As I said on the question title, finished the rest of a sensory lab report from a nutrition class. I already finished the method and result part. What you have to do is finish the discussion, introduction and abstract. And I also upload a lab report that the previous student wrote. All instruction are included in the nutrition sensory lab report doc. Contact me immediately when you have question.
nutrition_sensory_lab_report.docx
b28443c80068213e8f3a76363db93130ec7a.pdf
nutrition_sensory_lab_report.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Gao 1
Abstract
◼ Purpose of study
◼ Where it took place
◼ Tests conducted/methods
◼ Results stated briefly
◼ Concluding statement
◼ <250 words, single spaced, on separate page
◼ Written in past tense
Always write last!
1
Gao 2
Introduction
◼ References should be introduced
◼ 1st paragraph– Background on sensory
❑ Use 1 or 2 references
❑ Use lab book or textbook
❑ Research difference tests/experiments for sensory evaluation for background
◼ Paraphrase studies and cite sources
❑ Include methods, results, and conclusion
◼ Look at studies on:
❑ Difference tests
◼ Required: 3-4 pages
❑ Paraphrase
❑ Primarily research
❑ Clarity & Length
❑ No subtitles
BE OBJECTIVE
2
Gao 3
Methods
Each test was conducted one at a time with a few minutes in between to avoid taste fatigue.
Each student was also giving water to cleanse their palate in between tastings.
Panelists
All Panelists are from the Section 3 of NUTR 205 class. Most of them do not have previous
sensory tasting experience. All Panelists finished a demographic questionnaire before the
experiment to provide information regarding themselves. The range of the student is from
nineteen to over forty. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the panelist were age nineteen, 26% age
twenty, 9% age twenty-one, 4% age twenty-two, 13% age twenty-three, 4% age twenty-four,
4% age twenty-seven, 4% age thirty to thirty-nine, and 9% age forty and above. For Gender,
9% of the participants were Male, 91% were female. Of these panelists, 91%were single, 4%
were married, and 4% were divorced. All participants were undergraduate food & nutrition,
major student. Nine percent (9%) of the panelists reported themselves live alone, 22% of them
live with one roommate, 70% reported they share the room with two roommates or more.
Ninety-six percent (96%) were non-smoker while 4% was a smoker. Food allergies were
reported by 22% of panelists related to nuts, mangoes, sesame, gluten, dairy, fish, and meat.
Four percent (4%) of the participants were classified as Vegetarian.
Environment
All 5 experiment was finished in the same room located on the second floor of the west
commons building at San Diego State University. The experimenters were sat in parallel
arranged seats facing the front of the classroom. The temperature in the room has remained at
3
Gao 4
69 Fahrenheit degree during the experiments. There is considerable space between each row to
preserve some privacy during the process and let the person who assigns the samples to pass
without obstacles. The panelists were previously asked by the professor not to make any
obvious facial impression to disturb others.
Different test
Paired Comparison Test
The paired comparison test asked the panelists to select the samples that have a different
intensity regarding a specific characteristic. In this experiment, sourness was used as the
characteristic. The professor asked the panelist in the very front of each row to pass the samples
to the rest of the row. The samples were presented in a 1-ounce white paper sample cup with
two randomly assigned code. The Panelists need to wait until all participants got their sample
before they can start tasting. Each participant was asked to recognize and record which sample
is “lesser” or “greater” intensity. After the professor and the teaching assistances collected the
date, the professor informs the panelist that the sample 635T1 is apple juice with no citric acid
while the sample 573T2 is apple juice with 1% citric acid.
Triangle Test
The Triangle test is a different test that included three samples with similar appearance and
randomly assigned code. The panelists were asked to identify the one sample that is different
from the two identical samples. The characteristic of this experiment for the panelist to
determine is sourness. The professor asked the panelist in the very front of each row to pass
the samples to the rest of the row. The samples were presented in a 1-ounce white paper sample
cup with randomly assigned code. The Panelists need to wait until all participants get their
4
Gao 5
sample before they can start tasting. The panelists were asked to record the three sample as
“same” or “different.” After the professor and the teaching assistances collected the date, the
professor informed the panelist that the sample 777C1 and sample 542E2 is apple juice without
citric acid, while the sample 112H9 is apple juice with 1% citric acid.
Ranking Test
The ranking test contained more than two similar samples with a different variety of a specific
characteristic, and the panelists were asked to rank the samples regarding the intensity of the
particular characteristics. In this experiment, the lab technician prepared five samples with a
different concentration of citric acid. The panelists from the begin of each row were asked to
pour a skank amount of each sample into a 1-ounce white paper sample cup and distribute the
sample to the rest of the row. The Panelists needed to wait until all participants got their sample
before they can start tasting. Panelists have to rank the samples from #1- Most sour to #5- Least
sour regarding the intensity and the preference. After the professor and the teaching assistant
collected the date, the panelists have been informed by the professor of the concentration of
citric acid in each sample, 555D7 have 10% citric acid, 695F8 have 2.5%, 192L3 have 5%,
543K8 have 1%, and 495P2 without citric acid.
Duo-Trio
In the Duo- Trio test, the first sample presented as the standard sample, the panelists were asked
to determine which sample is different between the two samples that presented later from the
standard sample. Panelists were not informed by the professor what was the difference, but the
instructor given the panelists three choices of the differences: vanilla content, dryness, and
crunchiness. After tasted all three samples, participants were asked to record the result they
concluded. At the end of this experiment, the professor informed that the Standard sample 8175
5
Gao 6
and sample 1108 is the Nabisco Nilla Wafers, sample 6104 is Signature Kitchen/Albertsons
Vanilla Wafers.
Scoring Test
In the scoring test, three samples were distributed by the first individual in each row. The
reference sample has been set as the scale of four, the panelists were asked to rank the rest of
the samples on a scale of one to seven relative to the reference sample. After the professor and
the teaching assistant collected the date, the panelists have been informed by the professor of
the concentration of citric acid in each sample, Sample 0110, the reference sample, contained
2.5% of citric acid, sample 420M contained 1% citric acid, and sample S723 contained 5%
citric acid solution.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statists were used for statistical analysis. All samples will get a random code. The
Procedure for data collects well organizes. After each experiment, the professor asks for the
result of the individual characteristics by show hand. The responses were counted and recorded
by the teaching assistant on an excel chart in a computer in the front of the classroom.
6
Gao 7
Results
Paired Comparison
A total of twenty-three participants participated in this test. This test determined which sample
possesses a higher intensity of sourness. All panelists judge the sample with 1% of citric acid
solution (sample 573T2) to be sourer than the sample with 0% of citric acid solution (sample
635T1).
Triangle
In the triangle test, a total of twenty-three participants participated in this test. This test is a
test to determine one sample of the three samples that were different from the remaining two
samples. All panelists judge the sample with 1% of citric acid solution (sample 112H9) to be
the different sample rather than the two samples with 0% of citric acid solution (sample
777C1 &sample 542E2).
Ranking
Total of 23 participants participated in the Sourness part of the ranking test. However, only 22
panelists participate in the preference part due to an error. The result of sourness and
preferences of the sample with the different amount of citric acid are showed in Figure 1 and
Figure 2 which demonstrates a direct relationship between the ranked level of sourness and the
concentration of citric acid. As shown in Figure 1, ninety-six percent (96%) of the participants
7
Gao 8
choose the sample with 10% of citric acid solution (sample 555D7) as the most acid sample
(rank 1). Sample with 5% of citric acid (sample 192L3) was mostly ranked as rank two by 83%
of the participants, and 87% of participants consider sample with 2.5% citric acid (sample
695F8) as rank three. For rank four, 65% of the participants choose the sample with 1% citric
acid (543K8). The sample with 0% citric acid (sample 495P2) was ranked as the least sour
sample by most of the participants (91%).
PERCENTAGE OF PANELISTS
Figure 1:Ranking Level Of Sourness of
samples By Nutrition 205 Students in
section 3
96
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0 4 0
4 0
RANK 1
13
91
87
83
65
0
RANK 2
0 0
13
0
RANK 3
9 9 13
4
0
RANK 4
0
9
0
RANK 5
LEVEL OF SOURNESS FROM 1 (MOST) TO 5 (LEAST)
Sample with 2.5% citric acide
0% citric acid
5% citric acid
1%citric acid
10% citric acid
Figure 2 demonstrated that the higher the concentration, the lower the preference is. The
majority (59%) of the participants rank the sample with 0% citric acid (sample 495P2) as their
most preferred sample (rank 1). Half of the participants (50%) consider the sample with 1%
citric acid (sample 543K8) as rank 2. The sample with 2.5% citric acid (sample 695F8) was
ranked as rank 3 by 55% of the participants. For rank 4, a majority of 82% of the participants
choose the sample with 5% citric acid (sample 192L3). Ninety-one percent (91%) of the
participants rank the sample with 10% citric acid (sample 555D7) as the least preferred sample.
8
Gao 9
PERCENTAGE OF PANELISTS
Figure 2: Ranking Level Of Preference of
samples By Nutrition 205 Students in
section 3
100
80
59
20
55
50
60
40
91
82
23
5
18 18
14
0
9
14 9
5
23
0
0 5
14
0
0 5 5 0
0
RANK 1
RANK 2
RANK 3
RANK 4
RANK 5
LEVEL OF PREFERENCE FROM 1 (MOST) TO 5 (LEAST)
Sample with 2.5% citric acide
0% citric acid
5% citric acid
1%citric acid
10% citric acid
Duo-Trio
Only 17 panelists participated in this test. Sample 6104 and sample 8175 (standard) are the
Nabisco Nilla Wafers; sample 6104 is Signature Kitchens/Albertsons Vanilla Wafers.
Figure 3: Distribution of penalist choose of
differnt sample in duo-trio test by nutrition
205 Students in section 3
6%
94%
6104(Signature Kitchens/Albertsons Vanilla Wafers）
1108(Nabisco Nilla Wafers)
According to Figure 3, ninety-four percent (94%) of participants were able to successfully
identify which sample was the same as the standard sample as well as 6% of the participants
9
Gao 10
believe that the Signature Kitchens/Albertson Vanilla Wafers (sample 6104) is the same with
the standard sample.
Figure 4: The differnece between standard
sample and odd sample in duo-trio Test
choosed by nutrition 205 students in section 3
18%
35%
47%
Dryness
Crunchiness
Less Vanilla
Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the reason why the participants think the sample is
different from the standard sample. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the participants consider
crunchiness as the main difference between the off sample and the standard sample. Thirty-five
percent (35%) of the participants think the different sample has less vanilla than the standard
sample. Dryness was picked by 18% of the participants as the reason for the differences.
Scoring/rating
10
Gao 11
Level of sourness from
1 (Most) to 7 (Least)
Figure 5: Score distribution based on the sourness in
scoring test determined by nutr 205 students in section
3
7
6
5
3
2
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage of Panelists
S723
420M
11
Gao 12
Discussion
◼ Use same references in introduction
◼ Relate results to literature in the introduction
◼ Give explanations for why you got the results
◼ Explain limitation/errors
◼ Recommendations to improve the study for future research
◼ General Guidelines: 3-5 pages
◼ Use intro references
◼ Relate results to them
◼ Propose an explanation
◼ Explain:
◼ Limitations
◼ How to improve
Recommendations
12
Gao 13
Reference
Brown A. 2011. Understanding Food Principles and Preparation. 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning. 625 p.
13
Gao 14
Appendices
14
Gao 15
Due:
LABORATORY REPORT EVALUATION FORM
Nutrition 205
Student Name:
MECHANICS (20 POINTS TOTAL)
• Use of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
• Technical writing style is appropriate
• Appropriate word choice
• Text citations are correctly formatted in JFS format
• References are cited correctly in JFS format
• Good professional appearance and overall quality
• All appendices are included
Value
20
Earned
Comments
CONTENT (100 POINTS TOTAL)
Abstract
• Clear purpose statement
• Brief explanation of methods
• Primary focus is on results
• Conclusion is made about study
• Appropriate length (<250 words)
• Single-spaced, on a separate page, written in 3rd person
Introduction
• Includes background information on sensory testing
• Explains different types of sensory tests
• Primarily consists of research—paraphrases relevant
literature on sensory testing and briefly states methods and
results of each source and provides a conclusion
• Includes research on difference tests
• Statement of purpose included in the last paragraph
• Contains no subheadings and is objective
• Appropriate length
Methods
• Includes subheadings for panelists, environment, as well
as each sensory test in a logical order
• All panelist demographic information is reported in
percentages
• Detailed explanations of environment, materials used, and
scales
• Accurately explains statistical analysis
Value
10
Earned
Comments
20
20
15
Gao 16
CONTENT, CONTINUED (100 POINTS TOTAL)
Results
• Includes subheadings for each sensory test in logical order
• All results are accurately reported in text and displayed in
either figures or tables
• All figures/tables have descriptive titles and are
numerically labeled
• Figures have axis titles
• Sample codes are explained both in text and on figures
• Scales are explained both in text and on figures
• Figures and tables are appropriate and data is clearly
displayed
Discussion
• Detailed explanations on why results were observed
• Primary focus is on comparing/contrasting results with the
literature referenced in introduction
• No new studies are introduced
• Explanations of limitations/errors
• Recommendations provided for future research
• Conclusion provided
• Contains no subheadings
• Appropriate length
Value
25
Earned
Comments
25
MECHANICS TOTAL (20 POINTS)
CONTENT TOTAL (100 POINTS)
SUBTOTAL OF FINAL EARNED POINTS
MINUS ANY LATE PENALTY POINTS
FINAL TOTAL POINTS EARNED (120 POINTS)
16
Zwimpfer 1
Sensory Evaluation Lab Report
Taylor Zwimpfer
Nutrition 205, Section 3
28 October 2013
Zwimpfer 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to utilize and evaluate the importance of sensory analysis tests for
determining food acceptability, preference, and characteristics. In a food laboratory at San Diego State
University, a total of 89 untrained panelists between the ages of 19 and 35 years (79 females, 10 males) were
subjects in seven different sensory evaluation tests including: descriptive analysis, beverage association, paired
comparison, triangle testing, duo trio, scoring/rating testing, and a ranking test. Tests were conducted to
illustrate the importance of the five senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) in determining food
acceptability and preference. Data and results were compiled and analyzed within this study to explain the
different methods of sensory analysis and their relevance to food producers and consumers. Sensory evaluations
have been proven useful in many food and beverage studies and aid in predicting the successfulness of products
within the market. This study demonstrates the significance of chemical compositions of a food in relation to
consumer liking, wanting, and behavioral attitude/perceptions toward it. Results of the scoring/rating test,
paired comparison test, triangle test and ranking test demonstrated that panelist were able to differentiate sour
intensity between apple juice samples containing different amounts of citric acid concentration. The beverage
association test results explained and inverse relationship between perceived beverage artificiality and
naturalness as color changes from light yellow to emerald green. The analysis of goldfish, raisins,
marshmallows, and almonds using descriptive terms yielded results depicting flavor and aroma as being two of
the most agreed upon categories to label within the panel. Some of the tests obtained results that correlated well
together, while others proved to be limiting. Certain errors could have come into play for each of the tests which
are explained within the study.
Introduction
Appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency and mouthfeel are just a few of the factors influencing
food selection and preference. In order to get a better understanding of why consumers select the foods that they
do, sensory analysis is employed. Sensory analysis is an experimental approach to measuring consumer
feedback of foods through the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. This type of evaluation is known
as subjective because it relies largely upon the opinions of selected individuals, not on measurable, quantifiable
data. Sensory Analysis can further be broken down into analytical (effective) tests and affective tests. For the
purpose of this study analytical tests were used through a panel of untrained students in a food science class at
San Diego State University. These analytical tests were used to detect differences among various samples of
beverages and foods. Certain analytical tests differentiate between samples, these tests fall under the category of
difference tests. Among these tests include triangle, duo-trio, paired comparisons, ranking, and scoring/rating.
Others are descriptive tests that quantify differences and are “used to detail the specific flavors (garlic, vanilla,
caramel, boiled milk) or textures (smoothness, springiness, moistness) of a food or beverage” (Brown 2011).
Zwimpfer 3
The Beverage Color and Association Test was the first to be conducted and was utilized to look into the
influence of color on our perception of the flavor of food and drink. Five different beverages were placed on the
front table of the laboratory and given color identities (light yellow, dark yellow, chartreuse, dark chartreuse,
and emerald). Panelists were not told what was inside of the samples but were asked to rate them on a one to
five scale in the categories of sweetness, sourness, artificiality, naturalness, prefer, and dislike. Panelists were
also asked to record at what temperature they would drink the beverage sample (hot, warm, tepid, or cold) and if
they would drink it (yes or no). According to a study by Shankar et al. “color conveys critical information about
the flavor of food and drink by providing clues as to edibility, flavor identity, and flavor intensity”. Color seems
to constitute a key role in our perception of both food identity and flavor. In addition, color maintains symbolic
and associative information as a result of lifetime experience. The study by Shankar et al. assessed the
spontaneous color-flavor associations held by particular groups of individuals in order to examine how
associations of color vary in different cultures. It was hypothesized that human flavor perception may not only
be influenced by multisensory integration b ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
