V Qa Sensory Methodology by Lc Bo

8/20/2019 V Qa Sensory Methodology by Lc Bo

1/32

LCLC Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance

Services Provided by LCBOQuality Assurance

Leading Sensory Evaluation

Services


2/32


VQA Mandate

Appellation of Origin SystemQuality Standard

Control of use of specied terms!

descriptions and designationsassociated "it# t#e VQA appellationsystem

VQA Appellation System


3/32


Sensory Quality

C#emical Composition

Microbiological Stability

Pac$aging and LabellingStandards

%ole of Sensory Evaluation &esting

Quality of Beverage Alco#olProducts


4/32


'ree of tec#nical faults ( defects

&ypicity of varietal c#aracter ) for varietal "ines “A wine bearing varietal designation shall be

assessed to determine if the varietal designationfor the wine exhibits the predominant character ofa wine produced from the designated grape

variety/varieties” (VQA Rules &ypicity of t#e "ine category* Late +arvest!

,ce"ine! -ouveau! Spar$ling ) &raditional Met#od!,ce"ine .osage! Botryti/ed 0ine (VQA Rules

%ole of VQA SensoryEvaluation &esting

Scope


5/32


“A wine shall be deemed to have passedthe taste test if a ma!ority of the members

of the "asting #anel determine$ "hat the wine%s attributes fairly re&ect the

viticultural and oenological 'uality standardsestablished in )Reg) *+,/++ (Rules without

defects or &aws- and "hat the wine is representative of 'uality

wines of the stated category” (VQA Rules

%ole of VQA SensoryEvaluation &esting


6/32


1rading Panel ) 2 panel

groups of 3 panellistseac#

45 Members 647 regularpanellists! 5 alternate

tasters8

Sensory Panels


7/32LCLC Quality AssuranceQuality Assurance

Panel members are LCBOProduct Consultants "#o"or$ in retail stores "it#inmetropolitan &oronto area

Continuous training(developmentopportunities

LCBO Product 9no"ledge,! ,! ,,,

Certication from t#e0ine and Spirit Education &rust

Master of 0ineCertication

Panel Member SelectionCriteria



Panel members are sub:ectedto annual *

Sensory evaluation testing

Product $no"ledge testing

. 0 of the 'uestions areVQA speci1c

.emonstrated professionalism )Sensory Evaluations Code ofConduct

Panel Member SelectionCriteria



ConsistentPerformance

Balanced Panels

ReproducibleResults

Panel 1roups AssemblyCriteria*

%esults from t#e annualtesting

&esting performance #istory

Previous e;perience 6as a1rading Panel member! from t#eindustry8

Performance monitoring

data



&raining Elements

Aroma!



Blind sample presentation*

Samples are presented"it#out identifyingmar$ings

>niform samplepresentation

Sample Presentation

Sample information* Varietal composition!vintage year! "ine category! met#od ofproduction 6"#ere applicable* spar$ling "ines!ice"ine dosage! etc8



Sensory Evaluation GradingSystem

Sensory Evaluation Met#od



Superior ob:ectivity ) systemdesign eliminates bias

0ider system applicability)

system design e=ually appliesto all "ine categories

E?cient and e@ective calculation of results ) timesavings! accuracy

.ata Analysis &ools &raceability of results )enabled by automated datacollection and =uantication oft#e results

O b j e c t i v i t y

A p p

l i c a

b i l i t

y

E f f i c i

e n c y

Client

Satisfaction

Sensory Evaluation 1radingSystem



Sensory evaluation

grading system elements*

-e" sensory evaluationgrading method


,ntegrating technology$

Automated data

collection Automated data

=uantication! analysisand reporting



Appearance and Colour Aroma 6primary and secondary8 and Bou=uet

&aste +armony

Sensory c#aracteristics applicable toall types of beverage alco#ol products

Appearance

Colour

Harmony

BouquetTaste

Aroma




Sensory c#aracteristics and attributes areevaluated using ve grading categories


Categor y

E;cellent Very1ood

1ood Satisfactory

>nsatisfactory

QualityLevel Outstanding(E;ception

al

Superior(VeryCorrect

&ypical 0ea$(-otat fullpotential

'aulty (.efective



Characteristics & Attributes

Grading Categories Comments

Excellent

VeryGood

Good Satisfact ory

Unsatisfactory

Appearance &Colour x

Aroma&

Bouuet

Correctness

x

Intensity

x

Quality x

!aste Correctness

x

Intensit

y

x

Finish x

1rading 'orm



.ata collection

.ata =uantication

.ata analysis

.ata reporting

,nnovative &ec#nology



Automated

,nteractive'le;ibleD0ireless

Pen or(and $eyboard

+and"ritten notes

.ata Collection ) &ablet PCs



5.7

-3.2 -3.0

-11.4

5.94.5

-4.0

3.5

0.3

1.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

!12.0 12.0 - 12.4 12.5 - 12.9 13.0 - 13.4 13.5 - 13.9 14.0 - 14.4 14.5 - 14.9 15.0 - 15.4 15.5 - 15.9 "1.0

Sco#in$ %nte#vals

&0-20 Sco#in$ Scale'

