International Journal of Food Properties

ISSN: 1094-2912 (Print) 1532-2386 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljfp20

Sensory evaluation of kokum drinks by fuzzy logic

and a simple method

Chandan Kumar Sahu & Ravi-Kumar Kadeppagari

To cite this article: Chandan Kumar Sahu & Ravi-Kumar Kadeppagari (2017) Sensory evaluation
of kokum drinks by fuzzy logic and a simple method, International Journal of Food Properties,
20:11, 2608-2615, DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2016.1247097

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1247097

© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Accepted author version posted online: 06

Nov 2016.
Published online: 02 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 574

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljfp20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES
2017, VOL. 20, NO. 11, 2608–2615
https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1247097

Sensory evaluation of kokum drinks by fuzzy logic and a simple

method
Chandan Kumar Sahua and Ravi-Kumar Kadeppagarib
a
Food Technology Division, Centre for Emerging Technologies, Jain University, Jain Global Campus, Jakkasandra,
Karnataka, India; bCentre for Incubation, Innovation, Research and Consultancy (CIIRC), Jyothy Institute of
Technology Campus, Thathaguni, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Kokum drink formulations were evaluated for their acceptability by fuzzy Received 9 June 2016
logic and a new method based on simple calculations. Both the methods Accepted 7 October 2016
showed that the sample containing sugar, cumin, cardamom, and roasted
KEYWORDS
salt at 2, 0.2, 0.2, and 1 g/100 ml juice, respectively, was more acceptable. Kokum; Fuzzy logic; Quality
Quality attributes in general showed under ‘satisfactory’ in both the meth- attribute; Sugar; Similarity
ods. When similarity values for the quality attributes of kokum samples 1 to value
4 were calculated, the results from both the methods were in agreement
with each other. The new method is advantageous since it is simple and
gave results similar to that of fuzzy logic.

Introduction
Kokum (Garcinia indica Choisy) is an important fruit, and it is widely consumed in the form
of juice, syrup, and squash. Trees of Garcinia indica are indigenous to the western ghats of
India, and kokum fruits have culinary and pharmaceutical uses. The ripened kokum fruits are
either dark purple or red tinged yellow in colour, and juice preparations are purple or blackish
red in colour. It has acceptable flavour and sweet acidic or sour in taste. Kokum fruit has been
used as an acidulant in Indian food preparations. Kokum drinks have been consumed for the
improvement of digestion and for cooling the body temperatures. Kokum was used in the
treatment of dysentery, piles, heart complaints, tumours, acidity problems, and liver
disorders.[1–3]
Kokum contains anthocyanins, kokum butter, hydroxy citric acid, and garcinol.
Anthocyanins are known to show antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-carcinogenic activ-
ities. Hydroxy citric acid inhibits fat and cholesterol synthesis; reduces body weight; and
lowers lipid accumulation. Kokum butter or oil is a nutritive, softening, astringent, demulcent,
and emollient agent. It is used in the preparation of ointments, face creams, and lipsticks.
Garcinol shows antioxidant and antimicrobial properties.[4,5] Kokum drinks gained importance
due to their nutritional and health promoting effects. Kokum is most widely marketed as juice.
However, there are no reported studies for improving the quality attributes of kokum drinks,
and no sensory studies were carried out to evaluate their acceptability. In the present study, an
attempt was made to improve the quality attributes of kokum juice. Different formulations
were subjected to sensory evaluation; and the data obtained was analysed by fuzzy logic, and
another new method for the acceptability of the samples. The new method was based on the
simple mathematical calculations.

