bs_bs_banner

Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250

COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF: DOES THIS

CONTRIBUTE TO SHELF-LIFE KNOWLEDGE?
GUILLERMO HOUGH1,3, PERSIS SUBRAMANIAM2, CHANCHAL NARAIN2 and CINDY BEEREN2
1
Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 9 de Julio, Buenos Aires 6500, Argentina
2
Leatherhead Food Research, Leatherhead, Surrey, UK

3
Corresponding author. ABSTRACT
TEL: +54 2317 524140;
Fax: +54-2317-431309; Samples with different storage times were collected from supermarket shelves for
EMAIL: guillermo@desa.edu.ar three products: a strawberry fruit drink (SFD), digestive biscuits and shortbread.
Sensory descriptive analysis and chemical measurements were performed on the
Accepted for Publication November 20, 2012
samples. Consumers measured sensory acceptability and answered an accept/
doi:10.1111/joss.12022
reject question for each sample. These last data were used to estimate the sensory
shelf life of the SFD applying survival analysis methodology. For the digestive bis-
cuits and shortbread, this estimation was not possible because of the low rejection
probability and that acceptability differences between samples did not follow the
expected trend in relation to dates. Partial least squares regressions showed the
relationships between acceptability (Y-matrix) and trained panel descriptive
analysis + chemical measurements (X-matrix). Collecting samples from the shelf
could be a means of obtaining cut-off points for shelf-life estimations. However, in
two of the three examples presented, confidence intervals were wide. This was due
to the relatively low number of experimental points in the regression and/or the
batch variability inherent in the sample collection method. Overall, collecting
samples from the shelf contributed limited information to shelf-life knowledge.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
If samples with different storage times could be collected from the company’s
deposits and/or from supermarket shelves, this would mean an important saving
in resources, especially as this would mean not having to wait for the different
storage times to elapse. The title of this article proposed answering the question of
whether collecting samples from the shelf contributes to shelf-life knowledge. The
answer is that it does, although with limitations. Depending on the product, it can
provide sensory shelf-life estimations or establish if current “best-before” dates are
adequate. Correlations between acceptability and objective sensory or instrumen-
tal data can help in understanding modes of deterioration.

companies base their products’ shelf life on previous experi-

INTRODUCTION
With the exception of a few food and drink products, such
as distilled spirits and cheese, the quality of most foods and
drinks decrease with storage time. Trying to determine
when these quality changes in a product occur has been an
area of interest to the food industry. In order to study the
process of shelf life, four main areas have to be considered.
These are the product, statistical design, instrumental mea-
surements and sensory evaluation. The culmination of these
different factors results in shelf-life testing being relatively
costly and time consuming. For this reason, the majority of
ence and knowledge rather than on shelf-life testing.
In shelf-life testing, to ensure that statistical-based knowl-
edge is obtained, as well as within budget, good experimen-
tal planning is required. Gacula (1975) described a series of
statistical approaches that take into account controlling the
number of necessary measurements. The designs he pro-
posed were the partially staggered, staggered and completely
staggered designs, which have been adopted by experiment-
ers over the years. In all of these designs, it is assumed that
the samples are stored by the experimenter in such a way
that all of them have been exposed to the same conditions

Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 47

COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
and only stressed as the experimenter desires. In a recently
published review on methods for sensory shelf-life estima-
tion (Hough and Garitta 2012), in all reviewed publications
the starting point was known and the statistical units were
followed longitudinally. To follow this procedure, controlled
storage chambers are necessary and, more importantly, the
time necessary for product deterioration has to be available.
In a dynamic marketplace, this time resource is often scarce.
If samples with different storage times could be collected
from the company’s deposits and/or from supermarket
shelves, this would mean an important saving in resources,
especially as this would mean not having to wait for the dif-
ferent storage times to elapse.
When collecting samples from supermarket shelves,
neither the original quality of the production batches nor
the storage conditions are known. Thus, when differences
between samples are found, the effects relating to batch-to-
batch variation, storage conditions and storage times can
become statistically confused. It could be hypothesized that
if quality standards are high, and storage conditions are
generally uniform, then any differences between collected
samples would be due to storage time. It could be assumed
that mass produced food products made by leading compa-
nies are generally uniform; also, that if the products are all
collected within a 25-km radius in a country such as the
U.K., the storage conditions would be generally uniform.
Thus, in principle, collecting samples with different “best-
by” dates from supermarket shelves would be a valid alter-
native to storing samples under controlled conditions. It
could even be argued that shelf-life estimations based on
these collected samples would be truly representative of
what the consumer will expect to find when consuming the
product from the marketplace.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample Collection
Commercially available biscuits (shortbread and digestive)
and juice-based noncarbonated drinks (strawberry fruit
drink [SFD]) were selected as examples of the types of
products to investigate. These products have relatively long
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTORS USED BY THE TRAINED PANEL FOR EACH ONE OF THE PRODUCTS
Attribute Strawberry fruit drink
Appearance Red color and clarity
Aroma Overall intensity, artificial strawberry
and red fruit
Flavor Overall intensity, artificial strawberry,
red fruit, sweet, acidic and bitter
Mouthfeel (drink)/ Body and drying in mouth
Texture (biscuits)
48
G. HOUGH ET AL.
shelf lives, which facilitated the search for samples with dif-
ferent best-by dates. They were also going to be the object of
a further experiment on the influence of formulation varia-
tions on shelf life.
Samples were collected from local supermarkets with
appropriate best before dates. In total, five aged variants of
each product were obtained. All samples were stored in a
temperature-controlled facility at 20C until testing. Manu-
factures provided information on the period stated as being
suitable for their product. Samples were collected with the
following storage times:
Strawberry fruit drink (SFD): 8, 12, 16, 20 and 28 weeks.
Digestive biscuits (DB): 2, 10, 14, 19 and 39 weeks.
Shortbread (SB): 4, 17, 21, 34 and 39 weeks.
It was not possible to have samples with storage time = 0
as samples with this storage time were not to be found in
the supermarkets. Recommended best before dates as stated
by the manufacturers for the SFD, DB and SB were 26, 39
and 52 weeks, respectively.
Sensory
Sensory evaluation was conducted using the Leatherhead
Food Research’s sensory trained panel (15 females). This
experienced panel generated consensus vocabularies for the
three products (Table 1).
Sensory profiles were developed based on the principles
of quantitative descriptive analysis. Assessors were provided
with 30 mL aliquots of the SFD served in a small clear
plastic glass. Approximately 5 g of the biscuits was served on
paper plates. All samples were presented with three digit
codes in a randomized order. Measurements were by tripli-
cate assessed on different days. Data were recorded on
10-cm unstructured line scales with appropriate anchors
using Compusense 5, version 4.8 (Compusense Inc.,
Guelph, ON, Canada).
Consumer Testing
The following numbers of adult consumers who were non-
rejecters of the products were recruited from a local
database: 79 for the SFD, 76 for the DB and 87 for the SB.
Digestive biscuit Shortbread biscuit
Color (light-dark) and color uniformity Color, quantity of sugar, quantity of holes
Overall intensity, butter/margarine, Overall intensity, butter, margarine, raw
cereal and stale pastry, oily/rancid and caramel
Overall intensity, butter/margarine, Overall intensity, butter, raw pastry,
cereal, stale, sweet and salty oily/rancid, fat, sweet and salty
Hardness on first bite, crispiness, Hardness of first bite, crumbly,
crumbliness, bitty and breakdown rate breakdown rate, dry and greasy
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
G. HOUGH ET AL.
Consumers were asked to taste each of the samples and
measure their acceptability for overall liking, appearance,
flavor and texture (for biscuits) on a 9-point scale (1 =
dislike extremely, 9 = like extremely). In addition to rating
acceptability, consumers were asked if they would accept or
reject each sample by indicating “yes” or “no” on their ballot
form.
Products were presented blind, with three digit codes,
and in a balanced order to remove bias from order effects.
Crackers and water were provided with the samples as
palate cleansers to be used between samples. Consumer data
were recorded on paper ballots.
As with the sensory profiling, individuals were provided
with 30 mL aliquots of each of the five SFDs, served in clear
plastic glasses or 5-g portions of the biscuits served on indi-
vidual paper plates.
Chemical Measurements
Sugar Profile of the SFD. Sugar profile was measured
using an in-house developed and validated procedure using
a Dionex ICS3000 Ion Chromatograph (Dionex, Sunnyvale,
CA).
Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry
(GCMS) of Biscuits. Distilled water was placed in a
round bottomed flask fitted with a Snyder column. The water
was heated until it was boiling and then left for 1 h. This
volatile-free water was cooled and sealed until required.
An aliquot of each sample was placed in 20 mL of
volatile-free water in a test tube. A total of 180 ng of deuter-
ated toluene and 180 ng of deuterated ethyl benzene were
added to the sample and it was sealed and mixed. The tube
was fitted with a purge head, heated to 40C and purged with
clean nitrogen at a flow rate of 20 mL/min. The nitrogen
was allowed to exit through a trap containing Tenax TA
(Scientific Instrument Services Ltd., Ringoes, NJ). The
purge was continued for 20 min after which the Tenax trap
was purged directly with dry nitrogen to remove any water
and the trap was inserted into a thermal desorption and
cold trapping injector attached to a GCMS. The volatiles
from the trap were transferred into the GC column for
analysis.
The mass spectrometer was operated in full-scan mode to
record complete mass spectra from compounds eluting
from the GC column. The compounds were tentatively
identified by comparison of their mass spectra with those in
a literature database. Approximate relative concentrations
were calculated by comparing the area of a GC peak to the
area of the internal standard eluting closest to it.
The peak areas were expressed as a ratio to show the peak
area of the corresponding internal standard. The area ratios
that did not change with time were left aside and only the
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
significant flavor chemicals of the product that showed an
interesting trend were focused on. Finally, all the values cor-
responding to the youngest (freshest) sample were rational-
ized and given a starting point of 1. In this way, the older
samples then could be compared with the fresh product by
dividing their area ratios by the area ratio of the fresh
product. This allowed an easy comparison of results as all
trends were given the starting value of 1.
Rancidity Indicators. Peroxide Value. Anisidine value
and free fatty acids in biscuits were determined by methods
BS684 Section 2.14.1987, ISO 6885:1998 and ISO 660:1996,
respectively.
Statistical Analysis
The acceptance/rejection data were processed using survival
analysis statistics.
Methods of survival analysis have been developed to
evaluate times until an event of interest, often called sur-
vival times, taking into account the presence of censored
data (Gómez 2002). These methods have been applied to
shelf life of foods (Hough et al. 2003; Curia et al. 2005;
Salvador et al. 2007; Araneda et al. 2008) and have been
described in detail with corresponding software by Hough
(2010).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the con-
sumer data and trained panel descriptive data considering
consumer or assessor as a random effect and sample
as a fixed effect. Partial least squares (PLS) regression
(Martens and Martens 1986) was used to relate acceptability
values (Y-variables) to sensory and physicochemical values
(X-variables). For the PLS regressions, only sensory descrip-
tors with significance levels ⱕ10% were included.
The cut-off point methodology has been used to estimate
the shelf life of different food products like vegetable oil
(Ramírez et al. 2001), dulce de leche (Garitta et al. 2004)
and a human milk replacement formula (Curia and Hough
2009). The methodology has been described in detail by
Hough (2010). The first step toward estimating a product’s
sensory shelf life by this method is the determination of the
cut-off point, which is calculated as follows:
(1) Obtain samples with an increase in a sensory defect
and/or a decrease in a desirable defect.
(2) Measure the acceptability of these samples with
consumers.
(3) Measure the intensity of the defect and/or desirable
attribute with a trained sensory panel. Alternatively, a
physicochemical index can be measured.
(4) Obtain the mean square error from the ANOVA on the
consumer data and apply the following formula:
2 MSE
S = F − Zα
n
49
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
where
S = value below which the sensory acceptability of the
most preferred sample is significantly reduced;
F = acceptability of most preferred sample;
Za = one-tailed coordinate of the normal curve for
a significance level;
MSE = mean square of the error derived from the
ANOVA of the consumer data using consumer and sample
as variation factors; and
n = number of consumers.
(5) Correlate the means of the consumer data versus the
means of the trained panel data.
(6) Perform an inverse prediction by introducing the value
of S in the above correlation. If the sensory descriptor is a
defect, this will provide the cut-off point above, which
acceptability is <S. If it is a desirable descriptor, it will
provide the cut-off point below, which acceptability is <S.
A means or covering point (1) above would be to collect
samples from the manufacture and supermarket shelves
with different storage times. This was carried out in the
present project and, as explained previously, the samples
were evaluated by a consumer panel, and sensory and
chemical properties were also measured.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Shelf-Life Estimations
Strawberry Fruit Drink. When collecting samples from
the shelf with different storage times, it is quite possible that
the sample corresponding to storage time = 0 is not avail-
able. In the case of the SFD, the freshest sample that was
collected had 8 weeks of storage. Of the 79 consumers who
evaluated this sample, 30 rejected it. The different ways of
dealing with these rejections are as follows:
(1) Consider that these 30 consumers were particularly sen-
sitive to storage changes in the SFD and thus had they had
the opportunity to taste a sample with storage time = 0, they
would have accepted it. If this were the case, these consum-
ers would be considered left-censored (Hough et al. 2003).
In practice, this means adding a time point = 0 to the data
for which it is assumed that all consumers accept the
product.
TABLE 2. MODEL PARAMETERS AND ESTIMATED SHELF LIFE (⫾95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS) FOR THE STRAWBERRY FRUIT DRINK
CONSIDERING DIFFERENT CRITERIA REGARDING CONSUMERS WHO REJECTED THE FRESHEST SAMPLE
Adopted criteria for consumers who Model’s m
rejected the freshest sample parameter
Include them as left censored (Weibull model) 3.42
Not include them (log normal model) 3.302
50
G. HOUGH ET AL.
(2) When performing an experiment of acceptance/
rejection with the objective of estimating sensory shelf life
(SSL), the fresh sample is usually included in the sample set.
It is to be expected that all consumers would accept this
sample; however, there are always a proportion of consum-
ers who reject it. Hough et al. (2003) justified excluding the
data of these consumers from the SSL calculations. For the
SFD, this would mean eliminating the data of 30 consum-
ers, leaving us with a data set of 49 consumers.
Two sets of calculations were performed, adopting both
the above criteria. For each one, the Weibull, log-normal
and normal distributions were tested. Choosing the distri-
bution with the lowest log-likelihood value (Hough 2010,
Chapter 4) resulted in the Weibull distribution for criteria
(1) and the log-normal distribution for criteria (2). SSLs
were estimated considering rejection probabilities of 25 and
50% (Hough 2010, chapter 4). Results are shown in Table 2.
If the consumers who rejected the freshest sample were
included (criteria [1] above), this resulted in a shorter esti-
mated shelf life than if the consumers were not included
(criteria [2] above). For a 50% rejection, 22 weeks versus 27
weeks. When the data of all consumers who rejected the
freshest sample were eliminated, we effectively eliminated
data from some fussy consumers who genuinely rejected the
8-week sample and would have accepted the 0-week sample.
By eliminating the data from these fussy consumers, it is
logical that the estimated shelf life increased. Confronted
with this situation where there are no data available for the
truly fresh sample, it is recommended to consider data from
all consumers (criteria [1] above) and thus report a shorter,
more conservative shelf life.
The SFD used in the present study had a label “best
before” time of 26 weeks (6 months). This is close to the
estimation of 22 weeks (see Table 2) derived from samples
collected from supermarket shelves. It is supposed that the
26 weeks currently used by the manufacturer has either
been measured or is derived from distribution experience.
The present study collecting samples from the market
shelves allowed confirming their present “best before”
recommendation.
Overall acceptability scores measured on a 1–9 scale were
as follows for each storage time: T8 = 6.1, T12 = 6.1,
T16 = 6.2, T20 = 6.0 and T28 = 5.7. The ANOVA on these
consumer data indicated differences at a significance
Model’s s Shelf life for Shelf life for
parameter 25% rejection 50% rejection
0.860 11 ⫾ 4.2 22 ⫾ 5.6
0.534 19 ⫾ 3.3 27 ⫾ 5
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
G. HOUGH ET AL.
level = 12%; thus, it is barely significant. However, they do
show a tendency to decrease from approximately 20 weeks
of storage time, coinciding with the estimated shelf life for a
50% rejection of 22 weeks (Table 2). The tendency was
similar for flavor and appearance acceptability scores.
Digestive Biscuits and Shortbread. Table 3 presents
overall acceptability and percent rejection for DB and SB for
a combination of samples from the manufacturer and
supermarket shelves with different “best before” dates.
ANOVA on acceptability scores resulted in significant levels
of 2 and 0.1% for DB and SB, respectively. However, the dif-
ferences between samples did not follow the expected trend
in relation to dates. For DBs, it was not clear which sample/s
were outliers. Either T10 or T14 was from poor batches or
suffered severe storage conditions, or T19 was from an out-
standingly good batch or had suffered mild storage condi-
tions. For SB, T21 seems to be the outlier with lower
acceptability and higher percent rejection than samples
stored for longer; this sample could have been from a poor
batch or it could have suffered severe storage conditions.
It would not be reasonable to submit the data from these
samples to shelf-life estimations based on methods such as
survival analysis or cut-off point (Hough 2010, Chapters 4
and 6), as the acceptability does not follow the expected
trend over time. However, there is valuable shelf-life infor-
mation in the data. The DB had a label “best before” time of
39 weeks. As samples collected over this period had percent
rejections ⱕ25% (Table 3), manufacturers can either leave
the “best before” date as it is with the confidence that it is a
reasonable shelf life, or they can initiate a shelf-life study
under controlled storage conditions to analyze if the “best
before” date can be extended. The SB had a label “best
before” time of 52 weeks. With the percent rejection values
shown in Table 3, it would be wise for manufacturers to
conduct a study under controlled storage conditions to
determine if their current “best before” date is adequate. A
detailed backlog of consumer complaints could be of addi-
tional help in the decision of conducting further shelf-life
studies.
TABLE 3. MEAN OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCENT REJECTION FOR DIGESTIVE BISCUITS AND SHORTBREAD COLLECTED WITH DIFFERENT
STORAGE DATES
Digestive biscuits
Storage time Overall acceptability Percent
(weeks) (1–9 scale) rejection
2 7.1a 13
10 6.6b 19
14 6.6b 19
19 7.0a 17
39 6.6b 25
Column means with different letters differed significantly based on Fisher’s least significant difference (P < 5%).
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
Acceptability versus Sensory and
Instrumental Measurements
Strawberry Fruit Drink. Figure 1 shows the PLS corre-
lation of overall and flavor acceptability (Y-matrix) versus
sensory descriptors + concentration of sugars (X-matrix).
The first two PLS dimensions accounted for 89 and 10% of
the Y-variation, respectively.
During storage, the sucrose originally present in the SFD
as an ingredient was split into fructose and glucose; this
reduced the sweetness of the drink which did not seem to
appeal to consumers. The descriptor defined by the trained
panel as artificial strawberry a priori would have a negative
connotation; however, consumers liked it. Consumers also
liked the red color, and when this was lost during storage,
the clarity appearance increased. The red-fruit aroma had a
significance level of 7%; however, the sample means had a
range between 15 and 17 on a 0–100 sensory scale, hardly of
practical importance.
Digestive Biscuit. Figure 1 shows the PLS correlation of
overall and flavor acceptability (Y-matrix) versus sensory
descriptors + concentration of chemical compounds (X-
matrix). The first two PLS dimensions accounted for 69 and
22% of the Y-variation, respectively.
Relationships between sensory descriptors and chemical
compounds were generally as expected: stale aroma and
stale flavor were related to hexanal, pentanal and furanal;
these last chemical compounds are associated with fat oxi-
dation. Butter flavor was associated with high levels of
acceptability.
In Fig. 2, the ranking of the samples on the first PLS com-
ponent did not follow the expected storage time trend:
sample T19 had less negative attributes than samples T10
and T14; this followed the mean acceptability scores as
shown in Table 3.
PLS correlations were also performed for:
(1) Appearance acceptability (Y-variable) versus color, uni-
formity, pyrazines and pyrroles (X-variables); uniformity
Shortbread
Storage time Overall acceptability Percent
(weeks) (1–9 scale) rejection
4 6.9a 17
17 6.2b 39
21 6.7a,c 28
34 6.6a,c 25
39 6.5b,c 32
51
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF G. HOUGH ET AL.

1
red_aroma

overall_aroma
Fructose T16 OVERALL
overall-flavor FIG. 1. PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES REGRES-
Glucose T20 artificial_aroma SION OF OVERALL AND FLAVOR ACCEPT-
PLS2

Furfural artificial_flavor
red_color ABILITY (Y-MATRIX) VERSUS SENSORY
-1T28 T12 sweet1
clarity DESCRIPTORS + CONCENTRATION OF
T8 body SUGARS (X-MATRIX) FOR THE STRAWBERRY
Sucrose
FRUIT DRINK
FLAVOR
Sensory descriptors are in lower case letters:
artificial strawberry aroma and flavor, body,
clarity of appearance, overall aroma and
flavor, red color and red-fruit aroma. Sugar
concentrations are in italics. T8 to T32:
-1
samples collected at different storage times
PLS1 in weeks.

was positively correlated with acceptability, and pyrazines
and pyrroles (Maillard reaction products) were negatively
correlated.
(2) Texture acceptability (Y-variable) versus crispiness,
hardness and bitty (X-variables): crispiness and hardness
were positively correlated with acceptability and bitty
negatively correlated.
As for overall and flavor acceptability, in the appearance
and texture PLS correlations, the ranking of the samples on
the first PLS component did not follow the expected storage
time trend. Thus, for the DBs, the PLS regressions are of
value as a relation of acceptability to different objective
indices, but it cannot be ascertained if the variation in
acceptability was due to storage time, batch variation or a
combination of both factors.
Shortbread. Figure 3 shows the PLS correlation of
overall and flavor acceptability (Y-matrix) versus sensory
descriptors + concentration of chemical compounds (X-
matrix). The first two PLS dimensions accounted for 53 and
37% of the Y-variation, respectively.
Relationships between sensory descriptors and chemical
compounds were generally as expected: rancid flavor and
stale aroma were related to anisidine, hexanal and pentanal,
and to a lesser degree, peroxide value. Diacetyl is usually
described as having a buttery flavor and thus it would be

FLAVOR
pentanal
T19 stale_aroma
OVERALL
hexanal
butter_flavor
T10
PLS2

FIG. 2. PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES REGRES-

-1 T14 1 SION OF OVERALL AND FLAVOR ACCEPT-
T02 T39
furanal ABILITY (Y-MATRIX) VERSUS SENSORY
stale_flavor DESCRIPTORS + CONCENTRATION OF
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS (X-MATRIX) FOR
THE DIGESTIVE BISCUITS
Sensory descriptors are in lower case letters:
butter aroma, stale aroma and stale flavor.
Chemical compounds are in italics. T2 to
-1 T39: samples collected at different storage
PLS1 times in weeks.

52 Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

G. HOUGH ET AL. COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF

FLAVOR
OVERALL pentanal
rancid_flavor
hexanal
T4 T39
diacetil
stale_aroma
butter_aroma

PLS2
anisidine
FIG. 3. PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES REGRES-
-1 T21 1
SION OF OVERALL AND FLAVOR ACCEPT-
ABILITY (Y-MATRIX) VERSUS SENSORY butter_flavor T34
peroxide
DESCRIPTORS + CONCENTRATION OF T17
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS (X-MATRIX) FOR
THE SHORTBREAD
Sensory descriptors are in lower case letters: free_fatty_acids
butter aroma and flavor, rancid flavor and
stale aroma. Chemical compounds are in
-1
italics. T4 to T39: samples collected at
different storage times in weeks. PLS1

expected to be closely correlated with butter descriptors;
however, the correlation was not high (Fig. 3).
In Fig. 3, T17 is opposed to overall and flavor acceptabil-
ity; it was the sample with the lowest mean acceptability
(Table 3), lower than samples stored for longer period. As
mentioned in the section Digestive Biscuits and Shortbread,
this sample could have been from a poor batch or it could
have suffered severe storage conditions. However, it was not
the sample with the highest values for negative attributes
such as rancid flavor or high hexanal concentration.
The other sensory descriptors that were significant for
samples were color, hardness and crumbly. Neither overall
acceptability nor appearance acceptability correlated signifi-
cantly with color. Texture acceptability was not significant
for samples and thus its correlation to hardness and
crumbly was not tested. Overall acceptability did not corre-
late significantly with hardness nor crumbly.
The aroma and flavor descriptors and their associated
chemical compounds did not adequately explain the low
acceptability of sample T17, as shown in Fig. 3. Simple
linear regressions of acceptability versus color, hardness
and crumbly could not explain that low acceptability
either.
Cut-Off Points
Three cut-off points will be presented for illustration
purposes.

6
T8
5.9
T12
5.8
Flavor acceptability

5.7
T16
5.6 S

5.5
T20
FIG. 4. FLAVOR ACCEPTABILITY VERSUS
ARTIFICIAL STRAWBERRY FLAVOR FOR 5.4
Cut-off point
STRAWBERRY FRUIT DRINK SAMPLES
The curve corresponds to an exponential 5.3
T28
regression, S = value below which the
sensory acceptability of the most preferred 5.2
35 40 45 50 55
sample is significantly reduced, thus defining
the cut-off point. Artificial strawberry flavor (0-100 scale)

Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 53

 COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
7.2
7.1 T02
T19
7
Overall acceptability
6.9
S
6.8
6.7
Cut-off point
6.6
6.5
1.0 1.5 2.0
Pentyl furan
Figure 4 presents the cut-off point for artificial straw-
berry flavor of the fruit drink. The following exponential
equation was fitted using nonlinear procedures from
Genstat (VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, U.K.):
Overall acceptability
= 5.27 + 1.68 × 10−6 exp (0.256 × artificial _ strawberry )
The regression significance level was 7%, and the regres-
sion explained 87% of the variance. An inverse prediction
was performed, entering the regression with an acceptability
value of S = 5.53, which gave an estimated cut-off point of
46 on the 0–100 artificial strawberry sensory scale. This
would mean that when the artificial strawberry flavor was
below 46, there would be a significant decrease in overall
acceptability in relation to the most preferred sample. The
regression procedure also calculated 95% confidence inter-
vals for the inverse prediction and these were ⫾38; being so
wide they were not drawn on the cut-off point plot (Fig. 4).
These confidence intervals were wide due to the following:
(1) The small number of experimental points: in this case,
there were 5; and as three parameters were calculated by the
exponential regression, this left only 2 degrees of freedom.
Increasing the number of samples would mean finding
them on the shelves and this was not an easy task. Manufac-
turers do not always have samples available and most
samples found in supermarkets are close to manufacturing
date.
(2) Samples had different storage times but, as stated
earlier, they were also from different production batches
and probably had undergone different storage conditions.
This probably led to an increase in unexplained variability
between the samples.
54
G. HOUGH ET AL.
FIG. 5. OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY VERSUS
PENTYL FURAN CONCENTRATION RELATIVE
TO T02 FOR DIGESTIVE BISCUIT SAMPLES
T10 T14
T39 S = value below which the sensory accept-
ability of the most preferred sample is signifi-
cantly reduced, thus defining the cut-off
2.5 3.0 3.5
point; 95% confidence intervals above and
below the cut-off point are indicated.
Figure 5 presents the cut-off point for pentyl furan con-
centration in the DBs to show how a cut-off point can be
determined for an instrumental parameter such as a chemi-
cal concentration. Pentyl furan is indicative of fat oxidation
(Evans et al. 1971) and thus its negative correlation with
acceptability. The linear correlation was significant at <1%
and the regression explained 97% of the variance. An
inverse prediction was performed, entering the regression
with an acceptability value of S = 6.75, which gave an esti-
mated cut-off point of 2.49 for the pentyl furan concentra-
tion. This would mean that when the pentyl furan
concentration was above 2.49, there would be a significant
decrease in overall acceptability in relation to the most pre-
ferred sample. Confidence intervals for the inverse predic-
tion can be estimated using the method proposed by Draper
and Smith (1981) whose formulas coincide with those
developed by Graybill (2000); the 95% lower and upper
intervals were 2.23 and 2.77, respectively. As shown in
Table 3, average acceptability values did not follow the
expected trend in relation to storage time: T19 had higher
acceptability than T10 and T14. Figure 5 shows that when
pentyl furan concentration increased, overall acceptability
decreased; however, it is not clear whether this trend was
strictly due to storage time or whether, e.g., T19 was made
with fat with an extra dose of antioxidant. Thus, before
relying on this cut-off point for sensory shelf-life determi-
nation, further tests are needed to confirm that pentyl furan
changes are due to storage time for this biscuit.
Figure 6 presents the cut-off point for butter aroma in the
SB biscuits. The linear correlation was significant at <9%
and the regression explained 57% of the variance. An
inverse prediction was performed, entering the regression
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
G. HOUGH ET AL.
Overall acceptability
FIG. 6. OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY VERSUS
BUTTER AROMA FOR SHORTBREAD
SAMPLES
S = value below which the sensory accept-
ability of the most preferred sample is signifi-
cantly reduced, thus defining the cut-off
point; 95% confidence intervals above and
below the cut-off point are indicated.
with an acceptability value of S = 6.65, which gave an esti-
mated cut-off point of 39.6 for the butter aroma. The
method proposed by Draper and Smith (1981) to calculate
confidence intervals in an inverse prediction is based on the
intersection of the horizontal line drawn from the S value
with the upper and lower confidence curves of the linear
regression. As observed in Fig. 6, these confidence curves
were so wide that the intersections do not exist. The regres-
sion did not improve if T4, a possible outlier, was left
out. No other regression between acceptability values and
sensory or chemical concentrations was significant; thus,
cut-off points could not be derived from the SB samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Collecting samples from the shelf allowed for a reasonable
sensory shelf-life estimation of the SFD. Batch-to-batch
variations for this product are small, and thus when samples
with different storage times were collected, these variations
were not confused with batch-to-batch variations. This was
not the case for the biscuits, products where batch-to-batch
variations are higher and thus confusion of this variable
with storage time was important. Different storage condi-
tions of each one of the batches could also have led to unex-
pected trends in relation to dates. In spite of not being able
to estimate shelf-life values for the biscuits, valuable infor-
mation was obtained in relation to the current “best before”
dates used for these products. For the DB, the current “best
before” date was adequate, and for the SB, it would be advis-
able for them to conduct a controlled study.
In the Introduction section, it was hypothesized that if
quality standards are high, and storage conditions are gener-
ally uniform, then any differences between collected
samples would be due to storage time. However, what was
obtained was more akin to a description of what the distri-
bution of product is at that point in time; in the case of the
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
7.0
T4
6.8
T21
6.6 T34
S
T39
6.4
6.2 T17
Cut-off point
6.0
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Butter aroma
SFD, this allowed shelf-life estimation, but it did not for the
DB and SB. Thus, it can be concluded that as a means of
modeling shelf-life estimation, sampling products with dif-
ferent best before dates form the market shelves is not to be
recommended for most food products. In the case of prod-
ucts such as the SFD, which presents very small batch-to-
batch variations, it may be worth performing the exercise
if resources for a conventional shelf-life study are not
available.
PLS regressions showed the relationships between accept-
ability (Y-matrix) and trained panel descriptive analysis +
chemical measurements (X-matrix). For the SFD, the rank
of the samples on the PLS map followed the storage time
rank; this was not the case for the DB and SB. Thus, for the
DB and SB, the PLS regressions were of value as a relation of
acceptability to different objective indices, but it cannot be
ascertained if the variation in acceptability was due to
storage time, batch variation or a combination of both
factors.
Collecting samples from the shelf could be a means of
obtaining cut-off points for shelf-life estimations. However,
in two of the three examples presented, confidence intervals
were wide. This was due to the relatively low number of
experimental points in the regression and/or the batch vari-
ability inherent in the sample collection method.
The title of this article proposed answering the question
of whether collecting samples from the shelf contributes to
shelf-life knowledge. In the sense that all experiments, if
reasonably designed and analyzed, provide knowledge, the
answer is yes. However, is this information of value? For
only one of the three studied products were shelf-life esti-
mates obtained. For the other two products, only a picture
of the state of samples with different “best before” dates was
obtained, and further conventional shelf-life studies were
recommended. Only for samples with very small batch-to-
batch variations would collecting samples from the shelves
55
COLLECTING SAMPLES FROM THE SHELF
be recommended for shelf-life estimations. The correlations
between acceptability and objective sensory or instrumental
data are of value as they can help in understanding modes
of deterioration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded by the Sensory and Consumer
Forum, Leatherhead. Special thanks also to the sensory
trained panel and the consumers who participated in this
project.
REFERENCES
ARANEDA, M., HOUGH, G. and WITTIG DE PENNA, E. 2008.
Current-status survival analysis methodology applied to
estimating sensory shelf life of ready-to-eat lettuce
(Lactuta sativa). J. Sensory Studies 23, 162–170.
CURIA, A. and HOUGH, G. 2009. Selection of a sensory marker
to predict the sensory shelf life of a fluid human milk
replacement formula. J. Food Qual. 32, 793–809.
CURIA, A., AGUERRIDO, M., LANGOHR, K. and HOUGH, G.
2005. Survival analysis applied to sensory shelf life
of yogurts. I: Argentine formulations. J. Food Sci. 70,
S442–S445.
DRAPER, N.R. and SMITH, H. 1981. Applied Regression
Analysis, Chapter 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
56
G. HOUGH ET AL.
EVANS, C.D., MOSER, H.A. and LIST, G.R. 1971. Odor and
flavor responses to additives in edible oils. J. Am. Oil. Chem.
Soc. 48, 495–498.
GACULA, M.C. 1975. The design of experiments for shelf life
study. J. Food Sci. 40, 399–403.
GARITTA, L., HOUGH, G. and SÁNCHEZ, R. 2004. Sensory
shelf life of dulce de leche. J. Dairy Sci. 87, 1601–1607.
GÓMEZ, G. 2002. Análisis de Supervivencia. Apuntes del curso
de la Licenciatura en Ciencias y Técnicas Estadísticas de la
Facultat de Matemátiques I Estadística. Barcelona: Universitat
Politécnica de Catalunya (in Spanish).
GRAYBILL, F.A. 2000. Theory and Application of the Linear
Model, Duxbury Press, Park Grove, CA.
HOUGH, G. 2010. Sensory Shelf Life Estimation of Food Products,
Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
HOUGH, G. and GARITTA, L. 2012. Methodology for sensory
shelf-life estimation: A review. J. Sensory Studies 27, 137–147.
HOUGH, G., LANGOHR, K., GÓMEZ, G. and CURIA, A. 2003.
Survival analysis applied to sensory shelf life of foods. J. Food
Sci. 68, 359–362.
MARTENS, M. and MARTENS, H. 1986. Partial least squares
regression. In Statistical Procedures in Food Research (J.R.
Piggott, ed.) Elsevier Applied Science, Oxford, U.K.
RAMÍREZ, G., HOUGH, G. and CONTARINI, A. 2001.
Influence of temperature and light exposure on sensory shelf
life of a commercial sunflower oil. J. Food Qual. 24, 195–204.
SALVADOR, A., VARELA, P. and FISZMAN, S. 2007. Consumer
acceptability and shelf life of “flor de invierno” pears (Pyrus
communis L.) under different storage conditions. J. Sensory
Studies 22, 243–255.
Journal of Sensory Studies 28 (2013) 47–56 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.