Integration of sensory and objective measurements of tomato quality: Quantitative assessment of the effect of harvest date as compared with growth medium (soil versus rockwool), electrical conductivity, variety and maturity

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Volumn 85, Issue 13, 2005, Pages 2289-2296

  Thybo, Anette K ^a   Bechmann, Iben E ^b   Brandt, Kirsten ^c  

^a DANISH INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Denmark)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Instrumental quality evaluation; Principal components analysis; Rockwool; Sensory quality evaluation; Soil; Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Aromata F1)

Indexed keywords

LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM;

EID: 26444549059     PISSN: 00225142     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2253     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Johansson L, Haglund A, Berglund L, Lea P and Risvik E, Preference for tomatoes, affected by sensory attributes and information about growth conditions. Food Qual Prefer 10:289-298 (1999).
2. Waters C, Hot tomatoes. Metro Santa Cruz 9-13 September (2000). http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/09.06.00/tomatoes-0036.html [accessed 29 May 2005].
3. Thybo AK and Martens M, Instrumental and sensory characterization of cooked potato texture. J Texture Stud 30:259-278 (1999).
4. Haglund A, Johansson L, Gäredal L and Dlouhy J, Sensory quality of tomatoes cultivated with ecological fertilizing systems. Swedish J Agric Res 27:135-145 (1997).
5. Künsch U, Schärer H, Dürr P, Hurter J, Martinoni A, Jelmini G, Sulser H and Seeger B, Qualitätsuntersuchungen an Tomaten aus erdelosem und konventionellem Glashausanbau (Quality investigation of tomatoes from soil-less and conventional culture). Gartenbauwissenschaft 59:21-26 (1994).
6. Auclair L, Zee JA, Karam A and Rochat E, Nutritive value, organoleptic quality and productivity of greenhouse tomatoes in relation to their production methods: organic - conventional - hydroponic. Sci Aliment 15:511-528 (1995).
7. Gysi C, von Allmen F and Duerr P, Gewächshaus- und Freilandtomaten: sensorische Unterschiede. AgrForsc 4:29-31 (1997).
8. Basker D, Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. Am J Altern Agric 7:129-136 (1992).
9. Granges A, Azodanlou R, Couvreur F and Reuter E, Methodes de culture et qualite organoleptique de tomates cultivees en serre et en plein champ (Cultivation methods and organoleptic quality of tomatoes grown in the greenhouse and in the field). Revue Suisse de Viticulture, d'Arboriculture et d'Horticulture 32:175-180 (2000).
10. Gomez R, Costa J, Amo M, Alvarruiz A, Picazo M and Pardo JE, Physicochemical and colorimetric evaluation of local varieties of tomato grown in SE Spain. J Sci Food Agric 81:1101-1105 (2001).
11. De Bruyn JW, Garretsen F and Kooistra E, Variation in taste and chemical composition of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Euphytica 20:214-227 (1971).
12. Auerswald H, Schwarz D, Kornelson C, Krumbein A and Brückner B, Sensory analysis, sugar and acid content of tomato at different EC values of the nutrient solution. Sci Hortic 82:227-242 (1999).
13. Sonneveld C and Welles GWH, Yield and quality of rockwool-grown tomatoes as affected by variations in EC-value and climatic conditions. Plant Soil 111:37-42 (1988).
14. Willumsen J, Petersen KK and Kaack K, Yield and blossom-end rot of tomato as affected by salinity and cation activity ratios in the root zone. J Hortic Sci 71:81-98 (1996).
15. Petersen KK, Willumsen J and Kaack K, Composition and taste of tomatoes as affected by increased salinity and different salinity sources. J Hortic Sci Biotech 73:205-215 (1998).
16. Gundersen V, McCall D and Bechmann IE, Comparison of major and trace element concentrations in Danish greenhouse tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum, Aromata F1) cultivated in different substrates. J Agric Food Chem 49:3808-3815 (2001).
17. Grierson D and Kader AA, Fruit ripening and quality, in The Tomato Crop. A Scientific Basis for Improvement, Ed by Atherton JG and Rudich J. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London, pp 241-280 (1986).
18. Brandt K, Variation among and within clones in formation of roots and shoots during micropropagation of Campanula isophylla. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 39:63-68 (1994).
19. Littel RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW and Wolfinger RD, SAS System for Mixed Models, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC (1996).
20. Martens H and Næs T, Multivariate Calibration. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York (1989).
21. Resurreccion AVA and Shewfelt RL, Relationships between sensory attributes and objective measurements of postharvest quality of tomatoes. J Food Sci 50:1242-1245 (1985).
22. Auerswald H, Peters P, Brückner B, Krumbein A and Kuchenbuch R, Sensory analysis and instrumental measurements of short-term stored tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Postharvest Biol Technol 15:323-334 (1999).
23. Truong VD and Daubert CR, Rheological methods for assessment of food freshness and stability. Freshness and Shelf Life of Foods, ACS Symposium Series 836:248-268 (2003).