Comparación del Desempeño entre Paneles Sensoriales Entrenados y no Entrenados
Resumen
Se usaron dos paneles entrenados y cuatro paneles no entrenados para la comparación del desempeño entre los mismos. Cada panel entrenado estuvo conformado por seis jueces mientras que cada panel no entrenado estuvo constituido por 100 consumidores. Los atributos sensoriales que evaluaron los paneles fueron color blanco, textura granulosa al tacto, olor a cuajo, salado, grumoso en boca, suave en boca y aroma a suero. Para la evaluación de la discriminación se aplicaron diversos modelos de análisis de varianza (ANOVA) y para evaluar el consenso entre ambos tipos de paneles se utilizó la prueba de permutación (Rc). La comparación de los productos y atributos en el espacio sensorial fue evaluada mediante el Análisis de Componentes Principales (ACP) y la correlación global fue medida por la correlación vectorial (Rvglobal). Los resultados del ANOVA demostraron que los paneles entrenados fueron discriminantes en siete atributos mientras que los paneles no entrenados fueron discriminantes en seis atributos. El Rc mostró un consenso entre paneles entrenados y paneles no entrenados con valores 0.866 y 0.807, respectivamente. El ACP reveló similitudes entre tipos de paneles para el posicionamiento de los quesos y atributos en el espacio sensorial. El Rvglobal fue de 0.861 revelando que las configuraciones entre los tipos de paneles fueron similares. En conclusión los perfiles sensoriales entre paneles entrenados y no entrenados fueron similares.
Texto completo:
Referencias
Issanchou S, Schlich P, Lesschaeve I. Sensory analysis: methodological aspects relevant to the study of cheese. La lait. 1997; 77: 5-12.
Sulmont C, Lesschaeve I, Sauvageot F, Issanchou S. Comparative training procedures to learn odor descriptors: effects on profiling performance. Journal Sensory Studies 1999; 14: 467-490.
Sinesio F, Guerreo L, Romero A, Moneta E, Nombrad J. Sensory evaluation of walnut an interlaboratory study. Food Science Technology International 2001; 7(1): 37-47.
Husson F, Pages J. Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and untrained juries: Methodology and Results. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003; 18: 453-464.
Husson F, Le-Dien S, Pages J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001; 12(5-7): 291-296.
Lelievre M, Chollet 5, Abdi H, Valentin D. What is validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19: 697-703.
Worch T, Le S, Punter P. How reliable are consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 2010; 21(3): 309-318.
Hirst D, Muir D, Naes T. Definition of the sensory of hard cheese: a collaborative study between Scottish and Norwegian panels. International Dairy Journal 1994; 4(8): 743-761.
Pages J, Husson F. Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001; 12: 297-309.
Le S, Pages J, Husson F. Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: application to a cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19(2): 179-184.
Barcenas P, Perez-Elortondo FJ, Albisu M. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: a study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 2004; 37(7): 723-729.
Drake 5, Lopetcharat K, Clark 5, Kwak H, Lee 5, et al. Mapping differences in consumer's perception of sharp cheddar cheese in the United State. Sensory and Food Quality 2009; 74(6): S276-5285.
Drake SL, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. Comparison of two methods to explore consumer preferences for cottage cheese. Journal of Dairy Science 2009; 92(12): 5883-5897.
AFNOR. Analyse Sensorielle - Methodologie. Recherche de descripteurs por ('elaboration d' un Profil Sensoriel 1995; ISO 11035.
Stone H, Sidel J, Oliver S, Woolsey S, Singleton R Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 1974; 28: 24-34.
Mazzucchelli R, Guinard J. Comparison of monadic and simultaneous sample presentation modes in descriptive analysis of milk chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999; 14(2): 235-248.
Pages J, Bertrand C, Ali R, Husson F, Le S. Sensory analysis comparison of eight biscuits by french and pakistani panels. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007; 22: 665-686
Nogueira H, Tinet C, Curt C, Trystram G, Hossenlop J. Using the internet for descriptive sensory analysis: formation training and follow-up of a taste panel over the web. Journal Sensory Studies 2006; 21: 180-202.
Wu W, Guo Q, Jong S, Massart D. Randomization test for the number o dimensions of the group average space in generalized procrustes analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2002; 13: 191-200.
Xiong R, Blot K, Meullenet J, Dessirier J. Permutation test or Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19: 146-155.
L' Hermier des Plantes H, Thiebaut B. Etude de la pluviosite au moyen de la methode S.T.A.T.I.S. Revue de Statistique Appliquee 1977; 25(2): 57-81.
Le-Dien S, Pages J. Analyse factorielle multiple hierarchique. Revue de Statistique Appliquee 2003; 50(2): 47-73.
Faye P, Bremaud D, Teillet E, Courcoux P, Giboreau A, et al. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2006; 17(7-8): 604-614
Mendia C, Larrayoz P, Ordonez A, Ibanez F, Torre P. Monitoring taste panel efficiency during evaluation of the sensory quality of Roncal cheese. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003; 18: 91-102.
Burke B, Spooner J, Hegarty P. Sensory testing of beers: An inter-laboratory sensory trial. Journal Institute Brew 1997; 103: 15-19.
Sinesio F, Risvik E, Rodbotten M. Evaluation of panelist performance in descriptive profiling of rancid sausages: A multivariate study. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990; 5: 33-32.
Barcenas P, Perez J, Albisu M. Selection and screening of a descriptive panel for ewes milk chesses sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies 2000; 15: 79-99.
Martin N, Molimard P, Spinnler H, Schlich P. Comparison of odour sensory profiles performed by two independent trained panels following the same descriptive analysis procedures. Food Quality and Preference 2000; 11: 487-495.
Gómez T, Hernández M, López J, Santiago C, Ramón L, et. al. Caracterización sensorial del queso fresco "cuajada" en tres localidades de Oaxaca. México: diferencias en la percepcion sensorial. Revista Venezolana de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos 2010; 1(2): 127-140.
Prescott J. Comparison of taste perceptions and preferences of Japanese and Australian consumers: overview and implications for cross-cultural sensory research. Food Quality and Preference 1998; 9(6): 393-402.
Resurreccion A. Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science 2003; 66: 11-20.
Van Rijswijk W, Frewer L, Menozzi D, Faioli G. Consumer perception of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19(5): 452-464.
Verbeke W. Consumer acceptance of functionalfoods: socio-demographic. cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference 2005; 16(1): 45-57.
Gellynck X, Kuhne B, Van Bockstaele F, Van de Walle D, Dewettinck. K. Consumer perception of bread quality. Appetite 2009; 53(1): 16-23.
McEwan J, Hunter E, Van L, Lea P Proficiency testing sensory profile panels: measuring panel performance. Food Quality and Preference 2002; 13: 181-190.
Phu V, Valentin D, Husson, F, Dacremont C. Cultural differences in food and preference: Contrasting Vietnamese and French panellists on soy yogurts. Food Quality and Preference 2010; 21: 602-610.
Cartier R, RytzA, Lecomte F, PobreteJ, Krystlik E, et al. Sorting procedures as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 2006; 17: 562-571.
Faye P, Bremaud, D, Duran P, Courcoux A, Giboreau H, et al. Perceptive free sorting with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings and tool for sensory segmentations of consumer. Food Quality and Preference 2004; 15: 781-792.
