4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Non-destructive tests on the prediction of apple fruit flesh firmness and soluble solids content on tree and in shelf life

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
卷 77, 期 2, 页码 254-260

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.06.027

关键词

apple; fruit quality; fruit flesh firmness; non-destructive sensing; OHD; shelf life; sensor fusion; soluble solids content; spectral analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acoustic impulse resonance frequency sensor and miniaturized VIS/NIR spectrometer were applied on apple fruit Malus domestica 'Idared' and 'Golden Delicious' (n = 800) to predict fruit flesh firmness and soluble solids content (SSC) on tree and in shelf life. Partial least-squares calibration models on acoustic data and VIS spectra of 'Golden Delicious'/'Idared' apple fruits on tree were built for predicting the fruit flesh firmness: coefficients of determination (R-2) and standard errors of cross-validation (SECV) of R-2 = 0.93/0.81 and SECV = 7.73/10.50 [N/cm(2)] were calculated. SSC prediction of freshly harvested apples using NIR spectrometry was obtained with R-2 = 0.20/0.41 and SECV = 1.29/0.94 [degrees Brix]. Prediction of SSC and fruit flesh firmness of stored 'Golden Delicious'/'Idared' apple fruits showed high errors or was not possible. The fruit maturity stage on tree was predicted as classes based on calendar weeks for 'Golden Delicious'/'Idared' apple fruits with 64%/66% correct classification and 92%/84% correct plus neighboring class with SECV = 0.9/0.9 [weeks]. Classes of 'Golden Delicious'/'Idared' apple fruit at different quality levels due to different storage conditions were non-destructively discriminated with 77%/84% correctly classified fruits and 93%/99% correct plus neighboring class with SECV = 0.8/0.5 [classes]. The results show the potential of non-destructive sensors for predicting accepted fruit parameters enabling the determination of optimum harvest date and fruit quality in shelf life. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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