Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodqual

Application of multiple-sip temporal dominance of sensationsto the evaluation of sweeteners

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.0030950-3293/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29248003; fax: +598 29241906.E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).

Shari Zorn, Florencia Alcaire, Leticia Vidal, Ana Giménez, Gastón Ares ⇑Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República, Gral. Flores 2124, C.P. 11800 Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2014Received in revised form 22 March 2014Accepted 4 April 2014Available online 13 April 2014

Keywords:TDSSteviaSucraloseThaumatinOrange juiceSensory characterization

a b s t r a c t

The dynamic sensory profile of sweeteners is of great importance for the industry during the develop-ment of low-calorie products. In the present work the influence of sucrose replacement by low-caloriesweeteners on the dynamic sensory profile of orange juice was evaluated using multiple-sip TemporalDominance of Sensations (TDS). Seven orange juices with equivalent sweet concentrations of differentsweeteners (sucrose, sucralose, thaumatin, and four samples of stevia) were formulated. A sensory panelof 12 trained assessors evaluated the samples using TDS over three consecutive sips, each lasting 20 s.TDS enabled the identification of differences in the dynamics of the sensory characteristics of the juicesformulated with different sweeteners, which had not been identified using static measurements. Consid-ering the dominance of the evaluated sensory characteristics over the three sips, the juice with sucraloseshowed the most similar sensory characteristics to the juice sweetened with sucrose, providing similarsweetness dominance over time without providing negative sensory characteristics. On the other hand,samples of stevia were characterized by a high dominance of bitterness and off-flavor. The considerationof multiple sips enabled the identification of changes in the temporal profile of the juices with repeatedrapid ingestions. Results from the present work suggest that multiple sip TDS seems to be an interestingtool for the evaluation of sweeteners, the design of mixtures of sweeteners and the development of low-calorie products.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Sugar has been the main sweetener in human diet for decades,accounting for a high percentage of the daily energy intake withlittle additional nutritional value (Bassoli & Merlini, 2003;Caballero, 2013). However, the association of high sugar intakewith several negative health conditions, such as obesity and diabe-tes, has led to a strong need for totally or partially substitutingsugar in foods by alternative low-calorie sweeteners (Lustig,Schmidt, & Brindis, 2012; Popkin & Nielsen, 2003).

Stevia and thaumatin are among the natural high-intensitysweeteners from plants which are being increasingly used(Pawar, Krynitsky, & Rader, 2013). Stevia is a natural sweetenerisolated from the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni, which ismainly composed of eight glycosides with sweet taste: stevioside,steviolbioside, rebaudiosides A, B, C, D, and E, and dulcoside A(Glória, 2003). Thaumatin is a mixture of proteins isolated fromthe fruits of Thaumatococcus danielli Benth, which has beenreported to be 1600–3000 times sweeter than sucrose (Glória,

2003). Thaumatin is approved as sweetener in several countries,and in the USA as flavor enhancer in chewing gum (Yebra-Biurrun, 2005).

Despite the increasing relevance of safety and naturalness, thesensory characteristics of low-calorie sweeteners are still the keydeterminants of their potential for sucrose replacement in foodproducts (Kinghorn, Chin, Pan, & Jia, 2010). Ideally, in order to meetconsumers’ expectations low-calorie, sweeteners should providethe same sensory characteristics to products than sucrose(Cardoso & Bolini, 2008; Portmann & Kilcast, 1998).

Sweetness potency, i.e. sweetness relative to a sucrose solution,has been the most commonly used characteristic for the selectionof low-calorie sweeteners (Bassoli & Merlini, 2003; DuBois, 1982).However, considering that taste perception is a dynamic phenome-non (Lawless & Heymann, 2010), the temporal profile of sweetenershas gained relevance for new product development (DuBois &Prakash, 2012). Using time–intensity methodology, several studieshave reported that sweeteners differ in the time elapsed untilsweetness is perceived, duration of sweetness perception and thespeed of the increase and decrease of the sweet stimulus (Ayya &Lawless, 1992; Larson-Powers & Pagborn, 1978; Palazzo, Carvalho,Efraim, & Bolini, 2011; Schiffman, Sattely-Miller, & Bishay, 2007).

136 S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143

Sweetness is not the only relevant sensory characteristic whenevaluating sucrose replacement by low-calorie sweeteners. Othersensory characteristics, such as bitterness, aftertaste (metallic,sour, etc.), texture attributes (viscosity, mouthfeel) and freshness,should also be taken into account (Kinghorn et al., 2010). Bitternessand metallic off-flavors have been one of the most common prob-lems of low-calorie sweeteners (Cardoso & Bolini, 2008; DuBois &Prakash, 2012; Prakash, DuBois, Clos, Wilkens, & Fosdick, 2008).The dynamic of these sensory characteristics throughout consump-tion, particularly onset and linger, is also relevant for the perfor-mance of these ingredients (Ayya & Lawless, 1992; Bassoli &Merlini, 2003; Glória, 2003).

Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) is a new dynamicmethodology which consists of presenting a list of attributes tothe assessors, who are asked to continuously select the attributethat is perceived as dominant at each time of the evaluation(Pineau et al., 2009). Considering that TDS is focused ondominant attributes instead of quantifying attribute intensity,results from this methodology could better explain consumers’perception and more accurately identify the sensations thatdetermine their hedonic perception (Cadena, Vidal, Ares, &Varela, 2014). TDS has been already used to study the dynamicperception of a wide range of products, including wine(Meillon, Urbano, & Schlich, 2009; Pineau et al., 2009), olive oil(Dinnella, Masi, Zoboli, & Monteleone, 2012), coffee (Dinnella,Masi, Naes, & Monteleone, 2013), yogurt (Bruzzone, Ares, &Giménez, 2013), fish sticks (Albert, Salvador, Schlich, & Fiszman,2012) and salmon–sauce combinations (Paulsen, Naes, Ueland,Rukke, & Hersleth, 2013).

In classical TDS the evaluation is performed during the firstsip/bite, which is a standard procedure in sensory and consumerresearch. However, in real life products are consumed in rapidrepeated ingestions, which can cause changes in how productsare perceived due to sensory adaptation (Köster, 2003). For thisreason, the first sip/bite may not be enough to fully perceive allthe sensory characteristics of the products, particularly whendealing with complex products. Previous studies have reportedthat small differences in the sensory profiles of products onlybecome noticeable after repeated tasting (Köster, Couronne,Léon, Lévy, & Marcelino, 2002; Stein, Nagai, Nakagawa, &Beauchamp, 2003; Zandstra, Weegels, Van Spronsen, & Klerk,2004). Thus, in order to get a more realistic view of the products’sensory experience, an extension of TDS, called multiple-bite ormultiple-sip TDS, has been proposed (Vandeputte, Romans,Pineau, & Lenfant, 2011). This methodology basically consists ofa series of concatenated TDS evaluations (Pineau, 2013; Schlich,Urbano, & Visalli, 2013).

In this context, the aim of the present work was to evaluate theinfluence of replacing sucrose by low-calorie sweeteners on thedynamic sensory profile of orange juice using multiple-sip Tempo-ral Dominance of Sensations.

Table 1Concentration and characteristics of the sweeteners considered for the formulation oforange juices.

Sweetener Concentration(g/100 mL)

Technical specifications

Sucrose 10 –Sucralose 0.025 –Thaumatin 0.091 Thaumatin concentration higher than 94%Stevia 1 0.064 Rebaudoside A concentration: 95.6%Stevia 2 0.155 Rebaudoside A concentration: higher than 98%Stevia 3 0.199 Rebaudoside A concentration: higher than 95%Stevia 4 0.151 Rebaudoside A concentration: 40%

Materials and methods

Samples

Orange juices were prepared by diluting unsweetened concen-trated juice (Frigorífico Modelo, Montevideo, Uruguay) to 11 �Brixwith filtered tap water. Seven samples were prepared by sweeten-ing the juices with different sweeteners at equivalent sweetconcentrations, commercial sucrose, sucralose, thaumatin, andfour samples of stevia: stevia 1 to stevia 4. Equivalent sweet con-centrations were determined in previous studies using paired-comparison tests with 12 trained assessors. The concentrationand characteristics of the sweeteners are shown in Table 1.

Trained assessors’ panel

The sensory panel consisted of twelve assessors, ages rangingfrom 22 to 48 years old. Assessors had been selected according tothe guidelines of the ISO 8586:2012 standard (ISO, 2012) andtrained in the recognition and quantification of 12 sensory attri-butes of orange juice. They had a minimum of 4 months experiencein sensory characterization of orange juices using Descriptive anal-ysis. Six additional 15 min training sessions were considered tointroduce assessors to the notion of TDS, as well as to allow famil-iarization with the software used for data collection (Dinnella et al.,2012; Pineau et al., 2009)

Experimental procedure

A dominant attribute was defined as the sensation that caughtattention at a given time, not necessarily being the most intense.The attribute list for TDS consisted of six terms: sweet, sour, orangeflavor, bitter, astringent, and off-flavor. Terms were selected byopen discussion with the panel leader, in a session in which theassessors were presented with the samples. To avoid list order bias,the order of the attributes was different for each assessor, follow-ing William’s Latin square design.

Assessors were asked to take a sip of juice in their mouth andperform a TDS task for 20 s. At that time, they were instructed totake a new sip and continue the evaluation for 20 more seconds.A total of three sips were considered.

Samples were coded using 3-digit random numbers andpresented following a William’s Latin square design. Three replica-tions of each sample were evaluated by each assessor.

Data collection was carried out using Sensomaker (Pinheiro,Nunes, & Vietoris, 2013). Testing took place in a sensory laboratoryin standard sensory booths that was designed in accordance withISO 8589 (ISO, 2007), under artificial daylight and temperaturecontrol (22 �C). Still mineral water was used for rinsing betweensamples.

Data analysis

For each assessor, the attribute regarded as dominant at eachtime of the evaluation was recorded. For each sip, dominance rate(%) for each attribute at a given time (every 1 s) was determined asthe percentage of judgments (assessors � replicates) for which thegiven attribute was selected as dominant. For each of the three sipsdominance rates were smoothed using a spline type polynomialwith the pspline package of R language (R Core Team, 2013) andplotted against time for each sample to obtain TDS curves.

Chance (P0) and significance level (Ps) were calculated andrepresented on the TDS curves. Chance level was calculated asthe inverse of the total number of attributes plus one (Labbe,Schlich, Pineau, Gilbert, & Martin, 2009), whereas significance levelwas calculated using a binomial test, as recommended by Pineauet al. (2009) when dealing with few evaluations.

S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143 137

TDS difference curves between the juices with low-caloriesweeteners and the juice with sucrose were constructed bysubtracting their TDS curves at each time for each sip. Dominancerate differences were considered significant when they were signif-icantly different from 0 according to a classical test of comparisonof binomial proportions (Pineau et al., 2009).

All statistical analyses were performed with R (R Core Team,2013).

Results

TDS curves

Fig. 1 shows normalized TDS curves for the first three sips oforange juices sweetened with seven different sweeteners. Chance

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. TDS dominance curves of six sensory attributes during three sips for orange juices1, (e) stevia 2, (f) stevia 3 and (g) stevia 4.

and significance level are represented on the curves. The temporalprofile of the evaluated juices was characterized by the dominanceof sweetness, sourness, bitterness and off-flavor; whereas orangeflavor and astringency were not significantly dominant throughoutthe evaluation of the three sips.

Throughout the three sips, the juice sweetened with sucrosewas characterized by sweetness dominance. As shown inFig. 1(a), sweetness was the only significantly dominant attributeduring the first two sips, reaching maximum dominance rateshigher than 50%. The third sip was also characterized by the dom-inance of sweetness, but it was combined with a short significantdominance of sourness at the end of the evaluation period.

Sweetness also dominated the temporal profile of sucraloseover the three sips. However, sourness was also dominant duringalmost the entire evaluation period of the second sip (Fig. 1(b)).Meanwhile, the temporal profile of the three sips of thaumatin

with: (a) sucrose, (b) sucralose, (c) thaumatin, and four samples of stevia: (d) stevia

(c)

(d)

Fig. 1 (continued)

138 S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143

was characterized by the dominance of sourness at the beginningof the evaluation, followed by a pronounced dominance of sweet-ness. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the dominance of sourness at the begin-ning of the evaluation increased from the first to the third sip.

The temporal profile of the four samples of stevia was charac-terized by the dominance of bitterness at the end of the evaluationof the three sips. Bitterness dominance increased from the first tothe third sip (Fig. 1). Large differences among the samples of steviawere identified. The temporal profile of stevia 2 was characterizedby the dominance of sweetness and bitterness (Fig. 1(e)). The per-iod during which sweetness was dominant decreased from the firstto the third sip. Besides, sweetness and sourness were dominant atthe beginning of the evaluation for the three sips of the juice withstevia 1, while bitterness was dominant at the end of the three sips(Fig. 1(d)). TDS curves of juices with stevia 3 and stevia 4 showedthe largest differences to those of juices with sucrose (Fig. 1(f) and(g)). The TDS curves of juices with stevia 3 were characterized by

the pronounced dominance of bitterness and off-flavor, whilesweetness was only significantly dominant at the beginning ofthe third sip (Fig. 1(f)). Finally, the TDS curves of the juice with ste-via 4 showed a small dominance of sweetness at the beginning ofthe evaluation, which decreased from the first to the last sip. Thesecond sip of this sample was also characterized by the dominanceof sourness at the beginning of the evaluation. For this sample, off-flavor and bitterness were dominant at the end of the three sips(Fig. 1(g)).

Differences between low-calorie sweeteners and sucrose

TDS curves of the juices sweetened with low-calorie sweetenerswere compared with the curve of the juice with sucrose. Significantdifferences were found between sucrose and all the evaluated low-calorie sweeteners for the three sips. However, as shown in Fig. 2,the differences tended to increase from the first to the third sip.

(e)

(f)

(g)

Fig. 1 (continued)

S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143 139

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Difference curves between TDS curves of juices sweetened with low-calorie sweeteners and the juice with sucrose for four of the evaluated sensory attributes: (a)sweetness, (b) sourness, (c) off-flavor and (d) bitterness.

140 S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143

Juices sweetened with sucrose and sucralose showed similarTDS curves for all the evaluated attributes. However, sweetnessdominance of the sucralose sweetened juice was higher than thatof the juice with sucrose for a small period of time (2 s) at thebeginning of the three sips, as shown in Fig. 2(a). These juices alsodiffered in the dominance of sourness during two short periods oftime during the second sip (Fig. 2(b)).

Replacing sucrose with thaumatin led to large differences in thedominance of sweetness and sourness. As shown in Fig. 2(a), thedominance of sweetness was significantly lower for thaumatinthan for sucrose at the beginning of the evaluation of the three sipsand significantly higher at the end. Meanwhile, the dominance ofsourness was markedly higher for the thaumatin sweetened juicethan for the juice with sucrose for a period of 5–9 s during thethree sips (Fig. 2(b)). Also, at the end of the third sip sourness dom-inance was significantly lower for the juice with thaumatin thanfor the sucrose sweetened juice.

The dominance of the sensory characteristics of the juices for-mulated with four samples of stevia markedly differ from thoseof the juice with sucrose. Throughout all the evaluation period

sweetness dominance was significantly lower for juices with steviathan for the juice sweetened with sucrose, except for the beginningof each of the three sips (Fig. 2(a)). However, the juice with stevia 2did not significantly differ from the juice with sucrose in sweetnessdominance during the first sip. Also, juices with stevia markedlydiffer from the juice with sucrose in the dominance of bitternessand off-flavor (Fig. 2(c) and (d)). This difference tended to increasefrom the first to the last sip.

Discussion

Multiple sip temporal dominance of sensations methodologyenabled to identify differences in the temporal profile of juices for-mulated with equivalent sweet concentrations of different sweet-eners. As shown in Fig. 2, although the juices were formulatedwith the same perceived sweetness, the dominance of this sensa-tion over time was significantly different among juices formulatedwith different sweeteners. This suggests that the information pro-vided by TDS is different than sensory measurements averaged

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2 (continued)

S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143 141

across time, in agreement with results reported by Labbe et al.(2009), Meillon et al. (2009) and Bruzzone et al. (2013).

