jss_212 301..

316

DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2009.00212.x

DESCRIPTIVE SENSORY ANALYSIS OF TOOTHPASTE FLAVOR

AND TEXTURE USING TWO SAMPLING METHODS:
BRUSHING VERSUS SPOON TASTING

CARRITA A. HIGHTOWER and EDGAR CHAMBERS IV1

Sensory Analysis Center

Department of Human Nutrition
Justin Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-1407

Accepted for Publication July 17, 2008

ABSTRACT

Repeated testing of toothpaste using a brushing method can lead to

dental sensitivity, which could compromise the effectiveness of descriptive
evaluations. The objective of this research was to compare flavor and texture
evaluations of toothpaste using two sampling methods, toothbrushing or
spoon tasting, in a descriptive sensory analysis test. A highly trained
descriptive sensory panel evaluated five commercially available toothpastes
using the two sample delivery regimens. Changing the sample delivery
method impacted key toothpaste attributes, including burn, nasal cooling,
toothetch and associated flavor attributes such as overall mint, menthol and
bitter, but no interaction of product and method was found for those
attributes. The interaction between product and delivery technique, i.e.,
specific toothpastes react differently than others when the sampling tech-
nique is changed, occurred in graininess, foaminess, baking soda, oral
cooling and tongue numbing. This research establishes that the delivery
method for toothpaste during descriptive analysis has an impact on flavor
evaluations. Although it is possible to use an alternate method, such as
spoon tasting, for some toothpaste evaluations if the attributes of interest do
not show interactions between product and method, researchers must give
consideration to how alternate methods affect intensity of scores or other
outcomes of the research.

1
Corresponding author. TEL: +785-532-0156; FAX: +1785-532-0176; EMAIL: eciv@ksu.edu

Journal of Sensory Studies 24 (2009) 301–316.

© 2009, The Author(s) 301
Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
302 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Researchers seeking to use atypical sampling methods for various reasons

(i.e., sample screening, limited resources, reducing evaluator’s fatigue), espe-
cially for products such as toothpaste, must consider the objectives of a study
and how an alternate technique will affect the outcome of the research. This
research establishes that the delivery method of toothpaste during descriptive
analysis has an impact on the flavor and texture evaluations. It is possible to
use an alternate, such as sampling from a spoon for toothpaste evaluations,
with the understanding that key attributes such as cooling and mint flavor will
be amplified. The spoon method can be useful in screening when there is a
need to efficiently gather information on a myriad of similar products, but it
probably needs to be avoided in situations where products differ widely or key
attributes are compromised.

INTRODUCTION

Toothpaste (dentifrice) has been used for thousands of years. However,

the modern toothpaste category now has multiple niche products addressing a
range of specific consumer needs and preferences ranging from oral hygiene to
social benefits. In general, published research on toothpaste has focused more
on efficacy and interaction with the mouth’s soft and hard tissues rather than
on product attributes such as flavor and texture. Some research using in vivo
and in vitro techniques examined the abrasive effects of toothpaste on dentine
or tooth enamel (Dyer et al. 2000; West et al. 2002; Joiner et al. 2004; Moore
and Addy 2005), or the impact of toothpaste ingredients, such as tartar-control
agents and detergents, on mouth tissues (Kowitz et al. 1990; Moore and Addy
2005). No research was found regarding experimental delivery methods and
their effect on consumption and evaluation of dentifrice products.
However, limited research on other types of products suggests that
varying sample delivery methods has an effect on data outcomes, such as
consumption or perception of sensory properties. For example, Lawless et al.
(2003) demonstrated that people tended to consume more liquid when drink-
ing from a cup versus using a straw. Wansink and Park (2001) found that
participants ate more popcorn from large containers than smaller containers.
Delivery methods also may affect sensory properties. De Wijk et al. (2003)
found that the size and number of bites of vanilla custard affected the percep-
tion of certain sensory attributes, such as creaminess, thickness or astringency.
Engelen et al. (2004) found that custard samples served with a spoon were
perceived to melt more and were less thick compared with the product sampled
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 303

