4.6 Article

Consumer perception of crispness and crunchiness in fruits and vegetables

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 23-29

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00053-2

Keywords

crispness; crunchiness; fruit and vegetables; consumer; texture terminology; free-choice profiling; generalised procrustes analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crispy and crunchy textures are desirable qualities and contribute to our enjoyment of foods, and this is particularly true in the case of fruits and vegetables. However, most of the literature on crispness and crunchiness focuses on dry foods, and little work has been carried out on wet foods such as fruits and vegetables. The study presented here was designed to address two main issues: firstly, to gain a better understanding of consumer terminology relevant to the textural characteristics of fruits and vegetables, with particular emphasis on crispy and crunchy terms; secondly, to investigate the relationship between the vocabularies used by trained panels and consumers. Products were selected to give a wide range of textural characteristics. Free choice profiling was carried out with a small number of naive consumers, as well as with trained panellists. Both sets of data were analysed using generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), which allowed comparison of the two sets of vocabularies generated. GPA maps showed that sensory perceptions expressed by a trained panel correlated well with consumer terminology. The study also reinforced the idea that crispness and crunchiness are complex concepts that combine a wide range of perceptions such as fracture characteristics, sound, density and geometry. Results showed a better agreement on the meaning and use of crunchy terms by consumers and panellists alike. On the other hand, crispness was less well understood, showing a much wider conceptual space. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. Ali 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available