Sensory Trial of Quintuple Fortified Salt—Salt Fortified With Iodine, Iron, Folic Acid, Vitamin B <sub>12</sub> , and Zinc—Among Consumers in New Delhi, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Micronutrient deficiencies are a cause of significant public health burden and loss of gross domestic product, especially in developing countries. Multiple fortified salt can potentially address this challenge at scale and in a cost-effective manner. Objective: This laboratory-based sensory trial evaluated the acceptability of quintuple fortified salt (Q 5 FS), that is, iodized salt (IS) fortified with additional 4 micronutrients: iron, folic acid, vitamin B 12 , and zinc. Iodized salt and double fortified salt (DFS), that is, IS fortified with iron, are used for comparison. Methods: Forty-five respondents were recruited by open invitations to the university staff and their families. Each study participant rated 10 food items each in a set of 3 identical preparations differing only in the salt used. A 5-point hedonic scale was used to rate each dish on 6 sensory attributes: appearance, color, aroma, taste, texture, and aftertaste. Finally, the dish was rated on the attribute of overall acceptability—a subjective combined score based on all sensory attributes considered together. Results: Among the 3 salt types, there was no difference in scores for the sensory attributes of appearance, aroma, taste, texture, and aftertaste, and the attribute of overall acceptability. Color in IS scored significantly higher than in Q 5 FS and DFS, but there was no difference between the scores of DFS and Q 5 FS. Conclusions: The 3 salts IS, DFS, and Q 5 FS are comparable to each other in all sensory properties, except for color. This study concludes that Q 5 FS is organoleptically acceptable under ideal conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".