DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00278.x

ILANA FELBERG1,6, ROSIRES DELIZA2,3, ADRIANA FARAH4, ERÔNICA CALADO5 and CARMEN MARINO DONANGELO4 Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos Av. das Américas, 29501, Guaratiba Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 23020-470, Brazil
2 Embrapa Labex Europe Avenue Agropolis, F-34394 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France 3 INRA, UMR CSGA 17 rue de Sully, F-21065 Dijon, France 4 Instituto de Química Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos 149, Bloco A, Ilha do Fundão Rio de Janeiro, CEP 21941-909, Brazil 5 Escola de Química Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Av. Horácio Macedo, 2030 Bloco E, Ilha do Fundão Rio de Janeiro, CEP 21941-909, Brazil 1

Accepted for Publication November 18, 2009

ABSTRACT Coffee consumers (n = 60) tasted and rated samples of a new soy–coffee beverage made from instant coffee, soymilk powder and sugar. Ingredient concentrations (independent variables) varied according to a 23central composite design for overall degree of acceptance. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), least square difference and response surface methodology, followed by internal preference mapping (IPM) with cluster analysis.

Corresponding author. TEL: 5521-3622-9600; FAX: 5521-2410-1090; EMAIL: ilana@ Journal of Sensory Studies 25 (2010) 226–242. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Even though Brazil is the second world soybean producer. Considering the current consumer trend for healthier alternatives in food products.A. soymilk is practically unknown to most Brazilian consumers. 2006. is cholesterol-free and is relatively cheap in comparison with other food protein sources (Lozano et al. In order to optimize the formulation and maximize sensory acceptance. Although plain soymilk is not well-accepted in Western countries because of its beany flavor and astringency (Al Mahfuz et al. Internal preference mapping and cluster analyses were also applied to provide information on the variability of the consumer individual opinions and segment them in groups of similar preference criteria.2) among the participants.S. have more than doubled since 2000. 2007). PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The consumption of soy products has been reported to reduce the risk of several diseases and a number of recent studies have found beneficial health properties attributed to coffee. 2006). including breast and prostate cancers. Messina et al. we decided to combine the health benefits of these two important Brazilian commodities in a functional beverage. Among soy derivatives. Soymilk is an excellent source of protein and essential fatty acids. INTRODUCTION The consumption of soy products has been reported to reduce the risk of several diseases. and most people who try the product tend to present a negative . soy beverages blended with fruit juices are a new generation of soy products in these countries and a convenient and healthy way to include soy protein in the consumer regular diet.05). 2004). we performed consumers’ tests using response surface methodology.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 227 ANOVA from the consumers’ acceptance data revealed that samples differed significantly (P 0. soymilk has been gaining an increased interest from food industries during the last decade (Behrens et al. Soy beverage sales in the U. 2007). Although soymilk content did not influence significantly the consumers’ acceptance in the tested range. osteoporosis and heart diseases (Barnes et al. and soy–fruit beverages have become an important market. The final beverage formulation was evaluated cold and hot for overall acceptability (9-point structured hedonic scale) by 112 coffee consumers and the cold beverage reached a good acceptability mean score (6. IPM with cluster analysis indicated that at least part of the acceptance differences was based on the soy beverage consumption habit.

Although coffee is usually consumed mainly for pleasure because of its taste and aroma (Cristovam et al. Farah 2009).8% of the internal Brazilian coffee market. When combining preference mapping with samples formulated according to a factorial design. attitude toward soy milk.228 I. Behrens and Silva 2004). On the other hand. Response surface methodology (RSM) has been used to investigate sensory characteristics when some ingredients are tested simultaneously (Damásio et al. the acceptability data of samples obtained from hedonic scaling are expressed as mean scores. Wajrock et al. cluster analysis and polynomial regression (Yackinous et al. 2008). 2000). Internal preference mapping (IPM) is a statistical tool that allows examination of individual rating by consumers (Greenhoff and MacFie 1994. 1999. Usually. 2008. This technique is based on principal component analysis. 2008). 2008). Hein et al. In this case. Higdon and Frei 2006. IPM shows which formulas are liked by consumers and also which characteristics are preferred as well (Yackinous et al. Therefore. Although instant coffee represents only 5. In addition to providing information on the variability of the consumer individual opinions. a number of recent studies have found beneficial health properties related to coffee’s antioxidant activity and the capacity to normalize blood pressure and glicemia among others (Farah 2009). The consumption of small amounts of caffeine is also known to produce a well-being and alertness sensation (Farah and Donangelo 2006. Yackinous et al. Brazil is the first coffee bean producer and the second largest coffee consumer market in the world. Moreira et al. 2000. 1999. and mean scores may not be representative of individual opinions. Deshpande et al. the objective of the present . consumer preference responses are often quite heterogeneous. FELBERG ET AL. 2000. thus reflecting the increasing interest in this coffee product (ABICS 2009). it is assumed that consumers’ acceptability criteria are homogeneous (MacFie 2007). mainly for its undesirable sensory properties (Tashima and Cardello 2003. Understanding the consumer attitude toward food is critical to achieve a product success (Deshpande et al. Considering the current consumer trend for healthier alternatives in food products. the possibility of combining the health benefits of these two important Brazilian commodities in a functional beverage and the fact that there are no reports of a similar product in the literature. coffee is very much appreciated among Brazilian people (ABIC 2009). IPM provides the possibility of segmenting consumers in groups of similar preference criteria. 1999). this percentage is growing at an annual rate of 8%. However. 1999). Nogueira and Trugo 2003). the optimization of a formulation is very important to maximize sensory acceptability. The popularity and use of instant coffee has increased significantly all over the world because of the easy and fast preparation and long shelf life (Prakash et al.

from 5.02 g for soymilk and from 6. 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. recruited among staff. Each consumer evaluated the acceptability of all the 18 formulations using a 9-point structured hedonic scale where. The order of sample presentation .36 g for sugar. habitually consuming one or more cups of coffee per day. Brazil. Brazil and refined sugar (from sugar cane) was purchased from the local market. Consumer Tests Three consumers’ tests were carried out. A complete randomized design was used. The ingredients’ concentration ranges were selected following manufacturer’s recommendations and previous experiments (Felberg et al. students and visitors at Embrapa Food Technology Research Center.64 to 13. MATERIALS AND METHODS Soy–Coffee Formula Ingredients Robusta instant coffee (Coffea canephora cv. The second and third tests (2 and 3) were also performed with coffee consumers with the objective of verifying the acceptance of the previously identified optimal formulation when served either cold (2) or hot (3). as shown in Table 1. The test was carried out in standardized sensory booths with a group of 60 consumers (29 females and 31 males) aged between 18 and 66 years. The first test (1) was performed with coffee consumers aiming at determining the optimal beverage formulation. soymilk powder was provided by Olvebra Industrial S.68 g for instant coffee. 2008) and varied from 1. The samples were presented in a monadic sequential order. was used to determine the optimum concentration of instant coffee. soymilk powder and sugar (independent variables) in the soy–coffee beverage.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 229 study is to formulate and optimize a coffee–soy-based beverage using RSM and IPM statistical tools applied to consumer acceptability. The prepared beverages were kept refrigerated (8 2C) until being tested by consumers on the next day. The sample beverages were presented at 8 2C in 50 mL plastic cups coded with three-digit numbers.. then added to 100 mL of spring water at room temperature to prepare the beverage. and each assessor evaluated six samples per session throughout three sessions. totaling 18 formulas. Conillon) was provided by Cocam Cia de Café Solúvel e Derivados. Brazil. Consumers’ Acceptance Test 1 A 23 central composite design with six axial points and four central points.A.32 to 4.98 to 11.

