rtbfoods sensory panel training - cirad
TRANSCRIPT
Training Report
RTBfoods Sensory Panel Training Sensory Profiles Workshop
Kabira Hotel Country Club and NARO, Kampala, Uganda, 17 – 21 September 2018 Lisa LAFOUNTAIN, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Linly BANDA, CIP, Nairobi, Kenya Suzanne JOHANNINGSMEIER, 2USDA-ARS Food Science Research Unit, Raleigh, NC,
USA Tawanda MUZHINGI, CIP, Nairobi, Kenya
Gérard NGOH NEWILAH, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon
1
This report has been written in the framework of RTBfoods project.
To be cited as:
Lisa LAFOUNTAIN, Linly BANDA, Suzanne JOHANNINGSMEIER, Tawanda MUZHINGI, Gérard NGOH NEWILAH. 2018. RTBfoods Sensory Panel Training – Sensory Profiles Workshop. Kampala, Uganda. RTBfoods Project Report. 22 p.
Image cover page © Dufour D. for RTBfoods.
2
CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 3
Day 1: 17th September, 2018 ............................................................................................................... 4
Kabira Country Club, Kampala, Uganda .......................................................................................... 4
Day 2: 18th September, 2018 .............................................................................................................. 5
NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda .......................................................................................... 5
Day 3: 19th September, 2018 .............................................................................................................. 7
Morning: NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda ............................................................................ 7
Afternoon: IITA, NaCRRI, and NARO, Namulonge, Uganda ............................................................ 7
Day 4: 20th September, 2018 .............................................................................................................. 9
NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda .......................................................................................... 9
Day 5: 21st September, 2018 ............................................................................................................ 11
NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda ........................................................................................ 11
TRAINING PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 17
EVALUATION OF TRAINING ............................................................................................................ 18
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................. 21
List of figures
Figure 1: Quality of the training…………………………………………………………………………….…19
Figure 2: The most useful parts of the training……………………………………………………………. .20
Figure 3: The least useful parts of the training………………………………………………………..…….20
Figure 4: Suggestions for improvement……………………………………………………….................. ..21
3
ABSTRACT Context: Place: Kampala, Uganda Date: 17 – 21 September
Authors (institution): Lisa LaFountain (North Carolina State University), Linly Banda (CIP-Kenya), Dr. Suzanne Johanningsmeier (USDA-ARS Food Science Research Unit), Dr. Tawanda Muzhingi (CIP Kenya) and Dr. Gérard Ngoh Newilah (University of Dschang)
Content: Report on RTBfoods Sensory Panel Training – Sensory Profiles Workshop
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sensory Panel Training was held at the Kabira Hotel Country Club and NARO in Uganda, from the 17th to the 21st of September, 2018. The training was attended by forty-one (41) participants involved in Work Package 2 (WP2) the RTB Foods project and facilitated by trainers from CIRAD (Montpellier) and RTBfoods experts.
The training kicked off at the Country Club with opening remarks and a welcome note by Dr Tawanda Muzhingi (CIP, Kenya), followed by a video presentation by Dr. Chris Findlay (Compusense, Canada), where he discussed aspects of sensory science and how Compusense can help organizations to develop and maintain a sensory program. Participants were given a chance to introduce themselves. Cathy Méjean (CIRAD, France) introduced participants to the RTB Foods collaborative platform sensory analysis fundamental concepts and encouraged everyone to learn how to use it.
During the 5 day period, participants learnt the theoretical aspects of sensory analysis as well as hands on practicals at the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) laboratories. Each day, a recap of the previous day activities was given by Dr. Suzanne Johanningsmeier (USDA-ARS, USA). The general aim of the workshop was to introduce the participants to basic principles of sensory analysis, application in roots and tubers and how to analyze sensory panel data. The ultimate goal was to select future leaders who would be trained on how to set up a sensory panel in order to establish the sensory profiles of finished products within the RTB foods project.
The workshop was divided into 3 sections;
i. Sensory methodologies. Nelly Forestier-Chiron (CIRAD, France) covered this section in four parts; basic principles of sensory analysis, different tests available, panel management, identification of basic taste odour and texture using matoke.
ii. Practical application on boiled sweetpotato. iii. Data processing of sensory panel results using XL-stat software, demonstrated by Dr.
Christophe Bugaud (CIRAD, France).
On the third day, participants had an opportunity to visit the plant breeding site hosted by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) and National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) in Namulonge, Uganda. They were taken through the banana, cassava and sweetpotato breeding trials and some key biochemical analyses that are carried out prior to sensory analysis.
On the 21st of September, Dr. Tawanda Muzhingi thanked workshop participants, trainers, and NARL hosts for participating in the RTBfoods Sensory Profiles Workshop. Dr. Wilberforce Tushemereirwe, Director of NARL, presented certificates to the participants and shared more information about the NARL organization and its role. He thanked everyone involved in the training and announced the conclusion of the RTBfoods Sensory Profiles Workshop.
4
DAY 1: 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Kabira Country Club, Kampala, Uganda
The RTB Foods Sensory Panel Training Workshop opened with Dr. Tawanda Muzhingi (CIP, Kenya) welcoming the training participants and leaders, and sharing a video presentation from Chris Findlay (Compusense, Canada). Dr. Findlay discussed aspects of sensory science, objective sensory measurements, the challenge between sensory science and food security, plant breeding priorities and how Compusense can help organizations to develop and maintain a sensory program. Next, the workshop participants and training members introduced themselves to the group. Cathy Méjean (CIRAD, France) introduced participants to the RTB Foods collaborative platform, and requested all participants provide her with required information in order to provide participant access. WP2 participants were encouraged to navigate the online platform in order to become familiar with the location of the common procures folder, as well as uploading relevant documentation to the state of knowledge (SoK) folder.
The remainder of the day was spent learning sensory analysis fundamental concepts. Nelly Forestier-Chiron (CIRAD, France) presented the
information in four parts. Part one included an explanation of basic sensory analysis terms including the sensory organs, organoleptic properties and sensory responses as well as the importance of sensory analysis. The second part gave an overview of the various types of sensory tests, both analytical (discriminative and descriptive) and hedonic. Nelly emphasized that the purpose of this training workshop was to focus on analytical tests, and that preference/liking should not play a part moving forward. Next, the group learned about the best way to set up a sensory panel, including requirements for lead personnel, the location/room, the panel members, the protocol, descriptors and vocabulary generation, evaluation methods including scaling, and design of relevant documentation. Part four focused on setting up a panel, including recruitment, general training, selection of panelists, and product specific training. Nelly concluded the day by introducing participants to XLStat software, and how to use it in order to determine sample presentation for testing, using the ‘Design of Experiments’ feature.
5
DAY 2: 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda Day 2 began with a recap of the material covered during Day 1 (provided by Dr. Suzanne Johanningsmeier, USDA-ARS, USA). This recap was followed by a Q&A session, where participants asked about importance of a sample preparation protocol and number of hours of training required for a panel before beginning analysis. The rest of the day was divided into two breakout sessions led by Nelly and Christophe), and an entire group activity. Breakout session 1 involved half of the group preparing stock solutions and serial dilutions of 5 different compounds (sucrose, sodium chloride, quinine hydrochloride, citric acid, and potassium aluminum sulfate), which elicit the 4 basic tastes (sweet, salty, bitter, sour) and an astringent mouthfeel, respectively. The other half of the group set up materials necessary for basic taste training on each person’s desk. These activities culminated in the preparation of samples for conducting basic taste training, where
participants were asked to taste samples in 12 different cups and determine whether the sample was an example of sweet, salty, bitter, sour, astringent or just water.
This exercise is done during the initial stages of recruiting and training panelists to determine whether the panelists can identify basic tastes and mouthfeels. Breakout session 2 involved half of the group preparing stock solutions and serial dilutions of 2 different compounds (sucrose and sodium chloride) and the other half of the group setting up materials necessary for the ranking test, which included coded sample cups so that what each participant is tasting is unknown to them. The entire group then participated in a ranking test. Each participant was given two sets of 6 coded samples and asked to rank the samples from least intense to most intense for each set of samples. This test is used to train and test descriptive panelists on the ability to score attribute intensities.
7
Participants were then asked to identify aroma characteristics of samples in four jars wrapped so
that contents were not visible (citrus/lime, earth, banana, and spice/cinnamon). This exercise gave the participants inspiration relating to sourcing materials for panel aroma training, as these items are all easily sourced and have characteristic, describable aromas. Following a break, each participant received 3 samples of matoke to learn about the process of generating product-specific attribute vocabulary. Participants were asked to assess each sample and describe the texture (by hand and by mouth). Once everyone had independently generated descriptors, a list was formed collectively (led by Bolanle), which included attributes such as smooth, sticky, moldable, grainy, lumpy, dry. ISO 5492 Standard was used in order to standardize vocabulary and provide standard references for each descriptor (Nelly), which assisted in reducing confusion if participants were using different words for the same attribute. The ISO standard also provided a method of evaluation for many of the attributes that could serve as a starting point in method development
7
DAY 3: 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Morning: NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda On Wednesday morning, Suzanne Johanningsmeier gave a daily recap of the previous day. She discussed how each participant had generated between 3-10 descriptors for matoke texture attributes, and that the group, collectively, generated approximately 150 descriptors. Common descriptors included sticky, smooth, hard, soft, moist, dry, fibrous, and grainy. She emphasized the importance of the entire panel agreeing on definitions, using resources such as ISO 5492 and peer-reviewed, published papers or reference books. She explained that, once a list of attributes is generated, the panel leader should present that list to the panelists and additional terms should be added if necessary in order to be able to describe and differentiate the range of products of interest. The importance of sourcing and using standard reference materials in order to assist the panel in attribute intensity scaling was also discussed.
Following the daily recap, Nelly Forestier-Chiron demonstrated how to use a triangle test to determine the sensitivity of your panelists. Each participant was presented with three orange juice samples and a triangle test ballot. A triangle test is used in analytical difference testing, and asks participants to select the sample that is different from the others. This can be a stand-alone test, or a follow up question can be used, prompting the participants to give feedback on the type of difference they encountered. The difference between the samples in the test was that one sample was pure orange juice and the other a diluted version of it. Different dilutions can be used to test your panelists’ ability to detect small differences between samples. Next, the participants were presented with three sweet potato samples from a wide range of varieties in order to generate vocabulary descriptors in the same fashion as was conducted for matoke, only now including all product attribute (appearance, texture, odor, aroma and basic tastes). Once vocabulary was generated, Nelly stressed the importance of a sample preparation protocol, especially sample temperature. The group discussed how the sensory profile of a product differed when the temperature changed, and agreed that indicating a temperature range for service was important.
Afternoon: IITA, NaCRRI, and NARO, Namulonge, Uganda Participants had the opportunity to visit the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) and National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) in Namulonge, Uganda. The group was led by Brigitte Uwimana at IITA, who discussed the work of the banana breeding program in Uganda and showed various banana plantations and current crossbreeding trials. The group was able to see IITA’s new
inventory system, which uses QR barcodes and an online system in order to keep track of each plant. The tour group was met by Robert Kawuki at NaCRRI, who explained the work of the cassava team. Participants were able to see the sample preparation unit, where workers discussed the use of a hot wax dip process on the cassava to preserve the root prior to sensory, physical, and biochemical evaluation. Robert also shared information about handheld NIRS devices that can be used in the field, as well as showing
8
the group the biochemical laboratory, where cassava undergoes analyses for dry matter, carotene and starch content. Reuben Ssali (CIP) explained the process for sweet potato analysis, noting that it was similar to the process undergone by cassava, without any waxing prior to analysis. Finally, the group was able to see
cassava and sweet potato trials established within the RTBfoods project, where Robert Kawuki discussed the cassava cultivars and Reuben Ssali discussed the sweet potato cultivars along with the experimental design for their breeding trials.
