TITLE OF THE INVENTION

SHELF LIFE OF FOOD FLAVORS AND ESSENTIAL OIL MIXES BY USING HIGH OLEIC SUNFLOWER OIL AS THE CARRIER OIL

PRIORITY CLAIM

This application claims the benefit of the filing date of United States

Provisional Patent Application Serial Number 61/725,792, filed November 13, 2012, for "IMPROVING THE SHELF LIFE OF FOOD FLAVORS AND ESSENTIAL OIL MIXES BY USING HIGH OLEIC OIL AS THE CARRIER OIL."

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present disclosure relates to carrier oils for additives. More particularly, embodiments of the invention relate to compositions and methods comprising a high oleic sunflower oil and a fat soluble food additive.

BACKGROUND

In the food ingredients industry there are many food additives that are sold as diluted mixes. These chemicals in pure form are extremely potent and may pose safety, handling, and operational hazards. As such, these chemicals need to be used at lower concentrations. Typically, such chemicals are sold at certain standard concentrations, diluted, for example, in different vegetable oils known as carrier oils. For example, beta carotene food color is sold at 10 or 22% solutions in corn, sunflower, or partially hydrogenated soybean oil. These diluted mixtures allow for better consistency of the ratio of pure beta carotene in food products such as margarines, spreads, etc. Color compounds may include beta carotene, annatto, turmeric or the like.

The foregoing is true for fat soluble food flavors and essential oils in the food industry. Examples of food flavors include butter flavors for spreads, fruit or vegetable flavors for juices or other drinks, or beef or chicken flavors for broths, etc. Essential oils are the concentrated juices or "essence" of different fruits or vegetables, such as jojoba, guava, hazelnut, avocado, pomegranate, etc., for use in foods, cosmetics, or aroma therapy. DISCLOSURE

In embodiments is described a composition comprising a high oleic sunflower oil and a fat soluble additive.

In further embodiments is described a method for reducing an overall flavor intensity of a composition comprising a carrier oil and an additive, the method comprising: mixing a high oleic sunflower oil with the additive, thereby producing a composition comprising a carrier oil and an additive

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 is a radar plot for 17 significant different attributes (p < 0.05) for six different cooking oils. Diamonds represent high oleic sunflower oil; squares denote soybean oil; triangles denote OMEGA-9® canola oil; x's denote corn oil; stars denote canola oil; and circles denote olive oil. OA = overall aroma; OT = overall taste; FD = fermented dough; and PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

FIG. 2 is a biplot of a principal component analysis of 17 significant sensory attributes from descriptive analysis of 6 cooking oils; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil. OA = overall aroma. OT = overall taste. FD = fermented dough. PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

FIG. 3 is a radar plot for 13 significant different attributes (p < 0.05) for five different cooking oils. Diamonds represent high oleic sunflower oil; squares denote soybean oil; triangles denote OMEGA-9® canola oil; x's denote corn oil; and stars denote canola oil. OA = overall aroma; OT = overall taste; FD = fermented dough; and PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

FIG. 4 is a biplot of a principal component analysis of 13 significant sensory attributes from descriptive analysis of five cooking oils; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) and canola oil. OA = overall aroma. OT = overall taste. FD = fermented dough. PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste,

aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

FIG. 5 is a radar plot for 13 significant different attributes (p < 0.05) for six green bean stir fry samples. Diamonds represent high oleic sunflower oil; squares denote soybean oil; triangles denote OMEGA-9® canola oil; x's denote corn oil; stars denote canola oil; and circles denote olive oil. OA = overall aroma; OT = overall taste; FD = fermented dough; and PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

FIG. 6 is a biplot of a principal component analysis of 13 significant sensory attributes from descriptive analysis of six green bean stir fry samples; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil. OA = overall aroma. OT = overall taste. FD = fermented dough. PG = paste/glue. Capital letters after the attributes - A, T, ABM, and AT - refer to aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, and aftertaste, respectively.

MODE(S) FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION The criteria for the best carrier oils are good oxidative stability, minimal flavor, no negative impact on the finished label, and does not impart any significant nutritive value such as significant amounts of saturated or trans fats.

The present disclosure relates to the utilization of the oxidative stability of high oleic sunflower oil to increase the shelf life of additives, including food grade additives, and essential oils. As demonstrated herein, high oleic sunflower oil is the most stable and bland liquid oil and may increase the shelf life of diluted mixtures of additives. Table 1 demonstrates the empirical data regarding oxidative stability and fatty acid profile.

In certain embodiments, a composition comprises high oleic sunflower oil and an additive. As used herein, high oleic sunflower oil refers to sunflower oil having low saturated fat content and high oleic acid (18:1). Examples of such high oleic oils include sunflower oils with greater than 80%, greater than 81 %, greater than 82%, greater than 83%, greater than 84%, greater than 85%, greater than 86%, greater than 87%, greater than 88%, greater than 89%, greater than 90%, greater than 91 %, greater than 92%, greater than 93%, greater than 94%, greater than 95%, greater than 96%, greater than 97%, greater than 98%, or greater than 99% oleic acid. OMEGA- 9® sunflower oil is also a high oleic sunflower oil. In embodiments, the high oleic sunflower oil or a composition comprising the high oleic sunflower oil and an additive has an increased oxidative stability index that is 1.15 to 2.875 fold greater, or at least 1.15, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, or

2.875 fold greater than the oxidative stability of a standard carrier oil. Standard carrier oils include sweet almond oil, soybean oil, grape seed oil, avocado oil, olive oil, sesame oil, evening primrose oil, canola oil, OMEGA-9® canola oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil, low linolenic soybean oil, jojoba oil, emu oil, castor oil, walnut oil, peanut oil, pecan oil, macadamia oil, coconut oil, and fractionated coconut oil.

In embodiments, the high oleic sunflower oil or a composition comprising the high oleic sunflower oil and an additive has an increased shelf life compared to a standard carrier oil. In embodiments, the high oleic sunflower oil comprises 2.67 to 5.33 fold lower, or at least 2.67, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 4.1 , 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, or 5.33 fold lower saturated fat content than a standard carrier oil. In embodiments, the high oleic sunflower oil or a composition comprising the high oleic sunflower oil and an additive comprises an iodine value that is 0.66 to 0.89 fold lower, or at least 0.66, 0.68, 0.7, 0.72, 0.74, 0.76, 0.78, 0.8, 0.82, 0.84, 0.86, 0.88, or 0.89 fold lower than the iodine value of a standard carrier oil.

In embodiments, the high oleic sunflower oil or a composition comprising the high oleic sunflower oil and an additive has a polymerization endpoint value that is 1.125 to 2.118 fold greater, or at least 1.125, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1 , or 2.118 fold greater than the polymerization endpoint value of a standard carrier oil.

In embodiments the high oleic sunflower oil or a composition comprising the high oleic sunflower oil and an additive has a reduced overall flavor intensity. In embodiments the overall flavor intensity is the overall taste intensity and/or overall aroma intensity. In embodiments the reduced overall aroma intensity comprises a mean aroma attribute rating that is 1.33 to 3.6 fold less, or at least 1.33, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, or 3.6 fold less than the mean aroma attribute rating of a standard carrier oil. In embodiments the aroma attributes may be one or more of the aroma attributes selected from the group consisting of popcorn, buttery, fermented dough, rancid, paste/glue, grassy, nutty, corn, potato, and pungent. In embodiments, the reference products for the one or more aroma attributes may be those set forth in Table 2 and/or Table 7.

In embodiments the reduced overall taste intensity comprises a mean taste attribute rating that is 1.1 1 to 2.63 fold less, or at least 1.1 1 , 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, or 2.63 fold less than the mean taste attribute rating of a standard carrier oil. In embodiments the taste attributes may be one or more of the taste attributes selected from the group consisting of bitter, umami, salty, cucumber, and lard. In embodiments, the reference products for the one or more taste attributes may be those set forth in Table 2 and/or Table 7.

In embodiments, the additive can be anything added to the high oleic sunflower oil. Examples of additives include, but are not limited to, essential oils, food flavoring, stabilizer, thickening agent, emulsifier, antioxidant, antimicrobial, structuring agent, color compound, nutrient supplement, vitamin, beta carotene, vitamin E, vitamin B, vitamin D, conjugated linolenic acid, vitamin K, and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

In embodiments, the additive may be present in the composition at about 0.1% to 22% or at least 0.1 %, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 1 1%, 12%, 13%, 14%, 15%, 16%, 17%, 18%, 19%, 20%, 21 %, or 22% by weight of the high oleic sunflower oil. In embodiments, the additive may be present at about 0.1 % to about 22% or at least 0.1 %, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.5%, 1 %, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 1 1 %, 12%, 13%, 14%, 15%, 16%, 17%, 18%, 19%, 20%, 21 %, or 22% by volume of the high oleic sunflower oil.

As used herein, an essential oil refers to the hydrophobic liquid contents of an item. Examples of essential oils include, but are not limited to, Amber, Ambrette Seed, Amyris, Aura Cacia, Avacado, Basil, Bay Laurel, Bergamot, Birch, Black Pepper, Black Spruce, Blue Tansy, Butter, Cajeput, Cacao, Carrot Seed, Cedar, Chamomile, Cinnamon, Cistus, Citronella, Clary Sage, Clove, Coriander Seed, Cornmint, Copaiba Balsam, Cypress, Davana, Elemi, Eucalyptus, Fir Needle, Frankincense, Geranium, Ginger, Grapefruit, Guava, Hazelnut, Helichrysum, Hyssop, Inula, Jasmine, Jojoba Lavender, Lemon, Lemon Myrtle, Leam Tea Tree, Lemon Verbena, Lemongrass, Lime, Lovage, Marjoram, Mandarin, May Chang, Melissa, Myrrh, Myrtle, Musk, Niaouli, Nutmet, Orange, Oregano, Palmarosa, Palo Santo, Patchouli, Peppemiint, Peru Balsam, Petitgrain, Pine Needle, Plai, Pomegranate, Ravensara, Ravintsara, Rosalina, Rose Absolute, Rose Otto, Rosehip, Rosemary, Verbenone, Rosewood, Sage, Sandalwood, Sea Buckthorn, Spearmint, Spike Lavendar, Spikenard, Spruce, Tagetes, Tangerine, Tea Tree, Thyme, Tuberose, Walnut, Valerian Root, Vanilla, Vetiver, Wintergreen, Yarrow, and Ylang Ylang,

Examples of food flavoring include, but are not limited to, butter flavor, fruit flavor, vegetable flavor, beef flavor, chicken flavor, barbeque flavor, char-grilled flavor, and wood burned flavor.

