were partly affected. lip-tooth-feel. thickness and creamy. where saliva elicited a stronger melting effect than the α-amylase solution and water. flavour. The results show that addition of a fluid affected the mouth-feel attributes of melting. The added volumes represented an approximately 33 % and 66 % increase of the volume of saliva present in the mouth during ingestion. Immediately prior to administration. Saliva had previously been collected from the subjects and each subject received his/her own saliva. The volume of the added fluid affected a number of attributes (thick and creamy mouth-feel and fatty after-feel). Melting was the only attribute on which the type of fluid had an effect. It can be concluded that in general the sensory attributes of semi-solids were relatively stable. mouth-feel and afterfeel sensations was investigated.and milk-based custard desserts. α-amylase solution and water) were added to the product. 136 . and lip-tooth-feel sensations were not affected by an increase in volume of saliva or other saliva-related fluid during ingestion. flavour. two different volumes (0. while odour. Sixteen subjects from a trained panel assessed 17 flavour and texture attributes of soy.25 and 0.Chapter 11 Physiology & Behavior 78 (2003) 805-811 ABSTRACT The effect of adding saliva or a saliva-related fluid (α-amylase solution and water) to custard prior to ingestion on the sensory ratings of odour.5 ml) of three different saliva-related fluids (saliva.
α-amylase and water INTRODUCTION Saliva is expected to be involved in our perception of taste. The mixing of saliva with food can influence flavour release (7-11). 10 females and 6 males. The action of the enzyme α-amylase present in saliva. whole saliva previously collected from the subjects. METHOD & MATERIALS Subjects Sixteen subjects. Furthermore. and the systems thus seem to be calibrated for the subjects’ individual salivary levels during eating.12). initiating the digestion of starch. in most cases also had a high flow rate for the other types of stimulation. and his/her sensory ratings of semi-solids (1). for maximum airiness) and the attributes of other products are referred and compared with this standard. In doing this. all ratings can be seen as relative and subjects might keep equal differences among products irrespective of the subjects being high or low salivators. a subject with a high flow rate for one type of stimulation.1 years) participated in the study. In addition to that. A number of researchers have investigated the effect of saliva on selected attributes (1-6). Previous work in this laboratory has shown that there was no relation between a subject's unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow rates. could also result in a drop in perceived thickness of the food. fluid was added to food prior to administration to the subjects. The reason for this is that any addition of saliva would disturb the equilibrium of the system slightly. To test the effect of different components of saliva. flavour and texture of foods. By adding fluids to the mouth and stimuli during eating. and pure tap water to investigate the dilution effect only. a solution of α-amylase at physiological concentration to study the effect of starch breakdown.18). taste and flavour substances can become diluted (7. The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect a disturbance of the in-mouth equilibrium by an artificial increase of saliva. it can be hypothesized that an artificial increase in the amount of saliva mixing with food could influence the perception of the food. To test this hypothesis. Furthermore saliva acts as a buffering system (13-15). and probably a result of experience. A possible explanation for the absence of correlation between salivary flow rate and sensory ratings could be that subjects have their own references and that ratings are relative rather than absolute. the large salivary proteins may influence the lubrication (17) and hence possibly the perception of attributes such as smoothness and astringency (5. affecting the degree to which we perceive sourness (16). moreover. This explanation is based on the assumption that each subject uses a certain product as reference (e. three different fluids were chosen. or one of its liquid components. The subjects had previously been screened for olfactory and taste 11 137 .g.The effects of added saliva. the amount of fluid present in the mouth was increased to levels higher than the endogenous levels. Subjects are apparently used to the volumes of saliva in their mouths. has on the perception of sensory attributes in semi-solids during ingestion. Assuming this is the case. aged between 20 and 36 years (average 26. The effects of saliva on food leading to changes in perception may be plentiful.
