Substitutes for White Sugar in Fresh Fruit Juice - Sensory Characteristics of Adolescents

 

A. Arun, Kanchana Arun, S. Vijayalakshmi*

School of Hotel and Catering Management, Vels University, P. V. Vaithiyalingam Salai, Velan Nagar, Chennai, India.

 

ABSTRACT:

There is global rise in the consumption of refined white sugar which has specifically been responsible for much adverse health effect. This experimental study is aimed to incorporate varieties of white sugar substitutes in preparation of fresh fruits juice. Sensory analyses for juices were performed by hedonic testing with thirty panelists in each evaluation. The studied fresh fruit juices were: i. Pineapple with Honey, Pineapple with Palm Sugar, Pineapple with Jaggery. (ii) Pomegranate with Honey, Pomegranate with Palm Sugar and Pomegranate with Jaggery. (iii) Sweet lime with Honey, Sweet Lime with Palm Sugar and Sweet lime with jaggery. The sensory analysis results for fresh fruits juices made with sugar substitutes showed good acceptance by adolescent group. The sensory evaluation data has been analyzed with SPSS (21.0) to identify the preferences between the different fresh fruit juices with alternative traditional sweeteners. This analysis supported the conclusion that sugar substitutes can provide their sweetness in fruit juice formulations with good acceptability while keeping the advantages conferred by consumption of processed white sugar.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

In today’s fast moving world the lifestyle of people are undergoing drastic changes in food consumption pattern leading to many undesirable health effect. The adolescents are sticking more to their regular routine paying very less attention to the food and drink they consume daily. Low consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables causes gastrointestinal cancer, stroke, and ischemic heart diseases. Hence it is alarmed as one among the top ten risk factors of global mortality. It is estimated 2.8% of the death globally is due to low consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables¹.

 

Fresh fruits have been consumed in various forms but juices are the most common. Juice can be termed for a drink consisting of fermentable extract but not fermented having the characteristic of the fruit from which it has been extracted². Antioxidants and phyto-chemicals present in the fruits act as functional compounds. The level of these nutraceutical compounds in fruit juices depends upon the characteristics of the fruits like their growing ambience, maturity stages, and methods in processing and storage conditions³. Juices have not been served as 100% extract of fruit besides being consumed with additives especially white sugar. Globally the consumption of refined or white sugar is increasing. The sugar consumption per capita in India is 20.2 kg. According to World Sugar Economy report (2012) per capita sugar consumption of sugar in India is growing more rapidly for the past five decades.⁴ Sugar is refined by double sulphitation method, where it carries a residue of 20 to 70 ppm of sulphur whereas the permitted level is only 10 ppm⁵. White sugar is not a food it contains no fiber, minerals or vitamins, it is considered to be a pure chemical extracted from the plant source⁶. Sugar rush attack the white blood cells which makes the body immune system helpless White sugar merely generates high calories causing obesity that brings into many metabolic issues,⁷ increasing 20% higher risk of heart diseases⁸, pancreatic cancer^9, type 2 diabetes,¹¹ etc. A population based study has prevailed that among the adolescents the type 2 diabetes was 30.4% (1992 -1995) been increased to 49.1% (2001-2009)¹². Thus the prevalence of diabetes has been expected to be increased to 4.4% in 2030, constituting 366 million of people worldwide.¹³

 

Less attentiveness in the diet and westernization in food culture among the adolescents have brought into various undesirable health effects. With regard to juice consumption, adolescents and young adults prefers juices with added white refined sugar than whole fruit¹⁰.

 

Honey, the only animal source sweetener been used since 8000 years back. It is rich in antioxidants, and also containing Vitamin C, pinocembrin, chrysin, formic acid, pinobanksin¹⁴ etc. Honey helps to heal internal wounds, cures gastrointestinal diseases, It lowers glycemic index and stimulates insulin secretion hence can be consumed by people with diabetic complaints¹⁵. Palm sugar is a staple traditional sweetener available from Palmyra palm is thermogenic improves metabolism can be consumed by all ages¹⁶. Jaggery, sweetener which is rich in vitamins and minerals like calcium, potassium, phosphorous, sodium etc is sulphur free organic traditional sweetener¹⁷. Jagerry promotes detoxification it cleanses the body, also helps in preventing throat and lungs infection¹⁸.

 

Since traditional sweeteners, honey, palm sugar and jaggery are unrefined, organic and are proven for its nutraceuticals property as compared to white refined sugar, this study involved for analyzing the sensory acceptance level of the adolescents in consuming the fresh fruit juices sweetened with these traditional sweeteners.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

•        The objective of the study was aimed to incorporate varieties of white sugar substitutes in the preparation fresh fruit juice.

•         To evaluate the sensory analysis by hedonic rating scale with thirty panelists in each evaluation.

•        To calculate the Nutritional value of the all juices and estimate the vitamin C content of the best selected fruit juices added with traditional sweetners, obtained from highest scores of sensory evaluation test

 

The objective of this experimental study is to retrieve the traditional sweeteners into practice as a substitute to white sugar. The study reveals the sensory attributes and the acceptability of the fresh juices sweetened with traditional sweeteners among the adolescents.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The study was to evaluate the preferences of traditional sugar substitute as the sweeteners in juices among the adolescents - the regular consumers of juices. Three substitutes for white sugar – Honey, Jaggery, and Palm Sugar - commonly available in southern states of India were taken. With these sugar substitutes and refined white sugar (control) 12 samples of juices were prepared with three different fruits such as Pomegranate (Punica granatum), Pine Apple (Ananas comosus) and Sweet Lime (Citrus limetta) which are commonly consumed fruits as juices.

 

Ingredient Selection and Preparation of Juices:

Fully matured, ripe and fresh Pomegranate, Sweet lime and Pineapple fruits and sweetening ingredients were procured from the local market in Pallavarm, Chennai, India. 2 kg of each fruits were washed, peeled and seeds were removed and blended with boiled 4 liter of water in a juice blender. To make the juice more nutritious and wholesome of the fruit pulp was not removed.

 

Table 1. - Juice codes

S. No	JUICES	CODE
1	PINE APPLE + SUGAR	CONTROL RS1
2	POMEGRANATE+ SUGAR	CONTROL RS2
3	SWEET LIME + SUGAR	CONTROL RS3
4	PINE APPLE + HONEY	SAMPLE H1
5	POMEGRANATE + HONEY	SAMPLE H2
6	SWEET LIME + HONEY	SAMPLE H3
7	PINE APPLE + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P1
8	POMEGRANATE + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P2
9	SWEET LIME + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P3
10	PINE APPLE + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J1
11	POMEGRANATE + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J2
12	SWEET LIME + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J3

 

The sweeteners were added and coded (as given in Table 1) upon the refined white sugar(CONTROL RS1) acts as a control for the other three juice samples with honey (SAMPLE H1), Palm sugar (SAMPLE P1) and jaggery (SAMPLE J1). The sample (ii), pomegranate juice sweetened with white refined sugar is coded as (CONTROL RS2) and the traditional sweeteners were coded as with honey as (SAMPLE H2), palm sugar (SAMPLE P2) and with jaggery as (SAMPLE J2). The smaple (iii), sweet lime juice with sugar is coded as (CONTROL RS3 and acts as the control for other traditionally sweetened juices as with honey (SAMPLE H3), palm sugar (SAMPLE P3) and jaggery (SAMPLE J3) respectively.

 

Sensory Evaluation:

Juices were prepared and served at Food and Beverage Production Laboratory at School of Catering and Hotel Management, Vels University. Thirty students of Hotel Management (21boys and 9 girls, aged 18-20 years) who are regular fresh fruit juice consumers were randomly selected and Juices were served to them and provided with a sensory evaluation form with a structure scale ranging from extremely like to extremely dislike using 9 point hedonic rating scale (Table.2) and assessed for its organoleptic qualities like colour, aroma, taste and overall acceptance of the juices. Juices were served at a perfect interval of time for an eminent outcome of data. Also, students were asked to rinse their mouth with water after intake of each juice added with different types of traditional sweeters in order to allow appropriate reconditioning of the mouth for subsequent sampling. Students were asked to assess each coded sample, comparing it to the control (C), and to point the degree of difference using a 9-point scale where 0 = neither like nor dislike and 9 = extremely like.

