Sensory Evaluation of Flavored Nipa (Nypa Fruticans) Flower Tea

Abstract

The main thrust of this study was to evaluate the sensory attributes of Flavored Nipa (Nypa fruticans) Flower Tea. Specifically, it aims to determine the acceptability level in three treatments in terms of appearance, aroma, and taste in hot and cold serving temperature. It also sought to find the significant difference among the three treatments in hot and cold serving temperature. Through this study, people will learn to utilize the availability of Nipa Flower in their locality and use this as a potential livelihood. The study made use of quantitative research employing experimental design in producing the Nipa Flower Tea in different treatments, and a descriptive survey with the aid of a self-made questionnaire in gathering the data needed. The researchers used taste sampling of the product and distributed the questionnaires to 30 respondents composed of 25 students and 5 teachers of Hinlayagan National High School, Trinidad, Bohol. The researchers introduced the study, gave an explanation, and distributed the products and questionnaires to the respondents for tasting and evaluation. The questionnaires were rated using the 4-Point Hedonic Scale. The data gathered were then tallied, tabulated and computed through percentage formula to determine the sensory attributes and a weighted mean to evaluate the acceptability level of Flavored Nipa (Nypa fruticans) Flower Tea in three treatments in terms of appearance, aroma, and taste in hot and cold serving temperature. A two-way ANOVA was also used to find out the significant difference in the respondent's acceptability level of the product. The interpretation followed after the computed results. Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that all the treatments in terms of appearance, aroma, and taste in hot and cold serving temperature are all acceptable. Particularly, treatment 2 was more preferred in hot serving temperature and treatment 3 in cold serving temperature, but hot serving temperature are more acceptable than cold serving temperature. The overall result implies that there is a significant difference in the serving temperature, which means that the null hypothesis is rejected. While there is no significant difference in the treatments used, thus, the null hypothesis is accepted. Lastly, the overall interaction of the serving temperature and the treatments conveys that there is no significant difference. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, the results indicates that the product is feasible for production and has potential to create livelihoods.