Received: 30 July 2015 | Revised: 30 May 2016 | Accepted: 27 July 2016

DOI 10.1111/jfpp.13174

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Eect of whey protein concentrate, sodium caseinate, Cheddar

cheese, and milk fat on sensory and functional properties of
cheese dip

Venus Bansal | S. K. Kanawjia | Yogesh Khetra | Ritika Puri | Anindita Debnath

Dairy Technology Division, ICAR-National

Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana,
132001, India
Correspondence
Yogesh Khetra, Dairy Technology Division,
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute,
Karnal, Haryana 132001, India
Email: yogesh.khetra@gmail.com
Funding information
National Dairy Research Institute; Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi
Abstract
Cheese dip was prepared using sodium caseinate, WPC-70, Cheddar cheese, carboxy-methyl cellu-
lose, and glycerol mono stearate. The response surface methodology was employed for the
optimization of level of protein blend, Cheddar cheese, and milk fat by studying the responses
namely avor, body & texture, color & appearance, rmness, stickiness, and apparent viscosity. An
increase in protein blend and Cheddar cheese content was associated with decrease in avor,
body & texture, and color & appearance score and increase in rmness, stickiness, and apparent
viscosity. The optimized conditions for the cheese dip were 8.82% protein blend, 6% Cheddar
cheese, and 9.72% milk fat with desirability value of 0.929. Principal component analysis applied
to data matrix has identied protein blend, Cheddar cheese/apparent viscosity, and milk fat as
three principal components which explained 83.18% of variance in total. Color & appearance score
was found dependent on Cheddar cheese content added to cheese dip.

Practical application
This study could successfully be utilized in preparing a new cheese product with high nutritional
and functional properties owing to the presence of whey proteins. The product formulation and
technology can be scaled up for commercial manufacturing. Introduction of such a healthy product
as food adjunct in the market will be inline with the growing consumer demand of new and
healthy convenience products.

KEYWORDS
Cheese dip, whey protein concentrate, response surface methodology, principal component analy-
sis, rmness, viscosity

1 | INTRODUCTION 1973). Ingredient cheese or cheese analogues are prepared by

Cheese dip is categorized under processed cheese (Tamime, 2011)
and diers from other variants of processed cheese in terms of
moisture content and body & texture of the product, which aects
the rheological properties and end use. Scanty scientic literature is
available for cheese dip; however, being categorized under proc-
essed cheese foods a brief review of similar products is presented in
this article. Processed cheese foods are commonly prepared by
blending natural cheese of dierent ages and degree of maturities in
the presence of emulsifying salts and other dairy and nondairy ingre-
dients followed by heating and continuous mixing to form a homog-
enous product with an extended shelf life (Meyer, 1973; Thomas,
blending dierent dairy-based ingredients namely sodium caseinate/
rennet casein, milk fat, water, emulsifying salts, and cheese avors
(Hosseini, Habibi Naja, & Mohebbi, 2014). The function of protein
is to stabilize oil-in-water emulsion by reducing the interfacial ten-
sion and increasing the viscosity of aqueous phase, thereby decreas-
ing the frequency of collisions between oil droplets (Ennis &
Mulvihill, 1999). Presently, whey protein concentrate (WPC) is being
used extensively in cheese manufacturing industries to enhance the
nutritional and functional properties of the products. Apart from
this, it also acts as a biopreservative due to the presence of antimi-
crobial proteins. Thus the use of WPC oers an excellent opportu-
nity to develop new products wherein the properties of WPC can be

J Food Process Preserv. 2017;e13174. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpp V

