Advertisement

European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 243, Issue 2, pp 331–340 | Cite as

Hedonic and descriptive sensory evaluation of instant and fresh coffee products

  • Chloe N. Stokes
  • Maurice G. O’Sullivan
  • Joseph P.  Kerry
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Coffee Sensory acceptance 

Notes

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).

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Ponte S (2002) The ‘latte revolution’? regulation, markets and consumption in the global coffee chain. World Dev 30(7):1099–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lawless HT, Heymann H (1998) Descriptive analysis. In: Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. Chapman and Hall editors, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stone H, Sidel JL (eds) (2004) Affective testing. In: Sensory evaluation practices, 3rd edn. Academic Press/Elsevier, pp 247–277Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schlich P (1998) What are the sensory differences among coffees? Multi-panel analysis of variance and flash analysis. Food Qual Preference 9(3):103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakash M, Ravi R, Sarvamangala GK, Rajalakshmi D (2000) Sensory profiling and product positioning of roasted and ground (brew) coffee and soluble (instant) coffee with and without added flavour. J Sens Stud 15:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geel L, Kinnear M, De Kock HL (2005) Relating assessor preferences to sensory attributes of instant coffee. Food Qual Preference 16:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Kleef E, Van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2006) Internal versus external preference analysis: an exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Qual Preference 17:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 8589 (2007) Sensory analysis- general guidance for design of test rooms. ISO, GenèvaGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    International Coffee Organization (ICO) (2002) Assessor orientated vocabulary for coffee. http://www.ico.org/vocab.asp?section=About_Coffee. (4 Dec 2013)
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Sanz C, Czerny M, Concepción Cid, Schieberle P (2002) Comparison of potent odourants in a filtered coffee brew and in an instant coffee beverage by aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA). Eur Food Res Technol 214:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heidema J, De Jong S (1998) Assessor preferences of coffees in relation to sensory parameters as studied by analysis of covariance. Food Qual Preference 9(3):115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cristovam E, Russell C, Paterson A, Reid E (2000) Gender preference in hedonic ratings for espresso and espresso milk-based coffees. Food Qual Preference 11:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chloe N. Stokes
    • 1
  • Maurice G. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • Joseph P.  Kerry
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Food and Nutrition Science, University College CorkNational University of IrelandCorkRepublic of Ireland

Personalised recommendations