Clemson UniversityTigerPrints

All Theses Theses

5-2012

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN SWEETENER PROPERTIES ANDVARIATIONS IN BOTH FUNCTIONALITYAND FINAL PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICSDanielle LynnClemson University, dlynn@g.clemson.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses

Part of the Food Science Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorizedadministrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu.

Recommended CitationLynn, Danielle, "ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SWEETENER PROPERTIES AND VARIATIONS IN BOTHFUNCTIONALITY AND FINAL PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS" (2012). All Theses. 1331.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/1331

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SWEETENER

PROPERTIES AND VARIATIONS IN BOTH FUNCTIONALITY

AND FINAL PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS

A Thesis

Presented to

the Graduate School of

Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

Food, Nutrition, and Culinary Sciences

by

Danielle Kristine Lynn

May 2012

Accepted by:

Dr. Paul Dawson, Committee Chair

Dr. Aubrey Coffee

Dr. Duncan Darby

ii

ABSTRACT

Scientific research and media attention regarding possible health concerns related

to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) consumption has led to a negative consumer

perception of this ingredient. Therefore, the baking industry, which commonly uses

HFCS as a sweetener, needs to identify appropriate replacements. Even though invert

sugar (IS) is nutritionally similar to HFCS, its use in product formulations would allow

HFCS to be removed from ingredient lists. Light agave nectar (LA) and amber agave

nectar (AA) are two potential replacement ingredients, with the added benefit of low

glycemic indexes for products targeting the diabetic community. This study was designed

to compare the sweeteners of HFCS, IS, LA, and AA for their effects on baked products

using a cookie model.

Instrumental analyses were conducted for the sweeteners, as well as doughs and

cookies prepared using these sweeteners. The cookies were sampled at 0, 3, 5, and 10

days post-bake, to examine stability during room temperature storage. A consumer

sensory panel (N = 68) was also conducted for the cookies.

All of the cookies exhibited similar trends for changes throughout the sampling

period. Comparison of the measured properties demonstrated significant differences (P <

0.05) between certain cookies for diameter, height, pH, weight, moisture content, water

activity (aw), and color (L*, a*, b*, H*, and C*). Ranges between the measurements of

the cookie properties indicated that these significant differences may only correspond to

minor variations. The cookies were not significantly different (P ≥ 0.05) for the textural

property of hardness. Even though significant differences (P < 0.05) in color were

iii

observed for the sweeteners, doughs, and cookies, the sensory panel results showed that

consumer acceptability of appearance was not significantly different (P = 0.6228) for the

cookies. The sensory panel also revealed that the cookies were not significantly different

(P = 0.2459) for taste acceptability. Overall, the results of this study indicated that further

research to compare these sweeteners should be conducted, with an emphasis on baking

industry applications and processing feasibility for commercial food production.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to those individuals, who have

contributed to my MS thesis research project. A sincere thank you to my graduate

advisory committee chair Dr. Dawson for his guidance throughout the process, as well as

my committee members Dr. Coffee and Dr. Darby for their contributions. I’d also

particularly like to thank Dr. Han for her time and help during the laboratory testing.

Additionally, thank you to Dr. Northcutt, Keri Lipscomb, Wallace Campbell, and Kim

Collins for their roles in helping me to complete this process.

For donating the sweeteners evaluated in this study, I would like to acknowledge

Domino Foods, Inc. and Cargill, Incorporated.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER

1. REVIEW OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CONSUMER

TRENDS, SUGAR PROPERTIES AND FUNCTIONALITY,

AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SWEETENERS FOR

THE BAKING INDUSTRY ...................................................................... 1

Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).......................................................... 2

Relationship between HFCS and Health.................................................. 4

Weight Gain and Obesity ................................................................. 4

Metabolic Health .............................................................................. 5

Responses to HFCS Research .................................................................. 7

Additional Consumer Guided Trends in Food Products .......................... 8

Reduction in Dietary Sugar Calories ............................................... 8

Natural Products............................................................................... 9

Diabetes and Dietary Choices ........................................................ 10

Sugar Functionality during the Baking Process ..................................... 12

The Maillard Reaction and Browning ............................................. 13

Texture ............................................................................................ 15

Physical Dimensions ....................................................................... 15

Water Activity ................................................................................. 16

Ingredient Interactions .................................................................... 17

Sensory Properties of Sugars ................................................................. 18

Sensory Evaluation Techniques ...................................................... 18

Sensory Considerations Related to Alternative Sweeteners ........... 19

Potential Alternative Sugar or Sweetener Ingredients ........................... 21

Invert Sugar ..................................................................................... 21

Agave Nectar .................................................................................. 24

vi

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 26

References .................................................................................................... 27

2. ANALYICAL COMPARISON OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN

SYRUP, INVERT SUGAR, LIGHT AGAVE NECTAR,

AND AMBER AGAVE NECTAR AS INGREDIENTS

IN THE BAKING PROCESS ................................................................. 31

Introduction ............................................................................................ 31

Materials and Methods ........................................................................... 34

Sweeteners ..................................................................................... 34

Dough and Cookie Treatments ...................................................... 34

Data Collection Procedure ............................................................. 35

Sweetener Analyses ....................................................................... 35

Formula and Baking Procedure for Dough and Cookies ............... 39

Dough Analyses ............................................................................. 41

Cookie Analyses ............................................................................ 42

Sensory Evaluation ........................................................................ 44

Statistical Analysis ......................................................................... 46

Results and Discussion .......................................................................... 46

Sweeteners ..................................................................................... 46

Doughs ........................................................................................... 52

Cookies .......................................................................................... 56

Sensory Evaluation ........................................................................ 77

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 86

References .............................................................................................. 87

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 91

A: Supplementary Instrumental Analyses Data for the Sweeteners ................. 92

B: Supplementary Instrumental Analyses Data for the Doughs ....................... 96

C: Supplementary Instrumental Analyses Data for the Cookies .................... 100

D: Sensory Evaluation—Consumer Panel Documents ................................... 128

E: Supplementary Sensory Evaluation Data................................................... 137

F: Nutritional Information for the Cookies .................................................... 143

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Dough and Cookie Formula ......................................................................... 39

2.2 Brix, Specific Gravity, Viscosity, pH, Moisture Content, aw,

and Color (L*, a*, b*, H*, C*) of the Sweeteners ................................ 51

2.3 Specific Gravity, pH, Moisture Content, aw, and Color

(L*, a*, b*, H*, C*) of the Doughs ....................................................... 55

2.4 Diameter, Height, and pH of the Cookies .................................................... 67

2.5 Comparison of Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 – Moisture

Content, aw, Weight, Hardness, Crust Color L*, and Crumb

Color L* of Each Cookie ....................................................................... 68

2.6 Comparison of the Cookies– Moisture Content, aw, Weight,

and Hardness on Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10.................................... 70

2.7 Crust, Crumb, and Bottom Color (L*, a*, b*, H*, C*) of

the Cookies............................................................................................ 71

2.8 Sweetness, Texture, Moistness, Taste Acceptability, and

Appearance Acceptability Scores for the Cookies ................................. 82

2.9 Sweetness Scores for the Cookies Separated by Category for

Consumption of Sweet Baked Products ................................................. 83

A.1 HFCS Data of Triplicate Samples................................................................ 92

A.2 IS Data of Triplicate Samples ...................................................................... 93

A.3 LA Data of Triplicate Samples .................................................................... 94

A.4 AA Data of Triplicate Samples .................................................................... 95

B.1 HFCS Dough Data by Trial ......................................................................... 96

B.2 IS Dough Data by Trial ................................................................................ 97

B.3 LA Dough Data by Trial .............................................................................. 98

viii

List of Tables (Continued)

Table Page

B.4 AA Dough Data by Trial.............................................................................. 99

C.1 HFCS Cookie Data for Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and

10 by Trial ............................................................................................ 100

C.2 IS Cookie Data for Samplings Days 0, 3, 5, and

10 by Trial ............................................................................................ 102

C.3 LA Cookie Data for Samplings Days 0, 3, 5, and

10 by Trial ............................................................................................ 104

C.4 AA Cookie Data for Samplings Days 0, 3, 5, and

10 by Trial ............................................................................................ 106

C.5 HFCS Cookie Data by Trial ....................................................................... 108

C.6 IS Cookie Data by Trial ............................................................................. 110

C.7 LA Cookie Data by Trial ........................................................................... 112

C.8 AA Cookie Data by Trial ........................................................................... 114

C.9 Cookie Data – Combined Mean of All Sampling Days and Trials ............ 116

C.10 Comparison of Data from Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10

for Each Cookie ................................................................................... 118

C.11 Comparison of Data for the Cookies on Sampling Days

0, 3, 5, and 10 ....................................................................................... 123

E.1 Frequency and Percentage of Responses for Demographic

Information .......................................................................................... 137

E.2 Frequency and Percentage of Hedonic Scale Responses for

Taste Acceptability of the Cookies ...................................................... 138

E.3 Frequency and Percentage of Hedonic Scale Responses for

Appearance Acceptability of the Cookies ............................................ 139

E.4 Panelists’ Comments about the Cookies .................................................... 140

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Diameter and Height Measurements for the Cookies .................................. 72

2.2 Moisture Content versus Time for the Cookies ........................................... 73

2.3 The aw versus Time for the Cookies ............................................................ 74

2.4 Weight versus Time for the Cookies ........................................................... 75

2.5 Hardness versus Time for the Cookies ........................................................ 76

2.6 Hedonic Scale Responses for Taste Acceptability of the Cookies .............. 84

2.7 Hedonic Scale Responses for Appearance Acceptability

of the Cookies ........................................................................................ 85

F.1 Nutrition Facts Label for the HFCS Cookie .............................................. 144

F.2 Nutrition Facts Label for the IS Cookie ..................................................... 145

F.3 Nutrition Facts Label for the LA Cookie ................................................... 146

F.4 Nutrition Facts Label for the AA Cookie .................................................. 147

CHAPTER ONE

REVIEW OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CONSUMER TRENDS,

SUGAR PROPERTIES AND FUNCTIONALITY, AND

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SWEETENERS

FOR THE BAKING INDUSTRY

Introduction

As companies strive to increase product sales, the trends and actions of the food

industry are strongly guided by consumer demands. Recently, certain research studies

have demonstrated a correlation between high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) consumption

and the on-set of serious health conditions, including obesity (Bocarsly and others 2010).

The results of these studies have sparked a rise in media reports related to HFCS, and the

information reaching consumers suggests that this common food ingredient may be

harmful to their health. Consequently, a negative perception of HFCS has developed

among consumers, driving the food industry to seek alternative syrup sweeteners.

While certain producers of sugary beverages have already started to replace

HFCS, the baking industry is another sector of the food supply that frequently uses HFCS

(White 2009). This indicates a need for alternative syrup sweeteners that can replace

HFCS in baking applications, while maintaining the quality of the final product. An

understanding of sugar functionality during the baking process, as well as variations

related to sugar type, will be critical for minimizing adverse effects of replacement

ingredients. Current consumer guided trends in the food industry, such as nutritional

improvements, could also play a key role in identifying appropriate alternative

2

sweeteners. Invert sugar and agave nectar, two potential replacement ingredients for

HFCS, will be discussed further in this review.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

HFCS, commonly used as a sweetener in the global food supply, has recently

received a high level of media attention. This ingredient first became available to the

food industry in the late 1960’s, and its usage has since increased, now accounting for

40% of the added caloric sweeteners in the American diet (Bocarsly and others 2010;

Parker and others 2010). HFCS is commonly present in the formulations of numerous

processed foods, including baked products, dairy products, fruit drinks, and carbonated

beverages (Vuilleumier 1993; Parker and others 2010).

The production process of HFCS begins with the chemical or enzymatic

hydrolysis of corn starch to yield a corn syrup, which contains glucose (Parker and others

2010). Through the enzymatic activity of glucose isomerase, the sugar composition of the

syrup is converted to 90% fructose and 10% glucose (Parker and others 2010). While this

90% fructose syrup can be used for specialty applications, it is most often blended with

glucose syrup, leading to sugar compositions that are more applicable for the food and

beverage industries (Parker and others 2010). The final blended product, known as

HFCS, typically has fructose:glucose ratios of 0.7 or 1.2, which correspond to 42% or

55% fructose, respectively (Akhavan and Anderson 2007; White 2009). The percentage

of fructose is indicated by labeling the ingredient as either HFCS-42 or HFCS-55.

Sucrose, a disaccharide of glucose and fructose units, is often referred to as table

sugar and has historically been used as a sweetener in foods. A pure solution of fructose

3

has 1.3 times the sweetness intensity of sucrose (Parker and others 2010), indicating that

the percentage of fructose could affect the sweetness of HFCS compared to sucrose. The

blended formulation of HFCS-55 yields a sweetness intensity comparable to that of

sucrose, while the sweetness intensity of HFCS-42 varies only minimally from sucrose

(Jones 2009; White 2009). The formulated sweetness intensities of HFCS-42 and HFCS-

55 have made these ingredients applicable for replacing sucrose in foods. HFCS-55

frequently acts as a sweetener in beverages, while HFCS-42 is used for a wide range of

foods, including baked products (Akhavan and Anderson 2007; Parker and others 2010).

Throughout the past 35 years, HFCS has frequently replaced sucrose in many

types of foods and beverages (Vuilleumier 1993; White 2009). In 1984, Curley and

Hoseney stated that cookie manufacturers were using HFCS as a low cost alternative to

sucrose, due to rising sugar prices. For foods and beverages, HFCS can replace all or a

portion of the sucrose originally present in a formula (Chinachoti 1995). Cookie products

are an example of a food category, in which HFCS is often used to replace a portion of

sucrose. In general, HFCS can replace 10–30% of the sucrose in hard cookies and 60–

75% of the sucrose in soft cookies (Curley and Hoseney 1984). At these replacement

levels, the amount of sucrose in the formulation can be reduced, while still achieving the

desired product characteristics (Curley and Hoseney 1984). When considering

alternatives to HFCS, sucrose may not be the most desirable replacement, since HFCS

has already been used to eliminate or reduce sucrose in product formulations. Therefore,

the food and beverage industries must identify other alternative sweeteners.

4

In addition to sweetness, HFCS has multiple functional roles in food product

formulations. The baking industry can utilize HFCS to achieve a suitable product color

and texture. During baking, the Maillard reaction can occur between amino acids and

reducing sugars in HFCS (Mundt and others 2007). This reaction leads to browning,

which is often a desirable color change for baked foods (Mundt and others 2007). Based

on its hygroscopic nature, HFCS contributes to moisture retention and resistance to

crystallization (Curley and Hoseney 1984; White 2009). These functional roles of HFCS

enable the development of a final texture appropriate for soft-moist cookies (Curley and

Hoseney 1984; White 2009). The functionality of HFCS makes it a key ingredient for

baking, and potential replacement sweeteners must have similar properties to ensure

consistent product quality.

Relationship between HFCS and Health

Weight Gain and Obesity

In recent years, a prominent research subject has been the relationship between

HFCS consumption and potential negative health effects. One of the most emphasized

health conditions is obesity; rising global obesity rates have inspired the investigation of

possible connections between weight gain and dietary patterns. Researchers note that

throughout the past 35 years, the increased usage of HFCS in food products has coincided

with the growing prevalence of obesity in the United States (Akhavan and Anderson

2007; Teff and others 2009; Parker and others 2010).

A study by Bocarsly and others (2010) compared the effects of HFCS versus

sucrose consumption on weight gain. After 8 weeks, results demonstrated significantly

5

higher body weights in rats consuming a HFCS diet (Bocarsly and others 2010). In

comparison to the sucrose diet, the HFCS diet was 10 kcal less per day, but lead to a 15g

higher average body weight (Bocarsly and others 2010). Significantly elevated levels of

blood triglycerides and increased abdominal fat were also observed in rats consuming

HFCS (Bocarsly and others 2010). The results of this research indicate that the

consumption of HFCS, instead of sucrose, may lead to variations in body fat distribution,

elevated triglyceride levels, and higher body weight.

While the study by Bocarsly and others (2010) suggests that HFCS could increase

weight gain, the experimental design analyzed the effects of a single ingredient, rather

than the typical dietary mixture of sugars and sweeteners. Review articles related to

HFCS state that this is a common problem among studies examining the health effects of

HFCS (Jones 2009; White 2009). Other factors contributing to weight gain, such as a

high energy intake, must also be taken into account, before HFCS can be considered a

cause of obesity (Jones 2009; White 2009).

Metabolic Health

The possible impact of HFCS consumption on metabolic health has been another

focus of scientific studies related to this ingredient. Fructose is metabolized

predominantly in the liver and when consumed in large quantities, it can increase the

production of triglycerides (Teff and others 2009; Bocarsly and others 2010). Research

has been conducted to determine if the fructose present in HFCS can affect liver function

and contribute to the development of metabolic syndrome.

6

A study by Figlewicz and others (2009) demonstrated potentially negative

changes in the plasma lipid profiles of rats consuming fructose or sweeteners containing

fructose. The results showed higher levels of serum cholesterol and alanine

aminotransferase in treatment groups ingesting fructose and HFCS (Figlewicz and others

2009). Even though average levels remained in the normal ranges for both serum

cholesterol and alanine aminotransferase, these are indicators of liver health; elevation

may reflect negative changes or even the tendency to eventually develop liver pathology

(Figlewicz and others 2009). However, this was only a ten week study, so the results did

not examine the extent of effects due to prolonged HFCS consumption.

As with obesity, additional information must be considered, prior to concluding

that HFCS negatively affects the liver. Research related to metabolic health frequently

examines exceptionally high levels of fructose or HFCS (Jones 2009; White 2009). This

suggests that dosage may be a contributing factor for the observed changes in liver

function (Jones 2009; White 2009). Studies designed to reflect typical dietary

consumption levels of HFCS would be more applicable for demonstrating its potential

impact on health. White (2009) also noted that the 42–55% fructose content of HFCS can

be observed in numerous other food substances, including sucrose and over 50 varieties

of fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Since the fructose levels present in HFCS are commonly

found throughout the food supply, it should be considered whether HFCS has a different

effect on health than other sources of 42–55% fructose.

7

Responses to HFCS Research

Scientific research regarding HFCS has inspired significant media attention and

subsequent consumer concern. The rise in media attention can be demonstrated by the

increase from 45 media articles about HFCS in 2004, to 435 media articles in 2007

(Borra and Bouchoux 2009). As information about the potential health effects of HFCS

continues to reach consumers, many have become critical of its use in food products. The

2007 Food and Health Survey by the International Food Information Council revealed

that 81% of consumers recognized the term “high-fructose corn syrup” (Borra and

Bouchoux 2009). Among this 81% of consumers, 60% were striving to decrease HFCS

consumption (Borra and Bouchoux 2009). These statistics from the 2007 Food and

Health Survey clearly reveal a negative consumer perception of HFCS.

Certain food companies or brands, particularly in the beverage industry, have

responded to consumer concerns and started to replace HFCS in product formulations.

Two examples of brands that have removed HFCS are Juicy Juice (Nestlé USA) and

Jones Soda. In Juicy Juice products, fruit juice concentrates have replaced HFCS, while

sucrose was chosen as a replacement ingredient for Jones Soda beverages (White 2009).

Multiple brands, including the two used as examples, have pursued advertising

campaigns suggesting healthier products, following the replacement of HFCS (White

2009). However, claims related to nutritional improvements may not be accurate, since

the replacement ingredients are often similar to HFCS in sugar level and caloric content

(White 2009). As consumer concern about HFCS remains heightened, there is a need in

the food industry for additional alternative sweeteners, which have proper ingredient

8

functionality and superior nutritional value. The effects of HFCS on final product color,

texture, and sweetness indicate that the baking industry will emphasize these functional

aspects, when evaluating replacement options.

Additional Consumer Guided Trends in Food Products

Reduction in Dietary Sugar Calories

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 recently discussed the importance of

decreasing the amount of added sugars in the American diet. Added sugars, such as

HFCS or honey, are not naturally found in foods; instead, they are incorporated as

sweeteners during food preparation, food processing, or at the table (USDA and HHS

2010). Even though approximately 16% of the calories in the American diet can be

attributed to added sugar ingredients, these sugars do not provide essential nutrients or

dietary fiber (USDA and HHS 2010). A reduction in added sugars may allow for a higher

consumption of nutrient dense foods, while remaining within the dietary guidelines for an

appropriate calorie intake (USDA and HHS 2010). Potential alternatives for HFCS and

other sweeteners will most likely still be considered added sugars. However, identifying

alternatives that offer calorie reductions could be a key attribute for improving the

American diet.

An area of research related to sugar calorie reduction is the identification of high-

intensity sweeteners, which are 50-100 times sweeter than sucrose (Abou-Arab and

others 2010). Based on the high sweetness level of these ingredients, they can be added in

lower levels than sucrose, leading to calorie reductions. Today, the most common types

of high-intensity sweeteners are produced from synthetic compounds (Abou-Arab and

9

others 2010). Many of these synthetic, or artificial, sweeteners have been associated with

metallic aftertastes and potential health concerns, such as bladder cancer (Abou-Arab and

others 2010). A 2009 International Trend Study by HealthFocus indicated that 45% of

consumers are very/extremely concerned about ingesting artificial sweeteners (Sloan

2010). The possibility of negative health effects and consumer concerns, indicate that

artificial sweeteners may not be an ideal solution for reducing dietary sugar calories.

Improving the diets of children is another noted trend connected to sugar

reduction. As explained by Sloan (2007), “healthier for my children” has globally been a

source of motivation for consumers to buy products without artificial sweeteners, as well

as those that are low in sugar, sodium, and fat. In relation to sweeteners, survey results

show that 37% of mothers are making an effort to specifically limit HFCS in their

children’s diets (Sloan 2010). Identifying appropriate replacements for HFCS may be

particularly critical in foods frequently consumed by children, since the removal of this

ingredient could improve parents’ perceptions of the products.

Natural Products

Natural sweetening compounds may be a beneficial category of alternative

sweeteners, since they coincide with a consumer trend for more natural foods. A recent

April 2011 article in the Food Technology publication stated that natural ingredients were

the third ranked category of items consumers checked for on product labels (Sloan 2011).

The top two ranking items were fat/oil and sweetener type ingredients (Sloan 2011). This

information confirms the importance of sugar type with consumers and indicates that the

presence of natural ingredients is another critical factor for consumer perception.

10

Consumers often feel that natural products will be better for them, as well as the

environment (Fisher and Carvajal 2008). This consumer perception has inspired the

investigation of plant extracts for potential applications as high-intensity sweeteners

(Pszczola 2008). Stevia, a natural sweetener from plant extracts, is already commercially

sold as an ingredient and has been used in beverage formulations (Pszczola 2008, 2010).

The incorporation of natural sweeteners is likely to be a continuing trend, as the food

industry strives to appeal to consumers.

Based on the FDA policy for product labeling, the term “natural” indicates that a

product does not include synthetic or artificial ingredients (FDA 2008). Even if the raw

materials are obtained from plant sources, production methods may impact the natural

status of certain ingredients, such as HFCS. The FDA states that products containing

HFCS can be classified as natural, if the HFCS ingredient is manufactured through a

production process that follows the FDA’s policy regarding natural foods (Fisher and

Carvajal 2008). Alternatively, the FDA will object to the natural claim of a product, if the

production process of the HFCS ingredient involves the inclusion or addition of a

synthetic fixative (Fisher and Carvajal 2008). Therefore, the natural status of food

products containing HFCS may vary due to the source of this ingredient. The situation

surrounding HFCS demonstrates that limiting the use of synthetic materials should be a

consideration, when identifying optimum production methods for food ingredients.

Diabetes and Dietary Choices

Diabetes mellitus is a growing international health concern and treatment can

often involve dietary modifications. The two most common forms of this illness are type

11

1 and type 2 diabetes, which both relate to problems with the insulin hormone (American

Diabetes Association 2009). Type 1 diabetes involves insulin deficiency, while type 2

diabetes involves insulin resistance (American Diabetes Association 2009). According to

the International Diabetes Federation, the global prevalence of diabetes has reached the

epidemic level, with an estimate of 285 million affected adults in 2010 (Egede and Ellis

2010). In the US alone, the prevalence of diabetes almost doubled over a recent span of

twelve years. The CDC estimated the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes at 5.1% for

American adults in 1997, but this estimate increased to 10.1% in 2009 (CDC 2009). As

the incidence of diabetes continues to climb, the food and beverage industries have

responded by developing products specifically intended for diabetics (Kweon and others

2009; Ohr 2009). The formulations for many of these products have been designed to

yield a low glycemic index (Kweon and others 2009; Ohr 2009).

In both healthy individuals and those affected by diabetes, the body exhibits a

different blood glucose response, depending on the carbohydrate composition of the food

ingested (Bantle 2009; Borra and Bouchoux 2009). The level of response for a food

product can be indicated by its glycemic index (GI) value, which expresses the increase

of plasma glucose after ingestion in comparison to a reference food (Bantle 2009);

glucose is commonly used as a reference food (Borra and Bouchoux 2009). Along with

considering the total carbohydrate intake, glycemic control based on the GI may yield an

additional modest benefit, according to recommendations for diabetes management from

the American Diabetes Association (2009).

12

For food products, low-GI foods have a GI less than 55 and high-GI foods have a

GI greater than 70 (Atkinson and others 2008). Fructose is a low-GI sugar at GI = 15,

while the other common dietary sugars of sucrose and glucose have higher GI values at

GI = 65 and GI = 103, respectively (Atkinson and others 2008). The low-GI of fructose

relates to the metabolism of this sugar in the body. Research has shown that fructose

consumption leads to a smaller increase in plasma glucose and serum insulin levels,

compared to the consumption of glucose and other glucose-containing carbohydrates

(Bantle 2009). Fructose does not require insulin to enter the liver cells for metabolism

(Bantle 2009). Based on the metabolic properties of fructose, sweeteners containing

primarily this sugar may be advantageous for use in the rising number of foods marketed

towards the diabetic community.

Sugar Functionality during the Baking Process

Efforts to identify appropriate alternative sweetening ingredients will utilize

knowledge gained from both previous and continued research related to sugar

functionality during the baking process. Sugar contributes to the physical, chemical, and

sensory characteristics of a wide range of foods. In relation to sweet baked products,

sugars can affect sweetness, browning, structural development, and water activity (Davis

1995). As the food industry strives to replace sweeteners, such as HFCS, additional

awareness about variations related to sugar type may help companies choose alternate

ingredients that minimize the impact on final product quality.