9
DAY 4: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda Day 4 began with a brief recap of vocabulary development (provided by Suzanne J). She then presented a printed sheet featuring each of the attributes agreed upon by the group the previous day for sweetpotato, along with scales to be used with each attribute (Generated by Nelly using the ISO 5492 standard vocabulary). There was significant discussion among participants regarding the scales, and some adjustments were made to make it more applicable to sweet potato specifically.
The group agreed upon the scaling in order to use it for the day’s activities. The group was then given one sweet potato sample in order to gain
experience using the attributes and scales that were previously developed. The group worked together to record each person’s data in order to find the average, minimum and maximum score using the scale for each attribute as well as discussing anchors and the importance of using standardized food references to train panelists on the intensity scales, definitions and methods of evaluation for each attribute.
Nelly explained the importance of recording all information pertinent to sensory samples in a spreadsheet including the breeder code/name, variety, details of preparation and service of the samples and any other information that is necessary to ensure that confounding is kept to a minimum. Nelly also discussed the importance of blind testing, using three-digit, randomized codes and reminded the group of how to generate these using XLStat. Next, a three-part, rotating breakout session was used in order to give all participants the opportunity to experience all phases of descriptive sensory analysis, including setting up a sensory booth for descriptive analysis and sample evaluation; prepare and serve the samples for descriptive analysis; and record descriptive analysis data in a spreadsheet in preparation for statistical analysis.
10
Once all generated data was entered into the spreadsheet, Dr. Christophe Bugaud (CIRAD, France) showed the participants how to manipulate it in order to be able to conduct statistical analysis. An example of the spreadsheet, and all other data analysis documentation, was provided to participants on a flash drive at the conclusion of the training. Christophe sorted the spreadsheet by sample code, then panelist, and added columns for mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and range for each product. These data were separated onto a separate spreadsheet for each panelist, and the built-in formulas were used to determine repeatability and consistency of each panelist. This information is useful to highlight in which areas panelists require additional training. The spreadsheet provided by CIRAD uses a 50% repeatability threshold in determining whether an individual participant is repeatable, which can be adjusted if necessary.
11
DAY 5: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2018 NARO Laboratories, Kawanda, Uganda The day 4 recap (Suzanne J) included summarizing principles of scaling, word anchors, training a panel and how to measure the success of the panel in terms of repeatability and consistency (homogeneity). The timeframes for training were discussed. Once attributes and scales are initially agreed upon, the panel would do an initial evaluation of a wide range of real samples of interest using the proposed scales. Feedback from and discussion among the panelists is used to refine scales and establish a uniform method of evaluation. Reference foods with the attributes of interest are identified and provided to panelists for calibration. Practice sample evaluations are conducted to generate data to check panelist repeatability and homogeneity as well as their ability to differentiate samples. In practice, this occurs over several training sessions. The recap was followed by significant discussion and clarification on defining attributes, methods of measurement (evaluation techniques), and scales.
Next, participants received the flash drives created by CIRAD, while Nelly Forestier-Chiron gave an overview of the contents of the flash drive and stressed the importance of saving copies of each of the files to the desktop, in order to maintain a blank template file for future studies. Christophe Bugaud then led the participants in several data analysis exercises. To begin with, he revisited the panelist spreadsheet and reviewed how to enter in individual panelist data in order to
12
determine repeatability and consistency of each panelist.
