E18 - Sensory Evaluation

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by a panel leader to provide assessors and panels feedback: (1) on their data-based performance, (2) on any behavior changes that are needed to improve their performance, and (3) to motivate assessors to remain engaged with the panel tasks. The aim of all these types of feedback is to ensure the generation of repeatable and valid data.  
4.2 This guide provides direction for how to achieve mutually beneficial feedback exchanges between assessors and panel leaders.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidance to sensory panel leaders on how to deliver performance feedback to trained sensory assessors and panels. This guide is not intended to be used by individual assessors or anyone unfamiliar with the panel.  
1.2 This guide covers recommended feedback given throughout assessor training, panel development, and ongoing assessor and panel monitoring.  
1.3 This guide examines aspects of feedback including: types, when to provide, effective delivery, and alignment to performance expectations for assessors.  
1.4 Descriptive, discrimination, and quality panels are within the scope of this guide.  
1.5 This guide does not cover consumer panels (qualitative or quantitative).  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:  
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceptible difference results or a perceptible difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling, or storage; or  
5.1.2 To select, train, and monitor assessors.  
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the test is to determine that the products are perceptibly different versus that the products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably. Only the selected values of α, β, and δ or Pd change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceptible difference between two products, then initially the products are assumed to be indistinguishable (for example, HO: δ or Pd = 0) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the products are perceptively different). If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then initially the products are assumed to be meaningfully different (for example, HO: δ or Pd > the value chosen to represent a meaningful difference) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the samples are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably).  
5.3 The tetrad method involves the evaluation of four samples. When the products being tested cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover, or adaptation, methods that involve the evaluation of fewer samples (same-different, triangle test, etc.) may be preferred.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products or to estimate the magnitude of the perceptible difference.  
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.  
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.  
1.4 The tetrad test is more efficient statistically than the triangle test (Test Method E1885) or the duo-trio test (Test Method E2610).  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Use—This practice should be used by assessors, trained as described in ASTM STP 758,2 under the direction of a knowledgeable panel leader.  
3.2 Significance—This practice can be used to evaluate type and intensity of indigenous and foreign odors and/or flavors in paper packaging materials. A knowledgeable panel leader may be able to determine the source of a foreign odor/flavor from the information obtained from this procedure.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the evaluation of odors in paper packaging and establishes smelling and testing procedures for trained sensory panels.  
1.2 This practice covers the evaluation of odors and flavors transferred to various food media from paper packaging.  
1.3 This practice covers effective techniques for determining the type and source of the odor/flavor and establishing the severity of the off-note.  
1.4 The techniques used in this practice are applicable to all paper packaging products and to auxiliary components, such as coatings, inks, and adhesives, as well as plastic materials used in conjunction with paper.  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This practice is designed for use by the oil processor or research laboratory for evaluation by a trained sensory panel, or for use by quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) personnel for sampling from a tank truck, car, or any other bulk transportation container, or by both.  
4.2 The consistent use of this practice will provide representative samples for all sensory, chemical and physical analyses and will protect the oil from oxidation.  
4.3 The objective of this practice is to ensure that the sample is representative of the sample source from the time of sampling until the time of evaluation and to protect oil quality during that time.  
4.4 This practice addresses neither evaluation and scaling techniques, nor the sampling, handling, and preparing of solid fats.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the recommended procedures for bulk sampling, handling, and preparing edible vegetable oil (liquid at room temperature) prior to sensory evaluation.  
1.2 This practice is consistent with the background information presented in ASTM STP 433, ASTM Manual 26, and ASTM STP 758. These should be consulted for supplemental guidance.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing and implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only to the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product. This guide was developed for use in the United States and must be adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claim substantiation for any other country. A claim is a statement about a product that highlights its advantages, sensory or perceptual attributes, or product changes or differences compared to other products in order to enhance its marketability. Attribute, performance, and hedonic claims, both comparative and non-comparative, are covered. This guide includes broad principles covering selecting and recruiting representative consumer samples, selecting and preparing products, constructing product rating forms, test execution, and statistical handling of data. The objective of this guide is to disseminate good sensory and consumer testing practices. Validation of claims should be made more defendable if the essence of this guide is followed.    
Table of Contents    
Introduction  
Scope  
1  
Referenced Documents  
2  
Terminology  
3  
Basis of Claim Classification  
4  
Consumer Based Affective Testing  
5  
Sampling  
5.1  
Sampling Techniques  
5.2  
Selection of Products  
5.3  
Sampling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market  
5.4  
Handling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market  
5.5  
Sampling of Products Not Yet on the Market  
5.6  
Sample Preparation/Test Protocol  
5.7  
Test Design—Consumer Testing  
6  
Data Collection Strategies  
6.6  
Interviewing Techniques  
6.7  
Type of Questions  
6.8  
Questionnaire Design  
6.9  
Instruction to Respondents  
6.10  
Instructions to Interviewers  
6.11  
General/Overall Questions  
6.12  
Positioning of the Key Product Rating Questions  
6.13  
Total Test Context and Presentation Matters  
6.14  
Specific Attribute Questions  
6.15  
Classification or Demographic Questions  
6.16  
Preference Questions  
6.17  
Test Location  
7  
Test Execution by Way of Test Agencies—Food and Non-food
Testing  
8  
Documents to Retain in Sensory Claims Substantiation Research  
9  
Laboratory Testing Methods  
10  
Types of Tests  
10.2  
Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained Descriptive
Panels in Claims Support Research  
10.3  
Test Design—Laboratory Testing  
11  
Product Procurement  
11.6  
Experimental Design  
11.7  
Data Collection  
11.8  
Data Analysis  
11.9  
Questionnaire Construction  
12  
Test Facility  
13  
Statistical Analysis  
14  
Paired-Preference Studies  
14.1  
Superiority Claims  
14.2  
Equivalence Claims  
14.3  
Unsurpassed Claims  
14.4  
Paired Comparison/Difference Studies  
14.5  
Analysis of Data from Scales  
14.6  
Keywords  
15  
Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and Claim
Substantiation  
Appendix X1  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The approaches to the evaluation of toothbrushes and toothpaste recommended in this guide can be used to assess the sensory characteristics of toothpaste in use and after use (or a series of uses). This guide is meant to address the evaluation of standalone toothbrush and toothpaste products and does not address packaging, product/package interaction, dispensing, or overall clinical effect or benefit of the product. The procedures outlined in this guide are to be used by assessors that have been specifically screened for sensory and descriptive ability and trained in the evaluation of toothbrushes or toothpaste or both. The procedures described in this guide can be used to guide product development within a manufacturer and communicate information regarding the product to the consumer through the media or on product packaging.  
5.2 Additionally, language and ideas from two additional ASTM International sensory guides (Guides E1490 and E2082) as well as the Lexicon for Sensory Evaluation: Aroma, Flavor, Texture, and Appearance (DS72-2ND)4 are used throughout this guide.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidelines for the selection and training of expert assessors for the sensory evaluation of toothpaste and toothbrushes as well as a basic framework for the sensory evaluation of the same. Sensory evaluation of toothpaste and toothbrushes can be used to define the sensory attributes of the products and then to measure those attributes quantitatively for the purposes of new product development, product optimization, competitive benchmarking, and claims substantiation.  
1.2 A general framework for both toothpaste and toothbrush descriptive analysis is provided to guide the reader in the design and execution (including sample preparation and presentation, facility and testing environment, and specific evaluation protocols) for such evaluations.  
1.3 This guide provides suggested protocols and approaches to the evaluation of the indicated products/samples and in no way excludes any alternate approaches that may be effective in providing such perceptual evaluations.  
1.4 This guide does not address other oral care products including, but not limited to, whitening agents, oral rinses, mouthwashes, dental flosses, denture adhesive, floss picks, or other oral care products.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The procedures recommended in this practice can be used to clinically assess axillary deodorant efficacy of personal care products.  
5.2 This practice is applicable to the product categories which include deodorant and toilet soap bars, liquid bath soaps and gels, deodorant sticks, antiperspirants, creams and lotions, body talcs, and aerosol and pump delivery deodorants, antiperspirants, and body colognes.  
5.3 Procedures of the type described herein may be used to aid in the communication of efficacy within and between manufacturers and to the consumer through the various public communications media. Guidelines are suggested due to the need to determine the relative or absolute performance of experimental materials or of commercial products.  
5.4 These procedures may be used by persons who have familiarized themselves with these procedures and have had previous experience with sensory evaluation.  
5.5 This practice provides suggested procedures and is not meant to exclude alternate procedures which may be effectively used to provide the same clinical result.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides procedures which may be used in the design and analysis of studies to quantitatively assess the intensity of human axillary odor for the purpose of substantiating deodorant efficacy of personal care products.  
1.2 This guide includes protocols for the selection and training of assessors, selection of subjects, experimental design, and statistical analyses. This practice is limited to assessment of axillary odor by trained assessors. Self-evaluation protocols are valid for selected sensory tasks but may be less sensitive.  
