Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk

Little is known about the effect of retail light-emitting diode (LED) exposure on consumer acceptance of milk. The study objective was to determine effects of fluorescent and LED lighting under retail storage conditions on consumer acceptance of milk. Consumer acceptance of milk stored under retail...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dairy science 2017-01, Vol.100 (1), p.146-156
Hauptverfasser: Potts, H.L., Amin, K.N., Duncan, S.E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 156
container_issue 1
container_start_page 146
container_title Journal of dairy science
container_volume 100
creator Potts, H.L.
Amin, K.N.
Duncan, S.E.
description Little is known about the effect of retail light-emitting diode (LED) exposure on consumer acceptance of milk. The study objective was to determine effects of fluorescent and LED lighting under retail storage conditions on consumer acceptance of milk. Consumer acceptance of milk stored under retail conditions was determined through sensory evaluation (2 studies; n=150+ each) and analytical measures (dissolved oxygen, secondary oxidation products, riboflavin retention). Study 1 evaluated milk stored in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packages for 4h under LED light (960 lx). Commercially available HDPE package treatments included translucent HDPE (most commonly used), white HDPE [low concentration (1.3%) TiO2], and yellow HDPE; in addition, HDPE with a higher TiO2 concentration (high white; 4.9% TiO2) and a foil-wrapped translucent HDPE (control) were tested. Translucent and control packages also were tested under fluorescent light. Study 2 evaluated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packages for 4h under fluorescent and LED light (1,460 lx). The PET packaging included 2 treatments (medium, 4.0% TiO2; high, 6.6% TiO2) as well as translucent HDPE (exposed to fluorescent), clear PET (fluorescent and LED), and light-protected control. Overall mean acceptability of milk ranged from “like slightly” to “like moderately” with significantly lower acceptability for milk exposed to fluorescent light. Milk in HDPE and PET packages had comparable overall acceptability scores when exposed to LED light. Only the fluorescent light condition (both PET and HDPE) diminished overall acceptability. Fluorescent light exposure negatively influenced flavor with significant penalty (2.0–2.5 integers) to overall acceptability of milk in translucent HDPE and clear PET. The LED also diminished aftertaste of milk packaged in translucent HDPE. Changes in dissolved oxygen content, as an indication of oxidation, supported the observed differences in consumer acceptance of milk stored under fluorescent and LED light. Consumers like the flavor of fresh milk, which can be protected by selecting appropriate packaging that blocks detrimental light wavelengths.
doi_str_mv 10.3168/jds.2016-11673
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842549143</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022030216308098</els_id><sourcerecordid>2000494197</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-cc1cf3b062ca1edefcb7c3b79f15ddc2bf0cc76f08d78867c66f973511ef4d093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLxTAQRoMoen1sXUqXbnrNJG3SLkV8gSCIrkM6mVyjfVybVvDf23rVnbgavpkz3-Iwdgx8KUEVZy8uLgUHlQIoLbfYAnKRpxLKYpstOBci5ZKLPbYf48sUQfB8l-0JXag852LBbh9osKFO6rB6HkK7SmzrkrXFV7uaU2h9PVKLlGDXxrGhPrGItB7svOt8Mp2DS5pQvx6yHW_rSEff84A9XV0-Xtykd_fXtxfndylmoIcUEdDLiiuBFsiRx0qjrHTpIXcOReU5olaeF04XhdKolC-1zAHIZ46X8oCdbnrXffc2UhxMEyJSXduWujEawTnPygymp_9QKDKRZyVkckKXGxT7LsaevFn3obH9hwFuZtNmMm1m0-bL9PRw8t09Vg25X_xH7QQUG4AmGe-BehMxzCpd6AkH47rwV_cn-nSMuA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1842549143</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Potts, H.L. ; Amin, K.N. ; Duncan, S.E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Potts, H.L. ; Amin, K.N. ; Duncan, S.E.</creatorcontrib><description>Little is known about the effect of retail light-emitting diode (LED) exposure on consumer acceptance of milk. The study objective was to determine effects of fluorescent and LED lighting under retail storage conditions on consumer acceptance of milk. Consumer acceptance of milk stored under retail conditions was determined through sensory evaluation (2 studies; n=150+ each) and analytical measures (dissolved oxygen, secondary oxidation products, riboflavin retention). Study 1 evaluated milk stored in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packages for 4h under LED light (960 lx). Commercially available HDPE package treatments included translucent HDPE (most commonly used), white HDPE [low concentration (1.3%) TiO2], and yellow HDPE; in addition, HDPE with a higher TiO2 concentration (high white; 4.9% TiO2) and a foil-wrapped translucent HDPE (control) were tested. Translucent and control packages also were tested under fluorescent light. Study 2 evaluated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packages for 4h under fluorescent and LED light (1,460 lx). The PET packaging included 2 treatments (medium, 4.0% TiO2; high, 6.6% TiO2) as well as translucent HDPE (exposed to fluorescent), clear PET (fluorescent and LED), and light-protected control. Overall mean acceptability of milk ranged from “like slightly” to “like moderately” with significantly lower acceptability for milk exposed to fluorescent light. Milk in HDPE and PET packages had comparable overall acceptability scores when exposed to LED light. Only the fluorescent light condition (both PET and HDPE) diminished overall acceptability. Fluorescent light exposure negatively influenced flavor with significant penalty (2.0–2.5 integers) to overall acceptability of milk in translucent HDPE and clear PET. The LED also diminished aftertaste of milk packaged in translucent HDPE. Changes in dissolved oxygen content, as an indication of oxidation, supported the observed differences in consumer acceptance of milk stored under fluorescent and LED light. Consumers like the flavor of fresh milk, which can be protected by selecting appropriate packaging that blocks detrimental light wavelengths.