13

The Maillard Reaction and Browning

Browning or color development during baking is often caused by the Maillard

reaction, a form of nonenzymatic browning (Chinachoti 1995; Davis 1995; Charissou and

others 2007; Mundt and Wedzicha 2007). The initiation of the Maillard reaction requires

water, a reducing group, and a molecule containing an amine, such as a protein (Davis

1995). For sweet baked products, fructose and glucose monosaccarides are the reducing

sugars that commonly participate in the initiation step (Davis 1995). These sugars may be

present in monosaccharide form, or sucrose can be broken down to fructose and glucose

during heating (Davis 1995). The multi-step Maillard reaction can lead to the formation

of melanoidins, which are brown polymers that cause the visible color change (Davis

1995). Other products generated by the Maillard reaction can contribute to the flavors and

aromas of foods after baking; these products include aldehydes, ketones, and pyrazines

(Chinachoti 1995; Davis 1995; Ramírez-Jiménez and others 2000).

The rate of the Maillard reaction is affected by multiple external conditions,

which may vary depending on food product formulations and production methods.

Conditions that favor the Maillard reaction are temperatures above 50°C, a pH of 4–7, an

intermediate moisture content, and high protein and carbohydrate contents (Ramírez-

Jiménez and others 2000). A change in sugar type could potentially influence the

Maillard reaction rate, by affecting some of these conditions.

As stated by Mundt and Wedzicha (2007), the extent of color development is

often an important factor for consumer acceptability of baked products. The L* a* b*

scale for color measurement can be used to quantitatively assess color (Ramírez-Jiménez

14

and others 2000). A colorimeter instrument can measure values for L* (lightness, L* = 0

= black and L* = 100 = white), a* (-a* = greenness and +a* = redness), b* (-b* =

blueness and +b* = yellowness), C* (chroma), and H* (hue) (Baixauli and others 2008).

The values of C* and H* can also be calculated from the a* and b* values for a sample

(Baixauli and others 2008). Differences in these values indicate the magnitude of

variations in color, or browning. This type of color evaluation may be useful to ensure the

proper extent of browning is achieved, even with formulation adjustments that could

affect the Maillard reaction, such as a change in sugar type.

The Maillard reaction can negatively affect the nutritional value of foods, since it

leads to a reduction in the bioavailabilty of lysine, an essential amino acid (Charissou and

others 2007). A study conducted by Charissou and others (2007) examined the

relationship between sugar type and the magnitude of decrease in lysine bioavailability.

Compared to sucrose and glucose, fructose had less effect on lysine in a cookie model

product baked at a low temperature (Charissou and others 2007). At 200°C, the amount

of available lysine in the fructose sample was 15.0 mg/g protein, while the available

lysine amounts were only 2.9 mg/g protein and 2.6 mg/g protein in the glucose and

sucrose samples, respectively (Charissou and others 2007). Even though variations were

noticeable at a low baking temperature of 200°C, the magnitude of decrease in lysine

availability was similar among the three sugars at higher temperatures (Charissou and

others 2007). Results of this research suggest a possible nutritional advantage for

sweeteners containing high levels of fructose, since they could have less impact on lysine

availability. Additionally, the effects of baking temperature on ingredient functionalities

15

and interactions may be another variable to consider, when choosing alternative

sweeteners.

Texture

Semi-sweet short dough biscuits, such as cookies, contain high levels of sugar,

which affects the dough mixing process and final product texture (Gallagher and others

2003). Sugar can inhibit gluten development at the mixing stage, since it competes with

the flour for water (Gallagher and others 2003). Inhibition of gluten development leads to

a more crumbly texture of the final product after baking (Gallagher and others 2003).

This function of sugar demonstrates its importance for determining the hardness of

cookies and other similar products.

When assessing product texture, instrumental methods can be advantageous to

sensory analysis, because they are objective and rapid (Baixauli and others 2008).

Research studies often evaluate texture by measuring sample hardness. A texture analyzer

instrument is frequently used to quantify the force required for compression or

penetration, which is an indication of hardness (Zoulias and others 2000; Baixauli and

others 2008; Pareyt and others 2009). This technique would be applicable for identifying

textural changes among a set of samples prepared using different ingredient variables.

Physical Dimensions

Research has shown that the amount of sugar in a formula can affect the physical

dimensions of baked products with high sugar contents. Throughout the baking stage,

sugar continuously dissolves, allowing it to influence structural development (Pareyt and

others 2009). A study by Pareyt and others (2009) revealed that the level of sucrose

16

affected cookie spread; the term cookie spread refers to the extent of dough spread during

baking. Data demonstrated that cookie spread increased as sugar level increased (Pareyt

and others 2009). Additional cookie spread corresponded to larger diameter and lower

height measurements for the final product (Pareyt and others 2009). Sucrose is known to

decrease dough viscosity, indicating that variations in sugar level could affect the

rheological properties of the dough and thereby the extent the cookie spread (Pareyt and

others 2009).

Another study conducted by Zoulias and others (2009) demonstrated that sugar

type can also affect both dough rheology and cookie spread. Fructose, one of the sugars

evaluated by this study, had clear effects on dough characteristics and final product

dimensions. Cookie samples formulated with fructose had smaller diameters and higher

values for dough hardness, compared to samples formulated with the other sugar

variables, including sucrose (Zoulias and others 2009). This observation indicates that the

desired effect of an alternative sweetener on structural development may vary, depending

on whether sucrose or a fructose-containing sweetener is being replaced.

Water Activity

Water activity (aw) is a critical factor for determining food product shelf life, since

it influences the potential for microbial growth (Davis 1995; Galić and others 2009). A

low aw can diminish, or even prevent, microbial activity and mold formation (Davis

1995). Sugar molecules limit water availability in a food product, by forming hydrogen

bonds with water molecules (Chinachoti 1995). This interaction between the sugar and

water molecules corresponds to a decrease in aw (Chinachoti 1995). A change in the sugar

17

content of a food formulation, particularly a sugar reduction, should be evaluated for its

effect on final product aw and shelf life.

Ingredient Interactions

Research indicates that the type of sugar present may impact the functionality of

other ingredients and subsequently affect the final product. Flours used for sweet baked

products were developed for optimum functionality with sucrose, since this has

historically been the primary sugar for baking (Kweon and others 2009). The use of these

flours with other types of sugar may impact final product quality. A study conducted by

Kweon and others (2009) examined the effects on product characteristics, when

“excellent quality cookie flour” was mixed with four different types of diagnostic sugars.

In the study by Kweon and others (2009), model cookies were prepared using

sucrose, fructose, glucose, and xylose as diagnostic sugars. The samples exhibited

variations in multiple properties, including gluten development, dough consistency,

cookie shape, and the extent of Maillard browning (Kweon and others 2009). Kweon and

others (2009) noted that the characteristics of the samples may have been related to

differences in the water retention properties and particle sizes of the diagnostic sugars.

Overall, the “excellent quality cookie flour” exhibited optimum functionality with

sucrose, the sugar that it was designed to interact with (Kweon and others 2009). Results

of the study indicate that adjustments in flour, as well as other ingredients, may improve

their interaction with other sugar types and facilitate the incorporation of alternative

sweeteners.

18

Sensory Properties of Sugars

Sensory Evaluation Techniques

A prominent taste characteristic of sugars and other sweetening ingredients is

sweetness intensity. The sweetness intensity of these ingredients dictates the amount

required to achieve the desired final sweetness of foods and beverages. Sweetness is

compared according to a sweetness index, which is based on sucrose as a reference sugar

at a sweetness index of 1.0 (Davis 1995; Parker and others 2010). Sugars can have a

relative sweetness above or below 1.0. For example, fructose has a relative sweetness of

1.3, while glucose has a relative sweetness of 0.56 (Parker and others 2010). The

sweetness index provides a numerical scale of intensity, but human perception of

sweetness is another factor that should be considered.

When conducting consumer testing, research has demonstrated that both the type

of evaluation technique and panelist demographics can affect the results for sensory

evaluation of sweetness. A study by Bower and Boyd (2003) examined the disparity

between responses for sweetness level on two types of grading scales, while also

considering trends related to the health concern and consumption patterns of consumer

subjects. The experimental design involved a hedonic scale for “liking of sweetness” and

a just-about-right (JAR) scale for “sweetness” (Bower and Boyd 2003). Demographic

information was collected about dietary consumption patterns and health concern level

for each subject (Bower and Boyd 2003).

For all subgroups of consumers, the sucrose concentration identified as “most

liked” on the hedonic scale was higher than the sucrose concentration identified as “just

19

right” on the JAR scale (Bower and Boyd 2003). According to both the JAR and hedonic

scales, a lower optimum level of sucrose was selected by consumer subgroups

characterized as high health concern level, high ‘healthy eating,’ and diet soft drink users

(Bower and Boyd 2003). However, it was noted that the difference due to health concern

was more distinct for the JAR scale (Bower and Boyd 2003). Bower and Boyd (2003)

suggest that the disparity observed between the scales could be explained by this

subgroup of consumers choosing a lower sucrose concentration as “just right” for a

healthier diet, even though they preferred the taste of a higher concentration. The hedonic

scale should remove the effect of healthy diet choices, since it is based on likability of the

product.

Sensory Considerations Related to Alternative Sweeteners

As the food industry strives to meet the demand for healthier food options,

sensory evaluation is a valuable tool for assessing consumer satisfaction regarding

product reformulations. While consumers desire lower levels of sugar, fat, and calories

from foods, they also expect products to have pleasing sensory qualities for flavor, taste,

texture, and color (Cardoso and Bolini 2003). This expectation of consumers indicates the

need to complete sensory evaluation, when considering ingredient changes. In addition to

sweetness intensity, other sensory properties could be influenced by alternative sugars or

sweeteners.

Off-flavors have been associated with certain alternative sweeteners, and their

presence can be recognized through sensory evaluation. One example of off-flavors

relates to stevia, a natural sweetener derived from the Stevia rebaudiana plant (Cardos

20

and Bolini 2008; Abou-Arab and others 2010). A study published in 2008 by Cardos and

Bolini utilized the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) technique to characterize the

sensory attributes of selected alternative sweeteners. QDA results revealed that stevia

received high scores for the following attributes: bitterness, residual bitterness, herb

aroma, herb flavor, and residual sweetness (Cardoso and Bolini 2008). Cardoso and

Bolini (2008) described these as unpleasant attributes, which would influence consumer

acceptance.

A bitter taste has been documented for both powder and syrup varieties of stevia

sweeteners. In sensory testing conducted by Abou-Arab and others (2010), average

values for the bitter taste magnitude of stevia were recorded as 14.11 for the syrup and

14.71 for the powder. These recorded values suggest that bitterness is a characteristic of

the raw materials, since the averages were similar for both physical forms. In comparison,

the average bitter taste value for sucrose was a substantially lower 2.10 (Abou-Arab and

others 2010), confirming the high intensity of stevia’s bitter taste. The difference between

the value of bitter taste for sucrose and values of bitter taste for the two stevia varieties

were statistically significant (Abou-Arab and others 2010).

The bitter taste of stevia is most likely related to the presence of sesquiterpene

lactone compounds in the Stevia rebaudiana plant (Abou-Arab and others 2010). Other

off-flavors associated with stevia may be caused by naturally occurring compounds in the

Stevia rebaudiana plant, such as tannins, flavonoids, volatile aromatic oils, and essential

oils (Abou-Arab and others 2010). The impact of plant compounds on the flavor of stevia

suggests that the presence of off-flavors could be a concern with other natural sweeteners

21

derived from plant-based raw materials. Sensory evaluation can contribute to the

detection of these off-flavors, while also indicating their potential effect on consumer

acceptability.

Potential Alternative Sugar or Sweetener Ingredients

Invert Sugar

Invert sugar is commercially available in a syrup form and may be a potential

alternative for HFCS. In terms of composition, invert sugar is a mixture of fructose and

glucose monosaccharides that are obtained from the hydrolysis of sucrose (Yang and

Montgomery 2007; Safrik and others 2009). Sucrose is a disaccharide of fructose and

glucose, indicating that the hydrolysis of this compound will lead to equimolar amounts

of its monosaccharide components (Safrik and others 2009). Even though invert sugar is

an added sugar, it may still be advantageous to the food industry as a possible alternative

to HFCS. If invert sugar is used as a replacement sweetener in food products, HFCS,

which has a negative connotation with many consumers, could be removed from

ingredient labels.

The name of invert sugar relates to its light inversion properties, which were

documented as early as 1836 (Jordan 1924). At this time, experimenters demonstrated

that a plane of polarized light passing through an aqueous sucrose solution typically

bends to the right, while the polarized light alternatively bends to the left, after a sucrose

solution is heated with acid (Jordan 1924). This acidic heating process became known as

the inversion of sucrose and the product was named invert sugar (Jordan 1924). In the

late 1800’s and early 1900’s, patents were issued for invert sugar syrup production

22

methods that consisted of heating sucrose solutions with acids (Jordan 1924). Today,

production techniques for invert sugar have expanded, to also include an enzymatic

hydrolysis process.

Both acidic and enzymatic hydrolysis methods for invert sugar production

involve the hydrolysis of furanosidic linkages in sucrose molecules to yield fructose and

glucose monosaccharides (Yang and Montgomery 2007). Acid hydrolysis of sucrose is

typically conducted using weak organic acids or strong mineral acids (Safarik and others

2009). Safarik and others (2009) note that the potential presence of impurities in the

product is a disadvantage of acid hydrolysis, due to uncontrollable parameters during the

conversion from sucrose to fructose and glucose.

Enzymatic hydrolysis occurs through the action of invertase enzymes, which

break down sucrose to its monosaccharide components (Sanjay and Sugunan 2005; Yang

and Montgomery 2007; Safarik and others 2009). Invertase enzymes used for this process

can be obtained from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or baker’s yeast (Yang and Montgomery

2007; Safarik and others 2009). For the production of invert sugar, immobilized enzymes

are preferred, because they allow repeated usage and prevent contamination of the

reaction product (Işik and others 2003). Safarik and others (2009) note that the enzymatic

hydrolysis method can be advantageous, as there is nearly a 100% conversion efficiency

for sucrose, and the disadvantages associated with acid hydrolysis are not present.

Compared to granular sucrose, invert sugar has a higher sweetness intensity and

solubility (Safarik and others 2009). The sweetness level of invert sugar is affected by the

presence of fructose, since this monosaccharide has a higher relative sweetness than

23

sucrose (Davis 1995). The solubility of invert sugar can also be related to fructose, which

is known to be more soluble than sucrose (Davis 1995). Invert sugar contains the

reducing sugars glucose and fructose, which can participate in the Maillard reaction to

produce browning during the baking process (Davis 1995). When compared to invert

sugar, the fructose and glucose monosaccharides in HFCS contribute similarly to

sweetness, solubility, and color development properties of baked products (Curley and

Hoseney 1984; Mundt and others 2007; White 2009).

Currently, invert sugar is used as an ingredient for multiple types of products. In

jams, non-crystallizing creams, and artificial honey, invert sugar is added for its ability to

retard sugar crystallization in viscous solutions (Safarik and others 2009). This same

property of invert sugar is also utilized by the confectionary industry for maintaining the

softness of products over extended time periods (Safarik and others 2009; Sanjay and

Sugunan 2005). As previously discussed, the moisture retention and resistance to

crystallization associated with HFCS contributes to the texture of soft-moist cookies

(White 2009). Current applications of invert sugar indicate that it may have a comparable

effect on baked product texture. While less common than other food applications, invert

sugar is used for the industrial production of liquid sugar (Işik and others 2003; Safarik

and others 2009). Similarities in functionality for HFCS and invert sugar suggest that the

liquid form of invert sugar may be a suitable replacement ingredient for food products

currently containing HFCS.

24

Agave Nectar

Agave nectar is an alternative sweetener that could potentially replace HFCS and

other types of sugar in sweet baked products. Recently, agave nectar has received an

increased level of attention, since its characteristics coincide with consumer guided trends

for food products. Agave nectar is an unrefined sweetener from a natural source and

could be applicable for the diabetic community, due to its low glycemic index (Phillips

and others 2009). Both the natural status and low glycemic index of agave nectar indicate

a high potential for success with consumers.

The raw material for agave nectar is the agave plant that is commonly grown in

Mexico, the American southwest, Central America, and South America (Figlewicz and

others 2009). Production of the nectar begins with the extraction of sap from the cores, or

piñas, of agave plants (Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer 2009). This sap contains

fructans, which are oligomers primarily comprised of fructose units attached to a sucrose

molecule (Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer 2009). The fructans can be broken down

through thermal, acid, or enzymatic hydrolysis to yield predominantly fructose

monosaccharides (Phillips and others 2009; White 2009). Following filtration and

concentration, the final product is a syrup (Phillips and others 2009), with a sugar

composition of approximately 85% fructose (Jones 2009). High performance liquid

chromatography results show that the remaining sugar percentage contains glucose,

sucrose, xylose, and maltose (Michel-Cuello and others 2008).

Agave nectar is comparable to corn syrup in terms of taste and consistency,

suggesting that it may be an appropriate replacement for syrup sweeteners in food

25

formulations (Figlewicz and others 2009; Phillips and others 2009). Patents have been

issued for agave nectars or syrups as sugar replacements, with one of the noted

applications being baked products (Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer 2009). As

previously discussed, fructose has a higher sweetness intensity than sucrose. Therefore,

the sugar composition of approximately 85% fructose in agave nectar (Jones 2009)

should yield a higher sweetness intensity than that of sucrose. This comparison suggests

that using a smaller amount of sugar in the form of agave nectar could achieve the same

sweetness intensity as a larger amount of sugar in the form of sucrose. If agave nectar

was used to replace all or a portion of the sucrose in a food, there is a potential to

decrease the amount of added sugar and subsequently reduce the calorie content

(Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer 2009).

As previously discussed, a low-GI may be a beneficial characteristic for a diabetic

diet. Based on its sugar composition of primarily fructose, agave nectar can be considered

a low-GI sweetener, since fructose has a low-GI (Figlewicz and others 2009; Phillips and

others 2009). Food products containing agave could be marketed towards diabetics,

suggesting an opportunity for high sales with this group of consumers.

Agave nectar is becoming increasingly available as an ingredient for consumers to

use in home food preparation. Multiple brands, including Domino® Sugar, offer agave

nectar syrups that can be purchased in a variety of retailers, ranging from small health

food stores to larger grocery chains. However, the use of agave nectar in commercial

foods is still limited. While the production methods and nutritional characteristics of

agave nectar have been scientifically researched (Michel-Cuello and others 2008;

26

Figlewicz and others 2009; Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer 2009; Phillips and others

2009), its effects on final product characteristics must still be investigated to determine

possible applications as an alternative sweetener in the food industry.

Conclusion

Looking forward, there will be three key areas of research related to HFCS and

the identification of appropriate replacement sweeteners for the baking industry. First,

additional studies are needed to substantiate or disprove the negative health effects

associated with HFCS. Research confirming the negative health effects would support the

removal of this ingredient from food products, while results refuting the negative health

claims could help alleviate consumer concern. To ensure the validity of this research,

experimental designs should reflect typical dietary sugar intakes, rather than the

consumption of high levels of fructose or HFCS in isolation.

Another critical research area will be the functionality of alternative sugars or

sweeteners during baking. Improved understanding of this functionality could facilitate

the identification of subsequent variations in final product characteristics. More detailed

knowledge about the properties of alternative sweeteners would be beneficial to food and

beverage manufacturers, striving to change formulations without affecting sensory

properties.

Finally, direct comparison studies of sugars and sweeteners should continue, with

an emphasis on final product characteristics and consumer acceptability. Ingredients that

coincide with currents trends, such as addressing prominent health concerns and using

natural ingredients, may be a focus of this research area. The results of comparison

27

studies can guide the food industry to develop product reformulations that maintain

quality, while meeting consumer demands for healthier products.

References

Abou-Arab, AE, Abou-Arab, AA, Abu-Salem, MF. 2010. Physico-chemical assessment

of natural sweeteners steviosides produced from Stevia rebaudiana bertoni plant. Afric J

Food Sci. 4(5):269-281.

Akhavan, T, Anderson, GH. 2007. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on

subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Amer J Clin Nutr.

86:1354-1363.

American Diabetes Association. 2009. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009.

Diabetes Care. 32(1 Suppl):S13-S61.

Atkinson, FS, Foster-Powell, K, Brand-Miller, JC. 2008. International Tables of

Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load Values: 2008. Diabetes Care. 31(12): 2281-2283.

Baixauli, R, Salvador, A, Fiszman, SM. 2008. Textural and colour changes during

storage and sensory shelf life of muffins containing resistant starch. Eur Food Res Tech.

226:523-530.

Bantle, JP. 2009. Dietary Fructose and Metabolic Syndrome and Diabetes. J Nutr.

139(Suppl):1263S-1268S.

Bocarsly, ME, Powell, ES, Avena, NM, Hoebel, BG. 2010. High-fructose corn syrup

causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride

levels. Pharmac Biochem Behav. 97(1):101-106.

Borra, ST, Bouchoux, A. 2009. Effects of Science and the Media on Consumer

Perceptions about Dietary Sugars. J Nutr. 139(Suppl):1214S-1218S.

Bower, JA, Boyd, R. 2003. Effect of health concern and consumption patterns on

measures of sweetness by hedonic and just-about-right scales. J Sens Stud. 18:235-248.

Cardoso, JMP, Bolini, HMA. 2008. Descriptive profile of peach nectar sweetened with

sucrose and different sweeteners. J Sens Stud. 23:804-816.

[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. Early Release of Selected

Estimates Based on Data from the January-March 2009 National Health Interview

Survey. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics.

28

Charissou, A, Ait-Ameur, L, Birlouez-Aragon, I. 2007. Kinetics of Formation of Three

Indicators of the Maillard Reaction in Model Cookies: Influence of Baking Temperature

and Type of Sugar. J Agric Food Chem. 55(11):4532-4539.

Chinachoti, P. 1995. Carbohydrates: functionality in foods. Amer J Clin Nutr.

61(suppl):992S-929S.

Curley, LP, Hoseney, RC. 1984. Effects of Corn Sweeteners on Cookie Quality. Cereal

Chem. 61(4): 274-278.

Davis, EA. 1995. Functionality of sugars: physicochemical interactions in foods. Amer J

Clin Nutr. 62(suppl):170S-177S.

Egede, LE, Ellis, C. 2010. Diabetes and depression: Global perspectives. Diabetes Res

Clin Prac. 87:302-312.

[FDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Health Information. 2008. Food

Label Helps Consumers Make Healthier Choices. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and

Drug Administration.

Figlewicz, DP, Ioannou, G, Jay, JB, Kittleson, S, Savard, C, Roth, CL. 2009. Effect of

moderate intake of sweeteners on metabolic health in the rat. Physiol Behav. 98:618-624.

Fisher, C, Carvajal, R. 2008. What is Natural?. Food Tech. 62(11):24-31.

Galić, K, Ćurić, D, Gabrić, D. 2009. Shelf Life of Packaged Bakery Goods—A Review.

Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49(5):405-426.

Gallagher, E, O’Brien, CM, Scannell, AGM, Arendt, EK. 2003. Evaluation of sugar

replacers in short dough biscuit production. J Food Eng. 56:261-263.

Işik, S, Alkan, S, Toppare, L, Cianga, I, Yağci, Y. 2003. Immobilization of invertase and

glucose oxidase in poly 2-methylbutyl-2-(3-thienyl) acetate/polypyrrole matrices. Euro

Poly J. 39:2375-2381.

Jones, JM. 2009. Dietary Sweeteners Containing Fructose: Overview of a Workshop on

the State of the Science. J Nutr. 139(Suppl):1210S-1213S.

Jordan, S. 1924. Commercial Invert Sugar. Indust Eng Chem. 16(3):307-310.

Kweon, M, Slade, L, Levine, H, Martin, R, Souza, E. 2009. Exploration of Sugar

Functionality in Sugar-Snap and Wire-Cut Cookie Baking: Implications for Potential

Sucrose Replacement or Reduction. Cereal Chem. 86(4):425-433.

29

Michel-Cuello, C, Juárez-Flores, BI, Aguirre-Rivera, JR. Pinos-Rodríguez, JM. 2008.

Quantitative Characterization of Nonstructural Carbohydrates of Mezcal Agave (Agave

salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dick). J Agric Food Chem. 56(14):5753-5757.

Mundt, S, Wedzicha, BL. 2007. A kinetic model for browning in the baking of biscuits:

Effects of water activity and temperature. LWT. 40:1078-1082.

Narváez-Zapata, JA, Sánchez-Teyer, LF. 2009. Agave as a Raw Material: Recent

Technologies and Applications. Recent Patents Biotech. 3:185-191.

Ohr, LM. 2009. Defeating Diabetes. Food Tech. 63(11):59-62.

Parker, K, Salas, M, Nwosu, VC. 2010. High fructose corn syrup: Production, uses and

public health concerns. Biotech Molec Biol Rev. 5(5):71-78.

Phillips, KM, Carlsen, MH, Blomhoff, R. 2009. Total Antioxidant Content of

Alternatives to Refined Sugar. J Amer Diet Assoc. 109:64-71.

Pareyt, B, Talhaoui, F, Kerckhofs, G, Brijs, K, Goesaert, H, Wevers, M, Delcour, JA.

2009. The role of sugar and fat in sugar-snap cookies: Structural and textural properties. J

Food Eng. 90:400-408.

Pszczola, DE. 2008. Sweeteners for the 21st Century. Food Tech. 62(11):49-57.

Pszczola, DE. 2010. ‘Stealth Health’ for Kids. Food Tech. 64(5):51-63.

Ramírez-Jiménez, A, Guerra-Hernández, E, García-Villanova, B. 2000. Browning

Indicators in Bread. J Agric Food Chem. 48:4176-4181.

Sanjay, G, Sugunan, S. 2005. Invertase immobilised on montmorillonite: reusability

enhancement and reduction in leaching. Catal Comm. 6:81-86.

Safarik, I, Sabatkova, Z, Safarikova, M. 2009. Invert sugar formation with

Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells encapsulated in magnetically responsive alginate

microparticles. J Magnet Magnetic Mater. 321:1478-1481.

Sloan, AE. 2007. Great Ideas from Around the World. Food Tech. 61(10):20-33.

Sloan, AE. 2010. Top 10 Functional Food Trends. Food Tech. 64(4):22-41.

Sloan, AE. 2011. Top 10 Food Trends. Food Tech. 65(4):24-41.

Teff, KL, Grudziak, J, Townsend, RR, Dunn, TN, Grant, RW, Adams, SH, Keim, NL,

Cummings, BP, Stanhope, KL, Havel, PJ. 2009. Endocrine and Metabolic Effects of

30

Consuming Fructose- and Glucose-Sweetened Beverages with Meals in Obese Men and

Women: Influence of Insulin Resistance on Plasma Triglyceride Responses. J Clin

Endocrin Metab. 94(5):1562-1569.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture; [HHS] U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (USDA and HHS). 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th ed.

