马铃薯块茎质地品质的综合评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.12.002

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 The comprehensive evaluation of texture qualities of potato tubers not only are beneficial to the subdivision of processing quality traits and accurately locate purpose of potato, but also assist breeders screening new varieties, and accelerate the development of potato products.【Method】Potato cultivated varieties were selected as the research samples. Puncture, TPA compression and shear methods were chosen to analyze the texture parameters. These included puncture distance, puncture initial force, puncture speed, compression deformation, compression speed, compression interval time, compression initial force, shear initial force and speed. The texture indexes of eight varieties were measured under the optimal texture analyzer parameters setting, then the correlation among the texture parameters and the evaluation of optimal texture parameters were analyzed. 【Result】 Optimal parameters of fresh tuber puncture: Cylindrical metal probe (TMS 2 mm Steel), 2 mm puncture distance and, 2.5 N initial force, 50 mm·min^-1 detection speed. The optimal test factors of TPA compression (fresh/steamed): The cylinder sample for fresh and steamed tubers both ranged in the diameter and height from 10 mm to 15 mm, no significant difference was examined among three probe selection in the fresh tubers. Cylindrical aluminum probe (TMS 36.0 mm Aluminum Cylinder) was the optimal type for steamed tubers probe. The optimal parameters (fresh/steamed): 50% and 60% deformation, 60 mm·min^-1 and 80 mm·min^-1 detection speed, 6 s and 10 s interval time, both 0.7 N initial force. The optimal shear parameters (fresh/steamed): The length, width and height of the cuboid sample were 30 mm, 15 mm, and 10 mm, respectively. The probe type was light single knife probe (TMS Perspex Knife Edge), with both 60 mm·min^-1 detection speed, and 1 N and 0.5 N initial force. They’re existed significant correlation between springiness and the peel crispness, no significant correlation among the other texture parameters of TPA compression and shear. They’re existed significant positive correlation among puncture, TPA compression and shear texture parameters (0.410-0.959) in fresh tubers. There also existed significant positive correlation between TPA compression and shear texture parameters (0.441-0.952) in steamed tubers. 【Conclusion】 Puncture, TPA compression and shear methods were suitable for the samples evaluation of the quality of fresh tubers. The indexes of peel hardness, peel brittleness, TPA hardness, cohesiveness, chewiness, shear hardness can be chosen as important parameters to compare differences of texture. TPA compression and shear methods were suitable for the sample’s evaluation of the quality of steamed tubers. The indexes of TPA hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, springiness, chewiness, shear hardness can be chosen as important parameters to compare differences of texture.

Key words: Solanum tuberosum, texture analyzer parameter, puncture, TPA compression, shear

LI WenLi, YUAN JianLong, DUAN HuiMin, JIANG TongHui, LIU LingLing, ZHANG Feng. Comprehensive Evaluation of Potato Tuber Texture[J].Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(12): 2278-2293.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

URL: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.12.002

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/Y2022/V55/I12/2278

Figures/Tables 12

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Table 3

Table 4

The design table and results of fresh and steamed tubers"

