some useful tables for sensory tests - home - springer978-1-4615-4447...appendix a some useful...

ApPENDIX A

Some Useful Tables for Sensory Tests

The following tables were derived using the MINITAB statistical package.

177

178 GUIDELINES FOR SENSORY ANALYSIS

Table A-1 The number of assessors in a paired comparison or duo-trio test required to give correct judgments, at three different significance lev-els (one-tailed test). Note: Not valid for preference.

Significance Level Number of Assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

7 7 7 8 7 8 9 8 9

10 9 10 10 11 9 10 11 12 10 11 12 13 10 12 13 14 11 12 13 15 12 13 14 16 12 14 15 17 13 14 16 18 13 15 16 19 14 15 17 20 15 16 18 21 15 17 18 22 16 17 19 23 16 18 20 24 17 19 20 25 18 19 21 26 18 20 22 27 19 20 22 28 19 21 23 29 20 22 24 30 20 22 24 31 21 23 25 32 22 24 26 33 22 24 26 34 23 25 27 35 23 25 27 36 24 26 28 37 24 26 29 38 25 27 29 39 26 28 30 40 26 28 30 41 27 29 31 42 27 29 32 43 28 30 32 44 28 31 33 45 29 31 34 50 32 34 37

Appendix A 179

Table A-2 The number of assessors in a triangle test required to give correct judgments, at three different significance levels.

Significance Level Number of Assessors 5% 1% 0.1%

7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 6 7 8

10 7 8 9 11 7 8 10 12 8 9 10 13 8 9 11 14 9 10 11 15 9 10 12 16 9 11 12 17 10 11 13 18 10 12 13 19 11 12 14 20 11 13 14 21 12 13 15 22 12 14 15 23 12 14 16 24 13 15 16 25 13 15 17 26 14 15 17 27 14 16 18 28 15 16 18 29 15 17 19 30 15 17 19 31 16 18 20 32 16 18 20 33 17 18 21 34 17 19 21 35 17 19 22 36 18 20 22 37 18 20 22 38 19 21 23 39 19 21 23 40 19 21 24 41 20 22 24 42 20 22 25 43 20 23 25 44 21 23 26 45 21 24 26 50 23 26 28

ApPENDIX B

Glossary of Terms Used in Sensory Analysis

In most cases, contributors to Guidelines for Sensory Analysis in Food Product Development and Quality Control have used nomenclature as defined in the International Standard Sensory Analysis-Vocabulary (ISO 5492, 1992 (Elf».

Acceptability (noun)

Acid (taste) (adj.)

After-taste (noun)

Appearance (noun)

State of a product favourably received by a given individual or popUlation, in terms of its organoleptic attributes.

Describes the basic taste produced by dilute aqueous solutions of most acid substances (e.g., citric acid and tartaric acid).

O1factory and/or gustatory sensation which occurs after the elimination of the product and which differs from the sensations perceived whilst the product was in the mouth.

All the visible attributes of a substance or object.

Source: Extracts from ISO 5492: 1992 are reproduced with permission under license number PD\1999 0174. Complete copies ofthe standard can be obtained by post from BSI Customer Services, 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, or through national standards bodies.

181


Assessor (sensory) (noun) Any person taking part in a sensory test.

NOTE: A naive assessor is a person who does not meet any particular criterion. An initiated assessor is a person who has already participated in a sensory test.

Attribute (noun) Perceptible characteristic.

Bias (noun) Systematic errors which may be positive or negative.

Bitter (taste) (adj.) Describes the basic taste produced by dilute aqueous solutions of various substances such as quinine and caffeine.

Comparative assessment Comparison of stimuli presented at the same time.

Consumer (noun)

Contrast effect

Control (noun)

Convergence effect

Detection threshold

Difference test

Difference threshold

Person who uses a product.

Increase in response to differences between two simultaneous or consecutive stimuli.

Sample of the material under test chosen as a reference point against which all other samples are compared.

Decrease in response to differences between two simultaneous or consecutive stimuli.

Minimum value of a sensory stimulus needed to give rise to a sensation. The sensation need not be identified.

Any method of test involving comparison between samples.

Value of the smallest perceptible difference in the physical intensity of a stimulus.

NOTE: In English, the term "difference threshold" is sometimes designated by the letters "DL" (difference limen) or the initials "JND" Gust noticeable difference).

Discrimination (noun)

Duo-trio test

Error (of assessment)

Expert (noun)

Expert Assessor

Hedonic (adj.)

Hedonic scale

Independent assessment

Interval scale

Magnitude estimation

Objective method

Appendix B 183

Act of qualitative and/or quantitative differentiation between two or more stimuli.

Method of difference testing in which the control is presented first, followed by two samples, one of which is the same as the control sample. The assessor is asked to identify the sample which is different from the control.

The difference between the observed value (or assessment) and the true value.

In the general sense, a person who, through knowledge or experience, has competence to give an opinion in the fields about which he or she is consulted.

Selected assessor with a high degree of sensory sensitivity and experience of sensory methodology, who is able to make consistent and repeatable sensory assessments of various products.

Relating to like or dislike.

Scale expressing degrees of like or dislike.

Evaluation of one or more stimuli without direct comparison.

Scale where numbers are chosen in such a way that equal numerical intervals are assumed to correspond to equal differences in sensory perception.

Process of assigning values to the intensities of an attribute in such a way that the ratio of the value assigned and the assessor's perception are the same.

Any method in which the effects of personal opinions are minimised.


Off-flavour

Off-odour

Ordinal scale

Paired comparison test

Panel (noun)

Perception

Preference (noun)

Preference test

Profile

Quality (noun)

Ranking (noun)

Rating (noun)

Atypical flavour often associated with deterioration or transformation of the product.