Washington (DC): U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vuilleumier, S. 1993. Worldwide production of high-fructose syrup and crystalline

fructose. Amer J Clin Nutr. 58(Suppl):733S-736S.

White, JS. 2009. Misconceptions about High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Is it Uniquely

Responsible for Obesity, Reactive Dicarbonyl Compounds, and Advanced Glycation

Endproducts?. J Nutr. 139(Suppl):1219S-1227S.

Yang, BY, Montgomery, R. 2007. Alkaline degradation of invert sugar from molasses.

Biores Tech. 98:3084-3089.

Zoulias, EI, Piknis, S, Oreopoulou, V. 2000. Effect of sugar replacement by polyols and

acesulfame-K on properties of low-fat cookies. J Sci Food Agric. 80:2049-2056.

31

CHAPTER TWO

ANALYTICAL COMPARISON OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, INVERT

SUGAR, LIGHT AGAVE NECTAR, AND AMBER AGAVE NECTAR

AS INGREDIENTS IN THE BAKING PROCESS

Introduction

Consumer demands are highly influential factors in the food industry, as

companies pursue improved product sales. Numerous media reports have suggested that

consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a common sweetener ingredient, may

contribute to the development of serious health concerns. This media attention is based

on the results of certain research studies, which have correlated HFCS consumption with

negative changes in liver health (Figlewicz and others 2009), weight gain, and even

obesity (Bocarsly and others 2010). Scientific research and media attention has led to a

negative perception of HFCS among consumers, as well as the need for replacement

sweetener ingredients.

Since HFCS became available to the food industry in the late 1960’s, its presence

as a food ingredient has grown to now account for 40% of the added caloric sweeteners in

the American diet (Bocarsly and others 2010; Parker and others 2010). In terms of sugar

composition, HFCS contains fructose:glucose ratios of 0.7 or 1.2, which equate to 42%

fructose (HFCS-42) or 55% fructose (HFCS-55), respectively (Akhavan and Anderson

2007; White 2009). HFCS-55 is often used to sweeten beverages, and HFCS-42 is an

ingredient for a variety of foods, including baked products (Akhavan and Anderson 2007;

Parker and others 2010). While some beverage producers have already replaced HFCS,

32

the baking industry is another food sector that will likely consider the reformulation of

products for the removal of HFCS.

Functional roles of sugar in the baking process are an indication of the properties

in replacement ingredients that should be similar to HFCS. Sugars can influence the

sweetness, browning, structural development, and water activity (aw) of sweet baked

products (Davis 1995). Sweetness intensity varies between different types of sugar

molecules, indicating that the sugar composition of an ingredient will affect its perceived

sweetness. With sucrose as the reference sugar at a sweetness index of 1.0, fructose has a

higher relative sweetness at 1.3, and glucose has a lower relative sweetness at 0.56 (Davis

1995; Parker and others 2010). The browning or color development observed in baked

foods is typically a result of the Maillard reaction, which requires water, a reducing

group, and a molecule containing an amine for the initiation step of the reaction; in

baking, a reducing sugar has the reducing group that takes part in this reaction (Davis

1995; Charissou and others 2007; Mundt and Wedzicha 2007). In semi-sweet short dough

biscuits, such as cookies, high sugar contents impact dough mixing and have a

subsequent effect on final product texture (Gallagher and others 2003). When sugar

competes with flour for water, gluten development is inhibited at the mixing stage,

leading to a more crumbly post-baked texture (Gallagher and others 2003). Interactions

between sugar and water molecules also affect aw, a critical factor for food product shelf

life (Chinachoti 1995; Galić and others 2009).

Additional influential factors for the selection of alternative sweeteners are

current consumer guided trends related to the food industry. Efforts to improve the diets

33

of children have emphasized sugar reduction, and survey results indicate that 37% of

mothers are striving to restrict HFCS in their children’s diets (Sloan 2010). Natural foods

continue to be a growing market, based on the consumer belief that natural products are

better for both consumers and the environment (Fisher and Carvajal 2008). Specific

health concerns, including diabetes, have also influenced the food industry. An increasing

number of products are formulated to yield a low glycemic index for marketing towards

diabetics (Kweon and others 2009; Ohr 2009). Characteristics associated with one or

more of these trends would be highly desirable in a replacement sugar or sweetening

ingredient.

A possible alternative to HFCS is invert sugar (IS), which is currently used for

multiple food industry applications. An IS contains equimolar amounts of fructose and

glucose molecules that are generated from the acid or enzymatic hydrolysis of sucrose

(Yang and Montgomery 2007; Safrik and others 2009). The use of IS as a replacement

for HFCS may be beneficial to the baking industry, because HFCS could be eliminated

from ingredient labels and thereby potentially improve consumer perception of products.

Agave nectar, a sweetener obtained from the sap of the agave plant, may be

applicable for replacing HFCS in baking. The final agave nectar product is a syrup

produced through thermal, acid, or enzymatic hydrolysis of agave sap (Phillips and others

2009; White 2009). Depending on the amount of processing, its color can vary between

light agave (LA) or amber agave (AA). The sugar composition of agave nectar is

approximately 85% fructose (Jones 2009), with glucose, sucrose, xylose, and maltose

making up the remaining sugar percentage (Michel-Cuello and others 2008). Agave

34

nectar’s natural raw material and low glycemic index (Phillips and others 2009) indicate

that product reformulations containing this ingredient would follow current trends in the

food industry.

The objective of this study is to compare the sweeteners of HFCS, IS, LA, and

AA, in terms of their functionality during the baking process and effects on product

characteristics using a cookie model.

Materials and Methods

Sweeteners

The 4 sweeteners used for this study were: HFCS (IsoClear® 42% High Fructose

Corn Syrup, Lot# D014916, Cargill, Incorporated, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.), IS

(FreshVert® Invert Sugar Creamed, Lot# 81292, Domino Foods, Inc., Yonkers, NY,

U.S.A.), LA (Domino® Organic Light Agave Nectar, Lot# J1142B5, Domino Foods,

Inc., Yonkers, NY, U.S.A.), and AA (Domino® Organic Amber Agave Nectar, Lot#

J120345, Domino Foods, Inc., Yonkers, NY, U.S.A.). All of the sweeteners were syrup

consistency fluids.

Dough and Cookie Treatments

Each of the sweeteners was used to prepare separate dough and cookie treatments.

Sample formulations and preparation procedures for the doughs and cookies were

identical, except for the sweetener.

35

Data Collection Procedure

Instrumental analyses were conducted on triplicate samples of the sweeteners.

Data was collected for brix, viscosity, pH, specific gravity, moisture content, aw, and

color of the sweeteners.

There were 3 trials of dough and cookie preparation for instrumental analyses. Per

trial, 1 batch of dough was mixed for each sweetener. A portion of the dough was

reserved for instrumental analyses, and a portion of the dough was used to prepare

samples of the cookies. Data for specific gravity, pH, moisture content, aw, and color of

the dough was collected in triplicate on sampling day 0 (day of dough mixing). Data for

diameter, height, pH, moisture content, aw, weight, hardness, and color of the cookies was

collected in triplicate on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10 post-bake.

Samples of the 4 cookie treatments were also produced for sensory evaluation.

Data was collected from a consumer panel, which evaluated the sweeteners in terms of

their effects on the cookies. The attributes evaluated were sweetness, texture, moistness,

taste acceptability, and appearance acceptability.

Sweetener Analyses

pH

The pH was measured using a pH meter (ORION pH Meter Model 420A, Thermo

Fisher Scientific, Beverly, MA, U.S.A.), which was calibrated with pH 4.01 Buffer

(Thermo Fisher Scientific, Beverly, MA, U.S.A.) and pH 7.00 Buffer (Thermo Fisher

Scientific, Beverly, MA, U.S.A.). The pH was measured by placing the probe into an

undiluted sweetener sample.

36

Water Activity (aw)

The aw was measured using a water activity meter (AquaLab LITE Water Activity

Meter, Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA, U.S.A.). The water activity meter is

accurate to within 0.015 aw (AquaLab…2007-2009). For each sample, a 15 mL

disposable sample cup (Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, U.S.A.) was filled to ½ capacity

and loaded in the instrument. After completing a measurement cycle, the instrument

reported the aw value of the sample.

Moisture Content

Moisture content of each sample was measured using a moisture analyzer (HB43-

S Halogen Moisture Analyzer, Mettler-Toledo AG Laboratory & Weighing

Technologies, Greifenee, CH). The moisture analyzer has a repeatability of ± 0.10 % for

a 2 g sample (Operating . . . [date unknown]). For each sample, a disposable ¼” x 4” foil

sample pan was placed in the instrument, before taring the internal balance. Sample was

added to the pan, until reaching a target weight of 3.0 g. The instrument was set at a

temperature of 105°C for the drying process. Data was reported as percent moisture

content.

Color

Color was measured using a colorimeter (Minolta Chroma Meter CR-400,

Minolta Co., Ltd, Osaka, JP), with an attached data processor (Minolta Data Processor

DP-400, Minolta Co., Ltd, Osaka, JP). The colorimeter was calibrated in the Y x y color

space using a white calibration plate (CR-A43, Minolta Co., Ltd, Osaka, JP); the

calibration procedure was completed in triplicate.

37

For sample preparation, a 6 oz. sample bag (Whirl-Pak Sample Bag, Nasco,

Modesto, CA, U.S.A.) was filled to approximately 2/3 capacity with sample. Then, the

sample bag was rolled down and pinched closed to remove air from the headspace. For

color measurement, the lens of the colorimeter was placed on the surface of the sample

bag. Values were recorded for L* (lightness, L* = 0 = black and L* = 100 = white), a* (-

a* = greenness and +a* = redness), b* (-b* = blueness and +b* = yellowness), C*

(chroma), and H* (hue) (Baixauli and others 2008; Ramírez-Jiménez and others 2000).

Specific Gravity

The procedure for measuring specific gravity was adapted from the method

described by Penfield and Campbell (1990). First, an empty 45 mL glass container, with

an even rim, was weighed using an analytical balance (B204-S, Mettler Toledo

International Inc., Columbus, OH, U.S.A.). Then, the container was filled with distilled

water at room temperature; fullness was judged at eye level. The weight of the water

filled container was recorded. After emptying and drying the container, it was filled to

half capacity with sample and tapped on a countertop 12 times. Then, the container was

filled with excess sample and again tapped 12 times. The excess sample was removed

with a spatula, before recording the weight of the sample filled container. Specific gravity

was calculated by the following equation:

The same container was used for all samples, with cleaning and drying between each

sample.

38

Brix

Brix was measured using a refractometer (Refracto 30PX, Mettler Toledo GmbH,

Schwerzenbach, CH). The Refracto 30PX has an accuracy of ± 0.2 % Brix (Refracto . . .

2003). The refractometer was calibrated with distilled water. For sample measurement, a

drop of sample was placed on the measurement cell of the instrument. The brix

measurement of the sample was reported by the instrument in units of % Brix. Data was

recorded for the HFCS, LA, and AA sweeteners. However, data was not recorded for the

IS sweetener. Due to the opaqueness of the IS, light from the refractometer did not

penetrate this sweetener, and the brix could not accurately be measured.

Viscosity

Viscosity was measured using a viscometer (Brookfield Viscometer Model LVF,

Brookfield Engineering Laboratory, Stoughton, MA, U.S.A.). For each sweetener, the

four spindle attachments (LV1, LV2, LV3, LV4) were tested to determine which was

most appropriate for measuring viscosity. The instrumental reading was multiplied by the

factor for the spindle, yielding a final calculated viscosity value in units of centipoise

(cP).

39

Formula and Baking Procedure for Dough and Cookies

Table 2.1: Dough and Cookie Formulaa

Ingredient Product Name Manufacturer

Weight

per

Formula

(g)

Volume

per

Formulac

HFCSb IsoClear® 42% High

Fructose Corn Syrup

Cargill, Incorporated,

Minneapolis, MN 241 0.75 cup

ISb FreshVert® Invert

Sugar Creamed

Domino Foods, Inc.,

Yonkers, NY 260 0.75 cup

LAb Domino® Organic

Light Agave Nectar

Domino Foods, Inc.,

Yonkers, NY 240 0.75 cup

AAb Domino® Organic

Amber Agave Nectar

Domino Foods, Inc.,

Yonkers, NY 239 0.75 cup

All-Purpose

Flour

Pillsbury® BEST All-

Purpose Flour

J.M. Smucker

Company, Orrville,

Ohio

231 1.33 cup

Baking Soda Arm & Hammer®

Baking Soda

Church & Dwight Co.,

Inc., Princeton, NJ 2.9 0.5 tsp

Egg Farm Fresh Grade A

Eggs Large

Eggland’s Best, Inc.,

Jeffersonville, PA 50 1 egg

Salt Plain Salt Morton Salt, Inc.,

Chicago, IL 2.2 0.25 tsp

Vanilla Extract McCormick® Pure

Vanilla Extract

McCormick &

Company, Inc., Hunt

Valley, MD

3.6 1 tsp

Butter Land O’Lakes®

Unsalted Butter

Land O’Lakes, Inc.,

Saint Paul, MN 115 0.5 cup

aThe formula was adapted from the Domino® Sugar Agave Chocolate Chip Cookies

recipe (Agave . . . c2011). bOnly one sweetener (HFCS, IS, LA, or AA) was used per batch.

cThe formula was developed based on volumetric measurements of the ingredients. The

ingredients were then weighed, and batches for the trials were prepared by weight.

40

All ingredients used for baking were allowed to come to room temperature and

weighed using scales (US-Magnum-1000XR, US Balance; Vincennes, IN, U.S.A.;

DYMO Model M3, DYMO; Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.). Cookie batter was prepared using a 5-

speed handheld mixer (250-Watt Mixer Model MX217, Black & Decker Corporation,

Towson, MD, U.S.A.), with 2 wire beater attachments. The flour, baking soda, and salt

were combined with a spatula in a mixing bowl. The butter, vanilla extract, and

sweetener were mixed in a separate bowl for 2 min at speed 2. The egg was added and

mixed for 1 min at speed 2, followed by an additional minute at speed 3. Then, the

combined ingredients of flour, baking soda, and salt were slowly added during 2 min of

mixing at speed 2. To fully incorporate all ingredients, mixing continued for 1 min at

speed 2 until well blended.

Using a 0.5 oz. leveled scoop (Stainless Steel Scoop Item #676, Norpro®,

Everett, WA, U.S.A.), dough was placed 2” apart on sheet pans (Baker's Best® 17¼ x

11½ x 1” Large Cookie Pan, Wilton Industries, Inc., Woodbridge, IL, U.S.A.) lined with

parchment paper (Reynolds® Parchment Paper, Reynolds Packaging Group, Richmond,

VA, U.S.A.). Two sheet pans, each holding 12 dough scoops, were prepared per batch of

dough. The baking step consisted of 9 min at 375°F (190.5°C) in a conventional oven

(Electrolux ICON Model # E36DF76EPS, Electrolux Home Products Inc., Augusta, GA,

U.S.A.), with the sheet pans being rotated after 4.5 min. Sheet pans were placed on the

center rack of the oven and baked individually. After being removed from the oven, the

baked cookies were allowed to cool for 4 min on the sheet pan, before being transferred

to a wire rack using a flat blade spatula. The cookies were left on the wire rack for a 2

41

hour cooling period. Throughout the 10 day holding period for instrumental analysis,

cookies were stored at room temperature in 10 cup rectangular plastic containers with lids

(GladWare® Potluck Size Containers, The Glad Products Company; Oakland, CA,

U.S.A.).

The portion of dough used for instrumental analyses was held at room

temperature in plastic bags (Ziploc® Brand Sandwich Bags, S.C. Johnson & Sons,

Racine, WI, U.S.A.), until data collection and analyses for the dough on sampling day 0

were completed.

Dough Analyses

pH

The pH of the doughs was measured by the same method as described for the

sweeteners. Dough samples were prepared by mixing 10 g of dough with 100 mL of

distilled water in a blender (Osterizer Galante Dual Range 14, John Oster Mfg. Co.,

Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.). The pH probe was placed in the dough and water mixture.

Water Activity (aw)

The aw of the doughs was measured by the same instrumental method as described

for the sweeteners.

Moisture Content

Moisture content of the doughs was measured by the same instrumental method as

described for the sweeteners.

After reviewing the data for the 1st trial, moisture content measurement was added

to the data collection for the doughs.

42

Color

Color of the doughs was measured by the same instrumental method as described

for the sweeteners. Dough samples were prepared by placing 2 scoops (Stainless Steel

Scoop Item #676, Norpro®, Everett, WA, U.S.A.) of dough (1.0 oz) in a 6 oz. sample

bag (Whirl-Pak Sample Bag, Nasco, Modesto, CA, U.S.A.). The sides of the bag were

pressed against the dough to remove all air around the sample, before the bag was rolled

down and pinched closed. For color measurement, the lens of the colorimeter was placed

on the surface of the sample bag.

Specific Gravity

Specific gravity of the doughs was measured by the same method as described for

the sweeteners (Penfield and Campbell 1990).

Cookie Analyses

pH

The pH of the cookies was measured by the same instrumental method as

described for the sweeteners. Samples were prepared by mixing 10 g of cookie with 100

mL of distilled water in a blender (Osterizer Galante Dual Range 14, John Oster Mfg.

Co., Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.). The pH probe was placed in the cookie and water mixture.

Water Activity (aw)

The aw of the cookies was measured by the same instrumental method as

described for the sweeteners. Samples were ground in a blender (Osterizer Galante Dual

Range 14, John Oster Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.), before being placed in a

sample cup.

43

Moisture Content

Moisture content of the cookies was measured using the same instrumental

method as described for the sweeteners. Samples were ground in a blender (Osterizer

Galante Dual Range 14, John Oster Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.), before being

added to the foil sample pan.

After reviewing the data for the 1st trial, moisture content measurement was added

to the data collection for the cookies on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10.

Color

Color of the cookies was measured using the same colorimeter instrument and

calibration process as described for the sweeteners. Top color, crumb color, and bottom

color were measured for the cookies. Top and bottom color were measured by placing the

lens of the colorimeter directly on the sample surface. Crumb color was measured by

cutting a sample in half on the diameter, and placing the colorimeter lens directly on the

interior surface.

Weight

Weight of the cookies was measured in g using an analytical balance (B204-S,

Mettler Toledo International Inc., Columbus, OH, U.S.A). A set of 3 samples was held

for weight measurement throughout the sampling period for each trial.

Diameter and Height

Diameter and height of the cookies were measured in mm using a digital caliper

(150MM Digital Caliper, Hangzhou Maxwell Tools Co., ltd.; Zhejiang, CN). A set of 3

44

samples was held for diameter and height measurements throughout the sampling period

for each trial.

Hardness

Hardness of the cookies was measured using a texture analyzer (TA.XTplus

Texture Analyzer, Texture Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, NY. U.S.A.), and data was

recorded via computer software (Exponent Version 4.0.8.0, Stable Micro Systems Ltd.,

Godalming, Surrey, GB). The method was adapted from the AACC (74-09) Standard

Method for measuring bread firmness, because the cookies had a texture similar to

bread/cake. The texture analyzer was set with a 5 kg load cell and samples were placed

on the TA-90 platform (Texture Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, NY, U.S.A.). Samples

were penetrated by a 2 mm diameter TA-52 stainless steel punch probe (Texture

Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, NY, U.S.A.). The probe operated at a pre-test speed of

2.0 mm/sec, a test speed of 1.0 mm/sec, and a post-test speed of 10.0 mm/sec. The probe

penetrated 5.13 mm into the samples; this distance was 25% of the average height for

preliminary samples used to develop the procedure. Data for hardness was recorded as

the peak force (N) at the maximum penetration distance of 5.13 mm.

Sensory Evaluation

Sensory attributes of the cookies were assessed through a consumer panel, which

was conducted in the 6-booth panel room of the Clemson University Sensory Lab. The 68

untrained panelists were recruited from Clemson University faculty, staff, and students.

The panel was open for a 6 hour time period, during which participants could complete

the approximately 15 minute sample evaluation and sensory ballot.

45

Samples for sensory evaluation were prepared 3 days prior to the panel and stored

at room temperature in 10 cup plastic containers with lids (GladWare® Potluck Size

Containers, The Glad Products Company; Oakland, CA, U.S.A.). On the morning of the

panel, samples were cut in half, and half sample portions were placed in 4 oz. plastic cups

with lids (P400-Translucent Plastic Soufflé Cup, Solo Inc., Urbana, IL, U.S.A.).

At the panel, each panelist was provided with an informational letter about the

study, 4 samples (1 sample of each cookie treatment), water, and 2 unsalted crackers for

pallet cleansing. The 4 sweeteners were stated in the information letter, which can be

referenced in Appendix D. The samples were labeled with 3-digit codes. The ballot was

presented in computerized form using Sensory Information Management Software (SIMS

2000, Sensory Computer Software, Morristown, NJ, U.S.A.). Appendix D includes the

ballot in text format.

The first section of the ballot asked panelists for the following demographic

information: gender, age category, and frequency of sweet baked product consumption.

Then, the ballot directed panelists to taste one of the coded samples and complete the

corresponding evaluation; the sample order was randomized by the computer software.

Sweetness, texture, and moistness were evaluated by scoring on 15 cm unstructured

scales, with anchor phrases at both ends. The anchors were “Low Sweetness”/”High

Sweetness” for sweetness, “Very Soft”/”Very Firm” for texture, and “Very Dry”/”Very

Moist” for moistness. Taste acceptability and appearance acceptability were evaluated on

5-point hedonic scales of 1—“Dislike Very Much,” 2—“Dislike Moderately,” 3—

“Neither Like Nor Dislike,” 4—“Like Moderately,” 5—“Like Very Much.” When

46

completing the hedonic scales, panelists were only presented with the phrases, rather than

the numerical rankings. Finally, the ballot included an opportunity for panelists to

provide optional comments about each sample.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc.,

Cary, NC, U.S.A.). Means and standard deviations were calculated for the instrumental

data; significant differences between the sweeteners, doughs, and cookies were

determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey Method. Sensory evaluation

results were analyzed for means, standard deviations, frequency, and significant

differences by ANOVA. For this study, significant differences were defined as P < 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Sweeteners

In addition to the specifications provided by the manufacturers’ information

sheets, the properties of the sweeteners were experimentally measured through

instrumental analyses. Both similarities and differences among the sweeteners were

demonstrated for brix, specific gravity, viscosity, pH, moisture content, aw, and color

(Table 2.2). Overall, the results revealed a high degree of consistency between the agave

sweeteners (LA and AA), while HFCS deviated from the other sweeteners for most of the

measured properties.

Brix

Brix data (Table 2.2) reflected total sugar concentrations (% w/w), since the solid

portions of the sweeteners were sugar molecules with only trace amounts of ash (CI

47

2008; ASR 2011; DSI 2011a; DSI 2011b). LA and AA both had values of 75.5% brix,

demonstrating equal sugar concentrations for these sweeteners. The experimental brix

values for LA and AA fell within the ranges provided on the manufacturer’s product

information sheets (DSI 2011a; DSI 2011b). At 70.8% brix, HFCS had a lower (P < 0.05)

sugar concentration than the agave sweeteners; this value was within the range for total

solids percentage on the manufacturer’s product information sheet (CI 2008). Brix data

for IS could not be accurately measured by this experimental procedure, because the

opaque nature of IS prevented the penetration of light from the refractometer. Even

though experimental data was not recorded, the manufacturer’s product information sheet

specified a 76.7 77.3% brix range for IS (ASR 2011), giving it the highest sugar

concentration of the sweeteners.

Specific Gravity

Specific gravity measurements (Table 2.2) compared the densities of the

sweeteners. In relation to the other sweeteners, HFCS had a lower (P < 0.05) specific

gravity. As previously noted, HFCS also had the smallest sugar concentration of the

sweeteners, which may have contributed to its lower specific gravity, or density. The

specific gravity measurements for IS, LA, and AA were not different (P ≥ 0.05), but IS

had the highest specific gravity value.

Viscosity

Viscosity measurements (Table 2.2) revealed the following trend for increasing

viscosity of the sweeteners: HFCS < LA < AA < IS. At a value of 32116.7 cP, IS had a

higher viscosity (P < 0.05) than the other sweeteners. Alternatively, HFCS had a lower (P

48

< 0.05) viscosity, with a value of 156.5 cP. The magnitude of this difference suggested

that viscosity was a particularly divergent property of the sweeteners. Viscosity

measurements of 1165.8 cP for LA and 1209.2 cP for AA were not different (P ≥ 0.05).

However, the higher magnitude of the AA viscosity was expected, since the manufacturer

of the agave sweeteners stated that AA has a slightly thicker consistency than LA

(Cooking…c2012).

pH

The pH measurements (Table 2.2) revealed that HFCS and IS were more acidic (P

< 0.05) than the agave sweeteners. The pH values of 3.62 for HFCS and 3.51 for IS were

similar in magnitude and not different (P ≥ 0.05) from each other. A comparable

relationship was observed for the agave sweeteners, which were not different (P ≥ 0.05)

at pH values of 4.41 for LA and 4.32 for AA. Values for all of the sweeteners fell within

the pH ranges provided on the manufacturers’ product information sheets (CI 2008; ASR

2011; DSI 2011a; DSI 2011b).

Moisture Content

Moisture content measurements (% w/w) (Table 2.2) were not different (P ≥ 0.05)

for the IS, LA, and AA, since the values for these sweeteners fell in the 9.63 10.81%

range. At 18.80%, the moisture content of HFCS was higher (P < 0.05) than the other

sweeteners. This experimental moisture content value for HFCS was below the moisture

range of 28.5 29.5% given by the manufacturer’s product information sheet (CI 2008).

The low experimental value suggested that the HFCS samples were not fully dried, when

the moisture analyzer instrument indicated the completion of the drying cycle. While

49

moisture information was not provided by the manufacturers of the other sweeteners, the

brix data (Table 2.2) may be an indication that the experimental moisture measurements

for these sweeteners were also low. An approximation of the moisture content of each

sweetener was expected to be: Moisture Content (%) = 100% brix (%); this

relationship is valid, since the sweeteners were aqueous solutions of sugar molecules and

the brix data indicated the amount of sugar. Based on this relationship for moisture

content and brix, the experimental moisture measurements determined by the moisture

analyzer instrument for IS, LA, and AA were below the expected levels. As stated by

Edwards (2007), confectionary products, which have high sugar contents, can be difficult

to dry, without charring.