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0302</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3198</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11673</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27865502</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; consumer acceptance ; Consumer Behavior ; dissolved oxygen ; flavor ; fluid milk ; fluorescence ; fluorescent lighting ; Food Packaging ; Light ; light-emitting diode (LED) ; Lighting ; milk ; Milk - chemistry ; oxidation ; packaging ; Polyethylene ; polyethylene terephthalates ; riboflavin ; sensory ; sensory evaluation ; storage conditions ; Taste ; taste sensitivity ; titanium dioxide ; wavelengths</subject><ispartof>Journal of dairy science, 2017-01, Vol.100 (1), p.146-156</ispartof><rights>2017 American Dairy Science Association</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-cc1cf3b062ca1edefcb7c3b79f15ddc2bf0cc76f08d78867c66f973511ef4d093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-cc1cf3b062ca1edefcb7c3b79f15ddc2bf0cc76f08d78867c66f973511ef4d093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11673$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27865502$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Potts, H.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amin, K.N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, S.E.</creatorcontrib><title>Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk</title><title>Journal of dairy science</title><addtitle>J Dairy Sci</addtitle><description>Little is known about the effect of retail light-emitting diode (LED) exposure on consumer acceptance of milk. The study objective was to determine effects of fluorescent and LED lighting under retail storage conditions on consumer acceptance of milk. Consumer acceptance of milk stored under retail conditions was determined through sensory evaluation (2 studies; n=150+ each) and analytical measures (dissolved oxygen, secondary oxidation products, riboflavin retention). Study 1 evaluated milk stored in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packages for 4h under LED light (960 lx). Commercially available HDPE package treatments included translucent HDPE (most commonly used), white HDPE [low concentration (1.3%) TiO2], and yellow HDPE; in addition, HDPE with a higher TiO2 concentration (high white; 4.9% TiO2) and a foil-wrapped translucent HDPE (control) were tested. Translucent and control packages also were tested under fluorescent light. Study 2 evaluated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packages for 4h under fluorescent and LED light (1,460 lx). The PET packaging included 2 treatments (medium, 4.0% TiO2; high, 6.6% TiO2) as well as translucent HDPE (exposed to fluorescent), clear PET (fluorescent and LED), and light-protected control. Overall mean acceptability of milk ranged from “like slightly” to “like moderately” with significantly lower acceptability for milk exposed to fluorescent light. Milk in HDPE and PET packages had comparable overall acceptability scores when exposed to LED light. Only the fluorescent light condition (both PET and HDPE) diminished overall acceptability. Fluorescent light exposure negatively influenced flavor with significant penalty (2.0–2.5 integers) to overall acceptability of milk in translucent HDPE and clear PET. The LED also diminished aftertaste of milk packaged in translucent HDPE. Changes in dissolved oxygen content, as an indication of oxidation, supported the observed differences in consumer acceptance of milk stored under fluorescent and LED light. Consumers like the flavor of fresh milk, which can be protected by selecting appropriate packaging that blocks detrimental light wavelengths.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>consumer acceptance</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior</subject><subject>dissolved oxygen</subject><subject>flavor</subject><subject>fluid milk</subject><subject>fluorescence</subject><subject>fluorescent lighting</subject><subject>Food Packaging</subject><subject>Light</subject><subject>light-emitting diode (LED)</subject><subject>Lighting</subject><subject>milk</subject><subject>Milk - chemistry</subject><subject>oxidation</subject><subject>packaging</subject><subject>Polyethylene</subject><subject>polyethylene terephthalates</subject><subject>riboflavin</subject><subject>sensory</subject><subject>sensory evaluation</subject><subject>storage conditions</subject><subject>Taste</subject><subject>taste sensitivity</subject><subject>titanium dioxide</subject><subject>wavelengths</subject><issn>0022-0302</issn><issn>1525-3198</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLxTAQRoMoen1sXUqXbnrNJG3SLkV8gSCIrkM6mVyjfVybVvDf23rVnbgavpkz3-Iwdgx8KUEVZy8uLgUHlQIoLbfYAnKRpxLKYpstOBci5ZKLPbYf48sUQfB8l-0JXag852LBbh9osKFO6rB6HkK7SmzrkrXFV7uaU2h9PVKLlGDXxrGhPrGItB7svOt8Mp2DS5pQvx6yHW_rSEff84A9XV0-Xtykd_fXtxfndylmoIcUEdDLiiuBFsiRx0qjrHTpIXcOReU5olaeF04XhdKolC-1zAHIZ46X8oCdbnrXffc2UhxMEyJSXduWujEawTnPygymp_9QKDKRZyVkckKXGxT7LsaevFn3obH9hwFuZtNmMm1m0-bL9PRw8t09Vg25X_xH7QQUG4AmGe-BehMxzCpd6AkH47rwV_cn-nSMuA</recordid><startdate>201701</startdate><enddate>201701</enddate><creator>Potts, H.L.