Sensory Analysis Services Lab

Witoon Prinyawiwatkul Professor School of and Sciences Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

2/17/2017

1 School of Nutrition and Food Sciences

2 Education

. Ph.D. (Honorary) Agro-Industry Product Development Kasetsart Univ., Thailand (2016)

. Ph.D. &Technology Univ. of Georgia, USA (1996)

. M.S. Food Science &Technology Univ. of Georgia, USA (1993)

. B.Sc. Agro-Industrial Product Development a minor in Marketing Kasetsart Univ., Thailand (1989) Work Experience

.12/1996 -6/2001 Assistant Professor LSU AgCenter

.7/2001 -6/2005 Associate Professor LSU AgCenter

.7/2005-Now Professor LSU AgCenter

.7/2010-Now Horace J. Davis Endowed Professor LSU AgCenter Teaching . Food Product Development . Principles of Sensory Evaluation of

International Teaching . Over 80 seminars, short courses, workshops . Product development techniques, sensory sciences, multivariate statistical methods, seafood product utilization, etc.

Research Interest . Product Development & . Sodium reduction in foods . Sensory Evaluation . Chitosan and its Food Applications . solulbe High MW chitosan

Refereed Publications & Presentations . 1 book edited . 5 book chapters . 163 refereed publications . 296 scientific presentations Citation All Since 2011 indices

Citations 4243 2478 h-index 36 27 i10-index 88 70

. the top 5 articles with 483, 205, 180, 126, and 116 citations, respectively

. Google Scholar as of 2-16-2017 7 Source: Thomson et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010): 1117–1125. 8 Sensory Evaluation

 Human subjects as instrumentation  A scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret reactions to those characteristics of food and materials as they are perceived by the of sight, smell, , touch, and .

9 Importance of Sensory Evaluation  It drives business decision  Ideation for new products  Category appraisal  New product development & launching  Product matching  Me-too product innovation  Process changes  Cost reduction; supplier changes  Quality control and assurance  Shelf life evaluation 10 Benefits of Quality Sensory Program  Although it is costly and cumbersome to incorporate into manufacturing facilities, it does offer benefits:  New business; Drives Innovation  Improved startups for new products  Prevention of potential market withdrawals  Fewer consumer complaints

11 What sensory sciences can do for you?

12 , 2017, Vol. 82, Nr. 2, 500-508.

13 Figure: Effects of sweetener type and eliciting condition on hedonic ratings (Mean ± SEM bars) of sweetness and overall liking. Bored Worried ' 0.4 Bored ' Worried Calm Safe ' 0.2 Calm '

Safe 0 Disgusted

Satisfied ' -0.2 Disgusted '

Satisfied -0.4 Free

Pleased ' Free '

Pleased Good

Peaceful ' Good ' Peaceful Guilty Stevia Happy ' Guilty ' Happy

Figure: Emotional profiles of nonnutritive sweeteners in the control (name) and informed (name and packet image) conditions using emotional responses for sucrose as baseline. ʹ denotes emotion responses in the informed condition. 16 Sample 2: After consumers learning that the sample contains kefir and the health benefits associated with kefir. 17 Journal of Food Science, 2016, Vol. 81, Nr. 1, S165 18 Consumer evaluation • The health benefit information provided to consumer significantly increased overall liking, and purchase intent. • Oil types affected OL and PI.

Overall liking Before After Purchase intent Before After 100 7 6.6 6.0 80 74.0 6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.3 66.0 5.0 4.9 59.2 5 57.453.7 60 49.0 4 43.2 40.5 3 40 2 20 1 0 0 Butter EVCO EVOO RBO Butter EVCO EVOO RBO T-test McNemar’s test 21 22 Commercial salt Foam-mat salt

1 The appearance of salt

A scanning electron microscope (SEM) images

1 23 1 Table 2 Saltiness intensity, hedonic score and sodium content of roasted peanut using different

2 salt with soy sauce odor

Type of salt Commercial salt Commercial salt Foam-mat salt

Salt content (%) 100 50 50

Soy sauce odor (%) 0 50 50 Descriptive analysis Saltiness intensity (mm) 50.21±3.71a** 39.10±3.49c 42.95±3.18b

Consumer acceptance test Overall liking 6.6±1.5ns*** 6.4±1.5ns 6.4±1.2ns

Overall 6.6±1.5ns 6.3±1.5ns 6.4±1.4ns

Salty 6.3±1.3ns 6.0±1.2ns 6.2±1.1ns

Sodium analysis

Sodium content 310.54±20.97 166.91±8.81 156.40±20.37 (mg/100 g peanut)

3 Values are mean  standard deviation. 1 ** a, b, c Mean  standard deviation in same row with different latters are significant different 2 (P<0.05). 24 3 *** ns: not significant different 25 26 Journal of Food Science, 2015, Vol. 80, Nr. 10

27 So, now you can see

What sensory sciences can do for you?

28 Sensory Methods & Tools

 Analytical  Threshold analysis  Discriminative test  Descriptive analysis  Affective  Preference & Acceptance  Emotion, wellness, and eating behavior  Purchase decision

29 Sensory Thresholds

 1. Absolute or detection  2. Identification or recognition  3. Difference and JND  4. Terminal  5. Consumer rejection threshold

30 Applications of Sensory Thresholds Common uses in sensory analysis & flavor research

 An index of the biological potency of a functional ingredient or compound.

 Useful information regarding the maximum tolerable levels of an off-flavor or taint.

Comparisons of sensitivities of different panelists

31 Source: Waimaleongora-Ek and Prinyawiwatkul 32 D = Detection, S = saltiness, B = bitterness 33 Source: Torrico and others (2015) Journal of Food Science 150

100

50

0 Absolute Recognition Difference

1

2 Fig. 2. The group best-estimate (GBET) absolute and saltiness recognition thresholds in water 3 and GBET saltiness difference threshold in 0.02M NaCl solution

Source: Chokumnoyporn and others (2015) Int. J. Food Sci & Tech 34 Discriminative Tests

35 Discriminative Tests  Overall difference  Duo-Trio test  Dual-standard test  Triangle test  Same-Difference (paired comparison) test  A and Not-A test (Pearson’s vs. McNemar’s chi- square statistics)  ABX test ( a duo–trio test in reverse; no advantages over more standard discrimination tests)  Tetrad test

 2 out of 5 test 36

Discriminative Tests  Attribute or Directional  n-AFC: 2-AFC, 3-AFC, 4-AFC  Other tests  Ranking test  Difference from Control test  Signal detection theory/ R-index (% sensory discrimination)

37

New Trend Sensory Discrimination Tests . 4AFC (alternative forced choice) - slightly more powerful than 3AFC

. Our recent studies were based on N = 404 children, with ages ranging from 6-11 and in 1st- 6th grades from elementary schools in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, participated in our study.

Journal of Sensory Studies

Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250

A LARGE-SCALE EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF THE TETRAD AND TRIANGLE TESTS IN CHILDREN

KAREN GARCIA1,3, JOHN M. ENNIS2 and WITOON PRINYAWIWATKUL1

1Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

2The Institute for Perception, Richmond, VA

2012, issue 27:217-222. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00385.x 40 1st Grade 6th Grade

Descriptive Analysis Methods

Traditional Methods  Flavor profile  Texture profile  QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis)  Spectrum  Descriptive Analysis  Time intensity descriptive analysis

44 Applications of Descriptive Analysis

. The use of descriptive sensory methods for the determination of food quality characteristics is globally established.

 to correlate sensory and instrumental measurements  to correlate with consumer data to reveal segmentation of consumers according to their preferences  quality control  mapping sensory products  track product (sensory quality) changes over time in relation to the validity and the effects of packaging, ingredients and processing variables of final products  etc. 45 Saltiness Intensity in an O/W emulsion 46 Source: Torrico and others (2015). Int. J. Food Sci & Tech Saltiness Intensity in an O/W emulsion 47 Limitations of Descriptive Analysis  Very time consuming  recruit, screen, train panelists  maintain over a lengthy of time  expensive/escalated cost  relies heavily on panelists’ ability to perform tasks  find words to express their perception of the products  difficult to obtain complete agreement (consensus) among panelists  inconsistency in individual sensitivities to particular attribute  requires advanced statistical analysis methods 48 Descriptive Analysis Methods

Non-traditional Methods  Free-choice profiling  Flash profiling  Other hybrid methods

49 MATERIALS & METHODS

 Preparation of salt solutions - Mixed salt solutions of KCl/NaCl/L-Arg at 0.5% w/v, 1.0% w/v and 1.5% w/v

Table 1. The ratio of KCl/NaCl/L-Arginine in mixed salt solutions

Sample % KCl % NaCl % L-Arginine

A 70 20 10

B 65 25 10

C 60 30 10

D 55 35 10

E 0 100 0

50 51 Affective Sensory Tests  Qualitative Methods  Focus group interview  Single- vs. double-stage  Focus panel  One-on-one or in-depth interview  Laddering, etc.  Fuzzy Front End  Ethnography or immersion

52 fish sauce fermented fish salted fish salted crab soy sauce sea foods salted plum dried shrimp Lime salted egg

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Saltiness intensity Figure 1 Mean saltiness intensity for each food name rated by 410 consumers based on a scale (0=none, 9=extremely strong salty). Error bars represent SE of the mean.

53 Affective Sensory Tests

 Quantitative Methods  Preference  Acceptance/optimization  Diagnostic tool  Just-about-right  Purchase decision

54 The response surface methodology yielded an optimal formulation: 30% NaCl, 60% KCl and 10% Gly. Low-Sodium White Cheddar Cheese 55 Sensory Emotion . Measuring emotions associated with foods in consumer testing

. Positive and negative emotions

. Emotion evoked by products is becoming more and more important for product differentiation as many products are now often similar in their characteristics, packaging, and price.

. For purchase decision, emotional responses may even be a decisive factor rather than sensory liking and price. 56

Sensory characteristics of low sodium peanuts containing NaCl, KCl and Glycine

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Percentage Percentage Frequencie

10%

0%

Free

Glad

Mild

Wild

Calm

Good Quiet

Tame

Eager

Polite

Bored

Warm

Joyful Merry

Guilty

Active Happy Whole

Steady

Daring

Unsafe Tender

Loving

Pleased

Worried

Pleasant

Friendly

Peaceful

Satisfied

Energetic

Nostalgic

Interested

Disgusted

Aggressive

Enthusiastic

Affectionate

Adventurous

Good-natured Understanding

Figure 4. Emotion terms elicited by roasted peanuts. Online survey (N = 83 consumers).

57 Energetic 0.1 Worried* 0.05 Energetic* 0 -0.05 Worried Guilty -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 Unsafe* -0.3 Guilty* 30/70/0 -0.35 67.5/20/12.5 -0.4 87.5/0/12.5 Unsafe Happy 59/34/7

Satisfied* Happy*

Satisfied Pleased Pleased*

Figure 6. Emotion (before and after) spider chart per treatment (4 treatments with Overall Liking score >6 on a 9-points hedonic scale were plotted). Emotion terms followed by asterisks indicate ‘after’ consumers had been given information about low sodium health benefits. The emotion of the control (100/0/0: NaCl/KCl/Gly) was used as a baseline.

58 Consumer Health and Wellness . Food manufacturers specify health benefits of products, but consumers determine the perceived wellness induced by a product.

. Regarding wellness, there is a great need for method development in sensory and consumer research.

. Development of a questionnaire to measure consumer wellness associated with foods: The WellSense Profile™ by King et al. . (Food Quality and Preference 39 (2015) 82–94)

59

60 61 62 C = Romaine lettuce Sensory Analysis Center

School of Nutrition and Food Sciences

Louisiana State University

& LSU AgCenter

Sensory Analysis Services Lab

We work closely with the Food Incubator. Services and Consultation

. Foods and ingredients . Project design . . Shelf life evaluation Demo Test Kitchen Room 67 Demo Test Kitchen Room Sample Preparation Room 16 Testing Booths Computerized System Taste Testing Serving Area with Control Ceiling Light Set-up 72 73 Serving Area with Control Ceiling Light Set-up 74 75 76 77 16 Testing Booths One-way mirror observation area 79 Conference room #1 80 81 Conference room #2 82 83 84 Conference room #3 85 Commercial Kitchen Area

88 89 90 E-Tongue

91 Physical Instrumentation Area 92 Want to be a Taster?

Join Tiger Tasters! First, fill-out the survey. When a panel is available that fits your profile, we will contact you to be a Tiger Taster!

Survey link http://lsu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9ZHL IEbmwnRoUMR

93 Contact Ashley Gutierrez Sensory Lab Manager (225) 578-5423 email: [email protected]

Dr. Witoon Prinyawiwatkul Professor (225) 578-5188 [email protected] Thank you for your attendance.

Any Questions?

95