CONTACT Ravi-Kumar Kadeppagari ravikadeps@gmail.com Centre for Incubation, Innovation, Research and Consultancy
(CIIRC), Jyothy Institute of Technology Campus, Thathaguni, Off Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, 560082.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 2609

Materials and methods

Preparation of kokum samples
Fresh and ripened kokum fruits were cleaned, cut into two halves, and seeds were removed. Kokum
halves along with sugar (10 g/100 g fruit) were placed in to the transparent glass jars, and jars were
kept under sunlight for 8–10 days. Juice was diffused out of fruit due to the concentrated sugar mass,
and over a period of time, syrup was formed. This syrup was filtered; and roasted salt (5–8 g/100 ml),
cumin seed powder (1 g/100 ml), and cardamom powder (1 g/100 ml) were added to the syrup; and
stored at 8°C in the 500 ml glass bottles until further use. Syrup was diluted (1:4) with water;, and 25
ml of the diluted sample was given to the panellists for sensory evaluation. Syrup was allowed to
reach room temperature before the dilution. Sample 1 was obtained after diluting the syrup that
contains only sugar, and there was no other additive. Sample 2, 3, and 4 were obtained after diluting
the syrups containing 8, 6.5, and 5 g of roasted salt per 100 ml syrup, respectively. In addition, these
three syrups contain cumin seed powder and cardamom powder (1 g/100 ml).

Selection of panellists and sensory evaluation of kokum samples

Panellists were selected from among the students and staff members of Centre for Emerging
Technologies, and School of Engineering and Technology, Jain University, Jakkasandra after screening
two times based on 60% success in the triangle test.[6] One hundred non-smoking and healthy panellists
were selected after screening 162 members. They were aged between 19 and 62 yrs; and males and
females were 63 and 47, respectively, in number. They were made to understand the different quality
attributes chosen for the sensory evaluation, the score chart, and way of scoring.[7,8] The evaluation was
conducted as per the regulations given by the American Society for Testing and Materials.[8] Four kokum
samples were given to the panellists; they were advised to sniff three times in order to judge about the
aroma and then to taste and swallow the sample. They were advised to rinse their mouth with water
before evaluating the consecutive sample.[7] Samples were allowed to reach the room temperature before
being given for the testing. Panellists were asked to tick against the fuzzy scale factor of their choice for
each of the quality attribute of each of the sample after the sensory evaluation. They were also asked to
tick their preference of quality attributes of kokum in general. Both the responses were collected on a five
point linguistic scale, i.e., ‘not satisfactory’, ‘fair’, ‘medium’, ‘good’, and ‘excellent’ for the kokum samples
whereas ‘not at all important’, ‘somewhat important’, ‘important’, ‘highly important’, and ‘extremely
important’ for the general quality attributes of the kokum product.

Analysis of sensory data by fuzzy logic

The responses of the panellists were analysed by using fuzzy logic method.[9–14] The important
steps involved were: (i) overall calculation of sensory scores of kokum drinks in the triplets form;
(ii) membership function estimation on standard fuzzy scale; (iii) overall membership function
computation on standard fuzzy scale; (iv) similarity value estimation and ranking of kokum
samples; and (v) ranking of quality attributes of kokum samples in general.

Analysis of sensory data by a method based on simple mathematical calculations

This method of sensory evaluation of kokum drinks involved the following steps which are based on the
simple mathematical calculations (SMC): (i) calculation of average of score for each sample under different
quality attributes based on the preference of panellists; (ii) calculation of average of scores for quality
attributes in general; (iii) calculation of weightage for quality attributes of samples in general; (iv) calculation
of overall scores for samples; and (v) finding the acceptability of samples or importance of quality attributes
by using the calculated scores and the chart that converts 5-point linguistic scale to 6-point scale.
2610 C. K. SAHU AND R.-K. KADEPPAGARI

Average of score for each sample under different quality attributes was calculated based on the
preference of the panellists on 5-point sensory scale, and numerical value given to the each factor on
5-point sensory scale (0 = ‘not satisfactory’, 2.5 = ‘fair’, 5 = ‘medium’, 7.5 = ‘good’, and 10 =
‘excellent’). For sample ‘X’ under quality attribute ‘Y’, if ‘b’ number of panellists given ‘not
satisfactory, ‘c’ number of panellists given ‘fair’, ‘d’ number of panellists given ‘medium’, ‘e’ number
of panellists given ‘good’, and ‘f’ number of panellists given ‘excellent’, then average score for sample
‘X’ under ‘Y’ was calculated as below:
½ðb x 0Þ þ ðc x 2:5Þ þ ðd x 5Þ þ ðe x 7:5Þ þ ðf x 10Þ = ðb þ c þ d þ e þ f Þ
The above equation can be written as below:
SX Y ¼ ½ðb x 0Þ þ ðc x 2:5Þ þ ðd x 5Þ þ ðe x 7:5Þ þ ðf x 10Þ = T (1)
where, S, X, Y, and T represent sample, sample number, quality attribute, and total number of
judges, respectively.
For calculating average scores for quality attributes in general, preference of the panellists for each
attribute on 5-point sensory scale, and numerical value given to each factor on 5-point sensory scale
(0 = ‘not at all important’, 2.5 = ‘somewhat important’, 5 = ‘important’, 7.5 = ‘highly important’, and
10 = ‘extremely important’) were used. For quality attribute ‘Y’, if ‘b’ number of panellists given ‘not
at all important’, ‘c’ number of panellists given ‘somewhat important’, ‘d’ number of panellists given
‘important’, ‘e’ number of panellists given ‘highly important’, and ‘f’ number of panellists given
‘extremely important’, then average score for the quality attribute ‘Y’ was calculated by using the
following equation;
QY ¼ ½ðb x 0Þ þ ðc x 2:5Þ þ ðd x 5Þ þ ðe x 7:5Þ þ ðf x 10Þ = T (2)
where Q, Y, and T represent quality, quality attribute, and total number of judges respectively.
Weightage for quality attributes of samples in general was calculated based on the values obtained
from Eq. (2) for each quality attribute. If, four quality attributes (‘Y1’, ‘Y2’, ‘Y3’, and ‘Y4’) have been
studied, then weightage for the quality attribute ‘Y1’ was calculated by using the following equation
Y1W ¼ QY1 = ðQY1 þ QY2 þ QY3 þ QY4 Þ (3)
where Q and W represent quality and weightage of quality attribute, respectively.
Overall scores for samples was calculated by using the average values obtained from the Eq. (1)
and the weightage values obtained from the Eq. (3). Overall score for the sample X was calculated by
using the following equation:
SOX ¼ ðSX Y1 :Y1W Þ þ ðSX Y2 :Y2W Þ þ ðSX Y3 :Y3W Þ þ ðSX Y4 :Y4W Þ (4)
where SO represents overall score of sample.
The scores obtained from the equations 1, 2, and 4 were used to find out the acceptability of the
sample or the importance of the quality attribute from Table 1 that converts 5-point linguistic scale
to 6-point scale. The scores obtained from Eq. (1), (2), and (4) represent the similarity values for the
quality attributes of the given samples, the similarity values for the quality attributes of the samples
in general, and the similarity values for the overall ranking of the samples, respectively.

Table 1. Converting 5-point linguistic scale to 6-point scale.

Score (s) Importance/Acceptability
0–1 Not at all necessary/Not satisfactory
1<s ≤ 3 Somewhat necessary/Fair
3<s ≤ 5 Necessary/Satisfactory
5<s ≤ 7 Important/Good
7<s ≤ 9 Highly important/Very good
9<s ≤ 10 Extremely important/Excellent
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 2611

Results and discussion

The kokum syrup was added with sugar (10%), roasted salt (5–8 %), cumin seed powder (1%), and
cardamom powder (1%) to improve the sensory attributes of the kokum drinks. Sample 2, 3, and 4
were obtained after diluting (1: 4 with water) the kokum syrups containing 8, 6.5, and 5% of roasted
salt, respectively. These three samples also contain cumin seed powder and cardamom powder at 1%
before the dilution. Final concentrations of sugar, cumin, and cardamom powder were 2, 0.2, and
0.2%, respectively, in all the samples whereas roasted salt was at 0, 1.6, 1.3, and 1% in the sample 1, 2,
3, and 4, respectively. Sample 1 obtained after diluting the syrup that contains no additives except
sugar. Cumin acts not only as flavouring agent but also as natural preservative due to its anti-
microbial property. It is a good source of iron and strengthens the immune system.[15] It was widely
used in the ayurvedic medicine for treating dyspepsia, diarrhoea, and jaundice.[16] Another additive,
cardamom, was widely used in the dishes for its aroma and flavour.[15] It was used as anti-infective
agent and for treating digestive disorders.[16] Hence, addition of cumin and cardamom to the kokum
formulations will improve the aroma and health benefits of the drinks. In addition to the preserva-
tion, salt was used in the food materials for improving the taste and texture.[17] Hence, different
concentrations of roasted salt were included in the formulations in addition to cumin and carda-
mom. Evaluation of the sensory properties of the food samples was commonly practised after
changing the ingredients[18,19] in order to check their acceptability. Here, responses from 100
panellists were obtained and consolidated to get the summary of sensory scores for the quality
attributes of kokum samples (Table 2) and that of quality attributes of kokum juice samples in
general (Table 3).

Table 2. Summary of the sensory scores for the quality attributes of kokum samples.
Sensory quality attributes and Sensory scale factors on 5-point scale
kokum juice samples Not satisfactory Fair Medium Good Excellent
Aroma
Sample 1 24 21 25 14 16
Sample 2 22 23 28 17 10
Sample 3 28 22 25 18 7
Sample 4 16 20 22 20 22
Colour
Sample 1 20 23 23 17 17
Sample 2 19 20 24 18 19
Sample 3 22 22 26 20 10
Sample 4 15 23 24 24 14
Mouth feel
Sample 1 22 20 26 15 17
Sample 2 20 19 26 19 16
Sample 3 23 22 22 17 16
Sample 4 18 16 27 22 17
Taste
Sample 1 12 20 28 22 18
Sample 2 21 21 30 22 6
Sample 3 19 18 29 20 14
Sample 4 12 21 23 24 20

Table 3. Summary of the sensory scores for the quality attributes of kokum samples in general.
Quality attributes of kokum Sensory scale factors on 5-point scale
juice in general Not at all important Somewhat important Important Highly important Extremely important
Aroma 16 14 26 30 14
Color 16 17 24 28 15
Mouth feel 13 20 24 27 16
Taste 17 15 20 22 26
2612 C. K. SAHU AND R.-K. KADEPPAGARI

When similarity values for the overall ranking of the kokum samples were calculated by using
fuzzy logic method (Table 4), the similarity values for the sample 1 under ‘not satisfactory’, ‘fair’,
‘satisfactory’, ‘good’, ‘very good’, and ‘excellent’ were 0.04759, 0.34566, 0.708092, 0.653649, 0.264081,
and 0.024206, respectively. The highest similarity value, 0.708092, was showed under ‘satisfactory’
category. Similarly, the overall quality of samples 2 and 3 were showed under ‘satisfactory’, whereas
for sample 4, it was showed under ‘good’. Among 1, 2, and 3 which were ‘satisfactory’, 3 (0.756863)
was better than 2 (0.733362), and 2 was better than 1 (0.708092). After comparing the similarity
values of all the samples, the overall ranking is sample 4 (good) > sample 3 (satisfactory) > sample 2
(satisfactory) > sample 1 (satisfactory).
When same data was analysed by using SMC method (Eq. (4)) described in the ‘materials
and methods’, the sample 4 was showed under the category ‘good’, whereas all other samples
were showed under ‘satisfactory’ (Table 5). These results are similar to those obtained by using
fuzzy logic. However, the ranking among the samples that showed under ‘satisfactory’ grade
(sample 1 > sample 2 > sample 3) differs from that obtained by using fuzzy logic (sample 3 >
sample 2 > sample 1). This should not become important because the difference among the
similarity values of the samples under ‘satisfactory’ is not significant in both the methods. In
both the methods, the sample 4 containing the aroma improving additives (cumin and
cardamom), and roasted salt was accepted over the sample 1 that does not have the above
additives. These results suggest that addition of the above additives led to the better accept-
ability of the kokum drink. Similarly, the addition of vanilla flavour and maltodextrin
improved the acceptability of dahi[20] and mango[21] drinks, respectively. The fuzzy approach
was also successfully applied to the coffee[22] and tea[23] samples. When ranking of the quality
attributes of kokum juice samples in general was done by adopting fuzzy logic (Table 6), the
following order was obtained.
Taste (important) > Aroma (important) > Mouth feel (important) > Colour (important)
When the ranking was done by using SMC method (Eq. (2)), all the attributes were showed under
‘important’ (Table 7), which is similar to that obtained by using fuzzy logic. However, the order
becomes taste > mouth feel > aroma > colour which is slightly different from the one obtained by

