SENSORY EVALUATION
reproduction of the consumers’ behaviour. After the common training, the development of a shared language and the agreed ‘homogenisation’ of the scores, the evaluation phase is carried out individually, in a specific room, usually air-conditioned and with no external noise or other influences. The sensorial perceptions related to the different phases of the product use (before, during and after the application) are ranked with a mark over a linear scale 10 cm long.
The scale represents the degrees of each attribute between the ranges of intensities. The score sheets are collected and the marks converted to scores by measuring the distance of the mark from one end of the line. Means and standard deviations are calculated and used to perform the statistical analysis. Panellists’ skills are recorded and monitored by the panel leader for reproducibility, consistency, sensitivity and calibration.
The identification of the required specific type of sensorial analysis is suggested by the objectives of the study, the level of investigation required and the number of samples to be tested. Some examples of typical cosmetic problems are described in Table 1.
The QDA panel has a sensitivity which is on average 1,000 times greater than the normal consumer, so it may detect very small differences between products. In addition, its results are valid in any market place, being independent from consumer acceptance or preference.
This is also its limitation. Exactly as a pH meter does not tell you if a low or a high
Table 1: Examples of typical cosmetic problems.
To differentiate, among several commercial lipsticks, their properties during the application phase and during the wear time.
Differences in skin feel of a syndet, during and after its use, compared to a standard alkaline soap and to a combar.
How the steeping procedure of alcoholic fragrances develops detectable differences in the perceived notes and which is the best olfactory method to identify them.
If a group of hair conditioners, formulated with different types of cationics give similar performances onto the hair in terms of build-up, fly away, gloss, ease of wet and dry combing.
If an oily insect repellent could support the claim ‘non oily’. ‘Visible difference’ claims. How a leading brand of body lotion could be matched completely.
pH is good for your skin, so the QDA does not specify if a sensorial variable will be well accepted by the consumers. But this limitation could be easily overcome by an accurate control of market competitors and by successive consumer tests, the preparation of which is made a lot easier with the results of panel’s findings.
Conclusions
Sensorial analysis was the missing tool between product development and the marketing phase. Its multiple features enable a thorough evaluation of a product’s performances, exactly as they are perceived by the final consumers. The real possibility of different depths of investigation are suitable for identifying any kind of formulation problems and for the analysis of consumers’ requirements. Moreover, it is a powerful instrument for communication among technical and marketing departments. Indeed, as it uses the same tools as consumers, it is
an efficient vocabulary of communication and a key to successful products.
PC
References 1 Murray JM, Delahunty CM, Baxter IA. Descriptive sensory analysis: past present and future. Food Res Int 2001; 34 (6): 461-71.
2 Hootman RC. Manual on descriptive analysis testing. ASTM manual series, 1992.
3 Peters D. Power, influence and group dynamics in sensory evaluation. Food Technol 1987.
3 Komanska H. Sequential monadic designs: some theoretical considerations. J Sens Stud 1990; 4.
4 Aust B et al. The descriptive analysis of skin care products by a trained panel of judges. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1987.
5 Bone B. The importance of consumer language in developing product concepts. Food Technol 1987.
6 Stone H, Dermott BJ, Sidel JL. The importance of sensory analysis for the evaluation of quality. Food Technol 1991.
7 Manual on sensory testing methods, ASTM Special Technical Publication 434.
drstraetmans
Beauty created by nature.
Supported by intelligence behind beauty April 2012 PERSONAL CARE 109
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152