Flavor Profile : The flavor profile of an item (food, sauce, whatever) is the balance of flavors that go into it.

The primary flavors are : Sweet, Sour, Bitter, Salty. The Japanese claim there is a fifth flavor : Savory, which they call "umammi". Umammi comes from foods which are high in glutamates (MSG is the purest form readily available). Truffles are unusually high in glutamates. These four (or five) flavors are the only ones we can taste with our mouth. All other flavors are actually scents. The balance of the four basic flavors and how they relate is the "flavor profile" of the item. One can also discuss the added other flavors (which are actually scents) and how they relate to the primary flavors as part of the flavor profile.
http://www.poubelle.com/journal/journaldefines.html Flavor profile analysis (FPA) is a technique for identifying sample taste(s) and odor(s). FPA differs from threshold odor number because the sample is not diluted and each taste or odor attribute is individually characterized and assigned its own intensity rating. The single intensity rating obtained in measuring threshold odor is controlled by the most readily perceived odorant or mixture. FPA has been applied to drinking water sources, finished drinking water, and sampling points within the drinking water treatment train. A panel of at least four panelists is required to do the test. Apparatus must be used exclusively for the FPA. A table lists qualitative odor references, giving the compound, its stock concentration and preparation, test concentration, and descriptor. The method describes the apparatus required, room conditions, training of panelists, and the techniques used by panelists to test for flavor. http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=54

When you need information about what flavors are present in your sample, the intensity of
each, and their relative order of appearance, we can use the Flavor Profile method to meet your needs. At The Sensory Analysis, our expert descriptive panelists can utilize their vast product experience to determine the specific attributes that are present, the order in which they appear, and provide reliable and reproducible intensity measurements for each attribute. This information can help you to better understand the specific perceptual differences between your product and the competition. Below is an example of a flavor profile for two bean and cheese burritos.

Table 1.

Differences in the flavor attributes, intensity of flavor attributes and order of appearance for 2 bean and cheese burritos using a 15point scale with 0.5 point increments.

Company's Current Product Flavor Attributes Amplitude Oil-Heated Overall Spice Cumin Meat Identity Bean (Pinto) Wheat Doughy Onion-Fresh Red Pepper Processed Cheese Chili Pepper (Green) Oily Mouthfeel Heat Burn Salty Sour Bitter 8.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 7.0 2.5 3.0 Market Leader Flavor Attributes Amplitude Overall Spice Oregano Tarragon Turmeric Black Pepper Chicken Identity Beans (Pinto) Onion-Dried Wheat Toasted Processed Cheese Chili Pepper (Green) Heat Burn Salty Sour Bitter 11.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 5.5 8.0 2.5 2.5

Quick Summary:

The current product is different from the current market leader both in the flavors present and their order of appearance. The difference in product amplitude indicates

that the current product exhibits less impact and blendedness than the market leader. The current product has an initial heated-oil flavor not present in the market leader. The market leader has more herbs and spices early in the flavor, some of which (tarragon, oregano, turmeric, and black pepper) are not present in the current product. The current product had a fresh onion and red pepper aromatic that was not present in the market leader. In both samples, the wheat identity was present which may be due to flavor carryover from the wrapper. The current product exhibited a doughy flavor while the current market leader had a toasted flavor. The market leader has a substantially higher heat burn and is slightly more salty that the current product.

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA)

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA ) is one of main descriptive analysis techniques in sensory evaluation. QDA was proposed and developed by Tragon Corporation under partial collaboration with the Department of Food Science at the University of California, Davis. Initial intentions for this method were to deal with poor statistical treatment on data obtained by Flavor Profile and related descriptive methods2. In the QDA methodology, multiple product evaluations are suggested to capitalize on panelists skill in making relative judgments with a high degree of precision. Humans are good at judging relative sensory differences but poor at evaluating absolute differences3.This philosophy has made QDA methodology distinctly different from those descriptive methods which try to finalize the absolute difference among products (e.g., Spectrum method). Similarly to other descriptive methods, subjects are screened based on their performance on discrimination tests and verbalization in

the QDA methodology. Standards for subject qualification are arbitrary and may vary depending on the project. A panel of ten to twelve is recommended in QDA 3. During training, test products are served as illustrative stimuli for the consensus language development. The panel leader works as a communication facilitator without involvement and interference with panel discussions. References can be used for generating sensory terminologies, especially when panelists are confused and disagree with each other on some sensory attributes during training sessions3. Line scales are employed for panel training and data collection in QDA . This line scale is designed as 6-inch in length with sensory intensities word anchors located 0.5 inch from each end. The scale direction goes from left to right with increasing intensities, e.g., weak to strong, little to much3.During data collection, panelists measure sensory intensities independently at individual booth without reference served as intensities standards. Panelists are allowed to use different parts of the scale to determine the sensory intensities by themselves. As a result, the difference among products produced by QDA will be a relative measurement; the importance of absolute scale value has been neglected1. Subjects reliability is evaluated by their repeated measurements on product attributes. The results from QDA are informative for statistical practices to meet project goal. Panel performance can be examined by interaction of product and panelist; product difference can be diagnosed by means of a oneway AOV based on attributes. Statistical procedures, such as multivariate analysis of variance, principle component analysis, factor analysis, cluster analysis can be widely applied to QDA dataset1;means of attributes in the same sensory category can be graphically presented by a spider web , see figure 1.

Figure 1 Graphical display of sensory attributes based on QDA result3

References
1

Lawless HT., Heymann H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: principles and

practices. New York, NY. Chapman &Hall; Press.

2

Meilgaard M., Civille GV., Carr BT. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques.

4th ed. Boca Raton, FL. CRCPress.

3

Stone H., Sidel JL. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices. 3rd ed. San Diego,

CA. Elsevier Academic Press.

When it is important to know how your product compares to your competitors in its
flavor, odor, and/or texture characteristics, quantitative sensory analysis can provide actionable solutions.
At The Sensory Analysis Center, our expert descriptive panelists can utilize their vast product experience to determine the specific attributes that are present and provide reliable and reproducible intensity measurements for each attribute. This information can help you to better understand the specific perceptual differences between your product and the competition.

Below is an example of the specific attributes that together comprise the overall flavor of 4 sugar cookies.

We also can summarize your results into simple figures so that you quickly can see how the sensory characteristics of your product compare to the other products.

Figure 1. Comparison of six descriptive flavor attributes present in four sugar cookies using a 15-point scale with 0.1 point increments (1=not at all, and 15=extreme).

Quick Summary: The New Product has significantly higher intensities of the molasses, vanillin, and toasted flavor attributes than the Companys Current Product and is similar in each of the six flavor attributes to the Current Market Leader. For these reasons, it is possible that the flavor of the New Product may be perceived by consumers as different from the Companys Current Product and similar to the Current Market Leader.