Sensory Evaluation Lab Report

Fernandez
1

Sensory Evaluation of Food

By: Charityn Fernandez
Lab Report
Nutrition 205
October 30, 2014

Fernandez
2

Abstract
The purpose of this study was for student panelists to learn about how the five senses are
applied in sensory evaluation testing, as well as to become familiarized with different methods
used for food sensory testing. The study took place in the nutrition laboratory classroom at San
Diego State University. Various tests were conducted to identify, distinguish, describe and
differentiate food and beverage samples through the use of the five senses and different sensory
evaluation tests. A beverage and color association test was conducted to identify how color
perception affects beverage choice. Panelists rated 5 different yellow/green toned beverages on
sweetness, sourness, artificiality, naturalness, and preference. The results indicated that the
yellow beverages were rated more acidic and natural, and the greener beverages were rated as
more artificial and sweet. Most panelists concluded to prefer the yellow beverages, and if they
were to drink any of the beverages, most said they would drink them cold. An evaluation using
lists of descriptive words was performed to distinguish characteristics of taste, flavor, aroma,
texture, consistency, and mouth feel of goldfish, raisins, almonds, and marshmallows. The
descriptions for each food varied and are discussed and displayed in the results section.
A paired comparison test was performed for panelists to distinguish the intensity of sourness
between two samples. The majority of the panelists were able to identify which sample was the
sourest and which one was more alkaline. A triangle test was performed for panelists to
distinguish the “odd” sample, given that two samples were identical and one was different. The
majority of the panelists were able to identify the odd beverage sample. A ranking test was
performed for panelists to rank five beverages from less sour to most sour, as well as most and
least preferred. Panelists successfully identified and correctly ranked the sourest beverage. The
less sour beverages were the most preferred. A duo trio test, similar to the triangle test, was
performed but instead of beverages, panelists were given cookies. Two cookies were identical
and one was different. The majority of the panelists were able to identify the different cookie, by
justifying that they distinguished the difference in vanilla content, compared to the given sample.
A scoring test was performed for panelists to rank two samples on a scale from 1-7, to describe
which one was more or less sour, in relation to the given sample, which was rated as #4 in
sourness. Panelists were able to identify which beverage was more alkaline and which one was
sourer in relation to the beverage.
To give an overall summary of the results, most results indicated that the panelists perceived the
experiment samples as they actually pertain to their sensory characteristics.

Fernandez
3

Introduction
* Sensory Evaluating and the Senses
Sensory evaluation is a useful tactic to identify the organoleptic properties of food, as well as of
pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and other consumer products, through testing of the five human
senses. Many companies perform sensory evaluations before launching a new product, in order
to generate a product that will suit the consumer’s preferences (based on the sensory evaluation
results), which would create an elevated possibility of high demand for their creation. Sensory
analysis is innate in an individual; from the moment a product is tested, the product is judged,
and the individual is able to deliver an immediate feedback on whether or nor he or she likes the
product, and on his or her perspective about the flavor, odor, texture, sound and/or sight of the
tested product (Mooij 2011).
Sensory evaluation consists of testing the value of food based on sensory characteristics and
personal preferences as perceived by the five senses, touching, hearing, smelling, tasting and
seeing. Typically, the eyes receive the first impression of food. Therefore, sight plays one of the
most influential parts in sensory testing since it helps individuals observe the shape, color,
consistency, serving size and appearance of food. Many individuals refuse to eat foods they
have never tasted just based on the appearance reflected.
The next influential sense in accepting or refusing food is odor (or smell). There are two
classifications of odors: six groupings and four groupings. The six groupings include the odors
of spicy, flowery, fruity, resinous, burnt and foul. The four groupings include fragrant (sweet),
acid (sour), burnt, and caprylic (goaty) (Brown 2011). The human body detects odors through
the volatile molecules, which travel through the air and are then detected by the olfactory cells in

Fernandez
4

the brain. An individual can smell food from a distance and be captivated by the odor, making
the choice to try the food (Brown 2011).
The most influential factor in the actual and ultimate selection of food is taste. Some
individuals, even though they are not attracted to the smell or the looks of a food, they still try it
to see if they really dislike it/ like it. “When food comes into the mouth, bits of it are dissolved
in the saliva pools and they come into contact with the cilia, small hair-like projections from the
gustatory cells. The gustatory cells relay a message to the brain via one of the cranial nerves
(facial, vagus, and glossopharyngeal). The brain, in turn, translates the nervous electrical
impulses into a sensation that people recognize as ‘taste.’ (Brown 2011). Note that in order to be
able to taste a food, the substance needs to be dissolved in liquid or saliva. In addition, the
tongue has five areas that identify five different tastes. The five taste stimuli of the tongue are
sweet, sour, bitter, salty and savory (or umami, which means “delicious” in Japanese). There is
more to tasting than just putting the food in the mouth and sensing the type of taste stimuli
(Brown 2011). There are several factors that affect taste of a food, and can vary per individual.
Some of the factors that affect taste are genetic variation among individuals, the temperature of
the food or beverage, and the variety in available food (eating too much of one food can decrease
the taste in it). When speaking in terms of taste, it is important to recognize that taste is not the
same thing as flavor, although the terms seem fairly similar. The main difference between taste
and flavor is that taste is one of the five senses, and flavor is a combination of taste, smell, and
touch (Brown 2011). Flavor and taste perception vary by individual; as an example of varying
perception is spicy food. Some individuals have more sensitive palates than others, making taste
a subjective sense. Taste plays a key role in sensory evaluation, and it tends to bring the most
variations of experimental results (Brown 2011).

