Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Sugar reduction in beverages: Current trends and new perspectives from

sensory and health viewpoints
Lining Chen a, c, 1, Wei Wu d, 1, Na Zhang e, Kathrine H. Bak f, Yuhao Zhang a, b, *, Yu Fu a, b, *
a
College of Food Science, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
b
Chongqing Key Laboratory of Speciality Food Co-Built by Sichuan and Chongqing, Chongqing 400715, China
c
Westa College, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
d
College of Animal Science and Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
e
Key Laboratory of Food Science and Engineering of Heilongjiang Province, College of Food Engineering, Harbin University of Commerce, Harbin 150076, China
f
Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sugar, as an essential component of beverages, not only provides sweetness in beverages but also plays a sig­
Sugar reduction nificant role in their flavor, texture, and preservation. In recent years, global sugar consumption has continued to
Beverage increase, causing a variety of health concerns. Currently, there is growing awareness of the adverse effects of
Multi-sensory integration
high-sugar consumption. Since beverages are the primary source of daily sugar intake, sugar reduction in bev­
Sweetener
erages is imperative. In this work, the necessity of sugar reduction in beverages was first introduced. Further­
Sweetness enhancer
Evaluation method more, four primary sugar reduction strategies (direct sugar reduction, multi-sensory integration, sweeteners, and
sweetness enhancers) employed in the beverage industry were systematically summarized. Each sugar reduction
strategy was critically compared, while the current research progresses as well as challenges were discussed. The
application of sweeteners is the most effective and widely used strategy for sugar reduction in spite of flavor and
health concerns of sweeteners. Meanwhile, multi-sensory integration is also a promising strategy for sugar
reduction. In addition, different evaluation methods (chemical, cell-based and sensory methods) for sweetness
were overviewed. Given the current challenges of sugar reduction, the prospects of sugar reduction in beverages
were also discussed. The present work can provide the current progress for sugar reduction in the beverage
industry.

1. Introduction
Humans have an innate preference for sweetness (Charoenkwan,
Yana, Nantasenamat, Hasan, & Shoombuatong, 2020). It has been
shown that infants have a preference for sweetened drinks (Rios et al.,
2020). Sugar can increase the perceived pleasure of eating. Hence,
considering product sales, the beverage industry may be reluctant to
reduce sugar content. The daily sugar intake of a normal-weight person
is recommended to be about 25 g or 96 kcal, while the average daily
sugar intake per person worldwide is estimated to be approximately 500
kcal (Willett et al., 2019). A series of health concerns associated with
excessive intake of sugar has prompted a considerable number of con­
sumers actively seek low-sugar alternatives (Johnson et al., 2018),
especially sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). According to the US
Department of Health, Human Services and Agriculture, SSB is defined
as any liquid containing various forms of added sugar, such as brown
sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, glucose, fructose, dextrose, high
fructose corn syrup (HFCS), honey, lactose, malt syrup, maltose,
molasses, raw sugar, and sucrose. For example, regular sodas (excluding
sugar-free sodas), fruit drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, sweetened

Abbreviations: SSB, sugar-sweetened beverages; HFCS, high fructose corn syrup; WHO, World Health Organization; RTD, ready-to-drink; GSG, glycosylated steviol
glycosides; GPCRs, G protein-coupled receptors; T1Rs, type I taste receptors; TMD, transmembrane domain; ECD, extracellular domain; VFT, venus flytrap; CRD,
cysteine-rich domain; GIT, gastrointestinal tract; TRC, oral taste receptor cells; PAMs, positive allosteric modulators; NIRS, near-infrared spectroscopy; E-tongue,
electronic tongue; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; MCD, chromatographic detection; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; FTIRS, Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy; TCATA, temporal check-all-that-apply.
* Corresponding authors at: College of Food Science, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China.
E-mail addresses: zhy1203@163.com (Y. Zhang), fuy987@swu.edu.cn (Y. Fu).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.112076
Received 15 April 2022; Received in revised form 8 October 2022; Accepted 22 October 2022
Available online 28 October 2022
0963-9969/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Chen et al.
water, and sugar-added coffee and tea drinks belong to SSB (Health &
Services, 2019). The consumption of SSB is enormous in the American
diet, as SSB are the largest source of “added sugar” (Bleich & Vercam­
men, 2018). “Added sugars” refer to sugars added to food before con­
sumption or during processing to enhance food flavor or texture, rather
than sugars inherent in the food (Yoo et al., 2017). The added sugars are
not chemically different from sugars naturally occurring in food, but
they have a significant impact on human health due to the addition of
unnecessary calories (Edwards, Rossi, Corpe, Butterworth, & Ellis,
2016). Therefore, in the context of industry-scale sugar reduction, sugar
reduction in beverages is imperative.
In the past years, the health awareness of consumers has increased,
driving them to choose healthier food and beverage (Küster & Vila,
2017; Yoo et al., 2017). Meanwhile, global policy guidance has accel­
erated the development of sugar-reduced food and the launch of new
products. Sugar reduction in beverages is becoming a new trend. The
reduction is generally achieved by direct sugar reduction, multi-sensory
integration, sweeteners, sweetness enhancers, and other technical
methods. Direct reduction of sugar is the most direct and effective
method, but it exerts a negative impact on consumer acceptance due to
the reduced sweetness. The presence of market risks makes enterprises
more inclined to choose various sweeteners to reduce sugar without
reducing the sweetness. The impact of sweeteners on sensory quality is a
technical issue in the beverage industry. Most of the current reviews
focus on the application of sugar reduction methods in all sugar-reduced
foods or the contribution of sweeteners to sugar reduction in beverages.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews on sugar
reduction in beverages from the perspectives of sensory and health as­
pects. In this work, the role of sugar in beverages will firstly be intro­
duced, followed by the necessity and development trend of sugar
reduction in beverages from health and regulatory perspectives. Sub­
sequently, the different methods, principles, and characteristics of sugar
reduction in beverages were summarized. Eventually, the challenges
and prospects of future research on sugar reduction in beverages were
discussed.
2. The role of sugar in beverages
Sugar is an essential ingredient of sugary foods. In addition to
providing sweetness, enhancing flavor, and making food more palatable,
sugar can also act as a swelling agent to increase viscosity, provide
texture, serve as a preservative, and confer color (Silcock, 2017). Sugar
brings pleasure with the primary function of sweetness that can improve
the overall sensory characteristics of products through taste interaction.
Sugars at specific concentrations can suppress bitterness, saltiness, and
sourness through chemical interactions, oral physiological interactions,
or cognitive interactions (de Oliveira Pineli et al., 2016; Wang et al.,
2019). Moreover, sugar can enhance flavor intensity. For example, it has
been evidenced that sugar enhances the aroma of fruit, vanilla, caramel,
etc. (Gous, Almli, Coetzee, & de Kock, 2019; Thomas-Danguin, Gui­
chard, & Salles, 2019). Several recent studies have explained the phe­
nomenon of interaction between aroma and taste (Frank & Byram, 1988;
Ginieis, Abeywickrema, Oey, & Peng, 2022). In some cases, this phe­
nomenon can be attributed to physicochemical effects. It has been re­
ported that the presence of sucrose could promote the release of volatiles
from the solution (Su et al., 2021). Sugar at low concentrations (5 %–10
%) is typically used for beverage sweetening, and also increases the
viscosity of the solution (Çavdir, Akben, & Bozdoğan, 2020), thereby
providing a “thick” mouthfeel (Lehmann, Mak, & Bolten, 2019). At the
same time, sugar is also important for food preservation, as the
increasing levels of sugar decrease water activity, which can further
inhibit microbial growth (Hutchings, Low, & Keast, 2019). Therefore,
when sugar is removed, some chemical preservatives must be used
instead (Davis, 1995), but most consumers hold a negative attitude to­
wards preservatives (McCain, Kaliappan & Drake, 2018). Another
essential role of sugar is to impart color. It has been shown that caramel
2
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
coloring contributes to the dark brown color of Coke. Caramel colorant
is the most used colorant in soft drinks around the world (Fierens et al.,
2018). Caramel coloring is achieved through a caramelization reaction.
Namely, sugar heated above 110 ◦ C produces brown color and caramel
flavor in the absence of nitrogen-containing compounds (Sun et al.,
2022). Generally, there are four types of caramel colorants, which meet
the requirements of different food and beverage systems, including
caramel colorant I (also known as regular or potent caramel), caramel
colorant II (caustic sulfite caramel), caramel colorant III (ammonia or
beer caramel, baker’s caramel, and candy maker’s caramel), and
caramel colorant IV (known as sulfite-ammonia, soft drink caramel, or
acid-resistant caramel) (Singh, Meehnian, Gupta, & Verma, 2020).
Among these four caramel colorants, caramel colorant IV is the one
commonly used in soft drinks (Mateo-Fernández et al., 2019).
3. The necessity of sugar reduction in beverages
In recent years, with the improvement of living standards, the di­
etary pattern of people has developed into a high-fat, high-calorie, and
high-sugar dietary intake (Miele et al., 2017). As a result, chronic dis­
eases are more likely to develop, exerting adverse impacts on health
(Andrade et al., 2019). At present, reducing the intake of added sugar is
gaining attention worldwide (Küster & Vila, 2017). Low-sugar and
sugar-substituted beverages are becoming a new trend. In the following
section, the necessity of sugar reduction was elaborated from the health
and regulatory perspectives.
3.1. Health aspect
Sugar is accepted as one of the sweet dangers of health, since
excessive sugar intake can lead to an array of health concerns, such as
diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease (Haque
et al., 2020). According to WHO, 39 % of adults worldwide were over­
weight and 13 % were obese in 2016 (Amorim, Barbosa, & Sobral,
2022). In 2020, 39 million children under the age of 5 were overweight
or obese (Amorim et al., 2022). Death due to obesity is more prevalent
than death arising from being underweight (Miele et al., 2017). It has
been shown that global obesity rates have been rising since the 1980s
(Friedrich, 2017), which could be partly attributed to the increased
global sugar consumption (primarily from processed foods and SSB)
(Mora & Dando, 2021).
Nowadays, people consume an increasing amount of sugar in their
diets. SSB, sugary snacks, candy, chocolates, and sweets have extremely
high sugar levels (Bailey, Fulgoni, Cowan, & Gaine, 2018). According to
the global survey data (including Europe and the United States), an
increasing number of people are consuming more sugar than the rec­
ommended level of added sugar. The National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) (2015–2016) has also demonstrated
that people of all ages consume, on average, more than 10 % of the
recommended dietary energy from added sugar (Bowman et al., 2019).
Studies have shown that SSB are the major contributor of added sugars
to the American diet (Bleich & Vercammen, 2018). Therefore, SSB have
recently received special attention among various dietary risk factors
(Acevedo et al., 2018). Moreover, it has been demonstrated that con­
sumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is positively associated with
obesity, overweight, and chronic diseases. For instance, SSB has been
evidenced to make a great contribution to the development of over­
weight and obesity in randomized controlled trials in children and ad­
olescents (Brown et al., 2019) according to a systematic review of
observational and interventional studies (Luger et al., 2017). Further­
more, a systematic evaluation of observational studies has revealed that
SSB intake is positively associated with type II diabetes (Neuensch­
wander et al., 2019), cardiovascular diseases (Vos et al., 2017), dental
caries (Bleich & Vercammen, 2018), and some cancer (Laviada-Molina
et al., 2020).
L. Chen et al.
3.2. Regulatory perspective
Overweight and obesity pose a severe threat to global public health,
with an ever-increasing prevalence over time in low-, middle- and high-
income countries (Larqué et al., 2019). Therefore, various preventive
measures (including policies and interventions) have been taken to curb
overweight and obesity and their adverse effects on health.
As stated by the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines
(2015), the daily caloric contribution of added sugars should not exceed
10 %, and further reducing the daily caloric contribution of the added
sugars to 5 % would provide additional health benefits. Hence, an
increasing number of consumers are switching to low-sugar food and
beverages (Johnson et al., 2018). Moreover, health authorities and
public health experts have widely recommended that application of food
policies to discourage SSB consumption (including raising the price of
SSB) may be an important measure for the transition to healthier food
products (Silver et al., 2017). For example, in the Global Action Plan for
the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases 2013–2020,
the WHO encourages its member states to use economic approaches,
such as food taxes and subsidies (Organization, 2013). Food taxes can be
an effective intervention to prevent non-communicable diseases by
reducing unhealthy diets when the accessibility and desirability of
healthier food choices are increased, and the consumption of less
healthy options is discouraged (Sacks, Kwon, & Backholer, 2021; Silver
et al., 2017). The American Health Education Association, the Diabetes
Association, and the Cancer Society have launched the initiative of “Live
Sweeter with Less Sweet Drinks”, which proposes to raise the price of
SSB and increase the excise tax on sugar (Pfinder et al., 2020). Since
August 2020, seven US cities and more than 40 nations across the globe
have adopted SSB taxes at different rates (Krieger, Bleich, Scarmo, & Ng,
2021). The states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon,
and Washington, D.C. in the United States have imposed taxes on sugary
beverages (sugar taxes) at different rates (Pfinder et al., 2020). The sugar
tax policy in the UK came into effect in 2018, with a levy of 0.18 GBP/L
for SSB (containing 5 g ≤ sugar < 8 g /100 mL) and 0.24 GBP/L for SSB
(containing sugar ≥ 8 g /100 mL) (Pfinder et al., 2020). The WHO
Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean has also proposed a tax on
SSB (Organization, 2019). By the end of 2019, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, and the Union of Arab Emirates
have imposed taxes on different categories of non-alcoholic beverages.
In 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council member countries also began to
impose value-added tax on SSB. As a result, carbonated beverage prices
increased by 67 % in 2018, and the annual per capita purchase of
carbonated beverages and energy drinks decreased by 41 % and 58 %,
compared with those in 2016 (Alsukait, Bleich, Wilde, Singh, & Folta,
2020). The Eastern Mediterranean region has a tradition of subsidizing
food prices for consumers. However, such subsidies have not always
been consistent with a healthy diet, with some countries subsidizing
sugar, oil, and white bread; however, sugar subsidies nowadays have
been removed in some countries in the region (Alwan, McColl, Al-
Jawaldeh, & Organization, 2017). In this context, sugar reduction has
become a major irreversible trend in the beverage industry.
4. Strategies to reduce sugar in beverages
Sugar reduction in beverages has become a significant topic in the
beverage industry, both from a health aspect and a regulatory
perspective. Currently, four main strategies of sugar reduction have
been used in beverages, including direct sugar reduction, multi-sensory
integration, sweeteners, and sweetness enhancers. A number of recent
studies on direct sugar reduction and multi-sensory integration sugar
reduction are summarized in Table 1.
4.1. Direct sugar reduction
One of the direct strategies to reduce the intake of added sugar in the
3
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
short term is to reduce the concentration of added sugars in beverages.
Reducing the sugar concentration in beverages will reduce the palat­
ability and thus reduce consumer acceptance, which is a major issue in
the process of sugar reduction. However, as revealed by recent studies,
reducing the sugar content in beverages within a certain range would
not significantly affect consumer acceptance. de Oliveira Pineli et al.
(2016) have investigated the ideal sweetness of orange juice by assessing
the impact of reducing the sugar content on the sensory properties of
orange juice. The results have demonstrated that reducing added sugar
in orange juice by 15 % to 45 % exerted a minimal impact on the
acceptance and sensory characteristics of product. In a recent study,
Torrico, Tam, Fuentes, Gonzalez Viejo, and Dunshea (2020) have con­
ducted consumer rejection threshold tests and acceptability tests based
on the responses of 53 untrained participants to six strawberry-flavored
yogurts with reduced sucrose content (from 12 g to 5 g/100 g yogurt). It
was found that although sucrose reduction affected the physicochemical
properties in yogurts to a certain extent, the sucrose content in
strawberry-flavored yogurt could be reduced from 12 g/100 g to 5.25 g/
100 g without affecting consumer preference (Torrico et al., 2020).
Although the study has focused on yogurt, it is still significant to
investigate the direct method of sugar reduction in beverages. In fact,
consumer acceptance of sugar-reduced beverages is also influenced by
different strategies for sugar reduction. In a previous study, Brazilian
children were randomly allocated to the stepwise sugar reduction group
(n = 74, large reduction each time) and the gradual sugar reduction
group (n = 73, small reduction each time). In the stepwise group, the
added sugar in grape juice was reduced from 10 % to 4.3 % in two steps.
In the gradual group, the added sugar was reduced from 10 % to 4.3 %
according to the different thresholds for added sugar. The results
showed that the gradual reduction strategy exerted less impact on sen­
sory and hedonic perceptions of children than the stepwise reduction
strategy (Lima, Ares, & Deliza, 2019). Therefore, gradually reducing
sugar content in beverages may be more effective in maintaining con­
sumer satisfaction with sugar-reduced products. Moreover, studies have
demonstrated that dietary habits can also influence consumers’ prefer­
ences and ratings of sugar-reduced beverages (Oliveira et al., 2016). In a
previous study, subjects consumed beverages with varying concentra­
tions of sucrose every month for five consecutive months to evaluate the
sweetness intensity, and taste of sweetened foods and beverages. Base­
line measures were provided in the first month. Over the next three
months, one group of subjects (low sugar) reduced their simple sugar
intake by 40 %, while another group of subjects (control group) main­
tained their current sugar intake. During the fifth month, subjects fol­
lowed the diet of their choice. It was found that the sweetness of a
beverage sample was rated higher by subjects in the low-sugar diet
group than that rated by the control group (Wise, Nattress, Flammer, &
Beauchamp, 2016). Therefore, the strategy of gradually reducing sugar
amounts in beverages can make consumers accustomed to lower sugar
concentrations and reduce their preference for sweetness (Oliveira et al.,
2016). However, the degree of sugar reduction of this strategy is limited,
and the effect takes a long time for manifestation. Moreover, since
consumers’ loyalty for brand exclusivity tends to change with their
preferences for food taste, it is necessary for the beverage industry to
take joint actions to reduce the sugar in beverages (Spence, 2022). At the
same time, more nutrition education intervention could be adopted,
which also effectively benefits consumers to reduce their preference for
sweet taste and increase the acceptance of sugar-reducing drinks
(Mumena et al., 2020). However, some previous studies found that a
higher sweet taste exposure led to reduced preferences for sweetness in
the shorter term (Appleton, Tuorila, Bertenshaw, De Graaf, & Mela,
2018). Therefore, further research on the impact of dietary exposure to
sweet foods or beverages on the subsequent preference for sweetness is
required.
L. Chen et al. Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076

Table 1
Summary of studies on direct sugar reduction and multi-sensory integration.
Methods Results References

Direct sugar • Subjects: 100 A reduction by 6.7% in added sugar in chocolate milk (Oliveira et al., 2016)
reduction • Chocolate-flavored milk with different concentrations of added sugar. does not affect the sensory and hedonistic sensations of
• Rating the sensory and hedonic sensations using a 9-point hedonic scale consumer.
and a check-all-that-apply method (CATA) composed of nine sensory
characteristics.
• Just-about-right (JAR) tests The added sugar content of orange juice can be reduced (de Oliveira Pineli
- Subjects: 60 by 15%-45%, without impacting acceptability and et al., 2016)
- Orange nectars with different concentrations of added sugar (12.0%, organoleptic property of products.
10.5%, 9.0%, 7.5%, 6.0% and 4.5%)
• Thresholds tests
- Subjects: 36 and 35
- Orange nectars with reference sugar concentration (10%) and lower sugar
levels.
• CATA tests
- Subjects: 100
- Orange nectars with reference, ideal sweetness and thresholds
concentrations.
• Subjects: 53 The sucrose content in strawberry-flavored yogurt (Torrico, Tam, Fuentes,
• Six yogurt samples with decreasing concentrations of sugar (5-12/100 g). could be reduced from an initial 12/100g to 5.25/100g Gonzalez Viejo, &
• Assessing the effect of sucrose on the acceptability, preference, and without affecting consumer preference.The 71%- Dunshea, 2020)
quality of strawberry-flavored yogurt using consumer rejection threshold sucrose
test and acceptability test. (8.5 g/100 g of yogurt) was perceived as the most
preferred yogurt sample.
• Subjects: 117 (children, age: 6-12) were divided in two sugar reduction The cumulative unnoticeable reduction of added sugar (Lima, Ares, & Deliza,
strategies: stepwise and gradual. content in nectar exerted less impact on children’s 2019)
• Gradual strategy: added-sugar content was reduced from 10% to 4.3% sensory and hedonic perceptions than stepwise
according to the different thresholds for added sugar estimated in a pre­ reduction.
vious study.
• Stepwise strategy: added-sugar content was reduced from 10.0 to 4.3 in
two steps.
• Comparing sensory and hedonic perception of grape nectar in children
under two sugar reduction strategies using 9-point hedonic scales and
check-all-that-apply questions.
• Healthy men and women (age: 21–54) were divided in two groups. During the third diet month, the low-sugar subjects (Wise, Nattress,
• One group (n=16) received a low-sugar diet for three months, while the rated both low and high concentrations in puddings as Flammer, &
other one (n=17) did not change their sugar intake. ~40% sweeter than did the control group. Beauchamp, 2016)
• Rating the sweetness intensity of vanilla pudding and raspberry drinks A weaker effect on rated sweetness of beverage was
with different sucrose concentrations each month. observed.
Multi-sensory Odor-taste • Sucrose solution (1.31% & 2.24%) with vanilla Both flavors were enhanced in the flavored milk (Wang, Bakke, Hayes, &
integration interactions (0.435% & 0.625%) and sucrose solution (2.24%) with samples, but the enhancing effect was greater for the Hopfer, 2019)
beef favor (0.40%). vanilla aroma, when compared to beef aroma (p <
• Comparing the effect of a congruent (vanilla) and 0.05).
incongruent (beef) aroma on sweetness perception in
sweetened milk using two simple extensions of the ABX
test (ABCX test and ABCDX test).
• Subjects: 32 (15 chefs and 17 non-chefs) At the same concentration of sucrose, sucrose solutions (Boakes & Hemberger,
• Sucrose solution (2% & 4%) with caramel flavoring with caramel flavoring had higher sweetness ratings 2012)
and citric acid solution (0.5%, 1%) with caramel than unflavored sucrose solutions, and there is no
flavoring. difference detected between chefs and non-chefs.At
• Drinking each sample and filling out four 21-point the same concentration of citric acid, citric acid
linear rating scales in the following order: overall in­ solutions with caramel flavoring had lower acidity
tensity, sweetness, sourness and pleasantness. ratings than unflavored citric acid solutions.
• Subjects: 91 (41 males and 50 females) Reducing the sugar content of yogurt by adding (Oliveira et al., 2021)
• Yogurt samples at three sugar concentrations (ideal, flavorings (0.2%) by 25% without compromising the
25% and 50% reduction) and three concentrations of perception of sweetness and acceptance.
each of the vanilla and strawberry flavors (0, 0.1% and Vanilla flavor enhanced the sweetness of yogurt more
0.2%). efficiently than strawberry flavoring.
• Temporal intensity assessment, temporal dominance of
sensations (TDS), and acceptability tests of sweetness
using yogurt samples.
Color-taste • Subjects: 40 Color had a statistically significant effect on sweetness (Johnson & Clydesdale,
interactions • Five different red colored sucrose solutions. perception in 80% of the treatments. 1982)
(Beverage • Comparing the sweetness intensity of samples. Sweetness increased linearly over a narrow range of
colors) color intensities.
• Four different commercial beverages (orange juice, Color only affected the sweetness of orange juice, but (Bayarri, Calvo, Costell,
peach juice, kiwi juice, and berry juice) were added not kiwi, berry, or peach juice. & Durán, 2016)
with colorants.
• Ranking the sweetness intensity of samples.
Color-taste • Subjects: 94 (British) As expected, juice in orange background packages to be (Deliza & MacFie,
interactions • Orange-packed and white-packed juices. sweeter than in white background packages. 2001)
(Packaging • Predicting the sweetness perceptions of samples.
color) • Subjects: 40 As expected, products in red packaging were perceived (Huang & Lu, 2015)
• 12 package stimuli combinations [4 (products: to be sweeter than those in blue and green packaging,
breakfast cereal, ice-cream, iced tea, and yogurt) × 3
(continued on next page)

4
L. Chen et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Methods
(package colors: red, blue, and green) × 2 (external
eating: high and low)]
• Predicting the sweetness perceptions of the samples
• Subjects: 18 (9 males and 9 females)
• Six people were given their coffee in a white cup, six in
a transparent cup and six in a blue cup
• Rating the perceived sweetness, aroma, flavor
intensity, quality and acceptability of coffee after
tasting.
• Subjects: 457
• Four different colored (pink, yellow, white, and green)
cups of two coffee profiles (sweet Brazilian and acidic
Kenyan)
• Rating the sweetness and acidity in each of four cups
before and after tasting.
4.2. Multi-sensory integration
Taste perception is a multi-modal sensory information integration
process in the central nervous system, especially in higher-order cortical
areas. This process can be influenced by various factors, such as tem­
perature, medium, physical condition, age, and psychological state, as
well as information on several other sensory properties, such as smell,
sight, hearing, and touch (Campo, Reinoso-Carvalho, & Rosato, 2021).
During the process of food consumption, people tend to perceive and
recognize food characteristics and enjoy them using all their senses, as
the stimulation brought by multi-sensory integration can bring a holistic
sensory experience (Campo et al., 2021). Multi-sensory integration may
play a significant role in the unique properties of food or beverage, and
information on such integration may be valuable for new product
development. Therefore, multi-sensory interaction (cross-modal in­
teractions) is promising as an alternative strategy for sugar reduction in
SSB (Bertelsen, Mielby, Byrne, & Kidmose, 2020; Spence, 2019). In the
following section, the role of multi-sensory integration in sugar reduc­
tion in beverages is discussed from the perspective of odor–taste in­
teractions and color-taste interactions. Moreover, sound- and tactile-
taste interactions are also discussed.
4.2.1. Odor-taste interactions
As previously mentioned, some odors can increase the sweet
perception intensity in food (Spence, 2022). In a previous study, subjects
were asked to rate the sweet intensity of whipped cream with and
without strawberry odor (whipped cream with different sucrose levels).
It was found that strawberry odor could increase sweetness intensity and
total rating time of the stimuli (Fan et al., 2021; Frank & Byram, 1988).
Schwieterman et al. (2014) have revealed that the total content of vol­
atiles in fresh strawberries was positively correlated with sweetness,
probably accounting for 13.9 % of the variation in sweetness intensity.
More than 20 volatile compounds were identified, which increased the
perception of sweetness independent of glucose, fructose, and sucrose
content. Through further research on “sweetness enhancement”, more
odorants have been found to increase the sweet intensity of foods. Liu,
Wan, Xie, and Chen (2021) conducted a study on the interaction of su­
crose solutions and 20 odorants, and it was found that lychee odor and
caramel odor both increased the perception of sweetness in sucrose so­
lutions. Similarly, Salinas-Hernández, González-Aguilar, and Tiznado-
Hernández (2015) stated that pineapple flavoring enhanced the
perceived sweetness. Through a modified ABX discrimination test,
Wang, Bakke, Hayes, and Hopfer (2019) have demonstrated that vanilla
odor increases sweetness perception in sweet milk. Xiao, Chen, Niu, and
Zhu (2021) found that eight sweet-associated odorants of “Hongmeiren”
bananas could significantly exhibit a sweetness-enhancing impact on
different degrees at the sucrose solution of 30 g/L. The degree to which
sweetness was increased using sweetness-related odor varies with
different odors. As revealed by Bertelsen, Mielby, Alexi, Byrne, and
5
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Results References
with no significant differences between blue and green
for the associated sweetness perception.
The average subjective rating of coffee sweetness: (Van Doorn, Wuillemin,
transparent cup (32.35) > blue cup (30.52) > white cup & Spence, 2014)
(29.82).
Before tasting (taste expectation): Sweetness: pink > (Carvalho & Spence,
yellow > white > green; Acidity: green > yellow > 2019)
white > pink.After tasting (taste perception)
: Sweetness: pink > yellow > white > green; Acidity:
white > yellow > pink > green.
Kidmose (2020a), the sweetness of custard desserts flavored with
benzaldehyde (almond odor) increased more than that of custard des­
serts flavored with allyl hexanoate (pineapple odor). However, not all
odorants can enhance the perception of sweetness. Only when there is
consistency between odor and taste can this enhancement be generated.
Consistency refers to the degree to which two stimulants fit together in a
food product (Schifferstein & Verlegh, 1996). For example, strawberry
odor can enhance the sweetness of whipped cream, while peanut butter
exerts no impact on whipped cream sweetness (Frank & Byram, 1988;
Wang et al., 2019).
To some extent, the effect of odor on taste can be predicted from the
sensory characteristics of the odor it produces. The sweetness degree of
an odor is the best predictor of the sweetness scale. For example, when
sniffing an odor, the sweetness degree of odor can predict the degree to
which it increases the sweetness of solution to which this odor is added
(Bertelsen et al., 2020). Therefore, in an investigation using various
odors, the sweetest odor “caramel” has been found to increase the
sweetness of sucrose, while the odor with the least “sweet” odor sup­
presses the sweetness of sucrose (Bertelsen et al., 2020). Several previ­
ous studies have investigated the effect of differences between
individuals on the enhanced perception of sweet taste. For example, the
sweetness of sucrose solutions (with different sucrose concentrations)
with and without caramel odor was rated by 32 subjects (15 chefs and 17
non-chefs). The analysis indicated that the sucrose solutions with added
caramel odor were rated as the sweetest by all subjects (Boakes &
Hemberger, 2012). Bertelsen, Mielby, Alexi, Byrne, and Kidmose
(2020b) have conducted a study on vanilla odor and sucrose solutions to
investigate how individual differences (gender, age, and sweetness
preference) in young individuals affect the effect of odor on sweetness.
Females were found to be more susceptible to the sweetness-enhancing
effect of vanilla aroma than males. For males, the addition of vanilla
odor increased the sweetness significantly for the 22–25-year-olds, but
not the 19–21-year-olds (Bertelsen et al., 2020). Burseg, Camacho,
Knoop, and Bult (2010) have found that the enhanced perceived odor or
taste intensity is often observed when odorant (isoamyl acetate) or
tastant (sucrose) concentration is fluctuating between high- and low-
concentration pulse (Wu & Zhao, 2021). Furthermore, the enhancing
effect on sweetness can be further increased as well as optimization of
the time phase-shift between odor and taste pulses (Burseg et al., 2010).
When odorant (isoamyl acetate) and tastant (sucrose) pulses were pre­
sented out-of-phase, the sweetness intensity is enhanced by more than
35 %, compared to a continuous sucrose reference of the same net su­
crose concentration (Burseg et al., 2010).
Further research should be conducted on the relationship between
odor and sweetness to develop sugar-reduced sugary beverages without
compromising consumer acceptance. Most studies in this field focus on
the effect of odor–taste interaction on the increasing sweetness intensity
without increasing sugar content. However, some recent studies have
investigated the reduction of sugar content to maintain sweetness levels
L. Chen et al.
(Alcaire, Antunez, Vidal, Gimenez, & Ares, 2017; Oliveira et al., 2021).
Schwieterman et al. (2014) have evaluated temporal sweetness in­
tensity, temporal dominance of sensations (TDS), and acceptability tests
on yogurt samples at three sugar concentrations (ideal concentration,
reduction by 25 %, and reduction by 50 %) and three concentrations of
vanilla and strawberry flavor (0, 0.1 % and 0.2 %). It was observed that
reducing the sugar content in yogurt by 25 % with the aid of 0.2 %
vanilla extract would not affect the sweetness (temporal distribution and
hedonic perception) of yogurt. Meanwhile, although strawberry-
flavored yogurt did not show as much sweetness as vanilla-flavored
yogurt, strawberry-flavored yogurt showed good acceptability. Sugar-
reduced yogurt (25 % reduction) with 0.2 % strawberry flavor was as
acceptable as yogurt at the ideal sugar concentration (Oliveira et al.,
2021). This study revealed that even the yogurt that consumers thought
was not so sweet exhibited good acceptability. Therefore, odor–taste
interaction was a crucial strategy for sugar reduction in yogurt and
maintaining the desirable sensory characteristics. However, the extent
of sugar reduction by odor–taste interactions is limited, compared to
non-nutritive sweeteners (Hutchings, Low, & Keast, 2019). Unfortu­
nately, odor–taste interactions have not been well studied in beverages.
Due to the differences between yogurt and beverages, especially texture,
it is difficult to determine the feasibility of odor interaction for sugar
reduction in beverages.
The increased taste intensity is not mediated by chemical in­
teractions between the odorant and tastant, as preventing odor volatiles
from reaching the olfactory receptors (e.g., pinching nostrils during the
tasting) would eliminate this effect (Small & Prescott, 2005). When used
alone in solution, the addition of tastant is also usually odorless (Adams
et al., 2021). Studies have indicated that the addition of a strawberry
odorant with a retronasal odor enhanced the sweetness of sucrose so­
lution; however, this effect could be eliminated by pinching the nose
while making a judgment (Frank & Byram, 1988; Ginieis, Abey­
wickrema, Oey, Keast, & Peng, 2022). The odor-induced changes in
sweetness perception are mediated by central mechanism rather than
peripheral mechanism (Djordjevic, Zatorre, & Jones-Gotman, 2004).
Odor-taste interaction is produced via stimulating the olfactory re­
ceptors in the nasal cavity and the taste receptors in the tongue and
mouth, thereby producing the perception of the “taste” of compounds in
the oral cavity. The mechanism behind this effect is thought to be
generated by learning and associating sweet taste perception with spe­
cific products (Chen, Huang, Faber, Makransky, & Perez-Cueto, 2020),
as the integration of olfactory sensation and taste in the brain relies on
previous integration experience of olfactory sensation and taste. Both
tastants and odorants have been shown to produce overlapping activa­
tion in cortical areas of the brain (Wang et al., 2019). Odors can be
perceived via two different pathways, namely the orthonasal pathway
when the odorants are sampled via nasal inhalation or sniffing and the
retronasal pathway when volatiles are released in the oral cavity during
food oral processing (chewing and swallowing) and ascend through the
oropharyngeal pathway to the olfactory epithelium in the nose (Ai &
Han, 2022). Previous studies found that odors enhance perceived
sweetness not only via the orthonasal pathways, but also via retronasal
pathways (Djordjevic et al., 2004; Sakai, Kobayakawa, Gotow, Saito, &
Imada, 2001). Although these findings indicated that odors can enhance
sweetness perception through either pathway, it remains unclear
whether these two pathways have the same effect on sweetness
enhancing effect (Kakutani et al., 2017).
4.2.2. Color-taste interactions
Color can affect our perception of food and beverages in a variety of
ways, with the color of the product itself playing the most notable role
(Spence, 2018). It has been shown that the color of food/drink usually
affects the perception of taste (e.g. the threshold and intensity of
sweetness perception). A previous study has revealed that adding red
colorant to strawberry-flavored sucrose solutions could increase the
sweetness of solutions (Lavin & Lawless, 1998). Through testing the
6
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
threshold of sweetness in sucrose solutions with and without red col­
orants, Sugrue and Dando (2018) have found that the sweetness
threshold of sucrose solutions containing red colorants was lower than
that of sucrose solutions without red colorants. Furthermore, people
tend to have different sweet taste expectations for discrepant colors
(Mielby et al., 2018). In a study involving more than 5000 people from
Mexico and Brazil, six colored beverages (blue, green, orange, purple,
red, and yellow) were tested for triggering taste associations. The results
indicated that no matter where the participants come from, they
perceived red drinks as the sweetest, followed by blue and purple. By
contrast, green, yellow, and orange are rarely selected as colors associ­
ated with sweetness (Velasco et al., 2016). Furthermore, some studies
have put forward an interesting suggestion that colors normally asso­
ciated with the natural ripening of fruits (e.g., red and yellow) may be
particularly effective in modulating sweetness perception, while colors
opposite to fruit ripening (e.g. green) may reduce sweetness perception
(Maga, 1974; Schifferstein, Wehrle, & Carbon, 2019). Green pear nectar
is perceived to be less sweet than samples of other colors (Ezan, Pantin-
Sohier, & Lancelot-Miltgen, 2019; Pangborn & Hansen, 1963). This has
been partly explained by the fact that most people would associate green
pear nectar with unripened pears, which are not usually sweet; there­
fore, people would associate green with sourness. The effect of color
variation on the perceived sweetness intensity may be a result of pre­
vious experience (e.g. most red foods are sweet, and thus it is always
considered to be sweet). There is an association between specific colors
and specific product attributes in the mind (Simmonds & Spence, 2017).
People often have certain expectations when they see the color of a food
(Higgins & Hayes, 2019), which can influence the perception of sweet­
ness (Spence, 2019). As revealed by Yeung, Goto, and Leung (2018),
using functional magnetic resonance imaging, expecting a highly sweet
drink but receiving a less sweet drink enhanced the reported sweetness
and bolstered activity in the taste cortex relative to a less sweet drink
without this expectation. These findings provide solid evidence that
expectation does have an impact on taste perception. Furthermore, the
effect of color on taste is a complex process, which depends not only on
what color implies in the mind of observers in terms of taste expectations
but also on other factors depending on the distance between the prac­
tical tasting experience and the visually induced expectations (Piqueras-
Fiszman & Spence, 2015). Bayarri, Calvo, Costell, and Durán (2016)
studied the effect of color on juice sweetness by adding colorants
without changing any other aspects of juice composition. The results
indicated that color only affected the sweetness perception in orange
juice but not in kiwi, berry, and peach juice. When the experience of the
product itself (i.e., the taste in this case) is proven to be fairly close to the
expectations, expectations may have a greater impact on product
perception (Wang, Keller, & Spence, 2017).
However, it is worth noting that not all studies in this field have
reported an effect of altered beverage color on sweetness perception. It
has been reported that color (red, blue, yellow, green, and colorless
controls) had no significant impact on the sweetness of sucrose solutions
and sucrose-contained gelatin (Alley & Alley, 1998; Frank, Ducheny, &
Mize, 1989). Moreover, the effect of color on sweetness perception
varied in different populations (Spence, 2019). In sweetened aspartame
solutions, dark red would increase sweetness intensity in adults
compared with light red, while light green increased sweetness ratings
in adults compared with dark green. However, the same effects could not
be observed in children (Lavin & Lawless, 1998). Hence, the effect of
beverage color on sweetness perception is currently controversial, and
further in-depth research is imperative.
For beverage products with packaging when drinking, the package
color can also influence consumers’ taste perceptions to some extent.
The package color automatically sets the consumer’s expectation for the
possible taste attributes of the contents. In a previous study, the package
color of a box of passion fruit juice was manipulated. It was expected by
94 participants in the UK that the juice with an orange background color
package would taste sweeter than that with a white background package
L. Chen et al.
(Deliza & MacFie, 2001). In another study, there were two coffee pro­
files (sweet Brazilian and acidic Kenyan) in cups of four different colors
(pink, yellow, white, and green). Participants first rated their expecta­
tions of sweetness and acidity, and then their experience of those attri­
butes upon tasting the coffees, as well as rating their liking. The results
showed that pink significantly moderated both the expectation and
perception of sweetness (increased) and acidity (decreased) (Carvalho &
Spence, 2019).
Although the effect of color on taste perception is still controversial,
a growing number of recent findings support the idea that color is indeed
important, whether it is the color of the product itself or the color of its
packaging (Carvalho & Spence, 2019). These findings have far-reaching
significance for the development of sugar-reduced beverages by
providing new ideas for beverage sugar reduction. In other words, with
the same sugar content, consumers may experience a higher perception
of sweetness by changing the color of beverage itself or the color of the
packaging. However, sugar reduction achieved by this approach is
limited, and the effects of color on sweetness perception enhancement
may be weakened in real life, compared with under laboratory condi­
tions. Moreover, considering the market factors such as consumers’
negative attitudes toward colorants in beverages, more research is
needed to confirm the effectiveness and robustness of this approach.
4.2.3. Sound-taste and tactile-taste interactions
In addition to odor–taste and color-taste interactions, some other
approaches also exist to change the expectation and association with a
product to modify sweetness perception. An increasing incidence has
demonstrated the presence of multi-sensory integration between taste
and sound (Campo, Reinoso-Carvalho, & Rosato, 2021; Pathak, Calvert,
& Motoki, 2020). For example, soprano and piano sounds tend to be
associated with sweetness, while bass brass sounds tend to be related to
bitterness (Wang, Wang, & Spence, 2016). Additionally, it has been
shown that front vowels and voiceless consonants are more matched
with sweetness than back vowels and voiced consonants (Motoki et al.,
2020), while long vowel sounds are expected as sweeter than short
vowel sounds (Pathak et al., 2020). In terms of cross-modal influences of
tactile sensation, people tend to match foods and beverages of the higher
flavor intensity, bitterness, and saltiness with angular, rough, or uneven
items, but the foods and beverages of lower flavor intensity and sweet­
ness with round, smooth, or flat items (Pramudya & Seo, 2019; van
Rompay & Groothedde, 2019). It was found that beverages tend to be
evaluated as more pleasant and sweeter when the beverages are served
in the containers, which are generally expected to be served (Cavazzana,
Larsson, Hoffmann, Hummel, & Haehner, 2017; van Rompay, Finger,
Saakes, & Fenko, 2017). However, the feasibility of this strategy in
beverages cannot be determined. Hence, more studies are needed to
explore the exact mechanisms underlying the effect of sound- and
tactile-taste interactions on consumer sweetness perception, especially
in beverages.
4.3. Sweetener
Reducing the amount of sugar reduces the sweetness intensity of a
product, which is strongly correlated to the popularity of product.
Therefore, sugar reduction can negatively affect the hedonistic appeal
and consumer acceptance, thus limiting the implementation of sugar
reduction initiatives (Hutchings, Low, & Keast, 2019). Low-/no-calorie
sweeteners are most commonly used for sugar reduction in the food
industry, since they can maintain the sweetness of products while
reducing the negative health impacts (obesity, type II diabetes, and
cardiovascular diseases) of excessive sucrose intake. The commonly
used sweeteners are systematically summarized and divided into two
categories (artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners) in Table 2.
More specific information on sweeteners has been reviewed in previous
papers (Miele et al., 2017; Mooradian, Smith, & Tokuda, 2017). In the
following section, artificial sweeteners, natural sweeteners and the
7
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
blending of sweeteners were described, followed by a discussion about
the controversies over sweeteners in relation to human health.
4.3.1. Artificial sweeteners
With the increase in consumer demand for low-calorie foods, the use
of sweeteners is on the rise. Several synthetic sweeteners (e.g. aspar­
tame, sucralose, and cyclamate) are widely used in the beverage in­
dustry due to their high sweetness, low cost, and calorie-free benefits
(Carvalho & Spence, 2019). As the main low-calorie sweetener for
calorie/sugar-free beverages, aspartame shows good stability in acidic
beverages, which is sufficient for commercial applications even if
aspartame is unstable to heat and alkali treatment (Miele et al., 2017). It
is worth mentioning that reduction of sucrose and addition of sweet­
eners can cause decreased viscosity and other changes in sensory profile
(Hutchings, Low, & Keast, 2019). After swallowing a sucrose-sweetened
beverage, a syrupy and slimy sensation is perceived on the tongue and
palate. However, after swallowing aspartame, a sensation of dry mouth
is perceived (Kappes, Schmidt, & Lee, 2007). The same problem exists
with using other artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners. Therefore,
carbohydrate gum and other food additives are used in low-calorie
beverages to thicken and improve mouthfeel. Sucralose has the closest
sweetness character to sucrose, with its potential sweetness about 600
times sweeter than sucrose, and it is stable under various processing
conditions (Mora & Dando, 2021). Therefore, sucralose is the most
widely used sweetener in the beverage industry (Andrade et al., 2019).
Surveys have shown that sucralose is the preferred sweetener in 73 % of
flavored sparkling waters in the United States (Miele et al., 2017). The
temporal profile of sensory attributes is the main factor that leads to the
taste difference between sucrose and other sweeteners. Although
sucralose can quickly reach peak sweetness, it does not degrade as
quickly as sucrose, resulting in undesirable residual sweetness (Tan,
Wee, Tomic, & Forde, 2019). There are many other common artificial
synthetic sweeteners (e.g. cyclamate, acesulfame, and saccharin). The
specific solubility, stability, and sweetness characteristics of each arti­
ficial sweetener are summarized in Table 2. For beverages, the impacts
of processing temperature and pH on stability, temporal sensory profile
and undesirable flavors are main factors to be considered (Wan, Khub­
ber, Dwivedi, & Misra, 2021). Some new synthetic non-nutritive
sweeteners include neotame, advantame, and alitame. Neotame,
considered as the successor to aspartame, was approved as a sweetener
by the FDA in 2002, and is 7000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose
(Carocho, Morales, & Ferreira, 2017). Neotame has a different temporal
sensory profile from sucrose with its continuously increasing sweetness,
but it can replace 20 %-30 % of sucrose in soft drinks without a
perceived difference in taste (Mora & Dando, 2021). Efficient sweet­
eners alitame and advantame are less used in beverage production due
to their relatively poor characteristics, but advantame is used as a flavor
enhancer for fruit flavors and low-level vanilla flavors (Beltrami, Döring,
& De Dea Lindner, 2018).
4.3.2. Natural sweeteners
In recent years, consumer demand for healthy and clean label in­
gredients has increased (Parker, Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2018). In the
process of searching for sugar substitutes of natural origin, some
sweeteners with strong sweetening or taste-altering properties have
been identified. More than one hundred plant extracts are sweet, con­
taining a large amount of sugar and/or polyols or other sweet compo­
nents. Despite the caloric value of these sweeteners, their contribution to
energy intake is negligible due to their high sweetness (Beltrami et al.,
2018). It has been shown that many natural nutritional sweeteners can
provide sensory properties close to sucrose (Tan et al., 2019). Therefore,
more and more food manufacturers are switching to natural sweeteners.
For instance, in the extraction process of stevia leaves, a mixture of nine
terpenoids called steviol glucosides is produced. Among these com­
pounds, only two compounds (rebaudioside A and stevioside) are
recognized as approved sweeteners. As indicated by Jabeen et al.

