FORMULATION AND SENSORY EVALUATION OF A

FRUIT PUNCH CONTAINING WATERI\/I’ELON JUICE

S. S. HUOR, E. M. AH/WED, P. V. RAO, and J. A. CORNELL

ABSTRACT Table 1 - Treatment combinations

The objective of this work was to formulate and test the acceptabil- Juice proportions
ity of a fruit punch containing watermelon juice. Frozen concen-
trated watermelon, pineapple, and orange juices, sugar and citric TRT
acid were used to formulate five categories of fruit punches contain-
ing each lOO%, 50%, 20%, and 10% juices. The 10% juices had 15: 1 1 1 .oo 0.00 0.00
and 25:l Brix:acid ratios while the others had 15:l Brix:acid ratio. 2 0.65 0.35 0.00
Optimum proportions of juices were determined, using mixture re- 3 0.30 0.70 0.00
sponse surface methodology, laboratory sensory evaluation, and 4 0.30 0.35 0.35
small scale consumer tests. Results indicated a highly acceptable 5 0.30 0.00 0.70
product could be formulated within each category of punch, and in 6 0.65 0.00 0.35
each case, up to 80% watermelon could be used in the formulation. ,7 0.54 0.23 0.23
8 0.80 0.10 0.10
9 0.40 0.40 0.20
10 0.40 0.20 0.40
INTRODUCTION
xy = watermelon; x; = pineapple; xf = orange
WATERMELON (Citrullus lunatus) has been known to
Americans for centuries. It remains primarily an outdoor
fresh fruit delight (Anonymous, 1975) despite increasing
demand for fruit juices. Frequently, due to surpluses of EXPERIMENTAL
watermelon in Florida the fruit are left in the field to rot.
Red-fleshed watermelons provide an attractive color in Materials
addition to a refreshingly sweet juice. The juice of ‘Charles- All juices were reconstituted from concentrates. Watermelon
ton Gray’ watermklon, the stardard variety of Florida, con- juice concentrate was obtained from ‘Charleston Gray’ watermelbns
tains a high content of soluble solids (9.8’Brix). It could be donated by the Watermelon Growers Association at Lakeland, Fla.,
and processed at the Agricultural Research & Education Cefiter at
concentrated by thermally accelerated short time evapora- Lake Alfred, Fla. A pilot .model of thermally accelerated short time
tion and the concentrate stored at freezing temperatures for evaporator was used to concentrate the juice to 65” Brix.(Huor et
at least 2 yr without significant change in color and flavor al., 1980). Pineapple and grapefruit juice concentrate were provided
(Huor et al., 1980). by the Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., Frostproof, Fla., under the brand name
Watermelon juice has been processed in the past. A weak of Golden Nip. Orange juice concentrate was donated by the Birds
organic acid was added to lower the pH of the juice to 4.0 Eye Division of General Foods, Winter Haven, Fla. All concentrates
before canning or bottling and thermal processing at tem- were stored at -21°C.
peratures ranging from 87.8-1OO’C. The final products, Methods
containing pulp solids ranging from 0.06-10.27% exhibited Preliminary screening test. Watermelon (W), pineapple (P), OI-
stable suspensions and had good natural color, flavor, and ange (0), and grapefruit (G) were reconstituted to 12.4” Brix and
aroma (Yawger, 1942). More recently, Russian investigators mixed to produce four juice combinations, WPO, WOG, WPG, and
recommended the use of fruit products having high natural WPGO, each containing equal proportions of juices and adjusted to
acidity such as plum puree or apple paste to increase the 15:l Brix:acid ratio. A ranking preference test (Larmond, 1970)
sourness of watermelon juice (Gusina et al., 1971; Gusina was conducted, using five well trained panelists and a 4-point scale
with 1 as most preferred.
and Trostinskaya, 1974). Formulation of a fruit punch. Watermelon, pineapple, and or-
The useful effect of watermelon juice has also been rec- ange juice concentrates were used as primary ingredients of a fruit
ognized in the United States of America. Saclcett (1975) punch. Amounts of juice in various punches were: lOO%, 50%, 20%,
reported the existence of “watermelon banks” in Texas and lo%, each having 15:l Brix:acid ratio, and 10% having 25:l Brix:
Colorado for people having kidney problems. With the acid ratio. The 100% juices were prepared by reconstituting all con-
availability of modern processing equipment and a variety centrates to 12.4” Brix, mixing them together in proper proportions
of fruit juices containing high natural acidity, it is possible as determined by the experimental design selected for this study,
to produce a highly desirable product. The objective of this and adjusting the titratable acidity (TA) to 0.827 with citric acid, so
study was to formulate a fruit punch containing water- that the Brix:acid ratio (B:+) was 15:l. The 50%; 20%, and 10%
melon juice and one or two other fruit juices and test its juices were prepared similarly. They contained 2, 5, and 10 times
less fruit sugar and acidity, respectively. Therefore, enough sugar
acceptability by laboratory and small scale consumer tests. and citric acid were added to raise the Brix and TA to 12.4 and
0.827, respectively. Brix was kept at 12.4, but TA was lowered to
0.496 for the lo%-25:l juice.
Laboratory acceptabi!ity tests. Ten treatments were compared
within each category of juice in a balanced incomplete block deSign
and rated for acceptability on a 9-point hedonic scale. Treatr’nents
Authors Huor and Ahmed are with the Food Science & Human were replicated nine times over 18 blocks, represented in this case
Nutrition Dept., Univ. of Florida, Gainesvitle, FL 32611. Authors by panelists. each pair of treatmerits was compared four times. This
Rao and Cornell are with the Statistics Dept., Univ. of Florida, design fitted plan 11.17 (t = 10, k = 5, r = 9, b = 18, y = 4)‘of
Gainesville, FL 32611. Cochran and Cox (1957). A mixture response surface model, using
the Scheffe’ second degree polynomial, was used to fit the treat-
0022-I 147/80/0004-0809$02.25/O ment means and predict the sensory responses (Scheffe’, 1958;
01980 Institute of Food Technologists Snee, 1971; Cornell and Ott, 1975). The ten treatment combina-
tions used (Table 1) were selected to cover the entire range pf the

Volume 45 (1980)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-809

 Table 2-Ranking preference of various punches containing equal Table d-Mean acceptability scores of fruit punch as influenced by
proportions of watermelon (W), pineapple (P), orange (0) and composition and juice concentration in the punch
grapefruit (GI Composition Juice cone (%‘I
Treat- w p o
Punches ment 100 50 20 - 10 - 10
no. % 15:l 25:l
Panplict WPO WOG WPG WPGO
1 100 00 00 5.47 5.27 5.28 5.18 4.60
A Ia 2 4 3
2 65 35 00 5.79 6.34 6.23 5.80 6.05
B 1 3 2 4
3 30 70 00 6.12 6.74 5.83 6.58 6.28
C 1 2 3 4 4 30 35 35 7.17a 6.94a 6.03 5.65 6.18
D 1 3 2 4 5 30 00 70 7.24a 6.92a 7.23a 6.73 7.05a
E 1 3 2 4 6 65 00 35 6.67 6.64 6.30 6.48 6.18
Mean 1.0 2.6 2.6 3.8 7 54 23 23 6.69 6.49 5.93 6.95a 6.08
a Rank based on a 4-point scale, with 1 = most preferred and 4 = 8 80 10 10 6.19 5.99 6.25 7.03a 5.93
least preferred. 9 40 40 20 6.42 5.74 6.45 6.15 5.43
10 40 20 40 6.67 6.59 6.25 6.23 6.00
a Means significantly higher than those of treatment number 1 with-
triangular simplex over which the surface was represented. The frac- in each juice concentrate, at the 0.05 level. Each rnean is an aver-
tional proportions of watermelon (x, ), pineapple (x,), and orange age of three replicates.
(x,) in each treatment must add up to 1.
The objective was to maximize watermelon utilization; hence a
minimum of 30% watermelon was set for each treatment. Therefore,
the maximum possible proportions of watermelon, pineapple, and combination was preferred over other combinations. This
orange, that could be assigned to any of the treatments, were in combination was used in the present study as the basis for
proportions of lOO%:O%:O%,30%:70%:0%, and 30%:0%:70%, for
the formulation and sensory acceptance experiments.
watermelon:pineapple:orange, respectively.
To place the proportion of these three components on the same Laboratory acceptability tests
scale (0 to l), a transformation of data was made, using the follow- Observed means of acceptability scores assigned to each
ing formula: of the ten treatments within each of the five types of juices
tested are shown in Table 3. Treatment 1 of all juice con-
centration types containing 100% watermelon (W) received
the lowest scores. The mean score for treatment 1 was sig-
nificantly lower (0.05 level) than the mean score for treat-
Components xi, xi, and xi, known as pseudo-components were ment 5, containing 30% watermelon (W) and 70% orange
used in the Scheffe’prediction model:
(0), with all juice concentrations, except the 10% juice
q=b,x; +b,x; +b,x; tb, 2x;x; +b, ,x:x; +b, ,x;x; with 15:l B:A ratio. The treatment 1 mean score was also
lower than the mean score for treatment 4 (30% W:35%
Small scale consumer acceptability tests. Samples were placed in P:35% 0) of 100% and 50% juices with 15:l B:A ratios.
lidded plastic cups for small-scale consumer tests. Coded cups were Also, the mean scores for treatment 1 were lower than the
transported to testing areas in plastic foam chests packed with ice. scores given to treatment 7 (54% W:23% P:23% 0) and
Each of 60 panelists was presented two samples and asked to state treatment 8 (80% W:lO% P:lO% 0) of 10% juice with 15: 1
which one of the samples he/she preferred or if there were no pref- B:A ratio. However, the mean for treatment 1 was not signif-
erence. Three categories of juices were tested; 100% and 50% with icantly different from the scores given to the rest of the
15:l ratio and 10% with 25:l ratio. Three treatments were com-
pared within a paired-comparison test according to the method of treatments.
Rao and Kupper (1967). Each panelist was considered as a replicate, A significantly higher score was received by treatment 8,
thus each treatment was replicated 60 times. Data were analyzed containing 80% watermelon, 10% pineapple, and 10% or-
with a computer terminal, using APL language. Treatments, one ange than other combinations within the 10% juice with
from each of the three categories of juices based on the probability 15:l B:A ratio group. It seemed to have a ISweeter taste
of preference, were compared in a final small-scale consumer test, provided by watermelon which contains a high ratio of
using the same procedure as before.
fructose to glucose and sucrose (Khattak et al., 1965;
RESULTS & DISCUSSION Myskin and Fokin, 1974), and some balance of sourness
from other components. This formulation appealed to the
Preliminary screeining tests laboratory panel even though its juice, concentration was
The results given in Table 2 showed clearly that WPO low (10%). This observation was supported by the highest
-Continued on page 812

Table 4-Parameter estimate+ and coefficients of determination (R’) values for quadratic (Q) and linear IL) polynomial models for the
prediction of sensory responses (0) for different juice concentrations and Brix:acid ratios
Parameter estimates
Juice -
, I
cone 0:A Model’ Xl X3 x; x; XI x3 4x3 R=

