Sensory evaluation by small postharvest teams and the relationship with instrumental measurements of apple texture

Postharvest Biology and Technology

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 179-186

  Brookfield, Paul L ^a   Nicoll, Sara ^a   Gunson, F Anne ^a   Harker, F Roger ^a   Wohlers, Mark ^a  

^a THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Apple; Crispness; Juiciness; Malus domestica (Borkh.); SENB test; Texture; Trained sensory assessors

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

EID: 78249251757     PISSN: 09255214     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.08.021     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Allan-Wojtas P., Sanford K.A., McRae K.B., Carbyn S. An integrated microstructural and sensory approach to describe apple texture. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 2003, 128:381-390.
2. Alvarez M.D., Saunders D.E.J., Vincent J.F.V., Jeronimidis G. An engineering method to evaluate the crisp texture of fruit and vegetables. J. Texture Stud. 2000, 31:457-473.
3. Andani Z., Jaeger S.R., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Mealiness in apples: towards a multilingual consumer vocabulary. J. Food Sci. 2001, 66:872-879.
4. Barreiro P., Ortiz C., Ruiz-Altisent M., De Smedt V., Schotte S., Andani Z., Wakeling I., Beyts P.K. Comparison between sensory and instrumental measurements for mealiness assessment in apples: a collaborative test. J. Texture Stud. 1998, 29:509-525.
5. Dalliant-Spinnler B., MacFie H.J.H., Beyts P.K., Hedderley D. Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the Southern Hemisphere. Food Qual. Prefer. 1996, 7:113-126.
6. Dever M.C., Cliff A., Hall J.W. Analysis of variation and multivariate relationships among analytical and sensory characteristics in whole apple evaluation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1995, 69:329-338.
7. Hampson C.R., Quamme H.A., Hall J.W., MacDonald R.A., King M.C., Cliff M.A. Sensory evaluation as a selection tool in apple breeding. Euphytica 2000, 111:79-90.
8. Harker F.R., Stec M.G.H., Hallett I.C., Bennett C.L. Texture of parenchymatous plant tissue: a comparison between tensile and other instrumental and sensory measurements of tissue strength and juiciness. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1997, 11:63-72.
9. Harker F.R., Maindonald J., Murray S.H., Gunson F.A., Hallett I.C., Walker S.B. Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 1: texture of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24:225-239.
10. Harker F.R., White A., Gunson F.A., Hallett I.C., De Silva H.N. Instrumental measurement of apple texture: a comparison of the single-edge notched bend test and the penetrometer. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 39:185-192.
11. Harker F.R., Amos R.L., Echeverriaa G., Gunson F.A. Influence of texture on taste: insights gained during studies of hardness, juiciness and sweetness of apple fruit. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71:S77-S82.
12. Harker F.R., Kupferman E.M., Marin A.B., Gunson A., Triggs C.M. Eating quality standards for apples based on consumer preferences. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 50:70-78.
13. Ioannnides Y., Howarth M.S., Raithatha C., Defernez M., Kemsley E.K., Smith A.C. Texture analysis of red delicious fruit: towards multiple measurements on individual fruit. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18:825-833.
14. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: a cross-cultural comparison. Food Qual. Prefer. 1998, 9:355-366.
15. King G.J., Maliepaard C., Lynn J.R., Alston F.H., Durel C.E., Evans K.M., Griffon B., Laurens F., Manganaris A.G., Schrevens E., Tartarini S., Verhaegh J. Quantitative genetic analysis and comparison of physical and sensory descriptors relating to fruit flesh firmness in apple (Malus pumila Mill.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100:1074-1084.
16. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and practices 1999, Aspen publishers, Gaithersburg, MD.
17. Mann H., Bedford D., Luby J., Vickers Z., Tong C. Relationship of instrumental and sensory texture measurements of fresh and stored apples to cell number and size. HortScience 2005, 40:1815-1820.
18. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 2006, CRC Press. 4th ed.
19. Mehinagic E., Royer G., Symoneaux R., Bertrand D., Jourjon F. Prediction of the sensory quality of apples by physical measurements. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 34:257-269.
20. Payne R.W., Murray D.A., Harding S.A., Baird D.B., Soutar D.M. GenStat for Windows (10th Edition) Introduction 2007, VSN International, Hemel Hempstead.
21. Péneau P.B., Brockhoff P.B., Hoehn E., Escher F., Nuessli J. Relating consumer evaluation of apple freshness to sensory and physiochemical measurements. J. Sens. Stud. 2007, 22:313-335.
22. R Development Core team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2009, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org.
23. SAS Institute Inc., 2000-2004. 1.3 Help and Documentation. Cary, NC.
24. Szczesniak A.S., Ilker R. The meaning of textural characteristics - juiciness in plant food stuffs. J. Texture Stud. 1988, 19:61-78.
25. Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1999. Clarifying new Red Delicious inspections. Good fruit Grower. May 15.