Table 2
Types and characteristics of reported sweeteners.
Category Sweetener name Advantages
Artificial sweeteners Aspartame Pure sweetness close to
sucrose; no aftertaste;
eliminating the after-
taste of saccharin in
combination with
saccharin; enhancing
fruit flavor; FDA
approved
Acesulfame potassium Bitter, metallic, and after-
taste; synergistic effect
with aspartame; FDA
approved
Sucralose The closest to the
sweetness of sucrose; the
most used sweetener in
beverage industry; high
stability
Cyclamate Pure sweetness, similar to
sucrose; high stability;
synergistic effect with
saccharin and aspartame
Acesulfame potassium Bitter, metallic, and after-
taste; synergistic effect
with aspartame; FDA
approved
Saccharin Low price; FDA approved
8
Neotame Relatively clean
sweetness with little or
no after-taste; FDA
approved
Advantame The most potent
sweetener in common
use; good water
solubility; high stability;
GRAS; as a flavor
enhancer
Alitame Good taste, no aftert-aste;
heat resistant; acid and
alkali resistant; high
stability
Natural sweeteners Sugar Sucrose Providing sweetness,
color and enhances
flavor; increasing
viscosity; reducing water
activity and inhibiting
bacteria; inhibiting
protein coagulation
Fructose Refreshing sweetness;
high solubility; highest
L. Chen et al.
Disadvantages Preparation Sweetness Potency Calories References
Unstable to heat and Chemical synthesis 200x 4 cal/g (Miele et al., 2017;
alkali; not suitable for Mooradian, Smith, &
patients with Tokuda, 2017; Mora &
phenylketonuria Dando, 2021)
After-taste duration Chemical synthesis 250x 0 cal/g (Ashurst, 2016; Tan,
increased when used Wee, Tomic, & Forde,
alone. 2019)
Undesirable residual Chemical synthesis 600x 0 cal/g (Andrade et al., 2019;
sweetness Mora & Dando, 2021)
Lower sweetness Chemical synthesis 30x 0 cal/g (Carocho, Morales, &
compared to other Ferreira, 2017; Wan,
artificial sweeteners. Khubber, Dwivedi, &
Misra, 2021)
After-taste duration Chemical synthesis 250x 0 cal/g (Ashurst, 2016; Tan,
increased when used Wee, Tomic, & Forde,
alone. 2019)
Bitterness; safety Chemical Synthesis 200-700x 0 cal/g (Alcaire, Antúnez, Vidal,
controversial Giménez, & Ares, 2017;
Mora & Dando, 2021)
Licorice after-taste at Chemical Synthesis 7000-13000x 0 cal/g (Carocho et al., 2017;
high concentration O’Donnell & Kearsley,
2012)
More bulking agents Chemical synthesis 7000-13000x 0 cal/g (BeMiller, 2019; Carocho
needed for substitution et al., 2017)
associated with weight
gain due to sweetness and
reduced calorie count
(people eat more)
Slightly sulfurous due to Chemical synthesis 7000-13000x 0 cal/g (BeMiller, 2019; Mora &
the presence of sulfur Dando, 2021)
atoms in the molecular
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
structure
Increasing unnecessary Natural extraction 1x 4 kcal/g (McCain, Kaliappan, &
calories in the diet; not Drake, 2018; Torrico,
friendly to diabetic Tam, Fuentes, Gonzalez
people Viejo, & Dunshea, 2019)
Does not affect satiety in Natural extraction 1.2–1.8x 4 kcal/g (McCain et al., 2018)
the same way as glucose
(continued on next page)
 L. Chen et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Category Sweetener name Advantages Disadvantages Preparation Sweetness Potency Calories References

naturally occurring
sweetness carbohydrate
Lactose Single richest milk solid Not suitable for lactose Natural extraction 0.11–0.125x 4 kcal/g (McCain et al., 2018)
particles; important intolerant people; low
starting material for sweetness
probiotics
Plant-derived sweeteners Stevioside Excellent organoleptic Bitterness, licorice taste Natural extraction 200-300x 2.7 kcal/g (Ahmad, Khan, Blundell,
properties; good heat and after-taste Azzopardi, &
stability; antibacterial, Mahomoodally, 2020;
diuretic, anti- Salar, Agullo, Garcia-
inflammatory, anti- Viguera, & Dominguez-
cancer and antioxidant Perles, 2020)
activities; hyperglycemic
and hypertension
inhibitor; GRAS
Mogrosides Health benefits (cough Bitter, chemical and Natural extraction 100-300x 0 cal/g (Ban et al., 2020;
suppressant, asthma metallic taste Mooradian et al., 2017)
calming, antioxidant,
hepatoprotective,
hypoglycemic,
immunomodulatory);
GRAS
Neohesperidin Good stability; suitable Higher cost Post-extraction 1800x 0 cal/g (Naik, Zafar, &
for cool and slightly bitter hydrogenation Shrivastava, 2021)
beverages; masking the
bitterness in fruit juice.
9

Glycyrrhizic acid
Oligosaccharides Isomaltulose
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Healthcare functions Bitterness Natural extraction 80-300x 0 cal/g (Zhang, Li, Zhang, & Zhu,
(anti-allergy, 2020)
immunomodulatory
effect, anti-viral effect);
flavor enhancer and
flavoring agent; GRAS
The slower blood glucose High price Enzymatic production/ 0.5x 4 kcal/g (Shyam, Ramadas, &
and insulin response; Microbial metabolism Chang, 2018)
non-cariogenic; slightly
less thermally stable than
sucrose; better acid
stability than sucrose;
GRAS
Pure sweetness; prebiotic Lower sweetness; high Enzymatic production 0.3x 0–3 kcal/g (Choukade & Kango,
potential; anti-diabetic, price /Microbial metabolism 2021; Dominguez,

Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076

anti-cancer, anti-caries,
antioxidant,
hypolipidemic and
immunomodulatory
effects; GRAS
Multi Sugar Alcohols Erythritol Pure sweetness, sensory
properties close to
sucrose; the only polyol
considered to be calorie-
free; stable towards heat
and acid; improving taste
when combined with
high intensity sweeteners
/Chemical synthesis Rodrigues, Lima, &
Teixeira, 2013)
Gastrointestinal Microbial metabolism 0.7x 0.2 cal/g (Boesten et al., 2015;
symptoms (doses above Ibrahim, 2021; Wan
1000 mg/kg); poor et al., 2021)
solubility at low
temperatures; lower
sweetness than sucrose
(continued on next page)
 L. Chen et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Category Sweetener name Advantages Disadvantages Preparation Sweetness Potency Calories References

such as Ace-K and

Aspartame; non-
cariogenic; antioxidant;
high digestive tolerance;
GRAS
Xylitol Pure sweetness with High price Chemical synthesis/ 1x 2.4 cal/g (de Siqueira Fraga et al.,
refreshing sensation; Microbial metabolism 2020; Gupta, 2018; He
lower-calorie but same et al., 2021)
sweetness as cane sugar;
prevents dental caries
(non-cariogenic)
Sorbitol Pure sweetness with Easy to crystallize at high Chemical synthesis 0.6x 2.6 kcal/g (Kroger, Meister, & Kava,
refreshing sensation; as concentrations; unstable 2006; Shariati et al.,
sweetener, wetting agent, at high temperatures; can 2018)
stabilizer, chelating cause gastrointestinal
agent; GRAS disorders (excessive
doses)
Maltitol Clean sweetness; the causing bloating and Chemical synthesis 0.75x 2.4 kcal/g (BeMiller, 2019; Carocho
closest to sucrose among laxatives (excessive et al., 2017)
polyols; stability in high doses)
temperature; as a fat
substitute because of its
creamy texture
Mannitol Good taste; cooling Causing abdominal pain, Chemical synthesis / 0.6x 1.6 kcal/g (BeMiller, 2019; Carocho
effect; masking flatulence, relaxation of Microbial metabolism et al., 2017; Ortiz,
10

bitterness; antioxidant stool or diarrhea (doses /Natural extraction Bleckwedel, Raya, &
effect; helping clear above 20 mg/kg) Mozzi, 2013)
mucus and cough in
asthma and other
hypersecretory diseases;
GRAS
Others Honey Natural sweetener of Higher caloric capacity Natural extraction 1x 3 kcal/g (Mora & Dando, 2021;
animal origin; positive Wan et al., 2021)
image in consumers’
mind
D-allulose/D-psicose Antioxidant, anti- High price Chemical synthesis / 0.7x 0.2 kcal/g (Hossain et al., 2015;
inflammatory, Biosynthesis Mooradian et al., 2017;
neuroprotective, Mora & Dando, 2021)
hypoglycemic activities;
improving gel properties
of foods; GRAS

Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076

D-tagatose Sweetness close to Extremely high price Chemical synthesis / 0.92x 2 kcal/g (Mora & Dando, 2021;
sucrose; no after-taste at Biosynthesis Parıldı, Kola, Özcan,
low concentrations; as a Akkaya, & Dikkaya,
prebiotic; GRAS 2021)
L-arabinose High stability; reducing Less research and Chemical synthesis / – – (Pol, de Graaf,
the absorption of sucrose; application Biosynthesis Diepeveen-de Bruin,
inhibiting fat Balvers, & Mars, 2020;
accumulation Yuan et al., 2021)

