NANCY LARSON-POWERS’ and ROSE MARIE PANGBORN
Food Science & Technology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS O F THE SENSORY PROPERTIES O F
BEVERAGES AND GELATINS CONTAINING SUCROSE O R SYNTHETIC SWEETENERS’
ABSTRACT
Two descriptive sensory methods, anchored (deviation from a sucrose
reference) and unanchored, were used to quantify differences in aroma,
flavor and aftertaste in five media - strawberry, lemon and orange
drinks, and strawberry and orange gelatins - varying in type of
sweetener. With both methods, samples sweetened with sodium saccha-
rin deviated the most from the sucrose standard, those sweetened with
aspartame the least, and calcium cyclamate was intermediate. In
general, drinks sweetened with sucrose or with aspartame could be
characterized as “sweet-clean,” and those sweetened with cyclamate or
with saccharin as “sweet-chemical” and “bitter.” Gelatins containing
synthetic sweeteners generally were more astringent, bitter and sour,
with less strawberry flavor, and were significantly less hard, springy and
viscous than those sweetened with sucrose. In all media, more signifi-
cant differences were observed among the sweetenerswith the anchored
method than with the unanchored procedure. Advantages and limita-
tions of these two quantitative descriptive procedures are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
PAIRED COMPARISON and time-intensity methods were
used to measure the relative taste intensities of flavored drinks
and of gelatins sweetened with sucrose, aspartame, sodium
saccharin, or calcium cyclamate (Larson-Powers and Pangborn,
1978). In addition to these quantitative measures, qualitative
attributes of the aromas, tastes and aftertastes of these stimuli
were established by two descriptive procedures: multiple-com-
parison, unanchored, and anchored to a sucrose reference
(Larson, 1975). Preliminary testing of commercial milk
chocolate, using the anchored descriptive analysis, gave greater
reproducibility of response than did unanchored methods,
such as the nonquantitative A.D. Little “Flavor Profile” (Caul,
1957) and the General Foods “Textural Profile” (Civille and
Szczesniak, 1973) or Tragon’s “Quantitative Descriptive
Analysis” (Stone et al., 1974). The present paper evaluates the
data from the anchored and unanchored descriptive techniques
and contrasts them with information derived from the
previous quantitative methods.
MATERIALS & METHODS
THE SWEETENERS, the powdered bases for the drinks and gelatins,
and the procedures for their preparation have been described previously
(Larson-Powersand Pangborn, 1978).
Sensory procedures
Five females and one male served as judges for the drinks, and four
females and two males for the gelatins. Two additional females parti-
cipated in the development of vocabulary and in sessions using un-
anchored description of all products. However, because these two sub-
jects prepared and served samples and hence knew of the “blind”
sample, their responses were not recorded in the data obtained from
anchored descriptive analysis. Judges were students or employees, be-
tween the ages of 22-35 yr, selected on the basis of interest in partici-
pation in extended groups sessions,and ability to reproducibly describe
flavor attributes of the test samples. These judges developed a vocabu-
lary of terms to describe the aroma, flavor and aftertaste of the sam-
ples in daily group sessions of approximately 1-hr’s duration. At the
onset of each group meeting, judges listed all terms which applied to
I Present address: 1015 Campbell,Prosser.WA 99350
the samples, with recommendations for substanceswhich could serve as
physical references in subsequent sessions. All impressions were dis-
cussed by the group, definitions established, and references agreed
upon. The panel leader developed preliminary score cards and brought
reference materials to anchor aroma terminology at the following
training sessions. ,After agreement was reached on appropriate
descriptors and references (six to eight sessions),the score sheetswere
finalized for each stimuli - strawberry, orange and lemon drinks, and
strawberry and orange gelatins. At all test sessionsthereafter, judges
evaluated samples individually at a partitioned round table with no
group discussion. The aroma references were continually available from
a rotating “lazy Susan.”
Samples were served at 3°C in 80-ml blue cobalt glassesimmersed in
ice water. The glasseswere covered with aluminum lids containing two-
or three-digit codes, and were served as a complete block in randomized
order. At each session, four samples were presented, one from each
sweetener - sucrose, aspartame, sodium saccharin, or calcium cycla-
mate. The concentrations of each sweetener are given in Figures l-10.
For beverages, IO-ml samples were served for aroma evaluation, and
60-ml samples for evaluation of flavor and aftertaste. For gelatin, six
2-cm cubes were served. For each of the five stimuli (three drinks and
two gelatins), five sessionswere held. This relatively small number of
replicate sessions,which totalled 4 wk of daily testing/commodity, was
necessitated by the availability of the student judges during various
academic sessions.Within each stimulus, the fist sessionwas considered
orientation, and the data were not included in the final tally. At the
next three sessions,samples were evaluated in terms of deviation from a
sucrose reference, i.e., using an anchored, descriptive analysis. At the
fifth and final session, unanchored descriptive analysis was used, i.e.,
the four samples were presented simultaneously and judged on an abso-
lute basis, on an unstructured scale consisting of a loo-mm horizontal
line labeled “none” to “extreme” for each descriptor.
The anchored, descriptive analysis was a modification of a method
reported by Daget (1974) for evaluating chocolate. The sensory data
obtained was analyzed by Vuataz et al. (1974). In the present study,
judges indicated the degree of difference in intensity of each character-
istic from the reference (the sucrose-sweetenedsample) by placing a
mark on an unstructured, horizontal line, 120 mm in Iength, IabeIed
“Less” and “More” at the ends, with the center labeled “Same as
Reference.” A hidden reference, the sucrose-sweetenedsample, was
included as a coded, test sample to check the internal variation of the
judges’responses.
A fixed model analysis of variance was applied to the individual
scores within each of the five stimuli, for aroma, for flavor and for
aftertaste descriptors separately. Main effects tested were sweeteners,
descriptors, judges, and replications, as well as all two- and three-way
interactions. Least significant differences were calculated for all signifi-
cant sweetener x descriptor interactions.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Drinks
Because of the great similarity in the responses to the
strawberry, lemon and orange drinks, only results from the
orange drink will be presented herein. The complete set of
data are available in the thesis by the senior author (Larson,
1975).
Anchored descriptive analysis. Responses to the aroma, fla-
vor and aftertaste of the sucrose sample compared with itself
as a blind control are shown in Figure 1. The mean deviation
did not exceed +-5 mm on the 120-mm intensity scale, at-
testing to the ability of the group to match the reference to
itself. The magnitude of the standard deviations indicate good
agreement on aftertaste, with greater variation for aroma and
Volume 43 /1978)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 47

