Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A methodology to evaluate the sensory properties of instant hot chocolate beverage with different fat contents: multi-criteria decision-making techniques approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The multi-criteria decision-making techniques are applied in many areas such as integrated manufacturing systems, evaluation of technology investment, water and agriculture management and energy planning. However, there are very few studies in the field of food. In this work, the selection of optimum fat content in the model beverage of instant hot chocolate beverage was evaluated based on sensory analyses by performing multi-criteria decision techniques (analytic hierarchy process, simple additive weighting, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution and elimination et choixtraduisant la realite—elimination and choice translating reality). The wettability, solubility, bulk density, soluble solids, pH, color values, and rheological and sensory properties of the nine samples were evaluated. According to the results of multi-criteria decision techniques, sample S2 which had a relatively high amount of fat content was the most preferred beverage among the samples. Study showed that the use of different fat contents of milk and cocoa powder positively affected the rheological parameters and preferences of consumers. The findings may be considered to improve dairy and cocoa-based products formulation by the food industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shittu TA, Lawal MO (2007) Factors affecting instant properties of powdered cocoa beverages. Food Chem 100(1):91–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dogan M, Toker O, Aktar T, Goksel M (2013) Optimization of gum combination in prebiotic instant hot chocolate beverage model system in terms of rheological aspect: mixture design approach. Food Bioproc Tech 6(3):783–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Da Silva Lannes SC, Medeiros ML (2008) Rheological properties of chocolate drink from cupuassu. Int J Food Eng 4(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daini OA, Ogunledun A, Fagade O, Akinpelu OS (2003) Nutritional status of locally produced cocoa based beverages. Niger Food J 21:70–75

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tarrega A, Costell E (2006) Effect of composition on the rheological behaviour and sensory properties of semisolid dairy dessert. Food Hydrocoll 20(6):914–922

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lannes SCdS, Medeiros ML (2008) Rheological properties of chocolate drink from cupuassu. Int J Food Eng 4(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dogan M, Kayacier A, Ic E (2007) Rheological characteristics of some food hydrocolloids processed with gamma irradiation. Food Hydrocoll 21(3):392–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Raats MM, Shepherd R (1992) Free-choice profiling of milk and other products prepared with milks of different fat contents. J Sens Stud 7(3):179–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Folkenberg DM, Bredie WLP, Martens M (1999) Sensory-rheological relationships in instant hot cocoa drinks. J Sens Stud 14(2):181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dogan M, Toker O, Goksel M (2011) Rheological behaviour of instant hot chocolate beverage: part 1. Optimization of the effect of different starches and gums. Food Biophys 6(4):512–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fagan CC, O’Donnell CP, Cullen PJ, Brennan CS (2006) The effect of dietary fibre inclusion on milk coagulation kinetics. J Food Eng 77(2):261–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hough G, Sánchez R (1998) Descriptive analysis and external preference mapping of powdered chocolate milk. Food Qual Prefer 9(4):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pangborn RM (1988) Sensory attributes and acceptance of fat, sugar, and salt in dairy products. In: Thomson DMH (ed) Food acceptability. Elsevier, New York, pp 413–429

    Google Scholar 

  14. Scriven FM, Petty MF (1990) Use of the discriminant function to predict the number of consumers who discriminate. J Sens Stud 4(3):151–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcotte M, Taherian Hoshahili AR, Ramaswamy HS (2001) Rheological properties of selected hydrocolloids as a function of concentration and temperature. Food Res Int 34(8):695–703

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cunha CR, Grimaldi R, Alcântara MR, Viotto WH (2013) Effect of the type of fat on rheology, functional properties and sensory acceptance of spreadable cheese analogue. Int J Dairy Technol 66(1):54–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brighenti M, Govindasamy-Lucey S, Lim K, Nelson K, Lucey JA (2008) Characterization of the rheological, textural, and sensory properties of samples of commercial US cream cheese with different fat contents. J Dairy Sci 91(12):4501–4517

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pintor A, Severiano-Pérez P, Totosaus A (2013) Optimization of fat-reduced ice cream formulation employing inulin as fat replacer via response surface methodology. Food Sci Technol Int 7:489–500

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mahdian E, Karazhian R (2013) Effects of fat replacers and stabilizers on rheological, physicochemical and sensory properties of reduced-fat ice cream. J Agric Sci Technol 15:1163–1174

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aslanzadeh M, Mizani M, Alimi M, Gerami A (2012) Rheological properties of low fat mayonnaise with different levels of modified wheat bran. J Food Biosci Technol 2:27–34

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu H, Xu XM, Guo SD (2007) Rheological, texture and sensory properties of low-fat mayonnaise with different fat mimetics. LWT Food Sci Technol 40(6):946–954

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Guggisberg D, Cuthbert-Steven J, Piccinali P, Bütikofer U, Eberhard P (2009) Rheological, microstructural and sensory characterization of low-fat and whole milk set yoghurt as influenced by inulin addition. Int Dairy J 19(2):107–115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ciron CIE, Gee VL, Kelly AL, Auty MAE (2011) Effect of microfluidization of heat-treated milk on rheology and sensory properties of reduced fat yoghurt. Food Hydrocoll 25(6):1470–1476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koca N, Metin M (2004) Textural, melting and sensory properties of low-fat fresh kashar cheeses produced by using fat replacers. Int Dairy J 14(4):365–373

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gurmeric V, Dogan M, Toker O, Senyigit E, Ersoz N (2013) Application of different multi-criteria decision techniques to determine optimum flavour of prebiotic pudding based on sensory analyses. J Food Biosci Technol 6(10):2844–2859

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vincke P (1992) Multicriteria decision-aid. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ozturk G, Dogan M, Toker OS (2014) Physicochemical, functional and sensory properties of mellorine enriched with different vegetable juices and TOPSIS approach to determine optimum juice concentration. Food Biosci 7:45–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Freudig B, Hogekamp S, Schubert H (1999) Dispersion of powders in liquids in a stirred vessel. Chem Eng Process 38(4–6):525–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Takahashi S, Seib PA (1988) Paste and gel properties of prime corn and wheat starches with and without nitric liquids. Cereal Chem 65:474–483

    Google Scholar 

  31. Du S-K, Jiang H, Yu X, Jane J-L (2014) Physicochemical and functional properties of whole legume flour. LWT Food Sci Technol 55(1):308–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Al-Harbi KMA-S (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manage 19(1):19–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Afshari A, Mojahed M, Yusuff RM (2010) Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. Int J Innov Manag Technol 1:511–515

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pang J, Zhang G, Chen G (2011) ELECTRE I decision model of reliability design scheme for computer numerical control machine. J Softw 6:894–900

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Sadeghzadeh K, Salehi MB (2011) Mathematical analysis of fuel cell strategic technologies development solutions in the automotive industry by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making method. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(20):13272–13280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Thibault JF, Della G, Ralet MC (1990) France patent no. European Patent Office: I. N. d. l. R. A. (INRA)

  39. Barbosa-Cánovas GV, Ortega-Rivas E, Juliano PHY (2005) Food powders. Physical properties, processing, and functionality. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rameshbabu M, Jayas DS, Muir WE, White NDG, Mills JT (1996) Bulk and handling properties of hull-less barley. Can Agric Eng 38:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fäldt P, Bergenståhl B (1996) Spray-dried whey protein/lactose/soybean oil emulsions. 2. Redispersibility, wettability and particle structure. J Food Hydrocoll 10(4):431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bourne MC (2002) Chapter 3—physics and texture. In: Bourne MC (ed) Food texture and viscosity. Academic Press, London, pp 59–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Engineering, Engineering College, Erciyes University, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey

    Mahmut Dogan & Duygu Aslan

  2. TAGEM Food Analysis Center Co., Erciyes University, Technopark Area, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey

    Mahmut Dogan

  3. School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT, UK

    Tugba Aktar

  4. Faculty of Life and Natural Sciences, Abdullah Gul University, Sumer Campus, 38080, Kayseri, Turkey

    Tugba Aktar

  5. Department of Food Technology, Yıldızeli Vocational High School, Cumhuriyet University, 58500, Sivas, Turkey

    Meryem Goksel Sarac

Authors
  1. Mahmut Dogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Duygu Aslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tugba Aktar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meryem Goksel Sarac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahmut Dogan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dogan, M., Aslan, D., Aktar, T. et al. A methodology to evaluate the sensory properties of instant hot chocolate beverage with different fat contents: multi-criteria decision-making techniques approach. Eur Food Res Technol 242, 953–966 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015-2602-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015-2602-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation