IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mth/jfsjnl/v6y2017i1p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sweeteners in Diet Chocolate Ice Cream: Penalty Analysis and Acceptance Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Palazzo A. B.
  • Bolini H. M. A.

Abstract

According to the consumers’ demand for healthy and nutritional food without loss of sensory perception, a study based on sucrose substitution appears to be interesting for the food industries. Thus, this study associated the most significant attributes of diet chocolate ice cream aimed to obtain a high acceptance. The difference between the ice cream samples was related to sucrose concentration (12, 14, 16, 18 and 20%). Groups of 122 potential consumers of chocolate ice creams took part in an affective test using a nine-centimeter unstructured scale. The same group analyzed the samples using a 7-point Just About Right scale (JAR) regarding sweetness, chocolate flavor and smoothness. A Penalty analysis was used to identify potential directions for the ice cream’s improvement, based on consumer tests. After choosing the best formulation of the sucrose sample, a magnitude estimation procedure was performed. The sweeteners used to replace the sucrose were- sucralose, stevioside, neotame, neosucralose and an aroma blend (aroma/sucrose). Penalty analysis based on JAR scales showed that smoothness and chocolate flavor were the most penalizing sensory characteristics causing significant drop in chocolate ice cream acceptability. Thus, the aroma compound and neosucralose blend showed the best sucrose replacements.

Suggested Citation

  • Palazzo A. B. & Bolini H. M. A., 2017. "Sweeteners in Diet Chocolate Ice Cream: Penalty Analysis and Acceptance Evaluation," Journal of Food Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 6(1), pages 1-1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:mth:jfsjnl:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jfs/article/download/10655/8665
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jfs/article/view/10655
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mth:jfsjnl:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Macrothink Institute (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jfs.macrothink.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.