Water Activity (aw)

Measurements of aw (Table 2.2) continued to reveal similarities between LA and

AA, with both sweeteners having aw values of 0.659; this value was lower (P < 0.05) than

the aw values of the other sweeteners. LA and AA had the highest fructose contents

among the sweeteners. Fructose is known to be more water soluble than glucose and

other common sugar molecules (Davis 1995). Compared to other sugars, the solubility of

fructose suggests that it could interact with and restrict more water molecules, leading to

a decrease in aw. Therefore, fructose level may play a role in determining the aw of the

sweeteners. HFCS had a lower fructose content and a higher aw (P < 0.05) than the other

sweeteners.

50

Color

Color measurements (Table 2.2) for L*, a*, b*, H*, and C* demonstrated multiple

variations among the sweeteners. L* values, which had a scale of L* =

0(black) 100(white), indicated the following order for increasing lightness of the

sweeteners: AA < LA < IS < HFCS. The L* values were different (P < 0.05) for each

sweetener. The high L* value of 60.96 for HFCS reflected its clear appearance (CI 2008).

Due to its opaque appearance, IS also had a high L* value of 51.82.

During the extraction of fructans from the agave cores, cooking conditions

promote the formation of Maillard compounds (Narváez-Zapata and Sánchez-Teyer

2009); this processing step may be a reason for the color of the agave sweeteners. The

manufacturer states that a longer processing time gives AA a darker color than LA

(Cooking…c2012). L* values of 37.34 for LA and 24.22 for AA conveyed the expected

darker color of AA. Compared to the other sweeteners, LA had higher (P < 0.05) a* and

b* values, indicating the presence of more intense red and yellow tones. C*, which is

defined by the equation C* = (a*2 + b*

2)1/2

, depends on the combined intensity of the a*

and b* values (Baixauli and others 2008). Therefore, LA also had a higher (P < 0.05) C*

value than the other sweeteners.

51

Table 2.2: Brix, Specific Gravity, Viscosity, pH, Moisture Content, aw, and Color (L*,

a*, b*, H*, C*) of the Sweetenersab

Measurement Sweetener

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Brix (%) 70.8 a

(0.3) NA

75.5 b

(0.8)

75.5 b

(0.4) < 0.0001

Specific Gravity 1.366 a

(0.007)

1.471 b

(0.004)

1.457 b

(0.009)

1.455 b

(0.016) < 0.0001

Viscosity (cP) 156.5 a

(7.1)

32116.7 b

(464.6)

1165.8 c

(33.3)

1209.2 c

(34.1) < 0.0001

pH 3.62 a

(0.05)

3.51 a

(0.10)

4.41 b

(0.06)

4.32 b

(0.06) < 0.0001

Moisture Content

(%)

18.80 a

(1.47)

10.81 b

(0.27)

9.63 b

(0.81)

9.90 b

(0.49) < 0.0001

aw 0.745 a

(0.002)

0.712 b

(0.002)

0.659 c

(0.002)

0.659 c

(0.004) < 0.0001

Color

L* 60.96 a

(1.41)

51.82 b

(0.09)

37.34 c

(2.18)

24.22 d

(0.84) < 0.0001

a* -0.36 a

(0.03)

-1.15 a

(0.02)

14.03 b

(0.41)

3.61 c

(0.81) < 0.0001

b* 2.72 ac

(0.05)

5.10 a

(0.11)

24.11 b

(2.62)

1.13 c

(0.24) < 0.0001

H* 97.54 a

(0.56)

102.71 b

(0.16)

59.69 c

(2.26)

17.35 d

(0.75) < 0.0001

C* 2.74 a

(0.05)

5.23 a

(0.11)

27.90 b

(2.41)

3.62 a

(0.86) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis). n = 3

bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05).

52

Doughs

Effects of the sweeteners at the mixing stage were assessed through instrumental

analyses of the doughs. Certain disparities were observed among the doughs for specific

gravity, pH, moisture content, aw, and color measurements. As with their respective

sweeteners, similarities were identified between the LA and AA doughs. For most

properties, the HFCS and IS doughs deviated from each other, as well as the doughs of

the agave sweeteners.

Specific Gravity

The specific gravity of cookie doughs can reflect the level of air incorporated at

the mixing stage (Swanson and others 1999). Experimental results for larger specific

gravity measurements (Table 2.3) of the doughs indicated higher densities, as well as

possibly less air incorporation. HFCS and IS doughs were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from

each other for specific gravity, but their values were higher (P < 0.05) than the LA and

AA doughs. The LA and AA doughs were not different (P ≥ 0.05) for specific gravity.

While the HFCS sweetener had the lowest specific gravity value among the sweeteners,

the HFCS dough had a higher specific gravity than the LA and AA doughs. This change

in the trend for specific gravity may indicate that the sweeteners had different effects on

the amount of air incorporated at the mixing stage.

pH

As explained by Swanson and others (1999), dough pH is a factor for cookie

spread, since a more acidic dough pH can reduce cookie spread. Measurements of dough

pH (Table 2.3) revealed that the pH of 7.44 for the HFCS dough was lower (P < 0.05)

53

than the other doughs. The pH measurements for the IS, LA, and AA doughs were not

different (P ≥ 0.05) and the values fell in the 7.74 7.75 range. Compared to these

doughs, the pH of the HFCS dough was noticeably lower in magnitude. Differences in

dough pH measurements suggested that HFCS may vary from the other sweeteners in

terms of its effect on cookie spread.

Moisture Content and Water Activity (aw)

Both moisture content and aw measurements (Table 2.3) of the doughs exhibited

the following trend for increasing values: LA < AA < IS < HFCS. Results demonstrated

that aw increased as moisture content increased for all of the doughs. The HFCS dough

had a higher (P < 0.05) moisture content and a higher (P < 0.05) aw than the other

doughs. Results for the LA and AA doughs were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from each other

for moisture content or aw.

Color

Color measurements (Table 2.3) of L*, a*, H*, and C* had different (P < 0.05)

values for each dough. Certain color trends of the doughs were consistent with color

trends for the sweeteners; these parallels potentially demonstrated that sweetener type

played a role in determining dough color. L* values of the doughs followed the same

order for increasing lightness as the sweeteners (Table 2.2), which was: AA < LA < IS <

HFCS. The b* values for all of the doughs were larger in magnitude than the b* values of

their respective sweeteners; this suggested that more intense yellow tones were a physical

property of the doughs, due in part to the yellowness of the egg yolks and butter

incorporated during mixing (Figoni, 2011). The b* value for the LA dough was higher (P

54

< 0.05) than the other doughs; this same result was observed for the b* value of the LA

sweetener. The doughs had the following order of increasing C* values: HFCS < IS <

AA < LA. For the HFCS, IS, and AA doughs, C* values all fell within the 22.72 24.94

range, indicating that doughs prepared with these sweeteners had similar combined

intensities of red and yellow tones. The LA dough had a higher (P < 0.05) C* value of

28.11, due to the prominent yellow tones reflected by its b* value.

55

Table 2.3: Specific Gravity, pH, Moisture Content, aw, and Color (L*, a*, b*, H*, C*) of

the Doughsab

Measurement Dough

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Specific Gravityc

1.173 a

(0.008)

1.177 a

(0.007)

1.160 b

(0.008)

1.162 b

(0.008) < 0.0001

pHc

7.44 a

(0.04)

7.75 b

(0.04)

7.75 b

(0.03)

7.74 b

(0.03) < 0.0001

Moisture

Content d

(%)

23.44 a

(0.27)

22.04 b

(0.36)

21.11 c

(0.79)

21.14 c

(0.10) < 0.0001

awc

0.812 a

(0.018)

0.789 b

(0.009)

0.767 c

(0.014)

0.768 c

(0.009) < 0.0001

Colorc

L* 73.89 a

(1.18)

71.03 b

(1.12)

67.39 c

(2.38)

57.27 d

(2.72) < 0.0001

a* 0.00 a

(0.27)

0.44 b

(0.10)

2.09 c

(0.21)

4.69 d

(0.19) < 0.0001

b* 22.72 a

(0.60)

23.86 b

(0.33)

27.92 c

(0.73)

24.49 b

(0.61) < 0.0001

H* 89.72 a

(0.63)

88.94 b

(0.24)

85.73 c

(0.41)

79.16 d

(0.34) < 0.0001

C* 22.72 a

(0.60)

23.86 b

(0.33)

28.11 c

(0.88)

24.94 d

(0.62) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for the dough trials.

bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 9

dn = 6

56

Cookies

The effects of the sweeteners on a post-bake product were assessed through

instrumental analyses of the cookies. When the baking industry uses HFCS as a

sweetener for cookie products, formulations typically include a combination of HFCS

and sucrose (Curley and Hoseney 1984). HFCS can account for 10–30% of the total

sweetener in hard cookies, and 60–75% of the total sweetener in soft-baked cookies

(Curley and Hoseney 1984). If utilized as replacements for HFCS, the IS, LA, and AA

sweeteners may also be added as percentages of the total sweetener or sugar ingredients

in cookie formulations. However, in order to isolate the effects of the sweeteners for this

study, each cookie treatment was prepared with HFCS, IS, LA, or AA as the only

sweetener ingredient.

Variations in diameter, height, pH, moisture content, aw, weight, hardness, and

color were observed among the cookies, but only certain differences were statistically

significant. Stability of the post-bake products was evaluated by comparing instrumental

analyses data for the cookies at sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. Results demonstrated

similar trends for changes in physical properties of the cookies over time.

The diameter, height, and pH measurements were not different (P ≥ 0.05) by

sampling day, as recorded in Appendix C (Table C.10). Additionally, trends of changes

over time were not observed for these properties. Therefore, diameter, height, and pH

measurements (Table 2.4) of the cookies were compared as the combined means of the 4

sampling days. Moisture content, aw, weight, and hardness measurements (Table 2.5 and

57

Table 2.6) were compared as means of each sampling day, since these properties did

show trends or statistically significant changes over time.

Crust, crumb, and bottom color measurements were recorded in Appendix C

(Table C.10) as means of each sampling day. This data showed a general trend for color

darkening over time, but only certain changes were statistically significant. The means of

each sampling day for the crust L* values and crumb L* values (Table 2.5) were included

in the Results and Discussion section as examples of this trend. Crust, crumb, and bottom

color measurements (Table 2.7) were also compared as the combined means of the 4 four

sampling days, to demonstrate the overall color variations between the cookies.

Diameter and Height

Measurements of diameter and height showed deviations in cookie spread during

baking. The following order was observed for increasing diameter measurements (Table

2.4) of the cookies: HFCS < IS < LA < AA. When compared, diameters of the HFCS and

IS cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from each other; also, the diameters of the LA

and AA cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from each other. Results did show that the

diameters of the LA and AA cookies were greater (P < 0.05) than those of the HFCS and

IS cookies. According to the numerical data, the overall range in diameter measurements

was 45.77–47.00 mm, revealing a variation of less than 1.50 mm between the cookies.

Therefore, sweetener type had a minimal effect on cookie spread and final product

diameter, as graphically demonstrated in Figure 2.1.

The experimental results for diameter measurements coincided with a study by

Kweon and others (2009), which showed that cookies prepared using fructose had larger

58

diameters than cookies prepared using glucose. LA and AA had the highest fructose

contents among the sweeteners, and the cookies prepared using these sweeteners had the

largest diameters. HFCS had the lowest fructose content of the sweeteners, and the HFCS

cookie had the smallest diameter. Compared to the other cookies, a more acidic dough pH

(Table 2.3) may have also contributed to the smaller diameter of the HFCS cookie. As

explained by Swanson and others (2009), the low pH of the HFCS dough was expected to

reduce cookie spread.

Height measurements (Table 2.4) yielded the following order of increasing values

for the cookies: AA < LA < IS < HFCS. As shown in Figure 2.1, the height order was

reversed for the diameters of the cookies, indicating that height decreased with additional

horizontal spread. A reverse pattern for diameter and height measurements was also

observed in the previously mentioned study by Kweon and others (2009). In the

experimental results, the height of the HFCS cookie was greater (P < 0.05) than the other

cookies. While the LA and AA cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) in height from each

other, they were lower (P < 0.05) in height than the HFCS and IS cookies. The height

range of 19.86–21.89 mm was wider than the diameter range of the cookies, suggesting

that sweetener type could potentially have a more noticeable effect on the physical

dimension of height.

pH

The pH measurements (Table 2.4) were different (P < 0.05) for each cookie,

indicating an effect of sweetener type on pH. The following order of increasing pH

59

values was observed for the cookies: LA < AA < IS < HFCS. All of the cookies had

relatively neutral pH values in the 7.30–7.72 range.

Moisture Content

As shown by Table 2.5, a decrease in moisture content values during the sampling

period was detected for all of the cookies. The experimental results followed the expected

trend, since previous studies have demonstrated a reduction in moisture content over time

of baked products, such as bread (He and Hoseney 1990; Ahlborn and others 2005). For

the cookies, the change in moisture content throughout the 10 day sampling period was

not significant (P ≥ 0.05).

Based on Figure 2.2, the IS cookie appeared to have a more noticeable decrease in

moisture content during the sampling time. The numerical measurements (Table 2.5) also

revealed that the IS cookie had the largest overall decrease in moisture content.

Therefore, the results suggested that IS may lead to a higher level of moisture loss,

compared to the other sweeteners.

In Table 2.6, the moisture contents of the cookies were compared for each

sampling day. It was notable that the HFCS cookie had the highest moisture content on

all 4 sampling days, even though it was only significantly higher (P < 0.05) on sampling

days 3, 5, and 10. Moisture contents of the LA and AA cookies were not different (P ≥

0.05) from each other on any of the sampling days. Both the HFCS and IS cookies were

higher (P < 0.05) in moisture content than the LA and AA cookies on sampling days 0, 3,

and 5. By sampling day 10, the moisture content of the IS cookie was still higher in

magnitude than the LA and AA cookies, but the difference was no longer significant (P ≥

60

0.05). In general, the results suggested that formulations containing HFCS could lead to

higher final product moisture contents, while formulations containing the agave

sweeteners could yield lower final product moisture contents.

Water Activity (aw)

As shown by the aw measurements in Table 2.5, all of the cookies exhibited a

reduction in aw values during the 10 day sampling period. For the HFCS, IS, and AA

cookies, there was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in aw between sampling days 0 and 3.

While aw of the LA cookie did not change significantly throughout the sampling period,

its largest decrease in aw did occur between sampling days 0 and 3. Figure 2.3 further

demonstrates that there were minimal changes in aw measurements of the cookies after

sampling day 3. The results suggested that aw stability over time was not affected by

sweetener type, since the cookies exhibited similar trends for changes in aw throughout

the sampling period.

In Table 2.6, aw measurements of the cookies were compared on each sampling

day. The aw measurements on sampling day 0 for the HFCS and IS cookies were higher

(P < 0.05) than those of the LA and AA cookies. For sampling days 3, 5, and 10, aw

measurements of the IS, LA, and AA cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05), while the

HFCS cookie continued to remain higher (P < 0.05) in aw. Therefore, aw results indicated

that HFCS had a dissimilar effect on the aw level of the final product, compared to the

other sweeteners.

In terms of food safety and shelf-life concerns, aw measurements of the cookies

revealed that there was a potential for microbial growth. Mold growth could occur, even

61

at the lower aw range of 0.662–0.666 for the IS, LA, and AA cookies on sampling day 10.

Roessler and Ballenger (1996) documented that unpreserved semi-soft cookies were

susceptible to contamination and growth of an Aspergillus isolate, which required a

minimum aw of 0.65 for growth on a cookie. The end of shelf life for baked products is

often determined by loss of consumer acceptability, rather than microbial spoilage

(Baixauli and others 2008). However, this may not be the case, if baked products are

contaminated and can support growth. The experimental aw results suggested that the

cookies could support microbial growth, making contamination a potential consideration

for production processes involving all of the sweeteners.

Weight

As shown by the weight measurements in Table 2.5, all of the cookies decreased

in weight during the length of the sampling period. While distinct trends of decreasing

values were observed, the changes in weight were not significant (P ≥ 0.05). Figure 2.4

demonstrates that the greatest weight change for all of the cookies occurred between

sampling days 0 and 3. Weight loss of the cookies may have been related to the

previously discussed decrease in moisture content (Table 2.5). Experimental results for

moisture content and weight followed similar patterns, with the largest changes in both

properties taking place between sampling days 0 and 3, followed by only minor

variations after sampling day 3.

In Table 2.6, the weight measurements of the cookies were compared on each

sampling day. At sampling day 0, the HFCS and IS cookies had higher (P < 0.05)

weights than LA and AA cookies. As the holding period continued, the weights of the

62

cookies became more similar, since the HFCS and IS cookies were no longer

significantly higher (P ≥ 0.05) in weight than the AA cookie on sampling days 3, 5, and

10. However, Figure 2.4 depicts that throughout the sampling period, the weights of the

HFCS and IS cookies remained larger in magnitude than the weights of the LA and AA

cookies. A distinct similarity was observed for the HFCS and IS cookies, since the

weights of these cookies differed by 0.036 g or less on sampling days 3, 5, and 10.

Overall, the results suggested that HFCS and IS could lead to higher final product

weights, compared to the agave sweeteners.

Hardness

Data for hardness of the cookies indicated changes in texture over time. When

assessing the shelf stability of a baked product, it is important to consider textural

properties, such as tenderness and compressibility, because changes in these properties

may be associated with loss of freshness or staling (Baixauli and others 2008). For bread

samples, measurements of firmness are used as an indication of staling (Ahlborn and

others 2005). To assess the textural properties of the cookies, the peak force required to

penetrate 25% of the cookie height was recorded as hardness; this force measurement

reflected the firmness of the cookies. The sweeteners examined in this study are

humectants that absorb moisture to yield soft and tender baked products (Labensky and

others 2005). Therefore, the cookies were expected to have the textural characteristics of

soft-baked cookies.

As demonstrated by the hardness measurements in Table 2.5, the peak force

values for all of the cookies increased during the 10 day sampling period. This result

63

followed the expected trend, since previous studies have shown an increase in firmness

during storage for multiple types of baked products, including muffins (Baixauli and

others 2008), sweet rolls (Ruan and others 1996), and bread (He and Hoseney 1990;

Ahlborn and others 2005). The crosslinking between partially solubilized starch and

gluten proteins contributes to the firming of baked products (He and Hoseney 1990). As

explained by He and Hoseney (1990), this crosslinking is accelerated due to moisture

loss. Ruan and others (1996) noted that loss of moisture was a factor for firming of the

crumb in sweet rolls. Therefore, the firmness of the cookies may have been affected by

moisture loss during the sampling period.

For all of the cookies, the observed increase in hardness was significant (P < 0.05)

between sampling days 0 and 3. While the hardness for the HFCS, IS, and AA cookies

continued to follow an increasing trend throughout the remainder of the sampling period,

the changes were not significant (P ≥ 0.05). The LA cookie exhibited a more noticeable

change in hardness at the end of the sampling period, with a significant increase (P <

0.05) in hardness on sampling day 10.

In Table 2.6, the hardness measurements of the cookies were compared on each

sampling day. While numerical peak force values may have varied between the cookies,

statistical analysis revealed that the cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) for hardness on

any of the sampling days. As shown by Figure 2.5, the cookies also exhibited similar

trends for increasing hardness throughout the sampling period. This suggested that the

sweeteners did not have a major effect on textural changes of the final product during

storage for the sampling period.

64

Even though the differences were not significant, the numerical data (Table 2.6)

and Figure 2.5 demonstrated certain variations in hardness among the cookies. Notably,

the LA cookie had the highest hardness measurements throughout the sampling period.

On sampling day 0, the IS cookie was the softest, with a hardness measurement of 0.457

N. Hardness of the HFCS, IS, and AA cookies was very consistent on sampling day 0, as

the measurements of these cookies all fell in the range of 0.488–0.491 N. On sampling

days 5 and 10, the HFCS cookie had lower hardness measurements than the other

cookies, indicating that the HFCS cookie was softer at the end of the sampling period.

Table 2.6 also shows that the HFCS cookie had the highest moisture content throughout

the sampling period. The experimental hardness results for the HFCS cookie coincided

with the research of He and Hoseney (1990), which demonstrated that bread samples with

higher moisture contents firmed at a slower rate.

Overall, even though minor deviations in hardness were noted, the results

suggested that the sweeteners had similar effects on final product texture. The cookies

exhibited comparable trends for changes over time, and differences in hardness were not

significant (P ≥ 0.05) on any of the sampling days.

Color

When the cookies were compared as the combined means of the 4 four sampling

days, variations in the crust, crumb, and bottom color measurements (Table 2.7) were

demonstrated. The crust L* and crumb L* values both indicated the following order for

increasing lightness of the cookies: AA < LA < IS < HFCS. The same order of L* values

was observed for the sweeteners (Table 2.2) and the doughs (Table 2.3). This suggested

65

that the initial color of the sweeteners had an effect throughout the baking process and

remained influential for the final product color. As with the L* values for their respective

sweeteners and doughs, the crust L* and crumb L* values were different (P < 0.05) for

each cookie.

For all of the cookies, the crust a*, b*, and C* values were higher in magnitude

than the crumb a*, b*, and C* values (Table 2.7). This relationship between the color

measurements suggested more intense red and yellow tones for the crusts of the cookies.

Browning or color development during baking is most often caused by the Maillard

reaction (Mundt and Wedzicha 2007). Ramírez-Jiménez and others (2000) explained that

certain conditions of the baking process contribute to differences between crust and

crumb color; these conditions include high temperatures and the development of a lower

moisture content at the crust versus the crumb. As demonstrated by the higher crust a*,

b*, and C* values for the cookies, additional browning occurs at the crust, due to the

conditions during baking (Ramírez-Jiménez and others 2000). According to the color

results, the sweeteners did not prevent the Maillard reaction, and the expected color

development for the crust of a post-bake final product was observed.

The bottom L* values exhibited the following order of increasing lightness for the

bottom surfaces of the cookies: AA < LA < HFCS < IS. The bottom L* values of the LA

and AA cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from each other, but they were lower (P <

0.05) than the bottom L* values of the HFCS and IS cookies. Therefore, the agave

sweeteners may yield a darker bottom surface, compared to the other sweeteners. The

bottom L* value of the IS cookie was higher (P < 0.05) than that of the other cookies,

66

suggesting that among the sweeteners, IS may lead to the lightest bottom surface for a

final product.

When the mean color measurements of each sampling day were compared for the

individual cookies, the values indicated trends for color darkening over time. As recorded

in Table 2.5, the crust L* and crumb L* values decreased throughout the sampling period

for all of the cookies. This demonstrated a reduction in lightness, or darkening of crust

and crumb colors. For the crumb, the decrease in L* values was only significant (P <

0.05) for the HFCS and LA cookies. For the crust, the decrease in L* values was only

significant (P < 0.05) for the IS and AA cookies. The results suggested that darkening

may be more noticeable for final products prepared with the IS and AA sweeteners, since

the crust of a cookie is visible prior to consumption. However, based on trial

observations, color changes of the cookies were not visually obvious to the naked eye.

As recorded in Appendix C (Table C.10), the crust a*, b*, and C* values for all of

the cookies increased during the sampling period. While the trend for crumb color was

slightly less consistent throughout the sampling period, an overall increase for crumb a*,

b*, and C* values was also recorded. Even though only some of the changes were

significant (P < 0.05), increasing a*, b*, and C* values of the crust and crumb indicated a

rise in the intensity of red and yellow tones, and further demonstrated the color darkening

of the cookies.

67

Table 2.4: Diameter, Height, and pH of the Cookiesab

Measurement Cookie

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Diameter

(mm)

45.77 a

(0.35)

45.96 a

(0.47)

46.37 b

(0.28)

47.00 c

(0.35) < 0.0001

Height (mm) 21.89 a

(0.46)

21.37 b

(0.26)

19.95 c

(0.26)

19.86 c

(0.42) < 0.0001

pH 7.72 a

(0.06)

7.54 b

(0.03)

7.30 c

(0.06)

7.43 d

(0.05) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for the cookie trials, which

included sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 36 bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05).

