Presentation Parfum

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    19-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    20
  • download

    4

Embed Size (px)

description

Parfumuri

Transcript of Presentation Parfum

  • How reliable are the consumers?Comparison of sensory profiles

    from consumers and expertsfrom consumers and expertsWORCH Thierry(1)

    L Sbastien(2)L Sbastien( )

    PUNTER Pieter(1)

    (1) OPP Product Research(2) A C O t

    mailto: [email protected](2) AgroCampus Ouest

    Project 8013July 2008

    Senior project manager Pieter PunterProject manager Thierry Worch

  • introduction

    in the sensory theory: experts panels are used for the products descriptionp p p p

    consumers should only be used for the hedonic task they lack two essentials qualities for profiling (consensus and reproducibility) there are strong halo effects (Earthy, MacFie & Hedderley,there are strong halo effects (Earthy, MacFie & Hedderley, 1997)

    in the sensory practice: consumers are sometimes used for both tasks it has been proven that consumers description show the it has been proven that consumers description show the required qualities (consensus and reproducibility) (Husson, Le Dien, Pags, 2001)

    8013 3

  • problematic

    How reliable are the consumers?

    8013 4

  • presentation of the studies

    products: twelve luxurious women perfumestwelve luxurious women perfumes

    (Gazano, Ballay, Eladan & Sieffermann, 2005)

    A l LI t tAngel (Eau de Parfum)

    LInstant(Eau de Parfum)

    Cinma JAdore(Eau de Parfum) (Eau de Toilette)

    Pleasures (Eau de Parfum)

    JAdore(Eau de Parfum)(Eau de Parfum) (Eau de Parfum)

    Aromatics Elixir(Eau de Parfum)

    Pure Poison(Eau de Parfum)

    Lolita Lempicka(Eau de Parfum)

    Shalimar(Eau de Toilette)

    Chanel N5 Coco Mademoiselle

    8013 5

    Chanel N 5(Eau de Parfum)

    Coco Mademoiselle(Eau de Parfum)

  • presentation of the studies

    expert panel (Agrocampus Rennes)

    twelve persons (11 students and 1 teacher) from the Chantal Le Cozic school (esthetics and cosmetic school)

    focus group per group of six, with two animators generation of a list of twelve attributes generation of a list of twelve attributes

    Vanille, Notes Florales, Agrume, Bois, Vert, Epic, Capiteux, Fruit, Fracheur Marine, Gourmand, Oriental, Enveloppant

    training session for the most difficult ones

    the twelve products were tested two times in two one-hour sessions

    8013 6

  • presentation of the studies

    consumer panel (OP&P Product Research, Utrecht)

    103 nave Dutch consumers living in the Utrecht area

    the same twelve perfumes were rated on 21 attributes the same twelve perfumes were rated on 21 attributes odour intensity, freshness, jasmine, rose, camomile, fresh lemon, vanilla, mandarin/orange, anis, sweet fruit/melon, honey, caramel, spicy woody leather nutty/almond musk animal earthy incensespicy , woody , leather , nutty/almond , musk , animal , earthy , incense , green

    two products (Shalimar and Pure Poison) were duplicated

    the fourteen (12+2) products were tasted in two one-hour sessions (seven products in each session, presentation order was balanced)

    8013 7

  • presentation route map

    the consumer and expert data are compared in three different ways

    1.Univariate analysis analyses of variance correlations

    2 Multivariate comparison2.Multivariate comparison construction of the two products spaces (PCA) comparison of the products spaces through GPA and MFAcomparison of the products spaces through GPA and MFA

    3.Confidence ellipses graphical confidence intervals around the products averaged over the two panels graphical confidence intervals around the products defined

    8013 8

    graphical confidence intervals around the products defined by the different panels

  • Performance of the two panels(univariate analysis)

