Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: Methodology and results

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 12, Issue 5-7, 2001, Pages 297-309

  Pages J ^a   Husson, F ^a  

^a AGROCAMPUS OUEST   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000633132     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00015-5     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Evaluation sensorielle. Guide des bonnes pratiques. 1999;Actia, Paris.
2. Méthodes statistiques. Tome 5: traitement des résultats de mesures. 1999;Afnor, Paris.
3. Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1998). Analyses factorielles simples et multiples; objectifs, méthodes et interprétation. Paris: Dunod.
4. A European sensory and consumer study. A case study on coffee. 1996;Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association, Chipping Campden, UK.
5. Lea P., Naes T., Rodmotten M. Analysis of variance of sensory data. 1997;Wiley, Chichester, UK.
6. Lundahl D.S., McDaniel M.R. The panellist effect - fixed or random? Journal of Sensory Studies. 3:1988;113-121.
7. McFie H.J., Bratchell N., Greenhoff X., Vallis L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies. 4:1989;129-148.
8. Naes T., Langsrund O. Fixed or random assessors in sensory profiling? Food Quality and Preference. 3:1988;145-152.
9. Pagès, J. (1996). Analyse factorielle multiple et analyse procustéenne. Proceeding xxxviii journées de statistique, Québec, 581-585.
10. Rivsik E., Colwill J., McEwan J., Lyon D. Multivariate analysis of conventional profiling data. a comparison of a British and a Norwegian trained panel Journal of Sensory Studies. 7:1992;97-118.
11. SPAD (1999). Système pour l'analyse des données. Logiciel diffusé par CISIA, 261 rue de Paris 93556 Montreuil Cedex.