Fernandez
5

Touch is the second sense that influences ultimate food selection since it can associate with
the tasting of the food. Touch delivers a food’s texture, consistency, astringency and
temperature. Texture can be perceived by three ways, being sight (we may notice if the food is
hot/cold, chewy or crunchy, liquid or solid, etc.), by having food come in touch with fingers or
utensils (tenderness of a meat can be noticed this way), and third is mouth feel(Brown 2011).
There are several types of textures felt in the mouth, which in most cases come in connection
with the fifth and last sense, known as hearing. Textures felt in the mouth include coarse, crisp,
fine, dry, moist, greasy, spicy, smooth, lumpy, rough, sticky, solid, porous, bubbly, or flat
(Brown 2011).Consistency can be perceived similarly as the tenderness of a food (by the
pressure teeth apply to chew food when masticating)(Brown 201). Consistency can be expressed
in terms of brittleness, chewiness, viscosity, thickness, thinness, and elasticity. The puckering
feel in the mouth perceives astringency of food. Puckering is related to acidity, and some
examples of foods with this quality are dried fruits, citric juices, green and black teas, soy-based
foods, and red wine(Brown 2011). Another interesting perception of texture of food is
chemethesis. Chemethesis is the mouth feel that something is hot or cold, when it is spicy or
minty; in reality, the food may not be warm or cold, but chemethesis of some foods allows the
human body to associate “mintyness” and/or spiciness with coolness and/or heat. As a food is
being perceived by texture, it is also being perceived by the way it sounds. Hearing a texture is
affected by water content, and the sound indicates the food’s freshness and/or doneness. Some
examples of food sounds are sizzling, crunching, popping, bubbling, swirling, pouring,
squeaking, dripping, and exploding. Ultimately, a combination of all the senses influences an
individual in acceptance or rejection of a food, and that is what influenced the results from the
panelist’s perceptions in this study (Brown 2011).

Fernandez
6

According to chapter two on Sensory Evaluation (Brown 2011), in food science, there are
two types of sensory testing, analytic and affective. Analytical tests are sensory tests that are
used to identify visible differences, whereas affective tests are sensory tests that aid in
determining differences in acceptability or preference between products. In addition, analytical
tests are divided into two types of tests, discriminative (difference) and descriptive(Edelstein
2013). Discriminative tests are used to test samples from their differences from each other.
Descriptive tests are the most ample and useful tests used in sensory evaluation because they test
for differences in how the product affects specific sensory characteristics. Affective tests are
split into two categories depending on the primary mission of the test, acceptance or preference.
“Rating” is the major mission of an acceptance test, whereas “choice” is the major mission for a
preference test. Classically, the analytical type of sensory testing tends to deliver the most
efficient results (Edelstein 2013). In this study, the sensory evaluations were performed through
the following analytical sensory methods: Beverage Color Association Test, Evaluation using
descriptive terms, Paired Comparison Test, Triangle Test, Ranking Test, Duo Trio, and Scoring
Test.
In sensory evaluation, it is important that experiment panel meets specific criteria to deliver
efficient results from the experiment. A taste panel must be composed of at least five members,
ranging from untrained to trained, and there must be equal distribution of age and gender (Brown
2011). In addition, panelists should not eat anything a few hours prior to and during the sensory
evaluation (except for what they are given during the test) so that their taste buds are clear. It is
also important to keep in mind the following factors for when preparing the samples for sensory
evaluation: environment, uniformity, time of the day, and reasonable number of samples. This is
important because the panel should be fully submerged into the tests, and not be distracted by

Fernandez
7

noise, by the time of the day, by other panelists, or by a previous taste. Number of samples is
important because panelists could possibly adapt to a specific sensory feeling and cause a
deviation in their judging of the samples given. Water should be provided in between the tasting
of samples, and the ideal time for sampling is around early or mid afternoon. (Brown 2011).
In this study, students performed a color perception experiment titled Beverage Color
Association Test. Setting up and displaying five glass containers filled with different beverage
colors ranging from yellow to dark green carried out this first experiment. Panelists were asked
to perform a ranking of each of the beverage parameters on the categories of sweetness,
sourness, artificiality, and naturalness on a scale from 1-5. Panelists also ranked the beverages
on preference, as well as in what temperature they would prefer to drink each beverage. A
Beverage Color Association Test can be very helpful for big companies when developing new
juice products.
In a study of color perception associated with food preference, Wilbur shares 96 college
students were shown various pairs of food images, in which half of the pictures had a food on a
white dish, and the other half of pictures had the same foods on pictures that had the food placed
in a colored dish. The students were asked to state which food they would eat (even though it
was the same food just on different color plate), and the results indicated most students would eat
the food that was placed on the colored dishes (Wilbur 2013). This indicates that a demographic
factor influenced the choice of preference of the panelists. In the case of sensory evaluation, it
should be a sense in the taste buds, not a demographic factor, to influence sample preference or
dislikeness. This study could have used clear or white pates instead of colored plates for more
accurate results based on sample sensation. Demographics should be carefully selected when
performing sensory evaluation.

Fernandez
8

The second test was Evaluation Using Descriptive Terms sensory evaluation test.
Descriptive tests are sensory assessments intended to deliver information on the specific sensory
characteristics of food samples and to quantify the sensory differences. This test was performed
for each panelist to evaluate the appearance, flavor, texture, aroma, consistency, and mouth feel
for several foods, using a list of vocabulary terms provided as material with the experiment. This
is one of the experiments that tested for all the panelists’ senses with exception to those few
panelists that had an allergy to one of the test samples.
In many laboratories, Evaluations Using Descriptive Terms tests are performed to evaluate
foods or other products that will potentially be launched to the market. The testing helps many
companies find out information about what the consumer would like to see in their product. A
descriptive analysis experiment was conducted to examine the preferences of various cultivars of
black walnuts. Miller and Chambers focused on descriptive analysis based on the panelists’
preferences for black walnuts flavor characteristics. For the black walnut characteristics,
panelists were provided with a list of 22 words (known as attributes in this experiment) to
describe the attribute that best fit the flavor of each of the 7 experimented black walnut
cultivates. The results were obtained by evaluating which black walnut cultivates were described
with the most evocative attributes from the given list, as well as those that were categorized with
the most attributes. The study concluded that two of the seven black walnut cultivates were the
best characterized with complex attributes as opposed to the leftover five that were described
with the most vague and simple attributes. This study was performed to determine which type
of black walnut cultivates is more preferred so that black-walnut harvesters are better informed
on what black walnuts they should cultivate more (Miller and Chambers 2013). Similar to the
black walnut study, the Evaluation Using Descriptive Terms was performed to obtain

Fernandez
9

information on the panelists’ perspective about the sample foods, based on their descriptions of
each sample (also from the word list).
The third test performed was a Paired Comparison test. Paired comparison tests are
categorized as difference tests, in which panelists are instructed on finding a characteristic in two
samples, and they are to determine which sample has the greatest and the least amount of the
prearranged characteristic. In this study, the paired comparison test was performed to identify
which of the two sample beverages was sourer than the other and which one was less sour.
Apple juice containing 0% citric acid and apple juice containing 1% citric acid were the two
samples given to the panelists. Since there are only two samples, the chances for the panelists to
identify the most sour apple juice was 50%, making this an ideal test for accurate results in other
consumer-based sensory testing.
The fourth test and sixth tests were Duo Trio Test and triangle test consecutively. A duo
trio test is an assessment in which three food samples are provided to the panelists in a one-time
manner. Out of the three samples, one is a reference sample, one of the other two samples is the
exact same sample as the reference, and the third sample is fairly similar to the reference sample.
In the Duo Trio Test performed, panelists were instructed to identify which sample was the
distinct sample to the reference. In this study, panelists compared the quality of three wafer
cookies and attempted to identify which of the samples was the different sample to the reference
sample, and to support their claim, they had to state not only which sample was different but also
what qualities made it different from the other. The sixth test, triangle test is fairly similar to a
duo trio test. Panelists were instructed to identify which of the three sample beverages was the
different sample to the reference. Both duo trio and triangle tests involve testing three samples,
but the main difference in between them is that in a duo trio you identify the sample that is

Fernandez
10

different as well as why it is different, and in a triangle test you only find out which sample is the
different, and no explanation required (Edelstein 2013). In the University of Maine, a duo trio
test study on Oreo cookies was performed. Panelists were asked to taste three Oreo-flavor-
cookies, two being the original Oreos, and the third sample being a low fat Oreo cookie version.
The purpose of this study was to find out if consumers would find a difference between normal
Oreos and Oreos lower in fat. Results indicated that the panelists actually liked both cookies
with and without fat as much, so a low fat Oreo cookie could potentially be an item enjoyed by
consumers. (Meilgaard 1999). Similarly, the duo trio test with the wafer cookies was performed
to find out if panelists would differentiate the wafer cookies of one brand from another. A duo
trio test is effective because it can determine if an item with a modified ingredient would be
accepted by consumers, being compared to another item. This is probably an efficient test for all
those brands that make value versions of commercial products.
The fifth test was a ranking test. Unlike paired comparison, duo trio, and triangle test a
ranking test doesn’t only test for difference but also for preference of a sample. In a ranking test,
two or more samples are displayed to the panelists to rank the concentration of a characteristic
from lowest to highest. In this study, the test was conducted by utilizing five samples of apple
juice, each with a different concentration of added citric acid. Panelists ranked the samples in
order of intensity, 1 being the most acidic, and they also ranked the samples in preference, 1
being the juice they liked the most.
The seventh and last test was a scoring test. To perform a scoring test, a scale is utilized to
categorize the intensity of a specific characteristic that outstands in the samples. In this study,
three apple juice samples containing 1%, 2.5%, and 5% consecutively, were scored from less
sour to most sour, on a scale from 1(being most sour) to 7(being the least sour). Panelists

Fernandez
11

performed this test to compare sourness between the three samples. In sensory evaluating there
are two types of data that can be collected: subjective and objective. Subjective data is more
based on bias and opinion (like preference tests), and objective data is collected through
controlled experimentation. This test provided more objective data.
The general goal of carrying this laboratory was for students to learn how to carry out
different types of sensory testing, as well as to understand ways in which these tests are
influenced by human senses and perceptions when selecting or developing food preferences and
tastes.
Methods
In a quiet environment, between the morning and late afternoon, sensory tests were conducted
for this sensory study. Before the tests, panelists were asked to abstain from nourishment two
hours prior to the testing, for more efficient results. Panelists were also instructed to take sips of
water between tests to keep their palates clear for each test. During the testing, panelists were
instructed to remain as quiet as possible. The tests varied from rating, ranking, and judging by
appearance, color, smell, texture and taste. The tests took place in a classroom and panelists sat
individually on desks. Samples for the first test were displayed in the front of the room and
samples for other tests were passed out in white paper cups to each panelist. After each test, the
lab instructors announced the possible answers of the test and panelists raised their hand
according to their response. Panelists recorded their responses on test worksheets and lab
notebooks prior to responding to the lab instructors. The lab instructors counted raised hands for
each test and recorded the collected data in separate tables on a spreadsheet for the entire lab.

Fernandez
12

Demographics
The sensory evaluation tests were assigned to 89 participating panelists, from which 15% were
male and 85% were female. An individual paper questionnaire was distributed amongst the
panelists to collect data on their demographics. The demographics questionnaire asked for
panelists’ information on gender, age, on whether they smoked or not, marital status, major,
student status (undergraduate or graduate), living situation, and allergies (if any). The
questionnaire was anonymous, and after the students turned in their answers, the information was
collected by the lab instructors and recorded into tables on an excel spreadsheet.
Based on the information from the collected data, with the majority percentage, 36% of the
participating panelists were in the ages 18-21 years old, a percentage of 44% of panelists were
22-25 years old, and 8.98% ranged in ages 26-29. All panelists were nutrition majors and
undergraduate students fro San Diego State University. The majority was single (88%), 8% were
married, and 1.12% was divorced. Most panelists answered they live with two or more
roommates (73%), 23% live with one roommate, and 3.37% live alone. From the panelists,
98.8% of the panelists were non-smokers and only 1.12% was smoker. 12.35% of the panelists
had allergies varying in chocolate, dairy, eggs, wheat, meat, poultry, milk, protein, fish, MSG,
shellfish, green melon, and nuts.
Beverage Color Association
The Beverage Color Association test was the first evaluation of this sensory laboratory. Five
glass containers containing five different colored beverages of colors light yellow, dark yellow,
chartreuse, dark chartreuse, emerald green, were placed on the table in the front of the room by
the lab technician. From their desks, the panelists were instructed to quietly observe the five
glasses and rank them on a scale from one to five, 1 being the least and 5 being the most of the

Fernandez
13

parameter the beverage was ranked at. The panelists were asked to rank the beverages on the
parameters of sweetness, sourness, artificiality, naturalness, and preference. In addition,
panelists were also instructed to state at what temperature they would drink the beverage (they
had to choose between warm, hot, tepid, or cold), and they also had to answer on whether they
would actually drink each beverage or not. After collecting data (by having panelists raise their
hand to respond as their according answer to the test was announced), the identity of the
beverages was revealed to the participants. The light yellow beverage was Mountain Dairy
Lemonade and the dark yellow beverage was Xtremo Citrico Vibrante Gatorade. The Chartreuse
beverage was a combination of 350 milliliters of Lemon Lime Gatorade plus 150 milliliters of
Green Squall Powerade.
Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms
The second experiment was the longest of all the sensory evaluations performed in this
laboratory. The purpose of this test was to evaluate panelist perception on food, through each of
the five human senses, using given descriptions. The lab technician prepared separate samples of
goldfish crackers, raisins, almonds and marshmallows on the table located in the front of the
classroom. The samples were quantified into 2oz each, and placed on white paper cups. The
panelist in the front of each row of the classroom seats was instructed to distribute a sample of
each food(goldfish, raisins, almonds and marshmallows), to each person sat on his/her row.
Water was distributed to panelists so they would take sips in between each sample, to clear their
palates before tasting each sample. Panelists were also provided with a document that had four
different tables, one table per food, each table containing a different list of words for the
categories of appearance, flavor texture, aroma, consistency, and mouthfeel. Once all the
materials were distributed, panelists were asked to evaluate the composition, appearance,

Fernandez
14

consistency, aroma, and flavor of each food using the five human senses. The panelists recorded
their responses on the document provided. After evaluating each sample, on each of the four
tables, and by each category, panelists circled a word that described their perception on each of
the foods, on each of the senses. Panelists who had allergies to certain foods evaluated the foods
based on their allergy limitations. At the end of the experiment, with exception to those that had
allergies, each panelist had circled 6 words per table, totaling to circling 24 words for the entire
evaluation. The lab instructor collected data using the same method as in the first experiment.
Collecting data for this test took the longest since answers were recorded per category, per table,
through the method of hand count. The collected information was split into tables by food and
by category of perception (a total of six tables per food sample, totaling to 24 tables), and all
organized onto a spreadsheet.
Paired Comparison Test
The purpose of the paired comparison test was for panelists to differentiate two samples in their
intensity of sourness. The lab technician prepared 1oz samples (on white paper cups) of two
different beverages titled sample 635T1 and sample 573T2 to distribute one of each to each
panelist. Although the beverage in each sample was the same, each of the two samples contained
a different intensity of acidity (assigned by the lab instructor). Like in the previous experiment,
the leader of each row was instructed to go up to the front table of the room and grab a sample of
each beverage for each panelist in their row. More water was distributed to keep clear palates.
Panelists were then instructed to taste each of the two samples (for which they were informed
which one was 635T1 and which one was 573T2). Panelists tasted each beverage and identified
which sample they thought was the most sour and which one was the most alkaline. Panelists
recorded their answers on their lab notebook, and then informed the lab instructor as she

Fernandez
15

announced the matching answer. Data collected was organized onto a table on a spreadsheet,
created by the lab instructor. At the end of the evaluation, it was revealed that both beverages
were apple juice, however sample 573T2 contained 1% citric acid whereas 635T1 was sampled
as 0% citric acid.
Triangle Test
The triangle test was performed to distinguish the odd (different) sample between three samples,
given that two samples were identical and one was different. The lab technician prepared 1oz
testers of samples 777C1, 542E2, 112H9 (one of each for each panelist) and instructed row
leaders to distribute. Before beginning the sampling, panelists were informed two of the
beverages would be identical and one would be different. Panelists tasted each of the three
beverages and recorded their answers on their lab notebook. Lab instructor collected data by
hand count as in the other experiments and created another table on a spreadsheet with the
results. At the end of the experiment, panelists were informed that sample 777C1 and sample
542E2 were identical (containing 0% citric acid) and sample 112H9 was the odd sample
(containing 1% citric acid). All three beverages were apple juice.
Ranking Test
This evaluation was performed to identify and differentiate acidity of each sample, by ordering
the samples from perception of least acidic (being rank #5) to most acidic (being rank #1). The
lab technician prepared 1oz tests (on paper cups) of samples 695F8, 495P2, 192L3, 543K8, and
555D7 on the table located in the front of the room and instructed row leaders to distribute
samples to each panelist in their row. Each panelist was given a sample of each of the five
previously mentioned. Panelists tasted each sample and at the end of tasting them, ranked them
in what they thought was their intensity of acidity, and recorded their answers on their lab

Fernandez
16

notebook. The ranking consisted of rank #1 to #5, #1 being the most acidic, and #5 being the
least acidic. Lab instructors collected the information by hand count on each of the ranks and
samples. This test by concluded after lab instructor revealed sample 555D7 was the most acidic
(containing 10% citric acid), followed by sample 192L3(containing 5% citric acid), sample
695F8 (containing 2.5% citric acid), sample 543K8(containing 1% citric acid), and the least
acidic (with 0% citric acid) was sample 495P2. The most preferred sample seemed to be the
most akaline (or the less acidic).
Duo-Trio Test
The Duo Trio test was different to the other sensory evaluations in this laboratory in the sense
that beverages were not part of this evaluation. In this experiment, wafer cookies were used to
sample test. The purpose of the duo-trio test was to identify (from three wafer cookie samples),
which sample was different to the standard (the standard sample passed out first). The lab
technician passed out standard 8175 to each panelist and panelists were instructed to taste. The
lab technician then passed out samples 6104 and 1108, from which one was identical to the
standard and the other one was different. Panelists were instructed to identify which sample
(8175, 6104, 1108) was different to the standard, and to give an opinion on why the sample was
different to the standard. The lab instructor collected information on panelist responses by hand
count. At the end of the test, it was revealed that the sample that was identical to the standard
8175 was sample 1108. The standard sample and its identical were Nabisco brand vanilla
wafers, and sample 6104 was First Street (smart and final value) vanilla wafers.
Scoring Test
Similar to the ranking test, the purpose of the scoring test was to identify the sour intensity of
two samples in relation to a given sample. Sample #0110 was a given with a ranking score of #4

Fernandez
17

on a scale from 1 to 6, 1 being the most sour. Sample #0110 was distributed to panelists, along
with samples 420M and S723, and panelists were instructed to rank the two samples in order of
sourness in relation to sample 0110 (identifying whether it was more or less sour than each of the
two samples). Panelists recorded their answers on a handout and reported their answers to the
lab instructor by hand count. At the end of the test, it was revealed that sample S723(5%
concentration) was more sour than sample 0110 (2.5% concentration), and sample 420M(1%
concentration) was the least sour of the three.
Results
Beverage Color Association
• Sweetness
For sweetness, 17.97% of panelists answered light yellow was the sweetest, 19.10% answered
dark yellow was the sweetest, 10% answered chartreuse was the sweetest, 13.48% answered dark
chartreuse was the sweetest, and 39.32% answered Emerald was the sweetest. The majority of
the panelists perceived Emerald beverage as the sweetest. Chartreuse was perceived as the least
sweet. Results are shown on figure 1.1
• Sourness
For sourness, 43.82% of panelists answered light yellow was the most sour, 20.22% answered
that dark yellow was the most sour, 15.73% answered that chartreuse was the most sour,
16.85% answered that dark chartreuse was the most sour, and 3.37% answered that emerald was
the most sour. The majority of the panelists perceived light yellow as the sourest beverage.

Fernandez
18

Emerald beverage was the least perceived as sour. Results shown on figure 1.2.
Figure 1.1 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association
experiment beverages as the sweetest option, according to their color. Emerald beverage was the
most perceived as the sweetest.
experiment beverages as the sourest option, according to their color. Light yellow beverage was
the most perceived as the sourest.
• Artificiality
For artificiality, 0% panelists responded light yellow beverage was the most artificial, 3.37%
thought dark yellow was the most artificial, 2.24% thought chartreuse was the most artificial,

Fernandez
19

7.8% thought dark chartreuse was the most artificial, 85.39% thought Emerald was the most
artificial. The majority of the panelists voted Emerald as the most artificial beverage. The light
yellow beverage was the least perceived as the most artificial beverage. Results rare displayed on
figure 1.3.
• Naturalness
94.38% perceived the light yellow beverage as the most natural and 4.49% perceived dark
yellow as the most natural From the panelists, 0% perceived chartreuse, dark chartreuse and
emerald as most natural. The majority, almost all panelists, perceived the light yellow beverage
as the most natural. Results are displayed on figure
1.4.
experiment beverages as the most artificial option, according to their color. Noone perceived
light yellow beverage as most artificial. Emerald beverage was perceived as the most artificial.

Fernandez
20

experiment beverages as the most naturall option, according to their color. Noone perceived
chartreuse, dark chartreuse, or emerald beverages as most artificial. Light yellow beverage was
perceived as the most artificial.
• Beverage preference
68.5% of the panelists preferred the light yellow beverage as an option to drink, 7.8% preferred
dark yellow, 11.2% preferred chartreuse, 8.9% preferred dark chartreuse, and 2.2% preferred
emerald. The majority of the panelists preferred light yellow the most, and the least of the
panelists preferred dark yellow. Results are displayed on figure 1.5.
• Beverage Dislike
2.2% of the panelists mostly disliked light yellow as a beverage they would drink, 25.8%
mostly disliked dark yellow, 2.24% mostly disliked chartreuse, 7.8% mostly disliked dark
chartreuse, 55.05% disliked emerald the most. The majority of the panelists disliked Emerald as
the beverage they would least likely drink. The least disliked beverages was chartreuse. Results
are displayed on figure 1.6.

Fernandez
21

experiment beverages as the most preferred option, according to their color. Light yellow
beverage was perceived as the most preferred.
.
experiment beverages as the most disliked option, according to their color. Emerald beverage
was the most perceived as the most disliked.
• Beverage Temperature preference
Majority (97%) of the panelists answered they would drink the light yellow beverage cold,
5.61% would drink it hot, 4.49% would drink it warm, and 11.23% would drink it tepid.

Fernandez
22

Majority (87.6%)% of the panelists answered they would drink the dark yellow beverage cold,
0% would drink it hot, 1.12% would drink it warm, and 4.49% would drink it tepid.
Majority (86.51%) of the panelists would drink Chartreuse beverage cold, 2.24% would drink
it hot, 0% would drink it warm, and 7.86% would drink it tepid.
Majority (87.64%) of the panelists would drink dark chartreuse cold, 2.24% would drink it
hot, 0% would drink it warm, and 7.86% would drink it tepid.
Majority (84.26%) would drink the emerald beverage cold, 1.12% would drink it hot, 1.12%
would drink it warm, 5.61% would drink it tepid. The majority of panelists would drink emerald
beverage cold and none would drink it warm.
Overall, the majority of the panelists would drink the majority of the beverages cold, and very
few would drink the beverages warm or hot. All results are shown on figure 1.7.
Figure 1.7 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived in what temperature they would
drink each of the Beverage Association experiment beverages according to their color. Most
participants would prefer to drink these beverages cold.

Fernandez
23

• Beverage: Drink or Not?
From the panelists, 8.91% answered they would not drink the light yellow beverage, and
91.01% answered they would. A percentage of 56.68% answered they would not drink the dark
yellow beverage, and 48.31% would drink it. A percentage of 42.69% answered they would not
drink the chartreuse beverage, and 57.30% answered they would drink it. 48.31% answered they
would not drink the dark chartreuse, and 51.68% answered they would. A percentage of 77.52%
answered they would not drink the emerald beverage and 22.47% said they would drink it. The
majority of the panelists answered they would most likely drink the light yellow beverage, and
least majority would drink the emerald beverage. Results are displayed on figure 1.8.
Figure 1.8 displays the percentage of panelists that responded whether they would actually drink
each of the Beverage Association experiment beverages, according to their color. Most
participants would prefer to drink the light yellow beverage. Most participants would rather not
drink the Emerald beverage.

Fernandez
24

Evaluation of Food Products Using Descriptive Terms
• Goldfish
The majority(39%) of panelists judged the appearance of the gold fish as “dry,” followed 15.7%,
who described it as “golden brown” In smaller percentages, the rest of the panelists judged the
appearance of the goldfish as “symmetrical”, “asymmetrical”, “rounded”, “light brown”,
“smooth”, “puffy”, “dull,” “rough”, “grainy”. The results for the goldfish appearance are shown
on table A.
The majority (73.03%), perceived the flavor of the goldfish as “salty.” Other less popular
responses were “flat”, “sharp”, “stale”, and “pasty”. The results for the goldfish flavor are
shown on table A .
The majority (50.56%) described the texture of the goldfish as “crispy,” followed by 32.58%,
who described it as “crunchy Other less popular answers were “flaky” and “gritty.” The results
for the goldfish texture are shown on table A.
The majority (43.83%) of the panelists described the aroma of the goldfish as “nothing,”
followed by 33.70%, who described it as “flavory.” Other less popular responses were “spicy”,
“burnt,” and “flowery”. The results for the goldfish aroma are shown on table A .
There was a tie in the response regarding the consistensy of the goldfish. A percentage of
37.07% of the panelists described the consistency of the goldsfish as “brittle.” Another 37.07%
of the panelists described the consistency of the goldfish as “cheezy.” Other less popular
responses include “thin”, “viscous”, “thick”, and “gummy”. The results for the goldfish
consistency are shown on table A.
The majority (48.81%) of the panelists described the mouth feel of the goldfish as “crunchy,”
followed by 32.58% who described it as “crispy.” Other less popular responses were “sticky,”

Fernandez
25

“gritty,” and “smooth”. The rounded results for the descriptions of the goldfish mouth feel are
displayed on Table A.
Table
A:
Descriptive
Terms
for
Sensory
Characteristics
of
Goldfish
as
Rated
by

Nutrition
205
Students
GOLDFISH
Appearance
%
Flavor
%
Texture
%

1
Dry
39.32%
Salty
73.03%
Crisp
50.56

2
Golden
Brown
15.73%
Sharp
11.23%
Crunchy
32.58

3
Puffy
14.60%
Stale
5.61%
Flaky
6.74

Aroma
%
Consistency
%
Mouthfeel
%

1
Nothing
43.82
Brittle
37.07
Crunchy
48.31

2
Flavory
33.7
Cheezy
37.07
Crisp
43.31

3
Burnt
8.98
Chewy
11.23
Gritty
7.86

Table
A
displays
the
results
of

the
6
sensory
evaluations
that
panelists
performed
on
the

Goldfish
samples.

The
top
three
descriptive
terms
under
each
sensory
category
are

displayed.

• Raisin
Panelists described the raisin appearance mainly (26.9%) as “sunken,” followed by 17.97% who
described it as “dry,” and 15.73% described it as “dark.” Other less popular responses were
“asymmetrical,” “sticky,” “shiny,” “rough,” “dull,” and “puffy.” The results for the raisin
appearance are shown on Table B.
The majority (57.30%) of the panelists described the flavor of the raisin as “sweet,” followed
by 30.33% who described it as “fruity.” Other less popular responses were “bitter,” “sour,”
“flowery,” “pasty,” and “musky.” Results for the raisin flavor are shown Table B.
The texture of the raisin was mainly described as “gummy,” by 31.46% of the panelists,
followed by 30.33% who described it as “chewy,” and 12.35% described it as “rubbery.” Other
less popular responses were “rough,” gelatinous,” “lumpy,” “tender,” and “moist.” The results
for the raisin texture are displayed on Table B.

Fernandez
26

The majority (42.69%) of the panelists described the aroma of the raisin as “sweet”, followed
by 33.70% who described it as “fruity,” and 11.35% described it as “nothig.” Other less popular
responses were “flavory,” “burnt,” “sour,” and “flowery.” Results are displayed on Table B.
The consistency of the raisin was mostly (34.39%) described as “chewy,” followed by 33.70%
who described it as “gummy,” and 17.97% described it as “rubbery.” Other less popular
responses were “thin,” “thick,” and “viscous.” The results for the raisin consistency are
displayed on Table B.
The majority (48.43%) of the panelists described the mouthfeel of the raisin as “sticky,”
followed by 15.73% who described it as “slimy” and 15.73% described it as “smooth.” Other
less popular responses were “gritty” and “slick.” The results for the raisin mouthfeel are
displayed on Table B.
Table
B:
Descriptive
Terms
for
Sensory
Characteristics
of
Raisin
as
Rated
by

Nutrition
205
Students
RAISIN
Appearance
%
Flavor
%
Texture
%

1
Smooth
26.96%

57.3
Chewy
31.46

2
Dry
17.97%

30.33
Gummy

30.33

3
Dark
15.73%

2.24
Rubbery
12.35

Aroma
%
Consistency
%
Mouthfeel
%

1
Sweet
42.69
Chewy
40.44
Sticky
49.43

2
Fruity
33.7
Gummy
33.7
Slimy
15.73

3
Nothing
12.35
Rubbery
17.97
Smooth
15.73

Table
B
displays
the
results
of

the
6
sensory
evaluations
that
panelists
performed
on
the

raisin
samples.

The
top
three
descriptive
terms
under
each
sensory
category
are
displayed.

• Almond
The panelist descriptions for the appearance of the almond varied. 21.34% described the
appearance of the almond as “dry,” followed by another 19.10% who described it as “golden
brown,” 16.85% described it as “rough”, and 11.24% described it as “rough.” The less popular

Fernandez
27

responses were “rounded,” “light brown,” “rough,” “smooth,” “dull,” “grainy,” “assymetrical,”
and “symmetrical.”.” Rounded results for almond appearance are displayed on figure 4.1.
Most (70.78%) of the panelists described the flavor of the almond as “nutty.” Less popular
responses were “flat,” “bitter,” and “sweet.” Results for almond flavor are displayed on Table
C.
The descriptions for the almond texture varied. The majority (24.71%) of the panelists
described the texture of the almond as “hard,” followed by 16.85% who described it as
“crunchy,” and 13.48% described it as firm. Less popular responses include “rubbery,”
“velvety,”“chewy,” “rough,” “crisp,” “gritty,” and “mealy.” Results for the almond texture are
displayed on Table C.
Almost all (89.88%) of the panelists described the aroma of the almond as “nothing.” Less
popular responses include “burnt,” “sweet,” and “flavory.” Responses for almond aroma are
displayed on Table C.
The majority (48.31%) of the panelists described the consistency of the almond as “chewy,”
followed by 40.44%, who described it as “thick.” Less popular responses include “butter,”
“viscous,” “gummy,” and “rubbery.” Rounded results for almond consistency are displayed on
Table C.
The majority (51.68%) of the panelists described the almond mouth feel as “crunchy.” Less
popular responses include “crisp,” “gritty,” “sticky,” “slick,”and “smooth.” Results for almond
mouth feel are displayed on Table C.
Table
C:
Descriptive
Terms
for
Sensory
Characteristics
of
Almond
as
Rated
by

Nutrition
205
Students
ALMOND
Appearance
%
Flavor
%2
Texture
%3

1
Puffy
21.34%
Nutty
70.78
Hard
24.71

2
Dull
19.10%
Flat
13.48
Crunchy
16.85

Fernandez
28

3
Dry
16.85%
Stale
10.11
Firm
13.48

Aroma
%
Consistency
%
Mouthfeel
%

1
None
89.88
Thick
40.44
Crunchy
51.68

2
Burnt
2.24
Rubbery
5.61
Gritty
33.7

3
Flowery
2.24
Chewy
4.31
Sticky
5.61

Table
C
displays
the
results
of

the
6
sensory
evaluations
that
panelists
performed
on
the

almond
samples.

The
top
three
descriptive
terms
under
each
sensory
category
are

displayed.

• Marshmallow
The majority (82.02%) of the panelists described the appearance of the marshmallow as
“puffy.” Less popular responses include “ symmetrical,” “smooth,” dull,” “dry,” and “creamy.”
Results for marshmallow appearance are displayed on Table D.
The majority (69.66%) of the panelists described the flavor of the marshmallow as “sweet.”
Less popular responses were “ floury” and “pasty.” Results of the marshmallow flavor are
displayed on Table D.
The panelist descriptions for the marshmallow texture varied. Majority(21.34%) described the
marshmallow texture as “velvety.” Less popular results were “springy,” “tender,” “gummy,”
chewy,” “rubbery,” “gelatinized,” and “rough.” Results for marshmallow texture are displayed
on Table D.
The majority (91.01%) of the panelists described the aroma of the marshmallow as “sweet.”
Less popular responses include “flowery” and “nothing.” Results for marshmallow aroma are
displayed on Table D.
The majority (46.06%)of the panelists described the marshmallow consistency as “gummy,”
followed by 17.97% who described it as “rubbery.” Less popular responses include “brittle,”
“chewy,” “thin,”, and “butter.” Results for marshmallow consistency are displayed on Table D.

Fernandez
29

The majority (37.07%) of the panelists described the mouthfeel of the marshmallow as
“smooth.,” followed by 31.46% who described it as “sticky.” Other less popular responses were
“slimy,” “gritty,”and “slick.” Results for marshmallow mouthfeel are displayed on Table D.
Table
D:
Descriptive
Terms
for
Sensory
Characteristics
of
Almond
as
Rated
by

Nutrition
205
Students
MARSHMALLOW
Appearance
%
Flavor
%
Texture
%

1
Puffy
82.02%
Sweet
69.66
Velvety
21.34

2
Dull
3.37%
Flowery
14.6
Springy
19.1

3
Dry
2.24%
Pasty
10.11
Gummy
17.97

Aroma
%
Consistency
%
Mouthfeel
%

1
Sweet
91.01
Gummy
46.06
Smooth
37.07

2
Flowery
2.24
Rubbery
17.97
Sticky
31.46

3
Nothing
1.12
Chewy
14.6
Slimy
16.85

Table
D
displays
the
results
of

the
6
sensory
evaluations
that
panelists
performed
on
the

almond
samples.

The
top
three
descriptive
terms
under
each
sensory
category
are

displayed.

Paired Comparison Test
In the paired comparison test, 98.87% of the panelists successfully identified that sample 573T2
(1% citric acid content) was more sour than sample 635T1(0% citric acid content). Results for
paired comparison test are displayed on figure 2.1.

Fernandez
30

Figure 2.1 Shows that 99%(98.87 rounded) of the panelists were able to identify sample 573T2
as the beverage with the most citric acid.
Triangle Test
In the triangle test, 98.87% of the panelists successfully identified sample 112H9(which
contained 1% citric acid) as sourer than sample 777C1 and sample 542E2, which did not contain
citric acid. Results are shown on figure 3.1.

Figure
3.1
displays
an
imaginary
triangle
depicted
from
panelists
responses
about
which

sample
they
thought
was
different
to
777C1.The
peak
shows
that
98%
of
the
participating

panelists
were
able
to
identify
the
odd
sample,
and
the
sides
show
the
control,
and
the

other
sample
that
is
similar
to
the
control.

Olnly
one
person
was
not
able
to
identify
the

odd
sample.

Ranking Test
Ranking sourness on a scale of 1-5, #1 being the most sour and #5 the least, 5 sample beverages
were ranked by taste perception. Sample 555D7(10% citric acid content) was mainly ranked as
the #1 (by majority of 100% ) as the most sour beverage. Sample 192L3 (5% citric acid content)
was ranked #2 ( by majority of 83.14%) in sourness of the beverage. Sample 695FB(2.5% citric
acid content) was mainly ranked #3 (by majority of 85.39%) in sourness of the beverage.

Fernandez
31

Sample 543K8 (1% citric acid content) was mainly ranked #4 (by majority of 88.76%) in
sourness of the beverage. Sample 495P2(0% citric acid content) was mainly ranked #5 (by
majority of 22.47%) in sourness of the beverage. The most sour sample was 555D7, and the
least sour sample was #495P2. Results for sourness ranking are displayed on figure 4.1.

Figure
4.1
displays
the
samples
of
apple
juice
ranked
from
most
sour
to
least
sour
as
rated

by
nutr205
students.

The
chart
shows
that
10%
citric
acid
sample
was
identified
as
the

most
acidic
and
that
0%
citric
acid
sample
was
identified
as
the
least
acidic.

Panelists also ranked the five samples in preference of taste, on a scale of 1-5, 1 being the
most preferred, and 5 being the least preferred. Sample 495P2, by majority of 62.92%, was
ranked as #1 in preference. Sample 543K8, by majority of 66.29%, was mainly ranked #2 in
preference. Sample 695F8, by majority of 73.03%, was mainly ranked #3 in preference. Sample
192L3, by majority of 78.65%, was mainly ranked #4 in preference. Sample 555D7, by majority
of 95.5%, was ranked #5 in preference. Results for preference are displayed on figure 4.2.

Fernandez
32

Figure
4.2
displays
the
samples
of
apple
juice
ranked
from
most
preferred
to
least

preferred
as
rated
by
nutr205
students.

The
chart
shows
that
10%
citric
acid
sample
was

identified
as
the
most
acidic
and
that
0%
citric
acid
sample
was
identified
as
the
least

acidic.
Duo Trio
In the Duo Trio test, 88.76% of the panelists successfully identified sample 6104 (First Street
Vanilla Wafer cookies from Smart & Final) as the sample different to the standard 8175(Nabisco
Vanilla Wafer cookies). Only 6.74% thought sample 1108(Nabisco Vanilla Wafers) was the
different sample. Panelist responses were based on their perception of the cookie categories of
dryness (stated by 26.96%), crunchiness (stated by 33.7%), and less vanilla (33.7%). According
to responses, panelists perceived that the main difference between sample 6106 and the standard
8175 was that sample 6104 had less vanilla and had a different crunchiness. Results displayed
on figures 5.1 and 5.2.

Fernandez
33

Scoring
In the scoring test, the reference sample 0110(containing 2.5% citric acid) was given as a
sample with the sourness rating of 4, on a scale from 1-7, 7 being the most sour. Of the
panelists, 62.92% were able to identify sample S723 as the sample with rating number of #1. A
percentage of 28.08% rated sample S723 as #2, and 5.61% rated sample S723 as #3. A 0.0%
rated S273 as #4 or #5, 1.12% rated as #6, nd another 1.12% rated S273 as #7.

Fernandez
34

None(0%) of the panelists rated 420M as #1, #2, #3, or #4. A percentage of 12.35% of the
panelists rated sample 420M as #5, 71.91% rated sample 420M as #6, and 14.6% rated 420M as
#7.
Originally, the sample rating for S723 was #1 and sample 420M was #7. Results are shown on
figure 6.1.
Discussion
Beverage Analyisis
In her study, Wilbur concludes that her results imply that dish color has an effect on food
appeal. The participants in her study chose the food they would eat according to the plate that
looked the most appealing (the colored one). The Beverage Color Test delivered similar results
in the sense that panelists associated color with their perception of beverage characteristics.
Panelists might have associated the light yellow beverage with lemonade, therefore rating it the
most sour, and their most preferable. Panelists associated the emerald beverage with the green
color of soap, rating it their less preferable. Panelists preferred to drink the beverages cold since
it is the most usual temperature in which they drink beverages.
The results of the beverage color association reflect the reasoning behind sensory evaluation.
The preferred beverage was that one that panelists could most easily identify as a familiar
beverage, lemonade, which was the actual content of the light yellow beverage, Mountain Dairy
Lemonade(revealed at the end of the test). Familiarity to a beverage color is safer to rate and
taste than that of an unknown new one. Panelists may have been aware of the acidity content in
lemonade, and may have judged the sourness and alkalinity of the others based on their
familiarized knowledge. Given that the panelists did not taste the beverages and were not aware

Fernandez
35

of the contents in the samples made the majority of the lean towads possibly drinking the
beverage cold. Drinking a beverage that is not very tasty but is cold could be less irritating than
drinking something that is not appealing to our taste buds plus heat(tepid, warm or hot). For a
future beverage color test, shades of a color that is not as easily associated with a specific
beverage could be used, like purple; this way the panelists would rate specifically by intensity of
the color rather than as by a color they already associate to a beverage.
The Beverage Color Association test shows that the perception is indeed affected by
Both the study of the Black Walnut cultivates and the The Evaluations Using Descriptive
Terms carried the same methods to identify the descriptions from their panelists(Miller, 2013).
However, the descriptive word choice was more clear for the Black Walnut Cultivate list. A
possible reason of why there was so much variety in the responses to the descriptions of the
foods is that some of the words were not very familiar to the panelists.
For a future experiment, perhaps a word list with the definition of each word could be
provided to the participants so that their answers are more concise.
The Paired Comparison Test and Ranking Test were very similar since in both experiments
students had to taste apple juice with different concentrations of citric juice. The paired
comparison test was very straight forward and most panelists were able to identify the correct
sample. However, for the ranking test, even though panelists were able to identify the sourest
and the alkalinest sample compared to the given sample, not everyone not ranked the samples
with the correct number. In the future, if there is a ranking scale from 1-7 and a given, there
should be a standard given and 6 samples so that the answer is more accurate, as opposed to
having the panelist guess on what number rank the sample is, since there are 2 choices blank.

Fernandez
36

The Duo Trio and Triangle Test were very similar, except that duo trio was experimented
with cookies and Triangle Test used apple juice. For the future, perhaps a different juice should
be used for the triangle test, given that other tests already used apple juice and that can affect the
results since panelists are already familiarized with different levels of apple juice acidity. The
Oreo test study reported that panelists were able to identify which cookie was different(low fat)
since the cookie had sugar substitute in place of regular sugar found in original Oreos. The way
this study relates to the Duo Trio and the Triangle Test is that both the Oreo Study and Lab 205
studies involved differentiating their sensory characteristics despite their similarities in the
samples’ ingredients. Although the results for the duo trio were successful, for the future, this
should be the test performed in the beginning, since panelists had tasted several juices with citric
acid, and that could have affected their tasting of the vanilla in the cookie.
Other ways to improve the study is by having panelists do the testing individually as opposed
to as in a group. Many panelists reported to be looking at other panelists face gestures or weird
sounds, as they tasted the foods. Another way to improve the data collection of this study is to
collect the panelists written responses rather than by raising hand because some of the hand
counts may have influenced other panelists to change their mind and raise their hand for a
different option than what they responded or perceived.

Works Cited
Brown A. (2011). Understanding Food Principles & Preparation. 4th ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. 625 p.

Fernandez
37

Edelstein, S. (2013). Food science: an ecological approach. Burlington, MA: Jones and Barlett
Learning. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=aDI5Bmn7TRQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=food science an
ecological approach cite mla&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5Yh6Ur_TK-
KQyAHijoB4&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA
Meilgaard, M, Civille, GV, Carr, BT. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques.
3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC
Miller, A. E. and Chambers, D. H. (2013), Descriptive Analysis of Flavor Characteristics for
Black Walnut Cultivars. Journal of Food Science, 78: S887–S893. doi: 10.1111/1750-
3841.12127
Mooij, M. K., & Mooij, M. K. (2011). Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for
global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Wilbur, Lindsey. "the effects of color on food preference." (2013): 25. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
<http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd3/id/2461/filename/2457.pdf>.

Sensory Evaluation Lab Report

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Sensory Evaluation Lab Report

Similaire à Sensory Evaluation Lab Report (20)

Sensory Evaluation Lab Report