from a straw with or without a constriction. Prinz and De Wijk (2007) also
found that bite size influenced various texture- and temperature-affected
sensory properties.
Published sensory research of toothpaste is limited. Meilgaard et al.
(1999) provide a list of attributes for toothpaste flavor and texture for different
evaluation stages. Allison and Chambers (2005) studied the residual effects of
toothpaste on the flavor of foods and beverages, and Allison et al. (2007)
examined the length of time needed between samples to reduce carryover of
flavor compounds. All those publications highlight the impact of cooling and
other “irritation” in the mouth.
Although the use of toothpaste and toothbrushing is beneficial to improve
and maintain oral health, this common practice can be damaging to the tissues
of the mouth (Sandholm et al. 1982; Niemi et al. 1986, 1987). Ingredients in
toothpaste can cause burning and irritation in the mouth, although the effects
usually do not last long. However, toothbrushing has been documented to
lead to damage of the gums, especially if continuous or repetitive brushing is
performed (Addy and Hunter 2003; Addy 2005). Published practices for
evaluating sensory properties of toothpaste used repetitive brushing to evaluate
the impact of the toothpaste immediately or after eating other foods (Meil-
gaard et al. 1999; Allison and Chambers 2005; Allison et al. 2007).
Although it is logical to assess attributes of toothpaste (or any product)
by using the product in a true-to-life situation (e.g., applying the product and
brushing), it is important to note that such procedures often are not used for
a variety of reasons. In testing hand of fabrics, for example, methods that
restrict viewing and methods that allow viewing have been espoused (Yenket
et al. 2007). Some product attributes, such as cheese texture, are evaluated in
multiple ways, i.e., with the hand and orally (Yates and Drake 2007). In
many cases, products are simply used in so many ways that it would be
unrealistic to evaluate all options. For example, soft drinks could be tested
by being poured (warm or cold) into a “glass” with or without ice, consumed
straight from a can or bottle, sipped through a straw or other ways. In reality,
most sensory testing of soft drinks is conducted using a cold drink poured
into a plastic cup. Similarly, products that are highly irritating, such as some
alcoholic beverages, often are diluted before testing based on published
guidelines (ASTM 2004).
In descriptive sensory analysis testing, panelists often are asked to
perform several product evaluations in one testing session. Allison et al.
(2007) indicated that as many as six toothpaste samples could be tested in one
session with reasonable data repeatability. However, repeated toothbrushing is
an invasive testing method and could lead to dental sensitivity, which can
compromise the effectiveness of descriptive evaluations. This poses the ques-
tion of whether it is essential to brush the teeth during evaluation of dentifrice
304 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

products. Could results similar to toothbrushing be obtained simply by tasting

the sample? Caul (1989) mentions conducting both flavor and brushing pro-
files of toothpaste samples in the 1950s and 1960s, but does not provide any
information on the actual testing.
The objective of this study was to compare flavor and texture evaluations
of toothpaste using two distinct methods, toothbrushing or spoon tasting, for
product sampling of toothpaste in a descriptive sensory analysis test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples
Five commercially available toothpastes were selected based on the type
of mint flavor, presence of baking soda and solid white base paste (Table 1).
The sample was designed to encompass leading manufacturing companies,
different ingredients, and included a product promoted as natural. All tooth-
pastes were purchased at retail in Manhattan, KS.

Sample Preparation and Serving

Preparation. For each product sampling, toothpaste was served either

on a toothbrush or white plastic spoon, depending on the condition selected for
evaluation. When the toothpaste was served on a brush, a regular Oral-B
Advantage toothbrush (Oral-B, Belmont, CA) was selected for its soft, nylon-
rounded bristles, and because it had been used in previously published sensory
research (Allison and Chambers 2005; Allison et al. 2007).

Toothpaste Preparation for the Brushing Condition. A single tooth-

brush was used (labeled with the name of the panelist) for each different brand

TABLE 1.
DESCRIPTION OF TOOTHPASTE SAMPLES AND SOURCES

Product name Manufacturer

Arm & Hammer – Complete Care, Intense
Freshening + Whitening Paste
Colgate – Tartar Control + Whitening Crisp Mint Paste
Pepsodent – Whitening with Baking Soda
Crest – Tartar Protection, Whitening, Cool Mint Paste
Tom’s of Maine – Natural Anticavity, Spearmint Paste
Church & Dwight, Co., Princeton, NJ
Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY
Chesebrough-Ponds, Greenwich, CT
Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH
Tom’s of Maine Inc., Kennebunk, ME
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 305

of toothpaste throughout the testing period. A 1.0-g sample was weighed

directly onto the entire length of the toothbrush bristles. The tube was kept
horizontal as the paste was squeezed from the sealed end of the toothpaste
tube. After dispensing the sample, the toothbrush with the paste was held under
warm, gently running water for 5 s to moisten the paste as well as soften the
bristles. Toothbrush samples, coded with three-digit codes, were served using
a foam tray that had been adapted in the laboratory to prevent the toothbrushes
from rolling over when served. After sample evaluations, toothbrushes were
rinsed prior to being soaked in warm water for 1 h, were rinsed again and then
allowed to air dry before storing.

Toothpaste for the Tasting Condition. A white plastic teaspoon was

placed on a scale in a large weigh boat. A 1.0-g sample of toothpaste was
dispensed onto the spoon, keeping the tube horizontal and squeezing the paste
from the bottom of the tube. Toothpaste samples for the spoon delivery method
were served in weigh boats coded with three-digit codes. Spoons were dis-
carded after panelists completed each sample evaluation.

Panelists
Six highly trained descriptive sensory panelists from the Sensory Analy-
sis Center of Kansas State University; Manhattan, KS, participated in this
study. The panelists had completed 120 h of training on general sensory
methods and a variety of products, had an average of more than 1,000 h of
testing experience and had previous experience in testing toothpaste products.

Descriptive Sensory Panel Orientation

Two sessions totaling 5 h were held to reorient the panelists to toothpaste
testing, and to select attributes and references (Table 2) for the toothpastes in
this study. Panelists discussed and reviewed attribute references and intensi-
ties, and agreed on the final ballot. In addition, the brushing and spoon-
sampling techniques were practiced.
For the brushing technique, the panelists brushed their teeth for 30 s.
They were instructed to brush teeth surfaces, minimize brushing the gums and
to exclude tongue brushing to reduce any enhancement of cooling or burn from
overbrushing and irritation of epithelial surfaces (Allison and Chambers
2005). Panelists started with their incisors and progressed to brushing their
molars. A quick, circular motion was practiced and used for consistency, but
stroke frequency was not monitored. The sample was held in the mouth to
evaluate initial attributes, such as cooling. After 15 s, the oral contents were
expectorated, and additional attributes were evaluated. The panelists waited
306 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV
TABLE 2.
ATTRIBUTES’ DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES
Attributes Descriptors
Texture
Chalky A dry powdery sensation. Can be on
the mouth and/or teeth.
Graininess The perception of small particles
relatively harder than the
surrounding product.
Slickness Moist, smooth feel on mouth and/or
teeth.
Foaminess The awareness of a froth on teeth
and toothbrush.
Flavor
Nasal cooling The cooling sensation in the nasal
cavity or sinus, which is typical
of menthol exposure.
Oral cooling The cooling sensation on all
surfaces of the oral cavity.
Oral burn The prickly, tingly sensation in the
oral cavity, typical after exposure
to menthol.
Tongue numbing A feeling of a decrease or loss of
sensation in the mouth.
Toothetch A chemical-feeling factor perceived
as drying/dragging when the
tongue is rubbed over the back of
the teeth surfaces.
Overall mint Sweet, green, earthy, pungent, sharp,
mentholic aromatics associated
with mint oils. Commonly
associated with wintergreen,
spearmint or peppermint.
Spearmint A sweet, green, slightly pungent,
sharp aromatic with a mentholic
character that can be specifically
identified as spearmint.
Wintergreen Woody, spicy, green, pungent, sharp,
slightly sweet aromatics with a
slight menthol character that can
be specifically identified as
wintergreen.
Peppermint Sweet, fresh, minty, pungent, sharp,
slightly medicinal aromatics
associated with peppermint.
References
Sweetened condensed milk = 8.0
(Eagle Brand)
Carnation original malted milk
(dry) = 12.0
Dannon Light ‘n Fit Vanilla Nonfat
Yogurt = 8.0
Kraft Easy Cheese (American)
= 10.0
1/2 Gaviscon tablet (chewed) = 10
0.03% menthol solution = 3.0
(in mouth)
0.06% menthol solution = 8.0
0.03% menthol solution = 6.0
0.06% menthol solution = 9.0
0.03% menthol solution = 2.5
0.06% menthol solution = 5.5
Pepsi = 3.0
7-Up = 5.5
0.1% alum solution = 4.0
Diluted 1:1 Welch’s Grape
Juice : water = 6.0
0.2% alum solution = 9.0
Mint mixture of LorAnn Gourmet
Wintergreen Oil, Spearmint Oil,
Peppermint Oil = 10.0 (aroma)
LorAnn Gourment Spearmint
Oil = 10.0 (aroma)
LorAnn Gourment Peppermint
Oil = 10.0 (aroma)
Life Saver Peppermint = 8.0 (flavor)
LorAnn Gourment Peppermint
Oil = 10.0 (aroma)
Life Saver Peppermint = 8.0 (flavor)
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 307

