Viscosity Comparison of Thickened Juices at Two and Ten Minute Intervals Lindsey R. Biggs
|
Orange Juice |
Apple Juice |
|||
2 minutes |
10 minutes |
2 minutes |
10 minutes |
|
Cps (SD) |
Cps (SD) |
Cps (SD) |
Cps (SD) |
|
Nectar |
||||
Thick & Easy |
966.7 (15.3) |
840.0 (125.3) |
263.3 (72.3) |
266.7 (35.1) |
Thick It |
330.0 (45.8) |
330.0 (26.5) |
100.0 (26.4) |
43.3 (20.8) |
Thicken Up |
230.0 (149.3) |
363.3 (15.3) |
326.7 (45.1) |
426.7 (15.3) |
Thicken Right |
823.3 (55.1) |
880.0 (10.0) |
550.0 (268.9) |
530.0 (36.1) |
Honey |
||||
Thick & Easy |
6566.7 (450.9) |
4033.3 (378.6) |
1000.0 (360.6) |
2233.3 (288.7) |
Thick It |
3566.7 (288.7) |
5300.0 (400.0) |
2166.7 (550.8) |
3066.7 (493.3) |
Thicken Up |
1500.0 (200.0) |
2533.3 (152.8) |
1666.7 (503.3) |
3500.0 (989.9) |
Thicken Right |
6333.3 (288.7) |
10466.7 (2285.5) |
2600.0 (500.0) |
5100.0 (1659.3) |
__________________________________________________________________________ |
To determine statistical significance of these differences, the data were submitted to a three-way analysis of variance test (Brand x Juice x Time) with centipoise as the dependent variable. Nectar and honey thickened juices were examined separately. Nectar results showed a significant main effect for brand (F=76.72; p<.001) and a significant main effect for juice (F=32.47; p<.001). There was no main effect for time (F=0.19; p=.666), and there was one significant two-way interaction for Brand x Juice (F=32.47; p<.001). Results showed that nectar juices did not significantly change in their viscosity when allowed to thicken for ten-minute intervals compared to two minutes. The 3-way analysis of variance test for honey showed significant main effects for brand (F=42.62; p<.001), juice (F=89.72; p<.001), and time (F=29.27; p<.001). There was also a significant interaction of Brand x Juice x Time (F=5.87; p=.0026).
Further analysis was done to understand the nature of each interaction. Post-hoc analysis of the Juice x Brand interaction showed that nectar orange juice was more viscous than apple juice for all powdered thickeners except Thicken Up, in which there was no statistical differences in viscosity across juices. With regard to orange juice, Thick & Easy and Thicken Right were more viscous than Thick It and Thicken Up. Thick & Easy and Thicken Right did not differ from one another and Thick It and Thicken Up were statistically similar. Apple juice results showed that all brands but Thicken Up and Thick & Easy were statistically different in centipoise from one another. The significant contrasts are presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 1. |
||
Significant Contrast (p<.01) |
||
Orange Juice |
||
Thick & Easy |
> |
Thick It |
Thick & Easy |
> |
Thicken Up |
Thicken Right |
> |
Thick It |
Thicken Right |
> |
Thicken Up |
Apple Juice |
||
Thick & Easy |
> |
Thick It |
Thicken Up |
> |
Thick It |
Thicken Right |
> |
Thick & Easy |
Thicken Right |
> |
Thick It |
Thicken Right |
> |
Thicken Up |
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.
Viscosity Measures in Centipoise of Nectar-Thickened Orange Juice and Apple Juice for each Powdered ThickenerSignificant contrast for the Juice x Brand x Time interaction for honey-like consistencies are displayed in Table 3. Results indicated that orange juice was more viscous than apple juice, regardless of the time interval between measurements. The exception was Thicken Up, as the orange juice and apple juice centipoise measures were similar to one another. Time did not interact with juice for three of the powdered thickeners. The samples measured after 10 minutes for Thick It, Thicken Up, and Thicken Right were always more viscous than those measured after 2 minutes. A different pattern occurred with Thick & Easy in that the two-minute honey sample was more viscous than all other Thick & Easy honey samples. In comparing the different thickeners for orange juice after two minutes, Thick & Easy and Thicken Right were significantly thicker, while Thick It was more viscous than Thicken Up. A different pattern resulted at 10 minutes in that Thicken Right exceeded all other powdered thickeners in centipoise and Thick It was greater in centipoise than Thicken Up. Apple juice reflected a similar trend for two and ten minute measurements across the four brands. For both time intervals, Thicken Right was more viscous than Thick & Easy. Other comparisons of centipoise did not reach a level of statistical significance.
Table 3. |
|||||
Thick & Easy |
|||||
> |
Apple juice, 2 minutes |
||||
Orange juice, 2 minutes |
> |
Apple juice, 10 minutes |
|||
Orange juice, 2 minutes |
> |
||||
Orange juice, 10 minutes |
> |
Apple juice, 10 minutes |
|||
Orange juice, 10 minutes |
> |
Apple juice, 2 minutes |
|||
Apple juice, 10 minutes |
> |
Apple juice, 2 minutes |
|||
|
|||||
Orange juice |
> |
Apple juice |
|||
10 minutes |
> |
2 minutes |
|||
|
|||||
10 minutes |
> |
2 minutes |
|||
|
|||||
Orange juice |
> |
Apple Juice |
|||
10 minutes |
> |
2 minutes |
|||
________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
This study examined the physical properties of nectar and honey-thickened orange juice and apple juice measured at two and ten minutes for four brands of powdered thickeners. The specific brand of powdered thickener, type of juice, and time span between preparation and viscosity measurement were all components of primary interest.
The results showed that viscosity levels varied across all brands of commercial thickeners, for different juices and levels of consistency. Furthermore, three of the products thickened two types of juices in different ways. Differences were noted even though all powdered thickeners are made from a similar product (i.e., food starch). The results from this research are consistent with Mills (1999), who also commented on the variability of thickened liquids. The current study and Mills found variability in viscosity, which might help explain why raters perceive differences in taste and texture (Pelletier, 1997).
Although there were statistical differences between powdered thickeners and juices, there is not clear evidence that these differences are meaningful to patients� swallowing safety. Currently, there are no established guidelines that identify acceptable viscosity ranges for nectar or honey-like liquids (Pat Felt-Gunderson, personal communication, April 19, 2002).
The viscosity measurements for orange juice were consistently higher than apple juice across all brands of commercial thickeners, with the exception of Thicken Up. Although apple juice and orange juice are both considered thin liquids, these juices responded differently due to their individual composition (e.g., acidity of orange juice).
Centipoise measurements at two and ten-minute intervals were not found to be a significant factor when measuring the viscosity of nectar-thickened juices; however, time proved to be a significant factor in the viscosity measurements of honey-like juices. This is clinically significant to people with disordered swallowing. Speech-language pathologists make recommendations about levels of diet modifications depending on the patient�s specific swallowing problems. Therefore, variable consistencies could impact swallowing in ways that are not anticipated. Thus, it is important not to under or over thicken liquids because this could result in severe harm to the patient.
There are possible factors that could limit this study�s findings. For instance, this study compared viscosity at two time periods (2 & 10 minutes). Other time variables could be a factor. For example, thickened juices may continue to thicken after the ten-minute interval that was measured in this study. Also, it is not known if samples thickened at a consistent rate or if significant changes occurred at distinct time intervals (e.g., after 5 minutes). This study examined two common fruit juices. Viscosity results might be different for other liquids (e.g., milk or soda) due to variations in their properties that might cause them to thicken differently. In addition, heated liquids, such as coffee, might react differently to powdered thickeners than those that are refrigerated. Lastly, viscosity measures of pre-thickened liquids should be considered in future research. In summary, the differences between juices and powdered thickeners in this study substantiate the importance of continued research to better understand the physical properties of thickened liquids for the swallowing safety of patients with dysphagia.
References
Glassburn, D. L., & Deem, J.F. Thickener viscosity in dysphagia management: Variability among speech-language pathologists. Dysphagia, 13, 218-222.
Logemann, J. A. (1983). Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. Austin: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Logemann, J. A. (1998). Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders (2nded.). Austin: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Lubinski, R., & Frattali, C. M. (2001). Professional issues: Challenges and choices. In R. Lubinski and C. M. Frattali (Eds.), Professional issues in speech-language pathology and audiology (2nd ed.).San Diego: Singular.
Miller, B. F. (1972). Encyclopedia and dictionary of medicine, nursing and allied health. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company.
Mills, R. H. (1999). Rheology overview: Control of liquid viscosities in dysphagia management. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 14, 52-56.
O�Gara, J. A. (1990). Dietary adjustments and nutritional therapy during treatment for oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia, 4, 209-212.
Pelletier, C. A. (1997). A comparison of consistency and taste of five commercial thickeners. Dysphagia, 12, 74-78.
Penman, J. P., & Thomson, M. (1998). A review of textured diets developed for the management of dysphagia. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 11, 51-60.
Robertson, H. M., & Pattillo, M. S. (1993). A strategy for providing food to the patients with neurologically based dysphagia. Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association, 54.
Williams, M. J., & Walker, G. T. (1992). Swallowing problems in the home. Caring Magazine, 17, 59-63.
RESOURCES: |
©2002-2021 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community. |