100% 15:l Q 5.55 6.11 7.20 -0.02 1.24 1.20 0.93

L 5.65 6.23 7.45 0.87
50% 15:l Q 5.35 6.67 7.00 0.56 1.57 -1.35 0.70
L 5.57 6.35 6.98 0.61
20% 15:l Q 5.38 5.88 7.18 2.69 0.06 -1.86 0.84
L 5.67 5.91 6.95 0.59
10% 15:l Q 5.39 6.45 6.59 1.59 4.00 -2.73 0.52
L 5.96 6.24 6.63 0.10
10% 25:l Q 4.73 6.28 7.01 1.95 2.10 -2.o:! 0.96
L 5.20 6.24 6.99 0.79
a Estimates b,, b,, b,, b,,, b,,, b,, for pseudo-components x,‘, xi, xi, xix:, x: xi, and xixj, respectively.

gl&JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- Volume 45 (19801

 FRUIT PUNCH CONTAINING WATERMELON JUICE. ..

FIG. I. 100% (15:l) juice FIG. 4. 10% (15:l) juice

X’,

x;
FIG. 2. 50% (l5:l) juice FIG.5 10% (254) juice

Fig. I--&Quadratic (dashed lines) and linear (solid lines) polynomi-

al model contours of predicted equal sensory responses for mixtUreS
of pseudowatermelon (XI I, pseudopineapple (xi:!, and pseudo-
orange (x;) components for different juice concentrations and Brix:
acid ratios.

FIG. 3. 20% (l5:I) juice

Volume 45 (1980)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-87 1 I

 Table 5-Smalkcale consumer tests with 100% (15: 1) juice Table &Small-scale consumer tests with 50% (15: 1 J iuice
Treatment Probability of preferencea Probability of Treatment Probability of preferencea Probability of
pairs A R I: no areference pairs A B C no preference
AB 0.44 0.40 0.16 AB 0.49 0.48 0.03
AC”* 0.19 0.70 0.11 AC 0.50 0.47 0.03
EC”” 0.17 0.71 0.12 BC 0.50 0.48 0.02
a A = 0.30 W:O.70 P; B = 0.30 WzO.70 0; C = 0.54 W:O.23 P:O.23 a A = 0.30 WzO.70 P; B = 0.30 WzO.70 0; C = 0.54 W:O.23 P:O.23 0.
0.
l * Significant at 0.01 level

Table b-Small-scale consumer tests with

Treatment Probability of preferencea Probability of
Table 7-Small-scale consumer tests with 10% (25: 1) juice pairs A B C no preference
Treatment Probability of preferencea Probability of
AB 0.46 0.48 0.06
pairs A B C no preference
AC 0.56 0.38 0.06
AB 0.43 0.50 0.07 BC 0.57 0.37 0.06
AC 0.39 0.54 0.07
a A = 100% (15:l) juice = 0.54 W:O.23 P:O.23 0; EL = 50% (15:l)
BC 0.42 0.51 0.07
juice = 0.54 W:O.23 P:O23 0; C = 10% (25:l) juice = 0.54 W:O.23
= A = 0.65 W:O.35 P; B = 0.65 W:O.35 0; C = 0.54 WrO.23 P:O.23 0 P:O.23 0.

