No abstract

Flavor lexicons help both manufacturers and consumers communicate the intricacies of flavor nuances they experience within a product. Lexicon development typically requires the use of a trained sensory panel to evaluate a representative sample set of the product category to generate terms that describe certain product attributes. In the case of rum, there is considerable variation in terms of style, flavor characteristics, and the sheer number of rums produced making it difficult to create a lexicon in this manner. Furthermore, sensory fatigue from the high alcohol content can also hinder lexicon development. This is the first study to create a rum flavor lexicon using web-based material (comprising blogs, company descriptions, and review websites) to minimize the time and cost and to allow for the inclusion of a greater number of rum products. Reviews for over 1000 different rums were utilized, comprising evaluations that described an array of rums, including white, gold, aged, and agricole. Each evaluation was coded for aroma, aroma-by-mouth, and taste attributes using NVivo software to amass the sensory terms. Word frequency analysis was conducted on coded attributes. The analysis yielded 147 terms, sorted into 22 different categories. The most prominent terms included vanilla, oak, caramel, fruity, molasses, and baking spices.

Research concerning the sensory properties of beet and cane sugars is lacking in the scientific literature. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to determine whether a sensory difference was perceivable between beet and cane sugar sources in regard to their (1) aroma-only, (2) aroma and taste without nose clips, and (3) taste-only with nose clips, and to characterize the difference between the sugar sources using descriptive analysis. One hundred panelists evaluated sugar samples using a tetrad test. A significant difference (P < 0.05) was identified between beet and cane sugar sources when evaluated by aroma-only and taste and aroma without nose clips. However, there was no difference when tasted with nose clips. To characterize the observed differences, ten trained panelists identified and quantified key sensory attributes of beet and cane sugars using descriptive analysis. Analysis of variance indicated significant differences (P < 0.05) between sugar samples for 8 of the 10 attributes including: off-dairy, oxidized, earthy, and barnyard aroma, fruity and burnt sugar aroma-by-mouth, sweet aftertaste, and burnt sugar aftertaste. The sensory profile of beet sugar was characterized by off-dairy, oxidized, earthy, and barnyard aromas and by a burnt sugar aroma-by-mouth and aftertaste, whereas cane sugar was characterized by a fruity aroma-by-mouth and sweet aftertaste. This study shows that beet and cane sugar sources can be differentiated by their aroma and provides a sensory profile characterizing the differences. As sugar is used extensively as a food ingredient, sensory differences between beet and cane sugar sources once incorporated into different product matrices should be studied as a next step.