See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222141091

Effect of surface topography on color and gloss

of chocolate samples

Article in Journal of Food Engineering December 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.08.004

CITATIONS READS

57 221

3 authors, including:

Christopher A Brown
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
111 PUBLICATIONS 2,056 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

influence of material properties and fabrication parameters on 3d printing materials View project

Industry 4.0 for SMEs - EU Horizon 2020 RISE program View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher A Brown on 02 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Eect of surface topography on color and gloss of chocolate samples

a,*
Vilbett Briones , Jose M. Aguilera a, Christopher Brown b

a
Department of Chemical Engineering and Bioprocesses, Ponticia Universidad Catolica de Chile, P.O. Box 306, Santiago 22, Chile
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, USA

Received 19 April 2005; accepted 2 August 2005

Available online 22 September 2005

Abstract

Dierent surface roughnesses of six chocolate samples were produced by molding over sandpaper of dierent graininess. Surfaces
were examined for roughness (laser scanning microscopy), color and image texture (digital vision system) and gloss (glossmeter). Samples
exhibited signicantly dierent roughness among them expressed by the two parameters used to characterize their surfaces: the statistical
average roughness, ARa (lm), and the area-scale fractal complexity (dimensionless), Asfc. Surfaces of sandpaper and chocolate samples
were highly correlated with these two parameters. Surface elements related to roughness were in the order of 314 lm. Gloss of chocolate
surfaces diminished exponentially as roughness increased while color (L*, lightness and whiteness index) decreased linearly. Parameters
describing image texture, entropy and homogeneity, varied linearly with Asfc values. The structure of the surface of chocolate bars seems
to play a decisive role in visual quality appearance.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Chocolate; Color; Gloss; Roughness; Computer vision; Texture image

1. Introduction Consequently, glossier samples having a smooth surface

1.1. Color and appearance
Appearance involves all visual phenomena characteriz-
ing objects, including gloss, color, shape, roughness, sur-
face texture, shininess, haze and translucency. The
relationship between color and surface topography of an
object is of current interest in many industries. When the
surface of a smooth-colored object becomes rough, the
apparent color of the object changes (Simonot & Elias,
2002). Moreover, dark or high-chroma objects are particu-
larly aected by changes in gloss, whereas high-lightness
objects are not. This occurs because the specular compo-
nent contributes less than the diuse component to dilu-
tion of the colored light reected from the object.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 686 4254; fax: +56 2 354 5803.
E-mail address: vjbrione@ing.puc.cl (V. Briones).
and a larger specular component (therefore, less dilu-
tion) have higher perceived chroma (Dalal & Natale-Ho-
man, 1999). The appearance of a food is the result of a
complex interaction of the incident light, its optical charac-
teristics and human perception. Given that food products
are meant to respond to consumers acquired expectations,
their appearance is one of the most important commercial
attributes.
1.2. Roughness
Surfaces of materials are characterized by topographic
(i.e., height as a function of position) and non-topographic
techniques. Topographic methods, in turn, are divided into
contact and non-contact techniques, several of the latter
having been investigated to measure the roughness of sur-
faces. These include scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), light scatter-
ing approaches, light sectioning, atomic force microscopy
and various interferometric techniques. Perhaps the most

0260-8774/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.08.004
 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783
frequently used parameter to describe roughness is the
average roughness (Ra or ARa), dened as the integral
of the absolute value of the roughness prole over an eval-
uation length.
Scale-sensitive fractal analysis (SSFA) developed by
Brown, Charles, Johnsen, and Chestera (1993) has been
an interesting tool to characterize and quantify the surface
roughness of many foods (Pedreschi, Aguilera, & Brown,
2000, 2002). SSFA determines apparent areas of the same
surface over a range of scales by repeated virtual tiling
exercises with triangular patches of progressively smaller
areas (Brown, Johnsen, & Hult, 1998). After a sucient
number of iterations of the virtual tiling exercise the result
is expressed as a loglog plot of relative area (apparent area
divided by the projected area) versus the area (scale) of the
triangular tile. The method yields an estimation of the
roughness of the surface called the area-scale fractal
complexity, Asfc, which is equal to 1000 times the slope
loglog area plots. It is related to an apparent fractal
dimension, which are two minus the slope of the area-scale
plot. A large Asfc is an indication of higher complexity,
intricacy or roughness of the surface. If the data exhibits
multifractal behaviour there may be dierent slopes that
describe the plot over dierent scale ranges.
1.3. Gloss and color
Gloss is an optical phenomenon related to the appear-
ance of a surface and represents the capacity of a surface
to reect directed light (ASTM, 1995). Gloss is considered
to be the proportion of incident light that is reected at the
specular reectance angle (with respect to the normal plane
of the surface). Since gloss is related to surface composi-
tion, nishing and morphology, most changes in the latter
would presumably result in changes in gloss. Gloss is an
important quality attribute in chocolate and tempering a
key processing step to control it (Beckett, 2002). Some
chocolates exported to humid areas are even coated to in-
crease surface gloss and acquire a moisture barrier (Boutin,
1997). Gloss stability of edible coating formulations of
chocolate surfaces has been studied by Trezza and Krochta
(2000) and Lee, Dangaran, and Krochta (2002).
Methods available for color specication (e.g., colorim-
etry and spectrophotometry) perform better on opaque,
evenly colored materials such as paints, plastics and tex-
tiles. Such instruments have low spatial resolution (i.e., a
few cm square) and provide an average color value over
the sampled area. However, most foods are characterized
by a non-uniform color distribution or even by patterns
of color. Computer vision technology and calibrated color
imaging analysis oers a methodology for characterization
of uneven coloration and description of other attributes of
total appearance (Briones & Aguilera, 2005; Hatcher,
Symons, & Manivannan, 2004; Jahns, Nielsen, &
Paul, 2001; Leemans, Magein, & Destain, 1998; Tan,
Morgan, Ludas, Forrest, & Gerrard, 2000; Yam & Papa-
kadis, 2004).
777
1.4. Image texture
Visual textures are generated by the interaction of light
with a rough surface (McGunnigle & Chantler, 1999).
Visual texture is an optical pattern that contains a large
number of elements (spatial variations in intensity or wave-
length), each visible to some degree, and on the whole, den-
sely and evenly arrayed over the eld of view (Pickett,
1970). A related concept is image texture that represents
the variability of the pixel gray levels measured over an im-
age segment (Augusteijn, Clemens, & Shaw, 1995). Image
texture (not to be confused with sensorial texture in food
science) is one of the basic characteristics of a visible surface
and it provides important information for scene interpreta-
tion. It plays a crucial role in computer vision and pattern
recognition. An important method of image texture analysis
is the gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) which esti-
mates image properties related to second-order statistics.
The method assumes that the texture information is con-
tained in the spatial relationships between gray levels of
neighbouring pixels and can be specied by a set of gray-
tone matrices or co-occurrence matrices. These matrices
can be computed for various angular relationships and dis-
tances between pixels pairs in the image. Fourteen image
features can be calculated from these matrices including
the most commonly used ones: Contrast, homogeneity, en-
tropy and energy (Haralick, Shanmugan, & Dinstein, 1973).
Color of foods may be aected by various optical phe-
nomena among them scattering and surface morphology,
therefore an accurate understanding of the inuence of
surface topography on measured color is essential. The
objective of this study was to evaluateusing digital imag-
ing and image analysisthe color, gloss and texture image
of chocolate samples whose surfaces were modied to yield
dierent degrees of roughness.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Commercial chocolate bars (milk chocolate Nestle)
were purchased from a local supermarket in Worcester,
Massachusetts. Eighty grams of chocolate were melted at
70 C for 30 min, poured over plastic molds with sandpa-
per in the bottom and transferred to a refrigerator (5 C)
when the temperature reached 30 C. Sandpaper (3 M,
Auto-Pak, WetordryTM, USA) was of six dierent grain
sizes, from rough to smooth: #40 (coarse), #80 (medium),
#180 (ne), #220 (very ne), #320 (extra ne) and #400
(super ne). After solidication of the chocolate mass
(one day) the sandpaper was carefully removed from three
samples (chocolate did not stick to sandpaper) and mea-
surements done after temperature equilibration to 20 C.
Samples with induced surface roughness are described in
the text according to the type of sandpaper used for print-
ing, i.e., CH40, CH80, CH180, CH220, CH320 and
CH400.
778 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783
2.2. Topographical measurements
2.2.1. Surface data acquisition
Topographic data sets (height, z, as a function of posi-
tion x, y) of the surface of samples were acquired with a
scanning laser microscope (SLM) assembled at the Surface
Metrology Laboratory of Worcester Polytechnic Institute
(WPI). The SLM consisted of a triangulation laser sensor
for height measurements (LC-2210 Keyence, Fair Lawn,
NJ), positioning stages (Compumotor 10000 Series, Parker
Rohnert Park, CA) and controllers coupled with software
(UBM Messtechnik Gmbh, Ettlingen, Germany). An area
(500 500 lm) was scanned in three positions along the
surface (in triplicate samples) using the nest spatial reso-
lution of the SLM (25 lm). Data were stored digitally for
subsequent analysis.
2.2.2. Surface data analysis
The topographic data sets were analyzed to determine
the average roughness, ARa (ISO 4287) using UBM soft-
ware. Average roughness (Ra or ARa), perhaps the most
frequently used parameter to describe roughness, is dened
as the integral of the absolute value of the roughness prole
divided by the evaluation length. SSFA was used to deter-
mine the area-scale fractal complexity, Asfc, of the same
data sets. Area-scale relation was obtained directly from
Kfrax software (Norwich, V.T.) which is available
commercially.
2.3. Measurement of gloss using the Micro-Tri-Gloss meter
Gloss of chocolate surface was measured using the mul-
tiple-angle Micro-Tri-Gloss meter (BYK Gardner, Silver
Spring, MD). Reectance was measured at an incidence
light angle of 85 from the normal to the chocolate surface,
in accordance with ASTM method D523. A polished black
glass plate with a refractive index of 1.567 was used as stan-
dard surface (ASTM, 1995) and given arbitrarily a gloss
value of 100. Gloss was reported as gloss units (GU; %
of standard) based on determinations (in triplicate) at six
positions along a chocolate sample. Preliminary measure-
ments of gloss values were performed for CH400 at 20,
60 and 85 resulting in 0.26, 2.2 and 5.02 GU, respectively.
As a reference, a surface with a gloss value less than 10 GU
(60 angle) is considered a low gloss surface (BYK, 1997),
hence, the 85 angle was selected to perform instrumental
measurements.
2.4. Computer vision system and image analysis (CVSIA)
Images of chocolate samples were acquired and ana-
lyzed using a computer vision system developed by Briones
and Aguilera (2005), namely:
(a) Samples were placed inside a box impervious to light
and having internal black walls. Illumination was
accomplished by four uorescent lamps (60 cm length
and 18 W, T12/D65VeriVide, USA) with a color tem-
perature of 6500 K (D65, standard light source com-
monly used in food research) and a color-rendering
index close to 95%. The four lamps were arranged
an angle of 45 with the sample (chocolate bars) plane
and forming a square.
(b) A color digital camera (CDC) model PL-A642 (Pixe-
link, USA) was mounted on a stand inside a large box
impervious to light and having internal black sur-
faces. The angle between the camera lens and the
lighting source axis was around 45. Gamma correc-
tion and exposure time were operated in manual
mode (no zoom, no ash) to achieve high uniformity
and repeatability. The camera was gray-balanced
before each imaging session using a Kodak gray card
with 18% reectance.
(c) Images were captured (1280 1024 pixels) and saved
into Bitmap image format for further processing and
analysis.
2.4.1. Segmentation of the chocolate images
The acquired true RGB color images were transferred to
a portable computer (Toshiba Satellite, IntelCeleron,
1200 MHz, 1.20 GHz, 256 MB, 30 GB hard disk) for image
processing. RGB images were digitized (24 bits/pixel) and a
program for segmenting chocolate images from the back-
