Veyveris 1

Abstract
The five senses play a very important role in consumer selection of certain food and beverage products. By developing and utilizing different sensory tests, conclusions can be made about the overall acceptance and preference of a product and adjustments can be made so that they are advantageous to both manufacturers and consumers alike. In this study, sensory tests were employed in order to grasp their understanding and to determine how effective they are. The testing took place in a Beginning Food Science class at San Diego State University, with a group of 62 panelists, all students enrolled in the class. The different sensory tests applied were of the following: beverage/color association, paired comparison, triangle test, ranking, duo trio, scoring or rating, and evaluation of food products using descriptive terms. The color/beverage perception test indicated that the bolder and brighter the color the less it was perceived as sour and the more natural looking beverages were preferred the most. The paired comparison and triangle tests saw a 100% selection in discernible differences between two products of apple juice with different amounts of citric acid added. The ranking test also showed an accurate display of the intensity of sourness in different apple juice samples mixed with different amounts of citric acid. However, the scoring/rating test, the duo trio test, and the evaluation of food products exhibited inconsistent results that could not be used for any accurate data analysis. The overall results indicated that when administered correctly, sensory tests could provide relevant and accurate data analysis to benefit the market economy as a whole.

Veyveris 2

Introduction
Sensory testing has long been used in helping researchers and manufacturers discover more about what influences consumers preference of food. It is clear that more than just taste affect what consumers purchase; odor, sight, touch, and even sound play a vital role in helping determine preference. In fact, Drake states in his Sensory Analysis of Dairy Foods that sensory quality is the ultimate measure of the quality of a product and the success it will have. He goes on to say that with the selection of the appropriate test, data analysis, and test conditions, results could be achieved that are very much reproducible and relevant (Drake 2007). There are two different types of tests that can be used to evaluate a food product. The first type is analytical testing, which is ultimately used to detect the differences among certain foods. Examples of these tests would be discriminative and descriptive tests. The other type is affective testing, which instead of evaluating the differences between food items, evaluate individual preferences of certain food items. Examples of these tests include hedonic and personal preference tests (Brown 2011). Researchers use both of these types of tests in order to try to understand the science behind why consumers choose the products they do. Manufacturers then recruit those researchers in order to assist them in designing products that appeal to most, if not all of the consumers senses. When conducting sensory evaluations it is common to evaluate the specific sensory characteristics of appearance, flavor, and texture. These are the most common characteristics that are associated with food. Appearance includes size, color, shape, and the condition of the outside surface of the food (Brown 2011). Flavor, commonly mistaken for taste, is a combination of aroma and taste, as well as mouth feel sensations, which are described as the specific sensation detected by the lining of the mouth when food is placed inside (Brown, Lab manual 2011).

Veyveris 3 Lastly, texture can be described as how the physical characteristics of food affect the tactile senses (touch, pressure, and movement). Evaluation of texture is not only influenced by the structure of the food but also how the food resists to the applied forces of items such as teeth, tongue, utensils, and roof of mouth (Brown lab manual 2011). Because appearance is such a key role in influencing preference, many tests can be established to evaluate how certain appearances affect the choices of consumers. One way to test this is to do a color perception test. Samples of food or beverages of different colors are laid out for participants to view and then answer questions about the characteristics and preferences of the food based solely on only observing the product with their eyes. In a study on the effect of color on perceived flavor intensity and acceptance, Chan tested the visual perceptions of chocolate pudding and chicken bouillon, modifying the different formations with more of an ingredient
found in the commercial products. Participants were then asked to visually observe the samples and answer questions based on the different characteristics of the products (Chan and others 1997). This test

is often times used to determine which type of colors are visually pleasing to customers and which colors of different food products are customers more likely to eat. Choices are made every day based on appearance, whether it be consciously or unconsciously, and a lot of the time what is chosen to eat is based on how it looks. Manufacturers can use this knowledge to manipulate their products by adding and subtracting certain components in order to achieve the desired color that they believe will be more appealing to consumers. One of the more popular categories of sensory tests used is the analytical or effective tests. In these tests participants are asked to sample certain products and then evaluate based on differences, either if the samples differ or how they differ. Normally these tests rely on a trained panel to document a products sensory characteristics (Brown 2011). Two of the most common

Veyveris 4 difference tests are the duo trio and the triangle test. The duo trio test is used to compare two products to a standard. Panels test the standard and then are given two samples of a product and are asked to determine which sample tastes different from the standard given. On the other hand for the triangle test, panels are given three coded samples at the same time and are asked to identify the odd sample. For instance, in a study that was done to observe whether modified atmosphere packing of ready serve pizza to prolong the shelf life has an effect on the quality of the pizza, a triangle test was used with fresh baked pizza as the one sample that differed from the other ready serve pizzas. The objective was to determine if the modified atmosphere packing caused a taste alteration in the pizza (Singh and others 2011). Other difference tests also include a paired comparison test and a scoring or ranking test, and some studies have shown that these tests are more sensitive to difference detection than the duo trio and triangle tests (Jiamyanguen and others 2002). For the paired comparison test two coded samples are presented to participants simultaneously and then participants are asked to select the one that has more of a certain characteristic, such as sweetness, thickness, or bitterness. For example, in a study comparing organic and conventional red wines, participants were asked to sample the wines one at a time and then determine which one they believed to have the strongest aroma, the one to have the bitterest taste, and the one that had a deeper color. Once all the data was collected, the lab technicians were then able to analyze how organic and conventional wines differ in relation to the senses (Martin and others 2011). The scoring or ranking tests can be set up multiple ways. One of the ways is to provide panelists with more than two samples of a certain product and then ask them to rank the samples according to the intensity of different characteristics, like color, odor, flavor, etc. Usually, the panelists are given a scale to rank their samples by such as 1-5 or 1-10 with the sample with the greatest intensity ranked number one and the sample with the least

Veyveris 5 intensity ranked with the highest number. In a study done in order to determine childrens likes and wants, children were presented with different snacks and an interviewer asked the children to taste
all the snacks and point to the one he or she liked best. This snack was removed from the table after which the procedure was repeated with the remaining snacks until all were placed in a rank-order from most to least liked (Liem and others 2009). Normally, products are ranked on multiple characteristics in

order to get the best overall data on each product. Another way to set up the scoring or ranking test is to give out multiple samples and then to label one as the reference sample and give it an arbitrary score of something in the middle of the scale. For example if a scale of 1 to 7 is used then the reference sample would be given a score of 4. Panelists would then be asked to taste the other samples and to rate them relative to the sample with the score of 3,2,or 1 being that it has more of a certain characteristic than the reference and the scores of 5,6,or 7 being that it has less of a certain characteristic than the reference. Selection of the appropriate difference test can be determined by taking into consideration the specific objective of the test, the testing conditions, the number of samples, the amount of sample, etc. These tests are simple to establish and administer and the results can be easily determined (Drake 2007). Another category of the subjective sensory testing is the affective tests, which evaluate based on panelists individual preference rather than the differences of certain products given. These types of tests are usually given to untrained consumers because they are based solely on the opinions of participants (Brown 2011). In other words, unlike the analytical tests, there is no right or wrong answers. These types of tests are used not only to detail certain flavors of a food or beverage but also certain textures. Normally different types of food products are given and panelists are asked to evaluate them based on characteristics such as appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, consistency, and mouth feel (the five senses). When evaluating these characteristics,

Veyveris 6 panelists are either asked to come up with descriptive terms on their own or they are provided with a list of words and are asked to choose the one that they feel most accurately describes the characteristic of the product they are being asked to judge. In a study done in Phoenix, Arizona that compared the sensory qualities of geographically paired organic and conventional red wines, participants were asked to sample the wines and then write down the word they believed best characterized the smell, taste, touch, and sight of the different wines. Once all the data was collected, it was grouped together and compiled into a chart (Martin and others 2011). These tests help to determine how a product is liked overall.

Veyveris 7

Methods
Panelists The participants in this experiment were untrained students in a Nutrition 205 Beginning Food Science class at San Diego State University. There were exactly 62 students and all were in the Food and Nutrition major. Thirteen percent, or 8 students, were male, while eighty-seven percent (54 students) were female. The age of the panelists ranged from the youngest being 19 to the oldest being older than 45, with the mean being 22.7. 59 of the panelists were undergraduate students and only 3 were graduate students. 3 of the students smoked and 59 were non-smokers. The majority of the students (90 percent or 56 students) did not have any allergies, while 10 percent (6 students) did have allergies to various foods such as gluten, avocado, grapefruit, and milk products. Environment This sensory evaluation lab took place in the Nutrition 205 Beginning Food Science lab classroom on the second floor of the West Commons building at San Diego State University. The participants were divided into groups of three, with either 20 or 21 members per group, and each group had two and a half hours in the classroom to complete the evaluation. During the evaluation there was one Instructor and one Lab Technician present at all times. Participants sat in closely assembled rows with 3 to 4 students per row. The classroom had adequate lighting and one main desk up front that samples were provided on. Color Association/ Perception of Beverages For the color association/perception of beverages part of the evaluation the lab technician placed

Veyveris 8 5 medium sized clear beakers about six inches apart at the front of the room on the main desk in clear view for all of the participants. Each beaker was filled half way full with a different colored liquid. The colors of the liquids were light yellow (mountain dairy lemonade), dark yellow (xtremo citrico vibrante Gatorade), chartreuse (Lemon Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Green Squall Powerade), dark chartreuse (Green Squall Powerade), and emerald green (Watermelon Gatorade). The beakers were arranged from lightest to darkest with the lightest yellow being furthest left for the panelists and the emerald green being the furthest to the right. Before the evaluation began participants were asked if they drank apple juice and could only answer with a yes or a no. The lab instructor would then ask the students to raise their hand if they answered yes and then count the hands and have the lab assistant record the numbers on a chart on the computer and then do the same for the number of nos. Participants were then asked to rank the different colored beverages based on visual appearance only for six different parameters. They used a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the one that has the most and 1 with the least to rank the six different parameters. The first parameter was sweetness, followed by sourness, then artificiality, next naturalness, then preference, and lastly how much they disliked the beverage. Next they were asked at what temperature would they drink the different beverages and they were given choices of hot, warm, tepid, or cold. Lastly, they were asked if they would drink each beverage and could only answer yes or no. Once all the ranking and questions were finished the lab instructor and her assistant would ask the participants, one parameter at a time, how they ranked the different beverages. For example, for sweetness the lab instructor would ask who ranked the light yellow beverage with a 5 for most sweet and whichever participant did would simply raise their hand and the number of hands would be counted and then recorded by the assistant on a chart on the computer. This would continue until every parameter ranking or answer was

Veyveris 9 recorded. Paired Comparison Test The lab technician placed two similar looking beverages with different assigned sample codes in two medium sized beakers at the front of the room. One of the beakers contained pure apple juice and the other contained the same apple juice mixed with 1% citric acid. Each was labeled with a random code and only the lab technician knew which mixture was which. The first panelist in each row then went up to the front of the room and poured about .5 oz each or just enough liquid to cover the bottom of the cup into 2 oz sample cups for their entire row. Once they had one of each mixture sample for their row they handed the two coded samples to each person and made sure that their fellow students knew which code belonged to which sample. Once every participant had their two samples they were asked to sample both products one at a time, with a drink of water in between samples, and determine which sample they thought had the greatest intensity of sourness. They were then asked to write their opinion down using the words lesser and greater with greater being the one with the most sour intensity. During the sampling time participants were asked not to make any faces and not to look at any other participants so as not to influence others. Once everyone finished the lab instructor then asked participants, using the sample code numbers, to raise their hands depending on whether they answered lesser or greater for each sample and then hands were counted and recorded by the lab assistant on the computer. Triangle Test For the triangle test the lab technician placed three differently coded medium sized beakers at the front of the room. Two of the beakers consisted of the same type of apple juice with 0% citric acid, while the third consisted of apple juice mixed with 1% citric acid. Only the lab technician

Veyveris 10 knew which coded beaker contained the added citric acid along with the apple juice. The first participant from each row went to the front table and proceeded to pour about enough of the beverage to completely cover the bottom of a 2 oz sample cup and they did this so that there were enough sample cups for each person in their row to have one of each of the coded beverages. They then walked back and handed one at a time each person in their row the three beverage samples making sure they were fully aware of which codes belonged to which beverage. Once everyone had their three samples, participants took turns trying each of the beverages, making sure to rinse with water after each beverage. They then were asked to determine which of the three beverages they felt tasted different from the others. The lab instructor then listed the different codes of the beverages and asked students to raise their hands when they thought that specific sample code was the one that tasted different. The lab instructor tallied hands and had the assistant record that information on the computer. Ranking The lab technician placed five differently coded beakers full of apple juice at the front of the room. Each beaker contained apple juice with varying amounts of citric acid added. One of the beakers contained no citric acid added, another had 1% citric acid, a third had 2.5% citric acid, a fourth had 5% citric acid and the fifth had 10% citric acid added. Only the lab technician knew which coded beaker contained which amount of citric acid. The first person from every row went to the front table and poured each of the five different beverages into 2 oz sample cups, just enough liquid to cover the bottom of the cup, for all the students in their row. They walked back and individually handed the students in their row their five sample cups, making sure to specify which code belonged to which sample. Once everyone had all five of their samples they were asked to taste them one at a time, rinsing with water after each taste. They were then asked to

Veyveris 11 rank each of the coded samples in descending order of intensity of sourness with number one being the most sour and number five being the least sour. They recorded their answers in a table in their books. Next they were asked to rank those same five samples based on preference with one being the most preferred and five being the least preferred. Participants were asked not to make any faces or noises while trying samples and to refrain from looking at any of their fellow students. Once everyone finished the instructor started with the number one ranking and went through each of the five samples asking students to raise their hands when they gave that sample a rank of number one for intensity. Answers were recorded on the computer. The instructor continued until all five ranks of intensity were recorded and then the same maneuver was used for the ranking of preference starting with the number one ranking for most preferred. Duo Trio For this test the lab technician set up ahead of time three plates of cookies. Two of the plates contained the Nabisco brand vanilla wafers while the third plate contained the Smart and Final store brand of vanilla wafers. Each plate was then giving a different code and only the lab technician knew which plate was which brand of cookie. Then the lab technician labeled one of the plates with the Nabisco vanilla wafers the standard. The lab instructor and the lab technician then went around the room and handed out a cookie from the standard plate to each participant. They told them to try the cookie and that this was the standard to which they would be comparing the other two cookies. Once participants tried the standard cookie the lab technician and the lab instructor then handed out the remaining two coded cookies making sure participants knew which code belonged to which cookie. They then asked the participants to taste the remaining two cookies, rinsing with water after each cookie, and record which cookie they believed tasted different from the standard. The lab instructor then asked students to raise their

Veyveris 12 hand when she read aloud the sample code they felt differed from the standard. Number of hands were tallied and recorded on the computer. The lab instructor then asked participants what they felt the major difference was between the standard and the one that was different giving them the three choices of less vanilla, dryness, or crunchiness. The number of responses for each descriptive term was then recorded. Scoring/Rating Test For this test the lab technician poured three different apple juice mixtures into three different labeled beakers. One of the beakers contained apple juice which 1% citric acid added, another contained apple juice with 2.5% citric acid added (this was referred to as the reference sample) and the third beaker contained apple juice with 5% citric acid added. Only the lab technician knew which beaker contained which mixture. The first student in every row went up to the front of the class and poured just enough of the three beverages to cover the bottom of a 2 oz sample cup into different sample cups for their entire row. They then handed out the three different samples to their entire row making sure each person knew which code belonged to which sample. Once everyone had their samples they were asked to try the reference one first and they were told on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being the sourest and 7 being the least sour that that sample was given an arbitrary score of 4. They were then asked to taste the other two samples and rate the sour intensity relative to the reference, again with 1 being more sour and 7 being less sour than the reference. Once all the participants were finished the lab instructor started with one of the samples and asked students to raise their hand when they heard the rank number they assigned that sample. Responses were recorded on a chart on the computer and the same thing was done with the second coded sample.

Veyveris 13 Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms For this test the lab technician placed four various food products into different 2 oz sample cups for the entire class ahead of time. The four food products used were goldfish, almonds, marshmallows, and raisins. Only two of each food product were placed in the sample cups. The lab instructor and technician then went around the room and handed out each one of the food products to all the participants. Once everyone had their four different food samples they were asked to take one at a time and evaluate it based on different parameters. The parameters used were appearance flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouthful. For each food item a chart of different terms for each parameter was given for participants to choose their descriptive term from. Participants evaluated the parameters for all four food items and were asked not to make any faces or noises and to refrain from looking at the other participants during this evaluation. Once everyone finished the instructor started with one of the food items and one of the parameters and asked that when the class was read the list of descriptive terms under each parameter that they raise their hand when they heard the one term they chose. Hands were tallied for each descriptive term and recorded on the computer. This continued until descriptive terms for the appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouthful for the almond, marshmallow, goldfish, and raisin were all tallied and recorded on the computer. Statistical Analysis In each lab section results were tallied for each sensory test by a show of hands and were recorded individually in an excel graph by the lab assistant as told to by the lab instructor. The data for all three lab sections was then compiled and assembled in an excel chart and distributed to all students who participated in the sensory testing lab. The second section of students had one

Veyveris 14 student who was gluten-intolerant and therefore could not participate in some of the tests, which may have thrown off some of the numbers for the data analysis.

Veyveris 15

Results
Color Association/ Perception of Beverages All 62 students participated in the entire color association/perception of beverages test. When asked which beverage they believed to be the sweetest just based on appearance, 18% said the light yellow, 28% said the dark yellow, 8% said chartreuse, 19% said dark chartreuse, and 26% said emerald. Graph 1: Comparison Of Different Colored Beverages Based On Appearance For The Parameter Of Most Sweet By Students In A Nutr 205 Class
Light yellow 26% 19% 8% Emerald 19% 28% Dark yellow Chartreuse Dark Chartruese

When asked which beverage participants believed to be the sourest, 47% said the light yellow, 21% said the dark yellow, 24% said the chartreuse, 5% said the dark chartreuse, and 3% said the emerald. Graph 2: Comparison Of Different Colored Beverages Based On Appearance For The Parameter Of Sourest By Nutr 205 Students
5% 3% Light yellow 26% 44% Dark yellow Chartreuse 22% Dark Chartreuse Emerald

Veyveris 16 When asked which beverage participants believed to be the most artificial, 2% said the light yellow, 5% said the dark yellow, 8% said the chartreuse, 19% said the dark chartreuse, and 66% said the emerald.

Graph 3: Comparison of Different Colored Beverages Based on Appearance for Most Artificial Looking By Students in Nutr 205
2% 5% 8% Light yellow Dark yellow 19% 66% Chartreuse Dark chartreuse Emerald

When asked which beverage participants believed to be the most natural, 90% said the light yellow, 0% said the dark yellow, 6% said the chartreuse, 2% said the dark chartreuse, and 2% said the emerald.

Graph 4: Comparison of Different Colored Beverages Based on Appearance for Most Natural Looking by Nutr205 Students
6% 2% 2% Light yellow Chartreuse 90% Dark chartreuse Emerald

Veyveris 17

When asked which beverage participants preferred the most, 68% said the light yellow, 5% said the dark yellow, 18% said the chartreuse, 6% said the dark chartreuse, and 3% said the emerald.

Graph 5: Comparison of Different Colored Beverages Based on Appearance for Preference by Nutr205 Students
6% 3% Light yellow 18% 5% 68% Dark yellow Chartreuse Dark chartreuse Emerald

When asked which beverage participants disliked the most, 2% said the light yellow, 18% said the dark yellow, 8% said the chartreuse, 10% said the dark chartreuse, and 63% said the emerald.

Graph 6: Comparison of Different Colored Beverages Based on Appearance for Dislike by Nutr205 Students
2% Light yellow 18% 8% 62% 10% Dark yellow Chartreuse Dark chartreuse Emerald

Veyveris 18 When asked at which temperature they would prefer to drink the beverages (cold, tepid, warm, or hot), 58 said they would drink the light yellow cold, 59 said they would drink the dark yellow cold, 58 would drink the chartreuse cold, 60 would drink the dark chartreuse cold, and 57 would drink the emerald cold. 2 would drink the light yellow tepid, 3 would drink the dark yellow tepid, 4 the chartreuse tepid, 2 the dark chartreuse tepid, and 2 the emerald tepid. 1 person said they would drink the light yellow warm, 0 persons said they would drink the dark yellow, chartreuse or dark chartreuse warm, and 1 person said they would drink the emerald warm. 1 person said they would drink the light yellow hot, 0 persons said they would drink the dark yellow, chartreuse, or dark chartreuse hot, and 2 people said they would drink the emerald hot. Table 1: Number of Student Participants in Nutr205 Who Would Drink Each Different Colored Beverage at the Following Temperatures of Cold, Tepid, Warm, and Hot Light Yellow Cold Tepid Warm Hot 58 2 1 1 Dark Yellow 59 3 0 0 Chartreuse 58 4 0 0 Dark Chartreuse 60 2 0 0 Emerald 57 2 1 2

Veyveris 19 When asked if they would drink any of these beverages, 55 people said yes they would drink the light yellow, 31 would drink the dark yellow, 44 would drink the chartreuse, 30 would drink the dark chartreuse, and 16 would drink the emerald. On the other hand, 7 people said they would not drink the light yellow, 31 said they would not drink the dark yellow, 18 said they would not drink the chartreuse, 32 said they would not drink the dark chartreuse, and 46 said they would not drink the emerald beverage.

Graph 7: Number of Students in Nutr205 Who Would Drink Each Colored Beverage
Nukber of Panelists Number of Panelists 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 44 31 30 16

Graph 8: Number of Students in Nutr205 Who Would Not Drink Each Colored Beverage
50 40 30 20 10 0 46 31 18 7 32

Beverages

Beverages

Paired Comparison Test For the paired comparison test 62 panelists participated and 100% of the participants were able to identify that the sample with 1% citric acid was the sourer of the two samples being tested. Triangle Test For the triangle test, 62 students participated and 100% of the participants were able to correctly identify that the sample with 1% citric acid was the sample that differed from the other two provided that contained 0% citric acid.

Veyveris 20 Ranking All 62 students participated in this test. For the ranking test 97% (60) of the participants ranked the solution with 10% citric acid as the most sour and 3% (2) ranked the solution with 5% citric acid as the most sour. 94% (58) of the participants listed the solution with 0% citric acid as the solution that was the least sour, 4% ( 3) ranked the solution with 1% citric acid as the least sour, and 2% (1) ranked the solution with 5% citric acid as the least sour. 68% (42) of the participants ranked the solution with 0% citric acid as the most preferred, while 32% (20) preferred the solution with 1% citric acid the most. 94% (58) ranked the solution with 10% citric acid as the least preferred and 6% ranked the solution with 5% (4) citric acid as the least preferred. Table 2: Subjective Ranking of Five Apple Juice Solutions with Varying Amounts of Citric Acid Added for the Parameters of Most Sour, Least Sour, Most Preferred, and Least Preferred as Rated by Nutr205 Students 10% Citric Acid 60 0 0 58 5% Citric Acid 2 2 0 4 2.5 % Citric Acid 0 0 0 0 1% Citric Acid 0 3 20 0 0% Citric Acid 0 58 42 0

Ranked Most Sour Ranked Least Sour Ranked Most Preferred Ranked Least Preferred

Veyveris 21 Duo Trio For the duo trio test 90% of the participants believed the Smart and Final brand Vanilla Wafers differed from the standard vanilla wafer given. However, 10% of the participants believed the Nabisco Vanilla Wafers were the ones that differed from the standard. When asked why they thought the certain sample differed from the standard 24% believed they were more dry, 31% believed they were more crunchy, and 45% believed there was less of a vanilla flavor. Table 3: Number of Panelists in Three Sections of Nutr205 Comparing Two Samples of Vanilla Wafers to a Standard Sample to Determine Which Sample Differs From the Standard Section 1 Smart and Final Vanilla Wafers Nabisco Vanilla Wafers 20 1 Section 2 19 1 Section 3 17 4 TOTAL 56 6 % 90 10

Scoring For the scoring test 60% of the 62 participants gave the solution with 5% citric a rank of 1, 34% gave it a ranking of 2, 3% gave it a 3, 2% a 4, 0% a 5, 2% a 6, and 0% a score of 7 relative to the sample. For the solution with 1% citric acid, 2% gave it a rank of 1 relative to the sample, 3% a rank of 2, 0% a 3, 2% a 4, 15% a 5, 69% a 6, and 10% a score of a 7. Table 4: Subjective Rating of Two Samples of Apple Juice With 1% Citric Acid and 5% Citric Acid Relative to a Sample with 2.5% Citric Acid as Rated by Nutr205 Students Rank 1 Solution with 1% citric acid Solution with 5% citric acid 2% 60% Rank 2 3% 34% Rank 3 0% 3% Rank 4 2% 2% Rank 5 15% 0% Rank 6 69% 2% Rank 7 10% 0%

Veyveris 22 Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms One student did not participate in the evaluation of the goldfish due to a gluten intolerance allergy. For the texture description portion when asked to evaluate the goldfish for the appearance, the top three answers were dry (32%), golden brown (24%) and puffy (16%). For flavor the top three answers were salty (89%), sharp (6%) and pasty (2%). For texture 65% said crisp, 23% said crunchy and 5% said flaky. For aroma 39% said flavor, 24% said burnt and 19% said nothing. For consistency 61% said brittle, 26% said cheesy, and 5% said thin and lastly for mouth feel the top answers were crunchy (48%), crisp (40%), and sticky (3%). When asked to evaluate the raisin for appearance the top three answers were sunken (35%), dry (23%) and dark (11%). For flavor the top three answers were sweet (53%), fruity (40%) and bitter (3%). For texture 24% said gummy/chewy, 21% said rubbery and 8% said lumpy. For aroma 53% said fruity, 35% said sweet and 5% said nothing. For consistency 58% said chewy, 27% said gummy and 11% said rubbery. For mouth feel 39% said sticky, 21% said smooth and 18% said gritty. When evaluating the almond for appearance 32% said light brown, 21% said golden brown and 19% said dry. For the flavor 81% said nutty, 11% said flat and 3% said bitter. For the texture 34% said hard, 21% said firm and 18% said crunchy. For the aroma 90% said none, 5% said burnt and 3% said flavory. For the consistency 65% said thick, 29% said chewy and 3% said rubbery. And for the mouth feel 63% said crunchy, 19% said gritty and10% said smooth. When asked to evaluate the marshmallow for appearance 90% said puffy, 5% said smooth and 3% said rounded. For the flavor 74% said sweet, 15% said floury and 11% said pasty. For the texture 27% said springy, 26% said gummy and 15% said velvety. For the aroma 95% said sweet and 5% said nothing. For the consistency 60% said gummy, 26% said chewy and 12% said rubbery. Finally for the mouth feel the majority said smooth (58%), slimy (19%) and sticky (11%).

Veyveris 23 Table 5: Evaluation of Appearance, Flavor, Texture. Aroma, Consistency, and Mouth Feel, with Subjective Selection of Most Accurate Descriptive Term for Goldfish, Raisins, Almonds, and Marshmallows by Nutr205 Students Goldfish Dry (32%) Golden Brown (24%) Puffy (16%) Salty (89%) Sharp (2%) Pasty (2%) Crisp (65%) Crunchy (23%) Flaky (5%) Flavory (39%) Burnt (24%) Nothing (19%) Brittle (61%) Cheezy (26%) Thin (5%) Crunchy (48%) Crisp (40%) Sticky (3%) Raisin Sunken (35%) Dry (23%) Dark (11%) Almond Light Brown (32%) Golden Brown (21%) Dry (19%) Nutty (81%) Flat (11%) Bitter (3%) Hard (34%) Firm (21%) Crunchy (18%) None (90%) Burnt (5%) Flavory (3%) Thick (65%) Chewy (29%) Rubbery (3%) Crunchy (63%) Gritty (19%) Smooth (10%) Marshmallow Puffy (90%) Smooth (5%) Rounded (3%)

Appearance

Flavor

Texture

Aroma

Consistency

Mouth feel

Sweet (53%) Fruity (40%) Bitter (3%) Gummy/Chewy (24%) Rubbery (21%) Lumpy (8%) Fruity (53%) Sweet (35%) Nothing (5%) Chewy (58%) Gummy (27%) Rubbery (11%) Sticky (39%) Smooth (21%) Gritty (18%)

Sweet (74%) Floury (15%) Pasty (11%) Springy (27%) Gummy (26%) Velvety (15%) Sweet (95%) Nothing (5%) Gummy (60%) Chewy (26%) Rubbery (12%) Smooth (58%) Slimy (19%) Sticky (11%)

Veyveris 24

Discussion
The results of these varying sensory tests that were administered indicate that sensory testing is a very reliable tool manufacturers can use when designing a new product. Not only can the results be thoroughly analyzed and applied to certain food products but they can help scientists and researchers figure out the reasoning behind consumer selections. Color Association/Perception of Beverages In this study conducted at San Diego State University in the Food and Nutrition lab, the results indicated that appearance and color of a food product do indeed play a role in consumer selection. When asked about color and how panelists believed that related to the sweetness of the product, the results did not provide a definite answer, with each colored beverage being chosen a relative equal amount. However, on the other hand, with the majority choosing light yellow and dark yellow for perceived sourness of the beverage, it can be concluded that sourness is associated more with yellow colors than with green. When asked about artificiality and naturalness the darker/ bolder the color the more it was seen as being artificial and the lighter the color the more it was seen as being natural. These results make sense because most people have a general understanding that the more colorful a beverage is the more likely it is to have artificial colors added. This thinking clearly carried over when students were then asked which beverage they preferred the most, which beverages they disliked the most and would they drink the beverage. With the greater part of the participants preferring the light yellow and disliking the emerald and most of the students saying they would drink the light yellow and would not drink the emerald beverage it can be concluded that opinions of artificiality affected whether a beverage would be chosen for consumption. When students were asked at which temperature,

Veyveris 25 hot, warm, tepid, or cold, they would drink these beverages the majority would drink all of the different beverages cold. From these results it can be concluded that the more natural a beverage looks in terms of color the more likely it will be purchased for consumption. However, in Chans study, results were inconclusive that color affects perception of flavor intensity and acceptance of foods. In this study both young adults and the elderly participated and while for a high percentage of the young adults it was found that color of the chocolate puddings and the chicken bouillon did in fact influence perceived flavor intensity and acceptance, the elderly adults did not see these same observations when participating in the same sensory tests (Chan and others 1997). Some explanations as to why this lab saw a positive result for a correlation between color and flavor intensity and overall acceptance, while other studies had inconclusive results, could be that when students were asked to observe these different colored beverages they could easily see the reactions and faces of their fellow students which could have easily influenced their answers. Also, in Chans study it was mainly the elderly adults that affected the results of the study and since in this test the mean age for the panelists was only 22.7, the age range of the panelists was very limited. Paired Comparison The results of the paired comparison test conducted in this laboratory insinuate that this test is very effective overall. All of the panelists were able to correctly identity that the sample of apple juice with 1% citric acid was more sour than the sample of apple juice containing 0% citric acid. These results indicate that the simplicity of comparing two samples to each other can be very effective in determining the intensity of certain characteristic between two samples. However, if the characteristic being tested is not as obvious then the results of this test would probably not be

Veyveris 26 as accurate. The paired comparison test, while not really that beneficial by itself, would best be utilized in unison with a consumer/panelist evaluation. In Martins test comparing organic and conventional red wines, he also found a 100% accuracy when using the paired comparison test. When asked which sample of wine was the most bitter tasting, all of the panelists correctly identified the sample that had been manipulated purposely. Martin also had panelists evaluate the two samples being tested based on preference. By grouping these two tests together, Martin was able to determine how bitterness affected the consumption of wine (Martin and others 2011). Triangle Test The results of the triangle test conducted in the lab indicate that when a third sample is added to a comparison test, the results are the same. In this lab, all of the participants were able to correctly identify the sample with the sourest intensity (1% citric acid) when paired against two other samples (0% citric acid). However, if instead samples were too close in a specified characteristic then the accuracy of results would be more difficult to achieve or if panelists were able to see and hear the other participants when selecting the differed sample then results could be tainted. It is best to separate panelists into different, silent areas so that panelists are not influenced by any outside forces when making their decisions. Triangle tests can even be used to help choose the panelists who will take part in a sensory test evaluation. In Singhs lab report, testing the affects of modified atmospheric packaging to prolong shelf life on the textural and sensory quality of the pizza, a triangle test was used to select a panel of seven who could detect off flavors in pizzas. A selection of participants were chosen and those who could correctly identify the sample of pizza that had an off flavoring were

Veyveris 27 assigned to an elite panel that would be used to test certain samples of pizza further along in the test (Singh and others 2011). Triangle tests can also be used simultaneously with sensory evaluations to help understand how a certain characteristic difference in a product determines the likeability and acceptance of that product. Ranking The results for the ranking test conducted were very consistent throughout with only a few discrepancies. Only a very small percentage ranked the solution with 5% citric acid as the sourest, while the majority of the participants correctly identified the solution with 10% citric acid as being the sourest with a rank of 1. This discrepancy can most likely be attributed to the fact that participants were asked to try each of the five samples only once one after the other with only a small amount of water provided to cleanse the palate. Also, almost all of these samples contained amounts of citric acid that could have tired the taste buds and resulting in a veered view of sourness. The same situation occurred with almost all of the students ranking the sample with 0% citric acid with a 5 for least sour, only a couple ranking the 1% solution as least sour, and an anomaly of one ranking the 5% solution as least sour. Most likely the one participant who chose the 5% citric acid solution as the least sour may have mixed up their samples when tasting or had their taste buds over-exhausted from all the citric acid. Another explanation could have been that a laboratory error could have occurred since fellow participants were used to pour and hand out these samples. In the future, samples should be poured out in advance by a trained lab technician into clearly labeled cups for all of the participants and then distributed one at a time with plenty of water and crackers provided in between to rest taste buds.

Veyveris 28 However, the results for ranking of most and least preferred showed more consistent results of what would be expected with relationship of sourness and preference. The majority of the participants most preferred the solutions with 0% citric acid and 1% citric and disliked the solutions with 5% citric acid and 10% citric acid the most. According to these results it can be concluded that the more sour a beverage the least likely it will have consumer acceptance. In a study done by Liem, where children were asked to rank different snack products based on preference, the results were similar. Liem found that the more the product had a more bland or bold flavor, rather than sour flavor, the higher the children ranked that product (Liem and others 2009). Therefore, ranking tests can be utilized efficiently to relate characteristics to preference, however, if further testing of a product wanted to be pursued, ranking tests could be administered with sensory/perception evaluations in order to determine the extent of difference between products. Duo Trio This test resulted in a high number of students correctly selecting the Smart and Final brand vanilla wafers as the sample that differed from the reference sample provided and a select few who incorrectly choose the Nabisco brand vanilla wafers as being the ones that differed from the reference sample. Some explanations for these abnormalities could be that participants could have been influenced by the other students around them since they were all within vision and hearing range. Also, because only one sample of each wafer was provided it could have been difficult to even remember what the reference samples tasted like. It could have been difficult for some to concentrate on what was being asked because conversations between the lab technician and the lab instructor were taking place and a constant dripping from the faucets and the sinks

Veyveris 29 could be heard the entire time. In order to correct these errors it would be more efficient if students were separated from each other so that they could not hear or see one another when undergoing these tests and the room should have been as silent as possible with limited talking and background noise. This duo trio test can be used to determine the different components between two products, however because no evaluation is provided to ask just what those differences might be it would be more efficient in determining differences to combine this duo trio test with more of an affective test such as a consumer survey or personal preference test. Scoring When conducting the scoring test among participants the results yielded were fairly consistent with just a few abnormalities. When asked to rank different samples of apple juice in relation to a sample with 2.5% citric acid that was given an arbitrary score of 4, the majority gave the sample with 1% citric acid a score of 5 or higher in comparison to the reference. The other participants gave it a score of either 1 or 2, meaning they believed that sample was sourer than the reference. This error could be related to an error in labeling of the samples provided or in how the samples were handed out to participants. The sample with 5% citric acid had almost all the panelists give it a score of 4 or lower in relation to the reference. The remaining panelists gave it a score of 6; this discrepancy can also be explained by a labeling error or perhaps the overabundance of citric acid being sampled affecting the taste buds of a participant. In order to improve future tests to eliminate these errors, participants should not be provided with so many samples containing citric acid over a small window of two hours. Also, samples should be more clearly labeled when distributed so that there is no doubt as to which sample is

Veyveris 30 which. The requirements being asked of participants to score or rank two samples in relation to a reference were at times confusing and should be rewritten so that it was clear to everyone just what was being asked. Scoring tests are useful in determining how other products compare to a reference in terms of a certain characteristic but do not provide any information on overall preference or acceptance of those products and therefore would be more effective if paired with a test assessing overall approval of a product. Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms In order to compare organic and conventional red wines from the southwestern United States, Martin used an affective sensory survey to evaluate the smell, taste, and appearance of the different types of organic and conventional wines. Panelists were asked to come up with one word answers they believed best described these three characteristics for each sample of wine. After the data and been collected and analyzed the results indicated that both the organic and conventional red wines received the same amount of both positive and negative connotations for each of the characteristics been assessed. This type of testing helped determine if consumers were buying organic wines based on the taste or based on the fact that they were organic and perceived by most to be of a better quality. Martins results indicated that there was no great difference between organic and conventional red wines sold in the south west (Martin and others 2011). In this test panelists were asked to evaluate four different food products; a raisin, a marshmallow, a goldfish, and an almond, based on the different characteristics of appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel. A list of descriptive terms for each of the different

Veyveris 31 characteristics was provided and panelists were asked to choose the one term they felt best described that attribute. The results of the descriptive term analysis showed a variation of terms selected for each characteristic of each product. Some products had a higher percentage of a word chosen for the specific characteristic with the majority selecting puffy for appearance of the marshmallow, none for the aroma of the almond, salty for the flavor of the goldfish, and sweet for the aroma of the marshmallow. However, the other varying results are not conclusive enough to form an accurate analysis of the products. Some potential biases that may have caused the inconsistencies in this test may be that fact that panelists could see the reactions of their fellow students while tasting and evaluating each of the four samples, resulting in a subconscious influence of their selection of terms. Another bias could be the fact that most if not all the panelists already knew what each of the four common products being evaluated looked, tasted and felt like and could have had preconceived opinions about what they felt was the best term to describe them and therefore hastily rushed through and did not take the time to effectively evaluate all of the different characteristics. Descriptive analysis tests are useful when evaluating the multiple characteristics of a product and can be used to understand consumer perception of certain attributes that a product displays. However, these types of tests do not reveal consumer preference or dislike and therefore should be paired with product acceptance evaluations.

Veyveris 32 References Brown, Amy. 2011. Understand Food Principles and Preparation. 4th Edition. California: Wadsworth. pp 23-28. Brown, Amy. 2011. Understanding Food Principles and Preparation: Lab Manual. 4th Edition. California: Wadsworth. Pp 1-8. Chan, Mabel M, Kane-Martenelli, Catherine. 1997. The effect of color on perceived flavor intensity and acceptance of foods by young adults and elderly adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97 (6): 657-659. Drake, MA. 2007. Sensory analysis of dairy foods. Journal of Dairy Science 90(11): 4925-4937. Jiamyangyuen S, Delwiche JF, Harper WJ. 2002. The impact of wood ice cream sticks origin on the aroma of exposed ice cream mixes. Journal of Dairy Science 85(2): 355-359. Liem, DG, Zandstra, LH. 2009. Children's liking and wanting of snack products: Influence of shape and flavor. Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 6(38):14601479. Martin, Keith R; Rasmussen, Kristen K. 2011. Comparison of sensory qualities of geographically paired organic and conventional red wines from the southwestern us with differing total polyphenol concentrations: a randomized pilot study. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 2(10): 1150-1159. Singh, Preeti; Wani, Ali Abas; Goyal, Gyanendra Kumar. 2011. Prolonging the shelf life of ready-to-serve pizza through modified atmosphere packaging: effect on textural and sensory quality. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 2(7): 785-792.