3.1 Descriptive sensory analysis
3.1.1 Line Plots
Figure 2-1 shows the Line plots for each sample with all 11 attributes displayed with all scores and replicates of each assessor. The line connecting the attributes indicates the panel average scores for each attribute and therefore the plot visualizes the profile of each sample.
Figure 2-2 displays Line plots of A2, and A13 for sample 875. In each plot is shown the three repetitions scores of each attribute . In this way, it could be detect how each assessor has evaluated the sample. In Figure 2-2 it can be observe that A13 has a good reproducibility since replicates lie close to each other. A2 does not have a good reproducibility at “ Sweet Taste”, because the scores of replicates are far from each other. This type of results helps the panel leader to identify repeatability problems of single assessor ( Tomic et al. 2013).
3.2.2 2-way ANOVA
As a first step of the statistical elaboration, 2-way ANOVA was applied on the data sets of the panel. The results are visualized on Figure. 3. The plots have three different colors. The red means the significance level is p<0.001, the orange means p<0.01, the yellow means p<0.05 and the gray means the non-significance. The main reason for using this method is to eliminate the non-significant descriptors from the further analysis. The method is based on modeling samples, assessors and their interactions in two-way ANOVA model (Lanza et al. 2020). Here, our focus is primarily on the product effect. The non-significant attributes were excluded from the further analysis. According to this panel has one non-significant attributes , we have decided to exclude evaluation of “Honey Taste” by the subsequent data elaboration.
3.1.3 Tucker-1 plots
The multivariate analysis method Tucker-1 is applied in order to get an overview over assessor and panel performance using multiple attributes. The assessors in the inner ellipse for attributes meaning that they have more than 50% systematic variation of the variation explained by PC1 and PC2 (Attila et al. 2013). By screening through the plots (Figure.4-1), one can see that the overall performance between the 14 assessors can be considered as very good for “Sweet Taste”, “Astringent” and “Overly sweet taste”. Most of assessors have very high explained variance for “Yellowish-brown”, “Brillancy”, “Fragrant sweet flavour”, “Chinese herbal scent flavour”, “Honey taste”, “Lubrication” and “Astringent”. “Mint flavour” shows that 13 assessors are in the inner ellipse indicating that lower than 50% in PC1 and PC2. The consistency of the panel was poor on “Mint flavour”. For “Fragrant sweet flavour” it is obvious that panel A5and A6 disagrees with the other panels , since it is located alternate location of the other assessors. For “Lubrication” , A2 was disagreement of this assessor respect to the panel.
Figure.4-2 shows 14 Tucker-1 plots, one for each assessor. For example, the explained variances for attributes “Mint flavour”, “Lubrication” and “Chinese herbal scent flavour” of A2 are lower than 50% in PC1 and PC2. These results indicate a very strong disagreement of this assessor respect to the panel.
3.2.4 Manhattan plots
After screening through the Tucker-1 plots one may consult Manhattan plots (Figure. 5) for comparison of the systematic variation for a specific attribute across all assessors (Talsma et al. 2013). The Manhattan plots confirm what was shown in the Tucker-1 plots. The lighter a colour tone in a Manhattan plot is for a specific assessor-attribute combination, the more systematic variation is given (Naima et al. 2013). “Mint flavour” had the largest black area, need six principal components to reach a high level of explained variance. The color of “Sweet Taste”, “Astringent” and “Overly sweet taste”appeared very light gray indicated that majority assessors had a high percentage of explained variance already after two or three principal component. In“Lubrication”, it can easily seen that A2 differs from the other assessors. The lone dark bar indicated that A2 had less systematic variance for this attribute than the other assessors and need six principal components before explained variance was comparable with the other panels. The results further explained Tucker-1 plots (Figure. 4-1).
3.2.5 Eggshell plots
The Eggshell plot is a powerful graphical method that is valuable when it comes to detecting differences or disagreements between assessors. The panel leader gains a graphical over[1]view over all assessors in one plot allowing easy identification of those assessors that differ ranking-wise from the consensus (Tomic et al. 2007).
Figure 6 shows the Eggshell plots for the eleven attributes. The plot as the smooth line touching the consensus rank axis represents the consensus rank, while each of the other lines represent the cumulative ranking of one particular assessor. Profile plots show that the disagreement in evaluating the samples is strongest for the attributes “Mint flavour” as already observed in the Tucker-1 plots in Figure. 4-1 and Manhattan plots in Figure. 5. The Eggshell plot for “Yellowish-brown”, “Brillancy” and “Fragrant sweet flavour” also shows good agreement among all assessors, except for assessors A5 , A12 and A5, A6, respectively (that need to be retrained with standard references). The Eggshell plot for remaining descriptors show a more complex situation that could require the retraining of all assessors.
