You are on page 1of 8

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282910516

Effectiveness of palate cleansers on various


alcoholic beverages

Article in Journal- Institute of Brewing October 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 47

5 authors, including:

Han Sub Kwak Misook Kim


Korea Food Research Institute Dankook University
34 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 340 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yoonhwa Jeong Youngseung Lee


Dankook University Dankook University, Yong-In, South Korea
99 PUBLICATIONS 561 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 356 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yoonhwa Jeong on 17 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Research article Institute of Brewing & Distilling

Received: 10 October 2014 Revised: 1 December 2014 Accepted: 26 May 2015 Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jib.248

Effectiveness of palate cleansers on various


alcoholic beverages
Yoojin Seo,1 Han Sub Kwak,1,2 Misook Kim,1,2 Yoonhwa Jeong1,2
and Youngseung Lee1,2*

The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of various palate cleansers for alcoholic beverages. Palate cleansers
spring water, warm water, pectin solution, water crackers, vanilla ice cream and cacao solution were applied to beer and
makgeolli (low alcohol content of 47% alc. v/v), to wine and soju (medium alcohol content of 1325% alc. v/v), and to whisky
and cognac (high alcohol content of 40% alc. v/v). The burning sensation left in the mouth by each alcoholic sample was rated
on a 16-point category scale by nine descriptive panellists. The panellist would rinse their mouth with each palate cleanser
followed by spring water, and then rate the remaining sensory stimulus in the mouth at 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 min intervals. Ice cream
was the most effective palate cleanser with all of the alcoholic beverages tested. However, water crackers could be the best op-
tion as a palate cleanser because, although a little less effective in decreasing the burning sensation in comparison with ice cream,
less labour in preparation is required. The length of time it took to decrease the burning sensation was evaluated. Water, warm
water and pectin solution were the least effective palate cleansers. However, allowing more time intervals between alcoholic bev-
erages can boost the effectiveness of a palate cleanser in comparison with ice cream and water crackers. Copyright 2015 The
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

Keywords: palate cleanser (PC); alcoholic beverage; burning sensation; alcohol flavour; intensity rating; time

Introduction Aside from water, alcohol is one of the major components of al-
coholic beverages. The alcohol content in alcoholic beverages is
Various palate cleansers (PCs) have been used to clean the mouth one of the standards used in classifying the product category
during sensory evaluations. In most sensory evaluations, panellists and also influences mouthfeel while drinking. Ethanol in wine en-
took samples a number of times to evaluate diverse attributes. Be- hances bitterness (7,1518), masks sourness (19), reduces astrin-
cause of the strong taste or aroma of various samples during eval- gency and alters the perception of sweetness (7,20,21). In texture
uation, residual flavours can linger after sample tasting and can and mouthfeel characteristics, ethanol influences characteristics
influence the next sample during sensory evaluation. In order to related to perception of pungency, cooling, tingling, swallowing
minimize the effect of residuals and flavours in the mouth and pre- and body (22). In the sensory evaluations of alcoholic beverages,
vent an overall conclusion from being misled, re-establishing the sensory fatigue occurs more easily than with other food products
same mouth condition is important (1). Thus, selecting an efficient because of the variety of flavours coupled with the effect of alco-
PC is one of the core aspects of sensory evaluations. Appropriate hol. Alcohol can desensitize the tongue and nose of subjects, espe-
PCs can prevent statistical differences in evaluations across repli- cially when evaluating samples with a high alcohol content.
cate samples (2). Several studies have been conducted to identify Although the subjects expectorated the samples after tasting, de-
effective PCs for basic taste, spiciness and astringency of products. sensitization still existed and limited the subjects sensory abilities
Water crackers and water have been generally used for various (23). Various PCs have been used for alcoholic beverage evalua-
foods (35). Brannan et al. (6) found that 0.55% carboxy-methyl- tions. Water and bread were used in descriptive analysis of whisky
cellulose (CMC) was most successful in reducing the bitter taste and distilled soju (22,24), while unsalted crackers (25,26) and dis-
from caffeine solutions. They also suggested that the most tilled water (27) were used for alcoholic beverage sensory evalua-
effective PCs for astringent taste were pectin solutions and CMC tion. Although various PCs have been applied to the sensory
solutions (6). Recently, pectin solution seems to have gained pop- evaluations of alcoholic beverages, there have been no investiga-
ularity as a PC for wines (7,8), one of the representative astringent tions as to which PC is the most effective for reducing sensory fa-
products (2). Baron and Penfield (9) conducted an experiment and tigue generated by alcohol. For these reasons, the identification of
found that the stimulus of capsaicin solution decreased as the fat
content increased. In addition, the burning sensation was de-
creased by PCs containing fat (10,11). Various products have been * Correspondence to: Y. Lee, Department of Food Science and Nutrition,
used as PCs, for example, carbonated water and cold spring water Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 448-701 Korea.
were used during the evaluation of yoghurt and red ginseng prod- E-mail: youngslee@dankook.ac.kr
ucts (12,13). Additionally, yoghurt was selected to rinse the palate 1
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Dankook University, Yongin-si,
for descriptive analysis of Indian snacks (14). However, the use of 448-701, Korea
these PCs for various alcoholic beverages has not been reported
to the authors knowledge. 2
Institute of Global Food Industry, Dankook University, Yongin-si, 448-701, Korea

J. Inst. Brew. 2015 Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Y. Seo et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

appropriate and efficient PCs for the evaluation of alcoholic bever- minimize the burning sensation in the mouth generated from the
ages is necessary. It is important to determine not only the most alcohol in alcoholic beverages. The fat in the vanilla ice cream
effective option for reducing sensory fatigue, but also the conve- should be helpful for recovery from the burning sensation. Spring
nience in preparing and using it. Thus, the objective of this study water (25 2 C) was used to remove each PC.
was to compare the effectiveness of six PCs on various alcoholic
beverages with various alcoholic levels.
Evaluation procedure
Nine descriptive panellists (two males and seven females, ages 20
Materials and methods 23) were recruited from Dankook University. Training was con-
ducted 3 h per week for 31 weeks in order to evaluate alcoholic
Alcoholic beverage samples
beverages. In the early phase training, the panellists were trained
Commercially available alcoholic beverages were purchased from for the identification of basic tastes (sweet, sour, salty, bitter,
a supermarket chain in Yongin-si Korea. The alcohol contents of umami) with various concentrations until they identified the inten-
the beverages were divided into three categories and two alco- sity differences. After finishing basic taste training, they evaluated
holic beverages were selected in each category. The first category the intensity of basic tastes using various commercial food prod-
was for alcoholic beverages such as beer (4.07.0% of alcohol, v/v). ucts such as a cola-flavoured beverages, crackers, juice and
Lager beer (4.5% alcohol, v/v, OB, Seoul, Korea) and makgeolli ketchup. In the middle phase of training, various alcoholic bever-
(6.0% alcohol, v/v, Kooksoondang, Seoul, Korea), a Korean rice ages (makgeolli, beer, wine, soju, cognac and whisky) were used
wine, were selected for the low alcohol content category. For the to familiarize the panellists with the alcoholic beverages and their
medium alcohol content category (1325% alcohol, v/v), red wine sensory profiles. They were also trained for mouthfeel characteris-
(14.5% alcohol, v/v, Montes, Santiago, Chile) and soju (19% alcohol, tics such as body, round and smooth feelings, using water, milk
v/v, Hitejinro, Seoul, Korea), a Korean distilled spirit, were used as and a carbonated beverage. In the last phase of training, the
samples. Whisky (40% alcohol, v/v, Lottechilsung, Seoul, Korea) panellists conducted a descriptive analysis for Korean rice distilled
and cognac (40% alcohol, v/v, CLS Remy Cointreau, Paris, France) spirits for a different study purpose.
were selected as the samples for the high alcohol content category The panellists who finished a total of 93 h of training and a de-
group (30% or above). Beer, wine, whisky, cognac were selected as scriptive analysis participated in this study. A series of 15 sessions,
these are well-known alcoholic beverages worldwide. Soju and including three warm-up sessions, were performed over 8 weeks.
makgeolli are mostly consumed in northeast Asia. Soju was se- During the warm-up sessions, the panellists were asked to select
lected since it has medium alcohol content (16.525%) and is the most important and strongest attribute that generated sensory
one of the best-selling alcoholic beverages in the world (28). It fatigue when consuming the given alcoholic beverage. All of the
was more difficult to find low alcohol content alcoholic beverages panellists were agreed that it was the burning sensation perceived
except for beer. Makgeolli, a Korean traditional alcoholic beverage, from the alcohol in the alcoholic beverages. In addition, the
was used (production volume was 440,000 kL in 2011) for the low panellists were trained in how to use each PC. They evaluated
alcohol content group. the intensities of the initial burning sensation of the samples. After
the warm-up sessions, 12 sessions on the PCs effects were con-
ducted. Each panellist received one sample every session and
Palate cleansers
the order of the six PCs was balanced using the Williams design
Six representative PCs were selected. Spring water (25 2 C), of six samples to minimize carry-over effect (56). The samplings
warm water (50 2 C) and water crackers are all frequently used were duplicated. Each alcoholic beverage (10 mL) was prepared
as PCs for food product assessments (16,2936). Warm water in a 60 mL white-collared paper cup and kept at room temperature
was prepared by heating spring water (Puris, The Jite, Seoul, Korea) (approximately 23 C). Panellists were instructed to place the entire
using a microwave. For water crackers (Carrs table water, Carrs of sample in their mouth, swirl it on their tongue, and expectorate it
Carlisle Ltd, London, UK), one-quarter of a cracker (approximately immediately. Panellists then swirled 10 mL of a liquid PC on their
1 g) was prepared as a PC, since water crackers are widely used tongue. With water crackers and vanilla ice cream, panellists mas-
as a PC for various food products including alcoholic beverages ticated 1 g of water crackers five times or melted 12.5 g of vanilla
(37). Pectin solution has been used in previous studies as a PC ice cream in their mouth for 5 s. After expectorating the PC, they
to reduce the astringent taste of wines (846). Pectin (Genu Pectin rinsed their mouths using spring water.
Type 105, Edentown F&B, Incheon, Korea) was dissolved in spring Although alcoholic beverages contain various tastes and fla-
water (Puris, The Hite) to make a 0.05% (w/v) pectin solution. Choc- vours such as the fermented cereal flavour in makgeolli, malt fla-
olate has been used as a PC for foods with a cooling mouthfeel ow- vour in beer, astringent or fruity flavour in wine, artificial
ing to menthol or mint flavours (4749). Therefore, cacao solution sweetness in soju, and fruity flavour in whisky and cognac, the
(3.0% w/v; Hersheys cocoa natural unsweetened, The Hershey burning sensation owing to the alcohol has been proven to be
Company, Hershey, PA, USA) was prepared as a PC. Cacao products the most dominant attribute in the products used in this study.
were used as a PC for minimizing the menthol sensation in the Panellists agreed on the fact that this burning sensation lasted
mouth (50,51). Ethanol in alcoholic beverages might produce activ- the longest in their mouth out of all the other sensory attributes
ity in the nociceptors that are responsible for sensing noxious heat in alcoholic beverages. Therefore, the effects of PCs on alcoholic
(52). The burning sensation from alcohol is similar to the menthol beverages were mostly focused on mitigating the burning sensa-
sensation, but there is a light pain rather than cooling effect, thus tion associated with alcohol.
the cacao solution was tested as one of our PCs. Products contain- During three warm-up sessions, panellists evaluated the intensi-
ing milk are frequently used as PCs for food products that cause a ties of the burning sensation for each alcoholic beverage in order
burning sensation (5355). In this study, vanilla ice cream (2 0.5 to determine the standard intensities. During the actual evaluation
C, 14% fat content, Binggrae Co. Ltd, Seoul, Korea) was selected to period, panellists rated the intensity of the burning sensation after

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2015
Effectiveness of palate cleansers
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

using a PC and spring water using a 16-point category scale (015) of means was indicated by ANOVA, post hoc comparisons between
in comparison with the standard intensities. The intensities of the independent variables were performed using Fishers least signifi-
burning sensation were measured five times after rinsing the cant difference test at p < 0.05.
mouth using spring water (0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 min). The 0 min was
when the panellists expectorated the spring water. The rinsing
times were determined by the panellists during the warm-up ses- Results and discussion
sions and the previous study (13). The evaluations were performed
Effects of palate cleansers on alcoholic beverages
at the individuals location and panellists were not allowed to eat
or drink anything other than water 1 h prior to the assessment. The intensities of the burning sensation after expectorating six al-
coholic beverages, and 07 min after expectorating each PC, are
presented in Table 1. There were significant differences in the ef-
Statistical analysis
fect of the six PCs on each sample at the same time intervals ex-
Data analyses were conducted using a statistical analysis program, cept for cognac. Intensities of the burning sensation by alcohol
Minitab (version 16, Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). Analysis were lowest when vanilla ice cream was used as a PC, followed
of variance was carried out in order to identify significant differ- by a water cracker up to 5 min in general. There were small differ-
ences among samples and time intervals. If a significant difference ences in the evaluation of alcohol flavour at 7 min owing to the

Table 1. Initial and mean intensities of burning sensation due to alcohol with different palate cleansers in time intervals (0, 1, 3, 5 and
7 min)

Interval Palate cleanserb Alcoholic beveragec,d


length
Makgeolli Beer Wine Soju Cognac Whisky
Initial No palate cleanser 6 7 8 8 13 13
intensitya
0 min Cacao 1.89 (1.09) b 2.63 (1.84) a 3.28 (1.79) bc 3.06 (2.07) b 5.66 (2.04)a 6.92 (3.31) bc
Ice cream 1.03 (0.98) c 1.25 (0.99) b 2.17 (1.38) c 1.82 (1.45) b 6.31 (2.93) a 5.58 (1.91) c
W. water 2.69 (1.47) a 2.78 (1.42) a 4.44 (2.11) a 5.28 (2.14) a 7.86 (2.93) a 8.86 (2.17) a
Water 2.81 (1.44) a 3.36 (1.61) a 4.00 (1.25) ab 5.39 (1.73) a 6.97 (2.38) a 8.64 (1.98) a
W. cracker 1.61 (1.13) b 1.61 (1.31) b 2.58 (1.78) c 2.83 (1.99) b 6.00 (2.28) a 5.83 (3.25) c
Pectin 2.81 (1.51) a 2.72 (1.56) a 4.25 (1.84) ab 4.42 (1.79) a 7.75 (2.03) a 8.08 (2.41) ab
1 min Cacao 1.31 (0.97) b 1.69 (1.54) a 2.39 (1.56) bc 2.33 (1.79) b 4.58 (2.07) a 5.72 (2.76) ab
Ice cream 0.74 (0.87) c 0.54 (0.75) b 1.19 (0.97) d 1.11 (1.56) c 4.72 (2.54) a 4.06 (2.02) c
W. water 2.28 (1.26) a 2.31 (1.24) a 3.61 (1.76) a 4.25 (2.07) a 6.41 (2.83) a 7.03 (2.05) a
Water 2.22 (1.27) a 2.39 (1.06) a 3.03 (1.41) ab 3.81 (1.70) a 5.33 (2.53) a 6.72 (1.89) a
W. cracker 0.97 (0.87) c 0.86 (0.99) b 1.69 (1.63) cd 1.89 (1.71) bc 4.25 (2.38) a 4.33 (3.21) bc
Pectin 2.08 (1.27) a 2.16 (1.33) a 3.47 (1.57) a 3.50 (1.78) a 5.83 (2.16) a 6.83 (2.09) a
3 min Cacao 0.94 (0.91) b 0.81 (0.73) bc 1.33 (1.20) bc 1.47 (1.38) bc 2.97 (1.44) a 3.42 (2.00) ab
Ice cream 0.31 (0.62) c 0.08 (0.25) d 0.63 (0.71) c 0.53 (0.81) d 3.52 (2.23) a 2.50 (1.81) b
W. water 1.42 (1.11) a 1.44 (0.66) a 2.19 (1.43) a 2.69 (1.65) a 4.13 (2.25) a 4.22 (2.01) a
Water 1.36 (1.09) a 1.22 (0.86) ab 1.61 (0.93) ab 2.50 (1.53) a 3.47 (2.16) a 4.11 (1.73) a
W. cracker 0.39 (0.70) c 0.53 (0.72) cd 0.83 (0.92) c 0.92 (1.34) cd 2.25 (1.4) a 2.53 (2.00) b
Pectin 1.33 (1.18) a 1.31 (0.73) a 2.33 (1.39) a 2.31 (1.38) ab 3.55 (1.94) a 4.64 (2.45) a
5 min Cacao 0.42 (0.58) ab 0.25 (0.42) b 0.50 (0.62) ab 0.75 (0.93) bc 1.36 (1.15) a 2.00 (1.56) ab
Ice cream 0.08 (0.26) c 0.00 (0.00) b 0.31 (0.46) b 0.17 (0.49) c 1.83 (1.47) a 1.37 (1.28) bc
W. water 0.67 (0.89) a 0.67 (0.73) a 0.89 (0.96) a 1.44 (1.16) a 2.38 (1.86) a 2.22 (1.74) ab
Water 0.58 (0.84) a 0.61 (0.56) a 0.61 (0.70) ab 1.25 (1.06) ab 2.22 (1.66) a 2.33 (1.56) ab
W. cracker 0.11 (0.37) bc 0.06 (0.24) b 0.25 (0.52) b 0.39 (0.87) c 0.97 (1.00) a 0.92 (0.90) c
Pectin 0.64 (0.84) a 0.25 (0.35) b 0.86 (0.90) a 1.11 (0.96) ab 2.00 (1.36) a 2.81 (2.08) a
7 min Cacao 0.11 (0.32) a 0.00 (0.00) c 0.06 (0.16) a 0.22 (0.39) abc 0.44 (0.66) a 0.53 (0.92) bc
Ice cream 0.00 (0.00) a 0.00 (0.00) c 0.00 (0.00) a 0.03 (0.12) c 0.61 (0.79) a 0.24 (0.47) c
W. water 0.22 (0.39) a 0.11 (0.21) ab 0.28 (0.55) a 0.53 (0.70) a 1.32 (1.38) a 0.94 (1.40) abc
Water 0.28 (0.57) a 0.14 (0.23) a 0.17 (0.34) a 0.36 (0.56) ab 1.02 (1.3) a 0.96 (1.08) ab
W. cracker 0.06 (0.24) a 0.03 (0.12) bc 0.06 (0.24) a 0.11 (0.32) bc 0.36 (0.56) a 0.25 (0.73) bc
Pectin 0.17 (0.38) a 0.06 (0.16) abc 0.19 (0.52) a 0.39 (0.56) ab 0.72 (0.86) a 1.36 (1.50) a
a
Initial intensities of each alcoholic beverage meant the burning sensation after expectorating alcoholic beverages.
b
Cacao = 3% cacao solution; ice cream = 5 g vanilla ice cream; w. water = warm water (50 C); water = room temperature water; w.
cracker = water cracker; and pectin = 0.5% pectin solution.
c
Numbers in parentheses indicate standard deviations.
d
Different lower case letters in the same column at the same time interval indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

J. Inst. Brew. 2015 Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
Y. Seo et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

effect of time. Panellists seemed to be recovered from the burning subjects to perceive the burning sensation at a lower intensity. Ad-
sensation after 7 min, suggesting an appropriate interval time for ditionally, cold samples such as ice can relieve stimulus or pain (59).
the evaluation of alcoholic beverages. Ice cream and water crack- Lowering the temperature in the mouth seems to be one of the ef-
ers showed a dominant effect in minimizing the burning sensation fects of cold samples in minimizing alcohol flavour. Ice cream was
during alcoholic beverage evaluation. These PCs were different the only cold PC in this study and the temperature effect was pres-
from the others in that the other PCs were served in liquid form. ent as well as the effect from fat. Cacao solution was also a more ef-
Ice cream and water crackers were in solid form when served. It fective PC than spring water, warm water and pectin solution.
was necessary to move the tongue around the mouth in order to Chocolate was used in previous studies to minimize the cooling ef-
melt the vanilla ice cream or to masticate the water crackers. The fect generated from mint flavour (4749). Cacao flavour in the solu-
salivary gland was stimulated owing to the tongue movements tion used in this study seemed to play a similar role in terms of
or mastication and a significant amount of saliva was secreted into minimizing burning sensation. Water, warm water and pectin solu-
the mouth, possibly serving as an additional PC. Selecting a solid tion were the least effective PCs. There were no significant differ-
form of PC for alcoholic beverages would be effective in minimiz- ences in the effects of water, warm water and 0.03% pectin
ing the leftover burning sensation associated with alcohol. Ice solution. Pectin solution was used in previous studies to reduce
cream is known to be an effective PC for the burning sensation the astringent mouth feel of wines as a PC (846). However, it had
caused by capsaicin because of its fat content (1113,57,58). no significant reducing power for burning sensation in comparison
Similarly, in this study, the fat in vanilla ice cream might reduce with the two water PCs. The stimulus from alcohol flavour might be
the stimulus on the tongue and mouth by alcohol, causing the different from the stimulus from astringent or bitter flavours.

Table 2. Decreasing ratesa of burning sensation owing to alcohol by time interval (%)

Sample Time Palate cleanser


(min)
Cacao Ice cream Warm water Water Water cracker Pectin
Makgeolli 0 68.33b (18.20)cbdDe 83.33 (16.29)aC 55.00 (24.44)cC 53.33 (23.94)cC 73.33 (18.86)bC 53.33 (25.10)cC
1 78.33 (16.20)bC 88.33 (14.44)aBC 61.67 (21.05)cC 63.33 (21.24)cC 83.33 (14.43)aB 65.00 (21.25)cC
3 85.00 (15.09)bBC 95.00 (10.36)aAB 76.67 (18.58)cB 76.67 (18.26)cB 93.33 (11.63)aA 78.33 (19.60)cB
5 93.33 (9.59)bcAB 98.33 (4.29)aA 88.33 (14.85)cA 90.00 (14.08)cA 98.33 (6.10)abA 90.00 (13.95)cAB
7 98.33 (5.39)aA 100.00 (0.00)aA 96.67 (6.53)aA 95.00 (9.58)aA 98.33 (3.93)aA 96.67 (6.39)aA
Beer 0 62.86 (26.25)cD 81.43 (14.13)aC 60.00 (20.24)cC 48.57 (23.06)dD 77.14 (18.75)bC 61.43 (22.21)cC
1 75.71 (22.07)cC 92.86 (10.68)aB 67.14 (17.69)dC 65.71 (15.21)dC 87.14 (14.24)bB 68.57 (18.98)dC
3 88.57 (10.43)cB 98.57 (3.55)aA 80.00 (9.45)eB 82.86 (12.30)dB 92.86 (10.24)bAB 81.43 (10.43)dB
5 95.71 (6.12)bAB 100.00 (0.00)aA 90.00 (10.39)cA 91.43 (7.96)cAB 98.57 (3.37)aA 95.71 (5.05)bA
7 100.00 (0.00)aA 100.00 (0.00)aA 98.57 (3.06)cA 98.57 (3.29)cA 100.00 (1.68)abA 98.57 (2.31)bA
Wine 0 58.75 (22.40)bcD 72.50 (17.28)aD 45.00 (26.33)dC 50.00 (15.61)cdD 67.50 (22.30)aC 46.25 (24.01)dC
1 70.00 (19.48)bC 85.00 (12.15)aC 55.00 (22.02)cC 62.50 (17.61)bcC 78.75 (20.35)aB 56.25 (19.59)cC
3 83.75 (15.01)bcB 92.50 (8.84)aB 72.50 (17.83)dB 80.00 (11.65)cB 90.00 (11.54)abA 71.25 (17.42)dB
5 93.75 (7.73)abA 96.25 (5.73)abAB 88.75 (12.04)cA 92.50 (8.72)bcA 96.25 (6.52)aA 88.75 (11.30)cA
7 98.75 (2.02)aA 100.00 (0.00)aA 96.25 (6.85)aA 97.50 (4.29)aA 98.75 (2.95)aA 97.50 (6.48)aA
Soju 0 61.25 (25.89)bD 77.50 (18.09)aC 33.75 (26.79)cdC 32.50 (21.60)dD 65.00 (24.91)bC 45.00 (22.41)cD
1 71.25 (22.38)bCD 86.25 (14.47)aB 46.25 (25.83)cC 52.50 (21.24)cC 76.25 (21.39)abB 56.25 (22.28)cC
3 81.25 (17.21)bBC 93.75 (10.16)aAB 66.25 (20.58)cB 68.75 (19.17)cB 88.75 (16.78)abA 71.25 (17.30)cB
5 90.00 (11.59)bcAB 97.50 (6.06)aA 82.50 (14.52)dA 83.75 (13.26)cdA 95.00 (10.84)abA 86.25 (12.04)cdA
7 97.50 (4.90)abA 100.00 (1.47)aA 93.75 (8.70)cA 95.00 (7.05)bcA 98.75 (4.04)abA 95.00 (6.96)bcA
Cognac 0 56.15 (15.72)aD 52.31 (22.05)abC 39.23 (22.53)dC 46.15 (18.30)bcD 53.85 (17.55)aD 40.00 (15.62)cdE
1 64.62 (15.95)abC 65.38 (19.57)abB 50.77 (21.76)dC 59.23 (19.43)bcC 66.92 (18.29)aC 55.38 (15.58)cdD
3 76.92 (11.07)abB 74.62 (17.17)bcB 68.46 (17.34)cB 73.08 (16.61)bcB 82.31 (10.74)aB 72.31 (14.98)bcC
5 89.23 (8.83)abA 86.92 (11.27)bcA 81.54 (14.30)cA 83.08 (12.74)cAB 92.31 (7.85)aA 84.62 (10.47)bcB
7 96.92 (5.09)aA 95.38 (6.12)aA 90.00 (10.61)cA 92.31 (10.00)bcA 96.92 (4.53)aA 94.62 (6.63)abA
Whisky 0 46.92 (25.45)bC 56.92 (14.71)aE 31.54 (16.73)cE 33.85 (15.26)cE 55.38 (25.00)abC 37.69 (18.57)cD
1 56.15 (21.24)bC 68.46 (15.55)aD 46.15 (15.75)cD 48.46 (14.52)cD 66.92 (24.72)aC 47.69 (16.05)cD
3 73.85 (15.40)bB 80.77 (13.96)aC 67.69 (15.45)cC 68.46 (13.29)cC 80.77 (15.41)aB 64.62 (18.88)cC
5 84.62 (12.02)bAB 89.23 (9.85)aB 83.08 (13.40)bB 82.31 (12.02)bcB 93.08 (6.89)aA 78.46 (16.00)cB
7 96.15 (7.04)abA 98.46 (3.64)aA 93.08 (10.80)bcA 92.31 (8.34)bcA 97.69 (5.64)aA 89.23 (11.56)cA
a
Decreasing rate of burning sensation (%) = (initial intensity of burning sensation ! evaluated intensity of burning sensation)/initial in-
tensity of burning sensation 100.
b
Mean decreasing rate of burning sensation.
c
Numbers in parentheses indicate standard deviations.
d
Different lower cases in the same row at the same time interval indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
e
Different upper cases in the same column for the same palate cleansers indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2015
Effectiveness of palate cleansers
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

Table 3. Decrease in mean intensities for burning sensation owing to alcohol by time interval

Sample Time Palate cleanser samples


interval
Cacao Ice cream Warm water Water Water cracker Pectin
Makgeolli 01 min 0.58 (0.46)aaAb 0.29 (0.35)aA 0.42 (0.52)aB 0.58 (0.46)aAB 0.64 (0.48)aA 0.72 (0.77)aA
13 min 0.36 (0.41)cA 0.43 (0.56)bcA 0.86 (0.54)aA 0.86 (0.61)aA 0.58 (0.60)abcA 0.75 (0.55)abA
35 min 0.53 (0.53)abA 0.22 (0.46)bA 0.75 (0.49)aAB 0.78 (0.62)aA 0.28 (0.43)bB 0.69 (0.67)aA
57 min 0.31 (0.42)abA 0.08 (0.26)bA 0.44 (0.59)aB 0.31 (0.52)abB 0.06 (0.16)bB 0.47 (0.70)aA
Beer 01 min 0.94 (0.51)abA 0.71 (0.46)bA 0.47 (0.50)bcA 1.22 (0.91)aA 0.75 (0.60)bcA 0.56 (0.70)bcBC
13 min 0.89 (1.05)abA 0.47 (0.61)bcA 0.86 (0.70)abA 1.17 (0.69)aA 0.33 (0.38)cBC 0.86 (0.85)abAB
35 min 0.56 (0.51)bAB 0.08 (0.25)cB 0.78 (0.52)abA 0.61 (0.47)bB 0.47 (0.58)bAB 1.06 (0.89)aA
57 min 0.25 (0.43)bcB 0.00 (0.00)dB 0.56 (0.57)aA 0.47 (0.43)abB 0.03 (0.12)cdC 0.19 (0.25)cdC
Wine 01 min 0.89 (0.72)aA 0.97 (0.65)aA 0.83 (0.75)aB 0.97 (0.92)aA 0.89 (0.96)aA 0.78 (0.49)aB
13 min 1.06 (1.00)abcA 0.57 (0.47)cB 1.42 (0.65)aA 1.42 (0.75)aA 0.86 (0.84)bcA 1.14 (0.70)abAB
35 min 0.83 (0.75)bcA 0.32 (0.38)dB 1.31 (0.75)abA 1.00 (0.64)abcA 0.58 (0.65)cdAB 1.47 (1.04)aA
57 min 0.44 (0.54)aA 0.31 (0.46)aB 0.61 (0.58)aB 0.44 (0.51)aB 0.19 (0.35)aB 0.67 (0.52)aB
Soju 01 min 0.72 (0.67)bA 0.71 (0.82)bA 1.03 (0.84)bA 1.58 (0.67)aA 0.94 (0.91)bA 0.91 (0.49)bA
13 min 0.86 (0.90)bcA 0.58 (0.55)cA 1.56 (0.80)aA 1.31 (0.60)abAB 0.97 (1.05)bcAB 1.19 (0.82)abA
35 min 0.72 (0.62)bA 0.36 (0.45)bAB 1.25 (0.81)aA 1.25 (0.62)aAB 0.53 (0.74)bAB 1.19 (0.79)aA
57 min 0.53 (0.63)abcA 0.14 (0.38)cB 0.92 (0.81)aA 0.89 (0.76)aB 0.28 (0.60)bcB 0.72 (0.84)abA
Cognac 01 min 1.08 (0.86)aA 1.58 (1.22)aA 1.44 (1.11)aB 1.64 (1.10)aA 1.75 (1.02)aAB 1.92 (1.06)aAB
13 min 1.61 (0.87)bcA 1.19 (0.84)cA 2.28 (0.94)aA 1.86 (0.76)abA 2.00 (1.32)abB 2.28 (1.06)aA
35 min 1.61 (1.09)aA 1.69 (1.06)aA 1.75 (1.13)aAB 1.25 (0.88)aA 1.28 (0.93)aBC 1.56 (1.08)aB
57 min 0.91 (0.86)aA 1.22 (0.96)aA 1.07 (1.00)aB 1.19 (1.06)aA 0.61 (0.78)aC 1.28 (0.77)aB
Whisky 01 min 1.19 (1.20)aB 1.53 (0.95)aA 1.83 (1.01)aBC 1.92 (1.14)aBC 1.50 (1.04)aA 1.25 (0.81)aB
13 min 2.31 (1.58)abA 1.56 (0.68)bA 2.81 (0.91)aA 2.61 (0.95)aA 1.81 (1.52)bA 2.19 (0.88)abA
35 min 1.42 (1.14)aB 1.13 (0.83)aA 2.00 (0.97)aB 1.78 (0.91)aB 1.61 (1.31)aA 1.83 (0.99)aAB
57 min 1.47 (0.92)aB 1.13 (0.95)aA 1.28 (0.75)aC 1.37 (0.81)aC 0.67 (0.64)aB 1.44 (1.24)aA
a
Different lower case letters in the same row at the same time interval indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
b
Different upper case letters in the same column for the same palate cleansers indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Effects of time intervals on burning sensation owing to alcohol effect was not observed with the cacao solution when used as a PC
for wine and soju. Table 3 shows mean reduction rates in the inten-
The percentage of decrease in burning sensation intensity after 0,
sity of burning sensations between time intervals. The reduction
1, 3, 5 and 7 min for each alcoholic beverage and PC are shown in
rates were not consistent in many cases as time passed. In general,
Table 2. When comparing the decrease in burning sensation after
the greatest decrease occurred between 1 and 3 min. There were
1 min, ice cream had the strongest effect, with more than an 85%
significant differences in burning sensation reduction between 1
decrease in the burning sensations from makgeolli, beer, wine and
and 3 min with beer, whisky and cognac compared with the reduc-
soju. For cognac and whisky, ice cream reduced the burning sensa-
tion between 3 and 5 min. A decreasing pattern for the reduction
tion in one minute by >65%. The water cracker was the second ef-
of burning sensation intensity was only observed some of the time
fective PC and caused a slightly lower decrease of the burning
with beer and ice cream, soju and ice cream, and soju and water.
sensation in comparison with ice cream. Cacao solution decreased
the sensation from makgeolli, beer, wine and soju by about 70%
(70.0078.33%). It was less effective with whisky after a 1 min time
period, in comparison with ice cream and a water cracker. Water,
Conclusions
warm water and pectin solution had similar effects for alcoholic Throughout this study the most effective PC was vanilla ice cream
beverages with an ~60% reduction in burning sensation observed followed by water crackers for alcoholic beverages. Pectin solution,
for makgeolli and beer (6269%). These PCs could decrease 46 which has been widely used as a PC for wines, showed a similar
63% of burning sensations generated by wine, soju, cognac and ability in minimizing burning sensation in alcoholic beverages.
whisky. The decreasing ratios from the initial intensities of burning The use of a pectin solution needs to be reconsidered when eval-
sensation for each PC were measured as time increased. More than uating alcoholic beverages. Although the vanilla ice cream was the
85% of the initial burning sensation intensity was gone between 5 most effective PC, water crackers could be an alternative because
and 7 min. The soju and whisky had lower decreasing ratios in preparation of water crackers requires very limited amounts of
comparison with wine and cognac when warm water, water and work in comparison with the preparation of vanilla ice cream. In
pectin solution were used as PCs. The intensities of the burning addition, no temperature control is necessary for water crackers.
sensation for soju and whisky would be due to the lack of fruity at- Therefore, the industry could apply vanilla ice cream and/or water
tributes in comparison with wine and cognac. Stronger burning crackers as their PC. The decrease in the rate of the burning sensa-
sensations owing to alcohol were left by the soju and whisky, tion owing to alcohol was found to be an effect of time. If water,
which the PCs without flavour were less effective in removing. This warm water or pectin solution are used as PCs, sensory scientists

J. Inst. Brew. 2015 Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
Y. Seo et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

need to allow >5 min between alcoholic beverage samples to 21. Williams, A. A. (1972) Flavour effects of ethanol in alcoholic beverages,
minimize the carry-over effect. Additional research is necessary Flav. Ind. 3, 604607.
22. Scinska, A., Koros, E., Habrat, B., Kukwa, A., Kostowski, W., and
to identify the effect of fat, sugar and temperature as a PC of alco-
Bienkowski, P. (2000) Bitter and sweet components of ethanol taste
holic beverages, since the vanilla ice cream was determined as the in humans, Drug Alcohol Depend. 60, 199206.
most effective PC using a model solution system. 23. Zamora, M. C., Goldner, M. C., and Galmarini, M. V. (2006) Sourness
sweeteness interactions in different media: White wine, ethanol and
water, J. Sens. Stud. 21, 601611.
Acknowledgements 24. Lee, S. J., Park, C. S., and Kim, H. K. (2012) Sensory profiling of commer-
cial distilled soju, Korean, J. Food Sci. Technol. 44, 648652.
The research was supported by the High Value-Added Food Tech- 25. McGrew, D., and Chambers, E. (2011) Sensory quality control and assur-
nology Development Program, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and ance of alcoholic beverages through sensory evaluation, in Alcoholic
Rural Affairs, Republic of Korea (project no. 112116-05-2-SB010). Beverages (Piggott, J. Ed.), pp. 2441,Woodhead, Philadelphia, PA.
26. Piggot, J. R., and Jardine, S. P. (1979) Descriptive sensory analysis of
whisky flavour, J. Inst. Brew. 85, 8285.
References 27. King, E. S., Dunn, R. L., and Heymann, H. (2013) The influence of alcohol
1. Johnson, E. A., and Vickers, Z. (2004) The effectiveness of palate cleans- on the sensory perception of red wines, Food Qual. Prefer. 23, 235243.
ing strategies for evaluating the bitterness of caffeine in cream cheese, 28. Kim, M. (2012) Its official: Jinro soju is the worlds best-selling liquor.
Food Qual Prefer. 15, 311316. Available from: http://travel.cnn.com/seoul/drink/soju-most-sold-drink-
2. Lucak, C. L., and Delwiche, J. F. (2009) Efficacy of various palate world-930177 (last accessed June 2015).
cleansers with representative food, Chemosens. Percept. 2, 3239. 29. Duizer, L. M., Bloom, K., and Findlay, C. J. (1995) The effect of line orien-
3. Lee, C. A., and Vickers, Z. M. (2010) Discrimination among astringent tation on the recording of time intensity perception of sweetener solu-
samples is affected by choice of palate cleanser, Food Qual Prefer. 21, tions, Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 121126.
9399. 30. Ball, R. D., Murray, S. H., Young, H., and Gilbert, J. M. (1998) Statistical
4. Menuel, A. (2011). Palate cleanser effectiveness in evaluating sweet- analysis relating analytical and consumer panel assessments of kiwi-
ness, bitterness, and pungency of sweet onions and sensory, chemical, fruit flavour compounds in a model juice base, Food Qual. Prefer. 9,
and instrumental techniques, Doctoral Dissertation, University of 255266.
Georgia. 31. Lavin, J. G., and Lawless, H. T. (1998) Effects of color and odor on judge-
5. Ross, C. F., Hinken, C., and Weller, K. (2007) Efficacy of palate cleansers ments of sweetness among children and adults, Food Qual. Prefer. 9,
for reduction of astringency carryover during repeated ingestions of 283289.
red wine, J. Sens. Stud. 22, 293312. 32. Forde, C. G., and Delahunty, C. M. (2004) Understanding the role cross-
6. Brannan, G. D., Setser, C. S., and Kemp, K. E. (2001) Effectiveness of modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and
rinses in alleviating bitterness and astrigency residuals in model older consumers, Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 715727.
solutions, J. Sens. Stud. 16, 261275. 33. Carbornell, L., Izquierdo, L., and Carbonell, I. (2007) Sensory analysis of
7. King, E. S., and Heymann, H. (2014) The effect of reduced alcohol on the Spanish mandarin juices. Selection of attributes and panel perfor-
sensory profiles and consumer preferences of white wine, J. Sens. Stud. mance, Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 329341.
29, 3342. 34. Kremer, S., Mojet, J., and Kroeze, J. H. A. (2007) Differences in perception
8. Goldner, M. C., Zamora, M. C., Di Leo Lira, P. A. O. L. A., Gianninoto, H., of sweet and savoury waffles between elderly and young subjects,
and Bandoni, A. (2009) Effect of ethanol level in the perception of Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 106116.
aroma attributes and the detection of volatile compounds in red wine, 35. Schiffman, S., Sattely-Miller, E., and Bishay, I. (2007) Time to maximum
J. Sens. Stud. 24, 243257. sweetness intensity of binary and ternary blends of sweeteners, Food
9. Baron, R. F., and Penfield, M. P. (1996) Capsaicin heat intensity Qual. Prefer. 18, 405415.
concentration, carrier, fat level, and temperature effects, J. Sens. Stud. 36. Zhao, L., and Tepper, B. J. (2007) Perception and acceptance of selected
11, 295316. high intensity sweeteners and blends in model soft drinks by
10. Nurgel, C., and Pickering, G. (2006) Modeling of sweet, bitter and propylthiouracil (PROP) non-tasters and super-tasters, Food Qual. Pre-
irritant sensations and their interactions elicited by model ice wines, fer. 18, 31540.
J. Sens. Stud. 21, 505519. 37. Reinbach, H., Giacalone, D., Ribeiro, L. M., Bredie, W. L. P., and Bom, M.
11. Findlay, C. J., Castura, J. S., and Lesschaeve, I. (2007) Feedback calibra- (2014) Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on con-
tion: A training method for descriptive panels, Food Qual. Prefer. 18, sumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping, Food
321328. Qual. Prefer. 23, 235243.
12. Nasrawi, C. W., and Pangborn, R. M. (1990) Temporal effectiveness of 38. Langstaff, S. A., Guinard, J. X., and Lewis, M. J. (1990) Sensory evaluation
mouth rinsing on capsaicin mouth-burn, Physiol. Behav. 47, 617623. of the mouth feel of beer, J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 49, 5459.
13. Lee, K. W., and Kim, K. O. (2013) Effects of fat and sucrose in palate 39. Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., and Knoops, S. S. C. P. (1995) Multidimensional
cleansers on discrimination of burning sensation of capsaicin samples, scaling of forting data applied to cheese perception, Food Qual. Prefer.
Food Sci. Biotechnol. 22, 691696. 6, 9198.
14. Allgeyer, L. C., Miller, M. J., and Lee, S.-Y. (2010) Drivers of liking for 40. Butler, G., Poste, L. M., Mackie, D. A., and Jones, A. (1996) Timeintensity
yogurt drinks with prebiotics and probiotics, J. Food Sci. 75, 212219. as a tool for the measurement of meat tenderness, Food Qual. Prefer. 7,
15. Chung, H. S., Lee, Y. C., Rhee, Y. K., and Lee, S. Y. (2011) Consumer accep- 193204.
tance of Ginseng food products, J. Food Sci. 76, 516522. 41. Stampanoni-Koeferli, C. R., Piccinali, P., and Sigrist, S. (1996) The influ-
16. Neely, E. A., Lee, Y. S., and Lee, S. Y. (2010) Drivers of liking for soy-based ence of fat, sugar and non-fat milk solids on selected taste, flavor
Indian-style extruded snack food determined by U.S., and Indian and texture parameters of a vanilla ice-cream, Food Qual. Prefer. 7,
consumers, J. Food Sci 75, 292299. 979.
17. Demiglio, P., and Pickering, G. J. (2008) The influence of ethanol and pH 42. Olarte, C., Gonzalez-Fandos, E., and Sanz, S. (2001) A proposed method-
on the taste and mouth feel sensations elicited by red wine, Food Agric. ology to determine the sensory quality of a fresh goats cheese
Environ. 6, 143150. (Cameros cheese): Application to cheeses packaged under modified
18. Fischer, U., and Noble, A. C. (1994) The effect of ethanol, catechin con- atmospheres, Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 163170.
centration and pH on sourness and bitterness of wine, Am. J. Emol. 43. Adhikari, K., Heymann, H., and Huff, H. E. (2003) Textural characteristics
Viticult. 45, 610. of low fat, full fat and smoked cheese: Sensory and instrumental ap-
19. Fontoin, H., Saucier, C., Teissedre, P. L., and Glories, Y. (2008) Effect of proaches, Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 211218.
pH, ethanol and acidity on astrigency and bitterness of grape seed tan- 44. Azanza, M. P. V., Basman, I. C. V., Magsuci, C. D., and Mauricio, R. A.
nin oligomers in model wine solution, Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 286291. (2004) Development of quick-cooking meat congees using multi-
20. Jones, P. R., Gawel, R., Francis, I. L., and Waters, E. J. (2008) The influence level sensory evaluation, Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 331340.
of interactions between major white wine components on the aroma, 45. Ishii, R., Chang, H.-K., and OMahony, M. (2007a) A comparison of serial
flavour and texture of model white wine, Food Qual. Prefer. 19, monadic and attribute-by-attribute protocols for simple descriptive
596607. analysis with untrained judges, Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 440449.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2015
Effectiveness of palate cleansers
Institute of Brewing & Distilling

46. Colonna, A. E., Adams, D. O., and Noble, A. (2004) Comparison of proce- 53. Allison, A. M., Chambers, E., Milliken, G. A., and Chambers, D. H. (1999)
dures for reducing astringency carry-over effects in evaluation of red Effects of interstimulus rinsing and time on measurements of capsaicin
wines, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 10, 2631. heat in tomato salsa, J. Sens. Stud. 14, 401414.
47. Gwartney, E., and Heymann, H. (1995) The temporal perception of 54. Allison, A. M., and Work, T. (2004) Fiery and frosty foods pose chal-
menthol, J. Sens. Stud. 10, 393400. lenges in sensory evaluation, Food Technology 58, 3237.
48. Piper, D. Mint gum. Available from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/ 55. Dowell, K. J., Chambers, E., Milliken, G. A., and Chambers, D. H. (2005)
group/sensory/message/5059. (last accessed November 2014). Predicting interstimulus intervals between samples for capsaicin-
49. Summers, T. Menthol/Mints. Available from http://tech.groups.yahoo. containing salsa with a range of heat levels, J. Sens. Stud. 20, 187199.
com/group/ sensory / message, 4866 (last accessed June 2015). 56. Williams, E. J. (1949) Experimental designs balanced for the estimation
50. Green, B. G. (1992) The sensory effects of l-menthol on human skin, of residual effects of treatments, Austr. J. Chem. 2, 149168.
Somatosens. Motor Res. 9, 235244. 57. Carden, L. A., Penfield, M. P., and Saxton, A. M. (1999) Perception of heat
51. Gwartney, E., and Heymann, H. (1995) The temporal perception of in cheese sauces as affected by capsaicin concentration, fat level, fat
menthol, J. Sens. Stud. 10, 393400. mimetic and time, J. Food Sci. 64, 175179.
52. Trevisani, M., Smart, D., Gunthorpe, M. J., Tognetto, M., Barbieri, M., 58. Hutchinson, S. E., Trantow, L. A., and Vickers, Z. M. (1990) The effectiveness
Campi, B., Amadesi, S., Gray, J., Jerman, J. C., Brough, S. J., Owen, D., of common foods for reduction of capsaicin burn, J. Sens. Stud. 4, 157164.
Smith, G. D., Randall, A. D., Harrison, S., Bianchi, A., Davis, J. B., and 59. Peter, B. R., Adam, J. S., Monica, F., Henry, C., and Thode, J. (1999) The
Geppetti, P. (2002) Ethanol elicits and potentiates nociceptor responses effectiveness of ice as a topical anesthetic for the insertion of
via the vanilloid receptor-1, Nat. Neurosci. 5(6), 546551. intrevenous catheters, Am. J. Emerg. Med. 17, 255257.

J. Inst. Brew. 2015 Copyright 2015 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
View publication stats

You might also like