Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Postharvest Biology and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/postharvbio

Sensory analysis of individual strawberry fruit and comparison

with instrumental analysis
Purnima Gunness a, , Olena Kravchuk b , Stephen M. Nottingham c , Bruce R. DArcy b , Michael J. Gidley a
a
b
c

Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences, St Lucia campus, University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences, St Lucia campus, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
Innovative Food Technologies, Queensland Government, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 19, Hercules Street, Hamilton, Queensland 4007, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 August 2008
Accepted 19 November 2008
Keywords:
Fruit-to-fruit variation
Flavour volatiles
Biophysical analysis
Fragaria ananassa Duch.
Variance components analysis
Sensory analysis

a b s t r a c t
A new method for measuring fruit-to-fruit variation in strawberries by both sensory and instrumental
analyses was developed and applied. The method allowed quantication of fruit-to-fruit variation in
sensory attributes and instrumental properties. Two commercial colour gradings (3/4 and 4/4 red) of
strawberry commonly used at harvest were investigated. In the main experiment, one-half of a strawberry
fruit was assessed for sensory characteristics by a trained panel while the other half was concurrently
individually evaluated for soluble solids content (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), rmness, and headspace
volatile composition. The sensory evaluation was additionally performed on a bulk pure of fruit from the
same harvest and the results were compared with the sensory evaluation on individual fruit. This study
suggests that fruit-to-fruit variation is substantial in SSC, TA and fruit rmness and sensory characteristics
such as fruity odour, sweet avour and avour aftertaste, whereas other characteristics show similar
variation among panellists for both individual fruit and bulk pure analyses. Further, individual fruit
avour characteristics were correlated with fruit biophysical properties. The results obtained are specic
to this study and further investigations need to be undertaken to validate this method as a model for
fruit-to-fruit variation in small fruit.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many fruit are visually graded in the eld by colour. Strawberry
(Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) fruit, for example, can be graded 3/4
red, 4/4 red and deep red (Risser and Navatel, 1997). These gradings typically form the basis for postharvest uses of fruit. However,
consumers are not always satised with the sensory qualities of
individual strawberries within a punnet or across seasons (Kallio et
al., 2000; Vaysse et al., 2003). At the same time, research on strawberries is mostly focused on improving appearance, storage losses,
and transportation damage, or increasing yield (Ford et al., 1997;
Morrison and Herrington, 2002; Azodanlou et al., 2003; Carlen and
Ancay, 2003) but overlooks the quality and sensory attributes of
individual strawberry fruit.
The common quality characteristics of strawberries for consumer acceptance are appearance (uniform bright red colour, size
and shape), rmness, and avour perceived by the combination
of taste and smell (aroma) senses. The sugars (fructose, glucose

Corresponding author at: The University of Queensland, Centre for Nutrition and
Food Sciences (CNAFS), School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 3346 7373; fax: +61 7 3365 1188.
E-mail address: nimagunness@uq.edu.au (P. Gunness).
0925-5214/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.11.006

and sucrose), organic acids (predominantly citric acid) and phenolic compounds (anthocyanins and avonols) give strawberry its
characteristic taste, while more than 360 volatile compounds distinguish its aroma (Dirinck et al., 1981; Kader, 1991).
The instrumental measures of strawberry quality most reported
in the literature are colour, rmness, percentage juice, volatiles,
sugars and acids (Ulrich et al., 2006). These attributes are conventionally measured on bulk strawberry samples by biophysical
and chemical analyses. When parallel sensory evaluation is carried
out, this typically uses pooled samples. Azodanlou et al. (2003)
and Carlen and Ancay (2003) used half-strawberry samples for
sensory analysis while the other half of the same strawberries
were pooled according to the panellists scores and used for bulk
instrumental measurements. While this approach allows fruit-tofruit variation in sensory scores to be evaluated, the mixing of
fruit prior to instrumental analyses allows neither assessment of
fruit-to-fruit variation in instrumental properties nor exploration of
sensory/instrumental attribute mapping at an individual fruit level.
In 1995, Dever and Cliff studied fruit-to-fruit variation in apples
by assessing and comparing their sensory and instrumental characteristics. However, the statistical methods used to correlate the
sensory and instrumental data are not powerful enough.
The aim of the present work was to evaluate and correlate sensory characteristics of individual strawberry fruit to their chemical

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

165

Fig. 1. Summary of steps involved in sensory, biophysical and chemical analyses of individual strawberry half fruit.

and biophysical properties. In contrast to previous work (Azodanlou

et al., 2003; Carlen and Ancay, 2003), individual strawberry fruit
were halved and one-half of each fruit used for sensory evaluation while the other half was concurrently assessed for biophysical
and chemical characteristics without being bulked. The properties
evaluated for each half-strawberry sample were soluble solids content (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), rmness, stress and modulus
from compressive deformation curves and headspace volatile composition. In this way, fruit-to-fruit variation was assessed by both
sensory and instrumental techniques, and the correlation between
sensory characteristics as perceived by a trained panel and instrumental measurements was conducted on individual fruit, providing
the rst such analysis for strawberries.

characterise the variations between individual strawberry fruit, two

maturity levels 3/4 red (white underneath the sepals) and 4/4 red
were investigated. For some preliminary trials and sensory training,
commercial strawberries of an unknown cultivar and the cultivar
Festival were also used.
Fig. 1 summarises the methodology for the sensory, biophysical
and chemical analyses of individual strawberry fruit. Textural analysis was conducted on half fruit while pH, total titratable acidity,
soluble solids content and volatile analyses were done on pures of
individual half fruit. The other half of each strawberry fruit was
concurrently assessed for sensory attributes (odour, texture and
avour) by a trained panel. Bulk sample pures from the same
harvest were also served to the panellists for comparison with individual fruit analysis.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample preparation
The strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) cultivar Albion was
chosen for the experiment as the berries are symmetrical and weigh
24 g or more. The strawberries were collected in October 2007 from
a commercial farm, Wamuran, Queensland, Australia (latitude 17 S
and longitude 152 E) where they were grown on open elds in
reective-polythene covered beds. The cultivar Albion, being a
larger fruit, provided a fruit mass sufcient for all the analyses. To

2.1.1. Fresh strawberry samples

At 5 a.m. on the scheduled analysis day 2 kg of Albion strawberries was harvested and graded as 3/4 red and 4/4 red according to
fruit maturity levels. The samples were transported on ice in an
insulated container to the University of Queensland. Near symmetric unblemished strawberry samples were chosen, carefully washed

166

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

with distilled water and softly wiped with a paper towel after
removal of the sepals. The strawberry samples were halved from
tip to base and each half was weighed (13.38 2.16 g; mean SD),
and placed in individual sealed plastic containers. The samples to
be analysed for biophysical and chemical properties were rst analysed for texture before being pured, while the other halves were
concurrently analysed for sensory attributes.
2.1.2. Pure preparation
For biophysical and chemical analyses, the individual half strawberries were pured after the samples had been assessed for
texture. An equal weight of deionised water was added to each
individual container and blended for 30 s at high speed using a
hand-held blender (Braun MR 4050 CA). For volatile analysis, 5 mL
pure from each half-strawberry sample was immediately transferred into a 15 mL amber vial (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) with 1 g
NaCl. The remaining sample was used for the other chemical tests.
For the sensory test (Bulk Test, Section 2.3), 500 g of strawberries
of each maturity level were blended when the panellists were ready
for the test and constituted the bulk pure samples. For volatile
analysis, 50 g of strawberry from the same harvest were pured.
2.2. Instrumental analyses
Following removal of the 5 mL sample for volatiles analysis, the
remaining pure was centrifuged at 4400 rpm for 30 min (Centrifuge 5702, Eppendorf) and the supernatant obtained was ltered
through glass bre (Menager et al., 2004). The resulting clear juice
(13.39 2.16 g) was used for SSC, pH and TA measurements.
2.2.1. Soluble solids content (SSC)
The soluble solids content was obtained by measuring the
Refractive Index of the strawberry juice using a digital hand-held
refractometer (Leica AR200). A drop of the juice was placed on the
lens and the reading was taken in degree Brix ( Bx). This reading
gives the % of soluble solids content (% SSC) in the fruit. Calibration
was made with deionised water and the lens was carefully rinsed
between samples.
2.2.2. pH and titratable acidity (TA)
The pH of the pure was measured with a calibrated pH meter
(pH 4, pH 7; Model pH Cube, TPS, Australia).
Five grams of the clear juice was diluted to 100 mL with
deionised water. This solution was then titrated with an automatic
titrator (775 Dosimat, Metrohm, Ion Analysis, Switzerland) to pH
8.1 using 0.1 M NaOH. The end-point reading of the titration was
monitored by a pH meter (pH 4, pH 7; Model pH Cube, TPS, Australia) connected to the reaction vessel. The total titratable acidity
of the juice was calculated using the formula (AOAC, 1990):
Volume NaOH (mL) 0.1 M 0.064
100
5 g juice
The concentration was expressed as g/L of citric acid equivalent in the juice as citric acid is the predominant acid found in
strawberries (Watson et al., 2002).
2.2.3. Total volatile analysis
The volatile compounds were extracted from the headspace
of each vial containing 5 mL pure from both individual and bulk
samples, 1 g sodium chloride and a small magnetic stirrer bar by
solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) using a manual SPME holder
(Supelco, Bellefonte, PA). The extracted volatiles from some samples
(Section 3.1.2) were then analysed using a gas chromatographyame ionisation detector (GC-FID), while for others gas
chromatographymass spectrometry (GCMS) was used to identify
the compounds. A fresh 85 m carboxen/poly(dimethylsiloxane)

(CAR/PDMS) (Supleco), 1 cm long bre was used for volatile

sampling and desorption in the GC (Shimadzu gas chromatogram).
The volatile components were separated with a Zebron capillary column (ZB-5W/Guardian, 30 m 0.25 mm I.D.) coated with
0.25 m lm of diphenyl (5%)/dimethylsiloxane (95%) copolymer.
For the rst trials, equilibration was done for 30 min at 30 C while
sampling and desorption were done for 15 and 5 min respectively.
However, after a few trials, it was found that best results were
obtained with equilibration for 15 min at 30 C, sampling for
30 min and desorption for 15 min in the GC. Retention times and
a GCMS library were used to identify the volatile compounds of
the strawberry samples. 2-Propanol, ethyl acetate, hexanal and
2-hexenal were used as authentic references and their retention
times and mass spectra were compared to those of the samples.
2.2.4. Measurement of rmness
The esh rmness of the half-strawberry samples was measured
using a Texture Analyser TA.TXPlus (Stable Microsystems, England)
with the cut face down and in contact with the container placed
on the base plate. After calibration of the Texture Analyser, a 5 mm
diameter stainless steel at end probe (P/5, supplied with the Texture Analyser) was used to evaluate the rmness of the sample.
After optimisation, it was found that measurements taken on the
equator (typically the highest point of the half fruit) gave more consistent results than from other positions. The test conditions used
for the measurement of individual fruit rmness by compression
with the Texture Analyser TA.TXPlus were: pre-test speed 10 mm/s;
test speed 0.2 mm/s; post-test speed 10 mm/s; penetrating distance
of 4 mm into the fruit; trigger force of 5 g; data acquisition rate of
200 pps and a contact area of sample with probe of 19.64 mm2 .
2.3. Sensory analysis
2.3.1. Recruitment and training
The quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA ) method was used
to train the sensory panel and to carry out the sensory analysis
according to set sensory standards (ISO Standard 8586-1, 1993).
Ethical clearance approval for this work was granted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee, University of Queensland. Thirteen
candidates (undergraduate and postgraduate students from the
University of Queensland) were pre-screened based on availability, health and general food habits. Out of the original thirteen,
ten candidates were recruited based on their ability to discriminate between products on basic taste thresholds, to describe their
perceptions, and their ability to participate in group discussions.
These 10 assessors were given 10 training sessions (12 h per d) over
a period of 10 weeks. Panel descriptors and denitions for strawberry odour, texture and avour (taste and aroma) attributes were
developed through brainstorming and round-table consensus. The
panellists were provided with a range of strawberries at various
maturity levels, various basic taste solutions other reference standards (Table 1) to help them nd descriptive anchors for the 15 cm
unstructured line scales.
The next step of the training consisted of developing the score
sheet for the different attributes to be analysed. Odour was evaluated for fruitiness (fruity), grassiness (grassy) and odour intensity
(intense) while avour was analysed for sweetness, sourness, bitterness, fermented avour, intensity of the avour, and aftertaste.
Texture was described and analysed in terms of rmness, juiciness (juicy), seediness (seedy) and the brous texture of the fruit.
In the nal training session, the panellists were evaluated for
internal consistency for the above mentioned attributes using replicates of pures (taste and odour) and halves (taste and odour) or
quarters (texture) of same fruit samples. For both the individual
fruit and pure tasting, the variation in panellists scores for the
same fruit/same pure was lower than the score variation between

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

167

Table 1
Reference substances used during panel training sessions.
Attributes

Denitions

Reference substances

Flavour
Sweetness
Sourness
Bitterness
Fermented
Intense
Aftertaste

Degree of sweetness on chewing

Degree of sourness on chewing
Degree of metallic avour on chewing
Degree of sweetness on chewing
Degree of off-avour on chewing
Overall avour intensity on chewing

Sugar solution 50 g/500 mL

Citric acid 3 g/500 mL
Caffeine solution 0.015 g/500 mL
Fermented strawberry pure
Fresh strawberry pure
Fresh strawberry

Odour
Fruity
Grassy
Intense
Texture
Firmness
Juicy
Fibrous
Seedy

Strawberry pure
Freshly cut grass
Strawberry pure
Lower anchor (soft)
Upper anchor (hard)
Lower anchor (none)
Upper anchor (very)
Lower anchor none)
Upper anchor (very)
Lower anchor (smooth)
Upper anchor (seedy)

Force required to with the front teeth

Amount of juice released on rst bite
Stringy texture on chewing
Grainy texture on chewing

Olive (soft pitted canned)

Peanut (raw)
Banana (ripe)
Orange
Almond (raw)
Pineapple (canned pieces)
Yoghurt (natural, served at room temperature)
Dry g

fruit/pures of different maturities. Coefcients of variation for

odour attributes and most of the taste attributes were less than
30% for each panellist.

assessment to reduce fatigue. Testing was carried out in individual

sensory booths in the Food Sensory Laboratory at the University of
Queensland under daylight equivalent lighting conditions.

2.3.2. Sensory evaluation of strawberry samples

Two series of tests were carried out. In one test (Individual
Test), the sensory evaluation was conducted on individual halffresh fruit. In the other test (Bulk Test), the evaluation was done
on bulk pure samples. In the Individual Test, the panellists were
given 4 half-fruit samples, 2 at each maturity level, placed in individual three-digit-coded sealed 70 mL plastic containers allowing
about 1/2 of headspace to be saturated with the volatile compounds
for odour analysis. The cut samples were immediately placed in the
coded sealed containers and all samples were served at room temperature. The panellists were required to test the attributes in the
following order: odour was analysed rst (by taking three quick
sniffs of the samples), then texture followed by avour. In the Bulk
Test, the panellists were given 4 pures: 2 samples of the same bulk
pure at each maturity level from the harvest used in Individual
Test. The pures were served in sealed 30 mL half lled labelled
plastic containers allowing the headspace to be saturated with the
volatile compounds. The assessors were asked rst to evaluate the
odour and then the avour. In both tests, all samples were presented to panellists in a randomized design in order to eliminate
any serving order effect. Assessors used ltered water as a palate
cleanser between samples; each session allowed enough time for

2.3.3. Experimental design

A randomized complete block design with replications was used
in both tests. Panellists were considered as being random blocks,
and the maturity level was the experimental factor of interest. Each
panellist was given two replicates of samples at each maturity level
in a randomized order. This design allows one to account for the
difference among panellists and also to partition the variation in
responses at the following three levels: among panellists, between
two maturity levels for a random person, and between two random
fruit at the same maturity level tasted by the same person. In the
training, the emphasis was on the internal consistency of panellists
responses. Panellists were trained for intra-consistency on the reference material and on strawberry samples but each panellist was
allowed to decide on his or her position on the 15 cm unstructured
line scale for strawberry evaluations.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Instrumental data (pH, % SSC/TA ratio, stress and modulus) of
individual fruit were analysed in the two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon
(rank-sum) test to compare the average characteristics at each
level of maturity. Additionally, the Pearson correlation test was

Table 2
Comparison of instrumental and sensory measurements of avour on individual fruit. Slopes are estimated changes in sensory scores per 0.1 increment in % SSC/TA ratio and
0.1 increment in pH respectively; values in bold are signicant at 5%.
Flavour attribute

% SSC/TA ratio

pH

Slope, 3/4 red

Slope, 4/4 red

Slope, 3/4 red

Slope, 4/4 red

Sweetness
Sourness
Bitterness
Fermented
Intense
Aftertaste

19.2 (P = 0.001)
15.3 (P = 0.002)
5.42 (P = 0.080)
0.60 (ns)
2.10 (ns)
2.80 (ns)

9.25 (ns)
3.66 (ns)
6.20 (P = 0.080)
7.10 (ns)
12.8 (P = 0.018)
6.10 (ns)

16.07 (P = 0.001)
14.71 (P < 0.001)
6.07 (P = 0.025)
1.07 (ns)
2.29 (ns)
1.70 (ns)

0.44 (ns)
0.81 (ns)
0.55 (ns)
10.2 (ns)
3.20 (ns)
20.6 (ns)

Sample description
(average SD
and tests)

0.91 0.13

0.99 0.13

3.63 0.13

3.66 0.12

Two-sample t-test: P-value = 0.057

KolmogorovSmirnov test: P = 0.061
Correlation between pH and % SSC/TA: r = 0.58 (P = 0.009), 3/4 red; r = 0.1 (ns), 4/4 red.

Two-sample t-test: ns
KolmogorovSmirnov test: P = 0.080

168

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

Fig. 2. Comparison of chromatogram proles obtained from headspace of 5 mL pure of bulk sample and individual strawberry samples (Samples 5 and 6).

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

169

Table 3
Comparison of the texture analysis and the corresponding texture sensory attributes. Slopes are estimated changes in sensory scores per 0.1 N/mm2 increment in stress and
0.01 N/mm2 /% increment in modulus respectively; values in bold are signicant at 5%.
Stress (N/mm2 )

Texture attribute

Modulus (N/mm2 /%)

Slope, 3/4 red

Slope, 4/4 red

Slope, 3/4 red

Slope, 4/4 red

Firmness
Juicy
Fibrous
Seedy

15.5 (ns)
5.64 (ns)
12.1 (ns)
12.5 (ns)

33.4 (ns)
15.0 (ns)
33.4 (P = 0.078)
21.3 (ns)

24.1 (ns)
48.2 (ns)
266 (ns)
312 (P = 0.033)

70.9 (ns)
263 (ns)
345 (ns)
288 (P = 0.068)

Sample description
(average SD
and tests)

0.136 0.0436

0.098 0.0261

0.016 0.0037

301 (P = 0.008)

Rank-sum test, P-value = 0.001

KolmogorovSmirnov test: P = 0.002

0.014 0.0039

Rank-sum test: ns
KolmogorovSmirnov test: ns

Correlation between stress and modulus: r = 0.52 (P < 0.001) for the whole test.

Table 4
Results of sensory panel evaluations individual fruit and bulk pure from the same harvest. Asterisks (**) in the Attribute column additionally indicate odour and avour
attributes which are different (P < 0.01) between the two tests.
Attribute

Individual Test
Average, 3/4 red

Bulk Test
P-value

SE

Average, 3/4 red

Average, 4/4 red

P-value

SE

10.7
2.0
10.1
MANOVA (Wilks)

0.007
0.059
0.065
0.002

0.50
0.55
0.87

6.5
7.3
8.2

7.0
5.5
8.0

ns
0.010
ns
0.005

0.52
0.40
0.50

6.0
8.1
3.0
3.6
9.1
7.4

8.2
6.7
1.6
5.5
9.2
7.6
MANOVA (Wilks)

0.047
ns
0.009
ns
ns
ns
0.020

0.68
0.60
0.29
1.07
0.35
0.57

4.7
9.9
4.8
3.6
9.8
9.3

7.1
7.1
3.9
5.2
9.0
7.8

0.002
0.019
ns
ns
ns
0.021
0.005

0.40
0.69
0.34
0.77
0.46
0.37

7.8
6.0
6.3
7.8

6.3
8.0
6.2
6.4
MANOVA (Wilks)

ns
0.056
ns
0.060
0.003

0.70
0.66
0.36
0.55

Odour
Fruity**
Grassy**
Intense

8.2
3.7
7.5

Flavour
Sweetness
Sourness
Bitterness**
Fermented
Intense
Aftertaste
Texture
Firmness
Juicy
Fibrous
Seedy

Average, 4/4 red

Average, panel average at each maturity level; SE, standard error of the average.

Table 5
Variance components,  2 , and (their percentage of total variation, %  2 ) for sensory attributes in the individual fruit and bulk pure tests ( 2 total variation for a single
2
2
2
2
response for each attribute: pan
due to panellists, panmaturity
due to difference in panellists at the same maturity level, fruit
due to fruits, sample
due to samples from
the same pure).
Attribute

Test 1 (individual fruit)

2
pan

(% )

Test 2 (bulk pure)

2
panmaturity

(% )

2
fruit

(% )

2
pan
(%2 )

2
panmaturity
(%2 )

2
sample
(%2 )

Odour
Fruity
Grassy
Intense

3.68(46)
7.53(66)
3.71(28)

0.77(10)
2.25(20)
5.98(46)

3.54(44)
1.61(14)
3.45(26)

7.76(66)
12.61(84)
2.59(42)

1.40(12)
0.8(05)
1.64(27)

2.65(22)
1.68(11)
1.88(31)

Flavour
Sweetness
Sourness
Bitterness
Fermented
Intense
Aftertaste

2.46(24)
4.07(41)
2.31(60)
1.98(12)
3.97(55)
4.54(36)

1.35(13)
1.50(15)
0.09(02)
9.04(56)
0.00
0.00

6.56(63)
4.28(44)
1.45(38)
5.01(32)
3.25(45)
7.92(64)

9.94(69)
4.54(37)
7.36(76)
6.35(42)
5.20(57)
8.07(62)

0.00
1.73(14)
0.10(01)
3.26(22)
0.45(05)
0.00

4.39(31)
6.15(49)
2.20(23)
5.35(36)
3.41(38)
5.01(38)

Texture
Firmness
Juicy
Seedy
Fibrous

2.41(24)
8.85(57)
3.87(46)
9.37(73)

2.39(24)
2.18(14)
1.75(21)
0.00

5.27(52)
4.53(29)
2.72(33)
3.41(27)

170

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

conducted between pH and % SSC/TA, and stress and modulus.

Changes in the overall distribution of each characteristic were evaluated in the two-sample KolmogorovSmirnov test (Tables 2 and 3,
Section 3.3). The sensory data were analysed in univariate mixedmodel ANOVAs (analysis of variances) for each descriptor in each
attribute separately for each test (Individual Test = individual fruit,
and Bulk Test = pures) as well as for both tests combined. In univariate ANOVAs, the signicance was derived for the differences
between maturity levels as well as between the tests. In both
sensory tests, for each attribute, the Wilks test of multivariate
mixed-model ANOVA was conducted in order to combine differences in maturity for correlated attributes (Table 2, Section 3.1).
The variance components from panellists and individual fruit were
derived for each sensory attribute in both tests (Table 2, Section
3.1). To establish the association between instrumental and sensory characteristics in Individual Test, the mixed-model analysis
of covariance was performed with the corresponding instrumental characteristics being covariates nested within maturity levels;
slopes of the nested regressions of sensory attributes on covariates
were calculated separately for each level of maturity (Tables 4 and 5,
Section 3.3.). The statistical analysis was conducted with Minitab
V.15 (Minitab Statistical Software, 2005) and GenStat V.9 (VSN,
2008). In the text, signicant ndings are reported at the 5% level of
signicance; where appropriate, P-values (P hereafter) of analyses
are additionally given, and in tables, all P > 0.15 are reported as ns
(non-signicant).
3. Results
3.1. Instrumental analysis
3.1.1. SSC, pH and TA
The % SSC/TA ratio and pH measurements for the 3/4 red (19
samples) and 4/4 red (20 samples) half Albion strawberry samples
are summarised in the bottom section of Table 2. The table shows
the averages and standard deviations (SD) of the samples as well as
the signicance of the differences between the maturity levels, and
the signicance of the correlation between % SSC/TA ratio and pH
at each maturity level. There was no signicant difference in either
of the averages of % SSC/TA ratio and pH at each maturity level; the
sample distributions were also similar between the maturity levels.
However, the relationship between % SSC/TA ratio and pH changed
signicantly with maturity; the correlation was positive and significant at 3/4 red, but % SSC/TA ratio and pH were not correlated at
4/4 red.
3.1.2. Volatiles analysis
Fig. 2 compares the chromatograms obtained from analysis of
headspace of 5 mL of bulk pure strawberry sample and two individual half-strawberry samples. The same major peaks are seen
in all chromatograms, but relative peak heights for both major
and minor components vary between bulk and individual samples, showing that variation between volatile components is more
quantitative than qualitative.
3.1.3. Texture analysis
Fig. 3 shows examples of forcedeformation curves obtained
from the measurement of fruit rmness of half-strawberry fruit
by compression using a Texture Analyser. Responses obtained for
those samples with lowest and highest force required to puncture
the 3/4 red and 4/4 red half fruit samples are shown (Fig. 3). The
results from the texture analysis were expressed in terms of the
stress (N/mm2 ) and modulus (stress/strain) of deformation curves
for individual strawberry samples.
Table 3 compares the textural attributes rmness, juicy, brous
and seedy with data obtained from measurement of stress and

Fig. 3. Examples of forcedeformation curves for 3/4 red strawberries with lowest
(Sample 17) and highest (Sample 2) force required for puncture, and for 4/4 red
strawberries with lowest (Sample 23) and highest puncture force required (Sample
28).

modulus of single 3/4 red and 4/4 red half fruit. The distribution of
stress values for individual fruit changed with maturity; the distribution of modulus and the average modulus were similar for both
levels of maturity. The average values of stress were signicantly
different between the maturity levels while the average modulus
remained the same. The correlation between stress and modulus
was positive, signicant and similar at both maturity levels; the
correlation coefcient is also reported for a combined sample of
3/4 red and 4/4 red.
3.2. Sensory analysis
Table 4 summarises the results of the analyses of odour, avour
and texture attributes in the Individual Test and the odour and
avour attributes in the Bulk Test.
In the Individual Test, the panel distinguished the overall difference in texture between the two levels of maturity (the multivariate
ANOVA was signicant, P = 0.003). However, in the univariate
ANOVAs, only juicy and seedy texture attribute differences were
marginally signicant (P 0.06).
In the Individual Test, the panel clearly distinguished signicant
differences (P < 0.05) in the fruity odour, sweetness and bitterness
of individual fruit at different levels of maturity. Although less condently (10% signicance), the panel was also able to detect changes
in the grassy odour and the overall odour intensity. The multivariate
ANOVAs of both odour and avour were signicant (P < 0.001 and
P = 0.02 respectively). In the Bulk Test, the decision of the panel was
more condent; at the 5% level of signicance, the panel detected
changes in the grassy odour, sweetness, sourness and the aftertaste
avour between the two maturity levels. The multivariate ANOVAs
of both odour and avour were signicant (P = 0.005 for both). In the
Individual Test (individual fruit) and the Bulk Test (pures), some
attributes were perceived differently by the panel. In particular, the
scores for the fruity and grassy odour and the bitter avour were signicantly different (each P < 0.01) between the individual fruit and
pure sensory tests. The standard errors of the average responses
are reported in Table 4.
We conducted a variance components analysis (Table 5) to
explain the composition of the total variation in individual scores
for various sensory attributes in both tests. In this analysis, panellists are considered as a random sample from a population of people
who agreed on the denitions of the sensory attributes used in the

