基于感官模糊建模和糖酸分析评价‘红美人’杂柑的品质

doi:10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0978

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为科学评价柑橘果实品质差异，以9份‘红美人’（‘爱媛28’）杂柑为研究材料，对其常规品质指标、可溶性糖和有机酸含量进行检测，同时组织评价人员对样品各感官属性喜好度及属性权重等级进行评价。关联6个感官属性的感官评价结果与相关风味物质代谢数据，结果表明：‘红美人’汁胞中的可溶性糖主要是果糖、葡萄糖和蔗糖，其中样品3和8可溶性糖含量较高，样品1和9较低；汁胞中的有机酸主要是柠檬酸，还有少量的苹果酸，其中样品5、3和1总酸含量较高，样品9最低；评价人员对各品质属性的关注度依次为果肉甜度 > 果肉酸度 > 果肉化渣性 > 果实香气 > 果实色泽 = 果实外形，且感官综合评价得分最高的是样品9、3和2；感官综合得分与果肉甜度、果肉化渣性和果实香气具有显著相关性；糖度感官评价与果糖、葡萄糖、总糖和可溶性固形物呈显著正相关，与苹果酸显著负相关。

关键词: 柑橘, ‘红美人’杂柑, 感官模糊建模, 品质分析, 感官评价, 相关性分析

Abstract:

To scientifically evaluate the fruit quality of citrus，this study tested the conventional quality，soluble sugar and organic acid content of nine‘Ehime Kashi 28’（‘Beni Madonna’）samples. In addition，panelists were organized to evaluate the favor ability of each sensory attribute and the weight level of each attribute in different samples. Correlation analysis between comprehensive sensory evaluation in six sensory attributes and flavor substances was hence performed. The results showed that the main soluble sugars in the juice sacs of‘Ehime Kashi 28’were fructose，glucose and sucrose，with higher content in sample 3 and 8，and lower content in sample 1 and 9. The main organic acids in the juice sacs of‘Ehime Kashi 28’were citric acid and low level of malic acid，the total acid content in sample 5，3 and 1 were higher，and the content in sample 9 was the lowest. The panelists paid attention to each quality attribute of‘Ehime Kashi 28’as follows：pulp sweetness > pulp acidity > pulp mastication > fruit aroma > fruit color = fruit shape，and the highest sensory comprehensive evaluation scores were in sample 9，3 and 2. In addition，the sensory comprehensive score was significantly correlated with pulp sweetness，pulp mastication and fruit aroma. The sensory evaluation of sugar content was significantly positively correlated with fructose，glucose，total sugar and TSS，and significantly negatively correlated with malic acid.

Key words: citrus, ‘Ehime Kashi 28’hybrid citrus, sensory fuzzy modeling, quality analysis, sensory evaluation, correlation analysis

陈嘉景, 刘园, 吴雅诺, 徐娟, 张红艳. 基于感官模糊建模和糖酸分析评价‘红美人’杂柑的品质[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(11): 2466-2476.

CHEN Jiajing, LIU Yuan, WU Yanuo, XU Juan, ZHANG Hongyan. Sensory Fuzzy Modeling and Sugar and Acid Analysis Based Evaluation of Fruit Quality Difference in Different‘Ehime Kashi 28’Samples[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(11): 2466-2476.