Spring water and unsalted cracker were provided for mouth rinsing between samples. and the order of presentation was balanced.00 10.00 12. Statistical Analysis The software STATISTICA™.00 4. Inc. For test 2.02 13. New York.230 I. Addinsoft. monthly income and habitual consumption of coffee and soy beverages. The samples were evaluated for overall acceptability using a 9-point structured hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely) and intention to purchase using a 7-point structured hedonic scale (1 = definitely would not buy and 7 = definitely would buy). NY) for Windows. FELBERG ET AL. Water and crackers were available for consumers to drink and clean the palate as they pleased.00 8. gender.50 10. was balanced to prevent carryover effects (MacFie et al. hot (60 2C). we used Ward’s method and Euclidean distances.05).0 for Windows (StatSoft. Brazil. 1989). Subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire aiming to provide general information regarding their age.00 8.68 Concentration (g)* Instant coffee Soymilk powder Sugar -1.36 * Added to 100 mL of spring water to prepare the beverage.64 2.. version 8.0 0 1 +1. The samples were presented in 50 mL plastic cups coded with three-digit numbers. CODED LEVELS AND INGREDIENTS CONCENTRATIONS FOR CENTRAL COMPOSITE DESIGN OF THE SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE (18 SAMPLES) Independent variable Coded levels -1.00 7. Tulsa. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s test (LSD) were used to verify significant differences among means (P < 0. the coffee–soy beverage formulated was served cold (8 2C) and for test 3.68 1. The formula tested was the one with the highest acceptance in the previously described consumers test.68 11. was used for the experimental design and for RSM analysis.00 3. OK). TABLE 1. The preference mapping and cluster analyses were performed using XLSTAT-MX (2005.00 4.98 6. . For cluster analysis. Consumers’ Acceptance Tests 2 and 3 The consumer acceptance tests 2 and 3 were carried out with a total of 224 coffee consumers (112 for each test) randomly recruited in a supermarket in Rio de Janeiro. occupation. A dummy sample was used in both tests.32 5.

The linear term of sugar was the one that most contributed to the model. Fig. -6. In the case of instant coffee. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Consumer Tests to Establish Optimum Concentration of Ingredients for the Soy–Coffee Beverage The acceptability scores assigned to the samples by 60 consumers were related to the concentration of ingredients. The linear (L) and quadratic (Q) terms of the variables sugar and instant coffee significantly influenced the acceptance of the beverage as their boxes were located on the right side of the dashed line.05 FIG. Its positive value indicates that an increase in sugar concentration contributed to a higher acceptance of the beverage. neither the soymilk powder content nor the interaction between the variables influenced significantly the consumers’ acceptance in the studied range.255707 0. Figure 2 shows the influence of the concentration of the studied variables on the acceptance scores.292237 -. 1 shows a Pareto chart where boxes represent the Student’s t-values. This is probably because of the cultural inheritance of the Brazilian population with regard to the Portuguese traditional appeal for sweet products (Nestlé 1990). indicating that a decrease in the coffee content within the limits tested in this study contributed to a higher acceptance of the beverage.5515 P = 0.05492 -.25668 1.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 231 Sugar(L) Coffee(L) Coffee(Q) Sugar(Q) Soymilk (L) Soymilk (Q) Coffee (L)xSugar (L) Coffee (L)xSoymilk (L) Soymilk (L)xSugar (L) -2.48404 -2. PARETO CHART SHOWING THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES (FORMULA INGREDIENTS) (L) = linear term and (Q) = quadratic term numbers near the boxes mean Student’s t values.6293 9. On the other hand. the highest consumer acceptance values were obtained for the highest sugar concentration and the lowest . its linear and quadratic terms had a significant negative effect. 1. As observed in Fig. 1.695916 -1.

5 2.5 3.0 4.232 I. A > < < < < 5 5 4 3 2 B 14 13 12 Sugar (g) 11 10 9 8 7 6 1. independently of soymilk concentration (1).5 5. approval indexes (consumer ratings >5. Table 2 presents the design matrix with the acceptability scores.5 4.0 3. The contour curve (2) indicates that there was a good distribution of the design experimental points. instant coffee concentration.0 2.0 1.0) and rejection indexes (consumer ratings . 2. soymilk and sugar that would result in a higher consumer acceptance. The dark region indicates that any point within this area represents a combination of instant coffee. FELBERG ET AL. 9 = liked extremely). RESPONSE SURFACE (A) AND CONTOUR CURVE (B) FOR CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE (n = 60) AS A FUNCTION OF SUGAR AND INSTANT COFFEE CONCENTRATIONS AT 10% SOYMILK CONCENTRATION (Acceptance evaluated using a 9-point hedonic scale: 1 = disliked extremely.0 >5 <5 <4 <3 <2 Coffee (g) FIG.

