| dc.contributor.author | Varela, Paula | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-12T09:02:52Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-07-12T09:02:52Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2022-03-11T08:47:11Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0950-3293 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3004629 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This commentary addresses the issue of remote testing with sensory and consumer panels, within the VSI Covid-19 and Sensory Science in Food Quality and preference. In particular, two papers on the topic will be discussed: Dinnella et al. “Remote testing: Sensory test during Covid-19 pandemic and beyond” and Han Seok et al. “Stay safe in your vehicle: Drive-in booths can be an alternative to indoor booths for laboratory sensory testing”. At the time of writing this piece, the pandemic has been among us for two years, highlighting the fact that remote testing strategies are more needed than ever. Testing methods should be developed, compared, validated and optimized, so sensory practitioners are prepared and can have an informed methodological choice when their projects are pushed “outside the sensory booth”. | |
| dc.description.abstract | Thinking outside the booth: when Covid-19 pushed sensory testing to remote options | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.title | Thinking outside the booth: when Covid-19 pushed sensory testing to remote options | |
| dc.title.alternative | Thinking outside the booth: when Covid-19 pushed sensory testing to remote options | |
| dc.type | Peer reviewed | |
| dc.type | Journal article | |
| dc.description.version | publishedVersion | |
| dc.source.volume | 99 | |
| dc.source.journal | Food Quality and Preference | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104549 | |
| dc.identifier.cristin | 2009006 | |
| dc.relation.project | Norges forskningsråd: 314318 | |
| dc.relation.project | Nofima AS: 202103 | |
| cristin.ispublished | true | |
| cristin.fulltext | original | |
| cristin.qualitycode | 1 | |
