Reiter& 1&

ABSTRACT Food and beverage choices are largely determined by a consumer’s five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and sound. The food industry, including food manufacturers and researchers, are aware of these elements surrounding consumer’s decisions, thus employ extensive sensory evaluation testing when, for example, developing new products or improving current products. This lab explores different sensory evaluation tests that are used in the food industry including: color association/perception of beverages test, descriptive testing, paired comparison test, triangle test, ranking test, duo-trio test, and scoring test. The seven mentioned tests were carried out, data was collected, and results were analyzed and compared to other studies. The tests surveyed different characteristics of different samples of given beverages and foods, including the effect of beverage color on a consumer’s preference, the intensity of different characteristics in food and beverage items, and whether samples differed from a given standard sample. The results, along with cited studies, gave seemingly insight that the subjects preferred more natural-colored beverages, while disliked more artificial looking beverages. In addition, panelists appeared to prefer sweeter beverages to sourer beverages. Tests and results such as these could possibly assist food manufacturers in developing food products so that a favorable product is produced.

Reiter& 2&

Introduction

People make choices about what to eat or drink on a daily basis. How exactly are these selections

made? The senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and sound, influence these choices and ones

desirability to eat or drink particular food and beverage items (Brown 2011). Sight is the first

sense used when evaluating food and beverages. Certain characteristics of food can be

determined by its color; for example, the color of a banana shows its ripeness, or lack thereof. In

addition, color can add an element of attractiveness of a food or beverage so that the potential

consumer will want to eat or drink the item. People’s sense of smell allows them to evaluate

particular food and beverage’s odor, or aroma. On average, a human can tell apart between 2,000

to 4,000 odors (Brown 2011). Smell can alarm the consumer if a food item is burnt, or perhaps

calm the consumer if the food item is pleasantly sweet. Taste is the one of the most influential

factors for people when choosing food and beverages. There are five taste stimuli: sweet, sour,

bitter, salty, and savory or umami (Brown 2011). How people perceive these different tastes will

determine what they like to eat or drink. The sense of touch is used when a food item is picked

up to be eaten as well as by the tongue as the food is being chewed. Characteristics of food are

conveyed by the sense of touch including the texture, temperature, consistency, and astringency

(Brown 2011). Again, an individual’s preference of each of these elements will contribute to

whether they prefer to eat a particular food item or drink a certain beverage. Lastly, the sense of

sound allows the consumer to hear how a food is being prepared, such as popcorn popping, or a

characteristic about the food item, such as tapping on a melon to see if is ripe (Brown 2011).

All five senses are used to evaluate the food and beverage choices at hand. The evaluation of

foods and beverages determines whether an individual prefers or desires a food or beverage item.

Reiter& 3&

Food manufacturers strive to know what people want so that they can provide for the consumers

demand. How do food manufacturers know what people want? Food manufacturers do extensive

testing to find answers. There are various tests that can be done.

There are two types of food evaluation. Objective tests are tests in which laboratory equipment is

used to measure certain food characteristics. The tests within objective evaluation include

physical tests, which may measure the texture, volume, density, or viscosity of a food or

beverage item. In addition, chemical testing may be done, for example a peroxide value test can

measure the amount of oxidation that has taken place in a fat (Brown 2011).

The second type of food evaluation is sensory or subjective evaluation. Sensory tests do not use

laboratory instruments, but rather human subjects to measure food characteristics. Sensory

testing is comprised of two types of tests: analytical or effective tests, and affective tests.

According to Brown’s Lab Manual for Understanding Food: Principles and Preparation,

analytical tests are objective and may test a particular characteristic intensity, for example

subjects may have to rate the sweetness of a sample piece of cake (2011). Affective tests, on the

other hand, are subjective. These tests are based on the subject’s preference of a particular food

or beverage item.

There are various types of subjective tests that are commonly used for food evaluation of quality

and for consumer preference. For analytical tests, there are two categories of tests, which

include discriminative tests and descriptive tests. Discriminative tests usually answer the

question, “are the food/beverage samples different?” These tests are used to find noticeable

Reiter& 4&

differences among the given samples. One type of discriminative test is a triangle test. In this

test the subject is given three samples (all at once), where two are the same and one is different.

The subject’s goal is to identify the odd sample (Brown 2011). The triangle test’s purpose is to

see whether there is a detectable sensory difference between samples. Another type of

discriminative test is the duo-trio test. In this test, a sample, which is marked as the standard, is

given. The subject is given two more samples and is to choose which of the two differs from the

standard. The paired comparison test is yet another type of discriminative test. In this test, the

subject is given two samples. The subject is to report which of the two samples exhibits more of

particular characteristic, such as sweetness or sourness. Lastly, the ranking test is one more

example of a discriminative test. Three or more samples are given to the subject, and the subject

is to rate the samples, from least intense to most intense, based on a particular characteristic such

as flavor or odor (Brown 2011). Descriptive tests, on the other hand, are used to how much the

samples differ. Flavor, texture, and consistency profiles are used to describe, in detail, how the

subject perceives a particular food or beverage item. As mentioned before, affective tests are

used to discover the subject’s personal preference. Hedonic tests are a type of affective tests that

measure a subject’s preference among samples based on a numeric scale (Brown 2011).

Obesity is a growing worldwide epidemic. Many food manufacturers and researchers use sensory

testing to evaluate people’s preferences when attempting to find healthier food options for

consumers. A 2008 study by Rødbotten and others used affective testing to evaluate subject’s

preferences toward six different apple juices. The apple juices contained different concentrations

of sugar and different concentrations of acid: low sugar-low acid, low sugar-high acid, medium

sugar-low acid, medium sugar-high acid, high sugar-low acid, high sugar-high acid, and medium

Reiter& 5&

sugar-medium acid. Rødbotten and others note the current growing consumption of sweetened

foods and beverages in people’s diets. This addition of sugar in people’s diets may be one of the

causes of obesity. They mention that dieticians recommend reducing sugar intake in attempt to

fight obesity. This study was conducted in hopes of developing an apple juice with a reduced

amount of sugar, without sacrificing consumer preference. The panel consisted of 125 panelists

who reported that they drank apple juice at least twice a month. The panelists were given the six

different apple juices and were told to rank them on a preference scale from one to seven, with

one being the least preferred and seven being the most preferred. The results showed that the

majority of panelists preferred the high sugar apple juices. The difference amounts of acid (low

and high) were evenly preferred. Because of this outcome, other measures, such as informative

labeling, were suggested in attempt to sway consumers from drinking sweet beverages.