68

Table 2.5: Comparison of Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 – Moisture Content, aw, Weight,

Hardness, Crust Color L*, and Crumb Color L* of Each Cookieab

Measurement Cookie Sampling Day

p-value 0 3 5 10

Moisture

Content c

(%)

HFCS 14.78 a

(0.33)

14.70 a

(0.26)

14.60 a

(0.10)

14.54 a

(0.11) 0.2601

IS 14.12 a

(0.53)

13.78 a

(0.48)

13.66 a

(0.40)

13.51 a

(0.31) 0.1268

LA 13.01 a

(0.47)

12.94 a

(0.54)

12.81 a

(0.69)

12.79 a

(0.76) 0.9181

AA 12.95 a

(0.74)

12.74 a

(0.65)

12.73 a

(0.57)

12.71 a

(0.62) 0.9109

awd

HFCS 0.756 a

(0.037)

0.707 b

(0.012)

0.707 b

(0.009)

0.700 b

(0.007) < 0.0001

IS 0.747 a

(0.006)

0.668 b

(0.018)

0.666 b

(0.014)

0.662 b

(0.011) < 0.0001

LA 0.692 a

(0.019)

0.676 a

(0.016)

0.668 a

(0.025)

0.666 a

(0.024) 0.0527

AA 0.695 a

(0.009)

0.666 b

(0.018)

0.666 b

(0.018)

0.664 b

(0.019) 0.0006

Weight d

(g)

HFCS 14.271 a

(0.264)

14.094 a

(0.407)

14.056 a

(0.412)

14.020 a

(0.421) 0.5114

IS 14.334 a

(0.375)

14.112 a

(0.560)

14.053 a

(0.590)

14.020 a

(0.580) 0.6010

LA 13.687 a

(0.167)

13.297 a

(0.449)

13.277 a

(0.422)

13.237 a

(0.411) 0.0585

AA 13.904 a

(0.288)

13.840 a

(0.287)

13.804 a

(0.298)

13.784 a

(0.264) 0.8180

Hardness

d

(N)

HFCS 0.489 a

(0.097)

1.198 b

(0.174)

1.220 b

(0.144)

1.282 b

(0.187) < 0.0001

IS 0.457 a

(0.124)

1.158 b

(0.196)

1.281 b

(0.166)

1.346 b

(0.162) < 0.0001

LA 0.491 a

(0.051)

1.232 b

(0.146)

1.346 bc

(0.126)

1.416 c

(0.107) < 0.0001

AA 0.488 a

(0.123)

1.203 b

(0.281)

1.257 b

(0.167)

1.327 b

(0.224) < 0.0001

Crust Color

d

L*

HFCS 73.24 a

(2.08)

72.54 a

(1.68)

71.24 a

(1.80)

71.34 a

(1.66) 0.0705

IS 72.24 a

(1.27)

71.25 ab

(2.42)

69.29 bc

(1.30)

68.58 c

(1.20) < 0.0001

LA 65.24 a

(1.85)

64.78 a

(2.42)

64.37 a

(1.22)

62.66 a

(2.61) 0.0695

69

AA 60.00 a

(0.87)

58.17 b

(1.12)

57.49 bc

(1.03)

56.79 c

(1.18) < 0.0001

Crumb

Color

d

L*

HFCS 71.33 a

(0.83)

71.04 a

(1.27)

70.37 ab

(1.33)

68.73 b

(1.80) 0.0013

IS 69.67 a

(1.47)

69.60 a

(1.19)

68.95 a

(0.78)

68.14 a

(1.97) 0.1013

LA 67.45 a

(2.03)

66.08 ab

(2.09)

65.13 ab

(1.11)

64.39 b

(2.03) 0.0093

AA 58.39 a

(1.02)

58.02 a

(1.85)

57.12 a

(0.58)

56.95 a

(1.44) 0.0757

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for each sampling day of the

cookie trials. bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 6

dn = 9

70

Table 2.6: Comparison of the Cookies – Moisture Content, aw, Weight, and Hardness on

Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10ab

Measurement Sampling

Day

Cookie p-value

HFCS IS LA AA

Moisture

Content

c

(%)

0 14.78 a

(0.33)

14.12 a

(0.53)

13.01 b

(0.47)

12.95 b

(0.74) < 0.0001

3 14.70 a

(0.26)

13.78 b

(0.48)

12.94 c

(0.54)

12.74 c

(0.65) < 0.0001

5 14.60 a

(0.10)

13.66 b

(0.40)

12.81 c

(0.69)

12.73 c

(0.57) < 0.0001

10 14.54 a

(0.11)

13.51 b

(0.31)

12.79 b

(0.76)

12.71 b

(0.62) < 0.0001

aw

d

0 0.756 a

(0.037)

0.747 a

(0.006)

0.692 b

(0.019)

0.695 b

(0.009) < 0.0001

3 0.707 a

(0.012)

0.668 b

(0.018)

0.676 b

(0.016)

0.666 b

(0.018) < 0.0001

5 0.707 a

(0.009)

0.666 b

(0.014)

0.668 b

(0.025)

0.666 b

(0.018) < 0.0001

10 0.700 a

(0.007)

0.662 b

(0.011)

0.666 b

(0.024)

0.664 b

(0.019) < 0.0001

Weight

d

(g)

0 14.271 a

(0.264)

14.334 a

(0.375)

13.687 b

(0.167)

13.904 b

(0.288) < 0.0001

3 14.094 a

(0.407)

14.112 a

(0.560)

13.297 b

(0.449)

13.840 ab

(0.287) 0.0011

5 14.056 a

(0.412)

14.053 a

(0.590)

13.277 b

(0.422)

13.804 ab

(0.298) 0.0020

10 14.020 a

(0.421)

14.020 a

(0.580)

13.237 b

(0.411)

13.784 ab

(0.264) 0.0015

Hardness

d

(N)

0 0.489 a

(0.097)

0.457 a

(0.124)

0.491 a

(0.051)

0.488 a

(0.123) 0.8757

3 1.198 a

(0.174)

1.158 a

(0.196)

1.232 a

(0.146)

1.203 a

(0.281) 0.8946

5 1.220 a

(0.144)

1.281 a

(0.166)

1.346 a

(0.126)

1.257 a

(0.167) 0.3615

10 1.282 a

(0.187)

1.346 a

(0.162)

1.416 a

(0.107)

1.327 a

(0.224) 0.4476

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for each sampling day of the

cookie trials. bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 6

dn = 9

71

Table 2.7: Crust, Crumb, and Bottom Color (L*, a*, b*, H*, C*) of the Cookiesab

Measurement Cookie

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Crust

Color

L* 72.09 a

(1.93)

70.34 b

(2.15)

64.26 c

(2.23)

58.11 d

(1.58) < 0.0001

a* 0.33 a

(0.55)

0.99 a

(0.54)

5.11 b

(1.76)

7.14 c

(1.19) < 0.0001

b* 32.34 a

(2.31)

33.65 ac

(3.13)

37.47 b

(2.92)

34.77 c

(1.98) < 0.0001

H* 89.13 a

(0.72)

88.35 a

(0.83)

82.42 b

(2.17)

78.29 c

(1.26) < 0.0001

C* 32.34 a

(2.31)

33.67 a

(3.14)

37.78 b

(3.11)

35.52 c

(2.11) < 0.0001

Crumb

Color

L* 70.37 a

(1.65)

69.09 b

(1.49)

65.76 c

(2.13)

57.62 d

(1.39) < 0.0001

a* -0.48 a

(0.60)

0.24 b

(0.62)

3.02 c

(1.04)

5.10 d

(0.54) < 0.0001

b* 27.42 a

(1.36)

28.41 a

(2.07)

34.08 b

(1.98)

31.67 c

(1.68) < 0.0001

H* 90.00 a

(1.64)

89.17 b

(0.88)

85.00 c

(1.52)

80.83 d

(0.64) < 0.0001

C* 27.43 a

(1.36)

28.42 a

(2.07)

34.30 b

(1.98)

32.08 c

(1.73) < 0.0001

Bottom

Color

L* 42.82 a

(1.28)

44.28 b

(1.37)

40.56 c

(1.62)

39.83 c

(1.17) < 0.0001

a* 17.12 ab

(0.68)

17.46 a

(0.97)

17.45 a

(0.63)

16.91 b

(0.77) 0.0060

b* 37.55 a

(1.66)

38.57 b

(1.25)

34.49 c

(1.59)

34.03 c

(1.37) < 0.0001

H* 65.52 a

(1.23)

65.62 a

(1.70)

63.12 b

(1.72)

63.59 b

(1.54) < 0.0001

C* 41.28 a

(1.52)

42.36 b

(0.97)

38.67 c

(1.26)

38.01 c

(1.18) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for the cookie trials, which

included sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 36 bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05).

72

Figure 2.1: Diameter and Height Measurements for the Cookiesa

aValues are means for the cookie trials, which included sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n =

36

73

Figure 2.2: Moisture Content versus Time for the Cookiesa

aData points are means for each sampling day of the cookie trials. n = 6

74

Figure 2.3: The aw versus Time for the Cookiesa

aData points are means for each sampling day of the cookie trials. n = 9

75

Figure 2.4: Weight versus Time for the Cookiesa

aData points are means for each sampling day of the cookie trials. n = 9

76

Figure 2.5: Hardness versus Time for the Cookiesa

aData points are means for each sampling day of the cookie trials. n = 9

77

Sensory Evaluation

The sensory panel results reflected consumer perceptions regarding the effects of

the sweeteners on characteristics of the cookies. For all of the evaluated sensory

attributes, differences between the mean scores (Table 2.8) for the cookies were not

significant (P ≥ 0.05). While the results did suggest some disparities between the cookies,

the lack of significant differences indicated that sweetener type only had a minor impact

on consumer perception of final product characteristics.

Sweetness

Mean scores on 15 cm unstructured line scales for sweetness (Table 2.8) were not

different (P ≥ 0.05), but the results did demonstrate the following order of increasing

sweetness for the cookies: HFCS < LA < IS < AA. Fructose and glucose, the primary

sugar molecules in all 4 sweeteners, should dictate sweetness intensity. Fructose has a

higher relative sweetness at 1.3, compared to glucose, which has a relative sweetness of

0.56 (Parker and others 2010). LA and AA have sugar compositions of approximately

85% fructose (Jones 2009), giving them the highest fructose contents among the

sweeteners. The AA cookie followed the expected result for sweetness, by having the

highest mean score (mean = 5.97) for this attribute. IS has a relative sweetness of

0.85 1.0 and is composed of 50% fructose (Parker and others 2010), suggesting that it

should have a lower sweetness than both of the agave sweeteners. Results indicated that

the IS cookie (mean = 5.51) was perceived as less sweet than the AA cookie and

relatively similar in sweetness to the LA cookie (mean = 5.35). Due to its sugar

78

composition of 42% fructose, the HFCS cookie was expected to have the lowest

sweetness, and this was demonstrated by the results for mean sweetness (mean = 4.92).

Previous research has shown that demographic characteristics and lifestyle

choices can affect sweetness preferences of sensory panelists (Bower and Boyd 2003).

Consumers with high health concern may have a lower desired sweetness level (Bower

and Boyd 2003). Alternatively, individuals that regularly consume sweet foods, such as

non-diet soda, may have an elevated sweetness tolerance and higher ideal sweetness level

(Bower and Boyd 2003). To account for this potential effect on the results, demographic

data was collected about frequency of sweet baked product consumption for the panelists.

Mean sweetness values (Table 2.9) were not different (P ≥ 0.05), when the sweetness

scores for each cookie were separated into the 4 categories for panelists’ consumption of

sweet baked products. This indicated that consumption patterns for sweet foods did not

affect the overall mean sweetness scores (Table 2.8) for the cookies.

Texture and Moistness

Panelists’ scores for the attributes of texture and moistness were not different (P ≥

0.05) among the cookies. The numerical mean scores for texture and moistness (Table

2.8) varied minimally between the cookies, which suggested that the sweeteners had

similar effects on consumer perception of these attributes.

When the panelists’ scores for texture and moistness were compared to the

instrumental analyses for hardness and moisture content on sampling day 3, the results

did not follow the same exact order for increasingly firmer texture or higher moisture.

However, the same 2 samples were ranked higher and lower for these properties by both

79

the panelists and the instrumental analyses. As shown by the data for hardness on

sampling day 3 in Table 2.6 and the mean texture scores from panelists in Table 2.8, the

HFCS and IS cookies had lower hardness measurements and lower texture scores than

the LA and AA cookies. The data also shows that the AA and LA cookies had the lower

moisture contents on sampling day 3 (Table 2.6) and lower mean moistness scores from

panelists than the HFCS and IS cookies (Table 2.8).

Taste Acceptability

When the phrases on the 5-point hedonic scale were converted to a 1-5 numerical

scale, mean scores (Table 2.8) for taste acceptability of the cookies were not different (P

≥ 0.05). Data for percentages (Figure 2.6) of panelists’ responses to the hedonic scale

phrases exhibited a consistent level of taste acceptability among the sweeteners. The

“Like Moderately” response was chosen most frequently for all of the cookies. Within the

“Like Moderately” response category, the AA cookie had the highest percentage (49%),

while the LA cookie had the lowest percentage (40%). According to Domino Foods, Inc.,

the manufacturer of the agave sweeteners, AA has a richer flavor than LA

(Cooking…c2012). The manufacturer also noted that LA should not contribute to final

food product flavor (Cooking…c2012). The HFCS cookie had the 2nd

highest percentage

(47%) for the “Like Moderately” response, and the highest percentage (15%) for the

“Like Very Much” response. Parker and others (2010) explained that the natural flavors

of foods are not overpowered by the mild sweetness of HFCS-42.

80

Appearance Acceptability

Mean scores (Table 2.8) for appearance acceptability of the cookies were not

different (P ≥ 0.05), when the hedonic scale phrases were converted to a 1-5 numerical

scale. Data for percentages (Figure 2.7) of panelists’ responses showed that the two most

frequently chosen responses were “Neither Like Nor Dislike” and “Like Moderately” for

all of the cookies. This result indicated that differences in color due to the sweeteners had

minimal effect on consumer acceptability of appearance.

Panelists’ Comments

Optional comments generated by the panelists were varied within each type of

cookie sample. Out of the 20 comments obtained from panelists for HFCS, the comments

included: dry-3, firm-1, disliked texture-1, liked texture-1. Comments regarding the taste

were: liked taste-6, disliked taste-6, bland-3, sweet-3, balanced flavor-1, fruity flavor-1.

For the IS cookies, 22 panelists chose to comment. The comments included: dry-

6, moist-2, crumbly-4, sticky-1. For taste, the comments were: liked sweetness-2, not

sweet enough-3, not much taste-2. An aftertaste was also noted by 1 panelist.

The LA cookies received comments from 24 panelists, which included: dry-2,

moist-1, syrupy-1. Comments obtained regarding taste were: liked taste-5, disliked taste-

3, bland-5, too sweet-1, honey taste-1. Aftertaste was again noted by 3 panelists, with 2

referring to a sweet aftertaste and 1 disliking the aftertaste.

Comments about the AA cookies were recorded by 25 panelists and included:

dry-4, too soft-1. Concerning taste, comments were: liked taste-5, disliked taste-5, bland-

81

4, sweet-2, salty-1, buttery-1. There were 4 panelists that commented on aftertaste, with 1

categorizing it as pleasant and 1 as bitter.

The panelists’ comments regarding the samples were highly variable for each

cookie, suggesting that acceptability of the cookies was related to personal preference.

82

Table 2.8: Sweetness, Texture, Moistness, Taste Acceptability, and Appearance

Acceptability Scores for the Cookies

Attribute Cookie

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Sweetnessac

4.92 a

(3.07)

5.51 a

(3.06)

5.35 a

(3.02)

5.97 a

(3.62) 0.2952

Textureac

5.11 a

(3.05)

5.50 a

(3.16)

5.76 a

(2.95)

5.53 a

(3.01) 0.6604

Moistnessac

6.64 a

(3.59)

6.81 a

(3.24)

6.19 a

(3.62)

6.29 a

(3.30) 0.6891

Taste

Acceptabilitybc

3.56 a

(1.00)

3.49 a

(0.95)

3.25 a

(0.98)

3.34 a

(0.97) 0.2459

Appearance

Acceptabilitybc

3.63 a

(0.69)

3.60 a

(0.69)

3.53 a

(0.72)

3.49 a

(0.78) 0.6228

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for scores ranging from 0-15

on 15 cm unstructured line scales. n = 68 bValues are mean responses (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for the phrases on

the 5-point hedonic scales, which were converted to a numerical 1-5 scale. n = 68 cMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05).

83

Table 2.9: Sweetness Scores for the Cookies Separated by Category for Consumption of

Sweet Baked Productsab

Category for

Consumption

of Sweet

Baked

Products

Cookie

HFCS IS LA AA

Dailyc

5.22 a

(0.77)

6.14 a

(0.77)

5.79 a

(0.77)

6.54 a

(0.92)

2-3 times per

weekd

5.21 a

(0.58)

5.29 a

(0.56)

5.35 a

(0.57)

5.50 a

(0.68)

2-3 times per

monthe

3.91 a

(0.80)

5.69 a

(0.80)

4.85 a

(0.79)

5.95 a

(0.95)

Rarelyf

5.15 a

(1.09)

4.73 a

(1.10)

5.41 a

(1.09)

6.52 a

(1.30)

p-value

0.5677 0.7149 0.8679 0.7912

aValues are least square means (with standard errors in parenthesis) for scores ranging

from 0-15 on 15 cm unstructured line scales. bLeast square means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly

different (P < 0.05). cn = 16

dn = 29

en = 15

fn = 8

84

Figure 2.6: Hedonic Scale Responses for Taste Acceptability of the Cookiesa

aFrequency of responses are reported as percentages, rounded to whole numbers. n = 68

85

Figure 2.7: Hedonic Scale Responses for Appearance Acceptability of the Cookiesa

aFrequency of responses are reported as percentages, rounded to whole numbers. n = 68

86

Conclusion

Results for the sweeteners, doughs, and cookies suggested that IS, LA, and AA

should be evaluated further as potential replacements for HFCS in sweet baked products.

The effects of the sweeteners on final product characteristics are primary considerations

for consumer satisfaction and subsequent sales. As demonstrated by the instrumental

analysis results, the cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) for hardness, which is a textural

property that can indicate freshness. When examining changes in properties over time,

the cookies exhibited similar trends throughout the sampling period; this indicated that

the sweeteners could have consistent effects on product stability during storage.

For certain properties, including pH, diameter, and height, differences (P < 0.05)

were observed, but ranges of the measurements for the cookies demonstrated that these

were minor variations. The LA and AA cookies were not different (P ≥ 0.05) for the

properties of moisture content, aw, and weight. The IS cookie was not different (P ≥ 0.05)

from the HFCS cookie in terms of weight. However, the IS cookie was alternatively more

similar to the LA and AA cookies for aw and moisture content. Further investigation

should be conducted to determine whether the disparities in these properties would affect

commercial applications involving the sweeteners.

Differences (P < 0.05) in color measurements were noted for the sweeteners,

doughs, and cookies, but sensory evaluation results revealed that the deviations in color

did not affect consumer acceptability for appearance of the cookies. Another positive

outcome of the sensory evaluation results was that variations between the cookie

properties did not influence the overall acceptability of taste across consumers.

87

These preliminary results for acceptability, combined with the potential benefits

for consumers, should inspire the baking industry to conduct continued investigations of

the sweeteners. The use of IS could improve sales with consumers, who have a negative

perception of HFCS, while LA and AA may attract the attention of consumers striving to

consume natural foods. In terms of health concerns related to sugar consumption, the low

glycemic index of the agave sweeteners would be highly beneficial to the diabetic

community. The results of this study indicated that both LA and AA may be used to

develop low glycemic index sweet baked products, which are comparable in taste

acceptability to the currently available products containing HFCS.

Further research should be conducted to understand the effects of the sweeteners

for commercial production. The information from this study can be used as a baseline for

identifying necessary processing adjustments due to differences in certain properties,

such as the viscosities of the sweeteners and final product dimensions. Looking forward,

this study provides a starting point for future research, and demonstrates a strong

potential for applications of the IS, LA, and AA sweeteners in the baking industry.

References

Agave Chocolate Chip Cookies [Internet]. [Yonkers (NY)]: Domino Foods, Inc.; c2011

[cited 2011 Aug 29]. Available from: http://www.dominosugar.com/recipe/agave-

chocolate-chip-cookies-8527.

Ahlborn, GJ, Pike, OA, Hendrix, SB, Hess, WM, Huber, CS. 2005. Sensory, Mechanical,

and Microscopic Evaluation of Staling in Low-Protein and Gluten-Free Breads. Cereal

Chem. 82(3):328-335.

Akhavan, T, Anderson, GH. 2007. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on

subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Amer J Clin Nutr.

86:1354-1363

88

AquaLab LITE Operator’s Manual. Version 6. Pullman (WA): Decagon Devices, Inc.;

2007-2009.

[ASR] American Sugar Refining, Inc. Freshvert Invert Sugar Creamed. Yonkers, NY:

Domino Foods, Inc. 2011. Specification No.: SS-17.

Baixauli, R, Salvador, A, Fiszman, SM. 2008. Textural and colour changes during

storage and sensory shelf life of muffins containing resistant starch. Eur Food Res Tech.

226:523-530.

Bocarsly, ME, Powell, ES, Avena, NM, Hoebel, BG. 2010. High-fructose corn syrup

causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride

levels. Pharmac Biochem Behav. 97(1):101-106.

Bower, JA, Boyd, R. 2003. Effect of health concern and consumption patterns on

measures of sweetness by hedonic and just-about-right scales. J Sens Stud. 18:235-248.

Chinachoti, P. 1995. Carbohydrates: functionality in foods. Amer J Clin Nutr.

61(suppl):992S-929S.

[CI] Cargill, Incorporated. IsoClear® 42% High Fructose Corn Syrup. Minneapolis, MN:

Cargill, Incorporated. 2008. Product Information.

Cooking with Domino® Organic Agave Nectar. [Internet]. [Yonkers (NY)]: Domino

Foods, Inc.; c2011 [cited 2012 Jan 10]. Available from:

http://www.dominosugar.com/products/agave/cooking-with-agave-nectar.html.

Curley, LP, Hoseney, RC. 1984. Effects of Corn Sweeteners on Cookie Quality. Cereal

Chem. 61(4): 274-278.

Davis, EA. 1995. Functionality of sugars: physicochemical interactions in foods. Amer J

Clin Nutr. 62(suppl):170S-177S.

[DSI] Domino Specialty Ingredients. Agave Nectar Dark – Organic. Yonkers, NY:

Domino Foods, Inc. 2011a. Product Description

[DSI] Domino Specialty Ingredients. Agave Nectar Light – Organic. Yonkers, NY:

Domino Foods, Inc. 2011b. Product Description

Ewdards,WP. The Science of Bakery Products. Cambridge (UK): The Royal Society of

Chemistry. 2007. Chapter 2, Science, p.11-55.

Figlewicz, DP, Ioannou, G, Jay, JB, Kittleson, S, Savard, C, Roth, CL. 2009. Effect of

moderate intake of sweeteners on metabolic health in the rat. Physiol Behav. 98:618-624.

89

Figoni, P. How Baking Works. 3rd

ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2011. p.

516.

Fisher, C, Carvajal, R. 2008. What is Natural?. Food Tech. 62(11):24-31.

Galić, K, Ćurić, D, Gabrić, D. 2009. Shelf Life of Packaged Bakery Goods—A Review.

Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 49(5):405-426.

Gallagher, E, O’Brien, CM, Scannell, AGM, Arendt, EK. 2003. Evaluation of sugar

replacers in short dough biscuit production. J Food Eng. 56:261-263.

He, H, Hoseney, RC. 1990. Changes in Bread Firmness and Moisture During Long-Term

Storage. Cereal Chem. 67(6):603-605.

Jones, JM. 2009. Dietary Sweeteners Containing Fructose: Overview of a Workshop on

the State of the Science. J Nutr. 139(Suppl):1210S-1213S.

Kweon, M, Slade, L, Levine, H, Martin, R, Souza, E. 2009. Exploration of Sugar

Functionality in Sugar-Snap and Wire-Cut Cookie Baking: Implications for Potential

Sucrose Replacement or Reduction. Cereal Chem. 86(4):425-433.

Labensky, SR, Damme, EV, Martel, P, Tenbergen, K. On Baking: A Textbook of Baking

and Pastry Fundamentals. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall. 2005. Chapter

9, Cookies and Brownies, p. 211-243.

Michel-Cuello, C, Juárez-Flores, BI, Aguirre-Rivera, JR. Pinos-Rodríguez, JM. 2008.

Quantitative Characterization of Nonstructural Carbohydrates of Mezcal Agave (Agave

salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dick). J Agric Food Chem. 56(14):5753-5757.

Mundt, S, Wedzicha, BL. 2007. A kinetic model for browning in the baking of biscuits:

Effects of water activity and temperature. LWT. 40:1078-1082.

Ohr, LM. 2009. Defeating Diabetes. Food Tech. 63(11):59-62.

Narváez-Zapata, JA, Sánchez-Teyer, LF. 2009. Agave as a Raw Material: Recent

Technologies and Applications. Recent Patents Biotech. 3:185-191.

Operating Instructions Moisture Analyzer HB43-S. Greifenee (CH): Mettler Toledo;

[date unknown].

Parker, K, Salas, M, Nwosu, VC. 2010. High fructose corn syrup: Production, uses and

public health concerns. Biotech Molec Biol Rev. 5(5):71-78.

Penfield, MP, Campbell, AM. Experimental Food Science. 3rd ed. San Diego (CA):

Academic Press, Inc; 1990. Appendix D, Improvised Tests, p. 519-523.

90

Phillips, KM, Carlsen, MH, Blomhoff, R. 2009. Total Antioxidant Content of

Alternatives to Refined Sugar. J Amer Diet Assoc. 109:64-71.

Ramírez-Jiménez, A, Guerra-Hernández, E, García-Villanova, B. 2000. Browning

Indicators in Bread. J Agric Food Chem. 48:4176-4181.

Refracto 30PX/GS Operating Instructions. Schwerzenbach (CH): Mettler Toledo GMbH;

2003.

Roessler, PF, Ballenger, MC. 1996. Contamination of an Unpreserved Semisoft Baked

Cookie with a Xerophilic Aspergillus species. J Food Protect. 59(10):1055-1060.

Ruan, R, Almaer, S, Huang, VT, Perkins, P, Chen, P, and Fulcher, RG.1996. Relationship

Between Firming and Water Mobility in Starch-Based Food Systems During Storage.

Cereal Chem. 73(3):328-332.

Safarik, I, Sabatkova, Z, Safarikova, M. 2009. Invert sugar formation with

Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells encapsulated in magnetically responsive alginate

microparticles. J Magnet Magnetic Mater. 321:1478-1481.

Sloan, AE. 2010. Top 10 Functional Food Trends. Food Tech. 64(4):22-41.

Swanson, RB, Carden, LA, Parks, SS. 1999. Effect of a carbohydrate-based fat Substitute

and emulsifying agents on reduced-fat peanut butter cookies. J Food Qual. 22:19-29.

White, JS. 2009. Misconceptions about High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Is it Uniquely

Responsible for Obesity, Reactive Dicarbonyl Compounds, and Advanced Glycation

Endproducts?. J Nutr. 139(Suppl):1219S-1227S.

Yang, BY, Montgomery, R. 2007. Alkaline degradation of invert sugar from molasses.

Biores Tech. 98:3084-3089.

91

APPENDICES

92

Appendix A

Supplementary Instrumental Analysis Data for the Sweeteners

Table A.1: HFCS Data of Triplicate Samples

Measurement Sample

1 2 3

Brix (%)

70.9 70.5 71.0

Viscosity (cP)

150.0 164.0 155.5

pH

3.61 3.58 3.68

Specific Gravity

1.366 1.359 1.373

aw

0.746 0.746 0.743

Moisture Content

(%) 18.91 20.21 17.28

Color

L*

60.97 59.54 62.36

a*

-0.34 -0.39 -0.35

b*

2.69 2.69 2.78

H*

97.22 98.18 97.21

C*

2.72 2.71 2.80

93

Table A.2: IS Data of Triplicate Samples

Measurement Sample

1 2 3

Brix (%)

NA NA NA

Viscosity (cP)

32500.0 31600.0 32250.0

pH

3.43 3.62 3.48

Specific Gravity

1.466 1.474 1.473

aw

0.711 0.714 0.712

Moisture Content

(%) 10.52 11.05 10.87

Color

L*

51.73 51.91 51.83

a*

-1.13 -1.15 -1.17

b*

4.97 5.16 5.17

H*

102.86 102.54 102.74

C*

5.10 5.29 5.30

94

Table A.3: LA Data of Triplicate Samples

Measurement Sample

1 2 3

Brix (%)

75.6 76.2 74.6

Viscosity (cP)

1157.5 1202.5 1137.5

pH

4.39 4.48 4.37

Specific Gravity

1.447 1.464 1.461

aw

0.657 0.660 0.659

Moisture Content

(%) 8.71 10.23 9.95

Color

L*

39.72 36.87 35.44

a*

14.16 13.57 14.35

b*

26.93 21.74 23.67

H*

62.26 58.03 58.78

C*

30.43 25.63 27.65

95

Table A.4: AA Data of Triplicate Samples

Measurement Sample

1 2 3

Brix (%)

75.1 75.5 75.9

Viscosity (cP)

1240.0 1215.0 1172.5

pH

4.25 4.37 4.34

Specific Gravity

1.471 1.454 1.439

aw

0.655 0.663 0.658

Moisture Content

(%) 9.74 10.45 9.51

Color

L*

25.17 23.60 23.89

a*

3.71 4.37 2.76

b*

1.22 1.31 0.85

H*

18.18 16.71 17.16

C*

3.41 4.57 2.89

96

Appendix B

Supplementary Instrumental Analysis Data for the Doughs

Table B.1: HFCS Dough Data by Triala

.

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Specific Gravity

1.172

(1.300)

1.179

(0.006)

1.169

(0.010)

pH

7.43

(0.03)

7.47

(0.05)

7.43

(0.05)

aw 0.800

(0.005)

0.835

(0.013)

0.803

(0.005)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

23.63

(0.23)

23.26

(0.17)

Color

L* 74.51

(1.30)

73.02

(0.88)

74.15

(1.15)

a* -0.14

(0.30)

-0.14

(0.14)

0.28

(0.09)

b* 22.28

(0.55)

22.72

(0.28)

23.15

(0.70)

H* 89.51

(0.69)

90.35

(0.34)

89.30

(0.25)

C* 22.29

(0.54)

22.72

(0.28)

23.15

(0.70) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

97

Table B.2: IS Dough Data by Triala

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Specific Gravity

1.175

(0.002)

1.177

(0.012)

1.178

(0.006)

pH

7.75

(0.04)

7.77

(0.04)

7.73

(0.04)

aw 0.781

(0.003)

0.800

(0.002)

0.786

(0.002)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

22.18

(0.28)

21.90

(0.43)

Color

L* 70.79

(0.63)

70.40

(0.36)

71.91

(1.63)

a* 0.48

(0.06)

0.50

(0.08)

0.35

(0.11)

b* 23.72

(0.52)

23.82

(0.29)

24.03

(0.10)

H* 88.85

(0.12)

88.79

(0.18)

89.17

(0.26)

C* 23.72

(0.52)

23.83

(0.29)

24.03

(0.10) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

98

Table B.3: LA Dough Data by Triala

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Specific Gravity

1.153

(0.002)

1.167

(0.008)

1.160

(0.005)

pH

7.75

(0.04)

7.76

(0.04)

7.74

(0.04)

aw 0.752

(0.003)

0.784

(0.002)

0.765

(0.004)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

20.61

(0.56)

21.61

(0.71)

Color

L*

64.67

(1.82)

68.08

(0.67)

69.41

(0.95)

a* 2.24

(0.03)

2.19

(0.14)

1.83

(0.09)

b* 28.73

(0.10)

27.43

(0.27)

27.59

(0.73)

H* 85.53

(0.03)

85.44

(0.32)

86.21

(0.17)

C* 28.82

(0.11)

27.52

(0.26)

27.99

(1.31) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

99

Table B.4: AA Dough Data by Trial

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Specific Gravity

1.157

(0.001)

1.162

(0.008)

1.166

(0.012)

pH

7.75

(0.003)

7.74

(0.044)

7.73

(0.044)

Water Activity

(aw)

0.764

(0.026)

0.779

(0.003)

0.761

(0.003)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

21.15

(0.09)

21.13

(0.12)

Color

L* 53.72

(0.37)

58.52

(0.45)

59.58

(0.31)

a* 4.87

(0.07)

4.72

(0.14)

4.48

(0.07)

b* 25.22

(0.45)

24.00

(0.18)

24.26

(0.13)

H* 79.06

(0.03)

78.88

(0.28)

79.54

(0.20)

C* 25.68

(0.45)

24.46

(0.19)

24.67

(0.12) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

100

Appendix C

Supplementary Instrumental Analysis Data for the Cookies

Table C.1: HFCS Cookie Data for Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 by Triala

Measurement

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Diameter

(mm)

45.69

(0.59)

45.69

(0.59)

45.70

(0.59)

44.69

(0.59)

45.84

(0.34)

45.84

(0.35)

45.84

(0.33)

45.84

(0.34)

45.77

(0.26)

44.77

(0.26)

44.77

(0.25)

45.77

(0.26)

Height

(mm)

22.09

(0.88)

22.08

(0.88)

22.08

(0.87)

22.08

(0.87)

21.71

(0.22)

21.71

(0.22)

21.72

(0.22)

21.71

(0.220

21.87

(0.10)

21.88

(0.10)

21.88

(0.11)

21.88

(0.11)

Weight

(g)

14.305

(0.176)

14.113

(0.134)

14.041

(0.132)

13.990

(0.109)

14.096

(0.200)

13.753

(0.397)

13.735

(0.403)

13.694

(0.422)

14.412

(0.359)

14.414

(0.397)

14.393

(0.419)

14.362

(0.426)

pH 7.75

(0.03)

7.77

(0.04)

7.78

(0.02)

7.79

(0.05)

7.71

(0.06)

7.65

(0.06)

7.66

(0.04)

7.74

(0.11)

7.69

(0.03)

7.72

(0.05)

7.71

(0.02)

7.70

(0.04)

aw

0.776

(0.004)

0.720

(0.004)

0.719

(0.001)

0.709

(0.005)

0.783

(0.014)

0.698

(0.012)

0.699

(0.003)

0.697

(0.002)

0.708

(0.001)

0.703

(0.001)

0.703

(0.003)

0.695

(0.001)

Moisture

Content (%) NA NA NA NA

14.54

(0.16)

14.51

(0.12)

14.65

(0.09)

14.51

(0.12)

15.03

(0.25)

14.89

(0.22)

14.55

(0.10)

14.56

(0.12)

Hardness (N) 0.573

(0.060)

1.277

(0.160)

1.292

(0.152)

1.290

(0.111)

0.376

(0.023)

1.087

(1.162)

1.119

(0.041)

1.105

(0.069)

0.517

(0.050)

1.229

(0.199)

1.248

(0.185)

1.452

(0.180)

Crust

Color

L* 71.89

3.54

71.05

(2.08)

69.47

(1.65)

69.53

(1.39)

73.80

(0.65)

73.21

(1.21)

72.39

(1.22)

71.55

(0.19)

74.03

(0.46)

73.37

(0.62)

71.85

(1.20)

72.92

(0.48)

a* -0.64

(0.52)

-0.10

(0.32)

0.28

(0.37)

0.61

(0.23)

0.45

(0.82)

0.02

(0.12)

0.35

(0.50)

0.38

(0.29)

0.40

(0.38)

0.86

(0.66)

0.80

(0.45)

0.59

(0.12)

b* 28.89

(0.17)

31.07

(0.61)

32.39

(0.53)

35.09

(1.57)

32.23

(1.21)

32.90

(0.33)

35.00

(1.75)

34.86

(1.37)

29.01

(0.88)

34.49

(2.67)

32.17

(1.98)

31.92

(1.70)

H* 88.50

(0.63)

89.34

(0.19)

89.38

(0.45)

89.00

(0.38)

89.25

(1.46)

89.96

(0.22)

89.46

(0.81)

89.38

(0.47)

89.23

(0.73)

88.54

(0.99)

88.61

(0.70)

89.95

(0.17)

C* 28.90

(0.16)

31.07

(0.61)

32.39

(0.53)

35.10

(1.58)

32.24

(1.21)

32.90

(0.33)

35.00

(1.76)

34.86

(1.37)

29.01

(0.89)

32.51

(2.69)

32.18

(1.99)

31.93

(1.71)

Bottom

Color

L* 42.63

(0.22)

42.17

(1.24)

42.88

(0.95)

41.69

(2.71)

43.38

(0.48)

43.52

(0.56)

43.60

(0.20)

43.74

(0.43)

42.21

(0.92)

43.58

(0.41)

42.17

(1.41)

42.27

(2.54)

a* 16.97

(0.11)

17.31

(0.39)

16.86

(0.84)

17.77

(0.88)

16.71

(0.48)

16.93

(0.40)

17.28

(0.47)

17.79

(0.13)

17.32

(1.02)

16.82

(0.06)

17.40

(0.61)

16.23

(1.00)

b* 36.74

(0.85)

36.26

(0.98)

36.92

(0.90)

37.55

(1.28)

38.84

(0.78)

39.76

(1.25)

39.88

(0.22)

39.14

(0.09)

35.83

(0.55)

37.80

(0.38)

35.67

(1.13)

36.20

(1.26)

H* 65.20

(0.37)

64.46

(1.08)

65.44

(1.49)

64.65

(1.80)

66.72

(0.74)

66.92

(1.07)

66.58

(0.46)

65.55

(0.18)

64.87

(0.88)

66.01

(0.20)

63.98

(1.48)

65.87

(0.66)

C* 40.47

(0.81)

40.18

(0.74)

40.60

(0.62)

41.56

(0.82)

42.29

(0.75)

43.22

(1.03)

43.46

(0.38)

42.99

(0.08)

39.81

(0.50)

41.28

(0.36)

39.70

(0.77)

39.67

(1.55)

Crumb L* 71.45

(0.44)

70.61

(1.53)

70.04

(0.65)

67.31

(2.49)

70.59

(0.92)

70.18

(0.44)

71.81

(1.06)

69.99

(0.58)

71.94

(0.56)

73.32

(0.24)

69.25

(0.63)

68.89

(0.96)

101

Color a*

-0.95

(0.25)

-1.03

(0.63)

-0.89

(0.43)

0.18

(0.40)

-0.76

(0.17)

-1.17

(0.07)

-0.48

(0.19)

-0.58

(0.09)

-0.29

(0.28)

-0.41

(0.23)

0.71

(0.09)

0.31

(0.33)

b* 25.65

(0.88)

26.64

(1.57)

27.99

(1.51)

28.66

(0.73)

23.13

(0.55)

26.82

(1.25)

28.42

(1.15)

27.44

(1.04)

26.66

(1.06)

27.19

(0.31)

29.49

(0.26)

27.90

(0.52)

H* 87.87

(0.55)

87.74

(1.52)

88.20

(0.82)

90.35

(0.79)

91.69

(0.36)

92.49

(0.05)

90.97

(0.39)

91.21

(0.13)

90.61

(0.57)

90.85

(0.48)

88.63

(0.18)

89.38

(0.67)

C* 25.67

(0.88)

26.67

(1.54)

28.00

(1.52)

28.67

(0.74)

26.14

(0.55)

26.84

(1.25)

28.43

(1.14)

27.44

(1.04)

26.67

(1.06)

27.20

(0.32)

29.50

(0.26)

27.90

(0.53) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

102

Table C.2: IS Cookie Data for Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 by Triala

Measurement

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Diameter

(mm)

45.98

(0.82)

45.97

(0.82)

45.98

(0.83)

45.98

(0.81)

45.87

(0.45)

45.87

(0.46)

45.87

(0.46)

45.87

(0.45)

46.02

(0.30)

46.01

(0.30)

46.02

(0.30)

46.02

(0.29)

Height

(mm)

21.43

(0.11)

21.43

(0.12)

21.42

(0.11)

21.43

(0.11)

21.21

(0.46)

21.21

(0.46)

21.21

(0.46)

21.21

(0.47)

21.47

(0.16)

21.47

(0.16)

21.47

(0.15)

21.47

(0.15)

Weight

(g)

14.380

(0.054)

14.176

(0.051)

14.089

(0.102)

14.011

(0.077)

14.099

(0.104)

13.672

(0.572)

13.587

(0.595)

13.565

(0.573)

14.522

(0.640)

14.488

(0.646)

14.483

(0.652)

14.483

(0.617)

pH 7.53

(0.02)

7.55

(0.03)

7.54

(0.05)

7.53

(0.04)

7.53

(0.04)

7.54

(0.03)

7.54

(0.02)

7.55

(0.04)

7.54

(0.04)

7.54

(0.04)

7.53

(0.03)

7.54

(0.03)

aw

0.753

(0.006)

0.678

(0.001)

0.668

(0.001)

0.670

(0.003)

0.746

(0.004)

0.644

(0.001)

0.650

(0.002)

0.648

(0.004)

0.743

(0.004)

0.682

(0.001)

0.682

(0.002)

0.669

(0.001)

Moisture

Content (%) NA NA NA NA

13.65

(0.15)

13.34

(0.07)

13.29

(0.03)

13.24

(0.07)

14.59

(0.07)

14.21

(0.10)

14.02

(0.09)

13.78

(0.12)

Hardness (N) 0.485

(0.062)

1.344

(0.096)

1.132

(0.141)

1.351

(0.051)

0.316

(0.048)

1.008

(0.239)

1.143

(0.145)

1.162

(0.044)

0.569

(0.072)

1.121

(0.020)

1.376

(0.156)

1.523

(0.054)

Crust

Color

L* 71.09

(1.07)

71.65

(4.46)

68.60

(1.39)

67.42

(0.92)

72.76

(0.41)

70.76

(1.04)

69.24

(0.85)

68.86

(0.55)

72.87

(1.46)

71.34

(1.34)

70.03

(1.60)

69.47

(1.12)

a* 0.19

(0.57)

0.57

(0.13)

0.64

(0.07)

1.00

(0.13)

0.94

(0.37)

1.90

(0.16)

1.56

(0.34)

1.48

(0.22)

0.38

(0.49)

1.01

(0.12)

1.15

(0.10)

1.11

(0.17)

b* 31.91

(2.12)

35.86

(2.11)

34.87

(0.05)

33.44

(2.37)

32.51

(0.91)

36.68

(1.18)

37.28

(1.49)

38.19

(1.78)

28.18

(1.65)

31.17

(1.43)

32.05

(0.07)

31.68

(0.82)

H* 89.37

(0.71)

89.42

(0.48)

88.95

(0.11)

88.28

(0.29)

88.36

(0.60)

87.03

(0.27)

87.61

(0.44)

87.79

(0.25)

89.27

(0.93)

88.15

(0.14)

87.94

(0.17)

88.00

(0.31)

C* 31.92

(2.13)

35.86

(2.11)

34.88

(0.05)

33.45

(2.37)

32.53

(0.91)

36.73

(1.18)

37.32

(1.50)

38.22

(1.79)

28.19

(1.65)

31.19

(1.44)

32.07

(0.06)

31.70

(0.81)

Bottom

Color

L* 43.92

(0.86)

44.12

(2.00)

45.20

(2.25)

44.70

(1.21)

44.98

(0.74)

43.17

(1.87)

44.59

(0.44)

42.25

(0.35)

44.30

(0.93)

44.31

(0.12)

45.26

(0.87)

43.61

(1.12)

a* 17.03

(0.22)

17.31

(0.89)

17.35

(1.04)

17.52

(0.22)

16.62

(1.26)

17.50

(1.89)

17.18

(1.17)

19.19

(0.08)

16.74

(0.63)

17.48

(0.21)

17.55

(0.27)

18.04

(0.36)

b* 38.42

(1.04)

38.86

(1.00)

39.27

(1.53)

39.67

(1.11)

39.06

(1.03)

39.24

(1.35)

39.68

(1.46)

36.65

(0.43)

37.83

(0.80)

37.24

(0.43)

38.64

(0.93)

38.28

(0.39)

H* 66.08

(0.63)

65.97

(1.66)

66.14

(2.08)

66.16

(0.66)

66.93

(2.12)

65.94

(3.01)

66.57

(2.08)

62.36

(0.36)

66.14

(0.42)

64.85

(0.16)

65.56

(0.52)

64.77

(0.46)

C* 42.03

(0.96)

42.56

(0.54)

42.95

(1.00)

43.37

(1.01)

42.46

(0.46)

43.01

(0.56)

43.26

(1.23)

41.36

(0.36)

41.37

(0.98)

41.14

(0.47)

42.44

(0.88)

42.32

(0.40)

Crumb

Color

L* 68.90

(1.89)

68.86

(0.45)

68.70

(0.35)

68.51

(0.70)

70.82

(1.21)

69.01

(0.74)

68.41

(0.33)

66.29

(0.29)

69.29

(0.75)

70.93

(0.96)

69.74

(0.87)

69.62

(2.51)

a* -0.13

(0.57)

0.11

(0.37)

-0.64

(0.34)

0.52

(0.55)

0.17

(0.42)

0.87

(0.43)

0.99

(0.33)

0.79

(0.08)

-0.45

(0.90)

-0.12

(0.17)

0.28

(0.09)

0.48

(0.39)

b* 26.05

(0.87)

28.24

(1.23)

28.69

(0.23)

31.71

(1.57)

27.60

(0.72)

29.15

(2.02)

30.78

(1.22)

30.32

(0.11)

25.05

(1.73)

27.52

(0.28)

28.25

(0.67)

27.71

(0.94)

H* 89.17

(0.76)

89.42

(0.39)

88.73

(0.66)

89.09

(0.94)

89.64

(0.89)

88.31

(0.75)

88.14

(0.60)

88.52

(0.14)

90.31

(1.05)

90.25

(0.35)

89.43

(0.18)

89.01

(0.82)

103

C* 26.05

(0.87)

28.24

(1.22)

28.60

(0.24)

31.72

(1.58)

27.60

(0.71)

29.16

(2.02)

30.79

(1.21)

30.33

(0.11)

25.05

(1.74)

27.52

(0.28)

28.25

(0.67)

27.71

(0.94) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

104

Table C.3: LA Cookie Data for Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 by Triala

Measurement

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Diameter

(mm)

46.26

(0.36)

46.27

(0.36)

46.26

(0.37)

46.27

(0.37)

46.44

(0.31)

46.44

(0.31)

46.45

(0.30)

46.44

(0.30)

46.40

(0.29)

46.40

(0.31)

46.40

(0.30)

46.40

(0.30)

Height

(mm)

19.88

(0.28)

19.88

(0.28)

19.87

(0.28)

19.88

(0.28)

18.86

(0.28)

19.85

(0.29)

19.85

(0.29)

19.85

(0.29)

20.12

(0.27)

20.11

(0.28)

20.12

(0.29)

20.12

(0.29)

Weight

(g)

13.707

(0.252)

13.468

(0.229)

13.413

(0.194)

13.360

(0.177)

13.658

(0.107)

13.073

(0.521)

13.073

(0.498)

13.016

(0.489)

13.698

(0.186)

13.349

(0.601)

13.344

(0.575)

13.334

(0.544)

pH 7.21

(0.03)

7.39

(0.04)

7.31

(0.03)

7.32

(0.06)

7.33

(0.04)

7.30

(0.02)

7.32

(0.04)

7.35

(0.04)

7.26

(0.05)

7.25

(0.05)

7.30

(0.07)

7.29

(0.06)

aw

0.709

(0.015)

0.698

(0.002)

0.696

(0.001)

0.694

(0.003)

0.697

(0.003)

0.665

(0.001)

0.640

(0.002)

0.638

(0.001)

0.671

(0.006)

0.666

(0.005)

0.667

(0.001)

0.666

(0.003)

Moisture

Content (%) NA NA NA NA

12.64

(0.38)

12.55

(0.55)

12.19

(0.09)

12.16

(0.50)

13.38

(0.06)

13.32

(0.02)

13.44

(0.07)

13.41

(0.04)

Hardness (N) 0.504

(0.018)

1.140

(0.040)

1.457

(0.062)

1.404

(0.036)

0.441

(0.059)

1.215

(0.170)

1.264

(0.138)

1.372

(0.185)

0.529

(0.019)

1.343

(0.153)

1.318

(1.106)

1.472

(0.048)

Crust

Color

L* 64.46

(2.45)

63.29

(3.95)

63.77

(0.94)

60.40

(0.83)

65.68

(0.78)

64.85

(1.08)

63.57

(0.74)

61.75

(1.38)

65.58

(2.39)

66.20

(0.46)

65.77

(0.32)

65.84

(0.76)

a* 2.94

(0.31)

3.01

(0.31)

3.64

(0.47)

5.81

(0.31)

61.82

(0.95)

5.98

(0.65)

7.48

(0.80)

8.05

(0.22)

34.41

(1.22)

4.29

(0.19)

4.86

(0.28)

5.07

(0.37)

b* 35.58

(1.79)

35.05

(0.65)

36.51

(2.43)

37.51

(0.87)

39.00

(0.14)

39.76

(1.25)

40.35

(1.05)

42.21

(0.65)

33.82

(2.65)

36.52

(1.19)

38.03

(0.73)

38.27

(0.43)

H* 84.85

(0.30)

85.08

(0.59)

84.80

(1.05)

81.19

(0.62)

80.09

(1.33)

81.47

(0.66)

79.51

(0.82)

79.21

(0.21)

84.33

(1.58)

83.30

(0.07)

82.72

(0.31)

82.45

(0.46)

C* 32.71

(1.80)

35.18

(0.62)

36.69

(2.46)

37.96

(0.84)

39.60

(0.26)

40.20

(1.33)

41.04

(1.18)

42.97

(0.67)

34.00

(2.76)

36.78

(1.21)

37.67

(1.11)

38.60

(0.48)

Bottom

Color

L* 41.41

(0.94)

41.09

(0.45)

41.07

(1.53)

42.38

(0.93)

40.07

(0.27)

39.61

(0.21)

38.26

(0.97)

37.83

(0.49)

41.11

(1.05)

40.61

(2.03)

40.81

(1.28)

42.42

(0.37)

a* 16.65

(0.39)

17.25

(0.03)

17.42

(0.59)

16.96

(0.19)

17.52

(0.17)

18.13

(0.24)

1.17

(0.15)

18.56

(0.23)

16.67

(0.21)

17.47

(0.36)

17.56

(0.13)

17.00

(0.30)

b* 36.10

(0.10)

35.71

(0.47)

35.84

(0.65)

36.84

(0.60)

33.46

(1.07)

32.57

(1.79)

33.17

(0.35)

32.64

(0.55)

33.77

(0.28)

34.55

(1.17)

34.55

(1.12)

34.65

(1.68)

H* 65.24

(0.56)

64.21

(0.33)

64.08

(1.15)

65.28

(0.57)

62.35

(0.54)

60.86

(1.62)

61.29

(0.29)

60.37

(0.71)

63.74

(0.43)

63.16

(1.23)

63.04

(0.93)

63.84

(0.78)

C* 39.76

(0.12)

39.66

(0.41)

39.85

(0.34)

40.57

(0.48)

37.77

(1.02)

37.28

(1.47)

37.81

(0.33)

37.55

(0.37)

37.67

(0.21)

38.72

(0.90)

38.76

(0.94)

38.60

(1.63)

Crumb

Color

L* 69.94

(2.45)

66.04

(1.38)

65.62

(0.79)

60.04

(0.67)

67.12

(2.94)

64.24

(1.97)

64.49

(1.77)

62.61

(0.52)

68.29

(0.54)

67.96

(1.17)

65.27

(0.45)

66.52

(1.99)

a* 1.66

(0.05)

2.10

(0.42)

2.48

(0.22)

3.61

(0.32)

3.76

(1.17)

3.59

(0.48)

3.76

(0.45)

5.07

(0.84)

1.92

(0.36)

2.89

(0.47)

2.80

(0.29)

2.54

(0.20)

b* 33.33

(1.15)

34.80

(0.76)

35.38

(0.40)

35.52

(0.60)

35.20

(0.15)

32.93

(1.53)

36.45

(0.69)

36.98

(1.36)

30.77

(0.84)

32.38

(0.45)

32.17

(0.56)

33.03

(0.67)

H* 87.15

(0.11)

86.55

(0.66)

85.99

(0.39)

84.20

(0.43)

83.91

(1.88)

83.96

(0.78)

84.12

(0.59)

82.21

(1.06)

86.44

(0.58)

84.91

(0.75)

85.03

(0.43)

85.59

(0.36)

105

C* 33.72

(1.15)

34.87

(0.77)

35.47

(0.39)

35.71

(0.62)

35.42

(0.22)

34.12

(0.25)

36.64

(0.73)

37.33

(1.44)

30.83

(0.86)

32.51

(0.49)

32.36

(0.56)

33.13

(0.67) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

106

Table C.4: AA Cookie Data for Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 by Triala

Measurement

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Day

0

Day

3

Day

5

Day

10

Diameter

(mm)

46.83

(0.53)

46.83

(0.53)

46.84

(0.53)

46.83

(0.53)

47.01

(0.370)

47.01

(0.37)

47.01

(0.36)

47.01

(0.37)

47.16

(0.21)

47.16

(0.20)

47.15

(0.22)

47.16

(0.21)

Height

(mm)

19.71

(0.54)

19.70

(0.53)

19.70

(0.53)

19.70

(0.52)

19.88

(0.46)

19.89

(0.46)

19.89

(0.46)

19.88

(0.45)

19.98

(0.46)

19.99

(0.47)

19.98

(0.47)

19.98

(0.47)

Weight

(g)

13.901

(0.272)

13.722

(0.267)

13.654

(0.304)

13.656

(0.234)

13.909

(0.343)

13.911

(0.324)

13.897

(0.286)

13.891

(0.292)

13.902

(0.375)

13.887

(0.348)

13.860

(0.359)

13.804

(0.308)

pH 7.43

(0.02)

7.50

(0.05)

7.42

(0.04)

7.40

(0.05)

7.40

(0.03)

7.43

(0.44)

7.43

(0.03)

7.44

(0.03)

7.39

(0.06)

7.40

(0.04)

7.50

(0.03)

7.43

(0.04)

aw

0.703

(0.002)

0.683

(0.002)

0.683

(0.001)

0.682

(0.001)

0.698

(0.003)

0.643

(0.002)

0.642

(0.001)

0.640

(0.003)

0.685

(0.006)

0.674

(0.001)

0.672

(0.001)

0.669

(0.001)

Moisture

Content (%) NA NA NA NA

12.28

(0.26)

12.15

(0.06)

12.21

(0.03)

12.15

(0.06)

13.61

(0.02)

13.34

(0.03)

13.24

(0.07)

13.27

(0.15)

Hardness (N) 0.503

(0.047)

1.258

(0.248)

1.223

(0.063)

1.290

(0.135)

0.349

(0.057)

0.907

(0.960)

1.102

(0.086)

1.127

(0.165)

0.613

(0.051)

1.442

(0.149)

1.444

(0.103)

1.565

(0.090)

Crust

Color

L* 59.92

(1.30)

59.89

(0.57)

59.94

(1.10)

55.87

(1.67)

59.66

(0.83)

58.48

(0.56)

57.03

(1.26)

57.09

(0.47)

60.41

(0.42)

59.15

(0.62)

57.49

(0.89)

57.42

(0.76)

a* 5.83

(0.34)

