


































Food Science and Nutrition Studies 

ISSN 2573-1661 (Print) ISSN 2573-167X (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Acceptability and Satiety Evaluation of a Developed 

Nutritionally Balanced School Meal 

Manal Abdeen Ali1*, Ibtihag Awad Mahmoud1, Sawsan Ahmed Balla1, Rekha Lecomte2, Laura 

Dehondt2, Eman Ahmed Abdekareem3 & AbdelHalim Rahma Gubara1 

1 Nutrition & Health Center for Training and Research, School of Health Sciences, Ahfad University 

for Women, Sudan 

2 Tweed Research Center of Nutriset Group, France  

3 Samil Industrial Co., Khartoum, Sudan 

* Manal Abdeen, Ahfad University for Women, Al Arda Street, Omdurman, Sudan 

 

Received: January 19, 2020      Accepted: January 30, 2020     Online Published: March 9, 2020 

doi:10.22158/fsns.v4n1p1        URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fsns.v4n1p1 

 

Abstract  

Five nutritionally designed school meals were developed in a form of pastes based on leguminous seeds 

(lentil, chick pea, and soya) mixed with dairy ingredients. All formulas contain groundnut, and few 

contained crushed nuts providing inclusions inside the prototypes to test acceptance. The products were 

fortified with essential minerals and vitamins following the DRI guideline for children. Developed 

meals were served as a breakfast meal to ~200 students (6-9 years juniors; 10-14 years seniors) of one 

of the Sudanese basic schools (Omdurman City) for 21 days to substitute a traditional breakfast meal 

boiled Pigeon pea colloquially called “Balila” served routinely to the students. This paper covers 

acceptability of favorable products behavioral responses of senior and junior students to four 

meal/subject interactions coverings temptation to finishing the whole meal, reason(s) for not finishing 

the whole meal, time needed to finish the meal, and degree of satiety the students feel during teaching 

hours. 

Almost 95% of the senior students interacted positively with pastes based on lentil or chick pea finish 

the product as evidenced by the short time (<10 min) to finishing or stop taking the meal in ≤ 10 

minutes. All past products provide satiety; senior students judged that lentil based paste(s) as the meal 

that secures full satiety during school hours. Unlike seniors, more than 95% of junior students finished 

more of the soy-based meal, one third of them took more time to finish lentil-based meal indicate that 

the results reflected satisfaction by taking less quantities from all products offered. Degree of satiety 

feeling among junior students fluctuated where >90% of them confirmed satisfactory degree of satiety 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

compared to all products offered.  

Keywords 

acceptability, satiety, school meal, nutrition 

 

1. Introduction 

Nutritional readers need no reminding of the consequences of the spread of malnutrition among 

population of most developing countries. Black et al. (2008) summarized such consequences; whereas 

FAO (2006) highlighted root causes of food insecurity leading to such consequences, and when it 

comes at the door of vulnerable groups such as children, FAO (2009) itself indicated kind of strategies 

that prevent or reduce under-nutrition and combat child mortality. 

Almost, a decade back, Sudan Ministry of General Education (SMGE, 2008) launched a school feeding 

program that reached about 1.2 million children throughout the country with the objective of increasing 

school attendance, particularly of girls, and relieving short-term hunger while transforming resources to 

vulnerable households. Lack of food in the households is reportedly one of the main reasons for school 

dropout, according to baseline survey carried out by SMGE (2008). 

The child performance in morning schooling is very much related to taking right nutritious food that is 

rich in energy, protein, carbohydrates and calorific sources, e.g., breakfast items, to help in focus and 

concentration, a pre-requisite behavior for better learning and hence more opportunities in life. 

