67.240 - Sensory analysis
ICS 67.240 Details
Sensory analysis
Sensorische Analyse
Analyse sensorielle
Senzorična analiza
General Information
Frequently Asked Questions
ICS 67.240 is a classification code in the International Classification for Standards (ICS) system. It covers "Sensory analysis". The ICS is a hierarchical classification system used to organize international, regional, and national standards, facilitating the search and identification of standards across different fields.
There are 263 standards classified under ICS 67.240 (Sensory analysis). These standards are published by international and regional standardization bodies including ISO, IEC, CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI.
The International Classification for Standards (ICS) is a hierarchical classification system maintained by ISO to organize standards and related documents. It uses a three-level structure with field (2 digits), group (3 digits), and sub-group (2 digits) codes. The ICS helps users find standards by subject area and enables statistical analysis of standards development activities.
e-Library Subscription
Create subscription and get permanent access to documents within 67.240 - Sensory analysis
Currently subscription includes documents marked with .We are working on making all documents available within the subscription.
This document specifies a method for the application of balanced incomplete block designs to sensory descriptive and hedonic tests. This document is applicable when the number of test samples exceeds the number of evaluations that an assessor can perform reliably in a single session. This document also specifies the fundamental characteristics of balanced incomplete block designs and establishes guidelines for their application in sensory evaluation.
- Standard19 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard19 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceptible difference results or a perceptible difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling, or storage; or
5.1.2 To select, train, and monitor assessors.
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the test is to determine that the products are perceptibly different versus that the products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably. Only the selected values of α, β, and δ or Pd change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceptible difference between two products, then initially the products are assumed to be indistinguishable (for example, HO: δ or Pd = 0) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the products are perceptively different). If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then initially the products are assumed to be meaningfully different (for example, HO: δ or Pd > the value chosen to represent a meaningful difference) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the samples are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably).
5.3 The tetrad method involves the evaluation of four samples. When the products being tested cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover, or adaptation, methods that involve the evaluation of fewer samples (same-different, triangle test, etc.) may be preferred.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products or to estimate the magnitude of the perceptible difference.
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.
1.4 The tetrad test is more efficient statistically than the triangle test (Test Method E1885) or the duo-trio test (Test Method E2610).
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard14 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard14 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by a panel leader to provide assessors and panels feedback: (1) on their data-based performance, (2) on any behavior changes that are needed to improve their performance, and (3) to motivate assessors to remain engaged with the panel tasks. The aim of all these types of feedback is to ensure the generation of repeatable and valid data.
4.2 This guide provides direction for how to achieve mutually beneficial feedback exchanges between assessors and panel leaders.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidance to sensory panel leaders on how to deliver performance feedback to trained sensory assessors and panels. This guide is not intended to be used by individual assessors or anyone unfamiliar with the panel.
1.2 This guide covers recommended feedback given throughout assessor training, panel development, and ongoing assessor and panel monitoring.
1.3 This guide examines aspects of feedback including: types, when to provide, effective delivery, and alignment to performance expectations for assessors.
1.4 Descriptive, discrimination, and quality panels are within the scope of this guide.
1.5 This guide does not cover consumer panels (qualitative or quantitative).
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide18 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Guide18 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document specifies criteria for the selection of and procedures for the training of trained sensory assessors and expert sensory assessors for food and beverages, as well as home and personal care products.
It is applicable to all industries concerned with the evaluation of products by the sense organs.
This document supplements the information given in ISO 6658.
- Standard48 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document specifies the characteristics of a glass intended for use in the sensory analysis of the organoleptic attributes of odour, taste and flavour of virgin olive oils, for the classification of such oils. The glass does not apply for the analysis of the colour or texture of olive oils. In addition, this document describes an adapted heating unit used to reach and maintain the right temperature for this analysis.
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies criteria for the selection of and procedures for the training of trained sensory assessors and expert sensory assessors for food and beverages, as well as home and personal care products.
It is applicable to all industries concerned with the evaluation of products by the sense organs.
This document supplements the information given in ISO 6658.
- Standard48 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
This document specifies criteria for the selection of and procedures for the training of trained sensory assessors and expert sensory assessors for food and beverages, as well as home and personal care products. It is applicable to all industries concerned with the evaluation of products by the sense organs. This document supplements the information given in ISO 6658.
- Standard38 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard39 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This practice is designed for use by the oil processor or research laboratory for evaluation by a trained sensory panel, or for use by quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) personnel for sampling from a tank truck, car, or any other bulk transportation container, or by both.
4.2 The consistent use of this practice will provide representative samples for all sensory, chemical and physical analyses and will protect the oil from oxidation.
4.3 The objective of this practice is to ensure that the sample is representative of the sample source from the time of sampling until the time of evaluation and to protect oil quality during that time.
4.4 This practice addresses neither evaluation and scaling techniques, nor the sampling, handling, and preparing of solid fats.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the recommended procedures for bulk sampling, handling, and preparing edible vegetable oil (liquid at room temperature) prior to sensory evaluation.