*Note: Sweetness potency denotes the times sweeter than sucrose; “-” denotes not determined.
L. Chen et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of tongue sweet TRC and gastrointestinal sweet TRC composed of TIR2-T1R3 dimeric receptors. Readapted from Han, Bagenna, and Fu
(2019) with permission from Taylor & Francis Group, copyright 2019.
(2019), stevia was employed to reduce the caloric content of guava
drinks, and it was found that stevia could be used as a substitute for
sucrose in ready-to-drink (RTD) drinks. However, one of its main
drawbacks in applications is the bitterness and licorice taste. To reduce
undesired taste and ensure delicious taste, bulking agents are used in
some industrial stevia beverage formulations (Tireki, 2021). Addition­
ally, flavorings can also be used in stevia beverage formulations to mask
the undesired taste, especially fruit flavoring that can also enhance
overall flavor due to the interaction between fruit flavoring and sweet­
eners. For example, it has been evidenced that the combined employ­
ment of lemon flavoring and glycosylated steviol glycosides (GSG) (0.9
%) could reduce aftertaste and “unfresh and metallic sensation” (Miele
et al., 2017). Moreover, percolation and nanofiltration processes in
stevia extracts are effective in removing the bitter and licorice taste
(Yildiz & Karhan, 2021). A novel stevia sweetener with cleaner sweet­
ness has been generated based on microbial fermentation production
using yeast S. cerevisiae (Yildiz & Karhan, 2021). In recent years, the
number of beverage products formulated with GSG has increased
significantly, with more than 300 types of teas with stevia-derived
sweeteners introduced from 2010 to 2017. In low-calorie iced tea, ste­
via is used as frequently as sucralose (Miele et al., 2017). Several
carbonated beverage manufacturers (including Coca-Cola) have intro­
duced GSG-containing soft drinks (Miele et al., 2017).
The fruit of Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle), also known as Luo Han Guo or
monk fruit, contains a mixture of curcurbitane-type triterpenoid saponins
called mogrosides. Recently, the natural metabolic pathways of mogrosides
have been elucidated, which paves the way for developing new bio­
technologies for large-scale production using transgenic plants or micro­
organisms (Beltrami et al., 2018). Mogroside is 100–300 times sweeter
than that of sucrose, although its sweetness profile is characterized by
lower peak sweetness, a longer sweetness duration and after-taste (bitter,
chemical and metallic taste) compared with sucrose (Tan, Wee, Tomic, &
Forde, 2019). The attempt to improve the sweetness profile is successful
when the amount of mogrosides is limited to 25 % of the sweetener blend,
but the undesirable taste remains prominent at high usage levels (Parker,
Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2018).
Sugar alcohols or polyols are attractive alternatives to sucrose,
because they are minimally metabolized in the body (Majeed et al.,
2018; Martau, Coman, & Vodnar, 2020; Mora & Dando, 2021).
11
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Moreover, one of the key applications of sugar alcohol sweeteners is that
they can mask the bitterness of other low-calorie sweeteners (Mora &
Dando, 2021). Erythritol, considered to be the only calorie-free polyol,
has been widely used in sugar-free carbonated beverages (Mejia &
Pearlman, 2019). Rare sugars (e.g. D-fructose and L-arabinose) are
gaining attention with their natural origin, clean sweetness, and effects
of reducing blood glucose and fat accumulation after consumption (Pol,
de Graaf, Diepeveen-de Bruin, Balvers, & Mars, 2020).
Sweet proteins are another class of compounds considered as natural
sugar substitutes, including miraculin, monellin, thaumatin, mabinlins,
pentadin, curculin, and brazzein. Although several sweet compounds
have been studied, thaumatin is the most promising (Mora & Dando,
2021). Thaumatin is a family of sweet proteins, and its total sweetness is
about 2000 times more potent than sucrose. However, thaumatin is not
usually used in beverages, as its interaction with some colorants can lead
to the loss of sweetness (Miele et al., 2017).
4.3.3. The blending of sweeteners
The blending of sweeteners may have a better overall taste than any
sweetener component alone. Such a combination can mask the undesirable
flavor (bitterness and metallic flavor) of some components or provide
sweetness duration with characteristics close to those of natural sugars
such as sucrose and fructose. Therefore, a reasonable combination of
sweeteners may achieve synergistic effects on sweetness, stability, and
improvement of flavor and temporary taste characteristics (Acevedo et al.,
2018). For example, acesulfame exhibits a pronounced bitter and metallic
taste, but it is below the threshold concentration for off-flavor detected by
most people when it is mixed with aspartame and sucralose (Mahato et al.,
2020). Saccharin is normally blended with cyclamate. Behrens, Blank, and
Meyerhof (2017) demonstrated that saccharin and cyclamate can inhibit
bitter receptors, when they are mixed. Therefore, the combined use can
achieve the purpose of reducing bitterness and increasing sweetness.
Moreover, the addition of some other sweeteners to high-intensity sweet­
eners could increase sweetness perception. When compared with a single
sweetener aspartame (0.07 %), binary blends of sweeteners, aspartame/
saccharin (70:30, 0.0425 %) can lead to a 39 % reduction in usage level
(Meena et al., 2012). Sweetener blends can make the texture and sweetness
profile more closely resemble traditional sugary products for the improved
overall taste (Oktavirina et al., 2021).
L. Chen et al.
Fig. 2. The conceptual model of positive allosteric modulator in a sweetener receptor. Readapted from DuBois & Prakash (2012) with permission from Taylor &
Francis Group, copyright 2012.
4.3.4. Sweeteners and health
Despite the increasingly widespread use of sweeteners and the strict
approval process followed by regulatory agencies, it is worth noting that
their effects on human health are controversial (Wan et al., 2021).
Numerous consumers consider artificial sweeteners to be unhealthy,
which is possibly influenced by studies that link artificial sweeteners (e.
g. saccharin and aspartame) to cancer in animals as early as the 1970 s
(Andrade et al., 2019; Debras et al., 2022; McCain, Kaliappan & Drake,
2018). Most of these studies have been disproven and are no longer
relevant but exert negative impacts on artificial sweeteners. According
to a recent meta-analysis, there is insufficient evidence indicating
whether the use of artificial sweeteners increases or decreases the risk of
cancer (Liu, Zhang, Wang, Cui, & Li, 2021). In addition to the contro­
versy over the relationship between artificial sweeteners and cancer, the
effects of low-energy sweeteners on human metabolism have also
attracted more and more attention in recent years.
Sweetness is mediated by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs),
known as type I taste receptors (T1Rs). T1R3 subunits bind to T1R2
subunits to form sweet taste receptors (Carniel Beltrami, Döring, & De
Dea Lindner, 2018). In terms of structure, each subunit consists of a
transmembrane domain (TMD) and an extracellular domain (ECD)
comprising a venus flytrap (VFT) domain and a cysteine-rich domain
(CRD) (Miao et al., 2022). Sweeteners lead to the activation of intra­
cellular signaling progenitors via binding to GPCRs on the parietal
membrane of taste cells (Fig. 1), thus allowing sweetness perception.
Different sweeteners bind to different regions of the same sweet taste
receptor heterodimer (Miao et al., 2022). The cleft formed by the two
Fig. 3. Evaluation method classification for sweet taste intensity.
12
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
lobes of the VFT structural domain of T1R2 is considered as the main
binding site, because it can bind various sweet substances, such as
glucose, sucrose, D-tryptophan, saccharin, acesulfame, aspartame, and
neotame (Miao et al., 2022). Sweet taste receptors are present not only
in the oral cavity but also in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (Lee &
Owyang, 2017). Similarity has been found in the detection of sweet taste
in sweet oral taste receptor cells (TRC) and gastrointestinal sweet TRC
(Fig. 1). Furthermore, the corresponding functional responses. Taste
perception (oral cavity) and hormone release (e.g. satiety hormone, GIT)
are initiated in the oral cavity and GIT (Han et al., 2019). Sweet taste
receptors not only play a role in sweetness perception but also in the
regulation of appetite, glucose homeostasis, and intestinal motility (Tan,
Wee, Tomic, & Forde, 2020). Hence, various sweeteners can stimulate
the downstream responses that may exert an impact on whole-body
metabolism via stimulating taste receptors (Mora & Dando, 2021).
Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for how low-calorie
sweeteners affect the metabolism of sugar in humans. Receptors in the
pancreas and intestine may influence glucose absorption by affecting the
glucose transporters SGLT-1 and GLUT2 or by promoting enterokinin
release to alter glucose metabolism, in which the central nervous system
also plays a key role (Hutchings et al., 2019). Therefore, it has been
suggested that separating sweetness from energy reception (mismatch
between sweetness and energy availability) leads to a reduced condi­
tioned response to sweetness (Ahmad, Friel, & MacKay, 2020). Another
interesting possible mechanism is that changes in metabolism may be
mediated by alterations in the gut microbiota (microbiota dysbiosis).
Most low-calorie sweeteners pass through the human gastrointestinal
L. Chen et al.
Table 3
Applicability of evaluation methods.
Analytical chemical Cellular level Sensory
assay assay evaluation
Direct sugar £ £ √ SE-2 is not sweet itself at the intended level of use and inactive in the
reduction
Multi-sensory £ £ √ activate the sweetener receptors (T1R2/T1R3 receptors), but their
integration
Sweetener
√ √ √
Sweetness enhancer £ √ √
*Note: √ means this evaluation method is applicable in this sugar reduction
method, × means not applicable.
tract without being digested by the host, thereby directly interacting
with gut microbiota, which may affect the growth of some microor­
ganisms and then lead to microbial dysbiosis. The composition and
function of microbiota are regulated by the diet both in the case of
healthy/lean state and obesity as well as diabetes. In turn, alterations in
the microbiota are associated with a predisposition to metabolic syn­
drome, as gut microbiota play a central role in regulating various
physiological processes. (Ahmad, Khan, Blundell, Azzopardi, & Maho­
moodally, 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2017). Suez et al. (2014) have
demonstrated that 4 out of 7 individuals developed glucose intolerance
after 7 days of daily saccharin intake. Furthermore, this study was
performed to transplant fecal microbiota of glucose intolerant humans
into recipient germ-free mice, which, in turn, also developed glucose
intolerance. This result demonstrated that the change in glucose meta­
bolism was mediated by intestinal microbiota dysbiosis (Suez et al.,
2014), and a number of recent studies also share similar results (Li et al.,
2022; Plows et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2019).
The health concerns associated with effects on metabolism include
increased risk of overweight and obesity due to compensatory increase
in food intake, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and metabolic syn­
drome (Ahmad, Azad, Friel, & MacKay, 2019; Ahmad et al., 2020;
Alcaire et al., 2017). The effect of low-calorie sweetener consumption on
obesity has been a debate among the scientific community and con­
sumers. According to some previous studies, low-calorie sweeteners may
promote a compensatory increase in food intake, ultimately resulting in
weight gain and other metabolic disorders (Malek et al., 2018; O’Connor
et al., 2021; Suez, Shapiro, & Elinav, 2016). By contrast, some studies
have proposed that replacing sugar with low-calorie sweeteners helps to
reduce body weight (Laviada-Molina et al., 2020; Mattes, 2016).
Moreover, in randomized clinical trials, a frequent intake of sucralose
has been linked to insulin sensitivity and acute insulin response (Kumari,
Arora, Choudhary, Singh, & Tomar, 2018; Lertrit et al., 2018).
Sweeteners have been widely used in the beverage industry due to
their advantages of high sweetness, low-calorie content and low price
(Parker et al., 2018). It is worth mentioning that the action mechanism
of sweet taste receptors is gaining attention. As previously evidenced,
the potent artificial sweeteners exhibited greater binding time with
sweet taste receptors with more potent stability, van der Waals inter­
action, and hydrophobic effects than natural sweeteners. These potent
sweeteners may over-stimulate sweet taste receptors and hinder their
timely release, so they almost form inhibitors of sweeter receptors (Miao
et al., 2022). The in-depth understanding of the mechanisms of sweet­
ener function offers a new research direction for the design of
sweeteners.
4.4. Sweetness enhancers
Sweetness enhancers are defined as a class of compounds that have
no sweet taste but can substantially increase the sweetness intensity
when consumed together with a sweetener. These compounds, also
known as positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) (Servant et al., 2010).
As sweetness intensity perception is enhanced, addition of PAMs
significantly reduce carbohydrate content without affecting the
13
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
sweetness intensity (Belloir et al., 2017). Senomyx Corporation (San
Diego, CA, USA) has identified the first PAMs for sweet taste receptors.
Among these compounds, SE-2 can significantly enhance sucralose ac­
tivity and potency in cell-based assays (Beltrami et al., 2018). However,
absence of sucralose (Carniel Beltrami et al., 2018). PAMs are not able to
binding mode enables the sweetener to bind to the receptor with a
higher affinity (DuBois & Prakash, 2012), as shown in Fig. 2. Each sweet
taste receptor has a part characterized by a large VFT, and sweetener
binding near the hinge region can trigger the initial closure of VFT. By
contrast, the sweet taste enhancer binds to the T1R2 subunit adjacent to
the flytrap opening and connects to TMD through a short CRD, which
reduces the entropic cost of lobe closure and stabilizes the closed
conformation via enhancing the hydrophobic interaction between two
lobes (Beltrami et al., 2018). According to further studies, some other
effective PAMs (SE-3 and SE-4) with altered specificity have been
identified, which can reduce sugar content by 50 %, while maintaining
the sweetness (Zhang et al., 2010).
Due to the synergistic effect of PAMs and sweeteners, they are
simultaneously used to reduce sugar. The PAMs have no sweet taste,
while do not elicit bitterness, metallic taste, or temporal sensory profile
(Matsumoto, Yamada, Nakazawa, Mori, & Kitajima, 2020; Wang,
Gmitter, Grosser, & Wang, 2022). Therefore, formulations containing
sweeteners with PAMs can potentiate the sweetness characteristic of
sweetener (DuBois & Prakash, 2012). These combinations are allowed to
be used in different products, and these products taste the same as the
product with only sweetener added (Beltrami et al., 2018). In the case of
nutritional sweeteners (e.g. sucrose, fructose, and glucose) with clean
sweetness but a high caloric content, PAMs can exhibit the original clean
sweetness, while reducing the usage of sweeteners. For non-caloric
sweeteners used in calorie-free beverages, addition of PAMs can be
used to diminish the bitterness, aftertaste and other off-flavors induced
by non-nutritive sweeteners (Servant, Kenakin, Zhang, Williams, &
Servant, 2020), which addresses the unpleasant sweetness of non-
nutritive sweeteners to some extent. Considering the presence of nutri­
tive sweeteners in the formulations containing sweeteners with PAMs,
there are still some residual calories despite of their low concentration.
However, if sweetness intensity is enhanced ≥ 20 times, the nutritive
sweeteners contribute less than or equal to 5 % of the calories of the
normal product with only sweeteners added. Some beverages can be
labeled as zero-calorie, which have a great appeal in the market and
have become a major driving force for development of PAMs (Bertelsen
et al., 2021). More examples of PAMs have been previously reviewed
(Yamada et al., 2019), although the obtained results are quite limited.
5. Evaluation methods
Currently, the methods for sweetness evaluation can be divided into
three main categories, including analytical chemical assays, cell-based
assays, and sensory evaluation (Fig. 3). The evaluation of sweetness
consists of two parts, namely sweetness and sweetness characteristics
(Park, Kim, Seo, Yoo, & Hong, 2017). Sweetness is used to reflect and
characterize the intensity of sweetness (Kim, Park, & Hong, 2022).
Sweetness can be determined using assays that do not involve the human
physiological environment (namely, it may rely on subjective psycho­
logical and multisensory judgments), such as analytical chemical assays
and cellular level assays, while it can be evaluated through sensory
evaluation (e.g. sweetness evaluation in the strategy of multi-sensory
integration). Sweetness characteristics are used to reflect some flavor
characteristics perceived by the human, including whether the sweet­
ness is clean and fresh and whether there is an after-taste, which can
only be assessed through sensory evaluation (Jang, Chung, Kim, & Park,
2021). Sweetness evaluation is a complex system, and different sugar
reduction methods have different principles. Accordingly, the overall
sweetness including sweetness and sweetness characteristics should be
L. Chen et al.
evaluated using different evaluation methods. The applicability of
different evaluation methods in different sugar reduction methods is
summarized in Table 3.
5.1. Analytical chemical assay
Chemical assays are an important class of methods for sweetness
detection, whose principle is to detect the content of sweet compounds
in the substance to be measured using analytical chemical means such as
spectrophotometry, sweetness meter, chromatographic detection, near-
infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and electronic tongue (E-tongue). In
general, this method can accurately detect the content of sweet com­
pounds, but it is difficult to accurately quantify the sweetness at the
physiological level.
The spectrophotometry method is an early method used for sweet­
ness detection in food. A study has proposed a rapid determination of
sodium cyclamate using iodometric spectrophotometry (Oktavirina
et al., 2021). This method is characterized by relatively simple pre-
treatment and easy operation. However, the disadvantage is that
colored substances can easily cause interference, and the samples cannot
be left for a long time after treatment, which largely affects the accuracy
of the measurement results. With the increasing requirements for
detection levels, the traditional spectrophotometric method can no
longer meet the demand. In order to rapidly detect and even predict the
sweetness of unknown substances, an artificial neural network-based
structure-taste relationship model was established to predict bitterness
and sweetness, and the proposed model could accurately predict bitter
and sweet tastes. These models help to understand the relationship be­