</creator><creator>Amin, K.N.</creator><creator>Duncan, S.E.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201701</creationdate><title>Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk</title><author>Potts, H.L. ; Amin, K.N. ; Duncan, S.E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-cc1cf3b062ca1edefcb7c3b79f15ddc2bf0cc76f08d78867c66f973511ef4d093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>consumer acceptance</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior</topic><topic>dissolved oxygen</topic><topic>flavor</topic><topic>fluid milk</topic><topic>fluorescence</topic><topic>fluorescent lighting</topic><topic>Food Packaging</topic><topic>Light</topic><topic>light-emitting diode (LED)</topic><topic>Lighting</topic><topic>milk</topic><topic>Milk - chemistry</topic><topic>oxidation</topic><topic>packaging</topic><topic>Polyethylene</topic><topic>polyethylene terephthalates</topic><topic>riboflavin</topic><topic>sensory</topic><topic>sensory evaluation</topic><topic>storage conditions</topic><topic>Taste</topic><topic>taste sensitivity</topic><topic>titanium dioxide</topic><topic>wavelengths</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Potts, H.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amin, K.N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, S.E.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of dairy science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Potts, H.L.</au><au>Amin, K.N.</au><au>Duncan, S.E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dairy science</jtitle><addtitle>J Dairy Sci</addtitle><date>2017-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>100</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>146</spage><epage>156</epage><pages>146-156</pages><issn>0022-0302</issn><eissn>1525-3198</eissn><abstract>Little is known about the effect of retail light-emitting diode (LED) exposure on consumer acceptance of milk. The study objective was to determine effects of fluorescent and LED lighting under retail storage conditions on consumer acceptance of milk. Consumer acceptance of milk stored under retail conditions was determined through sensory evaluation (2 studies; n=150+ each) and analytical measures (dissolved oxygen, secondary oxidation products, riboflavin retention). Study 1 evaluated milk stored in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packages for 4h under LED light (960 lx). Commercially available HDPE package treatments included translucent HDPE (most commonly used), white HDPE [low concentration (1.3%) TiO2], and yellow HDPE; in addition, HDPE with a higher TiO2 concentration (high white; 4.9% TiO2) and a foil-wrapped translucent HDPE (control) were tested. Translucent and control packages also were tested under fluorescent light. Study 2 evaluated polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packages for 4h under fluorescent and LED light (1,460 lx). The PET packaging included 2 treatments (medium, 4.0% TiO2; high, 6.6% TiO2) as well as translucent HDPE (exposed to fluorescent), clear PET (fluorescent and LED), and light-protected control. Overall mean acceptability of milk ranged from “like slightly” to “like moderately” with significantly lower acceptability for milk exposed to fluorescent light. Milk in HDPE and PET packages had comparable overall acceptability scores when exposed to LED light. Only the fluorescent light condition (both PET and HDPE) diminished overall acceptability. Fluorescent light exposure negatively influenced flavor with significant penalty (2.0–2.5 integers) to overall acceptability of milk in translucent HDPE and clear PET. The LED also diminished aftertaste of milk packaged in translucent HDPE. Changes in dissolved oxygen content, as an indication of oxidation, supported the observed differences in consumer acceptance of milk stored under fluorescent and LED light. Consumers like the flavor of fresh milk, which can be protected by selecting appropriate packaging that blocks detrimental light wavelengths.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27865502</pmid><doi>10.3168/jds.2016-11673</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-0302
ispartof Journal of dairy science, 2017-01, Vol.100 (1), p.146-156
issn 0022-0302
1525-3198
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842549143
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Animals
consumer acceptance
Consumer Behavior
dissolved oxygen
flavor
fluid milk
fluorescence
fluorescent lighting
Food Packaging
Light
light-emitting diode (LED)
Lighting
milk
Milk - chemistry
oxidation
packaging
Polyethylene
polyethylene terephthalates
riboflavin
sensory
sensory evaluation
storage conditions
Taste
taste sensitivity
titanium dioxide
wavelengths
title Retail lighting and packaging influence consumer acceptance of fluid milk
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T06%3A10%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Retail%20lighting%20and%20packaging%20influence%20consumer%20acceptance%20of%20fluid%20milk&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dairy%20science&rft.au=Potts,%20H.L.&rft.date=2017-01&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=146&rft.epage=156&rft.pages=146-156&rft.issn=0022-0302&rft.eissn=1525-3198&rft_id=info:doi/10.3168/jds.2016-11673&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2000494197%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1842549143&rft_id=info:pmid/27865502&rft_els_id=S0022030216308098&rfr_iscdi=true