ground was implemented using Matlab 6.5 (The Math-
Works, Inc., Natick, MA). This program involved the
following steps: (1) conversion of original image to grey-
scale image using the blue channel; (2) application of a
threshold at gray level 102 that produced a good back-
ground subtraction (by visual evaluation) and a binary im-
age; (3) closing the small noisy holes in the object of
interest; (4) counting all objects and removing those with
smaller area, and; (5) segmentation of the original image
into the area of interest (chocolate sample). From the seg-
mented images a number of parameters corresponding to
the color and textural features were determined.
2.4.1.1. Color analysis. Stored color images in the RGB sys-
tem (containing pixels with three color channels red, green,
and blue, each one with 8 bits/pixel) were transformed into
CIE XYZ color space by a linear regression model and then
to the CIELab color space by a nonlinear transformation
(Gonzalez & Woods, 1992). The CIELab or L*a*b* color
space is colorimetric, perceptually uniform and device inde-
pendent. L* is the luminance or lightness component which
ranges from 0 (black) to 100 (white), and parameters a*
(from greenness to redness), and b* (blueness to yellowness)
are the two chromatic components, which in this case range
from 120 to +120. The entire image of the surface of choc-
olates was measured and analyzed using a program imple-
mented in Matlab 6.5 and the mean values of L*, a* and
b* reported. Besides, the Whiteness Index (WI) was calcu-
lated from the expression WI = 100 [(100 L*)2 +
a*2 + b*2]0.5 (Lohman & Hartel, 1994).
 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783
2.4.1.2. Image texture analysis. In order to obtain the tex-
tural features of the image co-occurrence matrices were
generated from the pixel values of gray-level images. The
co-occurrence matrix (Haralick et al., 1973) is based the
estimation of the second-order joint probability density
functions P(i, j, d, h), this is, the probability of going from
gray level i to gray level j, when inter-sample spacing is d
and direction is h (Gonzalez & Woods, 1992; Haralick,
1979). The segmented images were converted to grayscale
and analyzed using the average of one direction, h = 0
and distance, d = 1. Only two textural features, homogene-
ity and entropy, were extracted from images for the pur-
pose of this study. For example, if all pixels in an image
have the same value the homogeneity is one and entropy
is zero.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) and test of
least signicant dierences of means (LSD) were conduced
using Statgraphics Plus for Windows software, Version 5.1
(Manugistic, Inc., Rockville, MD, USA).
3. Results and discussion
A gallery of digital images of chocolate samples showing
their surface appearance is shown in Fig. 1. The surface
topography of chocolate samples varied appreciably from
smooth (CH400, Fig. 1a) to rough (CH40, Fig. 1f), as
can be appreciated with the naked eye (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Images of the rough side of chocolate samples: (a) CH400, (b) CH320, (c) CH220, (d) CH180, (e) CH80 and (f) CH40. Numbers represent
sandpaper coarseness: #40 (coarse), #80 (medium), #180 (ne), #220 (very ne), #320 (extra ne) and #400 (super ne).
779
3.1. Changes in roughness parameters
ARa is a common parameter to represent roughness.
Since ARa describes the magnitude of protrusions and
depressions of the surface (e.g., in lm), it was compared
with Asfc, which is a non-dimensional parameter. As
shown in Table 1, ARa values of chocolate samples were
signicantly dierent according to ANOVA and LSD tests
(p < 0.05). ARa values decreased signicantly from
12.1 lm for CH40 to 3.4 lm for CH400. The same trend
is observed to occur when the fractal parameter Asfc is
used. Asfc values ranged from 317.7 for the roughest
sample (CH40) to 242.5 for the smoothest one CH(400),
a dierence of 75.2 units. Coincidentally, values of ARa
are similar to the size of fat crystals on bloomed chocolate
(Adenier, Chaveron, & Ollivon, 1993).
The relation between surface roughness of sandpaper
and that of chocolate samples expressed by the two rough-
ness parameters (ARa and Asfc) are shown in Fig. 2. The
correlation coecient was higher for Asfc than for ARa
(R2 = 0.99 and 0.89, respectively), a result that suggests
that the area-scale fractal complexity may be a better
parameter than average roughness to quantify the rough-
ness of chocolate samples.
The correlation between the roughness of chocolate
samples measured by ARa and by Asfc was quite high
(R2 = 0.95) as shown in Fig. 3. From this good correlation
it may be inferred that the surface features causing the
fractal complexity associated to Asfc are in the size scale
of 314 lm (Table 1).
780 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783

