Gva EffoSt 2011 V5


Published on

This presentation discusses the structural changes that occur during oral processing, and how these determine sensory perception. Tactile perception is discussed theoretically on the basis of the forces exerted onto the tongue surface and the sensitivity of mechanoreceptors. Specific attention is given to the state of lubrication of the tongue surface, introducing a new acoustic real-time in vivo measering technique for the state of lubrication of the human tongue surface.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gva EffoSt 2011 V5

  1. 1. SensoryManagement Jennifer Aniston (W Magazine photo shoot ) George van Aken george.vanaken@nizo.nlEFFoST, September 2011, BerlinTogether to the next level
  2. 2. Introducing NIZO food research Processing centre Application centre• Independent, private contract HQ - Ede, The Netherlands research company for the food industry• Founded in 1948, now leading European research company• Roots in dairy industry• Working with customers to achieve their goals• HQ in “Food Valley” in The Netherlands Offices abroad: • Offices in France - Mr. Damien Lemaire UK - Dr. Jean Banks France, UK, USA, Japan USA / Canada - Dr. Ralf Jäger• 200 professionals Japan - Dr. Maykel Verschueren• State-of-the-art facilities & food- grade processing centre Research centre• ISO 9001:2000 certified Technology for your success Together to the next level
  3. 3. Product groups My main involvementsTogether to the next level
  4. 4. Sensory managementContents• Why important?• Sensory perception: multimodality and role of oral processing• Tactile perception• (acoustic) tribologyTogether to the next level 4
  5. 5. Why important?TASTE: Motivation to buy Source: the Henley CenterTogether to the next level 5
  6. 6. Improves sensory High caloric properties (9 kcal /g versus 4 kcal/g (aroma release, smooth for sugar and protein, plasticity, lubrication)) Often low satiation) Metabolic One of the Creamy, syndrome, Rich, Obesity main FAT Pleasure directions Texturizer Main (thickeners, structure breaker, air stabilizer, frying agent) essential ingredientTogether to the next level 6
  7. 7. Sensory research for dietaryproducts• Dietary products • Reduced fat, high fiber, low salt and sugar • Enhanced satiety • Nevertheless tasty• Technology to produce such systems • Stable textures • Corrected microstructures • Fat replacers, controlled flavour release• Methods to quantify the sensory functionality • Of the original product • Of the healthier product • Toward understanding and directing technologyTogether to the next level 7
  8. 8. Sensory perceptionMULTIMODALITY AND ORALPROCESSING Together to the next level 8
  9. 9. Sensory response is multimodal PerceptionSensesVisionTouchSoundMouthfeelTasteSmell CCK, PYY, Gastrin,Nutritional Hedonic consumer vagus nervestatus response Together to the next level 9
  10. 10. Cross modal interactions: Viscosity affects flavour intensity perception Nose space Sensory intensity 5 4.5concentration (au) gel 1 4 gel 1 soft sensory Intensity Nose-space gel 2 3.5 gel 2 gel 3 3 gel 3 gel 4 2.5 gel 4 gel 5 2 gel 5 hard 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 time (s) time (s) Texture-flavour interaction at perception level! (K. Weel, A. Boelrijk et al., published 2002) Together to the next level 10
  11. 11. Cross modal interactions:Aroma affects texture perception 90 80 70 • Equal firmness for each casein concentration perceived firmness 60 50 • Aroma concentration 40 varied as 30 A<B<C 20 10 ABC ABC ABC 0 Increasing caseinpH high concentration low pH Casein gels with variation in butter flavor.• Janine E. Knoop, 5th Conference on Consumer Sciences 2010, Bilbao Spain 06-09-10• Janine E. Knoop, G. Sala, J.H.F. Bult, M. Stieger, G. Smit, “Texture modification by butter aroma in cheeses and dairy model gels” Poster [P2.03] at the 7th NIZO Dairy Conference Together to the next level 11
  12. 12. Role of oral processing Sight visual ORAL PROCESSING F nasal retronasal Smell L A Taste release V O Chemical release U R T Touch tactile initial bite E X mastication T U Hearing breakage R E First bite TIME Swallow Together to the next level 12
  13. 13. Example of oral processing:Large structural changes, even for thin liquid emulsions:THIS is what you taste! Study carried out within The emulsions team: Diane Dresselhuis Erika Silletti Guido Sala Els de Hoog Monique Vingerhoeds Jan Benjamins Franklin Zoet Jerry van Maanen Eefjan Timmerman George van Aken
  14. 14. Structural changes in the oral cavity Food emulsions Saliva-induced Formation of slimy droplet aggregation structures Droplet-coating of Inhomogeneous coverage oral surfaces of tongue papillae Amylase induced Droplet coalescence starch breakdown Fat spreading at air Droplet spreading at bubble surfaces tongue surface Fracture of gels into Release of „crumbs‟ emulsions dropletsVan Aken et al., Food Colloids, Dickinson ed., RSC, 2005, pp.356 – 366;Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2007, 12, 251-262. .
  15. 15. Viscosity (100 s–1) increases in the mouth due tosaliva-induced droplet aggregation ξ<0 ξ>0 Liquid emulsion Saliva-induced droplet aggregation Vingerhoeds et al. Food Hydrocolloids, 23(3) (2009), 773-785. Van Aken et al., Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 12 (2007), 251-262.
  16. 16. In vitro masticated gels: effects of gel type and fat contentEmulsified oil:  = 0, 5, 10, 20 wt% oil• Increases the viscosity of the 1.4 masticated bolus 1.2 WPI (for gelatin unbound opposite) 1 Friction coefficeint φ Carrageenan bound• decreases the friction of the 0.8 masticated bolus Carrageenan unbound 0.6 (large effect) φ 0.4 φ Gelatin bound φ 0.2 Gelatin unbound 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Viscosity (Pa s) at 100 s-1 MTM tribometer Chojnicka et al., Food Hydrocolloids (2009), 23, 1038-1046 (rubber versus stainless steel)
  17. 17. Effect of fat on aroma release Flavour release for low fat quark, full fat cream and vegetable cream in the presence (+) of Flavour release for low fat quark, full fat cream and vegetable cream in the presence (+) dairy flavour dairy flavour2.0E+05 1.2E+00 normalised intensity (a.u) low fat Quark (+) 1.0E+00 low fat Q full fat cream (+)Intensity (a.u) full fat c 8.0E-01 6.0E-01 4.0E-01 2.0E-01 ~+50%0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Time (min) Time (min) Difference in intensity of Adjust aroma concentration Difference in duration of aroma release releaseTogether to the next level 17
  18. 18. What makes emulsions creamy? GEL FRACTURING dependent on gelling agent and droplet interaction ACTIVE saliva VISCOUS BOLUS of gel particles Thick INACTIVE and saliva saliva Gelled emulsion Rich HIGHER VISCOSITY by saliva –induced droplet flocculation rubbing, EXTENDED aroma release Creamy shear saliva Smooth shear LUBRICATING saliva FATTY COATING Liquid Droplet coating on oral surfaces Coatingemulsion26 refereed journal publications and 8 book chapters (2005-2011) by the TIFN project team Together to the next level 18
  19. 19. Message: sensory perception of food highly dependent of oral processing palatemucins Taste buds mechanoreceptors Together to the next level 19
  20. 20. Instrumental toolbox at NIZO Textural Compositional ( e.g. viscosity, elasticity, friction, ( e.g. oral food deposition, aroma release, fracturing, microstructure) taste-receptors interaction)hard, thick, full melting slippery fatty creamy brittle, creamy palatable smooth sweet lingering elastic satisfying chewable coating coating full of flavour Native system Expectorate Adhered mucous Artificial Olfactometer analysis analysis layer analysis throat PTR-MS(rheology, tribology, (chemical, rheology, (chemical, tribology, (in vitro aroma (in vivo aroma microscopy) tribology, microscopy) , microscopy) release) release) Instrumental toolbox Together to the next level 20
  21. 21. Toward understandingTACTILE PERCEPTION BY THETONGUE Together to the next level 21
  22. 22. What produces the forces sensedby the tongue?  Viscous forces of the fluid in palate motion relative to the tongue surface tongue  Friction of tongue and palate in palate contact  Particles grinding between tongue tongue and palate palate tongue
  23. 23. Main regimes thickness perception Curve from: Shama, F. and P. Sherman (1973). J. Texture Studies 4: 111-118.Viscousforces 104 Sensitivity RAperceived receptors measured by  Trullson and Essick J. Neurophys. 1997(77), 737-748 103 shear stress (Pa) 102 Average stress thresshold 101 Lower stress thresshold 100 Thickness not necessarily g& 100 101 102 103 104 shear rate (s-1 ) related to perceived viscous forcesVan Aken, G.A., Modelling texture perception by soft epithelial surfaces, Soft Matter, 2010, 6, 826–834
  24. 24. Tongue surface mechanoreceptors embedded in papilla filiformis 20 m Flaking cells on Source: Freeman,, Bracegirdle , nd An atlas of hystology 2 ed. the palate Heinemann Educational20 m Papilla filiformis (rabbit) Surface roughness of about 20 m Human filiform papillae
  25. 25. Tribological regimes (Stribeck curve) Friction force Hydrodynamic modelling Static surface bonds Static friction of the soft deformable papilla surface* Transient surface bonds and corrugationspalate boundary Only viscous forces Liquid starts to interpenetrate hydrodynamic papilla Gap-width mixed increases with speed  viscosity speed  viscosity * Van Aken, G.A., Modelling texture perception by soft epithelial surfaces, Soft Matter, 2010, 6, 826–834
  26. 26. Free flowing; Slowed free flow; Forced flow; Boundary Viscous shear friction Thinning time friction sensed too small; Boundary sensed; Viscous friction only if tongue shear friction is pressed sensed “RAW TONGUE” “CREAMY LIQUID” “THICK”minimum gap width (micrometers) 1000 Pn (Shama & Sherman) 100 Pa,  = 1 100 Pa,  = 0 100 140 Pa,  = 0 Papilla surface Molten chocolate roughness Stirred yoghurt Skimmed milk 10 Vegetable oil Whole milk Cream Honey 1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Interaction with saliva viscosity (mPas)
  27. 27. Tactile perception of a fluidic food bolus gap widthSmoothtongueSandpapertongue high fat
  28. 28. Solids: breakdown path of fracturing an dissolution important Viscous emulsion ofNormal hard cheese coalesced droplets Forgeable particles, quickly hydrating 28 Slowly hydrating dense cheese particlesLight hard cheese separation Thin dilute emulsion of small droplets Technology for your success 28
  29. 29. Solids: hard cheese as example Low-fat cheeseMastication pathway (caricature) Full-fat particle size gap width ~ detectable cheese
  30. 30. Experimental evaluation of tongue roughnessTRIBOLOGY Together to the next level 30
  31. 31. How to measure friction?• Tribometry • Measures the lubricating effect of food materials on artificial surfaces • Low frequency • In vitro, independent of individuals • Reproducible, established• Acoustic measurement (NEW) • Measures the sound generated by scraping surfaces • High frequency (more similar to the sensitivity of the tongue mechanoreceptors) • In vivo, in mouth • Includes the effects of the interaction between food and the mucosa (e.g. acidic and astringent food) • Includes the effect of oral processing • Includes the effects of pre-meals and individual differences •Together to the next level 31
  32. 32. Liquid and soft semi solids: tribological studies Silicon Rubber Load: 5N Temp.: 21°C 0.6 0.5 - Which speed? ? water skim milkTraction Coefficient (-) whole milk MTM tribometer yoghurt 3% fat 0.4 - Which load? yoghurt 0% fat 0.3 - What about the interaction with saliva? yoghurt 3% fat - What about the actual oral surfaces? quark 0% fat 0.2 - Papillae quark 10% fat 0.1 - Mucous epithelial layer 0.0 - Variability (individuals, pre-meals, …) 5 10 100 800 Speed (mm/s)
  33. 33. Mouth-mimicking friction measurementPig tongue Fat content In-mouth friction Optical Tribological Tongue roughness Configuration (OTC) Creaminess Diane Dresselhuis
