Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Research International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Review

Sensory shelf-life estimation: A review of current methodological approaches

Ana Giménez ⁎, Florencia Ares, Gastón Ares
Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República, General Flores 2124, C.P. 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Shelf-life of food products can be regarded as the period of time during which a product could be stored until
Received 30 May 2012 it becomes unacceptable from safety, nutritional, or sensory perspectives. Shelf-life estimation of food prod-
Accepted 6 July 2012 ucts and beverages has become increasingly important in recent years due to technological developments
and the increase in consumer interest in eating fresh, safe and high quality products. The shelf-life of the ma-
Keywords:
jority of food products is determined by changes in their sensory characteristics. Therefore, in order to extend
Shelf-life
Consumer studies
commercialization times to its maximum while assuring products' quality, food companies should rely on ac-
Sensory evaluation curate methodologies for sensory shelf-life estimation. Despite several methodologies have been developed
Consumer research in the last decade, their application in the mainstream food science and technology literature is still limited
Survival analysis and most studies dealing with sensory shelf-life rely on basic and inaccurate approaches. In this context,
Liking the aim of this work is to review current methodological approaches for sensory shelf-life estimation. Imple-
mentation, applications, advantages and disadvantages of quality-based methods, acceptability limit, cut-off
point methodology and survival analysis are discussed. The superiority of consumer-based methodologies is
highlighted, with the aim of encouraging researchers to base their sensory shelf-life estimations on consumer
perception.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
312
1.1. Sensory shelf-life: concept and relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
312
2. Design of sensory shelf-life experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
2.1. Basic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
2.2. Reversed design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
3. Methodologies for sensory shelf-life estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
3.1. Quality-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
3.1.1. Difference from control test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
3.1.2. Intensity of sensory attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
3.1.3. Quality rating methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
3.2. Acceptability limit methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
3.3. Cut-off point methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
3.4. Survival analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
3.4.1. Current status survival analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
4. Methodological recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
5. Challenges and suggestions for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 2924 80 03; fax: +598 2924 19 06.
E-mail address: agimenez@fq.edu.uy (A. Giménez).