Examples of vitamins include, but are not limited to, vitamins A, D, E and K.

Further examples of additives include, but are not limited to, antioxidants, stabilizers, sequestrants, emulsifiers, surfactants, catalase, butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxyltoluene, brominated vegetable oil, chymosin, ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, epoxidized soybean oil, alpha-Hydro-omega-hydroxy-poly

(oxyethylene)poly(oxypropylene), monoglycerides of fatty acids, stearyl

monoglyderidyl citrate, sucrose oligoesters, dilauryl thiodipropionate, tertiary butylhydroquinone, monoisopropyl citrate, monosodium phosphate, arabinogalactan, salts of fatty acids, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, ethoylated mono- and diglycerides, glyceryl-lacto esters of fatty acids, lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol, lactylic esters of fatty acids, lecithin, hydroxylated lecithin, mono- & diglycerides of edible fats or oils, or edible fat forming acids, monosodium phosphate derivatives of mono- & diglycerides of edible fats or oils or edible fat-forming fatty acids, polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, fully hydrogenated superglycerinated rapeseed oil, sodium sulfo-acetate derivatives (mono- & diglycerides), succinylated

monoglycerides, succistearin, sucrose acetate isobutyrate, sucrose fatty acid esters, and sucrose oligoesters.

Examples of antioxidants include, but are not limited to, rosemary and oregano.

Examples of color additives include, but are not limited to, beta carotene, oil soluble annatto, and oil soluble turmeric.

Embodiments include methods of making any of the foregoing compositions.

In embodiments, a method may comprise mixing a high oleic sunflower oil with an additive, thereby producing a composition comprising a carrier oil and an additive. As used herein, "comprising," "having," "including," "containing,"

"characterized by," and grammatical equivalents thereof are inclusive or open-ended tenns that do not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps, but also includes the more restrictive terms "consisting of and "consisting essentially of." The present invention is further described in the following examples, which are offered by way of illustration and are not intended to limit the invention in any manner.

EXAMPLE 1

Flavor intensities of high oleic sunflower oil in comparison with other carrier oils.

Materials and Methods

Participants: 10 subjects were recruited by e-mail (distributed through the

College of ACES distribution lists) and flyers, and consisted of UIUC students and staff. Panelists were 18 years of age or older. Panelists were screened based on allergies and interest in the study.

Procedure: Panelists attended 24 sessions totaling 20 hours of testing. Upon completion of the study, panelists were compensated.

Cooking oil descriptive analysis sample preparation and daily panel activities:

15 ml of oil per sample was used for each of the 10 panelists for 13 sessions. 150 ml of oil was heated for 20 seconds in a microwave (Sharp Carousel Model R-308JW

1 lOOWatt), netting a temperature of 1 10°F. The oil samples were served in 59 ml plastic cups with lids for evaluation.

Day 1 : Introductory Session: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panel leader introduced himself, and panelists introduced themselves. Panelists were introduced to basic sensory science practices and DA methodology. Panelists were introduced to modalities (aroma, aroma-by-mouth, taste, texture, and aftertaste), from which attributes would be generated for the modalities. Panelists were provided with a piece of Starburst candy, and were asked to generate attributes to the modalities for practice purposes. One oil sample was presented to begin the practice of generating attributes for the oil samples for aroma. Panelists read and signed an informed consent form, and completed a form regarding panelists' personal contact information. Day 2: Oil Sample Attribute Generation: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were reintroduced to modalities (aroma, aroma-by-mouth, taste, texture, and aftertaste), and provided with an attribute generation fonn. Panelists were given 5 minutes to generate attributes for one oil sample, and discussed as a group the attributes that were generated for all modalities. Definitions for the attributes were discussed, and references for the attributes were suggested. Rinse protocol (bread, carbonated water, room temperature water) was also agreed upon. Two additional oil samples were distributed, and panelists were given 20 minutes to generate attributes for the samples. Term generation forms for attributes by the panelists were compiled for review and compared with a list of terms from previous oil studies.

Day 3: Continuation of Oil Sample Attribute Generation: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were reintroduced to modalities (aroma, aroma-by-mouth, taste, texture, and aftertaste), and provided with an attribute generation form. Panelists were given 20 minutes to general attributes for three oil samples. Definitions for the attributes were discussed, and references for the attributes were suggested. Rinse protocol (bread, carbonated water, room temperature water) was also agreed upon. Term generation forms for attributes by the panelists were compiled for review and compared with a list of terms from previous oil studies.

Day 4: Oil Attribute Refinement and Introduction to Reference Selection: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and samples of suggested references, and were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were provided 20 minutes to review the attributes generated, provide definitions of attributes that would remain on the list, and to decide if new attributes needed to be added or if any attributes needed to be removed from the list. Panelists were also asked to decide if the references provided matched the attribute in both modality and concentration.

Panelists then held a 20 minute group discussion to discuss any attributes that should be removed from the list, references that should be removed from the list, and any additional references that should be included in the list.

Day 5: Finalization of Attributes and Continuation of Reference Selection and

Refinement: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and samples of suggested references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were provided 20 minutes to review the attributes generated, provide definitions of attributes that would remain on the list, and to decide if new attributes needed to be added or if any attributes needed to be removed from the list. Panelists were also asked to decide if the references provided matched the attribute in both modality and concentration. Panelists then held a 20 minute group discussion to discuss any attributes that should be removed from the list, references that should be removed from the list, and any additional references that should be included in the list. Attributes (18 total) and attribute definitions were finalized (Table 2).

Day 6: Finalization of References and Introduction to Scaling Method:

A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and samples of suggested references, and were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were provided 20 minutes to review references and decide if the references match the attribute in both modality and concentration. Panelists then held a 20 minute group discussion to discuss the finalizing of references (references that should be removed from the list, any additional references that should be included in the list). Panelists were provided with a brief introduction to reference rating.

Day 7: Reference Rating and Group Discussion of Ratings: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and samples of references that were finalized (Table 2). Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were reintroduced to reference rating, were provided with reference rating forms, and were given 20 minutes to assign each reference a value on a 0-10 point scale indicating its intensity compared to the perceived intensity of the attribute in the sample set. There was then a 20 minute discussion on reference ratings.

Day 8: Continued Reference Rating and Finalization of Reference Intensity Values: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and finalized references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references, and were then reintroduced to reference rating. Panelists were provided with reference rating forms, and were given 20 minutes to assign each reference a value on a 0-10 point scale indicating its intensity compared to the perceived intensity of the attribute in the sample set. There was then a 20 minute discussion on reference ratings. Ratings were combined with the previous session and averaged to determine final placement of references on the category scale.

Day 9: Oil Sample Rating Practice: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and finalized references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were presented with rating sheets that included finalized attributes and references along with a numerical value for the intensity of the references, and were then given 25 minutes to rate each oil sample for all 20 attributes using the attribute reference as an anchor for intensity. Panelists then discussed as a group the sample ratings.

Day 10: Continued Oil Sample Rating Practice: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six oil samples and finalized references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were presented with rating sheets that included finalized attributes and references along with a numerical value for the intensity of the references, and were then given 25 minutes to rate each oil sample for all 20 attributes using the attribute reference as an anchor for intensity. Panelists were then provided with individual and group ratings from prior sample rating practice session, and then permitted to discuss as a group the sample ratings.

Day 11 : Booth Practice Ratings for Oil Samples: Panelists participated in two 30-minute practice testing sessions of all 6 oil samples to become familiar with the booth setting and the computerized data collection system, Compusense software. Panelists were provided with individual and group ratings from the two sample rating practice sessions in order to compare their individual performance to the panel as a whole.

Day 12: Booth Testing for Oil Samples: Panelists participated in two

30-minute evaluations of all 6 oil samples. Data was collected using the computerized data collection system, Compusense software. RESULTS

ANOVA was conducted for the 20 sensory attributes for 6 cooking oil samples (Table 3). Replication was not a major source of the variation compared to F-values from Judge and Sample. Panelists were reproducible over 2 replications for

19 attributes. Only one attribute, buttery aroma (p < 0.05), showed significant difference between replications. Judges were a significant source of variation in all 20 attributes, which is typical for the descriptive analysis results (Stone and Sidel, 2009). All of the 20 attributes were statistically different at p < 0.01 or lower significance level. The reasons of the variation might be that the panelists were not using the entire scale or using different parts of the scale when rating the samples. A total of 17 attributes were found to be significantly different across the samples. Yeast, greasy, and plastic were statistically the same among the samples. The mean ratings of the 17 significant attributes and Fisher's least significance were shown on Table 4. Radar plot for 17 significantly different attributes was generated (as illustrated in FIG. 1 : (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil;

(D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil). Sample A generally had lower intensity ratings. Sample F has many outliers compared to the rest of the samples in those attributes: overall aroma, overall taste, bitter taste, and bitter aftertaste. Sample D had strong buttery and popcorn attributes. This sample showed the second highest attribute ratings in many attributes. A principal component analysis (PCA) biplot of the correlation matrix was generated using the treatment means of the 17 significantly different attributes (FIG. 2). Factor 1 accounted for 54.97% and Factor 2 accounted for 35.61% of the variation within the plot. Sample A, C, and E were not characterized by this biplot due to the lower mean attribute ratings of these samples compared to the other samples. Sample B was related to popcorn and lard attributes. Sample D was related to oxidized oil related attributes such as rancid, buttery, fermented dough, and paste/glue. Sample F was related to by bitter, smooth, pungent and viscous attributes.

Cooking oil descriptive analysis without olive oil

Since Sample F had very different intensities compared to the other oils, the analysis without Sample F was conducted. ANOVA for the 20 sensory attributes for 5 cooking oil samples are presented on Table 5. Replication was not a major source of the variation. Panelists were reproducible over 2 replications for 20 attributes. Only one attribute, buttery aroma (p < 0.05), showed statistically significant difference between replications. Judges were a significant source of variation in all 20 attributes, which is typical for the descriptive analysis results (Stone and Sidel, 2009). Thirteen attributes (overall aroma, overall taste, hazy appearance, aroma of popcorn, buttery, fermented dough, rancid, paste / glue, and pungent, bitter taste, popcorn

aroma-by-mouth, and plastic aftertaste) were significantly different. The mean ratings of the 13 significant attributes and Fisher's LSD were showed on Table 6. Radar plot of the 13 significantly different attributes from five cooking oils was generated (as illustrated in FIG. 3; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; and (E) canola oil). Samples showed similar patterns in their ratings for the attributes. Sample A had the weakest intensities for the most of attributes. Sample B showed the highest ratings in aroma of fermented dough and rancid, lard aftertaste. Sample D had the strongest intensities for the attributes in general. Samples A, C and E were not characterized from the PCA biplot (FIG. 4). Most of attributes were correlated to Samples B and D because those samples had highest attribute ratings in most of attributes. Sample B was characterized by aroma of rancid, paste/glue, fermented dough, and buttery. Sample D was characterized by bitter, popcorn, lard, and hazy.

