J. Dairy Sci.

90:4575–4585
doi:10.3168/jds.2006-531
© American Dairy Science Association, 2007.

Evaluation of Rice Flour for Use in Vanilla Ice Cream1

T. L. Cody,* A. Olabi,†2 A. G Pettingell,* P. S. Tong,‡ and J. H. Walker§
*Food Science and Nutrition Department, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo 93407
†Nutrition and Food Science Department, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
‡Dairy Products Technology Center, and
§Statistics Department, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo 93407

ABSTRACT fat products because of their level of motivation (Kähkö-

nen, 2000), or it may be that they are simply making
The effects of varying concentrations (2, 4, and 6%)
more health conscious purchases. A study by Li et al.
of 2 types of rice flours (RF 1 and RF 2) on the physico- (1997) points to the latter of the two assumptions. Ac-
chemical properties and sensory characteristics of va- ceptance scores by US panelists for vanilla ice cream
nilla ice cream samples were assessed at different fat increased progressively for samples varying in fat level
levels (0, 4, and 10%) and storage conditions (control in increments of 2% from 4 to 10%, even by panelists
vs. heat-shocked). Fat and total solids were measured who claimed to prefer a lower fat type of product. Al-
as well as hardness, viscosity, and melting rate. Eight though there is clear interest in lower fat frozen des-
trained panelists conducted descriptive sensory analy- serts, the results indicate that additional work may be
ses of the samples at 0 and 7 wk. The 2% rice flour level needed to improve their quality.
and to a certain extent the 4% usage level generally Reducing the fat in any food formulation will cause
improved texture while affecting to a lesser extent the a decrease or loss of several properties of fat: viscosity,
flavor characteristics of the samples compared with the structure, opacity, slip, fatty flavor, mouthcoating, and
control. The RF 2 generally had a more significant effect mouth fullness (Arbuckle and Marshall, 2000). Hence,
than RF 1, especially on the texture attributes. Al- ingredients used in lower fat frozen desserts ideally
though the rice flour reduced the negative impact of should emulate the texture, mouthfeel, and functional-
temperature abuse on textural properties, the samples ity of fat and should convey the desired flavor profile.
still deteriorated in textural properties (more icy) under Replacers can be fat-, protein-, or carbohydrate-based.
temperature abuse conditions. In addition, rice starch Several studies have assessed the effect of protein-
does lower perceived sweetness and can have a “flour based fat replacers on the sensory and physical charac-
flavor” at high usage levels. The use of rice flour appears teristics of ice cream (Ohmes et al., 1998; Prindiville et
to be most advantageous for low fat ice cream samples. al., 1999, 2000).
Key words: sensory, rice flour, ice cream, fat substitute Starch and modified food starches are reduced in calo-
ries (4.2 to 16.7 kJ/g). As fat replacers, they modify
INTRODUCTION texture and have been found to increase the viscosity
of food products (Akoh, 1998). Several studies have ex-
Regular ice cream production dropped 5.2% between
amined the effects of carbohydrate-based fat replacers
2003 and 2004 in the United States. However, in the
on the sensory characteristics, notably the texture, of
low fat and nonfat categories, hard ice cream production
reduced fat ice cream. King (1994) assessed the effect
increased 4.5% over the same period (Anonymous,
of different formulations, including one that had 10%
2005). The increase in lower fat ice cream sales could
(wt/wt) maltodextrin on the sensory profile of vanilla
be due the fact that consumers are getting more accus- ice cream. However, an audio-based method was used
tomed to the taste of lower fat products (Stubenitsky to rate the intensity of the attributes, which is not the
et al., 1999) and are appreciating the taste of reduced typical practice in descriptive sensory analysis.
Schmidt et al. (1993) compared the rheological and
melting properties of ice milks prepared with a carbohy-
Received August 11, 2006. drate- or protein-based fat replacer. Less air was incor-
Accepted May 27, 2007.
1
Use of names, names of ingredients, and identification of specific porated in the carbohydrate-based replacer formula as
models of equipment is for scientific clarity and does not constitute compared with the protein-based replacer or control
any endorsement of product by authors, California Polytechnic State formulas. Roland et al. (1999b) examined the use of
University (San Luis Obispo), the Dairy Products Technology Center,
or the American University of Beirut. several fat replacers and their impact on the physical
2
Corresponding author: [email protected] and sensory properties of vanilla ice cream. One of the

4575
4576 CODY ET AL.

