FOOD,

THE SENSATION OF LIFE

ð

PEDRO GAMA GUZMAN

NUTRITION 205 LAB
SECTION 1
FALL 2018
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was for students to comprehend and learn how to utilize the
five senses known as taste, touch, sight, sound, and aroma. These five senses were
practiced on different tests for the sensory lab and these tests were performed in the
Nutrition 205 lab at San Diego State University. The analytical tests were performed by
22 students with the exception of 1 test due to one of the panelist being vegan and one
being allergic to gluten. The different types of testing conducted included paired
comparison, triangle test, ranking test, duo-trio, and the rating test. The different test
performed tested the skill set of the panelist in determining which sample was the most
sour, which sample was the odd sample, and identifying different characteristics of
cookies or beverages. According to the results majority of the students were able to
identify different characteristics of food a long with beverages.
 3

Intro

In food production the sensory evaluation of foods, food preference, and acceptability of

food are important characteristics in the food industry. The texture of certain food

captures attention and other influencing factors such as taste, sight, odor, and sound of

food play a vital role as well. Sight, as well as taste, is one of the most influential factors

of the five senses since sight is the first sense used when deciding what food to consume.

According to Maya U. Shankar and company (2010), there is evident support that the

color of a food or drink can highly influence the intensity of a flavor. A testing was

performed , where a group of individuals received different colored beverages and they

were supposed to match the color of the drink with a flavor. For example one group that

had a brown colored beverage perceived it as being a cola beverage and another group

perceived it as being grape soda. So the color does factor in and influences different

aroma identifications.

Sensory testing evaluates food using sensory characteristics along with personal

preference by utilizing the five senses. There is an array of different types of testing that

can be noted and some would include affective and effective testing. Affective is more of

a subjective response that deals with acceptance or preference, which entails an un-

experienced group of panelists on the liking or disliking of a product. Effective is more

analytical and entails descriptive differences. An effective test usually consists of

particularly trained panelists that can discern even the most difficult of senses. These tests

are methods utilized in determining certain characteristics of a food. A minimum of five

panelists are utilized for effective testing. To improve or create new products, the food
 4

industry uses diverse methods as a guide. Experienced panelists are given these tests to

ensure that the correct area is being examined.

Paired comparison test, also known as a difference test, involves two samples and the

purpose of the test is to determine which sample provided a more intense characteristic.

The samples were apple juice and apple juice with 1% citric acid added. Some

descriptive terms used to determine the degree of intensity are sour, sweet, thin, or thick.

In the study by Menella, Julie et al (2015) young kids from the ages of 3-10 were given a

sample to consume and that sample was mixed with water and tasted bitter. The second

sample given to the children was bitter as well but contained a bitter blocker and the kids

were instructed to distinguish which sample was more bitter. The purpose of that study

was for kids to discern if the bitterness was in the beverage sample in order to aid the

company in creating a medicine that kids would enjoy drinking.

The triangle test, which is also a difference test, was conducted using three coded

samples. Two samples are identical and the panelists had to guess which sample was

different. These samples were given to the panelists simultaneously and two of the

samples were apple juice and one was apple juice with 1% citric acid added. The goal

was to determine which sample was different. In the study by Saavedra-Garcia et al

(2015) the triangle test was utilized to observe if panelists can distinguish between

regular salt and low sodium salt. There study concluded that a majority of panelists were

not able to distinguish between the two different salts. The hypothesis of the study was

reinforced by the results, which showed people wouldn’t be able to distinguish between

regular and low sodium salt. This can be beneficial in aiding people that have

hypertension.
 5

A ranking test is a difference test where two or more samples given are presented to the

panelists simultaneously and the goal is to rank the samples according to the intensity of

the particular characteristic. These characteristics include flavor, color, odor etc. The

sample with the greatest intensity is ranked from 1-5 with 1 being the highest intensity.

The samples included plain apple juice, apple juice with 2.5% citric acid, apple juice with

5% citric acid, apple juice with 1% citric acid, and apple juice with 10% citric acid

added. The goal was to rank in order which one was most sour.

In a duo-trio test a standard sample is allotted to the panelists along with two more

samples and the goal is to distinguish which sample is similar to the standard. The

samples given were cookies and dryness, crunchiness, or less vanilla were the terms used

to describe which sample deviated from the standard. In the study Araujo, Nayen et al

(2012) three samples of gelatin were given where one was the reference and the goal was

to identify the odd sample even though they were all the same color. The study depicted

that the color didn’t influence the choice of odd sample. However, it did cause

discrepancies due to the fact that more males were unable to identify the flavor.

The rating test is when a standard sample is given first and rated on its certain

characteristic. After, the next two samples are given to determine which sample is

relative to the standard. All samples of apple juice contained a percentage of citric acid.

The samples included 1% citric acid, 2.5% citric acid, and 5% citric acid.

The purpose of the study that was conducted at San Diego State University for Nutrition

205 was to learn about sensory evaluation as well as practice the correct way of

performing them. Analytical testing was conducted where different tests were performed

to identify certain characteristics of a food or beverage.

 6

Methods

Demographics

There were 22 panelists that partook in the sensory food evaluation testing. The panelist’s

demographics consisted of age, gender, marital status, and year upon graduation,

roommates, smoking, and allergies. The participant’s ages were: 18 (5%), 19 (5%), 20

(22%), 21 (13%), 22 (18%), 23 (13%), 24 (0%), 25 (5%), 26 (5%), 27 (0%), 28 (0%), 29

(5%), 30-39 (5%), 40+ (0%). The gender of the panelists was 90% for females and 10%

for males. Marital status consisted of 86% of the panelists as single, 10% were married,

and 4% were divorced. The major was 100% for Foods and Nutrition, while it was 0%

for other majors. The panelists that were in the graduate program yielded 5%, and

undergraduate was 95%. Panelists that lived alone were 14%, 1 roommate was 14%, and

72% for panelists with 2 or more roommates. Panelists that were smokers were 5% and

95% for non-smokers. Allergies of panelists were 10% and 90% of the panelists didn’t

have allergies. Five percent were allergic to mangoes and the last 5% were allergic to

gluten. Panelists with having a vegan lifestyle were 5%.

Environment

The 22 panelists, along with the professor and lab technician, were confined to a lab

room where the temperature was 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Before testing was conducted an

IT specialist was brought in to fix the computer, which caused distractions due to the fact

that a lot of talking and moving around was taking place. Before this the teachers

assistant and the professor attempted to fix the computer, but it was taking too much time

and causing distractions. After the technician left a lot of the panelists were clicking their

pens, and moving backpacks around as soon as the first sample was given. During the
 7

tasting of the first sample the refrigerator had turned on suddenly along with peoples

phones going off. This was very distracting and caused attention to deviate from the

tasting of the sample. Other distractions that had occurred were people sipping on water

too loudly, a phone had rang for a few seconds, and the door was cracked open to the

point that conversations from the outside were heard, and continuous noises of students

walking by the classroom had caused distractions.

Paired comparison test

A difference test, known as paired comparison testing, was given to the panelists where

two coded samples were allotted simultaneously to determine which one was sour, sweet,

or thick. Distilled water was first distributed by the lab technician, and the professor

elaborated that the distilled water wouldn’t compete with anything because distilled water

had no minerals so it was utilized for cleansing of the palate to allow proper breakdown

of the sample. Distilled water was consumed between samples so that there wasn’t any

influence from the previous sample. Before the panelists had received the sample, the

first person from every row was designated by the professor to pour a scant amount in a 1

oz paper cup in a brown tray. On the tray the two samples were separated to avoid

confusions of the samples. The first panelists had to wait until all had poured the precise

amount in the 1oz paper cup. Then once they had all finished, the tray was brought back

by the first panelists from each row to disseminate to each student. The students received

each sample and carefully separated them to avoid discrepancies. The first sample

utilized consisted of plain apple juice where as the second sample had 1% citric acid

added to the apple juice. Once the samples were distributed, the panelists waited patiently

for further instructions. The professor then gave us permission to eat the first sample and
 8

annotate what was tasted. After the first sample was consumed, a rinse down with

distilled water was done to get rid of debris. The second example was then consumed and

notes were taken on the characteristic being evaluated, which was either sweet or sour.

The samples were consumed to identify which one possessed a more intense

characteristic.

Triangle test

The panelists second test, which was also a difference test, was conducted using three

coded samples that were identical and the panelists had a 1 out of 3 chance to guess

which sample was different. These samples were given to the panelists simultaneously to

identify the odd sample. The samples given were plain apple juice, and apple juice with

1% citric acid added to it. The professor explained that the procedure was the same,

where the first panelists from each row would go to the front of the class and pour a scant

amount of solution in each of the three samples. Once the panelists that were designated

had all three samples for each student poured, they were then distributed in the same

manner. Each sample was then provided to each student and was separated on the desk to

avoid mixing of the samples. The panelists remained quietly seated until everyone had

received all the samples. Once everyone had received all the samples the professor

signaled the panelists to consume the first sample. After the first sample was tasted

distilled water was utilized to alleviate taste fatigue and mixing of different samples. The

second and third sample repeated the same procedure as the first sample. The panelists

then noted which sample was the outcast out of the three samples given.

Ranking test
 9

A ranking test is a difference test where more than two samples are simultaneously

presented and the panelists rank the samples according to the intensity of the particular

characteristic, which include flavor, odor, and color. The sample with the greatest

intensity was ranked number 1. The professor explained that the procedure would be the

same, where the first panelists from each row would go to the front of the class and pour

a scant amount of solution with the exception of it being five samples now not three.

Once the panelists from the first row that were designated had all five samples for each

student poured, they were then distributed in the same manner. Each sample was then

provided to each student and was separated on the desk to avoid mixing of the samples.

The samples included apple juice with 2.5% citric acid, plain apple juice, apple juice with

5% citric acid, apple juice with 1% citric acid, and apple juice with 10% citric acid

added. The panelists remained quietly seated until everyone had received all the samples.

Once everyone had received all the samples the professor signaled us to consume the first

sample. After eating the first sample a sip of distilled water was consumed to diminish

the flavor before the next sample. The next four samples were conducted and consumed

in the same manner. Notes were written after each sample in order to rank which one had

the more intensified characteristic.

Duo-Trio test

This difference tests provided three samples in order to differentiate which samples

deviated from the standard sample. This test was conducted differently due to the fact

that the first person from each row wasn’t retrieving samples for the panelists anymore.

The teachers assistant and the lab technician went around the room while the panelists

remained quiet and handed each student a cookie. Only 20 out of the 22 panelists
 10

received the cookie because one student was vegan and the other had a gluten allergy.

The two students that didn’t participate were instructed to remain in the seat quietly while

the rest of the panelists consumed the cookie. The first cookie was represented as the

standard cookie and the following cookies were used to compare which sample matched

the standard cookie and which one didn’t. The professor then instructed the panelists to

consume the cookie. The panelists then ate the standard cookie to interpret the results on

the evaluation form. After the standard cookie was consumed distilled water was sipped

which aided in cleansing the palate from intense flavors. The professor then awaited

confirmation from the panelists by sitting quietly. After confirmation was noted by the

professor, the lab technician and teachers assistant went around the room and provided

each student with the other two samples. The teachers asssitant and lab technician had

different samples they were passing out. Once the remaining two samples were given to

the panelists instructions from the professor was the next step. The last two samples were

given where one sample tasted like the standard cookie and one that had a subtle

difference. The consumption of the second and third sample occurred and notes were

taken from the panelists to compare which cookie was the correct match to the standard.

The notes that were written were recorded on the duo-trio testing sheet. Lastly, panelists

had also recorded subjective evaluations of what made the samples different from the

standard. Pertinent words were used to describe the differences that each cookie had from

the standard.

Scoring and rating test

The last of the difference test that was given where a reference sample was given first

accompanied by two more samples. The reference sample given had a certain sour
 11

characteristic and yielded 1% citric acid. The following two samples yielded a 5% citric

acid, and 2.5% citric acid. The objective of the panelists was to decipher which sample

had the same sour intensity as the reference sample. Before the panelists had received the

sample, the first person from every row was designated by the professor to pour a scant

amount in a 1 oz paper cup in a brown tray. On the tray the two samples were separated

to avoid confusions of the samples. The first panelists had to wait until all had poured the

precise amount in the 1oz paper cup. Then once they had all finished, the tray was

brought back by the first panelists from each row to disseminate to each student. The

students received each sample and carefully separated them to avoid discrepancies. The

panelists remained quietly seated until everyone had received all the samples. Once

everyone had received all the samples the professor signaled us to consume the first

sample. After eating the first sample a sip of distilled water was sipped to lessen extra

flavors. The second and third sample were performed in the same fashion and once

consumed notes were written to rate which sample was relative to the reference.

Data Collected/Statistical Analyses

The procedure for collecting data was well organized. After each experiment the

professor asked for the results of the individual characteristics by a show of hands. The

responses were counted and were recorded by the TA on an excel spreadsheet on a

computer in the front of the classroom. Statistical analyses used were descriptive

statistics and all samples were given random codes.

Results

Paired comparison test

 12

The sample that had 1% citric acid added to apple juice was deemed as being the most

sour by all 22 panelists.

Triangle Test

All of the 22 panelists had selected 1% citric acid added to apple juice as the odd sample

from the three.

Ranking Test

The ranking test was the first test utilized to depict ranging results. As shown in Figure

1.0, the ranking test exhibited that 91% of panelists voted that apple juice with 10% citric

acid was ranked number 1; 1 was the highest intensity of sourness and 5 was the lowest

intensity of sourness. Nine percent of the panelists answered that apple juice with 5%

citric acid had an intensity of 1. As for the other apple juices, the levels in descending

order show: 86% chose apple juice with 5% citric acid as level 2, 5% selected apple juice

with 10% citric acid as level 2, and 5% selected apple juice with 2.5% citric acid as level

2; 95% chose apple juice with 2.5% citric acid as level 3 and 5% chose apple juice with

5% citric acid as level 3; 91% chose apple juice with 1% citric acid as level 4 and 9%

chose plain apple juice as level 4; and finally 91% chose plain apple juice as level 5 and

9% chose apple juice with 1% citric acid as level 1. Figure 1.2 shows levels of preference

for the apple juices: 27% of panelists preferring apple juice with 2.5% citric acid as their

number 1 preference, 14% preferring it as their number 2, 59% preferring it as their

number 3, and 0% preferring it as their 4 and 5; 50% of panelists preferred plain apple

juice as their number 1, 18% preferred it as their number 2, 14% preferred it as their

number 3, 14% preferring it as their number 4, and 0% preferring it as their number 5;

9% of panelists preferred apple juice with 5% citric acid as their number 1, 5% preferred
 13

it as their number 2, 9% preferred it as their number 3, 72% preferred it as their number

4, and 5% preferred it as their number 5; 14% preferred apple juice with 1% citric acid as

their number 1, 63% preferred it as their number 2, 18% preferred it as their number 3,

5% preferred it as their number 4, and 0% preferred it as their number 5; 0%

preferred apple juice with 10% as their 1-3, 5% preferred it as their number 4, and 95%

preferred it as their number 5. The panelists personal preference towards sweeter or sour

beverages could have highly influenced the preferences of juices.

Figure 1

Subjective testing of ranking intensity of sourness from

a scale of 1 to 5 for apple juice, apple juice with 2.5%
citric acid, apple juice with 5% citric acid, apple juice
with 1% citric acid, and apple juice with citric acid
Intensity of sourness on a scale of 1 to 5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of votes in percent

Apple juice with 10% citric acid Apple juice with 1% citric acid
Apple juice with 5% citric acid Apple juice
apple juice with 2.5% citric acid
 14

Figure 1.1

Subjective test of preference of apple juice, apple juice with 1% citric

acid, apple juice with 2.5% citric acid, apple juice with 5% citric acid,
& apple juice with 10% citric acid ranked on a scale of 1 to 5
100%
90%
Number of votes in percent

80%
70%
60% Apple juice with 2.5% citric acid
50% Apple juice
40% Apple juice with 5% citric acid
30% Apple juice with 1% citric acid
20%
Apple juice with 10% citric acid
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5
Rank of preference on a scale of 1 to 5

Duo-Trio

In the duo-trio test 85% of the panelists identified the correct cookie that correlated with

the standard sample. The remaing 15% perceived the generic brand as being similar to

the standard. The characteristcs that were noted were crunchiness, dryness, and flavor. As

shown in figure 2.1 the characterisitsics of the panelists chose dryness as being the main

factor of identifying the odd sample. Forty percent of the panelists noted that the odd

sample was dry, 35% stated that it had less vanila flavoring, and the last 25% answered

the odd sample had less of a crunch.

 15

Figure 2

Subjective test of comparing a standard sample of a

cookie to two separate samples of one different
from the standard and one similar to the standard.

15%

85%

Nabisco Generic

Figure 2.1

Subjective test of descriptive words (dryness,

crunchiness, and less vanilla) of what made odd
sample (generic cookie) stand out from standard
(Nabisco cookie)

35%
40%

25%

Dryness Crunchiness Less Vanilla

 16

Rating test

In this last test apple juice with 5% citric acid added was rated as a 1 by 36% of the

panelists, 55% rated it 2, and 9% rated it a 3 on the scale. The second sample that

contained 1% citric acid was rated a 5 by 5% of the panelists, and rated a 6 by the

reaming 95% of the panel as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3

Subjective test of levels of sour with apple juice with

1% citric acid and apple juice with 5% citric acid in
comparison to a standard sample (apple juice with
2.5% citric acid) at level 4 of sourness
100%
Number of votes in percent

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 5 6 7
Levels of sourness on a scale of 1 to 7

Apple juice with 1% citric acid Apple juice with 5% citric acid

Discussion

In the paired comparison test 100% percent of the panelist was able to identify apple

juice with 1% citric acid added as the most sour. Although the test was 100% people

could have been looking around to see the panelists face gestures and that could’ve

influenced the panelists. The second test that was administered was the triangle test, and

just like the first test 100% of the panelists were able to identify apple juice with 1%
 17

citric acid added as the odd sample. These first two tests were straightforward and all of

the panelists guessed the correct sample with the most sour being 1% citric acid added to

apple juice. In the ranking test the panelists were supposed to identify which sample was

the most sour from a grading between 1-5 where 1 was the most sour. All of the apple

juice samples with citric acid, with the exception of one being plain apple juice, were

added and ranked. Apple juice with 2.5% citric acid was ranked 2, which was 5% of the

panelists and 95% of the panelists ranked it being number 3 on the rating scale. Plain

apple juice was ranked number 4 on the scale, which was 9% of the panelist. The rest of

the 91% of the panelists had ranked it being number 5 on the scale. The third sample

contained 5% citric acid and it was voted number 1 by 9%, 86% ranked it number 2, and

the last 5% ranked it being number 3. Fourth sample contained 1% citric acid and that

was ranked number 4 by 91% of the students and the remaining 9% ranked it 5. The last

sample was 10% citric acid and majority of the class ranked it number one. Ninety-one

percent ranked it number 1 and 9% ranked the sample number 2. Taste fatigue could’ve

set in by this time due to the fact that an abundance of citric acid had been consumed

during testing. By reducing the amount of acidic samples or possibly performing tests

before the citric acid samples could have yielded a different result. For the duo-trio test

only 20 out of the 22 panelists participated because one of the students had a gluten

allergy and the other student was vegan. In reference to graph 2.0 85% of the students

chose the correct sample. The generic cookie was chosen as being different from the

standard. The remaining 15% had chosen the nabisco cookie, which was the same as the

standard. Characteristics of the cookies were an important aspect of comparing the

cookies. Dryness was deemed 40% as being the main difference between the samples.
 18

Twenty fiver percent perceived the sample as having less of a crunch. Lastly, 35% of the

panelists believed the sample had less vanilla than the standard. The rating test was the

last conducted and is referenced in table 3.0. In the rating test the reference sample was

noted as having 2.5% citric acid and was ranked 4 on a scale from 1-7 with 1 being most

sour. The following two samples were given and ranked. Five percent of the panelists

rated apple juice with 1% citric acid a 5 and the remaining 95% of the panelists had

chosen 6 for the rating. The second sample that contained 5% citric acid depicted that

36% of the panelists rated the sample as a 1, 55% rated it 2, and 9% rated the sample as a

3. So many of these tests were conducted in a clean environment, but there still were

influencing factors. The lab room where the testing took place was too compact and had

too much movement occurring during the exam. During testing panelist possibly looked

around to see peoples facial expressions, while tasting samples, and that could’ve altered

a panelist decision. The environment the panelists partook in would’ve been better if the

panelists were tested individually, and possibly not using too many samples so that

panelists don’t get fatigued. Also all the panelists didn’t participate in every test due to

the fact that one was vegan and one had a gluten allergy so that could’ve skewed results

as well.
19