Finally, Christophe highlighted the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) functionality of XLStat, by using previous data from his research. PCA is a widely used statistical analysis tool in sensory analysis that allows scientists to explain which factors are the most responsible for the variability between samples. The linear combinations of the product attributes that explain most of the variation in the samples can be plotted in two dimensions, creating a visual representation of how samples are differentiated based on their overall sensory profiles. The PCA graph shows attribute-associated vectors along with plotted points for each product sample. An idea of the sensory attributes for a sample can be garnered by looking at the vectors that point in the same direction and same intensity as a plotted point (for attributes possessed by a sample) or, conversely, vectors that point in the opposite direction as a plotted point (for attributes not possessed by a sample).
Dr. Tawanda Muzhingi thanked workshop attendees, trainers, and NARL hosts for participating in the RTBfoods Sensory Profiles Workshop, including Dr. Kephas Nowakunda (NARL, Uganda). Dr. Nowakunda introduced Dr. Wilberforce Tushemereirwe, Director of NARL, and invited him to present certificates to the participants. Once all participants had received their certificates, Dr. Tushemereirwe provided information about the NARL organization, its establishment, presence across Uganda and its importance for Uganda. He thanked everyone involved in the training and announced the conclusion of the RTBfoods Sensory Profiles Workshop.
13
14
15
16
17
TRAINING PROGRAM Table 1 : CHRONOGRAM OF WORKSHOP « SENSORY PANEL TRAINING - SENSORY PROFILES »
Monday 17th – Kabira Hotel Tuesday 18th – NARO 8:30 Wednesday 19th – NARO 8:30 Thursday 20th – NARO 8:30 Friday 21st – NARO 8:30 Palm Hall 8:15 Meeting point: Meeting point: Meeting point: Meeting point: Kabira car park – 7:15 Kabira car park – 7:15 Kabira car park – 7:15 Kabira car park – 7:15
Opening Identification test of basic taste / Practical exercise : Specific
training Practical exercise : Specific training Practical exercise:
ranking test / perception descriptive test on boiled sweet descriptive test on boiled sweet descriptive test on boiled sweet Participants presentation and threshold
their expectations potatoes (3 contrasting potatoes (3 contrasting products): potatoes (3 products):
MORNING Program presentation Triangular test
products): 2 sessions Sampling protocol : cooking /
Generation of vocabulary 8:30 Sampling protocol : cooking / samples coding / service ‐ Computer focus / getting samples coding / service
12:30 started with XL‐STAT software Identification of odour Determination of the testing list / Descriptive test definition / protocol Descriptive test / use of the scale
Registered data Registered data
Data processing (ANOVA, PCA…) LUNCH BREAK Basic knowledge in sensory Work on texture components of VISIT Jury performance General discussions Analysis matoke:
Breeding program plantations (repeatability, homogeneity Conclusions
AFTERNOON Different types of tests Generation of texture vocabulary
of the panel, …) 14:00
Panel management (selection, Evaluation protocol
‐ 16:30 training and validation of the
panel) Definition / standard
18:30 Social Event : Brisk Restaurant (Meeting Point : Kabira car park)
18
EVALUATION OF TRAINING Participants were asked to evaluate the training by responding to a set of questions. A total of 31 participants took part in the evaluation exercise. Sensory methodologies and the practical application sections were rated highly with an average score of 5 (very good) and most respondents indicated that they required backstopping via email/Skype before applying the knowledge gained from the workshop, without necessarily going through another in-person training.
Figure 1: Quality of the training
Key (questions 1 to 6)
1 – very poor 2 – poor 3 – alright 4 – good 5 – very good 6 – not applicable, could not attend
Key (question 7)
0 – no 1 – Yes, backstopping by email/Skype is sufficient 2 – Yes, in person training is required
1
4
5
5
4
4
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Do you need additional training before applyingthe knowledge gained during this workshop ?
