Data Analysis
The finished products using the three different Treatments were evaluated by thirty
evaluators composed of Laboratory students and Faculty. The scorecards were given and
retrieved from the panelists. Each treatments were evaluated, and the scores were tabulated,
organized, and were presented particularly in mean scores, ranks, and verbal descriptions
using the Nine-point Hedonic Scorecards.
The relationships were determined using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study entitled “ACCEPTABILITY OF DIFFERENT FRUITS (GUAVA,
TAMARIND, AND GUYABANO) IN MAKING VINEGAR” was conducted to evaluate the
organoleptic qualities of vinegar such as acidity, aroma, clarity, and general acceptability.
The Treatments used in the study were as follows:
Treatment 0 – Commercial Organic Vinegar
Treatment 1 – Guava
Treatment 2 – Tamarind
Treatment 3 – Guyabano
A panel of thirty (30) evaluators composed of five faculty members and twenty – five
students of Tarlac Agricultural University – Laboratory School were requested to evaluate the
products with the use of Hedonic scorecard.
The data were tabulated, organized and computed in descriptive analysis that shows the
mean score, ranking among treatments and verbal descriptions.
Acidity
The acidity of the vinegar is defined as the quality, state, or degree of being acid.
Table 2.1 shows the data for acidity of vinegar among the three treatments. It presents that
Treatment 0 (Commercial Organic Vinegar) ranked first with a mean score of 7.88 and a verbal
description of liked very much. Treatments 1 (Guava) ranked second with the mean score of
7.30 and 2 (Tamarind) ranked third with the mean score of 6.72 were verbally described as
moderately liked. Treatment 3 (Guyabano) ranked fourth with a mean score of 4.85 and
verbally described as neither liked nor disliked.
Table 2.1. Data for Acidity of Vinegar among Treatments.
Treatments Mean score Rank Verbal Description
0 7.88 a 1 Liked Very Much
1 7.30 a 2 Moderately Liked
2 6.72 b 3 Moderately Liked
3 4.85 c 4 Neither Liked nor
Disliked
*Means followed by different letters are significantly different at 5% level
Aroma
Aroma refers to the pleasant odor of food.
Table 2.2 presents the data for aroma of vinegar among treatments. It shows that
Treatments 0 (Commercial Organic Vinegar) ranked first with a mean score of 8.25, 2
(Tamarind) ranked second with a mean score of 7.65 and Treatment 1 (Guava) ranked third
with a mean score of 7.57. All Treatments have a verbal description of Liked very much.
Treatment 3 ranked fourth with a mean score of 5.60 and verbally described as slightly liked.
Table 2.2. Data for Aroma of Vinegar among Treatments.
Treatments Mean score Rank Verbal Description
0 8.25 a 1 Liked Very Much
1 7.57 a 3 Liked Very much
2 7.65 a 2 Liked Very much
3 5.60 b 4 Slightly Liked
*Means followed by different letters are significantly different at 5% level
Clarity
Clarity is the quality of being easily seen.
Table 2.3 presents the data for clarity of vinegar Among Treatments. It shows that
Treatment 1 (Guava) ranked first with a mean score of 8.07 and Treatment 0 (Commercial
Organic Vinegar) ranked second with a mean score of 7.8. The Treatments have a verbal
description of Liked very much. Treatment 3 (Guyabano) ranked third with a mean score of
7.27 and Treatment 2 (Tamarind) ranked fourth with a mean score of 7.10. The last two
Treatments have a verbal description of liked moderately.
Table 2.3. Data for Clarity of Vinegar among Treatments.
Treatments Mean score Rank Verbal Description
0 7.8 a 2 Liked Very Much
1 8.07 a 1 Liked Very much
2 7.10 b 4 Moderately liked
3 7.27 b 3 Moderately liked
*Means followed by different are significantly different at 5% level
General Acceptability
General acceptability refers to the overall acceptance of the product.
Table 2.4 contains data on the general acceptability of vinegar among treatments. It proves
that Treatment 0 (Commercial Organic Vinegar), Treatment 1 (Guava), and Treatment 2
(Tamarind) ,Treatment 3 (Guyabano) obtained a mean score of 7.98, 7.64, 7.20, 5.91, and are
ranked first, second, and third,and fourth respectively.
Treatment 0 (Commercial Organic Vinegar) and Treatment 1 (Guava) has a verbal
description of liked very much. Treatment 2 (Tamarind) has a verbal description of moderately
liked and the Treatment 3 (Guyabano) has a verbal description of slightly liked.
Table 2.4. Data for General Acceptability of Vinegar among Treatments.
Treatments Mean score Rank Verbal Description
0 7.98 a 1 Liked Very Much
1 7.64 a 2 Liked Very much
2 7.20 b 3 Moderately liked
3 5.91 c 4 Slightly liked
*Means followed by different letters are significantly different at 5% level
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study entitled “ACCEPTABILITY OF DIFFERENT FRUITS (GUAVA,
TAMARIND AND GUYABANO) IN MAKING VINEGAR” was conducted to determine
the organoleptic qualities of vinegar made from different fruits namely: acidity, aroma, clarity,
and general acceptability.
The treatments used in the study were as follows:
Treatment 0 – Commercial Organic Vinegar
Treatment 1 – Guava
Treatment 2 – Tamarind
Treatment 3 – Guyabano
A group of thirty (30) evaluators composed of five (5) faculty members and twenty five
(25) students were requested to evaluate the products with the use of Hedonic scorecard. The
data were tabulated. The descriptive analysis on the mean score, ranking, among treatments and
verbal descriptions were made.
Based on the results of the study, Treatment 1 (Guava) have a verbal description of liked
very much in all organoleptic parameters.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the study, it can therefore be concluded that Treatment 1 (Guava) is
the most acceptable among treatments shown in all organoleptic qualities.
Recommendation
1. Vinegar from Guava is recommended. Based on our ocular inspection, this treatment ranked
first among other treatments.
2. Tamarind is ideally recommended in making wine simply the aroma of fermented tamarind
is likely similar to wine.
3. Guyabano is basically recommended for making juice because the acidity is moderately
acceptable.
4. It is recognized by the researchers that the container used in fermentation is made from clay
or glass and not plastic.
5. It is also recommended that further studies be conducted using the other fruits for the
improvement of the study.
APPENDICES
Table 1. Data on the Acidity of Vinegar Among Treatments
Treatments Mean Score Rank
0 7.88 1
1 7.30 2
2 6.72 3
3 4.85 4
Appendix Table 1a. Analysis of Variance on Acidity of Vinegar
Source of Sum of Df Mean Score F Sig.
Variance Squares
Between 155.473 3 51.824 29.245 .000
Groups
Within Groups 205.558 116 1.772
Total 361.031 119
Table 2. Data on the Aroma of Vinegar Among Treatments
Treatments Mean Score Rank
0 8.25 1
1 7.57 3
2 7.65 2
3 5.60 4
Appendix Table 2a. Analysis on Variance on Aroma of Vinegar
Source of Sum of Df Mean Score F Sig.
