Using Common Sense

A Sensory Evaluation Report

Kerry Linne

Nutrition 205 Section 1

March 21, 2016

Abstract

A total of sixty-nine nutrition students from San Diego State University were tested
though a variety of sensory tests. Sensory evaluation testing is utilized in the food industry
for the improvement of products based on consumer preferences. Sensory evaluations
measured consumers perceived senses of sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing compared
to products appearance, flavor, texture and aroma. Tests conducted were tested in the
following order: color association, descriptive terms, paired comparison, triangle test,
ranking test, duo-trio test, and scoring. Color association results showed that panelists
preferred the light yellow beverage, as well as reported it to be the most natural looking,
and the sourest looking. The majority of the panelists preferred the colored beverage
samples to be served cold. Descriptive term testing resulted in the top three descriptive
terms for a goldfish, almond, raisin, and marshmallow according to the products
appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel. Most panelists were able
to identify the apple juice containing the most citric acid in the paired comparison and
triangle tests. The duo trio results showed most panelists were able to recognize the wafer
that had a textural difference. Also, most of the panelists stated that the textural difference
between the wafers were crunchiness. The ranking test results expressed that most panelists
were able to identify the apple juice sample containing the highest level of citric acid was
the most sour, while the sample with no citric acid added was the least sour. These results
are able to assist sensory researchers when developing new techniques for products and
marketing strategies.

2
Introduction

The food industry is an evolving business. The growth of food trade and

consumer awareness of food development surges the food industry's need to create new

and improved products. Corporations can use objective tests (mechanical tests) to assess

the composition of food (Brown, 2015). Although, to succeed, the food industry’s

familiarity of the average shopper's observations and positions related to development of

products are crucial (Ares, 2010). Sensory lab testing is the important step for this

development. Sensory tests are a regulation of gauging individuals perceived senses of

taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell linked with the products appearance, flavor, aroma,

texture, and mouth feel (Brown, 2015). These evaluations operate by using human

participants to classify the food’s elements. The tests used to organize these evaluations

are the following: discriminative – distinguishing differences, descriptive – characterizing

such differences, hedonic – including a pleasure factor, and using personal preferences

(Brown, 2015).

Evaluation businesses are allowed to use trained or untrained panelists for sensory

testing. Though, most choose to have trained panelists when performing sensory

evaluations (Ares, 2010). According to several sources, it has been demonstrated that

trained panelists are more capable of distinguishing accurate quantitative traits of a

certain sample product. “Trained” is a lightly defined word, which in turn, is able to

meaningfully affect the outcome of a panelist’s performance while participating in

sensory testing (Chambers, 2004). For example, Chambers conducted a study to evaluate

the necessary amount of time a panelist would need to be trained in order to accurately

describe a sample’s characteristics. The study foresaw the same panelists in three

3
different stages of their training. There was a sensory test performed after four hours of

training, sixty hours of training, and one hundred and twenty hours of training. After each

interval, there was an improvement in the accuracy of the test results. After four hours of

training there was an increase in accuracy, however the panelists with sixty hours of

training expressed the most accurate results. There were minor changes between the sixty

hours and one hundred and twenty hours of training. In conclusion from this study,

different thoroughness levels can be found when participants are asked about flavor and

texture characteristics with less training compared to none at all. However, in general

extensive training is required to have a sense of consistency among sensory tests.

Study projects have been established to increase the amount of untrained panelists

able to evaluate food products, due to limitations of trained panelists (Ares, 2010). Ares

organized sensory profiles on eight different chocolate milk desserts by using two

distinctive sensory profiling methods to determine the usefulness. The overall liking and

check-all-that-apply (CATA) questionnaire was associated with the projective mapping

test. Projective mapping measures a panelist’s perception of similar and different

qualities between products. Projective mapping necessitates participants to write down

their own words. By doing so, more freedom is given to panelists to identify a wide range

of characteristics associated with the given sample being tested. The overall liking and

CATA questionnaire gave panelists a variety of words or phrases to select from to decide

the accurate sensory characteristic. Results of projective mapping and CATA questioning

expressed comparable sensory profiles. Although, the projective mapping took eighteen

to twenty-five minutes to complete, opposed to the CATA test which took five to fifteen

minutes. The projective mapping was more time extensive for explanations from

4
panelists. In conclusion, projective mapping could potentially be more difficult for

untrained panelists, however either test would result in the matching sensory profile

(Ares, 2010).

Taste receptors influence how food tastes and, therefore, the ability for panelists

to identify products (Wadhwani, 2012). Recent studies have suggested that humans hold

bitter taste receptors, which differ amongst each other by age and genetics (Drewnowski,

2001). The capability to taste bitterness has been considered as a dominant trait, which

has been used to increase the demand for specific foods, for example, caffeine in

beverages (Drewnowski, 2001).

