EXERCISE NO.

1: INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY
Agdigos, A.P., Galingana, C.L.T., Gualberto, S.R.S., Lopez, J.P., and Samaniego, K.P.
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines Diliman
____________________________________________________________________________
I.

Abstract
Quality in food refers to the attributes which make a product acceptable or desirable. Conformance to
general requirements or criteria, hygiene and shelf-life dictate the quality of a product. In this experiment, groups
were tasked to make white loaf bread sandwiches containing fresh tomatoes and sandwich spread, and neatly wrap
them in napkins. The sandwiches were evaluated in terms of quantity, taste, appearance and texture. Although the
components of the sandwiches were similar, the groups produced sandwiches of different ratings. The arrangement
of the assembly line had a significant effect on the efficiency of the process. The group with the highest overall rating
of 38.33 also produced the most sandwiches, thus they had the highest overall quality in terms of appearance,
texture and overall taste.

II.

Introduction
According to Hawthorn (1967), quality, as applied to food, refers to attributes to which makes the product
likeable to the person who eats it. As the opinion and preference of people differ from one another, quality generally
refers to the taste/flavour, texture, appearance and nutritional content, as well as the lack of harmful organisms and
foreign materials. Due to the time constraint of the exercise, tests for nutritional content and presence of harmful
organisms are omitted, though the latter is prevented through use of proper attire and hygienic practices.
For any manufactured (processed) food products, evaluation of raw materials and the process should be
done to ensure that the final product will meet a given standard. According to Hawthorn (1967), quality control can be
applied as raw material control, process control and finished product inspection where the first two are given more
attention; in theory, if raw material and process control were flawless then the finished product will be perfect as well.
Importance of raw materials was also mentioned by Reh (2008). As the process is just as important as the selection
of raw materials, quantity of sandwiches is checked for efficiency of the process.
In this experiment, sandwiches were made using different raw materials and processes and the final
products evaluated in quantity, taste, texture and appearance, in order to identify the quality parameters involved.

III.

Methodology
Each group was tasked to make as many sandwiches as possible within three (3) minutes using the
following materials as seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Materials used for sandwich-making

Item
Quantity
Bread
1
Sandwich spread
As needed
Tomatoes
As needed
Kitchen knife
1
Table knife
1
Chopping board
1
Table napkins
As needed

Unit
loaf

pc
pc
pc

Specifications
White, sliced
Any flavor/variant; in sachet/foil pack
Whole
Suitable for slicing tomatoes
Suitable for spreading sandwich spread

Prior to the three (3) minutes, the groups were given ten (10) minutes for preparing the work stations and
washing the tomatoes and utensils. Group 1 used Eden Sandwich Spread, Groups 2 and 3 used Ladys Choice
Chicken Spread, and Group 4 used Ladys Choice Tuna Spread. The specifications for the sandwiches were that: the
spread should be only on one side; each sandwich should have four slices of tomato; and the sandwiches should be
presentably wrapped in napkins. Generally, each of the groups had a systematic production line-type of method,
assigning one or two tasks per person. The criteria for judging are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Criteria for judging
Quantity
Appearance
Taste
Texture
IV.

2.5 pts per sandwich

10 pts (uniformity, appeal, clean look)
10 pts (combination of flavors)
10 pts

Summary of Results
Based on the data (Table 3), the group with the highest total score was group 2 (G2) followed by group 3
(G3), group 1 (G1) and group 4 (G4). However, ranking per criteria varied with G2 having the highest average score
for quantity, appearance and taste, G3 with the same average taste score with G2 and G1 with the highest average
score for texture.
Table 3. Average scores for quantity (no. of sandwich produced), appearance, taste and texture of sandwiches made
by four different groups
Average scores
G1

G2

G3

G4

Quantity

10

15

12.5

7.5

Appearance

7.5

8.5

7.625

6.45

Taste

7.75

7.75

6.875

Texture

7.875

7.075

7.25

7.5

TOTAL

32.375

38.325

35.125

28.325

Figure 1 showed that among the quality parameters, the four sandwiches differed in appearance the most.

Figure 1. A web plot illustrating the scores for quality parameters of sandwiches prepared by four (4) groups

V.

Interpretation of Results
Quality, in the case of the sandwiches made with white loaf bread slices, tomato slices and sandwich
spread, may be assessed through detailed examination of the raw materials and process involved, as long as it will
benefit to the overall quality of the sandwich. However, in some cases, doing too detailed examination for all the raw
materials and process may introduce cost that is higher than its advantage and therefore only the dominant raw
material and critical process points should be assessed (Hawthorn, 1967).
The quantity and quality parameters set by each group varied due to the differences in the standards
planned. Each group conceptualized their own flow to follow including: the steps in constructing a sandwich, the
materials used, and the members assigned to each task. As seen on Table 3, G2 had the most number of
sandwiches done in three minutes, while G4 had the least. G2 may have assigned several tasks to one person who
is capable of multitasking. In terms of quality, the scores varied per category. The appearance of sandwiches were
judged according to uniformity, sogginess and cleanliness (absence of crumbs and excess spread on the sides).
Figure 1 shows that this criterion varied most. G2 had the best looking sandwich, as they also used a different
material of table napkin as their wrapper. The criterion on taste was based on the combination of flavors of both the
sandwich spread and tomatoes. G1 used Eden Sandwich Spread, while other groups used variants of Ladies Choice
Sandwich Spread, specifically chicken (G2 and 3) and tuna (G4). Aside from flavor, the thickness of spread also
affected the taste of the sandwiches. The sweetness/sourness of the tomato may have also affected the evaluation
on taste. G2 had the best tasting sandwich, followed by G3, G1, then G4. The differences in the texture of
sandwiches were mostly determined by the quality of tomatoes, since all groups decided to use Gardenia classic
white loaf bread. According to Chaib et al. (2007), tomato texture is one of the critical components for the consumers
3

