Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Sensory evaluation in quality control: an overview,

new developments and future opportunities
Alejandra M. Muñoz*
IRIS: International Resources for Insights and Solutions, LLC, 234 Robin Hood Road, Mountainside, NJ 07092, USA

Received 21 February 2001; received in revised form 15 September 2001; accepted 4 February 2002

Abstract
This manuscript focuses on two areas: the review of the history and growth of the QC/sensory evaluation field, and the discussion
of the new developments and the future opportunities of this field. This discussion applies to programs worldwide, for companies
with established and sound programs, and for companies with either no program or one needing improvement. From this author’s
point of view, the areas or growth and opportunities include: (1) awareness of the importance of and support for QC/sensory pro-
grams within an organization, (2) increased involvement of sensory scientists in in-plant QC/sensory programs, (3) establishment of
new or improved QC/sensory training programs, (4) establishment of improved sensory specifications (in techniques and the inte-
gration of consumer/management input), (5) Quality Control/sensory evaluations focused on ingredients and in-process products,
(6) understanding and use of the diverse applications of product variability studies, (7) use of new or improved sensory methods, (8)
collaboration between R&D and QC functions to produce high and consistent quality, (9) continued use of instrumental measures:
their establishment and validation, (10) assuring minimal requirements for QC/sensory programs, (11) global Quality Control, (12)
development of QC/sensory programs in the personal care, pharmaceutical, household and paper industries, (13) use of multi-
variate QC/sensory data analyses and control charts, (14) Internet applications in the QC/sensory field, (15) the ultimate goal: a
more effective approach to deliver consistent quality products # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sensory evaluation; Sensory science; Quality control; QC/sensory programs; Training; Specifications; History; New developments;
Opportunities; Sensory-instrumental; Foods; Personal care; Household; Paper; Pharmaceutical

1. Introduction Most companies have well defined and established

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)
programs are established within an organization to
pursue and maintain the products’ quality. Quality
Assurance represents those planned or systematic
actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a
product or a service will satisfy given needs. As a func-
tion of corporate management, QA sets the policies,
systems, programs and procedures to be carried out by
QC. A QC function, an operation closely aligned to the
manufacturing process, implements the quality specifi-
cations for raw materials, intermediate and finished
products as established by QA, and carries out the
operational techniques and the activities that sustain
quality of a product or service [American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1992].
QA and QC programs. The emphasis is mainly on
instrumental and chemical analyses. Many, but cer-
tainly not all organizations have QC/sensory programs,
and only a few have sound QC/sensory programs. The
sensory field has not matched the growth of the QC field
compared to other disciplines supporting this function.
Why have there not been as many developments in this
area? This manuscript’s objective is to address this issue,
as well as giving an overview of the recent developments
in the area of QC and insights on the future of this field.
2. History and growth of the QC/sensory evaluation
field
This author identifies five stages of development and
growth of this field

* Tel.: +1-908-789-0961. 1. Early developments and QC/sensory measures

E-mail address: amunoz@iris-consulting.net by ‘‘experts’’ (1930–1950)
0950-3293/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0950-3293(02)00014-9
330 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
2. Initiation of formal QC/sensory programs: use of
trained panels (1950–early 1960s)
3. Establishment of QC/sensory programs in
industry and awareness of their importance
(early 1960s–1990)
4. Publication of QC/sensory methods and techni-
ques (1990s)
5. Current status (1990–current)
The highlights of stages 1–3 are covered in Muñoz,
Civille, and Carr (1992). Stages 4 and 5 are discussed in
this manuscript.
2.1. Stage 4. Publication of QC/sensory methods and
techniques (1990s)
Before 1990, there were no publications that would
provide procedures and techniques to professionals
with no experience in the area, and that could assist
in the implementation and operation of these pro-
grams.
In 1992 two important publications in the field were
published: The book Sensory Evaluation in Quality
Control (Muñoz et al., 1992) and the ASTM manual
MNL 14: The Role of Sensory Analysis in Quality Control
(ASTM, 1992).
Compared to available publications, the book pub-
lished by Muñoz et al. (1992) covers:
 an overview of sensory techniques used in QC/sen-
sory programs, their advantages and limitations
 a detailed description for the completion of one
of the most important steps in QC/sensory pro-
grams: the establishment of consumer based
specifications
 the integration of consumer input in the estab-
lishment of specifications, and thus in the control
of the products’ quality
 a step by step description of the procedures for
implementing and operating several QC/sensory
programs
 statistical data analysis techniques used to ana-
lyze QC/sensory results
 the integration of control charts and their use in
the QC/sensory field (for product and panelists
monitoring)
The ASTM manual: The Role of Sensory Analysis in
Quality Control (ASTM, 1992) incorporates the input of
many sensory professionals with experience in this field.
In addition, it is a concise and practical manual that
provides the novice with a discussion of key topics in
the QC/sensory field: background information for set-
ting up new in-plant sensory programs, resource assess-
ments, sensory specifications, program implementation,
QC/sensory methods, data presentation, and sampling.
2.2. Stage 5. Current status (1990–current)
Since the 1992 publications, the developments in the
area of QC/sensory evaluation have not been very exten-
sive over the years. Occasional articles are published in the
area of QC/sensory evaluation. Overall, they provide a
description of specific QC/sensory applications. However,
the approaches are not very different from the methods
provided and discussed by the two 1992 references.
Some of the publications still report objectionable pro-
cedures. Examples of recent QC/sensory publications
include Barcina Angulo (1994), Reyes Vega, Fahara
Valdes, Valdes Silva, Saucedo Salazar, and Peralta Rodri-
guez (1995), Bazzo, Loubet, and Tan (1998), Muir (2000).
The discussion above dealt with publications. The
following are this author’s observations and experiences
on the current status of this field.
2.2.1. Types of QC/sensory programs
2.2.1.1. Programs in the food vs. in the non food industry
In the past 20 years more companies have established
QC/sensory programs. In general, the food industry is
more advanced and has established more and better QC/
sensory programs than non food companies (such as the
personal care, paper companies, etc.) There are several
reasons: first, the food industry is more advanced in the
field of sensory science. Second, there is the belief that
instrumental techniques do capture the main dimen-
sions of personal care and paper products (appearance,
rheological and structural products’ properties); thus it
is considered that QC measures should be mainly
instrumental. Thirdly, for many non food products (e.g.
lotions, shampoos, etc.) the sensory assessments are
more difficult to complete, compared to the evaluations
conducted for foods (e.g. flavor and texture); thus many
companies are reluctant to incorporate complex skinfeel
or handfeel evaluation protocols at the plant level.
2.2.1.2. The different levels of ‘‘quality’’ of QC/sensory
programs Muñoz et al. (1992) illustrate the ‘‘different
levels of quality’’ that exist in in-plant QC/sensory pro-
grams through the scenarios described in Chapters 4
(quality ratings method) and 5 (in/out method). Even
though the number of sound QC/sensory programs is
slowly growing, unfortunately, there are more marginal
than sound QC/sensory programs in industry. Reasons
for establishing and operating ‘‘poor’’/marginal QC/
sensory programs are:
 lack of respect for QC/sensory measures within
the organization
 lack of support for sensory programs within
plants (by the plant and QC managers)
 lack of sufficient sensory R&D support (or
interest) to establish and maintain sound in-plant
programs
 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
 lack of funds and/or plant personnel’s time nee-
ded for product evaluations, review and training
sessions, etc.
 previous program failures due to the lack of
support, poor panel/program performance, etc.
 poor panel performance due to the lack of moti-
vation, support, and respect for panel assess-
ments by some plant managers (e.g. panel results
for rejected production are disregarded and pro-
ducts are shipped to meet manufacturing quotas)
The challenge of all sensory professionals involved in
the QC field is to contribute to the establishment of
sound programs, and/or the improvement of existing
programs. This challenge will be discussed below.
2.2.2. Attention to the most important QC/sensory
program’s components
The most important criteria that define the ‘‘quality’’
of a QC/sensory program are: the training/qualifications
of panelists, the type of established specifications, and
the use of controlled test conditions. The ‘‘quality’’ of a
QC/sensory program is to be questioned if any of these
components is only marginal or inappropriate. Those
companies that have established sound QC sensory
programs in the past 20 years have paid attention to
these elements. For the importance of controlled test
conditions, refer to Stone and Sidel (1993) and Lawless
and Heymann (1998). The importance of training pro-
grams and sensory specifications in QC/sensory pro-
grams, are briefly discussed in this section.
2.2.2.1. Training programs Companies committed to the
delivery of consistent quality products and the establish-
ment of sound QC/sensory programs have implemented
a training program. Without a training program pane-
lists judge products using their own criteria, and
obviously provide variable and unreliable results. In
addition, some companies rely on ‘‘experts’’ or ‘‘experi-
enced’’ plant employees to judge products. These eva-
luations can be equally unreliable. Therefore, companies
that have sound programs have implemented or
improved their plant training programs.
In-plant sensory training programs do not have to be
involved and lengthy, mainly because:
 the assessments need to focus only on the pro-
duct’s off-notes and critical attributes, or only
need to be integrated judgments (i.e. ‘‘in/out’’,
‘‘difference from control’’, etc.)
 there is very little time that can be taken away from
plant employees for sensory training purposes
Hopefully, all companies with no training programs
can realize the added value that training can bring,
relative to the investment needed.
331
2.2.2.2. Sensory specifications Muñoz et al. (1992)
describe the involved process needed to establish sound
specifications. This process involves the collection of
representative production samples, their assessment/
evaluation, the determination of the variable sensory
attributes and their variability ranges, and finally and
more importantly the establishment of specifications/
limits based on the response of consumers (or manage-
ment) to the production variability.
Sound programs are established when this approach
is followed. The process represents the link of all
important elements in QC: representative sampling,
incorporation of product variability, and consideration
of the consumer (or management) input. This process is
explained in two very practical papers in this special
FQP issue (see Pecore & Kellen, 2002; Weller & Stan-
ton, 2002). When sensory specifications are established
in this fashion, one can be assured that products that
are rejected or held are indeed those unacceptable to the
consumer (or management).
There are several reasons why there are not more
companies that have followed this approach to establish
sound specifications for their products: the technical
and management support may not be available, and/or
the process is too costly. Instead there are many com-
panies that operate with specifications that are either
meaningless (e.g. ‘‘typical color’’, ‘‘typical fragrance’’,
‘‘typical flavor, texture’’, etc.), or represent the panelists
own preferences/view points.
2.2.3. Sensory vs. analytical/instrumental based QC
programs
Among the companies that have established a QC
program in the past 20 years, some have preferred to
establish analytical/instrumental based vs. sensory
based QC sensory programs. Most of these companies
do not believe in the use of sensory practices in Quality
Control, and/or believe that the instrumental techniques
adequately measure properties related to the products’
quality. These companies focus mainly on the dis-
advantages of sensory practices in Quality Control vs.
realizing the added value of these methods. Companies
without an in- plant sensory program either
 are unable to detect sensory problems/issues and
thus fail to control the quality of their products
in a comprehensive way, or
 may not have had a major quality problem and
thus far have been successful at detecting pro-
blems by their current instrumental techniques.
A major crisis involving sensory issues has not
yet occurred for these companies to acknowledge
the value of QC/ sensory techniques.
There are, however, companies that rely on instru-
mental measures, but that have validated these techni-
332 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
ques through sensory assessments. These companies
have investigated and confirmed the relationship
between instrumental and sensory measurements for
their products, thus are indirectly controlling the sen-
sory quality of their ingredients and products. In this
issue, Weller and Stanton (2002) describe the process to
be followed. This approach can work well if the initial
data relationships results are revised periodically to
incorporate new products, new product dimensions, and
new encountered variability and problems
2.2.4. Support and management of QC/sensory
programs
The successful QC/sensory programs that have been
established in the past 20 years have had sufficient and
sustained management and technical support.
2.2.4.1. Technical and management support In most
companies R&D is involved in the establishment of the
QC/sensory programs. Once established, the main
responsibilities are handed over to the plant. Successful
QC programs meet the two support elements needed
after the program is established:
 the sustained technical support from R&D sen-
sory professionals to the plant personnel
 the sustained support from the plant and plant
QC management
Continued support from R&D sensory professionals
is needed to ensure the continued adherence of the pro-
gram to the original program’s characteristics, and to
sound sensory protocols. Plant conditions and circum-
stances change, requiring that the original program
change. A trained sensory professional (usually from
R&D) can provide guidance or assist in adjusting/mod-
ifying the program as needed, and keeping its integrity.
In addition, for a QC/sensory program to succeed, plant
management must show continued support to the pro-
gram once it is in operation. This support should be evi-
dent in endorsing panel evaluations, new trainings, the
use of panel data in the decision making process, etc.
2.2.4.2. The in-plant QC/sensory program coordinator/
manger: a sensory professional, a QC professional or a
technician? Overall, there are few sensory professionals
who work at the plant and directly manage the in-plant
QC/sensory programs. In most companies, a QC pro-
fessional (e.g. chemist) or a technician are the in-plant
sensory coordinators. Ideally, a sensory professional
should be the person in charge of the QC/sensory pro-
gram. The sensory professional has the knowledge of
methods and sensory properties to establish, monitor
and manage the program, implement modifications and
new methods/evaluations, and conduct new training
programs. Unfortunately, this scenario is uncommon.
Plant personnel such as QC professionals and techni-
cians are perfectly capable of administering a sound
QC/sensory program, as long as they are given: suffi-
cient sensory training, plant management support and
authority needed to ensure panelists’ participation and
motivation and to implement training programs, report
panel results, etc., support from a sensory professional
to address new issues, problems, product evaluations,
programs, etc.
3. New developments/directions and future opportu-
nities
There are many opportunities for the growth of the
sensory evaluation/science field in the new millennium.
These opportunities are in the R&D, Market Research,
Statistics and Quality Control areas. Following is a dis-
cussion of what this author considers the new develop-
ments and future opportunities for the QC/sensory field
(Table 1).
3.1. Awareness of the importance of and support for
QC/sensory programs within an organization
As described above the QC/sensory field has experi-
enced difficulties, which have limited its growth. Some
of the reasons include:
 lack of respect for QC/sensory measures within
some organizations
 the routine tasks involved in QC/sensory pro-
grams, thus the lack of interest and involvement
of all sensory professionals in the field
 lack of support for sensory programs within
plants (by the plant and QC managers)
 lack of sufficient sensory R&D support (or interest)
to establish and maintain sound in-plant programs
 QC/sensory program failures due to the lack of
support, poor panel/program performance, etc.
 poor panel performance (and QC/sensory results)
due to lack of motivation, support, and respect for
panel assessments by some plant managers
The best QC/sensory programs currently in operation
have overcome these difficulties. The key to the growth
of this field and the success of in-plant QC/sensory
programs is the recognition that sensory evaluation has
a vital role in the quality control of consumer products.
Consumer products deliver (when applicable) nutrition,
performance, function, convenience, but most impor-
tantly sensory characteristics. Therefore, the quality of
consumer products is mainly driven by their sensory
properties. A sound QC/sensory program is required in
all companies that are committed to delivering the
highest consistent sensory quality to their consumers.
 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339 333

Table 1
New developments and future opportunities within the QC/sensory evaluation field

 Awareness of the importance of and support for QC/sensory programs within an organization
 Increased involvement of sensory scientists in in-plant QC/sensory programs
 Establishment of new or improved QC/sensory training programs
 Establishment of improved sensory specifications (in techniques and the integration of consumer/management input)
 QC/sensory evaluations focused on ingredients and in process products
 Understanding and use of the diverse applications of product variability studies
 Use of new or improved sensory methods
 Collaboration between R&D and QC functions to produce high and consistent quality
 Continued use of instrumental measures: their establishment and validation
 Assuring minimal requirements for a QC/sensory program
 Global QC
 Development of QC/sensory programs in the personal care, pharmaceutical, household and paper industries
 Use of multivariate QC/sensory data analyses and control charts
 Internet applications in the QC/sensory field
 The ultimate goal: a more effective approach to deliver consistent quality products

Therefore, the first step towards obtaining manage-
ment support and eventually establishing a QC/sensory
program is to develop awareness of the importance of
sensory measures within the company. Once this has
been accomplished, tangible support has to be provided
to the program at all levels: R&D, manufacturing, etc.,
as described in other sections of this manuscript.
3.2. Increased involvement of sensory scientists in in-plant
QC/sensory programs
Hopefully, more sensory scientists working in R&D
can look for opportunities to develop the awareness of
and promote, develop, implement and support QC/sensory
programs. This can be done by either:
 capitalizing on plant problems, when they arise.
Assist in the solution of these problems, and present
the characteristics and benefits of a QC/sensory
program to management that could contribute to
the detection of sensory product problems
 initiating the interaction with plant management
and personnel to discuss the advantages, needs,
benefits and characteristics of QC/sensory pro-
grams.
When a QC/sensory program is already established,
sensory professionals should be active and provide sup-
port to the in-plant sensory administrator/manager as
needed. This support may include: consultation, regular
visits to plants to oversee the program, provide assis-
tance, conduct trainings, etc.
3.3. Establishment of new or improved QC/sensory
training programs
The quality of a QC/sensory program is determined
by the training/qualifications of panelists, the type of
established specifications, and the use of controlled test
conditions. These three program elements need to be
reviewed by each company wishing to assess its in-plant
QC/sensory program, and consider areas of improve-
ment or growth. The review of the training programs is
discussed in this section.
In reviewing established training programs or poten-
tial new programs, several issues should be addressed,
including the quality of the training program conducted
and the possible need to retrain, the review and/or
establishment of panel monitoring programs, the
expansion of the program if new products or product
dimensions have been introduced, etc.
3.4. Establishment of improved sensory specifications (in
techniques and the integration of consumer/ management
input)
As mentioned earlier, specifications represent one
of the most important elements of a QC/sensory
program. They determine not only the ‘‘quality’’ of
the program, but the effectiveness in controlling
quality and delivering consistent sensory quality to
consumers. Therefore, companies looking into
improving their QC/sensory programs should focus
on improving the sensory specifications in operation.
Specifically,
 Companies with specifications such as ‘‘typical’’
flavor, appearance fragrance, texture, need to
better define and train their panelists on the
specific characteristics that define ‘‘typical,
acceptable/in’’ and ‘‘atypical, unacceptable/out’’
products.
 All specifications need to define limits that are
linked to specific product attributes and inten-
sities that can be demonstrated to panelists
through samples/products/references. Panelists
can only accurately identify off characteristics if
they are trained to detect them.
334 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
 Ideally, sensory specifications need to involve the
consumer’s input. It is recognized that the sound
procedure to establish consumer based specifica-
tions is involved and expensive. However, com-
panies should ask themselves if this investment is
not worthwhile for at least the key company’s
products.
For the small and medium size companies that cannot
establish consumer based specifications, at least man-
agement input should be incorporated in defining the
products’ QC sensory limits.
3.5. Quality Control/sensory evaluations focused on
ingredients and in-process products
Whenever possible, QC/sensory measures should be
conducted at the ingredients or in-process level. It is
important to implement QC/sensory assessments for
raw materials. If an inferior or defective raw material
enters a process, the defect may be magnified several
times, as the defect is incorporated into and thus
becomes detectable in the finished product. For raw
ingredients it is important that companies (1) set ingre-
dient sensory specifications, (2) conduct regular evalua-
tions upon receipt at the plant, and (3) make decisions as
to the disposition or blending of inferior raw materials.
Companies that primarily conduct sensory judgments
on finished products are challenged to understand the
relationships between raw ingredients’ sensory attri-
butes and the sensory properties of the resulting finished
products. This allows for the eventual shift from the
more complex multi-attribute evaluation of several fin-
ished products to the simpler, more efficient evaluation
of a few key attributes of raw ingredients.
Just as analytical chemical and physical tests are con-
ducted at different stages throughout a process, QC/
sensory monitoring is recommended at critical stages in
production, where interim product quality reflects the
quality of finished products. All ingredient checks may
have met specifications; however, ingredient blends,
thermal or chemical reactions during processing may
introduce undesirable sensory characteristics to the fin-
ished products.
In-process sensory measures may be difficult to com-
plete for many products due to the nature of the pro-
duct (in-process), and the location of these products
(in-line). Therefore, the trend is to establish instru-
mental measurements at this production phase (Rus-
sell, 1995).
3.6. Understanding and use of the diverse applications of
product variability studies
Variability studies are the involved projects geared to
determine the degree of product variation. For QC,
these studies are called production variability studies,
since they involve the determination of the variation in
production. A detailed description of the procedure to
follow, as well as examples, are provided by Muñoz et
al. (1992). A wealth of information is obtained in these
studies, including:
 the product attributes with no or negligible pro-
duction variability
 the degree of variability of non uniform/variable
product attributes: small, medium, large (expres-
sed as an intensity range)
 the percentage of products falling across the
variability range
The steps needed to complete these studies are:
 the collection of products (which involves a large
amount of samples)
 the evaluation of these products
 the summary of results
Variability studies are typically conducted for QC
purposes. However, this approach can be used to assess
any product variability: competitive, retail, distribution,
etc., as described below. Hopefully, QC/sensory profes-
sionals with experience in the design and execution of
these variability studies can foster the use of this meth-
odology throughout the company.
3.6.1. Research
Variability studies can be very useful for R&D.
Researchers working with a specific product category
should be made aware of any production variability
studies conduced for that product category. This
information should be used by researchers in any
reformulation project to determine the degree of
change needed in an attribute. For example, Fig. 1
shows the variability range of attribute A (range of
4–7, in an intensity scale of 0–10), as well as the fre-
quency distribution of products across this range. This
frequency distribution indicates the percentage of
samples encountered for each intensity in the variability
study.
Results depicted in this figure indicate that in order
to produce a change in the intensity of attribute A, a
lower or a higher intensity beyond the variability range
should be reached in the reformulated product. For the
example provided in Fig. 1, the intensity should be
lower than 4 or higher than 7 in the reformulated
product.
3.6.2. Product reviews (Quality Assurance, marketing,
etc.)
Product reviews are commonly completed in a com-
pany by diverse groups with different objectives. Pro-
 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
Fig. 1. Production variability range and frequency distribution of
products for attribute A.
duct reviews are defined as the sessions involving infor-
mal product evaluations/inspections. Some flaws exist in
many of these programs, particularly when a sensory
professional has not been involved in setting up the
informal product review, or does not participate in these
sessions.
Variability studies results can be used to establish or
improve these programs. These results and the sam-
ples/references identified in these studies can be used to
orient/train product review participants on:
 the critical product’s attributes
 the typical variability encountered for that pro-
duct
 the correct terminology to describe that product
or product category
3.6.3. Product variability evaluation tool
As discussed above, variability studies have numerous
applications. Therefore, the establishment of a product
variability evaluation tool is highly recommended
within the company. Contracting these services can be
very expensive because of the large number of samples
involved. If this tool is available internally, product
variability studies can be conducted for many applica-
tions (QC, research, etc.), for more products, and more
frequently, and provide all the benefits of the study’s
results.
3.7. Use of new or improved sensory methods
Muñoz et al. (1992) discuss the best methods to use in
QC/sensory programs. These measures include reduced
descriptive analysis, difference from control, quality
ratings, and ‘‘in/out’’ methods. In addition, the reasons
as to why some techniques should not be used, are also
discussed in the above publication (e.g. discrimination
testing).
Are there other methods or variations of the existing
methods that should be developed and/or tested? Do
these methods work well with all products, and for all
situations? (Costell, 2002). More discussions and
research should be conducted to address these questions
335
and to contribute to the growth of QC/sensory metho-
dology.
In addition, one hopes that in the future, there will be
less use of inappropriate or ineffective techniques at the
plant. For example,
 If discrimination tests are used, the power of the
tests and the production rejection frequencies
should be assessed. Other sensory techniques
have to be considered, if either (a) too many pro-
duction batches are rejected based on the small
product differences detected by discriminations
tests, or (b) objectionable production is not
detected because of the low power of the test.
 The data from expert evaluations should be
assessed. How reliable and reproducible are these
evaluations? Are all product’s problems, when
present, detected by the experts? If more than
one expert is used, do they have the same eva-
luation criteria and are they scoring products
similarly? Can a large number of samples be
evaluated by one expert (if only one individual is
used)? How can the expert evaluations be vali-
dated? How can they be expanded, improved or
substituted? (Feria-Morales, 2002).
 The quality ratings scorecard and procedures
need to be assessed. If the grading system used
has the flaws discussed by Muñoz et al. (1992), the
evaluation system should be improved (e.g.
vague, integrated and technically incorrect terms,
lack of equidistant quality grade points, non uni-
form assignments of score weights, etc.)
 ‘‘Typical’’ measurements can be improved by
defining ‘‘typical’’ and ‘‘atypical’’ products
through tangible products and limits. If
improved, this method could become the ‘‘in/
out’’ method (where limits are well defined and
the panel is well trained).
3.8. Collaboration between R&D and QC functions to
produce high and consistent quality
There is a close collaboration and relationship between
the R&D and QC groups in many companies. This col-
laboration is encouraged, if not present. A description of
the ideal R&D and QC interaction follows:
3.8.1. Inherent and consistent quality
A concept that is often not clearly separated and
defined is inherent and consistent quality. Muñoz et al.
(1992) discuss how the inherent quality of a new pro-
duct is determined at the formulation stage. The estab-
lishment of the inherent product’s quality is a joined
R&D and marketing responsibility. Conversely, con-
sistent quality refers to the ability to repeatedly deliver
the same inherent quality characteristics to consumers
336 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
over time. The inherent quality may be ‘‘excellent’’ or
may be ‘‘poor’’, but once established, companies need to
consistently deliver this inherent quality to consumers.
The latter is a QA/QC responsibility.
When addressing quality improvements, a company
must determine if the effort needs to be focused on the
inherent or consistent quality (e.g. define if it is an R&D
or QC/QA project).
3.8.2. R&D and QA/QC collaboration
The best way to sort out the characteristics of con-
sumer complaints and determine if improvements
should be the responsibility of R&D or QC, is to have a
close collaboration between R&D and QA/QC. In many
companies, there is a close collaboration between these
functions, however, the needed interaction does not take
place in others. Hopefully closer relationships between
these two functions can be achieved, in order to improve
the process and results of quality improvement projects.
3.9. Continued use of instrumental measures: their
establishment and validation
There is universal agreement that in the future,
most of the in-plant QC measures should be conducted
analytically or instrumentally (Stapelfeldt, Nielsen,
& Skibsted, 1997). This author considers that in this
area, the QC/sensory field will advance in four
directions:
 the development of new, and improved instru-
mental and analytical techniques applying the
ever growing new and emerging technology;
 greater awareness that all instrumental/analytical
techniques are only as good as they can be mea-
surements or predictors of human responses (or
dimensions thereof);
 the increased number of sensory-instrumental
research studies needed to validate the instru-
mental/analytical measures, and the growing
awareness of the importance of these studies;
 the assessment of the ability of the established
instrumental techniques to measure or provide
information on the critical product’s sensory
attributes.
3.9.1. Validation of instrumental techniques
Instrumental measurements are only useful and reli-
able if they have been validated against sensory mea-
sures, through sensory-instrumental data relationship
studies. These projects are simple, yet there are complex
issues involved. Specifically:
3.9.1.1. Lack of validation studies with company’s products
Often, an instrumental device or an analytical measure
is adopted without being tested with the company’s
products and production variability. Frequently, in
some companies, a given instrumental method is used
since ‘‘it’s use and applications are published in the lit-
erature’’, or ‘‘it was recommended by the supplier’’.
All instrumental devices or analytical measures must
be tested with the company’s products, production
variability ranges, plant conditions and validated with
the sensory responses collected by the company.
3.9.1.2. Lack of knowledge of the product’s critical sensory
attributes One of the flaws of instrumental measures,
even if validated through sensory measures is the
inability to measure or provide information on the pro-
duct’s sensory critical characteristics; i.e. the product
properties that vary during production, and that affect
consumer acceptance. If the critical sensory characteristics
have not been determined, and are not being measured by
the instrument or analytical technique, what is the rele-
vance of the instrumental/analytical results?
Companies need to assess the available information of
the instrumental/analytical measures currently operat-
ing at the plants, and answer the following questions:
1. Has an instrumental–sensory data relationship
study that included the company’s products, the
ranges of variability, and other specific plant
conditions been conducted? If it has and a given
instrumental technique has been validated,
2. Does the instrumental technique provide informa-
tion on the critical product attributes to consumers?
3.9.2. Disadvantages of instrumental measures and need
for sensory measures Muñoz et al. (1992) list a few of the
disadvantages of many instrumental measurements.
Companies have to decide the degree to which sensory
measures are needed to complement the information
obtained instrumentally. If the current instrumental
measures are not detecting production problems and a
large amount of consumer complaints are received, then
sensory measures may need to be incorporated in the
QC program. Refer to Bleibaum, Stone, Isz, Labreche,
Saint-Martin, and Tan (2002), and Ellis and Dowell
(2002) in this special FQP issue for these authors’ per-
spectives and experiences in this area.
3.10. Assuring the minimal requirements for a QC/
sensory program
There are many small and medium companies that
will never be able to establish the ‘‘ideal’’ QC/sensory
programs. However, there are minimal needs to be met
from this author’s perspective (see Table 2).
3.10.1. Sound sensory method
A sound sensory method that provides the company
with useful and reliable sensory data must be selected.
 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
Table 2
Minimum requirements for a QC program
 Selection and use of a sound sensory method
 Definition of critical attributes and limits/specifications
 Completion of an orientation/training program
 Use of sound product preparation and presentation protocols.
 Implementation of a panel/participants’ motivation and
monitoring system
 Management support
 Use of sensory results in the decision making process
Choices include: reduced attribute/descriptive evalua-
tion, ‘‘in/out’’, difference for control, quality ratings
methods.
3.10.2. Definition of critical attributes and limits/
specifications
The critical attributes assessed (or considered in the
assessment, e.g. those attributes that define the ‘‘in’’ or
‘‘out’’ space) need to be selected. Management must be
involved in this selection process, since the consumer
input will not be available in a company with limited
resources. This input should include:
 Selection of the critical attributes to be con-
sidered in the QC/sensory evaluations
 Limits for those attributes (i.e., set specifications)
3.10.3. Orientation/training
Panelists need to participate in an orientation/train-
ing. As discussed earlier, the training for QC/sensory
measures does not need to be long or involved.
Companies with limited resources will tend to use a
very small number of participants in the evaluations.
Therefore, it is even more critical that these companies
conduct an orientation/training program and provide
these participants with common techniques to evaluate
products.
3.10.4. Sound product preparation and presentation
protocols
Controlled conditions need to be kept to ensure sound
product evaluations and results.
3.10.5. Panel/participants motivation
As with any sensory program, ensuring panelists’
motivation is key.
3.10.6. Management support
Management support has to be tangible and consistent.
3.10.7. Use of sensory results
If collected, all sensory product evaluation results
need to be incorporated in the decision making process,
regardless of the outcome.
337
3.11. Global quality control
As many companies expand their business globally,
all functions within the organization have to address
global issues. Quality Control is not an exception. Cur-
rently, many companies need to implement global QC
sensory programs or update their current programs,
which requires addressing products and their quality with
a global outlook. This area represents a challenge and an
opportunity for sensory professionals involved in QC.
When discussing global QC one has to differentiate
two situations. Local consistent product quality or glo-
bal consistent product quality.
3.11.1. Local consistent product quality
Companies that embrace this philosophy commit to
the delivery of consistent quality products in each
country/region, but acknowledge and allow product
differences across countries or regions. Potentially, then,
each country/region will produce consistent products
within, but different across countries/regions. The man-
agement of this type of program is less complex than the
program with a global consistent quality described
below. Each local program has its own characteristics
and is independent of other programs. All sites may
have common philosophies and methodologies. Sites
may measure some common, but also some different
product characteristics. In addition, each country/
region may operate under different specifications.
3.11.2. Global consistent product quality
Companies that embrace this philosophy commit to
the delivery of one product formula across countries.
Therefore, the QC operation becomes truly global, since
consistent quality of products across countries and
regions is pursued. This type of program is more com-
plex than the program committing to local consistent
product quality. All sites adopt the same methodology,
measure the same attributes, and operate under the
same sensory specifications.
In reality, there are variations among products man-
ufactured across countries, because of differences in
ingredients (due to availability, source and country reg-
ulations), equipment, process conditions, etc. Therefore,
many locations may in fact operate under slightly different
specifications to account for the ingredient and process
differences. It is important to be aware of the regional
differences to avoid penalizing or rejecting excessive pro-
ducts in one location, because of the substantial differences
that a location may have compared to the rest.
Regardless of the company’s philosophy, global QC/
sensory is an area of expansion and full of opportunities
in the coming years. Refer to King, Gillette, Titman,
Adams, and Ridgely (2002) in this special FQP issue for
the discussion of the procedures and caveats involved in
a global QC sensory program.
338 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
3.12. Development of QC/sensory programs in the personal
care, pharmaceutical, household and paper industries
The QC/sensory field was developed and is mainly
applied in the food industry. Unfortunately, few QC/
sensory programs are available in other industries,
including the personal care, pharmaceutical, household
and paper industries. There are some reasons why only
few non food companies have a QC/sensory program.
 Sensory evaluation as a field is relatively new to
these industries. Most of them have a relatively
new sensory R&D group or are just implement-
ing it. Therefore, there is a lot of learning and
growing that has to occur in these companies.
The growth will occur at the R&D level first.
Hopefully thereafter QC/sensory programs will
be developed within these organizations
 Sensory measures for non food products are
sometimes more complex than food evaluations
(e.g. application of creams and lotions on skin,
assessment of the lotion’s characteristics at dif-
ferent stages, application of hair care products to
tresses or half heads, evaluation of the hair care
product at different phases, etc.). In addition,
there is a limit on the number of samples eval-
uated per sessions for many non food product
categories (e.g. lotions and creams, toothpastes,
etc). Therefore, many companies are reluctant to
adopt in plant QC/sensory measures for their
products requiring an involved application and
evaluation protocol.
 In general, most of the companies in these
industries try to use instrumental/analytical tests
at the plant, because of the difficulties described
in the product application and sensory evalua-
tion protocols.
3.13. Use of multivariate QC/sensory data analyses and
control charts
Among the four most common and recommended
sensory methods used in QC, the modified or descriptive
method provides multiple attribute information. This
information is traditionally analyzed in a univariate
way; i.e. by analyzing each attribute separately. How-
ever, applicable and appropriate multivariate methods
should be used to understand the multidimensionality of
the data. Powers and Rao (1985) and Virgili and Par-
olari (1991) discuss the application of multivariate
techniques in quality control. Ennis and Bi (2001) dis-
cuss how multivariate control charts and sampling plans
can be used in sensory quality control, in which data
involve ratings of multiple sensory attributes. These
authors stress the importance of using multivariate
control charts to control all of the quality attributes of a
product simultaneously and account for both the mag-
nitude and variability of the attributes.
QC/sensory programs that collect descriptive, and
thus multivariate attribute data, are encouraged to look
into the application of multivariate data analysis tech-
niques and control charts.
3.14. Internet applications in the QC/sensory field
A considerable amount of the technical and business
activities, as well as personal enterprises and endeavors
are making use of the Internet. The field of QC/sensory
evaluation is no exception. Using and profiting from the
Internet is very applicable in the QC/sensory field,
because of the different locations/regions involved in a
program. Communication needs to occur either between
R&D and the plant(s), and among plants or countries.
The Internet facilitates that communication and
exchange of information, allowing closer collaboration
among groups and regions.
Nogueira, Curt, Tinet, Hossenlopp, and Trystram
(2000) discuss the completion of training programs using
the Internet. The advantages and the disadvantages of
conducting sensory trainings though the Internet are also
discussed. The evident QC/sensory program activities
that can be completed using the Internet include:
 Supervision and guidance of in-plant training
programs by the remote R&D sensory group
 Administration of multiple in-plant sensory pro-
grams across regions or countries
 Immediate availability and exchange of results
 Exchange of information
One of the manuscripts in this special FQP issue
(Findlay, 2002) discusses the use of the Internet in QC/
sensory programs in more detail. The use of the Internet
in this field is certainly a new development with
remarkable opportunities.
3.15. The ultimate goal: a more effective approach to
deliver consistent quality products
There are many opportunities for growth and devel-
opment in the field of QC/sensory evaluation. A few of
the areas have been briefly outlined in this manuscript.
The need and the opportunities are there. This author
would like to challenge everyone involved in the field of
QC/sensory evaluation:
 we need to assess our company’s current situa-
tion, and implement or improve current methods
and practices
 we need to contribute to rising the level of the
QC/sensory field to a higher plateau in the new
millennium.
 A.M. Muñoz / Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 329–339
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1992). The
Role of Sensory Analysis in Quality Control. In J. E. Yantis (Ed.),
ASTM Manual series MNL 14. Pennsylvania: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Bleibaum, R.N., Stone, H., Tan, T., Labreche, S., Saint-Martin, E. &
Isz, S. (2002). Comparison of sensory and consumer results with
electronic nose and tongue sensors for apple juices. Food Quality
and Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory evaluation for
quality control, 35, 409–422.
Barcina Angulo, Y. (1994). Sensory analysis and its application to the
quality control of traditional cheeses and the development of new
technologies. Revista Española de Lecherı´a, 60, 16–18 20–21.
Bazzo, S., Loubet, F., & Tan, T. T. (1998). Quality control of edible
oil using an electronic nose. Seminars in Food Analysis, 3(1), 15–25.
Costell, E. A comparison of sensory methods in quality control (2002)
Food Quality and Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory
evaluation for quality control, 35, 341–353.
Ellis, S. & Dowell, K. (2002). The role of analytical measures in pre-
dicting sensory quality of consumer products. Food Quality and
Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory evaluation for quality
control, 35, 397–407.
Ennis, D. M., & Bi, J. (2001). Multivariate quality control with appli-
cations to sensory data. Journal of Food Quality, 23(6), 541–552.
Feria Morales, A. (2002). Examining the case of Green Coffee to
illustrate the limitations of grading systems/expert tasters in sensory
evaluation for quality control. Food Quality and Preference Special
Issue: Advances in sensory evaluation for quality control, 35, 355–367.
Findlay, C. (2002). The use of the Internet in QC/sensory programs.
Food Quality and Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory
evaluation for quality control, 35, 423–429.
King, S., Gillette, M., Titman, D., Adams, J. & Ridgely, M. (2002).
The Sensory Quality System: A Global Quality Control Solution.
Food Quality and Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory
evaluation for quality control, 35, 385–395.
339
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory Evaluation of Food.
New York: Aspen Publishers.
Muir, D. (2000). Application of sensory profiling in quality assurance.
Milk Industry International, 102(5), S3–S4.
Muñoz, A. M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1992). Sensory evaluation
in quality control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Nogueira, H., Curt., C., Tinet, C, Hossenlopp, J. & Trystram, G.
(2000). ‘‘Gustamat’’: sensory quality control of cured sausage.
Innovation in Food Technology (11): xx.
Pecore, S. & Kellen, L. (2002). A consumer-focused QC/sensory pro-
gram in the food industry. Food Quality and Preference Special
Issue: Advances in sensory evaluation for quality control, 35, 369–374.
Powers, J. J., & Rao, V. N. M. (1985). Computerization of the quality
assurance program. Food Technology, 39(11), 136.
Reyes Vega, D. L. L. M., Fahara Valdes, M. C., Valdes Silva, I. C.,
Saucedo Salazar, C. T., & Peralta Rodrı́guez, R. D. (1995). Appli-
cation of sensory evaluation triangle tests for quality control of
liquid antacids. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 21(10),
1203–1210.
Russell, P. (1995). Sensory analysis. Milk Industry International, 97(5),
11–12.
Stapelfeldt, H., Nielsen, B. R., & Skibsted, L. H. (1997). Towards use
of electron spin resonance spectrometry in quality control of milk
powder. Correlation between sensory score of instant whole milk
powders and concentration of free radicals and 2-thiobarbituric acid
reactive substances. Milchwissenschaft, 52(12), 682–685.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (1993). Sensory evaluation practices (2nd Ed.).
New York: Academic Press.
Virgili, R., & Parolari, G. (1991). Quality control in the meat industry
by multivariate statistics. The case of raw ham. Meat Science, 29(1),
83–96.
Weller, J.N. & Stanton, K.J. (2002). The establishment and use of a
QC analytical/descriptive/consumer measurement model for the
routine evaluation of products at manufacturing facilities. Food
Quality and Preference Special Issue: Advances in sensory evaluation
for quality control, 35, 375–383.