Nashi or Williams pear fruits? Use of volatile organic compounds, physicochemical parameters, and sensory evaluation to understand the consumer’s preference
- 280 Downloads
Ripen “ready-to-eat” fruits of “Williams” and of two Nashi cultivars (“Hosui” and “Ya Li”), present contemporarily on the stores, were evaluated by physicochemical parameters (shape, skin color, firmness, total soluble solids, titratable acidity), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emission, measured with a proton transfer reaction-time of flight-mass spectrometer (PTR–ToF–MS), either on whole and cube fruits, and sensory evaluation (panel test and consumer’s liking). The data were analyzed by ANOVA, LSD test, hierarchical clustering, PLS-DA, and CCOA. The highest differences for the physicochemical parameters were observed between Williams and Nashi, as Williams differentiated for sugar content and Hosui for firmness. By VOCs spectral analyses, it was observed that whole and cube “Williams” fruits had the highest number and amount of compounds, followed by “Ya Li;” “Hosui” was characterized by a few signals with low intensities. Fruits of each cultivar showed specific VOCs that could be used as markers for discrimination purposes. In “Williams” pears, the presence and amount of defined masses resulted linked to fruitiness and aroma perceived by the consumer. The higher sugar content and the typical pear aroma perceived by the panelists, emitted by “Williams,” could have influenced the consumer’s liking. The tasters appreciated “Hosui” for firmness, and “Ya Li” for visual, even if they resulted lower in sugar and flavor intensity. In the opinion of the respondents to the consumer test, “Williams” resulted the most appreciated both for the average scores of the acceptability and as percentage of responses at a level >5 of a nine-point hedonic scale.
KeywordsConsumer acceptance Fruit sensory attributes Instrumental analysis Pear aroma PLS-DA PTR–ToF–MS
This study was supported by funds of the Regione Toscana ‘‘PRAF 2012-2015 MISURA 1.2 e)’’ program (call “Agrifood”, Project VOLATOSCA).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We confirm that we do not have any conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
This article does not requires any informed consent.
- 1.Wu J, Zhang S, Ming R, Zhu S, Khan MA, Tao S, Korban SS, Wang H, Chen NJ, Nishio T, Xu X, Cong L, Qi K, Huang X, Wang Y, Zhao X, Wu J, Deng C, Gou C, Zhou W, Yin H, Qin G, Sha Y, Tao Y, Chen H, Yang Y, Song Y, Zhan D, Wang J, Li L, Dai M, Gu C, Wang Y, Shi D, Wang X, Zhang H, Zeng L, Zheng D, Wang C, Chen M, Wang G, Xie L, Sovero V, Sha S, Huang W, Zhang S, Zhang M, Sun J, Xu L, Li Y, Liu X, Li Q, Shen J, Wang J, Paull RE, Bennetzen JL, Wang J, Zhang S (2013) The genome of the pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.). Genome Res 23(2):396–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Morettini A, Baldini E, Scaramuzzi F, Mittempergher L (1967) Monografia delle principali cultivar di pero. Centro miglioramento piante da frutto e da orto CNR, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
- 3.Moore JN, Ballington JR Jr (1991) Genetic resources of temperate fruit and nut crops (No. 290). International Society for Horticultural ScienceGoogle Scholar
- 4.WAPA (World Apple and Pear Association) Apple and Pear Production by country and year (cit. 2003–2012)Google Scholar
- 6.Komes D, Kovačević K (2010) In: Hui YH (ed) Handbook of fruit and vegetable flavors. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 8.Rapparini F, Predieri S (2003) Pear fruit volatiles. Horticult Rev 28:237–324Google Scholar
- 12.Ciesa F, Höller I, Guerra W, Berger J, Dalla Via J, Oberhuber M (2015) Chemodiversity in the fingerprint analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of 35 Old and 7 modern apple cultivars determined by proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) in two different seasons. Chem Biodivers 12(5):800–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Taiti C, Marone E, Bazihizina N, Caparrotta S, Azzarello E, Petrucci AW, Pandolfi C, Giordani E. (2015b) Sometimes a little mango goes a long way: a rapid approach to assess how different shipping systems affect fruit commercial quality. Food Anal Methods. doi: 10.1007/s12161-015-0240-5 Google Scholar
- 17.Taiti C, Costa C, Menesatti P, Caparrotta S, Bazihizina N, Azzarello E, Petrucci AW, Masi E, Giordani E (2015) Use of volatile organic compounds and physicochemical parameters for monitoring the post-harvest ripening of imported tropical fruits. Eur Food Res Technol 241(1):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Thibault B, Watkins R, Smith RA (1983) Descriptor list for pear (Pyrus). IBPGR, RomeGoogle Scholar
- 20.Hunter RS (1975) Scales for the measurements of color difference. The Measurement of Appearance. Willy, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.Francis FJ (1980) Color quality evaluation of horticultural crops. Horticultural Science, USAGoogle Scholar
- 22.AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis. AOAC, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
- 23.Costa C, Taiti C, Strano MC, Morone G, Antonucci F, Mancuso S, Claps S, Pallottino F, Sepe L, Bazihizina N, Menesatti P (2016) In: Rodriguez Mendez M (ed) Electronic noses and tongues in food science. Academic Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 25.Wyche KP, Blake RS, Ellis AM, Monks PS, Brauers T, Koppmann R, Apel EC (2007) Technical note: performance of chemical ionization reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (CIR-TOF-MS) for the measurement of atmospherically significant oxygenated volatile organic compounds. Atmos Chem Phys 7:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Caswell JA, Noelke CM, Mojduszka EM (2002) In: Barry K, Bohman M, Caswell JA (eds) Global food trade and consumer demand for quality. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 33.Xiao C, Luo W, Liu M, Zhu L, Li M, Yang H, Deng Y (2010) Quality of fresh-cut pears (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd cv. Huangguan) coated with chitosan combined with ascorbic acid and rosemary extracts. Philipp Agric Sci 93(1):66Google Scholar
- 35.Lawless HT, Heymann H (1998) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices, 1st edn. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- 38.Podani J (2000) Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data. Backhuys, LeidenGoogle Scholar
- 40.Kingston CM (1992) Maturity indices for apple and pear. Hortic Rev 13:407–432Google Scholar
- 45.Arzani K, Khoshghalb H, Malakouti MJ, Barzegar M (2008) Postharvest fruit physicochemical changes and properties of Asian (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) and European (Pyrus communis L.) pear cultivars. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 49:244–252Google Scholar
- 48.Lanza M, Acton WJ, Sulzer P, Breiev K, Jürschik S, Jordan A, Hartungen E, Hanel G, Märk L, Märk TD, Mayhew CA (2015) Selective reagent ionisation-time of flight-mass spectrometry: a rapid technology for the novel analysis of blends of new psychoactive substances. J Mass Spectrom 50(2):427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Berger RG (1991) In: Maarse H (ed) Volatile compounds foods and beverages. Marcel Dekker Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 60.Tan SC (2000) Determinants of eating quality in fruit and vegetables. Proc Nutr Soc Aust 24:183–190Google Scholar
- 61.Ernst S, Batte MT, Darby K, Worley T (2006) What matters in consumer berry preferences: price? Source? Quality? J Food Distrib Res 37(1):68–71Google Scholar