TABLE 2.
CONTINUED

Attributes Descriptors References

Menthol The musty, sweet, pungent and
medicinal character of menthol.
Baking soda The aromatics associated with
baking soda dissolved in water.
Overall sweet A perception of the combination of
sweet tastes and sweet aromatics.
Green (viney) A green aromatic associated with
green vegetables, and newly cut
vines and stems; characterized by
increased bitter and musty/earthy
character.
Salty A fundamental taste sensation of
which sodium chloride in water is
typical.
Bitter A fundamental taste sensation of
which caffeine is typical.
0.03% menthol solution = 8.0
(flavor)
Halls Mentho-Lyptus Cough
Drops = 7.5 (flavor)
0.20% baking soda solution = 3.0
(flavor)
0.35% baking soda solution = 5.0
(flavor)
0.50% baking soda solution = 8.0
(flavor)
Raw potatoes, diced = 2.0 (f)
Fresh cucumber = 5.0 (f, a)
Fresh-cut tomatoes = 10.0 (f), 9.0 (a)
0.25% sodium chloride
solution = 2.5
0.35% sodium chloride
solution = 5.0
0.50% sodium chloride
solution = 7.5
0.020% caffeine solution = 3.5
0.035% caffeine solution = 5.0
0.05% caffeine solution = 6.5
0.06% caffeine solution = 8.5

Based on a 15-point scale with 0.5 increments.

30 s before rinsing with water only. After rinsing, aftereffect attributes were
evaluated. The panelists generously rinsed with water and crackers to clean the
palate between samples.
For the spoon-sampling technique, panelists were told to place the entire
toothpaste sample on their tongues with the spoon upside down, pulling the
sample down on their tongues to remove the sample. Using the tongue, the
sample was manipulated for approximately 30 s (until the entire sample was
dissolved), and initial attributes were evaluated. The sample was expectorated,
and panelists waited 30 s prior to rinsing with water only. After rinsing,
additional attributes were evaluated. After evaluations for a sample were com-
plete, the panelists generously rinsed with water and crackers to clean the
palate between samples.
A room monitor was present to instruct the panelists when to brush,
expectorate and rinse.
308 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

Sample Evaluation
Previous research on mentholated toothpaste has shown that in order to
minimize panel fatigue as well as “sensitization/desensitization” effects of oral
cooling and burn, testing sessions should be limited to no more than six
samples, tested no more frequently than 24 min apart (Allison et al. 2007).
Based on the recommendation, five to six samples were evaluated 30 min apart
in each test session.
Using the brushing or spoon techniques, the panelists independently
evaluated the toothpaste attributes (Table 2) by scoring intensities using a
15-point numerical scale with half-point increments. A 0 rating indicated
“none,” and a rating of 15 denoted “extremely strong.”

