NT 31103

SENSORY EVALUATION OF FOOD

SEMESTER 1 2018/2019
LAB REPORT

Practical 2: Threshold Value Determination

Lecturer’s Name: Sir Ahmad Riduan bin Bahauddin

Name Matrix No. Section Signature

Amirah Safirah binti BN16110080 1

Mohd Jame

Mavrina Micheal BN16110166 1

Marianne Bellinda Bell BN16110058 1

Nur Nasuha binti BN16110107 1

Harun

Siti Rosniefa binti BN16110140 1

Mohd Yusop
Introduction

Sensory capability can be determined with variety of methods which include absolute
detection and quality recognition. The absolute threshold is defined as the detectable
concentration or the minimum concentrations that a person can distinguish from water
(Amerine et. al, 2013).

Recognition threshold defined as the concentration at which specific taste can be

recognized or the minimum concentration that gives a rise to a characteristic quality.
Terminal threshold defined as the level beyond which a stimulus is no longer detected.
However, the ranges of individual varies were systematically compressed for level of
thresholds related to those from full detection functions (Wise & Breslin, 2013). Therefore,
people varies in sensory capability appear to interact with different test techniques. From
day to day, although the same techniques and subject were used, there are still variation in
the taste threshold to a given compound.

Objective
The practical was done to introduce the theory of threshold value determination and to
identify the threshold value of individual for sucrose and salt solutions.

Materials and Apparatus

Set A (with 6 coded samples) Drinking water

Set B (with 6 coded samples) Tray

Cups
Procedures

1) 15-20 ml of Set A (with 6 coded 6) The level of student's threshold

samples) were poured into value for sugar and salt solution
different cups was determined

2) Student rinsed their mouth with 5) Steps 1-4 were repeated for Set
water before tasting every sample B (with 6 coded samples)

3) Student took a small sip of the 4) Student waited and rested for
sample and the taste was up to 15 seconds before tasting
identified and recorded another sample

Results

Table 1: Threshold Value Determination for Panel 1

Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ? Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ?
A (%) B (%)
A1 0.0 / B1 0.0 /
A2 0.3 / B2 0.04 /
A3 0.6 / B3 0.08 /
A4 0.9 / B4 0.12 /
A5 1.2 / B5 0.16 /
 A6 2.0 / B6 0.2 /
Best Estimated Threshold, BET =√𝑥 1 × 𝑥 2
Set A =0 (Rejected)

Set B = √0.04 × 0.08 = 0.057

𝐴+𝐵 0+0.057
Average = 2
= 2
= 0.029

Table 2: Threshold Value Determination for Panel 2

Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ? Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ?
A (%) B (%)
A1 0.0 / B1 0.0 /
A2 0.3 / B2 0.04 /
A3 0.6 / B3 0.08 /
A4 0.9 / B4 0.12 /
A5 1.2 / B5 0.16 /
A6 2.0 / B6 0.2 /

Best Estimated Threshold, BET =√𝑥 1 × 𝑥 2

Set A = 0 (Rejected)

Set B = √0.04 × 0.08 = 0.057

𝐴+𝐵 0+0.057
Average = = = 0.029
2 2

Table 3: Threshold Value Determination for Panel 3

Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ? Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ?
A (%) B (%)
A1 0.0 / B1 0.0 /
A2 0.3 / B2 0.04 /
A3 0.6 / B3 0.08 /
A4 0.9 / B4 0.12 /
A5 1.2 / B5 0.16 /
A6 2.0 / B6 0.2 /
Best threshold Level = Rejected

Table 4: Threshold Value Determination for Panel 4

Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ? Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ?
A (%) B (%)
A1 0.0 / B1 0.0 /
A2 0.3 / B2 0.04 /
A3 0.6 / B3 0.08 /
A4 0.9 / B4 0.12 /
A5 1.2 / B5 0.16 /
A6 2.0 / B6 0.2 /

Best Estimated Threshold, BET =√𝑥 1 × 𝑥 2

Set A = √0.3 × 0.6 = 0.424

Set B = √0.0 × 0.04 =0

𝐴+𝐵 1.095+0.089
Average = 2
= 2
= 0.592

Table 5: Threshold Value Determination for Panel 5

Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ? Set Conc. Sweet Salty 0 ?
A (%) B (%)
A1 0.0 / B1 0.0 /
A2 0.3 / B2 0.04 /
A3 0.6 / B3 0.08 /
A4 0.9 / B4 0.12 /
A5 1.2 / B5 0.16 /
A6 2.0 / B6 0.2 /

Best Estimated Threshold, BET =√𝑥 1 × 𝑥 2

Set A = √0.3 × 0.6 = 0.424

Set B = √0.0 × 0.04 =0

𝐴+𝐵 1.095+0.089
Average = 2
= 2
= 0.592
Table 6: The Average Best Estimated Threshold (BET) of Panel 1 to 5

(Set A) X1 X2 BET (Set B) X1 X2 BET

Panel 1 0 0 0 Panel 1 0.04 0.08 0.057

Panel 2 0 0 0 Panel 2 0.04 0.08 0.057

Panel 3 0 0 0 Panel 3 0 0 0

Panel 4 0.6 2 1.095 Panel 4 0.0 0.04 0

Panel 5 0.6 2 1.095 Panel 5 0.0 0.04 0

Average BET 0.438 Average BET 0.057

Table 7: The Average Best Estimated Threshold (BET) of every group

Overall: n= 35
Group Average BET (SET A) Average BET (SETB)
1 (This Group) 0.438 0.057
2 0.424 0.057
3 0.085 0.011
4 0.606 0.100
5 0.464 0.051
6 0.085 0.023
7 0.084 0
Total Average of 0.312 0.043
BET

Discussion

Tongue has millions of receptors on its surface to detect various taste and sensation.
Taste buds, located on small bumps on the tongue called taste papillae, are each contain
many taste receptor cells (Retseck, 2013). They increase the surface area of tongue and
also make sure that taste can be perceived more intensely. About half of the sensory cells
react to several of the five basic tastes. They only differ by having varying levels of
sensitivity to the different basic tastes. Each cell has a specific palette of tastes with fixed
rankings: this means that a particular cell might be most sensitive to sweet, followed by
sour, salty and bitter, while another has its own ranking. The full experience of a flavor is
produced only after all of the sensory cell profiles from the different parts of the tongue are
combined. The other half of the sensory cells and nerve fibers are specialized to react to
only one taste. It is the job of these cells to transmit information on the intensity of the
stimulus, how salty or sour something tastes. (Health, 2016)

In this experiment, the threshold of the tester are being identified. Threshold is
defined as that concentration or stimulus intensity which elicits a response can be detected
or recognized 50 % of the time. In other words, is the level of sensitivity towards a taste of
a person is different to another person. Threshold are classically thought of as determinants
made in individual subjects, where given no two human observer are the same and also
because the sensitivity are different. Because of this variation, there may have problem
when data collected as it might as well vary from one determinant to another. (Gary S,
2014). This sensitivity towards taste can be influenced by factors .For example, individual
differences and environmental factors, such as age, sex, morbidities, and exposure to foods
with high sodium contents, may contribute to variations in salt taste sensitivity (Methven L,
2012) (Kirsten VR, 2014). There are three definitions of threshold that is absolute threshold,
recognition threshold and terminal threshold. In this experiment, recognition threshold was
used.

In the end of experiment, threshold value of the panelists for sweet and salty taste
are determined. There are 2 set of sample, each set of sample are labelled from 1 to 6 in
increasing of the concentration of the taste. Sample A is sucrose solution while set B is salt
solution. Each panelist taste from A1 to A6. There goes the same for set B. “0” are when the
panelist do not taste anything, and “?” when they uncertain of the taste. From A1 to A6, the
sucrose solution are increasing from 0, 0.3%, 0.6%, 0.9%, 1.2% and 2.0 % of sucrose
solution. While for set B, start from 0, 0.04%, 0.08%, 0.12%, 0.16% and 0.20 % of salt
solution. Thresholds were estimated using 2 approaches: individual and group thresholds.
The individual best-estimated detection threshold (BET), as proposed in ASTM E679, was
obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the last missed concentration and the next
higher concentration detected, considering it as the first of all subsequent concentration
correctly answered. (Jean-François Giguère, 2016). To calculate the threshold value, BET or
Best estimated threshold was used using the formula :

Best Estimated Threshold , BET = √(〖 x^1 × x〗 ^2 )

x^1=Highest concentration not detected

x^(2 )=Next higher concentration

Based on the result, shows the individual result of a group of 5 panelists, also a
result of all group, n=35, their accumulation of BET and total average of the entire group.
Total average BET for entire class for set A is 0.44, and for set B is 0.05. For the individual
result of the five panelists, there are vary. For panel 4 and 5 have the same expected result,
where a normal healthy person may have. Both panel 4 and 5 are not so sensitive to sweet
as they identified 0.3% of sucrose solution as no taste. It may due to effect like obesity, or
smoker. People that smokes before testing also might cannot taste well, as nicotine in the
cigarette can block the taste cues for a while, hence the sensitivity to taste decrease
(C.Loney, 2018), especially for sweet taste. When a person is obese , she/he might has less
sensitive when it comes to sweet food, as she always takes high sugar content food, that
the sensitivity had decrease (Avena, 2010), (C. Proserpio, 2015). Interestingly, severely
depressed persons have decrease sensitivity to all taste, especially sweet and salty (Gallani
MC, 2013) (Tom P. Heath, 2006).

