4.7 Article

Eating quality standards for apples based on consumer preferences

Journal

POSTHARVEST BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 70-78

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.03.020

Keywords

consumers; apple; firmness; souble solids; acidity

Funding

  1. Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission
  2. Washington Apple Commission
  3. New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology [C06X0205]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consumer acceptance and liking of 'Red Delicious', 'Gala', 'Fuji', 'Golden Delicious' and 'Braeburn' apples were assessed in separate trials for each cultivar. Apples were sorted into six or eight categories using a mixture of destructive and non-destructive measurements of texture and taste. Non-destructive measurements included an acoustic texture measurement (Aweta Acoustical Firmness Sensor, AFS), Sinclair Internal Quality Firmness Tester (SIQ-FT) and Near Infra-Red (NIR) spectroscopy. Destructive measurements included firmness by puncture tests, soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA) and pH. More than 100 US consumers evaluated the fruit at each evaluation date, with individuals tasting an apple from each of the 6-8 texture/taste categories. Preference mapping and other statistical methods reaffirmed that firmness is the primary edible quality factor that contributes to consumer acceptance and preference in the USA. High SSC and/or TA may result in further improvements in consumer acceptance, but usually only in apples that are firm. While there is a general positive trend for increasing preference with firmness, some consumers will prefer softer apples, and some will dislike the firmest apples. Using combinations of firmness SSC and TA, it was possible to identify categories of apples that achieved consumer acceptability levels from 43% to 90%. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available