Sensory Analysis Services Lab - nfs.lsu.edu€¦ · 17/02/2017  · 1 Table 2 Saltiness intensity, hedonic score and sodium content of roasted peanut using different 2 salt with soy

1

Sensory Analysis Services Lab

Witoon Prinyawiwatkul

Professor

School of Nutrition and Food Sciences

Louisiana State University

Agricultural Center

2/17/2017

2

School of Nutrition and Food Sciences

Education

Ph.D. (Honorary) Agro-Industry Product Development

Kasetsart Univ., Thailand (2016)

Ph.D. Food Science &Technology

Univ. of Georgia, USA (1996)

M.S. Food Science &Technology

Univ. of Georgia, USA (1993)

B.Sc. Agro-Industrial Product Development

a minor in Marketing

Kasetsart Univ., Thailand (1989)

Work Experience

12/1996-6/2001 Assistant Professor

LSU AgCenter

7/2001-6/2005 Associate Professor

LSU AgCenter

7/2005-Now Professor

LSU AgCenter

7/2010-Now Horace J. Davis Endowed Professor

LSU AgCenter

Teaching Food Product Development

Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Foods

International Teaching Over 80 seminars, short courses, workshops

Product development techniques, sensory

sciences, multivariate statistical methods,

seafood product utilization, etc.

Research Interest Product Development & Food Quality

Sodium reduction in foods

Sensory Evaluation

Chitosan and its Food Applications

Water solulbe High MW chitosan

Refereed Publications & Presentations 1 book edited

5 book chapters

163 refereed publications

296 scientific presentations

7

Citation

indices All Since 2011

Citations 4243 2478

h-index 36 27

i10-index 88 70

the top 5 articles with 483, 205, 180, 126, and 116

citations, respectively

Google Scholar as of 2-16-2017

8 Source: Thomson et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010): 1117–1125.

9

Human subjects as instrumentation

A scientific discipline used to evoke, measure,

analyze and interpret reactions to those

characteristics of food and materials as they are

perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste,

touch, and hearing.

Sensory Evaluation

10 10

It drives business decision

Ideation for new products

Category appraisal

New product development & launching

Product matching

Me-too product innovation

Process changes

Cost reduction; supplier changes

Quality control and assurance

Shelf life evaluation

Importance of Sensory Evaluation

11

Although it is costly and cumbersome to

incorporate into manufacturing facilities, it

does offer benefits:

New business; Drives Innovation

Improved startups for new products

Prevention of potential market withdrawals

Fewer consumer complaints

Benefits of Quality Sensory Program

12

What sensory sciences can do for you?

13

Journal of Food Science, 2017, Vol. 82, Nr. 2, 500-508.

Figure: Effects of sweetener type and eliciting condition on hedonic ratings

(Mean ± SEM bars) of sweetness and overall liking.

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

BoredBored '

Calm

Calm '

Disgusted

Disgusted '

Free

Free '

Good

Good '

GuiltyGuilty '

HappyHappy '

Peaceful

Peaceful '

Pleased

Pleased '

Satisfied

Satisfied '

Safe

Safe '

WorriedWorried '

Sucralose

Stevia

Saccharin

Aspartame

Figure: Emotional profiles of nonnutritive sweeteners in the control (name) and informed (name

and packet image) conditions using emotional responses for sucrose as baseline.

ʹ denotes emotion responses in the informed condition.

16

17

Sample 2: After consumers learning that the sample contains

kefir and the health benefits associated with kefir.

18 Journal of Food Science, 2016, Vol. 81, Nr. 1, S165

Consumer evaluation

• The health benefit information provided to consumer

significantly increased overall liking, and purchase

intent.

• Oil types affected OL and PI.

Purchase intent

57.466.0

43.2 40.5

53.7

74.0

59.249.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Butter EVCO EVOO RBO

Before AfterOverall liking

5.46.0

5.0 4.95.5

6.6

5.5 5.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Butter EVCO EVOO RBO

Before After

T-test McNemar’s test

21

22

23

The appearance of salt

A scanning electron

microscope (SEM) images

1

Commercial salt Foam-mat salt

1

24

Table 2 Saltiness intensity, hedonic score and sodium content of roasted peanut using different 1

salt with soy sauce odor 2

Type of salt Commercial salt Commercial salt Foam-mat salt

Salt content (%) 100 50 50

Soy sauce odor (%) 0 50 50

Descriptive analysis

Saltiness intensity (mm)

50.21±3.71a**

39.10±3.49c

42.95±3.18b

Consumer acceptance test

Overall liking 6.6±1.5ns***

6.4±1.5ns

6.4±1.2ns

Overall flavor 6.6±1.5ns

6.3±1.5ns

6.4±1.4ns

Salty 6.3±1.3ns

6.0±1.2ns

6.2±1.1ns

Sodium analysis

Sodium content

(mg/100 g peanut)

310.54±20.97

166.91±8.81

156.40±20.37

Values are mean standard deviation. 3 ** a, b, c Mean standard deviation in same row with different latters are significant different 1

(P<0.05). 2

*** ns: not significant different 3

25

26

27

Journal of Food Science, 2015, Vol. 80, Nr. 10

28

So, now you can see

What sensory sciences can do for you?

29

Analytical

Threshold analysis

Discriminative test

Descriptive analysis

Affective

Preference & Acceptance

Emotion, wellness, and eating behavior

Purchase decision

Sensory Methods & Tools

30 30

1. Absolute or detection

2. Identification or recognition

3. Difference and JND

4. Terminal

5. Consumer rejection threshold

Sensory Thresholds

31

Common uses in sensory analysis & flavor research

An index of the biological potency of a functional

ingredient or compound.

Useful information regarding the maximum

tolerable levels of an off-flavor or taint.

Comparisons of sensitivities of different panelists

Applications of Sensory Thresholds

32 Source: Waimaleongora-Ek and Prinyawiwatkul

33

D = Detection, S = saltiness, B = bitterness

Source: Torrico and others (2015) Journal of Food Science

34

1

Fig. 2. The group best-estimate (GBET) absolute and saltiness recognition thresholds in water 2

and GBET saltiness difference threshold in 0.02M NaCl solution 3

0

50

100

150

Absolute Recognition Difference

Source: Chokumnoyporn and others (2015) Int. J. Food Sci & Tech

35 35

Discriminative Tests

36 36

Overall difference

Duo-Trio test

Dual-standard test

Triangle test

Same-Difference (paired comparison) test

A and Not-A test (Pearson’s vs. McNemar’s chi-

square statistics)

ABX test ( a duo–trio test in reverse; no advantages

over more standard discrimination tests)

Tetrad test

2 out of 5 test

Discriminative Tests

37 37 37

Attribute or Directional

n-AFC: 2-AFC, 3-AFC, 4-AFC

Other tests

Ranking test

Difference from Control test

Signal detection theory/ R-index

(% sensory discrimination)

Discriminative Tests

New Trend

Sensory Discrimination Tests

4AFC (alternative forced choice)

- slightly more powerful than 3AFC

Our recent studies were based on N = 404

children, with ages ranging from 6-11 and in 1st-

6th grades from elementary schools in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana, USA, participated in our

study.

A LARGE-SCALE EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF THE TETRAD

AND TRIANGLE TESTS IN CHILDREN

KAREN GARCIA1,3, JOHN M. ENNIS2 and WITOON PRINYAWIWATKUL1

1Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural

Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

2The Institute for Perception, Richmond, VA

Journal of Sensory Studies

Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250

2012, issue 27:217-222.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00385.x

40

1st Grade

6th Grade

44 44 44 44

Traditional Methods

Flavor profile

Texture profile

QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis)

Spectrum Descriptive Analysis

Time intensity descriptive analysis

Descriptive Analysis Methods

45 45 45 45

The use of descriptive sensory methods for the

determination of food quality characteristics is globally

established.

to correlate sensory and instrumental measurements

to correlate with consumer data to reveal segmentation

of consumers according to their preferences

quality control

mapping sensory products

track product (sensory quality) changes over time in

relation to the validity and the effects of packaging,

ingredients and processing variables of final products

etc.

Applications of Descriptive Analysis

46

Saltiness Intensity in an O/W emulsion

Source: Torrico and others (2015). Int. J. Food Sci & Tech

47

Saltiness Intensity in an O/W emulsion

48 48 48 48

Very time consuming

recruit, screen, train panelists

maintain over a lengthy of time

expensive/escalated cost

relies heavily on panelists’ ability to perform tasks

find words to express their perception of the products

difficult to obtain complete agreement (consensus)

among panelists

inconsistency in individual sensitivities to particular

attribute

requires advanced statistical analysis methods

Limitations of Descriptive Analysis

49 49 49 49

Non-traditional Methods

Free-choice profiling

Flash profiling

Other hybrid methods

Descriptive Analysis Methods

MATERIALS & METHODS

50

Sample % KCl % NaCl % L-Arginine

A 70 20 10

B 65 25 10

C 60 30 10

D 55 35 10

E 0 100 0

Table 1. The ratio of KCl/NaCl/L-Arginine in mixed salt solutions

- Mixed salt solutions of KCl/NaCl/L-Arg at 0.5% w/v, 1.0% w/v and 1.5% w/v

Preparation of salt solutions

51

52 52 52 52 52

Qualitative Methods

Focus group interview

Single- vs. double-stage

Focus panel

One-on-one or in-depth interview

Laddering, etc.

Fuzzy Front End

Ethnography or immersion

Affective Sensory Tests

53

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

salted egg

Lime

dried shrimp

salted plum

sea foods

soy sauce

salted crab

salted fish

fermented fish

fish sauce

Figure 1 Mean saltiness intensity for each food name rated by 410

consumers based on a scale (0=none, 9=extremely strong salty). Error bars

represent SE of the mean.

Saltiness intensity

54 54 54 54 54 54

Quantitative Methods

Preference

Acceptance/optimization

Diagnostic tool

Just-about-right

Purchase decision

Affective Sensory Tests

55

The response surface methodology yielded an optimal formulation:

30% NaCl, 60% KCl and 10% Gly.

Low-Sodium White Cheddar Cheese

56

Measuring emotions associated with foods in

consumer testing

Positive and negative emotions

Emotion evoked by products is becoming more

and more important for product differentiation as

many products are now often similar in their

characteristics, packaging, and price.

For purchase decision, emotional responses

may even be a decisive factor rather than sensory

liking and price.

Sensory Emotion

57

Sensory characteristics of low sodium peanuts containing NaCl, KCl and Glycine

Figure 4. Emotion terms elicited by roasted peanuts. Online survey (N = 83 consumers).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%S

atis

fied

Good

Ple

ase

d

Acti

ve

Ener

get

ic

Happy

Ple

asa

nt

Cal

m

Joyfu

l

Fri

endly

Good-n

ature

d

Nost

algic

Pea

cef

ul

Bore

d

Guil

ty

Mil

d

Eag

er

Enth

usi

asti

c

Inte

rest

ed

Unsa

fe

Worr

ied

Gla

d

Lovin

g

Merr

y

Poli

te

Ste

ady

Unders

tandin

g

Warm

Whole

Wil

d

Adventu

rous

Aggre

ssiv

e

Dari

ng

Dis

gust

ed

Fre

e

Quie

t

Ten

der

Aff

ecti

onate

Tam

e

Per

centa

ge

Fre

quen

cie

58

-0.4-0.35-0.3

-0.25-0.2

-0.15-0.1

-0.050

0.050.1Energetic

Energetic*

Guilty

Guilty*

Happy

Happy*

Pleased

Pleased*

Satisfied

Satisfied*

Unsafe

Unsafe*

Worried

Worried*

30/70/0

67.5/20/12.5

87.5/0/12.5

59/34/7

Figure 6. Emotion (before and after) spider chart per treatment (4 treatments with Overall Liking score

>6 on a 9-points hedonic scale were plotted). Emotion terms followed by asterisks indicate ‘after’

consumers had been given information about low sodium health benefits. The emotion of the control

(100/0/0: NaCl/KCl/Gly) was used as a baseline.

59

Food manufacturers specify health benefits of

products, but consumers determine the

perceived wellness induced by a product.

Regarding wellness, there is a great need for

method development in sensory and consumer

research.

Development of a questionnaire to measure

consumer wellness associated with foods: The

WellSense Profile™ by King et al. (Food Quality and Preference 39 (2015) 82–94)

Consumer Health and Wellness

60

61

62 C = Romaine lettuce

Sensory Analysis Center

School of Nutrition and Food

Sciences

Louisiana State University

&

LSU AgCenter

Sensory Analysis Services Lab

We work closely with the Food Incubator.

Services and Consultation

Foods and ingredients

Project design

Product testing

Shelf life evaluation

Demo Test Kitchen Room

67

Demo Test Kitchen Room

Sample Preparation Room

16 Testing Booths

Computerized System

Taste Testing

72 Serving Area with Control Ceiling Light Set-up

73

74 Serving Area with Control Ceiling Light Set-up

75

76

77

16 Testing Booths

One-way mirror observation area

79

Conference room #1

80

81

82 Conference room #2

83

84 Conference room #3

85

Commercial Kitchen Area

88

89

90

91

Physical Instrumentation Area

E-Tongue

92

93

Want to be a Taster?

Join Tiger Tasters! First, fill-out the survey.

When a panel is available that fits your

profile, we will contact you to be a Tiger

Taster!

Survey link

http://lsu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9ZHL

IEbmwnRoUMR

Contact

Ashley Gutierrez

Sensory Lab Manager

(225) 578-5423

email: agutierrez@agcenter.lsu.edu

Dr. Witoon Prinyawiwatkul

Professor

(225) 578-5188

wprinya@lsu.edu

95

Thank you for your attendance.

Any Questions?