Table 1
Average surface roughness (ARa) and area-scale fractal complexity (Asfc) of chocolate samples (mean standard deviation)
Parameters Chocolate samples
CH40 CH80 CH180 CH220 CH320 CH400
ARa (lm) 12.1 1.31a 10.0 0.51b 8.0 0.21c 6.9 0.25d 5.7 0.21e 3.4 0.23f
Asfc 317.7 3.88a 298.3 5.22b 283.1 4.44c 270.2 5.80d 258.6 6.54e 242.5 5.11f
af
Means within a row with the same letter are not signicantly dierent (p < 0.05).

16 400

14 375
40 40
12 350
80

(Sandpaper)
80
(Sandpaper)

10 325
ARa ( m)

180

Asfc
8 180 300
220
220
6 275
320 320
4 250
400 400
2 225
R2 = 0.89 R2 = 0.99
0 200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
ARa ( m) Asfc
a (Chocolate samples) b (Chocolate samples)

Fig. 2. Relation between surface roughness (expressed as ARa or Asfc) of chocolate samples and sandpaper. Squares and triangles indicate values of
individual measurements on chocolate samples and dotted lines enclose values for each sandpaper type.

350 the gloss value decreased signicantly (p < 0.05) as surface

CH40
roughness was increased (i.e., from that of sample CH400
325 to CH40). These are very low gloss values, especially if
CH80 compared to that of the original commercial chocolate
300
CH180 bar (50.6 GU). Moreover, our experience indicates that
Asfc

CH220 bloomed milk chocolate may show a gloss value below

275
CH320 20 GU. Evidently, the low glossiness was due to sample
CH400 preparation and the absence of tempering, which was not
250
considered as a variable in this study.
R2 = 0.95 The relation between surface roughness (as Asfc) and
225
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 gloss depicted in Fig. 4 indicates that as pore size indenta-
ARa (m) tion (or roughness) increased (e.g., from sample CH400 to
CH40), gloss decreased in an exponential fashion
Fig. 3. Asfc versus ARa for chocolate samples. Squares indicate values of (R2 = 0.96). This inverse correlation between the light that
individual measurements and dotted lines enclose values for each type of
sandpaper.
is specularly reected and surface roughness is well known
to materials scientists (Thomas, 1999).
The reason for the decreasing glossiness at higher rough-
3.2. Gloss changes in the chocolate surfaces ness values probably comes from the larger light scattering
of increasingly more irregular and complex surfaces. For
As seen in Fig. 1 chocolate samples presented low gloss example, it has been reported that polished surfaces of den-
(they were matt surfaces) typical of poorly tempered or ture base resins have larger gloss values than those of
bloomed chocolate (Beckett, 2002). Table 2 shows that unpolished samples (Keyf & Etikan, 2004).

Table 2
Average surface gloss (85 angle) of chocolate samples (mean standard deviation)
Parameters Chocolate samples
CH40 CH80 CH180 CH220 CH320 CH400
85 Gloss (GU) 0.87 0.20a 1.40 0.05b 2.01 0.09c 2.71 0.26d 3.22 0.13e 4.98 0.13f
af
Means with dierent letters are signicantly dierent (p < 0.05).
 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783 781

6 50 46
CH400
CH400 48 44
CH320
5 2 42
R = 0.96 46 CH220 R2 = 0.95 40
85 Gloss (G.U.)

