Skip to main content

Identification of color optima of commercial tomato catsup


Color is an important quality feature of foods which, in many cases, determines consumer choice and selection. This is particularly true in case of products which are used only as additives to various foods and dishes such as tomato catsup. A screening of commercially available catsup showed a large variation in color properties expressed in terms of CIE-Lab parameters (L* = 30.7–35.8, C* = 18.7–30.1, and h ab = 32.0–39.0). Sensory preference tests revealed that mainly lightness and hue are responsible for consumer preference of catsup. Generally, catsup with a hue angle > 35, corresponding to a more orange appearance, was less preferred. It was also observed that within the preferred samples some consumers significantly preferred brighter catsup (L* ∼ 34), whereas another group of consumers showed an attitude towards darker catsup samples (L* ∼ 32). Color difference scores between the two groups of catsups ranged between 3.7 and 7.2. These samples differed only slightly in hue underlining the importance of lightness and chroma. Several one-dimensional color parameters were related to preference data and judged with respect to applicability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Gledhill B (1998) Food Manuf 73:22–25

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hutchings JB (1999) Food color and appearance. Aspen, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  3. Francis FJ (1995) Food Qual Pref 6:149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lawless H (1995) Food Qual Pref 6:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodman CI, Fawcett S, Barringer SA (2002) J Food Sci 67:404–408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiese K, Dalmasso JP (1994) J Food Qual 17:273–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shi J, le Maguer M, Bryan M (2002) Lycopene from tomatoes. In: Shi J, le Maguer M, Mazza G (eds) Functional foods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 135–167

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clydsdale FM (1993) Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 33:83–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Garber LL Jr, Hyatt EM, Starr RG Jr (2000) J Market Theory Pract 8:59–72

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rohm H, Strobl M, Jaros D (1997) Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 205:108–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Claybon KT, Barringer SA (2002) J Food Qual 25:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Little AC (1964) J Food Sci 9:782–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anon (1992) Farbmessung/Normvalenz-Systeme. Norm 5033, Teil 2. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  14. SAS Institute (2001) Online manual for SAS/Stat v.8.02 for OS/2. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sachs L (1999) Angewandte statistik. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. O'Mahony M (1985) Sensory evaluation of food. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. McBride RL, Anderson NH (1990) Integration psychophysics. In: McBride RL, MacFie HJH (eds) Psychological basis of sensory evaluation. Elsevier, London, pp 93–116

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hunter RS (1961) J Opt Soc Am 51:552–554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yeatman BJ (1967) Food Technol 21:906–909

    Google Scholar 

  20. Anonymous (1992) Grading manual for tomato catsup. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service,, accessed on 2005/03/03

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Jaros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Intelmann, D., Jaros, D. & Rohm, H. Identification of color optima of commercial tomato catsup. Eur Food Res Technol 221, 662–666 (2005).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: