| 查看: 4656 | 回复: 46 | |||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价6次，作者sxlc增加金币 4.25 个 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[资源]
【转贴】感官分析【已搜索无重复】
|
|||
|
感官分析目前在国内研究不多，外文资料很多，特献上 感官分析手册及GB [ Last edited by 幻影无痕 on 2007-7-20 at 07:53 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 食品类～ |
» 猜你喜欢
【实验干货】生物超薄切片+HRTEM：线粒体嵴原子像一步到位
已经有0人回复
-
食品专业论文投稿请教
已经有0人回复
-
食品科学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有104人回复
-
分享食品专业书籍《Fundamentals of Food Process Engineering》，以学习目的为主。
已经有2人回复
-
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
已经有4人回复
|
8月31日，国家质检总局发布第98号局令，于当日公布并正式实施《食品召回管理规定》。这是继上海试水、广东等地破冰之后，食品召回制度再次引起广泛关注。 社科院食品药品产业发展与监管研究中心主任张永建接受本报记者采访时指出：规定填补了我国在缺陷产品管理和召回制度的空白。我国首次出台和实施与食品召回有关的法规大纲，也彰显了政府加强食品安全监管的决心。 这是政府对我国食品安全调节和控制的一个重要手段，是政府对“国门”和“厂门”管理的一把“利剑”。 为什么要执行食品召回制度？ 近年来，我国出现了一系列重大食品安全事件。 海城豆奶、阜阳劣质奶粉、苏丹红等重大食品安全危机事件，使得民众经受了一波波的“精神恐慌折磨”。 不久前，一家知名网站和某调查机构开展的调查显示：经历了过多的食品安全危机事件后，超过90%的消费者因此改变消费习惯，70%的消费者表示今后不知道吃什么；更为严重的是，超过60%的公众认为被曝光的食品安全卫生事件，只是问题的“冰山一角”。 中华医学会会长钟南山曾经警告：假如目前的食品安全状况继续延续下去，50年后国人的生育能力将受到影响。 张永建指出，以上事实充分说明，食品安全已经成为目前公共健康面临的最主要威胁之一；同时也折射出我国当前食品安全管理领域中存在的一些问题与缺陷。 人们对2005年的苏丹红事件记忆犹新。此次事件中，亨氏公司在召回问题产品时，为消费者设置了繁琐的手续及严格的条件，而肯德基则在停售问题食品的同时，坚持不收回相关产品的广告。 对不安全食品的召回，在国际上早已是司空见惯，为什么这两家国际企业在我国的做法与国际通行的召回方式大相径庭呢？ 其中一个重要原因是，我们没有相应的召回制度。 追回·收回·召回 “我国食品召回的开端始于2002年。” 社科院食品药品产业发展与监管研究中心特邀研究员刘宁告诉本报记者，这一年，北京市颁布《北京市食品安全监督管理规定》，开始实施缺陷食品的“追回”或“收回”制度。 随后各地食品管理机关也应上级国家部委的要求，对一些问题食品出台过相应的收回通知。例如卫生系统就不合格植物油曾责令有关企业公告收回。“但地方政府规章和政府行政命令的效力级别低，很大程度上限制了该制度积极作用的发挥。” 据张永建等人的研究发现，新中国成立以来，我国有关食品安全方面的法律法规近千部，覆盖了食品从田间到餐桌的主要环节和要素，但对食品召回制度均没有明确规定。 一系列重大危机事件之后，社会上要求制定食品召回制度的呼声越来越多。 2004年，中国社科院成立了食品药品产业发展和监管研究中心。对食品、药品的产业发展以及监管开展相关的研究，这当中也包括，对我国重大食品安全事件进行研究，其中包括了对我国建立食品召回制度的探索。 2006年8月1日，上海食品药品监督管理局以局规范性文件《缺陷食品召回管理规定(试行)》的形式向社会公布实施，最先“试水”缺陷食品召回制度。 张永建评价说：“这是我国首部较为系统的对缺陷食品召回方面的规定。从程序到内容都较为完整。” 继上海之后，广州、重庆、河北、大连、北京等地都相继出台缺陷食品召回制度。 |
42楼2007-09-10 22:03:35
|
www.foodnetbase.com最新出版的外文书目 Modern Food Microbiology (6th Edition) 现代食品微生物学 http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9645&fromuid=10459 Essentials of Food Sanitation 食品消毒学 http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=5324&fromuid=10459 Foodborne Pathogens-Hazards Risk Analysis and Control 食品中的致病菌：危害、风险分析和控制 http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9760&fromuid=10459 Microbiological Risk Assessment in Food Processing http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9642&fromuid=10459 实验室生物安全手册 http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9985&fromuid=10459 微生物自学教材－Microbiology Demystified http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9741&fromuid=10459 Laboratory Exercises in Microbiology 图文并茂－微生物实验练习 http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=9720&fromuid=10459 |
2楼2007-01-14 00:35:34
3楼2007-01-24 15:25:39
|
(R) The Flavour Profile Method (Arthur D. Little) This method was developed by Arthur. D. Little in the late 1940’s early 1950’s. It uses a panel of 4-6 trained panellists. Panellists are selected by screening for sensory acuity, interests, attitude and availability. A vocabulary is developed by exposure to a wide range of products from the product category to be assessed. The list is then reviewed and refined and reference standards and definitions applied to each term. The panellists examine the products and the results are reported to the panel leader. Through discussion in an open session lead by the panel leader, a consensus decision is reached for each sample. Aroma, flavour and amplitude, which is the balance or blending of the flavour, is assessed in this way. The scales used with this technique involve the use of numbers and symbols and therefore cannot be analysed statistically. This method is therefore a qualitative descriptive test. The main disadvantage with this type of test is that a dominant panel member or the panel leader could easily influence the panels decision. (R) Profile Attribute Analysis The Flavour Profile method was renamed the Profile Attribute Analysis with the introduction of numerical scales. Mean scores could then be calculated and the data statistically analysed. However consensus methods are still employed by some people. Again, this runs the risk of a result being skewed by a dominant personality in the group. (R) The Texture Profile Method This method was developed at General Foods in the 1960’s. It was based on the principles of the Flavour Profile method to assess the textural characteristics of a product. Textural characteristics are categorised into three groups, mechanical, geometrical and ‘other’ characteristics. 1. Mechanical: relating to the reaction of food to stress eg. hardness, chewiness and adhesiveness 2. Geometrical characteristics: relating to the size, shape and orientation of the particles within the food eg. grainy, fibrous and aerated 3. Other characteristics: relating to the perception of the moisture and fat contents of the food The order in which the characteristics are assessed is also very important. The order of assessment is first bite, “chewing” or masticatory second phase and residual or third phase. Panellists are selected on their ability to discriminate between textural differences in the product area to be trained. Six to ten panellists are suggested. Standardised terminology and rating scales are used for the assessments and each scale point is anchored with a specific food. Initially the technique used an expanded version of the Flavour Profile scale, however more recently category and line scales have been used. Panellists each make their own individual judgement and then depending on the type of scale used, a consensus decision is reached or statistical analysis is performed on the data. (R) Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA ) This method of descriptive analysis was developed in the 1970’s. Ten to twelve panellists are selected by screening for ability to discriminate between products, their ability to verbalise their perceptions and to work as a group. The first step is to expose the panellists to a wide range of products from the product category to be assessed. Each panellist individually lists as many descriptive words possible that describe differences between the products. Hedonic terms such as nice, good, bad, etc are not allowed. Through a group discussion, the list of descriptive words is narrowed down to remove duplications and redundant terms until a standardised vocabulary is reached. This standardised vocabulary then needs to be defined with verbal definitions or reference standards and anchor points for the scale agreed upon. The panel also decides the order in which the terms are to be assessed. During this process the panel leader only acts to facilitate the discussion and provide references but does not influence or lead the panel. Trial evaluations are then carried out using the agreed vocabulary and refinements may be made until the panel is happy with the terms used. The panel leader evaluates the results from these trial sessions and once confident the results are reliable andrepeatable the actual assessment can take place. The assessment and trial sessions are completed in sensory booths following the basic principles of sensory evaluation. An unstructured 6-inch or 15cm line scale is used to measure the intensities of the agreed characteristics. Several replicates (3+) are required to validate the data. Data is then analysed using an analysis of variance. The results are often displayed visually on a spider web or star diagram. Other Methods Other methods which you may come across in literature but which will not be discussed in detail in this workshop are: Spectrum Method This is a descriptive analysis technique developed by Civille to cover any or all of appearance, aroma, flavour, texture or sound characteristics. Panellists use a standardised lexicon of terms to evaluate the products. This method requires extensive training of the panel to use standardised scales anchored with multiple reference points and panellists are trained to use the scale identically. Data is analysed in a similar way to QDA. Time Intensity This is used to track the changes in perception of a particular attribute of a product over time. For example you might rate the intensity of mint flavour perceived in chewing gum over a 3 minute period. This can be measured using pencil and paper or using one of the sensory software packages with time intensity facilities. Free Choice Profiling Unlike other descriptive testing techniques this method does not use an agreed vocabulary to assess the samples. Each panellist generates their own list of terms and scales, although they must use these consistently for all samples. The data from this type of assessment is then analysed using Generalised Procrustes analysis. The main advantage of this technique is the time saved on training a panel, however interpretation of individual attributes can be subjective as the terms are not defined as with other descriptive testing methods. |
4楼2007-02-01 13:10:09