Food products are valued by perceptual interactions (Delwiche, 2004). Products

that are produced are therefore not always their natural color (Garber, 2000). The U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) approves of the addition of food coloring to keep the

consistency for the consumer’s sensitivity of certain food’s characteristics (Wadhwani,

2012). Food’s color and flavor association can judge a food as being foul-tasting if it is

not the color that has been normalized (Garber, 2000). For example, an experiment

conducted by Moir in 1963, reported by Garber (2000), determined that the appearance of

food that is consumed impacts the reaction of individuals’ perceptual health. Moir

organized a buffet of food, having changed the colors of common food products to

participants. Individuals criticized the ‘off’ flavors throughout the meal, and later stated

that they felt sick. The foods were only changed with coloring; no other contaminants

were stated. Settling the appearance of food decreased the normal flavor qualities, and

created a feeling of sickness in individuals.

Generally, trends in research express the intensity of color and how that surges the

5
taste and flavor intensity (Delwiche, 2004). For example, Wadhwani conducted a study

that assessed the appearance of low fat cheese and consumer approval. Consumer

approval was detected from regular-fat cheese, and to nine genetically altered low-fat

cheese colors. Outcomes expressed that consumer approval improved with the color

appearance most similar to the regular-fat cheese. The observation of flavor and

sharpness of the cheese as also impacted by color, concluding that if cheese is tainted, a

visual affiliation to that of the original will increase consumer approval.

Specific colors of products are also attributed to consumer purchasing habits

(Garber, 2000). Garber conducted a study recognizing the relationship of food color and

labels for marketing reasons, specifically detecting if beverage color could assist in the

association of flavor profiles. The study experimented with 389 undergraduate students

and the affect of the consumer’s ability to recognize the flavor of the product. An orange

flavored fruit drink was changed to three different colors: orange, clear, and purple. Each

drink was labeled accordingly to the color associated to the known drinks – orange was

labeled ‘orange’, purple was labeled ‘grape’, and clear was labeled as ‘fruit drink’.

Results signified how consumers were not able to properly classify the flavor with the

alteration in coloring and labeling, however, attributes of each beverage were perceived

based on the visual color involvement. The orange beverage was involved with more

refreshing qualities, rather the purple beverage was expressed as more tart. In conclusion,

the food color that is observed influences the identity of the flavor, and anticipations of

the beverage (Garber, 2000).

Texture can influence the individuality, as well as the consumer’s outlooks of

foods (Tunick, 2011). For example, a study explained by Tunick (2011) established that

6
blindfolded partakers were unable to identify foods once they were pureed. This was

because of the removal of texture in each food. Texture tolerability, according to Tunick

(2011), is based upon an individual’s age, culture, anticipations, physiology, time of day

food was consumed, and the difference of multiple textures within a single meal,

meaning that individuals will designate the same food with different attributes. Tunick

(2011) also specified that Americans prefer textures such as crispiness, crunchiness,

firmness, juiciness, and tenderness, whereas the Japanese prefer crispiness, crunchiness,

hardness, softness, and stickiness.

The purpose of the study performed by Nutrition 205 students at San Diego State

University is to identify sensory evaluation results based on neutral evaluations through

previously designed methods. Specifically, each test will evaluate the results of beverages

based on color, descriptive terms on the appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency,

and mouth feel of foods, the ability to identify differences between samples, along with

the testing of a range of samples in order of intensity and preference.

7
Methods

Several experiments were conducted on a range of beverages and foods, with each

being associated with different types of sensory tests. Panelists were asked to describe

and rate various sensory aspects of the given samples. Some tests were based on the

appearance of samples, while others requiring the samples to be tasted.

Panelists

There were sixty-nine total panelists who participated in the evaluations. There

were eighteen panelists in the 9:00 AM Introduction to Science of Food laboratory,

eighteen in the following 1:00 PM laboratory, seventeen in the 4:00 PM laboratory, and

sixteen in the subsequent 9:30 AM laboratory. Panelists were given a paper titled,

“Demographic Questionnaire”, and were asked to answer a series of questions pertaining

to themselves. Seventy-one percent of people ranged between eighteen to twenty-three

years old. Twenty-nine percent of people ranged between twenty-four to forty years old.

Fifteen percent of the panelists were male, and 85% percent were female. Eighty-eight

percent were single, 8% were married, and 4% were divorced. Ninety-seven percent were

Food & Nutrition majors, while 3% were other. Ninety-one percent of panelists were

undergraduates, while 9% were graduate students. Seventy-one percent of people lived

with two or more roommates, 25% lived with one roommate, and 4% of panelists lived

alone. Ninety-six percent of panelists were not smokers, while 4% were smokers. Eighty-

one percent of panelists did not have allergies, while 19% did have allergies. In the 9:00

AM laboratory, the allergies amongst the panelists included mango, gluten, and shrimp.

For two sensory evaluation tests, two panelists did not participate due to medical reasons.

8
Environment

The sensory evaluation tests were conducted on February 15, 2016 at 9:00 AM,

1:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and on February 16, 2016 at 9:30 AM in a classroom setting with

rows of desks, and three cooktops on either side of the room. The temperature in the

classroom was sixty-nine degrees Fahrenheit. The lighting was bright, and the panelists

were sitting amongst themselves with no privacy. On each desk, the panelists had their

lab manual to report their data, loose papers that were asked to be printed for the

evaluation, and a Styrofoam cup of distilled water to cleanse their pallets between each

round of tests. There was little to any talking between each test, and most of the talking

focused on collecting data for each test.

Beverage Color Association

The Beverage Color Association test was the first to be conducted. Panelists were

seated while the lab technician presented five different colored beverages in clear glass

600mL beakers in the front of the classroom for all panelists to see. Beverage colors

ranged from light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse, and emerald green.

The panelists evaluated the beverages’ appearance based on the given parameters on their

questionnaire sheet. The parameters depended on which beverage the panelist thought to

be the sweetest, sourest, most artificial, most natural looking, preferred to drink, most

disliked, the temperature at which a panelist would drink it, and whether or not a panelist

would drink a specific beverage based on its appearance. The descriptive words given to

the panelists to describe the temperatures they would drink the beverage at were hot,

warm, tepid, or cold. The panelists were then told what the beverages actually were. The

9
light yellow was Lemonade Gatorade, the dark yellow was Tropical Citrus Vitamin

Water, and the chartreuse was 350mL of Lemon Lime Gatorade and 150mL of Melon

Powerade. The dark chartreuse was Melon Powerade, and the emerald green was Green

Apple Gatorade. The panelists were then asked if they drink apple juice.

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms

The Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms was the second test

conducted. The participants were asked to bring a list of descriptive words to use for the

evaluation. The instructor and the lab technician each walked around the classroom with

a black tray with one-ounce paper cups, each holding two samples. The instructor passed

out the goldfish crackers and the raisins, while the lab technician passed out the almonds

and the marshmallows. Each cup had two pieces of each sample. The panelists were

instructed to wait until every participant had obtained each sample. When they were

instructed to do so, each panelist were asked to record the appearance, aroma, flavor,

texture, consistency, and mouth feel of each sample with the list they had at their desks.

There were eighteen panelists, however one did not participate in sampling the goldfish

cracker due to health reasons. Panelists were asked to drink distilled water between

different samples so samples would not be contaminated by other flavors. The panelists

recorded their descriptions of each sample with each parameter in their Lab Manual that

they had with them.

10
Paired Comparison Test

The Paired Comparison Test was conducted to determine which sample beverage,

out of two samples that were given to the panelists, was perceived to have the least and

greatest intensity based on the characteristic that was evaluated, which was sourness. The

lab technician and lab instructor gave one sample a code of 635T1, and the other 573T2

and placed a beaker of each sample at the front of the room. The panelists sitting in the

front of each row was asked to go to the front and pour each sample into one ounce paper

cups to take to the amount of people that were in their rows on a black tray. Each panelist

received one of each sample and was asked to wait until every panelist was seated and

ready. They were then asked to drink each sample, cleansing with distilled water between

each sample. The panelists had to choose which sample had the least, and which sample

had the greatest intensity in terms of sourness. Code 635T1 had 0% citric acid added to

apple juice, while code 573T2 had 1% citric acid added to apple juice.

Triangle Test

The Triangle Test was conducted to distinguish which of three beverage samples

was different than the other two. The lab technician placed three coded beakers in the

front of the room with the samples in them. The sample names were 777C1, 542E2, and

112H9. Two of the samples were the same, and one was different. The first panelist in

each row was asked to retrieve samples from the beakers into one ounce paper cups for

themselves and each person in their row. They were asked to pass the samples out with

the correct codes that were associated with each sample. Once every panelist had their

samples, they were asked to drink each sample, while cleansing their pallet with distilled

11
water between each one. Panelists had to distinguish which sample was different and

which two were in the same by writing “Different” or “Same” in their Lab Manual next

to each code. Code 777C1 had 0% citric acid added to apple juice, code 542E2 had 0%,

and code 112H9 had 1% citric acid added to apple juice.

Ranking Test

The Ranking Test involved five different beverage samples, and was conducted in

order to find how the panelists ranked the sour intensity of the beverages, as well as their

preference for the beverages. Each sample had a different code assigned to it. Code

695F8 had 2.5% citric acid added to apple juice, code 495P2 had 0% citric acid added,

code 192L3 had 5% citric acid added, code 543K8 had 1% citric acid added, and code

555D7 had 10% citric acid added to apple juice. The first panelist in each row gathered

enough coded samples in one-ounce paper cups at the front of the room for each panelist

in their row. Panelists were instructed to wait until every panelist had all five samples.

When told to do so, panelists were asked to drink each coded sample, while cleansing

with distilled water in between. They were told to rank the samples in order of intensity

of sourness, and order of preference on a scale of one to five. For the intensity of

sourness, one was the least sour and five was the most sour. For the preference scale, one

was the least preferred and five was the most preferred.

Duo-Trio Test

The Duo-Trio test was conducted to determine which cookie sample differed from

the standard, which was presented first. Each cookie was assigned a specific code. Code

12
8175 was the standard, and it was a Nabisco Nilla Wafer. Code 6104 was Ralph’s Vanilla

Wafers, and code 1108 was another Nabisco Nilla Wafer. In the 9:00 AM lab, only

sixteen panelists out of the original eighteen participated due to health reasons. The lab

technician and the instructor began by passing out one of the two identical samples and

having panelists taste it. After cleansing the pallet with distilled water, the lab technician

and lab instructor went on to pass out the other two coded samples, and the participants

were instructed to taste them, while still drinking distilled water between each sample.

Panelists were then asked which of the coded samples were different, and also how it was

different. They were given three terms to choose from to describe the difference: dryness,

crunchiness, or less vanilla in terms of the difference between the two cookies.

Scoring Test

The Scoring Test was conducted to determine where two samples ranked

according the standard sample, which was given an arbitrary score of four, on a scale of

one to seven. The test began with three coded beverage samples that were to be poured

into one-ounce paper cups at the front of the room. Code 0110 had 2.5% citric acid added

to apple juice, code 420M had 1% citric acid added, and code S723 had 5% citric acid

added to apple juice. The first panelist in each row gathered one of each sample for

themselves and each panelist in their row. The panelists were asked to wait until each

participant had one of each sample. When instructed to do so, panelists were asked to

rank the two samples from more sour to less sour, one being the most sour and seven

being less sour in regards to the sample with 2.5% citric acid added.

13
Statistical Analysis

The statistical information was collected and inputted into a Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet by the Teacher’s Assistant (TA). The lab instructor obtained data collection

by counting the panelists hands when raised for each parameter that applied to them for

each test. The spreadsheet was made available for statistical analysis, and all data was

presented in percentages.

14
Results

Results were obtained from a data spreadsheet on Microsoft Excel. Each test

result includes the percentage from each laboratory section, out of sixty-nine total on a

one hundred-point scale. All results included an appropriate visual to properly

demonstrate the results of each sensory test.

Beverage Color Association

 When the sweetness of each beverage was tested, 45% reported that the dark

yellow appeared to be the sweetest and only 3% said the chartreuse looked the

sweetest. When the sourness of each was tested, 46% said the light yellow looked

the sourest, while 3% said the emerald looked the sourest. Refer to Figures 1 and

2 for complete results.

Evaluation of the Sweeter Beverage

Based on Appearance by Nutr205
Students
Figure 1
12%
Light Yellow
29%
Dark Yellow
12% 44% Chartreuse
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald
3%

15
 Evaluation of the Sourer Beverage
Based on Appearance by Nutr205
Students
Figure 2
10% 3%
Light Yellow
46%
Dark Yellow
28%
Chartreuse
13% Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

 When artificiality was tested 72% reported that the emerald appeared to be the most

artificial, while none said the light yellow looked the most artificial. When

naturalness was tested, 77% said the light yellow appeared to be the most natural,

while none thought the chartreuse nor the dark chartreuse looked the most natural.

Refer to Figures 3 and 4 for complete results.

The Most Artificial Beverage Based

on Appearance by Nutr205 Students
Figure 3
3% 6%
0%
Light Yellow
19%
Dark Yellow
Chartreuse
72%
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

16
 The Most Natural Looking Beverage
Based on Appearance by Nutr205
Students
Figure 4
0% 1% 0%

22% Light Yellow

Dark Yellow
Chartreuse
77%
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

 When preference of each beverage was tested, 65% preferred the look of the light

yellow, while the chartreuse and emerald were tied with 3% for most preferred. When

least preferred was evaluated, 55% disliked the appearance of the emerald, while only

4% disliked the appearance of the light yellow. Refer to Figures 5 and 6 for complete

results.

Most Preferred Beverage Based on

Appearance by Nutr205 Students
Figure 5
3%
3%
9%
Light Yellow
20% Dark Yellow
65% Chartreuese
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

17
 Most Disliked Beverage Based on
Appearance by Nutr205 Students
Figure 6

4%

17% Light Yellow

7% Dark Yellow
56%
Chartreuse
16%
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

 When preferred temperature for each beverage was tested, 97% would drink the light

yellow cold, and 4% would drink it hot. Eighty-four percent would drink the dark

yellow cold, while tepid and hot were tied with 13%. Ninety-six percent would drink

the chartreuse cold, and only 1% would drink it warm. Eighty percent would drink the

dark chartreuse cold, while warm and hot were tied with 1%. Eighty-one percent

would drink the emerald cold, while warm and hot were tied with 3%. Refer to Figure

7 for complete results.

Preferred Temperature Drunk Based

on Appearance by Nutr205 Students
Figure 7
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percent

50% Hot
40% Warm
30%
20% Tepid
10% Cold
0%
Light Dark Chartreuse Dark Emerald
Yellow Yellow Chartreuse
Beverage

18
 Results for whether or not each beverage would be drunk based on appearance

were tested. The results for “Yes” went in a downward trend from the lightest

color to the darkest. Eighty-eight percent would drink the light yellow beverage.

Sixty-one percent would drink the dark yellow beverage. Fifty-nine percent would

drink the chartreuse beverage. Twenty-six percent would drink the dark

chartreuse beverage, and 20% would drink the emerald beverage. Refer to Figure

8 for complete results.

Would the Nutr205 Students Drink This

Beverage Based on Appearance?
Figure 8

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
No
40%
Yes
30%
20%
10%
0%
Light Yellow Dark Yellow Chartreuse Dark Emerald
Chartreuse
Beverage

 A question about whether or not panelists had drunken apple juice was tested.

Seventy-eight percent reported to drink apple juice, while 22% reported to not

drink apple juice. Refer to Figure 9 for complete results.

19
 Do the Nutr205 Students Drink
Apple Juice?
Figure 9

22%
Yes
No
78%

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms

 (Results below indicate the top three responses for each parameter)

A sample of Goldfish Crackers was tested based on several senses. In the initial

appearance category, 43% reported the cracker to look golden brown, 24%

reported it to look dry, and 9% reported it to look grainy. When flavor was tested,

81% thought it tasted salty, 10% thought it tasted sharp, and 6% thought it tasted

pasty. When texture was evaluated, 49% reported the cracker to be crisp, 37%

reported to be crunchy, and 9% reported the cracker as gritty. When aroma was

tested, 32% reported the cracker to smell burnt, 28% thought it smelled flavory,

and 26% thought the cracker did not have a smell. When consistency was

evaluated, 56% thought the cracker was brittle, 20% thought it was cheesy, and

17% thought the cracker had a thin consistency. When mouth feel was tested,

47% thought the cracker felt crunchy, 40% reported the cracker to be crisp, and

5% reported the cracker to be gritty. Refer to Figure 10 for complete results.

20
Figure 10: Evaluation of the Top 3 Descriptive Terms of a Goldfish by Nutrition 205
Students
Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel
43% Golden Brown 81% Salty 49% Crisp 32% Burnt 56% Brittle 47% Crunchy
24% Dry 10% Sharp 37% Crunchy 28% Flavory 20% Cheesy 40% Crisp
9% Grainy 6% Pasty 9% Gritty 26% Nothing 17% Thin 5% Gritty

 (Results below indicate the top three responses for each parameter)

A sample of raisins was tested based on several senses. When initial appearance

was tested, 23% thought the raisin looked sticky, 19% thought it appeared sunken,

and 15% thought it looked dry. When flavor was tested, 42% thought it tasted

sweet, 33% thought it tasted fruity, and 12% thought the raisin tasted bitter. When

texture was evaluated, 33% thought it felt chewy, 23% thought it felt gummy, and

13% thought it felt rubbery. In the aroma category, 35% reported the raisin to

smell fruity, 30% reported it to smell sweet, and 22% reported there was no smell.

In the consistency category, 61% thought the raisin seemed chewy, 30% thought

it seemed gummy, and 7% thought it felt rubbery. When mouth feel was

evaluated, 54% thought it felt sticky, 16% thought it felt smooth, and 15%

thought it felt slimy. Refer to Figure 11 for complete results.

Figure 11: Evaluation of the Top 3 Descriptive Terms of a Raisin by Nutrition 205
Students

Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel

23% Sticky 42% Sweet 33% Chewy 35% Fruity 61% Chewy 54% Sticky
19% Sunken 33% Fruity 23% Gummy 30% Sweet 30% Gummy 16% Smooth
15% Dry 12% Bitter 13% Rubbery 22% Nothing 7% Rubbery 15% Slimy

 (Results below indicate the top three responses for each parameter)

21
 An almond sample was tested based on several senses. When initial appearance

was tested, 30% reported the almond to look golden brown, while 19% reported it

to look light brown. Nineteen percent reported that almond appeared to look dry.

When flavor was evaluated, 78% reported the almond to taste nutty, 16% reported

the almond to taste flat, and 6% reported the almond to taste stale. When texture

was tried, 27% stated the almond felt hard, 22% stated the almond felt firm, and

19% stated it felt crunchy. When aroma was evaluated, 85% reported the almond

had no smell, while 9% reported it to smell flowery, and 3% reported it to smell

sweet. When consistency was tested, 60% stated the almond had a thick

consistency, 28% reported it had a chewy consistency, and 6% reported it had a

buttery consistency. When mouth feel was evaluated, 62% stated the almond felt

crunchy, 27% stated it felt gritty, and 5% stated it felt smooth. Refer to Figure 12

for complete results.

Figure 12: Evaluation of the Top 3 Descriptive Terms of an Almond by Nutrition 205
Students
Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel
30% Golden Brown 78% Nutty 27% Hard 85% None 60% Thick 62% Crunchy
19% Light Brown 16% Flat 22% Firm 9% Flowery 28% Chewy 27% Gritty
19% Dry 6% Stale 19% Crunchy 3% Sweet 6% Butter 5% Smooth

 (Results below indicate the top three responses for each parameter)

A marshmallow was tested based on several senses. When the initial appearance

was tested, 91% reported the marshmallow to look puffy, 4% reported it to look

smooth, and 2% reported it to look symmetrical. When flavor was evaluated, 76%

stated the marshmallow tasted sweet, 12% stated that it tasted pasty, and 10%

22
 stated it tasted floury. When texture was tested, 25% reported the marshmallow

felt gummy, while 19% reported it felt velvety, and 19% reported it felt springy.

