Comparing conventional Descriptive Analysis and Napping®‐UFP against physiochemical measurements: a case study using apples

BACKGROUND: The extensive time and cost associated with conventional sensory profiling methods has spurred sensory researchers to develop rapid method alternatives, such as Napping® with Ultra-Flash Profiling (UFP). Napping®-UFP generates sensory maps by requiring untrained panellists to separate samples based on perceived sensory similarities. Evaluations of this method have been restrained to manufactured/formulated food models, and predominantly structured on comparisons against the conventional descriptive method. The present study aims to extend the validation of Napping®-UFP (N = 72) to natural biological products; and to evaluate this method against Descriptive Analysis (DA; N = 8) with physiochemical measurements as an additional evaluative criterion. RESULTS: The results revealed that sample configurations generated by DA and Napping®-UFP were not significantly correlated (RV = 0.425, P = 0.077); however, they were both correlated with the product map generated based on the instrumental measures (P < 0.05). The finding also noted that sample characterisations from DA and Napping®-UFP were driven by different sensory attributes, indicating potential structural differences between these two methods in configuring samples. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings lent support for the extended use of Napping®-UFP for evaluations of natural biological products. Although DA was shown to be a better method for establishing sensory-instrumental relationships, Napping®-UFP exhibited strengths in generating informative sample configurations based on holistic perception of products.