UNIVERSITI KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL & BIOENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGY
LABORATORY TECHNICAL REPORT
SUBMISSION FORM
To: DR NOR RAIHANA BT MOHAMED ZAM Code Subject: CFD 30303
From: Student ID. No.:
NUR RABIYATUL ADAWIYAH BT AMRAN 55104316071
NUR FATIN SYAHIRAH BT MOHD RAMDZI 55104316038
ZHARIFAH BARI’AH BT BASA’AH 55104316037
No. of Group: Date of Experiment:6 MARCH 2018
Title of Experiment: RANKING TEST
Received by: Date of Submission:20 MARCH 2018
Note: Late submission will not be accepted.
*To be filled by the marker*
VERY VERY
POOR GOOD EXCELLENT
CRITERIA POOR GOOD
2 3 5
1 4
1.0 ABSTRACT & OBJECTIVES (HALF PAGE 2 4 6 8 10
ONLY) (TOTAL: 10%)
1. State the summary to the experiment
conducted.
2. State the objectives of the experiment (point
form)
2.0 PROCEDURES (TOTAL: 5%) 1 2 3 4 5
1.Methodology is presented in suitable and
understandable flowchart.
3.0 RESULTS (TOTAL: 10%) 2 4 6 8 10
1.Data are presented as deemed suitable with
complete label and units in tables and/or graphs.
4.0 DISCUSSIONS (MAXIMUM 1 PAGE) (TOTAL: 3 6 9 12 15
15%)
1. Explanations of the referred tables and/or
graphs are presented after it.
2. Discuss on the findings and relations to the
theory and objective of experiment.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS (TOTAL: 5%) 1 2 3 4 5
1. Summary of the results to relate the findings or
results with the theory applicable to the
experiment.
6.0 REFERENCES (TOTAL: 5%) 1 2 3 4 5
1. Minimum of 4 references.
TOTAL MARKS
Lab Technical Report
Course code/name
Abstract & Objective(s):
OBJECTIVES
1. Understand about level of measurement in sensory evaluation of food.
2. Assign an order to the samples according to his or her preference.
3. Collect primary data from consumer panelist for decision making.
ABSTRACT
Ranking is an extension of the paired-preference test. Many of the advantages of the paired-
preference test apply to ranking. These include simplicity of instructions to participants, a
minimum amount of effort to conduct, uncomplicated data handling, and minimal assumptions
about level of measurement, as the data are treated as ordinal. Three or more coded samples are
presented simultaneously, sufficient in amount so that the panelist can re-taste the product. The
number of samples tested is dependent upon the panelist’s span of attention and memory as well
as physiological considerations. With untrained or naïve panelists, no more than four to six
samples may be included in a test. The panelist is asked to assign an order to the samples
according to his or her preference.
Methodology:
Using a suitable flowchart, state the steps involve in this lab work.
By using distilled water prepared, rinsed your mouth
before testing each sample.
The sample tested began from left to right
Re-tested as often as you need
Result/ Discussion:
RESULTS
Panelist Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D
1 1 2 4 1
2 4 2 4 3
3 2 1 3 2
Total 7 5 11 6
1) The rank total are compared with the value in rank totals.
2) From the chart for 4 samples and 3 panelist, the value is 6 - 10.
3) Compare the value with the table .
4) The lowest value is 5 and from the table the lowest is 6.
5) The highest value is 11 is higher from the table 10.
6) If one or more rank sums are lower or higher the value (6 - 10), statistical
significance level is indicated.
7) Conclusion: Sample B is significantly sweeter than sample C.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the experiment of ranking test was to understand and study about the level of
measurement on sensory evaluation. Other purposes were to assign an order to the samples
according to the panelist preference and also to collect primary data from consumer panelist for
decision making.
Ranking test known as a non-parametric statistical hypothesis used when comparing two related
samples, matched sample or repeated measurements. Ranking also known as an extension of
paired-preference test. There are many of the benefits and advantages of the paired-preference test
which include the simpleness of the instructions to the panelists, the effort conducted is minimum,
data handling not complicated and also gives minimum assumptions about the level of
measurement. For this experiment, four coded samples be given simultaneously and sufficient in
amount so the panelist can always retaste the sample product given. The panelist have to assign an
order to the samples according to his or her preference. Based on the evaluation form, panelist
have to describe which one of the four sample is the sweetest. The sweetest sample is ranked first,
the second sweetest sample is ranked second, the third sweetest sample is ranked third and the
least sweet sample is ranked fourth. For the first rank which is the sweetest sample, the sample
codes are 389, 940 and 366. For second rank which is the second sweetest sample are 980, 779,
583. Next, the sample codes for third rank are 466, 750, 804. Lastly for fourth rank, the sample
codes are 600, 107 and 724.
The error in this experiment can be reduced by clearing the substance that can impair our sense of
taste by rinsing our mouth using distilled water before tasting each of the food sample. This
experiment must be conducted correctly in order to minimize possible risk of inaccurate data which
lead to inaccurate observation.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in this experiment we had managed to understand about the level of measurement
in sensory evaluation of food. Different persons will give different measurement based on his or
her preference. Besides that, we had also managed to assign an order to the samples according to
each person preference. Based on the primary data that we collected from three consumer panelist,
we can see that the sweetest sweet corn is sample labelled with code 389,940 and 366. This result
is based on each panelist preference.
References :
1) Sensory Evaluation of Food Laboratory Manual
2) ASTM, 1968. Manual on Sensory Tasting Methods, no. 434. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,Pa.
3) Lawless ,H.T, and Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory Evaluation of Food:Principles
and Practices, Chapman & Hall, New York.
4) O’Mahoney, M, “Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods and
Procedures”, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1986.
