Identification of Sensory Attributes That Drive Consumer Liking of Commercial Orange Juice Products in Korea Mina K. Kim, Young-Jin Lee, Han Sub Kwak, and Myung-woo Kang
Orange juice is a well-accepted fruit juice, and its consumption increases steadily. Many studies have been conducted to understand the sensory characteristics of orange juice throughout its varying processing steps. Sensory language and consumer likings of food can be influenced by culture. The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juices in Korea and identify drivers of liking for orange juices in Korea. A quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a trained panel (n = 10) to evaluate 7 orange juice samples in triplicates, followed by consumer acceptance tests (n = 103). Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted for data analysis. The sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juice were documented and grouped: group 1 samples were characterized by high in natural citrus flavors such as orange peel, orange flesh, citrus fruit, and grape fruit, whereas group 2 samples were characterized by processed orange-like flavors such as over-ripe, cooked-orange, and yogurt. Regardless of orange flavor types, a high intensity of orange flavor in orange juice was identified as a driver of liking for orange juices in Korea. Three distinct clusters were segmented by varying sensory attributes that were evaluated by likes and dislikes. Overall, many similarities were noticed between Korean market segment and global orange juice market. By knowing the drivers of liking and understanding the distinct consumer clusters present in the Korean orange juice market, the orange juice industry could improve the strategic marketing of its products in Korea. Abstract:
Keywords: Orange Juice, Cross-Cultural, Driver of Consumer Liking, Cluster Analysis, Preference Mapping
The consumption of orange juice has been increasing steadily, yet the sensory properties and the drivers of liking of commercially available orange juices in Korea have not been identified. The development of a sensory lexicon for orange juice allows characterization of sensory properties of products and assists in understanding the drivers of liking of commercial orange juice products in Korea. These results could aid product developers and marketers in the strategic planning of orange juice sales in the Korean market.
Introduction
Many studies have been conducted to understand orange juice flavor including flavor chemistry and descriptive analysis, as well as consumer acceptance tests. Bettini and others (1998) and Petersen and others (1998) have identified key volatile compounds responsible for “good” orange juice flavor using a correlation between gas chromatography (GC) and descriptive analysis results, by monitoring changes during the storage time and different temperature conditions (Bettini and others 1998; Petterson and others 1998). Baxter and others (2005) determined the shelf life of navel orange juices subjected to high-pressure processing (HPP) and temperature treatment, stored at 4 and 10 ◦ C during 12 wk of storage time. They monitored 20 key aroma compounds, similar to the compounds previously studied by Bettini and others (1998), Min and others (2003), Rega and other (2003), and Petterson and others (1998). While these studies are significant in the orange juice industry, it is also important to comply with consumer acceptance tests in order to fully understand the meanings of the different aromatic compounds from a consumer perspective. Cordelle and others (2004) conducted a consumer paired preference test to determine the effect of age and gender on preferences for orange juice and further to determine the reproducibilMS 20130516 Submitted 4/14/2013, Accepted 6/25/2013. Authors are with CJ ity of consumer-liking patterns over repeated evaluation using Food R&D Center, 636 Guro-dong, Guro Gu, Seoul, South Korea. Direct inquiries 917 consumers. Their results revealed neither significant age nor to author Kim (E-mail: [email protected]). gender effects in consumer preferences for orange juice products.
Juice drinks dominated about 4.8% of market share in global beverage consumption in 2010 (CITRUSBR 2011). Orange is the most popular flavors among the fruit juice category. In 2011, a total of 2269-metric tons of orange juice was consumed in the top 40 countries by consumption volume in the world. The United States was the largest orange juice consuming country in the world, consuming about 791-metric tons of orange juice in 2011. By region, North America consumed the highest amount of orange juice (approximately 909 metric tons), followed by Europe (approximately 864 metric tons) and Asia (approximately 249 metric tons; CITRUSBR 2011). South Korea was the 13th highest orange juice consuming country, consuming about 37 metric tons of orange juice in 2011. In the juice drink category, ready-to-drink juice drinks (containing up to 24% of juice) accounted for 35% of the market segment, followed by 100% juice (20%), and powdered form (17%). In recent years, the consumption of nectars (25% to 99% of juice content) and ready-to-drink juice have continuously increased (5.9% and 4.9% from 2003, respectively).
R C 2013 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12227 Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1451
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Practical Application:
Identification of sensory attributes . . .
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Janzantti and others (2011) determined consumer likings of orange juice from frozen concentration processed in different steps (including extraction filtration, concentration, cooling, and blending). They reported that the aroma and flavor of orange juice, in fact, drive consumer acceptance of orange juice. Specifically, they showed that orange juice processed by extraction and filtration steps showed higher consumer liking than juice processed by concentration, cooling, and blending steps (Janzantti and others 2011). Lotong and others (2003) categorized 23 representative commercial orange juice products available in U.S. food market by descriptive flavor analysis. They reported 6 major clusters of orange juice products as well as determined flavor characteristics of orange juices under each cluster (Lotong and others 2003). In addition to the studies mentioned above, a considerate amount of research has been conducted to look at chemical, microbial, and sensorial characteristics of orange juices (Fellers and others 1986; Moshonas and Shaw 1989; Marbesa and Lim 1991; Fayoux and others 1997; Spoto and others 1997). Food consumption and choice are influenced by different sensory cues (intrinsic and extrinsic), and these cues are influenced by culture. Studies have shown differences in consumer hedonics across different food commodities and cultures. Cervellon and Dub´e (2005) investigated cultural influences on the affective and cognitive foundation of food likes and/or dislikes between consumers from different cultural backgrounds: French from France, Chinese from mainland China, and Chinese accultured in Canada. They reported cross-cultural differences between the French and Chinese in that the French displayed a dominant affective basis, while the Chinese valued the balance between affect and cognition (Cervellon and Dub´e 2005). Also, Prescott and others (2002) determined the factors influencing food choice in 4 different countries: Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Consumers from Eastern cultures (Taiwanese and Malaysian) valued the following factors on food choices: health, natural content, weight control, and convenience. In contrast, Japanese consumers valued “price” as the most important factor affecting food choice, while “sensory appeal” was important for New Zealand consumers (Prescott and others 2002). Rozin and others (1999) also compared consumer attitudes toward food and the role of food in people’s lives in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium, and France, and found significant cross-cultural differences in the role of, and attitude toward foods. Americans showed the highest association between food and health, and least association with pleasure, whereas French valued food as a pleasure-oriented motive, and health was the least associated with food. Japan was in between American and French/Belgians. As such, studies have already been conducted to look at the cross-cultural differences on perception of food and attitude toward food choices. Thus far, researches on the origins of food likings and/or disliking have been conducted mostly in Western cultures. Therefore, there is currently demand to conduct studies to look into the food likes/dislikes in Eastern cultures to see if there are significant differences in consumer likings for products that are well-accepted in western cultures. Understanding the sensory differences and consumer perceptions of orange juice is important in order to efficiently position orange juice products in the market. With the current globalization trend, many global companies have started to penetrate into the Korean food market and seek to grow their market share. Orange juice produced in Korea has a different sensory profile, and Korean consumers may have different perceptions toward the
S1452 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
liking of orange juice than western consumers. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted to identify the drivers of liking of commercial orange juice products produced in Korea among Korean consumers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juice, determine the impact of different processing conditions in the liking of orange juice, and identify drivers of liking for orange juices in Korea.
Materials and Method Sample selection Seven samples were selected based on market share and processing types (Table 1). These selected orange juice samples were major commercial orange juices that are widely consumed in Korea. Four orange juices required refrigeration (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6), and 3 required room temperature storage (OJ 1, 2, and 7). Among the 7 samples included, 6 were reconstituted from frozen concentrates (RFC) and 1 was freshly squeezed 100% orange juice (OJ 7). As for the container types, 2 were in plastic bottles (OJ 1 and 5), 1 was in a glass bottle (OJ 2), and 4 used paper cartons (OJ 3, 4, 6, and 7). A detailed description of each orange juice can be found in Table 1. Trained panel descriptive analysis of orange juices For the trained panel, females aged between 30 and 50 y participated in the descriptive analysis of the orange juices. Trained panelists were first recruited in 2001, and each had more than 3000 h of experience in various food products in the CJ Food R&D Center using a product/attribute-specific scale in quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA). Panelists were trained on flavor and texture attributes during the calibration session before the actual test. During calibration sessions, a group discussion was held in order to develop a consensus vocabulary for flavor/aroma, and mouthfeel attributes for orange juices. Initial sessions were focused on identification of sensory language for orange juice products. Panelists were also asked to identify references that would serve for each attribute term. On a given day, panelists were presented with coded samples of each orange juice in 210 mL clear plastic cups (polypropylene material; Cleanwrap, Gimhae, South Korea), along with possible references for flavor and texture attributes. A sensory lexicon for the flavor and texture of the orange juice was created based on the languages generated from calibration sessions, and can be found in Table 2. During subsequent training sessions, panelists evaluated products and discussed sample characteristics and attribute intensities. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure the consistency and reliability of the panelist’s performance. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the data from the last training session and checked for panelist consistency and reproducibility. The flavor and texture profile of the orange juices was conducted by each panelist (n = 10) in triplicates in a randomized balanced design. All samples were kept in 4 ◦ C until the sample evaluation. On the day of the evaluation, all samples were labeled with a 3-digit blind code and samples were served to panelists at 8 ◦ C during the evaluation. Water was provided to panelists for palate cleansing. Three-minute forced rest was enforced along with a proper rinsing procedure in order to minimize the carry-over effect. Panelist responses were recorded using SenseMine software v2008 (Sensometrics, Seoul, Korea).
