1 1

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

https://vocero.uach.mx/index.php/tecnociencia

ISSN-e: 2683-3360

Scientific Article

Sensory analysis of dehydrated orange juices:

quantitative descriptive analysis and sensory

acceptability test

Análisis sensorial de jugos de naranja deshidratados: análisis

descriptivo cuantitativo y ensayo de aceptabilidad sensorial

*Correspondencia: mariamarcelarodriguez@hotmail.com (María Marcela Rodríguez)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54167/tch.v17i3.1325

Recibido:: 17 de agosto de 2023; Aceptado: 24 de octubre de 2023

Publicado por la Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, a través de la Dirección de Investigación y Posgrado

Editor de Sección: Dr. Armando Quintero Ramos

Abstract

The objective of this work was to determine the sensory profile and the degree of acceptability of

samples of commercial dehydrated orange juices (A-B-C) by quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA)

and sensory acceptability testing. As samples B and C are marketed with the label “sweet orange”,

in sensory tests it was also analyzed whether the assessors and consumers perceived them as any

sweeter. A panel of 8 assessors was selected for the QDA test, and trained on evaluating of the

dehydrated orange juices. The acceptance test was performed with 50 consumers of both genders,

who were selected for their daily consumption of dehydrated juices. In addition, in this test, the

influence of gender of consumers on evaluations of the samples was analyzed. In the descriptive test,

B and C were characterized by a greater intensity in orange and acid aroma and orange and acid

flavor, samples A and C by a larger body, and A and B by exhibiting a greater intensity of the sweet

flavor descriptor. In the test with consumers, B and C were perceived as the sweetest and those that

presented the greatest overall acceptability. Furthermore, no differences were found between the

ratings provided by men and women.

Keywords: sensory profile, commercial dehydrated juices, sweet, orange juices.

Marianela Ivana Capitani1, María Marcela Rodríguez1*

1 Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ingeniería, Dpto. Ingeniería

Química y Tecnología de los Alimentos, Núcleo TECSE. Av. del Valle 5737, 7400, Olavarría, Buenos Aires,

Argentina.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo fue determinar el perfil sensorial y el grado de aceptabilidad de muestras

de jugos de naranja deshidratados comerciales (A-B-C) mediante análisis descriptivo cuantitativo

(QDA por sus siglas en inglés) y pruebas de aceptabilidad sensorial. Como las muestras B y C se

comercializan con la etiqueta “naranja dulce”, en los ensayos sensoriales también se analizó si los

evaluadores y consumidores las percibían más dulces. Se seleccionó un panel de 8 evaluadores para

el ensayo QDA, y se los entrenó en la evaluación de jugos de naranja deshidratados. El ensayo de

aceptabilidad sensorial se realizó con 50 consumidores de ambos géneros, quienes fueron

seleccionados por su consumo diario de jugos deshidratados. Además, en esta prueba se analizó la

influencia del género de los consumidores en la valoración de las muestras. En el test descriptivo, B

y C se caracterizaron por una mayor intensidad en aroma a naranja y ácido y sabor a naranja y ácido,

las muestras A y C por un mayor cuerpo, y A y B por exhibir una mayor intensidad del descriptor

sabor dulce. En el ensayo con consumidores, B y C fueron percibidas como las más dulces y las que

presentaron mayor aceptabilidad global. Además, no se encontraron diferencias en la evaluación

proporcionada por hombres y mujeres.

Palabras clave: perfil sensorial, jugos deshidratados comerciales, dulce, jugos de naranja.

1. Introduction

Sensory evaluation can be described as a bond between research and development, linking

technical aspects of foods with consumer behavior and market research. There are many types of

sensory analysis methodologies, and the selection of the method depends on the objective of the

study and the type of information that is desired. They can be divided into two large groups: tests

designed for trained assessors (discriminative and descriptive testing) and those conducted using

consumers (sensory acceptability and preference tests) (Stone et al., 2020; Torrico et al., 2022).

Descriptive sensory analysis is one of the most sophisticated techniques in the scientific field of

sensory evaluation. It involves the identification and the quantitative and qualitative description of

sensory characteristics by a panel of individuals trained in the evaluation of the product (Meilgaard

et al., 2007). They provide the basis for mapping product similarities and variances and determining

those sensory characteristics that are important to acceptance (Mihafu et al., 2020). The qualitative

characteristics include aroma, appearance, flavor, texture, taste and sound. The panel quantifies

these properties in order to describe the attributes perceived in the product (Murray et al., 2001). The

descriptive method is a very important tool for food companies, which can apply it to screen their

products and compare them with competing products, also in quality control (effect of the

ingredients or process variables), establishing instrument/sensory relationship, product

development, and storage tests (shelf life, packaging effect), all of which would enable them to obtain

the consumer-desired product (Meilgaard et al., 2007). Among descriptive tests, the quantitative

descriptive analysis (QDA), developed by Stone et al. (1974), is based on the capacity of an assessor

to verbalize perceptions in a reliable manner. The assessors are trained in the identification of

attributes and use of scales by using reference samples, in order to use a consensus sensory

vocabulary (Bécue-Bertaut, 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Akasapu and Uppaluri, 2023).

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

Sensory acceptability is an affective method, very useful for evaluating food acceptability or

preference (which product is liked or preferred). Consumers are not trained but selected based on

previous use of product, economic social level and geographical area (Mihafu et al., 2020). This tests

allow to clearly distinguish between consumer preferences and behavior, that is to say “what I prefer

may not be what I buy”. There are many factors that make consumers chose and eat a certain food

product. Appearance is generally the first impression that a consumer receives of a product; then

after they have tasted it, flavor is the attribute most usually mentioned by consumers as responsible

for their preference of one food product over another one. The most common reason for consumer

rejection of a food product is that it “has an unpleasant flavor”. However, when they say that the

taste is unpleasant they probably mean that they did not like the product for one or several reasons

other than flavor (Meilgaard et al., 2007).

Among natural beverages, the production of orange juices is the most important and known process

at a world scale given its health benefits and pleasant aroma (Rega et al., 2004; Pan et al., 2023). Orange

juice can be marketed as fresh-squeezed juice, juice concentrate or dehydrated juice (spray dried).

Dehydration extends the shelf life and reduces transport, packaging and storage costs due to the

smaller volume and/or weight of the product (Shrestha et al., 2007; Goula and Adamopoulos, 2010).

However, during the production of dehydrated fruit juices, some problems related to powder

stickiness or manipulation can arise due to their hygroscopic nature (Chegini and Ghobadian, 2007).

On the other hand, the quality of spray-dried foods depends on the process parameters (feed flow

rate, inlet temperature, atomizer speed, feed concentration, feed temperature, air dry flow rate, etc.)

(Chegini et al., 2008; Pino et al., 2018; dos Santos Rocha et al. 2022). There some reports in the literature

on the sensory evaluation of fresh orange juices (Pérez-Aparicio et al., 2007; Pan et al., 2023), and

commercial orange juices (Fernández-Vázquez et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013). However, there is no data

on the sensory analysis of dehydrated orange juices.

The objective of this work was to determine the sensory profile and degree of acceptability of three

commercial dehydrated orange juice samples (A, B and C) by quantitative descriptive analysis and

a sensory acceptability test. In addition, it was evaluated whether trained assessors and consumers

perceived a greater degree of sweetness in the samples marketed under the legend “sweet orange.”

2. Materials and methods

This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Faculty of Engineering (FE) of the

National University of the Center of the Province of Buenos Aires (UNCPBA) and consent was

obtained from each subject before their participation.

2.1 Sample

Three commercial samples of dehydrated orange juices were purchased: A (lot: L.80814j31AR),

B (lot: 10L:96042) and C (lot: 10L:9D050) in a local market in Olavarría (Buenos Aires, Argentina). It

should be noted that for the selection of the samples, the description of the container label ("sweet

orange") was taken as a criterion, contrasting it with another sample without that specification

(sample A). Samples B and C are marketed under the label "sweet orange". These samples were used

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

to carry out the following sensory tests: Quantitative descriptive analysis and Sensory acceptability

test.

