Gustatory Reaction Time and Time Intensity Measurements of Trehalose and Sucrose Solutions and Their Mixtures

Abstract

Dynamic sweetness perception of commercial food grade trehalose, sucrose solutions and their mixtures were studied for a wide range of concentrations. For gustatory reaction time (GRT), concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 13.8% for sucrose and up to 23.0% for trehalose. For time intensity (T‐I) sucrose or trehalose solutions (concentration range 2.3–36.8%) and their combinations (23.0 and 36.8% total solids) were analyzed. Trehalose had bigger GRT along the studied range. Both sugars presented similar values for persistence and times of plateau and to maximum intensity, while a significant difference was observed in intensity and GRT at equal concentrations. Trehalose had longer persistence than sucrose in equi‐sweet solutions. Overall sweetness profile of some sucrose solutions (i.e., 29.9% sucrose solution and 0.6 sucrose/trehalose ratio mixture at 36.8% total solids) were perceived as similar to mixtures of sucrose/trehalose or single trehalose solutions, which suggests the possibility of sugar replacement without completely modifying sweetness perception. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS It has been suggested that trehalose may be a potential substitute for sucrose and other sugars used in food formulation because, although its chemical structure is very similar to that of sucrose, it is more stable at low pH and high temperatures. It is not involved in caramelization and does not participate in Maillard reaction with amino acids/proteins. In order to fully establish the potential of trehalose as a functional replacement of sucrose we have determined the sweetness dynamic profile (gustatory reaction time and time‐intensity curves) of trehalose solutions and sucrose/trehalose solutions; this aspect is needed for adequately replacing (partially or totally) sucrose in food systems.

Comparison of the viscosity of trehalose and sucrose solutions at various temperatures: Effect of guar gum addition

“…It is increasingly available for food application, with considerable potential for the food industry, being used to improve existing products or to create innovative new ones. Among its properties, trehalose is almost half as sweet as sucrose while having a similar sweetness dynamic profile (Galmarini, Zamora, & Chirife, 2009), it is non-reducing thus not reacting with amino acids or proteins according to Maillard browning reaction, and it is also stable under low pH conditions where other disaccharides would hydrolyze into their component monosaccharides (Komes, Lovric, Ganic, & Gracin, 2003;Komes et al, 2005). Trehalose has also a low cariogenic potential when compared to sucrose and lower glycaemic and insulinemic response, particularly in obese men according to Maki, Kanter, Rains, Hess, and Geohas (2009) and depresses water activity in the same way as sucrose (Galmarini, Chirife, Zamora, & Perez, 2008).…”

A preliminary study on the application of natural sweet proteins in agar‐based gels

“…The effect of this substitution on the final product's sensory properties can be evaluated using both dynamic (Morais, Pinheiro, Nunes, & Bolini, ; Palazzo & Bolini, ; Palazzo, Carvalho, Efraim, & Bolini, ) and static sensory methods (Fujimaru, Park, & Lim, ; Reis et al ., ). Galmarini, Zamora, and Chirife () reported that it is possible to replace sugar with mixtures of sucrose/trehalose or single trehalose solutions without completely modifying sweetness perception of aqueous solutions. Heikel, Krebs, Kӧhn, and Busch‐Stockfisch () found that when sucrose is combined with erythritol, rebaudioside A, or sucralose, the unpleasant flavor and texture properties of sweeteners can also be masked.…”

Facial affective reactions to bitter-tasting foods and body mass index in adults

“…The perceived bitter sensations of the PROP solutions over time (recorded every 0.35 s) were characterized using a computerized time-intensity (T-I) software program by moving a cursor along a 500-pixel line that represented a 20 cm unstructured line scale anchored at both extremes 0 -100 on the monitor (cf. Galmarini, Zamora & Chirife, 2009), after receiving verbal instructions: 0 = not at all bitter and 100 = extremely bitter. The software provided the T-I curve as well as the parameters that described it: maximum intensity reached (Imax; 0-100), time elapsed to maximum intensity (Tmax; in seconds), area under curve (AUC; representing the overall bitterness perception of the whole stimuli perceived over the total time of recording) and rate of increase of bitter (Rinc).…”