tween the structure of molecules and bitterness and sweetness, and
elucidate the characteristics and mechanisms of molecular taste, which
is a novel detection method introduced by computational methods (Bo
et al., 2022).
The sweetness meter method is another way of measuring sweetness
with the basic principle of reflecting sugar concentration by measuring
the refractive index of an aqueous solution. However, the sweetness
meter has relatively strict conditions for practical use, which requires
strict long-term maintenance to ensure the precision of the instrument
and it cannot be used for sweetness testing under conditions close to
physiological conditions.
As a widely used analytical detection method, the chromatographic
detection method also plays an important role in sweetness detection.
Due to the different physical and chemical properties, spectroscopic
properties, and electrochemical properties of different sweeteners, the
scope of application of the corresponding chromatographic detection
methods is also different. In general, thin-layer chromatography is only
suitable for the rapid separation and qualitative analysis of a number of
sweet compounds. Ion chromatography is suitable for detecting a large
number of samples with fast speed and strong selectivity for sample
analysis (Sherma & Rabel, 2018). High-performance liquid chromatog­
raphy (HPLC) is characterized by the reproducibility and objectivity of
results, but the determination process is time-consuming and requires
complex pretreatment. Currently, the HPLC method is being continu­
ously optimized and upgraded to develop simultaneous detection as well
as simple and rapid pretreatment processes. A simple and rapid sample
pretreatment method, which enables the simultaneous quantitative
determination of three artificial sweeteners (saccharin, aspartame, and
acesulfame) using HPLC has been developed (Kim, Lee, & Ahn, 2020). A
microfluidic chromatographic detection (MCD) system has been devel­
oped for the simultaneous determination of two common sweeteners
(saccharin and acesulfame) (Liu, Ko, Wang, Fu, & Lee, 2021). A novel
HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of seven sweeteners
(acesulfame, saccharin, aspartame, alitame, neohesperidin dihy­
drochalcone, rebaudioside-A, and neotame) in various matrices has been
introduced (Sezgin, Arli, & Can, 2021). With the popularity of mass
spectrometers, more combined analytical instruments are also applied
for the analysis and detection of sweetness. LC-MS/MS has higher
14
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
sensitivity and selectivity, utilizing the separation power of chroma­
tography and the qualitative function of mass spectrometry, which often
involves the characterization of complex mixtures. The method can be
used for the content determination of multiple sugars or artificial
sweeteners (Henschel & Hayen, 2020).
Infrared spectroscopy is also often used for the detection of sweet­
eners. In recent years, NIRS has been considered a robust analytical
method for food evaluation with its rapid and non-destructive analytical
features (Aouadi et al., 2020). NIRS combined with HPLC and nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) can be used for characterization of synthetic
sweeteners and blending of sweeteners, as well as the assessment of their
properties (e.g. sweetness) (Oktavirina et al., 2021). Besides, Fourier
transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIRS) as a non-destructive alternative
to conventional methods has become an increasingly important tool in
quantitative analysis of complex components. A recent study has com­
bined FTIR spectroscopy with machine learning approaches as a rapid
tool to identify and quantify artificial sweeteners (Wang et al., 2020).
E-tongue is a novel detection technique that can detect the taste of
soluble substances. It consists of chemical sensors that mimic the func­
tion of mammal tongues to derive sweetness sensations for the quanti­
tative analysis of sweetness. Typically, these sensor arrays allow for
rapid sensing at a relatively lower price than that of standard analytical
equipment (Tan & Xu, 2020). The E-tongue technique has the advan­
tages of simplifying the experimental procedure, high sensitivity, fast
speed of detection, and low detection limit. The E-tongue can also
provide an overall evaluation of the taste characteristics of the liquid
sample. Moreover, E-tongue is effective in avoiding human sensory
discrepancy and subjective preference (Aouadi et al., 2020), which
makes it a robust method for comprehensive analysis and detection in
the field of sweet taste evaluation.
5.2. Cell-based assay
In addition to the chemical assays mentioned above, cell-based as­
says are becoming a new comprehensive sweetness detection method.
These methods are basically characterized by the detection of human
sweet taste receptors (the expression of two protein subunits T1R2 and
T1R3 of the sweet taste receptors present in gustatory epithelial tissues
in the oral cavity) (Morini, Bassoli, & Temussi, 2005). The intensity of
sweetness is determined by the number of binding sites between sweet
taste receptors and sweet taste molecules and the effective degree of
their binding (Hashimoto, Nakagita, & Misaka, 2021). Moreover, the
activated sweet receptors can regulate the intracellular Ca2+ concen­
tration. Therefore, the traditional method for detecting the level of
sweetness is to calculate the Ca2+ concentration by measuring the
intracellular fluorescence intensity (Zhu, Xu, Ge, & Chen, 2016). How­
ever, this method is not applicable to foods containing fluorescent
compounds. Recently, there have been studies conducting sweetness
detection in the presence of food and fluorescent compounds using Ca2+-
sensitive photoproteins of human sweet taste receptors as Ca2+ in­
dicators (Matsuyama, Terada, Yamazaki-Ito, & Ito, 2021; Toda, Okada,
& Misaka, 2011). However, in some cultured cellular assay systems, the
human sweet taste receptor GPCR (hT1R2/hT1R3) is able to sense many
sweeteners, including sugar, artificial sweeteners and sweet proteins,
but the frequency of cellular responses is not high enough (Misaka,
2013). Hence, advanced techniques are needed to detect and analyze
cellular responses when sweeteners are used. In a previous study, a
sweet-sensitive cellular assay system [cell lines that stably express both
human taste receptor subunits (hT1R2 and hT1R3) and a chimeric G
protein] (Imada et al., 2010) that can respond consistently over time has
been proposed. This assay has an extremely high response and frequency
to all sweeteners tested, such as aspartame, saccharin, Ace-K, and
sweeteners (Misaka, 2013). Furthermore, cellular models have also been
constructed to investigate the uptake mechanism of sweeteners
(Sawadsopanon, Meksawan, & Chanvorachote, 2017; Xie et al., 2020).
Although the current applications are relatively scanty, this also
L. Chen et al.
provides a new perspective for further development of sweetness
detection methods.
5.3. Sensory evaluation
Sensory evaluation methods are a significant means of evaluating
sweetness and the preferences for sweet foods at present. In the context
of sugar reduction, it is crucial to understand the sensory evaluation
methods of sweetness. The sweetness of a sweet compound is deter­
mined through comparison by professional assessors. Assessors were
asked to taste those sweetener solutions as well as a series of standard
sucrose solutions with known concentrations. When the sweetness of
sweetener solution being tested is considered to be the same as a stan­
dard sucrose solution, the concentration of the standard sucrose solution
divided by the concentration of the sweetener solution under test is the
sweetness potency of the sweetener solution (Hutchings et al., 2019).
According to experimental psychology, sensory evaluation methods can
be specifically classified into five categories, namely proportional,
preference, difference, just-about-right (JAR), and attribute analysis
(Hutchings et al., 2019). Sensory evaluation methods can quantify
sweetness using the test system closest to physiological conditions.
However, the experiments are time-consuming and costly, and human
sweet taste perception can be affected by various external factors, such
as temperature, solvents, and other stimuli (Feeney et al., 2019). Tem­
poral check-all-that-apply (TCATA) has emerged as a new temporal
sensory evaluation method, which allows a continuous description of
the sensory characteristics of a product by collecting dynamic infor­
mation perceived by sensory properties. Therefore, it is suitable to
evaluate the temporal profile of sensory attributes of sweeteners (Tan
et al., 2019).
It is worth mentioning that in recent years, the traditional experi­
mental tests have gradually shifted to computational methods and
artificial intelligence when investigating the relationship between
sweetness and chemical structure. A new multilayer sweetness evalua­
tion system based on a machine learning approach has been proposed
(Yang et al., 2022), which can be used in different application scenarios
to evaluate the sweetness properties of compounds with different
chemical structures and categories, including natural/artificial and
nutritional/non-nutritional compounds, as well as carbohydrate and
non-carbohydrate. Additionally, it provides a quantitative prediction of
sweetness and sweetness-associated chemical basis as well as structural
change patterns using molecular cloud and matched molecular pair
analysis (Yang et al., 2022). Other studies have detected and classified
the sweetness of fruits using acoustic signal and image processing-based
techniques (Chawgien & Kiattisin, 2021) and introduced machine
learning techniques to build classification models of sweetness and
achieve nondestructive sweetness detection (Chawgien & Kiattisin,
2021). This may be a future trend in sweetness detection and evaluation
methods in the food industry. Computers and artificial intelligence
would be helpful for food scientists to detect sweetness and efficiently
screen and develop high-quality sweeteners.
6. Future prospects
Taken together, the following prospects are proposed for the ad­
vances in research on sugar reduction in beverages.
Firstly, most sugar reduction strategies, except for sweeteners, result
in limited sugar reduction without affecting consumer sensory accep­
tance. Currently, most studies and applications are based on a single
sugar reduction strategy, but it is difficult to meet all the requirements of
sugar-reduced beverages using a single sugar reduction strategy. For this
reason, the combined usage of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers as
well as combined multiple sugar reduction strategies can serve as a
15
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
research direction to achieve the desired sugar reduction level in prac­
tical applications, such as the combination of odor–taste interaction and
color-taste interaction.
Secondly, the extent of sugar reduction that can be achieved through
the sugar reduction strategy of multi-sensory integration is still
controversial, which is mainly attributed to individual difference-
induced effects on the perception of sweetness. Moreover, most
studies on multi-sensory integration are individual perception in­
vestigations rather than an exploration of the mechanism at the mo­
lecular level. Subsequent studies in this field need to be performed to
confirm the validity and robustness of this strategy. On the other hand,
this strategy is influenced by various factors (e.g. consumer attitudes
toward food flavors and colors).
Thirdly, the texture in the food matrix has often been considered in
sugar reduction studies. Accumulating studies have evidenced a strong
association between food texture and sweetness perception. Further­
more, temporal variations in sweetener concentration (i.e. sweetener
concentration differences) have been shown to enhance taste percep­
tion. Therefore, it has been proposed that the differences in sugar con­
centration can help enhance the sweetness perception, thereby reducing
the sugar content in soft and semi-solid foods (Stieger & van de Velde,
2013). However, the application of this taste-enhancing strategy has
mostly been investigated in semi-solid and soft solid foods (Kistler,
Pridal, Bourcet, & Denkel, 2021; Mahato et al., 2020; Stieger & van de
Velde, 2013), but its feasibility as a strategy in beverages could be
explored in the future.
Eventually, the use of sweeteners for sugar reduction has been a hot
topic in the field of food and beverage processing in the past years.
Sweeteners are widely used in the food industry due to their advantages
of high sweetness, low cost, and a low or no-calorie content. In subse­
quent research on the use of sweeteners for beverage sugar reduction,
the health effects of sweeteners used in beverages should be further
explored, since this is still a major challenge in the use of sweeteners.
Meanwhile, regulations should be updated and adjusted with research
progress to ensure the continued safety of food products. On the other
hand, the action mechanisms of sweet taste receptors are receiving
increasing attention, which provides new strategies for the subsequent
development of new sweeteners. Strong artificial sweeteners can bind
more tightly and longer to sweet taste receptors, which may act as ag­
onists to cause excessive stimulation of sweet receptors. In the future,
healthy sweeteners should be designed to enhance the intensity of
transient stimulation, while ensuring the rapid release of sweeteners
from receptors.
7. Conclusion
Considering public health concerns caused by excessive sugar con­
sumption and the policy guidance in various countries, sugar reduction
in beverages is urgently needed. Despite the presence of some flavor and
health concerns of sweeteners, the application of sweeteners is still the
most effective and widely used strategy of sugar reduction, as they
reduce caloric intake and blood glucose changes in the body while
maintaining beverage sweetness, thereby minimizing the impact of
sugar reduction on consumer sensory acceptance. Multi-sensory inte­
gration involving odor–taste interaction and color-taste interaction is
also a promising strategy for sugar reduction. Moreover, in addition to
traditional evaluation methods (such as spectrophotometric method,
sweetness meter method and sensory evaluation), NIRS and E-tongue
have gradually developed into robust evaluation methods in recent
years. It is worth mentioning that cellular-based detection methods and
artificial intelligence are also research trends with development poten­
tial. The present review lays a theoretical foundation for sugar reduction
in beverages.
L. Chen et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lining Chen: Visualization, Writing – original draft. Wei Wu:
Writing – review & editing. Na Zhang: Supervision, Resources. Kathr­
ine H. Bak: Writing – review & editing. Yuhao Zhang: Writing – review
& editing. Yu Fu: Conceptualization, Resources, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (32101980), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Uni­
versities (SWU019009), Innovation Program for Chongqing’s Overseas
Returnees (cx2019072), and Innovation Training Program for College
Students at Southwest University (202210635067).
Ethical statement
Ethics approval was not required for this research.
References
Acevedo, W., Capitaine, C., Rodríguez, R., Araya-Durán, I., González-Nilo, F., Pérez-
Correa, J. R., & Agosin, E. (2018). Selecting optimal mixtures of natural sweeteners
for carbonated soft drinks through multi-objective decision modeling and sensory
validation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(6), e12466.
Adams, H., Southard, M., Reeder, S., Buerkens, F., Hallford, R. L., Ikehata, K., & Nix, D. K.
(2021). Successfully detecting and mitigating algal blooms and taste and odor
compounds. Journal American Water Works Association, 113(6), 10–19.
Ahmad, J., Khan, I., Blundell, R., Azzopardi, J., & Mahomoodally, M. F. (2020). Stevia
rebaudiana Bertoni.: An updated review of its health benefits, industrial applications
and safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 100, 177–189.
Ahmad, S. Y., Azad, M. B., Friel, J., & MacKay, D. (2019). Recent evidence for the effects
of nonnutritive sweeteners on glycaemic control. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition
& Metabolic Care, 22(4), 278–283.
Ahmad, S. Y., Friel, J. K., & MacKay, D. S. (2020). The effect of the artificial sweeteners
on glucose metabolism in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blinded, crossover
clinical trial. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 45(6), 606–612.
Alcaire, F., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2017). Aroma-related cross-
modal interactions for sugar reduction in milk desserts: Influence on consumer
perception. Food Research International, 97, 45–50.
Alley, R. L., & Alley, T. R. (1998). The influence of physical state and color on perceived
sweetness. The Journal of psychology, 132(5), 561–568.
Alsukait, R., Bleich, S., Wilde, P., Singh, G., & Folta, S. (2020). Sugary drink excise tax
policy process and implementation: Case study from Saudi Arabia. Food Policy, 90,
Article 101789.
Alwan, A., McColl, K., Al-Jawaldeh, A., & Organization, W. H. (2017). Proposed policy
priorities for preventing obesity and diabetes in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
Amorim, A., Barbosa, A. D., & Sobral, P. J. D. (2022). Hunger, obesity, public policies,
and food-based dietary guidelines: a reflection considering the socio-environmental
world context. Frontiers Nutrition, 8.
Andrade, A. C., Martins, M. B., Rodrigues, J. F., Coelho, S. B., Pinheiro, A. C. M., &
Bastos, S. C. (2019). Effect of different quantities of miracle fruit on sour and bitter
beverages. Lwt-Food Science and Technology, 99, 89–97.
Aouadi, B., Zaukuu, J. L. Z., Vitalis, F., Bodor, Z., Feher, O., Gillay, Z., … Kovacs, Z.
(2020). Historical evolution and food control achievements of near infrared
spectroscopy, electronic nose, and electronic tongue-critical overview. Sensors, 20
(19).
Appleton, K., Tuorila, H., Bertenshaw, E., De Graaf, C., & Mela, D. (2018). Sweet taste
exposure and the subsequent acceptance and preference for sweet taste in the diet:
Systematic review of the published literature. The American journal of clinical
nutrition, 107(3), 405–419.
Ashurst, P. R. (2016). Chemistry and technology of soft drinks and fruit juices. John Wiley &
Sons.
Bailey, R. L., Fulgoni, V. L., Cowan, A. E., & Gaine, P. C. (2018). Sources of added sugars
in young children, adolescents, and adults with low and high intakes of added
sugars. Nutrients, 10(1), 102.
16
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Ban, Q., Cheng, J., Sun, X., Jiang, Y., Zhao, S., Song, X., & Guo, M. (2020). Effects of a
synbiotic yogurt using monk fruit extract as sweetener on glucose regulation and gut
microbiota in rats with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(4),
2956–2968.
Bayarri, S., Calvo, C., Costell, E., & Durán, L. (2016). Influence of color on perception of
sweetness and fruit flavor of fruit drinks. Food Science and Technology International, 7
(5), 399–404.
Behrens, M., Blank, K., & Meyerhof, W. (2017). Blends of non-caloric sweeteners
saccharin and cyclamate show reduced off-taste due to TAS2R bitter receptor
inhibition. Cell chemical biology, 24(10), 1199–1204. e1192.
Belloir, C., Neiers, F., & Briand, L. (2017). Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers. Current
Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, 20(4), 279–285.
BeMiller, J. N. (2019). Carbohydrate and noncarbohydrate sweeteners. Carbohydrate
chemistry for food scientists, 3, 380–383.
Bertelsen, A. S., Mielby, L. A., Alexi, N., Byrne, D. V., & Kidmose, U. (2020a). Individual
differences in sweetness ratings and cross-modal aroma-taste interactions. Foods, 9
(2), 146.
Bertelsen, A. S., Mielby, L. A., Alexi, N., Byrne, D. V., & Kidmose, U. (2020b). Sweetness
enhancement by aromas: Measured by descriptive sensory analysis and relative to
reference scaling. Chemical Senses, 45(4), 293–301.
Bertelsen, A. S., Mielby, L. A., Byrne, D. V., & Kidmose, U. (2020). Ternary cross-modal
interactions between sweetness, aroma, and viscosity in different beverage matrices.
Foods, 9(4).
Bertelsen, A. S., Zeng, Y., Mielby, L. A., Sun, Y.-X., Byrne, D. V., & Kidmose, U. (2021).
Cross-modal effect of vanilla aroma on sweetness of different sweeteners among
Chinese and Danish consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 87, Article 104036.
Bleich, S. N., & Vercammen, K. A. (2018). The negative impact of sugar-sweetened
beverages on children’s health: An update of the literature. BMC obesity, 5(1), 1–27.
Bo, W., Qin, D., Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Ding, B., Li, Y., & Liang, G. (2022). Prediction of
bitterant and sweetener using structure-taste relationship models based on an
artificial neural network. Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.), 153, Article
110974.
Boakes, R. A., & Hemberger, H. (2012). Odour-modulation of taste ratings by chefs. Food
Quality and Preference, 25(2), 81–86.
Boesten, D. M. P. H. J., den Hartog, G. J. M., de Cock, P., Bosscher, D., Bonnema, A., &
Bast, A. (2015). Health effects of erythritol. Nutrafoods, 14(1), 3–9.
Bowman, S., Clemens, J., Friday, J., LaComb, R., Paudel, D., & Shimizu, M. (2019).
Added sugars in adults’ diet: What we eat in America, NHANES 2015–2016. Food
Surveys Research Group Dietary Data Brief, 24, 1–6.
Brown, T., Moore, T. H., Hooper, L., Gao, Y., Zayegh, A., Ijaz, S., … O’Malley, C. (2019).
Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 7.
Burseg, K. M. M., Camacho, S., Knoop, J., & Bult, J. H. F. (2010). Sweet taste intensity is
enhanced by temporal fluctuation of aroma and taste, and depends on phase shift.
Physiology & Behavior, 101(5), 726–730.
Campo, R., Reinoso-Carvalho, F., & Rosato, P. (2021). Wine experiences: a review from a
multisensory perspective. Applied Sciences-Basel, 11(10).
Carniel Beltrami, M., Döring, T., & De Dea Lindner, J. (2018). Sweeteners and sweet taste
enhancers in the food industry. Food Science and Technology, 38(2), 181–187.
Carocho, M., Morales, P., & Ferreira, I. (2017). Sweeteners as food additives in the XXI
century: A review of what is known, and what is to come. Food and Chemical
Toxicology, 107, 302–317.
Carvalho, F. M., & Spence, C. (2019). Cup colour influences consumers’ expectations and
experience on tasting specialty coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 75, 157–169.
Cavazzana, A., Larsson, M., Hoffmann, E., Hummel, T., & Haehner, A. (2017). The
vessel’s shape influences the smell and taste of cola. Food Quality and Preference, 59,
8–13.
Çavdir, E., Akben, S. B., & Bozdoğan, A. (2020). Modeling and analyzing rheological
behavior of sour lemon juice concentrate using image processing methods. Journal of
Texture Studies, 51(5), 789–799.
Charoenkwan, P., Yana, J., Nantasenamat, C., Hasan, M. M., & Shoombuatong, W.
(2020). iUmami-SCM: A novel sequence-based predictor for prediction and analysis
of umami peptides using a scoring card method with propensity scores of dipeptides.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 60(12), 6666–6678.
Chawgien, K., & Kiattisin, S. (2021). Machine learning techniques for classifying the
sweetness of watermelon using acoustic signal and image processing. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 181, Article 105938.
Chen, Y., Huang, A. X., Faber, I., Makransky, G., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2020). Assessing
the influence of visual-taste congruency on perceived sweetness and product liking
in immersive VR. Foods, 9(4).
Choukade, R., & Kango, N. (2021). Production, properties, and applications of
fructosyltransferase: A current appraisal. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 41(8),
1178–1193.
Davis, E. A. (1995). Function of sugar - physicochemical interaction in foods. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62(1), 170S–177S.
de Oliveira Pineli, L. D. L., de Aguiar, L. A., Fiusa, A., de Assunção Botelho, R. B.,
Zandonadi, R. P., & Melo, L. (2016). Sensory impact of lowering sugar content in
orange nectars to design healthier, low-sugar industrialized beverages. Appetite, 96,
239–244.
de Siqueira Fraga, E. G., Teofilo Campos, F. M., Silva Cavalcante, M. P., Barbosa
Martins, L. F., Rodrigues Neto, E. M., & Mimica, M. J. (2020). Xylitol, a promising
allied for oral heath. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 12(3), 197–200.
Debras, C., Chazelas, E., Srour, B., Druesne-Pecollo, N., Esseddik, Y., Szabo de
Edelenyi, F., … Gigandet, S. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results
from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study. PLoS medicine, 19(3),
e1003950.
L. Chen et al.
Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. (2001). Product packaging and branding. Food, people and
society, 55–72.
Djordjevic, J., Zatorre, R., & Jones-Gotman, M. (2004). Odor-induced changes in taste
perception. Experimental Brain Research, 159(3), 405–408.
Dominguez, A. L., Rodrigues, L. R., Lima, N. M., & Teixeira, J. A. (2013). An overview of
the recent developments on fructooligosaccharide production and applications. Food
and Bioprocess Technology, 7(2), 324–337.
DuBois, G. E., & Prakash, I. (2012). Non-caloric sweeteners, sweetness modulators, and
sweetener enhancers. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 3, 353–380.
Edwards, C. H., Rossi, M., Corpe, C. P., Butterworth, P. J., & Ellis, P. R. (2016). The role
of sugars and sweeteners in food, diet and health: Alternatives for the future. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 56, 158–166.
Ezan, P., Pantin-Sohier, G., & Lancelot-Miltgen, C. (2019). Colour of food as a vector for
children’s well-being. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.,
659–679.
Fan, Z., Hasing, T., Johnson, T. S., Garner, D. M., Schwieterman, M. L., Barbey, C. R., …
Whitaker, V. M. (2021). Strawberry sweetness and consumer preference are
enhanced by specific volatile compounds. Horticulture Research, 8, 224.
Feeney, E. L., Leacy, L., O’Kelly, M., Leacy, N., Phelan, A., Crowley, L., … Horner, K.
(2019). Sweet and umami taste perception differs with habitual exercise in males.
Nutrients, 11(1), 155.
Fierens, T., Van Holderbeke, M., Cornelis, C., Jacobs, G., Sioen, I., De Maeyer, M., …
Vanermen, G. (2018). Caramel colour and process contaminants in foods and
beverages: Part II–Occurrence data and exposure assessment of 2-acetyl-4-(1, 2, 3, 4-
tetrahydroxybutyl) imidazole (THI) and 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) in Belgium. Food
Chemistry, 255, 372–379.
Frank, R. A., & Byram, J. (1988). Taste–smell interactions are tastant and odorant
dependent. Chemical Senses, 13(3), 445–455.
Frank, R. A., Ducheny, K., & Mize, S. J. S. (1989). Strawberry odor, but not red color,
enhances the sweetness of sucrose solutions. Chemical Senses, 14(3), 371–377.
Friedrich, M. (2017). Global obesity epidemic worsening. JAMA, 318(7), 603.
Ginieis, R., Abeywickrema, S., Oey, I., & Peng, M. (2022). Testing links of food-related
olfactory perception to peripheral ghrelin and leptin concentrations. Frontiers
Nutrition, 9.
Ginieis, R., Abeywickrema, S., Oey, I., Keast, R. S., & Peng, M. (2022). Searching for
individual multi-sensory fingerprints and their links with adiposity–new insights
from meta-analyses and empirical data. Food Quality and Preference, 99, Article
104574.
Gous, A. G., Almli, V. L., Coetzee, V., & de Kock, H. L. (2019). Effects of varying the color,
aroma, bitter, and sweet levels of a grapefruit-like model beverage on the sensory
properties and liking of the consumer. Nutrients, 11(2), 464.
Gupta, M. (2018). Sugar substitutes: Mechanism, availability, current use and safety
concerns-an update. Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 6(10), 1888.
Han, P. F., Bagenna, B., & Fu, M. H. (2019). The sweet taste signalling pathways in the
oral cavity and the gastrointestinal tract affect human appetite and food intake: a
review. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 70(2), 125–135.
Hashimoto, M., Nakagita, T., & Misaka, T. (2021). Recent progress in the use of
diaziridine-based sweetener derivatives to elucidate the chemoreception mechanism
of the sweet taste receptor. Rsc Advances, 11(51), 32236–32247.
Haque, M., McKimm, J., Sartelli, M., Samad, N., Haque, S. Z., & Bakar, M. A. (2020).
A narrative review of the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages on human health: A
key global health issue. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology,
27(1), e76–e103.
He, Y., Li, H., Chen, L., Zheng, L., Ye, C., Hou, J., … Shen, Y. (2021). Production of xylitol
by Saccharomyces cerevisiae using waste xylose mother liquor and corncob residues.
Microbial Biotechnology, 14(5), 2059–2071.
Health, U. D. o., & Services, H. (2019). US Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 dietary
guidelines for Americans. December 2015. In.
Henschel, J., & Hayen, H. (2020). Application of large volume injection for sensitive LC-
MS/MS analysis of seven artificial sweeteners in surface waters. Methodsx, 7.
Higgins, M. J., & Hayes, J. E. (2019). Learned color taste associations in a repeated brief
exposure paradigm. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 354–365.
Hossain, A., Yamaguchi, F., Matsuo, T., Tsukamoto, I., Toyoda, Y., Ogawa, M., …
Tokuda, M. (2015). Rare sugar D-allulose: Potential role and therapeutic monitoring
in maintaining obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacology & Therapeutics,
155, 49–59.
Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2015). Eat with your eyes: Package color influences the expectation
of food taste and healthiness moderated by external eating. Marketing Management,
25(2), 71–87.
Hutchings, S. C., Low, J. Y. Q., & Keast, R. S. J. (2019). Sugar reduction without
compromising sensory perception. An impossible dream? Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 59(14), 2287–2307.
Ibrahim, O. (2021). Erythritol chemical structure, biosynthesis pathways, properties,
applications, and production. International Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology,
6(3), 59.
Imada, T., Misaka, T., Fujiwara, S., Okada, S., Fukuda, Y., & Abe, K. (2010). Amiloride
reduces the sweet taste intensity by inhibiting the human sweet taste receptor.
Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 397(2), 220–225.
Jabeen, F., Wahab, S., Hashmi, M. S., Mehmood, Z., Riaz, A., Ayub, M., & Muneeb, M.
(2019). Liquid stevia extract as a substitute of sucrose in the preparation of guava
drink. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28(1), 233–243.
Jang, Y.-J., Chung, S.-J., Kim, S.-B., & Park, S. (2021). Searching for optimal low calorie
sweetener blends in ternary & quaternary system. Food Quality and Preference, 90,
Article 104184.
Johnson, J., & Clydesdale, F. (1982). Perceived sweetness and redness in colored sucrose
solutions. Journal of Food Science, 47(3), 747–752.
17
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Johnson, R. K., Lichtenstein, A. H., Anderson, C. A., Carson, J. A., Després, J.-P.,
Hu, F. B., … Wylie-Rosett, J. (2018). Low-calorie sweetened beverages and
cardiometabolic health: A science advisory from the American Heart Association.
Circulation, 138(9), e126–e140.
Kakutani, Y., Narumi, T., Kobayakawa, T., Kawai, T., Kusakabe, Y., Kunieda, S., &
Wada, Y. (2017). Taste of breath: the temporal order of taste and smell synchronized
with breathing as a determinant for taste and olfactory integration. Scientific Reports,
7(1), 1–9.
Kappes, S. M., Schmidt, S. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2007). Relationship between physical
properties and sensory attributes of carbonated beverages. Journal of Food Science,
72(1), S1–S11.
Kim, M. H., Lee, D. Y., & Ahn, J. H. (2020). A study on the analysis of artificial
sweeteners in processed foods including emulsified foods by HPLC-DAD. Analytical
Science and Technology, 33(5), 209–214.
Kim, S. H., Park, S., & Hong, J. H. (2022). Sweetness profiles of glycosyl rebaudioside A
and binary mixtures with sugar alcohols in aqueous solution and a lemonade model
system. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 102(5), 2110–2119.
Kistler, T., Pridal, A., Bourcet, C., & Denkel, C. (2021). Modulation of sweetness
perception in confectionary applications. Food Quality and Preference, 88.
Krieger, J., Bleich, S. N., Scarmo, S., & Ng, S. W. (2021). Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
Reduction Policies: Progress and Promise. In J. E. Fielding (Ed.), Annual Review of
Public Health (vol. 42) (pp. 439-461).
Kroger, M., Meister, K., & Kava, R. (2006). Low-calorie sweeteners and other sugar
substitutes: A review of the safety issues. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and
Food Safety, 5(2), 35–47.
Kumari, A., Arora, S., Choudhary, S., Singh, A. K., & Tomar, S. K. (2018). Comparative
stability of aspartame and neotame in yoghurt. International Journal of Dairy
Technology, 71(1), 81–88.
Küster, I., & Vila, N. (2017). Healthy lifestyle and eating perceptions: Correlations with
weight and low-fat and low-sugar food consumption in adolescence. Frontiers in Life
Science, 10(1), 48–62.
Larqué, E., Labayen, I., Flodmark, C.-E., Lissau, I., Czernin, S., Moreno, L. A., …
Widhalm, K. (2019). From conception to infancy—early risk factors for childhood
obesity. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 15(8), 456–478.
Laviada-Molina, H., Molina-Segui, F., Perez-Gaxiola, G., Cuello-Garcia, C., Arjona-
Villicana, R., Espinosa-Marron, A., & Martinez-Portilla, R. J. (2020). Effects of
nonnutritive sweeteners on body weight and BMI in diverse clinical contexts:
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 21(7).
Lavin, J. G., & Lawless, H. T. (1998). Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness
among children and adults. Food Quality and Preference, 9(4), 283–289.
Lee, A. A., & Owyang, C. (2017). Sugars, Sweet Taste Receptors, and Brain Responses.
Nutrients, 9(7), 653.
Lehmann, U., Mak, T. N., & Bolten, C. J. (2019). Reformulation as a strategy for
developing healthier food products: challenges and recent developments–an industry
perspective. In Reformulation as a Strategy for Developing Healthier Food Products (pp.
89-110).
Lertrit, A., Srimachai, S., Saetung, S., Chanprasertyothin, S., Chailurkit, L. O.,
Areevut, C., … Sriphrapradang, C. (2018). Effects of sucralose on insulin and
glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial. Nutrition, 55–56, 125–130.
Li, C. H., Wang, C. T., Lin, Y. J., Kuo, H. Y., Wu, J. S., Hong, T. C., Chang, C. J., &
Wu, H. T. (2022). Long-term consumption of the sugar substitute sorbitol alters gut
microbiome and induces glucose intolerance in mice. Life Sciences, 305, Article
120770.
Lima, M., Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2019). Comparison of two sugar reduction strategies
with children: Case study with grape nectars. Food Quality and Preference, 71,
163–167.
Liu, C. C., Ko, C. H., Wang, Y. N., Fu, L. M., & Lee, S. Z. (2021). Rapid detection of
artificial sweeteners in food using microfluidic chromatography detection system.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 425, Article 131528.
Liu, J., Wan, P., Xie, C. F., & Chen, D. W. (2021). Key aroma-active compounds in brown
sugar and their influence on sweetness. Food Chemistry, 345.
Liu, L., Zhang, P., Wang, Y., Cui, W., & Li, D. (2021). The relationship between the use of
artificial sweeteners and cancer: A meta-analysis of case–control studies. Food
Science & Nutrition, 9(8), 4589–4597.
Luger, M., Lafontan, M., Bes-Rastrollo, M., Winzer, E., Yumuk, V., & Farpour-Lambert, N.
(2017). Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: A
systematic review from 2013 to 2015 and a comparison with previous studies.
Obesity facts, 10(6), 674–693.
Maga, J. A. (1974). Influence of color on taste thresholds. Chemical Senses, 1(1),
115–119.
Mahato, D. K., Keast, R., Liem, D. G., Russell, C. G., Cicerale, S., & Gamlath, S. (2020).
Sugar reduction in dairy food: An overview with flavoured milk as an example.
Foods, 9(10).
Majeed, M., Mahmood, M. A., Khan, M. U., Fazel, M., Shariati, M. A., & Pigorev, I.
(2018). Effect of sorbitol on dough rheology and quality of sugar replaced cookies.
Potravinarstvo, 12(1).
Malek, A. M., Hunt, K. J., DellaValle, D. M., Greenberg, D., St Peter, J. V., &
Marriott, B. P. (2018). Reported consumption of low-calorie sweetener in foods,
beverages, and food and beverage additions by US adults: NHANES 2007–2012.
Current Developments in Nutrition, 2(9).
Martau, G. A., Coman, V., & Vodnar, D. C. (2020). Recent advances in the
biotechnological production of erythritol and mannitol. Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology, 40(5), 608–622.
L. Chen et al.
Mateo-Fernández, M., Alves-Martínez, P., Río-Celestino, D., Font, R., Merinas-Amo, T., &
Alonso-Moraga, Á. (2019). Food safety and nutraceutical potential of caramel colour
class IV using in vivo and in vitro assays. Foods, 8(9), 392.
Matsumoto, R., Yamada, K., Nakazawa, M., Mori, S., & Kitajima, S. (2020). Structure-
activity relationship study of T1R2/T1R3 positive allosteric modulators and
evaluation of their enhancing effect on various sweeteners. Chemistryselect, 5(30),
9457–9460.
Matsuyama, M., Terada, Y., Yamazaki-Ito, T., & Ito, K. (2021). A Luminescence-Based
human TRPV1 assay system for quantifying pungency in spicy foods. Foods, 10(1),
151.
Mattes, R. D. (2016). Low calorie sweeteners: Science and controversy Conference
proceedings. Physiology & Behavior, 164, 429–431.
McCain, H. R., Kaliappan, S., & Drake, M. A. (2018). Invited review: Sugar reduction in
dairy products. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(10), 8619–8640.
Meena, M. K., Arora, S., Shendurse, A. M., Sharma, V., Wadhwa, B. K., & Singh, A. K.
(2012). Formulation optimisation of a whey lemon beverage using a blend of the
sweeteners aspartame and saccharin. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 65(1),
146–151.
Mejia, E., & Pearlman, M. (2019). Natural alternative sweeteners and diabetes
management. Current Diabetes Reports, 19(12), 1–10.
Miao, Y., Ni, H., Zhang, X., Zhi, F., Long, X., Yang, X., … Zhang, L. (2022). Investigating
mechanism of sweetness intensity differences through dynamic analysis of
sweetener–T1R2–membrane systems. Food Chemistry, 374, Article 131807.
Mielby, L. A., Wang, Q. J., Jensen, S., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., &
Byrne, D. V. (2018). See, feel, taste: The influence of receptacle colour and weight on
the evaluation of flavoured carbonated beverages. Foods, 7(8), 119.
Miele, N. A., Cabisidan, E. K., Plaza, A. G., Masi, P., Cavella, S., & Di Monaco, R. (2017).
Carbohydrate sweetener reduction in beverages through the use of high potency
sweeteners: Trends and new perspectives from a sensory point of view. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 64, 87–93.
Misaka, T. (2013). Development of a cultured cell-based human-taste evaluation system.
Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry, 77(8), 1613–1616.