9cdef 4. 7 and 15. with a range of mean scores from 3.0 (like slightly) on a 9-point hedonic scale.50 7.00 4.00 8.00 10.32 3. ANOVA results for acceptance data from all the consumers revealed that the samples differed significantly in terms of acceptability.7def 4.00 Soymilk (g)* 8.50 8.00 Sugar (g)* 13.68 4. 16 and 8).5h Approval index (%) 65 65 65 58 57 57 53 43 48 47 45 38 38 32 25 22 20 25 Rejection Index (%) 30 32 28 33 32 33 42 37 45 42 45 50 48 55 70 68 68 68 Values with different superscript letters within the same row are significantly different by Fisher’s test (P 0.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 8.00 10.50 8. <5. 2007).00 5. * Added to 100 mL of spring water to prepare the beverage. Both samples 1 and 6 (68% rejection index) had high . No significant difference was observed among the most preferred samples (18.7def 4.00 12.36 12.00 2. The most preferred ones scored (on average) from 5. Deshpande et al.00 2. 39% of the formulated beverages presented consumer ratings 5.50 10. to 9 = like extremely.00 8.3abcd 5.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 233 TABLE 2.00 4.0 (Table 2).8gh 3.00 10.7ab 5.00 2.05). soy products do not present high hedonic scores in the literature. Hedonic ratings for the samples differed drastically. Da Silva et al. 5 = neither like nor dislike.00 10.00 4.0).50 7. Felberg et al.0bcde 4. evaluated using a 9-point hedonic scale. In general.8 (Table 2).7def 4. 2002.2abcde 5.5 to 5.00 8.5abc 5.00 6.00 3. 11.7h 3.9cdef 4. 2007. 3.00 12.00 3. Potter et al.00 1.64 8. † Evaluated using a 9-point hedonic scale varying from 1 = dislike extremely.8a 5. The least accepted samples were 6.02 8.00 10.50 11.1fgh 3. 17.00 3.7h 3. being our results similar to those of other authors (Rosenthal et al.00 3.00 3.00 2. The approval index from those samples varied from 65% to 57%. When utilizing the same criteria. 1.00 10.5abc 5. 14. 2004.00 10.00 7.0 (neither like nor dislike) to 6.00 10.00 12.98 7.50 10.00 Acceptability score† 5.50 10.00 8. (2008) considered 5 to be the lowest consumer rating limit of acceptability for optimizing formulations of a chocolateflavored peanut–soy beverage.5efgh 4. MEAN ACCEPTABILITY§ SCORES OF THE SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGES Sample number S18 S3 S11 S13 S16 S8 S2 S4 S9 S5 S10 S12 S15 S7 S14 S1 S17 S6 Coffee (g)* 3.00 8. 13.00 10.

” Samples 15. preference mapping was applied to visualize the diverging liking directions of all the consumers on a map. respectively.66 and 14. the critical values of each one of the ingredients for the best predicted value of acceptability (5. Sample positions (S). 5 and 8 were included in a second group. 3). Fig. 8 and 10 were the center points of the design samples. (2005) that related consumer preferences to sensory attributes of instant coffee. 11. we can see a small cluster that preferred samples with the opposite characteristics (Table 2. 18 and 16) was located at the top right quadrant and contained samples with low coffee and/or high sugar content. The authors called the consumers who preferred the coffee flavor with lowest intensity and the highest sweetness as “coffee blend lovers. and each vector can be visualized by drawing a line from . 10% by the second and 8% by the third. Each point represents the end point of one consumer acceptance vector. 13. 3). Sample 17 had the lowest level of sugar studied. Taking into account that consumer preference responses are usually heterogeneous and averaged consumer data may not be representative of any individual opinion. 9. Based on the experimental design. consumer’s positions and the identified clusters can be seen in Fig. FELBERG ET AL. 6 and 1 made up the third group and were the least accepted ones. Samples 17.7 g). Fig.9) were calculated and found to be 1. 10.234 I.6 g) and sample 14 – with the highest rejection index of 70% – presented the highest level of instant coffee (4.72. Although these results indicated that the majority of the participants did prefer the sweetest and the least intense coffee samples (Table 2. Figure 3B revealed the existence of significant differences in preference among consumers. 4. 4. Figure 3 presents the internal preference maps derived from the acceptance scores of the 60 consumers for the 18 soy–coffee beverage samples defined by the first two principal dimensions. they could be comparable to the “coffee lovers” described by Geel et al.07 g/100 mL of spring water for instant coffee. respectively. coffee concentration (4 g) and low levels of sugar (8 g) with 7 g and 10 g of soymilk content. 9. 2. Principal component 1 separated the beverages into three main groups. who liked bitterer and more coffee flavor character samples. of which 30% was accounted by the first preference dimension. Principal components 2 and 3 seemed not to separate consumers as well as principal component 1. Samples 2. These results were similar to those reported by Geel et al. 14. Probably. (2005). 7. The first group (samples 3. and samples 6 and 1 had high level of instant coffee and low level of sugar content. sample 14 had the highest level of instant coffee. Preference mapping showed that 48% of the variance could be explained by the first three principal components. 3. soymilk and sugar content. Sample 17 (68% rejection index) had the lowest sugar content studied (6. 12.

