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.

Figure 1.2 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association 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.

Figure 1.3 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association 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  

Figure 1.4 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association 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  

   

Figure 1.5 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association experiment beverages as the most preferred option, according to their color. Light yellow beverage was perceived as the most preferred. .

Figure 1.6 displays the percentage of panelists that perceived each of the Beverage Association 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>.

 

 

 

  Fernandez  38