Atypical odour often associated with deterioration or transformation of the product.

Scale where points are arranged according to a pre-established or continuous progression.

Method in which stimuli are presented in pairs for comparison on the basis of some defined attributes.

Group of assessors chosen to participate in a sensory test.

Awareness of the effects of single or multiple sensory stimuli.

Expression of the emotional state or reaction of an assessor which leads him or her to find one product better than one or several others.

Test to assess preference between two or several samples.

The use of descriptive terms in evaluating the sensory attribute of a sample and the intensity of each attribute.

Collection of features and characteristics of a product or service that confer its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.

Method of classification in which a series of samples is placed in order of intensity or degree of some specified attribute. This process is ordinal with no attempt made to assess the magnitude of the differences.

Method of classification according to cat-

Ratio scale

Recognition threshold

Reference (noun)

Residual taste (noun)

Salty (taste) (adj.)

Scale (noun)

Scale (hedonic)

Scale (interval)

Scale (ordinal)

Scale (ratio)

Appendix B 185

egories, each of which is placed on an ordinal scale.

Scale where numbers are chosen in such a way that equal numerical ratios are assumed to correspond to equal sensory perception ratios.

Minimum value of a sensory stimulus permitting identification of the sensation perceived.

Substance, different from the material under test, used to define an attribute or a specified level of a given attribute.

Olfactory and/or gustatory sensation which occurs after the elimination of the product and which differs from the sensations perceived whilst the product was in the mouth.

Describes the basic taste produced by aqueous solutions of various substances such as sodium chloride.

Continuum, divided into successive values, which may be graphical, descriptive, or numerical, used in reporting the level of a characteristic.

Scale expressing degrees of like or dislike.

Scale where numbers are chosen in such a way that equal numerical intervals are assumed to correspond to equal differences in sensory perception.

Scale where points are arranged according to a pre-established or continuous progresSIOn.

Scale where numbers are chosen in such a way that equal numerical ratios are assumed


Scoring (noun)

Screening (noun)

Selected assessor

Sensory (adj.)

Sensory adaptation

Sensory analysis

Sensory fatigue

to correspond to equal sensory perception ratios.

Method of evaluation of a product or of the attributes of a product by means of scores (having a mathematical significance).

Preliminary selection procedure.

Assessor chosen for his or her ability to perform a sensory test.

Relating to the use of the sense organs.

Temporary modification of the sensitivity of a sense organ due to continued and/or re-peated stimulation.

Examination of the sensory attributes of a product by the sense organs.

Form of sensory adaptation in which a decrease in sensitivity occurs.

Specialised expert assessor Expert assessor who has additional experience as a specialist in the product and/or process and/or marketing, and who is able to perform sensory analysis of the product and to evaluate or predict effects of variations relating to raw materials, recipes, processing, storage, ageing, etc.

Stimulus threshold Minimum value of a sensory stimulus needed to give rise to a sensation. The sensation need not be identified.

Subjective method Any method in which the personal opinions are taken into consideration.

Sweet (taste) (adj.) Describes the basic taste produced by aqueous solutions of various substances such as sucrose.

Taint Taste or odour foreign to the product.

Triangle test

Appendix B 187

Method of difference testing involving the simultaneous presentation of three coded samples, two of which are identical. The assessor is asked to select the sample perceived as different.

ApPENDIX C --Some Useful Contacts

INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLISHED STANDARDS (ISOIBSI)

BSI Customer Services 389 Chiswick High Road London W4 4AL u.K. Tel: +44 (0)181 9969000 Fax: +44 (0)181 9967400

ASTM 100 Bar Harbor Drive West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 U.S.A. Tel: +1 (610) 832 9585 Fax: + 1 (610) 832 9555 e-mail: [email protected]

TRAINING COURSES IN SENSORY STATISTICS

Statistics for Industry 4 Victoria Avenue Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 9EU u.K. Tel: +44 (0)1423865955 Fax: +44 (0)1423 865711

189


ADVICE ON SENSORY ANALYSIS

Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, GL55 6LD U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1386 842000 Fax: +44 (0)1386 842100 e-mail: [email protected]

Leatherhead Food Research Association Randalls Road Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7RY England, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1372 376761 Fax: +44 (0)1372 386228

SOFTWARE FOR SENSORY DATA-CAPTURE

Biosystemes, (FIZZ) 9, rue des Mardors 21560 Coutemon, France Tel: +33 0380475762 Fax: +33 0380475071 e-mail: [email protected]

Compusense 150 Research Lane Guelph,Ontario Canada Nl G 4T2 Tel: +1 5198369993 Fax: +15198369898 e-mail: [email protected]

SOCIETIES AND PROFESSIONAL BODIES

The Market Research Society 15 Northburgh Street London, EC 1 V OAR U.K. Tel: +44 (0)171 4904911

Fax: +44 (0) 171 490 0608 e-mail: [email protected]

STATISTICAL PACKAGES

GENSTAT

NAG Ltd. Wilkinson House Jordon Hill Road Oxford, Oxfordshire OX2 8DR U.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1865-53233

MINITAB

Minitab Ltd. 3 Mercia Business Village Torwood Close Westwood Business Park Coventry, Warwickshire CV4 8HX u.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1203-695730

Minitab Inc. 3081 Enterprise Drive State College, PA 16801 U.S.A. Tel: + 1-814-238-3280

SAS

SAS Software Ltd. Wittington House Henley Road Medmenham, Marlow, Bucks SL7 2EB u.K. Tel: + 44 (0) 1628-486933 SAS Institute Inc. Box 8000, SAS Circle