Example 2

Flavor intensities of green bean stir fry cooked in high oleic sunflower oil in comparison with other carrier oils.

Green bean stir fry descriptive analysis sample preparation and daily panel activities: The green beans were stir fried about 30 minutes prior to each training and evaluation sessions. The green beans were cut to38mm. Two hundred grams of green beans were put into the electric wok (Processional Wok, Aroma Housewares

Company, San Diego, CA, U.S.A.) with 13 mL of oil. The green beans were sauteed over medium heat (level 6) for 6 minutes. Water (27 mL) was put into the wok for 2 minutes with covering the lid. Salt (1.4 g) was sprinkled on the green beans. The green beans were sauteed for 2 minutes and moved to the plate. After a 3-minute cooling period, 5 pieces of greens were put into the 162 ml plastic cups. Each cup was covered with a plastic lid and served for evaluation.

Day 13: Green Bean Sample Attribute Generation and Beginning Reference Selection: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were reintroduced to modalities (aroma, aroma-by-mouth, taste, texture, and aftertaste), and provided with an attribute generation form. Panelists were given all six green bean samples, and given

20 minutes to generate attributes for the samples, and then allowed to discuss as a group the attributes that were generated for all modalities. Definitions for the attributes were discussed, and references for the attributes were suggested. Rinse protocol (bread, carbonated water, room temperature water) was also agreed upon. Term generation forms for attributes by the panelists were compiled for review and compared with a list of terms from previous oil studies.

Day 14: Continuation of Green Bean Sample Attribute Generation and Reference Selection: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six green bean samples and suggested references, and were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and suggested references. Panelists were provided 20 minutes to review the attributes generated, provide definitions of attributes that would remain on the list, and to decide if new attributes needed to be added or if any attributes needed to be removed from the list. They were also asked to decide if the references provided matched the attribute in both modality and concentration. Panelists then held a 20 minute group discussion to discuss any attributes that should be removed from the list, references that should be removed from the list, and any additional references that should be included in the list. Attributes (18 total) and attribute definitions were finalized.

Day 15: Reference Selection and Refinement: A sign-in sheet was distributed.

Panelists were provided with all six green bean samples and suggested references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and suggested references. Panelists were provided 20 minutes to review references and decide if the references match the attribute in both modality and concentration. Panelists then held a 20 minute group discussion to discuss the finalizing of references (references that should be removed from the list, any additional references that should be included in the list). Day 16: Reference Rating and Group Discussion of Ratings: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six green bean samples and samples of references that were finalized, and were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were reintroduced to reference rating. Panelists were provided with reference rating forms, and were given 20 minutes to assign each reference a value on a 0-10 point scale indicating its intensity compared to the perceived intensity of the attribute in the sample set. There was then a 20 minute discussion on reference ratings.

Day 17: Continued Reference Rating and Finalizing Reference Intensity Values: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six green bean samples and finalized references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references (Table 7). Panelists were reintroduced to reference rating, and were provided with reference rating forms, and were given 20 minutes to assign each reference a value on a 0-10 point scale indicating its intensity compared to the perceived intensity of the attribute in the sample set.

There was then a 20 minute discussion on reference ratings. Ratings were combined with the previous session and averaged to determine final placement of references on the category scale.

Day 18: Individual Green Bean Sample Rating Practice: A sign-in sheet was distributed. Panelists were provided with all six green bean samples and finalized references. Panelists were also provided with the compiled list of attributes, definitions of the attributes, and references. Panelists were presented with rating sheets that included finalized attributes and references along with a numerical value for the intensity of the references, and were then given 25 minutes to rate each green bean sample for all 19 attributes using the attribute reference as an anchor for intensity. Panelists then discussed as a group the sample ratings.

Day 19: Booth Practice Ratings for Green Bean Samples: Panelists were provided with individual and group ratings from prior sample rating practice session in order to compare their individual performance to the panel as a whole. Panelists participated in two 30-minute practice testing sessions of all 6 green bean samples to become familiar with the booth setting and Compusense software. Panelists were provided with individual and group ratings from the prior sample rating practice sessions in order to compare their individual performance to the panel as a whole.

Day 20: Booth Testing for Green Bean Samples: Panelists participated in two 30-minute evaluations of all 6 green bean samples. Data was collected using

Compusense software.

