Rejection thresholds (RjT) of sweet likers and dislikers

Sweetness is generally a desirable taste, however consumers can be grouped into sweet likers and dislikers according to optimally preferred sucrose concentrations. Understanding the levels of sweetness in products that are acceptable and unacceptable to both consumer groups is important to product development and for influencing dietary habits. The concentrations at which sucrose decreases liking (the rejection threshold; RjT) in liquid and semi-solid matrices were investigated in this study. Thirty six consumers rated their liking of 5 sucrose aqueous solutions; this identified 36% sweet likers (SL) whose liking ratings increased with increasing sucrose and 64% sweet dislikers (SD) whose liking ratings decreased above 6% (w/v) sucrose. We hypothesized that SL and SD would have different RjT for sucrose in products. This was tested by preparing 8 levels of sucrose in orange juice and orange jelly and presenting each against the lowest level in forced choice preference tests. In orange juice, as sucrose increased from 33 g/L to 75 the proportion of people preferring the sweeter sample increased in both groups. However, at higher sucrose levels, the proportion of consumers preferring the sweet sample decreased. For SD, a RjT was reached at 380 g/L, whereas a significant RjT for SL was not reached. RjT in jelly were not reached as the sweetness in orange jelly was significantly lower than for orange juice (p < 0.001). Despite statistically significant differences in rated sweetness between SL and SD (p = 0.019), the extent of difference between the two groups was minor. The results implied that sweet liker status was not substantially related to differences in sweetness perception. Self-reported dietary intake of carbohydrate, sugars and sucrose were not significantly affected by sweet liker status. However the failure to find an effect may be due to the small sample size and future studies within a larger, more representative population sample are justifiable from the results of this study. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.