Experimental Design
A partially balanced incomplete block test design was used, attempting to
balance product order presentation along with delivery method presentation.
Testing was completed in seven sessions, with three replications of each
product method combination.

Data Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was
conducted for each attribute to determine if there were significant main effects
of product or delivery method (called “method” hereafter), or any significant
interaction of product and method. For attributes that showed significant
differences in the ANOVA, least square means or P values for paired differ-
ences were computed in SAS to determine specific significant differences
among products.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were significant (P ⱕ 0.05) product, method, and method by

product interaction effects for various attributes (Table 3). Closely associated
attributes such as overall mint, menthol and nasal cooling had both significant
product and method effects, although they did not have interactions associated
with those effects. Clearly, changing the sample delivery method impacts some
key toothpaste attributes, including burn, burn after rinsing, nasal cooling,
toothetch, overall mint, menthol and bitter. Of greater concern, however,
would be studies where graininess, foaminess, baking soda, cooling and
tongue numbing are of interest. In those cases, a product by method interaction
was significant, indicating that the effect of methods depends on the products
included in the test.
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 309

TABLE 3.
ATTRIBUTES WITH SIGNIFICANT MAIN OR INTERACTION EFFECTS*

Product effect Delivery method effect Product by method

interaction effect

Attribute P value Attribute P value Attribute P value

Chalky 0.001 Burn 0.0005 Graininess 0.026

Slickness 0.018 Overall mint <0.0001 Foaminess <0.0001
Overall mint 0.002 Menthol 0.0001 Baking soda 0.023
Menthol <0.0001 Bitter 0.0005 Oral cooling 0.035
Green (viney) <0.0001 Nasal cooling <0.0001 Tongue numbing 0.038
Overall sweet <0.0001 Burn after rinsing <0.0001
Salty <0.0001 Toothetch 0.008
Nasal cooling 0.0002

* Significant differences for main effects are not shown if a significant interaction effect was noted.

Product Effect
The five toothpaste brands were significantly different for flavor attributes
– overall mint, menthol, green (viney), overall sweet and salty (Fig. 1). These
differences certainly are the intent of manufacturers who often wish to differ-
entiate their products from others in the category. In addition, the products in
this study were chosen to represent a range of toothpaste samples currently in
the market. For overall mint, all the products were rated at moderate-intensity
levels (5.5–7.8). However, Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight, Co., Prince-
ton, NJ) was significantly lower in overall mint compared with the other test
products, which were not significantly different from each other. Arm &
Hammer (Church & Dwight, Co.) may have had less mint flavor added, or the
baking soda, which was present as a main ingredient, may have suppressed the
perception of mint.
Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight, Co.) also was the most salty of the
tested toothpaste products, albeit still in the low range. The presence of baking
soda, which contains a sodium ion, probably contributes to higher saltiness.
Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc., Kennebunk, ME) scored signifi-
cantly lower for menthol and had less overall sweet perception compared with
the other toothpastes. However, the Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc.)
product was significantly more green (viney) in flavor. Hongsoongnern and
Chambers (2008) found that green viney often is associated with plant-based
products such as tomatoes or tomato stems, and maybe caused by combina-
tions of such flavor compounds as hexanols, hexyl esters and 2-isbutylthiazole.
The flavoring materials used in the Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc.)
product may contain some of these compounds and probably relate to the
310 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

9
Arm & Hammer
b bb b Colgate
8 Crest
Pepsodent
Tom's of Maine
7
b

a a a a
a
Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

6
ab ab

a
5 b b
ab
b
4 a
a

3
b b b
b b a a
a b c c
2
a
c b b b b

1
a a a a

0
Overall Mint Menthol Green (Viney) Sweet (Overall) Salty Chalky Slickness Nasal Cooling

FIG. 1. FLAVOR AND TEXTURE ATTRIBUTES WITH SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS FOR

PRODUCT TYPE
(a,b,c,ab – means with similar letters for each position content are not significantly different at the
95% confidence level).

product being marketed as a “natural” product, therefore supporting the notion

of a “greener,” more natural mint flavor.
In terms of texture attributes, there were significant differences among
products for chalky, slickness and nasal cooling. Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of
Maine Inc.) had the highest rating for slickness, and lowest values for chalky
and nasal cooling.

