Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:23:24.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ripe nectarines segregated through sensory quality evaluation and electronic nose assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2011

Rodrigo Infante ,
Pía Rubio ,
C. Meneses  and
L. Contador
Get access

Abstract

Introduction. The aim of this study was to determine the ability of an electronic nose (e-nose) to predict the quality of nectarines and peaches, and, in particular, the aroma. Materials and methods. Four nectarine cultivars (‘María Dolce’, ‘Maillarlate’, ‘Nectaross’ and ‘Venus’) and one peach cultivar (‘Royal Glory’) were evaluated. The fruit was harvested ripe and the quality evaluations were carried out just one day after harvest. The intensity of the main descriptors of fruit quality was described, and fruits were subjected to an e-nose assessment. The sensory analysis and the e-nose results were presented through a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). A multiple linear regression (MLR) was also used to create a predictive model for the attribute ‘aroma’ compared with the other sensory parameters and the most informative e-nose sensor data. Results and discussion. ‘Royal Glory’ and ‘María Dolce’ were placed in a separate cluster far from ‘Venus’, ‘Nectaross’ and ‘Maillarlate’. The result of the MLR included the attributes ‘acidity’, ‘sweetness’ and ‘acceptability’ in the model, and the data registered by sensor 6 of the e-nose (SnO2-sensor, RGTO Mo, 45 Å thick layer), which were those factors that best related to the aroma, reached a R2 of 0.48 and a mean square error (MSE) of 3.85. It was concluded that the e-nose is an instrument able to discriminate peach varieties through their aromatic features, which are among the descriptors that mainly determine acceptability by the peach consumer.

Keywords

ChilePrunus persicafruitsvarietiessegregationvolatile compoundsolfactionmeasuring instrumentsChiliPrunus persicafruitsvariétéségrégationcomposé volatilolfactioninstrument de mesureChilePrunus persicafrutasvariedadessegregacióncompuesto volátilolfaccióninstrumentos de medición
Type
Technical paper
Information
Fruits , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 109 - 119
Copyright
© 2011 Cirad/EDP Sciences

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Shewfelt, R.L., What is quality? Postharvest Biol. Technol. 15 (1999) 197–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infante, R., Meneses, P., Predieri, S., Sensory quality performance of two nectarine flesh typologies exposed to distant market conditions, J. Food Qual. 31 (2008) 526–535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Predieri S., Missere D., Gatti E., Buona come una pera – Analisi sensoriale per scoprire vizi e virtù di un frutto, in: Ravaioli A., Mazzotti V. (Eds.), Pere dell’Emilia-Romagna IGP, Qualità tipica vera e protetta, 2001, pp. 114–117.
Di Natale, C., Macagnano, A., Martinelli, E., Proietti, E., Paolesse, R., Castellari, L., D’amico, A., Electronic nose based investigation of the sensorial properties of peaches and nectarines, Sens. Actuators B 77 (2001) 561–566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, J.H., Smith, R., Yoong, E., Leis, J, Galvin, G., Quantification of odours from piggery effluent ponds using an electronic nose and a artificial neural network, Biosyst. Eng. 86 (2003) 399–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayala-Zavala, J.F., Wang, S.Y., Wang, C.Y, González-Aguilar, G.A., Effect of storage temperaturas on antioxidant capacity and aroma compounds in strawberry fruits, Lebensm.-Wiss.Technol. 37 (2004) 687–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonghi, C., Ramina, A., Ruperti, B., Vidrih, R., Tonutti, P., Peach fruit ripening and quality in relation to picking time, and hipoxic and high CO2 short-term postharvest treatments, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 16 (1999) 213–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinesio, F., Di Natale, C., Quaglia, G., Bucarelli, F., Moneta, E., Macagnano, A., Paolesse, R., D’amico, A., Use of electronic nose and trained sensory panel in the evaluation of tomato quality, J. Sci. Food Agric. 80 (2000) 63–71. 3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández Gómez, A., Hu, G., Wang, J., García Pereira, A., Evaluation of tomato maturity by electronic nose, Comput. Electron. Agric. 56 (2006) 44–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infante, R., Farcuh, M., Meneses, C., Monitoring the sensorial quality and aroma through an electronic nose in peaches during cold storage, J. Sci. Food Agric. (2008) 2073–2078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., Chang, M., Wang, J., Ye, S., Evaluation of peach quality indices using an electronic nose by MLR, QPST and BP network, Sens. Actuators B 134 (2008) 332–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., Wang, J., Ye, S., Prediction of acidity, soluble solids content and firmness of pear using electronic nose technique, J. Food Eng. 86 (2008) 370–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R., Reporting for objective color measurements, HortScience 27 (1992) 1254–1255. Google Scholar
Esposto, S., Montedoro, G., Selvaggini, R., Riccò, I., Taticchi, A., Urbani, S., Servili, M., Monitoring of virgin olive oil volatile compounds evolution during olive malaxation by an array of metal oxide sensors, Food Chem. 113 (2009) 345–350. Google Scholar
Di Rienzo J.A., Casanoves F., Balzarini M.G., González L., Tablada M., Robledo C.W., InfoStat versión 2008, Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Univ. Nac. Córdoba, Argentina, 2008.
Balzarini M.G., González L., Tablada M., Casanoves F., Di Rienzo J.A, Robledo C.W., Manual del usuario, Editor. Brujas, Argentina, 2008, pp. 182–188.
Pardo A., Ruiz M.A., SPSS11: Guía para el análisis de datos, Mc Graw Hill., Madrid, Spain, 2002, pp. 363–379.
Crisosto, C., How do we increase peach consumption? Acta Hortic. 592 (2002) 601–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisosto, C., Crisosto, G., Bowerman, E., Understanding consumer acceptance of peach, nectarine, and plum cultivars, Acta Hortic. 604 (2003) 115–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisosto, C., Crisosto, G., Echeverría, G., Puy, J., Segregation of peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] cultivars according to their organoleptic characteristics, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 39 (2006) 10–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriguchi, T., Ishizawa, Y., Sanada, T., Differences in sugar composition in Prunus persica fruit and the classification by the principal component analysis, J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 59 (1990) 307–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J.A., Horvat, R.J., Lyon, B.G., Meredith, F.I., Senter, S.D., Okie, W.R., Comparison of quality characteristics of selected yellow- and white-fleshed peach cultivars, J. Food Sci. 55 (1990) 1308–1311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillon, L., Kilcast, D., Consumer perception of crispness and crunchiness in fruits and vegetables, Food Qual. Pref. 13 (2002) 23–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neri, F., Pratella, G.C., Brigati, S., Gli indici di maturazione per ottimizzare la qualità organolettica della fruta, Frutticoltura 5 (2003) 20–29. Google Scholar
Testoni A., Grassi B., Grassi M., Lovati F., Evoluzione della maturazione in pesche e nettarine in funzione della durata e del metodo di conservazione, Atti III Giornate SOI, 10–14 March 1996, Erice, Italy, 1996, pp. 369–370.
Bellini, E., Peach genetic improvement: “María Dolce”, new nectarine with organoleptic value, Acta Hortic. 374 (1996) 39–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisosto, C., Crisosto, G., Relationship between ripe soluble solids concentration (RSSC) and consumer acceptance of high and low acid meeting flesh peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] cultivars, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 38 (2005) 239–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau-Rio, M., Scandella, D., Vénien, S., Pêches et nectarines. Image et perception de la qualité, analyse sensorielle, Infos-Ctifl 108 (1995) 12–17. Google Scholar
Benedetti, S., Buratti, S., Spinardi, A., Mannino, S., Mignani, I., Electronic nose as a non-destructive tool to characterise peach cultivars and to monitor their ripening stage during shelf-life, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 47 (2008) 181–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visai, C., Vanoli, M., Volatile compound production during growth and ripening of peaches and nectarines, Scientia Hortic. 70 (1997) 15–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saevels, S., Lammertyn, J., Berna, A., Veraverbeke, E., Di Natale, C., Nicolai, B., Electronic nose as a non-destructive tool to evaluate the optimal harvest date of apples, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 30 (2003) 3–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavicchi, L., Profilo qualitativo sensoriale di alcune cultuvar di albicocco, in: Albicocco: Indicazioni varietali e techniche di produczione, Cent. Ric. Prod. Veg. (CRPV) 59, 2000, pp. 55–61.
Moltó, E., Selfa, E., Ferriz, J., Conesa, E., Gutierrez, A., An aroma sensor for assessing peach quality, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 72 (1999) 311–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Natale, C., Zude-Sasse, M., Macagnano, A., Paolesse, R., Herold, B., D’Amico, A., Outer product analysis of electronic nose and visible spectra: Application to the measurement of peach fruit characteristics, Anal. Chim. Acta 459 (2002) 107–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infante, R., Gonzalez, J., Early maturing peach embryo rescue and in vitro survival at different fruit growth stages, Acta Hortic. 592 (2002) 89–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández Gómez, A., Wang, J., Hu, G, Gracía Pereira, A., Discrimination of storage shelf-life for mandarin by electronic nose technique, Food Sci. Technol. 40 (2007) 681–689. Google Scholar
Azondalou, R., Darbellay, C., Luisier, J., Villettaz, J., Amadò, R., Development of a model for quality assessment of tomatoes an apricots, Swiss Soc. Food Sci. Technol. 36 (2003) 223–233. Google Scholar
Parpinello, G.P., Fabbri, A., Domenichelli, S., Mesisca, V., Cavicchi, L., Versari, A., Discrimination of apricot cultivar by gas multisensor array using an artificial neural network, Biosyst. Eng. 97 (2007) 371–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutowska, B., Wardencki, W., Aromagrams-aromatic profiles in the appreciation of food quality, Food Chem. 101 (2007) 845–872. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brovelli, E.A., Brecht, J.K., Sherman, W.B., Sims, C.A., Harrison, J.M., Sensory and compositional attributes of melting- and nonmelting-flesh peaches for the fresh market, J. Sci. Food Agric. 79 (1999) 707–712. 3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costell, E., Expectativas del consumidor desde el punto de vista sensorial, Alimentos 13 (1988) 63–67. Google Scholar
Giacalone, G., Peano, C., Iacona, T., Iacona, C., Consumer testing on local and new cultivars of peach in the Roero area, Piedmont, Italy, Acta Hortic. 713 (2006) 457–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J., Shewfelt, R., Garner, J., Variyam, J., Estimating the value of internal quality aspects to consumers, Acta Hortic. 259 (1990) 139–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar