Evaluating taste contribution of brown sugar in chicken seasoning using taste compounds, sensory evaluation, and electronic tongue

Figures & data

Table 1. Compositions of brown sugar, white sugar and liquid sugar added to the chicken seasoning, which were analyzed by Nestlé R&D Center using HPLC (g·kg⁻¹).

Type of sugar	Sucrose	Fructose	Glucose	Aspartic acid	Glutamic acid	Glycine	Alanine	Tyrosine	Phenylalanine	Proline
Brown sugar	926.90	11.70	ND	1.19	0.12	0.04	0.25	0.15	0.03	0.20
White sugar	996.80	ND	ND	0.16	0.05	0.01	0.02	0.05	0.01	0.07
Liquid sugar	111.00	251.50	285.00	0.82	0.09	0.02	0.19	0.07	0.03	0.17

“ND” means that this index was not detected.

Table 2. MSG, I + G, chloride and metal ion contents in the chicken seasoning samples with white sugar (AW), brown sugar (AB) and liquid sugar (AL).

Sample	Content (g·kg^−1)
	sucrose	glucose	MSG	I + G	chloride	Ca^2+	Fe^3+	K^+	Mg^2+
AW	123.03 ± 0.8^c	ND	316.65 ± 0.98^a	10.43 ± 0.05^a	498.12 ± 0.93^a	0.309 ± 0.002^a	0.109 ± 0.000^a	0.335 ± 0.017^a	0.045 ± 0.000^a
AB	116.30 ± 0.5^b	ND	322.61 ± 0.47^b	11.07 ± 0.02^b	515.51 ± 0.12^b	0.488 ± 0.001^b	0.112 ± 0.000^b	0.984 ± 0.004^c	0.066 ± 0.001^b
AL	19.13 ± 0.1^a	15.61 ± 0.2	333.33 ± 0.99^c	13.54 ± 0.03^c	524.00 ± 0.36^c	0.527 ± 0.003^c	0.177 ± 0.001^c	0.800 ± 0.011^b	0.094 ± 0.001^c

The value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).

The identical letter in the same row indicates that there is no significant difference among the samples according to Duncan test (P < 0.05).

Table 3. ANOVA (Average± Standard Deviation) results of the chicken seasoning samples supplemented with white sugar (AW), brown sugar (AB) and liquid sugar (AL) for ten sensory attributes.

Sample	Sensory Attribute
	Chicken	Garlic	Pepper	Umami	MSG	Sweet	Salty	Full-body	Astringent	Retention
AW	6.20 ± 0.83^a	4.40 ± 0.95^a	4.75 ± 0.71^a	6.00 ± 1.15^ab	6.20 ± 1.07^a	4.30 ± 0.64^b	6.80 ± 0.10^a	5.85 ± 0.70^ab	2.30 ± 1.15^a	5.55 ± 0.81^a
AB	6.10 ± 1.06^a	4.30 ± 1.09^a	4.50 ± 0.64^a	6.93 ± 0.74^b	6.60 ± 0.64^a	3.30 ± 0.62^ab	6.50 ± 0.50^a	6.30 ± 0.91^b	1.75 ± 0.74^a	6.01 ± 1.17^a
AL	6.65 ± 0.78^a	4.80 ± 0.91^a	4.25 ± 0.84^a	4.80 ± 0.68^a	6.40 ± 0.82^a	2.78 ± 0.84^a	8.00 ± 0.30^b	4.60 ± 1.06^a	2.95 ± 1.05^a	5.60 ± 0.82^a

Figure 1. Relationship of the relative response value of the electronic tongue and the fructose, glucose, and sucrose concentrations.

Figure 2. Electronic tongue radar map of the chicken seasoning samples with white sugar (AW), brown sugar (AB), and liquid sugar (AL).

Figure 3. DFA results of the chicken seasoning samples with white sugar (AW), brown sugar (AB), and liquid sugar (AL) according to the electronic tongue data.

Figure 4. Correlation loading plot of the PLSR2 analysis for the taste compounds, electronic tongue, and the sensory evaluation of chicken seasonings.