Rapid descriptive sensory methods - Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling

被引:132
作者
Dehlholm, Christian [1 ]
Brockhoff, Per B. [2 ]
Meinert, Lene [3 ]
Aaslyng, Margit D. [3 ]
Bredie, Wender L. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Food Sci, Fac Life Sci, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
[2] Tech Univ Denmark, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
[3] Danish Meat Res Inst, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
关键词
Sensory analysis; Descriptive profiling; Napping; Free sorting; Flash profile; Meat quality; 10 WHITE WINES; LOIRE VALLEY; RV-COEFFICIENT; COLLECTION; PACKAGE; DISTANCES;
D O I
10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Two new rapid descriptive sensory evaluation methods are introduced to the field of food sensory evaluation. The first method, free multiple sorting, allows subjects to perform ad libitum free sortings, until they feel that no more relevant dissimilarities among products remain. The second method is a modal restriction of Napping to specific sensory modalities, directing sensation and still allowing a holistic approach to products. The new methods are compared to Flash Profiling, Napping and conventional descriptive sensory profiling. Evaluations are performed by several panels of expert assessors originating from two distinct research environments. Evaluations are performed on the same nine pate products and within the same period of time. Results are analysed configurationally (graphically) as well as with RV coefficients, semantically and practically. Parametric bootstrapped confidence ellipses are applied for the graphical validation and comparisons. This allows similar comparisons and is applicable to single-block evaluation designs such as Napping. The partial Napping allows repetitions on multiple sensory modalities, e.g. appearance, taste and mouthfeel, and shows the average of these repetitions to be significantly more closely related to the conventional profile than other methods. Semantic comparison shows large differences, with closest relations found between the two conventional profiles. This suggests that semantic results from an assessor in an evaluation type with no training sessions are dependent on the assessors' personal semantic skills. Comparisons of the methods' practical differences highlight the time advantage of the rapid approaches and their individual differences in the number of attributes generated. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 277
页数:11
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2010, R LANG ENV STAT COMP
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, 85892007 ISO
[3]   French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies [J].
Blancher, G. ;
Chollet, S. ;
Kesteloot, R. ;
Hoang, D. Nguyen ;
Cuvelier, G. ;
Sieffermann, J. -M. .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2007, 18 (03) :560-575
[4]  
CAIRNCROSS SE, 1950, FOOD TECHNOL-CHICAGO, V4, P308
[5]  
Civille G. V., 1996, ASTM LEXICON VOCABUL
[6]   A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile [J].
Dairou, V ;
Sieffermann, JM .
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, 2002, 67 (02) :826-834
[7]   Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on Multiple Factor Analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation [J].
Dehlholm, Christian ;
Brockhoff, Per B. ;
Bredie, Wender L. P. .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2012, 26 (02) :278-280
[8]   Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products [J].
Delarue, J ;
Sieffermann, JM .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2004, 15 (04) :383-392
[9]   MULTIPLE FACTOR-ANALYSIS (AFMULT PACKAGE) [J].
ESCOFIER, B ;
PAGES, J .
COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 1994, 18 (01) :121-140
[10]   Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects:: an alternative to descriptive mappings [J].
Faye, P ;
Brémaud, D ;
Daubin, MD ;
Courcoux, P ;
Giboreau, A ;
Nicod, H .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2004, 15 (7-8) :781-791