FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

LABORATORY REPORT

ADVANCED SENSORY EVALUATION AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

(FST 658)

TITLE OF EXPERIMENT: Descriptive Analysis

NO. OF EXPERIMENT: Practical 5

NAME OF STUDENT: Nur Mazilla binti Zainal (2017405648)

NAME OF LAB PARTNER: 1) Nurfarhana binti Khairuddin (2017405584)

PROGRAMME CODE: AS246

DATE OF LAB REPORT IS SUBMITTED: 23 /4/ 2019

LECTURER’S NAME: DR. Suzaira Bakar

PRACTICAL 5: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Introduction:

Descriptive analysis is a sensory methodology that provides quantitative description of product, based
on the perceptions of a group of qualified subjects. A group of highly panellist examine is needed to
evaluate the flavour or texture of a product to provide a detailed descriptive evaluation. The flavour
profile is the description of the flavour and aroma of a food product. The description names the
perceptible factors, the intensity of each factor, the order in which the factors are perceived,
aftertaste, and overall impression. The texture profile is the description of the textural characteristics
perceived in a food product, the intensity of each factor, and the order in which they are perceived.
Mechanical characteristics are described qualitatively and quantitatively but geometrical
characteristics are described qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. The description of fat and moisture
characteristics depends on the product being studied. Hardness, fracturability, chewiness,
gumminess, adhesiveness, and viscosity are mechanical properties. Examples of geometrical
properties are grittiness, coarseness, and fibrousness.

Descriptive analysis is a valuable tool in difference testing and in product development work.
It provides a complete description of sample differences and guides the product developer in
modifying product characteristics to meet consumer demands. Next, descriptive analysis with scaling
which is a method of sensory evaluation called quantitative descriptive analysis was developed at the
Stanford Research Institute (Stone et al.1974). Samples are made up to illustrate the different
properties so that the panel agrees on the meaning of each term used. During these sessions the judge
work together as a group and discussion is encouraged. The panel members decide the sensory
properties that should be evaluated and they also develop the language to be used. During evaluation
sessions the panellists work individually. The scale used is an interval scale consisting of a horizontal
line 6 in. (15cm) long with anchor points 0.5 in. (13cm) from each end and usually, but not necessarily,
having a midpoint. Each anchor point is usually labelled with a word or expression. A separate line is
used for each sensory property to be evaluated. In this sensory evaluation, each judge records his
evaluation by making a vertical line across the horizontal line at the point that best reflects his
perception of the magnitude of that property. The panel works together as a group to identify
important characteristic of the product to be evaluated. After the data are tabulated, they are
analysed by analysis of variance in the same way as the data from the scoring of multiple comparisons
methods.
Objective:

To obtain qualitative descriptor and quantitative evaluations of the product and also obtain detailed
description of aroma, flavour, after taste and many more.

Apparatus and material:

Dried Kana, dried papaya, dried raisin, cake (orange colour) and cake butter, chopping board, plate
and knife.

Procedure:

1) We are given 3 sample coded.

2) The mouth was rinse before and between sample tasting.
3) The sample was taste and answer each question in sequences, placing a vertical line across
the horizontal line at the point that best describes that property in the sample.
4) The sufficient sample was take and time to evaluate each characteristic.

Cake (orange) and butter cake

Results:

Qualitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA)

Attributes Average scores for each coded samples

514 931 862
Aroma 9.99 2.18 11.07
Effervescence 7.09 2.89 5.80
Hardness 3.27 2.31 9.11
Astringency 8.90 2.77 6.07
Sweet 0.40 7.75 6.02
Sour 12.67 2.96 5.36
Salty 7.85 0.38 0.70
Bitter 4.15 0.42 0.55
Chemical 4.35 0.40 4.39
After taste 7.97 5.67 5.37
Overall 5.37 10.98 8.80
 488 Individual Group
Total Average A B
Aroma Butter 16 1.6 1 2
Sweet 13.5 1.35 1 1.5
Vanilla 13.5 1.35 1.5 2.5
Boiled Milk 16.5 1.65 0 1
Others 10 1.00 2 1
Flavour Sour 1.5 0.15 0 0
Sweet 18.5 1.85 2 2.5
Vanilla 15 1.5 0.5 2
Boiled Milk 16 1.6 0.5 2.5
Butter 18 1.8 1.5 2.5
Others 8 0.8 1 1
After taste Bitter 0.5 0.05 0 0
Milky 21.5 2.15 1.5 3
Others 6 0.6 0 1
 156 Individual Group
Total Average A B
Aroma Butter 25.5 2.55 2.5 3
Sweet 17.5 1.75 0.5 1.5
Vanilla 17 1.7 1.5 2
Boiled Milk 16.5 1.65 0.5 2.5
Others 3 0.3 1 0.5
Flavour Sour 0.5 0.05 0 0
Sweet 21 2.10 1.5 3
Vanilla 14 1.40 0.5 1.5
Boiled Milk 16.5 1.65 1.5 3
Butter 24.5 2.45 2 3
Others 3.5 0.35 2.5 0.5
After taste Bitter 0.5 0.05 0 0
Milky 25 2.50 3 3
Others 2.5 0.25 1 1