33 %) S15 S7 S14 0 S1 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 S6 S4 S10 S5 S2 S9 S8 S12 F2 (10.25 0 0.25 0.75 20 Cluster 3 34 31 37 46 51 16 32 57 6 1 59 24 18 35 56 22 58 23 52 15 47 19 6043 27 44 3 11 10 54 26 Cluster 2 -1 -1 -0.5 29 F2 (10.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 235 A 6 4 2 S17 Observations (axes F1 and F2: 40.40 %) 0. 3. SHOWING: (A) BEVERAGE SAMPLES AND (B) CONSUMER POSITION (n = 60) WITH THREE CLUSTERS . INTERNAL PREFERENCE MAPPING OF 18 SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGES.93 %) FIG.75 -0.25 45 8 36 2 53 25 33 4 40 5 9 42 49 Cluster 1 1213 -0.5 -0.25 0 -0.93 %) B 1 Variables (axes F1 and F2: 40.5 0.33 %) 50 41 48 147 55 21 301738 39 28 0.75 1 F1 (29.75 0.40 %) S16 S13 S18 S11 S3 4 6 8 F1 (29.5 -0.

to 9 = like extremely.9f 4.5cd 4.8ab 4.0abc 5.7bc 5.1bcdef 3.7abc 4.4abc 5.9c 4. All the 60 consumers were significantly fitted and included in each plot.8abcd 4. TABLE 3.1bc 4.8ab 5.5def 2.3c 5.5ef 2.6abc 4.0ab 5.5cd 4. The number of consumers per cluster and the overall acceptance mean scores for each sample are shown in Table 3.6abc 5.4a 6.2bc 4.5abcde 3.8f cluster 2 (n = 20 ) 5.3a 6.8bc 4.6def cluster 3 (n = 9) 3. Cluster analysis was conducted and included later in the preference mapping in order to visualize the group of consumers who liked the samples in a similar way.236 I.8abc 6.0abc 5.8a 6.6abcde 5. .4cde 3. * Evaluated using a 9-point hedonic scale varying from 1 = dislike extremely. ANOVA results for acceptance data from the consumers segmented in the three clusters revealed that the samples differed significantly in terms of acceptability and a formulated soy–coffee beverage that is agreeable to one group does not satisfy others (Table 3).0c 4.0bcdef 3.8f 2.5ef 3. Three clusters of consumers were found for overall acceptance.2bc 5.2ab 5.9c 4.8abcd 3.1bc 3.6abc 5. MEAN ACCEPTABILITY* SCORES OF THE SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGES FOR EACH OF THE THREE PREFERENCE SUBGROUPS (CLUSTERS) Preference subgroups (clusters) cluster 1 Sample number S18 S13 S3 S11 S16 S8 S12 S15 S2 S4 S9 S10 S7 S5 S14 S17 S6 S1 (n = 31) 6.05).5cd 4.9cdef 4.2ab 4. The length of the vectors indicates how much variance of the consumers’ acceptability scores is explained.9cdef 4. The circle represents the fit of the regression model (P < 0.2bcde 5.8ab 5.05).1bc 5. The consumers were segmented and distributed around the various quadrants of the preference space.8ab 3.8a Values with different superscript letters within the same row are significantly different by Fisher’s test (P 0. the center of the circle.6a 4.0abc 4.8a 6. FELBERG ET AL.4a 4. 5 = neither like nor dislike.

but also with potential functional properties and therefore with a favorable concentration of functional ingredients.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 237 The consumers from cluster 1 (n = 31). cluster 3 (n = 9). it is noteworthy to comment that cluster analysis could have been thought of as a preliminary to RSM as the purpose of cluster analysis is to find possible consumer segmentation. 11. with only 15% of the consumers. Once consumer segmentations are identified. we did find differences in soy beverages and coffee consumption patterns of the three clusters. consumed more than two cups of coffee a day. with 33% of cluster 3 consuming more than five cups a day. gave better scores and preferred the beverages with low coffee and/or high sugar content (3. since we did not ask the consumers about their sweetness preferences. 2 and 3 (77%. contained 2 g% of instant coffee. the percentage of the participants who consumed soy beverages regularly varied considerably in a diminishing way in clusters 1. 17. 14. In terms of the methodological approach. the formulation and optimization of a new product in RSM may be based on liking means of a particular consumer cluster. Because our interest was to develop a beverage with a good sensory acceptance. respectively. 18. The preferred samples were 9. It was not possible to characterize any of the three clusters based on the available demographic data recorded in the questionnaires such as income. 11. etc. respectively). However. . educational level. with acceptance mean scores 6. corresponding to 52% of all the consumers. 13. 4 and 2. they gave lower acceptability scores. we were not able to investigate this issue when dividing them into subgroups. gender. liked products 1. 60% and 44% of the consumers. 16 and 5. Those consumers had a very different pattern for liking and preferred the samples with low levels of sugar and/or high levels of instant coffee. 5. About 52%. However. combining both criteria. we concluded that the best formulation. 69% and 77% of the consumers. 8.0. However. 3. such approach was not used in the present study because it would require a much higher number of participants in order to come out with a reasonable degree of freedom. with acceptance mean scores >5. The consumers in cluster 2 (n = 20) also liked some of the samples liked by the consumers in cluster 1. The sugar content was established taking into account that 14 g% of sugar extrapolated the experimental design and that 13 g% of sugar was enough considering the total solid content of the beverage and health concerns related to sugar consumption. with acceptance mean scores >5.0 (like slightly) on a 9-point hedonic scale. 10 g% of soymilk and 13 g% of sugar. Although the consumers’ acceptability of the beverages obtained from hedonic scaling expressed as mean scores was not significantly influenced by soymilk concentration. 10. 18 and 16).0 (neither like nor dislike) on a 9-point hedonic scale. Unfortunately. The opposite was observed with coffee consumption.

However. and they can be more easily perceived in a hot beverage than in a cold version. we decided to evaluate the acceptance of the soy–coffee beverage also when served hot. OVERALL CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE SCORES OF THE SELECTED SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE SERVED COLD OR HOT (EVALUATED USING A 9-POINT HEDONIC SCALE) Consumer Acceptance of the Selected Soy–Coffee Beverage Formulation.e. since according to Lee and O’Mahony (2002) and Brown and Diller (2007).5 (between neither like nor dislike and like slightly on the 9-point hedonic scale). i. in addition to testing the cold beverage. 4. with a mean score of 6. 2004). the results for the hot beverage were not as good as for the cold beverage. Similar results were observed for fermented soy beverages. respectively).. 2007. who are not familiar with cold coffee beverages. COLD 25 20 Percentual (%) 15 10 5 0 HOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acceptance scores 7 8 9 FIG.238 I. between 6 (like slightly) and 7 (like moderately). and it is usually consumed hot. 2004. Deshpande et al. . as we can see in Fig. this is usually the most appreciated temperature by consumers when drinking coffee and coffee beverages. Despite the fact that a mixture of coffee and milk is a very popular beverage in Brazil. 4. 2005 and Potter et al. We chose the temperature of 60 2C. FELBERG ET AL. Served either Cold or Hot The selected beverage formulations reached a good acceptability among the consumers when served cold. with a mean acceptance score of 5.2.. chocolate-flavored peanut–soy and blueberry–soy beverages (Behrens et al. Considering that coffee beverages are usually consumed hot by Brazilians. the lower preference score for the hot product was expected because some soymilk volatile compounds are not well-accepted by Western populations (Al Mahfuz et al.

