Nondestructive dynamic testing of apples for firmness evaluation

Shmulevich, I.; Galili, N.; Howarth, M. S.

doi:10.1016/s0925-5214(03)00039-5

Cited by 85 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Correlations between instrumental measures and sensory texture descriptors have been reported by several authors (Abbott et al 1984;Harker et al 2002;Mehinagic et al 2004;Camps et al 2005;Ioannides et al 2007), but besides FIRM and CRISP (Harker et al 2002), compression and penetrometry variables are known to be poor predictors of sensory descriptors, such as MEALI, MELT or JUIC (Harker et al 2002;Camps et al 2005). In support of King et al (2000) observations, the close genetic relatedness between individuals in our progeny likely led to absence of relation or to lower correlation values than those reported for genetically contrasted apple varieties (Barreiro et al 1998;Harker et al 2002;Mehinagic et al 2003Mehinagic et al , 2004Shmulevich et al 2003).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Texture analysis in an apple progeny through instrumental, sensory and histological phenotyping

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phenotypic analysis of texture traits was performed in an apple progeny by three complementary approaches: two classical instrumental measurements (compression and penetrometry), sensory assessment and histological screening. The progeny was composed of 141 individuals harvested over 2 years. Sensory and instrumental texture were assessed at harvest and after 2 and 4 months of cold storage. Histological screening was performed by combining macro-vision of outer parenchyma sections and image analysis on fruits after 2 months storage. Harvest year was observed to have a major impact on texture phenotypes followed by storage and genetic factors. Principal component analysis of data from the instrumental texture evaluations showed that the two methods complemented each other in characterizing the texture of the apple progeny. Compression parameters correlated better than penetrometry variables with sensory descriptors related to crispness, firmness, and graininess. Cell size distribution differentiated individuals in the apple progeny. It correlated with instrumental texture analyses and with juiciness perception. All measured texture related traits showed that they were all under genetic control with high heritability values. Higher values were obtained for fruits after 2 months storage. These results provide ground for future search of new apple texture QTLs

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Texture analysis in an apple progeny through instrumental, sensory and histological phenotyping

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many physical characteristics of fruits and vegetables have been determined nondestructively (Kato, 1997;Lammertyn, Nicolai, Ooms, Smedt, & Baerdemaeker, 1998;Lesage & Destain, 1996;Nussinovitch, Ward, & Mey-tal, 1996). For mango some such efforts using near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy (Guthrie & Walsh, 1997;Saranwong, Sornsrivichai, & Kawano, 2001, 2003a, 2003bWalsh, Golic, & Greensill, 2004), visual spectral analysis (Jha, Chopra, & Kingsly, 2005;Schmilovitch, Mizarach, Hoffman, Egozi, & Fuchs, 2003), acoustic and ultrasound techniques (Mizrach, Flitsanov, Schmilovitch, & Fuchs, 1999;Mizrach, 2000;Polderdijk, Kho, Kruif, & Carmi, 2000;Shmulevich, Galili, & Howarth, 2003;Valente & Ferrandis, 2003) are also reported, but these instruments are costly and difficult to carry to the mango orchards. A hand held colorimeter is cheaper and easier to carry to the orchards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of color values for nondestructive evaluation of maturity of mango

Jha

Chopra

Kingsly

2007

Journal of Food Engineering

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other researchers have also observed similar weak correlations (Armstrong et al, 1990;Molto et al, 1998;Shmulevich et al, 2003;Molina-Delgado et al, 2009). They concluded that the reasons for the weak correlations might be because the F max (Magness-Taylor firmness) and the vibration parameters seemed to respond to different physical properties and the variety seemed to influence the correlation coefficient.…”

Section: Correlations With Firmness Variablesmentioning

confidence: 78%