Get Instant Help From 5000+ Experts For
question

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing:Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

And Improve Your Grades
myassignmenthelp.com
loader
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!
Free Quote
wave
Answer:
Methodology

Seven different smoothe samples were prepared using a smoothie base. The smoothie bases were enriched using different quantities of Algal Oil or Algal Emulsion and Water. Thus, seven different samples of control,     oil low, oil high, emul low, emul high, prot low and prot high were prepared. The seven smoothie samples were tested for 11 sensory attributes of appearance, sweetness, fishiness, pungency, rancidity, after taste pungency, after taste rancidity, smoothness, fishy smell, acidity and fresh smell. 12 trained panellists judged the smoothies and assessed and expressed the sensory attributes for absence (1) to extremely (9). The scores of the 11 attributes of the 7 smoothie samples by 12 panellists is analysed for statistically significant differences.

Data Analysis
Taste fishness

To analyse the Fishness taste One-way ANOVA was used.

Table 1: ANOVA

Fishness

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

370.119

6

61.687

12.910

.000

Within Groups

367.917

77

4.778

 

 

Total

738.036

83

 

 

 

To analyse within smoothie fishness taste a one-way ANOVA was conducted at 0.05 level of significance. From the analysis (Table 1) we find that there are statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in Fishness taste F(6,77) = 12.910, p = 0.000.

Table 2: Descriptives

Fishness

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

1.92

1.505

.434

.96

2.87

1

5

Oil Low

12

2.08

1.929

.557

.86

3.31

1

7

Oil High

12

3.83

2.517

.726

2.23

5.43

1

8

Emul Low

12

4.25

3.108

.897

2.28

6.22

1

9

Emul High

12

6.50

2.393

.691

4.98

8.02

2

9

Prot Low

12

2.42

2.065

.596

1.10

3.73

1

6

Prot High

12

7.75

1.215

.351

6.98

8.52

6

9

Total

84

4.11

2.982

.325

3.46

4.75

1

9

The highest fishness taste is when the smoothie had high prot value, mean attribute = 7.75 and lowest fishness taste in control group with mean attribute = 1.92 (Table 2).

Taste pungency

To analyse the Pungency taste in the 7 smoothie samples One-way ANOVA was used at 0.05 level of significance.

Table 3: ANOVA

Pungency

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

36.571

6

6.095

1.133

.352

Within Groups

414.417

77

5.382

 

 

Total

450.988

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the pungency taste (Table 3) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in pungency taste F(6,77) = 1.133, p = 0.352.

Table 4: Descriptives

Pungency

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

3.08

2.021

.583

1.80

4.37

1

8

Oil Low

12

3.33

2.060

.595

2.02

4.64

1

7

Oil High

12

3.17

2.209

.638

1.76

4.57

0

7

Emul Low

12

4.25

2.454

.708

2.69

5.81

1

8

Emul High

12

4.33

2.640

.762

2.66

6.01

1

9

Prot Low

12

3.75

2.221

.641

2.34

5.16

1

9

Prot High

12

5.00

2.558

.739

3.37

6.63

1

9

Total

84

3.85

2.331

.254

3.34

4.35

0

9

From descriptive statistics (Table 4) we find that the maximum pungency is for the smoothie sample containing high prot, with mean attribute = 5.00 and the lowest pungency is for Control Sample, mean attribute = 3.08.   

Taste rancidity

The analysis of taste of rancidity in the seven smoothie samples was done using one-way ANOVA, at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 5: Rancidity

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

35.333

6

5.889

1.677

.138

Within Groups

270.417

77

3.512

 

 

Total

305.750

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the rancidity taste (Table 5) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in pungency taste F(6,77) = 1.677, p = 0.138.

Descriptives

Table 6: Rancidity

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

1.75

1.288

.372

.93

2.57

1

5

Oil Low

12

1.42

1.240

.358

.63

2.20

0

5

Oil High

12

1.83

1.642

.474

.79

2.88

0

5

Emul Low

12

2.75

2.379

.687

1.24

4.26

1

8

Emul High

12

3.17

2.290

.661

1.71

4.62

1

8

Prot Low

12

1.83

1.528

.441

.86

2.80

1

5

Prot High

12

3.00

2.335

.674

1.52

4.48

0

7

Total

84

2.25

1.919

.209

1.83

2.67

0

8

From descriptive statistics (Table 6) we find that the maximum rancidity is for the smoothie sample containing High Emul, with mean attribute = 3.17 and the lowest rancidity is for Oil Low Sample, mean attribute = 1.42.

After eating pungency

Pungency after eating of the seven smoothie samples was done using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 7: After Eating Pungency

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

29.238

6

4.873

.903

.498

Within Groups

415.750

77

5.399

 

 

Total

444.988

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the After Eating Pungency (Table 7) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in pungency taste after eating  F(6,77) = 0.903, p = 0.498.

