Principles of Good Practice

  • Harry T. Lawless
  • Hildegarde Heymann
Part of the Food science text series book series (FSTS)

Abstract

In later chapters of this textbook, we will often state that a particular method should be performed using standard sensory practices. This chapter will describe what we mean by “standard sensory practices” Table 3.1 provides a checklist of many of the good practice guidelines discussed in this chapter; this table can be used by sensory specialists to ensure that the study has been thought through. It should be remembered that a good sensory specialist will always follow the standard practices because that would help ensure that he or she will obtain consistent, actionable data. However, an experienced sensory scientist will occasionally disregard the standard practice guidelines. When one breaks these rules, one always has to be fully aware of the consequences, the risks entailed, and whether one still can get valid data from the study.

Keywords

Fatigue Microwave Epoxy Expense Styrofoam 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amerine, M.A., Pangborn, R.M., and Roessler, E.R. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Foods. Academic, New York, Ch. 6.Google Scholar
  2. Belmont Report. 1979. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, National Institutes of Health, Office for the Protection from Risks Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Bett, K.L., and Johnson, P.B. 1996. Challenges of evaluating sensory attributes in the presence of off-flavors. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brownlee, K.A. 1957. The principles of experimental design. Industrial Quality Control, 13, 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Cardello, A.V., and Segars, R.A. 1989. Effects of sample size and prior mastication on texture judgments. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cochran, W.G., and Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental Designs. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Edgar, H., and Rothman, D.J. 1995. The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. The Milbank Quarterly, 73, 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eggert, J., and Zook, K. 1986. Physical requirement guidelines for sensory evaluation laboratories. ASTM Special Technical Publication 913, ASTM, Philadelphia. Gacula, M.C., and Singh, J. 1984. Statistical Methods in Food and Consumer Research. Academic, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  9. Eggert, J., and Zook, K. 1997. Descriptive Sensory Analysis in Practice. Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, CT.Google Scholar
  10. Heymann, H. 1994. A comparison of descriptive analysis of vanilla by two independently trained panels. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunter, E.A. 1997. Experimental design. In T. Naes and E. Risvik, eds. Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
  12. Jellinek, G. 1985. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Theory and Practice. Ellis Horwood Series in Food Science and Technology, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  13. Kelly, F.B., and Heymann, H. 1989. Contrasting the effects of ingestion and expectoration in sensory difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimmel, S.A., Sigman-Grant, M., and Guinard, J-X. 1994. Sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 48, 92–99Google Scholar
  15. MacFie, H.J.H. 1986. Aspects of experimental design. In J.R. Piggott, ed. Statistical Procedures in Food Research. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  16. MacFie, H.J.H., Greenhoff, K., Bratchell, N., and Vallis, L. 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carryover effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangan P.A.P. 1992. Performance assessment of sensory panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meilgaard, M., Civille, C.V., and Carr, B.T. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  19. Milliken, G.A., and Johnson, D.E. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data: Volume 1. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Morris, C. 1966. Human Testing and the Court Room. Use of Human Subjects in Safety Evaluation of Food Chemicals. Publication 1491. National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. Washington, DC, pp. 144–146.Google Scholar
  21. Muir, D.D., and Hunter, E.A. 1991/2. Sensory evaluation of cheddar cheese: order of tasting and carryover effects. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 141–145.Google Scholar
  22. Naes, T., and Solheim, S. 1991. Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies 6, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Petersen, R.G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Dekker, New York. Schlich, P. 1993. Use of change-over designs and repeated measurements in sensory and consumer studies. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 223–235.Google Scholar
  24. Schlich, P. 1996. Defining and validating assessor compromises about product distances and attribute correlations. In T. Naes and E. Risvik, eds. Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science. Elsevier, B. V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Sieber, J.E. 1992. Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 31. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Sinesio, F., Risvik E., and Rodbotten, M. 1990. Evaluation of panelist performance in descriptive profiling of rancid sausages: a multivariate study. Journal of Sensory Studies 5, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stone, H., and Sidel, J.L. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 2d ed. Academic, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Takagi, S.F. 1989. Standardization olfactometries in Japan—a review over ten years. Chemical Senses, 14, 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. United States v. Karl Brandt et al. 1949. The Medical Case: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, pp. 181–183.Google Scholar
  30. Wakeling, I.N., and MacFie, H.J.H. 1995. Designing consumer trials for first and higher orders of carryover effect when only a subset of k samples from p may be tested. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, A.A., and Arnold, G.M. 1991/2. The influence of presentation factors on the sensory assessment of beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 101–107.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Lawless
    • 1
  • Hildegarde Heymann
    • 2
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriUSA

Personalised recommendations