Comparison of rapid descriptive sensory methodologies: Free-Choice Profiling, Flash Profile and modified Flash Profile

Abstract

Rapid sensory methods have been developed as alternatives to traditional sensory descriptive analysis methods. Among them, Free-Choice Profiling (FCP) and Flash Profile (FP) are two that have been known for many years. The objectives of this work were to compare the rating-based FCP and ranking-based FP method; to evaluate the impact of adding adjustments to FP approach; to investigate the influence of the number of assessors on the outcome of modified FP. To achieve these aims, a conventional descriptive analysis (DA), FCP, FP and a modified version of FP were carried out. Red wines made by different grape maturity and ethanol concentration were used for sensory testing. This study showed that DA provided a more detailed and accurate information on products through a quantitative measure of the intensity of sensory attributes than FCP and FP. However, the panel hours for conducting DA were higher than that for rapid methods, and FP was even able to separate the samples to a higher degree than DA. When comparing FCP and FP, this study showed that the ranking-based FP provided a clearer separation of samples than rating-based FCP, but the latter was an easier task for most assessors. When restricting assessors on their use of attributes in FP, the sample space became clearer and the ranking task was simplified. The FP protocol with restricted attribute sets seems to be a promising approach for efficient screening of sensory properties in wine. When increasing the number of assessors from 10 to 20 for conducting the modified FP, the outcome tended to be slightly more stable, however, one should consider the degree of panel training when deciding the optimal number of assessors for conducting FP.

Keywords: Descriptive analysis; Flash Profile; Free-Choice Profiling; Rapid sensory methodologies; Sensory evaluation; Wine.