Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Hydrocolloids
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodhyd

On the road to understanding and control of creaminess perception in

food colloids
Eric Dickinson
School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Creaminess is recognized to be a complex sensory attribute. Consumers generally describe it as a
Received 11 September 2017 pleasant desirable property that is closely related to other positive attributes such as thickness,
Received in revised form smoothness, mouth-coating and dairy flavour. Such knowledge has been derived from various sensory
10 October 2017
studies involving a broad range of food products such as yoghurt, custard and ice cream, as well as from
Accepted 13 October 2017
experiments involving model emulsion-based systems. In the case of well-defined oil-in-water emul-
Available online 13 October 2017
sions and emulsion gels, understanding of the underlying mechanistic basis of creaminess perception has
been enhanced by fundamental studies of the interactions of emulsion droplets with saliva and the
Keywords:
Emulsions
stability of oil droplets at oral surfaces. In terms of the physical parameters influencing creaminess
Sensory perception perception, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of tribological factors (lubrication) as
Thickness well as bulk rheology (viscosity). In developing reduced-fat products with a creamy mouthfeel, the food
Smoothness technologist has a range of formulation strategies available d the enhancement of oil droplet aggre-
Saliva gation, the fabrication of double emulsions, the incorporation of microbubbles, and the use of functional
ingredients such as microparticulated protein and hydrocolloid thickening agents.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
2. Sensory studies of creaminess perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
3. Behaviour of emulsion droplets during oral processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
4. Designing and fabricating emulsions with enhanced creaminess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
4.1. Aggregation of emulsion droplets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
4.2. Double emulsion formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
4.3. Microparticulated whey protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
4.4. Polymeric thickening agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
4.5. Dispersed gas bubbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
5. Conclusions and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

1. Introduction also a property possessed by a wide range of other types of foods,

such as soup, custard, mousse, risotto, and low-fat yoghurt. The
Creaminess is a sensory characteristic that seems to be readily ubiquity of the term’s applicability is consistent with it being an
identified by many consumers as pleasant and desirable. An attri- integrated concept, with substantial contributions from texture,
bute most obviously associated with full-fat dairy products, it is fattiness and rich flavour in variable proportions dependent on the
nature of the food and the eating habits of the consumer. Inevitably,
however, this complexity makes creaminess a difficult concept to
pin down. Although it seems like quite an easy characteristic for a
E-mail address: E.Dickinson@leeds.ac.uk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.10.014
0268-005X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
consumer to recognize, it has not been straightforward for sensory
science to converge on a definition that is both robust and uni-
versally acceptable. In practice, each individual person may assess
rather differently the weighting of the underlying component at-
tributes that contribute to the integrated concept (Civille & Lawless,
1986). As a consequence, there still remains a significant challenge
for the food science community to identify and control the key
compositional and structural factors that may enhance the
perception of this positive attribute in manufactured food products.
Some observers even doubt whether a general model of creaminess
can ever be properly realized (Kilcast & Clegg, 2002). On the other
hand, as a result of recent progress in food structure engineering
and the physical aspects of food oral processing, there are sound
reasons to believe that new opportunities are emerging for the
control of creaminess perception in edible colloidal systems.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, creaminess is simply
‘the state or quality of being creamy’, with the adjective creamy
possessing the following multiple meanings:
(1) characterized by, containing, or abounding in cream;
(2) resembling cream in some quality d
(a) of the general appearance or consistence of cream;
(b) soft and rich, luscious;
(c) cream-coloured d often as qualification of white or yellow.
Neglecting the occasional figurative usage (e.g. a creamy voice),
these multiple meanings all connect strongly with characteristic
features of natural dairy cream. Most of these creamy properties
(taste, thickness, richness) are sensed during oral processing. For
many consumers, therefore, it would seem reasonable to assume
that creaminess perception is linked, inevitably and inextricably,
with some past sensory experience of the properties of dairy cream,
i.e., thickness, richness, smoothness, and creamy colour. In addition,
the modern consumer will have encountered other creamy milk-
based foods (ice cream, cream cheese), as well as non-dairy
creamy foods (soup, mayonnaise) and creamy non-foods (skin
lotion, shaving cream). Such accumulated experience and knowl-
edge, in combination with visual observations and inferred textural
characteristics, can even make it possible to assess the attribute in
the complete absence of oral processing. Moreover, the widespread
impression of creaminess as a desirable quality descriptor may be
reinforced subconsciously by the positive aspirational connotations
of everyday linguistic expressions such as ‘cream of the crop’ and
‘cre
me de la cre
me’.
In-mouth perception of creaminess is repeatedly described in
the literature as a combination of thickness, smoothness, mouth-
coating and dairy flavour (Antmann, Gaston, Salvador, Varela, &
Fiszman, 2011; Booth, 2005; Chen & Eaton, 2012; Elmore,
Heymann, Johnson, & Hewett, 1999; Frost & Janhoj, 2007; Jervis,
Gerard, Drake, Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2014; Kokini, 1987; Mela,
1988; Richardson-Harman et al., 2000; de Wijk, Terpstra, Janssen,
& Prinz, 2006). In mechanistic and compositional terms, the milk
fat globules in dairy products appear to be strongly implicated in
creaminess perception. The food scientist instinctively expects fat
globules to be able to influence creaminess in three main ways.
(i) Acting as microscopic solvent reservoirs for hydrophobic
aroma compounds, they have the potential to affect the
release rate of volatile flavour molecules during oral
processing.
(ii) In-mouth destabilization and deposition may produce a
slippery fatty coating on the tongue and other oral surfaces,
hence leading to enhanced perception of smoothness.
373
(iii) Fat globules are colloid-sized structural units affecting the
viscosity of dispersed systems, and as such are expected to
increase thickness perception during oral processing.
In food systems without milk fat globules (or emulsified non-
dairy oil droplets), one may envisage that additional contribu-
tions to smoothness and thickness could arise from alternative
structural components (starch particles, protein aggregates, hy-
drocolloids). These entities may be used with the intention of
mimicking fat droplet behaviour in terms of their effects on
rheology and deposition on oral surfaces. This is not to say, of
course, that any such putative ‘fat-replacing’ structural component
can properly convey the unique flavour of milk fat. Indeed, there is
much anecdotal evidence for the idea that, when another ingre-
dient is incorporated into a product in place of milk fat, this results
in a perceived loss of dairy flavour, which in turn is commonly
interpreted as a reduction in the level of creaminess, and hence a
reduction in the extent of likeability or acceptability for any ‘fat-
free’ or ‘reduced-fat’ formulation.
This article attempts to evaluate current research progress
concerning the mechanisms underlying the perception of creami-
ness. The author’s perspective is that of a food colloid scientist. Any
consideration of dairy flavour/aroma contributions is here mainly
limited to textural and physical aspects. The review begins with a
brief summary of the main findings and conclusions from relevant
sensory studies. This is followed by a discussion of what is currently
known in physico-chemical terms about what happens to emulsion
droplets during oral processing. The main part of the article is
concerned with a description of some of the strategies that are
currently available to a food technologist who is aiming to design
and fabricate healthy food products with enhanced creaminess. The
article concludes with a few summarizing remarks and an appraisal
of the future outlook.
2. Sensory studies of creaminess perception
According to Jowitt (1974), the word creamy describes a
mouthfeel characteristic “possessing the textural property pro-
ducing the sensation of the presence of a miscible, thick, smooth
liquid in the oral cavity”. Such a description implies that creaminess
is primarily a textural attribute dominated by rheological proper-
ties perceived during oral processing (Kokini & Cussler, 1983). What
it does not appear to indicate, however, is any implication that a
rheological instrument for measuring creaminess could easily be
envisaged. This is because, in addition to perceived thickness and
smoothness, the complex attribute of creaminess also commonly
implies a sensation of fatty mouthfeel (Civille & Lawless, 1986), as
well as some general sense of pleasantness (Tournier, Martin,
Guichard, Issanchou, & Sulmont-Rosse , 2007) or overall liking
(Richardson-Harman et al., 2000). Over the past several decades,
the relative weightings of these separate aspects of the sensory
perception of creaminess have been evaluated under controlled
conditions by many different investigators for a wide range of food
products (dairy and non-dairy) and edible model systems (disper-
sions, oil-in-water emulsions, emulsion gels). Both qualitative and
quantitative and findings have been generated and analysed using a
combination of trained and untrained panels. Studies published
over the past 15 years are listed in Table 1.
Considerable attention has been directed towards factors
affecting the perceived creaminess of stirred yoghurt. According to
the trained panel study of Janhoj, Petersen, Frost, and Ipsen (2006),
the two most important variables affecting the creaminess of low-
fat stirred yoghurt are oral viscosity and smoothness, in agreement
with earlier work of Kokini and Cussler (1983). More specifically, for
the case of a fat-free product, it was established by Cayot, Schenker,
374 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385

Table 1 microfluidization led to different sensory profiles from those pro-

Food systems subjected to sensory investigation of creaminess as reported in the duced by conventional homogenization; this was attributed to
literature during the past 15 years.
changes in rheology arising from modifications in the average size
Food system Reference(s) and microstructure of milk protein aggregates and fat globules.
Milk/cream Chojnicka-Paszun et al. (2012) Furthermore, work by Krzeminski et al. (2013) on yoghurts of var-
Chen and Eaton (2012) iable composition showed that creamy perception was highly
Acidified milk drink Janhoj et al. (2008) correlated with particle size-related parameters and with large-
Sour cream Jervis et al. (2014)
deformation (destructive) rheological parameters, but not well
Yoghurt Folkenberg and Martens (2003)
Kip et al. (2006) correlated with small-deformation (oscillatory) parameters. In
Janhoj et al. (2006) addition to effects of particle size and bulk rheological properties,
Cayot, Schenkera, Houze , Sonne, Busch-Stockfisch, Weiss, and Hinrichs (2014) have demon-
Sulmont-Rosse  & Colas (2008)
strated the importance of oral lubrication and frictional forces on
Ciron et al. (2011)
Kanning et al. (2012)
the creaminess of stirred yoghurt.
Tomaschunas et al. (2012) Other kinds of dairy foods that have been investigated with
Krzeminski et al. (2013) respect to perceived creaminess include homogenized milk, evap-
Sonne et al. (2014) orated milk, single/double cream, sour cream, ice cream, and dairy
Nguyen, Kravchuk,
desserts. In the pioneering work by Richardson, Booth, and Stanley
Bhandari & Prakasha (2017)
Ice cream Wildmoser et al. (2004) (1993), the importance of viscosity and fat content in relation to the
Cavender and Kerr (2011) creaminess perception of full-fat milk and cream was demon-
Cadena et al. (2012) strated. Furthermore, owing to substantial differences between the
Varela et al. (2014) recorded judgements of different individual assessors, it was
Javidi et al. (2016)
Dairy dessert Tarrega and Costell (2006a,b)
inferred from a psychological perspective that the recognition of
Custard dessert de Wijk et al. (2003) the physical properties of fat in dairy emulsions is highly idiosyn-
Weenen et al. (2003) cratic, and that it probably has to be learned (Richardson & Booth,
de Wijk et al. (2004) 1993). More recently, for homogenized milk of more than 1% fat
Weenen et al. (2005)
content, Chojnicka-Paszun, de Jongh, and de Kruif (2012) demon-
de Wijk, Prinz & Janssen (2006)
Janssen et al. (2007) strated a good correlation between creamy attributes and the
de Wijk and Prinz (2007) friction coefficient measured on soft rubber surfaces. In the case of
Heinzerling, Smit, and Dransfield (2008) commercial sour cream, Jervis et al. (2014) found that creaminess
Tomaschunas, Ko € hn, Bennwitz, Hinrichs,
perception of full-fat products (>16wt%) is related primarily to the
and Busch-Stockfisch (2013)
Chocolate mousse Kilcast and Clegg (2002)
olfaction of milk fat flavour compounds, whereas for low-fat
Mayonnaise Weenen et al. (2003) products the contribution of in-mouth texture perception assess-
Weenen et al. (2005) ment appears more dominant. For an aerated product like ice
de Wijk and Prinz (2007) cream, the perceived creaminess of the system is affected by the
White sauce Weenen et al. (2003)
presence of dispersed gas bubbles, as well as by the textural con-
Weenen et al. (2005)
de Wijk and Prinz (2007) tributions from fat globules, ice crystals and hydrocolloid stabilizers
Arocas, Sanz, Salvador, Varela, and (Cadena, Cruz, Faria, & Bolini, 2012; Cavender & Kerr, 2011; Cadena
Fiszman (2010) et al., 2012; Varela, Pintor, & Fiszman, 2014; Wildmoser,
Carrot particle dispersion Appelqvist et al. (2015) Scheiwiller, & Windhab, 2004). Interactions between mixed
Solid particle dispersion Kilcast and Clegg (2002)
Model emulsion system Kilcast and Clegg (2002)
colloidal and polymeric ingredients also make a substantial
Akhtar et al. (2005) contribution to the sensory and textural characteristics of dairy-
Akhtar et al. (2006) based desserts (Tarrega & Costell, 2006a,b).
Vingerhoeds et al. (2008) A comprehensive investigation of the factors affecting creami-
Dresselhuis et al. (2008)
ness perception in starch-based custard desserts was reported in a
van Aken et al. (2011)
Hoppert, Zahn, Puschmann, Ullmann, sequence of publications by de Wijk and coworkers (Janssen,
and Rohm (2012) Terpstra, de Wijk, & Prinz, 2007; Weenen, Jellema, & de Wijk,
Lett et al. (2016) 2005; de Wijk & Prinz, 2007; de Wijk, Prinz & Janssen (2006); de
Oppermann et al. (2016) Wijk, Prinz, Engelen, & Weenen, 2004; de Wijk, van Gemert,
Emulsion-filled gel Sala et al. (2007)
Sala et al. (2008)
Terpstra, & Wilkinson, 2003). Creaminess was found to be pre-
Mosca et al. (2012) dicted by a combination of mouth-feel sensations (thickness,
Liu, Stieger, van der fattiness), after-feel sensations (fatty coating, smoothness) and
Linden & van de Velde (2016) taste sensations (fatty flavours, absence of other flavours). Quali-
tatively similar conclusions were reached for other semi-solid foods
such as mayonnaise and white sauce (de Wijk & Prinz, 2007).
Houze , Sulmont-Rosse, and Colas (2008) that a yoghurt sample is Mechanistically, it was inferred that the surface of the oral food
generally perceived as creamy when the extent of stirring has been bolus is important for determining the fat-related attributes of
sufficient to break the casein gel structure into small gel particles these semi-solid foods through the phenomenon of lubrication. A
(size <150 mm) and when the complex shear modulus G* of the creamy mouthfeel was described by representative panel members
resulting sample (at 1 Hz and 8
C) exceeds 250 Pa. In a study of the as “a soft, elastic, velvety and full feeling in the mouth, neither
influence of fat/protein composition on stirred yoghurt sensory rough nor dry, always in combination with fat and difficult to
properties, Tomaschunas, Hinrichs, Ko €hn, and Busch-Stockfisch separate from flavour/taste” (Weenen, van Gemert, van Doorn,
(2012) have demonstrated that creaminess perception increases Dijksterhuis, & de Wijk, 2003). It appears that the word ‘velvety’
with fat content, protein content, and casein:whey ratio. In work is a textural descriptor that is particularly suggestive of the smooth
with non-fat and low-fat yoghurts made from heat-treated milk, oral perception of an oil-in-water emulsion (Weenen et al., 2005).
Ciron, Gee, Kelly, and Auty (2011) found that high-pressure The same authors further emphasize the subtle complexity of the
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
creaminess concept by reporting that olfactory cues and intranasal
sensations also contribute significantly to the creamy mouthfeel
sensation.
In addition to these sensory studies on real food products, in-
vestigators have explored well-defined model systems in order to
focus on specific compositional and structural features in relation
to creaminess perception. In the case of particulate dispersions,
Kilcast and Clegg (2002) carried out exploratory sensory tests on
model non-food systems containing various sorts of inorganic
particles, and Appelqvist, Cochet-Broch, Poelman, and Day (2015)
studied model suspensions of plant cell wall particles. With sam-
ples of model protein-stabilized oil-in-water emulsions of fixed
droplet-size distribution, the perception of creaminess was found
to be highly correlated with emulsion viscosity and, to a lesser
extent, oil volume fraction (Akhtar, Murray, & Dickinson, 2006;
Akhtar, Stenzel, Murray, & Dickinson, 2005). Increasing the over-
all fat content or replacing liquid oil by solid fat that melts around
body temperature are two highly effective ways to enhance the
creamy perception of low-viscosity emulsions (Vingerhoeds, de
Wijk, Zoet, Nixdorf, & van Aken, 2008). Related research in the
Wageningen group has demonstrated that the perception of
creamy mouthfeel is strongly associated with coalescence of
emulsion droplets in the mouth and with the spreading of released
fat at oral surfaces (Dresselhuis, de Hoog, Cohen Stuart,
Vingerhoeds, & van Aken, 2008; van Aken, Vingerhoeds, & de
Wijk, 2011). While bigger droplets are undoubtedly more likely to
coalesce in the mouth, the effect of particle size per se on creami-
ness perception appears less clear cut. Kilcast and Clegg (2002)
found that creaminess is enhanced by the addition of small solid
particles, but not by large particles. In the case of model emulsions,
Lett, Yeomans, Norton, and Norton (2016) recently reported a
substantial influence of oil droplet size (0.2e50 mm) on creaminess
perception, in contrast to less significant effects of droplet size
(0.5e6 mm) mentioned in earlier reports (Akhtar et al., 2005;
Vingerhoeds et al., 2008). As might be expected intuitively, the
creaminess of semi-solid emulsion-filled gels has been found to
increase substantially with oil droplet content (Sala, van de Velde,
Cohen Stuart, & van Aken, 2007). Amongst other key factors
influencing the sensory properties of emulsion-filled gels are the
melting behaviour of the biopolymer gel matrix, the nature of the
dropletematrix interactions, and the large-scale spatial distribu-
tion of the emulsified fat (Mosca, Rocha, Sala, van de Velde, &
Stieger, 2012; Sala, de Wijk, van de Velde, & van Aken, 2008).
When present in combination with oil droplets, it appears that solid
particles can also contribute significantly to the perceived creami-
ness of liquid and semi-solid model foods (Liu, Stieger, van der
Linden, & van de Velde, 2016b).
3. Behaviour of emulsion droplets during oral processing
In order to reach a sound understanding of the mechanistic
origin of creaminess perception for fat-containing systems, it is
generally considered necessary to take proper account of in-mouth
changes in stability and microstructure experienced by emulsion
droplets during mastication and swallowing (Malone, Appelqvist, &
Norton, 2003a,b; van Aken, Vingerhoeds, & de Hoog, 2005, 2007;
Kokini & van Aken, 2006; van Aken, 2007; Vingerhoeds et al.,
2008; Chen, 2009, 2014; Sarkar & Singh, 2012; Koc, Vinyard,
Essick, & Foegeding, 2013; Sarkar, Ye, & Singh, 2017). Of partic-
ular relevance are certain processes occurring within the oral
environment:
(a) changes in food properties due to heating/cooling to body
temperature;
375
(b) effects of mixing with saliva and related lubrication
phenomena;
(c) enzymatic action of salivary amylases on starch-based in-
gredients; and
(d) hydrodynamically induced deformations of emulsified ma-
terial between the surfaces of tongue, teeth and oral cavity.
Continued advances in mechanistic understanding will presumably
rely on the development of a growing appreciation of how each of
the preceding factors affects in-mouth emulsion stability with
respect to droplet flocculation, coalescence and phase inversion.
Whole saliva is a complex mixture of secretions from the human
salivary glands. As well as contributing to the maintenance of oral
health, it has a key role in food oral processing (Schipper, Silletti, &
Vingerhoeds, 2007; van Aken et al., 2007). The encounter with
saliva prepares the food material for swallowing through the
combined processes of moistening, softening and bolus formation.
In particular, saliva forms a mobile lubricating layer (thickness
8e40 mm) over the oral mucosa. Four distinct components of
colloidal structure are usefully distinguished (Glantz, 1997; Sarkar
et al., 2017; Schipper et al., 2007): (1) a continuous aqueous
phase containing buffering electrolytes (pH ~ 7), (2) a filamentous
scaffold-like gel network composed of hydrophilic macromolecules
(mucins), (3) a collection of proteins, micelles and other macro-
molecular material trapped within the gel network, and (4) a sus-
pension of insoluble lipoid particles, bacterial cells and epithelial
cells. The mucins are highly glycosylated extracellular proteins
(0.5e20  103 kDa) carrying a net negative charge at neutral pH.
Intermolecular association occurs via carbohydrateecarbohydrate
interactions, hydrophobic bonds and calcium-induced crosslinks
(Bromberg & Barr, 2000). The association and entanglement of
these high-molecular-weight macromolecules produces rheolog-
ical behaviour that is characteristic of weak gel formation (Bansil &
Turner, 2006; Waigh et al., 2002). The polymer-based viscoelas-
ticity of saliva is advantageous for coating and lubricating of oral
surfaces, for the clustering of dispersed food particles, for the
control of friction between particles and oral surfaces, and for the
development of a deformable cohesive bolus (Mosca & Chen, 2017).
Frictional forces between food materials and mouth surfaces are
detected by mechanical receptors in the oral mucosa. The magni-
tude of the local frictional force depends on various factors (Chen,
2009): the lubricating properties of the saliva, the speed of move-
ment of the food bolus relative to the tongue, and the pressure
exerted by the tongue on the bolus. According to de Wijk and Prinz
(2006), the perceived thickness of a food is predominantly assessed
through simple up/down movements of the tongue, whereas
assessment of the more complex attribute of creaminess involves
up/down movements in combination with horizontal movements
along the palate. High friction is commonly associated with the
presence of large suspended particles and polymeric ingredients
that induce sensations of dryness and astringency. Based on
observational experience, it would appear that a higher extent of
frictional dissipation (less lubrication) is exhibited by foods of
lower fat content and foods with larger fat droplets. These high-
friction foods are typically characterized by diminished sensa-
tions of creaminess and fattiness (de Wijk & Prinz, 2006).
Mixing an oil-in-water emulsion with saliva under in vivo or
in vitro conditions has been shown to induce flocculation of
emulsion droplets. The extent and nature of the flocculation de-
pends on the electrical charge density at the droplet surface
(Silletti, Vingerhoeds, Norde, & van Aken, 2007a,b,c; Sarkar, Goh, &
Singh, 2009; Vingerhoeds, Blijdenstein, Zoet, & van Aken, 2005). A
sample of highly negatively charged droplets stabilized with an
ionic surfactant (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) remains stable in the
presence of saliva mucins due to the strong repulsive forces
376 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
between the charged components. But an emulsion stabilized by
food protein or non-ionic emulsifier typically exhibits flocculation
on mixing with saliva. With weakly negatively charged droplets
stabilized by a single milk protein (b-lactoglobulin, b-casein) or a
mixed milk protein ingredient (whey protein isolate, sodium
caseinate), the flocculation observed on mixing with saliva at
neutral pH is attributed to the depletion mechanism, due to its
rapid reversibility on dilution or shearing. This behaviour is illus-
trated by the micrographs in Fig. 1 for a b-lactoglobulin-stabilized
emulsion in the presence and absence of porcine gastric mucin
(Sarkar et al., 2009). With positively charged emulsion droplets
stabilized by lysozyme or lactoferrin, mixing with saliva leads to
strong irreversible flocculation. This is attributed to a bridging
mechanism caused by electrostatic interaction of the mucin poly-
mers with the protein-coated droplet surfaces of opposite net
charge (Sarkar et al., 2009; Silletti, Vingerhoeds, Norde, & van Aken,
2007c).
The type of flocculation experienced by a protein-stabilized
emulsion under oral conditions has been shown to influence its
in-mouth sensory perception (Vingerhoeds, Silletti, de Groot,
Schipper, & van Aken, 2009). Emulsion droplets exhibiting revers-
ible depletion flocculation, such as those stabilized by whey protein
at neutral pH, are perceived as predominantly creamy and fatty in
the mouth. In contrast, a lysozyme-stabilized emulsion which ex-
hibits irreversible bridging flocculation is perceived as dry, rough
and astringent. Furthermore, the lysozyme-coated droplets were
reported to be retained on the tongue surface after oral processing,
in contrast to the whey protein-coated droplets which showed little
retention (Vingerhoeds et al., 2009). Therefore, despite the large
increase in viscosity caused by extensive bridging flocculation, a
lysozyme-stabilized emulsion is not perceived as creamy. What
these results imply is that any expected tendency of a flocculation-
induced elevated viscosity to enhance creaminess perception is
overwhelmed by a dominant negative influence on creaminess
associated with complexation of lysozyme-coated droplets with
salivary proteins and the consequent formation of precipitated
material sensed as undesirable gritty particles (~10 mm). This
perception of dryness or roughness in the presence of positively
charged emulsion droplets mirrors the well-established oral
perception of astringent compounds such as tannins (polyphenols)
(Vingerhoeds et al., 2009). Indeed, even without the involvement of
emulsified oil, any lysozyme present in the mouth is likely to cause
astringency due to its highly mucoadhesive character. The asso-
ciative interaction of tannins (and other astringent compounds)
with salivary proteins, and their consequent precipitation, causes a
loss of lubrication that is perceived as a dry, rough mouthfeel (Lu &
Bennick, 1998; Prinz & Lucas, 2000; Rossetti, Yakubov, Stokes,
Williamson, & Fuller, 2008).
During its short residence period in the oral cavity, the intimate
mixture of food and saliva is subjected to varying types of defor-
mational flow and vigorous mechanical disturbance. Following the
influential publications of Wood (1968) and Sharma and Sherman
(1973), it has commonly been assumed that there is some well-
defined shear-rate at which the rheology of a non-Newtonian
liquid food can be correlated with its perceived thickness. In
particular, the existence of an effective oral shear-rate of around 50
s1 is a concept that has been regularly adopted by other workers
(Morris, 1995; Stanley & Taylor, 1993). Despite the appealing
simplicity of this concept, however, we should be aware that the
sensory perception of thickness d and therefore, by reasonable
inference, creaminess d is not likely to be generally describable in
terms of flow behaviour at a single effective shear-rate. This is
because, as pointed out by van Vliet (2002) amongst others, the oral
cavity is a complex mechanical device in which heterogeneous food
systems experience a wide of range of hydrodynamical flow
Fig. 1. Confocal micrographs showing flocculation of an oil-in-water emulsion by
artificial saliva. (A) Original protein-stabilized emulsion (10wt% soya oil, 0.5wt% b-
lactoglobulin, pH 6.8, average droplet diameter d43 ~ 0.6mm). (B) Mixture of protein-
stabilized emulsion with porcine gastric mucin (1wt %) at the ionic strength of arti-
ficial saliva. Taken from Sarkar et al. (2009) with permission.
patterns (shear, elongational, laminar, turbulent), as well as tribo-
logical deformations at oral surfaces. For instance, the saliva flow
causing the break-up of liquid drops in the oral cavity has been
shown to be strongly elongational in character (de Bruijne,
Hendrickx, Alderliesten, & de Looff, 1993). Within the variable
narrow gap between mucosal surfaces of tongue and palate, it is
estimated that entities such as emulsion droplets and their aggre-
gates may be subjected to intermittent shear stresses of up to, say,
50 Pa, and also to extremely high local shear-rates (~104 s1) (van
Aken, Vingerhoeds, & de Hoog, 2005, 2007).
Fig. 2 shows a diagrammatically plausible sequence of physical
phenomena present during oral processing, as suggested by Sonne
et al. (2014) based on the authors’ analysis of the relationship be-
tween sensory perception and the structural properties of semi-
solid dairy products. At the front of the oral cavity, where the gap
between tongue and palate is rather great (>10 mm), the mouthfeel
depends mainly on the bulk rheological properties. As the gap
width is reduced, there is surface-to-surface contact involving
droplets (or solid particles) present in the dairy product, with the
consequent frictional effects sensed as creamy/smooth or rough
sensations. Finally, just before swallowing, the sensory perception
is dominated by lubrication effects at small gap widths (<0.1 mm).
Therefore, as a general rule of thumb, one may assume that the
texture sensed at an early stage of oral processing is dominated by
the bulk food material properties (as measured in a laboratory
rheometer), whereas the texture sensed at a later stage is related to
tribological behaviour at oral surfaces involving thin films of
masticated food intimately mixed with saliva (Chen & Stokes,
2012).
Depending on the specific composition and structure of the
emulsion system, the action of hydrodynamic forces in the mouth
may cause rapid coalescence of oil droplets and the formation of a
fatty coating on the oral mucosa (Dresselhuis et al., 2008). This
droplet coalescence will have an influence on aroma release as well
as mouthfeel, with obvious consequences for perception of
creaminess and fattiness. In experiments carried out under mouth-
mimicking conditions, it was observed that emulsions that are
more sensitive towards coalescence give rise to lower frictional
forces (Dresselhuis et al., 2008). An additional factor affecting
emulsion stability in the mouth is the incorporation of air during
chewing and mastication. Aeration can lead to the spreading and
coalescence of droplets at the airewater interface, and to subse-
quent bulk oil release (van Aken et al., 2005, 2007). A protein-
stabilized emulsion with a reduced stability to shear-induced coa-
lescence d for instance, due to a low surface coverage of protein
emulsifier or the presence of crystalline fat within droplets d
possesses a greater tendency to coalesce into large droplets during
oral processing. As a general rule, then, it would appear that
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
emulsions having a high sensitivity towards in-mouth coalescence
are the ones that tend to confer the strongest ‘creamy’ and ‘fatty’
sensations (Dresselhuis et al., 2008).
A simple model for investigating the mechanistic relationship
between food structure and sensory perception is the emulsion-
filled gel (Dickinson, 2012, 2016a). Its rheological and lubrication
properties are dependent on a number of physico-chemical factors,
including the functional properties of the gelling agent, the
breakdown behaviour of the gel matrix, and the nature of the
dropletematrix interactions. It has been convincingly established
(Sala et al., 2007, 2008) that the release behaviour of oil droplets
from a biopolymer-based matrix due to gel melting and shear-
induced structural disruption has an important influence on the
perception of creaminess and fatty mouthfeel. In the case of
droplets that are strongly associated with the gel matrix (active
fillers), the release rate is determined by the melting of the gel
matrix during oral processing. The release rate of oil droplets that
are unbound (inactive fillers) appears to depend on the size of
fragments of the shear-disrupted gel matrix. Systems containing
unbound droplets, and those with gel matrices composed of hy-
drocolloids like gelatin or k-carrageenan, which melt under normal
oral processing conditions, are perceived to be creamier and to
show a greater effect of oil droplet content on creaminess percep-
tion (Sala et al., 2008). Whey protein systems, which remain
unmelted at the oral processing temperature and contain oil
droplets covalently bound to the gel matrix, are perceived as
significantly more rough and crumbly. In systems composed of
aggregated droplet networks, the oil droplet release is considerably
influenced by the strength of the interdroplet proteineprotein in-
teractions (Sarkar et al., 2017). The extent of oil release from an
emulsion gel is also dependent the average size of the trapped
droplets. For a whey protein-based emulsion gel, it was reported by
Guo, Ye, Lad, Dalgleish, and Singh (2014) that, whereas most of the
large oil droplets are released from the protein gel matrix following
mastication, the extent of release of small emulsion droplets is
substantially lower.
4. Designing and fabricating emulsions with enhanced
creaminess
The recognition that sensory perception is directly related to the
physico-chemical changes taking place during oral processing, and
Physical properties correlating with gap width
100 m 10 m
viscosity, diffusion, yield stress
related
dominated”
Fig. 2. Postulated physical phenomena occurring during oral processing of a semi-solid food system in relation to dimensions of the gap between tongue and palate. Taken from
Sonne et al. (2014) with permission.
377
thus is indirectly related to food composition and structure, means
that there are opportunities to fabricate foods with enhanced
creaminess using appropriate choices of ingredients and processing
conditions. An objective of the food industry is to continue to
formulate emulsion systems with creamy taste and texture, but
having a lower overall fat content as compared with traditional
food products. Some colloid-based ways to move towards this
objective are, for instance:
 control of mean droplet size and droplet-size distribution
 modification of composition and structure of the interfacial
layer
 increase in state of aggregation of emulsion droplets
 entrapment of water within oil droplets (i.e. double emulsions)
 use of solid non-fat particles, bubbles, or hydrocolloids in place
of emulsion droplets
In what follows, we describe how these kinds of approaches can
be successfully transformed into viable strategies for enhancing the
perceived creaminess of different kinds of food product
formulations.
4.1. Aggregation of emulsion droplets
In a moderately concentrated emulsion, any aggregation of oil
droplets typically leads to an increase in shear viscosity over a
range of shear-rates. The magnitude of the viscosity increase and its
shear-rate dependence are determined by the oil volume fraction,
the droplet size distribution, and the nature and strength of the
attractive forces acting between the droplets (Dickinson, 1998).
Droplet aggregation in a protein-stabilized emulsion can arise from
a number of different physico-chemical mechanisms, including the
loss of electrostatic or steric stabilization, the bridging of adsorbed
material between partially covered droplets, or depletion floccu-
lation by non-adsorbed polymers or nanoparticles (Dickinson,
2010). In principle, therefore, the perceived thickness and creami-
ness of any food emulsion is amenable to manipulation by adjusting
the state of aggregation of the droplets. Such manipulation may be
achieved in various alternative ways: by adjustment of pH or ionic
strength (Dickinson, 2006), by incorporation of additional in-
gredients containing interacting particles or hydrocolloids
(Dickinson, 2013), by means of a processing operation such as
1 m 0.1 m
limited by lubricant,
dominated” “surface dependent”
378 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
pasteurization or homogenization (Aguilera, 2006), or by some
combination of all these. Additionally, one may envisage the con-
struction of functionally effective structures containing mixed ag-
gregates composed of two or more different kinds of associating
entities, e.g., heteroaggregated systems made from combinations of
oppositely charged emulsion droplets (Maier, Reichert, & Weiss,
2016; Mao & McClements, 2011).
It seems pertinent here to recall that the thickening of cream by
one-stage high-pressure homogenization is a well-established
technology in the dairy industry (Walstra, Wouters, & Geurts,
2006). The phenomenon of fat globule aggregation in homoge-
nized cream is a type of bridging flocculation (Dickinson, 1998). The
fat globules in these ‘homogenization clusters’ are firmly held
together by bridges of proteinaceous colloidal particles (casein
micelles), with minor additional contributions from adsorbed sub-
micellar fragments and molecular caseins. For a dairy cream with a
fat content exceeding ~10 wt%, there is not enough casein-based
emulsifier present during homogenization to fully stabilize the
large area of newly created oilewater interface. This leads to
sharing of adsorbed proteinaceous material between some fine
homogenized oil droplets, and therefore to a higher apparent vis-
cosity for the resulting homogenized cream as compared with the
original unhomogenized cream (Walstra et al., 2006). In this way
the implementation of a single homogenization step leads to the
generation of a product with perceived thickness and creaminess
resembling the texture of unprocessed dairy cream, but at a lower
total fat content.
4.2. Double emulsion formulation
A double (or multiple) emulsion of the water-in-oil-in-water
type (W/O/W) is a structured system for achieving fat reduction
in foods whilst retaining creamy mouthfeel (Muschiolik, 2007;
Dickinson, 2011). In this type of emulsion, small droplets of inner
aqueous phase are encapsulated within larger oil droplets, which
are in turn dispersed in a continuous aqueous phase. Like any
conventional O/W emulsion, the rheology of the W/O/W double
emulsion is determined by the volume fraction and aggregation
state of the outer oil droplets. That is to say, as long as the double
emulsion retains its long-term stability, the presence of the internal
water droplets has a negligible effect on the bulk rheological
properties. In principle, therefore, it is feasible to prepare a
reduced-fat emulsion by replacing the conventional O/W system by
an equivalent W/O/W emulsion of reduced overall oil content.
Because the two systems possess equivalent rheological behaviour,
they are expected to exhibit similar oral textural characteristics d
including thickness and creaminess perception. It should be noted,
however, that double emulsion droplets are generally much bigger
and less stable than their single droplet counterparts. Nevertheless,
despite the formidable practical challenges of formulating properly
fine stable systems using food-based ingredients, the principle of
using double emulsions for fat reduction has attracted enthusiastic
support amongst food researchers, as evidenced by the many re-
ports of potential applications over a broad range of commodity
areas, including meat emulsions, beverages, dairy products, salad
dressings and confectionery (Muschiolik & Dickinson, 2017).
A comparative sensory panel study of creaminess perception for
double and single emulsions was recently published by
Oppermann, Piqueras-Fiszman, de Graaf, Scholten, and Stieger
(2016). Based on descriptive sensory profiling using a trained panel
presented with W/O/W and O/W systems of 30% and 50% dispersed
phase fraction, the authors reported panel evaluations of various
sensory attributes, including thickness and fattiness, as well as
creaminess. The effect of the gelling of the inner aqueous phase
with gelatin was also investigated. It was found that a partial
replacement of oil by small internal water droplets did not cause
any reduction in the perceived intensity of fat-related attributes.
Furthermore, when the inner aqueous droplets were gelled, it was
found that around half of the oil could be replaced whilst increasing
the intensity of fat-related attributes (Oppermann et al., 2016). This
study confirms the previously stated conjecture that the creami-
ness perception of a double emulsion is determined by the prop-
erties of its outer droplets (volume fraction, average size,
aggregation state, etc.). Therefore, we can infer that substantial
reductions in the fat content of foods are practically feasible using
the double emulsion concept without any discernible loss of posi-
tive fat-related sensory attributes.
4.3. Microparticulated whey protein
Microparticulated whey protein (MWP) is a commercially
available fat-replacer widely used in food product formulations to
enhance the perception of creaminess and other fat-related sensory
attributes (Chung, Degner, & McClements, 2014; Ipsen, 2017; Liu
et al., 2016b; Torres, Janhoj, Mikkelsen, & Ipsen, 2011). The micro-
particulation process involves thermal denaturation and aggrega-
tion of whey proteins in the presence of hydrodynamic forces
(shearing or extrusion), leading to dispersions of solid protein
particles with a broad size distribution (0.1e10 mm) (Cheftel &
Dumay, 1993; Dissanayake & Vasiljevic, 2009; Spiegel & Huss,
2002).
The smooth creamy mouthfeel of MWP particles has been
attributed to a ‘ball-bearing’ type lubrication mechanism. In other
words, these solid protein particles of comparable size to liquid oil
droplets are imagined to roll freely past one another in distinct
layers under shear deformation (Cheftel & Dumay, 1993; Liu, Tian,
Stieger, van der Linden, & van de Velde, 2016a). Nevertheless, it is
also well established that various kinds of large solid particles (size
>10 mm) can be perceived as gritty or powdery when present in
liquid foods (Engelen, van der Bilt, Schipper, & Bosman, 2005).
Given such apparently conflicting messages, one might expect that
the fat-related perception of an emulsion containing an MWP
ingredient having a wide range of particle sizes would be consid-
erably different from that of a simple emulsion of liquid oil droplets.
Indeed, this is the conclusion of a recent sensory study by Liu et al.
(2016b) on model MWP-containing systems of liquid-like oil-in-
water emulsions and semi-solid emulsion-filled gels. The authors
found that, whereas small MWP particles (~1 mm) do contribute
effectively to creaminess enhancement as a consequence of their
lubrication properties, large MWP particles (~10 mm) are associated
with rough and powdery sensations that are negatively correlated
with creaminess. As a result of the predominant influence of the
large particles, the presence of MWP in a liquid-like emulsion is
actually perceived as an increase in roughness with no discernible
change in creaminess. On the other hand, for the case of an
emulsion-filled gel, the rough perception of the large particles is
masked by the smooth perception of the gel matrix (composed of
gelatin), leading to an overall positive effect of the MWP ingredient
on creaminess perception (Liu et al., 2016b). Therefore it would
seem that the creaminess perception effect of microparticulated
protein in a complex food formulation is dependent not only on the
particle-size distribution, but also on the structural and rheological
properties of the matrix surrounding the incorporated particles.
4.4. Polymeric thickening agents
The empirically established correlation between the sensory
attributes of thickness and creaminess provides scientific justifi-
cation for the food technologist’s strategy of using common poly-
saccharide thickening agents to enhance creaminess perception.
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
The most versatile and ubiquitous thickeners employed in food
applications are the starches and their derivatives (Eliasson, 2004;
Murphy, 2000). After hydration treatment in hot water, the native
starch ingredient is transformed into a mixture of soft gelatinized
granules and some soluble starch polymers. Because they possess
structural and rheological characteristics which resemble the
properties of both flexible macromolecules and solid particles, the
swollen starch granules may be classified as polysaccharide
microgels (Dickinson, 2015, 2016b).
Human saliva contains the enzyme a-amylase. As a conse-
quence, any starch-thickened food will exhibit a significant
lowering of its actual and perceived viscosity during its short
residence time in the oral cavity (de Wijk et al., 2004). The asso-
ciated sensation of ‘melting in the mouth’ means that the starch-
thickened food is perceived as ‘thinner’ than would be expected
from laboratory-based viscometric measurements. The influence of
enzymatic structural breakdown on creaminess perception has
been demonstrated in experiments with starch-based custards
containing additional a-amylase or an enzyme inhibitor (acarbose),
as shown in Fig. 3 (de Wijk et al., 2006). Enzymatic degradation of
starch polymers is enhanced by complex tongue movements, and
the developing semi-solid food bolus establishes a macroscopically
heterogeneous structure with low-viscosity regions acting as slip-
ping planes between high-viscosity regions. Custard samples with
the greatest ability to maintain their original viscosity, and hence to
resist heterogeneous structural breakdown in the presence of
salivary a-amylase, were assessed by panellists as possessing the
most creamy mouthfeel (Janssen et al., 2007). Therefore, to boost
creaminess in semi-solid starch-based foods, it is recommended to
try to minimize (but not completely eliminate) the extent of
reduction of viscosity during mastication by using starch varieties
that are moderately resistant to mechanical and enzymatic break-
down during oral processing (de Wijk et al., 2006).
Aside from gelatinized native starch, numerous other polymeric
thickening agents have been used by investigators to enhance the
perceived creaminess of foods. Table 2 lists a broad representative
selection of such hydrocolloids mentioned in some recently pub-
lished studies. Compared with the rather high thickener content of,
say, 3e6 wt % in a typical starch-based custard, most non-starch
hydrocolloids can confer their functional effects at much lower
concentrations (well below 1 wt%). As well as by direct rheological
control, it is recognized that non-starch polysaccharides can also
affect sensory perception by modifying in-mouth flavour release
(Arancibia, Jublot, Costell, & Bayarri, 2011).
Considerable effort has been expended by various investigators
to improve the creamy mouthfeel perception of low-fat yoghurt
(both ‘set’ and ‘stirred’ types) by addition of gelatin (Ares et al.,
2007; Pavon, Lazzaroni, Sabbag, & Rozycki, 2014), maltodextrin
(Alting et al., 2009), fructan (Crispin-Isidro, Lobato-Calleros, Espi-
nosa-Andrews, Alvarez-Ramirez, & Vernon-Carter, 2015),
amylomaltase-treated starch (Kanning et al., 2012), and inulin
(Guggisberg, Cuthbert-Steven, Piccinah, Buetikofer, & Eberhard,
2009; Guven, Yasar, Karaca, & Hayaloglu, 2005; Kip, Meyer, & Jel-
lema, 2006; Paseephol, Small, & Sherkat, 2008). Studies have also
been made of the influence of various hydrocolloids on the
creaminess perception of other liquid and semi-solid food products,
such as dairy beverages containing pectin, carboxymethylcellulose
or carrageenan (Flett, Duizer, & Goff, 2010; Janhoj, Frost, & Ipsen,
2008) and ice cream containing carrageenan, guar gum or basil
seed gum (Javidi, Razavi, Behrouzian, & Alghooneh, 2016; Varela
et al., 2014). In addition, the role of thickeners in relation to
creaminess perception has been investigated in model oil-in-water
emulsions containing hydrocolloids such as xanthan (Akhtar et al.,
2006), guar gum (Dresselhuis et al., 2008; Vingerhoeds et al., 2009)
379
and gum arabic (van Aken et al., 2011), as well as emulsion-filled
gels containing gelatin or carrageenan (Sala et al., 2007).
For different hydrocolloids in particular foods, the specific
mechanistic contributions in relation to creaminess perception are
far from being fully resolved. In broad generic terms, though, there
are clearly two main influences involved d the modification of bulk
rheological properties and the lubrication of oral surfaces. Fig. 4
illustrates the mechanism whereby the hydrocolloid thickener
may form a lubricating film between oral surfaces (Malone et al.,
2003a). At low entrainment speeds, the individual macromole-
cules are assumed to be bigger than the gap width and therefore
the non-adsorbing hydrocolloid is excluded from the gap. As the
entrainment speed increases and the oral surfaces begin to sepa-
rate, the gap is filled by a viscous film of hydrocolloid. This leads to a
reduction in the local friction coefficient, since the presence of the
polymer layer in the contact zone physically stops the solid surfaces
from contacting; the high viscosity of the fluid film suppresses
turbulent flow in the contact zone, thereby limiting the drag. At
high entrainment speeds the effect of the thickener on lubrication
properties appears not so significant because the polymer is no
longer confined within the contact zone and the film in the gap is
therefore dominated by the bulk solvent viscosity (Malone et al.,
2003a).
It was pointed out by Morris (1995), in accordance with the
original suggestion of Wood (1968), that the perceived thickness of
many polysaccharides in aqueous solution shows a rather satis-
factory correlation with the instrumental viscosity measured at 50
s1. A notable exception to this trend, however, occurs with the
important class of weak gelling polysaccharides, notably xanthan
gum. For these hydrocolloids the measured viscosity at high shear-
rate greatly underestimates the perceived thickness (Cutler, Morris,
& Taylor, 1983; Morris, 1995). Understanding the functionality of
xanthan gum is important because it is undoubtedly the hydro-
colloid of first choice in the food industry for the control of long-
term stability of dispersions and emulsions. When used in this
way as thickener and stabilizer of an O/W emulsion, xanthan is
typically added at a relatively low concentration (well below 1 wt
%). Even so, its influence on the state of aggregation of protein-
coated oil droplets can be the predominant factor affecting the
small-deformation rheology and microstructure of the system
(Moschakis, Murray, & Dickinson, 2005, 2006).
Change in
creaminess
(%)
less more
amylase amylase
activity activity
Fig. 3. Relative change in perceived creaminess of starch-based custard desserts as a
consequence of enhancing the oral a-amylase activity (addition of amylase) or
reducing the oral a-amylase activity (addition of acarbose, an amylase inhibitor). Taken
from de Wijk et al. (2006) with permission.
380 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385

Table 2
Examples of the use of hydrocolloid thickeners to influence creaminess perception in food systems.

Hydrocolloid Type of system Reference(s)

amylomaltase-treated starch yoghurt Alting et al. (2009)

Kanning et al. (2012)
basil seed gum ice cream Javidi et al. (2016)
carboxymethylcellulose acidified milk drink Janhoj et al. (2008)
carrageenan dairy dessert Tarrega and Costell (2006b)
emulsion-filled gel Sala et al. (2007)
non-fat dairy beverage Flett et al. (2010)
ice cream Varela et al. (2014)
fructan yoghurt Crispin-Isidro et al. (2015)
gelatin emulsion-filled gel Sala et al. (2007)
yoghurt Ares et al. (2007)
Pavon et al. (2014)
guar gum oil-in-water emulsion Dresselhuis et al. (2008)
Vingerhoeds et al. (2009)
ice cream Varela et al. (2014)
Javidi et al. (2016)
gum arabic oil-in-water emulsion van Aken et al. (2011)
inulin cheese Koca and Metin (2004)
Hennelly, Dunne, O’Sullivan, and O’Riordan (2006)
yoghurt Guven et al. (2005)
Kip et al. (2006)
Paseephol et al. (2008)
Guggisberg et al. (2009)
Crispin-Isidro et al. (2015)
dairy dessert Tarrega and Costell (2006a,b)
Gonzalez-Tomas, Bayarri, and Costell (2009)
chocolate mousse Cardarelli, Aragon-Alegro, Alegro, de Castro, and Saad (2008)
various dairy products Meyer, Bayarri, Tarrega, and Costell (2011)
maltodextrin oil-in-water emulsion Akhtar et al. (2006)
yoghurt Alting et al. (2009)
pectin acidified milk drink Janhoj et al. (2008)
particle dispersion Appelqvist et al. (2015)
xanthan oil-in-water emulsion Akhtar et al. (2006)
frozen yoghurt Soukoulis and Tzia (2008)
particle dispersion Appelqvist et al. (2015)

In a study of model liquid emulsions based on butter fat (volume
fraction 5e20%) and containing xanthan (or pectin) as poly-
saccharide thickener, a strong correlation was observed between
perceived creaminess and instrumental viscosity measured at 50
s1 (Akhtar et al., 2005). But in tests on viscosity-matched emul-
sions containing either maltodextrin (8e20 wt%) or xanthan
(0.07e0.27 wt%), it was found that the emulsions containing these
two carbohydrate thickeners exhibited significantly different levels
of perceived creaminess (Akhtar et al., 2006). Hence, in order to
understand creaminess-induced effects of individual poly-
saccharide thickeners used at specific concentrations, it looks like it
will be necessary to take full account, not only of the bulk emulsion
viscosity, but also other colloid-based factors such as the character
of the thickeneresaliva interactions and the lubrication forces at
the oral surfaces.
Fig. 4. Schematic presentation of the spatial distribution of hydrocolloid thickener in
the gap between oral surfaces as a function of entrainment speed: (a) low speed d the
film in the boundary regime is too thin for non-adsorbed polymer to enter the contact
zone; (b) medium speed d the lubricating hydrocolloid molecules are able to pene-
trate the gap, and polymer confinement in the contact zone raises the inlet viscosity;
(c) high speed d a reduced lubrication effect because the inlet viscosity is essentially
that of base fluid. Taken from Malone et al. (2003a) with permission.
4.5. Dispersed gas bubbles
The perceived smoothness and creaminess of a surface layer of
closely packed gas bubbles is well appreciated by drinkers of stout
beer (notably Guinness®) and italian coffee (expresso, cappuccino).
The retail beverage industry has recognized this sensory appeal by
improving the formulation and stability of transient aerated dis-
persions through technological advances, in particular the incor-
poration of nitrogen gas bubbles into canned draught beer
(Coghlan, 1989, p. 34; Lee & Devereux, 2011) and, more recently,
‘nitro’ cold brew coffee. Furthermore, in traditional aerated dairy
products such as whipped cream and ice cream, the essential
structural role of dispersed gas bubbles in determining texture and
perceived mouthfeel is well established in the technical literature
(Goff, 2007; Walstra et al., 2006). The oral sensation of the
smoothness and creaminess of ice cream is optimized by arranging
for the processing equipment to produce a product of high overrun
and low average bubble size (Wildmoser et al., 2004). However, the
relentless process of foam coarsening and the associated loss of
bubbles during extended storage leads inevitably to a gradual
deterioration in the organoleptic properties of any frozen aerated
product. Hence, according to expert industrial opinion, the
creamiest of ice cream samples is the one that has most recently
emerged from the aerator/freezer.
The partial replacement of protein-stabilized oil droplets by gas
bubbles of similar size distribution offers a promising strategy for
reducing overall fat content without loss of creaminess perception.
There is, however, a long-recognized intrinsic problem to over-
come: gas microbubbles are inherently much less stable than their
emulsion droplet counterparts (Dickinson, 1992). A particular issue
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
in relation to the long-term storage stability of an aerated disper-
sion is the phenomenon of disproportionation, i.e., mass transport
of gas from small bubbles into big bubbles by diffusion through the
intervening continuous phase. In order to stop the process
completely requires the presence of a rigid elastic layer around the
bubble surface. In concentrated viscous sugar solutions, the stabi-
lization of some long-lasting micrometre-sized bubbles sur-
rounded by self-assembled interfacial layers of surfactant (sucrose
stearate) has been demonstrated (Dressaire, Bee, Bell, Lips, & Stone,
2008). Also gas microbubbles of fixed size may be effectively
immobilized within biopolymer gels. However, under normal low-
viscosity aqueous solution conditions, the stabilization of long-
lasting bubbles is not readily achievable using traditional milk
protein ingredients (Dickinson, Ettelaie, Murray, & Du, 2002;
Ettelaie, Dickinson, Du, & Murray, 2003). Nevertheless, the effec-
tive inhibition of gas bubble shrinkage and coarsening may be
realized in Pickering-stabilized systems incorporating close-packed
adsorbed layers of solid particles at the airewater interface
(Dickinson, 2017; Murray & Ettelaie, 2004), or in suspensions of air
bubbles surrounded by thick coatings of cross-linked denatured
proteins such as egg-white protein or bovine serum albumin
(Rovers, Sala, van der Linden, & Meinders, 2016a; Tchuenbou-
Magaia & Cox, 2011; Tchuenbou-Magaia, Al-Rifai, Ishak, Norton, &
Cox, 2011). Moreover, of particular effectiveness in relation to the
long-term stability of gas bubbles and foams is the fungal protein
hydrophobin (Dickinson, 2016b; Tchuenbou-Magaia, Norton, &
Cox, 2009). The particle-like molecules of this compact protein
have a strong tendency to organize laterally into solid-like adsor-
bed layers of high surface elasticity (Blijdenstein, de Groot, &
Stoyanov, 2010; Danov, Radulova, Kralchevsky, Golemanov, &
Stoyanov, 2012). This feature allows the production of
hydrophobin-stabilized systems with bubble lifetimes of several
months or even years (Cox, Aldred, & Russell, 2009; Tchuenbou-
Magaia et al., 2009). There is also good evidence for the dominant
stabilizing presence of hydrophobin in interfacial layers adsorbed
from mixed solutions of hydrophobin and individual milk proteins
(Burke, Cox, Petkov, & Murray, 2014; Tucker et al., 2015).
The potential benefits of incorporating bubbles into food sys-
tems, in terms of enhanced sensations of thickness, smoothness
and creaminess, are well recognized by researchers, but as yet the
associated mechanistic implications are not properly understood
(Kokini & van Aken, 2006). In assessing the rheological effects
arising from fine emulsified oil droplets as compared with coarse
gas cells, the greater deformability and buoyancy of the latter are
two obvious complications. Nevertheless, in a study of model
aerated dispersions with mean bubble sizes of ~10 mm, Bee,
Clement, and Prins (1987) have demonstrated that the increase in
viscosity with volume fraction (up to say 40e50 vol%) is roughly
similar to that exhibited by a suspension of solid spherical particles.
Moreover, regarding the lubrication properties of dispersed sys-
tems of oil droplets þ protein-stabilized gas bubbles, it is reported
(Tchuenbou-Magaia & Cox, 2011) that the tribological behaviour is
broadly similar to that of an equivalent moderately concentrated O/
W emulsion (~20 vol% oil). But for a more dilute emulsion system (5
vol% oil), the situation is apparently rather different, with the
measured friction largely dominated by the oil component, and
only a minor frictional contribution attributable to the micro-
bubbles (Rovers, Sala, van der Linden, & Meinders, 2016b). In the
accompanying sensory study carried out by these same authors, it
was found that most of the panellists could distinguish between O/
W emulsion samples and aerated samples without oil. It was
therefore inferred by Rovers et al. (2016b) that there exists a sig-
nificant difference in the lubrication behaviour and associated
mouthfeel for a dilute aerated dispersion containing protein-
stabilized microbubbles, as compared with the corresponding
381
frictional and sensory properties of an O/W emulsion containing
droplets of similar average size (~1 mm). While the research of
Rovers et al. (2016b) cautions against the assumption that micro-
bubbles can replace the characteristic sensory behaviour of emul-
sion droplets in every single respect, there seems little doubt that
hybrid droplet/bubble systems can indeed make a major contri-
bution to the fabrication of multi-phase structures with strong fat-
related attributes.
5. Conclusions and outlook
A perusal of the literature, both past and present, would seem to
suggest that much research in emulsion science and food engi-
neering is traditionally carried out by those with scientific training
and motivation remote from the subject area of sensory science.
That is not to say, of course, that the importance of bridging the gap
between the sensory and physical approaches has not long been
recognized within the industrial world (Hutchings & Lillford, 1988;
Lillford, 2017). But it is only really during the past 10e15 years or so,
as set out in this review, that the attention of the mainstream ac-
ademic science community has been seriously directed towards
understanding the origin of a sensory attribute such as creaminess.
This issue is interesting and challenging to food colloid researchers
because of the close association of the creamy mouthfeel sensation
with the widespread consumer appeal of dairy-based foods, as well
as with the smooth texture of non-dairy emulsions and starch-
based semi-solid foods. The timeliness and relevance of the pre-
sent review article may be justified by a steadily growing level of
research activity that aims to achieve fundamental understanding
of the physico-chemical mechanisms of oral processing (Chen,
2016; Stokes, Boehm, & Baier, 2013; Wang & Chen, 2017). Well-
attended international conferences in this developing subject
area are providing increasing opportunities for the exchange of
ideas between those in what were, until quite recently, distinct and
separate disciplines.
Our current state of knowledge is briefly summarized as follows.
The accumulated evidence from studies of sensory perception
involving many different classes of food products has confirmed
that creaminess is a complex and rather elusive attribute. The
balance of contributory factors governing the property appears to
vary significantly between different food structural types. This is
challenging the confidence of researchers to devise a single set of
definitive rules to interpret the phenomenon. Nonetheless, there is
a general consensus that creaminess from the average consumer’s
perspective is associated with the three textural connotations of
thickness, smoothness and mouth-coating. The physical property
correlating most strongly with creamy texture is bulk viscosity (or,
more generally, viscoelasticity). Furthermore, the sensation of a
creamy flavour correlates strongly with the presence of dairy fat
globules. Beyond bulk rheology and fatty flavour considerations,
the other main physical factor influencing creaminess perception is
the lubrication behaviour of dispersed entities (oil droplets, solid
particles, flexible polymers) in the vicinity of oral surfaces.
At the mechanistic colloidal level, the mixing of food with saliva
during oral processing has been shown to affect the state of ag-
gregation of various kinds of particulate entities d especially
protein-stabilized emulsion droplets. In consequence, the nature of
foodesaliva interactions appears to be an essential determinant of
the evolving structural, rheological and tribological behaviour of
food materials within the oral cavity. Improvement in mechanistic
understanding at the fundamental physico-chemical level offers
fresh opportunities for food technologists to enhance levels of
perceived creaminess in reduced-fat and low-fat products. For
many years it has been standard practice to try to incorporate
commercial ingredients like aggregated protein microparticles and
382 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
hydrocolloid thickeners to act as creaminess enhancing agents. But
we have to recognize that the intrinsic functionality of a
biopolymer-based ingredient can deviate significantly from the
more familiar lipid-based functionality of the dairy fat emulsion
system which it is intended to imitate and replace.
As recently emphasized by Mosca and Chen (2017), saliva is an
‘unavoidable ingredient’ having a profound impact on our eating
experience. To improve our future understanding of creaminess
perception, it would therefore appear reasonable to suggest that
there is a need for further focused research to be carried out on the
detailed molecular and colloidal interactions of food materials with
human saliva. One recognizes, of course, that such an undertaking
is far from a straightforward: whole mouth saliva is highly variable
in terms of composition, abundance and rheological behaviour,
which makes for difficulties of incorporation into standard labo-
ratory testing procedures (Stokes et al., 2013). In order to generate
sufficient quantities of the material for experimental study, stim-
ulated saliva is often used. But there are known compositional and
rheological differences between the alternative types of stimulated
samples. Future research needs to examine the compositional and
functional differences between ‘normal’ and stimulated saliva, and
to develop some improved practical methods for the collection,
handling and analysis of masticated food/saliva samples (Wang &
Chen, 2017).
One might speculate on what the future holds with regard to the
development of a non-human creaminess sensor. Is it sensible to
envisage the invention of an intelligent robot that could automate
the perception of creaminess? As with any philosophical puzzle,
the correct answer to this question inevitably depends in large part
on the precise meaning of the words used d in this case, not just
‘creaminess’, but also ‘perception’. An imaginative observer might
suppose, in principle at least, that an ‘intelligent’ robotic instru-
ment could be designed and constructed to measure those physical
and chemical characteristics that are commonly associated with the
attribute. These would include, for instance, the bulk rheological
and lubrication properties associated with a creamy mouthfeel, and
the chemical identities of the flavour compounds associated with a
creamy taste. This advanced machine could also surely test for the
absence of negative factors that are known to be detrimental to
human creaminess perception, such as the presence of large gritty
particles. More problematic, though, would be the ability of the
robot’s computer to interpret the physical and chemical data in a
robust and convincing manner, so as to provide an overall index of
creaminess that would be acceptable as equivalent to that of the
‘average’ human assessor.
The purely physico-chemical approach clearly has limitations
(Booth, 2005; Rolls, 2011). The sceptical observer might assert that
no robot could possibly possess the ability to take into account the
inherent biological influences of human creaminess perception.
Such an observer might further insist that the consumer’s
perception of creaminess (as well as other complex sensory attri-
butes) involves a collection of diverse mental processes affected by
genetics and the environment, and presumably embracing mem-
ories of past experiences that vary considerably between different
individuals and their disparate diets. It might even be asserted that
we humans have brains that are partially ‘hard-wired’ and/or
conditioned from childhood to view creaminess as a generally
positive pleasurable attribute. According to such a biologically
centred perspective, one could not envisage the possibility of a
mere machine experiencing (or giving the appearance of experi-
encing) the human perception of creaminess. But it should also go
without saying that any reliable conclusion as to the validity or
otherwise of these assertions lies well beyond the limited capa-
bilities of the present author.
References
Aguilera, J. M. (2006). Food product engineering: Building the right structures.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86, 1147e1155.
van Aken, G. A. (2007). Relating food microstructure to sensory quality. In
D. J. McClements (Ed.), Understanding and controlling the microstructure of
complex foods (pp. 449e482). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
van Aken, G. A., Vingerhoeds, M. H., & de Hoog, E. H. A. (2005). Colloidal behaviour
of food emulsions under oral conditions. In E. Dickinson (Ed.), Food colloids:
Interactions, microstructure and processing (pp. 356e366). Cambridge, UK: Royal
Society of Chemistry.
van Aken, G. A., Vingerhoeds, M. H., & de Hoog, E. H. A. (2007). Food colloids under
oral conditions. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 12, 251e262.
van Aken, G. A., Vingerhoeds, M. H., & de Wijk, R. A. (2011). Textural perception of
liquid emulsions: Role of oil content, oil viscosity and emulsion viscosity. Food
Hydrocolloids, 25, 789e796.
Akhtar, M., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2006). Perception of creaminess of model
oil-in-water dairy emulsions: Influence of the shear-thinning nature of a
viscosity-controlling hydrocolloid. Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 839e847.
Akhtar, M., Stenzel, J., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2005). Factors affecting the
perception of creaminess of oil-in-water emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids, 19,
521e526.
Alting, A. C., van de Velde, F., Kanning, M. W., Burgering, M., Mulleners, L., Sein, A.,
et al. (2009). Improved creaminess of low-fat yoghurt: The impact of
amylomaltase-treated starch domains. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 980e987.
Antmann, G., Gaston, A., Salvador, A., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. M. (2011). Exploring
and explaining creaminess perception: Consumers’ underlying concepts. Jour-
nal of Sensory Studies, 26, 40e47.
Appelqvist, I. A. M., Cochet-Broch, M., Poelman, A. A. M., & Day, L. (2015). Mor-
phologies, volume fraction and viscosity of cell wall particle dispersions related
to sensory perception. Food Hydrocolloids, 44, 198e207.
Arancibia, C., Jublot, L., Costell, E., & Bayarri, S. (2011). Flavour release and sensory
characteristics of O/W emulsions: Influence of composition, microstructure and
rheological behaviour. Food Research International, 44, 1632e1641.
Ares, G., Gonçalvez, D., Perez, C., Reolon, G., Segura, N., Lema, P., et al. (2007). In-
fluence of gelatin and starch on the instrumental and sensory texture of stirred
yogurt. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 60, 263e269.
Arocas, A., Sanz, T., Salvador, A., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. M. (2010). Sensory prop-
erties determined by starch type in white sauces: Effects of freeze/thaw and
hydrocolloid addition. Journal of Food Science, 75, S132eS140.
Bansil, R., & Turner, B. S. (2006). Mucin structure, aggregation, physiological func-
tions and biomedical applications. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Sci-
ence, 11, 164e170.
Bee, R. D., Clement, A., & Prins, A. (1987). Behaviour of an aerated food model. In
E. Dickinson (Ed.), Food emulsions and foams (pp. 128e143). London: Royal
Society of Chemistry.
Blijdenstein, T. B. J., de Groot, P. W. N., & Stoyanov, S. D. (2010). On the link between
foam coarsening and surface rheology: Why hydrophobins are so different. Soft
Matter, 6, 1799e1808.
Booth, D. A. (2005). Perceiving the texture of a food: Biomechanical and cognitive
mechanisms and their measurement. In E. Dickinson (Ed.), Food colloids: In-
teractions, structure and processing (pp. 339e355). Cambridge, UK: Royal Society
of Chemistry.
Bromberg, L. E., & Barr, D. P. (2000). Self-association of mucin. Biomacromolecules, 1,
325e334.
de Bruijne, D. W., Hendrickx, H. A. C. M., Alderliesten, L., & de Looff, J. (1993).
Mouthfeel of foods. In E. Dickinson, & P. Walstra (Eds.), Food colloids and poly-
mers: Stability and mechanical properties (pp. 204e213). Cambridge, UK: Royal
Society of Chemistry.
Burke, J., Cox, A., Petkov, J., & Murray, B. S. (2014). Interfacial rheology and stability
of air bubbles stabilized by mixtures of hydrophobin and b-casein. Food Hy-
drocolloids, 34, 119e127.
Cadena, R. S., Cruz, A. G., Faria, J. A. F., & Bolini, H. M. A. (2012). Reduced fat and
sugar vanilla ice creams: Sensory profiling and external preference mapping.
Journal of Dairy Science, 95, 4842e4850.
Cardarelli, H. R., Aragon-Alegro, L. C., Alegro, J. H. A., de Castro, I. A., & Saad, S. M. I.
(2008). Effect of inulin and Lactobacillus paracasei on sensory and instrumental
texture properties of functional chocolate mousse. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 88, 1318e1324.
Cavender, G. A., & Kerr, W. L. (2011). Microfluidization of full-fat ice cream mixes:
Effects of gum stabilizer choice on physical and sensory changes. Journal of Food
Process Engineering, 36, 29e35.
Cayot, P., Schenker, F., Houze , G., Sulmont-Rosse , C., & Colas, B. (2008). Creaminess
in relation to consistency and particle size in stirred fat-free yogurt. Interna-
tional Dairy Journal, 18, 303e311.
Cheftel, J. C., & Dumay, E. (1993). Microcoagulation of proteins for development of
‘creaminess’. Food Reviews International, 9, 473e502.
Chen, J. (2009). Food oral processing: A review. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 1e25.
Chen, J. (2014). Food oral processing: Some important underpinning principles of
eating and sensory perception. Food Structure, 1, 91e105.
Chen, J. (2016). Food oral processing: Mechanisms and implications of food oral
destruction. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 45, 222e228.
Chen, J., & Eaton, J. (2012). Multimodal mechanisms of food creaminess sensation.
Food & Function, 3, 1265e1270.
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
Chen, J., & Stokes, J. (2012). Rheology and tribology: Two distinctive regimes of food
texture sensation. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 25, 4e12.
Chojnicka-Paszun, A., de Jongh, H. H. J., & de Kruif, C. G. (2012). Sensory perception
and lubrication properties of milk: Influence of fat content. International Dairy
Journal, 26, 15e22.
Chung, C., Degner, B., & McClements, D. J. (2014). Development of reduced-calorie
foods: Microparticulated whey proteins as fat mimetics in semi-solid food
emulsions. Food Research International, 56, 136e145.
Ciron, C. I., Gee, V. L., Kelly, A. L., & Auty, M. A. E. (2011). Effect of microfluidization of
heat-treated milk on rheology and sensory properties of reduced fat yoghurt.
Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1470e1476.
Civille, G. V., & Lawless, H. T. (1986). The importance of language in describing
perceptions. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3/4, 203e215.
Coghlan, A. (1989). Technology: The extra ingredient in a can of draught guinness. New
Scientist, Issue 1674 (22 July).
Cox, A. R., Aldred, D. L., & Russell, A. B. (2009). Exceptional stability of food foams
using class II hydrophobin HFBII. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 366e376.
Crispin-Isidro, G., Lobato-Calleros, C., Espinosa-Andrews, H., Alvarez-Ramirez, &
Vernon-Carter, E. J. (2015). Effect of inulin and agave fructans addition on the
rheological, microstructural and sensory properties of reduced-fat stirred
yogurt. LWT d Food Science and Technology, 62, 438e444.
Cutler, A. N., Morris, E. R., & Taylor, L. J. (1983). Oral perception of viscosity in fluid
foods and model systems. Journal of Texture Studies, 14, 377e395.
Danov, K. D., Radulova, G. M., Kralchevsky, P. A., Golemanov, K., & Stoyanov, S. D.
(2012). Surface shear rheology of hydrophobin adsorption layers: Laws of
viscoelastic behaviour with applications to long-term foam stability. Faraday
Discussions, 158, 195e221.
Dickinson, E. (1992). An introduction to food colloids. Oxford: University Press.
Dickinson, E. (1998). Rheology of emulsions d the relationship to structure and
stability. In B. P. Binks (Ed.), Modern aspects of emulsion science (pp. 145e174).
Cambridge, UK: Royal society of Chemistry.
Dickinson, E. (2006). Structure formation in casein-based gels, foams and emul-
sions. Colloids and Surfaces A, 288, 3e11.
Dickinson, E. (2010). Flocculation of protein-stabilized oil-in-water emulsions.
Colloids and Surfaces B, 81, 130e140.
Dickinson, E. (2011). Double emulsions stabilized by food biopolymers. Food
Biophysics, 6, 1e11.
Dickinson, E. (2012). Emulsion gels: The structuring of soft solids with protein-
stabilized oil droplets. Food Hydrocolloids, 28, 224e241.
Dickinson, E. (2013). Stabilizing emulsion-based colloidal structures with mixed
food ingredients. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 93, 710e721.
Dickinson, E. (2015). Microgels d an alternative colloidal ingredient for stabiliza-
tion of food emulsions. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 43, 178e188.
Dickinson, E. (2016a). Colloids in food: Ingredients, structure and stability. Annual
Review of Food Science and Technology, 6, 211e233.
Dickinson, E. (2016b). Exploring the frontiers of colloidal behaviour where poly-
mers and particles meet. Food Hydrocolloids, 52, 497e509.
Dickinson, E. (2017). Biopolymer-based particles as stabilizing agents for emulsions
and foams. Food Hydrocolloids, 68, 219e231.
Dickinson, E., Ettelaie, R., Murray, B. S., & Du, Z. (2002). Kinetics of disproportion-
ation of air bubbles beneath a planar airewater interface stabilized by food
proteins. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 252, 202e213.
Dissanayake, M., & Vasiljevic, T. (2009). Functional properties of whey proteins
affected by heat treatment and hydrodynamic high-pressure shearing. Journal
of Dairy Science, 92, 1387e1397.
Dressaire, E., Bee, R., Bell, D. C., Lips, A., & Stone, H. A. (2008). Interfacial polygonal
nanopatterning of stable microbubbles. Science, 320, 1198e1201.
Dresselhuis, D. M., de Hoog, E. H. A., Cohen Stuart, M. A., Vingerhoeds, M. H., & van
Aken, G. A. (2008). The occurrence of in-mouth coalescence of emulsion
droplets in relation to perception of fat. Food Hydrocolloids, 22, 1170e1183.
Eliasson, A.-C. (Ed.). (2004). Starch in food d structure, function and applications.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Elmore, J. R., Heymann, H., Johnson, J., & Hewett, J. E. (1999). Preference mapping:
Relating acceptance of ‘creaminess’ to a descriptive sensory map of a semi-
solid. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 465e475.
Engelen, L., van der Bilt, A., Schipper, M., & Bosman, F. (2005). Oral size perception of
particles: Effect of size, type, viscosity and method. Journal of Texture Studies, 36,
373e386.
Ettelaie, R., Dickinson, E., Du, Z., & Murray, B. S. (2003). Disproportionation of
clustered protein-stabilized bubbles at planar airewater interfaces. Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, 263, 47e58.
Flett, K. L., Duizer, L. M., & Goff, H. D. (2010). Perceived creaminess and viscosity of
aggregated particles of casein micelles and k-carrageenan. Journal of Food Sci-
ence, 75, S255eS262.
Folkenberg, D. M., & Martens, M. (2003). Sensory properties of low fat yoghurts.
Part B: Hedonic evaluations of plain yoghurts by consumers correlating to fat
content, sensory profile and consumer attitudes. Milchwissenschaft, 58,
154e157.
Frost, M. B., & Janhoj, T. (2007). Understanding creaminess. International Dairy
Journal, 17, 1298e1311.
Glantz, P.-O. (1997). Interfacial phenomena in the oral cavity. Colloids and Surfaces A,
123/124, 657e670.
Goff, H. D. (2007). Structure engineering of ice cream and foam-based foods. In
D. J. McClements (Ed.), Understanding and controlling the microstructure of
complex foods (pp. 557e574). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.
383
Gonzalez-Tomas, L., Bayarri, S., & Costell, E. (2009). Inulin-enriched dairy desserts:
Physicochemical and sensory aspects. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 4188e4199.
Guggisberg, D., Cuthbert-Steven, J., Piccinah, P., Buetikofer, U., & Eberhard, P. (2009).
Rheological, microstructural and sensory characterization of low-fat and whole
milk set yogurt as influenced by inulin addition. International Dairy Journal, 19,
107e115.
Guo, Q., Ye, A., Lad, M., Dalgleish, & Singh, H. (2014). Behaviour of whey protein
emulsion gel during oral and gastric digestion: Effect of droplet size. Soft Matter,
10, 4173e4183.
Guven, M., Yasar, K., Karaca, O. B., & Hayaloglu, A. A. (2005). The effect of inulin as a
fat replacer on the quality of set-type low-fat yogurt manufacture. International
Journal of Dairy Technology, 58, 180e184.
Heinzerling, C. I., Smit, G., & Dransfield, E. (2008). Modelling oral conditions and
thickness perception of a starch product. International Dairy Journal, 18,
867e873.
Hennelly, P. J., Dunne, P. G., O’Sullivan, M., & O’Riordan, E. D. (2006). Textural,
rheological and microstructural properties of imitation cheese containing
inulin. Journal of Food Engineering, 75, 388e395.
Hoppert, K., Zahn, S., Puschmann, A., Ullmann, I., & Rohm, H. (2012). Quantification
of sensory difference thresholds for fat and sweetness in dairy-based emul-
sions. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 52e57.
Hutchings, J. B., & Lillford, P. J. (1988). The perception of food texture d the phi-
losophy of the breakdown path. Journal of Texture Studies, 19, 103e115.
Ipsen, R. (2017). Microparticulated whey proteins for improving dairy product
texture. International Dairy Journal, 67, 73e79.
Janhoj, T., Frost, M. B., & Ipsen, R. (2008). Sensory and rheological characterization of
acidified milk drinks. Food Hydrocolloids, 22, 798e806.
Janhoj, T., Petersen, C. B., Frost, M. B., & Ipsen, R. (2006). Sensory and rheological
characterization of low-fat stirred yogurt. Journal of Texture Studies, 37,
276e299.
Janssen, A. M., Terpstra, M. E. J., de Wijk, R. A., & Prinz, J. F. (2007). Relations be-
tween rheological properties, saliva-induced structure breakdown and sensory
texture attributes of custards. Journal of Texture Studies, 38, 42e69.
Javidi, F., Razavi, S. M. A., Behrouzian, F., & Alghooneh, A. (2016). The influence of
basil seed gum, guar gum and their blend on the rheological, physical and
sensory properties of low fat ice cream. Food Hydrocolloids, 52, 625e633.
Jervis, S. M., Gerard, P., Drake, S., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M. A. (2014). The
perception of creaminess in sour cream. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29, 248e257.
Jowitt, R. (1974). The terminology of food texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 5,
351e358.
Kanning, M. W., van de Velde, F., Alting, A. C., Mulleners, L., Sein, A., van den Akker-
Bleumink, B., et al. (2012). Improved creaminess in stirred yoghurt through
amylomaltase-treated starch domains. International Dairy Journal, 27, 86e91.
Kilcast, D., & Clegg, S. (2002). Sensory perception of creaminess and its relationship
with food structure. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 609e623.
Kip, P., Meyer, D., & Jellema, R. H. (2006). Inulins improve sensoric and textural
properties of low-fat yoghurts. International Dairy Journal, 16, 1098e1103.
Koca, N., & Metin, M. (2004). Textural, melting and sensory properties of low-fat
fresh kashar cheeses produced by using fat replacers. International Dairy Jour-
nal, 14, 365e373.
Koc, H., Vinyard, C. J., Essick, G. K., & Foegeding, E. A. (2013). Food oral processing:
Conversion of food structure to textural perception. Annual Review of Food
Science and Technology, 4, 237e266.
Kokini, J. (1987). The physical basis of liquid food texture and textureetaste in-
teractions. Journal of Food Engineering, 6, 51e81.
Kokini, J. L., & Cussler, E. L. (1983). Predicting the texture of liquid and melting semi-
solid foods. Journal of Food Science, 48, 1221e1225.
Kokini, J., & van Aken, G. (2006). Discussion session on food emulsions and foams.
Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 438e445.
Krzeminski, A., Tomaschunas, M., Ko € hn, E., Busch-Stockfisch, M., Weiss, J., &
Hinrichs, J. (2013). Relating creamy perception of whey protein enriched
yoghurt systems to instrumental data by means of multivariate data analysis.
Journal of Food Science, 78, S314eS319.
Lee, W. T., & Devereux, M. G. (2011). Foaming in stout beers. American Journal of
Physics, 79, 991e999.
Lett, A. M., Yeomans, M. R., Norton, I. T., & Norton, J. E. (2016). Enhancing expected
food intake behaviour, hedonics and sensory characteristics of oil-in-water
emulsion systems through microstructural properties, oil droplet size and
flavour. Food Quality and Preference, 47, 148e155.
Lillford, P. (2017). Texture and breakdown in the mouth: An industrial research
approach. Journal of Texture Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12279 (in press).
Liu, K., Stieger, M., van der Linden, E., & van de Velde, F. (2016b). Effect of micro-
particulated whey protein on sensory properties of liquid and semi-solid model
foods. Food Hydrocolloids, 60, 186e198.
Liu, K., Tian, Y., Stieger, M., van der Linden, E., & van de Velde, F. (2016a). Evidence
for ball-bearing mechanism of microparticulated whey protein as fat replacer in
liquid and semi-solid multi-component model foods. Food Hydrocolloids, 52,
403e414.
Lu, Y., & Bennick, A. (1998). Interaction of tannin with human salivary proline-rich
proteins. Archives of Oral Biology, 43, 717e728.
Maier, C., Reichert, C. L., & Weiss, J. (2016). Characterization of chemically and
thermally treated oil-in-water heteroaggregates and comparison to conven-
tional emulsions. Journal of Food Science, 81, E2484eE2491.
Malone, M. E., Appelqvist, I. A. M., & Norton, I. T. (2003a). Oral behaviour of food
hydrocolloids and emulsions. 1. Lubrication and deposition considerations. Food
384 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
Hydrocolloids, 17, 763e773.
Malone, M. E., Appelqvist, I. A. M., & Norton, I. T. (2003b). Oral behaviour of food
hydrocolloids and emulsions. 2. Taste and aroma release. Food Hydrocolloids, 17,
775e783.
Mao, Y., & McClements, D. J. (2011). Modulation of bulk physicochemical properties
of emulsions by hetero-aggregation of oppositely charged protein-coated lipid
droplets. Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1201e1209.
Mela, D. J. (1988). Sensory assessment of fat content in fluid dairy products.
Appetite, 10, 37e44.
Meyer, D., Bayarri, S., Tarrega, A., & Costell, E. (2011). Inulin as texture modifier in
dairy products. Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 1881e1890.
Morris, E. R. (1995). Polysaccharide rheology and in-mouth perception. In
A. M. Stephen (Ed.), Food polysaccharides and their applications (pp. 517e546).
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Mosca, A. C., & Chen, J. (2017). Foodesaliva interactions: Mechanisms and impli-
cations. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 66, 125e134.
Mosca, A. C., Rocha, J. A., Sala, G., van de Velde, F., & Stieger, M. (2012). Inhomo-
geneous distribution of fat enhances the perception of fat-related sensory at-
tributes in gelled foods. Food Hydrocolloids, 27, 448e455.
Moschakis, T., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2005). Microstructural evolution of
viscoelastic emulsions stabilized by sodium caseinate and xanthan gum. Journal
of Colloid and Interface Science, 284, 714e728.
Moschakis, T., Murray, B. S., & Dickinson, E. (2006). Particle tracking using confocal
microscopy to probe the microrheology in a phase-separating emulsion con-
taining non-adsorbing polysaccharide. Langmuir, 22, 4710e4719.
Murphy, P. (2000). Starch. In G. O. Phillips, & P. A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of
hydrocolloids (pp. 41e65). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.
Murray, B. S., & Ettelaie, R. (2004). Foam stability: Proteins and nanoparticles.
Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 9, 314e320.
Muschiolik, G. (2007). Multiple emulsions for food use. Current Opinion in Colloid
and Interface Science, 12, 213e220.
Muschiolik, G., & Dickinson, E. (2017). Double emulsions relevant to food systems:
Preparation, stability, and applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science
and Food Safety, 16, 532e555.
Nguyen, P. T. M., Kravchuk, O., Bhandari, B., & Prakash, S. (2017). Effect of different
hydrocolloids on texture, rheology, tribology and sensory perception of texture
and mouthfeel of low-fat pot-set yoghurt. Food Hydrocolloids, 72, 90e104.
Oppermann, A. K. L., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., de Graaf, C., Scholten, E., & Stieger, M.
(2016). Descriptive sensory profiling of double emulsions with gelled and non-
gelled inner water phase. Food Research International, 85, 215e223.
Paseephol, T., Small, D. M., & Sherkat, F. (2008). Rheology and texture of set yogurt
as affected by inulin addition. Journal of Texture Studies, 39, 617e634.
Pavon, Y. L., Lazzaroni, S. M., Sabbag, N. G., & Rozycki, S. D. (2014). Simultaneous
effects of gelatin and espina corona gum on rheological, physical and sensory
properties of cholesterol-reduced probiotic yoghurts. International Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 49, 2245e2251.
Prinz, J. F., & Lucas, P. W. (2000). Saliva tannin interactions. Journal of Oral Reha-
bilitation, 27, 991e994.
Richardson-Harman, N. J., Stevens, R., Walker, S., Gamble, J., Miller, M., Wong, M.,
et al. (2000). Mapping consumer perceptions of creaminess and liking for liquid
dairy products. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 239e246.
Richardson, N. J., & Booth, D. A. (1993). Multiple physical patterns in judgements of
the creamy texture of milks and creams. Acta Psychologica, 84, 93e101.
Richardson, N. J., Booth, D. A., & Stanley, N. L. (1993). Effect of homogenization and
fat content on oral perception of low and high viscosity model creams. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 8, 133e143.
Rolls, E. T. (2011). The neural representation of oral texture including fat texture.
Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 137e156.
Rossetti, D., Yakubov, G. E., Stokes, J. R., Williamson, A. M., & Fuller, G. G. (2008).
Interaction of human whole saliva and astringent dietary compounds investi-
gated by interfacial shear rheology. Food Hydrocolloids, 22, 1068e1078.
Rovers, T. A. M., Sala, G., van der Linden, E., & Meinders, M. B. J. (2016a). Temper-
ature is key to yield and stability of BSA-stabilized microbubbles. Food Hydro-
colloids, 52, 106e115.
Rovers, T. A. M., Sala, G., van der Linden, E., & Meinders, M. B. J. (2016b). Potential of
microbubbles as fat replacer: Effect on rheological, tribological and sensorial
properties. Journal of Texture Studies, 47, 220e230.
Sala, G., de Wijk, R. A., van de Velde, F., & van Aken, G. A. (2008). Matrix properties
affect the sensory perception of emulsion-filled gels. Food Hydrocolloids, 22,
353e363.
Sala, G., van de Velde, F., Cohen Stuart, M. A., & van Aken, G. A. (2007). Oil droplet
release from emulsion-filled gels in relation to sensory perception. Food Hy-
drocolloids, 21, 977e985.
Sarkar, A., Goh, K. K. T., & Singh, H. (2009). Colloidal stability and interactions of
milk protein-stabilized emulsions in an artificial saliva. Food Hydrocolloids, 23,
1270e1278.
Sarkar, A., & Singh, H. (2012). Oral behaviour of food emulsions. In J. Chen, &
L. Engelen (Eds.), Food oral processing (pp. 111e137). Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Sarkar, A., Ye, A., & Singh, H. (2017). Oral processing of emulsion systems from a
colloidal perspective. Food & Function, 8, 511e521.
Schipper, R. G., Silletti, E., & Vingerhoeds, M. H. (2007). Saliva as research material:
Biochemical, physicochemical and practical aspects. Archives of Oral Biology, 52,
1114e1135.
Sharma, F., & Sherman, P. (1973). Identification of stimuli controlling the sensory
evaluation of viscosity. 2. Oral methods. Journal of Texture Studies, 4, 111e118.
Silletti, E., Vingerhoeds, M. H., Norde, W., & van Aken, G. A. (2007a). The role of
electrostatics in saliva-induced emulsion flocculation. Food Hydrocolloids, 21,
596e606.
Silletti, E., Vingerhoeds, M. H., Norde, W., & van Aken, G. A. (2007b). Saliva-induced
emulsion flocculation: Role of droplet charge. In E. Dickinson, & M. E. Leser
(Eds.), Food colloids: Self-assembly and material science (pp. 463e472). Cam-
bridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Silletti, E., Vingerhoeds, M. H., Norde, W., & van Aken, G. A. (2007c). Complex for-
mation in mixtures of lysozyme-stabilized emulsions and human saliva. Journal
of Colloid and Interface Science, 313, 485e493.
Sonne, A., Busch-Stockfisch, M., Weiss, J., & Hinrichs, J. (2014). Improved mapping of
in-mouth creaminess of semi-solid dairy products by combining rheology,
particle size, and tribology data. LWT d Food Science and Technology, 59,
342e347.
Soukoulis, C., & Tzia, C. (2008). Impact of the acidification process, hydrocolloids
and protein fortifiers on the physical and sensory properties of frozen yogurt.
International Journal of Dairy Technology, 61, 170e177.
Spiegel, T., & Huss, M. (2002). Whey protein aggregation under shear conditions d
effects of pH value and removal of calcium. International Journal of Food Science
and Technology, 37, 559e568.
Stanley, N. I., & Taylor, L. J. (1993). Rheological basis of oral characteristics of fluid
and semi-solid foods: A review. Acta Psychologica, 84, 79e92.
Stokes, J. R., Boehm, M. W., & Baier, S. K. (2013). Oral processing, texture and
mouthfeel: From rheology to tribology and beyond. Current Opinion in Colloid
and Interface Science, 18, 349e359.
Tarrega, A., & Costell, E. (2006a). Effect of inulin addition on rheological and sensory
properties of fat-free starch-based dairy desserts. International Dairy Journal, 16,
1104e1112.
Tarrega, A., & Costell, E. (2006b). Effect of composition on the rheological behaviour
and sensory properties of semi-solid dairy dessert. Food Hydrocolloids, 20,
914e922.
Tchuenbou-Magaia, F. L., Al-Rifai, N., Ishak, N. E. M., Norton, I. T., & Cox, P. W. (2011).
Suspensions of air cells with cysteine-rich protein coats: Air-filled emulsions.
Journal of Cellular Plastics, 47, 217e232.
Tchuenbou-Magaia, F. L., & Cox, P. W. (2011). Tribological study of suspensions of
cysteine-rich protein-stabilized microbubbles and subsequent triphasic A/O/W
emulsions. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 185e196.
Tchuenbou-Magaia, F. L., Norton, I. T., & Cox, P. W. (2009). Hydrophobin stabilized
air-filled emulsions for the food industry. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 1877e1885.
Tomaschunas, M., Hinrichs, J., Ko € hn, E., & Busch-Stockfisch, M. (2012). Effects of
casein-to-whey protein ratio, fat and protein content on sensory properties of
stirred yoghurt. International Dairy Journal, 26, 31e35.
Tomaschunas, M., Ko €hn, E., Bennwitz, P., Hinrichs, J., & Busch-Stockfisch, M. (2013).
Quantitative and qualitative variation of fat in model vanilla custard desserts:
Effects on sensory properties and consumer acceptance. Journal of Food Science,
78, S894eS901.
Torres, I. C., Janhoj, T., Mikkelsen, B. O., & Ipsen, R. (2011). Effect of microparticulated
whey protein with varying content of denatured protein on the rheological and
sensory characteristics of low-fat yoghurt. International Dairy Journal, 21,
645e655.
Tournier, C., Martin, C., Guichard, E., Issanchou, S., & Sulmont-Rosse , C. (2007).
Contribution to the understanding of consumers’ creaminess concept: A sen-
sory and a verbal approach. International Dairy Journal, 17, 555e564.
Tucker, I. M., Petkov, J. T., Penfold, J., Thomas, R. K., Cox, A. R., & Hedges, N. (2015).
Adsorption of hydrophobineprotein mixtures at the airewater interface: The
impact of pH and electrolyte. Langmuir, 31, 10008e10016.
Varela, P., Pintor, A., & Fiszman, S. (2014). How hydrocolloids affect the temporal
oral perception of ice cream. Food Hydrocolloids, 36, 220e228.
Vingerhoeds, M. H., Blijdenstein, T. B. J., Zoet, F. D., & van Aken, G. A. (2005).
Emulsion flocculation induced by saliva and mucin. Food Hydrocolloids, 19,
915e922.
Vingerhoeds, M. H., de Wijk, R. A., Zoet, F. D., Nixdorf, R. R., & van Aken, G. A. (2008).
How emulsion composition and structure affect sensory perception of low-
viscosity model emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids, 22, 631e646.
Vingerhoeds, M. H., Silletti, E., de Groot, J., Schipper, R. G., & van Aken, G. A. (2009).
Relating the effect of saliva-induced emulsion flocculation on rheological
properties and retention on the tongue surface with sensory perception. Food
Hydrocolloids, 23, 773e785.
van Vliet, T. (2002). On the relation between texture perception and fundamental
mechanical parameters for liquids and time dependent solids. Food Quality and
Preference, 13, 227e236.
Waigh, T. A., Papagiannopoulos, A., Voice, A., Bansil, R., Unwin, A. P., Dewhurst, C. D.,
et al. (2002). Entanglement coupling in porcine stomach mucin. Langmuir, 18,
7188e7195.
Walstra, P., Wouters, J. T. M., & Geurts, T. J. (2006). Dairy science and technology (2nd
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Wang, X., & Chen, J. (2017). Food oral processing: Recent developments and chal-
lenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 28, 22e30.
Weenen, H., Jellema, R. H., & de Wijk, R. A. (2005). Sensory sub-attributes of creamy
mouthfeel in commercial mayonnaises, custard desserts and sauces. Food
Quality and Preference, 16, 163e170.
Weenen, H., van Gemert, L. J., van Doorn, J. M., Dijksterhuis, G. B., & de Wijk, R. A.
(2003). Texture and mouthfeel of semi-solid foods: Commercial mayonnaises,
dressings, custard desserts and warm sauces. Journal of Texture Studies, 34,
 E. Dickinson / Food Hydrocolloids 77 (2018) 372e385
159e179.
de Wijk, R. A., & Prinz, J. F. (2006). Mechanisms underlying the role of friction in oral
texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 37, 413e427.
de Wijk, R. A., & Prinz, J. F. (2007). Fatty versus creamy sensations for custard
desserts, white sauces, and mayonnaises. Food Quality and Preference, 18,
641e650.
de Wijk, R. A., Prinz, J. F., Engelen, L., & Weenen, H. (2004). The role of a-amylase in
the perception of oral texture and flavour in custards. Physiology & Behavior, 83,
81e91.
de Wijk, R. A., Prinz, J. F., & Janssen, A. M. (2006). Explaining perceived oral texture
of starch-based custard desserts from standard and novel instrumental tests.
Food Hydrocolloids, 20, 24e34.
385
de Wijk, R. A., Terpstra, M. E. J., Janssen, A. M., & Prinz, J. F. (2006). Perceived
creaminess of semi-solid foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 17,
412e422.
de Wijk, R. A., van Gemert, L. J., Terpstra, M. E. J., & Wilkinson, C. L. (2003). Texture of
semi-solids; sensory and instrumental measurements on vanilla custard des-
serts. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 305e317.
Wildmoser, H., Scheiwiller, J., & Windhab, E. J. (2004). Impact of disperse micro-
structure on rheology and quality aspects of ice cream. LWT d Food Science and
Technology, 37, 881e891.
Wood, F. W. (1968). Psychophysical studies on the consistency of liquid foods. In
Rheology and texture of foodstuffs, SCI Monograph No. 27 (pp. 40e49). London:
Society of Chemical Industry.