The juice sweetened with sucrose showed a sharp increase insweetness dominance immediately after ingestion of the threesips, followed by a slow decrease in dominance rate (Fig. 1(a)).Sucrose is characterized by a rapid onset of sweet taste and a shortextinction time (DuBois & Prakash, 2012). These characteristics arenot usually found in many sweeteners, which is one of the reasonsexplaining the difficulty of replacing sucrose by low-calorie sweet-eners without changing the sensory characteristics of the products(Dubois, 1982).

Sucralose has been reported to have a slow onset of sweetnessand a prolonged sweetness perception compared to sucrose(Glória, 2003). However, these differences were not found in thepresent study. In fact, for the three sips, sweetness dominancewas significantly higher for the juice formulated with sucralosethan for the juice with sucrose during a few seconds at the begin-ning of the evaluation (Fig. 2(a)). This sweetener showed the mostsimilar temporal profile to sucrose.

The juice sweetened with thaumatin was characterized by a sig-nificantly lower sweetness dominance than the juice with sucrose

during the first moments after ingestions and a significantly highersweetness dominance at the end of the evaluation of each of thethree sips (Fig. 2). During the first sip the time elapsed until max-imum sweetness dominance rate was delayed 8 s when sucrosewas replaced by thaumatin (c.f. Fig. 1(a) and (c)). These differencescan be related to the fact that thaumatin has been characterized bya delayed sweetness perception and a long-lasting sweet aftertaste(DuBois & Prakash, 2012; Gibbs, Alli, & Mulligan, 1996; Glória,2003; Witty, 1990). Delayed sweetness perception can explainthe high dominance of sourness during the first moments of theevaluation of the first sip, while sweet aftertaste can explain theincrease in sourness dominance from the first to the successivesips (Fig. 1(c)).

All the juices sweetened with stevia showed a significantlylower sweetness dominance than the juice with sucrose (Fig. 2). Itis worth highlighting that for the juice sweetened with stevia 3sweetness was only dominant for a small period of time at thebeginning of the third sip (Fig. 2(f)). Although sweetness intensityin the juices formulated with sucrose and stevia 3 did not differ,the dominance of this attribute for the latter sample was significantonly for a small period of time at the beginning of the third sip.

142 S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143

Sucrose replacement by low-calorie sweeteners led to changesin the temporal profile of other sensory characteristics. This wasparticularly relevant for the juices sweetened with stevia. Asshown in Fig. 2(c) and (d), replacing sugar by stevia caused a signif-icant increase in the dominance of bitterness and off-flavor. This isin agreement with the fact that stevia has been reported to have acharacteristic bitter taste, particularly at high concentrations(Cardoso & Bolini, 2008; DuBois & Prakash, 2012; Kinghorn et al.,2010; Pawar et al., 2013). However, it is important to stress thatthe four samples of stevia showed different temporal profiles,which suggests the need to consider a wide variety of samples withdifferent characteristics during the development of food productsformulated with this natural low-calorie sweetener.

Taking into account the dominance of the evaluated sensorycharacteristics over the three sips, the juice sweetened with sucra-lose was the most similar to the juice formulated with sucrose,showing similar sweetness dominance over time without the onsetof negative sensory characteristics (Fig. 1(b)). This sweetener hasbeen reported to be the most similar to sucrose by other authors(Dubois, 1982; Cadena et al., 2013). On the other hand, the tempo-ral profile of juices sweetened with stevia 3 and stevia 4 were themost dissimilar with respect to the juice with sucrose (Fig. 2).

The consideration of multiple sips in the evaluation of orangejuices formulated with different sweeteners provided relevantinformation. Changes in the temporal profile of the products wereidentified from the first to the third sip, particularly for samplessweetened with thaumatin and stevia. Multiple sip TDS enabledthe identification of changes in the dominance of the evaluatedsensory attributes, probably due to sensory adaptation. This meth-odology showed an increase in sourness dominance with repeatedingestions of the juice formulated with thaumatin (Fig. 1(c)), aswell as an increase in bitterness dominance for juices with stevia.Besides, differences between samples formulated with stevia andsucrose increased with repeated ingestions and were larger forthe third sip than for the first one. This result is in agreement withthe fact that differences among samples have been reported tobecome more noticeable after repeated tasting, particularly whendealing with similar samples (Köster et al., 2002; Stein et al., 2003).