CH180
CH320 44
4 38
CH400 CH80
CH220 42 36

L*
CH40

WI
3 CH320
CH180 40 34
CH220 32
2 CH80 38 CH180
R2 = 0.95 30
CH40 36 CH80 28
1
34 CH40 26

0 32 24
225 250 275 300 325 350
225 250 275 300 325 350
Asfc
Asfc
Fig. 5. L* and WI versus Asfc. Squares and triangles indicate values of
Fig. 4. Relation between Asfc and gloss (85) in chocolate samples.
individual measurements.
Squares indicate values of individual measurements.

3.4. Image texture changes in the chocolate surfaces

3.3. Color changes in the chocolate surfaces
Major color dierences were induced in samples as sur-
face roughness increased. The result of the ANOVA and
LSD tests (Table 3) showed that all L* values (as well as
WI values) were signicantly dierent between samples
(p < 0.05). The dierences between the L* and WI values
of smooth (CH400) and rough (CH40) chocolate were 10
and 9.2 units, respectively. However, variation in a* and
b* values due to surface topography was not as clear for
all samples, although CH40 had signicantly dierent
mean values than CH400 (see, Table 3). It is interesting
to note that these dierences in color parameters (L* and
WI) are due only to the surface structure of the samples
since composition and processing (i.e., pigmentation) was
the same. Barnett (1973) had shown that freeze-dried coee
having larger surface pores left after water sublimation
from equally large ice crystals (produced by slow freezing)
exhibited a much darker color than freeze-dried coee from
the same coee concentrate that had been rapidly frozen to
give small ice crystals, hence, smaller surface pores.
Fig. 5 shows the relation between Asfc and L* conrm-
ing the visual impression (Fig. 1) that a smoother surface
(smaller Asfc) presents a lighter color (higher L*). L* and
WI decreased linearly as Asfc increase (R2 = 0.95 for both
parameters). Surface roughness and topography is known
to inuence L* values in dental porcelain and adhesive res-
ins (Eliades, Gioka, Heim, Eliades, & Makou, 2004; Kim,
Lee, Lim, & Kim, 2003).
A more or less intuitive idea of image texture is neces-
sary to interpret the mathematical results reported below.
In an homogeneous image, such as Fig. 1a, there are very
few and minor color transitions from pixel to pixel, regard-
less of the distance separating the pair of pixels or the angle
between them. Hence, the probability of nding a pixel of
similar value in the neighborhood is high, thus, the homo-
geneity of Fig. 1a is high. In fact, for a perfectly homoge-
neous image all pixel values would be the same. For an
image like that in Fig. 1f (rough chocolate sample) pixel
values vary more than in Fig. 1a (smooth sample), thus,
the homogeneity is lower. Table 4 shows that the homoge-
neity increased as the grain size in the chocolate surface de-
creased. The roughest surface (CH40) had a homogeneity
value of 0.31 while the smoothest surface (CH400)
presented a value of 0.56. All samples were signicantly
dierent among them.
As intuitively expected the entropy feature takes higher
values for more complex images (Haralick et al., 1973).
Since there is a larger amount of local variation present
in the image of Fig. 1f the entropy was the highest and de-
creased as the surface of the samples became smoother, all
samples being signicantly dierent.
Fig. 6 shows that entropy values increased linearly with
increased roughness while homogeneity decrease linearly
with increased roughness, accounting for the variation in
visual texture between samples. The high correlation coef-
cient of entropy and homogeneity values with roughness

Table 3
Average surface L*, a*, b* color parameters and WI values (and standard deviation) for chocolate samples
Parameters Chocolate samples
CH40 CH80 CH180 CH220 CH320 CH400
L* 35 0.11a 36 0.24b 39 0.13c 40 0.05d 41 0.49e 45 0.16f
a* 6 0.36a 6 0.03b 7 0.27c 7 0.15c 8 0.05d 8 0.09d
b* 7 0.28a 8 0.01b 8 0.10b 9 0.48c 9 0.06c 10 0.06d
WI 34 0.08a 36 0.24b 38 0.14c 39 0.05d 40 0.47e 43 0.14f
af
Means within a row with the same letter are not signicantly dierent (p < 0.05).
782 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783

Table 4
Average surface entropy and homogeneity values and standard deviation depending on the chocolate supercial roughness
Parameters Chocolate samples
CH40 CH80 CH180 CH220 CH320 CH400
Entropy 2.60 0.05a 2.23 0.02b 1.96 0.05c 1.83 0.08d 1.74 0.09e 1.59 0.05f
Homogeneity 0.31 0.014a 0.37 0.003b 0.46 0.012c 0.50 0.006d 0.53 0.006e 0.56 0.006f
af
Means within a row with the same letter are not signicantly dierent (p < 0.05).

3.1
studies of foods and beverages (pp. 353389). Amsterdam, The
0.6
CH320
R2 = 0.97
Netherlands.
CH220
CH400 ASTM (1995). Standard test method for specular gloss. Designation D
CH180
CH40 523. In 1995 Annual book of ASTM standards. Volume 6.01: Paint-tests
CH80
for chemical, physical and optical properties; appearance; durability of
2.5 0.4

Homogeneity
non-metallic materials. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Entropy