. C.) pp. In: Nutritional Oncology. S. all ready-to-drink soy beverages available in the Brazilian market are sold to be consumed cold. 2004. REFERENCES ABIC.. Acceptability of samples (obtained from hedonic data expressed as mean scores) was influenced by sugar and instant coffee concentrations and not by the soymilk concentration. Indicadores da Indústria. 52. ZHANG. 559–571. 2004). G. 2009. S. V. A. CA. and ONO. T. The final beverage formulation.L. H. AL MAHFUZ. considering that almost all coffee beverages are consumed hot in Brazil.W. 2006. Milner. 7070–7074. and KIM. Soy isoflavones. (D.A (Eldorado do Sul. However. Academic Press.. Blackburn. Brazil) for kindly offering the samples. TSUKAMOTO. part of the acceptance differences seems to be explained by the soy beverage consumption habit. http://www. San Diego. when IPM with cluster analysis was reached a good acceptability among the participants and may represent a new market niche in Brazil. Additionally. eds. we were able to distinguish three segments of consumers.L. Brazil) and Cocam Cia de Café Solúvel e Derivados (SP.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 239 These compounds are especially aldehydes (Behrens et al. and considering the demographic characteristic of the consumers for each cluster. http://www. H. as it was mentioned before. J. KUDOU. Estatísticas. D’ALESSANDRO. 2nd Ed. served cold.. T.abic. 2009. Go and (accessed January 30). . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the financial support from Consórcio Brazileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café and Olvebra Industrial S. CONCLUSIONS By using the RSM tool. BARNES. this cold coffee–soy beverage may represent a new market niche for the Brazilian (accessed January 30). C. Chances of astringent sensation of soy milk during tofu curd formation. Food Chem.. Análises Econômicas. ABICS. we were able to define a soy–coffee formula. Heber. Agric. On the other hand. J. WANG.abics..

J. Optimization of a chocolate-flavored.A.S.P.. R. A. J. Technol. M. and DONANGELO. FELBERG. 130– 146. Bras. 2005. Optimising acceptability of low-sugar strawberry gels segmenting consumers by internal preference mapping. J. Braz.H. Paquin. Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages. I. 2004. DA SILVA. N. R.C. Woodhead Publishing Limited. 648–654. 79(4). J. 2006. A.H. and DURÁN. and MCWATTERS. 101–109. 2008. 42(12).. 2009. ed. 1999. DELIZA.) pp. F. Sci. CHINNAN. C.M. Burns 34(5).A. A. 23–36. PRUDÊNCIO. 2008. FELBERG ET AL. BROWN.A. e. 1485– 1492. FARAH. Alimentos 24.S. DELIZA. 41(8). C. and DILLER.. Atitude do consumidor em relação à soja e produtos derivados. J. BEHRENS. S.. and SILVA. and SILVA. 350–375. K. Aceitabilidade de bebidas preparadas a partir de diferentes extratos hidrossolùveis de soja. and CARRÃO-PANIZZI. R.. Acta Alimentaria 33.. Gender preference in hedonic ratings for espresso and espresso–milk coffees.B. and REID. 2004. Food Agric. E. ROIG. E. peanut–soy beverage using response surface methodology (RSM) as applied to consumer acceptability data.B.A. Stud. CRISTOVAM. E. M. K. M. J. Agropecu. S. Tec. 18(1). FELBERG. and CABRAL.H. DELIZA. CHINNAN. and MCWATTERS.P. Food Qual. C. 2000. Sens. J. Ciên. M. 50–56.. E. M. Food Sci. M. In Functional and Speciality Beverage Technology (P. DAMÁSIO. S.P. Technol.A.. RUSSELL. FELBERG. 11(6). M. GONÇALVES. CALADO.H. Alimentos E Nutrição 15(2).. L.P. Technol.D. R. COSTELL. K.C.H. BEHRENS. Acceptability of drinks prepared with different water-soluble soy extracts. 163– 174. nutricional e aceitabilidade do consumidor. London. DESHPANDE.. J. BEHRENS. I. 626–632. Food Sci..H. DESHPANDE.M.. Int. R. FARAH. A.C.. Pesqui.. FARAH. Effect of nutrition and health claims on the acceptability of soymilk beverages. and DONANGELO. 431–439.A. physical and sensory characteristics of various chocolate-flavored peanut–soy beverage formulations. E. Coffee as a speciality and functional beverage. Prefer.. SUNDFELD.. Phenolic compounds in coffee. 20(2).H. ANTONIASSI. Bebida mista de extrato de soja integral e castanha-do-Brasil: Caracterização físico-química.M. 42. Lebensm. and SILVA. 2007.240 I. 2004.M. FREITAS. 2008. L. PATERSON. 2007. Plant Physiol. I. 437–444.-Wiss. V. 1779–1784. VILLANUEVA. Coffee–soy based beverage: Product formu- ... R. Nutritional. Fermentation of soyamilk by commercial lactic cultures: Development of products with market potential.