Variance Squares
Between 119.450 3 39.817 23.867 .000
Groups
Within Groups 193.517 116 1.668
Total 312.967 119
Table 3. Data on the Clarity of Vinegar Among treatments
Treatments Mean score Rank
0 7.8 2
1 8.07 1
2 7.10 4
3 7.27 3
Appendix Table 3a. Analysis of Variance on Clarity of the Vinegar
Source of Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Variance
Between 18.358 3 6.119 3.393 .020
Groups
Within Groups 209.233 116 1.804
Total 227.592 119
Table 4. Data on the General Acceptability of Vinegar Among Treatments
Treatments Mean score Rank
0 7.98 1
1 7.64 2
2 7.20 3
3 5.91 4
Appendix Table 4a. Analysis of Variance on General Acceptability of Vinegar
Source of Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Variance Squares
Between 73.315 3 24.772 23.811 .000
Groups
Within Groups 120.680 116 1.040
Total 194.995 119
Table 1. Average Score on Acidity of Vinegar
Panelist Treatment 0 Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
1 8 8 6 3
2 9 8 7 6
3 7 8 6 4
4 8 7 9 6
5 8 8 9 6
6 9 6 6 8
7 8 8 3 5
8 9 8 9 5
9 8 7 5 4
10 9 8 8 7
11 9 9 8 3
12 8 8 7 5
13 8 7 6 5
14 9 8 6 5
15 6 7 6 4
16 8 8 7 7
17 9 6 7 1
18 6 6 6 4
19 8 8 7 4
20 9 7 8 5
21 8 7 6 7
22 8 7 7 5
23 8 7 7 6
24 9 8 7 3
25 4.5 5 8.5 4.5
26 5 6 5 5
27 6 6 4 1
28 7 7 7 5
29 9 8 6 5
30 9 8 8 7
Total 236.5 219 201.5 145.5
Mean 7.88 7.30 6.72 4.85
Description Liked Very Much Moderately Liked Moderately Liked Neither Liked nor
Disliked
Table 2. Average Score on Aroma of Vinegar
Panelists Treatment 0 Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
1 8 8 6 3
2 9 7 8 6
3 7 8 7 4
4 8 7 9 6
5 8 9 8 6
6 8 6 7 8
7 8 7 4 3
8 9 8 8 8
9 9 6 6 2
10 9 8 7 6
11 8 9 8 7
12 9 8 9 6
13 9 9 7 6
14 9 9 9 5
15 8 7 8 5
16 8 8 8 7
17 9 6 7 1
18 6 6 7 4
19 9 8 9 7
20 9 7 8 5
21 8 7 7 8
22 7 6 8 6
23 8 7 7 6
24 9 9 9 5
25 8.5 7 8.5 8
26 6 6 6 5
27 9 7 7 7
28 7 9 9 5
29 9 9 9 5
30 9 9 9 8
Total 247.5 227 229.5 168
Mean 8.25 7.57 7.65 5.60
Description Liked Very Much Liked Very Much Liked Very Much Slightly Liked
Table 3. Average Score on Clarity of Vinegar
Panelists Treatment 0 Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
1 7 8 6 6
2 9 7 8 6
3 7 8 6 5
4 7 8 6 9
5 9 9 9 9
6 8 7 7 8
7 9 9 8 8
8 8 8 7 8
9 8 5 7 3
10 9 9 9 9
11 9 9 8 8
12 8 9 8 7
13 9 9 9 7
14 7 8 7 5
15 6 8 7 6
16 8 9 8 9
17 9 7 5 8
18 7 8 8 4
19 9 5 4 9
20 7 8 8 8
21 7 8 8 7
22 5 6 5 7
23 8 8 7 7
24 8 9 6 9
25 8 9 7 8
26 5 9 5 9
27 8 9 6 6
28 9 9 9 9
29 7 8 7 5
30 9 9 8 9
Total 234 242 213 218
Mean 7.8 8.07 7.1 7.27
Description Liked Very Much Liked Very Much Moderately Liked Moderately Liked
Table 4. Average Score on General Acceptability of Vinegar
Panelists Treatment 0 Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
1 7.67 8 6 4
2 9 7.33 7.67 6
3 7 8 6.33 4.33
4 7.67 7.33 8 7
5 8.33 8.67 8.67 7
6 8.33 6.33 6.33 8
7 8.33 8 5 5.33
8 8.67 8 8 7
9 8.33 6 6 3
10 9 8.33 8 7.33
11 8.67 9 8 6
12 8.33 8.33 8 6
13 8.67 8.33 7.33 6
14 8.33 8.33 7.33 5
15 6.67 7.33 7 5
16 8 8.33 7.67 7.67
17 9 6.33 6.33 3.33
18 6.33 6.67 7 4
19 8.67 7 8.33 6.67
20 8.33 7.33 8 6
21 7.67 7.33 7 7.33
22 6.67 6.33 6.67 6
23 8 7.33 7 6.33
24 8.67 8.67 7.33 5.67
25 7 7 8 6.83
26 5.33 7 5.33 6.33
27 7.67 7.33 5.67 4.67
28 7.67 8.33 8.33 6.33
29 8.33 8.33 7.33 5
30 9 8.67 8.33 8
Total 239.34 229.29 215.98 177.15
Mean 7.98 7.64 7.20 5.91
Description Liked Very Much Liked Very Much Moderately Liked Slightly Liked