25 ml and 0. mouth-feel and after-feel attributes for custard desserts. A 50 U/ml solution of human α-amylase (product number 10092. this amounts to 0. (20) (50-60U /ml in parotid saliva). melting. were used in this study. tooth-lip feel (astringent and smooth). This amount was also shown to be the residual volume after swallowing (22). With a bite size of vanilla custard dessert of 6 ml. Switzerland) was prepared freshly prior to each experiment and kept on ice during the experiment. and during the assessment the subjects received only their own saliva. thickness. These attributes were selected as a representative sub-set from a set of 35 attributes developed 138 . The collected saliva was centrifuged at 11000 xg for five minutes and the supernatant was stored at -20°C. flavours (vanilla and bitter/chemical). however. prickling. Buchs. which is the normal serving temperature in the Netherlands. The chosen α-amylase activity was of the same amgnitude as mean values found by Mackie and Pangborn (19) (60-70U/ml in whole saliva) and Froelich et al. Saliva was collected prior to the present experiment by letting the subjects chew on a 5x5 cm square sheet of tasteless paraffin (Parafilm American National Can. mouth-feel (temperature. Tooth-lip feel is the sensation that arises when rubbing the upper lip against the upper teeth. and divided into a morning and an evening group based on their availability. were rated for both custards. Attributes Eighteen sensory attributes. It has been reported that the salivary contribution to a tastant is approximately 0. and after-feel (coating. Food stimuli and sensory testing Foods Two different commercially available Dutch vanilla custard desserts. heterogeneous and creaminess). We chose to increase this amount of saliva present in the mouth with approximately 33 and 66 percent in this study. Greenwich.5 ml and were left for a few minutes to allow for adjustment to room temperature. including odours (almond and synthetic/sickly).25 and 0. The fluids were put onto spoons with disposable pipettes. always tested on the same time of the day. in the volumes of 0. one based on soybeans and the other on high-fat milk. Each single subject was. Prior to the experiment saliva was thawed and kept on ice. Saliva from different subjects was held strictly separate throughout the study. Fluka BioChemika.8 ml (21). CT. and after-feel is the sensation remaining after swallowing.5 ml of fluid added to the spoon and product. fat and astringent). US) during five-minute periods and spit every 30 s into pre-marked containers. The definitions of the rated attributes are given in Table 1. Added fluids The three fluids used in this study were saliva. airy.Chapter 11 disorders and had received extensive training in the use of sensory odour. α-amylase solution and pure tap water. The custard desserts were stored and administered at 10°C. sticky. The custard desserts were purchased in a local supermarket on the same day of each session to assure freshness. smooth. flavour. The subjects gave informed consent and were compensated financially for their participation.
tooth-feel (lt) Rough Slippery Mouth-feel (mo) Temperature (colder-warmer) Thickness Airy Melting (slow . Jelly is an example of a smooth product. nuts and spinach. typically caused by products like wine. with a velvety (not oily) coating. Food becomes thin in the mouth and spreads throughout the mouth at different rates. Foods leave a sticky feeling in the whole mouth. A prickling. Foods may elicit different temperature sensations while presented at the same physical temperature. flavour and lip-tooth-. list of 18 descriptive terms related to odour-. mouth. Food disintegrates at a moderate rate. smooth. 139 . typically associated with carbonated drinks. A product is simultaneously perceived as thick and thin (or "cloudy") in the mouth while the food is manipulated. compact. α-amylase and water previously for vanilla custard desserts by a Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) panel (23). Table 1. The order of the attributes per category is based on the temporal order at which the attributes are perceived during manipulation. Food leaves an astringent taste and feeling in the mouth. sickly odour of custard. 11 After-feel (af) Coating Sticky Fat Astringent Anchors: If not indicated: very little – very much. Food is perceived by the tongue as airy/foamy and disintegrates easily after the food is compressed by the palate. Intensity of vanilla flavour. tingling feeling sensed by the tongue. The residual layer of food after swallowing or expectoration that produces a velvety sensation. Sensation is sensed during first contact between food and tongue Represents the thickness of the food in the mouth after the food is compressed via up. Food leaves a fatty/oily feeling in the mouth after swallowing. not dry. Degree to which the food contains granules detected by moving the tongue along the palate.The effects of added saliva. not rough. Range of sensation typically associated with fat content such as full and sweet taste. The rough sensation elicited when rubbing the tongue against the front teeth and inside of the lip. The slippery sensation elicited when rubbing the tongue against the front teeth and inside of the lip.quick) Prickling Smooth Heterogeneity Creamy Definition Intensity of the odour of vanilla. Degree in which the taste of a product is bitter.and after-feel for vanilla custard dessert. which is difficult to remove. Artificial. Attribute Odor (od) Vanilla Synthetic/sickly Flavor/taste (fl) Bitter/chemical Vanilla Lip .and down motions of tongue against palate.
