Evaluation of Late-Maturing Peach and Nectarine Fruit Quality by Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Determinations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
2.2. Physical and Chemical Attributes
2.3. Sensory Attributes
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Physical and Chemical Attributes
3.2. Sensory Profile
3.3. Multivariate Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Database; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. (accessed on 16 August 2019).
- Marra, F.P.; Lo Bianco, R.; La Mantia, M.; Caruso, T. Growth, yield and fruit quality of ‘Tropic Snow’peach on size-controlling rootstocks under dry Mediterranean climates. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 160, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sortino, G.; Gallotta, A.; Farina, V.; Allegra, A. Shelf-Life and quality of fresh-cut peach cv ‘Ruby Rich’ at different maturity stage. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 58, 409–414. [Google Scholar]
- Farina, V.; Lo Bianco, R.; Inglese, P. Shoot Growth, Crop Load, and Fruit Quality within Vase-shaped Canopies of Fairtime’Peach Trees. Eur. J. Hort. Sci. 2006, 71, 227. [Google Scholar]
- Sortino, G.; Farina, V.; Liguori, G.; Inglese, P. Fruit ripening evolution in ‘Settembrina di Leonforte’ and ‘Gialla Tardiva di Leonforte’ peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] ecotypes. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1084, 791–798. [Google Scholar]
- Allegra, A.; Sortino, G.; Farina, V.; Inglese, P. Effect of passive atmosphere and chemical treatment on fresh cut of white-flesh peach cultivar ‘Settembrina di Bivona’. Acta Hort. 2013, 1084, 765–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drago, A.; Cartabellotta, D.; Lo Bianco, B.; Lombardo, M. Atlante Climatologico Della Sicilia; Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Agricoltura e Foreste: Palermo, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- LaRue, J.H. Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines: Growing and Handling for Fresh Market; UC ANR Publications: Fresno, CA, USA, 1989; Volume 3331. [Google Scholar]
- Okie, W.R.; Bacon, T.; Bassi, D. Fresh market cultivar development. In The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses; CABI: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 139–174. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Rossiter, K.L.; Wismer, W.V.; Harker, F.R. Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry. Food Qual. Pref. 2003, 14, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.W.; Harker, F.R.; Tustin, D.S.; Johnston, J. Fruit dry matter concentration: A new quality metric for apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2586–2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyasordzi, J.; Friedman, H.; Schmilovitch, Z.; Ignat, T.; Weksler, A.; Rot, I.; Lurie, S. Utilizing the IAD index to determine internal quality attributes of apples at harvest and after storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 77, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, C.J.; Walsh, K.B.; Greensill, C.V. The impact of lamp environment on prediction of peach TSS content. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1119, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, H.; Künnemeyer, R.; McGlone, A. Comparison of hand-held near infrared spectrophotometers for fruit dry matter assessment. J. Near Infrared Spectr. 2017, 25, 267–277. [Google Scholar]
- Ziosi, V.; Noferini, M.; Fiori, G.; Tadiello, A.; Trainotti, L.; Casadoro, G.; Costa, G. A new index based on vis spectroscopy to characterise the progression of ripening in peach fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, G.; Noferini, M. Use of non-destructive devices as a decision support system for fruit quality enhancement. Acta Hort. 2013, 998, 103–115. [Google Scholar]
- Infante, R.; Rubio, P.; Contador, L.; Noferini, M.; Costa, G. Harvest maturity determination of D’Agen plums through the chlorophyll absorbance index. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2011, 38, 199–203. [Google Scholar]
- Crisosto, C. Stone fruit maturity indices: A descriptive review. Postharvest News Inf. 1994, 5, 65–68. [Google Scholar]
- Farina, V.; Gianguzzi, G.; Mazzaglia, A. Fruit quality traits of six ancient apple (Malus domestica Borkh) cultivars grown in the Mediterranean area. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2015, 16, 275–283. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, C.F.; Chauvin, M.A.; Whiting, M. Firmness evaluation of sweet cherries by a trained and consumer sensory panel. J. Texture Stud. 2009, 40, 554–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colaric, M.; Veberic, R.; Stampar, F.; Hudina, M. Evaluation of peach and nectarine fruit quality and correlations between sensory and chemical attributes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 2611–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.Y.; MacRae, E.; Wohlers, M.; Marsh, K. Changes in volatile production and sensory quality of kiwifruit during fruit maturation in Actinidia deliciosa ‘Hayward’ and A. chinensis ‘Hort16A’. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 59, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, K.; Attanayake, S.; Walker, S.; Gunson, A.; Boldingh, H.; MacRae, E. Acidity and taste in kiwifruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 32, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, C.F.; Chauvin, M.A.; Whiting, M. Assignation of sweet cherry selections to 3 taste groupings based on perceived sweetness and sourness. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, S48–S54. [Google Scholar]
- Farina, V.; Volpe, G.; Mazzaglia, A.; Lanza, C.M. Fruit quality traits of two apricot cultivars. Acta Hort. 2010, 862, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egea, J.; Romojaro, F.; Pretel, M.T.; Martinez-Madrid, M.C.; Costell, E.; Cascales, A. Application of sensory analysis to the determination of the determination of the optimum quality and harvesting moment in apricots. Acta Hort. 2006, 701, 529–532. [Google Scholar]
- Gentile, C.; Di Gregorio, E.; Di Stefano, V.; Mannino, G.; Perrone, A.; Avellone, G.; Sortino, G.; Inglese, P.; Farina, V. Food quality and nutraceutical value of nine cultivars of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruits grown in Mediterranean subtropical environment. Food Chem. 2019, 277, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farina, V.; Barone, F.; Mazzaglia, A.; Lanza, C.M. Evaluation of fruit quality in loquat using both chemical and sensory analyses. Acta Hort. 2011, 887, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, C.; Reig, C.; Corona, O.; Todaro, A.; Mazzaglia, A.; Perrone, A.; Gianguzzi, G.; Agustì, M.; Farina, V. Pomological traits, sensory profile and nutraceutical properties of nine cultivars of loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.) fruits grown in Mediterranean area. Plant. Foods Hum. Nutr. 2016, 71, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Predieri, S.; Ragazzini, P.; Rondelli, R. Sensory evaluation and peach fruit quality. Acta Hort. 2005, 713, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chauvin, M.A.; Ross, C.F.; Pitts, M.; Kupferman, E.; Swanson, B. Relationship between instrumental and sensory determination of apple and pear texture. J. Food Qual. 2010, 33, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harker, F.; Maindonald, J.; Murray, S.; Gunson, F.; Hallet, I.; Walker, S. Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements. 1: Texture of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oraguzie, N.; Alspach, P.; Volz, R.; Whitworth, C.; Ranatunga, C.; Weskett, R.; Harker, R. Postharvest assessment of fruit quality parameters in apple using both instruments and an expert panel. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunness, P.; Kravchuk, O.; Nottingham, S.M.; D’Arcy, B.R.; Gidley, M.J. Sensory analysis of individual strawberry fruit and comparison with instrumental analysis. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harker, F.R.; Marsh, K.B.; Young, H.; Murray, S.H.; Gunson, F.A.; Walker, S.B. Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 2: Sweet and acid taste of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarrasi, V.; Farina, V.; Germanà, M.A.; San Biagio, P.L.; Mazzaglia, A. Fruit quality evaluation of four loquat cultivars grown in Sicily. Acta Hort. 2011, 887, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okie, W.R. Handbook of Peach and Nectarine Varieties; Agriculture Handbook 714; USDA, Agricultural Research Service: Byron, GA, USA, 1998.
- Francaviglia, D.; Farina, V.; Avellone, G.; Lo Bianco, R. Fruit yield and quality responses of apple cvars Gala and Fuji to partial rootzone drying under Mediterranean conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 151, 556–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNI 10957. Sensory Analysis—Method for Establishing a Sensory Profile in Foodstuffs and Beverages; UNI: Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione: Milan, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- UNI EN ISO 8589. Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms; UNI: Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione: Milan, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, J.D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences; Shepard, R.N., Romney, A.K., Nerlove, S.B., Eds.; Seminar Press: New York, NY, USA, 1972; Volume 1, pp. 105–155. [Google Scholar]
- Lo Bianco, R.; Mirabella, F. Use of leaf and fruit morphometric analysis to identify and classify white mulberry (Morus alba L.) genotypes. Agriculture 2018, 8, 157–166. [Google Scholar]
- Kader, A.A.; Mitchell, F.G. Maturity and quality. In Peaches, Plums and Nectarines: Growing and Handling for Fresh Market; La Rue, J.H., Johnson, R.S., Eds.; University of California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication: Oakland, CA, USA, 1989; Volume 3331, pp. 191–196. [Google Scholar]
- Bruhn, C.M. Consumer and retailer satisfaction with the quality and size of California peaches and nectarines. J. Food Qual. 1995, 18, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, D.; Ziberman, D.; Moulton, K. How quality relates to price in California fresh peaches. Calif. Agric. 1991, 45, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- 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. 2005, 38, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kader, A.A. Fruit maturity, ripening, and quality relationships. Perish. Handl. Newsl. 1994, 80, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilaire, C. The peach industry in France: State of art, research and development. In First Mediterranean Peach Symposium; Marra, F., Sottile, F., Eds.; Panuzzo Prontostampa, Caltanissetta: Agrigento, Italy, 2003; pp. 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Ventura, M.; Sama, A.; Minguzzi, A.; Lazoni, S.; Sansavini, S. Ottimizzazione del carico di frutti per migliorare la produzione e la qualità delle nettarine ‘Supercrimson’ e ‘Venus’. In XXIV Italian Peach Meeting; Sansavini, S., Ed.; MDM: Cesena, Italy, 2000; pp. 173–176. [Google Scholar]
- Clareton, M. Peach and nectarine production in France: Trends, consumption and perspectives. In Summaries of the Prunus Breeders Meeting; Embrapa Cliama Temperado: Pelotas, Brazil, 2000; pp. 83–91. [Google Scholar]
- Montevecchi, G.; Vasile Simone, G.; Mellano, M.G.; Masino, F.; Antonelli, A. Fruit sensory characterization of four Pescabivona, white-fleshed peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] landraces and correlation with physical and chemical parameters. Fruits 2013, 8, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo Bianco, R.; Farina, V.; Indelicato, S.G.; Filizzola, F.; Agozzino, P. Fruit physical, chemical and aromatic attributes of early, intermediate and late apricot cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1008–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cultivar | Type | Flesh Color | Harvest Date | Harvest Time (DAFB) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fairtime | P | Y | 10 September | 158 |
Guglielmina | P | Y | 10 September | 158 |
Summerset | P | Y | 15 September | 163 |
Tardiva 2000 | P | Y | 25 September | 184 |
Daniela | P | W | 25 September | 173 |
Fairlane | N | Y | 28 September | 176 |
California | N | Y | 30 September | 189 |
Daniela | Fairtime | Guglielmina | Summerset | Tardiva 2000 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical attributes | |||||
Fruit weight (g) | 198 ab | 237 a | 175 bc | 213 ab | 148 c |
Transverse diameter (mm) | 74.2 a | 76 a | 68.5 b | 74.2 a | 65.6 b |
Size category (> 70%) | AA | AA | A | AA | A |
Flesh firmness (kg cm−2) | 5.74 | 5.99 | 5.86 | 5.62 | 5.43 |
Ground color index | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.82 |
Cover color (%) | 53.2 a | 52.6 a | 27.6 b | 53.6 a | 20 c |
Chemical attributes | |||||
Soluble solids (°Brix) | 13.8 c | 13.4 c | 16.6 a | 13.3 c | 15.3 b |
Acidity (g malic acid L−1) | 4.38 c | 6.09 ab | 4.42 c | 6.19 a | 5.79 b |
SSC/TA | 3.15 b | 2.2 c | 3.76 a | 2.15 c | 2.64 bc |
Sensory attributes | |||||
Peel color uniformity | 4.7 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 5.8 |
Consistency | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7 | 7.8 | 6.9 |
Easy stone | 4.1 b | 6.9 a | 3.8 b | 6.7 a | 7.8 a |
Flesh color | 3.d | 4.8 bc | 5.5 ab | 3.7 cd | 6.5 a |
Peach odor | 6.8 a | 5 b | 7.2 a | 5 b | 6.1 ab |
Grass odor | 4.1 | 5.6 | 3.6 | 5.4 | 4.7 |
Flower odor | 4.6 | 3 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 4 |
Mealiness | 5.3 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 5 | 6 |
Sweetness | 6.7 a | 5 b | 6.7 a | 5.9 ab | 6.8 a |
Bitterness | 2.5 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 3.3 |
Sourness | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.5 |
Juiciness | 5.2 | 4.1 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 5.5 |
Peach flavor | 6.6 | 5 | 6.7 | 5.6 | 6.9 |
Grass flavor | 3 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 4.6 | 4.7 |
Flower flavor | 4.1 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
California | Fairlane | |
---|---|---|
Physical attributes | ||
Fruit weight (g) | 289 a | 175 b |
Transverse diameter (mm) | 80.2 a | 66.3 b |
Size category (> 70%) | AA | A |
Flesh firmness (kg cm−2) | 6.49 a | 5.63 b |
Ground color index | 0.79 b | 0.81 a |
Cover color (%) | 51.3 a | 21.2 b |
Chemical attributes | ||
Soluble solids (°Brix) | 13.6 b | 16.5 a |
Acidity (g malic acid L−1) | 9.22 a | 6.77 b |
SSC/TA | 1.48 b | 2.44 a |
Sensory attributes | ||
Peel color uniformity | 3.9 | 5 |
Consistency | 7.7 | 6.4 |
Easy stone | 6.2 a | 3.1 b |
Flesh color | 5.1 | 6.5 |
Peach odor | 4.6 | 5 |
Grass odor | 6.8 a | 4.5 b |
Flower odor | 3.2 | 3.7 |
Mealiness | 3.5 b | 5.9 a |
Sweetness | 3.9 b | 6.1 a |
Bitterness | 4b | 6.6 a |
Sourness | 6.1 a | 3.4 b |
Juiciness | 3.2 | 2 |
Peach flavor | 4.1 b | 6.2 a |
Grass flavor | 5.7 a | 3.5 b |
Flower flavor | 3.2 | 3.7 |
PC | Eigenvalues | Variance (%) | Cumulative Variance (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 11.68 | 50.8 | 50.8 |
2 | 4.821 | 21 | 71.8 |
3 | 2.866 | 12.5 | 84.3 |
4 | 2.048 | 8.9 | 93.2 |
5 | 1.008 | 4.4 | 97.6 |
PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vector coordinates | |||||
FW | −2.313 | 0.54 | −0.435 | 0.41 | 0.056 |
TD | −2.062 | 1.246 | −0.36 | 0.25 | 0.035 |
FF | −1.304 | −0.11 | −0.709 | 1.75 | −0.648 |
SSC | 1.632 | −1.556 | −0.367 | 0.764 | 0.362 |
TA | −2.103 | −1.133 | 0.042 | –0.099 | 0.321 |
ST | 1.347 | 0.331 | 0.546 | 1.665 | −0.168 |
GC | 1.079 | 1.889 | −0.561 | –0.701 | −0.392 |
CC | −1.536 | 1.826 | −0.372 | –0.345 | −0.096 |
PCU | 2.027 | −0.817 | 0.818 | 0.182 | −0.5 |
CON | −1.761 | 1.065 | 0.931 | −0.027 | 0.728 |
ES | −0.995 | 0.326 | 2.107 | −0.391 | −0.528 |
FCI | 0.432 | −2.245 | 0.579 | 0.577 | −0.311 |
PO | 1.978 | 0.921 | 0.001 | 1.0155 | 0.344 |
GO | −2.372 | −0.197 | 0.474 | −0.228 | −0.083 |
FO | 1.916 | 0.859 | −0.168 | 0.107 | 1.244 |
ME | 2.186 | −0.665 | 0.125 | −0.819 | 0.183 |
SW | 2.388 | 0.252 | 0.198 | −0.386 | 0.196 |
BT | −0.361 | −1.911 | −0.884 | −1.059 | 0.148 |
SO | −1.934 | −0.885 | −0.714 | 0.554 | 0.577 |
JU | 1.123 | 1.591 | 1.387 | 0.452 | 0.117 |
PF | 2.416 | 0.016 | 0.189 | −0.196 | 0.128 |
GF | −1.382 | −0.664 | 1.26 | 0.286 | 1.34 |
FLF | 1.035 | 0.726 | −2.058 | 0.223 | 0.287 |
Object coordinates | |||||
Fairtime | −0.815 | 0.204 | 0.044 | 0.051 | −0.208 |
Guglielmina | 1.265 | 0.028 | −0.019 | 0.328 | 0.077 |
Summerset | −0.452 | 0.319 | 0.176 | −0.294 | 0.108 |
Tardiva 2000 | 0.951 | −0.312 | 0.535 | −0.034 | −0.029 |
Daniela | 0.792 | 0.794 | −0.31 | −0.056 | −0.008 |
California | −2.228 | −0.164 | −0.031 | 0.159 | 0.079 |
Fairlane | 0.487 | −0.869 | −0.395 | −0.155 | −0.018 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Farina, V.; Lo Bianco, R.; Mazzaglia, A. Evaluation of Late-Maturing Peach and Nectarine Fruit Quality by Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Determinations. Agriculture 2019, 9, 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090189
Farina V, Lo Bianco R, Mazzaglia A. Evaluation of Late-Maturing Peach and Nectarine Fruit Quality by Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Determinations. Agriculture. 2019; 9(9):189. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090189
Chicago/Turabian StyleFarina, Vittorio, Riccardo Lo Bianco, and Agata Mazzaglia. 2019. "Evaluation of Late-Maturing Peach and Nectarine Fruit Quality by Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Determinations" Agriculture 9, no. 9: 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090189