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 1–Samples included in this study. Sample nr
Container type
Storage type
OJ 1
Plastic bottle
Room temperature
OJ 2
Glass bottle
Room temperature
OJ 3
Paper carton
Refrigerated temperature
OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7
Paper carton Plastic bottle Paper carton Paper carton
Refrigerated temperature Refrigerated temperature Refrigerated temperature Room temperature
Ingredients Orange concentrate (70% from Brazil, 30% from U.S.A.), reduced from concentrated juice, purified water, fructose syrup, natural orange flavor, artificial orange flavor, citric acid, vitamin C Orange concentrate (70% from Brazil, 30% from U.S.A.), purified water, artificial orange flavor, vitamin C Orange concentrate (78% from Brazil, 21% from U.S.A.), purified water, natural orange flavor Orange concentrate (100% from Brazil), purified water, vitamin C Orange concentrate (100% from U.S.A.), purified water Orange concentrate (100% from U.S.A.), artificial orange flavor, purified water 100% orange
All orange juice samples are currently available in the Korean food market.
Table 2–Sensory attributes used for the descriptive analysis of orange juices.
Orange (flesh) Orange (peel) Grape Fruit Powdered orange flavor Cooked orange Burnt Citrus Over-ripe Yogurt Medicinal
Basic taste
Sweet Sour Salty Bitter Artificial sweetener
Mouthfeel
Astringency Tooth etching Carbonated Metallic Persistency Ease of swallow Tongue heaviness Mouth coating
Definition Characteristic aromatics associated with orange flesh reference: freshly squeezed orange Characteristic aromatics associated with inner layer (white liner) of orange reference: a slice of orange peel Characteristic aromatics associated with grapefruits reference: a slice of grapefruit Characteristic aromatics associated with powdered artificial orange flavor, reference: powdered orange juice mix Characteristic aromatics associated with cooked orange (syrup-like flavor), reference: canned orange juice concentrate Characteristic aromatics associated with burnt woods reference: burnt match Characteristic aromatics associated with citrus fruits (that is, orange, tangerine, Clementine, and grapefruit) Characteristic aromatics associated with rotten, decayed, fermented fruits, reference: overripe bananas Characteristic aromatics associated with Yoplait (that is, acetaldehyde) reference: Yoplait plain yogurt Characteristic aromatics associated with various cough syrup reference: cough syrup Basic taste elicited by sugar Basic taste elicited by acid Basic taste elicited by salts Basic taste associated with caffeine Sweet sensation elicited by artificial sweetners, differ from sweet basic taste elicited by sugar, reference: Stevia solution Sensation of drying, drawing and/or puckering of any of the mouth surfaces, reference: 0.02% alum solution Sensation that the teeth are grooved or corroded Feeling of small bubbles on the tongue and sides of the mouth while the sample is in the mouth, reference: carbonated water Chemical feeling factor elicited by metallic objects in the mouth reference: ferrous sulfate solution Perception of unclean sensation within oral cavity after swallowing sample Degree to which the sample can be readily swallowed Resistance to pressing the tongue to the hard palate while the sample is in the mouth—reference: water and milk Cloying or thick sensation perceived on the teeth, tongue and sides of the mouth after expectoration, reference: CMC solution (0.55%)
Consumer acceptance test All 7 orange juices proceeded to consumer acceptance testing. A total of 103 self-reported orange juice consumers (consume orange juice 2 to 3 times a month) were recruited through online screening and phone interviews. Briefly, participants were all female, lived in the Seoul metro area, and aged between 30 and 59 y old (20% were 30 to 39 y old; 63% were 40 to 49 y old; 17% were 50 to 59 y old). As far as orange preference, nearly 86% of participants responded that they like orange, and about 43% prefer orange juice among all other fruit juice categories. Thirty-four percent drank orange juice at least 2 to 3 times a week, 34% re-
ported drinking it 2 to 3 times a month, and the remaining 18% reported drinking it at least once a month. About 36% of them made their own orange juice from home. In summary, participants were heavy users of orange and orange juice. Samples were served in a clear plastic juice cup (Cleanwrap. Gimhae, South Korea) labeled with a 3-digit code. Orange juice samples were kept at 4 ◦ C until the sample evaluation and were poured and served to consumers as needed basis. Thus, the serving temperature was maintained no higher than 8 ◦ C throughout the test. Water was provided for panelists to rinse their palates between samples and 2-min forced rest was enforced in order to minimize
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1453
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Descriptor Flavor
Identification of sensory attributes . . . the carry-over effect. Samples were presented to consumers in a completely randomized block design. Samples were evaluated under white light, and a paper ballot was used for data collection. Consumer acceptability was measured on a 9-point hedonic scale anchored as 1 being “dislike extremely” and 9 being “like extremely.” Panelists were asked to evaluate overall liking, appearance liking, overall flavor liking, orange flavor liking, mouthfeel liking, and aftertaste liking. Only liking questions were included in the questionnaire, because of a large number of samples to be evaluated in 1 session. Participants were compensated with cash for their participation.
Statistical analysis ANOVA was performed on the descriptive analysis data with means separation using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD). Principle component analysis (PCA) using a correlation matrix was applied to the descriptive data to visualize how products were differentiated and/or grouped across the sensory descriptors. ANOVA followed by a posthoc test was also conducted on consumer liking scores. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to cluster consumer segments using a dissimilarity matrix with Euclidean distance with Ward’s method. ANOVA was again performed on these overall liking scores to see if differences existed among consumer clusters, in which cluster and treatment were fixed effects and consumers a random effect. Partial least squares regression and external preference mapping were performed to determine the drivers of liking of orange juice products. All statistical analysis was conducted on a XLSTAT version 2011 (Addinsoft, Paris, France).
Results and Discussion
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Descriptive sensory analysis of orange juice flavor and mouthfeel attributes Sensory attributes identified included 10 flavor-related attributes, 5 basic tastes, and 8 mouthfeel attributes (Table 2). The differentiation for many terms was pronounced between the processing step and subsequent storage temperature requirement. Overall, lexicon generated from current study (Table 2) was similar, yet more detail, than what was published in Ireland, Australia, and Spain (Bettini and others 1998; Lotong and others 2003; Baxter and others 2005; Aparicio and others 2007): for example, “orange” flavor was subcategorized into orange flesh, orange peel, citrus, and cooked orange in this study. For flavor attributes, OJ 1, 2, and 7 samples had higher citrus-like attributes such as orange flesh, orange peel, grape fruit, and citrus fruit than other orange juice samples (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6). In contrast, OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6 samples showed higher intensity of processed orange-like flavor attributes such as powdered-orange flavor, cooked-orange, and yogurt-like flavor characteristics (Table 3). This grouping of orange juice flavors was mainly due to the processing temperature: shelf-stable (OJ 1, 2, and 7) and refrigerated products (OJ 3 to 6; Table 1). Lotong and others (2003) reported that “refrigerated from concentrated” orange juice had strong orange-like and candy-like flavor attributes, yet were low in peel-y, floral, green, over-ripe, bitter, citrus, musty flavor attributes, while “shelf-stable” orange juices had a higher intensity of sour, bitter tastes and sour, bitter aromatics (Lotong and others 2003). Descriptive analysis results from the current study also were in agreement with previous studies in that OJ 1, 2, and 7 (shelf-stable) had high orange-like flavors including orange peel, flesh, and citrus and were high in sour taste. The “burnt” flavor attribute was found almost exclusively in sample S1454 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
OJ 2. OJ 2 was a shelf-stable product and was the only sample whose container was a glass bottle, indicating hot-fill processing. No other significant patterns were noticed among different package types (paper carton package compared with plastic bottle; P > 0.05). A previous study also reported no significant flavor differences between the 2 package types (paper carton compared with plastic) (Pieper and others 1992). As far as basic taste goes, OJ 1, 3, 4, and 5 had higher sweet taste intensities, and OJ 1, 2, 6, and 7 had high sour intensities. OJ 1, 2, and 7 from the current study had high salty and bitter intensities. Essential oil extracted from squeezing the outer layer of the orange was known to cause a bitter taste in the orange juice (Kimball 1987). The current study also revealed that orange juice samples with higher orange-peel attributes (OJ 1, 2, and 7) reported high bitter taste intensities. Correlation analysis, in fact, revealed the higher correlation between bitter taste and orange peel (r = 0.991; data not shown). OJ 4 seemed to have a higher intensity of sweetness caused by artificial sweetener. Mouthfeel attributes were also differentiated by the processing conditions (P < 0.05). OJ 1, 2, and 7 had higher astringency, tooth etching, carbonated, metallic mouthfeel intensities than OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6 (P < 0.05). The persistency was higher in OJ 1, 4, 5, and 6 (P < 0.05). Ease of swallow was higher in OJ 4, which means OJ 4 was perceived easy to swallow while drinking, in comparison to other orange juices (P < 0.05). Tongue heaviness was defined as resistance to pressing the tongue to the hard palate, while the sample is in the mouth (Table 2), and was higher in OJ 4, 6, and 7 than others (P < 0.05). It is worthy to note that trained panelists noted the higher pulp content and turbidity in OJ 6 and 7. A higher level of pulp could lead to turbidity of OJ 6 and 7, which influenced the tongue heaviness of these 2 samples. The PCA result also confirmed (Figure 1) vast flavor/textural differences between the 2 groups: group 1: OJ 1, 2, and 7; group 2: OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6. Figure 1 explains about 81.5% of the total variability in the dataset, with PC1 being a primary axis (63.0% variability) and PC2 being a secondary axis (18.5% variability). The combination of flavor and textural attributes were loaded on each PC, which suggested that the orange juice samples were differentiated by a combination of sensorial modalities. Orange juice samples were greatly differentiated by the PC1 axis, whereby group 1 (OJ 1, 2, and 7) was located on a negative PC1, and group 2 (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6) was located on a positive PC1 (Figure 1). As far as flavor attributes go, orange peel, orange flesh, grape fruit, over-ripe, medicinal, and basic taste (sour, salty, and bitter) were negatively loaded on PC1, while powdered-orange and artificial sweetener attributes were positively loaded on PC1. Textural attributes including astringency, tooth etching, metallic, and mouth-coating attributes were negatively loaded on PC1, while persistency attributes were loaded on a positive PC1 axis. Burnt, over-ripe, medicinal, and tongue heaviness attributes were positively loaded on a PC2 axis, while citrus, sweet taste, persistency, metallic, and carbonated attributes were negatively loaded on a PC2 axis. OJ 2 and 7 were loaded on negative PC1 and positive PC2 coordinates, and were characterized by tongue heaviness and mouth-coating texture attributes; and medicinal, overripe, salty, and grape fruit flavors. OJ 1 and OJ 6 were located on the opposite direction along the PC2 axis, whereby OJ 1 was strongly associated with the citrus flavor attribute, and OJ 6 showed high correlation with yogurt, burnt and artificial sweetener, and tongue heaviness. OJ 4 and OJ 6 had similar flavor and texture attributes, as both are located on a top right quadrant of the PCA biplot. OJ 3 and 5 showed similar sensorial characteristics such as
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 3–Results from descriptive analysis test.
