Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review

November 2025, Volume 1, Issue II. doi: 10.65287/josta.202510.B068 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review Gaatha Prasad Kerala Agricultural University Manju Mary Paul* Kerala Agricultural University Pratheesh P Gopinath Kerala Agricultural University Krishnasree V Kerala Agricultural University Gopika Somanath Kerala Agricultural University Abstract Research in the fields of postharvest technology and food and nutrition are rapidly advancing with sensory experiments playing a major role in assessing consumer preference. Understanding various design and analysis approaches for conducting sensory experiments is crucial for obtaining meaningful results. This article provides a comprehensive review on evaluation methods, such as discrimination, affective, descriptive and quality tests; experimental designs, such as Completely Randomised Design, Randomised Complete Block Design, Balanced Incomplete Block Design, Factorial experiments, Williams Latin Square Design, and Response Surface Methodology (Central Composite Design, Box Behnken Design, Plackett-Burman Design), analysis techniques such as T-test, Analysis of Variance, Principal Component Analysis, and other non-parametric tests, along with different software packages used in sensory researches. It highlights the importance of selecting appropriate design and analysis methods based on study objectives and data characteristics with practical examples. Keywords: Experimental Designs, Statistical Analysis, Sensory Experiments, RSM. 2Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review 1. Introduction Every step taken towards reduction in postharvest loss has a direct relation to nutritional and sensory quality (Ziv and Fallik 2021). Sensory quality plays an important role in consumer acceptance of a product or produce. Sensory evaluation is an information-gathering process and a multidisciplinary science, including food science, psychology, statistics, and home economics, which measures, analyses, and interprets humans’ behavioural responses to different products based on the five senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. This helps in understanding consumer preferences (Sharif and Ahmed 2017;Stone et al. 2020;Yu et al. 2018). Sensory experiments are controlled scientific studies conducted to understand sensory preferences by human panels. This article covers the different experimental designs, analysis methods, and software packages used in sensory studies, whose understanding helps in conducting proper sensory analysis. In order to conduct a sensory experiment, an objective should be formulated. Depending on the objectives there are different methods for sensory evaluation such as affective test, discrimination test, descriptive test and quality test. Different situations in which the tests can be adopted has been shown below in Table 1. Test What can be studied Measures that can be used Affective tests Subjective attitudes, such as product acceptance and preference nine-point hedonic scale (Moskowitz and Sidel 1971) Discrimination test Whether samples are detectably different from one another Duo-Trio and Triangular method (Bi 2015) Descriptive tests Sensory properties of products: perceived intensity of those properties (Lawless and Heymann 2010) Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA): attributes are quantified using numerical scales Sensory profiling: textural or flavour characteristics are described using words or intensity scales (Lawless and Heymann 2010; Risvik et al. 1994)Free Choice Profiling (FCP): panelists can use their own words or use predefined words, but they have to use their words consistently throughout the experiment (Punter 2018) Quality tests product’s proximity to a standard Projective maps: panelists would arrange products on a paper based on the products’ similarities or dissimilarities (Risvik et al. 1994) Table 1: Situations where different tests are used Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 3 Since human panels are involved, there are chances of occurrence of several errors. Designing of experiments is important for the proper conduct of these tests. It is a critically important tool for improving the product realisation process. Design provides structure and ease for carrying out experiments and provides useful outcomes (Montgomery 2017;Ruiz-Capillas and Herrero 2021;Ruiz-Capillas et al. 2021). The use of the right statistical design and analysis procedure is very much essential for proper product development. A comprehensive review of the existing designs and their applications, various tests that can be adopted, as well as different software available for various tests, has been done in this paper. This will be useful for researchers working in the area of sensory experiments with less statistical background. 2. Designs And Approaches in Sensory Experiments In design of experiments, the objects of comparison such as the combination of ingredients or the conditions suitable for the development of a particular product, are termed as Treatments. Experimental units are the subjects or objects on which treatments are applied. In case of sensory experiments, the evaluators or the samples used for the sensory evaluation can be the experimental unit depending on the objective. Evaluators can also be called as panelists. The outcomes observed as a result of the treatment is termed as responses. Responses are also known as the dependent factors, since it is dependent on the independent factors, whose influence on a response variable is being studied in the experiment. For example, consider the study on the effect of poppy, sucrose, and citric acid on the taste, smell, colour, and general acceptance of a Turkish sherbet, as carried out by Aydoğdu et al. (2023), where poppy, sucrose, and citric acid levels were the independent variables. The taste, smell, colour, and general acceptance were the dependent variables. While designing an experiment, three basic principles are to be followed, viz. randomization, replication, and local control (blocking). Randomization ensures equal chances for each experimental unit to receive each treatment. Replication is the repetition of treatments to obtain more accurate results. In sensory experiments, blocks could be panelists or sessions (Das and Giri 1986;Gacula 2008;Jankovic et al. 2021;Lawless and Heymann 2010;Montgomery 2017). The number of panelists is decided based on the extent of training. If the panelists are trained, only five to ten panelists would be required; 25 panelists are needed if they are semi-trained, and at least 100 panelists are required if they are untrained. Different designs are available, and one can choose their design based on the objective of the experiment (of Indian Standards et al. 1971). Through this paper, we intend to discuss various designs for sensory experiments and product formulation, as well as different analysis procedures to be adopted on the data generated. 2.1. Paired comparison design If the objective of the experiment is to identify the effect of flavouring on liking, or to identify a preferred product between two products, paired comparison designs are used. Here, the panelists are provided with two samples, and since the evaluation is being done by the same panelists, the scores will be correlated (Gacula 2008). The null hypothesis would be that the two samples have the same effect. The objective is to select the better formulation. 4Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review 2.2. Group comparison design For the comparison of two formulations based on a standard, group comparison designs are used. There must only be a small variation in scores among panelists and fairly homogeneous experimental units for the design to give better results (Gacula 2008). The null hypothesis would be that both of the formulations are similar to the standard. The objective is to identify the one which is more similar to the standard in terms of liking. 2.3. Completely Randomised Design (CRD) When the comparison is among more than two formulations or combinations or characteristics, such as the effects of flavouring on liking, Completely Randomised Designs (CRD) are used. In CRD, treatments can be equally or unequally replicated and the experimental units are expected to be homogenous. The total number of samples would be the number of treatments × replication, and each sample would be given to the panelists (Lawless and Heymann 2010). More and Chavan (2019) had three treatments, five replications, and the total number of samples were 15. Five trained panelists evaluated all of the samples to analyse the effect of red pumpkin powder on burfi (sweet dish). The levels of red pumpkin powder were varied as 15 percent, 17 percent, and 19 percent, keeping condensed milk solids and sugar levels constant. Usually, in CRD, sensory fatigue occurs in panelists when samples are tasted continuously. To avoid that, Monadic designs are often associated with CRD. In monadic designs, panelists are divided into groups, and each group is given one treatment. In sequential monadic designs, each panellist is given all the treatments but not the replications. Monadic designs are better when the number of panelists is large (Lawless and Heymann 2010). Fatoretto et al. (2018) conducted a sequential monadic experiment and gave two samples each of dehydrated Italian and grape tomatoes to each panellist. A total of 100 samples were made for 50 panelists. Other experiments that employed CRD include (Baclayon et al. 2020;Suryani and Norhasanah 2016). 2.4. Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) For the same objective of comparison among more than two formulations, but with blocking, Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) can be used. Blocks could be panelists or sessions. In RCBD, every treatment must be equally replicated. In sensory experiments, with panellist as a block, all the treatments will be given in a randomised order to a panellist and then, after a small break, all treatments are given again in some other order. The number of times this process is repeated will be the number of replications. Similarly, the treatments are given to all the other blocks (Silva et al. 2014). If session is a block, each panellist will be attending each session and testing each of the samples. Sessions could be divided into periods such that each treatment appears only once in each session. The total number of sessions will be the number of replications of each treatment (Chambers et al. 1981). 2.5. Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) When the number of treatments to be evaluated becomes larger, Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) is used. A BIBD is an arrangement of v treatments in b blocks such that there Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 5 will be k(<v) treatments in each block, each treatment will be repeated r times and every pair of treatments will be appearing together in �(lambda) blocks. Here, any two blocks will have the same number of treatments, but the combinations can differ. These combinations should be arranged in such a manner that any two pairs occur the same number of times as any other pair. For example, Silva et al. (2014) employed BIBD to compare five grape juices made from different pulp concentrations for six attributes such as violet colour, grape aroma, sweetness, sourness, grape flavour, and mouthfeel. In a block, only three treatments (juices of different pulp concentrations) were taken, and there were ten blocks (sessions). Similarly, Hinneh et al. (2020) employed BIBD for sensory profiling of chocolate in their experiment. Ten attributes; cocoa, acidity, astringency, bitterness, nuttiness, woodiness, floral, fresh fruit, browned fruit and spiciness were tested. The basic design had 16 chocolates (treatments) and 16 sessions, and in each session six chocolates were test. In BIBD, the number of sessions should at least equal the number of treatments. 2.6. Resolvable multisession sensory design Saurav et al. (2017) developed this design specifically, to avoid carryover effect and reduce sensory fatigue. If there are v products to be tested, and ‘v’ is a prime number or prime power this design can be used. Here the number of panelists will also be ‘v’. ‘v’ can be denoted as v= 4t+1, 6t+1, or 4t+3, where ‘t’ is the number of sessions. Sessions are divided into periods such that total number of periods should be v-1 and each period should contain all the products. Order of products in each period is randomised such that a panellist should not be testing a single product more than once. After v-1 periods, each panellist will be testing v-1 products. This design is resolvable since in all the sessions each treatment is repeated the same number of times. 2.7. Latin Square Design (LSD) Wakeling and MacFie (1995) detailed the use of Latin squares (Williams 1949) in sensory experiments. They specified the number of consumers needed for testing a given number of products. The all-possible-combination approach and designs based on Mutually Orthogonal Latin Squares (MOLS) were also discussed. Rodrigues et al. (2017) employed a special type of Latin square, known as the Sudoku design, in their experiment. The experiment tested 16 treatments (15 different samples and one repeat sample). A series of eight Sudoku designs were used four randomized independently and four others in the reverse order giving a 16 × 16 design. Sixteen panelists were assigned to test the 16 samples in random orders. The experiment had eight replications with different panelists, resulting in a total of 128 panelists. Here, the experimental unit was a particular order of 16 samples. Saurav et al. (2017) detailed the applications of Williams Latin Square Design (LSD), which is popular in sensory trials due to the minimization of carryover effects. As in CRD, samples can also be presented monadically within Williams LSD (Depetris Chauvin et al. 2024;Nandorfy et al. 2023). 2.8. Factorial experiments When different levels of different factors are studied, factorial experiments are used. In full factorial experiments, in each replication, all possible combinations of all factors are 6Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review investigated. If there are k factors with n levels, the total number of trials will be nk(Das and Giri 1986). Arpi and Others (2023) conducted a 2×3 factorial experiment in CRD, where one factor (concentration of cascara extract) was at two levels (20% and 25%) and the other factor (concentration of lemon extract) was at three levels (0%, 3%, and 5%). Six treatment combinations were there with three replications each. A total of 18 samples were made, and each panellist tested all these samples. Full factorial experiments result in higher costs as the number of factors and levels increases (Jankovic et al. 2021). 2.9. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) RSM is a collection of statistical and mathematical techniques used for developing new products, improving existing products, and optimising production processes. Optimisation techniques are used for the estimation of interactions among the independent variables and their quadratic effects on response variables. Optimisation experiments could be mixture experiments or non-mixture experiments, based on the independent and response variables. In a mixture experiment, the response variable is dependent on the proportions of the independent variables. When the level of one of the ingredients changes, the levels of the others will also change accordingly so that the total proportion equals 1. In non-mixture experiments, changing the level of one of the ingredients does not affect the levels of the others (Gacula 2008). Most practical applications of RSM involve more than one response (Myers et al. 2016). 2.10. Response surface designs Factor–response relationship is known as the response surface. To obtain optimum results, the treatment combinations should be carefully chosen. Designs used for statistical modelling of the optimisation of a product or process are called response surface designs. The commonly used designs are Central Composite Design (CCD), Box–Behnken Design (BBD), and Plackett–Burman Design (PBD) (Gacula 2008). Plackett-Burman Design This design is popular as it allows the screening of main factors from a large number of variables that can be retained in the further optimisation process (Siala et al. 2012). It allows two levels for each control variable, similar to a two-level factorial model, and requires a much smaller number of experimental runs, making it more economical (Khuri and Mukhopadhyay 2010). Boateng and Yang (2021), in their experiment, used PBD for screening important factors affecting infrared drying. Central Composite Design CCD has an embedded factorial design and is preferred over 3kfactorial to model a quadratic relationship because it requires fewer assays to achieve better modelling. Along with the experimental points of the factorial design, CCD considers additional points known as star points or axial points and centre points. However, a CCD includes extreme points, which is not advisable for special processes such as extraction of a compound sensitive to high temperature and pressure (Gacula 2008;Myers et al. 2016). The total number of trials for Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 7 the design is F + 2v + nc, where F is the number of factorial points, v is the number of factors, and ncis the number of centre points. In their study, Nahemiah (2016) considered three factors at two levels, and axial and centre points were included to obtain values at five levels. The number of factorial points was 8, and one centre point was used; hence, the number of trials was 8 + 6 + 1 = 15. In this case, the axial level, 𝛼=(2𝑛−1)1 𝑛=1.68; where n is 3, the number of factors considered in the experiment. The axial point is calculated as: Centre ± [𝛼× (High level − Low level) / 2]. In their study, the centre point was replicated five times, and all other runs were replicated twice. Van Linh et al. (2019) presented a 22 factorial CCD design with 13 runs, while Anisa et al. (2017) demonstrated a face-centred CCD design. Box Behnken Design In Box–Behnken Design (BBD), only three levels are needed for each factor. It considers face points rather than axial points, as in CCD. The number of design points increases with the number of factors; hence, the number of factors for product formulation is usually limited to four when this design is used (Gacula 2008). Applying this design is popular in food processes due to its economical nature (Yolmeh and Jafari 2017). The number of trials for BBD is given by the formula N = 2v(v − 1) + nc, where v is the number of factors and ncis the number of centre points. In their study, Li et al. (2024) developed a three level three factor design, with N= 2*3(3-1) + nc= 12+nc, to improve the tensile properties, colour, and sensory quality of bran-yogurt stewing noodles. Design Expert software was used to generate the design. Here the centre point was replicated five times, resulting in a total of 17 trials. 3. Analysis of Sensory Data The common techniques used in the analysis of sensory data are discussed below. The selection of an analysis method depends on the type of data generated and the objective of the study. In CRD, RCBD, BIBD, Williams LSD, and resolvable multisession sensory designs, the experiment should generate numerical data (interval or ratio scale) (Bower 2013). In comparison designs, the data generated can be numerical (scores) or ordinal (data from different scales). Yu et al. (2018) comprehensively reviewed the application of regression analysis in sensory data. Some other common analyses followed are discussed in this paper. 3.1. Paired t test For paired and group comparison design, for significance testing, a t test can be used for analysis of the data obtained. Most preferred t test is a paired t test. It is used in situations where each panelists evaluate both the product. Let X1i be the response for first formulation by ith panellist and X2i be the response for the second formulation by the same panellist, X1i – X2i = di. diis the observed difference. It is assumed that d is distributed normally with mean  𝑑and variance �2, Test statistic is: 𝑡(𝑛−1) = 𝑑 𝜎/√𝑛(1) 8Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review Where, 𝑠𝑑=√∑𝑛 𝑖=1(𝑑𝑖− 𝑑)2 𝑛−1 . Since the null hypothesis is H0: µ1= µ2; µ = µ1µ2=0. µ1 is the mean score of first product and µ2is the mean score of second product.If the t-value is greater than the critical value from the t-distribution table, the difference is considered significant (Gacula 2008). Other variations of t-tests include the single-sample test, where a product is evaluated by panelists based on a control, and the independent t-test, where two products are evaluated by two different groups of panelists (Lawless and Heymann 2010). Rao et al. (2024), in their comparative study on guava juices, used a t-test. 3.2. Mann-Whitney U test When the data generated are scores or ranks (ordinal data), instead of t test, its nonparametric counterpart, Mann-Whitney U test is used. Consider two samples a and b with naand nbnumber of scores. The scores would then be combined and ranked. Then the rank scores will be divided by groups to find Taand Tb, sums of rank scores of a and b respectively. 𝑈𝑎=𝑇𝑎−𝑛𝑎(𝑛𝑎+1) 2(2) 𝑈𝑏=𝑇𝑏−𝑛𝑏(𝑛𝑏+1) 2(3) U is the minimum of Uaand Ub. If the value is greater than the critical value from the Mann–Whitney table, there is a significant difference (MacFarland and Yates 2016). 3.3. Chi square test Chi-square tests are used in the case of difference tests or discrimination tests (Nominal data) (Boggs and Hanson 1949). 𝜒2=(𝑎−𝑟𝑏)2 𝑟(𝑎−𝑏) (4) where Oij and Eij are the observed and expected frequencies respectively. 3.4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) For designs with more than two treatments, and the data generated are normally distributed, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) can be conducted. A normality test is recommended before proceeding with ANOVA. In ANOVA the total variation in the observed data is partitioned into different sources. Number of sources in ANOVA is dependent on the designs used. For example, in CRD the source of variation is from treatments, so one-way ANOVA is performed. And if RCBD is used, two-way ANOVA is performed where block effect is also accounted for. From ANOVA, F ratio statistic is obtained and if found significant, indicates that at least one treatment mean is significantly different from one or more treatments in the experiment. To identify the treatments that are similar, pairwise comparisons can be carried out using Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 9 multiple comparison procedures. Least Significant Difference (LSD) test, Tukey’s test, and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) are some of the common multiple comparison tests used (Gacula 2013;Agbangba et al. 2024). Least Significant Difference LSD allows for a direct comparison of two means from two different groups by calculating the smallest significance as if a test had been run on those two means. Any difference between the means greater than the LSD is considered statistically significant. If t is the critical value from the �-distribution table, MSE is the mean square error obtained from the results of the ANOVA test, and niand njare the number of scores used to calculate the means: 𝐿𝑆𝐷=𝑡(𝛼/2,𝑑𝑓)×√𝑀𝑆𝐸×(1 𝑛𝑖+1 𝑛𝑗)(5) µiand µjare the mean scores of the two groups. dij =|µiµj|, will be calculated and when dij> LSD, significance will be declared (Gacula 2013). Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) It is more useful than LSD when there are more number of pairs to be compared. 𝑇=𝑞(𝛼/2,𝑑𝑓,𝑑𝑠)×√𝑀𝑆𝐸×(1 𝑛𝑖+1 𝑛𝑗)(6) T is the lowest significant difference, q is the critical value from the q distribution table, niand njare the number of scores used to calculate the means, r is the range, or the number of means being compared, df is the error degrees of freedom and MSE is the mean square error obtained from the results of the ANOVA test. Here the sample mean will be arranged in ascending order to find the degrees of separation and T values will be calculated. If difference of mean pairs is greater than T, significant difference will be declared. As the range r increases, the critical value q and, consequently, the T value also increase. This means that, comparisons between means that are farther apart require a larger difference to be considered significant. Therefore, the values of T in DMRT differ for each range, with smaller T values for adjacent means and larger ones for more widely separated means, making the test stepwise and more precise in identifying significant differences among treatments(Gacula 2013). Tukey’s test Tukey’s test is designed for equal variance and group size. The critical difference to be exceeded is called the Honestly Significant Difference (HSD). If µiand µjare the means to be compared and n is the number of scores used for calculating mean 𝐻𝑆𝐷= (𝜇𝑖−𝜇𝑗) √𝑀𝑆𝐸/𝑛 (7) 16 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review 4. Conclusion Designs are adopted based on the objective of the sensory experiments. If the objective is comparison between two products, paired comparison or group comparison designs could be used. If there are more than two combinations of ingredients and one has to choose the best combination, CRD or RCBD could be used. When the number of treatments is larger, BIBD can be used. When different factors are varied in different levels to make various combinations, factorial experiments are conducted. Response surface designs are used for product optimisation. Response surface graphs helps in understanding the effects of variables on responses much easily. For pairwise and groupwise comparison designs, a t test or Mann Whitney U test can be performed for analysis. For designs with more than two treatments ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis test can be used. For analysis of nominal data chi square test or Thurstonian models are used. Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 17 References Agbangba CE, Sacla Aide E, Honfo H, Glèlè Kakai R (2024). “On the use of post-hoc tests in environmental and biological sciences: A critical review.” Heliyon,10(3). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25131. Agresti A (2010). Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Anisa A, Solomon WK, Solomon A (2017). “Optimization of roasting time and temperature for brewed hararghe coffee (Coffea Arabica L.) using central composite design.” International Food Research Journal,24(6). Annor GA, Sakyi-Dawson E, Saalia F, Sefa-Dedeh S, Afoakwa EO, Tano-Debrah K, Budu AS (2009). “Response surface methodology for studying the quality characteristics of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)-based tempeh.” Journal of Food Process Engineering.doi:10.1111/ j.1745-4530.2008.00292.x. Arpi S, Others (2023). “Physicochemical Properties and Quality Evaluation of Selected Food Samples.” Journal of Food Science and Technology,58, 102–110. Aydoğdu B�, Tokatlı Demirok N, Yıkmış S (2023). “Modeling of Sensory Properties of Poppy Sherbet by Turkish Consumers and Changes in Quality Properties during Storage Process.” Foods,12(16). doi:10.3390/foods12163114. Baclayon L, Cerna J, Cimafranca L (2020). “Sensory quality of custard tart as affected by varying levels of Mabolo (Dispyros blancoi A. DC) Flesh.” Annals of Tropical Research. doi:10.32945/atr4227.2020. Bastogne T (2017). “Quality-by-design of nanopharmaceuticals – a state of the art.” Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine,13(7). doi:10.1016/j.nano. 2017.05.014. Batali ME, Frost SC, Lebrilla CB, Ristenpart WD, Guinard JX (2020). “Sensory and monosaccharide analysis of drip brew coffee fractions versus brewing time.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,100(7). doi:10.1002/jsfa.10323. Bi J (2015). Sensory discrimination tests and measurements: Sensometrics in sensory evaluation. John Wiley & Sons. Bi J, Kuesten C (2024). “Thurstonian Models for the Duo‐Trio and Its Variants.” Journal of Sensory Studies,39(5), e12949. Boateng ID, Yang XM (2021). “Process optimization of intermediate-wave infrared drying: Screening by Plackett–Burman; comparison of Box-Behnken and central composite design and evaluation: A case study.” Industrial Crops and Products,162.doi:10.1016/j. indcrop.2021.113287. Boggs MM, Hanson HL (1949). “Analysis of foods by sensory difference tests.” In Advances in Food Research, volume 2, pp. 219–258. Academic Press. 