Important notes:
Do NOT write outside the grey boxes. Any text or images outside the boxes will be deleted.
Do NOT alter the structure of this form. Simply enter your information into the boxes. The form will be automatically processed – if you alter its structure your submission will not be processed correctly. Do not include keywords – you can add them when you submit the abstract online.
Title:
Comparison of two independent trained panels: method evaluation for apple sensory profiles
Authors & affiliations:
L. Lozano*1, M. Charles2, W. Guerra1, F. Gasperi2
1 Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Laimburg, Pfatten, Laimburg 6, 39040 Vadena, Bolzano, Italy; 2 Department of Food Quality and Nutrition, Research and Innovation Centre, Foundation Edmund Mach, Via Mach 1, 38010 Trento, Italy
lidia.lozano-luis@provinz.bz.it
Abstract: (Your abstract must use Normal style and must fit in this box. Your abstract should be no longer than 300 words. The box will ‘expand’ over 2 pages as you add text/diagrams into it.)
Demonstrating that results obtained with a trained panel can be replicated by another panel when using the same procedures is an important criteria for the applicability of sensory methods. Moreover, this highlights the objectivity and reliability of this type of measures.
In this context, the sensory profiles of six different cultivars of apples performed by two independent panels were compared: the first panel from Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (Italy (BZ), panel 1, consisting of 14 panellists), the second from the Edmund Mach Foundation (Italy (TN), panel 2, consisting of 18 panellists).
The protocols for panellist training, the reference standards used to calibrate the evaluations, the sample preparation and the scale assessment, were the same in both sensory laboratories (Corollaro et al., 2013). Panels have used eight attributes in common relative to tastes and texture. Statistical analyses focused first on the performance of each panel and further on the comparison of the description of the samples provided by the two panels.
The analysis of variance showed good ability to replicate their evaluation and to discriminate between products for both panel. The sensory maps obtained with the two panels were compared by MFA (Multivariate Factorial Analysis). Sensory descriptions of the samples provided by the two panels are very similar: the sets of variables related to the two different panels are well correlated proving a comparable use of the attributes. It was also observed that the agreement between the two panels varies slightly depending on the variety: the descriptions obtained for ´Fujion` for example are almost overlapping, while the variety ´Braebrun` is perceived slightly different from the two panels.
In conclusion, the results show that trained panels following the same procedures and with similar reference standards can provide comparable and integrated data.
Important notes:
Do NOT write outside the grey boxes. Any text or images outside the boxes will be deleted.
Do NOT alter the structure of this form. Simply enter your information into the boxes. The form will be automatically processed – if you alter its structure your submission will not be processed correctly. Do not include keywords – you can add them when you submit the abstract online.
