4.7 Article

Converting Apple Textural Parameters Obtained from Penetrometers and Their Relationships with Sensory Attributes

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8030269

关键词

apple; fruit texture; penetrometer; model development; sensory evaluation

资金

  1. Canadian Agricultural Partnership Fund
  2. British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association (CAP) [ASP-005, 5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares data from three widely used textural instruments, investigates their relationships with sensory evaluations, and develops models to convert data among instruments.
Textural attributes of apple impact consumers' acceptance of the fruit, and are frequently measured by researchers and industry experts to evaluate the fruit quality at different stages of production and marketing. Various instruments are used to conduct these textural evaluations in research and industry settings. The application of different instruments makes the comparison and integration of results extremely difficult. The main objectives of this study were to compare data obtained from three widely used textural instruments, investigate their relationships with each other and with sensory evaluations, and develop models to convert data among instruments. Three penetrometers were included in the study: (1) Fruit Texture Analyzer (FTA); (2) Mohr Digi-Test-2 (MDT-2); and (3) TA.XTplus Texture Analyzer (TA.XTplus). Eight apple varieties with a range of textural attributes were selected. Eleven sensory judges evaluated three apple slices (1/8 apple) from each variety. The instrumental measurements were conducted on 10 apples per instrument from each variety, with two measurements on each apple. Results of principal component analysis indicated that 95.82% of the variation in the texture data could be explained using only two principal components. Linear and nonlinear regression models were developed to convert data obtained from an instrument to those from other instruments.

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