5 10% SUCROSEINORANGE DRINK
AROMA -FLAVOR- k-AFTERTASTE+
Fig. lAMean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
sensory characteristics of orange drink with 10% sucrose, compared
with itself as a reference.
selected flavor terms. The large standard deviations for general
descriptors like “Overall Aroma” and “Overall Flavor” indi-
cate lack of concurrence among the judges, possibly because it
was impossible to provide a reference sample for those
descriptors. The best match and greatest group agreement was
for bitter flavor and bitter aftertaste.
Figures 2, 3 and 4 depict the direction and magnitude of
difference of the sensory characteristics of orange drink
sweetened with aspartame, cyclamate or saccharin, contrasted
with the sucrose-sweetened reference. Samples sweetened with
saccharin deviated the most and those sweetened with
aspartame deviated the least from the reference. “Overall fla-
vor,” the composite of all oral sensations, was significantly
greater in the cyclamate and saccharin samples (Fig. 3 and 4).
The term “sweet chemical,” used to describe a synthetic-type
of sweetness (in contrast with “sweet clean,” which was associ-
ated with the sucrose sample), was significantly more pro-
nounced in the cyclamate samples, both in flavor and in after-
taste. For the saccharin sample, however, “astringent” and
I
“bitter” flavors were significantly more intense than for the
sucrose reference. Large standard deviations were obtained,
particularly for the drink containing saccharin (Fig. 3). This is
attributed to the variation in perceived intensity of character-
0.65% CYCLAMATE IN ORANGE DRINK
T
AROMA -FLAVOR- +AFTERTASTE -4
Fig. d-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
sensory characteristics of orange drink with 0.65% cyclamate com-
pared with the 10% sucrose reference.
48 -JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 43 (19781
P O.O7%ASPARTAME IN ORANGE DRINK
AROMA -FLAVOR- +AFTERTASTE----I
Fig. P-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
sensory characteristics of orange drink with 0.07% aspartame com-
pared with the 10% sucrose reference.
istics among, rather than within judges, as the F ratios for
replication were not significant in the analysis of variance (df =
2/390, F = 2.10 for aroma, 1.81 for flavor, and 2.50 for after-
taste). Furthermore, the interactions of sweetener by replica-
tion, and of sweetener by descriptor were not significant.
Large variations among judges also were reported by Daget
(1974) who used a similar method to characterize the sensory
properties of milk chocolate.
Unanchored descriptive analysis. Results from the un-
anchored descriptive analysis method permits intercomparison
among all four sweeteners in orange drink (Fig. 5a and Sb). No
significant differences in overall aroma were obtained. Only
two of the 13 individual arom,a descriptors differed signifi-
cantly among the sweeteners - “fresh orange peel,” and
“orange-flavored aspirin,” which were more intense in the su-
crose sample. For flavor, overall intensities did not differ sig-
nificantly but seven of the 16 individual flavor descriptors did
(Fig. Sa). In general, drinks sweetened with sucrose or with
aspartame could be characterized as “sweet-chemical,” and
“bitter.” Sucrose and saccharin imparted more astringency
than did the other two sweeteners. Saccharin was considered
significantly more sour than the other sweeteners, possibly due
O.l%SACCHARIN IN ORANGE DRINK
AROMA -FLAVOR- +AFTERTASTE+
Fig. 4-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
sensory characteristics of orange drink with 0.1% saccharin com-
pared with the IO!% sucrose reference.
 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE/GELATIN SENSORY PROPS. . .

ORANGE DRINK
I Sucrose IO%
q Asportome 0.07%

Socchorin 0.1%

Over0I I Fresh Oronge Overall Astringent Sweet Sweet Bitter Sour Oronge Corbonoted
Aroma Orange Flovored Flovor Clean Chemical Popsicle OmngeDrink
Peel Aspirin
-AAOMA- I FLAVOR I

Fig. 5a-Mean intensities for aroma and flavor characteristics of orange drink for each of four sweeteners. (Unanchored de-
scrip tive analysis)

to the judges’ association of sourness with bitterness, as ob- ORANGE DRINK

served also by other investigators (Meiselman and Dzendolet,
1967; Robinson, 1970). The comparative means and standard I Sucrose 10%
deviations (SD) for sourness and bitterness, respectively, were q Asportome 0.07%
0 Cyclomote 0.65%
12.8 + 14.4 and 4.9 f 11.8 for sucrose samples, and 37.5 + I Saccharin 0.10 %
29.1 and 37.4 + 39.3 for the saccharin samples. For the su- rl
crose series, the foregoing SD fall within the same range as the
SD for other descriptors. For the saccharin series, however,
these SD are much higher than the SD for most other
descriptors. In retrospect, we might have grouped the terms
into a composite called “sour-bitter.” Of the 11 terms used to
describe aftertaste, seven differed in intensity among the four
sweeteners (Fig. 5b). Again, samples with sucrose or aspartame Astringent Sweet Sweet Sticky Bitter Oronge Medicinal
Clean Chemical Sweet Flavored
were “sweet-clean,” and those with cyclamate or saccharin Aspirin
were “sweet chemical.” The saccharin sample continued to
exhibit an astringent and bitter aftertaste, while the cyclamate
sample had a cloying, “sticky-sweet” aftertaste. These latter
Fig. 5b-Mean intensities for the aftertastes of orange drink for each
sweeteners were considered medicinal, also.
of four sweeteners. Wnanchored descriptive analysis)
Intercomparison of the means and of the analyses of vari-
ance for the two descriptive methods, showed that for all
drinks, the anchored method (comparison with the sucrose
reference) was more sensitive. More significant differences
were observed among the sweeteners for more descriptors by
the anchored, than by the unanchored procedure. Part of these 18% SUCROSEIN STRAWBERRYGELATIN
differences may be attributable to the smaller number of judg-
ments collected by the unanchored procedure, and by the se-
quence of presentation of methods, i.e., the three “anchored”
sessions always preceded the “unanchored” session.
Gelatins
Similar results were obtained for the two gelatins - orange
and strawberry; therefore, only the data from the latter are
presented herein.
Anchored descriptive analysis. In gelatin, aroma could not
be broken down into individual characteristics. Consequently,
only “overall aroma intensity” was examined. Comparison of
the sucrose sample against itself showed that only one term,
“sour” deviated from the reference by more than 5 m m on the AROMA -FLAVOR- -AFTERTASTE-
120-mm scale (Fig. 6), demonstrating good internal con-
sistency of the judges as a group. Small standard deviations
were obtained for terms such as “bitter” and “metallic” but an Fig. 6-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
exceptionally large standard deviation was obtained for the Sensory characteristics of strawberry gelatin with 18% sucrose, com-
key flavor term, “strawberry.” it is suspected that judges used pared with itself as a reference.

Volume 43 (19781--JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 49

 0.105% ASPARTAMEINSTRAWBERRYGELATIN different criteria for evaluating the complex sensations they
labeled as “strawberry.”
The direction and magnitude of difference from the su-
crose reference of strawberry gelatin sweetened with synthetic
sweeteners are depicted in Figures 7, 8 and 9. In most charac-
teristics, aspartame differed the least, and saccharin differed
the most from the reference. Gelatins containing synthetic
sweeteners were significantly less hard, springy and viscous
than the sucrose reference. This is consistent with results ob-
tained in time-intensity studies, where gelatin sweetened with
sucrose was firmer than gelatin containing the synthetic
sweeteners (Larson-Powers and Pangborn, 1978). As noted in
Figures 7, 8 and 9, much less strawberry flavor and strawberry
aftertaste was reported for synthetically-sweetened gelatins (P
< 0.05). Gelatins with cyclamate and with saccharin had sig-
nificantly more bitter flavor and bitter aftertaste than did the
samples with sucrose. Considerable sourness was ascribed to
the’saccharin sample. Again, it should be mentioned that many
tasters equate, or confuse sensations of sourness and bitter-
Fig. 7-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
ness.
sensory characteristics of strawberry gelatin with 0.105% aspartame Unanchored descriptive analysis. In Figure 10, mean in-
compared with the 18% sucrose reference.
tensity values are presented for gelatins evaluated simul-
taneously in a multiple-sample presentation. Significant dif-
0.55%CYCLAMATE IN STRAWBERRYGELATIN ferences (P < 0.05) were obtained among the four sweeteners
v I
for the descriptors “sweet,” “bitter,” and “strawberry”
flavors. Again, samples with sucrose or with aspartame were
sweeter, less bitter, and had more strawberry flavor than did
samples containing cyclamate or saccharin. Bitter, sour, and
medicinal aftertastes were more perceptible in these latter sam-
ples, also. A greater number of descriptors differed signifi-
cantly among the four sweeteners using the anchored analysis
than by the unanchored method, as indicated previously for
the drinks.
CONCLUSIONS
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES allowed intercomparison of
multiple sensory characteristics, rather than a single parameter
as described previously for paired-directional tests and time-
intensity testing (Larson-Powers and Pangborn, 1978).
AROMA -FLA”OR- -AFTERTASTE-
Anchoring the description to a reference, and expressing re-
sults in terms of the positive and negative deviation from the
reference improved both the precision and the accuracy of the
Fig. 8-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the
responses, compared to the unanchored descriptive method.
sensory characteristics of strawberry gelatin with 0.55% cyclamate
In all five test media - strawberry, lemon and orange
compared with the 18% sucrose reference.
drinks, and strawberry and orange gelatins - the anchored
method resulted in a greater number of descriptors which were
significantly different among the four sweeteners, indicating it
0.05% SACCHARIN IN STRAWBERRYGELATIN
was more sensitive than the unanchored method. Comparison
1 of, analyses of variances between anchored and unanchored
test data showed much higher F ratios for sweeteners for the
former, and higher F ratios for judges for the latter method. In
other words, we found more differences among sweeteners in
the anchored, and more judge variability in the unanchored
method. Again, it should be noted that there were fewer judg-
ments with the latter method.
Additional real and potential advantages of an anchored
descriptive method would include: (a) Provision of an internal
measure of judge reliability by comparison of the reference
against itself as a blind sample; (b) Provision of a fixed
criterion of comparison to minimize drifting of responses with
time, or comparison against faulty memory standards; (c) In
incomplete block designs where samples cannot be compared
against each other, there is a potential increase in reliability
because they can all be compared against the same standard;
(d) In product matching or product formulation, the method
AROMA -FLAVOR- -AFTERTASTE----I
provides a quick measure of attributes, and hence ingredients,
which need to be increased or decreased relative to a fixed
Fig. g-Mean intensity differences and standard deviations for the reference.
sensory characteristics of strawberry gelatin with 0.05% saccharin ‘The disadvantage of the anchored method would include an
comoared with the 18% sucrose reference. indirect, rather than a direct knowledge of the degree to which

!jo -JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 43 (19781

 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE/GELATIN SENSORY PROPS.. .

