Food & Nutrition Journal (ISSN: 2575-7091)

research article

  PDF Download

The Sweetness Technology of Sugar Substituted Low-Calorie Beverages

Rajpreet Kaur Goraya, Usha Bajwa*

Department of Food Science and Technology, Punjab Agricultural University, India

*Corresponding author: Usha Bajwa, Department of Food Science and Technology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana- 141004, India, E-mail:

Received Date: 15 November, 2016; Accepted Date: 12 December, 2016; Published Date: 16 December, 2016

Citation: Bajwa U and Goraya RK (2016) The Sweetness Technology of Sugar Substituted Low-Calorie Beverages. Food Nutr J 1: 115. DOI: 10.29011/2575-7091.100015

A perturbing increase in the number of diabetics and obese people in all age groups of the population has raised concern in the scientific and industrial community to develop low calorie or no added sugar beverages. Nowadays such sugar-free beverages are gaining popularity because of their inherent thirst quenching properties and fewer calories. Production of such beverages has been possible with the replacement of sugar and incorporation of artificial sweeteners which are low/free in calorie content. The sweetness technology for low-calorie beverages has attained strong commercial success with the safe use of non-nutritive sweeteners that deliver good taste quality. However, some considerations for their efficient use include their solubility and stability in beverage systems along with cost effectiveness. The assessment of non-nutritive sweeteners shows that high-potency artificial non-caloric, include synthetic sweeteners, i.e. aspartame, acesulfame-K, Cyclamate, Neotame, Saccharin and Sucralose whereas natural ones embrace Stevia and Monk Fruit extract. Each one has limitations for taste quality if used singly, i.e., short maximal sweetness response, “off” tastes or/and fast/slow-onset of sweet tastes. However, if used in combination their sweetness intensity increases and taste profile matches the sucrose. The beverage taste profile varies depending upon the type and combination of sweeteners.

Optimum blend ratios harmonize the taste profile of specific flavor of beverage and are best determined by sensory testing various blends.

The food industry is frequently seeking to augment nutritional value of many foods and beverages by adding different functional components like soluble and insoluble dietary fibers, phytochemicals, antioxidants, probiotics, vitamins, minerals, and many others. The health-conscious consumers demand newer specialty products, without disturbing the natural nutritional attributes [1]. The society today is becoming aware of maintaining its health rather than relying on expensive medical treatments [2]. The calorie-conscious nature of diabetic and obese consumers has obligated the food and beverage industry to develop products with low calorific value [3]. Hence, the low glycemic foods are gaining more attention because of a lower risk of developing obesity and type-2 diabetes [4] as these greatly increases the risk of heart disease and stroke. Type-2 or non-insulin dependent diabetes can be delayed or managed through exercise and diet modifications,especially the type of carbohydrates  [5,6].

A sweetener is naturally occurring or synthetically produced substance that develops a sweet taste in drinks. The replacement of natural carbohydrate based sweetener (sucrose or high fructose corn syrup/HFCS) with low calorie or high-intensity sweeteners is a novel approach to developing specialty beverages [7]. Sucrose (table sugar) is regarded as the “gold” standard for sweet taste and is the most common sweetener in the beverage industry. Sweeteners are commonly classified as nutritive or non-nutritive. Nutritive or caloric sweeteners are usually made from fruits, sugar cane, and sugar beets which on an average provide four Calories/g [8]. Unlike sugar and other carbohydrates, non-nutritive or high-intensity sweeteners provide sweetness along with little or no calories when metabolized. Some of the non-nutritive sweeteners are not metabolized and are excreted unchanged by the body [9] whereas several others are metabolized in part, and their metabolites are readily excreted [10]. Non-nutritive sweeteners have been considered as good sugar substitutes in food applications, especially in beverages which are the primary sources for sugar intake [11]. Most of the consumers normally select functional or specialty beverages for achieving some health benefits [1]. This reason has prompted the use of high-intensity artificial sweeteners (saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame–K) and natural sweeteners (stevia) with low or no calorific value as sweetening agents in foods [12]. In the past, artificial sweeteners were used mostly in diabetic products, but now they have become more popular as alternative sweeteners in contemporary processed food products especially in soft drinks and other beverages [13]. The quality of food not only depends on nutrients but also on other substances such as food additives, the presence of which could be justified, allowed or tolerated only when they are harmless to the health [12]. The sugars obtained from carbohydrate sources has a significant regulating effect on the overall taste sensation. However, replacement of carbohydrate-based sweeteners like corn syrup, glucose, fructose and sucrose from the beverages with high potency sweeteners is one of the most appropriate solutions but poses several sensory and technical challenges [1] due to lowering of solids contribution [14]. The improvement could partly be realized by the use of low-calorie bulk fillers/ bulking agents i.e. polydextrose, maltodextrins, and many others [15] along with the use of stabilizers to enhance the overall mouth feel of the beverages. Due to these features, rare sugars are also desirable for fewer calories and bulk sweetener as well. These sugars provide desirable sweetness but don’t get metabolized in the human body and therefore do not provide calories [13].