    8013 9

  • performance of the panels

    usually, the expert panels should have many qualities:

    discrimination: panelists should be able to detect and describe the differences existing between the products

    reproducibility: panelists should describe the products in the same way, when they are repeatedsame way, when they are repeated

    agreement: panelists should give the same description of the fproducts as the rest of the panel

    it can be measured with the correlations (usually, one panelist is compared to the mean over the rest of the pa e s s co pa ed o e ea o e e es o epanel)

    8013 10

  • expert panel

    panel performance

    discriminate on 11 out of 12 attributes (Agrume, pvalue=0.08) reproducible for 11 out of 12 attributes (Notes Florales)

    panellist performance (discrimination reproducibility) panellist performance (discrimination, reproducibility)

    panellists 1, 3 and 12 are very goodpanellists 1, 3 and 12 are very good panellists 8, 9 and 10 are not good in discrimination (discriminate the products on less than 6 out of 12 attributes)

    lli 9 i l d i d ibili ( d ibl panellist 9 is also not good in reproducibility (reproducible on only 3 out of 12 attributes. Notes Florales, Agrume and Enveloppant)

    8013 11

  • expert panel (correlations)

    distribution of the correlations (correlation between expert i and the mean over the (n-1) others)( ) )

    8013 12

  • consumer panel

    discrimination (on the twelve original products)

    the consumers discriminate the products on all attributes except camomile (pvalue = 0.62)

    NB: the consumers discriminate on Citrus (pvalue < 0.001)

    reproducibility (on the two duplicated products only)

    consumers are reproducible on all attributes except one (woody)

    8013 13

  • consumer panel (reproducibility)

    Shalimar

    Shalimar 2

    8013 14

  • consumer panel (correlations)

    distribution of the correlations (correlation between a consumer i and the mean over the (n-1) others)( ) )

    8013 15

  • conclusions on the panel performance

    expert panel discriminates between the productsdiscriminates between the products are reproducible high correlations

    consumer panel consumer panel discriminates between the products shows reproducibilitys qualitiesshows reproducibility s qualities lower but still positive correlations (consumers are untrained)

    Both panels show the same qualities

    8013 16

    Both panels show the same qualities

  • Products spaces(multivariate analysis)

    8013 17

  • methodology

    products spaces the products profiles (averaged over the panellists or consumers)the products profiles (averaged over the panellists or consumers) are computed. Principal Components Analysis is then run on these product x attribute matricesattribute matrices

    comparison of the two products spaces (expert and consumer) is acomparison of the two products spaces (expert and consumer) is a multi-table problem

    comparison through the Procrustean analysis( ) comparison through Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA)

    comparison through the confidence ellipses technique

    8013 18

  • expert panelg p

    2 5

    3,0

    3,5

    AromaticsElixir

    1,0

    1,5

    2,0

    2,5

    %

    )

    AromaticsElixir

    Chaneln5

    JAdore EP

    Pleasures

    Shalimar

    1

    -1,0

    -0,5

    0,0

    0,5

    n

    s

    i

    o

    n

    2

    (

    2

    1

    .

    8

    7

    %

    CocoMelle

    _

    JAdore_ET

    LInstant

    PurePoison

    Epic

    Bois

    -2,5

    -2,0

    -1,5

    D

    i

    m

    e

    n

    AngelCinema

    02

    (

    2

    1

    .

    8

    7

    %

    )

    CapiteuxVertNotes.florales

    Agrume

    Fraicheur.marine

    Oriental

    -4,5

    -4,0

    -3,5

    -3,0 LolitaLempicka0

    D

    i

    m

    e

    n

    s

    i

    o

    n

    Fruit

    Enveloppant

    -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

    Dimension 1 (64.22 %)

    Vanille

    8013 19

    -1 0 1

    Dimension 1 (64.22 %)

    -1 Gourmand

  • consumer panel

    4,5

    5,0

    5,5

    6,0

    1 5

    2,0

    2,5

    3,0

    3,5

    4,0

    %

    )

    AngelCinema

    LInstant

    LolitaLempickag

    1vanilla

    -1,0

    -0,5

    0,0

    0,5

    1,0

    1,5

    n

    s

    i

    o

    n

    2

    (

    1

    7

    .

