A starch‐glycerol gel was subjected to a two‐bite compression test using two sample‐instrument geometries, various speeds of compression and strain levels, both with lubrication or not. Results were interpreted using the primary characteristic terminology previously defined in Texture Profile Analysis.
Compression speeds from 0.1 to 10 m/s showed a logarithmic relationship with hardness, cohesiveness, corrected cohesiveness and adhesiveness. Gels survived compression to strains of 0.90 without failing, strain levels from 0.25 to 0.90 resulted in an exponential rise in hardness with increasing strain and linear reduction in corrected cohesiveness. Lubrication had no significant influence on any of the measured parameters and an application of force with different sample‐instrument geometry revealed that parallel plates and plungers only had an influence on gel hardness.
Caution is urged when researchers modify the test protocol from 75% deformation with parallel plates. A minimum crosshead speed of 2 mm/s is recommended.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Texture Profile Analysis has been widely applied to test solid and semisolid foods; however, some researchers deviate from the original test protocol. This article attempts to show how modifying the parameters in the test protocol can influence the apparent properties of the sample.
Studies in food oral processing are becoming increasingly important with the advent of the aged society. The food oral processing model of Hutchings and Lillford (Journal of Texture Studies, 19, 1988, 103–115) describes the structural breakdown and lubrication of ingested food before the swallowing stage, and has been revisited in the present article. The instrumental technique texture profile analysis (TPA) purports to mimic the first two bites of mastication and its ease of use has lured some researchers to use it without a critical eye. In this article, we consider inconsistencies in the Hutchings and Lillford model with the hope that it might be further refined. With regard to TPA we question the validity of the data generated and urge authors caution before they publish results from the test protocol. If results are published then the x‐axis should be viewed as deformation or strain, and not time. Hardness should be represented by the breaking stress. Adhesiveness should be measured at a medium strain taking into account the surface properties of the plunger. The ratio of the energy estimated by the area under the curve obtained from the second and the first bites (A2/A1) should be called recoverability and not cohesiveness.
Hutchings and Lillford's (Journal of Texture Studies, 19, 103-115, 1988) proposed a "breakdown path" whereby particle size reduction occurs through mastication in conjunction with the secretion of saliva to form a swallowable bolus. The swallowing trajectory of whole peanuts, peanut meal and peanut paste were studied with the temporal dominance of sensations technique. The sensations for whole peanuts progressed from hard, to crunchy, to chewy, to soft and ended compacted on teeth.Predictably peanut meal missed out the first two sensations, progressing from chewy, to soft and ending compacted on teeth. However peanut paste, which starts as a soft suspension with relatively little structure appears to thicken and stick to the palate during oral processing. We propose that the "hard to swallow" sensation elicited by peanut paste may be due to water absorption from the saliva as they mix in the mouth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.