Method Effect
Sample delivery significantly (P ⱕ 0.05) affected chemical-feeling
attributes such as burn and nasal cooling, as well as toothetch and associated
flavor attributes such as overall mint, menthol and bitter (Table 4). Attribute
intensities were consistently higher when the spoon method was employed.
This is likely because the sample is in more direct contact with chemoreceptors
and taste papillae when it is pulled from the spoon onto the tongue than when
it is brushed onto the teeth. There probably is a dilution effect with the
brushing method. This difference would suggest that it is plausible to consider
reducing the sample amount for the spoon-evaluation technique to account for
differences in intensities for each attribute across method. However, the effect
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 311

TABLE 4.
LEAST SQUARE MEANS FOR ATTRIBUTES WITH
SIGNIFICANT METHOD EFFECTS

Attribute Brush Spoon

a
Burn 2.5 3.3b
Overall mint 5.9a 8.0b
Menthol 1.3a 1.8b
Bitter 1.9a 2.4b
Nasal cooling 2.3a 4.2b
Burn after rinsing 3.1a 4.0b
Toothetch 4.8a 5.9b

Means with similar letters for each position content are not signifi-
cantly different at the 95% confidence level.

did not occur for each attribute, and the general degree of difference in the
attributes is not consistent for the two methods. For example, reasonably small
differences of less than one point were noted between the two methods for
burn, menthol, bitter and burn after rinsing, while somewhat larger differences
of approximately two points were noted for overall mint and nasal cooling.
Whether a reduction in sample size to accommodate the smaller differences
also would reduce the larger differences sufficiently is not known and needs
further study.
The finding of differences in some attributes among sample delivery
methods does not negate the use of the spoon technique when measuring
attributes such as burn, menthol and mint. For those attributes, the difference
is only in delivery technique, not an interaction of delivery technique and
product, and does not impact the ability to understand differences among the
specific products tested. Instead, researchers must simply understand that the
specific intensity values obtained under a spoon delivery system may not
“match” those in a brushing technique, but comparison among products still
can be valid. Changes to ingredients associated with chemical-feeling factors
such as cooling and burn appear to be particularly susceptible to the method of
delivery, and researchers attempting to change those sensory perceptions will
need to give strong consideration to the delivery technique and how it can
impact decisions.

Product by Method Interaction Effect

The attributes influenced by an interaction of product and delivery
method were graininess, foaminess, baking soda, oral cooling and tongue
numbing. For graininess, the perceived intensity was higher in the
spoon delivery method for all toothpaste products except for Colgate
312 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

Grainy Profile Plot

Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

3.5
3.0 Arm & Hammer
Colgate
2.5
Crest
2.0
Pepsodent
1.5 Tom's of Maine
1.0
0.5
0.0
Spoon Brush

FIG. 2. INTERACTION PLOT FOR GRAINY ATTRIBUTE

(Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY), which gave a slightly higher rating in

the brushing method (Fig. 2). This is probably because of the use of the
tongue to manipulate the sample in the mouth and detect texture through
pressure against the palate and other areas of the mouth. The relationship
of palate pressure and texture perception was described in research by
Takahashi and Nakazawa (1991) and Kokini et al. (1977). Different stabi-
lizers in toothpaste could impact manipulation differently and result in slight
differences in the effect when using a spoon versus brushing method.
Overall, foaminess was rated much lower in the spoon-sampling method
compared with the brush method. Foam formation develops when the deter-
gent in the toothpaste is agitated as through toothbrushing. In the Tom’s of
Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc.), Crest (Procter & Gamble, Cincinatti, OH),
Colgate (Colgate-Palmolive) and Pepsodent (Chesebrough-Ponds, Green-
wich, CT) products, the foaminess ratings increased from the low 2–3 inten-
sity levels using the spoon to moderate 5–7.5 intensity values (Fig. 3), with
Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc.) changing most and Arm & Hammer
(Church & Dwight, Co.) changing least. For the baking soda attribute, the
interaction relationship between product and delivery method is seen prima-
rily in the Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight, Co.) product in which baking
soda is a key ingredient (Fig. 4). A significant interaction occurred in oral
cooling because four of the products had higher oral cooling, which
decreased with brushing, while Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s of Maine Inc.),
which had low cooling using the spoon method, maintained that same level
during brushing (Fig. 5). It is likely that undiluted, direct contact with oral
tissues using the spoon method resulted in higher perceived cooling when
samples had more mentholic ingredients. However, when dilution occurred
with brushing, no differences in cooling were detected for these samples.
Tongue numbing tended to be higher using the spoon method (Fig. 6), but
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 313

Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

Foaminess Profile Plot
8
7
6 Arm & Hammer
5 Colgate
Crest
4
Pepsodent
3
Tom's of Maine
2
1
0
Spoon Brush

FIG. 3. INTERACTION PLOT FOR FOAMINESS ATTRIBUTE

Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

Baking Soda Profile Plot

6

5
Arm & Hammer
4 Colgate
Crest
3
Pepsodent
2 Tom's of Maine

0
Spoon Brush

FIG. 4. INTERACTION PLOT FOR BAKING SODA ATTRIBUTE

again, the effect was dependent on the specific toothpaste, with Crest
(Procter & Gamble) showing little difference between the two methods,
although other toothpastes did show differences.
In general, only one or two toothpastes had an impact on any given
attribute where there was a product by method interaction. The product by
method interaction effects suggest that differences may be the result of inter-
actions in variations in product ingredients and the delivery method. Thus,
researchers focusing on variations in samples with the same basic ingredients
may be able to use the spoon method for screening and initial evaluation,
whereas comparisons across toothpaste brands and dissimilar products prob-
ably will need to conduct brushing profiles. The researcher should take into
account the natural differences of the ingredients of products prior to selecting
a suitable method for descriptive sensory testing. This is most important
especially for texture attributes related to foam and grain, as well as flavor
attributes closely associated with the impact of menthol in the mouth.
314 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

Oral Cooling Profile Plot

Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

10.0

8.0 Arm & Hammer

Colgate
6.0
Crest

4.0 Pepsodent
Tom's of Maine
2.0

0.0
Spoon Brush

FIG. 5. INTERACTION PLOT FOR ORAL COOLING ATTRIBUTE

Attribute Intensity (15-Point Scale)

Tongue Numbing Profile Plot

4.0
3.5
3.0 Arm & Hammer
2.5 Colgate
2.0 Crest
1.5 Pepsodent
1.0 Tom's of Maine
0.5
0.0
Spoon Brush

FIG. 6. INTERACTION PLOT FOR TONGUE NUMBING ATTRIBUTE

CONCLUSIONS

This research established that the delivery method of toothpaste during

descriptive analysis has an impact on the flavor evaluations. It is possible to use
an alternate, such as a spoon, for toothpaste evaluations, with the understand-
ing that key attributes such as cooling and mint flavor will be amplified. The
spoon method can be useful in screening when there is a need to efficiently
gather information on many products with similar comparisons. However, the
decision whether the spoon-sampling method is appropriate depends on the
objectives and key attributes of a study. Because the alternate spoon-sampling
method for toothpaste does not provide exactly the same information as a
brushing method, researchers must give consideration to how an alternate will
affect the outcome of the research.
 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR TOOTHPASTE 315