MacFie and D. Quím. 19(7).K. MACFIE. K.R. (Nestlé Industrial e Comercial Ltda.. Ciên. M. H. Brazil..V.H.M. 2007.A. M. Food Sci. L. 3018– 3026..P. M. K. K. BRATCHELL. J. TOM CARR. Chlorogenic acid isomers. KINNEAR.J. Alimentos 23(2). 4. Thomson.V. São Paulo.J.J.R. L. H. Part II. Tec.J. Campinas. 1989. 237–244. D. 2007.C. LEE. Stud. and DE MARIA. J. ed. 1275–1284. 101–123. M. Preference mapping in practice. Food Chem.H.) p. NESTLÉ.A. J. Technol. 195–203. Prefer. H. and CAMIRE. 16.J. Nutr.E. C. Lebensm. Journal of Food Science. J. 46(2). 8. and workshop proceedings.. M. R. SP.R. caffeine and trigonelline contents in Brazilian instant coffee. 2002. GREENHOFF.B. C. L. MESSINA. London. Relating consumer preferences to sensory attributes of instant coffee. 137–166. 55(8). HIGDON.W. Crit. In 22nd International Conference on Coffee Science/ASIC in 14–19 September. and DELAHUNTY. alicyclic and aromatic compounds. DOUGHERTY. S. 67(7). MCCASKILL-STEVENS.H. W. Agric. Instrumental and sensory characterization of heat-induced odorants in aseptically packaged soy milk. N. 296–299. Characteristics of wild blueberry–soy beverages.M.. 2000. DRAKE.H.. and LAMPE.FORMULATION OF A SOY–COFFEE BEVERAGE 241 lation and consumer acceptance. 1990. Nova 23(2). MacFie. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Blackie Academic and Professional. Brazil.C. Uma doce herança. K. eds. Food Qual.H. R. 2003. B. . 129–148. J. 2774–2777. Aliphatic. and CADWALLADER.A. and O’MAHONY. and TRUGO. U. 651–661. 98(18). LOZANO.F. Prefer. In O Doce Brasileiro.. B. Volatile components in roasted coffee.) pp. MOREIRA. e. MACFIE. 2007. GREENHOFF... Nestlé Brasil Ltda.A. H. and VALLIS. 2008. Consultant in Sensory and Consumer Science.H. 2006. HEIN. Food Qual. TRUGO. 2006. POTTER. 807–814..Wiss. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Natl. commentary. W. Rev.. P. At what temperatures do consumers like to drink coffee? Mixing methods. M.S. and MACFIE. 1994. Addressing the soy and breast cancer relationship: Review.. HALTEMAN. M.. H. 40. Consumer-Led Food Product Development (H. Coffee and health: A review of recent human research. GEEL. and DE KOCK. In: Measurement of Food Preferences (H.). ed. and FREI.L. L. NOGUEIRA. 2005. Sens. JAEGER. Cancer Inst. BENITEZ.M.

B. and DOMINGUES. . 2000. 2005. User’s Guide. N. R. 21(2). DELIZA. Prefer.. and GUINARD. New York. TASHIMA. WEE. E. Food Qual. Merril) comercial adoçado com sacarose e com sucralose. RAVI. 662– 669.. Sensory profiling and product positioning of roasted and ground (brew) coffee and soluble (instant) coffee with and without added flavor. 101–117. B. J. 401–409. 10(4–5). L.A.. A. Partitioning methods outperform hierarchical methods for clustering consumers in preference mapping. S.. C.C.242 I. Inc. N. M. L. Stud.. and RAJALAKSHMI. Food Qual. 14(3). Prefer. FELBERG ET AL. 409–428. C. 2008. YACKINOUS. CEPPA.. PINEAU. Effect of enzymatic treatment and filtration on sensory characteristics and physical stability of soymilk.C.M. 2002.3.. Food Control. Addinsoft Inst. J. 187–192..A.M. C. CABRAL. Perfil sensorial de extrato hidrossolúvel de soja (Glicine max L.M. Internal preference mapping of hedonic ratings for Ranch salad dressings varying in fat and garlic flavor. RYTZ. G.H. R. 15(1). ROSENTHAL..5. C. and HAGER. 2003. 1999.-X.K. Sens. SARVAMANGALA. Version 7. D. and CARDELLO. XLSTAT-MX.. FARIAS. WAJROCK. A.. PRAKASH. A..A. H. CABRAL. ANTILLE. 19(7).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful