Comparison of two independent trained panels: method evaluation for apple sensory profiles

Demonstrating that results obtained with a trained panel can be replicated by another panel when using the same procedures is an important criteria for the applicability of sensory methods. Moreover, this highlights the objectivity and reliability of this type of measures. In this context, the sensory profiles of six different cultivars of apples performed by two independent panels were compared: the first panel from Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (Italy (BZ), panel 1, consisting of 14 panellists), the second from the Edmund Mach Foundation (Italy (TN), panel 2, consisting of 18 panellists). The protocols for panellist training, the reference standards used to calibrate the evaluations, the sample preparation and the scale assessment, were the same in both sensory laboratories (Corollaro et al., 2013). Panels have used eight attributes in common relative to tastes and texture. Statistical analyses focused first on the performance of each panel and further on the comparison of the description of the samples provided by the two panels. The analysis of variance showed good ability to replicate their evaluation and to discriminate between products for both panel. The sensory maps obtained with the two panels were compared by MFA (Multivariate Factorial Analysis). Sensory descriptions of the samples provided by the two panels are very similar: the sets of variables related to the two different panels are well correlated proving a comparable use of the attributes. It was also observed that the agreement between the two panels varies slightly depending on the variety: the descriptions obtained for ´Fujion` for example are almost overlapping, while the variety ´Braebrun` is perceived slightly different from the two panels. In conclusion, the results show that trained panels following the same procedures and with similar reference standards can provide comparable and integrated data.