Appendix C 191


Cary, NC 27511-8000 U.S.A. Tel: + 1-919-942-7273

SENPAK

Reading Scientific Services Ltd. Lord Zuckennan Research Centre Whiteknights P.O. Box 234 Reading, Berks RG6 2LA u.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1734-868541

SEN STAT

Sensory Research Laboratories Ltd. 4 High Street Nailsea, Bristol, BS19 IBW u.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1275-810183

STATGRAPHICS

Manugistics Inc. 2115 East Jefferson Street Rockville, MD 20852-4999 U.S.A. Tel: + 1-301-984-5412

Cocking and Drury Ltd. 180 Tottenham Court Road London, WIP 9LE U.K. Tel: + 44 (0) 171-4369481

STATISTICA

Statsoft Ltd. 21-23 Mill Street

Bedford, Bedfordshire, MK40 3EX U.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1234 341226

Statsoft, Inc. 2300 East 14th Street Tulsa, OK 74104 U.S.A. Tel: + 1-918-749-1119

S-PLUS

StatSci Europe OsneyHouse Mill Street Oxford, Oxfordshire OX2 OJX U.K. Tel: + 44 (0)1865-200952

SPSS

SPSS UK Ltd. 9-11 Queens Road Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, KT12 5LU U.K. Tel + 44 (0)1932-566262

SPSS Inc. 444 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL, 60611 U.S.A.

SYSTAT

CLECOM The Computer Algebra Centre The Research Park Vincent Drive Edgbaston, Birmingham B 15 2SQ U.K. Tel: + 44 (0)121-471-4199

Appendix C 193

Bibliography

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1968a. Basic principles of sensory evaluation. Special Technical Publication No. 433. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1968b. Manual on sensory testing methods. Special Technical Publication No. 434. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1968c. Correlation of subjective-objective methods in the study of odors and tastes. Special Technical Publication No. 440. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1973. Compilation of odor and taste threshold values data. DS No. 48. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1976. Correlating sensory objective measurements. Special Technical Publication No. 594. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1979. Manual on consumer sensory evaluation. Special Technical Publication No. 682. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1981. Guidelinesfor the selection and training of sensory panel members. Special Technical Publication No. 758. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1992. The role of sensory analysis in quality control. ASTM Manual series MNLl4. Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1995. Standard test method for unipolar magnitude estimation of sensory attributes. ASTM E1697. Philadelphia.

Amerine, M.A. et al. 1965. Principles of sensory evaluation. New York: Academic Press.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists International. 1985. Use of statistics to develop and evaluate analytical methods. Gaithersburg, MD.

Ball, A.D., and G.D. Buckwell. 1986. Work out statistics: 'A' level. London: Macmillan Publishing.

Bartoshuk, L.M. et al. 1996. Introduction to the sense of taste: Supertasters, implications for marketing within populations. (Conference Proceedings, Sensory Science Meeting Industry Needs, Sydney, Australia, November 11-12,1996.)

195


Beauchamp, G. 1990. Research in chemosensation related to flavour and fragrance perception. Food Technology 44, no. 1: 98-100.

Bourne, M.C. 1982. Food texture and viscosity: Concept and measurement. London: Academic Press.

Brandt, M.A. et aI. 1963. Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science 28: 404-409.

British Standards Institution. 1982. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis offoods. Part 2: Paired comparison test. London.

British Standards Institution. 1984. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis of foods. Part 3: Triangle test. London.

British Standards Institution. 1986a. BS 5929: Methodsfor sensory analysis offoods. Part 1: General guide to methodology. London.

British Standards Institution. 1986b. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis offoods. Part 4: Flavour profile methods. London.

British Standards Institution. 1989. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis of foods. Part 6: Ranking. London.

British Standards Institution. 1989. BS 7183: British standard guide to design of test rooms for sensory analysis offoods. London.

British Standards Institution. 1992. BS 5098: Glossary of terms relating to sensory analysis. London.

British Standards Institution. 1992. BS 5929: Methodsfor sensory analysis offood. Part 9: Initiation and training of assessors in the detection and recognition of odours. London.

British Standards Institution. 1992. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis offood. Part 8: Duo-trio test. London.

British Standards Institution. 1992. BS 5929: Methods for sensory analysis of food. Part 7: Investigating sensitivity of taste. London.

British Standards Institution. 1993. BS 7667: Assessors for sensory analysis. Part 1. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors. London.

British Standards Institution. 1994. BS 7667: Assessors for sensory analysis. Part 2. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of experts. London.

Brown, W. 1997. Contribution of oral breakdown to individual differences in flavour and texture perception. (Talk given at the SCI Meeting on Individual Differences in Sensory Perception and Product Choice, London, April 1997), 14-15.

Cardello, A.V. 1996. The role of the human senses in food behaviour: II. Texture. Cereal Foods World 41, no. 6: 469-470.

Cardello, A.V. 1996. The role of the human senses in food behaviour: III. Taste. Cereal Foods World 41, no. 9: 751-753.

Cairncross, E.E., and L.B. Sjostrom. 1950. Flavor profiles: A new approach to flavor problems. Food Technology 4, no. 8: 308-11.

Chatfield, C. 1983. Statistics for technology. London: Chapman & Hall. Chatfield, C., and A.J. Collins. 1980. Introduction to multivariate analysis. London:

Chapman & Hall.

Bibliography 197

Civille, G. V., and B.G. Lyon. 1996. Aroma and flavour lexicon for sensory evaluation: Terms, definitions, references and examples. ASTM data series publication DS66. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Cochran, W.G., and G.M. Cox. 1957. Experimental designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Danzart, M. 1986. Univariate procedures. In Statistical procedures in food research, ed. J.R. Piggott, 19-59. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Department of Health, Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. 1991. Guidelines on the conduct of taste trials involving novel foods or foods produced by novel processes. London.

Edgell, A. et al. 1987. EMG-A new concept in texture measurement. Dairy Indust. Int. 52, no. 5: 27-29.

European Organisation for Quality Control. 1976. Glossary of terms used in quality control. Bern, Switzerland.

European Sensory Network. 1996. A European sensory and consumer study: A case study on coffee. Chipping Campden, U.K. (Available from CCFRA, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, GL55 6LD, U.K.).

Fransella, F., and D. Bannister. 1977. A manual for repertory grid technique. London: Academic Press.

Gacula, M.C., and J. Singh. 1984. Statistical methods in food and consumer research. London: Academic Press.

Gower, J.e. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40, no. 1: 33-51.

Greenbaum, T.L. 1988. The practical handbook and guide to focus group research. Toronto: Lexington Books.

Guinard, J-X., and R. Mazzucchelli. 1996. The sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel. Trends in Food Science and Technology 7: 213-219.

Harper, R. 1972. Human senses in action. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

Horwitz, W. 1988. Protocol for the design, conduct and interpretation of collaborative studies. Pure and Applied Chemistry 60, no. 6: 855-864.

Hutchings, J.B., and P.J. Lillford. 1988. The perception offood texture-the philosophy of the breakdown path. Journal of Texture Studies 19: 103-115.

Institute of Brewing. 1995. Sensory analysis manual. London. (Available from Institute of Brewing, 33 Clarges St., London WIY 8EE, u.K.).

Institute of Brewing Analytical Committee. 1997. Health and safety aspects: General policy statement. London.

International Standards Organization (ISO). 1991. Methods for sensory analysis offood. Part 7. Investigating sensitivity of taste. ISO 3972.

International Standards Orgzanization (ISO). 1992. Sensory analysis-vocabulary. ISO 5492.

Ishihara, S. 1973. Tests for colour blindness. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan Co.


JeUinek, O. 1985. Sensory evaluation of food: Theory and practice. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

Jowitt, R.J. 1974. The terminology of food texture. Journal of Texture Studies,S: 351-358.

Kapsalis, 1.0. 1987. Objective methods in food quality assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Koster, E.P. 1990. Recent developments in the study of perception: Taste and smell. Perfumer and Flavorist 15, no. 2: 1-12.

Kramer, A, and B.A Twigg. 1970. Quality control for the food industry. Westport, CT: A VI Publishing Company.

Labuza, T. 1993. Shelf-life offoods-Guidelinesfor its determination and prediction. London: Institute of Food Science and Technology.

Land, D.O., and D. Shepherd. 1988. Scaling and ranking methods. In Sensory analysis of foods. 2d ed, ed. 1. R. Piggott, 115-185. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Langron, S.P. 1984. The Statistical Treatment of Sensory Analysis Data. PhD thesis, University of Bath.

Lawless H.T., and H. Heymann. 1998. Sensory evaluation offood: Principles and practices. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Lea, P. et al. 1997. Analysis of variance for sensory data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Leatherhead Food Research Association. 1993. Sensory analysis-Techniques & applications course notes. 22-24. Leatherhead, UK.

Lebart, L. et al. 1984. Multivariate descriptive analysis: Correspondence analysis and related techniques for large matrices. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, M.J. 1987. Physical properties offoods and food processing systems. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

Lyon, D.H. et al. 1988. Sensory quality of frozen Brussels sprouts in a time-temperature tolerance study. Food Quality and Preference 1, no. 1: 37-41.

MacFie, H. et al. 1997. The use of need for cognition and private body consciousness scales to explain individual differences in package-driven expectations of consumer perception. (Talk given at the SCI Meeting on Individual Differences in Sensory Perception and Product Choice. London, April 1997), 14-15.

MacFie, H.1.H., and D.M.H. Thomson. 1988. Preference mapping and multidimensional scaling. In Sensory analysis of foods, 2d ed., ed. 1.R. Piggott, 381-409. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Malik, H.J., and K. Mullin. 1973. A first course in probability and statistics. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Market Research Society. 1988. Code of conduct. London. (Available from: Market Research Society, 15, Northburgh Street, London, ECIV OAH.)

Martens, H. et al. 1983. A layman's guide to multivariate data analysis. In Food research and data analysis, eds. H. Martens and H. Russwurm, Jr., 473-492. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

McEwan, 1.A 1989. Statistical methodology for the analysis and interpretation of sensory

Bibliography 199

profile and consumer acceptability data. Technical Memorandum No. 536. Chipping Campden: Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association.

McEwan, l.A and E.M. Hallett. 1990. A guide to the use and interpretation of generalized Procrustes analysis. Statistical Manual No. 1. Chipping Campden: Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association.

McEwan, lA et al. 1998. The application of two free-choice profile methods to investigate the sensory characteristics of chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 3, no. 4: 271-86.

Meilgaard, M. et al. 1987. Sensory evaluation techniques. Volumes I and II. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). 1996. Thefood safety act 1990 and you. MAFF Publication No. PB 2507. London.

MINIT AB. 1998. Minitab users guide - Release 12. State College, PA: Minitab Inc.

Moskowitz, H.R 1977. Magnitude estimation: Notes on what, when and why to use it. Journal of Food Quality 3: 195-228.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1983. Product testing and sensory evaluation offoods: Marketing and R & D approaches. Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1985. New directions for product testing and sensory analysis offoods. Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1993. Sensory analysis procedures and viewpoints: intellectual history, current debates, future outlooks. Journal of Sensory Studies 8: 241-256.

Naes, T., and E. Risvik. 1996. Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Neave, H.R. 1989. Statistics tables. London: Unwin Hyman.

O'Mahony, M. 1986. Sensory evaluation of food: Statistical methods and procedures. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Oppenheim, AN. 1966. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. A1dershot: Gower.

Pangborn, R.M. 1964. Sensory evaluation offood: A look backwards and forwards. Food Technology 18: l309.

Passmore, R, and M.A Eastwood. 1986. Human nutrition and dietetics. London: Churchill Livingstone.

Peryam, D.R., and F.H. Pilgrim. 1957. Hedonic scale method for measuring food preferences. Food Technology 11, no. 9: 9-14.

Piggott, lR. 1986. Statistical procedures in food research. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Piggott, lR. 1988. Sensory analysis offoods. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Poste, L.M. et al. 1991. Laboratory methods for sensory analysis of food. Ottawa: Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch (Publication 1864/E- ISBN 0-660-l3807-7).

Poulton, E.C. 1989. Bias in quantifying judgements. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Royal College of Physicians. 1984. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research. London.

Sauvageot, F. 1982. L 'Evaluation sensoriel/e des dentrees alimentaires (Aspects methodologiques). Paris: Techniques et Documentation.

Savage, N., and C. Edwards. 1984. A guide to the data protection act. London: Financial Training Publications.

Schiffman, S.S. et a1. 1981. Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods and applications. New York: Academic Press.

Spiegel, M.R. 1972. Theory and problems of statistics. (Schaum's Outline Series). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stationery Office. 1999. Health and safety: Control of substances hazardous to health regulations. Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 437 (amended 1996, S.1. 3138; amended 1998, S.1. 1357). London.

Stationery Office. 1995. Thefood safety (generalfood hygiene) regulations 1995. No. 1763 (as amended 1999 No. 1360). London.

Stationery Office. 1996. Food labelling regulations. SI 1996 No. 1499 (amended 1998 No. 1398; 1999 No. 747; 1999 No. 1483). London.

Stevens, D.A 1991. Individual differences in taste and smell. In Sensory science theory and applications infood, ed. H.T. Lawless, Chapter 10. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Stone, H., and lL. Side1. 1985. Sensory evaluation practices. London: Academic Press.

Stone, H., et a1. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 28, no. 11: 24-32.

Szczesniak, AS. 1963. Classification of textural characteristics. Journal of Food Science 28: 385-389.

Thomson, D.M.H. 1984. Flavour perception. Nutrition Bulletin 9: 69-82.

Thomson, D.M.H. 1988. Food acceptability. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Thomson, D.M.H. 1989. What do we mean by flavour? Food Technology International Europe: 217-222.

Velleman, P.F., and D.C. Hoaglin. 1981. The applications, basics and computing of exploratory data analysis. Boston: Duxbury Press.

Williams, AA, and B.A Atkin. 1983. Sensory quality in foods and beverages-Definition, measurement and control. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

Williams, AA, and S.P. Langron. 1984. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35: 558-568.

Williams, AA, and G.M. Arnold. 1985. A comparison of six coffees characterized by conventional profiling, free-choice profiling, and similarity methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 36: 204-214.

Wolfe, AR., ed. 1984. Standardised questions: A review for market research executives. London: Market Research Society. (Available from Market Research Society, 15, Northburgh Street, London, ECIV OAR.)

Wyeth, L., and D. Kilcast. 1991. Sensory analysis technique and flavour release. Food

Index

A

Acceptance tests, 49-53 hedonic rating, 50-51 monadic tests, 50 multi-sample ranking for preference,

52-53 number of assessors for, 79 paired comparison test, 51-52 paired tests, 50 repeat paired comparison test, 52 and replication, 101 sensory assessors for, 77-78 sensory assessors training, 87 sequential monadic tests, 50 standard products in, 137 statistical analysis of data, 115-117

Adaptation and sensory assessment, 33 and taste, 20

Age, in sensory assessment, 29 Ageusia, 20 Alternative hypothesis, 119 Analysis of variance (ANOVA), 111,

112-113 extension of, 112-113 Friedman ranked ANOVA, 115 order effects evaluation, 102

Association effects, 31

201

Atmosphere and shelf life, 4 and taint, 6

B

Balanced incomplete block design, order effects evaluation, 103, 105

Box-and-whisker diagrams, 116 Brightness, visual assessment, 16

c

Canonical variate analysis, 115 Carriers, and product testing, 66-67 Carry--over (precedence) effect,

63--64 Certification studies, purpose of, 141 Cigarette smoking, and taste, 21 Clarity, visual assessment, 16 Client, needslrequirements of, 36 Closed-response questions, 55,

55-56 Cluster analysis, 115 Colds, and odor assessment, 19 Collaborative studies, purpose of, 141


Color and flavor, 26 visual assessment, 15-16

Color blindness, 15 Color discrimination, testing for, 15 Commercial products, 67 Complete factorial design, 99 COMPUSENSE, 120 Concurrence matrix, order effects

evaluation, 103, 104, 105 Confidence intervals, 110 Confounding, 103 Consensus profiling, 46-47 Constraints in sensory analysis, 131-132

cost constraints, 132-133 product constraints, 131-132 in report, 123 time constraints, 132

Consumer panel, 45, 49, 53 Continuous line-scale, 38, 39, 48 Control products

blind control, 99 as calibration standard, 99 in experiment, 98 sensory assessor training, 86

Correlation, assessor performance monitoring, 140

Correlation coefficient, 117-118 Correspondence analysis, 114 Cost constraints, 132-133 Cross-laboratory studies, types of, 141

D

Data analysis, 40-41, 106-120 for acceptance tests, 115-117 for descriptive tests, 109-115 for discrimination tests, 109 hypothesis testing, 119-120 normal distribution of data, 108-109 for relating data, 117-119 report section, 124 statistical methods, 107-108

statistical software, 120 See also Statistics

Data collection computer as tool, 38, 40 report section, 124

Decoration, and visual assessment, 17 Descriptive profiling, 47-48 Descriptive tests, 46-49

consensus profiling, 46-47 descriptive profiling, 47-48 free-choice profiling, 48-49 number of assessors for, 79 panel requirements, 49 phases in testing, 46 sensory assessors for, 76-77 sensory assessors training, 84-87 standard products in, 136-137 statistical analysis of data, 109

Detection threshold, 27 Difference from control test, 42 Difference tests, 41-45, 138

difference from control test, 42 duo-trio test, 42 levels of questioning, 41 magnitude estimation, 45 number of assessors for, 79 paired comparison test, 42 panel requirements for, 45 ranking test, 44-45 sensory assessors for, 76 sensory assessors training, 83 triangle test, 43-44 two-out-of-five test, 44

Difference threshold, 27 Discriminant analysis, 115 Discrimination tests

standard products, 136 statistical analysis of data, 109

Discussion section, reports, 126 Disinfectants, and taint, 6 Distractions, and sensory assessment,

33 Distribution, and shelf life, 5 Duo-trio test, 42

E

Eating, oral processing of food, stages of, 23

Electromyography (EMG), 24 Equipment

requirements, 131 safety precautions, 89

Evenness, visual assessment, 16 Expectation, and sensory assessment, 26,

31 Experimental design

control products, 98 factorial designs, 99-100 number of assessors, 100 and number of products, 97,

101-102 order effects, evaluation of, 102-106 purpose of, 95-96 reference products, 98 replication, 100-101 session effect, evaluation of, 98 size of difference between products,

100 statistical issues, 96 within-sample variation, analysis of,

97-98 Experimental products, 67 Exploratory statistics, 109-110, 115 External preference mapping, 118 Eye, operation of, 14

F

Factor analysis, 114 Factorial designs, 99-100

complete factorial design, 99 fractional factorial design, 99

Fatigue, and taste, 20 First order effect, 63 FIZZ, 120 Flavor, 25

definition of, 25

Bibliography 203

and interaction of senses, 26 perception, stages of, 25-26

Flooring, and taint, 6 Food labels, use by date, 3-4 Food Safety (General Food Hygiene)

Regulations 1995, 88 Forced-choice option, triangle test, 43 Fractional factorial design, 99 Free--choice profiling, 48-49 Friedman ranked analysis of variance,

45,115

G

Gender differences, in sensory assessment, 29

Generalized Procrustes analysis, 48-49, 113,114

Genetic factors in sensory assessment, 30 and taste, 20-21

GENSTAT, 120 Graphical methods, 107, 116

histograms, 107, 116, 117 line graphs, 107, 163 panel performance monitoring case

example, 171-175

H

Habituation, and sensory assessment, 33

Halo effect, and sensory assessment, 32-33

Health, and odor assessment, 19 Hedonic rating, 50-51

hedonic scale, 51, 116, 117 Histograms, 107, 116

information from, 116, 117 Hue, visual assessment, 15 Hypogesia, 20 Hypothesis testing, 119-120


alternative hypothesis, 119 null hypothesis, 119 Type I error, 119-120 Type II error, 119-120

I

Ideal-point model, 119 Individual differences, 28-30

age, 29 gender, 29 genetic factors, 30 importance of, 28 physiological state, 29-30 psychological factors, 30

Interpretation section, reports, 126 Internal preference mapping, 117, 118 Interquartile range, 116 Interval scale, 37-38, 39, 51

K

Kruskal Wallis test, 115

L

Latin Square, order effects evaluation, 102,103

Leniency, and sensory assessment, 33 Lighting

and shelf life, 4 test area requirements, 130 and visual assessment, 16--17

Line graphs, 107 example of, 163

Location, and odor assessment, 18-19 Logic error, and sensory assessment, 32

M

Magnitude estimation, 45 Mann-Whitney U test, 115 Mapping. See Product mapping

Market research, product matching, 7-8 Mastication, process of, 23 Methods section, reports, 123-124 MINITAB, 120 Monadic tests, 50 Mood, and sensory assessment, 34 Motivation, and sensory assessment, 34 Multiple comparison tests, statistical,

112 Multiple linear regression, 118 Multi-sample ranking for preference,

52-53 Multivariate analysis, 107, 113

Night blindness, 15 Nominal scale, 37

N

Non-parametric methods, 107-108 N<>-perceivable-difference option,

triangle test, 43-44 Normal distribution, of data, 108-109 Nose, and smell, 17 Null hypothesis, 119

o

Objectives, in reports, 122 Odor assessment

factors affecting assessment, 18-19 sniff for evaluation of odors, 17-18

One-tailed test, 109 One-way analysis of variance, III Open-ended questions, 55 Order effects, 63

causes of, 102 Order effects evaluation, 102-106

analysis of variance, 102 balanced incomplete block design,

103,105 concurrence matrix, 103, 104, 105 Latin Square, 102, 103

Ordinal scale, 37, 39

Packaging and shelf life, 4 and taint, 6

p

Paired-comparison test, 42, 51-52, 115 repeat test, 52

Paired t-test, 110 Palate cleanser, 65

types of, 65 Panel leader, role of, 71-72 Panels

for acceptance tests, 53 consumer panel, 45, 49, 53 and descriptive tests, 49 for difference tests, 45 performance monitoring, 13 7-140 ring tests, comparative checks, 140-

141 trained panel, 45, 49, 53 untrained panel, 45, 49, 53 See also Sensory assessors

Parametric methods, 107 Partialleast-squares regression analysis,

118 Perception, definition of, 13 Performance monitoring

criteria of assessor performance, 139-140

cross-laboratory studies, 141 graphical methods case example, 171-

175 panels, 137-140 and standard products, 138-139

Personal habits, of sensory assessors, 73 Personality factors

and sensory assessment, 34 of sensory assessors, 73-74

Physiological sensations, 13-28 interaction of senses, 21-27 sensitivity of, 27 sight, 14-17 smell, 17-19 taste, 19-21 and threshold, 27

Bibliography 205

Physiological state, in sensory assessment, 29-30

Portion size, and visual assessment, 17 Preference, external preference mapping,

118 Preference mapping, 163-167

coffee analysis example, 163-166 goalof,157 internal preference mapping, 117, 118 preference map, example of, 166 preference segmentation chart, 165 relationship of consumer preferences/

sensory attributes, 166-167 Presentation odor, and sensory

assessment, 32 Principal--component analysis, 113-114,

160 regression analysis, 118

Product acceptability, 11 and customer requirements, 11

Product batching, case example, 169-170 Product constraints, and testing, 131-132 Product mapping, 9-10

aim of, 158 based on sensory profiles, 10 and future product development, 161-

162 interpretation of map, 9-10 panels for, 160 preference mapping, 163-167 preparation of product, 159-160 results, 160, 162 samples for testing, 158-159

Product matching, 7-8 goalof,157 market research, 7-8 and target product, 7

Product reformulation, 8-9 necessity of, 8-9 and sensory analysis, 9

Products, safety precautions, 89-90 Product specification, 2-3

case example, 143-145 and quality control, 2-3 sensory specifications, 2-3


Product testing amount of product required,

68-{)9 carrier/food medium for, 66--(j7 carry-over (precedence) effect,

63--64 context of test, 62 finished product and testing, 62 first order effect, 63 limitations in, 69-70 methods for, 69 number of products presented, 70,

101-102 order effect, 63 palatability of products, 60--61 palate cleanser, 65 relevance to testing objective, 60 safety of product, 60 session effect, 64 special practical difficulties,

62--63 and strong flavors/odors, 64-65 temperature factors, 65--66 and visual differences, 65 whole product or part, 61 See also Experimental design

Product types commercial products, 67 experimental products, 67

Proficiency studies, purpose of, 141 Psychological factors, 31-34

adaptation, 33 association effects, 31 distractions, 33 expectation, 31 habituation, 33 halo effect, 32-33 leniency, 33 logic error, 32 personality factors, 34 presentation odor, 32 psychology/physiology link, 31 in sensory assessment, 30 stimulus, 32

Q

Quadratic regression analysis, 118 Quality, defmition of, 2 Quality control

and product batching case example, 169-170

and product specification, 2-3 and product specification case

example, 143-145 sensory assessors for, 75

Questionnaire design closed-response questions, 55, 55-56 fmal questionnaire, 58 length factors, 56 and location of testing, 54-55 open-ended questions, 55 order of questions, 56-57 and type of panel, 54 wording of questions, 57-58

Questionnaire layout, sensory assessor training, 86

R

Ranking tests, 44-45 number of assessors for, 79 sensory assessors training, 83-84 statistical, 115

Rating tests number of assessors for, 79 sensory assessors training, 84

Ratio scale, 38, 39, 51 Recognition threshold, 27 Recommendations section, reports,

126 Records, retaining, 127 Reference products, in experiment, 98 References, in reports, 122 Regression analysis, 118

multiple linear regression, 118 partialleast-squares regression

analysis, 118

principal-component regression analysis, 118

quadratic regression analysis, 118 simple linear regression analysis, 118

Relating data, statistical analysis for, 117-119

Repeatability, assessor monitoring, 139 Repeat paired comparison test, 52 Replication, 100--101

and acceptability tests, 101 definition of, 100--10 1 number required, 101

Reports audience for, 121-122 comments in, 125 constraints in, 123 data analysis section, 124 data collection method, 124 discussion section, 126 experimental details in, 123-124 functions of, 121 interpretation section, 126 introduction in, 122 methods section, 123-124 objectives, 122 recommendations section, 126 references in, 122 results section, 124-125

Results section, reports, 124-125 Ring tests, comparing panels, 140--141

s

Safety, 60, 89-93 equipment risks, 89 general policy statement, 92-93 product risks, 89-90 of sensory assessors, 88-91 test environment risks, 90 test protocol risks, 91

SAS, 120 Scaling method, 37-38

continuous line-scale, 38, 39

Bibliography 207

interval scale, 37-38, 39, 51 nominal scale, 37 ordinal scale, 37, 39 ratio scale, 38, 39, 51 sensory assessor training, 84-85

SENPAK,120 Senses. See Physiological sensations Sensitivity, measurement of, 27 Sensory analysis

cost/time factors, 36 data collection/analysis, 37--41 definition of, 13 and individual differences, 28-30 and perception, 13 and physiological sensations, 13-28 for product acceptability, 11 for product mapping, 9-10 for product matching, 7-8 for product reformulation, 8-9 psychological factors, 31-34 purposes of, 1,35-36 scaling method, 37-38 shelf-life studies, 3-5 steps in, 27 for taint potential, 5-7 terminology, listing of, 181-187

Sensory analysis process assessor briefing, 134-135 constraints, 131-13 2 cost factors, 133 equipment, 131 facilities, 129 incentives for assessors, 135 organizing testing, 133-134 performance monitoring of assessors/

panels, 137-141 product standards, 135-137 test area requirements, 129-130

Sensory analysis tests acceptance tests, 49-53 descriptive tests, 46--49 difference tests, 41--45

Sensory aspects of food analysis of, 26-27


flavor, 25 interaction of, 26 texture, 21-25

Sensory assessors for acceptance tests, 77-78 briefing for test, 134-135 for descriptive tests, 76-77 for difference tests, 76 health and welfare of, 88-91 number required, 78-79 performance monitoring, 137-140 qualifications of, 72-74 for quality control tasks, 75 selection criteria, 80-82 solutions for taste assessments, 80 special incentives for, 135 for taint tests, 76

Sensory assessors training for acceptance tests, 87 for descriptive tests, 84-87 for difference tests, 83 general training, 82-83 for ranking tests, 83-84

Sensory elements, of food product, 2 Sensory specifications, 2-3 SEN STAT, 120 Sequential analysis, 44 Sequential monadic tests, 50 Session effect, 64

evaluation of, 98 Shape, visual assessment, 16 Shelf-life studies, 3-5

case example, 145-147 conditions affecting shelf-life, 4-5 purpose of, 3

Shine, visual assessment, 16 Sight, 14-17

color discrimination testing, 15 defective, forms of, 15 eye, operation of, 14 See also Visual assessment

Significance tests, 138 Simple linear regression analysis, 118 Size, visual assessment, 16

Smell, 17-19 assessment of, 18 defects of, 18 and flavor, 26 nose, operation, of, 17 See also Odor assessment

Social conditioning, and sensory assessment, 34

Software, statistical packages, 120 Sound

and flavor, 26 and texture, 26

Spider plot, 117 S-PLUS, 120 SPSS, 120 Standard products, 135-137

in acceptance tests, 13 7 in descriptive tests, 136-137 in discrimination tests, 136 performance monitoring of panel,

138-139 uses of, 136

Standard Statistical Tables, 138 STAT-GRAPHICS, 120 Statistics

analysis of variance (ANOVA), Ill, 112-113

canonical variate analysis, 115 cluster analysis, 115 confidence intervals, 110 confounding, 103 correlation coefficient, 117-118 correspondence analysis, 114 discriminant analysis, 115 and experimental design, 96 exploratory statistics, 109-110, 115 external preference mapping, 118 factor analysis, 114 factorial designs, 99-100 Friedman ranked analysis of variance,

115 generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA),

114 graphical methods, 107, 116

hypothesis testing, 119-120 ideal-point model, 119 internal preference mapping,

117,118 interquartile range, 116 Kruskal Wallis test, 115 Mann-Whitney U test, 115 multiple comparison tests, 112 multivariate analysis, 113 multivariate methods, 107 non-parametric methods, 107-108 one-tailed test, 109 one-way analysis of variance, 111 order effects evaluation, 102-106 paired-comparison test, 115 paired t-test, 110 parametric methods, 107 principal component analysis,

113-114 ranking test, 115 regression analysis, 118 t-test, 108 two-dimensional plots, 117 two-product t-test, 110 two-tailed test, 109 two-way analysis of variance, 111 two-way analysis of variance with

interaction, 111-112 univariate methods, 107 vector model, 119 Wilcoxon test, 116 See also Data analysis

Stimulus, and sensory assessment, 32 Storage, and shelf life, 5 Sweetener synergy, 31 SYSTAT,120

T

Tables, for sensory tests, 178-179 Taint, meaning of, 5 Taint investigation, case example,

149-151

Bibliography 209

Taint potential, 5-7 and sensory analysis, 6-7 sources of taint, 6

Taint prevention, case example, 153-155 Taint tests

screening of assessors for, 80-81 sensory assessors for, 76

Taste, 19-21 defects of, 20 physiological factors in, 19-20

Taste assessment factors affecting assessment, 20-21 technique for tasting, 21

Temperature and product testing, 65-66 and shelf life, 4

Test environment, safety precautions, 90

Test protocol, safety precautions, 91 Texture, 21-25

characteristics of, 23-24 definition of, 22 importance in product acceptance, 22 phases in assessment of, 24 senses used in assessment of, 22-23 sensory/instrumental measurement of,

24-25 and sound, 26 visual assessment, 16

Threshold, types of, 27 Time constraints, 132 Trained panel, 45, 49, 53 Triangle test, 43-44, 138

forced-choice option, 43 no-perceivable-difference option,

43-44 sequential analysis, 44

T-test, 108 paired t-test, 110 two-product t-test, 110

Two-dimensional plots, 117 Two--out-of-five test, 44 Two-product t-test, 110 Two-tailed test, 109


Two-way analysis of variance, III with interaction, 111-112

Type I error, 119-120 Type II error, 119-120

u

Univariate methods, 107 Untrained panel, 45, 49, 53 Use by date, 3-4

v

Vector model, 119

Vision. See Sight Visual assessment factors affecting

assessment, 16-17 features for measurement of, 15-16 importance in sensory analysis, 14,27

Vocabulary and terms, sensory assessor training, 85

Volatility, and odor assessment, 19

w

Wilcoxon test, 116 Word generation, sensory assessor

training, 85

some useful tables for sensory tests - home - springer978-1-4615-4447...appendix a some useful...

Documents