4.2 Article

A Comparison of Firmness Assessment Instruments for Fresh Blueberry Fruit

期刊

HORTTECHNOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 172-+

出版社

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTTECH04960-21

关键词

durometer; fruit texture; ripening; SS/TA; Vaccinium

资金

  1. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research CONICYT [FONDECYT 1191818]
  2. TopQuality SpA
  3. Chilean Blueberry Committee (branch of the Asociacion de Exportadores de Frutas de Chile, A.G. ASOEX)
  4. Chilean Blueberry Committee (Fruit Exporters Association of Chile)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fresh highbush and rabbiteye blueberries are perishable, and maintaining their quality and value while reaching distant markets is challenging. This study evaluated different instruments for measuring blueberry firmness and found that FirmTech II and Penefel performed better for soft fruit.
Fresh fruit from northern highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) and rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei) are highly perishable, so reaching distant markets while maintaining superior quality and value is a challenge. Although firmness is one of the most critical traits of blueberries (Vaccinium sp.), most of the industry relies on a subjective-tactile assessment or on the use of lowcost texture analyzers, whereas scientists tend to rely on the FirmTech II instrument. In the present study, the FirmTech II was evaluated as a texture analyzer and compared with tactile estimation, two other FirmTech II devices, and three relatively inexpensive durometers (Penefel, Durofel, and DM1600). Tests were run for fruit previously segregated by tactile (T) measurements into three classes of firmness: Soft-T, Moderate-T, and Firm-T; fruit were classified into instrument-based (I) categories of texture: Soft-I, Moderate-I, and Firm-I using the FirmTech II instrument. The level of coincidence between T and I assessments were higher in the soft (90.7% to 92.6%) and moderate (69.6% to 78.2%) classes compared with the firm class (51.6% to 61.4%). Among firmness categories, T and I assessments tended to agree; none of the Soft-T fruit were classed as Firm-I. In comparisons between equivalently calibrated FirmTech II devices, concordance always decreased as fruit firmness increased, indicating that more reproducible readings for a given instrument could be expected from softer fruit. Dual measurements on a single fruit for FirmTech II and a second device yielded variable, but significant correlation coefficients (Penefel: r(2) = 0.61 to 0.67; Durofel: r(2) = 0.48 to 0.61; DM1600: r(2) = 0.08 to 0.49). The highest correlation existed between two FirmTech II devices (r(2) = 0.94 to 0.95). However, correlations between the FirmTech II and second devices among the three firmness classes yielded very low correlation coefficients (Penefel: r(2) = 0.09 to 0.40; Durofel: r(2) = 0.05 to 0.32; DM1600: r(2) = 0.00 to 0.25; FirmTech II: 0.03 to 0.33), suggesting that although all instruments were suitable for evaluating across broad ranges of fruit firmness, they were all similarly unsuitable within a narrow firmness range (e.g., for all soft or all firm fruit). Given the subjectivity of the tactile measurement and the range of variability between the evaluated alternatives, both FirmTech II and Penefel performed better in soft fruit but not as well in moderate or firm fruit. Therefore, among the more economical durometer devices, Penefel could be used by the industry to discriminate soft fruit from moderately firm or firm fruit. The results highlight the relevance of studying the predictive capacity of a particular instrument and to understand the performance of that instrument within a particular range of firmness values.

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

4.2
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