doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2010.00624.

ORIGINAL
RESEARCH The effect of adding enzyme-modified cheese on sensory
and texture properties of low- and high-fat cream cheeses
MOHAMMAD A MIRI and MOHAMMAD B HABIBI NAJAFI *
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, PO Box 91775-
1163, Mashhad, Iran

The influence of enzyme-modified cheese (EMC) and fat content on sensory and texture properties of
cream cheese was investigated. Enzyme-modified cheese and fat content were set at three levels each,
and organoleptic and texture properties for all experimental cheeses were then determined. Data were
analysed using response surface methodology. Both design parameters had significant influence on sen-
sory and texture properties. The EMC did not alter hardness significantly, whereas the higher fat formula
had the higher hardness. The results indicated that the optimum level of EMC was less than 1% for high-
fat cream cheeses and at least 5% for low-fat cream cheeses.
Keywords Cream cheese, Enzyme-modified cheese, Fat, Taste panel, Texture analysis, Central compos-
ite design.

of natural flavour may be compensated by inclu-

INTRODUCTION
Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of
the relationship between diet and health and one
of the foremost concerns in this regard relates to
the consumption of fat from foodstuff, including
from cheese and other dairy products (Tunick
et al. 1993; Hennelly et al. 2006). Consequently,
marketing opportunities for lower fat cheeses exist
but such cheeses must be organoleptically accept-
able and exhibit textural properties similar to the
full fat products (Jameson 1990; Rodriguez 1998;
Hennelly et al. 2006). A serious problem in low-
fat food products, such as cream cheese, is that
fat reduction has profound effect on the final fla-
vour and texture (Yackel and Cox 1992; Wendin
et al. 2000; Brighenti et al. 2008).
Enzyme-modified cheeses (EMCs) are concen-
trated cheese flavours produced enzymatically
from dairy substrates and are designed to provide a
concentrated source of cheese flavour (Kilcawley
et al. 2006; Noronha et al. 2008). Most EMCs are
produced from cheese pastes made from immature
cheese (Noronha et al. 2008). The production of
EMCs is an important industrial activity which has
been increasing due to a greater demand for conve-
*Author for nience foods together with the health-related con-
correspondence. E-mail:
cerns regarding the amounts of fat, cholesterol and
habibi@um.ac.ir
cholesterol-producing saturated fat in traditional
 2010 Society of dairy products. This latter issue has resulted in the
Dairy Technology production of fat-free and low-fat products. A lack
sion of EMCs (Kilcawley et al. 1998). Addition of
intense cheese flavour to these products creates the
desired flavour without an increase in fat content,
as some can be added at levels of 0.1% (w ⁄ w) and
contributes less than 0.07% fat (2.28 calories) per
100 g (Kilcawley et al. 1998).
The amount of EMC used ranges from less than
1% of the formulation to a few per cent (Mosko-
witz and Noelck 1987). For a cheese ravioli filling,
2% of Romano or Parmesan cheese paste flavour
(CPF) is recommended; for a Danish cheese filling,
0.5% of cream CPF is recommended. Enzyme-
modified cheeses are particularly useful in cheese
powder formulations or in salad dressings (Mosko-
witz and Noelck 1987).
Enzyme-modified cheese provides the food
manufacturer with a strong cheese note that is cost-
effective, nutritious and a natural flavour. The
range of use of these products is limited only by
the imagination of the food scientist (Moskowitz
and Noelck 1987).
The objective of this study was to investigate the
influence of EMC and fat content on sensory and
texture properties of cream cheese.
M AT E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
Cream cheese ingredients
The commercial Cheddar EMC was obtained as a
gift from Kerry ingredients Ltd (Kerry Co.,

92 Vol 64, No 1 February 2011 International Journal of Dairy Technology

Vol 64, No 1 February 2011

Listowel, Ireland). Enzyme-modified cheese was in

Table 2 Chemical analysis of products
paste form and was stored at 4C until the day of
experiment. Pasteurised full fat milk (3.5%) and Treatment no. Total solid (%) Protein (%)
cream with 55% fat were purchased from Shirin- 1 37.05 11.3
laban Co. (Mashhad, Iran). Mesophilic starter cul- 2 37.87 12.4
ture containing Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis and 3 38.60 13.2
Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris (freeze-dried 4 42.82 9.85
DVS, CHN22) was obtained from Chr. Hansen 5 43.1 10.45
Company (Hørsholm, Denmark) and prepared 6 43.5 10.75
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. B.K. 7 42.9 10.5
powder (comprised of mono- and diglycerides 8 43 10.44
of fatty acids and sodium alginate) as a stabiliser 9 43.1 10.6
obtained from Danisco A ⁄ S (Copenhagen, 10 43.23 12
Denmark) and sodium chloride was of food grade 11 52.57 8.2
12 53.23 9.4
quality.
13 54.15 10.78

