J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04890-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Study of the influence of line scale length (9 and 15 cm)
on the sensory evaluations of two descriptive methods
Aline Iamin Gomide1 • Rita de Cássia dos Santos Navarro Silva1 • Moysés Nascimento2
Luis Antônio Minim1 • Valéria Paula Rodrigues Minim1
Revised: 28 October 2020 / Accepted: 6 November 2020 / Published online: 3 January 2021
 Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2021
Abstract The line scale is widely used in different lengths
to quantify the intensity of descriptors in sensory evalua-
tion. Since studies related to its size are still limited the
objective was to determine what variables of descriptive
sensory evaluation can be influenced when different scale
length is considered in two different methods: Optimized
Descriptive Profile (ODP) (low degree of training) and
Conventional Profile (CP) (high degree of training). Five
chocolate samples were evaluated by two panels, one using
the 9 cm and the other using the 15 cm line scale. The
panels performed the sensory analysis using the ODP and
after the CP method. The following criteria were investi-
gated: interaction between sample and evaluator, discrim-
inative capacity, repeatability of results, and frequency of
score use on the unstructured scale. The influence of scale
length on sensory responses was similar in the two methods
(ODP and CP). When comparing the two scales in both
methods, it was observed that the 15 cm scale resulted in
an improvement in discriminative capacity, reduction of
interaction and the evaluators tended to distribute their
ratings more evenly across this scale length. The repeata-
bility of results showed a slight tendency to be better on the
9 cm scale.
Keywords Line scale  Scale length  Conventional
profile  Optimized descriptive profile
& Aline Iamin Gomide
aline.gomide@hotmail.com
1
Department of Food Technology, Federal University of
Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-000, Brazil
2
Department of Statistics, Federal University of Viçosa
(UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-000, Brazil
•
Introduction
Classical descriptive analysis consists of a complete qual-
itative and quantitative description of the sensory charac-
teristics of food products by a trained panel (Varela and
Ares 2012). The Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA)
is one of the most well-known classical methods. In recent
years, generic methodologies including the Conventional
Profile (CP) have been extensively used due to its increased
freedom of application. (Murray et al. 2001).
Due to the time consumption to perform these analyses,
many alternative methodologies have been developed to
eliminate the long training stage. However, these faster
methods provide only qualitative data. The Optimized
Descriptive Profile (ODP), proposed by Silva et al. (2012),
stands out among alternative methods due to its ability to
also provide quantitative data.
In the quantitative description, the evaluator expresses
the intensity of each qualitative term for a specific food,
allowing applications on quality control, formulation
optimization and also to correlate sensory and instrumental
measurements (Meilgaard et al. 2006).
Descriptive analyses commonly use three types of
intensity scales: magnitude estimation, category and line.
The selection of the scale depends on the method to be
used. The advantage of the line scale is the absence of any
numerical values associated with the response and the
limited use of words, minimizing potential trends among
evaluators to avoid or to prefer specifics numbers or
expressions (Minim and Silva 2016). Furthermore, it pro-
vides several numbers of places (within the constraints of
the actual length of the line) to indicate the intensity of the
sensory attribute. Because the line scale is a type of interval
scale, most statistical procedures can be used for their
123
2816
analysis, including means, standard deviation, t-tests,
analysis of variance and others (Stone and Sidel 2004).
Due to its advantages, the line scale was recommended
for QDA and posteriorly in other classical methods such as
the Free-Choice Profile (1984) and Spectrum (1991). Since
the advent of the QDA, the line scale has been used in
many generic methods (Dairou and Sieffermann 2002;
Ginés et al. 2004; Blancher et al. 2007; Brannan 2009;
Silva et al. 2012) and was selected for the ODP method.
On the line scale the intensity of an attribute generally
increases from left to right, with extreme values anchored
by terms that represent ‘‘weak’’ and ‘‘strong’’ intensity of
the stimulus. The evaluator’s task is to make a mark on the
scale that reflects the intensity of the attribute evaluated
(Stone and Sidel 2004).
The line scale has been used in different lengths. The
ODP and QDA recommended the use of a 9 and a 15 cm
scale, respectively. Generic methods are more flexible,
including studies that used 9 cm (Wszelaki et al. 2005;
Silva et al. 2012; Castilhos et al. 2020), 10 cm (Dairou and
Sieffermann 2002; Blancher et al. 2007; Picouet et al.
2019; Jeyaprakash et al. 2020), 12 cm (Ginés et al. 2004)
and 15 cm line scales (Brannan 2009; Mielby et al. 2014;
Sharma et al. 2017).
The scale length and number of scale categories are
major variables that affect scale sensitivity (Stone and
Sidel 2004). According to Stone and Sidel (2004), a three-
point scale is less sensitive than a five-point scale (about
30%) and both are less sensitive than a seven- or nine-point
scale. Regarding the line scale, Stone and Sidel (2004)
mentioned that in a limited study it was observed that
extending the scale from 15 to 20 cm did not increase the
sensitivity. Shortening to less than 15 cm reduced the
sensitivity.
According to Park et al. (2007), the number of cate-
gories to be chosen for the category scale would depend on
the number of different stimuli to be assessed. Enough
categories should be available to represent accurately the
perceived spacing between the ranks. For a 9-point scale, a
given judge would only be able to represent the spacing
between perhaps four or five products for a single experi-
mental session, while data for the other products would not
be useful because they would be ‘bunched’ together (Park
et al. 2007).
Regarding the line scale, it would be expected that the
scale length would depend on the number of samples. A
large number of samples would imply on a larger scale, and
how about a small number of samples? Is there any dif-
ference when different lengths are used? Even when a
small number of samples is considered, different studies
adopted different scale lengths, showing that in the litera-
ture there is no consensus on that selection. For example, a
9 cm scale was used for evaluation of five (Silva et al.
123
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824
2012) and six samples (Wszelaki et al. 2005), while Hong
et al. (2010) and Lee and Vickers (2010) used a greater
scale (15 cm) to evaluate almost the same numbers of
samples, four and six samples, respectively, showing the
lack of consensus.
Several studies have compared different types of scaling
such as category scales, line scales and magnitude esti-
mation (Shand et al. 1985; Lawless and Malone 1986;
Purdy et al. 2002; Jeon et al. 2004; Silva et al. 2013a;
Gamba et al. 2020), but few studies have focused on
comparing different lengths of line scale (Carlin et al.
1956; Jeon et al. 2004; Park et al. 2007). Additionally,
these few studies that compared different scale length have
focused on counting scaling errors based on the inversion
of stimulus, considering how a judge generates numbers in
response to a set of intensities and on some others aspects
(Carlin et al. 1956; Jeon et al. 2004; Park et al. 2007),
without measuring the effect of scale length on sensory
responses obtained by statistical tests.
Due to the scarcity of studies, it is necessary to develop
more works on this subject. Therefore, this study aims to
compare the influence of two different scale length on
some variables of descriptive sensory evaluation, such as
sample 9 evaluator interaction, discrimination of samples
and repeatability of results, by means of statistical tests,
and also to compare the frequency of score use on that
unstructured scales.
According to Meilgaard et al. (2006), besides the ade-
quate scale selection, the validity and reliability of intensity
measurements depend on the training of the evaluators.
Therefore, the training is an important aspect that should be
considered when evaluating the influence of line scale
length. Thus, this work aims to study the influence of line
scale length on sensory responses in one descriptive
method with low degree of training (ODP—provides
quantitative data) and in other with high degree of training
(CP—widely used with freedom of application), consider-
ing five samples on evaluations.
Material and methods
The two descriptive methods (ODP and CP) were per-
formed using two scales: 9 cm line scale (because it is
already recommended by ODP) and 15 cm line scale
(commonly used in descriptive methods and recommended
by the QDA). The influence of scale length was indepen-
dently evaluated on each sensory method, separately.
Subsequently, it was verified which of the methods is more
sensitive by the variation of scale length.
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824 2817

Samples (2000) and Silva et al. (2013b), as proposed by Damasio

Five chocolate samples were utilized as food matrices and
were defined by preliminary tests. The five samples were
composed by different proportions of milk and bittersweet
chocolate, respectively, 90:10; 70:30; 50:50; 30:70; 10:90.
The milk and bittersweet chocolate contained 35% and
70% of cocoa, respectively. Each chocolate unit measured
was approximately 30 mm in diameter and 20 mm in
height and was prepared by a local company (Viçosa, MG,
Brazil).
Sensory evaluation
The sensory characterization of chocolates was conducted
in a laboratory of the Federal University of Viçosa and it
was approved by the ethics committees of the Institution
(17104913.4.00005153). It was performed by two sensory
descriptive methods: CP and ODP. The common stages of
both methods were: recruitment, pre-selection, determina-
tion of descriptive terminology and familiarization of
evaluators with the reference material. The experiment
design overview is illustrated in Fig. 1.
A total of 64 candidates were recruited using question-
naires, as proposed by Meilgaard et al. (2006). The pre-
selection of recruited candidates consisted of a sequence of
four triangular tests. The criterion for selection was an
assertion of 75% of the tests, as recommended by Meil-
gaard et al. (2006). The sensory attributes were defined by
the previous list technique, obtained from Minim et al.
and Costell (1991). Eight attributes were defined by con-
sensus: brown color, cocoa mass aroma, cocoa mass flavor,
sweetness, residual bitterness, hardness, spreadability and
adhesivity. Next, with the assistance of the evaluators, the
reference materials (‘‘weak’’ and ‘‘strong’’) of each attri-
bute were defined.
For the familiarization step the descriptive terms and
their reference materials were presented to the evaluators in
individual booths during one session. The evaluators were
instructed to read the attribute definitions and to taste the
references.
Posteriorly, the evaluators were randomly distributed
into two teams, each with 20 evaluators, satisfying the
minimum of 16 as proposed by Silva et al. (2014b) for the
ODP method. One panel evaluated the samples according
to the ODP method followed by the CP, using the 9 cm line
scale (panel 1). The other performed the same procedure
using the 15 cm line scale (panel 2). The scales were
presented on printed ballots.
The initial and commons steps of both methods (ODP
and CP) were executed by the two panels together in order
to obtain consensus in the evaluation of the sensory attri-
butes, allowing for subsequent comparison between the
techniques.
Optimized descriptive profile (ODP)
The evaluators of panels 1 and 2 began assessing the
chocolate samples according to the attribute-by-attribute

)LJ
40 Definition of the
60 recruited pre-selected
Recruitment of the candidates Pre-selection of descriptive
evaluators
evaluator candidates the evaluators terminology and
(64 questionnaires) (triangular tests) definition of the
reference material

Panel 1 Panel 2
20 candidates 20 candidates 20 candidates Evaluation 20 candidates
Evaluation Familiarization Training tests
Training tests (panel 1) (panel 1) (panel 2) 15 cm line scale (panel 2)
9 cm line scale with the (15 cm line scale)
(9 cm line scale) (ODP-15)
(ODP-9) reference material

Common steps

Selection of the The same 16 evaluators The same 16 evaluators Selection of the
evaluators were considered were considered evaluators
for analysis of results for analysis of results

16 candidates 16 candidates
(panel 1) (panel 2)

Evaluation
Evaluation
15 cm line scale
9 cm line scale
(CP-15)
(CP-9)

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the experiment

123
2818
protocol, as recommended by Silva et al. (2012). There-
fore, only one attribute was evaluated per session and all
the samples were presented together with the reference
materials of the attribute to be evaluated.
Panel 1 evaluated the samples using the 9 cm line scale
and panel 2 using the 15 cm scale, thus generating data for
the two techniques (ODP-9 and ODP-15). Evaluations were
performed using the Balanced Block Design (BBD). Thus,
each evaluator represented a block and assessed samples
with three repetitions for each attribute. The number of
sessions required corresponded to the number of attributes
(eight) multiplied by the number of repetitions, totalizing
24 sessions.
Conventional profile (CP)
After performing all ODP steps, the evaluators of both
panels were properly trained for subsequent evaluation of
products by the CP. Thus, the evaluation step of the ODP
served as a pre-training of the panels, as performed by
Silva et al. (2012).
Training consisted of several exercises, including
ordering tests, recognition of reference materials and
allocation of sensory attribute intensity on the line scale, as
performed by Simiqueli et al. (2015). The assessors
underwent training exercise for about two months. After
that, the evaluators performed a preliminary test to verify if
they were adequately trained. Thus, the final evaluation
step of CP was simulated with four repetitions, according
to BBD, where two samples of chocolate were evaluated
(one composed by 70% of milk chocolate ? 30% of bit-
tersweet chocolate and the other by 30% of milk choco-
late ? 70% of bittersweet chocolate). Panel 1 performed
the preliminary tests using 9 cm line scale and panel 2 used
the 15 cm line scale. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
performed per attribute for each evaluator. It was selected
the evaluators that presented discriminatory capacity and
reproducibility for all attributes (p.Fsample \ 0.3 and
p.Frepetition [ 0.05), considering the same selection
parameter performed by (Silva et al. 2012). Thus, of the 20
evaluators of each panel, 16 presented satisfactory selec-
tion parameter and were selected to make up the sensorial
team. To permit comparison between the ODP and CP
methods, the evaluators of panel 1 and panel 2 considered
for analysis of results in the ODP were the same 16 used in
the CP.
Lastly, the trained and selected evaluators analyzed the
test-chocolates according to the BBD. Each evaluator
randomly analyzed the five samples in one session in
relation to all attributes, without the presence of reference
materials and in a monadic way. Three repetitions were
conducted, resulting in 3 evaluation sessions. Panel 1
123
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824
evaluated the samples using the 9 cm line scale (CP-9) and
panel 2 using the 15 cm line scale (CP-15).
Statistical analysis
The data obtained by the four techniques (ODP-9, ODP-15,
CP-9 and CP-15) were individually analyzed in relation to
the effect of samples 9 evaluator interaction, discrimina-
tion of samples, repeatability of results and frequency of
score use on the line scale. The specific techniques com-
pared were: (i) ODP-9 and ODP-15, and (ii) CP-9 and CP-
15 in order to evaluate the effect of scale length in both
methods and to determine which method was more influ-
enced by the scale length with regards to each criterion
studied.
Effect of sample 9 evaluator interaction
The effect of interaction was determined by ANOVA with
two sources of variation (sample and evaluator) and sam-
ple 9 evaluator interaction. Eq. (1) shows the mathemati-
cal model.
Y ijk ¼ m þ T i þ Bj þ ðTBÞij þ eijk ð1Þ
where:
• Yijk = score of sample i attributed by evaluator j in
repetition k;
• m = constant inherent to the model or general average;
• Ti = fixed effect of sample i;
• Bj = random effect of evaluator j;
• (TB)ij = effect of sample 9 evaluator interaction;
• eijk = normal random error, independent and equally
distributed (0, r2).
Significance (p \ 0.05) of the interaction effect was
determined for each sensory attribute by the F-test. The
technique which presented the most attributes with signif-
icant effect was considered the technique with the greatest
interaction.
Discriminative capacity of the evaluators
The effect of the samples (F-test) was determined for each
attribute by ANOVA (Eq. 1). In the case of a significant
interaction effect, the Fsample was calculated by using the
Mean Square of interaction as the denominator, as rec-
ommended by Stone and Sidel (2004).
In the case of a significant difference between samples,
the ANOVA was followed by the Tukey test. The statistical
procedures (F-test and Tukey test) were performed con-
sidering a level of 5% of significance. The technique which
formed the most groups for one specific attribute was
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824 2819

considered the technique with the greatest discriminative the frequency of use of each 0.1 cm of the standardized
capacity. scale was determined.

Repeatability of the results Software

To assess the repeatability of the panels, the ANOVA
(level of 10% of significance) was conducted considering
an error among the evaluations (eij) and within the evalu-
ations (eijk). This analysis was performed for each attribute
and technique separately, considering the three repetitions
of the same sample. It was determined if there was a sig-
nificant effect between successive evaluations by the same
panel (effect of repetition - eij). According to Barbin
(1993), the mathematical model that represents the analysis
is shown by Eq. (2). The same mathematical model was
used by Silva et al. (2014a) to assess the capacity of the
panel to repeat the results in the ODP.
The null hypothesis of zero variability was tested among
evaluation repetitions (re2 = 0). Because it is desirable to
accept the null hypothesis for this criterion, the level of
significance considered was greater than the others (10%).
Thus, the probability of type II error (probability of to
accept the null hypothesis when it is false) is diminished,
being more rigorous. The technique that presented the most
attributes with no significant effect was considered the
technique with the greatest repeatability.
Y ijk ¼ m þ T i þ Bj þ eij þ eijk ð2Þ
where:
• Yijk = score of sample i attributed by evaluator j in
repetition k;
• m = constant inherent to the model or general average;
• Ti = fixed effect of sample i;
• Bj = random effect of evaluator j;
• eij = random effect of repetitions for evaluation of the
same sample;
• eijk = normal random error, independent and equally
distributed (0, r2).
Frequency of score use on the line scale
The analysis of variance and the means tests were per-
formed using the SAS (Statistical Analysis System), ver-
sion 9.1, licensed to the Universidade Federal de Viçosa.
Results
Study of sample 3 evaluator interaction
In all techniques a significant effect of interaction
(p \ 0.05) was observed in the F-test (Table 1). The
existence of interaction indicates that at least one evaluator
is assessing the samples differently from the panel. This is
a common occurrence in sensory analysis and is difficult to
control (Silva and Damásio 1994).
A reduction in interaction was noted when the larger
scale was used. In the ODP-9 the interaction was signifi-
cant for four attributes (cocoa flavor, residual bitterness,
hardness and adhesivity) and in the ODP-15 for only one
attribute (residual bitterness).
A similar result was observed in the CP method, how-
ever in a more pronounced way. In the CP-9 the interaction
was significant for all attributes, while in CP-15 a drastic
reduction was observed, where interaction was significant
for only one descriptive term (spreadability).
Discriminative capacity of evaluators
For all techniques the Fsample test was significant (p.Fsam-
ple \ 0.01) for all attributes. Thus, the Tukey test was
performed and the results are listed in Table 2.
Table 1 p-value of analysis of variance for sample 9 evaluator
interaction
ODP-9 ODP-15 CP-9 CP-15
Attributes p-value p-value p-value p-value

This analysis sought to verify which range of the scale each Brown color 0.077ns 0.701ns 0.008* 0.859ns
panel used with the greatest frequency to indicate the Cocoa aroma 0.078ns 0.051ns 0.001* 0.501ns
* ns *
intensity of each attribute in each technique. To enable Cocoa flavor 0.001 0.074 0.003 0.058ns
ns ns *
comparison the data was previously corrected by dividing Sweetness 0.112 0.100 0.028 0.496ns
the individual scores by the scale length used in the eval- Residual bitterness 0.002* \0.001* 0.003* 0.136ns
uation. Thus, the individual scores of the evaluators Hardness 0.040* 0.509ns \0.001* 0.306ns
obtained from the ODP-9 and CP-9 techniques were divi- Spreadability 0.400ns 0.518ns 0.021* 0.045*
* ns *
ded by 9 and in the other techniques by 15. This correction Adhesivity 0.001 0.057 0.012 0.075ns
was necessary since 1 cm represents a higher proportion in *p-value significant at 5% probability; ns: not significant at 5%
the 9 cm scale (0.11%) than in the 15 cm scale (0.07%). probability
Thus, all scales were standardized to the range of 0–1 and

123
2820 J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824

Table 2 Means scores (±standard deviation) of the sensory attributes of chocolate in the four techniques, tested by means of the Tukey test
(a = 0.05)
Sensory attributes
Brown color Cocoa aroma Cocoa flavor Sweetness Residual Hardness Spreadability Adhesivity
bitterness

ODP F1 0.7 ± 0.7e 0.9 ± 0.9d 0.7 ± 0.7d 7.9 ± 1.5a 0.6 ± 0.6e 1.4 ± 1.4d 7.7 ± 1.6a 7.5 ± 2.0a
d c c b d c a
9 cm F2 2.7 ± 1.2 2.7 ± 1.7 2.3 ± 1.4 6.6 ± 1.8 2.2 ± 1.2 3.4 ± 2.1 6.8 ± 1.5 6.1 ± 2.6a
F3 5.5c ± 1.4c 5.1 ± 2.4b 4.4 ± 2.0b 3.6 ± 1.8c 4.5 ± 1.9c 6.1 ± 2.1b 3.6 ± 1.8b 3.6 ± 2.4b
b a a d b ab bc
F4 7.1 ± 1.4 7.0 ± 1.6 6.3 ± 2.0 1.9 ± 1.5 6.4 ± 1.8 7.3 ± 1.6 2.6 ± 1.9 1.7 ± 1.2b
a a a d a a c
F5 8.3 ± 0.8 8.1 ± 1.6 7.5 ± 1.7 0.9 ± 0.6 8.0 ± 1.0 7.8 ± 1.3 1.5 ± 0.9 1.8 ± 1.5b
e d e a e d a
ODP F1 1.3 ± 1.1 1.9 ± 1.5 1.5 ± 1.4 13.1 ± 1.8 1.2 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 2.8 12.8 ± 2.0 12.6 ± 2.3a
d c d b d c a
15 cm F2 4.4 ± 1.8 4.2 ± 2.7 4.0 ± 2.7 10.3 ± 3.1 3.2 ± 2.3 5.7 ± 3.5 11.3 ± 2.1 10.5 ± 3.1b
c b c c c b b
F3 7.7 ± 2.1 8.1 ± 3.1 7.5 ± 3.1 7.0 ± 3.1 6.8 ± 3.2 9.0 ± 3.4 7.2 ± 3.2 7.4 ± 3.4c
F4 11.8 ± 1.7b 10.9 ± 2.5a 10.4 ± 2.5b 4.4 ± 2.8d 10.2 ± 3.5b 10.7 ± 3.1ab 4.6 ± 3.2c 4.5 ± 3.1d
a a a e a a d
F5 13.6 ± 1.1 12.7 ± 2.4 12.6 ± 2.5 2.3 ± 2.3 12.6 ± 2.0 12.2 ± 2.8 2.8 ± 2.3 2.7 ± 2.5d
d d c a d c a
CP F1 0.8 ± 0.9 0.6 ± 0.6 0.5 ± 0.5 8.2 ± 1.3 0.4 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 1.4 8.1 ± 1.0 8.0 ± 1.2a
c c c a d c a
9 cm F2 2.3 ± 1.9 2.1 ± 1.9 1.7 ± 1.3 7.2 ± 1.7 1.4 ± 1.3 2.2 ± 1.6 7.0 ± 1.9 7.0 ± 1.9a
b b b b c b b
F3 4.5 ± 2.2 4.3 ± 2.7 4.1 ± 2.5 4.7 ± 2.5 4.0 ± 2.6 4.5 ± 2.7 4.9 ± 2.5 4.8 ± 2.5b
F4 6.5 ± 1.8a 6.5 ± 2.0a 6.4 ± 2.4a 2.2 ± 1.6c 6.2 ± 2.5b 6.9 ± 1.9a 2.9 ± 2.2c 2.2 ± 1.9c
F5 7.7 ± 1.1a 7.5 ± 1.5a 7.7 ± 1.6a 1.2 ± 1.2c 7.6 ± 1.7a 6.9 ± 2.3a 1.8 ± 2.0c 1.6 ± 1.6c
CP F1 3.0 ± 2.2e 2.4 ± 2.2e 1.9 ± 1.7e 12.6 ± 2.7a 1.4 ± 1.3c 3.6 ± 3.2c 12.4 ± 2.3a 12.2 ± 2.5a
d d d a c c a
15 cm F2 5.3 ± 3.2 4.9 ± 3.6 3.9 ± 3.4 11.0 ± 3.4 3.1 ± 3.5 5.2 ± 3.3 10.7 ± 3.6 10.2 ± 3.9b
c c c b b b b
F3 8.8 ± 3.0 8.7 ± 3.5 8.3 ± 3.7 6.3 ± 3.5 7.5 ± 4.2 8.5 ± 3.3 6.9 ± 3.7 5.5 ± 3.6c
F4 11.3 ± 2.9b 11.0 ± 3.1b 11.0 ± 3.5b 2.9 ± 2.7c 11.2 ± 3.6a 10.9 ± 3.0a 4.8 ± 3.3c 3.9 ± 3.4c
a a a c a a c
F5 13.1 ± 1.5 12.9 ± 1.4 13.1 ± 1.7 1.4 ± 1.1 12.5 ± 2.8 12.1 ± 3.0 3.1 ± 3.1 1.9 ± 2.0d
a,b,c,d,e
Letters obtained by Tukey test. Means followed by same letter in the column do not differ at 5% probability
F1: chocolate sample composed by 90% of milk chocolate ? 10% of bittersweet chocolate
F2: chocolate sample composed by 70% of milk chocolate ? 30% of bittersweet chocolate
F3: chocolate sample composed by 50% of milk chocolate ? 50% of bittersweet chocolate
F4: chocolate sample composed by 30% of milk chocolate ? 70% of bittersweet chocolate
F5: chocolate sample composed by 10% of milk chocolate ? 90% of bittersweet chocolate

The evaluators were able to detect significant differ-
ences between all five samples for two attributes (brown
color and residual bitterness) in ODP-9. In ODP-15 this
occurred for four attributes (brown color, cocoa flavor,
sweetness and residual bitterness), while for the other
attributes, the samples were separated into four distinct
groups (minimum number of groups observed for this
technique). In ODP-9 the presence of attributes with less
discrimination was observed. For spreadability the samples
were separated into three distinct groups and for adhesivity
into only two.
In CP-9, the samples were discriminated into four
groups for three attributes (brown color, cocoa aroma and
residual bitterness) and the formation of five groups was
not observed. For the five other attributes (more than half),
the samples were separated into only three groups. Dif-
ferently from CP-9, in the CP-15 five groups were formed
for three attributes (brown color, cocoa aroma, cocoa
flavor). With regards to adhesivity, the samples were dis-
criminated into four groups and for the others only three
groups were formed.
Thus, discrimination tended to increase when the 15 cm
scale was used in both methods. Compared to the ODP-9
technique, the ODP-15 resulted in an increase of one dis-
crimination group for three attributes (cocoa flavor, sweet-
ness and spreadability) and of two groups for one attribute
(adhesivity). In CP a similar behavior was verified, with an
increase of also one group for three attributes (brown color,
cocoa aroma and adhesivity) and of two groups for one
attribute (cocoa flavor). Thus, the effect of scale length on
sample discrimination was the same for ODP and CP.
Repeatability of the results
In ODP-9, the evaluators presented repeatability (p [ 0.1)
for all sensory attributes, while in ODP-15 there was a

123
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824 2821

significant effect of repetitions (p \ 0.1) for two attributes, fact was not always observed in the CP-15 technique
brown color and spreadability (Table 3). (Fig. 3b), as can be verified for brown color, cocoa aroma,
Similar behavior was observed for CP, but slightly less spreadability and hardness. For the other sensory charac-
pronounced. In CP-9, two sensory stimuli presented a teristics in CP-15, although the extremes of the scale were
significant effect of repetition (brown color and cocoa used more in comparison with the other ranges, the use of
aroma) versus three in CP-15 (brown color, cocoa aroma that extremes were more pronounced in the 9 cm scale
and flavor) (Table 3). (Fig. 3a) for the respective attributes.
This result shows a small tendency of evaluators to
present greater repeatability on a small scale for both
methods. In other words, there was a tendency of evalua- Discussion
tors to assign similar scores in different repetitions when
the small scale was used. The results showed that some criteria of the descriptive
evaluation were influenced when the same number of
Frequency of score use on the line scale samples (five) was evaluated by different scale lengths (9
and 15 cm). These findings are important in the context
For all techniques, independent of the scale length, the where different studies adopted different scale lengths in
evaluators used the entire scale to express the intensity of the evaluation of the same number of samples (Wszelaki
attributes. However, some ranges were used more fre- et al. 2005; Lee and Vickers 2010). For ODP and CP, the
quently than others. The evaluators that performed the interaction was smaller on the larger scale. In sensory
ODP-9 technique (Fig. 2a) assigned scores between 0–0.1 analysis, one of the reasons for interaction is the inversion
and 0.9–1 cm with greater frequency for all attributes. In of sensory stimuli perception (Silva and Damásio 1994).
the ODP-15 technique (Fig. 2b) the evaluators most fre- The small space for locating the samples on the 9 cm scale
quently used scores between 0–0.1 for only three attributes, could lead to a more confusable scaling contributing to
bitterness, cocoa aroma and flavor. For the latter two the more inversion of sensory stimuli by evaluators. This
difference in frequency was very low when compared with hypothesis is reinforced by Jeon et al. (2004) that stated
other ranges. For the other attributes there was not a range that on smaller scales the evaluators have a greater ten-
that presented an expressive frequency of use, instead, the dency to assign equal scores, or even to invert them when
scores were homogeneously distributed over the scale. In evaluating samples with different intensities of a given
general, it was therefore verified that evaluators tended to stimulus. The inversion of stimulus generate a ‘‘distur-
use the extremes of the scale less (superior as well as bance’’, a source of variation in the system, caused by the
inferior) for all attributes when the evaluation was per- fact that evaluators generate particular numerical respon-
formed on the larger scale. ses, spacing their scores differently on the scale (Park et al.
A similar result was observed for the CP (Fig. 3). In the 2004), contributing to increase the interaction when the
CP-9 technique (Fig. 3a), the ranges 0–0.1 and 0.9–1 were 9 cm scale was used.
used with greatest frequency for all descriptive terms. This In the CP, the decrease in the number of attributes that
had a significant effect of interaction on the 15 cm scale
was more pronounced than in the ODP. Silva et al. (2012),
Table 3 Repeatability (eij) of descriptive techniques
when comparing the ODP and CP methodologies using a
ODP-9 ODP-15 CP-9 CP-15 9 cm line scale, verified a higher tendency of the CP to
p-value generate more attributes with significant interactions
Attributes eij eij eij eij between samples 9 evaluators, which agrees with the
ns * *
results obtained in the present study for the 9 cm scale.
Brown color 0.199 0.034 0.040 0.012*
This observation may be a consequence of the differences
Cocoa aroma 0.866ns 0.257ns 0.037* 0.012*
ns ns ns
between the evaluation protocols of the two methodologies.
Cocoa flavor 0.211 0.591 0.184 0.050*
ns ns ns
In the simultaneous protocol (ODP), the evaluators can re-
Sweetness 0.114 0.762 0.248 0.156ns
taste and review the scores given to the different samples,
Residual bitterness 0.260ns 0.621ns 0.152ns 0.144ns
which reduces the effect of ‘‘forgetting’’ (a fact observed in
Hardness 0.466ns 0.637ns 0.607ns 0.384ns
the monadic protocol-CP), resulting in a smaller number of
Spreadability 0.369ns 0.001* 0.184ns 0.923ns errors and consequently less interaction (Jeon et al. 2004;
ns ns ns
Adhesivity 0.446 0.458 0.244 0.878ns Park et al. 2004).
*p-value significant at 10% probability; ns: not significant at 10% However, this trend was not observed for the 15 cm
probability scale. No representative difference of interaction effect was
indicated between ODP-15 and CP-15. The fact that

123
2822 J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824

(a)
30 30 30 30

Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
25 Brown color 25 Cocoa aroma 25 Sweetness 25 Residual bitterness
20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
25 Cocoa flavor 25 Spreadability 25 Adesivity 25 Hardness
20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges

(b)
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
25 Brown color 25 Cocoa aroma 25 Sweetness 25 Residual bitterness
20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
25 Cocoa flavor 25 Spreadability 25 Adesivity 25 Hardness
20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges

Fig. 2 Frequency distribution for sensory scores assigned to the descriptive attributes of chocolates for ODP method (a) ODP-9; (b) ODP-15

(a)
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
25 Brown color 25 Cocoa aroma 25 Sweetness 25 Residual bitterness
20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)

25 Cocoa flavor 25 Spreadability 25 Adesivity 25 Hardness

20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges

(b)
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

25 Brown color 25 Cocoa aroma 25 Sweetness 25 Residual bitterness

20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges
30 30 30 30
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)

25 Cocoa flavor 25 Spreadability 25 Adesivity 25 Hardness

20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ranges Ranges Ranges Ranges

Fig. 3 Frequency distribution for sensory scores assigned to the descriptive attributes of chocolates for CP method (a) CP-9; (b) CP-15

123
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824
evaluators have a lower tendency to invert scores on a
larger scale, may have contributed to a smaller interaction
on the 15 cm scale so that it was not influenced by the
method used. Therefore, the fact that the CP, when com-
pared to the ODP, presented greater interaction on the 9 cm
scale and did not present an expressive difference on the
15 cm scale (with lower interaction effect), contributed to a
more pronounced influence of scale on interaction in this
method.
The discriminative capacity was improved when sam-
ples were evaluated on the 15 cm scale. According to
Pecore et al. (2015), on scales with a limited extent the
evaluators are unable to express small differences in
intensity between samples. In the present study, when
assessing the samples on the 15 cm scale, the evaluators
had more available space to indicate the intensity of the
attributes, which may have given them a greater chance of
adequately representing the ‘‘spacing’’ between the differ-
ent samples, so that they could express small differences.
Furthermore, a reduction of the discriminative capacity
observed on the 9 cm scale may also be related to the
greater effect of interaction between samples and evalua-
tors, since the variation introduced into the system, caused
by the fact that evaluators attribute scores to the samples in
a particular way, may imply a reduction in the discrimi-
nating power of the samples (Park et al. 2007).
For repeatability of the results, a trend was observed that
was slightly greater for the 9 cm scale. The larger the scale
the greater the number of possible locations that the eval-
uators can use to represent the attribute intensity, making it
difficult to memorize the markings in the different repeti-
tions. According to Meilgaard et al. (2006), on larger scales
the evaluators have more difficulty remembering the
position indicated in the different assessments, which may
have contributed to diminishing the ability of the evalua-
tors to assign similar scores in different repetitions of the
same sample.
The influence of scale length on repeatability was
slightly more pronounced in the ODP. Because there was
no training in the ODP, the panel that used the 15 cm scale
may have felt the effect of scale size when compared with
the panel that assessed the 9 cm scale. In the CP, the fact
that the panels were trained for using the scales permitted
them to adapt their use, which may have contributed to
balance responses between the panels that performed
evaluations on the 9 and 15 cm scales, resulting in small
differences in repeatability.
When studying the usage frequency of scores on the
unstructured scale, for all techniques it was observed that
the evaluators tended to use the full length of the scale to
express the intensity of the attributes. This observation may
be a consequence of the ‘‘response range equalizing bias’’
theory, which states that for a given set of stimuli,
2823
evaluators tend to distribute their responses across the
entire extension of the scale, independent of its length
(Poulton 1973). However, some ranges were used more
frequently than others. The evaluators who used the 15 cm
scale for both methods tended to use the extremes of the
scale less when compared to the panels that used the 9 cm
scale, showing that they tended to distribute their rating
more evenly along the length of the scale. The reduced
utilization of the extreme ranges on the larger scale may
reflect a lesser need of the evaluators to use its entire length
to represent differences in intensity between the samples,
i.e., to express the ‘‘correct spacing’’ between them. On the
other hand, greater utilization of the extremes on the 9 cm
scale may have shown the need for more space so that the
evaluators could separate all samples, thus more frequently
positioning extreme chocolate samples at the ends of the
scale.
Conclusion
The studied variables of descriptive sensory evaluation
were influenced by the scale length. This influence had a
similar behavior in the two methods, differing in sensitivity
regarding sample 9 evaluator interaction which effect was
more pronounced in the CP method. For the conditions
studied, the 15 cm line scale is more advantageous because
it provides greater discrimination and decreased the inter-
action effect. Despite of repeatability tended to be better on
the 9 cm scale, this variable was the least influenced by
scale length.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the
National Research Council—CNPq for their financial support.
References
Barbin D (1993) Componentes de variância: teoria e aplicações, 2nd
edn. FEALQ, Piracicaba
Blancher G, Chollet S, Kesteloot R et al (2007) French and
Vietnamese: how do they describe texture characteristics of the
same food? A case study with jellies. Food Qual Prefer
18:560–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.07.006
Brannan RG (2009) Effect of grape seed extract on descriptive
sensory analysis of ground chicken during refrigerated storage.
Meat Sci 81:589–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.10.
014
Carlin A, Kempthorne O, Gordon J (1956) Some aspects of numerical
scoring in subjective evaluation of foods. J Food Sci
21:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1956.tb16921.
x
Castilhos MB, Del Bianchi V, Gómez-Alonso S et al (2020) Sensory
descriptive and comprehensive GC-MS as suitable tools to
characterize the effects of alternative winemaking procedures on
wine aroma. Part II: BRS Rúbea and BRS Cora. Food Chem
311:126025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126025
123
2824
Dairou V, Sieffermann J-M (2002) A comparison of 14 jams
characterized by conventional profile and a quick original
method, the flash profile. J Food Sci 67:826–834. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x
Damasio M, Costell E (1991) Análisis sensorial descriptivo: gen-
eración de descriptores y selección de catadores. Rev Agroquı́-
mica Tecnol Aliment 31:165–178
Gamba MM, Lima Filho T, Della Lucia SM et al (2020) Performance
of different scales in the hedonic threshold methodology. J Sens
Stud:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12592
Ginés R, Valdimarsdottir T, Sveinsdottir K, Thorarensen H (2004)
Effects of rearing temperature and strain on sensory character-
istics, texture, colour and fat of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus).
Food Qual Prefer 15:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-
3293(03)00056-9
Hong JH, Duncan SE, Dietrich AM (2010) Effect of copper speciation
at different pH on temporal sensory attributes of copper. Food
Qual Prefer 21:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.
2009.08.010
Jeon S-Y, O’Mahony M, Kim K (2004) A comparison of category and
line scales under various experimental protocols. J Sens Stud
19:49–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2004.tb00135.x
Jeyaprakash S, Heffernan J, Driscoll R, Frank D (2020) Impact of
drying technologies on tomato flavor composition and sensory
quality. LWT—Food Sci Technol 120:108888. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108888
Lawless H, Malone G (1986) The discriminative efficiency of
common scaling methods. J Sens Stud 1:85–98. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745-459X.1986.tb00160.x
Lee CA, Vickers ZM (2010) Discrimination among astringent
samples is affected by choice of palate cleanser. Food Qual
Prefer 21:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.003
Meilgaard M, Civille G, Carr B (2006) Sensory evaluation tech-
niques, 4th edn. CRC Press
Mielby LH, Hopfer H, Jensen S et al (2014) Comparison of
descriptive analysis, projective mapping and sorting performed
on pictures of fruit and vegetable mixes. Food Qual Prefer
35:86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.006
Minim VPR, Silva RCSN (2016) Análise Sensorial Descritiva, 1st
edn. Editora UFV, Viçosa-MG
Minim VPR, Silva MA, Cecchi HM (2000) Perfil sensorial de ovos de
Páscoa. Ciência e Tecnol Aliment 20:47–50. https://doi.org/10.
1590/S0101-20612000000100010
Murray J, Delahunty C, Baxter I (2001) Descriptive sensory analysis:
past, present and future. Food Res Int 34:461–471. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00070-9
Park J-Y, Jeon S-Y, O’Mahony M, Kim K-O (2004) Induction of
scaling errors. J Sens Stud 19:261–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1745-459X.2004.tb00147.x
Park JY, O’Mahony M, Kim KO (2007) ‘‘Different-stimulus’’ scaling
errors; effects of scale length. Food Qual Prefer 18:362–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.03.021
Pecore S, Kamerud J, Holschuh N (2015) Ranked-scaling: a new
descriptive panel approach for rating small differences when
using anchored intensity scales. Food Qual Prefer 40:376–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.002
123
J Food Sci Technol (July 2021) 58(7):2815–2824
Picouet PA, Gou P, Pruneri V et al (2019) Implementation of a quality
by design approach in the potato chips frying process. J Food
Eng 260:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.04.013
Poulton E (1973) Unwanted range effects from using within-subject
experimental designs. Psychol Bull 80:113–121. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0034731
Purdy JM, Armstrong G, McIlveen H (2002) Three scaling methods
for consumer rating of salt intensity. J Sens Stud 17:263–274.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2002.tb00347.x
Shand P, Hawrysh Z, Hardin R, Jeremiah L (1985) Descriptive
sensory assessment of beef steaks by category scaling, line
scaling and magnitude estimation. J Food Sci 50:495–500.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1985.tb13435.x
Sharma M, Kristo E, Corredig M, Duizer L (2017) Effect of
hydrocolloid type on texture of pureed carrots: rheological and
sensory measures. Food Hydrocoll 63:478–487. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.040
Silva MP, Damásio M (1994) Análise sensorial descritiva. Fundação
Tropical de Pesquisas e Tecnologia ‘‘André Tosello’’, Campinas
Silva RCSN, Minim VPR, Simiqueli AA et al (2012) Optimized
descriptive profile: a rapid methodology for sensory description.
Food Qual Prefer 24:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodq
ual.2011.10.014
Silva AN, Silva RCSN, Ferreira MAM et al (2013a) Performance of
hedonic scales in sensory acceptability of strawberry yogurt.
Food Qual Prefer 30:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.
2013.04.001
Silva RCSN, Minim VPR, Carneiro JD et al (2013b) Quantitative
sensory description using the optimized descriptive profile:
comparison with conventional and alternative methods for
evaluation of chocolate. Food Qual Prefer 30:169–179. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.011
Silva RCSN, Minim VPR, Silva AN et al (2014a) Optimized
descriptive profile: how many judges are necessary? Food Qual
Prefer 36:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.011
Silva RCSN, Minim VPR, Silva AN et al (2014b) Validation of
optimized descriptive profile (ODP) technique: accuracy, preci-
sion and robustness. Food Res Int 66:445–453. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodres.2014.10.015
Simiqueli AA, Minim VPR, Silva RCSN et al (2015) How many
assessors are necessary for the optimized descriptive profile
when associated with training? Food Qual Prefer 44:62–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.019
Stone H, Sidel J (2004) Sensory evaluation practices, 3rd edn.
Academic Press, New York
Varela P, Ares G (2012) Sensory profiling, the blurred line between
sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for
product characterization. Food Res Int 48:893–908. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037
Wszelaki AL, Delwiche JF, Walker SD et al (2005) Consumer liking
and descriptive analysis of six varieties of organically grown
edamame-type soybean. Food Qual Prefer 16:651–658. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.02.001
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.