Flavor
Basic taste
Mouthfeel
Descriptor
OJ 1
OJ 2
OJ 3
OJ 4
OJ 5
OJ 6
OJ 7
Orange (flesh) Orange (peel) Grape fruit Powdered orange flavor Cooked orange Burnt Citrus Over-ripe Yogurt Medicine Sweet Sour Salty Bitter Artificial sweetner Astringency Tooth itching Carbonated Metalic Persistency Ease of swallow Tongue heaviness Mouth coating
9.7 a 5.2 a 2.4 abc 6.2 a 2.7 bc 1.3 b 5.1 a 1.2 c 1.0 c 1.0 b 10.5 a 8.3 ab 4.5 b 5.7 ab 4.7 bc 7.8 ab 6.0 a 8.8 a 5.9 a 9.0 a 7.3 bc 4.7 c 6.2 bc
8.5 ab 7.0 a 3.0 ab 1.9 c 5.4 a 3.8 a 3.3 b 2.9 ab 1.0 c 2.6 a 6.9 cd 8.4 ab 7.6 a 7.3 a 3.5 c 8.6 a 6.4 a 5.1 cd 6.4 a 5.9 cd 5.6 cd 6.3 bc 8.1 a
5.8 cd 3.3 b 1.2 c 5.0 ab 3.9 ab 2.0 b 1.1 c 1.4 c 3.0 ab 1.0 b 9.6 ab 6.9 bc 3.6 bc 3.9 c 4.8 bc 5.7 c 3.8 c 5.8 c 1.7 cd 7.0 bcd 8.5 b 4.9 c 4.7 cd
4.5 d 1.5 b 1.2 c 5.3 a 4.9 a 4.6 b 1.1 c 1.1 c 3.7 ab 1.0 b 9.7 ab 3.6 d 2.1 c 2.8 c 8.9 a 3.2 d 2.1 d 4.0 d 1.2 d 8.8 ab 11.0 a 7.5 ab 4.1 d
5.5 cd 3.0 b 1.2 c 5.5 a 3.6 ab 1.7 b 1.0 c 1.1 c 3.1 ab 1.0 b 10.0ab 6.4 c 3.6 bc 3.5 c 5.4 b 5.3 c 3.5 cd 5.6 c 2.0 cd 7.5 abc 8.5 b 5.2 c 4.1 cd
7.1 bc 3.3 b 2.0 bc 5.4 a 1.6 c 1.3 b 1.0 c 2.2 bc 4.3 a 2.3 a 8.5 bc 7.1 abc 4.9 b 4.2 bc 5.7 b 6.1 bc 4.2 bc 6.4 bc 2.9 bc 7.3abc 7.4 b 7.4 ab 5.2 cd
8.8 a 5.7 a 3.4 a 3.3 bc 1.0 c 1.2 b 1.0 c 3.9 a 2.7 b 2.8 a 6.5 d 8.7 a 6.8 a 5.9 a 3.4 c 7.8 a 5.8 ab 7.7 ab 4.1 b 5.4 d 5.4 d 9.1 a 7.3 ab
cooked-orange, ease of swallow, powdered-orange, persistency, in appearance were apparent from the trained panel evaluation, and sweet basic taste. the appearance liking of all orange juices was not different (P > 0.05). Earlier studies also reported a minimum influence of color on consumer acceptance of orange juice (Tepper 1993). There Consumer acceptance test Consumer liking scores. Consumer overall liking, flavor lik- were significant differences in overall liking of orange juices (P < ing, mouthfeel liking, and aftertaste liking for orange juice samples 0.05). OJ 1 as well as OJ 3, 5, and 6 received high overall liking were shown in Table 4. There were no differences in appearance scores among Korean consumers (P < 0.05). From the descriptive liking of 7 orange juice samples, although trained panelists noticed analysis results, orange juice samples were grouped together based significant color differences (yellowness; data not shown), in that on sensorial similarity; however, consumer acceptance of samOJ 2, 4, 6, and 7 showed higher intensity of yellowness than other ples was slightly different. OJ 1 showed the highest overall liking samples. Also, the trained panel noticed significantly higher pulp score as well as flavor, mouthfeel, and aftertaste likings in comparcontent on the OJ 7 sample than others. While the differences ison to OJ 2 and 7. OJ 1 received a high intensity for powdered
Figure 1–PCA with a total of 81.5% variability of descriptive terms explained with varimax rotation (on 2 factors) for all samples. Numbers followed by OJ represents different samples.
PC2 18.5%
OJ 7
OJ 2
PC1 63.0%
Tongue heaviness Medicine OJ 6 Yogurt Over-ripe
OJ 4
BurntArtificial sweetner Salty Grape Fruit Mouth Coating Ease of swallow Orange (peel) Cooked orangeOJ 3 Astringency OJ 5 Tooth Souretching Orange (flesh)Bitter Powdered orange Metalic Persistency Sweet Carbonated Citrus
OJ 1
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1455
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Means in a row that does not share a same alphabetical letter represents significant differences (P < 0.05).
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 4–Consumer liking scores for all orange juice samples.
OJ 1 OJ 2 OJ 3 OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7 p-value
Appearance liking
Overall liking
Flavor liking
Orange flavor liking
Mouthfeel liking
Aftertaste liking
5.6 a 5.7 a 5.7 a 5.6 a 5.5 a 5.7 a 5.9 a 0.690
5.7 a 4.9 c 5.5 ab 5.0 bc 5.3 abc 5.4 abc 4.9 bc 0.000
5.7 a 5.1 b 5.45ab 5.01b 5.50ab 5.5 ab 5.4 ab 0.001
5.7 a 5.1 b 5.3 ab 5.0 b 5.4 ab 5.3 ab 5.3 ab 0.014
6.1 a 5.3 cd 5.9 ab 5.4 bcd 5.7 abc 5.8 abc 5.1 d 0.000
5.6 a 4.7 c 5.5 bc 5.1 abc 5.3 abc 5.3 abc 4.9 bc 0.000
Means in a column that does not share a same alphabetical letter represent a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Table 5–Consumer overall liking means for each cluster derived from liking evaluations. Cluster 1 (n1 = 46)
Cluster 2 (n2 = 29)
Cluster 3 (n3 = 25)
5.0 ab 4.2 b 5.6 a 4.5 b 4.5 b 4.6 b 4.7 b
5.7 ab 5.5 b 5.6 b 5.4 b 5.7 ab 6.0 ab 6.7 a
6.5 a 5.1 b 5.9 ab 5.1 b 6.6 a 6.5 a 3.6 c
OJ 1 OJ 2 OJ 3 OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7
Means in a column that does not share a same alphabetical letter represents a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Cluster analysis. Cluster analysis was performed on the overall liking scores and 3 distinct consumer segments were found (Table 5, Figure 2). Cluster 1 consisted of 46 consumers, cluster 2 consisted of 29 consumers, and cluster 3 consisted of 25. Upon investigating the demographics of each cluster, cluster 1 and cluster 3 showed similar demographic characteristics, including age, resident area, education level, and household income level. Minor differences were observed between clusters 1 and 3 on education level and household income: cluster 3 had a higher proportion of highly educated consumers with a higher household income level. Cluster 2 showed slightly different demographic characteristics than clusters 1 and 3, in that cluster 2 consumers consisted of a higher proportion of consumers in their 40s (approximately
(+) tongue heaviness (+) yogurt (+) medicine OJ 4 (+) burnt
OJ 7 OJ 6 F2 (21.46 %)
S: Sensory & Food Quality
orange and citrus flavor and had a higher sweet taste intensity than other OJ samples in group 1 (OJ 2 and 7; Table 3). OJ 1 had a slightly different ingredient list than other orange juice samples: OJ 1 was made with 100% orange juice concentrate with added natural and artificial orange flavors and high fructose corn syrup to add sweetness to the product. The addition of these additional ingredients may have contributed to the sensorial characteristics of OJ1, and, in fact, may have increased consumer acceptance of OJ 1. When directly asked reason(s) why consumers evaluated the overall liking of OJ 1, “just about right level of sweetness and sourness” (35% and 26%, respectively) were the top reasons(s) followed by good orange flavor (approximately 22%). Considering all the factors, consumers liked OJ 1 because of the fortified orange flavors (naturally and artificially flavored), and good sweet and sour taste intensity. Interestingly, OJ 2 also was made with 100% orange juice concentrate with added artificial orange flavor. Unlike OJ 1, OJ 2 received the lowest overall liking score, and received a low flavor liking score. The reason(s) why consumers evaluated OJ 2, collected from open-ended question, included “too much sour,” “too bitter,” and “taste artificial,” indicating that consumers perceived OJ 2 as having higher sour and bitter tastes as well as artificial tastes. In fact, descriptive analysis results revealed that OJ 2 had higher sour and bitter taste intensities than others (Table 3), and had grape-fruit, medicinal, and burnt flavors. OJ 2 contained an added artificial orange juice flavor, but no high fructose corn syrup. Therefore, one of the differences between OJ 1 and OJ 2 was added sweeteners and type of orange juice flavor added.
