1. 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 email. 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 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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