Do You Taste the Same Thing?

Laboratory Report #2

Ha, Jeff

4/16/12

Abstract

A huge factor taken into consideration for food preference is determined by the five human senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. Certain fields of profession such as hospitality, health, sales, marketing, and restaurants may apply these informative facts and most likely benefit from the knowledge of food acceptability. Food sensory evaluations have been developed for these reasons and have been used in all areas of the food industry. Every sensory evaluation has both their strong and of course weak points. The sensory evaluations used and performed during this laboratory involve: the Beverage Color Association Test, the Descriptive Analysis Test, the Paired Comparison Test, the Triangle Test, the Ranking Test, the Duo-Trio Test, and the Scoring/Rating Test. Data and results will be analyzed from the sensory evaluations conducted. The information provided by these evaluations help determine if color affects perception of flavor, what specific sensory evaluations are used in certain situations, point out sources of errors to better improve evaluations, and overall show how these seven sensory evaluation tests prove to be useful.

Introduction

Humans use all five of their senses in determining what foods they choose to eat. In most cases, sight is the first sense to act in food selection because it allows a person to judge a certain food upon its color, size, and shape. Color is associated with how ripe a food is and discoloration may be taken into consideration as a warning sign showing how that certain food may not be right to consume. Smell plays a role and helps determine whether a food has an appealing sent which could spark up an appetite or possibly have the opposite effect by telling the person to stay away from the food. Taste is perhaps the most important factor in choosing foods. Taste is activated at the tongue, where food particles, surrounded by saliva, touch the gustatory cells and sends signals to the brain that can differentiate the tastes. There are 5 basic tastes that play important roles in food selection: salty, sour, sweet, bitter, and savory/umami. Texture, temperature, astringency, consistency, and chemethesis are all associated with the sense of touch in relation of food. The sound of food is connected to the basic ability to hear, and this affects the way people chose foods when it is either a sound they are familiar with such as the popping of popcorn, the sizzling of garlic tossed onto searing a hot pan, or the pouring of hot coffee into a cup. All five basic senses humans have are important in determining food quality and in food preference (Brown 2011).

Evaluating food quality with the human senses is a method done in the food laboratory. This method also involves measuring food’s physical and chemical properties. However, the use of this method does not determine the aspect of consumer perception and satisfaction. From a business perspective, financial results are tied to customer satisfaction and quality. In turn, quality is measured along two dimensions, the physical and the performance (Strickland 2008). This can be applied with how food companies operate their research when figuring out what the consumer wants when it comes to choosing the foods they choose. Food sensory evaluations have been developed in order to measure this other angle of food qualities, and these tests were included in this experiment as well. Sensory evaluations include two types of subjective testing: analytical and affective tests. Analytical tests are used to detect differences and can involve using descriptive terms to differentiate food qualities.  Affective tests evaluate personal preferences of individuals evaluating specific food products (Drake 2007).

In this experiment, seven different types of sensory evaluations have been performed and conducted to collect data from a number of panelists’ preferences and perceptions on food. The first evaluation was called the beverage color association Test. The test was executed in order to tie a relation to individual perceptions of color to the taste of sweetness and sourness. The second purpose of the test was to see how color is associated with what temperature panelists would rather prefer their beverages to be consumed at. Five different colored beverages contained in clear glass beakers were presented to the panelists (light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse, and emerald). Panelists were asked to evaluate and rank each beverage in order of what they think would be most sweet, sour, artificial, natural, and most preferred. Panelists also had to make a judgment of what temperature they would prefer to drink the beverages at (cold, tepid, warm, or hot). A similar research was conducted by Costa Magoulas and the study concluded that food color did influence taste and flavor perception in humans after gathering scientific information on the sensory perception of taste and collecting scientific studies that were used to conclude that color has been used for centuries to enhance food acceptance. The results of this research will either support or disagree with Magoulas’s data.

The second test conducted in this experiment was called a descriptive analysis test. Descriptive analysis sensory evaluations allow panelists to sample a specified amount of food and describe the sensory characteristics using a list of descriptive terms. A major strength of descriptive analysis is its ability to allow relationships between descriptive sensory or consumer preference measurements to be determined. With knowledge of “desired composition,” product optimization can be identified and preference measures would be highly desirable within the food industry (Murray 2001). Within this experiment, panelists evaluated foods using descriptive terms which applied to the foods appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, and consistency in order to assess the food products quality.

The third test applied to this experiment is a paired comparison test. In a paired comparison test, two samples are provided, and panelists are to be able to differentiate one sample from another by observing a characteristic that either has the greatest or least intensity in a specified characteristic of the two samples. Within this laboratory, panelists were to determine which of the two samples of apple juice was sourer than the other.

Two tests that were similar were conducted in this experiment, the triangle test and the duo-trio test. Both tests have three samples involved and the goal is to determine which is different from the other two. The purpose of these two evaluations is that they can help differentiate similar products from each other or separating samples that are made with different ingredients that resemble the same appearance. The triangle test only asks which is different, and the duo-trio not only asks which is different, but also asks what makes it different from the other two samples.

A ranking test is also involved within this laboratory’s experiment. The purpose of the ranking test is to put several samples in order on a certain scale based off of the intensity of a specified characteristic. The ranking test performed for this study involved panelists ranking the level of sourness of five coded apple juice samples. In addition, panelists also ranked which order of the sample juices they preferred.

Scoring tests, also known as the rating test, rates a certain characteristic based off of a scale. In this laboratory, the scale used was based off of a 1 through 7 rating in terms of sourness. The rating was based off of the standard sample as a center point of the scale and moving either up or down the scale when comparing the other two samples. A study conducted by Adair et al. used a scoring/rating test as well in order to compare different cookies with altering amounts of mung-bean pastes.

The goal and objective of this laboratory was for students to participate as a member of the sensory panel in order to better understand variations of sensory evaluation tests. The other purpose for this lab was to learn about how human senses affect the food perception and quality of foods. This can be caused by associating color with taste, preferred temperature consumption, and the preference of acidity in a drink.

Methods

A respective amount of experiments were conducted on foods and beverages. Each experiment used different sensory tests. The setting for the tests was in a well lit lab, which included individual desks for panelists. Panelists were instructed to not speak nor make any noise during these tests in order to not influence or disturb other panelists. A cup of water was also provided to each panelist to cleanse their taste between each sample. Both food and beverage samples were served in little, white, paper cups. Codes assorted with different numbers and letters were used to label the samples in each test to keep the items anonymous and unknown to the panelists. Panelists had to describe or rate samples by judging the appearance or tasting the sample. After each test, possible responses were announced aloud and data was recorded according to panelists raising their hands to their specific and preferred responses.

Demographics:

There were forty-three panelists who participated in the sensory evaluation tests (N=43). A sheet of paper titled “Sensory Testing Demographic Questionnaire” was handed out to the panelists in order to record their age and answers to questions about themselves. Questions included was the panelists’ sex, major, student/marital status, living arrangements, smoking habits, food allergies and if they drink or do not drink apple juice.

The demographic data provided by the panelists showed that the average age was 22.84 years, a standard deviation of 3.87 years, with a high of 43 and a low of 19. The entire panelists’ were Foods and Nutrition major, the full 100%. 14% of the panelists were graduates, 86% were undergraduates. The portion of panelists that were females was 88.4%, the portion that were males was the remaining 11.6%. 88.4% of the panelists are single, 9.3% married, 2.3% divorced. Panelists living alone were2.3%, panelists living with 1 roommate were 30.2%, and the remaining panelists living with 2 or more roommates were 67.4%. 2.3% were smokers, 97.7%. 90.7% had no allergies, 9.3% had allergies. 100% of the panelists drink apple juice.

Beverage Color Association Test:

The first experiment was the Beverage Color Association test. The lab technician presented five different colored beverages contained in five separate clear beakers, pulled straight from the refrigerator, and then placed on a table in the front of the room and in front of the panelists who were all seated at their desks to observe. Each Beverage had different colors: light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse, and emerald. A grading scale for the panelists was used, rating all five drinks from the numbers one through five; one represents the lowest of the scale and five representing the highest. The panelists were instructed to rate the drinks in relation to what they thought would be least sweet, to moderately sweet, to sweetest, based off of just the appearance using the same five digit scale; this was also applied to what they thought would be sour, artificial, natural, most preferred, and most disliked. Panelists were then asked to select which temperature they would preferably drink each beverage at: hot, warm, tepid, or cold. The next question for this test was whether the panelists would drink the beverages; this required an answer of either yes or no for each drink. Every response was recorded by a hand count. After the data was collected, the lab technicians revealed to the panelists what each drink was. The drinks were a mixed assortment of Mountain Dew, Gatorade, and Powerade.

Descriptive Test:

In this test the lab technicians began by setting a tray in front of the laboratory with a number of paper cups, one for each panelist, each containing gold fish crackers, raisins, almonds, and marshmallows. One panelist from each row that sat in the very front was directed to go to the front of the lab and collect two samples of each food for each person in their row, including themselves. Once the samples were attained, panelists were then instructed to sample each food, describe its appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, and consistency. In order to translate the description of the foods, panelists were provided a sheet of paper with a list of vocabulary to choose from. Also, in between each food that was sampled, panelists were instructed to take a sip of water to clear the taste of the previous sample in order to get a more accurate description of the next. Once all of the foods were sampled, the results were then recorded by the technician via hand count.

Paired Comparison Test:

The purpose of this test was to determine which of two beverages presented to the panelists was the least and the most intense in terms of sourness. The first beverage was labeled 635T1, the second was labeled 573T2. The panelists who sat in front of each row were instructed to go in front of the class to pour a small sample into two separate white paper cups for each panelist sitting in their same row to sample, including themselves. Panelists drank the first sample, drank a sip of water to cleanse the taste, and tried the second sample shortly right after. Once the panelists decided which drink was to be rated in level of sourness, the results were then recorded down by the lab technician through a hand count. All forty three panelists agreed that the second beverage labeled 573T2 is the most intense in sourness.

Triangle Test:

Three beverages were presented for this test, and the purpose is to determine which two drinks were the same, and which one beverage is different from the other two. Three types of apple juice beverages were presented by the lab technicians; all three were labeled with three distinctive codes, and placed in front of the lab. Two of the beverages were similar in taste, while one is supposed to be different. The Panelists sitting in front of each row were directed to come in front of the lab to collect a sample of each beverage for each of their panelists sitting in their same row. All three samples were poured into separate paper cups and brought back to the panelists, carefully keeping the same distinctive orders of each sample under their labeled code. After the panelists tasted each sample and determined which tasted the same and which tasted different, the results were then recorded by the technician by a hand count.

Ranking Test:

This test presented five separate beverages and the purpose of this test was to rank both the sour intensity of each beverage and the level of preference for each beverage. Each drink was labeled with its own five digit code and panelists sitting in the front seat of each row were instructed to pour a small sample from each beverage into small white paper cups and to dispense them to the rest of the other panelists sitting in their same row, including themselves. All panelists were then instructed to drink each of the coded samples and rank them based on their intensity of sourness and also in order of their own personal preference. All of these results were then recorded by the lab technician through a hand count.

Duo-Trio Test:

Within this test, three cookies were presented as samples; two are suppose to be the same and one different. The first cookie was labeled as the standard cookie, which was handed out to the panelists by the lab technician to taste first. After tasting the standard cookie, the lab technician handed out two more coded cookies to the panelists so they can determine which cookie tasted similar to the standard cookie and which one differ from the standard. Panelists were also instructed to describe in their opinion what made the cookie different. Instead of recording the result by a hand count, the panelists were called upon by row to walk up to the lab technician and tell them their results individually at a time.

Scoring/Rating Test:

Three beverages were presented in front of the lab and the panelists sitting in the very front of each row had to walk to the front of the lab and pour out all three samples into the small, white paper cups. These cups were then to be handed out to the rest of the other panelists sitting in their same row to taste. The three beverages handed out were rated sour based on a one (1) through seven (7) scale; one was the most sour and seven was the least sour. The panelists were instructed to first try out the sample rated at a four (4). After that was tasted, the panelists were to try out the other two samples and compare it to the first sample already rated at four (4). These results were then recorded down by the lab technician through a hand count.

Results

Beverage Color Association Test:

Forty three panelists participated in this test and 37.2% decided that the light yellow beverage would be the sweetest, 30.2% chose the dark yellow, 2.3% chose chartreuse, 7% chose dark chartreuse, and the following 18.6% chose emerald to be the sweetest. When deciding which of the five beverages would be the sourest, 27.9% chose the light yellow beverage, 16.3% chose the dark yellow, 14% chose the chartreuse, 25.6% chose the dark chartreuse, and the remaining 11.6% chose emerald. 2.3% decided that the light yellow beverage was the most artificial, 11.6% chose dark yellow, 2.3% chose chartreuse, 2.3% chose dark chartreuse, and 76.7% chose emerald to be what they believed was the most artificial. A majority of the panelists chose the light yellow beverage to be the most natural which was 88.4% of the panelists, 0% chose dark yellow, 2.3% chose chartreuse to be the most natural, 0% chose dark chartreuse, and the remaining 4.7% chose emerald. The results for the most preferred beverages is 67.4% chose the light yellow beverage, 7% preferred the dark yellow beverage, 11.6% chose the chartreuse beverage, 4.7% chose the dark chartreuse, and 4.7% preferred the emerald beverage. The most dislike beverages showed that 7% disliked the light yellow, 18.6% disliked the 18.6%, 2.3% disliked the chartreuse, 7% disliked the dark chartreuse, and 60.5% disliked the emerald beverage the most. (Table 1)

Table1

Attribute

Light Yellow

Dark Yellow

Chartreuse

Dark Chartreuse

Emerald

Sweetest

37.2%

30.2%

2.3%

7.0%

18.6%

Sourest

27.9%

16.3%

14.0%

25.6%

11.6%

Most Artificial

2.3%

11.6%

2.3%

2.3%

76.7%

Most Natural

88.4%

0.0%

2.3%

0.0%

4.7%

Most Prefer

67.4%

7.0%

11.6%

4.7%

4.7%

Most Dislike

7.0%

18.6%

2.3%

7.0%

60.5%

Next was the temperature that the panelists would consider drinking the beverages at. For drinking the beverages cold, 95.3% of the panelists chose all five drinks to be drunk at a cold temperature. Only 2.3% chose to drink the dark yellow beverage hot, and another 2.3% chose to drink the emerald beverage hot. Only 2.3% chose to drink the chartreuse beverage warm. Panelists who preferred to drink the beverages at tepid was 11.6% for the light yellow beverage and 7% for the dark yellow beverage. For those panelists choosing they would even drink the light yellow beverage showed to be at 814%, for the dark yellow was at 46.5%, the chartreuse was at 58.1%, the dark chartreuse was 37.2%, and the emerald was at 25.6%. Those who wouldn’t even consider drinking the light yellow beverage was 14%, 48.8% for the dark yellow, 37.2% for the chartreuse, 58.1% for the dark chartreuse, and 69.8% chose not to drink the emerald beverage. (Table 2)

Table 2

Temperature

Drunk

Light Yellow

Dark Yellow

Chartreuse

Dark Chartreuse

Emerald

Cold

95.3%

95.3%

95.3%

95.3%

95.3%

Hot

0.0%

2.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

Warm

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

2.3%

0.0%

Tepid

11.6%

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Drink Beverage?

Yes

81.4%

46.5%

58.1%

37.2%

25.6%

No

14.0%

48.8%

37.2%

58.1%

69.8%

Descriptive test:

Forty two panelists (N=42) participated in all the descriptive samples, but 41 (N=41) participated in the almond sample due to possible allergic issues with the missing panelist. The Appearances chosen to best describe the goldfish cracker were golden-brown, dry, rounded, and rough. All panelists described the flavor to be salty. Panelists described the texture to be crunchy, crisp, hard, and gritty. For the aroma panelists chose the words flavery, spicy, no aroma, and sweet. The consistency was described as cheesy, thin, thick, and viscous. (Table 3)

Table 3

Gold Fish

N=42

Appearance

%

Flavor

%

Texture

%

Aroma

%

Consistency

%

Golden-Brown

31%

Salty

100%

Crunchy

50%

Flavery

78.6%

Cheesy

66.7%

Dry

26%

Crisp

43%

Spicy

9.5%

Thin

23.8%

Rounded

9.5%

Hard

2.4%

None

7.1%

Thick

7.1%

Rough

9.5%

Gritty

2.4%

Sweet

4.8%

Viscous

2.4%

On the raisin example, panelists chose the appearances to be dry, rough, asymmetrical, and dark. For the flavor, panelists chose sweet, fruity, bitter, and pasty. The chosen words for texture were chewy, gummy, gritty, and lumpy. Panelists chose to describe the aroma to be fruity, sweet, flavery, and sour. The consistency for raisins was described to be gummy, rubbery, thin, and thick.

Table 4

Raisin

N=42

Appearance

%

Flavor

%

Texture

%

Aroma

%

Consistency

%

Dry

36%

Sweet

52.4%

Chewy

40%

Fruity

73.8%

Gummy

64.3%

Rough

29%

Fruity

33.3%

Gummy

24%

Sweet

21.4%

Rubbery

16.7%

Asymmetrical

9.5%

Bitter

9.5%

Gritty

14%

Flavery

2.4%

Thin

11.9%

Dark

9.5%

Pasty

2.4%

Lumpy

9.5%

Sour

2.4%

Thick

7.1%

The Almond sample had panelists describing the appearance as golden-brown, dry, light-brown, and rough. Flavor was described to be nutty, flat, and sweet. Texture was described as hard, crunchy, firm, and velvety. A majority of panelists described almonds to have no aroma, others said it smelled flavery, fruity, and spicy. For consistency, panelists’ choices were thick, butter, thin, and rubbery.

Table 5

Almond

N=41

Appearance

%

Flavor

%

Texture

%

Aroma

%

Consistency

%

Golden-Brown

32%

Nutty

87.8%

Hard

41%%

None

41.5%

Thick

90.2%

Dry

17%

Flat

9.8%

Crunchy

27%

Flavery

26.8%

Butter

4.9%

Light-Brown

15%

Sweet

2.4%

Firm

20%

Fruity

17.1%

Thin

2.4%

Rough

9.8%

Velvety

2.4%

Spicy

7.3%

Rubbery

2.4%

Panelists described the appearance of the marshmallow example to be puffy, rounded, symmetrical, and creamy. The words chosen to describe the flavor were sweet and pasty. The texture was described to be springy, velvety, chewy, and gummy. Aroma was described as sweet and flowery. Consistency of the marshmallow was described to be gummy, rubbery, thick, and thin.

Table 6

Marshmallow

N=42

Appearance

%

Flavor

%

Texture

%

Aroma

%

Consistency

%

Puffy

38%

Sweet

97.6%

Springy

36%

Sweet

97.6%

Gummy

78.6%

Rounded

33%

Pasty

2.4%

Velvety

19%

Flowery

2.4%

Rubbery

11.9%

Symmetrical

9.5%

Chewy

12%

Thick

4.8%

Creamy

7.1%

Gummy

9.5%

Thin

2.4%

Paired Comparison Test:

Forty three (N=43) panelists participated in the Paired Comparison Test and all stated that sample 573T2 was more sour compared to the sample 653T1.

Triangle Test:

Forty three (N=43) panelists participated in this test and 95.3% decided that sample 112H9 was the differing beverage of the three sampled. 2.3% believed it to be sample 777C1, and the other 2.3% believed it to be sample 542E2. The lab technician revealed that the majority panelists were correct and sample 112H9 had more citric acid than the other two samples.

Ranking Test:

All 43 (N=43) Panelists participated in this test, and 90% rated sample 555D7 to be the most sour, 9.3% believed sample 192L3 to be the most sour (Figure 1). The most preferred for 60.5% of the panelists was sample 495P2, 20.9% of the panelists most preferred sample 192L3 (Figure 2).

