4.7 Article

The use of sensory attributes, sugar content, instrumental data and consumer acceptability in selection of sweet potato varieties

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 93, 期 7, 页码 1610-1619

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.5932

关键词

sweet potato; sensory attributes; consumer acceptance; instrumental analyses; maltose content; partial least squares regression; principal component analysis

资金

  1. South African Sugar Association (SASA) [202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background As eating quality is important for adoption of new varieties, nine orange-fleshed and three cream-fleshed sweet potato varieties were assessed for sensory characteristics, dry mass and free sugar content, instrumental texture and colour and consumer acceptability (n= 216) in a peri-urban South African setting. Results Cream-fleshed varieties were higher in yellow-green colour and sweet potato-like flavour and lower in graininess. Orange-fleshed varieties were higher in pumpkin-like flavour, orange colour, discolouration and sucrose content. Partial least squares regression analysis showed that the most accepted varieties (Impilo, Excel, Resisto, 2001_5_2, Serolane, W-119 and Monate) were associated with sweet flavour, dry mass and maltose content, while the least accepted varieties (Beauregard, Khano and 1999_1_7) were associated with wateriness. Pearson correlation analysis highlighted correlations of sensory attributes yellow and orange with instrumental colour measurements (colour a* and colour b*), instrumental firmness with sensory firmness, dry mass with sensory wateriness, and maltose content with sensory sweet and sweet potato-like flavour. The varieties were clustered into three groups. Consumer acceptability for eating quality correlated with maltose content, dry mass and sweet flavour. Conclusion Chemical and instrumental measurements were identified to evaluate key attributes and will be useful in the intermediate phases of sweet potato varietal development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据