1.3 With respect to the source of axillary odor, three groups of secretory glands are present in the axillae which participate to a greater or lesser extent in its production—eccrine, apocrine, and sebaceous. Axillary odor has been primarily ascribed to the apocrine gland secretion (1) .2 Body odor intensity has been correlated with the volume of the secretory portion of the apocrine gland (2) and the density of the glands.  
1.3.1 Apocrine glands are found primarily in the axillary vault in conjunction with axillary hairs (3). Pure apocrine sweat is sterile and odorless and axillary odor results from degradation of apocrine sweat by resident skin bacteria  (4). High bacterial populations are found in moist regions of the body, especially in the axillae, providing the appropriate environment for growth (5).  
1.3.2 Eccrine glands keep the axillae moist through thermally and emotionally induced secretions (6).  
1.3.3 The sebaceous glands excrete higher molecular weight lipid materials which absorb and retain the volatile materials resulting from bacterial action (7) . The aerobic diphtheroids are able to produce the typical acrid axillary odor and the micrococcaceae produce an isovaleric acid-like odor when incubated with apocrine sweat (8). Therefore, the most undesirable component of axillary odor is caused by degradation of apocrine sweat by particular bacteria normally found in the axillary vault.  
1.4 Personal care products are sold and used primarily for their ability to reduce the perception of body odor not only by the individual using the product but also by individuals within the scope of contact. Deodorant protection may be achieved by these products through various modes of action. Antiperspirants achieve their primary efficacy by means of the action of inorganic salts on the eccrine gland production of sweat. Antimicrobial agents achieve deodorancy by inhibiting the growth and activity of the microflora in the axillary vault thus reducing the microbial decomposition of sweat and the consequent production of body odor. Absorbents function either by “binding” available moisture or malodorous substances. Fragrances are effective by altering the perception of malodor and increasing the degree of “pleasantness.” Other modes of control become important from time...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The methods outlined in this guide can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the sensory characteristics and performance of trigger hard surface household cleaning products for nonporous surfaces.  
5.2 The methods are suited for descriptive analysis and may be adaptable for consumer acceptance research.  
5.3 This guide provides the procedure for the evaluation of package, application, performance, after-use and fragrance aspects of hard surface cleaners. Depending on the test objectives, all or some of these measures may be used.  
5.4 This guide is designed for use for product research guidance in product formulation, new product development, and quality control issues.  
5.5 This guide is a compendium of information or series of options that does not recommend a specific course of action. This guide is not intended for claim substantiation, as it has not been subjected to validation testing.  
5.6 This guide is for use by individuals who familiarize themselves with these procedures and who have previous experience with sensory evaluations. It is suggested that the individuals have some experience with developing and training a descriptive panel or work under the supervision of a sensory professional who has.  
5.7 This guide might involve hazardous materials. This guide does not claim to address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this guide to establish appropriate safety and healthy practices and to determine the applicability of limitations prior to use.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide presents guidelines specific to the sensory evaluation of trigger hard surface cleaners. It covers the procedure for preparing a nonporous surface with the intent to measure one or all of the various aspects of a trigger product: package, application, performance, and after-use properties, with focus on visual, tactile, fragrance, performance, and package ergonomics. It is applicable for use with assessors, highly trained assessors, and consumers.  
1.2 This guide for preparing nonporous hard surfaces is intended to focus on surface preparation and evaluation, not on panel selection, training, or development.  
1.3 The reader should be aware that good sensory practices are required when preparing the surfaces, and in developing and training the assessors.  
1.4 The researcher is responsible for identifying the most appropriate test design and using the appropriate statistical tool to address that experimental design.  
1.5 Since this guide's intended use is to provide direction on the presentation and measurement of the different aspects of spray trigger hard surface cleaners, this guide may not accurately represent all possible soils and surfaces where spray trigger hard surface cleaners may be used.  
1.6 This guide provides suggested procedures and is not meant to exclude alternate procedures that may be effectively used to provide the same results.  
1.7 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. Values are stated in only SI units when inch-pound units are not used in practice.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Techn...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is designed for use by a trained sensory panel experienced in using an intensity scale or rank ordering and familiar with the descriptive terminology and references associated with the packaging materials. Data analysis and interpretation should be conducted by a trained and experienced sensory professional. See Refs  (3, 4) for discussions on panelist screening and training.  
5.2 This test method should be considered as a screening technique for suppliers and end-users to use in assessing the odor or flavor impact or both of rigid packaging. The application of this test method will result in a PPS or rank data. The determination for suitability of a package for a particular end-use should be based on a set of predetermined criteria including the PPS or rank score. Information obtained from the transfer tests can also be used to evaluate the origin of any transferred tastes or odors.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a recommended procedure for examining odor or flavor properties or both of rigid polymeric packaging closures and fillable materials.  
1.2 This test method can be used for single materials or coextruded materials that are foam molded, injection molded, blow molded, compression molded, or thermoformed polymers.  
1.3 The focus of this test method is the evaluation of molded polymer in terms of the transfer of package-related odors, flavors, or both, to water and other model systems (bland food simulants). Rigid packaging forms vary considerably in type, size, and shape. Thus, customizing the exact procedure for dealing with the physical requirements for individual packages is the responsibility of the user.  
1.4 This test method assumes testing of the materials at a one-time point; shelf-life testing is not included.  
1.5 Refer to Test Method E1870 for the evaluation of inherent odor of packaging material by confinement tests.  
1.6 This test method provides sample preparation procedures and two methods of evaluation.  
1.6.1 The package performance score method allows for the comparison of any molded polymer sample to another.  
1.6.2 The ranking method allows for comparison of samples within the currently tested set only.  
1.6.3 The preparation of samples is consistent regardless of the method of evaluation used.  
1.7 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 These test methods are intended to provide procedures that may be used to evaluate denatured and undenatured alcohols with 1 to 3 carbon atoms for characteristic and residual odors that will affect their end use.  
3.2 The products tested are compared to reference standards using one or all of the test methods described. Interpretation of results and acceptability of the product for a specific end use are the responsibility of the panel supervisor and are based on the results obtained in testing.  
3.3 These tests may be used to qualify the suitability of these products for use in a customer-producer relationship.
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods cover procedures for observing characteristic and residual odors and estimating odor intensity of methanol, ethanol, n-propanol, and isopropanol for the purpose of determining their odor acceptability. Several test methods are included and any or all may be used. These test methods may be used for both denatured and undenatured alcohols.  
1.2 These test methods are not intended to determine subtle odor differences between alcohols, which do not affect their end use.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines considerations for selecting assessors who will evaluate alcoholic beverages and recommends procedures for the evaluation of specific alcoholic beverages.  
4.2 This guide gives practical suggestions to maximize assessor safety and minimize the liabilities of the person or corporation responsible for administering sensory evaluations of alcoholic beverages, while recording assessors’ responses to those beverages using sound scientific principles.  
4.3 This guide provides examples of informed consent forms for both Central Location Tests and Home Use Tests (see Appendix X2 – Appendix X4).
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidelines specific to the sensory and consumer evaluation of alcoholic beverages, including but not limited to beer, wine, coolers, cocktails, ready to drinks, liqueurs, hard ciders, hard seltzers, and distilled spirits.  
1.2 This guide covers assessor selection, sample preparation, serving protocols, and evaluation recommendations for specific alcoholic products.  
1.3 This guide addresses safety, regulatory, and legal concerns, but does not cover all legal rules for alcohol and sensory evaluation around the world. It is the responsibility of the user to be aware of their current local laws and regulations, corporate policies and procedures, and confirm they haven’t changed since publication.  
1.4 This guide does not cover the evaluation of raw materials or specific test methods.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This global guide applies to all nonpharmaceutical sensory testing involving respondents (employees and non-employees). Testing with respondents can range from early exploratory studies to large-scale sensory studies and market claims tests regardless of the name assigned or the nomenclature used to describe the study.  
4.2 The type of exposure or human (respondent) testing or both in scope is specified in 3.1.4. Definition of a product or material or both as pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical may vary by country. Knowledge of local laws and regulations is essential.  
4.3 Respondents, products, protocols and methods, study administration and oversight, and the testing environment are all within the scope of this guide.  
4.4 This global guide:  
4.4.1 Does not cover pharmaceutical or professionally prescribed healthcare products;  
4.4.2 Does not cover studies in which respondents are not exposed to a product (marketed or developmental) or material; and  
4.4.3 Does not govern workplace manufacturing exposure to product and ingredients. Occupational safety and health policies govern these workplace manufacturing exposures.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide will cover the considerations that shall be made when testing products, materials, or ingredients with respondents for their sensory response to products and stimuli. A sensory study is defined as a study in which respondents’ perceptions and responses to stimuli are measured and recorded. These data are used by companies to help design products that better meet consumers’ needs, manage risk in developing products, and/or build knowledge of products sensory and performance attributes and consumers’ product needs.  