C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13174
2 of 10 | BANSAL
harnesses for better overall quality of the product. Soowiej, Mleko,
Gustaw, and Udeh (2010) studied the eect of WPC on texture
meltability and microstructure of acid casein processed cheese ana-
log and they reported harder and more cohesive product character-
istics owing to the higher addition of WPC. Hosseni et al. (2014)
used WPC in sodium caseinate-based imitation cheese and recom-
mended to substitute sodium caseinate with WPC at 1.5% level only
above which it had adverse impact on color and meltability of
cheese. Similarly, addition of whey proteins has also been tried in
processed cheese spreads (Lee & Anema, 2009; Pinto, Rathour,
Prajapati, Jana, & Solanky, 2007) and processed cheese foods (Gupta
& Reuter, 1993).
Cheese dip is an oil-in-water (o/w) type emulsion which can either
be prepared from a blend of dierently matured cheese or by blending
the dierent dairy-based ingredients along with cheese to have a char-
acteristic cheese avor. Till date, no scientic or technological studies
have been reported in the literature on the technology of cheese dip
containing dierent dairy-based ingredients. Response surface method-
ology (RSM) is one of the popular optimization methods with vast
application in optimizing food product formulations because it can
describe the combined eects of ingredients and processing parame-
ters (independent variables) on the quality attributes (responses). Chav-
han, Kanawjia, Khetra, and Puri (2014) used RSM to optimize the levels
of potassium-based emulsifying salts for making low sodium processed
mozzarella cheese. Henceforth, the present work was envisaged to
optimize the level of dierent ingredients namely protein blend com-
prising WPC-70 and sodium caseinate, Cheddar cheese, and milk fat to
manufacture cheese dip using RSM and principal component analysis
and to study the eect of ingredients on sensory, textural, and rheolog-
ical properties of cheese dip.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Materials
Matured Cheddar cheese and cream (fat 5 60 6 1%) was procured
from the Experimental Dairy Plant, ICAR-National Dairy Research Insti-
tute, Karnal, India. Sodium caseinate and WPC-70 were purchased
from the Mahaan Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Mathura (UP). Edible common salt
(M/s Nirma Ltd., Ahmedabad) was obtained from the local market of
Karnal. Glycerol mono stearate (GMS) was purchased from the Sigma-
Aldrich, Mumbai. Tri-sodium citrate was purchased from Posy Pharma-
ceutical Ltd, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). Carboxy-methyl cellulose (CMC)
having a viscosity range of 1,1001,900 cps was procured from Merck
Specialities Pvt. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. All the chemicals and reagents
used for analysis were of AR grade.
2.2 | Preparation of cheese dip
A batch of 3 kg of cheese dip was prepared in triplicate. The ingre-
dients viz., WPC-70 and sodium caseinate in the ratio of 80:20
formed protein blend and the level of this protein blend, Cheddar
cheese, and milk fat were varied as per RSM design matrix. CMC
ET AL.
and GMS were used at a level of 0.5% each. Water was used to
make up the weight of the nal product. Total amount of water was
divided into approximately three equal parts to prepare solutions of
WPC-70, sodium caseinate, and CMC 1 GMS. To prepare cheese
dip, aqueous solutions of WPC-70, sodium caseinate, CMC, and
GMS were prepared in the warm water (35408C) separately for
each ingredient. In the other container, weighed and grated Cheddar
cheese was heated along with weighed quantity of tri-sodium citrate
(1%) till pasty consistency was achieved. The WPC-70 solution
heated to 45508C was added with sodium caseinate solution and
was mixed well. In this mixture, CMC (0.5%) and GMS (0.5%) were
added and mixed well to get a homogenous mass. The tempered
(258C) cream in a quantity required to provide the milk fat as per
RSM runs was added followed by the addition of melted Cheddar
cheese. The mixture was properly blended with the addition of 0.5%
sodium chloride. The mixture was heated to 658C for homogeniza-
tion. Before homogenization, the cheese slurry was ltered through
muslin cloth to separate any extraneous matter present. The homog-
enization of the cheese slurry was carried out at 1,500 psi for rst
stage and 500 psi for second stage. The homogenized cheese dip
was heated to 758C for 5 min followed by immediate cooling to 5
78C and was packed in polyethylene terephthalate bottles. The
packed product was kept under refrigeration conditions (58C).
2.3 | Compositional analysis
The moisture, ash, and salt content of the optimized product were
determined as per method described by ISI (1981) while the fat and
protein content of the product were determined as per method
delineated by AOAC (1992).
2.4 | Sensory evaluation
The cheese dip was subjected to sensory evaluation by a panel of
eight trained judges from Dairy Technology Division of ICAR-
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India. All the judges were
trained sensory analysts, having a minimum of 5 years experience in
the sensory evaluation of milk and milk products. A descriptive score
card with 25 points was used. Maximum score for avor, body &
texture, and color & appearance was 12, 9, and 4, respectively. To
eliminate the carry over eect, the samples were presented in ran-
dom order coded with random three-digit numbers. The sensory
evaluation was carried out in individual booths under white light.
Approximately 20 g of each sample was served at refrigeration tem-
perature in disposable plastic containers accompanied by a coee
spoon.
2.5 | Textural attributes
Textural properties of cheese dip were measured using texture prole
analyser TA.XT2i (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, Surrey, UK) tted
with a 25 kg load cell. The sample of the cheese dip was lled to a con-
stant weight of 35 g in a sample container having dimensions of 5.5 cm
height and 4 cm internal diameter made up of high density
BANSAL ET AL. | 3 of 10

T A B LE 1Experimental range and levels of independent variables measuring points at the interval of 2 s. The sample was placed on the
used in RSM in terms of actual and coded factors plate and excess of the sample was trimmed o. The analysis was car-
Levels ried out in triplicate. The viscosity at highest shear rate (300 s21) was
Variables
Actual Coded 21 0 11 taken for the optimization of the cheese dip.

Protein blend (%) x1 8 10 12

Cheddar cheese (%) x2 6 8
Milk fat (%) x3 6 8
polyethylene (Tarson Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata). The product was sub-
jected to application of force to a strain of 30% by P-25 cylindrical alu-
minium probe attached to the texture analyser and was evaluated for
textural properties viz., rmness and stickiness using the Texture
Expert for windows software version 1.20 (Stable Micro System). Three
replicates were analyzed for each sample.
2.6 | Apparent viscosity
The steady shear rate test was used to measure the apparent viscosity
of the product using rheometer (Anton-Paar, MCR-52, Ostldern, Ger-
many) controlled by computer aided software (Rheoplus/32 Service
Version 3.61). The cone and plate geometry (CP-75) was used with a
gap of 0.149 mm and at a temperature of 5 6 18C. The shear rate
21
employed for the analysis was varied from 0.1 to 300 s
10 2.7 | Experimental design and statistical analysis
10
The Central Composite Rotatable Design of RSM was employed using
quadratic model to setup the experimental design. The number of design
points were obtained using statistical software package Design Expert
7.0.1 (Stat Ease, Suite 480, 2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis,
USA) based on the numbers of independent variables. Three independ-
ent variables namely % protein blend, % Cheddar cheese, and % milk fat
coded as x1, x2, and x3 were chosen. Each independent variable had
three levels, which were 21, 0, and 11. A total of 20 dierent combina-
tions (including six replicates of the center point) were chosen in random
order. The range and levels of independent variables are shown in Table
1 while the experimental design in actual values of variables is shown in
Table 2. Flavor (Y1), body & texture (Y2), color & appearance (Y3), rm-
ness (Y4), stickiness (Y5), and apparent viscosity (Y6) were taken as the
responses of the design of the experiment. The eect of dierent inde-
pendent variables on the responses is presented in Table 3.
As cheese dip involves three independent variables, there are 14
with 100 noncentral points and six central points (Table 2). It was assumed that