图/表 10

参考文献 24

[1]	Ali M, Raza M A, Li S G, Zhou L C, Chen H, Shen S L, Zheng X L. 2021. 1-MCP Regulates Ethanol fermentation and GABA shunt pathway involved in kiwifruit quality during postharvest storage. Horticultural Plant Journal, 7 (1):23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2020.12.006 URL
[2]	Cozzolino R, Giulio B D, Petriccione M, Martignetti A, Pellicano M P. 2020. Comparative analysis of volatile metabolites,quality and sensory attributes of Actinidia chinensis fruit. Food Chemistry, 316:126340. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126340 URL
[3]	Debjani C, Das S, Das H. 2013. Aggregation of sensory data using fuzzy logic for sensory quality evaluation of food. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50 (6):1088-1096. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0433-x pmid: 24426020
[4]	Hajjari T. 2016. A new improved method for comparing fuzzy numbers by centroid point. Journal of Mathematical Extension, 10 (2):1-23.
[5]	Harker F R, Hunter D, White A, Richards K, Hall M, Fullerton C. 2019. Measuring changes in consumer satisfaction associated with kiwifruit ripening:a new approach to understand human-product interactions with fruit. Postharvest Biology & Technology, 153:118-124.
[6]	Jin X H, Chen C, Guo S T, Zhang H. 2020. Analysis on physicochemical and sensory qualities of soymilk prepared by various cultivars:application of fuzzy logic technique. Journal of Food Science, 85 (6):1635-1641. doi: 10.1111/jfds.v85.6 URL
[7]	Ke Pu-zhi, Xu Jian-guo, Sun Jian-hua, Lu Xiu-chun, Guan Shun-gen, Luo Jun-qin, Nie Zhen-peng. 2011. A new Japanese citrus variety—Hongmeiren. Zhejiang Citrus, 28 (4):22-24. (in Chinese)
	柯甫志, 徐建国, 孙建华, 卢秀春, 管顺根, 罗君琴, 聂振朋. 2011. 日本柑橘新品种——红美人. 浙江柑橘, 28 (4):22-24.
[8]	Lado J, Vicente E, Manzzioni A, Ares G. 2010. Application of a check-all-that-apply question for the Evaluation of strawberry cultivars from a breeding program. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90:2268-2275. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4081 pmid: 20648524
[9]	Liu Y, Xiang S M, Zhang H P, Zhang H Y, Wu C H, Tang Z H, Wang J B, Xu J. 2020. Sensory quality evaluation of Korla pear from different orchards and analysis of their primary and volatile metabolites. Molecules, 25:5567. doi: 10.3390/molecules25235567 URL
[10]	Obenland D, Collin S, Mackey B, Sievert J, Arpaia M L. 2011. Storage temperature and time influences sensory quality of mandarins by altering soluble solids,acidity and aroma volatile composition. Postharvest Biology & Technology, 59 (2):187-193.
[11]	Routray W, Mishra H N. 2012. Sensory evaluation of different drinks formulated from Dahi(Indian Yogurt)powder using fuzzy logic. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 36:1-10. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.2012.36.issue-1 URL
[12]	Sheng L, Shen D D, Yang W, Zhang M F, Zeng Y L, Xu J, Deng X X, Cheng Y J. 2017. GABA pathway rate-limit citrate degradation in postharvest citrus fruit evidence from HB pumelo(Citrus grandis)× Fairchild(Citrus reticulata)hybrid population. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 65 (8):1669-1676. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b05237 pmid: 28150945
[13]	Sinija V R, Mishra H N. 2011. Fuzzy analysis of sensory data for quality evaluation and ranking of instant green tea powder and granules. Food & Bioprocess Technology, 4:408-416.
[14]	Sun Da, Zhang Hong-yan, Cheng Yun-jiang, Xu Juan. 2015. Contents of flavor components in newhall navel oranges(Citrus sinensis)harvested from eleven production areas of China. Plant Science Journal, 33 (4):513-520. (in Chinese)
	孙达, 张红艳, 程运江, 徐娟. 2015. 11个产地纽荷尔脐橙果实风味物质含量差异. 植物科学学报, 33 (4):513-520.
[15]	Tahsiri Z, Niakousari M, Khoshnoudi-Nia S, Hosseini S M H. 2017. Sensory evaluation of selected formulated milk barberry drinks using the fuzzy approach. Food Science & Nutrition, 5 (3):739-749.
[16]	Tieman D, Zhu G, Resende M, Tao L, Nguyen C, Bie D, Rambla J L, Beltran K S O, Taylor M, Zhang B, Ikeda H, Liu Z Y, Fisher J, Zemach I, Monforte A, Zamir D, Granell A, Kirst M, Huang S, Klee H. 2017. A chemical genetic roadmap to improved tomato flavor. Science, 355 (6323):391. doi: 10.1126/science.aal1556 pmid: 28126817
[17]	Vivek K, Subbarao K V, Routray W, Kamini N R, Dash K K. 2020. Application of fuzzy logic in sensory evaluation of food products:a comprehensive study. Food & Bioprocess Technology, 13:1-29.
[18]	Wu Kongjie, Hu Chengxiao, Tan Qiling, Sun Xuecheng, Zhao Xiaohu, Wu Songwei. 2022. Research advanced on character of sugar accumulation and sucrose transport mechanism in citrus fruit. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 49 (12):2543-2558. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0662 URL
	吴孔杰, 胡承孝, 谭启玲, 孙学成, 赵小虎, 武松伟. 2022. 柑橘果实糖积累特征及蔗糖转运机制研究进展. 园艺学报, 49 (12):2543-2558. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0662 URL
[19]	Zeng Xian-lu, Lin Wen-jian, Wu Guang-xia, Chen Zhi-bin, Li Bi-ai, Li Yuan-ming, Lin Xiu-qiong. 2019. Quantitative descriptive analysis of sensory quality of Citrus grandis. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 46 (6):23-29. (in Chinese)
	曾宪录, 林文健, 吴广霞, 陈志彬, 李必爱, 黎渊明, 林秀琼. 2019. 沙田柚感官品质的定量描述分析研究. 广东农业科学, 46 (6):23-29.
[20]	Zhang Hai-peng, Peng Zhao-xin, Shi Mei-yan, Wen Huan, Zhang Hong-yan, Xu Juan. 2021. Advances on citrus flavoromics. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 40 (1):32-39. (in Chinese)
	张海朋, 彭昭欣, 石梅艳, 温欢, 张红艳, 徐娟. 2021. 柑橘果实风味组学研究进展. 华中农业大学学报, 40 (1):32-39.
[21]	Zhang Wei-qing, Lin Mei, Sun Li-fang, Feng Xian-ju, Ping Xin-liang. 2022. Comparison of sugar and acid characteristics and differences in fruit quality of Hongmeiren hybrid citrus from different habitats. Molecular Plant Breeding, 20 (10):3386-3394. (in Chinese)
	张伟清, 林媚, 孙立方, 冯先桔, 平新亮. 2022. 不同产地‘红美人’杂柑的糖酸特征及品质比较. 分子植物育种, 20 (10):3386-3394.
[22]	Zhao Yong, Zhu Hongju, Yang Dongdong, Gong Chengsheng, Liu Wenge. 2022. Research progress of citric acid metabolism in the fruit. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 49 (12):2579-2596. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0709 URL
	赵永, 朱红菊, 杨东东, 龚成胜, 刘文革. 2022. 果实柠檬酸代谢研究进展. 园艺学报, 49 (12):2579-2596. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0709 URL
[23]	Zhuo R L, Li B Q, Tian S P. 2022. Alginate oligosaccharide improves resistance to postharvest decay and quality in kiwifruit(Actinidia deliciosa cv. Bruno). Horticultural Plant Journal, 8 (1):44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.07.003 URL
[24]	Zhu J C, Xiao Z B. 2019. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in peach by gas chromatography-olfactometry,quantitative measurements and sensory analysis. European Food Research and Technology, 245:129-141. doi: 10.1007/s00217-018-3145-x