编号 Number	块茎类型 Tuber type	A	B	D	空白列 Blank	硬度 Hardness (N)	粘附性 Adhesiveness (mJ)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (mJ)
1	鲜Fresh	1(50)	1(20)	1(4)	1	206.261	—	0.134	2.902	80.840
1	熟Steamed	1(40)	1(40)	1(4)	1	7.166	0.255	0.068	0.544	0.271
2	鲜Fresh	1	2(60)	2(6)	2	209.969	—	0.137	2.868	82.490
2	熟Steamed	1	2(60)	2(6)	2	8.174	0.249	0.063	0.550	0.319
3	鲜Fresh	1	3(100)	3(8)	3	188.022	—	0.120	2.751	61.984
3	熟Steamed	1	3(80)	3(10)	3	8.014	0.332	0.069	0.586	0.331
4	鲜Fresh	2(60)	1	2	3	215.105	—	0.092	2.919	57.696
4	熟Steamed	2(50)	1	2	3	8.544	0.383	0.057	0.563	0.282
5	鲜Fresh	2	2	3	1	231.517	—	0.095	2.941	65.245
5	熟Steamed	2	2	3	1	7.893	0.383	0.062	0.586	0.295
6	鲜Fresh	2	3	1	2	218.210	—	0.083	2.787	51.107
6	熟Steamed	2	3	1	2	7.775	0.735	0.067	0.541	0.285
7	鲜Fresh	3(70)	1	3	2	228.348	—	0.077	2.864	50.731
7	熟Steamed	3(60)	1	3	2	8.174	1.006	0.076	0.628	0.404
8	鲜Fresh	3	2	1	1	217.744	—	0.072	2.650	41.845
8	熟Steamed	3	2	1	1	8.771	1.014	0.070	0.561	0.366
9	鲜Fresh	3	3	2	3	242.891	—	0.074	2.690	48.826
9	熟Steamed	3	3	2	3	9.074	1.242	0.070	0.546	0.369
k_{1（硬度）} k_{1 (Hardness)}	鲜Fresh	201.417	216.571	214.072	218.507
k_{1（硬度）} k_{1 (Hardness)}	熟Steamed	7.785	7.962	7.904	8.045
k_{2（硬度）} k_{2 (Hardness)}	鲜Fresh	221.610	219.743	222.655	218.842
k_{2（硬度）} k_{2 (Hardness)}	熟Steamed	8.071	8.279	8.598	8.041
k_{3（硬度）} k_{3 (Hardness)}	鲜Fresh	229.661	216.374	215.962	215.339
k_{3（硬度）} k_{3 (Hardness)}	熟Steamed	8.673	8.288	8.027	8.443
R_（硬度） R_(Hardness)	鲜Fresh	28.244	3.370	8.583	3.503
R_（硬度） R_(Hardness)	熟Steamed	0.888	0.326	0.693	0.400
k_{1（粘附性）} k_{1 (Adhesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	—	—	—	—
k_{1（粘附性）} k_{1 (Adhesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.279	0.548	0.668	0.627
k_{2（粘附性）} k_{2 (Adhesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	—	—	—	—
k_{2（粘附性）} k_{2 (Adhesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.500	0.549	0.624	0.663
k_{3（粘附性）} k_{3 (Adhesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	—	—	—	—
k_{3（粘附性）} k_{3 (Adhesiveness)}	熟Steamed	1.087	0.770	0.574	0.576
R_{（粘附性）} R _{(Adhesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	—	—	—	—
R_{（粘附性）} R _{(Adhesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.809	0.221	0.094	0.087
k_{1（内聚性）} k_{1 (Cohesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	0.130	0.101	0.096	0.101
k_{1（内聚性）} k_{1 (Cohesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.066	0.067	0.068	0.066
k_{2（内聚性）} k_{2 (Cohesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	0.090	0.102	0.099	0.099
k_{2（内聚性）} k_{2 (Cohesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.062	0.065	0.063	0.069
k_{3（内聚性）} k_{3 (Cohesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	0.074	0.092	0.095	0.095
k_{3（内聚性）} k_{3 (Cohesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.072	0.069	0.069	0.065
R_{（内聚性）} R _{(Cohesiveness)}	鲜Fresh	0.056	0.010	0.004	0.005
R_{（内聚性）} R _{(Cohesiveness)}	熟Steamed	0.010	0.004	0.005	0.003
k_{1（弹性）} k_{1 (Springiness)}	鲜Fresh	2.840	2.895	2.779	2.831
k_{1（弹性）} k_{1 (Springiness)}	熟Steamed	0.560	0.578	0.549	0.559
k_{2（弹性）} k_{2 (Springiness)}	鲜Fresh	2.882	2.819	2.826	2.839
k_{2（弹性）} k_{2 (Springiness)}	熟Steamed	0.563	0.566	0.553	0.573
k_{3（弹性）} K_{3 (Springiness)}	鲜Fresh	2.735	2.743	2.852	2.787
k_{3（弹性）} K_{3 (Springiness)}	熟Steamed	0.578	0.558	0.600	0.570
R_（弹性） R _{(Springiness)}	鲜Fresh	0.148	0.152	0.072	0.053
R_（弹性） R _{(Springiness)}	熟Steamed	0.019	0.020	0.051	0.011
k_{1（咀嚼性）} k_{1 (Chewiness)}	鲜Fresh	75.105	63.089	57.931	62.643
k_{1（咀嚼性）} k_{1 (Chewiness)}	熟Steamed	0.307	0.319	0.307	0.311
k_{2（咀嚼性）} k_{2 (Chewiness)}	鲜Fresh	58.016	63.193	65.520	61.443
k_{2（咀嚼性）} k_{2 (Chewiness)}	熟Steamed	0.287	0.327	0.323	0.336
k_{3（咀嚼性）} k_{3 (Chewiness)}	鲜Fresh	47.134	53.973	59.320	56.169
k_{3（咀嚼性）} k_{3 (Chewiness)}	熟Steamed	0.380	0.328	0.343	0.326
R_{（咀嚼性）} R _(Chewiness)	鲜Fresh	27.971	9.221	7.589	6.475
R_{（咀嚼性）} R _(Chewiness)	熟Steamed	0.073	0.009	0.036	0.025

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Texture parameters of different varieties of fresh and steamed tubers"

品种名 <BOLD>V</BOLD>ariety	块茎类型 Tubers type	穿刺测试 Puncture test			TPA压缩测试 TPA compression test					剪切测试 Shear test
品种名 <BOLD>V</BOLD>ariety	块茎类型 Tubers type	薯皮硬度 Hardness (N)	破裂距离 Puncture distance (mm)	薯皮脆性 Brittleness (N·mm^-1)	TPA硬度 Hardness (N)	粘附性 Adhesiveness (mJ)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (mJ)	剪切硬度 Hardness (N)		位移 Displacement (mm)		剪切力做功 Shear work (mJ)
青薯9号 Qingshu No. 9	鲜Fresh	11.15±0.61b	1.32±0.02bc	8.45±0.38d	362.07±12.03d	—	0.19±0.01c	2.79±0.04a	192.34±9.71c	34.07±2.99bc	137.10±13.27ab		137.10±13.27bc
青薯9号 Qingshu No. 9	熟Steamed	—	—	—	12.13±1.87ab	0.80±0.02a	0.06±0.00a	0.73±0.02ab	0.54±0.08a	1.21±0.06ab	1.34±0.06bc		1.21±0.05b
京张1号 Jingzhang No. 1	鲜Fresh	15.05±0.78d	1.44±0.06c	10.45±0.35f	396.53±25.93d	—	0.19±0.02c	3.01±0.02c	229.03±39.61d	18.72±2.50a	64.19±20.81ab		64.19±20.81a
京张1号 Jingzhang No. 1	熟Steamed	—	—	—	12.26±1.19ab	0.87±0.08a	0.06±0.00a	0.74±0.04ab	0.57±0.06a	1.16±0.14ab	1.32±0.18bc		1.15±0.24ab
龙薯4号 Longshu No. 4	鲜Fresh	8.70±0.39a	1.31±0.08bc	6.64±0.31ab	280.88±30.52b	—	0.13±0.01ab	2.98±0.15bc	107.87±21.84b	25.36±1.73ab	87.60±8.57ab		87.60±8.57a
龙薯4号 Longshu No. 4	熟Steamed	—	—	—	11.00±1.49ab	0.80±0.05a	0.06±0.01ab	0.78±0.03b	0.54±0.10a	1.03±0.09a	0.96±0.12a		0.91±0.17ab
冀张薯12 Jizhangshu 12	鲜Fresh	10.58±0.86b	1.21±0.08ab	8.74±0.34ab	286.02±12.89b	—	0.14±0.02b	2.85±0.11ab	109.88±17.08b	18.70±3.77a	75.44±22.33ab		75.44±22.33a
冀张薯12 Jizhangshu 12	熟Steamed	—	—	—	9.79±0.45a	1.66±0.15b	0.07±0.00b	0.68±0.02ab	0.47±0.02a	0.95±0.08a	1.09±0.18ab		0.82±0.17a
北方002 Beifang 002	鲜Fresh	10.64±0.83b	1.18±0.06ab	9.02±0.19bc	269.69±19.42b	—	0.12±0.01ab	2.80±0.09a	90.66±7.61ab	24.98±2.97ab	102.03±33.98ab		102.03±33.98ab
北方002 Beifang 002	熟Steamed	—	—	—	11.31±0.44ab	0.70±0.07a	0.06±0.01ab	0.65±0.03a	0.48±0.07a	1.16±0.15ab	1.25±0.10bc		1.16±0.20ab
布尔班克 Russet Burbank	鲜Fresh	13.83±0.51c	1.33±0.01bc	10.40±0.32e	325.40±26.90c	—	0.12±0.01ab	2.92±0.02abc	111.30±9.60b	40.13±3.10c	156.46±2.72ab		156.46±2.72c
布尔班克 Russet Burbank	熟Steamed	—	—	—	11.31±0.44ab	0.84±0.25a	0.06±0.00a	0.67±0.06a	0.48±0.07a	1.32±0.14b	1.61±0.18d		1.61±0.10c
甘农奶香薯 Gannongnaixiangshu	鲜Fresh	9.42±0.50a	1.13±0.05a	8.34±0.54a	399.93±21.87d	—	0.20±0.02c	2.86±0.03abc	236.90±20.54d	38.11±12.43c	170.02±56.57b		170.02±56.57c
甘农奶香薯 Gannongnaixiangshu	熟Steamed	—	—	—	19.97±1.32c	0.82±0.05a	0.07±0.01ab	1.02±0.11c	1.38±0.28b	1.82±0.02c	1.42±0.10dc		1.80±0.14c
大西洋 Atlantic Ocean	鲜Fresh	11.40±0.58a	1.31±0.16bc	8.70±0.86bd	209.33±7.61a	—	0.11±0.01a	2.79±0.11a	65.92±6.83a	20.55±1.36a	61.13±7.94a		61.13±7.94a
大西洋 Atlantic Ocean	熟Steamed	—	—	—	12.68±1.82b	0.84±0.25a	0.06±0.00a	0.67±0.06a	0.53±0.14a	1.33±0.28b	1.22±0.12bc		1.80±0.14c

Table 6

Fig. 6

References 33

[1]	RYTA M D MACHADO, MARIA F T, LUCILA C G. Effect of light and temperature on the formation of glycoalkaloids in potato tubers. Food Control, 2005, 18(5): 503-508. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.12.008
[2]	SZCZESNIAK A S, KAHN E L. Consumer awareness of and attitudes to food texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 1971, 2(3): 280-295. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1971.tb01005.x
[3]	HUTCHINGS J B, LILLFORD P J. The perception of food texture the philosophy of the breakdown path. Journal of Texture Studies, 1988, 19(2): 103-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1988.tb00928.x
[4]	梁辉, 戴志远. 物性分析仪在食品质构测定方面的应用. 食品研究与开发, 2006, 27(4): 118-121.
	LIANG H, DAI Z Y. Application texture analyzer in the assessment for food texture. Food Research and Development, 2006, 27(4): 118-121. (in Chinese)
[5]	HARKER F R, MAINDONALD J, MURRAY S H. Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 2: sweet and acid taste of apple fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2002, 24(3): 225-239. doi: 10.1016/S0925-5214(01)00158-2
[6]	李洪浩, 陈季旺. 水果与蔬菜质地. 食品研究与开发, 1997, 18(1): 61-62.
	LI H H, CHEN J W. Texture of fruits and vegetables. Food Research and Development, 1997, 18(1): 61-62. (in Chinese)
[7]	刘亚平, 李红波. 物性分析仪及 TPA 在果蔬质构测试中的应用综述. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 30(2): 188-192.
	LIU Y P, LI H B. Review on application of physical property analyzer and TPA in fruit and vegetable texture testing. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2010, 30(2): 188-192. (in Chinese)
[8]	刘莉, 高星, 华德平, 刘翔, 李志文, 张平, 李三培, 张少慧. 不同的质构检测方法对甜瓜果肉质构的评价. 天津大学学报(自然科学与工程技术版), 2016, 49(8): 875-881.
	LIU L, GAO X, HUA D P, LIU X, LI Z W, ZHANG P, LI S P, ZHANG S H. Evaluation of the textural properties of melon flesh by different texture test methods. Journal of Tianjin University (Science and Technology), 2016, 49(8): 875-881. (in Chinese)
[9]	陈丽. 甘薯块根质构特性的评价研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2013.
	CHEN L. Study on texture properties evaluation of sweet potato[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang A & F University, 2013. (in Chinese)
[10]	汤鹏宇, 孟繁博, 黄道梅, 郑秀艳, 林茂. 质构参数与花生物性测定的相关性. 现代食品科技, 2021, 37(7): 294-301.
	TANG P Y, MENG F B, HUANG D M, ZHENG X Y, LIN M. Correlation between texture analyzer parameters and physical properties measurement of peanut. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2021, 37(7): 294-301. (in Chinese)
[11]	杜昕美, 赵前程, 吕可, 刘婧懿, 程少峰, 马永生. 五种苹果质构测定方法的比较及与感官评价的相关性分析. 食品工业科技, 2020, 41(22): 240-246.
	DU X M, ZHAO Q C, LÜ K, LIU J Y, CHENG S F, MA Y S. Comparison of texture determination method and correlation analysis with sensory evaluation of 5 kinds of apple. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2020, 41(22): 240-246. (in Chinese)
[12]	李玉梅, 李守强, 田世龙, 王俊舟. 质构仪质地多面分析法检测马铃薯块茎质地参数. 食品工业科技, 2016, 37(8): 92-96.
	LI Y M, LI S Q, TIAN S L, WANG J Z. Texture parameters of potato tubers with texture profile analysis method. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2016, 37(8): 92-96. (in Chinese)
[13]	SZCZESNIAK A S, HUMBAUGH P R, BLOCK H W. Behavior of different foods in the standard shear compression cell of the shear press and the effect of sample weight on peak area and maximum force. Journal of Texture Studies, 1970, 1(3): 356-378. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1970.tb00736.x
[14]	BOUNE M C. Texture evaluation of horticultural drops. Hortscience, 1980, 15(1): 51-57.
[15]	张秋会, 李苗云, 黄现青. 肉制品的质构特性及其评价. 食品与机械, 2012, 28(3): 36-39.
	ZHANG Q H, LI M Y, HUANG X Q. Texture characteristics and evaluation of meat products. Food & Machinery, 2012, 28(3): 36-39. (in Chinese)
[16]	RAFFO A, SINESIO F, MONETA E, NARDO N, PPPARAIO M, PAOLETTI F. Internal quality of fresh and cold stored celery petioles described by sensory profile, chemical and instrumental measurements. European Food Research & Technology, 2006. 222(5/6): 590-599.
[17]	潘好斌. 薄皮甜瓜果实质地品质综合评价及质地差异分析[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2019.
	PAN H B. Comprehensive evaluation of textual quality and analysis of internal cause of texture difference of oriental melon fruit[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese)
[18]	SZCZESNIAK A S. Classification of textural characteristics. Journal of Food Science, 1962, 28(4): 385-389. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1963.tb00215.x
[19]	SZCZESNIAK A S. Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13: 215-225. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00039-8
[20]	刘娟, 梁延超, 隋景航, 余斌, 王润润, 张小微, 程李香, 王玉萍, 张峰. 马铃薯块茎蒸煮品质、质构特性及加工型品系筛选. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(21): 4074-4084.
	LIU J, LIANG Y C, SUI J H, YU B, WANG R R, ZHANG X W, CHENG L X, WANG Y P, ZHANG F. Screening for cooking- processing potato lines according to potato tuber qualities and properties. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(21): 4074-4084. (in Chinese)
[21]	纪宗亚. 质构仪及其在食品品质检测方面的应用. 食品工程, 2011, 5(3): 22-25.
	JI Z Y. Texture analyzer and its application in food quality inspection. Food Engineering, 2011, 5(3): 22-25. (in Chinese)
[22]	林芳栋, 蒋珍菊, 廖珊, 游娟, 李朝学. 质构仪及其在食品品质评价中的应用综述. 生命科学仪器, 2009, 7(5): 61-63.
	LIN F D, JIANG Z J, LIAO S, YOU J, LI C X. A review of texture analyzer and its application in food quality evaluation. Life Science Instruments, 2009, 7(5): 61-63. (in Chinese)
[23]	梁静, 孙锐, 孙蕾, 李雪彤, 郭倩文. 不同品种果桑穿刺试验质构特性分析. 山东林业科技, 2017, 47(05): 26-30.
	LIANG J, SUN R, SUN L, LI X T, GUO Q W. Analysis of characteristics of different varieties of mulberry puncture test texture. Journal of Shandong Forestry Science and Technology, 2017, 47(5): 26-30. (in Chinese)
[24]	CAMPS C, GUILLERMIN P, MAUGET J C, BERTRAND D. Data analysis of penetrometric force/displacement curves for the characterization of whole apple fruits. Journal of Texture Studies, 2005, 36(4): 387-401. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.2005.00023.x
[25]	PONS M, FISZMAN S M. Instrumental texture profile analysis with particular reference to gelled systems. Journal of Texture Studies, 1996, 27(6): 597-624. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1996.tb00996.x
[26]	NADULSKI R, GROCHOWICZ J. The influence of the measurement conditions on the TPA test of selected fruit. Acta Horticulturae, 2001, 562(1): 213-219.
[27]	邵兴锋, 朱勇, 张春丹. 测试因素对苹果质地剖面分析结果的影响. 中国食品学报, 2011, 11(6): 199-205.
	SHAO X F, ZHU Y, ZHANG C D. The influence of measurement factors on the results of texture profile analysis of apple fruit. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 2011, 11(6): 199-205. (in Chinese)
[28]	姜松, 王海鸥. TPA质构分析及测试条件对苹果TPA质构分析的影响. 食品科学, 2004, 25(12): 68-71.
	JIANG S, WANG H O. The influence of measurement factors on the results of texture profile analysis of apple fruit. Food Science, 2004, 25(12): 68-71. (in Chinese)
[29]	潘秀娟, 屠康. 质构仪质地多面分析(TPA)方法对苹果采后质地变化的检测. 农业工程学报, 2005, 6(3): 166-170.
	PAN X J, TU K. Comparison of texture properties of post- harvested apples using texture profile analysis. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2005, 6(3): 166-170. (in Chinese)
[30]	孟陆丽, 张谦益, 吴洪华, 王香林, 张明德. 剪切实验测试梨果肉质地研究. 食品工业科技, 2006, 27(11): 55-57.
	MENG L L, ZHANG Q Y, WU H H, WANG X L, ZHANG M D. Study on the meat quality of pear by shear test. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2006, 27(11): 55-57. (in Chinese)
[31]	宋钰兴, 邵兴锋, 张春丹, 程赛. 测试条件的变化对草莓质地剖面分析结果的影响. 食品科学, 2011, 32(13): 15-18.
	SONG Y X, SHAO X F, ZHANG C D, CHENG S. Effects of different test conditions on texture profile analysis parameters of strawberry fruits. Food Science, 2011, 32(13): 15-18. (in Chinese)
[32]	WU T X, JUDITH A A. Firmness and force relaxation characteristics of tomatoes stored intact or as slices. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2002, 24(1): 89-68. doi: 10.1016/S0925-5214(01)00186-7
[33]	VAN MARLE J T, STOLLE S T, DONKERS J, VAN D C, VORAGEN ALPHONS G J, RECOURT K. Chemical and microscopic characterization of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cell walls during cooking. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1997, 45(1): 50-58. doi: 10.1021/jf960085g

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

穿刺参数 Puncture parameter	穿刺距离 Puncture distance (mm)					起始力 Initial force (N)					检测速度 Detection speed (mm·min^-1)
穿刺参数 Puncture parameter	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	0.5	1	1.5	2	2.5	10	30	50	70	90
薯皮硬度 Peel hardness (N)	9.10±0.34a	12.00±0.54b	12.79±0.57b	12.54±0.79b	12.24±0.48b	10.86±0.09a	11.40±0.14ab	11.73±0.28ab	12.05±0.39b	12.41±1.06b	11.16±0.88a	11.77±1.39a	11.77±0.99a	12.17±1.17a	12.25±1.34a
破裂距离 Puncture distance (mm)	0.98±0.02a	1.41±0.03b	1.62±0.10c	1.66±0.13c	1.71±0.08c	1.91±0.02c	1.76±0.08bc	1.55±0.13ab	1.43±0.21a	1.31±0.22a	1.68±0.04a	1.54±0.04b	1.49±0.04b	1.47±0.07b	1.44±0.07b
薯皮脆性 Peel brittleness (N·mm^-1)	9.32±0.19d	8.56±0.13c	8.02±0.18b	7.72±0.21b	7.31±0.13a	5.70±0.08a	6.48±0.31ab	7.59±0.80abc	8.55±1.62bc	9.75±2.42c	6.65±0.67a	7.67±1.10a	7.92±0.47a	8.27±0.39a	8.48±0.70a

探头类型 Probe type	块茎类型 Tuber type	TPA硬度 Hardness (N)	粘附性 Adhesiveness (mJ)	内聚性 Cohesiveness	弹性 Springiness (mm)	咀嚼性 Chewiness (mJ)
38.1 mm圆柱塑胶探头 38.1 mm Cylindrical Plastic Probe	鲜Fresh	216.48±35.15a	—	0.10±0.01a	2.85±0.12a	60.55±16.26a
38.1 mm圆柱塑胶探头 38.1 mm Cylindrical Plastic Probe	熟Steamed	21.51±4.62a	0.62±0.11a	0.06±0.01a	0.94±0.15a	1.32±0.61a
36 mm圆柱铝制探头 36 mm Cylindrical Aluminum Probe	鲜Fresh	219.12±15.22a	—	0.10±0.01a	2.99±0.06a	64.58±8.37a
36 mm圆柱铝制探头 36 mm Cylindrical Aluminum Probe	熟Steamed	22.17±1.55a	0.88±0.10b	0.07±0.00b	1.02±0.04a	1.58±0.25a
25.4 mm圆柱塑胶探头 25.4 mm Cylindrical Plastic Probe	鲜Fresh	220.00±10.39a	—	0.10±0.01a	2.89±0.09a	61.59±5.00a
25.4 mm圆柱塑胶探头 25.4 mm Cylindrical Plastic Probe	熟Steamed	18.24±2.78a	1.01±0.11b	0.06±0.00a	0.82±0.14a	0.88±0.33a
F	鲜Fresh	0.019	—	0.000	1.929	0.110
F	熟Steamed	1.264	10.717	6.000	2.090	2.083
P	鲜Fresh	0.981	—	1.000	0.226	0.989
P	熟Steamed	0.348	0.010*	0.037*	0.205	0.206

质地参数 Texture parameters	项目 Item	平方和 Sum of squares	自由度 Df	均方差 Mean square	F	<BOLD>P</BOLD>	显著性 Significance
内聚性（鲜） Cohesiveness (Fresh)	模型Model	9.697E﹣0.003	4	2.424E﹣003	99.45	<0.0001	*
	A	9.336E–0.003	1	9.336E﹣003	382.98	<0.0001
	B	3.282E﹣0.004	1	3.282E﹣004	13.46	0.0080
	C	1.245E﹣0.005	1	1.245E﹣005	0.51	0.4980
	D	2.089E﹣0.005	1	2.089E﹣005	0.86	0.3854
咀嚼性（鲜） Chewiness (Fresh)	模型Model	4148.55	4	1037.14	44.42	<0.0001	*
	A	3306.59	1	3306.59	141.61	<0.0001
	B	669.78	1	669.78	28.68	0.0011
	C	70.26	1	70.26	3.01	0.1264
	D	101.93	1	101.93	4.36	0.0751
内聚性（熟） Cohesiveness (Steamed)	模型Model	9.000E﹣004	4	2.250E﹣004	9.45	<0.0060	*
	A	7.292E﹣004	1	7.292E﹣004	30.63	<0.0009
	B	2.917E﹣005	1	2.917E﹣005	1.22	0.3050
	C	0.000	1	0.000	0.000	1.0000
	D	3.333E﹣005	1	3.333E﹣005	1.40	0.2753

剪切参数 Shear parameter	块茎类型 Tuber type	起始力 Initial force (N)					检测速度 Detection speed (mm·min^-1)
剪切参数 Shear parameter	块茎类型 Tuber type	0.5 0.5	0.7 0.6	1.0 0.7	1.5 0.8	2.0 0.9	20	40	60	120	180
剪切硬度 Shear hardness (N)	鲜Fresh	17.76±3.23a	17.23±5.09a	17.23±1.97a	18.28±0.78a	18.34±2.01a	15.67±2.74a	18.03±2.58ab	16.97±1.46ab	22.61±5.15b	21.90±1.50b
剪切硬度 Shear hardness (N)	熟Steamed	1.48±0.26ab	1.60±0.16b	1.23±0.13a	1.56±0.07ab	1.51±0.21ab	1.39±0.38a	1.44±0.18a	1.69±0.17a	1.83±0.05a	1.76±0.22a
位移 Displacement (mm)	鲜Fresh	4.60±1.02a	4.29±0.74a	4.09±0.12a	4.21±0.12a	3.93±0.15a	4.03±0.26a	3.97±0.38a	4.22±0.42a	4.28±0.19a	4.76±0.70a
位移 Displacement (mm)	熟Steamed	1.61±0.10b	1.53±0.30b	1.04±0.19a	1.04±0.16a	0.98±0.21a	1.90±0.90a	1.27±0.17a	1.41±0.19a	1.65±0.49a	1.48±0.16a
剪切力做功 Shear work	鲜Fresh	54.62±21.72a	49.13±15.56a	46.48±2.5a	46.48±2.5a	49.21±5.53a	42.44±9.13a	45.22±9.43a	47.85±6.82ab	58.53±9.00ab	66.96±15.56b
剪切力做功 Shear work	熟Steamed	1.71±0.40b	1.82±0.25b	1.06±0.23a	1.06±0.23a	1.30±0.41ab	1.28±0.66a	1.48±0.31ab	1.88±0.38a	2.38±0.80ab	2.00±0.37b

Comprehensive Evaluation of Potato Tuber Texture

RichHTML

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 12

References 33

Related Articles 13

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	LOU YiBao,KANG HongLiang,WANG WenLong,SHA XiaoYan,FENG LanQian,NIE HuiYing,SHI QianHua. Vertical Distribution of Vegetation Roots and Its Influence on Soil Erosion Resistance of Gully Heads on the Gullied Loess Plateau [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 90-103.
[2]	XiaoChuan LI,ChaoHai WANG,Ping ZHOU,Wei MA,Rui WU,ZhiHao SONG,Yan MEI. Deciphering of the Genetic Diversity After Field Late Blight Resistance Evaluation of Potato Breeds [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(18): 3484-3500.
[3]	YU Yao-chuang, WANG Chang-yan. Seasonal Variations of Soil Critical Shear Stress in Typical Farmlands in the Hilly Region of Loess Plateau [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(21): 4149-4159.
[4]	ZHONG Shou-qin, LIU Bo, WEI Chao-fu, HU Fei-nan. The Rock Fragments (＜2 mm) and Their Action Mechanism on the Shear Strength of Purple Mudstone-Developed Soils [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2015, 48(23): 4846-4858.
[5]	WEI Qing-Jiang-1, WANG Miao-Qiu-1, ZENG Zhi-Fu-2, YANG Cheng-Quan-1, PENG Shu-Ang-1, LIU Yong-Zhong-1. Evaluation of the Mastication and Comparison of Fruit Quality with Different Bearing Habits in Nanfeng Tangerine (Citrus reticulata Blanco cv. Kinokuni) [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(6): 1162-1170.
[6]	PU Yu-Lin-1, 2 , 3 , XIE De-Ti-1, 3 , NI Jiu-派1, 3 , WEI Chao-Fu-1, 3 , LIN Chao-Wen-4. Effects of Hedgerow Patterns on Soil Shear Strength and Anti-scouribility on Slope Farmland in Purple Soil Area [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(5): 934-945.
[7]	WANG Yan-xia, WANG Xiao-man, GUAN Jun-feng. Flesh Texture Characteristic Analysis of Pear [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(20): 4056-4066.
[8]	HUANG Wei, CAO Jin-Xuan, WANG Dao-Ying, XU Wei-Min, ZHANG Mu-Han. Impact of Caspase-3 Activation on the Tenderness of Duck Skeletal Muscle During Postmortem Conditioning [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(7): 1372-1379.
[9]	WANG Zhao-Feng, YANG Zai-Bin, YANG Wei-Ren, ZHANG Gui-Guo, JIANG Shu-Zhen, ZHANG Chong-Yu, LIU Li, CUI Xiu-Mei. Changing Laws and Correlations of Shearing Force and Feed Characteristics of Maize Plant [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(3): 509-521.
[10]	CUI Xiu-Mei, YANG Zai-Bin, YANG Wei-Ren, ZHANG Gui-Guo, JIANG Shu-Zhen, LIU Li, WANG Zhao-Feng. Correlations of Shearing Force and Feed Nutritional Characteristics of Crop Straws [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(15): 3137-3146.
[11]	. Establishment of the Detecting Method on the Fruit Texture of Dongzao by Puncture Test [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011, 44(6): 1210-1217 .
[12]	WANG Gui-bo,DING Ming-xing,GUO Ni-ni,ZHUO Guo-rong,ZHANG Qian-qian,GUO Cheng . Effects of Electroacupuncture Anesthesia Combined with Xylidinothiazoline on Pain Threshold and Physiological and Biochemical Indexes in Goats [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010, 43(5): 1066-1074 .
[13]	LIU Li,YANG Zai-bin,YANG Wei-ren,JIANG Shu-zhen,ZHANG Gui-guo,YAO Bao-qiang . Correlations Among Shearing Force, Morphological Characteristics, Chemical Compositions, and in situ Degradibility of Alfalfa Stem and Rye Grass Stem#br# [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009, 42(9): 3374-3380 .