0963-9969/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2012.07.008
312 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
1. Introduction
1.1. Sensory shelf-life: concept and relevance
Shelf-life is usually defined as the time during which a food product
remain safe, comply with label declaration of nutritional data and retain
desired sensory, chemical, physical and microbiological characteristics
when stored under the recommended conditions (IFST, 1993). There-
fore, to assess shelf-life objective indexes related to nutrition, microbio-
logical or physicochemical characteristics of food have been typically
measured (Cardello, 1995; Wansink & Wright, 2006).
Shelf-life is a function of time, environmental factors, and suscepti-
bility of product to quality change (Labuza & Szybist, 2001). Physical,
chemical and biological changes that occur throughout the food chain
generally lead to product deterioration and these changes might in
time compromise nutritional, microbiological or sensory quality. In
many products changes in sensory characteristics occur largely before
any risk to consumers' health is reached (Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
According to Hough (2010) the shelf-life of most food products is limit-
ed by changes in their sensory characteristics. In this context, sensory
shelf-life estimation of foods has become an issue of continuous and ex-
tensive research on both the deteriorative mechanisms occurring in
food systems and the development and application of methodologies
for shelf-life estimation (Manzocco & Lagazio, 2009).
Accurate prediction of shelf-life is essential to consumers as well
as manufacturers. Consumer increasing concerns on healthy eating
and making healthy food choices demand among others, fresh, conve-
nient, safe and superior quality foods. A growing concern over wheth-
er the food they purchase is fresh or not, or how long it will keep its
quality is one of the reasons driving consumers to read labels.
Shelf-life dating is considered by most consumers to be a measure
of food freshness, relying on the information provided by the manu-
facturer when making their purchase decisions (OTA, 1979). The
magnitude of perceived risk (Murray & Schlacter, 1990; Severson,
Slovic, & Hampson, 1993) and previous experience with a product
(Weber & Milliman, 1997) are likely conditions that influence con-
sumers to check product expiration dates. Several authors have
reported that information presented on labels could have a major in-
fluence on food acceptance (Jaeger, 2006; Rozin, 1990; Rozin &
Tuorila, 1993), which suggests that shelf-life dates could significantly
influence consumer expectations and perception of food products.
The economic impact of a business decision based in part on inappro-
priate shelf-life dating can be significant (Stone & Sidel, 2004). Finding
unacceptable products within their shelf-life could diminish consumer
confidence in the brand and in the store that sells it, leading them to
not purchasing that particular brand again (Harcar & Karakaya, 2005).
On the other hand, the financial impact of retrieving an acceptable prod-
uct from the marketplace should also be considered (Mena, Adenso-Diaz,
& Yurt, 2011). It has been estimated that between 25% and 50% of food
production is wasted along the supply chain (Nellman et al., 2009).
Throwing food away has economic and environmental implications
(Stuart, 2009; Ventour, 2008), and has also raised moral questions consid-
ering the number of people who suffer from hunger worldwide (Stuart,
2009). Besides, accurate shelf-life labeling could contribute to an effective
waste management which could increase profitability levels all along the
supply chain, which is particularly relevant considering the low profitabil-
ity margins traditionally associated to food industry (Hyde, Smith, Smith
& Henningson, 2001). Therefore, in order to extend commercialization
times to its maximum while assuring the product's freshness, food com-
panies should rely on accurate methodologies for shelf-life estimation
(Giménez, Ares, & Gámbaro, 2008a).
During the last decade, technological developments as well as new
packaging materials have been developed as strategies for modern
food preservation in order to meet growing consumer demands for
safe and durable food products offering high nutritional and sensory
value (Walkling-Ribeiro, Noci, Cronin, Lyng, & Morgan, 2009). These
technologies request stability testing to assure foods are safe and
have an acceptable quality when consumed.
In this context, estimating shelf-life of food products and bever-
ages has become increasingly important in recent years (Stone &
Sidel, 2004). A quick search in Scopus database reveals a clear in-
crease in the number of articles published in peer reviewed interna-
tional journals which included the words shelf-life and food in their
title, abstract or keywords. As shown in Fig. 1, the number of articles
has increased from 532 in 2002 to 1579 in 2011.
According to Dethmers (1979), both analytical as well as affective sen-
sory methods may be used to determine shelf-life of food and actually
complement each other. Regardless of the method selected and the ratio-
nale behind, sensory evaluation is a key factor for determining the
shelf-life in several food categories. Being sensory shelf-life dependant
on consumers' judgment of whether a food product is acceptable or not,
it is essential that results from any instrumental or chemical analysis cor-
relate closely with results from sensory evaluation (Robertson, 2006).
Griffiths (1985) found that significant changes in descriptive ratings do
not always translate to significant differences in consumer acceptability,
highlighting the importance of consumer perspective. Even though con-
sumer acceptability is of key importance, knowing the sensory changes
that occurred and how these changes affected acceptability would pro-
vide valuable information for manufacturers. Identifying the sensory
factor that limits the sensory shelf-life of a food product could help man-
ufacturers to select formulation or processing conditions that improve
product quality throughout storage. Martínez, Ares, and Lema (2008)
reported that the sensory shelf-life of fresh-cut butterhead lettuce was
limited by browning, suggesting that the application of antioxidants
that minimize this sensory defect could positively contribute to improv-
ing the product. Conte, Brescia, and Del Nobile (2011) reported that the
sensory shelf-life of Burrata cheese was determined by changes in consis-
tency, which led them to select lysozyme/Na2-EDTA with modified atmo-
sphere packaging for shelf-life extension. Similarly, Jacobo-Velázquez and
Hernández-Brenes (2011) concluded that sour flavor development dur-
ing storage due to rupture of cell membranes and diffusion of intracellular
organic acid should be improved in order to extend the sensory shelf-life
of high hydrostatic pressure processed avocado paste.
The aim of this work is to review the implementation of current
methodological approaches for sensory shelf-life estimation and to
discuss applications, advantages and disadvantages.
2. Design of sensory shelf-life experiments
Sensory shelf-life estimation of a food product basically consists
on the evaluation of the sensory characteristics of a set of samples
with different storage times (Bishop & White, 1986).
The following steps could be identified when designing a sensory
shelf-life experiment (Dethmers, 1979; Peryam, 1964): (i) determining
Fig. 1. Number of articles included in Scopus database including the words shelf-life and
food in their title, abstract or title from 2002 to 2011.
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
the objectives of the study, (ii) getting representative samples from the
test product, (iii) determining the physical and chemical composition of
the products, (iv) selecting the storage conditions, (v) setting up a test
design or defining how the samples are going to be stored and evaluat-
ed, (vi) selecting an appropriate methodology, (vii) establishing the
criteria that will be considered for defining the sensory shelf-life of
the product, (viii) conducting the experiment, and (ix) analyzing the re-
sults and estimating the sensory shelf-life of the product.
The setting up of the sensory shelf-life experiment defines the
time and resources needed and therefore is one of the most important
points that should be taken into account. According to Robertson
(2006), an issue of shelf-life testing is developing an experimental de-
sign that minimizes the cost and time of the testing while providing
reliable and statistically valid data. Two main strategies for storing
and evaluating products during a sensory shelf-life experiment have
been used: basic and reversed storage design (Hough, 2010).
2.1. Basic design
Basic storage design is the simplest and most common approach for
performing a sensory shelf-life experiment (Hough, 2010). It consists of
storing a single large batch of product under normal conditions and to
test it at various storage times (Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
Fernández-López et al. (2008) used this type of design for estimat-
ing the shelf-life of ostrich. These authors stored all the ostrich steaks
at 2 °C and removed samples after 0, 4, 8, 12 and 18 days of storage
for sensory and physicochemical analysis (Fig. 2).
This type of design has been used for sensory shelf-life estimation
of a wide range of food products, including commercial mayonnaise
(Martínez, Mucci, Santa Cruz, Hough, & Sánchez, 1998), European
hake (Rodríguez, Losada, Aubourg, & Barros-Velázquez, 2004) dark
chocolate (Nattress, Ziegler, Hollender, & Peterson, 2004), Fuji ap-
ples (Varela, Salvador, & Fiszman, 2005), “flor de invierno” pears
(Salvador, Varela, & Fiszman, 2007), butterhead lettuce (Lareo et
al., 2009), probiotic yogurt (Cruz et al., 2010), chocolate and carrot
cupcakes (Montes Villanueva & Trindade, 2010), and minimally
processed kiwifruit (Mastromatteo, Conte, & Del Nobile, 2011).
Although basic storage design is the most common approach for
sensory shelf-life experiments, it is not efficient in terms of use of
time of resources (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). When a shelf-life exper-
iment is performed following a basic design, sensory and physicochem-
ical analysis should be performed at each storage time. In the example
depicted in Fig. 2, the sensory panel should evaluate ostrich samples
in 5 different occasions. Additionally, if sensory shelf-life is estimated
using consumer data, performing 5 studies with 50–100 consumers
would considerably increase the total cost of the experiment.
Another disadvantage of basic storage design is the risk that the
trained assessor and/or consumer panel changes its criteria (Lawless
& Heymann, 2010). Assessors can become aware of the aim of the ex-
periment and expect that samples become more deteriorated as time
passes by, which could lead to biased results (Hough, 2010). Presenting
Storage of all the
ostrich steaks at 2±1οC
0 4 8 12
Sensory and Sensory and Sensory and
physicochemical physicochemical physicochemical
analysis analysis analysis
Fig. 2. Example of a basic storage design for estimating the sensory shelf-life of ostrich steaks at 2 °C.
313
fresh samples to the assessors in each evaluation could be an easy way
of minimizing this type of bias.
2.2. Reversed design
Another option for designing a sensory shelf-life experiment is to
evaluate a set of samples with different storage times, all together, at
a single evaluation instance. This type of design is called reversed
storage design and has the advantages of overcoming the major
drawbacks of basic storage design (Hough, 2010).
Reversed storage design can be performed by staggering product
times, so that all products with different storage times are evaluated on
the same day (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Gámbaro, Ares, and Giménez
(2006) followed this approach for estimating the sensory shelf-life of
apple-baby food by working with different industrial batches stored at
25.0±0.5 °C for 0, 7, 12, 24, 30, 33, 35, 40 and 46 months. As shown in
Fig. 3, fresh apple-baby food samples from different batches were placed
in the temperature-controlled room at several different times, so that at
the evaluation day samples with 9 different storage times were evaluated.
In order to use this approach it is crucial to have homogeneous batches of
products throughout a long period of time. Gámbaro, Ares, et al. (2006)
reported that previous studies have proved that the industrial process
variation for apple-baby food was minimal and therefore differences in
the sensory characteristics of the evaluated samples could be attributed
only to differences in storage time.
When it is not feasible to get homogeneous batches, reversed stor-
age design could be implemented by storing the product under condi-
tions that stop all deterioration processes, for example by freezing or
storing at very low refrigeration temperatures (Lawless & Heymann,
2010). Giménez et al. (2007) followed this approach for estimating
the shelf-life of brown pan bread. As shown in Fig. 4, these authors
stored breads in a temperature-controlled storage room at 20 °C for
1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 17 days. After reaching the desired storage
times, breads were frozen at − 20 °C and stored at − 18 °C, providing
samples with different storage times from one batch. On the evalua-
tion day, samples were defrosted at 20 °C for 6 h before their sensory
evaluation. This type of reversed storage design enabled the evalua-
tion of pan bread samples with different storage times on a single
evaluation day, which minimizes the time and resources needed for
the experiment. Before using this type of design it was necessary to
verify that the frosting–defrosting cycle did not significantly modify
the sensory characteristics of pan bread.
A similar approach has been also used by Jacobo-Velázquez, Ramos-
Parra, and Hernández-Brenes (2010) for estimating the sensory shelf-
life of high hydrostatic pressure processed avocado pulp at 4 °C.
A variation of the abovementioned procedure would be to first store
the product under conditions that minimize deterioration, then to pull
products from those optimal conditions at different times and to store
them under normal storage conditions to allow them to deteriorate
prior to their evaluation (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). This approach
was followed by Hough, Langohr, Gómez, and Curia (2003), who kept
Time (days)
16
Sensory and Sensory and
physicochemical physicochemical
analysis analysis
314 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
Storage of fresh apple-baby food samples from different industrial batches at 25.0 ± 0.5οC
-46 -40 -35 -33 -30 -24
Fig. 3. Example of a reversed storage design for estimating the sensory shelf-life of apple-baby food at 20 °C using different industrial batches.
yogurt samples at 4 °C and periodically place them at 42 °C to get sam-
ples with 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h at that temperature.
The major advantage of reversed storage design is that all samples
are evaluated at the same time, which minimizes the time, effort and
resources necessary for carrying out the experiment. This is particu-
larly useful when using consumer studies for sensory shelf-life esti-
mation. However, it is not always possible to have homogeneous
batches or to find storage conditions that minimize sensory changes.
For example, it is not easy to find storage conditions that minimize
the deterioration process of fresh and perishable products such as
fruit or vegetables.
3. Methodologies for sensory shelf-life estimation
Once the strategy for storing and evaluating products has been se-
lected, the methodology for monitoring the sensory quality of the
products and for estimating the storage period that corresponds to
its sensory shelf-life should be defined. As highlighted by Lawless
and Heymann (2010), sensory shelf-life testing is the repeated appli-
cation of common sensory methodologies rather than a special senso-
ry methodology. Depending on the specific aim of the study, sensory
shelf-life experiments could be performed by applying discrimina-
tion, descriptive or affective methodologies (Kilcast, 2000).
No matter what methodology is selected, sensory shelf-life esti-
mation requires the selection of failure criteria or a cut-off point,
which corresponds to the maximum deterioration that is considered
acceptable. In other words, sensory shelf-life is estimated as the stor-
age time when the product reaches a certain predetermined deterio-
ration level, above which it is not salable. Several failure criteria have
been used when considering sensory data (Dethmers, 1979): (i) fixed
increase or decrease in the average intensity of a sensory attribute
(Gacula, 1975; Gacula & Kubala, 1975); (ii) storage life, defined as
the time needed to reach an undesired overall quality; (iii) just
Storage of all the brown
pan breads at 20οC
0 1 4 7 10
0 1 4 7 10
Fig. 4. Example of a reversed storage design for estimating the sensory shelf-life of brown pan bread at 20 °C by storing the samples at −18 °C.
Time (months)
-12 -7 0
Sensory and
physicochemical
analysis
noticeable difference, defined as the length of time necessary to distin-
guish the product being evaluated from the fresh product (Heldman &
Hartel, 1997); (iv) significant differences in descriptive analysis profile
from the fresh product; (v) correlating analytical and affective data
and establishing a time to failure (Gacula, 1975; Gacula & Kubala,
1975); (vi) predetermined consumer overall liking scores or rejection
to consume or purchase the product.
In this review, the most popular methodologies for sensory shelf-life
estimation are presented: quality-based methods, acceptability limit,
cut-off point methodology and survival analysis.
3.1. Quality-based methods
One of the most common approaches for estimating sensory shelf-
life has been measuring quality throughout storage using a trained as-
sessors' panel or a group of experts. The sensory shelf-life of the product
is defined as the storage time at which overall quality or the intensity of
a specific sensory attribute reaches a predetermined value or “failure
criterion”, assuming that once the product has reached this point it is
not longer salable (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Within this main ap-
proach, three different measurements have been considered: overall
difference with respect to the fresh sample, overall quality, and attri-
bute intensity.
3.1.1. Difference from control test
Sensory shelf-life can be estimated by measuring the degree of differ-
ence between stored samples and a fresh product, considered as control.
Specifically, a sensory panel is trained in measuring the degree of differ-
ence between products using discriminative tests or intensity scales
(Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Once the panel is trained, sensory tests
are conducted to determine the degree of difference between stored
samples and a fresh control sample. The magnitude of the difference be-
tween stored samples and the control is regressed as a function of
Time (days) at 20οC
13 15 17
Storage at -18οC
Time (days) at -18οC
13 15 17
Defrosting
Sensory analysis
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
storage time and sensory shelf-life is estimated as the time period at
which the product reaches a predetermined difference from the fresh
control product.
One of the key points of the methodology is finding the storage con-
ditions for the fresh control sample, so that it is available and unaltered
throughout the whole storage period considered in the experiment. For
some types of products it is relatively simple to find storage conditions
that minimize their deterioration process. In the case of frozen food
products stored at −18 °C, the control is usually a product stored at −
30 °C (Symons, 2000). Similarly, Patsias, Chouliara, Badeka, Savvaidis,
and Kontominas (2006) considered a freshly thawed chicken sample
stored at −30 °C throughout the experiment as control when studying
the influence of modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf-life of pre-
cooked chicken product stored under refrigeration. Besides, when esti-
mating the sensory shelf-life of mayonnaise at 20–45 °C, Martínez et al.
(1998) stored the control at 5 °C since sensory changes at this tempera-
ture were regarded as insignificant compared to those occurring at the
temperatures considered in the shelf-life study. Before selecting the stor-
age conditions for the control, it is necessary to assure that they do not
cause any significant changes in their sensory characteristics. A triangle
test with a trained panel should be performed to compare fresh and
stored samples. In this test three samples are presented simultaneously
to the assessors, two of which are identical and one is different. Each as-
sessor has to indicate which is the odd sample, and binomial tests are
used to determine if significant differences exist between a fresh sample
and one stored at the selected conditions (Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
When it is not possible to keep the same control during the whole
experiment some authors have periodically replaced it for a new fresh
sample. For example, when working with ricotta cheese stored at
6 °C, Hough, Puglieso, Sánchez, and Mendes Da Silva (1999) stored
the control at 2 to 3 °C. This sample maintained its sensory characteris-
tics unchanged for a period of only 7 days. Therefore, after 7 days the
control was replaced by a new fresh sample and triangle tests with a
trained panel were carried out to ensure that they were not significantly
different. Following a similar approach, Alkadamany et al. (2002) re-
placed control samples of concentrated yogurt (labneh) stored at 5 °C
every 3 days for estimating sensory shelf-life at 5, 15 and 25 °C.
The degree of difference between the stored samples and the fresh
control could be estimated using two main methodological approaches:
discriminative tests or intensity scales.
In the first approach the trained assessor panel (composed of at least
10 assessors) carry out paired comparisons, triangle or a duo–trio test in
order to determine whether the stored sample and a control fresh sam-
ple are perceptibly different (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Sensory
shelf-life is defined as the length of time during which the product
does not significantly change its sensory characteristics, which corre-
sponds to the high quality life (HQL) (Heldman & Hartel, 1997). This ap-
proach has been used for estimating the sensory shelf-life of frozen
foods, by performing triangle tests between the samples stored at −
18 °C and a control sample stored at −30 °C (Symons, 2000). Using bi-
nomial tests, the sensory shelf-life is estimated as the time at which the
first significant difference between the stored samples and the control is
detected, which corresponds to the first just noticeable or perceivable
change in the sensory characteristics of the product.
Paired comparisons could also be used instead of triangle tests for sen-
sory shelf-life estimations. Paired comparisons are discriminative tests
used when the experimenter wants to determine if two samples differ
in a specified sensory characteristic. Two samples are simultaneously
presented to the assessor, who has to identify the sample that is higher
in the specified sensory attribute (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). This ap-
proach has been followed by Schmidt and Bouma (1992) to estimate
the sensory shelf-life of cottage cheese at 4 and 7 °C, considering samples
stored at 0 °C as control. At each storage time, the assessors were
presented with paired comparisons between the stored samples and
the control, and were asked to identify which sample had more “fruity
fermented off-flavor”.
315
A second alternative is to measure the degree of difference be-
tween stored samples and a fresh control using scales. Hough et al.
(1999) used a difference-from-control test to determine the sensory
shelf-life of ricotta cheese at 6 °C. These authors asked a trained as-
sessor panel to measure the degree of the difference between the
stored samples and a fresh control using a 7-point structured scale
(0 = no difference, 6 = very big). In this methodology the assessors
are usually trained by evaluating a control and samples with different
storage times. By open discussion with the panel leader the assessors
agree on the score which corresponds to the difference between each
sample and the control. During the shelf-life study, in each evaluation
the trained assessors received the control sample labeled as K, two
stored samples and a blind control coded with 3-digit numbers. If
trained assessors are asked to evaluate a blind control sample using
difference-from-control scale they usually provide a value different
from zero, which makes it necessary to correct the scores. Therefore,
in this procedure assessors usually evaluate a blind control sample
and the sample score is obtained by subtracting the blind control's av-
erage score from the sample's average (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr,
1991). In order to estimate sensory shelf-life the authors regressed
the average difference between the stored ricotta cheese and the
fresh control and defined sensory shelf-life as the time at which the
degree of the sensory difference between the stored samples and
the fresh control reached an average score of 1.5 (corresponding to
a description between very slight and slightly different). This criteri-
on was selected considering that consumers are not likely to tolerate
changes in the sensory characteristics of ricotta cheese.
Freitas and Costa (2006) followed a similar approach with a
manufactured dehydrated product and asked a trained assessor
panel to rate the degree of difference between stored products and
a reference using a 7-point scale (0–6), considering that products
with a score of 3 were unfit for human consumption.
Martínez et al. (1998) proposed a variation of this method for es-
timating the sensory shelf-life of mayonnaise. At each storage time,
trained assessors evaluated the degree of difference between the
stored samples and a fresh control in 9 specific sensory attributes
(total aroma, acid, salty, lemon, egg, oily, oxidized, heat and isothio-
cyanate), instead of considering global differences. For each descrip-
tor a 12 cm unstructured scale was used, anchored at the center
with “equal to control”, at the extreme left with “a lot less than con-
trol”, and at the extreme right with “a lot more than control”. A linear
regression between difference with control and storage time was
used to estimate sensory shelf-life. The failure criterion was a differ-
ence of ±1.5 cm in the 12 cm scale.
The advantage of this method is that it provides an accurate estima-
tion of the time at which changes in the sensory characteristics of the
samples occur. However, it does not necessarily mean that detecting
differences between samples with different storage times will lead to
rejection of the product by consumers. Therefore, shelf-life estimations
obtained from this methodology are usually too conservative and could
lead to a decrease in commercialization times and profitability levels for
the manufacturer.
3.1.2. Intensity of sensory attributes
Another popular approach for sensory shelf-life estimation has been
measuring the intensity of sensory attributes throughout storage and
estimating shelf-life as the time at which the intensity of a critical attri-
bute reaches a certain predetermined value. In this approach trained as-
sessors are asked to try the product and then generate a numerical
response using a scale that reflects how they perceived the intensity
of one or more of the sensations generated by that product (Lawless &
Heymann, 2010). Different types of scales could be used for this pur-
pose, being unstructured scales widely recommended (Stone & Sidel,
2004). When using unstructured scales assessors are asked to indicate
the intensity of the sensory attribute by making on a 10 or 15 cm line.
316 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
The key step of this methodology is how to select the attributes that
are responsible for the sensory changes throughout storage. A common
approach in order to identify the defects most likely to appear due to
prolonged storage, is to perform a descriptor generation step by consen-
sus in an open session. Assessors are provided with a set of samples with
different storage times and are asked to generate the descriptors needed
to describe differences among samples, by coming to some consensus
through open discussion with the panel leader (Lawless & Heymann,
2010). For example, in order to identify the sensory attributes for esti-
mating the sensory shelf-life of lettuce based on visual appearance,
Lareo et al. (2009) presented four samples of lettuce with different stor-
age times at 15 °C (0, 7, 10, and 17 days) and asked assessors to write
down the descriptors that made the appearance of those samples differ-
ent. Through open discussion with the panel leader, the assessors agreed
on the appearance descriptors that best differentiated the stored sam-
ples and how to evaluate them. After the descriptors are selected, a
training step on measuring attribute intensity should be performed by
subsequently exposing assessors to samples with different intensities of
each attribute and potential references standards (Lawless & Heymann,
2010). Usually 10 or 15-cm unstructured line scales are used for rating at-
tribute intensity and the assessors are first asked to select the words
needed to anchor the scales (such as none to very strong) and the
reference standards which correspond to the lowest and highest in-
tensity of each attribute. A first session in which assessors discuss
and agree on the consensus intensity of the attributes could be car-
ried out (Jacobo-Velázquez & Hernández-Brenes, 2011). In subse-
quent sessions assessors are asked to evaluate a set of samples and to
rate the intensity of the sensory attributes in several sessions, according
to the consensus or expected intensity score. Once the assessors provide
reproducible and consistent results, real samples could be evaluated dur-
ing the shelf-life study.
The sensory shelf-life of different products has been estimated by
measuring the intensity of specific sensory attributes. Nattress et al.
(2004) used this methodology for estimating the influence of hazelnut
paste on the sensory shelf-life of dark chocolate. Throughout storage, a
panel of 10 trained assessors was asked to measure the intensity of ran-
cid flavor using 15-cm unstructured scales. The sensory shelf-life of dark
chocolate containing hazelnut paste was estimated as the onset of rancid
flavor. Meanwhile, for evaluating the sensory shelf-life of whole milk
powder, Nielsen, Stapelfeldt, and Skibsted (1997) asked between 9 and
12 trained assessors to evaluate the intensity of oxidized flavor using a
16-point structured scale (0 = extremely oxidized flavor, 15 = no oxi-
dized flavor). Scores equal to or higher than 10 were considered as ac-
ceptable, whereas lower scores indicated defective samples. Another
example of sensory shelf-life estimation by measuring attribute intensi-
ty was reported by Piagentini, Mendez, Guemes, and Pirovani (2005),
who asked a panel of trained assessors to evaluate off-odor, general
appearance, wilting, and browning of fresh-cut lettuce using a 15 cm
unstructured scale. These authors considered the fresh-cut lettuce as
unacceptable when a mean score below 7.5 was reached for general ap-
pearance or above 7.5 for the other sensory attributes.
Other authors have used structured scales with a reduced number of
points. When estimating the sensory shelf-life of vacuum-packed pork
and beef, Blixt and Borch (2002) asked a trained assessor panel to eval-
uate the degree of spoilage odor using a 3-point scale (1 = no off-odor,
3 = very strong off-odor). Besides, Fernández-López et al. (2008) and
Nunes, Emond, and Brecht (2006) used 5-point structured scales to
evaluate the intensity of sensory attributes for estimating the shelf-life
of ostrich steaks and papaya fruit respectively.
3.1.3. Quality rating methods
The most popular approach for estimating sensory shelf-life has
been measuring product quality throughout storage. The utilization
of this type of method requires the definition of specifications or qual-
ity standards and the selection of criteria to evaluate if products com-
ply with the requirements of the quality standards (Costell, 2002).
Although a wide range of methods for measuring sensory quality
have been developed (Muñoz, Civille, & Carr, 1992), the quality rating
method is by far the most popular for sensory shelf-life estimation.
This method consists in asking a trained assessor panel to rate the
quality of products using a scale in which points are defined in
terms of the sensory characteristics that characterize the quality of
each grade (Costell, 2002). It is important to take into account that
this method requires a highly trained sensory panel since assessors
should be able to use three main abilities: remembering the sensory
characteristics of the ideal product, interpreting the descriptions
corresponding to each point of the scale, identifying the common sen-
sory defects that appear as a result of prolonged storage, and using
the quality scale to quantify the level of severity of each defect
(Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
The Quality Index Method (QIM) is a good example of the applica-
tion of quality rating methods for sensory shelf-life estimation. This
method is based on the objective evaluation of the key sensory attri-
butes of each fish species using a scoring system that ranges from 0 to
3 (the lower the score the fresher the fish) (Costell, 2002). Cardenas
Bonilla, Sveinsdottir, and Martinsdottir (2007) reported the develop-
ment of a QIM scheme for fresh cod fillets and its application in a
shelf-life study. In order to develop a preliminary QIM scheme, two
researchers observed and registered the sensory changes of the cod
fillets from the day of filleting until spoiled. Each parameter was
rated using a 3-point scale that ranged from 0 (fresh) to 3 (spoiled).
Then, 11–12 assessors with previous experience in sensory evalua-
tion were trained in the evaluation of each sensory parameter by
evaluating cod fillets that differed in storage time. Through discussion
with the panel leader, the assessors agreed on the final QIM scheme,
which included the evaluation of 8 sensory attributes (Table 1). The
sum of the scores of the 8 attributes corresponded to the Quality
Index (QI), which ranged from 0 for a fresh fillet to 18 to a spoiled fil-
let. This QIM scheme was used to evaluate the sensory shelf-life of
cod fillets stored at 1 °C on ice on plastic boxes after 0, 3, 7, 10 and
14 days. For each evaluation instance, the average QI of the trained
panel was calculated and linearly regressed as a function of storage
time. The sensory shelf-life of the cod fillets could be estimated by in-
terpolating in the graph the time corresponding to a predetermined
QI value. However, the authors did not select a maximum QI.
The application of QIM is the most common approach for estimat-
ing the sensory-shelf-life of fresh fish and seafood and has been ex-
tended to 12 species (Costell, 2002), including striped red mullets
(Bono & Badalucco, 2012), blackspot seabream (Silva Sant'Ana,
Soares, & Vaz-Pires, 2011), cuttlefish and squid (Vaz-Pires et al.,
2008) and European hake (Rodríguez et al., 2004).
Despite the popularity of the QIM method, other quality-based ap-
proaches have also been applied for estimating the sensory shelf-life of
sea products. Jeevanandam, Kakatkar, Doke, Bongirwar, and Venugopal
(2001) estimated the sensory shelf-life of threadfin bream (Nemipterus
japonicus) in ice using a 10-point quality scale for odor. Fish that scored
between 10 and 5 were considered acceptable and those scoring less
than 5 were considered spoiled.
Quality-based methods have been a popular approach for esti-
mating the sensory shelf-life of fresh fruits and vegetables as well.
Artés-Hernández, Rivera-Cabrera, & Kader (2007) estimated the
shelf-life of fresh-cut lemons by measuring the overall visual quality
with a 5-point scale (1: extremely poor, 5: excellent). Liu and Li
(2006) asked a trained assessor panel to evaluate the color, aroma,
translucence and general appearance of sliced onions using a
10-point quality scale (1 = excellent fresh, and 10 = extremely de-
teriorated) and estimated sensory shelf-life as the time at which a
score of 5 (just acceptable) was reached. Similarly, Medina, Tudela,
Marín, Allende, and Gil (2012) used this approach for sensory
shelf-life estimation of minimally processed baby spinach.
Quality-rating methods have also been used for other product catego-
ries, including dairy and meat products (Conte et al., 2011). However,
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325 317

Table 1 trained assessors (Costa, Conte, Buonocore, Lavorgna, & Del Nobile, 2012;
Scale used by for estimating the sensory shelf-life of fresh cod (Gadus morhua) fillets Mendes et al., 2011; Mohapatra, Bira, Firas, Kerry, & Rodrígues, 2011;
with skin the Quality Index Method (QIM) (Cardenas Bonilla et al., 2007).
Patsias et al., 2006; Rocha & Morais, 2003; Salam, 2007; Siripatrawan &
Quality Description Score Noipha, 2012). Despite the fact that many of these articles only used sen-
parameter sory data as a tool to get information about product stability throughout
Skin Brightness Iridescent pigmentation 0 storage, it is important to advance on the application of good practices
Rather dull 1 in sensory and consumer science in shelf-life studies in order to get accu-
Dull 2
rate information on the sensory changes of food products throughout
Mucus Uniform, thin, transparent 0
Little, thicker, opaque 1 storage and good shelf-life estimations.
Clotted, thick, yellowish 2
Flesh Texture Firm 0 3.2. Acceptability limit methodology
Rather soft 1
Very soft 2
Regulatory agencies do not usually monitor the sensory changes of
Blood Bright red, not present 0
Dull red 1 food products throughout storage. Therefore, the maximum tolerable
Shadowy, brown 2 change in the sensory characteristics of a food product could not be
Odor Fresh, neutral 0 determined based on regulations. In quality-based methods, the fail-
Seaweedy, marine, grass 1
ure criteria for estimating sensory shelf-life is arbitrarily selected by
Sour milk 2
Acetic ammonia 3 the researchers.
Color White, grayish 0 Labuza and Schmidl (1988) reported that the shelf-life of frozen
Some yellowish, a little pinkish 1 foods for consumers is approximately 2 to 3 times longer than
Yellow, over all pink 2 shelf-life estimations based on ‘just noticeable differences’ in sensory
Bright Transparent, bluish 0
characteristics, as determined by a trained assessor panel. On the
Opaque 1
Milky 2 other hand, many authors have estimated the shelf-life of minimally
Gaping No gaping, one longitudinal gaping at the neck part of 0 processed lettuce as the time necessary for the intensity of a sensory
the fillet attribute to reach a score of 50% of the scale (Jacxsens, Devlieghere, &
Slight gaping less than 25% of the fillet 1
Debevere, 2002; Li et al., 2001; Piagentini et al., 2005). However,
Slight gaping, 25–75% of the fillet 2
Deep gaping or slight gaping over 75% of the fillet 3
Lareo et al. (2009) reported that if this criterion was considered to es-
Quality index Sum of all the scores 0–18 timate the sensory shelf-life of butterhead lettuce, only 26% of the
consumers would still purchase the product at the end of its shelf-
life, suggesting that the criterion seemed not strict enough and a
many publications dealing with the application of quality-based methods more conservative criteria would be necessary to assure product
for sensory shelf-life estimation or product stability throughout storage quality and avoid consumer complaints. These examples reflect a
do not follow good practices in sensory evaluation with trained assessor clear distinction between changes on sensory characteristics and con-
panels. sumer perception and show the importance of performing consumer
It is widely recommended that the number of trained assessors for studies in order to establish proper criteria to estimate the sensory
rating tasks should range between 8 and 20 in order to get accurate shelf-life of food products.
and reliable results (Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Stone & Sidel, 2004). According to Hough et al. (2003), food products do not have sen-
However, several studies use a limited number of assessors for estimat- sory shelf lives of their own; rather they depend on the interaction of
ing sensory quality throughout storage. For example, Brash, Charles, the food with the consumer. Therefore, sensory shelf-life is usually
Wright, and Bycroft (1995) asked two observers to measure the overall determined by consumers who find the quality of the product to be
visual quality of asparagus using 9-point quality scale; whereas Mendes, lower than they expected, leading to a rejection to purchase the prod-
Alves Silva, Anacleto, and Cardoso (2011) performed sensory analysis uct again (Labuza & Schmidl, 1988). Using a consumer-based ap-
with 4 experienced assessors on fish quality for estimating the proach, sensory shelf-life of a food product could be regarded as the
shelf-life of octopus; Li, Brackett, Shewfelt, and Beuchat (2001) used length of time during which the product is still accepted by the ulti-
two trained assessors to evaluate the appearance of iceberg lettuce, mate consumer as having the expected level of quality.
and Medina et al. (2012) used a 5 member trained panel for measuring Consumer acceptance could be regarded as an integrated judg-
the visual quality of spinach. ment of the perceived sensory characteristics of a product and its ap-
Another common drawback of many studies dealing with quality- propriateness for an intended use. The most common ways of
rating systems is the lack of appropriate panel training. Although this gathering information about consumers' acceptance of a food product
step is crucial for determining the validity of the results provided by a is asking them to rate their degree of liking using a hedonic scale
trained panel, many studies do not specify the procedures they used to (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). The traditional 9-point hedonic scale de-
train the assessors in rating product quality (e.g. Artés-Hernández et veloped by Peryam and Pilgrim (1957) is the most widely used he-
al., 2007; Li et al., 2001; Liu & Li, 2006; Zhou et al., 2004). Besides, donic scale for investigating consumer liking of food products (Fig. 5).
when panel training is described, many times the number of sessions is The acceptability limit methodology for sensory shelf-life estima-
not enough to get a homogeneous and reliable panel. For example, tion is based on consumer liking data, collected using a hedonic scale.
Siripatrawan and Noipha (2012) only followed one preparatory session Consumers are presented with a set of samples with different stor-
prior to testing odor and appearance attributes of pork sausages, which age times and are asked to score their overall liking using a 9-point
might be insufficient to get accurate results. hedonic scale. In order to estimate sensory shelf-life, a dispersion di-
Despite lack of training could limit the validity of quality data from agram of average overall liking scores against storage time is obtained
trained panels, the most important drawback of many sensory shelf-life and a linear regression is usually performed. Fig. 6 shows the typical
studies is gathering hedonic data with trained assessors instead of objec- linear decrease of overall liking scores as a function of storage time
tive quality ratings. Sensory evaluation textbooks have extensively rec- for hamburger buns. Linear relationships between overall liking
ommend that trained assessors should not measure liking since their scores and storage time have been found for several food products,
hedonic perception is not representative of the perception of a naïve con- including natural passion fruit isotonic drink (De Marchi, Monteiro,
sumer (Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Stone & Sidel, 2004). However, several & Cardello, 2003), apple-baby food (Gámbaro, Ares, et al., 2006);
recent sensory shelf-life studies base their conclusions on liking data from brown pan bread (Giménez et al., 2007), alfajores (Giménez et al.,
318 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325

2008a) and chocolate and carrot cupcakes (Montes Villanueva &

Trindade, 2010), among others.
Sensory shelf-life is determined as the time required for overall
liking scores of the product to fall below a predetermined value. Dif-
ferent criteria have been considered in the literature. Muñoz et al.
(1992) considered an overall liking score of 6.5 as acceptability limit
for quality control specifications. Meanwhile, Gámbaro, Ares, et al.
(2006), Giménez et al. (2007) and Giménez et al. (2008a) used an av-
erage value of 6 (like slightly) in a 9-point hedonic scale as accept-
ability limit considering that is the first score indicating that the
consumer likes the product (c.f. Fig. 5). This approach estimates sen-
sory shelf-life as the time period during which consumers like the
product and therefore they do not just accept to consume the product
but also enjoy it. By applying this criterion to the overall liking scores
of hamburger buns shown in Fig. 6, sensory shelf-life would be esti-
mated in 3.5 days.
Montes Villanueva & Trindade, 2010 considered an average overall
Fig. 6. Consumer average overall liking scores as a function of storage time for ham-
liking score of 5.0 (neither like nor dislike) on a 9-point hedonic scale
burger buns.
as the quality limit. This value is less strict and if applied to the ham-
burger buns data, sensory shelf-life would be estimated in 7 days. In
this example it is clear that the selection of the acceptability limit of consumer overall liking data, considering consumers as blocking fac-
has important implications for the manufacturer since it determines tor and samples as source of variation; and n = number of consumers.
the quality of the product at the end of storage but also influences This methodology assures product quality throughout its whole
commercialization times. shelf-life since it reflects the time when consumers noticed the first sig-
Other less conservative criteria have been considered in different nificant difference in the sensory characteristics of the product with re-
products. For example, when estimating the sensory shelf-life of spect to the fresh one. However, according to Giménez et al. (2007)
trout fillets, Mexis, Chouliara, and Kontominas (2009) considered an estimated shelf lives are sometimes too short and it would be too con-
average score of 4 (dislike slightly) as the lower acceptability limit. servative a criterion to be used by the product manufacturer.
The main problem of estimating sensory-shelf-life considering a A key point that has to be taken into account when designing
predetermined overall liking scored is that several fresh products shelf-life experiments based on acceptability limit methodology is
could have a liking score close or even lower than the acceptability the number of consumers that should evaluate the products. Several
limit. In these cases the criterion proposed by Hough et al. (2002) sensory evaluation textbooks recommend that the number of con-
could be used. These authors determined sensory shelf-life as the sumers necessary to perform a hedonic test ranges from 50 to 300
storage time when the first significant change in overall acceptability (Meilgaard et al., 1991; Stone & Sidel, 2004). Recently, Hough et al.
is detected. At this time, consumers detect the first significant change (2006) provided basic concepts needed to estimate the number of
in the sensory characteristics of the product with respect to the fresh consumers necessary for acceptability studies. In this sense, the
product. The acceptability limit (S) is calculated as the first overall lik- major drawback of some sensory shelf-life experiments is related to
ing score that is significantly different from the overall liking of the the number of consumers. For example, Mastromatteo et al. (2011)
fresh sample using the following equation: and Mastromatteo, Danza, Conte, Muratore, and Del Nobile (2010)
used a panel of 7 consumers to evaluate the overall liking of minimal-
2MSE ly processed kiwifruit and shrimps respectively.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
S ¼ F−Z α ð1Þ
n

where: S = minimum tolerable overall liking score of a stored sample or 3.3. Cut-off point methodology
acceptability limit; F = overall liking score of the fresh sample; Zα =
one-tailed coordinate of the normal curve for α significance level; Despite the importance of consumer data for sensory shelf-life es-
MSE = mean square of the error derived from the analysis of variance timation, to repeatedly perform consumer studies is tedious, time
consuming and expensive (Hough, 2010). In particular, when a sen-
sory shelf-life experiment is performed following a basic storage de-
9 = Like extremely
sign it would be necessary to carry out at least 6 consumer studies
8 = Like very much in different occasions. On the other hand, it is easier to periodically
gather trained assessor panels to evaluate samples throughout a
7 = Like moderately predetermined period of time (Hough et al., 2002) or even to rely
on analytical or instrumental measurements. Whenever possible, it
6 = Like slightly is easier and simpler to estimate the intensity of sensory attributes
using analytical or instrumental measurements. This approach is quite
5 = Neither like nor dislike
simple when working with products which shelf-life is determined by
4 = Dislike slightly texture (Fiszman, Salvador, & Varela, 2005; Gámbaro, Giménez, Ares, &
Gilardi, 2006) or color (Gámbaro, Giménez, et al., 2006; Kong & Chang,
3 = Dislike moderately 2009; Zhou et al., 2004). In the case of flavor or odor attributes it is
more difficult to have an analytical method to monitor their changes
2 = Dislike very much throughout storage. However, some successful approaches have been
reported. For example, flavor changes due to lipid oxidation have been
1 = Dislike extremely
monitored by analytical measurements such as peroxide value or
Fig. 5. Traditional 9-point hedonic scale for determining consumer overall liking of thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) (Anacleto et al., 2011;
food products. Gómez & Lorenzo, 2012).
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325 319

Although analytical and instrumental measurements or trained sen- shown in Fig. 7b. The increase in the intensity of sensory attributes has
sory panels are more appropriate for repeated assessments, data would been modeled using zero or first order kinetic models, corresponding
be analytical and not necessarily representative of consumer responses. to linear or exponential models respectively (Hough, 2010).
By correlating data from a consumer panel with those obtained from a This methodology has been used to estimate the sensory shelf-life of
trained panel, the intensity of sensory attributes measured by a trained sunflower oil (Ramírez et al., 2001), powdered milk (Hough et al., 2002),
assessor panel could be used to estimate sensory shelf-life of food prod- dulce de leche (Garitta et al., 2004), apple-baby food (Gámbaro, Ares, et
ucts using failure criteria determined by consumers (Hough, 2010). This al., 2006), human milk replacement formula (Curia & Hough, 2009) and
methodology, developed by Ramírez, Hough, and Contarini (2001) is high hydrostatic pressure processed avocado paste (Jacobo-Velázquez &
called cut-off point, and can be regarded as a combination of intensity Hernández-Brenes, 2011). Besides, failure criteria could be selected
measurement and acceptability limit methodology. This approach en- based on the percentage of consumers rejecting the product instead of
ables working with trained assessors instead of consumers, overcoming considering overall liking scores (Giménez et al., 2007; Lareo et al.,
the limitation of selecting an arbitrary failure criterion. 2009).
Cut-off point methodology requires the identification of the critical
descriptor, i.e. the sensory defect that appears as a result of prolonged
storage and that is responsible for consumer rejection of the product. 3.4. Survival analysis
Critical descriptors could be identified by evaluating samples with differ-
ent storage times (Gámbaro, Giménez, et al., 2006) or by storing samples Shelf-life decisions based on arbitrarily selected acceptability limits
at higher temperature to accelerate sensory deterioration (Garitta, might be taken with caution, as they do not always reflect consumer's
Hough, & Sánchez, 2004; Lareo et al., 2009). Accelerated storage to iden- decision to accept or reject the product. Overall liking scores usually
tify critical descriptors should be taken with care since sensory changes provide little information as to what consumers would normally do
in the product at higher temperatures might not be the same as those when facing the product since the fact that the average overall liking
due to storage time at normal temperatures (Robertson, 2006). This is scores falls below a predetermined value does not mean that, at that
particularly relevant in foods in which phase changes may occur, such time, the consumers would refuse to consume the product (Gámbaro,
as frozen foods or chocolate (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). On the other Giménez, et al., 2006). Giménez et al. (2007) showed that an overall lik-
hand, accelerated storage is a good option for identifying the sensory ing score could imply different proportions of consumer rejecting to
changes which limit the shelf-life of fresh fruits and vegetables or consume the product. These authors reported that an overall liking of
shelf-stable food products. 6 corresponded to 23% of Uruguayan consumers rejecting to consume
Care must be taken when selecting the critical descriptor since brown pan bread, whereas it corresponded to 11% in Spain. Based on
consumers could show different reactions toward similar intensities the results they concluded that Spanish consumers tended to decrease
of different defects. For this reason, it could be a good option to their overall acceptability scores while deciding to accept to consume
keep more than one critical descriptor at this stage of the experiment. the product.
The methodology consists of six basic steps (Hough, 2010): i) In order to estimate sensory shelf-life based on consumer rejec-
preparation of a set of samples with increasing intensity of the critical tion of a food product, survival analysis could be applied. Survival
sensory defect, ii) evaluation of the intensity of the sensory defect of analysis is set of statistical procedures applicable for the analysis of
the set of samples by a trained assessor panel, iii) determination of time until an event of interest occurs; being extensively used in clin-
consumer liking of the set of samples, iv) regression of overall liking ical studies, epidemiology, biology, sociology, and reliability studies
as a function of the intensity of the sensory defect, v) regression of (Klein & Moeschberger, 1997; Meeker & Escobar, 1998). When ap-
the intensity of the sensory defect as a function of storage time, and plied to sensory shelf-life estimations, this methodology focuses the
vi) estimation of the sensory-shelf-life. shelf-life risk on consumers' rejection of the product rather than on
Different approaches could be used to get a set of samples with in- the product deteriorating (Hough et al., 2003).
creasing intensity of a sensory defect, including using different batches
of products with different storage times (Gámbaro, Giménez, et al., Table 2
2006), storing samples at higher temperatures (Ramírez et al., 2001) Examples of different approaches used for obtaining samples with different intensities
or modifying fresh samples by adding different concentrations of a ref- of a defect for sensory shelf-life estimation using the cut-off point methodology.
erence compound (Giménez, Ares, & Gámbaro, 2008b; Hough et al., Product Sensory Approach Reference
2002). Table 2 summarizes different approaches used for the generation defect
of sensory defects in different products. After samples with different in-
Sunflower oil OxidizedStoring samples at 60 °C for Ramírez et al.
tensities of the sensory defect have been generated, consumers are flavor different times (2001)
presented with the sample set and are asked to score their overall liking Apple-baby Color Different industrial batches Gámbaro, Ares, et
using a 9-point hedonic scale. Additionally, the trained assessor panel is food stored for 0, 9, 26 and 36 months al. (2006)
asked to rate the intensity of the sensory defect using unstructured in- at 25 °C
Reconstituted Acid Addition of lactic acid to a fresh Hough et al. (2002)
tensity scales. In order to estimate the cut-off point, a dispersion dia- milk sample
gram of overall liking scores against the intensity of the defect is powder Caramel Addition of caramel flavoring to a
obtained and a regression performed. Linear regressions have been fresh sample
commonly reported (Garitta et al., 2004; Hough et al., 2002; Ramírez Dulce de Burnt Addition of sugar heated till first Garitta et al.
leche smoke to a fresh sample (2004)
et al., 2001). Fig. 7a shows a typical plot of overall liking scores as a func-
Plastic Mixing of a fresh sample with
tion of the intensity of a sensory defect for orange juice. Using the linear one heated in a polystyrene pot
regression, the cut-off point is determined as the intensity of the defect during 24 h at 80 °C
that corresponds to a predetermined overall liking score, as in the Dulce de Sandiness Mixing fresh dulce de leche with Giménez et al.
Acceptability limit methodology (c.f. Section 3.2). The most common leche lactose crystals of different sizes (2008b)
Fluid human Metallic Addition of a ferrous sulfate Curia and Hough
approach is to consider the first significant difference in overall liking milk solution to fresh fluid human (2009)
as minimum acceptability. Considering this criterion in the example milk
depicted in Fig. 7a, for a minimum acceptability of 5.8, the cut-off Avocado Sour Addition of citric acid to freshly Jacobo-Velázquez
point for off-flavor intensity in orange juice corresponds to 2.4. This paste processed avocado paste and
Rancid Addition of hexanal to freshly Hernández-Brenes
cut-off point should be used to estimate the sensory shelf-life of orange
flavor processed avocado paste (2011)
juice as the time necessary for off-flavor to reach an intensity of 2.4, as
320 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325

exactly, giving as a result censored data (Hough et al., 2003). If con-

sumers are presented with six samples with different storage times,
three types of censoring could be identified. If the consumer rejects
the sample at the first storage time considered, the shelf-life for that con-
sumer (T) is not observed since it is shorter than the first storage time
(T≤t1) and the data is left censored (e.g. consumer 50 in Table 3). If a
consumer accepts to consume the sample stored for t2 and rejects the
sample stored for t3 (e.g. consumer 1 in Table 3) the exact time at
which he/she rejects the product (i.e. shelf-life) occurs between t2 and
t3 (t2b T≤t3) and the data is interval censored. Finally, if a consumer ac-
cepts all samples, then rejection is not observed (e.g. consumer 2 in
Table 3), shelf-life is longer than the last storage time considered
(T>t6) and the data is right censored. Sensory shelf-life is estimated con-
sidering acceptance/rejection data of each individual consumer.
Defining a random variable T as the storage time at which a con-
sumer rejects the sample, the survival function S (t) can be defined
as the probability of a consume accepting a product stored for a
time period longer than t, that is S (t) = P (T > t). Alternatively, the
cumulative distribution function F (t) can be defined as the probabil-
ity of a consumer rejecting a product stored for a time period shorter
than t, that is F (t) = P (T ≤ t). F (t) can be interpreted as the propor-
tion of consumers who will reject a food product stored for a period of
time shorter than t (Hough et al., 2003).
A non-parametric estimation of the survival functional could be
obtained though the likelihood function, which is a mathematical ex-
pression that describes the joint probability of obtaining the given ob-
servations for the n consumers (Klein & Moeschberger, 1997):

L ¼ ∏ Sðr i Þ⋅ ∏ ð1−SðIi ÞÞ⋅ ∏ ðSðIi Þ−Sðr i ÞÞ ð2Þ

i∈R i∈L i∈I

where R is the set of right-censored observations, L the set of

left-censored observations, and I is the set of interval-censored
observations.
Alternatively, parametric models could be used to obtain precise
Fig. 7. a) Regression of consumer average overall liking as a function of off-flavor
intensity in orange juice and calculation of the cut-off point. b) Sensory shelf-life esti- estimates of the survival function by assuming Weibull or log-linear
mation based on the cut-off point for off-flavor intensity in orange juice. distributions for the survival times (Klein & Moeschberger, 1997).
If the log-normal distribution is chosen for T, the survival function
is given by:
When applying survival analysis, consumers are asked to try a set
of samples with different storage times and answer “yes” or “no” to 
lnðt Þ−μ

the question “Would you normally consume this product?”. It is usu- Sðt Þ ¼ 1−ϕ ð3Þ
σ
ally explained to consumers that they have to indicate if they would
consume the product after buying it or if it was served to them at where ϕ (•) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function,
their homes (Hough et al., 2003). and μ and σ are the model's parameters.
The number of consumers considered in most sensory shelf-life ex- Meanwhile, if the Weibull distribution is chosen, the survival func-
periments dealing with survival analysis has been close to 50 (Giménez tion is given by:
et al., 2007; Hough et al., 2003; Varela et al., 2005). Hough, Calle, Serrat,
and Curia (2007) provided recommendations for the number of con- lnðt Þ−μ
 
sumers necessary for making sensory shelf-life estimations based on Sðt Þ ¼ Sev ð4Þ
σ
survival analysis statistics. These authors concluded that in many occa-
sions the recommended number of consumers would be close to 120, where Ssev (•) is the survival function of the smallest extreme value
higher to that usually considered. distribution: Ssev (w) = exp (− e w), and μ and σ are the model's
It is important to take into account that in this approach it is neces- parameters.
sary that each consumer try all the samples with different storage times.
Thus, consumers could evaluate the whole sample set from a reversed
storage design in a single session (Giménez et al., 2007; Hough et al., Table 3
2003; Østli, Esaiassen, Garitta, Nøstvold, & Hough, in press) or they Example of the data matrix used for analyzing data from survival analysis and type of
censoring.
could evaluate samples in different sessions, according to a basic storage
design (Ares, Parentelli, Gámbaro, Lareo, & Lema, 2006; Lareo et al., Consumer Storage time Censoring
2009). t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
Table 3 exemplifies how data is prepared for analysis. For each
1 Yes Yes No No No No Interval
consumer the acceptance/rejection data is included in a row that in- 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Right
dicates if he/she accepted (yes) or rejected (no) the sample from … … … … … … … …
each storage time. Due to the fact that consumers evaluate a limited n No No No No No No Left
number of samples with different storage times, the exact storage Yes indicates that the consumer accepted to consume the sample, whereas No
time at which he/she rejects the product could not be observed indicates that the consumer rejected it.
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
The parameters of the log-linear or Weibull model are obtained by
maximizing the likelihood function (Eq. (2)), substituting S (t) in Eq. (2)
by the expressions given in Eqs. (3) or (4), respectively (Hough et al.,
2003). Once the likelihood function is obtained for a given model, special-
ized software can be used to estimate the parameters (μ and σ) that max-
imize the likelihood function for the given experimental data set.
In order to select the best distribution for the survival function, the
different parametric models are assayed and visual assessment of how
they adjust to the non-parametric estimation is performed (Hough et
al., 2003). An example of how standard distributions adjust to experi-
mental data is shown in Fig. 8. Log-normal and Weibull distributions
are the most common options in sensory shelf-life estimations (Ares
et al., 2006; Gámbaro, Giménez, et al., 2006; Giménez et al., 2007;
Hough et al., 2003). In the example shown in Fig. 8, log‐normal distribu-
tion showed the best fit.
After the distribution of the survival function is chosen, the maxi-
mum likelihood estimates of the parameters are calculated and used
to graph the proportion of consumers rejecting the product as a func-
tion of storage time, as shown in Fig. 9. In order to estimate shelf-life,
the probability of a consumer rejecting a product (F (t)) must be chosen.
Gacula and Singh (1984) mentioned a nominal shelf-life value consider-
ing 50% rejection. Cardelli and Labuza (2001) used this criterion in cal-
culating shelf-life of coffee, whereas Hough et al. (2003) recommended
this percentage when estimating the sensory shelf-life of yogurt. Ares et
al. (2006), Gámbaro, Ares, et al. (2006), Giménez et al. (2007) used 25%
rejection to estimate the shelf-life of baked products. This means that if
a consumer tries the product at the end of its shelf-life, there is a 25%
probability that he will reject it. Considering that few consumers will
taste the product near the end of its shelf-life, and that of the few that
do 75% will still find the product acceptable, this value of F (t) = 25%
seems reasonable from a practical point of view. By applying this crite-
rion to the data shown in Fig. 9, the shelf-life of hamburger buns would
be estimated in 3 days.
Survival analysis methodology has been used to estimate the senso-
ry shelf-life of different food products, including yogurt (Hough et al.,
2003), Fuji apples (Varela et al., 2005), apple-baby food (Gámbaro,
Ares, et al., 2006), minced beef (Hough, Garitta, & Gómez, 2006), shiita-
ke mushrooms (Ares et al., 2006), brown pan bread (Giménez et al.,
2007), pears (Salvador et al., 2007), muffins (Baixauli, Salvador, &
Fiszman, 2008), butterhead lettuce (Lareo et al., 2009), coffee brew
Fig. 8. Comparison of 6 distribution models for the survival function for estimating the probability of consumer rejecting samples with different storage times.
321
(Manzocco & Lagazio, 2009), avocado and mango pulps (Jacobo-
Velázquez et al., 2010) and fresh cod fillets (Østli et al., in press).
Ares, Giménez, and Gámbaro (2008) evaluated the influence of the
stage of the decision-making process (purchase or consumption stage)
considered for estimating the sensory shelf-life of minimally processed
lettuce, based on the fact that consumer evaluative criteria may change
(Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, & Burns, 1994). Ares et al.
(2008) asked a consumer panel to evaluate the appearance of minimally
processed lettuce and to answer “yes” or “no” to the questions: “Imagine
you are in a supermarket, you want to buy a minimally processed lettuce,
and you find a package of lettuce with leaves like this, would you nor-
mally buy it?” and “Imagine you have this leaf of lettuce stored in your
refrigerator, would you normally consume it?”. Shelf lives estimated con-
sidering rejection to purchase were significantly lower than those esti-
mated considering rejection to consume. These results indicate that
consumers are harsher when selecting a product at purchase stage
than at consumption stage. The effect was attributed to the fact that
when they considered purchase stage they were thinking about storing
the product before consuming it, or that when they are at their homes
they are more tolerant to defects because they have already bought the
product and they do not want to throw it away. Therefore, Ares et al.
(2008) concluded that in order to assure product quality, shelf-life of
minimally lettuce should be estimated considering consumers' rejection
to purchase instead of rejection to consume, as traditionally has been
done. This seems particularly important when sensory shelf-life is limit-
ed by appearance changes that can be seen by consumers when buying
the product. This approach has been used by Østli et al. (in press) to es-
timate the shelf-life of fresh cod fillets.
Giménez et al. (2008a) proposed another modification of the usual
methodology, focusing the risk on consumers' disliking the product
instead of on consumers' rejecting it. These authors estimated senso-
ry shelf-life of pan bread and alfajores applying survival analysis sta-
tistics on overall liking scores by performing a data transformation. If
the acceptability score of a consumer for a sample was 1–5, then the
rating was transformed to the word “no”, indicating that the consum-
er disliked the product. In contrast, if a consumer's score for a sample
was 6–9, it was replaced by the word “yes”, indicating that the con-
sumer liked the product. Shelf lives estimated considering 50% of
the consumers disliking the product were shorter than those estimated
considering consumers' rejection to consume, which was attributed to
322 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325

where R is the set of right-censored observations and L the set of

left-censored observations.
In their study, Araneda et al. (2008) used a Weibull distribution
for modeling the rejection function and estimated the sensory
shelf-life of ready-to-eat lettuce as 11 and 15 days for 25% and 50%
consumer rejection percentage, respectively.
Based on simulation studies Libertino et al. (2011) concluded that,
for a given number of parameters, a total of 300 consumers are neces-
sary to obtain valid shelf-life estimations from survival analysis calcu-
lations where each consumer evaluates a single sample. Considering a
total of 6 storage times, it would be necessary that 50 consumers try
the samples at each storage time.

4. Methodological recommendations

The most popular approach for estimating the sensory shelf-life of

Fig. 9. Parametric estimation of the percentage of consumers rejecting the product as a
food products continues to be the evaluation of product quality
function of storage time, assuming a log‐normal distribution for the survival function, throughout storage with a trained assessor panel. The main disadvan-
for hamburger bun samples. tage of this approach is that failure criteria are arbitrarily selected, as
extensively discussed by Hough and Garitta (2012) in their review.
the fact that a proportion of consumers might dislike the sample but still Therefore, shelf-life is determined as the time necessary for reaching
answer “yes” when asked if they would consume the product at their a predetermined change in the sensory characteristics of the product,
homes. Based on these results the authors concluded that estimating but consumer perception of the product when it reaches the end of its
sensory shelf-life based on the percentage of consumers disliking the shelf-life is unknown.
product consisted of a conservative criterion to assure product quality This approach could lead to inaccurate sensory shelf-life estima-
throughout its storage. tions. For example, if difference testing is used, sensory shelf-life esti-
mations only tell the moment at which the product changes its
sensory characteristics. However, sensory differences detected by the
3.4.1. Current status survival analysis
trained panel are usually small and might have little relevance to the
When estimating sensory shelf-life using survival analysis, each
sensory quality as perceived by consumers (Griffiths, 1985). On the
consumer should evaluate all the samples with different storage times
other hand, sensory shelf-life estimations based on arbitrarily selected
(usually 6 or 7) in a single session. This could be easily achieved follow-
attribute intensities or product quality could lead to high consumer dis-
ing a reversed storage design (Hough, 2010). However, in many occa-
satisfaction at the end of the shelf-life period, as suggested by Lareo et
sions it is not feasible to use this design, being necessary to use a basic
al. (2009). Consequently, inaccurate shelf-life estimations could cause
storage design and therefore the same consumers should perform re-
a decrease in consumers' confidence in the brand and in the store that
peated tests for each of the storage times considered (Ares et al.,
sells it, and rejection of that particular product in following purchase oc-
2006; Lareo et al., 2009). As discussed in Section 2.1, this type of ap-
casions, which could cause important economic losses for manufactur-
proach is time consuming, expensive and could lead to biased results.
ing companies.
Moreover, it would be more representative of a real-life situation for
For all the above-mentioned reasons, consumer studies are the best
consumers to try a single sample and to indicate if they would consume
alternative for estimating the sensory shelf-life of food products. Among
it or not (Libertino, López Osornio, & Hough, 2011).
the different alternatives for estimating sensory shelf-life based on con-
In this context, Araneda, Hough, and Wittig de Penna (2008) de-
sumer data, survival analysis is clearly the recommended approach
veloped current-status survival analysis, a method for estimating sen-
since it better reflects what consumers will have to decide when facing
sory shelf-life using survival analysis for situations in which each
a product at their homes: they will accept or reject to consume it. De-
consumer evaluates only one sample corresponding to one storage
spite the fact that it has been recently developed (Hough et al., 2003),
time current-status data.
a large number of studies have proven its applicability in a wide range
Araneda et al. (2008) applied current-status survival analysis to es-
of food products. When it is possible to use reversed storage design sur-
timate the sensory shelf-life of ready-to-eat lettuce. The authors
vival analysis is recommended, whereas for products that require the
performed 6 studies with 50–52 consumers each, in which they asked
use of basic storage design, current-status data seems a promising
them to evaluate the appearance, texture and flavor of the lettuce and
to answer “yes” or “no” to the question “Would you regularly consume
this lettuce?”. In this approach, survival analysis only right and left cen- Table 4
soring exists since each consumer evaluates only one product which has Example of the data matrix used for analyzing data from current status survival analy-
sis and type of censoring.
been stored for the period of time corresponding to t. If a consumer
evaluates a sample stored for t2 and rejects it (e.g. consumer 52 in Consumer Storage time Response Censoring
Table 4), his/her data is left-censored since the exact rejection time 1 t1 Yes Right
(T) is shorter than t3 (T≤ t3). On the other hand, if a consumer tries a 2 t1 Yes Right
sample stored for t2 and accepts it (e.g. consumer 51 in Table 4), his/ … … … …
50 t1 No Left
her data is right-censored since the exact rejection time is longer than
51 t2 Yes Right
t2 (T>t2). Data analysis is performed as in survival analysis on the 52 t2 No Left
data matrix shown in Table 4. The models used are similar to those de- … … … …
scribed in Section 3.4 with the exception that the likelihood function 100 t2 No Left
should be replaced by the following expression: 101 t3 No Left
… … … …
n t6 No Left

L ¼ ∏ Sðr i Þ⋅ ∏ ð1−SðIi ÞÞ ð5Þ Yes indicates that the consumer accepted to consume the sample, whereas No
i∈R i∈L indicates that the consumer rejected it.
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
alternative. Considering that only two applications of current-status
survival analysis have been reported, further research dealing with
basic aspects of the methodology is needed.
Another interesting and cost-effective alternative for sensory shelf-life
estimation is the application of cut-off methodology, which requires a sin-
gle consumer study for the definition of failure criteria for attribute inten-
sity. This approach is particularly useful when evaluating the influence of
formulation variables on sensory shelf-life or when repeatedly assessing
the shelf-life of different industrial batches. Moreover, this methodology
is particularly useful for the identification of the sensory attributes that
limit the shelf-life of food products. An example of the application of
this approach is reported by Jacobo-Velázquez and Hernández-Brenes
(2011). These authors determined the cut-off point of sour and rancid
flavors in avocado paste and used a stepwise logistic regression for deter-
mining their contribution to consumer rejection.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that sensory shelf-life is de-
pendent on the methodology selected for the estimation due to the fact
that they focus on different aspects of product deterioration. Methodol-
ogies based on the evaluation of changes in the product sensory charac-
teristics are product-focused and provide shelf-life estimations that
reflect a predetermined sensory change in the stored product with re-
spect to the fresh one. On the other hand, consumer-based methodolo-
gies rely on consumer reaction to the sensory changes that occur as a
result of prolonged storage. In these methodologies sensory shelf-life
is estimated as the time necessary for consumers to decrease their liking
or acceptance to a certain degree. However, different consumer-based
methodologies might yield different sensory shelf-life estimations since
they rely on different aspects of consumer perception. Hedonic scales
could be used to estimate sensory shelf-life based on a change on con-
sumer hedonic perception of the products. However, these approaches
do not always reflect consumer behavior when deciding whether to ac-
cept or reject a certain product for its consumption or purchase. For ex-
ample, Giménez et al. (2007) reported that Spanish consumers showed
a tendency to decrease their overall liking scores for brown pan bread
while accepting to consume the product.
5. Challenges and suggestions for further research
The main question that arises when estimating sensory shelf-life is
how to select the failure criteria or cut-off point. During this review it
has been extensively argued that the best approach is to select failure
criteria based on consumer perception. In this sense, sensory shelf-life
has been estimated as the time at which overall liking reaches a
predetermined value (Gámbaro, Ares, et al., 2006; Giménez et al.,
2007) or, when working with survival analysis, as the time at which
25 or 50% of the consumers reject to consume the product (Ares et al.,
2006; Giménez et al., 2007; Hough et al., 2003). However, it is not
clear what the implications of selecting different failure criteria for
different product categories are. If consumers found a deteriorated
product within its labeled shelf-life date, they could simply discard
the product without any further action or reject to purchase that partic-
ular product again, causing an economic loss for the manufacturer. A
small proportion of the consumers might decide to phone up the man-
ufacturer to complain. According to Saguy and Peleg (2009) a common
assumption is that the ratio of complainers and non-complainers when
finding a deteriorated product is 1 to 65–100. Therefore, information
relating failure criteria, the number of consumers rejecting to buy the
product again and the number of complaints received by the food com-
pany could contribute to developing good practices for sensory
shelf-life estimation. Peleg, Normand, and Corradini (2011) described
a method based on a ‘Fermi solution’ for relating probability of receiving
consumer complaints and the number of spoiled product units available
in the market, which could be potentially applied for estimating the rela-
tionship between different failure criteria and the number of complaints
received by the manufacturer or even the number of consumers that
323
would not buy the product again. This area of research is a challenging
for both the academy and food industries.
Another relevant issue that has not been addressed in sensory
shelf-life estimation is the influence of non-sensory variables. According
to Rozin and Tuorila (1993) food acceptance cannot be understood with-
out consideration of context; being regarded as the set of events and ex-
periences that are not part of the reference event but have some
relationship to it. Several contextual variables such as convenience,
price, branding, time of day, eating situation, and advertising informa-
tion, have been reported to have a large influence on consumer percep-
tion (Jaeger, 2006). However, traditionally, when evaluating samples
with different storage times, contextual factors have been controlled
and consumers have tried samples blind, so that differences between
products are only due to their sensory characteristics. However, if con-
sumers were informed of non-sensory characteristics of the products
their perception could largely differ, leading to changes in estimated
shelf-life dates. Østli et al. (in press) reported that capture-date informa-
tion caused a significant decrease in the shelf-life of fresh cod fillets,
which indicates that prior beliefs about product freshness could override
the influence of sensory changes in determining consumer rejection to
buy a fresh product. On the other hand, consumers might be more toler-
ant when finding a defective product of their usual brand than when try-
ing a product of an unknown brand, which suggests that unknown
brands or products should be more strict when estimating the sensory
shelf-lives of their products because many consumers do not know the
product and therefore would not re-buy it unless they really like it. For
this reason, studies addressing the influence of non-sensory variables
such as brand or price on sensory-shelf-life estimations could provide
valuable information to the industry.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to CSIC (Comisión Sectorial de Investigación
Científica, Universidad de la República) for the financial support provided
to a research project dealing with sensory shelf-life estimation, and to
Comisión Académica de Posgrado (Universidad de la República) for the
PhD scholarship granted to Ana Giménez.
References
Alkadamany, E., Toufeili, Khattar, M., Abou-Jawdeh, Y., Harakeh, S., & Haddad, T.
(2002). Determination of shelf life of concentrated yogurt (labneh) produced by
in-bag straining of set yogurt using hazard analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 85,
1023–1030.
Anacleto, P., Teixeira, B., Marques, P., Pedro, S., Nunes, M. L., & Marques, A. (2011).
Shelf-life of cooked edible crab (Cancer pagurus) stored under refrigerated condi-
tions. LWT — Food Science and Technology, 44, 1376–1382.
Araneda, M., Hough, G., & Wittig de Penna, E. (2008). Current-status survival analysis
methodology applied to estimating sensory shelf life of ready-to-eat lettuce
(Lactuca sativa). Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 162–170.
Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2008). Sensory shelf life estimation of minimally
processed lettuce considering two stages of consumers' decision-making process.
Appetite, 50, 529–535.
Ares, G., Parentelli, C., Gámbaro, A., Lareo, C., & Lema, P. (2006). Sensory shelf life of
shiitake mushrooms stored under passive modified atmosphere. Postharvest Biolo-
gy and Technology, 41, 191–197.
Artés-Hernández, F., Rivera-Cabrera, F., & Kader, A. A. (2007). Quality retention and po-
tential shelf life of fresh-cut lemons as affected by cut type and temperature.
Postharvest Biology and Technology, 43, 245–254.
Baixauli, R., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. M. (2008). Textural and colour changes during
storage and sensory shelf life of muffins containing resistant starch. European
Food Research and Technology, 226, 523–530.
Bishop, J. R., & White, C. H. (1986). Assessment of dairy product quality and potential
shelf-life — A review. Journal of Food Protection, 49, 739–753.
Blixt, Y., & Borch, E. (2002). Comparison of shelf life of vacuum-packed pork and beef.
Meat Science, 60, 371–378.
Bono, G., & Badalucco, C. (2012). Combining ozone and modified atmosphere packag-
ing (MAP) to maximize shelf-life and quality of striped red mullet (Mullus
surmuletus). LWT — Food Science and Technology, 47, 500–504.
Brash, D. W., Charles, C. M., Wright, S., & Bycroft, B. L. (1995). Shelf-life of stored aspar-
agus is strongly related to postharvest respiratory activity. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 5, 77–81.
324 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
Cardelli, C., & Labuza, T. P. (2001). Application of Weibull hazard analysis to the deter-
mination of the shelf life of roasted and ground coffee. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft &
Technologie, 34, 273–278.
Cardello, A. V. (1995). Food quality: Relativity, context, and consumer expectations.
Food Quality and Preference, 6, 163–170.
Cardenas Bonilla, A. C., Sveinsdottir, K., & Martinsdottir, E. (2007). Development of
Quality Index Method (QIM) scheme for fresh cod (Gadus morhua) fillets and ap-
plication in shelf life study. Food Control, 18, 352–358.
Conte, A., Brescia, I., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2011). Lysozyme/EDTA disodium salt and
modified-atmosphere packaging to prolong the shelf life of Burrata cheese. Journal
of Dairy Science, 94, 5289–5297.
Costa, C., Conte, A., Buonocore, G. G., Lavorgna, M., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2012).
Calcium-alginate coating loaded with silver–montmorillonite nanoparticles to
prolong the shelf-life of fresh-cut carrots. Food Research International, 48,
164–169.
Costell, E. (2002). A comparison of sensory methods in quality control. Food Quality and
Preference, 13, 34–353.
Cruz, A. G., Walter, E. H. M., Silva Cadena, R., Faria, J. A. F., Bolini, H. M. A., Pinheiro, H. P.,
et al. (2010). Survival analysis methodology to predict the shelf-life of probiotic
flavored yogurt. Food Research International, 43, 1444–1448.
Curia, A. V., & Hough, G. (2009). Selection of a sensory marker to predict the sensory shelf
life of a fluid human milk replacement formula. Journal of Food Quality, 32, 793–809.
De Marchi, R., Monteiro, M., & Cardello, M. H. A. B. (2003). Avaliação da vida-de-prateleira
de um isotônico natural de maracujá (Passiflora edulis Sims f. flavicarpa Deg.). Brazil-
ian Journal of Food Technology, 6, 291–300.
Dethmers, A. E. (1979). Utilizing sensory evaluation to determine product shelf life.
Food Technology, 33(9), 40–43.
Fernández-López, J., Sayas-Barberá, E., Muñoz, T., Sendra, E., Navarro, C., &
Pérez-Álvarez, J. A. (2008). Effect of packaging conditions on shelf-life of ostrich
steaks. Meat Science, 78, 143–152.
Fiszman, S. M., Salvador, A., & Varela, P. (2005). Methodological developments in bread
staling assessment: Application to enzyme-supplemented brown bread. European
Food Research and Technology, 221, 616–623.
Freitas, M. A., & Costa, J. C. (2006). Shelf life determination using sensory evaluation
scores: A general Weibull modeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
51, 652–670.
Gacula, M. C. (1975). The design of experiments for shelf life study. Journal of Food Sci-
ence, 40, 399–403.
Gacula, M. C., & Kubala, J. J. (1975). Statistical models for shelf life failures. Journal of
Food Science, 40, 404–409.
Gacula, M. C., Jr., & Singh, J. (1984). Statistical methods in food and consumers research.
New York: Academic Press.
Gámbaro, A., Ares, G., & Giménez, A. (2006). Shelf-life estimation of apple-baby food.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 101–111.
Gámbaro, A., Giménez, A., Ares, G., & Gilardi, V. (2006). Influence of enzymes on the
texture of brown pan bread. Journal of Texture Studies, 37, 300–314.
Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D. S., Woodruff, R. B., Schumann, D. W., & Burns, M. J. (1994).
Comparing consumer's recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation
experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 548–560.
Garitta, L., Hough, G., & Sánchez, R. (2004). Sensory shelf life of dulce de leche. Journal
of Dairy Science, 87, 1601–1607.
Giménez, A., Ares, G., & Gámbaro, A. (2008a). Survival analysis to estimate sensory
shelf life using acceptability scores. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 571–582.
Giménez, A., Ares, G., & Gámbaro, A. (2008b). Consumer perception of sandiness in
dulce de leche. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 171–185.
Giménez, A., Varela, P., Salvador, A., Ares, G., Fiszman, S., & Garitta, L. (2007). Shelf life
estimation of brown pan bread: A consumer approach. Food Quality and Preference,
18, 196–204.
Gómez, M., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2012). Effect of packaging conditions on shelf-life of fresh
foal meat. Meat Science, 91, 513–520.
Griffiths, N. (1985). Sensory analysis in measuring shelf-life. Food, Flavours, Ingredients,
Packaging and Processing, 7(9), 47–48.
Harcar, T., & Karakaya, F. (2005). A cross-cultural exploration of attitudes toward prod-
uct expiration dates. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 353–371.
Heldman, D. R., & Hartel, R. W. (1997). Principles of food processing. Gaithersburg,
Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Hough, G. (2010). Sensory shelf life estimation of food products. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Hough, G., Calle, M. L., Serrat, C., & Curia, A. (2007). Number of consumers necessary for
shelf life estimations based on survival analysis statistics. Food Quality and Prefer-
ence, 18, 771–775.
Hough, G., & Garitta, L. (2012). Methodology for sensory shelf-life determination: A re-
view. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 137–147.
Hough, G., Garitta, L., & Gómez, G. (2006). Sensory shelf-life predictions by survival
analysis accelerated storage models. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 468–473.
Hough, G., Langohr, K., Gómez, G., & Curia, A. (2003). Survival analysis applied to sen-
sory shelf life of foods. Journal of Food Science, 68, 359–362.
Hough, G., Puglieso, M. L., Sánchez, R., & Mendes Da Silva, O. (1999). Sensory and mi-
crobiological shelf-life of a commercial ricotta cheese. Journal of Dairy Science, 82,
454–459.
Hough, G., Sánchez, R. H., Garbarini De Pablo, G., Sánchez, R. G., Calderón Villaplana, S.,
et al. (2002). Consumer acceptability versus trained sensory panel scores of pow-
dered milk shelf-life defects. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 1–6.
Hough, G., Wakeling, I., Mucci, A., Chambers, E., IV, Méndez Gallardo, I., & Alves, L. R.
(2006). Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Qual-
ity and Preference, 522–526.
Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., & Henningsson, S. (2001). The challenge of waste
minimisation in the food and drink industry: A demonstration project in East An-
glia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 57–64.
IFST (1993). Shelf life of foods: Guidelines for its determination and prediction. London:
Institute of Food Science and Technology.
Jacobo-Velázquez, D. A., & Hernández-Brenes, C. (2011). Sensory shelf-life limiting fac-
tor of high hydrostatic pressure processed avocado paste. Journal of Food Science,
76, S388–S395.
Jacobo-Velázquez, D. A., Ramos-Parra, P. A., & Hernández-Brenes, C. (2010). Survival
analysis applied to the sensory shelf-life dating of high hydrostatic pressure
processed avocado and mango pulps. Journal of Food Science, 75, S286–S291.
Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (2002). Temperature dependence of
shelf-life as affected by microbial proliferation and sensory quality of equilibri-
um modified atmosphere packaged fresh produce. Postharvest Biology and Tech-
nology, 26, 59–73.
Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and
Preference, 17, 132–144.
Jeevanandam, K., Kakatkar, A., Doke, S. N., Bongirwar, D. R., & Venugopal, V. (2001). In-
fluence of salting and gamma irradiation on the shelf-life extension of threadfin
bream in ice. Food Research International, 34, 739–746.
Kilcast, D. (2000). Sensory evaluation methods for shelf-life assessment. In D. Kilcast, &
P. Subramaniam (Eds.), The stability and shelf-life of food (pp. 79–105). Boca Raton,
LF: CRC/Woodhead.
Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (1997). Survival analysis, a self learning text. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Kong, F., & Chang, S. K. C. (2009). Statistical and kinetic studies of the changes in soy-
bean quality during storage as related to soymilk and tofu making. Journal of
Food Science, 74, S81–S89.
Labuza, T. P., & Schmidl, M. K. (1988). Use of sensory data in the shelf life testing of foods:
Principles and graphical methods for evaluation. Cereal Foods World, 33, 193–206.
Labuza, T. P., & Szybist, L. M. (2001). Open dating of foods. Trumbull, CT: Food & Nutri-
tion Press.
Lareo, C., Ares, G., Ferrando, L., Lema, P., Gámbaro, A., & Soubes, M. (2009). Influence of
temperature on shelf life of butterhead lettuce leaves under passive modified at-
mosphere packaging. Journal of Food Quality, 32, 240–261.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices
(2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Li, Y., Brackett, R. E., Shewfelt, R. L., & Beuchat, L. R. (2001). Changes in appearance and
natural microflora on iceberg lettuce treated in warm, chlorinated water and then
stored at refrigeration temperature. Food Microbiology, 18, 299–308.
Libertino, L. M., López Osornio, M. M., & Hough, G. (2011). Number of consumers nec-
essary for survival analysis estimations based on each consumer evaluating a sin-
gle sample. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 24–30.
Liu, F., & Li, Y. (2006). Storage characteristics and relationships between microbial
growth parameters and shelf life of MAP sliced onions. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 40, 262–268.
Manzocco, L., & Lagazio, C. (2009). Coffee brew shelf life modelling by integration of ac-
ceptability and quality data. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 24–29.
Martínez, I., Ares, G., & Lema, P. (2008). Influence of cut and packaging film on sensory
quality of fresh-cut butterhead lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., cv. Wang). Journal of Food
Quality, 31, 48–66.
Martínez, C., Mucci, A., Santa Cruz, M. J., Hough, G., & Sánchez, R. (1998). Influence of
temperature, fat content and package material on the sensory shelf-life of com-
mercial mayonnaise. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 331–346.
Mastromatteo, M., Conte, A., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2011). Combined effect of active coat-
ing and MAP to prolong the shelf life of minimally processed kiwifruit (Actinidia
deliciosa cv. Hayward). Food Research International, 44, 1224–1230.
Mastromatteo, M., Danza, A., Conte, A., Muratore, G., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2010).
Shelf life of ready to use peeled shrimps as affected by thymol essential oil
and modified atmosphere packaging. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
144, 250–256.
Medina, M. S., Tudela, J. A., Marín, A., Allende, A., & Gil, M. I. (2012). Short postharvest
storage under low relative humidity improves quality and shelf life of minimally
processed baby spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Postharvest Biology and Technology,
67, 1–9.
Meeker, W. Q., & Escobar, L. A. (1998). Statistical methods for reliability data. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1991). Sensory evaluation techniques. Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.
Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier–
retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 55, 648–658.
Mendes, R., Alves Silva, H., Anacleto, P., & Cardoso, C. (2011). Effect of CO2 dissolution
on the shelf life of ready-to-eat Octopus vulgaris. Innovative Food Science and
Emerging Technologies, 12, 551–561.
Mexis, S. F., Chouliara, E., & Kontominas, M. G. (2009). Combined effect of an oxygen
absorber and oregano essential oil on shelf life extension of rainbow trout fillets
stored at 4 °C. Food Microbiology, 26, 598–605.
Mohapatra, D., Bira, Z. M., Frias, J. M., Kerry, J. P., & Rodrigues, F. A. (2011). Probabilistic
shelf life assessment of white button mushrooms through sensorial properties
analysis. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44, 1443–1448.
Montes Villanueva, N. D., & Trindade, M. A. (2010). Estimating sensory shelf life of
chocolate and carrot cupcakes using acceptance tests. Journal of Sensory Studies,
25, 260–279.
Muñoz, A. M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1992). Sensory evaluation in quality control.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
 A. Giménez et al. / Food Research International 49 (2012) 311–325
Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services versus consumers assess-
ment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
18, 51–65.
Nattress, L. A., Ziegler, G. R., Hollender, R., & Peterson, D. G. (2004). Influence of hazel-
nut paste on the sensory properties and shelf-life of dark chocolate. Journal of Sen-
sory Studies, 19, 133–148.
Nellman, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A. G., et al.
(2009). The environmental food crisis — The environment's role in averting future
food crises. Norway: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Nielsen, B. R., Stapelfeldt, H., & Skibsted, L. H. (1997). Early prediction of the shelf-life of
medium-heat whole milk powders using stepwise multiple regression and princi-
pal component analysis. International Dairy Journal, 7, 341–348.
Nunes, M. C. N., Emond, J. P., & Brecht, J. K. (2006). Brief deviations from set point tem-
peratures during normal airport handling operations negatively affect the quality
of papaya (Carica papaya) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 41, 328–340.
Østli, J., Esaiassen, M., Garitta, L., Nøstvold, B., & Hough, G. (in press). How fresh is
fresh? Perceptions and experience when buying and consuming fresh cod fillets.
Food Quality and Preference, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.008.
OTA (1979). Open shelf-life dating of food. Washington DC: Office of Technology
Assessment.
Patsias, A., Chouliara, I., Badeka, A., Savvaidis, I. N., & Kontominas, M. G. (2006).
Shelf-life of a chilled precooked chicken product stored in air and under modified
atmospheres: Microbiological, chemical, sensory attributes. Food Microbiology, 23,
423–429.
Peleg, M., Normand, M. D., & Corradini, M. G. (2011). Expanded ‘Fermi Solution’ for es-
timating the relationship between product spoilage or deterioration and the num-
ber of consumer complaints. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22, 341–349.
Peryam, D. R. (1964). Consumer preference evaluation of the storage stability of foods.
Food Technology, 18, 214.
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food prefer-
ences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.
Piagentini, A. M., Mendez, J. C., Guemes, D. R., & Pirovani, M. E. (2005). Modelling
changes of sensory attributes for individual and mixed fresh-cut leafy vegetables.
Postharvest Biology and Technology, 38, 202–212.
Ramírez, G., Hough, G., & Contarini, A. (2001). Influence of temperature and light expo-
sure on sensory shelf life of a commercial sunflower oil. Journal of Food Quality, 24,
195–204.
Robertson, G. L. (2006). Food packaging, principles and practices (2nd ed.). Boca Raton,
FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
Rocha, A. M. C. N., & Morais, A. M. M. B. (2003). Shelf life of minimally processed apple
(cv. Jonagored) determined by colour changes. Food Control, 14, 13–20.
Rodríguez, O., Losada, V., Aubourg, S. P., & Barros-Velázquez, J. (2004). Enhanced
shelf-life of chilled European hake (Merluccius merluccius) stored in slurry ice as
determined by sensory analysis and assessment of microbiological activity. Food
Research International, 37, 749–757.
Rozin, P. (1990). Social and moral aspects of eating. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solo-
mon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 97–110). Potomac, MD:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
325
Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual Influences on
food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 11–20.
Saguy, S., & Peleg, M. (2009). Accelerated and parallel storage in shelf life studies. In H. R.
Moskowitz, S. Saguy, & T. Straus (Eds.), An integrated approach to new food product de-
velopment (pp. 429–455). Boca Raton: CRC Press, Francis and Taylor.
Salam, K. I. (2007). Chemical, sensory and shelf life evaluation of sliced salmon treated
with salts of organic acids. Food Chemistry, 592–600.
Salvador, A., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. M. (2007). Consumer acceptability and shelf life of
“Flor de invierno” pears (Pyrus communis L.) under different storage conditions.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 243–255.
Schmidt, K., & Bouma, J. (1992). Estimating shelf-life of cottage cheese using hazard
analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 75, 2922–2927.
Severson, H. H., Slovic, P., & Hampson, S. (1993). Adolescents' perception of risk: Un-
derstanding and preventing high risk behaviour. Advances in Consumer Research,
20, 177–182.
Silva Sant'Ana, L., Soares, S., & Vaz-Pires, P. (2011). Development of a Quality Index
Method (QIM) sensory scheme and study of shelf-life of ice-stored blackspot
seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo). LWT — Food Science and Technology, 44, 2253–2259.
Siripatrawan, U., & Noipha, S. (2012). Active film from chitosan incorporating green tea
extract for shelf life extension of pork sausages. Food Hydrocolloids, 27, 102–108.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory evaluation practices. London: Elsevier Academic
Press.
Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal. London: Penguin Books.
Symons, H. (2000). Frozen foods. In D. Man, & A. Jones (Eds.), Shelf-life evaluation of
foods (pp. 234). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publication.
Varela, P., Salvador, A., & Fiszman, S. (2005). Shelf-life estimation of Fuji apples: Senso-
ry characteristics and consumer acceptability. Postharvest Biology and Technology,
38, 18–24.
Vaz-Pires, P., Seixas, P., Mota, M., Lapa-Guimarães, J., Pickova, J., Lindo, A., et al. (2008).
Sensory, microbiological, physical and chemical properties of cuttlefish (Sepia
officinalis) and broadtail shortfin squid (Illex coindetii) stored in ice. LWT — Food
Science and Technology, 41, 1655–1664.
Ventour, L. (2008). The food we waste: Food waste report v2. UK: WRAP.
Walkling-Ribeiro, M., Noci, F., Cronin, D. A., Lyng, J. G., & Morgan, D. J. (2009). Shelf life
and sensory evaluation of orange juice after exposure to thermosonication and
pulsed electric fields. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 87, 102–107.
Wansink, B., & Wright, A. O. (2006). “Best if used by…” How freshness dating influ-
ences food acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 71, 354–357.
Weber, E. U., & Milliman, R. A. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception
to risky choice. Management Science, 43, 123–144.
Zhou, T., Harrison, A. D., McKellar, R., Young, J. C., Odumeru, J., Piyasena, P., et al. (2004).
Determination of acceptability and shelf life of ready-to-use lettuce by digital
image analysis. Food Research International, 37, 875–881.