2.1.1 Sample preparation

Each dehydrated juice sample was dissolved into 1 L of commercial mineral water, according

to label directions, and stored at 10±2 ºC.

2.2 Quantitative descriptive analysis

The descriptive analysis was performed according to ISO/DIS norm 13299:2003(E) for

establishing a sensory profile. The different stages of the analysis (descriptor search sessions, training

and evaluation) were carried out at the facilities of the Department of Chemical Engineering and

Food Technology (FE, FUNCPBA, Olavarría, Buenos Aires), where the lighting, ventilation and

sound requirements were met.

2.2.1 Panel selection

Teaching staff and students from the Department of Chemical Engineering and Food

Technology, who had time availability and who did not present any physical impediment, were

called to perform the sensory test according to the guidelines of the ISO8586-1 1993/IRAM20005-1

standard. Finally, eight assessors were chosen complying with the number of assessors

recommended for this type of test (Mihafu et al., 2020).

2.2.2 Presentation of the samples

The samples were served at 10 °C in 50 mL plastic glasses and presented blind labelled with

random 3-digit codes. The evaluation of the attributes was performed in the following order: aroma,

appearance and flavor. The samples were served covered with a lid to prevent the loss of volatile

compounds during the evaluation of the aroma attributes. Mineral water was served in 110 mL

plastic glasses at room temperature for the assessors to rinse their mouth between evaluations.

2.2.3 Generation of descriptors

The assessors were presented with the samples in pairs: C (687) - B (369), C (433) - A (115) and

B (552) - A (607). They evaluated the samples and were instructed to fill out the card provided, stating

for which descriptors the samples were similar or different (Fig. 1). Finally, they generated a

consensus list of descriptors (grouped by attribute) that represented the sensory characteristics of

the various dehydrated juices. The descriptors of the aroma attribute were acid and orange, the

appearance were orange color and body and of the flavor attribute were orange, acid and sweet. The

panelists were advised by the panel leader in the use of the appropriate vocabulary, according to the

ISO 5492:1992/IRAM 20001 (1995) norm.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

Figure. 1. Worksheet used to search for descriptors of dehydrated orange juice.

Figura. 1. Planilla empleada para la búsqueda de descriptores de jugos de naranja deshidratados.

2.2.4 Training of the assessors

Different reference samples for each descriptor were presented to the assessors along with the

dehydrated orange juice samples. The panelists were asked to compare the control samples and

reach consensus on which ones were the most suitable to represent the descriptors that they had

previously selected. Finally, they assigned a score value between 0 and 10 to each descriptor, which

would serve as a reference to rate the descriptors found in the samples. Table 1 shows the aroma,

appearance and flavor descriptors with their respective definitions, references and score. The

scorecard is shown in Fig. 2, in which the assessors had to rate the perceived intensity for each

descriptor in an unstructured line scale anchored at the ends with the terms “none” and “much”,

corresponding to values 0 and 10, respectively.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

Table 1. Definitions and references of descriptors of appearance, aroma and taste of dried orange juices.

Tabla 1. Definiciones y referencias de los descriptores de apariencia, aroma y sabor de los jugos de naranja

deshidratados.

Descriptor

Definition

Reference

Score

(0-10)*

Aroma

Orange

aroma

Evaluation of the aroma of artificial

orange. Evaluated by the sense of smell

when uncovering the juice sample.

Sample C (10L:9D050)

Acid aroma

Evaluation of the aroma intensity acid.

Evaluated by the sense of smell when

uncovering the juice sample.

1 g citric acid in 1 L of

juice, prepared with sample

B (10L:96042)

Appearance

Orange color

Evaluation of the intensity of orange

color. Evaluated on the surface of the

sample.

Sample C (10L:9D050)

Body

Property of the sample to offer resistance

to movement. Evaluated by manual

stirring of the vessel.

Sample C (10L:9D050)

Flavor

Orange flavor

Evaluation of the flavor of artificial

orange. Evaluated when testing juice

samples.

Sample C (10L:9D050)

Acid flavor

Evaluation of the flavor intensity acid.

Evaluated when testing juice samples.

Dehydrated orange juice

from a brand name

Sweet flavor

Evaluation of the flavor intensity sweet.

Evaluated when testing juice samples.

16 g sucrose in 1 L juice,

prepared with sample B

(10L:96042)

* The score awarded to each reference was agreed by the panel.

* El puntaje otorgado a cada referencia fue consensuado por el panel.

2.2.5 Sample evaluation

During the scoring session, each assessor was presented with three samples in duplicate in a

random order, along with six scorecards (Fig. 2). Once the test was completed, each assessor was

given a reward for their collaboration.

2.3 Sensory acceptability test

The test was performed according to the ISO 5492:1992/IRAM 20001 (1995) and ISO

8589:1998/IRAM 20003 (1995) norms.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

Figure 2. Worksheet used for the evaluation of samples of dehydrated orange juices.

Figura 2. Planilla empleada para la evaluación de las muestras de jugos de naranja deshidratados.

2.3.1 Consumer recruitment

Two hundred teenagers of both genders between the ages of 15 and 17 from a secondary school

in Argentina (“Adolfo Pérez Esquivel”, Olavarría, Buenos Aires, Argentina) were invited to take part

in a poll. The poll involved filling in a chart in which they were asked to mark with a cross the

frequency of consumption (never, once a week, three times a week or every day) of certain non-

alcoholic beverages (carbonated flavored water, still flavored water, mineral water, carbonated

water, juice concentrate, dehydrated juice, fresh-squeezed juice, soft drinks and herbal-based

drinks). The selection criterion was to choose those adolescents who reported a daily consumption

of dehydrated juices.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

2.3.2 Acceptability test

The acceptability test carried out at the facilities of the Department of Chemical Engineering

and Food Technology (FE, UNCPBA, Olavarría, Buenos Aires). The test was performed with 50

regular consumers of this product (33 female, 17 male), who evaluated the samples using a hedonic

scale. The samples were served at 10±2 ºC in 50 mL plastic glasses labelled with random 3-digit codes.

Mineral water was provided to rinse their mouth between evaluations, served in 110 mL plastic

glasses at room temperature.

Figure 3. Worksheet used for the sensory acceptability test.

Figura 3. Planilla empleada para el ensayo de aceptabilidad sensorial.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

The consumers were asked to score the level of acceptance that they perceived for each sample in a

line scale anchored at the ends with the terms “dislike a lot”, “neither like nor dislike” and “like a

lot”, corresponding to values 0, 5 and 9, respectively. The “global score” was also taken into account,

for which consumers were asked to assign a value between 0 and 10, with 0 corresponding to

“dislike” and 10 to “like a lot”. The descriptors evaluated were “orange flavor” and “sweet flavor”.

It was analyzed if the incorporation of the adjective sweet incorporated in the legend of the

packaging of juices B and C is perceived by consumers (Fig. 3). In addition, in this test, the influence

of gender of consumers on evaluations of the samples was analyzed. Once the test was completed,

each consumer was given a reward for their collaboration.

2.4 Data analysis

The results were analyzed by ANOVA with the InfoStat software (Di Rienzo et al., 2014),

evaluating the differences between the samples for each descriptor and panel performance in the

quantitative descriptive test, and only the differences between the samples in the sensory

acceptability test (n=50). For the comparison of means, Tukey's test was used when significant

differences were found (significance level of 5 %), with different letters indicating significant

differences between the analyzed sources of variation. In the case of the acceptability test, for gender

discrimination, a hypothesis test for paired means was conducted, with a level of significance of 5 %

and n˂30.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Quantitative descriptive analysis

Of the descriptors agreed upon by the panel of evaluators, those corresponding to the flavor

attribute (sweet, orange and sour) were also selected by other authors when they evaluated non-

dehydrated commercial orange juices (Pérez Aparicio et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2013).

Table 2 shows the ANOVA results for the sample, assessors sources of variation and the

sample*assessors interaction for all the descriptors of the aroma, appearance and flavor attributes.

For all dehydrated orange juice descriptors there were significant differences (p≤0.05) among the

three samples, while significant differences were only detected among the evaluators for the orange

color descriptor. In the orange color appearance descriptor and in all flavor attribute descriptors, a

significant sample* assessors’ interaction was detected (p≤0.05).

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

Table 2. ANOVA for the sources of variation sample, evaluator and interaction sample*evaluator for the

descriptors of the aroma, appearance and taste attributes.

Tabla 2. ANOVA para las fuentes de variación muestra, evaluador y la interacción muestra*evaluador para los

descriptores de los atributos aroma, apariencia y sabor.

Descriptor

MSE

Aroma

Orange aroma

Model

119.42

5.19

3.72

0.0011

Sample

83.64

41.82

29.96

<0.0001

Assessor

2.58

0.37

0.26

0.9619

Sample*assessor

33.20

2.37

1.70

0.1228

Error

33.50

1.40

Total

152.92

Acid aroma

Model

116.33

5.06

2.28

0.0248

Sample

88.97

44.48

20.10

<0.0001

Assessor

8.49

1.21

0.55

0.7894

Sample*assessor

18.86

1.35

0.61

0.8318

Error

53.13

2.21

Total

169.45

Appearance

Orange color

Model

95.74

4.16

47.02

<0.0001

Sample

81.54

44.48

20.10

<0.0001

Assessor

4.66

0.67

7.52

0.0001

Sample*assessor

9.54

0.68

7.70

<0.0001

Error

2.12

0.09

Total

97.87

Body

Model

133.12

5.79

6.07

<0.0001

Sample

97.64

48.82

51.22

<0.0001

Assessor

8.70

1.24

1.30

0.2906

Sample*assessor

26.78

1.91

2.01

0.0645

Error

22.87

0.95

Total

155.99

Flavor

Orange flavor

Model

140.49

6.11

4.39

0.0003

Sample

90.76

45.38

32.63

<0.0001

Assessor

3.41

0.49

0.35

0.9217

Sample*assessor

46.32

3.31

2.38

0.0299

Error

33.38

1.39

Total

173.87

Acid flavor

Model

175.58

7.63

4.94

0.0001

Sample

119.66

59.83

38.68

<0.0001

Assessor

6.24

0.89

0.58

0.7677

Sample*assessor

49.68

3.55

2.29

0.0356

Error

37.13

1.55

Total

212.70

Sweet flavor

Model

99.95

4.35

3.99

0.0006

Sample

41.84

20.92

19.22

<0.0001

Assessor

9.79

1.40

1.28

0.2996

Sample*assessor

48.32

3.45

3.17

0.0063

Error

26.13

1.09

Total

126.08

SV: Source of variation, SS: Sum of squares, gf: degrees of freedom, MSE: Mean squares of the error, F: Fisher.

FV: Fuente de variación, SC: Suma de cuadrados, gl: grados de libertad, CM: Cuadrados medios del error, F:

Fisher.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

Based on the statistical results, the sensory profile of the dehydrated orange juice samples for the

descriptors on which the 8 assessors could reach consensus (orange aroma, acid aroma and body) is

shown in Fig. 4. It can be observed that samples B and C presented a significantly higher intensity

in orange aroma and acid aroma. On the other hand, samples A and C exhibited a significantly more

intense body (viscosity) than sample B.

Fig. 4. Intensity of perception for the descriptors orange aroma, acid aroma and body in the samples of

dehydrated orange juices, taking into account all panel members.

Different letters indicate significant differences (p≤0.05).

Fig. 4. Intensidad de percepción para los descriptores aroma naranja, aroma ácido y cuerpo en las muestras de

jugos de naranja deshidratados, teniendo en cuenta a todos los integrantes de panel.

Letras distintas indican diferencias significativas (p≤0.05).

In the case of the descriptors for which the panelists showed different levels of perception (orange

color) and/or significant interactions were observed between the sources of variation

sample*evaluators (flavor attribute descriptors and orange color), only were considered for the data

analysis the scores of those assessors who evaluated the juice samples with a similar trend.

The according to the results of ANOVA for the three descriptors of the flavor attribute for orange

flavor and acid flavor the panel could reach consensus, without considering the contribution of only

one assessor (gl=6), whereas for sweet flavor it was necessary to exclude the values of two assessors

(gl=5). These results would seem to indicate that the panelists need further training in these

descriptors. Taking into account this analysis, samples B and C were characterized by intense orange

and acid flavors, whereas samples A and B presented a more intense sweet flavor (Fig. 5). As

mentioned above, sample B turns out to be the most balanced in terms of flavor (orange, acidity and

b b b

Orange aroma Acid aroma Body

Perceived intensity

A B C

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

sweetness), sample C is considered more acidic and has a greater orange flavor than sweet, while

sample A stands out for being sweeter than orange or acid flavor.

As for orange color, there was a great disparity in how the assessors perceived it, and it was not

possible to make a comparison between the samples for this descriptor. This could be attributed to

the fact that color perception is based on the responses of photoreceptors in the retina and on how

they are interpreted in the brain, which requires a lot of training (Fernández-Vázquez et al., 2013).

Fig. 5. Intensity of perception for the descriptors orange flavor (n = 7), acid taste (n = 7) and sweet taste (n = 6) in

the samples of dehydrated orange juices.

Different letters indicate significant differences (p≤0.05).

Fig. 5. Intensidad de percepción para los descriptores sabor naranja (n=7), sabor ácido (n=7) y sabor dulce (n=6)

en las muestras de jugos de naranja deshidratados.

Letras distintas indican diferencias significativas (p≤0.05).

3.2 Sensory acceptability test

The level of acceptance for the three samples of dehydrated orange juices is shown in Fig. 6.

Samples B and C presented a significantly higher intensity (p<0.0001) for orange flavor (6.74±2.09

and 6.66±2.12) and sweet flavor (6.88±2.10 and 6.26±2.30, respectively) than sample A (4.92±2.60 and

4.68±2.43, orange flavor and sweet flavor, respectively). The results obtained from the evaluation of

sweet flavor indicate that consumers perceived samples B and C as sweeter, confirming the label in

the products marketed as “sweet orange”. Consumers consistently assigned to samples B and C

significantly higher (p<0.0001) global scores (7.69±2.19 and 7.39±1.94, respectively), which would

indicate a high level of acceptance of these samples.

bbb

Orange flavor Acid flavor Sweet flavor

Perceived intensity

A B C

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

Fig. 6. Sensory acceptability of dehydrated orange juice samples.

Fig. 6. Aceptabilidad sensorial de las muestras de jugos de naranja deshidratados.

When comparing these results with those obtained for the descriptive analysis, it can be observed

that both the panel of trained assessors and the consumers identified samples B and C as the ones

with the most intense orange flavor. However, as for sweet flavor, the trained panel perceived that

samples A and B had a higher degree of sweetness (see Fig. 5), whereas consumers assigned the

highest rating to samples B and C (see Fig. 6). These differences can be attributed to the fact that

consumers may be rating the sweet taste in a more global sense than the trained panel, who should

rate the sweet taste as a basic taste sweetness. That is, what the panel qualifies as "sweet flavor" and

what the consumer qualifies as "sweet flavor" are two different concepts. On the other hand, the low

scoring of sweet flavor and orange flavor for sample A by the consumers could be associated with

the low level of acceptance of this producto in terms of global score. It should be noted that sample

B, which received the highest global score value, was rated as having the least body by the trained

evaluators (see Fig. 4), which could indicate that consumers like the samples more less viscous and

with a more balanced flavor.

Regarding the effect of consumers' gender on sensory acceptability, in all cases, no significant

differences (p>0.05) between the evaluations of men and women were detected for the samples (A,

B and C) with the number of consumers involved in this analysis, but these results could vary if a

larger number of consumers were considered (Hough et al., 2006). Although there is scientific

research that shows differences in the ability to perceive sensory attributes depending on gender, for

example, the authors Doty and Cameron (2009) state that women are more sensitive to detect,

identify and discriminate some odors in relation to men. However, these differences, when present,

are usually not large.

Orange flavor Sweet flavor Global score

Score

A B C

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

4. Conclusion

The descriptive analysis provided a description of the sensory characteristics of the dehydrated

orange juices under analysis. Sensory differences could be detected between the samples. Samples B

and C were characterized by a greater intensity in orange and acid aroma and orange and acid flavor,

samples A and C by a larger body, and samples A and B by exhibiting a greater intensity of the sweet

flavor descriptor.

The sensory acceptability test provided information on the liking level of a group of adolescents for

different commercial brands of dehydrated orange juices sold under different degrees of sweetness

on their labels. The consumers showed higher liking for those samples that had greater intensity of

orange flavor and sweet flavor (samples B and C). They also identified the samples labelled “sweet

orange” as having a greater degree of sweetness than sample A. It must be noted that no differences

were found between the evaluations provided by men and women.

In summary, by relating the results of the studies addressed (QDA and acceptability testing), it is

concluded that sweet taste is perceived from a different concept depending on whether the

evaluations correspond to trained assessors or consumers. Furthermore, sample B was the one that

received the highest global score value according to the sensory test, which could be associated with

its greater balance of flavors (orange, sour and sweet) and its lower body according to the results

obtained in the QDA. This would indicate the importance of carrying out both studies, given that

they provide different and at the same time complementary information.

However, it would be of interest in future sensory studies of dehydrated orange juices to train the

members of the QDA panel in the search for more specific descriptors for the attributes appearance,

aroma and flavor. Likewise, carry out the sensory acceptability test with a larger number of

consumers to obtain more representative results.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Facultad de Ingeniería y la Escuela Nacional Adolfo Pérez Esquivel de la

Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires for allowing the use of the facilities

for the development of sensory tests.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and have no competing financial interest

for the work covered in this paper.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

5. Reference

Akasapu, K. & Ramagopal, V. S. (2023). Uppaluri Efficacy of score deviation method as a novel

sensory evaluation technique for the identification of optimal mixed vegetable soup

formulations. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 33: 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100761

Bécue-Bertaut, M. (2014). Tracking verbal-based methods beyond conventional descriptive analysis

in food science bibliography. A statistical approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 32A: 2-15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.010

Chegini, G. R., & Ghobadian, B. (2007). Spray Dryer Parameters for Fruit Juice Drying. World J. Agric.

Sci. 3(2): 230-236. https://bitly.ws/ZZeB

Chegini, G. R., Khazaei, J., Ghobadian, B. & Goudarzi, A. M. (2008). Prediction of process and

product parameters in an orange juice spray dryer using artificial neural networks. J. Food Eng.,

84 (4): 534-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.06.007

Di Rienzo, J. A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M. G., Gonzalez, L., Tablada, M. & Robledo, C. W. (2014)

InfoStat version 2014. InfoStat Group: FCA: National University of Córdoba, Argentina.

https://www.infostat.com.ar/

dos Santos Rocha Magnani, C. M., Ramos, Bezerril, F. F., Freitas, M. Q., Cruz, A. G. & Pimentel, T.

C. (2022). Emerging technologies in food processing: impacts on sensory characteristics and

consumer perception. Curr. Opin. Food Sci., 47: 100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100892

Doty, R. L. & Cameron, E. L. (2009). Sex differences and reproductive hormone influences on human

odor perception. Physiol. Behav. 97(2): 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.032

Fernández-Vázquez, R., Stinco, C. M., Hernanz, D., Heredia, F. J. & Vicario, I. M. (2013). Colour

training and colour differences thresholds in orange juice. Food Qual. Prefer., 30(2): 320-327.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.018

Goula, A. M. & Adamopoulos, K. G. (2010). A new technique for spray drying orange juice

concéntrate. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 11 (2): 342-351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2009.12.001

Hough, G., Wakeling, I., Mucci, A., Chambers, I. E., Méndez Gallardo, I. & Rangel Alves L. (2006).

Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 17(6): 522-526.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.002

Kim, M. K., Young-Jin, L., Kwak, H. S. & Myung-Woo, K. (2013). Identification of Sensory Attributes

That Drive Consumer Liking of Commercial Orange Juice Products in Korea. J. Food Sci., 78(9):

1451-1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12227

Meilgaard, M. C., Carr, B. T. & Civille, G. V. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques, fourth ed. Taylor

and Francis/CRC Press. eBook ISBN: 9780429195143. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16452

Mihafu, F. D., Issa, J. Y. & Kamiyango, M. W. (2020). Implication of Sensory Evaluation and Quality

Assessment in Food Product Development: A Review. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. 08(3): 690-702.

https://doi.org/10.12944/CRNFSJ.8.3.03

Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M. & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and

future. Food Res. Int. 34(6): 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00070-9

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 1325 (2023)

ISO 5492:1992/IRAM 20001(1995): Sensory Analysis. Vocabulary.

ISO 8586 - 1:1993/IRAM 20005 - 1(1996): Sensory analysis. General guide for the selection, training

and monitoring of evaluators. Part 1 - Selected evaluators.

ISO 8589:1998/IRAM 20003(1995): Sensory analysis. Guide for the installation of test rooms.

Pan, X., Bi, S., Lao, F. & Wu, J. (2023). Factors affecting aroma compounds in orange juice and their

sensory perception: A review. Food Res. Int., 169: 112835.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112835

Pérez-Aparicio J., Toledano-Medina, M. A. & Lafuente-Rosales, V. (2007). Descriptive sensory

analysis in different clases of orange juice by a robust free-choice profile method. Anal. Chim. Acta,

595(1-2): 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2007.02.054

Pino J. A, Aragüez-Fortesand Y. & Bringas-Lantigua, M. (2018). Optimization of spray-drying

process for concentrated orange juice. Acta Aliment, An Int J Food Sci., 47(4): 417-424.

https://doi.org/10.1556/066.2018.47.4.4

Rega, B., Fournier, N., Nicklaus, S. & Guichard E. (2004). Role of pulp in flavor release and sensory

perception in orange juice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52 (13): 4204-4212.

https://doi.org/10.1021/jf035361n

Rodríguez M., López Osornio, M. & Hough, G. (2014). Comparison of consensus profiles obtained

at the end of product-specific training with profiles obtained by individual measurements and

statistical analysis. Acta Aliment, An Int J Food Sci., 43(1): 61-75.

https://doi.org/10.1556/AAlim.43.2014.1.7

Shrestha, A. K., Ua-Arak, T., Adhikari, B. R., Howes, T. & Bhandari, B. R. (2007). Glass transition

behavior of spray dried orange juice powder measured by differential scanning calorimetry

(DSC) and thermal mechanical compression test (TMCT). Int. J. Food Prop., 10(3): 661-673.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10942910601109218

Stone H., Sidel, J. L., Oliver, S., Woolsey A. & Singleton, R. C. (2004). Sensory evaluation by

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis. M.C. Gacula Jr. (Ed). Descriptive Sensory Analysis in Practice

(chapter 1.3). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470385036.ch1c

Stone, H., Bleibaum, R. N. & Thomas, H. A. (2020). Sensory evaluation practices. Academic Press.

ISBN: 9780128153345. eBook ISBN: 9780128153352

Torrico, D. D., Mehta, A. & Bernardes Borssato, A. (2023). New methods to assess sensory responses:

a brief review of innovative techniques in sensory evaluation. Curr. Opin. Food Sci., 49: 100978.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100978

2023 TECNOCIENCIA CHIHUAHUA

Esta obra está bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución No Comercial 4.0 Internacional.

Capitani et.al

TECNOCIENCIACHIHUAHUA,Vol. XVII (3) e 13256 (2023)

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/