Hedonic and descriptive sensory evaluation of instant and fresh coffee products
- 657 Downloads
Sensory acceptance testing of instant and filtered coffees using naïve assessors (n = 40) and rapid descriptive profiling using trained assessors (n = 10) was used to determine the sensory hedonic and descriptive drivers of 13 (8 filtered, 5 instant) of the most popular coffee brands on the Irish and UK market. Training was undertaken using commercial coffees to highlight sensory attributes, which is common in industry. ANOVA-Partial Least Squares Regression (APLSR) was used to process the data generated by the assessors. Sensory results indicated that training was effective and that filter coffees were more positively correlated with liking of flavor, aroma and overall acceptability. In contrast, instant coffees were negatively correlated with hedonic attributes (with the exception of one instant coffee, I2). This indicates large quality and sensory variation between instant and fresh filter coffees currently on the market. It also shows a large variation between the instant coffees currently on the market. It is clear that instant coffee lacks the desirable aromas and flavors associated with fresh filter coffee as determined from the descriptive analysis. Thus, we can conclude that there is market potential for a good quality instant coffee that has similar attributes to a fresh filter coffee.
KeywordsCoffee Sensory acceptance
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors have received research grants from Enterprise Ireland, and Bewley's Limited, Northern Cross, Malahide Road, Dublin 17, Ireland.
Compliance with ethics requirements
All procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsibility committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki declaration 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).
- 1.Farah A (2012) Chapter 2—Coffee constituents. In: Chu Y-F (ed) Coffee: emerging health effects and disease prevention, 1st edn. Blackwell publishing Ltd, pp 21–58Google Scholar
- 2.Banks M, McFadden C (2000) Coffee around the world. In: Fox-Davies F (ed) The complete guide to coffee. Lorenz books, New York, p 105Google Scholar
- 4.Lawless HT, Heymann H (1998) Descriptive analysis. In: Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. Chapman and Hall editors, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Stone H, Sidel JL (eds) (2004) Affective testing. In: Sensory evaluation practices, 3rd edn. Academic Press/Elsevier, pp 247–277Google Scholar
- 10.Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (2012a) Affective testing. In: Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Sidel JL (eds) Sensory evaluation practices, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, pp 306–309Google Scholar
- 11.ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 8589 (2007) Sensory analysis- general guidance for design of test rooms. ISO, GenèvaGoogle Scholar
- 12.Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (2012b) Test strategy and design of experiments. In: Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Sidel JL (eds) Sensory evaluation practices, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, p 135Google Scholar
- 13.International Coffee Organization (ICO) (2002) Assessor orientated vocabulary for coffee. http://www.ico.org/vocab.asp?section=About_Coffee. (4 Dec 2013)
- 14.Martens H, Martens M (2001) Multivariate analysis of quality: an introduction. Measurement science and technology, vol 12, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 445Google Scholar
- 18.Zeller BL, Ceriali S, Gundle (2006) “Foaming soluble coffee powder containing pressurized gas”. Patent number US 2006/0040038A1. Pub. Date: 23/2/2006. Accessed 9 May 2016Google Scholar