5.99

(0.24)

7.00

(0.45)

8.26

(0.57)

6.89

(0.36)

8.45

(0.33)

8.33

(0.48)

8.90

(0.62)

5.94

(0.48)

6.73

(0.44)

6.02

(1.56)

7.29

(0.21)

b* 32.48

(0.88)

34.95

(0.78)

35.93

(0.83)

36.13

(1.32)

33.58

(0.61)

36.61

(0.60)

36.74

(0.65)

37.82

(1.31)

32.10

(0.82)

33.28

(1.15)

32.93

(0.87)

34.73

(0.21)

H* 79.82

(0.50)

80.28

(0.25)

78.73

(1.28)

77.09

(1.29)

78.41

(0.41)

77.01

(0.29)

77.22

(0.84)

76.76

(0.45)

79.53

(0.56)

78.56

(0.36)

77.97

(0.53)

78.15

(0.26)

C* 33.00

(0.89)

35.46

(0.80)

36.61

(0.76)

37.08

(1.18)

34.28

(0.66)

37.56

(0.66)

37.68

(0.60)

38.86

(1.42)

32.65

(0.90)

33.95

(1.21)

33.67

(0.89)

35.49

(0.25)

Bottom

Color

L* 40.92

(0.87)

40.96

(0.77)

40.01

(0.46)

40.18

(2.02)

40.18

(0.31)

39.09

(0.45)

38.57

(0.61)

38.25

(0.30)

38.63

(0.99)

40.83

(0.69)

39.64

(0.20)

40.70

(0.27)

a* 15.84

(0.43)

16.30

(0.58)

16.93

(0.23)

17.04

(0.88)

17.37

(0.16)

17.63

(0.19)

17.83

(0.14)

18.15

(0.13)

16.29

(0.18)

16.39

(0.11)

16.94

(0.13)

16.20

(0.54)

b* 34.14

(1.07)

35.19

(0.61)

34.19

(0.44)

35.38

(0.81)

32.91

(1.73)

34.40

(2.08)

33.39

(2.41)

33.39

(0.04)

32.51

(0.29)

34.37

(0.45)

33.04

(0.32)

35.46

(0.71)

H* 65.11

(0.37)

65.15

(0.57)

63.66

(0.58)

64.27

(1.55)

62.57

(1.26)

62.82

(1.53)

61.83

(1.97)

61.48

(0.18)

63.38

(0.09)

64.50

(0.38)

62.85

(0.10)

65.44

(1.17)

C* 37.64

(1.13)

38.78

(0.75)

34.15

(0.31)

39.28

(0.54)

37.22

(1.49)

38.66

(1.82)

37.86

(2.05)

38.00

(0.07)

36.36

(0.34)

38.08

(0.40)

37.11

(0.36)

38.99

(0.42)

Crumb

Color

L* 57.67

(0.54)

56.54

(1.94)

56.57

(0.65)

55.88

(2.09)

58.47

(1.04)

58.27

(0.94)

57.27

(0.23)

57.32

(1.08)

59.01

(1.19)

59.26

(1.83)

57.52

(0.37)

57.65

(0.28)

a* 4.76

(0.26)

5.03

(0.55)

5.13

(0.33)

5.52

(0.14)

5.02

(0.73)

5.21

(0.70)

5.61

(0.05)

6.03

(0.15)

43.38

(0.23)

4.73

(0.24)

4.90

(0.33)

4.88

(0.22)

b* 30.32

(1.28)

32.16

(0.62)

32.08

(0.68)

33.01

(0.96)

31.21

(0.46)

37.71

(1.51)

33.25

(0.70)

34.65

(0.45)

29.05

(0.67)

30.54

(1.13)

30.32

(0.25)

30.79

(0.25)

H* 81.08

(0.16)

81.11

(0.89)

80.74

(0.49)

80.51

(0.08)

80.51

(1.46)

80.98

(0.770

80.42

(0.25)

80.13

(0.30)

81.43

(0.44)

81.21

(0.27)

80.81

(0.58)

80.93

(0.46)

107

C* 30.69

(1.10)

32.55

(0.65)

32.49

(0.72)

33.47

(0.97)

31.62

(0.34)

33.13

(1.60)

33.72

(0.69)

35.13

(0.43)

29.38

(0.67)

30.90

(1.15)

30.72

(0.27)

30.17

(0.22) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of triplicate samples. n = 3

108

Table C.5: HFCS Cookie Data by Trial

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Diameter (mm)

45.69

(0.50)

45.84

(0.29)

45.77

(0.22)

Height (mm)

22.08

(0.74)

21.71

(0.19)

21.88

(0.09)

pH 7.77

(0.03)

7.69

(0.07)

7.71

(0.03)

Weight (g) 14.112

(0.173)

13.819

(0.355)

14.395

(0.343)

aw 0.731

(0.028)

0.719

(0.039)

0.702

(0.005)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

14.55

(0.12)

14.76

(0.27)

Hardness (N) 1.108

(0.341)

0.922

(0.338)

1.111

(0.400)

Crust

Color

L*

70.48

(2.25)

72.74

(1.19)

73.05

(1.05)

a* 0.04

(0.58)

0.30

(0.46)

0.66

(0.42)

b* 31.86

(2.47)

33.75

(1.66)

31.40

(2.19)

H* 89.06

(0.53)

89.51

(0.80)

88.83

(0.67)

C* 31.87

(2.46)

33.75

(1.67)

31.41

(2.20)

Bottom

Color

L*

42.34

(1.42)

43.56

(0.40)

42.56

(1.45)

a* 17.23

(0.66)

17.18

(0.54)

16.94

(0.83)

b* 36.87

(0.99)

39.41

(0.78)

36.38

(1.18)

H* 64.94

(1.18)

66.44

(0.80)

65.18

(1.17)

C* 40.70

(0.84)

42.99

(0.73)

40.14

(1.08)

Crumb

Color

L*

69.85

(2.07)

70.64

(1.00)

70.60

(1.70)

a* -0.76

(0.52)

-0.75

(0.30)

0.08

(0.52)

109

b* 27.24

(1.61)

27.20

(1.24)

27.81

(1.23)

H* 88.54

(1.39)

91.59

(0.65)

89.87

(1.04)

C* 27.25

(1.60)

27.21

(1.24)

27.82

(1.23) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of each trial, which included

triplicate samples measured on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 12

110

Table C.6: IS Cookie Data by Trial

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Diameter (mm)

45.98

(0.70)

45.87

(0.39)

46.02

(0.25)

Height (mm)

21.43

(0.09)

21.21

(0.39)

21.47

(0.13)

pH 7.54

(0.03)

7.54

(0.03)

7.54

(0.03)

Weight (g) 14.164

(0.157)

13.731

(0.486)

14.494

(0.545)

aw 0.692

(0.037)

0.672

(0.044)

0.694

(0.030)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

13.38

(0.19)

14.15

(0.32)

Hardness (N) 1.126

(0.395)

0.907

(0.382)

1.147

(0.387)

Crust

Color

L*

69.69

(2.77)

70.41

(1.73)

70.93

(1.81)

a* 0.60

(0.39)

1.47

(0.43)

0.91

(0.40)

b* 34.02

(2.25)

36.17

(2.56)

30.77

(1.88)

H* 89.01

(0.61)

87.70

(0.61)

88.34

(0.71)

C* 34.03

(2.25)

36.20

(2.57)

30.79

(1.89)

Bottom

Color

L*

44.49

(1.52)

43.75

(1.45)

44.62

(1.03)

a* 17.30

(0.63)

17.62

(1.48)

17.45

(0.59)

b* 39.06

(1.12)

38.66

(1.57)

38.00

(0.80)

H* 66.09

(1.20)

65.45

(2.62)

65.33

(0.68)

C* 42.73

(0.92)

42.52

(0.94)

41.82

(0.86)

Crumb

Color

L*

68.74

(0.91)

68.63

(1.80)

69.90

(1.40)

a* -0.03

(0.59)

0.70

(0.44)

0.05

(0.57)

111

b* 28.65

(2.31)

29.46

(1.66)

27.13

(1.57)

H* 89.10

(0.66)

88.65

(0.83)

89.75

(0.82)

C* 28.65

(2.31)

29.47

(1.66)

27.13

(1.57) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of each trial, which included

triplicate samples measured on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 12

112

Table C.7: LA Cookie Data by Trial

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Diameter (mm)

46.26

(0.31)

46.44

(0.26)

46.40

(0.26)

Height (mm)

19.88

(0.24)

19.85

(0.25)

20.12

(0.24)

pH 7.31

(0.07)

7.32

(0.03)

7.28

(0.05)

Weight (g) 13.487

(0.230)

13.205

(0.464)

13.431

(0.460)

aw 0.700

(0.009)

0.660

(0.025)

0.667

(0.004)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

12.38

(0.42)

13.39

(0.06)

Hardness (N) 1.126

(0.397)

1.073

(0.405)

1.165

(0.397)

Crust

Color

L*

62.98

(2.61)

63.97

(1.08)

65.85

(1.12)

a* 3.85

(1.25)

7.08

(1.01)

4.41

(0.88)

b* 35.41

(2.37)

40.33

(1.45)

36.66

(2.26)

H* 83.98

(1.79)

80.07

(1.16)

83.20

(1.04)

C* 35.63

(2.46)

40.95

(1.56)

36.76

(2.27)

Bottom

Color

L*

41.49

(1.040

38.94

(1.08)

41.24

(1.35)

a* 17.07

(0.44)

18.09

(0.42)

17.17

(0.44)

b* 36.13

(0.63)

32.96

(1.01)

34.38

(1.07)

H* 64.70

(0.85)

61.22

(1.10)

63.45

(0.84)

C* 39.96

(0.48)

37.60

(0.82)

38.44

(1.01)

Crumb

Color

L*

65.66

(1.68)

64.62

(2.40)

67.01

(1.62)

a* 2.46

(0.79)

40.05

(0.92)

2.54

(0.49)

113

b* 34.76

(1.12)

35.39

(1.87)

32.09

(1.02)

H* 85.97

(1.21)

83.55

(1.29)

85.49

(0.79)

C* 34.85

(1.16)

35.88

(1.46)

32.18

(1.04) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of each trial, which included

triplicate samples measured on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 12

114

Table C.8: AA Cookie Data by Trial

Measurement Trial

1 2 3

Diameter (mm)

46.83

(0.454)

47.01

(0.31)

47.16

(0.18)

Height (mm)

19.71

(0.45)

19.89

(0.39)

19.98

(0.40)

pH 7.44

(0.05)

7.42

(0.03)

7.43

(0.06)

Weight (g) 13.733

(0.254)

13.902

(0.266)

13.863

(0.300)

aw 0.688

(0.009)

0.656

(0.026)

0.675

(0.007)

Moisture Content

(%) NA

12.20

(0.13)

13.36

(0.17)

Hardness (N) 1.068

(0.364)

0.871

(0.340)

1.266

(0.407)

Crust

Color

L*

57.66

(1.88)

58.07

(1.34)

58.62

(1.43)

a* 6.77

(1.08)

8.14

(0.88)

6.49

(0.93)

b* 34.87

(1.73)

36.19

(1.80)

33.26

(1.22)

H* 78.98

(1.52)

77.35

(0.80)

78.55

(0.73)

C* 35.54

(1.83)

37.09

(1.94)

33.94

(1.30)

Bottom

Color

L*

40.52

(1.11)

39.02

(0.85)

39.95

(1.07)

a* 16.53

(0.71)

17.75

(0.32)

16.46

(0.39)

b* 34.72

(0.88)

33.52

(1.65)

33.84

(1.27)

H* 64.55

(1.00)

62.17

(1.32)

64.04

(1.17)

C* 38.46

(0.91)

37.94

(1.43)

37.63

(1.08)

Crumb

Color

L*

56.67

(1.43)

57.83

(0.95)

58.36

(1.26)

a* 5.11

(0.41)

5.47

(0.59)

4.72

(0.31)

115

b* 31.89

(1.29)

32.96

(1.50)

30.18

(0.91)

H* 80.86

(0.51)

80.51

(0.79)

81.11

(0.54)

C* 32.30

(1.32)

33.41

(1.54)

30.54

(0.93) aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) of each trial, which included

triplicate samples measured on sampling days 0, 3, 5, and 10. n = 12

116

Table C.9: Cookie Data – Combined Mean of All Sampling Days and Trials

Measurement Cookie

p-value HFCS IS LA AA

Diameterc

(mm)

45.77 a

(0.35)

45.96 a

(0.47)

46.37 b

(0.28)

47.00 c

(0.35) < 0.0001

Heightc (mm) 21.89 a

(0.46)

21.37 b

(0.26)

19.95 c

(0.26)

19.86 c

(0.42) < 0.0001

pHc 7.72 a

(0.06)

7.54 b

(0.03)

7.30 c

(0.06)

7.43 d

(0.05) < 0.0001

Weightc (g) 14.109 a

(0.378)

14.130 a

(0.525)

13.374 b

(0.408)

13.833 c

(0.276) < 0.0001

Moisture

Content d (%)

14.66 a

(0.23)

13.77 b

(0.47)

12.89 c

(0.59)

12.78 c

(0.61) < 0.0001

aw c

0.717 a

(0.030)

0.686 b

(0.038)

0.675 b

(0.023)

0.673 b

(0.021) < 0.0001

Hardness

c (N)

1.047 a

(0.360)

1.060 a

(0.393)

1.122 a

(0.390)

1.069 a

(0.396) 0.8546

Crust

Color c

L* 72.09 a

(1.93)

70.34 b

(2.15)

64.26 c

(2.23)

58.11 d

(1.58) < 0.0001

a* 0.33 a

(0.55)

0.99 a

(0.54)

5.11 b

(1.76)

7.14 c

(1.19) < 0.0001

b* 32.34 a

(2.31)

33.65 ac

(3.13)

37.47 b

(2.92)

34.77 c

(1.98) < 0.0001

C* 89.13 a

(0.72)

88.35 a

(0.83)

82.42 b

(2.17)

78.29 c

(1.26) < 0.0001

H* 32.34 a

(2.31)

33.67 a

(3.14)

37.78 b

(3.11)

35.52 c

(2.11) < 0.0001

Bottom

Color c

L* 42.82 a

(1.28)

44.28 b

(1.37)

40.56 c

(1.62)

39.83 c

(1.17) < 0.0001

a* 17.12 ab

(0.68)

17.46 a

(0.97)

17.45 a

(0.63)

16.91 b

(0.77) 0.0060

b* 37.55 a

(1.66)

38.57 b

(1.25)

34.49 c

(1.59)

34.03 c

(1.37) < 0.0001

C* 65.52 a

(1.23)

65.62 a

(1.70)

63.12 b

(1.72)

63.59 b

(1.54) < 0.0001

H* 41.28 a

(1.52)

42.36 b

(0.97)

38.67 c

(1.26)

38.01 c

(1.18) < 0.0001

Crumb

Color c

L* 70.37 a

(1.65)

69.09 b

(1.49)

65.76 c

(2.13)

57.62 d

(1.39) < 0.0001

a* -0.48 a

(0.60)

0.24 b

(0.62)

3.02 c

(1.04)

5.10 d

(0.54) < 0.0001

117

b* 27.42 a

(1.36)

28.41 a

(2.07)

34.08 b

(1.98)

31.67 c

(1.68) < 0.0001

C* 90.00 a

(1.64)

89.17 b

(0.88)

85.00 c

(1.52)

80.83 d

(0.64) < 0.0001

H* 27.43 a

(1.36)

28.42 a

(2.07)

34.30 b

(1.98)

32.08 c

(1.73) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for the cookie trials, which

included sampling day 0, 3, 5, and 10. bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 36 dn = 24

118

Table C.10: Comparison of Data from Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10 for Each Cookieab

Measurement Cookie Sampling Day

p-value 0 3 5 10

Diameter c

(mm)

HFCS 45.77 a

(0.37)

45.77 a

(0.37)

45.77 a

(0.37)

45.77 a

(0.37) 1.0000

IS 45.96 a

(0.50)

45.95 a

(0.50)

45.96 a

(0.50)

45.96 a

(0.49) 1.0000

LA 46.37 a

(0.29)

46.37 a

(0.29)

46.37 a

(0.29)

46.37 a

(0.29) 1.0000

AA 47.00 a

(0.37)

47.00 a

(0.37)

47.00 a

(0.36)

47.00 a

(0.37) 1.0000

Height c

(mm)

HFCS 21.89 a

(0.48)

21.89 a

(0.48)

21.89 a

(0.48)

21.89 a

(0.48) 1.0000

IS 21.37 a

(0.28)

21.37 a

(0.28)

21.37 a

(0.27)

21.37 a

(0.28) 1.0000

LA 19.95 a

(0.27)

19.95 a

(0.27)

19.95 a

(0.28)

19.95 a

(0.28) 0.9999

AA 19.86 a

(0.44)

19.86 a

(0.44)

19.86 a

(0.44)

19.86 a

(0.43) 1.0000

pH c

HFCS 7.71 a

(0.05)

7.71 a

(0.67)

7.72 a

(0.06)

7.74 a

(0.07) 0.7293

IS 7.53 a

(0.03)

7.54 a

(0.03)

7.54 a

(0.03)

7.54 a

(0.03) 0.9139

LA 7.27 a

(0.06)

7.32 a

(0.07)

7.31 a

(0.04)

7.32 a

(0.05) 0.2119

AA 7.41 a

(0.04)

7.44 a

(0.06)

7.45 a

(0.05)

7.42 a

(0.04) 0.2132

Moisture

Content d

(%)

HFCS 14.78 a

(0.33)

14.70 a

(0.26)

14.60 a

(0.10)

14.54 a

(0.11) 0.2601

IS 14.12 a

(0.53)

13.78 a

(0.48)

13.66 a

(0.40)

13.51 a

(0.31) 0.1268

LA 13.01 a

(0.47)

12.94 a

(0.54)

12.81 a

(0.69)

12.79 a

(0.76) 0.9181

AA 12.95

(0.74)

12.74 a

(0.65)

12.73 a

(0.57)

12.71 a

(0.62) 0.9109

awc

HFCS 0.756 a

(0.037)

0.707 b

(0.012)

0.707 b

(0.009)

0.700 b

(0.007) < 0.0001

IS 0.747 a

(0.006)

0.668 b

(0.018)

0.666 b

(0.014)

0.662 b

(0.011) < 0.0001

LA 0.692 a

(0.019)

0.676 a

(0.016)

0.668 a

(0.025)

0.666 a

(0.024) 0.0527

119

AA 0.695 a

(0.009)

0.666 b

(0.018)

0.666 b

(0.018)

0.664 b

(0.019) 0.0006

Weight c

(g)

HFCS 14.271 a

(0.264)

14.094 a

(0.407)

14.056 a

(0.412)

14.020 a

(0.421) 0.5114

IS 14.334 a

(0.375)

14.112 a

(0.560)

14.053 a

(0.590)

14.020 a

(0.580) 0.6010

LA 13.687 a

(0.167)

13.297 a

(0.449)

13.277 a

(0.422)

13.237 a

(0.411) 0.0585

AA 13.904 a

(0.288)

13.840 a

(0.287)

13.804 a

(0.298)

13.784 a

(0.264) 0.8180

Hardness

c

(N)

HFCS 0.489 a

(0.097)

1.198 b

(0.174)

1.220 b

(0.144)

1.282 b

(0.187) < 0.0001

IS 0.457 a

(0.124)

1.158 b

(0.196)

1.281 b

(0.166)

1.346 b

(0.162) < 0.0001

LA 0.491 a

(0.051)

1.232 b

(0.146)

1.346 bc

(0.126)

1.416 c

(0.107) < 0.0001

AA 0.488 a

(0.123)

1.203 b

(0.281)

1.257 b

(0.167)

1.327 b

(0.224) < 0.0001

Crust

Color

c

L*

HFCS 73.24 a

(2.08)

72.54 a

(1.68)

71.24 a

(1.80)

71.34 a

(1.66) 0.0705

IS 72.24 a

(1.27)

71.25 ab

(2.42)

69.29 bc

(1.30)

68.58 c

(1.20) < 0.0001

LA 65.24 a

(1.85)

64.78 a

(2.42)

64.37 a

(1.22)

62.66 a

(2.61) 0.0695

AA 60.00 a

(0.87)

58.17 b

(1.12)

57.49 bc

(1.03)

56.79 c

(1.18) < 0.0001

a*

HFCS 0.07 a

(0.74)

0.26 a

(0.59)

0.48 a

(0.45)

0.53 a

(0.22) 0.2654

IS 0.50 a

(0.54)

1.16 b

(0.60)

1.12 b

(0.44)

1.19 b

(0.27) 0.0118

LA 4.39 a

(1.99)

4.43 a

(1.34)

5.33 a

(1.77)

6.31 a

(1.37) 0.0584

AA 6.22 a

(0.61)

7.06 ab

(1.13)

7.12 ab

(1.31)

8.15 b

(0.83) 0.0035

b*

HFCS 30.04 a

(1.81)

32.15 ab

(1.61)

33.19 b

(1.92)

33.96 b

(2.04) 0.0006

IS 30.87 a

(2.48)

34.57 b

(2.93)

34.73 b

(2.38)

34.44 ab

(3.30) 0.0162

LA 35.13 a

(3.36)

37.11 ab

(2.28)

38.29 ab

(2.17)

39.33 b

(2.26) 0.0102

AA 32.72 a

(0.95)

34.95 b

(1.63)

35.20 b

(1.87)

36.23 b

(1.64) 0.0004

120

H*

HFCS 88.99 a

(0.95)

89.28 a

(0.80)

89.15 a

(0.71)

89.11 a

(0.37) 0.8702

IS 89.00 a

(0.81)

88.20 ab

(1.07)

88.17 ab

(0.65)

88.02 b

(0.33) 0.0449

LA 83.09 a

(2.49)

83.28 a

(1.63)

82.34 a

(2.41)

80.95 a

(1.48) 0.0859

AA 79.25 a

(0.78)

78.62 ab

(1.44)

77.97 ab

(1.04)

77.33 b

(0.94) 0.0043

C*

HFCS 30.05 a

(1.81)

32.16 ab

(1.62)

33.19 b

(1.92)

33.96 b

(2.04) 0.0006

IS 30.88 a

(2.48)

34.60 b

(2.94)

34.75 b

(2.39)

34.46 ab

(3.31) 0.0161

LA 35.44 a

(3.58)

37.39 ab

(2.42)

38.47 ab

(2.46)

39.84 b

(2.44) 0.0148

AA 33.31 a

(1.03)

35.66 b

(1.76)

35.98 b

(1.92)

37.14 b

(1.73) 0.0003

Bottom

Color

c

L*

HFCS 42.74 a

(0.74)

43.09 a

(0.99)

42.88 a

(1.05)

42.56 a

(2.08) 0.8568

IS 44.73 a

(0.96)

43.87 a

(1.47)

45.02 a

(1.27)

43.52 a

(1.36) 0.0587

LA 40.86 a

(0.94)

40.44 a

(1.23)

40.05 a

(1.75)

40.88 a

(2.35) 0.6744

AA 39.91 a

(1.22)

40.29 a

(1.07)

39.41 a

(0.76)

39.71 a

(1.52) 0.4535

a*

HFCS 17.00 a

(0.63)

17.02 a

(0.36)

17.18 a

(0.62)

17.26 a

(1.02) 0.8295

IS 16.80 a

(0.74)

17.43 ab

(1.05)

17.36 ab

(0.81)

18.25 b

(0.77) 0.0102

LA 16.95 a

(0.49)

17.62 ab

(0.45)

17.71 b

(0.46)

17.51 ab

(0.82) 0.0363

AA 16.50 a

(0.72)

16.77 a

(0.72)

17.23 a

(0.47)

17.13 a

(0.99) 0.1673

b*

HFCS 37.14 a

(1.48)

37.94 a

(1.73)

37.49 a

(2.01)

37.63 a

(1.56) 0.7941

IS 38.44 a

(0.99)

38.45 a

(1.27)

39.20 a

(1.24)

38.20 a

(1.45) 0.3671

LA 34.44 a

(1.37)

34.28 a

(1.76)

34.52 a

(1.34)

34.71 a

(2.05) 0.9555

AA 33.19 a

(1.26)

34.65 a

(1.18)

33.54 a

(1.34)

34.74 a

(1.15) 0.0228

H* HFCS 65.60 a

(1.04)

65.79 a

(1.32)

65.33 a

(1.56)

65.36 a

(1.11) 0.8523

121

IS 66.39 a

(1.20)

65.59 a

(1.81)

66.09 a

(1.56)

64.43 a

(1.72) 0.0658

LA 63.78 a

(1.33)

62.74 a

(1.81)

62.80 a

(1.43)

63.17 a

(2.26) 0.5818

AA 63.69 a

(1.30)

64.16 a

(1.34)

62.78 a

(1.30)

63.73 a

(2.01) 0.2868

C*

HFCS 40.86 a

(1.27)

41.60 a

(1.48)

41.25 a

(1.78)

41.41 a

(1.69) 0.7810

IS 41.95 a

(0.86)

42.24 a

(0.96)

42.88 a

(0.91)

42.35 a

(1.04) 0.2282

LA 38.40 a

(1.15)

38.55 a

(1.37)

38.81 a

(1.03)

38.91 a

(1.59) 0.8343

AA 37.07 a

(1.10)

38.51 b

(1.06)

37.71 ab

(1.15)

38.76 b

(0.67) 0.0050

Crumb

Color

c

L*

HFCS 71.33 a

(0.83)

71.04 a

(1.27)

70.37 ab

(1.33)

69.73 b

(1.80) 0.0013

IS 69.67 a

(1.47)

69.60 a

(1.19)

68.95 a

(0.78)

68.14 a

(1.97) 0.1013

LA 67.45 a

(2.03)

66.08 ab

(2.09)

65.13 ab

(1.11)

64.39 b

(2.03) 0.0093

AA 58.39 a

(1.02)

58.02 a

(1.85)

57.12 a

(0.58)

56.95 a

(1.44) 0.0757

a*

HFCS -0.67 ab

(0.36)

-0.87 a

(0.49)

-0.22 ab

(0.76)

-0.15 a

(0.47) 0.0204

IS -0.14 a

(0.63)

0.29 a

(0.54)

0.21 a

(0.75)

0.59 a

(0.37) 0.0917

LA 2.45 a

(1.17)

2.86 ab

(0.76)

3.01 ab

(0.64)

3.74 b

(1.19) 0.0565

AA 4.72 a

(0.49)

4.99 ab

(0.51)

5.22 ab

(0.39)

5.47 b

(0.52) 0.0150

b*

HFCS 26.15 a

(0.86)

26.88 ac

(1.04)

28.63 b

(1.17)

28.00 bc

(0.87) < 0.0001

IS 26.23 a

(1.52)

28.30 b

(1.38)

29.21 b

(1.38)

29.91 b

(1.98) 0.0002

LA 33.10 a

(2.06)

33.37 a

(1.41)

34.67 a

(1.99)

35.18 a

(1.91) 0.0686

AA 30.19 a

(1.21)

31.80 ab

(1.39)

31.89 ab

(1.37)

32.82 b

(1.77) 0.0054

H*

HFCS 90.06 a

(1.76)

90.36 a

(2.24)

89.27 a

(1.37)

90.31 a

(0.95) 0.4763

IS 89.71 a

(0.93)

89.33 a

(0.96)

88.77 a

(0.72)

88.87 a

(0.68) 0.0836

122

LA 85.83 a

(1.77)

85.14 ab

(1.30)

85.04 ab

(0.90)

84.00 b

(1.59) 0.0765

AA 81.01 a

(0.87)

81.10 a

(0.61)

80.66 a

(0.44)

80.54 a

(0.43) 0.1890

C*

HFCS 26.16 a

(0.86)

26.90 ac

(1.03)

28.64 b

(1.17)

28.00 bc

(0.87) < 0.0001

IS 26.23 a

(1.52)

28.31 b

(1.39)

29.21 b

(1.39)

29.92 b

(1.99) 0.0002

LA 33.21 a

(2.12)

33.83 a

(1.14)

34.79 a

(2.03)

35.39 a

(2.02) 0.0838

AA 30.56 a

(1.23)

32.19 ab

(1.44)

32.31 ab

(1.41)

33.27 b

(1.82) 0.0053

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for each sampling day of the

cookie trials. bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 9

dn = 6

123

Table C.11: Comparison of Data for the Cookies on Sampling Days 0, 3, 5, and 10ab

Measurement Sampling

Day

Cookie p-value

HFCS IS LA AA

Diameter c

(mm)

0 45.77 a

(0.37)

45.96 ab

(0.50)

46.37 b

(0.29)

47.00 c

(0.37) < 0.0001

3 45.77 a

(0.37)

45.95 ab

(0.50)

46.37 b

(0.29)

47.00 c

(0.37) < 0.0001

5 45.77 a

(0.37)

45.96 ab

(0.50)

46.37 b

(0.29)

47.00 c

(0.36) < 0.0001

10 45.77 a

(0.37)

45.96 ab

(0.49)

46.37 b

(0.29)

47.00 c

(0.37) < 0.0001

Height c

(mm)

0 21.89 a

(0.48)

21.37 b

(0.28)

19.95 c

(0.27)

19.86 c

(0.44) < 0.0001

3 21.89 a

(0.48)

21.37 b

(0.28)

19.95 c

(0.27)

19.86 c

(0.44) < 0.0001

5 21.89 a

(0.48)

21.37 b

(0.27)

19.95 c

(0.28)

19.86 c

(0.44) < 0.0001

10 21.89 a

(0.48)

21.37 b

(0.28)

19.95 c

(0.28)

19.86 c

(0.43) < 0.0001

pH c

0 7.71 a

(0.05)

7.53 b

(0.03)

7.27 c

(0.06)

7.41 d

(0.04) < 0.0001

3 7.71 a

(0.67)

7.54 b

(0.03)

7.32 c

(0.07)

7.44 d

(0.06) < 0.0001

5 7.72 a

(0.06)

7.54 b

(0.03)

7.31 c

(0.04)

7.45 d

(0.05) < 0.0001

10 7.74 a

(0.07)

7.54 b

(0.03)

7.32 c

(0.05)

7.42 d

(0.04) < 0.0001

Moisture

Content

d

(%)

0 14.78 a

(0.33)

14.12 a

(0.53)

13.01 b

(0.47)

12.95 b

(0.74) < 0.0001

3 14.70 a

(0.26)

13.78 b

(0.48)

12.94 c

(0.54)

12.74 c

(0.65) < 0.0001

5 14.60 a

(0.10)

13.66 b

(0.40)

12.81 c

(0.69)

12.73 c

(0.57) < 0.0001

10 14.54 a

(0.11)

13.51 b

(0.31)

12.79 b

(0.76)

12.71 b

(0.62) < 0.0001

aw

c

0 0.756 a

(0.037)

0.747 a

(0.006)

0.692 b

(0.019)

0.695 b

(0.009) < 0.0001

3 0.707 a

(0.012)

0.668 b

(0.018)

0.676 b

(0.016)

0.666 b

(0.018) < 0.0001

5 0.707 a

(0.009)

0.666 b

(0.014)

0.668 b

(0.025)

0.666 b

(0.018) < 0.0001

124

10 0.700 a

(0.007)

0.662 b

(0.011)

0.666 b

(0.024)

0.664 b

(0.019) < 0.0001

Weight

c

(g)

0 14.271 a

(0.264)

14.334 a

(0.375)

13.687 b

(0.167)

13.904 b

(0.288) < 0.0001

3 14.094 a

(0.407)

14.112 a

(0.560)

13.297 b

(0.449)

13.840 ab

(0.287) 0.0011

5 14.056 a

(0.412)

14.053 a

(0.590)

13.277 b

(0.422)

13.804 ab

(0.298) 0.0020

10 14.020 a

(0.421)

14.020 a

(0.580)

13.237 b

(0.411)

13.784 ab

(0.264) 0.0015

Hardness

c

(N)

0 0.489 a

(0.097)

0.457 a

(0.124)

0.491 a

(0.051)

0.488 a

(0.123) 0.8757

3 1.198 a

(0.174)

1.158 a

(0.196)

1.232 a

(0.146)

1.203 a

(0.281) 0.8946

5 1.220 a

(0.144)

1.281 a

(0.166)

1.346 a

(0.126)

1.257 a

(0.167) 0.3615

10 1.282 a

(0.187)

1.346 a

(0.162)

1.416 a

(0.107)

1.327 a

(0.224) 0.4476

Crust

Color c

L*

0 73.24 a

(2.08)

72.24 a

(1.27)

65.24 b

(1.85)

60.00 c

(0.87) < 0.0001

3 72.54 a

(1.68)

71.25 a

(2.42)

64.78 b

(2.42)

58.17 c

(1.12) < 0.0001

5 71.24 a

(1.80)

69.29 b

(1.30)

64.37 c

(1.22)

57.49 d

(1.03) < 0.0001

10 71.34 a

(1.66)

68.58 b

(1.20)

62.66 c

(2.61)

56.79 d

(1.18) < 0.0001

a*

0 0.07 a

(0.74)

0.50 a

(0.54)

4.39 b

(1.99)

6.22 c

(0.61) < 0.0001

3 0.26 a

(0.59)

1.16 a

(0.60)

4.43 b

(1.34)

7.06 c

(1.13) < 0.0001

5 0.48 a

(0.45)

1.12 a

(0.44)

5.33 b

(1.77)

7.12 c

(1.31) < 0.0001

10 0.53 a

(0.22)

1.19 a

(0.27)

6.31 b

(1.37)

8.15 c

(0.83) < 0.0001

b*

0 30.04 a

(1.81)

30.87 a

(2.48)

35.13 b

(3.36)

32.72 ab

(0.95) 0.0003

3 32.15 a

(1.61)

34.57 ab

(2.93)

37.11 b

(2.28)

34.95 b

(1.63) 0.0005

5 33.19 a

(1.92)

34.73 a

(2.38)

38.29 b

(2.17)

35.20 a

(1.87) 0.0001

10 33.96 a

(2.04)

34.44 a

(3.30)

39.33 b

(2.26)

36.23 a

(1.64) 0.0001

125

H*

0 88.99 a

(0.95)

89.00 a

(0.81)

83.09 b

(2.49)

79.25 c

(0.78) < 0.0001

3 89.28 a

(0.80)

88.20 a

(1.07)

83.28 b

(1.63)

78.62 c

(1.44) < 0.0001

5 89.15 a

(0.71)

88.17 a

(0.65)

82.34 b

(2.41)

77.97 c

(1.04) < 0.0001

10 89.11 a

(0.37)

88.02 a

(0.33)

80.95 b

(1.48)

77.33 c

(0.94) < 0.0001

C*

0 30.05 a

(1.81)

30.88 ac

(2.48)

35.44 b

(3.58)

33.31 bc

(1.03) 0.0002

3 32.16 a

(1.62)

34.60 ab

(2.94)

37.39 b

(2.42)

35.66 b

(1.76) 0.0003

5 33.19 a

(1.92)

34.75 a

(2.39)

38.47 b

(2.46)

35.98 ab

(1.92) 0.0001

10 33.96 a

(2.04)

34.46 ac

(3.31)

39.84 b

(2.44)

37.14 bc

(1.73) < 0.0001

Bottom

Color c

L*

0 42.74 a

(0.74)

44.73 b

(0.96)

40.86 c

(0.94)

39.91 c

(1.22) < 0.0001

3 43.09 a

(0.99)

43.87 a

(1.47)

40.44 b

(1.23)

40.29 b

(1.07) < 0.0001

5 42.88 a

(1.05)

45.02 b

(1.27)

40.05 c

(1.75)

39.41 c

(0.76) < 0.0001

10 42.56 ab

(2.08)

43.52 a

(1.36)

40.88 bc

(2.35)

39.71 c

(1.52) 0.0007

a*

0 17.00 a

(0.63)

16.80 a

(0.74)

16.95 a

(0.49)

16.50 a

(0.72) 0.3804

3 17.02 a

(0.36)

17.43 a

(1.05)

17.62 a

(0.45)

16.77 a

(0.72) 0.0617

5 17.18 a

(0.62)

17.36 a

(0.81)

17.71 a

(0.46)

17.23 a

(0.47) 0.2590

10 17.26 a

(1.02)

18.25 a

(0.77)

17.51 a

(0.82)

17.13 a

(0.99) 0.0600

b*

0 37.14 a

(1.48)

38.44 a

(0.99)

34.44 b

(1.37)

33.19 b

(1.26) < 0.0001

3 37.94 a

(1.73)

38.45 a

(1.27)

34.28 b

(1.76)

34.65 b

(1.18) < 0.0001

5 37.49 a

(2.01)

39.20 a

(1.24)

34.52 b

(1.34)

33.54 b

(1.34) < 0.0001

10 37.63 a

(1.56)

38.20 a

(1.45)

34.71 b

(2.05)

34.74 b

(1.15) < 0.0001

H* 0 65.60 a

(1.04)

66.39 a

(1.20)

63.78 b

(1.33)

63.69 b

(1.30) < 0.0001

126

3 65.79 a

(1.32)

65.59 a

(1.81)

62.74 b

(1.81)

64.16 ab

(1.34) 0.0008

5 65.33 a

(1.56)

66.09 a

(1.56)

62.80 b

(1.43)

62.78 b

(1.30) < 0.0001

10 65.36 a

(1.11)

64.43 a

(1.72)

63.17 a

(2.26)

63.73 a

(2.01) 0.0852

C*

0 40.86 a

(1.27)

41.95 a

(0.86)

38.40 b

(1.15)

37.07 b

(1.10) < 0.0001

3 41.60 a

(1.48)

42.24 a

(0.96)

38.55 b

(1.37)

38.51 b

(1.06) < 0.0001

5 41.25 a

(1.78)

42.88 b

(0.91)

38.81 c

(1.03)

37.71 c

(1.15) < 0.0001

10 41.41 a

(1.69)

42.35 a

(1.04)

38.91 b

(1.59)

38.76 b

(0.67) < 0.0001

Crumb

Color c

L*

0 71.33 a

(0.83)

69.67 a

(1.47)

67.45 b

(2.03)

58.39 c

(1.02) < 0.0001

3 71.04 a

(1.27)

69.60 a

(1.19)

66.08 b

(2.09)

58.02 c

(1.85) < 0.0001

5 70.37 a

(1.33)

68.95 b

(0.78)

65.13 c

(1.11)

57.12 d

(0.58) < 0.0001

10 69.73 a

(1.80)

68.14 a

(1.97)

64.39 b

(2.03)

56.95 c

(1.44) < 0.0001

a*

0 -0.67 a

(0.36)

-0.14 a

(0.63)

2.45 b

(1.17)

4.72 c

(0.49) < 0.0001

3 -0.87 a

(0.49)

0.29 b

(0.54)

2.86 c

(0.76)

4.99 d

(0.51) < 0.0001

5 -0.22 a

(0.76)

0.21 a

(0.75)

3.01 b

(0.64)

5.22 c

(0.39) < 0.0001

10 -0.15 a

(0.47)

0.59 a

(0.37)

3.74 b

(1.19)

5.47 c

(0.52) < 0.0001

b*

0 26.15 a

(0.86)

26.23 a

(1.52)

33.10 b

(2.06)

30.19 c

(1.21) < 0.0001

3 26.88 a

(1.04)

28.30 a

(1.38)

33.37 b

(1.41)

31.80 b

(1.39) < 0.0001

5 28.63 a

(1.17)

29.21 a

(1.38)

34.67 b

(1.99)

31.89 c

(1.37) < 0.0001

10 28.00 a

(0.87)

29.91 a

(1.98)

35.18 b

(1.91)

32.82 c

(1.77) < 0.0001

H*

0 90.06 a

(1.76)

89.71 a

(0.93)

85.83 b

(1.77)

81.01 c

(0.87) < 0.0001

3 90.36 a

(2.24)

89.33 a

(0.96)

85.14 b

(1.30)

81.10 c

(0.61) < 0.0001

127

5 89.27 a

(1.37)

88.77 a

(0.72)

85.04 b

(0.90)

80.66 c

(0.44) < 0.0001

10 90.31 a

(0.95)

88.87 b

(0.68)

84.00 c

(1.59)

80.54 d

(0.43) < 0.0001

C*

0 26.16 a

(0.86)

26.23 a

(1.52)

33.21 b

(2.12)

30.56 c

(1.23) < 0.0001

3 26.90 a

(1.03)

28.31 a

(1.39)

33.83 b

(1.14)

32.19 c

(1.44) < 0.0001

5 28.64 a

(1.17)

29.21 a

(1.39)

34.79 b

(2.03)

32.31 c

(1.41) < 0.0001

10 28.00 a

(0.87)

29.92 a

(1.99)

35.39 b

(2.02)

33.27 b

(1.82) < 0.0001

aValues are means (with standard deviations in parenthesis) for each sampling day of the

cookie trials. bMeans followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (P <

0.05). cn = 9

dn = 6

128

Appendix D

Sensory Evaluation—Consumer Panel Documents

The informational letter provided to panelists is presented on pages 127–128.

The sensory evaluation ballot is presented on pages 129–134. During the consumer panel,

the ballot was presented in a computerized format and the sample order was randomized.

The sample 3-digit sample codes are:

366—HFCS

987—IS

654—LA

181—AA

129

Information about Being in a Research Study

Clemson University

Comparison of Characteristics Associated with

Sugar Syrup Variables in Cookie Samples

Description of the Study and Your Part in It

Dr. Paul Dawson and Danielle Lynn are inviting you to take part in a research study. Dr.

Paul Dawson is a professor in the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging

Sciences at Clemson University. Danielle Lynn is a graduate student at Clemson

University, running this study with the help of Dr. Paul Dawson. The purpose of this

research study is to compare the effects of different sugar syrups on the characteristics of

cookie samples. Currently, the food industry is examining alternative sweeteners and

sugars, which are often natural or healthier options. Prior to changing food product

formulations, it is important to determine consumer acceptability through sensory

evaluation. The four sugar syrup variables used to prepare these cookie samples are light

agave nectar, amber agave nectar, high fructose corn syrup, and invert sugar syrup. Data

and conclusions from the sensory panel will be used in a Master of Science thesis.

Your part in the study will be to taste the four cookie samples provided and complete the

sensory ballot. Throughout your participation in the study, the ballot will indicate the

sample tasting order and prompt you to evaluate each characteristic. Upon finishing of

the ballot, your participation in the study is complete.

It will take approximately 15 minutes for you to participate in this study, which includes

the time for tasting the samples and completing the ballot.

Risks and Discomforts

We do not know of any risks or discomforts to you in this research study.

Possible Benefits

We do not know of any way you would benefit directly from taking part in this study.

However, this research will help us to understand consumer perception of the sugar syrup

variables.

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality

The identity of all participants will remain confidential throughout the study. As this is an

anonymous sensory panel, participants’ names will not be associated with the ballot that

130

he or she completes during the sensory panel. The signed “Allergen and Consent Form”

documents will be kept in a secure location, separate from the ballots.

Choosing to Be in the Study

You do not have to be in this study. You may choose not to take part and you may choose

to stop taking part at any time. You will not be punished in any way if you decide not to

be in the study or to stop taking part in the study.

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please

contact Dr. Paul Dawson at Clemson University at 864-656-1138. If you have any

questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please contact the Clemson

University Office of Research Compliance (ORC) at 864-656-6460 or irb@clemson.edu.

If you are outside of the Upstate South Carolina area, please use the ORC’s toll-free

number, 866-297-3071.

A copy of this form will be given to you.

131

Sensory Panel Questionnaire:

Comparison of Characteristics Associated with Sugar Syrup Variables

in Cookie Samples

Please complete the following demographic information.

Please indicate your gender:

___ Male ___ Female

Please indicate your age category:

__ Under 30 __ 31-40 __ 41-50 __ 51-60 __ 61-70 __ Over 71

years years years years years years

Please indicate how often you consume sweet baked products:

___ Daily ___ 2-3 times per week ___ 2-3 times per month ___ Rarely

132

Instructions:

Please cleanse your palate with water and a portion of an unsalted cracker, before

you begin and between each sample.

Please do not compare the samples.

After you have tasted a sample, please answer the questions to the best of your

ability, based on the characteristics presented in the ballot.

Please feel free to provide optional comments about each sample.

133

Sample 366

Please taste Sample 366 and answer the following questions.

Rate the SWEETNESS intensity on the scale below.

Low Sweetness High Sweetness

Rate the TEXTURE on the scale below.

Very Soft Very Firm

Rate the MOISTNESS on the scale below.

Very Dry Very Moist

Indicate how much you like or dislike the TASTE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Indicate how much you like or dislike the APPEARANCE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Please provide optional comments about the sample:

134

Sample 987

Please taste Sample 987 and answer the following questions.

Rate the SWEETNESS intensity on the scale below.

Low Sweetness High Sweetness

Rate the TEXTURE on the scale below.

Very Soft Very Firm

Rate the MOISTNESS on the scale below.

Very Dry Very Moist

Indicate how much you like or dislike the TASTE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Indicate how much you like or dislike the APPEARANCE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Please provide optional comments about the sample:

135

Sample 654

Please taste Sample 654 and answer the following questions.

Rate the SWEETNESS intensity on the scale below.

Low Sweetness High Sweetness

Rate the TEXTURE on the scale below.

Very Soft Very Firm

Rate the MOISTNESS on the scale below.

Very Dry Very Moist

Indicate how much you like or dislike the TASTE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Indicate how much you like or dislike the APPEARANCE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Please provide optional comments about the sample:

136

Sample 181

Please taste Sample 181 and answer the following questions.

Rate the SWEETNESS intensity on the scale below.

Low Sweetness High Sweetness

Rate the TEXTURE on the scale below.

Very Soft Very Firm

Rate the MOISTNESS on the scale below.

Very Dry Very Moist

Indicate how much you like or dislike the TASTE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Indicate how much you like or dislike the APPEARANCE.

Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like

Very Much Moderately Nor Dislike Moderately Very Much

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Please provide optional comments about the sample:

137

Appendix E

Supplementary Sensory Evaluation Data

Table E.1: Frequency and Percentage of Responses for Demographic Informationa

Demographic Category Frequency Percent (%)

Gender Male 17 25.00

Female 51 75.00

Age

Under 30 years 43 63.24

31-40 years 8 11.76

41-50 years 3 4.41

51-60 years 13 19.12

61-70 years 1 1.47

Over 70 years 0 0.00

Consumption of

Sweet Baked

Products

Daily 16 23.53

2-3 times per week 29 42.65

2-3 times per month 15 22.06

Rarely 8 11.76 aN = 68

138

Table E.2: Frequency and Percentage of Hedonic Scale Responses for Taste

Acceptability of the Cookiesa

Descriptive

Phrases

Cookie

HFCS IS LA AA

Frequency Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%)

Dislike

Very Much 1 1.47 2 2.94 1 1.47 2 2.94

Dislike

Moderately 12 17.65 8 11.76 18 26.47 14 20.59

Neither

Like Nor

Dislike

13 19.12 21 30.88 17 25.00 15 22.06

Like

Moderately 32 47.06 29 42.65 27 39.71 33 48.53

Like Very

Much 10 14.71 8 11.76 5 7.35 4 5.88

aN = 68

139

Table E.3: Frequency and Percentage of Hedonic Scale Responses for Appearance

Acceptability of the Cookiesa

Descriptive

Phrases

Cookie

HFCS IS LA AA

Frequency Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%) Frequency

Percent

(%)

Dislike

Very Much

0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Dislike

Moderately

0 0.00 2 2.94 5 7.35 7 10.29

Neither

Like Nor

Dislike

33 48.53 29 42.65 26 38.24 26 38.24

Like

Moderately

27 39.71 31 45.59 33 48.53 30 44.12

Like Very

Much

8 11.76 6 8.82 4 5.88 5 7.35

aN = 68

140

Table E.4: Panelists’ Comments about the Cookies

Cookie Comments a

HFCS

Quite dry cookie.

a bit too firm, but I didn’t mind the taste

sample is very dry and dense

the top color was a light gold, and although the flavor was no

sweet it was a pleasing taste.

Did not like the texture very much. The sweetness did not seem

consistent either.

Tasted like pound cake – very good.

The dryness of the sample is what impacted my dislike of the

product the most.

bland but not bad

Like this cookie because it has a hint of sweetness.

tasteless

lingering bitterness. not completely unpleasant but unusual

I liked that there was little crumbling however the taste was

rather bland.

This cookie seems to have a better balanced flavor.

Had more of a butter flavor than a sweet flavor.

looks the same as sample 654

no flavor, not enough sugar

not much flavor; texture is OK; sweetness is OK

tasteless

had kind of a fruity flavor

Lighter color cookie, subtle sweetness

IS

987 was dry and crumbly.

product is very dry and crumbly

there wasn’t a very distinctive taste….it was similar to a cookie

cake but I would have preferred a sweeter taste

Too dry and not very sweet

The sample was a touch on the very done side so it did not taste

as good.

plain but not bad

Like this cookie because it’s not too sweet.

very spongey feel

tasteless

slight off flavor possibly stale

It has a funny after flavor.

141

This sample was my favorite.

this cookie had little sweetness. it was a cookie however it

crumbled

I feel as if I can taste the syrup in the cookie. There was a bite

that was a little sticky.

Liked this sample very much

It looked like a traditional sugar cookie and tasted somewhat

like a shortbread cookie.

looks the same as the first two samples

no taste, no flavor not a good cookie

mealy texture – crumbly without being crunchy; not much

flavor; too dry for the texture

very dry

Bland and dry.

looked more like a cake than a cookie, but it’s fine

LA

Interesting flavor that tasted a bit like honey.

a little chewy and a mild aftertaste

the taste was a bit bland. but I could taste the sugar

The sweetness of the product comes after the product has been

chewed and moistened. Product very dry and dense.

somewhat crumbly, but moist….

For a cookie, I would expect it to taste much sweeter.

Weird after flavor I didn’t like

not very tasty

Liked this cookie. I prefer cookies that have a hint of sweetness.

tasteless

best flavor of the flour

not a great cookie. wouldn’t buy it again.

Too syrupy, a little dark on the sample.

little too sweet for me

I liked the cake/bar like texture a lot.

dry and has slightly burnt taste

has no taste, flat and not very sweet

texture is almost mealy; not much flavor

bland

it was a pleasant taste, but nothing I would crave

All samples had more flavor as an after taste. All had sweetness

enhanced when mouth was washed with water to clear palate.

IE low sweetness initially down much sweeter when fluid was

taken into mouth.

142

Texture similar to pound cake but not as sweet. Needs more

butter.

had a little artificial sweetener flavor at the end

the sweetness came in bursts, like I could taste sugar crystals.

AA

was a bit dry and had a crumbly texture.

did not like the taste at all

Salty note overpowers the sweetness; product very dry and

crumbly

tastes like a flavored bread…has a slightly burnt taste that is

actually appealing.

A little too soft but consistent.

I like the sweetness, but the cookie is too dry.

There was a strange after flavor that wasn’t sweet, but odd.

very plain but did not taste bad

I think this sample was a little overbaked.

Although not too sweet, it’s dry and sticks to my mouth and

throat. So so cookie.

pleasant after taste

tasteless; good mouth feel

There is a slight aftertaste to this cookie that the other samples

did not provide. The after taste was slightly bitter.

I think the taste was very good!

slight aftertaste, which is not bitter but still noticeable

didn’t like this one.

Did not like this sample, dried mouth out.

It had a pleasant lingering buttery, sweet flavor.

tasted slightly burnt

no taste, flat

texture and sweetness OK; almost a good flavor

tastes burned

It is not good.

Boring

even distribution of sweetness

aComments are reported as typed by panelists in the optional comments sections of the

sensory ballot.

143

Appendix F

Nutritional Information for the Cookies

Nutritional information for the cookies was assessed using Genesis® R&D software

(ESHA Research, Inc., Salem, OR, U.S.A.). The serving size was 1 cookie.

Nutrient contributions of the ingredients were based on the products listed in Table 2.1.

144

Figure F.1: Nutrition Facts Label for the HFCS Cookie

Contains Egg, Milk, Wheat.

Ingredients:

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Flour, Butter, Egg, Pure Vanilla Extract, Baking Soda, Salt.

Allergens:

Ingredients:

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Flour, Butter, Egg, Pure Vanilla Extract, Baking Soda, Salt.

Allergens:

145

Figure F.2: Nutrition Facts Label for the IS Cookie

Contains Egg, Milk, Wheat.

Ingredients:

Invert Sugar, Flour, Butter, Egg, Pure Vanilla Extract, Baking Soda, Salt.

Allergens:

146

Figure F.3: Nutrition Facts Label for the LA Cookie

Contains Egg, Milk, Wheat.

Ingredients:

Agave Nectar Light, Flour, Butter, Egg, Pure Vanilla Extract, Baking Soda, Salt.

Allergens:

147

Figure F.4: Nutrition Facts Label for the AA Cookie

Contains Egg, Milk, Wheat.

Ingredients:

Agave Nectar Amber, Flour, Butter, Egg, Pure Vanilla Extract, Baking Soda, Salt.

Allergens: