Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172

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. D’Arcy b , Michael J. Gidley a
a
Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences, St Lucia campus, University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
b
School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences, St Lucia campus, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
c
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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new method for measuring fruit-to-fruit variation in strawberries by both sensory and instrumental
Received 8 August 2008 analyses was developed and applied. The method allowed quantification of fruit-to-fruit variation in
Accepted 19 November 2008 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
Keywords: fruit was assessed for sensory characteristics by a trained panel while the other half was concurrently
Fruit-to-fruit variation
individually evaluated for soluble solids content (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), firmness, and headspace
Flavour volatiles
volatile composition. The sensory evaluation was additionally performed on a bulk purée of fruit from the
Biophysical analysis
Fragaria ananassa Duch.
same harvest and the results were compared with the sensory evaluation on individual fruit. This study
Variance components analysis suggests that fruit-to-fruit variation is substantial in SSC, TA and fruit firmness and sensory characteristics
Sensory analysis such as ‘fruity odour’, ‘sweet flavour’ and ‘flavour aftertaste’, whereas other characteristics show similar
variation among panellists for both individual fruit and bulk purée analyses. Further, individual fruit
flavour characteristics were correlated with fruit biophysical properties. The results obtained are specific
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 field 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 grad-
ings typically form the basis for postharvest uses of fruit. However,
consumers are not always satisfied 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 straw-
berries 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 con-
sumer acceptance are appearance (uniform bright red colour, size
and shape), firmness, and flavour 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, Queens-
land 4072, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 3346 7373; fax: +61 7 3365 1188.
E-mail address: nimagunness@uq.edu.au (P. Gunness).
and sucrose), organic acids (predominantly citric acid) and phe-
nolic compounds (anthocyanins and flavonols) give strawberry its
characteristic taste, while more than 360 volatile compounds dis-
tinguish its aroma (Dirinck et al., 1981; Kader, 1991).
The instrumental measures of strawberry quality most reported
in the literature are colour, firmness, percentage juice, volatiles,
sugars and acids (Ulrich et al., 2006). These attributes are con-
ventionally 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-to-
fruit 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 char-
acteristics. 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 sen-
sory characteristics of individual strawberry fruit to their chemical

