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

Abstract Even though conventional profiling (QDA®) 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®) due to some special characteristics of this type of foods, in particular heterogeneous multilayered crispy foods are challenging products to consistently describe via QDA®. This work uses three sensory descriptive methodologies (conventional profiling via QDA®, 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® 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.

[1]  S. Schiffman.  Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling , 1981 .

[2]  S. Fiszman,et al.  Crispness assessment of roasted almonds by an integrated approach to texture description: texture, acoustics, sensory and structure , 2006 .

[3]  F. J. Pérez Elortondo,et al.  Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance , 2004 .

[4]  Julien Delarue,et al.  Baked product texture: Correlations between instrumental and sensory characterization using Flash Profile , 2008 .

[5]  K. Lee,et al.  Improvement of moistness and texture of high omega-3 fatty acid mackerel nuggets by inclusion of moisture-releasing ingredients. , 2007, Journal of food science.

[6]  Julian F. V. Vincent,et al.  The quantification of crispness , 1998 .

[7]  S. Fiszman,et al.  Effect of the addition of dextrin or dried egg on the rheological and textural properties of batters for fried foods , 2003 .

[8]  P. Varela,et al.  Improvement of crunchiness of battered fish nuggets , 2009 .

[9]  Paula Varela,et al.  Methodological developments in crispness assessment: Effects of cooking method on the crispness of crusted foods , 2008 .

[10]  J. Gower.  Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[11]  T. Næs,et al.  Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science , 1996 .

[12]  Pascal Schlich,et al.  Defining and Validating Assessor Compromises About Product Distances and Attribute Correlations , 1996 .

[13]  Ralph Katz,et al.  Alternative Multidimensional Scaling Methods for Large Stimulus Sets , 1971 .

[14]  G. Blancher,et al.  French and Vietnamese: How do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies , 2007 .

[15]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers , 2008 .

[16]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Construction of a product space from the ultra-flash profiling method: application to 10 red wines from the Loire Valley. , 2009 .

[17]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley , 2005 .

[18]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results , 2001 .

[19]  P. Mallikarjunan,et al.  SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF CRISPNESS IN A BREADED FRIED FOOD HELD UNDER A HEAT LAMP , 2004 .

[20]  John W. Hall,et al.  Comparison of projective mapping and sorting data collection and multivariate methodologies for identification of similarity-of-use of snack bars , 1998 .

[21]  Einar Risvik,et al.  Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data , 1997 .

[22]  Jianshe Chen,et al.  Acoustic envelope detector for crispness assessment of biscuits , 2005 .

[23]  G. Cuvelier,et al.  Sensory evaluation of the texture of 49 commercial apple and pear purees , 2007 .

[24]  Victoire Dairou,et al.  A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile , 2002 .

[25]  Carole Prost,et al.  Optimisation of HS-SPME to study representativeness of partially baked bread odorant extracts , 2007 .

[26]  Paula Varela,et al.  Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. , 2010 .

[27]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire valley , 2008 .

[28]  S. Fiszman,et al.  Effect of the addition of different ingredients on the characteristics of a batter coating for fried seafood prepared without a pre-frying step , 2005 .

[29]  W. Kerr,et al.  COATING CHARACTERISTICS OF FRIED CHICKEN BREASTS PREPARED WITH DIFFERENT PARTICLE SIZE BREADING , 2002 .

[30]  P. Robert,et al.  A Unifying Tool for Linear Multivariate Statistical Methods: The RV‐Coefficient , 1976 .

[31]  Julien Delarue,et al.  Dynamics of food preferences: a case study with chewing gums , 2004 .

[32]  Herbert Stone,et al.  Sensory Evaluation Practices , 1985 .

[33]  Einar Risvik,et al.  Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research , 1994 .

[34]  J. Delarue,et al.  Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products , 2004 .

[35]  Anthony A. Williams,et al.  The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports , 1984 .