1.2 In this guide, the key principles driving safe sensory testing are summarized, and then in greater detail, the steps and processes to be considered to maintain ethical standards and ensure safety and confidentiality of human respondents to meet government and regulatory requirements globally are described. Respondents, test product/material, protocols and methods, study administration and oversight, and testing environment are all subject to oversight to maintain ethical standards, respondent confidentiality, and ensure a respondent’s safety. Governmental and regulatory bodies, along with local organizations and professions, also provide requirements and guidance. It is incumbent upon the researcher to be aware of, and follow, these guidelines and requirements for any study for which they are responsible.  
1.3 In this guide, all local regulations that may apply to sensory testing are not identified. The minimum standards and best practices for ethical treatment and safety of respondents during sensory testing are defined.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide provides general guidelines and recommendations for presenting product and material samples to assessors for evaluation of odor attributes under controlled conditions. Specific situations may require variations to these guidelines.  
5.2 This guide is designed for use in assessing odor of products and materials for such applications as, but not limited to, development, reformulation, complaint investigation, quality control, and stability/shelf-life.  
5.3 Elements of this guide may also be utilized for assessor training programs involving odor evaluation tasks.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidelines for odor evaluation of products and materials under controlled conditions with a trained panel.  
1.2 This guide addresses odor, aroma, malodor and fragrance (see Terminology E253).  
1.3 This guide addresses assessor selection and training, sample preparation, and test procedures specific to odor evaluations.  
1.4 This guide does not address odor of any specific category of products.  
1.5 This guide does not recommend a specific testing method. The user is responsible for identifying the most appropriate test design and analysis tools to address the research questions.  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The purpose of this guide is to assess the ability of consumer products to reduce malodor intensity from a control state. Several experimental hypotheses are possible, depending on the objective of the test. Possible objectives with respective hypotheses are given in Appendix X1.  
5.2 Many consumer products are sold commercially with the intent of providing a means of improving the odor quality of a volume of air, or the odor quality of a substrate such as fabric or household surfaces, relative to some existing environmental condition. In the case of air care products, this typically involves the application of an odorous substance into the air space by means of some active or passive mechanism (for example, by spraying, or by evaporation). This procedure is also applicable to other mechanisms of odor reduction (for example, air filtration, chemical reactions, etc.).  
5.3 Selection of representative malodor sources is of critical importance. The malodor source must be readily available and of a consistent odor quality. A reasonable malodor source should be chemically and aesthetically correct. The experimenter and client must agree upon the appropriateness of a malodor source before further details of the test design are worked out. Experimental variation will be reduced by using uniform malodor sources. Information collected on malodor reduction will thus be more comparable from experiment to experiment and from laboratory to laboratory.  
5.4 The procedure recommended can be used for assessment of the malodor reduction and elimination efficacy of consumer products including: air fresheners, air filtration products, aerosol/spray and continuous/solid air freshener products, candles, fabric care products including detergents and fabric enhancing/conditioning products, surface care products including carpet care products, surface cleaning products such as sprays etc., pet care products, and other products intended to deliver a malodor reduction benefit. It s...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers standard procedures for the quantitative sensory assessment of perceived olfactory intensity of malodors for the purpose of assessing the malodor reduction efficacy of consumer products including, but not limited to, air care, fabric care, home care, pet care, and similar products.  
1.2 This guide is not intended to cover axillary deodorancy; refer instead to Guide E1207.  
1.3 Malodors may be from natural or synthetic sources.  
1.4 This guide is a compendium of information or series of options that does not recommend a specific course of action. The user of this guide is responsible for identifying the most appropriate test design and using the appropriate statistical tools to address the experimental design.  
1.5 This guide is designed to provide guidance in product formulation and new product development, and for quality control issues.  
1.6 The scope of this guide does not include all guidance necessary to support claims. For further guidance the researcher may refer to Guide E1958. The usage of methods described in this guide can be used as part of a comprehensive claims support strategy for technical types of claims (such as claims that the product will create a sensory change when used on malodor). However, this guide does not address other important elements of the claim support strategy, including determining the statistical confidence requirements, or determination of the consumer relevance of the data obtained, as discussed in 1.7.  
1.7 The testing of products designed to reduce malodors via sensory testing as outlined in the present Guide can yield technical support for products’ efficacy claims. The methods described in this guide—assesors with identified sensory acuity and trained, malodors that may be lab-created or synthetic, and controlled exposure to malodors in a controlled indoor environment—can deliver results with high internal validity. Internal validity refers to s...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Many materials that come into contact with drinking water have the potential of impacting the aesthetic quality of the water. Some of these diverse materials include: storage reservoirs, concrete or metal piping, or both, sealants, synthetic reservoir covers and liners, mending adhesives, gaskets, paints, and plastics. Though NSF Standard 61 provides testing for health effects, it does not address taste and odor implications. A Utility Quick Test (1),4 has been proposed, but has not been adopted as an official test standard. Taste and odor problems have been reported as a result of organic compounds leaching from approved materials into water. Materials only need to be tested if they come into direct contact with drinking water.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes procedures for measuring odor and flavor properties of materials which may come into direct contact with municipal drinking water. For this method, “drinking water” will be considered water from the source (for example, river, lake, reservoir) through the municipal distribution system (that is, not including in-home or in-business taps). The focus of this test method is the evaluation of the materials in terms of their potential to transfer odors, flavors, or both to water.  
1.2 This test method provides sample preparation procedures, methods of sensory evaluation, and a process for interpretation of results.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. All materials that come into contact with drinking water are required to be approved through testing by accredited laboratories using NSF/ANSI Standard 61. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is necessary and useful to test with children because they represent the real end-users for many products. Some products are developed specifically for children, and some are dual-purpose products that are intended for adults and children. Examples include: baby foods, diapers, ready-to-eat cereal, juices, food or lunch kits, candy, toys, vitamins and other pharmaceuticals, music and videos, interactive learning tools, and packaging.  
4.2 Children have influence over adults' purchase decisions and are responsible for many or some of their own purchase decisions.  
4.3 Creating a product for children requires input from children because their wants and needs differ from those of adults. For example, they may differ from adults in preferences or sensory acuity, or both, for sweetness, saltiness, carbonation, and texture. It is impossible to predict the nature of these differences without actual input from the intended target audience.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides a framework for understanding the issues relating to conducting sensory and market research studies with children. It recommends and provides examples for developing ethical, safe, and valid testing methods. It focuses specifically on the concerns relevant to testing with children from birth through preadolescence. The guide assumes that minors older than 15 years of age are generally capable of performing sensory tests like adults, and therefore, all standard procedures used with adult subjects apply. The one exception, however, is legal consent where parental/legal guardian permission should be obtained for anyone under 18 years of age.  
1.2 This guide will take into account the wide range of children's physical, emotional, and cognitive levels of development. It will prove useful for developing tasks that are understandable to children. It recommends alternative modes for children to communicate their opinions or perceptions back to the researcher, such as appropriate scales and measures.  
1.3 The ethical standard presented in this document should be viewed as a minimum requirement for testing with minors. The safety and protection of children as respondents, as well as an attitude of respect for the value of their input should be of primary concern to the researcher.  
1.4 The considerations raised in this document may also be useful when testing with the elderly or with adults who have developmental handicaps.  
1.5 This document is not intended to be a complete description of reliable sensory testing techniques and methodologies. It focuses instead on special considerations for the specific application of sensory techniques when testing with children. It assumes knowledge of basic sensory and statistical analysis techniques.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Acceptance and preference are the key measurements taken in consumer product testing as either a new product idea is developed into testable prototypes or existing products are evaluated for potential improvements, cost reductions, or other business reasons. Developing products that are preferred overall, or liked as well as, or better, on average, compared to a standard or a competitor, among a defined target consumer group, is usually the main goal of the product development process. Thus, it is necessary to test the consumer acceptability or the preference of a product or prototype compared to other prototypes or potential products, a standard product, or other products in the market. The researcher, with input from her/his stakeholders, has the responsibility to choose appropriate comparison products and scaling or test methods to evaluate them. In the case of a new-to-the-world product, there may or may not be a relevant product for comparison. In this case, a benchmark score or rating may be used to determine acceptability. A product or prototype that is acceptable to the target consumer is one that meets a minimum criterion for liking, and a product that is preferred over an existing product has the potential to be chosen more often than the less-preferred product by the consumer in the marketplace, when all other factors are equal.  
5.2 The external validity (the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized) of both acceptance and preference measures to manage decision risk at all stages of the development cycle is dependent on the ability of the researcher to generalize the results from the respondent sample to the target population at large. This depends both upon the sample of respondents and the way the test is constructed. Within the context of a single test, acceptance measures tell the relative hedonic status of the two samples, quantitatively, as well as where on the hedonic continuum each of the samples falls, that is, “disliked,”...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers acceptance and preference measures when each is used in an unbranded, two-sample, product test. Each measure, acceptance, and preference, may be used alone or together in a single test or separated by time. This guide covers how to establish a product’s hedonic or choice status based on sensory attributes alone, rather than brand, positioning, imagery, packaging, pricing, emotional-cultural responses, or other nonsensory aspects of the product. The most commonly used measures of acceptance and preference will be covered, that is, product liking overall as measured by the nine-point hedonic scale and preference measured by choice, either two-alternative forced choice or two-alternative with a “no preference” option.  
1.2 Three of the biggest challenges in measuring a product’s hedonic (overall liking or acceptability) or choice status (preference selection) are determining how many respondents and who to include in the respondent sample, setting up the questioning sequence, and interpreting the data to make product decisions.  
1.3 This guide covers:  
1.3.1 Definition of each type of measure,  
1.3.2 Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each,  
1.3.3 When to use each,  
1.3.4 Practical considerations in test execution,  
1.3.5 Risks associated with each,  
1.3.6 Relationship between the two when administered in the same test, and  
1.3.7 Recommended interpretations of results for product decisions.  
1.4 The intended audience for this guide is the sensory consumer professional or marketing research professional (“the researcher”) who is designing, executing, and interpreting data from product tests with acceptance or choice measures, or both.  
1.5 Only two-sample product tests will be covered in this guide. However, the issues and recommended practices raised in this guide often apply to multi-sample tests as well. Detailed coverage of execution tactics, optional types of s...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This practice is designed to determine the effects of different packaging materials whether of construction or systems (overpack, inert atmosphere, etc.), or both. Different packaging materials may require different packaging systems and thus detectable differences may not be experimentally separable from these influences. The practice then, is limited to those situations where comparative results are meaningful. This practice should be used where experimental materials or alternate storage conditions are evaluated against a known control, for example, a soft drink in cans with experimental liners versus known liners, or potato sticks in plastic bags versus coated paper bags. Accepted industry standard packages, such as glass bottles and metal cans may also be used as controls.  
4.2 There are many ways in which a packaging material may influence a product during storage. First, the packaging material may contaminate the product with off-flavors/aromas by direct transfer of packaging component compounds to the product, commonly referred to as contribution or migration effect. Second, the packaging material may adsorb components from the product thus reducing flavor/aroma intensity of the product, commonly referred to as sorption or scalping effect. Third, external contaminants may permeate through the package and possibly be transferred into the product and/or compounds in the product may permeate out of the packaging, commonly referred to as permeation effect. (See Fig. 1.)
FIG. 1 Packing and Product Interactions Chart
SCOPE
1.1 This practice is designed to detect the changes in sensory attributes of foods and beverages stored in various packaging materials or systems, or both. It is not a practice intended to determine shelf-life.  
1.2 This practice may be used for testing a wide variety of materials in association with many kinds of products. There are many ways in which a packaging material may influence a product during storage. First, the packaging material may contaminate the product with off-flavors by direct transfer of packaging component compounds to the product. Second, the packaging material may adsorb components from the product which may then be further transferred to the atmosphere, thus reducing aroma intensity in the product. Third, external contaminants may permeate the package and possibly be transferred to the product. In addition to flavor influences, packaging materials may allow color or textural changes, or both, and many other measurable sensory effects.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 This guide can be used to quantitatively assess the intensity of specific attributes of hair odors resulting from hair-care products.  
6.2 This guide may be utilized for product development, research guidance, and quality control.  
6.3 These are suggested procedures and are not meant to exclude alternate procedures that may effectively provide the same or similar results.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers standardized procedures for the quantitative sensory assessment of fragrance/odor intensity or attribute intensity of fragrances in hair-care products through all stages of use (point of purchase, lather, in use, wet hair after rinse, and dry hair) under laboratory conditions with trained assessors.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This procedure is used to determine the effects of water-related contaminants on the odor and taste of exposed fish. This procedure may be used as evidence in showing compliance with regulatory procedures.  
5.2 This guide is designed for use by fish processors or research laboratories for evaluations by a trained and monitored sensory panel under the supervision of a sensory professional.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers procedures for determination of the effects of water-related contaminants on the odor and taste of live fish or fishery products after alleged exposure where flavor impairment is a suspected issue.  
1.2 This guide addresses safety, harvested quality, sample preparation, assessor selection and training, testing procedures with assessor instructions, as well as test environment and parameters.  
1.3 This guide is applicable to product categories from aquaculture and wild-caught sectors. The range of contaminated products could be from a small-scale water source, such as an estuary, or a limited river system, to a large-scale source, such as a bay, gulf or portion of an ocean. For details on how these methods compare to field- or laboratory-exposed fishery samples, see Ref (1).2  
1.4 Also covered in this guide are fish species, harvest method (wild-caught versus aquaculture/farmed fish), post-harvest handling, processing methods, and storage.  
1.5 This guide provides suggested procedures and is not meant to exclude alternate procedures that may be effective. It also does not address all of the nuances of testing throughout the world. It is the responsibility of the user to be aware of their local guidelines and apply them as needed. Some useful resources are also cited in this guide.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific hazards statements are given in Section 7.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 The methods outlined in this guide can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively describe the performance and sensory characteristics of shampoos.  
6.2 The methods described in this guide may be used for product formulation and research guidance as well as for quality control.  
6.3 These methods may be used by individuals who familiarize themselves with these procedures and who have previous experience with sensory evaluation.  
6.4 Variables that may affect results include, but are not limited to, water conditions (for example, hardness), hair type, and hair condition. These variables should be controlled or accounted for in the experimental design.  
6.5 These are suggested procedures and are not intended to exclude alternate methods, which may effectively provide the same or similar results.
SCOPE
1.1 The objective of this guide is to provide procedures which may be used in the design, execution, and analysis of studies to quantitatively assess the objective sensory attributes of shampoos. This is one of many appropriate techniques used in the hair-care industry. These attributes can then be used to define performance of shampoos and to provide direction in product formulation, research guidance testing, and claim substantiation. This guide includes the sensory properties involved in dispensing a product, as well as the attributes pertinent to shampooing swatches, half and whole heads. Although this guide is specific to shampoos, the procedures should be applicable to most hair-care products.  
1.2 Guidelines are provided for the definition of terminology, procedures for manipulation of products, identification/selection of hair type, and assessor training. References for rating scales are not provided in this guide. The user should be aware that some sensory practices may require the use of attribute references (anchors) when training the assessors.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Under the assumptions of the model, the Thurstonian model approach to measuring the perceived difference between two samples (whether overall or for a specific attribute) is independent of the sensory method used to collect the data. Converting results obtained from different test methods to d' values permits the assessment of relative differences among samples without requiring that the samples be compared to each other directly or that the same test methods be used for all pairs of samples.  
5.2 Thurstonian scaling has been applied to:  
5.2.1 Creating a historical database to track differences between production and reference samples over periods in which different test methods were used to measure the difference,  
5.2.2 Comparing the relative sensitivities of different user groups and consumer segments,  
5.2.3 Comparing trained panels that use different measuring techniques,  
5.2.4 Comparing the relative sensitivities of consumers versus trained panels,  
5.2.5 Comparing different methods of consumer testing (for example, CLT versus HUT, preference versus hedonic scales, etc.), and  
5.2.6 Comparing different discrimination test methods.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes procedures to estimate Thurstonian discriminal distances (that is, d' values) from data obtained on two samples. Procedures are presented for four forced-choice methods (that is, the triangle, the Duo-Trio, the 3-alternative-forced-choice (or 3-AFC) and the 2-AFC (also called the directional difference test)), the A/Not-A method, the Same-Different method, and for data obtained from ordered category scales. Procedures for estimating the variance of d' are also presented. Thus, confidence intervals and statistical tests can be calculated for d'.  
1.2 The procedures in this practice pertain only to the unidimensional, equal-variance model. Other, more complicated Thurstonian models, involving multiple dimensions and unequal variances exist but are not addressed in this practice. The procedure for forced-choice methods is limited to dichotomous responses. The procedure for the A/Not-A method assumes equal sample sizes for the two samples. The procedure for the Same-Different method assumes equal sample sizes for the matched and unmatched pairs of samples. For all methods, only unreplicated tests are considered. (Tests in which each assessor performs multiple (that is, replicated) evaluations require different analyses.)  
1.3 Thurstonian scaling is a method for measuring the perceptual difference between two samples based on a probabilistic model for categorical choice decision making. The magnitude of the perceived difference, δ, can be estimated from the assessors' categorical choices using the methods described in this practice. (See Appendix X3 for a more detailed description of Thurstonian scaling.)  
1.4 In theory, the Thurstonian δ does not depend on the method used to measure the difference between two samples. As such, δ provides a common scale of measure for comparing samples measured under a variety of test conditions. For example, Thurstonian scaling can be used to compare products measured under different test conditions, to compare panels (trained, consumer or both) that have evaluated the same samples (using the same or different test methods) and to compare test methods on their ability to discriminate samples that exhibit a fixed sensory difference.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Sensory shelf life is the time period during which the product’s sensory characteristics and performance are as intended by the manufacturer. The product is consumable or usable during this period, providing the end-user with the intended sensory characteristics, performance, and benefits. After this period, however, the product has characteristics or attributes that are not as intended, or it does not perform the same functions as fresh products or those consumed or used before the end of shelf life.  
5.2 The goal of all shelf life determination is to estimate the time at which a consumer product is no longer usable, unfit for consumption, or no longer has the intended sensory characteristics.  
5.3 Prior to the commencement of sensory shelf life study, the criteria/criterion that are/is used to define shelf life end must be defined. The criterion or criteria could be sensory attributes, consumer acceptance or product performance. Once the criteria are defined, the test methodology for measuring the sensory shelf life can be selected. The criterion operationally defining the end of shelf life is generally chosen based on one or more of the following changes in the product’s sensory or functional parameters, or both: (1) the aged product is perceptibly different from the fresh product overall, (2) the aged product has changed in specific sensory or functional attributes, either increasing some, decreasing others, or the appearance of new attributes compared to the fresh product, or (3) product acceptability of the aged product has decreased to a specific degree from that of the fresh product. The determination of these sensory end-points is a function of the criteria selected, the test method used, and sampling and statistical risks chosen by the researcher.  
5.4 The three following test methods are most commonly used for the three end-point criteria cited above: (1) discrimination, (2) descriptive, and (3) affective. Researchers have to select criteria and...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides recommended sensory testing approaches and decision criteria for establishing the sensory shelf life of consumable products, including food, personal care, and household products, to manage business risk. It describes research considerations that include: product selection and handling, appropriate application of specific sensory test methods, selection of test intervals, and data analysis techniques for the determination of a product’s sensory shelf life end-point. This guide will focus on the practical considerations and approaches, risks, and criteria that must be considered in designing, executing, and interpreting sensory shelf life results.  
1.2 This guide is not intended to provide a detailed description of how to conduct reliable sensory testing. It assumes knowledge of basic sensory and statistical analysis techniques, focusing instead on special considerations for the specific application of sensory testing methods to shelf life determination.  
1.3 The shelf life measures in this guide refer to foods, household and personal care products stored as the manufacturer intended and do not account for changes in sensory properties occurring after opening, partial consumption/use or in-home storage. Once products have been manufactured, packaged and sent through the distribution channels, the condition of the products is not typically under study. However, a company may wish to include such variables in their shelf life studies when there is a need to evaluate the sensory quality of their products as they go through distribution channels or in-home storage, or both, and use.  
1.4 This guide is not intended to address non-sensory issues related to the shelf life of food, including microbial contamination and chemical changes of products associated with aging, nor is it intended to address potential safety issues associated with aging food and non-food consumer products.  
1.5 This interna...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Using best practices for SGPE ensures that decisions made will be based on scientific principles, and the outputs obtained will be more objective than those evaluation sessions conducted without this planning, structure, focus, and best practices. These small group evaluations contrast with more formal product tests that include a prequalified participant sample, hypothesis testing, and statistical analysis. Without best sensory practices and procedures, SGPE may be unstructured, unsystematic, difficult to manage, and may lead to outputs that are unclear, not credible, or ignored. Additionally, the use of proper sensory practices reduces bias among participants with specific sample knowledge or a desire to advance an agenda. This guide provides a framework for conceptualizing, organizing, and executing these SGPE.  
4.2 SGPE are used in situations in which formal, hypothesis-driven product evaluations are not required. These include situations in which the decision risk is small or stakeholders feel comfortable in making a decision with the attendant risks, or both. Examples of these situations may include limited availability of samples or other resources, potential patent exposure, or low incidence of target population. The SGPE could be an initial screening step or a precursor test before a more formal product test. In the proper context, SGPE can also be a decision-making tool in and of itself. Using the framework presented here provides a degree of rigor that may be absent when a few people evaluate a product without controlled conditions. A poster presented at the 2009 Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium (1)3 reported the results of a survey on SGPE. 59 % of respondents (N = 92) stated that, at their place of employment, typically, non-sensory professionals organized SGPE. Table 1 summarizes key differences between a typical unstructured product evaluation with a small group not following best practices and an SGPE that follows the best practices outlined...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers those occasions in which a small group of individuals (generally between three and ten) with potentially different functional roles and degrees of training in sensory and product evaluation, evaluates a product or series of products for a specific objective, with a pre-identified decision to be made, but without the use of formal hypothesis testing or statistics. In the product testing industry, these are often referred to as “benchings,” “cuttings,” or “bench screenings” or, in the case of food products, “tastings,” “informal tastings,” “team tastings,” or “technical tastings.” In this guide, the term “Small Group Product Evaluation” (SGPE) is used.  
1.2 The aim of this guide is to provide best practices to ensure that SGPE are conducted with sufficient rigor to enable the most appropriate decision or to yield the needed learning while considering the risk. Because the participants may be heterogeneous with respect to functional role, knowledge of the issue at hand, sensory sensitivity, and degree of sensory or product evaluation training, the likelihood of agreement on a path forward is not assured. Additionally, participants may have certain biases with respect to the issue to be decided, because of prior knowledge or their role within the organization. These potential derailers can be addressed through proper planning and execution of an SGPE. When SGPE are unstructured, unfocused and experimental error and biases uncontrolled, the outputs of SGPEs do not inform decisions or deliver the desired learning in a scientific manner. The goal of this document is to elevate the practice of small group product evaluations by outlining a structure, defining decision criteria in advance, and providing guidelines for implementation, drawing upon existing sensory theory and methods. Outputs from these SGPE are used to inform decisions and determine next steps including the risks involved with each of these...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Magnitude estimation may be used to measure and compare the intensities of attributes of a wide variety of products.  
5.2 Magnitude estimation provides a large degree of flexibility for both the experimenter and the assessor. Once trained in magnitude estimation, assessors are generally able to apply their skill to a wide variety of sample types and attributes, with minimal additional training.  
5.3 Magnitude estimation is not as susceptible to end-effects as interval scaling techniques. These can occur when assessors are not familiar with the entire range of sensations being presented. Under these circumstances, assessors may assign an early sample to a category which is too close to one end of the scale. Subsequently, they may “run out of scale” and be forced to assign perceptually different samples to the same category. This should not occur with magnitude estimation, as, in theory, there are an infinite number of categories.  
5.4 Magnitude estimation is one frequently used technique that permits the representation of data in terms of Stevens' Power Law.  
5.5 The disadvantages of magnitude estimation arise primarily from the requirements of the data analysis.  
5.5.1 Permitting each assessor to choose a different numerical scale may produce significant assessor effects. This disadvantage can be overcome in a number of ways, as follows. The experimenter must choose the approach most appropriate for the circumstances.
5.5.1.1 Experiments can be designed such that analysis of variance can be used to remove the assessor effects and interactions.
5.5.1.2 Alternatively, assessors can be forced to a common scale, either by training or by use of external reference samples with assigned values (modulus).
5.5.1.3 Finally, each assessor's data can be brought to a common scale by one of a variety of normalizing methods.  
5.5.2 Logarithms must be applied before carrying out data analysis. This becomes problematic if values are near threshold, as a logarit...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a procedure for the application of unipolar magnitude estimation to the evaluation of the magnitude of sensory attributes. The test method covers procedures for the training of assessors to produce magnitude estimations and statistical evaluation of the estimations.  
1.2 Magnitude estimation is a psychophysical scaling technique in which assessors assign numeric values to the magnitude of an attribute. The only constraint placed upon the assessor is that the values assigned should conform to a ratio principle. For example, if the attribute seems twice as strong in sample B when compared to sample A, sample B should receive a value which is twice the value assigned to sample A.  
1.3 The intensity of attributes such as pleasantness, sweetness, saltiness or softness can be evaluated using magnitude estimation.  
1.4 Magnitude estimation may provide advantages over other scaling methods, particularly when the number of assessors and the time available for training are limited. With approximately 1 h of training, a panel of 15 to 20 naive individuals can produce data of adequate precision and reproducibility. Any additional training that may be required to ensure that the assessors can properly identify the attribute being evaluated is beyond the scope of this test method.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used to assess the sensory characteristics before, during, and after usage of skin care products.  
5.2 This guide is applicable to product categories that include skin lotions and creams, facial moisturizers, hand lotions and creams, anti-aging lotions and creams, suntan lotions, personal repellents, and other skin care products.  
5.3 Procedures of the type described herein may be used to communicate perceived sensory properties within and between manufacturers and to the consumer through the media. These guidelines are suggested to meet the need for ascertaining the performance of experimental and commercial products.  
5.4 These procedures are to be used by assessors who are screened for sensory acuity, trained to use their senses to evaluate products, and in the procedures outlined by the panel method of choice, either technical assessor or consumer behavioral approach.  
5.5 This guide provides suggested procedures and is not meant to exclude alternate procedures that may be effective in training skinfeel panels and providing sensory evaluation descriptions.
SCOPE
1.1 The objective of this guide is to provide procedures for two different descriptive analysis approaches that may be used to qualitatively describe the sensory attributes of skin creams and lotions and quantitatively measure their intensity, similarities, and differences over time. Descriptive analysis can be used to define the sensory experience of skin care products that can then be used to provide direction in product formulation, competitive assessment, ingredient substitutions, research guidance, and advertising claim substantiation.  
1.2 Guidelines are provided to assist the reader in determining which approach best meets their research objectives, either the (1) technical assessor or (2) consumer behavior approach to language development and evaluation.  
