
==== Front
Poult Sci
Poult Sci
Poultry Science
0032-5791
1525-3171
Elsevier

S0032-5791(24)00662-X
10.1016/j.psj.2024.104083
104083
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE
A methodological review in sensory analyses of chicken meat
Tura Matilde *†
Gagliano Mara Antonia ‡
Valli Enrico enrico.valli4@unibo.it
†‡1
Petracci Massimiliano †‡
Gallina Toschi Tullia ⁎†
⁎ Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Bologna 40127, Italy
† Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Agrofood Research, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Cesena 47521, Italy
‡ Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Cesena 47521, Italy
1 Corresponding author: enrico.valli4@unibo.it
02 8 2024
11 2024
02 8 2024
103 11 10408330 1 2024
5 7 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The sensory characteristics of poultry products are crucial in defining their quality and widely influence consumer choices. Even though the scientific literature clearly indicates that for muscle foods the sensory profile is relevant in purchase decisions and overall acceptability, sensory evaluation has often been underestimated and considered complementary to instrumental and/or chemical assessments. Sensory analysis includes different types of validated tests (discriminative, descriptive, and affective), applied depending on the purpose of the research study, requiring special attention in the sample preparation phase, in particular for nonhomogeneous products such as poultry meat, requiring reproducible cutting, cooking and presentation to the tasters. The aim of this paper is to review, critically assess and discuss sensory methods, standardized procedures and sample preparation tailored for chicken meat, through the literature from 2000 to 2023, with a section dedicated to ethical aspects that must be carefully considered when designing a sensory protocol. The target readers are both the research and the business communities, as the information can be widely applied for quality control, to develop new food products, to understand or drive preferences or, for example, to assess potential sensory differences among chickens fed with different diets. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this review represents a useful first guide for those approaching the sensory analysis of chicken meat.

Key words

sensory analysis
quality
descriptive sensory method
consumer test
poultry
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Consumers’ acceptance of raw and processed muscle foods is strictly related to their sensory attributes (Pateiro et al., 2022). Several authors reported that different factors can influence sensory assessments of meat; for example, the availability and familiarity of foods can affect the sensory evaluation (Sveinsdóttir et al., 2009). It has also been noted that easy access, product purchase frequency, and ethnicity influence the sensory preferences of meat (Prescott et al., 2001; Dyubele et al., 2010). Moreover, familiarity plays a key role, in fact, differences in perception of sensory attributes between consumers from different countries have been previously reported (Sañudo et al., 2007). Other factors can influence the sensory profile and characteristics of chicken meat, such as color, handling, exposure to chemicals, storage and cooking methods (Barbut, 2001; Fletcher, 2002). Thus, for poultry companies, it is essential to understand factors that affect the composition of chicken meat and drivers of preference. On the other hand, the knowledge of such factors is still limited in the current poultry production system (Worch et al., 2010).

Thus, poultry meat sensory quality and consumers’ preference and liking play a crucial role depending on several factors related to the bird genotype, sex, feeding, farming systems, age at slaughter and slaughtering procedures (Baéza et al., 2022). Several sensory methods can be applied, such as descriptive, discriminative or affective, depending on what the objective of the study is. In particular, descriptive methods (Descriptive Analysis, DA) are generally applied to characterize poultry products, as well as to identify and quantify different descriptors of their sensory profile (Lyon et al., 2007; Pateiro et al., 2022). On the other hand, to assess if two or more food products are different, it is advisable to select discriminative tests (DT) while to assess consumers’ preferences and liking the affective ones (AT) are generally used. In fact, although trained panels are generally preferred to describe the sensory profile and characteristics of meat, it has been also demonstrated that consumers can describe them in a reliable and repeatable way (Lyon et al., 2007; Worch et al., 2010). The present review aims to give an overview of the main sensory methods applied for the evaluation of poultry with special emphasis on chicken meat (from the year 2000 to now), according to different objectives, in order to give specific methodological indications and references to the readers.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

Before starting any sensory protocol, considering the involvement of humans, it is mandatory to consider the Declaration of Helsinki and its requirements (The World Medical Association, 2008); thus, the experimental protocol has to be submitted for review by an ethical committee (EC). The EC could be described as an independent committee of people, e.g. professors, researchers, technicians, etc., who determine if trials involving humans are ethical. Its review is generally based on the reasons for conducting the test, the protocol, safety information, information given to the assessors, the recruitment plan, and other specific information related to the research plan (Kemp et al., 2011). Since the legal and ethical requirements for research are different from one country to another, the ethical committee in its review considers the laws and regulations of the country (or countries) in which the study will be performed as well as international norms and standards that are applicable to the specific research (Eccles et al., 2011). Human subject is identified as ‘a living individual about whom an investigator obtains: 1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or 2) identifiable private information’ (Eccles et al., 2011). The ethics review is required mainly because research involving humans could put people at physical, psychological, social, economic, legal, or dignitary risks or a combination of them, also considering that their exposure to risks is generally for the benefit of others. For this reason, it is needed an independent ethics review. This is because, although the integrity of researchers represents a protection for those participating as research subjects, the researchers themselves may not, however, be able to express the best judgment on the ethical acceptability of the study in question. Thus, any study that involves: 1) intervention on people; 2) interaction with them (e.g., interview or administration of a questionnaire); 3) collection of identifiable private data to contribute to knowledge must be submitted to an ethics committee. Therefore, for studies which involve interaction with human subjects or the collection of sensitive data or identifiable private information, ethical review is required. Indeed, the conduct of research involving human subjects requires independent judgment by a legally constituted ethics committee and this is not a judgment that can be safety made by researchers. What is expected is that ethics committee makes a disinterested decision, guided by the type of study, about the balance of benefits and harm to research subjects, the need for informed consent, and the need for other protections (Eccles et al., 2011). Informed consent must be collected from each subject participating in the study before starting the study itself; this is necessary because it represents the official document indicating that they are fully informed about the nature of the experiment, the samples they will ingest/use, and any associated risks, and on the fact that they can withdraw their participation at any time, as well as on the confidentiality of data collection. Several points need to be considered: 1) voluntary consent is essential; 2) subjects must have the legal capacity to give consent; 3) participants can exercise free power of choice; 4) subjects should have sufficient time to read and understand the information provided before providing their written consent and participation in the study (Kemp et al., 2011).

SAMPLE PREPARATION

From 2000 to 2023, many studies have been published in which samples of different parts of chicken are subjected to sensory analysis (Table 1). Several authors reported storing samples under refrigeration or freezing conditions and defrosting at 4°C to perform the sensory test (Dal et al., 2021; Shaviklo, 2023); however, it would be better if freezing was carried out rapidly at very low temperatures, <-20°C, in order to limit the damage resulting from the formation of ice crystals. Moreover, it is crucial to ensure that all samples freeze in the same amount of time. To achieve this, avoid stacking the samples in the freezer, as this would lead to varying freezing times, instead, arrange the samples in a single layer. If it is possible, meat samples should be freshly sensory assessed to avoid changes due to freezing (AMSA, 2016). In fact, as previously reported in literature (Zhang et al., 2020), the thawing process of chicken meat can affect several sensory characteristics, in particular related to the texture, such as juiciness and hardness. This influence on texture characteristics may be due to the fact that in frozen and thawed meat, the texture properties are affected by the combination of structural integrity loss caused by ice crystal formation and liquid loss during thawing (Zhang et al., 2020). Depending on the purpose of the research study, it is necessary to choose an appropriate protocol for sensory evaluation, including aspects ranging from product sampling to sample preparation and presentation. To evaluate raw meat, cooking procedures are generally envisaged, such as braising, grilling, electric grilling, roasting, broiling, outdoor grilling, and sous-vide cooking. For example, sous-vide cooking is applied to identify little differences in terms of flavor, avoiding the development of aroma resulting from the Maillard reaction (Mörlein, 2019). Also, the amount of sample presented to panelists for a test can differ substantially, for example, from presenting the whole muscle to small cubes of meat; anyway, the sample size should be enough to allow the evaluation by panelists and it has to be representative of the product (AMSA, 2016; Mörlein, 2019) (Figure 1). Moreover, it is essential to keep in mind sensory fatigue and satiety, avoiding obliging assessors to taste too many samples. For any type of sensory test, the order of presentation must be randomized and balanced to avoid first-position effects and carryover effects; otherwise, especially for consumer studies, a systematic bias of scores for the first sample can frequently occur (Mörlein, 2019).Table 1 Summary of sample preparation conditions and serving procedures related to sensory evaluation of chicken meat from 2000 to 2023.

Table 1Product	Sample preparation and cooking	Serving procedure	Reference	
Thighs	Boiling:
• Covered with skin in saltwater (100° C, 15 min);

• Heating 1h using a gas burner (internal temperature 85°C).

Vacuum-packaged and boiling:
• Vacuum-pack samples and store for 2 months at -20°C, thaw in a cold-storage chamber (1 d at 5°C), heat by keeping the sealed diffusion-tight plastic bags in hot water (80°C, 50 min; core temperature 80°C).

Oven:
• Cook directly (combi oven) from the frozen state to 77-78°C (12-15 min at 85°C).

• 170°C in a convection oven (∼15 min, internal temperature 75°C).

• Conventional oven (130°C, 20 min, internal temperature 80°C).

• Dry-heat convection oven, 20 minutes at 240°C;

Grill:
• Electrically grill (40 × 20 × 10 mm), internal temperature 72°C.

	Sample dimension:
• 2 × 3 × 1.5 cm;

• Two 1.9 cm squares.

Serving temperature:
• Warm in oven (60-70°C or 40±5°C), max holding period of 1 h after cooking.

• ∼60°C.

	Capita et al., 2000; Skrede et al., 2003; Jung et al., 2011;
Zhuang and Savage, 2011;
Smaoui et al., 2012;
Bae et al., 2014;
Francesch and Cartañà, 2015;
Khan et al., 2016;
Özünlü et al., 2018;	
Breast	Oven:
• Encased in aluminium foil in individual aluminium trays; 185°C 1.5 h (withdrawn skin after cooking);

• Wrap samples (∼20 g) in aluminum tin foil, in roasting trays, 180°C in a fan-assisted oven for 30–35 min.

• Preheat an electric oven to 190°C, samples in uncovered pans, to an internal temperature of 74°C;

• Roasted in a convector oven, 180°C, internal temperature of 80°C;

• Put in aluminium foil-covered pans in an air convection oven (176°C to internal temperature 76°C);

• Dry cooked at 170°C in convection oven (15 min, to internal temperature 73°C);

• Convection oven, fillets in pans covered with aluminium foil to internal temperature 76°C;

• Covered samples with foil, preheated convection oven at 177°C (rotate trays for uniform cooking, internal temperature of 76.7°C);

• Samples in polyester film, heat in a conventional oven (200°C for 1 h, internal temperature of 80°C);

• Combi oven to the endpoint temperature of 78°C;

• 10-13 min to an internal temperature of 78-80°C.

