Food evaluation-Sensory

Analysis
Practical Report on Consumer Acceptance test for given samples

Name: Sampada
Date: 2024, June
INTRODUCTION
• Acceptability of four different samples(125,421,573 and 832) were
evaluated.
• 9- point categories scale was used by the participants to rate the
samples.
• Our objectives was to identify significant difference in the
acceptability of the samples.
• To identify significant difference ANOVA followed by Bonferroni
post-hoc test was done.
• With this test it helps us to understand consumer’s preferences.
METHODOLOGY
• 90 participants were selected based on screening , who were primarily
women interested in gut health.
Procedure:
• Participants evaluated four yoghurt samples based on apperances,
flavour , mouthfeel and after taste.
• For the data analysis SPSS (ANOVA)and MS excel(data entry) are
used.
SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Gender:
2. Age
3. Do you consume yogurt?
4. How often do you consume yogurt on average per week?
5.Which of the following yogurt flavors do you typically consume? (Select all that apply)
6. Are you interested in products that promote gut health and overall health?
7. Do you have any dietary restrictions or preferences that may affect your yogurt consumption? (e.g., lactose intolerance,
vegan)
8. Would you be willing to taste and provide feedback on new yogurt prototypes?
9. Contact Information:
Name: _________________________________________________________
Email address: ___________________________________________________

Phone number: ___________________________________________________

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The survey questionnaire are same for all the samples .

 Results and discussion
sample Overall liking Apperance Flavour liking Texture liking Aftertaste Liking
mean liking mean mean mean mean
125 5.44 6.50 5.38 5.64 5.89

421 6.68 6.79 6.78 6.73 6.40

573 5.87 6.00 5.80 6.26 6.11

832 5.48 6.41 5.31 5.80 6.11

Overall, sample 421 is the most desired since it regularly has the greatest mean ratings across all aspects.
The lower ratings obtained by Samples 125, 573, and 832 in several aspects suggest that they are not as
preferred as Sample 421.
Based on overall likeability, look, flavor, texture, and aftertaste, the results indicate that Sample 421 is the most acceptable
product
among the examined samples.
 ANOVA SUMMARY
Attribute F-value P-value interpretation
Overall liking 7.151 0.000 Significant difference between samples
Appearance liking 3.283 0.021 Significant difference between samples

Flavor liking 9.489 0.000 Significant difference between samples

Texture liking 5.505 0.001 Significant difference between samples

Aftertaste liking 1.069 0.362 No Significant difference between samples

 POST-HOC TEST
Bonferroni

Multiple Comparisons
Bonferroni
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Difference (I-
Dependent Variable (I) samples (J) samples J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Overall liking Sample 125 Sample 421 -1.233* .303 .000 -2.04 -.43
Sample 573 -.422 .303 .989 -1.23 .38
Sample 832 -.033 .303 1.000 -.84 .77
Sample 421 Sample 125 1.233* .303 .000 .43 2.04
Sample 573 .811* .303 .047 .01 1.62
Sample 832 1.200* .303 .001 .40 2.00
Sample 573 Sample 125 .422 .303 .989 -.38 1.23
Sample 421 -.811* .303 .047 -1.62 -.01
Sample 832 .389 .303 1.000 -.42 1.19
Sample 832 Sample 125 .033 .303 1.000 -.77 .84
Sample 421 -1.200* .303 .001 -2.00 -.40
Sample 573 -.389 .303 1.000 -1.19 .42
Appearance liking Sample 125 Sample 421 -.289 .254 1.000 -.96 .39
Sample 573 .500 .254 .301 -.18 1.18
Sample 832 .089 .254 1.000 -.59 .76
Sample 421 Sample 125 .289 .254 1.000 -.39 .96
Sample 573 .789* .254 .013 .11 1.46
Sample 832 .378 .254 .831 -.30 1.05
Sample 573 Sample 125 -.500 .254 .301 -1.18 .18
Sample 421 -.789* .254 .013 -1.46 -.11
Sample 832 -.411 .254 .642 -1.09 .26
Sample 832 Sample 125 -.089 .254 1.000 -.76 .59
Sample 421 -.378 .254 .831 -1.05 .30
Sample 573 .411 .254 .642 -.26 1.09
Flavour liking Sample 125 Sample 421 -1.400* .310 .000 -2.22 -.58
Sample 573 -.422 .310 1.000 -1.25 .40
Sample 832 .067 .310 1.000 -.76 .89
Sample 421 Sample 125 1.400* .310 .000 .58 2.22
Sample 573 .978* .310 .011 .15 1.80
Sample 832 1.467* .310 .000 .64 2.29
Sample 573 Sample 125 .422 .310 1.000 -.40 1.25
Sample 421 -.978* .310 .011 -1.80 -.15
Sample 832 .489 .310 .697 -.33 1.31
Sample 832 Sample 125 -.067 .310 1.000 -.89 .76
Sample 421 -1.467* .310 .000 -2.29 -.64
Sample 573 -.489 .310 .697 -1.31 .33
Texture liking Sample 125 Sample 421 -1.089* .296 .002 -1.87 -.30
Sample 573 -.611 .296 .237 -1.40 .17
Sample 832 -.156 .296 1.000 -.94 .63
Sample 421 Sample 125 1.089* .296 .002 .30 1.87
Sample 573 .478 .296 .643 -.31 1.26
Sample 832 .933* .296 .010 .15 1.72
Sample 573 Sample 125 .611 .296 .237 -.17 1.40
Sample 421 -.478 .296 .643 -1.26 .31
Sample 832 .456 .296 .747 -.33 1.24
Sample 832 Sample 125 .156 .296 1.000 -.63 .94
Sample 421 -.933* .296 .010 -1.72 -.15
Sample 573 -.456 .296 .747 -1.24 .33
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
INTERPRETATION OF BON-HOC TEST
Post-hoc tests reveal specific pairs of samples that significantly differ in
their ratings. Sample 421 consistently shows significant differences
from other samples across multiple attributes
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
Conclusions:
1.Overall Liking: Sample 421 is significantly preferred over other samples.
2.Appearance Liking: Sample 421 and Sample 573 differ significantly.
3.Flavour Liking: Sample 421 is significantly preferred over other samples.
4.Texture Liking: Sample 421 and Sample 832 differ significantly.
5.Aftertaste Liking: No significant differences found between samples.

Recommendations: Based on these results, Sample 421 generally received

higher ratings across multiple attributes and is recommended for further
development or market release.
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX-1
Screening Questionnaire for Participants Interested in Testing New Yogurt Prototypes
•1. Gender:
o Female
o Male
o Prefer not to say
•2. Age:
o Under 18
o 18-24
o 25-34
o 35-44
o 45-54
o 55-64
o 65 or older
•3. Do you consume yogurt?
o Yes, regularly
o Yes, occasionally
o No
•4. How often do you consume yogurt on average per week?
o Less than once a week
o 1-3 times a week
o 4-6 times a week
o Daily
•5.Which of the following yogurt flavors do you typically consume? (Select all that apply)
o Plain
o Fruit (please specify preferred fruit flavors: ________________)
o Vanilla
o Other (please specify: ________________)
•6. Are you interested in products that promote gut health and overall health?
o Very interested
o Somewhat interested
o Not interested
•7. Do you have any dietary restrictions or preferences that may affect your yogurt consumption? (e.g., lactose intolerance, vegan)
o Yes (please specify: ________________)
o No
•8. Would you be willing to taste and provide feedback on new yogurt prototypes?
o Yes
o No
•9. Contact Information:
 Name: _________________________________________________________
 Email address: ___________________________________________________
 Phone number: ___________________________________________________
•10. Additional Comments:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
 APPENDIX-2
Descriptive Statistics , sample 125 Descriptive Statistics, sample 421

Minimu Maxim Std.

N m um Mean Deviation N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Overall liking 90 1 9 5.44 2.094 Overall liking 90 1 9 6.68 1.773

Flavour 90 1 9 5.38 2.118 Appearance liking 90 2 9 6.79 1.706

liking
Aftertaste 90 1 9 5.89 1.905 Flavour liking 90 1 9 6.78 1.760
liking
Texture liking 90 1 9 5.64 1.979 Aftertaste liking 90 1 9 6.40 1.681
Texture liking 90 1 9 6.73 1.971
Appearance 90 2 9 6.50 1.516
Valid N (listwise) 90
liking
Valid N 90
(listwise)
 Descriptive Statistics , sample 573 Descriptive Statistics , sample 832
Minimu Maximu Std. Minimu Maximu Std.
N m m Mean Deviation N m m Mean Deviation
Overall liking 90 1 9 5.87 2.067 Overall liking 90 1 9 5.48 2.184
Flavour liking 90 1 9 5.80 2.173 Appearance 90 1 9 6.41 1.735
Texture liking 90 1 9 6.26 1.946 liking
Appearance 90 1 9 6.00 1.854 Texture liking 90 1 9 5.80 2.040
liking Aftertaste 90 1 9 6.11 2.221
Aftertaste liking 90 1 9 6.11 1.845 liking
Flavour liking 90 1 9 5.31 2.247
Valid N 90
(listwise) Valid N 90
(listwise)
 ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Overall liking Between Groups 88.867 3 29.622 7.151 .000
Within Groups 1474.733 356 4.143
Total 1563.600 359
Appearance liking Between Groups 28.697 3 9.566 3.283 .021
Within Groups 1037.278 356 2.914
Total 1065.975 359
Flavour liking Between Groups 123.500 3 41.167 9.489 .000
Within Groups 1544.400 356 4.338
Total 1667.900 359
Texture liking Between Groups 65.031 3 21.677 5.505 .001
Within Groups 1401.744 356 3.937
Total 1466.775 359
Aftertaste liking Between Groups 11.856 3 3.952 1.069 .362
Within Groups 1316.267 356 3.697
Total 1328.122 359