4.8 Article

Influence of minerals on the taste of bottled and tap water: A chemometric approach

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 693-704

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.10.040

关键词

Taste; Flavor; Bottled water; Tap; Sensory analysis; PLS; PCA

资金

  1. SOST-CO2 project from the CDTI [CEN-2008-1027]
  2. CDTI [CTQ2009-11572]
  3. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemometric analysis was performed on two sets of sensory data obtained from two separate studies. Twenty commercially-available bottled mineral water samples (from the first study) and twenty-five drinking tap and bottled water samples (from the second study) were blind tasted by trained panelists. The panelists expressed their overall liking of the water samples by rating from 0 (worst flavor) to 10 (best flavor). The mean overall score was compared to the physicochemical properties of the samples. Thirteen different physicochemical parameters were considered in both studies and, additionally, residual chlorine levels were assessed in the second study. Principal component analysis performed on the physicochemical parameters and the panelists' mean scores generated models that. explain most of the total data variance. Moreover, partial least squares regression of the panelists' sensory evaluations of the physicochemical data helped elucidate the main features underlying the panelists' ratings. The preferred bottled and tap water samples were associated with moderate (relatively to the parameters mean values) contents of total dissolved solids and with relatively high concentrations of HCO3-, SO42-, Ca2+ and Mg2+ as well as with relatively high pH values. High concentrations of Na+, K+ and Cl- were scored low by many of the panelists, while residual chlorine did not affect the ratings, but did enable the panel to distinguish between bottled mineral water and tap water samples. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据