The main category of non-nutritive sweeteners is an artificial sweetener, which has been introduced into the market for a long time. However, with the increasing concern for health and fitness, the beverage industry tends to use artificial sweeteners based on the consumer’s demand. However, there is no complete acceptable low-calorie substitute for sucrose available to consumers [16]. Non-nutritive sweeteners- Artificial and Natural The non-nutritive sweeteners are known to be 30 to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose [17]. The increased incidences of obesity and similar health issues correlated to nutritive sweeteners resulted in an increased demand for sugar-free/reduced-sugar foods. The non-caloric sweeteners differ from nutritive sweeteners in taste, sweetness potency, temporal profile and taste defects such as bitterness, metallic and liquorice-like tastes [18]. Acesulfame-K, aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, etc. are artificial sweeteners approved by the FDA [9]. These could be utilized in foods and beverages individually or in combination depending on their sensory profiles [19]. Stevia extract (stevioside, rebaudioside A) and Monk Fruit extract are two natural non-nutritive sweeteners which are identified as “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA [9]. These natural high potency sweeteners gained importance in the beverage world due to more consumer acceptance for natural additives and or ingredients [20]. The taste profile of high-intensity sweeteners is claimed to be more acceptable if used in blends due to their disagreeable tastes [21].


Acesulfame-K is a combination of an organic acid and potassium. It is almost 200 times as sweet as sucrose when used at moderate sweetness levels. The sweetness is perceived quickly as compared to aspartame and sucralose [22]. It could have a bitter after taste when used alone in food or beverage [23] Therefore, combining it with other non-nutritive sweeteners is a common remedy for its practical applications. Also, its high heat stability allows its extensive use in beverages. It is not metabolized in humans or other animals [24] or by bacteria of the oral cavity or intestine when added either in combination or individually [25], therefore, about 95% Acesulfame-K is excreted unchanged in the urine [26]. Thus it can be used for low-calorie and diet beverages due to its sound stability in aqueous solutions even at low pH typical of diet soft drinks.


Aspartame is a methyl ester of aspartic acid and phenylalanine dipeptide. It has a clean, sweet taste and is approximately 180- 200 times sweeter than sucrose. Unlike other high-potency sweeteners, its sweetness profile is similar to sucrose, with a slightly longer onset time and a lingering taste which may be improved by blending with other sweeteners [27]. It is stable under dry conditions, but in solution, it degrades during thermal processing. The rate of degradation depends on pH and temperature [28]. The intake of aspartame in food stuff decreased the glucose level [29]. Aspartame is used in many areas of the food and pharmaceutical  thermal stability, it is not suitable for baked goods. The phenylalanine being one of the breakdown products of aspartame, it is important to consider its intake for consumers with phenyl ketonuria [30]. For this reason, products using aspartame are required to reveal on their packages that it contains a source of phenyl ketonuria. Aspartame is not fermented by tooth plaque bacteria and therefore is considered to be tooth friendly [31].


Cyclamate is a salt of cyclohexyl sulfamic acid. Cyclamate is 30 times sweeter than sucrose. Sodium cyclamate is used as a sweetener, and its analogous calcium salt is employed in low sodium diets. It has a bitter off taste but has good sweetness synergy with saccharin. It is soluble in water, and its solubility can be increased by preparing the sodium or calcium salt [32]. Cyclamate is least toxic in nature if not transferred to the gut but if metabolized by the gut bacteria, shows greater toxicity due to the formation of cyclohexylamine during its metabolism [32].


Neotame is a derivative of aspartame, a dipeptide compound of the amino acids, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. It is approximately 8,000 times as sweet as sucrose and has a clean, sweet taste but an apparent licorice aftertaste at high concentrations [33]. Its degree of sweetness varies according to the kind of food and blend composition [34]. It is an odorless white to gray-white powder, slightly soluble in water and readily soluble in alcohols. The aque ous solution (0.5% ) of neotame is weakly acidic (pH 5.8) [34]. It is as stable as aspartame in many food products and is more stable at neutral pH than aspartame. It is not metabolized by oral bacteria
and is excreted in the urine and feces [27].


Saccharin is a non-nutritive sweetener of 1, 2-benzoisothiazol- 3-(2H) on 1,1 dioxide. It is 300-500 times as sweet as sucrose, with a similar sweetness temporal profile. However, it has significant bitter and metallic taste, resulting in an appropriately blended application. Sweetness synergy of saccharin with other sweeteners is not universal and predictable [35]. Saccharin is very stable under all conditions in food applications. It is slowly and incompletely absorbed from the small intestine and is not metabolized in humans [18]. The major applications of saccharin are in beverages, either in finished products or as a tabletop sweetener.


Sucralose is a disaccharide comprising of three chlorine molecules replacing three hydroxyl groups on the sucrose molecule [36]. It is 450-650 times sweeter than sucrose. It has a pleasant sweet taste and its quality and temporal profile is very close to sucrose, has neither a bitter aftertaste nor a metallic taste. It has good sensory profile that makes it suitable either individually or in a blend with other sweeteners [37]. It has a reasonable synergy with other nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners. It is also said to be non-cariogenic [38]. It has an excellent stability during heating and in low and neutral pH. It can be widely used in various foods and beverages, including baked products. Most sucralose (85%) is not absorbed and is excreted unchanged in feces. The absorbed sucralose is excreted unchanged in urine [39].

Stevia Extract (Steviol glycosides)

Steviol glycosides are extracted from leaves of the plant Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. Stevioside and Rebaudioside A are the main constituents in extracts, expressing high sweetness intensity [40] and are also known as bio-sweeteners [41]. These are shelf stable in solid form and have better stability than aspartame and acesulfame-K in liquid form. In the beverages, both of these show excellent stability under normal conditions, whereas chemical degradation occurs under extreme conditions of high temperature and pH [42,43]. There is no evidence of steviol accumulation in the body from successive ingestions [44]. Nutrition and toxicity studies indicated that either Stevioside or Rebaudioside A does not pose a serious health threat in various animals [45].

Monk Fruit Extract

Monk Fruit extract is a natural high-intensity sweetener, also known as Luo Han Guo. This is a combination of several different cucurbitane glycosides, known as mogrosides [46]. It is 150 to 300 times more sweet than sucrose depending on the structure of the mogrosides, the number of glucose units and the food matrix [40]. Since Monk Fruit extract is the latest sweetener discovered for applications in foods, there are only a few investigations conducted on the flavor profile and physio-chemical properties, both of which are vital in suggesting the practical applications.

Rare sugar

Rare sugars are monosaccharides and their derivatives that rarely exist in nature [47], for example, D-psicose, Tagatose, D-allose, and others [13] these sugars possess the properties like sweeteners but lack calorific value. Therefore, these could be used as an alternative to other sweeteners. Rare sugars are not metabolized as natural sugars by the body [48]. These have recently engrossed lots of consideration mainly for their applications in food and beverage industry.

Applications in beverages

Beverages are considered to be essential items of human diet because of their stimulating and refreshing nature and sufficient liquid content. These are used all over the world for their revitalizing qualities. Man’s earliest beverage was probably the juice squeezed from fruits, but the civilized man discovered a vast collection of beverages for his enjoyment and nutrition. The health and nutritional concerns have led to increased demand for functional beverages that provide additional health benefits. Many options are now surpassing traditional beverage market; the trend is likely to continue as is the growing demand for innovative ingredients.

Dairy based

Whey is a major dairy by-product obtained in the manufacturing process of paneer, channa, cheese and casein. Whey consists almost 50% of total solids present in the milk and is a valuable source of lactose, proteins, minerals, and vitamins. The production of whey beverages is one of the most economically feasible options of whey utilization. Based on pH value, whey protein beverages fall into two categories. One is the shake-type, pH between 4.6 and 7.5 and the other is acidified whey protein beverages with a pH range of 2.8-3.5 [49]. Some whey protein beverages comprising functional beverage with high protein content included inulin and stevia [50] whereas a whey lemon beverage incorporated a blend of aspartame and saccharin [51]. Aspartame and acesulfame-K might be suitable as total sugar replacers in whey beverages, resulting in an appreciable reduction of the amount of carbohydrate. The amount of each sweetener required to produce a sweetness level equal to that of a beverage containing 10.5% invert sugar was found to be 0.25 and 0.275 g aspartame and acesulfame-K/liter, respectively. When used together, both exhibited their synergism, resulting in a 25% reduction of the total sweetener required. Heat treatment of 30 min at 90°C did not cause a noticeable decrease in the sweetness or taste quality.

Aspartame, acesulfame-K, and their blend were assessed for stability during storage in a whey-lemon beverage by [52]. The increase in acidity and viscosity and a decrease in pH and ascorbic acid content of sweetened whey-lemon beverage samples were similar to the those in control. Aspartame (added either singly or in a blend) and acesulfame-K (added in a mixture) were stable in the beverage under the refrigerated condition for 15 days. Another functional Whey-Lemon Beverage (WLB) was formulated using combinations of aspartame and saccharin. The blend these sweeteners (70:30, 0.0425%) scored highest organoleptically as compared to only sweetener aspartame (0.07%). The blend showed maximum synergy in sweetness intensity (14.4%) and overall acceptability (7.5%) as compared to aspartame alone. The multi-sweetener approach involving the use of binary blend resulted in 39% reduction in usage level as compared to a single sweetener [51].

The flavored functional milk drinks were prepared by replacing 0 to 100% sugar with sucralose and adding 4% inulin in the milk of 0.5% fat and 8.5% solid-not-fat. Sugar replacement considerably decreased total solids, total soluble solids, viscosity and sensory scores. Moreover, the calorific value diminished by 43% in the experimental milk drink compared to control [53]. Furthermore, experimentation on assessment of the stability of the pasteurized drinks showed that the Total Solids (TS) and pH dropped while the Total Soluble Solids (TSS), titratable acidity and viscosity amplified with storage [54].