Graph

Graph of scores of the panellist against aroma of the samples

Aroma
Discussion:

In this descriptive analysis that have been conducted on a sample coded which is 514, 931
and 862 there were five analysis need to be analysed. For instance aroma, mouthfeel where
efferverscence, hardness and astringency need to be analysed. For flavour, sour, salty, bitter and
chemical. Next, aftertaste and overall.

As the result, for aroma most of the respondent gave strong scale for code 862 and
moderate for code 514 and weak for code 931. Next for efferverscence most respondent give
moderate for code 913 and 862. For hardness, code 862 is strong scale followed by 514 and 931. For
astringency, code 514 and 862 is in moderate scale and 931 is weak. After that, there five types
flavour that we need to evaluate which is sweet, sour, salty, bitter and chemical. For sweet, code
913 give moderate scale and weak scale for 514 and 862. For sour, code 514 give strong scale and
weak scale for 931 and 862. For salty, bitter and chemical most coded show weak scale. Next, for
after taste most responded give moderate scale for code 514 and weak scale for 931 and 862. Lastly,
for overall acceptance, the respondent give strong scale for 931 which is the mean 10.98 cm
followed by code 862 (8.80 cm) and code 514 (5.37 cm).

A graphic presentation, called a spider web plot, of all characteristics may be made to illustrate
the differences and similarities of the descriptive profiles of the samples evaluated. This is
accomplished by plotting the mean score for a given characteristic on an axis that represents the 15.2-
cm line scale used on the scorecard (Hootman, 1992). Each axis extends from a centre point like spokes
on a wheel, and represents a single characteristic. The centre point is equivalent to the low-intensity
origin of the line scale, and the highest intensity is equivalent to the end of the axis.

Next, for flavour profile we need to do qualitative and semi quantitative method to evaluate
the aroma, flavour complex and aftertaste of two coded sample in term of individuals perception. For
aroma and flavour by mouth are analysed separately. We also need to give the intensity of each coded
based on their scale given. Intensity mean the degree or amount of a character notes or attributes.
We also need to evaluate the aftertaste of each coded. Aftertaste can be defined as sensory
impressions remaining after stimulus has been removed from the mouth after 1 minute swallowing.
As the result, for aroma I can smell moderate strongly for butter and boiled egg and for vanilla and
sweet it just slightly moderated. For flavour, I did not taste for sour but moderate strongly for sweet,
vanilla, boiled egg and butter. For aftertaste, I feel nothing for bitter and for milky it in scale moderate.
 Finally, for panel sessions, all panellist seated at a round hexagonal table and each individually
evaluate at a time for aroma, flavour and after taste and tell their opinion for that sample. Each
different person give their own opinion but we can managed to give the intensity for each sample.
There are two sample coded which is 156 and 488. For aroma coded 156 we can give slightly moderate
for butter, sweet, vanilla and boiled milk and for other we can detect taste for margarine and the
intensity is slightly. For flavour, we cannot detect for sour but moderate for sweet, vanilla, boiled milk,
butter and other. For aftertaste, we give strong taste for milky and greasy for slightly.

For aroma coded 488 we can give slightly for butter, sweet, vanilla and boiled milk and for
other we can detect taste for egg and the intensity is moderate. For flavour, we cannot detect for sour
but moderate strong for sweet, vanilla, boiled milk, butter and other. For aftertaste, we give slightly
taste for milky and orange taste for slightly and none for bitter.

Lastly, the consumer acceptance and their product most often relies upon the inherent flavour
and textural quality of the product. Sensory evaluation helps in the selling of a consumer friendly
product with increased acceptance.
Conclusion:

In the nutshell, descriptive analysis is a method which involves the training of panellist to quantify
specific sensory attributes for appearance, flavour, texture aftertaste. For overall acceptance, the
respondent give strong scale for coded 931 which is the higher mean 10.98 cm followed by code 862
(8.80 cm) and code 514 (5.37 cm). For flavour profile, for other part we can identify the eggy taste and
orange taste.

References:

1. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A., and Singleton, R. C., (1974). Sensory evaluation by
quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technol. 28(11), 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34

2. Hootman, Robert C. (1992). Manual on Descriptive Analysis Testing for Sensory Evaluation.
ASTM International. ISBN 978-0803117563.