  34. 34. (NEW) Analysis of the in vivo scraping sound of the tongue• For a good analysis, many additional sounds must be removed (breathing, clicks, air flow by tongue manipulations)• Most relevant seems to be the frequency ranges 100-1000 Hz and 4-12 kHz 1,E+00 water coffee with cream water (saliva) 1,E-01 coffee with (whipping) cream Log scale! 1,E-02 Effect is a factor 10 amplitude (V) 1,E-03 (1 order of 1,E-04 magnitude) 1,E-05 1,E-06 Line voltage as a function of time 1,E-07 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 frequency (Hz) Corresponding frequency spectrum of the cleaned signal Example: Water - coffee with (whipping) cream
  35. 35. WATER-SKIMMED MILK-FULL MILK-CREAM milk range milk range, standardized on water 3,5 1,E-02 skim milk water 3 full fat milk skim milk 1,E-03 full fat milk 2,5 cream cream Amplitude (V) Amplitude (V) 1,E-04 2 1,5 1,E-05 1 1,E-06 water 0,5 1,E-07 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Interpretation: • tongue friction increases by protein (not observed by conventional tribology), but is reduced in the presence of emulsified fat • translates to: skimmed milk more rough/dry/astringent than water, but milk fat makes it more smooth Together to the next level 35
  36. 36. Effect of half-fat creamer on coffee 1,E-01 45 40 1,E-02 35 saliva/background background saliva 30 black coffee/background 1,E-03 coffee blackAmplitude (V) Amplitude (V) coffee with creamer 25 coffee with creamer/background creamer 20 creamer/background 1,E-04 creamer later 15 creamer later/background 10 1,E-05 5 1,E-06 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Although the spectra are rather noisy, a clear trend is observed: • Coffee black • Coffee with creamer Less friction sound • Saliva • Pure creamer Later use of creamer again leads to a slightly larger signal. This may be because the grinding with black coffee had temporarily smoothened the tongue surface.
  37. 37. Kineticssystem: clean mouth with saliva 1.E-01 No clear time 1.E-02 saliva 1st second dependence is saliva 1,5-2 s saliva 3-3,5 s observed for 1.E-03 saliva.amplitude (V) saliva 4,3-4,7 s 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 10 100 1000 10000 100000 frequency (Hz)
  38. 38. Kinetics system: half-fat coffee creamer 1.E-01 2s Observed is a gradual 1.E-02 2,3 s decrease in sound 2,7 s amplitude 1.E-03 2,9amplitude (V) s 1.E-04 3,1 s This suggests that at the tongue surface, the 1.E-05 native mucosal layer is 1.E-06 slowly replaced by the ingredients of coffee 1.E-07 creamer (fat, proteins?) 10 100 1000 10000 100000 frequency (Hz)
  39. 39. Kineticssequence of systems in one run:half fat creamer – non carbonized soft drink – half fat creamerFrequency spectrum slightly smoothed Clearly, the acidic soft drink gives a higher signal than the half fat creamer. The signal of the half fat creamer is lower if it is preceded by the acidic soft drink. Possibly the grinding of the acidic soft drink smoothens the tongue surface
  40. 40. Applications acoustic tribology• Measurement tool for rough/dry mouthfeel (“sandpaper tongue”) o Low fat products o Astrigent products o High protein products• Measurement tool for surface textures o Fabrics, wood, etc. o Good-grip surfaces• Measurement tool hair care/skin care application (smoothness, silkiness)• Measurement tool for other applications (ball bearings, abbrasion, etc.)
  41. 41. Creating the future togetherTogether to the next levelTechnology for your success 41