score received by treatment 5 within the 10% (25:l) juice
group, whose B:A had to be increased to be as well ac-
cepted as 100, 50, and 20% juices.
Treatment 1, which contained only watermelon juice
was less acceptable than any other treatment containing
pineapple and/or orange juice in addition to watermelon
juice. This could be due to the fact that citric acid used to
adjust the B:A ratios did not impart the appropriate sour
taste to watermelon juice. Gusina et al. (1971) recom-
mended addition of products having high natural acidity,
such as plum puree for satisfactory processing and accepta-
bility.
Based on these combinations, any type of juice, be it
10% or lOO%, can be as well accepted as another, provided
the formulation (proportion of juices used, and amount of
sugar and acid added) is appropriate. Juices with a B:A
ratio greater than 15: 1 are required for 10% juices, while
those containing more than 80% watermelon are not recom-
mended.
The response to other possible treatment combinations
were predicted by the Scheffe’ linear and quadratic poly-
nomial models. Parameter estimates and their goodness of
fit for each type of juice are given in Table 4. Contour plots
of constant estimated response (Fig. l-5) were constructed
using both the linear and quadratic models. The contours
are in this case,superimposed for purpose of comparison.
Contours given by the quadratic or complete model (Q)
were almost linear for 100% juice with 15 : 1 B: A ratio (Fig.
1). This was expected because the coefficients of the cross-
product terms were very small. This means there was very
little synergism or evidence of any binary effects due to the
blending of watermelon and pineapple, watermelon and or-
ange, and pineapple and orange. The Q model contours in
this case almost coincided with the linear or reduced model
(L) contours so the Q model would be replaced by the
linear model. Coefficients of determination (R*) of the Q
and L models were 0.93 and 0.87, respectively (Table 4).
The general increase in responses converged toward orange,
with maximum at 70% orange and 30% watermelon. The
lowest response was at xi = 100% watermelon.
The Q model contours provide more detail for other
juice concentrations (Pig. 2-5). For example, the Q model
contours showed a median surface, which slopes up or
down in a certain direction instead of showing a smooth
surface sloping ,up toward 70% orange, as in the case of L
models, However, the L model contours could represent the
Q model contours in all cases, considering the fact that the
differences were small, except in 10% (15: 1) juice, where
the maximum response was not at 70% orange as indicated
by L model contours but at some other place along the
watermelon-orange edge (xi - xi). The coefficient of de-
termination of the L model for this juice was only 0.1
(Table 4).
A model having the highest coefficient of determination
should be used in formulation work, if a computer is avail-
able and if one is interested only in predicting optimum
response from a set of factors. Such procedures as stepwise
regression can be used for selecting the best prediction
equation.
Contour plots are very useful in fruit juice formulation
because they show possible combinations producing the
same response and thus provide alternative products of
equal acceptability. For example, the manufacturer would
make a competitive product by using more of the cheaper
ingredients and the most efficient conditions to manufac-
ture a product of equal acceptability. Thus he would truly
serve the consumers through both lower price and good-
quality product if he could do it without sacrificing nutri-
tional quality.
Small-scale consumer acceptability tests
Only three categories of juices were used, due to their
popularity and the availability of resources. Three compara-
tively good treatments within each category of juices, based
on laboratory acceptability tests were used for the con-
sumer tests.
Treatment C containing 54% watermelon, 23% pineapple
and 23% orange for 100% juice, 15: 1 ratio was most pre-
ferred (Table 5). Its probability of preference was 70 to
71% over treatments A and B. Treatments A. and B were
not significantly different from each other, but were highly
significantly (P = 0.01) different from C. In all cases,
1 l-16% of the consumers reported no preference between
the pairs of samples tested.
Treatments A, B, and C for 50% (15:l) juices, contain-
ing 0.30 W:O.70 P, 0.30 W:O.70 0, and 0.54 W10.23 P:O.23
0, respectively, were not different (Table 6). Treatment
combinations were rearranged in order to conform with
model predictions and verified with a larger panel (120
judgements). The probability of no preference ranged from
2-3%. Fewer judges than in the case of 100% (15: 1) juices
showed no preference between pairs of samples. Flavor
notes were probably more easily detected at lower juice
concentrations. Treatment C containing up to 54% water-

81%JOURNAL Oi FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 45 (1980)

 FRUIT PUNCH CONTAINING WATERMELON JUICE. ..

