A Handbook for Sensory and Consumer-Driven New Product Development

Innovative Technologies for the Food and Beverage Industry

Maurice O'Sullivan

• Publisher: Woodhead Publishing
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780081003572
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Food Science
• Index: Technology & Engineering

A Handbook for Sensory and Consumer Driven New Product Development explores traditional and well established sensory methods (difference, descriptive and affective) as well as taking a novel approach to product development and the use of new methods and recent innovations. This book investigates the use of these established and new sensory methods, particularly hedonic methods coupled with descriptive methods (traditional and rapid), through multivariate data analytical interfaces in the process of optimizing food and beverage products effectively in a strategically defined manner.

The first part of the book covers the sensory methods which are used by sensory scientists and product developers, including established and new and innovative methods. The second section investigates the product development process and how the application of sensory analysis, instrumental methods and multivariate data analysis can improve new product development, including packaging optimization and shelf life. The final section defines the important sensory criteria and modalities of different food and beverage products including Dairy, Meat, Confectionary, Bakery, and Beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), and presents case studies indicating how the methods described in the first two sections have been successfully and innovatively applied to these different foods and beverages.

The book is written to be of value to new product development researchers working in large corporations, SMEs (micro, small or medium-sized enterprises) as well as being accessible to the novice starting up their own business. The innovative technologies and methods described are less expensive than some more traditional practices and aim to be quick and effective in assisting products to market.

Sensory testing is critical for new product development/optimization, ingredient substitution and devising appropriate packaging and shelf life as well as comparing foods or beverages to competitor's products.

• Presents novel and effective sensory-based methods for new product development - two related fields that are often covered separately
• Provides accessible, useful guidance to the new product developer working in a large multi-national food company as well as novices starting up a new business
• Offers case studies that provide examples of how these methods have been applied to real product development by practitioners in a wide range of organizations
• Investigates how the application of sensory analysis can improve new product development including packaging optimization

Part I

Sensory Methods

Outline

Chapter 1. Difference Methods

Chapter 2. Descriptive Methods

Chapter 3. Sensory Affective (Hedonic) Testing

Chapter 4. Rapid Sensory Profiling Methods

Chapter 5. Multivariate Data Analysis for Product Development and Optimisation

Chapter 1

Difference Methods

Abstract

This chapter outlines the various methods involved in difference testing and will include those that determine the difference between two (paired comparison), three (triangle) or four (tetrad) products. Some of these tests can be also categorised into overall difference tests and attribute-specific directional difference or AFC tests. Difference tests are methods which determine if there is a detectable sensory difference between the samples, whereas attribute difference testing determines whether there is as a perceived specified attribute difference between samples. The pros and cons of using each of these methods will be discussed.

Keywords

2-AFC; 3-AFC; Difference tests; Duo-trio; Paired comparison; Tetrad; Triangle

Introduction

Sensory methods can be broadly segmented into three different areas: Difference methods, Descriptive methods and Affective methods.

Sensory perception is not a standard response in humans but is effected by age and gender (Michon et al., 2010a,b,c) as well as cultural influences (Yusop et al., 2009a,b) and many other factors. However, descriptive methods which involve the training of panellists to quantitatively determine the sensory attributes, in typically a selection of samples, can calibrate humans to produce a more standardised response. The assessors are trained to measure the attributes associated with the relevant sensory modalities of appearance, aroma, flavour, texture, taste and aftertaste. The language is descriptive and nonhedonic, in that assessors are not asked how much they rate or like the product being tested. The different methods for descriptive profiling include the flavour profile, QDA (quantitative descriptive analysis), spectrum, free choice profiling and texture profile methods. However, only some of these methods are widely used for product development and research purposes.

Affective methods use hedonics or ask untrained assessors their opinion of a product or products. These might include rating their liking of appearance, aroma, flavour, texture and their overall impression or the overall acceptability of a product. Typical affective methods include the classical ‘sensory acceptance test’ and the ‘consumer test’.

There have been a number of innovations in the last few years resulting in the development of some new sensory tools which are described here as novel methods. These include methods such as ‘napping’ or ‘preference mapping’, ‘flash profiling’, ‘ultraflash profiling’ and ‘check all that apply (CATA)’ or rate all that apply (RATA) methods. These will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Difference methods are the most basic form of sensory test and are relatively simple procedures whereby samples are compared directly to other samples and assessors are asked to determine if they are the same or different. They may also be asked to assign a score or grade to the sample or also even comment on why they think they are different. Generally, difference testing involves determining the difference between two (paired comparison), three (triangle) or four (tetrad) products. These tests can be categorised into overall difference tests and attribute-specific directional difference tests. Difference tests are methods which determine if there is a detectable sensory difference between the samples, whereas attribute difference testing determines whether there is as a perceived specified attribute difference between samples. The most common difference tests are the duo-trio test, the triangle test, the simple same – difference test and the ‘A’ – ‘not A’ test (Lawless and Heymann, 1998a,b; Piggott et al., 1998). Attribute difference tests also include the simple ranking test and the alternative forced choice (AFC) test. These latter methods are more sensitive in the detection of sensory differences between samples. However, they are not practical for some complex products such as meat and some cheese studies because they require that only one sensory attribute varies independently of the other sensory properties (Byrne and Bredie, 2002). This is more difficult in these complex foods as typically there is an interaction between the sensory variables appearance, aroma, flavour, texture, taste and aftertaste.

A difference test can become an AFC test when specific differences are asked of assessors. For example, in a triangle test, three samples are given to the assessor, two are identical and the assessor is asked to pick the odd one out. This could become a 3-AFC test, if, for example, the assessor was asked to pick out the sweetest sample of the three presented. Each of these methods will be discussed below in detail. Similarly a paired comparison test becomes a 2-AFC test when assessors are given a criterion to differentiate between samples, i.e., sweetness, bitterness, etc. The panellist has to choose a sample in AFC tests even if they cannot differentiate between the samples. The tetrad test is more powerful than the triangle test, but the AFC tests are more powerful than either of these methods (Xia et al., 2015).

The A – Not A Method

This method is the simplest of difference methods. The panellists are presented with a series of coded samples, a minimum of two, which consist of sample ‘A’, while o...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Related Titles
• Copyright
• Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition
• Preface
• Part I. Sensory Methods
• Part II. Product Quality, Development and Optimisation
• Part III. Case Studies: Sensory and Consumer DrivenNPD in Action
• Index