©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 10, 2016; 8(15): 508-516
Published online Aug 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i15.508
Published online Aug 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i15.508
Table 2 Significance of effects (F and P-values) for descriptive attributes for the bowel cleansing laxative solutions
| Attributes | Panelist (df = 13) | Sample1 (df = 3) | Replicate (df = 2) | S × P (df = 39) | R × P (df = 26) | S × R (df = 6) |
| Appearance | ||||||
| Turbidity | 5.6d | 9.1d | 3.1 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| Viscosity | 5.4d | 4.2a | 4.5a | 1.5 | 1.7a | 0.1 |
| Odor | ||||||
| Orange | 2.0 | 15.9d | 0.0 | 2.3b | 0.4 | 1.3 |
| Citrus | 2.0 | 35.0d | 4.7a | 2.1b | 0.6 | 1.3 |
| Flavor | ||||||
| Saltiness | 2.9b | 8.8d | 0.7 | 2.7d | 1.3 | 0.9 |
| Sweetness | 6.3d | 2.8 | 5.3a | 5.7d | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Sourness | 4.5d | 18.5d | 0.6 | 2.5d | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Sweetener | 8.4d | 3.7a | 3.5a | 4.7d | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Bitterness | 2.0 | 8.5d | 0.2 | 4.8d | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| Orange | 1.6 | 10.9d | 0.7 | 6.1d | 1.4 | 0.6 |
| Citrus | 1.3 | 11.4d | 2.3 | 3.7d | 1.2 | 0.7 |
| Mouthfeel | ||||||
| Adhesiveness | 4.8d | 4.3b | 1.3 | 3.9d | 2.0a | 1.4 |
| Astringency | 2.2a | 11.0d | 1.2 | 2.0b | 2.6b | 0.1 |
| Mouthcoating | 3.7d | 4.8b | 0.9 | 2.4d | 1.6 | 0.7 |
| Aftertaste | ||||||
| Sweet | 10.2d | 8.6d | 2.6 | 1.8a | 2.4d | 1.6 |
| Sour | 6.3d | 16.3d | 2.1 | 2.4d | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Astringent | 1.3 | 9.1d | 2.1 | 2.4d | 2.1b | 0.9 |
| Bitter | 2.0 | 15.2d | 0.3 | 2.2d | 1.5 | 0.7 |
| Throatburn | 3.5b | 7.9d | 0.9 | 1.9b | 1.4 | 0.4 |
- Citation: Sharara AI, Daroub H, Georges C, Shayto R, Nader R, Chalhoub J, Olabi A. Sensory characterization of bowel cleansing solutions. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8(15): 508-516
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v8/i15/508.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v8.i15.508