perception of fruit quality. The tomatoes may have varied in terms of flesh firmness, juiciness, mealiness, and skin
toughness. This lead G1s sandwich to have the best texture. Overall, G2 obtained the highest score of 38.325.
Aside from the given criteria, the quality of the packaging materials may also be evaluated. As with the case
of G2, their use of brightly colored table napkins for wrapping the sandwiches impressed the judges the most as
reflected on the average appearance score of their product. This may serve as a justification for the function of food
packaging on communication (others are containment, protection and convenience) wherein the packaging stands as
a silent salesman (Robertson, 2013). According to observations, no leakage of the sandwich spread was observed
which may be accounted for the thickness of their table napkin. Other factors such as relative humidity, handling and
sanitation that may affect the quality of the product may also be evaluated.
Based on the efficiency of all the groups (in terms of the number of sandwich produced), the process of G2
can be adopted however their practice wherein a person working on a different task immediately transfers to another
task (when he/she is done) may compromise safety and pose problems such as cross contamination (e.g. person
handling packaged spread sachet immediately working on wrapping may introduce contaminants on the finished
product) in other cases if not monitored properly.
Specifications give the products' exact details in order for it to be replicated with the same result. Basically, it
includes the following details: product name, size, shape and weight of the product, ingredients used, its shelf life,
appearance, and details on how the product is made (Ridgwell, 1997). The addition of product specification is also
considered a manufacture control system, which is important to ensure food safety of the ingredients (King, 2013).
Shown in Table 4 is the product specification for a simple sandwich.
Table 4. Sandwich product specifications
Product Specification

Parameter/ Characteristics

Description

General Requirements

Size of sliced tomatoes

20.5 inches diameter

Number of sliced tomatoes

Bread dimensions

Side length of 5-6 inches

Table napkin dimensions

300x300 mm

Appearance

White bread; golden-light brown crust which should break easily; the
sandwich spread shall be applied evenly among all sides but not leaking
along the crust; tomatoes should not overlap with each other; bread
should be stacked and wrapped uniformly.

Odor

Pleasant smell related to the flavour of the spread

Flavor

Palatable taste

Texture

Shall be soft, not thick, tough or rubbery

Ingredient list

White bread, sandwich spread, sliced tomatoes

Hygiene

Free from foreign matter

Shelf life

Should be consumed immediately

Storage conditions

Should be kept at room temperature for no longer than 2 hours (Center

for Food Safety, Hongkong, 2009).

Based on Table 4, the product specification is divided into three parts: (1) General requirements, (2)
Hygiene, and (3) Shelf life. The sliced tomatoes should be within the range specified so as to avoid the overlap, thus
maintaining the sandwich thickness, which fits the wrap. The ingredients for each should be standardized to obtain
uniformity.
VI.

References
Center for Food Safety, 2009. Guidelines on the Production of Sandwiches. The Government of the Hongkong
Special Administrative Region. Available at:
http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_haccp/programme_haccp_sandwiches1.html
Chaib, J., M. Devaux, M. Grotte, K. Robini, M. Causse, M. Lahaye, I. Marty. 2007. Physiological Relationships among
physical, sensory, and morphological attributes of texture in tomato fruits. Journal of Experimental Botany,
Volume 58, Issue 8. Oxford Journals. P 1 Available at: jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/8/1915.full
Hawthorn, J. 1967. The organization of quality control. In: Herschdoerfer, S.M. (Ed). Quality control in the food
industry, Volume 1. NY: Academic Press, Inc. pp. 4-5 Available at: https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=l0UpBY6thl8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fil#v=one page&q&f=false
King, H. 2013. Food Safety Management, Implementing a Food Safety Program in a Food Retail Business. NY:
Springer Science + Business Media. pp. 40. Available at: https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=6WVDAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Reh, C. 2008. An overview of non-destructive sensor in pratice: the users view. In: Irudayaraj, J. and Reh, C. (Eds.).
Non-destructive testing of food quality. Iowa, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing and the Institute of
Food Technology (IFT). p. 2 Available at: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=HaANTlSJNUC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fil#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ridgwell, J. 2005. Skills in Food Technology. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. pp. 10. Available at:
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Od6AnVlu4HsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Robertson, G.L. 2013. Food packaging: principles and practice (3rd edition). FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group,
LLC. pp. 2-3. Available at: https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=BizOBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fil#v=onepage&q&f=false

Appendix
A. Summary of Raw Data