Production of flavoured cream cheeses

The cream cheeses in this investigation were pro-
duced in a random order as predicated by central temperature until the pH reached a value of 4.5.
composite design (CCD) (Table 1), where the fat The cream blend was then fed to muslin bags and
content was selected at three levels (20, 27.5 and the whey is allowed to drain over a period of
35%), and the EMC content was kept at three lev- 12 h. After whey separation, the resultant coagu-
els (0, 2.5 and 5%). A total of 13 cheese trials lum was removed from the bags into a cooker and
were produced. Table 1 shows coded and actual was constantly agitated for 30 min while the
values of variables according to the experimental temperature was held at 76C. Fat, salt (0.9%,
design. The different cream cheeses were made in w ⁄ w), stabilizers (0.3%, w ⁄ w) and EMC were
dairy pilot plant (Department of Food Science & added. Each cream cheese formula had fat and
Technology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad). EMC content as predicted by CCD (Table 1).
The whole pasteurised milk was inoculated with a After mixing, each coagulum was fed into the
mesophilic culture at 28C and incubated at this homogenizer (model FT9; Armfield, Hampshire,
UK). The coagulum was then hot packed at 70C
into plastic containers. All samples were stored at
4C until analysis (Phadungath 2005; Guinee and
Hickey 2009).
Table 1 Coded and actual values of dependent variables
for each treatment of central composite experimental Chemical analysis
design The fat content of cream cheeses was determined
Coded values Actual values by Gerber method, protein was measured by
micro-Kjeldahl and total solid content was also
Treatment no. Fat (%) EMC (%) Fat (%) EMC (%) measured according to ISIRI 1753 (ISIRI, 2002;
1 )1 )1 20 0 Table 2).
2 )1 0 20 2.5
3 )1 1 20 5 Sensory analysis
4 0 )1 27.5 0 A sensory evaluation of the cream cheeses was
5 0 0 27.5 2.5
conducted by an untrained 21-member panel. The
6 0 0 27.5 2.5
panel of assessors comprised 8 males and 13
7 0 0 27.5 2.5
females aged between 25 and 38 years, selected
8 0 0 27.5 2.5
9 0 0 27.5 2.5
from students of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
10 0 1 27.5 5 ‘subject to their passing of a general sensory apti-
11 1 )1 35 0 tude test’. All panelists were seated in separate
12 1 0 35 2.5 booths and samples were presented under a red ⁄ -
13 1 1 35 5 green light to avoid visual bias. The samples were
EMC, enzyme-modified cheese.
assessed for odour, taste, texture and overall
acceptability on a 5-point hedonic scale.

 2010 Society of Dairy Technology 93

 Vol 64, No 1 February 2011

five replications of the centre points and the four

star points, that is, points having for one factor an
axial distance to the centre of ±a, whereas the
other factor is at level 0. The axial distance a was
chosen to be 1.00. A centre point is a point in
which all variables are set at their mid-value
(Montgomery 1997; Ruguo Hu 1999; Quanhong
and Caili 2005; Brighenti 2009). To estimate the
optimal point, a third-order polynomial function
was fitted to the experimental results.