formulas had 13.33% maltodextrin but had a TS content the potential of rice flour as a possible fat substitute in
similar to the full fat version. Specter and Setser (1994) ice cream.
used tapioca dextrin or potato maltodextrin as fat re-
placers. However, these were prepared as one part dex- MATERIALS AND METHODS
trin-maltodextrin and 3 parts water, which implied that
the maximum level used was approximately 3%. Aime Treatments
et al. (2001) used modified pea starch as a fat replacer Formulations. Ice cream mixes were prepared with
to assess its effect on the instrumental and sensory 0.5, 4, and 10% milk fat, which corresponded to the
properties of vanilla ice creams of different fat levels. standard for nonfat, low fat, and full fat ice cream,
Although the light ice cream proved to be texturally respectively (Table 1). At each fat content, samples con-
comparable to the full fat ice cream, the trained sensory taining 2, 4, and 6% rice starch—of either Pac Gel (RF
panel found the low fat and fat free ice creams to have 1) or Pac Star (RF 2; PGP International, Woodland,
lower viscosity, smoothness, and mouthcoating prop- CA)—were prepared, as well as a control sample pre-
erties. pared with a commercial ice cream stabilizer-emulsifier
The ability of a carbohydrate-based fat replacer to be blend (Kontrol, Danisco USA Inc., New Century, KS),
successful at mimicking textural characteristics of milk resulting in seven samples per fat content category for
fat depends on the colloidal properties of the carbohy- a total of 21 samples. Kontrol is a proprietary blended
drates used and their impact on mouthfeel (Specter and stabilizer-emulsifier system that contains cellulose
Setser, 1994). The capability for a starch to have such gum, guar gum, carageenan, monodiglyerides, and po-
characteristics becomes extremely important when lyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate. No additional sta-
temperature fluctuation and extended length of storage bilizers were added to the 18 rice flour mixes so that the
are prevalent issues. Milk fat in the mix is one signifi- role of the rice flour as a stabilizer could be examined
cant factor that helps to prevent recrystallization dur- independently and without the influence of other stabi-
ing temperature storage and fluctuation. Modified lizers; however, an emulsifier, polyoxyethylene sorbitan
starches could encourage viscosity development in the monooleate, was added at a 0.03% rate to approximate
aqueous phase of ice cream (Jimenez-Flores et al., 1993) the effect of the emulsifier added to the control mixes.
and control ice crystal growth (Stanley et al., 1996), The usage rate for polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate
thereby improving the texture of reduced fat ice creams. was selected to approximate the level that would be
With the extent of obesity in the US population found in the usage rates of Kontrol. The emulsifier us-
(Flegal et al., 2002) and its associated illnesses, there age level in lower fat ice creams was not adjusted so
is a real need for healthier food products with good that the effects of the rice starch could be examined
sensory properties. To meet the high consumer accep- independent of other variations in the ice cream
tance obtained for full fat products, food companies formula.
must research and formulate better highly functional The formulation of all ice cream samples included,
ingredients for low fat and reduced fat products. Rice in addition to the emulsifier, the standard ingredients
of 10% nonfat milk solids, 12% sucrose equivalence, and
starch is a relatively bland functional starch-based in-
5% corn syrup solids (36 dextrose equivalent; Table 1).
gredient that has the potential to be utilized in lower
Storage. A set of all samples was maintained at
fat foods. None of the studies mentioned above has as-
−30°C and then tempered for 24 h at −20°C prior to
sessed the potential of a carbohydrate to function as a
sensory evaluation. Another set was heat-shocked by
substitute for the stabilizer and as a substitute for fat.
temperature cycling for 7 wk on a 24-h regimen con-
In addition, no previous study has assessed rice starch sisting of 16 h at −20°C and 8 h at −12°C. The heat shock
or rice flour as a functional ingredient in ice cream. method used for this study was based on information
The objectives of this work were first to determine obtained from a personal communication with a large
the effect of varying concentrations of rice flours on the commercial ice cream manufacturer. Nonetheless, the
physicochemical properties and sensory characteristics temperature cycling approach for heat shock estimation
of vanilla ice cream samples at different fat levels, and is generally the accepted approach in the literature
second to assess the effect of storage and heat shock on (Ohmes et al., 1998; Prindiville et al., 1999).
the sensory characteristics of the samples. The present Mix Processing. For each fat level, a base mix was
work will expand upon the previous studies of various prepared. Whole milk and cream (4 and 10% fat mixes)
carbohydrates that have been utilized in lowered fat or whole milk and skim milk (0.5% fat mixes) were
content vanilla ice creams and the effect of such re- added to a 375-L process tank and heated to approxi-
placers on the sensory characteristics in general, and mately 40°C. Dry ingredients (sucrose, skim milk pow-
texture attributes in particular, thereby determining der, and corn syrup solids) were added to the liquid

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

 RICE FLOUR IN ICE CREAM 4577
Table 1. Ingredients used in ice cream mixes containing 0.5% milk fat (NF), 4% milk fat (LF), and 10% milk fat (FF)
Ingredient, % NF LF FF Source
1
RF 1 or RF 2 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 PGP International,
Woodland, CA
Milk 10 9 9 8 78 76 74 71 60 58 55 53 Cal Poly Dairy,
San Luis Obispo, CA
Skim milk 70 69 67 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cal Poly Dairy
Cream 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 20 20 20 20 Cal Poly Dairy
Nonfat dry milk 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Dairy America,
Fresno, CA
Sucrose 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Imperial Sugar Co.,
Sugar Land, TX
2
Corn syrup 36 DE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cerestar USA Inc.,
Hammond, IN
Emulsifier3 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 Danisco USA Inc.,
New Century, KS
4
Stabilizer, g 0.28 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 Danisco USA Inc.
1
Rice flour types: RF 1 = Pac Gel and RF 2 = Pac Star.
2
DE = dextrose equivalent.
3
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate.
4
Kontrol (stabilizer-emulsifier), in grams.

ingredients and mixed under high agitation until com- lyzer (CEM Corp., Matthews, NC; Hooi et al., 2004), re-
pletely dissolved. To establish the control mixes at each spectively.
fat level, 46-kg batches of each base mix were trans- Hardness. Ice cream samples were analyzed for
ferred to a 56-L processing tank and stabilizer-emulsi- hardness using the TA-XT2 Texture Analyzer (Texture
fier was added and mixed under high agitation until Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, NY), which measured
completely dissolved. For each experimental mix, the the force in grams required to penetrate the sample.
same basic procedure was followed except the proper The 1.9-L rectangular containers of ice cream were tem-
amount and type of rice flour, as well as emulsifier, was pered at −18°C for 24 h before measurement. A 60°
added to a 46-kg batch of base mix. Forty six kg of mix angle cone was used with a depth of penetration of 25
was removed and stabilizer was added to create the mm into the surface of the ice cream. All measurements
control batches. were done in a 4°C walk-in refrigerated room. The en-
All mixes were pasteurized at 82°C for 25 s using the tire test equipment and cone were tempered to the test
PMS Universal Pilot Plant System (Processing Machin- temperature prior to use. Testing was completed within
ery & Supply Co., Philadelphia, PA) and homogenized 5 min of preparation of the test sample.
at 78°C using a Gaulin LAB 100–6 TBS homogenizer Viscosity. Mix viscosity was determined using the
(APV Gaulin GmbH, Lubeck, Germany) at 13,780 kPa Brookfield model RVT on mix samples aged for 48 h
first stage and 3,445 kPa second stage. Cooling was set and tempered to 8°C. Spindle number 1 was rotated in
at 5°C upon discharge from the heat exchanger. Mixes the sample by the viscometer at 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, and 10
were collected into 38-L milk cans and placed at 5°C rpm (if necessary), and viscosity (cP) was measured at
for 24 h of equilibration (aging). each speed. The viscosity values at 1 rpm were used
All mixes were frozen using the Technogel 100 L/h for the statistical analysis.
continuous freezer (Technogel SpA, Azzano S. Paolo, Melting Rate. The ice cream samples were frozen
Italy) with 517 KPa of backpressure maintained on all in pint containers. After tempering, pint samples were
mixes. The target overrun was 100% and actual overrun individually removed from the freezer, trimmed to ap-
values ranged from 95 to 105%. Product was packaged proximately 230-g size, and placed on a wire screen
into 1.9 L paperboard rectangular containers and blast with 2-mm openings supported by a funnel on a ring
frozen for at least 24 h at −34°C before transfer to frozen stand with a 100-mL graduated cylinder underneath.
storage at −30°C. The sample and test assembly were placed immediately
in a thermostatically controlled incubator at 32°C, and
Physical and Chemical Analyses the volume of serum collected was measured at 10-min
intervals for a period of 30 min, when total volume of
Composition. Fat and TS contents were determined serum and serum weight were recorded. The weight of
using the Babcock method (Hooi et al., 2004) and the the final volume melted was used for the statistical
CEM LabWave 9000 Microwave Moisture/Solids Ana- analysis.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

4578 CODY ET AL.

Table 2. Terms used in descriptive analysis of ice cream containing 0.5, 4, or 10% milk fat

Attribute Definition as worded on score sheet

Hardness The force necessary to push the spoon into the ice cream at a 90-degree angle
Iciness The amount of ice crystals when the ice cream is bitten between the molars
Chewiness Amount of resistance when the ice cream is bitten using the molars
Gumminess Perceived by biting the ice cream with the molars and then rated after the molars are pulled apart
Creaminess Smoothness and uniformity of spread over the palate (equal volumes of whipping cream and skim milk1)
Melting rate The rate at which the ice cream changes from a solid to a liquid while the sample is melting
Foaminess Bubbly foams detected once the ice cream melts in the mouth while swirling the tongue (ultrapasteurized
sweetened whipped light cream2)
Sweetness The perception of sweetness
Vanilla intensity Perception of vanilla flavor (0.125% vanilla3 mixed with skim milk and 6% sugar, 2% vanilla3 mixed with
skim milk and 6% sugar)
Phenolic flavor Phenol note, typically found in vanilla beans (1.5% vanilla3 mixed with skim milk)
Flour flavor Perception of flour flavor (5% rice flour solution4)
Caramel flavor Perception of caramel or cooked flavor (evaporated fat free milk. Vitamin A and D added5)
Egg Flavor Perception of egg flavor
Metallic flavor Perception of a metallic flavor (metal spoon)
Mouthcoating Degree to which the mouth remains coated after expectoration (equal volumes of whipping cream and
skim milk2)
Coldness Coldness of sample as perceived on the tongue and palate
1
Good Day, CA.
2
Albertsons, San Luis Obispo, CA.
3
Pure bourbon vanilla extract; R.R. Lochhead MFG, Paso Robles, CA.
4
Pac Gel (RF 1) and Pac Star (RF 2), PGP International, Woodland, CA.
5
Nestle Carnation, White Plains, NY.

Descriptive Analysis samples and heat-shocked samples were tested. The

0% fat level samples were not evaluated in the second
Descriptive analysis was done over 2 evaluation peri-
evaluation period because the 0% fat level heat-shocked
ods (Lawless and Heymann, 1999; Prindiville et al.,
formulations showed clear undesirable flavor and tex-
1999). The first evaluation period (0 wk) consisted of tural characteristics. There were 2 replicate evalua-
fresh samples only and the second evaluation period (7
tions (over 2 wk) with all samples served within each
wk) included control samples (−30°C) and heat-shocked
week.
samples (temperature cycling temperatures). Eight
Ice cream (−15°C) was served monadically in 59 mL
panelists (5 females, 3 males); who were students, staff, foam cups, labeled with 3-digit numbers, in individual
and faculty at California Polytechnic State University,
test booths. Panelists were instructed to rinse with wa-
San Luis Obispo, were trained over 10 one-hour ses- ter before assessing each sample and to expectorate
sions. The training included tasting different ice cream all ice cream samples. In addition, the panelists were
samples and discussing their characteristics. The pan- encouraged to evaluate the reference standards when-
elists generated 16 sensory attributes and definitions ever needed. Attributes were rated on a 15-cm line
in the training sessions, along with reference standards scale.
for several of the attributes (Table 2).
During the first evaluation period, the panelists at-
Statistical Analysis
tended 12 sessions (1 morning and 1 afternoon session
each day) for a 3-d period per week over 2 weeks. Five Data related to percentage of fat, percentage of TS,
samples were served at each session including a warm- hardness, viscosity, melting rate, and sensory analyses
up sample, which was the last sample from the previous were analyzed using SAS (version 8.02, 1999 to 2001,
test session. The samples were given to all 8 panelists SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The ANOVA for the fresh
in random order over the 3-d period, according to the samples was performed to evaluate the effects of judge,
procedure discussed by Macfie and Bratchell (1989). fat concentration, rice flour treatment (7 treatments: 1
There were 2 replicate evaluations (over 2 wk) with all control, and 2 rice flour types paired with 3 rice flour
22 samples served within each week (21 treatments and concentrations), replications, and the interactions of
one commercial warm-up sample for the first session). these on the dependent variables. Significant means
The procedure design used for the first evaluation were separated by Dunnett’s test (Ott and Longnecker,
period was repeated for the second evaluation period 2001) for the fresh samples’ sensory analyses using the
(at 7 wk) in which both nontemperature cycled (control) 6 rice flour treatments mentioned above as compared

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

 RICE FLOUR IN ICE CREAM 4579
Table 3. Mean values and significance of effects of fat level and rice flour treatment on the physical and
chemical properties of ice cream containing 0.5% milk fat, 4% milk fat, and 10% milk fat at 0 wk
Effect
Mean scores by fat level (%)
Fat level Rice flour
Attribute (df = 2) (df = 6) 0 4 10
F-value
Fat content (%) 47,017.3*** 3.67** 0.42c 4.03b 10.04a
TS (%) 8,845.32*** 296.49*** 31.31c 34.15b 41.16a
Hardness (gf) 143.05*** 33.91*** 8,758.3a 5,769.2b 3,938.8c
Viscosity (cP) 14.43*** 3.10* 479b 1,157b 5,568a
Melting rate (mL) 17.18*** 0.77 31.73a 9.27b 4.08b
Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
a–c

