Exp5 Sensory Intro,Obj,Method,Error

INTRODUCTION

There are two types of sensory evaluation tests: affective (consumer) tests and analytical

(effective) tests. Hedonic test is an affective test. Affective tests are used to detect the individual

preference of a product. They are concerned with obtaining subjective information and

determining how well products are likely to be accepted. The hedonic test is also used as an

important affective sensory test due to the detail it includes. This test describes the degree of

consumer acceptance and satisfaction regarding product attributes. It shows, over all acceptance

of a product and its competitors, acceptance of each attribute, the relative importance of each

attribute, the valuation of each attribute, comments, and purchase intent.

The hedonic test measures the panelist levels of liking a drink based on a ranking scale.

This scale enables the taster to communicate the feeling of like or dislike for the sample being

test. The panelist has to taste the sample and rate his or her like or dislike by checking on the

levels of the scale presented. The scale contains nine categories ranging from “like extremely” to

“dislike extremely”. After the hedonic test, the scores are evaluated statistically by rank analysis.

The sample use in this experiment are sausages from three different brands. The panelist need to

judge on the taste, texture, color, odor and other attributes.

OBJECTIVES

Creating questions that is clear and can be understood by consumers

Decide how much he/she likes or dislikes the product and to mark the scales accordingly.

Determine the market demand or to be used for market segmentation or related

demographics tabulations.

PROCEDURE

1. Mouth was rinsed by using distilled water which had been prepared before tasting each

sample.

2. Began tasting the sample from left until right.

3. The panelist may retaste the sample as often as he/she need to.

RESULT

Table 1: Result for Overall Likeness

No Sample Nutriplus Ayamas A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 5.95 8.05 10.152 Ahmad Zahin 6.9 5.4 43 Aida Nurdini 11.8 5 9.34 Atikah Aqilah 10.2 8.1 12.65 Balqiss 10.5 10.5 1.56 Fateen Ezeanee 5.6 7.1 4.27 Mas Lisa 10.2 8.1 5.98 Muaz 7.1 2.5 4.29 Muhammad Faiz Danial 10.5 0 3.710 Muhammad Saiful Ambia 12.9 3.7 6.211 Nadia Liyana 12.7 6.2 8.312 Nor Hazmin 8.3 10.5 6.213 Nuhazuan 8.4 3.7 8.314 Nur Afiqah 5.6 2.5 7.115 Nur Alimah 9.5 7 616 Nur Amirah 10.5 8.6 9.417 Nur Aziemah 11.6 11.2 4.518 Nur Syafika 6.3 12.5 8.619 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 4.2 10.7 4.320 Nursyahirah 13 8.6 10.721 Nurul Hafifah 10.5 10.5 1.522 Nurul Safiqa 12.55 3.6 10.1523 Nurul Syafiqah 10.2 12.6 10.224 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 10.2 3.6 8.1

Table 1.1 : Anova’s Technique Result

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARYGroups Count Sum Average Variance

Column 1 24 225.2 9.383333 6.748188Column 2 24 170.25 7.09375 12.16224Column 3 24 165.1 6.879167 8.960634ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 92.47270833 2 46.23635 4.976813 0.009571 3.129644Within Groups 641.0344792 69 9.290355

Total 733.5071875 71

COLOR

Table 2: Result for Overall Color

No SampleNutriplu

s Ayamas A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 3.6 6.7 9.82 Ahmad Zahin 5.3 4.5 2.13 Aida Nurdini 10.3 4.2 8.74 Atikah Aqilah 9.8 7.5 10.35 Balqiss 9.3 8.3 1.56 Fateen Ezeanee 4.3 6.4 4.27 Mas Lisa 9.8 7.1 4.58 Muaz 6.8 3.2 5.39 Muhammad Faiz Danial 9.3 2 3.510 Muhammad Saiful Ambia 10.5 1.5 8.311 Nadia Liyana 10.5 6.2 7.812 Nor Hazmin 6.2 10.5 8.313 Nuhazuan 8.4 3.2 5.614 Nur Afiqah 4.5 4.2 8.315 Nur Alimah 8.4 6.4 5.316 Nur Amirah 9.8 8.6 7.417 Nur Aziemah 10.5 11.2 3.618 Nur Syafika 7.3 10.3 7.319 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 5.2 7.8 3.420 Nursyahirah 12.5 7.4 7.421 Nurul Hafifah 8.6 9.4 1.522 Nurul Safiqa 10.15 2.4 8.223 Nurul Syafiqah 9.4 11.4 8.324 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 8.8 2.1 7.3





Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Groups 67.27146 2 33.63573 4.643419 0.012824 3.129644Within Groups 499.8182 69 7.243742

Total 567.0897 71

SMELL

Table 3 : Result for Overall Smell

No SampleNutriplu

sAyama

s A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 4.3 6.3 10.22 Ahmad Zahin 7.3 5.5 3.83 Aida Nurdini 10.2 3.2 10.44 Atikah Aqilah 9.2 7.3 11.35 Balqiss 9.1 9.3 1.56 Fateen Ezeanee 4.3 6.2 3.37 Mas Lisa 9.2 7.3 5.88 Muaz 4.3 3.2 5.39 Muhammad Faiz Danial 9.3 4.2 4.210 Muhammad Saiful Ambia 10.2 2.5 7.311 Nadia Liyana 10.3 5.6 8.312 Nor Hazmin 6.3 9.3 5.313 Nuhazuan 5.2 2.4 6.314 Nur Afiqah 4.3 3.2 6.115 Nur Alimah 5.3 6.2 5.516 Nur Amirah 9.4 7.2 9.917 Nur Aziemah 10.4 10.3 518 Nur Syafika 7.2 10.3 7.319 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 3.8 9.3 3.220 Nursyahirah 12 7.2 9.2

21 Nurul Hafifah 9.1 9.8 222 Nurul Safiqa 11.3 2.4 10.1523 Nurul Syafiqah 10.2 10.4 9.124 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 8.2 2.43 6.4







Total 557.583 71

TEXTURE

Table 4: Result for Overall Texture

No SampleNutriplu

s Ayamas A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 6 7.3 8.32 Ahmad Zahin3 Aida Nurdini 10.3 4.3 8.34 Atikah Aqilah 7.3 6.4 11.45 Balqiss 9.4 9.3 26 Fateen Ezeanee 4.7 6.3 3.87 Mas Lisa 9.3 7.3 5.28 Muaz 6.3 3.2 3.59 Muhammad Faiz Danial 9.3 3.2 3.2

10Muhammad Saiful Ambia 11.3 4 5.4

11 Nadia Liyana 10.2 6.2 7.212 Nor Hazmin 7.4 8.3 5.313 Nuhazuan 7.9 4.3 7.314 Nur Afiqah 6.1 4.2 6.215 Nur Alimah 10.2 6.3 5.116 Nur Amirah 10.5 7.3 8.217 Nur Aziemah 10.2 10.3 3.118 Nur Syafika 5.2 12.5 7.319 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 3.8 9.3 4.7

20 Nursyahirah 11.2 6.3 11.221 Nurul Hafifah 7.3 8.3 222 Nurul Safiqa 11.2 1.5 7.223 Nurul Syafiqah 8.5 10.3 8.224 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 9.8 2.5 7.3




Column 1 23 193.4 8.408696 5.029012Column 2 23 148.9 6.473913 7.871107Column 3 23 141.4 6.147826 6.694427ANOVASource of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critBetween Groups 68.7029 2 34.35145 5.259339 0.007597 3.135918Within Groups 431.08 66 6.531515

Total 499.7829 68

SALTINESS

Table 5: Result for Overall Saltiness

No SampleNutriplu

sAyama

s A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 1.5 3.7 1.22 Ahmad Zahin 0 3.7 3.73 Aida Nurdini 2.1 2.5 24 Atikah Aqilah 1.3 4 3.75 Balqiss 0 3.4 3.76 Fateen Ezeanee 3.4 2.7 1.57 Mas Lisa 2.1 1.5 1.58 Muaz 1.3 2.1 1.39 Muhammad Faiz Danial 1.3 2.7 3.5

10Muhammad Saiful Ambia 2.5 3.7 2.6

11 Nadia Liyana 2.4 1.5 2.612 Nor Hazmin 1.4 3.7 2.413 Nuhazuan 5 3.7 1.314 Nur Afiqah 0 4.2 3.715 Nur Alimah 0.5 4.6 416 Nur Amirah 2.4 3.2 4.217 Nur Aziemah 0 3.7 2.518 Nur Syafika 0 2.3 1.519 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 1.5 1.2 1.5

20 Nursyahirah 2.3 3.7 3.721 Nurul Hafifah 1.5 3.2 2.622 Nurul Safiqa 0 1.5 3.723 Nurul Syafiqah 1.2 2.6 2.424 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 1.5 3.7 4






Between Groups 32.69333 2 16.34667 14.013757.81E-

06 3.129644Within Groups 80.48667 69 1.166473

Total 113.18 71

SIZE

Table 6: Result for Overall Size

No SampleNutriplu

sAyama

s A1Panelist

1 Ahmad Khairie 6.2 8.3 9.82 Ahmad Zahin 8.3 3.7 10.53 Aida Nurdini 10.5 6.2 9.34 Atikah Aqilah 9.4 8.3 6.25 Balqiss 9.1 8.3 8.36 Fateen Ezeanee 4.8 6.2 8.37 Mas Lisa 11.5 7.3 6.28 Muaz 6.8 8.3 79 Muhammad Faiz Danial 9.3 6.2 6.210 Muhammad Saiful Ambia 11.3 6.2 10.511 Nadia Liyana 11.2 8.3 8.312 Nor Hazmin 9.2 8.3 6.213 Nuhazuan 9.3 3.7 5.614 Nur Afiqah 4.2 3.7 8.315 Nur Alimah 8.9 6.2 6.816 Nur Amirah 11 8.3 10.5

17 Nur Aziemah 12.2 8.3 8.318 Nur Syafika 6.1 11.3 7.319 Nur Syahidatul Syuhada 3.9 6.2 5.320 Nursyahirah 12.4 8.6 10.521 Nurul Hafifah 9.3 7.3 4.222 Nurul Safiqa 11.2 5.7 10.523 Nurul Syafiqah 9.2 12.6 11.224 Wan Muhamad Ajmal 9.1 5.3 6.2







Total 373.8688 71

DISCUSSION

Hedonic test is used to quantify the panellist preference of liking or disliking of a product

(Lawless and Claassen, 1993) [7]. The hedonic rating scales are used to quantify affective

dimension of the panellist perception of food. In this experiment, the scale categories is ranking

from “extremely dislike” to “extremely like”. Instead, the panellist were also determining for

color, smell, texture, saltiness and size. After the test, an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was

used to analyse the result.

The hedonic test describes the degree of consumer acceptance and satisfaction regarding

product attributes. The result represent over all acceptance of a product and its competitors,

acceptance of each attribute, the relative importance of each attribute, the valuation of each

attribute, comments, and purchase intent.

For this experiment, 24 panellist who present as the assessor has participated in this

hedonic test. The hedonic test is about the sausage, the evaluation that given is likeness

associated with color, smell, texture, saltiness, and size. There were given three sample which is

difference brand and the panellist have to evaluate the samples that given. Based on the result,

hedonic test by likeness of the sausage for the F value is 4.976813 and from the table F critical is

3.129644, so the F critical is greater than F value. Then, for color of sausage F value is 4.643419,

and from the table (F critical) is 3.129644 so F critical is lower than F value. Next, for the smell

of the sausage F value is 2.496942, and from the table (F critical) is 3.129644 so F critical is

greater than F value. Also for the texture of the sausage the F critical is lower than F value

because F value is 5.259339 and F critical is 3.135918. Next, for the saltiness of the sausage F

value is 14.01375 while F critical is 3.129644, the F critical is lower than F value. Lastly,

Hedonic test for size of the sausage F value is 3.695862 and for F critical 3.129644, the F critical

is lower than F value. The higher the standard deviation, the increase variance linear for three

samples were tests. If F < Fcrit , the hypothesis was approved. Example for smell Annova’s

summarize, F < Fcrit was 2.496942 < 3.129644, the hypothesis was approved because mean for

three population (sample) that same value and standard deviation with variance linear for three

sample tests. If F > Fcrit the hypothesis wasn’t approved because the mean not same for three

population depend the variance and standard deviation not linear for three sample tests.

The panellist does not neutralize their taste bud by rinsing their mouth with distilled

water after tasting each sample. The panellist may rate the samples according to their

expectations based on previous knowledge of the product information. The result obtained may

be incorrect because the ratings of the panellist are influenced by the response of the panellist

who has already scored the sample.

CONCLUSION

In this experiment, an ANOVA was used to analyse the result. From the result, the

hedonic test of likeness, color, smell, texture, saltiness and size for the sausage have F and F critical

value. For likeness, F value is 4.976813 and Fcritical value is 3.129644, so it means F > Fcritical. For

color, texture, saltiness, and size, the F value for all of the characteristics are larger than value of

Fcritical but for smell, F value is less than Fcritical. To conclude, only result for smell was accepted.

So, there are significant different between panellist and sausage of three samples.

As a recommendation, rinse the mouth by using distilled water or neutral water before

tasting each sample to neutralize the tongue receptor. Taste neutral water at room temperature is

preferred by many investigators. The panellist should be also in a good health and should absent

themselves when suffering from the conditions that might interfere with normal functions of

taste and smell. Besides, the panellist must avoid themselves from chewing gum, smoking,

eating or drinking at least 30 minutes before testing. During observing the sample, taste each

sample for multiple time to make sure the receptors could identified the differences.

REFERENCES

1. Elsevier B.V. (2010). Designing and testing of an Arabic version of the hedonic scale for

use in acceptability tests. Food Quality and Preference, vol.21, no. 1, January, Page 33-

43.

2. Maurice, S. (2004). The Soft Drinks Companion: A Technical Handbook for the Beverage

Industry. Illustrated: CRC Press, Page 39 – 45.

3. Noriza Bt Ahmad, Lab Manual Sensory Evaluation of Food, Experiment 5: Hedonic Test,

Unikl Malaysian Institute of Chemical & Bioengineering Technology, Page 20 – 23.

4. British N. F. (2016). Food a fact of life, [Online], [Accessed on March 18, 2016]

Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/sheet.aspx?

siteId=20&sectionId=85&contentId=329[2005

http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/sheet.aspx?siteId=20&sectionId=85&contentId=329%5B2005

http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/sheet.aspx?siteId=20&sectionId=85&contentId=329%5B2005

5. The 9-point Hedonic Scale, Society of Sensory Professional, 2016, [Online], [Accessed

on March 19, 2016], Available from World Wide Web :

http://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/sspwiki/Pages/The%209-point%20Hedonic

%20Scale.aspx

6. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory, Food Quality and Preferences, Juyun Lim, 2011, [Online], [Accessed on March 25, 2016], Available from World Wide Web :

http://people.ufpr.br/~aanjos/SENSOMETRIA/artigos/01_revisao_hedonica.pdf

7. SLU: Design and Performance of Small Scale Sensory Consumer Tests, Lim Svensson,2012, [Online], [Accessed on April 1, 2016], Available from World Wide Web : Stud.epsilon.slu.se/5405/1/svenson _l _121108.pdf

http://people.ufpr.br/~aanjos/SENSOMETRIA/artigos/01_revisao_hedonica.pdf

Documents

Exp5 Sensory Intro,Obj,Method,Error