Physical appearance of food plays a great role in a consumer’s food selection. In a 2008 study by

Zellner and others, panelist’s preferences upon different food samples presentations were

analyzed. Particularly, this study looked upon a food presentations balance, how that balance

influences the consumer, and the role aesthetic appeal in food preferences. The panelists

consisted of 68 undergraduate college students from Montclair State University. The panelists

were each given four presentations consisting of four sliced water chestnuts with four lines and

one dot of tahini. There were two balanced presentations, one colorful and one monochromatic,

and two unbalanced presentations, one colorful and one monochromatic. The panelists were

asked to rate the attractiveness of the presentations using a scale from 1 (extremely unattractive)

and 100 (extremely attractive). The panelists also rated the presentations on their willingness to

try each sample with a scale from 1 (not willing to try at all) to 100 (extremely willing to try).

Reiter& 6&

The data was collected and analyzed. The colored-balanced presentation received the highest

attractive ratings. When it came to the panelist’s willingness to try, the panelist’s

overwhelmingly chose the monochromatic presentations to the colored presentations.

Descriptive testing often helps determine consumer's food selections. In addition, objective food

quality is frequently measured by descriptive testing. In a 2012 study by Seppä and others,

descriptive testing of Finnish apples was conducted. The descriptive testing included developing

a lexicon that could be used in the future to communicate the different characteristics of the

apples to a broader audience to inform consumers. The 13 panelists were given eight hours of

training, including lexicon development. The panelists arrived at a total of 20 terms describing

the appearance (green, red, area of redness, amount of skin wax), odor (intensity, grassy, sour,

sweet, fruity), texture (hard, crispy, mealy, juicy, soggy, tough peel), and flavor (intensity, sour,

sweet, astringent, diverse) of the apples. Each characteristic was rated based on a scale from zero

(meaning “not at all”) to ten (meaning “very”). The panelists used this lexicon and scale to

describe seven types of autumn apples and eight types of winter apples. After statistical analysis,

three dimensions were constructed for simplification, which included, sour-sweet, mealy-juicy,

and crispy-mealy. This was done because too many descriptors could lead to undesirable results.

In addition, it was simplified so that the everyday consumer would easily understand the

terms. This was the first study to develop a lexicon for Finnish apples and with hopes of Seppä

et al will help provide the general public find the particular apples they prefer or need.

Not only does the appearance of food/beverages items have an impact on consumer’s choices,

but the packaging or containers in which an item is presented also has an effect on people’s

Reiter& 7&

decisions. In a 2009 study by Schifferstein, different containers were tested to see how panelists

associated them with different kinds of beverages, mainly tea and soft drinks. The different types

of cups tested included ceramic, cardboard, white plastic, transparent plastic, glass, metal, and

foam. Panelists were to report their level of pleasure when drinking either or soft drinks from

each of the cups. The results showed that the majority of panelists preferred to drink hot tea from

a ceramic cup, while the majority of panelists preferred to drink a cold soft drink from a glass

cup. People are accustomed to many things, which may explain the outcome of this study. In

addition, a study such as this one may help food manufacturers design proper packaging

materials for their particular food or beverage item.

The purpose of this sensory evaluation lab was to introduce Nutrition 205 students to the array of

different sensory tests commonly used by food manufacturers and researchers, including color

association/perception of beverages test, descriptive testing, paired comparison test, triangle test,

ranking test, duo-trio test, and scoring test. In addition, this lab familiarized the students how to

evaluate different food and beverage items in the aforementioned tests. Also, the students gained

insight as to how the sensory elements help decide whether or not a food or beverage item is

desirable or undesirable. Furthermore, the students learned how to use sensory information to

make other conclusion about various food/beverage characteristics.

Methods

Panelists

The untrained panelists of the sensory evaluation tests were made up of students from the San

Diego State University Fall 2012 Nutrition 205 Food Science Lab class. There were a total of 62

panelists. According to the collected data, all were Foods and Nutrition majors. Out of the 62, 8

Reiter& 8&

(13%) were male and 54 (87%) were female. The ages of the panelists ranged from 19-45 and

the average age was 22.7 years old. 59 panelists (95%) were undergraduate students and 3 (5%)

were graduate students. All of the panelists (100%) reported they were food and nutrition majors.

The majority of the students were single (56 panelists, 90%) while 5 panelists (8%) were married

and only 1 panelist (2%) was divorced. 3 panelists (5%) reported that they were smokers, while

59 panelists (95%) reported they were nonsmokers. 6 panelists (10%) reported they lived alone,

14 panelists (23%) reported they lived with one other person, and 42 panelists (68%) reported

they lived with 2 or more other people. There were some instances where several students did

not participate in certain tests due to allergies. A total of 6 panelists (10%) reported some type of

allergy or intolerance, while 56 panelists (90%) reported not to have any allergies or

intolerances. Allergies of some of the students included allergies to avocados, grapefruit, butter,

ice cream cake, wheat, gluten, and fish. There were also reports of lactose intolerance in several

students, which prohibited them from participating in tests.

Environment

The sensory evaluation tests were held on the San Diego State University campus in the West

Commons lab room 203. The room was well lit, and the panelist’s desks were arranged in rows

facing the front of the room where there was the instructor’s desk. Panelists were instructed not

to talk, make gestures, or faces so that the other panelists were not influenced in any way. The

panelists were each given a cup of distilled water to use to clean their pallets between tastings.