Descriptives

Table 8: After Eating Pungency

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

2.83

2.038

.588

1.54

4.13

1

7

Oil Low

12

2.58

1.505

.434

1.63

3.54

1

5

Oil High

12

3.75

1.765

.509

2.63

4.87

1

7

Emul Low

12

3.83

2.623

.757

2.17

5.50

1

8

Emul High

12

4.33

3.025

.873

2.41

6.26

1

9

Prot Low

12

3.17

1.899

.548

1.96

4.37

1

7

Prot High

12

3.92

2.937

.848

2.05

5.78

0

9

Total

84

3.49

2.315

.253

2.99

3.99

0

9

From descriptive statistics (Table 8) we find that the maximum after eating pungency taste is for the smoothie sample containing High Emul, with mean attribute = 4.33 and the lowest after eating pungency is for Oil Low Sample, mean attribute = 2.58.

After eating rancidity

After eating rancidity of the seven smoothie samples was done using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 9: After Eating Rancidity

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

33.476

6

5.579

1.589

.162

Within Groups

270.333

77

3.511

 

 

Total

303.810

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the After Eating rancidity (Table 9) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in rancidity taste after eating  F(6,77) = 1.589, p = 0.162.

Descriptives

Table 10: After Eating Rancidity

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

1.75

1.288

.372

.93

2.57

1

5

Oil Low

12

1.75

1.288

.372

.93

2.57

1

5

Oil High

12

2.42

1.929

.557

1.19

3.64

1

6

Emul Low

12

2.67

2.309

.667

1.20

4.13

1

8

Emul High

12

3.08

2.392

.690

1.56

4.60

1

8

Prot Low

12

1.67

1.231

.355

.88

2.45

1

5

Prot High

12

3.33

2.229

.644

1.92

4.75

1

7

Total

84

2.38

1.913

.209

1.97

2.80

1

8

From descriptive statistics (Table 10) we find that the maximum after eating rancidity  taste is for the smoothie sample containing Prot High, with mean attribute = 3.33 and the lowest after eating rancidity is for Prot Low Sample, mean attribute = 1.67.

Appearance

The Apperance of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 11: Appearance

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

20.619

6

3.437

.747

.614

Within Groups

354.333

77

4.602

 

 

Total

374.952

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the Appearance Attribute (Table 11) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in Appearance F(6,77) = 0.747, p = 0.614.

Descriptives

Table 12: Appearance

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

5.83

1.337

.386

4.98

6.68

4

8

Oil Low

12

4.92

2.678

.773

3.21

6.62

0

8

Oil High

12

5.25

1.960

.566

4.00

6.50

0

7

Emul Low

12

4.83

1.850

.534

3.66

6.01

0

7

Emul High

12

4.92

2.353

.679

3.42

6.41

0

8

Prot Low

12

6.00

1.706

.492

4.92

7.08

4

9

Prot High

12

4.58

2.746

.793

2.84

6.33

0

9

Total

84

5.19

2.125

.232

4.73

5.65

0

9

From descriptive statistics (Table 12) we find that appearance has been given mean highest score of 6.00 for the Low Prot sample and lowest score of 4.58 for the Low Prot Sample.

Sweetness

The Smoothness of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 13: Sweetness

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

42.286

6

7.048

1.139

.348

Within Groups

476.417

77

6.187

 

 

Total

518.702

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the sweetness Attribute (Table 13) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in Sweetness F(6,77) = 1.139, p = 0.348.

Descriptives

Table 14: Sweetness

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

3.67

2.309

.667

2.20

5.13

0

7

Oil Low

12

4.42

2.392

.690

2.90

5.94

0

7

Oil High

12

3.08

2.968

.857

1.20

4.97

0

8

Emul Low

12

4.00

3.015

.870

2.08

5.92

0

8

Emul High

12

3.50

2.067

.597

2.19

4.81

0

6

Prot Low

12

3.42

2.429

.701

1.87

4.96

0

6

Prot High

12

2.00

2.045

.590

.70

3.30

0

5

Total

84

3.44

2.500

.273

2.90

3.98

0

8

From descriptive statistics (Table 14) we find that Sweetness has been given mean highest score of 4.42 for the Oil Low sample and lowest score of 2.00 for the Prot High Sample.

Mouth feeling (Smoothness)

The mouth feeling of Smoothness of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 15: Mouth Feeling (Smoothness)

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

1.952

6

.325

.082

.998

Within Groups

306.750

77

3.984

 

 

Total

308.702

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the mouth feeling of sweetness Attribute (Table 15) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in mouth feeling F(6,77) = 0.082, p = 0.998.

Descriptives

Table 16: Mouth Feeling (Smoothness)

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

4.92

1.621

.468

3.89

5.95

2

8

Oil Low

12

4.92

1.929

.557

3.69

6.14

1

8

Oil High

12

4.92

1.676

.484

3.85

5.98

2

9

Emul Low

12

5.00

2.216

.640

3.59

6.41

1

8

Emul High

12

5.33

2.309

.667

3.87

6.80

1

9

Prot Low

12

5.17

1.850

.534

3.99

6.34

1

9

Prot High

12

5.17

2.250

.649

3.74

6.60

1

9

Total

84

5.06

1.929

.210

4.64

5.48

1

9

Hence, we can say that there are no significant differences between Emul High Smoothie, mean attribute score of 5.33 and the Control group and Low and High Oil smoothie samples, mean attribute score = 4.92.

