Aim: to investigate the impact of food structure on flavor release/perception and eating behavior...

1. model snacks = archetypes

1.1. with strong flavour vs. blend flavour --> is texture perception influenced by flavour intensity?

2. flavor release/perception

2.1. differences in sweetness

2.2. dominant notes that distract

2.3. Time-intensity profiling --> 1 sensory attribute and start moving from intensity 0 to what they perceive, and then back to 0. No attribute interaction

2.4. Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) --> press start button and select which attribute is most dominant, press stop when perception ends after swallowing

2.4.1. maybe not very interesting as it can be expected that it will be: texture - taste/flavour - texture

2.5. In vivo aroma release (PTR-MS) Proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry

2.5.1. in literature often only 1 volatile measured

2.6. Headspace analysis (GC-MS)

2.7. Binding to e.g. proteins limit flavour release, retention in product matrix. Protein can be denatured (pH, heating) to prevent this.

2.8. Low fat causes faster release of flavour than high-fat

2.9. Salt and sugar lower water activity --> flavour concentration higher and therefore better release

2.10. Higher viscosity --> lower release

2.11. homogenenous vs. inhomogeneous distribution of flavor

3. food structure/texture

3.1. heterogeneous vs. homogenenous

3.1.1. heterogeneous

3.1.2. homogenenous

3.2. impact of chocolate

3.2.1. chocolate masks texture?

3.3. can same (desired) texture be delivered by different structural/compositional elements

3.4. primary liked textures of consumers?

3.4.1. Sensory/texture attributes to consumer attitudes (e.g. indulgence)

3.5. effect of taste/flavor intensity, especially for samples with an intense taste/distracting flavours

3.6. effect of temperature (refrigerated snacks)

3.7. preferred/most liked threshold level for:

3.7.1. particle size

3.7.2. particle sound

3.7.3. any other properties?

3.8. observed

3.8.1. soft vs. hard

3.8.2. chewy

3.8.3. crunchy/crispy (the same?)

3.8.4. spongy

3.8.5. melting

3.8.6. pieces

3.9. texture distribution matters

3.9.1. position of layer of chocolate

3.9.2. position of layer of wafer

3.9.3. geometric properties

3.10. samples with combination of different textures were most pleasant/interesting, but felt homogeneous in mouth

3.11. crispiness of puffs/crisps

3.12. size of the pieces/particles

4. oral processing behaviour

4.1. bolus formation

4.1.1. meltability

4.1.1.1. chocolate pleasant

4.1.1.2. syrup takes longer, less pleasant

4.1.2. fruit (higher acidity --> increased salivation --> fast swallowing?

4.1.2.1. salivation

4.1.2.1.1. swallowing time

4.1.3. Texture Analyzer mechanical properties of boli

4.1.4. Particle size distribution of boli using image analysis

4.1.5. Speed of bolus formation: condiments facilitate bolus formation my moistening food boli, which leads to shorter mastication time to break down and lubricate boli enough to be safely swallowed

4.1.6. Energy intake rate

4.1.7. eating rate --> faster eating causes higher food intake

4.2. definition: The oral processing of food comprises the sequence of transformations that food undergoes from the first bite until the swallowing point.

4.3. Addition of condiments --> higher eating rate --> higher food intake (e.g. vegetables desired)

4.4. Addition of particles --> slower eating rate --> earlier satiation feeling --> less consumption (ad libitum)

4.5. Lower mastication effect --> higher eating rates --> higher intake of food

4.6. mastication effort

4.6.1. mastication time

4.6.2. number of chews (before swallowing)

4.6.3. chewing frequency

4.6.4. muscle activity

4.7. video recording

5. eating behaviour

5.1. definition: Eating behavior is a complex interplay of physiologic, psychological, social and genetic factors that influence meal timing, quantity of food intake, food preference, and food selection.

5.2. satisfaction

5.2.1. post-consumption satisfaction

5.2.2. liking

5.3. satiation

5.3.1. post-consumption appetite

6. nutrients

6.1. large variations between snack bars

6.2. design for precision delivery for nutrients

6.3. the project will also conduct a category review of current marketing claims made in relation to snacks to explore the content (i.e. ‘feel fuller for longer’).

6.4. nutrients bars very diverse

6.5. front of pack (FOP) nutrients

6.6. release in intestine, skipping the punch feeling when digested in the stomach

7. sensory

7.1. blindfolded participants to neglect visual influences

7.1.1. expectations generated by visual appearance are not always met after tasting

7.2. pleasure/liking include?

7.2.1. commercial samples are at least scored a 6-7 on RATA scale

7.2.2. how to know which texture(s) drives the liking (crunchy nut, smooth chocolate)

7.2.2.1. problem is that per person it differs what they like, some like crunchy, some like soft

7.3. serving size

7.3.1. composition

7.3.2. energy density (in Ferrero contract fixed calorie quantities)

7.3.3. weight

7.4. how to cluster?

7.4.1. flavor category (nutty, fruity, etc.)

7.4.2. homogeneous, heterogeneous

7.5. map 'white space' in commercial cereal bar category

7.6. internal panel Ferrero

7.6.1. which attributes do they use?

7.6.2. to validate results after the sensory study at WUR

7.7. methods

7.7.1. bi-axial space

7.7.1.1. chewy vs. crumbly/crusty

7.7.1.2. soft vs. hard

7.7.2. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA)

7.7.3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

7.8. train panellists on what is crunchy, chewy, hard etc.

7.8.1. find clear examples of these products

7.9. verify with one very logical product, whether participants put it in the correct area in the bi-axial map, rate it correclty etc.

7.10. ethics aanvragen

7.11. hoeveel samples?

7.11.1. commercial

7.11.2. model bars