Importance of fruit variability in the assessment of apple quality by sensory evaluation

Postharvest Biology and Technology

Volumn 77, Issue , 2013, Pages 67-74

  Bavay, Cécile ^a   Symoneaux, Ronan ^a   Maître, Isabelle ^a   Kuznetsova, Alexandra ^b   Brockhoff, Per Bruun ^b   Mehinagic, Emira ^a  

^a LUNAM Universite   (France)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Apple; Mixed hierarchical model; Panel performance; Sensory evaluation; Variability

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

EID: 84871567711     PISSN: 09255214     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abbott J., Lu R. Anisotropic mechanical properties of apples. Transaction of the ASAE 1996, 39:1451-1459.
2. Abbott J.A., Affeldt H.A., Liljedahl L.A. Firmness measurement of stored 'delicious' apples by sensory methods. Magness-Taylor, and sonic transmission. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 1992, 117:590-595.
3. Abbott J.A., Saftner R.A., Gross K.C., Vinyard B.T., Janick J. Consumer evaluation and quality measurement of fresh-cut slices of 'Fuji', 'Golden Delicious', 'Gold Rush',and 'Granny Smith' apples. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2004, 33:127-140.
4. Ackermann J., Fischer M., Amado R. Changes in sugars, acids, and amino acids during ripening and storage of apples (cv, Glockenapfel). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1992, 40:1131-1134.
5. Aguirre L., Frias J.M., Barry-Ryan C., Grogan H. Assessing the effect of product variability on the management of the quality of mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus). Postharvest Biology and Technology 2008, 49:247-254.
6. Barreiro P., Ortiz C., Altisent M.R., Schotte S., Andani Z., Wakeling I., Beyt P.K. Comparison between sensory and instrumental measurements for mealiness assessment in apples. A collaborative test. Journal of Texture Studies 1998, 29:509-525.
7. Bhagwat A.A., Saftner R.A., Abbott J.A. Evaluation of wash treatments for survival of foodborne pathogens and maintenance of quality characteristics of fresh-cut apple slices. Food Microbiology 2004, 21:319-326.
8. Bobelyn E., Serban A.S., Nicu M., Lammertyn J., Nicolai B.M., Saeys W. Postharvest quality of apple predicted by NIR-spectroscopy: study of the effect of biological variability on spectra and model performance. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2010, 55:133-143.
9. Brockhoff P.B. Statistical testing of individual differences in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:425-434.
10. Brockhoff P.B., Skovgaard I.M. Modelling individual differences between assessors in sensory evaluations. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:215-224.
11. Brookfield P.L., Nicoll S., Gunson F.A., Harker F.R., Wohlers M. Sensory evaluation by small postharvest teams and the relationship with instrumental measurements of apple texture. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2011, 59:179-186.
12. Casals J., Pascual L., Cañizares J., Cebolla-Cornejo J., Casañas F., Nuez F. The risks of success in quality vegetable markets: possible genetic erosion in Marmande tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and consumer dissatisfaction. Scientia Horticulturae 2011, 130:78-84.
13. Chen H., De Baerdemaeker I. Finite-element-based modal analysis of fruit firmness. Transaction of the ASAE 1993, 36:1827-1834.
14. Chen H., DeBaerdemaeker J. Effect of apple shape on acoustic measurements of firmness. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1993, 56:253-266.
15. Daillant-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 Quality and Preference 1996, 7:113-126.
16. De Belie N., Schotte S., Coucke P., De Baerdemaeker J. Development of an automated monitoring device to quantify changes in firmness of apples during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2000, 18:1-8.
17. De Ketelaere B., Stulens J., Lammertyn J., Cuong N.V., De Baerdemaeker J. A methodological approach for the identification and quantification of sources of biological variance in postharvest research. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2006, 39:1-9.
18. Findlay C.J., Castura J.C., Lesschaeve I. Feedback calibration: a training method for descriptive panels. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:321-328.
19. 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.
20. Harker F.R., Anne Gunson F., Brookfield P.L., White A. An apple a day: the influence of memory on consumer judgment of quality. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:173-179.
21. Harker F.R., Gunson F.A., Jaeger S.R. The case for fruit quality: an interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2003, 28:333-347.
22. Harker F.R., Kupferman E.M., Marin A.B., Gunson F.A., Triggs C.M. Eating quality standards for apples based on consumer preferences. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2008, 50:70-78.
23. 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 Biology and Technology 2002, 24:225-239.
24. Heintz C.M., Kader A.A. Procedures for the sensory evaluation of horticultural crops [Quality, color and texture]. HortScience 1983, 18:18-22.
25. Hertog M.L. The impact of biological variation on postharvest population dynamics. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2002, 26:253-263.
26. Hertog M.L., Lammertyn J., Desmet M., Scheerlinck N. The impact of biological variation on postharvest behaviour of tomato fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2004, 34:271-284.
27. Ioannides 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 Quality and Preference 2007, 18:825-833.
28. ISO 8586-2:1994 (1994). Analyse sensorielle - Guide général pour la sélection, l'entraînement et le contrôle des sujets - Partie 2: Experts. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization, pp. 83-97.
29. ISO 5495 (2005). Analyse sensorielle - Méthodologie - Essai de comparaison par paires. International Organization for Standardization, pp. 321-343.
30. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: a cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:355-366.
31. 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. Quantitative genetic analysis and comparison of physical and sensory descriptors relating to fruit flesh firmness in apple (Malus pumila Mill.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2000, 100:1074-1084.
32. Kingston C. Maturity indices for apple and pear. Horticultural Reviews 1991, 13:407-432.
33. Konopacka D., Plocharski W.J. Effect of storage conditions on the relationship between apple firmness and texture acceptability. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2004, 32:205-211.
34. Kuznetsova, A., Christensen, R.H.B., Brockhoff, P.B., 2012. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 1.0-2.
35. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices 1998, Chapman & Hall, New York.
36. Mehinagic E., Royer G., Bertrand D., Symoneaux R., Laurens F., Jourjon F. Relationship between visible-NIR spectroscopy and sensory analysis of apples. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:473-484.
37. Mehinagic E., Royer G., Symoneaux R., Jourjon F. Relationship between apple sensory attributes and instrumental parameters of texture. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research 2006, 14:25-37.
38. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 1991, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2nd ed.
39. Molina-Delgado D., Alegre S., Barreiro P., Valero C., Ruiz-Altisent M., Recasens I. Addressing potential sources of variation in several non-destructive techniques for measuring firmness in apples. Biosystems Engineering 2009, 104:33-46.
40. Molina-Delgado D., Alegre S., Puy J., Recasens I. Relationship between acoustic firmness and Magness Taylor firmness in Royal Gala and Golden Smoothee apples. Food Science and Technology International 2009, 15:31-40.
41. Montero-Prado P., Rodriguez-Lafuente A., Nerin C. Active label-based packaging to extend the shelf-life of " Calanda" peach fruit: changes in fruit quality and enzymatic activity. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2011, 60:211-219.
42. Næs T. Detecting individual differences among assessors and differences among replicates in sensory profiling. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:107-110.
43. Næs T., Brockhoff P.B., Tomic O. Statistics for sensory and consumer science 2010, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
44. Oraguzie N., Alspach P., Volz R., Whitworth C., Ranatunga C., Weskett R., Harker R. Postharvest assessment of fruit quality parameters in apple using both instruments and an expert panel. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2009, 52:279-287.
45. © 2000, Springer Verlag LLC, New York.
46. Plotto A., McDaniel M.R., Mattheis J.P. Characterization of Gala'Apple aroma and flavor: differences between controlled atmosphere and air storage. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 1999, 124:416-423.
47. R Core Team, 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.r-project.org/.
48. Romano R., Brockhoff P.B., Hersleth M., Tomic O., Næs T. Correcting for different use of the scale and the need for further analysis of individual differences in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:197-209.
49. Schouten R.E., Jongbloed G., Tijskens L.M.M., van Kooten O. Batch variability and cultivar keeping quality of cucumber. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2004, 32:299-310.
50. Seppä L., Railio J., Mononen R., Tahvonen R., Tuorila H. From profiles to practice: communicating the sensory characteristics of apples to the wider audience through simplified descriptive profiles. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2012, 47:46-55.
51. Stevens M.A., Albright M. An approach to sensory evaluation of horticultural commodities [fresh market tomatoes]. HortScience 1980, 15:48-50.
52. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V., Mehinagic E. Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:59-66.
53. Symoneaux R., Royer G., Madieta E., Jourjon F. Acoustic and sensory measurements of different ripeness of apples. Acta Horticulturae 2005, 682:1475-1480.
54. Tijskens L.M.M., Konopacki P. Biological variance in agricultural products. Theoretical considerations. Acta Horticulturae 2003, 600:661-670.
55. Tijskens L.M.M., Konopacki P., Simcic M. Biological variance, burden or benefit?. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2003, 27:15-25.
56. Vaysse, P., Landry P., 2004. Pomme-poire: de la récolte au conditionnement: outils pratiques. Editions Centre technique interprofessionnel des fruits et légumes.
57. Watada A.E., Abbott J.A., Hardenburg R.E. Sensory characteristics of apple fruit. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 1980, 105:371-375.
58. Williams A.A., Carter C.S. A language and procedure for the sensory assessment of Cox's Orange Pippin apples. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1977, 28:1090-1104.