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

with the control formulation. The ANOVA for the stored flour (P < 0.05). An increase in TS with a higher fat
samples was performed to evaluate the effects of judge, content was also obtained by Li et al. (1997). There was
fat concentration, rice flour type, rice flour concentra- a significant difference in hardness between fat levels
tion, storage conditions, replications, and the interac- and rice flour treatments (P < 0.001). Hardness in-
tions of these on the dependent variables. The means for creased with lower fat content. Viscosity was signifi-
the chemical analyses and the stored samples sensory cantly different among the different fat levels (P <
analyses were separated by Tukey’s (Ott and Long- 0.001) and rice flour treatments (P < 0.05). Viscosity
necker, 2001) honestly significant difference (HSD). showed an increasing trend with fat content; however,
Significance was preestablished at α < 0.05. It should be there was no significant difference between the nonfat
mentioned that the results for Tables 3 and 6 included and low fat samples. A significant increase in viscosity
many tests with the different sensory attributes and with a higher fat content was noted in previous studies
factors (fat level, rice flour, etc.), with a 5% significance (Li et al., 1997; Prindiville et al., 1999). Melting rate
level attached to each test. Accordingly, and in a similar was significantly different among the fat levels (P <
manner to any data with many attributes and factors, 0.001) but was not significantly different between the
it is safer to assume that the tests with a P-value <0.001 rice flour treatments. Melting rate decreased as fat con-
show a significant difference and that tests with higher tent increased from 0 to 4%, but no significant difference
P-values should be interpreted with caution. was obtained between the 4 and 10% fat. The melting
rate results obtained are consistent with previous stud-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ies (Prindiville et al., 1999; Roland et al., 1999a,b). In
addition, a significant increase in hardness with a lower
Physical and Chemical Analyses fat content (10% fat vs. lower fat samples and 10 vs.
Results of the chemical and physical analyses are 0.1% fat) was obtained by Roland et al. (1999a,b) and
summarized in Table 3. There was a significant differ- was attributed to an increase in ice content. However,
ence in the fat content between the 3 fat levels (P < Prindiville et al. (1999) observed an increase in hard-
0.001). In addition, the fat levels for the different sam- ness with a higher fat content, which was not the case
ples were consistent with the experimental plan, as in this study due to the effect of rice flour on hardness.
shown by the means for fat levels. Rice flour treatment Furthermore, the Prindiville et al. (1999) study in-
had a significant effect (P < 0.01) on the fat content of cluded adjusting the TS for the different fat content
samples. The rice flours used had a small amount of samples to the same level using whey protein and poly-
emulsifier—hence their effect on fat content. This addi- dextrose. There was a significant rice flour × fat interac-
tional emulsifier contribution was unanticipated and tion (P < 0.001), which indicated that rice flour in-
hence, its effects on ice cream properties were not deter- creased hardness to a greater extent in the absence
mined. Despite this significant effect, the largest differ- of fat.
ence between the treatments was only 0.2% and may
not be of any practical effect. There was a significant Descriptive Analysis of Fresh Ice Cream
difference in TS between the different fat levels and
rice flour treatments (P < 0.001). Total solids tended to Table 4 illustrates the F-values and the mean values
increase with fat content and with a higher level of rice for the different attributes. Fat content had a signifi-

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

4580 CODY ET AL.

Table 4. Mean scores of descriptive analysis attributes and significance of effects of fat level and rice flour treatment on the sensory
properties of ice cream containing 0.5% milk fat, 4% milk fat, and 10% milk fat at 0 wk
Effect Mean scores
by fat level (%)
Fat Rice flour Replicate Judge J×R RF × F × R J × RF × F RF × F
Attribute (F; df = 2) (RF; df = 6) (R; df = 1) (J; df = 7) (df = 7) (df = 12) (df = 84) (df = 12) 0 4 10
F-value
Hardness 53.09*** 19.95*** 1.28 3.04 3.79*** 0.79 1.03 1.45 6.82c 8.16b 10.48a
Iciness 88.70*** 22.05*** 1.44 8.06** 1.09 1.75 0.64 7.84*** 9.09a 6.28b 3.71c
Chewiness 63.85*** 32.95*** 0.17 3.71* 2.50* 1.46 1.22 0.73 6.01b 6.55b 9.33a
Gumminess 30.15*** 19.97*** 0.22 5.26** 2.71** 0.58 1.13 1.04 5.52b 6.11b 8.44a
Creaminess 59.04*** 4.29** 1.34 1.54 4.44*** 1.01 0.62 2.49** 5.30c 7.93b 10.70a
Melting rate 17.77*** 13.93*** 30.58*** 2.49 0.29 1.78 0.86 0.90 9.96a 8.62b 7.30c
Foaminess 1.21 0.86 0.73 3.11* 1.68 2.38** 0.99 0.94 5.14 6.00 6.17
Sweetness 0.07 1.31 1.22 5.05 0.74 0.94 0.92 1.15 8.27 8.00 8.29
Vanilla intensity 1.26 0.75 0.02 5.70** 1.99 1.37 0.67 0.85 6.11 6.42 6.81
Phenolic flavor 3.60 0.48 0.01 10.46*** 3.34** 0.26 1.06 0.52 5.38 4.86 3.91
Flour flavor 5.60 5.50*** 3.72 2.57* 3.27*** 1.02 0.83 0.72 5.16 4.48 3.60
Caramel flavor 6.76*** 0.52 2.65 8.14*** 2.52* 1.04 1.05 0.94 3.59b 4.28a 4.91a
Egg flavor 4.13* 0.27 0.02 7.07*** 2.35* 0.52 1.24 0.41 3.24c 4.14b 5.02a
Metallic flavor 9.56** 0.35 0.43 6.94* 1.22 1.34 1.06 1.17 3.86a 3.43a 2.64b
Mouthcoating 32.11*** 8.24*** 0.69 1.86 4.81*** 0.96 0.94 2.27* 5.51c 7.39b 9.47a
Coldness 17.74*** 6.70*** 1.05 8.78*** 1.15 0.95 1.03 1.16 9.72a 8.82b 7.18c
a–c
Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey adjusted, P < 0.05).
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

cant effect (P < 0.001) on most of the texture-related However, rice flour did not have any significant effect on
attributes: hardness, iciness, chewiness, gumminess, the other flavor-related attributes (sweetness, vanilla,
creaminess, melting rate, mouthcoating, and coldness, phenolic, caramel, egg, and metallic). No major incon-
but no significant effect on foaminess. A greater fat sistencies were noted for the evaluation of the different
content was associated with an increase in hardness, attributes, as confirmed by the absence of significant
chewiness, gumminess, although only the 10% fat level effects for replicate (2 evaluations/replicates for all sam-
showed a significant increase in creaminess and mouth- ples) or the judge × treatment (treatment = fat × rice
coating, and a decrease in iciness, melting rate, and flour) interaction. The only exceptions were a signifi-
coldness. In addition, fat level had a significant effect cant (P < 0.001) replicate effect for melting rate and a
on caramel flavor (P < 0.001), egg flavor (P < 0.05), and treatment × replicate effect for foaminess (P < 0.01).
metallic flavor (P < 0.01). A greater fat content resulted Moreover, a significant judge × replicate effect was
in an increase in caramel flavor and egg flavor, and a found for hardness, creaminess, mouthcoating, and
drop in metallic flavor, at the full fat level. flour flavor (P < 0.001); gumminess and phenolic flavor
The increase in iciness is expected and is typical of (P < 0.01); and chewiness, caramel, and egg flavors
lower fat ice creams, especially when comparing fat free (P < 0.05). In addition, a significant rice flour × fat
vs. full fat (Roland et al., 1999a,b) or fat free vs. reduced interaction was obtained for iciness (P < 0.001), creami-
fat samples (Prindiville et al., 1999). Trends similar to
ness (P < 0.01), and mouthcoating (P < 0.05).
the ones obtained in this study were noted in previous
A Dunnett’s test of difference from control was per-
studies for creaminess (Prindiville et al., 1999; Roland
formed on all the rice flour treatment levels for all the
et al., 1999a,b), melting rate, coldness (Stamponi-Koef-
sensory attributes across all fat levels. The control,
erli et al., 1996; Prindiville et al., 1999; Roland et al.,
1999a,b), and mouthcoating (Stamponi-Koeferli et al., which was the sample with no rice flour but with the
1996; Aime et al., 2001), especially when comparing full Kontrol stabilizer-emulsifier, was compared with the 6
fat vs. fat free samples. rice flour treatments. Table 5 illustrates the results of
The rice flour treatment (rice flour concentration × the Dunnett’s tests for the different attributes that were
rice flour type, 7 levels) had a significant effect (P < shown to be significantly different among the rice flour
0.001) on 8 of the 9 texture attributes: hardness, iciness, treatment levels (Table 4). These attributes consisted of
gumminess, creaminess, melting rate, mouthcoating, 8 of the 9 texture attributes, namely hardness, iciness,
and coldness. Rice flour also had a significant effect on chewiness, gumminess, creaminess, melting rate,
creaminess (P < 0.01). For the flavor attributes, rice mouthcoating, and coldness, in addition to the flour
flour had a significant effect on flour flavor (P < 0.001). flavor attribute.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

 RICE FLOUR IN ICE CREAM 4581
Table 5. Mean scores of significant descriptive analysis attributes and significance levels for comparisons (Dunnett) with control (0 wk)

Attribute Control 2% RF 11 2% RF 2 4% RF 1 4% RF 2 6% RF 1 6% RF 2

Hardness*** 6.28 6.43 (1.0) 7.25 (0.19) 8.98 (<0.0001) 9.15 (<0.0001) 10.32 (<0.0001) 11.00 (<0.0001)
Iciness*** 8.63 7.73 (0.21) 6.76 (0.0005) 5.65 (<0.0001) 5.75 (<0.0001) 5.60 (<0.0001) 4.43 (<0.0001)
Chewiness*** 4.70 5.06 (0.90) 5.59 (0.15) 7.94 (<0.0001) 8.19 (<0.0001) 9.42 (<0.0001) 10.18 (<0.0001)
Gumminess*** 4.24 4.59 (0.95) 5.75 (0.014) 6.93 (<0.0001) 7.40 (<0.0001) 7.40 (<0.0001) 9.51 (<0.0001)
Creaminess** 7.09 7.55 (0.85) 7.72 (0.61) 7.99 (0.25) 8.34 (0.051) 8.46 (0.025) 8.68 (0.0066)
Melting rate*** 10.19 10.07 (1.0) 9.20 (0.071) 7.92 (<0.0001) 8.20 (<0.0001) 8.09 (<0.0001) 6.73 (<0.0001)
Flour flavor*** 2.95 3.33 (0.95) 3.60 (0.66) 4.43 (0.030) 4.59 (0.013) 5.46 (<0.0001) 6.56 (<0.0001)
Mouthcoating*** 6.91 6.80 (1.0) 6.85 (1.0) 8.24 (0.010) 7.41 (0.70) 7.20 (0.96) 8.77 (0.0001)
Coldness*** 9.67 9.61 (1.0) 8.96 (0.28) 8.15 (0.0009) 8.36 (0.0056) 7.95 (0.0001) 7.29 (<0.0001)
1
Rice flour types: RF 1 = Pac Gel and RF 2 = Pac Star.
**P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

No significant differences were obtained between the cant effect on sweetness (P < 0.05) and phenolic flavor
control and the 2% RF 1 for any of the attributes. How- (P < 0.05), as illustrated in Table 6. The model also
ever, significant differences between the control and included all 2-way interactions and selected higher or-
2% RF 2 were obtained for iciness (P < 0.001) and gum- der interactions. The significance of the 2-way interac-
miness (P < 0.05). The 2% RF 2 had a lower iciness and tions is described later.
higher gumminess as compared with the control. The As illustrated in Table 7, iciness (P < 0.001), coldness
control was significantly different (P < 0.05) from the (P < 0.01), and phenolic flavor (P < 0.05) decreased
rest of the 4 and 6% samples for most of the attributes at higher fat levels, whereas creaminess (P < 0.001),
except for creaminess and mouthcoating. A higher con- foaminess (P < 0.01), sweetness (P < 0.05), and mouth-
centration of RF 1 and RF 2 in general increased flour coating (P < 0.01) all significantly increased at higher
flavor, hardness, chewiness, gumminess, and creami- fat levels. A decrease in phenolic flavor as a result of
ness compared with the control, and decreased iciness, increase in fat content could be due to the masking
melting rate, and coldness. For most of these terms, effect exerted by fat on the phenolic flavor originating
excluding iciness, mouthcoating, and melting rate, from the vanilla extract used in the ice cream mix. The
which varied slightly, at 4 and 6% rice flour concentra- significant increase in sweetness at the higher fat level
tions the effect of the rice flour addition on specific (10% fat) is not consistent with previous findings by
attributes, as expressed by the mean score, was more Prindiville et al. (1999), who demonstrated an increase
pronounced for RF 2 than RF 1. Based on these results in sweetness as a result of a decrease in fat content.
and on the absence of any significant differences among The increase in sweetness obtained in this work could
the control and the 2% rice flour samples, the control be the result of flavor interactions between the rice flour
samples were dropped from the subsequent analyses and the sugars of the ice cream.
to allow a more thorough ANOVA including rice flour The rice flour type (RF 1 or RF 2) had a significant
type, rice flour concentration, and their interactions as
effect (P < 0.05) on iciness, chewiness, gumminess, and
separate effects in the ANOVA model. In addition, the
sweetness. The RF 2 samples were less icy (P < 0.05)
0% fat level samples were assessed by the study’s re-
than the RF 1 samples but more gummy (P < 0.05),
searchers after storage and were considered to be of
which suggests that the RF 2 rice flour had a more
an unacceptable quality. Accordingly, the 0% fat level
pronounced effect on the samples. No significant differ-
samples were excluded from the subsequent phase of
ences between the means of RF 2 and RF 1 samples
taste sessions for stored samples.
were obtained for chewiness or sweetness (P < 0.05).
Rice flour concentration had a significant effect on
Descriptive Analysis of Stored Ice Cream hardness (P < 0.001), iciness (P < 0.001), chewiness (P <
Table 6 illustrates the results for the taste sessions 0.001), gumminess (P < 0.001), melting rate (P < 0.001),
after storage. Table 7 includes the means of the differ- sweetness (P < 0.05), flour flavor (P < 0.01), caramel
ent attributes for the effect levels. These taste sessions flavor (P < 0.05), mouthcoating (P < 0.01), and coldness
included samples stored at constant temperature (con- (P < 0.001). There were significant differences (P < 0.05)
trol) or heat-shocked samples. Fat level had a signifi- among all the rice flour concentration levels (2, 4, and
cant effect on iciness (P < 0.001), creaminess (P < 0.001), 6%) for hardness, chewiness, gumminess, and flour fla-
foaminess (P < 0.01), mouthcoating (P < 0.001), and vor, which showed a continuous increase with elevated
coldness (P < 0.01). In addition, fat level had a signifi- rice flour concentrations. Moreover, mouthcoating and