6. How would you rate the quality of section 3:data processing of sensory panel results (using XL-
stat software)
5. How would you rate the quality of section 2:Practical application on boiled sweet potatoes
4. How would you rate the quality of section 1:Sensory methodologies
3. How would you rate the meeting in terms oforganization (logistics, communication) ?
2. How would you rate the quality of thepresentations in terms of content ?
1. Did the five-day meeting match yourexpectations ?
Quality of the training
Average rating
19
Respondents were asked to list the three most useful and three least useful sessions of the training. Data analysis was indicated to be the most useful, while nothing stood out to be the least useful. Generally, most respondents were happy about all the training sessions.
Figure 2: The most useful parts of the training
Figure 3: The least useful parts of the training
Data analysis32%
Specific training
29%
Theoretical sessions
18%
Others21%
3 most useful parts of the training
Data analysis
Specific training
Theoretical sessions
Others
Theoretical sessions9%
Panelist selection9%
Others15%Nothing
68%
3 least useful parts of the training
Theoretical sessions
Panelist selection
Others
Nothing
20
The respondents were asked to suggest areas which needed improvement in future similar trainings; data analysis was cited to be the area that mostly needed improvement.
Figure 4: Suggestions for improvement
59%
8%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Data analysis
Specific training
Breakdown of the steps
Better price & quality for food
Sharing material via email at the end of each day
Give an alternative software (besides XL-Stat)
Time management needs improvement
Need for simultaneaous translation
More days for the training
Using participant's own products for vocabularydefinition & scaling
Selection of panelists
Suggestions for improvement of topics
% amonganswers
21
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Table 2: List and details of participants Family Name Given Name Institute Email address ADINSI Laurent UAC‐FSA Benin [email protected] AGUTI Gloria NARL [email protected] ASASIRA Moureen NARL [email protected] BUGAUD Christophe Cirad [email protected] CHACALTANA Clara CIP Lima [email protected] CHIJIOKE Ugo NRCRI [email protected] DERY Eric CIP Ghana [email protected] DIBY CNRA N'Nan AffouéSylvie CNRA [email protected] DJEDJI EBAH Catherine CNRA [email protected] EFFAH‐MANU Liticia IITA [email protected] EKESA Beatrice Bioversity Uganda [email protected] FORESTIER‐CHIRON Nelly Cirad nelly.forestier‐[email protected] HAMBA Sophia NaCRRI [email protected] HONFOZO Fifame UAC-FSA Benin [email protected] JOHANNINGSMEIER Suzzane USDA [email protected] KANAABI Michael NaCRRI [email protected] KHAKASA Elizabeth NARL [email protected] KISENYI Willy Nelson Bioversity [email protected] KYALO Gerald CARBAP [email protected] LAFOUNTAIN Lisa NCSU [email protected] MAKUNDE Godwill CIP [email protected] MANYANJA Sarah CIP [email protected] MATOVU Moses NARL [email protected] MÉJEAN Cathy Cirad [email protected] MESTRES Christian Cirad [email protected] MUZHINGI Tawanda CIP-SSA [email protected] MWANGA Robert CIP-SSA [email protected] NABUUMA Deborah Bioversity [email protected] NAICITTO Mariam NARL [email protected] NAMUDDU Marie Gorreth NARL [email protected] NANYONJO AnnRita NaCRRI [email protected] NGOH Gerard CARBAP [email protected] NOWAKUNDA Kephas NARL [email protected] NWAOLIWE Gregory IITA [email protected] OGUNKA Nwamaka NRCRI [email protected] ORONIRAN Oluyinka Bowen University [email protected] OSUNBADE Adebowale IITA [email protected] OTEGBAYO Bolanle Bowen University [email protected] SERUNKUMA Edwin CIP SSA [email protected] SSALI Reuben CIP Uganda [email protected] TINYIRO Edgar NARL [email protected]
22
Institution: Cirad – UMR QualiSud
Address: C/O Cathy Méjean, TA-B95/15 - 73 rue Jean-François Breton - 34398 MONTPELLIER Cedex 5 - France
Contact Tel: +33 4 67 61 44 31
Contact Email: [email protected]