The market for children’s foods is continuously growing, and children have an increasing influence on 

food purchase decisions. This has led to the use of children in product development programs by food 

manufacturers, to the development of twin target markets for adults and children in many food 

categories (Jean-Xavier, 2001), and to requirements for palatable, healthy and nutritious food for 

children amidst trends towards convenience foods and demands for responsible nutrition. The sensory 

properties of any food item are important determinants of its acceptance among consumers, and as a 

result, the need for sound methodology for sensory testing with children has increased (ASTM, 1992; 

Guinard, 2001; ASTM, 2003). The principal objective of this effort was to test the acceptability of 

nutritionally balanced school meals developed to substitute existing conventional breakfast meal served 

to needy students at most of the Sudanese primary (Basic) schools. The test also embraced satiety 

profile of meals to answer their level of stomach fulfillment during the school hours. 

 

2. Methodology 

Based on an earlier preliminary study by Ahfad University for Women (AUW) team, (NHCTR, 2017) 

concerning acceptability and quality of several school meals, only five meals were then selected and 

developed by Samil Industrial Co., Onyx, and Tweed Research Center of Nutriset Group, based on 

plant foods (e.g., soybean, chickpea, lentil, peanuts, etc.), and dairy ingredients, in a form of pastes. 

The meals were additionally fortified with recommended gaps in Iron, Iodine, Zinc, Vitamins of A, B9, 

B12, and C. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

A total of ~200 school children (6-9 year juniors; 10-14 year seniors) studying at one of Omdurman 

City (Sudan) primary schools were selected to assure minimum classes attendance of 180 children 

throughout the study. Recruited students were served ethically (DIUS, 2007) developed meals in a form 

of paste-in sachets (100 g each) for 15 school days plus 5 days given to the reference conventional 

school meal prepared traditionally from boiled salted or sweetened pigeon pea colloquially called 

“Balila” and served routinely to the children as a school meal. 

Using a concise questionnaire consisted of elements relevant to sensorial issues (Brace, 2004), the 

students with the help of the study group, were asked to judge on the five products (meals) guided by 

multi- descriptive sensory evaluation techniques (Gordin, 1987; ISO, 1988; Poste et al., 1991; Lawless 

& Heymann, 1998; Schutz & Cardello, 2001; Meilgaard et al., 2007), and facial drawing procedures to 

express level of satisfaction by one of three choices (Happy face that reflects acceptance of product; 

no- expression face that expresses neither/nor decision; and sad face that expresses rejection of the 

product) simplified to suit their level of perception (Goldstein, 2006). 

 

3. Results and Discussion 

Table 1 shows distribution and number of school students served school meals by class and age group. 

The initial week started with serving the conventional school meal (Balila) for 5 days as a control, 

followed by the newly developed products (5 of them; A: Soy based product “Vitamamba”; B: Lentil 

based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; D: Chick pea based product; E: Chick pea 

based product + inclusion product) served for consecutive 15 school study days giving 3 alternating 

days for each product. The number of students receiving breakfast meal daily for 5 days ranged 

between 38-54 for males and 39-55 for females from the junior class; 6-9 years (3rd grade) giving a 

total range of 81-109 students of this category. Similarly, the number of students from the senior class; 

10-14 years (7th grade) receiving the same meal for the same period of time ranged between 35-55 for 

males, and 41-53 for females giving a total range of 79 to 105 students of this category. Table 1 itself 

shows a total of 1854 meals offered to students from the juniors and 1844 meals offered to students 

from the seniors by the end of the study. 

 

Table 1. Distribution and Number of Meals for School Students Served by Class and Age Group 

Junior students -Class 3 (age 6-9) Senior students -Class 7 (age 10-14) Total of meals/gendre 

  

Total M % F % 

  

Total M % F % Total M % F % 

Week 1 

(Balila meal) 

Sunday 86 44 51.2 42 48.8 

week 

1 

Balila 

meal 

Sunday 100 55 55 45 45 186 99 53.2 87 46.8 

Monday 83 44 53.0 39 47.0 Monday 105 52 49.5 53 50.5 188 96 51.1 92 48.9 

Tuesday 82 38 46.3 44 53.7 Tuesday 85 40 47.1 45 52.9 167 78 46.7 89 53.3 

Wednesday 106 51 48.1 55 51.9 Wednesday 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 198 96 48.5 102 51.5 