Green bean stir fly descriptive analysis: ANOVA was conducted for the 19 sensory attributes for stir fried green beans cooked with six cooking oils (Table 8). Replication was not a major source of the variation compared to F-values from Judge and Sample. Only fibrous texture showed a statistically significant difference

(p < 0.01) between replication. Judges were a significant source of variations in all 19 attributes, which is typical for the descriptive analysis results (Stone and Sidel, 2009). Twelve out of 19 attributes were significantly different (p < 0.05). The mean ratings of the 12 significant attributes and Fisher's LSD results were shown on Table 9. Overall aroma was not significantly different among samples but was presented on Table 9. A Radar plot for 12 significantly different attributes and overall aroma was generated (as illustrated in FIG. 5; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil;

(C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil). Oil samples, with the exception of B showed similar patterns in mean ratings of attributes. Some significant samples from the cooking oil descriptive analysis, such as Sample A and F, did not show significantly different mean rating trends in the stir fried green bean descriptive analysis. Sample F had very high overall aroma, overall taste, pungent aroma, and bitter taste and aftertaste. Sample A had very low mean ratings in general in the cooking oil descriptive analysis, but did not demonstrate significant differences from other samples, such as Samples C, D, and E, in the stir fried green bean study. Sample B had higher grassy aroma and aroma-by-mouth, and textures of crunchy, fibrous, and tough. This sample was lower in overall taste and wrinkled appearance. In the cooking oil descriptive analysis, Sample B showed similar mean rating patterns of the attributes compared to the other samples but the intensities of Sample B showed significant discrepancy in green bean stir fry. PCA biplot revealed that Sample A was related to glossy, Sample B was related to crunchy, tough, fibrous and grassy, Sample E was related to salty, and Sample F was related to wrinkled, buttery, nutty and umami (FIG. 6). While this invention has been described in certain embodiments, the present invention can be further modified within the spirit and scope of this disclosure. This application is therefore intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of the invention using its general principles. Further, this application is intended to cover such departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary practice in the art to which this invention pertains and which fall within the limits of the appended claims.

TABLE 1

Table 2 - Reference attribute, definition, preparation, reference product, and intensity for appearance, aroma, taste, aroma-by-mouth, texture, and after taste from cooking oil descriptive analysis

Modality Attribute Definition Preparation Reference product Intensity

Appearance Viscous Sticks to itself, not fluid 30 ml in 59 ml cup Half & half, Land O Lakes, Inc. 7.7

Karo light corn syrup (with real vanilla),

Glossy Shiny, appearance of light reflecting on surface 30 ml in 59 ml cup 8.0

ACH Food Companies, Inc.

Lemon-Lime Gatorade (G2), The Gatorade

Hazy Cloudy appearance 30 ml in 59 ml cup 6.6

Co.

Aroma Overall Overall intensity of aroma 15 ml in 59 ml cup Sample F 10.0

Popcorn Aroma of popcorn 0.65 g. in 59 ml cup Act Π kettlecorn, ConAgra Foods, Inc. 9.0

Buttery Aroma of butter 3.6 g. in 59 ml cup Butter, Land O Lakes, Inc. 10.9

Fermented Pizza dough, Pillsbury Pizza Crust classic,

Aroma of yeast 5.0 g. in 59 ml cup 9.8

Dough General Mills Sales, Inc.

Aroma associated with a stale or expired dairy Crisco vegetable shortening, The J.M.

Rancid 5.6 g. in 59 ml cup 7.8 product Smucker Company

Paste/glue Aroma of glue 0.25 g. in 162 ml cup Academix multipurpose glue stick 10.0

Sargento sliced Provolone cheese, Sargento

Pungent Aroma of cheese 3.0 g. in 59 ml cup 8.2

Foods, Inc.

Taste Overall Overall intensity of taste 15 ml in 59 ml cup Sample F 10.0

Bitter Bitter taste associated with caffeine 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.8g/L caffeine solution 8.7

Umami Taste associated with MSG 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.6 g/L MSG solution 8.2

Aroma-by-mouth Popcorn Aroma-by-mouth of non-buttered popcorn 0.65 g. in 59 ml cup Act Π kettlecorn, ConAgra Foods, Inc. 7.7

Yeast Aroma-by-mouth of yeast 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.5 g yeast in 237 ml. H ₂ 0 8.3

Texture Smooth Texture associated with non-granulated fluid 30 ml in 59 ml cup Half & half. Land O Lakes, Inc. 7.2

Bacon cooked at 350°F for ten Oscar Mayer Bacon (thick cut, naturally

Greasy Texture associated with cooked/heated grease 7.3 minutes; 7.7 g. in 59 ml cup hardwood smoked), Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

Aftertaste Bitter Aftertaste associated with caffeine 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.8g/L caffeine solution 8.4

Crisco vegetable shortening, The J.M.

Lard Aftertaste associated with shortening 5.6 g. in 59 ml cup 7.3

Smucker Company

Aftertaste associated with drinking out of a Sargento sliced Provolone cheese, Sargento

Plastic 3.0 g. in 59 ml cup 7.4 waxy cup or use of a plastic straw Foods, Inc.

Table 3 - Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 20 sensory attributes rated for six cooking oils

Attribute Replication Judge Sample

Overall

Overall aroma 0.41 26.44*** 127.06***

Overall Taste 0.1 1 2 3 _j *** 73.05***

Appearance

Viscous 0.03 12.35*** 2.96*

Glossy 0.92 2.88** 2.43*

Hazy 0.73 53.29*** 10.73***

Aroma

Popcorn 1.48 10.63*** 17 95***

Buttery 6.56* 18.10*** 4.34**

Fermented dough 1.44 42.30*** 1 1.35***

Rancid 1.33 9.05*** O, ] ] ***

Paste / glue 0.01 26.31 *** 8.16***

Pungent 0.85 17 81 *** 34.15***

Taste

Bitter 0.02 17 75*** 65.1 1 ***

Umami 1.05 41.81 ***

Aroma-by-mouth

Popcorn 1.48 10.63*** 17 95***

Yeast 0.19 9.58*** 1.44

Texture

Smooth 1.81 6.90*** 4.70**

Greasy 0.01 3.13** 2.01

Aftertaste

Bitter 0.02 17 75*** 65.1 1 ***

Lard 0.50 η 74*#* 12 24***

Plastic 0.07 13.60*** 1.21

aF-ratios are shown for source of variation. *, **, *** stand for significant at p < 0.05, p < 0.01 , and p < 0.001, respectively.

