A Comparison of Psychophysical Dose-Response Behaviour across 16 Sweeteners

Abstract

Reduction or replacement of sucrose while maintaining sweetness in foods is challenging, but today there are many sweeteners with diverse physical and caloric compositions to choose from. The choice of sweetener can be adapted to match reformulation goals whether these are to reduce calories, lower the glycaemic response, provide bulk or meet criteria as a natural ingredient. The current study sought to describe and compare the sweetness intensity dose-response, sweetness growth rate, sweetness potency, and potential for calorie reduction across 16 different sweeteners including sucrose. Sweetness growth rate was defined as the rate of change in sweetness intensity per unit of sweetener concentration. Sweetness potency was defined as the ratio of the concentration of a sweetener to that of sucrose at equivalent sweetness intensity, whereas the potential for calorie reduction is the caloric value of a sweetener compared to sucrose at matched sweetness intensities. Sweeteners were drawn from a range of nutritive saccharide (sucrose, dextrose, fructose, allulose (d-psicose), palatinose (isomaltulose), and a sucrose–allulose mixture), nutritive polyol (maltitol, erythritol, mannitol, xylitol, sorbitol), non-nutritive synthetic (aspartame, acesulfame-K, sucralose) and non-nutritive natural sweeteners stevia (rebaudioside A), luo han guo (mogroside V). Sweetness intensities of the 16 sweeteners were compared with a sensory panel of 40 participants (n = 40; 28 females). Participants were asked to rate perceived sweetness intensity for each sweetener series across a range of concentrations using psychophysical ratings taken on a general labelled magnitude scale (gLMS). All sweeteners exhibited sigmoidal dose-response behaviours and matched the ‘moderate’ sweetness intensity of sucrose (10% w/v). Fructose, xylitol and sucralose had peak sweetness intensities greater than sucrose at the upper concentrations tested, while acesulfame-K and stevia (rebA) were markedly lower. Independent of sweetener concentration, the nutritive sweeteners had similar sweetness growth rates to sucrose and were greater than the non-nutritive sweeteners. Non-nutritive sweeteners on the other hand had higher potencies relative to sucrose, which decreases when matching at higher sweetness intensities. With the exception of dextrose and palatinose, all sweeteners matched the sweetness intensity of sucrose across the measured range (3.8–25% w/v sucrose) with fewer calories. Overall, the sucrose–allulose mixture, maltitol and xylitol sweeteners were most similar to sucrose in terms of dose-response behaviour, growth rate and potency, and showed the most potential for sugar replacement within the range of sweetness intensities tested.

Ternary Cross-Modal Interactions between Sweetness, Aroma, and Viscosity in Different Beverage Matrices

“…Thus, the relatively low effect of sucrose on sweet taste intensity in the apple nectar matrix could be because the dose-response curve was flattening at higher concentrations. Indeed, recent studies have shown that sucrose as well as most alternative sweeteners, both nutritive and non-nutritive ones, follow sigmoidal dose-response functions [53,54]. However, in both cases, the essentially linear part of the curve for sucrose was roughly around 6-18% w/v [53,54].…”

“…Indeed, recent studies have shown that sucrose as well as most alternative sweeteners, both nutritive and non-nutritive ones, follow sigmoidal dose-response functions [53,54]. However, in both cases, the essentially linear part of the curve for sucrose was roughly around 6-18% w/v [53,54]. With 9.8% w/v sugar present in the base product and 2.5-7.5% w/w sucrose added, the total amount of sugar in the samples is not likely to have exceeded the amount of 18% w/v sugar, thereby entering the non-linear flattening part of the curve.…”

Rate‐All‐That‐Apply (RATA) comparison of taste profiles for different sweeteners in black tea, chocolate milk, and natural yogurt

“…The availability of low‐ or no‐calorie sweeteners means it is possible to formulate foods and beverages that retain their sweetness at a substantially reduced sugar content. There are currently many commercially available sweeteners capable of matching the perceived sweetness intensity of sucrose (O'Brien‐Nabors, ; Wee, Tan, & Forde, ), although they vary considerably in their sweetness quality, intensity, temporal properties, and presence of side tastes (Fujimaru, Park, & Lim, ; Ketelsen, Keay, & Wiet, ; Reyes, Castura, & Hayes, ). These differences are often further amplified in food matrices with complex taste profiles, which studies comparing sweeteners in water may not accurately reflect (Fujimaru et al., ; Reyes et al., ; Zhao & Tepper, ).…”

“…The availability of low-or nocalorie sweeteners means it is possible to formulate foods and beverages that retain their sweetness at a substantially reduced sugar content. There are currently many commercially available sweeteners capable of matching the perceived sweetness intensity of sucrose (O'Brien-Nabors, 2016;Wee, Tan, & Forde, 2018), although they vary considerably in their sweetness quality, intensity, temporal properties, and presence of side tastes (Fujimaru, Park, & Lim, 2012;Ketelsen, Keay, & Wiet, 1993;Reyes, Castura, & JFDS-2019-1046Submitted 7/1/2019, Accepted 11/22/2019 Forde are from Clinical Nutrition Research Center, A * STAR Singapore Inst. for Clinical Sciences, Medical Drive, Singapore.…”

Recovery of increased weights of the liver and kidneys by cessation of D-allulose feeding in Wistar rats

“…D-Allulose (D-ribo-2-hexulose), a C-3 epimer of D-fructose, is one of the rare sugars that are present in limited quantity in nature. D-Allulose has 70% of sweetness relative to sucrose, and when allulose and sucrose were blended in a 1:1 mixture, this blend achieved a near identical dose-response curve to sucrose (Wee et al, 2018). In humans, approximately 70% of the ingested D-allulose is absorbed in the small intestine and excreted into the urine without being further metabolized (Iida et al, 2010).…”