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

4582 CODY ET AL.

Table 6. Significance of effects of fat level, rice flour concentration (RFC), rice flour type (RFT), and storage (ST) conditions on the sensory
properties of ice cream containing 0.5% milk fat, 4% milk fat, and 10% milk fat at 7 wk
Replicate Fat RFC RFT ST RFC Fat RFT RFC Fat Fat
Attribute (df = 1) (df = 1) (df = 2) (df = 1) (df = 1) × RFT × RFC × ST × ST × ST × RFT
Hardness 5.70* 0.45 62.40*** 3.08 1.96 0.13 2.29 5.73* 0.38 3.76 0.07
Iciness 0.08 61.70*** 22.48*** 5.62* 19.31** 5.52** 0.35*** 2.53 2.82 0.00 0.19
Chewiness 4.23 0.00 47.80*** 6.34* 0.67 2.28 3.91* 0.35 0.04 3.74 0.00
Gumminess 0.52 4.30 44.75*** 7.81* 2.05 3.54* 0.64 0.42 2.99 0.05 0.04
Creaminess 4.93 45.80*** 2.90 4.61 0.02 0.21 10.43*** 4.24* 0.60 0.01 0.23
Melting rate 1.23 2.54 31.15*** 1.72 0.24 0.48 1.81 0.40 0.09 0.99 0.43
Foaminess 1.53 14.20** 0.92 0.65 2.41 1.61 1.90 4.33* 1.03 4.25* 0.31
Sweetness 0.22 5.54* 5.09* 6.07* 0.00 2.99* 0.06 1.10 1.10 0.13 1.36
Vanilla intensity 0.05 1.26 0.87 1.10 1.61 0.33 0.83 0.54 0.13 0.27 0.45
Phenolic flavor 3.93 9.37* 0.79 0.03 0.13 0.29 2.90 1.14 0.09 0.39 1.18
Flour flavor 0.08 0.03 10.40** 3.94 0.33 0.24 1.09 0.00 0.85 0.07 1.50
Caramel flavor 0.72 3.31 5.71* 0.41 5.41 0.06 3.96* 3.27 0.26 5.43* 0.59
Egg flavor 0.80 4.95 0.01 0.02 2.77 2.56 0.82 3.12 0.07 0.49 0.84
Metallic flavor 3.77 3.45 0.04 0.12 0.43 1.81 0.90 0.21 1.38 0.38 3.60
Mouthcoating 0.00 24.45** 10.77** 0.36 2.31 0.30 1.97 0.11 0.20 0.26 0.03
Coldness 0.15 19.64** 12.99*** 0.45 31.08*** 2.68 1.45 0.08 2.33 0.23 2.08

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

caramel flavor significantly increased (P < 0.05) with The storage factor had a significant effect on iciness
an increase in rice flour concentration. However, there (P < 0.01) and coldness (P < 0.001). Heat-shocked ice
were no significant differences between the 4 and 6% creams were significantly more icy and less cold than
samples for caramel flavor or mouthcoating. Iciness, the control (stored but not heat-shocked) samples. An
melting rate, sweetness, and coldness significantly de- increase in iciness as a result of heat-shocked storage
creased (P < 0.05) with higher concentrations. There has been well documented in the literature. Prindiville
were no significant differences between the 2 and 4% et al. (1999) reported an increase in iciness after heat-
rice flour samples for sweetness; this was not the case shocked storage in addition to changes in the presence
for iciness, melting rate, and coldness, which showed of air holes, smooth appearance, and firmness. In addi-
significant differences between the 3 rice flour concen- tion, Ohmes et al. (1998) obtained results which sug-
tration levels. gested that scores for course-icy texture and rate of

Table 7. Mean scores of descriptive analysis attributes of storage conditions, fat level, and rice flour type
and concentration on the sensory properties of ice cream containing 0.5% milk fat, 4% milk fat, and 10%
milk fat at 7 wk