Figure 1 : Sour Ranking

Figure 2: Preference Ranking

Duo-Trio Test:

Forty two (N=42) of panelists participated in this test and 97.6% said that sample 6104 differed from the other two, while 2.4% believed it was sample 1108. The majority is correct and sample 6104 differs from both the standard cookie sample and sample 1108. Panelist’s main choice of words that described the difference were stale, harder, taste, and crunchiness.

Scoring/Rating Test:

All 43 Panelists participated in this test and were provided a sheet of paper with a scale rating sourness from numbers 1 through 7, 4 being the middle flavor to compare the other two samples to. The number of panelists that ranked sample S723 as 1, being the sourest, was 58.1% and 41.9% ranked it a 2. The 420M sample had 62.8% rank it at 6, and 20.9% ranked it at 7.

Discussion

Beverage Color Association Test:

Costa Magoulas research focused on how color affected people’s tastes. Ten staff members of a cafeteria were gathered to participate in the test. Age, ethnic backgrounds, gender, and the region of the country were recorded from each individual. The members were brought to a room to taste a sample of plain gelatin and asked to describe its flavor. Shortly right after, four more gelatin dishes were presented to the members except each were colored differently (blue, green, red, yellow). Testers were then asked to pick a pudding they preferred. Results showed that five members chose red, three chose yellow, two chose green, and none of the panelists chose blue. All of the puddings presented were only flavored with vanilla. Unknown to the panelists, those who chose the red pudding believed there was a berry flavor associated with the taste, those that chose yellow and green indicated that the taste was of icing, which was similar to vanilla. One member who chose the yellow pudding noted that the flavor was more associated with lemon.

The conclusion of Magoulas research indicated that people have a need to be able to see and connect color with taste to get a better understanding of the sensory perception. Also according to this test, blue is not a very popular color for flavored food.

The results showed in the beverage association test shows that color does have an effect on the perception of taste (sweetness and sourness), artificial appearance, naturalness, and overall preference. These results also made an association with the beverages color at which temperature panelists would rather consume them at. Several factors in Magoulas research contributed to those results. One of the issues addressed was the ethnic background and culture of a person affects such a research. A person from another region may view a certain color and connect it with possibly a negative or positive feeling. For example, the color white in western culture typically represents angels, good guys, and peace. Yet in Japans culture they see white as a color that represents funerals. This psychosocial influence could tangle with color association with food. In the beverage association test, members of the panel all varied in gender, age, and ethnical backgrounds. These factors may have heavily influenced the results and the way they were associated with color and overall preference.

Descriptive Test:

A sheet with a list of descriptive terminology was provided for the panelists to choose from for the descriptive test. The top four percentages were used to help simplify and to help better display the results. A majority of these tests showed that the description of appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, and consistency varied widely across the charts. Other factors that contributed to the sources of errors were that some words on the list provided to the panelists were either confusing or limited in describing a certain trait of a sample. An example is the word “flavery,” this confused a lot of the panelists when making their decision because no one had a real definition for this term, yet this word was still chosen by the panelists to describe some of the sample’s aroma. Because of these inconsistencies, a descriptive test may not prove to be overall useful for product development.

Paired Comparison Test:

The results of this test determined an accurate consistency in deciding which of the samples were more intense in sourness than the other. Only two samples were provided, simplicity stood out for the overall process, and recording data for this test was quick. Overall simplicity of a test may prove to bring more accurate results and better help with research for product development. Factors to consider that may have affected results were the open setting in the lab. Specific facial reactions, such as shrinkage of the face or shakes and quivers from the contact of the sour flavor may have influenced other panelist’s decision. A simple change in setting could factor out these influences, such as a divider or separating panelists into another room to obtain even more accurate results.

Triangle Test:

This test also offers another simplistic and quite accurate way to gather information of a certain product that needs comparison to similar products alike. Overall results of this test favored the sample 112H9 to be different from the other two samples. Although not all panelists agreed, the 95.3% significantly still shows that most agree sample 112H9 is different. A possible reason that may have contributed to panelists not coming to an agreement in this decision was because of possible age differences within the panelists. The average ages of panelists were twenty two, and two of the panelists were in their forties. As one ages, the body deteriorates as well. Possible changes in the taste buds may have contributed to these differences.

Ranking Test:

The results of this test shows accuracy in determining the intensity of sourness, but showed an inconsistency in personal preference. Inconsistencies may have been influenced by the panelists individual preference of choosing sweetness over sourness in terms of preferred taste, or vice versa. Other factors could be due to simple errors such as mixing the codes of samples with another because of the larger number of samples to distribute. Another reason could be because one may forget what the prior samples tasted like before sampling the fourth or fifth sample, this inhibits the panelist from making an accurate comparison. This test can be useful in rating the characteristic of taste with a fewer set of samples, but rating preference proves to be inaccurate for such a purpose.

Duo-Trio Test:

The results of 97.6% of panelists proved the test to be significant and near accurate in deciding which cookie differed from the standard. The terminology chosen to describe the significant difference amongst the cookies varied widely due to the fact the panelists did not choose their descriptive term from a list and rather from their own preference. This can prove useful in product development if the purpose is to figure what different tastes come to mind in tasting a certain food.

Scoring/Rating Test:

Adair et al used a scoring test to rate different types of mung-bean pastes in order to replace the butter used in peanut butter cookies. A panel helped score the flavor and hardness of the cookies. A scale from the numbers 1 through 10 were used in order to rate the tests, and there was a reference sample used that was already assigned at a 5 on the scale. The outcome of the tests showed that the fat content in the peanut butter cookies cannot drop below fifty percent or else acceptability will drop to an unwanted state.

A similar scoring test was used in the laboratory in rating two samples of apple juice to a third sample already referenced. The rating scale was slightly different compared to the scoring scale used by Adair et al; the rating scale used for comparison of the apple juice samples were rated 1 through 7, and the reference sample was rated at 4. Panelists in this test could verify which of the samples were more and less intense than the reference sample, but did not agree in the placement score of the sample. To decrease this disagreement in scoring placement, an option could be to decrease the scoring scale from 1 through 7 to a possible 1 through 3, with 2 being the reference number instead. A scoring test proves to be useful in measuring two characteristics in certain samples. Still, the scoring test wouldn’t prove quite accurate in figuring out how panelists feel about the products.

Conclusion

Sensory evaluation tests help translate human senses and better correlate how the senses contribute towards food acceptance. A variety of sensory evaluation tests have been developed and are used for excellent research methods. The type of testing does drop in terms of accuracy if not used properly in the right situation. Every type of test has its own advantages and disadvantages, so it is better to know which type of test should be used in order to obtain accurate results. The information collected from tests like the beverage association shows the relation of color playing a role in flavor preference and acceptability in beverages. Inaccurate data analysis can be avoided if sensory evaluations are executed properly.

References

Brown A. 2011. Understanding Food: Principles and preparation. 4th ed. 1p.

Strickland, Lea. “Customer Satisfaction: Perception of Product and Service Quality.” Carolina. 2008. http://carolinanewswire.com/news/News.cgi?database=columns.db&command=viewone&id=454

M.A. Drake. Department of Food Science, Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695-7624Received 2 May 2007.

Magoulas, C. (1996). [Effect of Color on Taste]. Unpublished raw data.

J.M. Murray, C.M. Delahunty, I.A. Baxter. Consumer Science Program, Food Science Australia, 16, Julius Ave, Delhi Road, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Sydney, Australia Nutritional Sciences dept, Department of Food Science and Technology, University College, Cork Island.

Adair M, Knight S, Gates G. 2001. Acceptability of peanutbutter cookies prepared using mung bean paste as a fat ingredient substitute. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 101:467-9.

495P2123450004.795.3543K81234502.3E-24.790.74.7695F8123450095.34.70192L3123459.300000000000000788.4000555D71234590.79.3000000000000007000495P2123456020.9142.29999999999999982.2999999999999998543K81234570.62800000000000034018.60000000000000111.6695F8123459.30000000000000071474.40000000000000602.2999999999999998192L31234520.90767.4000000000000064.7555D7123452.29999999999999982.29999999999999984.711.679.099999999999994