0925-5214/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.11.006
 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172
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 evalua-
tion 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 con-
tent (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), firmness, stress and modulus
from compressive deformation curves and headspace volatile com-
position. 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 instru-
mental measurements was conducted on individual fruit, providing
the first such analysis for strawberries.
2. Materials and methods
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 fields in
reflective-polythene covered beds. The cultivar ‘Albion’, being a
larger fruit, provided a fruit mass sufficient for all the analyses. To
165
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 anal-
ysis was conducted on half fruit while pH, total titratable acidity,
soluble solids content and volatile analyses were done on purées of
individual half fruit. The other half of each strawberry fruit was
concurrently assessed for sensory attributes (odour, texture and
flavour) by a trained panel. Bulk sample purées from the same
harvest were also served to the panellists for comparison with indi-
vidual fruit analysis.
2.1. Sample preparation
2.1.1. Fresh strawberry samples
At 5 a.m. on the scheduled analysis day 2 kg of Albion strawber-
ries 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 symmet-
ric unblemished strawberry samples were chosen, carefully washed
166 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172
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 first anal-
ysed for texture before being puréed, while the other halves were
concurrently analysed for sensory attributes.
2.1.2. Purée preparation
For biophysical and chemical analyses, the individual half straw-
berries were puréed 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
purée from each half-strawberry sample was immediately trans-
ferred 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 purée samples. For volatile
analysis, 50 g of strawberry from the same harvest were puréed.
2.2. Instrumental analyses
Following removal of the 5 mL sample for volatiles analysis, the
remaining purée was centrifuged at 4400 rpm for 30 min (Cen-
trifuge 5702, Eppendorf) and the supernatant obtained was filtered
through glass fibre (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 purée 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, Aus-
tralia) 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 equiva-
lent 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 purée 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 chromatography-
flame ionisation detector (GC-FID), while for others gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was used to identify
the compounds. A fresh 85 ␮m carboxen/poly(dimethylsiloxane)
(CAR/PDMS) (Supleco), 1 cm long fibre was used for volatile
sampling and desorption in the GC (Shimadzu gas chromatogram).
The volatile components were separated with a Zebron capil-
lary column (ZB-5W/Guardian, 30 m × 0.25 mm I.D.) coated with
0.25 ␮m film of diphenyl (5%)/dimethylsiloxane (95%) copolymer.
For the first 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 GC–MS 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 firmness
The flesh firmness 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 flat end probe (P/5, supplied with the Tex-
ture Analyser) was used to evaluate the firmness of the sample.
After optimisation, it was found that measurements taken on the
equator (typically the highest point of the half fruit) gave more con-
sistent results than from other positions. The test conditions used
for the measurement of individual fruit firmness 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 Medi-
cal Research Ethics Committee, University of Queensland. Thirteen
candidates (undergraduate and postgraduate students from the
University of Queensland) were pre-screened based on availabil-
ity, health and general food habits. Out of the original thirteen,
ten candidates were recruited based on their ability to discrimi-
nate 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 (1–2 h per d) over
a period of 10 weeks. Panel descriptors and definitions for straw-
berry odour, texture and flavour (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 stan-
dards (Table 1) to help them find 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 evalu-
ated for fruitiness (fruity), grassiness (grassy) and odour intensity
(intense) while flavour was analysed for sweetness, sourness, bit-
terness, fermented flavour, intensity of the flavour, and aftertaste.
Texture was described and analysed in terms of firmness, juici-
ness (juicy), seediness (seedy) and the fibrous texture of the fruit.
In the final training session, the panellists were evaluated for
internal consistency for the above mentioned attributes using repli-
cates of purées (taste and odour) and halves (taste and odour) or
quarters (texture) of same fruit samples. For both the individual
fruit and purée tasting, the variation in panellists’ scores for the
same fruit/same purée was lower than the score variation between
 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172 167

Table 1
Reference substances used during panel training sessions.

Attributes Definitions Reference substances

Flavour
Sweetness Degree of sweetness on chewing Sugar solution 50 g/500 mL
Sourness Degree of sourness on chewing Citric acid 3 g/500 mL
Bitterness Degree of metallic flavour on chewing Caffeine solution 0.015 g/500 mL
Fermented Degree of sweetness on chewing Fermented strawberry purée
Intense Degree of off-flavour on chewing Fresh strawberry purée
Aftertaste Overall flavour intensity on chewing Fresh strawberry

Odour
Fruity Strawberry purée
Grassy Freshly cut grass
Intense Strawberry purée

Texture
Firmness Force required to with the front teeth Lower anchor (soft) Olive (soft pitted canned)
Upper anchor (hard) Peanut (raw)
Amount of juice released on first bite Lower anchor (none) Banana (ripe)
Juicy
Upper anchor (very) Orange
Stringy texture on chewing Lower anchor none) Almond (raw)
Fibrous
Upper anchor (very) Pineapple (canned pieces)
Grainy texture on chewing Lower anchor (smooth) Yoghurt (natural, served at room temperature)
Seedy
Upper anchor (seedy) Dry fig

fruit/purées of different maturities. Coefficients of variation for assessment to reduce fatigue. Testing was carried out in individual
odour attributes and most of the taste attributes were less than sensory booths in the Food Sensory Laboratory at the University of
30% for each panellist. Queensland under daylight equivalent lighting conditions.

2.3.2. Sensory evaluation of strawberry samples 2.3.3. Experimental design

Two series of tests were carried out. In one test (Individual
Test), the sensory evaluation was conducted on individual half-
fresh fruit. In the other test (Bulk Test), the evaluation was done
on bulk purée samples. In the Individual Test, the panellists were
given 4 half-fruit samples, 2 at each maturity level, placed in indi-
vidual 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 tem-
perature. The panellists were required to test the attributes in the
following order: odour was analysed first (by taking three quick
sniffs of the samples), then texture followed by flavour. In the Bulk
Test, the panellists were given 4 purées: 2 samples of the same bulk
purée at each maturity level from the harvest used in Individual
Test. The purées were served in sealed 30 mL half filled labelled
plastic containers allowing the headspace to be saturated with the
volatile compounds. The assessors were asked first to evaluate the
odour and then the flavour. In both tests, all samples were pre-
sented to panellists in a randomized design in order to eliminate
any serving order effect. Assessors used filtered water as a palate
cleanser between samples; each session allowed enough time for
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 ref-
erence 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 flavour 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 significant 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 19.2 (P = 0.001) 9.25 (ns) 16.07 (P = 0.001) −0.44 (ns)

Sourness −15.3 (P = 0.002) 3.66 (ns) −14.71 (P < 0.001) −0.81 (ns)
Bitterness −5.42 (P = 0.080) 6.20 (P = 0.080) −6.07 (P = 0.025) 0.55 (ns)
Fermented 0.60 (ns) 7.10 (ns) 1.07 (ns) 10.2 (ns)
Intense 2.10 (ns) 12.8 (P = 0.018) 2.29 (ns) 3.20 (ns)
Aftertaste −2.80 (ns) 6.10 (ns) −1.70 (ns) 20.6 (ns)

Sample description 0.91 ± 0.13 0.99 ± 0.13 3.63 ± 0.13 3.66 ± 0.12
(average ± SD
and tests)
Two-sample t-test: P-value = 0.057 Two-sample t-test: ns
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P = 0.061 Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P = 0.080

Correlation between pH and % SSC/TA: r = 0.58 (P = 0.009), 3/4 red; r = 0.1 (ns), 4/4 red.
168 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172

Fig. 2. Comparison of chromatogram profiles obtained from headspace of 5 mL purée of bulk sample and individual strawberry samples (Samples 5 and 6).
 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172 169

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 significant at 5%.

Texture attribute Stress (N/mm2 ) Modulus (N/mm2 /%)

Slope, 3/4 red Slope, 4/4 red Slope, 3/4 red Slope, 4/4 red

Firmness 15.5 (ns) 33.4 (ns) −24.1 (ns) 70.9 (ns)

Juicy 5.64 (ns) 15.0 (ns) 48.2 (ns) 263 (ns)
Fibrous −12.1 (ns) 33.4 (P = 0.078) −266 (ns) 345 (ns)
Seedy −12.5 (ns) −21.3 (ns) −312 (P = 0.033) −288 (P = 0.068)
−301 (P = 0.008)

Sample description 0.136 ± 0.0436 0.098 ± 0.0261 0.016 ± 0.0037 0.014 ± 0.0039
(average ± SD
and tests)
Rank-sum test, P-value = 0.001 Rank-sum test: ns
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P = 0.002 Kolmogorov–Smirnov 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 purée from the same harvest. Asterisks (**) in the Attribute column additionally indicate odour and flavour
attributes which are different (P < 0.01) between the two tests.

Attribute Individual Test Bulk Test

Average, 3/4 red Average, 4/4 red P-value SE Average, 3/4 red Average, 4/4 red P-value SE

Odour
Fruity** 8.2 10.7 0.007 0.50 6.5 7.0 ns 0.52
Grassy** 3.7 2.0 0.059 0.55 7.3 5.5 0.010 0.40
Intense 7.5 10.1 0.065 0.87 8.2 8.0 ns 0.50
MANOVA (Wilks) 0.002 0.005

Flavour
Sweetness 6.0 8.2 0.047 0.68 4.7 7.1 0.002 0.40
Sourness 8.1 6.7 ns 0.60 9.9 7.1 0.019 0.69
Bitterness** 3.0 1.6 0.009 0.29 4.8 3.9 ns 0.34
Fermented 3.6 5.5 ns 1.07 3.6 5.2 ns 0.77
Intense 9.1 9.2 ns 0.35 9.8 9.0 ns 0.46
Aftertaste 7.4 7.6 ns 0.57 9.3 7.8 0.021 0.37
MANOVA (Wilks) 0.020 0.005

Texture
Firmness 7.8 6.3 ns 0.70
Juicy 6.0 8.0 0.056 0.66
Fibrous 6.3 6.2 ns 0.36
Seedy 7.8 6.4 0.060 0.55
MANOVA (Wilks) 0.003

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 purée tests ( 2 —total variation for a single
response for each attribute: pan
2
—due to panellists, pan×maturity
2
—due to difference in panellists at the same maturity level, fruit
2
—due to fruits, sample
2
—due to samples from
the same purée).

Attribute Test 1 (individual fruit) Test 2 (bulk purée)

pan
2 2
(%␴ ) pan×maturity
2 2
(%␴ ) fruit
2 2
(%␴ ) pan
2
(%␴2 ) pan×maturity
2
(%␴2 ) sample
2
(%␴2 )

Odour
Fruity 3.68(46) 0.77(10) 3.54(44) 7.76(66) 1.40(12) 2.65(22)
Grassy 7.53(66) 2.25(20) 1.61(14) 12.61(84) 0.8(05) 1.68(11)
Intense 3.71(28) 5.98(46) 3.45(26) 2.59(42) 1.64(27) 1.88(31)

Flavour
Sweetness 2.46(24) 1.35(13) 6.56(63) 9.94(69) 0.00 4.39(31)
Sourness 4.07(41) 1.50(15) 4.28(44) 4.54(37) 1.73(14) 6.15(49)
Bitterness 2.31(60) 0.09(02) 1.45(38) 7.36(76) 0.10(01) 2.20(23)
Fermented 1.98(12) 9.04(56) 5.01(32) 6.35(42) 3.26(22) 5.35(36)
Intense 3.97(55) 0.00 3.25(45) 5.20(57) 0.45(05) 3.41(38)
Aftertaste 4.54(36) 0.00 7.92(64) 8.07(62) 0.00 5.01(38)