Table 4. Similarity values of the kokum samples for the overall ranking (fuzzy logic). Values in bold indicate the highest similarity
value for the respective sample.
Sensory scale factor Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Not satisfactory, F1 0.04759 0.062436 0.070662 0.03054
Fair, F2 0.34566 0.386747 0.417814 0.281525
Satisfactory, F3 0.708092 0.733362 0.756863 0.6405
Good, F4 0.653649 0.62689 0.60222 0.685611
Very good, F5 0.264081 0.233447 0.1976 0.34884
Excellent, F6 0.024206 0.017913 0.009782 0.05821

Table 5. Similarity values of the kokum samples for the overall ranking (SMC).
Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Scale factor Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Good
Score 4.7837 4.563242 4.387864 5.21717

Table 6. Ranking of the quality attributes of the kokum samples in general (fuzzy logic).
Scale factor Colour Aroma Taste Mouth feel
Not at all necessary F1 0 0 0 0
Somewhat necessary F2 0.0833 0.07619 0.043373 0.07816
Necessary F3 0.7238 0.6952 0.5662 0.6965
Important F4 0.8655 0.8830 0.9099 0.8819
Highly important F5 0.1929 0.2186 0.26212 0.21662
Extremely important F6 0 0 0 0
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 2613

Table 7. Ranking of the quality attributes of the kokum samples in general (SMC).
Attribute Colour Aroma Taste Mouth feel
Scale factor Important Important Important Important
Score 5.225 5.3 5.625 5.325

using fuzzy logic. When all the attributes or samples showed under the same category, the SMC
method should not be used for the ranking. However, this method is simple and quickly gives the
category under which a given sample or attribute will show.
Similarity values for the quality attributes of kokum samples 1 to 4 were calculated by using fuzzy
logic (Table 8) and SMC method (Table 9; Eq. (1)). According to the fuzzy logic with respect to the
sample 1, the highest similarity values for ‘color’, ‘aroma’, and ‘mouth feel’ were showed under the
category ‘satisfactory’; whereas for ‘taste’ it was showed under ‘good’. Same results were obtained in
the SMC method for the sample 1. The results from fuzzy logic, and SMC method were in agreement
with each other even in the case of samples 2, and 4. In the case of sample 3, the results from both
the methods were in agreement with each other except for the ‘taste’. Here with the minor difference
of 0.0043, the highest similarity value (0.6745) for ‘taste’ was showed under ‘good’ instead of
‘satisfactory’ (0.6702) according to the fuzzy logic method. Hence, this result does not contradict
much with that of SMC method. There will be no statistical ambiguity in the case of SMC method,

Table 8. Similarity values for the quality attributes of the kokum juice samples (fuzzy logic). Values in bold are highest similarity
values for the particular attribute of the particular sample.
Quality attribute
Sample Sensory scale Colour Aroma Taste Mouth feel
Sample 1 Not satisfactory 0.061312 0.069166 0.023375 0.0624
fair 0.3859 0.4206 0.2387 0.3856
satisfactory 0.7361 0.7623 0.5851 0.73488
Good 0.6291 0.6000 0.7077 0.6298
Very good 0.2299 0.190682 0.4195 0.2302
Excellent 0.01664 0.00794 0.09299 0.0166
Sample 2 Not satisfactory 0.04487 0.08644 0.006625 0.05295
fair 0.3371 0.4514 0.40074 0.3520
satisfactory 0.7000 0.7636 0.7433 0.70499
Good 0.6557 0.5635 0.6159 0.6470
Very good 0.2717 0.16641 0.2196 0.2647
Excellent 0.0262 0.0041 0.01492 0.0250
Sample 3 Not satisfactory 0.08339 0.1104 0.03224 0.06778
fair 0.4450 0.5276 0.2971 0.4039
satisfactory 0.7627 0.7904 0.6702 0.7473
Good 0.5717 0.4944 0.6745 0.6160
Very good 0.1726 0.1121 0.3 0.2118
Excellent 0.0052 0 0.03232 0.01258
Sample 4 Not satisfactory 0.0510 0.02963 0.020474 0.0364
fair 0.3372 0.2776 0.2217 0.2992
satisfactory 0.6854 0.6385 0.5627 0.6569
Good 0.6499 0.6881 0.7104 0.6684
Very good 0.2826 0.3535 0.4407 0.3156
Excellent 0.0299 0.060689 0.1043 0.0433

Table 9. Similarity values for the quality attributes of the kokum juice samples (SMC).
Colour Aroma Taste Mouth feel
Sample Scale factor Score Scale factor Score Scale factor Score Scale factor Score
Sample1 Satisfactory 4.7 Satisfactory 4.42 Good 5.35 Satisfactory 4.62
Sample2 Satisfactory 4.95 Satisfactory 4.25 Satisfactory 4.27 Satisfactory 4.8
Sample3 Satisfactory 4.35 Satisfactory 3.85 Satisfactory 4.8 Satisfactory 4.52
Sample4 Satisfactory 4.97 Good 5.3 Good 5.475 Good 5.1
2614 C. K. SAHU AND R.-K. KADEPPAGARI

since attribute category will be decided based on the one similarity value. However, in fuzzy logic the
attribute category will be decided based on more than one similarity value, and the highest one will
be taken while categorising the attribute. If there is no significant difference between the similarity
values, there will be ambiguity over the statistical significance of the difference between the similarity
values in the case of fuzzy logic method. In the SMC method, there is a score range based on which
one can estimate how much improvement has to be done to meet the desired category for a sample.
However, this is not possible with the fuzzy logic. Finally, both the methods found that sample 4 is
better than other samples including the one that does not have any additives (sample 1). Both the
methods are equally useful with their own benefits. Fuzzy approach will be easy to adopt when there
are less number of samples, whereas SMC method will be advantageous when more number of
samples to be analysed. However, while ranking of the samples or attributes that showed under same
category, the SMC method should not be used.

Conclusion
Kokum drinks were formulated to improve their sensory attributes. Cumin and cardamom were
used during the formulation since they were reported to add very good aroma. Roasted salt was used
in the formulations since it was shown to improve the taste and texture. Kokum formulations were
successfully evaluated by using fuzzy logic and a method based on the simple mathematical
calculations. Both the methods showed that the sample containing the cumin and cardamom
powders (0.2%) and roasted salt (1%) has better acceptability than the one that does not have the
above additives. Sample that has cumin and cardamom will also provide the health benefits due to
the medicinal properties of the additives. In both the methods, quality attributes in general were
showed under ‘satisfactory’, and similarity values for the quality attributes of all the kokum samples
were more or less same. Both the methods were beneficial in their own way with fuzzy logic being
easier while handling less number of samples, and SMC method will be advantageous during the
analysis of more number of samples.

Acknowledgements
Authors thank Dr. Chenraj Roychand, President, Jain University Trust, and Dr. Krishna Venkatesh, Director and
Dean, Centre for Emerging Technologies, Jain University for the research facilities. Authors declare that there is no
conflict of interest.

References
1. Krishnamurthy, N.; Lewis, Y.S.; Ravindranatha, B. Chemical Constitution of Kokum Fruit – Rind. Journal of
Food Science and Technology 1982, 19, 97–100.
2. Bhaskaran, S.; Mehta, S. Stabilized anthocyanin extract from Garciniaindica. US Patent No: 2006/0230983A1.
3. Patil, S.; Shirol, A.M.; Kattimani, K.N. Variability Studies in Physico-chemical Parameters in kokum
(GarciniaindicaChoicy) for Syrup Preparation. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science 2009, 22, 244–245.
4. Rukachaisirikul, V.; Naklue, W.; Sukpondma, Y.; Phongpaichit, S. An Antibacterial Biphenyl Derivative from
Garciniabancana MIQ. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin (Tokyo) 2005, 53, 342–343.
5. Swami, S. B.; Thakor, N.J.; Patil, S.C. Kokum (Garciniaindica) and Its Many Functional Components as Related
to the Human Health: A Review. Journal of Food Research and Technology 2014, 2, 130–142.
6. ASTM E1885-04. Standard Test Method for Sensory Analysis-Triangle Test. Pennsylvania: American Society
for Testing and Materials 2011.
7. ASTM STP-758. Guidelines for the selection and training of sensory panel members. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials 1981.
8. ASTM MNL-26. Sensory Testing Methods (2nd ed.); Pennsylvania: American.
9. Society for Testing and Materials 1996. Jaya, S.; Das, H. Sensory Evaluation of Mango Drinks using Fuzzy
Logic. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18, 163–176.
10. Rao, P. K.; Das, H. Fuzzy Logic Based Optimization of Ingredients for Production of Mango Bar and Its
Properties. Journal of Food Science and Technology 2003, 40, 576–581.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES 2615

11. Sinija, V.R.; Mishra, H.N. Fuzzy Analysis of Sensory Data for Quality Evaluation and Ranking of Instant Green
Tea Powder and Granules. Food Bioprocess Technology 2011, 4, 408–416.
12. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Majumdar.G.C.; Goswami, T.K.; Mishra, H.N. Fuzzy Logic (Similarity analysis) Approach
for Sensory Evaluation of Chhanapodo. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2003, 53, 204–210.
13. Zadeh, L. Fuzzy Sets. Information Control 1965, 8, 338–353.
14. Davidson, V. Fuzzy Control of Food Processes, In The Computerized Control Systems in the Food Industry;
Mittal, G., Ed.; NewYork, Basel, Hong Kong, 1996; 179–205.
15. Maheshwari, R.K.; Pandey, M.K.; Chauhan, A.K.; Mohan, L. Spice up for Scrumptious Tang, Cologne and
Wellbeing. International Journal of Pharmacy and Natural Medicines 2014, 2, 120–130.
16. Balasasirekha, R. Spices-The Spice of Life. European Journal of Food Science and Technology 2014, 2, 29–40.
17. Henney, J.E.; Taylor, C.L.; Boon, C.S. Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States; National
Academies Press (US): Washington, 2010.
18. Pestorić, M.; Šimurina, O.; Filipčev, B.; Jambrec, D.; Belović, M.; Mišan, A.; Nedeljković, N. Relationship of
Physicochemical Characteristics with Sensory Profile of Cookies Enriched with Medicinal Herbs. International
Journal of Food Properties 2015, 18, 2699–2712.
19. Lee-Fong, S.; Yen-Ming, W. Effect of Juice Concentration on Storage Stability, Betacyanin Degradation Kinetics
and Sensory Acceptance of Red-fleshed Dragon Fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) Juice. International Journal of
Food Properties 2016. doi:10.1080/10942912.2016.1172086.
20. Routray, W.; Mishra, H.N. Sensory Evaluation of Different Drinks Formulated from dahi (Indian yogurt)
Powder using Fuzzy Logic. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 2012, 36, 1–10.
21. Jaya, S.; Das, H. Sensory Evaluation of Mango Drinks using Fuzzy Logic. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18,
163–176.
22. Lazim, M.A.; Suriani, M. Sensory Evaluation of the Coffee Products Using Fuzzy Approach. International
Journal of Mathematical, Computational, Physical, Electrical and Computer Engineering 2009, 3, 133–136.
23. Sinija, V.R.; Mishra, H.N. Fuzzy Analysis of Sensory Data for Quality Evaluation and Ranking of Instant Green
Tea Powder and Granules. Food Bioprocess Technology 2011, 4, 408–416.