Smell fishy

The Smell fishy characteristic of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 17: Smell Fishy

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

79.476

6

13.246

3.125

.009

Within Groups

326.333

77

4.238

 

 

Total

405.810

83

 

 

 

The analysis of the Fishy Smell Attribute (Table 17) we find that there are statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in Fishy Smell F(6,77) = 3.125, p = 0.009.

Descriptives

Table 18: Smell Fishy

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

1.58

1.165

.336

.84

2.32

1

5

Oil Low

12

1.25

.452

.131

.96

1.54

1

2

Oil High

12

2.42

1.782

.514

1.28

3.55

1

6

Emul Low

12

2.83

2.588

.747

1.19

4.48

1

9

Emul High

12

3.00

2.374

.685

1.49

4.51

1

8

Prot Low

12

1.42

.996

.288

.78

2.05

0

3

Prot High

12

4.17

3.407

.983

2.00

6.33

1

9

Total

84

2.38

2.211

.241

1.90

2.86

0

9

Thus we can say that there are significant differences in Prot High smoothie sample having a mean score = 4.17 and Oil Low Sample, mean score = 1.25.

Taste acidity

The acidity taste of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA


Table 19: Taste Acidity

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

89.071

6

14.845

4.569

.001

Within Groups

250.167

77

3.249

 

 

Total

339.238

83

 

 

 

From the analysis of the Acidity Taste (Table 19) we find that there are statistically significant differences between smoothie samples in acidity taste, F(6,77) = 4.569, p = 0.001.

Descriptives

Table 20: Taste Acidity

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

5.25

1.913

.552

4.03

6.47

1

8

Oil Low

12

3.42

2.021

.583

2.13

4.70

1

6

Oil High

12

4.00

1.758

.508

2.88

5.12

0

6

Emul Low

12

4.75

1.545

.446

3.77

5.73

3

7

Emul High

12

3.42

2.021

.583

2.13

4.70

0

6

Prot Low

12

4.58

1.564

.452

3.59

5.58

1

6

Prot High

12

1.92

1.730

.499

.82

3.02

0

5

Total

84

3.90

2.022

.221

3.47

4.34

0

8

Thus the highest attribute score of 5.25 for the Control Group is significantly different than the lowest attribute score of 1.92 in the Prot High smoothie sample.

Smell fresh

The Smell Fresh characteristic of the seven smoothie samples was analyses using one-way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance.

ANOVA

Table 21: Smell Fresh

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

38.476

6

6.413

1.711

.130

Within Groups

288.667

77

3.749

 

 

Total

327.143

83

 

 

 

The analysis of the Smell Fresh characteristics (Table 21) we find that there are no statistically significant differences between smoothie samples, F(6,77) = 1.711, p = 0.130.

Descriptives

Table 22: Smell Fresh

 

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Control

12

6.33

1.826

.527

5.17

7.49

3

9

Oil Low

12

5.50

1.624

.469

4.47

6.53

2

9

Oil High

12

4.83

1.801

.520

3.69

5.98

3

7

Emul Low

12

5.50

2.236

.645

4.08

6.92

1

8

Emul High

12

5.17

1.992

.575

3.90

6.43

1

7

Prot Low

12

5.67

1.670

.482

4.61

6.73

3

9

Prot High

12

4.00

2.296

.663

2.54

5.46

1

8

Total

84

5.29

1.985

.217

4.85

5.72

1

9

Conclusion

The analysis of the one-way ANOVA of the 7 smoothie samples reveals that there are statistically significant differences in the seven (7) smoothie sample in the attributes of Fishness, Fishy Smell and Acidity taste.

The analysis of the one-way ANOVA also reveals that there are no statistically significant differences in the attributes of Pungency, Rancidity, After Eating Pungency, After Eating Rancidity, Appearance, Sweetness, Mouth Feeling (Smoothness), Smell Fresh.      

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help (2022) Analysis Of Smoothie Samples [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/nutr1026-food-nutrition-and-public-health/food-authenticity-and-traceability-file-A81F19.html
[Accessed 19 March 2024].

My Assignment Help. 'Analysis Of Smoothie Samples' (My Assignment Help, 2022) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/nutr1026-food-nutrition-and-public-health/food-authenticity-and-traceability-file-A81F19.html> accessed 19 March 2024.

My Assignment Help. Analysis Of Smoothie Samples [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 19 March 2024]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/nutr1026-food-nutrition-and-public-health/food-authenticity-and-traceability-file-A81F19.html.

Get instant help from 5000+ experts for
question

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing: Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

loader
250 words
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Plagiarism checker
Verify originality of an essay
essay
Generate unique essays in a jiffy
Plagiarism checker
Cite sources with ease
support
Whatsapp
callback
sales
sales chat
Whatsapp
callback
sales chat
close