Dehlholm C.1, Aaslyng M.D.2, Brockhoff P.B.3, Bredie W.L.P. 1

1 Department of Food Science, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
2 Danish Meat Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark
3 Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Fast descriptive evaluation methods may provide the industry with quick answers and a reduction in resources needed. A number of different fast methods and techniques have been published recently. However, it is important to understand the reliability and applicability of the different methods for the problem at stake.

This study compared a number of different evaluation methods both within and between sensory panels. The experimental design, as illustrated below, compared the fast sensory evaluation methods Napping[1], Ultra Flash Profiling[1], Flash Profiling[2] and Free Sorting[3] using a conventional descriptive profile analysis as a reference method.

Two different expert panels participated in the study. Panel A consisted of expert assessors and Panel B consisting of specialized expert assessors (ISO 5492:2008). The composition of the panel was varied between the methods in order to minimise carry over effects due to learning. All evaluations were performed with the same product and within the same period of time. A total of nine liver pates from different production sites and recipes were used as samples.

As expected the different approaches gave different results. Where the conventional descriptive profile involves extensive panel training, the Flash Profile involves a very short individual training and still a panel interaction in vocabulary development. Free Sorting and Napping are totally individual and holistic in their approach in which they do not demand any expression of vocabulary. However, explanatory attributes can be asked for in the Free Sorting and the Ultra Flash Profile. Results also showed the broad diversity within the product space. A full comparison of the data will be presented and advantages and disadvantages of the methods will be discussed.

References
1. Pagès, J. (2003). Direct collection of sensory distances: application to the evaluation of ten wines of the Loire Valley. Sci. Aliments 23(5/6): 679-688
2. Dairou, V. & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2002). A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile. J. Food Sci. 67(2):826-834
3. Steinberg, D.D. (1967). The Word Sort: An instrument for semantic analysis. Psychon. Sci. 8(12):541-542