3.2.6 Sensory differences of investigated samples
The complete sensory profile of 12 samples is presented in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the PCA performed using the means values of the attributes generated by QDA. Only descriptors that showed significant differences between samples were selected. A variability of 84.8% with two principal components was explained. The closer the samples are, the greater the similarity between samples. The closer the sensory attributes are, the greater the correlation between the attributes. The closer the sample is to the sensory attribute, the stronger that attribute becomes. The 12 samples were distributed in 4 different quadrants. Samples with 807, 244, 641, 765, 982, 636, 219, 975, 875 were positioned on the right side of PC1, while samples of 349, 468, 713 on the left side of the PC1. Samples with 641, 765, 982, 636, 219, 975 were characterized with brillancy, lubrication, fragrant sweet flavour, sweet taste, overly sweet taste, samples with 349 were mostly characterized with bitter taste and astringent, and sample with 875 were mostly characterized with Chinese herbal scent flavour.
3.2 Consumer acceptability test
Figure 9 shows the box plot for the the investigated samples consumer liking data where consumers rated 12 food products on a hedonic scale from 1 to 9, where 1 represents “dislike extremely”and 9 represent “like extremely”. The box plot shows that across all consumers sample with 875, 807, 713, 636, 982, 219, 244, 468 received the highest (9) and lowest (1) rate by at least one consumer, while sample with 975, 641, 349,765 received the highest (8) and lowest (1) rate by at least one consumer. The green boxes for each line visualise the distribution of the ratings between the 25th and 75th percentile. The dark green line across the green boxes shows the median rating for that product. Overall, samples 875 and 219 were liked most, whereas samples 713, 636, 349 were liked most least.
In Figure 10 a stacked histogram plot is shown for the same data as presented earlier in a box plot in Figure 9. Stacked histograms provide another and richer way of visualising consumer liking data. With the stacked histogram each bar represents one sample and each colour in the bar represents a certain rating of the product. For sample 807 one can see that 8 consumers or 10% of the total number of consumers rated this sample with 1 (dislike extremely). 14 consumers or 18% of the consumers rated sample 807 with 5, and so on. In this way the distribution of the ratings is visualised in a more detailed way than in the box plots.
3.3 Preference mapping
Preference mapping is applied simultaneously to consumer liking data and descriptive analysis data. The data set consists of both QDA data and consumer liking of the same samples. Only the averages will be considered for QDA (Ns et al. 2012). The aim is to find drivers of liking that may determine why some products are preferred over other (Stavros et al. 2015) . In Consumer Check , two standard statistical tools applied to build a preference mapping model are partial least squares regression (PLSR) and principal component regression (PCR). Internal preference mapping used consumer liking data as the X matrix and QDA data as the Y matrix. Since the distribution of the products is influenced by the common variance in both X and Y matrix, PLSR was chosen to compute the preference model.
Figure 11 shows the X scores of the preference mapping model visualising how the products relate to each other in the space. As can be seen from Figure11 PC1 and PC2 explain16% and32% (first number in parenthesis) of the variance in the X matrix(consumer liking). PC1 and PC2 explain 53% and 12% (second number in parenthesis) of the data in Y (QDA) totalling 65%. Similar products are located close to each other and dissimilar products have a larger distance between them spanned by the first two components. Sample 713, 349 , 765 and 636 are on the opposite side of other samples with regard to PC1, they are some difference with PCA where analysis was based on QDA data only (Figure 8).
Figure 12 shows the actual preference map that is used for interpretation and visualisation of consumer preferences and drivers of liking. In this plot both the correlation loadings from X and Y are displayed in the same plot. Consumers in the inner circle closer to the origo don't discriminate between the products with regard to the variation described by PC1 and PC2. The closer the attribute is to the outer ring, the higher the variances that can be explained. Many consumers prefer products with high intensities of fragrant sweet flavour, brillancy, lubrication, sweet taste, overly sweet taste (lower left part of the plot) since a large part of the consumers are in proximity of those attributes. And these attributes are highly correlated. Chinese herbal scent flavour, mint flavour, yellowish-brown, bitter taste and astringent are less preferred although there are a few consumers that prefer high intensities of these sensory attributes. Chinese herbal scent flavour and yellowish-brown, bitter taste , astringent are also correlated, however to a lesser degree.