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

tests. In other words, we analysed how much variation one could

expect at the same maturity of strawberry when a random panellist tastes a random fruit or a pure sample. Panellists contributed
a substantial degree of variation in both trials. In particular, more
than 60% of variation in the scores for grassy odour in both tests
was due to differences among panellists. Similarly, the variation in
individual scores was caused mainly by differences in panellists
perception for sweetness in the Bulk Test and bitterness in both
tests. At the same time, the variation in individual fruit contributed
more than 60% to the total variation in sweetness in the Individual Test while the contribution from homogeneous pure samples
was about 3040% in the Bulk Test. The variation among individual fruit in the Individual Test was generally more profound than
the variation among samples of the same pures in the Bulk Test.
Such attributes as fruity odour, sweetness and sourness in avour,
intense and aftertaste had more than 40% of total variation in scores
due to the variation in individual fruit. In the Bulk Test, the only
sensory attribute that had more than 40% of variation due to the
variation in pure samples was sourness in avour. At different
maturity levels, individual responses were fairly consistent in the
Bulk Test, with less than 30% of variation due to the differences in
panellists perceptions at different maturity levels. In the Individual Test, the degree of variation among panellists was different at
different levels of maturity for the intense odour and fermented
avour scores. Additional analysis revealed that there was more
variation in panellists scores for fermented avour of fully mature
fruit and slightly more variation in the intense odour score at 3/4
red.
3.3. Comparison of instrumental and sensory results
The regression of some avour attributes on the ratio % SSC/TA
and pH was signicant especially at the 3/4 maturity level. In particular, the perceived sweetness tended to be higher for higher values
of the % SSC/TA ratio or pH in the 3/4 maturity group. The perceived sourness tended to be higher for lower values of the ratio or
pH in the 3/4 red group. The overall intensity of avour increased
as the % SSC/TA ratio increased in the 4/4 red group. As shown
in Table 4, no individual texture attributes except for the seedy
and juicy texture were perceived as being signicantly different
at 3/4 and 4/4 red by the panel. The multivariate ANOVA, however,
indicated that there was an overall signicant difference in the perceived texture between the maturity levels. Additionally, the seedy
texture response was negatively correlated with the modulus of
individual fruit and, being adjusted to that correlation, was significantly different between the maturity levels: 3/4 red fruit were
generally perceived as more seedy than 4/4 red fruit. Overall, the
sensory responses did not follow the difference in texture measured
in the forcedeformation curve. The instrumental measurements
detected the difference between the two maturity levels as discussed in Section 3.1.3. The fruit harvest used in the tests was quite
variable in terms of stress (coefcient of variation is more than 30%)
and modulus (coefcient of variation is about 25%). This could contribute to the variation in non-signicant slope estimates shown in
Table 3.
The variation in individual responses to juicy texture and brous
texture came mainly from the variation in panellists perceptions
of the attributes (Table 5). This indicates that people perceive these
attributes differently. However, the variation in responses to rmness was mostly due to the variation in individual fruit (Table 5).
4. Discussion
The sensory analysis conducted in this research shows that
fruit-to-fruit variations exist and that bulk sample analysis is not

171

equivalent to the average of individual fruit results. The different

sensory attributes of strawberry dened and tested by a trained
panel allows us to conclude that some sensory characteristics are
best evaluated on individual fruit rather than on bulk pure samples. Indeed, from Table 2 it is apparent that strawberry odour is
best analysed on individual fruit instead of conducting the sensory
test on bulk pure samples. The aroma of strawberry fruit is very
complex as the characteristic avour is given by a mixture of at least
360 volatile compounds (Dirinck et al., 1981; Kader, 1991). The combination and intensity of these volatile compounds vary with the
fruit cultivar (Hakala et al., 2002), the odour threshold of the compound (Forney et al., 2000), the season, agricultural and climatic
growing conditions (Zabetakis and Holden, 1997) and postharvest
handling of the fruit (Forney et al., 2000). It seems that the difference in the fruit matrix (unblemished half-fruit and pure) might
also contribute to the difference in odour and aroma perceived by
the panellists. Different volatile compounds at different intensities
are present in the individual fruit and in bulk pure samples for
the same harvest might account for these differences (Fig. 2). These
results are in accordance with Williams et al. (2005) who reported
such differences between whole fruit and pure using SPME analysis with GC GC. Further experiments need to be conducted to
quantify the variation in volatile compounds between individual
strawberry fruit to develop a better understanding of the variation of strawberry avour at an individual fruit level. Sweetness
and sourness of strawberry, on average, are rated similarly for bulk
pure and individual fruit samples of the same harvest; the sugaracid balance of the fruit does not seem to be affected in the pure.
However, the difference between fruit is quite noticeable when the
fruit are consumed individually (Table 5). Although, bulk tests may
give a reliable estimation of average sourness, sweetness or aftertaste, it is not possible to estimate the natural variation between
individual fruit in a bulk pure sample. It can be concluded that variation in the critical sensory properties: fruity odour, sweet avour
and avour aftertaste are due primarily to fruit-to-fruit variations,
whereas the other sensory attributes show similar variations in
individual fruit and bulk pure sample. These individual fruit variations are of importance for the fresh fruit market, as it shows the
consistency of the fruit within a strawberry punnet (Tables 2 and 5).
These variations can only be appreciated from individual fruit analysis.
Firmness is a very important textural property of fruit and vegetables as it gives information on the storability and resistance to
injury of the products during handling (Doving and Mage, 2002).
Firmness (esh rmness and fruit rmness) is used to describe
the mechanical properties of fruit tissue (Harker et al., 1997). The
present study results show that the variations in texture between
individual fruit are large, in agreement with previous reports
(Doving and Mage 2002; Doving et al., 2005). On average, the strawberries were rmer at 3/4 red maturity level with a mean stress of
0.136 N/mm2 (SD = 0.0436) than they were at 4/4 red with a mean
stress of 0.098 N/mm2 (SD = 0.0261) (Table 3).
Investigation of the biophysical or chemical factors contributing to sensory analysis scores, showed that the ratio % SSC/TA and
the pH of individual fruit were good predictors of the sweetness,
sourness and avour intensity of the fruit (Table 2) for 3/4 maturity. This result is expected (Alavoine and Crochon, 1989) as it is
the % SSC content/TA ratio that contributes to the perception of
fruit avour intensity (taste) and the higher the % SSC, the sweeter
the fruit. The distribution of maximum stress and modulus calculated from the linear part of the curve (Fig. 3), which denes the
resistance of the fruit to deformation, were quite dispersed for the
fruit of this harvest. Modulus was correlated with seedy attribute
as dened by the sensory panel and the distribution of stress was
found to change with maturity. Further studies need to be carried
out to explain these ndings.

172

P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164172

References
Alavoine, F., Crochon, M., 1989. Taste quality of strawberry. Acta Hort. 265, 449
452.
AOAC, 1990. Titratable Acidity 942.15, 15th ed. AOAC Ofcial Methods of Analysis.
Azodanlou, R., Darbellay, C., Luisier, J.L., Villettaz, J.C., Amado, R., 2003. Quality assessment of strawberries (Fragaria species). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51, 715721.
Carlen, C., Ancay, A., 2003. Measurement of the sensory quality of strawberries. Acta
Hort. 604, 353360.
Dirinck, P.J., De Pooter, H.L., Willaert, G.A., Schamp, N.M., 1981. Flavor quality of cultivated strawberries: the role of the sulphur compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem.
29, 316321.
Doving, A., Mage, F., 2002. Methods of testing strawberry fruit rmness. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B: Soil Plant Sci. 52, 4351.
Doving, A., Mage, F., Vestrheim, S., 2005. Methods for testing strawberry fruit rmness: a review. Small Fruits Rev. 4, 1134.
Ford, A., Hansen, K., Herrington, M., Moisander, J., Nottingham, S., Prytz, S., Zorin, M.,
1997. Subjective and objective determination of strawberry quality. Acta Hort.
439, 319323.
Forney, C.F., Kalt, W., Jordan, M.A., 2000. The composition of strawberry aroma is
inuenced by cultivar, maturity, and storage. HortScience, pp. 10221026, GenStat Statistical Software V.9 VNS INC.
Hakala, M., Tahvonen, R., Huopalahti, R., Kallio, H., Lapvetelainen, A., 2002. Quality
factors of Finnish strawberries. Acta Hort. 567, 727730.
Harker, F.R., Redgwell, R.J., Hallett, I.C., Murray, S.H., Carter, G., 1997. Texture of fresh
fruit. Hort. Rev. 20, 121224.
ISO Standard 8586-1, 1993. Sensory analysis: general guide to selection, training and
monitoring of panellists. I. Selected panellists in French Standard.

Kader, A.A., 1991. Quality and its maintenance in relation to the postharvest physiology of strawberry. In: Dale, A., Luby, J.J. (Eds.), The strawberry into the 21st
century. Proceedings of the Third North American Strawberry Conference. Houston, Texas, 1416 February, 1990, pp. 145152.
Kallio, H., Hakala, M., Pelkkikangas, A.M., Lapvetelainen, A., 2000. Sugars and acids
of strawberry varieties. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 212, 8185.
Menager, I., Jost, M., Aubert, C., 2004. Changes in physicochemical characteristics
and volatile constituents of strawberry (Cv. cigaline) during maturation. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 52, 12481254.
Minitab Statistical Software, 2005. Minitab Inc. Chicago Release 15.
Morrison, B., Herrington, M., 2002. Strawberry breeding in Australia. Acta Hort. 567,
125128.
Risser, G., Navatel, J.C., Hiraki, A. (Eds.), 1997. The Strawberry. Part I: Planting Stock
and Cultivars. Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Fruits et Legumes (CTIFL),
Paris.
Ulrich, D., Hoberg, E., Olbricht, K., 2006. Flavour control in strawberry breeding by
sensory and instrumental methods. Acta Hort. 708, 579584.
Vaysse, P., Verpont, F., Guerineau, C., Simon, R., 2003. The sugars in strawberry: the
gradient of variation. Infos-Cti. 191, 1921.
VSN, 2008. Genstat. Rothamstead, UK. 9th version.
Watson, R., Wright, C.J., McBurney, T., Taylor, A.J., Linforth, R.S.T., 2002. Inuence
of harvest date and light integral on the development of strawberry avour
compounds. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 21212129.
Williams, A., Ryan, D., Olarte Guasca, A., Marriott, P., Pang, E., 2005. Analysis of strawberry volatiles using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with
headspace solid-phase microextraction. J. Chromatogr. B817, 97107.
Zabetakis, I., Holden, M.A., 1997. Strawberry avour: analysis and biosynthesis. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 74, 421434.