Tomato sensory analysis typically involves assessing different fruits, and the inherent intra- and inter-fruit variability poses experimental challenges. To address this, blending emerges as a sampling protocol to minimize panelist experimental error. This study delves into intra-(locule/pericarp) and inter-fruit heterogeneity, examining the efficacy of blended samples in assessing sweetness and acidity. Results reveal a higher acidity (22.2%) and sweetness perception (10.3%) in locular tissue, influenced by elevated titratable acids (TA) and soluble solids (TSS). The observed locular-to-fruit weight ratios (6–31%) might impact overall taste intensity. Fruit-to-fruit variation was high among the 16 varieties studied for TA, TSS, and dry matter. The use of blending to construct an “average” sample, increased sweetness (23%) and acidity perception (17%) without affecting sample ordering. Our results underscore the need to integrate locular relative weight into tomato phenotyping protocols and highlight the potential of blended samples in sensory analysis of traits related to the non-volatile fraction.
AbegazEGTandonKSScottJW, et al. (2004) Partitioning taste from aromatic flavor notes of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill.) to develop predictive models as a function of volatile and nonvolatile components. Postharvest Biology and Technology34(3): 227–235.
2.
AguirreLFriasJMBarry-RyanC, et al. (2008) Assessing the effect of product variability on the management of the quality of mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus). Postharvest Biology and Technology49(2): 247–254.
3.
AuerswaldHSchwarzDKornelsonC, et al. (1999) Sensory analysis, sugar and acid content of tomato at different EC values of the nutrient solution. Scientia Horticulturae82(3–4): 227–242.
4.
BaldwinEAGoodnerKPlottoA (2008) Interaction of volatiles, sugars, and acids on perception of tomato aroma and flavor descriptors. Journal of Food Science73(6): S294–S307.
5.
BaldwinEAGoodnerKPlottoA, et al. (2004) Effect of volatiles and their concentration on perception of tomato descriptors. Journal of Food Science69(8): S310–S318.
6.
BaldwinEAScottJWEinsteinM, et al. (1998) Relationship between sensory and instrumental analysis for tomato flavor. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science123(5): 906–915.
7.
BaldwinEAScottJWShewmakerCK, et al. (2000) Flavor trivia and tomato aroma: Biochemistry and possible mechanisms for control of important aroma components. Hortscience35(6): 1013–1022.
8.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerB, et al. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
9.
BavayCSymoneauxRMaîtreI, et al. (2013) Importance of fruit variability in the assessment of apple quality by sensory evaluation. Postharvest Biology and Technology77(0): 67–74.
10.
BetancourtLAStevensMAKaderAA (1977) Accumulation and loss of sugars and reduced ascorbic-acid in attached and detached tomato fruits. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science102(6): 721–723.
11.
BoukobzaFTaylorAJ (2002) Effect of postharvest treatment on flavour volatiles of tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology25(3): 321–331.
12.
BraussMSLinforthRSTTaylorAJ (1998) Effect of variety, time of eating, and fruit-to-fruit variation on volatile release during eating of tomato fruits (Lycopersicon esculentum). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry46(6): 2287–2292.
13.
CarangalARAlbanEKVarnerJE, et al. (1954) The influence of mineral nutrition on the organic acids of the tomato, Lycopersicum esculentum. Plant Physiology29(4): 355–360.
14.
CarliPBaroneAFoglianoV, et al. (2011) Dissection of genetic and environmental factors involved in tomato organoleptic quality. BMC Plant Biology11: 58.
15.
CasalsJPascualLCanizaresJ, et al. (2011) The risks of success in quality vegetable markets: Possible genetic erosion in Marmande tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and consumer dissatisfaction. Scientia Horticulturae130(1): 78–84.
16.
CasalsJRomero del CastilloRPonsC, et al. (2024) European fresh-market tomato sensory ideotypes based on consumer preferences. Scientia Horticulturae335: 113351.
17.
CausseMBuretMRobiniK, et al. (2003) Inheritance of nutritional and sensory quality traits in fresh market tomato and relation to consumer preferences. Journal of Food Science68: 2342–2350.
18.
CausseMDamidauxRRousselleP (2007) Traditional and enhanced breeding for quality traits in tomato. In: RazdanMKMattooAK (eds) Genetic Improvement of Solanaceous Crops. 2: Tomato. New Hampshire: Science Publishers, 153–192.
19.
CausseMFriguetCCoiretC, et al. (2010) Consumer preferences for fresh tomato at the European scale: A common segmentation on taste and firmness. Journal of Food Science75(9): S531–S541.
20.
CausseMZhaoJDioufI, et al. (2020) Genomic designing for climate-smart tomato. In: KoleC (ed.) Genomic Designing of Climate-Smart Vegetable Crops. Springer International Publishing, 47–159.
21.
ColantonioVFerrãoLFV.TiemanDM, et al. (2022) Metabolomic selection for enhanced fruit flavor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(7): e2115865119.
22.
DarriguesASchwartzSJFrancisDM (2007) Optimizing sampling of tomato fruit for carotenoid content with application to assessing the impact of ripening disorders. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry56(2): 483–487.
23.
DaviesJN (1966) The non-volatile organic acids of the differently coloured areas of the walls of ‘blotchy’ ripened tomatoes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture17(9): 400–403.
24.
DaviesJNKemptonRJ (1975) Changes in individual sugars of tomato fruit during ripening. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture26(8): 1103–1110.
25.
DevauxMFBarakatARobertP, et al. (2005) Mechanical breakdown and cell wall structure of mealy tomato pericarp tissue. Postharvest Biology and Technology37(3): 209–221.
26.
GoffSAKleeHJ (2006) Plant volatile compounds: Sensory cues for health and nutritional value?Science311(5762): 815–819.
27.
HagenguthJKanskiLKahleH, et al. (2022) Breeders’ sensory test: A new tool for early selection in breeding for tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) flavour. Plant Breeding141(1): 96–107.
28.
ISO (2007) Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms (Ref. ISO 8589). Genova, Italy: International Organization for Standardization.
29.
KleeHJTiemanDM (2013) Genetic challenges of flavor improvement in tomato. Trends in Genetics29(4): 257–262.
LiedlBELabateJAStommelJR, et al. (2013) Genetics, genomics and breeding of tomato. In: ChittaranjanK (ed) Genetics, Genomics and Breeding of Crop Plants. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor& Francis Group, 1:512.
32.
MalundoTMMShewfeltRLScottJW (1995) Flavor quality of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by sugar and acid levels. Postharvest Biology and Technology6(1–2): 103–110.
Obiadalla-AliHFernieARKossmannJ, et al. (2004) Developmental analysis of carbohydrate metabolism in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Micro-Tom). Fruits. Physiologia Plantarum120(2): 196–204.
35.
Oruna-ConchaM-JMethvenLBlumenthalH, et al. (2007) Differences in glutamic acid and 5’-ribonucleotide contents between flesh and pulp of tomatoes and the relationship with umami taste. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry55(14): 5776–5780.
36.
PantheeDLabateJMcGrathM, et al. (2013) Genotype and environmental interaction for fruit quality traits in vintage tomato varieties. Euphytica193(2): 169–182.
37.
PiombinoPSinesioFMonetaE, et al. (2013) Investigating physicochemical, volatile and sensory parameters playing a positive or a negative role on tomato liking. Food Research International50(1): 409–419.
38.
RacineJS (2012) RStudio: A platform-independent IDE for R and sweave. Journal of Applied Econometrics27(1): 167–172.
39.
RamblaJLAlfaroCMedinaA, et al. (2015) Tomato fruit volatile profiles are highly dependent on sample processing and capturing methods. Metabolomics11(6): 1708–1720.
40.
RamblaJLTikunovYMonforteA, et al. (2014) The expanded tomato fruit volatile landscape. Journal of Experimental Botany65(16): 4613–4623.
41.
RatanachinakornBKlieberASimonsDH (1997) Effect of short-term controlled atmospheres and maturity on ripening and eating quality of tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology11(3): 149–154.
42.
ResurreccionAVAShewfeltRLPrussiaSE, et al. (1987) Relationships between sensory and objective measures of postharvest quality of snap beans as determined by cluster-analysis. Journal of Food Science52(1): 113–116.
43.
RiveraAFeneroDAlmirallA, et al. (2013) Variability in sensory attributes in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): A first survey in the Iberian secondary diversity center. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution60(6): 1885–1898.
44.
Saliba-ColombaniVCausseMLangloisD, et al. (2001) Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 1. Mapping QTLs for physical and chemical traits. Theoretical and Applied Genetics102(2–3): 259–272.
45.
SansSFerréJBoquéR, et al. (2020) Estimating sensory properties with near-infrared spectroscopy: A tool for quality control and breeding of ‘Calçots’ (Allium cepa L.). Agronomy10: 828.
46.
SinesioFCammareriMCottetV, et al. (2021) Sensory traits and consumer’s perceived quality of traditional and modern fresh market tomato varieties: A study in three European countries. Foods (Basel, Switzerland)10(11): 2521.
47.
SinesioFCammareriMMonetaE, et al. (2010) Sensory quality of fresh French and Dutch market tomatoes: A preference mapping study with Italian consumers. Journal of Food Science75(1): S55–S67.
48.
SinesioFMonetaEPeparaioM (2007) Sensory characteristics of traditional field grown tomato genotypes in Southern Italy. Journal of Food Quality30(6): 878–895.
49.
StevensMAAlbrightM (1980) An approach to sensory evaluation of horticultural commodities (fresh market tomatoes). Hortscience15: 48–50.
50.
StevensMAKaderAAAlbrightM (1977) Intercultivar variation in composition of locular and pericarp portions of fresh market tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science102(5): 689–692.
51.
SunDCruzJAlcalàM, et al. (2021) Near infrared spectroscopy determination of chemical and sensory properties in tomato. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy29(5): 289–300.
52.
TandonKSBaldwinEAScottJW, et al. (2003) Linking sensory descriptors to volatile and nonvolatile components of fresh tomato flavor. Journal of Food Science68(7): 2366–2371.
53.
TandonKSBaldwinEAShewfeltRL (2000) Aroma perception of individual volatile compounds in fresh tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum. Mill.) as affected by the medium of evaluation. Postharvest Biology and Technology20(3): 261–268.
54.
ThyboAKBechmannIEBrandtK (2005) Integration of sensory and objective measurements of tomato quality: Quantitative assessment of the effect of harvest date as compared with growth medium (soil versus rockwool), electrical conductivity, variety and maturity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture85(13): 2289–2296.
55.
TiemanDBlissPMcIntyreL, et al. (2017a) The chemical interactions underlying tomato flavor preferences. Current Biology22(11): 1035–1039.
56.
TiemanDZhuGResendeM, et al. (2017b) A chemical genetic roadmap to improved tomato flavor. Science355(6323): 391–394.
57.
TikunovYLommenAde VosCHR, et al. (2005) A novel approach for nontargeted data analysis for metabolomics. Large-scale profiling of tomato fruit volatiles. Plant Physiology139(3): 1125–1137.
58.
VogelJTTiemanDMSimsCA, et al. (2010) Carotenoid content impacts flavor acceptability in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture90(13): 2233–2240.
59.
ZhaoJSauvageCZhaoJ, et al. (2019) Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies provides insights into genetic control of tomato flavor. Nature Communications10(1): 1534.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