The panelists observed and tasted a variety of liquids and foods for the various tests. Panelists

were asked to rank the different liquids and foods based on different characteristics of samples.

The samples were coded so that the panelists did not know what the exact sample was. The lab

Reiter& 9&

instructor and the lab assistant collected the data.

Color Association/Perception of Beverages

The first test to be conducted was the color association/perception of beverages test. All the

panelists were seated at individual desks. The lab technician brought out five beakers of different

colored beverages from the refrigerator and put them on the front instructor’s desk. The colors of

the beverages ranged from light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse to emerald

green. The panelists were asked to rate each of the different color beverages for different

parameters with a scale of one to five, with one being the least and five being the most for each

parameter. The parameters tested included sweetness, sourness, naturalness, artificiality, the

panelists’ preference, and the panelists dislike. In addition, the panelists were asked at what

temperature (hot, warm, tepid, or cold) would they prefer to drink each of the beverages at.

Lastly, the panelists were asked if they would drink each of the different beverages or not, and

this test would result in either a yes or no answer.

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms

This test is used to describe certain textures or flavors of a food or beverage. In this test the lab

technician and lab assistant distributed a goldfish cracker, a raisin, an almond, and a

marshmallow to each participant. The food items were each in their own individual little paper

cup. Once all panelists had their four samples, the lab instructor prompted the panelists to smell

and taste each of the samples. Between each tasting, the panelists were told to drink some of the

provided distilled water so that their pallet would be clear. The panelists were instructed to

describe each food sample’s appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel. The

Reiter& 10&

panelists were given a choice of descriptive vocabulary terms to use to describe each property.

Difference tests

Paired Comparison Test

The paired comparison test is used to determine the intensity of a certain characteristic in two

samples. This test was conducted to determine which of two beverage samples were thought to

be sourer than the other by each panelist. The lab instructor and lab technician gave two coded

beverage samples to the panelists. The panelists were instructed to drink each of the samples and

to record which sample had the lesser intensity of sourness and which sample had the greater

intensity of sourness.

Triangle Test

The triangle test’s purpose is to identify which of the three samples is different than the other

two. The lab technician retrieved three coded beakers of beverages from the refrigerator and

placed them on the front instructors table. The first panelist in each row was asked to go to the

front instructor’s table and to pour each of the three samples in little paper cups for their row,

and to distribute the samples to their row. Once everyone had their samples, the panelists tasted

each of the samples and recorded which sample they thought to be the odd sample.

Ranking Test

The ranking test is used to rank the intensity of a particular characteristic of two or more

samples. In this test five beverages were used and the panelists were to rank the beverages in

order of sourness intensity, with one being the least sour and five being the most sour. Also,

Reiter& 11&

preference was also ranked, with one being the most preferred and five being the least preferred.

The lab technician brought out five coded beakers of beverages from the refrigerator and placed

them on the front instructor’s table. Again, the first panelist in each row went up to the front

instructors table and poured each of the coded samples into little paper cups for their row, and

distributed them to their row. When everyone had their samples, the panelists tasted each of the

samples and ranked and recorded the sourness intensity of the samples and their preference with

a one to five scale.

Duo-trio Test

This test is used to determine which of two samples is different from the standard, which is

presented first. In this test the lab technician and lab assistant distributed a coded cookie to each

of the panelists. This cookie was the designated standard. The lab technician and lab assistant

also passed out two more coded cookies to the panelists. Once all of the panelists had all three

samples, they tasted the samples and recorded which cookie was different from the standard. The

panelists also were asked to note the major difference of the cookie they deemed different from

the standard cookie.

Scoring Test

The scoring test is used to rate the intensity of different samples relative to a reference sample. In

this test the lab technician retrieved three coded beakers of beverages from the refrigerator and

place them on the instructor’s desk. Once again, the first panelist in each row went up to the

instructor’s desk and poured each sample into little paper cups for their row, and then distributed

the cups to their row. The reference sample was given an arbitrary score of four. The panelists

Reiter& 12&

rated the other two samples relative to this reference from a scale from one to seven, with one

being the most sour and seven being the least sour. When all panelists had their three samples,

they first tasted the reference sample. Then, the panelists were told to taste the other two samples

and rate them on the one to seven scale and record their data.

Statistical Analysis

Data was collected and recorded by the lab assistant and inputted into an Excel worksheet in the

Nutrition 205 classroom. The completed Excel worksheet was then available to students so that

students could calculate percentages for their report.

Results

Beverage Color Association

The 62 panelists observed five different colored beverages ranging from light yellow (Mountain

Dairy Lemonade), dark yellow (Xtremo Citrico Vibrante Gatorade), chartreuse (350 mls. Lemon

Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Green Squall PowerAde), dark chartreuse (Green Squall

PowerAde), to emerald (Watermelon Gatorade), and rated them on measures including which

they thought was the sweetest, the most sour, the most artificial, the most natural, which they

prefer the most, and which they dislike the most. Seventeen panelists (27%) thought the dark

yellow beverage was the sweetest; sixteen panelists (26%) thought the emerald beverage was the

sweetest; both the light yellow and the dark chartreuse beverages had 12 votes each (19% each)

for being the sweetest; and lastly, only 5 panelists (8%) thought that the chartreuse beverage was

the sweetest. Refer to figure 1.

Reiter& 13&

Nearly half of the panelists (29 panelists = 47%) thought that the sourest beverage was the was

the light yellow beverage; 15 panelists (24%) thought the sourest was the chartreuse beverage;

13 panelists (21%) thought that dark yellow was the sourest; 3 panelists (5%) thought dark

chartreuse was the sourest; and finally, only 2 panelists (3%) thought that the emerald beverage

was the sourest beverage. See figure 2 below.

Well over half of the panelists (41 panelists = 66%) thought that emerald was the most artificial;

19%&

27%&

8%&

19%&26%&

0%&5%&10%&15%&20%&25%&30%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'1:'Sweetest'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'percentages''''

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

47%&

21%& 24%&

5%& 3%&0%&10%&20%&30%&40%&50%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'2:'Most'sour'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'percentages'

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

Reiter& 14&

12 panelists (19%) thought that the dark chartreuse beverage was the most artificial; 5 panelists

(8%) thought that the chartreuse beverage was the most artificial; 3 panelists (5%) thought that

the dark yellow beverage was the most artificial; and only one panelist (2%) thought that the

light yellow beverage was the most artificial. Refer to figure 3.

The majority of the panelists (65 panelists = 90%) thought that the light yellow beverage was the

most natural; 4 panelists thought that the chartreuse beverage was the most natural; one panelist

(2%) thought that the dark chartreuse beverage was the most natural; likewise, one panelist (2%)

thought that the emerald beverage was the most natural. None of the panelists thought that the

dark yellow beverage was the most natural. Refer to figure 4.

2%& 5%& 8%&19%&

66%&

0%&10%&20%&30%&40%&50%&60%&70%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'3:'Most'artiBicial'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'

percentages'

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

Reiter& 15&

68% of the panelists (42 panelists) preferred the light yellow beverage; 6% (4 panelists)

preferred the chartreuse beverage; 6% (4 panelists) preferred the dark chartreuse beverage; 5% (3

panelists) preferred the dark yellow beverage; and lastly, 3% (2 panelists) preferred the emerald

beverage. See figure 5.

The majority of the panelists, 63% (39 panelists), disliked the emerald beverage; 18% (11

90%&

0%& 6%& 2%& 2%&0%&20%&40%&60%&80%&100%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'4:'Most'natural'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'

in'percentages'

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

68%&

5%& 6%& 6%& 3%&0%&10%&20%&30%&40%&50%&60%&70%&80%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'5:'Most'preferred'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'20'panelists,'in'

percentages''

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

Reiter& 16&

panelists) disliked the dark yellow beverage; 10% (6 panelists) disliked the dark chartreuse

beverage; 8% (5 panelists) disliked the chartreuse beverage; and only one panelist (2%) disliked

the light yellow. Refer to figure 6.

When asked at what temperature (cold, tepid, warm, hot) the panelists would like to drink the

light yellow beverage, 94% (58 panelists) reported cold, 3% (2 panelists) reported tepid, 2% (1

panelist) reported warm, and 2% (1 panelist) reported hot. For the dark yellow beverage, 95%

(59 panelists) said cold and 5% (3 panelists) said tepid, while no one said warm or hot. For the

chartreuse beverage 94% (58 panelists) said cold, 6% (4 panelists) said tepid, and no one said

warm or hot. Nearly all panelists, 97% (60 panelists) said that they preferred dark chartreuse at a

cold temperature and 3% (2 panelists) preferred it at a tepid temperature. No one preferred dark

chartreuse at a neither warm nor hot temperature. For the emerald beverage, 92% (57 students)

preferred it at cold temperature, 3% (2 panelists) at a tepid temperature, 3% (2 students) at a hot

temperature, and 2% (1 panelist) at a warm temperature. See figure 6.

2%&18%&

8%& 10%&

63%&

0%&10%&20%&30%&40%&50%&60%&70%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'6:'Most'disliked'beverage'based'on'appearance'as'rated'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'

percentages'

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse&

dark&chartreuse&

emerald&

Reiter& 17&

When asked if the panelists would drink the beverages, 89% (55 panelists) said they would drink

the light yellow beverage and 11% (7 panelists) said they would not drink the light yellow

beverage. For the dark yellow beverage, 50% (31 panelists) said they would drink it and 50%

said they wouldn’t drink it. 71% (44 panelists) said they would drink the chartreuse beverage,

while 29% (18 panelists) said they would not drink the chartreuse beverage. 48% (30 panelists)

said they would drink the dark chartreuse beverage and 52% (32 panelists) said they would not

drink the dark chartreuse beverage. Finally, 26% (16 panelists) said that they would drink the

emerald beverage, while 74% (46 students) said they would not drink the emerald beverage.

Refer to figure 7.

0%&

20%&

40%&

60%&

80%&

100%&

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse& dark&chartreuse&

emerald&Percentage'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'6:'Temperature'at'which'Nutrition'205'panelists'would'prefer'each'beverage'based'on'

appearance,'in'percentages'

cold&

tepid&

warm&

hot&

Reiter& 18&

Evaluation of Food Products with Descriptive Terms

In this test, four different food items (goldfish cracker, raisin, almond, and marshmallow) were

described by panelists based on the food’s appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and

mouth feel. All 62 panelists participated in the test, with the exception of the goldfish testing due

to one student having sensitivity to gluten. So n=61 for the goldfish test, and n=62 for each the

raisin, almond, and marshmallow tests. For the appearance of the goldfish cracker, 20 panelists

(33%) described it as dry; 15 panelists (25%) described it as golden brown; 10 panelists (16%)

described it as puffy; 6 panelists (10%) described it as grainy; 3 panelists (5%) described it as

symmetrical; 2 panelists (3%) described it as rounded; 2 panelists (3%) described it as dull; 1

panelist (2%) described it as asymmetrical; 1 panelist (2%) described it as light brown; and 1

panelist (2%) described it as rough. For the flavor of the goldfish, 55 panelists (90%) described it

as salty; 4 panelists (7%) described it as sharp; 1 panelist (2%) described it as flowery, and 1

panelist (2%) described it as pasty. For the texture of the goldfish, 40 panelists (66%) described

it as crisp; 14 panelists (23%) described it as crunchy; 3 panelists (5%) described it as flaky; 1

0%&

20%&

40%&

60%&

80%&

100%&

light&yellow&

dark&yellow&

chartreuse& dark&chartreuse&

emerald&Percentage'of'panelists'

Observed'beverage'colors'

Figure'7:'Willingness'of'Nutrition'205'panelists'to'drink'the'given'beverages'based'on'appearance,'in'

percentages''

yes&

no&

Reiter& 19&

panelist (2%) described it as thin; and one panelist (2%) described it as hard. For the aroma of

the goldfish, 24 panelists (39%) described it as flavory, 15 panelists (25%) described it as burnt;

12 panelists (20%) described it as nothing; 7 panelists (11%) described it as spicy; and 3

panelists (5%) described it as flowery. For the consistency of the goldfish, 38 panelists (62%)

described it as brittle, 16 panelists (26%) described it as cheesy; 3 panelists (5%) described it as

thin; 2 panelists (3%) described it as chewy; one panelist (2%) described it as viscous; and one

panelist (2%) described it as thick. For the mouth feel of the goldfish, 30 panelists described the

goldfish as crunchy; 25 panelists (41%) described it as crisp; 2 panelists (3%) described it as

sticky; 2 panelists (3%) described as gritty; 1 panelist (2%) described it as slimy; and one

panelist (2%) described it as smooth. Refer to Table 1.

Table 1: Terms describing appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of goldfish crackers by Nutrition 205 panelists, results given in percentages Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth

feel Dry – 33% Salty –

90% Crisp – 66% Flavory –

39% Brittle – 62% Crunchy

– 49% Golden brown – 25%

Sharp – 7%

Crunchy – 23%

Burnt – 25% Cheesy – 26%

Crisp – 41%

Puffy – 16% Floury – 2%

Flaky – 5% Nothing – 20%

Thin – 5% Sticky – 3%

Other – 25% (Including: grainy, symmetrical, rounded, asymmetrical, light brown, dull, and rough)

Pasty – 2%

Other – 7% (Including: thin, hard, and gritty)

Other – 16% (Including: spicy and floury)

Other – 7% (Including: chewy, viscous, and thick)

Other – 7% (including: slimy, gritty, and smooth)

All 62 panelists participated in the raisin description tests. For the appearance of the raisin, 24

Reiter& 20&

panelists (39%) described the appearance as sunken; 14 panelists (23%) described it as dry; 7

panelists (11%) described it as dark; 5 panelists (8%) described it as glossy; 4 panelists (6%)

described it as rough; 3 panelists (5%) described it as sticky; 2 panelists (3%) described it as

dull; one panelist (2%) described it as asymmetrical; one panelist (2%) described it as smooth;

and one panelist (2%) described it as shiny. For the flavor of the raisin, 33 panelists (53%)

described the flavor as sweet; 25 panelists (40%) described it as fruity; 2 panelists (3%)

described it as bitter; one panelist (2%) described it as flowery; and one panelist (2%) described

it as musky. For the texture of the raisin, 15 panelists (24%) described it as gummy, 15 panelists

(24%) described it as chewy; 13 panelists (21%) described it as rubbery; 5 panelists (8%)

described it as lumpy; 4 panelists (6%) described it as gritty; 4 panelists (6%) described it as

gelatinous; 3 panelists (5%) described it as moist; 2 panelists (3%) described it as tender; and one

panelist (2%) described it as rough. For aroma of the raisin, 56 panelists (90%) described the

aroma as none; 2 panelists (3%) described it as flavory; and one panelist (2%) described it as

flowery. For the consistency of the raisin, 40 panelists (65%) described it as thick; 18 panelists

(29%) described it as chewy; one panelist (2%) described it as brittle; and one panelist described

it as viscous. For the mouth feel of the of mouth feel of the raisin, 24 panelists (39%) described it

as sticky; 13 panelists (21%) described it as smooth; 8 panelists (13%) described it as slimy; 8

panelists (13%) described it as gritty; 8 panelists (13%) described it as slick, and one panelist

(2%) described it as crunchy. Refer to Table 2.

Reiter& 21&

Table 2: Terms describing appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of raisins by Nutrition 205 panelists, results given in percentages Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel Sunken – 39%

Sweet – 53%

Gummy – 24%

Sour – 24% Chewy – 58%

Sticky – 39%

Dry – 23% Fruity – 40%

Chewy – 24%

Fruity – 19% Gummy – 27%

Smooth – 21%

Dark – 11% Bitter – 3%

Rubbery – 21%

Sweet – 11% Rubbery – 11%

Slimy – 13%

Other – 27% (Including: asymmetrical, smooth, sticky, shiny, rough, dull, glossy)

Other – 4% (including: floury and musky)

Other – 31% (including: rough, gritty, gelatinous, lumpy, tender, and moist)

Other – 5% (Including: nothing)

Other – 4% (including: thin and thick)

Other – 27% (including: gritty, slick, and crunchy)

All 62 panelists participated in the almond description tests. For the appearance of the almond,

20 panelists (32%) described the appearance of the almond as light brown; 13 panelists (21%)

described it as golden brown; 12 panelists (19%) described it as dry; 11 panelists (18%)

described it as rough; 3 panelists (5%) described it as rounded; one panelist (2%) described it as

dull; one panelist (2%) described it as asymmetrical; and one panelist (2%) described it as

grainy. For the flavor of the almond, 50 panelists (81%) described the flavor as nutty; 7 panelists

(11%) described it as flat; 2 panelists (3%) described it as bitter; 2 panelists (3%) described it as

sweet; and one panelist (2%) described it as rancid. For the texture of the almond, 21 panelists

(34%) described it as hard; 13 panelists (21%) described it as firm; 11 panelists (18%) described

it as crunchy; 8 panelists (13%) described it as rough; 3 panelists (5%) described it as chewy; 2

panelists (3%) described it as crisp; 2 panelists (3%) described it as gritty; and 2 panelists (3%)

described it as mealy. For the aroma of the almond, 56 panelists (90%) thought the almond had

Reiter& 22&

the aroma of nothing; 3 panelists (5%) described it as burnt; 2 panelists (3%) described it as

flavory; and one panelist (2%) described it as flowery. For the consistency of the almond, 40

panelists (65%) described it as thick; 18 panelists (29%) described it as chewy; 2 panelists (3%)

described it as rubbery; one panelist (2%) described it as brittle; and one panelist (2%) described

it as viscous. For the mouth feel of the almond, 39 panelists (63%) described it as crunchy; 12

panelists (19%) described it as gritty; 6 panelists (10%) described it as smooth; 4 panelists (6%)

described it as crisp; and one panelist (2%) described it as sticky. Refer to Table 3.

Table 3: Terms describing appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of almonds by Nutrition 205 panelists, results given in percentages Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel Light brown – 32%

Nutty – 81%

Hard – 34%

None – 90%

Thick – 65%

Crunchy – 63%

Golden brown – 21%

Flat – 11% Firm – 21%

Burnt – 5%

Chewy – 29%

Gritty – 19%

Dry – 19% Bitter – 3%

Crunchy – 18%

Flavory – 3%

Rubbery – 3%

Smooth – 10%

Other – 28% (including: rounded, rough, dull, asymmetrical, and grainy)

Other – 5% (including: rancid and sweet)

Other – 14% (including: chewy, crisp, gritty, and mealy)

Other – 2% (including floury)

Other – 4% (including: brittle and viscous)

Other – 8% (including: crisp and sticky)

All 62 panelists participated in the marshmallow descriptive tests. For the appearance of the

marshmallow, 56 panelists (90%) described the appearance as puffy; 3 panelists (5%) described

it as smooth; two panelists (3%) described it as dull; and one panelist (2%) described it as

rounded. For the flavor of the marshmallow, 46 panelists (74%) described it as sweet; 9 panelists

(15%) described it as floury; and 7 panelists (11%) described it as pasty. For the texture of the

marshmallow, 17 panelists (27%) described the texture as springy; 16 panelists (26%) described

Reiter& 23&

it as gummy; 9 panelists (15%) described it as velvety; 8 panelists (13%) described it as chewy;

7 panelists (11%) described it as tender; 3 panelists (5%) described it as gelatinized; and 2

panelists (3%) described it as rubbery. For the aroma of the marshmallow, 59 panelists (95%)

described the aroma as sweet; and 3 panelists (5%) described it as nothing. For the consistency

of the marshmallow, 37 panelists (60%) described it as gummy; 16 panelists (26%) described it

as chewy; 8 panelists (13%) described it as rubbery; and one panelist (2%) described it as thick.

For the mouth feel of the marshmallow, 36 panelists (58%) described the mouth feel as smooth;

12 panelists (19%) described it as slimy; 7 panelists (11%) described it as sticky; 6 panelists

(10%) described it as slick; and one panelist (2%) described it as gritty. See Table 4.

Table 4: Terms describing appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of marshmallows by Nutrition 205 panelists, results given in percentages Appearance Flavor Texture Aroma Consistency Mouth feel Puffy – 90% Sweet –

74% Springy – 27%

Sweet – 95%

Gummy – 60%

Smooth – 58%

Smooth – 5%

Floury – 15%

Gummy – 26%

Nothing – 5%

Chewy – 26%

Slimy – 19%

Dull – 3% Pasty – 11%

Velvety – 15%

- Rubbery – 13%

Sticky – 11%

Rounded – 2%

- Other – 32% (including: tender, chewy, rubbery, gelatinized)

- Thick – 2% Other – 12% (including: slick and gritty)

Difference tests Paired Comparison Test

All 62 panelists participated in this test, and all 62 panelists (100%) selected the beverage with

1% citric acid to be sourer than the beverage with 0% citric acid.

Reiter& 24&

Triangle Test

All 62 panelists participated in this test. 100% of the panelists (all 62) selected the beverage with

1% citric acid to differ from the other two beverages that each contained 0% citric acid.

Ranking Test

In this test, five different beverages were sampled and ranked on their degree of sourness, and on

their degree of panelist preference, using a scale from 1-5 with 1 being the most and 5 being the

least. All 62 panelists participated in this test. The majority of the panelists, 97% (60 panelists),

ranked the 10% citric acid beverage to have a sourness rating of 1, and only 3% (2 panelists)

ranked the 5% citric acid beverage with a rating of 1. 89% of the panelists (55 panelists) gave the

5% citric acid beverage a sourness rating of 2; 6% (4 panelists) gave the 2.5% citric acid

beverage a rating of 2; 3% (2 panelists) gave the 10% citric acid beverage a rating of 2; and 2%

(one panelist) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a sourness rating of 2. A majority of panelists at

92% (57 panelists) gave the 2.5% citric acid beverage a sourness rating of 3; 5% (3 panelists)

gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of 3; 5% (2 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage

a rating of 3; and 3% (2 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of 3. 90% of

panelists gave the 1% citric acid beverage a sourness rating of 4; 3% (2 panelists) gave the 2.5%

citric acid beverage a rating of 4; 3% (2 panelists) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a rating of 4;

and 3% (2 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of 4. 94% of the panelists (58

panelists) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a rating of 5; 5% (3 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid

beverage a rating of 5; and 2% (one panelist) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of 5.

Refer to figure 8.

Reiter& 25&

68% of the panelists (42 panelists) gave the 0% citric acid a preference ranking of 1; and 32%

(20 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of one. 65% (40 panelists) gave the 1%

citric acid beverage a rating of 2; 27% (17 panelists) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a rating of

2; 5% (3 panelists) gave the 2.5% citric acid beverage a rating of 2; and 3% (2 panelists) gave the

5% citric acid beverage a rating of 2. 84% (52 panelists) gave the 2.5% citric acid beverage a

preference rating of 3; 5% (3 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of 3; 5% (3

panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of 3; 3% (2 panelists) gave the 10% citric

acid beverage a rating of 3; and 3% (2 panelists) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a rating of

three. 84% (52 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid a preference rating of 4; 11% (7 panelists) gave

the 2.5% citric acid beverage a rating of 4; 3% (2 panelists) gave the 0% citric acid beverage a

rating of 4; and 2% (one panelist) gave the 10% citric acid beverage a rating of 4. The majority

of panelists, 94% (58 panelists), gave the 10% citric acid beverage a preference rating of 5; and

6% (4 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of 5. Refer to figure 9.