• Fillets (with skin) in preheated fan ovens (180°C to core temperature 75°C);

• Oven at 177°C to an internal temperature of 77°C;

• Convection oven, 20 min industrial cooking program (dry heating for 5 min, steam cooking for 10 min and dry heating for 5 min), internal temperature 74°C;

• Air-convection oven, internal temperature 72°C;

• 176.67°C (350°F) convection oven, internal temperature 74°C;

• 177°C, convection oven, internal temperature of 73°C;

• Convection oven, 180°C, turning every 3 min, international temperature 71°C;

• 180°C for 15 min in a preheated oven;

• Samples, covered with aluminium foil, in oven, 105°C for ∼60 min, turning samples every 10 min.

• 205°C, internal temperature of 77°C;

• Roast the pectoral whole muscles, convective-steam oven at 180±2°C, internal temperature 75 ± 1°C in the geometric center of the muscle;

• In aluminium foil at 180°C for 20 min;

• Electric oven at 200°C with regular turning of samples;

• Cook fillets in vacuum sealed bag in a combi at 83.88°C, endpoint temperature of 76°C;

• 180°C for 15 min in preheated oven;

• Combi oven, 100°C with 100% heat, 20 min (core temperature 72°C);

• 80°C for 1h;

• Forced draught oven, 180°C to core temperature 75°C;

• 2 cm3 samples in a dry oven at 120°C, 30 min;

• Grill in a kitchen oven for 40 min at 190±5°C with a core temperature of 75°C;

• Cook samples in a combi oven on a metal pan in a single layer at 85°C and tender steam to an endpoint temperature of 80°C.

Sous-vide:
• Vacuum pack individually, sous vide method, internal temperature of 78°C, in a circulating water bath;

• Pack samples in cook-in plastic bags (sous-vide method), cook in hot water at 85°C- 95°C, core temperature 72°C;

• Vacuum-packaged bags by immersing in water at 85°C to internal temperature of 80°C;

• Vacuum-packed, 10 mm thick slices, for 50 minutes at 85°C in a water bath with no spices or additives;

• Individually vacuum-packed in polypropylene bags, in a water bath set at 80°C, core temperature of 78°C;

Microwave:
• Heat samples in the microwave at high power (700 W) for 4 min including the time of defrosting;

• Roast 2 cm cube samples in a microwave oven at high power (800 W) for 30 s;

Cooker:
• Seal samples in a plastic bag and cooked in a cooker without pressure for 20 min, internal temperature 88°C;

Grill:
• Wrap the fillets in aluminium foil and cook on an electric grill to an internal temperature of 82°C.

• Grill (1 cm thick) on both sides for ∼45 s, internal temperature 71 to 75°C;

• Cook from freezing to an internal temperature of 74°C using a grill;

• Grill on a kitchen pan at around 70°C, for 5 min;

• Grill breast slice (80 g, 1 cm thick) at 300°C for ∼7 min, internal temperature 72°C;

• Wrap in aluminium foil and bake on a preheated electric grill until an internal temperature of 82–85°C;

• Grill on both sides 1 cm thick portions for ∼45 s, internal temperature of 71-75°C;

• Cook to an internal temperature of 73°C using either a flattop grill set at 177°C;

• Grill (0.5 kg, thickness ∼1.5 cm) for 40 min, turning samples every 3 min without oil/seasoning;

• Grill for 1 min for each side in a grill pan;

Roasting:
• Electric roaster, cooking at 160°C for 1 h 15 min;

• Roast on a wire mesh placed on an open braai stand for 30 min;

• Cooked on a commercial rotisserie, internal temperature of 80°C;

• Boiling/cooking in water:

• Boil in water using an ordinary kitchen stove (salt added) for 30 min;

• Packed in individual plastic bag and sealed and immersed in a water bath at 80°C for 5 min;

• Boil in a water bath for 15-25 minutes at 80°C;

• Heat in water baths set at 53°C or 58°C for 45 min;

• Boil on a hotplate in stainless steel pot in 1:1 (w/v) ultrapure water for 20 min at 120°C, to an internal temperature of 85–95°C;

• Heat in water with sodium chloride (1:1.5:0.01, w/v/w) at 100°C for 1 h using a gas burner and cook to an internal temperature of 85°C;

• Cook individually in a covered container in 400 mL of 0.6% saline, until inside temperature of 70°C;

• Cook for immersion in a hot water (80°C) bath for 50 min until a core temperature of 76°C;

• Boil for 20 min in water (water: diced breasts, 2:1, m/m);

• Cook (400 (±15) g of breast muscles without skin and internal fat, vacuum-packed) immersed in a water bath at 75°C in a circulator under cover for 40–75 min until internal temperature of 72°C.

• Others:

• 10 g pieces of sample cooked to an internal temperature of 80°C.

• Cook in an ordinary kitchen stove at a temperature of 70°C;

• Cook for 10–15 min in each evaluation step with a home steamer pot;

	Sample dimension:
• Cut parallel to the muscle fibers into 1 × 1 x 2 cm strips;

• 25 (±5) g;

• Section into cubes;

• After cooking cut into half-inch cubes;

• Trimmed external connective tissue and cut into ∼20 mm in length;

• Cut into small cubes 3 × 1 × 4 cm;

• Trim the central portion of each breast to ∼5 × 6 cm;

• 1 × 1 × 1 cm cubes;

• ∼2.5 cm in length pieces of cooked breast;

• Cut in a 1.9-cm-wide strip parallel to fibers; then cut into 2 cubes of 1.9 cm trimmed as needed the bottom of a strip to ensure uniform sample cubes;

• Cut into 1 cm thick slices (1 slice per assessor);

• Cut into 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5 cm cubes;

• 1.25-cm2 warm cubes;

• 80 g for trained panellists and 20 g for consumers;

• 5 cm cubic pieces;

• 2 × 2 × 2 cm (width × length × height);

• Cut parallel to the muscle fibres into 1.5 cm cubes;

• Rest samples for 3 min before slicing for sensory testing. Remove the tendon end by making a perpendicular cut. Remove a 1.9 × 3.8 cm strip and cut the 3.8 com length into two 1.9 com pieces for sensory analysis.

• 2 × 3 × 1.5 cm;

• 2.5 cm length 9 1.5 cm width 9 1.5 cm height;

Serving temperature:
• Close samples in individual plastic containers and heat in a 700 W microwave oven for 20 s and present warm;

• Place samples in a closed plastic bag and suspended in 60°C water for 5 min before sensory analysis;

• Samples cooled to 43°C at room temperature;

• Conserve samples in a hot bath at 60°C;

• Kept warm in oven at 35-40°C until served;

• Place samples in a souffle cup;

• Samples cooled to 60°C;

• Immediately distributed after cooking;

• Served at a temperature of 100°C;

• Cooled samples to 50°C;

• Wrap in aluminium foil, keep at 60°C;

• Serving temperature of about 55°C;

• Served under an aluminium cover on a pre-heated plate;

• Served the fillets on a 60°C hot plate 2 min after they were cooked;

• Cool at room temperature for 15 min, kept warm (60-70°C) in 7.6 L chafer dishes;

• Presented warm (75°C) to the assessors;

• Served samples warm (minimum 60°C; within 20 min after cooking);

• Serving temperature of 50°C;

• Keep samples at 50°C in the water bath until served;

• Cool cooked samples for 3-5 min, cut samples in slices and present two 1.9 cm squares of meat from each sample. Serve samples in capped 4 ounce Styrofoam;

• Samples at 25°C;

• Cooled samples at room temperature for 15 min and kept warm (60-70°C);

• Samples at 40-45°C;

• Cool samples at room temperature for 25 min (i.e. ∼50°C);

• Serve samples at 65°C;

	Gonzalez-Esquerra and Leeson, 2000; Schilling et al., 2003; Kennedy et al., 2004a; McNeill et al., 2004;
Sen et al., 2005;
Dyubele Rababah et al., 2005;
de Toledo et al., 2005;
Balamatsia et al., 2006a;
Balamatsia et al., 2006b;
Chouliara et al., 2007;
Balamatsia et al., 2007;
Contreras-Castillo et al., 2007;
Jaturasitha et al., 2008;
Lee et al., 2008;
Chouliara et al., 2008;
Yusop et al., 2009a;
Yusop et al., 2009b;
Saha et al., 2009a;
Saha et al., 2009b;
Zhuang et al., 2009
Yusop et al., 2010;
Sow and Grongnet, 2010;
Dyubele et al., 2010;
Kruk et al., 2011;
Lee et al., 2011;
Vaithiyanathan et al., 2011;
Erwan et al., 2011;
Cross et al., 2011;
Chulayo et al., 2011;
Jeong et al., 2011;
Broadway et al., 2011;
Sampaio et al., 2012;
Zhuang and Savage, 2012;
Christensen et al., 2012;
Horsted et al., 2012;
Schilling et al., 2012;
Yusop et al., 2012a;
Yusop et al., 2012b;
Kamboh and Zhu, 2013;
Sanchez-Pena and Alvarado, 2013;
Khiari et al., 2013;
Napolitano et al., 2013;
Casco et al., 2013;
Gopinger et al., 2014;
Jung et al., 2014;
Kruk et al., 2014;
Schilling et al., 2015;
Brambila et al., 2016;
Motsepe et al., 2016;
Khan et al., 2016;
Galarz et al., 2016;
Tasoniero et al., 2016;
Ghollasi-Mood et al., 2017;
Haščík et al., 2017;
Trembecká et al., 2017;
Brambila et al., 2017;
Lytou et al., 2017;
Lytou et al., 2018;
Michalczuk et al., 2018;
Chumngoen et al., 2018;
McLeod et al., 2018;
Gunya et al., 2018;
Aguirre et al., 2018;
Brambila et al., 2018;
Marcinčák et al., 2018;
Augustyńska-Prejsnar et al., 2018;
Orlowski et al., 2018;
Orczewska-Dudek and Pietras, 2019;
Kerdpiboon et al., 2019;
Toomer et al., 2019;
Sengun et al., 2019;
Hussein et al., 2019;
Damaziak et al., 2019;
Pieterse et al., 2019;
Park et al., 2020;
Zhang et al., 2020;
Hudák et al., 2021;
Fedorov et al., 2021;
Pettersen et al., 2021;
Pietras et al., 2021;
Abdel-Naeem et al., 2021;
Adeyemi, 2021;
Liu et al., 2021;
Shaviklo et al., 2021;
Escobedo del Bosque et al., 2022;
Piruz and Khani, 2022;
Hailemariam et al., 2022;
Abdel-Naeem et al., 2022;
Panahi and Mohsenzadeh, 2022;
Konkol et al., 2023;
Barazi et al., 2023;
Nemauluma et al., 2023;
Andaleeb et al., 2023;
Jeong et al., 2023;	
Leg	Oven:
• Roasted in a conventional oven, 190°C, internal temperature 82-85°C.

• Convection oven (200°C, 60% humidity, 1 h);

• Pre-heated oven (180°C), core temperature 80°C;

	Serving temperature:
• Keep samples in a conventional oven at 75°C to maintain the temperature until serving (residence time of sample inside the oven never exceeded 15 min).

• Covered with aluminium foil and held in an oven at 77°C until served.

	Bou et al., 2001; Mahrour et al., 2003;
Khan et al., 2016;
Šťastník et al., 2018;
Yasar et al., 2018;	
Entire carcass	Oven:
• Wrapped in aluminium tin foil, placed in Pyrex roasting dishes, cooked for 2 h at 200°C using a fan-assisted oven, rotate every 40 min (min. internal temperature 80°C).

	Sample dimension:
• Remove the left and right breasts from the chicken carcasses and portion;

Serving temperature:
• Cover samples in aluminium foil and hold on a bain marie at a temperature of ∼70°C before serving.

	Kennedy et al., 2005;	

Figure 1 Image depicting possibilities of cutting a chicken breast sample for sensory evaluation, to achieve reproducible results.

Figure 1

SENSORY METHODS TO EVALUATE CHICKEN MEAT

DESCRIPTIVE SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF CHICKEN MEAT

Descriptive tests involve a comprehensive sensory analysis of products and require a trained sensory panel for accurate results, which can be quantified (Figure 2). In these analyses, it is crucial to identify descriptors that offer maximum information about the sensory properties of the product. Panelists evaluate their perceptions using quantitative values proportional to the intensity of specific attributes. To achieve significant results, panelists must undergo rigorous training. While traditionally conducted by fully trained panels, certain novel sensory techniques allow for the involvement of semi-trained panelists. These methods broaden the applicability of descriptive tests, potentially making them more accessible and efficient in certain contexts. Various descriptive methods, including the flavor profile and the texture profile ones, rely on trained judges. For instance, the texture profile method is employed to discern specific intensities in a product by utilizing control products. A notable advancement in these methods, applicable not only to taste and texture but to various attributes, is the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). Other descriptive procedures, such as free-choice profiling, flash descriptive, and the spectrum method, also contribute to a more nuanced understanding of product characteristics. Structured and equidistant scales are commonly utilized in descriptive analysis. Within these scales, panelists assess their perception of a specific attribute and assign it a determined intensity. This systematic framework is essential for capturing and quantifying sensory attributes, contributing to enhanced precision and comparability in descriptive analyses. The strength of the attribute is typically represented on a horizontal scale, often marked vertically, facilitating the assessment of its numerical assignment. These scales can be designed for a single attribute or multiple attributes and descriptors, creating a descriptive profile of the products, as seen in QDA. The arrangement of descriptors within these scales follows a logical order of perception, encompassing sight, smell, and sensation in the mouth. The careful selection of descriptors is crucial in these analyses. They must accurately convey the sensory impulse, be specific and clear in describing the sensation, and possess relevance and discrimination power pertinent to the products under analysis. This meticulous choice of descriptors ensures the effectiveness of the descriptive analysis process. In general, these scales offer advantages such as the use of fewer tasting samples and a smaller number of trained tasters, although the potential for fatigue errors does exist. However, when employing semi-trained tasters, a challenge arises due to the excess of parameters under evaluation, potentially leading to difficulties in discerning between very similar parameters. This complexity may result in a loss of interest among semi-trained tasters, negatively impacting the final results. Despite these challenges, descriptive analyses are generally considered among the most suitable sensory tests. They not only require less extensive training but also provide a substantial amount of information. The results are easily interpretable, making descriptive analyses valuable tools (Ruiz-Capillas et al., 2021).

Conventional Descriptive Tests

Sensory attributes, encompassing features such as appearance, odor, flavor, taste, and texture, which are perceptible by the human senses, play a vital role in assessing the quality of muscle foods. These characteristics often serve as benchmarks during the selection of food items. Conventional descriptive sensory analysis stands as an analytical method in sensory evaluation, involving the discernment and detailed description of sensory components in products by a trained panel. The panelists undergo screening and training to assess specific characteristics based on discrimination and description analyses. The trained panelists are expected to proficiently identify and quantify specific attributes, offering insights into both instrumental and sensory measurements of foods (Chumngoen and Tan, 2015). The BS BS EN ISO 13299 (2016) reported several general instructions to perform sensory profile methods. Firstly, the tests should be carried out in the laboratory which should be equipped with the necessary tools for preparing samples (BS EN ISO 8589:2010). The person designated to perform the sensory profile tests is called the “panel leader” and he/she is in charge of training assessors, maintaining the training of the panel, and executing the test. For sensory descriptive tests, the number of assessors as well as their level of training should be adapted to the specific method. Enhancements in repeatability and reproducibility are achieved through the selectivity of assessors and the duration of their training. The understanding of results and the discernment of notable distinctions among products are likewise contingent on the number of assessors and the extent of their training. The recruitment of candidates is typically conducted through presentations, circulars, or personal contacts (BS EN ISO 13299, 2016). Interviews and screenings have to be conducted for two to three times the necessary number of assessors. During this process, key considerations include: good health compatible with product testing, demonstrated interest and motivation, commitment to the agreed-upon duration and availability for panel sessions, promptness in fulfilling responsibilities, capacity to concentrate effectively, memorization skills, honest communication and reporting of sensations, discrimination ability regarding studied characteristics, and capability to collaborate and work well in a group (BS EN ISO 13299, 2016). To achieve balanced sensory acuity, panels consisting of 10 or more assessors should be established. The study's products and their preparation conditions must be clearly defined. Special precautions must be taken to prevent assessors from deducing conclusions about the sample nature based on presentation. For instance, the use of colored testing glasses or lights can be implemented to mask differences in appearance, if necessary. Standardization is essential in the preparation and distribution of samples, ensuring a uniform temperature. Each sample will be assigned a three-digit random code, and the order of presentation will be meticulously defined through an appropriate design (BS EN ISO 13299, 2016). To enhance the reliability and validity of results, each sample or sample group should ideally be presented two or three times, or more if possible, and on different days. The decision on the number of replications should consider the required precision, observed result dispersion, and any discernible trend towards improved discrimination as assessors become more acquainted with the samples. Replication helps estimate experimental error. Assessing a product from the same batch multiple times illustrates the dispersion of scores given by one assessor while assessing a product from different batches reflects variations within the product. The protocol should specify which sample(s) are duplicated and under what conditions they are prepared and assessed. The identity of the samples should remain undisclosed until assessors complete all assessments (BS EN ISO 13299, 2016). There are several conventional descriptive methods (i.e., consensus profile, quantitative descriptive analysis, flavor profile, texture profile). One of the most used tests is Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). Quantitative Descriptive Analysis emerged in the 1970s as a response to perceived issues associated with Flavor Profile Method (FPM), as discussed by Stone and Sidel (1993) and Stone et al. (1974). Notable distinctions exist between FPM and QDA. In QDA methodology, participants were recruited from sources external to the project. These individuals underwent screening involving dietary questionnaires and the products under test, with the premise that frequent consumers of the product were more sensitive to product differences, rendering them more discriminating (Murray et al., 2001). In QDA, the language source is deliberately non-technical and reflects everyday language. This approach is adopted to prevent any bias in response behavior that might arise from providing specific language, which could imply correct or non-correct answers. Reference standards are introduced in QDA only when there is a recognized issue with a particular term. Subjects usually require references in only 10% of cases, as discussed by Stone and Sidel (1993). In fact, after the recruitment of the assessors, the first phase of QDA as well of the most conventional descriptive sensory profile methods, is the training of the assessors. Firstly, the training phase of descriptive sensory analysis starts with the establishment of a shared vocabulary that thoroughly and precisely describes the attributes of the product (Murray et al., 2001). The overall objective is to identify and choose a set of attributes that are non-overlapping, singular, objective, unambiguous, and referenced. These attributes should enable to the greatest extent possible a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the samples under investigation. This crucial step can be performed either individually or collaboratively, depending on the adopted sensory profiling method (i.e., list of attributes needs to be common for QDA). If a unified list is required, the panel leader can utilize one of the three approaches outlined in Table 2, or a combination of them.Table 2 Different approaches for the definition of the list of sensory attributes for a specific food product (BS EN ISO 13299:2016).

Table 2Approach	Method	Advantages	Disadvantages	
Use existing terminology and reference standards.	Seek guidance from literature and experts for a suitable selection. Obtain the specified standards and use them to instruct assessors on the quality of each descriptor, and if necessary, provide an intensity scale for that descriptor.	Profiles can be interpreted differently by different panels and compared to other research findings.	While existing terminology or reference standards may be available, they might include choices that are imprecise or unsuitable for a specific set of samples. This approach may overlook attributes that could have been identified through the development of new terminology.	
Conduct special sessions with the panel to collaboratively develop the terminology.	Employ a panel of chosen assessors and facilitate the development of terminology through round table discussions led by an experienced panel leader. Reference standards, provided by the panel leader, the test requester, or an assessor during the session, are utilized.	The process of terminology development is not so time-consuming.	Profiles obtained are distinctive to a specific panel and set of samples, making interpretation challenging for other groups without reference standards.	
Conduct special sessions with the panel to collaboratively develop the terminology.	Identification and selection of discriminating terms by employing a set of prepared training samples. Subsequently, reduce the number of terms through stepwise elimination using statistical techniques.	A completely objective process of selection and elimination is employed, minimizing terms influenced by traditional misconceptions or preconceived notions. The chosen terms aim to provide optimal coverage of the qualities perceived by assessors in the samples.	Profiles acquired are specific to a particular panel and set of samples, making interpretation challenging for other groups without reference standards. The process is somewhat time-consuming and demands a certain level of expertise, particularly in data analysis.	

Typically, a new established sensory panel creates its own sensory language, but guidance from an experienced panel leader or other members of the organization can facilitate the learning process. Alternatively, an existing language may be adopted, although challenges in understanding and interpreting terms may arise if the language has been developed by another laboratory, or in a different country or region. To address this issue, providing comprehensive definitions and standards can ensure clarity in demonstrating the sensory attributes (Murray et al., 2001). Moreover, the order of perception in which the attributes are evaluated must be set up (e.g., appearance first, aftertaste last) (BS EN ISO 13299:2016). Once the common vocabulary has been defined, the quantitative training of the assessors has to be performed to indicate the intensity of each attribute present in the sample. Thus, a response scale must be selected. Generally, this scale may be numerical or semantic, continuous, or discontinuous, unipolar or bipolar (BS EN ISO 13299:2016). In order to perform both qualitative and quantitative sample evaluation, a pre-printed scoresheet containing attributes and selected scale shall be prepared and used; it is recommended to leave a blank space on scoresheets and prompt assessors to provide comments or suggestions for additional attributes (BS EN ISO 13299:2016). During quantitative training, as well as during the evaluation of samples, assessors have to work alone in individual sensory booths and samples have to be presented monadically (in succession, one-by-one) in randomized and balanced order (BS EN ISO 13299:2016). Moreover, it is necessary to adjust the number of samples per assessor and per session, based on factors such as the session's duration, the nature of the products, the number of attributes, and the anticipated differences. It is also strongly recommended to present a limited number of samples when small differences are expected, especially for poultry products with strong or persistent flavors (BS EN ISO 13299:2016). Statistical analysis is required when expert and trained panels are involved. In particular, the interpretation of results involves 3 steps: 1) the first step to assess the performance of assessors and checks for any experimental errors in the data, it is generally conducted using ANOVA; 2) the second step is commonly referred to as univariate analysis and it focuses on each evaluated descriptor, aiming to identify the descriptors that effectively discriminate among the study's products; the third step considers all descriptors deemed useful in the initial stage, often known as multivariate analysis; it can be used spider graphs to represent the sensory profile of the samples. The latter can be executed following the segmentation of descriptors, such as visual, flavor, taste, and texture descriptors (Murray et al., 2001; BS EN ISO 13299:2016). One limitation of QDA is the difficulty in comparing results between panels, across different laboratories, and from one period to another using this technique; moreover, it is time-consuming (Murray et al., 2001).

Several authors adopted descriptive tests by using trained panels for assessing the sensory profile of chicken meat (Ruiz et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2004; de Toledo et al., 2005; Zhuang and Savage, 2010; Chumngoen and Tan, 2015; Franke et al., 2017; Aguirre et al., 2018; Brambila et al., 2018; Siekmann et al., 2018; Escobedo Del Bosque et al., 2020; Katiyo et al., 2020; Pellattiero et al., 2020). Some studies aimed to evaluate the main sensory characteristics (e.g., appearance, flavor, and texture) of chicken meat as affected by genotype (Chumngoen and Tan, 2015) and wooden breast condition (Aguirre et al., 2018), while other authors investigated possible changes related to dietary supplementation with antioxidants (Ruiz et al., 2001).

Rapid Descriptive Tests

As previously mentioned, a significant drawback of QDA lies in the substantial time investment required for training, coupled with challenges in validating the panel, especially when dealing with samples that lack standardization. In such cases, samples can exhibit heterogeneity and pose challenges to repeatability over time. To address these constraints, rapid descriptive methods have been recently developed. These methods encompass evaluations of individual attributes, such as Free Choice Profile (FCP), Intensity Scales (IS), Check-all-that-apply questions (CATA), Flash Profiling (FP), and Paired Comparisons. Additionally, methods based on the assessment of global differences, such as Sorting, Projective Mapping (PM), or Napping, as well as those relying on a free, overall evaluation of individual products through open-ended questions, have gained prominence. These methods can employ either a semi-trained panel or untrained assessors (consumers), serving as important tools for food development and quality control. They find extensive applications in Food Science and Technology (Aguiar et al., 2019). Among them, the flash profile is commonly used. Flash Profile (FP) is a technique originally proposed by Dairou and Sieffermann (2002) and it combines elements of Free Choice Profiling and Ranking Descriptive Profiling. When using this approach, consumers are firstly tasked with individually identifying attributes and then ranking samples based on their intensity, all without prior training. Due to varying sets of attributes per assessor, the data matrix is incomplete. To address this, Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) is applied, resulting in a descriptive map reminiscent of Free Choice Profiling (FCP). In FP, the number of assessors typically ranges from 8 to 30. Aligned with other rapid methods that involve untrained assessors and often necessitate a larger panel size, recent studies have expanded the FP panel to include 18 and 30 consumers (Aguiar et al., 2019). FP can be performed in 5 sessions, in which in the first the individual lexicon is developed by each assessor, in the second one the assessors choose their definitive list of attributes and sessions from 3 to 5 are used to evaluate the products in triplicate. All samples are presented simultaneously to the assessors, who are then instructed to rank products for each attribute using an ordinal scale. The evaluation sessions lasted approximately 1 h (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002).

Another commonly applied method is Check-All-That-Apply (CATA). This method relies on a pre-developed list of descriptors. Respondents are provided with an object to evaluate (e.g., a food or beverage product) and a list of terms to characterize it. Their task is to select all the terms they deem appropriate, and the relevance of each response option is determined by calculating its frequency of use (Ares and Jaeger, 2013; Aguiar et al., 2019). One of the primary advantages of CATA questions is that consumers perceive the task as easy and not tedious to complete. However, extending the list of terms in the CATA question can diminish the perceived ease of the task and increase its tediousness, potentially compromising attention. Consequently, lengthy lists may encourage satisficing response strategies, where consumers opt for terms that quickly catch their attention without deeply considering the sensory characteristics of the samples (Jaeger et al., 2015). It should be taken into account that CATA is generally applied with untrained subjects (consumers) thus it needs a high number of respondents (at least 60–100 consumers). Moreover, to avoid bias, the literature suggests randomizing the order of CATA options presented to respondents. This randomization should occur not only between respondents but also within respondents, ensuring different question orders for each respondent and different term presentation orders for each sample evaluation. Randomization aims to mitigate memory limitations, cognitive process effects, and the influence of attention on memory. Consistent exposure to responses in the same order may automatically shift consumers' attention to options used previously, both voluntarily and involuntarily (Ares and Jaeger, 2013). Xu et al. (2020) applied CATA method to assess the emotional responses to flavor of chicken meat samples. In particular, the authors recruited 61 consumers who had to select the emotional attributes from a 10-descriptor list (comfortable, relaxed, blissful, pleasant, surprised, satisfied, refreshing, annoyed, abhorrent, and lonely). Currently, to the best of our knowledge no studies using rapid descriptive tests are available in literature on poultry meat.

DISCRIMINATION METHODS

Discrimination tests are analytical methods which are generally considered easy-to-apply sensory techniques to investigate whether participants can detect any sensory differences between two samples, while sensory profiles and descriptors are not evaluated (Figure 2). For this category of sensory tests, it is essential to eliminate the component due to chance in the analysis; for this reason, the number of participants must usually be high enough to be able to appreciate significant differences between the products (Ruiz-Capillas et al., 2021). On the other hand, discrimination tests do not require trained panelists or a high level of expertise (Rousseau, 2015). In fact, they are rapid tests that are easy to handle (simultaneous presentation), analyze and interpret, performed with experienced tasters or by consumers (but not by a combination of the two). This is because, generally, trained tasters are more sensitive than consumers due to their greater experience, resulting in a lower quantity of noise associated with the test, reducing the variance of the perceptual distributions (Rousseau, 2015). Usually, the most applied discrimination techniques are the paired-comparison method, duo-trio, and triangle test (Ruiz-Capillas et al., 2021). Also, in this case, randomization is needed to prevent an influence on the results due to the presentation order (Rice and Meullenet, 2012). They can be also often used as preliminary sensory evaluations, before descriptive or affective tests.

Triangle Test

The triangle test is part of rapid discrimination tests and it is mainly used to determine whether there is or not a perceptible sensory difference between two products. It is a “forced choice” method, and panelists are required to respond even if they guess, it is not allowed to report “no difference” (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007; Sinkinson, 2017). Three samples, two of which are the same, are presented simultaneously to each participant/panelist who will have to identify the one that is different from the other two. This test can be applied to assess overall product differences, to determine the sensory effect of a change in formulation, packaging, processing, handling, or storage conditions or for screening/validating panelists during recruitment (Sinkinson, 2017). The method can be applied only if a little difference exists between the products; if the difference is large or easily noticeable, a discrimination test is not the appropriate methodology. It is necessary to highlight that the only differences between the products should be due to the modification being studied, if there are other variations, such as different production methods, different raw materials, inhomogeneities within the products, etc., it will not be possible with this methodology to identify whether the perceived differences between the products are due to the design change under study or to these other modifications. The main aim is to maximize the chances of finding a significant difference between two products for the factors of interest (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007). Moreover, in addition to having to be homogeneous, the products must be prepared and presented together identically; the same quantity must be served, and the samples must have the same size and the same temperature. This is to avoid the stimulus error whereby panelists would be influenced by other characteristics unrelated to the test, that is, panelists will be influenced by a difference in portion size, a difference in color or texture, or a temperature difference. No visual differences should be evident; if these exist, they must be masked using, for example, colored lights (e.g., red, or green). However, if the change being tested is visual differences, no further masking actions are necessary (Sinkinson, 2017). The panelists are informed that two are the same and one is different. They can evaluate the samples in a specific order (e.g., from left to right) to identify the 'different' sample and describe the differences among the samples on the accompanying sheet (AMSA, 2016) and that it is better to perform the evaluation quickly to compare samples effectively (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007). The presentation order of the sample must be randomized and balanced within the panel so that the 6 possible combinations of the two samples have to be included. If we consider product “x” as A and product “y” as B, the presentation order to compare them is AAB, ABB, ABA, BAB, BAA, BBA, thus, they are presented the same number of times. Thus, there are 6 possible combinations of sample presentation randomization, thus, to prevent psychological errors (e.g., central tendency) (Rice and Meullenet, 2012; Sinkinson, 2017). Moreover, it could be useful to provide appropriate devices for cleaning the oral cavity and 3-digit codes must be used to identify the samples (blind) (AMSA, 2016; Sinkinson, 2017). Participants can guess correctly only a third of the time (p = 0.333) and the statistical test to be applied is the one-tailed binomial test (Sinkinson, 2017). Processing of results is based on the minimum number of correct responses required for significance at a predetermined significance level, given the total number of responses received; the minimum number of correct answers can be found in the statistical tables (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007; ASTM E1885-04, 2007; Stone and Sidel, 2004). It is permissible to ask participants to further describe the nature of the sensory difference they perceived. If this descriptive information is also collected, only the indications of the tasters who answered correctly should be considered. This data, however, should not be analyzed but can only be used as qualitative information to identify trends to be investigated using descriptive tests (Sinkinson, 2017); this is because the triangle test does not provide indications regarding the direction of the difference, such as the identification of a specific sensory attribute (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007) or the magnitude/intensity of the difference. Furthermore, the test engineer should not be tempted to conclude about the magnitude of the difference from the significance level or probability (p-value) from the analysis (Heymann and Lawless, 2013). The analysis of the triangle test data is based on probability and the conclusion that can be drawn depends on the risk that the person in charge of the test is willing to take. The risks are:• Alpha risk (or false positive): risk of concluding that a perceptible difference exists between the two products when in truth they are the same. It is essential to minimize this risk when the objective is to determine “a difference” between 2 products, in this case, it is generally applied α ≤ 0.05 (5%);

• Beta risk (false negative): risk of concluding that no perceptible difference exists between the 2 products when in truth they are different. It is necessary to be minimized when the objective is to determine the similarity of 2 products; in this case, the usual level of acceptable β-risk is < 0.05 (5%).

By setting α and β risks, the minimum needed to meet the confidence levels set for the test, that is, number of independent results (N), can be found using specific tables; if no replies are expected, this corresponds to the minimum number of panelists. In general, a larger number of assessors gives a greater degree of confidence but also determines higher resource costs (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007 Tables Annex A). When planning to carry out a triangle test for similarity, it is essential to also consider Pd, that is, the maximum percentage of “distinguishers” that the person in charge of conducting the test can tolerate being able to detect a difference among products (BS EN ISO 4120, 2007).

