Low‐sodium roasted peanuts: effects of salt mixtures (NaCl, KCl and glycine) on consumer perception and purchase intent

Abstract

The effects of ten treatment combinations of two salts (NaCl, KCl) and glycine were evaluated on lowsodium roasted peanuts. Consumers' (N = 330, recruited from college campus) liking, emotions, perceived saltiness and bitterness intensity, satisfaction and purchase intent (PI) of peanuts were measured following a balanced incomplete block design (t = 10, k = 3, r = 9, b = 30, k = 2, e 2 = 0.74). Emotions and PI were evaluated both before and after presenting a low-sodium health benefit message. Sodium content of peanuts was reduced from 140 mg Na/50 g peanuts to 41.67 mg Na/50 g without significantly affecting liking scores and with positive PI over 60%. In general, high bitterness and low saltiness intensity ratings negatively affected liking and satisfaction. Consumers expressed less satisfaction when perceived saltiness intensity was 'Not Enough' than when 'Too Much.' Based on optimisation analysis, any formulation within the range of 59-100/0-40/0-12.5% NaCl/KCl/Gly-representing a potential 37% sodium reduction past minimum 'low sodium' requirements-will yield an acceptable product. * Mean and Standard Error from ninety-nine consumer responses based on a 9-point hedonic scale. Mean values in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). † Statistically significant P-values in a bold print (P < 0.05) based on McNemar Exact probability. PIb and PIa = purchase intent before and after respectively, consumers had been given health benefits information about the product and after consumers had been given health benefits information about the product. ‡ mg = milligram; value obtained by calculation. Low sodium peanuts K. D. Pujols et al. 2755 NS: Not significant differences were observed among the treatments (P > 0.05). * Mean and Standard Error from ninety-nine consumer responses based on a 5-point JAR rating scale. Mean values in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). † Consumer positive satisfaction of saltiness and bitterness intensity measured on a yes/no scale after consumers rated respective JAR intensities.Low sodium peanuts K. D. Pujols et al.NS: Not significant differences were observed among the treatments (P > 0.05). Asterisk indicates significant differences between before and after consumers had been given information about low-sodium health benefits based on a Paired t-test (P < 0.05). † Mean and Standard Error from ninety-nine consumer responses based on a 5-point scale per emotion term. Emotions were obtained before and after consumers had been given information about low-sodium health benefits.

Exploring New and Modified Rejection-Type Thresholds Using Cricket Snack Crackers

“…By narrowing down the stimulus region of interest, more focused testing (e.g., discrimination tests [ 1 , 2 ]) within the RR may reveal opportunities to reduce ingredient costs or maximize nutritional benefits of a product by reaching acceptable upper limits of health-promoting compounds (or cutting back on unhealthy ones) [ 8 , 35 ]. A carefully constructed RR can also be used to set quality control limits for contaminants [ 3 ].…”

Ultrasonic‐assisted chitin nanoparticle and its application as saltiness enhancer

“…Different methods have been successfully applied to reduce sodium in foods, including use of visual cues, particularly colour (Sukkwai et al ., 2018), and odour/flavour (Chokumnoyporn et al ., 2015) and use of foam‐mat salt (Chokumnoyporn et al ., 2016) as well as, the most commonly used method, that is use of salt substitutes (Cerrato‐Rodríguez et al ., 2017; Torrico & Prinyawiwatkul, 2017; Lee & Chin, 2019; Pujols et al ., 2019; Wilailux et al ., 2020; Xiong et al ., 2020). Another approach to salt reduction in foods would be the use of salt enhancer, a compound that magnifies the salty taste at a low level.…”

Comparison of discriminability of common food acceptance scales for the elderly

“…On the other hand, in the preference testing all samples being compared are presented simultaneously, and consumers rank them from the least to the most preferred samples (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Although the 9‐point hedonic scale has been widely used for measuring consumer acceptance for various food products (Sukkwai et al ., 2018; Wardy et al ., 2018; Kharel et al ., 2019; Pujols et al ., 2019; Wilailux et al ., 2020), it has been criticised in many aspects. A comprehensive review on the 9‐point hedonic scale was done by Lim (2011).…”