Sensory Characteristics Contributing to Pleasantness of Oat Product Concepts by Finnish and Chinese Consumers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants in the Tests
2.2. Online Questionnaire
2.3. Oat Samples
2.4. Sensory Evaluations in Finland and China
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Clusters Based on the Online Questionnaire
3.2. Sensory Descriptors of Oat Products
3.3. Comparison of Hedonic Liking Ratings by Finnish and Chinese Participants
4. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ho, H.V.T.; Sievenpiper, J.L.; Zurbau, A.; Mejia, S.B.; Jovanovski, E.; Au-Yeung, F.; Jenkins, A.L.; Vuksan, V. The effect of oat β-glucan on LDL-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and apoB for CVD risk reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 116, 1369–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Menon, R.; Gonzalez, T.; Ferruzzi, M.; Jackson, E.; Winderl, D.; Watson, J. Chapter One—Oats—From Farm to Fork. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Henry, J., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 77, pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, X.L.; Zhao, T.; Zhou, Y.; Shi, X.; Zou, Y.; Zhao, G. Effect of Oat β-Glucan Intake on Glycaemic Control and Insulin Sensitivity of Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2016, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du, B.; Meenu, M.; Liu, H.; Xu, B. A Concise Review on the Molecular Structure and Function Relationship of β-Glucan. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rasane, P.; Jha, A.; Sabikhi, L.; Kumar, A.; Unnikrishnan, V.S. Nutritional advantages of oats and opportunities for its processing as value added foods—A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 662–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products; Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to beta glucans and maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations (ID 754, 755, 757, 801, 1465, 2934) and maintenance or achievement of a normal body weight (ID 820, 823) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products; Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to beta-glucans from oats and barley and maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations (ID 1236, 1299), increase in satiety leading to a reduction in energy intake (ID 851, 852), reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (ID 821, 824), and “digestive function” (ID 850) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products; Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to oat and barley grain fibre and increase in faecal bulk (ID 819, 822) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products; Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to oat beta glucan and lowering blood cholesterol and reduced risk of (coronary) heart disease pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natural Resources Institute Finland. Balance Sheet for Food Commodities 2018, Preliminary and 2017 Final Figures 2019; Natural Resources Institute Finland: Helsinki, Finland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Welch, R.W. Cereal Grains. In The Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 346–357. [Google Scholar]
- Heiniö, R.L.; Noort, M.W.J.; Katina, K.; Alam, S.A.; Sozer, N.; de Kock, H.L.; Hersleth, M.; Poutanen, K. Sensory characteristics of wholegrain and bran-rich cereal foods—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klensporf, D.; Jeleń, H.H. Effect of heat treatment on the flavor of oat flakes. J. Cereal Sci. 2008, 48, 656–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heiniö, R.-L.; Kaukovirta-Norja, A.; Poutanen, K. Flavor in Processing New Oat Foods. Cereal Foods World 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Günther-Jordanland, K.; Dawid, C.; Dietz, M.; Hofmann, T. Key Phytochemicals Contributing to the Bitter Off-Taste of Oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 9639–9652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molteberg, E.L.; Solheim, R.; Dimberg, L.H.; Frølich, W. Variation in Oat Groats Due to Variety, Storage and Heat Treatment. II: Sensory Quality. J. Cereal Sci. 1996, 24, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.-Z.; Zheng, J.-M.; Li, X.; Xu, C.; Zhao, Q. Chemical composition and sensory characteristics of oat flakes: A comparative study of naked oat flakes from China and hulled oat flakes from western countries. J. Cereal Sci. 2014, 60, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyly, M.; Salmenkallio-Marttila, M.; Suortti, T.; Autio, K.; Poutanen, K.; Lähteenmäki, L. Influence of Oat β-Glucan Preparations on the Perception of Mouthfeel and on Rheological Properties in Beverage Prototypes. Cereal Chem. J. 2003, 80, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekker, G.A.; Tobi, H.; Fischer, A.R.H. Meet meat: An explorative study on meat and cultured meat as seen by Chinese, Ethiopians and Dutch. Appetite 2017, 114, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, E.J.; Tang, R.; Kadri, H.E.; Gkatzionis, K. Sensory analysis of honey using Flash profile: A cross-cultural comparison of Greek and Chinese panels. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34, e12494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamir, S.M.R.; Stelick, A.; Dando, R. Cross-cultural examination of a product of differing familiarity (Hard Cider) by American and Chinese panelists using rapid profiling techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G. Methodological issues in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Vidal, L.; Zhou, Y.; Krystallis, A.; Tsalis, G.; Symoneaux, R.; Cunha, L.M.; de Moura, A.P.; Claret, A.; et al. Do we all perceive food-related wellbeing in the same way? Results from an exploratory cross-cultural study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brückner-Gühmann, M.; Banovic, M.; Drusch, S. Towards an increased plant protein intake: Rheological properties, sensory perception and consumer acceptability of lactic acid fermented, oat-based gels. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 96, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyly, M.; Roininen, K.; Honkapää, K.; Poutanen, K.; Lähteenmäki, L. Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to use beverages and ready-to-eat frozen soups containing oat β-glucan in Finland, France and Sweden. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, D.A.; Cappellini, B.; Wang, C.L.; Nguyen, B. Food consumption when travelling abroad: Young Chinese sojourners’ food consumption in the UK. Appetite 2018, 121, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, R.; Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Chinese consumers’ understanding and use of a food nutrition label and their determinants. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 41, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, R.; Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W. Consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards safe food in China: A review. Food Control 2013, 33, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Wu, L.; Du, L.; Chen, M. Consumers’ purchase intention of organic food in China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1361–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Luoto, S.; Ren, X. Gluten-free living in China: The characteristics, food choices and difficulties in following a gluten-free diet—An online survey. Appetite 2018, 127, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roininen, K.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Tuorila, H. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite 1999, 33, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, P.; Ares, G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 893–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Varela, P. Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting debate in the field. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 61, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mielmann, A.; Brunner, T.A. Consumers’ snack choices: Current factors contributing to obesity. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuorila, H.; Hartmann, C. Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S. Fodder oats in China. In Fodder Oats: A World Overview; Suttie, J.M., Reynolds, S.G., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004; pp. 123–144. [Google Scholar]
- Nacef, M.; Lelièvre-Desmas, M.; Symoneaux, R.; Jombart, L.; Flahaut, C.; Chollet, S. Consumers’ expectation and liking for cheese: Can familiarity effects resulting from regional differences be highlighted within a country? Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 72, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuorila, H.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Pohjalainen, L.; Lotti, L. Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damsbo-Svendsen, M.; Frøst, M.B.; Olsen, A. A review of instruments developed to measure food neophobia. Appetite 2017, 113, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dovey, T.M.; Staples, P.A.; Gibson, E.L.; Halford, J.C.G. Food neophobia and ‘picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review. Appetite 2008, 50, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knaapila, A.; Tuorila, H.; Silventoinen, K.; Keskitalo, K.; Kallela, M.; Wessman, M.; Peltonen, L.; Cherkas, L.F.; Spector, T.D.; Perola, M. Food neophobia shows heritable variation in humans. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 91, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laureati, M.; Spinelli, S.; Monteleone, E.; Dinnella, C.; Prescott, J.; Cattaneo, C.; Proserpio, C.; De Toffoli, A.; Gasperi, F.; Endrizzi, I.; et al. Associations between food neophobia and responsiveness to “warning” chemosensory sensations in food products in a large population sample. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, I.B.A.; Oliveira, D.; Rosenthal, A.; Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Brazilian consumer’s perception of food processing technologies: A case study with fruit juice. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, R.N.; Qiao, G.H. Consumers’ willingness to buy oat products and the influencing factors. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2013, 6, 212–215. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Román, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study 1 | Study 2 | Study 3 | Study 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Location | Finland | Turku, Finland | Turku, Finland | Wuxi, China |
Time of data collection | April–June 2017 | November 2017, January 2018 | November–December 2017, January 2018 | June 2018 |
Test method | Online questionnaire | Sensory evaluation in laboratory | Sensory evaluation in laboratory | Sensory evaluation in laboratory |
Number of sample categories or samples | 11 | 9 | 8 | 10 |
Number of participants | 381 | 65 | 73 | 103 |
Females, % | 75.9 | 70.8 | 60.3 | 81.6 |
Age range (median) | 18−76 (29) | 18−68 (27) | 18−68 (27) | 18−36 (24) |
Country of origin, % | ||||
Finland | 83.7 | 72.3 | 68.5 | - |
China | 7.6 | 20.0 | 19.2 | 100 |
Other | 8.7 | 7.7 | 12.3 | - |
Sample | Study | Preparation | Served Amount | Serving Dish | Serving Temperature |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sweet Oat Biscuit | 2, 4 | Split piece into halves | Two halves | Glass cup | Room temp |
Salty Oat Biscuit * | 2, 4 | as such | Two biscuits | Glass cup | Room temp |
Puffed Oat Cereal | 2, 4 | as such | 2 tablespoons | Glass cup | Room temp |
Oat Drink | 3, 4 | Shaken | 20 mL | Plastic cup | Refrigerated |
Oat Powder | 3, 4 | 1 part oat powder + 4 parts water, mixed until homogenized | 20 mL | Plastic cup | Refrigerated |
Oat Porridge | 3, 4 | 450 mL water mixed with 200 mL flakes, gently simmered over low heat for 15 min in Finland, 3 min in microwave (full power) in China | 1 tablespoon | Glass cup | Warm (60 °C) |
Oat Granola ** | 2, 4 | as such | 2 tablespoons | Glass cup | Room temp |
Oat Bread | 2 | Defrosted (−18 °C) in microwave oven, edges cut away, cut into 6 pieces | One rectangular piece (approx. 2 × 3 cm) | Glass cup | Room temp |
Moist Oat Biscuit | 2 | as such | One piece | Glass cup | Room temp |
Oat Roll | 2 | Defrosted (−18 °C) in microwave oven, edges cut away, cut into 4 pieces | One square piece (approx. 3 × 3 cm) | Glass cup | Room temp |
Oat Granola 2 * | 2 | as such | 2 tablespoons | Glass cup | Room temp |
Oat Muesli * | 2 | as such | 2 tablespoons | Glass cup | Room temp |
Yoghurt-alternative 1 | 3 | Stirred | 2 teaspoons | Plastic cup | Refrigerated |
Yoghurt-alternative 2 | 3 | Stirred | 2 teaspoons | Plastic cup | Refrigerated |
Instant Porridge | 3 | 250 mL hot water from electric kettle mixed with 150 mL flakes, simmered for 5 min | 1 tablespoon | Glass cup | Warm (60 °C) |
Oat Meat Substitute | 3 | Heated in microwave oven (full power) for 30 s | 1 tablespoon | Glass cup | Warm (60 °C) |
Granola in Drink * | 3 | Oat drink shaken | 1 tablespoon granola + 15 mL oat drink | Glass cup | Refrigerated |
Oat Chips | 4 | as such | One piece | Plastic cup | Room temp |
Hard Bread | 4 | Split piece in halves | One half | Plastic cup | Room temp |
Oat Bread 2 | 4 | Defrosted (−18 °C) in microwave oven, cut into 6 pieces | One rectangular piece (approx. 2 × 3 cm) | Plastic cup | Room temp |
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | All | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants | 111 | 77 | 69 | 62 | 62 | 381 |
Gender (%) a | Female (100) | Female (100) | Male (91.3) | Female (100) | Female (61.3) | |
Country of origin (%) a | Finland (100) | Finland (100) | Finland (100) | Finland (100) | Other (100) | |
Food Neophobia Scale a | Less FN | Less FN | Less FN | More FN | More FN | |
Less neophobic % | 100 | 57.1 | 65.2 | 45.2 | 0 | 59.8 (21.2) |
More neophobic % | 0 | 42.9 | 34.8 | 54.8 | 100 | 40.2 (38.0) |
General Health Interest a | More HI | Less HI | Less HI | More HI | More HI | |
Less interested % | 0 | 100 | 53.6 | 33.9 | 0 | 35.4 (28.4) |
More interested % | 100 | 0 | 46.4 | 66.1 | 100 | 64.6 (43.3) |
Interest in healthiness of food b | 6.23 ± 0.74 a | 5.14 ± 0.90 c | 5.42 ± 1.10 bc | 6.26 ± 0.72 a | 5.58 ± 1.35 b | 5.76 ± 1.06 |
Awareness of healthiness of food b | 5.93 ± 0.93 a | 5.55 ± 0.95 ab | 5.57 ± 0.93 ab | 5.97 ± 0.77 a | 5.32 ± 1.44 b | 5.69 ± 1.04 |
Usage of products containing oats b | 2.27 ± 1.41 b | 2.56 ± 1.29 b | 2.75 ± 1.46 b | 2.63 ± 1.36 b | 3.47 ± 1.80 a | 2.67 ± 1.50 |
Pleasantness rating of oat product categories b | ||||||
Oat breads | 8.32 ± 0.87 a | 8.01 ± 1.16 ab | 7.54 ± 1.38 b | 8.10 ± 1.14 ab | 6.34 ± 1.99 c | 7.76 ± 1.46 A |
Oat porridges | 8.05 ± 1.17 a | 7.10 ± 1.89 bc | 6.83 ± 1.86 cd | 7.82 ± 1.68 ab | 6.10 ± 2.35 d | 7.28 ± 1.89 B |
Oat mueslis | 6.94 ± 1.60 ab | 6.43 ± 1.63 ab | 6.38 ± 1.76 ab | 6.97 ± 1.76 a | 6.11 ± 2.42 b | 6.60 ± 1.84 CD |
Oat flakes and brans | 6.94 ± 1.79 a | 6.66 ± 1.66 a | 5.83 ± 1.79 b | 6.85 ± 1.45 a | 5.56 ± 1.78 b | 6.44 ± 1.79 DE |
Oat powders | 4.90 ± 1.73 | 4.81 ± 1.56 | 4.42 ± 1.58 | 5.15 ± 1.77 | 4.71 ± 1.81 | 4.80 ± 1.70 G |
Oat meat substitutes | 6.52 ± 1.83 a | 6.03 ± 1.75 a | 5.71 ± 2.16 a | 6.15 ± 2.09 a | 4.77 ± 2.16 b | 5.93 ± 2.05 F |
Snack-type oat biscuits | 6.66 ± 1.71 | 6.95 ± 1.54 | 6.93 ± 1.52 | 6.77 ± 1.64 | 6.79 ± 1.58 | 6.81 ± 1.61 CD |
Coffee-table oat biscuits | 6.80 ± 1.87 a | 7.26 ± 1.66 a | 7.07 ± 1.73 a | 6.90 ± 1.46 a | 6.37 ± 2.06 b | 6.89 ± 1.79 BC |
Oat-based yoghurts | 6.69 ± 1.91 a | 6.08 ± 2.08 ab | 5.42 ± 1.97 b | 5.71 ± 2.01 ab | 6.18 ± 2.28 b | 6.09 ± 2.08 EF |
Oat drinks | 6.57 ± 2.05 a | 5.61 ± 2.27 ab | 4.96 ± 2.20 b | 5.42 ± 2.21 b | 5.40 ± 2.28 b | 5.71 ± 2.25 F |
Oat candies | 4.80 ± 1.75 | 4.66 ± 1.77 | 4.35 ± 1.96 | 4.56 ± 1.71 | 4.97 ± 2.19 | 4.68 ± 1.86 G |
Familiarity rating of oat product categories b | ||||||
Oat breads | 4.41 ± 0.59 a | 4.25 ± 0.67 a | 4.23 ± 0.77 a | 4.26 ± 0.68 a | 3.48 ± 1.18 b | 4.17 ± 0.83 A |
Oat porridges | 4.71 ± 0.49 a | 4.36 ± 0.72 ab | 4.29 ± 0.73 b | 4.56 ± 0.64 ab | 3.81 ± 1.28 c | 4.39 ± 0.83 A |
Oat mueslis | 3.49 ± 0.97 | 3.21 ± 1.03 | 3.42 ± 0.93 | 3.47 ± 1.02 | 3.19 ± 1.45 | 3.37 ± 1.08 CD |
Oat flakes and brans | 3.87 ± 0.95 a | 3.45 ± 1.08 ab | 3.38 ± 0.81 b | 3.58 ± 0.76 ab | 2.73 ± 1.31 c | 3.46 ± 1.06 BC |
Oat powders | 2.07 ± 0.97 a | 1.48 ± 0.74 b | 1.81 ± 1.03 ab | 2.08 ± 1.16 a | 2.11 ± 1.01 a | 1.91 ± 1.01 F |
Oat meat substitutes | 3.37 ± 0.96 a | 2.78 ± 1.07 b | 3.03 ± 1.01 ab | 3.03 ± 1.06 ab | 2.27 ± 1.28 c | 2.96 ± 1.12 E |
Snack-type oat biscuits | 3.64 ± 0.71 | 3.58 ± 0.66 | 3.70 ± 0.71 | 3.60 ± 0.84 | 3.56 ± 0.88 | 3.62 ± 0.75 B |
Coffee-table oat biscuits | 3.56 ± 0.66 a | 3.68 ± 0.52 a | 3.77 ± 0.71 a | 3.48 ± 0.76 a | 3.06 ± 1.21 b | 3.53 ± 0.81 BC |
Oat-based yoghurts | 3.48 ± 1.09 a | 3.29 ± 0.99 ab | 2.93 ± 0.94 b | 2.98 ± 0.88 b | 3.03 ± 1.29 ab | 3.19 ± 1.07 D |
Oat drinks | 3.63 ± 1.12 a | 3.12 ± 1.21 ab | 2.93 ± 1.10 b | 3.06 ± 1.08 b | 2.77 ± 1.21 b | 3.17 ± 1.18 DE |
Oat candies | 1.49 ± 0.84 ab | 1.27 ± 0.70 b | 1.49 ± 0.85 ab | 1.35 ± 0.63 b | 1.77 ± 1.09 a | 1.47 ± 0.84 G |
Samples a Participants | Pleasantness b | Intensity b | Purchase Interest b | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appearance | Odor | Flavor | MF & T | Oat Odor | Oat Flavor | |||
Sweet Oat Biscuit | China (n = 103) | 6.30 ± 1.2 | 6.56 ± 1.2 | 7.17 ± 1.4 b | 6.82 ± 1.2 b | 3.97 ± 1.4 b | 4.24 ± 1.5 b | 3.65 ± 1.1 b |
Finland (n = 65) | 6.43 ± 1.6 | 6.38 ± 1.5 | 7.60 ± 1.6a | 7.30 ± 1.3 a | 4.46 ± 1.6 a | 4.74 ± 1.5 a | 4.03 ± 1.0 a | |
Salty Oat Biscuit | China (n = 103) | 5.45 ± 1.3 | 5.33 ± 1.1 | 5.64 ± 1.5 | 5.67 ± 1.5 b | 3.52 ± 1.4 | 3.99 ± 1.5 | 2.95 ± 1.1 |
Finland (n = 65) | 5.32 ± 1.5 | 5.65 ± 1.5 | 5.91 ± 1.8 | 6.35 ± 1.6 a | 3.62 ± 1.6 | 4.15 ± 1.4 | 2.69 ± 1.3 | |
Puffed Oat Cereal | China (n = 103) | 6.50 ± 1.4 a | 5.84 ± 1.1 a | 6.77 ± 1.2 a | 6.93 ± 1.3 | 2.57 ± 1.4 | 2.94 ± 1.3 | 3.44 ± 1.1 |
Finland (n = 65) | 5.79 ± 1.9 b | 4.95 ± 1.6 b | 6.29 ± 1.7 b | 7.03 ± 1.5 | 2.37 ± 1.4 | 3.05 ± 1.7 | 3.06 ± 1.5 | |
Oat Drink | China (n = 103) | 5.90 ± 1.2 | 5.28 ± 0.8 b | 6.20 ± 1.4 b | 6.33 ± 1.6 | 1.95 ± 1.1 | 2.73 ± 1.5 b | 3.07 ± 1.2 |
Finland (n = 73) | 5.97 ± 1.9 | 5.60 ± 1.0 a | 6.60 ± 1.6 a | 6.82 ± 1.8 | 1.79 ± 1.2 | 3.49 ± 1.7a | 3.38 ± 1.4 | |
Oat Powder | China (n = 103) | 5.51 ± 1.2 | 5.00 ± 0.8 | 4.20 ± 1.7 a | 4.52 ± 1.8 a | 2.70 ± 1.6 b | 3.51 ± 1.8 b | 2.08 ± 1.1 a |
Finland (n = 73) | 5.15 ± 1.6 | 5.05 ± 1.6 | 3.32 ± 1.7 b | 3.70 ± 1.9 b | 3.63 ± 1.9 a | 4.51 ± 1.6 a | 1.48 ± 0.8 b | |
Oat Porridge | China (n = 103) | 4.58 ± 1.7 b | 5.53 ± 1.6 b | 5.19 ± 1.6 b | 5.13 ± 1.8 b | 4.90 ± 1.6 a | 5.13 ± 1.7 a | 2.50 ± 1.2 b |
Finland (n = 73) | 6.05 ± 1.7 a | 6.62 ± 1.3 a | 6.33 ± 1.4 a | 6.63 ± 1.4 a | 4.27 ± 1.5 b | 4.36 ± 1.7 b | 3.78 ± 1.2 a | |
Oat Granola | China (n = 103) | 6.30 ± 1.4 b | 6.25 ± 1.3 a | 6.83 ± 1.5 b | 6.26 ± 1.4 b | 3.77 ± 1.6 | 4.73 ± 1.5 a | 3.56 ± 1.1 |
Finland (n = 73) | 7.09 ± 1.6 a | 5.66 ± 1.8 b | 7.77 ± 1.1 a | 7.63 ± 1.2 a | 3.51 ± 1.8 | 4.06 ± 1.6 b | 3.82 ± 1.3 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Laaksonen, O.; Ma, X.; Pasanen, E.; Zhou, P.; Yang, B.; Linderborg, K.M. Sensory Characteristics Contributing to Pleasantness of Oat Product Concepts by Finnish and Chinese Consumers. Foods 2020, 9, 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091234
Laaksonen O, Ma X, Pasanen E, Zhou P, Yang B, Linderborg KM. Sensory Characteristics Contributing to Pleasantness of Oat Product Concepts by Finnish and Chinese Consumers. Foods. 2020; 9(9):1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091234
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaaksonen, Oskar, Xueying Ma, Eerika Pasanen, Peng Zhou, Baoru Yang, and Kaisa M. Linderborg. 2020. "Sensory Characteristics Contributing to Pleasantness of Oat Product Concepts by Finnish and Chinese Consumers" Foods 9, no. 9: 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091234