Experimental Design The product set used consisted of 18 different waters: 17 different commercially available domestic and foreign waters of varying mineral.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What makes an image memorable?
Advertisements

Sensory Evaluation: The Human Factor
EBI Statistics 101.
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and Management Eighth Edition Chapter 6 Advanced Data Modeling.
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and Management Tenth Edition Chapter 5 Advanced Data Modeling.
BIS Database Systems School of Management, Business Information Systems, Assumption University A.Thanop Somprasong Chapter # 6 Advanced Data Modeling.
Chapter 6: Correlational Research Examine whether variables are related to one another (whether they vary together). Correlation coefficient: statistic.
Luke Bohanan, Jeff Strekas, Roger Boulton, Hildegarde Heymann, and David E. Block Department of Viticulture and Enology University of California, Davis.
Examination of Holland’s Predictive Pattern Order Hypothesis for Academic Achievement William D. Beverly and Robert A. Horn Northern Arizona University,
Lecture 18: Blending and Sensory Evaluation of Table Wines.
Project #3 by Daiva Kuncaite Problem 31 (p. 190)
Chapter 13: Experiments and Observational Studies
EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Chance Hofmann and Nick Quigley
Alcohol Consumption Past 90-day drinking was assessed with self-report items measuring typical quantity of alcohol consumption, drinking frequency, and.
Product Perception By Michelle Olguin & Karen Dambroski Undergraduate Students Fort Lewis College Durango, Colorado.
Scientific Method.
DRAFT ONLY Sensory evaluation Foundation.
Sensory Analysis Colourful Tasty Bland Spicy! Tangy sweet.
Starter Activity Around the room are 3 different types of industry sensory analysis methods. Individually read the activity sheet and complete the activity.
Sensory Evaluation Technique
 The investigator passively observes and records information on observational units.  Method often used to see how things behave in nature.  Still.
Key Features and Results
Marquette University Office of Institutional Research & Assessment (OIRA) Summary of the Marquette On-Line Course Evaluation System (MOCES): Fall semester.
The Learning Behaviors Scale
Essential Statistics Chapter 81 Producing Data: Experiments.
230 Jeopardy Unit 4 Chi-Square Repeated- Measures ANOVA Factorial Design Factorial ANOVA Correlation $100 $200$200 $300 $500 $400 $300 $400 $300 $400 $500.
© Copyright McGraw-Hill CHAPTER 3 Data Description.
 Most scientific graphs are made as line graphs. There may be times when other types would be appropriate, but they are rare.  The lines on scientific.
Welcome to Common Core High School Mathematics Leadership
INTRODUCTION While some recent research has shown alcohol to have positive effects in daily social interactions (aan het Rot, 2008), most studies examining.
Section 2.4 Representing Data.
The Scientific Method. The Scientific Method The Scientific Method is a problem solving-strategy. *It is just a series of steps that can be used to solve.
Slide 13-1 Copyright © 2004 Pearson Education, Inc.
Section I: The Fundamentals of Wine Chapter 4: Tasting Wines.
Additional analysis of poverty in Scotland 2013/14 Communities Analytical Services July 2015.
Chapter 8 Data Modeling Advanced Concepts Database Principles: Fundamentals of Design, Implementation, and Management Tenth Edition.
“A Milky Situation” By: Jessica.
Evaluating the Quality Characteristics of Brownies Prepared with Varying Amounts of Sugar Cecilia Smith, Kara Wilcoxon Family and Consumer Sciences, Eastern.
Objectives 2.1Scatterplots  Scatterplots  Explanatory and response variables  Interpreting scatterplots  Outliers Adapted from authors’ slides © 2012.
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Graphing Data Box and whiskers plot Bar Graph Double Bar Graph Histograms Line Plots Circle Graphs.
Lab Report 2 Does It All Add Up?. Title Page Name of Lab, Name of Student, Date, Period, Subject Name of Lab: Does It All Add Up? The Rest should be self.
Statistics Without Fear! AP Ψ. An Introduction Statistics-means of organizing/analyzing data Descriptive-organize to communicate Inferential-Determine.
1 Mohamed Alosh, Ph.D. Kathleen Fritsch, Ph.D. Shiowjen Lee, Ph.D. DBIII, OB, CDER, FDA Efficacy Evaluation in Acne Clinical Trials.
Chapter 6: Analyzing and Interpreting Quantitative Data
Breadsticks.
Unit 1 How do we distinguish substances?
STATISTICS STATISTICS Numerical data. How Do We Make Sense of the Data? descriptively Researchers use statistics for two major purposes: (1) descriptively.
{ Chapter 6.2 Part 2. Experimental Design Terms Terms: Response variable – measures outcome (dependent, y) Explanatory variable – attempts to explain.
By: Josh Fox, Ted Phaniphon, Stephanie Schweiner, Chris Spezzia.
1 Topic 14 – Experimental Design Crossover Nested Factors Repeated Measures.
Biotechnology Labs To accompany Georgia Middle School Lessons on Biotechnology Written by: Christina M. Spears Georgia Agriculture Education Curriculum.
Experiments Textbook 4.2. Observational Study vs. Experiment Observational Studies observes individuals and measures variables of interest, but does not.
Opinion spam and Analysis 소프트웨어공학 연구실 G 최효린 1 / 35.
L2 Sampling Exercise A possible solution.
Margaux Vannevel, Jeanne Brand, Valeria Panzeri, Nick Vink
Sensory Analysis How to ensure a fair test when carrying out sensory analysis • It should take place in a quiet area, away from where the food was prepared.
DATA ANALYSIS IN CHEMISTRY
Energy Notes Unit 3.
Module 8 Statistical Reasoning in Everyday Life
Chapter 3 Producing Data
Sawaya Segalas & Co., LLC Preliminary Introductory Materials
How Brand Consumption Rituals Enhance Product Evaluation?
Pre-AP Biology Graphing 1.
Subjective Method of Food Analysis
An Introduction to Correlational Research
Sensory Science 101 Part II: Sensory Evaluation Methods
Descriptive Statistics
Rescuing the Overpouring Effect: The impact of Perceived Drinking Situation in a Simulated Alcohol Free Pour Task Meredith Watson, Brianne Ackley, Lucas.
Presentation transcript:

Experimental Design The product set used consisted of 18 different waters: 17 different commercially available domestic and foreign waters of varying mineral contents, and 1 sample of Davis municipal water. Sixteen of the waters were still, though four samples were originally sparkling (3, 5, 17, 18). These sparkling waters were stirred on a magnetic stir plate until no bubbles remained by taste. Two of the waters (2,7 and 4,10) were used as blind doubles; a total of 20 samples were presented to each panelist in 25 mL quantities in clear wine glasses labeled with three-digit codes. The three tasks occurred in controlled individual, positive pressure, sensory evaluation booths under white light. Sixteen panelists (8 males, 8 females), some with previous sensory evaluation experience, were recruited through . Each subject performed both the sorting and napping task three times. Half of the panelists performed each task weekly, switching for the second week of evaluation to negate the effect of familiarity with the product set. Comparison of sorting and napping sensory profiling methods using mineral water, related to chemical attributes and consumer preference Christine L. Wilson and Hildegarde Heymann Dept. of Viticulture and Enology Introduction In order to compare the flavors of waters with different mineral contents, panelists completed two tasks in which they separated the waters into groups by flavor. Another larger set of consumer panelists rated their liking of the 20 waters. Both sorting and napping take the holistic difference among the samples into account and we were interested in whether the two tasks would lead to similar results in terms of the detectable differences among the panelists. Additionally, we wanted to determine if consumers liked the different types and mineral contents of the waters differentially. Conclusions Vichy Catalan (5), Gerolsteiner (18), and Ferrarele (3), the waters with the highest mineral contents as well as Davis tap water (12) were considered to be different from the other water in both the sorting and napping tasks. Additionally these waters had a lower degree of liking score from the consumers. Though many people consider water to have little to no flavor, our panelists were able to consistently separate some waters from others by flavor. ICP-MS will be performed on the waters to assess whether any grouping, liking, or descriptor trends are related to the actual individual mineral contents and to determine if the label data are accurate.. Results Acknowledgments: All participating panelists; Hildegarde Heymann; Helene Hopfer, Ellie King and Meredith Bell. UC Davis DHC Program Sorting The sorting task shows increasing product separation with each successive replication (Figure 1). Rep 1 shows the products clustered with minimal separation, while in Reps 2 and 3, waters 5, 18, 3, and 12 are more separated from the group, and there appear to be two groups within the rest of the waters. Napping For the napping task, products 5, 18, 3, and 12 tended to grouped away from the cluster of the other waters, as in the later replicates of the sorting task (Figure 2). They corresponded generally with descriptors such as ‘high flavor’, ‘high salty’, ‘putrid’, and ‘salty’. The other waters were associated with flavor terms such as ‘bright’, ‘neutral’, and ‘rain”. Figure 1 – Sorting product relationship plots a.) rep 1, b.) rep 2, c.) rep ProductMeans 5Vichy Catalan1.6 18Gerolsteiner3.4 3Ferrarele4.1 12Davis Tap4.7 8Sole4.9 17Hildon5.0 13Ice Age5.0 10† Evian5.0 15Pure Swiss5.0 16Mountain Valley5.0 2* Crystal Geyser5.3 9Smart Water5.4 6Whole Foods Mineral5.4 20Ice Box5.4 11Acqua Panna5.5 4† Evian5.6 1Pure Hawaiian5.6 14Lurisia5.6 19Eternal Alkaline5.7 7* Crystal Geyser5.8 For the sorting task, they were directed to form between 3-19 groups of similar tasting waters. They noted these groups on an answer sheet. In the napping task, panelists were directed to arrange the wine glasses on a 40x60cm paper according to their relative similarities and dissimilarities, with more similar tasting waters placed closer together on the paper. They were given the option to write any flavor descriptors they felt represented a group directly on the paper next to the glasses. Finally, a hedonic (degree of liking) rating test was performed by 53 subjects who rated their liking of the waters on a 9-point scale, from ‘dislike extremely’ to ‘like extremely’ and completed a survey about their water drinking and purchasing habits. Degree of Liking (Hedonics) The hedonic test showed product 5 was the least liked (Table 1). This water had the highest mineral content of all the samples (based on label data). The next two lowest rated products, 18 and 3, also correspond with high mineral content waters. Products 4, 1, 14, 19, and 7 were most liked, though the blind doubles did not group together. a.) b.) c.) Table 1 – Hedonic liking test (symbols represent blind duplicates) n=53. 1=least liked a.) b.) c.) Figure 2 – Napping product relationship plots and descriptors a.) rep 1, b.) rep 2, c.) rep 3 n=16