1 Sensory Analysis Services Lab Witoon Prinyawiwatkul Professor School of Nutrition and Food Sciences Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 2/17/2017
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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: [email protected]
Dr. Witoon Prinyawiwatkul
Professor
(225) 578-5188
95
Thank you for your attendance.
Any Questions?
Related Documents
