Abstract
BACKGROUNDThe extensive time and cost associated with conventional sensory profiling methods has spurred sensory researchers to develop rapid method alternatives, such as Napping (R) with Ultra-Flash Profiling (UFP). Napping (R)-UFP generates sensory maps by requiring untrained panellists to separate samples based on perceived sensory similarities. Evaluations of this method have been restrained to manufactured/formulated food models, and predominantly structured on comparisons against the conventional descriptive method. The present study aims to extend the validation of Napping (R)-UFP (N=72) to natural biological products; and to evaluate this method against Descriptive Analysis (DA; N=8) with physiochemical measurements as an additional evaluative criterion.
RESULTSThe results revealed that sample configurations generated by DA and Napping (R)-UFP were not significantly correlated (RV=0.425, P=0.077); however, they were both correlated with the product map generated based on the instrumental measures (P<0.05). The finding also noted that sample characterisations from DA and Napping (R)-UFP were driven by different sensory attributes, indicating potential structural differences between these two methods in configuring samples.
CONCLUSIONSOverall, these findings lent support for the extended use of Napping (R)-UFP for evaluations of natural biological products. Although DA was shown to be a better method for establishing sensory-instrumental relationships, Napping (R)-UFP exhibited strengths in generating informative sample configurations based on holistic perception of products. (c) 2017 Society of Chemical Industry