You are on page 1of 28

Sensory Evaluation Lab Report

Tala L. Moshref
Nutrition 205 Lab
Section 4
Fall 2013
San Diego State University

Abstract
Sensory evaluation is a scientific method designed to construct accurate evaluations based on
human senses. Various methods of effective tests were used to determine likes or dislikes,
preferences and differentiation between products. These sensory evaluation tests were performed
in a food preparation laboratory setting at San Diego State University. The carefully designed
tests included color association and perception of beverages, difference test, evaluation of food
products using descriptive terms, paired comparison test, triangle test, duo-trio test, scoring or
rating test and ranking test. A total of 89 untrained students, 10 males and 79 females,
participated in this experiment. The general results from these test suggested that color of a food
product has a major role in food acceptance. The results also concluded that determining a food
products texture, aroma, flavour, appearance, mouth feel and consistency is variable due to
gender, food sensitivity, health status and other factors.

Introduction
Sensory evaluation of foods, food preferences and consumer acceptability are considered
important criteria in food production. There are a range of methods used to evaluate foods which
are categorized as either sensory (subjective) and objective tests. Sensory (subjective) evaluation
is a discipline that uses scientific measurements to evaluate food products with consideration of
personal preference and involvement of five senses (touch, smell, taste, sight and hearing). The
food industry uses the sensory factors to research, develop new products and evaluate
merchandise quality and suitability. The sensory evaluation itself has been divided into two
categories: effective and affective tests. Effective tests are usually organized using trained
panellists. The method of the effective tests is to identify differences through discriminative or
descriptive tests. In other words, are the samples different from one another and what their
differences are? On the other hand, affective tests are usually conducted by an untrained group
of panellists and the methods are based on personal preferences of liking and disliking a product.
Each of these methods are used to determine a specific area being tested (Understanding Food
Principles & Preparation by Amy Brown, 2008). This scientific method of food evaluation was
emerged in 1940 by expert tasters evolved with tea, coffee and cheese production. Over the
years this practice has evolved and is used for product development focusing on preferences and
likes and dislikes. Also, competitor analysis, quality optimization and price reduction,
formulation and ingredients are other important basis covered by this scientific method. In
addition, sensory evaluation helps providing objective scientific evaluation on a food product.
(Sara E. Kemp, 2008)

Color Association and perception of food products, is a difference test used by industry to
measure the relationship between color, flavour and odor of products and consumers perception.
In this test a few samples of a product are presented and the panellists are to grade them with a
specific characteristic such as flavour intensity (Brown 2008). Studies have shown that the way
a product is presented changes the way it is perceived by the consumer. For example, a soap
product was examined for the packaging, size, color and odor in an experiment conducted by
Elia Gatti, Monica Bordegoni and Charles Spence in (2013). Products contributing to a better
appearance significantly influenced on consumer acceptability. A products size, color and odor
effect on consumers perception and brand preference. A number of senses contribute to an
overall experience of a product and are known as cross modal correspondences. All together,
consumers are usually more attracted to the products that satisfy a few sensory perceptions
compared to the products that only satisfy a small percentage of the senses. In addition, a
persons food acceptance is highly effected by their cognitive influences and expectations.
According to a research study done by Maya U. Shankar and others (2010), color of a product
provides a perception of flavour and identity but what people expect from their food product
greatly effects their decision. Vision usually provides a perception before tasting the food
product and it is directly related to perception.
Evaluation of food products using explanatory terms is a method of Descriptive Testing.
Using this method, researchers are able to gather detailed information about appearance, flavour,
texture, aroma, consistency and mouth feel of a food product. In evaluation of food products a
list of explanatory terms is provided to the panellists. Appearance of a food product can be
determined by size, color and surface condition. For example, symmetrical, asymmetrical, dark,
glossy, rounded, dry and smooth can be vocabulary provided for evaluating appearance. Flavour

is a combination of taste, aroma and mouth feel. Descriptive terms such as sweet, sour, bitter,
nutty, fruity and floury can be used to determine flavour. Texture is defined as the way the tactile
senses respond to physical qualities of a food product. Terms such as rough, gritty, mealy, hard,
velvety and tender are examples of terms used to describe texture. Aroma greatly influences like
or dislike of a food when volatile molecules reach the olfactory sensation. For aroma, terms such
as burnt, sweet, sour, spicy and flowery can be provided to the panellists. Consistency of the
food product can be described with the term thin, chewy, gummy and brittle. Lastly, mouth feel
of a food product can be evaluated with a variety of terms including slimy, crunchy, smooth,
crisp, sticky and slick (Amy Brown,Understanding Food Principles & Preparation Lab Manual,
2011). In addition to the options provided, there are multiple factors contributing to a panellists
perception of a food product. In a research done by Jianshe Chen and Jason R. Stokes in (2012),
the eating process including, biting, mastication, amount of saliva and the size of particles before
swallowing influence the sensory perception. There are many factors that can effect a panellists
perception on a food product. In addition, tasting a few food products at a given time may
influence the evaluation of the food product. Meaning, the later tests may be compromised by
inaccurate results. In addition, this research studies the differences between taste and flavor with
texture and how they are influenced by different factors.
The food industry uses many different methods to create new goods or improve and older
product. These tests are usually given to a trained group of panellists to accurately evaluate the
areas being studied. Paired comparison, test is a method of difference test involving two
samples. The goal of this test is to identify the sample that is more intense in the quality being
tested such as sweetness, sourness, thickness or thinness. In Duo-Trio test, standard sample is
provided in addition to two other samples. The goal of this experiment is selection of the food

product that is most similar to the standard sample. In Triangle test which is another difference
method, panellists are provided with three samples two of them being the same and are asked to
identify the odd sample. In scoring or rating test the panellists are given a standard sample with
a determined degree of a certain quality. Then, the panellists are provided with other samples
and are to rate them in accordance to the standard sample. Ranking test is another method used
by the food industry to determine suitability for consumer satisfaction. In this test more than two
samples are provided and the goal is to rank the food products according to their intensity of a
specific quality such as color, odor and flavour. Besides factors such as aroma, flavour and
mouth feel there are other aspects of food preference. For example, physiological responses that
influence the panellists experience and evaluation have been studied by Ivan E. De Araujo, and
others (2012). In this research, the effects of nutrients on physiological pathways and food intake
have been researched. Also, this study focuses on how flavour of a food product influences the
stimulation of the brain and the amount of hormones (particularly dopamine) secreted. In
addition, in this research post-ingestive signals and their effect on food experience have been
studied.
Food evaluation is a multidimensional subject. Researchers study different aspects of
food suitability and consumer acceptability. Another approach to food preference is to study the
consumers social, economical and family status. The effects of age, gender, marital status and
social status on food behaviour have been studied by Eva Roos and others (1998). This research
showed that food consumption behaviour is more elevated amongst men and women who are
married and amongst those who have a higher income. Socioeconomic status was the main
factor contributing to mens response to food behaviour. There were more factors such as
marital status and household responsibilities affecting a womans response to food acceptability.

The purpose of the study done by the Nutrition major students as SDSU was to learn and
practice the proper way of performing a sensory evaluation. As a part of this experience the
students were to evaluate the effects of the five senses in judgment of food products and
beverages. Another goal of this study was to teach the students how to evaluate food products by
texture, aroma, consistency, appearance and flavour. Identifying differences in samples, ranking
multiple beverages in order of their intensity and preference, and evaluating differences of given
samples with a standard sample were other goals of this study.

Methods
Panelists
The panelists for the sensory evaluation were all the students registered in course NUTR
205 in fall of 2013 at San Diego State University. The lab for this class was divided into four
sections. Three of the subdivisions met on Monday and Wednesday morning, early afternoon and
late afternoon. The fourth group met on Friday mornings. Each subgroup consisted of 21-24
students from different ethnicities and the total number of participants was 89. The age of the
participants ranged from 19 to 35 years old and about 79% were between the ages of 19-23. Out
of the 89 panelists, about 89% were female and the other 11% were male. The majority (93%) of
the participants were single, leaving a small percentage for married and divorced attendees. In
addition, 73% of the participants in this experiment were undergraduates, while the remaining
27% were graduate students. Additionally, 12% of the students lived alone, 27% lived with one
roommate and 61% lived with two roommates. Lastly, 99% of the panelists were non-smokers
and about 10% had food allergies (shellfish, gluten, dairy, eggs, salmon, soy, cinnamon, vanilla,
preservatives and mayonnaise). Refer to appendix A.

Environment
The location of this experiment was at the West Commence Building on the second floor
room WC 204. This space was designed similar to a kitchen with a total of 6 sinks including
dish washing, hand washing and food prepping sinks around the sides of the room. There were a
total of 6 conventional ovens, 1 freezer, 1 refrigerator and 7cabinets for storing cooking
equipment. In the front middle of the room, there was a long counter top was designed for the
instructor. There were 2 doors for entrance and exit on the sides of the instructors counter.
There were 27 seats organized in 5 rows for the students right across from the instructors table.
The seats were surrounded by six cooking stations all around the room. In the back of the class,
behind the seats, there was a large white board with some charts and numbers on it. There were
no windows and as a result no natural light in this libratory. Multiple florescent lights were used
to illuminate the room.

Color Association/Perception of beverages


For this evaluation, 5 beakers containing different liquids were set up at the instructors
station. Each beaker contained a different liquid with a different color. The colors were
organized from light to dark and from left to right. Beaker 1 was labeled as light yellow, beaker
2 as dark yellow, beaker 3 as chartreuse, beaker 4 as dark chartreuse and beaker 5 as emerald
green. The panelists were to evaluate the liquids for sweetness, sourness, naturalness,
artificiality, preference and dislike by just observing the beakers. They were asked to rank the
liquids from 1-5, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest in each category. Another procedure
for the panelists was to state if there were any of the drinks they would consider drinking and the

answers were limited to yes or no only. If their answer was positive, then the panelists were
asked to state in which temperature theyd consider drinking the liquid. The options for
temperature were cold, tepid, warm and hot. As the last part of this experiment, the panellists
were asked if they drink Apple Juice or not. Refer to appendix B.

Difference Tests
A general protocol for all the difference tests was provided to the panelists. For accuracy,
they were required to perform all the experiments individually and not in groups. The panelists
were asked not to share their experience and feelings about the food products with one another.
In addition, they were required to perform the experiment in silence and not show any facial
expressions during the tests. Finally, each panelist was given a cup of room temperature water to
drink in between each try.

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms


For this experiment, each panelist was presented with 4 small paper cups containing bite
size food samples. The samples were gold fish, raisins, almonds and marshmallows. The food
products were to be evaluated for appearance, aroma, flavour, texture, consistency and mouth
feel. The participants were provided with a list of descriptive terms for each food product. It
was essential for the panelists to choose one word from each category that best described the
product. The number of descriptive words varied for each category and food product. For

example, to evaluate the appearance of gold fish, there were 14 descriptive words and to evaluate
the consistency of raisin, there were 7 words available to choose from. View appendix C.

Paired Comparison Test


For this difference test, there were 2 coded beakers (635T1 and 573T2 ) containing apple
juice at the instructors station. Five students from the front row were selected to pour two
samples of apple juice in small paper cups. The sample cups were coded respective to the
original beakers. The cups were then distributed amongst the panellists each person receiving
two coded beverages. The procedure was to try both samples and compare the intensity of
sourness and choose the sourest drink.

Triangle Test:
For this experiment, there were three beakers containing apple juice at the instructors
counter. Each beaker was labeled with a different code (777C1, 542E2 and 112H9). Five
students from the front row were selected to pour the samples in small paper cups. The cups
were labeled respective to the original beaker. Each panelist received three sample cups
simultaneously and had to point out the odd sample.

Duo-Trio Test

The panellists were to sample three differently coded vanilla cookies for the Duo-Trio
test. The standard vanilla cookies were coded as 8175, and the other two samples were coded as
6104 and 1108. The panellists were asked to determine which of the cookie samples differed
from the standard sample presented in the beginning of the experiment. In addition, the
panellists were to share what was the major difference in the sample they picked as different
compared to the other two. View appendix D.

Scoring or Rating Test


For this test, the students were presented with a coded reference sample of apple juice.
This sample was given an arbitrary rating of 4 for sourness on a scale of 1-7 (for 1 being more
sour and 7 being less sour). The panellists were to try two other coded samples and determine
where they belonged on the scale of 1-7 compared to the reference sample. View appendix D.

Ranking Test:
There were five beakers containing different samples of apple juice at the instructors
station. Each beaker was coded; beaker 1 as 695F8, beaker 2 as 495P2, beaker 3 as 192L3,
beaker 4 as 543K8 and beaker 5 as 555D7. Five students were selected to pour the samples in
small paper cups coded respective to the original beaker. Each person was given 5 differently
coded sample cups. The panellists were asked to try the samples and classify them in descending
order of intensity with 1 being the most intense in flavour and 5 being the least intense. In

addition, the participants were asked to rank the samples by personal preference 1 representing
their most and 5 representing their least favourite.

Results
Beverage Color Association
The results of the Beverage Color Association and perception of beverages was as
follows. Emerald was perceived to be the sweetest with (43.82%) votes, light yellow (25.84%),
dark yellow (19.10%), dark chartreuse (6.74%) and lastly chartreuse was perceived as the least
sweet beverage (4.49%). In addition, light yellow was perceived as the most sour beverage with
(44.94%), dark yellow (17.98%), chartreuse (14.61%), dark chartreuse (12.36%) and finally,
emerald green was chosen to be the least sour with (10.11%). Refer to figure A-1 to view the
results on a bar graph.

Panelist Color Association Determineing


Sweetness & Sourness of Beverages

Percentages

43.82
60 44.94
40 25.84 19.1
17.98 14.616.74
12.36
10.11
4.49
20
0

Sweet
Sour

Sweetness/Sourness
Figure A-1

The results for the most natural and most artificial beverages were calculated. Emerald
had a result of (79.78%) perceived to be the most artificial, dark yellow (8.99%), dark chartreuse

(5.22%), chartreuse (4.49%) and yellow with (1.12%) was chosen to be the least artificial. In
addition, the light yellow beverage was determined to be the most natural with (96.62%) votes,
dark yellow (2.25%), chartreuse (1.12%) and no votes were put in for cark chartreuse and
emerald. View figure A-2 for reference.

Panelist Color Association Determineing


Naturality and Artificiality of Beverages

Percentage

120 96.63
100
80
60
40
8.98 1.12
4.49
1.12 2.25
20
0

79.77
Natural

5.62
0

Artificial

Natural/Artificial
Figure A-2

The results for preferring and disliking the most are as follows. Light yellow was most
preferred with (86.54%), chartreuse (13.48%), dark chartreuse (7.86%), emerald (5.62%) and
dark yellow with 4.49% was chosen to be the least preferred. On the other hand, emerald with
(59.55%) was chosen to be the least preferred, dark yellow (26.97%), dark chartreuse (5.62%),
light yellow (4.49%), and finally chartreuse with (3.37%) was chosen to be disliked the least.
See figure A-3 for a summary of results.

Panelist Color Association Determining


Prefrence & Dislike of Beverages

Percentage

59.55
80 68.54
60
26.97
40
5.62 5.62
4.49 4.49 13.48
3.37 7.86
20
0

Prefer
Dislike

Prefer/Dislike
Figure A-3

The results for the willingness to drink the beverage are as follows. The votes for light
yellow were (96.62%), for dark yellow (5.56%), chartreuse (62.92%), dark chartreuse (39.99%)
and emerald with (74%) was the least desired beverage to drink. Also, the percentage of people
who said no to drinking the beverage is as follows: Emerald (74.16%), dark chartreuse (60.67%),
dark yellow (49.44%), chartreuse (37.08%) and yellow (4.49%). View figure A-4 for a summary
of results.

Panelist Color Association & Willingness to Drink Beverage

Percentage

120 96.62
100
60.67 74.16
80
49.4462.92
39.33
37.08
60
25.84
40
4.49 5.56
20
0

Yes
No

Yes/No

Figure A-4

The results for the temperatures the panellists were willing to drink the beverage are as
follows. The cold temperature results were, dark chartreuse (95.51%), light yellow, dark yellow
and emerald (94.38%) and chartreuse (.94%). For hot temperature the results were: emerald
(3.37%), light yellow (2.25%), chartreuse and dark chartreuse (1.12%) and dark yellow (0%).
The results for warm temperature were: (2.25%) for dark yellow and chartreuse, (1.12%) for
dark chartreuse, and (0%) for yellow and emerald. The experiment results for tepid were:
(5.62%) for emerald, (4.49%) for light yellow and dark yellow and (3.37%) for chartreuse and
dark chartreuse. Figures A-5 through A-8 are provided for reference.

Panelist Color Association & Willingness to Drink Beverage Cold

Emerald Green; 25% Light Yellow; 25%


Dark
Dark Chartreuse;
25%Yellow; 25%
Chartreuse; 0%

Figure A-5

Panelist Color Association & Willingness to Drink Beverage Hot

Light Yellow; 29%


Emerald Green; 43%
Chartreuse; 14%
Dark Chartreuse; 14%

Figure A-6

Panelist Color Association & Willingness to Drink Beverage Warm

Dark Chartreuse; 20%


Dark Yellow; 40%
Chartreuse; 40%

Figure A-7

Panelist Color Association & Willingness to Drink Beverage Tepid

Light Yellow; 21%


Emerald Green; 26%
Dark
Yellow; 21%
Dark Chartreuse;
16%
Chartreuse; 16%

Figure A-8

The results for drinking apple juice were recorded and are as follows. (50.56%) said yes
and (23.59%) said no. Refer to chart A-9.

Percent Panelists Drinking


Apple Juice

No; 32%
Yes; 68%

Figure A-9

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms


The results for the appearance, aroma, flavour, texture, consistency and mouth feel of
raisins, gold fish, almonds and marshmallows are shown in tables C-1 through C-4.
Table C.1 Top Four Percentages of Sensory Evaluation for Raisin

Appearance

Aroma

Flavor

Texture

Sunken

24%

Fruity

43%

Sweet

52%

Chewy

Glossy

18%

Sweet

39%

Fruity

35%

Gummy

Dark

17%

Flowery

8%

Flowery 7%

Rubbery 13%

Rubbery 22%

Dry

11%

Nothing

8%

Bitter

Moist

Viscous

Gritty

5%

Consistency

Mouth feel

42%

Chewy

48%

Sticky

24%

Gummy

25%

Slimy

11%

Smooth

11%

9%

5%

62%

8%

Table C.2 Top Four Percentages of Sensory Evaluation for Goldfish

Appearance

Aroma

Gldn Brown 38%

None
Burnt
29%
Spicy
9%

54%

Sweet

3%

Dry
Rough
Grainy
7%

27%
7%

Flavor

Texture

Salty

78%

Stale

Consistency

Mouth feel

Crunch

51%

Brittle

48%

Crisp

45%

7%

Crisp

37%

Cheesy

24%

Crunchy

37%

Sharp

6%

3%

Thin

13%

Gritty

11%

Flat

3%

Flaky
Gritty
3%

Chewy

6%

Smooth

2%

Table C.3 Top Four Percentages of Sensory Evaluation for Almonds

Appearance

Aroma

Gldn Brown 27%

None

91%

Dry

Burnt

6%

Flat

Light Brown 26%

Flowery

2%

Rough

Sour

1%

Salty
Bitter
2%

27%

11%

Flavor
Nutty
81%

Texture
Hard
12%
3%

26%

Consistency

Mouth feel

Thick

56%

Crunchy

62%

35%

Gritty

21%

Crunchy

25%

Chewy

Firm

22%

Thin

3%

Crisp

8%

Rough

11%

Rubbery

3%

Smooth

4%

Table C.4 Top Four Percentages of Sensory Evaluation for Marshmallows

Appearance

Aroma

Flavor

Texture

Consistency

Mouth feel

Puffy 83%

Sweet 87%

Sweet 68.5%

Gummy 22%

Gummy 33%

Smooth 22%

Rounded 7%

Nothing 7%

Floury 15%

Springy 22%

Chewy 27%

Sticky 29%

Dull 2%

Flowery 3%

Pasty 12%

Velvety 17%

Thin 12%

Slimy 19%

Gelatinized 12%

Butter 9%

Gritty 2%

Smooth 2%

Paired Comparison Test


The results for the Paired Comparison Test are as follows. 635T1 with (1.12%) was
determined to be less sour apple juice and sample 573T2 with 98.88% was determined to be the
sourer of the two samples. Refer to figure A-10 to view results.

Paired Comparision Test Determining the


Sourer Sample of Apple Juice
120
100
80
Percentage 60
40
20
0

98.88
Sample 635T1
Sample 573T2

1
Sourness
Figure A-10

Triangle Test

The results for this test are as follows: Sample 112H9 with (97.75%) was determined to
be the odd sample. Citric acid was added to this beverage. There were no votes for sample
777C1 and (2.25%) for sample 542E2.

Triangle Test Determining the Odd Smaple of Apple Juice


120
100

97.75
Sample 112H9

80
Percentage

Sample 777C1

60

Sample 542 E2

40
20
0
Oddness

Figure A-11

Duo-Trio Test
Sample 6104, Safeway brand cookie with (96%) votes was determined to be different
from standard vanilla cookie, which was Nabisco brand. Sample 1108 was also manufactured by
Nabisco (4%) was chosen to be similar to the standard sample. In addition, the odd sample 6104,
was chosen to differ from the standard sample by less vanilla flavour with 57%, crunchiness with
27%, and dryness with 15%. My conclusion is that the main difference between the odd sample
and the standard was the flavour. The results are shown in figures A-12 and A-13.

Duo-Trio Test Choosing Odd Sample Compaired to Standard Vanilla Cookie


150
100
Percentage

96

Sample 6104
Sample 1108

50
0

4
1
Difference
Figure A-12

Duo-Trio Test Determining Differences of Odd Sample with Standard Vanilla Cookie
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Percentage 0

0.57
0.15

0.27

Differences of Odd Sample

Figure A-13

Scoring or Rating Test


The reference sample, 0110, contained 2.5% Citric Acid. Sample 420M contained 1%
Citric Acid and sample S723 contained 5% Citric Acid. The reference sample was evaluated as a
number 4 on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being more sour and 7 being less sour. The results are as
follows. Sample S723 was at a scale of 2 considered more sour and sample 420M was at a scale
of 6 considered less sour. See figure A-14.

Rating Test Determining the Intensity of Sourness Compaired to Refrence Sample


8
6
Sourness 4
2
0

Sample 0110 Sample 420M Sample S723


samples of Apple Juice
Figure A-14

Ranking Test:
Sample number 5, coded as 555D7 with 10% citric acid added to it was determined to be
the most sour beverage (96.6%). Sample number 3, coded as 192 L3 with 5% citric acid added
was determined to be the second sourest sample (88.76%). Sample number 1, coded as 695F8
with 2.5% citric acid added was determined to be the third sourest drink (87.69%). Sample
number 4 coded as 543K8 with 1% citric acid added was determined to be the fourth sourest
sample (86.52%). Lastly, sample number 2 coded as 495P2 with 0% citric acid added was
determined to be the least sour sample (86.52%). In addition, sample number 2 coded as 495P2
(57.3%) was most preferred beverage amongst the panellists. Sample number 4 coded as 543K8
(62.92%) was the second chosen beverage. Sample number 1coded as 695F8 (75.28%) was third
selected beverage. Sample number 3 coded as 192L3 (78.65%) was fourth preferred beverage.
Lastly, sample number 5 coded as 555D7 (94.38%) was the least desired sample. For a summary
of results concerned the sourness and preference of the samples, view figures A-15 and A-16.

Ranking Test Determining Degrees of Sourness of Apple Juice Samples


88.76
86.52
86.52

Different Samples

87.64
96.6
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Sourness
Figure A-15

Ranking Test Determining Levels of Prefrence of Apple Juice Sample


78.65
57.3
62.92
75.28
94.38

Different Samples

20

40

60

80

100

Least Preferred
Figure A-16

Discussion:
In the color association and perception of beverages test, the emerald green drink
(watermelon Gatorade) was determined to be the sweetest. As mentioned in the article written
by Elia Gatti and others (2013), the color and appearance of a beverage has an important role in
determining the taste of it. The color of watermelon Gatorade is very similar to Nyquil/Vicks
which is a medication used for colds. Nyquil has a very syrupy appearance as well as a strong
sweet taste. Panellists may have viewed the emerald green as the sweetest drink because of its

association with Nyquil. In addition, emerald green beverage was perceived to be the most
artificial product. This result as well could be because of association with Nyquil. Since this
pharmaceutical product is a mixture of unnatural compounds, it leaves an impression of
unnaturalness. Interestingly, the emerald green drink was disliked the most and was one of the
least preferred drinks amongst the five samples. This could be because of the panellists past
experiences and association of the color with having a cold. In addition, emerald green drink
was chosen to be the least preferred drink which could be again, because of association of
unnaturalness, and poor health.
The light yellow beverage was perceived to be the sourest drink amongst all five. The
color of this drink was similar to a common drink, lemonade. The main ingredient of lemonade
is lemon which is acidic and tart. The panellists may have associated this color to freshly made
beverage with lemons. For the same reason perhaps this beverage was identified as the most
natural amongst all five drinks. In addition, when the panellists were asked to determine which
beverage they liked better, the light yellow was preferred the most. Accordingly, when the
panellists were asked which beverage they would drink, the light yellow was the first choice.
This could be a result of a pleasant association such as a hot summer day, a picnic or dinning out.
The panellists were also asked what temperature would they drink their preferred beverage.
There were more votes for cold rather than hot, warm and tepid. Dark chartreuse was voted the
highest and light yellow, dark yellow and emerald green followed shortly after. For the hot,
warm and tepid temperatures there were a lower percentage of votes. The reason could be
because of associating brightly colored drinks such as juices and energy drinks with being cold.
In addition, the season and time of the day could have an effect on this choice.

Evaluating food products using terms to describe flavour, texture, aroma, mouth feel and
appearance for raisins, gold fish, almonds and marshmallows was conducted. As mentioned in
the article written by Jianshe Chen and Jason R. Stokes in (2012), the amount of time a food is
being chewed, the amount of saliva and the size of the particles can influence the sensory
perception. Also trying a few food products in a short period of time will decrees the quality of
tasting. Evaluating the four food products was done early before the panellists had tried so many
other samples. After tasting raisins, the highest votes determined that the appearance was
sunken, the aroma was fruity, the flavour was sweet, the texture was chewy and the mouth feel
was sticky. For the goldfish, the highest percentages conducted that the appearance was golden
brown, there was no aroma, the flavour was salty, the texture was crunchy, the consistency was
brittle and the mouth feel was crisp. For the almonds the highest voted determined that the
appearance was golden brown and dry, there was no aroma, the flavour was nutty, the texture
was crunchy, the consistency was thick and the mouth feel was crunchy. Evaluation of
marshmallows defined the following results: the appearance was puffy, the aroma and flavour
were sweet, the texture was gummy and springy, the consistency was gummy and the mouth feel
was sticky. The results for this experiment could have been affected by many factors. For
example, the panellists were not told to try the samples in order. Even though water was
provided to clean and refresh their pallet, most certainly small particles of the food samples
remained in their mouth and effected the evaluation of the next item. Other factors such as
degree of familiarity with the food products, the environment, time limitation, temperature, time
of the day could also reflect the results. Also, like or dislike of the food product, sensitivity,
health status (for example, if recovering from a cold) could all affect the results for this test. In
addition, the panellists were not told about the experiment, so they could have been at different

levels of hunger and satiety or may have been chewing gum or even smoking before the
experiment.
The variation of results for the difference tests including paired comparison test, triangle
test, scoring test and ranking test was because of the percentage of citric acid added to the
beverages. In paired comparison test, the sample with 0% citric acid was determined to be less
sour. In the triangle test, the sample with 1% citric acid added was pointed out as the odd
sample. In the scoring or rating test, the sample with 5% citric acid added was determined to be
2 degrees sourer than the standard sample and the sample with 1% citric acid was determined to
be 2 degrees less sour than the standard. For the ranking test also, the beverages were graded on
the degrees of sourness. The apple juice sample containing 10% citric acid was determined to be
the least favourite and the sample with 0% citric acid added was the most favourite amongst the
panellists. Many factors could contribute to the results for these tests. Physiological responses
to the acidity levels of the food, as mentioned in the research done by Ivan E. De Araujo, and
others (2012) could greatly affect the decision of the panellists. Also, familiarity with an apple
juice with a certain amount of acidity and unexpected tartness of other drink could have left a
negative influence on the panellists. Also, the difference tests were done after trying the food
samples of goldfish, raisins, almonds and marshmallows. Referring to the article written by
Jianshe Chen and Jason R. Stokes in (2012), this could greatly affect the panellists tasting
sensitivity and as a result inaccurate determination.

In all of these tests, the cups were not

labeled as they were given to the panellists. Some errors might have happened when the selected
students were distributing the samples. Also, since the panellists were told that they are going to
try apple juice, the ones who disliked apple juice were turned off by that and that could affect
how they evaluated it. In duo-trio test, sample 1108 was Nabisco Nilla Wafers and was

identified to be similar to the standard sample. The sample that was determined to be different
was First Street brand. In this test, the results could have been influenced by brand familiarity,
food acceptability and the time of the test (it was the last test performed). In addition, the color
and texture and mouthfeel of the cookies could greatly affect the panellists decisions. During
the distribution of the cookies, most panellists were excited to try the cookies and loudly
expressed how much they liked that type of cookie. The anticipation and excitement of eating
tasty cookies could greatly change the results of this test.
Even though most areas of this sensory evaluation test were designed and planned neatly,
the panellists were not aware of their participation in it. This could highly affect the results of
this experiment. Some people may have had a meal prior to the class and some other might have
been hungry. Health status, cultural diversity and food familiarity could also influence the
results. In addition, the study was done in different segments; the NUTR 205 lab has four
section and they are all at different times of the day. This could seriously influence the results.
Some of the steps can be improved for future tests. The students can be verbally notified in a
previous class to come prepared to participate in an experiment. They can be told to eat
something 2 hours before class, not smoke or chew gum prior to the test to get more accurate
results. The test can also be planned at a day/time that all students can participate. For example,
perhaps dedicating 2 lecture sessions to not only have all the students together, but also have
them participate in the evaluations with fresh and clean pallets.

References
Amy Brown, Janelle M. Walte, Karen Beathard. 2011. Understanding Food Principles &
Preparation: Lab Manual. Fourth Edition. California. Wadsworth.
Amy Brown. 2011.Understanding Food Principles & Preparation. Fourth Edition.
California. Wadsworth.
Elia Gatti, Monica Bordegoni, Charles Spence. 2013. Investigating the influence of
colour, weight, and fragrance intensity on the perception of liquid bath soap: An experimental
study. Food Quality and Prefrence. 31:56-64.
Eva Roose, , Eero Lahelma, Mikko Virtanen, Ritva Prattala, Pirjo Pietinen. 1998. Gender,
socioeconomic status and family status as determinants of food behaviour. Social Science &
Medicine. 46(12)1519-1529.
Ivan E. De Araujo, Jozelia G. Ferreira, Luis A. Tellez, Xueying Ren,
Catherine W. Yeckel. 2012. The gutbrain dopamine axis: A regulatory
system for caloric intake. 106(3):394-399.
Jinashe Chen, Jason R. Stokes. 2012. Rheology and tribology: Two distinctive regimes of
food texture sensation. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 25:4-12.
Maya U. Shankar, Carmel A. Levitan, Charles Spence. 2010. Grape
expectations: The role of cognitive influences in colorflavor interactions.
Concsiousness and Cognition. 19(1):380-390.

Pankaj B Pathare, Umezuruike Linus Opara, Fahad Al-Julanda Al-Said.


2013. Colour
Measurement and Analysis in Fresh and Processed Foods:
A Review. Food and Bioprocess Technology 6(1):36-60.
Sarah E Kemp. 2008. Application of Sensory Evaluation in Food
Research. 43(9):1507-1511.