 

Table 2. – Sample hedonic score card

SAMPLE - HEDONIC SCORE CARD RATING FOR JUICES
	DATE:	STUDENT NAME:
	JUICE CODE:	PANELIST No:
Please taste the given coded sample and mark ( ✔) how much you like or dislike it on the
point in the scale which best describes your opinion.
S.NO	HEDONIC SCORE	ORGANOLEPTIC QUALITY
		TASTE	AROMA	COLOUR	ACCEPTANCE
1	DISLIKE EXTREMELY
2	DISLIKE VERY MUCH
3	DISLIKE MODERATELY
4	DISLIKE SLIGHTLY
5	NEITHER LIKE NOR DISLIKE
6	LIKE SLIGHTLY
7	LIKE MODERATELY
8	LIKE VERY MUCH
9	LIKE EXTREMELY

 

Statistical Analysis:

Data collected from the adolescents were analyzed using SPSS (21.0) software. Data validation was done and the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.933 which shows the data are highly reliable. Friedman ranking test was applied to find the individual ranking of the adolescents towards the preference and acceptance of the juices added with traditional sweeteners comparing the juice sweetened with white sugar.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The tables [(3.a) and(3.b)] illustrates that at the degree of freedom(11) the Chi-Square value is (38.207) it shows that there is significant difference in the mean ranking of the juice samples. Among the juices the samples sweetened with honey and palm sugar are more positively accepted. The following (Table 4) exhibits the nutritive value of juices.

 

Friedman ranking test:

Table (3.a) Ranks

Juices	Mean Rank
SAMPLE H3 (Sweet Lime + Honey)	5.32
SAMPLE P3 (Sweet Lime + Palm sugar )	6.72
SAMPLE J3 ( Sweet Lime + Jaggery)	7.81
CONTROL RS3 ( Sweet Lime + Sugar)	5.79
SAMPLE H1 ( Pineapple + Honey)	5.43
SAMPLE P1 (Pine apple + Palm Sugar)	5.61
CONTROL RS1( Pine apple + Refined Sugar)	5.98
SAMPLE J1 ( Pineapple + Jaggery)	7.91
SAMPLE H2 ( Pomegranate + Honey)	5.44
SAMPLE P2 ( Pomegranate + Palm sugar)	5.65
SAMPLE J2 ( Pomegranate + Jaggery)	5.89
CONTROL RS2 ( Pomegranate + Refined Sugar )	5.80

 

Table (3.b) Test Statistics^a

 

Table 4. Hedonic Mean Scores of Adolescents for the Juices Added with Traditional Sweeteners

S.NO	JUICES	CODE	ORGANOLEPTIC QUALITIES
			TASTE	AROMA	COLOUR	ACCEPTANCE
1	PINE APPLE + SUGAR	CONTROL RS1	7.10	6.87	7.13	7.60
2	POMEGRANATE+ SUGAR	CONTROL RS2	7.77	6.27	6.87	6.90
3	SWEET LIME + SUGAR	CONTROL RS3	7.97	7.00	7.00	7.57
4	PINE APPLE + HONEY	SAMPLE H1	7.27	7.02	6.83	7.13
5	POMEGRANATE + HONEY	SAMPLE H2	7.43	7.27	7.03	7.06
6	SWEET LIME + HONEY	SAMPLE H3	7.02	6.84	6.63	7.00
7	PINE APPLE + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P1	7.05	6.90	6.30	6.73
8	POMEGRANATE + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P2	7.09	6.73	6.90	6.83
9	SWEET LIME + PALM SUGAR	SAMPLE P3	7.34	7.09	6.67	6.80
10	PINE APPLE + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J1	5.83	6.70	7.56	7.23
11	POMEGRANATE + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J2	5.40	6.13	7..09	6.70
12	SWEET LIME + JAGGERY	SAMPLE J3	5.37	6.93	7.20	6.90

The hedonic scale for organoleptic qualities like taste, aroma, color, and the acceptance of the juice samples have been calculated and the average mean is displayed in (Table 4). It shows that there is no much divergence among the organoleptic qualities. The mean acceptance for the juices sweetened with traditional sweeteners stays much closer to the control juices sweetened with refined sugar. The juices sweetened with honey SAMPLEH1, SAMPLE H2 and SAMPLE H3 ranks first among the preferences relatively closer to the average value of the control juices sweetened with white sugar. Juices sweetened with palm sugar SAMPLE P1, SAMPLE P2 and SAMPLE P3 is preferred for the aroma and its taste qualities whereas the juices sweetened with jaggery SAMPLE J1, SAMPLE J2 and SAMPLE J3 is more preferred for the color.

