INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE AND LIGHT EXPOSURE ON SENSORY SHELF-LIFE OF A COMMERCIAL SUNFLOWER OIL

GUILLERMO RAMkEZ, GUILLERMO HOUGH and ADRIANA CONTARINI

Instimto Superior Experimental de Tecnologf a Alimentaria (6500) Nueve de Julio Buenos Aires, Argentina
Accepted for Publication May 1 , 2000

ABSTRACT

The objectives of the present work were to: ( I ) correlate consumer acceptability measured with a consumer panel versus oxidized flavor measured with a trained sensory panel to thus define the sensory failure of a commercial sunflower oil; and (2) study the effect of storage temperature and light exposure on the sensory shelf-life of sunflower oil bottled in polyethylene tetraphtalate (PEQ with nitrogen in the headspace. Of the consumers, 15% unexpectedly preferred the more oxidized oil samples than thefresh ones. Their data were not considered in sensoryfailure calculations. By correlating the consumer data with the trained sensory panel data, a sensory failure point of 3.6 on a 0 to 10 oxidationflavor scale was obtained. Both storage temperature and exposure to light had a significant efect on shelf-life. Estimated shelf-lives at an ambient temperature of 20C were 281 days for light exposed oil, and greater than 2 years for oil kept in the dark.
INTRODUCTION
Sunflower oil (SO) is of great commercial interest to Argentina. World wide the yearly per-capita consumption of vegetable oil is 12 kg, of which 12% corresponds to SO. In Argentina the yearly oil per-capita consumption is 16 kg, of which 75 % corresponds to SO (Muiioz 1997). Argentina produces 20% of the world sunflower crop, and exports 55% of its own SO production. The effect of light on oxidation of lipids is well known (Nawar 1996). Wan (1995) describes a method to study the effect of light exposure on oils in a clear glass bottle with air in the headspace, and Kiritsakis (1998) studied the relative effect of plastic and glass bottles on the oxidation of olive oil exposed to light
Corresponding author Email: guille@ghough.cyt.edu.ar. Author Hough is a research fellow ofthe Comisih de Investigaciones Cientificas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.

Journal of Food Quality 24 (2001) 195-204. A21 Rights Reserved. Copyright 2001 by Food & Nutrition Press, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut.

195

196

G . RAMiREZ. G . HOUGH and A. CONTARINI

and in bottles wrapped with aluminum foil; in both cases light exposure had a significant effect on flavor deterioration. There is limited information on shelflife of vegetable oils stored in their original bottles; Labuza (1982)compared shortening with sunflower oil by an active oxygen method. The effect of light exposure on the sensory shelf-life of SO packaged in polyethylene tetraphtalate (PET) with nitrogen in the headspace has not been reported. Failure criteria in sensory testing is not uniform. Gacula (1975)used different cutoff points according to the product/situation: on a 1 (none) to 7 (very strong) off-flavor scale he used 2 . 5 for one product and 3.5 for another. f al. (1995)used a quality scale from 0 (unacceptable) to 5 (excellent), Randell e and considered products with scores I 2 as unacceptable for sale and I 1.5 unfit f al. (1994) used qualitatitbe for human consumption. Oconner-Shaw e appraisals such as lower typical odor. Other authors (Vaisey-Genser et al. 1994;Vankerschaver et al. 1996)have asked consumers if they would consume the product utilizing yes-no answers. From this brief review it is clear that there are no standards for defining sensory failure of food products. A consumer panel would be the most appropriate one to determine when a food product reaches the end of its shelf-life. To repeatedly assemble consumer panels for the multiple measurements needed during shelf-life studies would be impractical and expensive. A trained sensory panel is a lot simpler to assemble, but yields analytical answers such as degree of oxidized flavor. How high does the oxidized flavor need to be for the sensory acceptability of the product to decrease? The answer to this question can be obtained by correlating data obtained from a consumer panel with data obtained from a trained panel. The objectives of the present work were: (a) correlate consumer acceptability with oxidized flavor to define the sensory failure of SO, and (b) study the effect of storage temperature and light exposure on the sensory shelf-life of a commercial SO. MATERIALS AND METHODS
oil

Samples were commercial SO provided by AGD Inc. (General Deheza, Cbrdoba, Argentina), packaged in 1 1 PET bottles with nitrogen in the head space. The oil had been refined as follows: settling and degumming, neutralization, bleaching and deodorization (Nawar 1996) . Sensory Evaluation by a Trained Panel A panel of 1 2 assessors were selected and trained following the guidelines of the IS0 (1993)standard. They all had a minimum of 12 months experience in discrimination and descriptive tests.

SENSORY SHELF-LIFE OF SUNFLOWER OIL

197

Oxidized flavor was measured following the guidelines of the AOCS (1989). 10 cm3 of oil were placed in 70 cm3 glasses, and covered with a 6 cm diameter Petri dish. The covered glasses were heated to 50f 1C in a microwave oven, and then placed in a 27 x 16x 14 cm expanded polystyrene covered box, partially filled with water at 60C to help maintain the temperature during sensory analysis. Effective temperature at tasting was 50f2C. Red lighting was used to eliminate color cues. Assessors used water at approximately 40C to cleanse between samples. To familiarize the trained panel with oxidized notes, SO was stored for 14 days at 60C in a tinned pail exposed to air (AOCS 1989). On a 10 cm unstructured oxidized flavor scale, anchored with "none" to "extreme", the resulting sample was considered extreme. A 10% dilution in fresh SO was placed mid way on the scale. Once assessors had registered these references, they were monitored by analyzing the following samples of SO: (1) fresh, (2) stored bottled at 60C during 20 days, with and without illumination, and (3) stored bottled at 60C during 35 days, with and without illumination; i.e. a total of 5 samples which were analyzed in triplicate at different sessions. Consumer Panel The consumer panel had a total of 60 consumers, 30 men and 30 women, all users of SO, with no previous experience in sensory analysis. As a carrier to taste the oils they used 1 cm3 cubed potatoes boiled for 5-6 min in water with 0.22% salt. Once boiled the potatoes were divided in 500 g portions to which 60 mL of oil was added. Potatoes were served at room temperature, in 70 cm3 glasses: a small fork was used to take the potatoes to the mouth. Samples were presented in a balanced order coded with three digit numbers. Between samples consumers could drink water if they pleased. Acceptability was measured on a 9-point hedonic scale. Consumers were aware that we were interested in the oil, not the potatoes.
Sensory Failure

In order to determine a criteria for sensory failure, samples with different levels of oxidized flavor were evaluated by both the trained sensory panel and the consumer panel. We followed a procedure similar to the one described by Fritsch et al. (1997). Samples with different levels of oxidized flavor were prepared by storing bottled SO at 60C during 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 days. The trained panel followed the above described procedure using the unstructured oxidized flavor scale, the consumers used the 9-point hedonic scale.

198

G.RAMIREZ, G. HOUGH and A. CONTARINI

Shelf-life

In measuring the shelf-life of SO, two variation factors were considered: storage temperature and illumination, resulting in a pxq factorial design: (1) storage temperature: 35, 45 and 60C,and (2) illumination condition: dark and 12 h/day illumination. The high storage temperatures were chosen because we could not afford the time necessary to store the samples at lower temperatures. The illumination conditions were chosen considering that bottled SO can be kept in their cardboard boxes, that is, in the dark, or on supermarket shelves exposed to artificial illumination. This last condition was simulated by illuminating the bottles with a 18W fluorescent tube placed in the ovens for 12 h/day. Samples not to be illuminated were placed in the same ovens wrapped in aluminum foil. Prior to sensory analysis the bottles were shaken to make the contents uniform. Samples were taken every 7 to 10 days for a total of 129 days, 92 days and 57 days, for 35,45 and 60C storage temperatures, respectively. Control samples were stored at 4C in the dark to prevent sensory changes. At each sensory session samples corresponding to a storage temperature and time combination were analyzed. First assessors tasted a control sample which they marked as having no oxidation flavor. Then they tasted samples stored in the dark by duplicate, light exposed samples by duplicate and a blind control. Order of presentation was at random.

RESULTS
Monitoring of Assessors

A two way (Assessor x Sample) analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant (P <0.05) difference between the samples used for monitoring. A one way ANOVA on each assessor, showed that one assessor did not contribute to discrimination having a significancelevel above 0.3 (Pastor e f al. 1996). He was excused from further participation. Towards the end of the shelf-life studies, some samples reached relatively high levels of oxidized flavor. One assessor consistently did not find this flavor, even when it was obvious to the rest of the panel. This assessor performed well at initial monitoring, but failed after many sessions over a prolonged period of time. This problem also arose in a previous shelf-life study of mayonnaise (Martinez et al. 1998). Loss of motivation could have been the cause for this change in performance. Her results were excluded from the shelf-life calculations.

SENSORY SHELF-LIFE OF SUNFLOWER OIL

199

Sensory Failure

It was expected that increased oxidized flavor would lower acceptability. This was the case for the majority of the consumers, but the correlation for 9 out of the 60 was unexpected as shown in Fig. 1. The more oxidized the sample, the more they liked it. It would not be reasonable to establish a shelflife taking into account the idiosyncratic responses of these 9 consumers, as they would contribute to increase the sensory failure point beyond that which would be acceptable to the majority of the consumers. The results of these 9 consumers were not included in the sensory failure calculations.

9 -

7
U

E iv)
ZE

zz

3 55 Uv)
U Z

28
$m
W Z
u)

R =0.90

With the remaining 51 consumers the following procedure was followed: (1) A two way ANOVA was performed considering samples and consumers as variation factors. From this ANOVA, Fishers LSD test was used to separate means at the 5 % significance level. This value was subtracted from

200

G. RAMkEZ, G. HOUGH and A. CONTARINI

the average acceptability score given to the fresh control sample by the 51 consumers: Average acceptability of control sample - LSD = 6.5 - 0.7 = 5.8. This value of 5.8 was used as the consumers sensory failure. (2) Figure 2 shows the regression of consumers acceptability scores versus oxidation flavor scores given by the trained panel to the same samples. Entering with an acceptability value of 5.8, the oxidation sensory failure was estimated as 3.6 on the 0 to 10 scale. This value was used to estimate shelf-life as shown below.

R = 0.94
=! m
2
0
V
W

sensory failure

4 5 6 OXIDIZED FLAVOR

10

FIG. 2. AVERAGE ACCEPTABILITY OVER 51 CONSUMERS VERSUS OXIDIZED FLAVOR SCORED BY A TRAINED PANEL

Shelf-life

To illustrate the data obtained, oxidation flavor versus storage time for samples stored at 45C exposed to light 12 h/day (Fig. 3) and kept in the dark (Fig. 4 ) , are shown. Linear regressions with their corresponding Working-Hotelling 95% confidence intervals (Drapper and Smith 1981) were calculated to estimate shelf-lives considering the sensory failure value of 3.6

SENSORY SHELF-LIFE OF SUNFLOWER OIL

20 1

R = 0.93

15

30

45 60 Storage time (days)

75

90

105

FIG. 3. OXIDIZED FLAVOR VERSUS STORAGE TIME FOR SUNFLOWER OIL STORED AT 45C EXPOSED TO LIGHT 12 HIDAY Linear regression with 95% confidence curves are shown. By entering the sensory failure value of 3.6 on the oxidized flavor scale, shelf-life can be estimated.

R = 0.95

20

40

60

Storage lime (days)

a0

100

120

140

160

FIG. 4. OXIDIZED FLAVOR VERSUS STORAGE TIME FOR SUNFLOWER OIL STORED AT 45C KEPT IN THE DARK Linear regression with 95% confidence curves are shown. By entering the sensory failure value of 3.6 on the oxidized flavor scale. shelf-life can be estimated.

202

G. RAMiREZ, G. HOUGH and A. CONTARINI

obtained above. Labuza (1982) reported that plotting log (days of shelf-life) versus temperature gives a straight line for most food products; this regression was used to estimate shelf-life at a room temperature of 20C. For samples exposed to light, estimated shelf lives are in Table 1. For samples kept in the dark, shelf-life estimation at 35C was not possible as samples were far from sensory failure within the storage time considered. At 45C, the samples did not reach sensory failure by the end of the experiment, but extrapolation seemed reasonable (see Fig. 4). To be on the safe side, the lower limit of 102 days was taken. Shelf-life at 60C was = 24 days, and considering the shelf-life at 45C = 102 days; a rough estimate of the shelf-life at 20C would be 1140 days.

TABLE 1. DAYS OF SHELF-LIFE OF SUNFLOWER OIL STORED AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES AND EXPOSED TO LIGHT 12 H/DAY Temperature
95% Lower

(0
20
35
45

Limit
(b)
75

Estimated Shelf-life
28 1

95% Upper

Limit
(b)

Correlation Coefficient(a)

91 60 17

119

0.85 0.93 0.81

49
(C)

16

60

35

(a)
(b)

(c)

Correlation coefficient of linear regression of oxidized flavor versus storage time. Shelf-life was estimated at this temperature from log (shelf-life) versus temperature Lower limit was below time = 0 days.

CONCLUSIONS (1) One of the sensory assessors who was successfully screened, did not perform satisfactorily during prolonged testing of oil, thus continued monitoring was necessary. (2) A group of 9 out of 60 consumers were detected who actually preferred oxidized samples. They were not included in the sensory failure calculations. (3) A sensory failure point of 3.6 on a 0 to 10 oxidized flavor scale was determined by correlating consumer acceptability scores versus trained panel scores.

SENSORY SHELF-LIFE OF SUNFLOWER OIL

203

(4) Light exposure significantly lowered the shelf-life of SO. Estimated shelf lives at 20C were 281 days for light exposed oil, and greater than the 2 years given to SO by most companies in Argentina.
REFERENCES

AOCS. 1989. Flavor panel evaluation of vegetable oils. AOCS Recommended Practice Cg 2-83, AOCS, Champaign, Illinois. DRAPPER, N.R. and SMITH, H. 1981. Fitting a straight line by least squares. In Applied Regression Analysis, pp. 1-69, John Wiley & Sons, New York. FRITSCH, C.W. and VICKERS, M. 1997. Shelf-life of sunflower kernels. J. Food Sci. 62, 425-428. GACULA JR., M.C. 1975. The design of experiments for shelf life study. J. Food Sci. 40, 399-403. ISO. 1993. Sensory analysis. General guidance for the selection, training and monitoring of assessors, pp. 1-15, IS0 8586-1. KIRITSAKIS, A. K. 1998. Packaging and bottling of olive oil. In Olive oil, pp. 217-220, Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, Connecticut. f Foods, pp. 41-87,54-58, 135-139, LABUZA, T.P. 1982. ShelfLife Dating o Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, Connecticut. MARTfNEZ, C., MUCCI, A., SANTA CRUZ, M.J., HOUGH, G. and SANCHEZ, R. 1998. Influence of temperature, fat content and package material on the sensory shelf-life of a commercial mayonnaise. J. Sensory Studies 13, 331-346. MUROZ, R. 1997. Girasol 1997198. Panorama Agrario Mundial. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (Buenos Aires, Argentina) 21 (1 99), 3-10. NAWAR, W.W. 1996. Lipids. In Food Chemistry (O.R. Fennema, ed.) pp. 299, Marcel Dekker, New York. OCONNER-SHAW, R.E., ROBERTS, R., FORD, A.L. and NOTTINGHAM, S.M. 1994. Changes in sensory quality of sterile cantaloupe dice stored in controlled atmospheres. J. Food Sci. 61, 847-851. PASTOR, M.V., COSTELL, E., IZQUIERDO, L. and DURAN, L. 1996. Perfil Descriptivo de nktares de melocotdn. Evaluacidn de jueces y de atributos con el Andisis Procrustes Generalizado. Food Sci. Technol. Intern. 2, 219-230. RANDELL, K., AHVENAINEM, R., LATVA-KALA, K., HURMR, E., MATTILASANDHOLM, T. and HYVONEM, L. 1995. Modified atmosphere-packed marinated chicken breasts and rainbow trout quality as affected by package leakage. J. Food Sci. 60, 667-672, 684.

204

G . RAMiREZ, G.HOUGH and A. CONTARINI

VAISEY-GENSER, M., MALCOLMSON, L.J., RYLAND, D., PRZYBYLSKI, R., ESKIN, N.A.M. and ARMSTRONG, L. 1994. Consumer acceptance of canola oils during temperature-accelerated storage. Food Qual. Pref. 5, 237-243. VANKERSCHAVER, K., WILLCOX, F., SMOUT, C., HENDRICKX, M. and TOBBACK, P. 1996. Modeling and prediction of visual shelf-life of minimally processed endive. J. Food Sci. 61, 1094-1098. WAN, P.J. 1995. Accelerated stability methods. In Methods to Assess Q u a l i t y and Stability of Oils and Fat-ContainingFoods (K. Warner and M. Eskin, eds.) pp. 184, AOCS Press, Champaign, Illinois.