    9

    7

    %

    CocoMelle

    JAdore_EP

    JAdore_ETPleasures PurePoison

    camomille

    citrus

    anis

    honey

    caramel

    -4,0

    -3,5

    -3,0

    -2,5

    -2,0

    -1,5

    D

    i

    m

    e

    n Chaneln5 Shalimar

    0

    n

    2

    (

    1

    7

    .

    9

    7

    %

    )

    freshness

    jasmin

    sweet_fruit nutty

    animalgreen

    7 0

    -6,5

    -6,0

    -5,5

    -5,0

    -4,5AromaticsElixir

    D

    i

    m

    e

    n

    s

    i

    o

    n

    i t it

    jasminrose

    fresh_lemon

    i

    woodyleather

    muskanimal

    earthy

    incense

    -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5

    Dimension 1 (68.29 %)

    -7,0

    1

    intensity spicy

    8013 20

    -1 0 1

    Dimension 1 (68.29 %)

    -1

  • Multivariate comparison of the two panels (GPA and MFA)

    8013 21

  • expert vs consumer: Procrustes analysis

    GPA consensus space

    (coefficient of similarity: 0.93)

    0

    .

    4

    (coefficient of similarity: 0.93)

    0

    .

    2

    0

    .

    3

    A l

    LolitaLempicka

    0

    .

    1

    0

    m

    2

    AngelCinema

    LInstant

    0

    .

    0

    D

    i

    m

    CocoMelleJAdore_EPJAdore_ET

    PleasuresPurePoison

    -

    0

    .

    2

    -

    0

    .

    1

    AromaticsElixir

    Chaneln5 Shalimar

    0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4

    -

    0

    .

    3

    -

    8013 22

    -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

    Dim 1

  • expert vs consumer: Multiple Factor Analysis

    expertsconsommateurs

    MFA partial points representation

    2

    Angel

    LolitaLempicka(RV coefficient: 0.87)

    1

    9

    .

    3

    5

    %

    )

    AngelCinemaLInstant

    0

    D

    i

    m

    2

    (

    1

    Chaneln5

    CocoMelleJAdore_EPJAdore_ET

    PleasuresPurePoison

    Shalimar-

    1

    AromaticsElixir

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3

    -

    2

    8013 23

    -2 -1 0 1 2 3

    Dim 1 (64.06 %)I di id l f t

  • expert vs consumer: Multiple Factor Analysisg

    1

    Vanille

    Gourmand

    vanilla honey

    MFA variables representation

    expert

    consumer

    camomille

    anis

    caramel(RV coefficient: 0.87)

    (

    1

    9

    .

    3

    5

    %

    ) Fruit

    Fraicheur marineEnveloppant

    freshness

    citrus

    sweet_fruit

    nutty

    0

    D

    i

    m

    e

    n

    s

    i

    o

    n

    2

    CapiteuxVertNotes.florales

    Agrume

    Fraicheur.marinefreshness

    jasminrose

    f h l

    woodyleather

    muskanimal

    earthyincense

    green

    D

    Epic

    Bois

    Oriental

    intensity

    fresh_lemon

    spicy

    -1

    8013 24

    -1 0 1

    Dimension 1 (64.05 %)

  • Comparison through thefid lli t h iconfidence ellipses technique

    (Husson, L & Pags, 2005)( , g , )(L, Pags & Husson, 2008)

    8013 25

  • confidence ellipses

    methodology

    1.Compute the product profiles (averaged by product over the judges)2.Create the products space3 R l b b t t i l3.Re-sample by bootstraping new panels4.For each new panel, compute new products profiles5.Project as illustrative the products on the original product space6.Steps 3 to 5 are repeated many times (i.e. 500 times)7.Confidence ellipses around the products containing 95% of the data are constructedconstructed

    principle if ellipses are superimposed, the products are not significantly different the size of the ellipses is related to the variability existing around the products

    8013 26

    p

  • confidence ellipses

    2

    Confidence ellipses around the products2

    LolitaLempicka

    1

    .

    3

    9

    %

    )

    Angel

    CinemaLInstant

    0

    D

    i

    m

    2

    (

    1

    9

    .

    Chaneln5

    CocoMelleJAdore_EPJAdore_ET

    PleasuresPurePoison

    -

    1

    AromaticsElixir

    Chaneln5Shalimar

    -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

    8013 27

    Dim 1 (64.02%)

  • confidence ellipses

    as we have two different panels, we can apply this methodology to both

    creation of confidence ellipses around each product seen by each panel (24 ellipses are created here)each panel (24 ellipses are created here)

    comparison of a given product through the two panels (samecomparison of a given product through the two panels (same colour)

    f ff ( comparison of the different products within a panel (same type of line)

    8013 28

  • confidence ellipses

    Confidence ellipses for the partial points2

    1

    9

    .

    3

    9

    %

    )

    AngelCinemaLInstant

    LolitaLempicka

    0

    D

    i

    m

    2

    (

    1

    9

    Chaneln5

    CocoMelleJAdore_EPJAdore_ETPleasures

    PurePoison

    Shalimar

    -

    2

    -

    1

    AromaticsElixir

    cons.expert

    -4 -2 0 2 4

    -

    Dim 1 (64 02%)

    expert

    8013 29

    Dim 1 (64.02%)

  • confidence ellipses

    partial points

    within a product, the ellipses related to the two panels are always superimposed (no differences between the panels)

    the sizes of the ellipses are equal the sizes of the ellipses are equal the higher amount of consumers compensate the higher variability due to the lack of training for consumers

    8013 30

  • conclusions

    although consumers dont have the habit to describe perfumesalthough consumers don t have the habit to describe perfumes (difficult task), they give the same information as the expert panel (and its identical to the standard description of the perfumes)

    they also have the same qualities (discrimination and reproducibility)

    a difference between consumers and experts panel exists in the variability of the results (more variability for consumers), but this is compensated by the larger size of the panel (here 103 vs 12)compensated by the larger size of the panel (here 103 vs 12)

    with consumers, not only intensity, but also ideal and hedonic co su e s, o o y e s y, bu a so dea a d edo cquestions can be asked in the same time

    8013 31

  • references

    Earthy P., MacFie H & Hedderlay D. (1997). Effect of question order on sensory perception and preference in central locations. Journal of Sensory Studies, vol.12, p215-237237

    Gazano G., Ballay S., Eladan N. & Sieffermann J.M. (2005). Flash Profile and flagrance research: using the words of the nave consumers to better grasp the perfumes universeresearch: using the words of the nave consumers to better grasp the perfume s universe. In: ESOMAR Fragrance Research Conference, 15-17 May 2005, New York, NY.

    Husson F Le Dien S & Pags J (2001) Which value can be granted to sensoryHusson F., Le Dien S. & Pags J. (2001). Which value can be granted to sensory profiles give by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference, vol.16, p291-296

    Husson F., L S.& Pags J. (2005). Confidence ellipses for the sensory profile obtained by principal component analysis. Food Quality and Preference, vol.16, p245-250

    L S., Pags J. & Husson F. (2008). Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: Application to a cross cultural study. Food Quality and Preference, vol.19, p179-184

    8013 32

  • thank you

    special thanks tospecial thanks to Melanie COUSIN Malle PENVEN Mathilde PHILIPPE Marie TOULARHOAT

    students from AgroCampus-Rennes, who took care of the whole expert panel data.

    8013 33

  • Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!