T A B LE 2 The central composite rotatable experimental design employed for optimization of cheese dip

Std. run a
X1 (%) X2 (%) X3 (%) Y1 (12b) Y2 (9b) Y3 (4b) Y4 (N) Y5 (N) Y6 (Pa s)
1 8 6.00 6.00 9.88 6 1.36 7.81 6 0.53 3.78 6 0.36 0.381 6 0.01 0.247 6 0.01 0.798 6 0.0268
2 12 6.00 6.00 9.50 6 0.93 7.64 6 1.11 3.71 6 0.39 1.185 6 0.03 0.812 6 0.02 1.535 6 0.091
3 8 10.00 6.00 9.86 6 1.34 7.36 6 0.85 3.21 6 0.64 1.181 6 0.04 0.887 6 0.03 1.755 6 0.077
4 12 10.00 6.00 9.50 6 1.37 7.28 6 0.62 3.44 6 0.39 2.467 6 0.03 1.845 6 0.00 2.35 6 0.113
5 8 6.00 10.00 10.25 6 0.75 8.00 6 0.53 3.84 6 0.23 0.617 6 0.01 0.452 6 0.09 1.165 6 0.049
6 12 6.00 10.00 9.93 6 1.09 7.71 6 1.15 3.50 6 0.41 1.183 6 0.02 0.813 6 0.04 1.635 6 0.007
7 8 10.00 10.00 9.43 6 0.97 7.36 6 0.85 3.29 6 0.70 1.375 6 0.04 1.05 6 0.04 1.73 6 0.056
8 12 10.00 10.00 9.39 6 1.2 7.22 6 0.83 3.50 6 0.43 3.207 6 0.06 2.2 6 0.025 2.555 6 0.19
9 6.64 8.00 8.00 9.57 6 0.53 7.50 6 0.84 3.63 6 0.42 0.37 6 0.004 0.197 6 0.03 0.7705 6 0.006
10 13.36 8.00 8.00 9.71 6 1.11 7.29 6 1.22 3.39 6 0.64 2.087 6 0.12 1.551 6 0.01 2.67 6 0.028
11 10 4.64 8.00 10.06 6 1.01 7.67 6 0.56 3.72 6 0.34 0.697 6 0.04 0.473 6 0.07 1.16 6 0.014
12 10 11.36 8.00 10.06 6 1.01 7.17 6 1.03 3.44 6 0.67 2.936 6 0.11 2.009 6 0.01 2.295 6 0.091
13 10 8.00 4.64 9.58 6 1.11 7.58 6 0.66 3.71 6 0.40 0.558 6 0.01 0.4 6 0.035 1.485 6 0.007
14 10 8.00 11.36 9.75 6 1.66 7.75 6 0.42 3.71 6 0.40 0.77 6 0.022 0.576 6 0.05 1.96 6 0.099
15 10.00 8.00 8.00 9.84 6 1.43 7.69 6 0.92 3.66 6 0.44 1.292 6 0.05 0.977 6 0.0* 1.59 6 0.13
16 10.00 8.00 8.00 10.22 6 0.71 7.67 6 0.75 3.64 6 0.42 1.429 6 0.05 1.133 6 0.02 1.945 6 0.02
17 10.00 8.00 8.00 9.93 6 0.73 7.86 6 1.10 3.64 6 0.38 1.048 6 0.03 0.778 6 0.04 1.735 6 0.20
18 10.00 8.00 8.00 9.93 6 1.09 7.65 6 0.81 3.69 6 0.64 1.177 6 0.04 0.902 6 0.03 1.925 6 0.077
19 10.00 8.00 8.00 10.25 6 0.52 7.75 6 0.88 3.78 6 0.40 0.894 6 0.02 0.705 6 0.03 1.795 6 0.18
20 10.00 8.00 8.00 10.22 6 0.93 7.56 6 0.98 3.61 6 0.64 1.019 6 0.03 0.74 6 0.021 1.435 6 0.007

X1 5 % protein blend, X2 5 % Cheddar cheese, X3 5 % milk fat.

a
Standard order of experiment as given by RSM.
Y1 5 avor, Y2 5 body & texture, Y3 5 color & appearance, Y4 5 rmness, Y5 5 stickiness, Y6 5 apparent viscosity. Values are mean 6 standard deviation.
b
Maximum score of responses.
4 of 10 | BANSAL ET AL.

T A B LE 3 Regression coecients, ANOVA, and quadratic model statistics for dependent variables

Response
Apparent
Regression Body & Color & Firmness Stickiness viscosity
coecient Flavor texture appearance (N) (N) (Pa s)
b0 10.07 7.69 3.67 1.14 0.87 1.74
b1 20.062 20.075* 20.026 0.54*** 0.39*** 0.43***
b2 20.10 20.20*** 20.14*** 0.63*** 0.46*** 0.38***
b3 0.040 0.035 21.816E2003 0.11 0.075 0.11
b12 0.037 0.030 0.11** 0.22* 0.15* 0.027
b13 0.046 20.021 20.037 0.039 21.5E2003 24.625E2003
b23 20.17* 20.039 0.035 0.088 0.039 20.036

b21 20.16* 20.092** 20.070* 0.074 0.037 20.013

b22 20.015 20.084** 20.043 0.28*** 0.17** 20.010

b23 20.15* 4.419E2003 8.371E2004 20.13* 20.100* 20.012

F value 3.15 9.95 6.18 28.75 25.36 11.58

R2 0.739 0.899 0.847 0.9628 0.9580 0.9125
p>F 0.044 0.0006 0.0044 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003
Mean 9.84 7.58 3.60 1.29 0.94 1.71
Standard deviation 0.20 0.10 0.092 0.21 0.16 0.21
Adequate precision 5.050 11.512 8.593 17.348 16.616 12.245

