1

Never Underestimate the Five

Human Senses

821175713

Nutrition 205, Section 3

20 March 2019
 2

Abstract

The purpose of the Sensory Evaluation Lab was to carry out different sensory tests to
show how necessary they are to determine preferences, qualities, and appeal of food to different
human senses. The evaluations took place in the San Diego State University Nutrition Lab Room
203. Five different types of difference tests were done, including a Paired Comparison Test,
Triangle Test, Ranking Test, Duo-Trio Test, and a Scoring/Rating Test. These tests helped in
determining different qualities of the foods tested based upon the five senses of the panelists. The
paired comparison test, ranking test, and scoring/rating test showed that most panelists were able
to determine intensity of sourness based on different samples with varying intensities of sourness
added. The triangle and duo-trio tests proved that most panelists were capable of determining
which samples differed from others based on different sensory qualities. A second component of
the ranking test, based on preference proved that panelists have different taste preferences, but
most preferred the sweeter samples over the more sour ones. Each of these tests showed the
importance of the human senses in regards to the qualities and preferences of food. These tests
are important for the food industry, along with food research in order for them to be able to
determine consumer preferences of tastes, appearances, odors, mouthfeel, and even sounds of
consumers.
 3

Introduction

Food evaluation is a component that is absolutely essential to the food industry in order

to test qualities and other factors of food such as consumer preferences and nutrition content.

Evaluating food can be done in two different ways, objective tests and sensory (subjective) tests.

Objective tests evaluate food based on numbers and measurements made by laboratory

instruments (Brown 2014).​ ​While objective tests are necessary to evaluating certain qualities of

food, sensory tests can be conducted to test qualities of food based on the actual five human

senses rather than just instruments. Sensory testing is an important tool for producers in the food

industry so that they are able to make products based on knowing consumer’s preferences and

what qualities they look for when choosing what foods to consume. Stemming from Sensory

(Subjective) Evaluation Tests, there are many different types of tests that can be done based on

the five human senses. The Nutrition 205 class at San Diego State University State acted as

panelists and carried out several of these types of tests to prove the importance of the

evaluations to the food industry, along with the importance of the human senses to the

evaluations themselves. The evaluations that took place were sensory difference tests in order to

determine what differences could be made from the panelists upon the foods they sampled, based

on only the use of their senses.

One of the sensory tests done by the SDSU students was a paired comparison test. A

paired comparison test is a sensory difference test which includes panelists simultaneously

receiving two unknown samples and choosing which of the two samples they believe to more fit
 4

a certain characteristic given to them (Brown Lab Manual). A study done by Mennella, Julie A,

et al. used a series of paired comparison tests in order to test what kind of sucrose solutions were

preferred according to age, race, and weight. The samples they used for the study included

different concentrations of sucrose solutions, being three percent (3%), six percent (6%), twelve

percent (12%), twenty-four percent (24%), and thirty-six percent (36%) sucrose. In terms of

methods, the panelists were first each given two samples simultaneously of two of the different

sucrose solutions from the middle range of concentrations. The characteristic the panelists were

to base their choice on was preference based on sweetness. They chose the sample they preferred

more. They were then given two more samples simultaneously, one being the sucrose solution

and the other being either a solution of higher or lower concentration. The series continued until

each panelist chose a preferred sucrose solution two times in a row. This was repeated once

more in order to base the study on two series of paired comparison tests. The tests that took place

were paired comparison tests because after the panelists chose their preference, they were given

the same sucrose solution paired with a solution that was of either greater or lesser concentrate.

They then had a one out of two chance of choosing the same solution based on intensity of

sweetness of the other sample, compared to the one they first chose. The results concluded that

adults preferred the lower concentrated sucrose solutions than did adolescents and children.

Children and adolescents showed no difference in preference. There was no significant

correlations of body weight and choice of sucrose solutions based on intensity of sweetness. In

terms of race, it was found that African American panelists preferred higher intensities of

sweetness over white panelists (Mennella, Julie A, et al. 2011)​.​ Preference based on intensity of

sweetness of different demographics was tested through the paired comparison tests done.
 5

Another example of a sensory difference test that was done by the SDSU nutrition

students is a triangle test. A triangle test includes presenting panelists with three unknown

samples simultaneously. Two samples are the same and one sample is different from the other

two. The panelists must chose the sample they think to be the one that differs from the other

(Brown 2014).​ ​ A triangle test was done by Johnson, Shanthi, et al.​ ​in order to test whether or not

panelists could differ between samples of orange juice with either inulin fibre or xylitol

sweetener. All forty-two panelists were adults who were equally split by gender. There were

three different containers of orange juice with inulin fibre added and three with xylitol sweetener

added. Each container was given a code (ABB, BAA, AAB, BBA, and ABA). Each participant

was presented with three of the coded samples, was told to try them from left to right, then

decide which sample was different from the other two. The results concluded that eighteen out of

the forty-two panelists were able to choose the different sample, being forty-two and eighty-six

hundredths percent (42.86%). With that being said, a majority of the panelists were not able to

decipher the different sample.

A ranking test is another sensory difference analysis test. Ranking tests include

simultaneously presenting panelists with more than two samples, and giving them a

characteristic to rank the samples upon. Ranking is done on a scale, starting with one, being the

most intense in terms of the characteristic given (Brown 2014). ​ ​Ranking tests are an important

factor in determining preferences and senses of consumers.

Duo-trio tests are sensory difference tests that include presenting panelists with three

samples, not at the same time. Panelists are presented with a standard sample then two others.

They must determine which of the second two samples is different from the standard sample
 6

given. A duo-trio test done by​ ​Beinner, Mark A, et al.​ ​was done in order to decipher whether or

not panelists could tell the difference between conventional and iron fortified rice samples. The

panelists of this test included 37 untrained untrained people recruited from the ​University of

Minas Gerais, in which varied in age and gender. The samples given to panelists were

named with random codes. Panelists were first presented with the standard (conventional

rice) sample. They were then given two other samples, one at a time, one being the same

conventional rice as the standard and the other being iron fortified rice. Panelists were told

to choose which sample was the same and which was different from the standard. Results

concluded that eighteen out of the thirty-seven panelists (48.65%) were able to choose

which sample was not the same as the standard. With that being said, a little over half of

the panelists were not able to distinguish the difference between conventional and iron

fortified rice.

A scoring/rating test is a sensory difference test which includes giving panelists a

reference sample and having them rate other samples, based on given characteristics, to

the reference sample. A scoring/rating test done by Vasconcelos, Natalia C, et al., in which

panelists were given friess made from potatoes that were previously blanched in different

solutions then frozen for both 24 hours and 30 days. The solutions included the standard

distilled water, a sodium chloride solution, a calcium chloride solution, and a mixture of

both. Each sample was given a random code. Panelists included twenty-three untrained

volunteers. The standard sample was first given to them, then a varying order of the other

samples. The panelists were to rate the samples, compared to the standard, based upon

color, flavor, and texture.. Results conclude that the fries that were previously blanched in a

sodium chloride solution then frozen for thirty days were rated highest in regards to texture.

Both samples previously blanched in the calcium chloride solution and the combination, at

both freezing times, were rated lower in regards to texture than the standard. In regards to

color, the sample blanched in sodium chloride, regardless of freezing time, were ranked as
 7

being slightly better in color than the standard. The sample blanched in sodium chloride,

also regardless of freezing time, were rated as having better flavor than the standard. With

that being said, it can be concluded that panelists preferred the samples poached in sodium

chloride compared to distilled water in regards to all characteristics tested.

Methods

Panelists

The sensory evaluation experiments were all done by the students that took the Nutrition

205 (Intro to Science of Food) class at San Diego State during the Fall semester of 2019. Before

going through with the various types of experiments the students took part in, they were given a

questionnaire regarding demographics. The students were told to finish the demographic

questionnaire based on themselves, before class, so that the answers could be recorded and

counted before the experiments took place. The questions asked were about age, gender, major,

student status, marital status, living arrangements, smoking, and allergies. When the panelists got

to class on the day the experiments took place, they sat down at their seats and were told to take

out their demographic questionnaire. The instructor explained to the students that she would read

off the different possible answers to each question and they were to raise their hand for

whichever answer they chose on their questionnaire. The instructor counted the amount of hands

that were raised for each answer, then the teachers aide wrote down that corresponding number

in an excel spreadsheet to calculate the panelist demographics as a whole. There were

twenty-three students that partook in being a panelist for the experiments. From those

twenty-three panelists, twenty-six and nine hundredths percent (26.09%) were nineteen years

old, twenty-six and nine hundredths percent (26.09%) were twenty, eight and seven tenths
 8

percent (8.7%) were twenty-one, four and thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) were

twenty-two, thirteen and four hundredths percent (13.04%) were twenty-three, four and

thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) were twenty-four, four and thirty-five hundredths percent

(4.35%) were twenty-seven, four and thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) were in their

thirties, and eight and seven tenths percent (8.7%) were forty or older. Regarding gender, there

was ninety-one and three tenths percent (91.3%) female panelists and only eight and seven tenths

percent (8.7%) male. In response to the question of marital status, ninety-one and three tenths

percent (91.3%) reported themselves as single, four and thirty-five percent (4.35%) were

married, and four and thirty-five percent (4.35%) were divorced. All of the panelists reported

their major as Foods and Nutrition, being one hundred percent (100%). The panelists were all

undergraduates, totaling to one hundred percent (100%) as well. When asked about living

arrangements, eight and seven tenths percent (8.7%) answered that they lived alone, twenty one

and seventy-four hundredths percent (21.74%) lived with one other person, and the majority,

sixty-nine and fifty-seven hundredths percent (69.57%), lived with two or more people. A total

of ninety-five and sixty-five hundredths percent (95.65%) of the panelists were non-smokers,

while only four and thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) were smokers. In regards to food

allergies, twenty-one and seventy-four hundredths percent (21.74%) of the panelists did have

them and the other seventy-eight and twenty-six hundredths percent (78.26%) did not have any

food allergies. The allergies reported were nuts, mangoes, sesame, gluten, dairy, fish, meat, and

four and thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) of the class had a vegan diet.

Environment
 9

The sensory evaluation experiments that took place were done in the Nutrition Lab Room

203. The temperature of the room was room temperature and the lighting was typical classroom

lighting. The room was lit but slightly dull, due to no windows. The students/panelists were

sitting at their desks, arranged in rows. The instructor, Linda, and teachers assistant were

standing and sitting at the front of the room, respectively. For each of the tests done, the student

at the front of the row would walk to the front of the room to collect the different one ounce

white paper sample cups of each of the substances the panelists would be tasting. They would

then walk down the row and give each of the panelists their samples. The panelists would taste

the samples and record their responses, once Linda told them to start. Before the tests started,

Sharon walked around the room and gave all the panelists a cup of water to cleanse their palates

in between samples. Once everyone was done recording their responses, Linda would call out the

different answers, while standing at the front of the room, and each of the panelists would raise

their hands for the answer that they chose for each. The teachers assistant would then record the

number of each answer on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Difference Tests

Paired Comparison Test

For the paired comparison, the panelists were given two samples simultaneously and

were to choose which substance had the greater intensity of sourness. For the test, the first person

of each row went to the front of the room and took the respective amount of each of the samples

for their row on a tray. Each of the samples were given a code (635T1 and 573T2). The person

from the front of the row then walked down the row and allowed each of the students to take one

of each of the samples. They were presented in one ounce white paper sample cups. Once Linda
 10

said to start tasting, they tasted the samples, cleansed their palate in between, then recorded their

answers. There was some distraction, as there was talking at the front of the room. Linda then

asked who thought each was more intensely sour, the panelists raised their hand when they heard

their response, and the teachers assistant recorded the answers. The students were then informed

that sample (635T1) was apple juice with zero percent (0%) citric acid and sample (573T2) was

apple juice with one percent (1%) citric acid added.

Triangle Test

For the triangle test, there were three different substances to be presented simultaneously,

given in white one ounce paper sample cups. Two of the samples were the same and one was

different and the panelists had to chose which one was different. The person at the front of the

row walked to the front of the room and took one of each of the samples for each of the panelists.

Each of the samples were coded (777C1, 542E2, and 112H9). The person then took the samples

through their row, allowing each of the panelists to take one of each sample. Linda then said to

start, the panelists started tasting the samples, cleansing their palate between each. There was a

little bit of distraction while tasting because one person coughed and another person made a

noise in response to tasting their samples. The panelists then recorded which sample they thought

was different. Linda asked which sample the panelists thought was different and the panelists

raised their hand when then heard the answer they chose. The answers were recorded by the

teachers assistant. The students were then informed by Linda that both sample (777C1) and

(543E2) were apple juice with zero percent (0%) citric acid added and (112H9) was apple juice

with one percent (1%) citric acid added.

Ranking Test
 11

For the ranking test, the panelists were given five samples at the same time and were to

rank them one through five based on most preferred to least preferred and most intense to least

intense. The person at the front of the row went to the front of the room and collected the correct

amount of each of the five samples, placed in one ounce white paper cups. They were coded

(695F8, 495P2, 192L3, 543K8, and 555D7). The person that collected the samples walked

through their rows and let everyone in the row take one of each of the five samples. Once the

panelists got the samples, Linda told them to start and they tasted the samples one by one,

cleansing their palates in between. They ranked the samples by code from most preferred to least

preferred along with most intense to least. There was some distraction while sampling because

someone made a noise in response to trying one of the samples and some of the other panelists

laughed. Once they were done ranking, Linda asked which sample each panelist chose for the

most intense first and the panelists were to raise their hand for the sample they chose. She went

on through five which was the least intense. She did the same for most to least preferred and the

teachers assistant recorded the responses for each. The panelists were then informed that each

sample was apple juice with a different amount of citric acid added. Sample (695F8) had two and

five tenths percent (2.5%) citric acid added, sample (495P2) had none added, sample (192L3)

had five percent (5%) added, sample (543K8) had one percent (1%) added, and sample (555D7)

had ten percent (10%) added.

Duo-Trio Test

For the duo trio test, the panelists were given three cookie samples, one at a time. They

were given a standard sample and two others. They had to decide which of the second two

samples was the same as the first. They were given three words to base this on (dryness, vanilla
 12

flavor, and crunchiness). The cookies were given codes (8175, 6104, and 1108). Sharon went

around with a plate and gave each panelist the first sample, the panelists were to fully finish the

sample, then went around and give the second sample, then gave the third once they were done

with the second. The panelists decided which sample they thought matched the first standard

cookie based on one of the three descriptive words given. Linda asked which sample the

panelists thought were the same and which word they based their answer on, the panelists raised

their hands when they heard their choices, and the teachers assistant recorded the responses.

They were then informed that standard sample one (8175) was a Navisco brand Nilla Wafer,

sample two (6104) was an Albertson brand cookie, and sample three (1108) was also a Navisco

brand Nilla Wafer.

Rating/Scoring Test

For the scoring test, panelists were given a reference sample (0110) which was

automatically given a rate of four based on sourness. The panelists were also given two other

samples (420M and S723) which they had to rate on a scale of more sour (1) to less sour (7). The

samples were given in a one ounce white paper sample cup. The person sitting at the front of

each row went to the front of the room and gathered the three samples for each person in the row.

As they walked through the row, each panelist received each sample. They tasted the reference

sample, then the other two samples, cleansing their palate between each. They then rated the

other two samples based on sourness compared to the reference. Linda asked what number the

panelists rated each sample, the panelists raised their hands for the response they chose. The

teachers assistant recorded the responses. They were then informed that the reference sample

(0110) was apple juice with two and five tenths percent (2.5%) citric acid added, one sample
 13

(420M) had one percent (1%) citric acid added, and the other (S723) had five percent (5%) citric

acid added.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for statistics analyses. All samples were given random

codes. The procedure for collecting data was well organized. After each experiment, the

professor asked for the results of the individual characteristics by a show of hands. The responses

were counted and recorded by the teaching assistant on an excel spreadsheet on the computer in

the front of the classroom.

Results

Difference Tests

Paired Comparison

The results for the paired comparison test concluded that one hundred (100%) of the

panelists chose the sample with one percent (1%) citric acid added as being more intensely sour

and zero percent (0%) of the panelists chose the sample without citric acid. One sample (coded

635T1) was apple juice with zero percent (0%) citric acid added while the other sample (coded

573T2) was apple juice with one percent (1%) citric acid added. With that being said, one

hundred percent (100%) of the panelists chose the correct sample in terms of the more sour

sample.

Triangle Test

The results for the triangle test concluded that one hundred percent (100%) of the

panelists chose the sample with one percent (1%) citric acid added as the sample that was
 14

different from the others, zero percent (0%) chose either of the samples with no citric acid added.

With that being true, one hundred (100%) of the panelists choose the correct sample for being

the one that was different from the other two.

Ranking Test

The results for the ranking test show the percentages of panelists who rated each sample

on a scale of most to least sour (1-5) and also most preferred to least preferred (1-5). These

results are shown in figures one and two. The majority, ninety-five and sixty-five hundredths

percent (95.65%), of the panelists rated the sample with ten percent (10%) citric acid as the most

sour, giving it a rate of one. On the other hand, most of the panelists, ninety-one and three tenths

percent (91.3%), rated the sample with no citric acid added as the least sour, rating it as a five.

As shown through Figure One, the intensity of sourness increased as more citric acid was added

to the apple juice.

In terms of preference, the results were less distinct considering preference of taste is

different for each panelist. However, a majority of panelists, fifty-nine and nine hundredths

percent (59.09%), chose the sample with no citric acid as their most preferred, scoring it as a

one. For the least preferred sample, which would be score as a five, ninety and nine tenths

percent (90.9%) of panelists chose the sample with ten percent (10%) citric acid added. Although

the results for most preferred were less distinct than the results for sourness, it can be concluded

that most of the panelists preferred the less sour samples with less citric acid added. Most

panelists least preferred the more sour samples with more citric acid added. This can be seen

through Figure Two.

 15

Duo-Trio Test

The results for the duo-trio test conclude that most of the panelists, ninety-four and twelve

hundredths percent (94.12%), voted that the Albertson’s Brand Cookie was different from the

standard cookie given. Only five and nine tenths percent (5.9%) voted that the Navisco Brand
 16

Nilla Wafer was different. Since the given standard cookie was a Navisco Brand Nilla Wafer, the

majority of the panelists did vote for the correct cookie as being different from the standard

cookie. These results are shown in Figure Three.

The panelists also had to vote for which of the three variables given (crunchiness, less

vanilla, and dryness) made the major difference between the standard and the cookie that they

voted was different. Forty-seven and six tenths percent (47.06%) of panelists voted that the

major difference was the crunchiness of the cookies. Thirty-five and three tenths percent

(35.30%) voted for less vanilla and seventeen and sixty-five hundredths percent (17.65%) voted

for dryness. These percentages are shown in Figure Four.

 17

Rating/Scoring Test

The results concluded that when ranking sample 420M on a scale of one (more sour) to seven

(less sour) compared to the reference sample 0110, the majority of the panelists, forty-seven and

eighty-three hundredths percent (47.83%), chose to rate it as a six meaning that it was less sour

than the reference sample. For the other panelists who rated sample 420M as less sour as the

reference sample 0110, seventeen and four tenths percent (17.4%) chose five, and eight and

seven tenths (8.7%) chose seven. Some rated it as more sour as the reference, being that eight

and seven tenths (8.7%) chose two, and seventeen and four tenths (17.4%) chose three. When

ranking sample S723, the majority, seventy-three and ninety-one hundredths percent (73.91%),

of panelists chose to rate it as a one, being more sour. For the others who voted sample S723 as

more sour, thirteen and four hundredths percent (13.04%) chose two and eight and seven tenths

percent (8.7%) chose three. Only four and thirty-five hundredths percent (4.35%) thought the
 18

sample was less sour and rated it as a six. The reference sample 0110 had two and five tenths

percent (2.5%) citric acid added, while sample 420M had one percent (1%) citric acid and

sample S723 had five percent (5%). With that being stated, sample 420M was less sour than the

reference sample 0110 and sample S723 was more sour. The people who rated sample 420M as

less sour (5-7) were correct and those who rated sample S723 as more sour (1-3) were correct.

The results for the rating test are shown in Figure Five.

Discussion

The paired comparison test done by the San Diego State students concluded that one

hundred percent (100%) of panelists were able to distinguish the sample with one percent (1%)

citric acid added as the more sour sample than the one with no citric acid added. The panelists

had a one out of two chance to choose the more sour sample. The sample with citric acid should

have been more sour in taste than apple juice without citric acid added, which all panelists were
 19

able to distinguish successfully. In the paired compared comparison test done by Mennella, Julie

A, et al., panelists had to keep being presented with a series of paired comparison tests until they

were able to choose the sample they initially chose, twice in a row, based on their own

preference of sweetness. In terms of being able to choose the sample twice in a row, it shows

that in the the first series of samples, the adult age group was able to do so in a shorter span of

time and amount of samples than the group of children. With that being said, it is possible that

results of paired comparison tests may differ between age groups. Children and younger adults

have less mature taste palates than do adults. In terms of the paired comparison test done by the

SDSU students, the results may have been different if the panelists were younger, considering all

panelists were above the age of eighteen years. The panelists were all able to decipher which of

the samples was more sour, but if younger panelists were involved, the results could have turned

out different.

Though everyone was able to choose correctly, there was some talking at the front of the

room that could have possibly affected the concentration of the panelists. Some panelists could

have also forgotten to cleanse their palate between trying samples. Both of these factors could

have possibly affected the accuracy of the results found by the test. A way to improve these

factors in future tests would be to have a fewer amount of panelists doing the test at a time, in a

better monitored environment.

For the triangle test done by the SDSU students, one hundred percent (100%) of the

panelists were able to distinguish the apple juice with one percent (1%) citric acid added from

the two samples with no citric acid added. There was a one out of three chance of choosing the

correct sample. Therefore, there was less of a chance of everyone guessing the correct sample
 20

than the paired comparison test. The panelists were able to tell that the apple juice with citric

acid added was different (more sour) than the two samples with no citric acid added. In the

triangle test done by Johnson, Shanthi, et al., only eighteen out of forty-two (42.86%) panelists

were able to choose the sample that was different than the other two. Since the orange juice

samples had either xylitol sweetener or inulin fiber added, it should have been apparent that the

samples containing the xylitol should have been sweeter than the samples with inulin fiber. The

majority of panelists, however, did not choose the different sample. The study stated that there

could have been bias involved since all three samples were presented simultaneously, not

allowing panelists to immediately assess each sample, basing their choice on bias rather than

sweetness. This could also be the case for the study done at SDSU since the triangle test done

also presented three samples simultaneously. The study done by Johnson, Shanthi, et al.,

suggests holding two separate triangle tests that are the exact same, in order to increase accuracy

of results.

While the SDSU panelists were tasting the samples, one coughed and one made a noise in

response to trying the apple juices. This could have created bias and distraction to the other

panelists. In order to avoid this in future triangle tests, panelists should be clearly informed that

there could be no obvious responses to trying the samples, as this would affect the accuracy of

results.

The results of the ranking test concluded that most panelists were able to rank the apple

juice with ten percent (10%) citric acid as a one, being the most sour, and were able to rank the

apple juice with no citric acid as a five, being the least sour. Since the apple juice containing ten

percent (10%) citric acid had so much more citric acid added than the apple juice with none aed,
 21

it should have been easy for panelists to decipher which was more sour and which was less. The

apple juices different with amounts of citric acid between the two varied more in ranking than

did the ten percent (10%) citric acid an no citric acid juices. In terms of preference, rankings

show that most panelists preferred the sweeter juices to the more sour juices.

The duo-trio test proved that ninety-two and twelve hundredths percent (92.12%) of

panelists were able to tell which cookie was different than the other two samples. The factor that

got the most votes for basing their choices on choosing the different cookie was having less of a

vanilla flavor than the others. The cookie that was different from the others was the Albertson’s

Brand Cookie and the ones that were the same were Navisco Nilla Wafers. Both types of cookies

looked identical, so decisions were not based on appearance. In the duo-trio test done by

Beinner, Mark A, et al., forty-eight and sixty-five hundredths percent (48.65%) of panelists were

able to distinguish which sample of rice was not the same as the standard conventional rice. Most

of the panelists were not able to tell that the sample of iron fortified rich was different than the

two samples of conventional rice. In both the test done by Beinner, Mark A, et al. and SDSU

students, all of the samples looked identical in terms of appearance, however, a greater

percentage of the SDSU panelists were able to tell the different sample than were the panelists in

the Beinner, Mark A, et al. study. This could be due to the fact that the cookies used in the SDSU

sample were easier distinguished due to the varying vanilla flavors of the cookies. On the other

hand, it is possible that tasting iron is a harder factor and taste to distinguish from rice not

containing iron.

During the SDSU duo-trio test, one panelist coughed in response to tasting their sample

and one made some of the other panelists laugh by saying something. This could have affected
 22

results and caused bias in votes. Again, something that could eliminate these factors would be

better monitoring and more clear instructions that it is necessary for all panelists to stay quiet.

The SDSU scoring/ranking test showed that most panelists were able to rank the apple

juice containing one percent (1%) citric acid as less sour than the standard containing two and

five tenths percent (2.5%) citric acid. Most were also able to rank the apple juice with five

percent (5%) citric acid as more sour than the standard. It should have been possible for panelists

to be able to tell that the juice with one percent (1%) citric acid was less sour than the juice with

two and five tenths percent (2.5%) citric acid, and the juice with five percent (5%) citric acid was

more sour than the standard. Most, but not all of the panelists were able to do so correctly. The

scoring/rating test done by Vasconcelos, Natalia C, et al. concluded that the friss that were

previously blanched in sodium chloride got the best response in terms of all sensory factors

included. This can be expected, as sodium chloride is a flavor that is used a lot in food and most

people enjoy it. The SDSU test was done on a rank of sourness, while the test done by

Vasconcelos, Natalia C, et al. was more based on preference of taste, color, and texture.

During the SDSU scoring/rating test, some of the panelists were talking, causing

distraction and possible bias of votes.

 23

References

Beinner, Mark A, et al. “Sensory Evaluation of Rice Fortified with Iron.” ​Food Science and

Technology​, SBCTA, 2010.

Brown, Amy. ​Understanding Food Principles and Preparation Lab Manual.​ 5th ed., Cengage

Learning, 2014.

Johnson, Shanthi, et al. “Triangle Taste Test and Sensory Evaluation: A Novel Application for

Determining Supplemental-Placebo Match in a Clinical Trial .” ​Journal of Food

Technology and Nutritional Sciences,​ 20 Mar. 2016.

Mennella, Julie A, et al. “Evaluation of the Monell Forced-Choice, Paired-Comparison Tracking

Procedure for Determining Sweet Taste Preferences across the Lifespan.” ​Chemical

Senses,​ Oxford University Press, May 2011.

Vasconcelos, Natalia C, et al. “Influence of Heat Treatment on the Sensory and Physical

Characteristics and Carbohydrate Fractions of French-Fried Potatoes (Solanum

Tuberosum L.).” ​Food Science and Technology,​ SBCTA, Sept. 2015.

24