1.2 This practice is consistent with the background information presented in ASTM STP 433, ASTM Manual 26, and ASTM STP 758. These should be consulted for supplemental guidance.
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard4 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing and implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only to the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product. This guide was developed for use in the United States and must be adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claim substantiation for any other country. A claim is a statement about a product that highlights its advantages, sensory or perceptual attributes, or product changes or differences compared to other products in order to enhance its marketability. Attribute, performance, and hedonic claims, both comparative and non-comparative, are covered. This guide includes broad principles covering selecting and recruiting representative consumer samples, selecting and preparing products, constructing product rating forms, test execution, and statistical handling of data. The objective of this guide is to disseminate good sensory and consumer testing practices. Validation of claims should be made more defendable if the essence of this guide is followed.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Scope
1
Referenced Documents
2
Terminology
3
Basis of Claim Classification
4
Consumer Based Affective Testing
5
Sampling
5.1
Sampling Techniques
5.2
Selection of Products
5.3
Sampling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market
5.4
Handling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market
5.5
Sampling of Products Not Yet on the Market
5.6
Sample Preparation/Test Protocol
5.7
Test Design—Consumer Testing
6
Data Collection Strategies
6.6
Interviewing Techniques
6.7
Type of Questions
6.8
Questionnaire Design
6.9
Instruction to Respondents
6.10
Instructions to Interviewers
6.11
General/Overall Questions
6.12
Positioning of the Key Product Rating Questions
6.13
Total Test Context and Presentation Matters
6.14
Specific Attribute Questions
6.15
Classification or Demographic Questions
6.16
Preference Questions
6.17
Test Location
7
Test Execution by Way of Test Agencies—Food and Non-food
Testing
8
Documents to Retain in Sensory Claims Substantiation Research
9
Laboratory Testing Methods
10
Types of Tests
10.2
Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained Descriptive
Panels in Claims Support Research
10.3
Test Design—Laboratory Testing
11
Product Procurement
11.6
Experimental Design
11.7
Data Collection
11.8
Data Analysis
11.9
Questionnaire Construction
12
Test Facility
13
Statistical Analysis
14
Paired-Preference Studies
14.1
Superiority Claims
14.2
Equivalence Claims
14.3
Unsurpassed Claims
14.4
Paired Comparison/Difference Studies
14.5
Analysis of Data from Scales
14.6
Keywords
15
Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and Claim
Substantiation
Appendix X1
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide32 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Guide32 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document gives guidelines for assessing the overall performance of a quantitative descriptive panel and the performance of each panel member.
This document is applicable to the validation of the training of individual assessors or panels, as well as to the performance monitoring of established panels.
This document does not apply to the panel performance for descriptive methods where the individual scores of each assessor are not recorded, where there is no single list of attributes that is common to all the assessors, or where dominance rather than intensity is measured. Consequently, the performance of descriptive panels using methods such as consensus profile, free-choice profile, flash profile and temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) are out of scope.
The methods specified in this document are for monitoring and assessing the ability of a panel and its assessors to discriminate between products, the agreement between assessors of the same panel and the repeatability of these assessors in their intensity scoring.
Reproducibility, including both the comparison between panels and the comparison within the same panel of several evaluations conducted under different conditions (i.e. separated in time), is out of scope of this document.
The methods specified in this document can be used, in full or a selection only, by the panel leader to appraise continuously the performance of panels or individual assessors. The methods listed are not exhaustive and other appropriate methods can also be used.
- Standard31 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
This document gives guidelines for assessing the overall performance of a quantitative descriptive panel and the performance of each panel member.
This document is applicable to the validation of the training of individual assessors or panels, as well as to the performance monitoring of established panels.
This document does not apply to the panel performance for descriptive methods where the individual scores of each assessor are not recorded, where there is no single list of attributes that is common to all the assessors, or where dominance rather than intensity is measured. Consequently, the performance of descriptive panels using methods such as consensus profile, free-choice profile, flash profile and temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) are out of scope.
The methods specified in this document are for monitoring and assessing the ability of a panel and its assessors to discriminate between products, the agreement between assessors of the same panel and the repeatability of these assessors in their intensity scoring.
Reproducibility, including both the comparison between panels and the comparison within the same panel of several evaluations conducted under different conditions (i.e. separated in time), is out of scope of this document.
The methods specified in this document can be used, in full or a selection only, by the panel leader to appraise continuously the performance of panels or individual assessors. The methods listed are not exhaustive and other appropriate methods can also be used.
- Standard31 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
This document specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes.
The method is statistically more efficient than the duo-trio test (described in ISO 10399), but has limited use with products that exhibit strong carryover and/or lingering flavours.
The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown [i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference]. The method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous.
The method is effective for:
a) determining that:
either a perceptible difference results (triangle testing for difference);
a perceptible difference does not result (triangle testing for similarity),
when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage;
b) selecting, training and monitoring assessors.
- Standard24 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
This document gives guidelines for assessing the overall performance of a quantitative descriptive panel and the performance of each panel member. This document is applicable to the validation of the training of individual assessors or panels, as well as to the performance monitoring of established panels. This document does not apply to the panel performance for descriptive methods where the individual scores of each assessor are not recorded, where there is no single list of attributes that is common to all the assessors, or where dominance rather than intensity is measured. Consequently, the performance of descriptive panels using methods such as consensus profile, free-choice profile, flash profile and temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) are out of scope. The methods specified in this document are for monitoring and assessing the ability of a panel and its assessors to discriminate between products, the agreement between assessors of the same panel and the repeatability of these assessors in their intensity scoring. Reproducibility, including both the comparison between panels and the comparison within the same panel of several evaluations conducted under different conditions (i.e. separated in time), is out of scope of this document. The methods specified in this document can be used, in full or a selection only, by the panel leader to appraise continuously the performance of panels or individual assessors. The methods listed are not exhaustive and other appropriate methods can also be used.
- Standard22 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard23 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a method for applying magnitude estimation to the evaluation of sensory attributes. The methodology specified covers the training of assessors, and obtaining magnitude estimations as well as their statistical interpretation.
- Standard31 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard34 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes.
The method is statistically more efficient than the duo-trio test (described in ISO 10399), but has limited use with products that exhibit strong carryover and/or lingering flavours.
The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown [i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference]. The method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous.
The method is effective for:
a) determining that:
either a perceptible difference results (triangle testing for difference);
a perceptible difference does not result (triangle testing for similarity),
when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage;
b) selecting, training and monitoring assessors.
- Standard24 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is necessary and useful to test with children because they represent the real end-users for many products. Some products are developed specifically for children, and some are dual-purpose products that are intended for adults and children. Examples include: baby foods, diapers, ready-to-eat cereal, juices, food or lunch kits, candy, toys, vitamins and other pharmaceuticals, music and videos, interactive learning tools, and packaging.
4.2 Children have influence over adults' purchase decisions and are responsible for many or some of their own purchase decisions.
4.3 Creating a product for children requires input from children because their wants and needs differ from those of adults. For example, they may differ from adults in preferences or sensory acuity, or both, for sweetness, saltiness, carbonation, and texture. It is impossible to predict the nature of these differences without actual input from the intended target audience.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides a framework for understanding the issues relating to conducting sensory and market research studies with children. It recommends and provides examples for developing ethical, safe, and valid testing methods. It focuses specifically on the concerns relevant to testing with children from birth through preadolescence. The guide assumes that minors older than 15 years of age are generally capable of performing sensory tests like adults, and therefore, all standard procedures used with adult subjects apply. The one exception, however, is legal consent where parental/legal guardian permission should be obtained for anyone under 18 years of age.
1.2 This guide will take into account the wide range of children's physical, emotional, and cognitive levels of development. It will prove useful for developing tasks that are understandable to children. It recommends alternative modes for children to communicate their opinions or perceptions back to the researcher, such as appropriate scales and measures.
1.3 The ethical standard presented in this document should be viewed as a minimum requirement for testing with minors. The safety and protection of children as respondents, as well as an attitude of respect for the value of their input should be of primary concern to the researcher.
1.4 The considerations raised in this document may also be useful when testing with the elderly or with adults who have developmental handicaps.
1.5 This document is not intended to be a complete description of reliable sensory testing techniques and methodologies. It focuses instead on special considerations for the specific application of sensory techniques when testing with children. It assumes knowledge of basic sensory and statistical analysis techniques.
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide14 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document gives guidelines for substantiating sensory claims on food and non-food products and their packaging for advertising consumer-packaged goods. This document differentiates sensory claims from other types of claims. It provides classification and examples of the different types of sensory claims. It highlights special issues associated with testing to substantiate sensory claims. It includes case studies and references. This document does not apply to: - specific or detailed requirements for different test methods that are used to support sensory claims; - factual claims regarding a product's country of origin, ingredients, processing and nutritional components; - factual claims regarding the technical features of the product; - claims regarding a product's health, medical or therapeutic benefits, physiological effects, structure or function benefits when consumed or applied to the human body; - claims based on instrumental assessments of the attributes or performance of a product (i.e. instrumental assessments; in this case, test methods are used in which no human participant evaluates the product and/or no human participant provides a response to a product); - claims about services (e.g. a house cleaning service, airline services, automobile services); - claims about large/slow moving consumer goods (autos, refrigerators, stoves, etc.).
- Standard18 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard22 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes. The method is statistically more efficient than the duo-trio test (described in ISO 10399), but has limited use with products that exhibit strong carryover and/or lingering flavours. The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown [i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference]. The method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous. The method is effective for: a) determining that: either a perceptible difference results (triangle testing for difference); a perceptible difference does not result (triangle testing for similarity), when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; b) selecting, training and monitoring assessors.
- Standard17 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard17 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document defines a test method for the detection, qualification and possible assessment of odours/flavours exogenous to cork bark selected as bottling product in contact with beverages, still, sparkling and sparkling wines, alcohols and spirits, beers and ciders. This document is applicable to: - cork bark selected as bottling product in all its forms; - all cork components of cork stoppers: granules, discs, bodies and shanks; - all types of cork stoppers, semi-finished (shaped), semi-finished (semi-finished stoppers possibly washed and possibly colmated and/or coated) or ready for use (semi-finished stoppers, possibly branded and surface treated).
- Standard7 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard7 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a method for developing a texture profile of food products (solids, semi-solids, liquids) or non-food products (e.g. cosmetics).
This method is one approach to sensory texture profile analysis and other methods exist. This method describes various steps in the process of establishing a complete description of the textural attributes of a product.
This method is applicable to:
— screening and training assessors;
— orientating assessors through the development of definitions and evaluation techniques for textural characteristics;
— characterizing the textural attributes of a product in order to establish its standard profile and to discern any later changes;
— improving old products and developing new products;
— studying various factors that can affect the textural attributes of a product, e.g. changes in process, time, temperature, ingredients, packaging or shelf-life, and storage conditions;
— comparing a product with another similar product to determine the nature and intensity of textural differences;
— correlating sensory and instrumental and/or physical measurements.
- Standard22 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard17 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard18 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Under the assumptions of the model, the Thurstonian model approach to measuring the perceived difference between two samples (whether overall or for a specific attribute) is independent of the sensory method used to collect the data. Converting results obtained from different test methods to d' values permits the assessment of relative differences among samples without requiring that the samples be compared to each other directly or that the same test methods be used for all pairs of samples.
5.2 Thurstonian scaling has been applied to:
5.2.1 Creating a historical database to track differences between production and reference samples over periods in which different test methods were used to measure the difference,
5.2.2 Comparing the relative sensitivities of different user groups and consumer segments,
5.2.3 Comparing trained panels that use different measuring techniques,
5.2.4 Comparing the relative sensitivities of consumers versus trained panels,
5.2.5 Comparing different methods of consumer testing (for example, CLT versus HUT, preference versus hedonic scales, etc.), and
5.2.6 Comparing different discrimination test methods.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes procedures to estimate Thurstonian discriminal distances (that is, d' values) from data obtained on two samples. Procedures are presented for four forced-choice methods (that is, the triangle, the Duo-Trio, the 3-alternative-forced-choice (or 3-AFC) and the 2-AFC (also called the directional difference test)), the A/Not-A method, the Same-Different method, and for data obtained from ordered category scales. Procedures for estimating the variance of d' are also presented. Thus, confidence intervals and statistical tests can be calculated for d'.
1.2 The procedures in this practice pertain only to the unidimensional, equal-variance model. Other, more complicated Thurstonian models, involving multiple dimensions and unequal variances exist but are not addressed in this practice. The procedure for forced-choice methods is limited to dichotomous responses. The procedure for the A/Not-A method assumes equal sample sizes for the two samples. The procedure for the Same-Different method assumes equal sample sizes for the matched and unmatched pairs of samples. For all methods, only unreplicated tests are considered. (Tests in which each assessor performs multiple (that is, replicated) evaluations require different analyses.)
1.3 Thurstonian scaling is a method for measuring the perceptual difference between two samples based on a probabilistic model for categorical choice decision making. The magnitude of the perceived difference, δ, can be estimated from the assessors' categorical choices using the methods described in this practice. (See Appendix X3 for a more detailed description of Thurstonian scaling.)
1.4 In theory, the Thurstonian δ does not depend on the method used to measure the difference between two samples. As such, δ provides a common scale of measure for comparing samples measured under a variety of test conditions. For example, Thurstonian scaling can be used to compare products measured under different test conditions, to compare panels (trained, consumer or both) that have evaluated the same samples (using the same or different test methods) and to compare test methods on their ability to discriminate samples that exhibit a fixed sensory difference.
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...
- Standard46 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a method for developing a texture profile of food products (solids, semi-solids, liquids) or non-food products (e.g. cosmetics). This method is one approach to sensory texture profile analysis and other methods exist. This method describes various steps in the process of establishing a complete description of the textural attributes of a product. This method is applicable to: - screening and training assessors; - orientating assessors through the development of definitions and evaluation techniques for textural characteristics; - characterizing the textural attributes of a product in order to establish its standard profile and to discern any later changes; - improving old products and developing new products; - studying various factors that can affect the textural attributes of a product, e.g. changes in process, time, temperature, ingredients, packaging or shelf-life, and storage conditions; - comparing a product with another similar product to determine the nature and intensity of textural differences; - correlating sensory and instrumental and/or physical measurements.
- Standard22 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard17 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard18 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Magnitude estimation may be used to measure and compare the intensities of attributes of a wide variety of products.
5.2 Magnitude estimation provides a large degree of flexibility for both the experimenter and the assessor. Once trained in magnitude estimation, assessors are generally able to apply their skill to a wide variety of sample types and attributes, with minimal additional training.
5.3 Magnitude estimation is not as susceptible to end-effects as interval scaling techniques. These can occur when assessors are not familiar with the entire range of sensations being presented. Under these circumstances, assessors may assign an early sample to a category which is too close to one end of the scale. Subsequently, they may “run out of scale” and be forced to assign perceptually different samples to the same category. This should not occur with magnitude estimation, as, in theory, there are an infinite number of categories.
5.4 Magnitude estimation is one frequently used technique that permits the representation of data in terms of Stevens' Power Law.
5.5 The disadvantages of magnitude estimation arise primarily from the requirements of the data analysis.
5.5.1 Permitting each assessor to choose a different numerical scale may produce significant assessor effects. This disadvantage can be overcome in a number of ways, as follows. The experimenter must choose the approach most appropriate for the circumstances.
5.5.1.1 Experiments can be designed such that analysis of variance can be used to remove the assessor effects and interactions.
5.5.1.2 Alternatively, assessors can be forced to a common scale, either by training or by use of external reference samples with assigned values (modulus).
5.5.1.3 Finally, each assessor's data can be brought to a common scale by one of a variety of normalizing methods.
5.5.2 Logarithms must be applied before carrying out data analysis. This becomes problematic if values are near threshold, as a logarit...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a procedure for the application of unipolar magnitude estimation to the evaluation of the magnitude of sensory attributes. The test method covers procedures for the training of assessors to produce magnitude estimations and statistical evaluation of the estimations.
1.2 Magnitude estimation is a psychophysical scaling technique in which assessors assign numeric values to the magnitude of an attribute. The only constraint placed upon the assessor is that the values assigned should conform to a ratio principle. For example, if the attribute seems twice as strong in sample B when compared to sample A, sample B should receive a value which is twice the value assigned to sample A.
1.3 The intensity of attributes such as pleasantness, sweetness, saltiness or softness can be evaluated using magnitude estimation.
1.4 Magnitude estimation may provide advantages over other scaling methods, particularly when the number of assessors and the time available for training are limited. With approximately 1 h of training, a panel of 15 to 20 naive individuals can produce data of adequate precision and reproducibility. Any additional training that may be required to ensure that the assessors can properly identify the attribute being evaluated is beyond the scope of this test method.
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard9 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard7 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard7 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a method for the preparation of a liquor of tea for use in sensory tests, by means of infusing the leaf.
- Standard8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document specifies a procedure for statistically analysing data from forced-choice sensory discrimination tests, such as the triangle, duo-trio, 3-AFC, 2-AFC, in which after every trial of the discrimination test the decision can be made to stop testing and declare a difference, to stop testing and declare no difference, or to continue testing. The sequential method often allows for a decision to be made after fewer trials of the discrimination test than would be required by conventional approaches that use predetermined numbers of assessments. The method is effective for: a) determining that either: a perceptible difference results; or a perceptible difference does not result when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; b) selecting, training and monitoring assessors. N
- Standard10 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard10 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Sensory thresholds are used to determine the potential of substances at low concentrations to impart odor, taste, skinfeel, etc. to some form of matter.
5.2 Thresholds are used, for example, in setting limits for air pollution, in noise abatement, in water treatment, and in food systems.
5.3 Thresholds are used to characterize and compare the sensitivity of individual or groups to given stimuli, for example, in medicine, in ethnic studies, and in the study of animal species.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a rapid test for determining sensory thresholds of any substance in any medium.
1.2 It prescribes an overall design of sample preparation and a procedure for calculating the results.
1.3 The threshold may be characterized as being either (a) only detection (awareness) that a very small amount of added substance is present but not necessarily recognizable, or (b) recognition of the nature of the added substance.
1.4 The medium may be a gas, such as air, a liquid, such as water or some beverage, or a solid form of matter. The medium may be odorless or tasteless, or may exhibit a characteristic odor or taste per se.
1.5 This practice describes the use of a multiple forced-choice sample presentation method in an ascending concentration series, similar to the method of limits.
1.6 Physical methods of sample presentation for threshold determination are not a part of this practice, and will depend on the physical state, size, shape, availability, and other properties of the samples.
1.7 It is recognized that the degree of training received by a panel of assessors with a particular substance may have a profound influence on the threshold obtained with that substance (1).2
1.8 Thresholds determined by using one physical method of presentation are not necessarily equivalent to values obtained by another method.
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard7 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard7 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The application of this practice will help ensure consistency in procedures used for the sensory evaluation of edible oils and fats.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the recommended procedures for the sensory evaluation of edible oils and fats.
1.2 This practice covers techniques for evaluating appearance, odor, and flavor in fats and oils, for determining overall odor and flavor intensity, and the intensity of individual odors or flavors.
1.3 The techniques used in this practice are applicable to oils (liquid at room temperature) and liquified fats (solid at room temperature).
1.4 The values in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
This document gives guidelines for the implementation of a sensory analysis programme in quality control (QC), including general elements and procedures. It is applicable to food and non-food industries. It is limited to in-plant sensory analysis in QC.
- Standard11 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard12 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
- Standard2 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard2 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
- Amendment5 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
ISO 8588:2017 specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products. The method applies whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several.
The "A" ? "not A" test can be used in sensory analysis in the following ways:
a) as a difference test, particularly for evaluating samples having variations, for example, in appearance (making it difficult to obtain strictly identical repeat samples) or in aftertaste (making direct comparison difficult);
b) as a recognition test, particularly for determining whether an assessor or group of assessors identifies a new stimulus in relation to a known stimulus (for example, recognition of the quality of the sweet taste of a new sweetener);
c) as a perception test, to determine the ability of an assessor to discriminate stimuli.
The "A" ? "not A" test is not appropriate for assessing if two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably (i.e. for similarity testing) because the "A" ? "not A" test inherently involves replicate evaluations of the same products by all assessors. These replicate evaluations violate the basic assumptions for similarity tests to be statistically valid.
Examples of its application are given in Annex B.
NOTE Bi and Ennis[1] point out that the estimate of the discriminal distance, d', between the "A" and "not A" samples is the same regardless of the nature of the replicated evaluations performed in the test but that the estimate of the variance of d' does depend on how the replicate evaluations were performed. As such, no general discussion of a Thurstonian analysis of the "A" ? "not A" method, nor of the power of the test is undertaken in this document. Interested readers are referred to Reference [1] for a detailed discussion of the topic.
- Standard17 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard13 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard13 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
ISO 6658:2017 gives general guidance on the use of sensory analysis. It describes tests for the examination of foods and other products by sensory analysis, and includes some general information on the techniques to be used if statistical analysis of the results is required.
Generally these tests are intended only for objective sensory analysis. However, if a test can be used for determining preference in hedonic test, this is indicated.
A hedonic test aims to determine the acceptability of the products and/or to determine preferences among two or more products by the specified consumer population. The methods are effective for determining whether a perceptible preference exists (difference in degree of liking), or whether no perceptible preference exists (paired similarity test). General guidance for hedonic tests is given in ISO 11136.
- Standard32 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard26 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard27 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is effective for the following test objectives:
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceivable difference results or a perceivable difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; or
5.1.2 To select, train and monitor assessors.
5.2 This test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the triangle test is to determine that two products are perceivably different versus that the products are not perceivably different. Only the selected values of pd, α, and β change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceivable difference between two products, then the value selected for α is typically smaller than the value selected for β. If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then the value selected for β is typically smaller than the value selected for α and the value of pd is selected to define “sufficiently similar.”
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products.
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. It does not determine the size or the direction of the difference. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.
1.4 Compared to the duo-trio test, the triangle test can achieve an equivalent level of statistical significance with fewer assessors. For details on how the triangle test compares to other three-sample tests, see Refs (1) , (2), (3) and (4).2
1.5 This test method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous. If two samples of the same product can often be distinguished, then another method, for example, descriptive analysis, may be more appropriate.
1.6 This test method is applicable only when the products do not cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover or adaptation.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard9 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard9 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceivable difference results or a perceivable difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; or
5.1.2 To select, train and monitor assessors.
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the duo-trio test is to determine that two products are perceivably different versus that the products are not perceivably different. Only the selected values of pd, α, and β change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceivable difference between two products, then the value selected for α is typically smaller than the value selected for β. If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then the value selected for β is typically smaller than the value selected for α and the value of pd is selected to define “sufficiently similar.”
5.3 The test method may change based on the test objective or the assessors’ familiarity with the product. The balanced-reference technique (see 9.1.1) typically is used when neither product is more familiar than the other. The constant-reference technique (see 9.1.2) frequently is used when one product is a control/current product or is familiar to the assessors.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products.
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. It does not determine the size or the direction of the difference. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.
1.4 Compared to the triangle test, the duo-trio test is statistically less efficient, but easier to perform by the assessors. For details on how the duo-trio test compares to other three-sample tests, see Refs (1-4).2
1.5 This test method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous. If two samples of the same product can often be distinguished, then another method, for example, descriptive analysis, may be more appropriate.
1.6 This test method is applicable only when the products do not cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover or adaptation.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Standard10 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard10 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
ISO 10399:2017 specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes.
The method is statistically less efficient than the triangle test (described in ISO 4120) but is easier to perform by the assessors.
The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown (i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference). The method is applicable only if the products are fairly homogeneous.
The method is effective for
a) determining that
either a perceptible difference results (duo-trio testing for difference), or
a perceptible difference does not result (duo-trio testing for similarity) when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage, and
b) for selecting, training and monitoring assessors.
Two forms of the method are described:
- the constant-reference technique, used when one product is familiar to the assessors (e.g. a sample from regular production);
- the balanced-reference technique, used when one product is not more familiar than the other.
- Standard28 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard2 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard2 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
- Amendment5 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
ISO 13301:2018 gives guidelines for - obtaining data on the detection of stimuli that evoke responses to odour, flavour and taste by a 3-AFC (three-alternative forced-choice) procedure, and - the processing of the data to estimate the value of a threshold and its error bounds, and other statistics related to the detection of the stimulus. Typically, the procedures will be used in one of the following two modes: - investigation of the sensitivity of assessors to specific stimuli; - investigation of the ability of a chemical substance to stimulate the chemoreceptive senses. (Although experiments can encompass both modes.) Examples of the first mode include studies of the differences among individuals or specified populations of individuals in sensitivities and of the effects of age, gender, physiological condition, disease, administration of drugs and ambient conditions on sensitivity. Examples of the latter mode include - studies in flavour chemistry and the impact of specified chemicals on the flavour of foods, - classification of chemicals for their impact on humans, if present in the environment, - studies on the relationship of molecular structure to capacity of a chemical to act as a stimulant, - quality assurance of gaseous effluents and of water, foods and beverages, and - studies in the mechanism of olfaction. In both modes, the way in which probability of a correct response changes with intensity of stimulus, i.e. the slope of the dose/response curve, could be an important aspect of the study as well as the threshold value, and the data processing procedures described here provide this information. The focus of ISO 13301:2018 is on data requirements and on computational procedures. Regarding the validity of the data, the text is restricted to general rules and precautions. It does not differentiate between detection and difference thresholds; fundamentally, the procedures measure a difference threshold because a test sample is compared with a reference sample. Typically, the reference sample is not intended to contain the stimulus under investigation, but the guidelines do not exclude experimental design in which the reference could contain the stimulus, or it might not be known if the reference contains the stimulus. The guidelines do not measure a recognition threshold as defined in ISO 5492. They do not address the standardization of methods of determining air quality as discussed in EN 13725.
- Standard28 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard29 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide is meant to be used with and applied to individual trained descriptive assessors.
5.2 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by the panel leader to periodically appraise the performance of individual descriptive assessors.
5.3 Tracking assessor performance will provide information as to the quality of the data being generated. Performance information may be used to decide whether to use the data to interpret product profiles.
5.4 Monitoring assessor performance will enable the panel leader to identify retraining needs or to identify assessors who are not performing well enough to continue participating on a panel.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidelines for measuring and tracking the performance of individual assessors on a descriptive sensory panel.
1.2 This guide provides guidelines to assist sensory professionals in measuring performance for given assessors. Measuring performance will form the basis for (1) determining the reliability of the results, and (2) establishing remedial actions for an individual assessor.
1.3 This guide examines various aspects of trained assessor performance; such as repeatability, discrimination, and agreement and demonstrates some ways to measure them. The procedures will help the sensory professional determine areas of good performance as well as those that require improvement.
1.4 Individual assessor performance is tracked using established statistical procedures. These procedures depend on whether replicates are collected and if they are collected over multiple sessions or within a single session.
1.5 This guide provides suggested procedures, including statistical procedures that can be done using standard statistical software, for evaluating performance and is not meant to exclude other methods that may be effectively used for a similar purpose.
1.6 Methods for training and screening assessors are not within the scope of this guide. This guide does not address how to communicate performance feedback information to individual assessors. This monitoring of panel reproducibility, a measure of the panel’s ability to reproduce the results of other panels, is also not within the scope of this guide.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide13 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Guide13 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
ISO 10399:2017 specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes.
The method is statistically less efficient than the triangle test (described in ISO 4120) but is easier to perform by the assessors.
The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown (i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference). The method is applicable only if the products are fairly homogeneous.
The method is effective for
a) determining that
either a perceptible difference results (duo-trio testing for difference), or
a perceptible difference does not result (duo-trio testing for similarity) when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage, and
b) for selecting, training and monitoring assessors.
Two forms of the method are described:
- the constant-reference technique, used when one product is familiar to the assessors (e.g. a sample from regular production);
- the balanced-reference technique, used when one product is not more familiar than the other.
- Standard28 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
ISO 10399:2017 specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference or similarity exists between samples of two products. The method is a forced-choice procedure. The method is applicable whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several attributes. The method is statistically less efficient than the triangle test (described in ISO 4120) but is easier to perform by the assessors. The method is applicable even when the nature of the difference is unknown (i.e. it determines neither the size nor the direction of difference between samples, nor is there any indication of the attribute(s) responsible for the difference). The method is applicable only if the products are fairly homogeneous. The method is effective for a) determining that either a perceptible difference results (duo-trio testing for difference), or a perceptible difference does not result (duo-trio testing for similarity) when, for example, a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage, and b) for selecting, training and monitoring assessors. Two forms of the method are described: - the constant-reference technique, used when one product is familiar to the assessors (e.g. a sample from regular production); - the balanced-reference technique, used when one product is not more familiar than the other.
- Standard21 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard21 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
ISO 11136:2014 describes approaches for measuring, within a controlled area, the degree to which consumers like or relatively like products.
It uses tests based on collecting consumers' responses to questions, generally on paper or via a keyboard or a touch screen. Tests of a behavioural nature (such as recording quantities consumed ad libitum by the consumers) do not fall within the scope of ISO 11136:2014.
- Standard52 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Consistency must be maintained in all aspects of preparations and serving of samples to ensure reproducible data from sensory respondents. Guidelines for consistency may change with the test objective.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes suggested procedures for presenting samples to sensory respondents. The purpose of this guide is to provide general guidelines for developing serving protocols for evaluation of food and beverages, in a central location or laboratory on a variety of foods and beverages, excluding beverage alcohol which is addressed in Guide E1879.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Guide8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
ISO 11136:2014 describes approaches for measuring, within a controlled area, the degree to which consumers like or relatively like products.
It uses tests based on collecting consumers' responses to questions, generally on paper or via a keyboard or a touch screen. Tests of a behavioural nature (such as recording quantities consumed ad libitum by the consumers) do not fall within the scope of ISO 11136:2014.
- Standard52 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The purpose of time-intensity measurements is to establish the pattern of development and decline of a particular sensory characteristic under study. T-I evaluations are applicable when measurements at a single time point (an averaging process) are not sufficient to distinguish products that have very different temporal characteristics. As pointed out by Lee and Pangborn (2)3, “This averaging process results in the masking or complete loss of important information such as rate of onset of stimulation, time and duration of maximum intensity, rate of decay of perceived intensity, time of extinction, and total duration of the entire process.”
5.2 Products rated similarly using traditional single point techniques of product profiling may provide very different temporal sensory experiences to the consumer. Acceptability of the product may be affected, and traditional descriptive methodology does not reflect the changes in an attribute's intensity over time.
5.3 T-I has applications for a variety of products. Examples include: food products, ranging from short-term sweetness in a beverage to long-term elasticity in chewing gum; personal care products, measuring the development and longevity of shampoo lather and the residual skin feel of a skin cream; household care products, monitoring the intensity of scents over time; pharmaceuticals, monitoring skin cooling after application of a topical analgesic. Auditory signals or visual changes in products can also be evaluated by the T-I technique.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers procedures for conducting and analyzing time-intensity (T-I) evaluations of products or other sensory stimuli. Time-intensity is the measurement of the intensity of a single sensory sensation over time in response to a single exposure to a product or other sensory stimulus. Simultaneous evaluations of multiple sensory attributes are possible, although are outside of the scope of this document. See Reference List for more information.
1.2 This guide utilizes a specially trained panel to measure the intensity of a single continuous sensation during the time from initial exposure:
1.2.1 To its extinction,
1.2.2 To a specified intensity, or
1.2.3 To a predetermined limit of time.
1.3 Applications not covered in this guide include measuring:
1.3.1 Multiple sensations,
1.3.2 Multiple exposures within a single measurement, and
1.3.3 Qualitative or hedonic changes in the perceived sensation.
1.4 This guide includes protocols for the selection and training of judges, descriptions and use of physical data collection devices, and methods of data handling, summarization, and statistical analysis. Illustration of two different data handling and analysis approaches are included in the appendixes.
1.5 This guide is not applicable to measure product shelf life or stability that require evaluations over extended time.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
- Guide13 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Amendment29 pagesEnglish, French, German and Russian languagee-Library read for1 day
ISO 8588:2017 specifies a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products. The method applies whether a difference exists in a single sensory attribute or in several. The "A" ? "not A" test can be used in sensory analysis in the following ways: a) as a difference test, particularly for evaluating samples having variations, for example, in appearance (making it difficult to obtain strictly identical repeat samples) or in aftertaste (making direct comparison difficult); b) as a recognition test, particularly for determining whether an assessor or group of assessors identifies a new stimulus in relation to a known stimulus (for example, recognition of the quality of the sweet taste of a new sweetener); c) as a perception test, to determine the ability of an assessor to discriminate stimuli. The "A" ? "not A" test is not appropriate for assessing if two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably (i.e. for similarity testing) because the "A" ? "not A" test inherently involves replicate evaluations of the same products by all assessors. These replicate evaluations violate the basic assumptions for similarity tests to be statistically valid. Examples of its application are given in Annex B. NOTE Bi and Ennis[1] point out that the estimate of the discriminal distance, d', between the "A" and "not A" samples is the same regardless of the nature of the replicated evaluations performed in the test but that the estimate of the variance of d' does depend on how the replicate evaluations were performed. As such, no general discussion of a Thurstonian analysis of the "A" ? "not A" method, nor of the power of the test is undertaken in this document. Interested readers are referred to Reference [1] for a detailed discussion of the topic.
- Standard17 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard13 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard13 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off
ISO 6658:2017 gives general guidance on the use of sensory analysis. It describes tests for the examination of foods and other products by sensory analysis, and includes some general information on the techniques to be used if statistical analysis of the results is required. Generally these tests are intended only for objective sensory analysis. However, if a test can be used for determining preference in hedonic test, this is indicated. A hedonic test aims to determine the acceptability of the products and/or to determine preferences among two or more products by the specified consumer population. The methods are effective for determining whether a perceptible preference exists (difference in degree of liking), or whether no perceptible preference exists (paired similarity test). General guidance for hedonic tests is given in ISO 11136.
- Standard32 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard26 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard27 pagesFrench languagesale 15% off