the response (y) is a function of the experimental factors (X1, X2, X3) or
y 5 f(X1, X2, X3). The second degree polynomial equation was used to
describe the response
y5 b0 1b1 X1 1b2 X2 1b3 X3 1b11 X12 1b22 X22
1b33 X32 1b12 X1 X2 1b13 X1 X3 1b23 X2 X3 ;
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Flavor
As shown in Table 2, the avor score of cheese dip ranged from 9.38
to 10.25. The maximum avor score observed in the experiment with

where y 5 response; bo 5 constant; b1, b2, b3 5 linear regression 8% protein blend, 6% Cheddar cheese, and 10% milk fat while the min-

coecients; b11, b22, b33 5 quadratic regression coecients; b12, imum score was observed with 12% protein blend, 10% Cheddar

b13, b23 5 interaction regression coecients; and X1 ,
X3 5 variables. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for
each response to determine signicant dierences among various
ingredient combinations. The eect of variables at linear, quadratic,
and interactive levels on individual response was described by com-
puting the F value at a probability (p) of .05. The regression coe-
cients of individual linear, quadratic, and interaction terms were also
determined. The optimization of the product was carried out on the
basis of the desirability function. The optimized solution thus
obtained was further validated by manufacturing cheese dip using
optimized levels of independent variables. Mean values of three rep-
licates were used for comparison. Students t test (IBM SPSS Statis-
tics 20 software package) was used to analyze signicant dierence
between actual and predicted values.
PCA was carried out with the factor analysis using IBM SPSS Sta-
tistics 20 software package for designed experiments. In this technique,
both variables and responses shown in Table 2 were scaled, centered,
and projected to the new coordinate axis, representing the principal
components. In the space dened by principal components, factor load-
ings and factor scores are shown graphically.
X2 , cheese, and 10% milk fat source. Table 3 reveals that the quadratic
terms of protein blend and milk fat were signicant (p < .05), while
nonsignicant (p > .05) eect of linear terms was found. The plots
showing the eect of the variable on avor are shown in Figure 1(a)
and 1(b) where the positive eect of milk fat is clearly evident and the
negative eect of protein blend and Cheddar cheese is also shown.
The interaction term of Cheddar cheese and milk fat was also found
signicant (p < .05). The probability value of .0440 indicated that there
was only 4.40% chances that Model F-Value could occur due to
noise. The following equation was obtained after eliminating the insig-
nicant terms:
Flavor 5 110:0720:17  x23 20:16x21 20:15 x23 :
The increase in level of protein blend adversely impacted the a-
vor score of cheese dip. This decrease in avor score might be due to
the bland avor of sodium caseinate and WPC-70, Similar ndings
were observed in processed cheese spread (Pinto et al., 2007) and
processed cheese food (Thapa & Gupta, 1996) where the substitution
of cheese solids with added WPC-70 decreased the avor score of the
product. Kaminarides and Stachtiaris (2000) claimed that the highest
BANSAL ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 3D plots depicting eect of (a) Cheddar cheese (B) and milk fat (C) on avor score, (b) protein blend (A) and milk fat (C) on
avor score, (c) protein blend (A) and Cheddar cheese (B) on body & texture score, (d) protein blend (A) and Cheddar cheese (B) on color &
appearance score
amount of WPC-70 in cheeses resulted in lowest avor score. Hosseini
et al. (2014) observed the decrease in avor score of imitation cheese
with the increase of WPC-70 content. Aged Cheddar cheese often
develops bitterness due to the accumulation of hydrophobic peptides
and it is detected when concentration of peptides exceeds the thresh-
old (Singh, Drake, & Cadwallader, 2003). Cheese dip prepared with
higher content of Cheddar cheese perhaps resulted in accumulation of
larger amount of bitter peptides and hence o-avor development.
Milk fat content aected the avor scores signicantly (p < .05) in
quadratic terms. The increase in the avor score of cheese dip may
possibly be attributed to the richness of fat avor. Shamil, Wyeth, and
Kilcast (1992) reported that the decrease in fat content in hard cheese
and salad dressings decreases the intensity of saltiness and increases
sharpness and astringency. Cheeses with lesser fat, lacks the richness
and mouthfeel necessary for the product (Drake & Swanson, 1995).
The decrease in the avor score of ice-cream was observed by De Vor
(1989) when fat content was reduced from 10% to 3%. At very high
level of fat content, creamy avor, and creamy and fatty mouth-feel of
the cheese dip possibly reduced the avor scores since it is not the
characteristic avor of the product rather cheese avor was highly
acceptable according to the sensory panel.
3.2 | Body and texture
The experiment with 8% protein blend, 6% Cheddar cheese, and 10%
milk fat returned maximum score (8.0) while a minimum score (7.16)
| 5 of 10
for body & texture was obtained with 10% protein blend, 11.36%
Cheddar cheese, and 8% milk fat. The chance of variation in Model F-
Value due to noise was only .06%. As shown in Table 3, body & tex-
ture score was signicantly (p < .05) aected with linear terms of pro-
tein blend and Cheddar cheese content. Quadratic terms of protein
blend and Cheddar cheese were also found signicant (p < 0.05). Figure
1(c) reveals that the protein blend and Cheddar cheese had negative
eect on body & texture score. The following equation was obtained
after eliminating the insignicant terms:
Body & texture 5 17:6920:075x1 20:2x2 20:092x21 20:084 x22 :
Protein blends and Cheddar cheese addition to cheese dip resulted
in rmer body of the product which is undesirable characteristic for the
texture of the cheese dip. Cheese dip with high body & texture score
was reported to be smooth surfaced and slightly owing in consistency
with no perceived grittiness in mouth. Since results from texture prole
analysis indicated that increase in protein blend and Cheddar cheese
content increases the rmness of the samples, it can be said that the
panellists preferred cheese dip with lesser rmness. These ndings are
in agreement with the data reported by Pinto et al. (2007) for proc-
essed cheese spread, Gupta and Reuter (1993) for processed cheese
food, Soowiej et al. (2010) for processed cheese analogues and Hos-
seini et al. (2014) for imitation cheese where authors observed the
increase in hardness of the product with the increasing content of
WPC-70. Processed cheese and other related products are very com-
plex multiphase systems which involves proteinprotein and protein
6 of 10 | BANSAL ET AL.

FIGURE 2 3D plots depicting eect of (a) protein blend (A) and Cheddar cheese (B) and (b) Cheddar cheese (B) and milk fat (C) on rmness

fat interaction (Soowiej et al., 2010). External addition of protein rmness value was found maximum (3.21 N) at 12% protein blend,
source to cheese dip may results in extensive linkages in the smooth 10% Cheddar cheese, and 10% milk fat while the minimum (0.37 N)
protein matrix which could give rise to excessively harder product value was observed at 6.64% protein blend, 8% Cheddar cheese, and
undesirable to consumers. 8% milk fat. Model coecients and p values showed that the rmness
of cheese dip was signicantly aected with protein blend and Ched-
3.3 | Color & appearance dar cheese (p < 0.05) in linear terms (Table 3). The interaction eect of
protein blend and Cheddar cheese was also found signicant (p < 0.05)
The sensory score for color & appearance of cheese dip ranged from
in increasing the rmness. Quadratic terms of Cheddar cheese and milk
3.21 to 3.84. The maximum color & appearance score in the experi-
fat were also found signicantly (p < 0.05) increasing and decreasing
ment was observed with 8% protein blend, 6% Cheddar cheese, and
the rmness, respectively. Numerical value for the coecient of deter-
10% milk fat while the experiment with 8% protein blend, 10% Ched-
mination (R2) for obtained regression model was 96.28% which indi-
dar cheese, and 6% milk fat returned minimum response. Cheddar
cates a high signicance of the model. It could be observed from
cheese addition to cheese dip signicantly (p < .05) aected the score
Figure 2(a) and 2(b) that with increasing protein blend, Cheddar cheese,
in linear terms (Table 3). The signicant (p < .05) interaction eect of
and milk fat the rmness of the cheese dip increased. The obtained
protein blend and Cheddar cheese was observed positively correlated
model to predict the eect of protein blend, Cheddar cheese, and milk
to the color & appearance score (Figure 1d) while all other interaction
fat on the rmness with the elimination of insignicant terms is as
terms were nonsignicant (p > .05). At quadratic level, only protein
follows:
blend aected the color and appearance score signicantly (p < .05).
The model can be represented by the following equation considering Firmness 5 11:1410:54x1 10:63x2 10:22x12 10:28x22 20:13x23 :
only signicant terms:
The increase in the rmness with protein blend might be due to
Color & appearance 5 13:6720:14x2 10:11x12 20:070x21 : high emulsion stability of milk proteins. Gupta and Reuter (1993)
reported the increase in rmness of processed cheese food with
The increase in protein blend resulted in increase in WPC-70 in the
increased WPC-70 content. They presumed that the increase in rm-
cheese dip which has darker color and thus resulted in decrease in color
ness was due to improved emulsion stability of processed cheese foods
& appearance score of the product. The decrease in color and appear-
with added WPC-70. Modler (1985) reviewed that unfolding of whey
ance score with the increase of protein blend may be due to decrease
protein molecules during heat processing exposes hydrophobic groups
in sheen of the product (Soowiej et al., 2010). In addition, the presence
that can orient at the oil and water interphase and thus improves the
of lactose in WPC-70 which might have undergone Maillards reaction
emulsion stability of the food products containing WPC-70. Similar
during processing of cheese dip reduced the sensory scores of color &
ndings were reported by Soowiej et al. (2010) for processed cheese
appearance. Hosseini et al. (2014) reported the decrease in instrumental
analogue and by Hosseini et al. (2014) for imitation cheese where
lightness with the increase of WPC-70 of imitation cheese. They also
authors observed the increase in hardness with the increase of WPC-
reported the decrease in sensory score of color & appearance with the
70. The increase in rmness with the increase of milk fat content could
increase of WPC-70 while Pinto et al. (2007) did not nd any impact of
be due to the homogenization of cheese slurry. Sanchez, Beauregard,
using WPC-70 on the appearance of processed cheese spread.
Chassagne, Bimbenet, and Hardy (1996) reported the increase in rm-
ness of double cream cheese after homogenization. In another study
3.4 | Firmness
by Sanchez, Beauregard, Chassagne, Bimbenet, and Hardy (1994),
The experimental results of the eect of protein blend, Cheddar authors reported that homogenization promotes high structuring of
cheese, and milk fat on the rmness are shown in Table 2. Instrumental curd by milk fat globule-milk protein aggregation which results in the
BANSAL ET AL.
F I G U R E 3 3D plots depicting eect of (a) protein blend (A) and Cheddar cheese (B), (b) Cheddar cheese (B) and milk fat (C) on stickiness
and (c) protein blend (A) and Cheddar cheese (B) on apparent viscosity
increase in rmness. At very high level of fat content, the decrease in
rmness may result from substitution of part of the continuous phase
with equal quantity of fat (Lynch & Grin, 1974). Johnson, Kapoor,
Mcmahon, Mccoy, and Narasimmon (2009) reviewed that cheese with
lower fat are harder and springy, less sticky and cohesive, and less
smooth than full fat cheeses. They proposed that cheese matrix consist
of a hydrated protein matrix where the fat particles are interspersed.
The presence of fat increases the interruption in the protein matrix and
interference of long-chain interactions between the proteins while an
absence of fat allows protein fractions to be very extensive, resulting in
increased rmness.
3.5 | Stickiness
The stickiness values obtained during the experiment were subjected
to evaluation through quadratic model and the results of ANOVA
regression analysis are represented in Table 3. The stickiness of the
resultant cheese dip varied from 0.197 to 2.204 N. The maximum value
of stickiness (2.204 N) was obtained for the product made from 12%
protein blend, 10% Cheddar cheese, and 10% milk fat while the experi-
ment with 6.64% protein blend, 8% Cheddar cheese, and 8% milk fat
yields the minimum (0.197 N) value of stickiness. The lack of the t
test which is the variation of the data around the tted model and
measures the tness of the model obtained did not result in a signi-
cant F value, indicating that the model was suciently accurate for pre-
dicting the stickiness of cheese dip made with any combination of
factor levels within the range evaluated.
Based on the regression coecients and ANOVA results, it was
found that the levels of protein blend and Cheddar cheese at linear level
| 7 of 10
had a highly signicant (p < .001) eect on the stickiness of cheese dip
and was positively correlated. Quadratic terms of Cheddar cheese
showed positive signicant (p < .05) eect on the stickiness of cheese
dip while the milk fat had negative signicant (p < .05) eect. The inter-
action terms of protein blend and Cheddar cheese showed signicant
(p < .05) increase in the stickiness The R2 of the model was 95.80%
which shows the high signicance of the model. The plots shown in Fig-
ure 3(a) and 3(b) show that the protein blend, Cheddar cheese, and milk
fat had positive eect on the stickiness of the cheese dip. The nal equa-
tion after eliminating the nonsignicant terms was as follows:
Stickiness 5 10:8710:39x1 10:46x2 10:15x12 10:17x22 20:1x23 :
Stickiness is an important characteristic of semisolid food materi-
als, which is described as a feeling that can be perceived in the palate,
teeth, and tongue when the food is being masticated (Adhikari, Howes,
Bhandari, & Truong, 2001). The formation of coating in the mouth,
which is an essential part of creamy mouthfeel and after feel, is
described by stickiness which is a functional property of fat (Kip,
Meyer, & Jellema, 2006). The prime cause of stickiness is the interac-
tion of water with solids (Adhikari et al., 2001) but there is no general
consensus as to what factors and forces are involved in stickiness. The
increased value of stickiness with the increase of protein content may
be described by adhesive properties of proteins (Adhikari, Howes,
Shrestha, & Bhandari, 2007).
3.6 | Apparent viscosity
Table 3 reveals that the model F value for apparent viscosity was
11.58 which was higher than the table F value at 5% level of
8 of 10 | BANSAL ET AL.

