Relationship between instrumental and sensory determination of apple and pear texture.

ABSTRACT The relationship between compressive forces, tensile forces and sensory perception of apple and pear texture was evaluated over two harvest years. A trained panel assessed the sensory attribute of apple and pear samples. Compressive forces were determined using a Guss Fruit Texture analyzer and Sinclair iQ™. Tensile determinations were obtained using a unique method employing both tensile and compression elastic modulus of the fruit tissue. Results showed that crispness, hardness and fracturability were significantly correlated (r = 0.80–0.90). Sinclair iQ™ System and Guss Fruit Texture measurements on apple (r = 0.78–0.83) and pears (r = 0.83) showed a significant correlation with sensory results for hardness. Tensile determinations predicted crispness in apples (r = 0.88) and pears (r = 0.85). A combination method of compressive and tensile determinations may offer the most accurate prediction of textural properties of apples and pears. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Apple and pear firmness is a primary measure of fresh quality. With apples and pears being such an important commodity in Washington State and firmness playing such an important role in fruit quality, more knowledge about tissue mechanics and its correlation with human perception is important for further development of the apple and pear industry. In response to the need to develop an instrumental determination of texture with a strong correlation to sensory evaluation, a new methodology was developed whereby the tensile properties of apples and pears were measured.

[1]  K. Peleg.  Comparison of Non-destructive and Destructive Measurement of Apple Firmness , 1993 .

[2]  F. A. Gunson,et al.  Influence of Texture on Taste: Insights Gained During Studies of Hardness, Juiciness, and Sweetness of Apple Fruit , 2006 .

[3]  F. A. Gunson,et al.  Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 1: texture of apple fruit , 2002 .

[4]  Anette Kistrup Thybo,et al.  Explaining Danish children's preferences for apples using instrumental, sensory and demographic/behavioural data , 2004 .

[5]  Gail Vance Civille,et al.  GUIDELINES TO TRAINING A TEXTURE PROFILE PANEL , 1973 .

[6]  Halliday J.H. MacFie,et al.  Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the Southern Hemisphere , 1996 .

[7]  Margaret A. Brandt,et al.  Development of standard rating scales for mechanical parameters of texture and correlation between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation , 1963 .

[8]  Sara R. Jaeger,et al.  Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: a cross-cultural comparison , 1998 .

[9]  Armand V. Cardello,et al.  The Standard Scales of Texture: Rescaling by Magnitude Estimation , 1982 .

[10]  David R. Massie,et al.  Effe-gi, Magness-Taylor, and Instron Fruit Pressure Testing Devices for Apples, Peaches, and Nectarines1 , 1976, Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science.

[11]  M. S. Howarth,et al.  Nondestructive dynamic testing of apples for firmness evaluation , 2003 .

[12]  J. H. Maindonald,et al.  Penetrometer Measurement of Apple and Kiwifruit Firmness: Operator and Instrument Differences , 1996 .

[13]  Fiorella Sinesio,et al.  Mechanical Properties and Sensory Evaluation of Selected Apple Cultivars , 1993 .

[14]  D. Davis,et al.  Three-point bending : An alternative method to measure tensile properties in fruit and vegetables , 2008 .

[15]  Alejandra M. Muñoz,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF TEXTURE REFERENCE SCALES , 1986 .

[16]  P. Hurst,et al.  Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of ‘Pink Lady’ and other late‐season apple cultivars , 1997 .

[17]  Ian C. Hallett,et al.  Food - mouth interactions : Towards a better understanding of fruit texture , 1998 .

[18]  A. Szczesniak,et al.  THE MEANING OF TEXTURAL CHARCTERISTICS -JUICINESS IN PLANT FOODSTUFFS , 1988 .

[19]  F. Harker,et al.  Texture of fresh fruit , 2010 .