Data analysis
Figure 1 A standard texture profile analysis diagram (adapted
Design-Expert 6, Trial version was used for the
from Mohebbi and Ghoddusi 2008).
regression analysis of the experimental data
obtained. The quality of the fit of the polynomial
Texture profile analysis model equation was expressed by the coefficient of
Texture measurements were carried out using the determination R2, and its statistical significance
Universal Texture Analyser (QTS Texture Analy- checked by an F-test (Montgomery 1997). The sig-
ser; CNS, Farnell, UK) connected to a computer nificance of the regression coefficient was tested
programmed with Texture ProTM texture analysis by a t-test. The level of significance was given as
software. A flat rod probe (25 mm in diameter) values of P > F less than 0.1. A differential calcu-
was attached to a 2 kg compression load, while the lation was then employed for predicting the opti-
target value was set at 10 mm with the speed of mum point.
0.5 cm ⁄ min. Samples (50 g) were placed into glass
Petri dishes (13 cm D · 1.5 cm deep). Probe was
R E S U LT S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
set to penetrate the samples to a depth of 0.8 cm.
Texture profile analysis resulted in the calculation Sensory analysis
of instrumental hardness (the peak force measured
during the first compression cycle, F2), instrumen- Fat content
tal adhesiveness (the negative force area for first Table 3 shows the polynomial models describing
bite, representing the work necessary to pull the odour, taste, texture and total acceptability deter-
compression probe away from the sample, based mined by panelists.
A3), and instrumental gumminess (the product of The prediction models obtained for the sensory
hardness times cohesiveness, F2* A2 ⁄ A1), where properties – odour, taste, texture and total
A1 and A2 are areas under the compression of the
first bite and the second bite curve, respectively
(Figure 1) (Steffe 1996).
Table 3 Polynomial models and analysis of variance
results for sensory properties
Statistical analysis
Response surface methodology was applied to Coefficient
develop an empirical model of the process and to
Total
obtain a more precise estimate of the optimum Source Odour Taste Texture acceptability
operating conditions for the factors involved, using
Model 3.28*** 3.33*** 3.89*** 3.21***
the second design called a CCD, one of the most
A 0.26*** 0.47*** 0.42*** 0.47***
important experimental designs used in process
B )0.29*** )0.12ns 0.15ns )0.20**
optimization studies (Montgomery 1997; Ruguo AB )0.20** )0.25* – )0.27**
Hu 1999). Enzyme-modified cheese and fat con- Residual – – – –
tent were two factors involved to study their Lack of fit – – – –
effects on texture and sensory properties of cream Pure error – – – –
cheese. In order to describe the nature of the Total – – – –
response surface in the optimum region, a CCD R2 0.94 0.83 0.91 0.89
with five-coded levels was performed. For the two ns, nonsignificant; *P £ 0.05, **P £ 0.01,
factors, this design was made up a full 22 factorial ***P £ 0.001.
design with its four cube points, augmented with

94  2010 Society of Dairy Technology

Vol 64, No 1 February 2011

(a) (b)

4.0 4.2

3.8 3.8

Odour
3.5 3.4

Taste
3.2 3.1

2.9 2.7

5.00 5.00
35.00 35.00
3.75 3.75
31.25 31.25
2.50 2.50
27.50 27.50
B: EMC 1.25 23.75 B: EMC 1.25 23.75
A: Fat A: Fat
0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00

(c) (d)
4.5 4.2

4.2 3.8

Total acceptability
Texture

3.9 3.4

3.6 3.0

3.3 2.7

5.00 5.00
35.00 35.00
3.75 3.75
31.25 31.25
2.50 2.50
27.50 27.50
B: EMC 1.25 B: EMC 1.25 23.75
23.75 A: Fat
A: Fat
0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00

(e) (f)

57.02 35.90
Adhesiveness

45.83 30.55

25.21
Hardness

34.64

23.45 19.87

12.26 14.52

5.00 5.00
35.00 35.00
3.75 3.75
31.25 31.25
2.50 2.50
27.50 27.50
1.25 23.75 B: EMC 1.25 23.75
B: EMC A: Fat A: Fat
0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00

(g)
17.67

14.38
Gumminess

11.08

7.78

4.49

5.00
35.00
3.75
31.25
2.50
27.50
B: EMC 1.25 23.75
A: Fat
0.00 20.00

Figure 2 Response surface plots for the effect of EMC and fat on odour (a), taste (b), texture (c), total acceptability (d), hard-
ness (e), adhesiveness (f) and gumminess (g).