Cluster 2 (n2=29) OJ 5 OJ 3 Cluster 3 (n3=25)
(-) citrus (-) orange flesh (-) metalic (-) carbonated (-) easy of swallow (-) sweet (-) powdered orange (-) sweet (-) persistency (-) artificial sweetener
Cluster 1 (n1=46)
OJ 1 F1 (56.93 %)
S1456 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
OJ 2
(+)over-ripe (+)orange peel (+)grapefruit (+)tooth etching (+)astringency (+)bitter (+) salty (+) sour
Figure 2–External preference mapping on clusters derived from evaluation of orange juice samples. Numbers followed by OJ represents different samples. Attributes on the plot are important attributes highly loaded on F1 and F2.
Identification of sensory attributes . . . of orange flavor and high sweet taste were positively correlated with overall liking of Australian consumers. Also, Luckow and Delahunty (2004) reported that tropical, grapefruit attributes were driver of liking of orange juice among conventional juice drinkers in Ireland. Overall driver of liking identified from current study was similar in different countries, in that fruit flavors (orange and tropical fruits) were highly influencing factors to consumer likings. Three distinct clusters exist, including orange flavor liker (cluster 1), functional flavor liker (cluster 2), and sweet tasters (cluster 3). In addition, a significant proportion of consumers, who are prone to functional flavors such as bitter, medicinal, and burnt characteristics, exist in Korea and similar consumer segment was also reported previously in Ireland (Luckow and Delahunty 2004).
Conclusions Sensory characteristics of orange juice samples with varying processing and filling steps were differentiated by descriptive analysis and consumer acceptance tests. Orange juices commercially available in Korea were grouped based on sensory characteristics determined by descriptive analysis results. Orange juices in group 1 (OJ 1, 2, and 7) were characterized by natural citrus-like flavors and had higher sour and bitter intensities. Samples in group 2 (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6) were characterized by the high intensity of processed orange-like and higher sweet taste intensities. While the 2 groups of orange juice samples were differentiated by specific types of orange flavor (natural compared with cooked), generic orange flavors (natural and cooked/artificial) in orange juice were identified as driver of liking in Korean consumers. Cluster analysis confirmed that orange flavors were identified as a driver of liking in cluster 1 consumers. Another cluster identified was prone to “functional” flavors (sour, bitter, and medicinal), and the other consumer segments showed higher hedonics on sweet orange juice products. Overall, many similarities were noticed between Korean market segment and global orange juice market. The orange juice industry should maintain higher orange-like flavors in orange juice products to target the overall orange juice market. By knowing the preferences of consumer clusters based on their likes and dislikes of sensory attributes, it is possible to improve strategic product development for specific target populations to increase market share in Korea.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of CJ CheilJedang Food R&D Center. Use of trademarks does not imply endorsement or lack of endorsement by those not mentioned.
References Aparicio JP, Medina MAT, Rosales VL. 2007. Descriptive sensory analysis in different classes of orange juice by a robust free-choice profile method. Anal Chim Acta 595:238– 47. Baxter IA, Easton K, Schneebeli K, Whitfield F. 2005. High pressure processing of Australian navel orange juice: sensory analysis and volatile flavor profiling. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 64:372–87. Bettini MFM, Shaw PE, Lancas FM. 1998. Sensory and analytical evaluations of Brazilian orange juices and aromas. Fruit Process 87:283–7. Cervellon MC, Dub´e L. 2005. Cultural influences in the origins of food likings and dislikes. Food Qual Pref 165:455–60. CITRUSBR. 2011. Brazilian Association of Citrus Exporters. Available at: http://www.citrusbr.com/en/citric-exporters/consumption/consumption-statistics-235206-1.asp. Accessed on March 2013. Cordelle S, Lange C, Schlich P. 2004. On the consistency of liking scores: insights from a study including 917 consumers from 10 to 80 years old. Food Qual Pref 157–8:831–41. Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. 2002. Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72:1424–35. Fayoux CS, Seuver AM, Voilley AJ. 1997. Aroma transfers in and through plastic packaging: orange juice and δ-Limoneane, a review. Part 1: Orange juice aroma sorption. Pack Technol Sci 102:69–82.
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1457
S: Sensory & Food Quality
52%), in contrast to clusters 1 and 3, which mostly consisted of consumers in their 30s (63% and 76%, respectively). Orange flavors (artificial and/or natural) were the most influential factors in cluster 1 consumers, as OJ 1 and 3 received the highest overall liking scores among cluster 1 members. OJ 1 was characterized by high orange (flesh and peel) flavor, grape fruit, and powdered-orange flavor, and OJ 3 was characterized by high intensity of powdered-orange, cooked-orange as well as yogurtlike flavor attributes. These characteristics reflected different forms of orange flavors, yet all fall under the broader category of “orange flavors (artificial and natural).” Consumers in cluster 1 showed a higher tendency to like “orange-like flavors” in orange juice samples. Cluster 2 and cluster 3 consumers were opposite in their likes and dislikes. OJ 7 received the highest overall liking among cluster 2 members, yet received the lowest liking score in cluster 3 members. When looking at the external preference map on clusters derived from the evaluation of orange juice samples (Figure 2), clusters 2 and 3 were located completely opposite of the primary axis of the map, indicating that their likes and dislikes were in different sensory spaces. Clusters 2 consumers evaluated OJ 1, 5, 6, and 7 for higher overall liking scores. Cluster 2 membership can be determined by consumer preference on sour and bitter taste, in that OJ 1, 6, and 7 (3 out of 4 received high liking scores among cluster 2 consumers) were characterized by higher sour intensities (Table 3). OJ 5, 6, and 7 samples were all cold-filled orange juices, suggesting that cluster 2 consumers may be targeting consumers to market cold-filled orange juices. It is also worth noting that OJ 2 received the highest overall liking score in cluster 2 in comparison to the score from other clusters. Luckow and Delahunty (2004) revealed that consumers associate attributes with “functional” orange juice products such as dirty, medicinal, artificial, and earthy flavors. Drewnowski and GomezCarneros (2002) also noted that bitter, acrid, or astringent were highly associated with “functional” ingredients in food. Sensory characteristics of OJ 2 were close to what consumers perceived as “functional” products, suggesting possible marketing points for OJ 2. Luckow and Delahunty (2004), however, reported that only a small consumer segment (11%) significantly preferred the “functional” sensory characteristics found in orange juice. Their study was conducted in Ireland, whereas the current study was conducted in South Korea. Both studies suggest a possible market segment prone to “functional” flavors, yet the specific proportion of the market in each country was slightly different. In orange juice products, cluster 2 consumers preferred samples with sensory characteristics associated with “functional” products such as bitter, sour, and medicinal. Cluster 3 consumers evaluated OJ 1, 3, 5, and 6 for their highest overall likings. These samples were characterized by high-intensity sweet taste, lower sour, and bitter tastes. The main differentiating factor between clusters 2 and 3 was their likings on sweet taste by cluster 3 and sour and bitter taste by cluster 2 members. From demographic information on each cluster, cluster 2 consumers consisted of a higher proportion of consumers in their 40s, and cluster 3 consumers mainly consisted of consumers in their 30s. The age differences may have contributed to their different preferences in orange juice samples. OJ 1 sample received the highest overall liking score, regardless of cluster membership; therefore, OJ 1 can be marketed to general consumers in Korea. In summary, overall drivers of liking for all clusters (all consumers) were predicted to be powdered-orange, citrus, grape fruit, orange flavors (peel and flesh), persistency, and carbonated attributes. Baxter and others (2005) revealed that overall strength
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Fellers PJ, Jager G, Poole MJ. 1986. Quality of retail Florda-packed frozen concentrated orange juice as determined by consumers and physical and chemical analysis. J Food Sci 51: 1187–90. Janzantti NS, Machado TV, Monteiro M. 2011. Sensory acceptance of juice from FCOJ processing steps. J Sens Stud 265:322–30. Kimball DA. 1987. Debittering of citrus juices using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Food Sci 522:481–2. Lotong V, Chambers E, Chambers DH. 2003. Categorization of commercial orange juices based on flavor characteristics. J Food Sci 682:722–5. Luckow T, Delahunty C. 2004. Consumer acceptance of orange juice containing functional ingredients. Food Res Intl 37:805–14. Marbesa LB, Lim MR. 1991. Evaluation of factors affecting consumers’ acceptance of orange juice drink. Philippine Agric 741:95–102. Moshonas MG, Shaw PE. 1989. Flavor evaluation and volatile flavor constituents of stored aseptically packaged orange juice. J Food Sci 54:82–5. Min S. Jin ZT, Min SK, Yeom H, Zhang QH. 2003. Commercial-scale pulsed electric field processing of orange juice. J Food Sci 684:1265–71. Petersen MA, Tonder D, Poll L. 1998. Comparison of normal and accelerated storage of commercial orange juice- changes in flavor and content of volatile compounds. Food Qual Pref 91/2:43–51.
S: Sensory & Food Quality S1458 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
Pieper G, Borgudd L, Ackermann P, Fellers P. 1992. Absorption of aroma volatiles of orange juice into laminated carton packages did not affect sensory quality. J Food Sci 57: 1408–511. Prescott J, Young O, O’Neill L, Yau NJN, Stevens R. 2002. Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual Pref 137–8:489–95. Rega B, Fournier N, Guichard E. 2003. Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) of orange juice flavor: odor representativeness by direct gas chromatography olfactometry (D-GC-O). J Agric Food Chem 51(24):7092–9. Rozin P, Fischler C, Imada S, Sarubin A, Wrzesniewski A. 1999. Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the Diet-Health debate. Appetite 33:163–80. Spoto MHF, Domarco RE, Walder JMM, Scarminio IS, Bruns RE. 1997. Sensory evaluation of orange juice concentrate as affected by irradiation and storage. J Food Process Preserv 21:179–91. Tepper BJ. 1993. Effects of a slight color variation on consumer acceptance of orange juice. J Sens Stud 82:145–54.
Orange juice is a well-accepted fruit juice, and its consumption increases steadily. Many studies have been conducted to understand the sensory characteristics of orange juice throughout its varying processing steps. Sensory language and consumer likings of food can be influenced by culture. The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juices in Korea and identify drivers of liking for orange juices in Korea. A quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a trained panel (n = 10) to evaluate 7 orange juice samples in triplicates, followed by consumer acceptance tests (n = 103). Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted for data analysis. The sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juice were documented and grouped: group 1 samples were characterized by high in natural citrus flavors such as orange peel, orange flesh, citrus fruit, and grape fruit, whereas group 2 samples were characterized by processed orange-like flavors such as over-ripe, cooked-orange, and yogurt. Regardless of orange flavor types, a high intensity of orange flavor in orange juice was identified as a driver of liking for orange juices in Korea. Three distinct clusters were segmented by varying sensory attributes that were evaluated by likes and dislikes. Overall, many similarities were noticed between Korean market segment and global orange juice market. By knowing the drivers of liking and understanding the distinct consumer clusters present in the Korean orange juice market, the orange juice industry could improve the strategic marketing of its products in Korea. Abstract:
Keywords: Orange Juice, Cross-Cultural, Driver of Consumer Liking, Cluster Analysis, Preference Mapping
The consumption of orange juice has been increasing steadily, yet the sensory properties and the drivers of liking of commercially available orange juices in Korea have not been identified. The development of a sensory lexicon for orange juice allows characterization of sensory properties of products and assists in understanding the drivers of liking of commercial orange juice products in Korea. These results could aid product developers and marketers in the strategic planning of orange juice sales in the Korean market.
Introduction
Many studies have been conducted to understand orange juice flavor including flavor chemistry and descriptive analysis, as well as consumer acceptance tests. Bettini and others (1998) and Petersen and others (1998) have identified key volatile compounds responsible for “good” orange juice flavor using a correlation between gas chromatography (GC) and descriptive analysis results, by monitoring changes during the storage time and different temperature conditions (Bettini and others 1998; Petterson and others 1998). Baxter and others (2005) determined the shelf life of navel orange juices subjected to high-pressure processing (HPP) and temperature treatment, stored at 4 and 10 ◦ C during 12 wk of storage time. They monitored 20 key aroma compounds, similar to the compounds previously studied by Bettini and others (1998), Min and others (2003), Rega and other (2003), and Petterson and others (1998). While these studies are significant in the orange juice industry, it is also important to comply with consumer acceptance tests in order to fully understand the meanings of the different aromatic compounds from a consumer perspective. Cordelle and others (2004) conducted a consumer paired preference test to determine the effect of age and gender on preferences for orange juice and further to determine the reproducibilMS 20130516 Submitted 4/14/2013, Accepted 6/25/2013. Authors are with CJ ity of consumer-liking patterns over repeated evaluation using Food R&D Center, 636 Guro-dong, Guro Gu, Seoul, South Korea. Direct inquiries 917 consumers. Their results revealed neither significant age nor to author Kim (E-mail: [email protected]). gender effects in consumer preferences for orange juice products.
Juice drinks dominated about 4.8% of market share in global beverage consumption in 2010 (CITRUSBR 2011). Orange is the most popular flavors among the fruit juice category. In 2011, a total of 2269-metric tons of orange juice was consumed in the top 40 countries by consumption volume in the world. The United States was the largest orange juice consuming country in the world, consuming about 791-metric tons of orange juice in 2011. By region, North America consumed the highest amount of orange juice (approximately 909 metric tons), followed by Europe (approximately 864 metric tons) and Asia (approximately 249 metric tons; CITRUSBR 2011). South Korea was the 13th highest orange juice consuming country, consuming about 37 metric tons of orange juice in 2011. In the juice drink category, ready-to-drink juice drinks (containing up to 24% of juice) accounted for 35% of the market segment, followed by 100% juice (20%), and powdered form (17%). In recent years, the consumption of nectars (25% to 99% of juice content) and ready-to-drink juice have continuously increased (5.9% and 4.9% from 2003, respectively).
R C 2013 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12227 Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1451
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Practical Application:
Identification of sensory attributes . . .
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Janzantti and others (2011) determined consumer likings of orange juice from frozen concentration processed in different steps (including extraction filtration, concentration, cooling, and blending). They reported that the aroma and flavor of orange juice, in fact, drive consumer acceptance of orange juice. Specifically, they showed that orange juice processed by extraction and filtration steps showed higher consumer liking than juice processed by concentration, cooling, and blending steps (Janzantti and others 2011). Lotong and others (2003) categorized 23 representative commercial orange juice products available in U.S. food market by descriptive flavor analysis. They reported 6 major clusters of orange juice products as well as determined flavor characteristics of orange juices under each cluster (Lotong and others 2003). In addition to the studies mentioned above, a considerate amount of research has been conducted to look at chemical, microbial, and sensorial characteristics of orange juices (Fellers and others 1986; Moshonas and Shaw 1989; Marbesa and Lim 1991; Fayoux and others 1997; Spoto and others 1997). Food consumption and choice are influenced by different sensory cues (intrinsic and extrinsic), and these cues are influenced by culture. Studies have shown differences in consumer hedonics across different food commodities and cultures. Cervellon and Dub´e (2005) investigated cultural influences on the affective and cognitive foundation of food likes and/or dislikes between consumers from different cultural backgrounds: French from France, Chinese from mainland China, and Chinese accultured in Canada. They reported cross-cultural differences between the French and Chinese in that the French displayed a dominant affective basis, while the Chinese valued the balance between affect and cognition (Cervellon and Dub´e 2005). Also, Prescott and others (2002) determined the factors influencing food choice in 4 different countries: Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Consumers from Eastern cultures (Taiwanese and Malaysian) valued the following factors on food choices: health, natural content, weight control, and convenience. In contrast, Japanese consumers valued “price” as the most important factor affecting food choice, while “sensory appeal” was important for New Zealand consumers (Prescott and others 2002). Rozin and others (1999) also compared consumer attitudes toward food and the role of food in people’s lives in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium, and France, and found significant cross-cultural differences in the role of, and attitude toward foods. Americans showed the highest association between food and health, and least association with pleasure, whereas French valued food as a pleasure-oriented motive, and health was the least associated with food. Japan was in between American and French/Belgians. As such, studies have already been conducted to look at the cross-cultural differences on perception of food and attitude toward food choices. Thus far, researches on the origins of food likings and/or disliking have been conducted mostly in Western cultures. Therefore, there is currently demand to conduct studies to look into the food likes/dislikes in Eastern cultures to see if there are significant differences in consumer likings for products that are well-accepted in western cultures. Understanding the sensory differences and consumer perceptions of orange juice is important in order to efficiently position orange juice products in the market. With the current globalization trend, many global companies have started to penetrate into the Korean food market and seek to grow their market share. Orange juice produced in Korea has a different sensory profile, and Korean consumers may have different perceptions toward the
S1452 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
liking of orange juice than western consumers. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted to identify the drivers of liking of commercial orange juice products produced in Korea among Korean consumers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the sensory characteristics of commercially available orange juice, determine the impact of different processing conditions in the liking of orange juice, and identify drivers of liking for orange juices in Korea.
Materials and Method Sample selection Seven samples were selected based on market share and processing types (Table 1). These selected orange juice samples were major commercial orange juices that are widely consumed in Korea. Four orange juices required refrigeration (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6), and 3 required room temperature storage (OJ 1, 2, and 7). Among the 7 samples included, 6 were reconstituted from frozen concentrates (RFC) and 1 was freshly squeezed 100% orange juice (OJ 7). As for the container types, 2 were in plastic bottles (OJ 1 and 5), 1 was in a glass bottle (OJ 2), and 4 used paper cartons (OJ 3, 4, 6, and 7). A detailed description of each orange juice can be found in Table 1. Trained panel descriptive analysis of orange juices For the trained panel, females aged between 30 and 50 y participated in the descriptive analysis of the orange juices. Trained panelists were first recruited in 2001, and each had more than 3000 h of experience in various food products in the CJ Food R&D Center using a product/attribute-specific scale in quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA). Panelists were trained on flavor and texture attributes during the calibration session before the actual test. During calibration sessions, a group discussion was held in order to develop a consensus vocabulary for flavor/aroma, and mouthfeel attributes for orange juices. Initial sessions were focused on identification of sensory language for orange juice products. Panelists were also asked to identify references that would serve for each attribute term. On a given day, panelists were presented with coded samples of each orange juice in 210 mL clear plastic cups (polypropylene material; Cleanwrap, Gimhae, South Korea), along with possible references for flavor and texture attributes. A sensory lexicon for the flavor and texture of the orange juice was created based on the languages generated from calibration sessions, and can be found in Table 2. During subsequent training sessions, panelists evaluated products and discussed sample characteristics and attribute intensities. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure the consistency and reliability of the panelist’s performance. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the data from the last training session and checked for panelist consistency and reproducibility. The flavor and texture profile of the orange juices was conducted by each panelist (n = 10) in triplicates in a randomized balanced design. All samples were kept in 4 ◦ C until the sample evaluation. On the day of the evaluation, all samples were labeled with a 3-digit blind code and samples were served to panelists at 8 ◦ C during the evaluation. Water was provided to panelists for palate cleansing. Three-minute forced rest was enforced along with a proper rinsing procedure in order to minimize the carry-over effect. Panelist responses were recorded using SenseMine software v2008 (Sensometrics, Seoul, Korea).
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 1–Samples included in this study. Sample nr
Container type
Storage type
OJ 1
Plastic bottle
Room temperature
OJ 2
Glass bottle
Room temperature
OJ 3
Paper carton
Refrigerated temperature
OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7
Paper carton Plastic bottle Paper carton Paper carton
Refrigerated temperature Refrigerated temperature Refrigerated temperature Room temperature
Ingredients Orange concentrate (70% from Brazil, 30% from U.S.A.), reduced from concentrated juice, purified water, fructose syrup, natural orange flavor, artificial orange flavor, citric acid, vitamin C Orange concentrate (70% from Brazil, 30% from U.S.A.), purified water, artificial orange flavor, vitamin C Orange concentrate (78% from Brazil, 21% from U.S.A.), purified water, natural orange flavor Orange concentrate (100% from Brazil), purified water, vitamin C Orange concentrate (100% from U.S.A.), purified water Orange concentrate (100% from U.S.A.), artificial orange flavor, purified water 100% orange
All orange juice samples are currently available in the Korean food market.
