Analysis of Smoothie Samples

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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
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. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/nutr1026-food-nutrition-and-public-health/food-authenticity-and-traceability-file-A81F19.html.

"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.

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 10 December 2023].

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 10 December 2023.

My Assignment Help. Analysis Of Smoothie Samples [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 10 December 2023]. 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

Writing Rewriting Editing

Subject/course code

❮ ❯

Pages

250 words

Order description (write/attach)

Attach file

I accept the T&C, agree to receive offers & updates

Have a coupon code?

Analysis Of Smoothie Samples

Other Similar Samples

Pokka Corporation: Singaporeâ€™s No.1 RTD Tea Brand Essay.

Essay: Employment Relations - Past And Present Study" (56 Characters)

Designing A High-Performance Laptop Lid Essay: Material Requirements And Constraints.

Impact Of Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) On Business Operations And Risk Management Essay.

Summary Of Caretel Communications Company Background And Internship Experience

Wells Turbine In Wave Energy Conversion Using Marine Technology And Ocean Engineering

Precautions And Considerations For Administering Medications Via IV Therapy

Effective Lesson Planning And Delivery - Strategies For Teachers

Future Strategic Positioning And SWOT Analysis Of Premier Investments, An Essay.

Investment In Direct And Indirect Securities With Hedge Fund, Essay.