T A B LE 4 Proximate composition of optimized cheese dip T A B LE 5 Predicted response versus actual response

Cheese dip Attributes Predicted value Actual value

Composition (g/100 g)
Flavor 10.2 6 0.20 10.7 6 0.57NS
Moisture 76.21 6 0.33
Body & texture 7.92 6 0.10 8.16 6 0.29NS
Fat 11.60 6 0.17
Color & appearance 3.81 6 0.09 3.91 6 0.14NS
Protein 08.12 6 0.27
Firmness (N) 0.53 6 0.21 0.53 6 0.01NS
Ash 02.54 6 0.11
Stickiness (N) 0.40 6 0.16 0.41 6 0.01NS
Salt 01.06 6 0.07
Apparent viscosity (Pa s) 1.23 6 0.21 1.27 6 0.18NS
Lactose 00.46 6 0.40
NS, nonsignicant.

condence and hence signicant. The coecient of determination (R2)

was 0.9125 which indicated that there was 91.25% chances that the
Lynch and Grin (1974) and Mcclements (2005), the apparent vis-
apparent viscosity was aected by the processing variables. The lack of
cosity of an oil-in-water type emulsion is mainly determined by the
t test did not result in a signicant F value, indicating that the model
presence of thickening agents like proteins in the continuous phase.
was suciently accurate for predicting the apparent viscosity of
Henceforth, the apparent viscosity of processed cheese emulsion is
cheese dip made with any combination of factor levels within the range
mainly aected by the continuous phase (protein and water) and not
evaluated. The adequate precision (12.245) being greater than 4 indi-
by the dispersed phase (fat).
cated an adequate signal and the model could be used to navigate the
The optimization of variable levels was achieved by maximization
design space. Model coecients and p values showed that the appa- of avor, body & texture, and color & appearance responses and keep-
rent viscosity of cheese dip was signicantly (p < 0.05) dependent on ing rmness, stickiness, and apparent viscosity in range by numerical
the levels of protein blend and Cheddar cheese at linear terms. The optimization procedure of Design Expert 8.0 software. The solution
nal equation indicated that the protein blend and Cheddar cheese had containing 8.82% protein blend, 6% Cheddar cheese, and 9.72% milk
positive eects on the apparent viscosity which is evident in the plot fat yielded highest desirability of 0.929 with predicted avor, body &
Figure 3(c) texture, color & appearance scores, rmness, stickiness, and apparent
Apparent viscosity 5 11:7410:43x1 10:38x2 : viscosity values to be 10.2, 7.92, 3.81, 0.53 N, 0.40 N, and 1.23 Pa s,
respectively. The proximate composition of cheese dip was as given in
The increase in apparent viscosity of cheese dip with the
Table 4. To determine the validity of statistical model, cheese dip was
increase of protein blend and Cheddar cheese may results from
prepared in triplicate with optimized formulation. The predicted values
water holding capacity of WPC-70 and sodium caseinate. The dena-
of dierent responses were then compared with the actual values
turation of WPC-70 during heating further increases the water hold-
(Table 5) using Paired t test to assess the reproducibility of experimen-
ing capacity and thus may lead to increased viscosity of the cheese
tal values and also to validate the results.
dip. Damodaran (1997) reported in his ndings that viscosity of pro-
tein solutions generally increases exponentially with protein concen-
tration possibly owing to the increased interaction between the T A B LE 6 Eigen values, variance explained, and factor loadings of
three principal components extracted using PCA
hydrated protein molecules. Similar kinds of rheological properties
were also reported by Dimitreli and Thomareis (2004) in processed PC1 PC2 PC3
cheese where the authors found the increase of apparent viscosity Eigen values 4.996 1.425 1.065
with the increase of protein content while the increase of fat con- Variance explaineda 39.259 30.810 13.108
tent did not show any signicant eect on the apparent viscosity of Cumulative variance explained 39.259 70.069 83.178
processed cheese. The increase in apparent viscosity with the Factor loadings
increase of fat content possibly due to homogenization of the Protein blend 20.093 0.959b 20.141
cheese slurry where large number of fat particles increased resist- b
Cheddar cheese 0.91 0.128 0.042
ance to ow and hence resulted in an increase in the apparent vis-
Milk fat 0.064 0.079 0.872b
cosity. Peamprasart and Chiewchan (2006) reported the increase in
Flavor 20.438 20.121 0.542
apparent viscosity of coconut milk with increase of fat content after
Body & texture 20.851 20.329 0.257
homogenization of milk, while in another study by Simuang, Chiew-
Color & appearance 20.854 20.131 0.093
chan, and Tansakul (2004), they showed decrease in apparent vis-
Firmness 0.631 0.72 0.071