whereafter the spoon was immediately administered to the subject (Fig 1). or nothing as a control.5 ml) and type of product (soy-based and milk-based custard desserts) were included as within-subject factors.0 SP 4M. ingested custard was rated on flavour and mouth-feel attributes. Chicago. volume (0.5 ml of water. as mixing at this rotational speed was found to resemble mixing in the mouth reasonably closely. Germany). SPSS inc. Biosystèmes. Stuttgart.5 ml of one of the fluids. during 60s at 150 rpm.25 and 0.05 was considered significant. the custard was to subjects swallowed and two after-feel attributes were rated. Treatment (control. α-amylase solution and water). Physical measurements Breakdown measurements were performed with a rheometer (Physica MCR300. Either 0. Acquisition of the subjects' responses was 2 done by computer on a 100-point Add 6 ml stimuli: VAS response scale. which previously had been observed to be the time they normally kept the stimuli in the mouth while assessing the same 1 3 group of attributes (unpublished Fluid: Add saliva.25 ml or 0. Panel testing Soy. France). 140 . Food the Data processing and analysis The sensory data were collected and analyzed by FIZZ software (1998. α-amylase solution (50 U/ml) or saliva was added to study the effect of mixing and saliva induced breakdown.. IL). During 2hour sessions on two separate days. volumes and custards were administered in random order. 0. Eleven grams of custard dessert at 20°C was placed in a serrated cup with a modified vane. Couternon.5 ml Administration data). saliva. α-amylase or water Volume: 0. Finally. after which the odour attributes were rated. All combinations of fluids. of TNO-Nutrition and Research in Zeist.25 or 0.or milk-based custard dessert took place at the sensory facilities Fig 1. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed with Greenhouse-Geisser as correction factor on data averaged across triplicates (SPSS 9. Subjects kept the stimuli in the mouth during 4-5 seconds. Paar Physica. Next. Schematic of the experimental setup. subjects were presented with triplicates of all the stimuli. Netherlands. was put on a spoon and on top of that 6 ml of one of the custards. p<0. The custard was first smelled.Chapter 11 Procedure The subjects were seated in sensory booths with appropriate ventilation and lighting. Prior to starting the measurement.
p = 0.77. α-amylase and water RESULTS Mean ratings of the sensory attributes for the custard desserts.7. 45) = 7.2. 45) = 6. Points designated different letters are significantly In all three cases the addition different.5.005). p = 0. There was a difference in the ratings of the two products where the soy-based custard was rated as having more bitter/chemical flavour (F(1.034) and thick 20 mouth-feel (F(1.004) (Fig 2). 15) = 11. The effects of treatment on melting.25 ml). 15) = 10.011). p = 0. 15) = 8. An interaction was observed between treatment and product for heterogeneous mouth-feel (F(2.014). 45) = 15. p = 0. less vanilla flavour (F(1. 30) c b = 4. be it saliva.003). treatments and volumes are shown in Table 2. p = 0. 15) = 10. A comparison of the effects of the three fluids reveals that the addition of saliva increased the rated melting more than the water and α70 amylase solution did (F(2. 15) = 29.04. p = 0. When investigating the effect of adding a fluid to the food on the ratings of sensory attributes.004).027).7. of a large volume (0. creamy and heterogeneous mouth-feel and fatty afterfeel).6. With the addition of a fluid the custards were perceived as being more melting. p control water amylase saliva = 0.36. 11 141 .000) and creamy (F(3.The effects of added saliva. p = 0. flavour and after-feel attributes of custard desserts (Table 2).006) than the dairy custard. p = 0. 15) = creamy 5. the addition of fluids. and being thicker (F(1. The 40 volume of added fluid had melting significant effects on the 30 thickness ratings of creamy (F(1. mouth-feel. thick and creamy (F(1. had no significant effect on the ratings of the odour.9. but no such 60 effect could be seen for the a ratings of thickness and 50 b creamy. With α-amylase solution.029). 15) = 7. less thick and less creamy in comparison to the control. p = 0.4. the soy-based custard was perceived as more heterogeneous than the milk-based custard.001). where all three liquids elicited the same effect.6. p = 0. α-amylase solution or water. whereas this relationship was reversed for the other treatments. thickness (F(3.1. Ratings (1-100) Besides these attributes (melting. and fatty after-feel Fig 2.5 ml) resulted in a more pronounced decrease in sensations than the addition of a small volume (0.0.000) and less smooth (F(1. p = 0. 30) = 4. p = 0. 15) = 12. thick. less melting (F(1. we saw the following: There was a significant over-all effect of treatment on the mouth-feel attributes melting (F(3.