18 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review Bokić J, Kojić J, Krulj J, Pezo L, Banjac V, Škrobot D, Bodroža-Solarov M (2022). “Development of a novel rice-based snack enriched with chicory root: physicochemical and sensory properties.” Foods,11(16), 2393. Bower JA (2013). Statistical Methods for Food Science: Introductory Procedures for the Food Practitioner. John Wiley & Sons. Chambers E, Bowers JA, Dayton AD (1981). “Statistical Designs and Panel Training/Experience for Sensory Analysis.” Journal of Food Science,46(6). doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2621.1981.tb04515.x. Chan Yt, Tan MC, Chin NL (2019). “Application of Box-Behnken design in optimization of ultrasound effect on apple pectin as sugar replacer.” LWT,115.doi:10.1016/j.lwt. 2019.108449. Christensen RHB, Brockhoff PB (2009). “Estimation and inference in the same-different test.” Food Quality and Preference,20(7). doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.05.005. Civille GV, Oftedal KN (2012). “Sensory evaluation techniques – Make “good for you” taste “good”.” Physiology and Behavior,107(4). doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.015. Das MN, Giri NC (1986). Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley East Ltd., New Jersey. Depetris Chauvin N, Valentin D, Behrens JH, Rodrigues H (2024). “Country-of-Origin as bias inducer in experts’ wine judgments – A sensory experiment in a world wine fair.” International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science,35.doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2024. 100883. Fatoretto MB, de Lara IAR, Loro AC, Spoto MHF (2018). “Sensory evaluation of dehydrated tomatoes using the proportional odds mixed model.” Journal of Food Processing and Preservation,42(11). doi:10.1111/jfpp.13822. Gacula MCJ (2008). Design and Analysis of Sensory Optimization. John Wiley & Sons. Gacula MCJ (2013). Statistical Methods in Food and Consumer Research. Elsevier. Gao L, Shi B, Zhao L, Wang H, Xiang Y, Zhong K (2024). “Aroma Characteristics of Green Huajiao in Sichuan and Chongqing Area Using Sensory Analysis Combined with GC-MS.” Foods,13(6). doi:10.3390/foods13060836. Greenhoff K, MacFie HJH (1994). Preference Mapping in Practice. Chapman and Hall, London. Hasanah N, Musi NA (2024). “Sensory Properties of Yogurt Dairy and Yogurt Goat’s with Added Edamame.” International Journal of Technology, Food and Agriculture,1(1). doi: 10.25047/tefa.v1i1.4560. Hinneh M, Abotsi EE, Van de Walle D, Tzompa-Sosa DA, De Winne A, Simonis J, Dewettinck K (2020). “Pod storage with roasting: A tool to diversifying the flavor profiles of dark chocolates produced from ‘bulk’ cocoa beans? (Part II: Quality and sensory profiling of chocolates).” Food Research International,132, 109116. Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 19 Hong X, Li C, Wang L, Wang M, Grasso S, Monahan FJ (2023). “Consumer Preferences for Processed Meat Reformulation Strategies: A Prototype for Sensory Evaluation Combined with a Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment.” Agriculture (Switzerland),13(2). doi:10. 3390/agriculture13020234. Hussein A, Ibrahim G, Kamil M, El-Shamarka M, Mostafa S, Mohamed D (2021). “Spirulinaenriched pasta as functional food rich in protein and antioxidant.” Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry,11(6). doi:10.33263/BRIAC116.1473614750. Jankovic A, Chaudhary G, Goia F (2021). “Designing the design of experiments (DOE) – An investigation on the influence of different factorial designs on the characterization of complex systems.” Energy and Buildings,250.doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111298. Khemacheevakul K, Wolodko J, Nguyen H, Wismer W (2021). “Temporal sensory perceptions of sugar-reduced 3D printed chocolates.” Foods,10(9). doi:10.3390/foods10092082. Khuri AI, Mukhopadhyay S (2010). “Response surface methodology.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics,2(2). doi:10.1002/wics.73. Koh WY, Matanjun P, Lim XX, Kobun R (2022). “Sensory, Physicochemical, and Cooking Qualities of Instant Noodles Incorporated with Red Seaweed (Eucheuma denticulatum).” Foods,11(17). doi:10.3390/foods11172669. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952). “Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis.” Journal of the American Statistical Association,47(260). doi:10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441. Kuznetsova A, Christensen RHB, Bavay C, Brockhoff PB (2015). “Automated mixed ANOVA modeling of sensory and consumer data.” Food Quality and Preference,40, 31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.004. Lawless HT, Heymann H (2010). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Springer Science & Business Media. Lee HS, O’Mahony M (2004). “Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models.” Food Science and Biotechnology,13(6). Li Y, Yao G, Shen W, Wang Z, Guo C, Jia X (2024). “Optimizing the quality of bran-fortified stewing noodles using extruded wheat bran and improvers.” Italian Journal of Food Science / Rivista Italiana di Scienza degli Alimenti,36(2). MacFarland TW, Yates JM (2016). Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics for the Biological Sciences Using R. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30634-6. Michell KA, Isweiri H, Newman SE, Bunning M, Bellows LL, Dinges MM, Grabos LE, Rao S, Foster MT, Heuberger AL, Prenni JE, Thompson HJ, Uchanski ME, Weir TL, Johnson SA (2020). “Microgreens: Consumer sensory perception and acceptance of an emerging functional food crop.” Journal of Food Science,85(4). doi:10.1111/1750-3841.15075. Mongi RJ, Gomezulu AD (2022). “Descriptive sensory analysis, consumer acceptability, and conjoint analysis of beef sausages prepared from a pigeon pea protein binder.” Heliyon, 8(9). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10703. 20 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review Montgomery DC (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons. More KD, Chavan KD (2019). “Sensory quality of red pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) Burfi.” IJCS,7(5), 1323–1326. Moskowitz HR, Sidel JL (1971). “Magnitude and Hedonic Scales of Food Acceptability.” Journal of Food Science,36(4). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1971.tb15160.x. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016). Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. John Wiley & Sons. Nahemiah D (2016). “Application of Response Surface Methodology (RSM) for the Production and Optimization of Extruded Instant Porridge from Broken Rice Fractions Blended with Cowpea.” International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences,5(2). doi: 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160502.13. Nandorfy DE, Likos D, Lewin S, Barter S, Kassara S, Wang S, Kulcsar A, Williamson P, Bindon K, Bekker M, Gledhill J, Siebert T, Shellie RA, Keast R, Francis L (2023). “Enhancing the sensory properties and consumer acceptance of warm climate red wine through blending.” Oeno One,57(4). doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2023.57.3.7651. Nwabueze TU (2010). “Basic steps in adapting response surface methodology as mathematical modelling for bioprocess optimisation in the food systems.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology,45(9). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02256.x. Næs T, Tomic O, Endrizzi I, Varela P (2021). “Principal components analysis of descriptive sensory data: Reflections, challenges, and suggestions.” Journal of Sensory Studies,36(5). doi:10.1111/joss.12692. Oduro AF, Saalia FK, Adjei MYB (2021). “Sensory acceptability and proximate composition of 3-blend plant-based dairy alternatives.” Foods,10(3). doi:10.3390/foods10030482. of Indian Standards B, Pitroda SG, Nehru J, Sangathan MKS, Bhartṛhari (1971). “IS 383 (1970): Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete.” Specification, Vol. Ninth (Second). (Original work published 1970), URL https: //law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.383.1970.pdf. Orden D, Fernández-Fernández E, Rodríguez-Nogales JM, Vila-Crespo J (2019). “Testing SensoGraph, a geometric approach for fast sensory evaluation.” Food Quality and Preference, 72.doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.005. Pagès J, Husson F (2014). “Multiple factor analysis: Presentation of the method using sensory data.” In Mathematical and Statistical Methods in Food Science and Technology, pp. 87–102. John Wiley & Sons. Pereira DG, Afonso A, Medeiros FM (2015). “Overview of Friedman’s test and post-hoc analysis.” Communications in Statistics–Simulation and Computation,44(10), 2636–2653. Punter P (2018). Consumer Testing Methods: Applications in Sensory and Consumer Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 21 Putra IGAM, Maharani PT, Yusuf FM, Kirana MKP, Abilita SAPS, Saputra IWMA (2024). “Sensory Evaluation and Physical Characteristics of Ice Cream with The Comparison of Soy Whey and Moringa Leaves Puree.” SEAS (Sustainable Environment Agricultural Science), 8(1), 52–59. Rao BG, Kavyashree U, Shilpa SS, Kirti S (2024). “Comparative study NFC and RFC on nutritional and sensory profile of guava juices.” Journal of Food, Nutrition and Diet Science, pp. 41–50. Risvik E, McEwan JA, Colwill JS, Rogers R, Lyon DH (1994). “Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research.” Food Quality and Preference,5(4). doi: 10.1016/0950-3293(94)90051-5. Rodrigues JF, da Silveira APL, Bueno Filho JSdS, Souza VRd, da Silva ABV, Pinheiro ACM (2017). “Order and session size effects on treatment discrimination: Case study liking for Dulce de Leche.” Food Research International,102.doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09. 019. Ruiz-Capillas C, Herrero AM (2021). “Sensory analysis and consumer research in new product development.” Foods,10(3). doi:10.3390/foods10030582. Ruiz-Capillas C, Herrero AM, Pintado T, Delgado-Pando G (2021). “Sensory analysis and consumer research in new meat products development.” Foods,10(2). doi: 10.3390/foods10020429. Rytz A, Moser M, Lepage M, Mokdad C, Perrot M, Antille N, Pineau N (2017). “Using fractional factorial designs with mixture constraints to improve nutritional value and sensory properties of processed food.” Food Quality and Preference,58.doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.004. Saurav S, Varghese C, Varghese E, Jaggi S (2017). “Designs for sensory trials involving foods of animal origin.” The Pharma Innovation Journal,7(11), 405–408. URL https: //www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/?year=2018&vol=7&issue=11&ArticleId=2751. Semjon B, Marcinčáková D, Koréneková B, Bartkovský M, Nagy J, Turek P, Marcinčák S (2020). “Multiple factorial analysis of physicochemical and organoleptic properties of breast and thigh meat of broilers fed a diet supplemented with humic substances.” Poultry Science, 99(3). doi:10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.012. Ser G (2019). “Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Evaluation of Sensory Characteristic Data of Lamb Meat.” Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology,7(6). doi:10.24925/turjaf.v7i6.840-844.2214. Sharif A, Ahmed M (2017). Sensory Evaluation and Food Quality: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. Springer, Cham. Siala R, Frikha F, Mhamdi S, Nasri M, Sellami Kamoun A (2012). “Optimization of acid protease production by Aspergillus niger I1 on shrimp peptone using statistical experimental design.” The Scientific World Journal,2012(1), 564932. Siegel S, Castellan NJJ (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill. 22 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review Silva RdCdSNd, Minim VPR, Silva ANd, Simiqueli AA, della Lucia SM, Minim LA (2014). “Balanced incomplete block design: An alternative for data collection in the optimized descriptive profile.” Food Research International,64.doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06. 042. Song H, Moon EW, Ha JH (2021). “Application of response surface methodology based on a Box-Behnken design to determine optimal parameters to produce brined cabbage used in Kimchi.” Foods,10(8). doi:10.3390/foods10081935. Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (2020). Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press. Suryani N, Norhasanah (2016). “Study of sensory characteristics and nutrient content of catfish and tempeh-based drumstick as an alternative food for children with autism.” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition,15(1). doi:10.3923/pjn.2016.66.71. Symoneaux R, Chollet S, Patron C, Bauduin R, Le Quéré JM, Baron A (2015). “Prediction of sensory characteristics of cider according to their biochemical composition: Use of a central composite design and external validation by cider professionals.” LWT,61(1). doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.030. Valentin D, Chollet S, Lelièvre M, Abdi H (2012). “Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology,47(8), 1563–1578. Van Linh NT, Ngoc Mai VT, Yen Nhi TT, Lam TD (2019). “Interactions of Xanthan Gum and Carboxymethyl Cellulose on Physical and Sensory of Cloudy Asparagus Juice using Response Surface Methodology.” Asian Journal of Chemistry,31(10). doi:10.14233/ ajchem.2019.22146. Varela C, Bartel C, Espinase Nandorfy D, Bilogrevic E, Tran T, Heinrich A, Balzan T, Bindon K, Borneman A (2021). “Volatile aroma composition and sensory profile of Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon wines produced with novel Metschnikowia pulcherrima yeast starter cultures.” Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research,27(3). doi:10.1111/ajgw. 12484. Wakeling IN, MacFie HJ (1995). “Designing consumer trials balanced for first and higher orders of carry-over effect when only a subset of k samples from t may be tested.” Food Quality and Preference,6(4), 299–308. Williams EJ (1949). “Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments.” Australian Journal of Chemistry,2(2), 149–168. Yadav A, Rai D, Rathaur A (2024). “Process optimization for the development of ashwagandha root extract enriched shrikhand using response surface methodology.” Journal of Food Chemistry and Nanotechnology,10(S1), S47–S56. Yang A, Zhang Z, Jiang K, Xu K, Meng F, Wu W, Wang B (2024). “Study on ultrasoundassisted extraction of cold brew coffee using physicochemical, flavor, and sensory evaluation.” Food Bioscience,61, 104455. Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 23 Yolmeh M, Jafari SM (2017). “Applications of Response Surface Methodology in the Food Industry Processes.” Food and Bioprocess Technology,10(3). doi:10.1007/s11947-0161855-2. Yu P, Low MY, Zhou W (2018). “Design of experiments and regression modelling in food flavour and sensory analysis: A review.” Trends in Food Science and Technology,71.doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.013. Yunindanova MB, Putri SP, Novarianto H, Fukusaki E (2024). “Characteristics of kopyor coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) using sensory analysis and metabolomics-based approach.” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering,138(1), 44–53. Ziv C, Fallik E (2021). “Postharvest storage techniques and quality evaluation of fruits and vegetables for reducing food loss.” Agronomy,11(6), 1133. 24 Designs for sensory experiments and product optimisation: A comprehensive review ĺPublication & Reviewer Details Publication Information •Submitted: 21 October 2025 •Accepted: 08 November 2025 •Published (Online): 09 November 2025 Reviewer Information •Reviewer 1: Dr. Rohit Kundu Scientist ICAR-IASRI, New Delhi •Reviewer 2: Dr. Muhammed Jaslam P K Research Scientist II University of Idaho Moscow, United States ĹDisclaimer/Publisher’s Note The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). The publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. © Copyright (2025): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits non-commercial use, sharing, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture 25 Affiliation: Gaatha Prasad Agricultural Statistics College of Agriculture, Vellayani Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India E-mail: [email protected] Manju Mary Paul* Agricultural Statistics College of Agriculture, Vellayani Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India E-mail: [email protected] URL: https://kau.in/people/manju-mary-paul Pratheesh P Gopinath Agricultural Statistics College of Agriculture, Vellayani Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India E-mail: [email protected] Krishnasree V Home Science College of Agriculture, Padannakkad Kasaragod, Kerala India E-mail: [email protected] Gopika Somanath Agricultural Extension College of Agriculture, Vellayani Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture https://www.jostapubs.com/ PAPAYA Academic Press, Statoberry LLP, https://www.statoberry.com/papaya November 2025, Volume 1, Issue II Submitted: 2025-10-21 doi:10.65287/josta.202510.B068 Accepted: 2025-11-08