In a fermented milk beverage (lassi) [55] applied sweetener blends. The levels of sweeteners were optimized either individually or in combination with each other based on the organoleptic assessment. Aspartame and acesulfame-K in combination scored the highest when compared with the aspartame alone. Binary blends resulted in 38% reduction of only sweetener, aspartame. Li et al. (2015) [56] conducted a study to recognize the sweetness intensity perception of Stevia Leaf (STV) and Monk Fruit (MK) extracts and to evaluate these as a sweetening agent in Skim Chocolate Milk (SCM). They found that chocolate milks sweetened with stevia leaf and monk fruit extracts in combination with sucrose were acceptable both by young adults and children. The milks solely sweetened by nonnutritive sweeteners were less acceptable compared to control (sucrose) by young adults. The information of chocolate milk presented on the label also influenced parental acceptance. Traditional parents preferred sucrose-sweetened SCM, whereas label conscious parents preferred SCM with natural nonnutritive sweeteners.


Larson-Powers and Pangborn (2006) [57] conducted several experiments for the selection of artificial sweeteners by two descriptive sensory methods. Different sweeteners were used in strawberry, lemon, and orange drinks, and strawberry drinks. The samples having sodium saccharin scored lower than the sucrose, while aspartame obtained minimum whereas calcium cyclamate was found to be intermediate. Orange drink was prepared by usingstevia, whereby 25 to 100%, sugar was replaced by Rebaudioside A. Ardali et al. (2014) [58] observed that as the amount of Rebaudioside A increased in the formulation of the drink, the turbidity increased but Brix, pH, and specific gravity decreased. The color measurement of the sample indicated that its increasing amount increased L value but a*, and b* value did not differ significantly. The sensory scores of sample augmented considerably in the sample as the Rebaudioside A level increased up to 100%. It was found to be a real sugar replacer in orange drink formulation. Orange nectar prepared using sucralose, as a partial replacement of sucrose was studied by Al-Dabbas and Al-Qudsi (2012) [59]. Raspberry beverages sweetened with aspartame/acesulfame potassium blends had balanced sourness and astringency. The sweetener blend ratio had no effect on flavor/mouthfeel attributes. The artificially flavored beverages contained 50/50 to 80/20 aspartame-acesulfame-K ratio [60]. Three intense sweeteners namely aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose were included singly in the lime-lemon flavored carbonated beverage. The loss of aspartame was more (29.5%) than acesulfame-K (6.1%) followed by sucralose (1.9%) after 60 days’ storage at 37ºC. Sucralose was more stable than the other sweeteners [61]. De Marchi et al. (2009) [62] optimized the levels of sweetener for the acceptability of a natural passion fruit beverage using sucrose and equi-sweet concentrations of aspartame, sucralose and a blend of aspartame and acesulfame-K (80% and 20% respectively). The concentrations of aspartame, sucralose and a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame, selected on sensory basis were 0.043, 0.016 and 0.026% respectively. The effect of different sweeteners on the sensory profile and acceptance of passion fruit juice samples sweetened with some natural and artificial sweeteners including their blend was studied. It showed that samples with sucrose, aspartame and sucralose had a similar sensory profile without bitter taste, bitter aftertaste and metallic taste and samples with sucrose and sucralose did not differ from each other for the attribute sweet aftertaste. The samples containing with aspartame, sucralose, and sucrose presented higher acceptance scores for the flavor, texture and overall acceptability, with no significant differences between them. Aspartame and sucralose were found to be good substitutes for sucrose in passion fruit juice [63].

The sucrose was replaced in acerola nectar with different sweeteners namely neotame, sucralose, stevia and rebaudioside A with 40%, 60%, 80% and 95%, respectively [64]. Freitas et al. (2014) [65] developed pitanga nectar in which sucrose was replaced with different sweeteners to obtain same sweetness intensity with fewer calories. With the ideal pulp dilution of 25% and the perfect sweetness using 10% sucrose, sweetener concentrations to replace sucrose were 0.0160%, 0.0541%, 0.1000%, 0.0999%,0.0017%, and 0.0360%, respectively, for sucralose, aspartame, stevia 40% rebaudioside A, stevia 95% rebaudioside A, neotame, and a 2:1 cyclamate-saccharin blend. The peach nectar was formulated by considering the appearance, aroma, flavor and overall liking. The liking values were highest for samples combining the two sweeteners, aspartame and acesulfame-K confirmed the synergistic effect and allowed cost reduction as well as additives intake, without compromising the sensory characteristics [66]. Another low-calorie peach nectar was prepared using high-intensity sweeteners in which the ideal sweetness concentration of sucrose was 10%. Whereas with sweeteners equivalent concentrations observed were, 0.054% for aspartame; 0.036% for cyclamatesaccharin blend (2:1), 0.10% for stevia, 0.016% for sucralose and 0.053% for acesulfame-K [67].

Mango nectar containing 7% sucrose was reported best followed by sucralose, thaumatin- sucralose blend 1:1, acesulfame-K -sucralose- neotame blend 100:50:1 and stevia [68]. In functional mango juice cyclamate-saccharin blend, aspartame, sucralose and stevia along with sucrose as control, the relative sweetness and acceptability of blend were higher than the individual sweetener. The taste profile resembled the sucrose if used in blends [69]. The blend ratio of acesulfame-K with other intense sweeteners for beverage applications may depend on the flavor or flavor type. The blends of acesulfame-K with aspartame (40:60) in orange-flavored beverages were comparable in the intensity of sweetness with sucrose sweetened beverages [70].

Other beverages

The sweeteners including sucrose, fructose, aspartame and saccharin were equated in tea for consumer preference, aftertaste, and cost. Sucrose was selected as least expensive and ideal sweetener than all others. Fructose and aspartame were not found to be significantly different. However, saccharin was the most disliked sweetener, and fructose was the most expensive sweetener followed by aspartame [16]. The lemon-lime and cola-flavored beverages which contained the sweeteners like sucrose, sodium saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and two calcium cyclamatesodium saccharin blends (10:1 and 3.5:1) were assessed on the sensory scale. The drinks containing sucrose and aspartame could not be distinguished from one another in either a lemon-lime or cola. Sucrose and aspartame were also equivalent in taste for both the drinks, but acesulfame-K and sodium saccharin differed significantly from sucrose. The blends having calcium cyclamatesodium saccharin were least preferred in beverages [71].

Instant coffee and roasted ground coffee beverages prepared using sucralose, stevia, aspartame, cyclamate-saccharin (2:1) and acesulfame-K. The sucrose concentration considered ideal by consumers in instant coffee beverages was 9.5%, with sweetener concentrations equivalent to 0.01494% for sucralose, 0.09448% for stevia, 0.05064% for aspartame, 0.04967% for acesulfame-K and 0.0339% for cyclamate-saccharin (2:1) blend. The accepted concentration was 12.5% sucrose, 0.0209% sucralose, 0.0166% stevia, 0.0724% aspartame, 0.0640% acesulfame-K and 0.0582% cyclamate-saccharin (2:1) blend in roasted ground coffee beverages [72]. Wolwer-Rieck et al. [73] evaluated the stability of two steviol glycosides, stevioside and rebaudioside A in a soft drink. They observed degradation up to 70% and found that stevioside was less stable than rebaudioside A in storage.


The growing awareness of the consumer for health and wellness has laid the greatest challenge to the beverage industry, not only of the need to deliver optimum volume growth but also to stimulate demand for the product innovation. Global beverage developments remain fundamentally complex. With the surge in diabetics and obese in many parts of the world, the number of successful light products should swell. There is no unequivocally acceptable low-calorie substitute for sucrose available to consumers. The use of increasing amounts of sugars in food formulations, sweets, and soft drinks have raised the concern about their ill effects. Therefore nowadays high intensity artificial or natural sweeteners are receiving much more attention than before, more so in the beverage world.


Relative sweetness*

Structure and some important properties

Blending characteristics

Taste profile




100 to 200

N-sulfonyl amide structure

White and non-hygroscopic crystalline

Soluble in water

Qualitative and quantitative synergy with cyclamate (sodium salt) and sucralose but extensively with aspartame

Immediately sweet taste but bitter aftertaste

Bitterness noticeable at high concentrations

Godshall (2007) [74]

Lipinsky (1988) [75]



Aspartyl-phenylalanine methyl ester

White crystalline

Soluble in water

Quantitative synergy with acesulfame-K and/or saccharin, cyclamate, stevia, glucose, fructose, sucrose and polyols

Similar to sucrose  in taste

Godshall (2007) [74],

Ripper (1985) [76]




Sulfamic acid Na or Ca salt

White crystalline salt

Good solubility in water

Quantitative synergy with acesulfame-K aspartame, saccharin and sucralose

Slowly gives  sweet but sour aftertaste at high concentrations

Godshall (2007) [74],

Bakal and Nabors (1986) [77],

Franta and Beck  (1986) [78]




Derivative of aspartame but more stable

White powder

Hydrolyzed at low or high pH

Quantitative synergy with saccharin

Intensely sweet taste with a lingering

liquorice after taste

Godshall (2007) [74],





N-sulfonyl amide structure

White crystalline

Maximum solubility and stability in beverages

Quantitative synergy with aspartame, sodium cyclamate, sorbitol and mannitol

Sweet in taste but gives bitter metallic aftertaste

Godshall (2007) [74],

Bartoshuk, (1979) [79]



Trichlorinated derivative of sucrose

White crystalline powder

Good solubility and  stability in wet and dry form during processing and storage conditions

Quantitative synergy with acesulfame K, sodium cyclamate and saccharin

Intensively sweet in taste but gives metallic taste at high concentration

Godshall (2007) [74],

Jenner (1989) [80],

Gortz et al (2012)




Six sweet-tasting compounds like stevioside, rebaudiosides A, D and E, dulcosides A and B

White and  crystalline powder

Heat stable up to 198ºC


Stable at low pH-values





Slower onsetof taste and longer duration than sucrose

Sometimes give bitter or licorice taste at high concentrations

A flavor enhancer


Pederson (1987) [81]


Kobayashi et al (1977) [82]

Monk Fruit


150 to 300

Off white to light yellow powder

Freely soluble in water




Natural high potency sweetener

Sweetness depends onthe structure of the mogrosidesi.ethe number of glucose units and the food matrix

Lindley (2006) [40]



*Relative to Sucrose 

Table 1: Some physic-chemical and sensory properties of artificial and natural sweeteners.

  1. Kemp SE (2009) Developments in, sweeteners for functional and speciality beverages. In: Paquin P (Ed) Functional and speciality beverages technology. Woodhouse Publishing Ltd. New Delhi. 39-41.
  2. Prakash I, DuBois GE, Clos JF, Wilkens KL, Fosdick LE (2008) Development of Rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener. Food Chemical Toxicol 46: 75-82.
  3. Grembecka M (2015) Sugar alcohols-their role in the modern world of sweeteners: a review. Eur Food Res Technol 241: 1-14.
  4. Mendonca CRB, Zambiazi RC, Gularte MA and Granada GG (2005) Sensory characteristics of light peach compote adjusted with sucralose and acesulfame-K. Cienc Tecnologia Alimentos 25: 401-407.
  5. Hore SK, Ashish S, Korde JP and Patel M (2002) Present status of sugar-free, sweeteners: A review. Indian J Nutr Dietet 39: 410-19.
  6. Navaneetha R, Roopa KS, Natrajan AM (2008) Quality of Khoa-burfi prepared using different low calorie artificial sweeteners. Indian Food Ind 27: 41-52.
  7. Aminoff C (1974) New carbohydrate sweeteners In: Sipple HL, McNutt KW, editors. Sugars in Nutrition. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 136-140.
  8. Varzakas T, Labroupoulos A, Anestis S (2012) Sweeteners: Nutritional Aspects, Applications and Production Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
  9. Fitch C, Keim KS (2010) Position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners. J Acad Nutr Diet 112: 739-758.
  10. Carakostas M, Prakash I, Kinghorn AD, CD Wu, Soejarto DD (2012) Steviol glycosides. In: O’Brien-Nabors L editor. Alternative Sweeteners. 4th ed. Florida: CRC Press. Pp. 160-176.
  11. Sylvetsky AC, Welsh JA, Brown RJ, Vos MB (2012) Low-calorie sweetener consumption is increasing in the United States. American J Clinical Nutr 96: 640-646.
  12. Ozdemir C, Arslaner A, Ozdemir S, Allahyari M (2015) The production of ice cream using stevia as a sweetener. J Food Sci Technol 52: 7545-7548.
  13. Chattopadhyay S, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R (2014) Artificial sweeteners - a review. J Food Sci Technol 51: 611-621.
  14. Regand A, Goff HD (2003) Structure and ice recrystallization in frozen stabilized ice cream model systems. Food Hydrocolloids 17: 95-102.
  15. Pinto S and Dharaiya CN (2014) Development of a low fat sugar free frozen dessert. Int J Agric Sci 4: 90-101.
  16. Sprowl DJ and Ehrcke LA (1984) Sweeteners: consumer acceptance in tea. J Am Diet Assoc 84: 1020-1022.
  17. Zygler A, Wasik A, Namiesnik J (2009) Analytical methodologies for determination of artificial sweeteners in foodstuffs. Trends Anal Chem 28: 1082-1102.
  18. DuBois GE (2006) Saccharin and cyclamate. In: Mitchell H editor. Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 103-129.
  19. Heikel B, Krebs E, Kohn E, Busch-Stockfisch M (2012) Optimizing synergism of binary mixtures of selected alternative sweeteners. J Sens Stud 27: 295-303.
  20. Kim S-H and DuBois G E (1991) Natural high potency sweeteners. In: S. Marie and J.R. Piggott (eds). Handbook of Sweeteners, Blackie, Glasgow and London; pp. 116-185.
  21. Hanger LY, Lotz A, Lepeniotis S (1996) Descriptive profiles of selected High Intensity Sweeteners (HIS), HIS blends and sucrose. J Food Sci 61: 456.
  22. Haber B, Von RLGW, Rathjen S (2006) Acesulfame K. In: Mitchell H editor. Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp.65-83.
  23. Horne J, Lawless HT, Speirs W, Sposato D (2002) Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame- K. Chem Senses 31: 8-27.
  24. Volz M, Christ O, Eckert HG, Herok J, Kellner HM, et al. (1991) Kinetics and biotransformation of acesulfame-K. In: Mayer DG, Kemper FH, Ed. Acesulfame-K. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 7-26.
  25. Klug C, von Rymon, Lipinski GW (2012) Acesulfame potassium. In: O’Brien-Nabors L editor. Alternative sweeteners. (4th ed.) Florida: CRC Press 13-27.
  26. Renwick AG (1986) The metabolism of intense sweeteners. Xenobiotica 16: 1057-1071.
  27. O’Donnell K (2005) Carbohydrates and intense sweeteners. In P. R. Ashurst (Ed.), Chemistry and technology of soft drinks and fruit juices (2nd ed.). Pp. 68-89. Hereford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pales.
  28. Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, Kroes RM, Marsh GM, et al. (2007) Aspartame: A safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, toxicological and epidemiological studies. Crit Rev Toxicol 37: 629-727.
  29. Anton SD, Martin CK, Han H, Coulon S, Cefalu WT, et al. (2010) Effects of stevia, aspartame and sucrose on food intake, satiety and postprandial glucose and insulin levels. Appetite 55: 37-43.
  30. Harper AE (1984) Phenylalanine metabolism. In: Stegink LD, Filer LJ editors. Aspartame Physiology and Biochemistry. New York: Marcel Dekker 979-985.
  31. Abegaz EG, Mayhew DA, Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, et al. (2012) Aspartame. In: O’Brien-Nabors L editor. Alternative Sweeteners. 4th ed. Florida: CRC Press 58-69.
  32. Bopp BA, Sonders RC, Kesterson JW (1986) Toxicological aspects of cyclamate and cyclohexylamine. Crit Rev Toxicol 16: 213-306.
  33. Mayhew DA, Comer CP, Stargel WW (2003) Food consumption and body weight changes with neotame, a new sweetener with intense taste: differentiating effects of palatability from toxicity in dietary safety studies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 38: 124-143.
  34. Prakash I, Corliss G, Ponakala R, Ishikawa G (2002) Neotame: the next-generation sweetener. Food Technol 56: 36-40.
  35. Bakal AI and Nabors LOB (2012) Saccharin. In: O’Brien-Nabors L editor. Alternative Sweeteners. 4th ed. Florida: CRC Press. Pp. 151-157.
  36. Hough L (1984) Sweeteners. U.S. Patent No. 4,435,440.
  37. Arora S, Singh VP, Sharma V, Wadhwa BK, George V, et al. (2009) Analysis of sucralose and its storage stability in barfi. J Food Sci Technol 46: 114-117.
  38. Mandel ID and Grotz VL (2002) Dental considerations in sucralose use. J Clinical Dentistry 13: 116-118.
  39. Molinary SV and Quinlan ME (2006) Sucralose. In: Mitchell H., editor. Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.  Pp. 130-148.
  40. Lindley M (2006) Other sweeteners. In: Mitchell H editor. Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 329-361.
  41. Goyal SK, Samsher, Goyal RK (2010) Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) a bio-sweetener: a review. Int J Food Sci Nutr 61: 1-10.
  42. Kroyer GT (1999) The low calorie sweetener stevioside: stability and interaction with food in ingredients. LWT-Food Sci Technol 32: 509-512.
  43. Kroyer GT (2010) Stevioside, stevia-sweetener in food: application, stability and interaction with food ingredients. J Consumer Protection Food Safety 5: 225-229.
  44. Wheeler A, Boileau AC, Winkler PC, Compton JC, Prakash I, et al. (2008) Pharmacokinetics of rebaudioside A and stevioside after single oral doses in healthy men. Food Chemical Toxicol 49: 169-175.
  45. Toskulkao C, Chaturat L, Temcharoen P, Glinsukon T (1997) Acute toxicity of stevioside, a natural sweetener, and its metabolite,  steviol, in several animal species.  Drug Chem Toxicol 20: 31-44.
  46. Kinghorn AD and Compadre CM (2012) Less common high-potency sweeteners. In: Mitchell H editor. Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp.224-243.
  47. Izumori K (2002) Bioproduction strategy for rare hexose sugars. Naturwissenschaften 89: 120-124.
  48. Zakaria A (2001) Production of natural and rare pentoses using microorganisms and their enzymes. Electron J Biotechnol 4: 103-111.
  49. Rittmanic S (2006) US: Whey proteins in ready-to-drink beverages. In: Application Monograph Beverages (Burrington, K.J), U.S. Dairy Export Council, USA.
  50. Rodriguez Furlán LT, Antonio Pérez Padilla, Mercedes C (2011) Development of a functional beverage formulation with high protein content, inulin and stevia. Int J Food Engg 7: 1556-1558.
  51. Meena MK, Arora S, Shendurse AM, Sharma V, Wadhwa BK, et al. (2012) Formulation optimization of whey lemon beverage using sweetener blend aspartame/ saccharin. Int J Dairy Technol 65: 146-151.
  52. Arora S, Shendurse AM, Sharma V, Wadhwa BK and Singh AK (2013) Assessment of stability of binary sweetener blend (aspartame and acesulfame-K) during storage in whey lemon beverage. J Food Sci Technol 50: 770-776.
  53. Mittal S and Bajwa U (2011) Effect of fat and sugar substitution on the quality characteristics of low calorie milk drinks. J Food Sci Technol: 16-9).
  54. Mittal S and Bajwa U (2014) Effect of heat treatment on the storage stability of low calorie milk drinks. J Food Sci Technol 51: 1875-1883.
  55. George V, Arora S, Wadhwa BK, Singh AK, Sharma GS (2010) Optimization of sweetener blends for the preparation of lassi. Int J Dairy Technol 63: 256-261.
  56. Li X E, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA (2015) Parents’ and children's acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts. J Food Sci 80: S1083–S1092
  57. Larson-Powers N and Pangborn RM (2006) Descriptive analysis of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins containing sucrose or synthetic sweeteners. J Food Sci 43: 47-51.
  58. Ardali FR, Alipour M, shariati MA, Taheri S and Amiri S (2014) Replacing sugar by Rebaudioside A in orange drink and produce a new drink. Indian J Res Pharmacy Biotechnol 14: 1131-1135.
  59. Al-Dabbas MM and Al-Qudsi JM (2012) Effect of partial replacement of sucrose with the artificial sweetener sucralose on the physico-chemical, sensory, microbial characteristics and final cost saving of orange nectar. Int Food Res J 19: 679-683.
  60. Baron RF and Hanger LY (2007) Using acid level of acesulfame potassium/aspartame blend ratio and flavor type to determine optimum flavor profiles of fruit flavored beverages. J Sens Stud 13: 269-283.
  61. Malik A, Jeyarani T, Raghavan B (2002) A comparison of artificial sweeteners stability in a lime-lemon flavoured carbonated beverage. J Food Quality 25: 75-82.
  62. De Marchi R, Mcdaniel MR, Bolini HMA (2009) Formulating a new passion fruit juice beverage with different sweetener systems. J Sens Stud 24: 698-711.
  63. Rocha LFO and Bolini HMA (2015) Passion fruit juice with different sweeteners: sensory profile by descriptive analysis and acceptance. Food Sci Nutr 3: 129-139.
  64. Dutraa MBL and Bolini HMA (2014) Acerola nectar sweetened with different sweeteners: ideal and equivalent sweetness. CyTA - J Food 12: 277-281.
  65. Freitas MLF, Dutra MBDL, Bolini HMA (2014) Development of pitanga nectar with different sweeteners by sensory analysis: Ideal pulp dilution, ideal sweetness and sweetness equivalence. Food Sci Technol Campinas 34: 174-180.
  66. Melo L, Cardoso JMP, Battochio JR, Bolini HMA (2013) Using response surface methodology and high-intensity sweeteners positive synergy to optimize peach nectar acceptability. Food Nutri Sci 4: 503-509.
  67. Cardoso JMP and Bolini HMA (2007) Different sweeteners in peach nectar: Ideal and equivalent sweetness. Food Res Int 40: 1249-1253.
  68. Cadena RS and Bolini HMA (2012) Ideal and relative sweetness of high intensity sweeteners in mango nectar. Int J Food Sci Technol 47: 991-996.
  69. Cavallini DCU, Garcia D, Bolini HMA (2005) Determination of the relative sweetness and acceptability of cyclamate/saccharin blend, aspartame, sucralose and stevia extract as compared to sucrose in mango juice. Alimentaria 368: 106-110.
  70. Matysiak NL and Nobel AC (1991) Comparison of temporal perception of fruitiness in model systems sweetened with aspartame, an aspartame, acesulfame K blend, or sucrose. J Food Sci 56: 823.
  71. Schiffman SS, Crofton VA, Beeker TG (1985) Sensory evaluation of soft drinks with various sweeteners. Physiol Behav 34: 369-377.
  72. Moraes PCBT and Bolini HMA (2010) Different sweeteners in beverages prepared with instant and roasted ground coffee: ideal and equivalent sweetness. J Sens Stud 25: 215-225.
  73. Wolwer-Rieck U, Tomberg W, Wawrzun A (2010). Investigations on the stability of stevioside and rebaudioside A in soft drinks. J Agri  Food Chem 58: 1216-1220.
  74. Godshall MA (2007) Sugar and other sweeteners. In: Kent and Reigel’s Chemistry and Biotechnology, 11 ed. JA Kent. Pp 1657-1693.
  75. Lipinski GWVR (1988) Einsatz von Sunett in Joghurt und anderen Milcherzeugnissen. Swiss Food 10: 29.
  76. Ripper A (1985) An alternative Sweeteners (eds L.O’Brien Nabors and R.C. Gelardi) Marcel Dekker, New York.
  77. Bakal AI and Nabors LOB (1986) Stevioside. In: L.O’B. Nabors and R.C. Gelardi (eds). Alternative Sweeteners, Marcel Dekker, New York; Pp. 295-307.
  78. Franta R, Beck B (1986) Sweetness three alternatives to cane and beet sugar. Food Technol 40: 116-128.
  79. Bartoshuk LM (1979) Bitter taste of saccharin related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil. J Food Sci 205: 934-935.
  80. Jenner MR (1989) Sucralose: Unveiling its properties and applications. In: Progress in Sweeteners, Ed. Grenby T. Pp 121-141. London: Elsevier.
  81. Pederson P (1987) Approximate composition of Stevia rebaudiana.  Bertoni Nutr Herbol 18:377-380.
  82. Kobayashi M, Horikawa S, Degrandi IH, Veno J, Nijisuhasi H (1977) Facts of stevia.  Phytochem 16: 1405-1407.

Copyright and Licensing: This is an Open Access Journal Article Published Under Attribution-Share Alike CC BY-SA: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. With this license readers can share, distribute, download, even commercially, as long as the original source is properly cited. Read More.


share article