Sensory Traits and Consumer's Perceived Quality of Traditional and Modern Fresh Market Tomato Varieties: A Study in Three European Countries.
CATA
Solanum lycopersicum L.
fruit quality
genotype-by-environment interaction
hedonic rating
landraces
physicochemical
sensory profile
Journal
Foods (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2304-8158
Titre abrégé: Foods
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101670569
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Oct 2021
21 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
20
09
2021
revised:
14
10
2021
accepted:
18
10
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
28
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Consumer dissatisfaction with the flavor quality of many modern fresh market tomato varieties has fostered breeders' interest in sensory quality improvement, and the demand for traditional varieties, which are generally associated with better flavor. To achieve further knowledge on the factors influencing the sensory quality and consumers' preferences and perception, European traditional and modern fresh market tomato varieties were grown and evaluated in France, Italy, and Spain. Different growing conditions were tested in France (soilless vs. soil) and in Spain (open field vs. greenhouse), while in Italy fruits were evaluated at two ripening stages. Fruit quality was assessed by integrating physicochemical analyses, sensory profiles, and consumer tests. In all three countries, overall modern varieties were perceived as having more intense "tomato flavor" and "overall flavor" than traditional ones. In France and Spain, consumers' preferences were more oriented towards modern varieties than traditional ones. Significant growing condition effects were found on sensory and physicochemical traits, while the effect on consumers' overall liking was not significant, largely depending on the genotype. A fair agreement between product configurations from descriptive analysis by trained assessors and Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions by consumers was observed. Penalty-lift analysis based on CATA allowed identifying positive and negative drivers of liking.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34828802
pii: foods10112521
doi: 10.3390/foods10112521
pmc: PMC8620402
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : European Commission
ID : 634561
Références
J Food Sci. 2010 Nov-Dec;75(9):S531-41
pubmed: 21535628
Science. 2017 Jan 27;355(6323):391-394
pubmed: 28126817
Food Res Int. 2014 Oct;64:446-455
pubmed: 30011674
Metabolomics. 2018 Mar 31;14(5):57
pubmed: 30830349
BMC Plant Biol. 2017 Mar 28;17(1):66
pubmed: 28347287
Curr Biol. 2012 Jun 5;22(11):1035-9
pubmed: 22633806
J Sci Food Agric. 2010 Apr 30;90(6):1056-62
pubmed: 20355147
J Sci Food Agric. 2018 Aug;98(11):4128-4134
pubmed: 29393974
DNA Res. 2018 Apr 1;25(2):149-160
pubmed: 29149280
J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Mar 23;59(6):2440-50
pubmed: 21344884
Nutrition. 2019 Jun;62:201-208
pubmed: 30925445
Science. 2006 Feb 10;311(5762):815-9
pubmed: 16469919
Trends Genet. 2013 Apr;29(4):257-62
pubmed: 23332147
Nat Rev Genet. 2018 Jun;19(6):347-356
pubmed: 29563555
J Sci Food Agric. 2013 Jun;93(8):1903-14
pubmed: 23401070
J Food Sci. 2007 Mar;72(2):S87-91
pubmed: 17995860
Food Chem. 2015 Nov 15;187:517-24
pubmed: 25977058
J Exp Bot. 2009;60(12):3379-86
pubmed: 19516072
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Dec 20;10:1606
pubmed: 31921253
J Food Sci. 2016 Jun;81(6):S1495-505
pubmed: 27163714
J Food Sci. 2014 Oct;79(10):S2091-7
pubmed: 25219281
J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Apr;91(6):1014-21
pubmed: 21328350
J Food Sci. 2010 Jan-Feb;75(1):S55-67
pubmed: 20492203
BMC Plant Biol. 2011 Mar 31;11:58
pubmed: 21453463
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 4;10(1):1534
pubmed: 30948717