0%&20%&40%&60%&80%&100%&120%&

1=most&sour&

2& 3& 4& 5=least&sour&

Percent'of'panelists'

Ranking'of'samples'

Figure'8:'Ranking'of'Bive'citric'acid'solutions'according'to'sourness'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'

percentages'

0%&citric&acid&

1%&citric&acid&

2.5%&citric&acid&

5%&citric&acid&

10%&citric&acid&

Reiter& 26&

Duo-trio Test

All 62 panelists participated in this test. The majority of the panelists, 90% (56 panelists)

identified the Smart and Final Vanilla Wafer differing from the standard (Nabisco Nilla Wafer).

10% (6 panelists) of panelists selected the Nabisco Nilla Wafer from differing from the Nabisco

Nilla Wafer standard. 45% (28 panelists) described the sample that differed from the standard as

having less vanilla; 31% (19 panelists) described it as having more crunchiness; and 24% (15

panelists) described it as being drier. See figure 10 be

0%&20%&40%&60%&80%&100%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Ranking'of'samples'

Figure'9:'Ranking'of'Bive'citric'acid'solutions'according'to'preference'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'

in'percentages'

0%&citric&acid&

1%&citric&acid&

2.5%&citric&acid&

5%&citric&acid&

10%&citric&acid&

Reiter& 27&

Scoring Test

All 62 panelists participated in the rating test. In this test the panelists tasted a reference sample

(a 2.5% citric acid beverage), which was given an arbitrary score of four, and then rated the

intensity of sourness of two other samples, which included a 1% citric acid beverage and a 5%

citric acid beverage. The panelists used a scale from one to seven, with one being the most sour

and seven being the least sour. 60% (37 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of

one, while 2% (1 panelist) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of one. 34% (21 panelists)

gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of two, and 3% (2 panelists) gave the 5% citric acid

beverage a rating of two. Nobody gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of three, while 3% (2

panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of three. 2% (one panelist) gave the 1% citric

acid beverage a rating of four, and 2% (1 panelist) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of

four. 15% (9 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of 5, and nobody gave the 5%

citric acid beverage a rating of five. 69% (43 panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating

of six, while 2% (1 panelist) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of six. 10% (6 panelists)

gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of seven, and nobody gave the 5% citric acid beverage

Smart&and&Final&90%&

Nabisco&Nilla&Wafer&10%&

Figure'10:'Sample'that'differed'from'standard'sample'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'

percentages'

Smart&and&Final&

Nabisco&Nilla&Wafer&

Reiter& 28&

a rating of seven. Refer to figure 11.

Discussion

Beverage Color Association

Sight is one of the senses that is used to determine different characteristics of a food or beverage

item. In this test, an overwhelming amount, 90%, of panelists (56 panelists) reported that the

light yellow beverage (Mountain Dairy Lemonade) was the most natural. This may have

occurred for various reasons. The light yellow beverage was the least colored of the five

presented beverages, and people usually associate strong colorings with unnatural elements. In

addition, the majority of the panelists, 68% (42 panelists), reported that they would prefer the

light yellow beverage compared to the other presented beverages. There appears to be a

correlation between the amount of people that reported the light yellow beverage being the most

natural and that reported the light yellow beverage being the one that they preferred the most.

Also, when asked if the panelists would try the light yellow beverage, 89% of panelists (55

0%&20%&40%&60%&80%&

Percent'of'panelists'

Ratings'of'sourness'compared'to'reference'(*1.5%'citric'acid'reference'sample'has'an'arbitrary'score'of'4)'

Figure'11:'Ratings'of'intensity'of'sourness'as'compared'to'a'given'1%'citric'acid'reference'

sample'by'Nutrition'205'panelists,'in'percentages'

2.5%&citric&acid&

5%&citric&acid&

Reiter& 29&

panelists) said yes. Same results were found in a study by Zeller and others (2010). In their

study, subjects were given four presentations of arranged water chestnuts and lines of tahini,

which included a monochrome-balanced presentation, a colored-balanced presentation, a

monochrome-unbalanced presentation, and a colored-unbalanced presentation. When asked if the

subjects would be willing to try any of the presentations, the monochrome (uncolored)

presentations were in the majority. This can lead to the conclusion that people prefer, and are

more willing to try, uncolored, more natural looking food and beverage items, as found in this

lab as well as Zeller’s (2010). Another significant data point to note is that 66% (41 panelists)

said that they found the emerald beverage (Watermelon Gatorade) to be the most artificial, and

the majority of panelists, 63% (39 panelists) reported that they disliked the emerald beverage. In

addition, a mere 2% (1 panelist) reported the emerald beverage as being natural, and only 3% (2

panelists) said they prefer the beverage. This may be because the emerald drink appears to be a

very vibrant color and people associate strong colors with artificiality. Also citing Zeller’s study

(2010), when asked if subjects would be willing to try the colored presentations, the majority

said no. Again, people appear to prefer more neutral colored beverages/food when only sight is

taken in consideration. In addition, an overwhelming amount of panelists preferred each of the

five given beverages cold, as opposed to tepid, warm, or hot. This may have been the case

because the beverages were in a glass beaker, and in compliance with Schifferstein’s study, the

panelist’s may also prefer cold beverages when given in a glass beverage (2009).

Evaluation of Food Products with Descriptive Terms

In this test, the panelists were given a list of vocabulary to use to describe the given food items:

goldfish cracker, raisin, almond, and marshmallow. This may have restricted some panelists by

Reiter& 30&

not including a descriptive term they may have used to describe the food items. In addition, not

all panelists participated because of allergies, food intolerance, or diet habits. Another note is

that the panelists were not trained in anyway to be a food taster evaluator, which may have had

an impact on the results. In Understanding Food: Principles and Preparation, Brown explains,

“Descriptive tests rely on a trained panel to document a product’s sensory characteristics.” In a

study by Seppä (2012) evaluated sensory characteristics of different types of apples also using

subjects who were untrained; however, the subjects received a training program. In addition, in

the Seppä study (2012) the descriptive terms used were developed by the panelists. In this study

the descriptive terms were not derived by the panelists, but by previous class’s panelists.

Difference tests

Paired Comparison Test

There was a unanimous result for the pair comparison test. 100% of the panelists (62 panelists)

selected the beverage with 1% citric acid to be sourer than the beverage with 0% citric acid. The

purpose of a paired comparison test is to select which sample has more of a given characteristic;

in this case the particular characteristic was sourness. Because of the uncontested result, perhaps

the test was too simplistic, or the samples given were too unalike so that they were easily told

apart. If the sourness of the beverages were closer than the given samples, there may have been a

different result. In addition, there may have been some potential bias as the panelists were able to

see each other and maybe there was some communication between panelists, which may have

affected the results.

Reiter& 31&

Triangle Test

All 62 panelists (100%) elected the beverage with 1% citric acid to differ from the other two

beverages that each contained 0% citric acid. The purpose of this test is to determine which of

three samples differs from the other two. This result of 100% of panelists selecting the beverage

that differed from the other two again suggests the simplicity of this particular test. In addition, it

may have had this outcome due to biases, as the panelists were in a room together and they were

able to see each other’s expressions. Perhaps the results would have been different if panelists

were in isolated rooms or cubicles where they could not see or hear the other panelists.

Ranking Test

The ranking test provided some notable results. Nearly all panelists (97%, 60 panelists) correctly

ranked the 10% citric acid solution as the most sour out of the five given solutions. Also, 94%

(58 panelists) correctly ranked the 0% citric acid solution as the least sour. 68% (48 panelists)

ranked the 0% citric acid solution with a rating of one for preference. In other words, the

majority of the panelists preferred the least sour or sweetest solution of the five solutions. In a

study completed by Rødbotten (2009) similar results were found. In their study, they tested the

subject’s preference of commercial apple juice (the sweetest) versus one with diluted with water

and one with increased acidity. The commercial apple juice, thus the sweetest of the

samples, had the highest approval rating among the panelists. In addition, in our tests 94% (58

panelists) gave the 10% citric acid solution a preference rating of five, meaning that they least

preferred the sourest solution. The possibility of error may have been elevated due to the high

number of samples (five samples). The panelists may have labeled the samples incorrectly or

may have forgotten which they thought was more sour than the others. Also, there could have

Reiter& 32&

been some bias as some of the panelists may have made expressions or sounds that may have

influenced the other panelists.

Duo-trio Test

In the duo-trio test, a standard was given which was the Nabisco Nilla Wafer. The panelists had

to determine which of two other samples differs from the standard. The majority of the panelists,

90% (56 panelists) identified the Smart and Final Vanilla Wafer differing from the standard

(Nabisco Nilla Wafer). 10% (6 panelists) of panelists selected the Nabisco Nilla Wafer from

differing from the Nabisco Nilla Wafer standard. The cause for the 10% of panelists choosing the

incorrect sample may be due to several reasons. They may have been influenced by other

panelists’ expressions. There may have been disruptions in the room. There could have been a

chance that the samples were not labeled corrected. All of these reasons may have caused error

in the results. The majority of panelists noted that the sample that differed from the standard as

having less vanilla. This may have been true due to the exhausting of their tasting senses.

Scoring Test

In this test the panelists tasted a reference sample (a 2.5% citric acid beverage), which was given

an arbitrary score of four, and then rated the intensity of sourness of two other samples, which

included a 1% citric acid beverage and a 5% citric acid beverage. The panelists used a scale from

one to seven, with one being the most sour and seven being the least sour. The majority, 60% (37

panelists) gave the 5% citric acid beverage a rating of one, while the majority at 69% (43

panelists) gave the 1% citric acid beverage a rating of six. Potential errors for this test may be

due to panelists not correctly using the scale correctly. Also they may have incorrectly labeled

Reiter& 33&

their samples. In addition, the panelists may have forgotten what the standard sample tasted like

and this would have made it difficult to rate the other samples. The panelist’s taste buds may also

have been exhausted due to the number of samples being tasted. Lastly, there may have been

biases due to other panelists’ expressions or from other disruptions in the room.

Reiter& 34&

References Brown A. 2011. Lab Manual for Brown’s Understanding Food Principles and

Preparation. 4th Edition. California: Wadsworth. 317 p. Brown A. 2011. Understanding Food Principals and Preparation. 4th Edition. California:

Wadsworth. 625 p. Rødbotten M, Martinsen B, Borge G. Mortvedt, H, Knutsen S, Lea P, Naes T.

2009. A cross-cultural study of preference for apple juice with different sugar and acid contents. Food Quality and Preference. 20: 277-284. Available from Elsevier. Posted November 27, 2008.

Schifferstein F. 2009. The Drinking Experience. Cup or Content?. Food Quality and Preference. 20: 268-276. Available from Elsevier. Posted November 27, 2008.

Seppä L, Railio J, Mononen R, Tahvonen R, Tuorila R. 2012. From profiles to practice: Communicating the sensory characteristics of apples to the wider audience through simplified descriptive profiles. Food Quality and Preference. 47: 46-55. Available from Elsevier. Posted January 12, 2012.

Zeller D, Lankford M, Ambrose L, Locher P. 2012. Art on the plate: Effect of balance and color on attractiveness of, willingness to try and liking for food. Food Quality and Preference. 21: 575-578. Available from: Elsevier. Posted February 26, 2010.

Reiter& 35&

Appendix