Du et al. (2002) applied the triangle test to investigate possible differences in terms of odor of the irradiated and nonirradiated broiler breast fillets, highlighting differences for the fillets stored under vacuum conditions before cooking while for the fillets aerobically stored before cooking the difference in odor decreased with the increase of the storage time (Du et al., 2002). McNeill et al. (2004) conducted a triangle test (N = 20) on chicken breast fillets to determine whether consumers could detect any difference in flavor between the samples, detecting difference between the control and the meat from the broilers fed on 200 g/kg rapeseed. Also, Nieto et al. (2020) performed a triangle test to investigate differences among chicken breasts immersed in hop extract vs. water, highlighting no statistical differences (N = 54 subjects; α = 0.1; β = 0.05; Pd = 30%).

AFFECTIVE TESTS

Affective tests also referred to acceptability or hedonic, are used to evaluate the degree of satisfaction of a product based on its sensory appeal (Figure 2). This test is performed by untrained participants, typically consisting of more than 100 subjects, who are selected to use the product (Fiorentini et al., 2020). Affective tests gauge product preference, including preference analysis and consumers' willingness to pay, as well as the degree of acceptance through hedonic evaluation. Typically, panelists are considered as naïve consumers without specialized training in preference description. Their assessments rely on taste, centering on the purchase decision and overall acceptance. Preference or choice tests enable the determination of whether a product is preferred or not, relying on the predominant response from a panel. Including the "no preference" option is advisable, as it enhances the information available for interpreting results. These preference techniques, commonly utilized in market research for new products, offer valuable insights into diverse population segments. Despite their usefulness, a notable limitation lies in the fact that this methodology does not provide information about the degree of liking or disliking from respondents. Panelists are limited to expressing whether they like or dislike a product without indicating the intensity of their preference. To gather more comprehensive insights, hedonic tests prove instrumental. Employing the hedonic method involves evaluating the product's likability using hedonic scales, such as the 9-point hedonic scale. In this scale, panelists select an expression that aligns with their perception and acceptance of the product. The utilization of such scales enables the conversion of responses into numerical values, such as 1 for "dislike extremely" to 9 for "like extremely." This evaluative approach swiftly furnishes information about the potential success and appeal of a newly developed product. Furthermore, hedonic tests can unveil details about various consumer clusters based on factors such as product type, textures, composition, and more. While these results offer valuable insights into the rationale behind liking or disliking a product, the hedonic technique comes with certain limitations. Firstly, a sufficient number of panelists, ideally representative of the target consumers is needed. The testing environment and circumstances should ideally mirror real-life situations in which consumers would encounter the product. Typically, employing more than 60 representative consumers is standard practice. It is important to note that the outcomes of this test do not necessarily indicate consumer purchase intention, as various factors beyond liking come into play. Assessing purchase intention often demands a more extensive participant pool, typically exceeding 100 individuals, to capture a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of consumer behavior. Currently, the combination of affective and descriptive sensory technologies is often used. This strategic integration allows for leveraging the advantages of each technique while mitigating their respective disadvantages. It aids in gaining insights into consumer preferences and acceptance (affective) and discerning what attributes should be enhanced, maintained, or adjusted during the formulation or preparation of products. However, traditional sensory analyses have displayed limitations, often neglecting certain aspects within the intricate realm of consumer-product interactions. These interactions extend beyond the conscious responses captured on a liking scale, as external stimuli play a role in influencing decisions and the level of acceptance of a food product. To truly comprehend consumers' preferences for a product, it becomes essential to delve into their broader needs and constraints, encompassing factors like purchasing power, prices of both fresh and processed products, product quality, health connotations (such as fat content and additives), and the context of consumption. Recognizing these aspects is crucial for overcoming the limitations inherent in traditional sensory techniques. To address these challenges, innovative sensory and consumer research techniques have been developed, aiming to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics involved in consumer-product interactions (Ruiz-Capillas et al., 2021). Recruitment of consumer panelists is essential to conduct hedonic assessments for meat and meat products. Depending on the project's objectives, various demographic and socio-economic criteria, such as age, gender, household size, income, area of residence, usage patterns (frequent vs. light users), and attitudes, are taken into consideration. The goal is typically to engage consumers who regularly use the products being tested. Given that hedonic ratings from consumers tend to exhibit greater variability than those from trained panelists, large sample sizes are necessary to establish the significance of product effects (Mörlein, 2019).Figure 2 Overview of the sensory methods that can be applied for the evaluation of chicken meat, with the indication of the level of training of the assessors and the question to which each test category answers, adapted from Ruiz-Capillas et al. (2021).

Figure 2

Qualitative Affective Tests

Qualitative tests provide a subjective response, usually from consumers. Such methods allow consumers to talk about their feelings regarding the sensory properties of a set of products. Some examples of qualitative tests are: focus groups or panels; mini groups; dyads and triads; and one-on-one interviews (AMSA, 2016). For example, Kennedy et al. (2004a) applied the focus group procedure to investigate sensory drivers of liking by consumers. The authors carried out the study with six focus groups (4–8 participants, mixed in terms of sex) and each focus group was facilitated by a moderator and took around 30–45 min. On the other hand, Piochi et al. (2023) used the focus group method before the sensory test to select the attributes to be included in the subsequent sensory evaluation made by consumers; the authors recruited 8 subjects (balanced in terms of sex and with an average age of 38 years old).

Quantitative Affective Tests

Quantitative hedonic tests play a crucial role in assessing consumers' sensory perception of products, employing a set of questions to measure preferences, likings, and impressions across various sensory attributes. These tests can take different forms, such as central location testing (CLT) with pre-recruited participants, non-pre-recruited tests like mall intercept tests, or home use testing (HUT). When the goal of consumer evaluation is to identify the preferred product, preference testing is conducted. If the objective is to gauge how well a product is liked, acceptance tests are employed. Hedonic scales, typically ranging from like to dislike, are utilized to quantify the degree of acceptability. To delve deeper into specific attributes, additional scales like Just-About-Right (JAR) and intensity scales are employed. JAR scales help determine when an attribute is perceived as too high or too low, while intensity scales provide insights into the strength or weakness of a particular attribute. This multifaceted approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of consumers' perceptions and preferences in the realm of sensory testing (AMSA, 2016). Kennedy et al. (2004b) assessed the liking of poultry meat in different conditions: lab-controlled environment (37 consumers) and at home (30 consumers). Saha et al. (2009b) carried out a sensory evaluation on breast fillets with 63 consumers that had to evaluate liking on a 9-point hedonic scale and the adequacy of perceived intensity of tenderness, moistness, overall flavor, and saltiness of a 5-point JAR scale. Napolitano et al. (2013) carried out a consumer sensory test involving 150 subjects (recruiting procedure based on age and consumption frequency of chicken and organic products), who had to rate their liking after tasting the meat under blind and informed conditions. Toomer et al. (2019) assessed liking on a 9-point hedonic scale and the adequacy of color and flavor attributes of chicken breasts by 100 consumers; while Damaziak et al. (2019) investigated liking of chicken breast and legs comparing two groups of consumers: normal sighted (132 subjects) and blind people (103 subjects). Xu et al. (2020) applied a combination of descriptive tests (CATA and RATA) and hedonic questions to assess the sensory profile of chicken meat as well as their liking and emotional responses by consumers (61 subjects). A similar procedure has been applied also by Escobedo del Bosque et al. (2022) with 95 consumers divided into three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

From the literature review and critical discussion, the relevant aspects primarily concern sample preparation; indeed, in the case of poultry meat, a pre-treatment such as cooking is generally required for sensory evaluation, aligned with the purpose of the test. As discussed, methods like grilling or baking, which can generate aromatic compounds due to the Maillard reaction, may not be suitable if the goal is to evaluate subtle sensory differences that strong cooking can mask; in such cases, sous-vide cooking might be much more appropriate. Additionally, the serving temperature of the sample is also crucial for reliable results and comparisons and when, as often happens, this is not specified in the literature, this is certainly a gap. Serving a sample at an inappropriate temperature could introduce biases in the results; for instance, tasters might struggle to identify flavor nuances if the sample is too cold, or it might be challenging to taste if it is too hot. Furthermore, depending on the study's objective, it is necessary to select the method that best suits the requirements. For instance, if the goal is to assess the existence of a difference between two or more samples, such as related to dietary supplements in chicken, applying a discriminative test is necessary. On the other hand, if further investigation into this sensory difference is desired, applying a descriptive method, whether rapid or not, could be useful. It would not be practical to use a time-consuming method like QDA for a single evaluation; in this case, a rapid method could be applied. Conversely, if the intention is to establish an enduring sensory quality control system, training a panel is essential, making it advisable to apply a method like QDA. Finally, if the aim is to investigate liking, it is necessary to apply an effective method, which can be combined with a descriptive method like CATA if there is a desire to explore consumers' sensory perception in terms of perceived sensory attributes. However, regardless of the type of sensory test applied, given the importance of ethical considerations, it is essential to always take into account the importance of obtaining the necessary ethical approvals to conduct a sensory evaluation before starting the test. In conclusion, this review is presented as a first guideline for the sensory evaluation of chicken meat. A further step could be the compiling of validated and widely recognized procedures, in particular for cooking and serving samples, reporting also potential relations between the sensory properties and specific attributes measured by instrumental methods, such as texture, flavor or color.

DISCLOSURES

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Declaration of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used Chat GPT in order to improve readability and language (e.g., reformulation of sentences). After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This literature review was partially supported by the EU H2020 research project “INTAQT-INnovative Tools for Assessment and Authentication of chicken meat, beef and dairy products’ QualiTies” [grant number 101000250 ]; the work of Mara Antonia Gagliano was supported by the AlmaIdea 2022 project “INARIM – INDAGINI ANALITICHE RAPIDE DELL'AROMA E DI IMMAGINE SU PRODOTTI ALIMENTARI DI ORIGINE ANIMALE” funded by European Union – NextGenerationEU; and the work of Dr. Matilde Tura was funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.3 - Call for tender No. 341 of 15 March 2022 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union - NextGenerationEU; Project code PE00000003, Concession Decree No. 1550 of 11 October 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, Project title “ON Foods - Research and innovation network on food and nutrition Sustainability, Safety and Security - Working ON Foods” [Project code PE00000003]. This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be considered responsible for them.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