1.3 Guidelines are provided for the selection and training of assessors, defining sensory attributes, measuring intensities on rating scales, developing procedures for the manipulation of the product alone and the product on the skin, product handling, and evaluation of skin condition before testing.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Sensory thresholds are used to determine the potential of substances at low concentrations to impart odor, taste, skinfeel, etc. to some form of matter.  
5.2 Thresholds are used, for example, in setting limits for air pollution, in noise abatement, in water treatment, and in food systems.  
5.3 Thresholds are used to characterize and compare the sensitivity of individual or groups to given stimuli, for example, in medicine, in ethnic studies, and in the study of animal species.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a rapid test for determining sensory thresholds of any substance in any medium.  
1.2 It prescribes an overall design of sample preparation and a procedure for calculating the results.  
1.3 The threshold may be characterized as being either (a) only detection  (awareness) that a very small amount of added substance is present but not necessarily recognizable, or (b) recognition  of the nature of the added substance.  
1.4 The medium may be a gas, such as air, a liquid, such as water or some beverage, or a solid form of matter. The medium may be odorless or tasteless, or may exhibit a characteristic odor or taste per se.  
1.5 This practice describes the use of a multiple forced-choice sample presentation method in an ascending concentration series, similar to the method of limits.  
1.6 Physical methods of sample presentation for threshold determination are not a part of this practice, and will depend on the physical state, size, shape, availability, and other properties of the samples.  
1.7 It is recognized that the degree of training received by a panel of assessors with a particular substance may have a profound influence on the threshold obtained with that substance  (1).2  
1.8 Thresholds determined by using one physical method of presentation are not necessarily equivalent to values obtained by another method.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Sensory thresholds are used to determine the potential of substances at low concentrations to impart odor, taste, skinfeel, etc. to some form of matter.  
6.2 Thresholds are used, for example, in setting limits in air pollution, in noise abatement, in water treatment, and in food systems.  
6.3 Thresholds are used to characterize and compare the sensitivity of individuals or groups to given stimuli, for example, in medicine, ethnic studies, and the study of animal species.
SCOPE
1.1 The definitions and procedures of this practice apply to the calculation of individual thresholds for any stimulus in any medium, from data sets of intermediate size, that is, consisting of more than 20 to 40 3-AFC presentations per individual. A group threshold may be calculated using 5 to 15 individual thresholds.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The application of this practice will help ensure consistency in procedures used for the sensory evaluation of edible oils and fats.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the recommended procedures for the sensory evaluation of edible oils and fats.  
1.2 This practice covers techniques for evaluating appearance, odor, and flavor in fats and oils, for determining overall odor and flavor intensity, and the intensity of individual odors or flavors.  
1.3 The techniques used in this practice are applicable to oils (liquid at room temperature) and liquified fats (solid at room temperature).  
1.4 The values in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is designed for use by a trained sensory panel experienced in using an intensity scale or rank ordering and familiar with the descriptive terminology and references associated with the packaging materials. Data analysis and interpretation should be conducted by a trained and experienced sensory professional. See Refs (3-4) for discussions on assessor screening and training.  
5.2 This test method should be considered as a screening technique for suppliers and end-users to use in assessing flavor impact of packaging films. The application of this test method will result in a FPS or rank data. The determination for suitability of a packaging film for a particular end-use should be based on a set of predetermined criteria including the FPS or rank score. Information obtained from the transfer tests can also be used to evaluate the origin of any transferred tastes or odors.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a recommended procedure for examining odor and taste properties of polymeric film intended for use as flexible packaging materials. This test method can be used for single (mono) layers, coextruded, and laminate materials. The focus of this test method is the evaluation of the film in terms of its perceived inherent odor and the transfer of package-related odors, or flavors, or both, to water and other model systems (bland food simulants).  
1.2 This test method assumes testing of the films at a one-time point; shelf-life testing is not included. Please see Ref (1)2 for discussion of shelf-life testing.  
1.3 This test method can provide sample preparation procedures and two methods of evaluation. The Film Performance Score Method allows for the comparison of any film sample to another. The Ranking Method allows for comparison of samples within a set. The preparation of samples is consistent regardless of the method of evaluation used.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
These practices are designed to outline two preferred procedures for referencing the odor intensities of any odorous material in the suprathreshold region on the ASTM Odor Intensity Referencing Scale. The method by which the reference odorant vapors are to be presented for evaluation by a panel of at least eight independent judgments is specified, but the manner by which the test sample is presented will depend on the nature of the sample, and is not defined herein. The methods, where a geometric progression scale with a ratio of 2 is recommended, are generally done by comparing the odor intensity of the sample to the odor intensities of a series of concentrations of the reference odorant 1-butanol (n-butanol). The two procedures differ in the method by which the diluted 1-butanol vapors are prepared. In Procedure A (dynamic scale method), a dynamic-dilution apparatus is used. This is equipped with a series of sniffing ports from which constant concentrations of 1-butanol emerge at constant volumetric flow rates in air. In Procedure B (static-scale method), a series of Erlenmeyer flasks containing known concentrations of 1-butanol in water is used.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice is designed to outline a means for referencing the odor intensities of a material in the suprathreshold region.  
1.2 The general objective is to reference the odor intensity rather than other odor properties of a sample.  
1.3 This practice is designed to reference the odor intensity on the ASTM Odor Intensity Referencing Scale of any odorous material. This is done by a comparison of the odor intensity of the sample to the odor intensities of a series of concentrations of a reference odorant, for example, 1-butanol (n-butanol).  
1.4 The method by which the reference odorant vapors are to be presented for evaluation by the assessors is specified. The manner by which the test sample is presented will depend on the nature of the sample, and is not defined herein.  
1.5 Test sample presentation should be consistent with good standard practice (1, 2)2 and should be explicitly documented in the test report.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. See Annex A1 for specific safety data.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is effective for the following test objectives:  
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceivable difference results or a perceivable difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; or  
5.1.2 To select, train and monitor assessors.  
5.2 This test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the triangle test is to determine that two products are perceivably different versus that the products are not perceivably different. Only the selected values of pd, α, and β change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceivable difference between two products, then the value selected for α is typically smaller than the value selected for β. If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then the value selected for β is typically smaller than the value selected for α and the value of pd is selected to define “sufficiently similar.”
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products.  
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.  
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. It does not determine the size or the direction of the difference. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.  
1.4 Compared to the duo-trio test, the triangle test can achieve an equivalent level of statistical significance with fewer assessors. For details on how the triangle test compares to other three-sample tests, see Refs (1) , (2), (3) and (4).2  
1.5 This test method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous. If two samples of the same product can often be distinguished, then another method, for example, descriptive analysis, may be more appropriate.  
1.6 This test method is applicable only when the products do not cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover or adaptation.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:  
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceivable difference results or a perceivable difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling or storage; or  
5.1.2 To select, train and monitor assessors.  
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the duo-trio test is to determine that two products are perceivably different versus that the products are not perceivably different. Only the selected values of pd, α, and β change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceivable difference between two products, then the value selected for α is typically smaller than the value selected for β. If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then the value selected for β is typically smaller than the value selected for α and the value of pd is selected to define “sufficiently similar.”  
5.3 The test method may change based on the test objective or the assessors’ familiarity with the product. The balanced-reference technique (see 9.1.1) typically is used when neither product is more familiar than the other. The constant-reference technique (see 9.1.2) frequently is used when one product is a control/current product or is familiar to the assessors.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products.  
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.  
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. It does not determine the size or the direction of the difference. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.  
1.4 Compared to the triangle test, the duo-trio test is statistically less efficient, but easier to perform by the assessors. For details on how the duo-trio test compares to other three-sample tests, see Refs (1-4).2  
1.5 This test method is applicable only if the products are homogeneous. If two samples of the same product can often be distinguished, then another method, for example, descriptive analysis, may be more appropriate.  
1.6 This test method is applicable only when the products do not cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover or adaptation.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This overall difference test method is used when the test objective is to determine whether a sensory difference exists or does not exist between two samples. It is also known as the simple difference test.  
5.2 The test is appropriate in situations where samples have extreme intensities, give rapid sensory fatigue, have long lingering flavors, or cannot be consumed in large quantities, or a combination thereof.  
5.3 The test is also appropriate for situations where the stimulus sites are limited to two (for example, two hands, each side of the face, two ears).  
5.4 The test provides a measure of the bias where judges perceive two same products to be different.  
5.5 The test has the advantage of being a simple and intuitive task.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a procedure for comparing two products.  
1.2 This test method does not describe the Thurstonian modeling approach to this test.  
1.3 This test method is sometimes referred to as the simple-difference test.  
1.4 A same-different test determines whether two products are perceived to be the same or different overall.  
1.5 The procedure of the test described in this test method consists of presenting a single pair of samples to each assessor. The presentation of multiple pairs would require different statistical treatment and it is outside of the scope of this test method.  
1.6 This test method is not attribute-specific, unlike the directional difference test.  
1.7 This test method is not intended to determine the magnitude of the difference; however, statistical methods may be used to estimate the size of the difference.  
1.8 This test method may be chosen over the triangle or duo-trio tests where sensory fatigue or carry-over are a concern, or where a simpler task is needed.  
1.9 This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The paired preference test determines whether or not there is a preference for one product over another product among a specific target population. Knowledge of consumer segments, brand loyalties, the range of product offerings in the marketplace, and the decision risk must be understood when planning a paired preference test.  
5.2 The paired preference method is commonly used in tests with one or more of the following objectives: (1) to establish superiority in preference versus the competition for advertising claims support; (2) to establish the preference of a new product for launch versus a competitor's product; (3) to establish the preference of a reformulated product in a product improvement or product modification project (for example, process change or ingredient change); and (4) to establish the preference of a cost improved product versus the current formulation in a cost savings project. Selected values of Pmax, α, and β will change with all four types of test objectives. These should be selected prior to determination of N.  
5.2.1 Preference versus Competition or Launching a New Product versus Competition—Select a Pmax  to represent what you expect a reasonable preference split to be. The main risk to avoid is to wrongly claim your product is preferred over the competitors. Thus, low values of α are selected, for example, 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001. The desired outcome of this test is to reject the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is one sided: A new or improved product (A) is preferred over the competitor’s product (B). The test is one-sided. The value of β will be determined by the sample size chosen and the size of the preference in the consumer segment selected for the test. Selection of the appropriate number of respondents is determined by Pmax, α, and β, as well as the market segment that must be included in the test (for issues specific to conducting a paired preference test for an advertising claim, refer to Guide E1958).  
5.2.2 C...
SCOPE
1.1 This document covers a procedure for determining preference between two products using either a two-alternative forced-choice task, or with the option of choosing no preference. Preference testing is a type of hedonic testing.  
1.2 A paired preference test determines whether there is a statistically significant preference between two products for a given population of respondents. The target population must be carefully considered.  
1.3 This method establishes preference in a single evaluation context. Replicated tests will not be covered within the scope of this document.  
1.4 Paired preference testing can address overall preference or preference for a specified sensory attribute.  
1.5 The method does not directly determine the magnitude of preference.  
1.6 This method does not address whether or not two samples are perceived as different. Refer to Test Method E2164 for directional difference test.  
1.7 A paired preference test is a simple task for respondents, and can be used with populations that have minimal reading or comprehension skills, or both.  
1.8 Preference is not an intrinsic attribute of the product, such as hue is, but is a subjective measure relating to respondents' affective or hedonic response. It differs from paired comparison testing which measures objective characteristics of the product. Preference results are always dependent on the population sampled.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems associated with its use, when testing includes hazardous materials, operations, or equipment. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and to determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles fo...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide is meant to be used with and applied to individual trained descriptive assessors.  
5.2 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by the panel leader to periodically appraise the performance of individual descriptive assessors.  
5.3 Tracking assessor performance will provide information as to the quality of the data being generated. Performance information may be used to decide whether to use the data to interpret product profiles.  
5.4 Monitoring assessor performance will enable the panel leader to identify retraining needs or to identify assessors who are not performing well enough to continue participating on a panel.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidelines for measuring and tracking the performance of individual assessors on a descriptive sensory panel.  
1.2 This guide provides guidelines to assist sensory professionals in measuring performance for given assessors. Measuring performance will form the basis for (1) determining the reliability of the results, and (2) establishing remedial actions for an individual assessor.  
1.3 This guide examines various aspects of trained assessor performance; such as repeatability, discrimination, and agreement and demonstrates some ways to measure them. The procedures will help the sensory professional determine areas of good performance as well as those that require improvement.  
1.4 Individual assessor performance is tracked using established statistical procedures. These procedures depend on whether replicates are collected and if they are collected over multiple sessions or within a single session.  
1.5 This guide provides suggested procedures, including statistical procedures that can be done using standard statistical software, for evaluating performance and is not meant to exclude other methods that may be effectively used for a similar purpose.  
1.6 Methods for training and screening assessors are not within the scope of this guide. This guide does not address how to communicate performance feedback information to individual assessors. This monitoring of panel reproducibility, a measure of the panel’s ability to reproduce the results of other panels, is also not within the scope of this guide.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Rating instruments or rating scales are commonly used in many areas such as sensory evaluation, marketing research, experimental psychology, survey research, and economics in which there is interest in quantifying perceptions such as liking, preference, level of purchase interest, intensity of an attribute, degree of difference, or level of agreement with statements. This guide is concerned with the scales that are used to record human responses to physical stimuli rather than measuring physical entities. Many types of rating scales already exist and have been used in the above fields. Specific rating scales each have their own properties, advantages, and disadvantages. Some rating scales are intended for specific applications, while others have broader applications. Some rating scales have been extensively studied and modeled and have well-established properties.  
4.2 Given the overwhelming number of scales available to practitioners when designing research, it is necessary for the researcher to have some knowledge about the scales that are available along with the many considerations that surround their use and applications. This guide will be useful to the sensory researcher who wants to use a scale as a measuring tool for their work. Selecting the right scale is a critical step towards meeting the research objective and making valid conclusions.
SCOPE
1.1 The objective of this guide is to provide information to be reviewed and considered by the sensory and consumer scientist who wants to select and use scales to measure responses from consumers or trained assessors. For ease of reading, the term sensory scientist is used throughout the guide when statements apply to the sensory and consumer scientists.  
1.2 This guide covers a brief definition of scales as well as some fundamental and practical challenges the sensory and consumer scientists should be aware of when using scales. It also provides a list and a description of the most commonly used scales in the field of sensory evaluation and consumer product research along with a classification framework for these scales.  
1.3 The scope of this guide is limited to the sensory and consumer science professional’s selection and use of rating scales when an assessor assigns one symbol/value to one stimulus, to their perception of a stimulus or an internal attitude/opinion. It does not cover:  
1.3.1 Details of analysis of data obtained from rating scales,  
1.3.2 Guidelines for questionnaire design including attribute selection,  
1.3.3 Fundamentals of measurement such as reliability and validity,  
1.3.4 Measurement models used to convert scale responses into measures of unobserved sensory or hedonic quantities,  
1.3.5 Tasks in which the assessor assigns a symbol/value to a group of stimuli,  
1.3.6 Rankings, and  
1.3.7 Multi-item scales.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Consistency must be maintained in all aspects of preparations and serving of samples to ensure reproducible data from sensory respondents. Guidelines for consistency may change with the test objective.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes suggested procedures for presenting samples to sensory respondents. The purpose of this guide is to provide general guidelines for developing serving protocols for evaluation of food and beverages, in a central location or laboratory on a variety of foods and beverages, excluding beverage alcohol which is addressed in Guide E1879.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The purpose of time-intensity measurements is to establish the pattern of development and decline of a particular sensory characteristic under study. T-I evaluations are applicable when measurements at a single time point (an averaging process) are not sufficient to distinguish products that have very different temporal characteristics. As pointed out by Lee and Pangborn (2)3, “This averaging process results in the masking or complete loss of important information such as rate of onset of stimulation, time and duration of maximum intensity, rate of decay of perceived intensity, time of extinction, and total duration of the entire process.”  
5.2 Products rated similarly using traditional single point techniques of product profiling may provide very different temporal sensory experiences to the consumer. Acceptability of the product may be affected, and traditional descriptive methodology does not reflect the changes in an attribute's intensity over time.  
5.3 T-I has applications for a variety of products. Examples include: food products, ranging from short-term sweetness in a beverage to long-term elasticity in chewing gum; personal care products, measuring the development and longevity of shampoo lather and the residual skin feel of a skin cream; household care products, monitoring the intensity of scents over time; pharmaceuticals, monitoring skin cooling after application of a topical analgesic. Auditory signals or visual changes in products can also be evaluated by the T-I technique.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers procedures for conducting and analyzing time-intensity (T-I) evaluations of products or other sensory stimuli. Time-intensity is the measurement of the intensity of a single sensory sensation over time in response to a single exposure to a product or other sensory stimulus. Simultaneous evaluations of multiple sensory attributes are possible, although are outside of the scope of this document. See Reference List for more information.  
1.2 This guide utilizes a specially trained panel to measure the intensity of a single continuous sensation during the time from initial exposure:  
1.2.1 To its extinction,  
1.2.2 To a specified intensity, or  
1.2.3 To a predetermined limit of time.  
1.3 Applications not covered in this guide include measuring:  
1.3.1 Multiple sensations,  
1.3.2 Multiple exposures within a single measurement, and  
1.3.3 Qualitative or hedonic changes in the perceived sensation.  
1.4 This guide includes protocols for the selection and training of judges, descriptions and use of physical data collection devices, and methods of data handling, summarization, and statistical analysis. Illustration of two different data handling and analysis approaches are included in the appendixes.  
1.5 This guide is not applicable to measure product shelf life or stability that require evaluations over extended time.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The directional difference test determines with a given confidence level whether or not there is a perceivable difference in the intensity of a specified attribute between two samples, for example, when a change is made in an ingredient, a process, packaging, handling, or storage.  
5.2 The directional difference test is inappropriate when evaluating products with sensory characteristics that are not easily specified, not commonly understood, or not known in advance. Other difference test methods such as the same-different test should be used.  
