6D’S ON SENSORY EVALUATION

Annabelle D. Anonuevo

Define The Problem

PHASE 1: Sensory Evaluation Room
Is the sensory evaluation room suitable to conduct a sensory evaluation meeting
the ISO or ASTM Standards to conduct a trial? Is it observed that the evaluation room
must be clean and appropriate for conducting a test?

PHASE 2: Development of Threshold Level

Is the threshold level clearly identified by the panel? Are the panels qualified for
the sensory evaluation that took place?

Develop A Plan To Solve a Problem

PHASE 1: Sensory Evaluation Room
The sensory evaluation needs to be thoroughly inspected so that every
evaluation and testing that will take place in the future will be substantial and full of
integrity. Every time that a test is conducted in the evaluation room, it must be
thoroughly cleaned and well maintained. Materials being used must be kept safe and
clean. The evaluation tables must be set up and ready for the testing. And the room
must be properly lit. According to ISO Standards that the test rooms might need to be
adapted for each specialized use. Modifications to the design are often needed for
specific products and for specific types of testing.

PHASE 2: Development of Threshold Level

A test of different threshold level must be conducted. It must be conducted to the
panelists who will meet the standards and qualifications of a good panel. In accordance
to the standards of ISO on a professional panelist, “Sensory assessors” are any people
taking part in a sensory test. They can be “naive assessors” who do not have to meet
any precise criterion, or “initiated assessors” who have already participated in sensory
tests. “Expert sensory assessors” are selected assessors with a demonstrated sensory
sensitivity and with considerable training and experience in sensory testing, who are
able to make consistent and repeatable sensory assessments of various products.

Develop Data Collection Approaches

PHASE 1: Sensory Evaluation Room
Sensory evaluation room is being assessed by the students of Masters of
Science in Food Science, graduate school students who are currently enrolled in the
semester. It was done informally and the evaluation was taken into notes.
 PHASE 2: Development of Threshold Level
Threshold Level
The sensory evaluation of different types of flavors had been conducted with a
teacher as the facilitator and students as panelists. The tests had 2 runs. The
solutions were properly coded. There was a bread as a washer, distilled water and a
tissue paper. The instructions were clearly laid out in the forms given. After the tests
had been conducted, the correct answers had been laid out for the both trials and
the group discussed the consensual answers. A t-test had been made and there was
no significant difference on the threshold level on the tests on both individual and
group results.

Strength of Flavor
The same test had been made with the same group of panelists. However, the
agenda is to detect the strength of flavor of a coded solution. The correct answers
were laid out. Following the same format and instructions from the paper, there had
been a confusion on the personal detecting of flavors. The personal answers were
just 30% correct. And comparing it to the group results as the panels discuss, it is
generally considered that there was a confusion detecting the strengths of flavor of
the solution. Summing up that no one got the perfect score.

Serial Dilution
On this test, different flavors were assessed by the panelist with different coded
samples. It has been seen that the self-assessment is 100% accurate based on the
correct answers given by the facilitator. At the same time that the consensus of the
answers of the group of panelists got 100% correct answers.

Describe Results of Collected Data

PHASE 1: Sensory Evaluation Room
On personal account, the sensory evaluation may not pass the standards of
neither ISO nor ASTM. The room was not perfectly lit and undistinguished smalls
lingers inside the room. Since the same room is being used as a classroom, it may
not pass as an evaluation room itself. The materials being used for sensory
evaluation are not well kept and the sensory tables are not permanently structured.
Paints on the walls were not even and unnecessary items such as books and
containers are all around the room.

PHASE 2: Development of Threshold Level

As personal assessment on the trials conducted in the sensory evaluation room
of Philippine Womens University (PWU), personal training as a sensory panelist
should be more thorough. Although personal results almost met the correct answers
as a panelist, there must have a rigid training to qualify as a panel. In group
assessment, it has believed that more training should be conducted to the group to
 professionally achieve the requirements of an expert panelist in accordance to the
ISO and ASTM Standards.

Derive Conclusions and Recommendations

To achieve a sensory evaluation with integrity and professionally, PWU must
comply on the international standards set by ISO and ASTM. It has to improve its
lighting, walls, cleanliness and materials being used in evaluating food. As a whole, the
sensory evaluation room must be carefully renovated and well-planned before
conducting a test.
Moreover, The panelists must be trained professionally to conduct a sensory evaluation
and must meet the standards set internationally.

Develop Report and Action Plan

 Renovation of sensory evaluation room must be undertaken within 3 months
before conducting a test.
 If the renovation is not applicable, evaluation room must be transferred to a well-
standardized area before opening a new semester.
 Participants who will attend the sensory evaluation must undergo a rigid training
for 3-weeks at the very least to conduct a flavor profile method.
 Assessors must be carefully separated from the sensory area as not to have bias
assessment since the coded solutions were being seen by the panelists.
 Proper schedule of testing for every solution must be carefully laid out and must
be discussed before conducting the test so that the panelists are neither hungry
nor too full for the test.
 A good discussion area must be set together with the full renovation of the area.