1. which might be the result of slip.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (s) Fig 3.2 1 M S+amylase Torque (mNm) 0. and this effect was even stronger when the custard dessert was mixed with saliva. which in the figure can be seen as humps.4 S S+water 1. An addition of α-amylase solution induced fast and efficient structural breakdown. The soy-based custard dessert had a higher resistance to stirring and mixing than its milk-based counterpart. The same relationship was seen for both custards desserts tested. In vitro breakdown measurements of soy-based (S. thick lines)custard desserts mixed with water. α-amylase solution and saliva.) show that by only mixing the custard desserts during 60 s. 142 . lasting until about 7 s.4 M+amylase S+saliva M+saliva 0. some structural breakdown took place. This indicates that the mixing of fluid into the bulk was toilsome.8 M+water 0. After addition of fluid the torque initially decreased followed by an immediate increase.Chapter 11 The physical measurements (Fig 3.6 0. Structural breakdown was slightly enhanced when water was added. thin lines) and milk-based (M.
3 37.9 (15.5) S 0.0 (17.3) 36.6 (20.8 (17.8 26.2) 42.5 (16.0) 42.7) 63.7) M Amylase 0.0 (17.8) 23.2) 16.7) 29.0 (17.5) 25.5) 25.6) 15.7) 25.9) 21.7) (21.3) 14.9 (8.5 (24.6) 24.0 (12.2) (20.8 (23.6 (22.1) 34.6) 24.0 (14.3) 35.2 (11.1) 27.9) 39.0) 40.5) 27.7) 55.7 (19.7) 33.5 (17.5) 41.1 (10.4 (20.7) 24.5) 20.6) 25.2 (19.4) 47.7) (8.9) 0 33.1) 32.9) 34.0) 28.0) 26.0 (12.8) 19.0 (12.1 (13.3 (17.9) 64.3) 58.5 (18.8 (11.0) 26.1 (17. # Significant effect of treatment.1) 36.9) 41.4 (19.6) 49.2 (11.0 (20.2) 39.8 (16.4 (15.3) 46.7) 51.0 (16.3) 27.1 (16.3) 45.4) 38.7 34.9 (12.0) 63.7 (15.D. * Significant effect of product.2 (14.3 (16.8 (19.7 (21.8) 25.D.2) 41.7 (20.3 (15.3 (23.6) 29.4 (26.4) 34.9 (15.5) 39.5 (12.5 (19.8) 32.5 0.3 (20.4 (14.5) 30.6 63.0 (19.3) 34.4 42.4 (17.3) 32.6 (21.3) 32.2 (15.0 (18.3 (15.7) 62.5) 35.0 (17.8 (16.4 (7.5 0 33.1 (18.5 29.4) 45.1) 40.7 (19.6 (6.7 (17.7 (20.0) 21.2) (20.9) 26.7) 27.8 (17.25 Saliva 30.7) 26.5) 32.1 (15.0) 66.5) 28.4 (15.9) 36.6) 34.5 (16.7 (7.4) 25.3 (21.9 (20.7) 33.7) 61.8) (12.5) 60.9) 62.7) 39.9) 39.0) 27.0) 29.1 (13.7 26.8) 34.7 (16.0) 23.2) 27.8 (15.5) 22. ‡ Significant interactions.2) 22.1) 49.1) 64.7 47.5) 31.5) 30.6) 45.7 (17.5) 46.9 (9.8 (13.6) 48.8 (18.1 (21.2) 37.2 (14.4 (19.4 (17.6) 46.2 (21.3 (18.9) (22.9) (21.6) 