But for panel 1, 2 and 3 have unexpected result. For set A, panel 1 and 2 can
identified taste from A1 but then when comes to A5 and A6, They cannot identify sweet
taste. It is actually quite impossible not to taste sweet as the concentration already high at
A5, and also they can identify the sweet taste with lower concentration of sucrose above A5
sample. This error might have occurs because of their carelessness when testing the
sample. They also may have test together, and this had affect the interpretation of the taste
result. This may due to psychological factors which the error are called mutual suggestion,
where the panel discuss the taste of the sample. Hence it influence the judgement of
another panel. (Hough, 2010). Also, the sample cups are not labelled, hence while testing,
they might have switched the sample cups with 0% concentration sample cup.

In set B, for salty threshold determination, both panel 4 and 5 also get the same
result. They get to recognized salty taste at B2 sample to the B6 sample. There are some
precaution step that can be taken to reduce error in this experiment. First, the sample cup
should be labelled so that they are not switched when tasting. Also, the panel should not
discuss they opinion about the taste of the sample. They should carry out the test properly
one by one person. Furthermore, ensure to rinse mouth with distilled water every time want
to taste new sample, this to ensure the sensitivity of taste bud and get rid the after taste of
sample before.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, each panelist has different level of sensitivity towards taste. Some of
them cannot identify the sweetness of 0.03% of sucrose solution. Factors that affected the
result of the experiment are lifestyle, health condition and psychological factors. Smokers
will have low sensitivity to taste because of the chemical reaction of nicotine in cigarette for
a while. Psychological factor is talking about mutual suggestion which affect the judgment of
another panel towards taste which must be minimize to increase the accuracy of the results.
Therefore, sensory taste need a less communication between each panel to minimize the
error and rinse the mouth before testing each of the sample.

REFERENCES

Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M., & Roessler, E. B. (2013). Principles of sensory evaluation
of food. Elsevier.

Avena, N. M. (2010). The study of food addiction using animal models of binge eating.
Appetite, 734- 737.

C. Proserpio, M. L. (2015). Determinants in obesity in Italian adults: The role in sensitivity,

food liking and food neophonia. Chemical Senses.

C.Loney, G. (2018). Nicotine affects ethanol-conditioned taste, but not place, aversion in a
simultaneous conditioning procedure. Alcohol, 71, 47-55.
Gallani MC, C. M. (2013). Conceptual framework for research and clinical practice concerning
cardiovascular health-related behaviors. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, 21 Spec No: 207
– 215 .

Gary S, T. A. (2014). Threshold Sensory Evaluation. American Brewers Guild Brewing School

Health, P. (2016). How does our sense of taste work? National Center for Biotechnology
Information, U.S National Library of Medicine.

Hough, G. (2010). Sensory Shelf Life Estimation of Food Products. United State of America:
CRC Press.

Jean-François Giguère, e. a. (2016). Reliability of a Simple Method for Determining Salt

Taste Detection and Recognition Thresholds. Chemical Senses, Volume 41, Issue 3,
pg 205–210,.

Kirsten VR, W. M. (2014). Salt taste sensitivity thresholds in adolescents: are there any
relationships with body composition and blood pressure levels? Appetite, 81: 89 –
92.

Marcos Veiga dos Santos. (2003) Sensory Threshold of Off-Flavors Caused by Proteolysis
and Lipolysis in Milk, Journal of Dairy Science, 86(5):1601-7

Methven L, A. V. (2012). Ageing and taste. Proc Nutr Soc, 71 (4): 556 – 565 .

Steiner, e. a. (1969). Taste perception in depressive illness. Isr Ann Psychiatrian Relation
Discipline, 7:223-232.

Tom P. Heath, J. K. (2006). Human Taste Thresholds Are Modulated by Serotonin and
Noradrenaline. Journal of Neuroscience, 26 (49).

Wise, P. M., & Breslin, P. A. S. (2013). Individual Differences in Sour and Salt Sensitivity:
Detection and Quality Recognition Thresholds for Citric Acid and Sodium
Chloride. Chemical Senses, 38(4), 333–342.