When aroma was evaluated, 78% stated the marshmallow smelled sweet, while

19% stated it had no smell, and 3% stated it smelled flowery. When consistency

was tested, 46% reported the marshmallow to feel gummy, 32% reported it to feel

chewy, and 7% reported it to feel thin. When mouth feel was evaluated, 52%

stated that the marshmallow felt smooth, 21% stated it felt sticky, while 21%

stated it felt slimy. Refer to Figure 13 for complete results.

Figure 13: Evaluation of the Top 3 Descriptive Terms of a Marshmallow by Nutrition

205 Students
Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel
91% Puffy 76% Sweet 25% Gummy 78% Sweet 46% Gummy 52% Smooth
4% Smooth 12% Pasty 19% Velvety 19% Nothing 32% Chewy 21% Sticky
2% Symmetrical 10% Floury 19% Springy 3% Flowery 7% Thin 21% Slimy

Paired Comparison

 When samples were tested, 98% determined that the sample with 1% citric acid

added was sourer than the sample with no citric acid added. Two percent

determined that the sample with no citric acid added was sourer than the sample

with 1% citric acid added. Refer to Figure 14 for complete results.

Evaluation Of The More Sour Apple

Juice Beverage According To Citric Acid
Concentration Levels As Evaluated By
Nutrition 205 Students
Figure 14
2% 23
Triangle Test

 When samples were tested, 100% reported that the sample with 1% citric acid had

a sourer characteristic than the two samples that had no citric acid added.

Ranking Test

 When the five samples were tested, 97% reported that the sample with 10% citric

acid added to it was the most sour, while 3% reported that the samples with 0%,

1% and 5% citric acid added was the most sour. When the second level of

sourness was tested, 90% reported that the sample with 5% citric acid added was

the second most sour, 6% reported the sample with 2.5% citric acid was the

second most sour, 3% reported the sample with 1% citric acid was the second

most sour, 1% reported that the sample with no citric acid added was the second

most sour, and the sample with 10% citric acid added was not voted for as the

second most sour sample. When the third level of sourness was evaluated, 90%

reported that the sample with 2.5% citric acid added was the third most sour,

while 4% reported that the sample with 1% citric acid added was the third most

24
 sour, and 4% reported that the sample with 5% citric acid added was the third

most sour also. Two percent reported that the sample with no citric acid added

was the third most sour, while the sample with 10% citric acid added was not

voted for as the third most sour sample. When the fourth most sour was evaluated,

82% reported that the sample with 1% citric acid added was the fourth most sour,

7% reported that the sample with 2.5% citric acid added was the fourth most sour,

and 7% also reported that the sample with no citric acid added was the fourth

most sour. Three percent reported that the sample with 5% citric acid added was

the fourth most sour, while 1% reported that the sample with 10% was the fourth

most sour. When fifth most sour, or the least sour, was tested, 90% reported that

the sample with no citric acid added was the least sour, 6% reported that the

sample with 1% citric acid was the least sour, 3% reported that the sample with

10% citric acid was the least sour, and 1% reported the sample with 5% citric acid

was the least sour. The sample that had 2.5% citric acid added was not voted for

as the least sour sample. Refer to Figure 15 for complete results.

Evaluation of Most to Least Sour in

Apple Juice According to the Concentration of Citric
Acid Evaluted by Nutr205 Students
Figure 15
120%
Percentage of Participants

100%

80%
0% Citric Acid
60% 1% Citric Acid

 When 2.5% Citric Acid

40%the five samples were tested in terms of preference, 57% preferred the
5% Citric Acid
sample
20% with no citric acid added to the sample the most, while 31% preferred the
10% Citric Acid

0%
1 2 3 4 5
Sourness (1= Most Sour/5= Least Sour)
25
sample with 1% citric acid added to it the most. Ten percent preferred the sample

with 2.5% citric acid added to it the most, and 2% preferred the sample with 5%

citric acid the most. The sample with 10% citric acid added was not voted for as

most preferred. When the second most preferred was tested, 60% reported the

sample with 1% citric acid as the second most preferred, 34% reported the sample

with 0% citric acid as the second most preferred, 4% reported the sample with

2.5% citric acid as the second most preferred, and 2% reported the sample with

5% citric acid as the second most preferred. The sample with 10% citric acid

added was not voted for as the second most preferred. When the third most

preferred was evaluated, 81% reported the sample with 2.5% citric acid added

was the third most preferred, 8% reported the sample with 1% citric acid added

was the third most preferred, and 4% reported the sample with 0% citric acid

added was the third most preferred. Four percent also reported that the sample

with 5% citric acid added was the third most preferred, while 3% reported that the

sample with 10% citric acid was the third most preferred. When the fourth most

preferred was evaluated, 88% reported that the sample with 5% citric acid added

was the fourth most preferred, 4% reported that the sample with 2.5% citric acid

added was the fourth most preferred, and 3% reported that the sample with 10%

citric acid was the fourth most preferred. Three percent also reported that the

sample with no citric acid added was the fourth most preferred, while 2% reported

that the sample with 1% citric acid added was the fourth most preferred. When the

fifth most preferred, or the least preferred, was evaluated, 92% reported that the

sample with 10% citric acid added was the least preferred, 4% reported that the

26
 sample with 5% citric acid added was the least preferred, 3% reported that the

sample with 2.5% of citric acid added was the least preferred, and 1% reported

that the sample with 1% citric acid was the least preferred. The sample with no

citric acid added was not voted for as the least preferred sample. Refer to Figure

16 for complete results.

Evaluation of Most Preferred Sample of

Apple Juice Based on Citric Acid Levels by
Nutr205 Students
Figure 16
100%
90%
Precentage of Participants

80%
70%
60% 0% Citric Acid
50% 1% Citric Acid
40% 2.5% Citric Acid
30% 5% Citric Acid
20% 10% Citric Acid
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5
Preference (1= Most Preferred/5= Least Preferred)

Duo-Trio

 When the two samples were tested compared to the standard Nabisco Nilla Wafer,

95% reported that the Ralph’s Vanilla Wafers differed from the standard, while

5% reported that the Nabisco Nilla Wafer differed from the standard. Forty

percent reported that the main difference between the standard and the different

one was crunchiness, while 31% reported the main difference was dryness.

27
 Finally, 29% reported that there was less vanilla in the sample compared to the

standard. Refer to Figures 17 and 18 for complete results.

Evaluation of the Difference of

Two Samples Compared to the
Standard Nilla Wafer by Nutr205
Students
Figure 17

5%

Nabisco Nilla Wafers

Ralph's Vanilla Wafers
95%

Reported Differences of the

Chosen Differed Sampled
Compared to the Standard by
Nutr205 Students
Figure 18

29% 31%
Dryness
Crunchiness
40% Less Vanilla

Scoring Test

28
  According to the arbitrary score of the reference sample of apple juice containing

2.5% of citric acid, 50% reported the citric acid sample with 5% was the most

sour, while 38% reported it was the second most sour. Ten percent reported the

sample with 5% citric acid added had a score of three as the most sour. One

percent reported the sample with 5% citric acid added to the apple juice had a

score of four, in the center of the scale of one and seven. Twenty-one percent

reported the sample with 1% citric acid added was the fifth most sour, while 1%

reported the sample with 5% citric acid added was the fifth most sour. Sixty-four

percent reported that the sample with 1% citric acid added was the sixth most

sour, or the second least sour, while 0% reported that the sample with 5% citric

acid added was the sixth most sour. Lastly, 15% reported that the sample with 1%

citric acid added was the least sour with a score of seven, while 0% reported the

sample with 5% citric acid as the least sour. Refer to Figure 18 for complete

results.

Figure 18: Ranking of Two Samples Containing Different Amounts of Citric Acid
Compared to the Reference Sample by Nutr205 Students
Sample 1 - Most sour 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Least sour
1% Citric acid 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 64% 15%
2.5% Citric
Acid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5% Citric
Acid 50% 38% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Discussion

29
 Results from the beverage color association test relates with research revolving

around color affecting the perception of the appearance of certain beverages. Each

colored beverage expressed diverse characteristics because of their appearance. The

emerald green beverage was identified as the most artificial, and the second sweetest

looking, while the light yellow was chosen as the most natural and sourest looking. These

conclusions compare with Garber’s (2000) results, stating that color overlooks the flavor

uniqueness of a beverage, which creates an expectation for the flavor, as like his orange

beverage being associated with a refreshing attribute due to the association with an

orange fruit. The emerald green drink could have potentially been associated with some

sort of fruit drink, or perhaps a certain Gatorade that panelists had once purchased. Both

fruit drinks are artificial and high in sugar. The light yellow beverage could have

potentially been associated with lemonade, which explains why panelists identified that

as the sourest beverage.

The same notion is also demonstrated in the dark yellow findings. Dark yellow

was identified as being the sweetest beverage. The dark yellow was placed right next to

the light yellow beverage, making it clear that there was a physical difference, which

could imply a possible chemical change occurred as well, where it be more additives such

as coloring or sugar, which all in all made the drink appear as less natural. Dark

chartreuse was identified to be the second most artificial after the emerald green,

subsequently showing how there are no natural associations to that beverage.

Results on the preference of the colored beverage indicated that 65% of the

panelists preferred the light yellow. These results could be related to a couple of different

ideas. While 97% of panelists who participated in this study are food and nutrition

30
majors, the panelists could have had more self-awareness about what they would ingest,

therefore identifying with the beverage that appeared to be more natural looking, and

therefore less sugary. Another reason for this decision could be due to the panelists

known association with color and beverages. Wadhwani (2012) had similar results in his

study, resulting with the idea that overall liking of low-fat cheese is associated with the

color and appearance, which most represents regular-fat cheese.

When reporting their preference for temperature for each beverage, most panelists

indicated they preferred each beverage cold if they had to drink it. These results are

because of the panelists’ association with colored drinks association in food settings.

Most colored beverages are culturally associated with fruit drinks, and are generally

served at cold, and tolerated at tepid temperatures, while not as likely to be served at

warm or hot temperatures.

When panelists were evaluating four different samples on their appearance,

flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of each one, each product resulted in a

many different descriptive terms for each of the parameters. The responses from the

appearance and texture were the closest to being unanimous in the given categories.

These results could be related to the amount of training the panelists had, or lack thereof,

and the type of test that was administered. As expressed in Ares (2010) study with

untrained individuals and the capability of completing descriptive tests, Chambers (2004)

study, however, revealed that an individual who ranged between sixty hours and one

hundred and twenty hours of training for sensory evaluations would be able to have more

accurate descriptive terms for a given sample. Another aspect that could have impacted

the range of descriptive terms could be related to the cultural characteristics that are

31
familiar and preferred to the panelists. Tunick (2011) stated that Americans have an

expectancy of food to have a texture, for example, of crispy, crunchy, firm, and juicy,

which were all attributes that were reported the most in the samples of the descriptive

term test.

All in all, most panelists were able to differentiate amongst the array of citric acid

levels presented in the apple juice samples. Results could have varied due to weakness of

the panelists tasting multiple citric acid levels, some being extremely high. The degree of

sourness and the preference of sourness, however, showed only a small correlation

amongst the 10%, 5%, and 2.5% of citric acid levels added to apple juice to be the most

disliked. The citric acid level of 1% showed almost the same results as the preference of

the sample with no citric acid added. These results could have been related to biological

factors of the panelists and tolerability of sour tastes from citric acid, which can be

observed in Drewnowski’s study (2001).

Results of the scoring test revealed a few unexpected results. There were three

different results on the scale of one to seven that included the 1% citric acid level.

However, the result in the least sour category (number seven) had the lowest percentage

that was voted by the panelists, when it was expected to be the least sour overall due to

the fact it had the smallest amount of citric acid added. This also could have been due to

weakness in the panelists from tasting many sour samples that could have sparked

confusion or forgetfulness of which sample was truly the most or least sour. There was

also no instruction on which citric acid level sample to try first, so the panelists also

could have been trying the 5% or 10% citric acid level first instead of the 1%.

32
 Errors that occurred during this study were potentially influential to the results of

this study. Environmental factors that could have influenced the panelists’ conclusions

could be the fact that the testing room was an open classroom with no privacy –their

peers and/or friends surrounded the individuals. The panelists in the front of each row

however, may have had an advantage of not being distracted since they did not have other

panelists to look at and see their expressions. Panelists were also not instructed to close

their eyes when the lab instructor was tallying votes, so voters could have been

influenced with which direction to go in terms of coming to a conclusion with their

results. During the color association test, some panelists in the back of the room were

unable to see the samples clearly, therefore distracting them from the task at hand. During

the descriptive terms test, there was an anecdotal story told by the lab instructor in

between two of the samples that were tested, along with whispering and laughing

amongst some of the panelists. Multiple times, when the results did not equal the total of

eighteen panelists in the 9:00 AM laboratory, the lab instructor had to count over again,

irritating her, as well as the panelists, who therefore may not have put in as much effort if

the counting had been done correctly a first time. When the first panelist in each row was

told to pour samples for their row, each panelist at the front could have poured more or

less than other panelists, therefore all panelists could have had different amounts to taste,

altering the results. Properly trained panelists are not supposed to chew gum an hour

prior, as well as testing should be held in between meals, and since this test was at 9:00

AM and panelists were untrained, senses could have been altered and therefore results

could have been changed. There was a lack of quality control during this study, however

most results did come out as expected despite the fact.

33
 Recommendations for improving this study would be to reduce all types of

distractions. Distractions include an open classroom, chatter in between tests, panelists

controlling the amount of samples, lack of refilled distilled water, and coughing/showing

expressions amongst the panelists. All samples could be ready to be passed out prior to

the beginning of the study to prevent panelists being in control, and also so other

panelists can stay focused.

34
 References

Ares, G., Barreiro C., Deliza R., Gambaro, A., Gimenez, A. 2010. Comparison of two
sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and
Preference 21:417-426.
Brown A. 2015. Understanding Food Principles & Preparation. 5th ed. Belmont CA:
Wadsworth.
Chambers D.H., Allison, A.M.A., Chambers, E. (2004) Training effects on performance
of descriptive panelists. Journal of Sensory studies, 19:486-499.
Delwiche, J. 2003. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food
Quality and Preference 15(2):137-146.
Drewnowski, A. 2001. The science and complexity of bitter taste. Nutrition Reviews.
59(6):163-169.
Garber, L.L., Hyatt, E.A. Starr, R.G. 2000. The effects of food color on perceived flavor.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 59-72.
Tunick, M.H. (2011) Food texture analysis in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry. 59,1477-1480
Wadhwani, R., McMahon D.J. 2012. Color of low-fat cheese influences flavor perception
and consumer liking. Journal Dairy Sciences: 95(5):2336-2346.

35