Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for the generation of external preference mapping using rapid sensometric techniques.
CATA
Napping®
flash profile
multicriteria technique
preference
Journal
Journal of the science of food and agriculture
ISSN: 1097-0010
Titre abrégé: J Sci Food Agric
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0376334
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised:
13
11
2020
received:
17
04
2020
accepted:
22
11
2020
pubmed:
23
11
2020
medline:
17
7
2021
entrez:
22
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
External preference mapping is a powerful tool to explain consumer preference or rejection. Combining the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) multicriteria analysis with rapid descriptive techniques can improve preference map (PREFMAP) results. This study was conducted to compare the PREFMAPs generated with rapid descriptive flash profile (FP), check-all-that-apply (CATA), and Napping® versus PREFMAPs constructed with FP-TOPSIS, CATA-TOPSIS, and Napping-TOPSIS. Only 38.46%, 63.66%, and 42% of sensory attributes initially generated by FP, CATA, and Napping techniques respectively were considered for the determination of their weight W and allocation as positive or negative in the TOPSIS technique. The PREFMAPs constructed with FP-TOPSIS, CATA-TOPSIS, and Napping-TOPSIS presented a better explanation of the preference and rejection than the PREFMAPs directly generated with rapid sensory techniques. The results of the multiple factor analysis and coefficient Rv indicated similarities in the sensory vocabularies used after the TOPSIS technique. The combination of the TOPSIS technique with rapid sensory techniques is a reliable alternative for the construction of PREFMAPs in order to identify the sensory attributes responsible for preference and rejection of food products. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
External preference mapping is a powerful tool to explain consumer preference or rejection. Combining the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) multicriteria analysis with rapid descriptive techniques can improve preference map (PREFMAP) results. This study was conducted to compare the PREFMAPs generated with rapid descriptive flash profile (FP), check-all-that-apply (CATA), and Napping® versus PREFMAPs constructed with FP-TOPSIS, CATA-TOPSIS, and Napping-TOPSIS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Only 38.46%, 63.66%, and 42% of sensory attributes initially generated by FP, CATA, and Napping techniques respectively were considered for the determination of their weight W and allocation as positive or negative in the TOPSIS technique. The PREFMAPs constructed with FP-TOPSIS, CATA-TOPSIS, and Napping-TOPSIS presented a better explanation of the preference and rejection than the PREFMAPs directly generated with rapid sensory techniques. The results of the multiple factor analysis and coefficient Rv indicated similarities in the sensory vocabularies used after the TOPSIS technique.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of the TOPSIS technique with rapid sensory techniques is a reliable alternative for the construction of PREFMAPs in order to identify the sensory attributes responsible for preference and rejection of food products. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
Substances chimiques
Coffee
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3298-3307Informations de copyright
© 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
Références
Ramírez-Rivera E d J, Díaz-Rivera P, Ramón-Canul LG, Juárez-Barrientos JM, Rodríguez-Miranda J, Herman-Lara E et al., Comparison of performance and quantitative descriptive analysis sensory profiling and its relationship to consumer liking between the artisanal cheese producers panel and the descriptive trained panel. Int J Dairy Sci 101:5851-5864 (2018).
Worch T, PrefMFA, a solution taking the best of both internal and external preference mapping techniques. Food Qual Prefer 30:180-191 (2013).
Dairou V and Sieffermann JM, A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. J Food Sci 67:826-834 (2002).
Perrin L and Pagès J, Construction of a product space from the ultra-flash profiling method: application to 10 red wines from the Loire valley. J Sens Stud 24:372-395 (2009).
Vidal L, Ares G, Hedderley DI, Meyners M and Jaeger SR, Comparison of rate-all-that-apply (RATA) and check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions across seven consumer studies. Food Qual Prefer 67:49-68 (2016).
Dooley L, Lee Y and Meullenet JF, The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Qual Prefer 21:394-401 (2010).
Harwood WS, McLean KG, Ennis JM, Ennis DM and Drake M, Comparison of preference mapping with projective mapping for characterizing consumer perception of brewed black coffees. J Sens Stud 35:e12563 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12563.
Tenenhause M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin YM and Luaro C, PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48:159-205 (2005).
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 11035:1994 Analyse Sensorielle - Recherche et Sélection de Descripteurs Pour l'Élaboration d'un Profil Sensoriel par Approche Multidimensionnelle. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 11035 (1994).
Ramírez-Rivera EJ, Morales-Carrea UA, Limón-Rivera R, Castillo-Martínez SI, Hernández-Salinas G, Ramírez-Sucre MO et al., Analytic hierarchy process as an alternative for the selection of vocabularies for sensory characterization and consumer preference. J Sens Stud 35:e12547 (2020).
Iç YT, A TOPSIS based desing of experiment approach to assess company ranking. Appl Math Comput 227:630-647 (2014).
Gurmeric VE, Dogan M, Toker OS, Senyigit E and Ersoz NB, Application of different multi-criteria decision techniques to determine optimum flavour of prebiotic pudding based on sensory analyses. Food Bioproc Tech 6:2844-2859 (2012).
Ozturk G, Dogan M and Said O, Physicochemical, funcional and sensory properties of mellorine enriched with different vegetable juices and TOPSIS approach to determine optimum juice concentration. Food Biosci 7:45-55 (2014).
Ren H and Liu W, A fuzzy multi-attribute decision making method for sensory evaluation of tea liquor. Adv J Food Sci Technol 9:87-91 (2015).
Dogan M, Aslan D, Aktar T and Goksel MA, Methodology to evaluate the sensory properties of instant hot chocolate beverage with different fat contents: multi-criteria decision-making techniques approach. Eur Food Res Technol 242:953-966 (2016).
Escamilla Prado E and Landeros-Sánchez C, Cafés diferenciados y de especialidad. [Online]. Centro Nacional de Investigación, Innovacion y Desarrollo Tecnológico del Café (CENECAFE) (2016). Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314517201_Cafes_diferenciados_y_de_especialidad [07 March 2020].
Velásquez S, Peña N, Bohórquez JC, Gutierrez N and Sacks GL, Volatile and sensory characterization of roast coffees - effects of cherry maturity. Food Chem 274:137-145 (2019).
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 6668:2008 Green Coffee - Preparation of Samples for Use in Sensory Analysis. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 6668 (2008).
Specialty Coffee Asociation. Protocols & Best Practices, Cupping Protocols. [Online]. Specialty Coffee Association (2009). Available: https://sca.coffee/research/protocols-best-practices?page=resources&d=cupping-protocols/ [14 June 2019].
Ares G and Varela P, Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: fueling a long lasting debate in the field. Food Qual Prefer 61:79-86 (2017).
Worch T, Lê S and Punter P, How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Qual Prefer 21:309-318 (2010).
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 4120:2004 Sensory Analysis - Methodology - Triangle Test. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 4120 (2004).
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16820:2004 Sensory Analysis - Methodology - Sequential Analysis. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 16820 (2004).
Macfie HJ, Bratchell N, Greenhoff K and Vallis LV, Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in Hall tests. J Sens Stud 4:129-148 (1989).
Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maître I, Asselin C, Jourjon F and Pagès J, Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the napping® procedure: case of ten wines from Loire Valley. Food Qual Prefer 19:1-11 (2008).
Bhumiratana N, Wolf M, Chambres I and Adhikari K, Coffee drinking and emotions: are there key sensory drivers for emotions? Beverages 5:27 (2019).
Albert A, Salvador A, Schlich P and Fiszman S, Comparison between temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) and key-attribute sensory profiling for evaluating solid food with contrasting textural layers: fish sticks. Food Qual Prefer 24:11-118 (2012).
Blancher G, Chollet S, Kesteloot R, Nguyen Hoang D, Cuvelier G and Sieffermann JM, French and Vietnamese: how do they describe texture characteristics of the same food? A case study with jellies. Food Qual Prefer 18:560-575 (2007).
Reinbach HC, Giacalone D, Ribeiro LM, Bredie WLP and Frøst MB, Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®. Food Qual Prefer 32:160-166 (2014).