Conclusions

Understanding the dynamic sensory profile of low-caloriesweeteners is highly relevant for the development of successfullow-calorie products. In the present work, the application of tem-poral dominance of sensations allowed the identification of differ-ences in the dynamics of the sensory characteristics of orangejuices formulated with different sweeteners. The evolution of thedominance of sweetness over time of juices with equi-sweet con-centrations of different sweeteners markedly differed. Also,changes in the temporal profile of the juices with repeated rapidingestions were identified using a multiple sip variation of TDS.These results suggest that multiple sip TDS enabled to identifydifferences among sweeteners which had not been detected usingclassic static sensory measurements.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Eduardo Dellacasa, FrigoríficoModelo (Uruguay), Naturex (Brazil) and Stevia Uruguay S.R.L.

References

Albert, A., Salvador, A., Schlich, P., & Fiszman, S. (2012). Comparison betweentemporal dominance of sensations (TDS) and key-attribute sensory profiling forevaluating solid food with contrasting textural layers: Fish sticks. Food Qualityand Preference, 24, 111–118.

Ayya, N., & Lawless, H. T. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of high-intensity sweeteners and sweetener mixtures. Chemical Senses, 17, 245–259.

Bassoli, A., & Merlini, L. (2003). Sweeteners | intensive. In B. Caballero (Ed.),Encyclopedia of food sciences and nutrition (2nd ed., pp. 5688–5695). Oxford:Academic Press.

Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., & Giménez, A. (2013). Temporal aspects of yoghurt textureperception. International Dairy Journal, 29, 124–134.

Caballero, B. (2013). Sucrose: Dietary sucrose and disease. In B. Caballero (Ed.),Encyclopedia of human nutrition (3rd ed., pp. 231–233). Waltham: AcademicPress.

Cadena, R. S., Cruz, A. G., Netto, R. R., Castro, W. F., Faria, J. A. F., & Bolini, H. M. A.(2013). Sensory profile and physicochemical characteristics of mango nectarsweetened with high intensity sweeteners throughout storage time. FoodResearch International, 54, 1670–1679.

Cadena, R. S., Vidal, L., Ares, G., & Varela, P. (2014). Dynamic sensory descriptivemethodologies time–intensity and temporal dominance of sensations. In P.Varela & G. Ares (Eds.), Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumerprofiling (pp. 333–364). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Cardoso, J. M. P., & Bolini, H. M. A. (2008). Descriptive profile of peach nectarsweetened with sucrose and different sweeteners. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23,804–816.

Dinnella, C., Masi, C., Naes, T., & Monteleone, E. (2013). A new approach in TDS dataanalysis: A case study on sweetened coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 30,33–46.

Dinnella, C., Masi, C., Zoboli, G., & Monteleone, E. (2012). Sensory functionality ofextra-virgin olive oil in vegetable foods assessed by temporal dominance ofsensations and descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 141–150.

DuBois, G. E. (1982). Nonnutritive sweeteners. The search for sucrose mimics. In H.Hans-Jürgen (Ed.). Annual reports in medicinal chemistry (Vol. 17, pp. 323–332).Academic Press.

DuBois, G. E., & Prakash, I. (2012). Non-caloric sweeteners, sweetness modulators,and sweetener enhancers. Annual Reviews of Food Science and Technology, 3,353–380.

Gibbs, B. F., Alli, I., & Mulligan, C. (1996). Sweet and taste-modifying proteins: Areview. Nutrition Research, 16, 1619–1630.

Glória, M. B. A. (2003). Sweeteners | others. In B. Caballero (Ed.), Encyclopedia of foodsciences and nutrition (2nd ed., pp. 5695–5702). Oxford: Academic Press.

ISO (2007). Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISOStandard 8589. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization forStandardization.

ISO (2012). Sensory analysis—General guidance for the selection, training, andmonitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors. ISO Standard8586:2012. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization forStandardization.

Kinghorn, A. D., Chin, Y.-W., Pan, L., & Jia, Z. (2010). Natural products as sweetenersand sweetness modifiers. In H.-W. Liu & L. Mander (Eds.), Comprehensive naturalproducts II (pp. 269–315). Oxford: Elsevier.

Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encounteredfallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373.

Köster, E. P., Couronne, T., Léon, F., Lévy, C., & Marcelino, A. S. (2002). Repeatabilityin hedonic sensory measurements: A conceptual exploration. Food Quality andPreference, 14, 165–176.

Labbe, A., Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Gilbert, F., & Martin, N. (2009). Temporaldominance of sensations and sensory profiling: A comparative study. FoodQuality and Preference, 20, 216–221.

Larson-Powers, N., & Pagborn, R. M. (1978). Paired comparisons and time–intensitymeasurements of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins containingsucrose or synthetic sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 43, 41–48.

Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles andpractices (pp. 179–202). New York: Springer.

Lustig, R. H., Schmidt, L. A., & Brindis, C. D. (2012). The toxic truth about sugar.Nature, 482, 27–29.

Meillon, S., Urbano, C., & Schlich, P. (2009). Contribution of the temporal dominanceof sensations (TDS) method to the sensory description of subtle differences inpartially dealcoholized red wines. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 490–499.

Palazzo, A. B., Carvalho, M. A. R., Efraim, P., & Bolini, H. M. A. (2011). Thedetermination of isosweetness concentrations of sucralose, rebaudioside andneotame as sucrose substitutes in new diet chocolate formulations using thetime–intensity analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 291–297.

Paulsen, M. T., Naes, T., Ueland, O., Rukke, E., & Hersleth, M. (2013). Preferencemapping of salmon–sauce combinations: The influence of temporal properties.Food Quality and Preference, 27, 120–127.

Pawar, R. S., Krynitsky, A. J., & Rader, J. I. (2013). Sweeteners from plants—withemphasis on Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) and Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle).Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 405, 4397–4407.

Pineau, N. (2013). Extension of TDS to multi-bite evaluation. In 10th Pangbornsensory science symposium, 11–15th August 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., Issanchou, S., Imbert, A., et al.(2009). Temporal dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves andcomparison with time–intensity. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 450–455.

Pinheiro, A. C. M., Nunes, C. A., & Vietoris, V. (2013). Sensomaker: A tool for sensorialcharacterization of food products. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 37, 199–201.

Popkin, B. M., & Nielsen, S. J. (2003). Public health: The toxic truth about sugar.Obesity Research, 11, 1325–1332.

Portmann, M. O., & Kilcast, D. (1998). Descriptive profiles of synergistic mixtures ofbulk and intense sweeteners. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 221–229.

S. Zorn et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 135–143 143

Prakash, I., DuBois, G. E., Clos, J. F., Wilkens, K. L., & Fosdick, L. E. (2008).Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food and ChemicalToxicology, 46, S75–S82.

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna:R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Schiffman, S. S., Sattely-Miller, E. A., & Bishay, I. E. (2007). Time to maximumsweetness intensity of binary and ternary blends of sweeteners. Food Qualityand Preference, 18, 405–415.

Schlich, P., Urbano, C., & Visalli, M. (2013). Multi-bites or multi-sips TDS withuntrained subjects: A live demonstration on chocolates. In 10th Pangbornsensory science symposium, 11–15th August 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Stein, L. G., Nagai, H., Nakagawa, M., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2003). Effects of repeatedexposure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptanceof a bitter beverage. Appetite, 40, 119–129.

Vandeputte, A., Romans, J., Pineau, N., & Lenfant, F. (2011). Innovative methods toassess the evolution of the sensory characteristics during the tasting of a fullproduct portion (several bites). In 9th Pangborn sensory science symposium, 4–8th September 2011, Toronto, Canada.

Witty, M. (1990). Thaumatin II – A palatability protein. Trends in Biotechnology, 8,113–116.

Yebra-Biurrun, M. C. (2005). Sweeteners. In P. Worsfold, A. Townshend, & C. Poole(Eds.), Encyclopedia of analytical science (2nd ed., pp. 562–572). Oxford: Elsevier.

Zandstra, E. H., Weegels, M. F., Van Spronsen, A. A., & Klerk, M. (2004). Scoring orboring? Predicting boredom through repeated in-home consumption. FoodQuality and Preference, 15, 549–555.