Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 July 2012
Received in revised form 20 December 2012
Accepted 28 December 2012
Available online 7 January 2013
Keywords:
Melon maturity
Ripening
Aroma
Flavour
Volatiles
Sensory descriptive analysis
zNose
Headspace sorptive extraction
a b s t r a c t
Numerous and diverse physiological changes occur during fruit ripening and maturity at harvest is one of
the key factors inuencing the avour quality of fruits. The effect of ripening on chemical composition,
physical parameters and sensory perception of three muskmelon (Cucumis melo L. reticulatus group) cultivars was evaluated. Signicant correlations emerging from this extensive data set are discussed in the
context of identifying potential targets for melon sensory quality improvement. A portable ultra-fast gaschromatograph coupled with a surface acoustic wave sensor (UFGCSAW) was also used to monitor
aroma volatile concentrations during fruit ripening and evaluated for its ability to predict the sensory
perception of melon avour. UFGCSAW analysis allowed the discrimination of melon maturity stage
based on six measured peaks, whose abundance was positively correlated to maturity-specic sensory
attributes. Our ndings suggest that this technology shows promise for future applications in rapid avour quality evaluation.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Netted muskmelon (Cucumis melo L., reticulatus group), also
commonly called cantaloupe, is an orange-eshed, sweet and aromatic melon that is highly popular in the United States, representing a large share of the produce market. In 2010, the estimated net
domestic use of muskmelon totaled over 2.6 billion pounds, and
muskmelon ranked fourth in U.S. annual per capita consumption
of fresh fruit after bananas, watermelons and apples (USDA-ERS,
2010). Consumer surveys assessing overall preference for several
muskmelon cultivars highlighted that avour, sweetness and texture were important factors in determining consumer liking of
melons (Lester, 2006). While these attributes are dictated by the
specic cultivar, or genetic makeup, of the muskmelon, maturity
at harvest has also been shown to have a large impact on the sugar
content (related to sweetness), volatile content (related to avour
and aroma) and texture of melon fruit (Beaulieu & Grimm, 2001;
Beaulieu, Ingram, Lea, & Bett-Garber, 2004; Beaulieu & Lancaster,
2007; Pratt, 1971).
Harvesting rmer and early mature fruits is a commercial
practice commonly adopted in order to maximise post-harvest life
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 530 752 4374; fax: +1 530 752 8502.
E-mail address: fnegre@ucdavis.edu (F. Zakharov).
0308-8146/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.12.042
172
173
Attribute descriptions
References
None
Unevenness of
colour
The intensity of the most dominant colour of the sample (all ve melon balls included), ranging from very pale
orange to strong orange
The degree of evenness of the colour, ranging from even (no white spots in esh), to uneven (many white spots) in
the sample
Aroma
Overall aroma
Fruity aroma
The intensity of aroma of any type, ranging from weak overall aroma, to strong aroma present in the sample
The intensity of fruity aroma like mixed fruit juice, a fresh fruity aroma, ranging from none to strong fruity aroma
None
Dole mixed fruit juice
(orange, peach, mango juice)
Scale point: 10
Marshmallows, small size
Scale point: 10
English cucumber, peeled and
cut into 1 cm slices
Scale point 10
A piece of cedar wood
Scale point: 10
Real butter, ca. 1 cm3
Scale point: 10
Appearance
Colour intensity
Marshmallow
aroma
Cucumber
aroma
The intensity of sweet aroma, includes the sweet sensation of sugar, marshmallows, and bubblegum, ranging from
none to strong sweet aroma.
The intensity of green, fresh aroma, like cucumber, squash, ranging from none to strong, green aroma
Musky aroma
The intensity of the spicy aroma of cedar wood, like cedar mothballs, but also the musky smell of animal, ranging
from none to a strong musky aroma
The intensity of the aroma of butter, ranging from none to a strong buttery aroma
Buttery aroma
Texture
Juiciness
Firmness
Crunchiness
Fibrousness
Taste and avour
Sweet taste
The amount of juice released in the sample when biting into it with the front teeth, ranging from no juice released,
to lots of juice released
The force required to compress the sample between the back teeth, ranging from soft to rm
The amount of sound generated when chewing the back teeth, ranging from no sound, like a banana, to a lasting
crunchy sound
The presence of bres in the esh, ranging from no bres to many bres in the sample
Sour taste
The intensity of sweet taste like sugars, but also like candy (marshmallows or bubblegum), ranging from none to a
strong sweet taste
The intensity of fresh sour taste like Granny Smith apples, ranging from none to a strong sour taste
Fruity avour
The intensity of the avour of fruit juice of mixed fruits, ranging from none to a strong fruity avour
Bitter taste
The intensity of bitter taste, like caffeine, but also like the peel of cucumber, or an unripe fruit, ranging from none to
a strong bitter taste
How long the avour lasts in the mouth, ranging from a few seconds to longer than 20 s
After avour
None
Ripe peach
Scale point: 10
Banana, yellow, ripe
Scale point: 01
English cucumber with peel
Scale point: 10
Granny Smith apple wedge
Scale point: 10
No reference
Marshmallow, small size
Scale point: 10
Granny smith apple
Scale point: 10
Dole mixed juice (orange,
peach, mango):
Scale point: 10
English cucumber peel
Scale point: 10
None
174
The Scree test was used to select the number of principal components to retain. Regression analysis was performed on selected
variables for which the assumption of dependence was satised,
and the coefcient of determination and signicance of the slope
were calculated. The analysis of variance and Tukeys test were
performed using the statistical program SAS (version 9.1.3; SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), while JMP (version 10.0.0; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for principal component and
regression analysis. Pearsons correlation analysis was performed
using the package Hmisc (Harrell & with contributions from many
other users, 2012) in the statistical programming language R (R
2.14.0-Development Core Team 2008, Vienna, Austria).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Physiochemical and sensory evaluation of three melon cultivars at
different maturity stages
Maturity at harvest is one of the key factors inuencing melon
quality, due to the numerous physiological changes that take place
during the ripening process. As expected with eld-grown fruit,
signicant differences were observed in some sensory and physiochemical parameters, not only as a function of maturity and cultivar, but also as inuenced by environmental factors (i.e., planting
date) (Table 2, Table S3). Changes in natural environment that occurred between the three growing periods may have inuenced the
composition of the fruits at harvest time. An increase in maximum
air temperature as well as a decrease in photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) were observed between the rst and last planting date
(data not shown). In some muskmelon varieties, a seasonal variation in colour, SSC and sugar content has been observed (Beaulieu,
2005; Beaulieu, Lea, Eggleston, & Peralta-Inga, 2003).
3.1.1. Sensory evaluation
Judge performance quality, based on the evaluation reproducibility on a replicate set of samples, was evaluated using PanelCheck (Tomic et al., 2010). This analysis showed that the panel
used the attributes in a similar and consistent way (data not
shown).
Signicant differences in most sensory attributes were found
across maturity stages and among the three cultivars (Table 2). Signicant planting date and interactions effects were also observed
for various sensory attributes.
When scores for each sensory attribute were averaged across all
maturity stages and planting dates, the cultivar Navigator was generally perceived to have the highest intensity of colour, overall
aroma, sweet taste, and fruity avour, and a lower intensity
of cucumber aroma and bitter taste (Table S1). Mas Rico generally had the lowest perceived intensity of colour and fruity aroma, but was scored high for cucumber aroma, rmness and
crunchiness. The Thunderbird cultivar was the most bitter and
had the lowest sweet taste and fruity avour intensities. Previous studies comparing sensory attributes in different melon cultivars also found signicant differences in taste, aroma and texture
perception (Senesi, Di Cesare, Prinzivalli, & Lo Scalzo, 2005; Senesi,
Lo Scalzo, Prinzivalli, & Testoni, 2002).
The different cultivars tended to follow similar changes in sensory perception during maturation. The sensory scores for colour
intensity, overall aroma, fruity aroma, marshmallow aroma,
musky aroma, juiciness, sweet taste, fruity avour and
after avour increased with increasing maturity, while sensory
scores for cucumber aroma, rmness, crunchiness, brousness and sour taste attributes generally decreased as maturity
increased. The largest increase in perceived intensity was found
between pre-slip light and dark stages for colour intensity,
175
a
b
Attribute
Planting date
Cultivar
Stage
Maturity cultivar
Colour intensity
Unevenness of colour
Overall aroma intensity
Fruity aroma
Marshmallow aroma
Cucumber aroma
Musky aroma
Buttery aroma
Juiciness
Firmness
Crunchiness
Fibrousness
Sweet taste
Sour taste
Fruity taste
Bitter taste
After avour
0.1163
0.8228
0.488
0.6474
0.1388
0.3273
0.0076b
0.3558
0.7213
0.2941
0.1526
0.1029
0.7308
0.2178
0.6636
<.0001
0.2427
0.0474
0.0581
0.006
0.0149
0.0004
0.0149
<.0001
0.6761
0.0016
0.0014
0.0049
0.0079
0.0203
0.4213
0.0008
<.0001
0.2993
<.0001
0.409
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
0.0016
<.0001
0.0243
<.0001
0.037
<.0001
0.0182
0.6984
0.6256
0.6671
0.3935
0.2738
0.5352
0.1144
0.0121
0.0602
0.0233
0.3154
0.4296
0.1667
0.069
0.0163
0.1691
0.147
0.9427
0.1083
0.731
0.0126
0.0502
0.0565
0.2091
0.1354
0.223
0.1189
0.819
0.3061
0.5661
0.3313
0.1093
0.8615
0.3856
0.7645
0.4969
0.9127
0.2461
0.9612
0.0052
0.5615
0.3717
0.0152
0.0126
0.474
0.1542
0.0115
0.0584
0.0145
0.9947
Data calculated for three melon cultivars, ve maturity stages and three planting dates.
Bold p-values indicate statistical signicance (p < 0.05).
Maturityc
Planting date
Puncture
(N)
Compression
(N)
Hue
PL
1
2
3
18.0
19.1
18.7
40.2
36.9
50.6
65.1
63.5
64.8
11.6
9.1
7.9
37.0
34.2
32.6
0. 30
0.26
0.24
2.7
1.7
6.1
186.7
102.4
170.7
PL
1
2
3
19.0
18.0
21.8
46.0
45.7
48.2
66.2
66.3
66.9
11.0
9.7
9.8
37.3
34.7
35.2
0.29
0.27
0.27
3.2
3.6
3.4
PL
1
2
3
16.5
16.7
16.2
39.9
38.7
41.4
67.4
66.3
67.9
10.5
9.9
10.5
35.5
32.8
35.4
0.29
0.29
0.29
PD
1
2
3
12.6
11.8
18.6
27.4
23.3
36.8
65.9
63.9
62.6
10.7
10.2
10.3
38.0
35.0
35.0
PD
1
2
3
16.8
17.0
19.4
41.9
34.0
36.2
65.6
64.1
67.9
11.9
10.9
10.5
PD
1
2
3
15.7
11.6
16.4
37.1
27.4
35.7
65.5
62.7
65.8
Sa
1
2
3
6.6
7.7
7.6
14.6
15.8
17.5
Sa
1
2
3
7.8
13.1
11.8
Sa
1
2
3
Sb
Ethylene
(lL kg1 h1)
TA
(%)
Glutamic acid
(g L1)
Citric acid
(g L1)
Malic acid
(g L1)
Sucrose
(g L1)
Glucose
(g L1)
Fructose
(g L1)
8.7
7.8
8.7
0.08
0.31
0.06
0.29
0.17
0.22
3.06
2.98
3.17
0.34
0.32
0.31
18.0
14.6
12.1
28.0
26.7
25.8
29.0
28.6
25.8
193.4
201.8
127.9
10.7
8.0
6.6
0.27
0.07
0.08
0.52
0.21
0.29
2.96
2.48
2.78
0.45
0.43
0.38
37.3
16.3
8.4
26.1
26.2
24.1
26.5
25.5
24.2
3.8
13.9
6.0
236.0
189.6
249.8
9.4
7.9
9.0
0.04
0.95
0.03
0.73
0.27
0.40
2.46
2.56
2.68
0.41
0.34
0.02
23.3
15.3
14.7
28.2
26.2
21.8
28.6
27.0
27.2
0.27
0.28
0.29
3.3
8.3
2.9
177.8
126.8
258.3
9.3
9.9
10.0
0.06
0.27
0.12
0.64
0.55
0.35
2.41
2.54
3.16
0.40
0.36
0.36
26.3
30.7
30.6
29.1
25.9
26.0
31.2
27.6
27.1
38.3
35.4
34.8
0.30
0.30
0.29
3.3
16.2
5.3
203.8
128.9
151.9
11.2
9.0
7.6
0.23
0.06
0.06
0.88
0.55
0.64
2.73
1.98
2.21
0.51
0.49
0.48
43.7
25.1
17.9
25.4
24.7
22.2
26.4
24.8
22.4
11.9
10.2
11.5
37.6
33.3
36.3
0.31
0.29
0.31
7.2
12.1
6.1
210.2
253.7
252.9
10.4
10.0
10.6
0.03
0.79
0.05
1.36
1.39
1.35
2.22
1.61
2.17
0.49
0.45
0.16
34.2
27.1
21.4
26.0
26.6
22.4
28.3
27.8
19.7
68.6
58.1
63.4
9.9
10.1
10.0
35.6
33.0
35.2
0.27
0.30
0.28
21.9
13.9
19.0
240.1
70.2
175.7
8.5
8.8
8.3
0.06
0.32
0.07
0.68
0.84
0.57
1.94
2.15
2.87
0.24
0.30
0.23
21.7
23.4
23.8
20.8
24.6
25.8
23.6
28.6
29.8
18.3
32.3
23.6
62.6
63.0
65.1
11.9
11.1
10.2
38.1
35.7
34.4
0.30
0.30
0.29
15.7
13.8
13.8
172.7
160.0
172.4
10.6
9.4
8.0
0.24
0.06
0.06
1.11
0.69
1.20
2.86
1.67
1.93
0.37
0.43
0.41
38.6
28.9
24.5
26.1
25.4
20.1
28.1
26.3
20.6
8.8
11.2
9.5
21.8
25.5
20.5
64.5
65.3
66.1
11.7
11.7
11.8
36.7
36.4
36.7
0.31
0.31
0.31
19.1
20.5
20.3
175.8
295.3
263.6
10.2
9.1
9.6
0.04
0.68
0.05
1.49
1.26
1.13
2.33
0.85
2.17
0.42
0.49
0.02
33.4
29.1
16.1
27.0
23.3
22.1
28.8
25.3
27.3
1
2
3
5.6
9.7
7.7
10.9
23.4
14.3
67.1
61.4
61.6
11.1
10.7
11.1
37.8
36.1
35.8
0.28
0.29
0.30
15.5
13.5
19.2
213.5
152.4
267.2
8.0
8.9
8.7
0.06
0.30
0.06
0.98
1.22
0.72
1.93
1.46
2.24
0.29
0.41
0.30
22.1
28.3
25.5
21.3
21.6
20.7
25.8
26.3
24.9
Sb
1
2
3
11.7
7.7
9.2
31.6
14.3
20.8
62.8
56.2
65.2
11.3
10.8
11.0
37.2
33.6
35.5
0.29
0.31
0.30
23.9
11.3
19.1
263.5
138.9
173.0
10.3
9.6
9.1
0.24
0.06
0.06
1.23
0.60
0.96
2.47
2.18
2.07
0.44
0.44
0.40
40.6
36.1
34.3
22.6
21.0
19.8
24.8
23.5
22.2
Sb
1
2
3
7.2
9.2
8.6
14.1
20.8
22.1
60.9
62.2
64.6
11.0
11.0
11.9
34.1
34.8
36.8
0.31
0.30
0.31
16.1
11.0
20.4
176.8
253.4
208.9
9.2
8.1
9.4
0.04
0.76
0.05
1.53
1.59
1.97
1.67
0.92
1.78
0.48
0.49
0.04
31.4
21.3
29.0
22.0
21.0
28.0
26.1
23.7
35.9
Sc
1
2
3
4.1
6.1
6.1
11.6
11.6
16.6
67.6
62.6
61.4
10.8
10.2
9.6
37.1
35.2
33.6
0.28
0.28
0.28
16.4
12.6
20.4
201.8
59.7
212.7
8.2
8.7
8.7
0.06
0.29
0.06
0.83
1.24
0.56
1.77
1.88
1.91
0.31
0.38
0.33
27.7
25.7
32.6
18.9
21.8
18.3
26.2
26.2
24.3
Sc
1
2
3
5.4
8.7
9.1
16.6
22.8
22.0
63.5
59.6
62.5
11.5
11.9
12.4
37.4
36.0
37.2
0.30
0.32
0.32
19.8
14.2
13.6
221.0
167.4
210.6
9.6
10.3
9.8
0.30
0.06
0.07
0.64
0.78
0.68
2.87
2.24
2.19
0.29
0.49
0.48
35.8
42.2
42.8
21.7
19.6
18.2
26.1
21.8
20.1
Sc
1
2
3
6.5
6.4
8.1
16.8
15.8
18.0
61.7
59.4
64.4
11.1
10.9
12.1
35.8
34.5
37.1
0.30
0.31
0.31
15.8
7.1
19.2
175.6
201.0
217.0
9.0
8.6
9.0
0.04
1.21
0.05
1.73
0.85
1.70
1.62
1.29
0.79
0.55
0.53
0.02
31.8
28.5
5.4
18.3
18.7
19.0
24.4
24.0
21.5
CO2
(mL kg1 h1)
SSC
(%)
Cultivarb
176
Table 3
Physical and chemicala parameters measured in three melon cultivars harvested at ve maturity stages from three planting dates.
cal state during ripening was monitored using esh ethylene production rates and respiration rates. These parameters were highly
variable and affected by environmental factors; however, a general
trend in ethylene production could be noted, as there was a
signicant and consistent sharp increase in ethylene production
rate between the pre-slip dark (7.2 lL kg1 h1) and slip A
(17.6 lL kg1 h1) stages in all three cultivars. This sharp
increase in ethylene production may constitute a signal for the
initiation of faster ripening and may explain the sharper decrease
in rmness between these two stages, as ethylene has been
shown to regulate cell wall breakdown in melon (Nishiyama
et al., 2007).
Comprehensive analysis of melon volatile proles was carried
out using headspace sorptive extraction coupled with GCMS
(HSSE-GCMS), and 82 volatile compounds were detected (Table 4).
Consistent with previous reports (Beaulieu, 2006; Beaulieu &
Grimm, 2001; Senesi et al., 2005; Wang et al., 1996; Wyllie, Leach,
Wang, & Shewfelt, 1995), the total volatile content signicantly increased during ripening. Total volatile concentration in pre-slip
and slip A fruit was less than 20% and 50%, respectively, that of
fully ripe fruits (slip B). Among all the volatiles detected,
twenty-eight compounds were signicantly affected by fruit maturity at harvest (Table 4).
Volatile esters were the predominant constituents of melon
esh aroma, representing from 48% to 94% of the total volatiles
measured in pre-slip and slip B fruits, respectively.
Several volatiles measured in this study were previously identied as important muskmelon aroma compounds (Beaulieu &
Grimm, 2001; Homatidou, Karvouni, Dourtoglou, & Poulos, 1992;
Jordan, Shaw, & Goodner, 2001; Kourkoutas, Elmore, & Mottram,
2006; Wyllie & Leach, 1992; Wyllie, Leach, Wang, & Shewfelt,
1994). Various esters quantied in our study were previously
investigated for their sensory signicance in melon aroma and
have been identied as odour active compounds by gas chromatographyolfactometry (Jordan et al., 2001; Schieberle, Ofner, &
Grosch, 1990; Wyllie et al., 1994). As reported by these authors,
some esters measured in our study were found to actively
contribute to the fruity and oral notes characteristic of melon aroma, including isobutyl acetate (described as oral), ethyl 3(methylthio)propanoate (clean/fresh/melon/green), heptyl acetate
(clean/fresh/oral), and (Z)-3-hexen-1-yl acetate (green/herbal/
banana).
The aldehyde fraction greatly decreased in ripe fruits. Although
environmental conditions affected the concentrations of nearly all
aldehydes, hexanal, 2-heptenal and 2,4-nonedienal were generally
present at higher concentration in early mature fruits compared to
fully ripe fruits. Beaulieu and Grimm (2001) also found higher concentration of 2-heptenal in immature muskmelons (Cucumis melo
reticulatus group cv. Sol Real and Athena). Hexanal and (E)-2-nonenal, both measured in our study, have been reported to be responsible for green and cucumber-like notes in melon and in cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.) aroma (Schieberle et al., 1990; Ullrich & Grosch,
1987). The remaining fraction of the total volatile prole was comprised of sulphur-containing esters, alcohols, ketones, terpenoids,
norisoprenoids and unidentied compounds. The concentration
of sulphur-containing esters, alcohols and terpenoids signicantly
increased as fruits ripened.
In addition to ripening-associated changes in melon aroma,
quantitative differences in volatile concentrations were observed
between the three cultivars investigated in this study. Cultivarspecic differences in aroma proles were also reported in previous studies (Beaulieu & Grimm, 2001; Obando-Ulloa, Ruiz, Monforte, & Fernandez-Trujillo, 2010; Senesi et al., 2005; Wyllie &
Leach, 1992; Yamaguchi et al., 1977), highlighting a strong genetic
control of the aromatic trait.
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
50
51
52
CAS #
RTa
RIb
Ethyl acetate
Propyl acetate
Ethyl isobutyrate
Isobutyl acetate
Hexanal
Ethyl butanoate
Butyl acetate
2-Ethyl-3-methylbutanal
Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate
Methyl thiobutyrate
2-Methylpropyl propanoate
Hexanol
3-Methylbutyl acetate
2 Methylbutyl acetate
2-Butyl furan
Heptanal
Ethyl pentanoate
Pentyl acetate
Butyl propanoate
Prenyl acetate
Methyl hexanoate
S-methyl 3-methylbutanethioate
Ethyl (E)-2-methyl-2-butenoate
2-Heptenal
Isobutyl butanoate
Benzaldehyde
3-Methylbutyl propanoate
1-Octen-3-one
1-Octen-3-ol
Ethyl (methylthio)acetate
6-Methyl, 5-hepten-2-one
2-Pentylfuran
2-Octanone
Ethyl hexanoate
Octanal
(Z)-3-hexen-1-ol, acetate
Hexyl acetate
(E)-4-hexen-1-yl acetatee
Methyl heptanoate
Limonene
Eucalyptol
2-Ethyl hexan-1-ol
Benzyl alcohol
2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanone
(E)-oct-2-enal
2,3-Butanedioldiacetate (I)
1-Octanol
2,3-Butanedioldiacetate (II)
2-Nonanone
Methyl benzoate
Tetrahydro linalool
Ethyl 3-(methylthio) propionate
Nonanal
n-Amyl isovalerateIS
Heptyl acetate
141-78-6
109-60-4
97-62-1
110-19-0
66-25-1
105-54-4
123-86-4
26254-92-2
7452-79-1
2432-51-1
540-42-1
111-27-3
123-92-2
624-41-9
4466-24-4
111-71-7
539-82-2
628-63-7
590-01-2
1191-16-8
106-70-7
23747-45-7
5837-78-5
18829-55-5
539-90-2
100-52-7
105-68-0
4312-99-6
3391-86-4
4455-13-4
110-93-0
3777-69-3
111-13-7
123-66-0
124-13-0
3681-71-8
142-92-7
42125-17-7
106-73-0
5989-27-5
470-82-6
104-76-7
100-51-6
68514-40-9
2548-87-0
1114-92-7
111-87-5
1114-92-7
821-55-6
93-58-3
78-69-3
13327-56-5
124-19-6
25415-62-7
112-06-1
2.12
2.99
3.68
3.94
4.44
4.50
4.81
5.29
5.69
5.78
6.21
6.32
6.47
6.53
6.87
7.14
7.17
7.61
7.74
7.89
7.93
8.34
8.43
8.93
8.96
9.02
9.52
9.71
9.77
9.91
10.02
10.14
10.16
10.50
10.55
10.75
10.98
11.27
11.36
11.38
11.47
11.51
11.73
12.16
12.50
12.77
13.03
13.24
13.76
13.80
13.97
14.02
14.18
14.36
14.53
674
722
761
775
802
804
816
834
849
852
868
872
878
880
892
902
903
916
920
924
925
938
940
955
956
958
972
978
980
984
987
991
991
1001
1003
1008
1015
1023
1025
1026
1028
1029
1035
1047
1057
1064
1072
1077
1092
1093
1098
1099
1104
1108
1113
RIc
605/628d
707/720d
751/762d
768/776d
801
803
812
846
869*
863
865
876
877
894d
902
898d
912
907
918
922
938
949d
955
953d
962
974d
975
978
981
985d
989/992d
992d
999
1003
1004/1008d
1011/1015d
1021
1029
1032/1030d
1029*
1033
1060d
1064
1070
1091d
1091d
1098d
1098
1104
1107
1111
Cultivar
Maturity
Planting date
Maturity cultivar
0.045
0.023
<.0001
0.025
0.306
<.0001
0.002
0.871
<.0001
<.0001
0.007
0.0002
0.144
0.001
0.082
<.0001
<.0001
0.006
0.236
0.006
<.0001
0.061
<.0001
0.058
0.004
<0.001
0.001
0.082
<.0001
<0.001
0.223
0.658
0.005
<.0001
0.001
0.001
0.023
0.003
<.0001
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.021
0.260
0.011
0.002
0.008
0.040
0.004
0.006
0.367
<.0001
0.001
0.005
0.015
<.0001
<0.001
0.009
<.0001
<.0001
0.154
<.0001
0.0003
0.0002
<.0001
0.001
<.0001
0.153
0.015
0.002
<.0001
0.005
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
0.002
0.002
0.001
<.0001
0.319
0.496
0.001
<.0001
0.095
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
0.109
<.0001
0.072
0.0003
0.299
0.690
<.0001
0.014
<.0001
0.007
0.003
0.907
<.0001
0.101
0.735
0.167
0.471
0.361
0.002
0.190
0.094
0.001
0.533
0.176
0.142
0.333
0.035
0.012
0.123
0.001
0.130
0.003
0.024
0.411
0.784
0.297
0.071
0.019
0.006
0.696
0.202
0.048
0.317
0.298
0.001
0.033
0.010
0.328
0.011
0.063
0.012
0.037
0.055
0.495
0.008
0.106
0.523
0.012
0.173
0.809
0.273
0.851
0.003
0.421
0.422
0.076
0.088
0.532
0.087
0.0002
0.829
0.580
<.0001
0.004
0.297
0.0003
0.003
0.072
0.002
0.132
0.187
0.119
0.171
0.003
0.055
0.926
0.011
<.0001
0.678
<.0001
0.174
0.004
0.004
0.015
0.683
0.200
0.003
0.304
0.650
0.561
<.0001
0.007
0.008
0.120
0.018
<.0001
0.033
0.041
0.364
0.075
0.386
0.906
0.012
0.030
0.115
0.008
0.115
0.403
<.0001
0.270
0.827
0.249
0.435
0.608
0.012
0.277
0.296
0.009
0.660
0.496
0.505
0.816
0.005
0.020
0.156
0.056
0.497
0.017
0.408
0.409
0.582
0.833
0.517
0.022
0.077
0.847
0.122
0.817
0.299
0.614
0.132
0.440
0.971
0.629
0.018
0.373
0.068
0.102
0.393
0.038
0.217
0.767
0.498
0.134
0.838
0.964
0.858
1.000
0.127
0.980
0.553
0.420
0.081
0.308
0.188
0.454
0.129
0.037
0.225
0.362
0.023
0.595
0.221
0.027
0.441
0.607
0.626
0.161
0.001
0.085
0.266
0.001
0.337
0.827
0.043
0.077
0.078
0.177
0.287
0.002
0.574
0.001
0.249
0.264
0.158
0.666
0.192
<.0001
0.157
0.264
0.328
0.035
0.260
0.039
0.202
0.737
0.0002
0.064
0.157
0.806
0.180
0.057
0.070
0.409
0.109
0.002
0.825
<.0001
0.002
0.614
0.044
0.092
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Volatile compound
178
Table 4
Analysis of variance of volatile compounds: signicance levels of main effects and interactions.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
111-11-5
103-09-3
18829-56-6
101-41-7
93-89-0
106-32-1
112-31-2
112-14-1
5910-87-2
432-25-7
101-97-3
103-45-7
3913-81-3
112-12-9
112-44-7
80-26-2
122-72-5
110-38-3
629-59-4
112-54-9
3796-70-1
14901-07-6
17092-92-1
14.95
15.68
15.88
16.14
16.33
16.51
17.19
17.52
17.77
18.02
18.04
18.22
19.12
19.51
19.68
19.90
20.78
21.21
22.57
22.60
23.26
23.32
24.11
24.21
24.49
25.85
26.84
27.91
1125
1146
1151
1159
1164
1169
1188
1197
1205
1212
1213
1218
1244
1256
1261
1267
1293
1306
1348
1349
1369
1371
1396
1399
1408
1453
1485
1533
1126d
*
1144
1162/1155d
1261d
1172/1170d
1194
1205
1213
1216
1220
1243
1255
1261d
1296d
1306
1350d
1373
1392
1399d
1407d
1448/1453d
1484
1539d
<.0001
<.0001
0.004
0.001
<.0001
<.0001
0.014
<.0001
0.001
0.017
0.482
0.012
<.0001
0.302
0.118
0.014
0.019
0.002
0.001
0.064
0.284
0.025
<.0001
0.065
0.001
0.017
0.005
0.042
<.0001
0.305
<.0001
0.350
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
0.001
0.347
0.0001
0.002
0.083
<.0001
<.0001
0.430
0.011
0.048
0.787
0.0002
0.452
0.001
0.500
0.022
0.725
0.603
0.150
0.237
0.442
0.143
0.246
<.0001
0.753
0.147
0.109
0.766
0.062
0.128
0.013
0.511
<.0001
0.433
0.001
0.621
0.932
0.018
0.288
0.373
0.090
0.012
0.052
0.098
0.439
0.408
0.001
<.0001
0.003
<.0001
0.623
0.070
0.941
0.024
<.0001
0.294
0.0003
0.675
0.133
0.090
0.314
<.0001
0.549
0.798
0.391
0.055
0.621
0.116
0.370
0.689
0.317
0.146
0.681
0.263
0.324
0.301
0.187
0.446
0.126
0.136
0.825
0.340
0.442
0.459
0.398
0.259
0.093
0.925
0.733
0.624
0.263
0.330
0.081
0.181
0.081
0.590
0.159
0.116
0.173
0.456
0.260
0.111
0.948
0.934
0.560
0.123
<.0001
0.287
0.052
0.496
0.159
0.653
0.062
0.017
0.136
0.183
0.056
0.332
0.105
0.025
<.0001
0.107
0.025
0.003
0.307
0.379
0.317
0.018
0.245
0.020
0.083
0.066
0.147
70
Methyl octanoate
Unknown1
2-Ethylhexyl acetate
(E)-2-nonenal
Benzyl acetate
Ethyl benzoate
Unknown2
Ethyl octanoate
Decanal
Octyl Acetate
2,4-Nonadienal
b-Ciclocitral
Ethylphenyl acetate
2-Phenylethyl acetate
(E)-2-decenal
Unknown3
2-Undecanone
Undecanal
a-Terpinyl acetate
Unknown4
3-Phenylpropyl acetate
Unknown 5
Ethyl decanoate
Tetradecane
Dodecanal
Geranyl acetone
b-Ionone
Dihydroactinidiolide
179
180
Fig. 1. Biplot from Principal Component Analysis of physical and chemical parameters and sensory attributes. Symbol shape corresponds to different cultivars:
square = Thunderbird; triangle = Mas Rico; circle = Navigator. Maturity is represented by different shades of grey: open symbols, light grey = pre-slip light; lled symbols,
light grey = pre-slip dark; lled symbols, dark grey = slip A; lled symbols, black = slip B; open symbols, black = slip C. Numbers correspond to identied volatiles reported in
Table 4; only the volatiles signicantly inuenced by maturity at harvest, cultivar and/or planting date effects were included in the analysis. The length of the dotted arrows
from the origin of the axis to a particular parameter indicates how well the variation in that parameter is explained by the model.
Sweet taste was positively correlated to concentrations of sucrose (r = 0.53), as expected, and more surprisingly, to glutamic
acid (r = 0.53). Human sweet and umami taste receptors, located
in taste buds, respond to diverse sweetening components (such
as sugars, synthetic sweeteners and sweet-tasting proteins) and
glutamate and purine nucleotides (such as 50 -inosine monophosphate and 50 -guanosine monophosphate), respectively. Interestingly, sweet and umami receptor protein complexes have been
shown to share a common subunit (Li et al., 2002), and several
studies in rats have suggested that glutamate can activate both
types of receptors, likely evoking both sweet and umami tastes
(Heyer, Taylor-Burds, Tran, & Delay, 2003; Ninomiya et al., 2000;
Sako & Yamamoto, 1999; Yamamoto et al., 1991). While the role
of glutamate as avour enhancer is well established in human taste
perception, most studies have focused on the effect of glutamate
concentration on taste modalities (e.g. saltiness, bitterness and
umami) associated with savoury foods (Fuke & Ueda, 1996; Yeomans, Gould, Mobini, & Prescott, 2008). On the other hand, the specic effect if any of glutamate on sweetness perception in
humans is still unclear (Kemp & Beauchamp, 1994; Maga, 1983).
Our results suggest an intriguing role for glutamate in sweetness
perception in melons that warrants further investigation.
3.3. Evaluation of melon avour quality using a portable ultra-fast gas
chromatograph (the zNose)
An analysis of variance performed on a total of 22 peaks measured by UFGCSAW showed that the abundance of 6 peaks (peak
181
y = 0.3484706 + 0.0919787x), and between peak 17 and fruity avour (R2 = 0.70; y = 0.2985612 + 0.1009298x), and sweet taste
(R2 = 0.67; y = 0.3883602 + 0.0964181x). Signicant linear relationships were also observed between cucumber aroma and peaks 9
and 14, although they only explained 38% and 41% of the model
variation, respectively.
These results indicate that several peaks detected by UFGC
SAW may represent markers for these sensory attributes.
This technology has been used in several studies for rapid volatile analysis of fresh produce (Du, Olmstead, & Rouseff, 2012; Li,
Heinemann, & Irudayaraj, 2007; Li, Wang, Raghavan, & Vigneault,
2009; Vallone et al., 2012; Watkins & Wijesundera, 2006). However, to our knowledge, only few studies have focused on fruit
maturity assessment using UFGCSAW.
To evaluate mango (Mangifera indica L.) ripeness, Li et al. (2009)
selected a peak, whose concentration increased consecutively the
respiration climacteric, and used it to predict mango ripeness,
achieving an 80% accuracy rate.
UFGCSAW analysis has also been used in a recent investigation
to discriminate among blueberries harvested at three maturity
stages (Du et al., 2012). Using 14 selected peaks, a clear separation
between fully ripe and less ripe berries was successfully achieved
for one of the two cultivars assessed (Primadonna and Jewel).
As the authors suggested, the greater separation of the fully ripe
berries of the cultivar Primadonna might be ascribed to the higher level of total volatiles produced by this cultivar.
Fig. 2. Biplot from principal component analysis of peaks from UFGCSAW analysis and sensory attributes. Symbol shape corresponds to different cultivars:
square = Thunderbird; triangle = Mas Rico; circle = Navigator. Maturity is represented by different shades of grey: open symbols, light grey = pre-slip light; lled symbols,
light grey = pre-slip dark; lled symbols, dark grey = slip A; lled symbols, black = slip B; open symbols, black = slip C. The length of the dotted arrows from the origin of the
axis to a particular parameter indicates how well the variation in that parameter is explained by the model.
182
4. Conclusions
Maturity at harvest, cultivar and planting date qualitatively and
quantitatively affected chemical composition and physical characteristics of melon, ultimately impacting sensory perception.
Overall, the perception of sweetness, fruity and musky notes
was greater in ripe fruit, while cucumber notes were predominant
in less ripe fruit. Instrumental measurements of esh rmness
were generally correlated with sensory texture perception. After
esters, aldehydes were the most abundant group of volatiles in
pre-slip fruit. Hexanal, typically imparting green notes to fruit aromas, was the predominant aldehyde measured, while 2-heptenal
was signicantly correlated with cucumber aroma in pre-slip fruit.
In riper fruit, esters and sulphur containing compounds predominated and correlated with perceived fruity and musky aromas.
The cultivar Navigator was generally perceived to have the highest
intensity of colour, aroma, taste, and avour attributes, while Mas
Rico scored higher for cucumber notes and rmness. Identifying all
the variables affecting fruit quality and monitoring them during
the pre- and post-harvest life of a fruit remains a challenge due
to the lack of a single rapid, comprehensive method for physiochemical analysis.
Volatiles play an important role in determining melon avour,
and the signicant correlations existing among various volatiles
and sensory attributes found in our and previous studies, suggest
that this relationship might be potentially exploited to predict sensory perception by measuring volatiles.
Here, a portable volatile sensing system (UFGCSAW) was able
to discriminate melons of different maturity stages based on 6
measured peaks, whose abundances were positively correlated to
sensory attributes associated with different maturity stages of melon. Our ndings suggest that this technology shows much promise
for future applications in rapid aroma measurement. Further investigations are needed to conrm the ability of the UFGCSAW
instrument in predicting fruit sensory properties.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the Specialty Crops Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program Grant No. 2009-51181-05783
from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. We are
grateful to Bill Copes (HM. Clause) for providing the melons used
in this study, and to Robin Clery (Givaudan) for his kind gift of
2,3-butanediol diacetate. We thank Edward Orgon, Michael Mace,
Aly Depsky and Sharon Wei for technical assistance.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.
12.042.
References
Ayub, R., Guis, M., BenAmor, M., Gillot, L., Roustan, J. P., Latche, A., et al. (1996).
Expression of ACC oxidase antisense gene inhibits ripening of cantaloupe melon
fruits. Nature Biotechnology, 14(7), 862866.
Bauchot, A. D., Mottram, D. S., Dodson, A. T., & John, P. (1998). Effect of
aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid oxidase antisense gene on the
formation of volatile esters in cantaloupe Charentais melon (Cv. Vedrandais).
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46(11), 47874792.
Beaulieu, J. C. (2005). Within-season volatile and quality differences in stored freshcut cantaloupe cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(22),
86798687.
Beaulieu, J. C. (2006). Volatile changes in cantaloupe during growth, maturation,
and in stored fresh-cuts prepared from fruit harvested at various maturities.
Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 131(1), 127139.
183