样品 Sample	单果质量/g Single fruit weight	可溶性固形物/% Total soluble solid	可滴定酸/% Titratable acid	固酸比 TSS/TA	果皮着色 Peel color
样品 Sample	单果质量/g Single fruit weight	可溶性固形物/% Total soluble solid	可滴定酸/% Titratable acid	固酸比 TSS/TA	L^*	a^*	b^*
1	188.17 ± 13.61 d	10.50 ± 0.28 cd	0.62 ± 0.02 a	17.04 ± 0.67 bc	59.00 ± 0.56 ab	29.58 ± 1.52 c	51.78 ± 0.72 ab
2	321.61 ± 25.07 b	10.33 ± 0.87 d	0.45 ± 0.10 ab	24.37 ± 6.80 abc	58.64 ± 1.56 ab	31.48 ± 0.46 bc	51.77 ± 1.76 ab
3	187.23 ± 26.22 d	11.97 ± 0.29 b	0.48 ± 0.12 ab	26.45 ± 6.95 abc	60.88 ± 1.88 a	31.12 ± 0.47 bc	50.42 ± 3.09 abc
4	141.40 ± 16.75 e	12.53 ± 0.56 ab	0.45 ± 0.04 ab	28.01 ± 2.10 ab	61.00 ± 1.27 a	31.25 ± 0.96 bc	53.47 ± 1.40 a
5	357.31 ± 21.50 a	10.50 ± 0.96 cd	0.65 ± 0.03 a	16.09 ± 1.61 c	56.01 ± 1.02 b	30.83 ± 1.30 bc	46.06 ± 1.27 c
6	269.37 ± 31.10 c	11.70 ± 0.86 bc	0.53 ± 0.15 ab	24.42 ± 8.78 abc	59.25 ± 2.25 a	31.86 ± 0.92 ab	50.40 ± 3.90 abc
7	196.99 ± 11.65 d	11.97 ± 0.65 b	0.39 ± 0.07 b	31.67 ± 7.01 a	60.04 ± 1.01 a	33.98 ± 1.14 a	53.69 ± 1.28 a
8	172.93 ± 19.04 d	13.43 ± 0.46 a	0.55 ± 0.02 ab	24.63 ± 1.49 abc	60.17 ± 1.40 a	32.84 ± 0.31 ab	53.69 ± 2.37 a
9	280.18 ± 29.15 c	12.70 ± 0.50 ab	0.58 ± 0.23 ab	25.11 ± 8.97 abc	58.58 ± 1.27 ab	30.63 ± 1.57 bc	48.80 ± 1.99 bc

样品 Sample	单果质量/g Single fruit weight	可溶性固形物/% Total soluble solid	可滴定酸/% Titratable acid	固酸比 TSS/TA	果皮着色 Peel color
样品 Sample	单果质量/g Single fruit weight	可溶性固形物/% Total soluble solid	可滴定酸/% Titratable acid	固酸比 TSS/TA	L^*	a^*	b^*
1	188.17 ± 13.61 d	10.50 ± 0.28 cd	0.62 ± 0.02 a	17.04 ± 0.67 bc	59.00 ± 0.56 ab	29.58 ± 1.52 c	51.78 ± 0.72 ab
2	321.61 ± 25.07 b	10.33 ± 0.87 d	0.45 ± 0.10 ab	24.37 ± 6.80 abc	58.64 ± 1.56 ab	31.48 ± 0.46 bc	51.77 ± 1.76 ab
3	187.23 ± 26.22 d	11.97 ± 0.29 b	0.48 ± 0.12 ab	26.45 ± 6.95 abc	60.88 ± 1.88 a	31.12 ± 0.47 bc	50.42 ± 3.09 abc
4	141.40 ± 16.75 e	12.53 ± 0.56 ab	0.45 ± 0.04 ab	28.01 ± 2.10 ab	61.00 ± 1.27 a	31.25 ± 0.96 bc	53.47 ± 1.40 a
5	357.31 ± 21.50 a	10.50 ± 0.96 cd	0.65 ± 0.03 a	16.09 ± 1.61 c	56.01 ± 1.02 b	30.83 ± 1.30 bc	46.06 ± 1.27 c
6	269.37 ± 31.10 c	11.70 ± 0.86 bc	0.53 ± 0.15 ab	24.42 ± 8.78 abc	59.25 ± 2.25 a	31.86 ± 0.92 ab	50.40 ± 3.90 abc
7	196.99 ± 11.65 d	11.97 ± 0.65 b	0.39 ± 0.07 b	31.67 ± 7.01 a	60.04 ± 1.01 a	33.98 ± 1.14 a	53.69 ± 1.28 a
8	172.93 ± 19.04 d	13.43 ± 0.46 a	0.55 ± 0.02 ab	24.63 ± 1.49 abc	60.17 ± 1.40 a	32.84 ± 0.31 ab	53.69 ± 2.37 a
9	280.18 ± 29.15 c	12.70 ± 0.50 ab	0.58 ± 0.23 ab	25.11 ± 8.97 abc	58.58 ± 1.27 ab	30.63 ± 1.57 bc	48.80 ± 1.99 bc

样品 Sample	果糖 Fructose	葡萄糖 Glucose	蔗糖 Sucrose	塔罗糖 Talose	异肌醇 Allo-inositol	肌醇 Inositol	总糖 Total sugar
1	25.92 ± 0.41 c	22.29 ± 0.51d	28.63 ± 1.35 ab	0.08 ± 0.00 c	2.15 ± 0.23 b	2.81 ± 0.36 abc	81.88 ± 1.71 b
2	30.51 ± 2.12 bc	27.00 ± 1.30 c	27.82 ± 0.97 ab	0.09 ± 0.01 bc	1.89 ± 0.22 b	2.59 ± 0.40 abc	89.90 ± 3.82 b
3	36.56 ± 2.66 a	31.44 ± 2.05 b	31.01 ± 2.09 a	0.12 ± 0.01 ab	3.02 ± 0.39 a	3.30 ± 0.21 a	105.45 ± 7.09 a
4	31.23 ± 3.33 b	26.46 ± 1.72 c	28.36 ± 1.04 ab	0.12 ± 0.01 ab	1.98 ± 0.43 b	2.42 ± 0.32 c	90.56 ± 5.73 b
5	28.67 ± 1.96 bc	24.91 ± 2.16 cd	28.22 ± 1.70 ab	0.12 ± 0.02 ab	2.47 ± 0.26 ab	3.15 ± 0.44 ab	87.54 ± 5.96 b
6	28.52 ± 1.30 bc	25.06 ± 0.70 cd	28.87 ± 3.10 ab	0.10 ± 0.02 bc	2.31 ± 0.47 b	2.49 ± 0.15 bc	87.35 ± 5.68 b
7	28.53 ± 0.10 bc	24.17 ± 0.46 cd	28.93 ± 1.00 ab	0.11 ± 0.00 bc	2.03 ± 0.17 b	2.84 ± 0.14 abc	86.61 ± 1.38 b
8	38.71 ± 3.59 a	35.41 ± 2.05 a	30.44 ± 0.64 ab	0.15 ± 0.02 a	1.98 ± 0.19 b	3.28 ± 0.12 a	109.97 ± 5.93 a
9	26.57 ± 1.92 bc	23.58 ± 1.00 cd	26.76 ± 1.43 b	0.10 ± 0.02 bc	1.74 ± 0.19 b	2.38 ± 0.43 c	81.13 ± 4.88 b

样品 Sample	果糖 Fructose	葡萄糖 Glucose	蔗糖 Sucrose	塔罗糖 Talose	异肌醇 Allo-inositol	肌醇 Inositol	总糖 Total sugar
1	25.92 ± 0.41 c	22.29 ± 0.51d	28.63 ± 1.35 ab	0.08 ± 0.00 c	2.15 ± 0.23 b	2.81 ± 0.36 abc	81.88 ± 1.71 b
2	30.51 ± 2.12 bc	27.00 ± 1.30 c	27.82 ± 0.97 ab	0.09 ± 0.01 bc	1.89 ± 0.22 b	2.59 ± 0.40 abc	89.90 ± 3.82 b
3	36.56 ± 2.66 a	31.44 ± 2.05 b	31.01 ± 2.09 a	0.12 ± 0.01 ab	3.02 ± 0.39 a	3.30 ± 0.21 a	105.45 ± 7.09 a
4	31.23 ± 3.33 b	26.46 ± 1.72 c	28.36 ± 1.04 ab	0.12 ± 0.01 ab	1.98 ± 0.43 b	2.42 ± 0.32 c	90.56 ± 5.73 b
5	28.67 ± 1.96 bc	24.91 ± 2.16 cd	28.22 ± 1.70 ab	0.12 ± 0.02 ab	2.47 ± 0.26 ab	3.15 ± 0.44 ab	87.54 ± 5.96 b
6	28.52 ± 1.30 bc	25.06 ± 0.70 cd	28.87 ± 3.10 ab	0.10 ± 0.02 bc	2.31 ± 0.47 b	2.49 ± 0.15 bc	87.35 ± 5.68 b
7	28.53 ± 0.10 bc	24.17 ± 0.46 cd	28.93 ± 1.00 ab	0.11 ± 0.00 bc	2.03 ± 0.17 b	2.84 ± 0.14 abc	86.61 ± 1.38 b
8	38.71 ± 3.59 a	35.41 ± 2.05 a	30.44 ± 0.64 ab	0.15 ± 0.02 a	1.98 ± 0.19 b	3.28 ± 0.12 a	109.97 ± 5.93 a
9	26.57 ± 1.92 bc	23.58 ± 1.00 cd	26.76 ± 1.43 b	0.10 ± 0.02 bc	1.74 ± 0.19 b	2.38 ± 0.43 c	81.13 ± 4.88 b

样品 Sample	苹果酸 Malic acid	α-酮戊二酸 α-Ketoglutaric acid	柠檬酸 Citric acid	奎宁酸 Quinic acid	总酸 Total acid
1	2.63 ± 0.59 a	0.18 ± 0.01 abc	7.74 ± 0.81 ab	0.18 ± 0.01 ab	10.73 ± 1.15 ab
2	0.21 ± 0.03 fg	0.18 ± 0.04 abc	7.80 ± 0.84 ab	0.17 ± 0.02 ab	8.37 ± 0.93 c
3	1.01 ± 0.19 de	0.24 ± 0.05 a	9.25 ± 1.03 a	0.24 ± 0.05 a	10.74 ± 1.19 ab
4	0.75 ± 0.05 ef	0.09 ± 0.00 d	7.71 ± 0.53 ab	0.17 ± 0.01 ab	8.72 ± 0.48 bc
5	2.06 ± 0.07 b	0.13 ± 0.02 cd	8.92 ± 0.81 a	0.21 ± 0.03 ab	11.31 ± 0.87 a
6	1.76 ± 0.30 bc	0.16 ± 0.03 bcd	7.00 ± 0.14 b	0.16 ± 0.03 b	9.08 ± 0.46 bc
7	1.50 ± 0.26 cd	0.16 ± 0.03 abcd	6.51 ± 0.65 b	0.22 ± 0.03 ab	8.39 ± 0.83 c
8	0.10 ± 0.02 g	0.19 ± 0.01 abc	8.80 ± 0.84 a	0.19 ± 0.02 ab	9.29 ± 0.87 bc
9	0.22 ± 0.02 fg	0.22 ± 0.06 ab	6.94 ± 0.72 b	0.16 ± 0.05 ab	7.55 ± 0.80 c