Sensory Fuzzy Modeling and Sugar and Acid Analysis Based Evaluation of Fruit Quality Difference in Different‘Ehime Kashi 28’Samples

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

Acta Horticulturae Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (11): 2466-2476.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0978

• Cultivation Physiology & Biochemistry • Previous Articles Next Articles

Sensory Fuzzy Modeling and Sugar and Acid Analysis Based Evaluation of Fruit Quality Difference in Different‘Ehime Kashi 28’Samples

CHEN Jiajing, LIU Yuan, WU Yanuo, XU Juan, ZHANG Hongyan^*()

National Key Laboratory for Germplasm Innovation and Utilization for Fruit and Vegetable Horticultural Crops，Sensory Evaluation and Quality Analysis Centre of Horticultural Products，College of Horticulture and Forestry，Huazhong Agricultural University，Wuhan 430070，China

Received:2023-02-06 Revised:2023-08-14 Online:2023-11-25 Published:2023-11-28
Contact: ZHANG Hongyan

Abstract

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

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.

Figures/Tables 10

References 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

Sensory Fuzzy Modeling and Sugar and Acid Analysis Based Evaluation of Fruit Quality Difference in Different‘Ehime Kashi 28’Samples

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 24

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

感官属性 Sensory attribute	不重要 Not important	有些重要 Somewhat important	重要 Important	非常重要 Very important	极其重要 Extremely important	权重三元模糊数 Weight ternary fuzzy number	相对权重三元模糊数 Relative weight ternary fuzzy number
果实色泽Fruit color	2	13	12	5	1	42.42 23.49 24.24	0.116 0.064 0.067
果实外形Fruit shape	2	14	10	6	1	42.42 23.49 24.24	0.116 0.064 0.067
果实香气Fruit aroma	7	5	12	6	3	44.70 19.70 22.73	0.123 0.054 0.062
果肉甜度Pulp sweetness	0	0	4	9	20	87.12 25.00 9.85	0.239 0.069 0.027
果肉酸度Pulp acidity	0	2	5	14	12	77.27 25.00 15.91	0.212 0.069 0.044
果肉化渣性Pulp mastication	1	2	9	11	10	70.46 24.24 17.42	0.193 0.067 0.048

感官属性 Sensory attribute	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8	F9	排序 Ranking
果实色泽Fruit color	0.004	0.091	0.402	0.732	0.746	0.320	0.064	0	0	5
果实外形Fruit shape	0.004	0.091	0.402	0.732	0.746	0.320	0.064	0	0	5
果实香气Fruit aroma	0	0.043	0.304	0.711	0.849	0.402	0.084	0	0	4
果肉甜度Pulp sweetness	0	0	0	0	0.03	0.285	0.712	0.877	0.430	1
果肉酸度Pulp acidity	0	0	0	0	0.194	0.584	0.827	0.597	0.157	2
果肉化渣性Pulp mastication	0	0	0	0.05	0.366	0.730	0.740	0.339	0.036	3

样品 Samples	果实色泽 Fruit color	果实外形 Fruit shape	果实香气 Fruit aroma	果肉甜度 Pulp sweetness	果肉酸度 Pulp acidity	果肉化渣性 Pulp mastication	质心排序综合得分 Comprehensive scores based on centroid	9点标度综合得分 Comprehensive scores based on hedonic
1	3.15（7）	3.36（5）	3.39（6）	2.88（9）	3.21（8）	4.15（4）	56.29（8）	（9）
2	3.70（2）	3.55（3）	3.48（5）	3.58（4）	3.42（3）	4.36（2）	64.28（3）	（7）
3	3.00（8）	3.42（4）	3.52（4）	3.94（2）	3.76（1）	4.39（1）	65.00（2）	（6）
4	3.18（6）	3.00（9）	3.33（8）	3.55（5）	3.55（2）	4.15（5）	59.76（6）	（2）
5	3.55（4）	3.33（6）	3.39（7）	3.24（7）	3.30（5）	3.91（8）	58.43（7）	（3）
6	2.76（9）	3.03（8）	3.21（9）	3.06（8）	3.24（7）	3.39（9）	51.79（9）	（8）
7	3.70（3）	3.64（2）	3.67（2）	3.45（6）	3.21（9）	4.06（7）	61.95（5）	（5）
8	3.27（5）	3.24（7）	3.58（3）	4.09（1）	3.36（4）	4.09（6）	62.93（4）	（4）
9	4.03（1）	3.97（1）	3.76（1）	3.70（3）	3.27（6）	4.33（3）	66.18（1）	（1）

	果糖 Fructose	塔罗糖 Talose	葡萄糖 Glucose	异肌醇 Allo- inositol	肌醇 Inositol	蔗糖 Sucrose	苹果酸 Malic acid	α-酮戊二酸 α-Ketoglutaric acid	柠檬酸 Citric acid	奎宁酸 Quinic acid	总糖 Total sugar	总酸 Total acid	甜度 Sweet ness	酸度 Acidity	可溶性固形物 TSS
塔罗糖 Talose	0.789^*	1
葡萄糖 Glucose	0.987^**	0.795^*	1
异肌醇 Allo-inositol	0.346	0.143	0.258	1
肌醇 Inositol	0.646	0.589	0.628	0.622	1
蔗糖 Sucrose	0.801^**	0.528	0.749^*	0.660	0.773^*	1
苹果酸 Malic acid	-0.521	-0.430	-0.566	0.398	0.120	0.028	1
α-酮戊二酸 α-Ketoglutaric acid	0.253	-0.086	0.290	0.221	0.305	0.269	-0.288	1
柠檬酸 Citric acid	0.676^*	0.559	0.658	0.616	0.777^*	0.584	0.061	0.154	1
奎宁酸 Quinic acid	0.425	0.377	0.334	0.690^*	0.809^**	0.664	0.207	0.256	0.484	1
总糖 Total sugar	0.994^**	0.776^*	0.983^**	0.407	0.707^*	0.849^**	-0.443	0.286	0.701^*	0.469	1
总酸 Total acid	-0.302	-0.601	-0.244	-0.136	0.026	-0.217	0.156	0.474	0.005	-0.120	-0.268	1
甜度 Sweetness	0.805^**	0.705^*	0.810^**	0.016	0.369	0.407	-0.844^**	0.432	0.403	0.299	0.760^*	-0.265	1
酸度 Acidity	0.661	0.343	0.568	0.551	0.300	0.506	-0.382	0.185	0.615	0.392	0.626	-0.259	0.590	1
可溶性固形物TSS	0.581	0.684^*	0.611	-0.227	0.073	0.338	-0.605	0.119	-0.001	-0.047	0.550	-0.589	0.680^*	0.164	1
可滴定酸TA	-0.366	-0.213	-0.305	-0.008	-0.063	-0.421	0.237	0.076	0.269	-0.323	-0.346	0.370	-0.299	-0.171	-0.308

[1]	CHEN Min, WU Tianli, Lü Yuanda, JIANG Bo, YAN Huaxue, LI Juan, ZHONG Yun. Analysis on Growth，Physiology and Fruit Quality of‘Hongjiang’Orange Grafted with Different Rootstocks Under Container Culture [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(7): 1547-1562.
[2]	DENG Chengfeng, LI Suping, ZHANG Ruixuan, HAN Leng, LI Yong. Control Effect of Lysobacter enzymogenes LE16 on Rot Disease in Post-harvest Citrus Fruit Caused by Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(7): 1574-1586.
[3]	ZHANG Lehuan, ZOU Changyu, WANG Zhaohao, YANG Wen, ZOU Xiuping, HE Yongrui, CHEN Shanchun, LONG Qin. Cloning and Expression Analysis of CsAOS1-2 in Responding to Citrus Canker Disease [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(6): 1355-1367.
[4]	GUO Jing, LIAO Manyu, JIN Yan, MA Xiaochuan, ZHANG Fen, LU Xiaopeng, DENG Ziniu, SHENG Ling. Functional Analysis of Transcription Factor CsbHLH3 in Regulating Citric Acid Metabolism of Citrus Fruit [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(5): 947-958.
[5]	LÜ Ruoya, LI Yun, ZHENG Yongqin, DENG Xiaoling, ZHENG Zheng. The Distribution Pattern of Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus in Fruit Pith [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(5): 1110-1117.
[6]	WANG Ping, SHENG Ling, YANG Jinpeng, ZHOU Linglei, JIN Yan, LUO Xuzhao, MA Xianfeng, DENG Ziniu. Evaluation of Resistance to Citrus Canker Disease in Hybrid Progeny of Red Pomelo and American Citron [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(4): 765-777.
[7]	ZOU Yunqian, LUO Qujuan, ZHANG Jin, XU Rangwei, CHENG Yunjiang. Coating Containing Shellac，Rosin Significantly Improves Commercial Value of Satsuma Mandarins and Lane Late Navel Orange During Shelf Life [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(4): 853-863.
[8]	LAI Hengxin, LI Wenguang, PENG Liangzhi, HE Yizhong, ZHU Panpan, YANG Wanyun, LING Lili, FU Xingzheng, CHUN Changpin, CAO Li. Quality Changes of On-tree Storage Fruit of Orah Mandarin（Citrus reticulata Blanco）During Spring and Summer Seasons [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(3): 485-494.
[9]	LIU Yunuo, CAO Ya, WANG Shuai, DU Meixia, ZHENG Lin, CHEN Shanchun, ZOU Xiuping. Expression Analysis of CsMYB41 and CsMYB63 Genes in Response to Citrus Canker [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(3): 495-507.
[10]	YE Zimao, SHEN Wanxia, LIU Mengyu, WANG Tong, ZHANG Xiaonan, YU Xin, LIU Xiaofeng, ZHAO Xiaochun. Effect of R2R3-MYB Transcription Factor CitMYB21 on Flavonoids Biosynthesis in Citrus [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(2): 250-264.
[11]	LIANG Shengmin, ZHANG Fei, and WU Qiangsheng, . Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Improve Drought Tolerance of Trifoliate Orange Seedlings by Regulating Root Polyamines [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(12): 2680-2688.
[12]	ZHANG Shaoran, ZONG Qi, LIU Yang, and JIANG Ling, . In Situ Hybridization Analysis of Distinctive Ribonucleotide Reductase β Subunit Gene from Candidatus Liberibacter Asiaticus of Citrus [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(12): 2689-2700.
[13]	CHEN Qi, LI Ting, CHEN Jialin, CHEN Ou, WANG Wenjun, YAO Shixiang, and ZENG Kaifang, . Studies on Function and Mechanism of CsNAC2 Transcription Factor in Resistance to Green Mold in Citrus [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(12): 2701-2712.
[14]	CUI Xuejing, ZHANG Jianing, CHEN Jianghua, JIA Jichun, LIN Yang, and FU Yanping, . Endophytic Fungi and the Relations to the Fruit Drop of Citrus [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(12): 2713-2722.
[15]	WU Xiulan, LI Guihua, TANG Wenwu. Cloning and Function Analysis of Ubiquitin-conjugating Enzyme Gene CrUBC2 in Citrus reticulata‘Wuzi Shatangju’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(10): 2069-2078.