Abdel-Naeem H.H. Ebaid E.M. Khalel K.H. Imre K. Morar A. Herman V. EL-Nawawi F.A. Decontamination of chicken meat using dielectric barrier discharge cold plasma technology: the effect on microbial quality, physicochemical properties, topographical structure, and sensory attributes LWT 165 2022 113739
Abdel-Naeem H.H. Zayed N.E. Mansour H.A. Effect of chitosan and lauric arginate edible coating on bacteriological quality, deterioration criteria, and sensory attributes of frozen stored chicken meat LWT 150 2021 111928
Adeyemi K.D. Comparative effect of dietary Morinda lucida leaf and Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) on carcass traits, meat quality, and oxidative stability of broiler chickens J. Food Sci. Technol. 58 2021 4359 4369 34538919
Aguiar L.A.D. Melo L. Lacerda de Oliveira L. Validation of rapid descriptive sensory methods against conventional descriptive analyses: a systematic review Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 59 2019 2535 2552 29611715
Aguirre M.E. Owens C.M. Miller R.K. Alvarado C.Z. Descriptive sensory and instrumental texture profile analysis of woody breast in marinated chicken Poult. Sci. 97 2018 1456 1461 29438548
American Meat Science Association (AMSA). 2016. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat.
Ares G. Jaeger S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization Food Qual. Prefer. 28 2013 141 153
Andaleeb R. Chen Y. Liu Z. Zhang Y. Hussain M. Lu Y. Liu Y. Cross-cultural sensory and emotions evaluation of chicken-spice blend by Chinese and Pakistani consumers J. Sens. Stud. 38 2023 e12815
ASTM E1885-04, 2007- Standard Test Method For Sensory Analysis - Triangle Test https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astme188504#:∼:text=ASTM/20E1885/2D04-,Standard/20Test/20Method/20for/20Sensory/20Analysis/20/2D/20Triangle/20Test,sensory/20attribute/20or/20in/20several.
Augustyńska-Prejsnar A. Ormian M. Sokołowicz Z. Physicochemical and sensory properties of broiler chicken breast meat stored frozen and thawed using various methods J. Food Qual 2018 2018 1 9
Bae Y.S. Lee J.C. Jung S. Kim H.J. Jeon S.Y. Park D.H. Lee S.K. Jo C. Differentiation of deboned fresh chicken thigh meat from the frozen-thawed one processed with different deboning conditions Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour 34 2014 73 26760748
Baéza E. Guillier L. Petracci M. Production factors affecting poultry carcass and meat quality attributes Animal 16 2022 100331
Balamatsia C.C. Patsias A. Kontominas M.G. Savvaidis I.N. Possible role of volatile amines as quality-indicating metabolites in modified atmosphere-packaged chicken fillets: correlation with microbiological and sensory attributes Food Chem 104 2007 1622 1628
Balamatsia C.C. Paleologos E.K. Kontominas M.G. Savvaidis I.N. Correlation between microbial flora, sensory changes and biogenic amines formation in fresh chicken meat stored aerobically or under modified atmosphere packaging at 4 C: possible role of biogenic amines as spoilage indicators Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 89 2006 9 17 16528580
Balamatsia C.C. Rogga K. Badeka A. Kontominas M.G. Savvaidis I.N. Effect of low-dose radiation on microbiological, chemical, and sensory characteristics of chicken meat stored aerobically at 4 C J. Food Prot. 69 2006 1126 1133 16715814
Barazi A.Ö. Mehmetoğlu A.Ç. Erkmen O. A novel edible coating produced from a wheat gluten, Pistacia vera L. Resin, and essential oil blend: antimicrobial effects and sensory properties on chicken breast fillets Foods. 12 2023 2276 37372487
Barbut S. Effect of illumination source on the appearance of fresh meat cuts Meat Sci 59 2001 187 191 22062677
Bou R. Guardiola F. Grau A. Grimpa S. Manich A. Barroeta A. Codony R. Influence of dietary fat source, α-tocopherol, and ascorbic acid supplementation on sensory quality of dark chicken meat Poult. Sci. 80 2001 800 807 11441849
Brambila G.S. Bowker B.C. Zhuang H. Comparison of sensory texture attributes of broiler breast fillets with different degrees of white striping Poult. Sci. 95 2016 2472 2476 27143761
Brambila G.S. Bowker B.C. Chatterjee D. Zhuang H. Descriptive texture analyses of broiler breast fillets with the wooden breast condition stored at 4 C and–20 C Poult. Sci. 97 2018 1762 1767 29471459
Brambila G.S. Chatterjee D. Bowker B. Zhuang H. Descriptive texture analyses of cooked patties made of chicken breast with the woody breast condition Poult. Sci. 96 2017 3489 3494 28637284
Broadway P.R. Behrends J.M. Schilling M.W. Effect of alternative salt use on broiler breast meat yields, tenderness, flavor, and sodium concentration Poult. Sci. 90 2011 2869 2873 22080027
BS EN ISO 13299:2016. Sensory analysis —Methodology — General guidance for establishing a sensory profile (ISO 13299:2016).
BS EN ISO 4120:2007. Sensory analysis —Methodology —Triangle test.
BS EN ISO 8589:2010+A1:2014. Sensory analysis — General guidance for the design of test rooms.
Capita R. Alonso-Calleja C. Sierra M. Moreno B. del Camino García-Fernández M. Effect of trisodium phosphate solutions washing on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat Meat Sci 55 2000 471 474 22061580
Casco G. Veluz G.A. Alvarado C.Z. SavorPhos as an all-natural phosphate replacer in water-and oil-based marinades for rotisserie birds and boneless-skinless breast Poult. Sci. 92 2013 3236 3243 24235234
Chouliara E. Badeka A. Savvaidis I. Kontominas M.G. Combined effect of irradiation and modified atmosphere packaging on shelf-life extension of chicken breast meat: microbiological, chemical and sensory changes Eur. Food Res. Technol. 226 2008 877 888
Chouliara E. Karatapanis A. Savvaidis I.N. Kontominas M.G. Combined effect of oregano essential oil and modified atmosphere packaging on shelf-life extension of fresh chicken breast meat, stored at 4 C Food Microbiol 24 2007 607 617 17418312
Christensen L. Gunvig A. Tørngren M.A. Aaslyng M.D. Knøchel S. Christensen M. Sensory characteristics of meat cooked for prolonged times at low temperature Meat Sci 90 2012 485 489 21985894
Chulayo A.Y. Muchenje V. Mwale M. Masika P.J. Effects of some medicinal plants on consumer sensory characteristics of village chicken meat Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10 2011 815
Chumngoen W. Tan F.J. Relationships between descriptive sensory attributes and physicochemical analysis of broiler and Taiwan native chicken breast meat Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 28 2015 1028 26104409
Chumngoen W. Chen C.F. Tan F.J. Effects of moist-and dry-heat cooking on the meat quality, microstructure and sensory characteristics of native chicken meat Anim. Sci. J. 89 2018 193 201 28840955
Contreras-Castillo C. Pinto A.A. Souza G.L. Beraquet N.J. Aguiar A.P. Cipolli K.M.V.A.B. Mendes C.M.I. Ortega E.M. Effects of feed withdrawal periods on carcass yield and breast meat quality of chickens reared using an alternative system J. Appl. Poult. Res 16 2007 613 622
Cross D.E. McDevitt R.M. Acamovic T. Herbs, thyme essential oil and condensed tannin extracts as dietary supplements for broilers, and their effects on performance, digestibility, volatile fatty acids and organoleptic properties Br. Poult. Sci. 52 2011 227 237 21491246
Dairou V. Sieffermann J.M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile J. Food Sci. 67 2002 826 834
Dal H.Ö.G. Gursoy O. Yilmaz Y. Use of ultrasound as a pre-treatment for vacuum cooling process of cooked broiler breasts Ultrason Sonochem 70 2021 105349
Damaziak K. Stelmasiak A. Riedel J. Zdanowska-Sąsiadek Ż. Bucław M. Gozdowski D. Michalczuk M. Sensory evaluation of poultry meat: A comparative survey of results from normal sighted and blind people PLoS One 14 2019 e0210722
de Toledo T.C.F. Canniatti-Brazaca S.G. Spoto M.H. Arthur V. Sensory evaluation of chicken breast under gamma irradiation at commercial doses J. Food Sci. 70 2005 S8 S12
Du M. Hur S.J. Ahn D.U. Raw-meat packaging and storage affect the color and odor of irradiated broiler breast fillets after cooking Meat Sci 61 2002 49 54 22063912
Dyubele Rababah T. Hettiarachchy N.S. Eswaranandam S. Meullenet J.F. Davis B. Sensory evaluation of irradiated and nonirradiated poultry breast meat infused with plant extracts J. Food Sci. 70 2005 S228 S235
Dyubele N.L. Muchenje V. Nkukwana T.T. Chimonyo M. Consumer sensory characteristics of broiler and indigenous chicken meat: a South African example Food Qual. Prefer. 21 2010 815 819
Eccles M.P. Weijer C. Mittman B. Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to implementation science Implement. Sci. 6 2011 1 3 21208425
Erwan E. Alimon A.R. Q.Sazili A. Yaakub H. Karim R. Effects of levels of L-leucine supplementation with sub-optimal protein in the diet of grower-finisher broiler chickens on carcass composition and sensory characteristics Asian Australas J. Anim. Sci. 24 2011 650 654
Escobedo Del Bosque C.I. Altmann B.A. Ciulu M. Halle I. Jansen S. Nolte T. Weigend S. Mörlein D. Meat quality parameters and sensory properties of one high-performing and two local chicken breeds fed with Vicia faba Foods 9 2020 1052 32759805
Escobedo del Bosque C.I. Grahl S. Nolte T. Mörlein D. Meat quality parameters, sensory properties and consumer acceptance of chicken meat from dual-purpose crossbreeds fed with regional faba beans Foods. 11 2022 1074 35454661
Fedorov F.S. Yaqin A. Krasnikov D.V. Kondrashov V.A. Ovchinnikov G. Kostyukevich Y. Osipenko S. Nasibulin A.G. Detecting cooking state of grilled chicken by electronic nose and computer vision techniques Food Chem 345 2021 128747
Fiorentini M. Kinchla A.J. Nolden A.A. Role of sensory evaluation in consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogs and meat extenders: a scoping review Foods 9 2020 1334 32971743
Fletcher D.L. Poultry meat quality World's Poult. Sci. J. 58 2002 131 145
Francesch A. Cartañà M. The effects of grape seed in the diet of the Penedes chicken, on growth and on the chemical composition and sensory profile of meat Br. Poult. Sci. 56 2015 477 485 26081989
Franke C. Höll L. Langowski H.C. Petermeier H. Vogel R.F. Sensory evaluation of chicken breast packed in two different modified atmospheres Food Packag. Shelf Life. 13 2017 66 75
Galarz L.A. Fonseca G.G. Prentice C. Predicting bacterial growth in raw, salted, and cooked chicken breast fillets during storage Food Sci. Technol. 22 2016 461 474
Ghollasi-Mood F. Mohsenzadeh M. Hoseindokht M.R. Varidi M. Quality changes of air-packaged chicken meat stored under different temperature conditions and mathematical modelling for predicting the microbial growth and shelf life J. Food Saf. 37 2017 e12331
Gonzalez-Esquerra R. Leeson S. Effects of menhaden oil and flaxseed in broiler diets on sensory quality and lipid composition of poultry meat Br. Poult. Sci. 41 2000 481 488 11128390
