4.7 Article

Application of a check-all-that-apply question for evaluating and characterizing meat products

Journal

MEAT SCIENCE
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 124-133

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.002

Keywords

CATA; Mortadella; Sensory analysis; Instrumental analysis; Preference map

Funding

  1. Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (Fundacao de Amparo e Pesquisa de Minas Gerais - FAPEMIG) [FAPEMIG - CAG - PPM-00571-11]
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - CAPES) program
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - CNPq)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Four different mortadella samples were technologically characterized by physical/chemical and instrumental analyses and were sensorially characterized by acceptance testing and check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Samples were divided into three groups by using a principle component analysis (PCA) of the technological characteristics and by using an internal preference map (IPM) of the sensory attributes from the acceptance test. CATA divided these samples into four different external preference map (EPM) groups because each sample was associated with different sensory attributes. The PCA indicated that there was a relationship between the instrumental color and texture analyses and the CATA attributes, whereby identifying the terms that positively or negatively contributed to sample acceptance. The CATA questions effectively discriminated between the meat products regarding their sensory characteristics. In addition, these attributes were linked to chemical and instrumental quality parameters. Thus, the CATA questions are a potential tool for evaluating and developing novel products. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available