43.0 (20.8) 53.2) 24.0) 63.0) 30.8) 33.5 (11.0) 20.9 (15.1) 31.0 (18.5) 23.3 (20.9 (17.5 (8.5 0.8) 39.9) 25.2) (14.0 (17.4) 36.3) 65.4) 35.0) 27.8) 36.3) 14.6) 32.1 (16.2) 29.8) 25.4) 31.3) 27.0) 48.25 Water 0.9) 30.5 (18.0 (17.1 (17.5) 42.3) 29.0) 27.0) 32.7 (16.2 (16.3 (16.5 (21.9) 33.7) 18.4) 33.5 Control 0.1 (19.4) 45.2) 33.5 (20.8) 26.8 0.7 (22.3 (22.9 (18.9 (17.4) 16.2) 41.7 (13.9 (11.4) 42.7) 41.3 (21. 23.2 52.4) 43.0) 21.1 (18.6 27.2 (17.5) 32.4) 33.4) 39.7 (20.7 (21.0) 42.8 (17.5 (19.7) 67.5) 54.8) 32.5) 37.4 (15. † Significant effect of volume.3) 28.4) 39.4 (20.4) 30.4) 49.25 Saliva 0.6) 52.0) 39.3) 52.8 (25.2 (18.5 (16.8) 52.3 (19.2 (17.5 34.25 Amylase 0.9) 48.5) 30. Mean ratings and S.2 (15.3 (15.2) 44.5 (18.3 (16.0 (16.0 (15.6 (21.3) 33.8 (19.4 (20.2 (21.2 (16.0) 38.6) 35.0 (16.7 (20.0 (16.2) 28.2 (13.8) 23.0 (21.3) 25.2) 35.5 (17.5) 35.2 (24.3 (17.6) 24.5) 33.2 (16.3) 56.5) 31.3 (20.3 (17.4) 35.5 (16.9 (16.8) 15.9 (18.9) 35.6) 38.8) 28.5 (18.5 (26.5) 67.2 (12.2 (13.7 (10.9) 59.7) 46.1 (13.1) 18.8) 44.6 (23.2) 48.8) 44.3 (24.5 (18.2 (15.0) 51.6 (15.7) 47.8) 29.0) 27.Table 2.1 (19.2 (16.2 (17.1) (24.8 (12.2 (19.3) 66.8) 23.0 (24.9) 48.5 (18.2 (15.3) 61.2 (13.5) 41.2) 57.0) (12.3 (10.3 (15.8) 15.2) 28.5) 39.7) 40.4) 31.2 (22.8) 21.6) 35.6) 24.9) 66.8) 31.1 (23.2) 24.25 0.3 (18. of the sensory attributes for soy-based (S) and milk-based (M) dessert at four treatments and three volumes.8) 16.5 (19.4 (18.8 (14.0) 41.3 (24.7) 40.1) 65.2) 41.3 (15.3 (12.8) (18.4 (15.5) 25.9) 27.2) 37.0 (14.6 (23.6 (17.4) 25.1) 44.7 (18.5 (21.5 (14.4) (19.8) 33.0 (20.9 (17.8 (13.2 (12.3) 32.7) Values in parentheses are S.4) (20.5) 28.6) 42.7 (22.7 (25.1) 15.4) 45.8 (16.0 (22.6) 42.2 (15.6 (19.9 (22.5 (27.8) 17.1 (20.1 (7.3 (9.9 32.8) 143 astringent-af hetero-mo‡ airy-mo Treatment vanilla-fl * coating-af slippery-lt fatty-af † temp-mo Product sticky-af rough-lt .3 (12.4) 28.7 (12.8 (20.5) 52.4 (16.4 15.7) 46.25 Water 0.0) 28.3 (11.1) 27.0) 37.1 69.5 (14.8 (15.9 (16.2 (18.0 (17.2 (17. bitter/chem-fl * melting-mo */# creamy-mo #/† thick-mo */#/† smooth-mo * synt/sickly-od Volume (ml) prickling-mo almond-od* Control 0.5 (20.7 (18.6) 32.1 (22.3 (16.0 (18.9 (11.0 (17.1) 41.3) 40.6 (20.3 (12.4 (18.4) 28.3 (11.5 (20.2) 53.0 22.4) 22.3 (16.4 (20.9) 28.5) 17.4 (19.2 (13.0 (13.1) 31.2) 26.7) 55.3) 42.3) 26.8 (17.2 (13.8 (8.5 (20.8 (16.5 (14.1) 14.5 (19.0 (9.9 (11.3 (13.1 (24.3 (16.
