Comparison of conventional and consumer‐based sensory profiling methods for ready‐to‐drink coffee beverages

Abstract

With the extensive advancement of rapid descriptive methodologies as alternatives to conventional descriptive analysis (DA), various consumer‐based methodologies have been recently introduced. The present study aimed to compare three consumer‐based methodologies for sensory characterization (check‐all‐that‐apply [CATA], flash profile [FP], and free listing [FL]) as alternatives to DA, using six ready‐to‐drink coffee beverages. DA was performed with 10 trained panelists, whereas each consumer evaluation was conducted with 70 untrained consumers. The consumer methodologies were in good agreement with DA for profiling differences in consumer perception of the samples' sensory attributes, showing high regression vector (Rv) values (>0.9). Although FP was the most similar to DA (Rv = 0.936), it had a long evaluation time and high tediousness, whereas the CATA and FL methods were shorter and less tedious. FP and FL could spontaneously reflect consumer perceptions, while CATA has the advantages of being a simple and versatile method for evaluating consumer perception. Considering the unique benefits of each method, these consumer‐based methodologies could be viable alternatives to DA. Practical Applications This study indicates that CATA, FP, and FL methods could be good alternatives to DA for profiling differences in consumer perception of sensory attributes for ready‐to‐drink coffee beverages with medium–large sensory differences. With unique feature of each method, these consumer‐based methods would be of benefit to the coffee industry to get rapid consumer perception for the sensory description of ready‐to‐drink coffee beverages.

Comparison of Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA), Flash Profile, Free Listing, and Conventional Descriptive Analysis for the Sensory Profiling of Sweet Pumpkin Porridge

“…This limitation arises from the fact that the SSI does not take into account the significance of differences in attributes, and the data analysis with the FL is more intricate compared with that using other sensory methods [23]. Yoon et al [27] reported the lowest Rv value for FL using DA for RTD coffee beverages compared with CATA and FP. In the analysis of the FL data, the terminology used by individual consumers needs to be refined and standardized before conducting a statistical analysis.…”

“…Comparative studies on product configurations, descriptions, and discrimination between DA and consumer-based methodologies have been actively conducted. Some examples of such comparisons include those between DA and CATA for orange-flavored powdered beverage samples [24]; between PM and CATA for brewed black coffees [25]; between pivot profile and CATA for instant black coffee [26]; among RATA, CATA, and sorting and Napping ® for plant-based milk [11]; between CATA and FCP for fish [17]; among DA, FCP, and PSP for water [14]; and among CATA, FP, and FL for RTD coffee beverages [27]. Among various consumer-based methods, studies on FL as an alternative to DA are limited, although this method has gained increasing attention owing to its ability to reflect the spontaneous perception of the tested products held consumers [23].…”

“…Yoon et al [27] compared the performance of three rapid sensory profiling methods, namely, CATA, FP, and FL, in evaluating RTD coffee beverages and investigated their potential as alternatives to DA. In their analyses, the three consumer-based methodologies demonstrated potential as viable substitutes for DA when assessing variations in consumer perceptions regarding sensory attributes of RTD coffee beverages exhibiting moderate to large sensory distinctions.…”