FOODS AND NUTRITION 205 LAB

Sensory Evaluation
Laboratory Report
Ana Maria Pelcastre Negrete

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to experience and learn how to perform sensory tests. The tests
performed in the study included Color Association and Perception of Beverages Test, Evaluation of Food
Product with descriptive terms. Difference tests included Pair Comparison Test, Triangle Test, Ranking
test and Duo-Trio test. The color Association and Perception Test included 5 different beverages with
different sourness intensity. The participant identified different parameters according to the color of the
sample. He also stated the temperature at which he would drink each sample and if he would drink it or
not. In the Evaluation of Food Product test, the participant tasted and chose the appropriate descriptive
terms for 4 different food products. After indicating the chosen term, the participant calculated the mean
of every characteristic of the product and organized the data in Graphs, Charts and Tables. For the
difference tests the main objective was to identify odd samples and rank the intensity of sourness between
different samples. The results of the study showed that color played a key factor in identifying the flavor
of the Samples. Also the participants for the most part were able to identify the most sour samples from
the least samples. However, errors where seen in identifying accurate sourness intensity of the ranking
and Rating Test samples.

Introduction
Study of the chemical and physical properties of food components and the interactions among
these components during preparation and storage provides a basis for understanding factors that influence
food quality (Brown Amy, 1). One of the advantages of the 20th century is the technology and the
mechanical devises food manufacturers use for analyzing food products (objective tests). However, one
particular feature that makes food analysis unique from other research analysis is the used of subjective
tests or the use of human senses to assess differences in the qualities of food. For example, Amy Brown
explains that when a person chooses food he does it primarily by how it looks, smells, tastes, feels and
even how it sounds. Therefore, our senses play an important role on food selection (p. 1) and hence in
food production.
Also, sensory studies have shown the importance of color in judging food quality and also
sweetness and flavor strength in beverages can be influenced by the choice of the color(King M.
Bonnie). For example, a team of research evaluated different citrus beverages with panelists unfamiliar to
the drinks. At the end of the study, researchers concluded that color indeed was important in choosing
products. In the three experiments they performed, they found out that the naturalness of the beverages
was seen to be dependent on a more sour than sweet taste, heightened by yellow as opposed to orange
coloring (King M. Bonnie). Also in a second study, participant panelist we asked to select different
tomatoes varying in pigments degree from orange to red. When untrained panelists were under red
masking light conditions where differences in fruit color could not be discerned and then under white
light, panelists preferred the appearance of the red-pigmented cultivars when viewed under white light
(Abbott Judith A). Therefore that proves that the color not just in artificial juices but in vegetables is
important and is a key factor for food production and can be used as nutrition promotion as well by
educating the consumers in selecting healthier food products according to their colors and also to avoid
bias with colors particularly in processed foods and drinks.

Continuing with sensory tests, it is important to recognize the different types of sensory test in
order to improve our food evaluation skills. There are two types of sensory skills, Analytical tests and
Affective tests. According to Amy Brown, an Analytical test is a subjective test that is used to detect
differences, for example discriminative test and descriptive tests. Some example tests of difference tests
therefore include Pair-comparison tests, Duo-trio test, triangle tests and ranking tests and evaluation of
food product test belongs to the descriptive tests (Brown 3).
Affective tests are subjective tests that evaluate individual preferences, for example hedonic and
personal preference tests (Brown p.3). Examples of these tests included color association and perception
of Beverages (Brown p.3). These type of tests helps in the development of new products depending on the
preferences of the person. For example, a group of scientists in Santiago de Chile developed an apple
snack with the purpose of introducing foods derived from fruit to reduce obesity in school children of the
same country. They dehydrated apple slices with skin included fiber, antioxidants and they also modified
the texture and humidity content. After the modifications the sensory analysis done in the school
indicated that the product presented high acceptability, is a crispy product of crunchy texture with
bittersweet flavor so is an alternative for school snacks (Sepulveda M). This example indicates that by
understanding peoples preferences, the food industry not only can make junk food but also can create
healthy foods with just knowing popular parameters of affective tests such as the modified apple snack.
Difference tests include the pair comparison test, Duo-trio Test, triangle test and ranking tests.
The pair comparison test is a difference test because the panelist compares two samples simultaneously.
One of the objectives in this test includes the ability to identify particular characteristics of a certain
product and the chances of getting it right are one out of two (Brown p.5). The Duo-trio test is performed
the same way as the pair comparison. However, in this test, a standard sample is presented to so that the
panelist identifies from two coded samples, the product that is equal to the standard. The triangle test is
performed on three coded samples two samples are identical and a third one is different. All the samples
are presented simultaneously and the panelists should be able to identify the odd product (Brown p.6-7).

Methods
Panelists
The panelists consisted of untrained SDSU students, all of them majoring in Foods and Nutrition.
The number of participants was 62 and they were divided into three different groups. Group number one
consisted of 18 females and 3 males. Group number two consisted of 16 females and 4 males and Group
number three consisted of 20 females and 1 male respectively. The ages of the panelists ranged from 19 to
45+ years old with a highest concentration in the early twenties. 59 of the panelist were undergraduates
with an addition of 3 graduate students. 56 reported to live with one or more roommates whereas 6
reported to live alone. Of the 62 panelist, 3 reported to smoke and 6 declared to have some type of food
allergy.

Environment
The sensory evaluations were carried out in the Nutrition Lab West Commons 203 of SDSU. The
lab was clean, illuminated and had a comfortable temperature. The main director of the evaluations was
Prof. Linda Copp followed by Lab Technician Sharon Martin and Lab Assistant Brandy Hunter. The
samples of each evaluation were always presented on the front lab table of the laboratory and the
directions were given by prof. Copp in front of the panelists. The Lab Assistant was in charge of saving
the results on the computer program and the Lab Technician was the person in charge of getting the
samples in order. Distractions that took place during the evaluations process included chatting in between
of each test. There was also some confusion on the answer counting of some evaluations and professor
Copp had to count two or three times before recording the final results. There was not a private location
for each panelist and the answers given for each test were not confidential. Each panelist was able to see
what the rest of the group was doing during each evaluation and to see their answers. They were also
given a small cup of water to drink it in between samples and were asked to have no other than their
sensory evaluation sheets and lab manual on their seats.

Color Association/Perception of Beverages

The Lab Technician put 5 unlabeled apple juices on the front lab table. Colors of these beverages were
light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse, and emerald. For each of the parameters
(sweetness, sourness, naturalness, artificiality, preference and dislike) each panelist gave the beverage
with the most a rating of 5. Later they gave the beverage with the least a ranking of 1. Similarly the one
that was almost as sweet as the sweetest beverage received a ranking of 4, while the next to least sweet
received a ranking of 2. The middle sample was given a rating of 3. Next, the panelists stated whether
they would drink the beverages hot, warm, tepid or cold. Finally, they completed the question would you
drink it? filling the cells with their choices. The final answers were collected by arm counting (prof.
Copp) and saved in the computer program by the Lab Assistant.

Evaluation with descriptive test

Selected food products were placed in 2 oz. cups and distributed by the lab Technician to every
panelist. The products included gold fish cookies, raisins, small marshmallows and pieces of almonds.
The panelists received two pieces of each product and were asked to evaluate them using descriptive
terms such as appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency and mouth-feel. Each descriptive term
included a list of words and the panelists chose the most appropriate one for every food product. Panelists
were also allowed to drink water in between evaluations for a more accurate description. Data was
recorded by having the panelists raise their hands when the word they chose for a particular term was
called.

Difference Tests
Paired Comparison Test
Panelists seated in the front seat of each row were asked to serve 2 oz. of two similar beverages
with assigned sample codes. The beverages and cups were put on the front table by the Lab Technician

and the assigned panelists served and put in order the number of samples for each panelist in their
particular row. After distributing and identifying the samples labeled as 635T1 and 573T2, every panelist
was asked to drink both of them with a sip of water in between and to select the sample with more
sourness. Later, they provided their selection by raising one arm and after being counted out by professor
Copp, the data was recorded by the lab assistant in the computer program.

Triangle Test
Following the same method as the previous test, the first panelist of each row was in charge of
serving and distributing the chosen samples to each panelist in their row. This time, 1 oz. of two identical
beverages with assigned sample codes and 1 oz. of different beverage product were presented to the
panelists. The codes of the samples were 777C1, 542E2 and 112H9 respectively. The procedures consisted
on drinking one sample after the other with a sip of water in between and to identify which of the three
samples was different from the other two. After drinking the samples and identifying the odd beverage,
the answers were given by hand raising, counted out by professor Coop and recorded by the Lab
Assistant.

Ranking test
Small amounts of apple juice samples were distributed by the first panelist of each row to the
corresponding panelists. The sample codes were numbered as 695F8, 192L3, 495P2, 543K8 and 555D7.
After the samples were distributed, the first panelists were asked to return to their seats and the
instructions were given by prof. Copp. Each panelist was asked to taste each of the coded samples and
rank them in descending order of sourness intensity with the most intense sample numbered as one.
Panelists were also allowed to re-taste any of the samples while ranking for intensity of the specific
characteristics. Next, after ranking the samples, panelists were asked to rank the samples again, although
this time the ranking order was based on preference. They ranked the samples from liked the least to

liked the most. The data was gathered by having the panelists raise their hands for the sample they
chose when asked which sample they found as the first most sour to the very least sour.

Duo Trio Test

The panelists were asked to determine which cookie sample differed from the standard presented
first. The Lab Technician distributed an unknown cookie labeled as standard-8175 to each panelist. The
cookies were brought on a tray and each participant grabbed one with his or her hand. After the panelists
consumed the sample they drank a sip of water and the Lab Technician distributed the second round of
cookies, this time labeled as sample 6104.Next, the panelists received a third cookie labeled sample
1108 just as the same way as the previous ones and consumed it likewise. Finally, the panelists were
asked to identify which of the samples was different from the standard? And in their opinion, what was
the major difference? The answers were gathered by having the panelists raise their hands when the code
they chose for the particular cookie was called.

Scoring or Rating Test

The reference sample, 0110, had been given an arbitrary score of 4. Panelists were asked to rate
the sour intensity of the other two samples relative to the reference. The first panelist of each row were
asked to get up from their seats and serve a small amount of samples 420M, 0110 and 5723 for each of the
panelists seated in their respective rows. After placing the samples in order, the panelists in charge
distributed the samples on a tray to each of their corresponding panelists and after informing them the
identification of each sample, they put back their trays on the front table and went back to their seats.
Next, prof. Copp indicated to drink first the reference sample 0110 and followed by a sip of water, the
panelists were asked to drink the second and later the third sample in the same way. Having tasted the
samples, the panelists rated the sour intensity on a scale of 7 to 1 (7 being the least sour and 1 the most

sour). Answers were collected by arm counting (prof. Copp) and recorded in the data program by the Lab
Assistant.

Statistical Analysis
Data collected from the tests was organized and saved in the computer Excel program of the
Nutrition Lab West Commons 203 of SDSU. The person in charge of doing this job was mainly the Lab
assistant under the supervision of prof. Copp. After organizing the information and making sure that the
total numbers were accurate, the data was saved as Lab Data Final Copy Fall 2012 and it was provided
to participant panelists for further analysis and calculations. Calculations included, the mean, Standard
Deviations, percentages, graphs and charts.

Results
Color Association/Perception of Beverages
The parameter percentages of the Color Association-Perception of Beverages test resulted as
follow. 28% of the panelists said that the sweetest Apple juice was the Dark Yellow sample. 26% of them
chose the Emerald green sample. 19% said it was the Light Yellow as well as the Dark Chartreuse and 8%
said it was the Light Chartreuse (See figure 1). For the most sour apple juice, 47% thought it was the
Light Yellow, followed by Chartreuse with 24% and Dark Yellow with 21%. 5% of the panelists said that
the most sour juice was the Dark Chartreuse and 3% thought it was the Emerald (See Figure 2). Next,
41% of the panelist decided that the most artificial juice was the Emerald. 19% said it was the Dark
Chartreuse and 8% the regular Chartreuse. 5% thought it was the Dark Yellow and only 2% chose the
Light Yellow as the most artificial juice (See figure3). When the panelists were asked which juice looked
most natural 90% said it was the Light Yellow, 6% thought it was the Chartreuse and 2% chose the Dark
Chartreuse and the Emerald (Fig. 4).

Regarding the most preferred sample, 68% of the panelists chose the Light Yellow color, 18%
chose the Chartreus, 6% chose the Dark Emerald, followed by 5% for the Dark Yellow and only 3% opted
for the Emerald (See Fig. 5). When they were asked which juice they disliked the most, 63% said the
green Emerald, 18% chose the Dark Yellow, 10% said the Dark Chartreuse, and 8% said the Chartreuse
and 2% said the Light Yellow respectively (Fig. 6).
For the temperature question of the test, 93% of the panelists said they would drink the Light
Yellow cold, 3% said they would drink it tepid and 2% said they would drink it either warm or hot (see
figure 7). For the Dark Yellow juice, 95% of the participants said they would drink it cold and 5% tepid
(See Figure 8). 96% of the panelist said they would drink the Chartreuse option cold and the remaining
6% said tepid (Figure 9). Next, 97% of the panelists mentioned they would drink the Dark Chartreuse
cold and 3% tepid (Figure 10). Lastly, 92% of the participants said they would drink the green Emerald
cold, followed by two 3% for tepid and hot and only 2% warm (Figure 11).
Evaluation with Descriptive Terms
For the Goldfish cracker, 32% of the panelists said it had a brown appearance. 25% said the
appearance was golden brown and 16% said it looked puffy. 10% of the panelists said the cracker looked
grainy, 5% symmetrical, 3% dull and 2% said it was asymmetrical, light brown and round (Table 1). For
the flavor, 90% said it was salty, 6% sharp and 2% flowery and pasty. Regarding the texture, 65% of the
participants said it was crispy, 23% crunchy, 5% flaky and 2% thin and flat. For the aroma, 39% said it
was flavory, 25% burnt, 11% spicy, 5% flowery and fruity and 20% said it had not aroma at all. For the
consistency, 62% of the panelists said it was brittle, 26% cheesy, 3% chewy, 5% thin and 2% said it was
viscous and thick. Lastly for the mouth-feel, 49% said it was crunchy, 41% crispy, 3% sticky and gritty
and 2% smooth and slimy.
When evaluating the Raising portion, the two most common characteristics for appearance were
sunken with 38.5% and dry with 22.5% (other characteristics are listed on table 2). For flavor, the
characteristics with higher percentages were sweet (53%) and fruity (40%). For texture, most panelists

10

thought they were gummy and chewy (24%). 21% also thought they were rubbery and lumpy (8%). For
aroma, 53% said fruity, 35.5% sweet and 4.5% said there was no aroma. Later for consistency, 57% of the
panelists said the raisings were chewy and gummy (28%). Finally, for the mouth-feel, 20% said smooth
and sticky (39%). (Refer to table 2 for more characteristics).
When rating the almonds 32% of the panelists said they looked light brown. 80% said the flavor
was mainly nutty and hard in texture (34%). For the aroma, 90% said the almonds had no aroma and the
consistency was thick (64%). Also for the mouth feel characteristic, 63% said they were crunchy (see
table 3 for more information).
The marshmallows looked puffy (90%) and for 74% of the panelists they tasted sweet. 27% said
the texture was springy and 26% said gummy. Also 95% said the aroma was sweet and the consistency
gummy (59%). For the mouth-feel 58% of the panelists thought it were smooth and slimy (19%). See
Table 4.
Difference Tests
Paired Comparison test
100% of the panelists correctly identified the sample 573T2 as the 1% citric Acid apple Juice
when compared to sample 635T1 (0% citric Acid).

Triangle Test
100% of the panelists correctly identified the odd sample 112H9 (1% citric Acid) from the two
identical samples 772C1 and 542E2 (0% citric Acid).

Raking Test
When evaluating the sourness intensity of the samples, 97% of the panelists correctly identified
the most sour sample (555D7) vs. the least sour (495P2) with a 93%. Also 88% identified 5% citric Acid
placing it in position number 4. 92% of the panelists identified the 2.5% citric acid solution (695F8)

11

position it in rank number 3. And finally, 91% correctly identified the 1% solution (543K8) putting it in
position number 5 (see figure B).When asked which sample was most preferred, 68% picked the sample
495P2 with 0% citric acid. 64.5% picked 543K8 with 1% citric Acid. 84.5% picked 695F8 with 2.5%
citric Acid. 84% picked 192L3 with 5% citric Acid. Finally 94% of the panelists disliked sample 555D7
with 10% citric Acid (see figure A).
Duo-Trio Test
90% of the panelists were able to identify cookie 6104 as the different cookie from the first cookie
presented better known as the standard sample. The characteristics they found different were dryness with
24% of the panelists stating that the odd cookie was drier compared to the standard. 31% said crunchiness
was a second difference and 45% said the odd cookie had less vanilla compared to the standard (see table
5).

Scoring Rating Test

Helped by the reference sample with score of 4 and 2.5% citric Acid, 69% of the panelists were
able to identify 420M as the least sour with a 1% citric Acid and 60% rated sample 5723 with a 5% citric
Acid as the most sour (see figure C).

12

Works Cited
Abbott, Judith A. "Sensory and Objective Quality Attributes of Beta-carotene and
Lycopene-rich Tomato Fruit." Journal of the American Society for Horticultural
Science 130.2 (March 2005): n. page. Print.
Brown, Amy. Understanding Food Principles & Preparation. 4th ed. Belmont:
Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Page 1-3
Brown, Amy. Understanding Food Principles and Preparation Lab Manual. 4th ed.
Belmont: Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Pages 1-8
Chan, Mabel M. "The Effect of Color on Perceived Flavor Intensity and Acceptance of
Foods by Young Adults and Elderly Adults." American Dietetic Association 97.6 (June
1997): 657-559. Print.
King, Bonnie M. "Factors Affecting The Perception of Naturalness and Flavor Strength in Citrus Drinks."
Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 855.1 (February 7, 2006): 2-8. Print.

13

Sweetest Apple Juice

Light Yellow

19
%

26%

Dark Yellow
Chartreuse
Dark Chartreuse

19
%

28%

Emerald

8%

Figure 1

Most Sour Apple Juice

5%3%

light yellow
Dark Yellow

24
%

47%

Dark Chatreuse
Emerald

21%

Figure 2

Chatreuse

14

2%

5%
Most Artificial
Apple Juice
8%
Light Yellow

41%

Dark Yellow

19%

Chartreuse
Dark Chartreuse
Emerald

Figure 3

Most Natural Apple Juice

2%
6% 2%

Light Yellow
Dark Yellow
Chartreuse
Dark Chartreuse

90%

Emeralad

Figure 4

Prefer the Most Apple Juice

6%3%

Light Yellow
Dark Yellow

18%
5%

Chartreuse

68%

Dark Chartreuse
Esmerald

15
Figure 5

Dislike the Most Apple Juice

2%
18%

Light Yellow
Dark Yellow

8%

Chartreuse
Dark Chartreuse

63%

10%

Emerald

Figure 6

Light Yellow Drunk Temperatue

2%

3%2%

Cold
Tepid
warm

93%

Hot

Figure 7

Dark Yellow Drunk Temperature

5%
Cold
Tepid

95%

16
Figure 8

Chartreuse Drunk Temperature

6%
cold
Tepid

96%

Figure 9

Dark Chartreuse Drunk Temperature

3%
Cold
Tepid

97%

Figure 10

Emerald Drunk Temperature

2%
3% 3%
Cold
Tepid
Warm

92%

Hot

17
Figure 11
GOLDFI
SH
Appeara
nce

Flav
or

Textur
e

Aroma

Consisten
cy

Mouth
-Feel

Symmetr
ical
Asymmet
rical
Rounded

Salty

90

Crisp

65

spicy

11

Brittle

62

Crispy

41

Sharp

Thin

burnt

25

Chewy

sticky

Chewy

nothing

20

Thin

Slimy

Brown

32
25

Flower
y
Pasty

Crunchy

flowery

Cheezy

2
26

Gritty

fruity

5
5

Viscous

Flaky

23
5

Crunchy

3
49

hard

flavory

39

Thick

Smooth

gritty

grainy

16
3
2
10

Total

100%

Golden
Brow
Light
Brown
Puffy
Dull
Round

100%

100
%

100
%

100
%

100
%

Table 1
RAISIN
Appeara
nce
Asymetrical
Smooth
Sunken
Sticky
Shiny
Dry
Rough
Dull
Puffy
Dark
Glossy

