基于多种方法的菠萝果实质地及食味品质综合评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.014

中国农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (15): 3006-3019.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.014

基于多种方法的菠萝果实质地及食味品质综合评价

付山¹^,²(), 梁邺¹^,², 徐玖亮³, 阮云泽¹^,², 罗剑⁴, 李婷玉¹^,²()

¹ 海南大学三亚南繁研究院，海南三亚 572000
² 海南大学热带作物学院，海口 570208
³ 中国农业大学资源与环境学院，北京 100083
⁴ 海南天地人生态农业股份有限公司，海口 570100

收稿日期:2022-10-27 接受日期:2022-12-28 出版日期:2023-08-01 发布日期:2023-08-05
通信作者:
李婷玉，E-mail：lity@hainanu.edu.cn
联系方式: 付山，E-mail：18271660293@163.com。
基金资助:
海南省院士工作站(SQ2019ysgzz0037); 海南省重点研发计划-菠萝种质资源收集; 鉴定及优良品种绿色栽培技术研究(ZDYF2021XDNY117); 共建绿色凤梨品牌及创新型人才培育合作协议(RH2100006535); 海南高附加值作物专用肥开发及示范(RH2200004932)

Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruit Texture and Taste Quality of Pineapple Based on Multiple Methods

FU Shan¹^,²(), LIANG Ye¹^,², XU JiuLiang³, RUAN YunZe¹^,², LUO Jian⁴, LI TingYu¹^,²()

¹ College of Sanya Nanfan Research Institute, Hainan University, Sanya 572000, Hainan
² College of Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou 570208
³ College of Resources and Environmental Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083
⁴ Hainan Tiandiren Ecological Agriculture Co., LTD, Haikou 570100

Received:2022-10-27 Accepted:2022-12-28 Published:2023-08-01 Online:2023-08-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】本研究基于多种研究方法，阐明影响菠萝感官品质的关键质构和理化指标，建立菠萝果实质地及食味品质的综合评价方法，为优良菠萝品种的筛选提供科学支撑。【方法】以7个不同品种的菠萝果实为研究对象，采用感官评价、质构测试和理化分析等方法，结合方差分析和不同维度指标间的相关性分析，明确影响菠萝感官总分的关键质构、理化指标，并进一步采用主成分回归分析法，以筛选出的关键质构特性、理化指标为自变量，感官评价总分为因变量进行回归分析，得到具有统计学意义的预测模型，用于菠萝质地及食味品质综合评价。【结果】不同品种菠萝部分质构属性及理化指标存在较大的差异，如硬度、咀嚼性、最大剪切力、糖酸比、可溶性蛋白、维生素C及可溶性果胶等在品种间的变异系数均大于25%，而弹性、凝聚性等在品种间的变异较小。不同品种菠萝感官总分从高到低依次为‘台农17号'>‘台农16号'>‘台农4号'>‘金菠萝'>‘台农11号'>‘无刺卡因'>‘巴厘'，‘台农17号'的果实质地和食味品质最佳，其固形物含量为16.23%，糖酸比为31.82，可溶性果胶含量为23.72 mg∙g^-1，咀嚼性为789.77 mJ，硬度和最大剪切力分别为1 826.55 N、3 491.37 N。相关性分析表明，影响感官总分的关键指标包括质构属性中的硬度、咀嚼性、最大剪切力和理化指标中的可溶性固形物、糖酸比及可溶性果胶。利用主成分回归分析方法建立的菠萝感官预测模型决定系数R²为0.916，标准偏差为0.11。【结论】菠萝品种间质地与食味品质差异大，采用单一评价方法不能准确评价各品种菠萝质地与食味品质。本研究明确了影响整体感官满意度的6个关键分析指标，并建立了基于关键质构和理化指标的菠萝感官预测模型，可以较准确地预测菠萝的质地与食味品质，以弥补人工感官分析中客观性不足的缺陷。

关键词: 菠萝, 感官评价, 质构属性, 理化成分, 相关性分析

Abstract:

【Objective】 This study adopted different methodologies to identify the key texture characteristics and physicochemical indexes affecting the total sensory quality of pineapple (Ananas comosus (Linn.) Merr.), and to establish a new comprehensive evaluation method for the precise testing of fruit texture and taste quality.【Method】 In this study, seven different varieties of pineapple were selected for the measurement of sensory attributes, texture characteristics, and physicochemical compositions. Based on the variance and correlation analysis, the key texture properties and physicochemical indexes that affect sensory quality were identified. Further, the principal component regression analysis was performed, with key texture characteristics and physicochemical indexes as independent variables, and the total score of sensory evaluation as dependent variables, to obtain a statistically significant prediction model for the comprehensive evaluation of pineapple quality.【Result】 There were significant differences in some texture properties and physicochemical indexes among different varieties of pineapple, such as hardness, chewiness, maximum shear force, sugar-acid ratio, soluble protein, vitamin C and soluble pectin; the coefficient of variation among varieties was greater than 25%, while the difference in elasticity and cohesiveness was not significant among varieties. The overall satisfaction score of different pineapple varieties from the highest to lowest was Tainong 17>Tainong 16>Tainong 4>MD-2>Tainong 11>Smooth Cayenne>Comte de Paris. Tainong 17 showed the best quality of fruit texture and taste, its total soluble solid content was 16.23%, sugar to acid ratio was 31.82, soluble pectin content was 23.72 mg∙g^-1, hardness was 1 826.55 N, Chewiness was 789.77 mJ, and the maximum shear force was 3 491.37 N. Correlation analysis showed that there were six key indexes affecting the overall satisfaction of sensory significantly, including hardness, chewiness, maximum shear force and physicochemical index of soluble solids, sugar-acid ratio and soluble pectin. The determination coefficient R² of the sensory quality prediction model based on the principal component regression analysis was 0.916, and the standard deviation was 0.11. 【Conclusion】 The texture and taste quality of pineapple vary greatly among different varieties, and a single evaluation method could not accurately evaluate its comprehensive quality. A prediction model was established for pineapple sensory evaluation based on the key texture properties and physicochemical indexes, which could accurately predict the texture and taste quality of pineapple, and made up for the lack of objectivity in artificial sensory analysis.

Key words: pineapple, sensory evaluation, texture properties, physiochemical composition, correlation analysis

付山, 梁邺, 徐玖亮, 阮云泽, 罗剑, 李婷玉. 基于多种方法的菠萝果实质地及食味品质综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(15): 3006-3019.

FU Shan, LIANG Ye, XU JiuLiang, RUAN YunZe, LUO Jian, LI TingYu. Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruit Texture and Taste Quality of Pineapple Based on Multiple Methods[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(15): 3006-3019.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.15.014

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2023/V56/I15/3006

图/表 10

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

图1

表9

参考文献 52

[1]	RAFFO A, SINESIO F, MONETA E, NARDO N, PEPARAIO M, PAOLETTI F. Internal quality of fresh and cold stored celery petioles described by sensory profile, chemical and instrumental measurements. European Food Research and Technology, 2006, 222(5/6): 590-599. doi: 10.1007/s00217-005-0098-7
[2]	潘好斌, 刘东, 邵青旭, 高歌, 齐红岩. 不同品种薄皮甜瓜成熟期果实质地品质分析及综合评价. 食品科学, 2019, 40(21): 35-42. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20181025-299
	PAN H B, LIU D, SHAO Q X, GAO G, QI H Y. Analysis and comprehensive evaluation of textural quality of ripe fruits from different varieties of oriental melon (Cucumis melo var. makuwa Makino). Food Science, 2019, 40(21): 35-42. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1111/jfds.1975.40.issue-1
[3]	叶志彪. 园艺产品品质分析. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011: 16.
	YE Z B. Quality Analysis of Horticultural Products. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2011: 16. (in Chinese)
[4]	孙彩玲, 田纪春, 张永祥. TPA质构分析模式在食品研究中的应用. 实验科学与技术, 2007, 5(2): 1-4.
	SUN C L, TIAN J C, ZHANG Y X. Application of TPA test mode in the study of food. Experiment Science and Technology, 2007, 5(2): 1-4. (in Chinese)
[5]	杨玲, 张彩霞, 丛佩华, 程云, 王强. 基于质地多面分析法对不同苹果品种果肉质构特性的分析. 食品科学, 2014, 35(21): 57-62. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201421012
	YANG L, ZHANG C X, CONG P H, CHENG Y, WANG Q. Texture parameters of different apple varieties' flesh as measured by texture profile analysis. Food Science, 2014, 35(21): 57-62. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201421012
[6]	魏张奎. 基于质构特性的夏橙化渣性研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2013.
	WEI Z K. Study on slagging property of summer orange based on texture characteristics[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese)
[7]	吴洪华, 姜松. 食品质地及其TPA测试. 食品研究与开发, 2005, 26(5): 128-131.
	WU H H, JIANG S. Food texture and TPA test. Food Research and Development, 2005, 26(5): 128-131. (in Chinese)
[8]	朱红, 黄一贞. 新产品开发中感官分析的作用. 食品研究与开发, 1991, 12(4): 33-36.
	ZHU H, HUANG Y Z. The role of sensory analysis in product development. Food Research and Development, 1991, 12(4): 33-36. (in Chinese)
[9]	韩北忠, 童华荣, 杜双奎. 食品感官评价. 2版. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2016: 16-18.
	HAN B Z, TONG H R, DU S K. Food Sensory Evaluation. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2016: 16-18. (in Chinese)
[10]	朱丹实, 李慧, 曹雪慧, 刘贺, 励建荣, 孟宪军. 质构仪器分析在生鲜食品品质评价中的研究进展. 食品科学, 2014, 35(7): 264-269. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201407052
	ZHU D S, LI H, CAO X H, LIU H, LI J R, MENG X J. Research progress in quality evaluation of fresh foods by texture analyzers. Food Science, 2014, 35(7): 264-269. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201407052
[11]	FRANCK H, CHRISTIAN M, NOËL A, BRIGITTE P, JOSEPH H D, CORNET D, MATHURIN N C. Effects of cultivar and harvesting conditions (age, season) on the texture and taste of boiled cassava roots. Food Chemistry, 2011, 126(1): 127-133. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.088
[12]	赵思颖, 李璐, 刘小茜, 赵钢军, 吴海滨, 罗剑宁, 龚浩, 郑晓明, 李俊星. 基于感官分析、质构特征及理化成分的中国南瓜果实感官综合评价预测模型. 食品科学. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2206.TS.20220408.1430.002.html.
	ZHAO S Y, LI L, LIU X X, ZHAO G J, WU H B, LUO J N, GONG H, ZHENG X M, LI J X. A comprehensive sensory evaluation and prediction model for Chinese pumpkin fruits based on sensory analysis, texture characteristics and physicochemical components. Food Science. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2206.TS.20220408.1430.002.html. (in Chinese)
[13]	ELLA MISSANG C, MAINGONNAT J F, RENARD C M G C, AUDERGON J M. Texture variation in apricot: Intra-fruit heterogeneity, impact of thinning and relation with the texture after cooking. Food Research International, 2011, 44(1): 46-53. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.11.017
[14]	辜青青, 唐红英, 魏清江, 古湘, 冯芳芳, 罗正荣. 南丰蜜橘果实纤维素代谢与化渣的关系研究. 园艺学报, 2016, 43(5): 867-875. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2015-0750
	GU Q Q, TANG H Y, WEI Q J, GU X, FENG F F, LUO Z R. Studies on the relationship between cellulose metabolism and fruit mastication trait of Nanfeng tangerine. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2016, 43(5): 867-875. (in Chinese)
[15]	何全光, 黄梅华, 张娥珍, 辛明, 黄茂康, 覃仁源, 黄振勇. 芒果TPA质构测定优化及不同成熟度芒果质构特性分析. 食品工业科技, 2016, 37(18): 122-126, 132.
	HE Q G, HUANG M H, ZHANG E Z, XIN M, HUANG M K, QIN R Y, HUANG Z Y. Optimization for mango texture profile analysis and characterization of texture to different maturaity of mango. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2016, 37(18): 122-126, 132. (in Chinese)
[16]	李丽娜, 赵武奇, 曾祥源, 薛珊, 霍瑶瑶, 方媛, 郭玉蓉. 苹果的质构与感官评定相关性研究. 食品与机械, 2017, 33(6): 37-41, 45.
	LI L N, ZHAO W Q, ZENG X Y, XUE S, HUO Y Y, FANG Y, GUO Y R. Correlation between texture and sensory evaluation of apple. Food & Machinery, 2017, 33(6): 37-41, 45. (in Chinese)
[17]	李莉峰, 叶春苗, 韩艳秋. 不同干燥方式对南果梨干理化指标及质构特性的影响. 食品工业, 2018, 39(10): 46-49.
	LI L F, YE C M, HAN Y Q. Effects of different drying methods on dry physical and chemical indexes and texture characteristics of Nanguo pear. The Food Industry, 2018, 39(10): 46-49. (in Chinese)
[18]	吴旻丹, 陈瑜, 金邦荃. 储藏期猕猴桃质构变化的研究及人工咀嚼的建立. 食品工业科技, 2010, 31(12): 146-148, 152.
	WU M D, CHEN Y, JIN B Q. Detection of texture properties of kiwi fruits by texture profile analysis and simulation of manual chewing. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2010, 31(12): 146-148, 152. (in Chinese)
[19]	谢林君, 成果, 周咏梅, 谢太理, 张劲. 阳光玫瑰冬葡萄贮藏期果实质构特性变化研究. 南方园艺, 2021, 32(1): 14-20.
	XIE L J, CHENG G, ZHOU Y M, XIE T L, ZHANG J. Study on the changes of fruit parenchyma characteristics of Sunshine Rose Winter Grape during storage. Southern Horticulture, 2021, 32(1): 14-20. (in Chinese)
[20]	刘亚男, 马海洋, 张江周, 冼皑敏, 石伟琦. 不同菠萝品种滴灌施肥养分吸收特性和产量品质差异. 中国南方果树, 2016, 45(1): 62-65.
	LIU Y N, MA H Y, ZHANG J Z, XIAN A M, SHI W Q. Nutrient absorption characteristics and yield and quality differences of different pineapple varieties under drip irrigation fertilization. South China Fruits, 2016, 45(1): 62-65. (in Chinese)
[21]	李苗苗, 张秀梅, 刘胜辉, 李运河, 陆新华, 吴青松, 孙伟生, 孙光明. 不同品种菠萝果实维生素含量分析. 热带作物学报, 2012, 33(9): 1659-1662.
	LI M M, ZHANG X M, LIU S H, LI Y H, LU X H, WU Q S, SUN W S, SUN G M. Analysis of five kinds of vitamins content in 11 different pineapple fruits. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2012, 33(9): 1659-1662. (in Chinese)
[22]	陆新华, 孙德权, 吴青松, 刘胜辉, 张秀梅, 孙光明. 不同类群菠萝种质果实糖酸组分含量分析. 果树学报, 2013, 30(3): 444-448.
	LU X H, SUN D Q, WU Q S, LIU S H, ZHANG X M, SUN G M. Analysis of components and contents of soluble sugars and organic acids in pineapple germplasm. Journal of Fruit Science, 2013, 30(3): 444-448. (in Chinese)
[23]	严程明, 张江周, 刘亚男, 马海洋, 石伟琦. 5个品种菠萝果实品质比较与分析. 广东农业科学, 2012, 39(19): 42-44.
	YAN C M, ZHANG J Z, LIU Y N, MA H Y, SHI W Q. The comparison and analysis of fruit quality for five different pineapple variety. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 39(19): 42-44. (in Chinese)
[24]	张秀梅, 李建国, 杜丽清, 谢江辉, 姚艳丽, 孙光明. 菠萝品种间糖积累差异的研究. 热带作物学报, 2011, 32(9): 1673-1678.
	ZHANG X M, LI J G, DU L Q, XIE J H, YAO Y L, SUN G M. Sugar accumulation in different pineapple varieties. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2011, 32(9): 1673-1678. (in Chinese)
[25]	中华人民共和国农业部. 菠萝:NY/T420-2001. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2001.
	Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. Pineapple:NY/T420-2001. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2001. (in Chinese)
[26]	周苏玉, 陈琦, 钱平, 刘琼, 顾迎建. GB/T 16860-1997感官分析方法质地剖面检验. 北京: 国家技术监督局, 1997.
	ZHOU S Y, CHEN Q, QIAN P, LIU Q, GU Y J. GB/T 16860-1997. Texture profile test of sensory analysis method. Beijing: State Bureau of Technical Supervision, 1997. (in Chinese)
[27]	杨丽, 张英静, 王竹. FP/QDA法在无糖酸奶感官性质分析中的比较. 中国乳品工业, 2022, 50(1): 60-64.
	YANG L, ZHANG Y J, WANG Z. Comparison of FP/QDA method in sensory properties analysis of sugar-free yogurt. China Dairy Industry, 2022, 50(1): 60-64. (in Chinese)
[28]	陈红, 左婷, 伊华林, 余豹, 魏张奎, 潘海兵. 利用仪器检测指标量化夏橙化渣程度. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(8): 265-271.
	CHEN H, ZUO T, YI H L, YU B, WEI Z K, PAN H B. Qantitative evaluation of Valencia orange mastication degree using texture properties detected by instrument. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014, 30(8): 265-271. (in Chinese)
[29]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	BAO S D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. (in Chinese)
[30]	XIONG D L, LING X X, HUANG J L, PENG S B. Meta-analysis and dose-response analysis of high temperature effects on rice yield and quality. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2017, 141: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.06.007
[31]	刘竞妍, 张可, 王桂华. 综合评价中数据标准化方法比较研究. 数字技术与应用, 2018, 36(6): 84-85.
	LIU J Y, ZHANG K, WANG G H. Comparative study on data standardization methods in comprehensive evaluation. Digital Technology and Application, 2018, 36(6): 84-85. (in Chinese)
[32]	史俊燕. 菠萝果实膳食纤维等功能成分的研究[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2010.
	SHI J Y. Study on functional components such as dietary fiber in pineapple fruit[D]. Haikou: Hainan University, 2010. (in Chinese)
[33]	FAN X G, ZHAO H D, WANG X M, CAO J K, JIANG W B. Sugar and organic acid composition of apricot and their contribution to sensory quality and consumer satisfaction. Scientia Horticulturae, 2017, 225: 553-560. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.07.016
[34]	李丽梅, 李雪梅, 关军锋, 何近刚. 北方23个梨品种鲜榨梨汁的理化特性分析和感官评价. 食品与机械, 2013, 29(2): 44-48, 53.
	LI L M, LI X M, GUAN J F, HE J G. Analysis of physical and chemical features and sensory evaluation of fresh pear juice from twenty-three cultivars in North China. Food & Machinery, 2013, 29(2): 44-48, 53. (in Chinese)
[35]	宋烨, 王建中. 不同产地灰枣感官及理化特性评价. 现代食品科技, 2021, 37(7): 148-154, 293.
	SONG Y, WANG J Z. Evaluation of sensory and physico-chemical properties of grey jujube from different producing regions. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2021, 37(7): 148-154, 293. (in Chinese)
[36]	陈海芳, 袁晓丽, 张秀梅. 菠萝品质生理的研究进展及展望. 中国南方果树, 2016, 45(6): 172-177.
	CHEN H F, YUAN X L, ZHANG X M. Research progress and prospect of pineapple quality physiology. South China Fruits, 2016, 45(6): 172-177. (in Chinese)
[37]	赵维峰, 杨文秀, 裴红霞, 张艳芳. 7个菠萝品种在云南的引种表现. 中国南方果树, 2018, 47(3): 90-93.
	ZHAO W F, YANG W X, PEI H X, ZHANG Y F. Introduction performance of seven pineapple varieties in Yunnan. South China Fruits, 2018, 47(3): 90-93. (in Chinese)
[38]	SARADHULDHAT P, PAULL R E. Pineapple organic acid metabolism and accumulation during fruit development. Scientia Horticulturae, 2007, 112(3): 297-303. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2006.12.031
[39]	陆新华, 吴青松, 刘胜辉, 孙伟生, 张秀梅, 李运合, 孙光明. 菠萝种质果实可溶性糖组分及含量分析. 热带作物学报, 2012, 33(5): 936-940.
	LU X H, WU Q S, LIU S H, SUN W S, ZHANG X M, LI Y H, SUN G M. Analysis for components and contents of soluble sugars in pineapple germplasm. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2012, 33(5): 936-940. (in Chinese)
[40]	张阳梅, 曾建生, 赵志平, 高世德, 刘代兴. 菠萝种质资源果实主要数量性状的主成分分析. 热带农业科技, 2016, 39(2): 10-13, 28.
	ZHANG Y M, ZENG J S, ZHAO Z P, GAO S D, LIU D X. Principal component analysis of main quantitative characters in pineapple germplasm. Tropical Agricultural Science & Technology, 2016, 39(2): 10-13, 28. (in Chinese)
[41]	程顺昌, 魏宝东, 纪淑娟. 不同处理对菠萝果实切片贮藏性及品质的影响. 食品科技, 2009, 34(3): 57-59.
	CHENG S C, WEI B D, JI S J. Effect of different treatment on storage characteristics and quality of fresh cut pineapple. Food Science and Technology, 2009, 34(3): 57-59. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1002/fsat.v34.1
[42]	张玉梅, 周伟, 李如一, 彭芍丹, 张利, 曹玉坡, 李积华. 5种菠萝果实品质比较与评价. 食品研究与开发, 2022, 43(10): 22-28.
	ZHANG Y M, ZHOU W, LI R Y, PENG S D, ZHANG L, CAO Y P, LI J H. Comparison and evaluation of fruit quality of five pineapple cultivars. Food Research and Development, 2022, 43(10): 22-28. (in Chinese)
[43]	刘聪, 李亚珍, 尹嘉敏, 邓云, 孙静, 王吉力特. 不同贮藏温度对磴口华莱士蜜瓜质构特性、理化指标、感官品质变化及相关性分析. 中国瓜菜, 2022, 35(1): 47-53.
	LIU C, LI Y Z, YIN J M, DENG Y, SUN J, WANG J L T. Correlation analysis of changes in texture characteristics, physical and chemical indexes and sensory quality of Dengkou Hualaishi melon at different storage temperatures. China Cucurbits and Vegetables, 2022, 35(1): 47-53. (in Chinese)
[44]	尹玲, 王长林, 王迎杰, 向成钢, 陈花. 南瓜的感官品质、质构及生化分析. 食品科学, 2013, 34(5): 26-30. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201305006
	YIN L, WANG C L, WANG Y J, XIANG C G, CHEN H. Sensory quality, texture and chemical composition analysis of pumpkin. Food Science, 2013, 34(5): 26-30. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201305006
[45]	白牡丹, 付宝春, 杨盛, 郝国伟, 张晓伟, 王燕平. “玉露香梨”及其亲本果实生长发育过程中质地差异. 北方园艺, 2022(19): 8-14.
	BAI M D, FU B C, YANG S, HAO G W, ZHANG X W, WANG Y P. Texture difference of fruit development between ‘Yuluxiang' pear and its parents. Northern Horticulture, 2022(19): 8-14. (in Chinese)
[46]	邓毓芳. 林产食品加工工艺学. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1995.
	DENG Y F. Processing Technology of Forest Food. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 1995. (in Chinese)
[47]	马帅鹏, 李静, 陈秀龙, 龙卫平, 马旭东, 魏守兴, 覃新导, 庞振才. 不同菠萝品种的农艺性状和品质比较分析. 农学学报, 2014, 4(9): 72-74, 113.
	MA S P, LI J, CHEN X L, LONG W P, MA X D, WEI S X, QIN X D, PANG Z C. Comparative analysis on the agronomic traits and quality of different pineapple varieties. Journal of Agriculture, 2014, 4(9): 72-74, 113. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11924/j.issn.2095-4050.2014-xb0545
[48]	刘世红, 倪书邦, 管艳, 殷振华, 张阳梅. 西双版纳10个菠萝品种的品质分析. 热带农业科技, 2022, 45(2):19-23.
	LIU S H, NI S B, GUAN Y, YIN Z H, ZHANG Y M. Quality analysis of 10 pineapple varieties in Xishuangbanna. Tropical Agricultural Science & Technology, 2022, 45(2): 19-23. (in Chinese)
[49]	华敏, 王祥和, 张治礼, 何凡, 范鸿雁. 台农16号等优质菠萝品种在海南引种比较试验. 中国南方果树, 2011, 40(1): 44-46.
	HUA M, WANG X H, ZHANG Z L, HE F, FAN H Y. Comparison of high-quality Tainong 16 pineapple varieties in Hainan Province. South China Fruits, 2011, 40(1): 44-46. (in Chinese)
[50]	孙伟生, 吴青松, 刘胜辉, 孙光明. 台农系列菠萝品种特性的比较分析. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(11): 2050-2055.
	SUN W S, WU Q S, LIU S H, SUN G M. Comparative analysis of variety characteristics of Tainong series pineapple. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2016, 37(11): 2050-2055. (in Chinese)
[51]	刘丙花, 孙锐, 王开芳, 舒秀阁, 孙蕾. 不同蓝莓品种果实品质比较与综合评价. 食品科学, 2019, 40(1): 70-76. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20170829-338
	LIU B H, SUN R, WANG K F, SHU X G, SUN L. Comparison and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of different blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) varieties. Food Science, 2019, 40(1): 70-76. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1111/jfds.1975.40.issue-1
[52]	张杨, 梁怡蕾, 潘琦雯, 张文. 猕猴桃感官评定与质地剖面分析的相关性. 食品工业科技, 2018, 39(16): 243-247, 252.
	ZHANG Y, LIANG Y L, PAN Q W, ZHANG W. Correlation between the sensory evaluation and texture profile analysis of kiwifruit. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2018, 39(16): 243-247, 252. (in Chinese)

指标 Index	定义 Definition	备注 Note	参比 Reference
香气 Aroma	果实切开后散发出的挥发性果香 Volatile fruit aroma	-	-
嫩度 Tenderness	整个咀嚼过程中嘴唇和舌头对果肉细嫩程度的感觉 Sensation of tenderness of fruit flesh during chewing	-	香蕉 Banana
脆度 Brittleness	整个咀嚼过程中嘴唇和舌头对果中柱松脆程度的感觉 Sensation of crunchiness of the fruit center column during chewing	-	可比克薯片 Copico potato chips
易嚼性 Chewiness	咀嚼至可被吞咽时所需咀嚼次数 Number of chews required until swallowed	将样品放在口腔中每秒钟咀嚼一次，用力与0.5 s内咬穿一块口香糖力量相同 Chew the sample once per second with the same force as biting through a piece of chewing gum in 0.5 seconds	葡萄柚 Grapefruit
残渣量 Residue	咀嚼至可被吞咽时的残渣量 Amount of residue chewed until it can be swallowed	样品咀嚼至可被吞咽时将残渣吐出进行定量 Quantification by spitting out the residue as it chewed can be swallowed	甘蔗 Sugarcane
纤维感 Fiber	咀嚼过程中感觉到的丝状纤维强度 Strength of fibers felt during chewing	-	芹菜茎 Stalk of celery
甜味 Sweetness	基本味觉，配制一定浓度蔗糖溶液 Basic taste sensation, preparation of a certain concentration of sucrose solution	-	1%蔗糖溶液 1% sucrose solution

评分等级 Grade	果肉香气 Aroma	果肉嫩度 Tenderness	果肉易嚼性 Chewiness	果肉残渣量 Residue	果肉纤维感 Fibrous	果肉甜度 Sweetness	果中柱脆度 Brittleness	果中柱甜度 Sweetness	果中柱易嚼性 Chewiness	果中柱残渣量 Residue	果中柱纤维感 Fibrous
4	很香 Very Fragrant	细嫩 Tender	易嚼 Easy to chew	基本无 Hardly ever	基本无 Hardly ever	甜 Sweet	松脆 Very brittleness	甜 Sweet	易嚼 Easy to chew	基本无 Hardly ever	基本无 Hardly ever
3	香 Fragrant	嫩度一般 General tender	一般易嚼 General to chew	少 A little	弱 A little	偏甜 General sweet	一般脆 General brittleness	偏甜 General sweet	一般易嚼 General to chew	少 A little	弱 A little
2	略香 A little fragrant	不太细嫩 A little tender	不太易嚼 Not easy to chew	中 Medium	中 Medium	不太甜 A little sweet	硬 Hard	不太甜 A little sweet	不太易嚼 Not easy to chew	中 Medium	中 Medium
1	无香味 No fragrance	不细嫩 No tender	不易嚼 Hard to chew	多 Much	强 Much	淡化 Tasteless	生硬 Very hard	淡化 Tasteless	不易嚼 Hard to chew	多 Much	强 Much

评价指标 Index	巴厘 Comte de paris	无刺卡因 Smooth Cayenne	台农4号 Tainong 4	台农11号 Tainong 11	台农16号 Tainong 16	台农17号 Tainong 17	金菠萝 MD-2	CV (%)
果实香气 Aroma	2.01c	2.19c	2.85ab	2.02c	1.90cd	2.91ab	3.26a	22
果肉嫩度 Tenderness	1.91d	2.38cd	2.88bc	2.40c	3.46a	3.04ab	2.86bc	18
果肉甜度 Sweetness	2.01d	2.36c	3.05b	2.47c	2.88b	3.50a	3.39a	19
果肉易嚼性 Chewiness	1.88d	2.33c	2.90ab	2.58bc	3.08a	3.25a	2.65bc	18
果肉残渣量 Residue	1.81c	1.90c	2.53b	2.18bc	3.08a	2.98ab	2.01c	22
果肉纤维感 Fibrous	2.00c	2.17c	2.64ab	2.20bc	2.94a	2.89a	2.17c	15
果中柱脆度 Brittleness	1.36c	1.62c	3.00a	2.40b	2.95a	3.01a	1.63c	35
果中柱甜度 Sweetness	1.52c	1.79c	2.67a	2.13b	2.42ab	2.62a	2.38b	20
果中柱易嚼性 Chewiness	1.40d	1.48d	2.56b	2.04c	3.00a	2.82ab	1.34e	37
果中柱残渣量 Residue	1.45d	1.52d	2.23bc	2.05c	3.10a	2.60b	1.44d	32
果中柱纤维感 Fibrous	1.39c	1.40c	2.77a	2.01b	2.43ab	2.62a	1.37c	32
感官总分 Overall satisfaction	18.74d	21.14c	30.08ab	24.48b	31.24a	32.24a	24.50b	20

品种 Variety	硬度 Hardness (N)	弹性 Elasticity (mm)	凝聚性 Coherency	胶着性 Gumminess (N)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (mJ)	回复性 Resilience	最大剪切力 Maximum shear force (N)
巴厘 Comte de paris	3161.96±674.96a	0.80±0.03a	0.65±0.04a	1224.91±381.34a	1658.82±318.32a	0.45±0.03a	7105.08±662.80a
无刺卡因 Smooth Cayenne	2681.17±295.18b	0.83±0.02a	0.63±0.03ab	1147.82±245.35b	1355.93±258.29b	0.46±0.03a	6830.67±385.50a
台农4号 Tainong 4	2339.56±328.75c	0.83±0.03a	0.64±0.04a	1268.34±127.42a	1176.83±157.82c	0.45±0.04a	4757.25±712.28c
台农11号 Tainong 11	2307.53±399.96c	0.80±0.04a	0.64±0.04a	1239.24±198.89a	1194.53±207.04c	0.45±0.04ab	4679.52±382.82c
台农16号 Tainong 16	1691.55±204.02d	0.79±0.02a	0.60±0.03b	1101.48±182.59b	867.07±139.52d	0.44±0.03ab	4006.34±434.56d
台农17号 Tainong 17	1825.17±110.66d	0.80±0.03a	0.60±0.03b	1186.78±289.41ab	784.77±47.4d	0.42±0.04b	3491.37±652.06d
金菠萝 MD-2	2442.85±245.00bc	0.82±0.02a	0.60±0.04b	1230.74±155.63a	1276.32±172.05bc	0.41±0.02b	5881.48±813.63b
CV (%)	21	2	4	5	26	4	26

品种 Variety	硬度 Hardness (N)	弹性 Elasticity (mm)	凝聚性 Coherency	胶着性 Gumminess (N)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (mJ)	回复性 Resilience	最大剪切力 Maximum shear force (N)
巴厘 Comte de paris	9396.35±329.43b	0.81±0.02abc	0.76±0.02b	7360.90±198.62b	6151.99±694.74b	0.60±0.02ab	6395.29±364.90c
无刺卡因 Smooth Cayenne	9543.65±211.16b	0.82±0.02a	0.78±0.02ab	7214.87±344.20b	5805.88±255.74b	0.60±0.02a	7327.66±322.46b
台农4号 Tainong 4	8953.89±297.22bc	0.81±0.03ab	0.79±0.02a	8822.29±1220.91a	3898.09±247.38d	0.62±0.03a	4012.50±276.11e
台农11号 Tainong 11	8404.09±167.85cd	0.80±0.03abc	0.76±0.02b	5905.22±439.68c	5021.56±349.79c	0.57±0.03bc	6600.09±520.25c
台农16号 Tainong 16	5223.69±329.32e	0.79±0.01c	0.76±0.02b	3940.01±206.07d	3087.23±180.80d	0.55±0.02c	5213.61±483.29d
台农17号 Tainong 17	6591.01±241.11d	0.79±0.01bc	0.76±0.01b	6360.52±468.79c	4002.49±212.60d	0.58±0.01bc	4166.03±255.47e
金菠萝 MD-2	11965.64±1352.46a	0.80±0.03abc	0.77±0.02ab	8788.05±895.02a	6936.42±687.39a	0.57±0.03c	8627.14±393.94a
CV (%)	25	1	2	25	28	4	28

基于多种方法的菠萝果实质地及食味品质综合评价

Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruit Texture and Taste Quality of Pineapple Based on Multiple Methods

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 52

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

品种 Variety	可溶性固形物 Soluble solids (%)	可滴定酸 Titratable acid (%)	糖酸比 Sugar acid ratio	可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein (mg∙g^-1)	维生素C Vitimin C (mg∙kg^-1)	纤维素 Cellulose (mg∙g^-1)	原果胶 Protopectin (mg∙g^-1)	可溶性果胶 Soluble pectin (mg∙g^-1)
巴厘 Comte de paris	10.31±1.39d	0.69±0.08b	14.90±2.32e	1.08±0.09c	218.88±33.38cd	136.73±13.57b	19.45±5.11ab	13.98±1.12e
无刺卡因 Smooth Cayenne	13.01±0.83c	0.74±0.09a	17.58±2.52d	0.29±0.07f	111.39±7.58e	132.38±13.63b	16.40±6.88bc	16.09±2.56de
台农4号 Tainong 4	14.74±1.07b	0.56±0.07bc	26.32±3.32b	0.62±0.08de	239.46±20.83cd	135.1±14.01b	15.42±5.53c	26.13±4.79a
台农11号 Tainong 11	12.43±1.36c	0.60±0.06bc	20.72±2.72c	0.70±0.14d	311.15±33.96b	131.58±13.19b	16.52±2.94c	18.21±1.79cd
台农16号 Tainong 16	14.95±2.58b	0.81±0.05a	18.46±2.37d	0.49±0.08e	270.76±31.36bc	119.56±13.61cd	12.96±5.29d	27.82±4.36a
台农17号 Tainong 17	16.23±1.07a	0.51±0.07c	31.82±5a	1.95±0.31a	202.38±37.99d	111.49±15.78d	19.82±4.62ab	23.72±3.92ab
金菠萝 MD-2	13.65±0.81bc	0.49±0.07c	27.86±3.82b	1.32±0.11b	558.90±92.80a	148.36±10.83a	20.97±5.41a	20.25±2.53bc
CV (%)	14	2	29	64	50	10	16	25

质构指标 Index	果实香气 Aroma	果肉嫩度 Tenderness	果肉甜度 Sweetness	果肉易嚼性 Chewiness	果肉残渣量 Residue	果肉纤维感 Fiber	感官总分 Overall satisfaction
硬度 Hardness	0.036	-0.893**	-0.679	-0.964**	0.929**	0.919**	-0.793**
弹性 Elasticity	0.711	-0.168	-0.019	-0.356	0.430	0.406	-0.281
凝聚性 Coherence	-0.243	-0.150	-0.711	-0.580	0.580	0.548	-0.711
胶着性 Gumminess	0.536	-0.500	-0.143	-0.107	0.179	0.234	-0.143
咀嚼性 Chewiness	-0.071	-0.929**	-0.750	-1.000**	0.964**	0.955**	-0.964**
回复性 Resilience	-0.198	-0.505	-0.658	-0.482	0.445	0.337	-0.630
最大剪切力 Maximum shear force	0.036	-0.857*	-0.679	-0.964**	0.929**	0.919**	-0.893**

理化组分 Component	果实香气 Aroma	果肉嫩度 Tenderness	果肉甜度 Sweetness	果肉易嚼性 Chewiness	果肉残渣量 Residue	果肉纤维感 Fiber	感官总分 Overall satisfaction
可溶性固形物 Soluble solid	0.321	0.929**	0.821*	0.893**	-0.857*	-0.847*	0.964**
可滴定酸 Titratable acid	-0.857*	-0.179	-0.750*	-0.321	0.107	0.036	-0.393
糖酸比 Sugar acid ratio	0.714	0.643	0.929**	0.750	-0.607	-0.559	0.779*
可溶性蛋白 Soluble protein	0.536	0.071	0.536	0.179	-0.000	0.090	0.250
维生素C Vitimin C	0.071	0.214	0.250	0.071	0.179	-0.072	0.107
纤维素 Cellulose	0.250	-0.571	-0.250	-0.750	0.714	0.775*	-0.507
原果胶 Protopectin	0.643	-0.286	0.321	-0.214	0.393	0.468	-0.107
可溶性果胶 Soluble pectin	0.071	0.964**	0.679	0.857*	-0.929**	-0.901**	0.857**

主成分 Component	初始特征值 Eigen values	贡献率 Contribution rate	累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate
1	5.105	85.088	85.088
2	0.527	8.784	93.873
3	0.227	3.78	97.653
4	0.14	2.327	99.98
5	0.001	0.01	99.99
6	0.001	0.01	100

[1]	相玉婷, 王晓龙, 胡新中, 任长忠, 郭来春, 李璐. 燕麦品种间脂肪酶活性差异及低脂肪酶优质品种的预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(21): 4104-4117.
[2]	刘丰,蒋佳丽,周琴,蔡剑,王笑,黄梅,仲迎鑫,戴廷波,曹卫星,姜东. 美国软麦籽粒品质变化趋势及对我国弱筋小麦标准达标度分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(19): 3723-3737.
[3]	冯俊杰,赵文达,张新全,刘英杰,袁帅,董志晓,熊毅,熊艳丽,凌瑶,马啸. 引种日本多花黑麦草标准品种DUS性状变异分析及应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12): 2447-2460.
[4]	谭凤玲,詹萍,王鹏,田洪磊. 基于感官评价及GC-MS结合OPLS-DA分析热杀菌对蟠桃汁呈香品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12): 2425-2435.
[5]	卢慧,袁玉洁,张丝琪,陈虹,陈多,钟晓媛,李博,邓飞,陈勇,李贵勇,任万军. 基于3种方法的西南杂交籼稻稻米食味评价及品种优选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(6): 1243-1257.
[6]	张婷,王根平,罗焱杰,李琳,高翔,程汝宏,师志刚,董立,张喜瑞,杨伟红,许立闪. 色差分析在优质小米选育中的应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(5): 901-908.
[7]	李凯峰,尹玉和,王琼,林团荣,郭华春. 不同马铃薯品种挥发性风味成分及代谢产物相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4): 792-803.
[8]	张斌斌,蔡志翔,沈志军,严娟,马瑞娟,俞明亮. 观赏桃种质资源表型性状多样性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2406-2418.
[9]	邹运乾,张立,吴方方,许让伟,徐娟,胡世全,谢合平,程运江. 打蜡处理对温州蜜柑果实异味物质积累的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(12): 2450-2459.
[10]	朱子健,陈思雨,粟俊,陶永胜. 刺葡萄酒酒精发酵过程中氨基酸组成与果香酯类物质生成的关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(11): 2272-2284.
[11]	方慧婷,蒙继华,程志强. 基于遥感与作物模型的土壤速效养分时空变异分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(3): 478-490.
[12]	任雪岩,刘光财,李国鹏,叶春海,丰锋,王俊宁. 乙烯利和1-MCP对菠萝蜜果实中AheAAT和 AheERF表达的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(21): 3890-3902.
[13]	苏兰茜,白亭玉,鱼欢,吴刚,谭乐和. 盐胁迫对2种菠萝蜜属植物幼苗生长及光合荧光特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(12): 2140-2150.
[14]	王阳，王文辉，贾晓辉，佟伟，王志华，杨晓龙. 梨不同品种果实冻藏品质性状分析与适宜品种筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(17): 3400-3412.
[15]	徐晴，许甫超，董静，董建辉，秦丹丹，鲁梦莹，李梅芳. 小麦氮素利用效率的基因型差异及相关特性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(14): 2647-2657.