FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory.

P a g e |6

EXERCISE 2
ODOR IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING TEST FOR PANELISTS SCREENING

OBJECTIVES:
1. To determine the effect of cues in odor identification
2. To be familiar with ranking test set-up
3. Determine factors for panelist screening

MATERIALS:
Odor identification:

• Filter paper or cotton ball containing the 1 to 2 drops of essence or extracts

• Amber colored jars (or containers covered with foil) containing the filter paper
extracts with unique 3-digit codes
Ranking:

• Calamansi juice with 0.0%, 0.2% and 0.3% added citric acid
• Calamansi juice with 0.0%, 0.5%, and 1% added sugar

PROCEDURE:
Odor identification:
Sample preparation
1. Place approximately 1cm-thick cotton ball in each jar
2. Add 1 to 2 drops essence individually on each jar.
3. Close the jar with a lid and label with a three-digit random number. A total of 10 jars
must be presented to each judge. (5 samples for set A and 5 samples for set B)
Master and response sheet preparation
4. Prepare 2 sets of response sheet (set A and set B). Sample B must contain cues or list
of sample identification.
5. Prepare a master sheet involving n judges and 5 samples. (n = half of the class)
Sample presentation
6. Present the jars to the judges. (Set A)
7. Upon completion, retrieve the answered response sheet and samples from the judges.
8. Present another set of samples to the judges (Set B). This time, the response sheet
must contain the cues.
Data gathering and analysis
9. Record the number of correct responses of each judge per set. Consider this as a pair
of observation.
10. Analyze the gathered data by performing paired t-test. In addition, calculate for the
correlation coefficient of the two sets using the same data.

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra
FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. P a g e |7

11. Present your data in a histogram with scores of 0 to 5 (0 = no correct answers, 5= got
all answers correctly) on the x-axis, and the number of judges that got the mentioned
scores on the y-axis. A total of 2 histograms must be presented; one for set A (u-cued
samples) and set B (cued samples).
Ranking:
1. Prepare a master sheet involving n judges and 6 samples. Use only one response sheet
per judge. (n = half of the class)
2. Present the samples to the judges.
3. Collect data and tabulate the following responses:
• perfect rankings (1,2,3)
• one reversal (2,1,3 or 1,3,2)
• two reversals (2,3,1 or 3,1,2)
• complete reversal (3,2,1)
4. From the results, identify which judges should be screened out based on the group’s
result.

Reminders:
Use the same set of judges for the odor identification and ranking test.

GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1. What is the importance of panelist screening in sensory evaluation?
2. Was there a significant improvement of odor identification during set B procedure?
Identify reasons for such improvement. If there were no significant improvement in
performance during set B procedure, identify reasons for such results.
3. Aside from the ability to recognize taste and aroma, name one physical qualification
of a panelist for a sensory test. Discuss its importance.
4. Why is ranking used instead of intensity scales? Relate your answer to the type of
judges used in this exercise.
5. Based on the results, who among the judges should be eliminated as panel member?
Justify.

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra
FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. P a g e |8

ODOR IDENTIFICATION TEST (SET A)

Judge No. : 1

Identify the perceived odor of each coded sample with 3-rabbit like sniffs. Write your
answers in the table below. Rest for 30 seconds in between each sample.

Code Perceive odor

908 ______________
298 ______________
462 ______________
808 ______________
388 ______________

ODOR IDENTIFICATION TEST (SET B)

Judge No. : 1

Using the list provided on the handout, identify the perceived odor of each coded
sample with 3-rabbit like sniffs. Write your answers in the table below. Rest for 30 seconds in
between each sample.

Code Perceive odor

884 ______________
271 ______________
384 ______________
307 ______________
142 ______________

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra
FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. P a g e |9

TASTE RANKING

Judge No. : 1

Rank the samples in terms of most to least SWEETNESS perceived. Write the
sample code in the space provided. Use water to cleanse your palate in between samples.
MOST sweetness LEAST sweetness

Rank the samples in terms of most to least SOUR sample. Write the sample code in
the space provided. Use water to cleanse your palate in between samples.
MOST sour LEAST sour

TASTE RANKING

Judge No. : 2

Rank the samples in terms of most to least SWEETNESS perceived. Write the
sample code in the space provided. Use water to cleanse your palate in between samples.
MOST sweetness LEAST sweetness

Rank the samples in terms of most to least SOUR sample. Write the sample code in
the space provided. Use water to cleanse your palate in between samples.
MOST sour LEAST sours

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra
FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. P a g e | 10

MASTER SHEET

Date :
Product :
Test :
Sample Identification:
A -
B -
C -
D -
E -
F -
G -
H -
I -
J -

Judge SET A
No.
A B C D E
1 298 2 908 1 808 4 388 5 462 3

2 503 1 507 2 879 5 321 3 546 4

3 149 5 956 4 127 2 677 1 915 3

4 761 3 572 5 354 1 824 4 355 2

5 877 4 958 3 881 5 961 2 785 1

.
.
.
n
Total

Judge SET B
No.
F G H I J
1 307 4 384 3 142 5 271 2 884 1

2 279 5 217 4 755 2 905 1 744 3

3 475 2 441 1 925 4 297 5 499 3

4 339 1 705 2 504 5 249 3 903 4

5 303 3 109 5 781 1 486 4 607 2

.
.
.
n
Total

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra
FT 313. Sensory Evaluation Laboratory. P a g e | 11

MASTER SHEET
Date :
Product :
Test :
Sample Identification:
A -
B -
C -
D -
E -
F -

Complete
reversal

reversal

reversal
ranking
Perfect

Two
One
Judge
No.
A B C
2 1 3
1 716 538 325
3 1 2
2 839 686 254
1 3 2
3 625 258 949
2 3 1
4 896 204 923
3 2 1
5 266 262 816
.
.
.
n
Total
Complete
reversal

reversal

reversal
ranking
Perfect

Two
One

Judge
No.
D E F
2 1 3
1 908 793 298
1 3 2
2 507 121 503
3 2 1
3 956 438 149
3 1 2
4 572 681 761
2 3 1
5 958 878 877
.
.
.
n
Total

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Instructor: Crisline Mae C. Alhambra