Results from this laboratory (unpublished data) have shown that the mucin concentrations of odour and mechanically stimulated saliva were not significantly different. but also by the anticipation. The results of this study reveal that the addition of saliva. Thickness is defined by the subjects as the initial thickness. Consequently. The reasons for covering the spoon with fluid first and then adding the product. this mimicked the situation in vivo. thus rated as one of the first attributes. 2. collection of the amounts needed would have caused the subjects excessive discomfort. probably overruled the initial temperature of the fluid. In spite of this. Large volumes of saliva were required for this study. The slimy character of saliva caused by mucins. Due to the relatively low flow rate of odour stimulated saliva. flavour. One possible explanation for this could be found in the nature of the products. whereafter it is mixed. Firstly. The fluid was allowed to adjust to room temperature during a few minutes. mouth-feel and after-feel attributes. In addition.Chapter 11 DISCUSSION In this study the effects of added saliva or saliva-related fluid on sensory attributes in custard dessert were studied. The odour of vanilla custard is highly distinctive for the product and such soft products need not be chewed. tooth-lip feel. Saliva excreted then is not only stimulated by the odour it self. if the saliva and α-amylase solutions were to be mixed with the custard prior to ingestion. However. to custard desserts has some effect on the ratings of sensory odour. the saliva most resembling the type excreted during eating of custard is probably the saliva obtained after stimulation with vanilla custard odour (1). With the addition of fluids the perceived thickness was decreased.25) have shown that the temperature of oral mucosa is of very little importance in comparison to product temperature for ratings of sensory attributes of custard desserts. The food was added to a spoon covered with fluid. and that a larger fluid volume increased the effect is evidence that the decreased sensation was mainly due to dilution. where the oral mucosa is covered with a thin layer of saliva when the food is ingested. is suggested to influence the perception of mouth-feel attributes. the starch would rapidly be broken down by the α-amylase. previous results (24. This is in accordance with the in vitro breakdown measurements in Fig 3. The fact that the perceived effect was equally strong for water as for α-amylase solution and saliva. Secondly. Thickness and melting were two of the attributes on which a 33 or 66 percent increase of saliva or saliva-related fluid during ingestion had the largest effect. Custard desserts are semi-solids thickened by starch. causing a fast decrease in viscosity. which then was entered into the warm mouth. we chose to use mechanically stimulated saliva in this study for two reasons: 1. instead of mixing the fluid with the product prior to administration were two-fold. since the subjects already knew they would receive custard dessert and were used to this product. adding a comparatively large volume of cold custard dessert on top. or one of its aqueous components. 144 .
An explanation for this could be that the larger volume of aqueous liquid on the outer layer of the product shielded the mucosa against the formation of a fatty coating and enhanced oral clearance of the fat. Perhaps the dilution effect and the effect of mechanical or chemical breakdown were counteracting. melting and smooth mouth-feel. were decreased in this study. Interestingly. why saliva affected melting more than an α-amylase solution. as can be seen from the ratings. or products originating from micro-organisms.The effects of added saliva. A possible reason for this is that the α-amylase in water solution is less active than in saliva. There were significant differences in ratings between the products for the attributes: bitter/chemical and vanilla flavour. and astringent after-feel. Studies performed with mice. the effect is slower than for saliva. α-amylase and water Melting is defined as the rate of decrease in thickness and spreading of the product in the mouth (Table 1). Dr. Supporting this. While there were large differences in ratings between the products. The two custard desserts were sensorially different. Alternatively. Even though custard desserts are products thickened by starch. resulting in strong sensations. thick. the concentrations of flavour in these products were relatively high. Due to the increased dilution effect of the product by a larger volume of fluid. which might explain why the attribute melting was affected more by saliva than by water. the thickness. the presence of chloride ions was shown to be essential for α-amylase to reach full activity (26). van Nieuw Amerongen). the effects of added saliva and α-amylase solution on sensory perception seem to be limited. One possibility is that the activity of the enzyme was too low in the solution. This is in accordance with previous results showing that creamy is related to thickness (27-29) (unpublished data). where thickness up to a certain level increased creaminess. while α-amylase increased. Starch is broken down by the salivary enzyme α-amylase. the sensations of flavours were not altered by the addition of a fluid. the flavour release due to breakdown of the matrix. irrespective of the type. many of the attributes were not affected by the addition of fluid. The fact that for all the added liquids. Even though the in vitro measurements showed that α-amylase in the concentration we used is very potent and instantaneously starts the breakdown of starch in custard dessert. It has been shown (7) that water decreased. The question then remains. indicated that the activity of α-amylase in saliva was higher than the activity of α-amylase in the gland. The volumes added may have been too small to influence the sensation significantly. It can therefore be speculated that other components of saliva. with the exception of melting 11 145 . A larger volume of fluid also decreased the fatty sensation remaining after swallowing. The creamy sensation decreased when a larger volume of fluid. was added to the product. and hence the creaminess. for example hydrolysing enzymes. This was the case even when the amount of fluid in the mouth at time of ingestion was doubled. can also influence the activity of α-amylase (personal communication Prof. the rating of melting increased above baseline in this study suggests that it was a dilution effect. which were not altered by the relatively slight dilution by the addition of fluids.
but not thickness. the results from the in vitro study suggest that during the confined time of custard dessert in the mouth (4-5 s). 146 . The breakdown by α-amylase in the mouth would then be more important for breakdown of food with longer residence time in the mouth. but limited. or α-amylase solution is suggested to take place mainly on the surface of the product. such as bread and other cereals. it can be concluded that the odour.Chapter 11 mouth-feel. flavour and texture attributes of custard desserts are only partially influenced by the amount of saliva during ingestion. As shown in Fig. 3. the interaction between the product and the saliva. During mastication of solids the mixing could also be more vigorous. Alternatively. Since neither the saliva flow rate. thus decreasing the viscosity. During this limited time. not confined to the surface. Mixing and measurement artefacts during the first seconds make it difficult to study the exact effects as a function of time. the effects of breakdown were undoubtedly present. nor an added volume of saliva seem to elicit substantial differences in sensory ratings in the product stimuli. Another explanation is that the residence time in the mouth (for custard dessert around 4 s) was too short to allow for a significant breakdown of starch in the bulk by α-amylase. Although the time scale and way of mixing is not the same as in the mouth. breakdown measurements in vitro of these two types of custard dessert mixed with water or saliva show a large difference in the breakdown between water and saliva. From this we can conclude that saliva is very potent in breaking down the structure of the product. Whether this holds for other types of products we do not know. affecting the attribute melting. This suggests that the attribute melting is related to surface properties of the product. It can be speculated that the amount of α-amylase naturally present in saliva of healthy subjects is such that adding extra enzyme does not affect sensory perception. thereby enabling the enzyme to come in contact with more starch particles. hence a small decrease in viscosity. the thickness ratings may be established before the effects of breakdown become prominent. since thickness is one of the first attributes to be rated.
Am J Enol Vitic 1995. 15. 5. Influence of mastication and saliva on aroma release in a model mouth system. Larsen MJ. Sweden: 1998. Food Chemistry 2000. Walchak C. Walchak C. Noble AC. Jensen AF. Role of saliva in human taste perception. Physiol Behav 1995. α-amylase and water REFERENCES 1. Physiol Behav 1998. 9. 11. Ruth SMv. 71:339-345. Ji Z. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. 11 147 . 18. 8. 4. 10. 1990: 351-354. and concentrations of calcium and phosphate in unstimulated whole saliva. Madsen DM. buffer capacity. p.The effects of added saliva. Food Quality and Preference 2001. 17. Physiol Behav 1997. J Dent Res 1984. Physiol Behav 2003. Malamud D. Zoumas-Morse C. The relation between saliva flow after different stimulations and the perception of flavor and texture attributes in custard desserts. Effects of viscosity and sweetness on temporal perception of astringency of grape seed and tannin. Physiol Behav 1990. Brand JG. 6. Haring PGM. Roozen JP. editors. 12(2):145-152. Flavour science and technology. Speeksel en mondgezondheid. The effect of oral stimulation on human parotid salivary flow rate and alpha-amylase secretion. Ruth SMv. Acta Odontol Scand 1959. Clinical measurements of taste and smell. Roozen JP. Dawes C. Prinz JF. 40:221-227. 203(1):1-6. Van der Bilt A. Rudney JD. Noble AC. Importance of saliva in diet-taste relationships. Enhancement of salivary flow rate and buffering capacity. Cozijnsen JL. Christensen CM. In: Bessiere Y. Christensen CM. Clinical investigations of the salivary buffering action. Shannon IL. Thomas AF. In: COST 96 proceedings: Interaction of food matrix with small ligands influencing flavour and texture. 3. Posthumus MA. Pearce EIF. Pangborn RM. 2. Guinard J-X. Pangborn RM. 12. Gothenburg. Orlando: Academic Press. 7(3-4):161-166. Interaction of salivary flow with temporal perception of sweetness. Flavour release from rehydrated french beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) influenced by composition and volume of artificial saliva. Chichester: Wiley. Zoumas-Morse C. In: Meiselman HL. 63(5):618-621. Nahon DF. 91-96. 61(4):591-596. Kallithraka S. Food Qual Prefer 1996. In: Kare MR. editors. Larson CJ. 40(6):507-512. Z-Lebensm-Unters-Forsch 1996. 16. de Wijk RA. 44:111-117. Application of time-intensity procedures for the evaluation of taste and mouthfeel. Guinard J-X. Physiol Behav 1987. Physiol Behav 1987. Brand JG. Frome WJ. Relation between parotid saliva flow and composition and perception of gustatory and trigeminal stimuli in foods. Bosman F. Effect of saliva-flow on flavour release from liquid foods. editors. 41:209-217. 1986: 3-24. The prediction of saliva swallowing frequency in humans from estimates of salivary flow rate and the volume of saliva swallowed. and fruitiness. Mackie DA. Lagerlöf F. Noble AC. 46(1):128-133. 63(1):109-118. Flavour release: from product to perception. Mastication and its influence on human salivary flow and alphaamylase secretion. Harrison M. Interaction of the chemical senses with nutrition. 13. Vallis L. 21. 47:593-595. sourness. The volume of saliva in the mouth before and after swallowing. Froehlich DA. Christensen CM. 17:131-165. 1994. June H. Correlations between saliva protein composition and some T-I parameters of astringency. Smith AK. New York: Macmillan. Bakker J. Salivary changes in solution pH: A source of individual differences in sour taste perception. Clifford MN. Engelen L. 20. Nieuw Amerongen AV. 14. 22. 1985: 414-428. Arch Oral Biol 1999. Arch Oral Biol 1995. 19. 78(1):165-169. Ericsson Y. 39:177-181. Bonnans SR. 7. Relation between saliva flow and flavor release from chewing gum. J Can Dent Assoc 1973. 57(3):569-574. Whitaker JR. Rivlin RS. Simpson H. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Individual variations of pH.
In model dessert creams. Van Gemert LJ. Wilkinson CL. DC: The Book and Paper Group of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. The influence of oral and product temperature on the sensory perception of texture and flavor attributes in custard desserts and mayonnaise. Weenen H. Cussler EL. Terpstra MEJ. Food Qual Prefer 2003. Joerg M. Daget N. The Book and Paper Group Annual. Volume 11. Texture of semi-solids: Sensory and instrumental measurements on vanilla custard desserts. 27. Engelen L. 41(3):273-281. Predicting the texture of liquid and melting semi-solid foods. Mela DJ. 48(4):1221-1225. 14(4):305-317. de Wijk RA. 26. Weenen H. 2002. de Wijk RA. J Food Sci 1983. Appetite 1988. 1992: 24-33. I. Bosman F.Chapter 11 23. Prinz JF. 10:37-44. Engelen L. Janssen AM. Usage Recommendations for -Amylases: Maximizing Enzyme Activity while Minimizing Enzyme-Artifact Binding Residues. Appetite 2003. 29. 28. The effect of oral and product temperature on the perception of flavor and texture attributes of semi-solids. Bourne M. 18:367-388. J Text Stud 1988. Erickson H. 148 . 24. de Wijk RA. Sensory assessment of fat content in fluid dairy products. Creamy perception. Washington. Kokini JL. 25. Abstract ECRO. Bosman F. Janssen AM. Prinz JF.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.