Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Result Sensory Procedure
Result Sensory Procedure
Sample product:
1. snackie
2. lee biscuit
3. munchy's
[Evaluation form]
Name : Nur Aziemah
Date: 1/3/2016
Panel : 1
Table 1.1 Nur Aziemahs result value(in cm) based on scale
Sample/coded
Evaluation
Scale
Color
Flavor
Sweetness
Saltiness
Texture
Likeness
905
2.6
9
6.8
0.6
6.9
11.3
132
11.3
11.33
2.5
0.7
11.2
6.9
212
6.9
11.9
6.8
0.8
9.2
11.4
Date: 1/3/2016
Table 1.2 Nur Alimahs result value(cm) based on scale
Sample/coded
Evaluation
Scale
Color
Flavor
Sweetness
Saltiness
Texture
Likeness
894
6
9
8.8
0.7
4.7
4.9
662
0.8
4.2
2.8
0.7
11.3
11.6
246
11.5
10.9
0.8
0.9
5.1
2.9
Scale
Color
Flavor
Sweetness
Saltiness
Texture
Likeness
9
3.2
8.9
5.2
0.9
9.2
10.5
ANNOVAS TECHNIQUES
Table 2.1 Result for Color by all panellists
[Brown Color]
Colour
Snackie
Lee
Biscuit
278
8.2
6.8
4.7
0.8
4.9
5.0
850
7.8
9.1
9.0
0.7
11.4
9.2
78
Munchy's
Panelist
Nur Aziemah
Nur Alimah
Syahidatul
s
2
11.3
0.8
8.2
1
2.6
6
3.2
3
6.9
11.5
7.8
Syuhada
Figure 2.1.2 about summarize the result by used Annovas method.
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
3
Column 2
Column 3
3
3
Sum
11.8
Average
3.93333
Variance
3.29333
20.3
3
6.76666
3
29.1033
26.2
7
8.73333
3
5.94333
ANOVA
Source
of
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
Variation
Between
34.9355
17.4677
1.36680
0.32424
5.14325
Groups
Within
6
76.68
8
12.78
Groups
Total
111.6156 8
Aziemah
Nur
9
9
11.33
4.2
11.9
10.9
Alimah
Syahidatul
Sweetness
Shuada
Panelist
Nur
Aziemah
Nur
8.9
Snackie
1
Lee
6.8
9.1
Biscuits Munchy's
2
3
6.8
2.5
6.8
Alimah
8.8
Anova: Single Factor
Syahidatul
2.8
0.8
Shuada
5.2
4.7
9.0
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum Average
Column 1
3
26.9 8.96666
Variance
0.00333
Column 2
22.3
7
7.44333
Column 3
3
31.9
3
10.6333
3
2.01333
ANOVA
Source
of
3
13.0196
SS
df
MS
Variation
Between
15.2744
7.637211 1.52375
Groups
Within Groups
2
30.0726
Total
45.3470
5
5.0121
P-value
F crit
0.29165
5.14325
Coun
Su
Average
Variance
Column 1
t
3
m
20.8 6.93333
3.253333
10
3
3.33333
1.423333
3
16.6 5.53333
18.01333
Column 2
Column 3
ANOVA
Source
of SS
Variation
Between Groups 19.76
Within Groups
45.38
df
MS
P-value
F crit
2
6
9.88
7.56333
3
Total
65.14
Table
Aziemah
Nur
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
2.4
Alimah
Syahidatul
Shuada
0.9
0.8
0.7
Table 2.4.1 Figure 2.3.1 about summarize the result by used Annovas method.
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Su
Average
Variance
Column 1
m
2.2
0.73333
0.02333
2.2
3
0.73333
3
0.00333
2.4
3
0.8
3
0.01
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
Variation
Between
0.00888
0.00444
0.36363
0.70947
5.14325
Groups
Within Groups
9
0.07333
4
0.01222
Column 2
Column 3
ANOVA
Source
of
3
Total
0.08222
Aziemah
Nur
6.9
4.7
11.2
11.3
9.2
5.1
Alimah
Syahidatul
Shuada
9.2
4.9
11.4
Table 2.5.1. Figure 2.3.1 about summarize the result by used Annovas method.
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Su
Average
Variance
Column 1
m
20.
6.93333
5.06333
Column 2
8
27.
3
9.13333
3
13.4433
Column 3
4
25.
3
8.56666
3
10.2233
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
Variation
Between
7.82888
3.91444
0.40874
0.68167
5.14325
Groups
Within Groups
9
57.46
4
9.57666
ANOVA
Source
of
7
Total
65.2888
Aziemah
11.3
6.9
11.4
Nur
Alimah
Syahidatul
4.9
11.6
2.9
Shuada
10.5
5.0
9.2
Count
Su
Average
Variance
Column 1
m
26.
8.9
12.16
Column 2
7
23.
7.83333
11.54333
Column 3
5
23.
3
7.83333
19.4633
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
Variation
Between
2.27555
1.13777
0.07907
0.92491
5.14325
Groups
Within Groups
6
86.3333
8
14.3888
ANOVA
Source
of
3
Total
88.6088
9
8
9
*The function Annovas method for analysis of varience. The higher the standard deviation,
the increase variance linear for three samples were tests. If F < F crit , the hypothesis was
approved. Example for Likeness Annovas summarize, F < F crit was 0.210512 < 3.885294, the
hypothesis was approved because mean for three population(sample) that same value and
standard deviation with variance linear for three sample tests. If F > F crit the hypothesis wasnt
approved because the mean not same for three population depend the variance and standard
deviation not linear for three sample tests
PROCEDURE
1. Mouth was rinsed by using the distilled water which had prepared before tasting each
sample.
2. The tasting was beginning with the sample from left until right.
3. The panellists were retest as often as he or her need to.