Thursday 109 54 49.5 55 50.5 Thursday 79 35 44.3 44 55.7 188 89 47.3 99 52.7 

Week 2 

Paste Products 

A 88 42 47.7 46 52.3 Week2 A 91 47 51.6 44 48.4 179 89 49.7 90 50.3 

B 81 40 49.4 41 50.6 B 92 47 51.1 45 48.9 173 87 50.3 86 49.7 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

C 92 49 53.3 43 46.7 C 95 47 49.5 48 50.5 187 96 51.3 91 48.7 

D 88 43 48.9 45 51.1 D 93 44 47.3 49 52.7 181 87 48.1 94 51.9 

E 94 45 47.9 49 52.1 E 94 45 47.9 49 52.1 188 90 47.9 98 52.1 

Week 3 

Paste Products 

A 90 45 50.0 45 50.0 

Week3 

A 90 42 46.7 48 53.3 180 87 48.3 93 51.7 

B 95 45 47.4 50 52.6 B 89 45 50.6 44 49.4 184 90 48.9 94 51.1 

C 98 49 50.0 49 50.0 C 89 48 53.9 41 46.1 187 97 51.9 90 48.1 

D 97 49 50.5 48 49.5 D 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 189 94 49.7 95 50.3 

E 98 50 51.0 48 49.0 E 99 51 51.5 48 48.5 197 101 51.3 96 48.7 

Week 4 

Paste Products 

A 88 49 55.7 39 44.3 

Week4 

A 93 44 47.3 49 52.7 181 93 51.4 88 48.6 

B 91 47 51.6 44 48.4 B 92 48 52.2 44 47.8 183 95 51.9 88 48.1 

C 92 45 48.9 47 51.1 C 88 45 51.1 43 48.9 180 90 50.0 90 50.0 

D 97 49 50.5 48 49.5 D 89 44 49.4 45 50.6 186 93 50.0 93 50.0 

E 99 50 50.5 49 49.5 E 97 47 48.5 50 51.5 196 97 49.5 99 50.5 

Total intervention  1854 928 50.1 926 49.9 Total  1844 916 49.7 928 50.3 3698 1844  1854  

Average per day (20 school days) 185 92  93  

M: Male; F: Female. 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Figures 1 and 2 (Tables 2a and 2b, respectively) show percent contribution by junior female and male 

students, and senior ones, respectively, receiving Balila in first week calculated from total. It was 

obvious that senior females were more punctual to attending school classes (Table 2b; Figure 2), the 

observation that concerned us for the following three weeks assigned for serving the newly developed 

meals. The negative fluctuation in percent number of junior female and male students (Table 3) 

receiving new meals was tolerable and seems normal with respect to students’ daily attendance. 

Surprisingly, unlike the junior students, the week following the initial Balila week witnessed positive 

fluctuation in number of senior participants (Table 4) which would suggest more or less consistency in 

number of juniors and seniors male and female students who participated to the four week testing 

program. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The increase or decrease in number of students taking the meals during the course of the study did not 

reflect improvement or decline in school attendance, since the latter phenomenon is associated with 

certain factors such as in-door or out-door school activities. The second week of serving newly 

developed products (Tables 3 and 4) started to partially reflect actual response of participant’s 

contribution to taking the new meals. The same second week of feeding the new meals witnessed 

highest number of meals served (478 meals) with a slight decrease in the final week (467 meals) 

mainly coming from female students due to certain domestic school reasons beyond acceptability 

factors. 

 

Table 3. Percent Contribution by Junior Male and Female Students to Taking New Products for 3 

Weeks 

Serving 

week 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 

F % F % F % F % F  % F  % F  % F  % F  % F  % 

Week 1 42 47.7 46 52.3 40 49.4 41 50.6 49 53.3 43 46.7 43 48.9 45 51.1 45 47.9 49 52.1 

Week 2 45 50 45 50 45 47.4 50 52.6 49 50 49 50 49 50.5 48 49.5 50 51.5 48 49 

Week 3 49 55.7 39 44.3 47 51.6 44 48.4 45 48.9 47 51.1 49 50.5 48 49.5 50 50.5 49 49.5 

F= frequency  

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Table 4. Percent Contribution by Senior Male and Female Students to Taking New Products for 3 

Weeks 

Serving 

week 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 

F % F % F % F % F  % F  % F  % F  % F  % F  % 

Week 1 47 51.6 44 48.4 47 51.1 45 48.9 47 49.5 48 50.5 44 47.3 49 52.7 45 47.9 49 52.1 

Week 2 42 46.7 48 53.3 45 50.6 44 49.4 48 53.9 41 46.1 45 48.9 47 51.1 51 51.5 48 48.5 

Week 3 44 47.3 49 52.7 48 52.2 44 47.8 45 51.1 43 48.9 44 49.4 45 50.6 47 48.5 50 51.5 

F= frequency 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Tables 5 and 6 show response of senior and junior students, respectively; to finishing the whole new 

meal, in other words finishing the whole sachet content (100 g) of 5 products (A, B, C, D, and E) 

presented to the students for 3 successive weeks (15 school days). Balila meal was taken as in-memory 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

control against all products presented to the students. The number of the senior students (10-14 years) 

finishing the whole sachet content (Table 5) increased by serving days (weeks 2 and 3) with all 

products presented, although products B (lentil- based) and D (Chick pea- based) showed better 

consumption (> 95% of participants) compared to the rest of the products. Soya based product (A) 

seemed to be least acceptable to senior students by the end of the test. The response of junior students 

(6-9 years) to finishing the whole sachet content is shown in Table 6. Surprisingly, juniors seemed to 

have different opinion on the products by giving product A (Soy-based) the lead in finishing whole 

sachet content by the end of the feeding test period of time (> 95% of participants), followed by 

products C (Lentil/Inclusion-based), and B(Lentil-based) which registered 93.5% and 93.4% number of 

participants, respectively, finishing the whole sachet contents. With juniors, product E (Chick 

pea/Inclusion-based) was the least tempting to finish it all. 

 

Table 5. %Response of Senior Students to Finishing the Whole Meal 

Serving week 
Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

Yes 67 73.6 72 78.3 67 70.5 79 84.9 70 74.5 

No 24 26.4 20 21.7 28 29.5 14 15.1 24 25.5 

Total 91 100 92 100 95 100 93 100 94 100 

week 2 

Yes 74 82.2 84 94.4 78 87.6 85 92.4 93 93.9 

No 16 17.8 5 5.6 11 12.4 7 7.6 6 6.1 

Total 90 100 89 100 89 100 92 100 99 100 

week 3 

Yes 84 90.3 88 95.7 81 92.0 85 95.5 90 92.8 

No 9 9.7 4 4.3 7 8.0 4 4.5 7 7.2 

Total 93 100 92 100 88 100 89 100 97 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Table 6. %Response of Junior Students to Finishing the Whole Meal 

Serving 

week 

 Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

  Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

Yes 68 77.3 69 85 79 86 74 84 79 84 

No 20 22.7 12 15 13 14 14 16 15 16 

Total 88 100 81 100 92 100 88 100 94 100 

week 2 Yes 80 88.9 82 86 88 90 88 91 90 92 

No 10 11.1 13 14 10 10 9 9 8 8 

Total 90 100 95 100 98 100 97 100 98 100 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

week 3 Yes 84 95.5 85 93 86 93 89 92 90 91 

No 4 4.5 6 7 6 7 8 8 9 9 

Total 88 100 91 100 92 100 97 100 99 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Tables 7 and 8 show responses of senior and junior students, respectively; to reasons for not finishing 

the whole contents of sachet (whole meal). None of the senior students (Table 7) expressed any dislike 

for finishing 3 products (C: Lentil+ Inclusion; D: Chick pea; & E: Chick pea+ Inclusion) during the 

entire 3 weeks testing. About fifth or even less (11-19%) of the senior students expressed dislike as a 

reason for not finishing Soy-based product (Product A). Palatability of any product decides most of the 

time length of tolerability and hence decision of continue taking any meal (Gregory & Kadri, 2015). 

The junior students’ behaviour in finishing the whole meal is shown in Table 8. It seems that the 100g 

material offered in sachet was too much for most of them since more than two third of them felt they 

had enough (stomach full) before finishing the sachet content. The latter feeling is slightly different 

from that full satisfaction feeling expected to reflect lingering satiety during the school hours. Product 

D (Chick pea based) seemed to be the favourite for juniors, followed by product B (Lentil based). 

 

Table 7. %Response of Senior Students to Reasons for not Finishing the Whole Meal 

Serving 

week 
Response 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

Dislike 3 12.5 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Had enough 15 62.5 11 55.0 20 71.4 9 64.3 1 4.2 

Fully satisfied 6 25.0 8 40.0 8 28.6 5 35.7 23 95.8 

 Total 24 100 20 100 28 100 14 100 24 100 

week 2 

Dislike 3 18.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Had enough 12 75.0 5 100.0 1 9.1 7 100.0 6 100.0 

Fully satisfied 1 6.3 0 0.0 10 90.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 

 Total 16 100 5 100 11 100 7 100 6 100 

week 3 

Dislike 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Had enough 6 66.7 3 75.0 7 100.0 4 100.0 7 100.0 

Fully satisfied 2 22.2 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Total 9 100 4 100 7 100 4 100 7 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 8. %Response of Junior Students to Reasons for not Finishing the Whole Meal 

Serving 

week 
Response 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

Dislike 2 10 1 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Had enough 18 90 9 75.0 12.0 92.3 14.0 100 14.0 93.3 

Fully satisfied 0 0 2 16.7 1.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.7 

 Total 20 100 12 100 13.0 100 14.0 100 15.0 100 

week 2 

Dislike 1 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 

Had enough 7 70 12 92.3 10.0 100.0 9.0 100 7.0 87.5 

Fully satisfied 2 20 1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 12.5 

 Total 10 100 13 100 10.0 100 9.0 100 8.0 100 

week 3 

Dislike 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Had enough 3 75 6 100 5.0 83.3 8.0 100 7.0 77.8 

Fully satisfied 1 25 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 22.2 

 Total 4 100 6 100 6 100 8 100 9 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Tables 9 and 10 show time needed for senior and junior students to finish and/or stop taking more of 

the meal. It was obvious that more than 90% of the senior students (Table 9) did not take much time (≤ 

10 minutes) in finishing or stop taking the sachet content of all the 5 products offered to them 

successively on daily basis. The positive side of this test outcome is that the sachet content (the paste), 

was easily chewable, non-sticky, easily swallowed, and palatable enough to hasten the eating process. 

The latter characteristic usually encourages eaters to continue taking more or finishing any stuff offered 

(Barbara & Sandra, 2010). Table 10 also shows the time taken by junior students to finish or stop 

taking the sachet content. Although more than two third (> 68%) of the junior participants needed 10 

minutes only or even less to finish the meal, the other one third is of concern to us for reasons that 

made them took 15 minutes or more to finish lentil - based pastes (B&C). Lentil is a conventional 

legume to all Sudanese particularly to school meals planning and preparations (Federal Ministry of 

Health, 2006). 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 9. Time Needed by Senior Students to Finish and/or Stop Taking more of the Meal 

Serving 

week 

Finishing 

time 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

Week 1 

≤10 minutes 82 90 86 93 92 97 91 98 90 96 

~15 minutes 7 8 6 7 3 3 2 2 4 4 

˃15 minutes 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 91 100 92 100 95 100 93 100 94 100 

Week 2 

≤10 minutes 86 96 84 94 88 99 90 98 98 99 

~15 minutes 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 

˃15 minutes 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 90 100 89 100 89 100 92 100 99 100 

Week 3 

≤10 minutes 89 96 90 98 88 100 85 96 93 96 

~15 minutes 4 4 2 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 

˃15 minutes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 93 100 92 100 88 100 89 100 97 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

Table 10. Time Needed by Junior Students to Finish and/or Stop Taking more of the Meal 

Serving 

week 

Finishing 

time 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

Week 1 

≤10 minutes 71 80.7 56 93 67 97 60 98 77 96 

~15 minutes 16 18.2 17 7 19 3 23 2 15 4 

˃15 minutes 1 1.1 8 0 6 0 5 0 2 0 

Total 88 100 81 100 92 100 88 100 94 100 

Week 2 

≤10 minutes 86 95.6 77 81.1 84 85.7 79 81.4 75 76.5 

~15 minutes 4 4.4 16 16.8 14 14.3 16 16.5 15 15.3 

˃15 minutes 0 0.0 2 2.1 0 0.0 2 2.1 8 8.2 

Total 90 100 95 100 98 100 97 100 98 100 

Week 3 

≤10 minutes 65 73.9 65 71.4 67 72.8 82 84.5 86 86.9 

~15 minutes 22 25.0 25 27.5 25 27.2 15 15.5 13 13.1 

˃15 minutes 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 

Total 88 100 91 100 92 100 97 100 99 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Tables 11 and 12 show responses of senior and junior students, respectively; to degree of satiety feeling 

during class room hours following meal intake. Feeling full satiety by senior students (Table 11) during 

the school hours was improved towards the third week of testing the new products. By the end of the 

feeding test, product B (Lentil based) proved to fulfil that degree of satiety (100%) intended to quench 

hunger until the students finish their lessons and go back home. The other products were by no means 

less than B in giving that feeling (97.6-98.9% degree of satiety) of full satiety although sachet content 

of some of them were not fully consumed by seniors (Table 5) compared to B product. Table 12 shows 

fluctuation in degree of satiety feeling among junior students during the school hours following meal 

taking in the first and second weeks of the serving process, with more or less satisfactory degree of 

satiety offered by all the products by the end of the third week (94.1-98.9%). It then becomes hard to 

judge on poorness of any of them. 

 

Table 11. Response of Senior Students to Degree of Satiety during Class Room Hours following 

Meal Taking 

Serving 

week 

Satiety 

response 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

No Satiety  1 1.5 1 1.4 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 

Not Sure 11 16.4 7 9.7 9 13.4 11 13.9 5 7.1 

Full Satiety 55 82.1 64 88.9 58 86.6 67 84.8 65 92.9 

Total 67 100 72 100 67 100 79 100 70 100 

week 2 

No Satiety 0 0.0 1 1.2 2 2.6 1 1.2 0 0.0 

Not Sure 1 1.4 4 4.8 7 9.0 4 4.7 3 3.2 

Full Satiety 73 98.6 79 94.0 69 88.5 80 94.1 90 96.8 

Total 74 100 84 100 78 100 85 100 93 100 

week 3 

No Satiety  0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Not Sure 2 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.1 

Full Satiety 82 97.6 88 100.0 80 98.8 84 98.8 89 98.9 

Total 84 100 88 100 81 100 85 100 90 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 12. Response of Senior Students to Degree of Satiety during Class Room Hours following 

Meal Taking 

Serving 

week 

Satiety 

response 

Product A Product B Product C Product D Product E 

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 

week 1 

No Satiety  0 0 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.3 

Not Sure 0 0 5 7.2 2 2.5 10 13.5 10 12.7 

Full Satiety 68 100 64 92.8 76 96.2 64 86.5 68 86.1 

Total 68 100 69 100 79 100 74 100 79 100 

week 2 

No Satiety  0 0.0 3 3.7 2 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Not Sure 1 1.3 7 8.5 5 5.7 3 3.4 1 1.1 

Full Satiety 79 98.8 72 87.8 81 92.0 85 96.6 89 98.9 

Total 80 100 82 100 88 100 88 100 90 100 

week 3 

No Satiety  2 2.4 2 2.4 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 1.1 

Not Sure 2 2.4 3 3.5 2 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.1 

Full Satiety 80 95.2 80 94.1 84 97.7 88 98.9 88 97.8 

Total 84 100 85 100 86 100 89 100 90 100 

A: Soy based product Vitamamba; B: Lentil based product; C: Lentil based product + inclusion product; 

D: Chick pea base product; E: Chick pea based + inclusion product. 

 

In conclusion, senior students (10-14 years) seemed to have appreciated paste meal based on lentil or 

chick pea as reflected in finishing all the meals in less than 10 minutes and also showed full- satiety 

feeling during the daily school hours. One fifth of the seniors expressed dislike for soy based paste as a 

reason for not finishing the paste. With respect to junior students (6-9 years), they seemed to have 

different opinions by showing more appreciation to the soy-based paste and taking less time to finish 

the product, although they expressed full- satiety feeling with all the products during the daily school 

hours. 

 

References  

ASTM. (1992). American Society for Testing and Materials; Committee E-18.Manual on Descriptive 

Analysis for Sensory Evaluation (R. C. Hootman, Ed.). Philadelphia, PA, MNL. 

ASTM. (2003). American Society for Testing and Materials; E2299-03.Standard Guide for Sensory 

Evaluation of Products by Children. Philadelphia, PA. 

Barbara, B., & Sandro, D. (2010). Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO. Proceedings of 

the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets. United Against Hunger. 

FAO Headquarters, Rome.  

Black, R. E., Allen, H. L., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2008). Maternal and child under nutrition: Global and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fsns                Food Science and Nutrition Studies                     Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet, 371, 243-260.  

Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective 

Market Research. Kogan Page, Philadelphia, PA. 

Jean-Xavier G. (2001). Sensory and consumer testing with children, Trends in Food Science and 

Technology, 11 (8) 273-283 

DIUS. (2007). Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills Rigour, respect and responsibility: A 

universal ethical code for scientists.  

FAO, (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, WSFS 2009/2, 16 November 2009. 

FAO, (2006). Policy Brief, Issue 2: Food Security. Rome. 

Federal Ministry of Health. (2006). Policy - Nutrition Policy for Sudan and Strategy for 

Implementation Comprehensive national nutrition policy, strategy or plan.  

Goldstein, E. B. (2006). Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth Publishing, Florence, KY. 

Gordin, H. H. (1987). Intensity variation descriptive methodology: Development and application of a 

new sensory evaluation technique. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 187-198. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1987.tb00416.x 

Gregory, C. A., & Kadri, K. (2015). Pet Food Palatability Evaluation: A Review of Standard Assay 

Techniques and Interpretation of Results with a Primary Focus on Limitations, Animals (Basel) 

(Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 43-55).  

Guinard, J. X. (2001).Sensory and Consumer Testing with Children. Trends in Food Science and 

Technology, 11, 273-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(01)00015-2 

ISO. (1988). International Organization of Standards. ISO 8587: Methods for sensory analysis of food.  

Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. 

Springer, N.Y. 

Meilgaard, M., Civille, C. V., & Carr, B. T. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques (4th ed.). CRC, 

Boca Raton, FL. 

NHCTR, Nutrition & Health Center for Training & Research. (2017). Technical Report on “The 

Acceptability of School Meals Developed Based on Plant Sources Test No. I”. NHCTR, AUW, 

Sudan. 

NHCTR, Nutrition & Health Center for Training & Research. (2018). Technical Report on “The 

Acceptability of School Meals Test No. II”. NHCTR, AUW, Sudan. 

Poste, L. M., MacKie, D. A., Butler, G., & Larmond, E. (1991). Laboratory Methods for Sensory 

Analysis of Food. Canadian Group; Publishing Centre, Ottowa, Canada. 

Schutz, H. G., & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food 

liking / disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 117-159. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00293.x 

Sudan Ministry of General Education, (2008). Baseline Survey on Basic Education on the Northern 

States of Sudan. Directorate General of Educational Planning, Khartoum, Sudan. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494336/