CH80
R2 = 0.96
CH180
1.9
CH220
CH320
CH400
1.3
225 250 275 300
Asfc
Fig. 6. Relation between surface roughness (chocolate) and image texture
(entropy and homogeneity). Squares and triangle indicate values of
individual measurements.
(R2 = 0.96 and R2 = 0.97, respectively) and with the visual
appearance of the images, validates the usefulness of the
methodology.
4. Conclusions
Laser microscopy was instrumental to generate topo-
graphical data of the surface of chocolate at the required
micrometer scale. The surface roughness of chocolate sam-
ples having the same composition but imprinted with sand-
paper of dierent graininess had a major eect on the
measured gloss and color. Good correlations were found
between roughness parameters (Asfc and ARa) and gloss
value, lightness (L*), whiteness index and image texture
features such as homogeneity and entropy. Further work
is needed to relate surface roughness of commercially tem-
pered and molded chocolate and these key quality
parameters.
Acknowledgements
This work was partly funded by the Nestle Research
Centre (Vers-chez-les-Blanc, Switzerland) and a graduate
fellowship to Ms. V. Briones by the Oce of Scientic
Research (DIPUC), Universidad Catolica de Chile.
References
Adenier, H., Chaveron, H., & Ollivon, M. (1993). Mechanism of fat
bloom development on chocolate. In G. Charalambous (Ed.), Shelf life
CH40 Materials.
Augusteijn, M. F., Clemens, L. E., & Shaw, K. A. (1995). Performance
evaluation of texture measures for ground cover identication in
0.2 satellite images by means of a neural network classier. IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33(3), 616626.
Barnett, S. (1973). Freezing of coee extract to produce a dark colored
freeze-dried product. Engineering of food preservation and biochem-
0 ical processes. AIChE Symposium Series, 69(132), 2632.
325 350
Beckett, S. T. (2002). The science of chocolate (1st ed.). Cambridge: Royal
Society of Chemistry.
Boutin, B. (1997). Finishing agents. The Manufacturing Confectioner,
68(10), 102109.
Briones, V., & Aguilera, J. M. (2005). Image analysis of changes in surface
color of chocolate. Food Research International, 38, 8794.
Brown, C. A., Charles, P. D., Johnsen, W. A., & Chestera, S. (1993).
Fractal analysis of topographic data by the Patchwork method. Wear,
161, 6167.
Brown, C. A., Johnsen, W. A., & Hult, K. M. (1998). Scale sensitivity,
fractal analysis and simulations. International Journal of Machine
Tools & Manufacture, 38(56), 633637.
BYK. (1997). Haze-gloss. Application note. Accompanying handout to
color and appearance. In Seminar given by BYK-Garden USA, Foster
City, California.
Dalal, E. N., & Natale-Homan, K. M. (1999). The eect of gloss on
color. Color Research and Application, 24, 369376.
Eliades, T., Gioka, C., Heim, M., Eliades, G., & Makou, M. (2004). Color
stability of orthodontic adhesive resins. The Angle Orthodontist, 74(3),
391393.
Gonzalez, R. C., & Woods, R. E. (1992). Digital image processing (pp.
282325) (second ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman
Publishing Co. Inc..
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugan, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973). Textural features
for image classication. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, SMC-3(6), 610621.
Haralick, R. M. (1979). Statistical and structural approach to texture.
Proceeding of the IEEE, 67(5), 786804.
Hatcher, D. W., Symons, S. J., & Manivannan, U. (2004). Developments
in the use of image analysis for the assessment of oriental noodle
appearance and colour. Journal of Food Engineering, 61, 109117.
Jahns, G., Nielsen, H. M., & Paul, W. (2001). Measuring image analysis
attributes and modelling fuzzy consumer aspects for tomato quality
granding. Computers and Electronics in Agricultura, 31, 1729.
Keyf, F., & Etikan, I. (2004). Evaluation of gloss changes of two denture
acrylic resin materials in tour dierent beverages. Dental Materials,
20(3), 244251.
Kim, I., Lee, Y., Lim, B., & Kim, C. (2003). Eect of surface topography
on the color of dental porcelain. Journal of Materials Science:
Materials in Medicine, 14, 405409.
Lee, S. Y., Dangaran, K. L., & Krochta, J. M. (2002). Gloss stability of
whey-protein/plasticizer coating formulations on chocolate surface.
Journal of Food Science, 67, 11211125.
 V. Briones et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 776783
Leemans, V., Magein, H., & Destain, M. (1998). Defects segmentation on
Golden Delicious apples by using colour machine vision. Computer
and Electronics in Agriculture, 20, 117130.
Lohman, M., & Hartel, R. (1994). Eect of milk fat fractions on fat in
dark chocolate. Journal American Oil Chemists Society, 71(3),
267275.
McGunnigle, G., & Chantler, M. (1999). Rotation invariant classication
or rough surfaces. IEEE Proceedings Vision Image & Signal Processing,
146, 345352.
Pedreschi, F., Aguilera, J. M., & Brown, C. (2000). Characterization of
food surfaces using scale-sensitive fractal analysis. Journal of Food
Process Engineering, 23, 127143.
Pedreschi, F., Aguilera, J. M., & Brown, C. (2002). Characterization
of the surface properties of chocolates using scale-sensitive
fractal analysis. International Journal of Food Properties, 5(3),
523535.
View publication stats
783
Pickett, R. M. (1970). Visual analysis of texture in the detection and
recognition of objects. In B. Lipkin, & A. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Picture
processing & psychopictorics (pp. 298308). Orlando.
Simonot, L., & Elias, M. (2002). Color changes due to surface state
modication. Color Research and Application, 28(1), 4549.
Tan, F. J., Morgan, M. T., Ludas, L. I., Forrest, J. C., & Gerrard, D. C.
(2000). Assessment of fresh por colour with colour machine vision.
Journal of Animal Science, 78(12), 30783085.
Thomas, T. (1999). Rough surfaces (2nd ed.). London: Imperial College
Press.
Trezza, T. A., & Krochta, J. M. (2000). The gloss of edible coatings as
aected by surfactants, lipids, relative humidity and time. Journal of
Food Science, 65, 658662.
Yam, K. L., & Papakadis, S. E. (2004). A simple digital imaging method
for measuring and analysing color of food surfaces. Journal of Food
Engineering, 61(1), 137142.