Storage treatment Fat level Rice flour type Rice flour concentration
Attribute Control Shocked 4% 10% RF 1 RF 2 2% 4% 6%
c b
Hardness 8.20 7.67 8.06 7.81 7.69 8.18 5.80 8.22 9.79a
Iciness 5.38b 6.49a 7.50a 4.37b 6.20a 5.68b 6.93a 5.97b 4.91c
Chewiness 7.08 6.80 6.94 6.93 7.18 6.69 4.36c 7.15b 9.31a
Gumminess 6.95 6.56 6.04 7.46 6.30b 7.20a 4.53c 6.76b 8.97a
Creaminess 8.90 8.92 7.18b 10.65a 8.73 9.10 8.52 8.99 9.24
Melting rate 8.65 8.72 9.08 8.29 8.84 8.53 10.13a 9.01b 6.91c
Foaminess 6.33 6.88 5.65b 7.56a 6.68 6.54 6.37 6.86 6.59
Sweetness 7.95 7.96 7.42b 8.49a 8.13 7.78 8.45a 8.06a 7.37b
Vanilla intensity 6.42 6.62 6.73 6.31 6.61 6.43 6.80 6.64 6.11
Phenolic flavor 4.95 5.01 5.91a 4.05b 4.95 5.01 4.75 4.93 5.26
Flour flavor 4.69 4.62 4.71 4.60 4.39 4.92 3.37c 4.53b 6.07a
Caramel flavor 4.12 4.55 4.12 4.55 4.43 4.24 3.58b 4.82a 4.61a
Egg flavor 4.06 4.30 3.49 4.88 4.21 4.16 4.16 4.21 4.18
Metallic flavor 3.02 2.93 3.43 2.52 3.02 2.93 3.02 2.98 2.92
Mouthcoating 8.57 8.40 7.22b 9.73a 8.55 8.41 7.85b 8.70a 8.89a
Coldness 8.49a 7.85b 9.31a 7.03b 8.23 8.11 9.10a 8.30b 7.11c
Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey adjusted, P < 0.05).
a–c
1
RF 1 = Pac Gel and RF 2 = Pac Star.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

 RICE FLOUR IN ICE CREAM 4583
Table 8. Mean scores for significant descriptive analysis attributes of rice flour type1 × rice flour concentration
interactions for ice cream containing 4 and 10% milk fat at 7 wk
RF 1 (%) RF 2 (%)

Attribute 2 4 6 2 4 6
c b ab bc bc
Iciness 7.414 5.638 5.537 6.442 6.298 4.288a
Gumminess 4.520a 5.930b 8.441cd 4.536a 7.586c 9.500d
Sweetness 8.772b 8.481b 7.148a 8.120ab 7.636ab 7.586ab

Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey adjusted, P < 0.05).
a–d

1
Rice flour types: RF 1 = Pac Gel and RF 2 = Pac Star.

melting in the mouth increased with a heat-shock of the fat level. Creaminess significantly increased with
treatment. an increase from the 2 and 4% to 6% in rice flour concen-
The means for the significant descriptive attributes tration in the low fat samples (P < 0.05), unlike the full
on rice flour type × rice flour concentration are summa- fat samples that did not show significant differences
rized in Table 8. A significant rice flour concentration and were all creamier than the low fat samples. This
× rice flour type interaction was obtained for iciness (P shows that the use of rice flour is most advantageous
< 0.01), gumminess (P < 0.05), and sweetness (P < 0.05). for the low fat samples. No major differences in trends
The 6% RF 2 was significantly lower on iciness (P < between the 2 rice flours were noted for caramel.
0.05) than all the other samples, with the exception of The means for the significant descriptive attributes
the 6% RF 1, followed by the 4% RF 1, 4% RF 2, 2% on storage × rice flour type are summarized in Table
RF 2, and 2% RF 1. On the other hand, the 6% RF 2 10. A significant storage × rice flour type interaction
was gummier (P < 0.05) than all the other samples. A was obtained for hardness (P < 0.05), creaminess (P <
continuous increase in gumminess with an increase in 0.05), and foaminess (P < 0.05). The heat-shocked RF
rice flour concentration was noted for RF 1 and RF 2, 1 samples were significantly less hard (P < 0.05) than
though the increase was not as large with the RF 1. the heat-shocked RF 2 samples and the control RF 1
The 6% RF 1 was significantly less sweet (P < 0.05) than and RF 2 samples. No major trends were noted for
the 2 or 4% RF 1. However, RF 2 showed no significant creaminess or foaminess.
difference in sweetness at 2, 4, or 6% rice flour level. The means for the significant descriptive attributes
The means for the significant descriptive attributes on storage × fat level are summarized in Table 11. A
on fat × rice flour concentration are summarized in significant storage × fat interaction was obtained for
Table 9. A significant fat × rice flour concentration was foaminess (P < 0.05) and caramel flavor (P < 0.05). The
obtained for iciness (P < 0.001), chewiness (P < 0.05), 4% fat samples were significantly less foamy than both
creaminess (P < 0.001), and caramel flavor (P < 0.05). 10% fat samples (P < 0.05), and the 10% fat heat-
There were no significant differences on iciness with shocked sample was significantly more foamy than the
the 10% fat samples, which was not the case with the 4% 10% control sample (P < 0.05). The 10% fat heat-shocked
fat samples that showed significant differences between sample had significantly more caramel flavor than all
the 2, 4, and 6% rice flour concentrations. There were other samples (P < 0.05).
significant differences among the 3 rice flour concentra- Model diagnostics were run for all attributes to check
tions for both rice flours, showing a significant impact model adequacy, equal error variance, and normally
of rice flour concentration on this attribute regardless distributed errors. The models for most of the 16 attri-

Table 9. Mean scores for significant descriptive analysis attributes of rice flour concentration (2, 4, or 6%)
× fat level interactions for ice cream containing 4% milk fat (LF), and 10% milk fat (FF) at 7 wk
LF FF
Attribute 2% 4% 6% 2% 4% 6%
d c b ab a
Iciness 9.145 7.633 5.727 4.711 4.303 4.098a
Chewiness 3.939a 7.630b 9.26c 4.784a 6.663b 9.350c
Creaminess 6.363a 7.072a 8.106b 10.669c 10.905c 10.366c
Caramel 2.973a 4.972b 4.422b 4.177b 4.661b 4.808b
a–d
Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey adjusted, P < 0.05).

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

4584 CODY ET AL.

Table 10. Mean scores for significant descriptive analysis attributes flour is recommended for further development likely
of rice flour type1 × storage (control or shocked) for ice cream con-
taining 4 and 10% milk fat at 7 wk at usage levels between 2 to 4% or lower if used in
conjunction with other functional ingredients for ice
RF 1 RF 2
cream and frozen desserts.
Attribute Control Shocked Control Shocked
b a b
Hardness 8.273 7.108 8.123 8.240b ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Creaminess 8.522a 8.939ab 9.282b 8.910ab
Foaminess 6.180a 7.176b 6.479ab 6.593ab
The authors thank Hildegarde Heymann, Sean Vink,
a,b
Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey Jerry Mattas, Jean Estrade, Laura Jacobson, Carolyn
adjusted, P < 0.05).
1 Pogdurski, and Omar Baghdadi for technical support,
Rice flour types: RF 1 = Pac Gel and RF 2 = Pac Star.
PGP International, CA, for financial support, and all
the subjects who participated on the panel for their ded-
ication.
butes showed no problems or only small problems with
these assumptions. Most problems occurred only with REFERENCES
the normality assumption. Because of the large number
of observations (384) in the study, the lack of normality Aime, D. B., S. D. Arntfield, L. J. Malcolmson, and D. Ryland. 2001.
Textural analysis of fat reduced vanilla ice cream products. Food
for some attributes should not adversely affect our re- Res. Int. 34:237–246.
sults. However, more severe problems with equal vari- Akoh, C. C. 1998. Fat replacers. Food Technol. 52:47–53.
ance and model adequacy were detected in the results Anonymous. 2005. Dairy Facts, 2005 ed. Int. Dairy Foods Assoc.,
Washington, DC.
for 3 attributes: caramel flavor, egg flavor, and metallic Arbuckle, W. S., and R. T. Marshall, ed. 2000. Pages 73, 262, 264–266
flavor. Alternative models were attempted, but none in Ice Cream. 5th ed. Aspen Publishers Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
removed these problems. Therefore, results for these 3 Flegal, K. M., M. D. Carroll, C. L. Ogden, and C. L. Johnson. 2002.
attributes should be viewed with extreme caution. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults. JAMA
288:1723–1727.
Hooi, R., D. M. Barbano, R. L. Bradley, D. Budde, M. Bulthaus, M.
CONCLUSIONS Chettiar, J. Lynch, and R. Reddy. 2004a. Chemical and physical
methods 15.084. In Standard Methods For the Examination of
The RF 1 and RF 2 had varying effects on the attri- Dairy Products. H. Wehr and J. Frank, ed. Am. Public Health
Assoc., Washington, DC.
butes of vanilla ice cream at different fat levels. At the Hooi, R., D. M. Barbano, R. L. Bradley, D. Budde, M. Bulthaus, M.
2% fat level and to a certain extent the 4% fat level, Chettiar, J. Lynch, and R. Reddy. 2004b. Chemical and physical
RF 1 and RF 2 generally improved texture while im- methods 15.115. In Standard Methods For the Examination of
Dairy Products. H. Wehr and J. Frank, ed. Am. Public Health
pacting to a lesser extent the flavor characteristics of Assoc., Washington, DC.
the samples compared with the control. The RF 2 gener- Jimenez-Florez, R., N. J. Klipfel, and J. Tobias. 1993. Ice Cream and
ally had a more significant effect than RF 1, especially frozen desserts. Pages 57–157 in Dairy Science and Technology
Handbook, vol. 2: Product Manufacturing. Y. H. Hui, ed. VCH
on the texture attributes. The rice flours reduced the Publishers Inc., New York, NY.
negative impact of temperature abuse on textural prop- Kähkönen, P. 2000. Consumer acceptance of reduced-fat foods—The
erties, but samples still deteriorated in textural proper- effects of product information. PhD Diss. University of Hel-
sinki, Finland.
ties (more icy) under the experimental temperature King, B. M. 1994. Sensory profiling of vanilla ice cream: Flavour and
abuse conditions. In addition, rice starch does lower base interactions. Lebenson Wiss. Technol. 27:450–456.
perceived sweetness and can have a “flour flavor” at Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann. 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food.
high usage levels. The use of rice flour appears to be Springer, New York, NY.
Li, Z., R. Marshall, H. Heymann, and L. Fernando. 1997. Effect of
most advantageous for low fat ice cream samples. Rice milk fat content on flavor perception of vanilla ice cream. J. Dairy
Sci. 80:3133–3141.
Macfie, H. J., and N. Bratchell. 1989. Designs to balance the effect
of order of presentation and first order carry over effects in hall
Table 11. Mean scores for significant descriptive analysis attributes tests. J. Sens. Stud. 4:129–148.
of fat level × storage (control or shocked) for ice cream containing 4% Ohmes, R. L., R. T. Marshall, and H. Heymann. 1998. Sensory and
milk fat (LF) and 10% milk fat (FF) at 7 wk physical properties of ice creams containing milk fat or fat re-
placers. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1222–1228.
LF FF Ott, R. L., and M. Longnecker. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical
Methods and Data Analysis. 5th ed. Duxbury Press, Pacific
Attribute Control Shocked Control Shocked Grove, CA.
Foaminess 5.59 a
5.71 a
7.07b
8.06c Prindiville, E. A., R. T. Marshall, and H. Heymann. 1999. Effects of
Caramel flavor 4.17a 4.08a 4.08a 5.02b milk fat on the sensory properties of chocolate ice cream. J. Dairy
Sci. 82:1425–1432.
a–c
Means with different superscripts within attributes differ (Tukey Prindiville, E. A., R. T. Marshall, and H. Heymann. 2000. Effect of
adjusted, P < 0.05). milk fat, cocoa butter, and whey protein fat replacers on the

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007

 RICE FLOUR IN ICE CREAM 4585
sensory properties of lowfat and nonfat chocolate ice cream. J. Specter, S. E., and C. S. Setser. 1994. Sensory and physical properties
Dairy Sci. 83:2216–2223. of a reduced calorie frozen dessert system made with milk fat
Roland, A. M., L. G. Philips, and K. Boor. 1999a. Effects of fat content and sucrose substitutes. J. Dairy Sci. 77:708–717.
on the sensory properties, melting, color, and hardness of ice Stamponi-Koeferli, C. R., P. Pccinali, and S. Sigrist. 1996. The influ-
cream. J. Dairy Sci. 82:32–38. ence of fat, sugar and non-fat milk solids on selected taste, flavor
and texture parameters of a vanilla ice cream. Food Qual. Prefer.
Roland, A. M., L. G. Philips, and K. Boor. 1999b. Effects of fat re-
7:69–79.
placers on the sensory properties, melting, and hardness of ice Stanley, D. W., H. D. Goff, and A. K. Smith. 1996. Texture-structure
cream. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2094–2100. relationships in foamed dairy emulsions. Food Res. Int. 29:1–13.
Schmidt, K., A. Lundy, J. Reynolds, and L. E. Yee. 1993. Carbohydrate Stubenitsky, K., J. I. Aaron, S. L. Catt, and D. J. Mela. 1999. Effect
or protein based fat mimickers effects on ice milk properties. J. of information and extended use on the acceptance of reduced-
Food Sci. 58:761–763, 779. fat products. Food Qual. Pref. 10:367–376.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 90 No. 10, 2007