Table 4 - Mean attribute ratings and Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) for six cooking oils by an 11 -point category scale from 0 to 10 ^a

Sample ³

Modality Attribute LSD

A B C D E F

Overall Overall aroma 3.25e 6.10c 3.95d 7.25b 4.35d 9.95a 0.63

Overall taste 3.55d 5.25c 4.95c 6.65b 3.95d 9.35a 0.71

Appearance Viscous 5.65b 5.05b 6.05ab 5.80b 5.70b 6.90a 1.01

Glossy 7.05ab 6.55b 6.75b 6.35b 7.10ab 7.55a 0.79

Hazy 4.30c 4.90bc 4.70bc 5.36b 4.65c 6.30a 0.61

Aroma Popcorn 3.30c 4.75b 4.75b 6.20a 4.15b 2.80c 0.81

Buttery 4.40c 5.30b 5.45ab 6.10a 5.45ab 4.85bc 0.79

Fermented dough 2.85d 5.05a 3.70c 4.70ab 3.55c 4.05bc 0.68

Rancid 3.45b 5.95a 4.00b 5.85a 4.45b 3.80b 1.01

Paste / glue 2.50d 4.05ab 2.70cd 4.50a 3.35bc 3.95ab 0.79

Pungent 2.35d 3.50c 2.70d 2.65d 4.50b 6.05a 0.69

Taste Bitter 2.25c 2.85c 2.80c 4.05b 2.95c 8.10a 0.77

Umami 4.15cd 4.75bc 4.25bcd 4.80b 3.95d 5.65a 0.63

Aroma-by-mouth Popcorn 3.30c 4.75b 4.75b 6.20a 4.15b 2.80c 0.81

Texture Smooth 6.10b 6.05b 6.20b 6.50b 6.10b 7.50a 0.73

Aftertaste Bitter 2.25c 2.85c 2.80c 4.05b 2.95c 8.10a 0.77

Lard 5.30bc 6.60a 5.95ab 6.50a 5.20c 4.20d 0.74 ^a Means with different letter within the row are significantly different by Fisher's least significant difference at p < 0.05; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil;

(C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil.

Table 5 - Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 20 sensory attributes rated for five cooking oils ³

Attribute Rep Judge Sample

Overall

Overall aroma 0.54 26.45*** 45.41 ***

Overall taste 0.19 19.66*** 22 99***

Appearance

Viscous 0.02 1 1.50*** 1.12

Glossy 0.90 3.15** 1.29

Hazy 0.35 68.93*** 3.75*

Aroma

Popcorn 2.33 9 52*** 14.53***

Buttery 6.43* 19 34*** 4.67**

Fermented dough 0.44 39 34*** _j 4 ^ ***

Rancid 0.52 6.39*** 9 0 ₇ *#*

Paste / glue 0.03 23.09*** 9 _j g***

Pungent 0.82 26.49*** 12.51 ***

Taste

Bitter 0.12 22.56*** 6.43***

Umami 0.58 36.02*** 2.55

Aroma-by-mouth

Popcorn 2.33 ₉ ^2*** 14.53***

Yeast 0.09 10.10*** 2.19

Texture

Smooth 1.91 6.81 *** 0.44

Greasy 0.28 2.18* 2.46

Aftertaste

Bitter 0.12 22.56*** 6.43***

Lard 0.91 8.16*** 6.39***

Plastic 0.25 14 03*** 1.96

aF-ratios are shown for source of variation. *, **, *** stand for significant at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively.

Table 6— Mean attribute ratings and Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) for five cooking oils by an 11 -point category scale from 0 to 10 ^a

Sample

Modality Attribute LSD

A B C D E

Overall aroma 3.25d 6.10b 3.95cd 7.25a 4.35c 0.70

Overall

Overall Taste 3.55c 5.25b 4.95b 6.65a 3.95c 0.73

Appearance Hazy 4.30c 4.90ab 4.70bc 5.30a 4.65bc 0.54

Popcorn 3.30c 4.75b 4.75b 6.20a 4.15b 0.80

Buttery 4.40b 5.30a 5.45a 6.10a 5.45a 0.81

Fermented dough 2.85c 5.05a 3.70b 4.70a 3.55b 0.67

Aroma

Rancid 3.45b 5.95a 4.00b 5.85a 4.45b 1.07

Paste / glue 2.50d 4.05ab 2.70cd 4.50a 3.35bc 0.81

Pungent 2.35c 3.50b 2.70c 4.50a 2.65c 0.71

Taste Bitter 2.25b 2.85b 2.80b 4.05a 2.95b 0.74

Aroma-by-mouth Popcorn 3.30c 4.75b 4.75b 6.20a 4.15b 0.80

Bitter 2.25b 2.85b 2.80b 4.05a 2.95b 0.74

Aftertaste

Lard 5.30bc 6.60a 5.95ab 6.50a 5.20c 0.74 ^a Means with different letter within the row are significantly different by Fisher's least significant difference at p < 0.05; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil; (C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; and (E) canola oil.

