Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. / Liu, Jing; Grønbeck, Marlene Schou; Di Monaco, Rosella; Giacalone, Davide; Bredie, Wender.

In: Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 48, No. A, 2016, p. 41-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Liu, J, Grønbeck, MS, Di Monaco, R, Giacalone, D & Bredie, W 2016, 'Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine', Food Quality and Preference, vol. 48, no. A, pp. 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

APA

Liu, J., Grønbeck, M. S., Di Monaco, R., Giacalone, D., & Bredie, W. (2016). Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. Food Quality and Preference, 48(A), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

Vancouver

Liu J, Grønbeck MS, Di Monaco R, Giacalone D, Bredie W. Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. Food Quality and Preference. 2016;48(A):41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

Author

Liu, Jing ; Grønbeck, Marlene Schou ; Di Monaco, Rosella ; Giacalone, Davide ; Bredie, Wender. / Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. In: Food Quality and Preference. 2016 ; Vol. 48, No. A. pp. 41-49.

Bibtex

@article{265025756aa84f159ceb2f64c6428430,
title = "Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine",
abstract = "Publication date: March 2016 Source:Food Quality and Preference, Volume 48, Part A Author(s): Jing Liu, Marlene Schou Gr{\o}nbeck, Rossella Di Monaco, Davide Giacalone, Wender L.P. Bredie Rapid sensory methods are a convenient alternative to conventional descriptive analysis suitable for quickly assessing sensory product differences. As these methods gain in popularity, assessments of their discriminability and reproducibility in food applications are increasingly needed. Moreover, it is of interest to explore whether small adjustments to the existing protocols could improve the results. In this study different variations of two rapid sensory methods, one based on holistic assessment – Napping, and one based on attribute evaluation – Flash Profile, were tested for the evaluation of the flavour in wine. Model wines were developed with control over the sensory differences in terms of sensory characters and sensory intensities (weak to moderate). Some modifications to the classical Napping and Flash Profile protocols were employed in order to improve discriminability, repeatability and accuracy. The results showed that conducting Napping with a panel training on either the method (training on how to arrange samples on the sheet) or the product (familiarisation with the sensory properties of the wines) improved the outcome compared to the classical Napping protocol. The classical Flash Profile protocol and its modified version including a Napping with subsequent attributes generation as the word generation step and limiting the number of attributes for ranking gave a similar sample space. The Napping method could best highlight qualitative sample differences, whereas the Flash Profile provided a more precise product mapping on quantitative differences between model wines.",
keywords = "food and food industries",
author = "Jing Liu and Gr{\o}nbeck, {Marlene Schou} and {Di Monaco}, Rosella and Davide Giacalone and Wender Bredie",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "41--49",
journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
issn = "0950-3293",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",
number = "A",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of flash profile and napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine

AU - Liu, Jing

AU - Grønbeck, Marlene Schou

AU - Di Monaco, Rosella

AU - Giacalone, Davide

AU - Bredie, Wender

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Publication date: March 2016 Source:Food Quality and Preference, Volume 48, Part A Author(s): Jing Liu, Marlene Schou Grønbeck, Rossella Di Monaco, Davide Giacalone, Wender L.P. Bredie Rapid sensory methods are a convenient alternative to conventional descriptive analysis suitable for quickly assessing sensory product differences. As these methods gain in popularity, assessments of their discriminability and reproducibility in food applications are increasingly needed. Moreover, it is of interest to explore whether small adjustments to the existing protocols could improve the results. In this study different variations of two rapid sensory methods, one based on holistic assessment – Napping, and one based on attribute evaluation – Flash Profile, were tested for the evaluation of the flavour in wine. Model wines were developed with control over the sensory differences in terms of sensory characters and sensory intensities (weak to moderate). Some modifications to the classical Napping and Flash Profile protocols were employed in order to improve discriminability, repeatability and accuracy. The results showed that conducting Napping with a panel training on either the method (training on how to arrange samples on the sheet) or the product (familiarisation with the sensory properties of the wines) improved the outcome compared to the classical Napping protocol. The classical Flash Profile protocol and its modified version including a Napping with subsequent attributes generation as the word generation step and limiting the number of attributes for ranking gave a similar sample space. The Napping method could best highlight qualitative sample differences, whereas the Flash Profile provided a more precise product mapping on quantitative differences between model wines.

AB - Publication date: March 2016 Source:Food Quality and Preference, Volume 48, Part A Author(s): Jing Liu, Marlene Schou Grønbeck, Rossella Di Monaco, Davide Giacalone, Wender L.P. Bredie Rapid sensory methods are a convenient alternative to conventional descriptive analysis suitable for quickly assessing sensory product differences. As these methods gain in popularity, assessments of their discriminability and reproducibility in food applications are increasingly needed. Moreover, it is of interest to explore whether small adjustments to the existing protocols could improve the results. In this study different variations of two rapid sensory methods, one based on holistic assessment – Napping, and one based on attribute evaluation – Flash Profile, were tested for the evaluation of the flavour in wine. Model wines were developed with control over the sensory differences in terms of sensory characters and sensory intensities (weak to moderate). Some modifications to the classical Napping and Flash Profile protocols were employed in order to improve discriminability, repeatability and accuracy. The results showed that conducting Napping with a panel training on either the method (training on how to arrange samples on the sheet) or the product (familiarisation with the sensory properties of the wines) improved the outcome compared to the classical Napping protocol. The classical Flash Profile protocol and its modified version including a Napping with subsequent attributes generation as the word generation step and limiting the number of attributes for ranking gave a similar sample space. The Napping method could best highlight qualitative sample differences, whereas the Flash Profile provided a more precise product mapping on quantitative differences between model wines.

KW - food and food industries

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.008

M3 - Journal article

VL - 48

SP - 41

EP - 49

JO - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

IS - A

ER -

ID: 143850713