Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, volume 32 issue 4 (december 2017) : 313-316

Multi-Session Sensory Designs using Mutually orthogonal Latin Squares Balanced for carryover effects

Sumeet Saurav, Cini Varghese, Eldho Varghese, Seema Jaggi, Devendra Kumar
1<p>ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi - 110012</p>
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Saurav Sumeet, Varghese Cini, Varghese Eldho, Jaggi Seema, Kumar Devendra (NaN). Multi-Session Sensory Designs using Mutually orthogonal Latin Squares Balanced for carryover effects . Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 32(4): 313-316. doi: undefined.

Sensory trails play a vital role in food and nutrition experiments in establishing certain sensory facts about agricultural/animal produce. To draw definite conclusion from the study, it is important to eliminate or minimize all sources of error and control all factors that may influence the inference. Hence, in addition to the potential sources associated with the preparation of the test products, variability due to measurement or assessment process,order effects,carryover effects and assessor fatigue are to be considered. An experimental design for sensory evaluation should be capable of accommodating all these variables. However, when there are a large number of products two operational constraints, viz. assessor constraint and preparation constraint, may limit the choice of experimental designs. Assessor constraint sets a maximum number of products that an assessor can evaluate within a session before onset of sensory fatigue and preparation constraint limits the number of products that can be prepared for a given session without loss of experimental control. Therefore, many times it may become necessary to split sensory evaluation into sessions. Here, a general method is developed based on initial sequences to construct designs for multi-session sensory trials balanced for carry over effects. In the proposed designs, all panelists will have to evaluate only a subset of samples in each session and they will not have to taste the same product more than once during different sessions.


  1. Amerine, M.A., Pangborn, R.M. and Roessler, E.B. (1965). Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, New York.

  2. Deepe, C., Carpenter, R. and Jones, B. (2001). Nested incomplete block designs in sensory testing : construction strateties. Food Quality and Preferenc, 12, 281-290.

  3. Husson, F.and Pages, J. (2003). Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and untrained juries : methodology and results. Journal of Food Science. 18(6), 454-464.

  4. Lawless, H. (1984). Flavour description of white wine by "expert" and "non-expert" wine consumers. Journal of Food Science.49, 120-123.

  5. Martinez, V.M. Varming, C., Skov, T. and Toldam-Andersen, T.B. (2014). Post-harvest ripening increase cultivar specific sensory and analytical aroma profile in apple juice : A study of four commercial cultivars in Denmark. Acta Agricultural Scandinavica, Section-B Soil and Plant Science, 64(3), 244-251.

  6. Naes, T., Brokhoff, P. and Tomic, O. (2010). Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

  7. Peryam, D.R. and Piligram, F.J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology , 11, 9-14.

Editorial Board

View all (0)