Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres
Consumer Science Program, Food Science Australia, 16, Julius Avenue, Delhi Road, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Sydney, Australia
b
Nutritional Sciences, Department of Food Science and Technology, University College, Cork, Ireland
Received 5 December 2000; accepted 31 January 2001
Abstract
Descriptive sensory analyses are distinguished from other sensory testing methods in that they seek to prole a product on all of
its perceived sensory characteristics. In this paper, the process of implementing a descriptive sensory programme will be reviewed,
with some discussion of new approaches and applications. Variations of descriptive sensory analysis will also be considered,
including The Flavour Prole MethodTM, Texture Prole MethodTM, Quantitative Descriptive AnalysisTM, Quantitative Flavour
Proling, SpectrumTM method and Free-Choice Proling. Advantages and disadvantages of these methods will be discussed in a
comparative way and the future of descriptive sensory analysis is also considered. In addition, some current assumptions of sensory
panel training are questioned and potential new applications of descriptive techniques are discussed. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Descriptive sensory tests are amongst the most
sophisticated tools in the arsenal of the sensory scientist
(Lawless & Heymann, 1998) and involve the detection
(discrimination) and description of both the qualitative
and quantitative sensory components of a consumer
product by trained panels of judges (Meilgaard, Civille,
& Carr, 1991). The qualitative aspects of a product
include all aroma, appearance, avour, texture, aftertaste and sound properties of a product, which distinguish it from others. Sensory judges then quantify these
product aspects in order to facilitate description of the
perceived product attributes.
Recent surveys (e.g. Anon., 1999) suggest that the use
and application of descriptive sensory testing has
increased rapidly, and will continue to do so in the next
5 years. A major strength of descriptive analysis is its
ability to allow relationships between descriptive sensory and instrumental or consumer preference measurements to be determined. Knowledge of desired
composition allows for product optimisation and validated models between descriptive sensory and the rele* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-9490-8464; fax: +61-2-94908499.
E-mail address: jane.murray@foodscience.asc.csiro.au
(J.M. Murray).
0963-9969/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0963-9969(01)00070-9
462
Table 1
Factors to consider when selecting analytical sensory panellists
Selection factors
Health status; allergies; availability personality; verbal creativity; concentration; motivation; team player; smoker; dietary habits; education;
sensitivity; specic anosmias; previous experience; dentures; medication; user of products; supplements
4. Concept formation
Once terms are selected, the panel is trained to use a
common frame of reference to illustrate/dene the
product attributes and their intensity in the products
under test. This is generally achieved by exposing the
panel to the range of products in the category under
test. A common frame of reference has been dened
as the background information and reference points
(frame of comparison) that assessors mentally refer to
when evaluating products (Munoz & Civille, 1998).
Prior to training, assessors use their own personal frame
of reference to evaluate products, qualitatively using
their own words to describe perceptions, and quantitatively, using their previous experiences to rate
intensities. Trained assessors, however, through the
training process acquire a common qualitative and
quantitative frame of reference, allowing for the use of a
standard language to describe sensory concepts and if
required by the method, a common scale. It should be
reinforced to panellists that they are rating products in
the context of all those which they have been exposed
to during term generation and concept formation sessions, not in the context of what they have personally
experienced.
463
464
bers had an equal opportunity to contribute their opinion. Sulmont et al. (1999) also reported superior performance from a panel who were trained using by doing
learning, rather than by being told learning where standards were chosen by a panel leader and imposed on
assessors. However, one must also bear in mind that at
least one or two assessors will nearly always disagree
with the consensus, thus some degree of imposition will
always be required. Time constraints may also be limiting in these training methods, although they may be
considered to be timesaving in the long run.
Overall, training procedures to facilitate concept
alignment in descriptive analysis should be as extensive
as possible. However, the procedures adopted during
training will depend to a large extent on the approach of
the method chosen, the time available and the products
under test (in terms of complexity and the range
involved).
5. Descriptive methodologies
The following section distinguishes between/describes
the specic descriptive methodologies that can be used
and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.
5.1. Flavour Prole Method
The Flavour Prole Method (FPM) was the rst
reported descriptive method, developed in the late 1940s
at Arthur D. Little and Co. (Cairncross & Sjostrom,
1950) to complement existing formal and informal
sensory techniques for the expanding food industry
(Piggott, Simpson, & Williams, 1998). FPM is a consensus technique, and vocabulary development and
rating sessions are carried out during group discussions, with panel members considering aspects of the
overall avour and the detectable avour components
of foods.
FPM uses a panel of four to six judges, who are then
trained to precisely dene the avours of the product
category in a 23 week period. The selection criteria for
the FPM panel are particularly rigorous. The panel is
then exposed to a wide range of samples in the product
category and during training panellists review and rene
the avour vocabulary. Term denition and reference
standard selection also occur during the training and the
temporal order of attributes is recorded.
The original FPM results used numbers and symbols
(or were graphically represented by the Sunburst
diagram). However, with the introduction of numerical
scales FPM became Prole Attributes Analysis (PAA).
This allowed statistical analyses of data to be conducted. Although one of the oldest techniques, FPM is
still used frequently in industry particularly in avour
houses and the brewing industry. Several recent FPM
465
466
467
468
7. Conclusion
Descriptive analysis still stands as the most comprehensive, exible and useful sensory method, providing
detailed information on all of a products sensory
properties. In the next millennium, it is expected that
descriptive analysis will be used increasingly for a wider
range of end uses than ever before (Anon., 1999). Considering this, it is vital that investment continues in the
development of descriptive analysis that challenges traditional ideas in order to ensure optimal potential is
gained from this method in the future.
References
Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M., & Roessler, E. B. (1965). Principals
of sensory evaluation of food. New York: Academic Press.
Anliker, J. A., Bartoshuk, L. M., Ferris, A. M., & Hooks, L. D.
(1991). Childrens food preferences and genetic sensitivity to the
469
470
Langron, S. P. (1983). The application of Procrustes statistics to sensory proling. In A. A. Williams, & R. K. Atkin, Sensory quality in
food and beverages: denition, measurement and control (pp. 8995).
Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Lawless, H. T. (1999). Descriptive analysis of complex odours: reality,
model or illusion. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 325332.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory evaluation of food:
principals and practices. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Lesschaeve, I., & Issanchou, S. (1996). Could selection tests detect the
future performance of descriptive panels? Food Quality and Preference, 7, 177.
MacDaniel, M., Henderson, L. A., Watson, B. T., & Heatherbell, D.
(1987). Sensory panel training and screening for descriptive analysis
of the aroma of pinot noir wine fermented by several strains of
malolactic bacteria. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 149167.
McDonnell, E., Delahunty, C. M., & MacNamara, K. (2001).
Sensory analysis of reconstituted fractions after vacuum fractional
distillation of Acquvite di pere Williams. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1991). Sensory
evaluation techniques (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory
evaluation techniques (3nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Meilgaard, M.C., Dalgleish, C.E., and Clapperton, J.F. 1979. Beer
avour terminology. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 85, 38-42.
Morzel, M., Sheehan, E. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Arendt, E. K.
(1999). Sensory evaluation of lightly preserved salmon using freechoice proling. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 34(2), 115123.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1983). Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods:
marketing and R&D approaches. CT: Food and Nutrition Press.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1994). Children versus adults. In H. R. Moskowitz,
Food concepts & products. Just-in-time development (pp. 293331).
CT: Food & Nutrition Press.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1998). The relation between sensory, liking and
image attributes: The case of soap. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13,
1327.
Muir, D. D., & Hunter, E. A. (1992). Sensory evaluation of Cheddar
cheese: the relation of sensory properties to perception of maturity.
Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, 45, 2330.
Munoz, A. M. (1986). Development and application of texture reference scales. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 5583.
Munoz, A. M., & Civille, G. V. (1998). Universal, product and attribute specic scaling and the development of common lexicons in
descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 5775.
Murray, J. M. (1999). Determination of consumer preference for cheese
using descriptive sensory analysis. PhD thesis, University College
Cork, National University of Ireland.
Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000a). Selection of standards to
reference terms in a Cheddar cheese avour language. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 15(2), 179199.
Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000b). Description of Cheddar
cheese packaging attributes using an agreed vocabulary. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 15(2), 201218.
Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000c). Mapping consumer
preference for the sensory and packaging attributes of Cheddar
cheese. Food Quality and Preference, 11(5), 419435.
Murray, J. M. (2001a). Descriptive sensory analysis of a maize based
extruded snack. Food Australia, 53(1), 2531.
Murray, J. M. (2001b). Sensory approaches to cross-cultural markets.
In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual AIFST Conference, Brisbane,
Australia. Food Australia, in press.
Nielsen, R. G., & Zannoni, M. (1998). Progress in developing an
international protocol for sensory proling of hard cheese. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 31(2), 5764.
Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E. J., Schmidt,
J. O., & Stern, P. M. (1987). Modication of a standardised system
of wine avour terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38(2), 143146.
Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Masuda, B. M., Pecore, S. D., Schmidt,
J. O., & Stern, P. M. (1984). Progress towards a standardised system
of wine terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,
35(2), 107109.
Oespian, V. A. (1958). Development of the function of the taste analyser in the rst year of life. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nerve Activity,
8, 766772.
Oreskovich, D. C., Klein, B. P., & Sutherland, J. W. (1991). Procrustes
analysis and its applications to free choice and other sensory proling. In H. T. Lawless, & B. P. Klein, Sensory science theory and
applications in foods (pp. 353394). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Otremba, M. M., Dikeman, M. E., Milliken, G. A., Stroda, S. L.,
Chambers IV., E., & Chambers, D. (2000). Interrelationships
between descriptive texture prole panel sensory panel and descriptive attribute sensory panel evaluations of beef longissimus and
semitendinosus muscles. Meat Science, 54(4), 325332.
Peleg, M. (1993). Tailoring texture for the elderly: theoretical aspects
and technological options. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 33(1), 4555.
Peyvieux, C., & Dijksterhuis, G.B. (2001). Training a sensory panel for
TI: a case study. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 1928.
Piggott, J. R. (2000). Dynamism in avour science and sensory methodology. Food Research International, 33, 191197.
Piggott, J. R., Sheen, M. R., & Guy, C. (1989). Bridging the gap between
laboratory avour research and the consumer. In G. Charalambous,
Flavours and o-avours, Proceedings of the 6th International Flavour
Conference (pp. 543552). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Piggott, J. R., Canaway, P. R. (1981). Finding the word for it: methods and uses of descriptive sensory analysis. In Flavour 81 (pp. 202
243). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin.
Piggott, J. R., & Hunter, E. A. (1999). Review: Evaluation of assessor
performance in sensory analysis. Italian Journal of Food Science,
4(11), 289303.
Piggott, J. R., Simpson, S. J., & Williams, A. R. (1998). Sensory analysis. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 33, 718.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure
the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105120.
Powers, J. J. (1988). Current practices and applications of descriptive
methods. In J. R. Piggott, Sensory analysis of foods. London:
Elsevier Applied Science, London.
Prosens, (19982001). International Guidelines for Prociency Testing in Sensory Analysis. European Commission Standards
Measurement and Testing Programme. SMT4-CT98-2227.
Rainey, B. A. (1986). Importance of reference standards in training
panellists. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 149154.
Sawyer, F. M., Stone, H., Abplanalp, H., & Stewart, G. F. (1962).
Repeatability estimates in sensory panel selection. Journal of Food
Science, 27, 386393.
Sjostrum, L. B. (1954). The descriptive analysis of avour. In Food
acceptance testing methodology. Chicago: (pp. 420) Quarter Master
Food and Container Institute. 420.
Spooner, M. (1998). Practical sensory analysis techniques in the
brewing industry. Ferment, 11(2), 134140.
Stampanoni, C. R. (1993a, February). Quantitative avour proling:
an eective tool in avour perception. Food and Marketing Technology, 48.
Stampanoni, C. R. (1993b, November/December). The Quantitative
proling technique. Perfumer Flavourist. 18, 19-24.
Stampanoni, C. R. (1994). The use of standardised avour languages
and quantitative avour proling technique for avoured dairy
products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 383400.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Van-Trijp, H. C. M. (1988). Free-choice
proling in cognitive food acceptance research. In D. H. M.
Thompson, Food acceptability (pp. 363378). London: Elsevier
Applied Science.
471