melon was not significantly different from the predicted Cornell, J.A. and Ott, L. 1975. The use of gradients to aid in the
best treatment B containing 70% orange. interpretation of mixture response surfaces. Technometrics
17(4j: 409.
Treatments A, B, and C for 10% (25: 1) juices, contain- Gusina, G.B., Markh, Z.A:, Perlova. N.D., Bogdanova. Z.N... and
ing 0.65 W:O.35 P, 0.65 W:O.35 0, and 0.54 W:O.23 P:O.23 Kotova. K.S. 1971. Dietetic juices made from cucurbitaceous
fruits. Konserv Ovoshchesush. Prom. 26(10): 10. [In Chem.
0, respectively, were not significantly different (Table 7). Abstr. (1972) 76(g): 57922.1
Treatment combinations were rearranged for the same rea- Gusina. G.B. and Trostinskaya. L.O. 1974. Watermelon juice and
pulp. Konserv. i Ovoshchesush. Prom. 3: 17. [In Food Sci. Tech-
son as in the case of 50% (15: 1) juice and a few judges nol. Abstr. (1974) 6(12): 2020.1
showed no preference among the paired samples tested. Huor. S.S.. Ahmed. E.M., and Carter. R.D. 1980. Concentration of
The best treatment from 100% (15:l) juices and the w&i-melon juice. J. Food Sci. 45: In press.
Khattak, J.N.. Hamdy, M.K., and Powers. J.J. 1965. Utilization of
treatments from 50% (15: 1) and 10% (25:l) juices having watermelon juice. 1. Alcoholic fermentation. Food Technol.
similar proportions of W:P:O juices were compared in a 19(S): 1284.
Larmond, E. 1970. Methods for sensory evaluation of food. Canada
final test (Table 8). No significant difference was found in Dept. of Agriculture, Publication 1284. Food Research Institute,
the preference ratings among pairs of juice treatments. Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada.
Myskin, M.M. and Fokin, N.D. 1974. Frozen watermelon pulp. Kon-
It can be said as a general conclusion that the combina- serv. Ovoshchesuah. Prom. 1: 10. [In Food Sci. Technol. Abstr.
tion containing 54% watermelon, 23% pineapple and 23% (1974) 6(12): 1771.1
orange for fruit punches containing 100, 50, and 10% juices Rae. P.V. and Kupper, L.L. 1967. Ties in paired comparison experi-
ments: A generalization of the Bradley Terry model. J. Am.
is acceptable. Other combinations containing up to 65 and Statis. Association 62: 194.
even 80% watermelon of the juice mixture were also ac- Sack&t. C. 1975. Fruit and Veeetable Facts and Points. United
Fresh Fruit & Vegetables Asso&tion. Washington, D.C.
cepted. A 10% juice was as well accepted as a 50 or 100% Scheffe’, H. 1958. Experiments with mixtures. J. Roy. Stat. Sot.
juice, provided the formulation was appropriate. The differ- 20(2): 344.
Snee. R.D. 1971. Design and analysis of mixture experiments. J.
ence is more easily detected at a lower juice concentration Quality Technol. 3(4): 159.
than at a higher juice concentration, thus a more careful Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie. J.H. 1960. Analysis of variance. 1: The
dosage must be exercised while mixing fruit punches con- one way classification. In “Principles and Procedures of Statis-
tics.” p. 99. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
taining less fruit juice. A higher Brix:acid ratio is also re- Yawger. E.S. Jr. 1942. Preparing watermelon juice for packaging in
quired for dilute juices. commercial containers such as cans or bottles. U.S. Pat. 2. 298,
328.
M S received Q/20/79: revised 12110179: accepted 12115179.
REFERENCES
Presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food
Anonymous. 1975. The vegetable industries. In “Agricultural Technologists, St. Louis, MO., June X0-13, 1979.
Growth in an Urban Age.” p. 51. Institute of Food and Agricul- Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No.
tural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 1898.
Barr, A.J., Goodnight, J.H., SalI. J.P., and Helwig, J.T. 1976. “A We thank the Florida Department of Citrus for permission to use
User’s Guide to SAS 76.” SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, N.C. the pilot model of the thermally accelerated short time evaporator,
Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. 1957. Balanced and partially balanced and Mr. R.D. Carter for his kind assistance in preparing the water-
incomplete block designs. In “Experimental Designs,” 2nd ed.. melon concentrate.
P. 439. Wiley Publications in Statistics, New York. N.Y.