 2010 Society of Dairy Technology 95

 Vol 64, No 1 February 2011

acceptability – were positively affected by fat con-

Table 4 Polynomial models and analysis of variance
tent. The response surface plots that were derived
results for texture properties
from the prediction models showed similar trends
for the effect of variations on sensory properties Coefficient
(Figure 2a–d). Source Hardness Adhesiveness Gumminess
As fat content was decreased, all sensory
Model 21.23*** 17.73*** 7.92***
properties were also decreased. One of the rea-
A 19.7*** 5.95*** 4.01**
sons why low-fat and high-fat samples are per-
B 0.46ns )3.78** 1.61*
ceived to be different is that they behave A2 15.72 6.27*** 3.05**
differently in the mouth; both with respect to B2 )2.37 1.82* )1.51ns
flavour release and structure break down (Wen- AB 1.39 )0.34ns 2.58***
din et al. 2000). Generally, fat replacers are Residual – –
being used to compensate such alteration in Lack of fit – –
low-fat products. Results obtained in this study Pure error –
confirm that the inclusion of EMC in the for- Total –
mulation of low-fat cream cheeses enhance the R2 0.98 0.97 –
mouth feeling attributes. ns, nonsignificant; *P £ 0.05, **P £ 0.01,
***P £ 0.001.
Enzyme-modified cheese
The prediction models obtained for the sensory
properties – odour and total acceptability – were
negatively affected by EMC (Table 3). A signifi- between fat and EMC (Table 4). No significant
cant (P < 0.05) negative interaction between fat (P < 0.05) prediction models were obtained for the
and EMC was observed for odour, taste and total cohesiveness, which probably indicated that the
acceptability. This might be due to the fact that the selected variables did not affect this textural char-
type of EMC being used in the formulation of acteristic.
cream cheeses was the one made by high lipolysis. The response surface plots that were derived
However, optimum flavour quality appeared to be from the prediction models showed similar trends
associated with the product made using the EMC for the effect of fat and EMC on hardness, adhe-
with lower level of total free fatty acids. Positive siveness and gumminess (Figure 2e–g).
interaction was observed for texture (Table 3) Significant (P < 0.01) positive effects of fat and
which indicated that these two variables (fat and the quadratic term of fat were observed for all pre-
EMC) are affected by each other. At lower fat con- dicted models (Table 4). So, it was the main influ-
tent, increasing the EMC, increased the taste and encing experimental parameter. This was in
acceptability scores while at higher fat content, accordance with results obtained by Muir et al.
increasing the EMC, decreased these attributes (1997), who studied cheese spreads. In all EMC
(Figure 2b, d). Cream cheeses manufactured with cream cheeses, hardness increased by increasing
high fat–high EMC exhibited the highest texture fat (Figure 2e) and it is due to its higher fat content
values by sensory analyses (Figure 2a), because as after homogenisation, fat globules are partly
high-fat cream cheeses were more compact, less covered with casein and participate in the aggrega-
watery and less granular. Reduction in odour tion of casein particles reinforcing the structure
scores by EMC could also be due to high levels of of these products (Lucey et al. 1998; Brighenti
short chain fatty acids arising from lipolysis (Noro- et al. 2008). In high-fat cream cheeses (35%),
nha et al. 2008). hardness increased with increasing EMC (Fig-
ure 2e). However, there was no evidence for
Textural properties change at hardness of low-fat cream cheeses by
The hardness values were positively affected by fat EMC.
and the squared term of fat. There were similar results between total solids
The prediction model obtained for adhesiveness and hardness, as increasing fat and EMC resulted
indicated that this property was positively affected in an increase in total solid values and then hard-
by fat, the quadratic terms of fat and EMC, and ness.
negatively affected by EMC alone (Table 4). Cream cheeses with higher adhesiveness were
Gumminess was positively affected by fat, obtained at higher fat and using lower EMC. The
EMC, the quadratic term of fat and interaction lower adhesiveness of high fat–high EMC as

