Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jan;101(1):154-163. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13519. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
Light exposure can damage the sensory properties of milk, leading to adverse consumer responses. This is presumed to be through the action of photosensitive compounds such as riboflavin, present in milk and capable of releasing energy when irradiated, leading to damage of proteins and fats in the milk. Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting is assumed to be less damaging to milk due to lower inherent power consumption. In this study, fat-free milk was exposed to LED and fluorescent light at 2,000 lx to compare the sensory thresholds of exposure, the flavor profile of milk produced by these exposures, and resultant consumer acceptance of the samples. Additionally, the effectiveness of light-protective packaging and supplementation with antioxidants was evaluated. The sensory threshold from LED exposure was no longer than from fluorescence, whereas with antioxidants (tocopherols and ascorbic acid), the majority of the panelists failed to discriminate milk exposed to LED light even at 48 h of exposure. Trained panelists described light-exposed milk as significantly higher in cardboard, old oil, and plastic, with LED exposure resulting in a marginally more plastic aroma, and fluorescent marginally more cardboard. Consumers reported higher liking for fluorescent-exposed samples versus those exposed to LED. The antioxidant-supplemented samples, and those exposed to LED light engineered to eliminate wavelengths below 480 nm (thus most of riboflavin's absorption peaks), resulted in significantly higher old oil aroma; however, the former received higher liking scores than LED-exposed samples. Light-protective packaging offered near-complete protection from LED exposure, with a similar flavor profile as unexposed milk, and the best liking scores of any treatment. Nevertheless, consumers disliked its appearance, due to unfamiliarity, suggesting some consumer education may be needed if this were to be an efficient protective strategy.
光照会破坏牛奶的感官特性,导致消费者产生不良反应。这被认为是由于感光化合物(如核黄素)的作用,核黄素存在于牛奶中,在受到照射时能够释放能量,从而导致牛奶中的蛋白质和脂肪受损。发光二极管(LED)照明被认为对牛奶的破坏性较小,因为其固有功耗较低。在这项研究中,无脂牛奶分别暴露在 2000 lx 的 LED 和荧光灯下,以比较两种光源下的感官阈值、两种光源下牛奶产生的风味特征,以及消费者对这些样本的接受程度。此外,还评估了光保护包装和抗氧化剂补充的效果。LED 暴露的感官阈值并不长于荧光暴露,而添加抗氧化剂(生育酚和抗坏血酸)后,大多数品尝员甚至在 LED 暴露 48 小时后也无法区分暴露于 LED 光的牛奶。经过训练的品尝员描述说,暴露于光线下的牛奶有明显的纸板、旧油和塑料味,LED 暴露会产生轻微的塑料味,而荧光则有轻微的纸板味。消费者报告说,与暴露于 LED 光的牛奶相比,更喜欢暴露于荧光的牛奶。添加抗氧化剂的样品,以及经过工程处理以消除低于 480nm 的波长(因此消除了核黄素的大部分吸收峰)的 LED 光暴露的样品,产生了明显更高的旧油味;然而,前者的喜爱评分高于 LED 暴露的样品。光保护包装提供了对 LED 暴露的近乎完全保护,其风味特征与未暴露的牛奶相似,并且在任何处理中获得了最高的喜爱评分。然而,消费者不喜欢它的外观,因为它不熟悉,这表明如果这是一种有效的保护策略,可能需要对消费者进行一些教育。