You are on page 1of 10

LABORATORY REPORT SENSORY EVALUATION OF FOOD

DUO-TRIO, TRIANGLE, AND TETRAD TEST


By: Anthonius Hideyo Edison Sutiono Henry William Gomuljo Nasya Jessica Livia Cornelia (03420110017) (03420110021) (03420110032) (03420110044) (03420110074)

FOOD TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN KARAWACI 2013

CHAPTER I MATERIALS AND METHODS

1.1 Materials and Equipment The materials used for the three tests which were done in this experiment as samples are soft drink from two different brands, one is as sample A as well as reference, which is sprite, and the other is as sample B, which is 7up. There is also pure water for neutralizing the mouth. The equipment used in this experiment is plastic glasses and labels. 1.2 Procedures 1.2.1 Duo-Trio Test

1. The panelist was first being familiarized with the reference sample. 2. After the reference is returned back, the samples A and B in three-digit codes in two combination orders, which are A-B and B-A were presented to the panelist. 3. The panelist was instructed to choose between both samples A and B for which one is more similar to the reference sample, and also to neutralized the mouth using pure water every time the panelist want to try another sample. 1.2.2 Triangle Test

1. The samples A and B were presented in three-digit random number codes to the panelist by three in six combination orders, which are A-B-B, B-AA, A-A-B, B-B-A, A-B-A, and B-A-B. 2. The panelist was instructed to choose between the three samples for which one is odd or different than the other two, and also to neutralized the mouth using pure water every time the panelist want to try another sample. 1.2.3 Tetrad Test

1. The samples A and B were presented in three-digit random number codes to the panelist by four in six combination orders, which are A-A-B-B, AB-A-B, A-B-B-A, B-B-A-A, B-A-B-A, and B-A-A-B.
1

2. The panelist was instructed to group the samples by two of which they are similar to each other, and also to neutralized the mouth using pure water every time the panelist want to try another sample.

CHAPTER II RESULT AND DISCUSSION

2.1 Duo-Trio Test Lawless and Heymann (2010) stated that duo-trio test is a type of discrimination test variation. Duo-trio test is good to evaluate sample which have strong sensory properties, such as taste, odor, and/or kinesthetic effect, because their impact to the evaluation are able to be reduced to the minimum point in this method. Referring to Kemp et al. (2009), duo-trio test is a test which 2 different samples which are coded are given along with one reference. The panelist will then being asked to determine which sample is the most similar to the reference given. The probability chance of this method is 0.5, and one-tailed statistics is used. Duo-trio test can be divided into two types, constant reference and blanced reference. As the name implies, the constant reference means the reference taken by the entire panelists is the same. On the other hand, the balanced reference means half of the panelists will get sample A as the reference, while the remaining half will get sample B as the reference (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). Stone and Sidel (2004) stated that it is suggested for the reference to be removed prior to the sample testing, so that the panelist unable to refer back to the reference. However, this might cause the test to become more of test of memory rather that sensory test. All the tests in the experiment (duo-trio, triangle, and tetrad test) were done to analyze whether two different products, sprite and 7up, is having a significant difference or not. In this test, the reference used is constant reference A (Sprite), which is the same for all 40 panelists. The result of the experiment is 36 answers out of 40 panelists. The null hypothesis of this test is there is no significant difference between the two coded samples. Taking the value from appendix A, it can be seen that the probability of 36 right answers out of 40 panelists is again, far below 0.001 or 0.1%. This value is below the significance level of 5%, even 1%, so the null hypothesis is rejected. It can be concluded from

duo-trio test that at the significance level : 1%, there is a significance difference between Sprite and 7up.

2.2 Triangle Test Stone and Sidel (2004) stated that one of the most well-known methods in the sensory test is triangle test. This is a type of discriminative test to differentiate between two different samples. As the name implies, triangle test involves three products, which are coded. The panel leader will give the panelists three coded samples, and two of them are the same, leaving one odd sample among them. The panelist will then being asked to determine the odd sample among the rest. This method is claimed to have good sensitivity, due to the chance probability of only 0.33. One of the characteristics of this test is not informing the panelists about the attribute of the difference, but rather only informing that there is difference between the samples. It is also important for the samples to have only one attribute difference, in order to get an accurate result (Watts et al., 1989). In the experiment, 40 panelists were asked to do the triangle test, with 19 panelists had sample A as the answer, and 21 panelist had sample B as the answer. The test resulted in 30 right answers out of 40 panelists. The null hypothesis used in this test is there is no significant difference between the two samples. This test in having a 1/3 chance, and is one-tailed. Referring to appendix B, it can be seen that the probability of 30 right answer out of 40 panelist is very low, far below 0.001, or far below 0.1%. Similar to duo-trio test, this value is below the significance level of 5%, or even 1%. It can be concluded then that at the significance level : 1%, there is a significant difference between Sprite and 7up.

2.3 Tetrad Test Referring to Ennis (2012), in the tetrad sample, 4 coded samples are given to the panelist. Two of the samples comes from one group (A), and the rest from another group (B). The panelist is then asked to group the sample into two group, based on the similarity. This test is often specified into two types, specified and unspecified, In the unspecified one, the samples are grouped based on the

similarity of two samples among 4 samples; while in the specified method, the panelists are asked to paired the sample based on which 2 of the 4 that the panelist like best, or have the strongest stimulus. Similar with triangle test, the chance probability of this test is 0.33. In the experiment, 40 panelists were asked to the tetrad test. The resut of the experiment is showing 35 right answers out of 40 panelist. The null hypothesis used in this test is there is no significant difference between the two samples. This test in having a 1/3 chance, and is one-tailed. Referring to appendix B, it can be seen that the probability of getting 35 right answers out of 40 panelists is very low, far below 0.001, or 0.1%. This value is below the significance level : 5%, or even 1%. It can be concluded from this test that at the significance level : 1%, there is a significance difference between Sprite and 7up.

CHAPTER III CONCLUSION

In the experiment, there were three tests being conducted, which are duotrio, triangle, and tetrad test. All of three tests conducted were giving a similar result, which is there is a significant difference between the two samples, sprite and 7up at the significance level of 1%. It can be concluded then, that the two brands, sprite and 7up, are different in the flavor aspect, and the difference is significant enough to be detected by the panelists.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ennis, John M.. Guiding the Switch from Triangle Testing to Tetrad Testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 27, no. 4 (2012): 223-231. Kemp, Sarah E., Tracey Hollowood, Joanne Hort. Sensory Evaluation: A Practical Book. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Lawless, Harry T and Hildegrade Heymann. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York: Springer, 2010. Stone, Harbert, Joel L. Sidel. Sensory Evaluation Practices 3rd edition. Redwood City: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004. Watts, B.M. et al. Basic Sensory Methods for Food Evaluation. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1989.

APPENDIX

Appendix A : Probability of X or More Correct Judgment in n Trial (onetailed, p = (1/2)a

Appendix B : Probability of X or More Correct Judgment in n Trial (onetailed, p = (1/3)a