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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Christian Dehlholm ; Per B. Brockhoff ; Lene Meinert ; Margit D. Aaslyng ; Wender L.P. Bredie
• 关键词：Sensory analysis ; Descriptive profiling ; Napping ; Free sorting ; Flash profile ; Meat quality
• 刊名：Food Quality and Preference
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：December, 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：26
• 期：2
• 页码：267-277
• 全文大小：851 K

文摘

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 pat¨¦ 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.