Mooradian, A. D., Smith, M., & Tokuda, M. (2017). The role of artificial and natural
sweeteners in reducing the consumption of table sugar: A narrative review. Clinical
Nutrition Espen, 18, 1–8.
Mora, M. R., & Dando, R. (2021). The sensory properties and metabolic impact of natural
and synthetic sweeteners. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20
(2), 1554–1583.
Morini, G., Bassoli, A., & Temussi, P. A. (2005). From small sweeteners to sweet proteins:
Anatomy of the binding sites of the human T1R2_T1R3 receptor. Journal of Medicinal
Chemistry, 48(17), 5520–5529.
Motoki, K., Saito, T., Park, J., Velasco, C., Spence, C., & Sugiura, M. (2020). Tasting
names: Systematic investigations of taste-speech sounds associations. Food Quality
and Preference, 80.
Mumena, W. A., Abdulhakeem, F. A., Jannadi, N. H., Almutairi, S. A., Aloufi, S. M.,
Bakhishwain, A. A., & Kutbi, H. A. (2020). Nutrition education intervention to limit
added sugar intake among university female students. Progress in Nutrition, 22(3),
e2020038.
Naik, A. Q., Zafar, T., & Shrivastava, V. K. (2021). Environmental impact of the presence,
distribution, and use of artificial sweeteners as emerging sources of pollution.
Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2021, 6624569.
Neuenschwander, M., Ballon, A., Weber, K. S., Norat, T., Aune, D., Schwingshackl, L., &
Schlesinger, S. (2019). Role of diet in type 2 diabetes incidence: Umbrella review of
meta-analyses of prospective observational studies. BMJ, 366.
O’Connor, D., Pang, M., Castelnuovo, G., Finlayson, G., Blaak, E., Gibbons, C., Navas-
Carretero, S., Almiron-Roig, E., Harrold, J., Raben, A., & Martinez, J. A. (2021).
A rational review on the effects of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on appetite,
food reward and metabolic/adiposity outcomes in adults. Food & Function, 12(2),
442–465.
O’Donnell, K., & Kearsley, M. (2012). Sweeteners and sugar alternatives in food technology.
John Wiley & Sons.
Oktavirina, V., Prabawati, N. B., Fathimah, R. N., Palma, M., Kurnia, K. A.,
Darmawan, N., … Setyaningsih, W. (2021). Analytical methods for determination of
non-nutritive sweeteners in foodstuffs. Molecules, 26(11), 3135.
Oliveira, A. A. A., Andrade, A. C., Bastos, S. C., Condino, J. P. F., Júnior, A. C., &
Pinheiro, A. C. M. (2021). Use of strawberry and vanilla natural flavors for sugar
reduction: A dynamic sensory study with yogurt. Food Research International, 139,
Article 109972.
Oliveira, D., Reis, F., Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2016). Difference
thresholds for added sugar in chocolate-flavoured milk: Recommendations for
gradual sugar reduction. Food Research International, 89, 448–453.
Organization, W. H. (2013). Global action plan for the prevention and control of
noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020. World Health Organization.
Organization, W. H. (2019). Regional framework for action on obesity prevention
2019–2023. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern
Mediterranean.
Ortiz, M. E., Bleckwedel, J., Raya, R. R., & Mozzi, F. (2013). Biotechnological and in situ
food production of polyols by lactic acid bacteria. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology, 97(11), 4713–4726.
Pangborn, R. M., & Hansen, B. (1963). The influence of color on discrimination of
sweetness and sourness in pear-nectar. The American Journal of Psychology, 76(2),
315–317.
Parıldı, E., Kola, O., Özcan, B. D., Akkaya, M. R., & Dikkaya, E. (2021). Recombinant D-
tagatose 3-epimerase production and converting fructose into allulose. Journal of
Food Processing and Preservation, e15508.
18
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Park, H.-W., Kim, M.-J., Seo, S., Yoo, S., & Hong, J.-H. (2017). Relative sweetness and
sweetness quality of Xylobiose. Food Science and Biotechnology, 26(3), 689–696.
Parker, M. N., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M. A. (2018). Consumer acceptance of natural
sweeteners in protein beverages. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(10), 8875–8889.
Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A., & Motoki, K. (2020). Long vowel sounds induce expectations of
sweet tastes. Food Quality and Preference, 86.
Pfinder, M., Heise, T. L., Boon, M. H., Pega, F., Fenton, C., Griebler, U., … Lhachimi, S. K.
(2020). Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their
consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, 75.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-
extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and
theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165–179.
Plows, J. F., Morton-Jones, J., Bridge-Comer, P. E., Ponnampalam, A., Stanley, J. L.,
Vickers, M. H., & Reynolds, C. M. (2020). Consumption of the artificial sweetener
acesulfame potassium throughout pregnancy induces glucose intolerance and
adipose tissue dysfunction in mice. Journal of Nutrition, 150(7), 1773–1781.
Pol, K., de Graaf, K., Diepeveen-de Bruin, M., Balvers, M., & Mars, M. (2020). The effect
of replacing sucrose with L-arabinose in drinks and cereal foods on blood glucose
and plasma insulin responses in healthy adults. Journal of Functional Foods, 73,
104–114.
Pramudya, R. C., & Seo, H.-S. (2019). Hand-Feel touch cues and their influences on
consumer perception and behavior with respect to food products: A review. Foods, 8
(7).
Rios, J. M., Miller, A. L., Lumeng, J. C., Rosenblum, K., Appugliese, D. P., Kaciroti, N., &
Gearhardt, A. N. (2020). Behavioral responses to sucrose as an indicator of positive
hedonic response across the first six months of infancy. Physiology & Behavior, 223,
Article 112914.
Rodrigues, R. R., Greer, R. L., Dong, X., DSouza, K. N., Gurung, M., Wu, J. Y., Morgun, A.,
& Shulzhenko, N. (2017). Antibiotic-induced alterations in gut microbiota are
associated with changes in glucose metabolism in healthy mice. Frontiers in
Microbiology, 8, 2306.
Sacks, G., Kwon, J., & Backholer, K. (2021). Do taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages
influence food purchases? Current Nutrition Reports., 10(3), 179–187.
Sakai, N., Kobayakawa, T., Gotow, N., Saito, S., & Imada, S. (2001). Enhancement of
sweetness ratings of aspartame by a vanilla odor presented either by orthonasal or
retronasal routes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(3_suppl), 1002–1008.
Salar, F. J., Agullo, V., Garcia-Viguera, C., & Dominguez-Perles, R. (2020). Stevia vs.
Sucrose: Influence on the phytochemical content of a citrus-maqui beverage-a shelf
life study. Foods, 9(2).
Salinas-Hernández, R. M., González-Aguilar, G. A., & Tiznado-Hernández, M. E. (2015).
Utilization of physicochemical variables developed from changes in sensory
attributes and consumer acceptability to predict the shelf life of fresh-cut mango
fruit. Journal of food science and technology, 52(1), 63–77.
Sawadsopanon, T., Meksawan, K., & Chanvorachote, P. (2017). Aspartame inhibits
migration of human intestinal epithelial cells. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 41(3),
e12341.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Wehrle, T., & Carbon, C. C. (2019). Consumer expectations for
vegetables with typical and atypical colors: The case of carrots. Food Quality and
Preference, 72, 98–108.
Schifferstein, H. N., & Verlegh, P. W. (1996). The role of congruency and pleasantness in
odor-induced taste enhancement. Acta psychologica, 94(1), 87–105.
Schwieterman, M. L., Colquhoun, T. A., Jaworski, E. A., Bartoshuk, L. M., Gilbert, J. L.,
Tieman, D. M., … Klee, H. J. (2014). Strawberry flavor: Diverse chemical
compositions, a seasonal influence, and effects on sensory perception. Plos One, 9(2),
e88446.
Servant, G., Kenakin, T., Zhang, L., Williams, M., & Servant, N. (2020). The function and
allosteric control of the human sweet taste receptor. Advances in Pharmacology, 88,
59–82.
Servant, G., Tachdjian, C., Tang, X.-Q., Werner, S., Zhang, F., Li, X., Kamdar, P.,
Petrovic, G., Ditschun, T., & Java, A. (2010). Positive allosteric modulators of the
human sweet taste receptor enhance sweet taste. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 107(10), 4746–4751.
Sezgin, B., Arli, G., & Can, N. O. (2021). Simultaneous HPLC-DAD determination of seven
intense sweeteners in foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals using a core-shell particle
column. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 97, Article 103768.
Shariati, M. A., Majeed, M., Mahmood, M. A., Khan, M. U., Fazel, M., & Pigorev, I.
(2018). Effect of sorbitol on dough rheology and quality of sugar replaced cookies.
Potravinarstvo, 12(1).
Sherma, J., & Rabel, F. (2018). A review of thin layer chromatography methods for
determination of authenticity of foods and dietary supplements. Journal of Liquid
Chromatography & Related Technologies, 41(10), 645–657.
Shi, Q., Cai, L., Jia, H. Z., Zhu, X. M., Chen, L., & Deng, S. P. (2019). Low intake of
digestible carbohydrates ameliorates duodenal absorption of carbohydrates in mice
with glucose metabolism disorders induced by artificial sweeteners. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(11), 4952–4962.
Shyam, S., Ramadas, A., & Chang, S. K. (2018). Isomaltulose: Recent evidence for health
benefits. Journal of Functional Foods, 48, 173–178.
Silcock, P. (2017). The basics: The functional role of sugar in food. Sugar Nutrition.
Silver, L. D., Ng, S. W., Ryan-Ibarra, S., Taillie, L. S., Induni, M., Miles, D. R., …
Popkin, B. M. (2017). Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage
consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley,
California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Medicine, 14(4), e1002283.
Simmonds, G., & Spence, C. (2017). Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or
through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour.
Food Quality and Preference, 62, 340–351.
L. Chen et al.
Singh, J., Meehnian, H., Gupta, P., & Verma, M. L. (2020). Food colours: The potential
sources of food adulterants and their food safety concerns. Biotechnological
Approaches in Food Adulterants, 79–101.
Small, D. M., & Prescott, J. (2005). Odor/taste integration and the perception of flavor.
Experimental Brain Research, 166(3), 345–357.
Spence, C. (2018). Background colour & its impact on food perception & behaviour. Food
Quality and Preference, 68, 156–166.
Spence, C. (2019). On the relationship (s) between color and taste/flavor. Experimental
psychology, 66(2), 99–111.
Spence, C. (2022). Factors affecting odour-induced taste enhancement. Food Quality and
Preference, 96, Article 104393.
Stieger, M., & van de Velde, F. (2013). Microstructure, texture and oral processing: New
ways to reduce sugar and salt in foods. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science,
18(4), 334–348.
Su, K., Brunet, M., Festring, D., Ayed, C., Foster, T., & Fisk, I. (2021). Flavour distribution
and release from gelatine-starch matrices. Food Hydrocolloids, 112, Article 106273.
Suez, J., Korem, T., Zeevi, D., Zilberman-Schapira, G., Thaiss, C. A., Maza, O., …
Weinberger, A. (2014). Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering
the gut microbiota. Nature, 514(7521), 181–186.
Suez, J., Shapiro, H., & Elinav, E. (2016). Role of the microbiome in the normal and
aberrant glycemic response. Clinical Nutrition Experimental, 6, 59–73.
Sugrue, M., & Dando, R. (2018). Cross-modal influence of colour from product and
packaging alters perceived flavour of cider. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 124(3),
254–260.
Sun, A., Wu, W., Soladoye, O. P., Aluko, R. E., Bak, K. H., Fu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2022).
Maillard reaction of food-derived peptides as a potential route to generate meat
flavor compounds: A review. Food Research International, 151, Article 110823.
Tan, J., & Xu, J. (2020). Applications of electronic nose (e-nose) and electronic tongue (e-
tongue) in food quality-related properties determination: A review. Artificial
Intelligence in Agriculture, 4, 104–115.
Tan, V. W. K., Wee, M. S. M., Tomic, O., & Forde, C. G. (2019). Temporal sweetness and
side tastes profiles of 16 sweeteners using temporal check-all-that-apply (TCATA).
Food Research International, 121, 39–47.
Tan, V. W. K., Wee, M. S. M., Tomic, O., & Forde, C. G. (2020). Rate-All-That-Apply
(RATA) comparison of taste profiles for different sweeteners in black tea, chocolate
milk, and natural yogurt. Journal of Food Science, 85(2), 486–492.
Thomas-Danguin, T., Guichard, E., & Salles, C. (2019). Cross-modal interactions as a
strategy to enhance salty taste and to maintain liking of low-salt food: A review. Food
& Function, 10(9), 5269–5281.
Tireki, S. (2021). A review on packed non-alcoholic beverages: Ingredients, production,
trends and future opportunities for functional product development. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 112, 442–454.
Toda, Y., Okada, S., & Misaka, T. (2011). Establishment of a new cell-based assay to
measure the activity of sweeteners in fluorescent food extracts. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 59(22), 12131–12138.
Torrico, D. D., Tam, J., Fuentes, S., Gonzalez Viejo, C., & Dunshea, F. R. (2020).
Consumer rejection threshold, acceptability rates, physicochemical properties, and
shelf-life of strawberry-flavored yogurts with reductions of sugar. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(7), 3024–3035.
Torrico, D. D., Tam, J., Fuentes, S., Gonzalez Viejo, C., & Dunshea, F. R. (2019). D-
tagatose as a sucrose substitute and its effect on the physico-chemical properties and
acceptability of strawberry-flavored yogurt. Foods, 8(7), 256.
Van Doorn, G. H., Wuillemin, D., & Spence, C. (2014). Does the colour of the mug
influence the taste of the coffee? Flavour, 3(1), 1–7.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., & Groothedde, S. (2019). The taste of touch: Enhancing saltiness
impressions through surface texture design. Food Quality and Preference, 73,
248–254.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Finger, F., Saakes, D., & Fenko, A. (2017). “See me, feel me”:
Effects of 3D-printed surface patterns on beverage evaluation. Food Quality and
Preference, 62, 332–339.
Velasco, C., Michel, C., Youssef, J., Gamez, X., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2016).
Colour–taste correspondences: Designing food experiences to meet expectations or to
surprise. International Journal of Food Design, 1(2), 83–102.
Vos, M. B., Kaar, J. L., Welsh, J. A., Van Horn, L. V., Feig, D. I., Anderson, C. A., …
Xanthakos, S. A. (2017). Added sugars and cardiovascular disease risk in children: A
scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 135(19),
e1017–e1034.
19
Food Research International 162 (2022) 112076
Wan, Z., Khubber, S., Dwivedi, M., & Misra, N. N. (2021). Strategies for lowering the
added sugar in yogurts. Food Chemistry, 344, Article 128573.
Wang, G., Bakke, A. J., Hayes, J. E., & Hopfer, H. (2019). Demonstrating cross-modal
enhancement in a real food with a modified ABX test. Food Quality and Preference, 77,
206–213.
Wang, Z. X., Gmitter, F. G., Grosser, J. W., & Wang, Y. (2022). Natural sweeteners and
sweetness-enhancing compounds identified in citrus using an efficient
metabolomics-based screening strategy. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
70(34), 10593–10603.
Wang, Q. J., Keller, S., & Spence, C. (2017). Sounds spicy: Enhancing the evaluation of
piquancy by means of a customised crossmodally congruent soundtrack. Food Quality
and Preference, 58, 1–9.
Wang, Q. J., Mielby, L. A., Junge, J. Y., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., &
Byrne, D. V. (2019). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic sensory factors in sweetness
perception of food and beverages: A review. Foods, 8(6), 211.
Wang, Q. J., Wang, S. L., & Spence, C. (2016). “Turn Up the Taste”: assessing the role of
taste intensity and emotion in mediating crossmodal correspondences between basic
tastes and pitch. Chemical Senses, 41(4), 345–356.
Wang, Y. T., Li, B., Xu, X. J., Ren, H. B., Yin, J. Y., Zhu, H., & Zhang, Y. H. (2020). FTIR
spectroscopy coupled with machine learning approaches as a rapid tool for
identification and quantification of artificial sweeteners. Food Chemistry, 303, Article
125404.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., …
Wood, A. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on
healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492.
Wise, P. M., Nattress, L., Flammer, L. J., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2016). Reduced dietary
intake of simple sugars alters perceived sweet taste intensity but not perceived
pleasantness. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(1), 50–60.
Wu, Z., & Zhao, K. (2021). Impact of pulsation rate and viscosity on taste
perception–Application of a porous medium model for human tongue surface.
Computers in Biology and Medicine, 134, Article 104419.
Xiao, Z. B., Chen, H. T., Niu, Y. W., & Zhu, J. C. (2021). Characterization of the Aroma-
Active Compounds in Banana (Musa AAA Red green) and their contributions to the
enhancement of sweetness perception. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 69
(50), 15301–15313.
Xie, N. N., Huang, X., Yang, C. Y., Dai, M. C., Cai, L., Deng, S. P., … Zhou, J. (2020).
Artificial sweeteners affect the glucose transport rate in the Caco-2/NCI-H716co-
culture model. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(13), 4887–4892.
Yamada, K., Nakazawa, M., Matsumoto, K., Tagami, U., Hirokawa, T., Homma, K.,
Mori, S., Matsumoto, R., Saikawa, W., & Kitajima, S. (2019). Unnatural tripeptides as
potent positive allosteric modulators of T1R2/T1R3. ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters,
10(5), 800–805.
Yang, Z. F., Xiao, R., Xiong, G. L., Lin, Q. L., Liang, Y., Zeng, W. B., … Cao, D. S. (2022).
A novel multi-layer prediction approach for sweetness evaluation based on
systematic machine learning modeling. Food Chemistry, 372, Article 131249.
Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2018). Affective value, intensity and quality
of liquid tastants/food discernment in the human brain: An activation likelihood
estimation meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 169, 189–199.
Yildiz, M., & Karhan, M. (2021). Characteristics of some beverages adjusted with stevia
extract, and persistence of steviol glycosides in the mouth after consumption.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 24, Article 100326.
Yoo, H.-J., Machín, L., Arrúa, A., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., … Ares, G. (2017).
Children and adolescents’ attitudes towards sugar reduction in dairy products. Food
Research International, 94, 108–114.
Yuan, J., Ravikumar, Y., Zhang, G., Yun, J., Zhang, Y., Zabed, H. M., & Qi, X. (2021). L-
arabinose isomerase from Lactobacillus parabuchneri and its whole cell biocatalytic
application in D-tagatose biosynthesis from D-galactose. Food Bioscience, 41, Article
101034.
Zhang, F., Klebansky, B., Fine, R. M., Liu, H. T., Xu, H., Servant, G., Zoller, M.,
Tachdjian, C., & Li, X. D. (2010). Molecular mechanism of the sweet taste enhancers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107
(10), 4752–4757.
Zhang, W., Li, T., Zhang, X.-J., & Zhu, Z.-Y. (2020). Hypoglycemic effect of glycyrrhizic
acid, a natural non-carbohydrate sweetener, on streptozotocin-induced diabetic
mice. Food & Function, 11(5), 4160–4170.
Zhu, T. T., Xu, S. Z., Ge, B. Q., & Chen, Z. X. (2016). Sweetness enhancement of
aspartame in the presence of cyclodextrins and the thermodynamics in binding. Acta
Physico-Chimica Sinica, 32(12), 2871–2878.