cosity of unhomogenized coconut milk with the increase of fat
Stickiness 0.633 0.731 0.079
content. At very high level of fat content, the decrease in apparent
viscosity may be due to substitution of part of the continuous phase Apparent viscosity 0.498 0.799b 0.134
a
with equal quantity of fat. Meyer (1973) reported the decrease in Percent variance explained by each principal component.
b
apparent viscosity of blend with the addition of fat. According to Variable explaining maximum variance.
BANSAL ET AL.
FIGURE 4 (a) Loading plots and (b) factor scores of PC1 and PC2 extracted using PCA
3.7 | Analysis of data using PCA
PCA was applied to the values of variables and responses listed in
Table 2 to simplify interpretation of data obtained from 20 RSM trials.
To acquire specic knowledge about factors having critical importance
in production of cheese dip, PCs were extracted based on maximum
variance values (Table 6). Among all the PCs extracted three PCs hav-
ing eigen values > 1 (Kaiser criterion), i.e., 4.996, 1.425, and 1.065
respectively, explained 83.18% of the total variance in the data set.
PC1 explained 39.26% of variance and was found to be entirely related
to the Cheddar, on the other hand, PC2 explained 30.81% of variance
and had large loadings for protein blend and apparent viscosity PC3
explained 13.11% of variance, respectively, and found to be entirely
dependent on milk fat. Figure 4(a) shows the relationships between
variables at space dened with component axis PC1 and PC2 and Fig-
ure 4(b) shows the relationships among the observations. Figure 4(a)
shows that the sensory attributes of cheese dip, i.e., avor, color &
appearance, and body & texture lies in the same quadrant. The cheese
dip with higher sensory scores can be prepared from the RSM trial
number 5 as shown in Figure 4(b) since it lies nearly on the similar posi-
tion as that of sensory attributes. Color & appearance and Cheddar
cheese content of cheese dip can be placed on the line which crosses
the origin. This suggests that the color & appearance is directly related
to Cheddar cheese added to cheese dip.
5 | CONCLUSION
Cheese dip was successfully prepared using whey proteins and sodium
caseinate. The experimental data allowed the development of an
empirical model describing the interrelationship between the independ-
ent and dependent variables. RSM was well suited for evaluating the
individual and interaction eects of variables on responses. PCA
extracted three principal components with 83.18% of cumulative var-
iance explained. According to PCA, color & appearance of cheese dip
was reported to be directly associated with Cheddar cheese content.
Cheese dip was reported to be shiny white in appearance, smooth and
creamy in texture with pleasant cheesy avor. The optimized product
| 9 of 10
can be consumed as a food adjunct with various food recipe particu-
larly pizza and other snack foods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful acknowledgement to the Director, National Dairy Research
Institute for providing economic assistance in the form of institu-
tional fellowship constituted by Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi and other infrastructural amenities for con-
ducting the presented research work.
R EF ER E N CE S
Adhikari, B., Howes, T., Bhandari, B. R., & Truong, V. (2001). Stickiness in
foods: A review of mechanisms and test methods. International Jour-
nal of Food Properties, 4, 133.
Adhikari, B., Howes, T., Shrestha, A., & Bhandari, B. R. (2007). Eect of
surface tension and viscosity on the surface stickiness of carbohy-
drate and protein solutions. Journal of Food Engineering, 79, 1136
1143.
AOAC (1992). Ocial methods of analysis. Washington, DC: Author.
Chavhan, G. B., Kanawjia, S. K., Khetra, Y., & Puri, R. (2014). Eect of
potassium-based emulsifying salts on sensory, textural, and functional
attributes of low-sodium processed Mozzarella cheese. Dairy Science
Technology, 95, 265278.
Damodaran, S. (1997). Food proteins: An overview. In S. Damodaran &
A. Paraf (Eds.), Food proteins and their applications (pp. 124). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
De Vor, H. (1989). Flavours and functional ingredients for low calorie
foods. In Food Ingredients Europe Conference Proceedings, pp. 214,
Expoconsult Publishers, Maarssen, The Netherlands.
Dimitreli, G., & Thomareis, A. S. (2004). Eect of temperature and chemi-
cal composition on processed cheese apparent viscosity. Journal of
Food Engineering, 64, 265271.
Drake, M. A., & Swanson, B. G. (1995). Reduced- and low-fat cheese
technology: A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 6, 366
369.
Ennis, M. P., & Mulvihill, D. M. (1999). Compositional characteristics of
rennet caseins and hydration characteristics of the caseins in a model
system as indicators of performance in Mozzarella cheese analogue
manufacture. Food Hydrocolloids, 13, 325337.
10 of 10 | BANSAL
Gupta, V. K., & Reuter, H. (1993). Firmness and melting quality of proc-
essed cheese foods with added whey protein concentrates. Le Lait,
73, 381388.
Hosseini, M., Habibi Naja, M., & Mohebbi, M. (2014). Modication in
the functional properties of sodium caseinate-based imitation cheese
through use of whey protein and stabilizer. Journal of Agricultural Sci-
ence Technology, 16, 13131324.
ISI (1981). ISI handbook of food analysis. SP-18 (Part XI) dairy products.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Johnson, M. E., Kapoor, R., Mcmahon, D. J., Mccoy, D. R., & Narasim-
mon, R. G. (2009). Reduction of sodium and fat levels in natural and
processed cheeses: Scientic and technological aspects. Comprehen-
sive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 8, 252268.
Kaminarides, S., & Stachtiaris, S. (2000). Production of processed cheese
using kasseri cheese and processed cheese analogues incorporating
whey protein concentrate and soybean oil. International Journal of
Dairy Technology, 53, 6974.
Kip, P., Meyer, D., & Jellema, R. H. (2006). Inulins improve sensoric and
textural properties of low-fat yoghurts. International Dairy Journal, 16,
10981103.
Lee, S. K., & Anema, S. G. (2009). The eect of the pH at cooking on
the properties of processed cheese spreads containing whey pro-
teins. Food Chemistry, 115, 13731380.
Lynch, M. W., & Grin, W. C. (1974). Food emulsions. In K. J. Lissant (Ed.),
Emulsions and emulsion stability (pp. 249289). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Mcclements, D. J. (2005). Emulsion rheology. In D. J. McClements (Ed.),
Food emulsions: Principles, practice and techniques (pp. 341388). New
York: CRC Press.
Meyer, A. (1973). Processed cheese manufacture. London, UK: Food Trade
Press Ltd.
Modler, H. W. (1985). Functional properties of nonfat dairy ingredients
A review. Modication of lactose and products containing whey pro-
teins. Journal of Dairy Science, 68, 22062214.
Peamprasart, T., & Chiewchan, N. (2006). Eect of fat content and pre-
heat treatment on the apparent viscosity of coconut milk after
homogenization. Journal of Food Engineering, 77, 653658.
Pinto, S., Rathour, A. K., Prajapati, J. P., Jana, A. H., & Solanky, M. J.
(2007). Utilization of whey protein concentrate in processed cheese
spread. Natural Product Radiance, 6, 398401.
ET AL.
Sanchez, C., Beauregard, J. L., Chassagne, M. H., Bimbenet, J. J., &
Hardy, J. (1994). Rheological and textural behaviour of double cream
cheese. Part I: Eect of curd homogenization. Journal of Food Engi-
neering, 23, 579594.
Sanchez, C., Beauregard, J. L., Chassagne, M. H., Bimbenet, J. J., &
Hardy, J. (1996). Eects of processing on rheology and structure of
double cream cheese. Food Research International, 28, 547552.
Shamil, S., Wyeth, L. J., & Kilcast, D. (1992). Flavour release and
perception in reduced-fat foods. Food Quality and Preference, 3,
5160.
Simuang, J., Chiewchan, N., & Tansakul, A. (2004). Eects of fat content
and temperature on the apparent viscosity of coconut milk. Journal
of Food Engineering, 64, 193197.
Singh, T. K., Drake, M. A., & Cadwallader, K. R. (2003). Flavor of Cheddar
cheese: A chemical and sensory perspective. Comprehensive Reviews
in Food Science and Food Safety, 2, 166189.
Soowiej, B., Mleko, S., Gustaw, W., & Udeh, K. O. (2010). Eect of
whey protein concentrates on texture, meltability and microstructure
of acid casein processed cheese analogues. Milchwissenschaft, 65,
169173.
Tamime, A. Y. (2011). Processed cheese and analogue: An overview. In
A. Y. Tamime (Ed.), Processed cheese and analogues (pp. 124).
Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Thapa, T. B., & Gupta, V. K. (1996). Chemical and sensory qualities of
processed cheese foods prepared with added whey protein concen-
trates. Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 49, 129137.
Thomas, M. A. (1973). The manufacture of processed cheese. Scientic
principles. In M. A. Thomas & K. A. Hyde (Eds.), Manufacture of proc-
essed cheesea working manual (NO. 84). Richmond, N.S.W., Australia,
New South Wales: Dept. of Agriculture.
How to cite this article: Bansal V, Kanawjia SK, Khetra Y,
Puri R, Debnath A. Eect of whey protein concentrate, sodium
caseinate, Cheddar cheese, and milk fat on sensory and func-
tional properties of cheese dip. J Food Process Preserv. 2017;00:
e13174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13174