Gopinger E. Xavier E.G. Lemes J.S. Moraes P.O. Elias M.C. Roll V.F.B. Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal Br. Poult. Sci. 55 2014 817 823 25347330
Gunya B. Muchenje V. Masika P.J. The effect of Eisenia foetida meal as a protein source on sensory attributes of broiler meat Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 30 2018 12 27
Hailemariam A. Esatu W. Abegaz S. Urge M. Assefa G. Dessie T. Nutritional composition and sensory characteristics of breast meat from different chickens Appl. Food Res. 2 2022 100233
Haščík P. Trembecká L. Fekete T. Čuboň J. Bobko M. Kročko M. Principal component analysis of sensory properties of chicken breast muscle supplemented with different feed additives Potr. S. J. F. Sci. 11 2017 138 144
Heymann H. Lawless H.T. Discrimination testing In: Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. 2013 Springer Science & Business Media New York, USA 116 138
Horsted K. Allesen-Holm B.H. Hermansen J.E. Kongsted A.G. Sensory profiles of breast meat from broilers reared in an organic niche production system and conventional standard broilers J. Sci. Food Agric. 92 2012 258 265 21800323
Hudák M. Semjon B. Marcinčáková D. Bujňák L. Naď P. Koréneková B. Nagy J. Bartkovský M. Marcinčák S. Effect of broilers chicken diet supplementation with natural and acidified humic substances on quality of produced breast meat Animals 11 2021 1087 33920276
Hussein E.O.S. Suliman G.M. Al-Owaimer A.N. Ahmed S.H. Abudabos A.M. Abd El-Hack M.E. Taha A.E. Saadeldin I.M. Swelum A.A. Effects of stock, sex, and muscle type on carcass characteristics and meat quality attributes of parent broiler breeders and broiler chickens Poult. Sci. 98 2019 6586 6592 31393587
Jaeger S.R. Beresford M.K. Paisley A.G. Antúnez L. L.Vidal R.S.C. Giménez A. Ares G. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization by consumers: investigations into the number of terms used in CATA questions Food Qual. Prefer. 42 2015 154 164
Jaturasitha S. Kayan A. Wicke M. Carcass and meat characteristics of male chickens between Thai indigenous compared with improved layer breeds and their crossbred Arch. Anim. Breed. 51 2008 283 294
Jeong J.Y. Janardhanan K.K. Booren A.M. Harte J.B. Kang I. Breast meat quality and consumer sensory properties of broiler carcasses chilled by water, air, or evaporative air Poult. Sci. 90 2011 694 700 21325244
Jeong J. Jeon S. Lee J. Lee M.Y. Lee K.H. Song C.K. Choi M.J. The effect of fermented grains (koji) on physicochemical and sensory characteristics of chicken breasts Foods 12 2023 3463 37761172
Jung S. Lee K.H. Nam K.C. Jeon H.J. Choe J.H. Jo C. Quality assessment of the breast meat from WoorimatdagTM and broilers Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour 34 2014 709 26761506
Jung Y.K. Jeon H.J. Jung S. Choe J.H. Lee J.H. Heo K.N. Kang B.S. Jo C.R. Comparison of quality traits of thigh meat from Korean native chickens and broilers Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 31 2011 684 692
Kamboh A.A. Zhu W.Y. Individual and combined effects of genistein and hesperidin supplementation on meat quality in meat-type broiler chickens J. Sci. Food Agric. 93 2013 3362 3367 23605817
Katiyo W. de Kock H.L. Coorey R. Buys E.M. Sensory implications of chicken meat spoilage in relation to microbial and physicochemical characteristics during refrigerated storage LWT 128 2020 109468
Kemp S.E. Hollowood T. Hort J. Requirements for sensory testing Pages 30–63 in Sensory evaluation: a practical handbook 2011 John Wiley & Sons
Kennedy O.B. Stewart-Knox B.J. Mitchell P.C. Thurnham D.I. Vitamin E supplementation, cereal feed type and consumer sensory perceptions of poultry meat quality Br. J. Nutr. 93 2005 333 338 15877872
Kennedy O.B. Stewart-Knox B.J. Mitchell P.C. Thurnham D.I. Consumer perceptions of poultry meat: a qualitative analysis Nutr. Food Sci. 34 2004 122 129
Kennedy O. Stewart-Knox B. Mitchell P. Thurnham D. The influence of context upon consumer sensory evaluation of chicken-meat quality BFJ 106 2004 158 165
Kerdpiboon S. Suraphantapisit N. Pongpaew P. Srikalong P. Properties changes of chicken breast during sous-vide cooking and acceptance for elderly Chiang Mai Univ. J. Nat. Sci. 18 2019 156 166
Khan S. Khan R.U. Sultan A. Khan M. Hayat S.U. Shahid M.S. Evaluating the suitability of maggot meal as a partial substitute of soya bean on the productive traits, digestibility indices and organoleptic properties of broiler meat J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 100 2016 649 656
Khiari Z. Omana D.A. Pietrasik Z. Betti M. Evaluation of poultry protein isolate as a food ingredient: physicochemical properties and sensory characteristics of marinated chicken breasts J. Food Sci. 78 2013 S1069 S1075 23772877
Konkol D. Jonuzi E. Popiela E. Sierżant K. Korzeniowska M. Leicht K. Gumowski M. Krasowska A. Łukaszewicz M. Korczyński M. Influence of solid state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis 67 strain on the nutritional value of rapeseed meal and its effects on performance and meat quality of broiler chickens Poult. Sci. 102 2023 102742
Kruk Z.A. Kim H.J. Kim Y.J. Rutley D.L. Jung S. Lee S.K. Jo C. Combined effects of high pressure processing and addition of soy sauce and olive oil on safety and quality characteristics of chicken breast meat Asian-Australas. J. Anim. 27 2014 256
Kruk Z.A. Yun H. Rutley D.L. Lee E.J. Kim Y.J. Jo C. The effect of high pressure on microbial population, meat quality and sensory characteristics of chicken breast fillet Food control 22 2011 6 12
Lee Y.S. Owens C.M. Meullenet J.F. On the quality of commercial boneless skinless broiler breast meat J. Food Sci. 73 2008 S253 S261 19241568
Lee Y.S. Youm G. Owens C.M. Meullenet J.F. Optimization of consumer acceptability and sensory characteristics for marinated broiler breast meat J. Food Sci. 76 2011 S478 S484 22417605
Liu T. Mo Q. Zhao M. Tang J. Feng F. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics to reveal chicken meat improvements by medium-chain monoglycerides supplementation: taste, fresh meat quality, and composition Food Chem 365 2021 130303
Liu Y. Lyon B.G. Windham W.R. Lyon C.E. Savage E.M. Principal component analysis of physical, color, and sensory characteristics of chicken breasts deboned at two, four, six, and twenty-four hours postmortem Poult. Sci. 83 2004 101 108 14761091
Lyon B.G. Lyon C.E. Meullenet J. Lee Y.S. Meat quality: sensory and instrumental evaluations Owens C.M. Alvarado C.Z. Sams A.R. Pages 125–155 in Poultry Meat Processing 2nd edition 2007 CRC Press Boca Raton, FL
Lytou A.E. Panagou E.Z. Nychas G.J.E. Effect of different marinating conditions on the evolution of spoilage microbiota and metabolomic profile of chicken breast fillets Food Microbiol 66 2017 141 149 28576362
Lytou A.E. Nychas G.J.E. Panagou E.Z. Effect of pomegranate based marinades on the microbiological, chemical and sensory quality of chicken meat: a metabolomics approach Int. J. Food Microbiol. 267 2018 42 53 29288907
Mahrour A. Caillet S. Nketsa-Tabiri J. Lacroix M. Microbial and sensory quality of marinated and irradiated chicken J. Food Prot. 66 2003 2156 2159 14627299
Marcinčák S. Klempová T. Bartkovský M. Marcinčáková D. Zdolec N. Popelka P. Mačanga J. Čertík M. Effect of fungal solid-state fermented product in broiler chicken nutrition on quality and safety of produced breast meat Biomed Res. Int. 2018 2018 2609548 30276201
McLeod A. Hovde Liland K. Haugen J.E. Sørheim O. Myhrer K.S. Holck A.L. Chicken fillets subjected to UV-C and pulsed UV light: Reduction of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria, and changes in sensory quality J. Food Saf. 38 2018 e12421 30122794
McNeill L. Bernard K. MacLeod M. Food intake, growth rate, food conversion and food choice in broilers fed on diets high in rapeseed meal and pea meal, with observations on sensory evaluation of the resulting poultry meat Br. Poult. Sci. 45 2004 519 523 15484727
Michalczuk M. Marzec A. Damaziak K. Zdanowska-Sąsiadek Ż. K.Bogdańska J.S. Niemiec J. De Smet S. Application of the support sensory system and principal component analysis to compare meat of chickens of two genotypes CyTA-J. Food. 16 2018 667 671
Mörlein D. Sensory evaluation of meat and meat products: Fundamentals and applications IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 333, No. 1, p. 012007) 2019 IOP Publishing
Motsepe R. Mabelebele M. Norris D. Brown D. Ginindza J.N.M. Carcass and meat quality characteristics of South African indigenous chickens Indian J. Anim. Res. 50 2016 580 587
Murray J.M. Delahunty C.M. Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future Food Res. Int. 34 2001 461 471
Napolitano F. Castellini C. Naspetti S. Piasentier E. Girolami A. Braghieri A. Consumer preference for chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties Poult. Sci. 92 2013 820 826 23436534
Nemauluma M.F.D. Manyelo T.G. Ng'ambi J.W. Kolobe S.D. Malematja E. Effects of bee pollen inclusion on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens Poult. Sci. 102 2023 102628
Nieto C. Carballo D.E. Caro I. Quinto E.J. Andrés S. Mateo J. Immersing fresh chicken into an aqueous hop (Humulus lupulus) extract to delay spoilage during vacuum refrigerated storage CyTA-J. Food. 18 2020 132 136
Orczewska-Dudek S. Pietras M. The effect of dietary Camelina sativa oil or cake in the diets of broiler chickens on growth performance, fatty acid profile, and sensory quality of meat Animals 9 2019 734 31569656
Orlowski S. Flees J. Greene E.S. Ashley D. Lee S.O. Yang F.L. Owens C.M. Kidd M. Anthony N. Dridi S. Effects of phytogenic additives on meat quality traits in broiler chickens J. Anim. Sci. 96 2018 3757 3767 30184154
Özünlü O. Ergezer H. Gökçe R. Improving physicochemical, antioxidative and sensory quality of raw chicken meat by using acorn extracts LWT 98 2018 477 484
Panahi Z. Mohsenzadeh M. Sodium alginate edible coating containing Ferulago angulata (Schlecht.) Boiss essential oil, nisin, and NaCl: Its impact on microbial, chemical, and sensorial properties of refrigerated chicken breast Int. J. Food Microbiol. 380 2022 109883
Park C.H. Lee B. Oh E. Kim Y.S. Choi Y.M. Combined effects of sous-vide cooking conditions on meat and sensory quality characteristics of chicken breast meat Poult. Sci. 99 2020 3286 3291 32475464
Pateiro M. Purriños L. Domínguez R. Barretto A.C. Munekata P.E. Fraqueza M.J. Pazos A.A. Lorenzo J.M. Descriptive sensory analysis of meat—The baseline for any sensory innovation for meat products: case study In: Sensory Analysis for the Development of Meat Products 2022 Woodhead Publishing Sawston, UK 107 120