Table 7 - Reference attribute, definition, preparation, reference product, and intensity for appearance, aroma, t after taste from green bean stir fry descriptive analysis

Modality Attribute Definition Preparation Reference

Appearance Wrinkled Appearance of dehydration 7.5 g. in 59 ml cup Dried apricot,

Natural Peanu

Glossy shiny 7.0 g. in 59 ml cup

J.M. Smucker

5 pieces green beans in 148 ml

Aroma Overall Overall intensity of aroma Green bean st cup

Grassy Aroma of grass 0.18 g. in 59 ml cup Wheat grass,

Toasted Sesa

Nutty Aroma of nuts 0.1 ml in 59 ml cup

Products, LL

Com Aroma of canned com 4.4 g. in 59 ml cup Canned com,

Red potato boiled in 3 quart sauce

Potato Aroma of boiled potato pan for 15 minutes; 5.5 g. in 59 Boiled red po ml cup

5 pieces green beans in 148 ml

Taste Overall Overall intensity of taste Green bean st cup

Salty Taste associated with NaCI 30 ml in 59 ml cup 3 g L NaCI so

Lima mi Taste associated with MSG 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.6 g/L MSG

Aroma-by-niouth Grassy Aroma-by-mouth of grass 0.18 g. in 59 ml cup Wheat grass,

4 tbsp. melted for 40 sec. in

Buttciy Aroma-by-mouth of butter Melted butter, microwave; 4.0 g. in 59 ml cup

Texture Cruncliy Texture associated with the snap in the first bite 4.1 g. in 59 ml cup Water chestn

Texture associated with stringiness upon

Fibrous 4.3 g. in 59 ml cup Celery chewing

Texture associated with the amount of effort to

Tough 4.3 g. in 59 ml cup Celery chew/ break down

Texture associated with the liquid expelled

Juicy 7.2 g. in 59 ml cup Cucumber during chewing

Aftertaste Salty Taste associated with NaCI 30 ml in 59 ml cup 3 g/L NaCI so

Bitter Bitter taste associated with caffeine 30 ml in 59 ml cup 0.4 g/L caffei

45 e. cucumber in 16 oz. water;

Table 8 - Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 20 sensory attributes rated for six green bean stir fry samples ³

Attribute Rep Judge Sample

Overall

Overall aroma 1.74 14.76*** 1.96

Overall taste 0.05 7 14*** 2.86*

Appearance

Wrinkled 0.98 4.67*** 8.53***

Glossy 0.50 6.86*** 2.56*

Aroma

Grassy 0.00 14 29*** 10.30***

Nutty 2.59 33.26*** 5 7 ***

Corn 0.41 19 47*** 0.84

Potato 0.69 13.32*** 1.18

Taste

Salty 0.00 10.15*** 2.58*

Umami 1.00 7 40*** 2.84*

Aroma-by-mouth

Grassy 0.40 § 07*** 5 96***

Buttery 0.18 6.47*** 2.48*

Texture

Crunchy 0.02 9.47*** 1 1 37**

Fibrous 7 94** 24.14*** 7 57***

Tough 1.00 13 23*** 8.10***

Juicy 0.09 9 i 2*** 0.95

Aftertaste

Salty 0.00 9 45*** 1.40

Bitter 3.16 28 97*** 1.17

Cucumber 0.03 41.00*** 0.93

aF-ratios are shown for source of variation. *, **, *** stand for sig

p < 0.01 , and p < 0.001 , respectively.

Table 9 - Mean attribute ratings and Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) for six green bean stir try samples by an 1 1 -point category scale from 0 to 10 ^a

Modality _Sample

Attribute

A B C D E F LSD

Overall

Overall aroma 7.40ab 6.60b 7.45ab 7.20ab 7.90a 7.85a 0.97

Overall Taste 7.35a 6.00b 7.25a 7.00ab 7.50a 7.90a 1.09

Appearance

Wrinkled 5.90a 2.95b 5.80a 5.70a 6.50a 6.00a 1.24

Glossy 7.25a 5.80c 6.80ab 6.50bc 6.30abc 6.90ab 0.91

Aroma

Grassy 5.20b 7.75a 5.85b 5.70b 5.40b 5.35b 0.84

Nutty 4.30b 3.35c 4.80ab 4.60ab 4.85ab 5.30a 0.79

Taste

Salty 5.10abc 4.25c 5.20ab 4.60bc 5.60a 5.55a 0.95

Umami 5.25a 4.20b 5.25a 5.00ab 5.70a 5.85a 0.99

Aroma-by-mouth

Grassy 5.50b 7.15a 5.45b 5.70b 5.15b 5.50b 0.83

Buttery 5.25a 3.95b 5.10a 4.75ab 5.70a 5.25a 1.08

Texture

Crunchy 6.45bc 8.45a 6.10bcd 6.75b 5.50e 5.75cd 0.89

Fibrous 5.30bc 7.05a 5.90b 5.65bc 4.95c 5.65bc 0.74

Tough 5.15bc 7.55a 5.65bc 5.90b 4.65c 4.90bc 1.05 ^a Means with different letter within the row are significantly different by Fisher's least significant difference at p < 0.05; (A) high oleic sunflower oil; (B) soybean oil;

(C) OMEGA-9® canola oil; (D) corn oil; (E) canola oil; and (F) olive oil.