Sco#es

(#e)*ency+ ,

Scores Frequency, 2003

Scores Frequency, 2004

Difference 04-03

2004

2003

New system implemented on June 1 2004 !omp"rison for periods June -

Decem#er 2003 "nd 2004



*ality Senso#y Eval*ation es*lt

System

!ontrols$roficiency

$ro%r"ms

&erific"tion

'"stin%

$erform"nce

(onitorin%

Quality

Assurance

QA of Sensory Evaluation%esults




VQA &asting protocol (VQA Rules 4nd Bottle tasting

1rading System Controls* Security of panellist registration

'orced completeness of t#e assessment

%atings cannot be c#anged! once nali/ed

Sample evaluation cannot be redone! oncecompleted

Validation =uestions in t#e grading =uestionnaire

Calculation validation based on statisticalmeasures

Automated calculation and reporting




Veri1cation "asting 2 an independent sensoryevaluation of t#e products in conditions identical tot#e tasting panel

e verication process #as a =uality assurance role and provides a reference value t#at is t#encompared "it# t#e panel results to identify any

discrepancies in t#e assessmentVeriers ) =ualied Quality Assurance tasters Atasting session may re=uire up 4 Veriers

Veriers results are typically not included in t#ecalculation! unless discrepancy situation




Panellists performance is monitored for eac#tasting session

Measures*

Outliers 're=uency! F D measure of ratingaccuracy

%ating %an$ ) measure of rating bias 6#ig#!lo"! trends8

Sensitivity data D missed defects! gooddetection! #yperDsensitivity

'eedbac$ on performance ) 'eedbac$ %eport



/anellist atin$s vs. /anel eian

)

*

+

,

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 2 3 4 5 ) * + , 10 11 12 13 14 15 1) 1* 1+ 1, 20 21

Saples

3 # a 1 i n $ S

c o # e

$"nelist &"lues

$roduct esult

.(edi"n/

Panellist 'eedbac$

%eport

astin$ Session 4-pr-2005 223 $(

/anellist

otal 6*be# of Saples 2)

otal 6*be# of O*tlie#s 4

O*tlie#s (#e)*ency+ , 15.4

an+ 8escenin$ 2.9

Panellist -ame





,nternally designed to measure =uality and

consistency of t#e sensory evaluationassessments

.esigned to measure*

System performance

Panel Performance

Panellist Performance

&ypical measures* repeatability! reproducibility!bias! defects identication! etc

Panellist

Panel

System



,nternal Prociency &esting

Objective ssessment of results repe"t"#ility reproduci#ility

/#o*ct Cate$. nt"rio inesetoolo$y ssessment of p"nel results for tree nt"rio wines presented "s #lind duplic"tes6

ines "re of sound qu"lity "nd simil"r qu"lity le7els6

-eplic"te 1 -eplic"te 2 -eplic"te 1 -eplic"te 2 -eplic"te 1 -eplic"te 2

Ave#a$e 13.7 13.:0 13.: 13.5 13.9: 13.4

S8 1.24 0.57 0.3 1.02 0.9 1.30

Saple 1 Saple 2 Saple 3Senso#y es*lts



%epeatability


epeatability es*lts p-;al*es < &2-taile test+ 95 , Confience =evel'

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 31. Panel level No significant difference between replicate results

0.:711 0.1:95 0.3044

2. Panel groups level: No significant difference between replicates

Group A: 0.43:2 0.2:09 0.0759

Group B: 0.4:14 0.5232 0.574

Group C: 0.7:: 0.5137 0.2235

Group D: 0.953 0.5291 0.0:23

3. Panellist level: nly one t"ster e8i#ited si%nific"nt 7"ri"#ility of te results6

Source of variation: S"mple position in te line-up in reference wit te sensory profile of

"d9"cent s"mples6

* Interpretation of results:: If the p-Value is lower than 00!" then there is a signifficant difference at a #!$ C%




%eproducibility

Saple

eplic"te 1 eplic"te 2 eplic"te 1 eplic"te 2 eplic"te 1 eplic"te 2 eplic"te 1 eplic"te 2#o*p ANo76 +:04

#o*p ANo76 +:04

#o*p >No76 10:04

#o*p >No76 10:04

#o*p CNo762,:04

#o*p CNo762,:04

#o*p 8No761*:04

#o*p 8No761*:04

/anel

Ave.

/anel

S8

Saple 1 13.2 13. 14. 14 13.4 13.7 13.: 13.: 13.: 0.39370

Saple 2 13.: 13.: 13. 13. 13.7 13.7 14 14.4 13. 0.259:1

Saple 3 14.4 13. 13.: 14.4 13.7 14.2 13.2 14 13. 0.40552

7er"%e SD 0.35301

es*lts+ eian ;al*e .reportin% 7"lue/

-o signicant di@erence bet"een reported results! iemedian values 6pDValue* 7G2HGIJ8 at a H3F condencelevel



#ain$

/anelAve#a$e<

-A /anel

Sept6 1):04.ef6 $"nel/

#o*p A

Sept613:04

#o*p >

Sept615:04

#o*p C

Sept620:04

#o*p 8

Sept622:04

#ain$

/anel S8

Sample 1 12.9 13.: 13.: 13.5 13.4 13.2 0.25000

Sample 2 14.4 14.2 14.2 14.4 14.: 14.2 0.2:2:4

Sample 3 10.7 10. 10.2 9.4 9.: 12 1.1474

Ave#a$e 0.5010

* A&erage of indi&idual panell ists' score

Saple

es*lts+ eian ;al*e .reportin% 7"lue/

%eproducibility


-o signicant di@erence bet"een panelsK 6ie all 3panels8 reported results 6ie median value8! at a H3Fcondence level 6pDvalue 7HHG738




Summary

A superior met#od for performing sensory evaluations

Eliminates many sources of bias

Customi/ed for use "it# all beverage alco#ol products

'le;ibility 6data collection! =uantication reporting8

Provides signicant time savings in data management

Provides tools to analy/e panellist results to #elp identify

training opportunities



Leading

the SensoryEvaluation of

everage

Alcohol

V Qa Sensory Methodology by Lc Bo

Documents

Transcript of V Qa Sensory Methodology by Lc Bo