REFERENCES

ADDY, M. 2005. Tooth brushing, tooth wear and dentine hypersensitivity –

are they associated? Int. Dent. J. 55(Suppl. 1), 261–267.
ADDY, M. and HUNTER, M.L. 2003. Can tooth brushing damage your
health? Effects of oral and dental tissues. Int. Dent. J. 53(Suppl. 3),
177–186.
ALLISON, A.-M.A. and CHAMBERS, D.H. 2005. Effects of residual tooth-
paste flavor on flavor profiles of common foods and beverages. J. Sensory
Studies 20, 167–186.
ALLISON, A.-M.A., CHAMBERS, E., IV and CHAMBERS, D.H. 2007.
Repeated testing and rinsing regimens for toothpastes with various
cooling and burn intensities: Impact on discrimination and repeatability.
J. Sensory Studies 22, 695–712.
ASTM. 2004. Standard Guide for Sensory Evaluation of Beverages Contain-
ing Alcohol (E-1879-00). “ASTM Book of Standards. 15.07”, American
Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
CAUL, J.F. 1989. Open letter. In Sensory Evaluation: In Celebration of
Our Beginnings (1940–1962) pp. 3–6, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
DE WIJK, R.A., ENGELEN, L., PRINZ, J.F. and WEENEN, H. 2003. The
influence of bite size and multiple bites on oral texture sensations.
J. Sensory Studies 18, 423–435.
DYER, A., ADDY, M. and NEWCOMBE, R.G. 2000. Studies in vitro of
abrasion by different manual toothbrush heads and a standard toothpaste.
J. Clin. Periodontol. 27, 99–103.
ENGELEN, L., DE WIJK, R.A. and PRINZ, J.F. 2004. Effects of delivery
methods on the sensory perception of semisolid dairy desserts. J. Sensory
Studies 19, 364–372.
HONGSOONGNERN, P. and CHAMBERS, E., IV. 2008. A lexicon for green
odor or flavor and characteristics of chemicals associated with green.
J. Sensory Studies 23, 205–221.
JOINER, A., PICKELS, M.J., TANNER, C., WEADER, E. and DOYLE, P.
2004. An in situ model to study the toothpaste abrasion of enamel. J. Clin.
Periodontol. 31, 434–438.
KOKINI, J.L., KADANE, J.B. and CUSSLER, E.L. 1977. Liquid texture
perceived in the mouth. J. Texture Studies 8, 195–218.
KOWITZ, G., JACOBSON, J., MENG, Z. and LUCATORTO, F. 1990. The
effects of tartar-control toothpaste on the oral soft tissues. Oral Surg. Oral
Med. Oral Pathol. 70, 529–536.
LAWLESS, H.T., BENDER, S., OMAN, C. and PELLETIER, C. 2003.
Gender, age, vessel size, cup vs. straw sipping, and sequences effects on
sip volume. Dysphagia 18, 196–202.
316 C.A. HIGHTOWER and E. CHAMBERS IV

MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evalua-
tion Techniques, 3rd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
MOORE, C. and ADDY, M. 2005. Wear of dentine in vitro by toothpaste
abrasives and detergents alone and combined. J. Clin. Periodontol. 32,
1242–1246.
NIEMI, M.L., AINAMO, J. and ETEMADZADEH, H. 1986. Gingival abra-
sion and plaque removal with manual versus electric toothbrushing.
J. Clin. Periodontol. 13, 709–713.
NIEMI, M.L., AINAMO, J. and ETEMADZADEH, H. 1987. The effect of
toothbrush grip on gingival abrasion and plaque removal during tooth-
brushing. J. Clin. Periodontol. 14, 19–21.
PRINZ, J.F. and DE WIJK, R.A. 2007. Effects of bite size on the sensory
properties of vanilla custard desserts. J. Sensory Studies 22, 453–461.
SANDHOLM, L., NIEMI, M.L. and AINAMO, J. 1982. Identification of soft
tissue brushing lesions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 9, 397–401.
TAKAHASHI, J. and NAKAZAWA, F. 1991. Effects of viscosity of liquid
foods on palatal pressure. J. Texture Studies 2, 13–24.
WANSINK, B. and PARK, S.B. 2001. At the movies: How external cues and
perceived taste impact consumption volume. Food Qual. Prefer. 21,
69–74.
WEST, N., HUGHES, J.A. and ADDY, M. 2002. Dentine hypersensitivity:
The effects of brushing toothpaste on etched and unetched dentine in
vitro. J. Oral. Rehabil. 29, 167–174.
YATES, M.D. and DRAKE, M.A. 2007. Texture properties of Gouda cheese.
J. Sensory Studies 22, 493–506.
YENKET, R., CHAMBERS, E., IV and GATEWOOD, B.M. 2007. Color has
little effect on perception of fabric handfeel tactile properties in cotton
fabrics. J. Sensory Studies 22, 336–352.