discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230264214
CITATIONS
READS
90
2 authors, including:
Sandra Guerrero
National Scientific and Technical Research
56 PUBLICATIONS 962 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Original article
Correlation between instrumental and sensory ratings by
evaluation of some texture reference scales
Analia B. Garcia Loredo1 & Sandra N. Guerrero1,2*
1 Departamento de Industrias, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente Guiraldes s n. Ciudad
Universitaria, 1428 C.A.B.A., Argentina
2 Member of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient cas y Tecnicas de la Republica Argentina, Rivadavia 1917, 1033 C.A.B.A., Argentina
(Received 17 January 2011; Accepted in revised form 10 June 2011)
Summary
The objective of this study was to investigate instrumentalsensory relationships of some texture scales using
argentine foods as references. Textural characteristics of these foods were instrumentally investigated by the
texture prole analysis technique. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to describe the main
attributes of the food samples. High Pearsons correlation coecients were found between hardness and
fracturability (r = 0.94; P < 0.0001), hardness and gumminess (r = 0.71; P < 0.0001) and springiness and
cohesiveness (r = 0.85; P < 0.0001). PCA identied two signicant principal components, which accounted
for 81.2% of the variance in the instrumental data. Additionally, a trained panel described the texture
characteristics of the food samples according to the standard reference scales. The correlation curves showed
nonlinear relationships (R2 between 85.6% and 99.9%) which were used to predict sensory attributes of other
food samples. Some texture attributes like hardness and fracturability were accurately predicted by
mechanical properties, while others like cohesiveness and adhesiveness were less representative.
Keywords
Introduction
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02709.x
2011 The Authors. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011 Institute of Food Science and Technology
1977
1978
Samples
Table 1 List of food products and the correspondent sensory scale values used in modelization
Parameter
Hardness
Fracturability
Viscosity
Cohesiveness
Gumminess
Adhesiveness to
palate
Springiness
Brand or type-manufacturer
Scale value
References
Casancrem La Serensima
1
2.5
5
6
9.5
11
17
1
2.5
5
8
10
12
14.5
1
2
3
6
7
La lechera Nestle
1
5
8
8.2
11.5
12
1
2
3
4
5
1
3
6
7.5
12
0
5.2
6.5
11
15
*Extreme of scale.
7 g of unflavored gelatin + 85 g of strawberry gelatin, dissolving in 375 mL of boiling water, refrigerated immediately.
85 g of unflavored gelatin + 85 g of strawberry gelatin, dissolving in 375 mL of boiling water, refrigerated immediately.
1979
1980
Statistical analysis
2.7
7.7
66.2
75.7
267.5
539.0
1330
0.1
1.5
4.4
18.9
55.6
76.5
180
0
19.4
35.8
65.1
261.9
718.7
1164
2.9
9.9
7.2
57.2
61.4
269
0.23 0.02
0.24 0.04
0.08 0.02*
0.34 0.03
0.78 0.02
0.13 0.03*
0.50
1.6
3.1
6.3
13.4
0.05
0.4
1.2
1.9
1.7
0.007 0.002*
0.0028 0.0006
0.010 0.002
0.011 0.001
0.015 0.003
0.5
0.78
0.79
0.88
0.96
0.1
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
3.74
147
25.8
506
1254
2688
0.84
8
16
9
38
48
1981
1982
while adhesiveness to palate instrumentalsensory correlation exhibited a downward concavity and was
adequately described by the following relationship
y a lnx b
2
where y: instrumental measurement; x: sensory score
and a,b: parameters.
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Sensory rating
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
Sensory rating
12
Instrumental cohesiveness ()
Instrumental springiness ()
Gumminess
0.8
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2500
2000
1500
1000
Sensory rating
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Sensory rating
Cohesiveness
1.0
Viscosity
3000
Sensory rating
Fracturability
Instrumental viscosity (cP)
Hardness
1600
Adhesiveness
0.018
0.015
0.012
0.009
0.006
0.003
2
10
12
Sensory rating
Springiness
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
8 10 12 14 16
Sensory rating
Figure 2 Instrumentalsensory correlations with texture parameters. () experimental data; () model prediction; (I) error bar.
a
Model: y = aeb.x
Texture scales
Hardness
Fracturability
Viscosity
Cohesiveness
Gumminess
Springiness
Model: y = a ln (x) b
Adhesiveness to palate
42.2
15.2
5.9
0.11
0.33
0.59
14.9
8.6
3.6
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.0084 0.0021
0.21
0.33
0.77
0.17
0.74
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.0052 0.0039
Variability
explained R2 (%)
Fisher
97.5
96.7
98.8
90.6
99.9
85.6
152.3***
120.4***
303.2***
42.9**
5495.7***
269.6***
89.2
57.7**
1983
1984
cohesiveness when evaluating poultry patties (no elastic). Description of sensory perception of cohesiveness
may not be well characterised by one physical measurement (A2 A1) when comparing food samples from
dierent food systems, but could be a good indicator
in a limited group of foods such as gels (Meullenet et al.,
1998). Di Monaco et al. (2008) found a nonlinear
relationship between sensory and instrumental measurements of hardness, whereas cohesiveness and springiness
were poorly predicted.
In the adhesiveness scale, the instrumental measurement of one food reference product (margarine) did not
adequately correlate with the sensory rating being
signicantly greater. Preliminary research showed that
the texture of this type of food is aected by small
changes in temperature. Szczesniak et al. (1963) commented that the food items selected for the development
of standard rating scales had to meet the requirement of
a minimum change in textural properties from small
temperature variations. Chauvin et al. (2009) reported
an inconsistency in the standard adhesiveness scale
where some reference foods were not well perceived. The
discrepancy was attributed to taste preference and
inability of the panel to hold the food inside their
mouths for a required amount of time.
Validation of the sensoryinstrumental correlations
Table 5 Means and standard deviations of sensory and instrumental measurements and predicted sensory score of food samples
Type brand-manufacturer
Instrumental
value
Predicted
sensory value
Observed
sensory value
P value
Manon Terrabusi
Granny Smith
Granny Smith 90s in steam
223.1 60.8
293.2 30.3
196.2 24.5
7.6 1.3
8.8 1.1
6.99 1.25
7.96 0.65
7.82 0.97
6.56 0.69
0.697*
0.307*
0.638*
Manon Terrabusi
La Yapa Stani
223.1 60.8
1007 233
8.1 1.8
12.7 2.3
7.2 1.7
12.7 2.7
0.563*
0.990*
Mendicrim Nestle
Classic Sancor
0.0045 0.0009
0.0042 0.0001
3.2 2.6
3.1 2.6
4.4 0.5
5.1 0.9
0.515*
0.335*
0.75 0.02
11.3 2.7
10.2 1.5
0.581*
Supporting Information
1985