96  2010 Society of Dairy Technology

Vol 64, No 1 February 2011
compared to the high fat–low EMC could be due
to the higher content of protein due to the higher
EMC content. With increasing protein, more pro-
tein contributes in network structure and causes fir-
mer product. The high fat–low EMC cream
cheeses were the most adhesiveness (Figure 2f).
As fat increased the large fat droplets were found,
so the largest fat droplets were found in samples
with the highest fat content (Everett 2007). This
might be due to high fat content itself, and samples
with high fat had the most adhesiveness (Wendin
et al. 2000; Kealy 2006).
The lower adhesiveness of high fat–high EMC
as compared to the high fat–low EMC could be
due to their higher protein content due to higher
EMC.
Cream cheeses manufactured from curd formu-
lated with high fat and low EMC had higher adhe-
siveness values than the low fat–low EMC cream
cheeses and this could only be due to high fat con-
tent (Figure 2f).
A significant (P < 0.05) positive interaction
between EMC and fat was observed for gummi-
ness (Table 4). This significant interaction indi-
cated that the effect of EMC and fat were not
independent from each other. At higher and lower
EMC, increasing fat increased gumminess of prod-
ucts (Figure 2g). At higher fat, increasing the EMC
gave products that were more gumminess while at
lower fat, increasing the EMC did not have any
special effect on gumminess (Figure 2g).
CONCLUSION
The EMC and fat influenced the sensory and tex-
tural properties of the cream cheese. Reduction of
fat content decreased all sensory properties and
texture properties. Enzyme-modified cheese
increased sensory properties of low-fat cream
cheeses, but decreased for high-fat cream cheeses.
Enzyme-modified cheese had significant influence
on adhesiveness and gumminess. The optimised
amount of EMC ranges from less than 1% for
high-fat cream cheese and more than 5% for low-
fat cream cheeses.
REFERENCES
Brighenti M (2009) Texture and functionality of cream cheese,
pp. 86–106. PhD Thesis. Wisconsin-Madison University,
Madison, USA.
Brighenti M, Govindasamy-Lucey S, Lim K, Nelson K and
Lucey JA (2008) Characterization of the rheological, tex-
tural, and sensory properties of samples of commercial
 2010 Society of Dairy Technology
US cream cheese with different fat contents. Journal of
Dairy Science 91 4501–4517.
Everett D W (2007) Microstructure of natural cheeses. In
Structure of Dairy Products, pp. 199. Tamime A, ed.
Singapore: Blackwell: Society of Dairy Technology.
Guinee T P and Hickey M (2009) Cream cheese and related
products. In Dairy Fats and Related Products, pp. 195–
245. Tamime A, ed. Singapore: Wiley Publishing Ltd.
Hennelly P J, Dunne P G, O Sullivan M and O Riordan E D
(2006) Textural, rheological and microstructural properties
of imitation cheese containing inulin. Journal of Food
Engineering 75 388–395.
ISIRI (2002) Cheese and Process Cheese. Institute of
Standards and Industrial Research of Iran Number 1753.
URL http://www.isiri.org/std/1753.htm. Accessed July
2009.
Jameson G W (1990) Cheese with less fat. Australian Journal
of Dairy Technology 11 93–98.
Kealy T (2006) Application of liquid and solid rheological
technologies to the textural characterization of semi solid
foods. Food Research International 39 265–267.
Kilcawley K N, Wilkinson M G and Fox P F (1998) Enzyme
modified cheese: review. International Dairy Journal 8
1–10.
Kilcawley K N, Wilkinson M G and Fox P F (2006) A novel
two stage process for the production of enzyme modified
cheese. Food Research International 39 619–627.
Lucey J A, Munro P A and Singh H (1998) Rheological prop-
erties and microstructure of acid milk gels as affected by
fat content and heat treatment. Journal of Food Science
63 660–664.
Mohebbi M and Ghoddusi H B (2008) Rheological and sen-
sory evaluation of yoghurts containing probiotic cultures.
Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology 10 147–
155.
Montgomery D C (1997) Response surface methods and other
approaches to process optimization. In Design and Analy-
sis of Experiments, pp. 427–510. Montgomery D C, ed.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Moskowitz G J and Noelck S (1987) Enzyme modified cheese
technology. Journal of Dairy Science 70 1761–1769.
Muir D D, Banks J M and Hunter E A (1997) A comparison
of the flavour and texture of Cheddar cheese of factory or
farmhouse origin. International Dairy Journal 7 479–
485.
Noronha N, Cronin D, O’Riordan D and O’Sullivan M
(2008) Flavouring reduced fat high fiber cheese products
with enzyme modified cheeses (EMCs). Food Chemistry
110 973–978.
Phadungath C (2005) Cream cheese products: a review. Jour-
nal of Science Technology 27 191–199.
Quanhong L and Caili F (2005) Application of response sur-
face methodology for extraction optimization of germi-
nant pumpkin seeds protein. Food Chemistry 92 701–706.
Rodriguez J (1998) Recent advances in the development of
low fat cheeses. Trends in Food Science and Technology 9
249–254.
97
 Vol 64, No 1 February 2011
Ruguo Hu (1999) Food Product Design: A Computer-Aided
Statical Approach, pp. 35–114. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press LLC.
Steffe J F (1996) Rheological Methods in Food Process Engi-
neering, pp. 70–90. East Lancing, MI, USA: Freeman
Press.
Tunick M H, Mackey K L, Shieh J J, Smith P W, Cooke P
and Malin E L (1993) Rheology and microstructure of
98  2010 Society of Dairy Technology
low fat Mozzarella cheese. International Dairy Journal 3
649–662.
Wendin K, Langton M, Caous L and Hall G (2000) Dynamic
analyses of sensory and microstructural properties of
cream cheese. Food Chemistry 71 363–378.
Yackel W and Cox C (1992) Application of starch-based fat
replacers. Food Technology 46 146–148.