Abstract
Iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency with anaemia (IDA) are serious global health problems that disproportionately affect women aged 15-49 years. Although food fortification is one of the most effective and sustainable ways to combat nutritional deficiencies, iron remains one of the most difficult micronutrients to fortify, given its tendency to react strongly with food constituents. Therefore, it is important to assess the sensory properties of foods fortified with iron to determine the acceptability and palatability in target populations. We aimed to determine the palatability and acceptability of a novel iron and zinc enriched powder fortified in tap water by conducting sensory evaluations in 35 women of reproductive age using a 9-point hedonic scale, where participants rated the sensory properties of six samples containing different amounts of the active or placebo. We found significant differences between samples reconstituted at 1g/L, 2g/L, and 3g/L for sensory properties, including overall taste. Participants were found to be more willing to drink the mineral-enriched powder when prepared at the lowest concentration (1g/L) compared to higher concentrations. Our results provide important insight on sensory qualities of a novel formulation of an iron and zinc -enriched powder for at-home fortification, and indicate consumer acceptability in reproductive aged women, a key group at risk for ID/IDA. If found to improve iron status, novel treatments like this product will contribute to global efforts to develop safe, acceptable and sustainable interventions for ID and IDA.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Lucky Iron Fish Enterprises (LIFe) and the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Carleton University gave ethical approval for this work which was found to be in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . Approval from Carleton University's Research Ethics Boards was obtained for this study indicating all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and all appropriate institutional forms achieved. This study was approved by Office of Research Ethics at Carleton University (CUREB-B Protocol #116204).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.