Texture
Firmness 2.41(24) 2.39(24) 5.27(52)
Juicy 8.85(57) 2.18(14) 4.53(29)
Seedy 3.87(46) 1.75(21) 2.72(33)
Fibrous 9.37(73) 0.00 3.41(27)
170 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172
conducted between pH and % SSC/TA, and stress and modulus.
Changes in the overall distribution of each characteristic were eval-
uated in the two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Tables 2 and 3,
Section 3.3). The sensory data were analysed in univariate mixed-
model ANOVAs (analysis of variances) for each descriptor in each
attribute separately for each test (Individual Test = individual fruit,
and Bulk Test = purées) as well as for both tests combined. In uni-
variate ANOVAs, the significance 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 differ-
ences 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 sen-
sory characteristics in Individual Test, the mixed-model analysis
of covariance was performed with the corresponding instrumen-
tal 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, significant findings are reported at the 5% level of
significance; where appropriate, P-values (P hereafter) of analyses
are additionally given, and in tables, all P > 0.15 are reported as ns
(non-significant).
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 significance of the differences between the maturity levels, and
the significance of the correlation between % SSC/TA ratio and pH
at each maturity level. There was no significant 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
significantly with maturity; the correlation was positive and signif-
icant 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 purée strawberry sample and two indi-
vidual 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 sam-
ples, showing that variation between volatile components is more
quantitative than qualitative.
3.1.3. Texture analysis
Fig. 3 shows examples of force–deformation curves obtained
from the measurement of fruit firmness 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 firmness, juicy, fibrous
and seedy with data obtained from measurement of stress and
Fig. 3. Examples of force–deformation 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 distri-
bution of modulus and the average modulus were similar for both
levels of maturity. The average values of stress were significantly
different between the maturity levels while the average modulus
remained the same. The correlation between stress and modulus
was positive, significant and similar at both maturity levels; the
correlation coefficient 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, flavour
and texture attributes in the Individual Test and the odour and
flavour attributes in the Bulk Test.
In the Individual Test, the panel distinguished the overall differ-
ence in texture between the two levels of maturity (the multivariate
ANOVA was significant, P = 0.003). However, in the univariate
ANOVAs, only juicy and seedy texture attribute differences were
marginally significant (P ≤ 0.06).
In the Individual Test, the panel clearly distinguished significant
differences (P < 0.05) in the fruity odour, sweetness and bitterness
of individual fruit at different levels of maturity. Although less con-
fidently (10% significance), the panel was also able to detect changes
in the grassy odour and the overall odour intensity. The multivariate
ANOVAs of both odour and flavour were significant (P < 0.001 and
P = 0.02 respectively). In the Bulk Test, the decision of the panel was
more confident; at the 5% level of significance, the panel detected
changes in the grassy odour, sweetness, sourness and the aftertaste
flavour between the two maturity levels. The multivariate ANOVAs
of both odour and flavour were significant (P = 0.005 for both). In the
Individual Test (individual fruit) and the Bulk Test (purées), some
attributes were perceived differently by the panel. In particular, the
scores for the fruity and grassy odour and the bitter flavour were sig-
nificantly different (each P < 0.01) between the individual fruit and
purée 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, panel-
lists are considered as a random sample from a population of people
who agreed on the definitions of the sensory attributes used in the
 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172
tests. In other words, we analysed how much variation one could
expect at the same maturity of strawberry when a random panel-
list tastes a random fruit or a purée 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 Individ-
ual Test while the contribution from homogeneous purée samples
was about 30–40% in the Bulk Test. The variation among individ-
ual fruit in the Individual Test was generally more profound than
the variation among samples of the same purées in the Bulk Test.
Such attributes as fruity odour, sweetness and sourness in flavour,
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 purée samples was sourness in flavour. 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 Individ-
ual Test, the degree of variation among panellists was different at
different levels of maturity for the intense odour and fermented
flavour scores. Additional analysis revealed that there was more
variation in panellists’ scores for fermented flavour 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 flavour attributes on the ratio % SSC/TA
and pH was significant especially at the 3/4 maturity level. In partic-
ular, the perceived sweetness tended to be higher for higher values
of the % SSC/TA ratio or pH in the 3/4 maturity group. The per-
ceived sourness tended to be higher for lower values of the ratio or
pH in the 3/4 red group. The overall intensity of flavour 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 significantly different
at 3/4 and 4/4 red by the panel. The multivariate ANOVA, however,
indicated that there was an overall significant difference in the per-
ceived 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 signif-
icantly 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 force–deformation curve. The instrumental measurements
detected the difference between the two maturity levels as dis-
cussed in Section 3.1.3. The fruit harvest used in the tests was quite
variable in terms of stress (coefficient of variation is more than 30%)
and modulus (coefficient of variation is about 25%). This could con-
tribute to the variation in non-significant slope estimates shown in
Table 3.
The variation in individual responses to juicy texture and fibrous
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 firm-
ness 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 defined and tested by a trained
panel allows us to conclude that some sensory characteristics are
best evaluated on individual fruit rather than on bulk purée sam-
ples. Indeed, from Table 2 it is apparent that strawberry odour is
best analysed on individual fruit instead of conducting the sensory
test on bulk purée samples. The aroma of strawberry fruit is very
complex as the characteristic flavour is given by a mixture of at least
360 volatile compounds (Dirinck et al., 1981; Kader, 1991). The com-
bination and intensity of these volatile compounds vary with the
fruit cultivar (Hakala et al., 2002), the odour threshold of the com-
pound (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 differ-
ence in the fruit matrix (unblemished half-fruit and purée) 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 purée 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 purée using SPME anal-
ysis 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 varia-
tion of strawberry flavour at an individual fruit level. Sweetness
and sourness of strawberry, on average, are rated similarly for bulk
purée and individual fruit samples of the same harvest; the sugar-
acid balance of the fruit does not seem to be affected in the purée.
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 after-
taste, it is not possible to estimate the natural variation between
individual fruit in a bulk purée sample. It can be concluded that vari-
ation in the critical sensory properties: fruity odour, sweet flavour
and flavour aftertaste are due primarily to fruit-to-fruit variations,
whereas the other sensory attributes show similar variations in
individual fruit and bulk purée sample. These individual fruit vari-
ations 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 anal-
ysis.
Firmness is a very important textural property of fruit and veg-
etables as it gives information on the storability and resistance to
injury of the products during handling (Doving and Mage, 2002).
Firmness (flesh firmness and fruit firmness) 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 straw-
berries were firmer 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 contribut-
ing to sensory analysis scores, showed that the ratio % SSC/TA and
the pH of individual fruit were good predictors of the sweetness,
sourness and flavour intensity of the fruit (Table 2) for 3/4 matu-
rity. This result is expected (Alavoine and Crochon, 1989) as it is
the % SSC content/TA ratio that contributes to the perception of
fruit flavour intensity (taste) and the higher the % SSC, the sweeter
the fruit. The distribution of maximum stress and modulus calcu-
lated from the linear part of the curve (Fig. 3), which defines the
resistance of the fruit to deformation, were quite dispersed for the
fruit of this harvest. Modulus was correlated with ‘seedy’ attribute
as defined 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 findings.
172 P. Gunness et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 52 (2009) 164–172
References
Alavoine, F., Crochon, M., 1989. Taste quality of strawberry. Acta Hort. 265, 449–
452.
AOAC, 1990. Titratable Acidity 942.15, 15th ed. AOAC Official Methods of Analysis.
Azodanlou, R., Darbellay, C., Luisier, J.L., Villettaz, J.C., Amado, R., 2003. Quality assess-
ment of strawberries (Fragaria species). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51, 715–721.
Carlen, C., Ancay, A., 2003. Measurement of the sensory quality of strawberries. Acta
Hort. 604, 353–360.
Dirinck, P.J., De Pooter, H.L., Willaert, G.A., Schamp, N.M., 1981. Flavor quality of cul-
tivated strawberries: the role of the sulphur compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem.
29, 316–321.
Doving, A., Mage, F., 2002. Methods of testing strawberry fruit firmness. Acta Agri-
culturae Scandinavica Section B: Soil Plant Sci. 52, 43–51.
Doving, A., Mage, F., Vestrheim, S., 2005. Methods for testing strawberry fruit firm-
ness: a review. Small Fruits Rev. 4, 11–34.
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, 319–323.
Forney, C.F., Kalt, W., Jordan, M.A., 2000. The composition of strawberry aroma is
influenced by cultivar, maturity, and storage. HortScience, pp. 1022–1026, Gen-
Stat 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, 727–730.
Harker, F.R., Redgwell, R.J., Hallett, I.C., Murray, S.H., Carter, G., 1997. Texture of fresh
fruit. Hort. Rev. 20, 121–224.
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 phys-
iology of strawberry. In: Dale, A., Luby, J.J. (Eds.), The strawberry into the 21st
century. Proceedings of the Third North American Strawberry Conference. Hous-
ton, Texas, 14–16 February, 1990, pp. 145–152.
Kallio, H., Hakala, M., Pelkkikangas, A.M., Lapvetelainen, A., 2000. Sugars and acids
of strawberry varieties. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 212, 81–85.
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, 1248–1254.
Minitab Statistical Software, 2005. Minitab Inc. Chicago Release 15.
Morrison, B., Herrington, M., 2002. Strawberry breeding in Australia. Acta Hort. 567,
125–128.
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, 579–584.
Vaysse, P., Verpont, F., Guerineau, C., Simon, R., 2003. The sugars in strawberry: the
gradient of variation. Infos-Ctifl. 191, 19–21.
VSN, 2008. Genstat. Rothamstead, UK. 9th version.
Watson, R., Wright, C.J., McBurney, T., Taylor, A.J., Linforth, R.S.T., 2002. Influence
of harvest date and light integral on the development of strawberry flavour
compounds. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 2121–2129.
Williams, A., Ryan, D., Olarte Guasca, A., Marriott, P., Pang, E., 2005. Analysis of straw-
berry volatiles using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography with
headspace solid-phase microextraction. J. Chromatogr. B817, 97–107.
Zabetakis, I., Holden, M.A., 1997. Strawberry flavour: analysis and biosynthesis. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 74, 421–434.