Strawberry Gelatin
I SUCROSE 18%
'43 ASPARTAME 0.105%
0 CYCLAMATE 0.55%
q SACCHARIN 0.05%

Fig. IO-Mean intensities for aroma, flavor and

aftertaste characteristics of strawberry gelatin
for each of four sweeteners. (Unanchored
descriptive analysis)

;VLE[f&L SWEET BITTER STRAWBERRY OVERALL SWEET BITTER SOUR MEDICINAL

oE%.L AFTERTASTE
AROMA -FL AVOR- V-AFTERTASTE- I

samples compare with each other. In studies in which it is Larson, N.L. 1975. Sensory Properties of Flavored Beverages and Gela-
difficult to designate a reference, the anchored method would, tins Containine: Sucrose or Synthetic Sweeteners. M.S. thesis. Uni-
versity of Calif&nia, Davis.
of course, be of limited value. Larson-Powers. N. and Pangborn. R.M. 1978. Paired comparison and
Relative to the sweeteners, samples containing sucrose or time-intensity measurements of the sensory properties of beverages
and gelatins containing sucrose or synthetic sweeteners. J. Food Sci.
aspartame had little bitterness and were termed “sweet clean,” 43: 41.
whereas those containing cyclamate or saccharin were very Meiselman, H.L. and Dzendolet, E. 1967. Variability in gustatory
bitter and were labeled “sweet chemical.” These observations auality identification. Perception & Psychophysics 2(11): 496.
Robinson, J.O. 1970. The misuse of taste names by. untrained ob-
on sweetness and ,bitterness are in agreement with conclusions servers. British J. Psychology 61(3): 375.
obtained using the time-intensity technique (Larson-Powers Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver. S., Woolsey. A. and Singleton, R.C. 1974.
Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food
and Pangborn, 1978). Technol. 28(11): 24
Vuataz, L., Sotek. J. and Rahim. H.M. 1974. Profile analysis and classi-
fication. Proceedings. 4th International Congress of Food Science &
Technology. lap. 25, Madrid, Spain.
REFERENCES Ms received 512177: revised 814177: accented 8/12/77.

Gaul, J.F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Adv. Food Res.
7: 1. Based on a thesis submitted by the senior author to the Univ. of
Civille. C.V. and Szczesniak, A.S. 1973. Guidelines to training a textrue California, in partial fulfillment of the MS. degree. 1975.
profile panel. J. Texture Studies 4(2): 204. The research was supported. in part. by Searle Biochemics,
Daget, N. 1974. Profile sensory evaluation of chocolates. Paper Arlington Heights, IL.
presented at “Erster Internationaler Kongress i;ber Kakao und The technical assistance of Mrs. Cathy Tassan is gratefully acknowl-
Schokoladeforschung.” M&hen. edged.

BIOCHEMICAL CHANGES IN SURF CLAM MUSCLE. . .From page 37

Hoff, J.C., Beck, W.J., Ericksen. T.H., Vasconcelos, G.J. and Presnell, Newbold. R.P. 1966. Changes associated with rigor mortis. In “The
M.W. 1967. Time-temperature effects on the bacteriological quality Physiology and Biochemistry of Muscle as a Food,” p. 213. Uni-
of shellfish. J. Food Sci. 32: 121. versity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Hohorst. H.J. 1963. L-(+)-lactate. Determination with lactic dehydro- Partmann, W. 1965. In “The Technology of Fish Utilization,” p. 4.
genase and DPN. In “Methods of Enzymatic Analysis,” p. 266. Fishing News (Books) Inc., London.
Academic Press, New York. Porter, R.W. 1968. The acid-soluble nucleotides in king crab muscle. J.
Lee. Y.B.. Kauffman. R.G., Grummer. R.H., Schmidt, G.R. and Food Sci. 33: 311.
Briskey, E.J. 1971. Effect of fasting and refeeding on some chemical Sidhu, G.S., Montgomery, W.A. and Brown, M.A. 1974. Postmortem
properties of porcine muscle. J. Animal Sci. 32: 457. changes and spoilage in rock lobster muscle. 1. Biochemical changes
Lee, Y.B., Hargus, G.L., Hagberg. E.C. and Forsythe, R.H. 1976. Effect and rigor mortis in Jaws novaehollandiae. J. Food Tech. 9: 357.
of antemortem environmental temperatures on postmortem glycoly- Tarr. H.L.A. 1966. Postmortem changes in glycogen. nucleotides. sugar
sis and tenderness in excised broiler breast muscle. J. Food Sci. 41: phosphates, and sugars in fish muscles. J. Food Sci. 31: 846.
1466. MS received 3116177: revised 5/21/77: accepted 5125177.
Lemprecht, W. and Trautschold, I. 1963. Adenosine-5-triphosphate.
Determination with hexokinase and glucose-6-Dhosuhate dehydro-
genase. In “Methods of Enzymatic knalysis,‘i p. 543. Academic
Press, New York.
Marsh, B.B. 1952. Observations on rigor mortis in whale muscle. Bio- Presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food
chii. Biophys. Acta 9: 127. Technologists. Philadelphia, PA, June 5-8.1977.

Volume 43 (1978kJOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 51