5.3 A result of no significant difference in a specific attribute does not ensure that there are no differences between the two samples in other attributes or characteristics, nor does it indicate that the attribute is the same for both samples. It may merely indicate that the degree of difference is too low to be detected with the sensitivity (α, β, and Pmax) chosen for the test.  
5.3.1 The method itself does not change whether the purpose of the test is to determine that two samples are perceivably different versus that the samples are not perceivably different. Only the selected values of Pmax, α, and β change. If the objective of the test is to determine if the two samples are perceivably different, then the value selected for α is typically smaller than the value selected for β. If the objective is to determine if no perceivable difference exists, then the value selected for β is typically smaller than the value selected for α and the value of Pmax needs to be stated explicitly.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for comparing two products using a two-alternative forced-choice task.  
1.2 This method is sometimes referred to as a paired comparison test or as a 2-AFC (alternative forced choice) test.  
1.3 A directional difference test determines whether a difference exists in the perceived intensity of a specified sensory attribute between two samples.  
1.4 Directional difference testing is limited in its application to a specified sensory attribute and does not directly determine the magnitude of the difference for that specific attribute. Assessors must be able to recognize and understand the specified attribute. A lack of difference in the specified attribute does not imply that no overall difference exists.  
1.5 This test method does not address preference.  
1.6 A directional difference test is a simple task for assessors, and is used when sensory fatigue or carryover is a concern. The directional difference test does not exhibit the same level of fatigue, carryover, or adaptation as multiple sample tests such as triangle or duo-trio tests. For detail on comparisons among the various difference tests, see Ennis (1), MacRae (2), and O'Mahony and Odbert (3).2  
1.7 The procedure of the test described in this document consists of presenting a single pair of samples to the assessors.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:  
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceptible difference results or a perceptible difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling, or storage; or  
5.1.2 To select, train, and monitor assessors.  
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the test is to determine that the products are perceptibly different versus that the products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably. Only the selected values of α, β, and δ or Pd change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceptible difference between two products, then initially the products are assumed to be indistinguishable (for example, HO: δ or Pd = 0) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the products are perceptively different). If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then initially the products are assumed to be meaningfully different (for example, HO: δ or Pd > the value chosen to represent a meaningful difference) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the samples are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably).  
5.3 The tetrad method involves the evaluation of four samples. When the products being tested cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover, or adaptation, methods that involve the evaluation of fewer samples (same-different, triangle test, etc.) may be preferred.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products or to estimate the magnitude of the perceptible difference.  
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.  
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.  
1.4 The tetrad test is more efficient statistically than the triangle test (Test Method E1885) or the duo-trio test (Test Method E2610).  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by a panel leader to provide assessors and panels feedback: (1) on their data-based performance, (2) on any behavior changes that are needed to improve their performance, and (3) to motivate assessors to remain engaged with the panel tasks. The aim of all these types of feedback is to ensure the generation of repeatable and valid data.  
4.2 This guide provides direction for how to achieve mutually beneficial feedback exchanges between assessors and panel leaders.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidance to sensory panel leaders on how to deliver performance feedback to trained sensory assessors and panels. This guide is not intended to be used by individual assessors or anyone unfamiliar with the panel.  
1.2 This guide covers recommended feedback given throughout assessor training, panel development, and ongoing assessor and panel monitoring.  
1.3 This guide examines aspects of feedback including: types, when to provide, effective delivery, and alignment to performance expectations for assessors.  
1.4 Descriptive, discrimination, and quality panels are within the scope of this guide.  
1.5 This guide does not cover consumer panels (qualitative or quantitative).  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by a panel leader to provide assessors and panels feedback: (1) on their data-based performance, (2) on any behavior changes that are needed to improve their performance, and (3) to motivate assessors to remain engaged with the panel tasks. The aim of all these types of feedback is to ensure the generation of repeatable and valid data.  
4.2 This guide provides direction for how to achieve mutually beneficial feedback exchanges between assessors and panel leaders.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidance to sensory panel leaders on how to deliver performance feedback to trained sensory assessors and panels. This guide is not intended to be used by individual assessors or anyone unfamiliar with the panel.  
1.2 This guide covers recommended feedback given throughout assessor training, panel development, and ongoing assessor and panel monitoring.  
1.3 This guide examines aspects of feedback including: types, when to provide, effective delivery, and alignment to performance expectations for assessors.  
1.4 Descriptive, discrimination, and quality panels are within the scope of this guide.  
1.5 This guide does not cover consumer panels (qualitative or quantitative).  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is effective for the following test objectives:  
5.1.1 To determine whether a perceptible difference results or a perceptible difference does not result, for example, when a change is made in ingredients, processing, packaging, handling, or storage; or  
5.1.2 To select, train, and monitor assessors.  
5.2 The test method itself does not change whether the purpose of the test is to determine that the products are perceptibly different versus that the products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably. Only the selected values of α, β, and δ or Pd change. If the objective of the test is to determine if there is a perceptible difference between two products, then initially the products are assumed to be indistinguishable (for example, HO: δ or Pd = 0) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the products are perceptively different). If the objective is to determine if the two products are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably, then initially the products are assumed to be meaningfully different (for example, HO: δ or Pd > the value chosen to represent a meaningful difference) and the data are examined to determine if the assumption can be rejected (that is, conclude that the samples are sufficiently similar to be used interchangeably).  
5.3 The tetrad method involves the evaluation of four samples. When the products being tested cause excessive sensory fatigue, carryover, or adaptation, methods that involve the evaluation of fewer samples (same-different, triangle test, etc.) may be preferred.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products or to estimate the magnitude of the perceptible difference.  
1.2 This test method applies whether a difference may exist in a single sensory attribute or in several.  
1.3 This test method is applicable when the nature of the difference between the samples is unknown. The attribute(s) responsible for the difference are not identified.  
1.4 The tetrad test is more efficient statistically than the triangle test (Test Method E1885) or the duo-trio test (Test Method E2610).  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The methods outlined in this guide can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the sensory characteristics and performance of trigger hard surface household cleaning products for nonporous surfaces.  
5.2 The methods are suited for descriptive analysis and may be adaptable for consumer acceptance research.  
5.3 This guide provides the procedure for the evaluation of package, application, performance, after-use and fragrance aspects of hard surface cleaners. Depending on the test objectives, all or some of these measures may be used.  
5.4 This guide is designed for use for product research guidance in product formulation, new product development, and quality control issues.  
5.5 This guide is a compendium of information or series of options that does not recommend a specific course of action. This guide is not intended for claim substantiation, as it has not been subjected to validation testing.  
5.6 This guide is for use by individuals who familiarize themselves with these procedures and who have previous experience with sensory evaluations. It is suggested that the individuals have some experience with developing and training a descriptive panel or work under the supervision of a sensory professional who has.  
5.7 This guide might involve hazardous materials. This guide does not claim to address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this guide to establish appropriate safety and healthy practices and to determine the applicability of limitations prior to use.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide presents guidelines specific to the sensory evaluation of trigger hard surface cleaners. It covers the procedure for preparing a nonporous surface with the intent to measure one or all of the various aspects of a trigger product: package, application, performance, and after-use properties, with focus on visual, tactile, fragrance, performance, and package ergonomics. It is applicable for use with assessors, highly trained assessors, and consumers.  
1.2 This guide for preparing nonporous hard surfaces is intended to focus on surface preparation and evaluation, not on panel selection, training, or development.  
1.3 The reader should be aware that good sensory practices are required when preparing the surfaces, and in developing and training the assessors.  
1.4 The researcher is responsible for identifying the most appropriate test design and using the appropriate statistical tool to address that experimental design.  
1.5 Since this guide's intended use is to provide direction on the presentation and measurement of the different aspects of spray trigger hard surface cleaners, this guide may not accurately represent all possible soils and surfaces where spray trigger hard surface cleaners may be used.  
1.6 This guide provides suggested procedures and is not meant to exclude alternate procedures that may be effectively used to provide the same results.  
1.7 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. Values are stated in only SI units when inch-pound units are not used in practice.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Techn...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The procedures recommended in this guide can be used by a panel leader to provide assessors and panels feedback: (1) on their data-based performance, (2) on any behavior changes that are needed to improve their performance, and (3) to motivate assessors to remain engaged with the panel tasks. The aim of all these types of feedback is to ensure the generation of repeatable and valid data.  
4.2 This guide provides direction for how to achieve mutually beneficial feedback exchanges between assessors and panel leaders.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides guidance to sensory panel leaders on how to deliver performance feedback to trained sensory assessors and panels. This guide is not intended to be used by individual assessors or anyone unfamiliar with the panel.  
1.2 This guide covers recommended feedback given throughout assessor training, panel development, and ongoing assessor and panel monitoring.  
1.3 This guide examines aspects of feedback including: types, when to provide, effective delivery, and alignment to performance expectations for assessors.  
1.4 Descriptive, discrimination, and quality panels are within the scope of this guide.  
1.5 This guide does not cover consumer panels (qualitative or quantitative).  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.