Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme
Abstract
:1. Introduction and Background
2. Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vignali, G.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E.; Montanari, R. Successful new product development in the food packaging industry: Evidence from a case study. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2011, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balkin, D.B.; Markman, G.D.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Is Ceo Pay in High-Technology Firms Related to Innovation? Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyon, D.; Ferrier, W. Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: The influence of the top management team. J. Manag. Issues 2002, 14, 452–469. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604404 (accessed on 19 December 2020).
- Jimenez, J.; Valle, R.S.; Espallardo, M.H. Fostering innovation. The role of market orientation and organizational learning, Europ. J. Innov. Manag. 2008, 11, 389–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azanedo, L.; Garcia-Garcia, G.; Stone, J.; Rahimifard, S. An Overview of Current Challenges in New Food Product Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fuller, G.W. New Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace, 3rd ed.; CRC Press, Broken Sound Parkway NW: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, J.; Bernard, A. An overview of knowledge sharing in new product development. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 94, 1545–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Sullivan, M.G. Innovative tech-nologies for the food and beverage industry. In A handbook for Sensory and Consumer-Driven New Product Development; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Okoye, I.N.H. How Do You Explain A New Product Category? Product Knowledge Explains It! Europ. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 7, 18. Available online: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/23195 (accessed on 19 December 2020).
- Świąder, K.; Florowska, A.; Konisiewicz, Z.; Chen, Y.-P. Functional Tea-Infused Set Yoghurt Development by Evaluation of Sensory Quality and Textural Properties. Foods 2020, 9, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santeramo, F.; Carlucci, D.; De Devitiis, B.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kraus, A. Development of functional food with the participation of the consumer. Motivators for consumption of functional products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, R.G. Perspective: The Stage-Gate®Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2008, 25, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagchi, D.; Nair, S. Developing New Functional Food and Nutraceutical Products, 1st ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- O’Sullivan, M.G.; Kerry, J.P.; Byrne, D.V. Use of sensory science as a practical commercial tool in the develop-ment of consumer-led processed meat products. In Processed Meats; Kerry, J.P., Kerry, J.F., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Southston, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, A.G.; Cadena, R.S.; Walter, E.H.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Granato, D.; Faria, J.A.; Bolini, H.M. Sensory Analysis: Relevance for Prebiotic, Probiotic, and Synbiotic Product Development. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 358–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meilgaard, M.; Civille, G.V.; Carr, B.T. Sensory Evaluation, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tuorila, H.; Monteleone, E. Sensory food science in the changing society: Opportunities, needs, and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 20, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Application of sensory evaluation of food to quality control in the Spanish food industry. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2007, 57, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
- Raithatha, C. The role of sensory perception and sensory evaluation in the development of reduced sodium foods. Agro Food Ind. Hi Tech 2014, 25, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Romagny, S.; Ginon, E.; Salles, C. Impact of reducing fat, salt and sugar in commercial foods on consumer acceptability and willingness to pay in real tasting conditions: A home experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stone, H.; Sidel, J. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Lee, J. Application of Sensory Descriptive Analysis and Consumer Studies to Investigate Traditional and Authentic Foods: A Review. Foods 2019, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Choi, S.E. Chapter 3: Sensory Evaluation. In Food Science: An Ecological Approach, 2nd ed.; Jones and Bartlett Publisher: Sudbury, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Caugant, M. Sensory Evaluation, Guide of Good Practice; Actia: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Lawless, H.T.; Heymann, H. Sensory Evaluation of Food, Food Science Text Series; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Resurrection, A.V.A. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development; An Aspen Publication: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Moskowitz, H.R.; Chandler, J. Notes on consumer oriented sensory evaluation. J. Food Qual. 1979, 2, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosqueda-Melgar, J.; Raybaudi-Massilia, R.M.; Martín-Belloso, O. Microbiological shelf life and sensory evaluation of fruit juices treated by high-intensity pulsed electric fields and antimicrobials. Food Bioprod. Process. 2012, 90, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walkling-Ribeiro, M.; Noci, F.; Cronin, D.A.; Lyng, J.G.; Morgan, D.J. Shelf life and sensory attributes of a fruit smoothie-type beverage processed with moderate heat and pulsed electric fields. LWT 2010, 43, 1067–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnarson, A.; Olafsdottir, A.; Ramel, A.; Martinsdottir, E.; Reykdal, O.; Thorsdottir, I.; Thorkelsson, G. Sensory analysis and consumer surveys of fat- and salt-reduced meat products and their use in an energy-reduced diet in overweight individuals. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 62, 872–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliveira, D.; Antúnez, L.; Giménez, A.; Castura, J.C.; Deliza, R.; Ares, G. Sugar reduction in probiotic chocolate-flavored milk: Impact on dynamic sensory profile and liking. Food Res. Int. 2015, 75, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mahato, D.K.; Keast, R.; Liem, D.G.; Russell, C.G.; Cicerale, S.; Gamlath, S. Sugar Reduction in Dairy Food: An Overview with Flavoured Milk as an Example. Foods 2020, 9, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hough, G.; Sánchez, R.; Barbieri, T.; Martínez, E. Sensory optimization of a powdered chocolate milk formula. Food Qual. Prefer. 1997, 8, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badwaik, L.S.; Prasad, K.; Seth, D. Optimization of ingredient levels for the development of peanut based fiber rich pasta. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 2713–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Krishna, A.; Cian, L.; Sokolova, T. The power of sensory marketing in advertising. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beriain, M.J.; Sanchez, M.; Carr, T.R. A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance, purchase intention, and willingness to pay for high quality United States and Spanish beef under different information scenarios. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 3392–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilcast, D. 4 - Sensory evaluation methods for shelf-life assessment. In The Stability and Shelf-Life of Food; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science; Technology and Nutrition: Sawston, UK; Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hough, G.; Garitta, L. Methodology for sensory shelf-life estimation: A review. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giménez, A.; Ares, F.; Ares, G. Sensory shelf-life estimation: A review of current methodological approaches. Food Res. Int. 2012, 49, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, O.H.; Lee, H.S.; Sung, Y.E.; Lee, S.M.; Kim, K.O. Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of various green teas. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 17, 349–356. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.; Chambers, D.H. Descriptive Analysis and U.S. Consumer Acceptability of 6 Green Tea Samples from China, Japan, and Korea. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, S141–S147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Imamura, M. Descriptive terminology for the sensory evaluation of soy sauce. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heo, J.; Lee, J. US consumers’ acceptability of soy sauce and bulgogi. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 26, 1271–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J.-H.; Lee, S.-J.; Choi, J.-J.; Chung, C.-H. Chemical and sensory profiles of dongchimi (Korean watery radish kimchi) liquids based on descriptive and chemical analyses. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, S.; Kim, M.; Lim, J.; Hong, J. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Consumer Acceptability of Kimchi with Different Degree of Fermentation. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamizake, N.K.K.; Silva, L.C.P.; Prudencio, S.H. Impact of soybean aging conditions on tofu sensory characteristics and acceptance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 1132–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.-N.; Muttakin, S.; Jung, Y.-M.; Heo, T.-Y.; Lee, D.-U. Tailoring Physical and Sensory Properties of Tofu by the Addition of Jet-Milled, Superfine, Defatted Soybean Flour. Foods 2019, 8, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Farsi, M.; Alasalvar, C.; Morris, A.; Baron, A.M.; Shahidi, F. Compositional and Sensory Characteristics of Three Native Sun-Dried Date (Phoenix dactyliferaL.) Varieties Grown in Oman. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 7586–7591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ismail, B.; Haffar, I.; Baalbaki, R.; Henry, J. Development of a total quality scoring system based on consumer preference weightings and sensory profiles: Application to fruit dates (Tamr). Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grasso, N.; Alonso-Miravalles, L.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition, Physicochemical and Sensorial Properties of Commercial Plant-Based Yogurts. Foods 2020, 9, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EIT RIS Report. 2019. Available online: https://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eit_ris_report_2019.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2020).
- EIT Scorebord. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en (accessed on 19 December 2020).
- Lavrakas, P. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; SAGE Publications Pvt Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; Vols. 1–0. [Google Scholar]
- Dijksterhuis, G. New product failure: Five potential sources discussed. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 733–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Test | Question | |
---|---|---|
ANALYTICAL TEST | Discrimination test: Triangle Duo-trio Two out of five | Which sample is different? Which sample is different from the reference sample? Which 3 samples are the same type? |
Grading test: Paired-comparison test Ranking test Scoring test | Which sample is most (sweet, bitter, etc.)? List the samples in increasing order of intensity for a selected attribute (sweet, bitter, etc.)? How (sweet, bitter, etc.) the sample is? | |
Descriptive test: Quantitative Descriptive Analysis® Flavor Profile® Texture Profile® SpectrumTM Descriptive Analysis Free-Choice Profiling | Are the products different and how do they differ? | |
AFFECTIVE TEST | Paired comparison test | Which do you prefer? Which do you like most? |
Ranking test | Rank this product by preference? | |
Hedonic scoring test | Asses the degree of pleasure/liking given by products on the scale? |
Stages of New Product Development | Applied Sensory Evaluation Methods | |
---|---|---|
Affective Test | Analytical Test | |
Ideation | Focus Groups, Free Elicitation, IA *, Kelly Repertory Grid, Laddering, Lead User Technique, ZMET * | - |
Project Pre-Planning | ||
Validation of Proof of Concept | ||
Process optimization and up-scaling | Sensory Acceptance Testing | Descriptive test: QDA®* |
Rapid test: RDA * | ||
Commercialization | Sensory Acceptance Testing | - |
Pre- and Post-Approval and shelf-life testing | Consumer Testing (n > 100) | - |
Characteristic | n * | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 73 | 59.8% |
Female | 49 | 40.2% | |
Age group | 18–24 | 20 | 16.4% |
25–34 | 77 | 63.1% | |
35–44 | 22 | 18.0% | |
45–54 | 2 | 1.6% | |
55 or more | 1 | 0.8% | |
Professional experience in food sector | less than 1 year | 36 | 29.5% |
between 1 and 2 years | 27 | 22.1% | |
between 2 and 5 years | 31 | 25.4% | |
between 5 and 10 years | 16 | 13.1% | |
more than 10 years | 12 | 9.8% | |
Area of expertise | Food science/chemistry/technology | 23 | 18.9% |
Food safety/quality | 16 | 13.1% | |
Product development in the food sector | 15 | 12.3% | |
Food production/manufacturing/processing | 13 | 10.7% | |
Entrepreneurship/business startup/development/ acceleration in agri-food or life sciences | 11 | 9.0% | |
Marketing/consumer behavior/market research, preferably in the food sector | 10 | 8.2% | |
Nutrition/food related health | 8 | 6.6% | |
Other | 7 | 5.7% | |
Agriculture/agricultural technologies | 6 | 4.9% | |
Consumer testing/sensory science | 4 | 3.3% | |
Food-health nexus | 3 | 2.5% | |
Food waste/side stream valuation | 2 | 1.6% | |
New business models | 2 | 1.6% | |
Bioeconomy/resource stewardship/sustainability | 1 | 0.8% | |
** STEM/STEAM/science education | 1 | 0.8% |
Characteristic | n * | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of employees in organization | 1–10 | 48 | 39.3% |
11–50 | 23 | 18.9% | |
51–100 | 12 | 9.8% | |
101–1000 | 21 | 17.2% | |
1001–5000 | 6 | 4.9% | |
Above 5000 | 12 | 9.8% | |
Country ** | ES | 19 | 15.6% |
IT | 17 | 13.9% | |
GR | 14 | 11.5% | |
PL | 14 | 11.5% | |
HU | 8 | 6.6% | |
TR | 7 | 5.7% | |
PT | 6 | 4.9% | |
BG | 4 | 3.3% | |
HR | 4 | 3.3% | |
CZ | 3 | 2.5% | |
EE | 3 | 2.5% | |
LT | 3 | 2.5% | |
ME | 3 | 2.5% | |
RO | 3 | 2.5% | |
RS | 3 | 2.5% | |
AL | 2 | 1.6% | |
SI | 2 | 1.6% | |
LV | 2 | 1.6% | |
SK | 2 | 1.6% | |
UA | 2 | 1.6% | |
GE | 1 | 0.8% |
General Questions | |
---|---|
Question | Answer |
Country | (open ended question) |
Gender | Male Female |
Age group | 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 or more |
Please indicate your area of expertise | Agriculture/agricultural technologies; Bioeconomy/resource stewardship/sustainability; Consumer testing/sensory science; Entrepreneurship/business start-up/development/acceleration in agri-food or life sciences; Education/andragogy, in particular in entrepreneurship or food systems; Food-health nexus; Food production/manufacturing/processing; Food science/chemistry/technology; Food safety/quality; Food systems/food value chains; Food waste/side stream valuation; Marketing/consumer behavior/market research, preferably in the food sector; New business models; Nutrition/food related health; Product development in the food sector; Science communication/public engagement of science/citizen science; * STEM/STEAM/science education; Trust/transparency; Other |
How long is your professional experience in the food sector? | less than 1 year; between 1 and 2 years; between 2 and 5 years; between 5 and 10 years; more than 10 years |
How many employees are there in your entire organization? | 1–10 11–50 51–100 101–1000 1001-5000 Above 5000 |
Which role best describes your current position in the company? | C-Level Executive (*CEO, CTO, etc.) Development Leadership: VP/Director Development Direct Manager: Team leader/Group Leader Development Team Member: Architect/Developer/*QA Project/Program Manager System Engineer Product Manager/Product Owner DevOps Engineer External Consultant/Trainer Food technologist Sensory and Consumer Manager Other (please specify below) |
Industry specific questions | |
Question | Answer |
According to the best of your knowledge, what is the average length of NPD project in your organization? Please take into account the time from ideation to commercialization. | Less than 1 year 1–2 years 2–4 years More than 4 years |
Which stages of food design are the most important in the company you work for? Please select all that apply. | a. Creating a new product, idea b. Developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties c. Packaging, its appearance, functionality, impact on product durability and the environment d. Labeling in accordance with legal requirements e. Ensuring the safety of produced food f. Sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers g. Product distribution h. Product marketing and advertising i. Obtaining funds/grants j. Other (please specify) |
Does the company you work for apply a sensory evaluation test in the product development? | Yes/No |
What kind of sensory methods are used by the company you work for in the process of food product design? Please select all that apply. | a. Discrimination test b. Descriptive analysis c. Consumer test d. Other (please specify) e. I don’t know what specific methods were used |
Does the company you work for perform consumer tests to verify consumer preferences/acceptances for the developed product? | Yes/No |
What is the average number of consumer test participants that the company you work for performs? | a. ≤30 consumers b. 31–50 consumers c. 51–99 consumers d. ≥100 consumers |
Does the company you work for use expert tests performed by a panel of trained experts to determine the quality of products? | Yes/No |
If company you work for does not use expert tests performed by a panel of trained experts to determine the quality of products, please indicate why not. Please select all that apply. | a. The company does not employ such experts b. Such research is too expensive c. Such research is not necessary when designing products d. The sensory quality of products is assessed by company owners, management board or employees and friends e. The company has no knowledge or experience in this field f. Other (please specify) |
Average Length of NPD Project | n * | % |
---|---|---|
Less than 1 year | 42 | 34.4% |
1–2 years | 51 | 41.8% |
2–4 years | 22 | 18.0% |
More than 4 years | 7 | 5.7% |
% of Companies Indicating Selected Stage as the Most Important NPD Stage | Application of Sensory Evaluation in NPD | Use of Consumer Tests | Use of Expert Tests | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties | 32.0% | 74.4% | 66.7% | 46.2% |
Creating a new product, idea | 24.6% | 66.7% | 70.0% | 40.0% |
Ensuring the safety of produced food | 13.9% | 70.6% | 52.9% | 41.2% |
Sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers | 9.0% | 81.8% | 72.7% | 63.6% |
Packaging, its appearance, functionality, impact on product durability and the environment | 5.7% | 71.4% | 57.1% | 42.9% |
Product marketing and advertising | 5.7% | 57.1% | 57.1% | 42.9% |
Obtaining funds/grants | 2.5% | 33.3% | 66.7% | 0.0% |
Product distribution | 2.5% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
Labeling in accordance with legal requirements | 0.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Other | 3.3% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% |
Application of Sensory Evaluation in NPD | Use of Consumer Assessment Tests to Verify Consumer Preferences for the Developed Product | Use of Expert Tests Performed by a Panel of Trained Experts to Determine the Quality of Products | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Company size (number of employees in organization) | % | % | % | |||
1–10 | Yes | 52.08% | Yes | 54.17% | Yes | 33.3% |
No | 47.92% | No | 45.83% | No | 66.7% | |
11–50 | Yes | 47.83% | Yes | 39.13% | Yes | 30.4% |
No | 52.17% | No | 60.87% | No | 69.6% | |
51–100 | Yes | 83.33% | Yes | 66.67% | Yes | 58.3% |
No | 16.67% | No | 33.33% | No | 33.3% | |
- | - | - | - | N/A | 8.3% | |
101–1000 | Yes | 95.24% | Yes | 80.95% | Yes | 57.1% |
No | 4.76% | No | 19.05% | No | 42.9% | |
1001–5000 | Yes | 100.00% | Yes | 100.00% | Yes | 50.0% |
No | 0.00% | No | 0.00% | No | 50.0% | |
Above 5000 | Yes | 83.33% | Yes | 91.67% | Yes | 58.3% |
No | 16.67% | No | 8.33% | No | 41.7% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Świąder, K.; Marczewska, M. Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme. Foods 2021, 10, 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020446
Świąder K, Marczewska M. Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme. Foods. 2021; 10(2):446. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020446
Chicago/Turabian StyleŚwiąder, Katarzyna, and Magdalena Marczewska. 2021. "Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme" Foods 10, no. 2: 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020446
APA StyleŚwiąder, K., & Marczewska, M. (2021). Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development in the Food Industry in Countries That Belong to the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme. Foods, 10(2), 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020446