Table 2–Sensory attributes used for the descriptive analysis of orange juices.
Orange (flesh) Orange (peel) Grape Fruit Powdered orange flavor Cooked orange Burnt Citrus Over-ripe Yogurt Medicinal
Basic taste
Sweet Sour Salty Bitter Artificial sweetener
Mouthfeel
Astringency Tooth etching Carbonated Metallic Persistency Ease of swallow Tongue heaviness Mouth coating
Definition Characteristic aromatics associated with orange flesh reference: freshly squeezed orange Characteristic aromatics associated with inner layer (white liner) of orange reference: a slice of orange peel Characteristic aromatics associated with grapefruits reference: a slice of grapefruit Characteristic aromatics associated with powdered artificial orange flavor, reference: powdered orange juice mix Characteristic aromatics associated with cooked orange (syrup-like flavor), reference: canned orange juice concentrate Characteristic aromatics associated with burnt woods reference: burnt match Characteristic aromatics associated with citrus fruits (that is, orange, tangerine, Clementine, and grapefruit) Characteristic aromatics associated with rotten, decayed, fermented fruits, reference: overripe bananas Characteristic aromatics associated with Yoplait (that is, acetaldehyde) reference: Yoplait plain yogurt Characteristic aromatics associated with various cough syrup reference: cough syrup Basic taste elicited by sugar Basic taste elicited by acid Basic taste elicited by salts Basic taste associated with caffeine Sweet sensation elicited by artificial sweetners, differ from sweet basic taste elicited by sugar, reference: Stevia solution Sensation of drying, drawing and/or puckering of any of the mouth surfaces, reference: 0.02% alum solution Sensation that the teeth are grooved or corroded Feeling of small bubbles on the tongue and sides of the mouth while the sample is in the mouth, reference: carbonated water Chemical feeling factor elicited by metallic objects in the mouth reference: ferrous sulfate solution Perception of unclean sensation within oral cavity after swallowing sample Degree to which the sample can be readily swallowed Resistance to pressing the tongue to the hard palate while the sample is in the mouth—reference: water and milk Cloying or thick sensation perceived on the teeth, tongue and sides of the mouth after expectoration, reference: CMC solution (0.55%)
Consumer acceptance test All 7 orange juices proceeded to consumer acceptance testing. A total of 103 self-reported orange juice consumers (consume orange juice 2 to 3 times a month) were recruited through online screening and phone interviews. Briefly, participants were all female, lived in the Seoul metro area, and aged between 30 and 59 y old (20% were 30 to 39 y old; 63% were 40 to 49 y old; 17% were 50 to 59 y old). As far as orange preference, nearly 86% of participants responded that they like orange, and about 43% prefer orange juice among all other fruit juice categories. Thirty-four percent drank orange juice at least 2 to 3 times a week, 34% re-
ported drinking it 2 to 3 times a month, and the remaining 18% reported drinking it at least once a month. About 36% of them made their own orange juice from home. In summary, participants were heavy users of orange and orange juice. Samples were served in a clear plastic juice cup (Cleanwrap. Gimhae, South Korea) labeled with a 3-digit code. Orange juice samples were kept at 4 ◦ C until the sample evaluation and were poured and served to consumers as needed basis. Thus, the serving temperature was maintained no higher than 8 ◦ C throughout the test. Water was provided for panelists to rinse their palates between samples and 2-min forced rest was enforced in order to minimize
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1453
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Descriptor Flavor
Identification of sensory attributes . . . the carry-over effect. Samples were presented to consumers in a completely randomized block design. Samples were evaluated under white light, and a paper ballot was used for data collection. Consumer acceptability was measured on a 9-point hedonic scale anchored as 1 being “dislike extremely” and 9 being “like extremely.” Panelists were asked to evaluate overall liking, appearance liking, overall flavor liking, orange flavor liking, mouthfeel liking, and aftertaste liking. Only liking questions were included in the questionnaire, because of a large number of samples to be evaluated in 1 session. Participants were compensated with cash for their participation.
Statistical analysis ANOVA was performed on the descriptive analysis data with means separation using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD). Principle component analysis (PCA) using a correlation matrix was applied to the descriptive data to visualize how products were differentiated and/or grouped across the sensory descriptors. ANOVA followed by a posthoc test was also conducted on consumer liking scores. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to cluster consumer segments using a dissimilarity matrix with Euclidean distance with Ward’s method. ANOVA was again performed on these overall liking scores to see if differences existed among consumer clusters, in which cluster and treatment were fixed effects and consumers a random effect. Partial least squares regression and external preference mapping were performed to determine the drivers of liking of orange juice products. All statistical analysis was conducted on a XLSTAT version 2011 (Addinsoft, Paris, France).
Results and Discussion
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Descriptive sensory analysis of orange juice flavor and mouthfeel attributes Sensory attributes identified included 10 flavor-related attributes, 5 basic tastes, and 8 mouthfeel attributes (Table 2). The differentiation for many terms was pronounced between the processing step and subsequent storage temperature requirement. Overall, lexicon generated from current study (Table 2) was similar, yet more detail, than what was published in Ireland, Australia, and Spain (Bettini and others 1998; Lotong and others 2003; Baxter and others 2005; Aparicio and others 2007): for example, “orange” flavor was subcategorized into orange flesh, orange peel, citrus, and cooked orange in this study. For flavor attributes, OJ 1, 2, and 7 samples had higher citrus-like attributes such as orange flesh, orange peel, grape fruit, and citrus fruit than other orange juice samples (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6). In contrast, OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6 samples showed higher intensity of processed orange-like flavor attributes such as powdered-orange flavor, cooked-orange, and yogurt-like flavor characteristics (Table 3). This grouping of orange juice flavors was mainly due to the processing temperature: shelf-stable (OJ 1, 2, and 7) and refrigerated products (OJ 3 to 6; Table 1). Lotong and others (2003) reported that “refrigerated from concentrated” orange juice had strong orange-like and candy-like flavor attributes, yet were low in peel-y, floral, green, over-ripe, bitter, citrus, musty flavor attributes, while “shelf-stable” orange juices had a higher intensity of sour, bitter tastes and sour, bitter aromatics (Lotong and others 2003). Descriptive analysis results from the current study also were in agreement with previous studies in that OJ 1, 2, and 7 (shelf-stable) had high orange-like flavors including orange peel, flesh, and citrus and were high in sour taste. The “burnt” flavor attribute was found almost exclusively in sample S1454 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
OJ 2. OJ 2 was a shelf-stable product and was the only sample whose container was a glass bottle, indicating hot-fill processing. No other significant patterns were noticed among different package types (paper carton package compared with plastic bottle; P > 0.05). A previous study also reported no significant flavor differences between the 2 package types (paper carton compared with plastic) (Pieper and others 1992). As far as basic taste goes, OJ 1, 3, 4, and 5 had higher sweet taste intensities, and OJ 1, 2, 6, and 7 had high sour intensities. OJ 1, 2, and 7 from the current study had high salty and bitter intensities. Essential oil extracted from squeezing the outer layer of the orange was known to cause a bitter taste in the orange juice (Kimball 1987). The current study also revealed that orange juice samples with higher orange-peel attributes (OJ 1, 2, and 7) reported high bitter taste intensities. Correlation analysis, in fact, revealed the higher correlation between bitter taste and orange peel (r = 0.991; data not shown). OJ 4 seemed to have a higher intensity of sweetness caused by artificial sweetener. Mouthfeel attributes were also differentiated by the processing conditions (P < 0.05). OJ 1, 2, and 7 had higher astringency, tooth etching, carbonated, metallic mouthfeel intensities than OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6 (P < 0.05). The persistency was higher in OJ 1, 4, 5, and 6 (P < 0.05). Ease of swallow was higher in OJ 4, which means OJ 4 was perceived easy to swallow while drinking, in comparison to other orange juices (P < 0.05). Tongue heaviness was defined as resistance to pressing the tongue to the hard palate, while the sample is in the mouth (Table 2), and was higher in OJ 4, 6, and 7 than others (P < 0.05). It is worthy to note that trained panelists noted the higher pulp content and turbidity in OJ 6 and 7. A higher level of pulp could lead to turbidity of OJ 6 and 7, which influenced the tongue heaviness of these 2 samples. The PCA result also confirmed (Figure 1) vast flavor/textural differences between the 2 groups: group 1: OJ 1, 2, and 7; group 2: OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6. Figure 1 explains about 81.5% of the total variability in the dataset, with PC1 being a primary axis (63.0% variability) and PC2 being a secondary axis (18.5% variability). The combination of flavor and textural attributes were loaded on each PC, which suggested that the orange juice samples were differentiated by a combination of sensorial modalities. Orange juice samples were greatly differentiated by the PC1 axis, whereby group 1 (OJ 1, 2, and 7) was located on a negative PC1, and group 2 (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6) was located on a positive PC1 (Figure 1). As far as flavor attributes go, orange peel, orange flesh, grape fruit, over-ripe, medicinal, and basic taste (sour, salty, and bitter) were negatively loaded on PC1, while powdered-orange and artificial sweetener attributes were positively loaded on PC1. Textural attributes including astringency, tooth etching, metallic, and mouth-coating attributes were negatively loaded on PC1, while persistency attributes were loaded on a positive PC1 axis. Burnt, over-ripe, medicinal, and tongue heaviness attributes were positively loaded on a PC2 axis, while citrus, sweet taste, persistency, metallic, and carbonated attributes were negatively loaded on a PC2 axis. OJ 2 and 7 were loaded on negative PC1 and positive PC2 coordinates, and were characterized by tongue heaviness and mouth-coating texture attributes; and medicinal, overripe, salty, and grape fruit flavors. OJ 1 and OJ 6 were located on the opposite direction along the PC2 axis, whereby OJ 1 was strongly associated with the citrus flavor attribute, and OJ 6 showed high correlation with yogurt, burnt and artificial sweetener, and tongue heaviness. OJ 4 and OJ 6 had similar flavor and texture attributes, as both are located on a top right quadrant of the PCA biplot. OJ 3 and 5 showed similar sensorial characteristics such as
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 3–Results from descriptive analysis test.
Flavor
Basic taste
Mouthfeel
Descriptor
OJ 1
OJ 2
OJ 3
OJ 4
OJ 5
OJ 6
OJ 7
Orange (flesh) Orange (peel) Grape fruit Powdered orange flavor Cooked orange Burnt Citrus Over-ripe Yogurt Medicine Sweet Sour Salty Bitter Artificial sweetner Astringency Tooth itching Carbonated Metalic Persistency Ease of swallow Tongue heaviness Mouth coating
9.7 a 5.2 a 2.4 abc 6.2 a 2.7 bc 1.3 b 5.1 a 1.2 c 1.0 c 1.0 b 10.5 a 8.3 ab 4.5 b 5.7 ab 4.7 bc 7.8 ab 6.0 a 8.8 a 5.9 a 9.0 a 7.3 bc 4.7 c 6.2 bc
8.5 ab 7.0 a 3.0 ab 1.9 c 5.4 a 3.8 a 3.3 b 2.9 ab 1.0 c 2.6 a 6.9 cd 8.4 ab 7.6 a 7.3 a 3.5 c 8.6 a 6.4 a 5.1 cd 6.4 a 5.9 cd 5.6 cd 6.3 bc 8.1 a
5.8 cd 3.3 b 1.2 c 5.0 ab 3.9 ab 2.0 b 1.1 c 1.4 c 3.0 ab 1.0 b 9.6 ab 6.9 bc 3.6 bc 3.9 c 4.8 bc 5.7 c 3.8 c 5.8 c 1.7 cd 7.0 bcd 8.5 b 4.9 c 4.7 cd
4.5 d 1.5 b 1.2 c 5.3 a 4.9 a 4.6 b 1.1 c 1.1 c 3.7 ab 1.0 b 9.7 ab 3.6 d 2.1 c 2.8 c 8.9 a 3.2 d 2.1 d 4.0 d 1.2 d 8.8 ab 11.0 a 7.5 ab 4.1 d
5.5 cd 3.0 b 1.2 c 5.5 a 3.6 ab 1.7 b 1.0 c 1.1 c 3.1 ab 1.0 b 10.0ab 6.4 c 3.6 bc 3.5 c 5.4 b 5.3 c 3.5 cd 5.6 c 2.0 cd 7.5 abc 8.5 b 5.2 c 4.1 cd
7.1 bc 3.3 b 2.0 bc 5.4 a 1.6 c 1.3 b 1.0 c 2.2 bc 4.3 a 2.3 a 8.5 bc 7.1 abc 4.9 b 4.2 bc 5.7 b 6.1 bc 4.2 bc 6.4 bc 2.9 bc 7.3abc 7.4 b 7.4 ab 5.2 cd
8.8 a 5.7 a 3.4 a 3.3 bc 1.0 c 1.2 b 1.0 c 3.9 a 2.7 b 2.8 a 6.5 d 8.7 a 6.8 a 5.9 a 3.4 c 7.8 a 5.8 ab 7.7 ab 4.1 b 5.4 d 5.4 d 9.1 a 7.3 ab
cooked-orange, ease of swallow, powdered-orange, persistency, in appearance were apparent from the trained panel evaluation, and sweet basic taste. the appearance liking of all orange juices was not different (P > 0.05). Earlier studies also reported a minimum influence of color on consumer acceptance of orange juice (Tepper 1993). There Consumer acceptance test Consumer liking scores. Consumer overall liking, flavor lik- were significant differences in overall liking of orange juices (P < ing, mouthfeel liking, and aftertaste liking for orange juice samples 0.05). OJ 1 as well as OJ 3, 5, and 6 received high overall liking were shown in Table 4. There were no differences in appearance scores among Korean consumers (P < 0.05). From the descriptive liking of 7 orange juice samples, although trained panelists noticed analysis results, orange juice samples were grouped together based significant color differences (yellowness; data not shown), in that on sensorial similarity; however, consumer acceptance of samOJ 2, 4, 6, and 7 showed higher intensity of yellowness than other ples was slightly different. OJ 1 showed the highest overall liking samples. Also, the trained panel noticed significantly higher pulp score as well as flavor, mouthfeel, and aftertaste likings in comparcontent on the OJ 7 sample than others. While the differences ison to OJ 2 and 7. OJ 1 received a high intensity for powdered
Figure 1–PCA with a total of 81.5% variability of descriptive terms explained with varimax rotation (on 2 factors) for all samples. Numbers followed by OJ represents different samples.
PC2 18.5%
OJ 7
OJ 2
PC1 63.0%
Tongue heaviness Medicine OJ 6 Yogurt Over-ripe
OJ 4
BurntArtificial sweetner Salty Grape Fruit Mouth Coating Ease of swallow Orange (peel) Cooked orangeOJ 3 Astringency OJ 5 Tooth Souretching Orange (flesh)Bitter Powdered orange Metalic Persistency Sweet Carbonated Citrus
OJ 1
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1455
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Means in a row that does not share a same alphabetical letter represents significant differences (P < 0.05).
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Table 4–Consumer liking scores for all orange juice samples.
OJ 1 OJ 2 OJ 3 OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7 p-value
Appearance liking
Overall liking
Flavor liking
Orange flavor liking
Mouthfeel liking
Aftertaste liking
5.6 a 5.7 a 5.7 a 5.6 a 5.5 a 5.7 a 5.9 a 0.690
5.7 a 4.9 c 5.5 ab 5.0 bc 5.3 abc 5.4 abc 4.9 bc 0.000
5.7 a 5.1 b 5.45ab 5.01b 5.50ab 5.5 ab 5.4 ab 0.001
5.7 a 5.1 b 5.3 ab 5.0 b 5.4 ab 5.3 ab 5.3 ab 0.014
6.1 a 5.3 cd 5.9 ab 5.4 bcd 5.7 abc 5.8 abc 5.1 d 0.000
5.6 a 4.7 c 5.5 bc 5.1 abc 5.3 abc 5.3 abc 4.9 bc 0.000
Means in a column that does not share a same alphabetical letter represent a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Table 5–Consumer overall liking means for each cluster derived from liking evaluations. Cluster 1 (n1 = 46)
Cluster 2 (n2 = 29)
Cluster 3 (n3 = 25)
5.0 ab 4.2 b 5.6 a 4.5 b 4.5 b 4.6 b 4.7 b
5.7 ab 5.5 b 5.6 b 5.4 b 5.7 ab 6.0 ab 6.7 a
6.5 a 5.1 b 5.9 ab 5.1 b 6.6 a 6.5 a 3.6 c
OJ 1 OJ 2 OJ 3 OJ 4 OJ 5 OJ 6 OJ 7
Means in a column that does not share a same alphabetical letter represents a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Cluster analysis. Cluster analysis was performed on the overall liking scores and 3 distinct consumer segments were found (Table 5, Figure 2). Cluster 1 consisted of 46 consumers, cluster 2 consisted of 29 consumers, and cluster 3 consisted of 25. Upon investigating the demographics of each cluster, cluster 1 and cluster 3 showed similar demographic characteristics, including age, resident area, education level, and household income level. Minor differences were observed between clusters 1 and 3 on education level and household income: cluster 3 had a higher proportion of highly educated consumers with a higher household income level. Cluster 2 showed slightly different demographic characteristics than clusters 1 and 3, in that cluster 2 consumers consisted of a higher proportion of consumers in their 40s (approximately
(+) tongue heaviness (+) yogurt (+) medicine OJ 4 (+) burnt
OJ 7 OJ 6 F2 (21.46 %)
S: Sensory & Food Quality
orange and citrus flavor and had a higher sweet taste intensity than other OJ samples in group 1 (OJ 2 and 7; Table 3). OJ 1 had a slightly different ingredient list than other orange juice samples: OJ 1 was made with 100% orange juice concentrate with added natural and artificial orange flavors and high fructose corn syrup to add sweetness to the product. The addition of these additional ingredients may have contributed to the sensorial characteristics of OJ1, and, in fact, may have increased consumer acceptance of OJ 1. When directly asked reason(s) why consumers evaluated the overall liking of OJ 1, “just about right level of sweetness and sourness” (35% and 26%, respectively) were the top reasons(s) followed by good orange flavor (approximately 22%). Considering all the factors, consumers liked OJ 1 because of the fortified orange flavors (naturally and artificially flavored), and good sweet and sour taste intensity. Interestingly, OJ 2 also was made with 100% orange juice concentrate with added artificial orange flavor. Unlike OJ 1, OJ 2 received the lowest overall liking score, and received a low flavor liking score. The reason(s) why consumers evaluated OJ 2, collected from open-ended question, included “too much sour,” “too bitter,” and “taste artificial,” indicating that consumers perceived OJ 2 as having higher sour and bitter tastes as well as artificial tastes. In fact, descriptive analysis results revealed that OJ 2 had higher sour and bitter taste intensities than others (Table 3), and had grape-fruit, medicinal, and burnt flavors. OJ 2 contained an added artificial orange juice flavor, but no high fructose corn syrup. Therefore, one of the differences between OJ 1 and OJ 2 was added sweeteners and type of orange juice flavor added.
Cluster 2 (n2=29) OJ 5 OJ 3 Cluster 3 (n3=25)
(-) citrus (-) orange flesh (-) metalic (-) carbonated (-) easy of swallow (-) sweet (-) powdered orange (-) sweet (-) persistency (-) artificial sweetener
Cluster 1 (n1=46)
OJ 1 F1 (56.93 %)
S1456 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
OJ 2
(+)over-ripe (+)orange peel (+)grapefruit (+)tooth etching (+)astringency (+)bitter (+) salty (+) sour
Figure 2–External preference mapping on clusters derived from evaluation of orange juice samples. Numbers followed by OJ represents different samples. Attributes on the plot are important attributes highly loaded on F1 and F2.
Identification of sensory attributes . . . of orange flavor and high sweet taste were positively correlated with overall liking of Australian consumers. Also, Luckow and Delahunty (2004) reported that tropical, grapefruit attributes were driver of liking of orange juice among conventional juice drinkers in Ireland. Overall driver of liking identified from current study was similar in different countries, in that fruit flavors (orange and tropical fruits) were highly influencing factors to consumer likings. Three distinct clusters exist, including orange flavor liker (cluster 1), functional flavor liker (cluster 2), and sweet tasters (cluster 3). In addition, a significant proportion of consumers, who are prone to functional flavors such as bitter, medicinal, and burnt characteristics, exist in Korea and similar consumer segment was also reported previously in Ireland (Luckow and Delahunty 2004).
Conclusions Sensory characteristics of orange juice samples with varying processing and filling steps were differentiated by descriptive analysis and consumer acceptance tests. Orange juices commercially available in Korea were grouped based on sensory characteristics determined by descriptive analysis results. Orange juices in group 1 (OJ 1, 2, and 7) were characterized by natural citrus-like flavors and had higher sour and bitter intensities. Samples in group 2 (OJ 3, 4, 5, and 6) were characterized by the high intensity of processed orange-like and higher sweet taste intensities. While the 2 groups of orange juice samples were differentiated by specific types of orange flavor (natural compared with cooked), generic orange flavors (natural and cooked/artificial) in orange juice were identified as driver of liking in Korean consumers. Cluster analysis confirmed that orange flavors were identified as a driver of liking in cluster 1 consumers. Another cluster identified was prone to “functional” flavors (sour, bitter, and medicinal), and the other consumer segments showed higher hedonics on sweet orange juice products. Overall, many similarities were noticed between Korean market segment and global orange juice market. The orange juice industry should maintain higher orange-like flavors in orange juice products to target the overall orange juice market. By knowing the preferences of consumer clusters based on their likes and dislikes of sensory attributes, it is possible to improve strategic product development for specific target populations to increase market share in Korea.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of CJ CheilJedang Food R&D Center. Use of trademarks does not imply endorsement or lack of endorsement by those not mentioned.
References Aparicio JP, Medina MAT, Rosales VL. 2007. Descriptive sensory analysis in different classes of orange juice by a robust free-choice profile method. Anal Chim Acta 595:238– 47. Baxter IA, Easton K, Schneebeli K, Whitfield F. 2005. High pressure processing of Australian navel orange juice: sensory analysis and volatile flavor profiling. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 64:372–87. Bettini MFM, Shaw PE, Lancas FM. 1998. Sensory and analytical evaluations of Brazilian orange juices and aromas. Fruit Process 87:283–7. Cervellon MC, Dub´e L. 2005. Cultural influences in the origins of food likings and dislikes. Food Qual Pref 165:455–60. CITRUSBR. 2011. Brazilian Association of Citrus Exporters. Available at: http://www.citrusbr.com/en/citric-exporters/consumption/consumption-statistics-235206-1.asp. Accessed on March 2013. Cordelle S, Lange C, Schlich P. 2004. On the consistency of liking scores: insights from a study including 917 consumers from 10 to 80 years old. Food Qual Pref 157–8:831–41. Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C. 2002. Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72:1424–35. Fayoux CS, Seuver AM, Voilley AJ. 1997. Aroma transfers in and through plastic packaging: orange juice and δ-Limoneane, a review. Part 1: Orange juice aroma sorption. Pack Technol Sci 102:69–82.
Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013 r Journal of Food Science S1457
S: Sensory & Food Quality
52%), in contrast to clusters 1 and 3, which mostly consisted of consumers in their 30s (63% and 76%, respectively). Orange flavors (artificial and/or natural) were the most influential factors in cluster 1 consumers, as OJ 1 and 3 received the highest overall liking scores among cluster 1 members. OJ 1 was characterized by high orange (flesh and peel) flavor, grape fruit, and powdered-orange flavor, and OJ 3 was characterized by high intensity of powdered-orange, cooked-orange as well as yogurtlike flavor attributes. These characteristics reflected different forms of orange flavors, yet all fall under the broader category of “orange flavors (artificial and natural).” Consumers in cluster 1 showed a higher tendency to like “orange-like flavors” in orange juice samples. Cluster 2 and cluster 3 consumers were opposite in their likes and dislikes. OJ 7 received the highest overall liking among cluster 2 members, yet received the lowest liking score in cluster 3 members. When looking at the external preference map on clusters derived from the evaluation of orange juice samples (Figure 2), clusters 2 and 3 were located completely opposite of the primary axis of the map, indicating that their likes and dislikes were in different sensory spaces. Clusters 2 consumers evaluated OJ 1, 5, 6, and 7 for higher overall liking scores. Cluster 2 membership can be determined by consumer preference on sour and bitter taste, in that OJ 1, 6, and 7 (3 out of 4 received high liking scores among cluster 2 consumers) were characterized by higher sour intensities (Table 3). OJ 5, 6, and 7 samples were all cold-filled orange juices, suggesting that cluster 2 consumers may be targeting consumers to market cold-filled orange juices. It is also worth noting that OJ 2 received the highest overall liking score in cluster 2 in comparison to the score from other clusters. Luckow and Delahunty (2004) revealed that consumers associate attributes with “functional” orange juice products such as dirty, medicinal, artificial, and earthy flavors. Drewnowski and GomezCarneros (2002) also noted that bitter, acrid, or astringent were highly associated with “functional” ingredients in food. Sensory characteristics of OJ 2 were close to what consumers perceived as “functional” products, suggesting possible marketing points for OJ 2. Luckow and Delahunty (2004), however, reported that only a small consumer segment (11%) significantly preferred the “functional” sensory characteristics found in orange juice. Their study was conducted in Ireland, whereas the current study was conducted in South Korea. Both studies suggest a possible market segment prone to “functional” flavors, yet the specific proportion of the market in each country was slightly different. In orange juice products, cluster 2 consumers preferred samples with sensory characteristics associated with “functional” products such as bitter, sour, and medicinal. Cluster 3 consumers evaluated OJ 1, 3, 5, and 6 for their highest overall likings. These samples were characterized by high-intensity sweet taste, lower sour, and bitter tastes. The main differentiating factor between clusters 2 and 3 was their likings on sweet taste by cluster 3 and sour and bitter taste by cluster 2 members. From demographic information on each cluster, cluster 2 consumers consisted of a higher proportion of consumers in their 40s, and cluster 3 consumers mainly consisted of consumers in their 30s. The age differences may have contributed to their different preferences in orange juice samples. OJ 1 sample received the highest overall liking score, regardless of cluster membership; therefore, OJ 1 can be marketed to general consumers in Korea. In summary, overall drivers of liking for all clusters (all consumers) were predicted to be powdered-orange, citrus, grape fruit, orange flavors (peel and flesh), persistency, and carbonated attributes. Baxter and others (2005) revealed that overall strength
Identification of sensory attributes . . . Fellers PJ, Jager G, Poole MJ. 1986. Quality of retail Florda-packed frozen concentrated orange juice as determined by consumers and physical and chemical analysis. J Food Sci 51: 1187–90. Janzantti NS, Machado TV, Monteiro M. 2011. Sensory acceptance of juice from FCOJ processing steps. J Sens Stud 265:322–30. Kimball DA. 1987. Debittering of citrus juices using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Food Sci 522:481–2. Lotong V, Chambers E, Chambers DH. 2003. Categorization of commercial orange juices based on flavor characteristics. J Food Sci 682:722–5. Luckow T, Delahunty C. 2004. Consumer acceptance of orange juice containing functional ingredients. Food Res Intl 37:805–14. Marbesa LB, Lim MR. 1991. Evaluation of factors affecting consumers’ acceptance of orange juice drink. Philippine Agric 741:95–102. Moshonas MG, Shaw PE. 1989. Flavor evaluation and volatile flavor constituents of stored aseptically packaged orange juice. J Food Sci 54:82–5. Min S. Jin ZT, Min SK, Yeom H, Zhang QH. 2003. Commercial-scale pulsed electric field processing of orange juice. J Food Sci 684:1265–71. Petersen MA, Tonder D, Poll L. 1998. Comparison of normal and accelerated storage of commercial orange juice- changes in flavor and content of volatile compounds. Food Qual Pref 91/2:43–51.
S: Sensory & Food Quality S1458 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 78, Nr. 9, 2013
Pieper G, Borgudd L, Ackermann P, Fellers P. 1992. Absorption of aroma volatiles of orange juice into laminated carton packages did not affect sensory quality. J Food Sci 57: 1408–511. Prescott J, Young O, O’Neill L, Yau NJN, Stevens R. 2002. Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual Pref 137–8:489–95. Rega B, Fournier N, Guichard E. 2003. Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) of orange juice flavor: odor representativeness by direct gas chromatography olfactometry (D-GC-O). J Agric Food Chem 51(24):7092–9. Rozin P, Fischler C, Imada S, Sarubin A, Wrzesniewski A. 1999. Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the Diet-Health debate. Appetite 33:163–80. Spoto MHF, Domarco RE, Walder JMM, Scarminio IS, Bruns RE. 1997. Sensory evaluation of orange juice concentrate as affected by irradiation and storage. J Food Process Preserv 21:179–91. Tepper BJ. 1993. Effects of a slight color variation on consumer acceptance of orange juice. J Sens Stud 82:145–54.
![Identification of sensory attributes that drive the likeability of Korean rice wines by American panelists. [Corrected].](/assets/img/hold.png)