%
2
2
38.
5
5
2
22.
5
6
3
0
11
8
100
%

Flav
or
Sweet
bitter

%
53
3

Textur
e
rough
gritty

Sour

Gelatinou
s

Flower
y

rubbery

Fruity

2
40

Gummy

nutty

Chewy

pasty

Lumpy

Musky

firm
crunchy
crunchy
crunchy

100
%

%
2
6.5
6.5
21
24
24
8
0
0
3
5

Arom
a

Consiste
ncy

%
0
0

Spicy
flavery
Burnt
Sweet
Sour

Brittle
Gummy

0
35.
5
2

Chewy

5
53

viscous

flowery
fruity
Nothin
g

%
0
28
57

Thin

2
11

Rubbery

Crisp

Sticky

39
13

Slimy

13

Gritty

13

Slick

Crunchy

0
2

thick

Mout
hfeel

20

Smooth

4.5

100
%

100
%

100
%

100
%

Table 2
ALMOND
Appeara
nce
rounded
Dry

Flav
or

Flat

20

Nutty

Textur
e

11

rubbery

80

velvety

Aro
ma

Spicy

Burnt

Consiste
ncy

brittle

Chewy

Mouthf
eel

Crisp

29

Sticky

18
Goldenbrown

21

Light-brown

bitter

chewy

Sweet

Thin

Slimy

32

salty

Crisp

Sour

Rubbery

Gritty

Rough

18

stale

Rough

13

flowery

viscous

Slick

smooth

rancid

2
3

Hard

64
0

Crunchy

none

0
90

thick

Firm

34
22

fruity

dull

0
2

63
10

Assymetrical

Crunchy

18

flavery

Symmetrical

gritty

grainy

mealy

Sticky

tender

sweet

100
%

0
100
%

100
%

gummy

100
%

Smooth

100
%

100%

Table 3

MARSHMAL
LOW
Appearance
Symmetrical

Flavo
r

Texture

Arom
a

Consiste
ncy

Mouthfeel

flat

Velvety

15

Spicy

Brittle

Smooth

Sweet

74

Springy

27

Burnt

Chewy

26

Sticky

Puffy

90

Floury

15

Gummy

26

Sweet

95

Thin

Slimy

Dull

Pasty

11

Tender

11

Sour

Rubbery

13

Gritty

rounded

Chewy

flower
y
nothi
ng

fruity

13

dry

crisp

creamy

Rubbery

fine

Gelatiniz
ed

rough

moist
100
%
Sample 6104

Why
was different from
the Standard Sample
Dryness

100
%

Table 4
%
24%
31%

Crunchiness
Less Vanilla
Total

0
100
%

45%
100%

0
5

viscous
butter
thick
gummy

100
%

0
0
2

Crisp

%
0
11
19
2

Slick

10

Crunchy

0
58

Smooth

59

100
%

19

100%

19

Table 5

RANK SAMPLES FROM MOST PREFERED TO LEAST PREFERED

100
90
80
70
555D7 10% Citric Acid

60

695F8 2.5% citric Acid

50

543K8 1% citric acid

40

495P2 0% citric Acid

30

192L3 5% citric Acid

20
10
0
1 Most Prefered

Figure A

5 Least Prefered

20

RANK SAMPLES FROM MOST SOUR TO LEAST SOUR

100
90
80
70
555D7 10% Citric Acid

60

695F8 2.5% Citric Acid

50

543K8 1% Citric Acid

40

495P2 0% Citric Acid

30

192L3 5% Citric Acid

20
10
0
1 Most Sour

5 Least Sour

Figure B

RATE SOUR INTENSITY OF OTHER TWO SAMPLES RELATIVE TO REFERENCE

21
80
70
60
50
420M

40

5723
30
20
10
0
1 Most Sour

Figure C

7 Least Sour