 

Table 5. Nutritional Facts (Nutritional values for 100 gm of each fruit equivalent to 50 ml of fresh fruit juice with added sweetners Calculated by ICMR)

S. NO.	Juices	code	Moist-ure (gm)	protein (gm)	fat (gm)	Mine-rals (gm)	crude fibre  (gm)	Carbo hydrates (gm)	Energy (K cal)	Cal cium (MG)	Phos-phorous (mg)	Iron (mg)
1	pine apple + sugar	control S1	87.900	0.425	0.100	0.425	0.500	35.650	139.500	23.000	9.250	2.808
2	pomegranate + sugar	control S2	78.100	1.625	0.100	0.725	5.100	39.350	164.500	13.000	70.250	1.799
3	sweet lime + sugar	control S3	88.500	0.825	0.300	0.725	0.500	34.150	142.500	43.000	30.250	0.109
4	pine apple + honey	sample H1	95.010	0.56	0.100	0.470	0.500	38.625	151.650	24.300	14.600	2.664
5	pomegranate + honey	sample H2	85.210	1.705	0.100	0.770	5.100	42.325	176.650	11.750	75.600	2.004
6	sweet lime + honey	sample H3	95.010	0.905	0.300	0.770	0.500	37.125	154.650	41.750	35.600	0.944
7	pine apple + Palm sugar	sample P1	87.360	0.560	0.140	0.640	0.500	48.800	193.200	52.000	25.000	3.476
8	pomegranate + Palm sugar	sample P2	76.560	1.760	0.140	0.940	5.100	52.300	218.200	42.000	86.000	2.816
9	sweet lime + Palm sugar	sample P3	89.960	0.960	0.340	0.940	0.500	47.300	196.200	72.000	46.000	1.756
10	pine apple + Jaggery	sample J1	91.920	0.800	0.180	2.400	0.500	44.200	176.000	675.200	33.800	2.420
11	pomegranate + Jaggery	sample J2	82.120	2.000	0.180	2.700	5.100	47.900	201.000	665.200	64.800	1.760
12	sweet lime + Jaggery	sample J3	92.520	1.200	0.308	2.700	0.500	42.700	179.000	695.200	54.800	0.700

 

Table 6. pH and Vitamin C Content of Fresh Fruit Juices

 

Nutritive value of Fresh Fruit Juices:

The data regarding the nutritive value of the developed fresh fruit juices in exhibited in Table 5.The Nutritional values for 100gm of the each fruit equivalent to 50ml of fresh fruit juices with added sweetness were calculated with the ICMR. In the Table 6 the pH value of the twelve juices were tested and the content of Vitamin C was analyzed in the laboratory.

 

CONCLUSION:

The study concluded with the key message that the consumption of the traditional sweeteners such as honey, palm sugar and jaggery reduces the chronic diseases associated with the consumption of white sugar. In this research work, the adolescents showed their preferences in consuming fresh fruit juices added with our traditional sweeteners. Among the three traditional sweeteners jaggery is preferred for colour as it adds to the juice, palm sugar for aroma and taste whereas honey has been accepted by them for all its organoleptic qualities.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Authors are thankful to final year students of Hotel and Catering Management, Vels University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India for providing us in preparing and conducting sensory evaluation test.

 

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS:

S. Vijayalakshmi and Kanchana Arun designed the study. A. Arun and Kanchan Arun conducted the sensory evaluation and S. Vijayalakshmi involved in the experiment in the estimation of Vitamin C analysis and tabulated the results. A. Arun performed the statistical analysis and prepared the manuscript. S. Vijayalakshmi and Kanchana Arun participated in reading, editing and proof reading. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

Conflict of interest declared none.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     WHO. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world. (2004) (NLM Classification: WB 430). ISBN: 92 4 159281 8 [Cited on 19 February 2017] Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43143/1/9241592818_eng.pdf?ua=1andua=1

2.     A W E DOWNER. Definitions of pure juices, cordials and drinks and related legal requirements. Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology. Vol. 37. No. 3. Ju1.1984 [Cited on 17^th February 2017] available at: https://eurekamag.com/pdf.php?pdf=001179515

3.     Pyo Y-H, Jin Y-J, Hwang J-Y. Comparison of the Effects of Blending and Juicing on the Phytochemicals Contents and Antioxidant Capacity of Typical Korean Kernel Fruit Juices. Preventive Nutrition and Food Science. 2014;19(2):108-114. doi:10.3746/pnf.2014.19.2.108

4.     Teja Lele Desai. Lakhs of Indians becoming sugar dependent. Times of India. May 23, 2013, 12.00 AM IST. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/diet/Lakhs-of-Indians-becoming-sugar-dependent/articleshow/19456525.cms

5.     Dr. S C Ray. Health Hazards of ‘Sulphur’ In Sugar Published on: January 15, 2014[ Cited on 22^nd February 2017] Available at: http://ehealth.eletsonline.com/2014/01/health-hazards-of-sulphur-in-sugar/

6.     Joy Brown R3 Diet- Reverse, Retrain, Rebuild Your Body and Mind. Xlibris Corporation (2011) ISBN 1456890948 pg. 82

7.     Seema Gulati and Anoop Misra. Sugar Intake, Obesity, and Diabetes in India. Nutrients 2014, 6, 5955-5974; ISSN 2072-6643 doi: 10.3390/nu6125955.

8.     Added Sugars Add to Your Risk of Dying from Heart Disease. American Heart Association. [Cited on 21^st February 2017] [Updated on 16^th September 2016] available at : http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Added-Sugars-Add-to-Your-Risk-of-Dying-from-Heart-Disease_UCM_460319_Article.jsp#.WKwV6Pl97IU

9.     Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, and Alicja Wolk. Consumption of sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and the risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective study. American Society for Clinical Nutrition vol. 84 no. 5 1171-1176.

10.   Adam Drewnowski and Colin D Rehm. Socioeconomic gradient in consumption of whole fruit and 100% fruit juice among US children and adults. Nutrition Journal (2015) 14:3

11.   DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-14-3. Available at : http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-14-3

12.   Xi B, Li S, Liu Z, Tian H, Yin X, Huai P, et al. (2014) Intake of Fruit Juice and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 9(3): e93471. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093471

13.   Praveen PA, Tandon N. Childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes in India. WHO South-East Asia J Public Health 2016; 5(1): 17–21

14.   Wild S1, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global Prevalence of Diabetes Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004 May; 27(5):1047-53

15.   Keerthi Priya, Dr. Vankadari Rama Mohan Gupta, and Kalakoti Srikanth. Natural sweeteners: A complete review. Journal of Pharmacy Research 2011,4(7),2034-2039 2034-2039 Review Article ISSN: 0974-6943

16.   Eteraf-Oskouei T, Najafi M. Traditional and Modern Uses of Natural Honey in Human Diseases: A Review. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences. 2013; 16(6):731-742.

17.   Swasti. Palm sugar or palm jaggery, how to identify palm sugar or palm jaggery. [Cited on 24^th February 2017] Available at: http://indianhealthyrecipes.com/how-to-identify-pure-coconut-palm-sugar-palm-jaggery/

18.   Priyanka Shrivastav. Abhay Kumar Verma. Ramanpreet Walia. Rehana Parveen. Arun Kumar Singh. Jaggery: A Revolution in the Field of Natural Sweeteners. European Journal of Pharmaceutical And Medical Research. ejpmr, 2016,3(3), 198-202

19.   Helen West, RD. What is Jaggery and What Benefits Does it Have? Authority Nutrition. [Cited on 23^rd February 2017] available at https://authoritynutrition.com/jaggery/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 22.10.2017        © RJPT All right reserved

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2017; 10(11): 3736-3740.