1

Five Senses and Sensibility

Sensory Evaluation Laboratory Report

Danielle Marco

Nutrition 205L Section 4

March 22, 2016

“The Five Senses” by Hans Makart

 2

ABSTRACT

A series of five tests were conducted as part of a Sensory Evaluation Study to

examine whether the bodily senses had an impact on food choice and preference. It
was undertaken at San Diego State University in the Nutrition 205 food lab, and was
done so to meet a class requirement. Using a variety of methods, panelists were
asked to evaluate the effect of color on beverage judgments, to evaluate the
appearance, texture, flavor, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel of foods, to identify
differences in samples, to identify differences in samples when compared to a
reference sample, and to rank samples in order of intensity and preference.
Students evaluated colored beverages using the Color Association Test, and
evaluated four food samples using the Texture Description Test. Comparison of
samples to a standard was conducted using the Duo-Trio test. Four tests were used
to evaluate the sourness of apple juice: the Paired Comparison Test, the Ranking
Test, the Triangle Test, and the Rating/Scoring Test. Results were much as
expected, with indications that one’s senses can influence food perception. A low
amount of error occurred, which could be explained by user error, distribution
error, data collection error, or method error, or by differences in age, race, smoking
habits, and education level of the panelists.
 3

INTRODUCTION

Sensory evaluation "is the scientific discipline of measuring the responses of

people to food products as perceived by their senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, and

hearing” (Brown 2011). Sensory evaluation is important because of the impact it

can have on food product development, research, and food marketing. Sensory

testing is divided into two distinct types of tests: Analytical (Effective) Test and

Affective (Acceptance or Preference) Tests. Affective tests are concerned with

subjective information, such as individual consumer preferences.

Analytical tests are made up of difference and descriptive tests. Examples of

Difference tests are the Paired Comparison Test, the Triangle Test, the Duo-Trio

Test, and the Ranking Test.

Descriptive tests are analytical tests that can be used to define flavors or

textures in foods and beverages. The Paired Comparison test is a difference test

where two unidentified samples are presented at the same time and panelists are

asked to select one with a particular attribute. The Paired Comparison test is a

difference test where two samples are provided and the participants are asked to

choose the sample which exhibits more of a certain characteristic. The Triangle Test

is another difference test, but uses three samples. Two of the samples are identical

and the third is distinct. With all three samples in front of them, participants are

asked to identify the odd sample. The Ranking Test is a difference test where

panelists rank the samples in intensity of a particular attribute (for example,

sourness). In the Duo-Trio test, participants are asked to determine the difference

between samples, and which one differs from the identified standard. In the Scoring
 4

or Ranking test, a sample is given a score in the middle of a scale from 1-5, and

panelists must rate the other samples on the scale based on their intensity in

relation to the reference sample.

Several studies have addressed the connection between color and perceived

taste in fruit-flavored beverages. Roth and others (1988) maintained that color is a

large part of the decision to accept or reject a food product. Foods are largely

selected by one’s eye based on previous experiences (Stillman 1993). People

associate foods with specific colors (Roth and others, 1988), and food color is

known to influence flavor (Stillman 1993). Perception of flavor intensity rises as

color strength is increased (Christensen 1983). This is especially important with

“color-linked” flavors such as orange, lime, and cherry (Christensen 1983). Certain

colors may also influence the perceived non-flavor characteristics of a food or

beverage, such as sourness. For example, certain shades of green can be associated

with a sour or unripe fruit (Roth and others 1988).

Sourness is essentially the body’s way of denoting acidity in food (Ramos Da

Conceicao Neta and others 2007). Ramos Da Conceicao Neta and others’ study in

2007 noted that predicting and changing sour taste intensity in food or beverages is

impossible because there isn’t a direct relationship between sour taste and pH

levels. Part of the problem with measuring sourness is that prior consumption can

affect the intensity of the sourness humans can detect. Primers (such as a swish of

water around the mouth before consuming something sour) can decrease the

perception of sour taste intensity (Christina and others 2016), while imbibing

something acidic can actually influence the acidity of the next item one samples:
 5

eating or drinking something sour can cause sensory fatigue that makes the next

item seem more acidic than it actually is (Christina and others 2016). For best

results, Christina and others (2016) advocated an enforced waiting time before

sampling.

The way food is broken down in the mouth influences food perception, and

this can vary between individuals (Foster and others 2011). Texture and flavor are

the two main attributes in terms of food palatability (Foster and others 2011), but

factors like age (Philipsen and others 1995), race (Druz and others 1982), and

personal habits like smoking (Jacob and others 2014), can affect one’s ability to

perceive texture and flavor. As people grow older, their general health, including

hearing and eyesight can decline (Philipsen and others 1995). A person’s sense of

smell declines drastically over time, and with it comes a more moderate decline in a

person’s sense of taste. Perception of sweetness and sourness was less intense in

older subjects in Philipsen and others’ 1995 study.

Additionally, race or nationality may be a factor in accounting for different

results and taste preferences. Ramos and Conceicao Neta and others’ 2007 article

observed that Asian participants described an acid as tasting like MSG, while

Caucasians used terms like “savory” and “brothy”. American panelists in Druz and

others’ 1982 study preferred predominantly sweet tastes, while Koreans craved

salty foods and Nigerians typically desired bland foods (Druz and others 1982).

While Druz and others note that the Nigerian and Korean participants altered their

food habits after coming to the U.S., it serves to show that national preferences can

affect food choices.

 6

Smoking may also affect tasting ability (Jacob and others 2014). The

bioaccumulation of tobacco and combustion products seems to have caused

“disequilibrium” in the regeneration of taste buds (Jacob and others 2014). As

smoking is completely preventable, it is probably best to avoid including smokers in

a tasting test for the best results with the least amount of error.

METHODS

Panelists

The demographics of the total 69 untrained panelists consisted of students

enrolled in San Diego State University’s Introduction to Food Science lecture and

laboratory (Nutrition 205), many of whom are Foods and Nutrition majors or have

an interest in nutrition. Panelists were divided into four lab sections (Sections 1-4).

Eighty-five percent (85%) of the panelists were female and 15% of the panelists

were male. The panelists’ ages ranged from 18-40+ (one person was above 40), with

30% of panelists aged 19 years old, 17% aged 20 years old, 10% aged 21 years old,

24% aged between 22-25 years old, 9% aged between 26-29 years old, 7% aged

between 30-39 years old, and 2% were over the age of 40. Eighty-eight percent

(88%) were single, 8% were married, and 4% were divorced. Ninety-one percent

(91%) were undergraduate students, and 9% were graduate students. Ninety-seven

percent (97%) were Foods and Nutrition majors, while 3% were from other majors.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of panelists had 2 or more roommates, 25% had one

roommate, and 4% lived alone. Ninety-six percent (96%) of panelists did not smoke,

while 4% did. Eighty-one percent (81%) did not have food allergies, while 19% did.
 7

Environment

The Sensory Evaluation lab took place in West Commons in classroom 203 at

San Diego State University. Sections 1, 2, and 3 occurred on February 15th, 2016

from 9:00-11:40 AM, 1:00-3:40 PM, and 4:00-6:40 PM, respectively. Section 4

occurred on February 16th, 2016 from 9:30 AM-12:15 PM. The classroom had plain

white walls and fluorescent, adequate lighting. Participants sat at desks arranged in

five rows facing forward toward the front of the classroom, where the lab instructor

and Teacher’s Assistant collected information. Panelists sitting at the first desk in

each row collected the samples for the entire row and distributed them to each

person in the row. The temperature in the room was approximately room

temperature. The refrigerator was turned on and making some background noise.

Also some participants were talking, and several made reactive facial expressions

after trying some of the samples.

Color Association and Perception of Beverages Test

Five different colored beverages of unknown content of light yellow (Lemon

Gatorade), dark yellow (Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water), chartreuse (350 mls. Lemon

Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade), dark chartreuse (Melon Powerade),

and emerald green (Green Apple Gatorade) were displayed in the front of the

classroom. Based on the drinks’ color, and without sampling them, panelists were

asked to choose the drink that he or she felt would best meet the parameter given in

each category of the provided questionnaire handout. Categories were: sweetness,

sourness, artificiality, naturalness, prefer, and dislike. Participants were also asked

to state at which temperature they would prefer to drink each beverage (hot, warm,
 8

tepid, or cold). Participants were allowed to vote more than once—they could

choose to drink the drink at more than one temperature. Finally, panelists were

asked whether or not they would actually drink the beverage.

Descriptive Test

This analytical test consisted of four food samples: two goldfish, two raisins,

two almonds, and two mini-marshmallows. These samples were distributed in 1

ounce white sample cups by the lab instructor and teacher’s assistant. Panelists

were asked to try one sample at a time, and take a sip of water in between samples.

Participants were asked to choose a word from a descriptive word list that was

posted on Blackboard and brought in with the panelist on the day of testing to

describe the following attributes of each sample: appearance, flavor, texture, aroma,

consistency, and mouthfeel of the samples.

Difference Test: Paired Comparison Test

Two types of apple juice, each containing different amounts of citric acid,

were poured into two 2-ounce cups. Panelists sitting at the first desk in each row

collected the samples for the entire row and distributed them to each person.

Panelists in each row were verbally told which sample code corresponded to each

juice sample. Panelists were then asked to determine which juice sample was more

sour. There was a one in two chance (50%) of picking the correct sample (the cup

containing the juice with the most citric acid).

 9

Difference test: Triangle Test

Three different apple juices were poured into three 2-ounce cups. Two of the

cups contained the same amount of citric acid, while the third contained a different

amount. Panelists sitting at the first desk in each row collected the samples for the

entire row and distributed them to each person in the row. Panelists were

instructed which sample code correlated to each of the juice samples. Panelists

were asked to identify which two of the three samples were the same, and

consequently, which sample was unique.

Difference test: Duo Trio Test

This analytical test consisted of three cookie samples. Two of the samples

consisted of the same name brand cookie (Nabisco Nilla Wafer), and one of the store

brand version of this type of cookie (Kroger). The first sample, the standard, was

presented with its reference code. Then, the two other cookie samples were

distributed to the panelists at the same time on a tray by the lab instructor and

teacher’s assistant, along with each cookie’s corresponding reference code. Panelists

were asked to try one sample at a time starting with the standard, and to take a sip

of water in between samples. Panelists were asked to identify which cookie was

most similar the standard, and finally, to determine what the major difference was

between the two unlike cookies. Panelists were given three answer choices from

which to choose: dryness, crunchiness, or less vanilla.

 10

Difference test: Ranking Test

One ounce of five different apple juices containing varying amounts of citric

acid were poured into five 2 ounce cups. Panelists sitting at the first desk in each

row collected the samples for the entire row and distributed them to each person in

the row and told the panelists which sample code correlated to each juice. Panelists

were then asked to determine the order of intensity of sourness of all of the juice

samples. Additionally, panelists were also asked to rank the samples according to

their preference.

Scoring or Rating Test

Panelists sitting at the first desk in each row collected the samples for the

entire row and distributed them to each person. They also were responsible for

telling the panelists which sample code correlated to each juice. Three samples of

apple juice with different concentrations of citric acid were simultaneously

presented to the panelists in three 2 oz cups. One juice sample was presented as the

reference. This sample was given an arbitrary score of 4 on a scale rating the

sourness of the juice from 1 to 7, with 1 being the most sour and 7 being the least

sour. After tasting the reference sample, participants were asked to taste each of the

other two juices with a sip of water in between each sample, and to give a numerical

score on the 1-7 sourness scale for each juice.

Statistical Analysis

Data was collected from participants visually, with the instructor and

Teacher’s assistant calling out specific values or descriptive terms and students
 11

responding by raising their hands to indicate their choice. For each subset of data,

participants could only choose one possible response. The instructor and Teacher’s

Assistant then entered it into an excel spreadsheet where the totals and averages

were calculated.

RESULTS

Color Association and Perception of Beverages Test

A group of 69 panelists were first asked which of five beverages would be the

sweetest based on color alone. As seen in Figure 1 below, 12% of panelists

concluded that the light yellow-colored beverage (Lemon Gatorade) would be most

sweet. Forty-five percent (45%) felt that the dark yellow-colored beverage (Tropical

Citrus Vitamin Water) would be most sweet. Three percent (3%) of participants

decided that the chartreuse-colored beverage (350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade plus

150 mls. Melon Powerade) would be most sweet. Twelve percent (12%) concluded

that the dark chartreuse colored beverage (Melon Powerade) would be the most

sweet, while twenty-nine percent (29%) of panelists concluded that the Emerald

green drink (Green Apple Gatorade) would be the most sweet.

 12

Figure 1: Percentage of Panelists' Assumptions Based on drinks'

Appearance Alone

Green Apple Gatorade

Most Natural
Melon Powerade
Beverages

Most Artificial
Lemon Lime Gatorade plus Melon
Powerade Most Sour
Sweetest
Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water

Lemon Gatorade

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentages from Students

Next, the same panelists were asked which of the five beverages would be the

most sour based solely on the beverage’s color. Forty-six percent (46%) of panelists

concluded that the Lemon Gatorade would be the most sour. Thirteen percent

(13%) thought that the Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water would be the most sour.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of participants decided that 350 mls. Lemon Lime

Gatorade plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade would be most sour. Ten percent (10%)

felt that the Melon Powerade would be the most sour. Three percent (3%) of

panelists indicated that the Green Apple Gatorade would be the most sour. Please

refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of these results.

Then these 69 panelists were asked which of the five beverages would be the

most artificial based on its color. Zero percent (0%) of panelists concluded that

Lemon Gatorade would be the most artificial. Three percent (3%) thought that the

Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water would be the most artificial. Six percent (6%) of

participants decided that the 350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Melon

Powerade would be most artificial, while 19% concluded that the Melon Powerade
 13

would be the most artificial. Seventy-two percent (72%) of panelists concluded that

the Green Apple Gatorade would be the most artificial. See Figure 1.

The same group of panelists was next asked which of the five beverages

would be the most natural based on color alone. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of

panelists concluded that the Lemon Gatorade would be the most natural. Twenty-

two percent (22%) thought that the Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water would be the

most natural. Zero percent (0%) of participants decided that the 350 mls. Lemon

Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade would be most natural. Zero percent

(0%) concluded that the Melon Powerade would be the most natural. Zero percent

(0%) of panelists concluded that the Green Apple Gatorade would be the most

natural. Please refer to Figure 1.

The panelists were next asked which of the five beverages they would prefer

the most, and which of the five beverages they would dislike the most, with both

decisions based solely on color. As seen in Figures 2 and 3 below, results were as

follows: 65% of panelists concluded that they would prefer the Lemon Gatorade the

most, while 4% of panelists would dislike this beverage the most. Twenty percent

(20%) of participants would prefer the Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water the most,

while 17% of them thought that they would dislike the vitamin water the most.

Three percent (3%) said that they would prefer the 350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade

plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade the most, while 7% decided that they would dislike

this drink the most. Nine percent (9%) of panelists concluded that they would like

the Melon Powerade the most, while 16% determined that they would dislike this
 14

beverage most. Three percent (3%) of panelists revealed that they would like the

Green Apple Gatorade the most, while 55% of panelists would dislike it most.

Figure 2: Percentage of Beverage Choices

Liked the Most, Based on Appearance Alone

3%
9%
Lemon Gatorade
3%

Tropical Citrus
20% Vitamin Water

65% Lemon Lime

Gatorade plus Melon
Powerade

Figure 3: Percentage of Beverage Choices

Disliked the Most, Based on Appearance
Alone

4%
Lemon Gatorade
17%

Tropical Citrus
7% Vitamin Water
55%

Chartreuse
17%

The same 69 panelists were then asked at what temperature they would

drink each drink, based on color alone. Participants were allowed to vote more than

once—they could choose to drink the drink at more than one temperature.

Therefore, please note that the total percentages for all of the beverages add up to

more than 100%. Ninety-seven percent (97%) revealed that they would drink the

Lemon Gatorade cold, 12% tepid, 6% warm, and 4% hot. Eighty-four percent (84%)
 15

of panelists said that they would consume the Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water cold,

13% at a tepid temperature, 72% warm, and 13% hot. Ninety-six percent (96%) of

participants said they would drink the 350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade plus 150 mls.

Melon Powerade cold, 10% tepid, 1% warm, and 4% hot. Eighty percent (80%)

revealed that they would drink the Melon Powerade cold, 16% would drink it tepid,

1% would drink it warm, and 1% would drink it hot. Eighty-one percent (81%) of

participants would drink the Green Apple Gatorade cold, 10% would drink it tepid,

3% would drink it warm, and 3% would drink it hot. Figure 4 below shows the

temperature preferences of the panelists.

Figure 4: Preferred Drinking Temperature

Green Apple Gatorade

Melon Powerade
Beverages

Lemon Lime Gatorade plus Melon Hot

Powerade Warm

Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water Tepid

Cold
Lemon Gatorade

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Students

The same group of panelists was then asked if they would actually drink the

beverage based on color alone. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the panelists said that

they would drink the Lemon Gatorade, while 12% of panelists said they would not

(see Figure 5). Sixty-one percent (61%) of panelists said that they would drink the

Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water, while 39% said they would not (see Figure 6). Fifty-

nine percent (59%) of panelists said they would drink the 350 mls. Lemon Lime
 16

Gatorade plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade, while 41% of panelists said they would not

drink it (see Figure 7). Twenty-six percent (26%) of panelists said they would drink

the Melon Powerade, while 74% of panelists said they would not (see Figure 8).

Twenty percent (20%) of panelists said they would drink the Green Apple Gatorade,

while 80% of panelists said they would not drink it (see Figure 9).

Figure 5: Would You Drink It? Figure 6: Would You Drink It?
(Lemon Gatorade) (Tropical Citrus Vitamin Water)

12%

39%
Yes Yes
No No
61%

88%

Figure 7: Would You Drink It? Figure 8: Would You Drink It?
(350 mls. Lemon Lime Gatorade (Melon Powerade)
plus 150 mls. Melon Powerade)

26%

41% Yes
Yes
No
No
59%

74%
 17

Figure 9: Would You Drink It?

(Green Apple Gatorade)

20%

Yes
No

80%

Finally, participants were asked if they drink apple juice. Seventy-eight

percent (78%) of participants said they do, while 22% of participants said they do

not (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Do You Drink Apple

Juice?

22%

Yes
No

78%

Descriptive Test

Four foods (goldfish, raisins, almonds, and mini-marshmallows) were

evaluated by panelists in relation to their appearance, flavor, texture, aroma,

consistency, and mouthfeel. Several people did not participate in the actual
 18

tasting/consumption of the food samples due to allergies/gluten intolerance.

Therefore, the percentages in Tables 1-4 have been adjusted to reflect the amount

of participants for each category tested. The three most popular descriptor words

for each category appear in the table below.

Table 1

GOLDFISH NUMBER OF TOP PERCENT

PARTICIPANTS DESCRIPTORS DESCRIPTOR
CHOSEN BY
PARTICIPANTS
APPEARANCE 68 Golden Brown 43%
Dry 24%
Grainy 9%
FLAVOR 63 Salty 81%
Sharp 10%
Pasty 6%
TEXTURE 65 Crisp 49%
Crunchy 37%
Gritty 9%
AROMA 69 Burnt 32%
Flavory 28%
Nothing 26%
CONSISTENCY 64 Brittle 36%
Cheezy 13%
Thin 11%
MOUTHFEEL 64 Crunchy 47%
Crisp 40%
Sticky 5%

Table 2

RAISINS NUMBER OF TOP PERCENT

PARTICIPANTS DESCRIPTORS DESCRIPTOR
CHOSEN BY
PARTICIPANTS
APPEARANCE 69 Sticky 23%
Sunken 19%
Dry 15%
 19

FLAVOR 69 Sweet 42%

Fruity 33%
Bitter 12%
TEXTURE 69 Chewy 33%
Gummy 23%
Rubbery 13%
AROMA 69 Fruity 35%
Sweet 30%
Nothing 22%
CONSISTENCY 69 Chewy 61%
Gummy 30%
Rubbery 7%
MOUTHFEEL 69 Sticky 54%
Smooth 16%
Slimy 15%

Table 3

ALMONDS NUMBER OF TOP PERCENT

PARTICIPANTS DESCRIPTORS DESCRIPTOR
CHOSEN BY
PARTICIPANTS
APPEARANCE 69 Golden Brown 30%
Dry 19%
Light Brown 19%
FLAVOR 68 Nutty 78%
Flat 16%
Stale 6%
TEXTURE 69 Hard 27%
Firm 22%
Crunchy 19%
AROMA 69 None 85%
Flowery 9%
Burnt* 3%
Sweet* 3%
CONSISTENCY 68 Thick 60%
Chewy 28%
Buttery 6%
MOUTHFEEL 69 Crunchy 62%
Gritty 27%
Smooth* 5%
Slick* 5%
 20

Note that “*” denotes a tie for the third most popular descriptor chosen by panelists.
Four options are given in this case.
Table 4

MINI- NUMBER OF TOP PERCENT

MARSHMALLOWS PARTICIPANTS DESCRIPTORS DESCRIPTOR
CHOSEN BY
PARTICIPANTS
APPEARANCE 69 Puffy 91%
Smooth 4%
Rounded* 2%
Symmetrical 2%
FLAVOR 67 Sweet 76%
Pasty 12%
Floury 10%
TEXTURE 67 Gummy 17%
Springy 13%
Velvety 13%
AROMA 69 Sweet 78%
Nothing 19%
Flowery 3%
CONSISTENCY 67 Gummy 46%
Chewy 32%
Thin 7%
MOUTHFEEL 67 Smooth 35%
Slimy 14%
Sticky 14%
Note that “*” denotes a tie for the third most popular descriptor chosen by panelists.
Four options are given in this case.

Difference Test: Paired Comparison Test

Sixty-eight panelists completed the paired comparison test. There was a

50/50 chance of choosing which sample had citric acid added to it because each

panelist was only given two samples. 98.5% of panelists correctly chose the sample

that had 1% citric acid (Sample 573T2) added to it as being more sour than the

sample without citric acid added (Sample 635T1). Please see Figure 11.
 21

Figure 11: Panelists' Perception of Which

Juice Was More Sour

1.50%

1% Citric Acid
Added
0% Citric Acid
Added

98.50%

Difference Test: Triangle Test

Panelists were given three samples to taste: two samples with 0% citric acid

added to them (Sample 777Cl and Sample 542E2), and one sample in which 1%

citric acid was added (Sample 112H9). There was a 1/3 chance that panelists would

correctly select the sample containing 1% citric acid. All panelists (100%) were able

to identify the sample with 1% citric acid added.

Difference Test: Duo Trio Test

Ninety-five percent (95%) of the panelists correctly identified the Safeway

Vanilla Wafer (Sample 6104) as being different from the standard sample of Nabisco

Nilla Wafer (Sample 8175). The remaining 5% chose the wrong sample, the Nabisco

Nilla Wafer (Sample 1108). Please see Figure 12.

 22

Figure 12: Which Cookie Sample

Panelists Chose as Differing From the
Standard

5%

Safeway Vanilla
Wafers
Nabisco Nilla
Wafers

95%

Panelists were then asked to identify the major difference between the

standard Nabisco Nilla Wafer and the Safeway Vanilla Wafer Cookie. Panelists were

given three options to choose from to describe the single major difference in taste

between the two samples that they thought were different in terms of major

differences. The results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Major Difference Between

Samples

Dryness 31%

Crunchiness 40%

Less Vanilla 29%

Difference Test: Ranking Test

Ninety-seven (97%) of the panelists correctly identified the juice with 10%

citric acid added to it (Sample 555D7) as the most sour. Ninety percent (90%) of

panelists correctly identified the juice with 5% citric acid (Sample 192L3) as being

the second most sour. Ninety percent (90%) of panelists correctly identified the
 23

juice with 2.5% citric acid added to it (Sample 695F8) as being the third most sour.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of panelists correctly identified the 1% citric acid

(Sample 543K8) as being the fourth most sour. Ninety percent (90%) of panelists

correctly identified the juice with 0% citric acid added to it (sample 495P2) as the

least sour. Please see Figure 13 below.

Figure 13: Ranking of Sour Intensity

5: Least Sour
Scale of Sour Intensity

4
5% citric acid added
3 0% citric acid added
1% citric acid dadded
2
2.5% citric acid added

1: Most Sour 10% citric acid added

0% 50% 100%
Percentage of Students

Panelists were then asked to rank in order which beverage sample they

prefer on a scale of 1-5. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of panelists most preferred the

juice with 0% citric acid added to it, while 31% of panelists most preferred the

sample with 1% citric acid. Sixty percent (60%) of panelists ranked the 1% citric

acid juice as their preferred second choice, while 34% of panelists ranked the 0%

citric acid juice as their second preference. Eighty-one percent (81%) of panelists

chose the 2.5% citric acid sample as their third preference choice. Eighty-eight

percent (88%) of panelists chose the 5% citric acid sample as their fourth greatest

preference. And finally, 92% of panelists chose the 10% citric acid sample as their

least preferred sample. Results are ranked in a bar graph below in Figure 14.
 24

FIgure 14: Preference Ranking

5: Least Prefer

Preference Scale
4
5% citric acid added
3 0% citric acid added
1% citric acid dadded
2
2.5% citric acid added

1:Most Prefer 10% citric acid added

0% 50% 100%
Percentage of Students

Scoring or Rating Test

Panelists were asked to put two samples with varying amounts of citric acid

on a spectrum from most sour to least sour when compared with the reference

sample of 2.5% citric acid (Sample 0110) at a sour level of 4. One-hundred percent

(100%) of panelists identified the 1% citric acid sample (Sample 420M) as being

less sour than the reference sample: 64% of panelists identified the 1% citric acid

sample as a 6 on the sourness scale, 21% of panelists identified it as a 5, and 15% of

panelists identified it as a 7. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of panelists identified the

5% citric acid sample (Sample S723) as being more sour than the reference sample,

with 50% of panelists identifying it as a 1 on the sourness scale, 38% identifying it

as a 2, and 10% identifying it as a 3. The results can be seen in Table 6 below.

 25

Table 6

Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most Reference Least
Sour Sample Sour
(2.5%
citric acid)
1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 64% 15%
Citric
Acid
5% 50% 38% 10% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Citric
Acid

DISCUSSION

In general, the tests performed reinforced the assertion that the five senses

can impact food preference and food and beverage choices. Due to space

considerations, only the most significant results are discussed here.

In the Color Association Perception of Beverages Test, the results correlated

with the studies by Christensen (1983), Stillman (1993), and Radle and others

(1988), in which people used their previous knowledge of how color can indicate

flavor to predict whether the beverages would be sweet or sour. The colors of the

beverages suggested certain flavors with which most people are familiar. Since food

choices are largely selected by the eye based on previous experiences (Stillman

1993), the color-linked flavors such as green apple and lemon had the highest

percentages. Almost half of the students felt the beverage that looked the most like

lemonade would be the most sour, and more than a quarter of participants thought

the light-green color that looked like a “lemon-lime” flavored beverage would be the

most sour. Together, therefore, 75% of the panelists voted that the lemonade and

lemon-lime look-alike beverages would be the most sour. This verifies Radle’s
 26

findings that sweetness perception was directly linked to beverage color in lemon

and lime flavored drinks (Radle and others 1988). Similarly, the colors associated

with sweet flavors like artificial “green apple” flavor and a “dark yellow mango

flavor” were voted the sweetest by 75% of the panelists. The bright green of the

apple drink was voted the most sweet, perhaps in part because the perceived

intensity of color-linked flavors can be affected by the saturation of color in

beverages (Christensen 1983).

Color also influenced panelists’ choices when it came to rating the beverages’

artificiality. The results make sense: the emerald green color does not occur in

beverages in nature, so people felt it was the most artificial. It also makes sense that

more than 75% of the class thought the light yellow-colored Lemon Gatorade would

be the most natural because it looks like fresh-squeezed lemonade.

In terms of preference, 65% of panelists preferred the lemon-flavored

Gatorade. Participants may have picked what looked the most familiar, or maybe

they felt they could assume what the beverage might taste like. But remember that

the Lemon Gatorade was also overwhelmingly chosen as the most natural beverage,

so perhaps one could imply that panelists (most of whom are nutrition students and

who, it may be argued, are more health-conscious than the untrained public)

preferred the most natural-looking, least artificial beverage.

The fact that the panelists were students enrolled in a nutrition class rather

than members of the untrained public may have skewed the data in terms of

preference, since many of them are health conscious and put a lot of care and

thought into what they put into their bodies. In the future, it would be wise to run
 27

this experiment with a panel of untrained members of the general public to avoid

homogenous sample error. Another factor to take into account to explain any error

is that panelists had to view the beverages from far away; perhaps an up-close look

at the beverages (especially considering they were viewed under fluorescent

lighting) might have affected their choices. Roth and others (1988) suggest

screening participants for color blindness to avoid error from those who cannot

distinguish between certain colors very well.

Results for the Descriptive Test confirm what might be predicted. The top

three descriptors for each category seem appropriate for each of the four foods

sampled. Keep in mind that results may be skewed in the following ways: there

were a finite, set amount of descriptors from which panelists could choose. This

could have been too many or perhaps not enough to adequately account for their

impressions. Some participants had food allergies such as gluten intolerance and

did not participate in some aspects of this test, such as tasting. Additionally,

participants’ experiences of taste and texture may have been affected by remnants

of previous samples left in their mouths and residue left on their fingers. This may

have been exacerbated by the order and speed with which the samples were

consumed by panelists, as well as any meals or drinks they consumed prior to

participating in the test (especially in the sections which were conducted after

lunchtime). To combat this problem in future, a mandatory waiting period could be

enforced before sampling food, as well as in between each new sample (Christina

and others 2016). Additionally, a better palate-cleanser than water could be used to

refresh the palate and avoid sensory fatigue.

 28

In the Paired Comparison Test, almost everyone (98.5%) correctly chose the

sample which was more sour. What could account for the other 1.5%? One possible

answer is user error, such as mixing up the sample codes for each beverage. This

would be simple to fix in subsequent testing situations by writing the sample codes

on each cup. Perhaps the disparity is due to distribution error, i.e. the panelist was

handed the wrong cup by the student at the beginning of the row. Another reason

might be data collection error, in which the person recording the panelists’ raised

hands made a mistake or did not see a hand up. Lastly, the order of sampling may

also have affected the results: consuming something sour can affect the sourness

intensity a subject experiences for subsequent sour samples (Christina and others

2016). By sampling the more sour beverage first, a panelist may actually experience

the second beverage to be more sour than it actually is. Much like a wine tasting,

when you sample wines from lightest to darkest to try not to overpower the less

intense wines, it is important to enforce tasting sour beverages from least sour to

most sour. Giving panelists a set order and timeline for consuming these beverages

might provide a more consistent result in future experiments.

The Triangle Test proves that panelists were aware of what something sour

tastes like, and were able to identify things which are more sour than others. In a

way, this is proof for all the other tests’ validity because 100% of subjects were

correctly able to identify which of the two samples was more sour.

The Duo Trio Test is impressive in that 95% of panelists were correctly able

to identify which of the two cookies was identical to the original reference sample.

Distribution error or user error might account for the additional 5% (for example,
 29

someone was given the wrong sample, or the panelist was confused over which

cookies he or she was meant to compare). Additionally, several studies suggest that

age (Philipsen and others 1995), race (Druz and others 1982), and smoking (Jacob

and others 2014) can affect a person’s palate, and therefore his or her perception of

flavor and texture.

Very few people had trouble identifying sourness in the Rating/Scoring Test.

Nobody said that the 1% citric acid solution was more sour than the 2.5% reference

sample. This shows that participants are able to identify and distinguish levels of

sourness. As mentioned above, there are several types of errors that could have

caused 2% of participants to misidentify the 5% citric acid solution: the user or the

distributor could have switched the samples or the user could have become

confused as to which sample code corresponded to each beverage. As we learned

from the work of Christina and others (2016), prior consumption of a sour beverage

can make subsequent food and drink taste more sour. In the future, having a set

order in which to taste the beverages to avoid this effect would lead to more

accurate results. And being more selective with panelists, such as barring those who

smoke from the study since smoking can cause taste impairment (Jacob and others

2014), could also help to prevent error.

Generally, the results from these five tests make sense. Perhaps because the

participants were students with an interest in nutrition instead of members of the

general public, results may be slightly skewed – but in this situation, one could

argue that this is a good thing. Panelists were likely better able to describe and

discern food qualities because of their interest in the subject matter. And while the
 30

results were fairly conclusive, a small minority of results could be due to errors

which are easily preventable in future versions of these tests. The main

improvement that would make the most impact on the results would be the method

of data collection. Rather than raising their hands, participants could fill out a

prepared survey with their answers on it. This would prevent people from having

their hands left out of the count. Perhaps they did not raise their hand high enough,

or the instructor or teacher’s assistant did not see their hand. Some people may not

have wished to participate in this manner of data collection, further skewing the

results. Other errors may have been unavoidable: some users could not participate

in certain tests because of food allergies, and some indicated that they had a cold,

which might affect their senses of taste and smell. Some panelists could not help

making faces when they tasted very sour beverages, but this may have caused

others to have a very strong perception of sourness in a particular beverage which

in reality was not the most sour. But in most cases, completely preventable

distribution error and user error may have affected the results. In future, directly

handing samples to the participants and ensuring each sample is already pre-

labeled with its sample code could help prevent mistakes on the part of the

participant and the person responsible for handing out the samples. Having a more

controlled group of participants in terms of age, race, and personal habits may have

made results more homogenous, while choosing participants from the general

public could give a more correct cross-sample of the population at large. Lastly,

ensuring that all panelists participated at the same time of day (not after the lunch

hour since prior consumption can affect oral perception), and that each participant
 31

was forced the endure a set waiting period such as thirty minutes or an hour

(Christina and others 2016), would ensure purer and truer perceptions of the taste

and quality of each sample.

 32

REFERENCES
Brown A. 2011. Understanding Food Principles and Preparation. 5th ed. Stamford, CT:
Cengage: p 23-24.
Christensen CM. 1983. Effects of Color on Aroma, Flavor, Texture Judgments of
Foods. J Food Sci 48:787-790.
Stillman JA. 1993. Color Influences Flavor Identification in Fruit-flavored Beverages.
J Food Sci 58(4):810-812.
Roth HA, Radle LJ, Gifford SR, et. al. 1988. Psychophysical Relationships Between
Perceived Sweetness and Color in Lemon- and Lime-Flavored Drinks. J Food
Sci 53(4):1116-1119.
Christina J, Palma-Salgado S, Clark D, et. al. 2016. Impact of Prior Consumption on
Sour, Sweet, Salty, and Bitter Tastes. J Food Sci 81(2):S477-S482.
Foster KD, Grigor JMV, Ne-Cheong J, Yoo MJY, et. al. 2011. The Role of Oral
Processing in Dynamic Sensory Perception. J Food Sci 76(2):R49-R59.
Neta ERDC, Johanningsmeter SD, McFeeters RF. 2007. The Chemistry and
Physiology of Sour Taste—A Review. J Food Sci 72(2):R33-R38.
Druz LL, Baldwin RE. 1982. Taste Thresholds and Hedonic Responses of Panels
Representing Three Nationalities. J Food Sci 47:561-563.
Philipsen DH, Clydesdale FM, Griffin RW, et. al. 1995. Consumer Age Affects
Response to Sensory Characteristics of a Cherry Flavored Beverage. J Food
Sci 60(2):364-368.
Jacob N, Golmard JL, Berlin I. 2014. Differential Perception of Caffeine Bitter Taste
Depending on Smoking Status. Chem Percept 7:47-55.