Comparison of Different Sensory Discrimination Testing Methods used in Food Industry : an application of triangle, tetrad, and duo-trio tests using various food samples
Rodriguez, Julie Marie (2021)
Rodriguez, Julie Marie
2021
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021102919020
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2021102919020
Tiivistelmä
In food industry, products undergo different stages of development to meet the constantly changing trends and consumer demands. Modifications can be in the product’s processing, recipe, ingredients, packaging, or storage conditions. Implementing these modifications can create unwanted changes in the sensory characteristics of the product. It is important to make sure that the current sensory quality of the product will be maintained and that a certain change will not be a risk. To verify whether the changes affect the product’s sensory quality, discrimination testing can be implemented by comparing the modified product to the current version of the product available in the market.
The triangle test is one of the most common discrimination testing method widely used and it has been the main method used for sensory discrimination testing of food samples in Valio’s product development and production plants. Results of triangle tests are used in the company to support decision-making in quality assurance and product development. Organizing the triangle test is challenging, time-consuming, and the total amount of samples needed is relatively large. Triangle test has received mixed reviews from other experts being prone to many errors. With new methods being studied and developed, other alternative methods for discrimination testing must be reviewed.
This study’s aim was to test and compare different discrimination testing methods used in food industry. The applicability of three overall difference testing methods triangle, tetrad, and duo-trio was compared using the company’s own products. Results showed that the three methods can be used alternatively when the food type to be evaluated is milk, cheese, or mixed-flavored yogurt. Compared to triangle test, duo-trio test provided equally significant and reliable results, while only lesser number of samples were required. Tetrad test also provided equally significant and reliable results, while providing the assessors more confidence in their answers with the presence of the fourth sample as a confirmation. This study served as a useful learning experience for the internal panel, providing series of practice on performing different discrimination testing methods themselves. Alternatively using these three methods is a good practice to consider in the future, as the assessors start being accustomed to the routinely used triangle test. Performing different discrimination tasks will help improve the panel’s performance in distinguishing sensory differences.
The triangle test is one of the most common discrimination testing method widely used and it has been the main method used for sensory discrimination testing of food samples in Valio’s product development and production plants. Results of triangle tests are used in the company to support decision-making in quality assurance and product development. Organizing the triangle test is challenging, time-consuming, and the total amount of samples needed is relatively large. Triangle test has received mixed reviews from other experts being prone to many errors. With new methods being studied and developed, other alternative methods for discrimination testing must be reviewed.
This study’s aim was to test and compare different discrimination testing methods used in food industry. The applicability of three overall difference testing methods triangle, tetrad, and duo-trio was compared using the company’s own products. Results showed that the three methods can be used alternatively when the food type to be evaluated is milk, cheese, or mixed-flavored yogurt. Compared to triangle test, duo-trio test provided equally significant and reliable results, while only lesser number of samples were required. Tetrad test also provided equally significant and reliable results, while providing the assessors more confidence in their answers with the presence of the fourth sample as a confirmation. This study served as a useful learning experience for the internal panel, providing series of practice on performing different discrimination testing methods themselves. Alternatively using these three methods is a good practice to consider in the future, as the assessors start being accustomed to the routinely used triangle test. Performing different discrimination tasks will help improve the panel’s performance in distinguishing sensory differences.