4.6 Article

Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 463-473

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.010

Keywords

Nuggets; Crunchiness; Conventional profile (QDA (R)); Flash profile; Projective mapping (Napping (R))

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Even though conventional profiling (QDA (R)) is very robust, faster new methodologies developed in last years could potentially be used to profile products with good results. There are products such as nuggets that are especially tedious to describe by conventional profiling (QDA (R)) due to some special characteristics of this type of foods, in particular heterogeneous multilayered crispy foods are challenging products to consistently describe via QDA (R). This work uses three sensory descriptive methodologies (conventional profiling via QDA (R), flash profiling and projective mapping) performed by panels with different degrees of training, to study their suitability on a hot served foods with contrasting textural layers as fish nuggets. In conventional profiling products were assessed by a trained panel via quantitative descriptive analysis, flash profiling was realised by semi trained assessors as a means of quick profiling and projective mapping was carried out by the use of an untrained panel. The maps of the sensory spaces obtained by the three methods were well correlated and showed that flash profiling and projective mapping could be used as a quick alternatives to QDA (R) in hot served foods that need to be eaten above room temperature with the advantage that these methods could also be used as a tool in consumer research with the use of an untrained panel. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available