Pellattiero E. Tasoniero G. Cullere M. Gleeson E. Baldan G. Contiero B. Dalle Zotte A. Are meat quality traits and sensory attributes in favor of slow-growing chickens? Animals 10 2020 960 32486516
Pettersen M.K. Nilsen-Nygaard J. Hansen A.Å. Carlehög M. Liland K.H. Effect of liquid absorbent pads and packaging parameters on drip loss and quality of chicken breast fillets Foods. 10 2021 1340 34200694
Pieterse E. Erasmus S.W. Uushona T. Hoffman L.C. Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) pre-pupae meal as a dietary protein source for broiler production ensures a tasty chicken with standard meat quality for every pot J. Sci. Food Agric. 99 2019 893 903 30009465
Pietras M. Orczewska-Dudek S. Szczurek W. Pieszka M. Effect of dietary lupine seeds (Lupinus luteus L.) and different insect larvae meals as protein sources in broiler chicken diet on growth performance, carcass, and meat quality Livest. Sci. 250 2021 104537
Piochi M. Cabrino G. Torri L. Effects of different woods in barbecuing: consumers’ sensory perception and liking of grilled chicken meat Food Res. Int. 163 2023 112295
Piruz S. Khani M. Comparing the effects of thyme (Zataria multiflora) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) essential oils on microbiological, physicochemical, and sensory properties of vacuum-packaged and refrigerated chicken breast J. Food Qual. 2022 2022
Prescott J. Young O. O'Neill L. The impact of variations in flavour compounds on meat acceptability: a comparison of Japanese and New Zealand consumers Food Qual. Prefer. 12 2001 257 264
Rice L.J. Meullenet J.F. Sensory assessment of organic meats Organic Meat Prod. Proc 2012 257 274
Rousseau B. Sensory discrimination testing and consumer relevance Food Qual. Prefer. 43 2015 122 125
Ruiz J.A. Guerrero L. Arnau J. Guardia M.D. Esteve-Garcia E. Descriptive sensory analysis of meat from broilers fed diets containing vitamin E or β-carotene as antioxidants and different supplemental fats Poult. Sci. 80 2001 976 982 11469665
Ruiz-Capillas C. Herrero A.M. Pintado T. Delgado-Pando G. Sensory analysis and consumer research in new meat products development Foods 10 2021 429 33669213
Saha A. Perumalla A.V.S. Lee Y. Meullenet J.F. Owens C.M. Tenderness, moistness, and flavor of pre-and postrigor marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel Poult. Sci. 88 2009 1250 1256 19439637
Saha A. Lee Y. Meullenet J.F. Owens C.M. Consumer acceptance of broiler breast fillets marinated with varying levels of salt Poult. Sci. 88 2009 415 423 19151357
Sampaio G.R. Saldanha T. Soares R.A.M. Torres E.A.F.S. Effect of natural antioxidant combinations on lipid oxidation in cooked chicken meat during refrigerated storage Food Chem 135 2012 1383 1390 22953870
Sanchez-Pena A.G. Alvarado C.Z. Marination and packaging impact on textural properties of home-frozen broiler breast fillets Poult. Sci. 92 2013 2404 2410 23960124
Sañudo C. Alfonso M. San Julián R. Thorkelsson G. Valdimarsdottir T. Zygoyiannis D. Stamataris C. Piasentier E. Mills C. Berge P. Dransfield E. Nute G.R. Enser M. Fisher A.V. Regional variation in the hedonic evaluation of lamb meat from diverse production systems by consumers in six European countries Meat Sci 75 2007 610 621 22064025
Schilling M.W. Schilling J.K. Claus J.R. Marriott N.G. Duncan S.E. Wang H. Instrumental texture assessment and consumer acceptability of cooked broiler breasts evaluated using a geometrically uniform-shaped sample J. Muscle Foods. 14 2003 11 23
Schilling M.W. Radhakrishnan V. Vizzier-Thaxton Y. Christensen K. Joseph P. Williams J.B. Schmidt T.B. The effects of low atmosphere stunning and deboning time on broiler breast meat quality Poult. Sci. 91 2012 3214 3222 23155033
Schilling M.W. Radhakrishnan V. Vizzier-Thaxton Y. Christensen K. Williams J.B. Joseph P. Sensory quality of broiler breast meat influenced by low atmospheric pressure stunning, deboning time and cooking methods Poult. Sci. 94 2015 1379 1388 25834250
Sen A.R. Naveena B.M. Muthukumar M. Babji Y. Murthy T.R.K. Effect of chilling, polyphosphate and bicarbonate on quality characteristics of broiler breast meat Br. Poult. Sci. 46 2005 451 456 16268102
Sengun I.Y. Goztepe E. Ozturk B. Efficiency of marination liquids prepared with koruk (Vitis vinifera L.) on safety and some quality attributes of poultry meat LWT 113 2019 108317
Shaviklo A.R. The influence of insect-derived and marine-based diets on sensory quality of poultry meat and egg: a systematic review J. Food Sci. Technol. 60 2023 1903 1922 37206419
Shaviklo A.R. Ghamsari A.H.A. Etemadian Y. Rafipour F. The effects of dietary fish protein hydrolysate-based supplementation on sensoryproperties and meat quality of broiler chicken Turkish J. Vet. Anim. 45 2021 1041 1051
Siekmann L. Meier-Dinkel L. Janisch S. Altmann B. Kaltwasser C. Sürie C. Krischek C. Carcass quality, meat quality and sensory properties of the dual-purpose chicken Lohmann Dual Foods. 7 2018 156 30257499
Sinkinson C. Triangle test In: Discrimination Testing in Sensory Science. 2017 Woodhead Publishing Sawston, UK 153 170
Skrede A. Faaland Schøyen H. Svihus B. Storebakken T. The effect of bacterial protein grown on natural gas on growth performance and sensory quality of broiler chickens. Can J. Anim. Sci. 83 2003 229 237
Smaoui S. Hlima H.B. Ghorbel R. The effect of sodium lactate and lactic acid combinations on the microbial, sensory, and chemical attributes of marinated chicken thigh Poult. Sci. 91 2012 1473 1481 22582309
Sow T.M.A. Grongnet J.F. Sensory characteristics and consumer preference for chicken meat in Guinea Poult. Sci. 89 2010 2281 2292 20852120
Šťastník O. Mrkvicová E. Pavlata L. Jůzl M. Roztočilová A. Pytel R. Vyhnánek T. Martinek P. Influence of feeding colored wheat varieties on selected quality parameters of broiler chicken’s meat Potravinarstvo 12 2018 729 734
Stone H. Sidel J.L. Chapter 5 - discrimination testing Pages 143–201 in Sensory Evaluation Practices Third Edition 2004 Academic Press San Diego
Stone H. Sidel J.L. Oliver S. Woolsey A. Singleton R.C. Sensory evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis Food Technol 28 1974 24 33
Stone S. Sidel J.L. Sensory Evaluation Practices 2nd ed. 1993 Academic Press London
Sveinsdóttir K. Martinsdóttir E. Green-Petersen D. Hyldig G. Schelvis R. Delahunty C. Sensory characteristics of different cod products related to consumer preferences and attitudes Food Qual. Prefer. 20 2009 120 132
Tasoniero G. Cullere M. Cecchinato M. Puolanne E. Dalle Zotte A. Technological quality, mineral profile, and sensory attributes of broiler chicken breasts affected by White Striping and Wooden Breast myopathies Poult. Sci. 95 2016 2707 2714 27486252
The World Medical Association, INC. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and amended by the: 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975, 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983, 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989, 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996, 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000, 53th WMA General Assembly, Washington, United States, October 2002, (Note of Clarification on paragraph 29 added), 55th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 2004, (Note of Clarification on Paragraph 30 added), WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, October 2008. Accessed Jan. 2024. https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct2008.pdf.
Toomer O.T. Livingston M.L. Wall B. Sanders E. Vu T.C. Malheiros R.D. Livingston K.A. Carvalho L.V. Ferket P.R. Meat quality and sensory attributes of meat produced from broiler chickens fed a high oleic peanut diet Poult. Sci. 98 2019 5188 5197 31111917
Trembecká L. Haščík P. Čuboň J. Bobko M. Cviková P. Hleba L. Chemical and sensory characteristics of chicken breast meat after dietary supplementation with probiotic given in combination with bee pollen and propolis J. Microbiol. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 7 2017 275 280
Vaithiyanathan S. Naveena B.M. Muthukumar M. Girish P.S. Kondaiah N. Effect of dipping in pomegranate (Punica granatum) fruit juice phenolic solution on the shelf life of chicken meat under refrigerated storage (4 C) Meat Sci 88 2011 409 414 21345604
Worch T. Lê S. Punter P. How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts Food Qual. Prefer. 21 2010 309 318
Xu Y. Chen Y.P. Deng S. Li C. Xu X. Zhou G. Liu Y. Application of sensory evaluation, GC-ToF-MS, and E-nose to discriminate the flavor differences among five distinct parts of the Chinese blanched chicken Food Res. Int. 137 2020 109669
Yasar S. Boselli E. Rossetti F. Gok M.S. Effect of fermented cereals, probiotics, and phytase on the sensory quality of poultry meat Sci. Agric. Bohem. 49 2018 225 235
Yusop S.M. O'Sullivan M.G. Kerry J.F. Kerry J.P. Effect of marinating time and low pH on marinade performance and sensory acceptability of poultry meat Meat Sci 85 2010 657 663 20416811
Yusop S.M. O'Sullivan M.G. Kerry J.F. Kerry J.P. Influence of processing method and holding time on the physical and sensory qualities of cooked marinated chicken breast fillets LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 46 2012 363 370
Yusop S.M. O'Sullivan M.G. Preuß M. Weber H. Kerry J.F. Kerry J.P. Assessment of nanoparticle paprika oleoresin on marinating performance and sensory acceptance of poultry meat LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 46 2012 349 355
Yusop S.M. O'sullivan M.G. Kerry J.F. Kerry J.P. Sensory evaluation of Chinese-style marinated chicken by Chinese and European naïve assessors J. Sens. Stud. 24 2009 512 533
Yusop S.M. O'sullivan M.G. Kerry J.F. Kerry J.P. Sensory evaluation of indian-style marinated chicken by malaysian and european naïve assessors J. Sens. Stud. 24 2009 269 289
Zhang J. Bowker B. Yang Y. Pang B. Zhuang H. Effects of deboning time and thawing method interaction on sensory descriptive profiles of cooked chicken breast and thigh meat Lwt 120 2020 108939
Zhuang H. Savage E.M. Smith D.P. Berrang M.E. Effect of dry-air chilling on sensory descriptive profiles of cooked broiler breast meat deboned four hours after the initiation of chilling Poult. Sci. 88 2009 1282 1291 19439641
Zhuang H. Savage E.M. Effects of fillet weight on sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of broiler breast meat Poult. Sci. 91 2012 1695 1702 22700517
Zhuang H. Savage E.M. Comparisons of sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets categorized by raw meat color lightness values Poult. Sci. 89 2010 1049 1055 20371859
Zhuang H. Savage E.M. Effect of postmortem deboning time on sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked boneless skinless broiler thighs LWT-Food Sci. Technol 44 2011 2087 2090