COTTAGE CHEESE WHEY IN FROZEN DESSERTS. . . From page 808

standards of identity. Fed. Reg. 25(145): July 27. Potter, F.E. and Williams, D.H. 1949. Use of whey in sherbets. Ice
Food & Drug Administration. 1977. Revision of standards of iden- Cream Rev. 32(12): 44.
titv for ice cream. ice milk. sherbet. and water ices. Fed. Rea. Rosenberger. W.S. and Nielsen, V.H. 1955. Spray dried whey pow-
42170): Apr. 12. der in ice cream mixes. Amer. Milk Rev. 17(7): 50.
Food & Drug Administration. 1978. Standards of identity for fro- Stull, J.W., Angus, R.C., Taylor, R.R., Swartz, A.N., and Daniel,
zen desserts: confirmation of effective date of one provision and T.C. 1974. Rich flavor discrimination in ice cream by theory of
revocation of certain stayed provisions. Fed. Reg. 43(24): Feb. signal detection. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 1423.
3. Stull. J.W.. Taylor. R.R.. Angus, R.C.. and Daniel, T.C. 1977. Ac-
Goss. E.F. 1953. “Techniques of Dairy Plant Testing.” Iowa State ceptability of a whey-based quiescently frozen novelty. J. Food
College Press, Ames, Ia. Protection 40: 158.
GUY. E.J.. Tamsma. A.. Kontson. A.. and Holsinger. V.H. 1974. Swartz, A.N. 1973. Development and marketing new dairy based
-Lactase-treated milk .provides base .to develop products for lac- foods. MS. thesis, The University of Arizona. Tucson.
tose-intolerant populations. Food Prod. Dev. E(8): 50. Teles, F.F.F., Young, C.K.$ and Stull, J.W. 1978. A method for
GUY, E.J.. Vettel, H.E., and Pallansch, M.J. 1966. Use of foam- rapid determination of lactose. J. Dairy Sci. 61: 506.
spray-dried cottage cheese whey in water ices. J. Dairy Sci. 49: Tobias, J. 1970. Use of whey in frozen desserts. Proc. 35th Wash.
1156. St. Univ. Inst. Dairying. Pullman, Wash.. April 1970. p. 63.
Hunziker, O.F. 1940. “The Butter Industry, Prepared for Factory, Young, C.K. 1978. Neutralized, hydrolyzed. fluid cottage cheese
School, and Laboratory,” 3rd ed. Published by the author. whey in frozen dairy desserts. M.S. thesis, The University of
Igoe, R.S., Watrous, G.H. Jr., Keeney, P.G., and MacNeil, J.H. 1973. Arizona. Tucson.
Utilization of cottage cheese whey in ice cream. Dairy Ice Cream M S received 714179; revised 12121179; accepted 12130179.
Fld. 156(5): 61.
Kristoffersen, T. and Miller, J.R. 1976. Protein in vanilla ice cream.
Dairy Ice Cream Fld. 159(l): 38.
Loewenstein, M. 1975. Using milk solids-not-fat in ice cream. Dairy Presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food
Ice Cream Fld. 158(6): 42. Technologists, St. Louis, MO., June lo-13.1979.
Loewenstein, M.. Reddy. M.B., White, C.H.. Speck, S.J., and Lun- Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Paper No.
dord. T.A. 1975. Using whey in ice cream. Dairy Ice Cream Fld. 3003.
158(11): 22. The technical assistance of Mr. Charles W. Braun and the cooper-
McDonough, F.E., Hargrove, R.E., Mattingly, W.A.. Posati. L.P.. and ation of Shamrock Foods Co. are gratefully acknowledged.
Alford. J.A. 1974. Compositon and properties of whey protein
concentrates from ultrafiltration. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 1438.

Volume 45 (1980)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-813