FACULTY OF FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION

NT31103 FOOD SENSORY EVALUATION

SEMESTER 1, SESSION 2023/2024

LAB PRACTiCAL 6:
QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (QDA)

LECTURER: DR. AHMAD RIDUAN BIN BAHAUDDIN

DATE OF PRACTICAL: 1/11/2023 (FRIDAY)
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 8/11/2023 (FRIDAY)

NAME MATRIC NUMBER SIGNATURE

LIM YONG QI BN21110093 YongQi

ONG XIANG YING BN21110101 XiangYing

NG WENG SHAN BN21110105 WengShan

IZWANA AINA NAZIRA BINTI BN20110125 Izwana

SHUHAIMI
INTRODUCTION

A descriptive test involves the use of panellists who are trained in detecting and
describing the differences among products. These panellists must possess the ability to
identify specific sensory attributes present in a product and be able to measure the intensity
of those attributes accurately (Hu, M. & Jacobsen, C., 2016). They characterize the various
sensory aspects of a product such as flavour, texture, aroma, appearance, and other
relevant characteristics. A descriptive test enables sensory scientists to acquire thorough and
complete sensory description of the products, to identify underlying ingredients and process
variables, and to determine the significance of specific sensory attributes in relation to
overall acceptance (Lawless, H. T. et al., 2010). There are several different methods of
descriptive analysis, including the Flavour Profile Analysis, Texture Profile Analysis,
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis, Spectrum Analysis, and Free Choice Profiling (Maren
Johnson, 2021). However, the most common descriptive sensory techniques used are
Flavour Profile Analysis, Texture Profile Analysis, and Quantitative Descriptive Analysis.

Flavour Profile Analysis (FPA) is a sensory method utilizing a trained panel of four to
six individuals (Krasner, S. W., 1988). They are trained to precisely define the flavours of the
product category during a 2-to-3-week program. The goal of Flavour Profile Analysis is to
provide a detailed and standardized description of the sensory properties related to taste
and aroma in the food product. Besides that, the Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) has been
widely used for food products characterisation and quality control since it was invented by
the General Foods Corporation Technical Centre in 1963 (Trinh, K. T., & Glasgow, S., 2012).
Texture Profile Analysis is a sensory evaluation technique used to objectively measure and
describe the textural attributes of a food product. The texture of an object is perceived by
the senses of sight (visual texture), touch (tactile texture), and sound (auditory texture).
Furthermore, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA), which is the descriptive test that we
used in this experiment, is a sensory evaluation method that involves trained panellists to
provide detailed information on the intensity and characteristics of specific sensory attributes
of the products. This method involves the graphical presentations of the data such as spider
web or cobweb graphs.

In short, the descriptive test in sensory evaluation serves as a valuable and

systematic method for assessing and characterizing the sensory attributes of products. It
stands as one of the important tools for food industries to guide product development,
maintain quality standards, and meet consumer satisfactions and preferences.

1
OBJECTIVES

1. To expose students with technique and training of descriptive test

2. To determine the difference in sample attribute.

MATERIALS AND APPARATUS

Three different biscuit sample (Sample A, Sample B and Sample C), Paper, Pencil, Ruler,
Water

PRECAUTION STEPS
1. The mouth should be rinse with water before, between and after every testing.
2. Each sample should be tested a few times before giving the results.
3. The line scale should be drawn in a known length to obtain accurate results.

METHODS

1. Panel worked in a respective group.

2. Panels have been given a sample according to the group.
3. Each panel in the group evaluated the given sample and suggested relevant terminology
to characterize the product.
4. Every group stated 8 main terminologies that had been agreed and indicated a 10 cm
line scale for that terminology.
5. A sensory evaluation form of the product prepared by each panel by using 10 cm line
scaling.
6. An evaluation of the product A and C conducted by used information that have been
agreed in the discussion.
7. The obtained results recorded and reported.

2
SAMPLE SENSORY ATTRIBUTES

Attribute Definition Reference

Hearing Low High
1.Crunchiness The frequency of sounds Tofu Potato chips
when chewing the biscuit
with molar teeth.
Texture
2.Dryness The degree to which the Tofu Potato chips
biscuit feels dry in the
mouth.
3.Roughness The level of the rough on White paper Sand paper
the surface of the biscuit by
touching.
4.Thickness The size of the biscuit from Potato chips Fishcake
top to bottom.
Tactile
5.Surface The level of oily on the A4 paper Packaging of fried
greasiness surface of the biscuit by chicken
touching.
6.Hardness The tendency of the biscuit Jelly Apple
features to break into small
pieces with the little force
such as finger.
Taste
7.Saltiness The quality of tasting salt of Plain water 10% salt solution
the biscuit.
Visual Appearance
8.Yellowish/ The visual perception of the
Brownish appearance of the biscuit.
Table 1: Sensory Attributes for the Sample Evaluation with Definitions and References

3
Line Scale for Sensory Attributes
Instruction: Mark the score for Sample A with ( l ) and Sample C with ( l ).

4
5
RESULTS

SAMPLE A (HUP SENG CREAM CRACKERS)

Sensory Panellist 10 cm- Line Scale Value for Sample A
Attributes 1 2 3 4 Average
(Descriptors) (± SD)
Crunchiness 7.2 9.3 7.7 7.5 7.92 ± 0.94

Hardness 3.1 8.3 8.9 7.3 6.90 ± 2.62

Saltiness 5.1 4.6 7.5 3.8 5.25 ± 1.59

Surface greasiness 7.4 6.2 8.4 7.4 7.35 ± 0.90

Dryness 3.9 6.2 8.7 6.7 6.38 ± 1.97

Roughness 1.9 0.6 8.7 7.1 4.58 ± 3.93

Thickness 7.1 2.5 7.6 4.4 5.40 ± 2.39

Yellowish/Brownish 2.6 5.4 8.4 6.4 5.70 ± 2.41

Table 2: Sensory Attributes Scores for Sample A based on Panellists’ Line Scales

Figure 1: Radar Plot (Spider Web) of Sample A’s Sensory Attributes

6
SAMPLE C (ROMA CREAM CRACKERS)

Sensory Panellist 10 cm- Line Scale Value for Sample C

Attributes 1 2 3 4 Average
(Descriptors) (± SD)
Crunchiness 8.0 9.0 8.6 6.4 8.00 ± 0.50

Hardness 2.6 8.6 8.1 6.3 6.40 ± 2.72

Saltiness 4.1 4.9 8.5 2.7 5.05 ± 2.34

Surface greasiness 7.9 4.3 7.5 7.9 8.28 ± 1.74

Dryness 5.5 7.5 7.8 5.6 6.60 ± 1.22

Roughness 2.7 0.9 7.8 6.1 4.38 ± 3.14

Thickness 8.4 2.8 8.7 5.1 6.25 ± 2.82

Yellowish/Brownish 3.3 5.1 6.3 4.2 4.73 ± 1.28

Table 3: Sensory Attributes Scores for Sample C based on Panellists’ Line Scales

Figure 2: Radar Plot (Spider Web) of Sample C’s Sensory Attributes

7
BETWEEN SAMPLE A AND C

Sensory Mean of Sample

Attributes A C
(Descriptors)
Crunchiness 7.92 ± 0.94 8.00 ± 0.50

Hardness 6.90 ± 2.62 6.40 ± 2.72

Saltiness 5.25 ± 1.59 5.05 ± 2.34

Surface greasiness 7.35 ± 0.90 8.28 ± 1.74

Dryness 6.38 ± 1.97 6.60 ± 1.22

Roughness 4.58 ± 3.93 4.38 ± 3.14

Thickness 5.40 ± 2.39 6.25 ± 2.82

Yellowish/Brownish 5.70 ± 2.41 4.73 ± 1.28

Table 4: Mean Sensory Attributes Scores for Sample A and C based on Panellists’ Line Scales

Figure 3: Radar Plot (Spider Web) of Mean Sample A and C’s Sensory Attributes

8
DISCUSSION

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) is a well-established sensory descriptive

analysis method widely used in food evaluation and product development (Yang & Lee,
2019). QDA is designed to measure and describe the sensory attributes of a product using a
trained panel. This method provides a systematic and structured approach to evaluate the
sensory features of a product, allowing for the collection of both qualitative and quantitative
data (Meilgaard, M,M et al., 2016). Flavour profile analysis are included in qualitative
methods, while texture profile, qualitative descriptive analysis (QDA), spectrum analysis,
free-choice sampling and diagnostic descriptive analysis are included in quantitative methods
(Stone et al., 2012). In this practical, QDA will be carried out to determine the differences
between the samples and to understand the techniques and training of the descriptive test.

Descriptive tests are crucial in summarizing and understanding the sensory

properties of food samples. Trained panels are crucial in these tests because they have the
necessary competence to identify and express small variations in sensory characteristics.
The training process usually includes providing panelists with various reference samples,
doing calibration exercises, and offering continuous practice to enhance their sensory acuity
and linguistic skills (Lund, M,L et al., 2009). Besides, due to the fact that QDA generates a
complete qualitative and quantitative sensory description, it can offer descriptive data that
can be statistically analysed. A set of qualitative attributes is agreed upon by the panelists
which 8–15 people in minimum, who were chosen for their ability to describe and distinguish
products in the target category. Each assessor then works independently to rate the
attributes on a line scale with indented anchors. In QDA, a panel leader plays the main role
to facilitate the discussion while not influencing the decisions of other panelists.

There are five key steps of descriptive analysis: screening and training of assessors,
generating attributes and references, determining assessment protocol, rating intensity,
performance check, data generation along with data analysis and reporting (Kemp et al,
2011). During the experiment, we are first familiar with the sensory attributes of sample B
as the training required in QDA steps. This is because those tested products are used as
illustrative stimuli to help develop the consensus language during training. During training
sessions, references can be used to generate sensory terminologies, particularly when
panelists are unsure of one another and disagree on certain sensory attributes in order to
avoid conflict and confusion (Johnson, 2021).

9
 In this experiment, the generation of references is a crucial component, particularly
in the absence of trained panels. References function as standards for various sensory
attributes, assisting panelists in aligning their evaluations and ensuring consistency in their
assessments. These references serve as helpful instruments that assist panelists in
distinguishing between high and low levels of various sensory attributes. Besides, line scales
are designed for data collection and panel training as we are choosing 10 cm total length
with increasing attributes intensity in this experiment. Subsequently, the data collected from
line scales from total 4 panelists are converted into mean scores and statistically analysed by
using spider plots. Therefore, each individual panelist's performance is tracked and
compared to that of other panels. Results are shown visually in spider plots. Assessments
are conducted in replicates of 2–6 repeat evaluations (Kemp et al., 2009).

Trained panelists are essential components in performing QDA for identification and
scale the specific sensory attributes to the samples. However, the panelists who perform this
experiment are not trained panelists as we do not undergo certain screening procedures
based on minimal sensory ability. Therefore, there are some limitations that might appear
throughout this experiment. First is the result obtained might lack accuracy (Marques,
2022). This is because the experience is essential to evaluate the samples given, which is
sample A and C consistently by using the self-generated attributes (Drake, 2023). Besides,
the false positive might occur with the QDA evaluation. The false positive might occur as
untrained or semi-trained panelists have the possibility to describe the attribute with
unknown term meaning (Albert, 2011).

At the beginning of the experiment, panels are tasked to identify sensory attributes
present in sample B. This method encourages panelists to develop a precise and consistent
sensory vocabulary, enhancing their ability to contribute meaningfully to descriptive
analyses. Based on the evaluations, eight sensory key attributes - crunchiness, hardness,
saltiness, surface greasiness, dryness, roughness, thickness, and yellowish-brownish color
intensity are defined. These attributes serve as a foundation for further investigations,
allowing use in subsequent analyses of similar sample types. During the ranging of sensory
attribute intensity between sample A and C, it is important to keep the sample’s brand as
unknown to avoid biases due to the influence of brand knowledge of panelists (Martinez,
2002) .

According to table 2 and 3, the average yellowish-brownish intensity score is 5.70cm

for cracker A is higher than 4.73cm of cracker C. One of the reasons is the baking time used

10
for cracker A might be longer than that of cracker C. The heat and mass transfer during
baking will impact the colour of crackers caused by chemical reactions such as Maillard
reaction and caramelization (Stamatovska, 2017). Besides, there are no significant
differences between the dryness attributes between cracker A and cracker C which is 6.38cm
and 6.60cm respectively. The dryness attribute is important for cream crackers as high
moisture content will lead to hydrolysis and therefore releasing the fatty acids, leading to
undesirable attributes (Neo, 2007).

Besides, the main composition of cream crackers manufacturing is fat rather than
sugar and flour. This can be proved by the average surface greasiness score for both cracker
A and cracker C is quite significantly high which is 7.35cm and 8.28cm respectively. The high
surface greasiness properties will enhance the texture and mouthfeel as well as sensory
appeal for consumption. However, most of the cream crackers should be stored and handled
properly to avoid rancidity by minimizing the exposure to the oxygen in the air (Gumus,
2021). The roughness of sample A (4.58 ± 3.93) is higher than sample C (4.38 ± 3.14).
The thickness of sample C (6.25 ± 2.82) is higher than sample A (5.40 ± 2.39). The
standard deviation for both roughness and thickness of the biscuit samples are higher,
indicating variability in panelists’ perceptions of roughness and thickness within each sample.

When assessing the mouth-feel characteristics of samples A and C, factors such as

crunchiness, hardness, and salinity are taken into account. The average level of crunchiness
for sample C (8.00 ± 0.50) is slightly greater than that of sample A (7.92 ± 0.94).
Crunchiness refers to the texture-related characteristic that is linked to the sound and feeling
experienced when biting or chewing (Vickers, Z, M, 1984). The observed difference in mean
values indicates a subtle change in perceived crispiness between the two samples. In
addition, the low standard deviations suggest a similar experience of crunchiness in each
sample. Surprisingly, the hardness for sample C (6.40 ± 2.72) is lower than that of sample A
(6.90 ± 2.62). Hardness, in relation to mouth-feel, often refers to the amount of force
needed to bite or chew the product. The presence of diversity in both the mean values and
standard deviations indicates that the perception of hardness is more variable within each
sample. The salinity of sample A (5.25 ± 1.59) is greater than that of sample C (5.05 ±
2.34). The presence of salt, while commonly linked to taste, greatly influences the texture of
food by contributing to its overall flavour characteristics. Sample C exhibits a lower degree of
salinity, indicating a decreased concentration of sodium in comparison to sample A. The
discovery has consequences for consumer preferences, since the perceived level of salty
might impact the overall taste appeal of the food (Bouhlal, S et al., 2013).

11
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the descriptive test that we have been doing in this experiment is
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). In this test, there are mainly four steps carried out,
which are screening of panelists, training judges, evaluation of panelists and evaluation of
product. In the training process, the panelists are assigned to taste sample B and generate a
set of 20 attributes which is used to evaluate the products. After that, the panelists are
asked to define and select the final 8 attributes, then the references are also generated
based on the attributes. The 8 attributes that they have chosen are crunchiness, hardness,
saltiness, surface greasiness, dryness, roughness, thickness and yellowish-brownish color
intensity. A 10 cm line scale has been used in this sensory evaluation tests. When
evaluating, the attributes of sample A and C are compared with the references and hence a
mark was labelled on the line scale, which represents the score for the sample respectively.

The results are shown in the form of spider web, and the sensory attributes of the
two different sample are interpreted based on panelists and also the sample. For the sensory
attributes such as yellowish-brownish intensity, roughness, hardness and saltiness, sample A
is higher than sample C. While for the dryness and surface greasiness attributes, both
sample A and C have similar results. For the sensory attributes of crunchiness and thickness,
sample C is higher than sample A. However, the panelists who perform this experiment are
not trained panelists. Hence, the results might be less accurate and might appear some
limitations.

12
REFERENCE

Albert, A., Varela, P., Salvador, A., Hough, G., & Fiszman, S. (2011). Overcoming the issues in

the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of

QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of

training. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), Page 463-473.

Bouhlal, S, Chabanet, C, Issanchou, S & Nicklaus, S. (2013). Salt Content Impacts Food

Preferences and Intake among Children. Plos One. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053971

Drake, M. A., Watson, M. E., & Liu, Y. (2023). Sensory Analysis and Consumer Preference:

Best Practices. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 14, Page 427-448.

Gumus, C. E., & Decker, E. A. (2021). Oxidation in low moisture foods as a function of

surface lipids and fat content. Foods, 10(4), 860.

Hu, M., & Jacobsen, C. (Eds.). (2016). Oxidative stability and shelf life of foods containing

oils and fats. Elsevier.

Johnson M. (February 2, 2021). Quantitative Descriptive Analysis. Society of Sensory

professionals. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from

https://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/sspwiki/Pages/Quantitative%20Descriptiv

e%20Analysis.aspx

Kemp S. E., Hollowood T., & Hort J. (2009). Sensory Evaluation : A Practical Handbook.

Ames Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kemp, S. E., Hollowood, T., & Hort, J. (2011). Sensory evaluation: a practical handbook.

John Wiley & Sons.

Krasner, S. W. (1988). Flavor-profile analysis: an objective sensory technique for the

identification and treatment of off-flavors in drinking water. Water science and

technology, 20(8-9), 31-36.

13
Lawless, H. T., Heymann, H., Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Descriptive analysis.

Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices, Page 227-257.

Lund, C,M, Jones, V, S & Spanitz, S. (2009). Effects and influences of motivation on trained

panelists. Food Quality and Preference, 20(4):295-303. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.01.004

Maren Johnson. (2021). Descriptive Analysis. Retrieved December 7, 2023 from

https://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/sspwiki/Pages/Descriptive%20Analysis.as

px

Marques, C., Correia, E., Dinis, L. T., & Vilela, A. (2022). An overview of sensory

characterization techniques: From classical descriptive analysis to the emergence of

novel profiling methods. Foods, 11(3), 255.

Martı ́nez, C., Santa Cruz, M. J., Hough, G., & Vega, M. J. (2002). Preference mapping of

cracker type biscuits. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7-8), Page 535-544.

Meilgaard, M,M, Civille, G,V & Carr, B,T. (2016). Descriptive Analysis Techniques (5th ed).

CRC Press.

Neo, Y. P., Tan, C. H., & Ariffin, A. (2007). Fatty acid composition of five Malaysian biscuits

(cream crackers) with special reference to trans-fatty acids. ASEAN Food Journal,

14(3), 197.

Stamatovska, V., Nakov, G., Dimov, I., Traneva, I., Kalevska, T., & Uzunoska, Z. (2017). The

changes in colour of biscuits during baking depending on time and different

proportion of barley flour.

Trinh, K. T., & Glasgow, S. (2012). On the texture profile analysis test. In Proceedings of the

Chemeca. Vol. 2012, pp. 23-26.

14
Vickers, Z,M. (1984). Crispness and Crunchiness - A Difference in Pitch. Journal of Texture

Studies, 15(2): 157-163. Retreived from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1984.tb00375.x

Yang, J & Lee, J. (2019). Application of Sensory Descriptive Analysis and Consumer Studies

to Investigate Traditional and Authentic Foods: A Review. Foods, 8(2): 54. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.3390%2Ffoods8020054

15