INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HCMC

School of Biotechnology - Food Technology department

FOOD SENSORY ANALYSIS REPORT

LABORATORY 2: PANELIST SELECTION AND SCREENING

Course ID: BTFT407IU

Instructor: Dr. Nguyen Thi Huong Giang
Teaching Assistant: Le Tran Hoai An

Group 1:

Nguyen Anh Duong BTFTIU18239

Nguyen Vu Khuong Duy BTFTIU18023
Le Hoang Nhan BTFTIU18080
Le Yen Nhi BTFTIU16048
Do Quynh Nhu BTFTIU18195
Nguyen Ngoc Quynh Nhu BTFTIU18235
Tran Thi Thanh Thanh BTFTIU17085
Diep Hanh Tien BTFTIU18124

HO CHI MINH, 2021

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Materials and Methods

1. Taste matching test ....................................................................................................... 1

2. Flavor matching test...................................................................................................... 2

3. Ranking test for intensity .............................................................................................. 5

4. Color intensity test ........................................................................................................ 6

III. Results .................................................................................................................................. 8

IV. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 10

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 13

VI. References ............................................................................................................................ 14

VII. Appendices........................................................................................................................... 14
I. Introduction
A sensory panel described as a group of testers who have exceptional sensory faculties
and can describe products on the basis of taste, smell or feel. Panelists can be trained to evaluate
specific products (odor, taste, texture, and or visual evaluation).
At time before training, panelists are screened for sensitivity in order to weeding out people who
may not have the ability to perform the sensory evaluation. Such screening tests should use the
products to be studied and the sensory methods to be used in the study.
• Objectives:
- To learn how to do screening panelist during panelist recruitment
- To determine abilities to identify differences using dilute solutions that may
represent
• Four screening tests:
- Taste matching test (experiment 1)
- Flavor matching test (experiment 2)
- Ranking test for intensity (experiment 3)
- Color intensity test (experiment 4)

II. Materials and Methods

1. Tasting matching test
1.1 Materials
- Sugar - Cup for testing
- Citric acid - Tray
- NaCl - Marker
- Tannic acid - Sticker
- Food flavor - Paper
- Balance
1.2 Methods
a. Preparation
SET 1

SET 2

2 mins

Figure 2.1.1: Steps of the testing sample preparation

• Set 1: 3cup/tray
• Set 2: 8cup/tray
• Total 24 tray/set 1
• 30ml/cup
 b. Sample evaluation
Sensory analyst must explain clearly how to taste when serve for the panelists.
Taste from left to right, drink water to wash the oral before and after each sample test.
Fill in the scorecard.
Table 2.1.2: Example of scorecard result evaluation

c. Count the score

Each correct answer for “Yes/No” column got 1.25 points
Each correct answer for “Set 1 code” column got 3 points
Each correct answer for “Taste identification/ Aroma description” column got 2 points
Table 2.1.3: Example of taste matching scorecard

2. Flavor matching test

2.1 Materials
- Strawberry flavoured paper
- Jasmine flavoured paper
2
 - Mango flavoured paper
- Winter melon flavoured paper
- Taro flavoured paper
- Apple flavoured paper
- Fried garlic flavoured paper
• Equipment:
- Trays
- Scissors
- Alcohol
- Tissues
2.2 Methods

Serving and
Preparation Marking Analysing
evaluation

Figure 2.2.1: Steps of the flavor matching test

a) Preparation
Each group was prepared 8 trays for each set:
- Set 1: included 3 pieces of sample papers (A, B, C) with 3 different flavours
- Set 2: included 8 pieces of sample papers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) with 3 different flavours in set 1
and new 5 different flavours (these 5 different flavours were arbitrary selection for materials)
Remember to prepare each set with a scorecard for panelists to evaluate flavours

b) Serving and evaluation

- Set 1 was presented first for flavoring.
- Panelists started to smell sample papers from left to right and tried to remember those samples in
2 minutes (monitors made sure that panelists did note take notes during smelling set 1); then set 1
would be taken away.
- Panelists were served with set 2.
- Panelists smelled sample papers once from left to right and determined each sample in the
scorecard.

3
 Table 2.2.2: A scorecard for taste/aroma matching

c) Count the score:

- Collect the scorecard
- Correct the results
- Summarize the correct answers in the provided record sheet

Figure 2.2.3: The record correct answers of flavours in set 1 and set 2

Notice: The total score of two matching tests are 100 points, candidates are accepted to join a
sensory panel if their total score is more than or equal to 50 points.

4
 3. Ranking test for intensity
3.1 Materials
- 24 aluminum trays for the total number of serving times
- 32 paper cups for sourness evaluation for each group
- 32 paper cups for sweetness evaluation for each group
- 32 paper cups saltiness evaluation for each group
- 24 paper cups for containing fruit for each group
- 24 plastic cups for containing water for each group
- Citric acid, Sucrose, Sodium Chloride
- 4 bottles of sour solution which were dissolved into 4 different concentrations
(0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 g/L)
- 4 bottles of sweet solution which were dissolved into 4 different concentrations
(10, 20, 50, 100 g/L)
- 4 bottles of sour solution which were dissolved into 4 different concentrations
(0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 g/L)
- 24 scorecards for each group
- Some sheets of sticker to mark the ordering number of panelists on the tray
- Marker, pen, tape for further need.
3.2 Methods
a. Preparation
Solution preparation:
Group 1: Dissolving citric acid into water to make sour solution based on the following
concentrations (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 g/L)
Group 2: Dissolving sucrose into water to make sweet solution based on the following
concentrations (10, 20, 50, 100 g/L)
Group 3: Dissolving sodium chloride into water to make salt solution based on the
following concentrations (0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 g/L)
Sample preparation:
(SO; SW; SA stands for sour, sweet, and salty solution, respectively. The number 1,2,3 and 4
represent for the ascending order of concentration).
Group Sample preparation
• Prepare 8 trays of 4 plastic cups SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4.
8 trays of 4 plastic cups SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4.
1 8 trays of SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
• Prepare a cup of water, a cup of fruit for each tray
• Prepare 8 trays of 4 plastic cups SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4.
8 trays of 4 plastic cups SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4.
2 8 trays of SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
• Prepare a cup of water, a cup of fruit for each tray.
• Prepare 8 trays of 4 plastic cups SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4.
8 trays of 4 plastic cups SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4.
3 8 trays of SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4
• Prepare a cup of water for each tray

5
 b. Sample evaluation
Each student who played a panelist role is given 1 tray of 4 cups and a scorecard each time, in
terms of testing sourness, saltiness, sweetness. Then the intensity of those three tastes was ranked
in the ascending order and written in the scorecard like the one below:

Figure 2.3.1: Scorecard for taste intensity test

The panelists must be well-instructed to perform the test properly by the serving group or the
results would be affected by human errors. After that, the serving group would collect the tray
together with the answer sheet. One person was assigned to score the total correct answers per
provided sheet so that the qualified panelists could be found out according to the scores they get
through all of the tests.
c. Count the score
Correct results and summarize the correct answers in the provided record sheet.

Figure 2.3.2: Example of record sheet

4. Color intensity test
4.1 Materials
- Four color solutions from stock solution of potassium permanganate (gram/liter) with
different concentrations as follows:

6
 Table 2.4.1: Concentration of color testing sample

- Test tubes, racks, trays

4.2 Methods
a. Preparation

Prepare four color solutions following concentration table 1

Pour 10 ml of each solution into each test tube wrapped by

aluminum foil

Service panelists in booths with the color intensity test

scorecard

Record the result

Figure 2.4.2: Steps of color intensity test preparation

b. Sample evaluation
Table 2.4.3: A Scorecard for color intensity test
SCORECARD
COLOR INTENSITY TEST
Full name:…………………………………………………………
Date:……………………………………………………………..
You are given 04 samples which have different color intensity. Please rank the samples in
ascending order and fill into the corresponding table from 1 to 4
1(Weakest) 2 3 4(Strongest)

c. Count the score

Collect the scorecard, correct the results and summarize the correct answers in the provided
record sheet.

7
 Table 2.4.4: Example result of color intensity test
Assessor No. Name Result Note
1 Hải C
2 Dũng I Inverting only 1 adjacent pair

3 Thắm C
4 Hương I Invert too far

5 Khanh C
Etc.
III. Results
1. Taste matching test
Recored data
Table 3.1.1: The taste matching test score of whole class

Name Score

Table 3.1.2: Numbers of correct answer in each range of Nguyễn Ánh Dương 32.75
each group and whole class after doing taste matching test Lê Hoàng Nhân 39.75
Nguyễn Ngọc Quỳnh Như 39.75
Diệp Hạnh Tiên 39.75
41-50 31 - 40 20 - 30 Under 20
Đỗ Quỳnh Như 32.75
Group 1 1 7 0 0 Trần Thị Thanh Thanh 37.5
Nguyễn Vũ Khương Duy 36
Group 2 8 0 0 0 Lê Yến Nhi 43.75
Lê Mai Thiên Kim 41.75
Group 3 5 3 0 0
Lê Thị Kim Ngân 46
Total 14 10 0 0 Nguyễn Phương Lâm 46
Lê Hồng Anh 44
Trần Lê Thanh Mai 48
Trần Phương Thùy 41.75
Trần Đức Khiêm 41.75
Văng Thị Ngọc Thi 46
Trần Thị Thanh Ngân 42
Phạm Hồng Thanh Lam 31.5
Phạm Hoàng Kim Ngân 43.75
Ngô Kim Ngân 50
Trần Thị Như Quỳnh 42
Bùi Nguyễn Tam Doan 44.75
Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Nhi 35.25
Trần Hoàng Vỹ 31.5
8
 2. Aroma matching test Table 3.2.1 The aroma matching test score of whole class
Recored data

Table 3.2.2. Numbers of correct answer in each range of each

group and whole class after doing aroma matching test

Score 41-50 31 - 40 20 - 30 Under 20

Group 1 0 4 3 1

Group 2 0 0 5 3

Group 3 0 0 4 4

Total 0 4 12 8

Result for the whole matching test Table 3.2.3: The total matching test score of whole class

Table 3.2.4: Numbers of correct answer in total after doing the matching test

80-100 60-80 50-60 Under 50

Group 1 0 5 1 2

Group 2 0 6 2 0

Group 3 2 5 1 0

Total 2 16 4 2

9
 3. Ranking test for intensity
Recored data
Table 3.3.1: Numbers and percentages of correct answer of each taste intensity test of each
group and whole class
SOURNESS SWEETNESS SALTINESS
GROUP 1 8/8 (100%) 8/8 (100%) 6/8 (75%)
GROUP 2 8/8 (100%) 8/8 (100%) 3/8 (37.5%)
GROUP 3 8/8 (100%) 6/8 (75%) 6/8 (75%)
CLASS 24/24 (100%) 22/24 (91.67%) 15/24 (62.5%)
4. Color intensity test
Recorded data
Table 3.4.1: Percentages of correct answer in color intensity test of whole class
NUMBER & PERCENTAGE OF
CORRECT ANSWER
GROUP 1 8/8 (100%)
GROUP 2 8/8 (100%)
GROUP 3 8/8 (100%)
CLASS 24/24 (100%)
IV. Discussion
1. Taste matching test
- Most of members have score which is
ranging from 30 to 40 TASTE MATCHING TEST RESULT
- Only 1 member has the highest score OF GROUP 1
which exceeds 40
50
-According to table 3.1.1, the scores of
43.75
group 1 is lower than ones of the others in 45
general. 39.75 39.75 39.75
40 37.5
à Most members of group1 have “average” 36
tongue, we can distinguish the different tastes if 35 32.75 32.75
there is much more significant difference 30
between tastes. If those tastes are closely
25
similar, it is difficult for us to recognize them.
Besides, memory abilities and taste experience 20
(we recognize this taste, but we do not know
15
how to call the name of the taste) also impact
on the scores. 10
5
0
Dương Nhân Như Tiên Đ.Như Thanh Duy Nhi

Figure 4.1.1: Score of answer in taste matching test of group 1

10
 2. Aroma matching test
- There are 3 members have score lower than 20.
- The other members have the score from 20 to 30
- The average score of group 1 is 22.1.
-According to table 3.2.1, the scores of
group 1 is lower than ones of the others
The result of aroma matching test of
in general. subgroup 2
30
à Most members of group 1 have
“wrong” nose, we cannot distinguish the
different aromas if there is slightly 25
significant difference between aromas. If
those aromas are clearly different, we 20
might have recognized them (jasmine
aroma is easy to be distinguished) 15
Besides, memory abilities and artificial
aroma experience (we recognize this 10
aroma, but we do not know how to call
the name of the aroma) also impact on 5
the scores.
+Fried garlic aroma is quite smelly 0
Dương Nhân Như Tiên Như Thanh Duy Nhi
than the others, but we do not know it is.
Series1 17 25.5 22.5 18.25 15.25 27.5 28.5 22.5
+Artificial fruit and taro aromas are
not similar to their “real” aromas.
Figure 4.2.1: Score of answer in aroma matching test of group 1

MATCHING TEST RESULT OF WHOLE

CLASS
7 6
6 5 5
5
4
3
2 2 2
2 1 1
1 0 0 0 0
0
80-100 60-80 50-60 under 50

group 1 group 2 group 3

Figure 4.2.2: Matching test result for the whole class

• Total score: 100 points
• Accepted to join a sensory panel: ≥ 50 points.
• There are 2 members who have the score lower than 50 which leading to the result of
unqualified for the sensory testing.

11
 è Other students who have the score above 50 who can identify and the correct flavors for each
sample and recognize the differences among the flavor are accepted to join in sensory panel.

3. Ranking for intensity test

CORRECT ANSWER IN RANKING

TEST FOR INTENSITY OF GROUP 1
120%
100% 100%
100%
Correct answers

80% 75%

60% SOURNESS
SWEETNESS
40%
SALTINESS
20%

0%
GROUP 1
taste

Figure 4.3.1: Percentages of correct answer in ranking test for intensity of group 1

CORRECT ANSWER IN RANKING TEST FOR

INTENSITY OF EACH GROUP AND WHOLE CLASS
120%
100%100%100%100% 100%100%
100% 91.67%

75% 75% 75%

correct answers

80%
62.50%
60%

37.50%
40%

20%

0%
SOURNESS SWEETNESS SALTINESS
Taste

GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 CLASS

Figure 4.3.2 Percentages of correct answer in ranking test for intensity of

each group and whole class
- All the panelists are perform well with the sourness but for the saltiness 9 of 24 panelists answered
wrong and the sweetness intensity lesser with 2 of 24 was wrong answers.
12
- The sourness was the easiest to be identified among 3 tastes, following by sweetness.
- The saltiness was the most difficult to be realized. The reasons could be, panelist have a habit of
eating salty and the amount of sodium chloride between each concentration were too small to be
recognized the differences. In addition, because of small concentration of solute, they
misunderstood between the aftertaste of saltiness and the one of bitterness.
- Results may vary from person-to-person because of taste thresholds or eating preferences.
- To improve the sensitivity of taste panelist should clear their palate after tasting different flavor,
taste them for a longer time to increase chance of recognize flavor and keep in mind the special
characteristic of each flavor.
4. Color intensity test

Percentage of correct answer of whole class

CORRECT INCORRECT

Figure 4.4.1. Percentages of correct answer in color intensity of whole class

- Because most of student have correct answer, it quite easy to recognize the different intensity
color between different solutions.
- The reason why we define different intensity color easier than taste because our tongues are very
easily fall into adaption phase which can lead to deviation in the taste of the following samples if
we do not neutralize them in the right way.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, panelist section and screening techniques are critical to recruit panelists
before they are trained professionally to avoid further wasting time and costs. Inside that, taste
testing test is a part of testing to evaluate the ability of tongue perspectives in each applied panelist.
Based on the results of 4 matching tests, color is the easiest characteristic to be recognized, then
intensity of each taste, then taste, and aroma is the most difficult characteristic to be recognized.
The sensory scores of each person cannot evaluate thoroughly whether this person have “right”
senses. The results depend on several factors such as memory ability, experience, sample
preparation, conditions of panel room, etc. Screening based on taste/ aroma matching tests,
memory tests, ranking tests for intensity of taste and color is to meet the satisfactions of all
requirements leading to an acceptable and trained panelist.

13
 VI. References
Anh, H. K. (2020). Lecture: Sensory evaluation methods - Difference tests. Vietnam
National University, HCMC – International University.

Giang, N. (2020). Food sensory analysis laboratory - Lab manual. Vietnam National
University, HCMC – International University.

VII. Appendices

Appendix 1: The memory test scores of whole class, based on Monkey Ladder Brain test
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Name Score Name Score Name Score
Nguyễn Ánh Dương 8 Lê Mai Thiên Kim 8 Trần Thị Thanh Ngân 8
Lê Hoàng Nhân 6 Lê Thị Kim Ngân 6 Phạm Hồng Thanh Lam 10
Nguyễn Ngọc Quỳnh Như 8 Nguyễn Phương Lâm 3 Phạm Hoàng Kim Ngân 8
Diệp Hạnh Tiên 8 Lê Hồng Anh 8 Ngô Kim Ngân 8
Đỗ Quỳnh Như 7 Trần Lê Thanh Mai 9 Trần Thị Như Quỳnh 7
Trần Thị Thanh Thanh 10 Trần Phương Thùy 8 Bùi Nguyễn Tam Doan 8
Nguyễn Vũ Khương Duy 7 Trần Đức Khiêm 8 Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Nhi 7
Lê Yến Nhi 7 Văng Thị Ngọc Thi 7 Trần Hoàng Vỹ 7

Appendix 2: The correction of answers in group 1 for experiment 3 & 4 (Lab 2)

Members Sourness Sweetness Saltiness Color
Nguyễn Ánh Dương C C C C
Lê Hoàng Nhân C C C C
Nguyễn Ngọc Quỳnh Như C C C C
Diệp Hạnh Tiên C C C C
Đỗ Quỳnh Như C C I C
Trần Thị Thanh Thanh C C I C
Nguyễn Vũ Khương Duy C C C C
Lê Yến Nhi C C C C

Appendix 3: The correction of answers in group 2 for experiment 3 & 4 (Lab 2)

Members Sourness Sweetness Saltiness Color
Lê Mai Thiên Kim C C I C
Lê Thị Kim Ngân C C I C
Nguyễn Phương Lâm C C I C
Lê Hồng Anh C C I C
Trần Lê Thanh Mai C C C C
Trần Phương Thùy C C I C
Trần Đức Khiêm C C C C
Văng Thị Ngọc Thi C C C C

14
Appendix 4: The correction of answers in group 2 for experiment 3 & 4 (Lab 2)
Members Sourness Sweetness Saltiness Color
Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Nhi C C C C
Ngô Kim Ngân C C C C
Trần Thị Thanh Ngân C I C C
Phạm Hồng Thanh Lam C I I C
Bùi Nguyễn Tam Doan C C I C
Trần Hoàng Vỹ C C C C
Trần Thị Như Quỳnh C C C C
Phạm Hoàng Kim Ngân C C C C

15